Army Awards SIG NGSW Contract

[LRRPF52]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army announced the award of a 10-year firm-fixed-price follow-on production contract to Sig Sauer, Inc for the manufacture and delivery of two Next Generation Squad Weapon variations (the XM5 Rifle and the XM250 Automatic Rifle) and the 6.8 Common Cartridge Family of Ammunition.

This award was made following a rigorous 27-month prototyping and evaluation effort that included numerous technical tests and Soldier touch points of three competing prototype systems.

The value of the initial delivery order on the contract is $20.4 million for weapons and ammunition that will undergo testing. The contract includes accessories, spares and contractor support. It also provides the other Department of Defense services and, potentially, Foreign Military Sales countries the opportunity to purchase the NGSW weapons.

The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

Both weapons provide significant capability improvements in accuracy, range and overall lethality. They are lightweight, fire more lethal ammunition, mitigate recoil, provide improved barrel performance, and include integrated muzzle sound and flash reduction.

Both weapons fire common 6.8 millimeter ammunition utilizing government provided projectiles and vendor-designed cartridges. The new ammunition includes multiple types of tactical and training rounds that increase accuracy and are more lethal against emerging threats than both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition.

The XM5 and XM250 will be paired with the XM157 Fire Control, a ruggedized advanced fire control system that increases accuracy and lethality for the close combat force. The XM157 integrates a number of advanced technologies, including a variable magnification optic (1X8), backup etched reticle, laser rangefinder, ballistic calculator, atmospheric sensor suite, compass, Intra-Soldier Wireless, visible and infrared aiming lasers, and a digital display overlay. It is produced by Sheltered Wings Inc. d/b/a Vortex Optics, Barneveld, Wisconsin.

https://www.army.mil/article/255827/army...n_contract

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting, so a contract is awarded for 10 years, but for continued testing of the platform?

[LRRPF52]

Interesting, so a contract is awarded for 10 years, but for continued testing of the platform?

It is interesting that they’re still calling it XM5 and XM250, not M5 and M250 NGSW platforms. Maybe the money covers type classification and Mil-Standardization in a formal adoption schedule.

[Bigs28]

Interesting they have the red dot on the "ar" and the lpvo on the "r".

[Double Naught Spy]

It is interesting that they’re still calling it XM5 and XM250, not M5 and M250 NGSW platforms. Maybe the money covers type classification and Mil-Standardization in a formal adoption schedule.

I read it as sort of like being a grant on pre FDA approval Phase 3 drug testing, promising, but not a done deal as of yet.

[grayfox]

Interesting they have the red dot on the "ar" and the lpvo on the "r".

I think that thingy on the auto is the laser/advanced targeting/ballistics thing they talked about, has some magnification too I would guess.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Everybody knows where I stand on this being a deadend as a replacement for the M4. Snipers? Yes. Machine guns? Yes. Grunt-level carbines? Hell, no, and what-are-they-thinking? Anyway, I'll let that rest.

What I find interesting is they're calling the belt-fed machine gun an Automatic Rifle. Um ... OK, I guess?

Having said all that, I think SIG did a good job fulfilling the task requested of them.

And True Velocity also seems to have a good product with their polymer-cased ammo and I hope it finds a home somewhere. However, as premium ammo it's a non-starter because every report I watch or read about it the accuracy is not THAT stellar. They need to use their non-reloadable polymer cases as the new cheap steel-case. They objected when I made that case to them at SHOT Show 2022, wanting to charge $2 per round. But we'll see how it all shakes out.

[biodsl]

A bullpup 6.5 Creedmoor would have gotten you 95% there for 5% of the cost. This whole thing is just insanity. But I suppose it's in keeping with the history of military weapon procurement.

[LR1955]

A bullpup 6.5 Creedmoor would have gotten you 95% there for 5% of the cost. This whole thing is just insanity. But I suppose it's in keeping with the history of military weapon procurement.

Doubt we will see a bullpup issued to our military. Simply put, we just do not like the design.

As for this rifle and the cartridge, both ought to put an end to the complaints about range and lethality.

I think it is precisely what the Combat Arms demanded.

The new complaints will probably be size and weight again.

One thing that will make a difference will be the sighting systems. Looking at them I believe they actually will increase lethality. Probably won't have to carry as much ammo as a result.

LR55

[BluntForceTrauma]

One thing that will make a difference will be the sighting systems. Looking at them I believe they actually will increase lethality. Probably won't have to carry as much ammo as a result.

New sighting systems could well be the difference. As I understand the combat problem, much of it is actually finding and SEEING the enemy. If one can pick out an enemy among the rocks on a far mountainside or catch a little glimpse of someone hidden in the jungle, that would save a lot of rounds. However, I would think the downside, and veterans can better speak to this, is being exposed to enemy fire while peering deeply into jungle foliage using a magnified optic.

[grayfox]

The other thing to ponder is what do you do when the fancy sight system fails, whether battery, some inner cable, whatever.
Murphy roams the battlefield.
I do hope the shooter is not left high n dry in that circumstance. Think the rifle has some kind of etched reticle for that but the ar version, ??

[Klem]

The other thing to ponder is what do you do when the fancy sight system fails, whether battery, some inner cable, whatever.
Murphy roams the battlefield.
I do hope the shooter is not left high n dry in that circumstance. Think the rifle has some kind of etched reticle for that but the ar version, ??

Fancy sights and tech is what is giving Ukraine a fighting chance against a superpower.

[Fodderwing]

So, a 6.8 Creedmore?

[LR1955]

The other thing to ponder is what do you do when the fancy sight system fails, whether battery, some inner cable, whatever.
Murphy roams the battlefield.
I do hope the shooter is not left high n dry in that circumstance. Think the rifle has some kind of etched reticle for that but the ar version, ??

GF:

Joe will use his back up irons. Just like now if the optic breaks or the power fails.

LR55

[m796rider]

Tier 1 units -- that can basically pick whatever small arms they want -- will look at NGSW, politely decline, and continue to use 6mm ARC in their ARs.

[Double Naught Spy]

New sighting systems could well be the difference. As I understand the combat problem, much of it is actually finding and SEEING the enemy. If one can pick out an enemy among the rocks on a far mountainside or catch a little glimpse of someone hidden in the jungle, that would save a lot of rounds. However, I would think the downside, and veterans can better speak to this, is being exposed to enemy fire while peering deeply into jungle foliage using a magnified optic.

I read a very optimistic piece suggesting that the fancy, range and environmentals calculating automatic crosshair adjusting optics had the potential to make every soldier a "sniper" (in the sense of being an expert shooter). No doubt they could improve the average shooters ability to hit at distance, but what you say about the ability to actually find the target rings very true. Also, military tactics seem to have a strong basis in being the ones who put the most lead in the air, make the most noise possible to suppress the enemy. It has been a tried and true tactic for decades and I sincerely doubt that will change anytime soon.

In Afghanistan, it supposedly took an average of 250k small arms ammo fired for enemy killed. No doubt the number is somewhat lower for the number of enemy wounded, but that sort of paints a picture of how much firing is going on that isn't directed, well aimed fire.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2003

When a group of US soldiers come under effective fire or in an ambush, it has not been a practice to stop, assess the threat, identify specific targets and make well aimed shots at those targets. No. Instead they tend to pour large amounts of ammo into the area or areas where the shots are believed to be coming from in hopes of causing a cessation of incoming fire. Then, if and when that doesn't work, they call in mortars, artillery, or air power.

Don't get me wrong. I think the new optics are a move in the right direction, but I am not thinking that a change in optics will being saving us very many 10s of thousands of rounds of ammo per enemy killed, at least not until we have a major change in applied tactics.

[grayfox]

GF:

Joe will use his back up irons. Just like now if the optic breaks or the power fails.

LR55

10-4. I've always been a fan of having a backup plan.
Like others have said, if we get some weapon improvements that actually help I'm all for it.
Just remember "the other team is getting paid to show up too."

[JASmith]

…When a group of US soldiers come under effective fire or in an ambush, it has not been a practice to stop, assess the threat, identify specific targets and make well aimed shots at those targets. No. Instead they tend to pour large amounts of ammo into the area or areas where the shots are believed to be coming from in hopes of causing a cessation of incoming fire. Then, if and when that doesn't work, they call in mortars, artillery, or air power….

Which, of course, suggests doing the same with the 5.56 to get a smaller, lighter version with similar lethality.

Speculating — could a 20 cal have similar effectiveness against body armor at 100 meters as do the current family of 5.56 ammunition? That might yield a 5x40 which would save typing a bunch of decimal points as we debate the cartridges.

[LR1955]

I read a very optimistic piece suggesting that the fancy, range and environmentals calculating automatic crosshair adjusting optics had the potential to make every soldier a "sniper" (in the sense of being an expert shooter). No doubt they could improve the average shooters ability to hit at distance, but what you say about the ability to actually find the target rings very true. Also, military tactics seem to have a strong basis in being the ones who put the most lead in the air, make the most noise possible to suppress the enemy. It has been a tried and true tactic for decades and I sincerely doubt that will change anytime soon.

In Afghanistan, it supposedly took an average of 250k small arms ammo fired for enemy killed. No doubt the number is somewhat lower for the number of enemy wounded, but that sort of paints a picture of how much firing is going on that isn't directed, well aimed fire.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2003

When a group of US soldiers come under effective fire or in an ambush, it has not been a practice to stop, assess the threat, identify specific targets and make well aimed shots at those targets. No. Instead they tend to pour large amounts of ammo into the area or areas where the shots are believed to be coming from in hopes of causing a cessation of incoming fire. Then, if and when that doesn't work, they call in mortars, artillery, or air power.

Don't get me wrong. I think the new optics are a move in the right direction, but I am not thinking that a change in optics will being saving us very many 10s of thousands of rounds of ammo per enemy killed, at least not until we have a major change in applied tactics.

"In Afghanistan, it supposedly took an average of 250k small arms ammo fired for enemy killed. No doubt the number is somewhat lower for the number of enemy wounded, but that sort of paints a picture of how much firing is going on that isn't directed, well aimed fire."


DNS:

Hmmmm..... Where have I heard that number given before? Go back fifty years and the same number was given for the Vietnam war.

Bottom line is no one knows how many rounds someone with a rifle or carbine shot to get a kill or wound or anything else because a lot more systems are involved in a fight than Joe with his carbine.

And the days of the Vietnam tactics of 'gain fire superiority' via blasting magazines of ammo at suspected enemy locations disappeared from doctrine when I was a Infantry Platoon Leader carrying a M-16A1.

Well aimed and controlled fire has been doctrine for the last 45 years or more.

I have not been involved with the Army for about twelve years now but during the previous thirty plus years I witnessed over and over again Infantrymen and SO guys proving to themselves that semi auto fire was far more effective than auto or three round burst. And that aimed fire was more effective than 'Quick Kill' or hip shooting. Dot sights have done a lot to shift the tactics towards aimed sustained fire.

So, surely I witnessed the change but understand that one man's 'aimed and controlled fire' very well could be another man's 'blast more faster and who ever makes the most noise wins'.

I think LRRP52 mentioned this before but there are a lot more weapons systems put into play when contact is made than a guy with his carbine or M-240 / 249. The Infantryman using his carbine tends to be more of a stop gap until better weapons systems can be brought into play and or after machineguns, indirect fire, and CAS.

LR55

[Double Naught Spy]

And the days of the Vietnam tactics of 'gain fire superiority' via blasting magazines of ammo at suspected enemy locations disappeared from doctrine when I was a Infantry Platoon Leader carrying a M-16A1.

Well aimed and controlled fire has been doctrine for the last 45 years or more.

What is doctrine and what actually happens often are different things. When people don't have a specific enemy identified (point target), they will pour rounds into a given area (area target). It may be "controlled" and "aimed" fire, but it is often high volume without an identified specific target.

[video=youtube;lpwJGkT9vVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpwJGkT9vVk[/video]

However, support-by-fire is taught as a specific tactic, dumping rounds into a given area. Again, this utilizes lots of ammo.

The initiation of the SBF on planned TRPs and target areas ensures that fire superiority is established.

As discussed earlier, there are distinct phases of rates of fire being employed by the base of fire element: the initial heavy volume (rapid rate) to gain fire superiority, the slower rate to conserve ammunition (sustained rate) while still preventing effective return fire as the assault moves forward, the increased (rapid or cyclic [if needed]) rates as the assault nears the objective, and the lift and shift to targets of opportunity.

Not Vietnam, instruction for tactics in Afghanistan, circa 2014. https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/ma...nsley.html