Constant recoil, was not Sullivan or Stoner's idea, it was first seen in the MP-44

[BluntForceTrauma]

M, excellent links. Thanks! Wow. Fascinating to hear Stoner's thinking about realistic combat ranges, etc., and the hit probability problem.

I must again note, contrary to 6.8 NSGW, that Stoner was a very firm believer in small, lightweight ammo. Actual combat expends a HELL of a lot of ammo before it registers any casualty.

Let me quote Stoner at length starting at 32:10 in the video: “The other theory is to use an ammunition that’s light enough that allows you to shoot more without a weight penalty because we know we’re going to fire more…. What we’ve done is try to make the ammunition extremely light so that we can actually fire more but get a higher number of hits per engagement. You see targets so rarely, anyway, that I don’t think that’s a big penalty…. The bullet has a certain amount of armor piercing capability and it more than meets the range requirements as we visualize them.

"I personally believe that the Army, due to history and/or doctrine, has their range scale all fouled up. They should be much, much shorter to be realistic. We have weapons today with range capabilities that exceed the man’s capabilities by a factor of 2 or 3. Every time you increase the range, you have to increase the size of the cartridge and the size and weight of ammunition and size of the weapon. It just doesn’t make sense to carry something around that has twice the size and weight that it has to be…. If they can define what the rifleman’s world really is — where are these targets, how far away are they, how threatening are they, how long are they exposed — I think it’s more important for coming up with a different mechanism. We have a very low-impulse round that’s very easy to point, that doesn’t push them off the target.”

One may disagree with Stoner’s thinking, but he clearly explains WHY he believes what he believes, such that most rifle rounds are used to deny movement rather than to hit point targets. He says some radical things like proposing an aiming concept using tracers rather than sights, and thinking even optical sights only have use as a "pseudo-sniping rifle" at longer ranges. I think the use of ACOG proved him wrong in that regard.

The 6.8 NGSW project takes everything one of America’s greatest weapon designers has learned about modern weapons for modern combat and does the OPPOSITE. Even if a peer enemy is wearing modern body armor, they'll still be taking cover once the shooting starts and the fact that your .270 Winchester Short Magnum rounds have improved penetration will be negated and the amount of rounds in a basic load will quickly be a factor — as it always is.

The more I consider the issue the more I'm convinced a 6/6.5 Grendel with snazzy NGSW treatment is the answer. Low bulk ammo, compact weapons, yet with range capability from CQB to DMR to address the range concerns of conflicts like Afghanistan.

.22LR may allow an insane basic load, but lacks smack. 7.62 NATO may smack but is bigger than necessary. A compromise in the middle ground is the answer.