The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 2, 2019, 06:59 PM   #26
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
it's easier to convince the Armed Services committees the need for a new submarine than for a new rifle, ammunition, spare parts and magazines.
They do not need convincing. The feeling is this LONG overdue on Capital Hill.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 08:04 PM   #27
9x19
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!
9x19 is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 10:13 PM   #28
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,207
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
taylorce1 is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 11:34 PM   #29
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Will take up to 8 years due to the Rapid prototyping requirement.

Quote:
The Government intends to make one production award for the NGSW-R, NGSWAR, and Ammunition.
Quote:
The production award(s) may include 250,000 total weapons system(s)
Quote:
Initial production quantities of 200 or more total weapons (NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, or both) per month and 500,000 or more rounds of ammunition per month are expected to be delivered within 6 months of award with plans for ramp-up to 2,000 or more total weapons (NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, or both) per month within three years and 5,000,000 or more rounds of ammunition per month within three years.
https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=oppo...tabmode=list&=

Quote:
The value of this follow-on production award(s) is estimated to be $10M in the first year and estimated $150M per year at the higher production rates.
Quote:
If the Government contemplates a follow-on production award(s), the Government will request new proposals during Prototype Test 2.
They is not going to be tested until 2027. Everything has to be completed by FY2021 and the Army will offer a production award proposal by 2021.

Once the Army is satisfied, that production award will go thru.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 11:39 PM   #30
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
135 grain 6.8mm bullet to go 3100 fps is an unrealistic goal
You guys are locked on to hearsay on this....


https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=18
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 09:41 AM   #31
ed308
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.
ed308 is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 10:11 AM   #32
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Once the Army is satisfied, that production award will go thru
I think that more correctly IF the army is satisfied, that production award will go thru. It is not a foregone conclusion that this project will come to fruition. The military has had several failed projects over the years for which they had high hopes.

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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 10:36 AM   #33
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,207
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:
Contracts may be awarded to one or more manufacturers and successful industry applicants who are contracted will then have to provide 53 NGSW-R prototypes, 43 NGSW-AR prototypes, 845,000 rounds of ammunition, as well as spare parts, test barrels, tools/gauges/accessories, engineering support, and iterative prototyping efforts going forward.

The contracts are set to be awarded in the 4th quarter of 2019, with delivery of weapons scheduled at the end of 2nd quarter 2020. The first round of testing will take place during the second half of 2020 with the second round, testing “production representative hardware” taking place in mid 2021.
So you're talking about 96 initial weapons from each company awarded a contract to compete. Testing will then wrap up somewhere between 2025-27. Where again I'll quote your link from TFB please pay special attention to what I bolded.

Quote:
The rest of the eight year period will be for additional iterative prototyping efforts, this means the Army would be looking to select, adopt and introduce the rifle and automatic rifle sometime between 2025 and 2027 at the earliest. Production contracts will be awarded as Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity. Close combat forces will be the first to receive new weapons if adopted and contracts for as many as 250,000 weapons and 850 million rounds of ammunition may be awarded. At high production rates the contract may be worth up to $150M per year.
The words "if adopted" are very important to understand, so again all this is us a prototype program that may or may not result in the Army getting a new cartridge and weapons systems. I'd like to see the Army get something more powerful, but then you run into shootability issues once it's fielded to every soldier. The Army just doesn't focus on a lot of range time for non-combat arms MOS soldiers. When I transitioned from active Army to the Army Reserves we qualified twice a year, when I retired the requirement to qualify was every 18 months. I hope under the new administration things are changing, but administrations for better or worse only last 4-8 years.
__________________
NRA Life Member
taylorce1 is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 10:57 AM   #34
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
I think that more correctly IF the army is satisfied,
I think it is pretty clear what it says. The Army is rapid prototyping for a reason.

Quote:
ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) program lasted from 1986-1990 and failed.
Yes it did and you obviously have not read the Army/DoD information since then. This program is the result of lessons learned in that one. There are significant changes to the goals, procedures, and viewpoint on the part of the US Army.

Drawing conclusions that the Army will follow the same path is unlikely.

Quote:
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.
Oh absolutely and one of the key ideas that makes this very different from the mid-1990's technology exploration.

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.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 10:59 AM   #35
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
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.

Absolutely and I correctly reminded you that claim was hearsay and not factually something the Army claimed or required.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 12:24 PM   #36
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
The Army is rapid prototyping for a reason.
I am sure they are. I am sure the Army has reasons for everything they do, some of which makes good sense, some of which doesn't, but they are the Army.

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:
I think it is pretty clear what it says.
Me, too. Everything is depending on the successfulness of the prototyping, of which there is no assurance, and even then, there is nothing to indicate that it will necessarily go through. It 'may.'

Quote:
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b(f), and upon a determination that the prototype project (or any subsequent iterative prototyping efforts) was successfully completed under the competitively awarded OTA(s), a follow-on production contract(s) or OTA(s) may be awarded without the use of competitive procedures.
I will believe it when I see it being put into the hands of soldiers. Maybe it works out, maybe it won't.
__________________
"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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 03:38 PM   #37
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
You seem to be discussing this like it is a foregone conclusion when it isn't.
Mmmm. You seem to be discussing this as if the Army was asking for Sci-Fi pie in the sky possibility without an serious attempt to replace 5.56mm as if the Army had blinders to see nothing else. It is not a show or theater.

Quote:
Everything is depending on the successfulness of the prototyping, of which there is no assurance, and even then, there is nothing to indicate that it will necessarily go through. It 'may.'
Agreed and links in with the idea of "discussing this as a "foregone conclusion".

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.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 04:32 PM   #38
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
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.
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 04:41 PM   #39
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
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.
Nope

Quote:
The NGSW-R is the planned replacement for the M4/M4A1 Carbine and the NGSW-AR is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in the Automatic Rifleman Role in the Close Combat Force.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/PPON_NGSW%20(1).pdf
davidsog is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 04:48 PM   #40
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Sorry, I can’t read lol
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 06:44 PM   #41
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Sorry, I can’t read lol
Happens to all, No worries.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 10:11 AM   #42
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
Absolutely and I correctly reminded you that claim was hearsay and not factually something the Army claimed or required.
SIG had a squad auto prototype with a belt of ammo for this at SHOT. It looked like somebody belted some .270 WSM and then fed it steroids. Whatever the Army requirements actually are, I’m betting those numbers aren’t far off.

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:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
.30-06 would do everything you want and then some. You’d just have to carry less ammunition
It won’t penetrate any current body armor at 600m without using highly specialized ammo that is difficult to mass produce. And that’s what the Army says it wants. I’d say less ammo is definitely likely though. Even if they reduce the weight to 5.56 levels by some witchcraft, a 30 round mag dump from this is going to be pretty fantastic.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 10:57 AM   #43
cslinger
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?"
cslinger is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 11:06 AM   #44
Bartholomew Roberts
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 11:49 AM   #45
RC20
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
RC20 is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 11:57 AM   #46
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Pelosi and crew will never appropriate the funds for a service wide replacement.

Too many (vote getting) social programs they'd rather fund.
Lets drop the political end. I have an uncle, two passed friends, all liberals as get out and they fought front line (not rear echelon) WWII. All volunteered.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 02:20 PM   #47
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
I have an uncle, two passed friends, all liberals as get out and they fought front line (not rear echelon) WWII. All volunteered.
Which is nice and all, but even less relevant unless they have anything to do with the funding, development, or evaluation process.
__________________
"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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 4, 2019, 03:41 PM   #48
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
It won’t penetrate any current body armor at 600m
I don’t know what it takes to penetrate body armor at 600yds. But it would be more lethal than 5.56 in a situations in which some people have stated that the current weapon has failed. I was kinda referring to that and had ignored the topic at hand.

The kind of performance for this project is a pretty high goal.
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 5, 2019, 09:03 AM   #49
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
I’ll have to since initial testing will reported involve “simulated recoil” vs. live fire.
By 2nd Quarter 2020 Phase 1 testing prototypes must be delivered. These are the complete rifles and including the deliverables listed in the announcement.

Quote:
The COMPANY shall build and deliver NGSW-R and NGSW-AR prototypes to support PT#1 and PT#2. The NGSW-R and NGSW-AR prototypes delivered to support PT#2, shall be production representative hardware that complies with COMPANY proposed performance
requirements.
The production representative hardware is deliverable in the 1st Quarter of 2021.

Quote:
rickyrick says:
But it would be more lethal than 5.56 in a situations in which some people have stated that the current weapon has failed.


Quote:
The NGSW-R is the planned replacement for the M4/M4A1 Carbine and the NGSW-AR is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in the Automatic Rifleman Role in the Close Combat Force.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/PPON_NGSW%20(2).pdf

davidsog is offline  
Old February 5, 2019, 03:13 PM   #50
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
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.
rickyrick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10122 seconds with 10 queries