Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

[1168]

You know those rifles the 101'st are getting, well they cost over $5,400 each, low powered ammo and blanks, over $3 round, that new super round over $21 round and that wonderful new scope that turns every Joe into a sniper over $12,000. Sure serial production will bring prices down but by how much? The 277 Fury load should not cost more than M80 but it's not going to perform better than M80 either, the super round is going to be reserved for combat so train with one ammo and combat with another, not smart. Justification for all this, defeating LVL 4 body armor at 500 meters, how often is the average joe going to need this capability?Plus that whole NATO interchangeability thing has proven quite useful, the money wasted on this boondoggle would have been much better spend on anti drone shotguns and defenses. You know someone should address that whole defeat body armor threat, so a lvl 4 plate is 10x12 inches or so, good to know that $12,000 day optic will allow joe to hit that at 500 meters instead of wasting that $21 bullet on hitting a arm, leg, stomach or head.

US Army allocates record budget for NGSW Next Generation Squad Weapons in 2025.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...eapons-in-2025

The detailed allocations within the NGSW project include $23.133 million for the acquisition of 1,772 units of the M250 Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR), which is intended to replace the currently employed M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) within the Close Combat Force. Additionally, $91.447 million is set aside for the purchase of 18,019 units of the M7 Rifle (NGSW-R), aiming to supplant the M4A1 Carbine in the same operational capacity. The budget also includes a considerable sum of $252.712 million for the procurement of 20,045 units of the M157 Fire Control systems, which are expected to be integrated with the M7 Rifle and the M250 Automatic Rifle to enhance combat effectiveness.

I agree with most of what you’re saying, with 3 caveats:

1) .277 will outperform M80 by virtue of ballistic coefficient. Not by enough to matter at the engagement ranges and weapons relevant to M80. We’ve been launching roughly the same weight, velocity, and diameter bullet at enemies for 125yrs, and it’s still fine in its role. As would be a .6.8, but with extra steps. As a sidenote, the 6.5x55 has been around for 125yrs, too, and the 240 (well, FN MAG) has been chambered in it and was adopted by the Swedes, briefly. Given the same case and projectile design, pressure limit, and powder tech, it would further outperform the Furry at all distances with less or equal recoil.

2) I’m maximally skeptical of it penetrating level IV plates at 500 meters with non-tungsten ammo. Mildly skeptical of it doing that even with tungsten ammo. Screwing around with ballistic calculators, I anticipate a velocity under 2,000 fps at that distance, and around 1k fpe. Existing military plates are rated to handle more than that from .30AP, and have been for two or more decades. As you mentioned, though, that’s not really a huge capability anyway. And if it is, everyone will just supplement their plates with ones that meet Level IV or, I dunno, try not to get shot.

3) the project might result in very badass DMRs and MGs, logistics and cost aside. No portion of this project was needed for the DMR portion of my optimistic claim, though. See caveat #1.

[mack7.62]

My feeling is that the idea that the majority of infantry needs to be armed with these is bonkers, if Ukraine has shown us anything it is that Artillery is still the King of Battle closely followed by small kamikaze or munition dropping drones.

[ABNAK]

My feeling is that the idea that the majority of infantry needs to be armed with these is bonkers, if Ukraine has shown us anything it is that Artillery is still the King of Battle closely followed by small kamikaze or munition dropping drones.

I do believe that the wheels for this project were set in motion prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to Wiki the Spear was chosen as the winner of the NGSW competition on April 19, 2022, so only two months after the start of the war.

I agree, however, that the Ukraine conflict has opened many eyes on 21st Century warfare. It kind of reminds me of when the M14 was being adopted we were slowly getting involved in Vietnam, and that was not the conflict that the M14 was intended for.

[BoringGuy45]

You know those rifles the 101'st are getting, well they cost over $5,400 each, low powered ammo and blanks, over $3 round, that new super round over $21 round and that wonderful new scope that turns every Joe into a sniper over $12,000. Sure serial production will bring prices down but by how much? The 277 Fury load should not cost more than M80 but it's not going to perform better than M80 either, the super round is going to be reserved for combat so train with one ammo and combat with another, not smart. Justification for all this, defeating LVL 4 body armor at 500 meters, how often is the average joe going to need this capability?Plus that whole NATO interchangeability thing has proven quite useful, the money wasted on this boondoggle would have been much better spend on anti drone shotguns and defenses. You know someone should address that whole defeat body armor threat, so a lvl 4 plate is 10x12 inches or so, good to know that $12,000 day optic will allow joe to hit that at 500 meters instead of wasting that $21 bullet on hitting a arm, leg, stomach or head.

This project is turning into the OICW Part 2. I remember 20 years ago, that XM29 airburst/rifle/smart optic pipedream was about 25 lbs and cost $35,000 a piece, and the justification from the Army was that the overmatch firepower was going to be so great that the weight and the price tag would be more than worth it. Skip ahead to now, and we have the same argument. Granted, the price and the weight of the XM7 are half of the OICW, but we're still jumping up about double the weight and ten times the cost of the M4 for these new rifles.

I agree with most of what you’re saying, with 3 caveats:

1) .277 will outperform M80 by virtue of ballistic coefficient. Not by enough to matter at the engagement ranges and weapons relevant to M80. We’ve been launching roughly the same weight, velocity, and diameter bullet at enemies for 125yrs, and it’s still fine in its role. As would be a .6.8, but with extra steps. As a sidenote, the 6.5x55 has been around for 125yrs, too, and the 240 (well, FN MAG) has been chambered in it and was adopted by the Swedes, briefly. Given the same case and projectile design, pressure limit, and powder tech, it would further outperform the Furry at all distances with less or equal recoil.

2) I’m maximally skeptical of it penetrating level IV plates at 500 meters with non-tungsten ammo. Mildly skeptical of it doing that even with tungsten ammo. Screwing around with ballistic calculators, I anticipate a velocity under 2,000 fps at that distance, and around 1k fpe. Existing military plates are rated to handle more than that from .30AP, and have been for two or more decades. As you mentioned, though, that’s not really a huge capability anyway. And if it is, everyone will just supplement their plates with ones that meet Level IV or, I dunno, try not to get shot.

3) the project might result in very badass DMRs and MGs, logistics and cost aside. No portion of this project was needed for the DMR portion of my optimistic claim, though. See caveat #1.

I too am extremely skeptical of the claims of the .277 Fury performance. Some tests have shown that Level IV plates can stop .338 Lapua AP rounds at 100 yards or less. So the idea that a round with two and a half times less the energy of a Lapua is going to reliably defeat Level IV plates at the same range, much less at 500 yards, is hard to believe.

[1168]

This project is turning into the OICW Part 2. I remember 20 years ago, that XM29 airburst/rifle/smart optic pipedream was about 25 lbs and cost $35,000 a piece, and the justification from the Army was that the overmatch firepower was going to be so great that the weight and the price tag would be more than worth it. Skip ahead to now, and we have the same argument. Granted, the price and the weight of the XM7 are half of the OICW, but we're still jumping up about double the weight and ten times the cost of the M4 for these new rifles.



I too am extremely skeptical of the claims of the .277 Fury performance. Some tests have shown that Level IV plates can stop .338 Lapua AP rounds at 100 yards or less. So the idea that a round with two and a half times less the energy of a Lapua is going to reliably defeat Level IV plates at the same range, much less at 500 yards, is hard to believe.

That crazy grenade thingy would have been cool but with extremely limited application.

Plagiarized from a website: “The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) lists the following threats as their minimum standard for Levels III and IV respectively.
1) For armor to be rated NIJ Level 3, it must stop 6 rounds of 7.62x51mm NATO Ball (147gr) fired from 15m at a velocity of 2780 (+/-30) FPS.
2) For armor to be rated NIJ Level IV, it must stop 1 round of .30-06 M2-AP (166gr) fired from 15m at a velocity of 2880 (+/-30) FPS.”

SAPI was Level III-ish. 3 hits instead of 6, but a diverse list of cartridges. ESAPI is Level IV, but with 3 hits of M2AP. Which at 15m exceeds the XM7’s velocity with super ammo at 100 meters, much less 500 meters. With both measured at muzzle, M2AP wins in energy, also. .277 isn’t blowing through ESAPI at 500m without some neat tricks that haven’t yet been applied to other cartridges. Nope.