Posted on 08/08/2017 5:39:21 AM PDT by w1n1
Interim Combat Service Rifle Solicitation Released by US Army
The US Army has released a statement for a new 7.62mm infantry rifle to replace the M4. The Interim Combat Service Rifle program, has been in the works since April of this year, would replace M4 Carbines in use with combat units with a new weapon in the 7.62x51mm caliber.
The new statement requires companies to submit 7 weapons plus ancillaries for testing, and includes the promise of up to 8 Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs, non-contract transactions), leading to the eventual selection of 1 weapon for a contract of 50,000 units.
The primary justification for the ICSR program are the upcoming improved ceramic body armors that are resistant to existing 5.56mm small arms ammunition. The logic goes that the Army’s new 5.56mm M855A1 round cannot penetrate these new armors, and therefore the service must switch to a new round.
However, what’s misleading is, as current 7.62mm M80A1 is incapable of penetrating these body armors either – on the other hand with specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type. Read the rest of the US Army to replace M4 Carbine story here.
Many years ago I read a long article on the 55 days in Peking. Among the European soldiers defending the international combined legations was a German.
He was so impressed with the American Marines that he made the following statement. “When a marine fired, a Boxer died”.
What were the Marines using? 45-70?, 30-4- Krag?, no they were using 6mm Lee Navy rifles.
This is a wet dream by the old-timers.
7.62x51 will not be a main battlefield rifle ever again.
Most combat is in close quarters and 7.62x51 over penetrates in those applications.....so does 5.56
The next NATO battlefield cartridge will be form 6mm to 7mm in diameter, probably a shorter cartridge. This will give good close quarters combat capability as well as longer-range engagement lethality.
But, we see this nonsense that they 7.62x51 is coming back every few years. It is nonsense.
When the USAF switched from the original M16 to the M16A1, they surplused out the M16 upper assemblies. Many new and like new units as well as barrel assemblies were sold dirt cheap. I got one for $125 at the time, a heck of a deal, IMHO.
I wonder if they bring back the Garand action.
Thats the problem with the present weapon. Dust kills it.
This is cannot be parsed.
Here is one of several possible rewrites:
"However, what's misleading is, as current 7.62m is incapable of penetrating these body armors, either with specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type."
I removed "-- on the other hand". If one prefers retention of this phrase, here's a grammatical possibility:
"However, what's misleading is current 7.62m is incapable of penetrating these body armors -- either on the other hand with specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type."
These parse.
The M17 is not the same P320 the DPD bought. It has a manual safety added so things are put together a little bit differently but I am not sure exactly what changes were made to add the safety. From the little I gave read, it seems to be an issue with the weight of the actual trigger. This may or may not be an issue with the M17. For what it is worth, SIG has issued a statement addressing this.
http://firelancemedia.com/sig-releases-statement-p320-safety-issues/
This is a piece from a place that reproduced the problem.
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/sig-p320-drop-test-fire/
I agree to a point about reducing weight so more ammo can be carried. An ar-10 in .308 helps solve that. Though personally, I too prefer the M-14.....or perhaps the FNFAL.
From a time when “.30 caliber” meant .30-06.
***Army surplus.***
Well, they were bought and paid for with YOUR TAX MONEY! They are really YOUR PROPERTY, and selling them is just a way to recoup the cost for the tax payers.
In the olden days army surplus rifles were sold at auction to the public, including the firearms used by Lewis and Clark.
The 6.5 Grendl is pretty hot too and only requires upper change
Maybe a return to a version of the AR-10?
6.5 USA
I’ve seen a you tube video where a BAR melted down a cinder block wall.
....Will the old rifles be put up for public sale??? Army surplus.....
No. BATF refuses sale of rifles “readily” convertible to auto fire. If you want an old “relic.” the stockpiled supply of 1911 ,45s will soon be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, though most will be with mismatched parts and heavily used to worn out.
The military is replacing the Beretta 92 pistol too. Let’s see what happens to those.
Keeps the lightweight platform and ammo, performs better than 5.56 in CQB and at distance, what’s not to like?
This is an “Interim” rifle, not a long term solution. The long term plan is to swap out the 5.56 round for one in the 6.5 to 7mm range. Lower recoil, much better ballistically, and still with plenty of punch. Something along the lines of the 6.8 SPC necked to 6.5 mm would be ideal. 2,700-3,000 FPS with a 100-130 grain 6.5 bullet would certainly work!
The 6.5 to 7mm diameter was identified as the optimum as long ago as before WW II. It’ll be good to see it finally adopted, as it should have been 70 years ago.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10147/the-army-is-once-again-looking-to-replace-the-5-56mm-cartridge
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331
Oops, my bad. It’s .264 USA. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwiJk7TZhcjVAhUBHGMKHe5WDQIQFgglMAA&usg=AFQjCNGBkwFAj9eDJlJarqolrcsTV-VIzw&cf=1
>>>However, what’s misleading is, as current 7.62mm M80A1 is incapable of penetrating these body armors either – on the other hand with specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type<<<
Kind of like replacing your Car because you don’t want to spring for the Synthetic Oil Change.
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.