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 ...
That platform or a variant could well be in the competition. They’re probably looking for something a bit lighter though.
“Wife has a different opinion.”
Someone should just chamber an AR-10 platform in .284 Win...
(I would SO be on that, plus it would make for cheap ammo for my unicorn gun)
That’s basically what the EBR is.
Those will penetrate soft body armor but there’s now way they will penetrate a plate. FTR, pretty much anything going over 2000 fps will penetrate soft body armor, even a cube. Modern inserts need some pretty specific parameters designed into a penetrator to get through. At the least it’s going to need a steel core and velocity over 2750 fps at impact.
They are probably going to be looking for something in the .270-.300 range that exceeds 2750 fps past something in the neighborhood of 600 or 700 yards.
The 5.56 and .308 are both good useful cartridges but the newer 6.5’s do have some real advantages.
If you want a heavy hitting round for long range there are specialized cartridges which are too powerful (recoil and size of gun) for general use.
The 5.56 with the right bullets is both flat shooting and will penetrate better than the 7.62. I guess you could use a 220 grain .30 caliber bullet but it would take up so much powder space as to limit velocity.
The 6.5 has some extremely flat shooting bullets which also penetrate at long range. It does that in a smaller rifle with less recoil.
It or maybe the .243 really is the ideal standard military bullet in whatever case they choose.
My brother is a 3rd Division Marine Vet. (Kaneohe)
Said exactly the same thing about the morons using burst/full-auto.
The Russians are actually starting to field new generation rifles (not Kalash’s) with 6.5x39.
They know how good that caliber is.
7.62x51 is good for snipers and M60’s but not infantry, IMHO.
You just mentioned you had a bipod but did you use it in auto mode all the time? You didn’t say.
How about prone or standing?
Everybody’s mileage will vary, most vets would disagree that it’s controllable in auto mode.
Rest of the time was aimed semiauto.
Since I had the last M-14, I had to strip M-60 belts to load my magazines. I used to carry seven loaded magazines, two bandoleers of M80 Ball, two M26 grenades, sometimes two LAWs or a 2-pound block of C-4, capped and fuzed for bunkers. And sometimes a .45 in my flak jacket pocket, just in case.
Fun times.
Always fired full auto from the prone...forgot to answer that part of your question. For two good reasons: 1. so I would actually hit things and 2. because once you fired, everybody concentrated on you, the automatic weapon, so prone kept you alive longer.
Agree too that the M-14 was a handful and required quite a bit of experience to control - very high rate of fire (700-800 RPM) - but with plenty of practice, it was very, very effective.
Yeah, I volunteered for squad machine gun duty after learning the M60 in basic and firing expert. I hated- I mean hated with a visceral passion- the M16. It felt like a rattletrap little toy.
But my beloved Big Ugly, I would have married that M60 if they'd have let me. I treated it like the best friend I ever had. And it never- not once- let me down.
My platoon sergeant- a snoose-dipping old Vietnam SFC whose every other word was a profanity- taught me how to fire sitting, crouching, running, walking, from the hip, from the shoulder, and prone. He trained me well enough to hit targets consistently in short bursts from 600 meters way on out beyond from those positions. For a while my assistant gunner had a hell of a time trying to keep up with me. The SFC told me (in front of the a-gunner) that having him along was like "pulling a trailer without any f***king wheels and he better step it the f**k up." I still laugh about that. But he figured it out. We made a great team after that.
Sure, I can't put that on my nursing curriculum vitae, but that was one of the best life skills I ever learned.
Dang!
Change Your name to Rambo!
I can understand during the era there was a need to use the M14 in full auto. However, in the current times the use of burst or auto on a rifle is just stupid.
I was in the Infantry (0311) in the Marines. At no time is there a reason to use a rifle (M16A4/M4A1) in anything but semi-auto. To do so is a complete waste of ammunition, you only carry so much with you on a patrol. That is what your Automatic Rifleman is for. If that was your role (which it was for me) in the fire team, you carried a M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) and provided the automatic fire for your fire team.
And thank you for your service! Agree with you completely about the crappy M16 and that steady workhorse, the M60.
Could have used you where we were - sounds like you were highly skilled.
As I told someone earlier, I was an artillery scout observer with a grunt company - so I carried what I could get away with. Most of the time I was busy with fire missions but once we took some casualties and the Medevacs started, I became an ad hoc automatic rifleman. The grunts appreciated me because I was good.
About five years after I came home, I was recognized by one of the Golf Company Marines while I was attending Cal State Northridge and he told me that they "really missed me and my M14" after I got hit and sent home.
Well-aimed and properly employed automatic fire is essential sometimes and if your Marines are well-trained it won't be a waste of ammo.
I’m blushing.
That is interesting. I had never heard of the 6.5x39. Thanks for the scoop.
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.