B5 Systems

US Army 7.62 Rifle Update

Last month, we told you about a directed requirement from Army Vice Chief of Staff GEN Daniel Allyn for a new 7.62 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle and internal, service discussions for expansion of that capability as a Battle Rifle, to all members of the rifle squad.

Based on briefings conducted at the NDIA Armaments Conference by PEO Soldier’s PM Weapons team, along with discussions with industry, we have an update on Army plans to field a new 7.62 NATO capability within the next 24 months.

First off, although a contract has been awarded for H&K’s Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System, the weapon remains unfunded for FY17. Currently, type classification is planned for FY18.

However, the Army is also committed to concurrently fielding an SDMR based on the same platform as the CSASS.

According to briefing slides provided by PM Soldier Weapons, an Army directed requirement to engage enemy personnel at the Squad level from 0-600m, dated December, 2016 will purchase “6,069 HK G28E rifles” via an urgent material release.

The Army plans to use the existing M80A1 ammo for the SDMR, which is a 7.62 version of the 5.56mm M855A1. The rifles are said to be configured in a similar fashion to the CSASS, with Geissele M-Lok rail and OSS suppressor. However, the SDMRs will be outfitted with an as-of-yet still unselected 1-6x variable optic rather than the CSASS optic from Schmidt & Bender.

While there has been talk of adding up to two SDMRs per Squad, internal Army discussions continue about expanding the basis of issue of a 7.62 rifle, now referred to as the Interim Service Combat Rifle to all BCT members. However, there is still no formal requirement for the ISCR, and acquisition officials are leaning forward on the foxhole in anticipation, prepared to make this happen as quickly as possible.

58 Responses to “US Army 7.62 Rifle Update”

  1. Joshua says:

    Basic issue 7.62 sounds retarded.

    • Matt says:

      I doubt that they will. The inability of our military to adopt an intermediate cartridge in the 50’s and 60’s and like the original caliber the FAL was to be chambered in British .280 we could have had a superior rifle with a punch. The mindset that soldiers were going to be shooting and hitting at 800 yards was simply absurd.

  2. Ed says:

    Sooo does this mean there is a time gap between the Army funding the CSASS and what they want right now? Any $$ or room for a COTS temporary fit like the LaRue or other AR10 Sub-MOA platform?

    • Joshua says:

      It almost looks like they want to push the CSASS contract up to BCT size and juse use different optics for different roles, at least that’s what I’m getting from the article.

      • SSD says:

        That is what appears to be afoot.

        • Joshua says:

          Not a fan of 7.62, would be all for a CSASS in 6.5G though.

          • SSD says:

            6.5 G isn’t even on the radar.

            • Joshua says:

              What then? I know the AMU was messing with the .264.

              • Forrest says:

                .308 for now, possibly .260 rem in the future.

                I would love to see an Army fielding 6.8 and .260, but I don’t think that will happen any time soon. (6.8 beats 6.5 out to 400m or so)

                What we’re going to be left with is .308 and 5.56 just like today, but with newer rifles. Mixing the HK417 type rifles and traditional m4’s will cause a HUGE headache for them, and there will be a new RFP issued asking for new rifles. HK already has the 416 and 417 in service, so they will win. Maybe we get the 433 out of it for the infantry, maybe we don’t.

                One thing is for sure, the army ain’t changing the rifle AND the bullet at the same time ever again. There just isn’t anyone left with the guts to make that big of a change.

                • SSD says:

                  That’s pretty good analysis.

                  • Joglee says:

                    You think the Army will make a play for the 416, while also issuing the CSASS?

                • Ed says:

                  Is that you Hickman???

                • Joglee says:

                  I would be ok with the M4 being replaced.

                  It’s about time that weapon goes away, one of the worst operating systems in the history of small arms.

                  It’s time to replace it with a weapon that actually works and doesn’t fail when soldiers need it to work.

                  • lolatjoglee says:

                    lol @ your bullshit

                    • Joglee says:

                      How many trials has the Army held that proved the M4 is one of the worst rifles in the world?

                      How come JSOC and everyone who can choose what weapon they want choose the 416?

                • Leon Vickers says:

                  416 – $4k or Mk18 – $400… lets wait and see how this works out for the Corp.

                  • Joshua says:

                    The Mk18 is not $400.

                    USSOCOM pays CRANE around $1,800 per Mk18/CQB-R upper.

                    • Ed says:

                      If ya keep it maintained properly and your unit level armorers do their do-diligence the M4 is great weapon. Those that don’t soumd like you!

                    • Joshua says:

                      I think you replied to the wrong person Ed.

    • SSD says:

      No….that would take $ and a requirement and a program which includes opening everything up to industry via a solicitation and a down select. This COA is the fast track.

      • Steve says:

        What about an REF request like they did with the plate carriers, throw five or ten different models of 7.62 rifle to a BDE and pick one at random to Army-ize. I’m mostly joking I understand a rifle and an armor carrier are very different things.

        • SSD says:

          No, that won’t happen.

          • Ed says:

            I’m gonna do my best here to not let unsubstantiated comments fly, why is it so GD difficult to get hardware (correct hardware) into the hands of our end-user’s w/ out all the BS time, wait delay’s, etc,etc…? I’m a pretty simple person (yeah right!) but why the hell couldn’t the SCAR’s that NSW sooo wanted and our now in the process of being turned in sent to the US Army instead? I heard back in the day all SOCOM SOF were going to use SCARs, both light and heavy. Now from my stand point and a great many others in NSW the SCAR was pushed on the Teams and a narrow majority didn’t want it but were told to STFU and DO! The MK20 was even a bigger BS platform with zero always shifting and a req for a 7 MOA gun! UFB! It seems “they” waste so much time and money and it gets us nowhere. In the end it’s the same thing but different package and more expensive. I hope one day “they” wake the f*ck up!

            • Forrest says:

              The SCAR is extremely expensive and wasn’t built by HK.

              For about the same price, they can buy the 416 and not have to deal with a 7.62>5.56 conversion kit, broken stocks, or that damn charging handle. It winds up being cheaper in the long run to pony up for the HK than to upgrade the scar.

              For a general issue rifle, I think the scar is a better option, but we aren’t talking about general issue troops here. The 416 is a better rifle, so they’re getting that.

              • Joshua says:

                Since when is SOCOM in its entirety getting the 416?

              • LTC 444 says:

                7.62 NATO will remain the caliber. It cost to much to convert the industrial base to another round. You ballistics guys do not understand the reality of the logistics problem.

                The 5.56 was adopted to meet the McNamara wiz kid high tech concepts. They considered the infantryman obsolete. They fielded an Army of soldiers who where trained to spray and pray.

                When we moved out of the Jungle mentality we recognized that we needed to convert our Infantrymen into RIFLEMEN. (The Marines thankfully had never lost that concept.)

                This is a first step to give the Company Commander a capability to influence his battle space with long range accurate aimed rifle fire.

                The 30 caliber round (shortened to the 308 but ballistic identical) has proven an effective round for over 100 years. The production base is established and efficient. The powders are proven. (Many of the early failures of the 5.56 where powder driven) There is no tactical or logistics driven need to change.

  3. PTMcCain says:

    I selfishly just hope this means I can finally get a Geissele rail for my HK MR762 that I’ve replaced the butt stock on with the G28 style stock, etc. I’ve opted for a lower/medium power scope of 2.5-10 on it, a NF. But the Geissele rails are NICE.

  4. Nate says:

    So, six decades later, the AR-10 finally wins the Army service rifle trials? Talk about a come-from-behind story…

  5. John says:

    I’m in favor a something a little stronger than M855. But Mk262 (77gr OTM) does a pretty good job. Personally, I’d rather see the military adopt 6.5 Grendel, .260 USA, or .277 Wolverine over 7.62x51mm as a standard infantry rifle. Those will provide the added power (and accuracy) at a distance without the heavy load of 7.62x51mm.

    • John says:

      Correction: .264 USA, not .260 USA.

    • DAN III says:


      Yep, the MK 262 is the answer. If that isn’t good enough Barnes Bullets now offers an 85 grain, 5.56mm pill for ARmalite/M4-series magazine usage in their Match Burner bullets. Catalog #30164.

  6. Pro Patria says:

    “First off, although a contract has been awarded for H&K’s Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System, the weapon remains unfunded for FY17. Currently, type classification is planned for FY18.”

    I believe that relates to the rifle still being in Operational Testing this year. Once OT is complete and they have meet all criteria for a Milestone C Decision to go to Full Rate Production.

    Otherwise, good news on the new “Interim – Designated Marksman Rifle” I-DMR.

  7. some other joe says:

    A 7.62 interim service rifle (just until we can figure out how to get the lightweight and flat trajectory of the 5.56 and the range and screw you of the 7.62, natch) WILL become the service rifle. And we’re back to all the bad things of 7.62 service rifle that caused everyone to abandon them by the late ’80’s.

    Stryker was the interim platform to train everything we’d need to know to effectively employ the FCS when we are finally able to built it to the specifications we established. Now FCS means Fully Capable Stryker.

  8. DAN III says:

    The average infantry engagement range is 150-200 meters. The issued red dots are a visual stretch at anything beyond 100 meters. Even the 4x ACOGs are a visual dice roll at 300+ meters. The current 5.56mm round is appropriate and sufficient. The 7.62mm round needs to stay right were it is at….LMGs. If you go bigger rifle caliber you have to enhance optics accordingly. I.E., more weight as in Trijicon VCOG or Vortex Razor HD Gen 2.

    Just issue every M4 troop 77 grain ammo. If Big Army wants MORE kinectic power start issuing rounds with the Barnes Bullet 85 grainer Match Burner slug. But, this “we need more range” rifle whining is just more Military-Industrial-Complex bullshit. Then again, it will be interesting to hear the whining from our social justice combat arms troops, Susie Rottencrotch and Tommy Tranny when they have to hump the beasts that 7.62mm wpns will become.

    US Army. What a joke.

  9. DAN III says:

    Well folks, Big Army is just doing their best to participate in more deficit spending. 20 trillion dollars in fed debt and growing.

    Go Army !

  10. Richard says:

    What pray is wrong with .243, accurate out to 400 and power enough to put a man down less weight also. Just sayin.

  11. Aono says:

    So now that we’re calling it a battle rifle the forward assist has been added back?

    • SSD says:

      CSASS doesn’t have one. This is a mock up based on a MR762.

      • Aono says:

        Thanks. Are there any other subtleties between that picture and the most current CSASS? E.g. I understand they’re also evaluating the G28 stock with adjustable cheek.

      • some other joe says:

        Of course it doesn’t have a forward assist, no HK would. A “silent bolt closure device,” however 😉

  12. Stone11c says:

  13. TKS says:

    Sad the Army and “system” can’t decide and field a service rifle in less than a full generation (30 year career). Even “third” world countries do a quicker refit than us. Sad.

    • TheCynic says:

      Most 3rd world countries doesn’t have their defense industry holding up procurement of new weapons.

  14. Stone11c says:

    (insert Roy Schneider saying “It’s a Circle, it’s never ending cause it’s a circle” here).

  15. Charles Maynes says:

    kind of hard to believe that La Rue and Knights couldn’t secure that deal- you know with this whole “make America great again” thing……

  16. JSGlock34 says:

    Meanwhile the Army continues to buy the M4A1 with KAC RAS, when modest updates to the M4 (such as a free float rail) have been available for well over a decade (and long since purchased by SOCOM for their SOPMOD Block 2 uppers) at little change in cost. And M9s continue to enter service when the M9A3 is available to the government from Beretta at the same price under their Engineering Design Change proposal. Interim indeed.

    • Ed says:

      Yup, the pig is never full or empty! Sad

    • Joglee says:

      I would be looking to a future procurement of 416s.

      Between the CSASS and the Marines, eventually the Army will have to do something.

      • Vons vomit says:

        I have just got through reading some of the comments here and the same conclusions keep just going round and round its beginning to make me dizzy.
        The whole objective is to pick a round and a rifle to replace the 5.56mm M4/M16 series of weapons which should have been replaced long ago due to serious short comings in the round and the rifle. And this is being done to get a weapons system in the hands of soldiers sooner rather than later. And this is being done as a solution until someone stops smoking crack and realizes that no one else in NATO uses the 6.8 sec round or the 6.5 grendal round in their militaries.
        The whole concept of using a common round in the first place is to be able to use ammo from another military. And this is to prevent sitting around with our military’s thumb up its fourth point of contact waiting on supplies that might never arrive due to the enemy controlling all the battle space around our military. But that is another story. I got that.
        But what amazes me is that it has taken the military over 50 years to wake up to the fact that they screwed the pooch in adopting the M16 platform to begin with.
        All the debate here fails to see the bigger picture…as usual.
        Yes training needs to improve when it comes to slinging lead down range. Yes the army needs a new rifle. Now here comes an idea I bet no general ever thought of let alone some commenters here. Why not increase training time it takes to shoot the weapons our soldiers take into battle AND field a new rifle based on the 7.62X51mm round? Now is that a concept or what?
        Sitting around waiting for some experimental cartridge is going to take way too long to do any good especially when our military needs a improved weapons system now. Especially when most militaries use the PKM machinegun and the dragonov rifle shooting a vastly superior round chambered in 7.62X54mm tungsten penetrator rounds versus us shooting inferior rounds out of a piece of crap rifle in a piece of crap caliber with piece of crap bullets.