Army Interim Combat Service Rifle RFP releases.

[SomeOtherGuy]

There does seem to be a base problem with PK type and PKM's that out reach past our M240's, among a few other things. We don't have the base that supersedes them range, or in any capacity/quantity or a non high capacity precision that meets this for use the same that applies that towards us for one for aa offense role at least.
Sure, some will mention things like .338 Lapua, but they are are a limited few compared to what we face.

If long range is an issue, why are the GPMGs still shooting a 150gr FMJ with a .400 (G1) BC? There are literally dozens of .308 diameter bullets with much higher ballistic coefficients, and there is a military legal opinion that open tip match is permissible for warfare, not in violation of the Hague Convention. The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored targets.

I don't know of any COTS option for >1000 yards effective range on armored targets, but it would seem possible to take the high-BC shapes of OTM bullets and adapt one for a steel or tungsten core bullet.

[vicious_cb]

If long range is an issue, why are the GPMGs still shooting a 150gr FMJ with a .400 (G1) BC? There are literally dozens of .308 diameter bullets with much higher ballistic coefficients, and there is a military legal opinion that open tip match is permissible for warfare, not in violation of the Hague Convention. The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored targets.

I don't know of any COTS option for >1000 yards effective range on armored targets, but it would seem possible to take the high-BC shapes of OTM bullets and adapt one for a steel or tungsten core bullet.

Read the requirement and Gen. Milleys statements. It about putting holes in uber armor at CQB ranges...

[tom12.7]

That's overly basic. From all the noise I've heard, the interim concept was intended to eventually lead to more than just armor penetration. Extending effective range has always been in the noise among a few other things. If putting holes in some newer armor close up was the only issue, then we already know that there isn't a "need" for change to a different platform.
I do question some of the requirements though, but I see it more of a wish list. If they try to follow this like the CSASS, I wouldn't be surprised when they run into issues.

[Coal Dragger]

Here's an even better idea:

Take all the money they propose to spend on 50,000 new rifles, and instead put Geissele SSF triggers, and free floating Geissele rails on all the M4's issued to combat arms units. Then take the left over money, and give those units more funds to actually get their boys out to shoot. Between improving mechanical accuracy potential, improving shootability, and improving shooter skill I'll bet the results would be pretty positive.

[tom12.7]

There's more than something to say about that. When we decided to not pursue us as being the highest lethal force, we ended up changing course, slowly at first, then taking tangents and worse. I really think that we should redirect our ideas more towards going back to the concept of being the highest lethal force, without being PC and requiring sizable projects into unknowns that possibly divert us from that without a proof of concept in some way. There's a lot of things we could mention about that

[BrigandTwoFour]

Here's an even better idea:

Take all the money they propose to spend on 50,000 new rifles, and instead put Geissele SSF triggers, and free floating Geissele rails on all the M4's issued to combat arms units. Then take the left over money, and give those units more funds to actually get their boys out to shoot. Between improving mechanical accuracy potential, improving shootability, and improving shooter skill I'll bet the results would be pretty positive.

If my recent experience is any indicator, it's not lack of funds that keeps people from getting out to shoot. It's a lack of time due to other stupid priorities.

[vicious_cb]

That's overly basic. From all the noise I've heard, the interim concept was intended to eventually lead to more than just armor penetration. Extending effective range has always been in the noise among a few other things. If putting holes in some newer armor close up was the only issue, then we already know that there isn't a "need" for change to a different platform.
I do question some of the requirements though, but I see it more of a wish list. If they try to follow this like the CSASS, I wouldn't be surprised when they run into issues.

You're not wrong, Im sure the word "overmatch" was thrown around quite a bit in those briefings. Combine that with some new threat armor that fell of the back off a truck somewhere why wouldnt that sell to the DoD?

There's more than something to say about that. When we decided to not pursue us as being the highest lethal force, we ended up changing course, slowly at first, then taking tangents and worse. I really think that we should redirect our ideas more towards going back to the concept of being the highest lethal force, without being PC and requiring sizable projects into unknowns that possibly divert us from that without a proof of concept in some way. There's a lot of things we could mention about that

Fortunately for us rifles dont win wars so we have some leeway in screwups like this.

[Coal Dragger]

If my recent experience is any indicator, it's not lack of funds that keeps people from getting out to shoot. It's a lack of time due to other stupid priorities.

You're spot on about that too.

[sinlessorrow]

Fortunately for us rifles dont win wars so we have some leeway in screwups like this.

It can however get a lot of people killed though.

Imagine a Wanat or Keating, tet offensive, ect where your only gun is a 7.62 battle rifle.

I imagine going black on 7.62 would be a very major concern.

But hey, what's a bunch of soldiers lives anyways? Generals gotta make a name for himself in the history books.

[FlyingHunter]

The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored target

I've been shooting Hornady ELDx Precision Hunter, a 178r 308 with a BC of .535. Remarkably accurate in my long range rig.