New infantry toys 2023
Next years sees the close-combat folks get something a little harder hitting than the traditional 5.56mm. We’ve basically seen incremental changes in the little poodle-popper, the bullet weighing a bit more (from 55 grains to 62 grains) and making it ‘green’ so while we are killing folks we aren’t polluting as much. Repeat after me, a corpse shot with a green ecobullet stinks less in the sun, right?
That new caliber, a special, Army-designed 6.8mm round, is the biggest change that shooters will see. The Next Generation Squad Weapon program had industry competitors build the weapon around the round.
In short, think of a .30 Remington shortened to hold a .270 bullet. Less recoil than a 7.62×51, slightly flatter trajectory, and a lighter round so the lads won’t be strained by all those nasty 7.62s. It does have an appreciable flatter trajectory, muzzle velocity, and muzzle energy than the benchmark Russian 7.62×39.
This past year, Sig Sauer won the $4.7 billion weapon contract and Vortex Optics and Sheltered Wings working together won the $2.7 billion NGSW-Fire Control.
Once fielded, the M5 carbine replacement and the M250 SAW replacement, will allow users to shoot farther, faster with more accurate shots that are more lethal than the current 5.56mm round used in the two legacy weapons.
The rest of the Army will continue using the M4 and M885A1 ammo we have been using. I can’t help but wonder why the legacy 7mm-08 (essentially a 7.62×51 necked down to 7mm) wasn’t used. I am sure there are incremental differences…and those billions being expended had little to do with it.
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Army News
Lets all standardize in NATO – 7.62 NATO, 5.56 NATO, 6.8 NATO?
When I saw this contract award earlier I had similar thoughts as you on the 7mm-08. I’d love to see the reloading data and ballistics for both rounds
I give it 18 months before the Joes start breaking them in new and exciting ways or some unforeseen design flaw rears it’s expensive head, forcing a major redesign and a whole new model, the M5A1/A2. Hopefully this time they won’t take as long as they did between the M16A1 and A2.
In Iraq, we called the M-16s “muskets”.
😂 😂 😂 😂
30-06 forever! If it was good enough for my Great Grandpa, my Grandpa, and my Dad, it’s good enough for me.
.30-06 used in AR-style format… hell yeah!
While hilarious, I will stick with my Garand. Still pinging after 80 years.
Good thing those aren’t allowed in *my* state.
This will at least solve the problem they are having now with the M855A1 Carbine Killer round. That thing is so overpressured that it wrecks the standard M4 carbines within 1000 rounds. The savings in repairs to the existing weapons will pretty much pay for those $3000.00 a copy new rifles.
This is for a squad weapon, not the M4. It has way more pressure than the M855A1; 80K vs 61K.
The M5 they are talking about is identified by SIG as being a modular Assault Carbine. Pressures are nowhere near 80,000 psi. There is also a SAW variant in the new round, that replaces the M249, which was also being eaten alive by the M855A1 Carbine Killer round.
In that case then somebody really needs to fix the internet then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.277_Fury
“The .277 Fury or 6.8×51mm Common Cartridge,(designated as the .277 SIG Fury by the SAAMI) is a centerfirerimless bottlenecked riflecartridge announced by SIG Sauer in late 2019. Its hybrid three-piece cartridge case has a steel case head and brass body connected by an aluminum locking washer to support the high chamber pressure of 80,000 psi (551.6 MPa).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM5_rifle
“The XM5 is the U.S. Army variant of the SIG MCX Spear, a 6.8×51mm (.277 in)”
“On April 19, 2022, the United States Army announced that it had selected SIG Sauer to build the XM5 rifle to (partly) replace the M4 carbine; while the XM250 automatic rifle was to replace the M249 SAW in the LMG role. In both cases it had selected the company’s Fury ammunition utilizing government provided projectiles and vendor-designed cartridges as the new weapons’ ammunition.”
I’d rather have an M4A1 in 7.62 NATO… problem solved. Brits already have the L129 rifle but can’t afford to re-equip their whole force.
Here’s some YouTube info on the new weapon system from Chris Cappy (Task & Purpose) who is a former us army infantryman and Iraq Veteran.
Precise, long-range aimed fire w/ heavy rifles w/ 20-rd mags will beat dudes actually hosing each other w/ short-range fire from lighter weapons w/ 30-rd mags!… again. /sarc
He has many of his facts wrong like the M4 was created in 1982 and Ballistic plates came out in 1975. Also Sig was established and making weapons in Switzerland in 1853, 92 years before West Germany existed. They bought out Hamerelli and JP Sauer in the 70s to expand their market since Switzerland didn’t allow them to export weapons. I could go on but..
The general analysis I mostly agree with.
Which is why for everything he says, the 6.5 Grendel made a lot more sense. Much better performance and better logistics as well as reduced soldier load.
“…billions being expended had little to do with it.”
The MIC grins.
“I can’t help but wonder why the legacy 7mm-08 (essentially a 7.62×51 necked down to 7mm) wasn’t used. I am sure there are incremental differences…”
It is basically the same thing. They redesigned the case a little to get some higher pressure out of it but it is just another necked down .308, 7.62X51 which we have been told for decades was replaced due to easier logistics and reducing soldier weight load.
You get a little more power, a little more range. They added a washer (another point of failure) and made the case two parts with a steel casing.
They could have saved a few billion and gone with a tougher version of the SAW and M4 in 6.5 Grendel. Ballistically almost same as the 7.62X51, the round is almost same size as 5.56, lower recoil, easier to suppress and using the same round as the SAW.
Just change out the upper.
The 123 grain load performs better than the M80 on body armor and at 1000 rounds due to the ballistic efficiency of the round.
I’m not finding it quickly, but there was an evaluation of this in Shooting Illustrated a month or two ago.
My take-away was it may work, but it sounds like the good idea fairy was involved again, with the usual expectations when that happens.
One of the bigger sticking points is the optic. It is really heavy, costs $7000+ and doesn’t appear to be particularly tough. When it goes down your long range rifle will suddenly become a short range rifle for 95% of the soldiers. When Joe drops his rifle and it breaks the scope what will the Statement of Charges look like? Sorry Joe Butterfingers you won’t get paid this month.
It looks like another attempt to take specops equipment and issue it to Joe in an attempt to make him specops capable. That has never worked particularly well in practice.