The Army has stated it will only procure about 100,000 of the new rifles and automatic rifles, but the new NGSW-FC contract is for up to 250,000 optics, meaning the Army will now buy more new rifles or will backfit the optic to the M4A1.

Hmm.  Does "up to" 250,000 optics mean that exact number definitely will be purchased, or does it mean that the buyer has the option to purchase any quantity from 1-250,000 at the contract price?

poliorcetes said:

I really would like to know how was possible to offer such a defective proposal after more than 20 years of testing

The G11 provides an excellent example. The technology was extremely promising, resulting in continued funding for 30 years, even though after 30 years it still didnt work. 

The US SPIW/ACR efforts with Flechettes offers a similar example. US worked with flechettes and or hyperburst flechettes from 60's to 90's, because the technology looked really promising...ACR trials showed they didnt work either. In fact, the leader of that flechette effort - AAI - went on to be absorbed by Textron and head up the LSAT/NGSW program...

stancrist said:

the option to purchase any quantity from 1-250,000 at the contract price?

I think its the option. But its interesting that they are considering that option; it implies they are considering either buying more then 100k NGSW's or retrofitting M4's with FC's. Either of which is worth note. 

SiverSurfeR said:

As such, Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, deputy commandant of Combat Development and Integration, recognized the critic voices of the "arms room" concept focusing on those who say it won't work to the infantry automatic rifle with improved optic.

"You have basically trained Marines hitting targets all day long at 500, 700, 800 meters that used to be the range of school-trained snipers," Smith said. "[They're] hitting them all day long because the weapon system and its heavier barrel and the optic that goes with it means basically trained Marines can pick it up and pop individual targets out at ranges that used to be the sole domain of a sniper."

Before responding to your original post last night, I read several articles on the subject, including the one containing the paragraphs quoted above.  It appears that the General really does not understand the arms room concept.  That the M27 w/VCOG gives sniper-like capability to ordinary riflemen, does not in any way validate the concept.

The M27 w/VCOG (and bipod) gives the individual Marine one weapon that can be used in three different roles:  Infantry rifle; SAW/automatic rifle; DMR/sniper rifle.

However, under the arms room concept, a Marine would be issued one of three different weapons, as required by the mission.  For example, a Marine might be equipped with the M4A1 carbine when functioning as a rifleman, or the M249 machine gun when serving as automatic rifleman, or the M110A1 sniper rifle when assigned as squad marksman.

Seconding this, You'd think by now we'd have real information from any of the stakeholders whether the most promising entry and 1/3rd of the conpetition had dropped out or been disqualified

Random question here....would copper or brass make a good material for the core of AP bullets?

No.

I thought Textron were out?

We’ve had multiple blogs cite anonymous sources that Textron is out, and TV mentioned they were 1 of 2 remaining contenders, but we’ve not had Official word from either the Army or Textron tgat they are out.