renatohm said:

4.5 pounds heavier, 10 rounds less - yikes

Yes it weighs a bit more then a loaded M4+ACOG+IR+M203

In fairness to the NGSW, half of that disparity is due to the unusual lightness of the M4A1 compared to other 5.56 rifles.

Weight wise, the Marines current M27+VCOG 1-8X VCOG + IR + Suppressor is likely getting up to NGSW weight. I'll have to run those numbers later. 

But in terms of return to Battle Rifle, a loaded NGSW is 13.24lbs, vs 10.7lbs for a loaded M14. 

stancrist said:

It hardly seems fair to compare the NGSW rifle with its adjustable stock, advanced optic, and suppressor, to the old M14 with its fixed stock, iron sights, and no suppressor

It is and it isn't.

In the sense that you mention, it's obviously unfair as NGSW does indeed have a lot more stuff.

However in terms of evaluating the wisdom and future success / issues for NGSW, I think the comparison with the M14 / past battle rifles is instructive.

Namely, the M14 (and later the Battle Rifle in general) fell out of favor due to the weapon and ammunition being deemed excessively heavy, relatively low capacity vs enemy weapons, and harsh recoiling. And that was when the weapons were ~10.7lbs loaded. 

Now we have a gun thats 13.24lbs loaded, with loaded mags of identical weight/size/capacity to the M14....

To me that should ring alarm bells. 

Concur.

gatnerd said:

Now we have a gun thats 13.24lbs loaded, with loaded mags of identical weight/size/capacity to the M14.... To me that should ring alarm bells. 

When the French army put a 1.8 kg day / IR sight on a FAMAS to make a 6.6 kg IW (14.5 lbs), the troop acceptance was low...

gatnerd said:

Weight wise, the Marines current M27+VCOG 1-8X VCOG + IR + Suppressor is likely getting up to NGSW weight. I'll have to run those numbers later

Turns out the Marines current M27 is indeed nearly identical to NGSW.

M27: 8lb* (specs of 16” 416 vary from 7.83-8.16lb)

VCOG 1-8 SCO: 2lb

PEQ 16: 0.56lb

NT-4 Suppressor:1.35lb

30rd 5.56 PMAG: 1.1lb

=13.01lb

Both the M27 and NGSW show the downside of variable power optics and suppressors: weight.

I had initially strongly advocated on LPVO scopes for all. But now looking at these ballooning weights, plus the much shorter range fighting we see in Ukraine, I'm more inclined to think LPVO's/Smart Scopes should be for the DMR / Squad leaders, and stick with a 1lb ACOG+RMR for regular riflemen. 

Even moreso as a top mounted RDS allows 'passive aiming' with night vision, which is becoming increasingly important now that enemy forces have NVG ability and can see IR lasers. Early reports in Ukraine has said turning on IR lasers was a death sentence. 

gatnerd said:

Namely, the M14 (and later the Battle Rifle in general) fell out of favor due to the weapon and ammunition being deemed excessively heavy, relatively low capacity vs enemy weapons, and harsh recoiling. And that was when the weapons were ~10.7lbs loaded. 

If people are complaining about a harsh recoil, more mass is a good thing, because physics.

if you cuold make a durable 762/6.8 gun which weighed only 2.9kg, would the recoil be very harsh?>

smg762 said:

if you cuold make a durable 762/6.8 gun which weighed only 2.9kg, would the recoil be very harsh?>

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/recoil-energy

graylion said:

If people are complaining about a harsh recoil, more mass is a good thing, because physics.

That is a bit simplistic.  There is a difference in total recoil and how it is perceived by the shooter.

I recall that the Beretta-True Velocity RM277 had a more sophisticated recoil reduction system than the SIG.  I think it was along the lines of the system being used in the  XM250, essentially a recoiling barrel/inner-receiver isolated from the main receiver by a damper.  The longer barrel of the bullpup also allowed a less energetic cartridge to be used with less energy left to create rocket thrust.   The SIG XM5 does not have any recoil-reducing features.  I was obvious early on that it would have highest felt recoil.   I don't know if merely adding a recoil pad to the buttstock is considered an option since traditionally the butt of the rifle is expected to be used as a weapon itself.

One of the issues with a competition like used for the NGSW is that the winner is chosen to be used largely "as is".  It is unlikely that only one of the competitors would have ALL of the best ideas.   From an engineering standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to develop another generation of weapons using the best of the ideas from the previous submissions.  For example, True Velocity claims that their polymer case could handle 80,000 psi.  If indeed that is true, it is entirely possible that the wrong case technology was chosen simply because it was submitted with the preferred rifle design.