Harrison Beene (harrisonbeen) said:

My TAC30 which for all practical purposes is a high pressure58K  30 Herrett. I can push the 130gr Mk319 to 2600fps out of a 16" barrel using a case of 35gr H2O capacity(6.8 spc case) . A 16" 308 with the same 130gr bullet only reaches 2675-2700  with a case capacity of 56gr, both using barrels with high performance rifling designs

Those are really impressive results. 

When you say high performance rifling, what is that? Is it a type of rifling that boosts velocity somehow? 

stancrist said:

Some video evidence pertaining to the defeat of body armor: . . . @ 2:08 a Ukrainian grenadier (who appears to be wearing body armor) is killed by a short FA burst fired by a Russian rifleman. It seems at least one of the three rounds hit the Ukrainian in a vital area not protected by the armor, as per "hose 'em" theory. . . . @ 2:22 a Ukrainian rifleman shoots a Russian soldier, who appears to take one bullet in the helmet and one in the upper back

Excellent footage, great find. 

Yes at 2:08 looks like he took a well controlled burst, and at least one probably struck the head / CNS as he dropped instantly. Definitely a win for 'team hose' theory of armor defeat, at least for CQB. 

2:22 was remarkable, for sure thought that dude was super dead, but the helmet saved him. That does indeed show that armor certainly makes a difference / makes an enemy harder to kill. 

While these helmets are not designed to stop rifle rounds, and can be easily pierced by them if the bullets strike dead on, we've seen in Ukraine (and previously in Iraq / Astan / some US SWAT action) helmets successfully stopping / deflecting rifle rounds if they hit alongside the sloped edge of the helmet.

Given that these helmets can be pierced head on by existing rifle rounds, I'm not sure whether a more AP projectile would make a difference there, as it seems to be a matter of deflection more then penetration?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/12/orlando-police-credit-kevlar-helmet-with-saving-officers-life.html

YouTube

U.S. Marine survives sniper's bullet to head

The helmet camera of a U.S. Marine captured his colleague getting hit in the head by a sniper round in Afghanistan last year. The Kevlar in his helmet saved ...

stancrist said:

P.S.  Note how ineffective the Ukrainians' hand grenades were in the attempts to neutralize the Russian bunker. Employment of drone-delivered grenades was much more precise and effective in attacking the same position

Accuracy is everything, although short of someone pitching a grenade into that tiny firing port not sure if any grenade would be able to defeat that bunker. 

Chucking a smoke grenade in front of them might have had a better chance of success, and allowed them to move in further down the trench? 

gatnerd said:

Given that these helmets can be pierced head on by existing rifle rounds, I'm not sure whether a more AP projectile would make a difference there, as it seems to be a matter of deflection more then penetration?

Concur.  You (and Mr. T) are right.  I made an erroneous conclusion.

gatnerd said:

Chucking a smoke grenade in front of them might have had a better chance of success, and allowed them to move in further down the trench?

Your guess is as good as mine, but it looks to me like the final (S-shaped) portion of the trench was not visible from the bunker's firing port. 

If so, the Ukrainians could have moved further down the trench without smoke.  Are smoke grenades being used there?  I've seen only frags.

5R rifling with a 30:70 land to groove ratio or 3R with a 25:75 land to groove ratio and Nitride treated.

NGSW continues:

https://soldiersystems.net/2023/05/01/sig-sauer-delivers-next-generation-squad-weapons-to-us-army-for-production-qualification-test

Ammunition is GP, RRA & blank - no AP/SP. 

Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available. Not because it might be necessary, but because it would allow discovery of issues before the production configuration for the weapons is locked in.

It strongly implies that GP will be the operational ammo nature for the foreseeable future, which then begs the question why pursue the SIG NGSW FOW, or NGSW at all?

The Army's budget document shows authorization to purchase test quantities of SP ammo in the near future. 

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=8085.179

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=8085.181

DavidPawley said:

Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available. Not because it might be necessary, but because it would allow discovery of issues before the production configuration for the weapons is locked in

Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.

Hopefully they actually test the SP against real ceramic Level IV and not just RHA.

And hopefully if it turns out 6.8 is not able to defeat IV @ 200m+ this is discovered before the Army buys 100k battle rifles.

...

On the flipside, while I question the 6.8 rifle, the 6.8 lightweight LMG I do think is a great addition. Although if its not AP it would have been much better as a .264 LICC EVOLYS as Emeric described given the ammo weigh reduction. 

gatnerd said:

       DavidPawley said: Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available.

Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.

Methinks you guys worry too much.  Personally, I see no cause for concern.  Instead, I view the decision to conduct the PQT without SP ammo as an opportunity to cancel NGSW and change course to 6.5x43 LICC (or similar).