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.

  • 3350
    MEMBERS
  • 190108
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 523114 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

31-May

At the 12:45 we have FA testing of the SPEAR at 50yd; actually looks very good in terms of controllability and burst accuracy at that distance.

Sig MCX Spear - US Army NGSW - Disassembly, Live Fire & Discussion

InRange is entirely viewer supported:https://www.patreon.com/inrangeSpecial thanks to @illumined_arms for making this video possible! Please go check them o...

The 'flow-through' suppressor also seems to be working well; no gas to the shooters face, and pretty compact. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

31-May

gatnerd said:

FA testing of the SPEAR at 50yd; actually looks very good in terms of controllability and burst accuracy at that distance.

It does look pretty good.  Brass-cased (lower power) ammo, though -- not the full-power hybrid stuff.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

31-May

Ah, great eye Stan. 

That brings up a pretty interesting feature; it seems like the Spear can fire both standard (62ish) pressure rounds, as well as the 80kpsi high pressure rounds. 

I wonder whether this requires changing the gas setting, and if there is a dedicated setting for both types of ammo? 

EmericD

From: EmericD

31-May

stancrist said:

Okay, but I'm not seeing how that answers either of Nick's questions: "How important is the need to engage enemy targets at 600 metres?" "How often will we need to engage enemies at this range?"

That just mean that depending on your RoE, engaging enemy targets at 600 m (or higher) could be rare and few (like during WWII & Korea), or up to one quarter (25%) of the infantry engagements (like Afghanistan).

That also mean that in the first case, issuing a DMR is probably sufficient to deal with those "rare & few" events, but in the second case you will probably need a NGSW.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

31-May

EmericD said:

That also mean that in the first case, issuing a DMR is probably sufficient to deal with those "rare & few" events, but in the second case you will probably need a NGSW

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario? 

For example NZ's configuration; 5.56 rifles (interestingly using 77gr) paired with a 7.62 DMR and 7.62 LMG:

To me, a similar configuration with NGSW seems better then a pure 5.56 or pure 6.8. 

6.8 LMG(s) and (optionally) 6.8 DMR, paired with 5.56 rifles for the rest. 

EmericD

From: EmericD

31-May

gatnerd said:

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario?

The NZ weapon mix is very interesting.

80% equiped with 5.56 mm, 20% with 7.62 mm, and their DMR could be used full-auto, to provide limited long-range suppressive fire if necessary.

The team built around the 7.62 mm LMG could carry all the extra 7.62 mm ammo needed.

The Mk262 (from a 16" barrel) is delivering around 50% more KE at 600 m than the M855 (from a 14.5" barrel), providing better hit probability, but the impact velocity of ~410-420 m/s may fail to defeat LVL IIIA soft body armor.

Against unprotected opponents, this combination should be quite effective, at least on paper.

nincomp

From: nincomp

31-May

gatnerd said:

  I wonder whether this requires changing the gas setting, and if there is a dedicated setting for both types of ammo?

It is entirely possible that the same gas setting could be used for both.  What matters for rifle operation is the pressure in the barrel and characteristics of the pulse after the bullet passes the gas port.  With a given mass of propellant,  a faster burning rate will reach a higher maximum pressure sooner and transfer energy more quickly to a bullet.  This will leave less energy available in the form of pressurized gasses farther down the barrel at the gas port. 

The calculus changes a bit if SIG has managed to increase propellant energy density in the military cartridge somehow.  The general principle would remain the same but the total amount of energy would be larger.

stancrist

From: stancrist

31-May

gatnerd said:

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario? 

For example NZ's configuration; 5.56 rifles paired with a 7.62 DMR and 7.62 LMG...

To me, a similar configuration with NGSW seems better then a pure 5.56 or pure 6.8.

6.8 LMG(s) and (optionally) 6.8 DMR, paired with 5.56 rifles for the rest.

That does not seem logical to me.  The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

IMO, if the squad should have to fight enemy infantry equipped with Level IV armor, not giving the squad's riflemen the capability to defeat said armor is a bad idea, both for combat effectiveness of the squad and for morale of the riflemen.

nincomp

From: nincomp

31-May

stancrist said:

The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

Another reason for the NGSW was increased effectiveness and longer ranges, whether against body armor or not. 

Everyone in the squad will need a weapon capable of incapacitating the opponent.  The question is at what range and with how many shots.  I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

I would think it more important that all weapons use a similar set of controls and share the same "muscle memory" movements.  I found it interesting that one of the SIG reps in a recent video stated that the reason that its Spear still has a rear charging handle is for that reason.  More accurately, I think that he stated that soldiers when under stress tended to reach for the rear charging handle, so it was maintained in the new weapon system for that reason.

stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Jun

nincomp said:

I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

The "golf bag" approach may seem not unreasonable, but I think it is rather unrealistic to expect it to be adopted.

And judging by history, I also think it unlikely that the US Army would mix 5.56 and 6.8 weapons in the rifle squad.

From the First World War up to the present, the SOP has been to use a common caliber for rifles and squad autos.

U.S. Army Rifle Squad (1918-2020) (battleorder.org)

\

If NGSW gets fielded as planned, I fully expect that US Army rifle squads will be equipped with 6.8 rifles and LMGs.

TOP