Textron Systems NGSW Rifle and LMG

[LRRPF52]

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.

It’s a very high grade polymer that has been tested in all environmental extremes for a while now. From the raw reports from 11Bs who did the 5.56 LSAT testing at Benning, where it was already mature for Platoon testing in field scenarios over many weeks, they liked it much better than the SAW, and even started using it when their M110 Sniper Systems had to be repaired for different failures that weren’t able t be done at the unit-level.

They pulled the optics off the M110 and started using the 5.56 LSAT as a DM/Light Sniper system on semi.

A 6mm LSAT in that format would have been the cat’s meow, but the Russian body armor fairy is elusive and expensive, so we must chase that because somehow will all of our echelons of fire, net-centric fires, every USAF, USMC, USN, and US Army airborne platform armed to the hilt with mostly CAS mission focus over the last 19 years, none of those assets will be available in this magical future battlefield where US infantrymen will spill out of APCs, then go toe-to-toe with Russian motorized infantrymen spilling out of the backs of their APCs.

Suspend any critical thinking and just go with it.

Now on the other hand, if this is really a cover for the actual intent of needing to defeat autonomous combat systems, then let us carry on with .270 Weatherby Magnum +P+ performance and be awestruck with the brilliance of their foresight!

[Double Naught Spy]

The military uses ammunition up to several decades old. If they go with polymer, they won't have that option, or it will be problematic.

I saw how well the the earlier polymer bullets (non-telescoping) did in the 2014 and 2015...too brittle and they were breaking during firing. These apparently are more flexible, hence my concern for longer term deformation. Just how far out of round or less than straight can these cartridges be and still cycle properly?

[LRRPF52]

Ammunition is normally stored in sealed containers, so no matter what the material is, it will be isolated and insulated from UV, moisture, and temperature (unless you leave the crates out in extremes in violation of ammo handler/HAZMAT regs).

LSAT with Textron was using medical-grade polymer, which is a different ballgame than what some of the early hybrid ammo manufacturers were doing and failing with.

The cartridges that have metallic heads and polymer bodies are more of a conventional overall form factor, whereas CT ammo is basically a cylinder that doesn’t need a claw extractor.

The major obstacle is industrial-based, where you have to scale and build a mass-production infrastructure for cranking out high quality polymer components. It’s a major growing pain from a machinability standpoint, but once the code is cracked, you’ll be able to crank out more volume with far less processes compared to brass. Brass cases require multiple forming and sizing operations that are tedious even from a machining standpoint.

CT is able to maintain far better concentricity with projectile alignment using the front cap even compared to the highest quality brass cases and precision ammunition manufacturing processes.

I think you’d see brass case oxidization before you’d see any deterioration of the CT cases and the front caps over time. Where we see the most problems with ammunition storage is the actual uncased, issued ammo stored in magazines.

Given the direction that 3D printing is headed, I these types of cases are already accessible to the 3D DIY crowd.

You could develop a 3D printed file right now if you wanted with some of the resins and compounds that are currently available.

A batch of cases and plugs could be printed in large batches per print run, depending on the printer size.

There are extremely tough UV-based printers that grow the parts out of a liquid solution that sits in a transparent tray.

Each microscopic layer is UV-fused and added to from the bottom.




You can print metal as well, including stainless, Titanium, Inconel, aluminum, whatever will sinter in the emerging and maturing market of 3D metal printers. You could print your own projectiles even in a time of scarcity.

We live in an era where massive changes are happening in how things can be designed, tested, instrumented, and refined for production.

[Sinclair]

We live in an era where massive changes are happening in how things can be designed, tested, instrumented, and refined for production.

That is what scares me. In the past there have been too many cases of a General or Public official going with the political career wise safe choice as opposed to what would have best served the troops with boots on the ground. We cannot predict when, where or who will be in the next conflict, so hedging all the possibilities so that our guys/girls will have the best to work with will make any decisions now even more uncertain.

The one good thing about my age is that even though I suffered through the mistakes of the past, I most likely will not be a part of those of the future. God bless the troops and God help the decision makers!

[BluntForceTrauma]

Agree with L52 above.

[stanc]

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.

The 0.419" diameter of the 5.56 CT cases is smaller than the 0.504" diameter of the 7.62 CT cases by almost exactly the same amount (0.085") as the difference in bullet diameters (.308 - .224 = 0.084").

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.

Even with smaller calibers, we're still looking at fat cartridges, with case diameters of ~0.44" for 6mm CT and ~0.45" for 6.35mm CT.

30-rd mags for 6mm or 6.35mm would still be quite bulky, almost two inches taller than the 20-rd 6.8 NGSW mags, and only ~0.1" slimmer. With 6.5mm CT, like some here want, the difference in magazine dimensions would be negligible.

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.

Yeah, I'd really like to see what they are planning for this. The videos I've seen show NGSW shooters with few or no spare mags.

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.

You're not alone in that observation.

[Double Naught Spy]

Ammunition is normally stored in sealed containers, so no matter what the material is, it will be isolated and insulated from UV, moisture, and temperature (unless you leave the crates out in extremes in violation of ammo handler/HAZMAT regs).

Well, and we all know that the military always remains in compliance with all of the regs.

I understand about ammo storage. I know the design is well intentioned. I have yet to see any long term testing on the specific polymers to maintain tolerances over time. I hope they do, but won't be surprised if they don't.

[LRRPF52]

Well, and we all know that the military always remains in compliance with all of the regs.

I understand about ammo storage. I know the design is well intentioned. I have yet to see any long term testing on the specific polymers to maintain tolerances over time. I hope they do, but won't be surprised if they don't.

In most units who maintain and train the required number of NCOs who are ammo handler/HAZMAT/AMO certified like I was, with even a half-decent/semi-competent officer population, I never saw problems with that.

There was a Marine unit who deployed ahead of us to Kuwait and had ammo that had been stored improperly. When some Al Qaeda in Iraq bugger-scarfers attacked them on Failaka Island during what they thought was a safe training area (and killed at least one of them), the response involved running them down and pumping the driver and passenger of the Mazda truck full of 9mm from Berettas. My buddy who was a SOCCENT liaison at the time working with the Marines was one of the ones who chased down the vehicle and killed the passenger along with a Marine gunny, who shot the driver. My buddy said the rounds barely went under the creature's skin like mumps, didn’t penetrate like normal, so he had to dump the mag into him to kill him.

He said something about them having stored the ammo across multiple environmental extremes over time, with the ammo containers placed on the ground and in the heat, which are direct violations of ammo handling requirements for any ammo. Most cartridge boxes used to have warnings about storing the ammo in your glove box or car in the heat, keeping away from moisture or exposure.

In ammo handler’s course, there were specs for storing ammo above a certain height from the ground due to dew and leeching, as well as temperature, so this applies to all ammo, not just Cased Telescoping or the metallic/polymer hybrid cases being tested. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a small army of engineers and techs who have been dealing with these aspects of the CT and other competitors and worked out resilience to environmental conditions years ago.

I recall the lessons learned from the Hk G11 caseless ammo with its exposed propellant from the 1980s ACR trials.

[video=youtube_share;E_didDgUjn0]https://youtu.be/E_didDgUjn0[/video]

[LRRPF52]

That is what scares me. In the past there have been too many cases of a General or Public official going with the political career wise safe choice as opposed to what would have best served the troops with boots on the ground. We cannot predict when, where or who will be in the next conflict, so hedging all the possibilities so that our guys/girls will have the best to work with will make any decisions now even more uncertain.

The one good thing about my age is that even though I suffered through the mistakes of the past, I most likely will not be a part of those of the future. God bless the troops and God help the decision makers!

The more I study the development of small arms and cartridge designs, the more I’ve come to the realization that every so often in a century, someone will come up with an idea about a new weapon and or ammunition concept. More often-than-not, that idea will not be implemented for various reasons. Over time, someone will pick up that idea and carry it over the finish line when the right number of personalities and technological maturity intersect for whatever reasons, be it stellar alignment, some other supernatural force, or coincidence.

Take the Small Caliber High Velocity Rifle concept as one example. You know when that concept was envisioned? In the 1800s. It even got support from the Army’s Chief over Ordnance, Brigadier General Flagler:

March, 1894:
The US Army’s Chief of Ordnance, Brigadier General Daniel W. Flagler, orders the construction of experimental cartridges to determine the military suitability of calibers smaller than 0.30". Eight barrels are made, divided evenly between .22 and .20 caliber, with rifling twists of 1 in 6" and 1 in 5.5" respectively.

In an article, the founder and editor of Shooting and Fishing magazine, Arthur C. Gould, dubs Reuben Harwood’s .22-20-55, the “Hornet”. The nickname sticks, and it is hereafter advertised as Harwood’s Hornet. (It should not be confused with the later Winchester .22 Hornet.) J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co. even announces its intent to chamber rifles for it. (However, it is believed that Stevens never made it a production line item.)

January, 1895:
Brig. Gen. Flagler instructs Frankford Arsenal to fabricate 250 .22 cartridge cases and 300 bullets. 250 of the bullets are 118 grain, while the remainder is split evenly between 112 grain and 120 grain bullets. Based on data developed by Springfield Armory’s Lt. Tracy C. Dickson, the cartridges are tested in modified Krag rifles. Performance of the .22 cartridge is 2,600 feet per second with the 120 grain bullet. (It is not known whether the proposed .20 caliber cartridge was ever fabricated or tested.)

5.56x45mm Timeline



We can also look at the 6mm Lee Navy cartridge of that time period, which would push a 75gr at 3300fps, although it was issued with a 112gr bullet going 2560fps from a 28” pipe.



It wouldn’t be until the late 1950s before the SCHV Rifle concept and ammunition would actually gain enough traction-against Army Ordnance institutional resistance, and become the standard service rifle cartridge for the US military.



Never resting on “good enough”, the Army wanted something more with the ACR competition in the 1980s. Instead of adopting a new rifle and cartridge, we adopted the optics and some other peripheral designs that were submitted during those trials, including the Elcan, ACOG, variations of the Colt ACR furniture for the SOPMOD stock, and the flat top upper receiver design for the M4 taken from the Colt ACR:




This is why I think something will be adopted out of the NGSW program, whether it’s the optics, the LMG version, or even the whole shebang. Lightening the ammunition load when scaled for palletized munitions is what really makes the bean-counters’ panties get tight-and rightfully so. If we can reduce bulk weights like that, it allows for better fuel efficiency for Air Mobility Command, easier transport by land-baed vehicles, and of course the soldier’s load (as long as the magazines don’t contribute to an overall same or heavier weight).

You can start to see how the big picture will tempt the General officer level to push for adoption, without the soldier’s load being taken into consideration the way Joe Private First Class and Corporal Bad A** might look at it. We’ll see soon enough what happens.

[BluntForceTrauma]

With 6.5mm CT, like some here want.

There is no "magic" caliber.

Caliber is relative to the external and terminal ballistic performance required, and thus is driven by the performance parameters set forth.

The point is to select the smallest caliber — in order to keep system overall bulk down — that will achieve the performance parameters.

As far as a 6.8 NGSW goes, a 6.5 NGSW would have achieved the exact same performance, only with better external ballistics.

[stanc]

Caliber is relative to the external and terminal ballistic performance required, and thus is driven by the performance parameters set forth.

The point is to select the smallest caliber — in order to keep system overall bulk down — that will achieve the performance parameters.

Yes. Isn't that precisely what the Army did?

As far as a 6.8 NGSW goes, a 6.5 NGSW would have achieved the exact same performance, only with better external ballistics.

A dubious claim. IIRC, the Army reportedly tested a range of calibers, and determined that those smaller than 6.8mm failed to give the desired performance.

Plus, reducing caliber to 6.5mm would give a reduction in cartridge diameter of little more than one hundredth of an inch (0.01").

The difference in system bulk -- gun, mag, cartridge -- would be virtually nil, and magazine capacity would remain at 20 rounds.

[Sinclair]

You can start to see how the big picture will tempt the General officer level to push for adoption, without the soldier’s load being taken into consideration the way Joe Private First Class and Corporal Bad A** might look at it. We’ll see soon enough what happens.

Many months ago, I made a similar statement, albeit in my usual obtuse and easily misunderstood language. And the saddest part is that the poor Grunts with boots on the ground has no recourse nor avenue of communications, to say. "Whoa here, let's talk about this for a minute." Sure a few Command level Sargents will be asked to give their approval of the new concept, but that is usually as far as it goes. During the Civil War, a few units, both North and South were equipped with privately purchased arms and ammunition to better serve the battlefield environment that they were being employed in. The only saving grace for our military is that our enemies haven't done much better than we have in providing their soldiers with the "ideal" weapon system. God forbid that that should change.

[grayfox]

I think sometimes the desk-riders see the rifle is the goal/answer and the soldier is just a tool. Sad.

[BluntForceTrauma]

the Army reportedly tested a range of calibers, and determined that those smaller than 6.8mm failed to give the desired performance.

At this point, many of the shooters here — myself included — know as much about ballistics as a program officer running through his two-year stint in charge of an ordnance program. I'm being a little facetious, but there's some truth there.

Anyway, no.

There is no way in hell that 6.8mm is any "better" performer than 6.5mm. Real world doesn't work that way with such negligible differences.

Terminal difference is gonna be negligible.

External difference is gonna favor 6.5mm, so why not?

No program manager is gonna feel fulfilled just saying, "It makes sense to use the 6.5 Creedmoor existing design." That won't look good to his bosses or his resumé. "You mean you just took an off-the-shelf cartridge and didn't spend millions on a fresh study to justify this program?"

[A5BLASTER]

At this point, many of the shooters here — myself included — know as much about ballistics as a program officer running through his two-year stint in charge of an ordnance program. I'm being a little facetious, but there's some truth there.

Anyway, no.

There is no way in hell that 6.8mm is any "better" performer than 6.5mm. Real world doesn't work that way with such negligible differences.

Terminal difference is gonna be negligible.

External difference is gonna favor 6.5mm, so why not?

No program manager is gonna feel fulfilled just saying, "It makes sense to use the 6.5 Creedmoor existing design." That won't look good to his bosses or his resumé. "You mean you just took an off-the-shelf cartridge and didn't spend millions on a fresh study to justify this program?"

Doing ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner.

Let's face it the reason it's a 6.8 is because someone at the top of the turd pile is a 6.8 leg humper.

They can claim we tested this are that but at the end of the day there is zero collected data on their end to support they tested existing and are specially designed 6.5mm bullets against this specially designed 6.8 bullet they are useing.

Fact of the matter is you put this weapon and case design in the hands if competition shooters and hunters and the first thing that will change is the dia of the bullet and you bet your butt it will go down in dia from 6.8.

[stanc]

There is no way in hell that 6.8mm is any "better" performer than 6.5mm. Real world doesn't work that way with such negligible differences.

Terminal difference is gonna be negligible.

External difference is gonna favor 6.5mm, so why not?

Since 6.5mm offers zero improvement in ability to penetrate body armor, zero reduction in bulk of gun or ammo, and zero increase of magazine capacity, why spend the time and $$$ to switch to 6.5mm just for a slight improvement in trajectory and wind drift?

No program manager is gonna feel fulfilled just saying, "It makes sense to use the 6.5 Creedmoor existing design." That won't look good to his bosses or his resumé. "You mean you just took an off-the-shelf cartridge and didn't spend millions on a fresh study to justify this program?"

I think it's very unlikely that any program manager would say it makes sense to use 6.5 Creedmoor in the Textron NGSW.

[stanc]

They can claim we tested this are that but at the end of the day there is zero collected data on their end to support they tested existing and are specially designed 6.5mm bullets against this specially designed 6.8 bullet they are useing.

I doubt there is zero collected data. There certainly seems to be zero published data, though.

[JASmith]

At this point, many of the shooters here — myself included — know as much about ballistics as a program officer running through his two-year stint in charge of an ordnance program. I'm being a little facetious, but there's some truth there.

Anyway, no.

There is no way in hell that 6.8mm is any "better" performer than 6.5mm. Real world doesn't work that way with such negligible differences.

Terminal difference is gonna be negligible.

External difference is gonna favor 6.5mm, so why not?

No program manager is gonna feel fulfilled just saying, "It makes sense to use the 6.5 Creedmoor existing design." That won't look good to his bosses or his resumé. "You mean you just took an off-the-shelf cartridge and didn't spend millions on a fresh study to justify this program?"

Let’s keep piling onto BFT!

My contribution —. The efficiency report for Major XXX ZZZ could read “The major saved our country several million dollars by selecting an existing cartridge that satisfies all of the attainable requirements of the competition.”

[BluntForceTrauma]

I'm not advocating any specific caliber for the 6.8 NGSW cuz I don't know their performance requirements. Just saying there's no technical reason it can't be 6.5mm.

Don't really care cuz the fundamental obtuseness of the whole concept annoys me.

I do have a strong opinion that the NGSW cartridge should have a COAL length no greater than, oh, 2.30" and a case head diameter no greater than, oh, 0.473. Set that as a limit to control overall bulk of the cartridge and weapon and from there maximize performance with all the latest new-fangled concepts.

[stanc]

I'm not advocating any specific caliber for the 6.8 NGSW cuz I don't know their performance requirements. Just saying there's no technical reason it can't be 6.5mm.

Of course. It not only can be done, Textron has previously made 6.5mm CT ammo.

Don't really care cuz the fundamental obtuseness of the whole concept annoys me.

It's a conservative, time-proven approach, at least with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles: As armor protection improves, the caliber and power of tank and IFV main guns increase to penetrate the improved armor.

I do have a strong opinion that the NGSW cartridge should have a COAL length no greater than, oh, 2.30" and a case head diameter no greater than, oh, 0.473.

Heh, heh. Those numbers look suspiciously like they were chosen to rule out bullets bigger than 6.5mm. The 6.8mm CT round looks to have a COAL of ~2.60" and diameter of 0.49-0.50".

Set that as a limit to control overall bulk of the cartridge and weapon...

It wouldn't help. If you want to reduce bulk enough to matter, cartridge diameter will have to be much closer to the 0.419" of the 5.56 CT round.

A cartridge diameter of 0.473" would result in magazines as wide and tall as for 7.62 NATO, making 30-round magazines too bulky to be practical.