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

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.

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.

stancrist said:

if only because of the reduction in muzzle velocity using ammo developed for 22" barrels in weapons with 13" and 16" barrels

Current RM277 is a 19" barrel for 3000fps, so not much of a stretch to go from 16" to 19" for the LMG.

Especially if the shorter Brevis suppressor was used vs the longer sig suppressor to offset some of the length increase. 

....

Speaking of 22", that is one cool thing about the SIG load. As it gets 3000fps from a 16", its probably going to be hitting 3150-3200fps from the 22" M240B barrel.

gatnerd said:

       stancrist said: if only because of the reduction in muzzle velocity using ammo developed for 22" barrels in weapons with 13" and 16" barrels

Current RM277 is a 19" barrel for 3000fps, so not much of a stretch to go from 16" to 19" for the LMG.

Current SIG NGSW-AR has a 16" barrel (not 19").

Original GD NGSW-AR had a 22" barrel (not 19").

gatnerd said:

Especially if the shorter Brevis suppressor was used vs the longer sig suppressor to offset some of the length increase.

First you want SIG to convert their guns to fire a competitor's ammo, thereby reducing SIG's profits.

Now you want SIG to switch to a competitor's suppressor, which would further reduce SIG's profits.

These are completely unrealistic proposals.  There is no rational reason for SIG to willingly do either.

gatnerd said:

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

The SIG round & offer were the "least risk" option, so it makes sense, but I would bet that this was not the way the US Army wanted the NGSW to go.

We should probably stop to write that there is "accuracy issues with the TV design".

What "we know" is that there was probably a mismatch between the XM1186 bullet, the 6.8 mm TVCM cartridge, and the RM-277 rifle. Fire the 6.8 mm TVCM cartridge loaded with a 135 gr SMK bullet in a bolt-action rifle, and you won't see "accuracy problems".

I just hope that TV will launch the 6.8 mm on the commercial market, allowing them to refine the design until it's OK for military application. With the exception of "spitzer" bullets, it seems that every small-arms evolution was first tested extensively in the civilian domain, before being adopted by military forces.

EmericD said:

I just hope that TV will launch the 6.8 mm on the commercial market...

That seems to be the plan.  

True Velocity (tvammo.com)

Interesting to see Mr. Sal Fanelli in the video.

That was the plan back when they thought they had a good shot at winning the competition. Otherwise, TV is an ammo company rather than a gun company. And trying to sell a fairly mechanically complex bullpup design that lost its trial, is going to be a bother for them I think. At best a few ~$10k rifles are made for whomever is crazy enough to pay that much, and the gun vanishes into the air afterwards.

I wonder whether other nations will adopt it.