Why not just rechamber the m4?

Why not just rechamber the m4?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's literally a bufferless M4 anon

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because the 5.56 cartridge is perfectly fine

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      then why are they building a whole new production facility for 6.8?
      https://www.army.mil/article/274748/army_awards_next_generation_squad_weapon_ammunition_facility_construction_contract

      and buying ~111,000 rifles and 13,000 automatic rifles?
      > According to the Army's fiscal 2025 budget request, the service has a long-term plan of buying 111,428 XM7 rifles, 13,334 XM250 automatic rifles, and 124,749 XM157 Fire Control devices stretching into the 2030s.
      https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/03/29/army-has-finally-fielded-its-next-generation-squad-weapons.html

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        because they are bored and need new toys

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This. The US military doesn't need half the shit it makes. But keeping your MIC and related channels fresh and up to speed is invaluable for when you may need to make a new project quickly. Why do you think we've been fricking around with VTOL planes and the Osprey and railguns? They're tools looking for an application, they were never needed. But letting equipment, people, supply chains, ect. sit is guaranteed to put you in a worse position. See: soviet weapons

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This, it's also why Serbia and formerly Russia loves to sell directly to the American public, it keeps their military industrial complex running while allowing for (theoretically in Russias case lol) for old ammo and reserves to be cycled for a profit. It's also why the chinks threw a massive fit when their exports were blocked by the US

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Implying the sigger rifle is “fresh and up to speed”

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >VTOL aircraft are tools looking for an application
            Dumbest shit I've read in ages

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Kinda are.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No moron it’s just because sig has a israelite for a ceo

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >then why
          Because bribery

          These two are your answers, OP. Remember that the US military is just as corrupt as other regimes. Our corruption is just different. Rather than stealing and selling material like the Russians, we just buy unnecessary things and overcharge on EVERYTHING.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >then why
        Because bribery

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Go ahead and prove it, whistle blowers get something like 15-20% of the money if they alert the feds to contact frickery (bribes, falsifying data, etc)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >contact
            Contract

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >implying bribes only happen with stacks of cash
            I know you’re being purposefully ignorant, but I’ll humor you. Do you really think all those generals get those board and executive positions at large companies through merit?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              To be truthful here, this is kind of a moronic take with more than 5 seconds of thought. Why wouldn't they? A General's day to day taskings and capabilities are pretty fricking close to what an executive officer in a normal corporation already does. It would only make sense for "military corporate level officer" to transition to "corporate level officer dealing with the military", no?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right, it just so happens that the brass who gave the contracts to the same companies were also just the perfect match to fill the new executive position that just so happened to open up when the same brass was retiring. Total coincidence.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the brass who gave the contracts to the same companies were also just the perfect match
                Who do you think is actually the decision maker for contracts? Can you give specific examples of Generals awarding contracts, and then immediately getting jobs working for those companies? Can you give multiple? You have firm beliefs in this regard, surely you can name names off the top of your head.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So no examples then?

                >So no examples then
                On the contrary. Here is a report describing just how much brass get hired on at defense companies.

                https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/10/04/majority-of-retired-4-star-officers-got-jobs-defense-industry-new-report-says.html
                https://quincyinst.org/research/march-of-the-four-stars-the-role-of-retired-generals-and-admirals-in-the-arms-industry/#executive-summary
                https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhartung/2023/05/03/new-revelations-underscore-need-to-curb-defense-revolving-door

                It's bad enough that one of your senators proposed a bill meant to further limit this "revolving door" between the military and the defense industry, even though there are already existing guidelines meant to prohibit this kind of behavior. Seems it wasn't enough.

                https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/reports/new-report-from-senator-warren-uncovers-defense-industrys-abuse-of-revolving-door-hiring-practices
                https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/ETHICS-TOPICS/Post-Government-Employment-and-Procurement-Integrity/

                And one of the Generals involved with the Afghanistan campaign just signed onto Sig Sauer's board. He is not the first nor the last to do so, and it seems I'm not the only one to question the timing of it all too.

                https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2022/10/13/former-jsoc-and-afghanistan-mission-commander-joins-sig-sauer/
                >Hiring Miller, who served in the tier-one Delta Special Operations Detachment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, could be aimed at encouraging SOCOM to pick up the weapon system for its forces

                The MIC is real, though it doesn't always give out jobs to the upper echelon. Sometimes they spread out jobs to all the Joe Blows down in Flyoverland just to give senators a reason to give them a fat contract. Just look at the F-35.

                https://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

                >frick siggers btw

                [...]
                Public domain anons. You can pretend no contract is ever awarded without many billions in bribes if you want, but don't make shit up if it's easily disproven

                The contracts are signed, sealed, and delivered in the open. But what it took to get to that point isn't.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Once again, I ask the question "Can you give specific examples of Generals awarding contracts, and then immediately getting jobs working for those companies?"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >General James E. Cartwright
                >General James Mattis
                Once again, did you read the fricking papers? Here's another paper for you to ignore:

                https://www.pogo.org/reports/brass-parachutes

                >one of the Generals involved with the Afghanistan campaign just signed onto Sig Sauer's board
                What an unironic non statement

                What an unironic non statement. Looks like the ol general is example C.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mattis fell for the Theranos scam
                Kek, Marines are truely moronic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >one of the Generals involved with the Afghanistan campaign just signed onto Sig Sauer's board
                What an unironic non statement

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >one of your senators
                Where you from, anon?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, O’Shaughnessy is a good example of "perfect match to fill the new executive position that just so happened to open up" being unironically true.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Did this actually happen, though? Corporate board members are public information

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's the timing dumbass. You don't need to be ex mil just to lead a company, in some cases a pro with an MBA is better than a general, they study business strategy not military strategy. Unless you're trying to sweeten the deal with the people who have a hand in procurement of course. That and the sheer ridiculousness of the gun compared to its opposition.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right, it just so happens that the brass who gave the contracts to the same companies were also just the perfect match to fill the new executive position that just so happened to open up when the same brass was retiring. Total coincidence.

                Public domain anons. You can pretend no contract is ever awarded without many billions in bribes if you want, but don't make shit up if it's easily disproven

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So no examples then?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok Steven Bonnell, that’s enough /k/ posting, you have to pick up your wife from her gangbang date. Government corruption does actually happen en mass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't understand:
                MIC bad. Army bad. New thing bad. Dajoos.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Arms procurement isn't always smart. Often, it's dumb.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          More like internet commentators arent always smart. Often they're dumb.

          Seriously, I've been told dozens of times since 2019 this program would be canceled, then it was they were only going to buy a few thousand, then it'll get cancelled, then it was they'll buy 10-20k and use them as DMRs, now that they've already paid for 60,000 rifles and 5,000 machine guns AND an entire new production facility to produce the millions of rounds of ammo needed per year, you fricks STILL insist this program is dumb and just moments from getting cancelled.

          Even if this rifle sees service for decades im sure you'll still be here claiming the M4 was the REAL service rifle because we had more of them in the inventory.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sometimes programs get canceled well after they are fielded. Just look at the Littoral Combat Ship. Or the XM8, OICW, SPIW, or CAWS small arms program, though I wouldn't necessarily call those guns just as bad as the NGSW. The government can spend good money on bad, as long as it isn't MY fricking money.

            https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Or the XM8, OICW, SPIW, or CAWS small arms program
              None of those ever had more than what, ~1500 guns ordered and none had more than ~250 guns delivered before getting cancelled. SPIW and later OCIW only really spawned the XM8 which only had 200 prototypes delivered for testing before getting cancelled, and XM25 which got funding cut in 2013/14, and then cancelled in 2017/18 after only ~50 guns ever got delivered.

              Similarly, the FN SCAR only had ~1500-2500 guns delivered before their contract was cancelled.

              At the moment the US Army is accepting ~1400 XM7 rifles per month, and ~115 of the XM250 automatic rifles per month.

              Which means in just the last 2 months alone the army will have accepted more XM7s than they ever had SCARs or XM8s in total added together. Let alone the fact they plan to accept ~1400-1600 rifles per month for the next 2+ years.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                forgot pic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just like the SCAR-H
                lol no, SCAR barely had 1200 guns delivered of both the heavy and light versions before it got canned.

                XM7 had 2500 delivered in 2023, and the army is getting 1400+ per month for the next 2 years. That so far outpaces the SCAR that to compare the two just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

                That just means the military is digging a deeper hole before they eventually realize to stop. Keep in mind it's the nature of the M7 itself that mimics its ancestors. These are all experimental guns designed under the auspices of a radical small arms program, with ambitious goals and unusual results.

                And the fact that these candidates were ultimately shitcanned or shelved for a rainy day for various reasons, but primarily for the fact they were solutions looking for a problem. Planning, producing, and accepting is one thing. Mass field use is another. The SCAR is still being used today, but not according to the original ambitions of the program that spawned it of course. Most troops get issued ARs instead. Time is a flat circle. And sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >double dubs died for "two more weeks"
                Feels bad man.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Double Dubs confirm, that's the rules I don't write em. Tell me how many others are adopting it? None?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How many M14s did big Army buy?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wow, so your entire point hinges on the M14 procurement which happened at the height of the US increase in involvement in Vietnam and a few years after Korea. As we were scrambling to replace the grossly outdated M1.

                If you think the M7 is the same, you're just a biased moron.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point was just because the Army buys several thousand of something doesn't mean they'll actually keep it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The LCS wasn't cancelled.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they’re going through with it so it can’t be dumb

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody thinks the M4 is adequate, it needs a replacement as they are getting worn out
            Nobody thinks the M7 was a good choice, but we know its the one thats getting pushed forward because sig
            There are plenty of bad guns in small arms history that have been huge successes and guess what: it happens because nobody care about small arms especially in an age where western militaries revolve around an air power doctrine
            Next youll tell me the L85A1 was a great gub

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              How about that report from 2015 or something where over 90% of the surveyed active duty soldiers reported that they were satisfied with their M4s? A decade later, we certainly have the ability to replace worn parts with components that are cheaper, lighter, and more durable. There was no reason to throw them in the trash to replace them with a sci-fi M14.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Nobody thinks the M4 is adequate, it needs a replacement as they are getting worn out
              You know we still have the means to produce the M4, right?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        bawdS FOR SIG

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >then why are they building a whole new production facility for 6.8?
        insurance and delelopment UGTR scam. IYKYK

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who are the 13 people not getting optics?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The "bufferless m4" needs scaled up parts
        Need tooling for the new parts because things have to be scaled up and morphed to fit,safely fire and reliably chamber a 6.8

        >New magazines and magazine wells on the lower recivers
        >New barrels+ chambers
        >New foreends that fit the new barrel
        >New uppers to fit a thicker chamber, "buffer spring" and bolt
        >New bolt (sized for a 6.8)
        New gastube that is made for a 6.8
        New stock(probably)

        You basically are building a new gun based (mostly) on an old design with most of the kinks ironed out and with a lot of data on it already
        BUTT
        And since nobody else has the tooling for it you have to make the tooling, due to US army speshul requirements that guns have to be built in the US i think.
        So you get a new factory

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The new factory being built is JUST for the 6.8 ammo production.

          SIG is handling the gun production at their own facility.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think he meant to respond to OP.

            because the 5.56 cartridge is perfectly fine

            invalidates his entire response, though.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              His final line saying
              > So you get a new factory
              has no other context outside of the new ammo factory being built for the 6.8 ammo production.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                True. I guess he's just moronic.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes I am.
                Nightshift does things to me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is a less than lethal varmint round
      They should be shooting something that can penetrate armor without expensive special tips
      Something like 5.7 or 7.62 tokarev

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >5.7 or 7.62 tokarev
        BAHAHAHAHA

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Go to bed, gramps.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why not 6.8 SPC-II?
    It’s a bolt/barrel swap and a magazine and you have an effective caliber for making the Chinesium level 4 plates that Chang and company are wearing explode into magic dust.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      6.8 spc is ass compared to 6.8 Furry. It's like comparing 5.7 to 556

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        One of them fits into the current weapons platform that we have and follows the army’s traditional doctrine of “spend money = bad”
        The other one was Sig Sauer’s sales reps on their knees sucking contracts out of army brass wieners for a weapons platform with a barrel that has a service life in the hundreds of rounds of you use the non-training ammo.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Literally hundreds or are you exaggerating?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Army testing minimum standard was 5k rounds and SIG claimed they doubled the army contract requirement, so 10k rounds.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Is that with the 80kpsi loads?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Supposedly, yes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Supposedly, yes.

                Pretty sure at shot show a sig rep said they are lowering PSI to like 70k because they found better accuracy there

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "Better accuracy" is code for "this piece of shit kicks like a mule." It was obvious from the start that the whole point of Sig's cartridge was so that they could game the the power requirement for testing and then turn it down once it actually got approved. The Army has no reason to want a full power cartridge in the first place. If they were honest about their requirements it would have been a cartridge with equal muzzle energy to 5.56 but less weight and a higher ballistic coefficient. Carrying the same energy as M855 at 200 yards out to 300-400 yards would be helpful, but grunts aren't trained to hit things that far anyway, and adding more power is stupid. You'd need .338 Lapua Magnum levels of power to do anything about level 4 armor without tungsten, and tungsten 5.56 is enough to deal with level 4 plates out to 150 yards. 5.56 is plenty of power for a rifleman, give them more ammo and save the full power cartridges for marksmen and machine gunners.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm fairly sure 300 WM does not pen lvl iv (you sure as frick don't wanna get hit by it though, but you would probably live), and it has a higher penetration capability than 338 LM (smaller diameter penetrator, thus higher BC potential and similar velocities). 5.56x45 and .223 Rem have both proven that they can penetrate lvl IV armor at up to a 50% rate from a 16" barrel within 40 yards. The civilian market knows ballistics better than the military, the only reason SIG got the contract was for money reasons (SIG is already contracted to make pistols for the army) and the contract requirement itself was BS from the get go, as civilian STANAG length AR cartridge already existed than matched or beat their requirements using standard penetrators (tungsten penetrators).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                338 LM has 25% more power than 300 WM and room for a 1/4" longer ogive. Sectional density is important, but it's the diameter of the penetrator that's matters, not the complete bullet.

                40 yards isn't very far and afaik it's only steel plates that can be defeated with .223, which no one wears anyway because the frickers weigh 20 pounds and are defeated by the most common centerfire cartridge in the world.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Almost no one seems to know this, but 995 (I forget now which version penned it the best but it's on youtube somewhere) pens lvl IV ceramic within 40 yards from a shitty PSA AR15. Energy is important but as you noted and I noted, diameter (which is also related to maximum BC in limited length cartridge ballistics). I'm also fairly sure IV ceramic will catch a normal 50 BMG bullet, but obviously the wearer would be fricked up or dead from energy transfer alone. If you modify the charge volume, the bullet diameter and case diameter slightly, you can pen IV at 100 yards from a .223 STANAG length cartridge that is already available in AR15s, using a 30-60 grain tungsten penetrator. Basically, if you put a couple of ballistics autists together with machinists, they will pump out something that the army and most people assume is impossible, fairly easily.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >diameter (which is also related to maximum BC in limited length cartridge ballistics) *is more important*

                Forgot that bit. You also have to balance bullet weight with the BC and charge volume, otherwise you end up with something like 5.7x28 which looks good on paper but fails to pen iii pistol armor from a 5" barrel, while lower BC but heavier and faster 22tcm will pen iii pistol armor from a 5" almost every time at 10 yards.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                M995 is tungsten core. Did you mean M855A1?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, I'm talking about small tungsten core penetrators. As already noted, not even high BC magnums nor 50 BMG will reliably penetrate lvl IV ceramic with normal bullets and even with steel cores.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well yeah, 5.56 tungsten can potentially penetrate level 4 out to 100 yards or more. Tungsten is magic, the only reason it isn't used for everything where being heavy is good is because it's so expensive.

                Even FMJ .50 BMG will go right through a level 4 plate, it's close to 10 times the amount of energy it's rated to deal with. The tungsten AP rounds are for if you need to go through an armor plate a mile away. With magnums it's depends more on the specific plate. They're rated to reliably stop a hot .30-06 steel core, so in theory a hot magnum steel should unreliably penetrate. In practice, most of them can not only stop steel core, they can even unreliably stop magnum tungsten core. How close the manufacturer decided to design it to the spec is important, though. If they made the cheapest or the lightest plate that could meet level 4 certification, it probably wouldn't reliably stop much more powerful cartridges or exotic AP loads.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Energy is not as important in armor ballistics. Layering is incredibly resilient even with mundane materials. There are multiple vids of 50 BMG FMJ being incapable of outright penetrating lvl IV. The armor blows up multiple times it's original shape and size, but it catches or deflects the bullet and does not pass through. For straight penetration, ballistic autists will be the first to tell you that energy is last in the equation, unless you want to specifically get an energy disabling or kill by itself (kill or incapacitate the wearer without penetration). This is what confounds most people.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's also lots of videos of .50 FMJ completely blowing out one level 4 plate and damaging one behind it. There's lots of variation in level 4 plates since level 4 is really "level 4 or higher."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is variation but I've more stop it than otherwise, about 80/20 stop to pen. Including under $200 ceramic lightweight IVs. While a .223 with 995 will pen it cleanly and go 15 inches into a gel block behind it from a 16". To make .308 win a IV killer all you need is a tungsten penetrator about 40-60% heavier and in the same rough diameter as the 995 penetrator (30gr penetrator IIRC). Smaller and much longer penetration range if you wanted to make 6.5 CM or .260 Rem IV killers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                More like now they’ve got the contract they can start changing their specs cause there was no way they were being truthful about meeting the requirements in the first place. Begs the question of why and how the army is letting them get away with it. If the round barely met requirements at 80k psi, how is dropping it to 70k going to help?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol wut, if that's true why does this round even exist?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because the Army for some reason decided that the Ammo, Rifle, and MG contracts had to be tied together. Which means even if one part of the proposal was objectively horrible, they had to go with it for the selection. So that's how we get a modern day M-14 loaded with 80k (now 70k) psi rounds that doesn't even fulfill parts of the initial requirements.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >(now 70k)
                Besides some random anon saying "I saw it in a video at shotshow with a random SIG rep"

                how about some ACTUAL source before we start saying it's 70k PSI?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm taking it with a grain of salt, but I'm open to it simply because "less recoil" is a perfectly valid reason. That said, you just end up with a marginally different .308 and an expensive rifle whose only benefit seems to be a bit less recoil and folding stocks.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The same reason as every rifle round NATO has adopted exists, it's because the US army is full of dribbling morons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "Better accuracy" is code for "this piece of shit kicks like a mule." It was obvious from the start that the whole point of Sig's cartridge was so that they could game the the power requirement for testing and then turn it down once it actually got approved. The Army has no reason to want a full power cartridge in the first place. If they were honest about their requirements it would have been a cartridge with equal muzzle energy to 5.56 but less weight and a higher ballistic coefficient. Carrying the same energy as M855 at 200 yards out to 300-400 yards would be helpful, but grunts aren't trained to hit things that far anyway, and adding more power is stupid. You'd need .338 Lapua Magnum levels of power to do anything about level 4 armor without tungsten, and tungsten 5.56 is enough to deal with level 4 plates out to 150 yards. 5.56 is plenty of power for a rifleman, give them more ammo and save the full power cartridges for marksmen and machine gunners.

                Honestly this shit no longer makes any sense. Supposedly one of the biggest reason the SIG rifle was chosen was because the troops testing it loved the easy of shooting (how you could like shooting something with that much recoil, idk but for the sake of argument). Yet SIG itself is saying that the problem is so bad that they have to lower the load. Did the testing troops use the fricking practice ammo or something? Cause the TV and Textron guns looked a lot easier to shoot.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They weren't using the practice ammo since there's clear pictures of a hybrid case, but Sig sells hybrid case .277 that's loaded to lower pressures so who knows what they're actually shooting. I'd guess it's the full-power stuff since there's substantial visible recoil in all of the videos of it. I wonder if the feedback wasn't something along the lines of "we really like that this gun is exactly the same as the old gun and we didn't really want a new gun, but could you please turn down the recoil a little?"

                Just like the SCAR-H and the M14 before it, history repeats.

                [...]
                OK, its still based on the assumption that squads will be engaging in long distance firefights against enemies with body armour. Only you're using a machine gun instead of rifle. Why did this ever take off again? Using a pissing hot barrel burning mule kicking round just to suppress the enemy, but 5.56 wasn't enough?

                It helps for range but it doesn't do anything about armor. Tungsten core ammo that used to penetrate armor at 150 yards (M995) will now do it at 300 yards (same as M993), but even steel core AP won't penetrate level 4 at any range. In order to be labeled NIJ level 4, plates have to withstand steel core AP proof loads from a cartridge just as powerful as 6.8.

                I'm just not sure how valuable that increased armor-defeating range actually is because tungsten is too expensive to issue in bulk, and .308 DMRs (with effectively the same armor-defeating range as the NGSW) aren't particularly uncommon. Probably for most people that would actually be issued tungsten-core AP ammo, there's zero increased range since they'd have a .308 anyway.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I agree, and since the M7 or LMG doesn't use M995 or M993, new tungsten AP rounds have to be produced for 6.8 Fury. And if you think making tungsten AP rounds in 5.56 and .308 is painful try doing so in a brand new cartridge that no other country in NATO uses much less can help produce. You'll have to sell a kidney to afford a whole magazines worth.

                And all to solve a problem that an artillery bombardment or airstrike couldn't? Not even a drone drop? Or an existing DMR like you said. Or even maneuvering up closer to the target? The hookers must have been real good for the brass to sign off on this boondoggle

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So they actually have a new generation of tungsten penetrators for 7.62 (and 6.8) the M1158 for 7.62 and XM1186 for 6.8

                Supposedly the new tungsten rounds are much faster to manufacture compared to the M993/995 penetrators.

                The fact they're not making a new 5.56 version though I think speaks for itself.

                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                Aw great, now 6.8 Fury needs even MORE specialty rounds than usual too? And I thought the dual-ammo system was dumb.

                [...]
                That completely renders the training ammo pointless then, if the real reason was for training and not for preserving the gun.

                >Aw great, now 6.8 Fury needs even MORE specialty rounds than usual too? And I thought the dual-ammo system was dumb.
                They're doing reduced range training rounds for 7.62 as well, it's not just a 6.8 thing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Logistics aren't that big of a deal since it just means forming the new-sized bullet over the existing-sized penetrator. I wouldn't expect the cost difference between 6.8 W-core AP and general purpose 6.8 to be any more than the difference between M80 and M993. But yeah, the obvious solution to the "overmatch problem" (which doesn't really exist but for the sake of argument we can pretend it does) was always "just get closer."

                I think the root of the problem is that modern soldiers are so heavily loaded down with bullshit that "just get closer" isn't a viable option for them, so the "solution" is to load them down even further to let them engage the enemy from wherever the frick they happened to end up.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                M80A1 is ~$0.95/round
                M1158 (M993 isn't being made anymore) is ~$14.30/round.

                6.8x51 GP is ~$1.97/round
                6.8x51 SP (W-core AP) is ~$20-23/round

                But this isn't really super accurate since SIG is manufacturing the current 6.8x51 rounds before Winchester gets the new Lake City facility set up whereas Winchester is the one fulfilling the 7.62 orders, on existing production lines.

                Once Winchester gets the 6.8 production line at Lake city up and running I expect the price of the 6.8 rounds to drop down to match (or at least get close) the 7.62 pricing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine paying 2/3 of the cost of M993 for 6.8 ball

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you people sperging out about tungsten? Don't you people realize that china produces 83% of the world's tungsten and sits on 62% of its reserves?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's not ACTUALLY a major concern?

                Tungsten isn't currently a restricted export, and there are plenty of Tungsten reserves in the US/Canada/Australia for defense needs.

                No one really envisions a reality where EVERYONE is wearing lvl 4+ armor plates and we NEED tungsten penetrators equipped to every grunt.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because the country we'd need tungsten rounds against (china) is the country producing the tungsten? Do you genuinely not see the problem here? Why do you think it's wise to rely on your future enemy for something as critical as bullets?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because the US isn't getting into a close up ground war with china you frickin moron.

                And again, the US has plenty of Tungsten if it REALLY came down to it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I thought we had to source tungsten from foreign suppliers and only had domestic molybdenum deposits

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's because the US doesn't operate any Tungsten mines because it's not profitable to do so, not because the Tungsten isn't physically there.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then what is US getting into you fricking regard?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That still leaves 10,000 tons of tungsten being mined outside of China every year. How much do you think a 6.8mm bullet weighs?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                My very rough napkin math puts a 6.8 tungsten penetrator around 70 grains (4.5 grams), which would make 1 ton of tungsten = to roughly 200,000 6.8 tungsten penetrators.

                So ~100 tons/yr would give you 20M rounds (more rounds than the US Army produces of 5.56 and 7.62 put together per year)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Good thing no significantly larger munitions use tungsten then.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                good thing there is still another 9900 tons/year left after that 100 tons for 6.8 penetrators.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Good thing no significantly larger munitions use tungsten then.

                >10,000 tons of tungsten mined outside china every year
                >thinks the US has access to 100% of it and that even 1% can be reasonably allocated to infantry rifle penetrators
                >thinks demand for that 10,000 tons of tungsten will stay flat when conventional war with the chinks causes supply lines to go kaput and everyone is fighting over that non-chink tungsten

                Why is this board so moronic?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The military is designing tool steels that can be manufactured without tungsten because the 0.5-2% W they use might not be available in wartime
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAF-96
                >/k/ says "just funnel all of your tungsten into bullets so Private Dipshit can use his SAW to hose down a hillside with it"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                US allies have very large sources of tungsten, the US industry just sold out most of its capability to china because they cheaped out. And as the other anon pointed out, you can make millions of rounds from a relatively small amount of pure tungsten. These penetrators should not be given to every infantry unit obviously, but an intermediate cartridge with a 30-60 grain penetrators invalidates standard lvl IV within 100 yards, and a larger cartridge (like .308 win) will invalidate lvl IV beyond 100 yards easily. The contract was moronic in the first place since the only military units who would actually use and need these penetrators are spec ops units that actually do hit jobs on potentially armored opponents. Tungsten is much more useful in bigger anti-vehicle guns from a military capability standpoint (disable a tank or vehicle from farther away with a smaller gun).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >US allies have very large sources of tungsten
                Sure, but China has more than half of the world's tungsten reserves. The US has a vested interest in mitigating reliance on tungsten in anticipation of conflict with China (either direct or by proxy) considering that their production capacity for both body armor and the materials needed to defeat body armor (and bodies themselves, for that matter) vastly exceeds that of the US and her allies. With that in mind it makes sense to look for a cartridge capable of defeating body armor without the use of tungsten. The problem is that 6.8 isn't it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If only war was won by who had the most metals

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The people who guzzle Chinese propaganda literally believe that's true.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                reminder
                >U.S. resources are estimated to be 110 billion tons of iron ore containing about 27 billion tons of iron.
                this is ~10% of the global supply and more than all of current Chinese reserves
                people don't understand the difference between "reserves" and proper untapped resources, so they just read these big lists and take them at face value
                likewise for tungsten, the U.S. has millions of tons of various untapped rare earth metal resources in Alaska just sitting there for a rainy day - you know, the artic circle, the same place where Russia's frickhuge tungsten reserves come from
                Canada, a physically and relationally close neighbor that couldn't stop trade if it wanted to, has untapped resources, reserves, and even active mines for necessary metals e.g. tungsten, with Mactung being a good example, and it would be bled dry before the U.S. ever ran out
                trying to compete with the U.S. in a natural resource competition is a miserable affair

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right now the US consumes 20,000 tons of tungsten per year. The US manufactured almost 50 billion rounds of small arms ammunition in 4 years of ww2. Assuming 4 grams of tungsten per bullet (right in between M993 and M995), that would be .004*12.5b=50m kg, or 50,000 tons of tungsten per year. That would be a 3-4x increase in usage even before you consider all of the tungsten used in making steel for vehicles and such, and all of the tools for working the steel for those vehicles, at the same time that China would presumably be stopping exports of strategic materials.

                How much tungsten do you think the US has stockpiled? How far do you think existing North American mines could push their rate of production? How long do you think it would take to construct additional mines in the arctic? Do you really think we could handle an increase in consumption of 5x or more at the same time as a global supply reduction of 90%? And even if we could ramp up supply overnight, how long would the estimated 190,000 tons of Canadian reserves and 140,000 tons of American reserves hold out with a consumption of 70-100k tons per year? The answer is about 3-5 years, after which North American tungsten reserves would be exhausted and the Chinese would still be sitting on over a million tons. Even a victory there might not be a victory in the long term if the treaty doesn't involve resource extraction rights.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The people who guzzle Chinese propaganda literally believe that's true.

                Lack of resources was a large part of why Germany lost both world wars. They knew it the second time, which is why the Nazis spent an inordinate amount of time and money developing wunderwaffen that never did anything useful. If they were as efficient as possible in their military spending, they would still be buried under mountains of allied tanks and planes. Their only hope was to develop something miraculous that could negate the difference in resources and production. If Germany had invented the atomic bomb in 1942, or maybe even in 1944, things might have ended differently.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's true and all, but you really don't need much of it to have battlefield effectiveness where you need it most (vehicle kills, secialized missiles, and hit and runs with spec ops units). Just the resources from north america (Canada, US, and Mexico), if properly utilized would pretty much cover the US military's tungsten needs for future conflicts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's the only way to penetrate level 4 armor without inventing some new wondertech. Maybe APDS can do it but flechettes haven't exactly had a smooth development process and I doubt anyone is going to pick it back up. Running out of tungsten in a full-scale war is a genuine concern, but fortunately uranium does an even better job of piercing armor than tungsten, and Australia is sitting on more of it than the entire world's tungsten reserves.

                My main point though was that the increased power of the 6.8 cartridge won't do anything for defeating body armor. Steel core will continue to not penetrate level 4 armor, and tungsten core 5.56 already penetrated level 4 armor without bubba's pissin hot 6.8 loads.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                5.56/7.62 are regularly stopped by higher end lvl 4+ plates lately anyway, 6.8, even with tungsten won't change that.
                Even .338 Tungsten AP is getting stopped by higher end plates.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You sure about that? In the youtube videos I've watched of people testing "armor piercing" bullets, the ones that fail to penetrate are usually M855A1 or M2, which level 4 is rated to stop. Got a source on level 4 stopping .338 (assuming lapua?) W-core AP?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ?t=523

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You sure about that? In the youtube videos I've watched of people testing "armor piercing" bullets, the ones that fail to penetrate are usually M855A1 or M2, which level 4 is rated to stop. Got a source on level 4 stopping .338 (assuming lapua?) W-core AP?

                And yes, Black tip Swiss P AP does use a Tungsten penetrator. Though not as modern as the one in the 6.8 round, I can't imagine there is THAT much improvement from changing the penetrator shape/size.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Do__ZFjRLw&t=720s

                They show it penetrating.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, they show 1 shot penetrate, and 1 shot doesn't.

                Meaning it is in no way reliable at penetrating lvl 4 plates, especially at extended ranges.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Do__ZFjRLw&t=720s

                They show it penetrating.

                Not to mention, that's .338 LP at ~260 grains. The 6.8x51 AP round is ~130-150 grains. And the .338 LP and 6.8x51 rounds should be moving at similar speeds. ~2800-3100fps.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The penetrator in a 7.62mm or 6.5mm bullet will be smaller, meaning it needs less energy to penetrate, but it pokes a smaller hole. I don't doubt that this has at least the penetrating range of M993 and probably a bit more, but I'd hope that M1158 ADVAP has a more efficient penetrator design considering it's the same price as the Swiss P .338 black tip and 5 times the cost of M993.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >5 times the cost of M993.
                5 times the cost of a round that hasnt been produced in almost a decade.

                Who knows how much it would ACTUALLY cost to manufacture M993 right now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, we know what it cost to manufacture in 2016:

                https://i.imgur.com/S5gZZ1v.jpg

                Imagine paying 2/3 of the cost of M993 for 6.8 ball

                M1158 cost $12.98 each in 2018.

                $2.90 in 2016 would be worth $3.03 in 2018. M1128 is 4.28x the cost to manufacture of M993.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where are you seeing those numbers?

                I can't find M993 mentioned in Army procurement documents after FY15

                They were also apparently being sourced from Sweden, which would've required getting a waiver every ~12-18 months as congress requires military procurement to happen through domestic manufacturers wherever possible. My guess is once US industry was capable of the tungsten penetrator rounds US law would require the military to purchase from a US company at ~4-5x what Sweden was charging

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was in the Air Force budget for 2016. The Marines got 700,000 rounds of M993 in 2016 but apparently didn't pay for them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but apparently didn't pay for them.
                Free gibs from the army?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >higher end lvl 4+ plates
                What does "higher level" mean? Either you are lvl 4 or not, at least thats my experience with STANAG-levels for ptotection

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >China produces 54% of the world's steel
                >Therefore the US military can't use ferrous metals
                >I am very smart.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm pretty sure you're making shit up

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, he said he's "pretty sure" and then provided no source or further details, I'm sure it's legit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, he said he's "pretty sure" and then provided no source or further details, I'm sure it's legit.

                I'm DEFINITELY sure you can lick my balls

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                18:05

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How the frick is SIG not getting sued or at least losing the contract for this. They barely met the velocity requirement in the first place, now they're decreasing the powder?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                At this point it feels more like a case of the Army being pissed at the Marines getting new infantry toys before them and continuing with NGSW no matter what

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's kind of funny how every 10 years the Army makes a new wonderwaffen infantry weapon program, and in the end none of them get adopted because they can't outperform the M4. Then comes the NGSW program, where the M4 isn't allowed to compete, and suddenly the M4 is replaced. I wonder how well a handful of new-production M4s would have performed in the NGSW trials.

                >higher end lvl 4+ plates
                What does "higher level" mean? Either you are lvl 4 or not, at least thats my experience with STANAG-levels for ptotection

                Having greater than level 4 protection is still level 4, since that's the highest official level.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                These people don’t seem smart enough to think this far ahead, most of the whole NGSW just reeks of corruption, however the only reason I could see for this the military wanting to veer away from civilian comparable weapon systems

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Buddy of mine thinks the secret reason for .277 fury/NGSW is they want rifles capable of taking down combat drones and robots

                However most of this thread reeks of seething from guys with decked out 5.56 AR15s who are mad their caliber and platform is getting obsolete

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Skeet shooting with a magnum rifle
                Doesn't sound like a good time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We're entering a stage where "combat drones" won't exclusively mean flying drones, anon

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They will always be mostly flying because flying is much easier than walking or even driving. We will need systems to protect against flying drones, and those same systems will be able to protect against walking or driving drones. It has nothing to do with drones of any sort and everything to do with army leadership getting scammed into thinking Russian weapons are good:

                [...]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not to mention that flying drones are a billion times harder to hit than ground drones.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shotgun style scatter shot would be infinitely better for drones and I don’t think were quite to point of Super Battle Droids in the next 10 years

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Ukrainians are making little drones full of explosives that scoot along the ground towards you and your friends.
                I’d rather deal with the battle droids.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, can't they just run the TV rounds now at this lower pressure?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The TV cartridges were only designed for chamber pressures up to 65 ksi, but it might be possible to push it a bit further. It doesn't matter though, because the army already signed the contract to buy dumb heavy ammo from Sig and Winchester.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The """Furry""" had to have Bubba's Pissin Hot Wildcat pressures because SIG chose to use a short ass barrel. The """Furry""" is objectively the worst round out of all the contestants, and is so bad that it seems like the Army won't even issue it for normal operation, instead opting for their training rounds, defeating the entire purpose of the NGSW round selection.

        On the other hand, I got to hand it to SIG, they managed to get around their failures by somehow convincing the Army to ignore their own requirements for the round, and issue only the "training" rounds.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          its even better because the non-pissin fury is a worse 308 in every regard.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Normal pressure 6,8 is 7-08 Remington
            Hi pressure is 270win ballistics... All of this with a 13-16in barrel instead of a 20-24in... But a sound suppressor is required because lol report/blast

            It's 45M combat rounds, one year is 16M, then 25.5M, then two years with around 6.75M each for about 45M rounds total. Delivered at a rate of 2 million per month starting last month. Tapering to 1.3M/month in March 2025 and then 1M/month in March 2026.

            At a rate of

            Still pocket change numbers for anything besides a combat trial.
            The only redeeming qualities the NGSW project has is from the computarized optical sight.

            There's a reason why no one besides the US DOD is interested in this and

            https://i.imgur.com/IKfuDvH.jpg

            This. The US military doesn't need half the shit it makes. But keeping your MIC and related channels fresh and up to speed is invaluable for when you may need to make a new project quickly. Why do you think we've been fricking around with VTOL planes and the Osprey and railguns? They're tools looking for an application, they were never needed. But letting equipment, people, supply chains, ect. sit is guaranteed to put you in a worse position. See: soviet weapons

            gets it, it's an industry proving ground project.

            In 5 yrs this caliber/platform will be canned into DMR role, I guarantee it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I guarantee it.
              You, or someone playing your role, said the exact same thing when the NGSW contract was awarded, that it'll never see full production and would be relegated to a DMR if it entered service at all.

              Now we're on the cusp of it entering service with the 101st airborne and you're just moving the goalposts along. And in 5 years it'll be 5 or 10 more years away from being relegated to a DMR and you'll still act superior and like you've KNOWN this would happen the whole time despite it never actually doing what you said it would.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just like the SCAR-H and the M14 before it, history repeats.

                It had more to do with more effective suppression and ammo commonality between machine guns and rifles.

                OK, its still based on the assumption that squads will be engaging in long distance firefights against enemies with body armour. Only you're using a machine gun instead of rifle. Why did this ever take off again? Using a pissing hot barrel burning mule kicking round just to suppress the enemy, but 5.56 wasn't enough?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just like the SCAR-H
                lol no, SCAR barely had 1200 guns delivered of both the heavy and light versions before it got canned.

                XM7 had 2500 delivered in 2023, and the army is getting 1400+ per month for the next 2 years. That so far outpaces the SCAR that to compare the two just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Every single video I’ve seen online of 101st Airborne is just filled with blacks with beef bellies.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Still pocket change numbers for anything besides a combat trial.
              If they weren't building a new production facility for the ammo I might believe you.

              SIG is capable of producing around 12M/rounds per year. Why wouldn't they just keep having SIG make the ammo instead of getting Winchester to build a whole new facility to build their own ammo at larger scale than SIG does?

              You don't need to surpass 12M rounds per year in production for a combat trial.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >All of this with a 13-16in barrel instead of a 20-24in..

              The Bullpup (better heat dissipation/toleration) was preferable in the light of not compromising on barrel or OAL while getting the fat ass of that pig's center of balance rearward

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >in 5 years
              Try already. I’ve seen maybe 8 of these things in the wild on TikTok and every single time it’s in a DMR role. Which coincidentally destroys the entire purpose of the short barrel piss load. I guess having it being built around a suppressor is nice but aside from that the thing is a joke.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I know what im talking about because everything I question has """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" on it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >and is so bad that it seems like the Army won't even issue it for normal operation, instead opting for their training rounds,
          Want to source that bullshit?

          Here is from the FY2025 ammunition procurement documents.
          > (E06014) NEXT GENERATION REDUCED RANGE ROUND is a training unique item not used in combat.

          They've ordered around 90M training rounds and around 40M combat rounds (not including around 2 million "special purpose" armor piercing rounds)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He can't source it, because it's bullshit. He's bringing up the same unfounded bullshit people were saying right after the NGSW contract got awarded, it's just morons finding any possible way to make the program look bad, even if they have to lie.

            The fact he has to pretend they're going to issue non-combat rounds for combat because the recoil of the combat rounds is just TOO extreme is laughable.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Having a separate training and combat use round is laughable.
              You will need to re zero to use the full power round properly, and troops will need to get used to using it, any bad habits they may have developed with the training ammunition after using it for years may cause problems with the full power ammunition. The mantra 'train how you fight' comes to mind. I have an image in my head of a squad getting into contact for the first time and troops missing all their shots because they haven't fired combat loads before.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They're still going to use the combat rounds in training, but not for range shooting since the ranges are all designed for 5.56 shooting except for the handful of ranges intended for 7.62/.300/.338/.50 rounds. So instead of going around half the world's army bases and replacing their 5.56 shooting ranges, they are producing a round that can be used in those 5.56 ranges instead.

                This doesn't mean you'll NEVER get to shoot the real combat load during training, it just won't be at the smaller close range 5.56 target ranges currently used.

                Again, you don't buy 45,000,000 rounds of combat ammo and 90,000,000 rounds of training ammo in 3 years because you expect to NEVER use the 45,000,000 combat rounds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                All this cope to justify a shit design. No one has a 2 teir ammo system, because its fricking dumb. It exists because Sig did a shit compromise job to meet the deluded competition specs. And their two part ammo system is gay as well.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And to add to this, all this is going on while 7.62 exists, is well understood, has lots of battle proven existing deisgns using it and can do a lot of what the army was looking for with few of these massive drawbacks or costs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No one has a 2 teir ammo system
                Not only do blanks exist, but some countries also have plastic training rounds for short ranges. The plastic is shot off the muzzle at like 4000 fps but it loses energy quickly so armies can use training ranges that wouldn't survive 7.62 NATO.
                Not to mention stuff like UTM rounds which are used for force on force training, and frangibles used in kill houses to minimize ricochets.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hur blanks exist!
                >and do cqb rounds!
                That's completely different you pedantic cuck, I'm talking about live ball rounds, no one has a two tier system for live ammunition.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, you're wrong?

                Here is Australia's 5.56 rounds, they've got regular ball, training/CQB, and reduced range training ball.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nammo's ammo handbook is also quite exstensive

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                These aren't CQB rounds.
                They are range rounds to prevent training ranges from getting torn the frick up by a big boy cartridge.
                I don't know if they'd be considered truly ball rounds, but they are live and not meant to be shot at people. And again, frangible rounds are live and they're constructed like ball.
                Like

                https://i.imgur.com/rl3eTDa.jpg

                Well, you're wrong?

                Here is Australia's 5.56 rounds, they've got regular ball, training/CQB, and reduced range training ball.

                said there are countries with a tier for reduced range training ball. Nobody's being pedantic. That's just how it is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/rl3eTDa.jpg

                Well, you're wrong?

                Here is Australia's 5.56 rounds, they've got regular ball, training/CQB, and reduced range training ball.

                https://i.imgur.com/eWHVD8Q.jpg

                Nammo's ammo handbook is also quite exstensive

                https://i.imgur.com/1ha1tA9.jpg

                Separate training rounds have been a thing for over a century. It's commonplace and has never caused all the problems you will now make up in your head to make this seem like more of a big deal than it is

                Confirmed for noguns moron. Everyone who owns and actually uses a gun has their self-defense/actual use rounds and their plinking/training rounds. Training rounds are much cheaper- we're talking almost a 50% difference in price (in this case, FMJ vs. self-defense rounds). The training arounds the military uses are going to be even cheaper.

                Aw great, now 6.8 Fury needs even MORE specialty rounds than usual too? And I thought the dual-ammo system was dumb.

                And to your point the combat round says it's used for both training and combat.

                > The GP ammunition is a training standard item used in both combat and training.

                That completely renders the training ammo pointless then, if the real reason was for training and not for preserving the gun.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Aw great, now 6.8 Fury needs even MORE specialty rounds than usual too? And I thought the dual-ammo system was dumb.
                Fun fact: for the last decade US already buys "training" 5.56, M855A1 packed into cardboard boxes, combat M855A1 is packed into cans. These are 2 different items.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Separate training rounds have been a thing for over a century. It's commonplace and has never caused all the problems you will now make up in your head to make this seem like more of a big deal than it is

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Confirmed for noguns moron. Everyone who owns and actually uses a gun has their self-defense/actual use rounds and their plinking/training rounds. Training rounds are much cheaper- we're talking almost a 50% difference in price (in this case, FMJ vs. self-defense rounds). The training arounds the military uses are going to be even cheaper.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you a fricktard? You use different 556 rounds for training and sf?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >implying I use baby calibers

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Socom just did the advanced sniper rifle for the mk22 which has anti material 338nm, anti personnel 300nm, and training 308. You're just born moronic, no cure

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >and is so bad that it seems like the Army won't even issue it for normal operation, instead opting for their training rounds,
              Want to source that bullshit?

              Here is from the FY2025 ammunition procurement documents.
              > (E06014) NEXT GENERATION REDUCED RANGE ROUND is a training unique item not used in combat.

              They've ordered around 90M training rounds and around 40M combat rounds (not including around 2 million "special purpose" armor piercing rounds)

              The real issue is that there are two calibers being used instead of one which provides inconsistent results. Train how you fight, fight how you train; but you're not training with combat grade ammo nor fighting with training grade rounds. Absolute moronation. The recoil of the combat grade rounds IS extreme, no lie here Black person. It also burns barrels and causes increased parts wear (a definite boon for SIGs part supply chain for sure) which is why they issued training grade ammo to minimize wear.

              They're still going to use the combat rounds in training, but not for range shooting since the ranges are all designed for 5.56 shooting except for the handful of ranges intended for 7.62/.300/.338/.50 rounds. So instead of going around half the world's army bases and replacing their 5.56 shooting ranges, they are producing a round that can be used in those 5.56 ranges instead.

              This doesn't mean you'll NEVER get to shoot the real combat load during training, it just won't be at the smaller close range 5.56 target ranges currently used.

              Again, you don't buy 45,000,000 rounds of combat ammo and 90,000,000 rounds of training ammo in 3 years because you expect to NEVER use the 45,000,000 combat rounds.

              That means no one else in the world is going along with the US's moronation. Still doesn't change the fact that the M7 relies on literal cope rounds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Train how you fight, fight how you train
                US tankers use mostly specially made TP rounds in gunnery training.

                >The recoil of the combat grade rounds IS extreme, no lie here Black person.
                Difference between 950m/s and 850m/s is like 12%.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >US tankers use mostly specially made TP rounds in gunnery training.
                Yeah because it would be moronic to splatter the US countryside with DU dust, moron. The training round also has a cone instead of fins that shortens the max range (not max *effective* range) so that they don't need impact zones at the end of live fire ranges the size of half the state. But as the tank's fire control system handles the aiming, and obviously the gunner doesn't have to manage the recoil, both qualities unlike a rifle, vehicles using training ammunition is irrelevant.

                >Aw great, now 6.8 Fury needs even MORE specialty rounds than usual too? And I thought the dual-ammo system was dumb.
                Fun fact: for the last decade US already buys "training" 5.56, M855A1 packed into cardboard boxes, combat M855A1 is packed into cans. These are 2 different items.

                They're two different inventory codes, not rounds. And I don't know where you got cardboard boxed M855A1, but I've only ever gotten it from cans, and pre-loaded on stripper clips.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If only the XM7 had some sort of fire control system. Oh wait...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If only you had experience with both tank-mounted and weapon-mounted active aiming systems. Oh wait...
                A tank (or other modern AFV) has a stabilized control system that makes aiming literally as easy as playing a video game. If not easier, as when you lase a target the reticle stays still and the gun is adjusted to compensate. It's so easy, in fact, you can aim, shoot, and aim and shoot at subsequent targets while on the move. It can also be done behind cover in the defense allowing you a lot more time than having to expose your head to aim with a rifle. With the rifle you need to acquire two sight pictures. The first time to aim, the second time to shoot. This is like a tank's emergency mode which is considered a *degradation* and literally gives the crew more time to shoot each target during gunnery in order to compensate. Also, if the LRF on a tank goes down you can use the back-up stadia-reticle (essentially a BDC) sight which is still accurate as the training and service rounds have similar trajectories, or you can manually input the range into the FCS. If the FCS of the rifle goes down, you would be using its native milliradian reticle so hopefully you have the DOPE's on both the training and service rounds, which is the issue in the first place. In theory the FCS could have a BDC, but for one it doesn't, and two, it would only be accurate for one round.
                Also the users will be training with one recoil force and then will deploy and have a harsher one. That's moronic. Unlike a tank, people don't have a hydraulic recoil buffer nor a stabilization system. Well good thing the rifle is at least as light as the M4, right? Oh wait...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's 45M combat rounds, one year is 16M, then 25.5M, then two years with around 6.75M each for about 45M rounds total. Delivered at a rate of 2 million per month starting last month. Tapering to 1.3M/month in March 2025 and then 1M/month in March 2026.

            At a rate of

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's 45M combat rounds, one year is 16M, then 25.5M, then two years with around 6.75M each for about 45M rounds total. Delivered at a rate of 2 million per month starting last month. Tapering to 1.3M/month in March 2025 and then 1M/month in March 2026.

            At a rate of

            Normal pressure 6,8 is 7-08 Remington
            Hi pressure is 270win ballistics... All of this with a 13-16in barrel instead of a 20-24in... But a sound suppressor is required because lol report/blast

            [...]
            Still pocket change numbers for anything besides a combat trial.
            The only redeeming qualities the NGSW project has is from the computarized optical sight.

            There's a reason why no one besides the US DOD is interested in this and [...]gets it, it's an industry proving ground project.

            In 5 yrs this caliber/platform will be canned into DMR role, I guarantee it.

            For reference, the army only bought around 700,000 rounds of (unlinked) 5.56 (M855A1) in FY24 and FY25.
            So getting deliveries of 2 million rounds per MONTH for the 6.8 ammo is actually significant.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I would like to point out that part of the seemingly low number for M855A1 is the fact that we are sitting on an actual frick load of it now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                70 million according to budget documents

                And we've bought ~47 million 6.8 combat rounds in 3 years.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well yeah, DoD is in "stock up for LSCO" mode right now.

                I'm not arguing that the new Sig rifle isn't being adopted or some other moronic shit like half of these morons, I'm just saying that the initial "700k" number for M855A1 has some nuance to it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I agree, just pointing out, we have bought ~70,000,000 rounds of the M855A1, over ~14 years, and we've bought ~45,000,000 rounds of the GP 6.8 round in 3 years.

                It's not an insignificant purchase.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well yes probably, but that doesn't mean the 6.8 numbers are any less significant

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And to your point the combat round says it's used for both training and combat.

            > The GP ammunition is a training standard item used in both combat and training.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Sig CEO early life history

          Thanks Neo-Palestine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Basically what this anon said:

      6.8 spc is ass compared to 6.8 Furry. It's like comparing 5.7 to 556

      The 6.8 SPC doesn’t know what it is or what it wants to be. It was originally envisaged as a superior long range cartridge to the 5.56, but possesses none of the long-range superlatives you’d expect. Bullet too short and too light, ogive too short, velocity too low, total cartridge weight heavier than 5.56. It’s just a weird cartridge. Dope parent case though, I wish the 6.5 grendel, 6 arc, etc were all based on 6.8 case head as opposed to the 7.62x39. Would be dope to use them in pmags.

      To answer OPs question, the m4 is just too small to rechamber in 6.8x51. And tbh they should’ve scaled down the 6.8x51 to .224 in caliber with a long ogive and rechambered the m4 in that. Armor pen potential and external ballistics are not lost when reducing caliber. But they just had to have a 6.8.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Dope parent case though, I wish the 6.5 grendel, 6 arc, etc were all based on 6.8 case head as opposed to the 7.62x39. Would be dope to use them in pmags.
        .224 Valkyrie and 6-6.8 SPC are both pretty common. Factory loads for the former, plenty of dies and reamers for the latter.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      One of them fits into the current weapons platform that we have and follows the army’s traditional doctrine of “spend money = bad”
      The other one was Sig Sauer’s sales reps on their knees sucking contracts out of army brass wieners for a weapons platform with a barrel that has a service life in the hundreds of rounds of you use the non-training ammo.

      Because 6.8 SPC is such a frick up it needed a SPC II.
      Other than SSA few loaded 6.8 to its potential because of the number of incorrectly cut chambers that are out there. Not only was the original SPC submitted to SAAMI with errors in the chamber drawing, the SPC II submission didn't fully fix them. Which lead to SPC II+, ARP, Noveske Mod 1, 6.8 Bison and DMR chambers being developed.
      The 6.8 diameter happens to be one that in research shows less fleet yaw issues, and during the "M855 just zips through skinnies without tumbling" era the 6.8 was a way to address short range performance as the bullet tip wanders before settling into a more stable precession. It's not made for long range engagements, which means it didn't solve anything during the "we're taking harassing fire from PKMs and our pea shooters can't reach them" era. It doesn't have the energy and range of 7.62 NATO but you don't get the light weight and recoil of 5.56 so in the end it's the worst of both worlds.
      In the end, it's like someone thought we needed an Americanski AKM in the AR, it needs OTM ammo to fragment reliably, and you can get 77gr OTM 5.56 if you need to reach beyond vanilla 62gr range.
      It fits in an AR? Big fricking whoop. Unless you're a gate guard issued the Federal XM68GD or someone who wants to hunt with an AR in a state where 5.56 isn't allowed on deer, you shouldn't fit it in an AR in the first place.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        $300 weapons system upgrade vs $21,000 weapons system replacement.
        6.8 SPC II puts 40% more energy downrange in a package that is similar to what we currently use.
        Now, .277 Furry might be an effective .308 replacement, why in the frick is it being considered for a 5.56 replacement when better options are available?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          they're still pursuing the pipe dream of a cartridge that fills both 5.56 role and 7.62 role.

          same way they desperately want the JLTV/L-ATV to simulataneously replace the HMMWV / stryker and MRAP roles

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine if they had been smart about it and developed one cartridge that replaces 5.56 and everything smaller (pistols and PDWs and such) and one cartridge that replaces 7.62 and is light enough that it can be used to replace the M249 and any remaining 5.56 DMRs. Then you get increased capability (four times the number of GPMGs per platoon, higher mobility for anyone currently armed with an M4 or M240, and a more lethal cartridge with longer range for anyone currently armed with a PDW or handgun) with reduced weight across the board, but especially for overloaded ammo bearers.

            >same way they desperately want the JLTV/L-ATV to simulataneously replace the HMMWV / stryker and MRAP roles
            I'm not sure it's quite that simple. There's also the ISV, which I was surprised to hear is supposed to replace the M1114 on the front lines rather than just take the role of the M998 and CUCV as a base taxi. And apparently the M10 has the capacity to transport a squad, although that would be more of a Bradley replacement than anything you mentioned. Except that the Bradley is supposed to be replaced by the MICV, which is still moving forward. So we've got 4 vehicles here: the ISV, LATV, M10, and MICV, replacing 4 old vehicles: the HMMWV, Stryker, MRAP (which was itself an interim replacement for the HMMWV and Stryker), and Bradley. In a sense there's actually going to be more models of transport vehicles than there were previously.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >6.8 SPC II puts 40% more energy downrange
          At a cost of more weight, worse trajectory and slightly increased recoil.
          Basically less ammo and statistically lower likelihood of making good hits on target.
          "Muh 40% KE increase" then break out the 7.62x39, you'll see why even Ivan switched to 5.45.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because the army wants to have one caliber to simplify logistics, but in reality even after the M7+M250 changeover is complete, they'll still have 9mm, 6.8, .308 (the XM250 isn't replacing the M240), .338 LM, and .50 BMG, plus anything else they might still have limited amounts of in inventory (.45 ACP, .300 WM, .338 NM, etc). What they should have done instead was design the smallest and lightest possible cartridge that can match the capability of 5.56 and use that in their new handgun and assault rifle, and then design the most powerful cartridge that can match the size and weight of .308 (which would probably be very similar to the 6.8 but maybe they could come up with something even spicier if they don't need to consider assault rifles at all) and use that to replace everything else below .50 BMG. Hell, at that point they might as well finish development of the XM307 as well to replace both the Mk19 and M2.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why not just buy AR308-pattern rifles chambered in 6.5 creed?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      because they never work right

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        My AR10 works just fine, homosexual. Eats anything I run through it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Think of the xm7 + 6.8x51 as a piston-driven folding stock AR10 in 6.8 creed. It’s pretty close to what you’re suggesting.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >AR308
      Do you mean an AR-10?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's slightly different. Dpms pattern vs. armalite pattern kinda stuff

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they had requirements for less smoke to the face

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Assuming you mean an AR-10, I don't know. It seems blatantly obvious that civilian developed AR platforms in .308/6.5cm etc, would do everything they want without any growing pains or development and likely give them a better product for less with greater modularity.
    I guess this one has a folding stock though. That's cool.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Getting in and out of vehicles while kitted is important, the folding stock allows for easier egress.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If only there were six million AR style systems that could modify the rifle to do this

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the fact ~~*ian*~~ and co will b***h about a fricking "useless" forward assist, but fricking say nothing about utterly pants on head moronic 2 charging handles, the useless folding stock that fricks up the balance of holding the gun, or useless ambidextrous controls protruding to get snagged on everything

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it barely needed that.
    https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7908/11
    but the MIC must be fed.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    None of these things discount the fact that it was a poor concept with even poorer execution, based on the assumption that squads will be engaging in long distance firefights against enemies with body armour.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It had more to do with more effective suppression and ammo commonality between machine guns and rifles.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why not just use 7.62 like they uses to then.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because 7.62 is less optimal than the new cartridge

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Corruption I suspect. Someone at Sig probably greased some plams and got this rifle and the m17 adopted.

    Rifle makes no sense. We took all the lessons we learned in small arms over the last 80 years and threw them away. We adopted a lower capacity, heavier, and unproven rifle, now with 100% more charing handles. It has to be corruption.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      See

      Go ahead and prove it, whistle blowers get something like 15-20% of the money if they alert the feds to contact frickery (bribes, falsifying data, etc)

      You've got a big paycheck ahead of you if you can prove even a tiny bit of what you're saying.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nice to see the shills come out on the weekends. Hope you’re getting paid overtime at least.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why not a steyr ACR chambered for 5.56 CT with a copper bullet and natural uranium penetrator?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because uranium penetrators are expensive as frick to manufacture and the whole radioactive contaminate in the blowback is somewhat of a concern. Also the fact you're littering uranium wherever you shoot isn't ideal.

      The 3rd generation tungsten armor penetrators currently hitting production are the best mix of price/performance and availability of resources.

      They're still expensive as hell, but we did at least find a way to manufacture the penetrators at a fraction of the cost and time it used to take.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Uranium is only 5 times less common than lead, and the radiation level is so low that it's irrelevant. All of the health concerns from it are due to heavy metal poisoning from inhaling dust or ingesting it, which is the same as lead. The difference would be that you're using much less uranium than you would lead, probably 10 grains or less in an 80 grain bullet, since the point isn't to add weight to the bullet but to add an ultra-dense, self-sharpening subcaliber penetrator

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          All modern loadings the US uses are lead-free.

          And again, we have a brand new generation of tungsten penetrators (also lead free).

          https://i.imgur.com/h3FDVU8.png

          That's an NGSW prototype, the actual XM7 has one.

          The one without the forward assist was first seen in September 2023, it's expected it was one of the final prototypes before fielding.
          And pic related is a picture from March 28th showing the 101st with the gun, and guess what? No forward assist on it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tungsten has the same problems with heavy metal poisoning and it's less common than uranium (1.25 ppm compared to 2.7 ppm), and the highest concentrations of tungsten are in China and Russia compared to the highest concentrations of uranium in Australia and Canada, and tungsten has tons of commercial uses while uranium is practically worthless apart from tiny amounts of it for nuclear power. Also tungsten ceramics are more brittle and don't self-sharpen on impact with armor the way uranium does.

            Literally the only reason tungsten is used for penetrators instead of uranium is because it's associated with scary nuclear reactors, uranium is clearly superior in every way.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Canada and the US have plenty of tungsten reserves for ammo production

              And again, the military disagrees with you since there has been zero effort in finding new production methods for uranium penetrators and we just finished up a decade-long R&D period where we figured out how to produce tungsten penetrators cheaper and faster.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Canada and the US have plenty of tungsten reserves for ammo production
                Neither has enough tungsten to sustain a full-scale war with generally-issued tungsten AP ammo. It will always be limited in production and issuance, because there's just not that much of it and it's needed for many other things (basically everything in the world made out of hardened steel) within the scope of the war effort as well as in civilian industry. Meanwhile, Australia alone has as much uranium as there exists tungsten in the entire world, and it can be heavily utilized without affecting industry.

                >And again, the military disagrees with you since there has been zero effort in finding new production methods for uranium penetrators
                No, the military agrees with me that uranium is scary because "muh nooks." They caught a ton of shit for using DU in Desert Storm, even though no one is actually claiming that the radioactivity is a problem, and it's basically impossible to not use heavy metals in projectiles. Yeah, sure, there's the M855A1, but it had problems, and is the 6.8 even lead free? It doesn't have the steel EPR penetrator, is it solid copper?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's the M855A1, but it had problems
                Which are?

                >and is the 6.8 even lead free? It doesn't have the steel EPR penetrator, is it solid copper?
                It's a steel penetrator and non-lead slug with a copper jacket.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Which are?
                Feed ramp erosion and inconsistent accuracy due to its 3-piece construction. It still meets requirements because the Army testing procedure discards fliers, but it's generally known that M855A1 will occasionally veer off wildly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > Feed ramp erosion
                not a problem if you're running everything in-spec and are using new mags. The problems people were having were generally found to be from old shitty mags that didn't lift the nose of the round up enough.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Clearly the idea wasn't that promising since the 6.8 bullet is a steel core TMJ instead of an EPR.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                based on this picture from like 5 years ago, the 6.8 GP round is also TMJ

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Clearly the idea wasn't that promising since the 6.8 bullet is a steel core TMJ instead of an EPR.

                I think you meant EPR not TMJ. Because yea, basically all evidence points to the 6.8 GP round being essentially the exact same as the EPR 7.62 and 5.56 rounds.

                https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/6-8x51-ngsw-steel-cased/52548

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Finally the military embraces aerodynamic form factors. What the frick is that 308 bullet? That shit is a parachute.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, people really don't understand just how much better the 6.8 round's shape is for aerodynamics, it will have a LOT less drop at extended ranges.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                I think you meant EPR not TMJ. Because yea, basically all evidence points to the 6.8 GP round being essentially the exact same as the EPR 7.62 and 5.56 rounds.

                https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/6-8x51-ngsw-steel-cased/52548

                >2 pictures of dummy cartridges from the same event half a decade ago
                >All of the pictures of all three NGSW prototypes in actual testing are TMJ
                Either 6.8 isn't an EPR or they've never tested the actual combat loading.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you seen more than a handful of promo shots which ammo they're actually using?

                It's not like we've had the ability to check what they're regularly shooting. But since you haven't seen it in the half dozen publicity photos then it must not exist?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In the Garand Thumb RM277 video the TV rep says it's the exact same ammo that was used for testing and they don't have the EPR penetrator tip. Also there's dozens of pictures in which you can see the ammo tips of the Sig NGSW, and they're all copper. I won't say it's impossible that the actual combat loadings use EPR projectiles, but it seems more likely that they went to a rod penetrator at some point instead of the EPR design, considering that there hasn't been a single image of a 6.8 EPR projectile since a couple of pictures of dummy cartridges were taken at a single event half a decade ago.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The MIC should have just renamed depleted uranium to something new.
                Like Uranite or something.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No forward assist
            Can they now also delete the completely useless and superfluous top/rear mounted charging handle?
            That shit is extremely moronic and gay.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Because 5.56/5.45 isn't good enough anymore against modern targets
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Creedmoor
              >In general, 6.5 mm (.264 in) bullets are known for their high sectional density[8] and ballistic coefficients, and often have been used successfully in rifle competitions.

              Iirc the added rear charging handle made both handles harder and more awkward to operate. The army is so scared of not using an AR it is unreal, even with a gun which is essentially just an AR it wasn't good enough

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The sperging over forward assist is a gold metric to value someone’s opinion. Every armchair “erm actually” user hates it, every grunt I’ve met in the military says they’ve used it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Same with the charging handle. Everyone who spergs about it is a noguns or at best a flat range autist. The ARs charging handle is objectively superior to a side charger.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Trying to fix a problem that isn’t there. You don’t need a side charging handle when you don’t even interact with the charging handle at all, since the bolt hold open latch does the job in the overwhelming majority of the time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly

                https://i.imgur.com/nc6qYwJ.jpg

                Why is that?
                I'm guessing, you find it inconvenient to reach around or tilt the weapon to either side.
                Maybe similar to ergo intent of Darne model shotguns.

                Side charging is stupid because it requires making a large opening in the side of the receiver where mud, water and debris can get inside the action. You want to limit that as much as possible. One of the reasons why the AR does so well with mud is because its well sealed. Making it side charging ruins that. Stoner's solution is elegant and effective. And as the other Anon says, where your charging handle is doesn't really matter for ergos because after the first time you are using the bolt release anyways.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The AR's charging handle is particularly prone to spitting gas in your face when shooting suppressed, cannot be operated without breaking your grip/aiming posture, and it's really inadequate for exerting force onto a jammed round.
                It was a last minute hack job that got put there because the top charging handle on the AR-10 got too hot to use.
                Whether the advantages outweigh the negatives is up to each one but it is not without significant flaws.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey what if... what if we had a forward assist button AND a *BACKWARD* assist button TOO though?
                [OC plz don't steal thx]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The AR's charging handle is particularly prone to spitting gas in your face
                Gas buster charging handles exist. If you shoot suppressed get one.
                >cannot be operated without breaking your grip/aiming posture
                Doesn't matter, the AR has a bolt hold open you aren't using the charging handle for reloads. You literally use it once when you first charge the weapon.
                >and it's really inadequate for exerting force onto a jammed round.
                Bullshit. I've never had a problem mortaring a stuck case in an AR. The case will fail before the charging handle does.

                >you're too dumb to understand why having to break your grip and sight picture to run the bolt is a good thing

                Do you know how an AR works? Its not an AK. You don't use the CH every time you reload.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You do though. After the last round the gun goes click and you insert a new magazine, chamber a new round by using CH and that's it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What do you mean by too hot. Just don't hold it, pull it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >charging handle cannot be operated without breaking your grip/aiming posture

                and that is relevant because? Who in his right mind doesn't dive into cover for reloading or remedial action? Besides overdramatic range ballerinas I mean. What kind of sperg do you have to be to stay in aiming position during your reload in actual combat? And even so, reloading will disrupt your sight picture anyway.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The AR's charging handle is particularly prone to spitting gas in your face when shooting suppressed, cannot be operated without breaking your grip/aiming posture, and it's really inadequate for exerting force onto a jammed round.
                It was a last minute hack job that got put there because the top charging handle on the AR-10 got too hot to use.
                Whether the advantages outweigh the negatives is up to each one but it is not without significant flaws.

                Wanting to modify the charging handle situation for gas relief is a reasonable ask, however the side charging handle isn’t there to fix that, it’s there because the military has been bricked up over side charging handles for 60 years. There’s obviously some solution that could be engineered that could reduce this issue. Also doesn’t the Sig rifle also have the Stoner style charging handle anyway?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Stoner style charging handle
                It's a cope style charging handle, Stoner put it up top. The rear handle was just easy to bodge on as a fix for the heat problem.
                The thing is it's a training issue, and as such the US army has put in so much effort into training around it that it's become entrenched as "the right way".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You’re just dumb I believe

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you're too dumb to understand why having to break your grip and sight picture to run the bolt is a good thing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Complete non issue, you range queen Black person. You have to be European

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >we train around it so it's not a problem, you must be bad if you want to eliminate a problem rather than cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is no problem to train around. You are either baiting or the biggest nogunz/range queen

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you're saying you don't move your head to run the bolt? This I have to see.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I’m saying it doesn’t matter genius

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't understand, being slow and inconsistent is good

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >reload maxing range queen

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why is that?
                I'm guessing, you find it inconvenient to reach around or tilt the weapon to either side.
                Maybe similar to ergo intent of Darne model shotguns.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm just glad they got rid of the forward assist finally.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's an NGSW prototype, the actual XM7 has one.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't mind a new rifle, but I'm curious- could an AR10 handle .277 fury?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      For awhile probably, but I wouldn't want to run 80k PSI loads more than a few dozen times.

      I have to imagine it's gonna put a lot of extra wear on the bolt face and lugs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The bolt face and lugs aren’t the issue at all. The XM7 has beefed up internals that it probably doesn’t even need anyway. More like erosion of the rifling.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hey never mind about my last reply to your post I thought you were talking about the XM7.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think they probabaly can. Bolt thrust would be the chief concern, but going off of what an AR15 can handle - 6.5 grendel, 6.8 SPC, and other higher-than-5.56-bolt-thrust calibers - the bolt is still plenty strong. And the AR10 bolt is pretty much isometriclaly scaled up. Also, the POF small frame 308 series of rifles use an AR15 sized bolt (made of aermet, fancy alloy) with a 308 bolt face. So the regular AR15 sized bolt is good for like 1.5x more bolt thrust or whatever the math comes out to. Could just apply the same thing to AR10s.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pressure probably. Still, making the hybrid cases work for an even more hyper zippy 556 and/or 762 will probably happen eventually.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hope the Army at least contracts True Velocity for a polymer case variant of 277 Fury. It's such a fricking pity that the army didn't pursue the GD/TV bullpup bid. Polymer case is the future

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unless the polymer can do the 80k PSI load required for the XM7/XM250 then I don't see it happening.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Of course it can. Though certainly not without reengineering, I suspect

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can buy TV plastic ammo in 5.56 and 308 right now, they are shit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Until the environmentalists start b***hing about microplastics in the environment.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s entirely possible.
      The main reason the Army is gargling sig’s balls so hard is politics.
      More specifically being almost laser focused on cucking beretta for some reason.
      The reason they pushed the P320 into service?
      To cuck beretta.
      The reason they denied the RM277?
      Beretta was set to be the manufacturer if it got adopted.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The reason they denied the RM277?
        >Beretta was set to be the manufacturer if it got adopted.
        Yes, but the Textron NGSW manufactured by HK should have been adopted.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jews hate Italians. Makes sense.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's a saying in politics, you gotta spend tax money to embezzle tax money.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The AR-15 receiver isn't able to withstand that much pressure. Hell the standard AR-15 bolt can't handle 7.62x39 and you need to modify an AR-10 bolt to get something that won't shear locking lugs. You might be able to get a Nemo Omen to survive that much oomph but I doubt a standard AR-10 can take it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you moronic? The AR-15 receiver is not a pressure bearing component. Its all in the bolt, barrel extension and barrel. That's it. That's the whole reason why the receiver can be made of aluminum. Its one of Stoner's major innovations.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe not directly. But the parts that an AR15 uses that are impacted by the pressure are limited by the size of the receiver. An AR10's frame is considerably heavier because it has to hold larger, stronger components to handle that additional stress. Have you seen the BCG of an AR10? It's twice the size of an AR15's BCG. My AR10's BCG is just not going to fit into an AR15. So you either need to have a larger receiver to handle the larger components to handle the additional force being exerted on the weapon system whenever the more powerful round fires, or you need to start using wonder alloys that are undoubtedly far more expensive and harder to come by.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The limitation was the cartridge case not the rifle. 5.56 proof loads can get into similar territory. You'd want to beef up the bolt for longevity reasons but in principle there's really no reason why you couldn't make an 80k psi rifle in an AR-15 footprint. The XM7 is closer to AR-10 sized but that has more to do with the size of the cartridge than strength requirements. 277 shares the same base diameter and case length of 7.62 nato just with a smaller bullet. You can't fit that in an AR-15 receiver.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe not directly. But the parts that an AR15 uses that are impacted by the pressure are limited by the size of the receiver. An AR10's frame is considerably heavier because it has to hold larger, stronger components to handle that additional stress. Have you seen the BCG of an AR10? It's twice the size of an AR15's BCG. My AR10's BCG is just not going to fit into an AR15. So you either need to have a larger receiver to handle the larger components to handle the additional force being exerted on the weapon system whenever the more powerful round fires, or you need to start using wonder alloys that are undoubtedly far more expensive and harder to come by.

      The Sig Spear bolt is not larger or beefier than the AR-10 bolt, you could fit it in an AR-10 receiver without issues. The problem that Sig needed to solve to make 80k PSI safe wasn't in the rifle action, it was in the the cartridge case. It needs the steel reinforced case head to avoid rupturing at the extractor groove or blowing out the primer. I'm guessing it has special high-pressure primers as well.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The bolt lugs are longer, but narrower.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't mean to imply that it was identical, just that it would certainly fit in the same footprint.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, but we're now talking about the AR10 and not the AR15, and even then I have to wonder what effect that 80,000 PSI might have on the overall receiver. Yes, the chamber pressure does not directly interact with the rest of the receiver, but the recoil from the cartridge firing sure as shit does, as does the gas cycling back through to move the carrier. You are just fundamentally dealing with more force per shot.

        I love AR10s. I'd love an AR10 chambered in .277 fury. If someone can make it happen, well dammit, do it. But I'm worried about the durability.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Spear essentially is an AR-10 chambered in .277 Fury, it's just piston operated. Once again, the problem has nothing to do with the receiver, and nothing to do with the receiver's ability to fit the new components. It's all about the bolt and the case.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    SIG didn't bribe them to make the best choice

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the M4 is perfectly fine and needs no changes. The point of the NGSW wasn't to replace the M4, it was to replace the piece of shit FN Jam-O-Matic, and keep it standardized with the standard issue assault rifle at the same time. That's also why it's a joke that it's generally accepted that the Sig won over the GD because the AR was belt fed, as if it's some sort of horrible punishment to have to change mags every 30 rounds, when the army has been doing perfectly fine for decades issuing a weapon that jams every 50 and then needs a 1 minute time out to swap belts every 200.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the results of this program are so dumb. pure wunderwaffe fallacy. should've gone with a 6mm LSAT.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    tourist here, always wondered how you guys can stay accurate even without the front sight(?) being lifted
    like do you trust the dot in the scope being representative of where you're shooting?
    i know you can zero it but in my head it's always been a two point comparison instead of just the scope

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      lolwut?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i didnt word that paragraph well, in my head to get an accurate shot you'd need 2 points of reference, as in one closer to the eyes and the other at the end of the barrel, i couldnt quite find the words for what i was saying

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          but you don't. optics aren't just fancy iron sights.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You set the cross hair or dot in the optic to make a hit at a certain distance. Then if you want to shoot closer or farther, you aim up or down relative to your zero

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i didnt word that paragraph well, in my head to get an accurate shot you'd need 2 points of reference, as in one closer to the eyes and the other at the end of the barrel, i couldnt quite find the words for what i was saying

      They use parallax wizardry to keep the reticle superimposed on the same position regardless of where you look. That's why 1x optics exist, they do the same thing as iron sights without needing two reference points.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ok this one answers it a lot clearer, thank you for the info anon, my curiosity is satiated

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because the well oiled MIC gears were slowing down and large sums of money needed to change hands to arbitrarily keep those gears spinning while we wait for our special forces and psy operations to instigate the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So when are they gonna scrap the whole thing and just go with basic b***h AR-10s?

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    never gonna happen
    5.56 m4 on andromeda galaxy

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nah not enough money to be made that way they wanna get those lucrative military contracts for new weapons.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Figuring out who owns Sig today would probably answer alot of questions.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The rage in this thread is hilarious holy shit.
    I want Chainuh to ape out so bad, bros
    I want to see SEALs popping plated up Chinks with this M7,
    So I get TCD AND boast threads making the ranters eat shit
    >2028, say it: "I'M SORRY, SIG!"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Small arms are moving into irrelevant territory very fast, like bayonets in the era of repeating firearms. If war with China happens its not rifles that would be killing Chinese.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If war with China happens the US is particularly fricked. We're full of chinks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Back to r/forgottenweapons

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Projection

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >forgotten weapons
        No, screencap me with C&Rsenal if we're going with toobaz.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hate all of the nu-gay firearm people. You are honestly more insufferable than F-35bros.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they wanted a DMR or more traditional rifle, the bullpup would have better. If they wanted a general purpose, assault rifle that delivers more foot pounds of energy than 5.56, then doing a necked up .300 BLK style situation and maintaining the AR platform would have been best. If they wanted a new LMG, they should have asked for a new LMG. Classic example of baby boomer moronation, American military moronation, israelites wanting to make money, congressional-MIC money laundering, and mass data analysis nerds with out of context information. It’s the whole US military paradigm summed up.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the bullpup would have better
      Stopped reading right there

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        For the DMR role that they were claiming they wanted with the ballistics Sig got with the 80k PSI (which of course they’re walking back), the longer barrel is required. The only way to get a long barrel in a package without having an M1 Garand or 24in barreled FAL sized package is the bullpup. Obviously bullpups have large shortcomings, especially in the intermediate range, but that’s the package that reasonably checks the boxes. Also the bullpup form-factor is far more attractive in the full size rifle cartridge area than intermediate.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >walking back
          Source that isn’t some literally who seething?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up Destiny, no one is giving you a source

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Destiny
              Fricking who? Take your meds and back up your claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA and I'm actually looking forward to .277 fury/M7, but in the video linked earlier a sig sauer rep directly stated they were lowering the pressure close to 70k PSI.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO MORE ARS
    STOP IT
    IT ENDS IN OUR LIFETIME
    NO MORE ARS
    THERE WILL BE NO ARS ON MARS
    THERE WILL BE NO MARS15
    STOP IT ALREADY
    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That would not make the israelite CEO of Sig a frickload of money.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *