Sig is releasing their NGSW Entrant (MCX-SPEAR)

[jbrimlow]

SIG has announced that they're releasing a civvie version of their NGSW entrant. https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-spear.html

Initial model is 13" suppressed model in .277 Fury (6.8x51mm). "First Run Collector's Edition". I'm sure they'll have many, many more editions.

MSRP: $8k.

[DamonL]

It will look like a good deal if the military ends up buying it.

[jbrimlow]

The way they released it makes me suspect they've won.

If I was an aggressive marketer and wanted to recoup my losses, I would have released versions in .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor with 16" barrels and separate cans.

[Willard]

Why is it $8K? Is it really worth 8 Colt 6920s?

[Yute]

The way they released it makes me suspect they've won.


Or they lost and they want to cash in on the buzz before everyone remembers it as the small arms program that the Army killed after it couldn't get the telescoping ammunition it wanted.

[Bergeron]

I’m very interested in that ammunition design. It looks like the bi-metal cased stuff will go for $4 per round.:eek:

[RAM Engineer]

A friend of mine summed this up perfectly: "So we're still in the VHS vs Betamax stage right?"

Edited to add for you youngsters:

"...or Blu-Ray vs HD DVD."

[TOTS]

I’m very interested in that ammunition design. It looks like the bi-metal cased stuff will go for $4 per round.:eek:
Almost 9 mil prices! 🤣🤣

sorry, I know this didn’t add information to the discussion, but, humor…

[Sanch]

Why is it $8K? Is it really worth 8 Colt 6920s?

It’s $8k because the people paying $8k for it are not using their own money.

[awp_101]

The way they released it makes me suspect they've won.



Or they lost and they want to cash in on the buzz before everyone remembers it as the small arms program that the Army killed after it couldn't get the telescoping ammunition it wanted.
Anyone have the over/under on how long the lawsuits brought by the losers will drag on?

[NPV]

It’s $8k because the people paying $8k for it are not using their own money.

I would be willing to be the house that the people paying for it with other peoples money are not paying $8k per unit.

Also when are we actually going to see .277 Fury, it was one of the things that interested me in the Sig Cross but it seems to have become mythical at this point.

[jbrimlow]

Anyone have the over/under on how long the lawsuits brought by the losers will drag on?

I don't think very long unless the Army did something profoundly stupid in the project. Glock's challenge went nowhere.

We're already down to two contenders anyway: SIG and TrueVelocity/LoneStar Future Weapons. By most accounts Textron has been out since November, 2021.

[Bergeron]

A point about the cost is that you can't shoot 8 factory Colts at the same time.

This might be something when teamed up with that extra-high-pressure bi-metal .277 Fury cases. It might (I'm not in any kind of a position to know) offer external ballistics superior to even 6.5 Creedmoor, and the platform itself might (same caveat) be more capable of operating at higher pressures than other large-frame AR systems. If the gun and ammo really do work as advertised, it could be the best thing going for long-range gas guns, assuming anyone can afford to train with it in its full-up guise.

[jbrimlow]

A point about the cost is that you can't shoot 8 factory Colts at the same time.

This might be something when teamed up with that extra-high-pressure bi-metal .277 Fury cases. It might (I'm not in any kind of a position to know" offer external ballistics superior to even 6.5 Creedmoor, and the platform itself might (same caveat) be more capable of operating at higher pressures than other large-frame AR systems. If the gun and ammo really do work as advertised, it could be the best thing going for long-range gas guns, assuming anyone can afford to train with it in its full-up guise.

I think the rifle can take it. SAAMI spec on .277 Fury is max pressure of 80,000 psi. Plus, SIG's entrant has the shortest barrel of any of the three (now down to two) finalists, and all designs have to meet the same velocity goals for the provided 6.8mm projectiles.

[Yute]

I guess I'm a curious how this pans out from an ammunition perspective.

I get the requirement to defeat near peer body armor. But it comes at a cost of decreased capacity, and increased recoil and wear - those are some hefty pressures.

The advantage of the LSAT Cased telescoped ammunition was weight savings, which the TV offering has at least.

LSAT has 5.56, 7.62 and 6.5 options; I am curious if the 6.8 "magnum" requirement was a bridge too far.

I would be surprised if any NSGW cartridge would replace 5.56 for the vast majority of the Army.

[jbrimlow]

The current plan (for what that's worth) is to issue the NGSW carbine and MG to combat specialties only. Others would keep their M4s.

[JSGlock34]

This reminds me of SIG selling the M17 'Commemorative' at a high markup. At 13.7" and a can, the MCX-SPEAR is also a two stamp package.

I imagine a 16" 7.62mm model (without the suppressor) will follow, and have broader appeal considering the price of the hybrid ammunition and the NFA complications. Undoubtedly if they win the contract we'll see more models.

Still, look forward to Garand Thumb beating the snot out of one.

[Sanch]

Still, look forward to Garand Thumb beating the snot out of one.

That guys YouTube comments section is out of control.

[Bergeron]

I would be a sucker (and a broke one at that, lol) for a 16" ".277 Fury" SPEAR (God, the marketing names, lololol).

I get the feeling that owning it would be a similar experience as when I had a .35 Whelen back in broke college days: Save up the money and ammo until there's finally enough for a substantial range trip. Who knows, maybe Sig could offer to sell loaded 20-round magazines for $100?:rolleyes:

[JSGlock34]

I like what True Velocity is doing with ammunition, but I can't see the US military going bullpup.

[alohadoug]

The current plan (for what that's worth) is to issue the NGSW carbine and MG to combat specialties only. Others would keep their M4s.

That won't last. The logistics of ammo alone will kill that. Never mind the development and fielding of TA-50 and such. (Working on the R&D side of the Army really opens your eyes to considerations like this).

I'm hearing mixed reviews. Basically it's big, heavy, recoil, plus the weight of ammo and reloads...

Heard some strong arguments against from the field.

[JSGlock34]

I'm hearing mixed reviews. Basically it's big, heavy, recoil, plus the weight of ammo and reloads...

But...but...OVERMATCH!

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

So it seems SIG might be taking over the role of H&K from previous generations with all the military designs they are getting approved for big contracts. It looks like an interesting design from bottom to top, the ammunition especially seems great but I can't help but wonder about quality. Maybe they work just fine but that's a HUGE roll of the dice considering their track record of beta testing. Maybe the fact that it's for a military contract eliminates that possibility a fair amount?

[HCM]

82782

[ccmdfd]

82782

More like "always/only releases prototypes to civilians for fun"

[GJM]

https://youtu.be/sLM6bTOShII

[LittleLebowski]

#SortaWant (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=SortaWant)

[Sensei]

#SortaWant (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=SortaWant)

As someone who has a Gen 1.5 MCX (the one that came out right before the bolt carrier “upgrade”) and Rattler, I’d wait a year or two to let the bugs settle out and go with the Gen2 Spear…

[Evil_Ed]

After buying a Sig 551A1 and getting burned on it...then watching it happen again with MCX Gen 1, and MPX Gen 1...

Watching parts disappear for the folded slide Sigs which had 20+ years of adoption and use behind them, virtually overnight...and seeing that continue to play out with guns they had in production for a few years (or more) then dropped (225A1, 239, 220 Compact, 245, etc)

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I think I'm gonna wait a few more years before jumping on this particular bandwagon. But that's just me. And believe me, I'd love a Spear in 308 or 277 Sig or whatever it's called..

[RAM Engineer]

I still just want a SURG upper...

[Tokarev]

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/return-of-the-rifleman-the-next-generation-squad-weapons-program/

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[GJM]

I shot a 13 inch MCX SPEAR in .308 today. Seemed ok but it sure was loud.

[Magsz]

I shot a 13 inch MCX SPEAR in .308 today. Seemed ok but it sure was loud.

That's why there are suppressors.

I really enjoyed shooting the 13 and 16 inch spears. They're relatively light recoiling and they seemed really reliable throughout the day (Sig Freedom day event).

[GJM]

That's why there are suppressors.

I really enjoyed shooting the 13 and 16 inch spears. They're relatively light recoiling and they seemed really reliable throughout the day (Sig Freedom day event).

The 13 seems so close in overall length to the 16, I am not sure it is worth the paperwork/loss of velocity over the 16?

[TiroFijo]

I shot a 13 inch MCX SPEAR in .308 today. Seemed ok but it sure was loud.

What is the intended role of a 13" 308 rifle?
What are the advantages over a 5.56 a with a 16" barrel that is much lighter and has about the same OAL?

[Magsz]

What is the intended role of a 13" 308 rifle?
What are the advantages over a 5.56 a with a 16" barrel that is much lighter and has about the same OAL?

The 13 inch barrel is a carry over from the military entry chambered in .277 fury, or their 6.8X51 military spec load. It makes more sense in that length with that cartridge.

George, it really comes down to what you want to do with the rifle.

For most realistic and practical applications of this rifle, a 16 inch barrel is going to serve you very well. Unless you need or want the 13, I would go with the 16.

[Sensei]

Up until a decade ago, a sub-16 inch .308 made no sense. Going less than 16” effectively turned the gun’s terminal performance into a glorified, albeit very loud, 7.62x39 with a very unpleasant recoil. Fast forward to the modern era and we have some .308 loads that perform quite well out to 400 meters or so (130 gr SOST, 110 grain Barnes TAC-TX, etc). However, you pay for it as these rounds aren’t cheap or readily available, and you have to pay for an SBR stamp.

In addition, a sub-16” .308 really needs to be suppressed for optimal shooting pleasure. However, read the fine print on your suppressor as not all of them are rated for barrels less than 16” in .308.

[GJM]

I see the value of a semi auto .308 for two things:

Hunting deer where there are bears around. As a general purpose rifle in camp where you can use it for a bunch of things from animal defense, to following up a wounded animal, to people defense. Sixteen probably works better for me.

[TiroFijo]

The one thing the 308 has is barrier penetration, you can chew up a car or cinder blocks even with a short barrel. That's why the SAS used the G3K with a 12.4" barrel back in the time. But that's a niche use.

In any case, the SCAR-H also has a 13" version. I would like to hear from those who know what is the intended role and advantages of the 7.62x51 ammo vs a doble/triple tap with 5.56.

Sure you can put a suppressor on a 13" 308 rifle, but then it becomes longer again, heavier and more expensive, and the blast wears the suppressor fast.

[Super77]

The 13" SCAR barrel is generally the "I'm gonna use a can" barrel. The longer barrels are too unwieldy with the 7.62 can.

The amount of flash and blast with a bare 13" barrel is kind of silly.

[GJM]

I have owned SCAR 17 rifles for ever. The MCX SPEAR ergos feel better to me.

[Sensei]

I’m holding out to see the fate of the .277 Fury before I bite on the SPEAR. Without changing key aspects of the lower and magazines, it is difficult to engineer a multi-caliber rifle that is equally reliable and accurate across all of the caliber options. Without a doubt, the SPEAR was designed around the .277 Fury round, not .308. This is probably why most people are reporting 1.5 MOA results with match grade ammo, while my KAC, SCAR17, and LMT MWS are all 1 MOA or less. These .308 SPEAR rifles are Sig marketing to civilians who don’t really care about performance as long as they have a milspec knockoff.

Moreover, I remained unconvinced that the competing interests driving the .277 Fury round are sustainable, and the Army has placed waaay too much emphasis on a round that can punch through near-peer body armor at the expense of weight and capacity. Truth be told, I have felt for the past 15 years or so that the 6.8 SPC was probably the best base to work from to improve on the AR platforms performance without sacrificing too much in terms of weight and capacity. Had we spent the past 15 years developing a 6.5-6.8mm round operating at 55,000 psi, we probably could have had a general service rifle with a 90-110 grain barrier blind round with excellent terminal performance out to 600 meters. This perceived need to overmatch every aspect of tomorrow’s perceived enemy with an 80,000 psi round is causing us to leave a lot on the alter of capacity, weight, and recoil.

[the Schwartz]

I’m holding out to see the fate of the .277 Fury before I bite on the SPEAR. Without changing key aspects of the lower and magazines, it is difficult to engineer a multi-caliber rifle that is equally reliable and accurate across all of the caliber options. Without a doubt, the SPEAR was designed around the .277 Fury round, not .308. This is probably why most people are reporting 1.5 MOA results with match grade ammo, while my KAC, SCAR17, and LMT MWS are all 1 MOA or less. These .308 SPEAR rifles are Sig marketing to civilians who don’t really care about performance as long as they have a milspec knockoff.

Moreover, I remained unconvinced that the competing interests driving the .277 Fury round are sustainable, and the Army has placed waaay too much emphasis on a round that can punch through near-peer body armor at the expense of weight and capacity. Truth be told, I have felt for the past 15 years or so that the 6.8 SPC was probably the best base to work from to improve on the AR platforms performance without sacrificing too much in terms of weight and capacity. Had we spent the past 15 years developing a 6.5-6.8mm round operating at 55,000 psi, we probably could have had a general service rifle with a 90-110 grain barrier blind round with excellent terminal performance out to 600 meters. This perceived need to overmatch every aspect of tomorrow’s perceived enemy with an 80,000 psi round is causing us to leave a lot on the alter of capacity, weight, and recoil.

I am of the same opinion as you.

While it will be interesting to see how the 6.8x51 works out for our military, I wonder what it will offer to the general market that is already awash with myriad options for caliber. In the end, I do hope that the 6.8x51 gives our troops an additional advantage against near-peer forces and the armor that they are fielding; it's worth it for that if it is successful. For those of us who will likely never see anything other than an urban environment where engagement rarely, if ever, exceeds 100m, the 6.8x51 is probably no better than what is already available in the domestic market.

Of course, this comes from a guy whose chosen platform—for everything from home defense to any conceivable TEOTWAWKI/SHTF scenario—is a Type-3 AK-47 loaded with M67 ammo for its desirable yaw cycle (between 5 and 10 inches) and soft points (Hornady Black SST) if the M67 ever runs out.

[SwampDweller]

I am of the same opinion as you.

While it will be interesting to see how the 6.8x51 works out for our military, I wonder what it will offer to the general market that is already awash with myriad options for caliber. In the end, I do hope that the 6.8x51 gives our troops an additional advantage against near-peer forces and the armor that they are fielding; it's worth it for that if it is successful. For those of us who will likely never see anything other than an urban environment where engagement rarely, if ever, exceeds 100m, the 6.8x51 is probably no better than what is already available in the domestic market.

Of course, this comes from a guy whose chosen platform—for everything from home defense to any conceivable TEOTWAWKI/SHTF scenario—is a Type-3 AK-47 loaded with M67 ammo for its desirable yaw cycle (between 5 and 10 inches) and soft points (Hornady Black SST) if the M67 ever runs out.

I too keep my Russian AK loaded with Hornady SST/Hornady Black. It takes care of any rifle/carbine needs out to 300 yards.

[Default.mp3]

Moreover, I remained unconvinced that the competing interests driving the .277 Fury round are sustainable, and the Army has placed waaay too much emphasis on a round that can punch through near-peer body armor at the expense of weight and capacity.Does 6.8×51mm have proper armor defeat? AFAIK, the performance of the issued round is similar to M80A1, which means that typical ceramic plates (i.e., level IV/RF3 rated plates) should still defeat it okay. Would be very interested if someone has more information about the actual performance of the issued 6.8×51mm.

[TGS]

Does 6.8×51mm have proper armor defeat? AFAIK, the performance of the issued round is similar to M80A1, which means that typical ceramic plates (i.e., level IV/RF3 rated plates) should still defeat it okay. Would be very interested if someone has more information about the actual performance of the issued 6.8×51mm.

From the outside looking in, it's a truly bizarre program...with a goal of increasing hard target and armor performance, taking on excess weight, reduced magazine capacity and ammunition load per soldier, and a new high pressure cartridge...

...but not even fielding an AP round.

Makes me think that M1186 is just a place holder, and a true AP round is on the way with dramatically improved performance over M993-type tungsten caride. That's my guess, given they've already been field testing heavy metal alloys in R&D by SOCOM and the SEP.

[Sensei]

From the outside looking in, it's a truly bizarre program...with a goal of increasing hard target and armor performance, taking on excess weight, reduced magazine capacity and ammunition load per soldier, and a new high pressure cartridge...

...but not even fielding an AP round.

Makes me think that M1186 is just a place holder, and a true AP round is on the way with dramatically improved performance over M993-type tungsten caride. That's my guess, given they've already been field testing heavy metal alloys in R&D by SOCOM and the SEP.

That is a good thought. I would not put it past the Army to field a tungsten core penetrator that reliably defeats Level 4 armor when fired from a 130 grain .277 pill traveling 3000 fps. Several field grade officers will give each other high fives and flag officers will win industry jobs for their achievements when that day comes. Of course, that achievement will be had with a plate that is 15 meters down range from a 20” barrel.

Years later, our troops will likely find out the hard way that the testing parameters didn’t factor in velocity loss from a 13” barrel and an enemy that is 200 meters from the barrel instead of 15…

[Caballoflaco]

That is a good thought. I would not put it past the Army to field a tungsten core penetrator that reliably defeats Level 4 armor when fired from a 130 grain .277 pill traveling 3000 fps. Several field grade officers will give each other high fives and flag officers will win industry jobs for their achievements when that day comes. Of course, that achievement will be had with a plate that is 15 meters down range from a 20” barrel.

Years later, our troops will likely find out the hard way that the testing parameters didn’t factor in velocity loss from a 13” barrel and an enemy that is 200 meters from the barrel instead of 15…

There might be some viable applications of the new round, but sure looks like the Army is repeating their mistakes that brought us 7.62x51 in the first place. Fighting with 5-6 20 round magazines doesn’t sound like an optimal way to fight off the Chinese hordes.

I still haven’t seen any complaints about rifle calibers that don’t punch hard armor coming out of Ukraine, but there are lots of videos of dudes wearing body armor getting shot to death with 5.45 and 5.56 rifles. I know Ukraine and Russia aren’t the US Army, but I have seen plenty of videos of dudes stuffing mags in combat because volume of fire works when you’re attacking or defending fortified defensive positions.

[the Schwartz]

That is a good thought. I would not put it past the Army to field a tungsten core penetrator that reliably defeats Level 4 armor when fired from a 130 grain .277 pill traveling 3000 fps. Several field grade officers will give each other high fives and flag officers will win industry jobs for their achievements when that day comes. Of course, that achievement will be had with a plate that is 15 meters down range from a 20” barrel.

Years later, our troops will likely find out the hard way that the testing parameters didn’t factor in velocity loss from a 13” barrel and an enemy that is 200 meters from the barrel instead of 15…

Speaking with the few contacts that I have in the Army development command, I am led to believe that the 6.8x51 is capable of doing just that (and more) from the platforms in which it is to be fielded. Of course, abbreviated runway length will always degrade long range performance; the 6.8x51 has plenty of propellant volume to drive projectiles fast enough to do the job at ranges much greater than 15 meters.

The AT modified hydrodynamic equations, long established to be both qualitatively and quantitatively correct, tell us that with sufficient projectile length (mass), velocity is the key to defeating both ductile and brittle armors. Hobble any caliber with a reduction in velocity and the result will always be the same; compromised performance.

[Sensei]

Speaking with the few contacts that I have in the Army development command, I am led to believe that the 6.8x51 is capable of doing just that (and more) from the platforms in which it is to be fielded. Of course, abbreviated runway length will always degrade long range performance; the 6.8x51 has plenty of propellant volume to drive projectiles fast enough to do the job at ranges much greater than 15 meters.

The AT modified hydrodynamic equations, long established to be both qualitatively and quantitatively correct, tell us that with sufficient projectile length (mass), velocity is the key to defeating both ductile and brittle armors. Hobble any caliber with a reduction in velocity and the result will always be the same; compromised performance.

Thanks Schwartz. We’ve seen enough instances of M993 and other .308 tungsten penetrators be defeated by newer Level 4 plates at velocities less than 2600-2800 fps. Unless Uncle Sam has the secret sauce for some new heavy metal bullets, I’m thinking that round 2700-2900 fps may be the lower limit needed to reliably penetrate today’s Level 4 and tomorrow’s next generation plates, right?

While I’ve seen velocity ranges for the .277 Fury of up to 3100 fps, I’m unsure if that is actually coming from a 13” vs 20” (or longer barrel) and at what chamber pressures. While I’ve heard rumors that the SPEAR can possibly handle pressures up to 100,000 psi, I can’t imagine what an aggressive shooting regime will do to barrel life and accuracy. Regardless, I’m still holding out on this rifle and round until we have clarity on these questions.

[TGS]

Thanks Schwartz. We’ve seen enough instances of M993 and other .308 tungsten penetrators be defeated by newer Level 4 plates at velocities less than 2600-2800 fps. Unless Uncle Sam has the secret sauce for some new heavy metal bullets, I’m thinking that round 2700-2900 fps may be the lower limit needed to reliably penetrate today’s Level 4 and tomorrow’s next generation plates, right?

There's zero way the M1186 can realistically be expected to penetrate Level 4. As Default.mp3 pointed out, it's the structural equivalent of M855A1 or M80A1. It's an EPR round, not a tungsten carbide AP round like M995 and M993.

One of the parts that we on the internet might be misunderstanding in this equation is whether Level 4 is actually the standard the Army is shooting for. We use Level 4 a lot, but I can't remember if Level 4 was specifically referenced in any of the briefing materials as the goal. It's very possible that the Army is shooting for GOST 5A, the current defeat level fielded by Russia's "Ratnik" 6B45 armor. That would seem much more realistic, since if I recall correctly GOST 5a is rated for 7.62x39 BZ-API.

Still, the problem with that goal in reality is that the Russians are mixing in issue of the "Granit" series of plates...in particular with the units that you really want to be able to shoot deader, quicker (SOF, crack assault/vanguard units, maybe Caballoflaco can add more context). The Granit plates can be had up to GOST 6 (or whatever that new rating system they're using is, BR6?). This plate is capable of defeating all known AP rounds short of 50BMG API (edited to add) and M993. Note that there is no M993 analogue in the 6.8x51 chambering...atleast, not that has been made public.

So, in reality, it's still falling short from its intended purpose of overmatch/AP capability.

[Ndbbm]

There's zero way the M1186 can realistically be expected to penetrate Level 4. As Default.mp3 pointed out, it's the structural equivalent of M855A1 or M80A1. It's an EPR round, not a tungsten carbide AP round like M995 and M993.
Note that there is no M993 analogue in the 6.8x51 chambering...atleast, not that has been made public.

So, in reality, it's still falling short from its intended purpose of overmatch/AP capability.

Doing some searching I found this talking about XM1184 special purpose ammo for the ngsw program. Think this is supposed to be the higher pressure ap ammo. The info is under project EC2 Advanced Amour Piercing. I’m posting the link because my phone didn’t want to copy and paste the section for some reason.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/RDTE/A/0603639A_77.pdf

[TGS]

Doing some searching I found this talking about XM1184 special purpose ammo for the ngsw program. Think this is supposed to be the higher pressure ap ammo. The info is under project EC2 Advanced Amour Piercing. I’m posting the link because my phone didn’t want to copy and paste the section for some reason.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/RDTE/A/0603639A_77.pdf

Thanks for posting that. ADVAP is one of the R&D programs I referenced earlier (I think...I believe its an EPR structure but with a heavy metal penetrator instead of hardened steel). It's been going on for a decade and, AFAIK, is still experimental.

The 6.8x51 types actually being put into full production for issue, AFAIK, are the high pressure general purpose (1186), reduced range, blank, tracer, and marking round.

ETA:to be more clear, there are multiple different experimental AP rounds that have been type classified for the 6.8x51....XM1184 ADVAP is not a sure thing. There's traditional steel core penetrators, M993 tungsten ported to the 6.8 caliber, even a round that is functionally similar to the SLAP. None of them have been chosen to be put into full rate production/standard issue, is what I was trying to get across. As it stands right now, troops being issued the M7 will not have access to any of these outside of a specific experimental trial basis...they won't be stocked for use. As it stands, if we go to war with a near peer, we are stuck with the M1186.

[JSGlock34]

I'm share the skepticism about the M7; personally I'm more intrigued by the M250 SAW replacement.

[Sensei]

To summarize, the exact armor penetration capability of the Army’s bullets that are still in development remain unknown. Although Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley was quoted in one G&A article that the eventual rifle and ammo package will be able to, “defeat any body armor, any planned body armor that we know of in the future,” what we have today will not defeat a Level 4 plate. https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/277-sig-fury-cartridge/457153

That means there is a strong argument to be made that our soldiers would be less lethal tomorrow than anytime in the past 50 years in the 0-300 meter ranges that have dominated the battlefield over that time period. Yes, I know that we’ve be frustrated by PK-type 7.62x54R fire from beyond 800 meters in A-Stan, but those instances were dwarfed by the engagements under 300 meters. I’m not even convinced that this rifle has the accuracy and legs to address that beyond 600 meter threat. I encountered that threat 2 times in my career, and each time it was dealt with a caliber much greater than .30 (think .50 and 40mm). Thus, my take as of today is that the range juice is not worth the weight and capacity squeeze.

[the Schwartz]

To summarize, the exact armor penetration capability of the Army’s bullets that are still in development remain unknown. Although Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley was quoted in one G&A article that the eventual rifle and ammo package will be able to, “defeat any body armor, any planned body armor that we know of in the future,” what we have today will not defeat a Level 4 plate. https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/277-sig-fury-cartridge/457153

That means there is a strong argument to be made that our soldiers would be less lethal tomorrow than anytime in the past 50 years in the 0-300 meter ranges that have dominated the battlefield over that time period. Yes, I know that we’ve be frustrated by PK-type 7.62x54R fire from beyond 800 meters in A-Stan, but those instances were dwarfed by the engagements under 300 meters. I’m not even convinced that this rifle has the accuracy and legs to address that beyond 600 meter threat. I encountered that threat 2 times in my career, and each time it was dealt with a caliber much greater than .30 (think .50 and 40mm). Thus, my take as of today is that the range juice is not worth the weight and capacity squeeze.

General Milley's remarks confirm what I have suspected all along; the people responsible for developing this system are not going to allow the system to go a field without an AP round. It's hard to imagine that there not an ongoing R&D process focusing on material appropriate construction of such a round. The $64,000 question is when will the system, complete with task-appropriate components, be ready to field?