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.
- 3420
MEMBERS - 197073
MESSAGES - 0
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info Small Arms <20mm
From: gatnerd
30/8/19
Per SSD today:
The three companies selected are:
W15QKN-19-9-1024 – General Dynamics-OTS Inc. – Williston, VT
W15QKN-19-9-1025 – AAI Corporation Textron Systems – Hunt Valley, MD
W15QKN-19-9-1022 – Sig Sauer Inc. – Newington, NH
Textron's submission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7QqppSKGzw
Textron has also reportedly partnered with H&K for producing the NGSW:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/08/30/937270/
SIG's:
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/23/sofic-19-sig-sauer-exhibits-next-gen-squad-weapons/
Now the exiting news: General Dynamics is submitting a bullpup:
"Additionally, we hear that GD submitted a bullpup carbine, which several sources have claimed is what the Marine Corps hopes to get from NGSW. Considering the 6.8mm requirement, rumors that they are using the Desert Tech MDR seem like a good bet. Update: it’s not the MDR, but rather a new bullpup design."
Meanwhile, GD is partnered with True Velocity. But interestingly, they will not be using TV's current hybrid conventional case, but rather a completely new NGSW design:
"GD comes in partnered with True Velocity ammunition and their polymer case design. However, the ammunition for this program features an entirely new case and is called the True Velocity Composite Munition."
In less exciting news, the testing phase of the NGSW has been extended by 8 years:
"According to the solicitation, the duration for each prototype OTA is estimated to be up to eight years. The first 27 months will be for prototyping the NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and ammunition. Following this prototyping effort, there may be additional iterative prototyping efforts for the NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and ammunition. These iterative prototyping efforts will each have separate durations and will occur within the eight year duration."
This extended timeline lends further credence for creating an "M4A2" as a stopgap weapon until the NGSW is completed:
- Edited 06 September 2019 19:54 by gatnerd
From: stancrist
30/8/19
gatnerd said...
Now the exiting news: General Dynamics is submitting a bullpup
That is indeed interesting. I'm quite surprised.
gatnerd said...
This extended timeline lends further credence for creating an "M4A2" as a stopgap weapon until the NGSW is completed
Why? Has any Army entity (e.g., the Infantry School, PEO Soldier, etc) expressed dissatisfaction with the M4A1, and called for development and fielding of an M4A2?
From: gatnerd
30/8/19
|
"Why? Has any Army entity (e.g., the Infantry School, PEO Soldier, etc) expressed dissatisfaction with the M4A1, and called for development and fielding of an M4A2?" |
Sort of. The 'M4A2' concept = Upgraded M4 + new 1-6/1-8x optic.
The US Army is moving towards the 2nd half of that - looking to purchase 120k 1-6x optics:
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/07/03/us-army-seeks-up-to-120000-direct-view-optics-for-m4-carbines/
They are also looking to purchase another 167k M4's:
Big Army has not yet recognized the need to upgrade the M4. Yet.
However, at this point the Army is the lone holdout on sticking with the M4A1.
SOCOM has gone with the URG-I:
The Air Force is going with the IMR Blue:
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/11/us-air-force-small-arms-update/
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/06/04/us-air-force-small-arms-update-2019/
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/-ARCHIVED-THREAD-USAF-M4-upgrades-spotted-/5-2150199/?page=1
And the US Marines are purchasing 1-6x optics and looking into higher capacity mags for their M27, creating their own Piston 'M4A2':
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/06/05/usmc-small-arms-update-2019/
So as the NGSW program drags on, and the Army encounters the other services 'M4A2's', its reasonable to believe they will join the other services and upgrade their M4's as well, especially in light of their new optics.
From: stancrist
31/8/19
gatnerd said...
"Why? Has any Army entity (e.g., the Infantry School, PEO Soldier, etc) expressed dissatisfaction with the M4A1, and called for development and fielding of an M4A2?"
Sort of. The 'M4A2' concept = Upgraded M4 + new 1-6/1-8x optic.
The US Army is moving towards the 2nd half of that - looking to purchase 120k 1-6x optics
"Sort of" = No
gatnerd said...
Big Army has not yet recognized the need to upgrade the M4. Yet.
However, at this point the Army is the lone holdout on sticking with the M4A1.
SOCOM has gone with the URG-I:
The Air Force is going with the IMR Blue:
And the US Marines are purchasing 1-6x optics and looking into higher capacity mags for their M27, creating their own Piston 'M4A2':
So as the NGSW program drags on, and the Army encounters the other services 'M4A2's', its reasonable to believe they will join the other services and upgrade their M4's as well, especially in light of their new optics.
Okay, it looks to me like there are some major flaws in your reasoning, the majority of which seem to be based more on wishful thinking, than reality.
First, use of a variable magnification optic would not differentiate a M4A2 from a M4A1, because the same type of sight can be mounted on the M4A1 (as evidenced by the cited purchase for use on M4A1).
Second, the M27 is not a M4A2. Even if you want to consider it such, the M27 has been in service for a decade, the Army has been well aware of its existence, yet has not been moved to develop a M4A2.
And third, when has the Army ever been influenced in making decisions on development and acquisition of infantry rifles, by what the Air Force does?
That being said, if USASOC is using the URG-I, it could very well influence the decision makers in the regular Army. The M4 carbine was originally fielded by Army spec ops, then later adopted by the Army.
However, there is one issue with the URG-I design that could prevent its adoption by the Army: The full-length rail does not allow use of a bayonet... ;^)
From: nincomp
31/8/19
stancrist said...
However, there is one issue with the URG-I design that could prevent its adoption by the Army: The full-length rail does not allow use of a bayonet... ;^)
Oh ye of little faith. Rail-mounted bayonets are probably just around the corner. If not...I think that I will start developing a sharpening device for flash hiders before anyone else thinks of it!
From: EmericD
31/8/19
stancrist said...
And third, when has the Army ever been influenced in making decisions on development and acquisition of infantry rifles, by what the Air Force does?
The initial adoption of the M16?
From: stancrist
31/8/19
As I recall, the Army did not want the M16. It was forced to adopt the M16 by the Secretary of Defense.
From: stancrist
31/8/19
nincomp said...
stancrist said...
However, there is one issue with the URG-I design that could prevent its adoption by the Army: The full-length rail does not allow use of a bayonet... ;^)
Oh ye of little faith. Rail-mounted bayonets are probably just around the corner.
Blasphemy!!!
From: gatnerd
31/8/19
"First, use of a variable magnification optic would not differentiate a M4A2 from a M4A1, because the same type of sight can be mounted on the M4A1 (as evidenced by the cited purchase for use on M4A1)."
The LPVO is not changing the gun, but it is moving toward the ultimate goal of upgrading the M4A1 beyond its current capabilities; in fact its the most expensive part of the 'M4A2' concept. Once they realize that the issuing of the $1000 optic is not enough, and that the rail must also be free floated (as SOCOM and the Air Force have found) its likely they will follow suit with a $300 free float rail.
Ultimately its a meaningful step toward the M4A2 in that it shows the Army recognizes the need to retain and improve the M4 despite the NGSW program.
"Second, the M27 is not a M4A2. Even if you want to consider it such, the M27 has been in service for a decade, the Army has been well aware of its existence, yet has not been moved to develop a M4A2."
It's not the M4A2, in the sense that its not a M4. But their M27 will have the most important features of the desired M4A2 - a free float handguard + cold hammer forged barrel + LPVO.
They are also investigating higher capacity magazines, which makes me hopeful they may discover the 40rd mag master race.
"And third, when has the Army ever been influenced in making decisions on development and acquisition of infantry rifles, by what the Air Force does?"
You've been catching me slipping a lot lately, so I'm thrilled to be able to return the favor ;-) :
"In 1958, the Army's Combat Developments Experimentation Command ran experiments with small squads in combat situations using the M14, AR-15, and another rifle designed by Winchester. The resulting study recommended adopting a lightweight rifle like the AR-15. In response, the Army declared that all rifles and machine guns should use the same ammunition, and ordered full production of the M-14.[26]
However, advocates for the AR-15 gained the attention of Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis Lemay. After testing the AR-15 with the ammunition manufactured by Remington that Armalite and Colt recommended, the Air Force declared that the AR-15 was its 'standard model' and ordered 8,500 rifles and 8.5 million rounds.[26] Advocates for the AR-15 in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency acquired 1,000 Air Force AR-15s and shipped them to be tested by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The South Vietnam soldiers issued glowing reports of the weapon's reliability, recording zero broken parts while firing 80,000 rounds in one stage of testing, and requiring only two replacement parts for the 1,000 weapons over the entire course of testing. The report of the experiment recommended that the U.S. provide the AR-15 as the standard rifle of the ARVN, but Admiral Harry Felt, then Commander in Chief, Pacific Forces, rejected the recommendations on the advice of the U.S. Army.[26]
Throughout 1962 and 1963, the U.S. military extensively tested the AR-15. Positive evaluations emphasized its lightness, "lethality", and reliability.[26] However, the Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at longer ranges and lack of penetrating power at higher ranges.[52][46]From: EmericD
31/8/19
stancrist said...
As I recall, the Army did not want the M16. It was forced to adopt the M16 by the Secretary of Defense.
My recalling is the same.
The USAF lobbied the Sec Def for issuing the M16 as a replacement for the M1/M2 carbines instead of the Army M14, the M16E1 was put into Air Force service, and when it was clear that the M14 was a dead end the Sec Def forced the Army to adopt the M16 which was already in service in the Air Force...