This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
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 ...
They don’t have M14s anymore??
I have an idea for a man-carried rail gun would that interest them?
“I shot him six times!”
— Donald Pleasance
OH No the US is not going to Drag NATO back to 7.62
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Just what did they expect when they shortened the M-16 barrels to 14”?
.30 caliber is a sentimental choice that just isn’t necessary anymore in a main battle rifle. I would go with 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendell. Lots of good bullets that are heavy for caliber which means good penetration. Once again, the military looks backward for inspiration instead of forward. Very disappointing. 6.8 SPC is just perfect for a combat round.
Looks backwards , ya maybe they can go back 45.70 ,I’m sure they still have some Springfields in storage someplace
The NATO 7.62 has greater terminal ballistics and penetration than the 2.23, it does mean that with fewer rounds you have to aim first as apposed to spray and pray.
*** BAZOOKA ??? ***
M14 retrofitted with synthetic bull-pup stock with weaver rail and attachments. Assign to the designated marksman at each squad.
I agree. Anybody that has shot a 7.62x51 will know you can’t control it in automatic mode.
I like the 6.8 and 6.5 options a whole lot better and they both offer more control to the soldier.
I believe the 6.5 has a ballistic coefficient edge to the 6.8.
“Drag NATO back to 7.62”
????
7.62 is a current NATO round.
Still a good round.
Limited usage but available.
Beat me to it. First thing I thought of.
Bring that muzzle blast closer to the ears
Give me either round. 7.62 works great but does it do anything 6.5 cannot do in the real world. I dont see it. .260 caliber gives up nothing on the battlefield to .30 caliber. I am sorry to see the military exclude eveb the possibility of it. At least they could allow 6.5 and 6.8 ammo in trials againsr the 7.62, and then pick the best one.
Within 800 yards, I don’t thing 6.8 or 6.5 will do anything the 7.62 won’t and you don’t have to reinvent the supply chain.
I don’t think you can expect the average combat Soldier or Marine to carry and maintain the kind of glass needed for use beyond 800 yards.
Don’t know about the Army, but in the Marines unless you are carrying a LMG, such as the M249, you fire your rifle in Semi-Auto. The use of Burst fire and Full-Auto for a rifleman is stupid and a waste of ammo.
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.