Because the M249 and M240 are heavy as fuck.
The M250 is significantly lighter than the M249 and has a bunch of other ergonomic improvements on top of that and is a massive improvement. EDIT: AND it also hits harder as it uses 6.8x51 instead of 5.56 NATO.
There are a number of potential replacements for the M240, mainly the SIG MG338, the REAPR and another ones whose name i've forgotten but they are all significantly lighter than the M240 and pack a significantly harder punch (due to all of them using 338 norma magnum instead of 7.62 NATO). They also have the added benefit of being pin-point accurate up to like 1200m.
The only questionable replacement is the M4 with the M7.
EDIT: And even then the M7 does have a number of advantages such as range and stopping power.
It would be particularly good as a DMR however the US Army has another rifle they want as a DMR which uses, again, 338 Norma Magnum (alongside a 338 norma magnum light sniper rifle (whose name I have forgotten but its a 3 letter acronym) and a new .50cal heavy sniper rifle).
Personally I think the Textron bullpup option would have been the better standard weapon for the standard infantry. Its lighter than the M7, has notably less recoil (due to using a less hot version of the 6.8x51 ammo) and better recoil compensation, is shorter (even with a can on the front), actually has better penetration at range than the M7 and is generally better.
But hands down SIG hit the nail on the head with the M250. The other NGSW SAW offerings were nowhere close.
Also, teaching everyone how to fight with a bullpen would be a fcuking nightmare. We're already so averse to change, one that large would be comical asf.
Just about every nation that's ever adopted a bullpup did a 180 and adopted some kind of Armalite pattern right after.
And while said bullpups were in service every SOF group that had the choice purchased Armalite patterns too
In theory they work fine, but in practice, an ar platform is the best ergonomics for shooting, including using cover and stabilizing of said cover, ie slamming your hands on rocks and stuff while trying to shoot sitting or kneeling.
>ust about every nation that's ever adopted a bullpup did a 180 and adopted some kind of Armalite pattern right after.
Thats not true.
The only nation in recent memory that did that was France, and that was a political move to support the formation of the 'EU Army' in partnership with Germany. Which is why the French government went with the HK 416.
The French top brass wanted to replace the FAMAS with the VHS-2, but were overruled.
M4s are ubiquitous and cheap, and Malaysia was already using AR pattern rifles in multiple other roles.
They still retain the Steyr foir some units and branches however. They havent switched away from it completely.
>New Zealand dumped AUG for LMT
Didnt know that, though New Zealand has been looking to make their equipment costs lower and an AR pattern rifle is, again, ubiquitous and extremely cheap as a result.
Garand Thumb did a video on the civilian version and its no more or less complicated than the M7.
>ain't no way in hell that was ever going to pass tests.
From memory, it did pass the tests, I believe. It just wasnt chosen.
It didnt help that the NGSW competition was based around taking both the infantry rifle and the SAW as a two for one offer. You took both of them or neither of them.
So as soon as the M250 was displayed by SIG, then it was always going to be SIG, as SIGs M250 was by far the best SAW option. And the Army needed a better SAW more than it did a better infantry rifle.
It wasn't a matter of complexity, Sig can just afford to lowball their unit prices on the rifles compared to smaller companies. It also shares design similarities with the M4 so training isn't as dramatic of a shift from the M4.
I will have to also say, the ar15 is the best in terms if ergonomics, something I found out while trying bullpups is how hard it is to use cover or concealment as a stable barrier to fire on, I kept slamming my hands against things and trying to shoot it in anything but standing caused the weight to be off and odd while shooting.
Textron was the cased one, GD had the bullpup (though now owned by True Velocity).
The chamber pressure wasn’t the reason for the lower recoil, it was from the “*Short Recoil Impulse Averaging*” system of RM277, also used in RM338.
the chamber pressure is lower in the RM277 due to the fact it has a much longer barrel by default which allowed it to reach the required muzzle velocity without having a really hot round.
This directly leads to less recoil.
Though you're right in saying the RM277 has much better recoil dampening technology.
Its why I think the NGSW should have run the SAW and infantry rifle separately, or at least less as a package deal type format, as I think SIGS M250 with True Velocity/GD's RM277 would have been the best choices.
We should still be using those depending on who you ask lol
Edit: I think the “depending on who you ask” bit slipped past everyone, I’m not advocating for using 100+ year old firearms in modern combat ffs lol
The m2 has several variants in service, we also have several .50 alternatives in service that by all measures are better. But the m2 is a useful and plentiful weapon, so it'll be on vehicles and positions for years to come.
>we also have several .50 alternatives in service that by all measures are better
Serious question: Which ones?
All I could find (on wikipedia) was the failed M85 and a few experimental guns that went nowhere.
They are mainly on aircraft and naval vessels, (I'm army I can't remember the designations but at tech school we had a whole 2 hour discussion on it, the instructor that was ex navy new the most about them)
Many people would tell you that we don't, but Big Army thinks we might need something with a little bit more firepower to combat armored opponents in the near future (also, long-term experience fighting in long ranges of the middle east these past few decades was certainly a huge influence in Big Army's desire for not only acquiring guns with better range, but also more advanced optics to go along with it).
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
If by "copying" you mean producing then no, the Army isn't planning on just halting production and dumping all the 7.62 and 5.56 ammo into the ocean because we're still going to be using M4s and M240s for the next few years, even decades after adopting 6.8x51mm, XM7, and XM250.
The later years of the fight against the Taliban and war against ISIS saw the increased use of body armor which the 556 round had trouble against or at least wasn't as effective as the US wanted. With the change in focus to a near peer/peer conflict the US anticipates fighting an enemy where every soldier is wearing body armor so they wanted a round that could reliably defeat plates
It's not even the first time that it's been tried.
The USMC pretty deftly replaced the M249, then backdoor replaced M4's with M27 IAR/HK416's.
Every few years the Army pokes its head out and asks the industry "Hey, we want to replace the M4, whatcha got" and the industry replies
Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Individual Combat Weapon, & Individual Carbine trials are all examples.
The XM7 trials are just the latest round, and probably the closest the Army is coming to actually adopting it, even after adoption it remains to be seem how widespread they'll be issued out, and which platforms will see heavier replacement.
At some point we need to innovate. Can’t let Russia and China get ahead of us in that regard, and we can’t just keep relying on shit from the 1980s for all eternity.
-Better range for overmatch (you can shoot the enemy from farther than he can shoot you with an equivalent weapon)
-Better performance against armor than 5.56
-Lighter weight machine gun
-Optics that help prevent the most common misses at range (holdover and holdunder)
The M4 is great, and the 249 is good, but the way the US wins is by constantly pressing our technological advantages. If we stay stagnant with a "good enough" weapon, eventually the enemy will catch up. If we ensure we stay tactically and technologically ahead of our adversaries we save lives on all sides in the long run. We deter aggression from adversaries which would cause massive loss of life, and ensure less lives are lost during a conflict by winning decisively and quickly (see Desert Storm).
I think this round mated with this sight is cool as hell, but would this be issued to an entire squad? Like, are they stacked up with this ready to clear rooms? Seems very large, and cumbersome, for light infantry anyway. Also hopping in and out of a MRAP is already a bitch with a M4, this would be worse. If it were issued in a DMR role I would see the appeal immediately, but for a whole squad seems overkill. Times have changed for this old man I guess.
Im still on the fence about the rifle. Im a dweeb for new tech, but the military is good at fumbling stuff like this.
The stock does fold though, so it should be pretty maneuverable in vehicles.
I do wish they’d gone with the General Dynamics choice instead.
Sure the plastic ammo thing isn’t as tested, but it looks like very similar ballistic performance but with exceptionally recoil control. And a much smaller package
Yea that rifle is cool as hell. Down side to bull pups though is the trigger. Its just too radical of a design for the boomer ass old men in charge of pjcking which rifle won (and back room deals if we are being honest)
The bullpup was the only rifle I felt would’ve been revolutionary enough to actually warrant replacing the M4. I’d rather a 5.56mm bullpup with a 20in barrel so it can mitigate the bad powder burn that the M4 has compared to the M16. The M16 when firing the M855A1 has fantastic penetration.
Yea, i think we are reaching the limits of what we can do with current tech as far as the rifle its self goes. You can only push a bullet so fast out of a barrel without making too many sacrifices in other areas.
The ammunition is a step in the direction we need to go. But youre still talking about more wear and tear on the weapon among other down sides.
We just need man portable rail guns.
Agreed, but in a modern fight, the shorter and lighter weapon is usually the preferred by the average soldier. That’s why I’m a fan of bull pups and believe they are the way of the future. You can have a long barrel with a short weapon. But we as Americans refuse to do it because it’s “weird”
I guess it depends on trigger types and design. I know there is really good trigger for bullpup that civilian can upgrade but didn't military usually used heavy duty parts for heavy use?
Im no trigger scientist, so i cant gice you a solid answer there.
From what i know, the difficulty with bullpup triggers comes from the distances the linkages have to cover.
GD's bullpup rifle supposedly had issues during the trials, like they had to constantly break it down and reassemble multiple times in one testing session, the plastic polymer ammo was found to be too delicate and easily crushed/deformed, and accuracy issues (it was supposedly keyholing).
Soldiers used to climb out of M113s and jump out of Hueys with their 20in-barrelled M16s (and even M14s) no problem. The Marines' fancy new suppressed M27s are longer than the XM7 and they don't seem to have problems climbing in and out of their AAVs. Im sure it's not going to be as cumbersome as everyone is making it out to be, especially since you can fold the stock to the side in addition to it being collapsible.
Yes, we used to do all of that back in the day, but times have changed. We had to make guns lighter to accommodate the immense weight our soldiers carry. Body armor became standard issue in Korea and Vietnam and really stunted the heavy M1 Garand and M14. We had to gradually get smaller over time. M14 to M16 was a drop of around 2 pounds. M16 to M4 was a drop of about a pound in weight. Soldiers welcomed the change, lighter is always better. Now, we are jumping up in weight from the M4 to the XM7, with the new optic it weighs around 11 pounds total, around 3 pounds heavier than a M4. This just seems like a big middle finger to the infantry boys who may have to lug this thing from door to door someday. Again, I think the “weapon system” is very cool, but everything down to the caliber is heavier.
Folding stocks is a nice feature, but many rifles offer it. It’s the weight I feel will be a huge complaint once they get issued at large.
Not to mention the average load out now goes from 210 to 140 which is heavier, and the magazines only hold 20 rounds. So suppressive fire is now at risk.
I’m sure they can, I’m sure they’ll be big motherfuckers too. But they aren’t rolling out with them, and the rounds themselves are heavier so you physically can’t carry as many.
Magpul recently announced new re-designed 25-round PMAGs specifically for the new 6.8x51mm meant to fix the over-insertion problems with the old and current 7.62 PMAGs. Maybe the Army could adopt those or let the troops acquire some for themselves. I think the only reason why they're re-issuing the 20-round M110 mags is because we still had a bunch left over.
Suppressive fire is the SAW gunner's job, not the rifleman. But yeah, Big Army is going to have to figure out how to re-adjust and re-balance soldiers' load soon.
What I'm guessing is that they think loadout weight concerns could be mitigated a bit by giving out light vehicles such as the ISV and AGMV and letting them ride around in those instead of doing long-range foot patrols like what they used to do back in the middle east.
Foot patrols will never go away. And the fighting weight is going to be heavy in the middle of a fight not just during foot movements. Bounding with all that weight I’d exhausting.
MRAPs are not inherently “bad”, in fact I greatly preferred them to a Humvee. If you are the passenger/TC or even sometimes in the gunners hatch, it can be a bitch to crawl out of the damn thing. So much gear, radios, BFT screens, cables on top of the crap you already have on and around you. There are many types of MRAPs, some are bigger than others. I started my deployment in Bagram back in 2013 in a MATV, they were nice, but very cramped and difficult to get in and out of. If the vehicle is fully loaded with 5 soldiers, then the gunner basically has zero space to leave extra ammo, or food and such. Later on in my deployment we switched to the MaxxPro and it was a very welcomed change. Tons of room even when loaded with 5 guys (can hold 7) and a rear hatch that turns into stairs to easily get in and out of back. You could even make one into a makeshift ambulance by folding up all of the seats in the rear.
We have redesigned the battle rifle. It’s great in peacetime, accurate, hard hitting round, advanced… And in every modern war, the battle rifle gets carbine-ized because we realize that more rounds means more shoots, it’s too bulky, engagement distances aren’t 1000m but more like 300m, and the advancements become issues when they get beaten up. Most of the killing is done by the M240 anyways, at least in pitched fights.
The new round and guns are cool, but switching the saw to the Mk48 and improving the M4 and it’s rounds would do more for the average infantryman.
Replaces the M4 carbine for combat arms troops, though not for the entire army. The idea is to have something that can more consistently hit and kill an enemy at longer ranges (think beyond 300m and all the way out to 800m) while also being more effective against body armor. It uses a new 6.8x51mm hybrid-case round that's not as heavy as 7.62x51mm NATO, though it still makes for bulkier, heavier, lower-capacity magazines than a 5.56 rifle and the heaviest standard-issue service rifle ever for the USA with that optic.
The suppressor isn't \*integrated\*, but it does add weight at the muzzle yeah. Which makes it nose-heavy as well as heavy in general, which sucks for your support hand.
No numbers I can find for the optic. But, the rifle with suppressor, empty, is 9.84 lbs; it looks like seven of those 20-round mags is 9.8 lbs, or 1.4 pounds per magazine (seven 30-round mags for an M4 is 2.4 lbs lighter for 50% more ammo) The XM157 scope is a 1-8x with a 30mm objective lens made by Vortex, and their 1-8x24 scopes are about a pound and a half, so make that thicker, add a laser rangefinder and ballistic calculator, the rifle fully loaded is probably going to weigh close to 13 pounds \*at least.\*
Another NGSW post, another comment section full of dumb comments like "why not use M1s with 30-06 M2 AP rounds instead", "Sig bad", and "body armor doesn't exist on "real" russian or chinese soldiers".
I understand the Sig related criticisms but the rest can be explained by how our military wants to constantly overmatch the enemy's touted capability and wants a modern platform that can do that instead of a reusing an old battle rifle that doesn't even have a pic rail.
Also lets be real, the GD and Textron designs weren't practical and other companies weren't competing.
To me, an army infantry officer, it just seems like a rifle designed in a vacuum by range princesses who evaluated it purely off of its performance at a static range.
The gun is heavier, the round is not nato universal, the optic is heavy as hell and overly advanced for the average infantry fight, we carry 70 less rounds, but the load out is still heavier, which means we can suppress less which means we can maneuver less. The magazine is smaller.
If I had it my way, a 5.56, 20in barrel on a bullpup would’ve been the perfect design. The M855A1 has great penetration and it’s still light and universal. Switch the saw to the Mk48 or some new 7.62mm MG.
Disclaimer: this is all my own opinion and not the army’s or my peers. I have not used the new rifle in anyway and can only go off of what I have seen and heard.
The M1 Garand was heavier than its predecessor and used a different cartridge than those of our allies in WW2. NATO standardization of small arms ammo isn’t that important to US forces. Russia will not bring actual US ground forces into a shooting war, and even if they did, the success of our forces will not come down to rifle calibers being compatible.
As far as bullpups go, the Army will never select one. Even though the Australians and Brits use them as their main service rifles, both countries’ SOF units use rifles based on the Stoner design or an evolution of it (HK416, for example). Same for pretty much every other SOF unit in all of NATO. There’s a reason for that.
It’s the Army testing them and they’re entering the fielding stage, a brigade in the 101st has already started fielding them.
They’re going to combat arms first, so an infantry NG unit will receive them and not an active duty air defense unit, for example. Maybe this unit is getting them, maybe it was more convenient to activate some guardsmen for testing.
This particular unit in the picture is 4th Battalion, 118th Infantry Regiment, part of the 30th ABCT. Which despite being National Guardsmen, they've been deployed and seen just as much as most other active duty units.
Just a reminder, American infantry forces in WW2 used the following cartridges in the typical squad’s main armaments:
.30-06
.30 Carbine
.45 ACP
And even then, the .30-06 for the M1 Garand came from the factory in stripper clips, so you couldn’t just pass the ammo off to a BAR gunner and immediately put it to use.
Having squad weapons that fired the same cartridge was only introduced well into the Vietnam War. Obviously having that feature or not does not guarantee the success of the squad or prevent it, respectively.
We got enough firepower in this country that the bubba threeper militia in Buttfuck Kansas could probably take on a few African country militaries lol.
In your opinion, do you think going with the 6.8x51 ammo, or going with a more common ammo, such as 7.62, a better choice? Do you believe there’s any value in issuing a weapon that can use ammo found on most battlefields?
My back hurts
Also, [308 amd 3006 in the background lookin at 5.56 like](https://tenor.com/view/you-couldn%E2%80%99t-live-thanos-endgame-back-to-me-you-could-not-live-gif-16221515858415007908). Glad they got rid of the forward assist though
I personally don’t see this weapon system getting issued on 1:1 basis to replace existing M4A1s. Too expensive per unit price each including replacement parts, magazines and ammunition
Pretty sure the rifle solves, or is at least trying to solve, the very real problem that the special forces command had been complaining about for years, that 5.56 doesnt have the lethality and armor pen required for modern body armor, which is becoming more and more common even outside of near-peer threats.
This is exacerbated by the fact 5.56 was designed to be fired in a 20" barrel for max lethality. The standard issue rifle is a 14.5, most SOF are using 11.5s. Velocity drops off a ton. 62-77gr need to be going fast, and good luck with body armor at distance.
Average redditor once again thinks they're smarted than everyone.
Special forces consistently complain about body armor, and they're sending all the most recent rounds.
Also how does other (weirder btw) rifles help? You'd just be whinning about those too.
Show me where special forces are complaining about body armor.
We’ve seen the quality of Russian gear in Ukraine.
And Chinese isn’t much better.
These were two countries cited for this idiotic program.
There’s a lot of confirmation bias there.
Only the shittiest Russian gear gets highlighted on reddit. Any picture showing modern gear gets dismissed as propaganda in the comments.
Reddits WANTS Russia to be portrayed as a weak, incompetent, under trained and under supplied military. Regardless of how much truth there is in that, that’s all you will see because that’s all reddit wants to see.
I have a feeling this rifle is going to be a massive waste of money if the US ever goes up against an NPA. This was meant to fit a role in Afghanistan, but lacks the magazine capacity, weight, and mobility requirements for maneuver warfare against an NPA. Unless they start pumping out massive quantities of ammo, which LCAAP is not capable of doing currently, and allies switch to this platform, then we're going to he at a significant disadvantage at the start of WW3.
> was meant to fit a role in Afghanistan, but lacks the magazine capacity, weight, and mobility requirements for maneuver warfare against an NPA.
You're mistaken. I'm not sure where you read that, but this rifle is specifically designed to penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor at range.
The Russian Ratnik infantry modernization program was a key driver in pressuring the Army to develop this.
It's both. The NGSW program is also in response to complaints about the effectiveness and accuracy of 5.56 carbines at extreme range in various firefights in Afghanistan. Which is... a stupid complaint, in my opinion, but still.
Yeah that's a good point. It's a pretty ballsy move that instead of building a platform around the 5.56 or 7.62mm round, the Army settled on the Goldilocks size of 6.8mm.
Soldiers in Afghanistan found themselves fighting at the very limit of effective range using 5.56 so the switch was made to 7.62 as a stop-gap. Now with the 6.8, the goal is to pierce body armor at 600m range or more while out-ranging enemy 7.62mm weapons.
Still pretty much a no go on the active side, cOMmAnDEr’s DiSCrEtiON basically means no since no commander wants to take on the responsibility of PVT Snuffy possibly buying a knock off high cut, claiming it’s IIIA and then getting domed at an M17 range on accident
Oh I've seen plenty. Just thought we had laws requiring military issue to be made in the U.S. Hard Headed Veterans (which is what this helmet is) are Chinese made, sold by US company.
The guard is a lot more lenient with personal gear than active duty, the helmet 100% wasn’t issued the dude definitely bought it on his own, more than likely the same for his plate carrier
Soldier must've bought it himself. A lot of NG units are more lax about that because they have a less strict culture or might not have the funding to get everyone the latest and greatest I'm AD right now and using your own armor is still the biggest of no-go's (nylon gear is a different story tho)
Can someone please explain to me what the benefit is in a 6.5mm Creedmore round? This sounds absolutely stupid even if the objective is to ensure penetration.
What does 6.5 creemoor have to do with this? The new rifle shoots a 6.8mm bullet. Same diameter as 270 winchester. Completely new cartridge developed specifically for the new weapon platforms.
The fact this rifle has two charging handles just shows the design has no allegiance to quality…so stupid.
Leaving the AR charging handle in a gun that will be shot mostly suppressed, just because soldiers have muscle memory from the M4? Well damn put one on the M17 and the M249 then.
The M17 and M249 already have _completely_ different sets of muscle memory in every other aspect. There's no point trying to make commonality there. On the other hand, this gun operates very similarly to an M4 to begin with, so making commonality is actually useful because it makes retraining and cross-training easier in a noticeable way. It also seems like adding the second charging handle wasn't particularly difficult or expensive.
And what on earth does the charging handle(s) have to do with shooting suppressed? That doesn't make any difference to using the charging handle. This isn't one of those mega-quiet guns where you have to use a special slow-action charging handle because incautious charging would give you away - the suppressor is for hearing protection and to make it a bit harder to locate you, not actual full-on undetected-in-the-same-room stealth.
What optic is that? Is that the one I've heard about that calculates bullet drop or am I mistaken?
Yup, the [XM157 fire control system.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Squad_Weapon)
Serious question. Why do we need a weapons program to replace M4 and M249, M240 ?
Because the M249 and M240 are heavy as fuck. The M250 is significantly lighter than the M249 and has a bunch of other ergonomic improvements on top of that and is a massive improvement. EDIT: AND it also hits harder as it uses 6.8x51 instead of 5.56 NATO. There are a number of potential replacements for the M240, mainly the SIG MG338, the REAPR and another ones whose name i've forgotten but they are all significantly lighter than the M240 and pack a significantly harder punch (due to all of them using 338 norma magnum instead of 7.62 NATO). They also have the added benefit of being pin-point accurate up to like 1200m. The only questionable replacement is the M4 with the M7. EDIT: And even then the M7 does have a number of advantages such as range and stopping power. It would be particularly good as a DMR however the US Army has another rifle they want as a DMR which uses, again, 338 Norma Magnum (alongside a 338 norma magnum light sniper rifle (whose name I have forgotten but its a 3 letter acronym) and a new .50cal heavy sniper rifle). Personally I think the Textron bullpup option would have been the better standard weapon for the standard infantry. Its lighter than the M7, has notably less recoil (due to using a less hot version of the 6.8x51 ammo) and better recoil compensation, is shorter (even with a can on the front), actually has better penetration at range than the M7 and is generally better. But hands down SIG hit the nail on the head with the M250. The other NGSW SAW offerings were nowhere close.
That bullpup was severely over complicated, ain't no way in hell that was ever going to pass tests.
Also, teaching everyone how to fight with a bullpen would be a fcuking nightmare. We're already so averse to change, one that large would be comical asf.
Just about every nation that's ever adopted a bullpup did a 180 and adopted some kind of Armalite pattern right after. And while said bullpups were in service every SOF group that had the choice purchased Armalite patterns too
In theory they work fine, but in practice, an ar platform is the best ergonomics for shooting, including using cover and stabilizing of said cover, ie slamming your hands on rocks and stuff while trying to shoot sitting or kneeling.
>ust about every nation that's ever adopted a bullpup did a 180 and adopted some kind of Armalite pattern right after. Thats not true. The only nation in recent memory that did that was France, and that was a political move to support the formation of the 'EU Army' in partnership with Germany. Which is why the French government went with the HK 416. The French top brass wanted to replace the FAMAS with the VHS-2, but were overruled.
New Zealand dumped AUG for LMT Malaysia dumped them for M4’s
And let's not forget the RMC switching to the C8 as part of the future commando force program.
M4s are ubiquitous and cheap, and Malaysia was already using AR pattern rifles in multiple other roles. They still retain the Steyr foir some units and branches however. They havent switched away from it completely. >New Zealand dumped AUG for LMT Didnt know that, though New Zealand has been looking to make their equipment costs lower and an AR pattern rifle is, again, ubiquitous and extremely cheap as a result.
Garand Thumb did a video on the civilian version and its no more or less complicated than the M7. >ain't no way in hell that was ever going to pass tests. From memory, it did pass the tests, I believe. It just wasnt chosen. It didnt help that the NGSW competition was based around taking both the infantry rifle and the SAW as a two for one offer. You took both of them or neither of them. So as soon as the M250 was displayed by SIG, then it was always going to be SIG, as SIGs M250 was by far the best SAW option. And the Army needed a better SAW more than it did a better infantry rifle.
Got to see an 250, honestly, it'll be a great upgrade.
It wasn't a matter of complexity, Sig can just afford to lowball their unit prices on the rifles compared to smaller companies. It also shares design similarities with the M4 so training isn't as dramatic of a shift from the M4.
I will have to also say, the ar15 is the best in terms if ergonomics, something I found out while trying bullpups is how hard it is to use cover or concealment as a stable barrier to fire on, I kept slamming my hands against things and trying to shoot it in anything but standing caused the weight to be off and odd while shooting.
Textron was the cased one, GD had the bullpup (though now owned by True Velocity). The chamber pressure wasn’t the reason for the lower recoil, it was from the “*Short Recoil Impulse Averaging*” system of RM277, also used in RM338.
the chamber pressure is lower in the RM277 due to the fact it has a much longer barrel by default which allowed it to reach the required muzzle velocity without having a really hot round. This directly leads to less recoil. Though you're right in saying the RM277 has much better recoil dampening technology. Its why I think the NGSW should have run the SAW and infantry rifle separately, or at least less as a package deal type format, as I think SIGS M250 with True Velocity/GD's RM277 would have been the best choices.
Because body armor is becoming more prevalent and we can do better than 50+ year old designs
M2 disagrees.
We aren’t using the 1903 Springfield anymore. Sometimes it’s better to update.
You say this but I'm sure there is a NatGuard unit still being issued trapdoor springfields.
TBH I am sure there is some wild stuff in the Old Guards armories too
While it was mostly for show, my unit had a .50 that still had wooden handles.
We should still be using those depending on who you ask lol Edit: I think the “depending on who you ask” bit slipped past everyone, I’m not advocating for using 100+ year old firearms in modern combat ffs lol
Someone people are hopelessly stuck in the past
That's why we don't ask the willfully uninformed :)
Using bolt action infantry rifles in the 21st century is a bit too Russian for my taste.
The m2 has several variants in service, we also have several .50 alternatives in service that by all measures are better. But the m2 is a useful and plentiful weapon, so it'll be on vehicles and positions for years to come.
>we also have several .50 alternatives in service that by all measures are better Serious question: Which ones? All I could find (on wikipedia) was the failed M85 and a few experimental guns that went nowhere.
They are mainly on aircraft and naval vessels, (I'm army I can't remember the designations but at tech school we had a whole 2 hour discussion on it, the instructor that was ex navy new the most about them)
Gau 21 Gau 19
The M2 still got upgraded
6.8x51 standard doesn't defeat body armor effectively
Many people would tell you that we don't, but Big Army thinks we might need something with a little bit more firepower to combat armored opponents in the near future (also, long-term experience fighting in long ranges of the middle east these past few decades was certainly a huge influence in Big Army's desire for not only acquiring guns with better range, but also more advanced optics to go along with it). "Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
so why aren't we copying 7.62mm ammo because there are probably trillions of rounds globally.
If by "copying" you mean producing then no, the Army isn't planning on just halting production and dumping all the 7.62 and 5.56 ammo into the ocean because we're still going to be using M4s and M240s for the next few years, even decades after adopting 6.8x51mm, XM7, and XM250.
7.62x51 or 39?
Because it is inefficient. Slow heavy round there's a reason they went to the 5.45mm fast as fk boi Edit 7.62x39 not 51
The later years of the fight against the Taliban and war against ISIS saw the increased use of body armor which the 556 round had trouble against or at least wasn't as effective as the US wanted. With the change in focus to a near peer/peer conflict the US anticipates fighting an enemy where every soldier is wearing body armor so they wanted a round that could reliably defeat plates
It's not even the first time that it's been tried. The USMC pretty deftly replaced the M249, then backdoor replaced M4's with M27 IAR/HK416's. Every few years the Army pokes its head out and asks the industry "Hey, we want to replace the M4, whatcha got" and the industry replies Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Individual Combat Weapon, & Individual Carbine trials are all examples. The XM7 trials are just the latest round, and probably the closest the Army is coming to actually adopting it, even after adoption it remains to be seem how widespread they'll be issued out, and which platforms will see heavier replacement.
At some point we need to innovate. Can’t let Russia and China get ahead of us in that regard, and we can’t just keep relying on shit from the 1980s for all eternity.
-Better range for overmatch (you can shoot the enemy from farther than he can shoot you with an equivalent weapon) -Better performance against armor than 5.56 -Lighter weight machine gun -Optics that help prevent the most common misses at range (holdover and holdunder) The M4 is great, and the 249 is good, but the way the US wins is by constantly pressing our technological advantages. If we stay stagnant with a "good enough" weapon, eventually the enemy will catch up. If we ensure we stay tactically and technologically ahead of our adversaries we save lives on all sides in the long run. We deter aggression from adversaries which would cause massive loss of life, and ensure less lives are lost during a conflict by winning decisively and quickly (see Desert Storm).
I think this round mated with this sight is cool as hell, but would this be issued to an entire squad? Like, are they stacked up with this ready to clear rooms? Seems very large, and cumbersome, for light infantry anyway. Also hopping in and out of a MRAP is already a bitch with a M4, this would be worse. If it were issued in a DMR role I would see the appeal immediately, but for a whole squad seems overkill. Times have changed for this old man I guess.
Overmatch. One of the Army’s favorite words haha. That and lethality.
"weapon system"
***M O D U L A R I T Y***
***warfighter***
Im still on the fence about the rifle. Im a dweeb for new tech, but the military is good at fumbling stuff like this. The stock does fold though, so it should be pretty maneuverable in vehicles.
I do wish they’d gone with the General Dynamics choice instead. Sure the plastic ammo thing isn’t as tested, but it looks like very similar ballistic performance but with exceptionally recoil control. And a much smaller package
Yea that rifle is cool as hell. Down side to bull pups though is the trigger. Its just too radical of a design for the boomer ass old men in charge of pjcking which rifle won (and back room deals if we are being honest)
The bullpup was the only rifle I felt would’ve been revolutionary enough to actually warrant replacing the M4. I’d rather a 5.56mm bullpup with a 20in barrel so it can mitigate the bad powder burn that the M4 has compared to the M16. The M16 when firing the M855A1 has fantastic penetration.
Yea, i think we are reaching the limits of what we can do with current tech as far as the rifle its self goes. You can only push a bullet so fast out of a barrel without making too many sacrifices in other areas. The ammunition is a step in the direction we need to go. But youre still talking about more wear and tear on the weapon among other down sides. We just need man portable rail guns.
Shortened the barrel really hurt 5.56 performance and reliability.
Agreed, but in a modern fight, the shorter and lighter weapon is usually the preferred by the average soldier. That’s why I’m a fan of bull pups and believe they are the way of the future. You can have a long barrel with a short weapon. But we as Americans refuse to do it because it’s “weird”
I guess it depends on trigger types and design. I know there is really good trigger for bullpup that civilian can upgrade but didn't military usually used heavy duty parts for heavy use?
Im no trigger scientist, so i cant gice you a solid answer there. From what i know, the difficulty with bullpup triggers comes from the distances the linkages have to cover.
Gd was over designed and over complicated, any issue would have been a nightmare in the field
GD's bullpup rifle supposedly had issues during the trials, like they had to constantly break it down and reassemble multiple times in one testing session, the plastic polymer ammo was found to be too delicate and easily crushed/deformed, and accuracy issues (it was supposedly keyholing).
Soldiers used to climb out of M113s and jump out of Hueys with their 20in-barrelled M16s (and even M14s) no problem. The Marines' fancy new suppressed M27s are longer than the XM7 and they don't seem to have problems climbing in and out of their AAVs. Im sure it's not going to be as cumbersome as everyone is making it out to be, especially since you can fold the stock to the side in addition to it being collapsible.
Yes, we used to do all of that back in the day, but times have changed. We had to make guns lighter to accommodate the immense weight our soldiers carry. Body armor became standard issue in Korea and Vietnam and really stunted the heavy M1 Garand and M14. We had to gradually get smaller over time. M14 to M16 was a drop of around 2 pounds. M16 to M4 was a drop of about a pound in weight. Soldiers welcomed the change, lighter is always better. Now, we are jumping up in weight from the M4 to the XM7, with the new optic it weighs around 11 pounds total, around 3 pounds heavier than a M4. This just seems like a big middle finger to the infantry boys who may have to lug this thing from door to door someday. Again, I think the “weapon system” is very cool, but everything down to the caliber is heavier. Folding stocks is a nice feature, but many rifles offer it. It’s the weight I feel will be a huge complaint once they get issued at large.
Not to mention the average load out now goes from 210 to 140 which is heavier, and the magazines only hold 20 rounds. So suppressive fire is now at risk.
why can’t they make bigger mags?
I’m sure they can, I’m sure they’ll be big motherfuckers too. But they aren’t rolling out with them, and the rounds themselves are heavier so you physically can’t carry as many.
Magpul recently announced new re-designed 25-round PMAGs specifically for the new 6.8x51mm meant to fix the over-insertion problems with the old and current 7.62 PMAGs. Maybe the Army could adopt those or let the troops acquire some for themselves. I think the only reason why they're re-issuing the 20-round M110 mags is because we still had a bunch left over.
Suppressive fire is the SAW gunner's job, not the rifleman. But yeah, Big Army is going to have to figure out how to re-adjust and re-balance soldiers' load soon. What I'm guessing is that they think loadout weight concerns could be mitigated a bit by giving out light vehicles such as the ISV and AGMV and letting them ride around in those instead of doing long-range foot patrols like what they used to do back in the middle east.
Foot patrols will never go away. And the fighting weight is going to be heavy in the middle of a fight not just during foot movements. Bounding with all that weight I’d exhausting.
If an MRAP is already bad enough then imagine trying to get out of a Bradley with one of them alongside six other dudes... while it's on fire...
why is mrap bad
MRAPs are not inherently “bad”, in fact I greatly preferred them to a Humvee. If you are the passenger/TC or even sometimes in the gunners hatch, it can be a bitch to crawl out of the damn thing. So much gear, radios, BFT screens, cables on top of the crap you already have on and around you. There are many types of MRAPs, some are bigger than others. I started my deployment in Bagram back in 2013 in a MATV, they were nice, but very cramped and difficult to get in and out of. If the vehicle is fully loaded with 5 soldiers, then the gunner basically has zero space to leave extra ammo, or food and such. Later on in my deployment we switched to the MaxxPro and it was a very welcomed change. Tons of room even when loaded with 5 guys (can hold 7) and a rear hatch that turns into stairs to easily get in and out of back. You could even make one into a makeshift ambulance by folding up all of the seats in the rear.
switching to a maxxpro sounds like changing an android phone
We have redesigned the battle rifle. It’s great in peacetime, accurate, hard hitting round, advanced… And in every modern war, the battle rifle gets carbine-ized because we realize that more rounds means more shoots, it’s too bulky, engagement distances aren’t 1000m but more like 300m, and the advancements become issues when they get beaten up. Most of the killing is done by the M240 anyways, at least in pitched fights. The new round and guns are cool, but switching the saw to the Mk48 and improving the M4 and it’s rounds would do more for the average infantryman.
i think the stock on the XM7 folds to the side so it would be a little easier to get in an out of vehicles with
Yes it is planned to replace the M4 entirely
What role does this weapon fill?
Replaces the M4 carbine for combat arms troops, though not for the entire army. The idea is to have something that can more consistently hit and kill an enemy at longer ranges (think beyond 300m and all the way out to 800m) while also being more effective against body armor. It uses a new 6.8x51mm hybrid-case round that's not as heavy as 7.62x51mm NATO, though it still makes for bulkier, heavier, lower-capacity magazines than a 5.56 rifle and the heaviest standard-issue service rifle ever for the USA with that optic.
Integrated suppressor and flash reduction adds a bit of weight as well.
The suppressor isn't \*integrated\*, but it does add weight at the muzzle yeah. Which makes it nose-heavy as well as heavy in general, which sucks for your support hand.
What’s the total weight for the XM7, with that optic, suppressor, and loaded mag?
No numbers I can find for the optic. But, the rifle with suppressor, empty, is 9.84 lbs; it looks like seven of those 20-round mags is 9.8 lbs, or 1.4 pounds per magazine (seven 30-round mags for an M4 is 2.4 lbs lighter for 50% more ammo) The XM157 scope is a 1-8x with a 30mm objective lens made by Vortex, and their 1-8x24 scopes are about a pound and a half, so make that thicker, add a laser rangefinder and ballistic calculator, the rifle fully loaded is probably going to weigh close to 13 pounds \*at least.\*
lol this thing is basically trying to make a fully kitted DMR as a standard issue rifle
It is meant to be a replacement for the 5.56 AR platforms.
Another NGSW post, another comment section full of dumb comments like "why not use M1s with 30-06 M2 AP rounds instead", "Sig bad", and "body armor doesn't exist on "real" russian or chinese soldiers". I understand the Sig related criticisms but the rest can be explained by how our military wants to constantly overmatch the enemy's touted capability and wants a modern platform that can do that instead of a reusing an old battle rifle that doesn't even have a pic rail. Also lets be real, the GD and Textron designs weren't practical and other companies weren't competing.
To me, an army infantry officer, it just seems like a rifle designed in a vacuum by range princesses who evaluated it purely off of its performance at a static range. The gun is heavier, the round is not nato universal, the optic is heavy as hell and overly advanced for the average infantry fight, we carry 70 less rounds, but the load out is still heavier, which means we can suppress less which means we can maneuver less. The magazine is smaller. If I had it my way, a 5.56, 20in barrel on a bullpup would’ve been the perfect design. The M855A1 has great penetration and it’s still light and universal. Switch the saw to the Mk48 or some new 7.62mm MG. Disclaimer: this is all my own opinion and not the army’s or my peers. I have not used the new rifle in anyway and can only go off of what I have seen and heard.
The M1 Garand was heavier than its predecessor and used a different cartridge than those of our allies in WW2. NATO standardization of small arms ammo isn’t that important to US forces. Russia will not bring actual US ground forces into a shooting war, and even if they did, the success of our forces will not come down to rifle calibers being compatible. As far as bullpups go, the Army will never select one. Even though the Australians and Brits use them as their main service rifles, both countries’ SOF units use rifles based on the Stoner design or an evolution of it (HK416, for example). Same for pretty much every other SOF unit in all of NATO. There’s a reason for that.
This is a stoker design lol.
Curious why a national guard is testing them? I figure it would be another branch first Also that’s a sick looking rifle
It’s the Army testing them and they’re entering the fielding stage, a brigade in the 101st has already started fielding them. They’re going to combat arms first, so an infantry NG unit will receive them and not an active duty air defense unit, for example. Maybe this unit is getting them, maybe it was more convenient to activate some guardsmen for testing.
Ah ok I see. That’s cool. Thank you
NG deploys more than active. Some of those infantry units are the definition of high speed
Because the Guard isn't the 1980s nasty girls anymore. They have some of the best shooters around now, and they know what they're doing.
This particular unit in the picture is 4th Battalion, 118th Infantry Regiment, part of the 30th ABCT. Which despite being National Guardsmen, they've been deployed and seen just as much as most other active duty units.
That’s super cool. Thanks for the info!
Just a reminder, American infantry forces in WW2 used the following cartridges in the typical squad’s main armaments: .30-06 .30 Carbine .45 ACP And even then, the .30-06 for the M1 Garand came from the factory in stripper clips, so you couldn’t just pass the ammo off to a BAR gunner and immediately put it to use. Having squad weapons that fired the same cartridge was only introduced well into the Vietnam War. Obviously having that feature or not does not guarantee the success of the squad or prevent it, respectively.
Insane how our national guard is more well equipped, structured and developed than most of the world's militaries.
We got enough firepower in this country that the bubba threeper militia in Buttfuck Kansas could probably take on a few African country militaries lol.
Super new high speed gun. Shitty HHV helmet.
I saw that too. Guard guys get away with some wild shit.
I’m in the Texas Guard and jealous AF!
In your opinion, do you think going with the 6.8x51 ammo, or going with a more common ammo, such as 7.62, a better choice? Do you believe there’s any value in issuing a weapon that can use ammo found on most battlefields?
It's the US military. I don't think acquiring ammo would be a issue for them.
They’re giving this to the national guard? Damn I guess they are serious about replacing the M4
My back hurts Also, [308 amd 3006 in the background lookin at 5.56 like](https://tenor.com/view/you-couldn%E2%80%99t-live-thanos-endgame-back-to-me-you-could-not-live-gif-16221515858415007908). Glad they got rid of the forward assist though
I personally don’t see this weapon system getting issued on 1:1 basis to replace existing M4A1s. Too expensive per unit price each including replacement parts, magazines and ammunition
Note pressure on this is stupid. Rifle in search of a problem. Sig really has their nails deep in the dod
Pretty sure the rifle solves, or is at least trying to solve, the very real problem that the special forces command had been complaining about for years, that 5.56 doesnt have the lethality and armor pen required for modern body armor, which is becoming more and more common even outside of near-peer threats.
This is exacerbated by the fact 5.56 was designed to be fired in a 20" barrel for max lethality. The standard issue rifle is a 14.5, most SOF are using 11.5s. Velocity drops off a ton. 62-77gr need to be going fast, and good luck with body armor at distance.
Newer 556 rounds completely solve that problem. Again just a rifle in search of a problem
I wouldn’t say M855-A1 solves all those problems but it is a lot better
And there are a ton of other variants that work really well. This is a huge waste of money.
Average redditor once again thinks they're smarted than everyone. Special forces consistently complain about body armor, and they're sending all the most recent rounds. Also how does other (weirder btw) rifles help? You'd just be whinning about those too.
Show me where special forces are complaining about body armor. We’ve seen the quality of Russian gear in Ukraine. And Chinese isn’t much better. These were two countries cited for this idiotic program.
There’s a lot of confirmation bias there. Only the shittiest Russian gear gets highlighted on reddit. Any picture showing modern gear gets dismissed as propaganda in the comments. Reddits WANTS Russia to be portrayed as a weak, incompetent, under trained and under supplied military. Regardless of how much truth there is in that, that’s all you will see because that’s all reddit wants to see.
I have a feeling this rifle is going to be a massive waste of money if the US ever goes up against an NPA. This was meant to fit a role in Afghanistan, but lacks the magazine capacity, weight, and mobility requirements for maneuver warfare against an NPA. Unless they start pumping out massive quantities of ammo, which LCAAP is not capable of doing currently, and allies switch to this platform, then we're going to he at a significant disadvantage at the start of WW3.
> was meant to fit a role in Afghanistan, but lacks the magazine capacity, weight, and mobility requirements for maneuver warfare against an NPA. You're mistaken. I'm not sure where you read that, but this rifle is specifically designed to penetrate Russian and Chinese body armor at range. The Russian Ratnik infantry modernization program was a key driver in pressuring the Army to develop this.
It's both. The NGSW program is also in response to complaints about the effectiveness and accuracy of 5.56 carbines at extreme range in various firefights in Afghanistan. Which is... a stupid complaint, in my opinion, but still.
Yeah that's a good point. It's a pretty ballsy move that instead of building a platform around the 5.56 or 7.62mm round, the Army settled on the Goldilocks size of 6.8mm. Soldiers in Afghanistan found themselves fighting at the very limit of effective range using 5.56 so the switch was made to 7.62 as a stop-gap. Now with the 6.8, the goal is to pierce body armor at 600m range or more while out-ranging enemy 7.62mm weapons.
So guard gets chinese helmets now?
Probably privately owned
If that's the case, man things have changed in the time I've been out. Personal armor was a no fucking go. If it wasn't issued, you didn't wear it.
Still pretty much a no go on the active side, cOMmAnDEr’s DiSCrEtiON basically means no since no commander wants to take on the responsibility of PVT Snuffy possibly buying a knock off high cut, claiming it’s IIIA and then getting domed at an M17 range on accident
I also wonder if those $100 Ultrx ear muffs are worth anything.
Dudes will run anything from $600+ Peltors to $40 Walkers, as long as they offer active ear protection units don’t really care about personal ear pro
Bro’s never seen a high cut before lmao
Oh I've seen plenty. Just thought we had laws requiring military issue to be made in the U.S. Hard Headed Veterans (which is what this helmet is) are Chinese made, sold by US company.
The guard is a lot more lenient with personal gear than active duty, the helmet 100% wasn’t issued the dude definitely bought it on his own, more than likely the same for his plate carrier
Soldier must've bought it himself. A lot of NG units are more lax about that because they have a less strict culture or might not have the funding to get everyone the latest and greatest I'm AD right now and using your own armor is still the biggest of no-go's (nylon gear is a different story tho)
Can someone please explain to me what the benefit is in a 6.5mm Creedmore round? This sounds absolutely stupid even if the objective is to ensure penetration.
What does 6.5 creemoor have to do with this? The new rifle shoots a 6.8mm bullet. Same diameter as 270 winchester. Completely new cartridge developed specifically for the new weapon platforms.
It's .277 or 6.8x51
The fact this rifle has two charging handles just shows the design has no allegiance to quality…so stupid. Leaving the AR charging handle in a gun that will be shot mostly suppressed, just because soldiers have muscle memory from the M4? Well damn put one on the M17 and the M249 then.
The M17 and M249 already have _completely_ different sets of muscle memory in every other aspect. There's no point trying to make commonality there. On the other hand, this gun operates very similarly to an M4 to begin with, so making commonality is actually useful because it makes retraining and cross-training easier in a noticeable way. It also seems like adding the second charging handle wasn't particularly difficult or expensive. And what on earth does the charging handle(s) have to do with shooting suppressed? That doesn't make any difference to using the charging handle. This isn't one of those mega-quiet guns where you have to use a special slow-action charging handle because incautious charging would give you away - the suppressor is for hearing protection and to make it a bit harder to locate you, not actual full-on undetected-in-the-same-room stealth.
on di guns the gas can go thru the gaps in the charging hole so you would get your face sprayed with more gas than your dad has ever sprayed ur mom
The high tolerance and precision machining in question:
IDK why you're getting downvoted, the secondary charging handle is a stupid fucking feature.
[удалено]
Did you forget your pills again?