Gr1ff1th said:

invading Ukraine right now on flimsy pretexts, typical Russian lying and deflection, accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing 

A-stan 2001? Iraq 2003? Libya 2011?

Oh, sorry, its all Russian lies. Back to my dark corner.

I have been trying to warn people about these guns for quite awhile.

The chicoms have definitely stepped up their small arms game big time

Also for everyone wondering about the guns Mac is talking about as well as some other guns he didn't mention. Here some new chicom guns starting with the 12kg 12.7x108 gun then their new 5.8 and 762 NATO belt feds.

It's an extremely impressive crop of weapons.

And also a concerning one since people here should recognize specific features off various guns.

Gr1ff1th said:

Except Australia and the US would never invade the Solomon islands...

History does not support your assertion.

1962 - The US threatened to invade Cuba.

1983 - The US invaded Grenada.

1989 - The US invaded Panama.

2001 - The US invaded Afghanistan.

2003 - The US invaded Iraq.

Let's summarise where we are with NGSW: 

1. BELIEFS DRIVING NGSW COMPETITION

• Need for increased range and lethality 

“Current weapons and calibres lack the required lethality growth against protected individual targets. NGSW will incorporate improved ergonomics, signature suppression capabilities, data-power transfer, new rail designs, a lightweight ammunition case and increased performance at range.” [Major Wyatt Ottmar, US Army NGSW Program Officer (October 2020)]

• Overall concept of adopting a single ammunition type used across all squad weapons offers worthwhile operational, logistical, and training benefits

• Recognition that units equipped with only 5.56x45 mm weapons will be overmatched by enemies equipped with 7.62x54 mm Russian, 7.62x51 mm NATO, and 5.8x42 mm Chinese.

• Recognition of the fact that potential adversaries using Level II/ Level IV body armour 

• Recognition by US Army that 5.56x45 mm has reached the limit of its development potential 

• Aspiration that any new ammunition option should not increase the dismounted soldier’s weight burden

• Aspiration for NGSW to provide 7.62 mm performance in a 5.56 mm package, but...

2. THE COMPETITION ITSELF

• NGSW requirement evolved into a requirement to penetrate Level 4 body armour at 600 metres

• NGSW requirement defines an ammunition standard that essentially matches .300 Winchester Magnum - a sniping cartridge

• The perception among many NATO armies observing NGSW that ammunition specification is that 6.8x51 mm is way over-powered

• Resulting muzzle energy / velocity produces significantly higher recoil making automatic fire harder to control 

• Shooting training will be more onerous, especially for soldiers of smaller stature and females

• Packing 3,000 fps / 914 m/sec performance in a 7.62-sized cartridge rather than in a larger cartridge results in very high chamber pressures (80,000 psi same as M1A2 Abrams' 120 mm gun) 

• High chamber pressures accelerate barrel wear and reduce parts longevity (requirement is 5,000 rounds, (SIG is achieving 10,000 rounds, legacy weapons deliver barrel life of at least 20,000 rounds, real issue is unexpected parts breakage)

• High chamber pressures require more complex four-piece ammunition which is more expensive to produce

• Increased system weight versus legacy 5.56 mm squad weapons adds to the dismounted soldier’s weight burden

• Larger ammunition reduces the number of rounds that can be carried for a given weight

• System through-life costs likely to be much higher 

• SIG did a great job with the XM5 and XM250 - the best option won

• The most significant element of NGSW is the Vortex XM157 fire control optic - this is superb and similar systems will be rolled-out across NATO

So, True Velocity cartridges for everything except the Special Purpose ammunition? That's what it sounds like.

And I bet Emeric could squeeze more performance out of 5.56x45 if he was allowed to.

Guardsman26 said:

4. US SOCOM IS PROCEEDING WITH ITS OWN AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

US SOCOM has two current programmes to field weapons in 6.5x49 mm Creedmoor ; one is the MRGG the other is a LMG

?US SOCOM is fielding 6x39 mm ARC in a Geissele GFR 

The above initiatives could be a hedge in case NGSW fails to live up to expectations 

That seems illogical to me.  6.5 CM is a less capable caliber than 6.8x51, and 6.5 CM weapons are as big and heavy (or heavier?) as the 6.8x51 guns.  And it has not yet been demonstrated that an LMG in 6 ARC is even viable.

Guardsman26 said:

5. WHAT NEXT? 

?NGSW may not be fielded in as widely as expected - it may only be used to replace DMRs and LMGs in the squad 

That also seems illogical to me, if only because it would negate the "squad common caliber" rationale for adopting NGSW.

Guardsman26 said:

Expect the US Army to conduct a further study that aims to reduce the dismounted soldier's weight burden - this could yet kill or dramatically re-scope NGSW 

Sounds reasonable.

Guardsman26 said:

?Expect a new program to upgrade the M4 - this could include a gas piston operating system and even include a new calibre, like 6 mm ARC

I don't see that happening.  IMO changing from 5.56 NATO to 6 ARC has too many drawbacks, and too few advantages.

Roughly agree. The Chinese small arms family right now is really well developed along a number of different lines. New .30 Cal GPMGs that weigh ~17-18lbs. New superlight .50cal MMGs, and their light automatic grenade launchers. If any of them turn out to be duds they have a lot of fluidity to work with the others. While the US is focusing too heavily on this boomermagnum cartridge and weapons system that can't even satisfactorily replace the M4 and M249, let alone the M240.

Guardsman26 said: 5. WHAT NEXT?  ?NGSW may not be fielded in as widely as expected - it may only be used to replace DMRs and LMGs in the squad  

stancrist said:

That also seems illogical to me, if only because it would negate the "squad common caliber" rationale for adopting NGSW.

Guardsman26 said: Expect the US Army to conduct a further study that aims to reduce the dismounted soldier's weight burden - this could yet kill or dramatically re-scope NGSW 

I think that these things are entirely possible, largely because the NGSW program over-reached in the first place.  The hope was for a wonder cartridge and weapons that would weigh virtually the same as 5.56x45 and somehow be just as compact.  Now that reality has set in, it would not surprise me that the reduction in the number of rounds carried has become a concern.  

mpopenker said:

Libya 2011?

I think the US is not guilty for this one, and those who are guilty didn't invaded Libya...