US Military Selects New Rifle and Ammunition

[Kalthoff]

What is the weight of the SIG XM5, of the SIG XM250 and of a single 6,8x51 cartridge?

Actual numbers is needed to do comparisons like: "weight of rifle plus 100 rounds in magazines" across the calibers and weapons.

The various articles online are surprisingly silent on the actual weight.

 

[blacktimber]

This is so silly, just go with the 6.5 Grendel and be done with it.

I wonder what is happening with the 6.8 spc.

 

[Jfet]

I've read that the biggest hesitation in moving from breech loader to bolt action was that there was a concern that the army would expend too many bullets...

I have read the same thing. However, after some of the discussions on this thread about reducing weight for the individual soldier, this may have been a concern, too back in the day. If they can load faster, and fire faster, how does the individual soldier carry the extra ammunition? How do you supply the extra ammunition? Did they have enough wagons to carry the extra ammunition? Did they have enough mules to pull the extra wagons? Did they have enough shoes for the extra mules? Did they have enough farriers to put the extra shoes on?

When one looks at it from that point of view, you begin to understand why they were concerned about expending too many bullets.

Thinking way to much this Sunday Morning

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

If anyone has hunted with a 223, then stepped up to a 6.5, 260, 7mm08 or 308. They probably noticed a dramatic difference. That difference is more dramatic at distance.

That reminds me of in the id 80's shooting woodchucks with my M98 heavy barrel .22-250. This was way before affordable pocket sized laser range finders. Anyway, woodchucks, groundhogs are rodents, i.e. large rats. They are survivors. When I would hit a chuck with a 52 gr BTHP at 300 to 400 yards I would see the chuck lying motionless with limp body hugging the ground. After walking over to admire my kill and drop into in its hole, sometimes I would find a large blood stain at the kill site and a wet, bloody trail where the chuck crawled into the safety of its hole. Sometimes the trail was 20 yards long! Enter a Ruger M77V in 25-06. I no longer had the escaped 400 yard rodent problem. Nope, only chucks that had lost a quarter or more of their body weight out of the exit hole.

If we think of this regarding cape buffalo, a .375 will do the job. A .416 or larger will do a better job if range and point of impact are the same.

If fire support ("You, this is Me, over. Troops in the open. Give me all you got at this grid coordinate) is not available and Soldiers or Marines need to put rounds on a distant target, bigger is often better. The "bigger" projectiles with their lager cases and powder charges, add up when humping miles. Recoil is another factor. It is never conducive to accuracy.

 

[mdwest]

What is the weight of the SIG XM5, of the SIG XM250 and of a single 6,8x51 cartridge?

Actual numbers is needed to do comparisons like: "weight of rifle plus 100 rounds in magazines" across the calibers and weapons.

The various articles online are surprisingly silent on the actual weight.

Combat load for the M4 is 300 rounds (10 magazines) for most units…

Some carry more ammo than that..

I typically carried 13 mags whenever I went outside the wire, regardless of the weapons platform (did the same when carrying an AK.. and that truly sucked).. plus had a few more stuffed in a bail out bag if we were moving by vehicle somewhere…

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

The Defense Systems Acquisition Process, regulated by the US Constitution, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and DoD 5000 Series exponentially compounds the process of selecting, procuring, and providing life cycle support to any and all defense systems.

To keep this short, let’s focus on the US Constitution;
Article I, Section 8 states (paragraph 12), “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; …

Try entering into contracts with companies that are funded for no more than two years at a time. With no guarantee of long-term funding, those defense contractors must develop large assembly lines, procure large quantities of “piece parts”, hire and train skilled labor and managers, undergo countless inspections to ensure every technicality of the FAR, DoD 5000, Federal and state EPA, and so on are adhered to. All this prior to receiving any payments. If you even wonder why US defense systems cost so much, this is part of it.

The next is to ensure the defense system is designed to and meets both the functional (performance) requirements, and the technical specifications. The old adage “you can’t please everyone translates to “get the most performance and quantity possible, in the time (schedule) you have to spend the funding”.

Finally, let’s not forget that after the Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), and Procurement phases, there is life cycle sustainment of the defense system. Sustainment includes 90% of the entire costs of a system.

Funding for all of this is stated line by line in the Congressional budget, which usually are not approved until long after the start of each new fiscal year on 1 October.

If one thinks the above is an easy process, just remember our continual debate on the merits of controlled round feed vs push feed, or the effective performance of the 458 Winchester. Hmmm….

 

[roverandbrew]

Afghanistan longer range fighting would call for a battle rifle? M4 not the best application for mountains and open terrain?

I served / fought in Afghanistan almost every year from the war beginning to the war ending. Most of my M4 work was 0-200 meters. Beyond that you have belt feds, mortars, designated marksman, and CAS. I liked the M4. That same M4 was carried in many other countries and environments across the world with no issue. There is no perfect battle rifle. I think the M4 is pretty damn good. One rifle has to engage targets 0-500ish meters, capable of easily mounting and dismounting optics, can be placed in a vehicle/helicopter/boat for infiltration, jumpable for air operations, loose enough tolerances to go over the beach wet and sandy, easily maintained in the field (jungle-deset-cold weather), light enough round to not burden the soldier with a basic load, easily gauged and components replaced after deployments. Barrel life must support the train up and deployment. Old OEF workups used to be at times 1000 rounds a day for flat range work prior to rolling into CQB. The round must be sufficient enough to kill the enemy yet not be to large to slow down well aimed follow ups. Lots of requirements. "Afghanistan" is a huge country with varied terrain...... 0-50 meter gun fight in the Helmand River Valley agricultural areas or 200-300 meter shots clearing mountainous terrain in Nangahar. No one rifle is "great" for Afghanistan or anywhere.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I am liking the idea of this new round so far. My big concern is the high pressure, and the chances of the case separating from the case head.
I think if it were me I would have a conventional case with a <60,000 PSI pressure, and suffered the velocity loss. I would think the 80,000 PSI will be very hard on the barrels throat.
Either way I am glad to see them considering something bigger than the 5.56.

 

[Red Leg]

The Defense Systems Acquisition Process, regulated by the US Constitution, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and DoD 5000 Series exponentially compounds the process of selecting, procuring, and providing life cycle support to any and all defense systems.

To keep this short, let’s focus on the US Constitution;
Article I, Section 8 states (paragraph 12), “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; …

Try entering into contracts with companies that are funded for no more than two years at a time. With no guarantee of long-term funding, those defense contractors must develop large assembly lines, procure large quantities of “piece parts”, hire and train skilled labor and managers, undergo countless inspections to ensure every technicality of the FAR, DoD 5000, Federal and state EPA, and so on are adhered to. All this prior to receiving any payments. If you even wonder why US defense systems cost so much, this is part of it.

The next is to ensure the defense system is designed to and meets both the functional (performance) requirements, and the technical specifications. The old adage “you can’t please everyone translates to “get the most performance and quantity possible, in the time (schedule) you have to spend the funding”.

Finally, let’s not forget that after the Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), and Procurement phases, there is life cycle sustainment of the defense system. Sustainment includes 90% of the entire costs of a system.

Funding for all of this is stated line by line in the Congressional budget, which usually are not approved until long after the start of each new fiscal year on 1 October.

If one thinks the above is an easy process, just remember our continual debate on the merits of controlled round feed vs push feed, or the effective performance of the 458 Winchester. Hmmm….

Let me throw in the biggest complication from the developer’s perspective. My old CRAM program is a good subject case. The initial requirement was to mate a warning system to a counter-battery radar to provide warning of incoming artillery/rockets/mortars to fixed base camps. My team won the competitive acquisition. Before the first system was fielded, we were asked to further refine the system to only warn the specific area (rather than a whole base) about to be hit. No problem, back to the drawing board and back to contract negotiations. We began fielding those systems, and then we were queried whether it was possible to actually intercept the incoming munition. Back to the drawing board, enter the 20mm Vulcan as the kill system, and renegotiate. By the time I retired, the procurement was in its tenth year and we were about to demo intercept with a laser. And this was a relatively small 500 mil procurement. Imagine the design and requirement changes that occur in trying to build a F35 or B2. Everyone loves to blame the contractor for cost overruns or delays, but the real culprit is requirement evolution - something that happens at an ever accelerating pace.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Before the first system was fielded, we were asked to further refine the system to

Scope creep, often complemented by "paralysis by analysis"...

There comes a time in every project to shoot the engineer and get into production!

 

[mdwest]

Everyone loves to blame the contractor for cost overruns or delays, but the real culprit is requirement evolution - something that happens at an ever accelerating pace.

^^^ this ^^^ +10000000

When you consider the wright brothers first flight.. and the moon landing were literally only 2 generations apart.. and that there were people alive on this planet that believed that man flying would never be a real possibility.. before they died, they were able to actually watch the moon landing on TV (something else they never dreamed would exist in 1903)...

think about how much even a small technological development or improvement has the potential change the capabilities and/or the requirements of a weapons system during the course of a procurement cycle.. or how many different developments or requirements might happen during that procurement cycle..

 

[Rick Cox]

I hunted a few years and times with a 17 lb 7.62x51 FN, it was a joy hunting with the then new 8 lb kitted, 5.56, C7/8. It was again a joy disposing of the Browning 9mm as sidearm and being issued the Sig P225. I may have shed a tear when we had the burial and return of our MP5's. Change and progression are a dam good thing for military's and a required expense.

As @Red Leg states it is good to see updated equipment going to those who need it. You guys move forward on KIT at a much faster rate than us. Our dictator would prefer sending free birth control to 3rd world countries than meet our NATO commitment dollars or %.

MB

The second I read the line about "Our dictator would prefer sending free birth control to 3rd world countries than meet our NATO commitment dollars or %." I said to myself "Whaaat? Has to be a fellow Cannuck"

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

From Wikipedia: “The cartridge (.277 Fury) uses the same case length and diameter as the .308”. Reinventing the wheel? Maybe just neck down the .308 and save a few billion dollars?

@CoElkHunter
That would be like stepping out of a V8 into a horse and buggy.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Weapon size is the issue. We have done a lot of urban combat over the last couple of decades. We will do even more in the future (that whole exploding population thing). It is why the M4 has become standard rather than rifle length options. This solves battle rifle velocity needs in a M4 package. Pretty awesome.

With respect to cartridge production, I assume it is indeed more complicated. But like most things, once in production, costs plummet. Like most military developments, I would assume there also will be a growing civilian demand further increasing the production base.

@Red Leg
As combat gets more urbanised and up close and personal do we really need all that velocity.
At one stage they were looking at the 6.8 (.277) SPC as a replacement for the 5.6. Surly more than enough power compared to the 5.6 and enough bullet weight and velocity to get the job done in urban conflict. Fits the standard AR platform and lighter weight cartridges than the fury
I just don't see the logic in the 6.8 fury. Then again army intelligence are two words that shouldn't be used in the same sentence .
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Bob @Bob Nelson 35Whelen could! LOL

@CoElkHunter
Imagine what I could get out of the Whelen loaded to those pressures.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

A 16 inch barrel and 80,000 psi might cause hearing loss issues to friend and foe alike. Photo of this new weapon appears to show a can on the end of the barrel, which makes sense except for the added length and weight. There's no free lunch in the ballistic world.

Waiting for @Bob Nelson 35Whelen to chime in on how the 35 Whelen should have been selected

View attachment 463331

@375 Ruger Fan
You is a silly sausage. The Whelen is a hunting cartridge not for warfare use.
I may like the Whelen but am also a practical one as well.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Scope creep, often complemented by "paralysis by analysis"...

There comes a time in every project to shoot the engineer and get into production!

+1! Other than an experimental three piece cartridge case at 80,000psi, I don't see much here that's high tech? Choose three cartridges and their weapon platforms from different manufacturers and test them. Pick one and manufacture it! The P51 Mustang program from initial design to the prototype took 102 DAYS! I know it's comparing apples to oranges or Bob's @Bob Nelson 35Whelen .243s to his .35 Whelens', but get on with it! LOL

 

[Roller]

+1! Other than an experimental three piece cartridge case at 80,000psi, I don't see much here that's high tech? Choose three cartridges and their weapon platforms from different manufacturers and test them. Pick one and manufacture it! The P51 Mustang program from initial design to the prototype took 102 DAYS! I know it's comparing apples to oranges or Bob's @Bob Nelson 35Whelen .243s to his .35 Whelens', but get on with it! LOL

Exactly . Everyone should read the book “Skunkworks” by Ben Rich to have a better understanding of how weapon system R&D and Acquisition occurred prior to being bureaucratized to the hilt . Truly amazing what this country was once capable of doing.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

@375 Ruger Fan
You is a silly sausage. The Whelen is a hunting cartridge not for warfare use.
I may like the Whelen but am also a practical one as well.

358 win is the obvious military choice.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Second ,270 adopted for millitary now, the first was the 6.8x57 Chinese ca 1907.

@PerH
Another re invention of the wheel.
Everything old is new again
Ha ha ha ha ha
Bob