04-05-2017, 04:45 PM
Quote:According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like theyre in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.
Quote:Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, Ill keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.
Its important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Armys end goal. The Interim component of this capabilitys name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesnt plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. Thats why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with whats available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected. Additionally, the transition to this proposed intermediate caliber cartridge is possible from a 7.62 platform. Such a transition is all-but-impossible with the current 5.56 receiver sets.
More of article here:
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-...tle-rifle/

