Army opens competition for 7.62 rifle to replace M4

[Varmint]

Damn, sounds like this is a handout to rifle manufacturers. The claim it's to defeat ceramic armor is ridiculous. A larger slower moving round isn't going to help that. Maybe it's more effective at fighting unarmored jihadis, but seems like the extra weight and lower round count is the wrong way to go.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-service-rifle-solicitation-released-us-army/

 

[rocket500]

5.56 isn't as effective at range. In places like Afghanistan it's a significant handicap. There are situations where 5.56 shines but long ranges in arid climates ain't it.

 

[Mountain]

Damn, sounds like this is a handout to rifle manufacturers. The claim it's to defeat ceramic armor is ridiculous. A larger slower moving round isn't going to help that. Maybe it's more effective at fighting unarmored jihadis, but seems like the extra weight and lower round count is the wrong way to go.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-service-rifle-solicitation-released-us-army/

Ridiculous? No way. You need energy to defeat armor. 5.56 is lacking compared to 7.62.

Nice to see the mil looking at other options besides 'pussy guns' (old armorer quote, not mine). Perhaps 5.56 has run its course.

 

[Waher]

They should go with a 6 or 6.5mm round in something like a SCAR or long barrel rifles in a bullpup configuration if the army really wants more range without compromising close in performance. Trying to have the infantryman's rifle do everything created the M14 disaster. LMGs are in a squad for a reason. In the field vehicle mounted mounted and crewed machine guns are going to win. Infantry arms are for urban, dense forest/jungle, and mountain combat which means something light and handy enough for mobility. Defenders in the mountains will always have a range advantage and that's why you have LMGs. The newer lead free 5.56 is higher velocity and denser than lead, it should be better at penetrating armor than the old ammo with steel tipped lead cores.

 

[5 DOLLAR FOOT LONG]

Why are we still throwing bits of metal at each other, surely by now we could have plasma guns or something, the moneys being mismanaged as hell.

 

[Wickedcoolname]

I always thought the Swedes had just about the perfect combat cartridge with the 6.5mm
Not sure how well it could be adapted to a semi-auto.

 

[UNSUB]

Ridiculous? No way. You need energy to defeat armor. 5.56 is lacking compared to 7.62.

Nice to see the mil looking at other options besides 'pussy guns' (old armorer quote, not mine). Perhaps 5.56 has run its course.

So the thread I read before this was the guy who jammed his shotgun in his dates pu$$y and fired it. 1 pu$$y gun thread is coincidence but 2 separate pu$$y gun posts is a unicorn. I'm playing Powerball

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[92G]

dumb.

didn't the DoD already go through this whole 7.62x51 transition to 5.56 back in the 60s? are they completely oblivious to history? good luck carrying around 300 rounds of 7.62x51.

seems like they would be better served by sticking with the 5.56 and just getting better overall equipment.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Blind leading the blind.

 

[paracarry]

I thought replacing a Military arm only had to do with which politicians own what stock in certain firearms manufacturers.

 

[Knob Creek]

I thought the idea behind developing the 6.8 SPC was for this purpose in mind.

 

[Fixxah]

This.

 

[rocket500]

I think 6.5 Creedmoor in an AR-10 would be pretty good. Wouldn't need to retrain your armorers or troops.

 

[Varmint]

I wonder if it's possible to make the ammo lighter? Polymer cases etc.

 

[fencer]

I wonder if it's possible to make the ammo lighter? Polymer cases etc.

Helium infused magazines? When empty they just float away....

 

[whacko]

I've hauled around 270 rounds of 5.56 for 2 1/2 years of my life. I'm not thinking I would be happier carrying around 270 rounds of 7.62 nato.

 

[76Too]

Guess that means the Marine corps will get it in 30+ years. I can't WAIT! :/

- - - Updated - - -

I've hauled around 270 rounds of 5.56 for 2 1/2 years of my life. I'm not thinking I would be happier carrying around 270 rounds of 7.62 nato.

Oof...why so much ammo? A-Gunner?

 

[namedpipes]

I've hauled around 270 rounds of 5.56 for 2 1/2 years of my life. I'm not thinking I would be happier carrying around 270 rounds of 7.62 nato.

An extra 12 lbs for the additional firepower sounds like a good trade-off. The rifle is likely to heaver too, though, I guess.

 

[76Too]

An extra 12 lbs for the additional firepower sounds like a good trade-off. The rifle is likely to heaver too, though, I guess.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...12lbs is a **** ton of extra weight when you're already wearing a flak, Kevlar, assault pack, hydration source, sidearm too possibly. **** 12 extra pounds.

 

[Peicemaker]

Talk about . The world already went through the 7.62x51 battle rifle phase and moved on. Mind you, m1as, FALS, G3s and AR10s are all fine weapons but not what modern militaries need. 5.56 is not well suited for certain applications which is why a balance needs to be struck somewhere between the two. An intermediate 6.5 cartridge would be just that. That's why the 6.8SPC and 6.5 Grendel were invented. Either of those would be well suited in assault rifles as well as LMGs. The only problem is the logistics of adopting a new caliber and that problem is a huge one. The only way it will happen is if we reduce the size of the military and get out of all these endless, pointless wars. Its much easier to reequip a peacetime military.

 

[whacko]

An extra 12 lbs for the additional firepower sounds like a good trade-off. The rifle is likely to heaver too, though, I guess.

Have you ever been in combat?

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't be so sure about that...12lbs is a **** ton of extra weight when you're already wearing a flak, Kevlar, assault pack, hydration source, sidearm too possibly. **** 12 extra pounds.

Something tells me he's never humped a ruck or seen the elephant.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess that means the Marine corps will get it in 30+ years. I can't WAIT! :/

- - - Updated - - -



Oof...why so much ammo? A-Gunner?

Basic combat load. 7 each 30 rounders....it was a type error.....210......not 270......6 in the molle one in the rifle.

 

[76Too]

Basic combat load. 7 each 30 rounders....it was a type error.....210......not 270......6 in the molle one in the rifle.

I was wondering if you were carrying somebody else's ammo

 

[Picton]

An extra 12 lbs for the additional firepower sounds like a good trade-off.

Guess again.

You're already hauling at least 100 lbs. You want to add 12% extra? Be my guest. If I'm hauling 12 extra pounds, it's all going to be water.

 

[whacko]

Guess again.

You're already hauling at least 100 lbs. You want to add 12% extra? Be my guest. If I'm hauling 12 extra pounds, it's all going to be water.

This guy's been in combat!

 

[oldguy68]

Instead of spending millions of dollars and god knows how long to get it fielded.
Why not just train more snipers or more marksmen and field more of them with longer range weapons..

Win, win situation for everyone!

And they could be deployed instantly with no new equipment!

Always blame the gear when you already have the better gear in inventory!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Have you ever been in combat?

Probably only in Call of Duty!

 

[Picton]

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I do know we already fought this battle, to the tune of millions of dollars, fifty years ago.

What I am sure is that I DO NOT want further millions, or more likely billions, on yet another weapons procurement program. The world is packed with battle rifles in 7.62 NATO, a lot of them designs proven in combat. No need to reinvent the wheel, even less need to gum up the NATO supply system with yet another "perfect" caliber.

Appropriate some money, buy a bunch of FALs or CETMEs or G3s from any one of a dozen allied countries changing over to 5.56, make sure you get some spare parts, and call it a day. There are millions of these guns out there already.

 

[Golddiggie]

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I do know we already fought this battle, to the tune of millions of dollars, fifty years ago.

What I am sure is that I DO NOT want further millions, or more likely billions, on yet another weapons procurement program. The world is packed with battle rifles in 7.62 NATO, a lot of them designs proven in combat. No need to reinvent the wheel, even less need to gum up the NATO supply system with yet another "perfect" caliber.

Appropriate some money, buy a bunch of FALs or CETMEs or G3s from any one of a dozen allied countries changing over to 5.56, make sure you get some spare parts, and call it a day. There are millions of these guns out there already.

Stop trying to use logic... This is the US Army (or military, or .gov) at play here.

 

[Varmint]

I wouldn't be so sure about that...12lbs is a **** ton of extra weight when you're already wearing a flak, Kevlar, assault pack, hydration source, sidearm too possibly. **** 12 extra pounds.

This guy will carry your ammo.

 

[crazymjb]

I was/am excited about cased telescopic ammo. Huge weight savings. 12lbs is a ****ing lot of weight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk