Not compared to depression era concerns, certainly.

nincomp said:...

Years ago in one of the GPC threads here, I proposed the idea of using a neckless variation of the 7.62x51 to permit the use of a longer, higher-bc bullet.  My thinking was that this would permit a reduction of propellant and recoil while still giving acceptable long-range performance. ...

Personally I think that the TV ammo will be the real winner of this current NGSW porkfest - If their commercial ammo works as advertised.

Because you don't need to buy into a whole new weapon system when the benefits of tv neckless polymer ammo are just a re-barrel away...

Change barrels and maybe some springs, and your old weapons are now shooting "improved" cartridges. And the dimensions of the polymer case are done so that they work perfectly in existing mags and belts. And you still get some weight saving benefits.

Want to have a "6.5 creedmoor" ballistics in your 7.62 rifles and machineguns? "Here take these 6.5mm barrels and go have fun..."

Want to give an "improvement" on the 5.56 cartridge a try? "Here, take these barrels in 6mm and 6.35mm and give it a go..."

You could even play around with re-barreling .50cal rifles and M2's into 14.5mm platforms just for giggles.

I'm interested to see if the Army puts its money where its mouth is on training and simulation, and how that affects NGSW. The weapons are obviously incredibly ambitious and will put a lot of stress on the soldier if not used properly. It's a gambit - will it pay off? Nobody knows. 

The question for me is - do we trust the Army's process? I'm not sure I do. It's a brand new Army, sure, but to what extent are they going to repeat the mistakes of the past? Something I'd like to see (which I probably won't, at least until the memoirs are written) is the program officers get taken to task over the system weight. A 10lb rifle is one thing, a 14, 15, 16lb one quite another. If they can solve that, they may end up in a good place if managed properly.

And, likewise, I think TV's ammunition is the betting horse here, at least from a technology standpoint. Textron seems to have had the most favor politically from the outset.

QuintusO said:

The question for me is - do we trust the Army's process?

To me, the main question is whether they have developed a new Tungsten Tech that would allow the 6.8 to defeat Level IV at range?

Because with what we've seen with 7.62 M993 and now .338 Tungsten, if they haven't created a majorly more penetrative tech, then the entire 6.8 NGSW becomes pointless overkill. 

Adopting a magnum armor killer that doesn't actually kill armor would be pretty absurd.

I just hope they're testing against actual Level IV ceramic/uhmwpe plates rather then steel 'surrogate' targets. 

roguetechie said:

I have a feeling that this would be somewhat incompatible and or expensive/requiring more manufacturing steps due to the way modern jacketed ammo is made. But that's just my first impression on it.

It would be possible to crimp the case into a groove behind the body of the projectile and in the front of the boat tail. it could be a quite solid connection and an option if retaining steel cases. Theoretically at least.

The impression I've had from the more recent Army press releases is that mention of penetrating body armour seems to have faded away, with the the emphasis now being about how the excellent ballistics, in combination with the advanced computer sights, are dramatically improving the hit probability at long range.

autogun said:

The impression I've had from the more recent Army press releases is that mention of penetrating body armour seems to have faded away, with the the emphasis now being about how the excellent ballistics, in combination with the advanced computer sights, are dramatically improving the hit probability at long range.

Good grief.

I think you're right too; the official army description of NGSW no longer mentions body armor, just a generic 'lethality' and hit probability:

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/fws-cs-2/

The NGSW program significantly increases lethality and probability of hit at the squad level.  Due to the nature of the General Purpose ammunition, the 6.8mm projectile will outperform even the most modern 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition.  These weapon systems will give Soldiers significant capability improvements in accuracy, range, signature management, and lethality.

Which is nuts, as pretty much any caliber with a Fire Control Unit would have dramatically more hit probability. And there are any number of lighter recoiling VLD cartridge configurations that could exceed 7.62 lethality. 

Oy. 

Traditionally, small arms ammo relied on neck tension to keep the bullet in place, but if you look at medium-caliber ammo, the case neck is very short, look at the 25x137 mm or the 30x173 mm case.

I think that conventional ammo could be made with a very short neck (so short that it's close to non-existant), and that you could make "neckless" ammo configuration even with brass or steel case, with minimum modification to existing manufacturing process.

gatnerd said:

Which is nuts, as pretty much any caliber with a Fire Control Unit would have dramatically more hit probability. And there are any number of lighter recoiling VLD cartridge configurations that could exceed 7.62 lethality.

That's right, but even with a FCU you have errors, and with a high velocity round with a good BC bullet you could accept more errors than a lower velocity round with a crappy BC.

Anyway, you're right that replacing the 7.62 mm NATO with the 6.5 mm Creedmoor or the .260 Rem (or any other other cartridge like the .224 Valk, 6 mm ARC or 6 mm Creed) will already allows to achieve 80% of the single shot effectiveness gain that the 6.8 mm will bring.

EmericD said:

That's right, but even with a FCU you have errors, and with a high velocity round with a good BC bullet you could accept more errors than a lower velocity round with a crappy BC. Anyway, you're right that replacing the 7.62 mm NATO with the 6.5 mm Creedmoor or the .260 Rem (or any other other cartridge like the .224 Valk, 6 mm ARC or 6 mm Creed) will already allows to achieve 80% of the single shot effectiveness gain that the 6.8 mm will bring.

Well sort of like we discussed earlier on designing for hit probability, using that wonderful software of yours. 

Absent the armor requirement, 'NGSW 2.0'cartridge design could be based on:

-Maximizing hit probability within the FCU framework 

-Increasing fragmentation range for EPR beyond 7.62 

-Minimizing recoil and cartridge weight while fulfilling above requirement

-Maximizing magazine capacity / belt density 

-Using NGSW 1.0 technology to achieve all of the above