SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    US Army moving to 7.62??
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
US Army moving to 7.62?? Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by smithnsig:
It's a knee jerk reaction to a new body armor that the Russians have supposedly developed.

on the bright side, that would be a lot of 556 to sell off.

Won't happen for a while though.


5.56 and the M4 are not going anywhere. No one is selling off 5.56. The Army actually cut its rifle ammo purchases awhile back because ammo was not being used.

Getting ranges and time in the training calendar are the biggest limiting factor.

There are so many training mandates on units it would take 400 days to complete all the mandatory" training for the year.
 
Posts: 528 | Location: Texas | Registered: March 25, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Let's be careful
out there
posted Hide Post
My Secret Squirell buddy says it is happening, and it will be an entirely different cartridge and projectile
 
Posts: 7334 | Location: NW OHIO | Registered: May 29, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LtJL:
My Secret Squirell buddy says it is happening, and it will be an entirely different cartridge and projectile


Polymer cases in .260 Remington from the in-the-know-deep-operator I heard from.


GW.
 
Posts: 642 | Location: Auburn, AL | Registered: August 24, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ed308
posted Hide Post
I would think the .260 would be high on the list. But from what I've read, the .264 smokes all of them.
 
Posts: 605 | Location: DFW Area | Registered: January 12, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
SOCOM is testing .260 Remington And 6.5 Creedmoor as COTS (commercial off the shelf) purchase sniper rifle rounds, not as battle rifle or M4/5.56 replacements.

In the long term, the Army / AMU is testing and developing the .264 USA and .277 USA as potential replacements for both 5.56 and 7.62x51. This is not a short term solution. They are at least 5-10 years out.

Both of these programs are parallel to the 7.62 interim rifle program, not instead of.
 
Posts: 528 | Location: Texas | Registered: March 25, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HCM:
In the long term, the Army / AMU is testing and developing the .264 USA and .277 USA as potential replacements.


Catchy names. Wink

It's interesting to see the whole 6.5mm-7mm development thing come full circle.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 7141 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
Cancelled.

~7 weeks from announcement to cancellation.

From http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...m-cancelled-icsr-no/

quote:
Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED – ICSR is No More

The US Army’s program to field a new standard-issue 7.62mm caliber rifle is dead in the water, it seems. Multiple anonymous sources have informed TFB that the Interim Combat Service Rifle program has been cancelled as part of a massive review of US Army small arms programs. The program was officially announced on August 4th, and lasted just over a month before its cancellation.

Few specifics about the cancellation have been revealed, but TFB’s sources cited the lack of a pressing threat necessitating the change, poorly written requirements, little or no support from the ranks, and no backing holistic DOTMLPF assessment. If these reflections are accurate, then it indicate that ICSR may have been a poorly-constructed program driven by the preferences of the brass and not the needs of the actual soldier.

The cancellation of ICSR does not necessarily mean the end of the 7.62mm rifle effort, but any future programs of this type are likely to be organized in a more limited and conservative manner. It does seem likely that there will eventually be a new program for a 7.62mm or 6.5mm/.260 designated marksman rifle, which may offer the option for “assault” or “rifle” configurations in addition to a baseline squad marksman variant. However, for now, it seems that the effort to field a 7.62mm individual weapon en masse has ended, stillborn.
 
Posts: 33291 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Shocking
 
Posts: 109725 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
The original .280 British, as fielded in the outstanding bullpup EM2 in the late 1940's would have solved ALL these little arguments. The LMG/support weapon version was even better.

tac
 
Posts: 11473 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Doin' what I can
with what I got
Picture of Rob Decker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Cancelled.

~7 weeks from announcement to cancellation.

From http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...m-cancelled-icsr-no/

quote:
Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED – ICSR is No More

The US Army’s program to field a new standard-issue 7.62mm caliber rifle is dead in the water, it seems. Multiple anonymous sources have informed TFB that the Interim Combat Service Rifle program has been cancelled as part of a massive review of US Army small arms programs. The program was officially announced on August 4th, and lasted just over a month before its cancellation.

Few specifics about the cancellation have been revealed, but TFB’s sources cited the lack of a pressing threat necessitating the change, poorly written requirements, little or no support from the ranks, and no backing holistic DOTMLPF assessment. If these reflections are accurate, then it indicate that ICSR may have been a poorly-constructed program driven by the preferences of the brass and not the needs of the actual soldier.

The cancellation of ICSR does not necessarily mean the end of the 7.62mm rifle effort, but any future programs of this type are likely to be organized in a more limited and conservative manner. It does seem likely that there will eventually be a new program for a 7.62mm or 6.5mm/.260 designated marksman rifle, which may offer the option for “assault” or “rifle” configurations in addition to a baseline squad marksman variant. However, for now, it seems that the effort to field a 7.62mm individual weapon en masse has ended, stillborn.


Applause! Applause! Applause!


----------------------------------------
Death smiles at us all. Be sure you smile back.
 
Posts: 5544 | Location: Greater Nashville, TN | Registered: May 11, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
The original .280 British, as fielded in the outstanding bullpup EM2 in the late 1940's would have solved ALL these little arguments. The LMG/support weapon version was even better.

Although the .280 British may have solved some of the arguments, it's unlikely that it would have solved all of them.

Given the:
- variety of weapons systems and their functional goals,
- physical constraints of ammo using brass cases, nitrocellulose-based powders, and lead/copper alloy bullets,
- physical limitations of the troops who carry and operate the various weapon systems,
- politics of choosing weapons systems, both among various countries and within a given country,
I doubt any single chambering will considered optimal for all rifle systems.

Furthermore, even in the remote chance that a single rifle chambering becomes academically accepted as optimal, I doubt that it would be universally deployed.
 
Posts: 8071 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ed308
posted Hide Post
This article has a slightly different take on why is was canceled. To me, the interim rifle never made much sense if they were planning to switch to a new caliber in the future.

http://www.popularmechanics.co...replacement-is-dead/
 
Posts: 605 | Location: DFW Area | Registered: January 12, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    US Army moving to 7.62??

© SIGforum 2024