Textron Systems NGSW Rifle and LMG

[LRRPF52]

[video=youtube_share;xQigh3BEnpU]https://youtu.be/xQigh3BEnpU[/video]

[grayfox]

Well. Impressive to me, that's for sure.

[Lemonaid]

If you thought .223 ammo was hard to find, try finding some of that 6.8 telescoping stuff, or any reloading components. How many years before any civilian will be able to get their hands on this and will they want to in a big way? It might be like the caseless electric fired ammo.
Question, would you buy a rifle you can't reload for?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Textron rep claimed it had "less recoil." Physics says a higher-pressure cartridge with a heavier bullet must have MORE recoil, so I'm interested in what mechanisms they used to reduce recoil.

Watching the video, these experienced shooters are suffering the same recoil problem as 7.62x51 weapons, particularly in full auto. They tried to be upbeat about it, but just watching the video you can tell.

My conclusion? Not sold on a cartridge this size.

Keep the same high-pressure — grudgingly — chamber specs and the same cartridge case weight reduction technology, but reduce the caliber and increase projectile BC until you get the smallest possible cartridge form factor that can still meet the penetration goals at range.

This keeps weapon form factor bulk down as well as the logistical benefits of a more compact cartridge.

6mmARC is a step in the right direction.

A larger cartridge is fundamentally a less optimum choice — all things considered.

And that's not even considering whether their performance criteria is realistic.

[Double Naught Spy]

If you thought .223 ammo was hard to find, try finding some of that 6.8 telescoping stuff, or any reloading components. How many years before any civilian will be able to get their hands on this and will they want to in a big way? It might be like the caseless electric fired ammo.
Question, would you buy a rifle you can't reload for?

I don't think the telescoping polymer cases are reloadable.

Textron rep claimed it had "less recoil." Physics says a higher-pressure cartridge with a heavier bullet must have MORE recoil, so I'm interested in what mechanisms they used to reduce recoil.

Watching the video, these experienced shooters are suffering the same recoil problem as 7.62x51 weapons, particularly in full auto. They tried to be upbeat about it, but just watching the video you can tell.

My conclusion? Not sold on a cartridge this size.

Keep the same high-pressure — grudgingly — chamber specs and the same cartridge case weight reduction technology, but reduce the caliber and increase projectile BC until you get the smallest possible cartridge form factor that can still meet the penetration goals at range.

This keeps weapon form factor bulk down as well as the logistical benefits of a more compact cartridge.

6mmARC is a step in the right direction.

A larger cartridge is fundamentally a less optimum choice — all things considered.

And that's not even considering whether their performance criteria is realistic.

Yeah, I don't understand how you can have more power and less recoil from a lighter weapon.

I like the idea of the lighter cartridges, but that comes at the cost of them being much more bulky in size.

I really got a kick out of the guy repeating multiple times about how the platforms were the same as the SAW and ARs in terms that everything was the same "muscle memory" and then had to ask the Textron guy how to load the weapon. Yeah, generalized basic controls are very similar, but things stop right there. Maintenance and cleaning will be different as well, which is to be expected because the platform aren't the same at all.

Did y'all notice the pencil barrel? How well is that going to stand up to heating and accuracy?

[grayfox]

I’m not sure about their claims vs physics either. I think I saw some evidence of some kind of shock-absorber action between the rifle and the rear stock, seems to be some compression-relaxation there. Sort of a minor recoiless rifle in concept?
and I agree that reloading components for it won’t be any time soon, plus the cases are 1x use...
but the upside is this one takes over the title of assault weapon and leaves the AR platform free!!!!
lol.

[LRRPF52]

At least it doesn’t look like this anymore:





Looks like they keep slimming down the rifle variant. This was another version before the one seen in this latest video:





The big thing with the magazines is that you’re now dealing with a significant increase in the bulk/space volume on the soldier’s load that limits how many rounds you can carry.

Ejection port is right where a lot of people will naturally grip the rifle with the support hand.

Add to that the fact that each magazine holds less ammunition than the current standard issue magazines for individual riflemen or SOF assaulters, and we’re back into that penalty from the 7.62 NATO systems in terms of endurance and need for resupply.

It looks like it would make a better Semi-Auto Sniper System than the M110 or SR25, provided that it’s accurate and more reliable.

It has an uphill battle to fight compared to the M4 when looking at clearing rooms, alleys, and close quarters in the streets where fast follow-up shots are needed on movers. .270 Weatherby Magnum+ performance is going to do a number on whatever it hits though.

[stanc]

If you thought .223 ammo was hard to find, try finding some of that 6.8 telescoping stuff, or any reloading components. How many years before any civilian will be able to get their hands on this and will they want to in a big way?

US military rifles have long been popular with civilians. If the Textron NGSW candidates are adopted by the Army -- and made available at an affordable price to the commercial market -- I'd expect many civilians would buy semi-auto versions. As to how many years in the future that might be, I wouldn't even guess.

Question, would you buy a rifle you can't reload for?

You betchum, Red Ryder. I never reloaded for any of my rifles. I shot factory ammo exclusively.

[Growler]

Man, are they ever spreading the marketing BS on thick and heavy!
Telescoping? Ummmm, ok. You made cartridge base to meplat < case trim length. Yawn.

Gotta give them props for simplifying the reamer design though.

[stanc]

Textron rep claimed it had "less recoil." Physics says a higher-pressure cartridge with a heavier bullet must have MORE recoil, so I'm interested in what mechanisms they used to reduce recoil.

Watching the video, these experienced shooters are suffering the same recoil problem as 7.62x51 weapons, particularly in full auto. They tried to be upbeat about it, but just watching the video you can tell.

Textron rep said that recoil is less than "comparative" weapons. Which means something like the 7.62x51 Mk48 machine gun and SR25 carbine, not the 5.56x45 M4 carbine.

Keep the same high-pressure — grudgingly — chamber specs and the same cartridge case weight reduction technology, but reduce the caliber and increase projectile BC until you get the smallest possible cartridge form factor that can still meet the penetration goals at range.

:confused: They did make the "smallest possible" cartridge that can achieve the desired penetration at range.

[BluntForceTrauma]

I think "muscle memory" is overrated.

At some point, a new weapon is just gonna have slightly different controls. Soldiers somehow managed the transition from M1 Garand controls to M16 controls.

Controls, ultimately, should be placed where they are most ergonomically logical.

[BluntForceTrauma]

They did make the "smallest possible" cartridge that can achieve the desired penetration at range.

If so, can't blame industry for designing to spec.

In that case, I will next turn my blame gun on unrealistic specifications.

I'm not nor have been military, but I'm gonna guess larger number of carried rounds for a smaller cartridge is gonna be a better friend to the soldier than penetration from a larger cartridge at 800 meters.

Try to have both, but I'd err on the side of quantity. Was it Lenin or Stalin who said, "Quantity has a quality all its own"?

[grayfox]

Won't be the first time the .mil had unrealistic expectations.
The only advantage I can think of that a 6.8mm bullet has over a 6.5, for example, is mass in a shorter frame. Overcome the BC disadvantage by just increasing MV... typical to over-muscle something instead of looking for the optimum fit.

But-- and I float this idea as an out of box type -- perhaps the whole "advantage" is not military but political. Think - if conceived by obamanites or other swamp-like critters, then finding a way to keep it out of the civilian market might be the objective no one is talking about but the real one nevertheless.
Let's do some brainstorming on why - other than good military performance - someone would spec out a rig like this. Because "good for the military" or "good for battle" might not be the objective after all.
Remember the nuclear-powered Air Force bomber? What an albatross.

[mtnlvr]

Kind of a sucky vid. No real specs provided, just lighter, stronger, more bad asser. I'd be interested to see how a comparable cartridge performance, cartridge weight and rifle weight actually compare...not against a 308, but comparable 6.8.

[stanc]

...perhaps the whole "advantage" is not military but political. Think - if conceived by obamanites or other swamp-like critters, then finding a way to keep it out of the civilian market might be the objective no one is talking about but the real one nevertheless.

Let's do some brainstorming on why - other than good military performance - someone would spec out a rig like this. Because "good for the military" or "good for battle" might not be the objective after all.

Let's not do any "brainstorming" of anti-2a conspiracy theories. They're inappropriate for a technical forum.

The reason for the more powerful 6.8 NGSW cartridges is due to a change in Army thinking in recent years.

Under Milley...the service recovered from the readiness woes caused by sequestration and funding starvation. The Army shifted from a counterinsurgency and counterterrorism force to one confronting the threat of peer competitors such as China and Russia. The service also looked to the future, and Milley put in place Army Futures Command so Army leaders will have the equipment, doctrine and training they need to fight in a multidomain battlefield and win.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Art...-of-staff/

It seems clear that they do not want to have possible future scenarios wherein US infantrymen shoot enemy soldiers, only to have them pop up again, unharmed.

[video=youtube;_584MxLEsVE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_584MxLEsVE[/video]

I don't know if NGSW is the best solution to the perceived problem, but at least the Army is trying to equip for future battles, and not preparing to fight the last war.

[Growler]

Let's not do any "brainstorming" of anti-2a conspiracy theories. They're inappropriate for a technical forum.

Let’s not engage in armchair censorship just because you may not agree with another member’s thoughts. Failing to appreciate Grayfox’ idea does not make you the arbiter who determines whether it is “appropriate” for a technical forum.

I found both his comment interesting and your description plausible.

[stanc]

Let’s not engage in armchair censorship just because you may not agree with another member’s thoughts.

Apparently you do not know what censorship is. In no way did I censor any part of grayfox's post.

Failing to appreciate Grayfox’ idea does not make you the arbiter who determines whether it is “appropriate” for a technical forum.

A thousand pardons. I was under the impression that this is the Military & Law Enforcement forum, not the Silly Conspiracy Theories forum.

I found both his comment interesting...

Really? I found his comment irrational. I see no logical reason to think that the NGSW was conceived "to keep it out of the civilian market."

Semi-auto versions of the NGSW should be just as lawful as semi-auto versions of the M16, and (AFAIK) polymer-cased ammo is also legal.

[montana]

Won't be the first time the .mil had unrealistic expectations.
The only advantage I can think of that a 6.8mm bullet has over a 6.5, for example, is mass in a shorter frame. Overcome the BC disadvantage by just increasing MV... typical to over-muscle something instead of looking for the optimum fit.

But-- and I float this idea as an out of box type -- perhaps the whole "advantage" is not military but political. Think - if conceived by obamanites or other swamp-like critters, then finding a way to keep it out of the civilian market might be the objective no one is talking about but the real one nevertheless.
Let's do some brainstorming on why - other than good military performance - someone would spec out a rig like this. Because "good for the military" or "good for battle" might not be the objective after all.
Remember the nuclear-powered Air Force bomber? What an albatross.

Who knows, there has been a lot of expensive boondoggles that have helped pave the road to newer and better armaments. I remember when they stated the M-1 Abrams was a costly mistake, that used too much fuel and was vulnerable to dust, yet became the premiere tank of the world. The F-22 production was cut short by obama as being too costly, the B-1 bomber was cut by carter, etc. Politics and great sums of money unfortunately has been just as big of influencer as need. Trying to find the perfect balance of cost and need will always be controversial. This being 2020, anything is possible.

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know if NGSW is the best solution to the perceived problem, but at least the Army is trying to equip for future battles, and not preparing to fight the last war.

They always think they are preparing for the next war, but the information is always based on current or past data, which then takes months or years to convert into appropriate technology. By the time the next war comes around, it isn't the war they prepared for.

Interesting video you posted. The scenario mentioned, while it does happen, did NOT happen in that case. That was Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, shot in 2005. The medic and his buddies chased down and engaged the sniper team and he ended up treating the now wounded sniper who tried to kill him.
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/army_t...re_news-2/

[video=youtube;iINTCDJuf_k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINTCDJuf_k[/video]

[stanc]

Interesting video you posted. The scenario mentioned...did NOT happen in that case. That was Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, shot in 2005. The medic and his buddies chased down and engaged the sniper team and he ended up treating the now wounded sniper who tried to kill him.

The postulated scenario certainly DID happen in that case, except it was an American soldier who was shot, and jumped back up, unharmed.

NGSW is meant to keep that from happening with armor-clad enemy soldiers in future conflicts.

If the enemy is shot by US infantry, the Army wants them to stay shot, not pop back up to continue to fight.