|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 2, 2019, 06:59 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
February 2, 2019, 08:04 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 1998
Location: Sherman, TX USA
Posts: 3,750
|
Yes, but Trump and the Senate can't spend a dime that isn't appropriated by the House... that 5.7 billion for a southern barrier is "small change" too.
__________________
Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19! |
February 2, 2019, 10:13 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,242
|
This is also only an 8 year prototype development contract for a "prototype" weapon and ammunition, not a contract to resupply the entire Army by 2027. The Army wants a 6.8 mm bullet, that'll penetrate current body armor, and weigh 20-30% less than current ammunition. That doesn't even have anything to do with the weapon systems that will use this new ammunition.
Trying to get a 135 grain 6.8mm bullet to go 3100 fps is an unrealistic goal in anything the size of the current M4 or sticking with a 30 round magazine even with the supposed 80K PSI limit. I could see it working in the SAW replacement or the Designated Marksman Rifle role. With prototype programs like this sometimes the Army gets what they want and sometimes they don't, that's why I don't get excited over these things.
__________________
NRA Life Member |
February 2, 2019, 11:34 PM | #29 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Will take up to 8 years due to the Rapid prototyping requirement.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once the Army is satisfied, that production award will go thru. |
|||||
February 2, 2019, 11:39 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=18 |
|
February 3, 2019, 09:41 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
|
You guys are locked on to hearsay on this....
You make a good point. I don't see this becoming a reality if a 135 grs pushed to 3,000+ fps. The weight alone will likely kill it. Plus the cartridge would require a frame much larger than a AR10. But, maybe the new polymer case design that's been discussed will change that. |
February 3, 2019, 10:11 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Take the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) program from 1951-1968 that was temporarily revived in the 1980s to try to make it work sufficiently and superiorly to the M16, but failed. ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) program lasted from 1986-1990 and failed. HK XM29? HK XM8? ICSR 7.62 NATO rifle? There is a good chance that if it does go through, it will NOT be with the same original specs requested, also a common issue with such projects. It is likely that numerous compromises will be made because either the developers cannot get the specs to work in harmony and/or because the specs were naive expectations. I see they have already stepped down the specs from 3300-3500 fps to 3100 fps and they don't even have a prototype yet, LOL.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 3, 2019, 10:36 AM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,242
|
davidsog your ability to quote ranks right up there with CNN/MSNBC using a Trump quotel. If you actually quoted me I said a 135 grain bullet going 3000 fps in a firearm the size of an M4 or in a 30 round magazine was what was unrealistic. It just isn't going to fit the current magazine is too restrictive on COAL. It's going to be extremely tough as well in an AR10 size rifle and keep it to a dimension that'll easily fit in and out of Army vehicles. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's extremely difficult especially on short barreled weapons systems.
Secondly the army only wants a delivery of 96 total weapons between both designs for the initial testing scheduled to be delivered by 2nd quarter 2020. This is a little quote from your The Firearms Blog story. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member |
||
February 3, 2019, 10:57 AM | #34 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Drawing conclusions that the Army will follow the same path is unlikely. Quote:
The only "hard" requirement is the 6.8mm. They will consider other calibers but make it plain that they would have to represent a quantum leap in technology over anything available now as they are satisfied with the decade of research/study/testing already completed. Bottom Line is the US Army intends to replace 5.56mm and sooner rather than later. |
|||
February 3, 2019, 10:59 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Absolutely and I correctly reminded you that claim was hearsay and not factually something the Army claimed or required. |
|
February 3, 2019, 12:24 PM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
I am also sure that doesn't mean the program will be successful. You seem to be discussing this like it is a foregone conclusion when it isn't. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|||
February 3, 2019, 03:38 PM | #37 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Successful prototyping is imperative but make no mistake, the Army is going to replace 5.56mm ASAP. Their current studies conclude the round is no longer viable on the battlefield under some very commonly encountered conditions. They will not keep it anymore than they kept .30-06 or the .50 cal mineball. |
||
February 3, 2019, 04:32 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
30.06 would do everything you want and then some. You’d just have to carry less ammunition.
Getting that power in a small cartridge is the problem. Getting a lot of power out of light weight carbine is the magic unicorn everyone is chasing. None of the articles really say is replacing the basic issue weapon. What the articles do say is this concept gun is a squad weapon. But, if this does work, it would make sense to provide the wonder cartridge to all troops. This is a good thing no doubt, but we are still talking about a cartridge that doesn’t exist yet and has performance requirements that current intermediate cartridges cannot produce. That’s why we have our doubts, and many military concepts have failed. We will have a brand new administration in two years, so anything can change. |
February 3, 2019, 04:41 PM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 3, 2019, 04:48 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Sorry, I can’t read lol
|
February 3, 2019, 06:44 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
February 4, 2019, 10:11 AM | #42 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
I can’t wait to see what throat erosion looks like on these; but I guess I’ll have to since initial testing will reported involve “simulated recoil” vs. live fire. Quote:
|
||
February 4, 2019, 10:57 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,045
|
The SIG belted is in .338 LPM as far as I remember. That’s a heck of a burst of expensive and powerful can o’ whoopass going down range.
__________________
"Is there anyway I can write my local gun store off on my taxes as dependents?" |
February 4, 2019, 11:06 AM | #44 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I think you may be thinking of SIG’s beltfed in .338 Norma Magnum, cslinger. Still a beast but not what I was thinking of - though I may well be confused about where SIG was displaying it. The whole reason the cartridge stood out is because the case didn’t look much smaller than that .338 Norma Mag; but it had a tiny but long .277 bullet in it.
ETA: Looks like the display at SHOT WAS .338 Norma Magnum and so was the belted ammo. They were touting it as the new 6.8 NGSW-AR due to its modularity but no 6.8 ammo was present. So looks like I am in error here. Apaprently I can’t eyeball a .061” difference in bullets anymore. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 4, 2019 at 12:54 PM. |
February 4, 2019, 11:49 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 7,014
|
The specs are not silly, they are to challenge the mfgs.
They may not work, but the idea is ti come up with innovations not the same oh same oh. The M-16 was a 20 inch barrel. Now the M4 is a 14 inch barrel. Cut 4 feet off a 120 mm smoothbore? Hmmm.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not |
February 4, 2019, 11:57 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 7,014
|
Quote:
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not |
|
February 4, 2019, 02:20 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 4, 2019, 03:41 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Quote:
The kind of performance for this project is a pretty high goal. |
|
February 5, 2019, 09:03 AM | #49 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 5, 2019, 03:13 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
If there was something in the likes of 30.06, .308 and similar into a lightweight package that occupies the same space as 30rds of 5.56... you can take my money... no matter what the outcome or goals are of this program being discussed.
I will reiterate that my personal opinion of military 5.56 is pretty low. Civilian ammo can be much better... this argument may be getting confused with the current topic at hand. I hope this sees the light of day, but I still have doubts that the goals as stated will come to pass anytime soon. |
|
|