https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/army-orders-100000-next-generation-rifles-amid-threats-war


Earlier this month, we reported that Textron Systems' AAI Corporation delivered its Next Generation Squad Weapon-Technology (NGSW-T) prototype demonstrator to the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center and Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP). A new report from Defense Blog shows the Army will purchase approximately 100,000 units of the next-generation weapon that fires 6.8-millimeter ammunition.

Wonder if this is that plastic cased round that supposedly runs at 3500fps. Should be interesting to see.

Dumb. Hey let's make our guys carry more heavy **** that won't help them detect where the enemy is shooting from. ****ing Miley near peer bull*****

Is this the same as the 6.8 SPC? Will this have the same trickle down effect of increasing popularity of that round that the 5.56 has?

No. It's not the SPC. From what I've read over the past year, I think it's a longer cartridge. Possibly closer to a 270, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I've seen pictures of plastic casing and caseless so who knows.

Quote:

---

The Pentagon's current shift from urban warfare in Iraq and Syria to the mountains and open terrain of Afghanistan have been the driving force behind modernizing standard issue weapons for infantry units.

---

We have been fighting in Afghanistan for 18 years, I'm not sure what shift they are talking about, there is nothing new about it.

I'm not a big fan of the Infantry having a different ammo type from the rest of the Army and the Marines. Sounds like a lot of logistics issues and cross loading nightmare in actual combat.

100,000 isn't very many weapons, this could be for use by the Ranger batt's and SF guys. That would minimize the impact but not negate it.

AgLA06 said:

---

Nealthedestroyer said:

---

Dumb. Hey let's make our guys carry more heavy **** that won't help them detect where the enemy is shooting from. ****ing Miley near peer bull*****

---

Better than knowing where they are and not have the ability to do anything about it, no?

---

Anything outside of 600m is crew served range. Past that is CAS and arty range.

That's not been a real problem, and these weapons don't address that.

attila006 said:

---

That's not been a real problem, and these weapons don't address that.

---

That's apparently been a big problem in Afghanistan. It's what drove this project.

Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer."

"Critics of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 mm round say no matter what has been done to improve the M16 and its subsequent variations, the 5.56 mm round lacks the range and lethality needed in modern firefights.

Some of the concerns Scales said he believes are driving military leaders to finally look at an alternative to the 5.56 mm and the M16/M4 include:

Improvements in adversaries' body armor, which make the 5.56 mm less lethal.

Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch."

From an Army Times article on the project.
https://www.army%20times.com/news/your-army/2017/05/07/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-army-s-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-5-56/

No, not 6.8 SPC. Its a 6.8 caliber projectile speced by the Army to go 3400 fps to pierce Level IV body armor out to 600 meters, but Textron didn't come close to that, they just took their previous Textron 6.5 LSAT and CT caribine and rechambered to use the Army's 6.8 tungsten AP bullet. So 130 grain at about 2900 fps, so far less capable than what the Army wants this to do.

The Army spec they released a year ago to manufacturers for Next Gen Squad Weapon was basically a 270 Weatherby Magnum, in terms of realistic bullet and velicity, but from a 14.5" barrel, with very little recoil, and long barrel life. (This is the point you're supposed to laugh at how stupid that is, yet it's real).

What they got to replace the M4 weighs 9 lbs empty, only holds 20 rounds, the magazine is as long as a 40 rd AR15 magazine. The LSAT is lighter than a M249 SAW but has an inherent flaw in design that causes it to occasionally suffer catastrophic malfunctions that only a trained armorer can fix. I wonder if they fixed that...

Scales is an idiot who uses every chance he gets for decades, to crsp on the AR15 platform. He knows little about firearms or modern combat.

The issues addressed in that Major's articles were largely addressed with more DM rifles, more 7.62 belt feds pushed to the squads.

This purchase was NOT about fighting Taliban at max effective small arms ranges. It was a legacy by an outgoing Army Chief of Staff who thinks the only way to kill Russian soldiers or others wearing Russian or Chinese Level IV armor, is using small arms to shoot them through their torso body armor.

The original carbine and LSAT were chambered in those calibers. Now its in a 6.8 CT cartridge.

Give our troops an AR15 in 6.5CM

Nealthedestroyer said:

---

Small arms don't kill that many people in combat when compared to other ***** Crew served, arty and CAS get the nod.

---

Yes it does and 5.56 is more than adequate for the task.

We are not shooting a lot of arty or dropping unlimited CAS lines in the 21st century.

Every stray round and every dead non-combatant generates another poor man's IO victory.

So, an M1A more or less..

New Army sucks

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So, an M1A more or less..

---

Except this one probly wont malfunction as much...

attila006 said:

---

No, not 6.8 SPC. Its a 6.8 caliber projectile speced by the Army to go 3400 fps to pierce Level IV body armor out to 600 meters, but Textron didn't come close to that, they just took their previous Textron 6.5 LSAT and CT caribine and rechambered to use the Army's 6.8 tungsten AP bullet. So 130 grain at about 2900 fps, so far less capable than what the Army wants this to do.

---

This sounds a lot like .277 wolverine.

I'm not sure why we need to go to another round while we have mk262 and whatever mod we're on now and mk318 for 5.56 which from what I've read work much better than M855. Nor will they eat up rifles like the exposed penetrator for m855a1 will.

92AG10 said:

---

Nealthedestroyer said:

---

Small arms don't kill that many people in combat when compared to other ***** Crew served, arty and CAS get the nod.

---

Yes it does and 5.56 is more than adequate for the task.

We are not shooting a lot of arty or dropping unlimited CAS lines in the 21st century.

Every stray round and every dead non-combatant generates another poor man's IO victory.

---

I'd agree that ROE considerations are important, and that there is a limit in poundage and time with indirect or CAS, but they still kill far more enemy than small arms do, which have never, in any war in the 20th century onwards, been all that effective in killing enemy, especially at range.

M855A1, out of a 14.5" barrel on an M4 or M249, goes transonic at about 600-700 meters, depending on range. After that, calling its trajectory erratic doesn't do it justice. Its fine up close or at medium ranges, but its just not a good long range cartridge. 7.62 NATO is better. However...

Those long range gunfights in Afghanistan are never going to be won by small arms. Most aren't winnable, period. The enemy usually has the initiative, initiates the engagements, knows where ISAF forces are, and has set conditions preplanned to begin their exfil (often involving supporting fires responding). ISAF forces usually have no clue where the enemy is firing from, and cannot effectively return fire, as small arms fire needs to be repeatedly be within 1-3 meters max to suppress an enemy. 5.56 cannot do that at long ranges, nor can 7.62 NATO, nor can 6.8 CT firing a super expensive tungsten tipped round.

The better weapon in those engagements are three things. A set of binos or a thermal sight, to find the enemy. A laser range finder to get their range. And either a patrol mortar or a Carl Gustaf with an airbursting HE round to either kill them, or scare them off.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

attila006 said:

---

No, not 6.8 SPC. Its a 6.8 caliber projectile speced by the Army to go 3400 fps to pierce Level IV body armor out to 600 meters, but Textron didn't come close to that, they just took their previous Textron 6.5 LSAT and CT caribine and rechambered to use the Army's 6.8 tungsten AP bullet. So 130 grain at about 2900 fps, so far less capable than what the Army wants this to do.

---

This sounds a lot like .277 wolverine.

I'm not sure why we need to go to another round while we have mk262 and whatever mod we're on now and mk318 for 5.56 which from what I've read work much better than M855. Nor will they eat up rifles like the exposed penetrator for m855a1 will.

---

The M855A1 issue was fixed with new mags with new followers and feed lips.

MK262 was good for accuracy and effects on flesh, not good at all for barrier penetration. MK318 was good at barrier penetration and external ballistics on flesh, but didn't have very good accuracy. M855A1 is the way to go for future small arms. Lethal, accuracy. A bit hot, but the newer lots are better.

The 6.8 CT push is about General Milley's grand desire to nullify Level IV plates, worn by Russian SOF. The Army designed a few new bullets, one in 7.62 and one in 6.8, which are basically the M855A1 bullet but wider, and instead of a hardened steel penetrator it has tungsten. The problem is they don't have any firearms to shoot them in. About two years ago, Milley was about to drop a ton of money to buy a fleet of 7.62 NATO battle rifles to use the new bullet, to be issued to troops in Eastern Europe or other theaters that enemy might be wearing body armor. Previously, the 5.56 M995 AP round is only good for Lvl III out to about 100 meters max, and the 7.62 M993 is only good for a bit more. Neither work very good at all against Lvl IV at anything besides very close range. But Milley's push to get 7.62 NATO rifles failed. So getting a totally new Next Generation Squad Weapon was the next plan.

With that came the requirement that vendors submit a rifle in a cartridge they designed that had to be 6.8 caliber (to use the AP round), the cartridge had to weigh a certain amount making it either cased telescoped (CT), or a hybrid of brass/polymer. Further it had to have limited recoil, great accuracy, be lightweight, and in order to defeat Level IV plates out to 600 meters, it needed to travel at 3,300-3,400 fps. Four vendors were asked in early 2019 to submit weapons for that, which would then be tested before a winner selected.

Then last week Milley skipped all that, took the existing guns that Textron already produced in 6.5 CT that the Army had been playing with for years, that had been rechambered in 6.8, and placed an order for 100,000. Even though its generally untested, doesn't meet most of the earlier requirements (heavy carbine, low magazine capacity, ammo isn't fast enough for long range AP effects).

But Milley is about to retire in a few months and this is his Black Beret, so he wants it gift wrapped with a bow tie to the new Chief of Staff, so he rushed it all in the hopes that his successor wont tank the project. because that is what POS generals do...

FYI, this is the weapon system replacing the M4, but in 6.8 not 6.5:



Nice ergonomics, right?

And that massive magazine only holds 20 rounds.

attila006 said:

---

FYI, this is the weapon system replacing the M4, but in 6.8 not 6.5:



Nice ergonomics, right?

And that massive magazine only holds 20 rounds.

---

attila006 said:

---

This is purely the pet project of GEN Milley, the Army Chief of Staff. He's been trying to get an armor piercing rifle issued for years unsuccessfully and he's literally on his way out the door. This will be one of hos few legacies so he's buying what he can, hyping them as to be used for forward deployed BCTs, hoping that his successor wont have the balls to cancel it since the weapons are already ordered.

This is Milley's black beret. Nothing more, nothing less. Best not to read into it as being a rational decision, because we're talking about someone wel said trans combat personnel literally increase unit combat effectiveness.

---

I know, and if they want to add leathality at range back just go back to the M16A4 and shoot the Mk262 ammo. The 77 grn round out of the longer barrel is going right at 3000 fps and carrying plenty of energy at 500 meters. Putting the long barrels back on the SAW wouldn't hurt either.

I also don't remember an engagement in Afghanistan when we didn't feel like we could return effective fire with M4's and our DMR's. I know the average engagement distance is further out in Afghanistan but not so much further that the M4 wasn't effective. Then you bring online the 240 and designated marksman and maybe a sniper element if you are lucky and you are projecting leathality well beyond what that AK-47 can do.

If we really wanted to add lethality we'd spend more time on marksmanship. It amazes me how many have not cracked open the TC.

CT'97 said:

---

attila006 said:

---

This is purely the pet project of GEN Milley, the Army Chief of Staff. He's been trying to get an armor piercing rifle issued for years unsuccessfully and he's literally on his way out the door. This will be one of hos few legacies so he's buying what he can, hyping them as to be used for forward deployed BCTs, hoping that his successor wont have the balls to cancel it since the weapons are already ordered.

This is Milley's black beret. Nothing more, nothing less. Best not to read into it as being a rational decision, because we're talking about someone wel said trans combat personnel literally increase unit combat effectiveness.

---

I know, and if they want to add leathality at range back just go back to the M16A4 and shoot the Mk262 ammo. The 77 grn round out of the longer barrel is going right at 3000 fps and carrying plenty of energy at 500 meters. Putting the long barrels back on the SAW wouldn't hurt either.

I also don't remember an engagement in Afghanistan when we didn't feel like we could return effective fire with M4's and our DMR's. I know the average engagement distance is further out in Afghanistan but not so much further that the M4 wasn't effective. Then you bring online the 240 and designated marksman and maybe a sniper element if you are lucky and you are projecting leathality well beyond what that AK-47 can do.

---

An M16A4 with MK262 is getting around around 2,850 fps out of a 20", so its gaining maybe 50-75 meters of extra range over the M4 but still not going to be cutting it for the 800-900 meter PKM and RPG-7 long range harassing fire duels that are common in Afghanistan that has the Army freaking out when referencing the dreaded "Overmatch" problem. Besides, if a rifleman has the enemy's location he can put some fire on them using a well zeroed ACOG but it doubtfully will be very effective fire, especially considering how precise range and windage calls need to be made at any range beyond 5-600 meters. I'd rather carry the M4, its lighter, shorter, so easier to use inside structures and other confined spaces like vehicles. If I'm going 20", I want a giant leap in effectiveness and we're just not going to get that with an extra 150 fps from the longer barrel length.

I agree that 7.62 DM rifles, M240 or MK 48 LMGs are a simple solution for Afghanistan to at least range out, but not a fix, as target location is still going to be the #1 problem, not hitting them.

I think Milley is an idiot, but one doesn't make four star general by being Mr Subject Matter Expert, they get it playing politics. FYI, Textron makes the 6.8 CT NGSW-T the Army is buying 100,000 of. The current Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment previously was the CEO of Textron from 2012-2017. And one doesn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to solve that mystery.