gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3333
    MEMBERS
  • 189378
    MESSAGES
  • 22
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 480093 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: I just did a brief search, and I could not find any 6.5 CM ammo now available that looks like it would meet military requirements. There is no EPR, lead free FMJ, AP, Tracer, Blank.  All still have to be developed, so 6.5 CM has no advantage over 6.8 in this regard.

Sorry, but SOCOM don't use blank ammo, nor EPR, nor lead-free FMJs. Even tracers are barely needed...

Well, "barely needed" = needed.  Which means that 6.5 CM Tracer still needs to be developed.

If SOCOM does not use EPR, what Ball ammo are they shooting in 5.56 and 7.62 machine guns?

If SOCOM adopts 6.5 CM, and if they don't use EPR, will they shoot HPBT Match ammo in MGs?

Why do you say SOCOM don't use blank ammo?  Photo: Ranger carrying a M240L machine gun 

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

mpopenker said:

US military is an integral part of the game

Specifications for the SPIW, ACR, OICW, Bradley, Zumwalt, and myriad of other failed systems were specified by the military

LOL.  The military creates specifications for military weapon systems.  Who woulda thunk?

mpopenker said:

I just wonder how many of generals and colonels who formulated those requirements or downselected contractors ended up in the advisory boards of said companies after their honorable retirement from active duty.

I am sure that some do.  But, how do you think specifying 6.8mm as the NGSW caliber would benefit either Army officers or businesses like GD and SIG? 

Would it somehow have benefited those individuals or companies less if 7mm, 6.5mm, or 6mm had been specified?  Or if no caliber had been mandated?

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

23-May

Depends on the project. Some are written basically for one company to win in an obvious way. The Marine Corps HK416 trials for example. Others are more open.

This NGSW program itself was fairly surprising that way. I figured that it was basically a show so the Army could adopt the Textron gun, given that they'd been paying for the LSAT project for a decade and a half at that point. The other entrants were mainly there to be seen and shown off before the Army went with the Cased Telescoped gun they were paying to have made. Only for that to blow out. 

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

23-May

stancrist said:

LOL. The military creates specifications for military weapon systems. Who woulda thunk?

the military (any military, Russian included), if unchecked from the outside, tends to create unrealistic requirements

Ask any soldier and he wants a gun which is the lightest, the most powerful, has most ammo capacity etc etc

SPIW was prime example of that, Russian 'Abakan' in its early iterations was absolutely unrealistic too

But in American case any requirement, regardless of how unrealistic it is, is wholeheartedly greeted with the industry because it means 'free' R&D money with very little chances of adoption and subsequent responsibilities for the end project

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

23-May

Sometimes  you do get wunderwaffe from that. The AR15 wasn't a product of the US trials, but it was created on the demand of the US Army, and for its time was an unrealistic spacegun that did do almost everything that people imagined a gun could do short of aim itself. And the US military aeronautics programs have historically turned out some fairly incredible products that have exceeded expectations in performance.  

But if there is a trial that pays for development, and you as some military conglomerate have some weapon that fits that trial well enough sitting around entering it into the trial regardless of its chance to win is a decent way to pass that money around to fund other projects that you do care about. Or profit off of that otherwise.

These were the standards requested (as far as I know) for the rifles as part of the Prototype Opportunity Notice contract, with the remembrance that this is for a gun firing a 7mm magnum cartridge. Are these realistic? Are they just dreaming? Unfortunately the "Lethality Requirements" aspect are missing from the included documents. Anyone that can find them will be much appreciated by me.

In my mind the program itself was founded on foolish grounds, not in the form of pure engineering, as most of what was asked was achievable. But on the grounds that its stupid to try and ask anyone to do it because as a system of firearms the NGSW-R and NGSW-AR are nearly nonsensical. Not quite the same as SPIW or Abakan, that asked for just about everything under the sun in a way that was impossible to achieve in a reasonable way. But asked for that everything in a way that made sense at  the time.

  • Edited 23 May 2022 7:29  by  Apsyda
stancrist

From: stancrist

23-May

mpopenker said:

But in American case any requirement, regardless of how unrealistic it is, is wholeheartedly greeted with the industry because it means 'free' R&D money...

1.  Of course American companies that do R&D are happy to get R&D contracts.  Should they complain about it?

2.  Calling it "free" money is a blatant falsehood.  It is not free.  They have to do work in exchange for the $$$$$.

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-May

Apsyda said:

In my mind the program itself was founded on foolish grounds, not in the form of pure engineering, as most of what was asked was achievable. But on the grounds that its stupid to try and ask anyone to do it because as a system of firearms the NGSW-R and NGSW-AR are nearly nonsensical.

What do you consider "nearly nonsensical" about NGSW-R and -AR?

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

23-May

The NGSW-R is overweight, too powerful for any standard combat scenario seen over the last century, and almost certainly can't even penetrate the armor plates that ostensibly drove its development without using tungsten. Putting it nowhere above what we're already using. And its built on a poor foundation to be a DMR because its still tied to the barrel whip introducing piston mechanism.

The NGSW-AR is firing a hot magnum cartridge, but doesn't have a QC barrel. Despite having a suppressor that makes overheating happen even faster. It had to add a ridiculous bridging top rail because obviously there was little intercompany and intratrial communication as to how large the NGSW-FC optic would be. And beyond that is built exceedingly lightly for the level of power involved in the cartridge its meant to be operating with - almost certainly severely reducing operational lifespan. Leaving us with an M60mk2 in effect. And in the end gives little to no appreciable weight advantage over the notoriously overweight M249 SAW, because the additional ammo weight over 5.56NATO quickly adds up.

These guns are also both chambered in a complex cartridge that can't be used in many existing firearms on account of its very high operating pressure. And even if you could rebarrel for example, an M240 to take the 6.8NGSW cartridge, it'd be at the expense of significantly reduced operational lifespan.

EmericD

From: EmericD

24-May

stancrist said:

Perhaps you missed these posts?

Our capability to draw opposite conclusions from the same set of informations will never ceased to puzzle me.

EmericD

From: EmericD

24-May

Apsyda said:

The NGSW-AR is firing a hot magnum cartridge, but doesn't have a QC barrel.

The SIG NGSW-AR does have a QC barrel. Not very ergonomic and not designed to be changed when hot during combat, but a QC barrel.

Apsyda said:

It had to add a ridiculous bridging top rail because obviously there was little intercompany and intratrial communication as to how large the NGSW-FC optic would be.

I think that the "bridging top rail" is a direct consequence of the SIG sliding feed tray cover, which is OK only with something like a red-dot sight.

TOP