Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 409

Thread: Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

  1. #341
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    4,401
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    It still has the X designator. Im still skeptical it gets full adoption.

    Now the XM250 is a different story. Sig also has that LMG in 7.62 Nato and a version with a quick change barrel. If the XM7/XM250 project gets scrapped, I could see the XM250 in 7.62 getting adopted.
    C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

  2. #342
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,796
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C-grunt View Post
    It still has the X designator. Im still skeptical it gets full adoption.
    The XM16/XM16E1 had over two years of full on combat experience and wide scale adoption before the X was dropped and it became the M16/M16A1. The M4 spent over a decade as the XM4. Them keeping the X designator is likely more a sign of the weapon's continued development than anything else.
    It's f*****g great, putting holes in people, all the time, and it just puts 'em down mate, they drop like sacks of s**t when they go down with this.
    --British veteran of the Ukraine War, discussing the FN SCAR H.

  3. #343
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,218
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo40 View Post
    The USMC has a history of being behind the Army and more often than not going off in their own direction.

    So yeah, no word on them adopting the M7, and they'll most likely stick with the M27 for awhile yet.
    Things are changing drastically for much of FMF due to Force Design 2030. From retiring tanks to culling helos to organic loitering munitions to standing up Marine Littoral Regiments — distributed ops in remote locations with long range fires have combined to become the forcing function for USMC CONOPs. USMC Systems Command has been a major participant in XM7/XM250 testing and is watching the Army rollout closely.

    To quote Systems Command: "The Marine Corps will continue to participate in and assess NGSW solutions for maturity, suitability and affordability to meet our operational requirements in order to inform a decision on if and when to begin procurement of these improved capabilities. If a decision is made to procure the NGSW, the Marine Corps will evaluate reissuance of M27 [from infantry units] to other Fleet Marine Force units."
    Scout Rider for the Mongol Hordes

  4. #344
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha-17 View Post
    The XM16/XM16E1 had over two years of full on combat experience and wide scale adoption before the X was dropped and it became the M16/M16A1. The M4 spent over a decade as the XM4. Them keeping the X designator is likely more a sign of the weapon's continued development than anything else.
    While I agree that the "X" designation does not mean much, and even getting to drop the "X" does not mean cancelation is not possible, the DIVAD managed to be standardized as the M247, but still never entered production, but your timeline is a bit off.

    There never was an "XM16", the USAF adopted the AR-15 off-the-street as the M16. In November 1963, the Army's XM16A1 program was launched under the same contract as the M16, and they were procured alongside each other until the USAF's demands were fulfilled. The XM16A1 was standardized as the M16A1 in February 1967, only 39 months after first procurement. The XM4 Carbine started life at a meeting in September 1984 between Colt's and ARDEC. In October 1986, the XM4 was standardized as the M4 and the USMC procured a small batch of 900. The XM4 spent only 25 months as the XM4, although it would spend almost a decade waiting for large scale procurement.

    If you want an example of something that spent a long time in the development, look at the XM1 (1973-79) or YAH-64 (1973-81) programs.

  5. #345
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,910
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caporider View Post
    Things are changing drastically for much of FMF due to Force Design 2030. From retiring tanks to culling helos to organic loitering munitions to standing up Marine Littoral Regiments — distributed ops in remote locations with long range fires have combined to become the forcing function for USMC CONOPs. USMC Systems Command has been a major participant in XM7/XM250 testing and is watching the Army rollout closely.

    To quote Systems Command: "The Marine Corps will continue to participate in and assess NGSW solutions for maturity, suitability and affordability to meet our operational requirements in order to inform a decision on if and when to begin procurement of these improved capabilities. If a decision is made to procure the NGSW, the Marine Corps will evaluate reissuance of M27 [from infantry units] to other Fleet Marine Force units."
    So it sounds like the USMC is done with the M4A1 altogether (?). With the advent of the M27 it was going to be just for non-infantry and platoon leader and above slots. Reading that bolded sentence I take it if they adopt the NGSW down the road then the "shooters" will get the M7 and the rest stay with the M27.....but the M4A1 is no mas.
    Last edited by ABNAK; 04-23-24 at 15:29.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    F**k China!

  6. #346
    Join Date
    Apr 2024
    Posts
    39
    Feedback Score
    0
    The USMC had announced plans to adopt the M27 as their standard issue rifle back in 2017, so the fact that not even that has happened yet ought to tell you something about how quick the USMC is to transition from one weapon system to another even after they've announced that a transition was planned.

  7. #347
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    8,744
    Feedback Score
    88 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo40 View Post
    The USMC had announced plans to adopt the M27 as their standard issue rifle back in 2017, so the fact that not even that has happened yet ought to tell you something about how quick the USMC is to transition from one weapon system to another even after they've announced that a transition was planned.
    What do you mean it hasn't happened yet?
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  8. #348
    Join Date
    Apr 2024
    Posts
    39
    Feedback Score
    0
    I mean they haven't completely replaced the M4A1 with the M27 as their standard issue rifle.

  9. #349
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo40 View Post
    I mean they haven't completely replaced the M4A1 with the M27 as their standard issue rifle.
    In 2019, the USMC received the last of the approximately 14,000 M27 rifles. The M27 was not for universal issue, only issue to all members of rifle companies, and certain combat engineer units. By 2021, the transition to the M27 was complete. Even if they had procured the maximum allowed by the contract (50,184), they would not be enough to give one to each Marine, at best it would be one M27 for every three enlisted Marines.
    Last edited by lysander; 04-24-24 at 06:43.

  10. #350
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Feedback Score
    0
    Oh, and one more thing . . .

    Two versus three different caliber ammunition is not as big a deal as it once was. In the pre-World War 2 world, ammunition came one form, bulk boxed rounds. Belted ammunition was locally made up. And, logistics management was not as good as today.

    Today, ammunition for an M249 is essentially completely different than ammunition for an M4A1. While it is theoretically possible for the M4 operator to de-belt and shoot M249 ammunition, and theoretically possible to collect used links and link ammunition from stripper clips, it is not practical as links are not salvaged off the battlefield.

    In reality, since the 1980s the US has had at least five types of small arms ammunition, not counting Caliber .50, 40mm Grenades for the M203, 40mm grenades for the Mk 19 (which are not interchangeable), 9mm, or Caliber .45, in the system: namely sniper ammunition, belted 7.62mm, clipped 7.62mm, belted 5.56mm, clipped 5.56mm. Then you also have 7.62mm packaged in 600 round belts, which is not practical for infantry use. . . .

    Today there are 121 different DOD Ammunition Codes, each with a unique NSN, for 7.62mm ammunition, 137 for 5.56mm. Many of these are treated by the supply system as "non-interchangeable".

Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •