Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

Army Picks Its Replacement for the M4 and SAW

 

Quote

 

Sig Sauer's NGSW-AR, top, and NGSW-R, bottom, have been delivered to the Army as Next Generation Squad Weapon prototypes. (Courtesy Sig Sauer)

Sig Sauer's NGSW-AR, top, and NGSW-R, bottom, have been delivered to the Army as Next Generation Squad Weapon prototypes. (Courtesy Sig Sauer)

19 Apr 2022
Military.com | By Steve Beynon

The Army has found its replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, handing out a contract to put new guns in the hands of tens of thousands of soldiers.

The force is awarding a 10-year, $20.4 million contract to Sig Sauer for the XM5 Rifle, which will become the new standard rifle for soldiers, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle, which will replace the SAW.

The service will also switch from 5.56mm ammo to 6.8mm, after a search for rounds better built to penetrate body armor.

Read Next: Land Navigation Is Coming Back to the Army's Basic Leader Course

"Both weapons fire common 6.8 millimeter ammunition utilizing government provided projectiles and vendor-designed cartridges," an Army spokesperson said in a press release. "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 news comes after a 27-month evaluation process in which other defense contractors, including General Dynamics, competed to be the Army's go-to small arms dealer.

The weapons will include the XM157 Fire Control optic, which includes a laser range finder, ballistic calculator, visible and infrared lasers, and a compass. That optic is made by Vortex Optics.

It's unclear how many weapons the Army aims to buy over the decade, or how quickly soldiers will totally ditch the decades-old SAW and rifle. In its proposed 2023 budget, the force is requesting 29,046 new weapons. But that budget still needs to be approved by Congress.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/04/19/army-picks-its-replacement-m4-and-saw.html

 

I don't know anything about the 6.8, but I'm glad to see that they're going to a larger caliber. I'd be interested in handling one of these rifles, just to see the differences from the AR system. 

  • Like 5
Posted
5 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

Army Picks Its Replacement for the M4 and SAW

 

I don't know anything about the 6.8, but I'm glad to see that they're going to a larger caliber. I'd be interested in handling one of these rifles, just to see the differences from the AR system. 

You'll get your chance one the civilian model hits the market, if it hasn't already. 

Posted
40 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

You'll get your chance one the civilian model hits the market, if it hasn't already. 

I looked it up, and the only one that I found (in a very quick search), was retailing for $7,999.99... I'll wait until they're $799.99 lol. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I looked it up, and the only one that I found (in a very quick search), was retailing for $7,999.99... I'll wait until they're $799.99 lol. 

Heard they were letting people handle them at sig freedom days last month. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Hopefully it's not as bad as the new pistol...which I've heard it is.  Love the government.

Posted
8 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

Army Picks Its Replacement for the M4 and SAW

 

I don't know anything about the 6.8, but I'm glad to see that they're going to a larger caliber. I'd be interested in handling one of these rifles, just to see the differences from the AR system. 

sure beats those old M60’s we used to have to lug around,…along with the barrel bag too.

Posted
19 minutes ago, NCTANK said:

sure beats those old M60’s we used to have to lug around,…along with the barrel bag too.

The 240 hasn't been replaced yet, which is worse than the Pig...somehow hahaha.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Hopefully it's not as bad as the new pistol...which I've heard it is.  Love the government.

I have a civilian version, I've only shot it at the range a few times, of course. But I was satisfied with it in those few times. We'll see if that holds up the more I shoot it. It was originally bought by my brother and he decided to move away from it. 

 

3 hours ago, NCTANK said:

sure beats those old M60’s we used to have to lug around,…along with the barrel bag too.

I was on an M60 team for a short time. They asked for volunteers, and anything weapons related, I stepped forward. lol

  • Like 1
Posted
14 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

Army Picks Its Replacement for the M4 and SAW

 

I don't know anything about the 6.8, but I'm glad to see that they're going to a larger caliber. I'd be interested in handling one of these rifles, just to see the differences from the AR system. 

Pros: Can penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor. 

 

Cons: Chamber PSI is off the charts, it's huge, you carry less ammo, higher recoil. 

 

TBH I think there are more improvements that can be made to ammo. You're basically trading volume of fire for ability to pierce body armor. 

From what I've been reading as well as personal anecdotes is that Russians don't wear body armor often, and when they do, it sucks. Can't say anything regarding China. 

It'll be interesting to see what the Marines do, but IMO the Marines are being dumb as F in how they are reorganizing their squads. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Pros: Can penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor. 

 

Cons: Chamber PSI is off the charts, it's huge, you carry less ammo, higher recoil. 

 

TBH I think there are more improvements that can be made to ammo. You're basically trading volume of fire for ability to pierce body armor. 

From what I've been reading as well as personal anecdotes is that Russians don't wear body armor often, and when they do, it sucks. Can't say anything regarding China. 

It'll be interesting to see what the Marines do, but IMO the Marines are being dumb as F in how they are reorganizing their squads. 

As long as we can buy one that can punch through the average armor of a school cop, it's cool.

Posted
2 hours ago, Toastrel said:

As long as we can buy one that can punch through the average armor of a school cop, it's cool.

Yeah, so about that.

Pretty much every rifle will do that. Granddad's hunting rifle? Yup, that'll do it. 

Posted
On 6/9/2022 at 11:07 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I have a civilian version, I've only shot it at the range a few times, of course. But I was satisfied with it in those few times. We'll see if that holds up the more I shoot it. It was originally bought by my brother and he decided to move away from it. 

 

I was on an M60 team for a short time. They asked for volunteers, and anything weapons related, I stepped forward. lol

We've had a lot of issues with the sights falling off and the weapon requiring a hotter round. I'm sure once we get the new ammo in and spend a lot more time with it I'll like it more.  The trigger pull is smooth, I just don't like that it doesn't hit where I aim currently.

Posted
On 6/10/2022 at 2:02 AM, Bill said:

Pros: Can penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor. 

 

Cons: Chamber PSI is off the charts, it's huge, you carry less ammo, higher recoil. 

 

TBH I think there are more improvements that can be made to ammo. You're basically trading volume of fire for ability to pierce body armor. 

From what I've been reading as well as personal anecdotes is that Russians don't wear body armor often, and when they do, it sucks. Can't say anything regarding China. 

It'll be interesting to see what the Marines do, but IMO the Marines are being dumb as F in how they are reorganizing their squads. 

Marines are supposedly going with a bullpup.

IRT to the new rifle, I'm all for a higher caliber since threats are shifting back towards near peer threat, but the military is in bed with SIG.  This was just not a smart decision.  I've heard this is basically a smaller caliber SCAR with the way it feels.  Which is a weapon of much debate within the military community, some love it...some hate it.

Posted

 

On 6/10/2022 at 4:02 AM, Bill said:

Pros: Can penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor. 

 

Cons: Chamber PSI is off the charts, it's huge, you carry less ammo, higher recoil. 

 

TBH I think there are more improvements that can be made to ammo. You're basically trading volume of fire for ability to pierce body armor. 

From what I've been reading as well as personal anecdotes is that Russians don't wear body armor often, and when they do, it sucks. Can't say anything regarding China. 

It'll be interesting to see what the Marines do, but IMO the Marines are being dumb as F in how they are reorganizing their squads. 

From what I’ve read, the military did a lot of analysis on engagements and, contrary to popular belief, most were at fairly substantial distances while CQB was an outlier.

The big "pro” is going to be in the synergy between the ammo and the optics. It’s not just the stopping power and ability to penetrate body armor, but the ability to do it at significant distances. Combine that with the new fire control system, and the idea is that everyone is going to be making marksman shots at 300+ meters.

How that works out in the real world is anyone’s guess, but the concept makes sense in theory.

Posted
3 hours ago, TEW said:

 

From what I’ve read, the military did a lot of analysis on engagements and, contrary to popular belief, most were at fairly substantial distances while CQB was an outlier.

The big "pro” is going to be in the synergy between the ammo and the optics. It’s not just the stopping power and ability to penetrate body armor, but the ability to do it at significant distances. Combine that with the new fire control system, and the idea is that everyone is going to be making marksman shots at 300+ meters.

How that works out in the real world is anyone’s guess, but the concept makes sense in theory.

This. 

Afghanistan really exposed the shortcomings of the 5.56 cartridge. 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/main-us-rifle-not-effective-enough-afghanistan/

(Posting the Mother Jones version of this story for sheer irony) 

Posted

 

here’s a good video that explains what I’m talking about.

Basically we gain 300 meters of effective range over Russia and China, gain the ability to penetrate body armor at those distances, and add a "fire control system” that makes everyone able to make accurate shots at those distances without much training.

The downside is the weapon is incredibly heavy (the fire control system alone is 2.5 pounds) and the ammo is extremely heavy and bulky.

Seems perfect for Afghanistan or the plains of Europe/Asia. Not so good in urban areas. I’ll have to get my hands on one of these when the optics hit the public because without that fire control system it seems like you can’t get the most of benefits of the rifle.

Posted
5 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Marines are supposedly going with a bullpup.

IRT to the new rifle, I'm all for a higher caliber since threats are shifting back towards near peer threat, but the military is in bed with SIG.  This was just not a smart decision.  I've heard this is basically a smaller caliber SCAR with the way it feels.  Which is a weapon of much debate within the military community, some love it...some hate it.

Marines already went with the M27. It's not a bullpup. I'm speaking to their organization at the squad level. 

5 hours ago, TEW said:

 

From what I’ve read, the military did a lot of analysis on engagements and, contrary to popular belief, most were at fairly substantial distances while CQB was an outlier.

The big "pro” is going to be in the synergy between the ammo and the optics. It’s not just the stopping power and ability to penetrate body armor, but the ability to do it at significant distances. Combine that with the new fire control system, and the idea is that everyone is going to be making marksman shots at 300+ meters.

How that works out in the real world is anyone’s guess, but the concept makes sense in theory.

The distances were longer in Afghanistan. That's about it. Iraq? Less than 300m. Vietnam? 300m. WW2? 300m.

The US military is always trying to fight the last war. 

Also the optic is great but it's not going to make someone a marksman. There's still sight picture and trigger control. 

Dont get me wrong. I get what they were going for. I just don't get the need. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bill said:

Marines already went with the M27. It's not a bullpup. I'm speaking to their organization at the squad level. 

The distances were longer in Afghanistan. That's about it. Iraq? Less than 300m. Vietnam? 300m. WW2? 300m.

The US military is always trying to fight the last war. 

Also the optic is great but it's not going to make someone a marksman. There's still sight picture and trigger control. 

Dont get me wrong. I get what they were going for. I just don't get the need. 

I actually think they’re looking ahead this time. If they were looking to fight the last war, I think they’d be focusing on Iraq and project more urban combat in the future. More counter terrorism, peace keeping, humanitarian relief, etc.

It seems they’re projecting more conventional warfare than insurgency with the new weapons system and looking to gain an advantage over Russia and China with range and stopping power while the terrain is being viewed as Eastern European plains and such.

I think the idea is that the optics are going to take your basic marksmanship and "level it up” without the training of a marksman or sniper. 
 

I don’t claim to know the ins and outs of being an infantryman, but I do own a lot of military rifles. So I do get your point about weight/ammo. I wouldn’t want to lug around some huge, heavy rifle either.

I think you hit the nail on the head with taking more time to develop the ammo. If what they wanted was range and stopping power, put more R&D into the actual ammunition to get that in a smaller/lighter package, and then build the weapons system around it. Heck, the first thing they should have done is gone with a bull pup to shave off length — that thing looks huge.

Posted

Wonder if this will impact ammo supplies in 223/556

Posted
14 hours ago, TEW said:

I actually think they’re looking ahead this time. If they were looking to fight the last war, I think they’d be focusing on Iraq and project more urban combat in the future. More counter terrorism, peace keeping, humanitarian relief, etc.

It seems they’re projecting more conventional warfare than insurgency with the new weapons system and looking to gain an advantage over Russia and China with range and stopping power while the terrain is being viewed as Eastern European plains and such.

I think the idea is that the optics are going to take your basic marksmanship and "level it up” without the training of a marksman or sniper. 
 

I don’t claim to know the ins and outs of being an infantryman, but I do own a lot of military rifles. So I do get your point about weight/ammo. I wouldn’t want to lug around some huge, heavy rifle either.

I think you hit the nail on the head with taking more time to develop the ammo. If what they wanted was range and stopping power, put more R&D into the actual ammunition to get that in a smaller/lighter package, and then build the weapons system around it. Heck, the first thing they should have done is gone with a bull pup to shave off length — that thing looks huge.

Ive never been a fan of bull pups because mag changes are awkward and the triggers are always garbage because of the length of the trigger mechanism. 

A big complaint in AStan was that 556 wasn't doing well at range. A big problem was using M855 which is designed to punch though armor. If you're shooting it at a skinny goat herder, of course it's not going to yaw because by the time physics starts to do its thing it's already out of the body. Not to mention that fringe yaw is a thing as well, but that was fixed with the M855A1 and the SOST rounds. But you could reliably extend the range using a 77gr HPBT. Also the Army got big on issuing M4s with a 14.5 barrel so you're already dropping muzzle velocity right off the bat. To me the sweet spot on the AR platform is either a C7 clone or an 18" barrel with a suppressor. 

Also if the engagement zone is a plain then it's going to be an arty battle, though to seize territory you still need to seize cities because they are generally highway crossroads and rail hubs, and that huge hulk of a weapon system is going to be a PITA in a CQB setting. 

Generally US infantry doctrine calls for combinations of direct and indirect fire to seize an objective (if you're getting shot at by small arms and artillery at the same time it creates a dilemma because you can't run away from the indirect because you'll get shot but you can't take cover from the direct because eventually you'll take an arty/mortar round). But generally when it comes to the actual infantry doing infantry stuff you want a volume of fire, which is hard to do if you're reducing your round carrying capabilities. 

IMO it's an American thing that our infantry might is made up of skilled riflemen because of the revolution and the American colonists were skilled riflemen blah blah blah. (See also the USMC taking the SAW out of the fire team and everyone just having an M27, which is just stupid on so many levels.) Honestly a big chunk of our infantry doctrine we stole from the Germans, and there's a reason for that. It turns out that volume of fire and maneuver allows an army to conquer large swaths of territory in a short period of time. People keep trying to rewrite the book, but the book on infantry tactics was written in '39 and it's pretty solid, it's just that the author was a POS. It is what it is. 

Also I can tell you from first hand experience that weight Fn sucks when you're doing war. Even in lightweight I'm just gonna go on a one day patrol you still have your plates, helmet, and an assault pack with extra ammo, food, poncho, and 3-5 liters of water. It's a pain in the D, tbh. So now you just made the gun and ammo heavier, and then to top it off I have less ammo. And if you're ripping off rounds (which you shouldn't be, but good luck getting Pvt Schmucatelli to only crank a round off every 6-10 seconds), your full combat load of 7 mags will not at all last very long.

Think about it this way. The Army just got a new rifle and round so that it could punch through armor that covers less than two square feet on twenty two square feet of body, and it's not a guarantee that the enemy will be fully equipped with that armor. 

Essentially it's the army trying to grow two extra hands to solve the problem they created when they cut off their own feet. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ive never been a fan of bull pups because mag changes are awkward and the triggers are always garbage because of the length of the trigger mechanism. 

A big complaint in AStan was that 556 wasn't doing well at range. A big problem was using M855 which is designed to punch though armor. If you're shooting it at a skinny goat herder, of course it's not going to yaw because by the time physics starts to do its thing it's already out of the body. Not to mention that fringe yaw is a thing as well, but that was fixed with the M855A1 and the SOST rounds. But you could reliably extend the range using a 77gr HPBT. Also the Army got big on issuing M4s with a 14.5 barrel so you're already dropping muzzle velocity right off the bat. To me the sweet spot on the AR platform is either a C7 clone or an 18" barrel with a suppressor. 

Also if the engagement zone is a plain then it's going to be an arty battle, though to seize territory you still need to seize cities because they are generally highway crossroads and rail hubs, and that huge hulk of a weapon system is going to be a PITA in a CQB setting. 

Generally US infantry doctrine calls for combinations of direct and indirect fire to seize an objective (if you're getting shot at by small arms and artillery at the same time it creates a dilemma because you can't run away from the indirect because you'll get shot but you can't take cover from the direct because eventually you'll take an arty/mortar round). But generally when it comes to the actual infantry doing infantry stuff you want a volume of fire, which is hard to do if you're reducing your round carrying capabilities. 

IMO it's an American thing that our infantry might is made up of skilled riflemen because of the revolution and the American colonists were skilled riflemen blah blah blah. (See also the USMC taking the SAW out of the fire team and everyone just having an M27, which is just stupid on so many levels.) Honestly a big chunk of our infantry doctrine we stole from the Germans, and there's a reason for that. It turns out that volume of fire and maneuver allows an army to conquer large swaths of territory in a short period of time. People keep trying to rewrite the book, but the book on infantry tactics was written in '39 and it's pretty solid, it's just that the author was a POS. It is what it is. 

Also I can tell you from first hand experience that weight Fn sucks when you're doing war. Even in lightweight I'm just gonna go on a one day patrol you still have your plates, helmet, and an assault pack with extra ammo, food, poncho, and 3-5 liters of water. It's a pain in the D, tbh. So now you just made the gun and ammo heavier, and then to top it off I have less ammo. And if you're ripping off rounds (which you shouldn't be, but good luck getting Pvt Schmucatelli to only crank a round off every 6-10 seconds), your full combat load of 7 mags will not at all last very long.

Think about it this way. The Army just got a new rifle and round so that it could punch through armor that covers less than two square feet on twenty two square feet of body, and it's not a guarantee that the enemy will be fully equipped with that armor. 

Essentially it's the army trying to grow two extra hands to solve the problem they created when they cut off their own feet. 

On artillery, makes sense against a lesser foe, but what happens when we are facing China in 20 years? If they’re a near peer competitor, seems that artillery is going to be too vulnerable to guided munitions on BOTH sides. I think that’s why they want the range, because your artillery is going to be a very easy kill. 

Posted
7 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Wonder if this will impact ammo supplies in 223/556

Should help the civilian market if Uncle Sam isn’t buying up billions of rounds. The AR is so popular that I don’t think anyone will stop producing 223.

Posted
1 minute ago, TEW said:

Should help the civilian market if Uncle Sam isn’t buying up billions of rounds. The AR is so popular that I don’t think anyone will stop producing 223.

I would expect them to keep the M4's and any M16's active for multiple years to come and then phase them out. But that's just a guess, of course. The M16A2s came out in what, 1986? I was still carrying Vietnam era A1s in the early 1990's. I had never even seen an A2 from afar.

Of course, that might have been easier for them to do, since both rifles were of the same caliber. Maybe they'll go faster since it's a full system change. 

Posted
8 hours ago, TEW said:

On artillery, makes sense against a lesser foe, but what happens when we are facing China in 20 years? If they’re a near peer competitor, seems that artillery is going to be too vulnerable to guided munitions on BOTH sides. I think that’s why they want the range, because your artillery is going to be a very easy kill. 

If arty is an easy kill, so is the infantry.

But that's assuming that the US won't already have the edge on any conflict. People like to view click bait on how China this or Russia that. Either of those countries would not do well in a conventional war against us. The US has a bad rap for losing counter insurgencies. And this is not because of the military, but because of Washington. Afghanistan was a one year war fought twenty times over. When it comes to a regular war, the US is going to absolutely smoke anyone.  

Realistically the new rifle only increases the effective range a few hundred meters. Most combat takes place less than 300m. You're not massively increasing the range to where the average infantryman can AT&T some enemy at 1,000 yards. Even though the round in theory should be lethal at that range, you're well exceeding the marksmanship capabilities of the average infantryman. 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Bill said:

If arty is an easy kill, so is the infantry.

But that's assuming that the US won't already have the edge on any conflict. People like to view click bait on how China this or Russia that. Either of those countries would not do well in a conventional war against us. The US has a bad rap for losing counter insurgencies. And this is not because of the military, but because of Washington. Afghanistan was a one year war fought twenty times over. When it comes to a regular war, the US is going to absolutely smoke anyone.  

Realistically the new rifle only increases the effective range a few hundred meters. Most combat takes place less than 300m. You're not massively increasing the range to where the average infantryman can AT&T some enemy at 1,000 yards. Even though the round in theory should be lethal at that range, you're well exceeding the marksmanship capabilities of the average infantryman. 

 

Oh, I agree that the US would prevail against Russia/China for the foreseeable future. Air power rules the day and no one can come close to our force projection. That said, artillery is a lot more vulnerable than infantry. Bigger, less mobile, higher value target.

As for the new weapons system, we’ll see. Like I said originally, the concept makes sense, but real world application is a different thing. It sort of reminds me of when the USAF took guns off their fighters because guided missiles were going to take over. They weren’t wrong, just two decades too early for the technology. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...