Mr. T (MrT4) said:

You can use such micro type unit , just so that you don't need double ear protection. Silent Steel Micro Streamer from Finland adds only 50mm in lenght but you would be looking at well over 150+DB with 9' barrel.

Did you compared it with the simple Rotex "blast deflector" proposed by B&T?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I distribute the whole range Silent Steel cans in our country, and since suppressors are now 100% unregulated in our country also manufacture a bunch of different designs,modular designs with optional add-on barrel tuners and muzzle brakes.

Very cool. 

Yeah we're pretty much the reverse here in the US - minimally regulated guns, extremely regulated suppressors. 

stancrist said:

And it's an inevitable move, IMO, for logistics, training, and soldier morale.

* Logistics -- Simplifies ammo production and distribution, with one caliber vs two calibers.

* Training --- All personnel train on rifles of the same type and caliber.

* Morale ----- Soldiers armed with a 6.8 PDW will feel their lives are as important as front-line infantry.

I totally agree, that's why the initial goal of the NGSW ("to replace the M4 & M249 for infantry units only") looked strange to me.

I still have reservations about using a full power 2.8'' cartridge for the PDW + Infantry role, but I'm not the US Army. If very high pressure cartridges are viable, then a +P+ version of the 6 mm ARC seems to be a better bet.

B&T Blast deflector is not even remotely comparable , as its just a sleeve with forward opening , Micro streamer from SS has , a dual flow suppressor element to it , while not very efficient due to short length it still reduces noise some 8-10dB depending on caliber and configuration.

B&T Rotex

This is just an open sleeve redirecting the gas forward ,no reduction in noise or flash.

EmericD said:

I still have reservations about using a full power 2.8'' cartridge for the PDW + Infantry role, but I'm not the US Army.

Yeah, I have the same reservations.

EmericD said:

If very high pressure cartridges are viable, then a +P+ version of the 6 mm ARC seems to be a better bet.

Concur.  Speaking of which, I have not seen any news on military use of 6mm ARC since the original announcement by Hornady last year.  Am wondering if you -- or anyone else here -- have any new info you can share?

stancrist said:

Speaking of which, I have not seen any news on military use of 6mm ARC since the original announcement by Hornady last year. Am wondering if you -- or anyone else here -- have any new info you can share?

Nothing new.

Ours SF bought rifles & ammo, and plan to do some testing next year.

EmericD said:

Ours SF bought rifles & ammo

Very cool. Can you share what rifles they went with?  

gatnerd said:

Very cool. Can you share what rifles they went with?

The STT-15 rifle with the 18" Proof Research barrel, so they could probably make a direct comparison with the Seekins SP-10 they already use.

EmericD said:

The STT-15 rifle with the 18" Proof Research barrel, so they could probably make a direct comparison with the Seekins SP-10 they already use

Thank you, thats really interesting. Neither company is one I would have expected - they dont typically get the 'military contract buzz' on online discussions here in the US. 

https://santantactical.com/blog/STT_15_6ARC_6mm_Advanced_Rifle_Cartridge/

Will you be using Hornady ammo as well, or will a EU firm be making the cartridges? 

The Seekins SP-10 performed well during the USSOCOM "Combat Sniper Rifle" program, and other SF in EU are also using this rifle.

For the 6 mm ARC, I think that Hornady ammo will be used initially, but if the guns perform well, you could bet that Sniper Extreme will probably be asked to developp an APFI round and a companion EBB for training.