I am not so sure about this thing.  Did you see what it has done to that fellow's mustache?? :0

Seriously though, I would like more people to shoot it and give their opinions.  It reminds me of the film clips of the M14 that appeared to show that it was easily controllable in full auto fire.   The average soldier did not do so well with it though.

Oh man, that mustache... someones gotta let him know thats not a good look.

In regards to controllability, I assume it will be better then the M14, simply due to having an inline stock (to reduce muzzle climb) and has a suppressor (which reduces recoil by ~33%.)

But it still looks pretty brisk. 

gatnerd said:

-SIG guy claims to have already received Gov't orders for the rifle / LMG 

Since the Army will be thoroughly testing the guns and ammunition, they must indeed have placed orders for trial quantities.

https://youtu.be/vlrBEEG__1E?t=622 about growth potential on internal pressure

I would assume that true velocity design is already dead if evaluators stress that metric. They explicitly admit that they chose a bullpup design in order to avoid pressure growth, and indeed case base points towards a lack of meaningful reinforcement in order to cope with pressure growth

The more pressure and thus Vo, the less tungsten need?

poliorcetes said:

https://youtu.be/vlrBEEG__1E?t=622 about growth potential on internal pressure

I would assume that true velocity design is already dead if evaluators stress that metric. They explicitly admit that they chose a bullpup design in order to avoid pressure growth, and indeed case base points towards a lack of meaningful reinforcement in order to cope with pressure growth

I don't see the logic there. The longer barrel of the bullpup means that it can match the performance of the other contenders at lower pressure. That will always be true: if the military want to ramp up the pressure to achieve even higher performance, the pressure required will always be higher for the short-barrelled guns. So unless the TV round has a maximum pressure limit so much lower than the others that it can't match their performance even with a longer barrel, the advantage still lies with the bullpup.

Knowing that US military branches are not bullpup-friendly, I count with beretta's design as a compromise, mainly driven by pressure limits of tv design. Possibly the design was created well before NGSW program and thus the energy requisites cannot be achieved otherwise

Now look at SIG design: expensive, complex, but with pressure growth margin because of steel base. Textron's, on the other hand, is going to be extracted forward and thus without extraction groove for extraction nail.

TV design seems to be conventional AND not reinforced for pressure growth

True Velocity has said their 6.8mm case can handle 80,000 psi.  That's in the same ballpark as the SIG hybrid metallic case.  

But they said that they chose bullpup design in order to avoid higher pressure than nowadays' usual. And I don't understand how their plastic base could be as resistant as a steel one, giving that cartridge extraction groove can be rendered unusable 

Although it is difficult to tell from the pictures that I have seen, it appears that the base is a metal insert that extends a certain distance into the case.  I see no reason that this metal section cannot be make more substantial if the chamber pressure is increased.  Some of the weight reduction would be lost, however.  We do not know at this point if this design will be as tolerant of action types as a brass case, however.  In particular, we do not know at what chamber pressure the extraction may begin without damaging the case.  This might become an issue with delayed blowback designs or even with "overgassed" gas-operated systems.

From what I can see, True Velocity uses a steel base with the extraction groove and primer cup, which is inserted into the polymer case. How is this more susceptible to extraction problems than steel cases, for example?

I can think of a few reasons why they might  be designing for lower pressure anyway:

1. Case weight -- if they design for less pressure, the case can be lighter.  They say they're getting a 30% weight savings over brass, while SIG is only claiming 20%.
2. Barrel life -- really high pressure rounds have a reputation for being "barrel burners," although modern metallurgy seems to be solving that for the most part.
3. Improved customer acceptance -- the Army would probably ask a lot more questions about an 80 kpsi neckless composite than they will of the stainless SIG round (which just "logically" sounds stronger) or the Textron polymer CT round (which has a lot of LSAT testing/experience behind it).