Next Generation Squad Weapon and optic exceed paratrooper expectations

[M-Tecs]

Next Generation Squad Weapon and optic exceed paratrooper expectations
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/next-generation-squad-weapon-and-optic-exceed-paratrooper-expectations/ar-BB1lO59i?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W022&cvid=d0bd03724f984517d4d71f37a5b8882c&ei=22

The first soldiers to field the Army's newest rifle and automatic rifle began live-fire training with the weapons this week, including demonstrations on how the new round can penetrate barriers to strike targets.

Soldiers with the 1st Brigade, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division received a batch of XM7 rifles and XM250 automatic rifles and their XM157 fire controls in late March.

The XM7 is the Army's replacement for the M4 while the XM250 will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Both new weapons are chambered in 6.8mm, a larger and more powerful round than the legacy 5.56mm round used in the M4 and M249.

The soldiers conducted classroom training last week and began firing the weapons in demonstrations on Monday, Col. Trevor Voelkel, 1st Brigade commander, told Army Times in a phone interview.
Voelkel said he was impressed with the demonstration that showed the 6.8mm round piercing concrete blocks to strike paper targets on steel backdrops behind the barriers.

101st Airborne first Army unit to field Next Generation Squad Weapons

"Seeing the effects on the targets we had makes up for any concerns I had initially about the increased weight," the colonel said.

Unloaded, the XM7 weighs 8.4 pounds, which is 3 pounds heavier than the M4. The XM250 weighs roughly 13 pounds unloaded, which is 2.7 pounds lighter than the M249.

The 6.8mm round delivers energy on target that outperforms the 7.62mm round, with a flatter trajectory and a lethal range of at least 600m, more than twice that of 5.56mm rounds, Army officials said.

Staff Sgt. Garrett Steele, a weapons squad leader, and Sgt. Marcus Colston, bravo team leader, told Army Times that before they fired the weapon they were worried that the new round would add recoil, which might make it hard to get back on target.

"The recoil, honestly, was very negligible even with the larger round," Colston said. "The weight of the weapon was pretty negligible."

Steele agreed and said the XM7 was very accurate, both with iron sights and the new fire control. The weapons team leader said the group of soldiers with 1st Brigade that he trained with were able to zero their weapons and get tight groupings after shooting 10 rounds or fewer.

"There wasn't anybody who had any issues getting groupings or zeroing quickly," Steele said.

The XM157 has a host of features not available in the standard rifle optics such as the Close Combat Optic and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight that have been used by soldiers for years.

The new fire control has a built-in infrared aiming laser, bullet drop compensator and ballistics calculator that can receive data for any weapons system in the Army's inventory and add new data for future weapons.

The fire control will adjust the aiming point for the shooter based on distance and the ballistics of the round. It allows shooters to use eight times magnification to zoom in on a target, compared to the four times magnification on current standard optics.

Both sergeants said the optic was easy and quick to use. And the features were all applicable.

"There's no fluff on the optic," Colston said. "Everything that we can do with that, in my experience, the things we do as infantrymen, every single one of those features is going to be useful at a certain time."

Voelkel echoed his soldiers' comments on the fire control, comparing it to the current optics.

"It's kind of like going from my Nokia flip phone to an iPhone," he said.

The rangefinder and IR laser will allow soldiers to mark target reference points and laser targets for call for fire in the field with no additional equipment, the colonel said.

"I think that's going to open up a whole new world of capabilities," Voelkel said.

The brigade will receive 1,500 XM7s and 200 XM150s, all with their own optics, according to Program Executive Office-Soldier. The brigade is expected to be fully fielded with the new weapons by September.

The brigade is scheduled for their pre-deployment Joint Readiness Training Center rotation in March 2025, Voelkel said. The unit has a large-scale field training exercise scheduled for this fall with the entire 101st Airborne Division.

Those events will help the unit see the performance of a brigade fully equipped with the new small arms and optics in both live fires and simulated, force-on-force training, the colonel said.

During force-on-force exercises, soldiers armed with the weapons will have greater ranges and the ability to penetrate barriers when in a close fight. The laser shooting systems used for force-on-force can be adjusted to accommodate the 6.8mm ballistics so commanders can get a sample of its performance.

"It's going to allow us to engage the enemy earlier than we would have," Garrett said. "If we see an enemy far out, we can get better eyes on with the optic."

In 2017, the 101st Airborne Division was also the first unit to field the replacement for the legacy M9 handgun with the Modular Handgun System, which includes the M17 and M18 handguns.

Following that fielding with the next generation weapons gives the division a chance to give the Army feedback on a weapon that many soldiers may carry for decades to come.

"I think there's a lot of pride and a feeling of weighty responsibility," Voelkel said.

The $4.7 billion rifle and automatic rifle weapons contract with firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer and the $2.7 billion contract with Sheltered Wings, a subsidiary of Vortex Optics, for the XM157, are the most significant changes to Army individual weapons since the M16 was fielded in the 1960s.

The XM7 is a piston-driven, modular, select-fire, magazine-fed, suppressed rifle.

The XM250 is a belt-fed, air-cooled, lightweight, gas-operated, select-fire, suppressed light machine gun that fires from the open-bolt position.

The Army plans to field the new weapons to close combat forces such as infantry, special operations, scouts, combat engineers, forward observers and combat medics by fiscal year 2033.

The legacy M4 and M249 will see continued use for decades to come for the rest of the Army.

[Bigslug]

On the one hand, as obvious as it's been that Sig has someone performing "oral arguments" for key members of Pentagon staff, this seems potentially as honest as "troops taking part in the trial unanimously preferred the trapdoor to the rolling block".

On the other hand, if you're gonna do something like this, doing it when the war experiences are still fresh is good practice.

On the third hand (?) with as much work as drones are doing in Ukraine, one has to start pondering how much employment an enhanced infantry rifle will have going forward, and how much money should be sunk into one. Bets seem to be hedged by the stating of "the 5.56 platforms will be around for a long time", which will at least allow the new system to show its weaknesses. The AK doesn't seem to be going anywhere either. Both are here, both work, and both have an over 60 year established logistical train to displace. Until they come up with something as profound as smokeless displacing black powder, good luck with that.

Fourth hand(??): Interesting that we spent WWI and WWII discovering that 2,000 yard sights and stable 2,000 yard trajectories weren't being used and that combat was predominantly a 400 yard and less game. . . and now we're back to a heavy battle rifle with a full power cartridge that interchanges into the squad M.G. I hope they bring back water cooling while they're at it.

[RickinTN]

The 6.8mm round delivers energy on target that outperforms the 7.62mm round,

I have not studied the 6.8 SPC round but I don't think this is the case. Is there someone here better versed than I on this subject? Please chime in.
Take care,
Rick

[JimB..]

40% heavier and heavier ammo, but it sounds fun!
Where can I buy one?

[Finster101]

40% heavier and heavier ammo, but it sounds fun!
Where can I buy one?

Better be prepared to write a BIG check. I can't imagine the price of the optic alone.

[Nobade]

The 6.8mm round delivers energy on target that outperforms the 7.62mm round,

I have not studied the 6.8 SPC round but I don't think this is the case. Is there someone here better versed than I on this subject? Please chime in.
Take care,
Rick

Are they using the SPC or the new SIG Fury? The SPC isn't even close to a 7.62x51.

[Adam Helmer]

More hype, in my opinion. In 1965, they issued us the Matel 16 (aka M16), and the hype was, to wit: "The bullet goes so fast, no sight change is needed; the powder burns so clean, cleaning is not needed, the bullet explodes on impact and is more powerful than the rounds from the M14."

At our classroom range orientation before firing the Matel, I asked the Tech Sergeant instructor the weight of the tiny projectile? He said, "That is classified." I asked about the muzzle velocity and same answer. Whatever. I told him the tiny 5.56mm looked like my .222 chuck gun back home in PA. He did not comment. The rest is history! They are reissuing the M14 for effective range hits in the desert terrain. I do not own a .223/5.56 Matel.

Be well.

Adam

[elmacgyver0]

More hype, in my opinion. In 1965, they issued us the Matel 16 (aka M16), and the hype was, to wit: "The bullet goes so fast, no sight change is needed; the powder burns so clean, cleaning is not needed, the bullet explodes on impact and is more powerful than the rounds from the M14."

At our classroom range orientation before firing the Matel, I asked the Tech Sergeant instructor the weight of the tiny projectile? He said, "That is classified." I asked about the muzzle velocity and same answer. Whatever. I told him the tiny 5.56mm looked like my .222 chuck gun back home in PA. He did not comment. The rest is history! They are reissuing the M14 for effective range hits in the desert terrain. I do not own a .223/5.56 Matel.

Be well.

Adam

Why not? They are a lot of fun for plinking and varmints.

[Adam Helmer]

Why not? They are a lot of fun for plinking and varmints.

elm,
Plinking is a fun way to spend a summer afternoon, but in the real world, some of us prefer a REAL gun! I think many folks in love with the 5.56MM do not realize it is NOT legal for big game in many states. I had three wonderful issued M-14s in the past. I refuse to consider a plastic Matel toy being thought to be anything more than a kid's plinking arm!

Be well.

Adam

[M-Tecs]

The 6.8mm round delivers energy on target that outperforms the 7.62mm round,

I have not studied the 6.8 SPC round but I don't think this is the case. Is there someone here better versed than I on this subject? Please chime in.
Take care,
Rick

It's not the 6.8 SPC. The new round is the 6.8x51 loaded to 80K PSI on a two-piece case. Civilian name is the .277 Fury. It's a hybrid two-piece 308 case necked downloaded to higher pressures.

[elmacgyver0]

elm,
Plinking is a fun way to spend a summer afternoon, but in the real world, some of us prefer a REAL gun! I think many folks in love with the 5.56MM do not realize it is NOT legal for big game in many states. I had three wonderful issued M-14s in the past. I refuse to consider a plastic Matel toy being thought to be anything more than a kid's plinking arm!

Be well.

Adam

Not everything is hunting big game. I have AR15s that I have never shot, I just enjoy milling out the receivers and putting them together, and even the .308 version AR I built is not legal to hunt big game in my state. I have a few REAL guns, but I also enjoy .22 LR and PCP pellet guns. One of my favorites is my M1 Garand, I would hope that qualifies for a REAL gun.
There are not many guns that I don't like. I guess you could classify me as a "Gun Nut."
I do understand your dislike for the M16, I was never in the service, but if I were I might feel the same way about them.
If my life were to depend upon it, I would rather have something chambered in a more potent round then a varmint rifle.
I really don't consider any firearm a kid's toy, even my .25 caliber PCP will punch a hole in a 1-inch board.

[Bmi48219]

The below quote from the text is really an eye-opener:

“The new fire control has a built-in infrared aiming laser, bullet drop compensator and ballistics calculator that can receive data for any weapons system in the Army's inventory and add new data for future weapons.”
“The fire control will adjust the aiming point for the shooter based on distance and the ballistics of the round. It allows shooters to use eight times magnification to zoom in on a target, compared to the four times magnification on current standard optics.”

So not only with the fire control system take the variables out of ‘distance to target’ shots, it can send and receive data from other systems for target acquisition and supporting fire. That’s pretty advanced.
No wonder it costs so much.

[elmacgyver0]

Today's technology is mind boggling; I just viewed a couple videos on humanoid robots, one can carry on a conversation with a person like it was a real person, others can run, jump, do flips and other feats beyond most humans. It certainly is a brave new world.
Some of these robots (humanoid) are already on the market starting at 250 thousand dollars.
My question is once robots completely take over the work force, who will be able to buy the products they make?

[M-Tecs]

The below quote from the text is really an eye-opener:

“The new fire control has a built-in infrared aiming laser, bullet drop compensator and ballistics calculator that can receive data for any weapons system in the Army's inventory and add new data for future weapons.”
“The fire control will adjust the aiming point for the shooter based on distance and the ballistics of the round. It allows shooters to use eight times magnification to zoom in on a target, compared to the four times magnification on current standard optics.”

So not only with the fire control system take the variables out of ‘distance to target’ shots, it can send and receive data from other systems for target acquisition and supporting fire. That’s pretty advanced.
No wonder it costs so much.


Vortex Optics XM157 Overview: The Next Generation Squad Weapon-Fire Control (NGSW-FC)
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/vortex-optics-xm157-overview-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-fire-control-nsgw-fc-2/

[Adam Helmer]

Not everything is hunting big game. I have AR15s that I have never shot, I just enjoy milling out the receivers and putting them together, and even the .308 version AR I built is not legal to hunt big game in my state. I have a few REAL guns, but I also enjoy .22 LR and PCP pellet guns. One of my favorites is my M1 Garand, I would hope that qualifies for a REAL gun.
There are not many guns that I don't like. I guess you could classify me as a "Gun Nut."
I do understand your dislike for the M16, I was never in the service, but if I were I might feel the same way about them.
If my life were to depend upon it, I would rather have something chambered in a more potent round then a varmint rifle.
I really don't consider any firearm a kid's toy, even my .25 caliber PCP will punch a hole in a 1-inch board.

ely,

Thanks for the reply. No, not everything is a big game gun, BUT, why send a "Boy" to do a man's job? The M14 was a far better gun back then and now. A Matel is a better gun for folks that don't know better. LOL.

A .308 IS LEGAL for Big Game in your state. A .223 is NOT! The calibers are the determining factor and a chuck round (.223/5.56mm) was anemic from the get go. Even if the ballistics in 1965 were "classified." A few rolls of caps should have been included with the Matel 16.

Yes, I have several Garands and used a favorite to shoot my way onto my state high power rifle team twice to go to Camp Perry. The .30-06 is a real round like the .308.

Be well.

Adam

[Nobade]

The below quote from the text is really an eye-opener:

“The new fire control has a built-in infrared aiming laser, bullet drop compensator and ballistics calculator that can receive data for any weapons system in the Army's inventory and add new data for future weapons.”
“The fire control will adjust the aiming point for the shooter based on distance and the ballistics of the round. It allows shooters to use eight times magnification to zoom in on a target, compared to the four times magnification on current standard optics.”

So not only with the fire control system take the variables out of ‘distance to target’ shots, it can send and receive data from other systems for target acquisition and supporting fire. That’s pretty advanced.
No wonder it costs so much.

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.

[perotter]

ely,

Thanks for the reply. No, not everything is a big game gun, BUT, why send a "Boy" to do a man's job? The M14 was a far better gun back then and now. A Matel is a better gun for folks that don't know better. LOL.

A .308 IS LEGAL for Big Game in your state. A .223 is NOT! The calibers are the determining factor and a chuck round (.223/5.56mm) was anemic from the get go. Even if the ballistics in 1965 were "classified." A few rolls of caps should have been included with the Matel 16.

Yes, I have several Garands and used a favorite to shoot my way onto my state high power rifle team twice to go to Camp Perry. The .30-06 is a real round like the .308.

Be well.

Adam

Yup. The M1 is a good plinker for punching holes in paper at the target range. But that has little to nothing to do with military weapons.

[perotter]

Sounds like the real 'power' in the rifle is in the sighting system. I'd bet it would be cheaper to just buy that for the current rifles.

[Bmi48219]

Sounds like the real 'power' in the rifle is in the sighting system. I'd bet it would be cheaper to just buy that for the current rifles.

Good point, of course the military will cry that the system will be wasted if paired to the 5.56 cartridge. Congress will agree and add another 10% to the Vortex contract, like they do with all military budgets.

The initial contract to Vortex is $2.7 BILLION for 250,000 units. That works out to $10,800.00 EACH, for the sighting system alone. I wonder how much each new XM-7 rifle costs.

[MUSTANG]

Good point, of course the military will cry that the system will be wasted if paired to the 5.56 cartridge. Congress will agree and add another 10% to the Vortex contract, like they do with all military budgets.

The initial contract to Vortex is $2.7 BILLION for 250,000 units. That works out to $10,800.00 EACH, for the sighting system alone. I wonder how much each new XM-7 rifle costs.

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. The budgetary cost includes development, testing, modifications, small quantity delivery across the USofA/World, spare parts, training for warehouse persons and Armorers, and..... This and several other issues makes the extrapolation per unit flawed, which is why often one will see reduced costs on future production lots.

My biggest concern is the added impact of ordering, Storage, Transportation, delivery to localized storage, delivery to the correct service member on the ground with the new weapons systems (these are all Logistics related); particularly a "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.

[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/threads/cartridge-of-the-week-the-277-sig-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

[fixit]

80,000 PSI? While the design of the cartridge is intended to offset pressure incursions, I would be worried that when the inevitable happens, the result will spectacular! There is a reason that commercial cartridges tend to hold at under 65000 PSI. Having said that, I don't know the specifics of typical interior ballistics of military ammo, so this could be common place for all I know!

[anothernewb]

So... kind of like when the military spent hundreds of millions on a new more accurate firearm only to discover mounting an optic to an existing firearm increased it's accuracy. After spending millions once again, They rediscovered that a larger bullet has more force. Brilliant!

[Larry Gibson]

"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."

There hasn't been any "old stocks" of 5.56 or 7.62 in our military inventory for many years. Thus, the time to "build up a new supply" is a moot point as it applies to old as well as new types of ammunition.

[archeryrob]

I think obviously we are not privy to any of the testing data, but 277 fury packs more velocity and ft lbs than 308 does. I'll assume a penetrator, steel core round would go farther with the extra ft lbs and smaller diameter of the same weight in 150 grains.

326386

But Compared the the 556 its not even close for pentation in Ft lbs.
326387

[archeryrob]

Big Slug brought up about Drones also. Infantry has always been a main stay. Drones are making tank obsolete possibly, or needed redesigned to only top attack. Then they will be weak to infantry attack.

Artillery has been the bane of infantry and a cheap drone with a big frag of steel balls could be found to be more accurate and cheaper since it only takes one drone and one man and one shot to drop an entire squad of men. Or driving a small air fuel bomb right to where a platoon is.

[ttd444]

what is needed is to defeat body armor out to 600 meters. a 5.56 cannot do that, but a 6.8x51 can. most other armies will give the soldiers class 4 body armor, which stops a 5.56 round. China know this and they don't have round or a rifle that will penetrate body armor. we do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTAfS1addXU&t=8s&ab_channel=GarandThumb


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf3ZlUkOCg&t=1243s&ab_channel=GarandThumb


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBw9iLa1vJA&ab_channel=GarandThumb

[ttd444]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Y4JLUCrFw&t=342s&ab_channel=GarandThumb


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5YWXrZdNpA&ab_channel=GarandThumb

[Adam Helmer]

So... kind of like when the military spent hundreds of millions on a new more accurate firearm only to discover mounting an optic to an existing firearm increased it's accuracy. After spending millions once again, They rediscovered that a larger bullet has more force. Brilliant!
another,
The Military "Intelligence" has always been geared up to fight the LAST War. Most soldiers today could not hit their foot. The .303 British Round soldiered on for 45 Years after 1913 because it was good enough for the Tommy.

What is the Need (?) for any new caliber in the 21st Century when most soldiers have never fired a gun until they entered service. Eight or 10 weeks of "training" will not make a rifleman.

In the next war drones will sweep the field and the military-industrial complex expensive arms will not make much difference. Amen.

Adam

[M-Tecs]

I fail to understand how gearing up to deal with the newly emerging proliferation of body armor is fighting the LAST war???????????

Boots on the ground will be needed for the foreseeable future.

Russian jamming leaves some high-tech U.S. weapons ineffective in Ukraine
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-jamming-leaves-some-high-tech-u-s-weapons-ineffective-in-ukraine/ar-BB1mZxg5?ocid=socialshare&pc=W022&cvid=cbc218eeac424387b20600e17ecacf1f&ei=15&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2UQ4tnXHpLnvff3JhKgUAzv MLQUGZvNKeVvGGpGgTv1Jgb9icw6WXZCWU_aem_AUnfp31nYXz ORA3wbpYQBnUKyAcAkZZWCo0I5nloEqxbuNwSOgcxR5REYAn6D K7RYU3SIWDajLY0FEl2Dd6yKbwp

[HumptyDumpty]

My problems with 277 Fury, are that it really doesn't save much weight or size vs 308, and it requires insane pressure to defeat level IV. I'd prefer something closer to a modernized 280 British, with the latest-and-greatest in AP projectiles. Level IV, particularly ceramic, becomes compromised with repeated hits. I've done some testing with B32 APIs, as well as tungsten-core 308. Even from an 18 inch barrel, each round ruined a large section of the plate, and ceramic shrapnel went flying. Anybody who has to endure more than a single hit from a reasonably potent cartridge, is in serious danger. So, shoot until the threat is eliminated.

[M-Tecs]

The .270 Winchester was developed by Winchester in 1923, and it was released in in 1925. It is a 65K cartridge. The 6.8x51 is 80K. Technology and metallurgy have came a long way in the last 100 years. A 23% increase in max pressure over the last 100 years is hardly an insane pressure increase IMHO.

In 1924 I am not sure what the highest-pressure revolver cartridge was but 23K is the highest I am aware of, yet today we have 65K revolver cartridges??

[HumptyDumpty]

The .270 Winchester was developed by Winchester in 1923, and it was released in in 1925. It is a 65K cartridge. The 6.8x51 is 80K. Technology and metallurgy have came a long way in the last 100 years. A 23% increase in max pressure over the last 100 years is hardly an insane pressure increase IMHO.

In 1924 I am not sure what the highest-pressure revolver cartridge was but 23K is the highest I am aware of, yet today we have 65K revolver cartridges??

So what happens when you get a little bit of bullet set-back, crap in your barrel, or a production lot with a slight overcharge? How about hot environments and varying atmospheric conditions? We're talking about mass production and use in combat; things happen. Spiking from 80k to 100k+ is not at all implausible. I also don't believe for one second, that those rifles aren't going to suffer significantly accelerated erosion of their chambers and bores. And, after all that, how confident are we that first-shot penetration will be achieved, beyond bad-breath distances? Armor has a habit of improving, shot angles and distances vary, etc.

[ttd444]

in the case of armor vs weapon, weapon always wins. it might take them several years to defeat armor, but the weapon always wins.

its 10,000 rounds spent until you change the barrel on the M4 and M7 (Spear). in the Army, training rounds (most likely 113gr FMJ) are around 65,000psi. in war, the armor penetrator rounds are 80,000psi.


i used to be in Army and i trained on M16A2. the 5.56 was a good cartridge, but in this day and age, the 5.56 is like taking a squirt gun to battle well armored troops. the 5.56 has what, 50 or 60 year run and it is not like the government to hurry up and throw the 5.56 away. it will take 10 or 15 years to make the 5.56 obsolete in the Army. Marines, Air Force and Navy are next. add to the fact, the 6.8x51 is for front line troops only. support troops are still sticking with the 5.56.

[armoredman]

elm,
Plinking is a fun way to spend a summer afternoon, but in the real world, some of us prefer a REAL gun! I think many folks in love with the 5.56MM do not realize it is NOT legal for big game in many states. I had three wonderful issued M-14s in the past. I refuse to consider a plastic Matel toy being thought to be anything more than a kid's plinking arm!

Be well.

Adam

Interesting. Any centerfire rifle is legal for big game in AZ. I can ever take big game with a black powder pistol, if I am truly insane. BTW, we also don't have magazine limits, so I can hunt with my AR with a full 30 round mag, if I choose. I don't, but it's an option.
I had an M-14 in the Navy, but only because the 7.62x51 round was better at throwing a line. I can also attest that the only person I saw who could control an M-14 on full auto was a sailor who was an ex professional wrestler in Mexico, as wide as he was tall. That was probably why almost all of our M-14s were semi auto only, save for three select fire examples.
You may consider the M4/M16 rifles to be kids plinkers, but professional armies have been using the rifle/round to good effect all over the world. How many army's in todays world still use 7.62x51 NATO as a standard arm? Not trying to be a jerk, genuinely curious. I think some Third World armies still use the FN FAL. or the G3.
I mean to point out that what you think is not what the worlds armies think, and some of them have a few years of combat experience.
Normally I would say go ahead, replace the round, because we could see a TON of cheap surplus on the market, realistically I would expect any ammo not allocated to reserve status would be donated to allies or Ukraine.

[Larry Gibson]

armoredman

I've seen lots of Soldiers who could effectively fire the M14s and M14E1/A1s on full auto quite well including myself. But then I wasn't a wrestler but was a well trained Soldier and I only weighed 150 back then. It's a matter of training and I doubt Sailers aren't that well trained on weapons (SEAL being the exception.....sometimes....). Having actually used both cartridges, among several others, in combat I can say from experience I never had to shoot more than once with 7.62 NATO to get the job done vs 2 -3 rounds sometimes with the 5.56. Also, what is "cover" to 5.56 is most often only "concealment" to 7.62 which is/was an often overlooked factor in combat.

BTW; many M14s were put back into service in the last 20 year war because the 5.56 lacked the range and effectiveness in many situations. Also, all of our GP machineguns are chambered in 7.62 NATO along with most of our NATO allies. Additionally, the majority of our sniper rifles and many of our squad level marksman rifles are also chambered in 7.62 NATO.

As an old infantryman and SF weapons NCO, we used to have a saying plagiarizing the old American Express credit card commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card and VISA, accepted worldwide....never leave home without it....."

[M-Tecs]

I've never been properly trained on M-14 FA. I have fired them a few times FA. Even untrained short burst was surprisingly controllable for me for aimed fire. With a full mag dump not so much compared to an M-60, M-16 or a Thompson.

While the 6.8 SPC and the 6.8x51 are much different cartridges the history of the development of the 6.8 SPC is a testament to the 5.56 effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in combat. The 6.8 was developed by a couple of people at the AMU mostly with their own money and time to improve the performance of the M-16 platform. Not sure that has ever happened that way before.

[Larry Gibson]

M-Tecs

None of those weapons [M60 with one exception] were ever intended for a "full mag dump". That's pure Hollywood..... They all were intended, when on FA, to be fired with 2-3 round bursts. The M60 with 6-10 round bursts and a "belt dump" only when the FLPF [Final Line of Protective Fire] is fired. Even with that said, the M14A1 is quite controllable with a full mag dump because of its stock design and weight. That is especially true from the prone position although even so from a standing "assault" position. Again, simply a matter of correct training.

With that said let me say a "mag dump" is not a very wise thing to do, especially in a tactical situation. While you're dumping 20-30 rounds at one or two miscreants other miscreants may be zeroing in on you. Two to three rounds then move on to the next target and maintain situational awareness and not having an empty weapon. However, with 7.62 NATO more than one round isn't necessary per single miscreant. Thus, no need for a "mag dump".

BTW; I'm not criticizing the new weapon or cartridge and it's selection at all as I see and understand the need for it.

[Adam Helmer]

Larry,

Well said! You said what I thought better than I could and I hate to type. LOL. You should be writing a regular column in a gun magazine. I read all your stuff.
Be well.
Adam

[armoredman]

armoredman

I've seen lots of Soldiers who could effectively fire the M14s and M14E1/A1s on full auto quite well including myself. But then I wasn't a wrestler but was a well trained Soldier and I only weighed 150 back then. It's a matter of training and I doubt Sailers aren't that well trained on weapons (SEAL being the exception.....sometimes....). Having actually used both cartridges, among several others, in combat I can say from experience I never had to shoot more than once with 7.62 NATO to get the job done vs 2 -3 rounds sometimes with the 5.56. Also, what is "cover" to 5.56 is most often only "concealment" to 7.62 which is/was an often overlooked factor in combat.

BTW; many M14s were put back into service in the last 20 year war because the 5.56 lacked the range and effectiveness in many situations. Also, all of our GP machineguns are chambered in 7.62 NATO along with most of our NATO allies. Additionally, the majority of our sniper rifles and many of our squad level marksman rifles are also chambered in 7.62 NATO.

As an old infantryman and SF weapons NCO, we used to have a saying plagiarizing the old American Express credit card commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card and VISA, accepted worldwide....never leave home without it....."

You might be wrong, too. However, we'll let it go for now, enjoy your day.

[deces]

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.

It's going to work out about as well as the military's boondoggled lol rail gun.

[M-Tecs]

M-Tecs

None of those weapons [M60 with one exception] were ever intended for a "full mag dump". That's pure Hollywood..... They all were intended, when on FA, to be fired with 2-3 round bursts. The M60 with 6-10 round bursts and a "belt dump" only when the FLPF [Final Line of Protective Fire] is fired. Even with that said, the M14A1 is quite controllable with a full mag dump because of its stock design and weight. That is especially true from the prone position although even so from a standing "assault" position. Again, simply a matter of correct training.

With that said let me say a "mag dump" is not a very wise thing to do, especially in a tactical situation. While you're dumping 20-30 rounds at one or two miscreants other miscreants may be zeroing in on you. Two to three rounds then move on to the next target and maintain situational awareness and not having an empty weapon. However, with 7.62 NATO more than one round isn't necessary per single miscreant. Thus, no need for a "mag dump".

BTW; I'm not criticizing the new weapon or cartridge and it's selection at all as I see and understand the need for it.

Agreed. Like most, I have never been the pointy end of the spear, so my FA experience was solely for fun with the exception of the M-60. I did train minimally on the M-60 in prep of competition at the Winston P. Wilson Championship competition.

My dad was in the Navy in WII but had never fired FA. I arranged for him to shoot FA with the M-60 and M-16. He was 78 at the time. He didn't think he would enjoy FA since it was a waste of ammo. Afterwards he said that was the most fun he had with his clothes on.

One other time I had two M-16's for the Marksmanship team that needed new barrels. I let my friends and fellow High Power competitors that I would have 2 M-16's available for FA at the end of the match on Sat. I also let anyone else that had ammo shoot them. We fired around 3,000 rounds in a very short time period. Almost all were full mag dumps. Fun was had by all.

On a serious note, it's very impressive what a good M-60 team can do at 600 yards. I knew they could be deadly but I had no idea how deadly they couple be. I can't image assaulting a Germany pill box without armor support, yet friends of my dad did that many times.

[davidheart]

I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/29jjbgcjooumt2dz3m4i0tklo50l2y

[M-Tecs]

I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/29jjbgcjooumt2dz3m4i0tklo50l2y

Per claims from Sig and contract requirements barrel life will be the same or better than the current M-4 system M240 systems due to different steels and treatments. I had the specs posted in a thread that disappeared.

The Sig Cross bolt 277 Fury was the first of the boltguns. It will not be the last. Not sure if the high pressure 277 Fury rounds are available to the public yet? The standard brass head 277 Fury are 65K.

The only reason the 65K max has been standard for the past 100 years is limits of the brass case head particularly the primer pocket. In actions designed for the 277 Fury the pressure is not even remotely a concern. Older designs may not be up to the bolt thrust and barrel shank size requirements.

In the mid 90's the AMU loaded 80 grain Sierra Matchking bullets for their V-8 load for long range M-16 service rifle completions. Per pressure testing they were 77,000k to 78,000K. They used new LC crimped brass. The primer pockets were toast after the fire firing.

The ELR folks have been using loads well above 65K for a long time. Even the ones that are staying in the 65K range may have to use action with more lug contact due to the increased bolt thrust from the large case heads they are using.

[RyanJames170]

I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/29jjbgcjooumt2dz3m4i0tklo50l2y

A company makes Brass for 308win that can be loaded to 100,000 psi ultimatereloader did a test of the brass a few months ago.

The more I learn about things the more I see the potential for this one to be a huge failure, one of SIGs newest guns has documented issues with the barrel being able to be shifted by hand in the reciver enough to change the point of impact, as well as documented quality issues with the military issue pistol a police department got..
I could see this gun potentially suffering a lot of sheared locking lugs in service. I do hope this hun was tested with a oiled cartridge at proof pressure, because I know for a fact these rifles will see a fair number of CLP oiled cartridges

[Adam Helmer]

A company makes Brass for 308win that can be loaded to 100,000 psi ultimatereloader did a test of the brass a few months ago.

The more I learn about things the more I see the potential for this one to be a huge failure, one of SIGs newest guns has documented issues with the barrel being able to be shifted by hand in the reciver enough to change the point of impact, as well as documented quality issues with the military issue pistol a police department got..
I could see this gun potentially suffering a lot of sheared locking lugs in service. I do hope this hun was tested with a oiled cartridge at proof pressure, because I know for a fact these rifles will see a fair number of CLP oiled cartridges

Ryan

In the next war, a $10,000 rifle and scope for each soldier is not realistic. As I posted before, in 1913 the Brits wanted to drop the rimmed .303 for a new rifle and cartridge. WWI interfered and the .303 soldiered on. In the 1930s, the Brits developed the No. 4, Mk1 and the .303 soldiered on until 1957.

The average soldier is not a rifleman, so why equip each so? If the enemy is using body armor, go for head shots! LOL.

Rifles, of any caliber, may not be the deciding factor in our next war. Armed drones will "seek and destroy" long before the Mattel 16, .308 or the new rifles comes into play. Whatever. Idle thoughts of an old farmer.
Be well.
Adam

[M-Tecs]

Ryan

In the next war, a $10,000 rifle and scope for each soldier is not realistic. As I posted before, in 1913 the Brits wanted to drop the rimmed .303 for a new rifle and cartridge. WWI interfered and the .303 soldiered on. In the 1930s, the Brits developed the No. 4, Mk1 and the .303 soldiered on until 1957.

The average soldier is not a rifleman, so why equip each so? If the enemy is using body armor, go for head shots! LOL.

Rifles, of any caliber, may not be the deciding factor in our next war. Armed drones will "seek and destroy" long before the Mattel 16, .308 or the new rifles comes into play. Whatever. Idle thoughts of an old farmer.
Be well.
Adam


Lots of branch's and career fields are giving more than 10K a year enlistment bonus to maintain manning. In modern warfare 10K for a weapons system is very cheap compared to most. Also, they are not going to everyone. Only the pointy end of the spear with a very real need will be issued them.

Claiming the average soldier is not a rifleman then claiming the solution to body armor is head shots is interest to say the least????? Also, part of the body armor system may be a helmet with minimal fontal opening and no side or back opening.

[popper]

Wonder what the recoil is compared to 308/223?

[DDriller]

The 6.8mm round delivers energy on target that outperforms the 7.62mm round,

I have not studied the 6.8 SPC round but I don't think this is the case. Is there someone here better versed than I on this subject? Please chime in.
Take care,
Rick

It is not the 6.8SPC. It is a totally new cartridge.

[charlie b]

I am another in favor of the new round. Yes, it might have been done better, but, at least it's in the right direction.

$10k per front line soldier is cheap these days.

[MUSTANG]

I find it humorous that we see so many, so enthusiastic, so gushing over a new high velocity and odd caliber round. But then again; I guess it's been that way since the advent of smokeless powder. After all; we only need a faster, different caliber, innovative need round to overcome our inability to aim well, judge wind and distance well, or overcome bad woodcraft/stalking skills to achieve our objective.

Have seen "The New Glorious Round" effort for the military complex for the duration of my life, yet we are still mostly dependent on that .223/.308/.50BMG. Hollywood can be useful on rare occasion, perhaps they can help us out by showing what a change in tactics can accomplish instead of a newer and better bull whip:


https://youtu.be/kQKrmDLvijo

[Adam Helmer]

I find it humorous that we see so many, so enthusiastic, so gushing over a new high velocity and odd caliber round. But then again; I guess it's been that way since the advent of smokeless powder. After all; we only need a faster, different caliber, innovative need round to overcome our inability to aim well, judge wind and distance well, or overcome bad woodcraft/stalking skills to achieve our objective.

Have seen "The New Glorious Round" effort for the military complex for the duration of my life, yet we are still mostly dependent on that .223/.308/.50BMG. Hollywood can be useful on rare occasion, perhaps they can help us out by showing what a change in tactics can accomplish instead of a newer and better bull whip:


https://youtu.be/kQKrmDLvijo
Mustang,
SIR, you ask very proper questions! WHY do we need a new round and a scope? A scope has LIMITED applications: it is ok for a sunny day long range head, or body, shot. What happens when that scope-equipped soldier has a nighttime enemy soldier jumping over the edge of his foxhole?

Military "Intelligence" baffled me when I served and later earned a degree in history. I have a farm to run. Let us spend more and more so the 33 Trillion stays up there! LOL.
Be well.
Adam

[M-Tecs]

Mustang,
SIR, you ask very proper questions! WHY do we need a new round and a scope? A scope has LIMITED applications: it is ok for a sunny day long range head, or body, shot. What happens when that scope-equipped soldier has a nighttime enemy soldier jumping over the edge of his foxhole?

Military "Intelligence" baffled me when I served and later earned a degree in history. I have a farm to run. Let us spend more and more so the 33 Trillion stays up there! LOL.
Be well.
Adam

Wow just wow. The US has the best night vison in the world. The M-4 started being equipped with the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) in 1995. About 15 years ago the ACOG became standard on most if not all M-4's. It is a deployment requirement. Optics have been standard for at least 15 years. That is why NRA service rifle competitions have been able to use optic since 2016.

‘We Own the Night’: The Rise And Fall Of The US Military’s Night-Vision Dominance
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/night-rise-fall-us-militarys-night-vision-dominance/#:~:text=For%20decades%2C%20the%20U.S.%20military% 20has%20prided%20itself,Okinawa%2C%20the%20United% 20States%20has%20maintained%20that%20advantage.
For decades, the U.S. military has prided itself on “owning the night” thanks to its unmatched night-vision technology. From the early days, when soldiers used clunky infrared scopes to detect and beat back Japanese night raids in Okinawa, the United States has maintained that advantage.


https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/vortex-optics-xm157-overview-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-fire-control-nsgw-fc-2/

Vortex incorporates two different enablers into the XM157, one of which had the rangefinder attached. They mentioned the ability to use a camera that could pair with the Army’s Integrated Visual Augmentation System. This would allow the XM157 to link to helmet-mounted systems to allow the user to see through the scope without actually peering through the optic. Pairing with devices such as the IVAS would allow soldiers to shoot from behind cover while sticking their weapons around the corner and seeing through the optic via the wireless heads-up display

Currently, this optic will still work with traditional PVS-24/30-night vision clip-on systems, but Vortex hinted at the ability to add a thermal overlay or other types of sensors to the XM157 to give more functionality at night.

[jakharath]

Maybe we should also equip folks with shotguns for anti-drone defense? I'd imagine some #6 shot would ruin a drone pretty quickly.

[MUSTANG]

When I was in the USMC, just about every armory had a complement of Shotguns (Pump) along with the Rifles, Machine Guns, Etc... Those shotguns were NOT just for Guard duty. Hard to beat a shotgun for clearing Buildings, Tunnels, and other areas. For some reason they have fallen into disfavor for large volume spraying in clearing operations. Bring them out for Anti-Drone Support. Yes; the electronic counter measures guys/gals can do some good work in addressing the drones (I have worked with them and some of the capabilities from 20 to 30 years ago would still WOW most people; but when those counter measures fail, a few shotguns in each platoon for "Drone Outage Duty" would be beneficial.

[HumptyDumpty]

Ryan

In the next war, a $10,000 rifle and scope for each soldier is not realistic. As I posted before, in 1913 the Brits wanted to drop the rimmed .303 for a new rifle and cartridge. WWI interfered and the .303 soldiered on. In the 1930s, the Brits developed the No. 4, Mk1 and the .303 soldiered on until 1957.

The average soldier is not a rifleman, so why equip each so? If the enemy is using body armor, go for head shots! LOL.

Rifles, of any caliber, may not be the deciding factor in our next war. Armed drones will "seek and destroy" long before the Mattel 16, .308 or the new rifles comes into play. Whatever. Idle thoughts of an old farmer.
Be well.
Adam
Simpler yet, shoot him repeatedly. Ceramic Level IV gets destroyed by multiple hits, and even steel weakens.

[TNsailorman]

I am not sure as to what our current military strategy is when it comes to drones. However, they are going to be a real problem on the modern battlefield. Already are in Ukraine.
Both sides are using them and to a tremendous effect on tanks and other vehicles. Drones also could be a real counter to helicopters. The economics of a $1,000.00 drone taking out a $2,000,000.00 plus helicopter is just amazing. I think a couple of drones taking on the new Russian super hind helicopter would be very interesting. Drones will be a major player when China invades Taiwan. The modern battlefield is becoming more and more technology driven and even more deadly than ever before. I don't think Vietnam style, face to face fighting will happen on the modern battlefield unless the sides have already attrited each others command and control abilities and negated the ability to use the modern satellites, laser and electronic guidance systems, etc. In other words, back to Korea and Vietnam warfare. We might even see a return of the old time turn and burn dogfighting in the air of years past. In the next great war, another thing will disappear. Concern for civilian casualties. Civilians will suffer just as much as soldiers, Russia has already shown that killing civilians in an attempt to intimidate governments will be on the table and China certainly will have no qualms in making war on civilians. Just my thinking anyway, james

[Adam Helmer]

M-Tecs,

So how do Night Optics help when in nighttime a foe comes over the top of your foxhole?

Jak and Mustang,

I recommend #4 Buckshot for drones and foxhole raiders and a good 12 gauge.

I got a farm to run.

Be well.

Adam

[HumptyDumpty]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/vortex-optics-xm157-overview-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-fire-control-nsgw-fc-2/

Vortex incorporates two different enablers into the XM157, one of which had the rangefinder attached. They mentioned the ability to use a camera that could pair with the Army’s Integrated Visual Augmentation System. This would allow the XM157 to link to helmet-mounted systems to allow the user to see through the scope without actually peering through the optic. Pairing with devices such as the IVAS would allow soldiers to shoot from behind cover while sticking their weapons around the corner and seeing through the optic via the wireless heads-up display

Currently, this optic will still work with traditional PVS-24/30-night vision clip-on systems, but Vortex hinted at the ability to add a thermal overlay or other types of sensors to the XM157 to give more functionality at night.
Great, wireless displays in front of our soldiers eyes, and wireless sensors telling them where to shoot. I happen to know for a fact just how fragile such RF dependent systems are, and the sorts of remote attack surfaces opened up with increasing digitization. Increased complexity is an invitation to Mr. Murphy.

[M-Tecs]

Great, wireless displays in front of our soldiers eyes, and wireless sensors telling them where to shoot. I happen to know for a fact just how fragile such RF dependent systems are, and the sorts of remote attack surfaces opened up with increasing digitization. Increased complexity is an invitation to Mr. Murphy.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/vortex-optics-xm157-overview-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-fire-control-nsgw-fc-2/#:~:text=From%20the%20ground%20up%2C%20the%20XM157 %20is%20a,this%20optic%20apart%20from%20everything %20else%20available%20today.
So what is the XM157 or the NGSW-FC? Well, the FC is the fire-control or XM157 optic system that will be used for the next-generation squad weapon. From the ground up, the XM157 is a 1-8x30mm optic that features Vortex’s revolutionary “Active Reticle®” technology. At its heart, it works just like a standard low-powered variable optic or LPVO, but encompassed in the housing is the fire-control system that sets this optic apart from everything else available today. The XM157 is what many call a “smart scope” due to its integration of a digital display overlay, laser range finder, ballistics calculator, atmospheric sensors, compass, visible and infrared aiming lasers, and Intra-Soldier Wireless. However, the XM157 still works in a zero power state due to its core utilization of a standard 1-8x FFP optic with an etched reticle. This provides an analog image with a digital overlay for calculated holds.

[M-Tecs]

M-Tecs,

So how do Night Optics help when in nighttime a foe comes over the top of your foxhole?

Jak and Mustang,

I recommend #4 Buckshot for drones and foxhole raiders and a good 12 gauge.

I got a farm to run.

Be well.

Adam

If they are coming over the top of your foxhole you weren't using your night vision properly since even the older issued ones were good to 300 meters. Not sure what range the new ones are good for but it's well over 1,000 yards.

A buddy has a new thermal. From his house to the fence line it'd a little over 900 yards. He can watch deer and coyotes at that distance on a clouded over moonless night.

[ttd444]

Maybe we should also equip folks with shotguns for anti-drone defense? I'd imagine some #6 shot would ruin a drone pretty quickly.

the only thing a shotgun is good for is a suicide drone and that would be iffy at best. 32 feet/second is the speed objects fall. 5 second grenade is around 400 feet when it blows up. so you are telling me with a shotgun and a load of #6s will ruin a drone. i don't so. if you take 40mm grenade or an RPG or a tank mine, the sky is the limit. and that is for commercial drones. imagine military drones and the missile and bomb ordnance, that would be mind boggling.