Army Awards SIG NGSW Contract

[m796rider]

Dan:

I still can't find anything saying the 6 ARC has been adopted by the mil. Can you send a link please?

LR-55

Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s

20:06 mark.

[biodsl]

Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s

20:06 mark.

"In the first time in history, maybe, certainly the first time I've ever experienced it, you had the Department of Defense, adopt and field a cartridge and that cartridge had not been commercially available."

Um, like the .223/5.56 and the 6.8 SPC? Geez. Perhaps people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about.

A very sloppy choice of words. It appears they have 'fielded' the round. Certainly they haven't 'adopted' it.

[m796rider]

"In the first time in history, maybe, certainly the first time I've ever experienced it, you had the Department of Defense, adopt and field a cartridge and that cartridge had not been commercially available."

Um, like the .223/5.56 and the 6.8 SPC? Geez. Perhaps people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about.

A very sloppy choice of words. It appears they have 'fielded' the round. Certainly they haven't 'adopted' it.

Not the entirety of DoD or any service branch as a Program of Record. But SOCOM for sure is using 6ARC and continues to have very wide latitude in terms of procuring small arms and ammunition. This is in contrast to 6.8SPC, which was never even fielded (as in at the unit level and above, vs individuals bringing their own personal weapons into the mix).

[Fess]

Does anyone know if these new weapons have nitride or chrome lined barrels??

SIG already uses nitrided barrel in their 716 series from which the "Spear" was developed. There have been some reports that they use "maraging" steel, a high strength alloy for some of their components (bolt, feed ramps), but I can't verify it it is used in the barrel. Maraging steel is extremely tough stuff. The tail hooks of naval aircraft use it, for example.

As for the barrel bore coating or treatment, I suspect nitriding for the rifle but maybe chrome for the machinegun. This is based on an interview on Forgotten Weapons with a representative from Faxon, a company that makes both nitrided and chrome lined barrels. He stated that the existing SIG 716 uses nitriding to increase barrel life and corrosion resistance. The Faxon rep stated that nitro-carburizing (nitriding, meloniting) is better for many weapons, but chrome is still better for machineguns. He said that it had to do with the fact that chrome has better high temperature properties than nitrocarburized steel. Nitriding diffuses nitrogen and carbon into the surface layer of existing steel. This makes the surface harder but does not change its thickness. With a chrome-lined barrel, layer of chrome is applied on top of the steel and is chemically bonded to it. This makes the surface of the barrel bore a composite structure. During long bursts, the steel making up the barrel gets hot enough to anneal (soften) and according to the Faxon guy, and the rifling on a nitrtocarburized barrel "begins to fade" whereas the rifling on a chrome lined barrel does not. (Note: Faxon makes button-rifled barrels and he did not mention if the problem was as severe with cut-rifling barrels). I have included a link about the acceptance of nitriding and when chrome lining is still preferred. The Faxon guy talks more about nitriding earlier in the video, if that is of any interest to you.

https://youtu.be/e2X1iaQbjg8?t=426

[danm]

Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s

20:06 mark.

Thanks, that's what I was referring to.

[montana]

SIG already uses nitrided barrel in their 716 series from which the "Spear" was developed. There have been some reports that they use "maraging" steel, a high strength allow for some of their components (bolt, feed ramps), but I can't verify it it is used in the barrel. Maraging steel is extremely tough stuff. The tail hooks of naval aircraft use it, for example.

As for the barrel bore coating or treatment, I suspect nitriding for the rifle but maybe chrome for the machinegun. This is based on an interview on Forgotten Weapons with a representative from Faxon, a company that makes both nitrided and chrome lined barrels. He stated that the existing SIG 716 uses nitriding to increase barrel life and corrosion resistance. The Faxon rep stated that nitro-carburizing (nitriding, meloniting) is better for many weapons, but chrome is still better for machineguns. He said that it had to do with the fact that chrome has better high temperature properties than nitrocarburized steel. Nitriding diffuses nitrogen and carbon into the surface layer of existing steel. This makes the surface harder but does not change its thickness. With a chrome-lined barrel, layer of chrome is applied on top of the steel and is chemically bonded to it. This makes the surface of the barrel bore a composite structure. During long bursts, the steel making up the barrel gets hot enough to anneal (soften) and according to the Faxon guy, and the rifling on a nitrtocarburized barrel "begins to fade" whereas the rifling on a chrome lined barrel does not. (Note: Faxon makes button-rifled barrels and he did not mention if the problem was as severe with cut-rifling barrels). I have included a link about the acceptance of nitriding and when chrome lining is still preferred. The Faxon guy talks more about nitriding earlier in the video, if that is of any interest to you.
https://youtu.be/e2X1iaQbjg8?t=426

Thank you for the information,

I have seen a lot of positive remarks about Nitride barrels but was wondering if the military had decided to change course from chrome..Thanks again!

[Fess]

LE:


I am pretty indifferent about these Sig systems and this 6.8 cartridge. I think it probably fits the demands of the military as the military sees them today and if so, it may be a first in our history.

One thing for sure is that the bitching about the power of the round ought to end.

LR-55

From what I have read, the Army decided that it needed a certain amount of energy at long range. Exactly why, I don't know for certain, but the ability of a single PKM gunner to pin down US forces at "stand off" distances is certainly part of it. The US preference for shorter and shorter barrels is not helping.

Another potential reason for the more powerful cartridge has surfaced in the current events in Ukraine. Much of the body armor being encountered is less than level 4. Although tungsten penetrators would be required to reliably get through level 4, steel penetrators can deal with lesser body armor, but it takes velocity and mass. This desire to get better performance from steel penetrators makes a lot more sense once you realize that the US and the "Free World Countries" in general do not have large amounts of tungsten reserves. As it turns out, China and Russia have more tungsten than the rest of the countries in the world combined.

To be honest, the NGSW program may prove to be most useful as a learning exercise. The design and testing phase for a new weapon and ammo have been shortened when compared to previous ones, and the US is gaining experience with two new types of ammo as well as an advanced optic. Some argue that the optic is the most important result of the program. Initial fielding is also small enough that a course correction is more likely if problems show up.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...%20that%20year.

[LR1955]

From what I have read, the Army decided that it needed a certain amount of energy at long range. Exactly why, I don't know for certain, but the ability of a single PKM gunner to pin down US forces at "stand off" distances is certainly part of it. The US preference for shorter and shorter barrels is not helping.

Another potential reason for the more powerful cartridge has surfaced in the current events in Ukraine. Much of the body armor being encountered is less than level 4. Although tungsten penetrators would be required to reliably get through level 4, steel penetrators can deal with lesser body armor, but it takes velocity and mass. This desire to get better performance from steel penetrators makes a lot more sense once you realize that the US and the "Free World Countries" in general do not have large amounts of tungsten reserves. As it turns out, China and Russia have more tungsten than the rest of the countries in the world combined.

To be honest, the NGSW program may prove to be most useful as a learning exercise. The design and testing phase for a new weapon and ammo have been shortened when compared to previous ones, and the US is gaining experience with two new types of ammo as well as an advanced optic. Some argue that the optic is the most important result of the program. Initial fielding is also small enough that a course correction is more likely if problems show up.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...%20that%20year.

Fess:

Interesting theory. I tend to think that like the M-855, the new ammo is intended to defeat todays and a future body armor.

As for a single PKM gunner pinning down US forces, I doubt it unless those US forces chose not to return fire with M-240's or maneuver. PKM shoots a round that is at best marginal compared to our 7.62 NATO and Infantry units have plenty of M-240's.

I agree with your final comment though. Any piece of gear is fielded to specific units for a while to see if they meet requirements. I am sure that lessons learned will be incorporated into changes to the system. Ammo seems to be the cheapest factor until the decision is made to change and then re-tooling will be a significant cost factor.

LR-55

[Constitutionalist]

Fess:


PKM shoots a round that is at best marginal compared to our 7.62 NATO


LR-55

LR, would you mind elaborating on this? 7.62x54R has a (slightly) higher velocity than 7.62x51mm, shoots similar weight projectiles, has a history of pretty decent accuracy, and the PKM (and the like-chambered Dragunov sniper rifle) aren't known for reliability problems. I didn't get a ton of trigger time on the PKM but it seemed functional and I never saw a stoppage. I'm not saying it's superior to 7.62x51mm, but I think it holds it's own for use in a GP machinegun.

Just my 2 cents.

John

[LR1955]

LR, would you mind elaborating on this? 7.62x54R has a (slightly) higher velocity than 7.62x51mm, shoots similar weight projectiles, has a history of pretty decent accuracy, and the PKM (and the like-chambered Dragunov sniper rifle) aren't known for reliability problems. I didn't get a ton of trigger time on the PKM but it seemed functional and I never saw a stoppage. I'm not saying it's superior to 7.62x51mm, but I think it holds it's own for use in a GP machinegun.

Just my 2 cents.

John

John:

The 7.62 X 54 R and 7.62 NATO are comparable but I wouldn't put them as equals. Rimmed cartridges in machineguns is not the best combination. Also, M-80 has an edge ballistically.

I can not get into comparing them for accuracy because they are both rounds of ball ammunition. I have shot a number of bullets pulled from 7.62 X 54 R, both the steel core ball and the lead core Heavy Ball, handloaded using LC brass and 4895 through M-24's (yes, I really did) and found the steel core ball to be pretty terrible and the 180 grain lead core 'Heavy Ball' to be about as good as our issued 173 grain ball. I do not know if the bullets have been upgraded like our 7.62 ball so take that into consideration.

No comparison between a PKM shooting Cold War era 7.62 X 54 R and a M-60 or M-240 shooting Cold War era M-80 Ball in terms of accuracy. Hands down, M-60 and M-240 will hold a tighter beaten zone. No doubt about it in my mind.

Although I give the edge to the M-240 and NATO ball at any distance compared to a PKM and 7.62 X 54 R, either way the beaten zone will be huge and hitting anything will be more probability given a number of rounds fired than anything else.

The point is though that if a US Infantry unit was pinned down due to PKM's firing some sort of issued 7.62 X 54 R ammo, it was probably because the US unit chose not to maneuver or did not use their own M-240s to suppress the fire. I can't second guess units but this claim just doesn't make much sense to me.

LR

[Fess]

I deliberately used the phrase "pinned down", which does not require as tight a beaten zone. I have not been keeping track of what weapons and ammo are carried by US soldiers on foot patrols. I know that range was an issue when foot patrols carried M249's. Are they mostly carrying full length M240s now? I keep seeing references to the shorter M240L. What ammo are they using? You mention 173gr. I had been under the impression that they had been using M80, although what has happened after the the development of M80A1, I have no idea.

Most of my impressions of relative range came from Jim Schatz's 2016 NDIA Armament Systems Forum presentation entitled "A Path To Overmatch, Next Generation Individual Weapon System. In his graphs, the Russian 7.62R PKP's (25.9"barrel) and SVDS (23.6" barrel) outrange the US 5.56 and 7.62 weapons. In doing some research today, I see that a TFB article that uses calculations to show that there is little difference between the Russian and US cartridges with the same barrel lengths. I don't know if the numbers for BC, MV, etc are correct, though.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/20/modern-intermediate-full-power-calibers-018-7-62x54mmr-russian/

[grayfox]

Been following this with some interest, always something new for me to learn.
But Fess in your last comment you mention same barrel lengths - barrel for barrel... which theoretically would be nice but in the field I imagine it's more about performance of weapon for weapon, right?

[Old Bob]

Another view of the NGSW by a USMC vet, instructor & writer...

https://gatdaily.com/is-it-the-m14-all-over-again/?utm_source=GATdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4_28

[Fess]

Been following this with some interest, always something new for me to learn.
But Fess in your last comment you mention same barrel lengths - barrel for barrel... which theoretically would be nice but in the field I imagine it's more about performance of weapon for weapon, right?

Yes. The post was getting confusing so I stopped adding numbers, but you are right, the Russian weapons tend to have longer barrels. For example, the PKP has a 25.9" barrel and a PKM has a 23.8" barrel. The M240b has a 24.8" barrel and the M240L has a 21.7" barrel. There are different models of the SVD, with barrels ranging from 24.4" to 21.7. The US has trended towards shorter barrels over time, with the M110 at 20". If I remember correctly, Britain and New Zealand have some 7.65x51 DMR rifles with 16" barrels.
The NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association) presentation link show a "threat range" graph. The PKP is listed at 1500m while the M240 is listed as 1100 meters. The biggest difference is with 5.56x45 weapons vs 7.62x54R ones, of course. The "threat range" of M4's is listed at 500m and the M249 at 800m whereas the SVDS is listed at 1000m and the PKP, again at 1500m.

You have been on firearms forums long enough to know that it is hard to get concrete numbers on the effective range of various weapons, and the presentation argues that the US forces are significantly outranged by weapons that it commonly faces. The TFB article claims, "not so much, if the US troops have a m240."

[LRRPF52]

I deliberately used the phrase "pinned down", which does not require as tight a beaten zone. I have not been keeping track of what weapons and ammo are carried by US soldiers on foot patrols. I know that range was an issue when foot patrols carried M249's. Are they mostly carrying full length M240s now? I keep seeing references to the shorter M240L. What ammo are they using? You mention 173gr. I had been under the impression that they had been using M80, although what has happened after the the development of M80A1, I have no idea.

Most of my impressions of relative range came from Jim Schatz's 2016 NDIA Armament Systems Forum presentation entitled "A Path To Overmatch, Next Generation Individual Weapon System. In his graphs, the Russian 7.62R PKP's (25.9"barrel) and SVDS (23.6" barrel) outrange the US 5.56 and 7.62 weapons. In doing some research today, I see that a TFB article that uses calculations to show that there is little difference between the Russian and US cartridges with the same barrel lengths. I don't know if the numbers for BC, MV, etc are correct, though.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...54mmr-russian/