Ammo For Sale

« « Seen on the internet | Home | Well played » »

The Army Wants a Bigger Bullet

military.com:

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.

Queue up the people who use the phrase “poodle shooter”

14 Responses to “The Army Wants a Bigger Bullet”

  1. Paul Koning Says:

    I understand there’s a company in Russia that has been making 7.62 combat rifles for half a century now, with excellent results… 🙂

  2. Tirno Says:

    .300 AAC Blackout with integrally suppressed uppers for the M-16? Lots of win, less blammo, re-use of existing M-4 lowers and magazines, same mag capacity, minimal retraining.

    Unfortunately, not enough opportunities for graft.

  3. HL Says:

    Uh, didn’t we already do this? FN SCAR 17?

  4. mikee Says:

    here’s betting that the use of “poodle shooter” will correlate strongly with the use of “M-14” in the same sentence, or at least the same paragraph.

  5. Lyle Says:

    Well it looks like they’re already dialed in on the 7.62mm NATO (though they only just keep saying “7.62”), so apparently it’s all about a new rifle.

    There are the FAL types, and the M14 they’re already using in small numbers (after making it into a shit heavy pig), and of course the AR-10 types.

    The old, W.W. II 30-06 with black tip (AP) bullets would carry a nice punch, but that’d be another cartridge in the inventory.

    There are probably better caliber choices for the combination of velocity and sectional density, like 7mm, or one of the many 30 Magnums, but again; inventory. Most high school age, deer or elk hunters in the American backwaters carry something as potent, or more potent, as a penetrator, than the 7.62 NATO with its medium weight bullet, but don’t tell anyone.

    Stoner probably had the right idea, with his AR-10, to begin with. Stick a special penetrator round in it, and apply one of the newer controlled burn powders behind it to up the velocity slightly without increasing pressure, and you’ve got something. The article doesn’t talk about any tweak of the ammo though, just a new launch mechanism for the (existing?) 7.62.

  6. Deaf Smith Says:

    But are they gonna try to stuff that 7.62 bullet in a AR-15 platform??

    I mean, really they need a whole new rifle to do this.

  7. Scott in Phx Says:

    you mean they finally figured out after 60+ years that the world’s most “awesomest” rifle EVAH shoots an INTERMEDIATE powered cartridge?

    I do have 4 of them myself, but it is not what I’m going to pick up when SHTF.

  8. James Says:

    I knew if I waited long enough this whole caliber thing would go full circle and my FAL would be favorable once again.

  9. Alien Says:

    I guess it’s too much to hope for that they’d take a ballistic shortcut and wind up with 6.5 Creedmoor so that – eventually – those of us who find the cartridge quite suitable benefit from oodles and oodles of cheap ammo (personally, I’d hanker for the 26 Nosler, but couldn’t afford the necessary supply of barrels). Just like foregoing the 5.56 for “something thirty” it would provide the necessary excuse for developing a brand new projectile expeller for it, with all the junkets, whiskey drinking, loose womyns and back slapping such activity entails (never mind that it fits quite well inside the AR-10 platform, of which there are many examples, nearly all of which would benefit from the same mil-spec treatment and Further Development the AR-15 got, and even uses many of the AR-15’s parts and accessories).

  10. aerodawg Says:

    Methinks this is a roundabout politically acceptable way to ditch the AR platform and the inherent limitations of it’s magwell. Perform the competition to get the new rifle, do the initial 50k procurement, then say oh well there’s this new cartridge (possible CTA) in 6.5-6.8mm that’s waaaay better, call the original rifles DMRs and purchase the rest in the new caliber.

  11. Will Says:

    Isn’t the Marines or Army using a version of the Knights SR-25 in NATO 7.62 for sniper assistant/observer duty?

    There you go. Just add a few more zeros to the next purchase order.

  12. Jonathan Says:

    “I guess its too much to hope for that theyd take a ballistic shortcut and wind up with 6.5 Creedmoor”

    Here’s to hoping.

  13. Armageddon Rex Says:

    I suppose 6.5 Grendel with a bullet including a steel penetrator is out of the question? It’s much lighter than full on 7.62×51 and is ballistically more effective at long range. Then we could stick with M-16

  14. Armageddon Rex Says:

    I suppose 6.5 Grendel with a bullet including a steel penetrator is out of the question? It’s much lighter than full on 7.62×51 and is ballistically more effective at long range. Then we could stick with the M-16 and save tons of taxpayer money.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives