Textron Systems NGSW Rifle and LMG

[Double Naught Spy]

Don't be silly, Stan. We all know a bullet with that beautiful form factor can be designed for any caliber.

And, if the military listens to me, they WILL do it in a smaller caliber.

I'd suggest requiring body armor penetration only out to 300 meters. Maybe 500. Design your cartridge based on that.

I think we/they have moved well beyond that stage at this point. The military established a set of criteria. Those criteria are (apparently) being met by this sort of 6.8 setup. At this point, it looks like there is going to have to be a significant failure or major paradigm shift before they move back and start over with what caliber bullet they want.

You mentioned the need for body armor penetration at greater distances...you mean like at the distances of the current/last war that our soldiers are often faced with? They up graded the optics so they will now be able to hit at distance, only not penetrate armor at that distance. So much for planning for the next war, LOL.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Of course it can. All I said is that is that it's a beautiful bullet. You clearly agree. A5B does not.

No. You are misrepresenting A5's point. He did not have in front of him the photo that you showed. That bullet is not being showed in any picture of the 6.8 NGSW cartridges being shown these days, so it's unfair to pretend A5 was talking about that bullet.

A5 meant that there's nothing magical about the 6.8 caliber and, further, that the 6.8mm bullets that ARE being shown have worse BCs than a similar 6.5mm — so why not go 6.5mm?

Don't misrepresent in order to quibble.

Let's argue something more substantive: Do you agree with me that the requirement for penetration of modern body armor should be reduced to 300–500 meters, instead of 800?

[BluntForceTrauma]

I think we/they have moved well beyond that stage at this point. The military established a set of criteria. Those criteria are (apparently) being met by this sort of 6.8 setup. At this point, it looks like there is going to have to be a significant failure or major paradigm shift before they move back and start over with what caliber bullet they want.

I agree. The 6.8 NGSW train seems to have already left the station....

And, like the push in the 1950s for 7.62 NATO as the standard infantry cartridge, someone — years down the road — will question what they're really getting from a such cartridge with all this bulk?

Extra bulk should be taken up humping bullet-shaped 40mm laser-ranged airbust munitions fired from something like a scaled-down Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. The real problem in infantry combat is neutralizing guys behind cover.

[JASmith]

I agree. The 6.8 NGSW train seems to have already left the station....

And, like the push in the 1950s for 7.62 NATO as the standard infantry cartridge, someone — years down the road — will question what they're really getting from a such cartridge with all this bulk?

Extra bulk should be taken up humping bullet-shaped 40mm laser-ranged airbust munitions fired from something like a scaled-down Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. The real problem in infantry combat is neutralizing guys behind cover.

+ + 1!
Hear! Hear!

[Double Naught Spy]

The bulk being the polymer telescoping cases? I have a feeling they are not going to be happy with that ammo in the long run. Despite expectations and proclamations, the polymer will deform over time. So either it is going to have a much more limited shelf life than brass cased ammo and be pulled from service or it is going to induce malfunctions.

[stanc]

No. You are misrepresenting A5's point. He did not have in front of him the photo that you showed.

He most certainly did have that photo in front of him. It was in my post, to which he responded.

That bullet is not being showed in any picture of the 6.8 NGSW cartridges being shown these days, so it's unfair to pretend A5 was talking about that bullet.

The bullet seen in loaded cartridges is a surrogate, used for test and demonstration.

The GP bullet shown in post #34 is what will be used for the standard combat load.

I did not "pretend" that A5 was talking about the GP bullet. I assumed that he was.

A5 meant that there's nothing magical about the 6.8 caliber...

:confused: I have no idea how you got that meaning from: "Our idea of a beautiful bullet is completely diffrent..."

...and, further, that the 6.8mm bullets that ARE being shown have worse BCs than a similar 6.5mm...

Interesting. Where have you seen the BC specifications for the surrogate and GP bullets?

....so why not go 6.5mm?

My understanding is that, in Army testing, 6.5mm did not defeat body armor as well as 6.8mm.

Don't misrepresent in order to quibble.

I did not misrepresent. I addressed what he said. If he meant something else, he should've said what he meant.

Let's argue something more substantive: Do you agree with me that the requirement for penetration of modern body armor should be reduced to 300–500 meters, instead of 800?

I have insufficient data to base an opinion on, so I can neither agree with you, nor argue against you.

My only infantry-type experience was one year in the scout platoon of a tank battalion, and that was long before ceramic body armor became a concern.

What information causes you to conclude that the range requirement should be reduced to 300-500 meters?

[A5BLASTER]

The bulk being the polymer telescoping cases? I have a feeling they are not going to be happy with that ammo in the long run. Despite expectations and proclamations, the polymer will deform over time. So either it is going to have a much more limited shelf life than brass cased ammo and be pulled from service or it is going to induce malfunctions.

Agreed. Something that I haven't seen anyone mention is this.

What happens in a long drawn out firefight and that chamber gets hot enough to start melting that polymer case and cause polymer build up in the chamber walls?

Seems like this case design would require more maintenance in the feild to keep from having a kaboom due too chamber build up are a jam due to polymer build up on the chamber walls.

[stanc]

...why not go 6.5mm?

BTW, if you're wanting to go to 6.5mm to decrease cartridge bulk, that would not help significantly.

.277 - .264 = 0.013

Reduce the polymer case diameter by 0.013" and it'll still be at least as fat as the 7.62 NATO round.

[stanc]

Agreed. Something that I haven't seen anyone mention is this.

What happens in a long drawn out firefight and that chamber gets hot enough to start melting that polymer case and cause polymer build up in the chamber walls?

Does that actually happen?

[grayfox]

I agree. The 6.8 NGSW train seems to have already left the station....

And, like the push in the 1950s for 7.62 NATO as the standard infantry cartridge, someone — years down the road — will question what they're really getting from a such cartridge with all this bulk?

Extra bulk should be taken up humping bullet-shaped 40mm laser-ranged airbust munitions fired from something like a scaled-down Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. The real problem in infantry combat is neutralizing guys behind cover.

My thought on the '50's was an attempt to scale down slightly from WWI to something that could still be used in European theater as well as on a "truce" line in Korea, which is mostly a stagnant - don't have to carry your rifle far - type of encounter.
Once jungle warfare hit and you had to carry everything through that environment, lighter was better. And downrange fire intensity counted for something.
I don't know if it should be totally written off as "fighting the last war", since as a defensive-style armed force (ie, we don't invade to expand an empire like the Commie's did/do, aggressors can pick their war spot and develop for that), you can't always predict where and what the next war will be, so can't exactly develop a weapon for it with complete foresight.

[A5BLASTER]

Does that actually happen?

You bet your backside it can happen. To date there is not a single polymer or polymer blend that I know of that cant be melted are rendered to a soft placidity state when enough heat is applied directly too it for a given amount of time.

I'm sure they have tested for this, but then again I'm not seeing anyone talk about it.

And no that bullet in your pic is not sexy in my eyes and it has nothing to do with it being a 6.8 cal.

[stanc]

You bet your backside it can happen. To date there is not a single polymer or polymer blend that I know of that cant be melted are rendered to a soft placidity state when enough heat is applied directly too it for a given amount of time.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not asking if polymer will melt if it gets hot enough.

I was asking if the polymer cases actually get hot enough to melt in the chamber.

I'm sure they have tested for this, but then again I'm not seeing anyone talk about it.

So you don't really know that the chamber will get hot enough to melt the cases?

And no that bullet in your pic is not sexy in my eyes and it has nothing to do with it being a 6.8 cal.

[stanc]

I don't know if it should be totally written off as "fighting the last war", since as a defensive-style armed force (ie, we don't invade to expand an empire like the Commie's did/do, aggressors can pick their war spot and develop for that), you can't always predict where and what the next war will be, so can't exactly develop a weapon for it with complete foresight.

LOL. Switzerland has a defensive-style armed force. The US has an offensive/expeditionary-type force

The US military has not had to defend this country against an invading army for more than two centuries.

We are not defenders. We are invaders. The United States was built via invasion, aggression, and conquest.

We have attacked and invaded countries all around the world. From the jungles of Cambodia, to the deserts of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan.

That's why we can't develop a weapon with complete foresight. We don't know what type of terrain and climate the troops will be ordered to fight in next.

[montana]

I don't know if it should be totally written off as "fighting the last war", since as a defensive-style armed force (ie, we don't invade to expand an empire like the Commie's did/do, aggressors can pick their war spot and develop for that), you can't always predict where and what the next war will be, so can't exactly develop a weapon for it with complete foresight.

True, but the commies have been failing at actual armed conflict recently, "so they have resorted to using the weapons of finance, viruses, lies and false narrative propaganda" to brain wash the targeted nation's impressionable youth and intellectually weak minded adults..

[Lemonaid]

Agreed. Something that I haven't seen anyone mention is this.

What happens in a long drawn out firefight and that chamber gets hot enough to start melting that polymer case and cause polymer build up in the chamber walls?

Seems like this case design would require more maintenance in the feild to keep from having a kaboom due too chamber build up are a jam due to polymer build up on the chamber walls.

I am speculating that the True Velocity testing might be similar to the telescoping stuff as far as heat transfer. If I recall correctly the True Velocity stuff keeps the chamber much cooler than brass ammo. They tested full auto fire for quite a long time in one of their news articles with nary a cookoff.

[stanc]

I am speculating that the True Velocity testing might be similar to the telescoping stuff as far as heat transfer. If I recall correctly the True Velocity stuff keeps the chamber much cooler than brass ammo.

Right. Polymer cases do not transfer heat to the chamber like metallic cases do.

Plus, the chamber of the Textron weapons is not part of the barrel, which helps.

Note comment @ 3:47-4:11 in https://youtu.be/JhRhSWTeHYo

https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/stat...8491836417

[A5BLASTER]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not asking if polymer will melt if it gets hot enough.

I was asking if the polymer cases actually get hot enough to melt in the chamber.


So you don't really know that the chamber will get hot enough to melt the cases?

Nope I sure dont stanc. Hench why I said I haven't seen anyone talking about it.

But then again you dont know either.

This is why noone likes to conversatete with you stanc. You try to pick and play words to advance your thoughts and stir arguments.

Sorry it took so long to respond I was busy in the woods killing stuff.

[stanc]

Nope I sure dont stanc. Hench why I said I haven't seen anyone talking about it.

But then again you dont know either.

That's true, but then I never claimed to know.

This is why noone likes to conversatete with you stanc. You try to pick and play words to advance your thoughts and stir arguments.

a. I don't try to stir arguments.

b. I have no idea what you mean in saying that I try to "play" words.

c. Yes, I certainly do try to pick words that I hope will present and advance my thoughts. It seems like a good idea, when attempting to have a reasonably intelligent discussion.

Too many people are careless in choosing their words, often saying something they don't actually mean, or saying something that is illogical, irrational, or erroneous.

For instance, you said: "What happens in a long drawn out firefight and that chamber gets hot enough to start melting that polymer case..."

Your wording presumes that the chamber would get hot enough to melt the polymer case, despite the fact that you do not know if that can actually happen with the Textron designs.

Sorry it took so long to respond I was busy in the woods killing stuff.

No apology necessary. If I were able, I'd have spent the day making once-fired brass.

[JASmith]

That's true, but then I never claimed to know.


a. I don't try to stir arguments.

b. I have no idea what you mean in saying that I try to "play" words.

c. Yes, I certainly do try to pick words that I hope will present and advance my thoughts. It seems like a good idea, when attempting to have a reasonably intelligent discussion.

Too many people are careless in choosing their words, often saying something they don't actually mean, or saying something that is illogical, irrational, or erroneous.

For instance, you said: "What happens in a long drawn out firefight and that chamber gets hot enough to start melting that polymer case..."

Your wording presumes that the chamber would get hot enough to melt the polymer case, despite the fact that you do not know if that can actually happen with the Textron designs.


No apology necessary. If I were able, I'd have spent the day making once-fired brass.

Stan, it seems like truth is being abused.....

[LRRPF52]

BTW, if you're wanting to go to 6.5mm to decrease cartridge bulk, that would not help significantly.

.277 - .264 = 0.013

Reduce the polymer case diameter by 0.013" and it'll still be at least as fat as the 7.62 NATO round.

The bulk also comes from the propellant volume required to push a heavy .277” projectile that is heavy in order to meet the BC required to retain enough energy for the terminal requirements at distance.

The 5.56 LSAT cases are much smaller.

I think a .243" or .257” high BC EPR projectile would be far more ideal than .277” for these reasons. It would lighten the overall system as well since the recoil force is substantially different. You don’t need as much chamber pressure to reach the same performance requirements, and have better sectional density for the armor-defeat metric.

This would also allow the rifle version to fit a smaller form factor, with 30rd mags, as opposed to these large mags required for the NGSW rifle variant.

Magazines have weight too, so when you cut round count in favor of performance, you increase the magazine count even for a lesser overall combat load, while also making it more difficult to store those magazines on load bearing kit.

Another major problem I see is that just as soon as something like this gets finalized and produced, the intended threat simply upgrades their body armor.

There are advancements in armor technology currently underway that threaten to make small arms even less effective.