History, Politics And Current Affairs

On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release.

Indeed the rifle seems cursed from birth. Even the naming has failed. Army recently allowed a third-party company to scare it off the military designation M5. The re-naming will certainly also help scupper bad public relations growing around ‘XM-5′ search results.

Civilian testing problems have, or should have, sunk the program already. The XM-5/7 as it turns out fails a single round into a mud test. Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas, as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris from the eject port. Possibly aiming to avoid long-term health and safety issues associated with rifle gas, Army has selected an operating system less hardy in battlefield environments. A choice understandable in certain respects, however, in the larger scheme the decision presents potentially war-losing cost/benefit analysis.

Civilian testing, testing Army either never did or is hiding, also only recently demonstrated that the rifle seemingly fails, at point-blank ranges, to meet its base criteria of penetrating Level 4 body armor (unassisted). True, the Army never explicitly set this goal, but it has nonetheless insinuated at every level, from media to Congress, that the rifle will penetrate said armor unassisted. Indeed, that was the entire point of the program. Of course, the rounds can penetrate body armor with Armor Piercing rounds, but so can 7.62x51mm NATO, even 5.56x45mm NATO.

clancyphile wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:23 pm You know... the private civilian industry had come up with AR-15s in 6.8mm SPC, .308 Winchester, even .338 Lapua (which would kick the ass of the current generation of sniper rifles).

Why not look there? Why all this new stuff?

kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:30 pm There's also the usual pre-introduction doom and gloom articles saying that any given system is terrible, won't work, is much worse than it's predecessor, and otherwise a total waste of money. Strange how many of those don't pan out.

Watch out kdahm, your starting to think like me. That is never a good thing for anyone!

gtg947h wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:57 amI seem to remember the direct impingement system being held in lower regard than piston setups, at least years ago. It was thought to be cleaner and less could've to fouling. Now it's good? But I generally drifted off of gun forums years ago. Maybe just a case of "we don't like the new stuff!"

M.Becker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:56 am Could the problem be less the rifle and more the round? That's this miracle performing 5.56 replacement. I remember more than one guy saying the whole idea was silly because 5.56 or even 7.62*39 for that matter are ok and rifles are not terribly important on the modern battlefield.

Who knows, maybe recent events had the army changing it's prioities?

Rocket J Squrriel wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:55 pm

M.Becker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:56 am Could the problem be less the rifle and more the round? That's this miracle performing 5.56 replacement. I remember more than one guy saying the whole idea was silly because 5.56 or even 7.62*39 for that matter are ok and rifles are not terribly important on the modern battlefield.

Who knows, maybe recent events had the army changing it's prioities?

Well the round is suppose to generate higher pressures then any other type so who knows if its impacting the rifle? Going to be interesting in terms of logistics with others countries because I haven't heard is anyone else is converting to it.

Rocket J Squrriel wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:55 pm Well the round is suppose to generate higher pressures then any other type so who knows if its impacting the rifle?