As long as there is a rail system on the rifle, and there is if you look at the pictures, you can add a BUIS.AgLA06 said:
Here's the only thing I don't get about this.
In a world where an EMP is a large threat, are their BUIS on these weapons? Because I have a feeling a computer controlled gun can eventually be jammed, hacked, EMPd, etc. and as a soldier it wouldn't be fun to realize your weapon is nothing more than a paper weight.
Army NGSW competition (guns/ammo update)
24,403 Views |
83 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by Eliminatus
It has iron sights. Also: "Even in its most degraded form, no computer, just glass, it uses a 1-8x variable optic that exceeds the performance of the existing M68 and ACOG optics now fielded, said Maj. Alexander Kipetz, NGSW-Fire Control assistant product manager."AgLA06 said:
Here's the only thing I don't get about this.
In a world where an EMP is a large threat, are their BUIS on these weapons? Because I have a feeling a computer controlled gun can eventually be jammed, hacked, EMPd, etc. and as a soldier it wouldn't be fun to realize your weapon is nothing more than a paper weight.
First issue coming in '23. CLOSE COMBAT
Good stuff. Count me as one of those who think an upgrade was needed in some circumstances.74OA said:
First issue coming in '23. CLOSE COMBAT
It's the new sight that's the revolutionary part of the upgrade and it's immediately compatible with the Army's other infantry weapons, too. The clip on it I posted just above is worth a watch.Eliminatus said:Good stuff. Count me as one of those who think an upgrade was needed in some circumstances.74OA said:
First issue coming in '23. CLOSE COMBAT
Interesting thread with some links regarding the Sig/NGSW stuff.
The US Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program has been controversial. Few people expected SIG to win with what many perceived to be an evolutionary approach. The smart money was on Textron and its innovative cased-telescoped ammunition and weapon technology.
— Nicholas Drummond (@nicholadrummond) April 11, 2023
1/12 pic.twitter.com/esoIN595Nq
According to PEO Soldier, some of the improvements of the 6.8mm over 5.56mm include:
UPDATE
- Dramatically improved hard target performance.
- Improved, consistent effects against soft targets and close-quarters battle performance.
- Significant increase in range of consistent effects against all targets.
- Extremely effectiveness against a wide range of targets a true general-purpose round.
UPDATE
"The heavier round provides better penetration and outperforms the 7.62 mm round used in the M240 machine gun system, typically found at the platoon level. The increased energy of the round also allows shooters to penetrate barriers that deflected 5.56mm rounds, as demonstrated in a live fire during which an Army Times reporter participated in September at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland."
2024 DELIVERY
2024 DELIVERY
I'm not really interested in quotes from program managers who's OER's are based on the system appearing to do it's job.
Long time SNCO war fighters who look at it and say it's a mistake are who I put stock in. Seems that replacing the M249 with this and then the M240 with a heavier barreled version with a higher sustained rate of fire would be a good option.
I find it hard to believe that the heavier recoil, fewer rounds, and overall heavier weapon is going to be such a jump in capability that it justifies the change.
Long time SNCO war fighters who look at it and say it's a mistake are who I put stock in. Seems that replacing the M249 with this and then the M240 with a heavier barreled version with a higher sustained rate of fire would be a good option.
I find it hard to believe that the heavier recoil, fewer rounds, and overall heavier weapon is going to be such a jump in capability that it justifies the change.
I'm not an expert at all but it is intriguing;
It would be 'interesting' if some friendly folks like the Ukrainians or Israeli's etc. got to test it out in the real world conflicts they are operating in (just as examples). Most of the added weight is if you carry the same quantity of rounds, and the optic, right?Quote:
Multiple XM250 6.8mm rounds drilled holes through cinder blocks and struck a human silhouette target while only a single 5.56mm round managed to damage, but not fully pass through the cinder blocks.
"That's turning cover into concealment," Lt. Col. Micah Rue, product manager for soldier weapons at Program Executive Office-Soldier said at the time.
The current 10-year contract for the Sig Sauer weapons, builder of both systems, has a ceiling value of $4.5 billion and the Vortex Optics/Sheltered Wings XM157 fire control cost ceiling is set at $2.7 billion.
1. The NGSW rifle has a 20 round magazine of 6.8mm ammunition which reduces a Soldier's basic load from 210 rounds (7 magazines) of 5.56mm to 140 rounds of 6.8mm. Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal misery when you have to hump them.
Arithmetic dictates that NGSW **must** deliver a 50% increase in the Probability of Hit over currently fielded M4 carbines to match the lethality of the current 5.56mm rifles. Every round that misses has zero lethality but at the same time, Gretsky's maxim is also true.
Where's the data to show that NGSW (and Vortex optic) equipped Soldiers are 50% more likelyto hit the sametargetthan a soldierwith an M4? How does the Army's use of suppression fire change with 33% less ammo per weapon? What if...you put the Vortex optic for the NGSW on an M4? Would the M4-Vortex system have a similar Probability of Hit to the NGSW? Don't count on PEO Soldier Lethality allowing such an experiment to be conducted because they don't want to know the result.
2. The Marine Corps' 2018 Rifle Marksmanship Lethality Capabilities Based Assessment contained the following statements on the first page and the first paragraph of the 130 page assessment.
"Following a 2004 deployment to Iraq, ...the (2nd Marines) regimental gunner asserted that the "main problem is that Marines need to work on marksmanship". This sentiment was expounded upon by the then-CMC, General James T. Conway, "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets"
3. Historically, >90% rifle engagements take place at distances <300m. If we just concede that the 6.8mm cartridge is preferable to the 5 56mm at ranges beyond 300m, does that justify moving to the 6.8mm? Does Leavenworth or MCOE have data or simulations to indicate that a significantly larger proportion of future infantry engagements will be at >300m?
4. Few existing small arms training ranges can accommodate the larger SDZ of the 6.8mm cartridge. 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammo have an SDZ of 3600m and the .50 BMG is 7200m. The new 6.8mm cartridge is probably going to be closer to 7200m than to 3600m given that it is still supersonicat a range of 1000m. The Army has 659 small arms (weapons smaller than .50 caliber) across the globe that are supported by TRADOC central funding for operation and sustainment. Many of these ranges were designed to support only a 3600m SDZ. The Army has no real estate budget to increase the size of small arms ranges to accommodate the new 6.8mm cartridge. The 6.8mm cartridge also cuts the useful life of AR500 steel plate targets almost in half. The options for plate targets will be to replace them twice as often or buy far more expensive AR600 steel plate.
5. The 6.8mm chamber pressure is higher than either the 5.56mm M855A1 or the 7.62MM M80. That means increased heat which means increased barrel erosion and shorter fatigue life. The barrels of 6.8mm weapons, particularly machine guns, will wear our a lot faster than 5.56mm or 7.62mm barrels.
My opinion doesn't count for anything but I believe that the Army has concocted a vision of the future enemy where Tony Stark level body armor demands a 6.8mm cartridge.
Arithmetic dictates that NGSW **must** deliver a 50% increase in the Probability of Hit over currently fielded M4 carbines to match the lethality of the current 5.56mm rifles. Every round that misses has zero lethality but at the same time, Gretsky's maxim is also true.
Where's the data to show that NGSW (and Vortex optic) equipped Soldiers are 50% more likelyto hit the sametargetthan a soldierwith an M4? How does the Army's use of suppression fire change with 33% less ammo per weapon? What if...you put the Vortex optic for the NGSW on an M4? Would the M4-Vortex system have a similar Probability of Hit to the NGSW? Don't count on PEO Soldier Lethality allowing such an experiment to be conducted because they don't want to know the result.
2. The Marine Corps' 2018 Rifle Marksmanship Lethality Capabilities Based Assessment contained the following statements on the first page and the first paragraph of the 130 page assessment.
"Following a 2004 deployment to Iraq, ...the (2nd Marines) regimental gunner asserted that the "main problem is that Marines need to work on marksmanship". This sentiment was expounded upon by the then-CMC, General James T. Conway, "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets"
3. Historically, >90% rifle engagements take place at distances <300m. If we just concede that the 6.8mm cartridge is preferable to the 5 56mm at ranges beyond 300m, does that justify moving to the 6.8mm? Does Leavenworth or MCOE have data or simulations to indicate that a significantly larger proportion of future infantry engagements will be at >300m?
4. Few existing small arms training ranges can accommodate the larger SDZ of the 6.8mm cartridge. 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammo have an SDZ of 3600m and the .50 BMG is 7200m. The new 6.8mm cartridge is probably going to be closer to 7200m than to 3600m given that it is still supersonicat a range of 1000m. The Army has 659 small arms (weapons smaller than .50 caliber) across the globe that are supported by TRADOC central funding for operation and sustainment. Many of these ranges were designed to support only a 3600m SDZ. The Army has no real estate budget to increase the size of small arms ranges to accommodate the new 6.8mm cartridge. The 6.8mm cartridge also cuts the useful life of AR500 steel plate targets almost in half. The options for plate targets will be to replace them twice as often or buy far more expensive AR600 steel plate.
5. The 6.8mm chamber pressure is higher than either the 5.56mm M855A1 or the 7.62MM M80. That means increased heat which means increased barrel erosion and shorter fatigue life. The barrels of 6.8mm weapons, particularly machine guns, will wear our a lot faster than 5.56mm or 7.62mm barrels.
My opinion doesn't count for anything but I believe that the Army has concocted a vision of the future enemy where Tony Stark level body armor demands a 6.8mm cartridge.
Fantastic and detailed post.
My $.02 is limited to engagements in Iraq, all of which were in an urban setting (so I discount my own opinion a lot on this)….that said, the question for me is, will the individual soldier not carrying a crew served weapon be expected to suppress the enemy or not? If not, you need to be damn clear that you don't pull a trigger unless you have you have a target in your sight picture. However, if they are going to suppress, going from 210 to 140 rounds is a really bad tradeofff.
I suspect the right answer is more M249 like weapons per platoon, and then more individual riflemen that create effects like squad designated marksmen. In my experience, the individual 11B, 0311, 19D, etc slinging rounds wildly out of an M4 created a lot of noise but little effect, and it happened all of the time. Contrast that with a good 240 gunner or SDM that has a big impact, and more specialization seems like it could be a good thing.
My $.02 is limited to engagements in Iraq, all of which were in an urban setting (so I discount my own opinion a lot on this)….that said, the question for me is, will the individual soldier not carrying a crew served weapon be expected to suppress the enemy or not? If not, you need to be damn clear that you don't pull a trigger unless you have you have a target in your sight picture. However, if they are going to suppress, going from 210 to 140 rounds is a really bad tradeofff.
I suspect the right answer is more M249 like weapons per platoon, and then more individual riflemen that create effects like squad designated marksmen. In my experience, the individual 11B, 0311, 19D, etc slinging rounds wildly out of an M4 created a lot of noise but little effect, and it happened all of the time. Contrast that with a good 240 gunner or SDM that has a big impact, and more specialization seems like it could be a good thing.
I again don't really know enough about this stuff to have an opinion but the concern about body armor moving forward seemed valid, imho. Certainly, the Chinese and Russians are using it a lot more than…our recent foes have in infantry engagements.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/return-of-the-rifleman-the-next-generation-squad-weapons-program/
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/return-of-the-rifleman-the-next-generation-squad-weapons-program/
Anything they settled on was bound to be controversial, just as doing away with the M1 and M14 was, decades ago.Quote:
The cartridge SIG developed for its winning NGSW firearms has been designated as the 6.8x51 mm Common Cartridge (CC). As can be inferred from the "51 mm" part of its designation, the cartridge's case is the same length as the 7.62 NATO, necessitating an "AR-10"-size firearm platform. The case is almost the identical diameter as well, meaning that capacity in a box magazine is the same as the 7.62 NATO cartridge. While the Army hasn't revealed the exact ballistic performance of the new cartridge, the 6.8 mm CC delivers more velocity than the M855A1 with a bullet more than twice as heavy. The Army claims that the new chambering is superior to both the 6.5 mm Creedmoor and 7.62 NATO at ranges up to 800 meters and that it can defeat Level III body armor with non-armor-piercing ammunition out to 600 meters.
The new cartridge is not to be confused with the 6.8 Remington SPC, another cartridge developed at the behest of the U.S. military. Designed in the early 2000s, the SPC has the same overall length as the 5.56 NATO, meaning that existing M4 and AR-15-type firearms could be adapted to use it.
Since defeating body armor comes down, in large part, to velocity, every effort was made to get the maximum performance out of the new cartridge. The result was a chambering that operates at very high pressure. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) specification for the cartridge is 80,000 p.s.i., or about 30 percent higher than the operating pressure of similar cartridges such as 7.62 NATO or 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Defeating light cover like a car or thin walls is also a big deal in urban engagements (7.62 does this well, 5.56 does not).
The LATEST.
Also came across this on the weight of the new round: "SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."
I imagine that 30% reduction largely eliminates the concern that the 6.8's weight will force soldiers to carry fewer rounds?
NGSW
Also came across this on the weight of the new round: "SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."
I imagine that 30% reduction largely eliminates the concern that the 6.8's weight will force soldiers to carry fewer rounds?
NGSW
$2.7B/250,000 = $10,800 per XM-157.
That's a lot for an optic, almost 6x the peice of a Trijicon RCO. It makes me want to ask whether the XM157 comes with a "can't miss" guarantee for targets at 300m or less.
That's a lot for an optic, almost 6x the peice of a Trijicon RCO. It makes me want to ask whether the XM157 comes with a "can't miss" guarantee for targets at 300m or less.
That likely includes training, maintenance, test equipment, spare parts, etc. the usual support elements of any contract.Ulysses90 said:
$2.7B/250,000 = $10,800 per XM-157.
That's a lot for an optic, almost 6x the peice of a Trijicon RCO. It makes me want to ask whether the XM157 comes with a "can't miss" guarantee for targets at 300m or less.
Dunno about "can't miss" guarantee, but the optic's capabilities shown in the video linked up top are impressive and we're talking at 700 yards. Worth watching.......
Some decent feedback from soldiers. Speculation as to lightly armored vehicles like BTR's etc being at risk. $13/round is…insane, still. (Happy to report new brass 55 grain 5.56 can be found in the sub 40 cent range again.)
This says $4 a round. I imagine the price will come down significantly once production volumes ramp up.
FURY
FURY
Interesting to see the Israeli's apparently buying both calibers now. All politics etc. aside they only buy very effective gear, imho.
https://www.twz.com/land/israel-buys-7-62x51mm-version-of-u-s-armys-new-sig-sauer-m250-light-machine-gun-report
https://www.twz.com/land/israel-buys-7-62x51mm-version-of-u-s-armys-new-sig-sauer-m250-light-machine-gun-report
https://t.co/qxpkYOLRKG pic.twitter.com/RAXb0clTdl
— Abraxas Spa (@AbraxasSpa) October 9, 2024
Apparently/possibly the Poles as well, though I am not clear on that. Very curious if ammo production is licensed out to others as well.Quote:
Overall, Sig Sauer's LMG was designed with modularity in mind, as well as with ergonomics intended to mimic those found on AR-15/M16-pattern rifles that U.S. and Israeli military personnel, and many others around the globe, are already familiar with.
The IDF's acquisition of at least some 7.62x51mm LMGs does not come as a complete surprise. Sig Sauer notably displayed a placard detailing "Major Global Contract Wins" at the official opening of its expanded ammunition plant in Jacksonville, Arkansas, in October 2024. Included in the 2024 column were depictions of the LMG and the .338 Norma Magnum version of the company's new Medium Machine Gun (MMG), along with the ROMEO8T optic and linked .338 ammunition, all with Israeli flags alongside them. The MMG has yet to emerge publicly in IDF service.
DOT&E has published a report on the XM7and XM250 that has a rather negative assessment of the XM157 FCS.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/army/2024ngsw.pdf
In typical fashion, the report recommends to continue, continue, continue, continue. That doesn't mean claw-back government funds from the vendor and insist on attainment of the performance parameters in the spec. It means obligate more RDT&E funding and increase the cost of the XM157.
edit to add: DOGE visiting the Pentagon and especially everything that falls under USD A&S and USD R&E can't happen soon enough.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/army/2024ngsw.pdf
Quote:
Soldiers assessed the usability of the XM157 as below average/failing, and
The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure.
In typical fashion, the report recommends to continue, continue, continue, continue. That doesn't mean claw-back government funds from the vendor and insist on attainment of the performance parameters in the spec. It means obligate more RDT&E funding and increase the cost of the XM157.
edit to add: DOGE visiting the Pentagon and especially everything that falls under USD A&S and USD R&E can't happen soon enough.
You don't make any sense. Why would they claw back money if they delivered as requested?
It's like a homeowner asking the contractor who built what they requested to redo it without a change order because they decided they didn't like the design when it was finished.
Of course they're going to continue to refined and make changes as the Army tries to figure out what they want.
It's like a homeowner asking the contractor who built what they requested to redo it without a change order because they decided they didn't like the design when it was finished.
Of course they're going to continue to refined and make changes as the Army tries to figure out what they want.
One of these two statements is true
A. The Army wrote a performance spec for the XM157 that accurately reflects the demands for combat performance and reliability.
B. The Army wrote a performance spec for the XM157 that falls short of the actual performance and reliability necessary to meet the demands of combat.
One of these two statements is also true
C. The XM157 contractor delivered a product that meets the government contract spec for performance/reliability.
D. The XM157 contractor delivered a product that does not meet the government's performance spec for performance/reliability.
The DOT&E report makes it very clear that statements A&C are not both true. That leaves the possibility that:
1. Statements A&D are both true or,
2. Statements B&C are both true or,
3. Statements B&D are both true.
If statements A&D are true, there should be a clawback and a termination of the contract for default.
If statements B&C are true then the contract should be terminated for the convenience of the government, the government program manager and engineer should be fired and replaced, and a new performance spec and a new contract solicitation for proposals is necessary.
If B&D are true the contract needs to be terminated for convenience of the government and the government program manager and engineer and probably the contracting officer also need to be replaced.
The DOT&E report doesn't recommend any of those three courses of action. It defaults to the "Pentagon Wars" COA which is to keep pouring money into improving a design a d reliability that isn't meeting the demands of combat accordingto the evaluationcriteriathey used.
The Pentagon Wars COA always results in:
-Schedule slip to the right (by years, not months) for fielding the system
-Increased average per unit cost (APUC)
The Pentagon Wars COA often, but not always, results in:
-Lowering thresholds for performance and reliability
-Reduction in the quantity of the Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO)
You might have drawn a different inference than I did but it doesn't appear that anyone will be fired or that any contract will be terminated with or without a clawback.
It's also worth remembering that the XM157, XM7, and XM250 are supposed to be commercial items and not a government design funded by R&D. The proposed solutions are supposed to meet the Army's performance spec. Does the government now spend R&D funds for the improvements to a commercially designed item? Their notnsupposed to. That's why a clawback would be appropriate if the XM157 isn't meeting the thresholds of the P-spec.
A. The Army wrote a performance spec for the XM157 that accurately reflects the demands for combat performance and reliability.
B. The Army wrote a performance spec for the XM157 that falls short of the actual performance and reliability necessary to meet the demands of combat.
One of these two statements is also true
C. The XM157 contractor delivered a product that meets the government contract spec for performance/reliability.
D. The XM157 contractor delivered a product that does not meet the government's performance spec for performance/reliability.
The DOT&E report makes it very clear that statements A&C are not both true. That leaves the possibility that:
1. Statements A&D are both true or,
2. Statements B&C are both true or,
3. Statements B&D are both true.
If statements A&D are true, there should be a clawback and a termination of the contract for default.
If statements B&C are true then the contract should be terminated for the convenience of the government, the government program manager and engineer should be fired and replaced, and a new performance spec and a new contract solicitation for proposals is necessary.
If B&D are true the contract needs to be terminated for convenience of the government and the government program manager and engineer and probably the contracting officer also need to be replaced.
The DOT&E report doesn't recommend any of those three courses of action. It defaults to the "Pentagon Wars" COA which is to keep pouring money into improving a design a d reliability that isn't meeting the demands of combat accordingto the evaluationcriteriathey used.
The Pentagon Wars COA always results in:
-Schedule slip to the right (by years, not months) for fielding the system
-Increased average per unit cost (APUC)
The Pentagon Wars COA often, but not always, results in:
-Lowering thresholds for performance and reliability
-Reduction in the quantity of the Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO)
You might have drawn a different inference than I did but it doesn't appear that anyone will be fired or that any contract will be terminated with or without a clawback.
It's also worth remembering that the XM157, XM7, and XM250 are supposed to be commercial items and not a government design funded by R&D. The proposed solutions are supposed to meet the Army's performance spec. Does the government now spend R&D funds for the improvements to a commercially designed item? Their notnsupposed to. That's why a clawback would be appropriate if the XM157 isn't meeting the thresholds of the P-spec.
Yep, there's a reason why the sight and weapons still have an "X" designation.
They are still in development and undergoing evaluation by the Operational Assessment Team and will, as with most new designs, almost certainly have a number of improvements based on soldier feedback.
Whether those changes are paid for by the company or the Army will depend on, as you say, if they are covered or not covered in the government's original specifications.
They are still in development and undergoing evaluation by the Operational Assessment Team and will, as with most new designs, almost certainly have a number of improvements based on soldier feedback.
Whether those changes are paid for by the company or the Army will depend on, as you say, if they are covered or not covered in the government's original specifications.
Army opening is own 6.8 production facility rather continuing to buy the new ammo from Sig. That will almost certainly drive the cost per round down significantly.
PLANT
PLANT
It's not "in development," it's in production because Sig Sauer and Vortex were the winners of production contracts resulting from competitive prototyping. There is no R&D budget for modifications to the design and if Sig Sauer isn't meeting the thresholds, they are at-risk to find a fix or default.74OA said:
Yep, there's a reason why the sight and weapons still have an "X" designation.
They are still in development and undergoing evaluation by the Operational Assessment Team and will, as with most new designs, almost certainly have a number of improvements based on soldier feedback.
Whether those changes are paid for by the company or the Army will depend on, as you say, if they are covered or not covered in the government's original specifications.
The issues with reliability are mostly a result of the Sig 6.8mm ammunition and its >80kpsi chamber pressure. Barring a technological breakthrough in metallurgy, those weapons just aren't going to last as long or be as reliable as a rifle with a 56kpsi chamber pressure. Sig Sauer bet correctly that the Army would push aside issues of reliability and service life during the competitive evaluation of prototypes as long as the proposed designs could provide superior ballistic performance. Now the Army is getting what they asked for.
Like the IVAS program, the Army cannot afford to admit that it isn't meeting the performance specifications so, the program plods onward. The usual way these issues play out is that the fielding schedule is delayed, APUC will increase, and the quantities purchased may decrease. If the SecDef puts a focus on Defense Contracts Management Agency to do DOGE-like program audits, things might play out differently.
Correct. I should have said still in field testing, not development.Ulysses90 said:It's not "in development," it's in production because Sig Sauer and Vortex were the winners of production contracts resulting from competitive prototyping. There is no R&D budget for modifications to the design and if Sig Sauer isn't meeting the thresholds, they are at-risk to find a fix or default.74OA said:
Yep, there's a reason why the sight and weapons still have an "X" designation.
They are still in development and undergoing evaluation by the Operational Assessment Team and will, as with most new designs, almost certainly have a number of improvements based on soldier feedback.
Whether those changes are paid for by the company or the Army will depend on, as you say, if they are covered or not covered in the government's original specifications.
The issues with reliability are mostly a result of the Sig 6.8mm ammunition and its >80kpsi chamber pressure. Barring a technological breakthrough in metallurgy, those weapons just aren't going to last as long or be as reliable as a rifle with a 56kpsi chamber pressure. Sig Sauer bet correctly that the Army would push aside issues of reliability and service life during the competitive evaluation of prototypes as long as the proposed designs could provide superior ballistic performance. Now the Army is getting what they asked for.
Like the IVAS program, the Army cannot afford to admit that it isn't meeting the performance specifications so, the program plods onward. The usual way these issues play out is that the fielding schedule is delayed, APUC will increase, and the quantities purchased may decrease. If the SecDef puts a focus on Defense Contracts Management Agency to do DOGE-like program audits, things might play out differently.
FIELD
Army now also looking for a .338 machine gun to provide increased range and punch. I wonder if SIG's lightweight 6.8 alloy cartridge design mentioned earlier on this page can also be applied to the .338 to keep its weight down, too?
NORMA
NORMA
An Army Captain spoke this week at the Modern Day Marine Expo on his assessment of the Army's XM-7 rifle from NGSW program.
https://www.twz.com/land/army-captain-slams-new-xm7-rifle-as-unfit-sig-sauer-says-otherwise
None of this is surprising to me. It's especially interesting that CPT Trent spoke of case ruptures of which he is aware or has witnessed but Sig Sauer professes to have received no such reports.
The weight of the XM-7 and it's ammo load (only 66% of the number of cartridges for a 5.56mm rifle) as a percentage of the Army CoS objective of 55 pounds basic load is going to be almost impossible to overcome. Either the CoS gives up on a 55 pound limit or the Army chooses a lighter weapon. There just isn't 7 pounds of PPE or other equipment that can be removed from the basic load without serious impact on capabilities.
https://www.twz.com/land/army-captain-slams-new-xm7-rifle-as-unfit-sig-sauer-says-otherwise
None of this is surprising to me. It's especially interesting that CPT Trent spoke of case ruptures of which he is aware or has witnessed but Sig Sauer professes to have received no such reports.
The weight of the XM-7 and it's ammo load (only 66% of the number of cartridges for a 5.56mm rifle) as a percentage of the Army CoS objective of 55 pounds basic load is going to be almost impossible to overcome. Either the CoS gives up on a 55 pound limit or the Army chooses a lighter weapon. There just isn't 7 pounds of PPE or other equipment that can be removed from the basic load without serious impact on capabilities.
I think the reality is soldiers won't go into combat with the basic load. Even with the M4's 210 round basic load it was very common for soldiers to find ways to add extra mags. So with this weapon they will add probably 3 more mags, 60 rounds, at least to their kit, if I had to guess.
The 55lbs basic combat load is a good planning number but soldiers who feel they need extra rounds will bring extra rounds. Does that extra weight reduce your ability to maneuver on the battle field, yes. Does it increase chances for injury, especially in airborne operations, yes.
The 55lbs basic combat load is a good planning number but soldiers who feel they need extra rounds will bring extra rounds. Does that extra weight reduce your ability to maneuver on the battle field, yes. Does it increase chances for injury, especially in airborne operations, yes.
Army suppressing negative reviews from soldiers?
So long as soldiers carry rifles, the marksmanship vs volume of fire argument will go on.
"McNaugher investigated the trade-offs when the Army went from the M14's more powerful and accurate 7.62mm round to the M16's smaller and lighter 5.56mm round. The M16, he wrote in a 1979 RAND essay, allowed for more "spray-like automatic fire" that "was the product of newer trends in rifle design based on the premise that marksmanship had at best a limited role to play on the battlefield."
XM7
"McNaugher investigated the trade-offs when the Army went from the M14's more powerful and accurate 7.62mm round to the M16's smaller and lighter 5.56mm round. The M16, he wrote in a 1979 RAND essay, allowed for more "spray-like automatic fire" that "was the product of newer trends in rifle design based on the premise that marksmanship had at best a limited role to play on the battlefield."
XM7
Featured Stories
See All
Bobby Shuttleworth hired as Texas A&M's next head soccer coach
by Richard Zane
Six Aggies earn All-SEC recognition from the league's coaches
by Richard Zane
21:06
7h ago
4.8k
2027 Cy Fall EDGE Kaden McCarty commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger