12-13-2018, 05:06 PM
They're saying (Generals and Colonels) that the new Next Generation Squad Weapon will be lighter, produce more mv than a 26" .270 Weatherby Magnum from a 16" barrel, with lighter ammo, using chamber pressures from artillery pieces. It will also be impervious to soldier abuse and weather conditions, while mounting an integrated electro-optical targeting system that does most of the work for the shooter.
Reminds me of the OICW, ACR, and XM8 programs. They could achieve better retained energy at distance if they used a 6.5mm and cut the mv requirement down to a "more reasonable" 3260fps (since we're throwing reason out the window anyway with the idea that a 16" barrel will generate 3400fps with a 125gr EPR).
Looks like somebody sold the idea to them that .277" bore was a good idea, as they can't do the basic math or run a ballistics program to check the statements that are being made to them.
A 6.5mm 125gr EPR with a .312 G7 BC will exceed the performance they are looking at. Both will be barrel burners assuming we're dealing with conventional barrel steel for military applications, but the barrel metallurgy will have to be improved if they want any kind of barrel life from this concept. We're talking cutting edge super alloy developmental work on crystalline growth or other emerging technologies, not traditional drilling and rifling through chromoly steels.
A theoretical 6.5mm EPR would make a lot more sense for this, unless there is some parameter they're looking at that precludes it. It exhibits superior terminal performance for armor defeat at 600m, less wind drift, and doesn't require pressures to be driven as high. Lower pressures than what they're looking at would allow more reasonable weapon weight and bulk to reach their desired reduction over current systems.
The whole thing sounds like a monstrous abortion though, aside from the respondent contractors who will get funding for a few years to show the Army the limitations of applied physics, then have it cancelled. I still think at a minimum, like with the ACR program, several little did bits in ancillary systems will migrate onto the M4A1 to help with better integration of the electro-optics, human interface, and furniture.
The chance of success is extremely low, but if they pull off the numbers they are claiming (exceeding .270 Weatherby from a 16" with less recoil and weight), I'm not one to get in the way of progress.
Quote:Next summer, prototypes of the new weapon are expected to be ready for test fires. By the end of next year, an advanced night vision and sophisticated targeting system will be reaching troops. All with the goal of getting more rounds downrange, on target and exceeding anything adversaries have in their inventory or will have for years to come.Military Times article
Though it is an Army program, Marines and special operations forces have been involved in providing feedback on weapons development and will receive the new weapon when fielded. Marines are already scheduled to get thousands of the new night vision devices the Army plans to start fielding late next year.
“This is a weapon that could defeat any body armor, any planned body armor that we know of in the future,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told Military Times. “This is a weapon that can go out at ranges that are unknown today and that you can see accurately. There is a target acquisition system built into this thing that is unlike anything that exists today. This is a very sophisticated weapon, and we think it’s very resilient. It will stand all the rigors of weather, terrain, and soldier use, and all of that kind of stuff. This is a pretty impressive gun.”
“It will be better than any weapon on earth today, by far,” Milley added.
Reminds me of the OICW, ACR, and XM8 programs. They could achieve better retained energy at distance if they used a 6.5mm and cut the mv requirement down to a "more reasonable" 3260fps (since we're throwing reason out the window anyway with the idea that a 16" barrel will generate 3400fps with a 125gr EPR).
Looks like somebody sold the idea to them that .277" bore was a good idea, as they can't do the basic math or run a ballistics program to check the statements that are being made to them.
A 6.5mm 125gr EPR with a .312 G7 BC will exceed the performance they are looking at. Both will be barrel burners assuming we're dealing with conventional barrel steel for military applications, but the barrel metallurgy will have to be improved if they want any kind of barrel life from this concept. We're talking cutting edge super alloy developmental work on crystalline growth or other emerging technologies, not traditional drilling and rifling through chromoly steels.
A theoretical 6.5mm EPR would make a lot more sense for this, unless there is some parameter they're looking at that precludes it. It exhibits superior terminal performance for armor defeat at 600m, less wind drift, and doesn't require pressures to be driven as high. Lower pressures than what they're looking at would allow more reasonable weapon weight and bulk to reach their desired reduction over current systems.
The whole thing sounds like a monstrous abortion though, aside from the respondent contractors who will get funding for a few years to show the Army the limitations of applied physics, then have it cancelled. I still think at a minimum, like with the ACR program, several little did bits in ancillary systems will migrate onto the M4A1 to help with better integration of the electro-optics, human interface, and furniture.
The chance of success is extremely low, but if they pull off the numbers they are claiming (exceeding .270 Weatherby from a 16" with less recoil and weight), I'm not one to get in the way of progress.
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com