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.
Heavy? Only for girls or tranys!!!!
“One well-aimed shot per customer.”
While I’m a huge fan of the 7.62 NATO cartridge I don’t see this happening anytime soon. I’m sure they’ll hand out one of these per squad as a DM weapon. But they’re sitting on trillions of rounds of 5.56 ammo and they aren’t going to just dump that on the civilian market.
Get rid of that crappy steel core bullet and issue 62 grain soft point ammunition. Screw The Hague Convention. We never signed on to it anyway.
People who say the 5.56 round is weak have never studied the ballistic tables. At 100 yards the current bullet has as much energy as a .45 ACP does at the muzzle. Just quit poking tiny holes in bad guys and waiting for them to bleed out.
Hit them with a PSP at 2,650 fps and the results will be much better.
L
Armor development is now getting to the point that ballistic ammunition may be obsolete UNLESS we are carrying miniature rail guns around and considering the power requirements, that may not be plausible.
Laser rifles may seem science fiction now, but if you can’t penetrate armor with bullets...
“They did this because of the effective range of the rifle”.
Bingo! Especially in Afghanistan. The M-4 is great for clearing buildings but after 400 metres it just hasn’t got the knockdown. Those jihadis are picking our guys off with mark 4 British Enfield .303’s from 1000 yards with open sights.
My bone of contention is that the US Army has for coming up on 15 years been seeking a sidearm replacement for the Beretta over the course of two hugely expensive programs for everyone involved, and they apparently ended up selecting a pistol they thought was bitchinest but discharges when dropped in a way they explicitly never tested. Oh what the hell, huh? There have only been two sidearm adoptions for the US military in 100 years and this is what happens after spending 15 years on these projects?
The first survey program called ‘Joint Combat Pistol’ produced several manufacturers’ pistols that have since proven hugely popular to law enforcement and civilians alike. I own one of them that was adopted by the US Navy as the Mk24 Mod 0. The second program reduced the number of projected purchases from well over a half million to only 65,000 units and it brought in all kinds of wacky designs from second and third rate manufacturers. Heckler and Koch saw the low unit sales and told the US Army to go spoon a goose after blowing zillions the first time around. Glock just submitted their Model 17 and told the Army to go get sample models their damn selves at the sporting goods store and call us if you need us. It was SIG who sold the Army on the neato features they needed to have and won the competition over CZ and Taurus and a ho-hum model from S&W.
So now we have a new 9mm pistol to replace the old 9mm pistol. But you can change the frame size on it so Bradley Manning can get a grip on it.
I am no SIG Sauer hater at all, but I’ve not been a big fan of recent SIG handguns for other reasons long before the SIG 320 was revealed. I do think one of its features will be adopted as standard by other manufacturers (the modular fire control assembly) and when they do they’ll end up being better than SIG’s design. I personally just think this drop failure will be the first of several serious issues because I’m dubious that SIG Sauer can keep up quality control in a sustained a military-sized production run. The old SIG Sauer company just ain’t the new SIG Sauer. Just my opinion. And the old proven Sig P22x guns would have never won any of the competitions. Crazy.
Just my opinion but I have to wonder if this adoption of the P320 will be as short-lived as the Navy Lee rifle or the 1898 Krag-Jorgensen.
... then you use vapor deposit application of reflective metallic mirrorcoat underneath body armor and cover the battlefield with a thick fog of sugar-based room temp crystallized aerosols that disrupt cohesive light beams.
Senator: “General, in the US Army’s selection process of the XM2025 BeamCaster service weapon, did at any time the selection regimen denote trying to shoot through a layer of common attic insulation matting impregnated with dust particles of iron pyrite?”
The 226 did win the competition in 1983. The Beretta was selected due to magazine cost issues. BTW, the cheaper magazines the Army bought with the M9 had to be replaced with better ones because they did not work well in the desert. The P320/M17 will be fine and I suspect will be around longer than the M9. The M17 may be fine now as far as I know. The issue is with certain 320 pistols, not all P320s from what I have read. I do not know if it effects the M17 or not. It is probably prudent to wait and see before proclaiming failure on a massive scale
I just listened to yesterday’s LocknLoad radio show. Bill Grady spent an hour talking about this. He said that this issue was discovered during the military tests and an improved fire control assembly was developed that is used in all M17s and was subsequently rolled into civilian production pistols. He said that SIG will have an announcement next week on making a voluntary “upgrade” available for civilians owners with the older fire control group. I guess this is not an issue on the M17.
The US Military has and probably will again in the future sell upper receiver assemblies because they are not the items needed to create a fully automatic rifle.
I missed out on the sale of M16-A1 parts kits a few years ago due to broke-itis. It had ever part except for the lower receiver and trigger group. I really wanted one since that was the weapon I carried my entire active duty time and I qualified expert in basic training with one. Great super light little rifle.
Okay for all the Garand, M14, and BAR fans out there I’m going to bring you painfully into the 21st Century.
Before I go on I want to let you know that I have a CMP Danish VAR barreled Garand that I cherish and love to pull out of the safe to just lust over how sexy she is. I take her out and shoot around 40 rounds a year before I lovingly clean and re-grease her before putting her back to bed in the humidity controlled safe.
The Garand and M14 are incredibly reliable, durable, and idiot proof. That being said.... they have a couple flaws in their design. They have (very expensive) receivers that are complicated, expensive, time consuming to machine, and quite frankly outdated to produce.
The gas system with the intricate op-rod and integrated long stroke piston inherently becomes more inaccurate with every single shot. It takes an artist with years of experience to put a new piston tip on, bore out install and/or lap a gas tube, or hand fit a stock so it’s tight enough to be accurate.
Meanwhile, my .308 SCAR-17 is just ridiculously accurate with only a 16 inch barrel. Need a new barrel? Undo a few hex head screws and pull the old barrel off. Install the new one with a new bolt and you’re good to go. The gas system is a fully chromed short stroke piston design. It doesn’t shit where it eats and piston or gas tube wear doesn’t affect accuracy. Oh, and it weighs about 8 lbs loaded.
Make a SCAR for the .264 USA cartridge and with an optic you can now easily engage out to 1000 yards.
HEY, are you calling me a Neanderthal just cause I made a comment on FR (like you I like a M14 to shoot on occasion) ?
I'll have you know I own the best battle rifle EVER produced....HK91! I'll be shooting aliens from space looooonnng after the barrel of your Scar17 has reverted to the periodic elements it originated from!
Unfortunately, no. They will be melted down and recast in new solar panels. /S
Uh, no? Did you NOT read the rest of my post where I talk about lovingly caressing my M1 Garand?
Ahhhh...I think I know you from another board. You smell of...well never mind.
And if you’re the guy I think you are, well played sir.
Will it shoot after its dragged through the dirt?
Tell you what. I knew a colonel in the Brit army that fought in WW2 in the India theater of operations. Know what they wanted more than anything? A 30 carbine or a Tommy gun along with a SW revolver. He told me it was about being reliable. The Tommy guns were for the armored guys and the 30 carbine for the front line troops-if there was a front line. Couldnt see the enemy over half the time so they cover shot the whole place.
I told him that if he liked the 30 carbine, what the hell would he have done if he got the 30-06? Said they had the 303 for the sniper stuff. So, they carried three types of ammo. Must have been a real bugger for supply.
It wasnt about accuracy in the Jungles like in Europe.
That guy had stories to tell. And they werent nice. The BAR? I havent talked to anyone who was a WW2 Vet that liked it. Matter of fact, one said they had the Garand and why in the hell did they need the BAR anyways.
Yeah, but Kirby always looked so cool with his ...
I carried the M60 machinegun for the three years that I was in the infantry. All 5'6" and 135 pounds of me ...
When I joined the unit, I told the platoon sergeant that, if they were going to send us to Vietnam, I wanted something that could really reach out and touch someone ... and then they never did send us.
Perhaps this is your thought: "You smell of Jägerschnitzel!"
Oooohhh! the gravy...I mean the plot thickens! HAHA!
The BAR was an interim solution to squad automace weapon. It still hasn’t really been figured out but the M-60 was close. Damn close.
Lots of people bag on the M-60. I went to company armorer’s school and got taught why the M-60 had problems. Most of it had to do with GI’s slamming the feed tray cover down when the weapon was not charged. The “actuator” (you’ve got to forgive me, it’s been about 27 years) would smash into the feed tray lever which would bend it. Eventually everything would get out of whack.
I was in a Finance Company and we got depot refurbished M-60’s when I was the armorer. I made sure to train the guys I personally chose to be M-60 gunners on its quirks. I LOVE the M-60 because I thought it was so easy to keep on target while shooting a whole belt. It was for me just ridiculously easy. The M-240 is more GI proof, but to me isn’t as easy to shoot, the weight distribution is ridiculous, and the rate of fire makes it hard to control off the biped.
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.