The "Interim Combat Service Rifle"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slater

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
1,384
Location
AZ
"Interim" presumably meaning this is a gap-filler until something better comes along?:

Desired Attributes of Interim Combat Service Rifle:

• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.
• Caliber: 7.62x51mm
• Available barrel lengths, to include 16 and 20 inch barrels, without muzzle device attached.
• Muzzle device capable of or adaptable to auxiliary devices for:
** -- Compensation of muzzle climb
** -- Flash suppression
** -- Sound Suppression
• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.
• All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users
• Capable of mounting a 1.25 inch wide military sling
• Capable of accepting or mounting the following accessories.
** -- Forward grip/bi-pod for the weapon
** -- variable power optic
• Detachable magazine with a minimum capacity of 20 rounds
• Folding or collapsing buttstock adjustable to change the overall length of the weapon
• Foldable backup iron sights calibrated/adjustable to a maximum of 600 meters range
• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic
• Extended Forward Rail

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1
 
Looks like they want to stick with the tried-and-true 7.62mm NATO round instead of going with something smaller.
 
IIRC, they are paying something like $4000 each to soup up M14s. Might as well see what the free market has available for that price.
 
Wouldn't it be interesting if each soldier that would be issued said rifle could just choose their own that fit this criteria with an allowance?

Logistically, it would be a nightmare, but it would be neat.

Cetmes, FALs, M14s, SCAR 17s, AR-10s, etc. All side by side, but it'll never happen. Lol
 
Seems like the scar would be a good choice. Isn't it already being used in some capacity?
 
Read carefully. From the 1st link

This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal
Click to expand...

From the 2nd link.

for a new 7.62 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle
Click to expand...

I don't see any plans to replace the M-4 for general use. It looks like a study to look for a replacement the aging M14 as the Designated Marksman Rifle. Which needs to be done.

For most soldiers, most of the time the 5.56 and M4 rifle are more than adequate. The mistake was trying to make one platform and rifle serve multiple roles. A 7.62X51 in the hands of every soldier would be a bigger mistake than trying to use the M16 platform for every role. But a mix of weapons, similar to the strategy used during WW-2 would be a good idea.
 
Slater said:
"Interim" presumably meaning this is a gap-filler until something better comes along?:

Desired Attributes of Interim Combat Service Rifle:

• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.
• Caliber: 7.62x51mm

• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.
Click to expand...
Guys, we've been there before. We called it the M14E2. It was NOT a success.

If you want full auto fire, especially in something like the 7.62X51 NATO, you need a real, full-size machine gun.
 
Mk-17 SCAR certainly seems to check all the boxes (except vertical front grip).
It does not look anything like an M-4, though.

There's a thing where the DM is not supposed to have a distinctive weapon, so as to not be picked out by the bad guys.

Not sure I'd enjoy an AR-10 chopped down to M-4 dimensions.

Or an AR-18 ramped up to .308
 
Funny they describe "Commercial Off The Shelf" and require fully automatic in 7.62x51.
There aren't many Commercial fully automatic 16 or 20 inch rifles in 7.62x51 in production.

Only a limited number out there. And only a few meeting the balance of the specification:
Folding/collapsible stock, extended forward rail, ambidextrous controls.
Remember, you cannot ADD those features, must be Commercial Off The Shelf in that required configuration.
Geez, down to just a tiny handful of candidates. You'd think they already know them.
Especially since this is "for planning purposes" only. They just want to know what's out there.

On the other hand, USGov't can't do anything without an overly inflated planning process...

I guess. :) I was one of them...
 
Jackal said:
Can we just adopt the Scar 17?
Click to expand...
You know why SCAR lost to HK 416 in France despite being the favourite? Because FN submitted their entry google-translated. They just didn't care, thought it was in the bag.
 
ants, I caught that too, pretty funny. I remember trying to shoot an M-14 in full auto back in the day - wasn't happening. I really like that rifle, but it didn't like me that day! Semi-auto or at most two round burst for such a rifle would make sense to me. But then again, nobody asked me, either. :D
 
The M14 variants were a stop gap resurrected from the "mothball fleet" for use as DM type rifles in OEF/OIF. They were selected because they were available (we already owned them). They were/are in extensive use in conventional and SOF units. In some cases they were modified with Sage or Troy chassis. In all honesty, they left a lot to be desired. The one portion of the entire SCAR program that was salvaged from that mess in SOF was the retention of the SCAR heavy variants to perform the roles previously held by M14 variants as well as the SPR/MK12 series of rifles. I was involved with this. There were/are also studies and limited acquisition of shorter barrel receivers for the MK11/ M110 SWS. In my opinion, these were and are the best alternative. Another variant of the HK 417 is either in the system or seriously being considered for standardization. The SOF personnel I know who use it prefer the DI variants on the M110/MK11 lower. It seems the whole matter is being re-visited. This project may go somewhere or may die of natural causes (like funding) as so many projects and proposals tend to do.
 
The DOA is just toying with the gun industry.:rofl: Of course they aren't serious.

The military has lots of people with very little to do, obviously.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
You got that right.

There is no combat application for a hand-held full automatic rifle.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go so far as the say "no combat application for a hand-held full automatic rifle".

I have shot an FG-42 full-auto, and prone off a sandbag or other support, it is more than adequately controllable for suppressive fire. However, the barrel is too light for sustained use in that role.

It depends on the design, the M14 design is particularly ill suited for that role.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
There is no combat application for a hand-held full automatic rifle.
Click to expand...
So....BARs were useless, then? Oh, that's right, they were a "squad automatic weapon " I forgot. I would bet that there are more than a few combat vets out there that were very grateful for that "auto" position on their M-16s.

Go fondle your Webley Mk VI Vern.... you will feel better.....we know that you have one....:p
 
How long from the MCH RFI until the selection of the M17, 40 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
The SWAT Rifle (Ultralight, Compact, Precision Rifle)
Replies
20
Views
1K
CmdrSlander
C
1
  • Locked
Rifle selection...ideas???
Replies
6
Views
836
six 4 sure
S
S
  • Locked
Solicitation for new semi-auto sniper rifle
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
shoobe01
shoobe01
O
  • Locked
Help me pick a rifle.
Replies
7
Views
673
Bartholomew Roberts
B
C
  • Locked
Concept: The Modern Fighting Rifle
Replies
12
Views
682
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
Back
Top