Army Awards SIG NGSW Contract

[Zeneffect]

Well worth the watch, even if you don't enjoy a guy who likes to larp

[VASCAR2]

That optic would be cool to test on a 6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel AR-15.

[LRRPF52]

XM5 has been redesignated XM7 since Colt already has an M5 upgrade over the M4.

XM7 weight: 9.84lbs with the suppressor
XM157 Fire Control Optic: 1.5-2lbs? (not published)
Weapon Light: .34lbs (Surefire Scout w/batteries)
20rd mag loaded: 1.4lbs
Total: 13.08-13.58lbs

M4A1 Carbine empty: 6.43lbs to 6.55lbs depending on variant
ACOG 4x32: .62lbs
PEQ-15: .47lbs
WPL: .34lbs
30rd mag loaded w/M855A1: 1lb
Total: 8.86 - 8.98lbs

XM7 is 4lbs heavier. We can also take the XM157 Fire Control Optic and mount it on an M4A1 SOPMOD, or 6mm ARC DMR.

M4A1 with XM157 and WPL weighs 9.27lbs
Add the same SIG suppressor and you get 10.73lbs

[danm]

Wow that's a considerable porky difference...

[BluntForceTrauma]

Ran across a YouTube saying this program is in trouble. Anybody heard any independent, official confirmation?

[LRRPF52]

Ran across a YouTube saying this program is in trouble. Anybody heard any independent, official confirmation?

There was an opinion piece article in Army Times, but nothing official that I’ve seen.

The author shows a lot of bias and ignorance in his critique of the system, especially “peer civilian testing” the Army failed to do.

I’m not aware of any "civilian peer” organizations or test protocols that the Army consults when doing their weapons development and testing, since they have far more capability with Aberdeen and Army Research Labs.

I still agree with most of the assessments of the NGSW rifle, which I’ve been making from the start, but I don’t think that article has much validity in its assertions or background experience of the author.

Here’s the article in question:

“Not really Next Generation Weapon Program"

[lazyengineer]

Ran across a YouTube saying this program is in trouble. Anybody heard any independent, official confirmation?

Wouldn't surprise me. Imagine that - a complex multicomponent casing that runs at 80,0000 psi is having some hang-ups. From the same ARMY procurement department that did such a marvelous job with the original Sig 320 trials and procurement. And this Sig round has a force balance and the throat erosion behavior of a round like that, is asking a lot. What happens to an 80,000 psi cartridge when fouling builds up in the chamber and barrel? How broadly reliable is the gas system of a system that runs at that kind of pressure? How about on a really hot day or cold day? Or a warm round fired through a cold (contracted diameter) barrel... at 80,000 psi? Powder burn rate is a function of temperature and pressure. How much margin of error to spikes does something like that have?

Not saying it can't be done - but this was an ambitious project that is very much pushing the boundary's of physics, chemical reaction rate kinetics dynamics, and metallurgy. By decision makers and developers who I personally think push it.

[LRRPF52]

Looks like the forward assist got deleted off the right side of the XM7, at least the ones that are showing up to be played with by Fort Campbell Post Commander:

[LRRPF52]

In the early 1900s both the British and Japanese militaries used a 6mm-range caliber, which is most comparable on the civilian side to .270-caliber ammunition. The weapon is heavier — 3 pounds more than the M4 — and the felt recoil is slightly more than the M4. But even with minimal familiarization, the accuracy was as good at close range and better at ranges beyond 300 meters than with the M4.

But the M250 is 2.7 pounds lighter than the SAW. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Troops will carry fewer rounds with both new systems — 140 for the XM7 compared to 210 for the M4, and 400 rounds for the XM250 compared with the 600 rounds for the SAW.
However, lethality experts in the Army have repeatedly said the increased effectiveness and accuracy of the weapons and round will mean soldiers can fire fewer rounds with the same or better results.[/COLOR]

A standard XM7 load will include seven magazines. The reduced rounds will free up space on soldier kit. The Army has produced new gear carriage systems compatible with the weapon. That’s another piece of what developers will be watching as soldiers test this out — how does it affect the rest of their kit and how they perform, Rue said.

7 mags of 6.8x51 will free up space on soldier kit? Oh really?

Did they not test this assertion out? Even someone with half a brain can see it is false.

20rd 7.62 mags take up more room and weigh more on soldier’s load. They therefore can’t free up any more space if they occupy more space than 30rd 5.56 mags.

What’s the firepower like for the Army’s new rifle?

[lazyengineer]

I look forward to seeing a fire-team with these at the Camp Perry National Matches competing on the NTIT course of fire. 6 men fire time in the prone position with slings only (no bipods), 600 yards. 8 silhouettes, 50 seconds. Fire team with maximum hits win; each target must have at least 6 impacts. To date, the 5.56 20" AR15 utterly dominates, and completely destroys .30 cal rifles like the M1A, with at least double the hit count at 600 yards; regardless of wind conditions. Typically a rifleman on a good team will get 30 5.56 rounds downrange in that time, and get at least 28 hits. A top winning military team will get as many as 40 5.56 rounds/man downrange in that time-frame, with a similar hit-ratio at 600 yards. I'm eager to see how well these compete. My own bias continues to be: we already had this conversation, and it was called the M14.

We shall see!

A case could be made they should be allowed to use the suppressors. I'm curious how well the scope works with the heat mirage of an 80,000 psi round, coming off that suppressor after about 20 seconds at that rate of fire. Fireteam has to get up, and then march to 500 yards, and repeat. And then one more time, to 300 yards. They then march the last 300 yards to the pits, and be the target-pullers for the next team; all with their guns in tow. I'm curious to see how many burn injuries and fires get started from the suppressors on the guns as well. And how many suppressors get blown off, fly down range, and start the grass on fire.

[LR1955]

I look forward to seeing a fire-team with these at the Camp Perry National Matches competing on the NTIT course of fire. 6 men fire time in the prone position with slings only (no bipods), 600 yards. 8 silhouettes, 50 seconds. Fire team with maximum hits win; each target must have at least 6 impacts. To date, the 5.56 20" AR15 utterly dominates, and completely destroys .30 cal rifles like the M1A, with at least double the hit count at 600 yards; regardless of wind conditions. Typically a rifleman on a good team will get 30 5.56 rounds downrange in that time, and get at least 28 hits. A top winning military team will get as many as 40 5.56 rounds/man downrange in that time-frame, with a similar hit-ratio at 600 yards. I'm eager to see how well these compete. My own bias continues to be: we already had this conversation, and it was called the M14.

We shall see!

A case could be made they should be allowed to use the suppressors. I'm curious how well the scope works with the heat mirage of an 80,000 psi round, coming off that suppressor after about 20 seconds at that rate of fire. Fireteam has to get up, and then march to 500 yards, and repeat. And then one more time, to 300 yards. They then march the last 300 yards to the pits, and be the target-pullers for the next team; all with their guns in tow. I'm curious to see how many burn injuries and fires get started from the suppressors on the guns as well. And how many suppressors get blown off, fly down range, and start the grass on fire.

LE:

Camp Perry and the ITT are games and the gear used are made for playing a game. There is absolutely nothing in common between the ITT and anything resembling military tactics. The only similarity between the rifles being used is the outward appearance. Plus, the shooters are not forced to wear full kit. Guarantee you if you wear full body armor with helmets, eye pro, gloves, etc that you won't be getting into a loop sling and I think it would be impossible to get into a prone position at all with said loop sling. Let alone score the points if issued ball ammo.

LR-55

[603Country]

The thing that bothers me about all of this is that the Army thinks that with this new rifle and caliber, less ammo is needed because of the effectiveness of this new caliber. I don’t believe that for a second.

[cory]

LE:

Camp Perry and the ITT are games and the gear used are made for playing a game. There is absolutely nothing in common between the ITT and anything resembling military tactics. The only similarity between the rifles being used is the outward appearance. Plus, the shooters are not forced to wear full kit. Guarantee you if you wear full body armor with helmets, eye pro, gloves, etc that you won't be getting into a loop sling and I think it would be impossible to get into a prone position at all with said loop sling. Let alone score the points if issued ball ammo.

LR-55

I don't think anyone is confusing a competition as a combat like environment. However, it is a controlled environment with known elements to compare the new rifle and cartridge against. The data could be very valuable.

I'd also like to see the tertiary effects of suppressor usage on an 80ksi round.

[cory]

The thing that bothers me about all of this is that the Army thinks that with this new rifle and caliber, less ammo is needed because of the effectiveness of this new caliber. I don’t believe that for a second.

To give the devil his due, there could be truth to this in urban combat. However, in traditional open terrain warfare where the name of the game is gaining firing superiority while you call in mortar, artillery, or air support their assertion is complete hog wash. I'm not saying the standard load couldn't be reduced at all with a more effective round, but this is a significant reduction.

[montana]

I don't think anyone is confusing a competition as a combat like environment. However, it is a controlled environment with known elements to compare the new rifle and cartridge against. The data could be very valuable.

I'd also like to see the tertiary effects of suppressor usage on an 80ksi round.

Colt's head Armorer instructor Dean Caputo stated you will cut the life of an M4 rifle in half when using a suppressor..

I'm sure the 80k psi+ pressure is not going to improve the situation..

[LR1955]

The thing that bothers me about all of this is that the Army thinks that with this new rifle and caliber, less ammo is needed because of the effectiveness of this new caliber. I don’t believe that for a second.

603:

That is exactly the same argument that Grendel supporters used. So much more accurate and lethal that less ammo is needed. And this was being said without any idea what a ball round of 6.5 Grendel ammo would be.

LR55