Help support TMP


"US Army Seeks a New Battle Rifle for Piercing Advanced " Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



743 hits since 8 Aug 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 4:13 p.m. PST

…Body Armor

Do you have a favorite??…

link

Amicalement
Armand

Lion in the Stars08 Aug 2017 8:30 p.m. PST

Well, the Russians have gone with a 9.3mm version of their classic SVD Dragunov for busting heavy body armor, but that's a specialty weapon.

As long as we're talking about a limited-production option, my most-likely winner would be something like the HK M110A1, issued one or two to every squad.

If this 'need' still exists after the LSAT rifles are rolled out, my money would be on a scaled-up LSAT (like the AR10 to the AR15), probably equivalent to a .338 Lapua.

Gaz004509 Aug 2017 5:42 a.m. PST

Meh…..just use a 40mm grenade, don't need to penetrate, just remove all the bits peeking out from behind the armour!

Personal logo brass1 Supporting Member of TMP09 Aug 2017 9:38 a.m. PST

Unless the 40mm grenade has been radically designed since the last time I used one, the bursting charge is about the size of the tip of your pinky and the fragments consist entirely of pieces of an over-designed and not very dependable fusing system. Given the very real possibility that a direct hit at close range wouldn't detonate, I think I'd rather have a rifle with decent armor-piercing capabilities.

Of course, I've been saying that since DoD inflicted that worthless piece of plastic and aluminum garbage on armed forces that deserved a weapon that actually worked.

LT

goragrad09 Aug 2017 3:08 p.m. PST

From the article it appears that they are looking for something better than the 5.56 at penetration that won't be too cumbersome and still allow the trooper to carry a 210 round ammo load.

Something for more general issue rather than a specialty limited issue weapon.

Seems to call for something in 7.62 to my mind, which at least appears to be the interim solution the Army is looking to.

PMC31710 Aug 2017 5:09 a.m. PST

FN-FAL modernised with lighter furniture? Effective at a longer range, capable of semi, burst and auto fire… proven in combat… cheap and readily available…

Ottoathome10 Aug 2017 7:53 a.m. PST

WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

Artillery is the big killer in modern war. I don't think you can make a bit of body armor proof against splinters from a 155mm shell. Stop trying to play the newspaper game of "fairness."
Deleted by Moderator

RTJEBADIA10 Aug 2017 7:35 p.m. PST

What isn't so clear to me is how this is really distinguished from having a designated marksman with an M14 in every fireteam… is it seeking a potential replacement, seeking to increase the density of weapons with similar capabilities, or?

PMC31717 Aug 2017 6:53 a.m. PST

Read an interesting paper arguing that the next generation of military small arms will use a general purpose round between 6 and 6.8mm with some form of advanced cartridge technology – telescoped polymer or telescoped caseless rounds – to reduce further the weight carried by soldiers. Not sure about its effectiveness re level IV body armour but then again that is, I guess, what machine guns, 40mm grenades and support weapons are for.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.