Survivalist Forum banner

The Army has released an RFI for a new 7.62mm rifle

17K views 375 replies 44 participants last post by  strokes762  
#1 ·
An RFI is a government Request for Information concerning the acquisition of a new product for Federal use. In this case, it is for a 7.62mm rifle for the Army. You can rad the actual release here:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f19586d13f3072ad831ac8863fe6bcf8&_cview=0

but here are the highlights:

DESCRIPTION: This announcement constitutes an official Request for Information (RFI) for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR). The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command – New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal is conducting a market survey on behalf of Product Manager Individual Weapons to identify potential sources for a combat rifle system.
This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any services or hardware. Your response to this RFI will be treated as information only. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a result of contractor submission of responses to this announcement or Government use of such information. No funds have been authorized, appropriated, or received for this effort. The information provided may be used by the Army in developing its Acquisition Strategy, Performance Work Statement and Performance Specification. Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary or competition sensitive information contained in their response. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or to otherwise pay for the information submitted in response to same. The information provided herein is subject to change and in no way binds the Government to pursue any course of action described herein. The U.S. Government is not obligated to notify respondents of the results of this survey.



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
 
#3 ·
It's not a weight requirement, it is listed as a "maximum weight". And it looks to me like this not a replacement for the M4 but possibly a replacement for the M249 as located within an Infantry squad. If so, the full auto feature along with the bipod/forward grip requirement is understandable. It would make an outstanding suppressive fire weapon much like the BAR was in WW2 and Korea.

But, here's more info from Soldier Systems:

hthttp://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/tp://
 
#6 ·
Sounds like they want a carbine version of the M14EBR. smaller optic, full auto upgrade, 16" barrel, 20 round minimum magazine capacity.

Has to be COTS so throw a M1A scout in the EBR stock with some all the rage this week variable low powered small optic (take your pick, so much stupid gimmicky stuff out there for optics these days), put a fun switch on it and boom. Meets all the "requirements".
 
#20 ·
What about the ridiculous myth that the M14 is an unreliable piece of junk?
Must be referring to the current Springfields. :)

Although, I would think that report posted here in another thread a little while back on the M1's, would likely carry over to the M14's.

I still dont see them picking the M14's for this. This part of it specifically addressing it....

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

If they want an M14, then someone is going to have to gear back up to make them (Springfields M1A's are not M14's, anymore than their 1911's are a 1911, especially any of the current ones). There are none currently on the shelf that fit the bill, and how will they address the "ambi" parts?

Id be willing to bet, they are looking for something a little more current, and one that fits the requirements and basically exists right now.
 
#24 ·
this looks more like a "we want you to buy us a SCAR without specifically asking for a SCAR" type of situation.
It wouldn't be the first time the government put out a list of requirements that only one item could fulfill in order to obtain THAT item without coming out and straight up asking for it.

And it's a good way to waste the time of a lot of respondents... And get tied up in some litigation when some of those respondents realize that they were given the runaround.
 
#40 ·
Bingo. An "open search" for something that only 1 pre-determined item can satisfy, a massive cost to tax payers.

Just say you want XYZ to win and be done with it. Cost - zero.

There is no major ambi platform that makes much real world difference. The shooter adjusts around the weapons. Not the other way around. Lefties can actually use bolt guns, for instance, better due to the ergos at times. The requirement is nonsense.
 
#26 ·
thats the problem with the military budget.. theres a **** ton of waste and fraud that you are considered unpatriotic or a muzzy sympathizer or wanting the nation to be weak if you so much as hint at it, military doesnt need any new rifles until plasma weapons are viable and IF there was ever a new addition it should be US made and under $1k a piece.. **** using my tax dollars so they can waste money on a bunch of SCARs that do nothing a sub $1000 AR10 or G3 wont do
 
#42 ·
Whats interesting is that I shoot left handed and I'm right handed.

The AR platform performs PERFECTLY fine here, without any odd issues, with exception to the ambi stuff. I've learned to work with that and have considered adjusting my rifle, but -meh. If it works, it works. My FIL decided he wanted to pay the $800 premium on a left handed AR... To each their own.

They seem to be after a squad weapon more than a general soldier weapon. There are a few that come to mind, but as others have pointed out, it's about learning how to use a weapon, not about which weapon you use. I can shoot a right handed bolt-action just fine...

Even the AK system out-performs the AR system (let's not argue here. I can bury an AK in sand and it'll function because of the design variance vs the AR - and I prefer the AR, not to mention an AK isn't allowed in my house as per my wife). This is to either pick a new manufacturer of arms or a new system of firing (aka: a whole new "platform"). The army is fishing.
 
#49 ·
Well for one, they'd basically have to be completely rebuilt to try and fit the specs, and still they would come up short.

About the only thing, they have going for them "OTS" is, they have a full auto receiver. Pretty much everything else needs to be addressed to try and bring it up to the requested specs, and still, it comes up short.

If they want to go "retro", why not just bring back the BAR? It would be a better choice than the M14.