This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 1-Oct by farmplinker2
Latest 1-Oct by gatnerd
Latest 1-Oct by Jeff (Jefffar)
Latest 1-Oct by stancrist
Latest 30-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 29-Sep by stancrist
Latest 27-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 26-Sep by stancrist
Latest 24-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 24-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 24-Sep by farmplinker2
Latest 22-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by smg762
Latest 18-Sep by JPeelen
Latest 17-Sep by graylion
Latest 17-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 16-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 14-Sep by smg762
Latest 7-Sep by EmericD
Latest 5-Sep by stancrist
Latest 4-Sep by renatohm
Latest 4-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
If people are complaining about a harsh recoil, more mass is a good thing, because physics.
That is a bit simplistic. There is a difference in total recoil and how it is perceived by the shooter.
I recall that the Beretta-True Velocity RM277 had a more sophisticated recoil reduction system than the SIG. I think it was along the lines of the system being used in the XM250, essentially a recoiling barrel/inner-receiver isolated from the main receiver by a damper. The longer barrel of the bullpup also allowed a less energetic cartridge to be used with less energy left to create rocket thrust. The SIG XM5 does not have any recoil-reducing features. I was obvious early on that it would have highest felt recoil. I don't know if merely adding a recoil pad to the buttstock is considered an option since traditionally the butt of the rifle is expected to be used as a weapon itself.
One of the issues with a competition like used for the NGSW is that the winner is chosen to be used largely "as is". It is unlikely that only one of the competitors would have ALL of the best ideas. From an engineering standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to develop another generation of weapons using the best of the ideas from the previous submissions. For example, True Velocity claims that their polymer case could handle 80,000 psi. If indeed that is true, it is entirely possible that the wrong case technology was chosen simply because it was submitted with the preferred rifle design.
One of the issues with a competition like used for the NGSW is that the winner is chosen to be used largely "as is". It is unlikely that only one of the competitors would have ALL of the best ideas. From an engineering standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to develop another generation of weapons using the best of the ideas from the previous submissions.
Really I think what would make the most sense is figuring out the case technology and cartridge, then having a new competition where all the manufacturers are given the cartridge (whether its SIG's 6.8 hybrid, TV's neckless polymer, or perhaps a thin wall stainless steel design ala FN .264) and they each design a weapon system around that common cartridge.
And the rifle and LMG competition should be separate, so Company A might have the best Rifle design and Company B might have the best LMG.
could you have a steel case like the FN, but with a SIG style steel base, to allow high pressures too? or combine the steel base with a polymer case
The True Velocity polymer case already has a steel base. It would be possible to make a two-part steel case, but that would likely add cost. It would probably make more sense to just design a one-piece steel case that could handle higher pressures.
At this point in time, it is unclear whether raising max chamber pressure is the best option. There are advantages, for example, more work can be done in a shorter distance, meaning shorter barrels for the same velocity, but there is not yet a lot of experience to know the tradeoffs. Some potential downsides are: more expensive materials, reduced service life of components, significant weight increase and sensitivity to dirt, sand, snow, etc.
Today we take a look at the military's new combat rifle, the XM7.Be sure to save 25% at Sylvan Arms with code "Brandon"Thanks to SDI! Again, it's SDI.edu for...
He mentions several issues with his 13" 7.62x51 version.
-HEAVY. Whereas the NGSW was quoted at 8.38lbs, he says his 7.62 13" clocks in at a whopping 8.9lbs. SIG themselves list the 13" 7.62 at 8.6lbs. Whether this means the NGSW will also be heavier is unknown, but SIG's past issues with the MCX 5.56 platform has been one of ever increasing weight.
-Charging handle is very stiff. The Spear uses a unusual, very long and skinny recoil spring. He describes the T-handle as borderline unusable, while the side charging handle is very stiff. Much stiffer than the 7.62 SCAR 17.
-Magazine over-insertion. This one is surprising - a too firm insertion of the magazine will cause it to over insert and jam the weapon, preventing the bolt from being able to close / chamber a new round. From the video this happens with not all that much force either; well below the level of force one would expect an adrenalized soldier to use in a firefight. This is probably easy to solve, but until it's solved its a potentially lethal flaw.
Recent twitter post from PEO Soldier
Potential design flaw for NGSW XM7?
Recently its been discovered that the SPEAR-LT (5.56 civilian/leo version of 6.8 SPEAR XM7) has issues with barrel shifting upon load / impact.
Basically if lateral pressure is applied to the barrel it will lose zero - and stay off target even once the pressure is no longer applied. Ie you whack the barrel going in a door, the barrel can get canted to the left and stay a bit canted.
Why is unknown yet, but most likely culprit is some flaw in the barrel to receiver interface.
This is the 3rd and FINAL installment of the MCX Spear LT and the barrel issues that we saw. In this video, we explore MCX barrel deviation and provide valu...
Claim that this is a 7.62/6.8 SPEAR with same issue (but little further context given)
Google drive detailed Analysis (excellent)
Excerpt; problem seems more acute with left pressure vs right
And another test with near identical results
AS I understand it the barrel doesn't shift, the handguard does and it only effects POI IF using sights mounted to the handguard.
Harrison Beene (harrisonbeen) said:
AS I understand it the barrel doesn't shift, the handguard does and it only effects POI IF using sights mounted to the handguard
From the video test, it seems the barrel is indeed shifting.
He has the green laser mounted to the receiver (not the rail) and then has a laser boresight in the weapons chamber, showing where the barrel is oriented. At the start of the test both lasers are zero'd dead true one on top of the other. Then by moving the barrel the red boresighted laser shifts permanently/semi permanently to one side or the other, while the green laser mounted to the receiver stays in its initial centered zero.
It is unknown to what extent this issue exists ie just some guns, just the 5.56 guns, or the entire 5.56-7.62-6.8 SPEAR family.
I'll update with any more info I can find.
*edit* a new video shows the barrel is very easy to move.
I can't tell from that if the barrel is moving in the receiver or if the handrail is moving in relation to the barrel.
I can make my rifle do that if I loosen all the screws.
I get it, there are 10s of thousands of people that hate the SIG deal, the caliber choice, the ideas etc.
In 2007 I spent about $40,000 trying to show the military that if the 6.8SPC barrels were made to the correct specs(different from what the mainstream is still producing) they could propel 110gr bullets to 2800fps out of a 16" barrel just like Holland, Murray and Lawton said it could. Sure I proved it, did it matter, no it didn't because Mattis couldn't get approval from congress even though he thought the 6.8 would be a great improvement. Now I don't waste time thinking about what the military should do, I just make whatever wildcat I think would work best for me and shoot it.
Everyone thought the SCAR was the best thing since sliced bread, same with the 416, didn't last long did it? All the guys that think we need something besides a 5.56 in a DI M4 are still shooting a 5.56 in a M4. The questions I have now is, just because the military awards contracts does it really mean the military will finally change or are they just testing something else for a few years and wasting a lot of tax money. 2-How long does some other caliber/rifle need to be fielded for it to be considered a change?