New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Vehicle weapons and static display accessories
Post Reply
User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 23355
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by wreckless » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:54 am

Army says 'no thanks' to Marine M27, opting instead to build its own rifle

by Todd South
Feb 8, 2018

While the Marines love their M27 rifle, it’s not good enough for the Army — they’re building their own.

Army leaders this week provided key weapons updates during a Senate hearing on modernization that included timelines on an improved armor-piercing round, sniper rifles and their Next Generation Squad Weapon.

Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff, G-8, and Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski, principal military secretary to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, spoke primarily in response to questions from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, about lethality concerns within the infantry squad.

Cotton asked for updates to the rifles and rounds infantry soldiers use, given advancements in body armor that can defeat the standard 5.56mm round fired by the M4 carbine and M16 rifle variants.

Army is building a “Next Generation Squad Weapon,” which has been previously reported by Army Times. Murray confirmed to the senators that the Army has a “demonstration weapon right now.”

“It’s too big. It’s too heavy,” Murray said. “But we’ve recently opened it up to commercial industry for them to come in with their ideas about how they would get with that, get to that.”

The first variant, Murray said, will be an automatic rifle to replace the Squad Automatic Weapon, which is chambered in 5.56mm.

“We’ve been pushed on the M27, which the Marine Corps has adopted. That is also a 5.56mm, which doesn’t penetrate. So, we’re going to go down the path of [the] Next Generation Squad Weapon, automatic rifle first, to be closely followed — I’m hopeful — for either a rifle or carbine that will fire something other than 5.56mm,” Murray said.

He quickly added that the new round will likely not be in 7.62mm.

“The weapon will probably weigh a little bit more, the ammo will probably weigh a little bit less, and we can get penetration of the most advanced body armor in the world, probably well out beyond even max effective range of the current M4,” Murray said. “And that’s what we see as a replacement for the M4 in the future, not the [Squad Designated Marksman Rifle].”

Marines began working with the M27 Infantry Automatic Weapon, which is the military variant of the commercially available Heckler & Koch 416, in 2010 and began large orders and fielding last year. They have also adopted an upgraded version as their squad designated marksman weapon.

Experts at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence have previously told Army Times that they are working with several 6mm variants, a round that cuts the difference between 5.56mm and 7.62mm, providing the range and lethality of the larger round without the weight.

Advancements not only include a new round but also improved fire controls and polymer casing.

Textron Systems has partnered with the Army to develop a cased telescope cartridge and weapons built around the shortened polymer round. They also have a 6mm carbine variant, which was on display at the Association of the U.S. Army annual meeting last year.

Ostrowski told the senators that the work with Textron and others will be offered to vendors in 2018, with the goal of seeing a decision by 2021 and having the capability ready by 2022 or 2023.

Murray listed several other, interim efforts, including the near-term gap of providing a Squad Designated Marksman Rifle chambered in 7.62mm that also fires the Advanced Armor-Piercing Round.

While the SDMR program has been sped up and will see fielding among infantry units this year, the round program has been delayed to field in 2019, Murray said.

“You can still fire a 7.62 and you can still penetrate; you just can’t get quite the range you will with the next generation round,” Murray said.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... own-rifle/
Rob

Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

User avatar
W. Winget
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 12:37 pm
Location: USA, Virginia, Carrollton
Contact:

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by W. Winget » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:43 pm

So the whole argument for "we gotta standardize with NATO" just flew out the window eh?
Another excuse for dumping the .45 if you recall.
I think we should go to a AR10 with 7.62, most of the M16 variant parts would still remain in the system and save $$$
It's procurements way of keeping things running.
W Winget
Looking for 1918 Standard B 'Liberty' truck parts

Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 23727
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Novato, CA

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by Chuck Lutz » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:54 pm

I liked the part about the new round ..."you can still fire a 7.62mm and penetrate; you can't get the range you will with the next generation round".

OK...so if everyone is trained as a long-range sniper and has the rifle and scope necessary....and is in a battle situation to knock off the enemy at a long range this might make some kind of sense. Unfortunately it isn't practical to train every GI to be as proficient at long ranges as SEALs or Green Berets, etc.

However, the "new" warfare in cities and at close quarters does not seem to call for "the range" advantage of blowing a couple billion on R&D, new weapons, new ammo and the idiotic approach to going with weapons our allies are unable to supply our guys with ammo that they don't use.

The basic Russian and Chinese AK47 platform developed different rifles for different uses and kept the same caliber ammo...for obvious reasons.

The same for the 9mm vs 45cal logistics issue, not to mention a much larger magazine capacity for the 9mm and the lighter load enabled the soldiers to carry more ammo. Nothing spells death like the charge of a bunch of the enemy when you have only seven rounds as opposed to 13 or 14. Not really possible to yell..."Hang on I have to get out another magazine and reload!"

This was a problem in the Civil War when both sides used rifles of different bore sizes requiring ball ammo of different sizes which only made logistics worse. By the 20th Century, standardization for all these reasons pretty much eliminated those problems....WWI was the final straw with each country having "THEIR" weapons and often having no standardization of ammo so they could support each other. By WWII, the British .303cal was not interchangeable with our Garand or Carbine ammo, nor was their 9mm...but they could scrounge German 9mm ammo all day long! The STEN was a good example of a design that enabled the soldier/Maquis to use German ammo.

With the exception of true snipers in all branches using anything from a .308 to a .338 Lapua to whatever exotic combination the needed for REAL long distance shots by REAL snipers... the move to shorter rifles/carbines for close in and house to house combat seems to be what the future holds.

Unless we go back to trench warfare....

As they say..."Follow The Money" and see who in charge makes a buck or two off this...in the military or in Congress!
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
GPW 108552 4/17/43 Louisville, KY. USA 20371278 (DOD est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3 4582 10/29/42 USA 0173499 (est.)

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 23355
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by wreckless » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:24 pm

Another concern is the newest Russian body armor which defeats current AP rounds. The new rifle round is supposed to address this shortcoming.
Rob

Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

User avatar
lt.luke
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8885
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 8:56 am
Location: O K lahoma
Contact:

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by lt.luke » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:55 am

There have been 6mm rounds for many many years. This could be a COTS solution. I doubt there will be “Billions” in R&D. Probably “Millions.” I know you guys as tax payers think that’s a lot, but it is truly budget dust.

I don’t agree with the 6mm BECAUSE they won’t do the necessary R&D and BECAUSE it’s just a tiny step above what we have. That is an equation for a quick win, achieving overmatch for a very short period of time, then parity quickly and the need for yet another round and more money spent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Luke Sparks
MAJ, FA

GPW Script 12078 viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
2 WWII 1/4T
Dog Pack


nirvana
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:05 pm

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by nirvana » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:03 pm

I'll bet one of my toes that this ends up costing tens of millions of dollars, resulting in a Crimp One Off gun that shoots a Crimp One Off round, and that if any of these guns make it to the field, they will end up being useless in most situations.

The military already runs three times of ammo. If you need a longer hitting round, give a few guys some M-14s with scopes. Oops, we can't do that, Clinton scrapped them all.

Close in, give them the 9mm, for intermediate range using the 5.56mm. Its really not that difficult, the guns and ammo all exist already.
1942 GPW 70219 - Navy Contract - USN 39252
1943 GPW 103565

User avatar
lt.luke
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8885
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 8:56 am
Location: O K lahoma
Contact:

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by lt.luke » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:09 am

nirvana wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:03 pm
I'll bet one of my toes that this ends up costing tens of millions of dollars, resulting in a Crimp One Off gun that shoots a Crimp One Off round, and that if any of these guns make it to the field, they will end up being useless in most situations. So....the M16?

The military already runs three times of ammo. If you need a longer hitting round, give a few guys some M-14s with scopes. Oops, we can't do that, Clinton scrapped them all. We DO have M14s...Designated Marksmen had them in OIF/OEF...AFTER Clinton....

Close in, give them the 9mm (Junk), for intermediate range using the 5.56mm. (junk) Its really not that difficult, the guns and ammo all exist already.
Do you even research, bro? The 5.56 was designed NOT to kill the target. A wounded dude takes three off the battlefield and busys a 4th (the medic)... 9mm was generally for logistics. There is a reason there are 15 of them in the mag and it ain't so you can engage more bad guys before you reload....it's because the 9mm is less than effective. Your point is valid that the guns are out there.... Industry makes relyable, hard hitting .45s and .30s every single day.
Luke Sparks
MAJ, FA

GPW Script 12078 viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
2 WWII 1/4T
Dog Pack

Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 23727
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Novato, CA

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:19 am

Luke...you can't say the 5.56mm was DESIGNED to wound only, take three guys to move the victim and a Medic to treat them. That statement only works on a static battlefield. If you are WINNING then your side has to attend to those casualties which would be a bad plan....If you are losing and retreating who cares how many enemy combatants/medics are "busy". Those wounded are not going to be in combat soon...if ever again.

Seeing as how after WWI there was no rush by foreign governments to the .45acp and after WWII no rush to the .45acp "because the 9mm was less effective". Actually there WAS movement to the 9mm ammo for many European govt's for continuity and for the large number of rounds it could hold. The AK47 came with 30 rd mags for the same reason....a large number of rounds that the M14 did not have.

Same kind of resistance came about over machine guns...they were thought to be "wasteful" of ammo, consequently in both WWI and WWII most govt's had very few of them down to company/squad level...on the other hand, German units of the same size had a LOT of MGs as they valued more rounds going at the enemy over less.

I once saw a study about how over time, it took more and more ammunition to kill just ONE enemy soldier...therefore insuring that YOUR soldiers had more and more rounds available vs. just having a half as many of a higher caliber would be the best plan...

That is why if you take sentimentality out of the equation, a 9mm pistol like a Belgian High-Power from John Browning's design is a better choice in a firefight than a .45acp unless only ONE or TWO enemy are coming at you....if there is a bunch of 'em, good luck with seven rounds! Now, having said that, the argument over WHICH 9mm platform to use has not been settled it seems as nostalgia for the .45acp and specifically the Colt/Remington M1911A1 versions remains to this day.

Sure...you kill the first few SOBs dead when they come at you, but seven rounds vs. 13 or 14 is a no brainer. You hit some guy with no body armor with a 9mm....he's out of the battle, maybe not DEAD but out of it. Russian body armor will take years to filter down to the actual enemies our guys are facing NOW by the way and by then...we might actually be fighting the same enemies anyway.
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
GPW 108552 4/17/43 Louisville, KY. USA 20371278 (DOD est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3 4582 10/29/42 USA 0173499 (est.)

User avatar
W. Winget
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 12:37 pm
Location: USA, Virginia, Carrollton
Contact:

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by W. Winget » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:40 pm

I don't know Chuck, there's plenty of history of the .45 stopping attacks against charges, etc. it's not hard at all to swap out for another 7 quickly and hit target. I slapped a reload magazine into an off the rack .45 in Germany between targets cycling (I still had two round in it during the pause so I didn't swap when scheduled) so hard it round loaded into the chamber without having to hit the release and I continued to fire with expert score. I'm sure YouTube has plenty of rapid fire examples of the piece in expert hands, and maybe that's more important, the distiguishing factor of hitting what your aiming at with the1st round VS tossing out more in hopes of hitting. You likely tend to make a better shot if you know you have limited ammo VS spray and pray.
V/R W WInget
Looking for 1918 Standard B 'Liberty' truck parts

User avatar
lt.luke
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8885
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 8:56 am
Location: O K lahoma
Contact:

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by lt.luke » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:31 pm

Chuck, here in the USofA, we don’t procure our weapons or doctrine for when we are retreating. We assume we will be winning. Maybe after I retire and the snowflakes take over, the Army will shoot thumbs up bullets....but not today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Luke Sparks
MAJ, FA

GPW Script 12078 viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
2 WWII 1/4T
Dog Pack

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9278
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:58 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by Mark Tombleson » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:45 pm

Technology needs to take a leap as any minor change will be met with defensive options to counteract!

Here we are at .22 to .30 for over 100 years... change the diameter a bit, the weight, the velocity. it is all in the same range of weapon.

Pistols from .38 to .45... the same!


How I long for a real Westinghouse M-27 Phased Plasma Pulse Rifle! :D

Or maybe smart bullets, laser weapon, some kind of high speed rail rifle, maybe sonic or microwave rifle with a backpack power source.

We have smart phones, so why can't we figure this out? :shock: :shock: :? :? :roll:
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 23355
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by wreckless » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:16 am

$13 a Shot: US Army’s New 7.62mm XM1158 ADVAP Round Costs HOW MUCH!?

A key part of the capability brought to the table by the US Army’s new Squad Designated Marksman Rifle is its chambering for the 7.62mm round. Specifically, this chambering allows the SDMR to fire the (also brand new) XM1158 Advanced Armor Piercing (ADVAP) round, designed to give the squad the capability to defeat advanced ceramic armors at combat ranges. There may be juuuuust one little problem, though: Cost. The US Army’s Ammunition Budget Justification for Fiscal Year 2019 was released this month; in it was procurement information on the XM1158 ADVAP, and a bit of a shocking sticker price to boot:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... hlight.png
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... htemph.png

This is of course the first year that the ADVAP will enter major production, so it is possible this high price is the byproduct of the economy of scale. Comparing this figure to the same figures in the FY 2013 Budget Estimate for M855A1, and considering that more than a million rounds of ADVAP are being ordered, however, that doesn’t seem to be the case:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... hr2013.png

By 2018, according to the 2019 Justification, the cost for the M855A1 had dropped considerably, to just $0.36 per round ($0.31-$0.40 depending on the packaging):

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-c ... st2019.png

Although this represents a cost reduction of 53% versus the introductory cost, it still doesn’t bode well for the ADVAP: If the reduction is applied the same way, the ADVAP will still cost the Army more than six dollars a round.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018 ... osts-much/
Rob

Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

nirvana
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:05 pm

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by nirvana » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:36 pm

lt.luke wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:09 am
nirvana wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:03 pm
I'll bet one of my toes that this ends up costing tens of millions of dollars, resulting in a Crimp One Off gun that shoots a Crimp One Off round, and that if any of these guns make it to the field, they will end up being useless in most situations. So....the M16?

The military already runs three times of ammo. If you need a longer hitting round, give a few guys some M-14s with scopes. Oops, we can't do that, Clinton scrapped them all. We DO have M14s...Designated Marksmen had them in OIF/OEF...AFTER Clinton....

Close in, give them the 9mm (Junk), for intermediate range using the 5.56mm. (junk) Its really not that difficult, the guns and ammo all exist already.
Do you even research, bro? The 5.56 was designed NOT to kill the target. A wounded dude takes three off the battlefield and busys a 4th (the medic)... 9mm was generally for logistics. There is a reason there are 15 of them in the mag and it ain't so you can engage more bad guys before you reload....it's because the 9mm is less than effective. Your point is valid that the guns are out there.... Industry makes relyable, hard hitting .45s and .30s every single day.
The 5.56 wasn't designed to wound. That's an urban legend.

Clinton destroyed or sent overseas something like 80-90% of the M-14 rifles. There is a reason the army buys aftermarket weapons parts now for some of their stuff. The originals aren't cutting it.
1942 GPW 70219 - Navy Contract - USN 39252
1943 GPW 103565

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9278
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:58 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: New Army 6mm weapon system is still proceeding as planned

Post by Mark Tombleson » Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:05 am

M14 Tactical
Modified M14 using the same stock as the Mk 14 but with a 22-inch barrel and a Smith Enterprise muzzle brake, used by the U.S. Coast Guard.

M14 Designated Marksman Rifle
Main article: United States Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle
Designated marksman version of the M14, used by the U.S. Marine Corps. Replaced by the M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle.

M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle
Main article: M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle
Modified M14 DMR fitted with the same stock as Mk 14, used by the U.S. Marine Corps. Being replaced by the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System.[40]

I agree they are using aftermarket parts and suppliers but they are still in service.

2008 in Now Zad. My son is on the left and he said most of the squads in his company had a Designated Marksman rifle... of course this was ten years ago now.

Image
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

Post Reply

Return to “Weapons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bfryar44, Ernie Baals, nirvana and 3 guests