The Kel-Tec RFB in 7.62 NATO. Takes standard AR10 magazines. Watch the video of this innovative firearm here.
Posted on 12/26/2008 3:55:08 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
ARLINGTON, VA. — The Marine Corps has moved one step closer to selecting a next-generation light automatic rifle.
On Friday, the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced contract awards for three competing weapons manufacturers to produce and deliver their final entries to the Corps by the middle of next year, in what signifies a final round of competition that began with ten candidates.
The lighter, magazine-fed Infantry Automatic Rifle — or IAR — is intended to replace the belt-fed M249 Squad Automatic Weapon — or SAW — in “the Marine Rifle Squad within infantry battalions and in the scout teams in Light Armored Reconnaissance battalions.”
But the rifle will not be for all Marines, according to a statement by MARSYSCOM spokesman Bill Johnson-Miles.
The Pentagon requested up to 10 samples of a 5.56 mm IAR prototype from FN Herstal, which would be made in Belgium; Heckler and Koch Defense, which is based in Ashburn, Va., but whose samples would be made in Germany, the home country of the parent company; and two entries from Colt Defense, made in West Hartford, Conn.
The rifles will then undergo limited testing by infantry Marines.
Under the five-year contracts, the Pentagon could tap the winning entrant for an acquisition of 4,476 rifles, with an option to purchase up to 6,500 copies at a possible value of $28 million for FN Herstal or Heckler & Koch, or $24 million for Colt.
The SAW, which is manufactured by FN Manufacturing, the US subsidiary of Belgium’s FN Herstal, weighs 16.5 pounds and fires 750 rounds per minute.
The lighter IAR candidate from FNH USA, for example, weighs in at 10.4 pounds and fires 650 rounds per minute.
Spokesmen from Heckler & Koch’s Ashburn, Va., office and FNH USA, in McLean, Va., did not return calls to Stars and Stripes.
The rifles are scheduled for deployable use in December 2010.
Is that a Stoner?
Browning BAR
Because GCA'68 makes it a pain and expensive to be a small arms manufacturer, and the few people who try innovative things often get nothing but hassle (and threats of imprisonment) from the BATFE for their efforts.
Combine that with an abusive media that tries to demonize even the most responsible manufacturers (Barrett, for example) and the result is what we have today, where no significant technological progress has been made for decades and the "state of the art" is over 50 years old.
The only significant advances has been in compact, more easily concealed firearms (thanks, ironically enough, to Clinton and the 10 round magazine limit of the 1994 Crime bill) and improvements in materials (thanks mostly to foreign manufacturers like Glock). But even those firearms are nearly all derivative of older (mostly 75-100+ year old Browning) designs (again, with a few exceptions of foreign manufacturers whose ability to innovate isn't quite so restricted as it is in the US).
Never having been in the US Military, I’m wondering why we’re outsourcing our US Military’s weapons to *other countries*? Shouldn’t Colt, Remington, Kimber etc get the chance, and not FN, Glock (yes, I know they’re assembled here), H&K etc?
2. Our anti-gun regulations have strangled domestic industry and creativity. John Moses Brownings of today aren’t tinkering with making better machine guns, lest they be tossed in jail.
Thanks for the link. Fascinating. Educational.
Good Grief! btt
The Kel-Tec RFB in 7.62 NATO. Takes standard AR10 magazines. Watch the video of this innovative firearm here.
This is true. What has compounded the problem is the bureaucracy that is the Pentagon procurement system. Too many people, civilian and military, become wedded to weapons systems - so entrenched that we hang on to well-outdated technology.
My father used the M-16 in Vietnam, my brother and I during our careers and soon my nephew will in his career - that is not a a sign of a progressive military that outfits its soldiers and Marines with the best equipment available.
Replacment of the M-16 weapons sytem is something that is long overdue and the Pentagon and its leadership at all levels should be held to account for its failure.
That’s an evil looking black gun. Nice
Two words: Gas piston.
“Don’t mess where you eat.”
Speaking as a U.S. taxpayer, I'd prefer the military to spend the limited resources available wisely, and purchase the most bang (literally) for the buck. I'm sure Colt, Remington, and Kimber et al "get the chance" in that they are welcome to bid on contracts. And if they offer the best product for the best price, I'm sure they get those contacts. But the military shouldn't be forced to purchase overpriced goods just because they're American-made. If they can get the weapons they need less expensively, then they can afford to buy more weapons, or invest in other gadgets for blowing up the enemy, or improve benefits and pay to servicemembers...
Yes, I want one... I have the SU-16B (a standard “carbine” style) that borrows from the M16 and the AK47 and has been amazingly reliable, plenty accurate out to 100-150 yards, extremely light weight, and eats any 5.56 I run through it.
If I had my druthers, I would slog my SU-16B around rather than the normal M16 - it’s 3 pounds lighter, and that lets me carry 3 more magazines. And having another 90 rounds is NO small advantage! Not to mention it’s got a gas piston so it doesn’t s*&t where it eats and runs well even when pretty packed with sand and dust.
For the military, I think a bullpup rifle design makes perfect sense given the current (and next few decades) engagements in CQB and urban settings. A shorter rifle with a center of gravity well back towards the body is ideal for such situations. I think the 7.62 NATO round is overkill, but rechamber this in either 5.56 or 6.5 or even 7.62x39 and you’re set!
DoD has been buying foreign for a long time.
Gee. I want one of them!
I bought a Browning 10 gauge semiautomatic shotgun last year.
Made in JAPAN!
I didn’t realize it until I opened it at home.
Sad.
I understand what you're asking and don't get the impression I'm flaming you, but in todays political climate with our freedoms and all (/sarcasm), it's tough for a weapons manufacturer to develop, sell, and supply the weapons required for our military. Check out FN's history. FN Herstal has been making firearms since the late 1800's and was very closely associated with John Browning. They manufactured the first Belgian made Browning high power 9mm pistols along with the mighty .50 cal. They helped develop the 7.62x51 round which is the main NATO ammunition caliber (which would do well in any military), and the FAL rifle of which they've sold over 2 million world wide. They've sold over a million high power's since the early 1900's. If you own a fairly new Browning or Winchester, it is manufactured by FN Herstal.
They are a solid weapons manufacturer and if my son were in the military, I'd want him to be defending himself and his country with something that they had made. A lot of son's are.
At least they are looking at manufacturers with a solid background. Would we be better off if an "American company" were manufacturing our military's weapons? I don't know. Is FN Herstal a good manufacturer of small arms? Looks like it to me. Probably some of the best made.
Bottom line...don't we want the best for our troops, despite where they are made? I say give them the best we can. I'm sure you agree.
It would have been a great Christmas present. I saw the link on Robert Spencer’s GRRRRREAT “Merry Christmas” thread (am reading tonight) here...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024063.php#comments
...from poster Dar Al-Harb at 3:15am on Christmas morning.
Next?
The main gun for the M1-A1 and A2 is made by Rheinmetall, a German company, also known for the guns that it built for the Panther tanks.
Ships - The 76mm gum that is the primary weapon on Coast Guard ships, and which is also used by the US Navy, was designed by OTO Melara, an Italian company (but which now may be made in the US under license to a joint venture). And, for a while, the Navy was renting an Australian ship.
Planes - before the politicians got involved, Airbus was awarded the contract for the new aerial tanker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.