Posted on Apr 6, 2017
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO - Soldier Systems Daily
3.21K
23
10
6
6
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
Call me cynical, but after all the rigged and cancelled-in-midstream M-16/M-4 replacement competitions the Army has had, I doubt that the M-4 is going away anytime soon.
if the Army were serious about a better, more reliable battle rifle with a bigger round (7.62), while saving money, they would go with H&K 417 upper receivers. All the good stuff, with none of the bad stuff of the M-4, and a lot more reliable and sturdier.
But the Army likes to reinvent the wheel when it comes to weapon systems. So I won't hold my breath on this.
if the Army were serious about a better, more reliable battle rifle with a bigger round (7.62), while saving money, they would go with H&K 417 upper receivers. All the good stuff, with none of the bad stuff of the M-4, and a lot more reliable and sturdier.
But the Army likes to reinvent the wheel when it comes to weapon systems. So I won't hold my breath on this.
(5)
(0)
I have been saying that the 6.5 is the new "Crack" to the shooting world, even though it has been around far longer than the 7.62. It seems that every shooting forum stumbles over themselves for the "Wonder" round, 6.5mm! I will not take anything away from the round, it is very good, accurate in the right hands and less of a recoil. But, seriously, My 87 lbs Son stood up to the pounding from the 7.62x54, my .303 and .30-06 all in bolt action. As for the troops needing to be trained for marksmanship at longer distances, OK. There should be no problem training them to hit targets at 500m. I went through Counter Sniper course with the M16A1, hitting head size targets at 500m, back in 1983. As for weight, the firearm will weigh a little more and the ammo will add ounces per 20 rounds. I guess I am saying that the detractors of the 7.62, compared to the 5.56 and the 6.5 are insignificant. As for ballistic performance between the 7.62 and 6.5, they are veritably equal, especially at the ranges they will be predominately engaging the enemy.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Cayle Harris
oz become lbs...A combat load of 5.56 is around 5.5 lbs (not counting the magazines). The same number of 7.62 is over 11 lbs.
(1)
(0)
1SG(P) (Join to see) So if I read that correctly, I deduce that the main reason the U.S. is using the 5.56 over the 7.62 currently is the weight to round ratio? I would think that having a longer reach and more powerful round would be better than simply having more of them. It does the soldier no good to have 200 rounds of ammo if the enemy can hit them from distance before they have a chance to employ that ammo. Thanks for sharing this.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next