Probably similar to this:The 7x36 was design for this AR
There is no information in english View attachment 536326
Its a madsen product and it looks functional
They're planning on that anyway:
Inside the Army's NEW 6.8mm Next Gen Squad Weapon
Iraq War veteran Chris Cappy gives the Next Generation Squad Weapon rundown. These three companies are in competition to replace the M-16, M-249 SAW andtaskandpurpose.com
It won't be nearly as tough as you think, since the Creedmoor is basically a slightly shortened 7.62 NATO case; you can largely just swap out barrels in existing equipment.
Same thing could apply to some degree in per-WW2 conversions, they could shorten the chamber as they did with .30-06 to 7.62 NATO modifications:
AFAIK it's 6.8mm for everything, at least so far. Their plan is that thanks to modern optics they can actually use the full range of rifle unlike before when it was limited to about 300m by the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Now thanks to that and the proliferation of body armor a heavier, larger caliber bullet is needed and the 5.56 can be dispensed with. Especially as we don't generally use automatic fire anymore for rifles and have a long service volunteer army, they can focus on training to correct for issues that might come with having less, more powerful ammo that was harder to do with a draftee army.Thanks for the info, very interesting. I'm not clear from the articles if their just changing to 6.8mm for the new SAW, or for every riflemen. Is the whole army going to 6.8mm? The Marines are going over to the M-27 Automatic Rifle, but it uses 5.56mm, are they going to convert to? Over all this should be a good move, though I thought the smart money was on the 6.5mm. I understand the ammo load for individual soldiers will only go down about 15%, a 30 round box magazine will now be 26 rounds. Since we don't know what 6.8mm round is going to be the final product, we don't know all it's characteristics, so we don't know if it tumbles, or fragments like the 5.56mm. We just have to wait for more complete data.
And sectional density.The 6.8mm NGSW ammo is supposed to have better armor penetration than .30-06 M2 AP, primarily by increasing chamber pressure. That's the best comparison. It is definitely not an intermediate cartridge.
AFAIK it's 6.8mm for everything, at least so far. Their plan is that thanks to modern optics they can actually use the full range of rifle unlike before when it was limited to about 300m by the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Now thanks to that and the proliferation of body armor a heavier, larger caliber bullet is needed and the 5.56 can be dispensed with. Especially as we don't generally use automatic fire anymore for rifles and have a long service volunteer army, they can focus on training to correct for issues that might come with having less, more powerful ammo that was harder to do with a draftee army.
They went 6.8mm BTW because they was the heaviest caliber that would result in tolerate recoil from a rifle and still achieve the down range performance expected of the new rifles. I think they're using the EPR bullet design.
Doesn't look like, AFAIK Sig's dual part case steel base/brass body ammo is the favored choice.Is this intended to come about with the introduction of the LSAT case telescoped/caseless (not sure which route they decided to go) ammunition?
Sure, but AFAIK they haven't gotten that technology to work right yet.It is 40%/51% lighter than conventional ammo so the 'increase' in bullet size can be mitigated by the lower weight of the modern ammo.
Basically the entire LSAT program from the 2000s was rendered obsolete when NGSW came out with with the new armor penetration requirements. AFAIK, there are no plans for new rifles and machine guns firing intermediate cartridges. The Textron bid is based on the LSAT gun and the C/T ammo, but GD is going with composite cases and Sig, who's probably going to win at this point, has a brass case with a steel base to withstand the chamber pressure. As far as the rifle is concerned, side chargers on ARs are for race guns, not fighting rifles.Is this intended to come about with the introduction of the LSAT case telescoped/caseless (not sure which route they decided to go) ammunition?
It is 40%/51% lighter than conventional ammo so the 'increase' in bullet size can be mitigated by the lower weight of the modern ammo.
A nearly 7kg empty (8.17kg loaded) rifle??? That complex??? It was cancelled for a GOOD series of reasons.This magic machine:
And this:XM25 CDTE - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
XM29 OICW - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Politicians. Much awesome tech, we can get, without them, no?
It had a grenade launcher and all the necessary accessories already in the gun, so it's worth it.A nearly 7kg empty (8.17kg loaded) rifle??? That complex??? It was cancelled for a GOOD series of reasons.
This magic machine:
And this:XM25 CDTE - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
XM29 OICW - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Politicians. Much awesome tech, we can get, without them, no?
The XM-25 was better than the XM-29.Very clever bit of kit - but from what I understand it was an answer looking for a problem to solve.
The army even sent them to the Middle east where I think they were fired a few dozen times in combat and the results were a bit Meh from what I understand.
Basically the entire LSAT program from the 2000s was rendered obsolete when NGSW came out with with the new armor penetration requirements. AFAIK, there are no plans for new rifles and machine guns firing intermediate cartridges. The Textron bid is based on the LSAT gun and the C/T ammo, but GD is going with composite cases and Sig, who's probably going to win at this point, has a brass case with a steel base to withstand the chamber pressure. As far as the rifle is concerned, side chargers on ARs are for race guns, not fighting rifles.
The military disagreed.It had a grenade launcher and all the necessary accessories already in the gun, so it's worth it.
And you used kg twice BTW.
By the early 2000s, the weapon had settled on a design and was classified as the XM29. The XM29 was based on the HK CAW (Close Assault Weapon) (Cal. 18.5×76mm or 12 Gauge non-conventional). However, the weapon had serious problems: it did not meet weight or cost targets, and the 20 mm High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB) did not seem to be lethal enough in testing. To compound matters, the kinetic-energy component had to be light and short in length. As a result, the 5.56×45mm NATO barrel had a length of only 250 mm (9.8 inches), which is too short to generate enough muzzle velocity to be effective as a standard infantry rifle. It was also too heavy and too large to be operated effectively by a soldier.