Army to Gunmakers: Show Us a New 7.62mm Service Rifle

Thomas D'Arcy McGee

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Army to Gunmakers: Show Us a New 7.62mm Service Rifle

Military.com | 2 Jun 2017 | by Matthew Cox


U.S. Army weapons officials have launched a survey to see what gunmakers can offer for an off-the-shelf 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle.

The May 31 request for information, known in acquisition parlance as an RFI, on behalf of Product Manager Individual Weapons, is an attempt to "identify sources for a combat rifle system" and determine the potential cost and lead time to deliver up to 10,000 weapon systems, according to the document.

The request comes in the wake of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers Congress last week that the M4 Carbine's current 5.56mm round can't penetrate modern enemy body armor plates and that he's considering arming infantry units with rifles chambered for a more potent 7.62mm cartridge.

"The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered," according to the document, which specifies that the caliber must be 7.62x51mm.

Milley told Senate Armed Services Committee members May 25 that Army officials at the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning in Georgia, have developed a new 7.62mm round capable of penetrating enemy body armor plates similar to U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.

Milley told lawmakers the Army might not require a new rifle since weapons can be chambered for various calibers. The M4, however, would require a new barrel, bolt carrier group, and buffer system in addition to a new lower receiver to shoot 7.62mm ammo, experts maintain.

Milley also told lawmakers that not every soldier will need a 7.62mm rifle -- that they could be issued to those infantry units most likely to deploy on contingency operations and engage in close combat.

The Army would want an Interim Combat Service Rifle to have either 16-inch or 20-inch barrels, a collapsible buttstock, an extended forward rail, and a detachable magazine of at least 20 rounds, the RFI states. The rifle should weigh less than 12 pounds unloaded and without an optic.

Interested companies have until 3 p.m. June 6 to submit their responses to the RFI.

"The information provided may be used by the Army in developing its Acquisition Strategy, Performance Work Statement and Performance Specification," according the document. "This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any services or hardware."

In June 2013, the Army ended a five-year effort to replace the M4 with an Improved Carbine. Instead, the service decided to replace the standard M4 with the M4A1, as a result of its M4 Product Improvement Program.

The M4A1 is the special operations version of the weapon that's been in use for more than a decade. It features a heavier barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army's decision to dump the current three-round burst trigger will give shooters a more consistent trigger pull and lead to better accuracy, weapons officials maintain.

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.
 
I find it funny how we ended up with the terrible M855 round as a direct result of NATO standards stipulating a service round needs to penetrate a Steel WWII Us M1 style helmet at 800 meters or whatever stupidity they demanded to make it an "acceptable" battle round. The design of the 855 projo/cartridge made it deemed "more humane" compared to the older 55gr M193. The 55gr projo weight and very high velocity out of the 20" barrels leading to high probability of fragmentation up to 225 meters of distance leading to exceptional internal shredding/wounding. It worked. It worked very well. Just didn't penetrate a steel helmet at almost twice the distance of the effective range of the weapon or something......
Ridiculous single minded and narrow requirements on ammunition performance is what saddled us with the garbage M855 round all these years and now we're doing it again but just in a bigger cartridge?
I just hope that armour/penetration is not the only single minded aspect they're looking to on this one "upgrade".....

Also a little irony considering Obama was trying to ban the M855 cartridges being sold to the public as surplus because they were "armour piercing"! HAHAHAHA
 
I would like to see the adoption of the Paratroop FN FAL's ala South American Anti Narco squads.
The FAL 50.61 :rockOn:
It's already there, just take it; TAKE IT!!!

I don't think it would be overly complicated to make a FAL with folding and telescoping stock, shorter barrel, rails in logical/useful locations and NOT the sh*tty ELCAN scope our boys use
 
This and the new handgun for the Army is just a case of the new president and ole mad dog making good on campaign promises. Stimulating the economy at the same time. I hope it creates a huge surplus of cheap 5.56!!
 
I don't think it would be overly complicated to make a FAL with folding and telescoping stock, shorter barrel, rails in logical/useful locations and NOT the sh*tty ELCAN scope our boys use

Aye, the 50.61 version of the FAL is already exactly that.
There is also a specific OSW special operations force variant with a shorter barrel and rail for optics but the name escapes me at the moment.
 
I find it funny how we ended up with the terrible M855 round as a direct result of NATO standards stipulating a service round needs to penetrate a Steel WWII Us M1 style helmet at 800 meters or whatever stupidity they demanded to make it an "acceptable" battle round. The design of the 855 projo/cartridge made it deemed "more humane" compared to the older 55gr M193. The 55gr projo weight and very high velocity out of the 20" barrels leading to high probability of fragmentation up to 225 meters of distance leading to exceptional internal shredding/wounding. It worked. It worked very well. Just didn't penetrate a steel helmet at almost twice the distance of the effective range of the weapon or something......
Ridiculous single minded and narrow requirements on ammunition performance is what saddled us with the garbage M855 round all these years and now we're doing it again but just in a bigger cartridge?
I just hope that armour/penetration is not the only single minded aspect they're looking to on this one "upgrade".....

Also a little irony considering Obama was trying to ban the M855 cartridges being sold to the public as surplus because they were "armour piercing"! HAHAHAHA

It's at 600 meters, but there's an increasing use of body armor by conventional armies so the requirement for penetration is even greater than before. The problem with m855 is that it uses a copper core (because 'eco friendly', I'm not kidding) with a mild steel tip inside the jacket (about 10gr) and it doesn't fragment the same way lead does. Our C77 ammo uses a steel tip as well but the core is lead. The other problem is 'guerilla soldiers', or 'terrorist', like the insurgent in the middle doesn't use body armor so the round goes trought and trought delivering little energy in the targets.
 
Aye, the 50.61 version of the FAL is already exactly that.
There is also a specific OSW special operations force variant with a shorter barrel and rail for optics but the name escapes me at the moment.

Perhaps you're thinking about DSA SA58 series 13 and 16 inch folders; i've lusted after their Fals for years

PjmOAIO.jpg
 
Last edited:
That FAL is magnificent! Just needs the 30 rd mags . I am waiting to see if we will have a tavor 7 for civilian consumtion
 
Back
Top Bottom