looks like sig will be building the next army rifle

[35 Whelen]

Most of those articles are written by people that are A) just regurgitating the Sig promo material and B) don't understand how military weapons procurement goes.

https://www.army.mil/article/255827/army_awards_next_generation_squad_weapon_contract

To quote the first sentence of the third paragraph.

"The value of the initial delivery order on the contract is $20.4 million for weapons and ammunition that will undergo testing."

Yep, and to quote the fourth paragraph of the article you reference-

"The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon."

Did you read the article in Defense News? Therein is a good bit of information from armed forces personnel.

35W

 

[C-grunt]

Also, the contract is 20 million dollars. You really think 20 million dollars will buy enough rifles, ammunition, and optics to equip something like 50k US Army infantrymen?

The SOPMOD program to upgrade the already in inventory M4 was something like 150 million dollars.

 

[C-grunt]

Yep, and to quote the fourth paragraph of the article you reference-

"The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon."


35W

Just like the SCAR and the 6.8 were going to replace the M4 and 5.56.

I've read a lot of articles about this. Been following it for years. I also have several close friends, former buddies and officers i served with, who currently hold positions in Army R&D.

 

[35 Whelen]

Just like the SCAR and the 6.8 were going to replace the M4 and 5.56.

I've read a lot of articles about this. Been following it for years. I also have several close friends, former buddies and officers i served with, who currently hold positions in Army R&D.

I was just referencing the article you referenced. Not my fault if it contradicts your assertion.

35W

 

[Mycin]

I really hope that the new XM5 is for specific purposes and that they plan on keeping the M4 for the majority of soldiers, not because I'm a huge fan of the M4, but because that plan would at least make sense. Personally, if I was in the service (and a few decades younger), I'd rather have the XM5 than an M4 in a firefight, but I'd probably sing a different tune at the end of a long march.

 

[golden]

I think the 6.8 will succeed, the ARMY has many reason to make sure it is adopted.

1. Politically, If they don't, the MARINES will be able to point to their M-27 which is the squad automatic rifle they have adopted to replace the M-249 in many rifle platoons and say to congress, see we were right all along. The MARINES had ordered a second tranche of M-27's that they were going to issue as their standard infantry rifle when the ARMY moved the M-250 along to derail the MARINES buying the M-27 and congress held up the MARINE order till the rifle/squad automatic weapon competition was over.

2. The ARMY let the manufacturers get creative. I said last year that SIG would win because the TEXTRON entry that used encapsulated ammo was a possible disaster waiting to happen in really hostile (environmentally hostile, not military hostile) places. The encapsulated ammo looks something like a plastic shotgun shell. It was a plastic tube filled with powder and a bullet inserted into the powder collumn. This type of ammo may have worked great, but I would worry about it in the hot middle east, tropical south east asia or russian winters.

I figured that the GENERAL DYNAMICS entry which used the TRUE VELOCITY ammo was not a problem from the environmental standpoint, but the rifle and squad automatic weapon were bullpup designs and the machine gun version used the same magazines as the rifle instead of a belt feed. That was not going to sell as a M-249 replacement.
Also, the bullpup design was the next big trend back in the 1980's with the BRITISH and FRENCH both adopting it and then the CHINESE doing it.
Well, the FRENCH have gone to the H&K 416 which is basis for the MARINES M-27 and is really just a piston driven version of the M-4.
The CHINESE have already started replacing their bullpup with an AR inspired design. The BRITS have been issueing M-4 carbines to the special units and had to pay the GERMAN'S to come in and fix there bullpup rifles as well.

SIG simply adapted their MCX line to the ARMY requirements. It was an already proven design. All those ergonomic features that everyone likes so much on the M-4 are their. No need for retraining how to load and swap magazines and if anyone is worried about the high pressure rounds, on a bullput, the round is right in front of your face or even under it.

3. In the NGSAW, the machine gun version, the army gets a weapon that can outrage the M-249 by about double the range, maybe more. They are talking about 1200 meters for the 6.8 instead of 300 to 400 for the M-249 or 800 meters for guns using the .308/7.62x51 NATO round.
.
Also, both SIG and TRUE VELOCITY ammo could be used in weapons like the ARMY M-240L medium or general purpose machine gun and have longer range and a lighter ammo load.
The same goes for the M-134 MINI GUN that is mounted in so many ARMY helicopters and is also used around the world by the U.S. and other nations. All you need is a barrel change.
TRUE VELOCITY has been demostrating their ammo in otther guns and might be selected if the ARMY is disatified with the field perfomance of the SIG ammo. The SIG rifle and NGSAW could also be adopted to the TRUE VELOCITY ammo.

4.In a near pier war with the RUSSIANS or the CHINESE, our machine guns will outrange theirs. It will also outrange those machine guns using .308/7.62x51 or the RUSSIAN 7,62x54mmR. I was suprised that the .308/7.62x51 NATO round had not been replaced already by a 6.5 or 7mm round.

I would be less worried about RUSSIAN body armor than about CHINESE body armor. The RUSSIAN have made a mess of upgrading the systems they have like their tanks. They developed systems similar to the ISRAELI trophy active protection systems, but did not have the money to put them on their own tanks before sending tjhem into UKRAINE. They do offer the system on their export tanks, just on the ones in the RED ARMY.
The U.S. ARMY is putting the ISRAELI system on the M-1 ABRAMS tanks posted in GERMANY. This is a proven system and something it would seem obvious for the RUSSIAN'S to do when they are planning to invade someone.
The RUSSIAN simply do not have the money to fix their problems in anything like a world beating, top tier way.

Just my thoughts,

Jim

The rifle may be more problamatic. It is heavy compared to the M-4. It will add more weight, at least a pound and may be harder to shoot well. It will certainly recoil more than the .223/5.56x45 NATO round used in the M-4 carbines. The MARINES were planning to replace the M-4 with the M-27 (the H&K made, gas piston version of the M-4 like H&K 416) only with their special forces and infantry units. The artillery, logistics, mortar and other troops were going to stay with the M-4, so the ARMY may do the same.
Issue the M-5 to infantry, airborne, special forces and replace the .223/5.56mm M-249 in the squad automatic weapon role. They could just rebarrel the M-240, which is heavier and designed for more sustained fire role.

The 6.8 may well be a better machine gun round than the .308/7.62x51 NATO and that will probably decide its fate. As an infantry rifle, it may be too much of a good thing.

Jim

 

[JCooperfan1911]

How controllable with this new high power rifle round be on fully automatic military fire? Seems like the recoil in auto mode would be intense, too much to be a usable combat weapon. The Big 14 and Fabrique guns had weight on their side. This seems too light.

 

[C-grunt]

I was just referencing the article you referenced. Not my fault if it contradicts your assertion.

35W

My assertion is that Sig was awarded the XM5 and XM250 contracts. The X prefix being important there. It's not my fault you don't understand how this process works.

My personal prediction is the XM5 rifle will be a flop on logistical issues and actual usage issues.

I do believe the XM250 machine gun will get adopted but probably be converted back to 7.62 Nato.

I think there is a small chance of the 6.8 being adopted as a replacement for 7.62 Nato with the XM250 being adopted and the M240 being converted.

 

[mcb]

@C-grunt is right, Sig won the design contest, with the Army determining their submission to the NGSW program was the best of those submitted and thus is awarding a contract to supply test and evaluation weapons. Sigs submitted weapons get the XM designation. If everything goes to "plan" the next step would be testing and evaluation and if successful dropping then X and fielding the systems as Mxxx. But a lot of testing and evaluation has to happen on the Army's end before that happens. The NGSW program has prove the Sig system meets all or nearly all of the program's technical requirements but now the Army has to evaluate these weapon system not only to confirm the technical specs but to evaluate how this potential change effects, soldiers, training, combat effectiveness, logistics (both internal and with other branches and allies), etc. Sig could have done everything perfectly from a technical aspect and yet in the Army's evaluation they may find that one of their assumption they based NGSW program requirements on is flawed when tested in the real world and this kills the program not because the weapons fell short of the requirements but because during the Armies testing and evaluation the realize the requirements were flawed and that causes problems, that require rework or cancelation of the whole program. The transition from XM to M seems simple if you listen to the mucky-mucks at the top spouting off to reporters. But there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that the new weapons, if adopted, will do what the Army wants them to do, and that involves a lot more than, "do they shoot straight". As others have already shared there are tons of weapons and other system out there that have earned themselves a XMxxx designation and then never became fully Mxxx fielded systems.

 

[BreechFace]

My assertion is that Sig was awarded the XM5 and XM250 contracts. The X prefix being important there. It's not my fault you don't understand how this process works.

My personal prediction is the XM5 rifle will be a flop on logistical issues and actual usage issues.

I do believe the XM250 machine gun will get adopted but probably be converted back to 7.62 Nato.

I think there is a small chance of the 6.8 being adopted as a replacement for 7.62 Nato with the XM250 being adopted and the M240 being converted.

Exactly my feelings, the only chance I see the 6.8x51 being adopted as I said before would be for the M240 (still not likely) and maybe some DMR rifles in small amounts.

@C-grunt understands the quagmire that is military procurement and changes to equipment being adopted. The 'X' designation is purposeful in this situation.

But all of this doesn't stop Sig from garnering some attention from the private masses on the guise of being the developer of the next war fighters load out. I don't have much confidence in Sig meeting the demands of big Army when it comes to reliability and logistical support, not to mention whether the pipe hitters will like the fact that they will be humping more weight around or will have less cartridges per loadout (if replacing the 5.56).

The weight benefits of the 6.8x51 only pertain to it being compared to the 7.62 NATO.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

it appear to be essentially a piston driven ar10 in a new magnum 6.8 caliber with scary high chamber pressures designed to penetrate russian body armor that doesn't appear to exist. and it come is mismatched fde!

What leads you to believe that it's essentially a piston driven AR10? It doesn't appear to share much AR10 DNA.

 

[Mosin77]

It’s easy to see that this would be a notable improvement (in isolation) compared to 7.62 NATO. The practical problem as I see it for “universal” adoption is that, in addition to weight concerns, it’s a round clearly tailored to the “last war,” and I can’t see it as a practical necessity for 90% of the fighting US forces are likely to be involved in. I think having a number of them in the armories for selective deployment might make sense.

It’s also worth pointing out that just because the army is assessing new weapons and had a wish list a mile long, does not mean that they have any obligation (or serious intention) of actually following through on wholesale rearmament. They’ll get $20,000,000 worth of new toys to play with, put them through their paces, and mull over whether or not they’re interested in actually adopting the new platform, and if so, to what extent and for what roles.

 

[BreechFace]

A lot of good all that recoil and extra weight versus an M4 would do to a person kicking in doors in Fallujah. Making decisions on weaponry solely based on the deficiencies experienced in the previous war is short sighted.

The one size fits all for small arms is just as ridiculous. Hence the reason behind a saw gunner, DMR, and standard issue fighters within regards to weaponry makes sense, and is a reason why the XM5 will not get off the ground as a replacement for the M4 (see above comment on door kicking in Fallujah), inside 250 meters the 5.56 is a very effective cartridge with great logistical, maneuverability and control benefits.

All these comments on the effectiveness of the 5.56 past 500 meters is not that great of an argument. An enemy out past 500 yards is more suitable to be engaged by aimed fire from a DMR, and suppression of an enemy at 500 yards can still be performed by an M4, but at a greater capacity from an M249 or M240, or better yet with an A10, mortars or JDAM.

So with the XM5 we are giving up weight, controllablilty and logistical support so that we can engage targets at distances where the threat is greatly diminished. Doesn't make sense, and I feel this conclusion will be found when the XM5 goes through testing.

These articles that get pushed out, speaking about a replacement of this or that in these military'ish' channels are nothing more than pipe dreams at this point. The civilians in this country take them for face value when it is nothing more than a large presumption at the beginning stages of the decision making process.

 

[mcb]

Remember the primary reason for the specially designed .277 130gr bullet at 3000+ fps is primarily about defeating the body armor of peer armies like Russian and China. Our M4 is nice but it cannot defeat the body armor of the US, Russian, or Chinese military even with M995 in most cases. This new bullet and cartridge is all about defeating the best of the best body armor the extra exterior ballistic capabilities is nice but was not the primary driver.

 

[BreechFace]

Remember the primary reason for the specially designed .277 130gr bullet at 3000+ fps is primarily about defeating the body armor of peer armies like Russian and China. Our M4 is nice but it cannot defeat the body armor of the US, Russian, or Chinese military even with M995 in most cases. This new bullet and cartridge is all about defeating the best of the best body armor the extra exterior ballistic capabilities is nice but was not the primary driver.

Looks like Ukraine is doing well defeating the Soviet body armor, with 5.56x45, 5.45x39 and 7.62x39. Not to mention all the American patriots that died by the 7.62x39 in which our body armor can stop. The fact of the matter is that all body armor is not given to all soldiers and even with body armor, deaths or incapacitation still occur at a good rate.

Not disputing your comment, I know you were just getting the conversation back to a point that has been talked over, and good on you for that.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Remember the primary reason for the specially designed .277 130gr bullet at 3000+ fps is primarily about defeating the body armor of peer armies like Russian and China. Our M4 is nice but it cannot defeat the body armor of the US, Russian, or Chinese military even with M995 in most cases. This new bullet and cartridge is all about defeating the best of the best body armor the extra exterior ballistic capabilities is nice but was not the primary driver.

That all fine and well, but the Russians can afford/dont issue the stuff. China...dont count of it either.

This is putting the cart before the horse...and in fact may even be counterproductive to the whole concept.

If and when China or whoever, decide to really equip their conscripts, they will already know what this new weapon system can do...and come up with its counter...

All this before shots are fired in anger.

keeping some in stock..sure, mass issue to replace everything we have now? wasteful and stupid.

 

[C-grunt]

There are already plates out in real world use that this round won't defeat.

 

[d2wing]

Since WW2 the Army has been trying to come up with a rifle that will do the function of a BAR, M1 carbine, Infantry rifle in a single weapon. The M-14 did not work on full auto. After much study they came up with the M-16. It mostly fit the bill at the cost of long range and the power of the 7.62 NATO. Again, this is an attempt to cover all bases with a single cartridge. The military must decide what it wants to give up. Full auto, weight. or the single cartridge idea. This looks to me like they haven't decided for sure but are trying yet another approach. Since my combat days are long over I am an interested spectator and unwilling to argue to much a for a solution or predict the income. I am interested in the arguments though.

 

[d2wing]

There are already plates out in real world use that this round won't defeat.

Yes. The question is what will actually get into the field. What will we use and what will our enemies use. How much money will congress spend and what military planners decide. It is a lot more to do with politics than prima facia effectiveness. And long held ideas. It takes a 30-06 AP round or 3 7.62 NATO to defeat some body armor. I have no idea of how that relates to what is in the field.

 

[mcb]

That all fine and well, but the Russians can afford/dont issue the stuff. China...dont count of it either.

This is putting the cart before the horse...and in fact may even be counterproductive to the whole concept.

If and when China or whoever, decide to really equip their conscripts, they will already know what this new weapon system can do...and come up with its counter...

All this before shots are fired in anger.

keeping some in stock..sure, mass issue to replace everything we have now? wasteful and stupid.

There are already plates out in real world use that this round won't defeat.

I hear you guys I am just going off what you can read as the Army's reason stated in the various request for proposals for the programs that generated the bullet and the NGSW.

 

[greyling22]

I wish they had just rebarreled the m4's into 277 wolverine or 6mm mongoose or something and added an lpvo. You would have not gotten 800 yd penetration, but your average guy cannot hit at 400 yds, let alone 800. And it would require less tooling at the lake city plant to make ammo. I would also update the a2 grip to something a little more modern that has a beaver tail and more vertical angle.
A b5, or k2 style, but different enough to not pay royalties.


But the fed in all its great wisdom did not seek out my opinion.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Yep, and to quote the fourth paragraph of the article you reference-

"The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon."

Did you read the article in Defense News? Therein is a good bit of information from armed forces personnel.

35W

What's supposed to happen and what actually does happen aren't necessarily the same thing. Until the XM5/XM250 are actually ordered and received in quantity sufficient to fully arm the line combat units, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that they end up a failed project that sees some limited use in testing units and special operations forces but then the Army elects not to exercise the option to order any more, joining the SCAR, XM25, etc.

Some other things -

1. It's only meant to replace the M4/M4A1 and the M249 in the 'close combat force,' which as I read basically means combat arms only, so special operations, infantry, cavalry scouts, possibly armor and artillery units. Combat support and combat service support units seem intended to retain the M4/M4A1 and M249 on their MTOEs for the foreseeable future.

2. It's only the Army's Next-Generation Squad Weapon project, so this does not necessarily impact the other service branches unless they elect to participate.

 

[CapnMac]

Defense News? Therein is a good bit of information from armed forces personnel.

Defense News is written by journalists, and one who largely just sit around donut and coffee shops near the Puzzle Palace. Their target readership market is military and military-adjacent readers. But, they have no special access.

Also, the contract is 20 million dollars. You really think 20 million dollars will buy enough rifles, ammunition, and optics to equip something like 50k US Army infantrymen?

The SOPMOD program to upgrade the already in inventory M4 was something like 150 million dollars.

This ^^^^^^
It's going to deliver something like 10K to 20K "units" about 10% of "need."

What leads you to believe that it's essentially a piston driven AR10? It doesn't appear to share much AR10 DNA.

Well, you can't get a 51mm case into a magwell meant for 45mm cases. The new round is functionally a .276pedersen shortened to 51mm, or the size of a .308 round. That will require an AR-10 lower & upper.

Some other things -

1. It's only meant to replace the M4/M4A1 and the M249 in the 'close combat force,' which as I read basically means combat arms only, so special operations, infantry, cavalry scouts, possibly armor and artillery units. Combat support and combat service support units seem intended to retain the M4/M4A1 and M249 on their MTOEs for the foreseeable future.

2. It's only the Army's Next-Generation Squad Weapon project, so this does not necessarily impact the other service branches unless they elect to participate.

This ^^^^^^
The logistical nightmare of rear echelon/REMFs in one caliber, and everyone else in another beggars imagining. And, the fobbits will dilute the number of available "super weapons" at the front so as to bolster their masculinity (as fobbits are wont to do).

There are billions of linked 7.62nato rounds in inventory just for Platoon/Company weapons units, and near every single AFV. So, "changing" the 240 to the 277fury will be unlikely.

Now, the press releases all lather on about lethality and armor penetration at a kilometer's distance. You know what's better for attacking armored troops a kilometer away? A howitzer. Put 8-12 rounds of 105 or 155 TOT and the riflemen will not need to stir. (And just which riflemen will have enough glass to identify targets at a kilometer?)

This is going to wind up like the SCAR-light & SCAR-heavy trials.

 

[d2wing]

A Howitzer, like air support is pretty handy if you can get it. Big if. I do agree about writers. You can bet a committee sat around a table deciding what to tell the reporters.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Defense News is written by journalists, and one who largely just sit around donut and coffee shops near the Puzzle Palace. Their target readership market is military and military-adjacent readers. But, they have no special access.

Plus there's the running joke about Defense Times/Army Times/Marine Corps Times, which I am pretty sure is all the same people. Whenever the Army Times can't come up with something to write about, it must be time for another article about the next-generation weapon system that this time for real guys is totally replacing the M4.