Posted on 08/07/2017 9:36:59 AM PDT by re_tail20
U.S. Army weapon officials just opened a competition for a new 7.62mm Interim Service Combat Rifle to arm infantry units with a weapon potent enough to penetrate enemy body armor.
"The Army has identified a potential gap in the capability of ground forces and infantry to penetrate body armor using existing ammunition. To address this operational need, the Army is looking for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR) that is capable of defeating emerging threats," according to an Aug. 4 solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.gov.
The service plans to initially award up to eight contracts, procuring seven types of weapons from each gunmaker for test and evaluation purposes. Once the review is concluded, the service "may award a single follow-on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract for the production of up to 50,000 weapons," the solicitation states.
"The Government has a requirement to acquire a commercial 7.62mm ICSR to field with the M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) to engage and defeat protected and unprotected threats," the solicitation states. "The ultimate objective of the program is to acquire and field a 7.62mm ICSR that will increase soldier lethality."
The opening of the competition comes just over two months after Army's Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley revealed to Congress that the M4 Carbine's M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round cannot penetrate modern enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
This past spring, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn released a directed requirement for a new 7.62mm rifle designed for combat units, prompting Army weapons officials to write a formal requirement.
The presence of a 7.62mm rifle in Army infantry squads is nothing new. Since 2009, the Army's squad designated marksman rifle has been the Enhanced Battle Rifle, or EBR,...
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
If you look at the breakdown of the 6.5 Grendel it’s basically a 6.5x39.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Grendel
As a matter of fact, I think the only difference is that the Russians just call it a 6.5x39.
That thing yaws & tumbles even better than their 5.45x39. I really wish the US Military would get on board with either this or the 6.8spc. But I “get” logistics and caliber commonality with NATO.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/11/ak-12-produced-6-5-grendel/
As you said, different tools for different jobs!
Thank you for your kind expressions. Semper Fi!
Very interesting. Thanks.
You’re off by about an order of magnitude. From: http://miamirifle-pistol.org/userfiles/file/pdf/M14%20RHAD%20Text%20Only%20Edition%20100815.pdf
Destruction and Export of USGI M14 Rifles:
M14 rifles have been given or sold to foreign governments under U. S. military aid programs since 1967. As of June 30, 1973, the U. S. Army had over 940,000 M14 rifles remaining in its inventory. In late 1973, U. S. Army Director of Material Acquisition, Major General Peter G. Olenchuk, testified before a U. S. House of Representatives subcommittee that the Army planned to remove the M14 rifle from its inventory “except for war contingency purposes.” Major General Olenchuk retired from active duty in 1975 and passed away on October 06, 2000.
As of 1996, at least 450,000 M14 rifles had been transferred to foreign armies while another 750,000 were destroyed by the United States. The Naval Surface Warfare Center (Crane, IN) and Anniston Army Depot (Anniston, AL) were two facilities used to demilitarize M14 rifles in the 1990s. The destruction of small arms began in August 1993 at Anniston Army Depot. The machine used to demilitarize M14 rifles was not very discriminate. After the stock, sling, hand guard some of the parts were removed, the M14 was fed into the machine for destruction. This machine was referred to as Captain Crunch. Captain Crunch sheared the rifle about every four to six inches along its length. Typically, Captain Crunch took “bites” at the middle of the receiver, at the front end of the barrel chamber, near the operating rod guide, through the gas cylinder, and through the flash suppressor. Captain Crunch was destroying 3,000 small arms per day at a unit price of $3.52. Between August 1993 and March 1994, 50,000 M14 rifles were destroyed at Anniston Army Depot alone. Unfortunately, the demilitarization of small arms continued until 1996.
So, way more than just 50K.
The Kel-Tec RFB’s all-up weight is about 8 pounds. A FAL in the same caliber is about 9-11 pounds (depends on variant); the geometry makes the weapon far more controllable.
Something else that should be mentioned - not just the weight but the action type of the rifle can make a big difference in how recoil is perceived. While I disagree with the conclusion of the utility of 7.62 auto fire made in the below video, the description of how it relatively feels to operate the two remaining ‘big’ historic 7.62 NATO rifle types in full auto are instructive as is the slow motion footage. The G3 is known to be a violent rifle to fire to begin with as it’s a delayed blowback design; it’s interesting to compare it to the FAL’s tilt bolt system in slow motion. The FAL is clearly the more controllable (and controlled) of the two even though they’re otherwise similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtx9g7BmOE
I would grab a FAL in 7.62 NATO before I’d grab an AR in 5.56 in a SHTF scenario.
You may find this interesting viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVegwmZiQM
Also, I noticed that when the dork was firing from a prone position with the tripod, he did not make use of the metal shoulder rest that deploys from the butt to rest atop the shoulder. That, and I was trained to fire with my non-firing hand resting over the stock of the weapon to add additional stability. It works well when it's used well.
By the time I got in in the early 1980s, all the problems had been worked around. We had top-notch armorers, and it was drilled into my head to take very good care of that weapon. Warts and all, for me it was a very reliable and accurate weapon.
Interesting.
Thank you
One more. How about a fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun with a 30 round drum magazine? Rate of fire is about 450-500 or so. This is right at the ragged edge of full auto controlability using modern technique and configuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFVJqqnp4PA
For comparison, here’s a standard issue M-14 on full auto. Visibly uncontrolled in full auto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU2Y4cnd7-Y
The lack of a pistol grip and the recommended short grip on the forearm combined with the low weight of the M-14 combine to get what you see above. Some people did master it even so, but it was so rare that the military ended up not bothering. They did, however, develop the E2 stock in response to this; this adds a pistol grip and a stock with negligible drop. This was the result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU
It’s not as good as the FAL at full auto because the FAL is heavier, the FAL’s action was designed to have a pistol grip in the first place, the FAL has a buffer in its stock and the stock shape means the recoil is more linear instead of levering and the way the forearm is designed allows a further forward grip on the forearm, allowing more control - but the E2 stock at least gets the M-14 into the same league in auto fire. They would later add a sort of vertical foregrip to try to improve control. They also added a muzzle brake to help further. The stock FAL was still better even without a muzzle brake (as you saw in the prior video). More about the E2 stock here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqTVjFxVYJE
These days, weapon technique has evolved considerably and as you’ve seen, calibers formerly thought “uncontrollable” in full auto are now easily controllable if the weapon is designed correctly.
Check out this modern configuration AR-10 type in 7.62 NATO - observe the controllability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DAlHcUih8
You had an M-14E2 or A1, right? You might be interested in one of the videos at my post 105 above.
Er, sorry, post 109.
The horizontal carriage allowed us to fire immediately from the waist if we ran into an ambush and it also allowed fast entry into the prone.
Your videos are cool but very civilian: there's never any reason to fire full-auto from the offhand (standing) position in combat. Full auto is almost always fired from the prone, which is what you'd better be if the first rounds the enemy fired haven't already got you. I have no idea why our YouTube cowboys think that that is way we employed them - but of course, they would be difficult to control.
I was as a 21 year old Lance Corporal that had a relatively free hand in picking a weapon to keep me alive and I was very happy with my '14. It was accurate - I successfully engaged an enemy sniper at 600m - and it was controllable and exceptionally dependable in an environment that was always hot, wet, and filthy. I could reliably keep a 3-4 round burst with the size of a human body at 150m+. Don't need to ask me how I know that.
As I said earlier, when I was wounded in May '67, there was a fast grab for my M-14. It was the best weapon for many miles around.
Thanks for the vids!
I’ve noticed over the years the use of muzzle brakes and comps (even being machined or welded at the edge of the barrel) has become more and more common for the heavier caliber sniper guns and “assault rifles”.
I used to own a Saiga 12 and I remember shooting slugs through that thing. It felt like a ram was running into my shoulder with each trigger pull. I wasn’t a small guy back then either at 225lbs, but I also didn’t have a comp/brake attached.
Later on, when I was a 2nd Lieutenant I was selected to compete in the Division Matches at the Puuloa Rifle Range in Ewa, Hawaii. Using a basic match conditioned M-14, I broke the range record with 34 consecutive V-ring bullseyes with that rifle (the V-ring is the 5 inch circle at the center of the bullseye which serves as a tie breaker). I still have the newspaper article about me and my record, if there are doubters among you.
My right arm was about dead from that tight sling but I just kept firing while I still had ammo. As far as I know, that record still stands.
The match M-14 with iron sights competed successfully at 1,000m at Camp Perry for several years.
Please exclude me from further responses. The M-14 is an accurate weapon and just like many select fire weapon systems can still be extremely accurate when firing in burst or full-auto under the proper conditions, training, and equipment.
As I said, the common use of a rifle for full-auto during the era does not change the fact that doing so has major drawbacks which is the reason that in current times the use of firing of a rifle in FA is frowned upon and not recommended. The implementation of fully automatic weapons (LMGs) into squads alleviates the need for rifleman to use burst or FA. Rounds on target is more important for a rifleman than suppression.
Rather lofty of you, Marine. Exactly how much combat experience do you have?
This isn’t a pissing contest.
Suppression is determined by two things, fire superiority and accuracy. Fire superiority occurs as a result of rate of fire. A high rate of fire is necessary to obtain superiority initially, but does not need to be maintained at a high rate to sustain it. A high rate of fire doesn’t mean the rifleman should be shooting FA. The only automatic fire comes from the Automatic Rifleman. Accuracy is of the most importance, especially when conducting fire and maneuver. A high rate of of fire without accuracy is meaningless. Continued accurate fire will suppress the enemy, once fire superiority is attained. Shooting FA on a rifle does nothing but waste ammunition.
Accuracy is stressed, suppression will come as a result of accuracy and a sustainable rate of fire.
I still have my Saiga 12; with 00 Buck it’s actually the softest recoiling 12 gauge I’ve ever fired. I’ve got it converted from that bad sporter stock back to a pistol grip and folding stock, as most people do. I don’t have a brake or compensator, but I’ve actually found that with the 5 round stick mag I can actually hold the thing like an oversized pistol and empty the mag with reasonable accuracy one handed. You’re right about the recoil being worse with slugs, though; can’t use it as a ‘big pistol’ with those.
Possibly not - but you didn't ask my question. If you're basing this on extensive combat experience in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it sounds like your quoting directly from an FM.
As I have already mentioned, my experience with the select fire M-14 came from 17 months of direct combat in Vietnam and I have tried - unsuccessfully, I guess - to convince you that there are situations where automatic fire is not really just a suppressive tool but rather a method to improve your chances of killing the enemy when he's in cover/concealment/on the other side of the wall and his precise position isn't known. Or it's at night and the enemy is there but too far to hit with a grenade. Or inside a house and firing from a small opening and raking through the wall from right to left will get him. The assumption is, that the individual Marine can be trained to choose which mode to employ when it's needed.
My further experience was that I was commissioned a lieutenant, saw further service in the withdrawal operations from Vietnam, commanded a platoon and a Headquarters Battery, and much later an artillery battalion. I have been involved in infantry weapons development and was part of the team that selected the FN Minimi which became the M249 SAW (however I preferred the HK 93 in 7.62mm).
The select fire M16 was a very bad choice - because of its fragility and its gestation problems in Vietnam - and because of the "spray and pray" techniques championed by the army. So don't confuse and very accurate hard-hitting weapon that can be switched to full-auto as needed with the M16 and its anemic round and indifferent accuracy.
Now, I'd like to hear what your experience was an how it influenced your opinions. Semper Fi.
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.