XM7 worries from the field.

[LRRPF52]

Especially for a Pacific Theater conflict with China though, this M7 has zero place in the fight, and would only lead to unnecessary loss of life. Not that US Army will be Island-hopping like it’s WWII (unless some mongoloid General convinces the JCS that’s a good idea).

In Asian militaries, it’s very top-down how they do their large force exercises. Now China does evolutions of their combined arms live-fire demos so the Generals look competent. Based on Chinese culture, I could see the unexpected outcome being an even more humiliating defeat than Saddam experienced in 1991. The Iraqi Air Force and Army were battle-hardened against the US-equipped Iranian Air Force and Army over 8 years of warfare. That included surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, advanced fighters, bombers, chemical warfare, large mechanized battles, artillery, and large infantry engagements.

The pace at which counter-UAS systems are being developed and manufactured is also a thing in NATO and would-be belligerent nations. It always comes back to who can put bigger warheads on TGTs faster and in more efficacious locations consistently to shut down the opponent. China sucks at maritime operations, so they really can’t afford to mess around in that space, especially if it spreads into their merchant fleet of shipping vessels. Every nation who suffers from their dredge fishing and depletion of fish populations would love to punch them in the face if it’s open season on ChiCom vessels.

Their Air Defense doesn’t work against European cruise missiles, so it won’t work against our more VLO missiles like JASSM and JASSM-ER. They showed that in the Indo-Paki dust-up earlier this year. SCALP Cratered all the Eastern-based Pakistani Air bases, shutting down their sortie-gen capability.

The major conclusion from all of this for me is that US Army/Pentagon needs to be relieved of small arms development. They have proven time and again for the last 70 years that they are incapable of envisioning, managing, and fielding a successful shoulder-fired weapon. All the really good solutions in this space have come from other organizations outside of Big Army. So good that other Special Operations, Recon, and Infantry units around the world have adopted those solutions (AR-15, M4, Hk416) and are expanding their adoption even as we speak. Look at the latest SAKO AR-15 weapons for Finnish Defense Forces and Sweden, as examples.

 

[mattman215]

I’m just happy I’m not part of that crap show anymore……

 

[Mr.BR]

One does have to wonder who the corrupt fucks are that are sucking Sig's cock so that their products somehow always make the cut with US DOD

 

[WindstormSCR]

One does have to wonder who the corrupt fucks are that are sucking Sig's cock so that their products somehow always make the cut with US DOD

I think it's a little of part A, and a little of part B.

Part A is your comment, part B is the success they've had with the original MCX in T1 and High-profile units with the LVAW, Rattler, etc.

I think the real winner would be and still is taking the hybrid case tech and applying it to 6mm ARC, giving you most of the advantages the NGSW was supposed to achieve without the weight increase and reduction in ammunition volume. (ARC over Grendel purely because the longer projectile would make an AP projectile more effective)

 

[Terry Cross]

I think the real winner would be and still is taking the hybrid case tech and applying it to 6mm ARC, giving you most of the advantages the NGSW was supposed to achieve without the weight increase and reduction in ammunition volume. (ARC over Grendel purely because the longer projectile would make an AP projectile more effective)

My tiny brain says No.

A hot 6 as a candidate for anything in the NGSW space would be a No-Go. In sustained fire/ high volume uses, an enhanced pressure 6ARC would eat barrels at least as quickly as the new 6.8x51mm.

For that to ever work, material science and barrel manufacturing would have to make a generational leap that I don't think it is ready to make.

The ARC case is larger. 0.441" dia compared to the 5.56 NATO at 0.377". So there will still be a weight increase and volume reduction penalty for each knuckle dragger that has to hump one.

 

[JR1200W3]

Keep in mind, the M7 isn't being fielded in the sense that is replacing the M4. The Army did award it type classification which moves the M7 along in the fielding program but it is still in operational and user testing phase. I think people assume the Army just went out and bought the gun and it's replacing the M4 in it's current configuration right now. Not the case. It really does seem like it's not ready for Type classification yet and from a couple of articles it seems the Pentagon(who in the Pentagon?) disagreed with the Army's move to progress the XM7 along in the NGSW program to M7. I'm not involved with the program and I'm just outside looking in, reading articles like everyone else here, but I see nuances that people don't seem to understand. Keep in mind there's a difference between the specific gun and the program.

I'm also picking up on some comments that the NGSW program is almost as much about selecting a rifle as it is developing a program development model to use for other material solutions in the future. Elements seem to be working with industry on a continuous basis, evolving and iterating over time, more wide scale operator testing than in the past, testing parameters outside of a few procurement nerds running some joes through a series of tests in a very controlled operator testing lane, instead releasing the rifle to units to be subject to unit and collective training, accountability, and maintenance. I'm not defending it, but I see where a lot of other considerations could be driving the rifle forward in the program despite it's failures. Who knows, could also be a prove the null hyposthesis strategy that needs to play out. As far as SIGs involvement, I do know that selecting a company to work with over a long term has a lot to do with the company's ability to scale, sustain over time, allocate time and resources to continuous iteration. Not just any company is going to be able to do that. I have to imagine the eventual outcome of the 320 saga will call into question the future prospects of working with SIG.

 

[carbonbased]

I swear I saw a pic of an XM7’s chamber where there was uniform (and extreme) wear at the back of the chamber, right where the SS metal case was.

I can’t find the pic now. Has anyone else seen that pic?

 

[sloporsche]

incessant obsolescence postulate AKA just pay the license fee to kalashnikov and build one of theirs lol

 

[corsairpilot62]

So what im reading here. Is the sig spear sucks. And Big Army should just go with M16A4s chambered in 6.8spc.

Question for the folks that have the semi auto version. Either in 6.8 or the Lord’s second favorite caliber .308; how do you enjoy it. Compared to anything else? (Scar, G3, FAL…etc…)

 

[lash]

I swear I saw a pic of an XM7’s chamber where there was uniform (and extreme) wear at the back of the chamber, right where the SS metal case was.

I can’t find the pic now. Has anyone else seen that pic?

There’s a couple pictures and some discussion about it in this thread:

Making 30-BR from Sig 277 brass

@45-90 Hope you don't mind me tagging you into this thread since I read where you made Dasher brass from the parent 277 Hybrid brass. I ordered just 100 to play around with to see if I can reasonably make brass for supersonic use only. I've done case forming before with 17 Ackley Hornet, 17...

www.snipershide.com

 

[carbonbased]

There’s a couple pictures and some discussion about it in this thread:

Making 30-BR from Sig 277 brass

@45-90 Hope you don't mind me tagging you into this thread since I read where you made Dasher brass from the parent 277 Hybrid brass. I ordered just 100 to play around with to see if I can reasonably make brass for supersonic use only. I've done case forming before with 17 Ackley Hornet, 17...

www.snipershide.com

YEAH MAN! That’s it!

 

[dms416]

YEAH MAN! That’s it!

View attachment 8773334
View attachment 8773338

So is this a problem just with Sig's brass/steel combo? Sig being shitty or a dynamic between the 2 different metals....or is this something that all 2-piece case like the NAS3 will experience as well at elevated pressures?

 

[corsairpilot62]

Is it discharging without the trigger being pulled?

 

[lash]

So is this a problem just with Sig's brass/steel combo? Sig being shitty or a dynamic between the 2 different metals....or is this something that all 2-piece case like the NAS3 will experience as well at elevated pressures?

Head to the thread I linked. It seems to be, may be, only happening with the first gen of the hybrid cases. I’m just paraphrasing what I read there.

 

[flogxal]

SIG keeps winning Army contracts because they keep delivering exactly what the Army asks for. Nothing really sinister about it.

I would not overlook the fact that lobbying in whatever form you can imagine, it influences the way the Contract/proposal is written in the first place. Aggressive lobbying knows, it's a constant process of influence and if you can influence the contract's language you can win the bid. You get them to write the propsal/Contract so that your idea fits perfectly, and voila! You say "we bid fairly, we provided what they wanted."

 

[PappyM3]

I would not overlook the fact that lobbying in whatever form you can imagine, it influences the way the Contract/proposal is written in the first place. Aggressive lobbying knows, it's a constant process of influence and if you can influence the contract's language you can win the bid. You get them to write the propsal/Contract so that your idea fits perfectly, and voila! You say "we bid fairly, we provided what they wanted."

Well, there’s lobbying, sure.

But there is also shaping, where the contractors will have technical/CONOP discussions directly with the government PMs to inform RFPs in favor of your product. But it also helps to give the government PM ideas that will either get him a successful program for eval bullets or help the war fighter with something that fits their needs. Some PMs care more for the former than the latter.

Now, this isn’t a monetary thing (or at least usually isn’t). Often multiple contractors will work to shape the RFP before it comes out. Sometimes the government PM uses input from multiple contractors, sometimes they lean heavily towards the input of just one contractor because they lead the industry in that niche area or have the best ideas and a track record of bringing those ideas to light.

In the R&D world it’s generally ill advised to submit a proposal for a program you didn’t help shape. Your probability of winning it is VERY low if you don’t help shape.

 

[WindstormSCR]

So is this a problem just with Sig's brass/steel combo? Sig being shitty or a dynamic between the 2 different metals....or is this something that all 2-piece case like the NAS3 will experience as well at elevated pressures?

I have done some wack shit with the NAS3 cases and have never encountered this with those unless you start seriously pushing pressures. it's more a function of how the steel cup acts under high pressures, not a SIG fuckup as much as physics reinserting itself into the discussion.

chambers for these high-pressure all-steel or steel-based rounds will need to be made of special materials that can handle it properly.

 

[sinister]

I would not overlook the fact that lobbying in whatever form you can imagine, it influences the way the Contract/proposal is written in the first place. Aggressive lobbying knows, it's a constant process of influence and if you can influence the contract's language you can win the bid. You get them to write the propsal/Contract so that your idea fits perfectly, and voila! You say "we bid fairly, we provided what they wanted."

It is part of the entire acknowledged defense acquisition process.

If the government has a requirement and an idea of what it wants (but doesn't know for sure if it's even possible) they put out a request for information. The entire world can submit answers and dialog with the buyer.

The government firms up their requirement(s) and puts out a request for proposal. Businesses pitch their ideas with a targeted goal of winning a possible future contract.

Next step would be a request for bid -- giving the government an idea of what it might cost.

A tender is the actual request for samples to compete for selection.

The contract is the agreement to provide merchandise (hardware, training, turn-key total packages, etc.). It is the binding agreement.

The contractor who takes the entire process seriously and offers what the customer asks for has the advantage.

 

[lash]

Well, there’s lobbying, sure.

But there is also shaping, where the contractors will have technical/CONOP discussions directly with the government PMs to inform RFPs in favor of your product. But it also helps to give the government PM ideas that will either get him a successful program for eval bullets or help the war fighter with something that fits their needs. Some PMs care more for the former than the latter.

Now, this isn’t a monetary thing (or at least usually isn’t). Often multiple contractors will work to shape the RFP before it comes out. Sometimes the government PM uses input from multiple contractors, sometimes they lean heavily towards the input of just one contractor because they lead the industry in that niche area or have the best ideas and a track record of bringing those ideas to light.

In the R&D world it’s generally ill advised to submit a proposal for a program you didn’t help shape. Your probability of winning it is VERY low if you don’t help shape.

It is part of the entire acknowledged defense acquisition process.

If the government has a requirement and an idea of what it wants (but doesn't know for sure if it's even possible) they put out a request for information. The entire world can submit answers and dialog with the buyer.

The government firms up their requirement(s) and puts out a request for proposal. Businesses pitch their ideas with a targeted goal of winning a possible future contract.

Next step would be a request for bid -- giving the government an idea of what it might cost.

A tender is the actual request for samples to compete for selection.

The contract is the agreement to provide merchandise (hardware, training, turn-key total packages, etc.). It is the binding agreement.

The contractor who takes the entire process seriously and offers what the customer asks for has the advantage.

This is not so different from the corporate manufacturing world. Those that do best will be spending the time up front with the customer to help them, and you, understand what it is exactly they want/need. Then you do your best to offer that want/need at a competitive price.

 

[flogxal]

The contractor who takes the entire process seriously and offers what the customer asks for has the advantage.

For sure. I haven't ever worked govt contracts but I have worked on quite a few large scale, complex project contracts that follow the same engineering/manufacture limitations. Big machinery made of smaller custom or off-shelf components, uniquely designed stuff.

There is a difference between honest competition, and getting in early to solidify your spot when you intend to sell a piece of crap.

Or, getting in early for good reasons, but then when implementing the contract, cheaping out on sub-parts or QA or QC to "make good profit" on the contract.

 

[dms416]

Relax...LAV got this!

“The Caliber Cluster” by LAV | Soldier Systems Daily

This is a guest post by my longtime friend MSG Larry Vickers, (USA, Ret) or as he's known by many, LAV. He discusses a situation the Us military has cr ...

soldiersystems.net

But seriously though...
In terms of large-scale individual service rifle fielding...have we every not fucked it up?
The right rifle...at the right time...done right from the beginning?

 

[LRRPF52]

The other hard thing about streamlining logistics right now is that NATO is effectively in a war of logistics for the nations not currently engaged in open hostilities, so the idea of introducing another caliber into the system makes zero sense to them.

We’re also at the point where Finland is in the middle of converting to a sensible mix of 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 NATO weapons with their SAKO-built AR-10s and AR-15s, departing from the 7.62x39 Rk62s and Rk95s, and 7.62x54 PKMs.

Other NATO nations have spent the last 25-30 years converting from whatever they used before, to the 5.56 and 7.62x51 mix, especially former Eastern European nations that were aligned with or part of Warsaw Pact.

This reminds me of when the US Army officially adopted .276 Pedersen, which actually made a ton of sense as a great intermediate cartridge of its era in a 10rd en block clip Garand, but then MacArthur ditched it in the early 1930s, likely due to the Depression not leaving much room for the Army’s budget to undergo a total caliber change along with the new Garand. That was a significant missed opportunity that would have changed the development of military cartridges after WWII, with a shortened version in 7mm adopted by NATO in the 1950s-1960s.

We would have had a smaller AR-10, smaller FAL, and smaller G3, all with much easier handling, more basic load, lower recoil, and still optimal downrange effects.

This 6.8x51 doesn’t bring much of that to the table since it is high-recoil, high-wear, extremely expensive to manufacture, and not proven yet to demonstrate durability and reliability in either the XM7 or XM250. It’s the wrong direction to go from all the lessons-learned over the last 155yrs (Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 saw more widespread use of metallic cartridge-fed rifles.)

SBR Ammo and Fiocchi make some blistering-fast 125gr loads for 7.62 NATO already. Make that EPR like M80A1 and you’re cooking with gas. I do think we need to plan for phasing out 7.62 NATO, but there are so many different machine-guns that run on it that it would require huge costs in weapons replacement.

5.56 NAS technology brings longer barrel velocities from 10.5-11.5” barrels, in lighter overall ammunition. Joes and sub-unit leaders would love that.

 

[dms416]

We would have had a smaller AR-10, smaller FAL, and smaller G3, all with much easier handling, more basic load, lower recoil, and still optimal downrange effects.

Being a Grendel fanatic, I know you know the "ideal" answer in a perfect world would be the "M" in Small (5.56)/Medium(6-6.5mm)/Large(6.8-8mm) IF we were to pick one universal do-all for rifle and LMG fielding.

Given the level of training, most of the advantages are lost and soldier's load is such that everything weapon has to be skeletonized/polymerized/space-aged alloyed to shave the ounces that make up for the pounds of pack/armor that are necessary as we don't work like we did in WWII with secured lines where nobody fucked with your food/bullets.

Getting the right S & L combo in 5.56 and whatever large calliber .473 bolt face is probably where we're heading as it seems a little late/impossible to turn an oil tanker in a puddle and go with the medium/ICAR route that we should have been on in an original FAL chambered in .280....or whatever .277/.276/.270 we would have insisted upon as we have a weird fascination with 6.8mm second only to .30 caliber.

 

[WindstormSCR]

the more I really dig into this, the more I think we'll eventually see a 6 ARC or 6mm MAX adoption, and a push to rebarrel existing 5.56 platforms across NATO.

6mm MAX has the added advantage of still working with M27 links, so you don't have to re-design any of the squad-level MGs, which makes it an attractive option economically.

hard to say where things will go. the soft armor defeat at distance is still a real thing that needs to be considered, but it's likely that might be doable with an EPR 6mm using a better core material than steel

 

[dms416]

6mm MAX has the added advantage of still working with M27 links, so you don't have to re-design any of the squad-level MGs, which makes it an attractive option economically.

I mean...you still got the barrels, ammo and magazine modifications. Though cheaper, not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze still proportionally. Not saying they did the Federal death launch but the 6max launch could've been done much, much better. Folks were open to a not-6ARC and (probably) SOLGW wasn't ready to deliver.

Like @Terry Cross mentioned, we'd want that 6mm so geeked up for this theoretical overmatch on hypothetical armor (that either would be too heavy if fielded across a military or too expensive if it were not a pain to wear)....we'd be burning barrels like a house on fire. And this is all of course if the recipient could exploit the external ballistic advantages over the 'ol 5.56mm

 

[Terry Cross]

the more I really dig into this, the more I think we'll eventually see a 6 ARC or 6mm MAX adoption, and a push to rebarrel existing 5.56 platforms across NATO.

6mm MAX has the added advantage of still working with M27 links, so you don't have to re-design any of the squad-level MGs, which makes it an attractive option economically.

hard to say where things will go. the soft armor defeat at distance is still a real thing that needs to be considered, but it's likely that might be doable with an EPR 6mm using a better core material than steel

100% think that would never get out of the starting gate. Anything along that path would smoke the barrels so fast it would be totally impractical. They would have to have a M249 style quick change barrel system and each booger eater would have to carry 2 extra barrels in their loadout.

The Russians have been fielding long, heavy penetrator projos moving at schmedium speeds for some of their teams. It smokes through most of the rifle rated US plates. There are videos from Syria documenting it.

It actually makes sense that we should at least entertain such thinking. Most of the small arms fighting would be at ranges from urban/trench CQB to medium range. Anything at distance falls into DMR and sniper weapons with different ammo needs.
>90% of future war casualties will be from drones and precision strike munitions anyway.

Major players are super close to fielding ground robots. Imagine that shit show. Battlefield saturated with drones and robots. If they don't get you, you will likely die of cancer from being slow cooked in the 24/7 flood of electromagnetic energy being dumped into the area for jamming, spoofing and sensing.

 

[dms416]

With what Terry points out, it wouldn't surprise me that we start looking at the "long-range shotgun" effect again.
The old Salvo/SPIW/HK CAWS/duplex bullet/quantity over quality again if the targets are going to get faster/smaller in drones and the distances are getting shorter in trench warfare.

 

[PappyM3]

…

SBR Ammo and Fiocchi make some blistering-fast 125gr loads for 7.62 NATO already. Make that EPR like M80A1 and you’re cooking with gas. …

I mean, the M80A1 is already only 130gr. It would be crazy to develop a new 7.62 bullet that is nearly identical but just 5gr lighter.

 

[PappyM3]

With what Terry points out, it wouldn't surprise me that we start looking at the "long-range shotgun" effect again.
The old Salvo/SPIW/HK CAWS/duplex bullet/quantity over quality again if the targets are going to get faster/smaller in drones and the distances are getting shorter in trench warfare.

Ballistic means are a very poor option to take out drones. It should be a last resort. Directed energy is where it’s at.

And future US conflict should not be expected to include trench warfare. Ukraine vs Russia =/= US vs a peer/near peer

 

[dms416]

Ballistic means are a very poor option to take out drones. It should be a last resort. Directed energy is where it’s at.

And future US conflict should not be expected to include trench warfare. Ukraine vs Russia =/= US vs a peer/near peer

Not saying it's ideal BUT given our history we don't chase after what's logical either. We will never not have to find hardware solutions to failures in software (training) problems so I expect those things to always be on the table.

We have a rather poor track record in prepping for what the next war will be. While I do think it will be drone/uav heavy man v. man is never out of the equation...

 

[Terry Cross]

While I do think it will be drone/uav heavy man v. man is never out of the equation...

Yes.

Once the satellite guided precision munitions are expended.
Once the 5th and 6th Gen aircraft are exhausted.
Once the drones and robots are countered and depleted.
Once the heavy armor and air assault and CAS are no more,

it will still devolve to man versus man in a trench, on the battlefield and on the beach head.


Of course my opinion is framed in the context of an all out / for real war.
A war that directly threatens our existence. Not some war that we electively inserted ourselves into that we can withdraw from when it is inconvenient or too costly in lives and equipment.

In that type of war, if everything devolves into a bloody slugfest on the front lines where one of the major players starts to panic for fear of defeat and loss of their homeland. . . . . . That is where some will panic and consider the option of going nuclear as viable.

We need to have the forethought ( I know. We suck at it.) and planning to minimize the chance of us getting into that situation where our back is against the wall.

 

[mewillis]

My dream would be competent and smart warriors using proven calibers (5.56, 308, 30-06, .300/.338) they are already proficient in and develop the rifles around the ammo rather than trying to reinvent the wheel with the "New latest greatest" ammo/platforms that never seem to really work all that much better and in may cases worse ie; the Sig's that are all not producing and or failing the mission. This has truly been another notch in the white elephant category that seems to never end with the DOD/Pentagon shenanigans.......... Lot's of people need to be held accountable for this waste but it will never happen I know.

 

[corsairpilot62]

My dream would be competent and smart warriors using proven calibers (5.56, 308, 30-06, .300/.338) they are already proficient in and develop the rifles around the ammo rather than trying to reinvent the wheel with the "New latest greatest" ammo/platforms that never seem to really work all that much better and in may cases worse ie; the Sig's that are all not producing and or failing the mission. This has truly been another notch in the white elephant category that seems to never end with the DOD/Pentagon shenanigans.......... Lot's of people need to be held accountable for this waste but it will never happen I know.

.30-06 M16A4!!!! YES!!!!!

 

[dms416]

.30-06 M16A4!!!! YES!!!!!

You could make a lot of fudds very conflicted

 

[JR1200W3]

How long should we continue to use M4s and the 5.56? The next 20yrs? 50? 100? Okay, then what? At some point you evolve or get left behind. Can we agree on that?

 

[dms416]

How long should we continue to use M4s and the 5.56? The next 20yrs? 50? 100? Okay, then what? At some point you evolve or get left behind. Can we agree on that?

While it still enjoys incremental improvement, there are no shortage of accounts from high op-tempo guys that believe that a 12.5-14.5" AR15 is the ideal compromise in weight, recoil, controllability, accuracy when it comes to actual "gunfighting". Not the one-stop shot Bob Lee 1-kill shit but the reality of engaging a moving human that's traveling between points of cover and using the 3-step sequence of "disrupt...stop...finish"(paraphrasing). I don't know where you add significant capability to that without taking away significantly from one of its positive attributes. (And as previously noted, is said added capability actually necessary, and are the users able to actually exploit it in the event it IS indeed needed?)

 

[mewillis]

Precisely, but the DOD continues to focus on distance and “bullet coefficient” numbers, flat shooting blah blah which is great but the weapon platforms are the Achilles heel every time.

 

[JR1200W3]

While it still enjoys incremental improvement, there are no shortage of accounts from high op-tempo guys that believe that a 12.5-14.5" AR15 is the ideal compromise in weight, recoil, controllability, accuracy when it comes to actual "gunfighting". Not the one-stop shot Bob Lee 1-kill shit but the reality of engaging a moving human that's traveling between points of cover and using the 3-step sequence of "disrupt...stop...finish"(paraphrasing). I don't know where you add significant capability to that without taking away significantly from one of its positive attributes. (And as previously noted, is said added capability actually necessary, and are the users able to actually exploit it in the event it IS indeed needed?)

That isn't an answer to the question unfortunately.

 

[dms416]

Precisely, but the DOD continues to focus on distance and “bullet coefficient” numbers, flat shooting blah blah which is great but the weapon platforms are the Achilles heel every time.

If that were completely true, they wouldn't be fucking around with 6.8mm.

 

[dms416]

That isn't an answer to the question unfortunately.

Said inertia in reference to my previous comments, lack of a suitable replacement and the mere logistics and my complete lack of faith in government efficiency would leave me to believe it'll be a minute. 25+ easy. May be looking at a full century of total service before all are fully gone.

 

[WindstormSCR]

100% think that would never get out of the starting gate. Anything along that path would smoke the barrels so fast it would be totally impractical. They would have to have a M249 style quick change barrel system and each booger eater would have to carry 2 extra barrels in their loadout.

The Russians have been fielding long, heavy penetrator projos moving at schmedium speeds for some of their teams. It smokes through most of the rifle rated US plates. There are videos from Syria documenting it.

It actually makes sense that we should at least entertain such thinking. Most of the small arms fighting would be at ranges from urban/trench CQB to medium range. Anything at distance falls into DMR and sniper weapons with different ammo needs.
>90% of future war casualties will be from drones and precision strike munitions anyway.

Major players are super close to fielding ground robots. Imagine that shit show. Battlefield saturated with drones and robots. If they don't get you, you will likely die of cancer from being slow cooked in the 24/7 flood of electromagnetic energy being dumped into the area for jamming, spoofing and sensing.

I think it could be done, but not in the way you are expecting.

6mm projectiles would give you just enough diameter to start doing some interesting tricks with the ammunition itself, along the lines of the CBJ sub-caliber technology.

if you can make a plastic shell that withstands being driven into rifling and will engrave (something that was solved with the SLAP program) then you can make a projectile that has the majority of its mass centralized as a long-rod penetrator and the rest is negligible mass polymer.

in the scenario I'm describing you would not need to use barrel-smoking velocities to achieve truly meaningful gains in penetration, and unlike SLAP rounds (which are a similar concept but different execution) can still be used with suppressors and muzzle devices.

the SLAP program also proved efficacy of the concept, with the concentrated mass penetrating targets the calibers used had no normal business penetrating.


downside is of course that they only work at shorter ranges, but as you documented well yourself, the need for the entire squad to be able to engage beyond 500m is "fighting the last war, not the next"

 

[dms416]

I think it could be done, but not in the way you are expecting.

6mm projectiles would give you just enough diameter to start doing some interesting tricks with the ammunition itself, along the lines of the CBJ sub-caliber technology.

if you can make a plastic shell that withstands being driven into rifling and will engrave (something that was solved with the SLAP program) then you can make a projectile that has the majority of its mass centralized as a long-rod penetrator and the rest is negligible mass polymer.

in the scenario I'm describing you would not need to use barrel-smoking velocities to achieve truly meaningful gains in penetration, and unlike SLAP rounds (which are a similar concept but different execution) can still be used with suppressors and muzzle devices.

the SLAP program also proved efficacy of the concept, with the concentrated mass penetrating targets the calibers used had no normal business penetrating.


downside is of course that they only work at shorter ranges, but as you documented well yourself, the need for the entire squad to be able to engage beyond 500m is "fighting the last war, not the next"

My (and maybe some others) reservation on 6mm is not what we know, but what THEY would insist on doing to it. Some fucking 100+ grain steel tipped EPR at 85k psi or whatever.

Personally, I'd be down as hell for a 6mm WOA/6 SPC/6 Valk spitting an 80-90 grain pill at a respectable clip and not giving me a bunch of trouble.

 

[corsairpilot62]

So why didn’t they just amp the shit out of 5.56? No other branch seems interested in the spear or 6.8 fury

 

[dms416]

So why didn’t they just amp the shit out of 5.56? No other branch seems interested in the spear or 6.8 fury

They jumped 10k psi in going from M855 to M855a1 EPR...and that was not without consequence or at least some side effects.

 

[corsairpilot62]

They jumped 10k psi in going from M855 to M855a1 EPR...and that was not without consequence or at least some side effects.

I forgot about that. And then they dropped the pressure back and reduced the fps. Fair, but still no one else wants 6.8 fury.

As for peer/near peer. Russia still using 5.45 in a shitty rifle. China has the crap that keyholes. 5.56 is still effective, and on par or better than other countries ammunition. As for rifles most of the “free” world has adopted some form of the ar-15 family in 5.56 and commies are either going for 5.45 or whatever the chinese use. So why change in the first place?

 

[sinister]

So why change in the first place?

Chinese SAPI-equivalent hard plate body armor.

There are a number of avenues that were never considered.

How about boxed (for carbines) and belted (for M27s and SAWs) 77-grain 5.56mm? Belted 185-grain Berger Juggernauts in 7.62.

Actual trigger time with WHATEVER gets adopted.

The new SIG sight is supposed to take most of the work and thinking out of the equation -- until it doesn't work.

 

[JR1200W3]

I forgot about that. And then they dropped the pressure back and reduced the fps. Fair, but still no one else wants 6.8 fury.

As for peer/near peer. Russia still using 5.45 in a shitty rifle. China has the crap that keyholes. 5.56 is still effective, and on par or better than other countries ammunition. As for rifles most of the “free” world has adopted some form of the ar-15 family in 5.56 and commies are either going for 5.45 or whatever the chinese use. So why change in the first place?

You don't evaluate your cartridge based on someone else's cartridge for small arms.

 

[JR1200W3]

Said inertia in reference to my previous comments, lack of a suitable replacement and the mere logistics and my complete lack of faith in government efficiency would leave me to believe it'll be a minute. 25+ easy. May be looking at a full century of total service before all are fully gone.

You miss 100% of the swings you don't take. The M4 platform is always going to look good compared to the vacuum space of the new platform you never developed.

 

[JR1200W3]

My personal opinion, 6mm just isnt a big enough jump in caliber to significantly increase over 5.56. Yet it still stresses the M4 platform out. Pretty much paints the picture that there's only way place to move....

The ICAR platform could be a cool resto-mod for civilians wanting 5% increase in performance in what is essentially the same platform. But talk about looking back in time from the future and seeing a too-little, too-late, weak effort if that's the military solution to the M4 platform.

 

[Terry Cross]

How long should we continue to use M4s and the 5.56? The next 20yrs? 50? 100? Okay, then what? At some point you evolve or get left behind. Can we agree on that?

Evolve to what?

It doesn't make any difference how flat it shoots, how much armor it can punch or how much energy it can deliver at the target if the poor shits carrying it have do deal with guns going down and/or can't carry enough ammo.

Explain to Mil sales at SigSauer and the contracting office at the Pentagon how the Lance Corporal was ground checked at 10 yards by a 14yr old carrying a 1960s SKS while the LCpl was trying to unfuck his George Jetson battle rifle.

The hot shit targeting electro optics that are being brought into the new wave soldier systems are a solution to a problem that the vast majority of small arms fighting does not exhibit. Force on force use in a moonscaped city, a swamp or most other battlespaces is not going allow the high tech targeting/aiming modules to offer any advantage.

Lots of bullets thrown at fleeting targets is still going to be the reality of most fights.

Instead of evolving our actual small arms, perhaps it would be more wise to evolve our off-weapon/individual threat detection and survivability hardware?