Army NGSW Competition

Martial Arts Training Forums The Armory: Weapons, Military, LEO, and Self Defen
1

Time for something a little more technical in nature. As some may know, the Army is looking at moving away from 5.56. Interesting since they just got M855A1 rolling. For the time being, the competition seems focused on the Squad Automatic Weapon, currently filled by Mk46/48 and M249 SAW, as well as a battle rifle that could be a squad designated marksman rifle, or more likely a new “battle rifle.” This whole competition is predicated on a TRADOC concept called Overmatch Doctrine, which essentially claims that we have lost the ability to overwhelm our opponents due to the prevalence of cheap ballistic armor. The new weapon will fire a 6.8mm projectile in the 120-140ish grain range at a specificed 3000-3400 fps.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/20/here-are-the-guns-that-will-battle-to-be-the-armys.aspx

And now one of the ammunition providers has announced loaded ammunition for commercial sale:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/29/shot-2020-true-velocity-and-sierra-bullets/

Polymer .50bmg has been a thing for awhile, so it is not as crazy an idea as it was previously.

I’ll offer my thoughts on this topic as well as the competitors and the chances of the concept to progress to Fielding in a bit, but don’t want to immediately poison the well with them.

2

So, “battle rifle” would be a bolt action or semi-automatic rifle, correct, in the vein of a 03 Springfield or M-1 Garand, or maybe an semi-auto M-14 ?

It’s a bit unclear to me exactly what (other than a SAW) they are trying to do. Replace the M-4 ?

From a glance at the 5.56mm replacement, they look bulkier and less handy than a M-4 with a 16" barrel.

A 120-140 gr, 6.8 mm bullet at 3000-4000 fps is going to recoil more than a 5.56mm round as well, there is really no way around that problem. Higher mass, faster velocity…

The polymer case ammo makes sense. Interesting to see what the real weight-savings would be.

For historical comparison, the .276 Pedersen (7mm)…highest velocities with 120-140 gr. bullet I found was between 2800 and 2900 fps with a 120-130 gr. bullet.

3

I just hope to god that we get all those surplus M4’s. It won’t happen but I can pray.

4

[QUOTE=Cassius;3066234]Time for something a little more technical in nature. As some may know, the Army is looking at moving away from 5.56. Interesting since they just got M855A1 rolling. For the time being, the competition seems focused on the Squad Automatic Weapon, currently filled by Mk46/48 and M249 SAW, as well as a battle rifle that could be a squad designated marksman rifle, or more likely a new “battle rifle.” This whole competition is predicated on a TRADOC concept called Overmatch Doctrine, which essentially claims that we have lost the ability to overwhelm our opponents due to the prevalence of cheap ballistic armor. The new weapon will fire a 6.8mm projectile in the 120-140ish grain range at a specificed 3000-3400 fps.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/20/here-are-the-guns-that-will-battle-to-be-the-armys.aspx

And now one of the ammunition providers has announced loaded ammunition for commercial sale:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/29/shot-2020-true-velocity-and-sierra-bullets/

Polymer .50bmg has been a thing for awhile, so it is not as crazy an idea as it was previously.

I’ll offer my thoughts on this topic as well as the competitors and the chances of the concept to progress to Fielding in a bit, but don’t want to immediately poison the well with them.[/QUOTE]

Son of a…

I just largely standardized on 9mm and 5.56 (and 22LR),

in large part due to wide 9mm and 5.56 ammo availability and cost effectiveness,

and now militaries and governments are moving to new round calibers away from 9mm and 5.56.

Fucking Lucy had better not be pulling away my football…

Makes me think about getting another couple ammo safes,

and stockpiling an entire safe just for 9mm and 5.56 each now…

I know people will post those round calibers aren’t going anywhere,

but even so…

5

So are we talking something different than the 6.8mm Remington SPC?

6

I like the sig offering even though I hate sig.

7

[QUOTE=ghost55;3066249]I like the sig offering even though I hate sig.[/QUOTE]
The P365 is a nice little concealed carry pistol.

8

[QUOTE=Dr. Gonzo;3066250]The P365 is a nice little concealed carry pistol.[/QUOTE]

The form factor and trigger is nice. The tendency to snap strikers is not. Sig has serious QC problems and uses their customers as beta testers.

9

[QUOTE=goodlun;3066247]So are we talking something different than the 6.8mm Remington SPC?[/QUOTE]

No way 6.8mm SPC gets a 120 gr. bullet to 3,000 fps…I looked up the loading data.

A .270 Winchester can get a 130 gr bullet to over 3000 fps. But that is a lot more recoil and muzzle blast. Comparable to 7.62 Nato…that can also launch a 130 grain bullet at 3,000 fps…although ballistic coefficient is not as good as a 6.8 mm bullet of same mass.

A 6.5 Creedemore gets a 140 gr bullet to around 2700 fps, maybe a little more.

So I’m interested to see what this new 6.8 round is going to be if they are getting 3,000 to 3400 fps…

10

[QUOTE=BKR;3066257]No way 6.8mm SPC gets a 120 gr. bullet to 3,000 fps…I looked up the loading data.

A .270 Winchester can get a 130 gr bullet to over 3000 fps. But that is a lot more recoil and muzzle blast. Comparable to 7.62 Nato…that can also launch a 130 grain bullet at 3,000 fps…although ballistic coefficient is not as good as a 6.8 mm bullet of same mass.

A 6.5 Creedemore gets a 140 gr bullet to around 2700 fps, maybe a little more.

So I’m interested to see what this new 6.8 round is going to be if they are getting 3,000 to 3400 fps…[/QUOTE]

There are multiple different offerings. All of these will likely have awful barrel life. I’m wondering how they’re going to improve the material used.to make barrels to.compensate.

11

Are they giving up on full auto from the shoulder from a rifle? The M-14 fired a round that would recoil about like this one, and it was not controllable in full auto. Or are they counting on a muzzle brake or something?

12

[QUOTE=AprilRains;3066263]Are they giving up on full auto from the shoulder from a rifle? The M-14 fired a round that would recoil about like this one, and it was not controllable in full auto. Or are they counting on a muzzle brake or something?[/QUOTE]

Sig has two offerings. An LMG with a reciprocating barrel and a bullpup rifle. The LMG seems to be fairly pleasant to shoot. I haven’t heard much about the bullpup. The M14 was a notoriously shitty rifle to shoot in full auto even off of a bipod. There is a reason the M14E2 never saw real use. The Mk17 on the other hand has been in use by SOCOM for years now and that thing has had a funswitch since day 1. It all comes down to how the action is designed imo.

13

[QUOTE=AprilRains;3066263]Are they giving up on full auto from the shoulder from a rifle? The M-14 fired a round that would recoil about like this one, and it was not controllable in full auto. Or are they counting on a muzzle brake or something?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like they are looking for the F-35 of long arms, since DMR was mentioned in OP.

6.5 Creedmoor would be my unqualified vote. A bit heavy for the rest of the grunts, though, which is why we’re still on 5.56 for general purpose shit.

14

[QUOTE=submessenger;3066269]Sounds like they are looking for the F-35 of long arms, since DMR was mentioned in OP.

6.5 Creedmoor would be my unqualified vote. A bit heavy for the rest of the grunts, though, which is why we’re still on 5.56 for general purpose shit.[/QUOTE]

I like the look of the .277 Sig Fury cartridge if they can get the barrels right. The obsession with “overmatch” is really stupid from where I’m standing. The fact that 7.62x54r can reach out a bit further than 7.62 NATO doesn’t really matter. It’s not an accurate cartridge at the extended ranges anyways. If the military wants more range and oomph than 5.56 provides, 6.5 Grendel makes a lot more sense than going back to battle rifles.

15

[QUOTE=ghost55;3066264]Sig has two offerings. An LMG with a reciprocating barrel and a bullpup rifle. The LMG seems to be fairly pleasant to shoot. I haven’t heard much about the bullpup. The M14 was a notoriously shitty rifle to shoot in full auto even off of a bipod. There is a reason the M14E2 never saw real use. The Mk17 on the other hand has been in use by SOCOM for years now and that thing has had a funswitch since day 1. It all comes down to how the action is designed imo.[/QUOTE]

I can’t think of any action that is likely to make a battle rifle work okay in full auto without weighing twenty pounds or kicking like mad.

I’m reminded of the claims made by the makers of various gas-operated semiauto shotguns. They all claim to have the secret sauce that reduces recoil better than the others. In practice, if you want to minimize recoil in your semiauto shotgun:

  • Make a list of all gas-operated semiauto shotguns you’re willing to consider.
  • Buy the heaviest one.

That’s about it.

16

[QUOTE=AprilRains;3066276]I can’t think of any action that is likely to make a battle rifle work okay in full auto without weighing twenty pounds or kicking like mad.

I’m reminded of the claims made by the makers of various gas-operated semiauto shotguns. They all claim to have the secret sauce that reduces recoil better than the others. In practice, if you want to minimize recoil in your semiauto shotgun:

  • Make a list of all gas-operated semiauto shotguns you’re willing to consider.
  • Buy the heaviest one.

That’s about it.[/QUOTE]

In my experience the Mossberg 930 SPX and the Benelli M4 shoot a good bit softer than an inertia driven shotgun like the Benelli M2. Felt recoil and muzzle climb in semiautomatic firearms seems to be related to a handful of factors beyond the size of the cartridge: the amount of reciprocating mass when the firearm cycles, the speed at which the bolt carrier hits the back of the receiver, and the alignment of the barrel in relation to the stock. For example, a 5.56 AK will recoil harder than an M4 because the bolt carrier is much heavier. And M1 Thompson will climb more than an M3 Grease gun because the downward slope of the stock has the barrel sitting well above the shooter’s shoulder. And a Mk18 will recoil harder than an M4A1 because the larger gasport designed to accommodate the shorter dwell time increases the cyclic rate of the action. I am fairly confident that the Mk17 is far more controllable in full auto than the FAL ever was. I am sure that whatever rifle wins the NGSW trials will likewise be more controllable in full auto than the MK17.

17

[QUOTE=ghost55;3066285]In my experience the Mossberg 930 SPX and the Benelli M4 shoot a good bit softer than an inertia driven shotgun like the Benelli M2.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is why I specified gas-operated.

I agree that a low bore axis reduces muzzle climb (albeit at the cost of more push), but I’m not sure how much there is to wring out of those optimizations. Also, high muzzle velocities like that either require a long barrel or a burn rate that will feel like a kick.

18

[QUOTE=AprilRains;3066314]Yes, that is why I specified gas-operated.

I agree that a low bore axis reduces muzzle climb (albeit at the cost of more push), but I’m not sure how much there is to wring out of those optimizations. Also, high muzzle velocities like that either require a long barrel or a burn rate that will feel like a kick.[/QUOTE]

They’re claiming you can get good velocity out of a 16in barrel. I think the round uses a fairly fast burning powder, hence my my concerns about barrel life. I also suspect that Sig might be using a system akin to the “continuous recoil” you see on the new KAC LMG wherein the bolt carrier does not actually make contact with the back of the receiver while cycling.

19

[QUOTE=ghost55;3066319]They’re claiming you can get good velocity out of a 16in barrel. I think the round uses a fairly fast burning powder, hence my my concerns about barrel life. I also suspect that Sig might be using a system akin to the “continuous recoil” you see on the new KAC LMG wherein the bolt carrier does not actually make contact with the back of the receiver while cycling.[/QUOTE]

I thought of that, but I’m not sure how you do that within the receiver length of a rifle. The Ultimax does it fine, but it’s bigger.

20

[QUOTE=ghost55;3066273]I like the look of the .277 Sig Fury cartridge if they can get the barrels right. The obsession with “overmatch” is really stupid from where I’m standing. The fact that 7.62x54r can reach out a bit further than 7.62 NATO doesn’t really matter. It’s not an accurate cartridge at the extended ranges anyways. If the military wants more range and oomph than 5.56 provides, 6.5 Grendel makes a lot more sense than going back to battle rifles.[/QUOTE]

.277 Fury seems like the round OP is specifically talking about, and it’s basically just a hot .308 in a sexy case.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/277-sig-fury-demystified/

6.5 Creedmoor is already widely adopted in the civvy arena, and the trend with long range shooters seems to be toward that round.

The idea with the 5.56 NATO was that it was small, light, but did enough. In that sense, I agree Grendel would be a better swap - basically upgrading our M16s to AKs.

In any case, somebody’s getting paid hard, on this initiative.