The RM277 is an impressive bullpup design. In the video, you can see that its forward ejecting. And reportedly it can be swapped for left hand ejection pretty easily without parts change.
Its also incredibly compact. With a 20" barrel + Suppressor, its still a good deal shorter then a conventional 16" 5.56 carbine. I'd say its around 31" OAL.
The RM-277 is impressive for what it offers beyond a rifle/squad weapon. It seems like it was designed to impress the Pentagon brass not for its functional features but for logistics and training. The impressive statement to me is, "Significantly reduced production footprint that canbe replicated anywhere. On-demand productionin theater is a reality." While I do not see the USA building rifles in-theater, I can see having multiple vendors build the rifles during a national emergency or allies setting up their own factories.
I can see the appeal to Big Army with "Magnetic retrieval of spent cases saves timeduring training". General Dynamics and Beretta USA is an interesting pairing. GD knows the Pentagon procurement process backwards and forwards, and Beretta USA has Beretta engineering and resources. That plant in Gallatin, TN, was not built just in time to lose the M9 contract.
This all reeks of 'it looks cool, so let's keep throwing money at it'. Some higher brass that authorizes the funding will have nice jobs after their retirement, and life will go on and everyone will still have M4's.
Major design issues existed with the M60, M16, M249 SAW, and other weapons when they were initially fielded. Every time there was a cycle of 'this shit is breaking when we need it most, and people are dying because of it'. These issues were downplayed until those issues were minimally addressed via malicious compliance. 60 years and 6 revisions later the M60 finally isn't a gigantic piece of shit. 50 years and 7+ weapon revisions and 4+ ammo revisions later the M4A1 is finally pretty solid. 40 years, three major revisions, very real changes in TTP's to avoid the remaining issues and the M249 finally viable-ish now.
Massive changes in fundamental design principles do not pair well with battlefield reliability out of the gate, or even within the first 20 years.
I have not seen a single moment of material that addresses heat buildup during sustained fire. With any cartridge-fed small arm there's a not insignificant amount of heat energy that gets ejected with the brass or steel casing. Polymer casings do not do this, so the chamber of the weapon retains much more heat after each shot. This has been an ongoing problem with the LSAT projects and similar that I've never seen addressed to my satisfaction.
Also, whatever weapon system is fielded needs to be tailored to the common TTP's of our combat troops and their 'mission memory'. That includes total kit configuration, administrative and operational handling and carry of the weapon. Furthermore, maintenance will invariably be different but the complexity and time required *MUST* be at the same level as the weapons they replace. Nothing about these proposed weapons makes me want one over a vetted M4A1 or M249 at this point. Clearing stoppages MUST be as simple or simpler than an AR or AK.
Collecting brass magnetically? Sells well to Generals, but I promise that at the battalion and company levels we'll be picking them up by hand and counting each and every one just like brass.
That said all said, I believe the optic systems they're prototyping with integrated range-finding and BDC would be a much more fruitful line of effort overall, and could be very effectively integrated with existing weapons for a proportional increase in lethality.
On training, I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again - a not-insignificant contributing factor to our long range engagement woes in Afghanistan are the direct result of Army rifle quals, ranges, and training only going to 300M in all but a very few cases. Soldiers were taught across the board to take advantage of the 5.56's excellent trajectory in that range and ACOG's with good BDC's are not enough to solve that problem - Soldiers need to learn to shoot at longer ranges, and need to practice shooting at longer ranges. That has to be supported in every lane possible from the battlefield all the way back through the very origins of the logistics chain.
I will never forget a conversation I had with a TACOM GS15 in Kuwait last year in which he completely dismissed the accuracy benefits of a free float rail system on an AR pattern rifle. He regarded the Block II as an overpriced and overly fancy piece of gear that the cool kids got only to look different from the not-cool kids. His argument was that milspec ammo was so sloppy as to render any accuracy benefit moot and trying to do anything better than slapping an ACOG and a PEQ on something was a waste of time.
My major takeaway from that was in order to get any benefit out of tech improvements, it has to be supported at all levels and can't depend on other logistics elements that aren't good enough to allow those improvements to be realized; e.g. an accurate weapon may get better accuracy from improving the weapon, but inconsistent ammo massively reduces the net benefit of the collective effort.
Ultimately, the Army as a whole needs to be brought up to the present day; Throwing tomorrows toys at the Army's existing paradigm of 30 year old thinking and logistics chains solves no problems while exacerbating existing problems.
While heat has been a big issue with careless ammo do we know that it is a problem with the polymer cases ammo? Everything I have read is that polymer cases are actually insulators so it should work better than brass which conducts heat directly to the chamber. This way the heat energy that would otherwise be transferred to the chamber by a brass case goes out the front of the muzzle into the atmosphere reducing heat transfers to the weapon.
Also of note on the Beretta, the black thing on the 12 o’clock rail behind the scope(which I initially believed to be a rail mounted harmonica) is a battery pack and the rails have contact points to power accessories. Seems like they are trying to integrate a whole lot more stuff to include ammo, accessories etc so that the metaphorical free floated rail in your example actually yields benefit.
As for the program goals overall. I don’t think it is the best way forward. There are plates that already defeat .338 Lapua AP. However I have been out of the game for a while and I hope the Army has a coherent plan beyond, defeat armor , oVErMatCh!!?
This is actually a misunderstanding of what occurs, based on the experience with the Caseless ammo trials.Originally Posted by JRB
The brass casing isn't removing heat from the weapon, its rather just transferring less heat to the chamber then a caseless round.
Caseless = 100% heat transfer, as the powder is burning directly in the weapons chamber
Brass = 70%? heat transfer; the brass heats up and transfers some heat into the chamber, while some of the heat remains in the hot brass casing and is ejected.
So while Brass is superior to Caseless, the brass is still transferring - not removing - heat into the weapons chamber. Take a unfired cold weapon, fire one round, and pick up the case - its very hot. Thats not heat that it removed from the weapon, but rather the heat it was unable to fully transfer into the weapon because it got ejected.
Polymer casings are the opposite. Polymer does not transfer heat as well as metal - thats why pot handles are plastic and not metal. Rather, it forms a barrier to the transfer of heat.
The result is that polymer casings reduce the heat in a weapons chamber, and reduce overheating:
"True Velocity’s composite cartridges are not only lighter, but the composite acts like an insulator against heat, a factor that accelerates wear on any host firearm. The case reduced the chamber’s heat of a short-*barreled Mk18 in a 90-*round test by 26 percent with 28 percent lower bolt temperature and a 12 percent drop in the gas port’s temperature when compared to shooting brass ammunition. Those numbers are a result of one round a second over 90 rounds. To be sure that I don’t under emphasize the heat reduction advantage using True Velocity composite cases, when you shoot only a single round, the percentage of reduction in heat transfer is even more significant and pronounced."
https://www.gunsandammo.com/editoria...ce-ammo/372002
"One of the concerns associated with the M134D is the way it can cook-off live rounds with brass-cased ammunition. A cook-off occurs when a cartridge sits in a hot chamber and spontaneously fires because the powder inside the case becomes hot enough to ignite.
Dillon has a 1,500-round test they run on the M134D and found brass-cased ammunition will cook-off after sitting in the chamber for anywhere from 3 to 60 seconds. Using True Velocity’s composite-cased ammunition, Dillon recorded a 20-percent lower bore temperature (thanks to the case insulating the chamber), which ultimately led them to a 2,200-round test on the ammunition. Dillon had to wait 5 minutes before one case got hot enough to melt — but the bullet never left the barrel."
https://www.gunsandammo.com/editoria...ynamics/331240
Textrons LSAT case shows similar findings, although I don't have the quotes as readily at hand.
Thanks Spyderco for the comments
The polymer cases do insulate the chamber, but they have no effect on rifling erosion at the start of the barrel. This high pressure 6.8 round must eat barrels for freakfast.
The other thing is melting... I don't see how they are going to circumvent this. Nothing like a melted loaded round into your chamber to ruin your day.
That's been my thought all along, since reading the stuff that came out about the Sig program at the time of downselect. The only way to overcome that is really expensive barrel material that, if fielded in an M4, may make them almost "forever" barrels.
Thermoset resins won't melt, but they will break down at temperature. Dry crumbs of burnt case might at least be easier to clear, but both are pretty bad problems. Would depend on circumstances for either to be better or worse than a round cooking off.
This whole thing is frustrating to me to sit and watch from the outside. From out here, it looks a whole lot like people with unlimited Other Peoples' Money to spend going all F-35 looking for magic beans. There's been a conservative solution demonstrated that AFAIK is capable of meeting targets, but it would not be enough of a "quantum leap" to get decision makers excited about spending the (probably) hundreds of millions to change over, so we get this instead.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
In the spirit of complaining, I went through DAWIA (US DoD Gov't) acquisition training. As a part of a formal acquisition effort, DAWIA guidance indicates that there should be an Analysis of Alternatives, and that an acquisition process should only occur if a non-acquisition or minimally acquisitive alternative is insufficient.
I like speculative research into weapons, but we *know* that, today, we could improve by giving every M4 a free-float MLOK handguard, ambi controls, Geissele triggers, *and substantial, sustained marksmanship training*. It would be the least costly solution, and there would be genuine improvement in the effective range of our small arms fire. And just as @OlongJohnson stated
If we spent a bit more along this continued evolution of the AR/M4, we could have more long-lasting bolts and barrels, and we could marry them up to the new muzzle device/micro suppressors and that product would stand above any currently fielded carbine.The only way to overcome that is really expensive barrel material that, if fielded in an M4, may make them almost "forever" barrels.
But instead of more assured and less expensive results, we're traveling down this program that is attempting to end up in a strange place. Is harassing PKM fire at range so very threatening that each member of an infantry squad must have a more powerful and longer-ranged carbine than the enemy's GPMG?
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
Are these Middle-Tier Acquisitions (MTA)? In that case, I'm not sure an AoA is required.
That's what I thought I said. It is heat ejected from the weapon as calories stuck in the brass. It's not that the brass is removing heat that was already there, it's heat that didn't get a chance to go anywhere else from that firing cycle. At least, that's what I get from what I typed that you bolded. Fog of the internet + insufficient caffeine could have played a role in my poor communication there, though.
Great insight into the polymer stuff! I'm not as well read there, thanks for improving my knowledge.
Yes, actually. Belt fed MG's are by far the most effective 'casualty producing' small arm as the Army calls it. In a typical fire team, the guy with the SAW or M240 is the one that stacks the most bodies, mostly because fast ROF = more bullets in the air for a given target exposure = more 'opportunities' to score a hit.
It works both ways, and optic equipped PKM's and other rifle-caliber belt feds are a much bigger threat than AK's. The good news is the bad guys are typically very bad at shooting regardless of their equipment - so what they'd perhaps intend on being accurate, effective fire from a PKM instead becomes harassing fire via good old 'inshallah' guidance systems inc.
But if I'm having to shoot back at someone with a PKM delivering accurate fire on my location at 500+M, I want more oomph than 62gr 5.56, that much is sure.
Circling back to the acquisition side of things - what we're seeing with these prototypes is the hope for the next big quantum leap in small arms tech that can 'wow' decidedly non-gun sorts of people. Specifically, Generals. Our incremental improvements to the M16/M4 or 5.56 ammo just don't excite people at that level.
Reply With Quote