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 ...
Sounds interesting, I am not a big bull-pup fan but this sounds like a nice compact battlefield rifle, retaining that ability to reach out and touch bad people.
RE; 6.8 and 6.5
You are both very correct.
The 6.5 Grendel is so ballistically efficient that at 600 meters, it has more energy left then a 7.62x51!
I want one, and an extra .50 Beowulf top to go with it...... in my dreams. .50 Beowulf is perfect for Florida wild hogs.
M14 works fine. You want to shoot auto grab an m60.
M14 works fine. You want to shoot auto grab an m60.
Personally, other than the first mag to get the baddies heads down when getting ambushed or running through/away from an ambush, (or clearing a room) I never liked FA.
Take
Nice
Aimed
Shots
and kill a lot of bad guys.
Hopefully the 7.62X63. AKA .30-06. And the .45 ACP for the Handgun (or power equivalent of both).
Let's go back to big boy toys. The weapons we used to win the last war we actually won. And while we're at it use saturation bombing. Let the enemy plead with us for peace. .
You're kidding, right? I carried a full-auto M-14 for 17 months in combat and it was an excellent, capable weapon. I fired it from a bipod and I learned to control the trigger - worked fine every day. Could penetrate houses, gravestones, heavy brush, sandbags, cover.
I controlled the thing just fine. Why can't you?
WHAT???
[I was a M-113 track commander in the 80’s. M2 was my weapon and the M60 muzzle was off my right elbow.]
Yes, the SCAR. A reliable proven weapon with several variations.
Does this mean that my 5.56 AR-15 won’t be called a Military Style Assault Rifle anymore since the Military will be using 7.62?
Just askin’...
They should just quit screwing around and use an M41A Pulse Rifle, Ten millimeter, with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher.
I’m with you. I loved the M14. It seemed to know where I was aiming as well.
.375 H & H might do the trick.
That’s right. Just issue every Soldier and Marine a SCAR-H.
Bullpup
30.06
Interchangeable barrels of different lengths.
Double stacked magazines
Operate when dirty
Easy to clean
“They don’t have M14s anymore??” [WKUHilltopper, post 2]
“Beat me to it. First thing I thought of.” [Bucky14, post 16]
DoD is said to be keeping some M14s in storage but does not disclose the exact number. Some were sent to allied countries, some were released to state & local law enforcement agencies or other official organizations. A very small number were released as marksmanship competition prizes.
The weapon was removed from the NSN system. Just what happened to the inventories of spare parts has not been made public.
Though it handles well, the M14 would be a poor choice. It bested the FAL in the original competition but results have been called into question repeatedly, since. Other contemporaries, such as HK’s G3 and AR-10 style rifles, would likely prove better.
General issue of M14s would be problematic as the Army Ordnance logistics/maintenance support organizations specializing in the arm no longer exist.
Re-issue of 7.62x63mm (US 30-06) would be a poorer choice. It was the longest military rifle round of its era and no modern rifle is long enough to handle it. Performance of 30M2 round is the same as 7.62x51 NATO. Though powerful, it wasn’t the greatest cartridge in its day: 7x57mm Mauser would have been better, 276 Pedersen better still.
In the early days of smokeless powder, several national military establishments opted for 6.5mm rifle rounds: France (limited), Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Imperial Japan. Russian designer Vladimir Fedorov chambered his AVF for a 6.5mm round of his own design, but later changed it to 6.5x50SR Arisaka.
Complaints surfaced about performance and effectiveness. The Swedes adopted 8x63 Bofors as a machine gun round. The Italians adopted 7.35 Carcano as a replacement for their 6.5x50, but never made the switch complete. Imperial Japan adopted 7.7x58 Arisaka, but did not go all the way in switching.
Yea, but they are OLD. The Army wants NEW rifles. Better change the law so that they can be made semi-auto and sold to the public.
“... And the .45 ACP for the Handgun ...”
45 ACP would be a poor choice.
It was developed for the cavalry: troopers needed a round that would put a horse down at close range. Other features of the M1911 auto pistol were added to satisfy the cavalry also. Grip safety is the most obvious.
Today’s 9mm NATO round outpowers the 45 ACP as it was loaded for US issue. It has greater effective range and penetrates soft body armor better.
Before the howls of indignation begin, let me point out that the US War Dept specified a bullet diameter of 0.45 inch diameter for handguns, before the Philippine Rebellion was concluded (1913, not 1902 as some sources claim).
45 ACP might be superior for close combat, but that occurs less than ever before. Other criteria take precedence (or would, if US armament selection processes were imbued with greater rationality).
Go Toppers (Class of '98)!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.