NGSW Rifle (M4 Replacement) and Machine Gun

[aonestudio]

https://armyrecognition.com/defense...sw_next_generation_squad_weapons_in_2025.html

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem with relying on marksmanship (which has long been the Ordinance mantra) is that the even best cannot shoot at what they don't see, such as things out at 1000 yards, and even the best have trouble concentrating on range-style target shooting when people are shooting at them.

I'm also a bit skeptical about these Afghanistan stories, seeing as they just happen to come to the same conclusion that the ballistics fanatics come up with after every US war. The main Taliban weapons were the Kalashnikov in either 7.62x39-mm or 5.45x39-mm calibers and the M-16/M-4. So how were these outranging our M-4s? Why wouldn't US snipers and/or machine guns be able to deal with the odd Taliban sniper armed with a longer ranging weapon? And how much long-range shooting was really possible, given night engagements and rocky mountainous terrain?

You are forgetting how hilly Afghanistan is. Someone with an AK or SKS can sit on top of a hill or ridge and drop rounds into the valley at a distance well beyond what someone with an SKS or AK can shoot back. 500-800m horizontal distance with M43 x39 ammuntion, 800-1200m with x54R.

No. The main Taleban small arms threat to US forces was not a carbine-sized weapon. The Taleban could never successfully contest at short ranges, American troops with better sights, a lot better training and body armor would typically beat any Taleban force in such conditions with no or minimal casualties, unless ridiculously outnumbered.

The way they could kill US troops was to have a MG team with a PKM (or a chinese copy) on a hilltop that pre-sighted their gun on an American foot patrol route in some spot where there is no cover, and that was far enough to be outside the effective range of their guns. In the early stages when patrols didn't carry anything heavier than 5.56, they would open fire at ~800m and let the patrol have it for a minute or two, and then take their guns and run before any arty or air could kill them. The amount of casualties this caused was somewhat overblown, but the experience was that the bad guys were shooting at the good guys with impunity, often wounding or killing them, and they weren't ever getting hurt doing so. A patrol shooting at a well-sited MG at 800m with M4s and M249s will simply not do anything, and once Taleban learned that, it didn't even suppress them effectively.

The immediate response was to get every single 7.62 rifle in inventory and ship them to Afganistan, and open up all kinds of crash projects for acquiring more. A substantially more effective response was for every patrol to always carry a M240 instead of a M249.

The people who run the NGSW project are of the age group that would have been Afganistan when that was going on, and the project was probably overspecialized for those conditions.

Agreed. Afghanistan has the longest firefight ranges on earth, and has been known for that since the early 1800s.

But I'm still okay with the 6.8x51 as SAW/platoon MG and maybe DMR round.

I am unsure why US infantry (and that is who is being discussed) ignore the idea of combined arms to counter the Taliban. They should be using grenade launchers/mortars/artillery/air to destroy the enemy at range outside that of small arms.

Usually because the US Rules of Engagement didn't allow just plastering the hilltops with HE. Friend of mine was in Strykers, 25th Infantry, in Afghanistan. He had the engineers build him a trebuchet on a trailer to throw demolition satchels at the hilltops because he couldn't get permission to drop 120mm mortars on them before the Talibani ran away.

I also find it interesting that the US has saddled itself with smallarms that have such short barrels that they can't allow the firers to hit their targets at 600 metres. Give the infantry a decent rifle, firing decent rounds and they should be able to hit their targets out to 1,000 metres.

You also have a serious lack of understanding about what effective range means.

Let's say we have a rifle that shoots 4 minutes of angle (maximum/worst acceptance criteria for a military M4 or M16). This means that it will put all shots into a 4" circle at 100y, or a 16" circle at 400. The average human torso is 16" wide, so the farthest individual target you can mechanically consistently hit with that 4moa rifle is 400y/365m. Farther than that and you might have a shot that is correctly aimed on target that misses because the rifle isn't mechanically accurate enough.

Doesn't matter that you have a super scope with laser rangefinder and portable weather station and built-in Ballistic Calculator and all the other fancy stuff. The rifle can miss either to the left or right with a perfectly aimed shot, with the rifle locked into a shooting vise like when the Queen puts a few rounds downrange.

In order to hit a 16" wide target at 1000m, you need a rifle that shoots 1.5moa or better. And that's expensive to do. See the price of the US M110/M110A1 and the British equivalents, some $10,000 not counting optics (which are probably another 10k, the scope should really cost about as much as the rifle itself). A government contract M4 runs about $1000 these days, and gets at least another $1000 of optics and stuff (PEQ laser boxes etc) added to it.

I'd imagine [the MG-338] 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.

The XM250 is supposed to replace the M249 in the fireteam, not the platoon's M240s. So it's possible that the platoon will get the MG338s. Those are supposed to have M2 range but lots less weight.

As is, it's the SOCOM guys who have bought a few MG338s so far.

 

[Rickshaw]

I still do not understand the desire for a new rifle and a new calibre round. It seems the US Army has forgotten all the lessons about combined arms combat. You, as an infantryman, should not be trying to take on the opposition at greater than 600 metres. You should be relying on MMGs/HMGs/Mortars/Artillery to do that. If you are patrolling and you don't have support you deserve to lose the firefight. The US Army is big enough and rich enough to back each and every patrol with sufficient resources to overcome an insurgent patrol. If it can't then whose fault is that? All the cries that the insurgents out range the friendly forces has not been repeated by allied units that do not use the M4 or any weapon with short barrels.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

With the proper ammunition and optics, the M4 with the SOPMOD Block II or the URG-I is capable of effectively engaging out to 600 meters, although the terminal effectiveness is reduced.

I think the new 6.8mm round can be a fine replacement for the 7.62mm NATO given that they are roughly similar in dimensions, but I'm far less convinced about it replacing the 5.56mm NATO especially given the steep reduction in ammunition capacity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still do not understand the desire for a new rifle and a new calibre round. It seems the US Army has forgotten all the lessons about combined arms combat. You, as an infantryman, should not be trying to take on the opposition at greater than 600 metres. You should be relying on MMGs/HMGs/Mortars/Artillery to do that. If you are patrolling and you don't have support you deserve to lose the firefight. The US Army is big enough and rich enough to back each and every patrol with sufficient resources to overcome an insurgent patrol. If it can't then whose fault is that? All the cries that the insurgents out range the friendly forces has not been repeated by allied units that do not use the M4 or any weapon with short barrels.

Correct, that's how it's supposed to work.

So what do you do when the American Rules of Engagement don't allow combined arms usage?

Remember, it's not the Army that gets to decide the ROEs, but politicians. Shooting the politicians that put you into a shooting war that they will not allow you to win is not allowed.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

What about putting in organic light mortars at the squad level like the French?

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

I still do not understand the desire for a new rifle and a new calibre round.

Reading between the lines, I wonder if this was driven by the desire to exploit the capabilities of the computerized sight to the fullest. The 5.56 mm rifle can be made more accurate with a computerized sight, but as Scott pointed out, accuracy will still be limited due to the physical limitations of that weapon system. Maybe environmental factors are even more important than the basic weapon accuracy ... if the computer sight can compensate for wind at low ranges, but the wind speed input is by necessity only an approximation, you gain relatively more capability if you have a round that is less susceptible against wind.

So maybe the three options were:

1) Don't change anything.
2) Add computerized sight to 5.56 mm rifle system for a limited gain with a poor cost/gain ratio
3) Add computerized sight to new rifle system for a substantial gain with a good cost/gain ratio (but overall much higher cost)

So if the assessment was that the option 2 wasn't worth it, and option 1 wasn't acceptable as it would have stalled progress, maybe option 3 was the only realistically remaining route, despite the various concerns discussed in this thread.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Rickshaw]

Correct, that's how it's supposed to work.

So what do you do when the American Rules of Engagement don't allow combined arms usage?

Remember, it's not the Army that gets to decide the ROEs, but politicians. Shooting the politicians that put you into a shooting war that they will not allow you to win is not allowed.

Whose fault is that, then? I'd recommend telling the politicians they are wrong and to butt out of the argument. If you can defeat the insurgents with weapons at greater than the 600 metre range use them. If you are so reliant on rifles that cannot reach 600 metres then the army is at fault for adopting a rifle that can't hit anything at 600 metres. You seem to have collectively forgotten the lessons of WWII/Korea/Vietnam/etc.

 

[Josh_TN]

I do not think equipment should ever be used to solve problems concerning training or organization. IMO the high chamber pressures of this round are going to play hell long term and the fact is small arms are typically a minor component of opponent’s casualties, Afghanistan not withstanding. It is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[yeetmahboi]

put you into a shooting war that they will not allow you to win is not allowed

Ehhh.... just dont take part in any war then. Why send boots on the ground when you can have drones and strategic bombers leveling whole nations to the ground instead, and send infantry in later to wage flags, annex lands and collect taxes from the locals. Or exploit proxies/mercenary forces and use your inherent large economic and political advantages while not muddling your hands.

I never understand why the general American public feels entitled to withhold "democracy" and "liberty" around the globe when they couldn't even handle their own domestic issues. The PRC had their own civillians bombed, mined and shot before in Pakistan and god-know-Africa and Xi wasted no time sending in forces, but only to rescue their expats.

It is a solution looking for a problem

Rather, it's a solution to an extremely niche case: the vast expanses of ME. Blame the US Army staff for having too much generals originating from infantry.

 

[TomS]

What about putting in organic light mortars at the squad level like the French?

I feel like a multi-purpose rocket launcher like the Panzerfaust 3 or Carl Gustav is a bit more flexible at the squad level. The FLK mortar isn't that much better than grenade launchers.

 

[DWG]

The range argument alone is missing half the argument for 6.8x51mm, which is to be able to hit at range, and to reliably penetrate near-peer body armour closer in.

Engagement ranges in Afghanistan are only half the requirement drivers.

 

[Josh_TN]

The range argument alone is missing half the argument for 6.8x51mm, which is to be able to hit at range, and to reliably penetrate near-peer body armour closer in.

Engagement ranges in Afghanistan are only half the requirement drivers.

Fair point, though that also seems to my mind like a poor driver of requirements. If we agree that most casualties are not from small arms in any kind of normal previous conflict (let alone what we will see in the future), then defeating body armor with small arms is also relatively pointless: body armor does not cover most of the body, and personal weapons are not the main casualty effectors. Shooting at someone in body armor is likely to still be about as effective in terms of suppression and wounding for 5.56mm as 6.8mm, IMO, and neither is going to drive the conflict.

It seems to me the money would be better invested in offensive UAVs or defensive EW for such.

 

[DWG]

defeating body armor with small arms is also relatively pointless

Not to the man he's shooting at! And if he's firing from behind cover a huge chunk of what you can see will be protected by body armour/helmet.

 

[Josh_TN]

Not to the man he's shooting at! And if he's firing from behind cover a huge chunk of what you can see will be protected by body armour/helmet.

I rather doubt anyone in body armor is assuming they can show themselves and not get hurt, regardless of the caliber that is firing at them. The terminal effects of armor piercing rifle ammunition would no doubt be superior - I just question if adopting some kind of new high maintenance caliber would actual generate better effects than investing the money in...almost anything else.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The range argument alone is missing half the argument for 6.8x51mm, which is to be able to hit at range, and to reliably penetrate near-peer body armour closer in.

Engagement ranges in Afghanistan are only half the requirement drivers.

Yet the Russians demonstrated that they could not afford to field even their elite troops in Ratnik in 2022.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Whose fault is that, then? I'd recommend telling the politicians they are wrong and to butt out of the argument. If you can defeat the insurgents with weapons at greater than the 600 metre range use them. If you are so reliant on rifles that cannot reach 600 metres then the army is at fault for adopting a rifle that can't hit anything at 600 metres. You seem to have collectively forgotten the lessons of WWII/Korea/Vietnam/etc.

What, the WW1/WW2 lesson that 90+% of all infantry combat happens at less than 300m? (Hence the design of the MKB42/43/StG44 and AK47 ammunition)

Bluntly, Afghanistan is just about the only place on earth where that isn't true.

 

[Rickshaw]

What, the WW1/WW2 lesson that 90+% of all infantry combat happens at less than 300m? (Hence the design of the MKB42/43/StG44 and AK47 ammunition)

Bluntly, Afghanistan is just about the only place on earth where that isn't true.

Then why must the whole army change it's rifle to fight there? Again, the lessons of past wars are being ignored. Should the infantryman have a rifle that is able to kill a horse at 1,000 yards?

 

[Josh_TN]

Then why must the whole army change it's rifle to fight there? Again, the lessons of past wars are being ignored. Should the infantryman have a rifle that is able to kill a horse at 1,000 yards?

I mean, who would want to do that?

https://www.woorillacaught.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/mr-ed-300x225.jpg

 

[Scott Kenny]

Then why must the whole army change it's rifle to fight there?

How often are you planning on fighting in the Graveyard of Empires?

Had the Afghan government not offered sanctuary to a certain jihad-proclaiming asshole that the US government wanted very, very dead, the US would have been happy to let them fester. (And honestly the US should have also wiped out Pakistan's intelligence agencies for funding the Taliban after they were kicked out of power, but that's a different discussion entirely).

Again, the lessons of past wars are being ignored. Should the infantryman have a rifle that is able to kill a horse at 1,000 yards?

Before 1914, that answer was yes. Machine Guns were either part of the artillery or there were 2-4 per infantry battalion at most.

In 1914-1918, that answer was still yes, but machine guns were now the primary killer of infantry in the open, and machine guns used the same ammunition as the basic infantry rifle. Lots more machine guns per battalion, as well.

After 1918, that answer was turning to "no, let the machine guns shoot at horses and infantry in the open and give the infantry rifle a smaller/lighter round more suitable to semi-automatic rifles." The US semi-auto program was going to use .276 Pedersen, 125gr/8g at 2740fps/840mps (roughly same power level as 6.5 Arisaka or 6.5 Carcano). Most other semi-auto rifle programs were using ammunition of that power level, though over time it became possible to make semi-autos work with the existing .30-06, .303, 7.92, 7.62x54R etc. Once it was demonstrated possible, the various Army Chiefs of Staff preferred to keep using all that existing ammunition. Especially in the US, which had made absolutely enormous stockpiles of .30-06 in advance of the 1919 offensive and had all that in warehouses. (My plan to get the US onto the .276 Pedersen would have been to tell Congress, "We're using all that old ammunition in the machine guns until it's gone, then we'll convert the machine guns to .276 and go from there.")

In WW2, that answer was "NO, let the machine guns do that, the infantry get a select-fire rifle good out to about 300m." Like the Maschinenkarabiner-42/43 or the Sturmgewehr-44. The Russians had actually designed a pretty nice cartridge for this back in 1943, but it took until 1947 before the "killer app" for the 7.62x39 M43 cartridge was in production: The AK47. Oddly enough, the Russians designed both a basic semiauto rifle as well as a submachine gun for the M43. The semiauto rifle is the SKS, the submachinegun is the AK47. The SKS basically only lasted until the AKM came out in the 1950s, once the Soviets realized that the AK was perfectly capable of being that semiauto rifle as well as the submachine gun, all in the same gun. Then they very quickly retired the SKS from everything but drill/color guard units.

Post WW2, there was some discussion about giving the infantry rifle a cartridge with about the same range as that old .276 Pedersen, roughly 600m for machine guns (or rather, grazing fire that will always be within man height of the ground out to at least 600m), the .280 British. This round would have replaced all basic infantry rifle and machine gun ammunition, and been the NATO standard. In addition to one rifle that all of NATO was supposed to standardize on, either the EM2 or probably the FN FAL. But then this dishonest asshole by the name of LtCol Rene Studler pitched a screaming hissy-fit that Ordnance would not accept any cartridge of less power than the .30-06 or any bullet of less than .30 caliber, and proceeded to blatantly manipulate test criteria until it showed that the .30-06 (or T65 7.62x51) was the superior cartridge. (The British really should have arranged to have him get in an automobile accident on the way home one day instead of just posting Official Complaints...) Ordnance also pitched a hissy fit about not wanting to use a stamped steel bullpup rifle OR that stamped steel FN-FAL "because they could turn M1 Garands into M14s", so the plans for all of NATO to use the same rifle went out the window.

After it took a good 10 years for the US to turn M1 Garands into M14s (and they never really did, all the M14s were new production!), the US got involved in cleaning up this little Communist uprising in what was left of French Indochina. And that's when the USAF security police, their base guards, needed to replace their now 20+yo M2 Carbines with something new. It needed to be light to carry and easy to shoot even in full auto. This gentleman by the name of Gene Stoner was working for Fairchild-Republic's Armalite division, and he'd come up with a nice light select-fire rifle, the AR-15, and chambered it in a "varmint caliber" of .222 Magnum or .223 aka 5.56x45mm. Shortly after that point, the US Army discovered that the M14 was completely uncontrollable in full auto (big shocker), and wanted to get something like the M2 Carbine all over again. Hey, the USAF just bought a whole bunch of this AR-15, that'll work!

And then the US Army bough M16s (the M15 was an M14 with a bipod and heavier barrel to replace the BAR, it wasn't controllable so they replaced the BAR and most of the M1919s with the M60 machine guns instead). They bought M16s for EVERYONE, not just those troops being sent to Vietnam for foot patrols.


So right. What lesson from history is the US Army ignoring again? That all infantry combat takes place within about 300m.

 

[Firefinder]

I rather doubt anyone in body armor is assuming they can show themselves and not get hurt, regardless of the caliber that is firing at them. The terminal effects of armor piercing rifle ammunition would no doubt be superior - I just question if adopting some kind of new high maintenance caliber would actual generate better effects than investing the money in...almost anything else.

Thing is the places that Body Armor covers?

Are a combo of the most important slash commonly hit spots. IE the chest and head.

Put simply? The mostly place for you to hit someone while shooting them in combat is going to be cover by armor.

And unlike Russia who can barely afford to supply even their spec ops with gear, everyone else is going ham with Level 4 equivalents body army.

Like Ukraine who is worse off is able to afford to ensure that the front and second line people are getting level 3 if not better armor. And we are seeing the differences in real time by the casualties counts.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thing is the places that Body Armor covers?

Are a combo of the most important slash commonly hit spots. IE the chest and head.

Put simply? The mostly place for you to hit someone while shooting them in combat is going to be cover by armor.

There's basically 5 spots in the human body that are "kill you before you get to the hospital" bad. Head, heart, the 2x brachial arteries in your armpits, and the femoral arteries in the groin.

Brachial and femoral arteries are hard to armor, since you can't just put hard armor over them and still be mobile. You can do shoulder guards, which give some protection to the brachial arteries and from side shots to the heart. You can do a Lv4 armored apron which kinda protects the family jewels but doesn't, cannot, cover the femoral arteries after they split and go down each leg. The best option is 3a soft armor around the groin, which should protect against shrapnel and pistols/SMGs/buckshot.

Broken arms or legs will still take the soldier out of the fight, and will actually take 3-5 soldiers out of the fight (wounded plus stretcher bearers)

And unlike Russia who can barely afford to supply even their spec ops with gear, everyone else is going ham with Level 4 equivalents body army.

Like Ukraine who is worse off is able to afford to ensure that the front and second line people are getting level 3 if not better armor. And we are seeing the differences in real time by the casualties counts.

The hell of it is, a plate carrier plus a pair of 10x12 Level 4 plates is about $500. (And that's a "fat boy special" plate carrier, that can wrap around a 50" chest, it's sitting in my closet) A pair of 6x6" Level 4 side plates is about $300, I don't have those yet. I also want to add the shoulder plates to the rig, those are something like $600 for the pair and $200 for their carrier (need to get those).

It's the level 4 helmet that is still stupidly expensive. A Level 3A OPSCOR helmet runs about $400, a Level 4 OPSCOR pattern runs about $3200. (can justify a Lv3A helmet, cannot justify a Lv4 for private purchase)

 

[yeetmahboi]

Broken arms or legs will still take the soldier out of the fight

Or a broken rib. Or a really bad tummy, because shots will land at center of mass. For a few secs, maybe minutes to calm down and stabilize, but concussion damage from 5.45/5.56/5.8mm AP ammos will hurt people, even with armour, real bad. And it's the time bought by those shots for an unsuspecting drone to land, or a grenadier to lob satchels or RPGs/RCLs shots, or sneaking stormtroopers to break in and wreak havoc, that is the real importance of long-range firefights.

 

[Rickshaw]

You are still ignoring that the studies made after WWII showed that very few if any soldiers fired effective shots at their opponents. The US Army tried to make a gun that basically sprayed the target with hits everytime it fired but that programme bombed out 'cause the Army couldn't accept such a weapon. The Germans tried hard to make a rifle that would do the same job but the end of the Cold War put paid to that. The US Army spends squillions on projects and then discontinues them and abandons then 'cause they don't agree with the consequences of admitting that infantrymen can't hit squat in real life because they are in love with the idea of the marksman ruling the battlefield.

 

[yeetmahboi]

rifle that would do the same job but the end of the Cold War put paid to that

ye old G11... caseless, recoilless, integrated optics. Too much to ask even for late CW tech. And later on the US arrived at OICW, but this time a 25mm AGL to knock out whole squads behind defilade. Never too much wishful thinking.

The US Army spends squillions on projects and then discontinues them and abandons then 'cause they don't agree with the consequences of admitting that infantrymen can't hit squat in real life because they are in love with the idea of the marksman ruling the battlefield.

They have a nice excuse this time, the XM157 FCR scope, that finally does most of what they aimed for. A laser rangefinder and basic (T-72A level) ballistic computer plus temp/weather sensors.
Of course, the problem is when the target moves, which they do all the time, and both Vortex and L3Harris offering has no autotracker/lead. I think the specs for XM157 was written by marksmen whom used to work in ME and deal with what basically amounted to "sit on vantage point, shoot still/jogging sus guy or Toyota running on a street at constant X kmph", not "PLAGF infantry executing complex maneuvers on complex terrains with overhead/armoured OPFOR suppresion/recon and multispectral signature reduction".

I think a scope with a rangefinder is fine. A scope with a rangefinder and a basic computer to highlight where I need to put my crosshair is also good. With a set of temperature, wind and weather sensors and the software needed to fuse said sensors? Ummmm...? Now put it on a 3.8 kilo rifle? How would I wield said gun in the first place?
Infantry serving in Afghanistan regularly complained about weight and back/joint pain for years. I'm honestly baffled why, when A-stan showed how terrible is the current US Army infantry's load bearing capacity is, and they came up with an even heavier setup (IVAS+XM7+XM157) when buying polymer URGIs, lighter armour and kit, and ENVG-B and reserve excess money (because all the things I mentioned are either MOTS or low-risk) for actually important things like ITEP, ALE, FTUAS, FVL, M1E3, etc.

 

[Kiltonge]

The range argument alone is missing half the argument for 6.8x51mm, which is to be able to hit at range, and to reliably penetrate near-peer body armour closer in.

Engagement ranges in Afghanistan are only half the requirement drivers.

7.62 SLAP will neatly deal with that, without a whole new factory, logistics chain and training. 6g of tungsten at > 1000m/s.

The latest SLAP rounds such as CBJ use a sabot that mimics the ball round profile, so there are no longer loading or feeding issues. Issue to designated marksman or squad MG, carry on.

 

[Firefinder]

Brachial and femoral arteries are hard to armor, since you can't just put hard armor over them and still be mobile. You can do shoulder guards, which give some protection to the brachial arteries and from side shots to the heart. You can do a Lv4 armored apron which kinda protects the family jewels but doesn't, cannot, cover the femoral arteries after they split and go down each leg. [Bold]The best option is 3a soft armor around the groin, which should protect against shrapnel and pistols/SMGs/buckshot[/BOLD]

Thats the second best option.

The first best is keeping a solid 60 plus percent of you body, which is the lower bit, behind cover.

The Harder the better.

Which had a habit of focusing the hits to you upper chest where the thick bit of armor is.

And again therez been multiple studies by everyone, ranging from institutions to hobbiest. All shows damn near the same thing.

A high percent of bullet hits period in the last century and a quarter has been between you neck and hips. Which is where the thickest chunk of armor is.

That just confirms the ancient soldiering wisdom of;

If you can only afford to buy a piece of armor at a time? Go head first, then save up for chest protection. Everything else follows.

Coverage of those two parts will save you life 80 percent of the time.

Allowing you to up to pick youself back up within a minute and keep fighting before the enemy can taje advantage of it.

To say nothing that the Army SOP is to FINISH THE FIGHT FIRST then aid the wounded. Like no, you buddies will not stop fighting you aid you if hit. They keep shooting till the enemy done, dead or retreated doesnt matter, then you get first aid.

And as for the percentage of personal killed by rifles?

Its still a decent percent.
Alot of soldiers still meet their end by another bullet. So ensuring that the enemy stays down, and does not get back up so you can yeet HIEX at then even with armor is an important consideration.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think even the new 6.8mm cartridge needs to use fancy tungsten core AP ammo to penetrate the best body armor out there. I'm guessing that ammo works but I don't know even know who gets access to it. I've never really come across accounts of the 7.62mm M993 or 5.56mm M995 out in the field which is the current high-end AP ammo for Army small arms.

 

[DWG]

7.62 SLAP will neatly deal with that, without a whole new factory, logistics chain and training. 6g of tungsten at > 1000m/s.

The latest SLAP rounds such as CBJ use a sabot that mimics the ball round profile, so there are no longer loading or feeding issues. Issue to designated marksman or squad MG, carry on.

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.

At this point the 6.8x51mm supply chain is probably a sunk-cost, they've broken ground on the production line, penalty clauses will probably cost as much to exit construction as to finish it. After that you're down to which costs more in quantity, 7.62x51mm CBJ (or equivalent) or 6.8x51mm.

 

[DWG]

ye old G11... caseless, recoilless, integrated optics. Too much to ask even for late CW tech. And later on the US arrived at OICW, but this time a 25mm AGL to knock out whole squads behind defilade. Never too much wishful thinking.

G-11 worked, OICW worked, the technology was just at the can-do-but-expensive level, rather than can-do-cheaply. (Why on earth XM25/29/OICW/OCSW used spin-counter as opposed to just a counter on the CPU clock-signal I have no idea). All the modern airbursting rounds such as AHEAD and 40mm CTA are using exactly the technology OICW needed.

They have a nice excuse this time, the XM157 FCR scope, that finally does most of what they aimed for. A laser rangefinder and basic (T-72A level) ballistic computer plus temp/weather sensors.
Of course, the problem is when the target moves, which they do all the time, and both Vortex and L3Harris offering has no autotracker/lead.

The UK's currently evaluating the Israeli SMASH sight, which does have autotracker/lead calculation (looking at counter-UAS), so the capability is out there.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

With the highly questionable requirement that with suppressor attached the weapon could be no longer than a standard issue (no suppressor) M4 carbine. I'd have to assume that with a few more inches of barrel length they could have reduced the disconcertingly high chamber pressure.

When firing blank ammo the XM7 and XM250 aren't used with the suppressor and I've got to wonder what the soldiers testing it think of that. In my opinion if a rifle, carbine, or machine gun is completely disorienting to fire without a suppressor then there are some fundamental problems with the design, or in this case the requirements that led to the design.

 

[DWG]

In my opinion if a rifle, carbine, or machine gun is completely disorienting to fire without a suppressor then there are some fundamental problems with the design, or in this case the requirements that led to the design.

AIUI, the issue isn't that firing it without the suppressor is a problem, but that firing it with a suppressor has advantages - better auditory situational awareness, better intra-squad communication, (less post-service deafness claims).

 

[Scott Kenny]

A high percent of bullet hits period in the last century and a quarter has been between you neck and hips. Which is where the thickest chunk of armor is.

Have you seen just how LITTLE of the body a 10x12" plate actually covers?

 

[yeetmahboi]

G-11 worked, OICW worked, the technology was just at the can-do-but-expensive level, rather than can-do-cheaply. (Why on earth XM25/29/OICW/OCSW used spin-counter as opposed to just a counter on the CPU clock-signal I have no idea). All the modern airbursting rounds such as AHEAD and 40mm CTA are using exactly the technology OICW needed.

G11 never entered service. So did OICW. XM25 managed, but still got canned later. The point is that they asked way too much, and got nothing in return. Maybe not "nothing" if you count the tech maturity achieved though.

The UK's currently evaluating the Israeli SMASH sight, which does have autotracker/lead calculation (looking at counter-UAS), so the capability is out there.

Unfortunately, the contract is sealed, and Vortex will be selling XM157s to the US Army. And the US has enough budget to not be strangled into buying glorified MG-34 flaks for C-UAS. Trackingpoint runs on Linux iirc, and with AI, it could be extremely lethal and future proofed.

All in all NGSW is still stupid, but the R and FCS part just took it to the next level. At least the infantry has cool new toys to pose for photo ops now.

 

[Rickshaw]

I see we are still missing my point and being side-tracked into discussions about whether or not the ammunition is needed or not. The point I have been trying to make is that the US Army still believes that every soldier is a marksman at heart and that the M4 is an unsuitable rifle. What they have right is the M4 part but not because it lacks range but rather because it's barrel is too short and it relies on a direct impingement method of operation. As I have said, no one with a longer barreled 5.56x45mm rifle has complained about its performance in Afghanistan. Australians with F88 Steyr rifles haven't complained, British with L85 rifles haven't complained, only Americans with M4s have complained. Their complaints have centred on "lack of range", yet other Armies firing the same ammunition haven't complained. Now, the US Army seems to have forgotten it's lessons on combined arms warfare and the use of supporting arms. It has concentrated too much it seems on the idea that every infantryman is a marksman and that they cause disproportionate casualties amongst the enemy. Why must it adopt a new calibre and a new rifle? The enemy doesn't have any armour to be penetrated. The enemy is at ranges that supporting arms are meant to cope with. Where are the supporting arms? Where is the combined arms warfare? Is the US Army full of half-wits who think they are on the Wild West frontier fight Indians or something?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I see we are still missing my point and being side-tracked into discussions about whether or not the ammunition is needed or not. The point I have been trying to make is that the US Army still believes that every soldier is a marksman at heart and that the M4 is an unsuitable rifle. What they have right is the M4 part but not because it lacks range but rather because it's barrel is too short and it relies on a direct impingement method of operation. As I have said, no one with a longer barreled 5.56x45mm rifle has complained about its performance in Afghanistan. Australians with F88 Steyr rifles haven't complained, British with L85 rifles haven't complained, only Americans with M4s have complained. Their complaints have centred on "lack of range", yet other Armies firing the same ammunition haven't complained. Now, the US Army seems to have forgotten it's lessons on combined arms warfare and the use of supporting arms. It has concentrated too much it seems on the idea that every infantryman is a marksman and that they cause disproportionate casualties amongst the enemy. Why must it adopt a new calibre and a new rifle? The enemy doesn't have any armour to be penetrated. The enemy is at ranges that supporting arms are meant to cope with. Where are the supporting arms? Where is the combined arms warfare? Is the US Army full of half-wits who think they are on the Wild West frontier fight Indians or something?

1) Ordnance Branch has always, I SAY AGAIN ALWAYS been of the opinion that every soldier is a marksman. This is NOT NEW, it was the case when the M1873 'Trapdoor' Springfield was brought into service! (and may have been the case when the Hall breachloaders were brought into service in 1819)
2) The supporting arms were banned by the (all the expletives deleted) politicians. "ROEs require you to confirm that there are no civilians within the casualty radius of any ordnance" and they would prosecute anyone who said there wasn't anyone there but weren't able to keep any surviving Talibani from taking the weapons with them because "those were unarmed villagers"

3) the AR15 isn't exactly "direct impingement," there is an internal gas piston in the bolt carrier group formed between the back end of the bolt and the inside of the carrier. As hot gasses flow into the gas key and down into the bolt carrier, the bolt proper is pushed FORWARD into the star chamber and unloading the locking lugs. At the same time the bolt carrier itself is being pushed backwards, unlocking the bolt and pulling it to the rear.

Regardless, the bad rep for "shitting where it eats" was caused by Ordnance Branch changing powders from the extruded IMR type as originally specified by Stoner to the ball type that was used in the M14. Powder used in the M14s was subjected to multiple different checks, the powder that was delivered to the ammunition plants making the military contract M193 5.56 was completely untested. When Stoner and Sullivan finally were able to test some of the ball powder, it was averaging 10,000psi higher at the gas port than what the IMR powder spec was, AND was a much dirtier-burning powder so the inside of the rifle was coated in nasty black fouling.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Ordnance Branch has always, I SAY AGAIN ALWAYS been of the opinion that every soldier is a marksman

The supporting arms were banned by the (all the expletives deleted) politicians. "ROEs require you to confirm that there are no civilians within the casualty radius of any ordnance"

I must say, those people are too delusional to be in charge of anything...

 

[Rickshaw]

I must say, those people are too delusional to be in charge of anything...

Which is perhaps the outcome of my argument. Combines Arms Warfare is about using all the arms as a team to gain an objective. It appears my point that the US Army is full of half-wits who think it is still fighting in the Wild West against Indians rather than a modern opponent, is correct. They are fools too much in love with the romance of the old Soldier as against the reality of the modern one.

 

[Rickshaw]

1) Ordnance Branch has always, I SAY AGAIN ALWAYS been of the opinion that every soldier is a marksman. This is NOT NEW, it was the case when the M1873 'Trapdoor' Springfield was brought into service! (and may have been the case when the Hall breachloaders were brought into service in 1819)

Then the ordnance branch should be the ones put out there, facing the consequences of their decisions, directly.

2) The supporting arms were banned by the (all the expletives deleted) politicians. "ROEs require you to confirm that there are no civilians within the casualty radius of any ordnance" and they would prosecute anyone who said there wasn't anyone there but weren't able to keep any surviving Talibani from taking the weapons with them because "those were unarmed villagers"

The politicians should join the Ordnance branch out there facing the consequences of their decisions.

3) the AR15 isn't exactly "direct impingement," there is an internal gas piston in the bolt carrier group formed between the back end of the bolt and the inside of the carrier. As hot gasses flow into the gas key and down into the bolt carrier, the bolt proper is pushed FORWARD into the star chamber and unloading the locking lugs. At the same time the bolt carrier itself is being pushed backwards, unlocking the bolt and pulling it to the rear.

I was always taught that the M16 family were a "direct impingement" weapons and in my experience of using the Xm16/M16/M16a1 are a weapon very prone to stoppages and dropping magazines unexpectedly. I have never understood their popularity or the M4's.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was always taught that the M16 family were a "direct impingement" weapons and in my experience of using the Xm16/M16/M16a1 are a weapon very prone to stoppages and dropping magazines unexpectedly. I have never understood their popularity or the M4s.

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...