Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3454
  • 199624
  • 9


NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 830019 views.

From: stancrist



Stay prepared and armed for all the deals using DealDash! Use the promo code TASK for a bonus worth $10 when making your first bid pack purchase and start bi...


From: Apsyda


I really wonder how much long term durability this gun is going to have. The 6.8NGSW is substantially hotter than 7.62NATO, and the XM250 is extremely light weight. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the design picks up several lbs in the next few years as it transitions to adoption then A1/A2/etc forms.


From: gatnerd


Apsyda said:

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the design picks up several lbs in the next few years as it transitions to adoption then A1/A2/etc forms.

The Sig MCX 5.56 started off ~2015 as a beautifully balanced 6lb rifle. I held it when it was debuted at SHOT and though 'wowza!'

Well it got taken off the market, multiple versions later the 'MCX Virtus Patrol' is now a hulking went from the lightest piston 5.56 in the world to one of the heaviest 5.56 rifles in the world. 

So I could absolutely see the NGSW's gaining weight over time. 


From: roguetechie


The original virtus was In many ways the inspiration for my current AR pistol build.

So much so that my 11.5" bbl foxtrot Mike bufferless AR is actually going to wind up sporting a sig folding buffer tube knuckle (the sig folding tube to picatinny knuckle is gorgeous and gas very nice positive lockup) mated to a tailhook mod2 assembly.

Picked up a PA dot and magnifier which sit on a lower 1/3 cowitness riser and has the magnifier folding left along with the brace.

Unlike virtus it's a DI unit but it took a lot of cues from what sig did there. It should weigh somewhere between current virus weight and original virtus weight all up and my ammo of choice will fragment out to 300 meters from an 11.5" tube.

We desperately need to get back to light handy guns if for no other reason than so we can put 3 pounds of shit on them and ONLY have them weigh as much as a loaded Garand all up.


From: 17thfabn


6.8 if...... it ends up in widespread U.S. service would be a third rifle cartridge after 7.62 and 5.56 for NATO members. 

At this time NATO members can use 5.56 or 7.62. They are not forced to choose. Even if 6.8 is adopted by the U.S. , the U.S. will still continue to have weapons in 5.56 and 7.62.


From: stancrist


You seem to be missing the point.  Both 7.62 and 5.56 were "forced" (by the US) upon NATO.

NATO adopted 7.62 (over .280) due to US insistence upon a full-power, .30 caliber cartridge.

When 5.56 became the US standard rifle caliber, it in effect became a de facto NATO caliber.

The same thing will almost certainly happen if the 6.8 is fielded by the US Army as planned.


From: 17thfabn


I'll agree that 7.62 was forced on NATO by the U.S.

5.56 was an option when adopted as a second standard caliber. Many NATO allies stayed with 7.62 for years after 5.56 was an option. 

Same will be true IF... the U.S. actually adopts 6.8. The U.S. itself will keep a number of weapons in 5.56 and 7.62.   

If other NATO allies see 6.8 as filling a niche they will use it. If not they will continue on with 5.56.and 7.62.

NATO standardized on 5.7x28mm   as its PDW. The U.S. does not have a large number of weapons in this caliber, it doesn't see the need.  Other NATO countries could have stayed exclusively with 7.62 if they chose to do so. Many of them saw advantages to 5.56 so use it in some weapons as well as using 7.62 in other weapons. If they see a use for 6.8 they may chamber some weapons in that caliber also.

  • Edited 15 May 2022 23:23  by  17thfabn