- Thread starter Ape_Factory
- Start date
The main things that came out of Land Warrior that got mass-adopted by the rest of the Combat Divisions in the Army were:
* MICH Helmet shell (Modular Integrated Communications Helmet), adopted as the ACH without the Land Warrior cover
* Thermal Weapons Sights
* The Land Warrior waffle stock for the M4
The net-centric capabilities were basically fed into Blue Force Tracker, which is head-down. The HMD on Land Warrior was heads-up, much better user interface I think. BFT had Moore’s Law benefits for the processors and improvements in screen technology, which then moved on to the ATAK system.
* MICH Helmet shell (Modular Integrated Communications Helmet), adopted as the ACH without the Land Warrior cover
* Thermal Weapons Sights
* The Land Warrior waffle stock for the M4
The net-centric capabilities were basically fed into Blue Force Tracker, which is head-down. The HMD on Land Warrior was heads-up, much better user interface I think. BFT had Moore’s Law benefits for the processors and improvements in screen technology, which then moved on to the ATAK system.
I think the XM7 has a few factors going here that will help it succeed where other programs have failed (as kindly listed by LRRPF.
1) doctrinal change towards heavier emphasis on the squad MGs, and the XM250 being a vast improvement on the m249/m240 in weight, performance, and accuracy. This change makes the change of the rifle more likely to succeed, as commonality of ammunition across all small arms was one of the stated goals of the program. see also the push to rebarrel existing M240s in vehicle mounts and other non-infantry roles. Couple that with our recent overseas misadventures displaying the need for long range designated marksmen, and suddenly the program starts making a bit more sense.
2) unlike the XM8, the Army isn’t being stupid and attempting to replace everything. The stated aim is front line infantry rifle only, with support elements still using M4s (possibly in the future some sort of folding stock 5.56 carbine) as they are not expected to engage in anything except a defensive capacity. while this might seem to clash with point 1, the logistics issue of cartridge commonality is at its most critical in the front line squads, where the benefit is the largest.
3) the new ammunition technology doesn’t deliver meaningful performance benefits to cartridges smaller than 6.5x45mm with a minimum case diameter of about 11mm, unless the cross sectional bore area is nearly 7.62mm. this is largely because of a combination of powder burn rates, and not having enough room in an AR mag for a bullet much longer than the current 77gr TMK even if you set the shoulder back to minimum. it might have some interesting applications for supersonic .300blk though.
other thoughts:
A large part of the reason the SPIW and ACR programs bit the dust was trying to find a mechanical solution to an optical and skill problem. (increased hit probability). The XM157 is the first time we’ve had a serious optical solution to that problem, in a package that doesn’t require a bunch of training to achieve basic use. having a weapon that removes some of the skill requirements to fulfill the role of DM, and still being short enough for CQB is a big deal, especially if things are carried through with the proposal to double the number of MGs in a squad
1) doctrinal change towards heavier emphasis on the squad MGs, and the XM250 being a vast improvement on the m249/m240 in weight, performance, and accuracy. This change makes the change of the rifle more likely to succeed, as commonality of ammunition across all small arms was one of the stated goals of the program. see also the push to rebarrel existing M240s in vehicle mounts and other non-infantry roles. Couple that with our recent overseas misadventures displaying the need for long range designated marksmen, and suddenly the program starts making a bit more sense.
2) unlike the XM8, the Army isn’t being stupid and attempting to replace everything. The stated aim is front line infantry rifle only, with support elements still using M4s (possibly in the future some sort of folding stock 5.56 carbine) as they are not expected to engage in anything except a defensive capacity. while this might seem to clash with point 1, the logistics issue of cartridge commonality is at its most critical in the front line squads, where the benefit is the largest.
3) the new ammunition technology doesn’t deliver meaningful performance benefits to cartridges smaller than 6.5x45mm with a minimum case diameter of about 11mm, unless the cross sectional bore area is nearly 7.62mm. this is largely because of a combination of powder burn rates, and not having enough room in an AR mag for a bullet much longer than the current 77gr TMK even if you set the shoulder back to minimum. it might have some interesting applications for supersonic .300blk though.
other thoughts:
A large part of the reason the SPIW and ACR programs bit the dust was trying to find a mechanical solution to an optical and skill problem. (increased hit probability). The XM157 is the first time we’ve had a serious optical solution to that problem, in a package that doesn’t require a bunch of training to achieve basic use. having a weapon that removes some of the skill requirements to fulfill the role of DM, and still being short enough for CQB is a big deal, especially if things are carried through with the proposal to double the number of MGs in a squad
7 mags (210 rounds specifically) is the doctrinal Army standard combat load for the M4/M16. Yes, many guys carried more. Some guys carried less on their first/second line with more in an assault pack. All depended on the patrol type and flexibility from leadership. But 7 is the doctrinal “standard combat load”.
I wouldn’t exactly call it glowing - interesting that the rifle jams with magazine over insertion easily.
Watched that earlier today and was curious to see what others have encountered on that subject. Also was surprised to see how hard that rear charging handle was to operate. The weight...well, we already knew she was a porker and I can't say my large frame ARs are exactly light weight either. Would love to play with one of these some day, especially in the 277 fury.
The Marine Corps adopted the M27 only 2 years ago. There is a 0% chance of a new service rifle for a least another 15 years.
20x20=31+ Lbs of .308 plus the 9.2 pounds of rifle puts it easily over 40 pounds w/o optic.
Ask me how I know.
Add a PRC 25/77 at 25 pounds.
additional party favors for when first dates didn't go well, another 20 pounds.
Web and "stuff" another 25-35 pounds.
I don't want to hear what your JPC weighs.
Water and food?
Band-aid and aspirin
I got called a pussy for not wanting to carry extra linked anything.
200 rounds is barely enough to start a party let alone finish it.
What is this disengagement doctrine/policy you speak of?
It's more like tossed in the shit and figure it out.
..."having a weapon that removes some of the skill requirements to fulfill the role of DM, and still being short enough for CQB is a big deal,"
Keep talking like that and I'm going to start thinking I was an actual marksman. Just what the hell is some of the skill requirements anyway? Actually having to aim and fire a weapon? Then you want a 14.5-16" for ease of CQB handling that can reach 300m with some hope of hitting minute of angry mob? Those are two different weapons.
It's a good thing I didn't do this on a regular basis. Even at 6' and carb'd water weight of 225, just 3 three miles with all this crap on at any speed and that was it for the day.
Ask me how I know.
Add a PRC 25/77 at 25 pounds.
additional party favors for when first dates didn't go well, another 20 pounds.
Web and "stuff" another 25-35 pounds.
I don't want to hear what your JPC weighs.
Water and food?
Band-aid and aspirin
I got called a pussy for not wanting to carry extra linked anything.
200 rounds is barely enough to start a party let alone finish it.
What is this disengagement doctrine/policy you speak of?
It's more like tossed in the shit and figure it out.
..."having a weapon that removes some of the skill requirements to fulfill the role of DM, and still being short enough for CQB is a big deal,"
Keep talking like that and I'm going to start thinking I was an actual marksman. Just what the hell is some of the skill requirements anyway? Actually having to aim and fire a weapon? Then you want a 14.5-16" for ease of CQB handling that can reach 300m with some hope of hitting minute of angry mob? Those are two different weapons.
It's a good thing I didn't do this on a regular basis. Even at 6' and carb'd water weight of 225, just 3 three miles with all this crap on at any speed and that was it for the day.
Most of the photos I’ve seen of the actual XM7 with Basic Inventory Items show Lancer 7.62 mags, not PMAGs. I’m not sure if there is an over-insertion problem with Lancers:
M27 IAR was combat-fielded with a LAR battalion in 2011 to OEF.
The remaining 6500 units were adopted into the USMC by 2013.
MARSOC still retains the use of SOPMOD Block upgrade increment M4A1s.
Good news:
We went from the PRC-25 to the PRC-77, then to the SINCGARS RT-1523 series with integrated KY-57 Encryption, then to the RT-1523E ASIP. RT-1523C was heavier than the PRC-77, but lighter than a PRC-77/KY-57 combo. Batteries still suck to carry though. ASIP was a Godsend for Joe RTO and Recon units, but just made more room in your radio pouch for other mission essentials.
RT-1523C
RT-1523E
There’s also the MBITR PRC-148 handheld, chest-mounted and PRC-152 of similar size with far greater capabilities than ancient box man packs. Those are being replaced by a new generation of Radio as well with more net-centric capabilities.
RTOs shouldn’t be carrying extra anything since they’re already overloaded. They were typically exempt from being dumped on with any extra linked 7.62, 60mm mortar rounds, CLS bags, LAWs, Claymores, SKEDCOs, Poleless litters, etc.
RTOs should have a PDW Micro Carbine, not even an M4. Same for PLs, PSGs, FOs, Combat Medics, JTACs, Drone Operators, K-9 Handlers, Combat Engineers, etc.
New Radios might be able to get rid of the RTO duty position though. If the PL and Key leaders all have small Radios with RT-1523 reach and net-centric connectivity with the replacement for ATAK, there isn’t need for another man in the middle. I haven’t seen any changes to the Army MTO&E in that respect though. They still haven’t added a DM to the Rifle Squad, so TRADOC, Benning, and Army Pubs haven’t changed, unless I’m missing something. I haven’t looked that hard. Main thing is they’re adding a light tank with a 105mm howitzer to the 82nd, 173rd, and an Army National Guard unit.
With armor and everything else, Joe still gets saddled with 100lbs of lightweight equipment. A battle-rifle-sized carbine with limited mag capacity is not going to go over well in that regard.
One solution I thought of to deal with the weight and bulk of the NGSW-R would be to tweak the MTO&E a bit, so the Infantry Platoon still gets the capability, without sacrificing too much mobility. Basically 1st and 2nd Squads get a mix of even lighter M4A1s for mobility, while 3rd Squad gets M7 NGSW-R 6.8x51 carbines.
Platoon HQ
PL CQBR-III M4A1 with 11.5” barrel
PSG M4A1 CQBR
RTO M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
PLT MED M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
Drone Operator M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
FO M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
1st Rifle/Maneuver Squad
SL M4A1 SOPMOD Block III or CQBR-III
A Team
A Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with underslung M203A1 (M230 is gay)
Automatic Rifleman M250 6.8x51 NGSW-AR
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
B Team
B Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with M203A1 40mm
AR M250
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
2nd Rifle/Maneuver Squad
SL M4A1 SOPMOD Block III or CQBR-III
A Team
A Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with underslung M203A1 (M230 is gay)
Automatic Rifleman M250 6.8x51 NGSW-AR
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
B Team
B Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with M203A1 40mm
AR M250
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
3rd RIfle/DM/Fire Support/Overwatch Squad
SL/DM M7 NGSW or M4A1 CBR
A Team
A TM LDR/DM NGSW
AR M250 NGSW-AR
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
B Team
A TM LDR/DM NGSW
AR M250 NGSW-AR
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Weapons Squad
SL M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG Team Leader/AG M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG M240 6.8x51
AB M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Javelin Gunner M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
MG Team Leader/AG M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG M240 6.8x51
AB M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Javelin Gunner M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Class V issue for the Platoon would be:
5.56x45mm M855A1 in cans on 10rd stripper clips as already in system
6.8x51 on stripper clips for the M7 in training, EPR, and OTM match
6.8x51 linked for the M250 ARs and M240s
This would streamline the Class V from the existing mix of:
5.56x45 M855A1 on stripper clips
5.56x45 linked for the M249s
7.62x51 M118LR for DMs and Snipers
7.62x51 M80A1 linked for M240s
It basically gets rid of 7.62 NATO, replacing it with a far more capable cartridge, while adding a DM Fire Support Squad equipped with NGSW-R M7 carbines who can fill-in behind 1st and 2nd Squads or co-locate with Gun Teams from Weapons Squad when providing more accurate and longer range fire support.
It would be effective in prosecuting the attack in MOUT, conducting Deliberate Attacks, Raids, Ambushes, and React-to-Contact as the lighter forward 1st and 2nd Squads maneuver into position, with 3rd Squad in support.
1st Squad can establish base of fire while 3rd squad moves up with them for support, and 2nd Squad bounds or flanks.
For Deliberate Attack, 3rd Squad with NGSW-R carbines would provide support element overwatch fires, while Alpha and Bravo Teams form the breach and assault elements.
3rd Squad and Key Leaders would go through regular Designated Marksman Training. The DM Course would be added to OSUT for select trainees, as well as NCO Professional Development and Officer courses.
Standards would be higher for 3rd Squad, so you would have to earn your way into 3rd Squad after time in the Platoon.
Platoon HQ
PL CQBR-III M4A1 with 11.5” barrel
PSG M4A1 CQBR
RTO M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
PLT MED M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
Drone Operator M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
FO M4A1 CQBR 11.5"
1st Rifle/Maneuver Squad
SL M4A1 SOPMOD Block III or CQBR-III
A Team
A Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with underslung M203A1 (M230 is gay)
Automatic Rifleman M250 6.8x51 NGSW-AR
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
B Team
B Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with M203A1 40mm
AR M250
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
2nd Rifle/Maneuver Squad
SL M4A1 SOPMOD Block III or CQBR-III
A Team
A Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with underslung M203A1 (M230 is gay)
Automatic Rifleman M250 6.8x51 NGSW-AR
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
B Team
B Fire Team Leader M4A1 Blk III
Grenadier CQBR with M203A1 40mm
AR M250
Rifleman M4A1 Blk III
3rd RIfle/DM/Fire Support/Overwatch Squad
SL/DM M7 NGSW or M4A1 CBR
A Team
A TM LDR/DM NGSW
AR M250 NGSW-AR
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
B Team
A TM LDR/DM NGSW
AR M250 NGSW-AR
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Rifleman/DM M7 NGSW
Weapons Squad
SL M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG Team Leader/AG M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG M240 6.8x51
AB M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Javelin Gunner M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
MG Team Leader/AG M4A1 CQBR 11.5” or NGSW-R
MG M240 6.8x51
AB M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Javelin Gunner M4A1 CQBR 11.5”
Class V issue for the Platoon would be:
5.56x45mm M855A1 in cans on 10rd stripper clips as already in system
6.8x51 on stripper clips for the M7 in training, EPR, and OTM match
6.8x51 linked for the M250 ARs and M240s
This would streamline the Class V from the existing mix of:
5.56x45 M855A1 on stripper clips
5.56x45 linked for the M249s
7.62x51 M118LR for DMs and Snipers
7.62x51 M80A1 linked for M240s
It basically gets rid of 7.62 NATO, replacing it with a far more capable cartridge, while adding a DM Fire Support Squad equipped with NGSW-R M7 carbines who can fill-in behind 1st and 2nd Squads or co-locate with Gun Teams from Weapons Squad when providing more accurate and longer range fire support.
It would be effective in prosecuting the attack in MOUT, conducting Deliberate Attacks, Raids, Ambushes, and React-to-Contact as the lighter forward 1st and 2nd Squads maneuver into position, with 3rd Squad in support.
1st Squad can establish base of fire while 3rd squad moves up with them for support, and 2nd Squad bounds or flanks.
For Deliberate Attack, 3rd Squad with NGSW-R carbines would provide support element overwatch fires, while Alpha and Bravo Teams form the breach and assault elements.
3rd Squad and Key Leaders would go through regular Designated Marksman Training. The DM Course would be added to OSUT for select trainees, as well as NCO Professional Development and Officer courses.
Standards would be higher for 3rd Squad, so you would have to earn your way into 3rd Squad after time in the Platoon.
Most of the photos I’ve seen of the actual XM7 with Basic Inventory Items show Lancer 7.62 mags, not PMAGs. I’m not sure if there is an over-insertion problem with Lancers:
Now that is certainly a good observation and maybe worthy of some looking into. I would still love to get some trigger time behind one of these.
They have, but didn’t update the squad graphic. For the pictures, it’s still only shown in a Stryker squad. But the SDM role is described in writing for all non-specialty infantry squads, to include light and mechanized.
Basic timeline of Army SDM doctrine/MTOE is here, though I’m missing modification and utilization of M14s as I didn’t have visibility into that.
SDMs were implemented at unit levels at least as early as early OIF (2004), and doctrinal at the unit level with unit written TTPs/SOPs, big-Army approved training, and unit level procurement. Just not MTOE. However, they were first put into Army-wide publications in the 3-21.9 Stryker platoon and squad manual in 2005. The general 3-21.8 infantry platoon and squad manual first incorporated SDMs in 2007. This 2 year difference was purely due to the timing of publication releases. So, SDMs have been doctrine in infantry units outside of strykers since at least 2004. And SDMs have been part of MTOE for all infantry as far back as 2007.
2004: AMU supplies 3rd BCT, 3ID mechanized infantry brigade with modified M16A4 SDM-Rs. "Squad Designated Marksman" is not in the MTOE of a mechanized infantry platoon and squad, but 3BCT, 3ID has made it part of their doctrine. This was the M16A4 with 20" Douglas 1-8 twist match barrel, Daniel Defense free float rail, 2-stage match trigger, and harris bipod. Each infantry squad in 3BCT 3ID had one.
2005: The Army publishes 3-21.9 for Stryker units, which includes mention of a squad designated marksman. The Stryker document was the first DoD-wide published document to mention the SDM I think. Stryker squads having the first published SDM MTOE was just a result of the publication cycles for the documents. It wasn't that Stryker units were the only ones who doctrinally had SDMs. Just that they were the first publication to mention it. The publication was first being worked back in 2001 but it wasn't published until 2005.
2007: The Army catches up with publishing a new version of 3-21.8 to include SDM for all infantry platoons. Unfortunately, they don’t update the graphic to include an SDM, like they did with the Stryker squad graphic. They only detailed the SDM in text, but greatly elaborated on how to use squad designated marksman. Interestingly, the 2007 publication does mention 1 SDM per fire team instead of per squad. However, this went away and future documents just say one per squad.
2018: The Army once again updates 3-21.8, but now combined general infantry, stryker, and mech into the document. Each mentions SDMs. Unfortunately, for some reason they greatly reduce discussion of the SDM's role and training.
I’m not sure if there have been updates since 2018.
Thanx for the update history.
And, yeah, my point. We're back to ounces are pounds.
taking away all variables besides wind for first round hits out to 1000m?
most folks on here know that getting hits longer than ~250m in a hurry is no mean feat, since beyond your basic mean point blank range you have to consider drop for a given distance, angle, environmentals (pressure, temperature). the XM157 is designed with the ballistic comp in the optic. you point at desired target, hit the lase button, and it will present you a dot floating in space (augmented reality) put the reticle on the dot, pull trigger, and unless the wind is there, you will hit exactly what you lased. Adjust for wind or target movement as required.
video here:
the XM7 is capable of engaging targets out to over 1000m with its standard military ammunition, while still being a 13" folding stock carbine with an intentionally short/fat suppressor to keep the length down that while a little heavy, is perfectly at home kicking in doors.
also worth noting for the thread that according to math done in a different thread (can't find it atm, on mobile) the 6.8 ammo weighs about ~12% less than .308 on account of less case material and lighter projectile.
late edit to avoid double posting:
basically the idea is that with markedly increased hit probability at all ranges, the lesser amount of ammunition carried will have the same or more effect than equivalent weight in 5.56. so far from the information released to the public, the FCS systems have made that long held goal a reality instead of a stupid pipe dream, based on early evaluations in realistic scenarios.
Last edited:
this^
Not being in the military but speaking with friends who have I hear mixture of things. All coming from people, I know that used m4 in combat
One argument is basically the 5.56 is not powerful enough to stop a threat, especially when they are hyped up on drugs Or behind light cover. I wish I had something more powerful. - a marine buddy I went to middle and high school with. 3 tours in Iraq starting in 2003. Sent his time going house to house and engaged in roof top rifle battles.
Other side was a buddy who was 10th mountain, spent some of his tour running convoys in the Khyber pass in Afghanistan. He was just fine with the M-4, but he also ran in convoys with technicals and spent time behind a deuce… so wasn’t worried about being under gunned. Guns don't stop IEDs, which nearly killed him, 6 weeks before he came back, guy he was sitting next to was not so lucky.
Gee, thanx @WindstormSCR , I hadn't thought about this brain melting esoterica in decades.
A quad shot of ASA to go with morning coffee and Jameson's should restore normal eyesight and cognitive processes by noon.
...and I was trained with a ballistic computer hammered into my skull.
For two calibers, one projectile each, so it was memorization more than innate skill.
Not bad for a gutter snipe (MM3) that got to carry a radio to pick nicks on the beach once in a while.
The real operators around me could and did make those calculations either from memory or from ballistic calculator.
Anyone remember the yellow Speer calculator or the " Dope Disc" ? How about a "Wiz Wheel" or for you new kids a "Milldot Master"?
[TLDR]
My "fishing buddy" Scott still has range cards, field sketches, and solutions going back to the '70's.
For those guys it's an obsession.
For me it was minimal competency for additional pay.
Only now, 30-40 years later does it hold any special interest.
I was recently able to get on paper*, cold bore, with a 2900 F/Sec 130gr .277 @ 600 yards via Milldot Master and mark one mod 0 rangefinder.
Surprised all of us, most of all me until Scott asked me, "you've been doing this how long?".
"It's about time it took hold. You asked me years ago how I was able to keep all that information in my head. I never did keep it all in my head. I just packed what was needed to avoid paralysis by analysis. If anything unique or unusual came up I could work it out the hard way or my spotter already had. In that case I would struggle much like you do."
Then Scott reminds me about our breakfast conversation that morning.
"You've been thinking about this "dope" since coffee, haven't you? Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.
After all these years you've finally found my secret. I'm not better at any part of this than you and never have been, My preparation begins earlier and can be more detailed because of that."
The fact that the XM157 works like "dumb glass" when and if the battery or brain goes offline serves as a reminder that reliance on technology exclusive of training is a good way to get killed.
[/TLDR]
*anecdotal information.
Had I remembered Corolis (3.2")and spin drift (2.5") were going the same direction I may have been closer. I did mention the error in angle was about 3-4 degrees so minimum correction would be 3" at 600 yards.
Round that up and it's getting close to 10 inches of "oops, forgot to ..."
I might have been closer yet if my estimation of angle was a measurement instead of an estimate. I did get the wind call and the range right. I've been loading this bullet and powder weight into this rifle for 30 years.
So ten inches low right before the wind call. L>R 10mph FV (90) approx. 14" .
Also doesn't help that my cold bore is maybe a tenth plus low at 600 yards. ( yes, mils even though I gave the previous in inches. I'm a special kind of differently abled.)
600 Yard F-Class Target MR-1F F-Class Full Size 49" x 49" that's nearly off the lower right edge.
Getting the wind right was about half of that.
I was 13" low right cold bore.
Adds up quick, doesn't it
"5.56 isn't enough to stop a threat" is pretty well bullshit at this point. Barrier penetration is where heavier rounds have an edge, hence the Mk318 SOST, but for domestic use barrier penetration is also a liability. There's a notable lack of data backing the idea that 5.56 hits are insufficient to stop combatants. There's a lot of mothers-sisters-cousins-former-roomate-said. the other example the keyboard warriors like is GIGN swapping from 5.56 to 7.62x39 for their entry carbines, but when you look at the use case (suppressed SBRs for 0-100m engagement with subsonic ammo, specced for rebarreling to .300AAC) it sounds less like a problem for infantry carbines and more a very niche use case that gives advantage to a niche round.
I have my doubts about the M7 and .277 Furry and its ability to actually perform as advertised in the hands of your average crayon-muncher. I the two things I do expect to see come out of this are more deployments of magnified optics and rangefinders (squad leaders, DMs, maybe MG section leaders too) and wider deployment of suppressors.
5.56’s reputation started off with pretty brutal field reports from Project AGILE, but they were all within close-range fights in Vietnam in ARVN units. SAS, SF, NSW, LRRP, Force Recon, SASR, Airborne, and Airmobile units immediately loved the lightweight nature of the AR-15/M16. On ODA’s in SF, it replaced the M2 Carbines. The preferred weapon in SOG was the 11.5” XM177E2, erroneously referred to as the “CAR-15”. SOG stacked a lot of NVA corpses with 11.5” 5.56 for years in SEA.
There was and is a legitimate weakness with 5.56 as the distance increases though, which was poorly-addressed with retaining belt-fed 7.62 NATO GPMGs in the form of the M60 in the Rifle Squad, and then a SAW program in the 1970s that developed a cool mid-sized cartridge called the 6mm SAW that really should have been what the SAW was chambered in.
The official XM21/M21 provided a Battalion-level Sniper Team weapon, that ended up being task-organized with attachments to line Companies in-practice by leaders that knew how to, or at least to employ Snipers.
Russians approached it by keeping 1 Sniper in each Motorized Infantry Squad during the Cold War, which was updated to 2 per Squad in the 1980s, so there was a mix of 5.45x39 AKS-74s, 5.45x39 PRK-74s, 7.62x54R SVDs, and 7.62x54R PKMs.
US Army went through all kinds of MTOE&E changed from the 1940s-1980s, with varying Squad sizes and inclusion of the M60 (and M16A1 gunners with bipods issued and expected to lay down higher volumes of fire on AUTO). That MTO&E was replaced by the 2 SAWs in the Rifle Squad, but kept in Weapons Squads at Platoon level with 3-man gun teams.
This 6.8x51 M250 Automatic Rifle is the first time they’ve made a Squad-level belt-fed weapon with somethings lighter than 7.62 NATO that actually has impressive penetration and barrier-defeat capability. For a Squad Support Weapon, I think it makes more sense for a smaller case head cartridge with smaller bore diameter between 6-6.5mm and cartridges with a COL of no more than 2.500”, so linked ammo isn’t so bulky and away from the gunner’s center of gravity.
There was and is a legitimate weakness with 5.56 as the distance increases though, which was poorly-addressed with retaining belt-fed 7.62 NATO GPMGs in the form of the M60 in the Rifle Squad, and then a SAW program in the 1970s that developed a cool mid-sized cartridge called the 6mm SAW that really should have been what the SAW was chambered in.
The official XM21/M21 provided a Battalion-level Sniper Team weapon, that ended up being task-organized with attachments to line Companies in-practice by leaders that knew how to, or at least to employ Snipers.
Russians approached it by keeping 1 Sniper in each Motorized Infantry Squad during the Cold War, which was updated to 2 per Squad in the 1980s, so there was a mix of 5.45x39 AKS-74s, 5.45x39 PRK-74s, 7.62x54R SVDs, and 7.62x54R PKMs.
US Army went through all kinds of MTOE&E changed from the 1940s-1980s, with varying Squad sizes and inclusion of the M60 (and M16A1 gunners with bipods issued and expected to lay down higher volumes of fire on AUTO). That MTO&E was replaced by the 2 SAWs in the Rifle Squad, but kept in Weapons Squads at Platoon level with 3-man gun teams.
This 6.8x51 M250 Automatic Rifle is the first time they’ve made a Squad-level belt-fed weapon with somethings lighter than 7.62 NATO that actually has impressive penetration and barrier-defeat capability. For a Squad Support Weapon, I think it makes more sense for a smaller case head cartridge with smaller bore diameter between 6-6.5mm and cartridges with a COL of no more than 2.500”, so linked ammo isn’t so bulky and away from the gunner’s center of gravity.
As an afterthought, the M250 does seem like a step forward.
While deployed we had changed to swap some of the SAWs with 240s and crunched M240 gunners from the weapons paltoon into the line platoons, ended up with 4 squads reinforced with 1-2 240s per squad depending on the mission. Splitting the difference and getting a gun lighter than the Lime but with more oomph in the belt makes sense.
One area where I question the new infantry carbine doctrine is the "more accurate/more power means they will need less ammo." Heresy though it may be the belt feds are not the only suppressing weapon in the rifle squad. If you're playing peek-a-boo with ivan shooting 1-2 bigger bullets doesn't suppress better than 3-4 smaller bullets, and IMO unless you're out past 400m I would say it's probably better to have 5.56 or 5.45 in 30rd mags. if the 277 furry does manage to vibe check level 4 and equivalent foreign production armor plates at range, that might be a significant advantage, but IMO that sounds more like a job for the DMs. the Mk12 was a big upgrade from the A4 with ACOG, the M14 EBR sucked so bad one of our DM's used an M24 that had been left in a connex from a previous unit (thanks sloppy logistics) and left his issued EBR in the platoon armory instead. thats a place where I can see 20-25rd mags full of hows-yer-momma especially with a 16-18" barrel on there.
While deployed we had changed to swap some of the SAWs with 240s and crunched M240 gunners from the weapons paltoon into the line platoons, ended up with 4 squads reinforced with 1-2 240s per squad depending on the mission. Splitting the difference and getting a gun lighter than the Lime but with more oomph in the belt makes sense.
One area where I question the new infantry carbine doctrine is the "more accurate/more power means they will need less ammo." Heresy though it may be the belt feds are not the only suppressing weapon in the rifle squad. If you're playing peek-a-boo with ivan shooting 1-2 bigger bullets doesn't suppress better than 3-4 smaller bullets, and IMO unless you're out past 400m I would say it's probably better to have 5.56 or 5.45 in 30rd mags. if the 277 furry does manage to vibe check level 4 and equivalent foreign production armor plates at range, that might be a significant advantage, but IMO that sounds more like a job for the DMs. the Mk12 was a big upgrade from the A4 with ACOG, the M14 EBR sucked so bad one of our DM's used an M24 that had been left in a connex from a previous unit (thanks sloppy logistics) and left his issued EBR in the platoon armory instead. thats a place where I can see 20-25rd mags full of hows-yer-momma especially with a 16-18" barrel on there.
I am sharing what some one I know and trust, who has killed people in combat with an M4, told me. Direct quote, " I wish I had something more powerful." If you want to call it bullshit... what ever. I am not going to try to convince you.
Obviously the army seems to agree with it.
i think that largely comes from being forced to use truly terrible ammunition for the job. standard m855 isn’t a great choice for drugged up assholes, since it just pokes holes and you have to put a hole right through a critical off switch. at least M80A1 and the M855A1 that was derived from the design are much better in that regard because of the controlled fracturing properties. the ammo for the XM7 has the same projectile design reportedly.
Gee, thanx @WindstormSCR , I hadn't thought about this brain melting esoterica in decades.
A quad shot of ASA to go with morning coffee and Jameson's should restore normal eyesight and cognitive processes by noon.
...and I was trained with a ballistic computer hammered into my skull.
For two calibers, one projectile each, so it was memorization more than innate skill.
Not bad for a gutter snipe (MM3) that got to carry a radio to pick nicks on the beach once in a while.
The real operators around me could and did make those calculations either from memory or from ballistic calculator.
Anyone remember the yellow Speer calculator or the " Dope Disc" ? How about a "Wiz Wheel" or for you new kids a "Milldot Master"?
Adds up quick, doesn't it
It wasn’t meant as a dig, just a commentary that taking away a bunch of the head math that gets jumbled when you’re in the shit and the adrenaline is going hard makes a huge difference. Training to understand the whys and hows is still important, since as you say, equipment can fail, but at least with this two-part design servicing a failed unit would be as simple as swapping the computer unit and not the whole optic.
the corollary to my comment about being as effective with the same ammunition weight despite the lower round count is if that ammunition weight is increased slightly (+1 magazine of 6.8x51) then overall lethality should increase compared to current.
the increased weight is not ideal, certainly, but IMO is probably the smallest overall tradeoff that could be found for a large jump in capability.
by way of comparison, even if you were to keep the M4 or a similar AR platform, you’d still be down to 24 rounds per mag from 30 with something like 6mm ARC or 6.5 grendel, and increasing weight per mag by ~10% (a rough estimation based on loading my grendel and AR mags on my postal scale)
Not necessarily 5.56 as a whole, but there is legitimate internal military studies into the effectiveness of M855. The resulting determination of inconsistent terminal performance was due to ice picking caused by the bullet needing fleet yaw instability to cause fragmentation.
This was pretty much solved by the M855A1, along with cover defeating improvements against brick/cinder blocks.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet there is an A1 version of 6.8x51 in the works. They played with M80A1.
Yeah. I’d wager it is the planned standard issue bullet design for the 6.8 and is probably already being made with the bi-metal case.
He is also an expert on the Aim-120, US fighter data links, Russian IFF, and even kicks in his Finnish anti Russian opinions
I wouldn’t be surprised. I find his posts very informative and helpful. He’s one of the posters I recognize by name. His Grendel, and 6mmAR information was a great help when I was starting out.
to be fair, if you’re well-read on modern military developments and recent history, its pretty surprising what you can piece together from a snippet here, another comment there, and filling in the gaps with some conservative estimation.
The classic example of this is Tom Clancy, who just pieced together a bunch of research for red storm rising and managed to start an internal investigation because the collected public information and a bit of guesswork was so accurate.
I know a number of infantrymen who went on to engineering or comp sci degrees (or had them when they were infantry) and proceeded to work in aerospace/defense after leaving service.
For the most part m855 did what Big Green asked it to do, albeit its mouth outstripped its ass on aspects like performance over 500 meters and actual terminal performance. But it's important to note what they really wanted was better "light barrier" penetration than its predecessor, and they got that. Just at the expense of a lot of other things.
As noted above m855a1 fixed a lot of that and has become a very good round. Oh, and "no re-zeroing required!", said ARDEC. "Umm, OK maybe a little".
"I'm surprised it took Army numerous generations to get the right requirements and shed their personal biases", said nobody ever.
As noted above m855a1 fixed a lot of that and has become a very good round. Oh, and "no re-zeroing required!", said ARDEC. "Umm, OK maybe a little".
"I'm surprised it took Army numerous generations to get the right requirements and shed their personal biases", said nobody ever.
No, it’s been a lot longer than that. I was still in and most infantry units were fielding it already and that was in 2013
My family and I were working on F-16C Advanced IFF systems 6 years before I enlisted in the Army, among many other developmental aerospace programs, including F-15E, B-1B, SRAM II, ECA/EFA with the West Germans/Brits, ALCM, and other very interesting things. I’ve spent more of my life immersed in that world and studying internal US/NATO defense publications and materials than I have firearms by a significant factor.
These 4 antennae in front of the canopy on certain F-16s are what I’m talking about. Most F-16s don’t have them:
There are dozens of channels and online sources run by people with no real knowledge from the appropriate sources, but like to pontificate about what they know for click count. All of them are handicapped by the fact that they rely on OSINT garbage that is mostly stains on the tip of the iceberg they will never see beneath the surface, due to how tightly a lot of these things are controlled.
Same goes for small arms and Infantry MTO&E. Most people still think an Infantry Company consists of a bunch of Riflemen. Riflemen are one of the most marginalized duty positions in a Rifle Platoon, whether rightly so or not.
The most dangerous duty positions (to the enemy) in an Infantry Platoon aren’t even organic, but are attached:
USAF JTACs
Field Artillery FOs
Battalion Snipers
A 42-man Infantry Platoon only had 6 Riflemen duty positions when I was in, 2 per Rifle Squad. Everyone else was a Platoon Leader, RTO, Platoon Sergeant, Medic, Squad Leader, Fire Team Leader, SAW Gunner, Grenadier, Weapons Squad Leader, Machinegunner, Assistant Machinegunner, Ammo Bearer, or Anti-Armor Weapons Specialist (11BC2).
Tom Clancy’s biggest sin in my opinion was discussing the manufacturing method for the single crystal high pressure turbine blades in the IPE Pratt & Whitney fighter engines. The metallurgy involved in that process is more advanced than anything in any of the space programs, and reads like something some aliens shared with us from a far away civilization, developed on another planet.
They use an electromagnet to literally suck the molten exotic alloy through a microscopic hole in the mold, to grow the single crystal so that there are no failure nodes like the ones that plagued previous generation turbine blades. You used to have to do blade replacements much more frequently in jet engines until the code was cracked on this technology.
If you study the history of metallurgy of US turbine blade technology from the 1950s-1980s, there were basically 3 generations of processes and materials science that made huge leaps in addressing the problem of blade fracturing under the high temps, wide thermal ranges, extremely high RPMs causing insane centrifugal force, high pressure, and resultant coefficient of thermal expansion and contraction. What happened in that space in the 1980s was game-changing for fighter and other jet engines made in the US, as well as allies who enjoy shared technology with us (UK, Germany, France). Then the Russians stole it through the usual political, military, and industry channels, and the Chinese have recently done the same with billions thrown at the problem.
You start to see why much of the aerospace world stays in the aerospace world. Affordable electronics are now trickling down, and already did so first with Radios, then net-centric comms. While the AR-15 receiver set came from aircraft aluminum structures that Stoner was used to working with before and during WWII over 70 years ago, we still haven’t seen much carbon fiber in any military firearms submissions, which means they aren’t serious about addressing the weight penalty problem with NGSW, or were not well-staffed with knowledgeable people enough to skim some basic modern aerospace technologies off and incorporate them into the weapons.
They also went backwards in operating system technology by going with what was already had on the SVT-38/40, which adds weight, complexity, off-bore reciprocating mass, springs, impact points between push rod and BCG, and unnecessary bulk to the XM7. Coming from an aerospace perspective checked with 11B caveman reality, I see so many missed opportunities with NGSW, from case configuration to the design of the NGSW-R, as well as the integrated fire control system.
It doesn’t matter anyway. We don’t fight infantry vs infantry engagements really on a fair basis, and those same attached duty positions along with organic drone operators will still be the most important soldiers in an Infantry Platoon. The HIMARS, M777, and Battalion Mortars will be marginal even compared to Joint Air Component Forces operating on a voice comms-free, net-centric web where opportunistic kills are managed in real-time by the pilots, while planners sit in the rear just watching and making sure maintenance is scheduled and fed well.
The civilian sector is leading the way now in advancements in firearms structural components, lighter, stronger materials, and free-from Army planners to make sound decisions.
"It doesn’t matter anyway. We don’t fight infantry vs infantry engagements really on a fair basis, and those same attached duty positions along with organic drone operators will still be the most important soldiers in an Infantry Platoon. The HIMARS, M777, and Battalion Mortars will be marginal even compared to Joint Air Component Forces operating on a voice comms-free, net-centric web where opportunistic kills are managed in real-time by the pilots, while planners sit in the rear just watching and making sure maintenance is scheduled and fed well."
Don't forget our illustrious JAG's sitting in the TOC, drinking the good coffee, watching a TIC situation and saying, "nah bro, can't hit those bad guys".
Don't forget our illustrious JAG's sitting in the TOC, drinking the good coffee, watching a TIC situation and saying, "nah bro, can't hit those bad guys".
Last edited:
When they’re actually used properly.
“You guys are good on the radio, so the FISTers are staying in the TOC.”
Reminds me of a book I read a while back called "not much of an engineer" by Sir Stanley Hooker, who was a mathematician who worked on the merlin superchargers and later the whittle jet program and then several Rolls Royce projects including the RB211 and later concorde. Fascinating stuff.
I do Aerospace QA, some of it defense, so I understand what you mean about some of the technologies kicking around in there not making it to other industries yet, but it's slowly happening. One place where they're doing some neat work is additive manufacturing in exotic alloys with controlled crystal formation, but needing less complex machinery.
Do you ever see any of this metallurgy trickling its way down to rifle barrels?Tom Clancy’s biggest sin in my opinion was discussing the manufacturing method for the single crystal high pressure turbine blades in the IPE Pratt & Whitney fighter engines. The metallurgy involved in that process is more advanced than anything in any of the space programs, and reads like something some aliens shared with us from a far away civilization, developed on another planet.
They use an electromagnet to literally suck the molten exotic alloy through a microscopic hole in the mold, to grow the single crystal so that there are no failure nodes like the ones that plagued previous generation turbine blades. You used to have to do blade replacements much more frequently in jet engines until the code was cracked on this technology.
If you study the history of metallurgy of US turbine blade technology from the 1950s-1980s, there were basically 3 generations of processes and materials science that made huge leaps in addressing the problem of blade fracturing under the high temps, wide thermal ranges, extremely high RPMs causing insane centrifugal force, high pressure, and resultant coefficient of thermal expansion and contraction. What happened in that space in the 1980s was game-changing for fighter and other jet engines made in the US, as well as allies who enjoy shared technology with us (UK, Germany, France). Then the Russians stole it through the usual political, military, and industry channels, and the Chinese have recently done the same with billions thrown at the problem.
You start to see why much of the aerospace world stays in the aerospace world. Affordable electronics are now trickling down, and already did so first with Radios, then net-centric comms. While the AR-15 receiver set came from aircraft aluminum structures that Stoner was used to working with before and during WWII over 70 years ago, we still haven’t seen much carbon fiber in any military firearms submissions, which means they aren’t serious about addressing the weight penalty problem with NGSW, or were not well-staffed with knowledgeable people enough to skim some basic modern aerospace technologies off and incorporate them into the weapons.
They also went backwards in operating system technology by going with what was already had on the SVT-38/40, which adds weight, complexity, off-bore reciprocating mass, springs, impact points between push rod and BCG, and unnecessary bulk to the XM7. Coming from an aerospace perspective checked with 11B caveman reality, I see so many missed opportunities with NGSW, from case configuration to the design of the NGSW-R, as well as the integrated fire control system.
It doesn’t matter anyway. We don’t fight infantry vs infantry engagements really on a fair basis, and those same attached duty positions along with organic drone operators will still be the most important soldiers in an Infantry Platoon. The HIMARS, M777, and Battalion Mortars will be marginal even compared to Joint Air Component Forces operating on a voice comms-free, net-centric web where opportunistic kills are managed in real-time by the pilots, while planners sit in the rear just watching and making sure maintenance is scheduled and fed well.
The civilian sector is leading the way now in advancements in firearms structural components, lighter, stronger materials, and free-from Army planners to make sound decisions.
The experimental Cobalt barrels not too long ago had very promising properties as far as handling heat, but were too rough on tooling when making them according to @Frank Green ..
H&K as well as I believe Haenel are using the Aubert Duval GKH steel which is supposed to have some special wear properties but nothing too earth shattering..
Always looking for an edge...and they're are materials out there but the main problem is in machining of the material.
We worked with some of the GKH material for a customer. Wasn't the greatest to work with and I never heard it performed any better. So?
Keep in mind.... combat/machinegun type applications is different from a precision firearm application.
Also define barrel life? What is acceptable to you vs another person can make a big deal.
Just earlier this year I got a barrel back from a bullet/ammo maker. Accuracy test barrel we made them in 308win. Finally wouldn't hold 1/2moa when it hit 21,260 rounds. They had another that went 19k+ at the same time. Most of our 308w barrels for them are running 10k+ rounds but he did note that he had never seen one go 19k let alone 21k! We didn't do anything special for them vs doing one for anyone else.
At times I think it goes back to cleaning, cleaning in between intervals, conditions etc...
Additive manufacturing using CNC was a closely-guarded, US aerospace sector secret funded by DoD and Raytheon initially, even though a Japanese lawyer is often credited with conceiving it in the 1970s. Selective Laser Sintering was a DARPA-funded program in the 1980s. SLS didn’t start showing up in the civilian world until one of the original patents expired. It seems very recent, even though it has been around for 40 years now.
The US has a huge network of National Laboratories and University research departments developing technologies with DoD funding that is unparalleled. I still remember when we were in West Germany in 1982, getting ready to PCS back to Edwards AFB. My dad brought home this large box that looked similar to one of our transformers. (You had to have transformers to run your US electrical devices.)
Anyway, he explained how this box was different. You hooked it up to the phone line and your computer, and could then share files with National Labs back in the States. “This is amazing!”
I always thought the things we worked on were the sexy stuff with military aerospace, namely air-launched weapons systems, their guidance electronics, seekers, aircraft fire control radars, man-machine interface with these systems in the cockpit, and implications of advancements in those that would change tactics in our favor.
While I was adjacent to engine guys, I never fully-appreciated the levels of wizardry going on inside a turbojet or turbofan. The US is the leading Nation among maybe 5 or 6 that can even make them. It’s an extreme barrier to entry that not even most European nations can pass through.
The high pressure, high temp single crystal fan blade metallurgy are about 10x overkill just in terms of temperature compared to an M4 barrel run through extreme 270 round mag dumps during the ARDEC tests.
You would have to use another boring method, and some type of electro-etched rifling process in these exotic alloys for a barrel that would cost insane amounts of money. Some of the unique elements used in these alloys are very closely-controlled, only available in extremely limited quantities for these high-priority turbine blade applications.
I do think there is room for improvement of barrel steel if you’re looking to reduce throat erosion and increase bore life, but you have to start from strategic materials and work from there. Exotics that aren’t widely-available or producible are non-starters, even though you can make one-offs.
I saw a cool Swiss company in the Industry Exhibitor’s booth upstairs at SHOT a few years ago who used a different rifling process that was very interesting. They seemed to be more focused on straight bores and perfectly-rifled dimensions void of any tooling marks.
If you developed a method to ream chambers without creating tooling marks, that would be a big step in the right direction, because you could deny the rough surface texture from the throat where converting propellant likes to fire-blast and initiate throat erosion.
A hard-chromed chamber with no tool marks would be a nice start. People have hinted at different bore processes for NGSW, but are pretty tight-lipped so far. Are they being quiet because it’s hype or something real and at least an incremental improvement over what we’ve been doing to M60, M249, and M240 barrels for decades? There are some great ARDEC papers on that dating back to the 1950s BTW.
SLS is comparatively old, but the modern stuff with calculated single-crystal formation while using selective laser melting (requires extremely precise laser power control and movement) and the multi-alloy gradients being done with "cold spray" additive are just as mind-boggling and alien-seeming as the magnetically controlled casting.
the cold spray technologies are my personal favorite, where changing the powder composition on the fly means effectively creating alloy gradients across a single part.
edit:
there may be some milage in making rifle barrels using cold spray technologies in the future, as you could create a mark-free "negative" of the barrel and then use that as the layup mandrel, then when separated the barrel interior has effectively been "cast" to the mandrel.
