Interesting very interesting but I don't see myself jumping thru my ass to get one. You guys can have my shot at one. Have a partially custom 03 Springfield with 26" barrel in 270. I'll bet I don't have any problem getting it to shoot 140 hornadys up to 3000+ without the steel cases and 80k psi. You guys chase the dragon it's your turn..mb
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
There isn't one rifle that will do it all. Never has been, never will. My idea would be to provide a good reliable and simple weapon that'll keep on working no matter what, and train the kids who'll carry it to be riflemen with it.
Cartridge choice is purely academic. What isn't academic is those kids' ability to overcome, and adapt to the current situation - that's more important than what damned rifle they're carrying. Does the current military address that? I don't know - you tell me. But, an anecdotal historical example of what I'm saying would be the Marines who landed on Guadalcanal armed with what by then were obsolete bolt action Springfields. Despite the rifle's "slow" rate of fire, firing ammo way more powerful than was strictly necessary, they overcame a vicious enemy mainly by adapting to the startlingly unfriendly and unfamiliar terrain and winning by shear willpower.
If we are depending on technology to win the day and not the resourcefulness, will power, and basic infantry skills of the "boots on the ground" then I submit that we'll have a long hard row to hoe in the future. The K.I.S.S. principle applies here I believe, but we humans always tend to overthink stuff like this.
One last thought: if we don't keep a rifle simple then howinhell do you quickly train a cadre of young stupid urban/suburban kids who've never fired a gun in their lives to master it and at the same time become competent warriors in a couple short months of hurried training in the event of a cataclysmic need to create a whopping big Army? I hate to say it but therein lies the beauty of the hoary old Kalashnikov with its compromise cartridge.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
The rifle seems to be a fancy do over for the AR10, a complicated sighting system, not very light. Bet that SAW machine gun gets to be a "Pig" with the 200 round bag on it. That gun will have to at least have others carry ammo for it just like the M60. The rifle might be a good sniper weapon or designated marksman tool. Just not feeling it.
There isn't one rifle that will do it all. Never has been, never will. My idea would be to provide a good reliable and simple weapon that'll keep on working no matter what, and train the kids who'll carry it to be riflemen with it.
Cartridge choice is purely academic. What isn't academic is those kids' ability to overcome, and adapt to the current situation - that's more important than what damned rifle they're carrying. Does the current military address that? I don't know - you tell me. But, an anecdotal historical example of what I'm saying would be the Marines who landed on Guadalcanal armed with what by then were obsolete bolt action Springfields. Despite the rifle's "slow" rate of fire, firing ammo way more powerful than was strictly necessary, they overcame a vicious enemy mainly by adapting to the startlingly unfriendly and unfamiliar terrain and winning by shear willpower.
If we are depending on technology to win the day and not the resourcefulness, will power, and basic infantry skills of the "boots on the ground" then I submit that we'll have a long hard row to hoe in the future. The K.I.S.S. principle applies here I believe, but we humans always tend to overthink stuff like this.
One last thought: if we don't keep a rifle simple then howinhell do you quickly train a cadre of young stupid urban/suburban kids who've never fired a gun in their lives to master it and at the same time become competent warriors in a couple short months of hurried training in the event of a cataclysmic need to create a whopping big Army? I hate to say it but therein lies the beauty of the hoary old Kalashnikov with its compromise cartridge.
i'll take Eugene Stoner's rifle, you can keep your Kalashnikov.
Go back and read my final paragraph. I was opining for a stupid simple platform that a non-gunner (or even a previously "anti-gunner") can be taught to master in a few weeks if the country is in crisis mode - when the Hun is at the gate so to speak. (Not to mention quick and easy to manufacture by the millions when the chips are down and don't require cutting edge ammo.) Personally I would way more prefer an AR than a Kalashnikov too, but taken in context of adhering to the K.I.S.S. principal being applied to overnight mobilization of an inept citizenry I'm not so sure. And if you don't think we're teetering on that brink.....
We can go on and on about innovative weaponry, stuff that titillates the sophisticates and answers questions that are either rarely asked or address theoretical tactical applications, but sometimes I wonder if we've taken our eye off the ball.
Kinda like modern automotive technology - new cars and trucks that contain every bell, whistle, gimmick, and creature comfort known to man - that won't haul one's ass from point A to point B any better than generationally older vehicles do, not to mention being of such complexity that the average guy doesn't have a hope in hell of repairing it. Look me in the eye and tell me an $80K pickup will haul a load of mulch home or a load of cinderblocks back to the farm better than a bog-simple '69 Ford - or a Lexus SUV haul four bags of groceries and and a soccer Mom better than a Rambler station wagon. Then there's supply chain and diagnostic services that'll be among the first things to go up in smoke when the sh*t hits the fan, but that'll be moot because if said sh*t is in the form of an EMP every vehicle made in the last 40 years will be stationary anyway.
I'm convinced that a helluva lot of "advancements" in so much of our lives aren't that at all, merely the result of engineers and smart/tricky inventors who're either merely trying to show off to each other, creating new markets out of whole cloth, bamboozling gullible customers, or merely justifying their salaries. We humans (sheeples) gobble it up but are we really better off for it? That includes things gunnery, IMO, and military gear.
Last edited by gnoahhh; 01/27/24.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
Heavier bullet means more weight to carry. When I was active duty I carried 300 rounds of 5.56, 75 rounds of 9mm and 6 rounds of 40mm grenades. The 5.56 had a 55 gr bullet. Make that bullet weigh 150 gr and make the powder charge heavy enough to propel that 150 gr bullet and you just added to the weight someone has to pack day in and day out. My entire combat load weighed out at 84 pounds and I carried every day for months at a time when I was with the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command in the Middle East. I would not be very happy about the people behind a desk increasing my load out in weight.
You get out of life what you are willing to accept. If you ain't happy, do something about it!
If I could wave a magic wand and "poof", here's a new main battle rifle, it would be something even simpler than the Kalashnikov and fire a cartridge with maybe a bit more punch than the 5.56 - something that would uplift the common grunt's effectiveness without encumbering him any more than he already is, like MAC pointed out. I'll submit that the gov't isn't thinking in those terms. God knows what the gov't is thinking.....
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
Heavier bullet means more weight to carry. When I was active duty I carried 300 rounds of 5.56, 75 rounds of 9mm and 6 rounds of 40mm grenades. The 5.56 had a 55 gr bullet. Make that bullet weigh 150 gr and make the powder charge heavy enough to propel that 150 gr bullet and you just added to the weight someone has to pack day in and day out. My entire combat load weighed out at 84 pounds and I carried every day for months at a time when I was with the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command in the Middle East. I would not be very happy about the people behind a desk increasing my load out in weight.
The extra weight is the biggest problem I see with this platform. The XM7 is something like 3 lbs heavier than the M4 platform. The combat load is supposed to be 140 rounds, versus 210 for an M4, which is a huge problem in itself. There are few times I've wished to be carrying fewer rounds of ammo. Also, as you're well aware, combat arms guys carry more ammo than the basic load.
The XM250 combat load is 400 rounds - as I recall M249 gunners used to carry at least 600-800 rounds between the 249 and on their bodies, plus extra belts in their assault packs and distributed throughout the team. So they'll be saddled with even more weight with the heavier ammo. Plus there's a limit as to how much weight can be carried before they're combat ineffective, so this new outfit is reducing ammo count on the most casualty producing weapon in the team.
My knees and back are screaming just thinking of lugging all this schit around.
Thought the 6ARC was the result of a military contract?
It was, but not the military as a whole. It seems it was for a specific Spec Ops unit, and my understanding is that some units get a type of funding that is used for such items and not really tracked. Though “tracked” is not really the correct term. Spending restrictions would be better. As they can use it to acquire special items that normal military units cannot purchase.
Supposedly the reason for the 80K psi round is to defeat body armor, I gather that the troops will train with the 65K pressure stuff and perhaps use it for developing world scuffles like we have been involved in since 1953. Personally, I think everything about it is too much more weight for our already overburdened infantry; and for civilians totally pointless. YMMV
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
The fact they want more horse power than the .556 makes sense to me but this is a poor way to get there,there are many chamberings and calibers that will do the job they require with out reinventing the wheel, the 6.8 is a non-starter the way they have it designed, Military intelligence is a Oxymoron. someones getting a big payoff AKA kick back on this project. Rio7
The 260 rem. would have been a easier, cheaper way to go. It would have met 85% of the set goals for a new cartridge. But, no the gov't must spend tons of money and time by making things way harder then they need to be. Somehow Sig won the contract, to solve a problem that was made harder by the military. If the military had to dum down the qualification requirements to get inept solders who could not handle the recoil of the 556 cal. to be able to qualify. What do think they will do with this new cartridge? More recoil and 80,000PSI. A 50 yard qualification? To be able to engage targets at ranges beyond 800m meters accurately? I think not. Tons of money and a huge defense contract for SIG. This how and why we have $600 Dollar toilet seats! Nothing to see here! It is Governments job to do things in the most inefficient, costly way possible. Create non existent problems, then spend tons of time and money to fix them.
Some things to keep in mind: the Next generation squad weapon (NGSW) program had certain requirements; .277", 140gr boattail @ ~3100fps. That's 270 WSM ballistics. But to obtain this from <16" barrels took higher pressures than a 270WSM. How long will the barrel last at 85k PSI? The design criteria seems to be a remnant from the 600-800yd engagements in the mountains of Afghanistan. To my way of thinking, the best COMPROMISE for an all around military rifle for the future would a BREN 2 (AR18/SCAR derivative) or Robinson XCR type rifle in 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC. A mid- caliber intermediate type cartridge balances capacity, weight and mid-range (400-600 yd) performance between the 5.56x45 & 7.62x51. IMHO. Mark&Belle
Heavier bullet means more weight to carry. When I was active duty I carried 300 rounds of 5.56, 75 rounds of 9mm and 6 rounds of 40mm grenades. The 5.56 had a 55 gr bullet. Make that bullet weigh 150 gr and make the powder charge heavy enough to propel that 150 gr bullet and you just added to the weight someone has to pack day in and day out. My entire combat load weighed out at 84 pounds and I carried every day for months at a time when I was with the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command in the Middle East. I would not be very happy about the people behind a desk increasing my load out in weight.
The extra weight is the biggest problem I see with this platform. The XM7 is something like 3 lbs heavier than the M4 platform. The combat load is supposed to be 140 rounds, versus 210 for an M4, which is a huge problem in itself. There are few times I've wished to be carrying fewer rounds of ammo. Also, as you're well aware, combat arms guys carry more ammo than the basic load.
The XM250 combat load is 400 rounds - as I recall M249 gunners used to carry at least 600-800 rounds between the 249 and on their bodies, plus extra belts in their assault packs and distributed throughout the team. So they'll be saddled with even more weight with the heavier ammo. Plus there's a limit as to how much weight can be carried before they're combat ineffective, so this new outfit is reducing ammo count on the most casualty producing weapon in the team.
My knees and back are screaming just thinking of lugging all this schit around.
Kinda demonstrates why there is a phrase "military aged" and an age cut off date......lol
If I have to carry anything other than a rifle, let it be meat.
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
Prarie goat, Carried a 249 my first iraq tour. I loved that weapon. Only fault I could find, you won't read about it in the "gun gack" (or whatever the fk its called): steel sling clip would chew away at the aluminum eyelett cast into the butt plate. Would take year of constant carry, for it to wear out.
It was light, at 14 lbs. Didn't even need to pin it in a turret blasting around the desert. We carried 600 rounds on the body armor. It wasn't too bad. Though my lower back is a bit sore now that I'm in my 40's.
The other gunner in my squad, Roy from Arkansas, he liked his 249. The feller was LIGHT at maybe 120 lbs. But he was wirey. Whole company loved that young man, he was highly motivated, athletic, and never complained. He was shot and killed, we all miss him and tell stories of him every week. If Skinny ole Roy could sling a 249, there's hope:
Does anyone else notice the irony of the new cartridge being in the same downrange performance family as the .276 Pederson and the British .280?
Always fun to watch the wheel be re-invented.
Founder Ancient Order of the 1895 Winchester
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison? And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools, Being native burghers of this desert city, Should in their own confines with forked heads Have their round haunches gored."
Apparently testing on body armor out to 600 meters,showed the sweet spot was with a 277 inch 140 grain projectile at 3100 fps at the muzzle.
Next they wanted it in a suppressed platform with a reasonable overall length,in a 16 inch barrel in a case about the size of a 308 it took 80,000 psi to get there. Hence the need for the hybrid case of brass with a steel base.
It is a lot of effort and expense for something that may not work in the real world.
They could have gone with a 6mm ARC and had a much more powerful cartridge than the 5.56 in a more reasonably sized platform. With the correct 110 grain ammo,it would do most anything you needed.
The squad automatic weapon could have been for the larger cartridge as well a long range rifle for designated marksmen.
Trying to do everything with the larger cartridge kind of created a Frankenrifle. A big bulky rifle with bulky ammo that will be an undue burden on regular soilders, and probably lead to failures in the field because of the high operating pressures and the tight tolerances required to contain it.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/xd4Vqpr7/Resized-20240201-150923.jpg)
