US Army shifting billions to priorities like better guns for soldiers

The US Army is shifting over $25 billion over the next five years to 6 major high priority projects like better guns for frontline soldiers.

The first phase of the better guns effort is the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW), which will replace the M249 SAW, a 5.56 mm light machinegun issued one or two per 10-man squad. The second will be a new Squad Automatic Rifle to replace the M16 and M4 — but only for frontline combat troops like infantry, special operations, and combat engineers. That’s about 100,000 people.

They will likely use new 6.8 caliber rounds that also have higher speed.

20 thoughts on “US Army shifting billions to priorities like better guns for soldiers”

  1. NATO hardly uses 7.62, moved away to the 5.56 many years ago. Some sniper and machine gun, maybe, but not standard AK’s. 5.56×45 is also a ubiquitous round everywhere else (e.g IDF). Russia, as you might know, is looking to replace their 5.45 (whole books written about THAT caliber). There is even some talk about them going to 6.8. My theory about the 5.56 replacement is that it’s more than the round itself. Moving everyone to 6.8 (a good compromise if you ask me) is a really big deal. It’s logistics, training, costs, etc etc and all taking place in probably the least efficiently managed “industry” on the planet. Never mind having a clusterf**k like NATO (ex-US) decide on anything.

  2. NATO hardly uses 7.62 moved away to the 5.56 many years ago. Some sniper and machine gun maybe but not standard AK’s. 5.56×45 is also a ubiquitous round everywhere else (e.g IDF). Russia as you might know is looking to replace their 5.45 (whole books written about THAT caliber). There is even some talk about them going to 6.8.My theory about the 5.56 replacement is that it’s more than the round itself. Moving everyone to 6.8 (a good compromise if you ask me) is a really big deal. It’s logistics training costs etc etc and all taking place in probably the least efficiently managed industry”” on the planet. Never mind having a clusterf**k like NATO (ex-US) decide on anything.”””

  3. This is great news, better to spend money on good gun upgrades, then past “modernization” boondoggles where they portray every solder wearing AR glasses/helmet, with a super powerful on-board computer that runs on unicorn farts.

  4. This is great news better to spend money on good gun upgrades then past modernization”” boondoggles where they portray every solder wearing AR glasses/helmet”””” with a super powerful on-board computer that runs on unicorn farts.”””

  5. Probably not, I don’t think the NATO powers have any compelling reason to switch from 7.62×51. I’m not entirely sure anyone can give a terribly compelling reason why our eternal search for a new infantry caliber didn’t just land back on the damn 7.62×51 NATO other than “something new must be sexier”, but perhaps someone can enlighten me. I know 6.8 SPC has its pros over 7.62, I’m sure it’s lighter, I’m sure it has maybe a slightly superior ballistic coefficient, maybe it … has some particular range envelope over which it performs better, retains more terminal energy, I’m sure there are some kind of marginal arguments you can make on paper. But considering we already know everything backwards and sideways about .308, I’m not sure any of those on paper things are suuuuuuuuuper compelling for 6.8 SPC. This has been a debate for going on 30 or 40 years now, a better caliber than 5.56. It needed to happen. Its gotten to a point where it almost didn’t matter terribly what they landed on as long as they landed on something with more mass.

  6. Probably not I don’t think the NATO powers have any compelling reason to switch from 7.62×51. I’m not entirely sure anyone can give a terribly compelling reason why our eternal search for a new infantry caliber didn’t just land back on the damn 7.62×51 NATO other than something new must be sexier””” but perhaps someone can enlighten me. I know 6.8 SPC has its pros over 7.62 I’m sure it’s lighter I’m sure it has maybe a slightly superior ballistic coefficient maybe it … has some particular range envelope over which it performs better retains more terminal energy I’m sure there are some kind of marginal arguments you can make on paper. But considering we already know everything backwards and sideways about .308 I’m not sure any of those on paper things are suuuuuuuuuper compelling for 6.8 SPC. This has been a debate for going on 30 or 40 years now”” a better caliber than 5.56. It needed to happen. Its gotten to a point where it almost didn’t matter terribly what they landed on as long as they landed on something with more mass.”””

  7. For the lives of our soldiers, let us just pray that they don’t F-35 the shyte out of these programs. So will 6.8 caliber become a NATO standard? Or is it already? If not, who cares? NATO is dead anyway.

  8. For the lives of our soldiers let us just pray that they don’t F-35 the shyte out of these programs.So will 6.8 caliber become a NATO standard? Or is it already? If not who cares? NATO is dead anyway.

  9. NATO hardly uses 7.62, moved away to the 5.56 many years ago. Some sniper and machine gun, maybe, but not standard AK’s. 5.56×45 is also a ubiquitous round everywhere else (e.g IDF). Russia, as you might know, is looking to replace their 5.45 (whole books written about THAT caliber). There is even some talk about them going to 6.8. My theory about the 5.56 replacement is that it’s more than the round itself. Moving everyone to 6.8 (a good compromise if you ask me) is a really big deal. It’s logistics, training, costs, etc etc and all taking place in probably the least efficiently managed “industry” on the planet. Never mind having a clusterf**k like NATO (ex-US) decide on anything.

  10. NATO hardly uses 7.62 moved away to the 5.56 many years ago. Some sniper and machine gun maybe but not standard AK’s. 5.56×45 is also a ubiquitous round everywhere else (e.g IDF). Russia as you might know is looking to replace their 5.45 (whole books written about THAT caliber). There is even some talk about them going to 6.8.My theory about the 5.56 replacement is that it’s more than the round itself. Moving everyone to 6.8 (a good compromise if you ask me) is a really big deal. It’s logistics training costs etc etc and all taking place in probably the least efficiently managed industry”” on the planet. Never mind having a clusterf**k like NATO (ex-US) decide on anything.”””

  11. NATO hardly uses 7.62, moved away to the 5.56 many years ago. Some sniper and machine gun, maybe, but not standard AK’s. 5.56×45 is also a ubiquitous round everywhere else (e.g IDF). Russia, as you might know, is looking to replace their 5.45 (whole books written about THAT caliber). There is even some talk about them going to 6.8.

    My theory about the 5.56 replacement is that it’s more than the round itself. Moving everyone to 6.8 (a good compromise if you ask me) is a really big deal. It’s logistics, training, costs, etc etc and all taking place in probably the least efficiently managed “industry” on the planet. Never mind having a clusterf**k like NATO (ex-US) decide on anything.

  12. This is great news, better to spend money on good gun upgrades, then past “modernization” boondoggles where they portray every solder wearing AR glasses/helmet, with a super powerful on-board computer that runs on unicorn farts.

  13. This is great news better to spend money on good gun upgrades then past modernization”” boondoggles where they portray every solder wearing AR glasses/helmet”””” with a super powerful on-board computer that runs on unicorn farts.”””

  14. Probably not, I don’t think the NATO powers have any compelling reason to switch from 7.62×51. I’m not entirely sure anyone can give a terribly compelling reason why our eternal search for a new infantry caliber didn’t just land back on the damn 7.62×51 NATO other than “something new must be sexier”, but perhaps someone can enlighten me. I know 6.8 SPC has its pros over 7.62, I’m sure it’s lighter, I’m sure it has maybe a slightly superior ballistic coefficient, maybe it … has some particular range envelope over which it performs better, retains more terminal energy, I’m sure there are some kind of marginal arguments you can make on paper. But considering we already know everything backwards and sideways about .308, I’m not sure any of those on paper things are suuuuuuuuuper compelling for 6.8 SPC. This has been a debate for going on 30 or 40 years now, a better caliber than 5.56. It needed to happen. Its gotten to a point where it almost didn’t matter terribly what they landed on as long as they landed on something with more mass.

  15. Probably not I don’t think the NATO powers have any compelling reason to switch from 7.62×51. I’m not entirely sure anyone can give a terribly compelling reason why our eternal search for a new infantry caliber didn’t just land back on the damn 7.62×51 NATO other than something new must be sexier””” but perhaps someone can enlighten me. I know 6.8 SPC has its pros over 7.62 I’m sure it’s lighter I’m sure it has maybe a slightly superior ballistic coefficient maybe it … has some particular range envelope over which it performs better retains more terminal energy I’m sure there are some kind of marginal arguments you can make on paper. But considering we already know everything backwards and sideways about .308 I’m not sure any of those on paper things are suuuuuuuuuper compelling for 6.8 SPC. This has been a debate for going on 30 or 40 years now”” a better caliber than 5.56. It needed to happen. Its gotten to a point where it almost didn’t matter terribly what they landed on as long as they landed on something with more mass.”””

  16. For the lives of our soldiers, let us just pray that they don’t F-35 the shyte out of these programs. So will 6.8 caliber become a NATO standard? Or is it already? If not, who cares? NATO is dead anyway.

  17. For the lives of our soldiers let us just pray that they don’t F-35 the shyte out of these programs.So will 6.8 caliber become a NATO standard? Or is it already? If not who cares? NATO is dead anyway.

  18. This is great news, better to spend money on good gun upgrades, then past “modernization” boondoggles where they portray every solder wearing AR glasses/helmet, with a super powerful on-board computer that runs on unicorn farts.

  19. Probably not, I don’t think the NATO powers have any compelling reason to switch from 7.62×51. I’m not entirely sure anyone can give a terribly compelling reason why our eternal search for a new infantry caliber didn’t just land back on the damn 7.62×51 NATO other than “something new must be sexier”, but perhaps someone can enlighten me. I know 6.8 SPC has its pros over 7.62, I’m sure it’s lighter, I’m sure it has maybe a slightly superior ballistic coefficient, maybe it … has some particular range envelope over which it performs better, retains more terminal energy, I’m sure there are some kind of marginal arguments you can make on paper. But considering we already know everything backwards and sideways about .308, I’m not sure any of those on paper things are suuuuuuuuuper compelling for 6.8 SPC. This has been a debate for going on 30 or 40 years now, a better caliber than 5.56. It needed to happen. Its gotten to a point where it almost didn’t matter terribly what they landed on as long as they landed on something with more mass.

  20. For the lives of our soldiers, let us just pray that they don’t F-35 the shyte out of these programs.

    So will 6.8 caliber become a NATO standard? Or is it already? If not, who cares? NATO is dead anyway.

Comments are closed.