Expensive legacy ammo given its manufactured by the million.

You could buy a LOT of 5.56 for training for the cost of a NGSW loadout!

Working on some little 'NGSW at a glance' images. 

Does anyone have a better image of the Sig rifle with the NGSW-FC mounted?

This is currently the best one I had, which makes the text only meh as far as legibility.

And here's the weight vs the current M4A1 loadout. 

XM7 w/ Suppressor= 9.84lbs

Loaded 20rd Mag 6.8 = 1.4lbs

NGSW-FC = unknown, estimate 2lbs

= 13.24lb

M4A1 = 6.36lb

4x ACOG = 0.94lb

PEQ 15A IR = 0.5lb 

30rd 5.56 PMAG= 1.1lb

= 8.9lbs

= + 4.34lb individual rifle weight 

Rifle + 7x mags:

NGSW = 21.64lbs

M4A1 = 15.5lb

= +6.14lb weapon/ammo weight

Excellent Stan, that 3rd image is perfect. 

Edit:

Source:

https://www.army.mil/article/256697/ngsw_signifies_an_evolution_in_soldier_lethality

However this source gives different weight:

https://www.army.mil/article/256697/ngsw_signifies_an_evolution_in_soldier_lethality

8.35lb bare, whopping 9.8lbs suppressed:

Suppressor is unusually heavy, as the SIG SLX upon which it is based is 'only' 1.21lbs.

gatnerd said:

Suppressor is unusually heavy, as the SIG SLX upon which it is based is 'only' 1.21lbs.

There is probably an error in the reported weight of the 7.62 mm SLX-QD.

https://www.sigsauer.com/slx-suppressor.html

The weight of the 5.56 mm "direct thread" and "QD" version are 1.08 lbs and 1.21 lbs respectively, but for the 7.62 mm both versions are given at 1.21 lbs, which seems strange, as QD versions are inherently heavier than direct thread versions.

1.46 lbs for an QD inconel suppressor that should survive full-auto fire and the muzzle pressure of the 6.8 x 51 mm round is not that heavy.

Good catch with SIG listing them both as the same weight, clearly and error on their part. 

Then the image weights should be pretty accurate, or at least should not overstate the weight, which is what I was keen to avoid.  

gatnerd said:

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. 

Video of another assault on the bunker.  Multiple grenades thrown into the entrance failed to neutralize the position.

The drone dropped two more hand grenades (@ 8:55 and 10:00 in the video below) a few inches from the firing port.

Shortly thereafter the Russians (There were a lot more than I thought!) abandoned the bunker, escaping via a rear exit.

@ 11:00 one Russki appears to fire three rounds at the drone, without hitting it.  Infantry needs an anti-drone weapon?

YouTube

????? ?? ???????. 4 ?????. ?????????? ???????. ??? ?2. ???????-????????

???????? ????? ?????????? ?-2 (54 ????) ????????? ??????? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ???????. ???? ?????????? ???????, ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????????? ??.?...

stancrist said:

Infantry needs an anti-drone weapon?

I think thats one of the takeaways from the Ukraine war. Certainly need one more then they need a NGSW-R....

As for what that weapon would be, theres drone jammer guns, but that will likely not work on emerging AI / Autonomous drones. A proximity airbust M72 LAW would work on loitering quadcopters, but would be way too slow to deal with a FPV diving suicide drone. 

...

In terms of grenades, we've seen a number of lackluster effect in various vids. I wonder to what extent that is older F1/RGD-5 style hand grenades being meh due to a limited number of fragments, vs frag grenades in general being meh in outdoor use?

Updated NGSW vs M4 graphic - alas had to use a 3d render for the M4, couldn't find one of the M4 w/ current PEQ15 + ACOG by itself.