Us army ITT for new dmr a gpmg / lsw in 6.8

#3
6.8 could be the one, given time as you say due to current high 5.56/7.62 stock levels and other drag factors that always come into play at such times of change.

Bullet weight and ME from the civvy versions spec of the round that I can find seem a little light to me though. I appreciate that others will think these factors might not be the most important and that this performance is fine, that would be interesting to explore.

I presume that the max distance it is expected to work to is a reasonably useful one too.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#4
These ITT's often go nowhere, look at the advanced weapon one for an example of how to spend money for years and change nothing!
 
#5
Surprised they've not gone for 6.5 CM for the rifle, possibly not an ideal round for a machine gun though.
Their SOCOM are quite likely going to the 6.5 CM to replace 7.62 as their DMR and Heavy/Battle rifle caliber. The various types of 5.56 they use are still doing the job and pretty good across the board of their requirements. contrary to popular opinion online.
 
#6
I remain completely unconvinced by the LSAT programme.

IMHO it offers a very, very short list of advantages in return for discarding the very long list of advantages that come with conventional ammunition and weapons systems.
 
#7
So its to be 850k rounds of 6.8 gp ammo for testing. They dont mention loading data, only that some hot loads of 20% extra need to be provided to test the guns.

They might as well try and get plastic cases to work too this time. Thwy have been using polymer cased .50 bmg in aircraft for a while to save weight so it can be done.


I heard that plastic cases offer a 20% weight reduction which would be welcome.
 
#8
These ITT's often go nowhere, look at the advanced weapon one for an example of how to spend money for years and change nothing!
Sure, but some of them do develop into something, they have been kicking the can down the road for a long time now with the ar15 and 556. Maybe this time they will finally bin them.

The usmc have dumped the saw in favoyr of mag fed h&k m27 (they will rue the day that they chose to drop belt fed gpmg / lsw's).

Change is afoot, the apetite is there and they are buying foreign gear too which is a good sign of not repeating the m14 /7.62 vs fal in .280 debacle (to prop up us industry)
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#9
Its all basically a science game, caseless ammo was going to be it, it didn't work and cost a lot to prove it. Add to that the weight of the weapons and it was too much too soon. Now plastic telescoping ammo is available, whether it will work in small arms remains to be seen. We've seen the US Troops in trouble melting M4 carbines when they really needed belt fed weapons. I hope this stuff is tested properly before it gets issued.
The science game that cant be changed is the weight one. Unless body armour becomes lighter you will not change the soldiers loading in combat! You cannot make weapons that fire full auto without recoil. Even Gatling guns have stresses. The weapons will need mass regardless of what the ammo weighs!
 
#10
More pork barrel research IMO.
Brass case SA asmmunition will continue to the the mainstay for all but niche uses because it works pretty much flawlessly under all conditions & its only negative is its weight. A minor factor in the scheme of things when one considers the so far fruitless efforts to overcome the negatives of the alternatives..
 
#11
Its all basically a science game, caseless ammo was going to be it, it didn't work and cost a lot to prove it. Add to that the weight of the weapons and it was too much too soon. Now plastic telescoping ammo is available, whether it will work in small arms remains to be seen. We've seen the US Troops in trouble melting M4 carbines when they really needed belt fed weapons. I hope this stuff is tested properly before it gets issued.
The science game that cant be changed is the weight one. Unless body armour becomes lighter you will not change the soldiers loading in combat! You cannot make weapons that fire full auto without recoil. Even Gatling guns have stresses. The weapons will need mass regardless of what the ammo weighs!
No arguments from me there but i did not suggezt making the guns lighter, the target weight of an m4 with all that shit on it (red dot, magnifiers, ir laser and light) is fine. We can make the ammo lighter by using plastic cases instead of brass or steel...in theory anyway. If it can feed in a m2 then it can feed in an fn mag. I thought that the current sticking point with plastic cases was trouble feeding from mags due to friction or something like that?

Sounds like a problem that could be solved if there was am apetite for it
 
#12
More pork barrel research IMO.
Brass case SA asmmunition will continue to the the mainstay for all but niche uses because it works pretty much flawlessly under all conditions & its only negative is its weight. A minor factor in the scheme of things when one considers the so far fruitless efforts to overcome the negatives of the alternatives..
Not fruitless

New Polymer Cased Ammunition Introduced by True Velocity - The Firearm Blog

And this

Marines Testing Polymer Solutions to Cut Ammo Weight
 
Last edited:
#13
I remain completely unconvinced by the LSAT programme.

IMHO it offers a very, very short list of advantages in return for discarding the very long list of advantages that come with conventional ammunition and weapons systems.
I'm curious. Given that the "very short list of advantages" you mention presumably includes "half the mass of existing conventional ammunition", what's the huge disadvantage that outweighs it? After all, they've demonstrated heat management to the satisfaction of the trials team, and apparently disproved the "ejected cases are a critical mechanism for removing heat from the weapon"...

They're now at the stage of troop trials, so it's not as if they haven't worked out the obvious problems (not saying that there aren't problems, just that the obvious ones appear solved). Be careful you aren't like those people who insisted that any calibre smaller than .30-06 or 0.45 was pointless, that optical sights were too fragile and expensive for ordinary soldiers, or that removable magazines would never catch on / clip loading was far superior...
 
#14
More pork barrel research IMO.
Not necessarily. As we've seen with AFVs in the UK [1], if you want a design capability, you have to keep the design teams busy with real work. You don't necessarily have to field every new design that they come up with, but you do have to trial them.

That way, when you have to get serious about replacing your existing kit, you've got people who know how to do it. And if they do come up with something revolutionary, you can always field it early.

[1] As pointed out in other threads, we can't design or build tanks in the UK any more. We gave up the ability when we stopped paying for the development of new ones. If we wanted to restart, it would be hugely expensive and probably a second-rate design, full of mistakes we wouldn't have made if we'd not had a design office full of novices.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#15
Frankly if the BBC gets wind of this it will all be over, firing non lead ammo but ejecting plastic all over the planet to do so?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
Moderatly surprised, did check to see if it had already been posted
The reason being are two fold:
1. They come up with ITT all the time and frankly TFB covers the issue and withdrawal of these every week and
2. It would be better in the QM's or shooting hunting and fishing.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
#19
Personally I've always thought ECBA with the blast nappy was sufficient protection for general conventional use and 'police' OP Olympic type stuff and is much lighter the the full osprey shabang, Plus easily packed for insertion marches.

Like the man said I don't believe the polymer cases rounds will go anywhere for a while as historically the army has (quite rightly) moved behind the technology curve and fielded equipment that is proven to work under the most extreme conditions but isn't perhaps the latest designs etc.

I would like to see a common round for all section/platoon weapons though as I believe a significant weight saving could be made across the whole system if not in the weapon/ammunition itself
 
#20
I said "so far fruitless".
If it worked reliably it would be in service, which it isn't.

Your second link refers to .50cal ammunition, which isn't relevant to a soldier's personal weapon.
Its not just 50bmg, the photo alone showz 3 different calibres.

Materials are the last area of development left on our current generation of weapons, it makes perfect sense that we lighren the ammo. I dont see where the resistance to the notion is comming from here
 

Latest Threads

Top