gatnerd

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.

  • 3350
    MEMBERS
  • 190108
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 523161 views.
Apsyda

From: Apsyda

21-Apr

It was kind of remarkable how little they had to say about the actual firearm in that hour. The only hard data we got, I think, is confirmation that SIG's ammo is at least somewhat lighter than 7.62 NATO. And that the rifle is confirmed to be around 8lbs, while the AR is confirmed to be around 13lbs. We already knew that, but its at least useful to know that the guns stayed that weight through testing.
Otherwise there was a lot of saying very little.

Something I did notice, was that they came back to talking about how quickly they had everything moving in this project. They describe how what would have been a nearly 10 year project was expedited to only take a couple, for example. I guess they know something we don't it seems.

  • Edited 21 April 2022 10:22  by  Apsyda
nincomp

From: nincomp

21-Apr

Ironically, the fact that the SIG 6.8 is indeed suboptimal, at least in cost and weight of ammo, may keep its use limited enough that it will be easier to replace with a more effective solution.  Whatever that will be. 

The most important parts of NGSW will probably be the smart optic and the adoption of a rifle/carbine with a foldable stock.  If the US Army refuses to use bullpups, hopefully the barrels of its weapons can be kept to a reasonable length by utilizing a folding stock.

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Apr

graylion said:

What is the point if it is _not_ supposed to replace the NATO standard cartridges???

The purpose is to give the close combat force overmatch capability against "near peer" opponents.  See 2:11-2:42  https://youtu.be/nTYzGuAcaUw?t=131

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Apr

gatnerd said:

       stancrist said: Yes, the TV ammo is technologically superior, but it cannot at present be fired in the SIG weapons.

SIG has mentioned that the 6.8 LMG is backwards compatible with 7.62 and 6.5C. 

Converting the 6.8 LMG to 6.8TV would have just required a 19" barrel chambered in 6.8TV instead of the 16" chambered in 6.8SIG. 

Similar to the already demonstrated 6.8TV conversion of the M240.

Yes.  I didn't say the SIG guns can't be converted to fire the TV ammo.  I think such a conversion almost certainly is possible.

The problem is that it would take time to develop and test the conversions, but the Army clearly wants to field NGSW ASAP.

Also, the need to increase barrel and overall length to get the same velocity would undoubtedly be considered undesirable.

And IIRC earlier in the thread somebody (Guardsman?  Emeric?) reported that there were accuracy issues with the TV ammo.

All of which means the TV ammo may not be as optimal as you think.  It may be that the SIG ammo is actually the best option.

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Apr

Apsyda said:

...there was a lot of saying very little.

Indeed.

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Apr

nincomp said:

The most important parts of NGSW will probably be the smart optic and the adoption of a rifle/carbine with a foldable stock.  If the US Army refuses to use bullpups, hopefully the barrels of its weapons can be kept to a reasonable length by utilizing a folding stock.

a.  What do you consider "reasonable" barrel length?  I don't see barrels getting too much shorter -- let alone any longer -- than SIG's 13" and 16" tubes.

b.  A folding stock only helps reduce overall length when stowed.  When in use, there is no reduction in weapon length compared to non-folding stocks.

EmericD

From: EmericD

21-Apr

stancrist said:

And IIRC earlier in the thread somebody (Guardsman?  Emeric?) reported that there were accuracy issues with the TV ammo.

I think that Nicholas (Guardsman) was first to raise this point, then I asked people at GD and they confirmed that they had issues duplicating the accuracy achieved by TV (in test barrel), with the RM277 rifle.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

21-Apr

Do you think the Army made the right call going with SIG, and that the accuracy issues would likely persist with the TV design?

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

22-Apr

Answering that would require more hard data on what the potential accuracy issues actually looked like and how large they were. If it was 5moa and the cut off was 4moa, thats one thing. If its 10moa, thats another. Until testing reports are released or True Velocity comes out and says where their bid went wrong and mentions that accuracy was a significant part of that, we can't really anything about that aspect with any confidence.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Apr

Concur.  Although IMO the accuracy question doesn't really matter, because the notion of converting SIG guns to shoot TV ammo was never a realistic option anyway, if only because of the reduction in muzzle velocity using ammo developed for 22" barrels in weapons with 13" and 16" barrels.

TOP