Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: U.S Next Generation Battle Rifle & Squad Weapon

  1. #1

    U.S Next Generation Battle Rifle & Squad Weapon

    There are several contenders for a next generation squad weapon and battle rifle in a new version of 6.8mm caliber. From reading various sources, the Army's thought seems to be that the battle rifle version would be issued to all troops that would likely have direct contact with the enemy, such as infantry, etc. There are several competing versions of this system: Sig Sauer, General Dynamics and Textron. Some employ polymer cases. These new 6.8 rounds are designed for increased penetration and lethality and to be able to penetrate future peer body armor at 300ish yards/meters. They are talking of velocities of 3000 feet per second from a 16" barrel and specially constructed rounds to accomplish this.

    The version in the video and pictures below is made by Textron, which teamed with HK to design it. It employs cased-telescoped polymer 6.8 ammo and has a push-through feed and ejection system. I will post a video that has better schematics in a follow-up post. To me the design looks overly complex that might be prone to issues on a battlefield in extended combat. But the gun was developed with the feedback of end users and several people in the video are former Spec Ops people in the video--who I assume know much better than me.

    One thing that immediately strikes me is that the rifle and SAW versions have their ejection port on the handguard several inches forward of the magwell. To me this looks like a big problem waiting to happen. An ejection port in this location seems more likely to get blocked if the shooter has his support hand close to the magwell, or when shooting the gun from around or behind barriers or rests. In contemporary semiauto designs the ejection port is usually located above and parallel to the magwell. This keeps it away from where a hand might be, and generally away from where it might be blocked by cover or rests. Even with most bullpups the trigger is forward of the ejection port, which keeps the ejection port back where it is less likely to be obstructed.

    Take a look at these picture from the video and note how close the shooter's forward hand position is to the ejection port. I could see situations where hand placement might not be ideal and the support hand would block the ejection port causing a malfunction.

    I am going to post some pictures and then post the video afterwards

    First, the location of the ejection port on the rifle version. Notice how close the support hand is in these pictures. Imagine some type of situation where less than ideal hand placement might block the ejection port. Also consider the increased likelihood of this happening with regular line troops as opposed to more highly trained users.

    Name:  Army new rifle.jpg
Views: 3276
Size:  48.6 KB

    Name:  army new rifle 2.jpg
Views: 1888
Size:  47.2 KB

    And of the SAW version:

    Name:  Army new SAW.jpg
Views: 1541
Size:  47.5 KB

    A 41 second long video:



    And a 13 minute long video that details the guns:

    Last edited by Ed L; 10-10-2020 at 04:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Here is a video that has much better schematics as to the internals and the operation of the new weapons and some of the competing systems. It is worth watching for the information, although the narrator is annoying. In looking at it I really think that the Textron system is overly complex. I am reminded of what Mikhail Kalashnikov said when he was visiting Britain and was shown the British L85 rifle: "You must have some very clever soldiers."


  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed L View Post
    Even with most bullpups the trigger is forward of the ejection port, which keeps the ejection port back where it is less likely to be obstructed.
    Unless you’re left handed and pick up a right handed setup gun, or vice versa. Or if you use ambi room clearing tactics.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Let me know when they hand these out to an entire infantry division.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  5. #5
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    The Textron rifle has a lot of springs, including springs in the pistol grip per the video. It looks significantly more complex than the AR system or the M1/M14. The big plus is the polymer-cased ammo due to the weight savings it engenders. The big negative is the chamber/ammo carrier moving up and down to feed, fire, extract, and eject the ammo. I also wonder if the rifle is subject to out of battery discharges due to how the round is pushed to the chamber. Cleaning it would be interesting, especially in locales with the fine talc-like sand/dust.

    I get that this is a prototype and the M4 has decades of improvements behind it. But the Textron concept looks significantly more complex with many more possible failure modes. I do find it interesting that Textron teamed with Winchester and H&K to deliver a complete weapons system. I am interested to see where this goes. That being said, my inner cynic says it goes nowhere.

  6. #6
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    I'm reminded of the old ACR program when I see these weapons. The more things change the more we stay the same. We've got the conventional offering (Colt), the bullpup (Steyr), and the overly complex high tech space gun with newfangled ammunition (HK G11).

    I'm highly skeptical that the US will adopt a bullpup design. Show me a nation that adopted a bullpup that is still using one among its top tier units - just about everyone issues a M4 derivative or HK416 when they are offered a choice. We've refined the M4 manual of arms to such a high level - it is hard to imagine starting over with such a radically different design.

    The Textron animation is the best explanation I've seen yet as to why the LSAT program has produced nothing anybody wants after over 15 years of research. I'd be interested to understand more about the types of malfunctions that can occur with CTA and how to clear them. But jeez that looks complicated.

    The SIG seems the most conventional of the competing weapons; whether it offers enough over the current M4 to justify the cost of upgrading is SIG's challenge.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  7. #7
    Site Supporter ccmdfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeastern NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    Let me know when they hand these out to an entire infantry division.
    The first thing that came to my mind was:

    haven't we heard this before?
    Even more than once?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    This looks like an improved form factor over the earlier telescoped-caseless guns.

    The major and ongoing problem is that a cartridge that is appropriate for a carbine is too small for an auto-weapon; a cartridge appropriate for an auto-weapon is too large for a carbine. When we’ve used the M4/SAW combo we been undergunned in the SAW, if we use these new designs, we’ll be overgunned in the carbine.

    I like the idea of advancing our belt-fed designs, the existing fleet is both old in design and generally worn. I can see the new designs producing benefit in DMR type roles as well, but I still think they won’t succeed as carbines.
    Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter stomridertx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    What is it about the standard AR-15 design that prevents it from being made to use this new plastic cased ammo? It seems to me that it's the new round they want, why are they making such huge changes to the delivery platform that everyone already likes?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    Show me a nation that adopted a bullpup that is still using one among its top tier units.
    That would be Austria.

    Most bullpups are typically set up to be either left or right handed, and the shooter typically shoots it that way without changing shoulders. Some offer some type of case deflector to allow a handswitch. I believe the British Bullpup is only offered in a right handed version and shooters regardless of their hand dominance are taught to shoot it that way.

    My point in mentioning the bullpup was to illustrate that the ejection port is not located someplace where the hands could easily block it, unlike the proposed Textron weapon systems.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •