Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

[BoringGuy45]

Well we have known the 5.56 has had its issues especially in Afghanistan where we where outgunned at distance from worn out AKs and not working as designed when we went to the shorter barrels.

We were never "outgunned" in Afghanistan, especially not from AKs, which have a much shorter effective point target range. Also, most of the problem was specifically from the M855. There were confirmed kills from the Mk262 out to 700 yards. Also the M855A1 and Mk318 both have much longer effective range than just about any 7.62x39 offering.

[Pasta123]

Well we have known the 5.56 has had its issues especially in Afghanistan where we where outgunned at distance from worn out AKs and not working as designed when we went to the shorter barrels. The saying the enemy get a vote to! Holds true. I love the 5.56 round, yet this has been a long time coming. With technology improvements we did everything we could to make the round more effective and we did. Just not enough to be what is needed. The battle rifle in a larger caliber was coming, yet which one is the best choice we will see if this new round stays. If it is as effective as they say it is and can punch though level 4 plates. Then it will be longer then a decade till the next big tech upgrades in body armor comes that can stop it. By then we should have Plasma rifles in 40 watt range.

If you have actual records, studies to prove so, not just claims, show it to us.

Also, 40 years with a plasma rifle... We don't even know what the next decade are going to look like. I do know that armor technology will most likely surpass 99% of cartidge so don't feel lucky there.

[vicious_cb]

Well we have known the 5.56 has had its issues especially in Afghanistan where we where outgunned at distance from worn out AKs and not working as designed when we went to the shorter barrels.

Imagine not understand basic external ballistics.

[Kgknight]

https://taskernetwork.com/2022/04/24...4jcbvOdx6XlwiU

This was probably the best article I have read on the topic.

[TehLlama]

Imagine not understand basic external ballistics.

To be fair, the math is daunting to some... but that doesn't change the accuracy of the statements from those who can't be bothered.

[Alpha-17]

At CQB distances is the 5.56 that ineffective?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Likely dependent on the loading in question. There are tons of reports of M855 or even M193 zipping right through folks at close range with only minimal terminal effectiveness. Newer loadings seem to have mitigated that, but the institutional memory is likely still there.

The issue I see here, is the fact that for one, they're only rolling it out to combat arms and SOF units for the forseeable future, while conventional units and non combat arms will still be keeping the M4. Secondly, the maintenance logistics on this will be a major PITA, speaking from experience as a current army maintainer, when they made the switch to m855A1, no one thought about the steel tip on the round's first point of contact being the aluminum feedramp in the upper receiver. Now ee have to backtrack and and additional check and maintenance inspections points into already established systems. Personally, I feel the mcx platform is good, however they need to quit looking for solutions to problems that could be solved by telling the ****ing armorers to actually give the joes the ****ing elcan that is supposed to be mounted on their saw, and using mk 262 as MarkM said. Big army looking for extravagant solutions to problems that could be fixed in a much simpler way.

I'm really not sure why the Mk 262's reputation has some wonder round has stuck around. It was a great option, 15-20 years ago. It is very much outdated these days, with both Mk 318 and M855A1 proving superior in pretty much every test I've seen. If you or anyone else has other information, I'd love to see it.

Odd that you mention SAWs not having Elcans. The majority of 249s I dealt with had Elcan M145s on them, and while they certainly helped, they didn't solve all of my problems with the weapon or its round. That was about seven years ago, but strange that things have gotten worse, not better on that front. Are you talking about infantry/combat arms units, or just at large?

Also, to one of your points, it is interesting to note how Sig seems to have learned from the Army's past experiences, and put steel inserts in the XM5 design to help strengthen it. One of the interviews I saw mentioned that steel feed ramps were included for the M855A1-type round the Army will be using. These efforts might help the design be future-proof, or they might be the age-old tendency to solve last week's problems.

[Pasta123]

Likely dependent on the loading in question. There are tons of reports of M855 or even M193 zipping right through folks at close range with only minimal terminal effectiveness. Newer loadings seem to have mitigated that, but the institutional memory is likely still there.

...That sounds like cherrypick. Any data to prove the A1 wasn't effective?

[C-grunt]

...That sounds like cherrypick. Any data to prove the A1 wasn't effective?

All my buddies that deployed to Afg after A1 came out said it worked great. But then again we never had problems with M855 either. Not saying problems didnt happen to others, but I think they are way overblown by the internet.

[pinzgauer]

The string of links posted as justification was a bit silly.

Articles breathlessly saying our soldiers are outranged and in the same breath saying the solution should be to replace m4s with AKM's... Really?

Likewise comparing Soviet era general purpose machine guns with our general issue infantry fighting carbine.

Yes, that was occasionally encountered and sadly at times problematic.

But the solution for tripod mounted general purpose machine guns is normally another general purpose machine gun or mortars.

There are documented cases where Taliban machine guns from the high heights were using plunging fire on our (poorly sited) units. Plunging fire from heights has much longer range, but is extremely inaccurate. Which the locals had a couple of decades of practice, knew exactly where to put their mg's and where it would hit if you rained fire.

Yes, really bad situations, many of which have had sobering books written about them. And the battles are studied and learnings applied..

But it was not that they were outgunned, they were forced to set up at the bottom of a valley where the Taliban controlled the surrounding high ground. And their rules of engagement at that time did not allow use of mortars. And air support was over committed, also a political decision.

Back to the original topic, any solution which increases weight for the same combat loadout is going to create more problems than it solves and is bad for Joe. And I say this as a longtime Grendel shooter/fan where the main penalty is 25 rounds per magazine versus 30. (Rifles weigh the same)

So if this gives them more power at the same weight for a basic combat loadout, that's great. But it's looking like that won't be the case, which will make already overloaded soldiers even worse.

[1168]

It seems easy to prove that the ammo is lighter.

Lighter than 7.62 NATO? Yes. 5.56, no. Since this is a 5.56 replacement (allegedly), we should compare it to 5.56.

At CQB distances is the 5.56 that ineffective?

No. it works very well, in my experience. I was tempted to get graphic here, but decided not to.

I think people will start pulling heavy optics off but appreciate that their round isn’t deflecting off vegetation as much.

With respect, I believe “brush buster” rounds to be a myth. The new round will certainly penetrate light cover better, but deflection and penetration are different factors.

Actually, that's what the Army should have done is adopt the 6.8 SPC and whatever rifle design changes necessary to go along with it.

I disagree. I think the 6.8SPC is a good round for hunters. But, typical Soldiers are limited in their range by their skill and training. And dispersion-adjusted MPBR is a factor for that, at least out to the distance their skill lets them hold. 6.8SPC has a shorter MPBR, and weighs more. While it has more energy, I’m not convinced its increased energy makes up for its disadvantages for the majority of grunts. Holland of course has a right to disagree, for his application, which is specially selected and trained Soldiers of above average intellect and fitness.

But for Big Army, SPC or Grendel would be spending money to reduce capability.

Well we have known the 5.56 has had its issues especially in Afghanistan where we where outgunned at distance from worn out AKs

Did you experience this problem personally? No one is outranging us with AKs. Not with equal training, and while ours could use much improvement it is better than average, at the least. I taught at a foreign weapons course and had ample opportunity to shoot and study most infantry weapons of other nations, and watch/coach others of various backgrounds shoot them. Including AKM, RPK, PKM, RPD, RPG, PSL, DShKM, and more. The AKM and most of its family is an adequate weapon. But, ain’t nobody outranging M4s with them. The MPBR is pitiful, zeroing requires tools and is poorly understood without training, precision falls off fast with distance. This reflects my combat experience, also. In well-trained hands, its max effective range is similar, at best, to the M4, and I’m being generous. The 5.45 guns are better, but it is still a conscript rifle.