Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

[lysander]

It all boils down to what ammunition you are comparing.

If you compare 57-N-323S (7.62mm x 54R ball with a 148 gr lead core bullet) to M80 (7.62mm x 51 ball with a lead core 147 gr bullet) the difference is minimal.

However, if you compare 7-N-13 (7.62mm x54R AP with a 145 gr AP bullet) to M80, you will get a very large difference, as AP will have better penetration performance down range.

Similarly, comparing 7BZ3 API to M80 favors the API.

With M80A1, the difference is reduced, but the M80A1 is a lighter bullet (only 130 gr) going faster, so its long range performance drops off faster than the heavier Russian AP.

M993 would level the field to some extent, but the use of a tungsten core make this prohibitively expensive for general issue, while the harden steel core of the 7-N-13 no more expensive that lead core ball.

EDIT: Oh that study referenced.

[Echo40]

They'll drop the 7.62x51 because 6.8x51 renders it redundant. The M4/5.56 are indispensable due to the light weight, lower cost, and ease of training, hence why it has remained in service for so long. The Army isn't going to drop 5.56 over 7.62 when it is both far more common and far better suited for general purposes.

Heck, if it comes down to that, then they'll probably just dump 6.8x51 and convert their supply of M7s to 7.62x51 and work on some new 7.62 AP round like they should have done in the first place. Scratch that, they should have adopted some variation of the AR-10 then developed a 7.62 AP round in the first place, but that ship has sailed so they'll just make the most of a bad situation by converting M7s to 7.62x51.

[1168]

] 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!]

In my own experience in Afghanistan, ridgeline to ridgeline shootouts were very one-sided, not because we were better or anything, but because we used the tools available. NVG, 240, .300 Winmag bolt gun, SR25, 60mm handheld, CAS, etc. Even without CAS, it would have been pretty one-sided most of the time.

That we needed “overmatch” has always felt like a myth to me, and I visited Afghanistan nearly every year from ‘05-‘14, and spent a lot of time in the mountains there, and I did actually employ or be present for the employment of, all of the above tools. I know that there were times and circumstances that it may have been true, but I think that they were less common than the lore. Whenever I encounter someone that has personally experienced being outranged in the mountains, the story is the same…they didn’t bring the pigs.

Also, as you know, ambushes are a superior way to **** dudes up. We have to be very careful drawing conclusions from successful surprise attacks on exhausted dudes at a time and location chosen and prepared by the enemy, and initiated with explosives and/or belt feds. You can’t defeat tactics and terrain with new rifles….you have to use tactics or strategy.

It all boils down to what ammunition you are comparing.

If you compare 57-N-323S (7.62mm x 54R ball with a 148 gr lead core bullet) to M80 (7.62mm x 51 ball with a lead core 147 gr bullet) the difference is minimal.

However, if you compare 7-N-13 (7.62mm x54R AP with a 145 gr AP bullet) to M80, you will get a very large difference, as AP will have better penetration performance down range.

Similarly, comparing 7BZ3 API to M80 favors the API.

With M80A1, the difference is reduced, but the M80A1 is a lighter bullet (only 130 gr) going faster, so its long range performance drops off faster than the heavier Russian AP.

M993 would level the field to some extent, but the use of a tungsten core make this prohibitively expensive for general issue, while the harden steel core of the 7-N-13 no more expensive that lead core ball.

EDIT: Oh that study referenced.

I greatly respect your engineering knowledge, but there is no ballistic advantage of the PKM vs the 240 in actual practice in any war we’ve fought. They are ballistic twins, more-so than other cartridges that often get compared and called equal. The thing that makes me love the PKM is its light weight. The consequence of that for long-range fires is a larger beaten zone, which is not a desirable characteristic in that arena. I have real world experience employing both, and the 240 is a better choice at distance or on point targets. And no, the PKM isn’t any more reliable, either, at least not in my practical experience.

The slideshow you posted is actually a rehashing of the original one I was speaking of. It was going to get rehashed until someone bought something, and it was absolutely obnoxious, especially when it claimed the PKM had like 20% more effective range than the 240 on one slide, and then pretended the 240 didn’t even exist on another, as it cherry-picked bullshit to make it look like the M4 is inadequate.

Again, I was cadre at the Foreign Weapons Course, and I’m intimately familiar with most adversary and partner weapons, with combat experience at both ends of them. I’m not saying that as an appeal to my own authority….that isn’t needed when the facts don’t even match the narrative. I’d be the first one shouting from the rooftops if our rifles were deficient, because I have skin in the game. Training, on the other hand, should be a more frequent topic.

[Alpha-17]

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.

As soon as the NGSW selected Sig, the Army put out a call for conversion kits for 240Bs to take 6.8. As much as I love 7.62 NATO, I think this program likely will see it's demise in US Army service.

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.

People say that like it's a bad thing; we only have hind sight, not future sight. We have to base our thinking for future wars on the wars we have already experienced. For the M14, the most probable war fighting location was Europe, where the M1 Garand had proved itself. That, plus our experience in the hills of Korea showed a need for longer range with more power. Instead, the US ended up in Vietnam fighting a war in very constrictive terrain, and have largely based our equipment on that experience. Now that we've experienced the need to regain longer fires for our riflemen, we're drifting back. It's logical, and makes sense.

[Wake27]

In my own experience in Afghanistan, ridgeline to ridgeline shootouts were very one-sided, not because we were better or anything, but because we used the tools available. NVG, 240, .300 Winmag bolt gun, SR25, 60mm handheld, CAS, etc. Even without CAS, it would have been pretty one-sided most of the time.

That we needed “overmatch” has always felt like a myth to me, and I visited Afghanistan nearly every year from ‘05-‘14, and spent a lot of time in the mountains there, and I did actually employ or be present for the employment of, all of the above tools. I know that there were times and circumstances that it may have been true, but I think that they were less common than the lore. Whenever I encounter someone that has personally experienced being outranged in the mountains, the story is the same…they didn’t bring the pigs.

Also, as you know, ambushes are a superior way to **** dudes up. We have to be very careful drawing conclusions from successful surprise attacks on exhausted dudes at a time and location chosen and prepared by the enemy, and initiated with explosives and/or belt feds. You can’t defeat tactics and terrain with new rifles….you have to use tactics or strategy.

I greatly respect your engineering knowledge, but there is no ballistic advantage of the PKM vs the 240 in actual practice in any war we’ve fought. They are ballistic twins, more-so than other cartridges that often get compared and called equal. The thing that makes me love the PKM is its light weight. The consequence of that for long-range fires is a larger beaten zone, which is not a desirable characteristic in that arena. I have real world experience employing both, and the 240 is a better choice at distance or on point targets. And no, the PKM isn’t any more reliable, either, at least not in my practical experience.

The slideshow you posted is actually a rehashing of the original one I was speaking of. It was going to get rehashed until someone bought something, and it was absolutely obnoxious, especially when it claimed the PKM had like 20% more effective range than the 240 on one slide, and then pretended the 240 didn’t even exist on another, as it cherry-picked bullshit to make it look like the M4 is inadequate.

I appreciate this post as I have zero experience on MGs beyond the flat range and have never discussed this topic with someone who does, though I know it exists.

Training, on the other hand, should be a more frequent topic.

Fully agree, but that's too complex for much of the force. Much easier to buy something new and shiny by throwing around some buzz words.

[Wake27]

People say that like it's a bad thing; we only have hind sight, not future sight. We have to base our thinking for future wars on the wars we have already experienced. For the M14, the most probable war fighting location was Europe, where the M1 Garand had proved itself. That, plus our experience in the hills of Korea showed a need for longer range with more power. Instead, the US ended up in Vietnam fighting a war in very constrictive terrain, and have largely based our equipment on that experience. Now that we've experienced the need to regain longer fires for our riflemen, we're drifting back. It's logical, and makes sense.

I'm not convinced. I think there is important context in the past, especially since history repeats itself, but in APR of 24, if we're unable to have a reasonable prediction on the next conflict, its our own significant failure. The location may not be our primary assessment, but probably top three, definitely five. The enemy should be even more certain in most cases.

[lysander]

In my own experience in Afghanistan, ridgeline to ridgeline shootouts were very one-sided, not because we were better or anything, but because we used the tools available. NVG, 240, .300 Winmag bolt gun, SR25, 60mm handheld, CAS, etc. Even without CAS, it would have been pretty one-sided most of the time.

That we needed “overmatch” has always felt like a myth to me, and I visited Afghanistan nearly every year from ‘05-‘14, and spent a lot of time in the mountains there, and I did actually employ or be present for the employment of, all of the above tools. I know that there were times and circumstances that it may have been true, but I think that they were less common than the lore. Whenever I encounter someone that has personally experienced being outranged in the mountains, the story is the same…they didn’t bring the pigs.

Also, as you know, ambushes are a superior way to **** dudes up. We have to be very careful drawing conclusions from successful surprise attacks on exhausted dudes at a time and location chosen and prepared by the enemy, and initiated with explosives and/or belt feds. You can’t defeat tactics and terrain with new rifles….you have to use tactics or strategy.

I greatly respect your engineering knowledge, but there is no ballistic advantage of the PKM vs the 240 in actual practice in any war we’ve fought. They are ballistic twins, more-so than other cartridges that often get compared and called equal. The thing that makes me love the PKM is its light weight. The consequence of that for long-range fires is a larger beaten zone, which is not a desirable characteristic in that arena. I have real world experience employing both, and the 240 is a better choice at distance or on point targets. And no, the PKM isn’t any more reliable, either, at least not in my practical experience.

The slideshow you posted is actually a rehashing of the original one I was speaking of. It was going to get rehashed until someone bought something, and it was absolutely obnoxious, especially when it claimed the PKM had like 20% more effective range than the 240 on one slide, and then pretended the 240 didn’t even exist on another, as it cherry-picked bullshit to make it look like the M4 is inadequate.

Again, I was cadre at the Foreign Weapons Course, and I’m intimately familiar with most adversary and partner weapons, with combat experience at both ends of them. I’m not saying that as an appeal to my own authority….that isn’t needed when the facts don’t even match the narrative. I’d be the first one shouting from the rooftops if our rifles were deficient, because I have skin in the game. Training, on the other hand, should be a more frequent topic.

So, you are of the opinion that lead core M80 Ball has just as good penetration performance as a harden steel core bullet that is about the same weight and velocity?

[Wake27]

It all boils down to what ammunition you are comparing.

If you compare 57-N-323S (7.62mm x 54R ball with a 148 gr lead core bullet) to M80 (7.62mm x 51 ball with a lead core 147 gr bullet) the difference is minimal.

However, if you compare 7-N-13 (7.62mm x54R AP with a 145 gr AP bullet) to M80, you will get a very large difference, as AP will have better penetration performance down range.

Similarly, comparing 7BZ3 API to M80 favors the API.

With M80A1, the difference is reduced, but the M80A1 is a lighter bullet (only 130 gr) going faster, so its long range performance drops off faster than the heavier Russian AP.

M993 would level the field to some extent, but the use of a tungsten core make this prohibitively expensive for general issue, while the harden steel core of the 7-N-13 no more expensive that lead core ball.

EDIT: Oh that study referenced.

Huh. When I look at the slide show, I see someone that was out of the operational Army WELL before the combat operations he’s discussing and a larger history of failed developments than successful ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1168]

So, you are of the opinion that lead core M80 Ball has just as good penetration performance as a harden steel core bullet that is about the same weight and velocity?

Surely you jest?

[sinister]

Another company of the 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division received their XM7s this past Monday.

On the plus side, Acquisition Corps has delivered a new X-rifle with scope.

On the other -- still no battle doctrine change; no field manual; troops and NCOs have no hands-on or training materials at OSUT, Drill Sergeant and NCO Academy, Small Arms Master Gunner Course, or the USAMU; ranges may or may not be safe-suitable.

SIG scope software is ballistically-matched for the new hybrid steel-head brass case. There is no second ballistic set for conventional brass-case training and admin ammo.