Here’s What Gen Scales Thinks The Next Infantry Rifle Should Look Like

Here’s What Gen Scales Thinks The Next Infantry Rifle Should Look Like
By JARED KELLER
on May 17, 2017
T&P ON FACEBOOK

4,133
shares



Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales hates the M16 family of rifles, and he won’t stop until everyone knows it.

Scales has spent the last few years railing against the standard-issue infantry rifle as little more than a lighter but less effective version of the infamous M16 model that left so many American troops dead in the jungles of Vietnam (In response to Scales’ condemnation of the M4 in the pages of The Atlantic in January 2015, Task & Purpose’s Christian Beekman mounted a vocal defense of the rifle).

Wednesday was no different. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Scales decried the Department of Defense’s post-World War II small-arms programs as “inferior.” Thousands of American troops “have died because the Army’s weapon buying bureaucracy has consistently denied that a soldier’s individual weapon is important enough to gain their serious attention,” said Scales in his prepared testimony.

“A soldier in basic training is told that his rifle is his best friend and his ticket home,” he told assembled lawmakers. “If the lives of so many depend on a rifle why can’t the richest country in the world give it to them?”

After testifying about the issues that plague the M16 and M4, Scales offered his interpretation of what the next‐generation, all‐purpose infantry rifle should look like. Here are his requirements:

1. Modularity



Multiple weapons can now be assembled from a single chassis. A squad member can customize his weapon by attaching different barrels, buttstocks, forearms, feed systems, and accessories to make, say, a light machine gun, a carbine, a rifle, or an infantry automatic rifle.


2. New calibers and cartridges

The military must change the caliber and cartridge of the guns it gives infantry soldiers. [American firearms designer Eugene] Stoner’s little 5.56‐mm cartridge was ideal for softening the recoil of World War II infantry calibers in order to allow fully automatic fire.

But today’s cartridge is simply too small for modern combat. Its lack of mass limits its range to less than 400 meters. The civilian version of the 5.56‐mm bullet was designed as a “varmint killer” and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough to ensure a quick kill.

The optimum caliber for tomorrow’s rifle is between 6.5 and 7 millimeters. The cartridge could be made almost as light as the older brass‐cased 5.56‐mm by using a plastic shell casing, which is now in final development by the Marine Corps.

3. Stealth

The Army can achieve an infantry version of stealth by attaching newly developed sound suppressors to every rifle. Instead of merely muffling the sound of firing by trapping gases, this new technology redirects the firing gases forward, capturing most of the blast and flash well inside the muzzle. Of course, an enemy under fire would hear the muted sounds of an engagement. But much as with other stealth technology, the enemy soldier would be at a decisive disadvantage in trying to determine the exact location of the weapons firing at him.

4. Better precision

Computer miniaturization now allows precision to be squeezed into a rifle sight. All an infantryman using a rifle equipped with a new‐model sight need do is place a red dot on his target and push a button at the front of his trigger guard; a computer on his rifle will take into account data like range and “lead angle” to compensate for the movement of his target, and then automatically fire when the hit is guaranteed. This rifle sight can “see” the enemy soldier day or night at ranges well beyond 600 meters. An enemy caught in that sight will die long before he could know he was seen, much less before he could effectively return fire.

The result of these much-needed upgrades, according to Scales? “Greater precision, greater reliability, greater killing power.” And despite concerns of defense spending, he believes the biggest obstacle to outfitting American infantry with the small arms they deserve actually the “turgid acquisition gurus” who run the Pentagon’s procurement process.

To their credit, DoD officials are moving slowly but surely to outfit ground forces with new weaponry. In November, the Marine Corps’ 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines began conducting pre-deployment exercises to evaluate the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle as a replacement for the M4, which replaced the M16A4 in infantry battalions in 2015.

“It is the best infantry rifle in the world, hands down,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade told Military.com of the IAR at the time. “Better than anything Russia has, it’s better than anything we have, it’s better than anything China has. It’s world-class.”

It’s not just the Corps inching toward a small-arms update. Scales’ testimony comes just months after the Army announced it would purchase Sig Sauer’s version of the Modular Handgun System to replace the M9 Beretta. And in early May, the U.S. Army’s small-arms experts laid out a blueprint for the branch’s future that includes fielding the new M3A1 and a new automatic rifle that would replace the M249 squad automatic weapon for certain units — although those changes likely won’t take place until 2025, according to Military.com.

For Scales, the future of infantry small arms is not just an issue of tactics or strategy — it’s an issue of morality. And by ignoring small arms in favor of expensive sea and air-based weapons systems, the Pentagon is making a moral calculation it will regret for generations.

“A Naval Academy graduate goes through a year and a half to two years of flight school, he’s qualified in the F-18. He then goes to carrier trials; he then becomes a qualified pilot, and he flies a $75 million piece of machinery,” Scales told Task & Purpose in August 2016. “Is his life more valuable to his parents than that 18-year-old kid with a high school GED who just got shot between the eyes because the enemy’s got a better weapon than him?”

http://taskandpurpose.com/us-infant...gn=gear&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

>>[American firearms designer Eugene] Stoner’s little 5.56‐mm<<

BTW, lets not get distracted by the fact that, as far as I remember, Stoner's rifle was designed to fire the 7.62 x .59. The point is the M16/M4 in 5.56 is not up to the challenge.

 

While I could be wrong, My understanding is 7.62 x 51mm was the original intended round.
Aside from a 5.56 chambered upper, I currently have Grendel and a .458 chambered uppers ... replaced a couple other rifles I had for specific applications.

 

Choosing the right firearm and caliber is a lot like choosing many things in life when we have options. There is an up side and a down side to everything. A sports car certainly has a lot more fun factor, but a pick-up or a van or an economy car may better fit your needs for passenger capacity and economy. I'm a boat owner, and boats come in all sizes, and there are a zillion choices. The most expensive choices are in hull material, length, and especially engine size. Up sides and down sides to all choices.

I'm also a rifle, shotgun, and pistol owner, and I have variations of all of them so that I can use the best one for the task I require of it.

For combat, the .308 has some obvious advantages over the 5.56. Better long range accuracy, and it can get through brush and cover better. Packs a hell of a wallop too. But they also reduce magazine capacity. To make up for that, the soldier must carry more magazines and ammo, adding more weight. Or he can go into combat with less ammo, which is not a good option.

I think if I were clearing a block in an insurgent infested city, I would prefer the 5.56 because of the increased magazine capacity and the close range nature of going house to house. On the other hand, if I were in Afghanistan, with its wide open spaces, I would prefer the .308, and I'd probably have to deal with carrying more ammo.

So I see some advantages to moving to a modular rifle that can be tailored to the need. But before they retire the AR platform, the new rifle better be tested by going to hell and back and then back to hell and back again because that's exactly what happens to the M-4s in combat. There were bugs with that platform when it was first introduced, but those have been worked out over the years, and the platform (if not the caliber) has performed well under extreme conditions in combat in recent times. And we don't want to hand something to our fighting men that's got all the gadgets but that is sort of fragile, prone to jams and breakages. It's got to be just as rugged as it is flexible and hi-tech. That's a tall order if you ask me.

My

Seth

 

infantry rifles are designed to inflict casualties not "kill". 270 rounds of 556 allow more casualties to be inflicted than 160 rounds of 762 NATO besides, the original 556 round shot out of the original 1x12 twist barrel usually created worse wounds in flesh than the 762 NATO round

 

The 5.56mm round is actually a very nasty little thing. The way the bullet bounces inside means higher casualty rate. A 7.62mm round that hits a thigh, likely goes straight though. A 5.56mm round that hits that same thigh could go straight through, or its just as likely to change direction hit the femur then bouncy up or down resulting is much more significant damage.


Where the 5.56mm round fails is in urban areas where the 7.62mm round would penetrate through a wall, a 5.56mm likely won't.

In open spaces, the 5.56 works just fine out to over 500 meters. No one is really shooting at those ranges though, no upside in engaging with small arms at those ranges.


The comments about the slow pace and expense of the DoD acquisitions system is spot on though. That system is a massive drain on our military and a complete rewrite of that program could save tens of billions of dollars a year.

 

I love those pie in the sky ordnance wish lists, they get impossible to fulfil.
The kill ratio with the current M-4 in semi auto is quite respectable, however, a REMF will always sass stuff they know naught of.
A Fly boy critiques battle rifles ?
lol
What larks !

 

>>The optimum caliber for tomorrow’s rifle is between 6.5 and 7 millimeters. The cartridge could be made almost as light as the older brass‐cased 5.56‐mm by using a plastic shell casing, which is now in final development by the Marine Corps.<<

 

While the trail of complications that a casualty during war can build is real. For example: The enemy sprays the ground at the feet of an infantry platoon with AK rounds, the rounds bounce up inflicting leg wounds, thigh, femur, not to mention gut wounds, are very painful causing soldiers to moan, the moaning hampers the platoon leaders ability to hear/communicate over the radio during his attempt to call in artillery/medivac/airstrikes, the medics are kept busy giving out morphine to shut up the wounded, medivacs come in to pick up the wounded, they become targets, as they arrive back at the Evac unit, the more wounded, the more chocked the Evac unit becomes, that trickles all the way back to the military hospitals in the US, wounded sons effect families, that begins to effect the moral of the population, the desire to win in the end may become effected, and so on.

However, the 5.56 round is not effective enough in close fighting at putting the enemy down immediately if you are in a threat to be over run situation. In that case you want the enemy soldier down so you can move on to the next one. Larger caliber's are better at that. I have seen charging NVA keep right on coming when hit by M16 fire. Another example: The flank of the 1st Cav at Ia Drang's X Ray was kept from being over run only by the fire of the 7.62 machine guns. One gun stacked up over 100 NVA. Actually I think it might have been 200, but I can't remember for sure.

 

That's interesting. It'll have to have an awfully high melting temperature, won't it? You fire through a 20 round magazine, and that chamber is going to be hot.

 

The first prototype of the AR-10 was chambered for the .30-06 (and used BAR magazines).

 

I hadn't heard that. I had the opportunity to fire a BAR, full auto. A lot of fun.

 

The M27 rifle touted in the above article is just another upgraded AR. AR type rifles today have far superior reliability over what was in the Vietnam War. In fact, modern AR rifles are far more superior to AK's and virtually ever other assault rifle in mud, sand, blowing sand and dirt.





The US military would do better by selecting better warriors into their fold, than making it weaker by letting in more females, gays, transgenders and other such liabilities.

 

Would you rather carry rounds twice the weight out in the field, or carry half as much ammo?

 

The M27 isn't even intended to replace the M16 - it's being tested to supplant/replace the SAW.

For 6.5/7mm bullets to have any advantage over 5.56x45, they need a similar MV. This requires a case akin to that of 7.62x51.
At that point, you might as well go back to 7.62x51.

 

Yes, that's the problem. Personally I'd rather hump the extra weight. And I say that being fully aware of the cost.

>>The optimum caliber for tomorrow’s rifle is between 6.5 and 7 millimeters. The cartridge could be made almost as light as the older brass‐cased 5.56‐mm by using a plastic shell casing, which is now in final development by the Marine Corps.<<

 

From what I know, I haven't seen any Earth Shattering, awesome replacement to the M-4 that would increase the hit probability for the average soldier in an average combat environment.

For the grunts fighting out in the open in A-stan, let the company commanders use more SAW's or give out more .308 DMR's as they see fit.

 

Funny how the M14 made a comeback in Afghanistan.
.

 

I'd rather not hump the extra weight if I were still in the Army, guys are already destroying their joints and breaking ankles with all the gear now.

 

In all the research that has been performed on the matter, all of the articles read regarding the development of the M-16 and all related platforms, it will be admitted that such was still not known on the part of myself until now.

 

Yeah, if you're carrying 7.62 it's a long day. Particularly if you're in the mountains, or on the steep, or over 100 degrees.

 

I still practice carrying a rifle and gear on a home treadmill (not out in the neighborhood). Pounds = Pain.

I've seen this video below, and gives a good idea on what the poor souls must carry in wartime:

https://protonex.com/blog/what-do-soldiers-carry-and-whats-its-weight/

 

From the way the article I read stated it, I think that was before the 7.62x51 was available (it was in process). The second (and later) prototypes were all in 7.62x51.

 

Pray tell which article? The ones read by myself stated the cartridge was already in service the year before the production of the first prototype.

 

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2418

I think I did read that into the article (about .308 not being available), however, the first prototype was in .30-06.