Tactical Life posts that the military is changing to the 6.8 in SAW and M4

[LRRPF52]

Yeah I am serious, but I was more thinking along the lines of Russia or China. With the advances in battery/electric motor technology MECH suits are entering the realm of likely hood, not just a possibility.

This was made in 2005.
https://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/research/e.../exohiker/

Here is info on a more current one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/...ys-n722676
If normal(wealthy) people can access this technology I would imagine most real militaries are working on something better. Picture something like this, but made to carry heavy armor plate most rifles won't penetrate. Remember the carnage those dudes did with their homemade bullet resistant suits a few years ago?

Yeah, I've been tracking that for years now because of some of the developmental programs I was involved with. Here is where the Russians currently are with their robot program:

[video=youtube_share;om5z3Uck9IY]https://youtu.be/om5z3Uck9IY[/video]

[LRRPF52]

This is true, but it's also true that 1.1-2million vietnamese and about 2million afgans died in their "victories".

That said I don't know why we are talking about 3rd world fights, I thought this new guns requirements were for fighting a nation closer to our strength.

That's the problem. We don't send Infantry to fight dismounted Infantry. Russians and Chinese don't send motorized infantry into a fight without air and artillery support.

Even the contractors/mercenaries they sent with Syrians to try to overwhelm our SOF units in Syria last year (February) were armored with artillery support, 2 battalions worth. They began shelling our positions with the Kurds, at which time we unleashed JDAMs, Hellfires, and Excaliburs from B-52Hs, F-15Es, F-22As, Reapers, and USMC artillery for about 6 hours until there was nothing but thermal splatter signature littering the battlefield.

This was after we de-conflicted with the Russians and made sure that they were not at that location, which they repeatedly assured us they were not. You can listen to their commanders openly discussing their utter defeat on unsecure cell phone traffic, how all their vehicles were obliterated, and how most of their key leaders embedded with the Syrians were killed.

[video=youtube_share;EhNmrAG-RUc]https://youtu.be/EhNmrAG-RUc[/video]

They had 2 battalions of Armor/Mech
Artillery Batteries
Engineer units with pontoon bridges

[LRRPF52]

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


In WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even Desert Storm, we didn't posses the networked capability we now have, where a complete picture of the battle space is monitored in real time, precision guided munitions are available on-demand from small SOF units, and systemic cellular elimination in a kill web is executed with astonishing speed and precision.

We're not dealing with situations like in Korea where Infantry fought Infantry for control of key hilltops. Even in that scenario, a .270 Magnum cartridge would result in quick expenditure of rifle and machine-gun ammunition because you can't volumetrically carry enough of it.

In our modern approach to "near-peer" warfare, we are watching the marshaling and staging of any large motorized, armor, infantry, aviation, artillery, and ADA units well in advance with multiple plans on how to eliminate them with airpower and precision-guided surface-to-surface munitions that make small arms look like the pea-shooters that they are.

For insurgencies, dismounted Infantry rises to the top of the list for main effort units because we don't want to deliver large amounts of high explosives into a civilian-saturated urbanized environment. Small arms come into play there because you have to pick out insurgents from among the populace when you find them, either with snipers, DMs, or close combat within built-up structures.

You locate insurgents with active intelligence networks, ISR platforms, informants, and eliminate them where they sleep as fast as possible with Special Mission Units from JSOC and SOCOM, while Infantry embed with the locals to show them that we are willing to protect them. I'm having a very hard time seeing a place for a .270 Magnum carbine and SAW or Machine-gun in that fight.

[Double Naught Spy]

New Update..
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019...prototypes

[A5BLASTER]

New Update..
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019...prototypes

That article just reconfirmed why I have never purchased or owned any firearm because it's the caliber the military use's.

I'm all about the us military having the best but if this is what they end up with I feel sorry they would have to deal with it and will be hording ar15 parts so I can keep my grendels running for the rest of my life.

This new weapon system and proposed ammo just seems a huge waist and someone's unwavering pecker meassuring reasoning to have a big bore weapon. Cause u all new bigger is tallways better.

I have no military experience but this just looks dumb even too me.

[grayfox]

I just did a little "what-if" on their presumably min requirements of 3000 ft/s MV and 600 yd "effectiveness".
I used the .277 SMK 135 gr bullet, G1 BC=0.488 and 3000 ft/s.
Supposedly only a 6.8 will "meet Government requirements." Presumably X amount KE at 600 yds...
A 6.5 PRC, or a new "superdooper" powder and 6.5 Creed, with 143 (Eldx) at 2800 ft/sec gives 100 ftlb KE greater than their "270 NewWsm"...
At 600 yds, starting at 3000 ft/s, the 270nwsm has 72" drop, 1980 ft/s and 1175 ke.
At 600 yds, starting 2800 ft/s, the 6.5/ 143 Eldx will have 76" drop, 2013 ft/s and 1286 ke.
Of course all these nbrs are with a 24" barrel +/-... certainly not a carbine.

Granted this is a lot of assuming in here, but interesting that "da Gubmint" has made up its mind that only a 6.8 will do.

Still doesn't add up imo.

[LRRPF52]

They don't even have prototypes, yet the news is being spun that this will be the next service rifle and automatic rifle for the squad, just like they did with the XM8.

As soon as any half decent NCO or even a smart *** PFC sees the size of the cases, they're going to laugh and say, "No."

The industry still hasn't proven that they can make weight, let alone incorporate the Integrated Optics/LRF for the Squad Fire Control Optic.

[LRRPF52]

I just did a little "what-if" on their presumably min requirements of 3000 ft/s MV and 600 yd "effectiveness".
I used the .277 SMK 135 gr bullet, G1 BC=0.488 and 3000 ft/s.
Supposedly only a 6.8 will "meet Government requirements." Presumably X amount KE at 600 yds...
A 6.5 PRC, or a new "superdooper" powder and 6.5 Creed, with 143 (Eldx) at 2800 ft/sec gives 100 ftlb KE greater than their "270 NewWsm"...
At 600 yds, starting at 3000 ft/s, the 270nwsm has 72" drop, 1980 ft/s and 1175 ke.
At 600 yds, starting 2800 ft/s, the 6.5/ 143 Eldx will have 76" drop, 2013 ft/s and 1286 ke.
Of course all these nbrs are with a 24" barrel +/-... certainly not a carbine.

Granted this is a lot of assuming in here, but interesting that "da Gubmint" has made up its mind that only a 6.8 will do.

Still doesn't add up imo.

The overbore of the case width to bore diameter looks like a .270 WSM, so a 6.5 WSM would gas check the throat even worse than the ~1000rd barrel life threshold they're currently looking at.

One of the ideas is to let soldiers train with the rifle in virtual sims more than anything, with very rare moments of actual live fire, because it will expand the battle simulation centers even bigger than before. Those are huge programs with way more money in them than a rifle range.

The scary thing that this concept brings to light is that the first time some soldiers might actually fire this with live ammo would be in combat.

[grayfox]

Right, I wasn't trying to project a 6.5 wsm, merely showing that existing 6.5 cartridges already can deliver downrange what they supposedly are seeking, and at lower MVs... not even saying that what they seek is right or doable... but adding in the rest of what we can figure, makes it more like a fairy tale than reality.

[grayfox]

One of the ideas is to let soldiers train with the rifle in virtual sims more than anything, with very rare moments of actual live fire, because it will expand the battle simulation centers even bigger than before. Those are huge programs with way more money in them than a rifle range.

And THIS part...... kind of sounds like Professor Harold Hill's Boys band..... his music lessons/practice methods!!!!!
O we got trouble right here in River City...........

[LR1955]

They don't even have prototypes, yet the news is being spun that this will be the next service rifle and automatic rifle for the squad, just like they did with the XM8.

As soon as any half decent NCO or even a smart *** PFC sees the size of the cases, they're going to laugh and say, "No."

The industry still hasn't proven that they can make weight, let alone incorporate the Integrated Optics/LRF for the Squad Fire Control Optic.

Exactly. They don't have prototypes, I don't see any RFP etc. I wouldn't go as far as comparing it to the XM-8 yet.

No one can produce a document where DoD is saying their next generation of small arms ammunition will be 6.8mm either.

I do see value in the 6.8 for the military but it comes from my belief that almost any bullet can be designed to be lethal and or penetrate a target material or both. I doubt there is any requirement for a specific velocity. I do know about surface danger zones though and that is where ammunition design plays a role. Sorry but if your ammunition outshoots the SDZ's on the ranges, it is a no go.

Anyway, so far I haven't seen anyone produce any documentation saying much of anything on this so file it in the XM-8 category for now. I do think it has a much better chance of being reality, though.

LR55

[LRRPF52]

There is a Prototype Project Opportunity Notice from FedBizOpps.Gov that specifically calls for use of a 6.8mm weapon.

The purpose of this Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) is to award up to three prototype Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, with each COMPANY developing two weapon variants under the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program and 6.8 millimeter ammunition common to both weapons. The weapons include the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle (NGSW-R) and the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR). These prototype OTAs will develop industry’s potential solutions/concepts through prototypes, user evaluation, and testing to ensure producible weapon systems that are safe, suitable, effective, and sustainable with a goal of delivering production representative weapon system(s) with ammunition.

“Ammunition” is an assembled cartridge case with propellant, primer, and a 6.8 millimeter projectile. This includes the Load, Assembly and Pack (LAP) and is linked, unlinked, or both. The assembled cartridge case for Surrogate and General Purpose (GP) may contain different propellant type and charge weight for each projectile type.
“Common Cartridge” refers to ammunition designed to work in both the NGSW-R and NGSW- AR.

“NGSW-R” refers to a prototype 6.8 millimeter rifle with sling, flash hider, suppressor, cleaning kit, suppressor removal tool, and quantities of magazines required to provide a minimum of 210 stowed rounds.
“NGSW-AR” refers to a prototype 6.8 millimeter automatic rifle with bi-pod, sling, flash hider, suppressor, cleaning kit, suppressor removal tool, and quantities of magazines/drums/belts/other required to provide a minimum of 210 stowed rounds.

SECTION 2 – PPON STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)
2.1. SOW INTRODUCTION
This SOW identifies the work to be performed by the COMPANY in developing two weapon variants under the NGSW program and 6.8 millimeter ammunition common to both weapons that meets the COMPANY’s proposed requirements in Attachment 1– Capability Matrix. The weapons include the NGSW-R and the NGSW-AR.

The deliverables include:

* The 2 types of prototype weapons
* Rechargeable batteries that interface with the NSN battery charger (NSN: 6130-01-659-7090)
* 3 magazines/belts/drums
* Surrogate projectiles to simulate the government-specified 6.8 projectile
* Electronic Pressure, Velocity, Action Time (EPVAT) Barrels
* DDI/Inert Dummy rounds
* 180 HPT cartridges conditioned from -65˚F to 160˚F
* Loose and Linked 6.8 NGSW cartridges
* Bulk energetics (primers and explosives)
* Spare barrels
* Suppressors, removal tools, spare parts
* Compliant Ammunition packaging and marking adhering to specs

The cartridge I saw at PCP's booth had the surrogate projectile form factor. It looks like they might be trying to stuff .270 WSM into 7.62x51 COL of 2.800" to fit in magazines that are the same length (COL length, not height). The projectile had a very conical secant profile immediately from the neck, and looked almost like a .17 caliber relative the beastly case diameter and volume.

Recoil is going to be impressive on this. The original numbers I've seen floating around in the Army Times for mv are not mentioned anywhere in the PPON. First was a 125gr 6.8mm at 3500fps from a 16" barrel at anywhere from 60,000-100,000psi chamber pressure.

The latest one mentioned 14" barrel with a 135gr doing 3100fps. That's 26" .270 Weatherby Magnum performance. These performance metrics are not spelled out in the PPON that I can find. Maybe they are listed in one of the attachments, but I don't see references yet.

[LRRPF52]

I just calculated some rough numbers using one of my .270WSM samples, took off 30% to simulate the polymer case weight savings, then multiplied that times 210 rounds. I came up with 9.26 lbs for the ammo alone, not including the 11 mags it would take to carry them. 10 mags on your kit will weigh an additional 3.5lbs assuming they weigh the same as 7.62 NATO PMAGs (they will most likely be heavier due to the taller mag requirement).

If the .270 WSM is the basic case form factor, you're looking at taller 20rd mags with a length that may fit SR25 mag COL, but a width that should be wider, meaning no double-stacked mag pouches. You will either need 10 single, or 6 singles, and 2 doubles for the sides. These will be taller and deeper mag pouches on your armor and LBE to make the 210rd count. 210 is a 30rd mag final count load, not a 20rd or 25rd, but they are specifying 210rds for the NGSR.

This will compete with locations for the radio, IFAK, GP pouches, Blue Force Tracker, and NODs, unless you put the IFAK at 6 in your back where you can't get to it. Keep in mind everyone has NODs and key leaders are getting Thermal/IR ENVG-III PSQ-20s already.



We're back to cutting weight on the ammo, so that with the super magnum performance we end up carrying 100lbs of lightweight equipment again. Bad, bad, bad.

[Sinclair]

....As ‘52 pointed out, being adept at ALL levels at conflict is critically important. Failing in small conflicts — economic, cultural, trade, gangs, and small insurgencies — only begets big wars.

That was the point that I obviously failed miserably to express. Defeating an enemy's body armor at 600 meters is fine, but what about up close and personal as in a staged college riot? Korea happened because the French lost the Indo-French war, Viet Nam happened because we did not fight to win in Korea, etc,etc.

[n9nwo]

Not sure if serious, but you have to get across the Atlantic first. The US Navy controls all of the major sea lanes of the world, and if some piss ant dictator or savage 2-legged bipedal humanoid nutbag decides to get stupid in any of those AOs, we smoke-check his entire military on our terms, erasing it from the face of the earth in a matter of days.

If a nation is stupid enough to challenge us in our areas of strength, they get dealt with in that manner, complete military force reduction to smoldering remains, escharred carcasses hanging out of their Russian-built garbage APCs and tanks, smoking holes and thermal splatter scattered over the terrain, and total regime change.

This is why the major world power observers have leaned heavily on asymmetric actions in order to get us off balance, which has only inoculated us to those threat profiles because we then react to them, throw everything we have against them after re-learning a lot of painful lessons the hard way, until we have all the geopolitical military threat profiles covered with pretty extensive playbooks.

Vietnam should have weakened us by Soviet Strategy, but it only made us stronger
We saw that with Vietnam, where we sent a technological force structured for tactical nuclear exchanges into a LIC/COIN environment. The Russians, Chinese, and some other Soviet satellite states gave scores of cheap MiG-17s, MiG-19s, MiG-21s, SA-2s, and AAA to the North Vietnamese, and devised pretty basic (but effective) tactics to defeat the strengths of the F-105D (a 1950s-devised supersonic penetration nuke strike fighter) runs into North Vietnam.

We responded with a complete fighter inventory analysis in the US and settled on sending the F-4C over to fly cover for the F-105s, learned that the missiles that were ideal for shooting down non-maneuvering bombers don't work so well, and that we actually need to still focus on our basic fighter maneuver tactics to enjoy better exchange ratios.

The result was a retention of the nuclear strike capability, with the addition of the re-learning of BFM through permanent school houses in the Navy and USAF, as well as vast improvements to the missile and guidance technology to enable higher pk against maneuvering fighters. The aircraft borne out of that generation went on to enjoy such lop-sided kill ratios against Russian fighters, that it's embarrassing to bring up Russian fighter performance in serious discussion. (F-15: 104-0, F-16 77-1).

While the Army wanted to forget about Vietnam and COIN, SF maintained fighting the COIN fight as one of its primary wartime and peacetime missions, and we picked up unique SMU capabilities along the way in the late 1970s after the 1972 Olympics incident in Munich with the Israeli soccer team massacre/kidnapping by bipedal humanoid-looking savages (trained and agitated by the Soviet KGB).

ODS Validated our Force Modernization, Training, and lessons-learned for Conventional Warfare
As those capabilities evolved over the 1980s and 1990s, after our overwhelming success in Desert Storm and especially with the lessons-learned from Mogadishu disseminated down into the regular combat divisions, the force was balanced out for both COIN and conventional warfare, despite the Army still dragging its heels in conditioning officers how to fight the COIN fight on the conventional side (they did little or nothing to focus on this for some reason).

OEF and OIF Have re-trained the Infantry and lighter units for COIN
Umpteen years of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now an almost pure Low Intensity conflict in Syria have honed the force into finally being able to have at least enough leaders who know when to plan layers of B-52Hs, F-22As, and F-15Es doing a modern JDAM Arc Light, as well as the 2007 surge of getting as many Infantry embedded into the local areas being contested by foreign insurgents in Iraq, while SMUs and Ranger Regiment hunted them down like dogs.

Instead of the myopic nuclear force of the 1950s-1960s that was TBM, ICBM, and bomber-centric (that gave a rip about Joe learning how to shoot or fight), we now have a force that has:

SLBMs
ICBMs
TBMs
Stealth, supersonic, and legacy strategic bombers (with a new stealth bomber in development/soon to hit production)

Long Range PGMs deliverable from tactical assets (JASSM, JSOW, LRSO, SLAM-ER)
Air Dominance Omnirole and Multirole, networked fighter assets
Precision-Guided Surface-to-Surface munitions platforms in both artillery and missiles (MLRS, Excalibur)
Precision-Guided Surface-to-Surface naval platforms that are currently integrating with 5th Gen Omnirole and drone platforms
Hundreds of remote-piloted weaponized and surveillance drones, to include Very Low Observables (Reaper, etc.)

7 Active Duty and National Guard Special Forces Groups (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 19th, 20th SFGs)
3 Ranger Battalions
JSOC
11 Armored, Cavalry, Airborne, Infantry, and Airmobile Combat Divisions who have been doing COIN for the better part of the past 2 decades
8 National Guard Combat Divisions that have been rotating through extended COIN deployments for the past 18 years


You hit us with COIN, we eliminate cell leaders and networks for sport, embed infantry into the targeted populace, build infrastructure, and choke out the insurgents from all sides, drone-striking or bombing them with Hellfires, JDAMs, and SDB IIs as they try to move from one AO to the next in civilian vehicles.

You try to go toe-to-toe with us using fighters and tanks, and we will sweep your Air Force from the sky while simultaneously striking your airfields, destroying all your perimeter defense radars, SAM sites, and C4 nodes in compressed time windows that make Desert Storm look like a Sunday picnic.

We maintain a massive nuclear deterrent throughout all of this, while extended Cyberwar and now Space (been doing Space warfare since at least the 1970s).

So why do we need a .270 Magnum for the Infantryman?
So in that context, I ask, "What vision is there for a .270 WSM firing a monolithic or EPR within the Infantry Squad?"

It sounds like a collateral disaster waiting to happen in the COIN fight, where Intel, SOF, Infantry, and drones are your main efforts.

Look at SOCOM's selection of 6.5 Creedmoor for their Sniper Support Rifle. That makes all kinds of sense given the above, whereas a monstrous case .270 Magnum in the Infantry Squad makes zero sense.

Both the US and Europe have enough migrants coming into the country that there is no need for a military invasion. The invaders are already here. Just smuggle weapons.

We have been intercepting weapon shipments for some time now. In 2003 there were four CONEXs filled with RPG-7s and rounds that were intercepted at El Paso. In 2006 there was a ship with AK-47s coming out the Balkans for the US. Hand grenades are easy to smuggle. Hide them in shipments of oranges for example. Plastic explosives can be cooked as the Blind Sheikh did. In fact AKs and RPGs are not all that hard to make. Would not have to take much to make weapons for a million men. And just smuggle the men in over time.

[n9nwo]

This is true, but it's also true that 1.1-2million vietnamese and about 2million afgans died in their "victories".

That said I don't know why we are talking about 3rd world fights, I thought this new guns requirements were for fighting a nation closer to our strength.

What caused the military to consider if it was time to upgrade weapons was how the Chechnya rebels were able to fight the Russians. Neither the 5.45x39 or the 5.56x45 are designed to find in urban area where most of the buildings are stone construction. it takes a heavier round. Add to that the longer ranges needed in Afghanistan.

[n9nwo]

They don't even have prototypes, yet the news is being spun that this will be the next service rifle and automatic rifle for the squad, just like they did with the XM8.

As soon as any half decent NCO or even a smart *** PFC sees the size of the cases, they're going to laugh and say, "No."

The industry still hasn't proven that they can make weight, let alone incorporate the Integrated Optics/LRF for the Squad Fire Control Optic.

That is what is bothering me. Lots of articles but no details. Lots of history.

Sounds as if they are still working on what the cartridge will be. My guess is 6.8x45

[n9nwo]

I just calculated some rough numbers using one of my .270WSM samples, took off 30% to simulate the polymer case weight savings, then multiplied that times 210 rounds. I came up with 9.26 lbs for the ammo alone, not including the 11 mags it would take to carry them. 10 mags on your kit will weigh an additional 3.5lbs assuming they weigh the same as 7.62 NATO PMAGs (they will most likely be heavier due to the taller mag requirement).

If the .270 WSM is the basic case form factor, you're looking at taller 20rd mags with a length that may fit SR25 mag COL, but a width that should be wider, meaning no double-stacked mag pouches. You will either need 10 single, or 6 singles, and 2 doubles for the sides. These will be taller and deeper mag pouches on your armor and LBE to make the 210rd count. 210 is a 30rd mag final count load, not a 20rd or 25rd, but they are specifying 210rds for the NGSR.

This will compete with locations for the radio, IFAK, GP pouches, Blue Force Tracker, and NODs, unless you put the IFAK at 6 in your back where you can't get to it. Keep in mind everyone has NODs and key leaders are getting Thermal/IR ENVG-III PSQ-20s already.



We're back to cutting weight on the ammo, so that with the super magnum performance we end up carrying 100lbs of lightweight equipment again. Bad, bad, bad.

Why do we have these huge night vision NOGs? Why not a camera then use something like Google glasses? Or a helmet with the cameras built in then a visor with heads up display.

[Double Naught Spy]

Yep, to carry a comparable amount of ammo, the new caliber will require more space and more support gear to make it possible (larger/heavier mags, pouches, etc.). It is unstated, but I think somewhere in the process the developers/promoters believe that because the ammo will be 'effective' at longer distances that the ground pounder will fire fewer rounds in order to attain fire superiority. In other words, they are banking on the effectiveness of individual shots. As such, I don't think they are necessarily planning on equipping them with a comparable load out, hence the savings in weight and maybe space. However, that would require a revamping of fire superiority tactics on the battlefield where often the amount of fire is often favored over the effectiveness of individual shots. As is often the case in battle situations, what is being shot at often isn't individual people, but locations or areas where the individual people are believed or perceived to be.

[stanc]

Yep, to carry a comparable amount of ammo, the new caliber will require more space and more support gear to make it possible (larger/heavier mags, pouches, etc.). It is unstated, but I think somewhere in the process the developers/promoters believe that because the ammo will be 'effective' at longer distances that the ground pounder will fire fewer rounds in order to attain fire superiority. In other words, they are banking on the effectiveness of individual shots. As such, I don't think they are necessarily planning on equipping them with a comparable load out...

IIRC, in (at least) one of the articles it was stated that they are planning on the same basic ammo load.