Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 11:55 by schnuersi
Latest 5:33 by EmericD
Latest 4:38 by autogun
Latest 2:53 by schnuersi
Latest 5-Aug by mpopenker
Latest 3-Aug by nincomp
Latest 3-Aug by dudutin
Latest 1-Aug by stancrist
Latest 31-Jul by gatnerd
Latest 27-Jul by Guardsman26
Latest 26-Jul by Refleks
Latest 11-Jul by gatnerd
21-Apr
stancrist said:Yes, the TV ammo is technologically superior, but it cannot at present be fired in the SIG weapons.
SIG has mentioned that the 6.8 LMG is backwards compatible with 7.62 and 6.5C.
Converting the 6.8 LMG to 6.8TV would have just required a 19" barrel chambered in 6.8TV instead of the 16" chambered in 6.8SIG.
Similar to the already demonstrated 6.8TV conversion of the M240.
21-Apr
17thfabn said:6.8 would probably only be used by Infantry, Rangers, Special Forces and maybe dismounted Cavalry. Artillery, engineers, mortar crews etc. could keep 5.56 as personal weapons.
NGSW is specifically intended for "Close combat troops" which the Army has defined as Infantry, Scouts, and Combat Engineers.
Unless they also field M240 conversion kits, though, even infantry units with 6.8mm squad weapons are going to have a ton of 7.62 machineguns, both on vehicles and in weapons teams (unless they use the M250 to replace the M240s, not just the M249s in the rifle squads).
21-Apr
It was kind of remarkable how little they had to say about the actual firearm in that hour. The only hard data we got, I think, is confirmation that SIG's ammo is at least somewhat lighter than 7.62 NATO. And that the rifle is confirmed to be around 8lbs, while the AR is confirmed to be around 13lbs. We already knew that, but its at least useful to know that the guns stayed that weight through testing.
Otherwise there was a lot of saying very little.
Something I did notice, was that they came back to talking about how quickly they had everything moving in this project. They describe how what would have been a nearly 10 year project was expedited to only take a couple, for example. I guess they know something we don't it seems.
21-Apr
Ironically, the fact that the SIG 6.8 is indeed suboptimal, at least in cost and weight of ammo, may keep its use limited enough that it will be easier to replace with a more effective solution. Whatever that will be.
The most important parts of NGSW will probably be the smart optic and the adoption of a rifle/carbine with a foldable stock. If the US Army refuses to use bullpups, hopefully the barrels of its weapons can be kept to a reasonable length by utilizing a folding stock.
21-Apr
graylion said:What is the point if it is _not_ supposed to replace the NATO standard cartridges???
The purpose is to give the close combat force overmatch capability against "near peer" opponents. See 2:11-2:42 https://youtu.be/nTYzGuAcaUw?t=131
21-Apr
gatnerd said:stancrist said: Yes, the TV ammo is technologically superior, but it cannot at present be fired in the SIG weapons.
SIG has mentioned that the 6.8 LMG is backwards compatible with 7.62 and 6.5C.
Converting the 6.8 LMG to 6.8TV would have just required a 19" barrel chambered in 6.8TV instead of the 16" chambered in 6.8SIG.
Similar to the already demonstrated 6.8TV conversion of the M240.
Yes. I didn't say the SIG guns can't be converted to fire the TV ammo. I think such a conversion almost certainly is possible.
The problem is that it would take time to develop and test the conversions, but the Army clearly wants to field NGSW ASAP.
Also, the need to increase barrel and overall length to get the same velocity would undoubtedly be considered undesirable.
And IIRC earlier in the thread somebody (Guardsman? Emeric?) reported that there were accuracy issues with the TV ammo.
All of which means the TV ammo may not be as optimal as you think. It may be that the SIG ammo is actually the best option.
21-Apr
nincomp said:The most important parts of NGSW will probably be the smart optic and the adoption of a rifle/carbine with a foldable stock. If the US Army refuses to use bullpups, hopefully the barrels of its weapons can be kept to a reasonable length by utilizing a folding stock.
a. What do you consider "reasonable" barrel length? I don't see barrels getting too much shorter -- let alone any longer -- than SIG's 13" and 16" tubes.
b. A folding stock only helps reduce overall length when stowed. When in use, there is no reduction in weapon length compared to non-folding stocks.
21-Apr
stancrist said:And IIRC earlier in the thread somebody (Guardsman? Emeric?) reported that there were accuracy issues with the TV ammo.
I think that Nicholas (Guardsman) was first to raise this point, then I asked people at GD and they confirmed that they had issues duplicating the accuracy achieved by TV (in test barrel), with the RM277 rifle.
21-Apr
Do you think the Army made the right call going with SIG, and that the accuracy issues would likely persist with the TV design?