mpopenker said:

Libya 2011?

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

nincomp said:

       Guardsman26 said:  ?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.

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.

The reduction in number of rounds carried was blatantly obvious at least two years ago when the first downselect was made.

The cartridges were clearly not going to get smaller, yet the Army continued to pursue development of both NGSW-R and -AR.

That says to me they still want a common caliber for squad weapons and are willing to accept the reduction in rounds carried.

I think the NGSW team are getting real pushback on the weight burden issue. 

However, the US Army may have been much smarter than we've given them credit for. NGSW now has three basic loadings plus tracer and blank. As I mentioned above, there is the SP round with is the armoured piercing loading that cracks Level 4 plates at 500+ metres. Second, there is a new standard loading, the GP round, which may even be fired at standard pressures and have MV of 875 mps / 2,900 fps. This would allow lightweight polymer cartridges to be used, reducing weight - but it would still be superior to 7.62x51 mm NATO in performance at all ranges due to its greater efficiency.  Finally, there is the Reduced Range (RR) loading which is designed for urban combat / CQB. So basically, units will use the GP loading in most situations, but when the threat dictates armoured piercing, the SP can be used easily and the gun will cope with it. 

If this is right, then the new 6.8 x 51 mm envelope makes a lot of sense - it can save weight relative to 7.62 x 51 mm while delivering extra range and lethality. That being the case, more NATO armies may adopt it. 

I would still prefer to see an NGSW specification that is closer to your original 6 mm Optimum cartridge, Stan. Put a bit more energy behind a VLD 6 mm projectile with a mass of 95-110 grains (6 or 7 grams) and you'll have a very flexible, lethal ammunition that exceeds 7.62 mm at all ranges while being close in weight to 5.56 mm. The trick is a base diameter small than 7.62 mm, so you can carry more rounds for a given weight. 

Guardsman26 said:

I think the NGSW team are getting real pushback on the weight burden issue.

That does not surprise me in the least.  I expect the pushback will increase after units are equipped with the XM5.

Guardsman26 said:

However, the US Army may have been much smarter than we've given them credit for. NGSW now has three basic loadings plus tracer and blank. As I mentioned above, there is the SP round with is the armoured piercing loading that cracks Level 4 plates at 500+ metres. Second, there is a new standard loading, the GP round, which may even be fired at standard pressures and have MV of 875 mps / 2,900 fps. This would allow lightweight polymer cartridges to be used, reducing weight - but it would still be superior to 7.62x51 mm NATO in performance at all ranges due to its greater efficiency.  Finally, there is the Reduced Range (RR) loading which is designed for urban combat / CQB. So basically, units will use the GP loading in most situations, but when the threat dictates armoured piercing, the SP can be used easily and the gun will cope with it.

I don't see any of that as being unusually smart.  The GP and SP loadings are not new developments; they've been planned pretty much since the beginning.

The RR loading is recent, but what I've read is that it was developed to cope with GP ammo exceeding the limited danger area on ranges, not for MOUT/CQB.

Guardsman26 said:

If this is right, then the new 6.8 x 51 mm envelope makes a lot of sense - it can save weight relative to 7.62 x 51 mm while delivering extra range and lethality. That being the case, more NATO armies may adopt it.

I would rate the weight saving relative to 7.62x51 as negligible, but I agree that more NATO armies may like the extra range and lethality enough to adopt 6.8x51.

That is assuming the US Army follows through and fields the system, of course.  There's the possibility that XM5 and XM250 could go the way of XM8 and XM235.

More deflection.

Australia and USA wouldn’t need to invade Solomons, just mine the PLAN port & crater the runways of the PLAAF airbase.

Lots of specious claims stated as facts there Nick.

DavidPawley said:

...just mine the PLAN port & crater the runways of the PLAAF airbase.

ROFL.  

Guardsman26 said:

As I mentioned above, there is the SP round with is the armoured piercing loading that cracks Level 4 plates at 500+ metres.

Current 7.62x51 mm could do that up to 200+ m with medium length WC core, and to higher distance with the very long "Stiletto" core or the XM948 SLAP. Those latest rounds are already existing and no EU countries bought them in large volume, so I don't think that the existence of the SP round will be a pivoting point to the adoption of the 6.8x51 mm vs. 7.62x51 mm.

Guardsman26 said:

Second, there is a new standard loading, the GP round, which may even be fired at standard pressures and have MV of 875 mps / 2,900 fps. This would allow lightweight polymer cartridges to be used, reducing weight - but it would still be superior to 7.62x51 mm NATO in performance at all ranges due to its greater efficiency.

I don't think that a polymer-cased 6.8x51 mm will be so attractive versus a polymer-cased version of the M80A1, which is already delivering nearly anything you can expect from a "low pressure brass case" 6.8 mm. The 6.8 mm will have the edge after 400 m, and definitively better after 600 m, but armies will probably estimate that it's a limited gain at a large cost.

US SOCOM, after seeing from the insight all the greatness of the 6.8x51 mm, decided to resume its 6.5 mm Creedmoor program.

EmericD said:

US SOCOM, after seeing from the insight all the greatness of the 6.8x51 mm, decided to resume its 6.5 mm Creedmoor program.

That is what allways puzzeled me. The 6,5 Creedmore allready does what the 6,8x51 is supposed to do. Its a established and mature design. Even if the Creedmore is not an option the 6,5x55 Swedish does the same as well. The 6,8x51 tp me allways seems a case of reinventing the wheel.