U.S Next Generation Battle Rifle & Squad Weapon

[Ed L]

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?

The answer is somewhere in the video. The government wanted some type of breakthrough technology and the competitors endeavored to provide one, even if the result was a weapon that was overly complex with more potential problems.

Not to mention potential problems with polymer cased ammo.

[JSGlock34]

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.

"Overmatch" seems to be driving the Army towards individual weapons with much longer ranges. This requirement appears derived from Afghanistan experience, where the enemy would tend to employ MGs at extended ranges from high ground. I'm not convinced that the answer to enemy machine-gun employment is longer ranged individual weapons, but nevertheless this interest seems to have taken hold and is driving development to some extent.

I do think the new LMG in .338 is a great idea.

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?

Only the Textron design uses the Cased Telescoped Ammunition derived from the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program started in 2004. I suspect that after nearly two decades the Army wants to see this program bear some fruit. The earlier versions of the CTA squad automatic weapon seems like a more conventional design to me, though it still had the rotating chamber and forward positioned ejection port. This video is nearly nine years old...

[Hambo]

Only the Textron design uses the Cased Telescoped Ammunition derived from the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program started in 2004. I suspect that after nearly two decades the Army wants to see this program bear some fruit.

The people working on the project are probably hoping to milk this project to retirement. Bearing fruit was never part of the plan.

[Bergeron]

"Overmatch" seems to be driving the Army towards individual weapons with much longer ranges. This requirement appears derived from Afghanistan experience, where the enemy would tend to employ MGs at extended ranges from high ground. I'm not convinced that the answer to enemy machine-gun employment is longer ranged individual weapons, but nevertheless this interest seems to have taken hold and is driving development to some extent.

I do think the new LMG in .338 is a great idea.

Totally concur. A belt-fed LMG .338 gets big thumbs up, and it makes sense that with our 7.62 belt-fed experience, we can get something of better design than the MAG-derived guns with better ballistics than 7.62 within the same form factor.

For an individual carbine, I can see increasing the weight of a 5.56 projo to 90ish grains, and using that to justify new gun and ammo designs, but even among the young, healthy, well-trained, and motivated, these 6.8 guns look burdensome for regular and sustained use.

I like the idea of generally reducing weight in the individual carbine, and leveraging in turn that weight availability into more broadly issued HE systems.

[Bucky]

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.

In my very strong opinion, this is a mistake! As a right handed left eye dominant (strongly left eye dominant) shooter, several years back I forced myself to shoot long guns left handed. Once I got past the awkwardness, I showed a vast improvement. As shown, I was able to train to switch handedness, I was never able to train my eyes to switch dominance.

[Ed L]

The British SA85 Bullpup is very much a mistake. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Here is a link from one participant of this forum who has some first hand experience with it:

http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011...a-on-sa80.html

[spyderco monkey]

The 6.8 was designed to defeat Level IV armor out to 300-600m using tungsten AP ammo.

Specs are a 135gr @ 3000-3200fps from a 16" barrel. This is achieved by using a 75-85kpsi chamber pressure (5.56/7,62 is 62kpsi max.)

The problem is that Level IV is now stopping Tungsten AP 7.62 M993 @ 40', so these magnum battle rifles are unlikely to be AP beyond 100yds, barring some new advancement in Tungsten AP technology.

[Bergeron]

Specs are a 135gr @ 3000-3200fps from a 16" barrel. This is achieved by using a 75-85kpsi chamber pressure (5.56/7,62 is 62kpsi max.)

I think that there is totally value in speculative research into firearms design. I think that designing guns and ammunition specced out for higher chamber pressures and more lightweight cases makes tons of sense.

135 @ 3k+ will also drive improvements to barrel design, and I also think that the Army ought to invest into research focsued on bringing down the cost of exotic and high-performance barrel manufacturing techniques. Those ballistics should make for a killer belt-fed weapon, and that Sig belt-fed .277 Fury look as awesome as the larger .338 version. (In an NFA-less world, I would have the just the shotguns and rifles that I needed, but I would play and experiment with handguns and belt-feds).

I can even see working with those ballistics to create a DMR/precision semi-auto.

I just can't see broadly and generally equipping everyone in a squad with a 135 gr @ 3k+. That's gonna be bulky, heavy ammo that'll be substantially more blasty and higher recoil than the current guns. Unless there's a tremendous increase in marksmanship training, hitting at longer ranges will be more difficult, even if the exterior and terminal ballistics will be improved.

As a filthy civilian, I also don't understand the fear of armored troops. I doubt anyone's gonna take even one or more long-range 5.56 hits and just shrug it off, marching remorselessly through the gunfire.

I've done requirements analysis in weapons design before, and the only requirements I've ever seen hinted at for this effort was to engage PKMs at long range and defeat substantial armor at range. If there's somewhere I could find a more thorough analysis and listings of requirement, I would be interested to read such.

[spyderco monkey]

I can even see working with those ballistics to create a DMR/precision semi-auto.

I just can't see broadly and generally equipping everyone in a squad with a 135 gr @ 3k+. That's gonna be bulky, heavy ammo that'll be substantially more blasty and higher recoil than the current guns. Unless there's a tremendous increase in marksmanship training, hitting at longer ranges will be more difficult, even if the exterior and terminal ballistics will be improved.

As a filthy civilian, I also don't understand the fear of armored troops. I doubt anyone's gonna take even one or more long-range 5.56 hits and just shrug it off, marching remorselessly through the gunfire.

I've done requirements analysis in weapons design before, and the only requirements I've ever seen hinted at for this effort was to engage PKMs at long range and defeat substantial armor at range. If there's somewhere I could find a more thorough analysis and listings of requirement, I would be interested to read such.

This is the best clearinghouse of info on the NGSW program; an open source intel effort by a bunch of extremely dedicated gun nerds who have been watching the program sharply for a couple years:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7519/1

And a basic summary of NGSW:

-6.8 GPC = VLD 6.8 EPR GP Steel Tip (similar to M855A1/M80A1, but with a Berger Hybrid VLD or better form factor)
-6.8 ADVAP = VLD 6.8 Tungsten AP. Design still evolving

Core NGSW Technologies:
-High Pressure Ammo
-VLD Armor Piercing and EPR projectiles
-Lightweight case designs
-Next generation barrel technology to allow decent barrel life with super cartridges
-Recoil reducing technology
-Fire Control Unit style Smart Scopes with integral laser range finders and ballistic calculators

Pros:
-Useful technologies being pioneered
-Lighter weight and much more range then 7.62x51
-Lighter weight LMG's (12lbs)
-Fire Control Smart Scopes potentially major boost in hit probability

Cons:
-6.8 Massively Overpowered if Armor cannot be penetrated; without armor requirement a 6mm VLD could exceed 7.62 performance with less recoil, heat, and cartridge weight.
-Cartridge weight heavier then 5.56 brass
-Rifles are 'Battle Rifles' with 7.62 sized magazines that hold 20 rounds
-Battle Rifles with Smart Scopes likely to heavy (a 7.62 DMR equivalent for every soldier)
-

The best outcome would be a 2 cartridge configuration, where 6.8 is used for LMG's and DMR's, while a new cartridge (5-6mm VLD) used for rifles.

[JSGlock34]

Didn't realize Beretta was part of the General Dynamics-OTS team. They posted a bunch of information on the RM277 on their website along with below video.

NEXT GENERATION SQUAD WEAPON - THE RM277


Weird looking selector in the video. Odd choice of kit for the demonstrators.