Army Considering Bringing Battle Rifles Back to War

[Shooter45]

I know this has been a constant debate for decades, probably since the M14 was replaced by the M16, but it continues. Having been to multiple areas including Afghan and Iraq, I can see advantages to both rounds. Personally, I'd like to be able to reach further which is the goal of combat. Engage your enemies beyond their effective range. Which was the problem for most of our guys when I was there. We had mainly 556 rifle engaging at 700+ yards. While my 308 worked great there, I was one of very few who had one.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/05/army-considers-bringing-battle-rifles-back-war/

[earplug]

Bring back the mortars.

[ray1970]

Speaking as someone with zero combat experience, I'm not sure I'd want to hump a large heavy rifle and heavy ammunition around every day.

Perhaps if I was a seasoned combat veteran I might have a different opinion but who knows.

Most changes the military wants to make are based more on politics and big money contracts as opposed to actual needs or to help the guys in the field anyways.

[bobbyfairbanks]

Battle rifle Big heavy stick bad for cqb
Carbine small light stick good for cqb
You may find a balance but belt Feds work well for the longer range suppression while mortars get deployed or air is getting on station. I would find it hard to believe that AMU is leading the charge on new weapon R+D. I question this article completely.

[osok-308]

As someone with no military experience, this is what I have to say. I could see benefit from increasing the amount of 7.62x51 caliber weapons in battle. The 5.56 still has a great niche in the CQB arena, where the 7.62 may not be as easy to use. The 7.62 will obviously provide a range and energy advantage at the cost of a heavier loadout. The 7.62 would probably be better for making people staying down once hit. I have heard that the military does not use their rifles in FA as often as semi, in this case, the use of 7.62 in a semi could be a better choice, while reserving the 5.56 for auto purposes (to reduce recoil). In my experience with both cartridges, I can definitely see the need for having both.

[MarkCO]

IMHO, I would like the US to go to a policy where we provide our military with what they need instead of what is politically expedient. I have some ideas, but I have never been in battle. I surmise that some who have been in many battle environments might change what they want based on conditions. I thought that was the whole purpose of having the various platforms in those units which may end up anywhere.

My friends who have been in battle seem to say two things. 1. More power when I need it, less when I don't AND 2. Logistics can be a bitch.

While a change barrel AR that has a 12" .223 barrel firing 60 grainers at 2500 and a 18" 6mm barrel firing 110 grainers at 2800 fps seems like a great idea, I am not so sure the logistics and troop satisfaction would be high except in a few cases. I am also not sure how to keep .223 ammo from being chambered in the 6mm nor vice versa.

Having shot the new Sierra 77 TMKs out to 700 yards now, not so sure dual ammo is not just a better idea. Those 77 TMKS are impressive.

[davsel]

Won't happen. Heavier rifles/ammo would be unfair to our female combat soldiers.

[TheBelly]

I have used a 7.62 in the 'slightly hilly' areas of RC East Afghanistan. If given the choice, I'll take that over a 5.56.

[thvigil11]

I have used a 7.62 in the 'slightly hilly' areas of RC East Afghanistan. If given the choice, I'll take that over a 5.56.

This ^^^. In the early years we broke out the m14s, but there were issues with magazines, optic and other accessory mounting. The solution to this was adding pounds to the chassis. So the later addition of the Knights platform and eventually the scar were welcome improvements, in that theater. The problem is we always fight the last war. So in the future we equip with larger cal small arms and then we find our selves in a situation where lighter, more volume firepower might be appreciated, so then we change weapons and equipment again till the next situation and we rush to reequip. The real bummer is those of use who end up fighting in a transitional period. We end up with Jerry rigged weapons and a hodgepodge of equipment that looks like we raided the discount bin of the local surplus store. The search for the do all weapons system will continue and the flawed and many times corrupt mil aqusition process will continue. But that's just the opinion of a guy who got to wear chocolate chips with a woodland vest, coffee stain pot cover and mag pouches from Boer wars.

[NukeRJ]

This is the reason that SOCOM selected the FN SCAR. My battalion was tasked with the cold weather testing iteration back in 09-10 when it was selected over the HK system. Each SOPMOD kit was supposed to come with 556 barrel assortment or a 762 barrel assortment plus a slew of optics and a suppressor. Additional kits included a 40mm gl. With government spending cuts who knows when it will be fully fielded.

[spqrzilla]

Pretty sure that SOCOM ditched the SCAR L awhile ago. Hard to say how much actual use the SCAR H is getting.

The article seems like nonsense. Doubt there is any serious program, maybe someone is playing paper games with some odd appropriation somewhere.

[TheBelly]

Pretty sure that SOCOM ditched the SCAR L awhile ago. Hard to say how much actual use the SCAR H is getting.

The article seems like nonsense. Doubt there is any serious program, maybe someone is playing paper games with some odd appropriation somewhere.

Mine was a SCAR-H with an Elcan 1x/6x on top. It was perfectly fine for what I needed. The can made it unwieldy, but only due to length. The foldable stock didn't help as much as I thought it would.