Survivalist Forum banner

U.S. Army will receive 100K NGSW weapons systems for replacing M4 and M249

15K views 100 replies 24 participants last post by  mefunkymxw 
#1 ·
Earlier this month, we reported that Textron Systems' AAI Corporation delivered its Next Generation Squad Weapon-Technology (NGSW-T) prototype demonstrator to the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center and Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP). A new report from Defense Blog shows the Army will purchase approximately 100,000 units of the next-generation weapon that fires 6.8-millimeter ammunition.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/army-orders-100000-next-generation-rifles-amid-threats-war
https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-a...eapons-systems-for-replacing-m4-and-m249.html



Hmmm and In 6.8mm no less.....:cool:
 
#2 ·
.

It just delivered the prototype & they are ordering 100K more? I bet something was lost in translation. If they test it out & like it, they will tell the company all the changes they want made (usually to ruin any good weapon) then they MIGHT order 100K of those. They might also ask for it in 5.56 or 7.62 since of course we do whatever the euroNATO countries tell us to & they haven't told us we could have 6.8mm yet.

.
 
#3 ·
Recently It seems that the US military has been lagging technology wise with China and Russia, I suspect the decisions been made to upgrade the infantry with 6.8mm inorder to take on either one or both on two fronts. Seriously though the only way to beat both is through economic strength not a third world war.
 
#4 ·
#9 ·
6.5G and 6.8SPC are both "meh" because they were designed to fit within the constraints of the AR-15 which is pretty much already stretched to its limits.. designing a new weapon to go with a new caliber is the best way to go, but with all the M4s and other 5.56 weapons the military has, i do not see them standardizing something that those weapons cannot be converted to any time soon.. this will just be another story that wont go anywhere

Wait long enough and history repeats it self.
Chamber the new guns in 276 pedersen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
it kind of makes you wonder if .276 pedersen was chosen for the garand as it was designed for, where military cartridges would be today with their goldilocks approach to military calibers
 
#18 ·
This new caliber is what happens when you put Pentagon officers in charge of proposing firepower instead of the Quantico brain trust of warrant gunners and master gunnery sergeants.
 
#41 ·
is the AR/M4 even part of this development? it seems like after the 6.8SPC failed, only providing mild improvements over 77 grain 5.56, a lot of that was because of the limitations of the rifle it was made for, meaning the only way to get the kind of improvements they were looking for is to design a new weapon to go with the new cartridge, rather than trying to force it into something existing.. which would be the best way to do it, of course
 
This post has been deleted
#57 ·
The military is stuck with the m16 m4 family and the 556 for a long time. The cost and retooling and training would be in the billions. Then what would you get. A marginally better round.
I disagree on the retooling costs.
 
#54 ·
im not sure, i cant find much information on it, i just know its not a 6.8SPC that people on another thread are convinced of and uses this story to justify their choice

if anyone has any specs or details on the cartridge they are actually using, i'd be quite interested

a quit read states the company make the ammo is building upon 15 years of experience making ammo like this



interesting stuff indeed.. you could get a much shorter action with better ballistics, and the round itself looks a heck of a lot more durable too

if you look at this illustration you can see that the metal block in the end of the cartridge is a separate piece, so the body of the cartridge could be made out of typical case materials.. the block to support the bullet is pressed in the end, and prevented from going forward, likely by the chamber blocking it.. that means from a reloader standpoint, there might be the option of making your own brass components out of existing rifle brass, buy or make the end pieces which would appear removable and reusable for the sake of reloads, so its not a technology that will be exclusive to military.. and once specs are available to it, i cant imagine you wont see the aftermarket develop around it



my only question is what about extraction?.. it would seem that a new rifle using this technology would have to grab the front of the cartridge, which seems 100% doable, and extract it from the front, that notch up front might be some kind of an extractor groove
 
#55 ·
i am interested to see military actually test this type of ammunition.. i see a few benefits to it.. first benefit, the simplicity of the brass.. no shoulders, the brass should last longer because its basically straight walled

another benefit i see to this type of ammunition.. storage, durability, not have to worry about damaging tips of soft point ammunition

third advantage.. its easily third party / civilian doable if the concept itself can be battle proven, and worth the effort to develop the cartridge and rifles for civilian use
 
#56 ·
There's no doubt in my mind the Army isn't already testing this in the AMU labs over at the Benning School for Boys. Probably a regurgitation of the 1960s SPIW round development that was shelved due to the escalation of the conflict in Vietnam.
 
#61 ·
The 6.5 was one of two, but was not chosen for continued development. The 6.8 chosen was the .277 USA briefly mentioned in that article. Once the AMU testing settled on a cartridge, the performance data was given to the NGSW competitors to develop their own rounds that match the .277’s specs. They must develop a new cartridge and also the weapons to fire it. The winning weapon will determine the cartridge adopted (assuming the army follows through).
 
#62 ·


The Story So Far


So the likely candidate is a derivative of the Textron LSAT that has been in testing and development for some time. The original prototype was tested in a 5.56 caliber in both caseless and cased telescope versions.

https://youtu.be/qL6pPsEJ6GA

The caseless version, can't really dissipate the heat from the gun like a brass cartridge case can and that was its Achilles Heel. The polymer cased-telescoped round, on the other hand actually reduced the transfer of heat from the cartridge case to the gun, making the gun run cooler than a brass cased round.

The prototype weapons weighed just under 10 pounds empty, around the same as an 8 shot M-1 Garand Rifle. The current M249 SAW weighs just under 18 pounds empty.

Same Dumb Army - Courtney Massengale (Rant)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_an_Eagle

So the same Army that takes decades to select a new handgun and also wanted to go backwards and issue everyone a 7.62x51 rifle, al la the M-14 disaster, now wants to take a prototype proven weapon system and increase the caliber, for no operational reason.

These people don't understand that they are basically starting over, in the weapons development when you up the caliber. Therefore using REMF Logic, order the guns; 100,000 of them, before the prototype is even been evaluated. That way the program has "momentum" and can't be cancelled, like "too big to fail" and the career Army program managers get promoted and moved to better positions before the program fails, etc.

The Real Issue

As of today, nothing under 50 BMG can reliably penetrate Level IV body armor at range. This includes the Russian GOST Class 6a Armor system, being issued today. Level IV armor is designed to survive hits from 30-06 M2 (AP) Armor Piercing Ammunition.

30-06 M2 AP ammunition travels at around 2,800 FPS. The projectile is a manganese-molybdenum penetrating core inside of a copper jacket with lead filler for a total projectile weight of about 165 grains. The core has a hardness of 785 on the Vickers scale.



The 5.56x45 M995 AP Round fired from less than 100 yards will penetrate Level IV body armor. This round has a tungsten core and was developed specifically to penetrate the armor of the Soviet BRDM-2 armored vehicle.

The 7.62x51 M993 AP round was developed at the same time and was also able to penetrate the BRDM-2 vehicle. However, the distance required to ensure armor penetration is not publicly available, but it is undoubtedly "too close for comfort".

Both rounds are usually found in belt fed weapons only and not issued to riflemen.

Strategically, Tungsten is used to make machine tools only in time of war and top 3 largest producers may not be willing to sell us additional supplies, making its use in ammunition non-viable:

China. Mine production: 79,000 Metric Tons
Vietnam. Mine production: 7,200 Metric Tons
Russia. Mine production: 3,100 Metric Tons

Real Solutions


What rifle you go to war with doesn't determine the outcome of the conflict. Many factors do come into play to create victory or defeat. The side with the best stuff, doesn't always win.

That being said, it is always desirable to have better guns than the enemy. Not only is it good for morale, it might mean that you have to spend less money on body bags, etc. Having a Combat Rifle/SAW system that can reliably penetrate enemy armor and cause causalities is very desirable.

Armor penetration is a factor of velocity, bullet construction. The diameter of a projectile should be the smallest possible for a given bullet weight and velocity.

As of today; the highest rifle velocities achieved commercially, is around 5,000 FPS in competition. Obviously, this is out of a custom bolt action, that likely has low barrel life, but it illustrates what is technically possible.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2015/08/5000-fps-with-22br-improved-and-30gr-berger-bullets/

As a reference, the 120mm main gun on the Abrams Tank fired a 6 pound, 26mm diameter depleted Uranium Sabot at around 6,000 FPS. The newer rounds have been upped to 18 pounds+ with velocity falling to only (?) 5,100 FPS. Obviously what a 7,300 lb cannon can achieve is going to be different than what can be expected out of a 6 or 7 pound infantry carbine.



Reality Check

Going up in Rifle/SAW caliber is a mistake, as the velocity needed to have equivalent armor penetration will need to be higher, if everything else is equal. Using a SABOT is not practical in a rifle, as the accuracy is seriously degraded. Tanks can get away with using SABOT's as their principal targets are other (really big) tanks.

Although the 6.8 SPC II saw some limited issue, it wasn't widely adopted as it really didn't provide any war winning performance compared to 5.56x45. Although the 6.8 SPC II bested the old Soviet 7.62x39, it wasn't superior to the current issue 5.56 round.

Projectiles that strike the body at 2,200 FPS and higher produce damage to human tissue from the creation of a temporary wound cavity, as well as the permanent wound cavity caused by the path of the projectile. At a striking velocity of 2,200 FPS and above the body is unable to recover from the stretch of the temporary cavity. This damage is significant and can cause permanent disruption to organs, and body tissue not impacted by the projectile.

In contrast, the human body does not take damage from the effects of the temporary cavity produced by pistol rounds, as the body's elasticity is able to recover at these lower velocities.

Based on the 2,200 fps rule, 5.56x45 is able to deliver maximum trauma up to around 300 yards. The 6.8 SPC II falls to 2,200 FPS at around 200 yards, quite a significant difference, especially when you consider that in the past, combat usually occurs at around 250 yards or less, even though general issuance of magnified optics can push this figure out to 400 yards, when terrain allows.

Therefore a 6.8 caliber Rifle/SAW combination is a failure from the get go. Only by increasing the velocity, size, recoil and cartridge weight can a 6.8 diameter round hope to equal the armor penetration capability and wounding potential of a 5.56 diameter rifle bullet.

Another Way?




A path that might yield greater success against armor would be a return to a light 55 grain projectile fired from longer 20" barrels, rather than the current 14.5" M4 barrel. Depending on the ammo fired, the longer barrel will have additional performance against unarmored and armored personal with measurable increases seen from 60 to 200 yards, compared to the shorter barrel M4. This is no small thing.

A new 55 grain bullet, matching the outside dimensions of the M855, but with the penetrator and general construction of the M855A1 may be the way to go. Such a round could generate higher velocity, lower chamber pressure and increased terminal performance and be able to be retrofitted to the existing stock of weapons cheaply, until truly better solutions are available.

The proven belt fed LSAT 5.56 prototype could be fielded with the same improved projectile, in the lighter cased telescoped format. Obviously, the ammunition would not be compatible with the existing service rifles, but that could be solved once a new rifle was fielded to replace the M4/M16 rifles currently in service.
 
#63 ·
Earlier this month, we reported that Textron Systems' AAI Corporation delivered its Next Generation Squad Weapon-Technology (NGSW-T) prototype demonstrator to the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center and Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP). A new report from Defense Blog shows the Army will purchase approximately 100,000 units of the next-generation weapon that fires 6.8-millimeter ammunition.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/army-orders-100000-next-generation-rifles-amid-threats-war

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-a...eapons-systems-for-replacing-m4-and-m249.html







Hmmm and In 6.8mm no less.....:cool:
Interesting.

Can someone school me Textron? Not familiar with their weapons systems.

Also, who coined the term "close combat force" in that article? [emoji23] that corny term/acronym didn't exist when I was in, in 09.

And what do people think of the move to 6.8mm?

And lastly, will / are these available for civilian purchase? As a veteran, I must keep up with what our troops use.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
 
#64 ·
If Big Army and the rest of the services are going to get off the 5.56mm cartridge then they need to get off the platform itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ForgedInTheFlame
#65 ·
ive been saying that for years.. the AR-15 is currently stretched to its limit with 5.56, its why 6.8SPC and 6.5G are only marginally better on a round per round basis generally with some downsides as well.. if someone wants something bigger, they'll need to put it in a bigger rifle
 
#67 ·
FN Unveils MK48 Machine Gun in 6.5 Creedmoor
Nice! A platform designed for the parent cartridge combined with a very capable cartridge.

Now, let's see if FN releases a SCAR 6.5C variant.
 
#69 ·
considering most 5.56 rifles are around the 7.5 pound mark (scar, bren, aug, tavor, etc) and an 18" AR-10 is right at 8lbs.. i wonder how much bigger and heavier they intend to make a new cartridge and rifle, and if the difference between it and an AR-10 itself will be enough to justify it, or if one looking for a step up from 5.56 just wouldnt be better off with an AR-10, perhaps in a cartridge like 6.5CM which loaded up with lighter bullets will have better range and accuracy than even the heavy 5.56 rounds, but still be pretty light on recoil, especially with modern compensators
 
#70 ·
considering most 5.56 rifles are around the 7.5 pound mark (scar, bren, aug, tavor, etc) and an 18" AR-10 is right at 8lbs.. i wonder how much bigger and heavier they intend to make a new cartridge and rifle......
Specs for the SCAR series on the FN website. Switching the barrel on the 17 from 7.62 to 6.5C will be negligible. Ideal bullet weight for those of us who shoot 6.5 caliber guns seems to be in the 140gr range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hick Industries
#71 ·
Perhaps the US Army will end up in a good place.

If they end up adopting the 6.5cm (or similar) as their new small arms rifle cartridge, they could use it for long range battle, short range CQC, full auto SAW, and anti personel snipers. They would still field the 50 bmg for anti material, and for very long range snipers.

I am still waited to see the bullet development catch up. One day the US will face a modern opponent, that can afford to equip their soilders with night vision and advanced body armor. On that day our guys need better gear than we have right now.
 
#77 ·
APPEARS TO BE "ON HOLD"

https://taskandpurpose.com/army-next-generation-rifle-round

Another difference: Army officials plan to issue these new weapons only to soldiers in infantry and other close-combat units, instead of trying to convince Congress to buy enough to equip more than one million active-duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers.

Despite the energy behind the effort, the future of the NGSW is still uncertain. Congress did not grant approval for the Army to start the program in fiscal 2019, Potts said.

"We did not get approval to ... start a combat rifle program, next gen squad automatic rifle program in 2019," he said, adding that the Army hopes to officially start the program in 2020.

"Perhaps Congress reconsiders allowing us to start this year. If not, we start next year and that will drive the timelines," Potts said.




40mm Cannon

It should be noted that BAE Systems has a 40mm Cased Telescoped round that is in production for Armored Fighting Vehicles.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cased-telescoped-ammunition

The Reason?

Still no clear reason as to the "Why" we need a 6.8 over a 6.5 or a 5.56 round. Although the Army cites "increased lethality" as a benefit, they also claim the round is more accurate and has longer effective range the the M4 300 meter qualifying range.

Zero justification for the additional recoil, projectile weight and zero discussion of the terminal performance in flesh or against armor or the point blank range in comparison to the current 5.56x45 round.

The Army is saying it is "better" and lighter than the 7.62x51 round.

Since the Army's own labs developed the projectile and cartridge, they appear to be married to it, as its their baby and they won't be able to objectively evaluate their own creation compare to alternatives, etc.

Zero discussion of the performance against current armor threats, etc.

Fighting the Last War

Since World War I and likely before, the average infantry engagement distance has been around 250 yards or less. Optics have been able to increase target identification for the foot soldier out to around 400 yards.

In Afghanistan, sometimes, troops would be engaged by PKM 7.62x54r Belt Fed Machine Guns at 600 yards or more. The enemy would do this to either pin units in-place while they either left the battlefield or maneuvered to flank allied positions. When facing Afghani government units, many times those inexperienced troops would waste their ammo firing blind and literally run out, making them an easy kill.

NATO units would either use designated marksmen rifles in 7.62x51 or 50 BMG to suppress the PKM fire and/or use mortars/artillery/air support, etc. The fielding of the M-14/M110/SCAR Heavy and the British purchase of LMT AR-10's was an effort to provide an organic response to long range fire at the platoon level.

It appears that some Army general, maybe the same one who wished to issue everyone a 7.62x51 battle rifles, may be behind this new "wiz-bang" round.

https://taskandpurpose.com/army-interim-combat-service-rifle

Afghanistan is Afghanistan and for the Germans in WW2, Crete was Crete. Both featured long range rifle fire and both were exceptions and not the rule.

Iraq didn't see these issues as the terrain was more urban and tall mountainous terrain wasn't a factor.



The Next War

No one knows what the next war will look like, except that it never looks like the last war.

Adopting a long range projectile that will better kill tribesmen clad in man- jammies is a dubious goal. The hit probability of infantry firing shoulder weapons at 600 yards is very, very low.

What is certain is the current and expanding use of body armor in conflicts, with all 1st rate and 2nd rate powers already using armor universally or for elite troops.

As armor prices continue to plummet, adoption will increase. The 6.8 round being considered, appears to be a step backwards, where generals envision long range rifle engagements of unarmored targets as the rule.

Lighter weight projectiles at higher velocities, made from a combination of penetrating and fragmenting materials seems to be the way forward.

No weapon can do everything well. However individual infantry weapons need to kill and incapacitate armored and unarmored targets at zero to 250 yards and be able to score hits on targets out to 500 to 600 yards.
 
#79 ·
It appears that some Army general, maybe the same one who wished to issue everyone a 7.62x51 battle rifles, may be behind this new "wiz-bang" round.
At first, had I not followed up on the links, I would have thought that Gen. Milley was taking advice from Gen. Scales. But, seeing as how Milley spent the majority of his career in the infantry, he's probably more in tune with small arms than Scales is.

I still find it difficult to fathom a belief that infantry tactics by modern armies are reverting back to WWI. It's been noted the Taliban are opening up at extended ranges to keep the troops pinned down while they withdraw. Spray and pray still has its advantages.

The question then becomes one of fielding a new round that has better ballistics over the current issue rifle / carbine. What happens when the opposing force reaches parity? Do we develop yet another round to defeat their armor? I personally don't know what the right answer is. I do know, after watching the Army dawdle around for close to 30 years now, that a better mouse trap probably isn't coming anytime soon.
 
#80 ·
thats what i like about 5.56.. the high velocity round is pretty flat shooting and easy to hit at distance.. the 75-77 grain stuff arcs more due to its lower velocity but is more accurate at longer distances and hits harder.. and when somethings up close?.. 55 grain out of a 20" barrel, the same kind of rifle you may use to engage targets at distance, will go through a level III steel plate... most people debating the issue, overthinking caliber choices, or whining about 5.56 in general just never realize or understand its potential as a good all-arounder
 
#83 ·
As I recall, you dont actually own an AR in 5.56. I bought mine in 1991, and used it extensively for several yrs, till I traded up for my first Ruger mini. Yet you continue to argue terminal ballistics with those of us that have owned and used them.

The 55g grain flat out sucks at long range. Thats the truth. Folks who hunt game with military fmj ammo in 5.56 should be flogged. If 64g and 75g expanding bullets had been available in the mid 90s, i might have kept it, but I got rid of mine after watching coyotes run off after getting hit.

My advise is to stick with a rifle in 7.62x39 and shoot good expanding bullets.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top