US Military Selects New Rifle and Ammunition

[Inline6]

I honestly don’t think this will go far. The technology is interesting however. I think it’s military use will be pretty specialized.
I bet there will be plenty of gas to operate the action at 80k PSI.

Gas port sizing will take care of that.

Is it a better mouse trap than what we have? I can't say, the one thing I know for sure. Our tax load is not going down and if our dollars are getting spent. Well personally why not give them the means to the best for our men and women keeping us safe.

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. Am I sold on the design of the case, no. I can see failure points. That said I want our warriors to have the best tools.

 

[lockingblock]

Battle rifles market well and are cool. They suck in reality. Ounces are pounds and pounds kill mobility.

We did this in Iraq with M14s…and learned to leave them behind.

Infantry is a 300m fight for small arms and a MG fight to 800 with HE from mortars and drones solving everything else.

The M4 does it fine.

 

[VertigoBE]

For the munitions/reloading/caliber experts here. Would it be possible to load .223 with current state of the art powders, heavier projectiles, etc. to obtain improved performance compared to Nato 5.56?

Giving more distance/less drop, more speed, more kinetic energy, better terminal effects, other bullet construction, etc.

 

[MarkB]

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

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Thanks for clarifying @Red Leg
I can really see this new round shining in belt fed applications. And I’m personally glad to see them looking at a full power rifle again.

 

[Scott CWO]

Battle rifles market well and are cool. They suck in reality. Ounces are pounds and pounds kill mobility.

We did this in Iraq with M14s…and learned to leave them behind.

Infantry is a 300m fight for small arms and a MG fight to 800 with HE from mortars and drones solving everything else.

The M4 does it fine.

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

 

[Red Leg]

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

The traditional battle rifle like a M14 or FN FAL has real drawbacks, nearly all of which can be lumped into the issue of weight. Such a rifle, however effective, is a pig to carry. Adequate ammunition for such a rifle compounds the issue.

The holy grail was a non-existent caliber that would hit like a battle rifle but could be contained in something like a M4. As others have noted bull pup designs have been tried - even fielded in the UK, but have real drawbacks. Until someone came up with the idea of containing the excess pressure in the cartridge case itself, that requirement seemed to defy physics.

 

[mdwest]

I think the initial low rate production buy is 29K. They will be used by selected units until a full rate production decision is made. 250K would arm every infantryman in the army.

Completely agree...

My only point was.. everyone believed the FN SCAR was going to be the next rifle for army 15 years ago... It brought a lot of the same things to the table that the Sig M5 does.. There was a belt fed variant that was going to replace the M249.. a heavy barrel variant that was going to act as a DDM rifle at the squad/platoon level.. a 308 "Heavy SCAR" that was going to be fielded as the "battle" rifle variant.. etc..

But, almost immediately after the initial low production purchase.. the Delta/CAG guys were asking for their M4's back before they ever even attempted to deploy with the SCAR.. the Ranger Regiment deployed with it a few times, but very quickly went back to their M4's.. SF toyed with them at the ODA level, but to my knowledge they never got fully integrated into any group.. The USAF seemed to build a pretty quick love affair with the SCAR, but dumped it quickly after the army began dumping it.. and the Navy from what I can tell never really gave the SCAR "light" any love at all (although they definitely have shown quite a bit of love for the SCAR "heavy")...

The SCAR made it into the acquisition system in 2004.. began getting fielded in early 2009.. but by mid 2010 SOCOM canceled the acquisition.. and any further discussion about the SCAR being fielded to the rest of the army was dumped.. By 2011 the SCAR's (Mk16.. the 556 "light" variant) were being formally removed from the inventory.. and by 2013 I think they were completely gone.. A handful of the Mk17's I think are still being used (the 308 "heavy" version).. but I believe most of those are in the Navy's inventory and for the most part still being deployed by the SEAL's in a similar fashion to how they have used the old M14's in the past..

My best guess is the Sig M5 will ultimately make it to the finish line and will become the next generation rifle for the army.. and will likely later be adopted by the USMC, Navy, USAF, etc.. to your earlier point, the army has been searching for a better solution for a very long time and just hasnt found what its been looking for prior... (until now?)

Im just not 100% convinced yet that this is truly their final decision after seeing how the acquisition process for the HK416, FN SCAR, or even how the acquisition process that led to the M17 pistol went down over the past 20+ years..

 

[mdwest]

The traditional battle rifle like a M14 or FN FAL has real drawbacks, nearly all of which can be lumped into the issue of weight. Such a rifle, however effective, is a pig to carry. Adequate ammunition for such a rifle compounds the issue.

The holy grail was a non-existent caliber that would hit like a battle rifle but could be contained in something like a M4. As others have noted bull pup designs have been tried - even fielded in the UK, but have real drawbacks. Until someone came up with the idea of containing the excess pressure in the cartridge case itself, that requirement seemed to defy physics.

100% spot on (not that I would expect anything @Red Leg would post regarding the US Army to be off the mark in any way )...

Humping up and down the mountains of Afghanistan with 100lbs of "light weight" gear is already a serious challenge... hell.. humping across the flat plains of parts of Africa with 100lbs of light weight gear on your back is a serious challenge..

The very last thing a soldier wants is another ounce of kit added to his back..

And while there have been a few bull pup designs that have seemed to perform well in combat conditions like the Styer Aug, and the IMI Tavor.. they are not without some significant drawbacks of their own... youre really just trading one set of problems for another when you look at a more traditional modular system like the M4 vs an Aug...

As to the brit SA80 bullpup, the french FAMAS, etc... HELL NO... I've had the displeasure of shooting both of these rifles.. I would have zero desire to ever deploy with one.. they arent even fun to shoot under range conditions..

 

[PerH]

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

 

[meigsbucks]

There are a few bullpup problems. One is they require linkages to operate the trigger that are less reliable and spongy. The bigger issue is no-reuse. The military has hundreds of millions in parts floating around. Stocks. Buffer tubes. Buffer springs. Bayonets. Pop up sights. Rail covers. Slings. Magazines.

Any rifle that can use some of the Colt m16 or M4 parts and accessories saves money, eases in theater supply chain and arsenal repairs, and ensures muscle memory for the soldier that has familiarity and training with some of these gun features already.

Although I agree with the muscle memory, parts interchangeability and the less than perfect trigger, I contend, since we’re designing a rifle for the future, go whole hog. This is basically just another M4 with upgrades to handle a higher intensity round.
I’ve never been in the military or LE, but if I’m clearing a building, I’d rather have a 28” rifle than a 36”.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Article from a naysayer.........

The Army’s NGSW program aimed for the wrong standards

A more reasonable analysis would have set the bar at penetrating Level 4 body armor at 100-200 meters, rather than 600 meters.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Alistair]

True. I wonder how they mitigate the heat from the suppressor? Mine gets so hot after 5 rounds of slow fire out of a bolt gun that I cannot see the target through the mirage it generates. Must be a way, I’d like to know what it is.

There's quite a good Forgotten Weapons video on this topic actually.

Some cool new moderator design that was submitted for MG trials I think with the Army as well.

3D printed, monolithic construction with forced air induction through the suppressor to keep temps 'reasonable'. Good for a sustained burst of 600 rounds of .223 at usual GPMG cycle rates without melting or getting stupid hot (a relative term as it's still hundreds of F by the end).

 

[Red Leg]

Article from a naysayer.........

The Army’s NGSW program aimed for the wrong standards

A more reasonable analysis would have set the bar at penetrating Level 4 body armor at 100-200 meters, rather than 600 meters.

www.defensenews.com

Typical non-conventional ground force “expert” opining what conventional infantry really need. And to think - all Army acquisition needed to do was dispense with 30 years of combat experience and hire him.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

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?

260 remington comes to mind

 

[mdwest]

Typical non-conventional ground force “expert” opining what conventional infantry really need. And to think - all Army acquisition needed to do was dispense with 30 years of combat experience and hire him.

To add fuel to this fire..

Dr. Orr is a very large brained and respectedTHINKER on Asymmetric Warfare..

Who never served a day in combat, much less the US Military…

IIRC he is a career academic, Aussie, who at times has been engaged by the USG for consideration on some things… but from what I know of him, most of his career has been spent pontificating US Military endeavors from an office at a couple of different universities in Australia and serving as a SME to the Aussie media when they want to understand something that US Military is doing…

Not exactly the guy whose opinion I’d value when it comes to selecting a weapons system for the US Army…

I’d much rather listen to a panel of HS educated E8’s that have spent the better part of the last 20 years fighting our nations wars, and the better part of the last 2 years trying their best to break and/or get weapons systems to fail under harsh conditions tell me why this is a good or bad move for the army…

 

[Rick Cox]

…and now you know what the conversations were like when the US Army went from muzzle loader to breach loader.

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...

 

[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"

 

[CoElkHunter]

Since I’m not an expert on anything militarily or much of anything else, I’m the perfect person to recommend this True Velocity proprietary cartridge to the military. Polycarbonate case results in much cooler rifle chambers at high cycling rate and higher pressures, much better accuracy than brass cases and probably much cheaper than a three piece brass/steel cartridge case? Sometimes it takes a “visionary” to look outside the box, so to speak? That isn’t me though! Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[rdog]

I wonder what the barrel life would be of such a cartridge ? BOB knows that some of the new transgender soldiers of our new modern army could not handle the recoil or ammo load of his 35 Whelen .