Army Next Gen Sqd Wpn (NGSW) Finalists

Long_Hunter

Sufficient Speed, Acceptable Drag
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,479
Location
Fayette-Bragg Military Industrial Complex
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
I file articles like these under "I'll believe it when I see it." Now, don't get me wrong: I fully believe that this is what they want. But we both know the military, procurement, and moving stuff like this through the hallowed halls of Congress....
 
I still don't understand why they won't pick up/consider the 6.8SPC. I know Remington dicked that up, but the SPCII took care of that.

Can't comment on the squad weapon thing. Seems like they're wanting an 'automatic rifle' vs. a legit LMG, which feels like a not too bright compromise to me. I get the portability/weight issue, but how much sustained fire can it handle? I kinda liked the M60, even if it was a PITA to hump, but by the time the SAW & M240B were fielded, my white Geneva Convention ID card meant no crew-served weapons for me 'n after leaving the medical field for PSYOP, I had too much rank to to be assigned a MG.
 
Sig site says they got the US Army contract for a belt fed and magazine fed rifle, suppressor and hybrid metallurgy ammo in 6.8mm.
 
I file articles like these under "I'll believe it when I see it." Now, don't get me wrong: I fully believe that this is what they want. But we both know the military, procurement, and moving stuff like this through the hallowed halls of Congress....


Normally I would agree...but this time it is already funded (in POM 21-25) and there is a funding line in POM 22-26...it is just one of several weapons and munitions modernization programs that the CSA kick started hard.

GEN Milley made this a priority as CSA...he stated he wanted all active BCTs outfitted by FY25...I don't see McConville changing that.
 
I still don't understand why they won't pick up/consider the 6.8SPC. I know Remington dicked that up, but the SPCII took care of that.

Can't comment on the squad weapon thing. Seems like they're wanting an 'automatic rifle' vs. a legit LMG, which feels like a not too bright compromise to me. I get the portability/weight issue, but how much sustained fire can it handle? I kinda liked the M60, even if it was a PITA to hump, but by the time the SAW & M240B were fielded, my white Geneva Convention ID card meant no crew-served weapons for me 'n after leaving the medical field for PSYOP, I had too much rank to to be assigned a MG.
The NGSW-AR systems I've seen are belt fed.

Except maybe the Mars one, I don't remember.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I still don't understand why they won't pick up/consider the 6.8SPC. I know Remington dicked that up, but the SPCII took care of that.

Can't comment on the squad weapon thing. Seems like they're wanting an 'automatic rifle' vs. a legit LMG, which feels like a not too bright compromise to me. I get the portability/weight issue, but how much sustained fire can it handle? I kinda liked the M60, even if it was a PITA to hump, but by the time the SAW & M240B were fielded, my white Geneva Convention ID card meant no crew-served weapons for me 'n after leaving the medical field for PSYOP, I had too much rank to to be assigned a MG.

While the 6.8x43 loaded to the correct pressures would be a excellent replacement for the 5.56, it isn't looking like the winner. Rather a new round using a 6.8mm bullet.

I do agree on the greasy pockets also, this will take a lot of money.
 
I mean, it's not like they haven't already done all the R&D on the 6.8SPC & already have that data in pocket. Palms needin' greased must explain the need to reinvent the wheel.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand why they won't pick up/consider the 6.8SPC. I know Remington dicked that up, but the SPCII took care of that.

Can't comment on the squad weapon thing. Seems like they're wanting an 'automatic rifle' vs. a legit LMG, which feels like a not too bright compromise to me. I get the portability/weight issue, but how much sustained fire can it handle? I kinda liked the M60, even if it was a PITA to hump, but by the time the SAW & M240B were fielded, my white Geneva Convention ID card meant no crew-served weapons for me 'n after leaving the medical field for PSYOP, I had too much rank to to be assigned a MG.

From a purely layman's point of view...... it seems like they want to lose. Look at it this way, the supposed most powerful military in the universe gets consistently set back by cell phone street bombs by a bunch of thugs.

Our success of WWII was the pre Vienna convention of take no prisoners type of warfare. Our failure seems to the the hog tying of our military to do to them what they do to us. We pay taxes to have weapons able to make the Mid East a parking lot and end this shit. Yet the powers behind the scenes want to prolong the limited engagement warfare and on top of that instigate constant limited such warfare. It makes them lots of money.

I could and maybe should emphasize we are sucked into these whole deals as not only tax payers, but the volunteer military. So it is no wonder that the public is beginning to realize that volunteering to engage in this facade of conflicts is a total waste.

I'm not sure of how to wrap this crap ball up and roll it back on top of those responsible, but I do believe until that happens we will continue to be crushed by it.

The only thing I take comfort in is the fact that a bunch of tent dwelling towel heads with some explosives and cell phone can defeat what is coming for us. The worst thing is I fear is that our military will use the take no prisoners rules on engagement against their own citizens.

There. I said it. I'm positive this puts me on some list.
 
Last edited:
nope but depending on if the one they go with is the SPCII then it will be cheap.



lol. this is the responses I am used to seeing.
It is not 6.8SPC. each vendor is designing their own new round to go with their weapons using a government designed projectile.

The performance goal of each round is basically equal to 270WSM.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
It is not 6.8SPC. each vendor is designing their own new round to go with their weapons using a government designed projectile.

The performance goal of each round is basically equal to 270WSM.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I know. That’s why I said depending if they do. Harrison from AR15 performance posted this article and we all had a big discussion over on 68forums some time ago. We heard it from everyone and even heard it from all the 300 and 6.5 folks saying they should choose 6.5 over the 6.8.

Really funny.
 
I know. That’s why I said depending if they do. Harrison from AR15 performance posted this article and we all had a big discussion over on 68forums some time ago. We heard it from everyone and even heard it from all the 300 and 6.5 folks saying they should choose 6.5 over the 6.8.

Really funny.
Ah ok. Cool.

I suspect that much of the work done by Murray around determining the optimal rifle cartridges played a role.

6.5 may have better long range performance, but Murray argued that something closer to 7mm provided greater terminal effectiveness.

If course, that's just a guess.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Ah ok. Cool.

I suspect that much of the work done by Murray around determining the optimal rifle cartridges played a role.

6.5 may have better long range performance, but Murray argued that something closer to 7mm provided greater terminal effectiveness.

If course, that's just a guess.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Oh no doubt. Within 300 meters, the 6.5/6.8 only have minimal differences in ballistics. With a shorter barrel, something like the SPCII does really well on the ballistic side and all that jazz.

The 300blk is laughable at best at those distances.
 
Back
Top Bottom