Next Generation Squad Weapon and optic exceed paratrooper expectations

[Adam Helmer]

How exciting. They have managed to do what Burris has been doing for the last 10 years or so with their Eliminator scope.

That new round is going to be incredibly expensive to manufacture compared to 5.56 ammo. All in all a big win for the military industrial complex! And with the future of warfare clearly being inexpensive drone swarms, it may be all for nothing anyway.

Nobade,

You have a clear head for figuring.... The wave of the future is hundreds of drones, some armed and some dummies, to draw Iron Dome response missiles. Just like before WWII, some nations were still building battleships when the aircraft carrier was clearly the wave of the future. A "new" infantry rifle in 2024 is akin to an "improved cavalry saddle" in WWII. Yes, a NEW saddle, but still strapped to a horse.

When I went into the service in 1962, less than half of the troops in my barracks ever fired a gun before. I suspect the number of recruits who ever fired a gun is less today. I see no need for the expense and quartermaster confusion for a NEW caliber. Most soldiers cannot shoot well, thus the Matel 16 "spray and pray" worked in the 1960s. It will continue on today considering marksmanship is marginal despite expensive optics, etc. A new caliber will not matter much in the next war in my opinion.

Italy in 1938 tried to change rifle calibers from 6.5MM to 7.35MM and finally gave up and went back to the 6.5.

Be well.

Adam

[elmacgyver0]

Adam, I think you're right about the .308 being legal in my state, thinking back there are a couple counties in the lower portion of the state that allow it. Since I don't live down there, I tend to forget about it, I tend not to get too far from home.
The majority of IA is limited to straight wall cases, I have a .45-70 lever gun to do my deer hunting. Now they have the 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster if you want to use one of those Mattel rifles, you're so fond of. (Just kidding, I know you hate them, and probably for good reason)

[Adam Helmer]

elm.

Thanks for your kind reply. No, I do not hate the Mattel, I just prefer to risk my life with better guns. I got my first civilian purchase M1 Garand in 1964 while home on leave. I liked the M14 better and in 1965, got the Mattel issued. I could not believe the HYPE the military spewed on us at Commander's Call videos about this New "wonder weapon." Are you aware they are issuing M14s now for the desert terrain? If so, why if the Mattel is so great?

The Mattel puts out a 55 grain projectile while the Garand and M14 put out a 150 grain bullet. How ever could Less be More? I passed high school physics and 1330 muzzle energy versus about 2,500 ft. lbs. is plain to this old farmer! LOL.

Be well.

Adam

[M-Tecs]

"NEW CALIBER" round using a new Cartridge that is predominantly Plastic that is lab and garrison tested, but not really field tested yet (Research the fiasco's around the Fielding af the M-16, then the M-16A1, and ultimately most problems corrected with the M16-A2). Couple this with introducing a new Round that is NOT NATO STANDARD; which will play heck with logistics in the European, African, and Asian Theaters. There is an old but true military saying - amateurs talk tactics, but professionals talk Logistics.

No plastic in the 6.8x51 case. That is a different company that was not selected. The hybrid stainless head and brass body is not a new design nor is it untested.

https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/...ig-fury.13063/

[RickinTN]

So, to this old country boy it is a 270-08 loaded to higher pressures? Hmmmm. I don't see what's wrong with the 308 itself. What is the bullet weight on the new round?
Thanks,
Rick

[RyanJames170]

Personally they should have improved the old 308 round, they could have done something like a slight up pressure of it with propellant made to get the best velocity out of a lighter bullet. Thus allowing old stocks of ammo to be used in a all out war, and kept the 5.56 guns as a reserve weapon, because it will take them 10 years to build up a supply of the new 6.8 round to fight any kind of war with it.. as far as its ability to punch threw body armor, well it’s about as good as M855A1 with out tungsten.. they gained nothing with this.,

[Nobade]

I am sure lobbying had a lot more to do with this decision than performance or practicality. When you are the only one making the guns and the ammo, you have an interest in it being adopted.

I'm just wondering how long a self loading rifle running at 80K PSI is going to last. I guess we'll get to see.

[john.k]

As Ive read ,it will be impossible to 'hose' bullets with the new guns...........if you dont have an acquired target ,the gun wont fire at all.........the gun fires when the optics see the set probability of a hit ..........if the probability of a hit is 90% or better ,the gun fires .........could take a bit of getting used to..........but conservation of ammunition is very good with all the guns in a squad communicating with each other .

[M-Tecs]

I am sure lobbying had a lot more to do with this decision than performance or practicality. When you are the only one making the guns and the ammo, you have an interest in it being adopted.

I'm just wondering how long a self loading rifle running at 80K PSI is going to last. I guess we'll get to see.

The contract specifies a minimum usable barrel life. I did the research as to what that was but that was on one of the threads that disappeared.

Sig is claiming with the steel and treatments they using they are getting around 14,000 rounds.

[Finster101]

As Ive read ,it will be impossible to 'hose' bullets with the new guns...........if you dont have an acquired target ,the gun wont fire at all.........the gun fires when the optics see the set probability of a hit ..........if the probability of a hit is 90% or better ,the gun fires .........could take a bit of getting used to..........but conservation of ammunition is very good with all the guns in a squad communicating with each other .

Watch the video John. The Vortex rep says there is no trigger block with the sighting system whatsoever. So no, you do not need an acquired target for it to fire per that statement.

[MUSTANG]

The contract specifies a minimum usable barrel life. I did the research as to what that was but that was on one of the threads that disappeared.

Sig is claiming with the steel and treatments they using they are getting around 14,000 rounds.

Depends on what the definition of "Useable Barrel Life" is. A 30'ish caliber machine gun generates a LOT of heat on full auto. What is the barrel exchange ratio? (Historically over the last 70 or so years; Machine guns have multiple barrels and they are exchanged one for another as they get to hot). Machine guns are used with a "Cone of Fire" and "Beaten Zone" being defined for where the rounds land. As the barrel wears, these get larger in spread. The statement is open ended without a definition of the acceptable Cone fo Fire and Beaten Zone (at a specific range).

[Texas by God]

That’s a lot of money for .270 Winchester ballistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bmi48219]

I have been an observer and outspoken about wasteful military spending for many decades; but there is also "More To It" than the simple statement of the cost working out to $10,800.00 each….

I understand the cost that go into developing a new product and can only hope you’re correct about this one. From a historical perspective the per-unit-price of anything Defense related is always higher than projected, and seldom decreases after the product is put into service.
The targeting system under discussion is a 2.7 billion dollar technical marvel. How many multi-billion dollar weapon systems came in under budget and / or managed to hold unit procurement costs anywhere near estimates?
Certainly not the F-22, F-35, M1 Abrams, Bradley IFV, Los Angles subs, etc, etc.
I’ll be amazed in five years if this the unit cost of this sight is less than $10.000 each.

[JimB..]

I don’t think they care about cost at all, they are concerned about optimizing the effectiveness of the small number of soldiers they plan to field in future engagements. Plus, the optics software probably dovetails well with development of robotic soldiers, or land-based drones if you prefer.

[Adam Helmer]

That’s a lot of money for .270 Winchester ballistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas,

Thanks for writing what I thought! Yes, the military is prepared to upgrade to .270 ballistics. Why? The .223 served well enough for over half a century. This reminds me of a historical event, let us review:

In 1913 the British were planning to scrap the old .303 cartridge for a new, smaller caliber about .270, or there abouts. WWI began in August 1914 and the Brits retained the circa 1888 .303 British round "for the duration." In 1932, they upgraded the .303 MkIII to the .303 No.4, Mk1 for the duration of WWII. The old .303 soldiered on for 45 years after the 1913 decision to look for a new round.

My point: If it ain't broke, why fix it for merely many Billions of dollars? Moreover, most GIs can't shoot and rarely need a more effective round, when the issue caliber is more than they need.

Be well.

Adam