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

[montana]

Starting around the 6:39 minute Stoner talks about where they first saw constant recoil.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMcZ8thlikY&t=4s

[LRRPF52]

One of the first weapons to use constant recoil is the Finnish KP/-31 9mm SMG, which predates the MP44 by well over a decade.

KP/-31 stands for Konepistooli-31, or machine pistol of 1931 in Finnish.

It uses 3 different approaches to make the recoil feel like nothing, so you can hold it without much effort and it just tracks on target.

[montana]

The MP-40 also has the same recoil impulse it you have ever shot one, not as effective as the Suomi since the Finns got the cycle rate to weight of the weapon timed perfectly with their SMG. The Beretta 38A is considered even better, but I have never fired one of those.I actually got into a rather heated debate with the former TFB writer Nathaniel over this subject of constant recoil in the MP-44, where I proved him wrong. The other point I proved him wrong over was the 5 piece so called AK rate reducer. It is an anti bounce device for the lighter stamp receivers, not a rate reducer. Many today still mistakenly call it a rate reducer.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Am a huge fan of recoil reduction in military weapons, so am fascinated by constant recoil. I feel excessive recoil is the principal point where the new 6.8 NGSW goes wrong (second is ammo bulk). Anyway, thanks for the info!

P.S. On a side note, starting at 10:45, what large-caliber weapon is Stoner mentioning that has a chamber that "oscillates in an arc-shaped cam" and "two chambers that feed one barrel" and has "about three moving parts" and a "plastic case"?

[montana]

Am a huge fan of recoil reduction in military weapons, so am fascinated by constant recoil. I feel excessive recoil is the principal point where the new 6.8 NGSW goes wrong (second is ammo bulk). Anyway, thanks for the info!

P.S. On a side note, starting at 10:45, what large-caliber weapon is Stoner mentioning that has a chamber that "oscillates in an arc-shaped cam" and "two chambers that feed one barrel" and has "about three moving parts" and a "plastic case"?

I believe it was his Advanced Individual Weapon System he developed for the Advanced Combat Rifle program.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBJp9Ea8jg&t=149s
Here are the tapes in order you will enjoy if you have not seen them yet..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaIU0nCxwGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bHXspji8Lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ON5sSwprQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwDYI6dY_Ik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBJp9Ea8jg&t=149s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMcZ8thlikY&t=8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YPmi1NBSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew_RiUBboZE

[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.

[grayfox]

In some ways the 68 ngsw has similarities to past American thinking in air power, especially the ramp-up to the F4 phantom. I'm no air force expert but heavy, fast but hard to maneuver jet, with no gun for up-close fights, gives away a lot of advantages for the classic dog fight. They figured a gun wouldn't be needed since all combat would be from a distance, all you need is rockets.

Now a lot of those problems were overcome by adding a gun and by pilots' expertise, but it seemed a bit strange to start out by giving away a lot of advantage.

This new 68 is the heavy, no close-up-needed missile launcher for an infantry that has some long range stuff but most fighting occurred in urban, close-up encounters. Find a way to carry along a man-pad, bring along a drone-buddy hellcat-type or use a 6Arc for that 800-1000 yd stuff. Stay nimble for when you're seeing the whites of their eyes.

[montana]

I absolutely agree with Stoner's thoughts. The US has always emphasized long range marksmanship, even though combat has proven it a false pretext to real combat. As Jim Sullivan stated, when people start shooting at you, it tends to ruin your bowling score.The US military has been on the wrong side of arms procurement many times. The Henry and Spencer repeating rifle during the civil war, the Winchester repeating rifle used against Custer in my home state, the Krag–Jørgensen rifle with its lever to keep it a single shot and not waste ammunition, the slow adoption of the SMG, the lack of understanding of the first assault rifle that gave us the M-14, the M-16A2 with it's abysmal 3 round burst and the adoption of the HK-27 instead of the Knights Light assault machine gun.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hsOrULshco
The fact that the constant recoil weapon's cycle rate is not effected by different ammunition pressure curves is also a big plus IMO. It eliminates the need for an adjustable gas block...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMcZ8thlikY&t=4s start at the 7:37 minute..

[Klem]

What were the range concerns in Afghanistan? Is there anything posted or published about this?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Klem, in general, the range concerns in AFG were that our troops were being ambushed by PKMs with 7.62x54R at, oh, 800 meters and couldn't adequately respond with 5.56. Thus the push for the increased ballistic capability of the 6.8 NGSW to both have long range external ballistics as well as body armor defeat at those ranges.

Here's a quick ARTICLE from which I quote: "We’re looking to reach out around 600 meters and have lethal effects even if the target is protected by body armor,” Col. Geoffrey A. Norman, force development division chief at Army HQ, told Task & Purpose at the time. “We need to have lethal effects against protected targets and we need to have requirements for long-range lethality in places like Afghanistan, where you’re fighting from mountaintop to mountaintop over extended ranges.”

[Klem]

Interesting, thanks

Klem

[Fess]

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 main problem would be dealing with a near-peer who has the ability and resources to would do what our soldiers do: call for assistance. Even though the opponent would indeed take cover, that would allow them to call in an artillery, air, or drone strike against YOUR position. Already in places like Syria, body armor and drones are becoming more common. It is critical that the opponent be quickly incapacitated. Otherwise you have a situation where opponents hide behind rocks and call in devastation against each other.

[Happy2Shoot]

cool video