SIG wins NGSW
 

Treat this as unofficial if you will because it hasn't yet made the regular news, but my sources in the know are telling me that the MCX Spear and MG 6.8 have been chosen as the winners of the NGSW program.

I think barring the rifle catastrophically failing in testing, SIG was going to get it no matter what

The MCX platform is proven at this point, having been adopted in various forms by JSOC and USSOCOM, UKSF, and Ukraine's SBU Alpha Group, among others. If there ends up being a problem, I can't see it being with the rifle.

Of course, the DoD could very well just end up randomly canning the program altogether because DoD reasons. We have seen it before in the cases of the Joint Combat Pistol/Combat Pistol, Individual Carbine, and Interim Combat Service Rifle programs just in the last couple decades.

And it's now been officially announced.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-...ource=facebook

End of an era.

I heard, but I'm still of a "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality right now. For as long as I've been a gun geek (25+ years), I've seen too many attempts to replace the basic DI AR which came and went.

Yeah, true, but this is the first time a new standard cartridge has been seriously considered and I've always been of the mind that changing platforms without ditching 5.56 was pointless because one 5.56 rifle is really no better than another of comparable barrel length. Every so-called "M4 killer" (XM8, SCAR-L, ACR, etc) has been more or less a dud in that regard, while the HK416 only managed an in-road when it did because CAG needed a 10" gun that could run reliably with a suppressor and the CQBR hadn't quite matured enough to do so at the time.

That said, the XM5 and XM250 are still technically in the experimental stage, so there's still the distinct possibility that (A) the 6.8mm round doesn't perform as well as hoped against modern body armor or (B) the DoD just up and cancels it out of the blue because reasons. Plus, you probably recall the XM25 grenade launcher that was popular among troops and performing well when a single faulty cartridge detonated inside one and killed the whole program. As I said previously, though, the MCX is a proven system now despite early teething problems (not unlike the M16/M4) and I don't see there being any catastrophic issues with the rifle itself.

Edit: On the more philosophical side of things, though, I do question that if body armor is that much of a concern, why do prospective near-peer enemies like Russia and China not seem to share it? They seem to be perfectly happy soldiering on with their existing service calibers rather than beating the "bigger stick" drum that NGSW and 6.8x51mm ultimately is. On TFB, for example, there isn't a single comment defending the new round. Everyone there seems to think we should stick with 5.56 and keep upgrading the M4 platform.

This is a legitimate point; certainly, changing cartridges is a better reason to switch platforms than simply getting a newer platform for the sake of the new. That being said, I don't even think changing cartridges is enough of a reason to switch platforms. So long as assault rifles with intermediate-power cartridges are the standard-issue infantry weapons in all modern militaries, it makes little difference what caliber or platform is issued from a bigger strategic picture. Whenever something like caseless ammo becomes available and the M41A Pulse Rifle becomes a reality, then maybe there will be a reason to ditch the AR*. I also think it's telling that every time a new platform or cartridge has become available in the past 20-25 years, SOCOM has (mostly) stood by the good old M4.

*On that note, it's kinda weird to say this, given that the MCX itself is still heavily rooted in the AR platform.

Agreed, and I do think that's going to make the biggest difference between whether the NGSW becomes standardized, or goes the way of the SCAR.

I think that in retrospect, the XM25 was more a victim of sequestration-era budget cuts, combined with the catastrophic malfunction, which enabled the bean-counters who write the NDAA to conveniently write it off.

In the case of the Russians, I think it's because they've been more concerned lately about slapping down their neighbors than fighting near-peer adversaries, and most of their neighbors aren't fielding the latest body armor. With that being said, I am sure that their experiences in Ukraine (where the U.S. has shipped quite a bit of high-end vests and helmets) will change their attitude in the future.

Perhaps we're just a bit more forward-thinking than our adversaries. Not sure. I certainly wouldn't be surprised, though, if what you've said above proves to be yet another excuse that Congress uses to axe the entire NGSW program.

And now LoneStar Future Weapons are protesting this decision.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ngsw-decision/

I'm expecting it to be unceremoniously slapped down. I personally don't believe LoneStar's entry was ever seriously considered because the US military has never embraced bullpups and probably never will.

I don't doubt that, but if they didn't want bullpups, they should've specified, no bullpups. They're punishing LoneStar for something that wasn't specified.

The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.

Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)

In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.

I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.

It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.

Oh, absolutely - but Glock has had its hits and misses over the years. The primary reason the 19X is still selling, and still in production, is due to its MHS rep. Otherwise, Glock should have phased it out by now to concentrate on production of the G45.

My point, though, is that the consolation prize of the 19X's popularity on the civilian market still doesn't mean Glock didn't feel obligated to protest its MHS loss.

Yes, this is true also, though I should point out that there is still a market for bullpup designs in the U.S., which is why firearms manufacturers continue to bring them to market. But yes, American civilians and LE agencies are so addicted to AR-15-pattern rifles that bullpups will always be a curiosity and a novelty for collectors, rather than a serious contender for most folks' go-to rifles.

I also do think that in GD/LoneStar's case, they were always going to take a bigger loss than Glock took on the 19X (which really wasn't much of a loss) by virtue of the fact that the market for expensive military-style semi-auto rifles is far smaller than the market for handguns.

The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.

The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Colt’s web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.

Pretty sure the army would ignore what random civillian firearms someone has slapped an "M" designation on, they can just keep with their sequence and pretty sure there wouldn't actually be an issue on the army's end. I think where the issue would be is that if Colt has a trademark on "M5" Sig would not be able to market civillian versions of the gun that way. Similarly LWRC will have IP protection on the "M6", so "M7" is probably the first that doesn't have trademark issues. I assume the Colt "M7" is less of an issue as it is actually the "CM7".

Hmmm...

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/28/the-not-really-next-generation-weapons-program/


Love this quote in particular:

I'm surprised the XM7 is having issues considering the MCX has been a pretty solid platform so far. But a first-round failure? Sounds like an ammo issue to me.

So I've been hearing rumors on the DL that since the first XM7s (and XM157 optics) started reaching the 101st Airborne this year, they're apparently not well-liked by the paratroopers that have been issued them. The biggest complaint - surprise surprise - is the weight of the rifle/optic setup. I'm also hearing that HQDA is already discussing whether to scale back the current procurement plan. There have already been at least a few public statements where the Army has suggested that the M4A1s will remain in the inventory of the units getting XM7s, which suggests that they've already not confident in their idea and intend to hold the M4A1s in reserve until the T&E period results come back.

For those who missed it - Jeff Gurwitch (former Army SF) already put out his take more than a year ago on why the XM7 was a bad idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAYSEm5zJA

His key points:
(1.) The entire idea of the XM7 (then called XM5) was to achieve overmatch over enemies armed with long-range weapons (e.g., Dragunov and PKM) at the individual rifleman level, which is a fallacy from the get-go. He argues that an infantry rifle like the M4 tends to get used more as a personal defense weapon - the actual effects on target come from heavier weapons and/or air support.
(2.) XM7 is too heavy, and larger caliber = too few rounds per individual infantryman. (In a firefight: The name of the game is to throw a lot of rounds down range to break contact and keep enemies' heads down, until you bring your heavier weapons to bear against them.)
(3.) Russian and Chinese body armor was also a factor in the NGSW concept, but the Ukraine War is demonstrating that in combat against near-peer adversaries in urban environments, a more traditional carbine in a caliber like 5.56 or 5.45 - and equipped with a good old-fashioned red dot optic - works fine for the type of combat that we and/or our allies are likely to experience. An XM7 with the XM157 would be a horrible choice for this type of conflict because urban/village combat is where most firefights take place, while longer-range engagements involve artillery and drones, not infantry weapons.
(4.) A typical Army SF ODA never felt out-matched in a firefight in Afghanistan, because they had a variety of longer-range weapons in 7.62x51mm such as the SCAR-17S, MK 48, and M240 to use in response to fire from PK/PKM or Dragunov-wielding enemies. He thinks it would have been more efficient for the Army to procure some of these weapons and re-structure the firepower of a typical infantry platoon to match what an ODA carries so that there are more longer-range weapons available.

Just feels like history is repeating itself. The XM7 is the new M14, the M320 is the new M79, and CCP/Russian Fed are the new Red Scare.

Except the irony is that this time, it's the conservatives who are downplaying the Russian threat to the U.S., instead of the left. (Though the modern left still has its own demons whose existence it denies.)

As for the XM7 being the new M14: The big difference is that at least with the M14, the U.S. military had the excuse that it was selecting an infantry rifle for a war that would be fought the same way as World War II. The M14 was a failure, but it's an understandable failure. The XM7 is a product of the U.S. military over-learning the lessons of Afghanistan, before it learned the lessons of Ukraine. What is inexcusable is that we should have learned (essentially) the same lessons about urban combat from Iraq.

Yeah, it's quite troublesome how our "side" is so enamored with a potential foe we're equipping ourselves to fight even as they deride Slow Joe as supposedly being a CCP puppet or something. But, hey, Trump says he can end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, so let's see what happens.

But firearm not politics, as TFB's motto is supposed to be.

Right. Seems like we're equipping for Afghanistan again when Ukraine is looking like what the next war will be. Essentially Iraq, just with better enemy equipment. Relatively speaking, of course. Should we have rifles with capability at range like the XM7? Yes, but going fleetwide with what's essentially a DMR doesn't seem like the smartest plan. Even in WWII, most combat was within 300 yards. The days of the 1,000-yard marksman ended in 1918.