SIG Wins US Army Next Generation Squad Weapon Contract

[Wake27]

This whole thing seems like a disaster in the making. From what I've read, the 277 Fury platforms will be limited to combat arms and everyone else will still field the legacy systems in 5.56 and 7.62; M4, M249, M240.

So, it's not even a replacement for anything....it's just an addition, in which case the full power composite case and training round brass case issue just becomes even more exacerbated.

Seems it'd make a lot more sense to me if they just called the 277 Fury a replacement for 7.62x51 in total for everyone, and everything else remained the same. This idea of adding a heavier rifle with heavier ammunition for the average Joe seems like a Bad Idea^TM given the context that infantrymen are used in modern war.

"When preparing for near-peer war, make logistics as complicated as possible"-Sun Tzu, not

Fully agree. I think it was on M4C but beside the issues that any decent gun guy would expect about line troops using different loads for training and combat, a lot of people don’t realize how small the log support team for an IN BN really is. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but there are very few guys qualified to fix weapons at that level, I think two E1-E4s and an E5. Maybe one of the senior maintenance NCOs has the background in weapons but it’s uncommon. And those guys fix everything from M17 to M2, plus mortars and artillery. Any added weapon system is one more thing that they need to know how to repair and have parts on hand for.

On the distribution side of the house, about a squad is responsible for resupply. JRTC is a relatively small training area and I still had to run convoys (5-13 hrs was the longest I believe) every single day that we were in the box minus one because that squad resupplies five to six different companies. Of about 12 people, two of those are probably going to be in a fuel truck. Another two will be the PL and his driver in a HMMWV or JLTV. That’s four trucks left over for all food, water, ammo, and anything else that may need to be delivered/retrieved. Adding trailers helps but it becomes a delicate balancing act of pallet spaces to minimize redundant trips. And some of those vehicles with trailers are huge for the spaces that we have to try to get them into. Adding an entirely new type of ammo without removing one just takes up more space and it becomes more complex for tracking and projecting, which historically line companies suck at.

And none of that acknowledges the need for protective platforms. Sometimes you can take guys from the other sections in the company to escort the logistics convoy but that means they’re not doing their own job (like repairing weapons…).

And as sad as it is, it’s often not your most competent soldiers that are fuelers and truck drivers, so the few performers in that squad are probably lifting more than their fair share, exhausting them quicker and degrading sustained operations.

Crazy enough, I still haven’t heard the Ukrainians asking for more powerful small arms. Who would’ve guess that against a near peer, they care more about things that explode.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jbrimlow]

This whole thing seems like a disaster in the making. From what I've read, the 277 Fury platforms will be limited to combat arms and everyone else will still field the legacy systems in 5.56 and 7.62; M4, M249, M240.

So, it's not even a replacement for anything....it's just an addition, in which case the full power composite case and training round brass case issue just becomes even more exacerbated.

Seems it'd make a lot more sense to me if they just called the 277 Fury a replacement for 7.62x51 in total for everyone, and everything else remained the same. This idea of adding a heavier rifle with heavier ammunition for the average Joe seems like a Bad Idea^TM given the context that infantrymen are used in modern war.

"When preparing for near-peer war, make logistics as complicated as possible"-Sun Tzu, not

There is an army ask for conversions for M240B/L to take the NGSW rounds, details of which came out before Sig's win was announced. https://soldiersystems.net/2022/03/1...nversion-kits/

So maybe some of the 240s will be switched to .277 Fury? But I haven't heard anything on that part of the details. I agree with your skepticism of the plan to replace the M4 for the average combat-joe.

[TiroFijo]

There is an army ask for conversions for M240B/L to take the NGSW rounds, details of which came out before Sig's win was announced. https://soldiersystems.net/2022/03/1...nversion-kits/

So maybe some of the 240s will be switched to .277 Fury? But I haven't heard anything on that part of the details. I agree with your skepticism of the plan to replace the M4 for the average combat-joe.

The 277 Fury in brass cases is just plain stupid for .mil use, no significant advantage over 7.62 NATO.

And even though the case head and round OAL is the same, and recoil impulse identical, the steel head hybrid case is rated at close to 80,000 PSI and the gas port pressure is also going to be a lot higher. The conversion of legacy arms to the full power 277 version is not going to be straightforward.

TGS has highlighted the weight and capacity issue for normal troops, but we also have to remember that the full power version will kick just like a 7.62 NATO does in a similar rifle, since the full power round has the same recoil impulse. I don't see this gun ever replacing the M4 for most troops.

Another point: no matter how good your bullet is, you are not going to get enough velocity out of the 13" barrel to penetrate modern plate armor at anything but close range and very low angles of impact.

If HSLD users prefer this rifle for some uses/environments, I suspect many of them are going to ditch the whizbang optic that does everything for something else, since well trained shooters with a flat shooting gun don't really need a ballisctic computer and range finder for normal ranges.

[TiroFijo]

Crazy enough, I still haven’t heard the Ukrainians asking for more powerful small arms. Who would’ve guess that against a near peer, they care more about things that explode.

THIS

[TGS]

TGS has highlighted the weight and capacity issue for normal troops, but we also have to remember that the full power version will kick just like a 7.62 NATO does in a similar rifle, since the full power round has the same recoil impulse. I don't see this gun ever replacing the M4 for most troops.

Another point: no matter how good your bullet is, you are not going to get enough velocity in the 13" barrel to penetrate modern plate armor at anything but close range and very low angles of impact.

Not sure what the round's performance is at 13", but I believe the SIG M5 has a 15"+ barrel length, and the M250 is 17"+.....and the full power 277 Fury is rated for 3,000fps at 16". It should perform fine out of either system for the purposes of increasing AP range and capability.

It just seems bizarre that they're focusing on this for the average infantryman, who in near-peer conflict are really just close-protection for the employment of other weapons systems. To replace DMRs and company MGs in 277 would be a pretty significant improvement on its own, but issuing it beyond that to each troop seems like the point of diminishing returns is already exceeded.

To wit the Ukraine mention, it's generally more important for Pvt Snuffy to be humping an NLAW, extra Charlie-G rounds, extra mortar rounds, or some other instrument of mayhem than to have to carry heavy ass ammo for a rifle he's incapable of exercising the capabilities of (even if he's a stud on the range, chances are his engagements will be well within the capability of M995 5.56 anyway).

I had been reticent to share an opinion on this for a while, but the more I've talked it over with people, the more I'm confident this is a stupid idea along the same lines as the looney tunes comic-con retro uniform. I'm also a bit of a fanboi and biased, but I think it's telling that the USMC isn't following suit...an organization that historically overvalues the concept of the nostalgic Rifleman, even still referring to individual infantrymen as Riflemen, and units as Rifle Companies, Rifle Regiments, etc. Maybe I'm a tool, but I think that's a clue.

[JSGlock34]

What we really need is a PDW version of the NGSW with a 8" barrel.

[El Cid]

Crazy enough, I still haven’t heard the Ukrainians asking for more powerful small arms. Who would’ve guess that against a near peer, they care more about things that explode.

In fact haven’t we seen may of them replacing their rifles with M4 types?

TGS has highlighted the weight and capacity issue for normal troops, but we also have to remember that the full power version will kick just like a 7.62 NATO does in a similar rifle, since the full power round has the same recoil impulse. I don't see this gun ever replacing the M4 for most troops.

Most videos I’ve seen the gun kicks hard and the shooter has a hard time controlling it on semi or full. The only person I’ve seen who tamed it was Garand Thumb and most personnel are not going to hav anywhere near his experience/round count.

[Paul D]

Can these types of small arms contract be cancelled at any time?

I'm not a military expert, but I do remember a P&S podcast where Chuck Pressburg commented on the "overmatch fallacy".

I'm all for innovation and trying new stuff, but this seems like a waste of tax payer money. How about making the soldier's gear burden lighter and not heavier? I would be behind that.

[HCM]

Can these types of small arms contract be cancelled at any time?

I'm not a military expert, but I do remember a P&S podcast where Chuck Pressburg commented on the "overmatch fallacy".

I'm all for innovation and trying new stuff, but this seems like a waste of tax payer money. How about making the soldier's gear burden lighter and not heavier? I would be behind that.

Jose Gordon on the overmatch rant, but Chuck P. also discussed the problems with general issue of bsttke rifles in other episodes.

[Paul D]

@HCM Thanks for those links.

It was not clear to me (forgive me if I am dense), but is the purpose of this 6.8 mm round is to: 1) Extend effective lethal range of the rifleman?; 2) Defeat peer or near-peer combatant body armor?; 3) Improve barrier penetration? Or is none of the above? I still think the 5.56 mm round is still very useful.

To give Sig Sauer some credit, some of their optics have been very nice especially their rangefinding stuff. If they had brought out advanced optics to mount on issued rifles, that would have probably made that individual soldier markedly more lethal than this gun/round.