Status of the Next Gen Squad Weapon (NGSW)?

[biodsl]

The 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 (and 338 Lapua, for that matter) have limited range because they were designed with OAL's for relatively stubby bullets. They can't use long, sleek high-bc bullets that would make optimum use of these new fire control systems.

Why did they adopt the Lapua over the Norma?

600px-.338_Lapua_Magnum_vs_.338_Norma_Magnum.jpg

[Fess]

Why did they adopt the Lapua over the Norma?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17938[/ATTACH]

The Lapua was developed first. Like the 5.56x34 and 7.62x51, the use of long, high BC bullets was not seen as a priority for some reason. The 338 Norma was made as an improvement to the Lapua, since it allowed longer, sleeker bullets. As near as I can tell, these days when the Lapua is chosen over the Norma, it is mainly because it has already become a "standard" military cartridge.

Back in 2014, when General Dynamics developed the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG), they chose the 338 NORMA because its longer bullet would permit more varied payloads (tracers, etc). I have seen occasional suggestions that the 338 Norma has slightly better barrel life, but nothing conclusive.

In some ways, I see a similarity between the 338 Norma/338 Lapua duo and the 6.5 Creedmoor/260 Remington. The younger cartridges trade some powder volume for bullet length and higher BC.

[Fess]

Sorry for being off topic, but another quick note on the 338 Lapua vs Norma Magnum. For a long time there were virtually no .338 bullets available that could take advantage of the ability of the Norma to use longer-ogive, higher BC bullets. You can see this in the photo posted. Both use the same bullet, so there is no ballistic advantage in this case. For civilian shooters, one of the big advantages of the Norma is that it could use the same bullets as the Lapua while utilizing shorter actions. For current military machinegun use however, a tracer round must be developed* and these tend to be significantly longer than the "ball" rounds. The geometry of the 338 Norma Mag allows less bullet intrusion into the case.

Getting back to the NGSW cartridges, I have seen nothing about tracers for the Automatic Rifle/Light Machinegun version. Has anyone else seen anything?



* It is possible that a traditional tracer round might not be needed for some future applications. A lot of work has been going into "One-Way Luminescent" (OWL) tracers that use a brightly glowing substance on the base of a standard bullet.

[A5BLASTER]

The money has not been completely wasted. Projects like this one can push the state of the art foreword. Part of the project, for example is advanced fire-control systems that would permit more precise shooting. The intention was to permit the average soldier to hit long-range targets as well a a designated marksman. The most basic are the "disturbed reticle" scopes that find the range and provide the corresponding aiming point. More advanced ones help recognize targets and only fire when a hit is assured. Some would track the bullet and correct the aiming point based on that. Some of the systems are even more "Buck Rogers" and share information that can be plotted on maps.

To give an idea of what is already out there, the French FELIN system has some of the data sharing functions, image intensifiers, and, if I understand correctly the ability for some rifles to mount cameras and share the images to others in the squad (comes in handy to locate the source of gunfire when the squad is pinned down behind a barrier). That system is crude compared to what the US is looking at, but it is in the field and being tested.

One of the reasons that the new cartridge was high-velocity and low-drag was to increase the effective range against targets. 5.56x45 just does not have a lot of energy left at 600+ yards. The 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 (and 338 Lapua, for that matter) have limited range because they were designed with OAL's for relatively stubby bullets. They can't use long, sleek high-bc bullets that would make optimum use of these new fire control systems.

That money could have been better spent on better triggers and more marksmanship training if they wanted too improve probability of kill per shot taken.

But agreed 556 isn't capable of stopping power at extended ranges. Well at least without designing a heavier more sleeker bullet that can be used from the 556 cases. But honestly the 556 case is out of room in the ar/m4/m16 action at are about 80 groans.

All this mess about the platform being outdated, is just that hogwash, the platform isn't out dated the ammo and caliber is outdated.

If they really wanted to upgrade, they would speak a bolt made from armet or a bigger bolt/barrel extention and upgrade too a grendel cased caliber and maintain 60k pressure they seem to like.

Do that and they retain their part comparability to most possible with existing weapons and give the war fighter then needed punch at extended ranges.

Now if I could just landed a mil contract to build that cartridge for them, I would have it made lmao.

[stanc]

Getting back to the NGSW cartridges, I have seen nothing about tracers for the Automatic Rifle/Light Machinegun version. Has anyone else seen anything?

I've not seen anything yet, but if NGSW is adopted and fielded, I expect that Tracer and other types will be developed, just as was done with previous calibers.

[Double Naught Spy]

That money could have been better spent on better triggers and more marksmanship training if they wanted too improve probability of kill per shot taken.

That is never going to happen so long as military thinking is that battles are won by putting more bullets in the air than the other guys. There is definitely some validity to the concept, but it doesn't coincide well with increased kill rates.

[A5BLASTER]

That is never going to happen so long as military thinking is that battles are won by putting more bullets in the air than the other guys. There is definitely some validity to the concept, but it doesn't coincide well with increased kill rates.

Ohhh. That is for sure. The saying "Military Intelligence" comes to mind when I was typing my other response.

[stanc]

That money could have been better spent on better triggers and more marksmanship training if they wanted too improve probability of kill per shot taken.

The Army wanted ability to defeat modern hard body armor at long range. Better triggers and more training won't improve penetration performance.

All this mess about the platform being outdated, is just that hogwash, the platform isn't out dated the ammo and caliber is outdated.

If they really wanted to upgrade, they would speak a bolt made from armet or a bigger bolt/barrel extention and upgrade too a grendel cased caliber and maintain 60k pressure they seem to like.

Do that and they retain their part comparability to most possible with existing weapons and give the war fighter then needed punch at extended ranges.

Upgrading existing small arms via caliber change seems like a non-starter. The only time I know of that the US Army adopted a completely new cartridge expressly to upgrade legacy weapons was 1865, when .58 Rimfire was used to convert a small number of muzzleloaders to breechloading, and even that was a temporary, stop-gap measure that served only briefly. The standard practice whenever a new caliber was adopted, has been to develop and field new rifles and machine guns, too.

[LRRPF52]

[biodsl]

Suppressors?

[stanc]

FY22 Army budget has $97 million for NGSW: 390 Automatic Rifles; 3,725 Rifles.
Award date expected in November, 2021. First delivery of weapons in May, 2022.

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/06/08/Army-FY22-Budget-Seeks-to-Fund-NGSW-Sniper-Rifles

[Double Naught Spy]

Suppressors?

What are you asking?

[stanc]

Suppressors?

While all of the weapons do have suppressors, they do not all have the same make and model suppressor.

The same make/model fire control will be used, regardless of which weapons are adopted.