NGSW Rifle (M4 Replacement)

Scott Kenny said:
They're usually called direct impingement, but compared to the Ljungmann Ag m/42 or Hakim rifles they're quite different. Remember those gas rings on the bolt?

Sounds like your experience is very early on, with those dirty overpressure ball-powder rounds, unchromed barrels and bolt carriers, etc. Oh, and the really bad magazine followers that tilt and cause super-hard-to-clear jams that require the use of the jam enhancer forward assist.

By the 2000s the AR was stupid cheap and very familiar to everyone who had spent time in the US military. And even then it didn't really take off in popularity till the 2010s. Nowadays, I'd bet there's close to 1 AR15 for every person in the US. People who will tell strangers how many guns they have accounted for roughly 25mil civilian AR15s in 2021. I'd much rather trust company-reported production numbers to ATF...
Click to expand...

My experience was in the Australian Army. It had adopted in limited numbers of XM16/M16/M16a1s during the Vietnam War and it was usually used by forward scouts to replace the Owen Gun they carried usually. I used it in the late 1980s. It was prone, as I mentioned to stoppages and unexpectedly dropped magazines. It was quite unreliable, particularly compared to the L1a1 rifle we were usually armed with. Which is why I am surprised as to it's supposed popularity. We were taught that it was a direct impingement weapon and that is what Jane's and most other books describe it as.

However, this is a diversion. The main part of my argument is combined arms. What happened to it in the US Army? Why has it's lessons been forgotten? Why are they not being applied?
 
Rickshaw said:
The main part of my argument is combined arms. What happened to it in the US Army? Why has it's lessons been forgotten? Why are they not being applied?
Click to expand...
Again, the (expletives deleted) politicians effectively denied them to the Army in Afghanistan unless you could 100% guarantee that there were no civilians in the area. As to why the Army accepted those ROEs, I have no clue.

Remember my story about the friend who had a trailer mounted trebuchet made for his Stryker platoon? If company or higher denies your request for mortars (Stryker companies have a pair of 120mm mortars permanently mounted in the trucks), load one demolition satchel into the trebuchet and let fly. If you never request fire support, they cannot deny it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Have you seen just how LITTLE of the body a 10x12" plate actually covers?
Click to expand...
Yes, worn that for every other day for a damn decade. Have you ever worn one?

It covers a large percentage of the primary hitzone. It exactly where it needs to for taking bullets the most.

Where the plates are to sit on you chest is where 99 percent of the soldiers are train to aim for.

This is not only mathematically and scientifically proven from historical wound data of literally millions of WIA dating back to at least the Spanish American War.

But also battlefield proven in nearly 20 years of war in the desert and mountains of the middle east.

And being reinforced by the latest European war which is seeing some of the heaviest fighting since the Iran Iraq war over 40 years ago.


That 10 by 12 plate covers exactly were most bullets go when not personally directed by an expert experienced sniper sight.

If you going to be hit by a bullet, the odds are high its going to be exactly in the strike zone of an SAPI plate.

Not in the Arm, not in the leg, nor in the groin.

But roughly were the plates sit.

There is a reason why the plates are design as such. And its not due to an inability to cheaply make a entire cuirass out of it. It due to that being over kill for most hits.

While the other areas which are common hit in general are cover by soft armor since basically an greater amount of times thats going to be Shrapnel hits and not bullets. And you dont need the 5 pound plates to stop shrapnel. Even then it does a good job of turning a kill shot from a bullet into merely a wounding one that you can be sent back out with in 6 months after you heal up.

Theres a reason why everyone who even partly can is dropping big bucks on getting armor for their frontline types if not their entire ground force.

Its one hell of an force multiplier even taking into account low rate of bullet death.

And what stops a bullet will lolnope the main killer, Shrapnel, cold.

Scott Kenny said:
As to why the Army accepted those ROEs, I have no clue.
Click to expand...
Same reason why the Navy takes back to back deployments while deferring needed maintenance and training. Or the fly boys get told to visaully confirm that the contact is an enemy jet despite the AWACs tracking everything in the sky.

Those who tell the Politicians no get replaced.

Cause some fights are not worth the effort fighting.

Especially when you have to fight to get other needed things.
 
Kat Tsun said:
GI Joe got the MAAWS instead. The airburst rounds were popular in Afghanistan with the Rangers.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 25mm airburst rounds were very well liked. We really needed to deploy the XM307 ACSW, the Barrett XM109 payload rifle, and maybe the XM25.

Arguably, the Barrett and XM25 could serve the same role, the Barrett has a crapton more range since it uses the same 25x59mm grenades as the ACSW but is 15kg(!) instead of 6.4kg like the XM25.



A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
What about putting in organic light mortars at the squad level like the French?
Click to expand...
The 25mm airburst rounds have at least as much range and the ammunition is a lot lighter. The LGI only has a 675m range, while 40mm like the M203 have a 150-300m range, the 25x40mm from the XM25 has a 675-1100m range and the 25x59mm from ACSW and Barrett has a range over 2000m.

Also, the total load for the LGI gets out of hand pretty quickly. 50mm mortar shells are ~0.9kg each, the LGI is 4.8kg, and the soldier also carries a basic rifle (HK416, roughly 5kg with optic and PEQ box) plus 5.56mm ammunition.

In contrast, the US troops using the XM25 were generally quite happy to leave an M4 behind and only carry the XM25 with 36x grenades (16kg total). Only once did they want one more rifle over having the XM25. I would really like more details about that mission to understand why.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, the 25mm airburst rounds were very well liked. We really needed to deploy the XM307 ACSW, the Barrett XM109 payload rifle, and maybe the XM25.

Arguably, the Barrett and XM25 could serve the same role, the Barrett has a crapton more range since it uses the same 25x59mm grenades as the ACSW but is 15kg(!) instead of 6.4kg like the XM25.
Click to expand...
soldiersystems.net

AUSA 23 - FN USA’s PGS-001 Precision Grenadier System | Soldier Systems Daily

FN USA is a phase two finalist for the xTechSoldier Lethality Precision Grenadier System. According to the Army's vision for the system, PGS: The PGS s ...
soldiersystems.net
;)
There's also another competitor, MARS Inc, whose offering is still not available for viewing AFAIK.
Scott Kenny said:
The 25mm airburst rounds have at least as much range and the ammunition is a lot lighter. The LGI only has a 675m range, while 40mm like the M203 have a 150-300m range, the 25x40mm from the XM25 has a 675-1100m range and the 25x59mm from ACSW and Barrett has a range over 2000m.
Click to expand...
However, the light mortar could shoot much more versatile loads: indirect AT/AP rounds, smokes, illuminators, canisterized MAVs, et al. The XM25 has longer range, can execute targets much faster but comes with less payload and ammunition diversity; the ACSW and the XM109 are specialized weapons fielded not usable by low-tier dismounts and are not really relevant imo.
 
Somehow missed this last read through.

DWG said:
Which is okay if the gunner or marksman is with you when you round a corner and find a bunch of bad guys in body armour. If they're not with you, then that's an issue. So to make sure everyone in the squad can deal with protected targets, the US Army is clearly intending to re-equip everyone, not just the gunner and marksman, and everyone else is currently using 5.56x45mm. There are AR-pattern 7.62s out there, so you could retain the same manual of arms for them, but the same is true of 6.8x51mm.

While feeding was the big problem with SLAP rounds, I've seen comments that there was also issues with the sabot separating between exiting the bore and impinging on the muzzle device, and seeing as every rifleman in the military has a muzzle device, whether flash-hider or suppressor, that remains an issue, and not one fixed by a better profile for engaging the feed lips.

Which reminds me of a point we're missing - that not only does the military want improved penetration at range, they want it out of universally suppressed weapons. Every M7 will have a suppressor fitted, all of the time.
Click to expand...
You fix that with a properly designed suppressor, probably 3d printed because the "pepper pot" liner for the suppressor is a lot of machine time to make (too many holes to drill). Those lunatics shooting .50BMG SLAP mostly had a friendly machinist build a liner for the muzzle brake to hold the sabots on the penetrator until the whole mess left the brake, same issues as with shooting SLAP through a suppressor.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, the 25mm airburst rounds were very well liked. We really needed to deploy the XM307 ACSW, the Barrett XM109 payload rifle, and maybe the XM25.

Arguably, the Barrett and XM25 could serve the same role, the Barrett has a crapton more range since it uses the same 25x59mm grenades as the ACSW but is 15kg(!) instead of 6.4kg like the XM25.




The 25mm airburst rounds have at least as much range and the ammunition is a lot lighter. The LGI only has a 675m range, while 40mm like the M203 have a 150-300m range, the 25x40mm from the XM25 has a 675-1100m range and the 25x59mm from ACSW and Barrett has a range over 2000m.

Also, the total load for the LGI gets out of hand pretty quickly. 50mm mortar shells are ~0.9kg each, the LGI is 4.8kg, and the soldier also carries a basic rifle (HK416, roughly 5kg with optic and PEQ box) plus 5.56mm ammunition.

In contrast, the US troops using the XM25 were generally quite happy to leave an M4 behind and only carry the XM25 with 36x grenades (16kg total). Only once did they want one more rifle over having the XM25. I would really like more details about that mission to understand why.
Click to expand...
Could the XM109 utilize the airburst ability on that type of 25x59mm grenades though? I thought it had been intended to be used as a form of anti-material rifle using normal contact fuzed HEDP type grenades.

The XM307 was an interesting weapon that had potential for sure, but IMO it was situated in a spot between the .50 caliber MG and 40mm AGL that made it a bit tough to "sell" to the end-users. On both extremes there were some roles that the .50 caliber did better and others that the 40mm did better so I'd expect some users would have preferred that mix over having only the 25mm ACSW. The love of the .50 BMG even resulted in the XM312 which was just a variant of the XM307 rechambered for .50 ammo despite the original goal of the ACSW program.

Regarding the XM25, were the soldiers testing it ever permitted to carry loose 25mm grenades in some manner in addition to their usual loadout of magazines? Detachable magazines are great but they do account for a lot of weight and volume, especially at that size required for those 25mm grenades. Although I have no idea how much force it takes to load those 25mm magazines.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Could the XM109 utilize the airburst ability on that type of 25x59mm grenades though? I thought it had been intended to be used as a form of anti-material rifle using normal contact fuzed HEDP type grenades.
Click to expand...
Not clear, I thought it could use the airbursting type.

Colonial-Marine said:
The XM307 was an interesting weapon that had potential for sure, but IMO it was situated in a spot between the .50 caliber MG and 40mm AGL that made it a bit tough to "sell" to the end-users. On both extremes there were some roles that the .50 caliber did better and others that the 40mm did better so I'd expect some users would have preferred that mix over having only the 25mm ACSW. The love of the .50 BMG even resulted in the XM312 which was just a variant of the XM307 rechambered for .50 ammo despite the original goal of the ACSW program.
Click to expand...
The XM312 had way too low a cyclic rate, sadly, despite having the same ~50rpm effective sustained rate of fire as an M2. I think that may be over-reacting a bit, but Final Protective Fire means you're dumping entire belts downrange to try to stop a charge.

My dream loadout would have been M307 for high velocity airbursts and HEDP/SAPHEI for anti-material, and an MG338 for long range anti-personnel.


Colonial-Marine said:
Regarding the XM25, were the soldiers testing it ever permitted to carry loose 25mm grenades in some manner in addition to their usual loadout of magazines? Detachable magazines are great but they do account for a lot of weight and volume, especially at that size required for those 25mm grenades. Although I have no idea how much force it takes to load those 25mm magazines.
Click to expand...
That I don't know. IIRC the whole test program out there only had 1000rds of 25mm, so I'm guessing probably not. Dimensionally, the XM25 mags are single stack (like a giant 1911 magazine), so you need to push the follower down the full round diameter to load.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Again, the (expletives deleted) politicians effectively denied them to the Army in Afghanistan unless you could 100% guarantee that there were no civilians in the area. As to why the Army accepted those ROEs, I have no clue.

Remember my story about the friend who had a trailer mounted trebuchet made for his Stryker platoon? If company or higher denies your request for mortars (Stryker companies have a pair of 120mm mortars permanently mounted in the trucks), load one demolition satchel into the trebuchet and let fly. If you never request fire support, they cannot deny it.
Click to expand...

Seems that your politicians are interfering far too much. Again, the answer to them is to butt out of military affairs which they do not understand, not to adopt a new calibre and a new rifle, which seems to be a bandaid to fix a problem which the politicians have created. The problem is not in the round or the rifle but in political interference.
 
Rickshaw said:
Seems that your politicians are interfering far too much. Again, the answer to them is to butt out of military affairs which they do not understand, not to adopt a new calibre and a new rifle, which seems to be a bandaid to fix a problem which the politicians have created. The problem is not in the round or the rifle but in political interference.
Click to expand...
1) the US military cannot tell the politicians to STFU and stop interfering with military matters. That's how you get court-martialed.

2) At some levels I think the rifle is an attempt to give sharp-end unit commanders the ability to defeat the enemy even without combined arms, because the politicians are preventing the use of combined arms.
 
Rickshaw said:
Seems that your politicians are interfering far too much. Again, the answer to them is to butt out of military affairs which they do not understand, not to adopt a new calibre and a new rifle, which seems to be a bandaid to fix a problem which the politicians have created. The problem is not in the round or the rifle but in political interference.
Click to expand...

6.8mm isn't some response to Afghanistan nor is it really intended to shoot very far by nature. Infantry combat is close combat and that means under 200 meters in most cases. If you want to shoot further, that's what the IFCS is for, and people who say 6.8mm is silly are usually fine with the intelligent optical sight for some reason or another.

NSGW's new cartridge is a direct requirement from CSA Milley's understanding of the possibility of SAPI level body armor to even fairly poorly equipped militias and irregular forces in the future, much less advanced militaries like the PLAGF, within a decade at the time. This eventually comes in the form of the Type 21 plate carrier, along with numerous others (Type 04, Type 06, Type 13, and the People's Armed Police Type 16) varying in capability of ballistic protection from "PASGT" to "Interceptor". Thus, this decision to proceed with adoption of a new body armor-defeating cartridge being made in 2017 was somewhat prescient!

Now, it just has to pass the test of actually defeating infantry body armor.

"Combined arms" is not usually a term used in actual, real contexts at any level below battalion, either. It's less "I can't fire a mortar into this trench" and more "we shot him seven times in the chest and he still killed my pointman" because he's wearing GOST Class V that has a maximum of 25 millimeters of backface deformation against .308 ball rounds. Compare this to American body armor that stops three shots with twice the BFD. Small wonder GI Joe is getting massive rib bruises (or broken sternums) when he gets shot.

If you want to shoot far, then you have a MAAWS and a M107 rifle. Further out, you have the Bushmaster, which is really quite accurate.

Any war involving the PLAGF going toe to toe with the US Army will likely devolve to nuclear use anyway, since someone is invading one guy and the other guy is losing hard. I'd think the "political interference" in such a conflict would be minimal at best, at least by that point. That's sort of the modern day's version of "the Red Army's in Copenhagen, Narvik, and is barreling towards Bonn with no signs of stopping" after all.

The purpose of NGSW at the end of the day is to let GI Joe mow down armored goons with the ease he did the Taliban in Tora Bora. That's it. Who those goons are and what armor they're wearing? Well, if it's anything like what was issued in 2005, it's not gonna be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
1) the US military cannot tell the politicians to STFU and stop interfering with military matters. That's how you get court-martialed.

2) At some levels I think the rifle is an attempt to give sharp-end unit commanders the ability to defeat the enemy even without combined arms, because the politicians are preventing the use of combined arms.
Click to expand...
Obviously you need to couch it more diplomatically but that is essentially has to be said to them. Obviously, some General or other has to have the guts to not care about his career and be honest on the matter with the Politicians.
 
Kat Tsun said:
6.8mm isn't some response to Afghanistan nor is it really intended to shoot very far by nature. Infantry combat is close combat and that means under 200 meters in most cases. If you want to shoot further, that's what the IFCS is for, and people who say 6.8mm is silly are usually fine with the intelligent optical sight for some reason or another.

NSGW's new cartridge is a direct requirement from CSA Milley's understanding of the possibility of SAPI level body armor to even fairly poorly equipped militias and irregular forces in the future, much less advanced militaries like the PLAGF, within a decade at the time. This eventually comes in the form of the Type 21 plate carrier, along with numerous others (Type 04, Type 06, Type 13, and the People's Armed Police Type 16) varying in capability of ballistic protection from "PASGT" to "Interceptor". Thus, this decision to proceed with adoption of a new body armor-defeating cartridge being made in 2017 was somewhat prescient!

Now, it just has to pass the test of actually defeating infantry body armor.

"Combined arms" is not usually a term used in actual, real contexts at any level below battalion, either. It's less "I can't fire a mortar into this trench" and more "we shot him seven times in the chest and he still killed my pointman" because he's wearing GOST Class V that has a maximum of 25 millimeters of backface deformation against .308 ball rounds. Compare this to American body armor that stops three shots with twice the BFD. Small wonder GI Joe is getting massive rib bruises (or broken sternums) when he gets shot.
Click to expand...
Kat Tsun said:
I would suggest that Combine Arms is most useful at Battalion and below engagements. You forget about it, you pay the penalty of not employing it.
Click to expand...
 
IMHO, 6.8 is 'silly' because it obsesses over one KPI whilst disregarding all the other lessons of the past 50 years of infanteering.

Infantry need to be light, mobile and yet still have deep magazines to fight and survive. We've heard Ukrainian troops saying that not only do they need a lot of ammo, but also spare rifles. Even AK-74s are wearing-out or breaking within days with the constant cadence of engaging massed enemy forces and UAVs. Now imagine firing that much with nearly four times the recoil energy. And you've only got two-thirds as much ammunition! Perhaps the enemy will reduce his committed forces by a third in commiseration...

6.8 reduces the magazine depth, increases individual burden, hugely increases firing fatigue and decreases logistics throughput. It is a wunderwaffe that degrades other capabilities. It's like .308 versus British 7mm all over again.

WW2 tungsten-cored 8mm Mauser can drill through Level 4 plates, hard-cored 7.62 can do it, even NAMMO's 5.56 AP4 can do it at short ranges. So the capability is there as an add-on without burdening the soldier even more.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
1) the US military cannot tell the politicians to STFU and stop interfering with military matters. That's how you get court-martialed.

2) At some levels I think the rifle is an attempt to give sharp-end unit commanders the ability to defeat the enemy even without combined arms, because the politicians are preventing the use of combined arms.
Click to expand...

Rickshaw said:
Obviously you need to couch it more diplomatically but that is essentially has to be said to them. Obviously, some General or other has to have the guts to not care about his career and be honest on the matter with the Politicians.
Click to expand...
You're not understanding. There is no level of diplomatic rephrasing that will save you or the entire military from being the General that tells Congress 'NO, we're not doing that'.
 
Kiltonge said:
IMHO, 6.8 is 'silly' because it obsesses over one KPI whilst disregarding all the other lessons of the past 50 years of infanteering.

Infantry need to be light, mobile and yet still have deep magazines to fight and survive. We've heard Ukrainian troops saying that not only do they need a lot of ammo, but also spare rifles. Even AK-74s are wearing-out or breaking within days with the constant cadence of engaging massed enemy forces and UAVs. Now imagine firing that much with nearly four times the recoil energy. And you've only got two-thirds as much ammunition! Perhaps the enemy will reduce his committed forces by a third in commiseration...

6.8 reduces the magazine depth, increases individual burden, hugely increases firing fatigue and decreases logistics throughput. It is a wunderwaffe that degrades other capabilities. It's like .308 versus British 7mm all over again.
Click to expand...

.280 was terrible.

The question becomes whether or not carrying more rounds or better rounds beats body armor. This is an open question and the jury has been out since the USSR introduced rifle caliber protection with the 6B3. The world consensus seems to be converging on large caliber or high pressure rifles for the moment, though.

Typically, against unarmored opponents, more rounds is better, and this matches Ukrainian and Russian experiences well, both in Mariupol and in Grozny and such, and American experience in Vietnam. Unfortunately, the appearance of heavy rifle stopping 6B5 vests in Chechnya forced the hand of the RuMOD to adopt high caliber, armor piercing rounds like 12.7x55mm STs-130 in the Exhaust sniper rifle. The same appears to be forcing America's hand in adopting 6.8mm.

It will likely force smaller NATO armies to adopt tungsten ADVAP-type 5.56mm (or just the actual M995 since Nammo makes it now), at least if they want that cartridge to remain competitive, though.

NGSW is simply trying to make body armor defeat affordable at the end of the day. The alternative is dumping a magazine into a guy's chest I guess, which is probably why they're going through so many magazines and guns in Ukraine, in the first place. That's not really sustainable for an economy as deindustrialized as America against the world's factory.
 
Kiltonge said:
6.8 reduces the magazine depth, increases individual burden, hugely increases firing fatigue and decreases logistics throughput. It is a wunderwaffe that degrades other capabilities. It's like .308 versus British 7mm all over again.
Click to expand...
.303 British?
 
Hi,

Kat Tsun said:
The question becomes whether or not carrying more rounds or better rounds beats body armor. This is an open question and the jury has been out since the USSR introduced rifle caliber protection with the 6B3. The world consensus seems to be converging on large caliber or high pressure rifles for the moment, though.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting insight. I guess it's not suprising that the US Army with its marksmanship tradition and "overmatch" mindset decided to go with the cartridge that in addition to defeating body armour also provides all the other advantages on their wish list.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Kat Tsun said:
.280 was terrible.
Click to expand...
How so? It's broadly comparable to 6.5 Arisaka in terms of projectile weight and muzzle velocity. The US Army (and the UK) did a lot of research around the optimum caliber and found that 6.5mm projectiles had the best external ballistics (flew the best), while 7mm projectiles had the best terminal ballistics (hit the best). 6.8mm projectiles are the compromise between those two, hence the 6.8x51mm and the 6.8SPC in military use, and a bunch of others in civilian use.

It's low recoil, but still arguably at full power rifle range and energy (on the low end, granted). The only fault I'd give it is ammunition size and therefore weight, but I'm not sure if you'd be able to shrink it down to the size of the x39 M43 case with 1950s powder technology.
 
Scott Kenny said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Too light to be a full rifle cartridge, too heavy to be a intermediate cartridge, in both felt recoil and actual mass of cartridge. 6.8x51mm is an entirely new type of cartridge mostly designed to compete with what were traditionally WHA cores in .308 or .223. .280 would have been better than .308, but this isn't hard, and wouldn't have existed entirely if America had made .276 Pedersen Garands tbf.

Wholly inferior to the actual revolution of small arms that was 7.62x39mm and its immediate counterpart 5.56x45mm.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Too light to be a full rifle cartridge, too heavy to be a intermediate cartridge, in both felt recoil and actual mass of cartridge. 6.8x51mm is an entirely new type of cartridge mostly designed to compete with what were traditionally WHA cores in .308 or .223. .280 would have been better than .308, but this isn't hard, and wouldn't have existed entirely if America had made .276 Pedersen Garands tbf.

Wholly inferior to the actual revolution of small arms that was 7.62x39mm and its immediate counterpart 5.56x45mm.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with some of that, you're right that it probably wouldn't have happened at all if the Garands were in .276 and that .280 British still has issues versus the true intermediate cartridges.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're not understanding. There is no level of diplomatic rephrasing that will save you or the entire military from being the General that tells Congress 'NO, we're not doing that'.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest you are truly fucked and you will therefore lose the next war that you fight.
 
en.wikipedia.org

.276 Pedersen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The new 7-mm .277 Fury round will be deployed both in an infantry battle rifle as well as in a dedicated machine gun and exemplifies the requirement of the much higher chamber pressure, 80-90,000 PSI Vs 55-60,000 PSI in the older ammunition required to attain the demanded ballistic performance with a 7-mm bullet in both weapon systems.[6]

South, Todd (20 April 2022). "Army expects Next Generation Squad Weapon to get its first unit by next year". ArmyTimes. Sightline Media Group. Archived from the original on May 18, 2023.

the above article does not reference the ,277 Fury only the 6.8mm BTW so....
 
Last edited:
From here, following the delivery of next-generation rifles and light machine guns to the 101st Airborne Division, "the Army will field NGSW systems to a National Guard armored brigade in May," the service notes.
Click to expand...
Was not expecting a Guard unit to be the first brigade issued the new stuff.
 
Moose said:
This is still an extended trail period, they want a Guard unit to get some so they can see how the Guard does operating/maintaining them.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha, that makes more sense.

I still wonder how long those M7s will last under full power loads.
 
Hi,

Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets

True Velocity is suing Sig Sauer, alleging it stole trade secrets used in the weapon design the Army chose for its Next-Generation Squad weapon.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Sounds really confusing to me.

Interestingly, the "revolutionary mitigation system called Short Recoil Impulse Averaging (SRIA)" mentioned in the article was patented, and the article mentions no accusation of a patent violation:

US8794121B2 - Short recoil impulse averaging weapon system - Google Patents

A weapon system is provided. The weapon system includes a receiver and an operating group. The operating group includes a barrel extension at least partially housed within the receiver and arranged to axially translate relative to the receiver; an operating rod (op-rod) assembly arranged to...
patents.google.com

Not sure how strong True Velocity's position might be. The recent Bundeswehr's Haenel-vs.-H&K case shows that intellectual property rights can have a decisive influence on acquisition, in the extreme case.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom