SIG Talk banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Initial fielding of new systems is like that - when we entered Afghanistan with the blue ACU camo it was initially found to be the huge mistake it was ordained to be, and Muliticam was quickly adopted and shipped (quick for the bureaucracy the Army is.) The rest of the Army soldiered on, and the General Officer who approved ACU has yet to be revealed.

This adoption has been much more open and transparent considering it's an ongoing effort over 20+ years. One point of contention I have with is the metallic cartridge. It's not bad IE poor engineering or morally, the entire upgrade was predicated on research into a caseless round - which morphed into a telescoped, then a polymer case, and now this.

We (soldiers) were supposed to get a 45% reduction in ammo weight and also eliminate recovering brass on the range - all the benefits of a lighter weight case with no strategic material acquisition and cheap recycling of resins. Didn't happen. I will be blunt - we got shafted again. So did the taxpayer.

20 years of research and back to square one. All we really got was 85K barrel pressures in a wildcat .308 case using a .270 bullet. Win win for the military industrial complex, bigger heavier gun and ammo for the soldier. His overall load now has to be reallocated and something Command insisted he carry has no room on the final weight list. This battle of too much gear too heavy has been going on since The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation was written by SLA Marshal and published in the 1950's. I bought my copy at the post bookstore on Ft Benning in 1984 and Command has let things get much much worse.

As far as civilian sales go - and they will, it's already announced and planned - this round competes with the 6.5 Creedmore in ballistics and I'm not going back to that silly debate. Neither fit into the AR chassis as designed, one maker offers a small framed AR that takes .308 sized mags. I can see them moving into that as quickly as they can to revive interest. The AR10 would also be prime for that cartridge but it's a fractured market - there are two competing frame designs which aren't compatible, because American never adopted it and there is no official pattern other than the original purchased in the late 1950's overseas. And there is the practical results for hunters - a .308 will do pretty much the same, and there is already extensive supply chain support.

As for the rifle itself it will be a while before it's sold publicly. I expected it to be restricted but the anti gunners apparently blew their opportunity. Since it will likely be in the $3,000 range it will limited. Might as well buy a FN or Masada, no custom parts or upgrades available. It will be like owning an HK - I did - sold it. Large bulky heavy. Expect a deluge of complaints from the official users, I bet the CSM's are already popping pills in anticipation of feedback from the soldiers. 15 more pounds in gun and ammo weight is not going to sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
As for the rifle itself it will be a while before it's sold publicly.
It already is sold to the public. A limited number are being sold at 8K plus the cost of two tax stamps. A "street legal" version is coming soon. The changes needed are minor. All you need is 8K minimum. Plus a few grand more for the optics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
It already is sold to the public. A limited number are being sold at 8K plus the cost of two tax stamps. A "street legal" version is coming soon. The changes needed are minor. All you need is 8K minimum. Plus a few grand more for the optics.
That answered my first question. Nice!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,084 Posts
If the military sends the ammo orders to the lowest bidder, ruptured cases at 80K psi may result. The danger to the solders on top of logistical and load out concerns versus the minor improvement in fighting capability make this a "no go" for NATO countries IMO. So, I don't think there will be widespread adoption of the NGSW.

Surplus rifles might be interesting in the future though.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
The trials seemed like it was sigs to lose all along. They were the safest choice and would take the least amount of time to transition from a similar manual of arms. Time will tell if this was a good move, but for me I think the weight of the gun and ammo is an issue, especially as they’re trying to be more inclusive to female soldiers, but hey what do I know…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Great, another caliber to "standardize" on. 5.56x45 works just fine for CQC and I like being able to carry more of it. It was far ahead of its time, this round is behind the times.

I know it's been a long time coming, but I didn't think they'd actually go through with this stupidity. It was found during WWII that most engagements take place at close quarters anyways, and a lot of firing is just bluffing the other soldier. So what was the point of those studies I guess if they're just gonna ignore all the data to put a crappier version of a .270 in the soldier's hands. But it's a "game changer". Right? So the marketing always says.

I think they should change the name to .268CR (.268 [email protected] Rifle). Sorry a bit pessimistic today..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The trials seemed like it was sigs to lose all along. They were the safest choice and would take the least amount of time to transition from a similar manual of arms. Time will tell if this was a good move, but for me I think the weight of the gun and ammo is an issue, especially as they’re trying to be more inclusive to female soldiers, but hey what do I know…
The person in the video thinks the main reason the US did not choose the Bullpup was that model cannot be used as belt feed and the Army wanted mag and belt feed.
He also stated that the Army wants a conversion of the (I think) m60.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
That thought crossed my mind too. 6.8 isn't even that common in the US right now.
My through as well. Back in the day the US forced all NATO to adopt the 5.56mm.
Today the US does not have that much power to force other countries.
Granted many things have changed and other countries military have adopted body Armour and the 5.56mm does not work as well.
If the US military does order the amounts of ammo they usually order, then later the 6.8mm hybrid will be more common for the civilian market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Steyr was able to make a mag/belt feed bullpup back in the mid-70's. Maybe it's not possible anymore with our current lack of technology.

He also stated that the Army wants a conversion of the (I think) m60.
That would be odd. There are better and lighter designs out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,317 Posts
It will be interesting to hear the opinions of the Sigites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Papa Sig

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Its been covered, but is BIG NEWS, and definitely deserves additional looks.
Sig basically walked away with this contract based on sticking to the guidelines of the request for proposal, and coming in waaayyy under other entries.

This round is crazy! It basically hits like a 300 WinMag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
I really hope Sig got it right this time. I do. But based on the MCX track record of how many generations that platform has gone through the last 6 years, and Sig's track record of making payers be their beta testers, I am nervous. But if this is solid, this is something we've needed for ages.

The cartridge is what has my attention. .30 rounds (.30-06 and .308) are fine for crew served, but a bit much for rifle/carbines and nearly useless at full auto for the average trooper. And .556 just doesn't have the knock down power a battlefield needs. It is interesting how many times in the last 100 years boards keep looking at a 6.5 to 7mm round. But outside a few nations, most usually go a different route, and most fore a facepalm-able reason.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top