These videos are not solely about XM7/NGSW.

I have been slogging through this conversation, over the past few days. I say slogging because there's a lot of chaff to sift through; it's not an efficient Q/A interview. Here's an embed of part one, for those who are curious...



Anyway, at one point in part two, Trey seems to imply that KAC opted not to participate in the XM7/NGSW program due to concerns about barrel life. He suggests that they thought the increased pressure and velocity was going to be too much for any barrel that would have been practically applied to the weapons.

I use words like imply and suggest because anything potentially meaningful or revelatory in this conversation is handled in a seemingly deliberately vague manner.

I did not include an embed of part two, or an indication of what time in the video the comment can be found, because:

A) I didn't want to find that moment in the long video again.
B) That's literally all he had to say about it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Bartocci has some ominous words regarding it in this video I turned on this morning.

I never understood the whole program, replacing all the M4s with that huh, doubtful.

I predict the M7 is going to be a dead in the water program akin to the SCAR-L. A carbine with a railed handguard that cannot hold zero for lasers and clip on night optics with reports of poor accuracy is a stillbirth.

The LMG lacks a QC barrel. How do you design an LMG that lacks a QC barrel? A light assault machinegun could understandably have a barrel that’s not QC. But a LMG for general issue should have a QC barrel.

The caliber is silly and way too expensive and complicated to manufacture.

The whole program is a total goat f&$k.

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:
...The whole program is a total goat f&$k.

The program is, once again, doing EXACTLY what was intended. To exploit government contracts and beurocracies to siphon taxpayer dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:
...The whole program is a total goat f&$k.

The program is, once again, doing EXACTLY what was intended. To exploit government contracts and beurocracies to siphon taxpayer dollars.

Preach.

Trey says multiple times that he believes the future of small arms to be electrically-fired cased telescoped ammunition. He thinks it should first be applied to mounted guns (no doubt due to power source size/weight limitations), which implies a potential trickle-down to infantry carbines when the batteries get better.

No matter how much smaller/lighter the batteries get, you'll still need to tote a battery. So, you can apply the "minigun theory" to the concept. I read that you can operate an M134 for at least 15 minutes off a 12V vehicle battery. Assuming that's correct, you could expend at least 30,000 rounds in that time. So, even if you can tote a minigun and a battery, you can't carry the amount of ammo that the weapon and power source are capable of expending. Maybe Trey's idea isn't so hot.

I don't think electrically-fired is a good idea. The cased/telescoped ammo seems logical, but he implies that a powered system is more-or-less required, because the rounds can't be fed from a typical magazine. They require some sort of electrically-augmented feeding mechanism, because the recoil action alone presumably couldn't make it happen.

A friend of mine is of the opinion that laser guns will be viable, before development of a cased/telescoped rifle is seriously considered.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Trey says multiple times that he believes the future of small arms to be

I don't think electrically-fired is a good idea. The cased/telescoped ammo seems logical, but he implies that a powered system is more-or-less required, because the rounds can't be fed from a typical magazine. They require some sort of electrically-augmented feeding mechanism, because the recoil action alone presumably couldn't make it happen.

A friend of mine is of the opinion that laser guns will be viable, before development of a cased/telescoped rifle is seriously considered.

The NGSW program was supposed to provide caseless telescoped rounds. I can’t tell if the tech wasn’t mature or if the NGSW was hijacked to provide a capability similar to the canceled interim combat rifle.

I thought about making a new thread for this, but it seems that this is a better place for it. Garand Thumb got some trigger time behind the .277 Fury. He didn't have the armor penetrator round, but he's using the solid copper training bullets and the results are pretty cool. I still don't see this has an M4 replacement, but it's an awesome DMR and I'd still like to see what you could do with a 5.56 with the same case technology.

Cased telescoping electronically fired ammunition makes no sense in small arms. Reliance on batteries for one’s small arms is foolish. Also the cased telescoping ammunition is much bulkier, larger in diameter than traditional metallic cartridges.

The physics of lasers preclude them from being used as small arms, unless we see some significant advances in technology.

I suspect the future of small arms is evolutionary, not revolutionary in cartridge development. I think the new hybrid cases as found in the sig 6.8 and as offered commercially by NAS will become more prevalent. Advances in powder tech will result in higher pressures in smaller COAL cartridges, facilitating ballistic overmatch in smaller form factors. This will require metallurgical advances too with respect to bolts/carriers and barrels, especially with barrel lining/cladding.

So, despite the NGSW XM7 being a no-go in a lot of folks' opinion, the R&D performed is part of the evolutionary process. The R&D presumably wouldn't have been performed, if not motivated by a big-money government contract. Many people have a problem with the taxpayer footing the bill for projects like these, when the result is seemingly a turd. Maybe we're looking at the "product" the wrong way. If the product is a next-level hybrid ammunition, not a complete improved weapon system, then maybe its not such a flop. It's in the way it's pitched: if it was all-along pitched as an ammo improvement project, and the gun was merely created to enable the proving of the ammo, then perhaps we wouldn't be so bitter about the outcome?

Why don't they go ahead and make the same ammo, but in a dimension that allows it to be used in a weapon the same size/weight as an M4? The metallurgical stuff is still a concern, but perhaps the performance pros would outweigh the cons of a more vigorous maintenance program.

I'm sure a Spear LT could be modified internally to take the extra PSI, but I think the .mil is stuck thinking the next war will be in the mountains like Afganistan instead of something more general purpose.

2.5 mm flechettes are the future!

quote:

Originally posted by 18Z50:
2.5 mm flechettes are the future!

Yes!