gatnerd

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.

  • 3259
    MEMBERS
  • 184865
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31/7/20 by autogun; 16505 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

I'm not sold on the GD AR either but it's still kinda the best of breed with the ammo design which is frankly more important than the guns themselves in a lot of ways.

The flaw in your comment is that NGSW is a system.  The gun is at least as important as the ammo.

roguetechie said:

For example... The Sig belt fed is at least mildly interesting to me but their ammo design makes it trash. It's heavier than 7.62 NATO round per round and that's plain unacceptable.

Hmm.  While I don't care much for SIG's hybrid case design, they said it is significantly lighter than brass.  What's your basis for saying it's heavier?

roguetechie said:

As far as the reduced load setup. I'm pretty certain he has a chart with the standard load for the GD AR too but, as we can all plainly see, it would be unworkable to do a full standard equivalent load for it. Thus he chose not to include that.

I understood that.  The problem is that he chose to compare a reduced ammo load for the mag-fed AR, against a full ammo load for the belt-fed guns.  That gives a very distorted result.

It is unrealistic to expect the automatic rifleman to carry the same quantity of 6.8 linked ammo as is currently done with the smaller and lighter 5.56 linked ammo.  M60/M240/Mk48 machine gunners are not expected to carry as much ammo as M249 gunners, right?

And speaking of "unworkable" things, does anybody here honestly think that 220 rounds is actually a viable basic load for the squad's automatic riflemen?  Shoot, that's only ten more rounds than the current basic load for riflemen!  And how would the 10 x 20-rd spare mags be carried, anyway?  There is clearly not enough available "real estate" on the plate carrier for anywhere near ten mags.

  • Edited 03 August 2020 22:12  by  stancrist
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

Sig decided to try to Game the weight savings requirements by deciding what the requirement meant was that their new cartridge is the functional equivalent in power and performance to a much heavier and more powerful existing round than 7.62 NATO and then declared success.

Quintus knows exactly what round they used as their bench mark but the end result is that they're dirty lying bitches whose round really doesn't actually meet the weight savings requirement or even come close.

It's an actual shit show and whoever the PM for this program is should be in trouble for letting Sig submit something that doesn't need one of the most important requirements.

Actually Sig's round iirc just barely squeaks by if not outright failing several other parts of the minimal acceptable ammo thresholds.

The ammo side of their submission is just uniformly bad period.

Which is too bad because their belt fed does look somewhat neat but that's utterly immaterial since their ammo submission is just straight TRASH.

As far as the ammo load thing Stan...

It quite frankly means less than a wet fart in a tsunami whether the PMO said that they want to keep individual and squad round counts the same... It's not physically possible without breaking people and or making mag pouches etc that literally defy physics.

Getting snippy because someone ran the numbers and went lol nope... Let me see what's ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE within the bounds of physics and sanity and then gives it to people here for free to take a look at and discuss just makes you look like the cranky old troll you are far too often.

Finally, as you said in your comment to me they want guns and ammo from the same vendor so it's about BOTH ITEMS BEING THE MOST WORKABLE COMBINATION.

And that's why I think myself quintus and others have looked at it and decided that the GD entry is the most workable.

I'd much rather be stuck with a 20 round mag AR than Sig's piece of shit ammo which managed to be the worst performing, the heaviest, and from all indications we have would almost certainly be the most expensive to boot. That's a trifecta of suck right there and there's just no getting around that.

stancrist

From: stancrist

4/8/20

roguetechie said:

Getting snippy because someone ran the numbers and went lol nope... Let me see what's ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE within the bounds of physics and sanity and then gives it to people here for free to take a look at and discuss just makes you look like the cranky old troll you are far too often.

You're saying that it would be insane and outside the bounds of physics to plan for an automatic rifleman to carry 330 rounds of polymer-cased TV ammo, which is lighter than 7.62 NATO, but somehow it is perfectly sane and within the bounds of physics to plan for him to carry 1000 rounds of the much heavier SIG ammo?  Seriously?

If the automatic rifleman can't carry 330 rounds of TV ammo, how would any sane, rational person think the automatic rifleman can possibly carry THREE TIMES as much of the SIG ammo???

And BTW, who cares if Nat's numbers were free?  Free garbage is still garbage.

stancrist

From: stancrist

4/8/20

roguetechie said:

I'd much rather be stuck with a 20 round mag AR than Sig's piece of shit ammo which managed to be the worst performing, the heaviest, and from all indications we have would almost certainly be the most expensive to boot. That's a trifecta of suck right there and there's just no getting around that.

Actually, there might be a way around those issues:  The lightweight alloy case that Federal is producing for the NGCT program.

graylion

From: graylion

5/8/20

How would you build an asymmetrical squad?  2+6? 2+5? 3+5?

In reply toRe: msg 51
stancrist

From: stancrist

6/8/20

I'm still interested in learning why Nat and some other folks here think it's impossible for an automatic rifleman to carry 330 rounds of the TV ammo, but somehow possible for him to carry 1000 rounds of the SIG ammo?

Can anyone please explain?  Roguetechie?  DavidPawley?  Anybody?

manimal87

From: manimal87

6/8/20

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

  • Edited 06 August 2020 15:39  by  manimal87
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

6/8/20

We won WWII with a 20 round mag auto rifle, I don't see the problem. ;)

stancrist

From: stancrist

6/8/20

manimal87 said:

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

I don't know how many mags might be feasible for the automatic rifleman to carry, but it appears that you misunderstood the situation.

Those guys are saying that SIG's entry makes less sense, in part because its ammo is so much heavier than the ammo used in GD's gun.

Despite that, they also plan for the SIG gunner to carry over four times as much ammo as the GD gunner!  Which makes no sense at all.

If the GD automatic rifleman can only carry 220 rounds, it is beyond ludicrous to plan for the SIG automatic rifleman to be carrying 1000.

  • Edited 06 August 2020 16:26  by  stancrist
Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

20/8/20

My basic take away.  Replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 with a new 6.8mm cartridge.  There has been talk of upgrading the M240 to .338NM (8.59x63) which would give it much of the advantage of the M2 .50 cal but with less weight and recoil.

As for the M4, it may not go away for the support troops.  However there has been some exploration of a PDW based on an M4.

Here is an example from Sig https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sig-mcx-rattler-sbr.html

Sig also has, so it happens, an upgrade kit for the M4 https://www.sigsauer.com/store/mcx-rattler-upper-assembly-5-5-300blk.html

TOP