Military Review

NGSW program: what will become the main weapon of the American army

67

Glyph of Power



The main symbol of the US Ground Forces is not the Abrams, not the M2 infantry fighting vehicle, and not the Apache helicopter. For many decades of operation of the M16 rifle and its versions, this particular complex has become the hallmark of the US Army. The M16 carbine developed on the basis of the M2A4, in spite of the slightly reduced characteristics in comparison with an automatic rifle, almost completely satisfied the ground forces. But time goes on, forming new requirements. Back in the 90s, the German company Heckler & Koch made a loud announcement with its new HK G36 machine made with the wide use of high-strength polymers. The US Army wanted to get its conditional counterpart: it resulted in a project commonly known as the XM8. The machine was tested in the army back in the 2000s, but it did not go further. At first, the Pentagon wanted to take into account not only the requirements of the ground forces, but also other types of armed forces. And then the flaws that were characteristic of any new weapons. In 2005, the project was officially closed.

At some stage, it began to seem that the M4 carbine is “eternal”, like the low-pulse intermediate cartridge 5,56 × 45 mm. However, the eternal competition of armor and weapons has already said its weighty word these days. So, Russian equipment "Warrior", including body armor 6B45, is able to withstand ten hits from a sniper rifle Dragunov. And then the Chinese pulled themselves up with their claims to world leadership ...


American fears resulted in the Next Generation Squad Weapons program, designed to find a replacement for both the M4 carbine and the M249 light machine gun. Accordingly, the program consists of the project NGSW-R (Next Generation Squad Weapon Rifle), which aims to replace the M4, and NGSW-AR (Next Generation Squad Weapon Automatic Rifle), aimed at getting a new machine gun. At the heart of everything lies a fundamentally new 6,8 mm bimetallic cartridge, characterized by increased muzzle velocity and firing range, as well as low weight. The initial velocity of the bullet is 976 m / s: it is assumed that the initial energy of the bullet exceeds the initial energy of the bullets of most cartridges of 7,62 × 51 mm caliber. In the West, the new cartridge is positioned as “capable of penetrating any body armor”, however, we will not get into discussions and analyze technical nuances now. For now, just see who will compete for the right to become the main weapon of the US Ground Forces.

Previously, the following companies became participants in the competition:

VK Integrated Systems
Bachstein consulting
MARS Inc.
Cobalt kinetics
AAI Corporation Textron Systems
General Dynamics-OTS Inc
Sig Sauer Inc.
Fn america LLC
PCP Tactical, LLC

The finalists of the tender for the supply of a new generation NGSW shooting complex were:

Sig sauer
General Dynamics
Textron

They must deliver to the troops experimental batches of rifles and machine guns, the official comparative tests of which will be carried out in 2021. If everything goes according to plan, in the first quarter of 2022 the final draft of the rifle and machine gun will be chosen and the winner will begin to massively supply them to the troops.

Sig sauer



In May, the Military.com portal announced that the US Special Operations Forces will receive small arms samples created as part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon program. The experience gained should allow the army team to better determine which complex is most suitable for them. And the other day it became known about the supply of the first rifles and machine guns developed as part of the NGSW.

The ground forces received the MCX-SPEAR rifle and the SIG-LMG-6.8 machine gun, created by SIG Sauer. The MCX Spear was developed based on the SIG MCX modular platform. According to the portal Modern Firearms, it uses traditional gas exhaust automation with an upper gas piston with a short stroke. The gas unit is equipped with a two-position gas regulator. The barrel is locked by a rotary shutter. The return spring of the bolt is located above the bolt group, in the upper part of the receiver.

As for the machine gun, its ergonomics and recoil should correspond to the M4 indicators with a mass of less than 6,8 kilograms. All systems are equipped with new SLX silencers, which, thanks to optimized removal of powder gases, minimize the visibility of the shooter in the infrared spectrum.

The offer from SIG Sauer can be conditionally called “conservative”, although it has been implemented taking into account modern technologies. In general, the features of the complexes are seen as advantages rather than disadvantages that increase SIG Sauer's chances of success.

General Dynamics



Last year, General Dynamics announced its participation in the Next Generation Squad Weapon contest. As part of the competition, she offers a RM277 submachine gun made in bullpup layout. It uses 6,8 mm cartridges with a polymer case: this solution is designed to reduce their weight. According to experts, for the complex they used depreciation of the recoil of the firing unit (barrel with receiver) to mitigate a fairly strong return. Two-way fuse-translator: it is located above the pistol grip of the fire control.

The weapon has a rather unusual silencer, which, due to its shape and impressive size, has already been compared to an aluminum can. It also serves as a flame arrester.

The most controversial in RM277 is the aforementioned bullpup layout, in which the trigger is pulled forward and positioned in front of the magazine and percussion mechanism. The advantage of the layout is that it can significantly reduce the total length of the weapon without changing the length of the barrel. But it has no fewer minuses, or even more: this is the location of the store, which makes reloading much more difficult, the complexity of using large-capacity stores, and the location of the center of gravity of the weapon, unusual for many. A case in point: earlier France decided to abandon the famous FAMAS, executed according to the bullpup scheme, and as a substitute called HK 416, made according to the "usual" scheme. But more importantly, the Americans, being well-known innovators in the field of small arms, do not particularly favor bullpups. In any case, such complexes have never been used by land forces on a mass basis.

Textron



The prospects of the complex developed by the American company Textron are even more ambiguous. The weapon created in the framework of the NGSW-R project uses telescopic cartridges of a cylindrical shape, where the bullet is completely recessed into a plastic sleeve. AAI has been developing this cartridge for many years as part of the LSAT program. It is assumed that such a solution will reduce the mass of weapons and take with them more ammunition.

The weapons were equipped with a sophisticated ammunition supply system with a movable chamber. On the other hand, in terms of ergonomics, the new machine is similar to the rifles and carbines currently in use. It is also known that ammunition is supplied from plastic magazines with a capacity of 20 rounds, and sights can be installed on the Picatinny rail on the receiver cover and forend.

Recall, Textron previously showed a machine gun designed to change the M249. He will receive tape nutrition.


Regardless of the potential advantages and disadvantages of each of these complexes, there are no guarantees that the US Army will replace its M4 and M249 with new complexes. We have already witnessed more than once how ambitious US Army rearmament programs ended in nothing.
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 8 June 2020 05: 16 New
    +1
    Will the US have enough money for such a rearmament ... it’s expensive is a pleasure.
    1. Grading
      Grading 8 June 2020 05: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Will the US have enough money for such a rearmament ... it’s expensive is a pleasure.


    2. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 8 June 2020 06: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Will the US have enough money for such a rearmament ... expensive is a pleasure

      23 trillion public debt ... but what problems ... they will still print ... wassat
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 8 June 2020 12: 43 New
      +3
      Shooter? No, not expensive. Cheaper than one submarine, there was a comparison.
    4. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 8 June 2020 16: 19 New
      0
      They have enough ... then we will have to do something. China has already taken such a cartridge into service.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 19 June 2020 00: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Zaurbek
        That's enough for them ..

        unlikely to be enough. 200 projects closed in 2018, on which composite materials were replaced with steel to save, etc.
        it turns out not to print wink
        and they won’t get a car, not the one that the army needs, but the one that lobbyists will sell in Congress, that is, representatives of corporations, which means that both the machine and the ammunition will be expensive yes
    5. The comment was deleted.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 8 June 2020 06: 32 New
    0
    Telescopic cartridges ... Bullpup circuit ... Original. Rearm the army on such ... exotic. it is really VERY expensive. And it will take considerable time.
    1. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. 8 June 2020 17: 41 New
      -1
      There was an info like a rifle and a machine gun was chosen from Zig-Sauer. The truth will be done in factories in the United States.
      They meet the requirements - rifle with sights and silencer - effective fire 600m. Machine gun with a sight and a silencer-effective fire of 2500 m!
  3. Ros 56
    Ros 56 8 June 2020 07: 15 New
    -2
    Well, when he dumps it in sand and dust, or even liquid mud, shakes it off and starts shooting, then you can talk about something.
    1. Suhoy
      Suhoy 8 June 2020 07: 22 New
      0
      One question - why so mock weapons? On the contrary, it must be protected from such procedures.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 8 June 2020 08: 46 New
        +1
        We have the cult of Kalashnikov, everything should be in the sand, mud, and that’s all. Although, oddly enough, the old and good sword here will be out of competition, but the AK is still in service.
        Of course, small arms for the army should be reliable, but you should not get to fanaticism.
        There, I immediately remember a recent clip from the Kalashnikov channel, how they mocked rifles there, poured water and allowed to freeze. But what sane person would allow this to happen to his weapon? If allowed, then this is a natural selection. It's like meeting a chicken nuggets.
        The same thing about sand and dirt. Of course, you can fall into the mud and the sand, but not so plentifully fall asleep / fill them in moving parts! For this, any sergeant hangs, be healthy and be right!
        In general, such a wretched soldier - you need to take your hands off! Any weapon requires care, no matter what system, AK, AR, in the evening you take apart and clean it from soot and other joys. This rule is!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 June 2020 08: 59 New
          11
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Of course, you can fall into the mud and the sand, but not so plentifully fall asleep / fill them in moving parts! For this, any sergeant hangs, be healthy and be right!

          I absolutely agree.
          Sergeant is a hoo-hoo what a figure.
          He orders, and the dirt from the machine of the fallen soldier evaporates. He orders that the rain stops and the puddles dry instantly, the dust storm subsides, the helicopter ceases to lift any rubbish off the ground with its main rotor, the surface of the reservoirs becomes hard and the soldiers can walk on it without even soaking their feet.

          And the sergeant can order the enemy to “stand, time out”, after which his soldiers can calmly and without interference clean their personal weapons before entering the battle.

          So why is this nonsense with dust-water-dirt? This is for those who don't have superhero sergeants. With panties over pants laughing laughing laughing
          1. Uncle Izya
            Uncle Izya 8 June 2020 20: 15 New
            0
            And in the USSR army they painted grass and what
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 June 2020 20: 32 New
              0
              Quote: Uncle Izya
              And in the USSR army they painted grass and what

              And everyone knows about it.
              According to a neighbor who has been in the army
              1. Uncle Izya
                Uncle Izya 9 June 2020 20: 45 New
                0
                Served in the ovens?
              2. Alex.ET
                Alex.ET 4 August 2020 22: 17 New
                0
                I personally painted it white - the color of the border.
                I personally saw how they cut the grass between the plates of the parade ground with clerical scissors.
                I personally dug "from here and in that direction" ... a lot of dubious things happened at the military department in 4 years
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 August 2020 07: 00 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alex.ET
                  at the military department

                  Yes, this is the most, that neither is the army 8)))))))
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 8 June 2020 22: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: Uncle Izya
              And in the USSR army they painted grass and what

              And such orders have logic:
              a soldier is trained to carry out ANY command, no matter how logical it may seem to a soldier. First, do it, and then you can appeal to a higher authority. In general, weaned from arguing with those who give orders, which, especially in combat conditions, is not acceptable.
        2. pereselenec
          pereselenec 8 June 2020 11: 03 New
          +5
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          We have the cult of Kalashnikov, everything should be in the sand, mud, and that’s all. Although, oddly enough, the old and good sword here will be out of competition, but the AK is still in service.


          It’s just that local goofs who held the AK a couple of times during urgency live by the myths that the AK de is incredibly resistant to pollution and breaks the rail. Along. And a couple of abrams hiding behind her. Right through. Not a couple of soulless M16, in short. This myth has been around since the Vietnam War, when the installation parties of M16 caused a lot of criticism in the troops. The main problem there was from another gunpowder (which the cartridge manufacturer put into production without notifying the designers). Thus, the M16 was tested with some cartridges, and then began to fight with others. This led to a blockage of the thin vent pipe, which had nothing to clean. This problem, by the way, was fixed back in the 70s.

          But despite this, since then, any idiot has a firm belief that M16 (and its derivatives and descendants such as AR, M4) wedge off any speck of dust and that, they say, the Americans in Vietnam / Iraq immediately threw away their guns and picked up AK when first opportunity.

          The cruel truth is that modern M16 descendants are more reliable than AK.




          Although it’s more reliable - that AK, that western assault rifles are plus or minus the same thing, but without the necessary care, any weapon will misfire.
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 8 June 2020 11: 12 New
            0
            The cruel truth is that modern M16 descendants are more reliable than AK.

            Here you are lying without batting an eye.
            If you are a M16 fan, this does not mean that this rifle is better than Kalash ...
            how many studied videos of the Syrian and Iraqi war, most fighters prefer to fight with Kalash ... AK out of competition.
            1. pereselenec
              pereselenec 8 June 2020 11: 19 New
              +5
              Quote: The same Lech
              how many studied videos of the Syrian and Iraqi war, most fighters prefer to fight with the Kalash.


              Well, with the rollers, of course you can’t argue. The fact that both in Syria and Iraq the AK was the main automatic machine of the army for half a century, that it had stockpiles over there, and that it was both government forces and the opposition that had massive access to it (while other types of automatic weapons were sent to the opposition by a thin stream due to boundary) to such a "preference" of no relation, of course, do not.

              Quote: The same Lech
              If you are a fan of M16

              I am a fan of my wife. And sacralizing fools is not for me.
              1. Same lech
                Same lech 8 June 2020 11: 27 New
                -1
                other types of automatic weapons were sent to the opposition by a thin stream from abroad

                Yeah ... smile the opposition delivered weapons from old stockpiles from Eastern Europe ... and not a thin stream but massive deliveries ... the story of warehouses in Iraq was especially touched ... when the Ishil terrorists seized weapons carefully stored by the Americans for them.
                For a war with large masses of people, AK is the best machine ... cheap, simple and reliable, and cartridges for it are scattered around the world.
                1. pereselenec
                  pereselenec 8 June 2020 11: 54 New
                  +4
                  Quote: The same Lech
                  Yeah ... the opposition delivered weapons from old stocks from Eastern Europe ... and not a thin stream but massive deliveries ...


                  Please name the machine made in Eastern Europe during the Warsaw Pact, whose stocks are in large quantities in warehouses. I will help you: the first letter "A". Will you name the whole word or will you spin the drum? laughing
                  1. Same lech
                    Same lech 8 June 2020 11: 59 New
                    +1
                    AK was produced in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria. smile ... why turn the barrel organ ... where did the stocks of these weapons from these countries go?
            2. would
              would 9 June 2020 09: 11 New
              0
              The fighters, by definition, have no choice, and as a result of some preference that they gave \ found and are fighting.
            3. Suhoy
              Suhoy 11 June 2020 11: 47 New
              0
              Did this majority have a choice? They gave the Bulgarian AK and it’s good that it’s not Egyptian.
            4. Oprichnik
              Oprichnik 16 June 2020 22: 45 New
              0
              I had the opportunity to shoot four stores from the M16. Every 5-6 cartridge had to be sent using the send button, in addition to it, it seemed to me somehow unprincipled. Immediately after her shot from the PKK-song!
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 27 July 2020 03: 44 New
                0
                I ran with M16 for 6 years. Yes, with M16A2 and not M4, I'm a medic, and I don't need to clear buildings, so they gave M16. So I have not encountered such problems. There were problems for me and others if the stores were damaged / bent. There were problems when people forgot to close the "dust cover" and there was a lot of dust. There were problems. Dust in Iraq is generally interesting, like flour is as fine. But if the rifle was cleaned at least once a day and after every shootout, there was no problem. As a rule, the rifle should be cleaned AT LEAST once a day, always covered from dust and cleaned every time after it was fired.
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 8 June 2020 11: 57 New
            +9
            Quote: pereselenec
            The cruel truth is that modern M16 descendants are more reliable than AK

            I would put it this way: both the AR-15 and AK today are mature and time-tested platforms and quite similar in terms of operational characteristics, including reliability. And then the nuances of production (a lot of crappy "Kalashoids" are coming into force in the world) and services ("Kalash" are also easy to spoil to complete incapacity) come into force.
          3. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 June 2020 12: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: pereselenec
            But despite this, since then any idiot has a firm belief that M16 (and its derivatives and descendants of the type AP, M4) wedge from any speck of dust

            And are you absolutely sure that the videos you submitted were created specifically for these "idiots"?
            laughing laughing laughing
            And think about it?
          4. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 8 June 2020 20: 25 New
            +2
            Yes, I know the story about Turkish gunpowder, about the fact that the soldiers were also not given funds for servicing weapons.
            It was a long time ago, problems were fixed a long time ago, now AR'ki are reliable rifles.
            Regarding the vidos: AK whose - is unknown. What cartridges were - is unknown. Take our cartridges, the same "Barnaul" FMJ. Well, this is complete out! This is me about 7.62x39.
          5. would
            would 9 June 2020 10: 12 New
            +4
            The cruel truth is that modern M16 descendants are more reliable than AK.


            Which is not true. The same KK did comparative tests only on icing and in them both AR and HK416 failed. Actually, the comparative capriciousness of AR is an extremely well-known fact recognized even by the Americans themselves, which is why they wildly thoroughly clean it several times a day.



            As for your video, it shows only one of the many copies of AK. Very often, these and our GOST do not pass.
          6. Alexander Samoilov
            Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 15: 28 New
            +1
            Bullshit. A weapon is a technical system subject to the laws of physics. And she is always the fruit of compromise. A gain in some properties is paid for by a loss in others. But the main principle - the more details, the more complex the system, and the more complex the lower the fault tolerance. The AK has only 95 parts. In any modification of AR there are more than a hundred. Therefore, even theoretically, the latter cannot be more reliable. In addition, its accuracy is higher than AK due to the smaller backlash of all elements of the trigger. As a result, it is much more sensitive to pollution. Therefore, in Vietnam, the main problem was not gunpowder. Colt experts considered critical pollution to be the cause of most failures. Details in the book: https://b-ok.cc/book/5234443/402dc4 However, the main and fatal mistake of Stoner is the pistonless DGD. Thanks to him, he managed to eliminate the shoulder of strength and soften the work of automation. Which again positively affected accuracy. But it became the cause of many problems that could not be eliminated to this day. A long gas pipeline is prone to damage. When the forend breaks (which is not uncommon in combat conditions), it also fails. After completely immersed in water, the rifle cannot shoot before drying. Gunpowder gases freely penetrate into the receiver, covering the ejector and reflector with soot, with all the ensuing consequences. In addition to Vietnam, there are known cases of AR mass failure: an ambush on company 507 Rombat in An-Nasiriya in 2003 and the battle at Vatan in 2008. Well, the opinion of people using both trunks is also not in favor of AR: https://www.dailykos.com / stories / 2005/11/15/165149 / -
        3. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 19 June 2020 00: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          But what sane person would allow this to happen to his weapon?

          hmm .. that is, in your opinion, a war is when shooters gather at an indoor shooting range, shoot at targets and so determine who won, and the losers leave sadly with their heads down?
          you have very interesting ideas about fighting wassat
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 June 2020 08: 50 New
        +5
        Quote: SUhoy
        One question - why so mock weapons? On the contrary, it must be protected from such procedures.

        Need to protect. But this does not always work out. Therefore, the ability to work not in greenhouse conditions is required.
        1. Suhoy
          Suhoy 11 June 2020 11: 55 New
          -2
          Well, if you do not forget to close the curtain on the AR after firing, then it is better than AK in terms of protection against contaminants. One slot in the receiver is worth. Something tells me that AKs under 5,45 are not much more resistant to contamination compared to AR. If not equal at all.
      3. Ros 56
        Ros 56 8 June 2020 09: 09 New
        0
        Do you think that the war is to press buttons on a computer? Then I have no questions.

        Py Sy Well Well, for clarity, do not even look at war, but at least the delivery of the standard for maroon beret takes, even Kalashnikov sometimes shuts up, which is where it is insulting to tears.
        1. Suhoy
          Suhoy 11 June 2020 11: 58 New
          -1
          As I answered above, if you do not forget to close the curtain on the AR, then the ingress of pollutants from outside is generally excluded. Well, as modern grades of gunpowder, which the Americans use, there is no point in doubting.
        2. Suhoy
          Suhoy 11 June 2020 12: 26 New
          0
          If it speaks of protection against getting dirt in the receiver, then the undisputed leader is the Belgian F2000. The sleeve is ejected from the front through the channel in the plastic. The only way dirt can come from is through the store. But this is typical for any weapon with store-fed.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 19 June 2020 00: 44 New
            0
            Quote: SUhoy
            If it speaks of protection against getting dirt in the receiver, then the undisputed leader is the Belgian F2000.

            compare lists armies operating a rifle. AK - more than 100, F2000 - 0.
            think about the reasons. yes
            1. Suhoy
              Suhoy 23 June 2020 09: 41 New
              0
              AK was handed out at one time almost for free, but you have to pay for the F2000. If you look at the list of those who use it, then these are people for whom the machine gun is not just an individual weapon, but a tool that they regularly use for their intended purpose. Yes, and those who serve with AK, no one gave a choice.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 23 June 2020 13: 08 New
                0
                Quote: SUhoy
                AK was handed out at one time almost for free, but you have to pay for the F2000.

                hmmm .. trying to hide from reality? wink
                AK is very simple to manufacture and operate. yes, AK can be done even by a third world country and arm or people who did not know anything except a spear yesterday. can this be done with the F2000? of course not. yes We need a developed production base with qualified labor force and even in these conditions these are small-scale lots. price? not comparable. AK dominates.
                in the conditions of a real war, the USSR abandoned SVT due to the complexity of production and maintenance, what awaits the F2000?
                F2000 is a weapon for a very small niche of special forces, not for the regular army. for the AK army.
                1. Suhoy
                  Suhoy 23 June 2020 13: 25 New
                  +1
                  Nevertheless, the choice of those who have a choice is quite obvious. I agree that AK is easy to manufacture and, therefore, suitable for the army. This is a good weapon. But not the best. I mentioned the same F2000 as an assault rifle well protected from pollution. AK still loses in this regard. Yes, the reliability of the AK in conditions of pollution is high - but only in caliber 7,62. AK in caliber 5,45 is still not so reliable, and I think it is quite comparable in this part with Western assault rifles that are in service with the armies.
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 23 June 2020 13: 43 New
                    0
                    about 5.45 the question is debatable, but the essence of the discussion is not about that.
                    regarding the F2000, again in theory. F2000 was not operated in, conditionally speaking, field conditions. how long will F2000 stand in the hands of a Somali pirate or a soldier of the Syrian army?
                    and the question of better weapons is also too vague. What does the best mean? from my point of view, the best weapon is the one that is best suited for war, and the F2000 from this point of view is one of the most unsuccessful options.
                    BUT! if we are still talking about re-equipping the US Army then I think the F2000 is a great choice! a good hit on the budget with dubious prospects yes
  4. Carnifexx
    Carnifexx 8 June 2020 07: 25 New
    +3
    The SIG concept looks best - here is the ergonomics of the AR-15, and the modularity of the body kit (everything changes easily from the butt to the fore-end) and the AR-18ish system. Private procurement units they can hope for.
    The rearmament of the whole army is expensive, very expensive, and the need for this is doubtful. What kind of rifle should it be for them to do this?
    1. Suhoy
      Suhoy 8 June 2020 07: 33 New
      +1
      The widespread use of Chinese body armor is the main reason. Cheap and cheerful. But the rifle 7,62 NATO hold.
      1. Carnifexx
        Carnifexx 8 June 2020 08: 45 New
        +1
        And the power of the cartridge at a distance of not very 556, 6.8 and Grendel is better in this (as in the speed of a bullet at a distance of 300 + m). Here the Textron mutant is not needed, you can buy an arch for these cartridges, or a piston arch, or an arch with a side cocking handle, or an arch for the AK magazine ...
        1. Suhoy
          Suhoy 11 June 2020 12: 04 New
          0
          If we take plates of class 4 according to STANAG (the ones that hold guaranteed 7,62 NATO), then these cartridges will not be enough. They are more for shooting at a range at which 5,56 is no longer a cake.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 June 2020 11: 34 New
      +3
      SIG has the simplest, traditional cartridge. Perhaps this will determine the victory.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 8 June 2020 14: 39 New
        0
        with a conventional cartridge, it has no advantages - they would rather want a compilation from a rifle from one manufacturer, and metal-plastic cartridges from another.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 8 June 2020 16: 39 New
          +3
          It seems that instead of 30 rounds of magazine there will be 20 rounds. In order not to increase the weight of a loaded weapon. With standard optics, you can have a short store.
          The main thing is to check the new caliber.
  5. KSVK
    KSVK 8 June 2020 12: 24 New
    -2
    Quote: Kalmar

    I would put it this way: both the AR-15 and AK today are mature and time-tested platforms and quite similar in terms of operational characteristics, including reliability.


    Still, AK is for a real war, and AR is for shooting ranges. IMHO. Although it should be noted that the work on the errors of the AR platform was carried out tremendously. And yes, now the M-4 compares favorably in terms of reliability with the M-16. But she can’t get to AK. The ideology embedded in these products is ABSOLUTELY different.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 8 June 2020 17: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: KSVK
      Still, AK is for a real war, and AR is for shooting ranges. IMHO.

      If not a secret, what is this point of view based on? I have acquaintances shooting from the Kalashoids at shooting galleries, and the Americans (and not only) are successfully fighting their own arches. And the "real war" can be very, very different.

      Quote: KSVK
      The ideology embedded in these products is ABSOLUTELY different.

      Why is it so different? Both there and there: to give the fighter a medium-spherical-in-vacuum easy-to-operate rifle, with which he will be able to get comfortable and learn to fight in a timely manner.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 8 June 2020 23: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Kalmar
        Why is it so different?

        The AK has a heavier bolt group, and by the time the spent cartridge case is removed from the barrel, it manages to gain a decent speed sufficient to pull out even the inflated cartridge case. Massive moving part is good for reliability, but reduces accuracy.
        The AR-bolt bolt group easier, firing accuracy is higher, but hence the jambs for reliability. Neta has enough videos (I came across Afghanistan), where these problems are clearly visible.
        1. Operator
          Operator 9 June 2020 00: 51 New
          +1
          The weight of the bolt group in AK and M16 is the same ~ 0,5 kg. The power of gas engines is different (due to the difference in the volume of selected powder gases from the barrel).
        2. Couchexpert
          Couchexpert 9 June 2020 00: 58 New
          +1
          It is also worth adding that in AK, moving parts have larger gaps among themselves, based on “adverse conditions”. This, in turn, affects accuracy. If we draw an analogy with cars, this is like "increased cross-country ability" with its inherent advantages (it will shoot in a wide range of conditions) and disadvantages (less accurately in the entire range, especially in the burst mode).
          The biggest problem for the AK family today is an unsuccessful general layout with a detachable (and therefore inevitably dangling when shooting) cover that does not allow you to set sights - you have to resort to all kinds of “crutches” such as side mounts. On modern versions, it seems to be made tougher, but still this is "not that."

          And there are attempts to more radical changes, as it is not strange. Here's an example of a microwave:

          Blasphemous AR anatomy in the form of linearity of the trunk with a butt, upper-lower-s, picatinous, etc. Inside there is nothing prodigy. Of course, with a barrel of 410 mm, it will be a sniper ... peculiar, but here in the role of "our answer" to NGSW ... quite imagined. Redesign for a certain 6 + mm cartridge, develop a muzzle device. The issue will be the operational capabilities for failures / breakdowns.
        3. Kalmar
          Kalmar 9 June 2020 08: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          AK has a heavier bolt group

          Quote: Bad_gr
          The AR-bolt bolt group easier, firing accuracy is higher

          We said above about ideological differences.

          And so, any rifle is a kind of technical compromise between various conflicting requirements. Each design shifts the emphasis slightly on some requirements to the detriment of others: someone wants more reliability (accuracy suffers), someone wants accuracy (reliability suffers), but these are nuances, not ideology.
          1. Couchexpert
            Couchexpert 9 June 2020 13: 19 New
            +2
            Quote: Kalmar
            We said above about ideological differences.

            It seems to me that by "ideology" the following was understood. A short digression will be needed.

            During World War II, rifles and submachine guns are known to exist and were used in parallel, having their various advantages and disadvantages. The experience of such an application for all participating countries was different; conclusions and forecasts for the future also differed.

            The most warring USSR and Germany (the latter before) eventually came to the need to have a sort of "PPSh 2.0" as a single combined arms model, with a more powerful cartridge, but still allowing automatic control of weapons.

            Across the ocean, the theory prevailed about the necessity of hitting targets with more than the enemy of distances could do. Density of fire is of course a good thing, but not the main one, and therefore automatic mode is more an option than a necessity (a surprise was waiting in Vietnam). Hence the whole post-war history of NATO weapons: 7,62 × 51, AR-ki and now "something in between." The energy of the 5,56 × 45 mm cartridge bullet still makes it more “rifle” than “automatic”, and there was no 7,62 × 39 mm analogue in the west.

            But we have historically had the opposite process: operation dictated the need to constantly improve performance, otherwise it could not be achieved by increasing energy. With deterioration in the accuracy of the automatic mode had to put up. If you compare modern cartridges

            and structures under them, it is clear that, moving from different sides, the results came to very similar results: the energy of the bullets (1560-1889 and 1143-1528 J, respectively) and the mass of the samples are comparable. And the differences in “ideologies” are that our 70 years “pumped” PCA, while the Americans at that time tried to “force them to shoot in bursts.” Garand did not in the end prevent the two trains from meeting.

            Now they are trying to push 2000–3000 Joules of energy into the +/- AR dimensions. Without loss of controllability. Well, we wish them good luck.

            And since energy is really really important, take a similar product and run in: FN FAL

            Align to the desired caliber / plastic / trims / extra trunk to saw off.
            G3

            Align to the desired caliber / plastic / trims / extra trunk to saw off.
            M14 after all

            Take the Mk 14 Mod 0 rifle and redo only the caliber, the rest is already finished. After all, it is clear that with such input data on firing bursts, in fact, you can forget.

            Nooo. So it’s not interesting. Too easy. Better we will continue to rape AR-ku.
            1. Suhoy
              Suhoy 11 June 2020 12: 14 New
              0
              The return on new cartridges that were developed for the contest is well above 7,62 NATO. There is no simple alteration of existing structures. In the new samples there are many solutions aimed at reducing and / or mitigating returns.
  6. KSVK
    KSVK 8 June 2020 12: 26 New
    -1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    SIG has the simplest, traditional cartridge. Perhaps this will determine the victory.

    That would be at the ZIG cartridge from Tekstron and bullpup for "specialists" / driver mechanics. That would be a "prodigy." good
  7. Operator
    Operator 8 June 2020 16: 13 New
    -3
    For once, a technically competent article on the military, which somewhat compensates for the drop in the level of the portal recently (from Russophobic articles in the "History" section to arithmetically illiterate in the "Armament" section).

    On June 1, 2020, the first competitive models from the Zig Sauer in the person of a self-loading rifle and light machine gun were transferred to the US Army units for military trials.

    According to unconfirmed information, TsNIITochMash received the task to develop a domestic analogue of NGSW - we can hope that it is also in the form of a cartridge-weapon complex.
  8. KSVK
    KSVK 8 June 2020 17: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Kalmar

    If not a secret, what is this point of view based on? I have acquaintances shooting from the Kalashoids at shooting galleries, and the Americans (and not only) are successfully fighting their own arches.


    It is clear that you can fight with the Arch, and shoot from the Kalash in a shooting gallery. But my IMHO, which is better on the contrary. yes
    Yes, and I would take an arch for myself for a shooting gallery. (If there was money and desire).

    Quote: Kalmar

    And the "real war" can be very, very different.


    Undoubtedly.

    Quote: Kalmar

    Why is it so different? Both there and there: to give the fighter a medium-vacuum vacuum SIMPLE in operation a rifle with which he will be able to get comfortable and learn how to fight in a timely manner.


    You yourself answered. AK is easier. Count the number of parts. When I took the AR-shaped one for the first time, my first thought was - can it really shoot? And second, how long will I clean THIS? laughing
    And again, IMHO Arch more precisely, more powerful, ergonomic, has great potential for various tuning. AK is simpler, indestructible, with a longer barrel resource and more omnivorous (in terms of ammunition quality).

    PS And for the gentlemen of the "minusers" I consider the best "short-barrels" (for war) "Glock". For it’s impossible to come up with anything simpler and more reliable.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 9 June 2020 09: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: KSVK
      AK is easier. Count the number of parts.

      Not so much there is a difference in the number of parts. The same shutter with a slide frame, well, the pusher is separated from the return, cocking handle is also separate. A pair of extra studs. It matters mainly in the context of disassembling and assembling weapons for speed.

      Quote: KSVK
      And second, how long will I clean THIS?

      But just cleaning the “arches” is sadder: the removal of gases into the box does its dirty work. Although pistons with a short stroke are now in fashion, there is no such problem.

      Quote: KSVK
      And again, IMHO Arch more precisely, more powerful, ergonomic, has great potential for various tuning. AK is simpler, indestructible, with a longer barrel resource and more omnivorous (in terms of ammunition quality).

      And here again: a spherical-in-vacuum "arch" against a no less spherical "Kalash". "Arches" are also quite omnivorous, especially those with a piston (like HK416). Yes, and civilians themselves shoot products BPZ and TPZ. The resource of the barrel generally does not depend on the design, but on the manufacturer of this barrel. As for the "indestructibility": both structures are said to be strong enough if you do not break them purposefully. The power of the "arches" is purely from ammunition; "Kalash" is also under 5.56x45 and 7.62x51. I am generally silent about tuning: any “Kalashmat” can be tuned in such a way that only OCh will remain from the original carbine.

      Quote: KSVK
      And for the gentlemen of the "minusers" I consider the best "short-barreled" (for war) "Glock". For it’s impossible to come up with anything simpler and more reliable.

      Leaving aside the value of CS in modern warfare, I note that a metal frame would still make it more reliable)) The existing one, they say, can burst at low temperatures (-30 and below).
  9. Leomobil
    Leomobil 8 June 2020 19: 50 New
    -2
    Small arms are designed and made on the basis of tasks of application, real or perspective, that is, tactics. Why is the USA such a weapon? For defense! The defense of the bases that they built around the world. The rifle is a machine gun, single-turn, that is, police operations to clean up captured N.P. they no longer plan, an offensive is in principle impossible, there is no resource to keep the loot. It is for these tasks that they create a Rifle submachine gun. Bullpup, for mobile rapid response teams in urban combat, but this is also for defense. To us, such a weapon might be useful for PMCs or remote autonomous bases. This is a new model of "STEAM", now it can ride not only on wood and coal, but also on alcohol and gas .... good
  10. Ilya_Nsk
    Ilya_Nsk 9 June 2020 11: 41 New
    0
    Bullpup is still progressive, but the old generals will end up horned and adopt something similar to the M-16. The plastic in the cartridge is bad, the sleeve takes a lot of heat. The notorious German G11 melted in long lines in the last century ...
    1. agond
      agond 10 June 2020 21: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Ilya_Nsk
      the sleeve takes a lot of heat

      This is true, the metal sleeve has good thermal conductivity and in this known range cools the chamber.
  11. VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 11 July 2020 07: 48 New
    0
    The most controversial in RM277 is the aforementioned bullpup layout.


    But what about this
    used shock absorption rollback firing unit (barrel with a receiver)
    ?

    I understand this is something like a system of "Abakan / AN-98"?

    If politics does not intervene, then SIG Sauer must win. But this is "not American."

    And yet, if they accept a cartridge of 6,8, then what is now called "intermediate"? :)