Military.com:
The lead man tasked by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis with transforming everything infantry and close combat on Tuesday challenged industry and government leaders to put a leap-ahead rifle in his boss’ hands in less than two years — or else.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales was a keynote speaker at the annual National Defense Industry Association Armament Systems forum here, and he didn’t waste any time launching into a takedown of key components that equip the close combat infantryman.
Scales recounted how he’d spoken at the conference three years ago, pushing industry and government procurement officials to create an intermediate caliber rifle with a piston action, polymer ammunition casing, a suppressor and digital fire controls.
“Now, in 2018, does any of that sound familiar?” he asked.
Scales is the chairman of the Department of Defense’s recently created “Close Combat Lethality Task Force.” The task force formed at Mattis’ direction and has $2.5 billion to fundamentally transform all things close combat for Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations troops.
The rifle he described in his opening remarks is handled under the Next Generation Squad Weapon project, headed by the Army.
But there, too, are problems, he noted.
The NGSW program was aimed at making a rifle or carbine to replace the flawed M16/M4 system, which Scales has railed against since his own experience with early versions of the M16 in Vietnam.
But an incredulous Scales told the audience that developers on the NGSW are now prioritizing the light machine gun in a program called the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle to replace the Squad Automatic Weapon, with the rifle or carbine to come later.
“It’s the Next Generation rifle or carbine, damn it,” Scales said.
The change in focus means that under current schedules, the rifle/carbine won’t be ready until 2024.
That is not acceptable, Scales said. To either him or his boss.
“Let me tell you something, folks. It’s not working,” Scales said. “Make the rifle by 2020. My God, folks, it’s a nine-pound piece of steel. The cost isn’t as much as a lug nut on a B-1 bomber.”
I confess I didn’t know this. Scales is an imbecile. Mattis is an imbecile for putting Scales in charge of anything except taking out the trash. Scales isn’t qualified as a gunsmith, engineer or mechanic to order decisions on cartridge size, type, caliber, or anything else, much less to order that it be a pistol gun rather than DI.
Good Lord. What an idiot.
So, Scales, here are some questions for you to ponder as your play Napoleon with the would-be weapons makers. Are you prepared to change not only weapons, but training and doctrine? You see, the notion of a light, small caliber, automatic gun with high projectile velocity, line of recoil along the axis of the gun, and quick sight-picture recovery, is necessary for the doctrines on which the current militaries of the entire world are built.
They are aided by snipers and DMs carrying larger caliber guns. So where is the money coming from to change everything? Why do you want a piston system? Who told you it is better? Do you know more than my friend the training NCO in the Army, who told me this?
The Marines have established in their 24-72 hour protracted, static, fire fights in Southern Afghanistan, that three 30 round magazines will do the job, if you have NCO directed, well aimed and properly spotted fire. Shoot from cover, control your security and do not allow an element to maneuver unobserved on your position. Maintain indirect fire back-up for surprises and to exploit enemy error’s. It sounds basic but we (Army) do not routinely practice this doctrine. So we kill and maim our troops because of and regardless of, the grain count of our issue rounds. As you point out.
My friend goes on to explain that the gun isn’t the problem – it’s the shooter. It’s almost always the shooter. Hey Scales, do you know more than my buddy does about what’s happened in any theater of conflict in the past 40 years?
Hey Scales, tell me all about the caseless cartridge you want so badly? I want to hear the engineering aspects of this thing. I also want to know all about how easy you think it is to keep recoil down while giving the shooter better ballistic coefficient, less weight, more reliability, a cleaner weapon, and instant recovery of sight picture?
Where did you get your engineering degree to insult design engineers like that, you insufferable old fart? If it’s so easy, why don’t you do it?
What do you know about the cost of a bolt on a B-1? Why did you use that analogy? As for this gun, it’s a nine pound piece of steel. Steel? Is that what it is, Scales? Steel? None of it is polymer or aluminum? And it’s nine pounds? Nine pounds? I own a 6.09 pound AR, and you’re going to put a 9 pound gun in a woman’s hands to carry?
Hey, speaking of that, how much of this has to do with trying to reduce weight for women in combat? Or are you trying to reduce weight? Nine pounds isn’t a weight reduction.
How much has changed since you saw the gun in action in Vietnam, Scales? Is it the same gun, or not? Have you shot one lately? Field stripped it and cleaned it? Are BCGs even made of the same material these days, Scales?
You moron. The fact that Mattis put you in charge of this effort makes me laugh and sad at the same time. This is a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Without metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
You’re an incompetent dumbass.
Prior:
USMC M38 DMR Not Ready For Battle
Scales Traffics In Half Century Old Rhetoric On Stoner Design
Problems And Solutions In Rifle Caliber And Training
Blaming The Gun For The Battle Losses