Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aye. It is the easily reproducible quality of materials that really set the revolution apart.

In theory, you could teach a master gunsmith and a powder chemist of the 1700s how to make a relatively modern self-loading firearm and the smokeless powder and cartridge that makes its operation possible. But it would be a hand crafted highly expensive piece. Each piece hand-made to exacting standards over several years, with lots of dud parts along the way. The ammo would also be similarly hand crafted and obscenely expensive.

The barrel alone would probably take years of smithing to get its quality just right to handle the pressures. Then more hand boring and rifling to get right. Any step of which could fail and require you to start over.

Over the weekend I took the FR-7 (that is a Spanish M1916 converted to 7.62mm NATO) out to the range. After years of work I figured out the cocking piece was damaged, and when put to the test, this assessment was correct. It ran ball ammo flawlessly.

However, the German surplus training ammo was less reliable, which is to be expect. For one thing, it's plastic, so it flexes in weird ways. On top of that is the round nose "bullet" (really a breakaway part of the casing). Finally, the rim is slightly smaller than standard ammo to serve as a last line of defense on the training range. The G3s that this was built to go with would have their bolts swapped out with training versions, which would accept this. The smaller bolt faces won't chamber live ammo, keeping the smaller training range safe. Conversely, extraction with a standard bolt is problematic. With a turnbolt, it was a bit weird since a sharp pull might extract the spent round, and the fresh one behind it!

Then again, it's dirt cheap and has no recoil.

My new range toy is a chronograph and the ball was running 2,800 fps while the blue stuff was 4,400. Pretty hot for 5 grains of plastic. I've shot water jugs with these and they will crack the skin but do no penetrate.

We also had an accuracy competition between a SIG P226 and an IMI Jericho 941. To the surprise of no one, the SIG dominated. To be fair, all steel vs polymer lower is also a tough row to hoe.

Something that I've wondered about for a LONG time, finally answered. Can loading a Super Ball into a 12-gauge shotgun shell work as a non-lethal round?

My plan was similar to this guy, but I was thinking of using less powder, a single ball, and one of those super short 1.75 inch mini-shells.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNqDgDBsFuM

Not sure if anyone else is following this, but it's looking like the M18 (SIG P320) has some serious problems. A USAF sergeant was recently killed when his holstered pistol discharged, and the commander of US Global Strike Command has order all of the pistols turned in and the troops are to use M4s until the situation is sorted out.

I for one cannot understand why the US military didn't just go with the M9A3. I hated the M9, but the A3 variant seemed like the obvious choice, especially since Beretta was willing to bring the existing stocks to the A3 standard. I'm a fan of Beretta in general, but the M9 was meh. The M9A3 looks pretty slick and my buddy has an A4 model (the current one) that I'm eager to try out.

US military procurement seems deeply broken at this point. The M7 Spear (also by SIG) seems a rifle no one wants and no one needs, but it is very, very expensive.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Not sure if anyone else is following this, but it's looking like the M18 (SIG P320) has some serious problems. A USAF sergeant was recently killed when his holstered pistol discharged, and the commander of US Global Strike Command has order all of the pistols turned in and the troops are to use M4s until the situation is sorted out.

I for one cannot understand why the US military didn't just go with the M9A3. I hated the M9, but the A3 variant seemed like the obvious choice, especially since Beretta was willing to bring the existing stocks to the A3 standard. I'm a fan of Beretta in general, but the M9 was meh. The M9A3 looks pretty slick and my buddy has an A4 model (the current one) that I'm eager to try out.

US military procurement seems deeply broken at this point. The M7 Spear (also by SIG) seems a rifle no one wants and no one needs, but it is very, very expensive.

Several third party manufacturers have also dropped support, and some shooting competition orgs have also banned the 320.

It's gone from months of smoke as people on the internet argue about whether the pistol can fire on it's own to a full out inferno.

As far as the military trials, I can't imagine there wasn't some level of influence involved in picking Sig.

Its pretty much an open secret that Sig bribed the politicians to get the contract. Nobody in the military actually wanted the Sig guns.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with the M7, or the other entrants to the contract, but everything special about it could have been replicated in an AR10 in .308 for way way cheaper. You could make spicy .308 ammo and have reinforced barrels to fire it and get everything else more or less off the civilian market.

Its also pretty obvious that if a real war starts up the US will begin issuing and using DU ammunition instead of Tungsten for AP uses. A Spicy(or even not) .308 with DU penetrators would be more than enough for anything you'd want out of small arms.

Moving from 5.56 to a rifle caliber was and still is a good idea, but it was poorly implemented for scalability. AR10s would have been the more sensible choice. Compatible with existing M4 accessories, large civilian market part availability, etc...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its pretty much an open secret that Sig bribed the politicians to get the contract. Nobody in the military actually wanted the Sig guns.

I used to work in procurement and have been following the development of the XM7. Most people in industry expected Sig to win long before the decision was made. General Dynamics didn't provide a belt-fed (which was a major part of the program!) and a bullpup is an ergonomic non-starter for Army. Textron required even more exotic LSAT-derived ammo, didn't meet performance requirements, and had untenable service agreement demands. Sig was the only one that met all requirements, was the most conservative of the three designs, and came from a company with credible capability to supply a new service weapon. There was some discussion of retrofitting the Textron prototype to use Sig ammo but neither company wanted to deal with that.

The M17, on the other hand, was chosen because both it and the Glock met trial requirements but Sig offered a unit price of sub-$200. I'd have to go back and check exactly what the M9A3 got dinged on, but at the end of the day when it comes to service sidearms the gold standard is whatever's cheapest and meets requirements. It's the reason the (Sig, ironically) P226 lost out to the Beretta 92 in the last go-around. It wasn't until after adoption that it was discovered the M17 did not meet RBS requirements using milspec ball ammo, and subsequently the uncommanded discharges started. Sig USA might actually be screwed as a corporate entity over this debacle, depending on how the lawsuits go, because their handling of it has not gone unnoticed by the government.

The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could make spicy .308 ammo and have reinforced barrels to fire it and get everything else more or less off the civilian market.

.277 Fury physically cannot be replicated with .308. With comparable case volume .308 cannot produce the same velocity, and the worse ballistic coefficient of the .308 makes it less conducive to maintaining energy at range, which is the entire point of the cartridge. Even if you did build a very spicy .308 load, grossly exceeding SAAMI specifications would necessitate creation of a new caliber, and since .308 weapons are still in circulation this would mean case alteration to render it non-compatible with existing .308 guns (see: .357 Magnum vs .38Spl). And the barrel isn't the only problem, as the design of the AR-10 bolt carrier and action dictates a maximum chamber pressure of under 70K PSI, while the .277 is designed to hit 80+K.

If .308 could be made to meet the requirements, they'd have done that, but it can't. So either you settle for less (which is pointless- we'd sooner reissue A4s than switch back to .308), or you develop a new cartridge for a new rifle with a new action, and at that point the nominal advantages of being based on an existing platform are much more limited. Army felt that their program goals were worth the demonstrable trade-offs and cost. Whether that pans out, particularly in light of the XM7's teething problems, remains to be seen.

 catbarf wrote:

The M17, on the other hand, was chosen because both it and the Glock met trial requirements but Sig offered a unit price of sub-$200. I'd have to go back and check exactly what the M9A3 got dinged on, but at the end of the day when it comes to service sidearms the gold standard is whatever's cheapest and meets requirements. It's the reason the (Sig, ironically) P226 lost out to the Beretta 92 in the last go-around. It wasn't until after adoption that it was discovered the M17 did not meet RBS requirements using milspec ball ammo, and subsequently the uncommanded discharges started. Sig USA might actually be screwed as a corporate entity over this debacle, depending on how the lawsuits go, because their handling of it has not gone unnoticed by the government.

I have only done UORs, but even then the safety testing was expensive and roundly cursed (I can't imagine how it is with 'proper' programmes). I can see obviously many examples how stuff fails to be found out in testing, but why do you think this didn't come up? Specially made test pieces vs production models, or poorly designed testing programme?

If you mean the ball ammo, as I understand it the prototypes provided for testing met standards that the production guns did not, but this was primarily of interest to DOD (and not .gov or .le) as the reliability issues did not manifest with conventional 115gr/124gr loads as opposed to the essentially +P+ of 9x19 NATO. So you have a situation where the gun is doing fine for most users, but in Army testing it isn't quite reaching the required MRBF, but we've already bought all the damn things so a course-correct is needed. AFAIK that was addressed...

...but then the uncommanded discharge issue arose, without any clear explanation. There's a lot of FUD and rumormongering and idle speculation, but if I had to stake my life on a cause, I'd bet there's a tolerance-stacking issue that's permitting some guns to fire under some particular combination of circumstances. A recent YT video making the rounds showed that a little bit of trigger takeup coupled with manipulation of the slide is sufficient to make at least some guns fire, which lends credence to the idea that there may be a striker reset issue preventing the normal battery of safeties from fully engaging.

The thing is, nobody really knows what's going on. The M17/P320 is, fundamentally, a cheap gun, and the sorts of manufacturing processes used to bring down production cost (like MIM parts, or batch sampling for QC) only make it more difficult to isolate the problem. Sig has a huge PR problem here because even leaving aside their dogged insistence that nothing's wrong, if they can't determine the cause and neither can potential customers, there's little reason to accept that risk (let alone the bad optics if it results in further needless deaths) when there are other options on the market.

I do have a bias - I could always shoot expert on the M9 - didn't hurt that they gave you 40 rounds to hit 30 targets in the old qualification tables. But I can barely get above marksman with the M17. I have to blame the balance of the pistol - the front feels heavier to me which I think I overcorrect and tend to shoot high or maybe I'm pulling instead of being relaxed... I spent over 12 years running the M9 and never once had it fail to fire a round at the range. Flawless reliability, even after thousands of rounds. But after transitioning to the M17 for the last 3 years, I’ve had multiple misfires across multiple ranges—and not in harsh field conditions, just standard range use.

Some of this, I’ll admit, isn’t purely on the platform. A big part comes down to how military pistols are handled across the board. Unlike rifles, you don’t zero your issued pistol, and in many Army ranges, the same sidearm sees hundreds of rounds through it with zero cleaning, maintenance, or accountability. Pistols get passed shooter to shooter on a lane with carbon buildup and no inspection, and over time that kind of neglect adds up—especially on a platform that might already be flirting with tolerance limits.

Still, if the M17’s design can't reliably handle normal duty cycles under military use—let alone NATO-spec pressures—it’s hard to shrug off. And when a previously trusted sidearm suddenly starts throwing surprise misfires, it doesn't inspire confidence. I respect what SIG was trying to do with modularity and cost savings, but at a certain point, you can’t compromise on reliability and assume users will make up the difference with perfect upkeep. Because in reality, most won't.

I don't shoot the M18 particularly well, either. The gun is mechanically accurate, I think its more of a balance thing as you say. Plenty of people shoot plastic guns well, those used to metal guns often don't. Anecdotally, I have shot 1000+ rounds through it, mostly high pressure M1152 ammo, and had no reliability issues. I never tried the 124g NATO round.

As for the spontaneous discharging, even the "official" data can be misleading. This FBI report has some good information regarding the striker safety lock spring, but repeatedly calls a regular 320 (320 compact with no manual safety) an M18 (the same except it does have a manual safety). I wanted to know if the gun can discharge with the manual safety on or not, and still don't. I'd assume the airman that was killed had an actual M18 with the safety on, but you know what they say. Either way, mine will be staying the safe at this point, absent a recall.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MSP-M18-Pistol-Evaluation_FINAL_Redacted_Outdoor_Life.pdf

It seems like instead of becoming the new HK, Sig might be becoming the new Taurus. I'd love to know how many of their other guns also use parts made in India. I often shoot at their flagship store/range and they have this huge diorama of US soldiers equipped with Sig guns in their "museum", afaik none of them yet used in actual combat. Might have jumped the gun on that, so to speak .

Even if this 'just' turns out to be some error that doesn't relate to a failure of the weapon itself, it's going to be a massive issue.

I know that at least one army recalled a whole bunch of holsters, because they encouraged the release of manual safeties accidentally. Nothing to do with the pistol, or the holster, just the ergonomics led to people releasing the safety while reholstering, because it felt comfortable to handle it that way.

Sure, you can call that a training issue, and that it could be mitigated without a recall of either, but once you consider how dumb, tired, or infrequently people will touch these things, it's definitely easier to recall.

Also entirely possible that there's a tolerance issue. Happens all the bloody time, even with established weapons. One batch has some cut corners or someone reckons they've got a cheaper way to do it, and suddenly parts are cracking or wearing down below safe limits.

 catbarf wrote:

The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.

No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for? It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires. The obvious truth was that with then end of the GWOT, the Army knew it was going to get big budget cuts because the Navy and Air Force were now on the front line, so they needed some big project, and the found the most inefficient one possible that also carried a ludicrous logistical requirement for special training ammo vs actual field ammo, short barrel life and a package that was heavier than the M-14.

No one wanted this, except SIG and the officers who would shortly be retiring to work for them.

The M18 debacles shows that the procurement system is completely broken. We can't build ships, our tank designs come in ludicrously overweight and even small arms, which we once excelled at, are now a dangerous joke.

There is a video claiming (grain of salt) that Beretta met every requirement with the M9A3, offered a better price, and also offered to retrofit the existing stock. Everyone was trained on it, what defects it had were corrected (including the grip), but SIG won because reasons. Even if they messaged the per unit price down, the time lost in swapping out the entire logistics system, the effort in retraining imposed very real costs.

As for the XM7 competition, the lack of interest by otherwise qualified manufacturers tells you that it was pre-selected and no one wanted to waste the money on a losing proposition.

Went shooting at my brother's house. We dug out a TISAS 1911, a Walther P99, and a reproduction Colt 1851 Navy that had an aftermarket cylinder for .45 Long Colt. Of all those the P99 was the worst one to shoot.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for? It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires. The obvious truth was that with then end of the GWOT, the Army knew it was going to get big budget cuts because the Navy and Air Force were now on the front line, so they needed some big project, and the found the most inefficient one possible that also carried a ludicrous logistical requirement for special training ammo vs actual field ammo, short barrel life and a package that was heavier than the M-14.

To defend the M7 a little bit.

It is quite clear that in the long term rifles are going to move away from intermediate and back to rifle calibers. The M7 does the job of being a rifle caliber battle/assault rifle thingy. The over-performing battle ammo is meant to be extra insurance against body armor evolution for the forseable future.

So I mean, the M7 does do what it is intended to do. But as you point out it could be done way simpler, cheaper, "just as good", etc...

The .277 Fury is a neat round, at least as field ammo. However, in terms of practical effect you could do 95% of what the intention is with this ammo with .308

A long heavy barrel .308 AR10 platform will already defeat most body armor, and thats just with ball ammo. They could have just adopted some match grade +P ammo, and had an AP variant using Depleted Uranium penetrators instead of Tungsten(for actual war use only). This has the advantage of actually having a domestic source of AP penetrator material. Most Tungsten comes from China, but we have ungodly amounts of DU sitting around....

It would already be compatible with all of the accessories that the army already has, and even some parts compatibility. Identical manual of arms to the M4. Tons of magazines already available on the civilian market too in any size you want really, 20, 25, 50, etc... Importantly, its also compatible with all of those. So if a war happens you can hoover up civilian product in a pinch.

And you are really really married to the idea of .277 Fury. Just AR10 with .277 fury Uppers. It doesn't need to be complicated.

Plus at least the M7 isn't an unsafe gun.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.

That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.

No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for?

Uh, thanks for proving my point, I guess.

The original program solicitation is a great starting point for understanding the goals of the NGSW, why such a massive project is being undertaken, and why existing COTS solutions wouldn't work. If you want to discuss the merits of the program, start by educating yourself a bit on what they actually are, and then we can discuss the actual facts.

Otherwise, I'm not really keen on engaging with empty speculation based on vibes.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.

That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

To that point it's worth noting that the M27 IAR project was adopted by the Marines to replace the aging M249. The Marine view is that it is not rounds in the air that produce effects, but rounds on target. They considered a weapon with a lower sustained rate of fire, but greater hit probability, to represent a net improvement in lethality. The NGSW program has similar goals- that's why the huge expensive computerized fire control unit is an integral component of the XM5/XM7/M7.

Ok, new question from the lack of understanding?

Is there a difference between military and civilian shotguns? And of course, if so, what are they?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.

That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ok, new question from the lack of understanding?

Is there a difference between military and civilian shotguns? And of course, if so, what are they?

Kinda of a nuanced response I guess? Military shotguns tend to be short barrel. I've only seen them used to breach doors and for close quarters. Civilian shotguns can be used for hunting and will have a longer barrel for accuracy and different ammo or for home defense and will be very similar to shotguns used by the military.

So no change to rate of fire and that?

No. The weapon functions in a very similar manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.

That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.

Maybe at the team or squad level this still holds true—I couldn’t say for certain. It’s been over a decade since I operated below the company level, and things may have evolved. But at the company level, the emphasis is firmly on coordinating fires and managing asset integration. In a near-peer conflict, where it's division versus division, the Army isn’t concerned with what small arms an individual rifleman is carrying. The real priority becomes maneuvering that division effectively, with synchronized support from air, artillery, and missile assets. At that echelon, the focus shifts even further toward the deep fight—shaping the battlefield well beyond the immediate close-quarters engagement.

Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.

What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.

Cool, thank you.

Informative as always, if sadly a slightly boring question this time!

 Jammer87 wrote:
No. The weapon functions in a very similar manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.

That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.

Maybe at the team or squad level this still holds true—I couldn’t say for certain. It’s been over a decade since I operated below the company level, and things may have evolved. But at the company level, the emphasis is firmly on coordinating fires and managing asset integration. In a near-peer conflict, where it's division versus division, the Army isn’t concerned with what small arms an individual rifleman is carrying. The real priority becomes maneuvering that division effectively, with synchronized support from air, artillery, and missile assets. At that echelon, the focus shifts even further toward the deep fight—shaping the battlefield well beyond the immediate close-quarters engagement.

It's basic soldiering principle, taught to everyone at Basic, regardless of how POG their MOS may be. When a cook or refueler knows "One shot, one kill" then I'd say it's an Army wide principle. Combined arms and integrated fires are a different animal. The person I was responding to inferred that individual fire volume control wasn't a US military thing, and I'm saying that that's wrong.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam.

LOL. The US is (in)famous for not following doctrine.

This goes back a long way, and it's usually a good thing.

As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange.

This has always been US practice since 1775.

It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.

Right, so this is back to re-fighting the last war, as I said.

 catbarf wrote:

Uh, thanks for proving my point, I guess.

The original program solicitation is a great starting point for understanding the goals of the NGSW, why such a massive project is being undertaken, and why existing COTS solutions wouldn't work. If you want to discuss the merits of the program, start by educating yourself a bit on what they actually are, and then we can discuss the actual facts.

Otherwise, I'm not really keen on engaging with empty speculation based on vibes.

The "why" is to spend money. It is a bureaucratic turf battle. The Army came up with an urgent requirement for a rifle that would only be useful to infantry, thus creating duplicative ammo supply trains. There is no way Navy and Air Force security forces are going to lug those behemoths around. So now our supply chain becomes even more complex, and of course short barrel life adds to the strain.

Short barrel life is a feature, not a bug, if you work for SIG.

We are done with "brushfire wars." A peer conflict needs to have mass, with deep reserves and robust logistics. Your 1914 BEF equivalents will - like the real ones - be mostly extinct within a few months. What then?

Even the Air Force (!) has figured out that our reasources are not infinite.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.

What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.

Could this pull the OICW or similar capabilities out of the past? Bolters with mass reactive seeker shells ahoy

Total vibe change.

This weekend I did some ammo comparisons using a Webley Mk VI and a Colt 1911 equivalent (Ballester- Molina). Range was about 10 feet to the chronograph. I used three types of ammo: actual Webley .455, downloaded .45 ACP to Webley pressures, and .45 ACP.

Here are the average velocities:

Webley .455 - 557.3 FPS
Webley Downloaded .45 ACP - 497.5 FPS
B-M Downloaded .45 ACP - 599.8 FPS
B-M .45 ACP - 814.5 FPS

Two things stood out. The first was that the downloaded ACP was so much slower than the rimmed .455. I did not expect that. The report of the two cartridges was markedly different.

I'm assuming the variation between revolver and autoloader had to do with the cylinder gap, and also maybe the .45 ACP didn't take all the rifling up.

Another lesson is also obvious: DO NOT USE .45 ACP IN A WEBLEY. Yes, they were 'shaved' and will chamber it with a full/half moon adapter, but it's a really bad idea.

For me, I'm going to shift more to the downloaded .45 because it is so much cheaper and you can use the clips. To take the .455 I had to fabricate adapters, which are a pain to use, and the ammo is not cheap.

I'm really liking my chronograph, so expect to see me randomly drop results from time to time. If you can think of a comparison, let me know. I may not own a ton of guns, but I know people who do, which is just as good!

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Even the Air Force (!) has figured out that our reasources are not infinite.

Impossible

Re doctrine/M4/volume of fire/accurate fire. Won't go into it in detail as off topic and one of those things where people will have their own views and experiences. In training everyone does marksmanship, but consider the view from outside the US. We are jealous of the money the US has, we use individual riflemen competency to try and compensate for the excellent crew served firepower the US has. Undoubtedly we are snobbish about the real life capability of the M4 and the real world implications as we see them, seeing US riflemen as ammo carriers and operators for all those great pieces of kit, but see moving away from the M4 as moving towards that individual competency more. (Something incidentally I wonder if the militia movement in the US gets, the importance of those weapon teams, while I get rifles are cheap and personally important, its why armies scythe through militias that try to stand up fight). Anyway done, will say no more.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.

What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.

You can see on the interwebs the interceptor drone with 2 one shot shotguns underslung. No idea how that could be used in anything but an ambush role (perhaps an AI could use it better than a human, but drone dogfights are still in the future - the one dropping nets are cool though...).

Actually searching just now reveals a prototype jet one. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/57595

While I think its illegal everywhere to have drones with dangerous payloads, I wonder if that's a future gun rights issue, if you are flying the drone how is it different to holding the gun yourself? And something of the reverse, what about computer managed firing of a weapon with you holding it but the command to fire being computer triggered - you point it downrange but the gun decides the best time based on local conditions to fire to hit what you have keyed in?