NGSW.... DMRs in future obsolete? - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2019, 08:36 PM
manimal87 manimal87 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
Default NGSW.... DMRs in future obsolete?



Advertise Here

Hey guys... Iam new to this forum and have a question.... Back in 2018 the US army searching with the NGSW Program for a replacment for the M4 and m249. At this time the NGSW Programm consisted of three weapons... A DMR... A m4 replacement and a m249 replacement in calibre 6.8. By the latest articles they seemed to ditch the DMR and just quoted about a new 6.8 assault rifle (m4 replacement) and a new 6.8 SAW (m249 replacement). So WILL DMRs be obsolete in future because they stated the new assault rifle will reach out to 600meters. And with that reach they don't need a DMR anymore? Or could be a DMR based on the new rifle design still be in the cards?

BTW. Some articles mentioned the 6.5 creedmore as an intermediate cartridge. But some say it's a full power round. What is true... Intermediate or full power?


Thanks guys 🙂
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to manimal87 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 09:33 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,277
Thanks: 17,712
Thanked 34,778 Times in 9,746 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manimal87 View Post
Hey guys... Iam new to this forum and have a question.... Back in 2018 the US army searching with the NGSW Program for a replacment for the M4 and m249. At this time the NGSW Programm consisted of three weapons... A DMR... A m4 replacement and a m249 replacement in calibre 6.8. By the latest articles they seemed to ditch the DMR and just quoted about a new 6.8 assault rifle (m4 replacement) and a new 6.8 SAW (m249 replacement). So WILL DMRs be obsolete in future because they stated the new assault rifle will reach out to 600meters. And with that reach they don't need a DMR anymore? Or could be a DMR based on the new rifle design still be in the cards?

BTW. Some articles mentioned the 6.5 creedmore as an intermediate cartridge. But some say it's a full power round. What is true... Intermediate or full power?


Thanks guys 🙂
I have not seem a lot of logic and reason used by the US Military when making weapon development decisions. The US Army is the least logical, but not alone acting stupid.

That said, I dont expect them to declare the DMR obsolete. More likely, they will develop an AR style rifle in 6.5 Creedmore as their anti personell DMR/Sniper weapon, and keep the 50 Cal Barrett as their Big Stick. This would imply actually retiring the M14 for one last time.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 10:05 PM
Disturbed70 Disturbed70 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,947
Thanks: 1,526
Thanked 3,496 Times in 1,366 Posts
Default

6.8 was going to replace back in 2003 or so. Then it was 6.5. There have been a couple others. The military is constantly kicking around new stuff. All while buying large quantities of variations of current stuff.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Disturbed70 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 10:08 PM
manimal87 manimal87 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Is the 6.5 creedmore an intermediate or full power cartridge?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to manimal87 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 10:53 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,121
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 23,778 Times in 5,866 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manimal87 View Post
Is the 6.5 creedmore an intermediate or full power cartridge?
I would call it full power since the parent case is the .308. Others may call it intermediate.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 11:15 PM
masiaka masiaka is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alabama
Posts: 476
Thanks: 421
Thanked 323 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manimal87 View Post
Is the 6.5 creedmore an intermediate or full power cartridge?
It's both. The 6.5 Creedmoor is ballistically similar to older WWII era rounds like 6.5x55mm and has a similar overall weight to 7.62x51mm. The guns that fire 6.5 Creedmoor are the same size and weight as those that fire 7.62 NATO. Definitely full power. It's also less powerful than 7.62 NATO and has less recoil, with a shorter case like .280 British or .276 Pedersen. Definitely intermediate between 7.62 NATO and pistol calibers.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to masiaka For This Useful Post:
Old 07-29-2019, 01:37 AM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Nationalist, Combat Vet
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Florida Panhandle
Age: 33
Posts: 11,996
Thanks: 17,004
Thanked 46,366 Times in 9,720 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_HighCountry View Post
I would call it full power since the parent case is the .308. Others may call it intermediate.
I agree. If the parent is a .308 then I donít call it intermediate. Thatís just me. I would not want a Creedmore in an AR platform. A 6.8SPC? Sure.
__________________
Read my content at www.FreeAmericanNational.blogspot.com and www.AmericanPartisan.org.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JBryan314 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-29-2019, 03:48 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,353 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

Most of the people on this forum will be dead of old age by the time the military adopts a new standard issue caliber.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2019, 02:16 PM
Chuckleberry's Avatar
Chuckleberry Chuckleberry is offline
Limited Tolerance Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NoDak
Posts: 3,411
Thanks: 5,200
Thanked 8,066 Times in 2,598 Posts
Default

`

NGSW – MARS Inc and Cobalt Kinetics
`
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chuckleberry For This Useful Post:
Old 09-04-2019, 03:49 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,121
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 23,778 Times in 5,866 Posts
Default

Sig, Tek, and GD were also selected for the short list of firms to provide test weapons and ammo.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 09-04-2019, 09:59 PM
Comcamguy Comcamguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 51
Thanks: 3
Thanked 65 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBryan314 View Post
I agree. If the parent is a .308 then I donít call it intermediate. Thatís just me. I would not want a Creedmore in an AR platform. A 6.8SPC? Sure.
6.8 is best at close or medium range, 300-400 meters. 6.5 creedmore outperforms it and 308 across the board from 185 yards on outward. Shoots softer, goes farther more accurately, and after 160 yards has more ft lbs of energy than 308. 308 is about out of gas at 1000, 6.5 Creedmore carries on effectively 300+ yards before going sub sonic. It also has twice the energy at 1000 yards. US Special Operations Command testes show double the accuracy at 1000 yards. Twice the accuracy, double the energy over 308 at distance.

6.8 doesn’t even come into the picture. It’s more in the realm of 300 blackout
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Comcamguy For This Useful Post:
Old 09-04-2019, 10:39 PM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Nationalist, Combat Vet
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Florida Panhandle
Age: 33
Posts: 11,996
Thanks: 17,004
Thanked 46,366 Times in 9,720 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comcamguy View Post
6.8 is best at close or medium range, 300-400 meters. 6.5 creedmore outperforms it and 308 across the board from 185 yards on outward. Shoots softer, goes farther more accurately, and after 160 yards has more ft lbs of energy than 308. 308 is about out of gas at 1000, 6.5 Creedmore carries on effectively 300+ yards before going sub sonic. It also has twice the energy at 1000 yards. US Special Operations Command testes show double the accuracy at 1000 yards. Twice the accuracy, double the energy over 308 at distance.

6.8 doesnít even come into the picture. Itís more in the realm of 300 blackout
Ok.

I still refer to a .308 parent case as a ďfull powerĒ round.
__________________
Read my content at www.FreeAmericanNational.blogspot.com and www.AmericanPartisan.org.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to JBryan314 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 10:10 AM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 382
Thanks: 226
Thanked 604 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
I have not seem a lot of logic and reason used by the US Military when making weapon development decisions. The US Army is the least logical, but not alone acting stupid.

That said, I dont expect them to declare the DMR obsolete. More likely, they will develop an AR style rifle in 6.5 Creedmore as their anti personell DMR/Sniper weapon, and keep the 50 Cal Barrett as their Big Stick. This would imply actually retiring the M14 for one last time.
Creedmoor is capable, no doubt. However, it was designed as a competition round and will always be a competition round first. Compared to 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel it has definitely encountered some headaches with feeding issues in ARs (though I've had my own issues with grendel as well).

Grendel and SPC were also designed from the ground-up to be used as battle cartridges. The big draw to Creedmore is for long range shooters, and that's because it holds it's velocity well past the 800m point.

However, for a cartridge to be used as a DMR one should be chiefly concerned with it's terminal ballistics in that 300ish range. Maybe out to 600m. Engagements beyond that for the typical soldier is somewhat unrealistic.

Grendel can perform beautifully out of a 12" or a 24" barrel. SPC very similarly. At room clearing distances or trying to plant a round at 400m, both have enough ass and velocity behind them to complete the intended job, and that's to eliminated two legged longpig. Creedmoor was designed to punch holes in paper. Make no mistake, creedmoor can absolutely do the job, but I do wonder if ones designed for the task aren't better suited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manimal87 View Post
Is the 6.5 creedmore an intermediate or full power cartridge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by masiaka View Post
It's both. The 6.5 Creedmoor is ballistically similar to older WWII era rounds like 6.5x55mm and has a similar overall weight to 7.62x51mm. The guns that fire 6.5 Creedmoor are the same size and weight as those that fire 7.62 NATO. Definitely full power. It's also less powerful than 7.62 NATO and has less recoil, with a shorter case like .280 British or .276 Pedersen. Definitely intermediate between 7.62 NATO and pistol calibers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBryan314 View Post
I agree. If the parent is a .308 then I don’t call it intermediate. That’s just me. I would not want a Creedmore in an AR platform. A 6.8SPC? Sure.
Hornady, the designers of the round, call it a "precision intermediate caliber," themselves. They're pros in ballistics and ammo, I'm inclined to go with their call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comcamguy View Post
6.8 is best at close or medium range, 300-400 meters. 6.5 creedmore outperforms it and 308 across the board from 185 yards on outward. Shoots softer, goes farther more accurately, and after 160 yards has more ft lbs of energy than 308. 308 is about out of gas at 1000, 6.5 Creedmore carries on effectively 300+ yards before going sub sonic. It also has twice the energy at 1000 yards. US Special Operations Command testes show double the accuracy at 1000 yards. Twice the accuracy, double the energy over 308 at distance.

6.8 doesn’t even come into the picture. It’s more in the realm of 300 blackout
In modern combat, 200m is a long range engagement.

Special operations is a whole other barrel of fish. The NGSW is about standard issue rifles for regular troops. That, I'd argue, should be the frame of the conversation.

Also, I assume you're talking about some of the supersonic 300BO hunting rounds out there? The big draw to 300BO is that it is superbly suited for short barrels and suppressors. It completes it's powder burn in something like 9" of barrel travel and is a super quiet cartridge for being a 30cal. Subsonic rounds have a punch to them similar to a 45 ACP is the account from most places I've looked up.

6.8 SPC smokes 300BO in terms of ballistics over distance.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/6-...latform-rifle/

And that was for a 115gr 300BO, which is about as light and quick as you can get it! That 6.8 SPC tested was closer to what you'd expect a military load to be.

SPC and BO are two different tools for two different jobs, imo. They're not quite apples and oranges, but maybe plums and pears.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 12:58 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,121
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 23,778 Times in 5,866 Posts
Default

I should consider sharing this thread with the designers of the 6.5 Creedmoor round. Since I know both of them personally am sure both would get a chuckle out of the ignorance of some of the responses.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 03:40 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 382
Thanks: 226
Thanked 604 Times in 259 Posts
Default

FWIW my thoughts are that the NGSW isn't looking far enough forward. Caseless telescoped ammo is much lighter and a but quieter. If we're going to sink all this cash into a new weapon set for a new cartridge, let's take a bold step forward and future-proof ourselves.

With all the gear the boys are shouldering these days, any bit of weight reduction is very welcome.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 06:00 PM
Chuckleberry's Avatar
Chuckleberry Chuckleberry is offline
Limited Tolerance Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NoDak
Posts: 3,411
Thanks: 5,200
Thanked 8,066 Times in 2,598 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodka Wizard View Post
FWIW my thoughts are that the NGSW isn't looking far enough forward. Caseless telescoped ammo is much lighter and a but quieter. If we're going to sink all this cash into a new weapon set for a new cartridge, let's take a bold step forward and future-proof ourselves.

With all the gear the boys are shouldering these days, any bit of weight reduction is very welcome.
`

They've been saying that caseless ammo was going to take over the world since at least when the Tround first came out. One of many problems that face that ammo is that it's usually susceptible to getting ruined by various POL's that brass cased ammo generally shrugs off. The military isn't going to suddenly convert to an entirely new ammo & weapon platform that hasn't been thoroughly tested & even then stuff often ends up having problems once it gets in the hands of combat arms MOS's. Maybe some company should release a civilian version & if works well & proves itself to be resilient to various environments & conditions, then maybe the military will take another serious look at it.

.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chuckleberry For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 06:55 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 382
Thanks: 226
Thanked 604 Times in 259 Posts
Default

The military should quit doing tail-chasing weapons tests to use up all their budget is the real solution.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 09:32 PM
Comcamguy Comcamguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 51
Thanks: 3
Thanked 65 Times in 29 Posts
Default

6.8 was an early darling for spec ops who pushed for its adoption. These same forces , after adding 15+ years of medium and long range warfare needs in small arms are pushing for 6.5 creedmore. They have the funds for the complete golf bag. Good reach, high accuracy, good power at the medium and far end. If there is a need for shots over 200 meters, creedmore has the advantage.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2019, 11:43 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,121
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 23,778 Times in 5,866 Posts
Default

An acquaintance in Mesa has designed a 6.5 wildcat round which he is calling the 6.5 Kurz. Parent case is .308 and it is cut down to 1.60 inches when finished. Ballistics of the test data he shared with me look similar to 6.5 Grendel.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2019, 11:51 AM
Herd Sniper Herd Sniper is offline
American fearmaker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,098
Thanks: 17,296
Thanked 27,320 Times in 8,796 Posts
Default

What we need to do is go with the 6.5 Grendel as our main rifle round and light machinegun round. We can also use it as a squad sniper round or DM round. Once we have selected the 6.5 G as our bullet of choice, we can then go and design a pistol that uses the 6.5 G bullet too for pistols and submachineguns as well. The plan is simple: One caliber or type of bullet that can be used in all sorts of firearms. The only difference will be in two different cartridge lengths. Imagine how that simplifies your logistics for ammo.

One bullet, 2 cartridges and you can also stop worrying about a whole lot of different magazines too. This using the 2 cartridges would mean 2 or maybe 3 types of magazines for your ammo to use. So let's add it all up...

Pistol mags for the pistols. Rifle magazines for the rifles. SMG mags for the submachineguns. We could have the machineguns use the rifle magazines and belt-fed ammo if needed. So a machinegunner could have a starter ammo supply of say a 30, 40 or 50 round magazine or drum to use at first contact. Once the shooting gets going, the gunner switches to larger drums or maybe even belt-fed ammo. Sniper or DM rifles would use the same mags and ammo as the regular infantry only have better optics for long range shooting day or night conditions. Yeah, I think that it could work...
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Herd Sniper For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net