stancrist said:

P.S.  Note how ineffective the Ukrainians' hand grenades were in the attempts to neutralize the Russian bunker. Employment of drone-delivered grenades was much more precise and effective in attacking the same position

Accuracy is everything, although short of someone pitching a grenade into that tiny firing port not sure if any grenade would be able to defeat that bunker. 

Chucking a smoke grenade in front of them might have had a better chance of success, and allowed them to move in further down the trench? 

gatnerd said:

Given that these helmets can be pierced head on by existing rifle rounds, I'm not sure whether a more AP projectile would make a difference there, as it seems to be a matter of deflection more then penetration?

Concur.  You (and Mr. T) are right.  I made an erroneous conclusion.

gatnerd said:

Chucking a smoke grenade in front of them might have had a better chance of success, and allowed them to move in further down the trench?

Your guess is as good as mine, but it looks to me like the final (S-shaped) portion of the trench was not visible from the bunker's firing port. 

If so, the Ukrainians could have moved further down the trench without smoke.  Are smoke grenades being used there?  I've seen only frags.

5R rifling with a 30:70 land to groove ratio or 3R with a 25:75 land to groove ratio and Nitride treated.

NGSW continues:

https://soldiersystems.net/2023/05/01/sig-sauer-delivers-next-generation-squad-weapons-to-us-army-for-production-qualification-test

Ammunition is GP, RRA & blank - no AP/SP. 

Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available. Not because it might be necessary, but because it would allow discovery of issues before the production configuration for the weapons is locked in.

It strongly implies that GP will be the operational ammo nature for the foreseeable future, which then begs the question why pursue the SIG NGSW FOW, or NGSW at all?

The Army's budget document shows authorization to purchase test quantities of SP ammo in the near future. 

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=8085.179

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=8085.181

DavidPawley said:

Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available. Not because it might be necessary, but because it would allow discovery of issues before the production configuration for the weapons is locked in

Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.

Hopefully they actually test the SP against real ceramic Level IV and not just RHA.

And hopefully if it turns out 6.8 is not able to defeat IV @ 200m+ this is discovered before the Army buys 100k battle rifles.

...

On the flipside, while I question the 6.8 rifle, the 6.8 lightweight LMG I do think is a great addition. Although if its not AP it would have been much better as a .264 LICC EVOLYS as Emeric described given the ammo weigh reduction. 

gatnerd said:

       DavidPawley said: Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available.

Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.

Methinks you guys worry too much.  Personally, I see no cause for concern.  Instead, I view the decision to conduct the PQT without SP ammo as an opportunity to cancel NGSW and change course to 6.5x43 LICC (or similar).

stancrist said:

conduct the PQT without SP ammo as an opportunity to cancel NGSW and change course to 6.5x43 LICC (or similar)

From your lips to St. John Brownings ears 

I have to ask, what is SP?