I am aware its an Ar10 clone but ar10 and Ar15 are quite generic and NGSW is in ar10 not ar15 size territory

The important part is forward assist less rifles and uppers have been around for a while so its not some experiment into unknown,and Stoner himself was of an opinion that is was of questionable value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHSSO-vJTSs&t=736s

PRM2 said:

Thanks for the reference, it was an article I had missed, despite regularly looking at the TFB website. ... It is a shame that he doesn't contibute anymore, I get the feeling that he has the type of sharp and incisive mind that finds it difficult to have to repeat glaringly obvious facts to idiots like me.

He is very knowledgeable, and I very much miss his informative TFB articles.  However, I don't miss very much his participation in the forum, because he generally displayed an exaggerated sense of his own importance in the world -- he acted as if everyone should read and commit to memory every single word of every single post that he made -- and he tended to be needlessly rude and offensive.

PRM2 said:

Getting back to the topic of what NGSW should be, how about M4A1 plus the NGSW-FC, followed later by a updated M4, with a heretical 16 inch barrel to give an AP projectile a fighting chance?

I dunno.  If one wanted to go for an updated M4 with a longer barrel, I'm not sure if an increase of 1.5" would be worth the cost.

Judging by the barrel length versus muzzle velocity graph below, I think I might be more inclined to go with an 18" or 20" barrel.

                                                                                        M855

autogun said:

In the panic of close combat is an entirely different matter Soldiers can do the craziest things under deadly pressure. Minimising the likelihood of handling errors by standardising controls where possible  can only help

Can you cite any instances where having considerably different controls caused a significant problem in combat for UK troops?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

ar10 and Ar15 are quite generic and NGSW is in ar10 not ar15 size territory

The important part is forward assist less rifles and uppers have been around for a while

I would say the important part is that the NGSW-R (which does not have a forward assist) is meant to replace an AR15 variant which does have a forward assist.

Since the XM7 has a side charging handle, the T-handle is not absolutely necessary and -- like the forward assist -- could be eliminated in order to reduce weight.

You are correct on both ,but in 6.8 you are sized like Ar10 and no one will really replace 5.56 with a full-sized battle rifle at least not whole sale , but like i mentioned its the end user that seems to want these things , manufacturers would surely delete these features in blink of an eye , as the just add cost and complexity.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

You are correct on both ,but in 6.8 you are sized like Ar10 and no one will really replace 5.56 with a full-sized battle rifle at least not whole sale...

The US Army never planned to replace the M4 with the XM7 wholesale. 

The stated intent was to replace the M4 only in the Close Combat Force.

And even there some personnel will continue to be armed with the M4.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

...but like i mentioned its the end user that seems to want these things , manufacturers would surely delete these features in blink of an eye , as the just add cost and complexity.

Of course.  It was the US Army that wanted the M16 to have a forward assist.

And it is the US Army that wanted the forward assist eliminated from the XM7.

If the Army decides to cut weight by eliminating the T-handle, it too will be gone.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said:  Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.

Well.

Well, what?

You said he performed the clearing procedure "just like he was trained to do."

Therefore, I can only conclude that he was trained to:

   1.  Not care where his gun was pointing.

   2.  Not remove the ammunition feed device from the weapon before retracting the bolt to clear the chamber.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said:  in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance. 

Ok, so training is overrated, unless it isn't.

Now you are being quite blatantly dishonest.  I did not say that training is overrated.

I said the benefit to training of a "matched pair" of 5.56 and 7.62 rifles is overrated.

Initial order quantities and prices of NGSW ammo. $2.15 for the GP EPR, $12.37 for the SP Special Purpose armor piercing load. The later is listed as War Reserve only.

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2024/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Ammunition%20Army.pdf

7.62 ADVAP also continues; note it is a bit more expensive then the NGSW SP despite using a regular brass case (I assume.) Probably the larger chunk of tungsten increases the cost?

nice very informative.

Is there also similar data for 7.62 ball and 5.56 ball and AP (less tungsten and lower cost?). Interesting that the numbers above show roughly 25 times more 6.8 GP rounds than the SP, as you observe due to provision for war stocks (why don't they just call them AP?).