Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

[ABNAK]

Was the M14 not adopted for a time? I know it didn't last long.

True that it didn't last long as an issued weapon but it was indeed "Standard A" for the U.S. military for a few years until the M16 was phased in. Will the NGSW have a similarly short general issue life? Hard to tell at this point.

[Alpha-17]

That seems right for a rifle weight of 8.4 lbs... The M27 is about 8.2 lbs, or 12.7lb configured with the 3x SDO, full mag, PEQ (probably more with the new VCOGs).

Yeah, go figure, when you add stuff to the weapon, it weighs more.

OK, to be fair, I've not seen the picture mentioned, so maybe it was just the rifle with suppressor, and the weight is higher than it "should" be, but most pictures I've seen include at least the optic, and possibly more.

True that it didn't last long as an issued weapon but it was indeed "Standard A" for the U.S. military for a few years until the M16 was phased in. Will the NGSW have a similarly short general issue life? Hard to tell at this point.

Let's hope we can avoid a repeat of that particular debacle. People want to complain about the process the XM7/Spear is going through clearly haven't looked into the bureaucratic nightmare the political-dictated adoption of the M16 was.

[1168]

Yeah, go figure, when you add stuff to the weapon, it weighs more.

OK, to be fair, I've not seen the picture mentioned, so maybe it was just the rifle with suppressor, and the weight is higher than it "should" be, but most pictures I've seen include at least the optic, and possibly more.



Let's hope we can avoid a repeat of that particular debacle. People want to complain about the process the XM7/Spear is going through clearly haven't looked into the bureaucratic nightmare the political-dictated adoption of the M16 was.

If we’re saying that the adoption of the M16 was politically-driven, wouldn’t it be fair to point out that it was popular with SOF in that time? And that the M14 adoption was also rather political and brass-driven? Or the M7?

[davidjinks]

To be fair, every single procurement is politically/brass/money driven.

MHS is a perfect example. Beretta should have been awarded a PIP and be allowed to field the M9A3.

NGSW is the search for an answer that can be answered by ammunition improvement, not system improvements.

If we’re saying that the adoption of the M16 was politically-driven, wouldn’t it be fair to point out that it was popular with SOF in that time? And that the M14 adoption was also rather political and brass-driven? Or the M7?

[WillBrink]

If we’re saying that the adoption of the M16 was politically-driven, wouldn’t it be fair to point out that it was popular with SOF in that time? And that the M14 adoption was also rather political and brass-driven? Or the M7?

Was it? I hadn't heard that. I can say the few 'Nam era SEALs I talked to said they were not a fan due to reliability issues. They much preferred the Stoner however and that, M60 cut down, shot guns, and grenade launcher, and of course the 1911.

[Alpha-17]

If we’re saying that the adoption of the M16 was politically-driven, wouldn’t it be fair to point out that it was popular with SOF in that time? And that the M14 adoption was also rather political and brass-driven? Or the M7?

It was seen as a replacement for M1 and M2 Carbines for jungle operations, and was used as such originally. Even the original orders for XM16s and XM16E1s were to make up for the shortfall caused by cancelling M14 production early. The AR was a stopgap, with the "next gen" rifle supposed to be online in a few years never panning out. Transitioning it to a standard issue rifle was done for political reasons. By political, I mean that the M14/M16s were just pawns in McNamara's chess games with the various services. He was looking to cut the size of the Army before Vietnam, and saw cutting squad sizes down as the means of doing so. The AR-15 appeared to offer the solution to his, as they could cut the squad size, but use the new weapon to ensure that firepower wasn't reduced as well. The Army, rightly recognizing that the AR wasn't really ready for prime time, objected, but McNamara forced the issue. The resulting fiasco is well documented.

The M14's adoption was brass driven, but also a result of the tactics. Remember, this was a project coming out of the Pentomic era. Units were going to have much wider fonts, and likely could be cut off resupply. Thus, they needed caliber commonality across their weapons, and weapons with longer effective ranges. The inter-army wrangling over the FAL or M14 for the job of filling that need are much discussed, but relatively tame. Both guns were about even in performance, and the M14 weighed less. It was also thought that production of the M14 would be easier for companies coming off of M1 Garand production. We know now that didn't pan out, but made sense at the time. In service, the M14 replaced the Garand just fine, but ran into problems trying to be a good carbine and SMG replacement, obviously, leading to the XM16 adoption as a carbine replacement for Airborne units, and then being pushed into general service.

In regards to the XM7/Spear, the push to replace 5.56 has been building for years, going on decades. A lot of military thinkers, both here and abroad, have advocated for increased power and lethality. I don't know if you recall the hubbub Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer by Major Ehrhart caused back in '09, but I do. The fact that they actually did something about it is surprising. The fact that the cartridge isn't just a slightly scaled up 5.56 cartridge but something with serious power is even more surprising. But it's not like Sig bribed the Army into accepting the design.

[Echo40]

A common misconception seems to be that the M7 (AKA SIG MCX Spear) chambered in 6.8x51 Common Cartridge (AKA .277 Fury) is going to outright replace the M4A1 chambered in 5.56x45 NATO.

It is to my understanding that such is not the case. The new Rifle/Cartridge are meant to address the fact that the M4A1/M855A1 cannot pierce through whatever alleged top-secret, cutting-edge body armor the Chinese Military is developing, isn't accurate/effective in long-range engagements and will be fielded to troops when/if the need for these capabilities are required.
However, that neither sounds impressive nor encouraging because if you put it that way it sounds like a tremendous waste of money to invest in a new Special Purpose Rifle chambered in a non-NATO Standard cartridge for battlefield conditions which have yet to occur frequently and may never occur at all because its all based on a what-if scenario in which China instigates a war in which some cutting-edge body armor that can stop M855A1 is standard issue for Chinese Soldiers and the battlefield conditions prompt frequent long-range engagements. So the details are exaggerated to make it sound like it's going to be the new Standard Issue USA Military Rifle. Once the dust has settled, I think news will start to trickle in from troops that the majority of them are still issued M4A1s and that the M7 is only fielded to select units when intel indicates that the M7 is more appropriate.

Heck, even if the M7 becomes the new Standard Issue US Military Service Rifle, the M4A1 will obviously remain in service for decades to come unless someone manages to make a superior lightweight carbine which is relatively inexpensive.
Worst case scenario, the M4A1 becomes the modern-day equivalent of the M1 Carbine, thus maintaining it as an alternative Service Weapon for units who don't require the latest, greatest heavyweight frontline battle rifle.

So unless you're just obsessed with having the latest piece of military kit so that you can LARP as a commando down at the range, there's no reason to get all excited over this. Rest Assured, your AR will be every bit as effective and prominent as it ever was even if the M7 becomes the new standard issue.
Frankly, the AR-15 is already the M1911A1 of military Rifles, and will assuredly remain popular for decades to come.

[1168]

To be fair, every single procurement is politically/brass/money driven.

MHS is a perfect example. Beretta should have been awarded a PIP and be allowed to field the M9A3.

NGSW is the search for an answer that can be answered by ammunition improvement, not system improvements.

agreed, mostly.

I don't know if you recall the hubbub Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer by Major Ehrhart caused back in '09, but I do.

Not only do I remember, but I’ve known Tom personally…we’d hit the lake together when we were stateside lol. We worked together at Bragg, but we have differing perspectives and beliefs on that 500m rule. For Infantrymen to become proficient at that, we’ll need to do something other than buy a new gun, which is akin to a dude that can’t yet shoot a round of Dot Torture clean, but thinks a new, more expensive gun chambered in 9x25 Dillon will do it for him. We’ll also need to inform the enemy that they need to stand still in open fields. ‘Cause I can pop E-Types all day with a regular M4 at 500m, and so can anyone else that shoots well enough to get a solid zero.

I also remember the overmatch ppt, where the PKM somehow outranged the 240, which baffles me to this day, despite it being my favorite weapon from the Foreign Weapons Course, and ***blasphemy alert*** preferring it to the 240b.

[ABNAK]

A common misconception seems to be that the M7 (AKA SIG MCX Spear) chambered in 6.8x51 Common Cartridge (AKA .277 Fury) is going to outright replace the M4A1 chambered in 5.56x45 NATO.

Well if it doesn't then there will be three different calibers in the military small arms supply system: 7.62x51, 5.56, and 6.8x51. I'm just not seeing all three being sustained long-term. I could be wrong, but history going back to WWII tells us that at one time there was 30.06 and .30 Carbine and that was it (not talking .45ACP for the 1911 and Thompson/Grease Gun). Adding a third caliber for long guns would confound logistics quite a bit......okay, we're delivering some 6.8x51 ammo to this BN, but they also need 7.62 for crew-served, and oh shit we can't forget 5.56 for the "support"/non-Infantry guys.

It may be a short-term problem depending on roll-out/phasing-in dates, but sooner or later we'll either drop the 6.8x51 or the 5.56. Who knows? Hell, maybe they'll drop 7.62 crew-served in favor of the 6.8x51. This could be the late 50's or early 60's all over again: drop 30.06, adopt 7.62, oops then adopt 5.56.

[ABNAK]

I also remember the overmatch ppt, where the PKM somehow outranged the 240, which baffles me to this day.....

Yeah I recall reading that "study" and scratching my head about that part. WTF over?

I will also suggest that the U.S. military seems bent on fighting the last war. The M-14 was based on WWII and a looming European battlefield against the Soviet juggernaut. The M-16 was sort of an afterthought based on fighting in Vietnamese jungles. [the M4 was simply a scaled-down M-16 as time progressed] Now we have the 6.8x51 which is another afterthought for gunfights on Afghan mountainsides. While I wasn't in the Sandbox I have heard enough Infantry types mention that those long-range shootouts from ridgeline to ridgeline were the purview of the GPMG and my personal old favorite, indirect. [High-Angle Hell baby!]