Looks Like The Army Dropped The New 7.62 Rifle Program

[vzerone]

“The Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) is a single incremental program to meet future force warfighting needs. It is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and select support units during the next decade. It will combine the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a carbine, yielding capability improvements in accuracy, range, and lethality. The weapon will be lightweight and fire lightweight ammunition with improved lethality. The NGSAR will help to reduce the heavy load that burdens Soldiers and that has a significant negative impact on their mobility, survivability, and firing accuracy. Soldiers will employ the NGSAR against close and extended range targets in all terrains and conditions. The NGSAR will be compatible with and dependent on legacy optics and night vision devices to meet required capabilities. It will also be compatible with the Small Arms Fire Control system currently in development and possess back-up sights. It is anticipated the NGSAR support concept will be consistent with (comparable to) that of the predecessor M249 SAW involving the Army two level field and sustainment maintenance system. The NGSAR will achieve overmatch by killing stationary, and suppressing moving, threats out to 600 meters (T), and suppressing all threats to a range of 1200 meters (O).”

This is the announcement I referred to by following vzerone's first site. His second site in post #21 has much more detail. However, it still states it is a planned replacement for the SAW. Wonder if we'll really see anything that can meet all that criteria or wishful thinking perhaps?

Yeah, I can't understand when they said it would be a replacement for the SAW when for one the cycling rate is much lower and to me it sounds more like a rifle then a squad assault weapon. Are they possibly thinking of a weapon that will fill both role, the squad assault weapon and the individual soldier's rifle??

[Larry Gibson]

Appears they are once again thinking of a weapons "system".....one that will be all to everything.........wishful thinking once again by those who really have no practical training or experience.

[lucifers]

276 Pedersen

[RPRNY]

The 308, as described above, was a bad compromise made during a transition period in weapons and tactics technology. The fact that numerous civilians have fallen for the marketing ploy that 1/2" or less in bolt throw and 5oz of weight savings in their bolt action hunting rifle is somehow meaningful doesn't change that. Not that retaining 30-06 was the answer. 308 was a classic example of the military fighting the last war by trying to get 30-06 power in a smaller cartridge. 30 cal and 2600 + fps is simply too much recoil for a select fire weapon. The overreaction to the 308 mistake was the 5.56 mistake. Perhaps the planners thought the "next war" was going to be with rodents and small dogs. Yes, it's better for a select fire weapon, is cheaper, and weighs less, but its shortcomings are legion, especially when it's being pushed through sub-16" barrels.

A big part of the problem, as Larry notes above, is the desire to use "weapons systems", which require massive compromises to satisfy the logistical requirement for "one cartridge does all". The fact is that a short and medium range "assault" weapon does best with a larger caliber intermediate cartridge - like the 7.62x39 or 8x33, for example. Plenty of punch, not a lot of range. For longer ranges, a full sized cartridge in the 6.5mm - 8mm range makes sense - more reach. But as long as the logisticians and "weapon systems" types demand a single cartridge, there are going to be bad compromises.

A unit in the Afghan mountains should be equipped with individual weapons capable of consistently hitting man-sized targets with over 1000 lbs energy at 500 yards. They also need suppressive fire weapons that can reach out to 1000 yards. Put that same unit into an urban environment and they need compact individual weapons with relatively high rates of fire, but probably have a 100 yard operating environment. That unit will need over-watch from scout/sniper teams with heavy hitting capacity.

There's no easy solution. But dropping the return to 1959 was a good decision.

[vzerone]

The 308, as described above, was a bad compromise made during a transition period in weapons and tactics technology. The fact that numerous civilians have fallen for the marketing ploy that 1/2" or less in bolt throw and 5oz of weight savings in their bolt action hunting rifle is somehow meaningful doesn't change that. Not that retaining 30-06 was the answer. 308 was a classic example of the military fighting the last war by trying to get 30-06 power in a smaller cartridge. 30 cal and 2600 + fps is simply too much recoil for a select fire weapon. The overreaction to the 308 mistake was the 5.56 mistake. Perhaps the planners thought the "next war" was going to be with rodents and small dogs. Yes, it's better for a select fire weapon, is cheaper, and weighs less, but its shortcomings are legion, especially when it's being pushed through sub-16" barrels.

A big part of the problem, as Larry notes above, is the desire to use "weapons systems", which require massive compromises to satisfy the logistical requirement for "one cartridge does all". The fact is that a short and medium range "assault" weapon does best with a larger caliber intermediate cartridge - like the 7.62x39 or 8x33, for example. Plenty of punch, not a lot of range. For longer ranges, a full sized cartridge in the 6.5mm - 8mm range makes sense - more reach. But as long as the logisticians and "weapon systems" types demand a single cartridge, there are going to be bad compromises.

A unit in the Afghan mountains should be equipped with individual weapons capable of consistently hitting man-sized targets with over 1000 lbs energy at 500 yards. They also need suppressive fire weapons that can reach out to 1000 yards. Put that same unit into an urban environment and they need compact individual weapons with relatively high rates of fire, but probably have a 100 yard operating environment. That unit will need over-watch from scout/sniper teams with heavy hitting capacity.

There's no easy solution. But dropping the return to 1959 was a good decision.

I believe I'm the one that mentioned the Army wanting a multiple role weapon first by bringing up the second link to the article. Let's give credit due where it's actually due instead of who you like better.

[Smoke4320]

RPRNY
so let me get this straight ... you are saying a 16LB 26" barrel 338 Lapua is not a good CQB gun and a M249 is not a good 1000yd one shot sniper rifle
and Neither would be good in both situations
oh the inhumanity of it all .. Kind of like the Hummer is not the only transport vehicle the ARMY needs

don't worry the army will design a weapon that will do no job well.... just what compromise gets you

[RPRNY]

I believe I'm the one that mentioned the Army wanting a multiple role weapon first by bringing up the second link to the article. Let's give credit due where it's actually due instead of who you like better.

Do you need a gold star too? Take all the "credit" you like for whatever you want, and then have a good cry.

[Discus420]

6.5 Grendel would solve it all.

works for me +1

[Ray1946]

300 Savage necked down to 7mm. 137 grain Super efficient .284 slug that drops them in their tracks at 800 meters; no excuses. Scaled down M14 action(semi-auto)only. It will be called the "21st century Trump super-seven" and will be the USA weapon of choice for the next thousand years. No more lolly-gagging around with wimp cartridges and liberal-commie policies in our defense strategies..................

[Combat Diver]

I'll throw couple points out. Back in late 80s, Army adopts the M24 7.62mm sniper rifle on a long action. Reason was to possible to rebarrel to .300 WM if needed. Problem was the Army rarely authorized it. Hated turning in my XM21. Marines kept there short action M40s in 7.62mm. Fast forward to Iraq/Astan and the Army has adopted the SR25/Mk11 that SOCOM had been using for 2 decades as the M110 sniper rifle. SOCOM had typed classified the Mk13 (Rem 700) in .300 WM since early 00'. Big Army recently pulled all M24s and issued the M2010 in .300 WM. M2010 is another upgraded Rem 700 with removable box magazine and railed forearm, folding stock and suppressor. Appears the decision has been made not to go with the .338 LM as the new issued 200gr .300 WM is very hot and has a range of 1500m. Marines are still using their short action M40s out to 800m. SOCOM and Big Army for awhile issued the Mk48 7.62mm machine gun which is basically a M249 in 7.62. Big Army has turned those in for the M240L which has a lighter titanium receiver. SOCOM is running both.

Speaking of the M240, where it replaced the M60 but it competed against the M60 back in the late 50s as the MAG58. The history of the M240/MAG58 goes further back with FN to pre WWII as the BAR Type D. Which was a John Browning M1918 BAR with a quick change barrel and pistol grip. Poland adopted it as their light machine gun. FN just added a MG42 feed system to the BAR operating system turned upside down (like the M60 used the FG42 system turned upside down and MG42 feed system, FG42 used the US Lewis gun operating system, LOL)

Another weapon system that both the Army and Marines have adopted from SOCOM is the Swedish M3 Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle. This is to replace the single shot AT4 84mm rocket as it has a shorter range (made also by SAAB). The Carl G is reloadable and has numberous types of ammuntion with ranges over 1000m. Some of you old guys will remember the Army/Marines once had the M67 90mm Recoilless Rifle but the Carl G has better firing/sight systems and ammo.

As far as the orginal topic at hand. Money could be better spent on teaching soldiers to shoot better. M855A1 and Mk262 can and will reach out there if the shooter does his part. Sorry, for my ramblings better go clean my Carl G and Mk44 minigun.

CD

[Multigunner]

" The history of the M240/MAG58 goes further back with FN to pre WWII as the BAR Type D. Which was a John Browning M1918 BAR with a quick change barrel and pistol grip. Poland adopted it as their light machine gun. FN just added a MG42 feed system to the BAR operating system turned upside down "

Several countries developed LMGs using the BAR type toggle mechanism turned upside down. The French had a fine LMG 1924/29 .Poland developed a flexible aerial gun with the BAR toggle that long held the rounds per minute record at well over 2,000 RPM.
The BAR had a few shortcomings but its action was not one of them.

[Bill*B]

Pick up 200 rounds of 7.62 ammo. Then pick up 200 rounds of 5.56. It will be immediately obvious to you why the 7.62 is passé, except for machine guns.

[303Guy]

I can't help thinking the 5.56 cartridge would have been better necked up to 6mm. Or to 25. The latter driving a 87gr bullet to 2850 fps.

[bruce drake]

.276 Pederson....Oh yes, a 7mm bullet with a 52mm case in a 30 Remington/6.8SPC diameter cartridge. As an owner of a M1 Garand rebarreled into 7x57 in attempt to replicate that older cartridge, I will tell you its a good idea but would be improved if the caliber was lowered to 6 or 6.5mm in diameter and shortened the case to 40-42mm to allow for 100-120gr bullets to be used for longer range efficiency and more downrange impact than the 5.56 and its 62gr bullet.

Oh wait, its already been developed...the 6.5 SPC wildcat on the longer cartridge and 6.5 Grendel on the smaller cartridge lengths. Both will fit in existing AR15 style firearms with a rebarrel and new bolts/magazine issued. For the SAW weapon system, a new bolt, barrel and belt feed/cover replacements would get it back up and running although to shoot in a full-auto weapon may require more engineering tweaks to guarantee fully-capable conversions than what I just put out in this paragraph but its not insurmountable to convert the firearm over.

A link to the 6.5x40 wildcat article
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...r-15-6-5-40mm/

[bob208]

there is no perfect round for military use never will be.

[500Linebaughbuck]

although i am a big bore guy, a 6.5mm is about perfect for rifleman. now it could be the grendal, creedmoor, 260 ... heck they could go back to the 6.5x55 or 6.5x52 carcano.

[vzerone]

bob208 has it right. A good portion of the world's armies have gone the 6.5 route. Apparently they all found something they didn't like about it. Number of them did the 7mm's too. So look where we're at today!

Once and for all, the 6.5 Grendel is not and would not be a good cartridge for the military because it's stoo stubby and too straight walled to function in all the various rifles and machineguns. It's also limited to just about one specific bullet weight and we know how our military likes their various types of ammuniations such as armor piercing, tracer, etc.. It's also a bit much for the AR15/M16 bolt head. They've masked that by changing bolt steel, but that's not enough to suffice to the amount of ammo a military would shoot and the rigors it puts it's firearms and ammo through.

[TNsailorman]

The problem with weapon procurement among all the services right now is the "all purpose weapon" that can do 3 or more jobs. That usually means it can do more job fairly well but has major compromises on others. A glaring example is the Navy's "latorial combat ship" which is supposed to be part cruiser, part destroyer, and part assault ship for landing marines. It does none of these roles very well and would be highly vulnerable in close inshore combat roles. So far the best thing it has done is break down and have to be repaired or towed somewhere for repair. The bean counters have been in control of our weapons systems for far too long. It is high time we started listening to the guy who "have been there and done that". my rant anyway, james

[vzerone]

The problem with weapon procurement among all the services right now is the "all purpose weapon" that can do 3 or more jobs. That usually means it can do more job fairly well but has major compromises on others. A glaring example is the Navy's "latorial combat ship" which is supposed to be part cruiser, part destroyer, and part assault ship for landing marines. It does none of these roles very well and would be highly vulnerable in close inshore combat roles. So far the best thing it has done is break down and have to be repaired or towed somewhere for repair. The bean counters have been in control of our weapons systems for far too long. It is high time we started listening to the guy who "have been there and done that". my rant anyway, james

Even way back James same thing with the Messerchmitt 262 jet. Messerchmitt designed it originally as a fighter and that maniac Hitler wanted a dual role fighter/bomber.

[RoyEllis]

....Once and for all, the 6.5 Grendel is not and would not be a good cartridge for the military because it's stoo stubby and too straight walled to function in all the various rifles and machineguns. It's also limited to just about one specific bullet weight and we know how our military likes their various types of ammuniations such as armor piercing, tracer, etc.. It's also a bit much for the AR15/M16 bolt head. They've masked that by changing bolt steel, but that's not enough to suffice to the amount of ammo a military would shoot and the rigors it puts it's firearms and ammo through.

Hmmm, 6.5 grendel is basically a 7.62x39 necked down, funny how "militarily popular" that round has proven its short stubby self to be. Works quite well in SKS, AK, RPD and RPK platforms.