POTD: The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle in Jordan

@Guest Well the SAW’s have stayed in the armories and the USMC is watching NGSW, which will either select a 6.8 squad belt-fed (likely) or lead to adoption of a new 5.56 squad belt-fed.

It was never meant to really be a squad automatic weapon (the HK selection) and has always been more of an M16/M4 replacement than a true automatic rifle.

@Kinetics Interested in the "adoption of a new 5,56 belt fed" part

Also, will they only adopt the NGSW-AR, i.e not the rifle part?

@Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος Well SOCOM has put the Knights Armament 5.56 LAMG on hold to watch NGSW (it also appears that KAC has some teething issues to work out with the LAMG), but should NGSW not lead to any new weapons, LAMG will likely see much wider service.

On the flip side, the Army’s new 6.8 projectile is misguided at best and I’d be shocked if Sig did not offer their NGSW-AR submission, which is a belt fed, in 5.56 in the future.

As far as the USMC and NGSW, we need to see what happens with the program. If the Army does select one of the submissions, the likelihood that the USMC does not follow is very small.

@Kinetics So the USMC will have changed rifles twice in, let's say, ten years?!

The way I see it (opinions...) is that a logical outcome, that would make sense operationally, is for the TV's 6,8 to replace the 7,62X51 in legacy weapons (M110, M240) and be adopted in the Sig LMG (NGSW-AR) in the Squad level.
So the Squad will have 3 6,8 weapons (2 LMGs and 1 M110A1) and the Generals would be happy, and the rest will keep their 5,56 and be light(-er)

@Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος What do you mean by “ misguided?”

@Kinetics From what I heard the problem that super secret squirrelly groups that ran around with the LAMG was durability issues during high volume sustained fire. They liked the weight, balance, and controllability but used it more like their SAWs which KAC's design wasn't really intended for. Yes the KAC's LAMG can accommodate a 100rnd nutsack or 200round drum but the design lends it self a a go between a LMG and Automatic fire weapon. Best explained to us peons by Forgotten Weapons/In Range TV
https://youtu.be/EF9UThg7PkM

https://youtu.be/6hsOrULshco

@Kinetics The real issue we're hitting here is that ultimately none of the offerings are either compelling enough or an actual credible replacement for the m249 as a system.

While the 249 definitely needs replacing, frankly what's on offer is pretty lackluster all around and that's causing issues.

@Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος So the problem with "this option" Is you'd have to voluntarily gimp the 6.8 so it won't destroy the older guns

OR

Commit to Essentially replacing that entire suite of weapons with...?

Because at the end of the day nothing on offer is even close to spectacular. AT BEST some of them might be mildly incremental improvements but at a substantial cash outlay and program complexity.

This is a situation where both the DOD and the manufacturers are at fault.

The DOD is at fault for not just putting it's foot down and saying if the current crop of offerings are the best you can do we're not interested.

And the manufacturers are at fault because they have truly went least possible effort for Maximum cash extraction for SO LONG that it's genuinely questionable whether the current crop of DOD qualified vendors and developers CAN DO BETTER!

What's frustrating is that better could be done, just not by the people DOD buys from.

As a shining example of this, did you know that the FN evolys was originally entered in ngsw?

Did you know that socom dicked around with it for a few years after that and until stopped shoveling money in?

Did you know that euro socom types started shoveling money in after that but during the period when FN had already ABANDONED the evolys patents?

The evolys is a gun that's already been rejected multiple times by multiple groups for good reasons which is now being touted as new and exciting because no one else is doing anything any better.

I don't think I have to mention that the AMG and LAMG are both development hell refugees that in their current forms aren't actually viable either.

Bottom line, we're in a situation where it's definitely time to update but there's sweet precious fuck all worth buying.

@Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος Should they adopt the NGSW-R, yes they would have adopted 2 rifles in a relatively short period of time.

It's entirely possible that what you're saying could happen, the new 6.8 rounds will certainly be better than 7.62 NATO. Though, the 6.8 would need to offer a unique capability to pull SOCOM away from 6.5CM, which could/will replace 7.62x51 in the same roles, given enough time. It all will largely depend on what the Army does, when they start ordering ammunition in the hundreds of millions of rounds per year, it will be hard for the other services to not take advantage of that scale of production and logistics.

The other issue will be the M240. The Sig MG338 won't be a replacement for it on the dismounted infantry side, but if the Sig NGSW-AR has the requisite durability, it could do so since its already basically a medium machine gun. Im mostly interested to see if Sig optimizes that platform for intermediate rounds like 5.56 (and is able to shave any weight off accordingly).

@Scott C Everyone has their own perspective, and I definitely agree with you for the most part. Personally, I like everything i've seen on the Sig "AR", it has the best ergonomics, features, and a familiar enough manual of arms. What I don't love is the ammo (both the government required projectile) and Sig's attempt at achieving weight savings.

I'd love to see their platform in 5.56, and if we're talking about a Christmas list, i'd like that combined with polymer cases similar to what TV has been working on.