View Full Version : FN's "Individual Weapon System"
First I've heard of this particular weapon, or the 6.5x43mm steel cased round, or the "Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate" (almost sounds like DARPA's Project Agile in the early days of the Vietnam conflict, when the AR-15 was tested in-country). Seems suspiciously similar to the Army's new SIG M7:
"The IWS chambers the Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC), developed from .264 USA. The 6.5x43mm round uses a steel case, which FN America says reduces weight by 20% compared to equivalent brass. No data on velocities has been released yet. The round has a two-piece, lightweight steel design with a stainless steel head and case body. a variety of loads have been developed with a number of different projectiles, including a 130gr Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration round, a 109gr copper open tip match (OTM), a 120gr copper OTM and a soft nose 125gr cartridge."
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/01/18/shot-show-2023-fn-americas-new-individual-weapon-system/
hotbiggun42
03-12-23, 21:09
FN wont allow us peeons to own such dangerous calibers
BoringGuy45
03-12-23, 21:17
If they're looking for a general purpose cartridge that packs noticeably more punch than the 5.56, and is smaller and lighter than the 7.62, this makes a ton more sense than the 6.8x51.
Needs a rocket launcher and the ability to fire flechette rounds.
If they're looking for a general purpose cartridge that packs noticeably more punch than the 5.56, and is smaller and lighter than the 7.62, this makes a ton more sense than the 6.8x51.
But SIG spear has SIG awesomeness and Cohen CQ.
Defaultmp3
03-12-23, 23:21
https://soldiersystems.net/2023/01/16/the-fn-america-fna-previews-the-lightweight-intermediate-caliber-cartridge-licc-individual-weapon-system-iws-developed-for-the-irregular-warfare-technology-support-directorate-iwtsd/
Better write-up there, IMO.
Nothing that will go anywhere, I wager.
I have to assume FN quality will be better than SIG. It is ironic how close 6.5 x 43mm is to 7.92×33mm that the Germans developed back in 44.
Beyond the caliber, moving to a LPVO optic vs. Trijicons and Aimpoints for the individual soldier probably is a step in the right direction. If suppressors became standard issue for US soldiers, I'm sure they will appreciate that option as well. It's hard for many of us to think of the M4 as a "dated" weapon system but it has been with us since 1994. We just didn't get one until 10 years later.
If we didn't live in a post Clinton clown world, most of those M4s should be on the surplus market.
Needs a rocket launcher and the ability to fire flechette rounds.
I kept trying to tell Magpul to make a version of the following after they sold the ACR off to Bushmaster
https://fifth-element.fandom.com/wiki/Zorg_ZF-1_Pod_Weapon#:~:text=Zorg%20ZF%2D1%20Pod%20Weapon%20System%20is%20a%20combination%20weapon,Zorg%20in%20The%20Fifth%20Element.
BrigandTwoFour
03-13-23, 10:16
I remember seeing the announcement for this when SHOT kicked off this year. IMO it seems like a much better design and concept than the NGSW. I always kinda figured the path forward would be a new standard cartridge size slightly larger than 5.56 but smaller than 7.62 NATO. There's a lot about this that makes sense- and I can't help but wonder if part of that is the participation of "international sponsors" who also want results and don't want to play US DoD contractor games.
Though I would be wary of the lightweight steel case if for no other reason than where do we get the steel from? Are we going to have to rely on say...China to deliver the quantities of required steel?
BoringGuy45
03-13-23, 11:37
I wish they would have gone for 30rd mags. I know they’re trying to keep the mags roughly the same length as the 5.56 mags, but I think I’d prefer 5 extra rounds.
I suppose it's possible that a small number of these could be bought for limited trials. Of course, that may raise all kind of red flags with SIG.
Looks like .260 Rem and 6.5 Grendel had a baby...
Considering the popularity of current 6.5 Creed and the old trick of re-barreling your LMT- MWS in .260 Rem to get better performance than the stock .308, I am shocked, but not really, that the military hasn't just picked one of those three and been like "hey you know what, that's pretty great, good enough in fact, let's just use that with some different bullets..."
But nooooooo they gotta have a new wunderkartridge every month. Meanwhile.... 5.56 and .308 are still chugging along stacking bodies...
The only thing dumber than this current cartridge race to nowhere, is going to be watching them try to replace Multicam in another 10-20 years. Maybe they will go back to M81. :laugh:
Makes you wonder if...by some sheer accident of the universe... humanity has inadvertently stumbled onto the 5 irreplaceable infantry/personal-level general purpose rifle cartridges.
5.56, .308., 7.62x39, 7.62x54R, and 5.45.
Everything better is heavier, or more expensive, or more convoluted.
Everything NOT heavier/expensive/complicated performs less well for the needed job.
Kinda like .50BMG. Exactly what would you replace that with? Some of the new .338 variations are promising, but still...
Looks good.
At least they're using PMAGS.
I wish they would have gone for 30rd mags. I know they’re trying to keep the mags roughly the same length as the 5.56 mags, but I think I’d prefer 5 extra rounds.
Would have required a complete overhaul of everyone's mag carrier / mag pouch system. Think of it this way, they are almost close to .308 but with an extra 5 rounds.
Looks good.
At least they're using PMAGS.
I like that Magpul isn’t afraid to go rogue a bit for this or the LWRC Six8.
I see another niche rnd and I'd thought the adoption of 6.8 by the mil was essentially a lock no?
I see another niche rnd and I'd thought the adoption of 6.8 by the mil was essentially a lock no?
The 6.8 is almost certainly getting adopted. Institutional inertia is set to “overmatch”.
Remember how about 5 minutes after the M14 was adopted, the AR15 showed up, well suited for the warfighter’s needs vs what Ordinance thought they needed (M14)? Or how UCP got selected over Multicam for like 10 years, even though Multicam existed that whole time? Or how the M16a2 came to exist in a time where SBRs already were in the DoD?
From the linked article:
"Later this year FN America will be delivering 55 of the LICC IWS. Three configurations, along with a number of the EVOLYS-based LICC Assault Machine Gun, along with ammunition will be delivered. Canadian Special Operations Forces are a co-sponsor of program and they will also be receiving a batch of the weapons and ammunition for testing and evaluation."
Not sure what the point is with the M7 pretty much a sure bet. If it turns out to be a viable/effective option I guess there's a chance that SOF (or some other entity) could buy a few, but it would have to be financially worthwhile quantity for FN to bother with. Maybe a similar program to SCAR?
The 6.8 is almost certainly getting adopted. Institutional inertia is set to “overmatch”.
Remember how about 5 minutes after the M14 was adopted, the AR15 showed up, well suited for the warfighter’s needs vs what Ordinance thought they needed (M14)? Or how UCP got selected over Multicam for like 10 years, even though Multicam existed that whole time? Or how the M16a2 came to exist in a time where SBRs already were in the DoD?
New toy mission creep?
BoringGuy45
03-14-23, 13:25
The 6.8 is almost certainly getting adopted. Institutional inertia is set to “overmatch”.
Remember how about 5 minutes after the M14 was adopted, the AR15 showed up, well suited for the warfighter’s needs vs what Ordinance thought they needed (M14)? Or how UCP got selected over Multicam for like 10 years, even though Multicam existed that whole time? Or how the M16a2 came to exist in a time where SBRs already were in the DoD?
Yep. History repeats itself. It seems like the trend goes:
1) When there's a few different choices for new equipment, the DoD brass chooses the option that looks good on paper and fits their ideals of how battles are supposed to be fought, even though everybody who knows better tells them that they're wrong.
2) JSOC/SOCOM chooses the option that everybody knows the DoD brass should have chosen.
3) Every non-SOF grunt hates their new equipment as it inevitably shits the bed in the field. SOCOM operators speak glowingly of their new gear, and SMEs confirm that it lives up to the hype.
4) Pictures of SEALs, Rangers, and Green Berets using the new equipment pop up all over the internet. The civilian version of the new gear is suddenly on back order at every tactical supply and/or gun store in the country because of...well, guys like us.
5) The DoD decides to replace their choice with SOCOM's choice with some of the frontline non-SOF combat units, where it is greatly preferred over the crap the DoD originally forced them to use.
6) The DoD decides to make that the new standard issue equipment.
7) SOCOM decides that because what they were using is now standard issue, it's not cool anymore and they need to get something new.
While I still think that the Spear is going to only end up as a limited issue DMR rifle and the M4 is going to continue being the standard issue rifle, if I'm wrong, this is how I see things going with it too: The Spear will be this generation's M14 and the FN IWS will be the AR-15.
M14->M16 was my thought as well.
It's hard to see the future, but the "medium" magwell sizes of the LICC and Six8 is certainly encouraging.
I see another niche rnd and I'd thought the adoption of 6.8 by the mil was essentially a lock no?
It's hard to see the future, but the "medium" magwell sizes of the LICC and Six8 is certainly encouraging.
With .266 being exactly halfway between .224 and .308, I’ve always thought it would be cool to have an in-between rifle, an AR12, if you will. Chambered in a cartridge that straddles the capacity difference between 5.56 and 7.62, with a .264 bullet.
With .266 being exactly halfway between .224 and .308, I’ve always thought it would be cool to have an in-between rifle, an AR12, if you will. Chambered in a cartridge that straddles the capacity difference between 5.56 and 7.62, with a .264 bullet.
6.8 or 6.5 does not accomplish that?
6.8 or 6.5 does not accomplish that?
6.5 would be the bullet, yes. Such a rifle and cartridge would be new, though.
They are both constrained by the AR15 mag well and bolt head dimensions.
A medium format AR12, while having quite a few specific parts, could unlock a while new generation of improved intermediate cartriges.
It could also support proper polymer magazine designs for the larger diameter variants like 6.8 SPC , Grendel and 7.62x39.
6.8 or 6.5 does not accomplish that?
Something like the .264USA https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/ or the current topic cartridge.
Defaultmp3
03-14-23, 20:12
Something like the .264USA https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/ or the current topic cartridge..264 USA is basically the same cartridge as what's in the LICC, the .264; it's my understanding it's a similar relationship like .300 Whisper/.300 BLK or 6.8 SPC/6.8 SPC II.
Here’s an interesting aside regarding the naming of the cartridge. While under development by the AMU, the cartridge was referred to as .264 USA. As the ammunition underwent development, the working name was altered to .264 International in honor of the Allied partner co-sponsoring and co-funding the program. Eventually, the team settled on a simplified .264 as the path forward. - SoldierSystems
BoringGuy45
03-14-23, 22:41
This round sounds more like a modern version of the .276 Pedersen or the .280 British than anything else.
And I thought steel-cased cartridges were way obsolete as far as future weapons were concerned.
BrigandTwoFour
03-15-23, 09:48
This round sounds more like a modern version of the .276 Pedersen or the .280 British than anything else.
Begs the question...what would have happened if we adoptd the .276 Pedersen into the M1 as originally designed rather than had Big Green insist on using up the stockpiles of 30-06?
It doesn't appear the LICC is exactly the same as 264 USA.
The case is 5mm shorter (43mm vs 48mm ), which may put the OAL ~2.5"
Here is how it might look next to some familiar favorites.
https://d2j6dbq0eux0bg.cloudfront.net/images/812059/3509841894.jpg
.
.264 USA is basically the same cartridge as what's in the LICC, the .264; it's my understanding it's a similar relationship like .300 Whisper/.300 BLK or 6.8 SPC/6.8 SPC II.
Hammer_Man
03-15-23, 10:37
Makes more sense to me than the XM7. I’ll reserve my excitement for now, as the green weenie has a tendency to crush my dreams.
Begs the question...what would have happened if we adoptd the .276 Pedersen into the M1 as originally designed rather than had Big Green insist on using up the stockpiles of 30-06?
We would have had massive problems during the first half of WWII trying to keep 4 different calibers rolling out to infantry units overseas? That's assuming we even had enough M1s and .276 ammo in production by this point to have made it worthwhile, budget limitations and ammo commonality were legitimate reasons to stick to .30-06.
Slightly off-topic: is this weapon system designed in America, or Belgium?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.