gatnerd said:

Do you think if TV used a more substantial internal neck that the accuracy issue would resolve itself?

At least it will help. I dunno if that will resolve everything because the polymer part will be thicker than with a neck, and the case / chamber concentricity should be improved. Maybe with something like an "O" ring on the front part of the case, or some groove / flange in this area.

I was also been told that one test bullet was very "front heavy", so avoiding in-bore yaw was challenging for everyone.

"My understanding is that the "out of alignment" chamber is much more acute with the Textron CT moving chamber design."

Does this mean that you've heard on the grapevine that the Textron is having issues currently, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Edit : If I'm reading this right it says that even a 0.254mm misalignment can result in a 3-4 MOA shift, and a 0.54mm misalignment will result in a 12 MOA shift, these tolerances seem to be pretty tight for a combat rifle, I really hope this isn't an issue in the Textron NGSW

EmericD said:

I was also been told that one test bullet was very "front heavy", so avoiding in-bore yaw was challenging for everyone.

Ah, Tungsten EPR I assume?

That was something I had wondered about awhile back - if they just took the EPR design, and swapped out the steel tip for tungsten, then the projectile would be very front heavy (as opposed to the preferred rearward weight balance.) Also the projectile would be pretty radically different in overall weight. 

Would a full length, exposed tip penetrator design fix the front heavy issue? 

I recall awhile back you had mentioned 'acoustic impedance' of alternative materials to copper/steel for the base of the EPR to work better with tungsten than Nammo's 'powerball' steel base/tunsgten tip. If thats still happening, and the alternate material is less dense then steel/copper, that would exacerbate the front heavyness as well?

Gr1ff1th said:

If I'm reading this right it says that even a 0.254mm misalignment can result in a 3-4 MOA shift, and a 0.54mm misalignment will result in a 12 MOA shift, these tolerances seem to be pretty tight for a combat rifle, I really hope this isn't an issue in the Textron NGSW

Those would be tight tolerances. 0.254 is .01", only slightly more than the standard .008" gap between a revolver cylinder and barrel. 

For that chart, Delphi rendered it unreadable. You you think you could upload it using ImgBB? Thats the best way to share photos on this forum. Its free and fast.

https://imgbb.com/

Then you can share the link to the upload, or upload it using the little photo icon 'from website' using that link. Whereas rendering 'from computer' often compresses the image to death.

Here are some relevant extracts from the study Emeric linked earlier, about the specifics of the effects of chamber misalignment, along with a nice picture of the kind of yaw at 0.54 milimetres for a visual aid

 

Wonderful, thank you, much easier to read.

Sounds like going to a more appropriate projectile design could help A LOT...

Hmm who do we know who has projectiles designed for something like this? 

Lolol

Would have thought that 0.254mm misalignment is huge to even think of having between the bore and the chamber , till you consider the moving chamber design Textron is using. They are screwed .....

Gr1ff1th said:

Does this mean that you've heard on the grapevine that the Textron is having issues currently, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

No, I have no "first hand" information on the Textron offering.

The "anonymous USAMU" claim about the potential lack of accuracy from GD and Textron just reminds me of an old paper I read regarding CT ammo and out-of-center chamber, so I put the link here.

gatnerd said:

Ah, Tungsten EPR I assume?

That was my initial understanding, but I was wrong.

The "smoke screen" on this program is denser than anticipated!

gatnerd said:

That was something I had wondered about awhile back - if they just took the EPR design, and swapped out the steel tip for tungsten, then the projectile would be very front heavy (as opposed to the preferred rearward weight balance.) Also the projectile would be pretty radically different in overall weight. 

Same feeling here when the XM1158 ADVAP was presented.

Replacing the steel arrow of an EPR bullet with a tungsten arrow is going to push the CoG of the bullet in an area unsupported by the shank, inducing a lot of in-bore yaw. So you need also to replace the copper core with a denser alloy to achieve proper bullet balance.