THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM MODERN MILITARY RIFLES FORUM

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Modern Military Rifles    Sig Sauer Wins New 6.8 Small Arms Contract
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Sig Sauer Wins New 6.8 Small Arms Contract
 Login/Join
 
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted
https://www.army.mil/article/2...quad_weapon_contract

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army announced today the award of a 10-year firm-fixed-price follow-on production contract to Sig Sauer for the manufacture and delivery of two Next Generation Squad Weapon variations (the XM5 Rifle and the XM250 Automatic Rifle) and the 6.8 Common Cartridge Family of Ammunition.

This award was made following a rigorous 27-month prototyping and evaluation effort that included numerous technical tests and Soldier touch points of three competing prototype systems. The value of the initial delivery order on the contract is $20.4 million for weapons and ammunition that will undergo testing. The contract includes accessories, spares and contractor support. It also provides the other Department of Defense services and, potentially, Foreign Military Sales countries the opportunity to purchase the NGSW weapons.

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 Both weapons provide significant capability improvements in accuracy, range and overall lethality. They are lightweight, fire more lethal ammunition, mitigate recoil, provide improved barrel performance, and include integrated muzzle sound and flash reduction.

Both weapons fire common 6.8 millimeter ammunition utilizing government provided projectiles and vendor-designed cartridges. The new ammunition includes multiple types of tactical and training rounds that increase accuracy and are more lethal against emerging threats than both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition.

The XM5 and XM250 will be paired with the XM157 Fire Control, a ruggedized advanced fire control system that increases accuracy and lethality for the close combat force. The XM157 integrates a number of advanced technologies, including a variable magnification optic (1X8), backup etched reticle, laser rangefinder, ballistic calculator, atmospheric sensor suite, compass, Intra-Soldier Wireless, visible and infrared aiming lasers, and a digital display overlay. It is produced by Sheltered Wings Inc. d/b/a Vortex Optics, Barneveld, Wisconsin.
 
Posts: 15527 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Will the optics package be American made ?
 
Posts: 413 | Location: South Pacific NW | Registered: 09 January 2021Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by rcraig:
Will the optics package be American made ?


Yes

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Will be interesting to see how long it takes to roll out. 5.56/308 is entrenched globally in the western world.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Here is a better article from Army times: For those metric challenged this is a .270. Note the composite cartridges; other versions were plastic and steel.
It also operates at 90K psi; I can't wait to build one on a Mauser. (bait)
I have always said that the small arms community could raise pressure by having a steel case head and a steel primer. Now it is a reality.
And these rifles only have 13 inch barrels!
Our tank ammo is steel and compressed propellant. Why not do that?

https://www.armytimes.com/news...ration-squad-weapon/
 
Posts: 15527 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think this may be the first recent hot new military rifle with minimal civilian adoption

Spear/mcx is patent protected
Ammo is $4 a round - hard to be tacticool burning $4 a round ammo for the full mil spec ammo
Barrel 13 inches makes it a sbr
Designed to be used suppressed

Will be interesting to see if LMT or Geissele designs an AR platform gun for the caliber or a watered down 6.8x51.

https://lmtdefense.com/news/in...-6-8-tvc-for-mars-h/

Watered down 6.8x51

https://ammoseek.com/ammo/277-fury


Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
AR platform can't take the pressures. Standard 270-308; boring.
This is the first real evolutionary step in small arms ammo since 1853. But hand/re loading composite cartridge cases will be the challenge, with the plastic version.
Brass/steel composite; I can see that. But we are trying to get away from using brass; a strategic material.
 
Posts: 15527 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd:
AR platform can't take the pressures. Standard 270-308; boring.
This is the first real evolutionary step in small arms ammo since 1853. But hand/re loading composite cartridge cases will be the challenge, with the plastic version.
Brass/steel composite; I can see that. But we are trying to get away from using brass; a strategic material.


The civilian market is going to be stuck in a world of 556/223

6.8x51 does little for hunting that a 308 or 30/06 or 6.5 can’t do

Ar10 are just not popular - expensive and that 1 pound bolt carrier group bouncing back and forth makes for fewer tacticool users.

Glad the military is moving forward - a hybrid 6mm arc might be interesting.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I fail to see how this is revolutionary or “better”.

I have no issue with trying something new to see if it works better, but suspect political nefariousness is more the likelihood.

They have been wanting to get guns that no civilian can have for some time.

With Biden’s bragging about all military vehicles being made “planet friendly” and bragging about how he gets to spend our money to get his goal, I have no trust in this.

How is a 90-100kpsi rifle doing magnum velocities, wearing out faster, with strategic supplies needed to make any an improvement?

Sure, the rifle weighs in at 2or so pounds less than old style manufacturing for similar performance, but it’s still a like amount heavier than the current arm, the ammo will be heavier, combat loads fewer rounds, etc.

So far the only “gain” is that it can’t really be reloaded. The ammo would be more difficult for less specialized plants to make (sure, the can do it at Lake City, but that will be it…)

A traditional rifle at current loadings can meet the round bullet/velocity specs. It’s not a “revolutionary” improvement, but rather a marginal improvement.

I bet the end result will weigh about what an M14 does, the ammo will be about 80% of what .308 does, and it will require downloading because too many troops will prove unable to handle the recoil, and they will either have to change the specs for durability or it will fail them.

This will be another marginal cost increase, that’s all. It looks like big green is continuing its arc of planning for the last war we were in… long range engagement by soldiers without using supporting arms.
 
Posts: 8357 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
I didn't say it was Revolutionary; I said it was Evolutionary. Big difference.
"Better" is in the eye of the requirements documents. Not in terms of civilian users. And one requirement is the proliferation of body armor, particularly in the _______ Army. The 5.56 cannot meet the spec with regard to that.
We'll see how it works in practice. As for recoil, it is very low. I can't say how I know that.
This is why I never wanted to work in Small Arms; everyone is an Expert, or thinks he or she is; military and civilian. I worked in Tank Armament; the experts are few, and real.
 
Posts: 15527 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of scottfromdallas
posted Hide Post
They load it to 80k PSI. It’s going to burn out barrels and wear out the rifles. I predict a lot of broken parts.



 
Posts: 1941 | Location: Texas | Registered: 19 July 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd:
I didn't say it was Revolutionary; I said it was Evolutionary. Big difference.
"Better" is in the eye of the requirements documents. Not in terms of civilian users. And one requirement is the proliferation of body armor, particularly in the _______ Army. The 5.56 cannot meet the spec with regard to that.
We'll see how it works in practice. As for recoil, it is very low. I can't say how I know that.
This is why I never wanted to work in Small Arms; everyone is an Expert, or thinks he or she is; military and civilian. I worked in Tank Armament; the experts are few, and real.


It is interesting that US is moving to 6.8x51 and India moved back to 7.62x51 for its frontline infantry
troops facing China. For India sig built 144k ar-10 rifles and scaled up in 24 months.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Bill/Oregon
posted Hide Post
An M4 carbine with loaded 30-round magazine weighs 7.3 pounds. The Sig XM5 with empty 20-round magazine weighs 8.38 pounds. Loaded, I am guessing the SIG will be close to a 9-pound rifle.
Seems like a significant difference. Wonder what the infantry will think of it.


There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t.
– John Green, author
 
Posts: 15030 | Location: Sweetwater, TX | Registered: 03 June 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
An M4 carbine with loaded 30-round magazine weighs 7.3 pounds. The Sig XM5 with empty 20-round magazine weighs 8.38 pounds. Loaded, I am guessing the SIG will be close to a 9-pound rifle.
Seems like a significant difference. Wonder what the infantry will think of it.


Happy that they have a weapon system to use against Chinese body armour.

https://www.made-in-china.com/...ucts/Body_Armor.html

70 percent of global body armour is already made in China.

https://www.bodyarmornews.com/...ese-army-body-armor/

Given the quality of my iPhone, iPad, strike eagle vortex scope and bunch of other low price okay quality Chinese products. These guys have a real industrial base.

The us military knows that it needs to fight the next war.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Bill/Oregon
posted Hide Post
Mike, do you think "the next war" will be fought by soldiers with rifles, or will the heroes be the guys with backhoes who can bury the millions upon millions of dead?


There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t.
– John Green, author
 
Posts: 15030 | Location: Sweetwater, TX | Registered: 03 June 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
While I get the need for improved armor penetration, I’m not so sure a overpressure .270 short is the answer.

Recoil mitigation is probably purely a function of the suppressor, and while I see the advantages of that in some situations, the weight, size, and heat signature makes me wonder how well it will serve, especially in an overpressure select fire rifle.

Is this new round that much more effective than .308 (or .30-06) AP on armor? Makes me question “evolutionary” or if this really is progress.

Traditionally, rifle fire was more used to control the enemy’s movement, and they were killed/neutralized by crew served weapons (artillery, tank cannon, air attack) supporting the troops.

I guess what I’m getting at is if we need to go back to a true full power cartridge, I fail to see how this is evolutionary. The US can produce traditional .308/.30-06 style ammo for a heck of a lot less money than $4/round, and a modest weight savings for what, 10x cost increases with significant issues with your logistical chain seem silly.

How much of this is change for the sake of change, vs. actual improvements?

I had thought we had fought out the need for lighter weapons and larger combat load ammunition supply before this?

The usual complaint I’ve heard from the line folks is that the M4 is “old” and “we haven’t had a new rifle in 60 years” yet to look at that rifle in the photos it’s externally very similar to an AR. I don’t get how this is evolutionary, as we haven’t even determined if providing all troops with suppressors and high degree of electronic monitoring/interaction of weapon systems would be helpful, let alone practical.

I get that this is more a troop trial than an actual change.

I also am thinking some of this is being driven by imperatives other than a more lethal and effective infantry rifle.
 
Posts: 8357 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Mike, do you think "the next war" will be fought by soldiers with rifles, or will the heroes be the guys with backhoes who can bury the millions upon millions of dead?


I have no idea what the next war will be but when I see the USMC doing a institutional dna transformation from being a offensive force to being a defensive force. At least the us military or large parts of it are planning to fight in the South China Sea area.

Only way the Chinese kill millions of Americans is with pandemic that we just had d I think it was natural of Chinese geographic origin.

Wars and most events in the future are tough to predict and beyond my pay grade.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
While I get the need for improved armor penetration, I’m not so sure a overpressure .270 short is the answer.

Recoil mitigation is probably purely a function of the suppressor, and while I see the advantages of that in some situations, the weight, size, and heat signature makes me wonder how well it will serve, especially in an overpressure select fire rifle.

Is this new round that much more effective than .308 (or .30-06) AP on armor? Makes me question “evolutionary” or if this really is progress.

Traditionally, rifle fire was more used to control the enemy’s movement, and they were killed/neutralized by crew served weapons (artillery, tank cannon, air attack) supporting the troops.

I guess what I’m getting at is if we need to go back to a true full power cartridge, I fail to see how this is evolutionary. The US can produce traditional .308/.30-06 style ammo for a heck of a lot less money than $4/round, and a modest weight savings for what, 10x cost increases with significant issues with your logistical chain seem silly.

How much of this is change for the sake of change, vs. actual improvements?

I had thought we had fought out the need for lighter weapons and larger combat load ammunition supply before this?

The usual complaint I’ve heard from the line folks is that the M4 is “old” and “we haven’t had a new rifle in 60 years” yet to look at that rifle in the photos it’s externally very similar to an AR. I don’t get how this is evolutionary, as we haven’t even determined if providing all troops with suppressors and high degree of electronic monitoring/interaction of weapon systems would be helpful, let alone practical.

I get that this is more a troop trial than an actual change.

I also am thinking some of this is being driven by imperatives other than a more lethal and effective infantry rifle.


The sig spear based on the sig mcx required 2 captive screws to to loosened and barrel changed from 6.8x51 to 308 to 6.5.

The military does not change systems like impulse consumer purchases.

And it is not us military going that path - everyone facing China is doing the same or will be doing the same.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
This is why I never wanted to work in Small Arms; everyone is an Expert, or thinks he or she is;


DPCD, my favorite Pres Eisenhower quote, "The only two fields of endeavor where the amateurs think they are better than the professionals are military strategy and prostitution."

The US had data that a 27-28 cal was significantly better than 30 back in the early 50s (Brit development) but forced the 308 on everyone because we had so much 30 cal machinery and infrastructure left over from WW2. That machinery is long gone now so it would be a really bad reason to not make the switch, again. I honestly think if we'd gone with something in the 264-270 cal range back then that (given the massive institutional inertia) the 223 might never have seen the light of day resulting in untold tens of billions in savings over the last 60 years.


DRSS

"If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?"
 
Posts: 767 | Location: Big Timber, MT | Registered: 14 November 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Wstrnhuntr
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd:
Here is a better article from Army times: For those metric challenged this is a .270. Note the composite cartridges; other versions were plastic and steel.
It also operates at 90K psi; I can't wait to build one on a Mauser. (bait)
I have always said that the small arms community could raise pressure by having a steel case head and a steel primer. Now it is a reality.
And these rifles only have 13 inch barrels!
Our tank ammo is steel and compressed propellant. Why not do that?


It seems to me things are entering into a new realm for reloaders. What are your thoughts on the effects of said new round on the prospects of reloading? Seems like it could become at least a higher risk endeavor, and with the composite/plastic stuff a no go.
The prospect of a $4.00 per round non reloadable ammunition rifle doesnt really make me want to be the first in line to get one.
I wonder if this could spawn a lower pressure commercial version of a 270/308? There is bound to be an uptick in .277 bullet options.
 
Posts: 9832 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Wstrnhuntr
posted Hide Post
As a side note. It only took the military somewhere around 90 years to realize that maybe Jack O'Connor might have been onto something. I guess that's not too bad for moving at the speed of government red tape. Big Grin
 
Posts: 9832 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Wstrnhuntr
posted Hide Post
After I thought about this a bit I realized that it would be easy to make run of the mill brass and work up a load for this chambering. It doesnt HAVE to be a higher than normal pressure round. I'm still curious how the stainless based cases would work out for reloading though. Maybe I could use some for my 260 loads.
 
Posts: 9832 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
After I thought about this a bit I realized that it would be easy to make run of the mill brass and work up a load for this chambering. It doesnt HAVE to be a higher than normal pressure round. I'm still curious how the stainless based cases would work out for reloading though. Maybe I could use some for my 260 loads.


Sig had played around with 6.5 cm with case technology can boost fps by 300. I would like to see it offered to retail consumers. Blaser r8 should handle psi.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Mike_Dettorre
posted Hide Post
I am hoping that someone "duplicates" the cartridge with an all brass case and loads it to ~62K PSI and SAAMIs it.

A .277 projectile in a 308 class case is extremely efficient. A 270/08 AI has already been shown to generate near 270 win velocities.


Mike



What I have learned on AR, since 2001:
1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken.
2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps.
3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges.
4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down.
5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine.
6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.
7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions.
8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA.
9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not.
10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact.
11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores.
12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 100 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence.
13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances.
 
Posts: 9762 | Location: Loving retirement in Boise, ID | Registered: 16 December 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Modern Military Rifles    Sig Sauer Wins New 6.8 Small Arms Contract

Copyright December 1997-2022 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia