Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PMSW), located at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, recently launched a market survey to industry to identify potential sources for manufacturing a complete M110A1 7.62mm Rifle system. The M110A1 is a lightweight, piston driven, semi-automatic, box magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters.
As you may recall, after an extensive acquisition effort to identify a Compact Semi Auto Sniper System, a variant of German company Heckler & Koch’s HK 417 Rifle, referred to as the G28 by the German Army, was selected over three years ago by the Army for joint use. Recently, it has undergone multiple user evaluations.
Manufacturers must be capable of offering a weapon with the following attributes:
1. Operation: Semi-automatic
2. Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges
3. Dispersion: Capable of average mean radius of 0.75 inches at 100 meters or less with match ammunition
4. Size: The maximum overall assembled length of the rifle shall be not greater than 38 inches with the stock at its shortest position and no suppressor mounted. The stock shall be in the unfolded position if a folding stock is present.
5. Weight: The unloaded rifle with forward rails for concurrent mounting of required accessories (minimum 2″ rail sections at 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions), but without suppressor, magazines, and accessories shall weigh no more than 10.0 pounds.
6. Trigger: Precision trigger where total sear engagement is released in 2 distinct stages.
7. Hand guard: A fore end that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
8. Suppressor: A muzzle mounted, quick detachable suppressor.
9. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with suppressor.
10. Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and track capability.
11. Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg.
12. Sling attachment: Quick detach sling attachment points.
In addition to the above listed enhancements, the M110A1 must meet the operational and environmental requirements that were fulfilled by the original M110 SASS.
We are uncertain why the Army is interested in identifying alternative manufacturers for this system. While there are several possible reasons, anything we might put forward would be conjecture.
Companies capable of manufacturing the firearm must submit their information no later than Apr 23, 2019 5:00 pm Eastern. For full details, visit www.fbo.gov.
Tags: Heckler & Koch
Government Purpose Rights…. ACTIVATE!
You gon’ learn tah-day!
Item 9: It’s a muzzle brake, not a muzzle “break”. It’s used to retard, or brake, a portion of recoil. Sheesh. Government.
Brake/break is almost never used correctly, like discreet/discrete.
Hmmmm, LaRue? OBR-PredatOBR, only been around for 10yrs now? Way to go Arrrrrmmmmy!
LaRue has been very unfriendly to the DoD.
How so? Please elaborate…
I wish I could convey the level of laughter in my head movies at this!
Just your buddy lcpl1066, Please elaborate. One line quips and unsubstantiated comments may be your MO but in the REAL world we need facts, data and quoted speech to back up our assessments. Too much for you do, eh keyboard warrior???
Honestly curious here because I’m not sure I understand this correctly: to recap, a variant of the HK G28 was selected for the CSASS program and is the new M110A1. A different variant of the G28 is being tested and fielded as the new SDM-R.
But here they’re asking for companies who are willing to manufacture M110A1’s for them? Even though the rights for the G28E1 variant for the M110A1 are HK property? Or is this the Army testing the waters and asking around if anyone can offer another system that can be selected as the M110A1 CSASS (effectively discarding the G28E1 as M110A1 and rolling back the clock to start a new selection process for the CSASS program)?
The Government retains “Government Purpose Rights” for any and end items procured under contract primarily for this type of situation where the vendor cannot meet the delivery schedule, goes out of business etc. The kicker is that it can only be manufactured for a Government contract.
This is just a sources sought announcement which means the government is seeing who has already copied the rifle (there are several), and how much it will cost in comparison to having Red Stone proof out the TDP.
Now here’s another kicker that will send the fan boys over at HKPRO who can’t seem to figure out the M110A1 IS the CSASS) into screaming fits of denial.
Importation of civilian rifles is about ready to cease for the next two years. This means come October, fan boys will be shelling out $7800 for a stock MR762A1 they can use to make a M110A1 CSASS “Clone”. This price will go up exponentially the closer we get to November 2020.
Now inversely, the value of the MR556A1 will drop exponentially in FY19 once the HK416 has been replaced in National Asset units and everyone scrambles to get THAT new hotness before 2020.
Correction, FY20 for 416 replacement
Who has copied a 417 or CSASS?
MKE
What are National Asset units and what rifle is replacing the 416?
Units whose chain of command are directly under the NCA(President) . Like division level assets they aren’t really subject to use by those outside that chain. Think of it like Force Recon is division level while Recon is in the normal chain attached to other units( although Recon fills the Force billets from what I understand, it wasn’t originally that way).
If I were a betting man, it will most likely be the MCX as it is rapidly configured for missions and calibers.
I was thinking the same thing. It would also make the internet implode if the “coolest” gun on the internet got replaced by the most underrated gun on the internet.
The only thing better than the 416 being replaced by the MCX would be if they were replaced by an AR-15 pattern carbine.
Some of those same units have already been using the .300blk version if I’m not mistaken.
RAGE…..piston AR!
Maybe now that another (hk416) arena of the armed forces is replacing a DI rifle with a piston rifle we it will stifle the CHANGE IS BAD people into accepting what is obviously a better operating system.
hah who am I kidding? We will still have to listen to the dopey arguments that human centipede type operated rifle is still superior.
Piston rifles have their own set of issues it’s a huge stretch saying one is better than the other. The Piston vs. DI argument is beyond pointless.
Funny, special forces goto HK416/SCAR – different guns, both piston. Now the M110, which was DI, is being replaced by a piston driven AR.
Spec ops among others is definitely not seeing them as equals, since they have opted to drop DI for Piston. I’m sure you know better though.
Besides that personal experience with POF, PWS, LWRC, LMT, and cases upon cases of ammo have shown first hand the worries of, carrier tilt are non existent as design changes were made to address that and have shown to work %100 on all four of the above makes. Additional recoil vs DI is a bullshit argument, its a 223/556, it has no recoil unless you are girly man. My 308 PWS has zero issue delivering just as fast double taps as smaller caliber rifles. Then the third popular non complaint is additional weight, a few ounces, again girly men?
DI – shits in its own mouth. Gas tube will melt/break under sustained fire.
However, I’m sure your statement has great validity to it, with those non existent points you made to back up your random statement VS what is being procured currently by the armed forces.
Nice appeal to authority non argument just because SOF uses it doesn’t mean there isn’t issues associated with it about piston rifles like the HK 416 you knit mentioned the contract vehicle for that weapons system is expiresecure 2020 with no plans to renew it. I wonder why using your logic the SOF units who actually use the weapons system must knowork something you dont. Its mainly because the number of rounds those units go through require major parts replacement at as little as 20k rounds a problem those inferior DI dont have issues with those round counts through them. Too many people who buy into the hype confuse proprietary parts that are sourced from one manufacturer with being better the people who actually have time with weapons like the 416 will be glad to share their knowledge and experience if asked about it. I mean forget that USASOC is running the URGI and the rest of USSOCOM is looking to field the SURG it’s not a coincidence that SSD has reported about those two programs on here.
Nice appeal to authority non argument just because SOF uses it doesn’t mean there isn’t issues associated with it. About piston rifles like the HK 416 you mentioned the contract vehicle for that weapons system is expires 2020 with no plans to renew it. I wonder why using your logic the SOF units who actually use the weapons system must know something you dont. Its mainly because the number of rounds those units go through require major parts replacement at as little as 20k rounds a problem those inferior DI weapons dont have issues with those kind of round counts through them. Too many people who buy into the hype and confuse proprietary parts that are sourced from one manufacturer with being better. The people who actually have time with weapons like the 416 will be glad to share their knowledge and experience if asked about it. I mean forget that USASOC is running the URGI and the rest of USSOCOM is looking to field the SURG it’s not a coincidence that SSD has reported about those two programs on here.*
Yo, Old Guard! The SCAR-H and the MK20 are both POS! NSW shelved the MK20’s about two yrs ago. The FN-SCAR platform has a massive bolt carrier that weighs over a pound! It looks nearly identical to MK46/48 carrier. Why would they design a service rifle and then a SASS with an equivalent mass bolt-carrier?? Snipers were always complaining the MK20 would not hold zero w/ or w/o the can. NSW should of never got rid of the MK12 or MK11 (SR25).