NGSW Rifle (M4 Replacement)

Moose said:
TomS said:
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
It's a beast. Chamber pressure is dramatically higher than 7.62 NATO (80,000 psi vs ~60,000 psi). It's going to be an absolute handful to shoot well.
Click to expand...
Good stopping power though. More ftlbs than a 7.62mm.
Click to expand...

But not enough to achieve the stated goal of penetrating advanced body armor at long range.

The idea that 5.56mm somehow lacks "stopping power' is a myth. What it lacks (to some degree) is penetration at long range when fired from subcompact carbine barrels. This is a problem solvable by better bullet design, longer barrels, and improved propellants. All things that could be done without afflicting soldiers with dramatically heavier rifles, smaller ammo loads, and massive recoil forces.

The most transformational feature of NGSW is the the fire control module, which could be installed on M-16s tomorrow and achieve about 80% of the improved combat effectiveness of the NGSW-R overnight. Everything else is a return to the fantasy that the average riflemen can or should engage individual targets with small arms at ranges in excess of 600 meters. The false notion that the war in Afghanistan could have been won if only we could have shot back at those Afghan "snipers"* with our infantry rifles.

* In reality, mostly spray-and-pray harassing fire by PKM light machineguns.
Click to expand...
To say nothing of the fact that the weight penalty of the SiG weapon will also make it harder for individual soldiers to carry recon drones, loitering munitions, or ATGMSs at precisely the same time all three of those are proving their worth in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
...and shoot back at those drones from unstable positions.
No matter how i look at it, SiG choice seems to be really badly timed.
 
Just caught up with this topic. It was discussed on TankNet and it seemed the general consensus was that the targeting optics were novel and useful but that the caliber change was unnecessary because the majority of a soldiers body is unarmored anyway. That would be my opinion anyway; piercing armor seems like an unnecessary goal if the result is reduced ammo load, much higher chamber pressure, and non standardized caliber. Someone else stated that just issuing the targeting computer/optics would get you 80% of the lethality; I'm of that opinion. As a DMR or improved LMG I could see the allure but it seems like a pricey fix for a non issue.
 
IMHO they should have gone with a 16 or 16.5 inch barrel which would could have allowed for the chamber pressure to be somewhat lower while achieving the same performance. They wanted excellent long range performance out of NGSW but refused to allow the overall length *with suppressor attached* to be longer than the M4. A rather ridiculous requirement because if you want this thing to be able to take down a hostile at 800 meters you ought to accept it isn't going to be as compact as the M4. The LMG seems very promising but supposedly it has no quick change barrel? That seems like a questionable choice to shave off minimal weight.

How much of a problem is the higher chamber pressure if the parts can take it? The Army seemed satisfied with what the Sig weapon achieved in that regard.

Minor complaints but Sig really went overboard with the amount of holes in the handguard on these, there is no need for it to look like Swiss cheese, you just need enough for attachment points. Also I don't see why coyote/desert tan is still the color of choice despite supposedly shifting away from campaigns in the sandbox.

Even if everything goes as planned I still foresee need for a carbine in a lighter caliber to be a more direct successor to the M4. Maybe something that offers a modest improvement over 5.56mm NATO with the same general parameters (low recoil, light weight, high velocity).
 
Rickshaw said:
Forest Green said:
Rickshaw said:
Seems you forgot 7.62x51mm there...
Click to expand...
I skipped that for brevity, which you have now ruined.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is important, something many Americans seem to forget.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t. Post WW2 increasing hit probability was considered more important than single shot brilliance.

apps.dtic.mil

Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon

The capabilities of the infantry rifle were explored. Data wer e obtained on the frequency and distance by which riflemen missed targets, and the distribution of hits at different ranges the ranges of engagement in battle and the physiological wound effects of shots with differing ballistic...
apps.dtic.mil
 
I wonder how much potential the Fury has in an anti-vehicle or anti-helicopter role.
 
trose213 said:
I wonder how much potential the Fury has in an anti-vehicle or anti-helicopter role.
Click to expand...

Very little. It's hotter than 7.62 NATO but not that much hotter. Even 12.7 mm is considered marginal for either function the days.
 
jsport said:
aonestudio said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf3ZlUkOCg
Click to expand...
As the commentator states, SPEAR is not a good fit for the regular dismounts. If PM Soldier is willing to push for a 6.8mm for 2x"Team Auto rifleman" and to 2x"Designated Marksmen" plus one 6.8mm Squad Automatic leaving the remaining 4-5 of the squad carrying 5.56mm. Two ammo types ...scary.
Click to expand...

Scary? Infantry platoons already carry 5.56 and 7.62, and rifle squads used to until the M249 (and still did on occasion when M240s subbed in for the M249s). Honestly, the last time the US Army had a single caliber across the rifle squads, it was probably 30-06.
 
trose213 said:
TomS said:
Very little. It's hotter than 7.62 NATO but not that much hotter. Even 12.7 mm is considered marginal for either function the days.
Click to expand...
There are no 12.7 rifle replacements.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. No rifle/small arms caliber is considered to be really effective against aircraft or armored vehicles. Even heavy machine guns are only marginally effective against such targets.

I suppose 6.8x51 might be regarded as somewhat superior to 7.62x51 against soft-skin vehicles, but it's kind of an academic difference.
 
TomS said:
jsport said:
aonestudio said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf3ZlUkOCg
Click to expand...
As the commentator states, SPEAR is not a good fit for the regular dismounts. If PM Soldier is willing to push for a 6.8mm for 2x"Team Auto rifleman" and to 2x"Designated Marksmen" plus one 6.8mm Squad Automatic leaving the remaining 4-5 of the squad carrying 5.56mm. Two ammo types ...scary.
Click to expand...

Scary? Infantry platoons already carry 5.56 and 7.62, and rifle squads used to until the M249 (and still did on occasion when M240s subbed in for the M249s). Honestly, the last time the US Army had a single caliber across the rifle squads, it was probably 30-06.
Click to expand...
Even then, during World War 2 and Korea, the 30-06 for the M1 Garand and BAR was carried alongside the .30 Carbine for the M1/M2 Carbine down to the squad and platoon level. Even then, due to how ammunition is issued, some of the logistical benefits of a single caliber is not very applicable at the operational or tactical level.

As it stands, I can see the XM5 being a DMR replacement at the squad level and the XM250 taking the role of the SAW and, if a quick-change barrel is implemented, and replacement for the M240 as well. In other words, the 6.8 being a replacement for the 7.62. Most will still carry the M4, whose 5.56 cartridge provides the volume of fire and ammunition capacity for more extended engagements. This way, having two different ammunition types (5.56 and 6.8) wouldn't logistically be much different from today (5.56 and 7.62) at the platoon reinforced level (USMC) or squad level (Army), while having a more potent GP machinegun and DMR cartridge with the 6.8 replacing the 7.62. The 5.56 can likewise be enhanced by improved bullet designs, improved propellants, and perhaps polymer casing.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
I suppose 6.8x51 might be regarded as somewhat superior to 7.62x51 against soft-skin vehicles, but it's kind of an academic difference.
Click to expand...
It packs quite a bit more velocity than the NATO 7.62 and should be able to make work of anything below a STANAG Level 3, if engaged close enough. I guess the real use case might be anti-UGVs, given how few vehicles are Level 3.
 
trose213 said:
TomS said:
I suppose 6.8x51 might be regarded as somewhat superior to 7.62x51 against soft-skin vehicles, but it's kind of an academic difference.
Click to expand...
It packs quite a bit more velocity than the NATO 7.62 and should be able to make work of anything below a STANAG Level 3, if engaged close enough. I guess the real use case might be anti-UGVs, given how few vehicles are Level 3.
Click to expand...

It seems like a cartridge in search of a mission. Penetrating body armor isn't relevant in a large scale engagement; personal weapons aren't the major source of casualties. For SOF such a switch makes more sense.
 
It's going to go away the moment Milley retires as CJCS in a couple years. It was his pet project when he was COS of the Army, and when he became CJCS, he carried it forward.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems like a cartridge in search of a mission. Penetrating body armor isn't relevant in a large scale engagement; personal weapons aren't the major source of casualties. For SOF such a switch makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Originally, they were going for weight reduction, but it seems like they pretty much disregarded that part.
 
Sqd firepower to prevail quick & in close
2x DMs 6.8mm and, 2x Auto Riflemen (from the past) 6.8mm, 2x Grenadiers 5.56mm/40mm, 2x riflemen 5.56mm, 2x Fire team Ldrs 5.56mm, 1x M-25 SAW 6.8mm, 1x Sqd ldr 5.56mm

a number of LWMMGs .338 Norma Magnum at the PLt leadership's discretion
 
jsport said:
Sqd firepower to prevail quick & in close
Click to expand...
The XM7 outranges currently everything by a ridiculous margin, so close in fights would throw away that advantage.


jsport said:
a number of LWMMGs .338 Norma Magnum at the PLt leadership's discretion
Click to expand...
I'd imagine this and the XM250 are going to be competing for the same role, so only one would probably get procured en masse and hard to see that not being the XM250 given it using the same round as the XM7.
 
trose213 said:
jsport said:
Sqd firepower to prevail quick & in close
Click to expand...
The XM7 outranges currently everything by a ridiculous margin, so close in fights would throw away that advantage.


jsport said:
a number of LWMMGs .338 Norma Magnum at the PLt leadership's discretion
Click to expand...
I'd imagine this and the XM250 are going to be competing for the same role, so only one would probably get procured en masse and hard to see that not being the XM250 given it using the same round as the XM7.
Click to expand...
Superiority at range is great but the enemy will do their best to force combat at the ranges that favor their weapons and tactics. Best example would be the Vietnam experience. So I think having a good portion of the squad equipped with lighter rifles or carbines in 5.56mm or maybe an improved intermediate caliber is a good call. That way a squad would still have riflemen that could respond with effective burst/automatic fire if they're caught in an ambush or clearing houses or whatever.

If you've got infantry units plinking away at the enemy at 500+ meters or so for a prolonged period of time chances are that artillery and heavy weapons will come into play and be the ultimate deciding factor in a fight.

I'm just an armchair expert who can't shoot worth a damn but it sort of feels like we're repeating some of the questionable decisions made about future small arms back in the 1950s if they want all the frontline infantry to have the XM7.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Superiority at range is great but the enemy will do their best to force combat at the ranges that favor their weapons and tactics. Best example would be the Vietnam experience.
Click to expand...
Literally no one is talking about replacing every single rifle with an XM7, so there will be some flexibility of tailoring squads to the theater.
 
trose213 said:
jsport said:
Sqd firepower to prevail quick & in close
Click to expand...
The XM7 outranges currently everything by a ridiculous margin, so close in fights would throw away that advantage.
Click to expand...


our perception of close appear to differ...anything under 2-4k can still count as close

trose213 said:
our perceptions of close appear to differ..
jsport said:
a number of LWMMGs .338 Norma Magnum at the PLt leadership's discretion
Click to expand...
I'd imagine this and the XM250 are going to be competing for the same role, so only one would probably get procured en masse and hard to see that not being the XM250 given it using the same round as the XM7.
Click to expand...
The SIG person makes clear the .338 seeks to replace the M-2 ..50cal.
.338 qualifies as a Medium MG thus the Lightweight Medium MG moniker. The M-2 a Heavy MG, the XM-250 a LMG.
 
trose213 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Superiority at range is great but the enemy will do their best to force combat at the ranges that favor their weapons and tactics. Best example would be the Vietnam experience.
Click to expand...
Literally no one is talking about replacing every single rifle with an XM7, so there will be some flexibility of tailoring squads to the theater.
Click to expand...
Generally Armies do not tailor MTOEs to theates, squads can be added to or subtracted but from an agreed upon fixed MTOE.
 
jsport said:
The SIG person makes clear the .338 seeks to replace the M-2 ..50cal.
Click to expand...
That's because they already have the XM250 contract, I'm sure if the NGSW had gone the other way they'd be singing a different tune.
 
trose213 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Superiority at range is great but the enemy will do their best to force combat at the ranges that favor their weapons and tactics. Best example would be the Vietnam experience.
Click to expand...
Literally no one is talking about replacing every single rifle with an XM7, so there will be some flexibility of tailoring squads to the theater.
Click to expand...

The US Army's stated plan for the M7/M250 is to entirely replace the M4 and M249 in close combat units (infantry, scouts, and engineers). Under that plan, 5.56mm rifles remain only in non-infantry units.
 
TomS said:
trose213 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Superiority at range is great but the enemy will do their best to force combat at the ranges that favor their weapons and tactics. Best example would be the Vietnam experience.
Click to expand...
Literally no one is talking about replacing every single rifle with an XM7, so there will be some flexibility of tailoring squads to the theater.
Click to expand...

The US Army's stated plan for the M7/M250 is to entirely replace the M4 and M249 in close combat units (infantry, scouts, and engineers). Under that plan, 5.56mm rifles remain only in non-infantry units.
Click to expand...
Having spoke to a Picatinny person recently, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about when and if the NGSW strategy is fully implemented (sounds like JTLV). As the video alludes to even the cost of each bullet is an issue, let alone the weight and recoil. IMHO even the redundant charging mechanisms seem to add weight, size and complexity. Reducing complexity and weight are priorities which seemed to have been forgotten.
 
RyanC said:
It's going to go away the moment Milley retires as CJCS in a couple years. It was his pet project when he was COS of the Army, and when he became CJCS, he carried it forward.
Click to expand...
If true, this may be another example of attempting to 'Special Operationalized' conventional forces as he is from a SOF background. The US Army needs to decide if it wants to move toward a different professional model where most troops are full career soldiers and compensated as such and not in the Infantry until they have served in other roles and are about 30 yrs old.
 
I'll also note that some of the logistical benefits of having a single cartridge type for both machineguns and rifles is not really applicable in practice at the operational and tactical level, at least with the way the US does Class V resupplies. Any ammunition supply point (ASP) would issue out belt-linked rounds for machineguns and stripper-clipped rounds for rifles as separate DODICs (de-linking belts of ammo is cumbersome and impractical, based on my experiences); in other words, even at the MEF level (although I'm sure it's similar in the Army and other branches), machinegun and rifle ammo are already separated in terms of how they're issued, to say nothing of specialized rounds/DODICs for DMRs or sniper rifles that are issued separately. So really, having separate rounds for machinegun, DMR, and general purpose rifle/carbine really doesn't pose the operational/tactical logistical challenge in practice.
 
Last edited:
Sometime I wonder if there is any sort of level of input where some grunt could point out "Aren't we done with deserts for awhile? So why are why are we still painting these in desert tan?"

A lot of minor things about this makes me wonder. For example does the rifle really need two charging handles? And a forward assist which many will say was never really needed on the M16 and M4? Looks like a pretty small ammo belt box for the LMG.

Either way it will be interesting to see how this program plays out.
 
Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, with the burden of high chamber pressure reacted on. I’d be impressed if these things have the same lifespan of a basic bitch 5.56mm.
 
I heard they're planning on using reduced power ammo for training purposes but that seems like a pretty bad idea. You want soldiers to be used to handling the recoil of the full power stuff when they're using live ammo.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I heard they're planning on using reduced power ammo for training purposes but that seems like a pretty bad idea. You want soldiers to be used to handling the recoil of the full power stuff when they're using live ammo.
Click to expand...
6.8x51 training ammo, assuming the Lake City standard brass cartridge 135 gr ? round same as the Sig Sauer round estimated at approx. 2600 fps out of the XM7 13 inch barrel, less powerful than standard 7.62 NATO.
The US Army used to have a motto "Train as you fight, fight as you train"
>4:10
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTZRCEh1Czg&t=382s&ab_channel=ForgottenWeapons
 

Attachments

  • 6_8_135gr_Sig_Sauer.png
    6_8_135gr_Sig_Sauer.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 15
Recent Army tests of new Sig Sauer NGSW prototypes revealed problems with the fume extraction and accuracy that have contributed to a fielding delay. Not stated if the tests were using either the full powered cartridge or the downloaded Lake City brass cased training cartridge.

There are plans to break ground later this year at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant for a facility to initially produce those 6.8mm cartridges, presumably the new investment required for the production of the more costly cartridge case with its new mix of SS and brass needed to take the very high pressures of this new full powered round.

breakingdefense.com

Army 'not declaring victory,' NGSW fix improves fume and accuracy issues - Breaking Defense

“Early returns, again, [are] very positive that our partner Sig Sauer can make the weapons and address some of the small issues,” said head of Army acquisition Doug Bush.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom