LooseRounds.com5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

 

18 thoughts on “Video: Texton Next Gen Squad Weapons”

    • There is a fair argument for a flatter shooting round with better sectional density for greater penetration that .308.
      But it doesn’t matter if we give our troops .50 bmgs, they have to be trained to hit the target first.

      Reply
      • The bigger problem is finding the damn targets… And, then being able to make PID on them.

        I remain unconvinced that this is an idea whose juice is worth the squeeze. There is something about the number of buzzwords and lack of a clear delineation of what it is that this whole thing is going to do that just rubs me the wrong way.

        Weapons should not drive tactics at this stage of development. When you’re going through a technological revolution like the transition from black powder to smokeless, then you feel your way through things, issuing out the best you can build with the new technology. Once something is well-understood, however? That’s not what you do; when a technology is mature, then you make that technology match the tactics and operational intent as best you can, designing to suit.

        And, what we have here is a fairly clear example of “Yeah, let’s see what we can do with the tech, and the hell with thinking about how we’re gonna use it…”.

        My sneaking suspicion is that 90% of the increased capability these things are going to generate will go utterly unused because of a tactics/reality mismatch. The real problem ain’t the ballistics of what goes on downrange in the target, it’s behind the eyeballs of the soldiers shooting the guns. You can’t ID the target, and you’re doing “recon by fire”? You may as well be firing .22 Long Rifle at them. Then, there’s ROE, wherein you have to have PID on the bastards before you can shoot. Great–Now I can hold off firing with an effectively even more useless weapon.

        I find the technology intriguing, and I think that in a better world, this would be a decent idea to develop. In the world we live in? LOL… Waste of time and money. You’d be better off looking at the target acquisition and identification end of things, and working on marksmanship. I’m gonna go out on a limb, here, and predict that none of these systems ever see standardization or mass issue.

        Reply
  1. In for the comments.

    Personally I have little faith in “Revolutionary”
    Small Arms stuff and this whole 6.8 thing may be the F-35 of the rifle/saw world, especially the telescope cartridges. Caseless was all the rage forty effing years ago and still not happening. Granted the telescope case might well be a step in that direction.

    I do watch a lot of Karl’s stuff and he seems to believe wholeheartedly that a hot 6.8 is coming, sooner rather than later. He has his ear to the specops world and to industry trends and a bunch of experience on the SOCOM side of getting better tools fielded.

    The industry being what it is, some former four-star who is now in the industry is for sure trying to sell this stuff to uncle with everything he has.

    Reply
  2. Karl’s good people. It looks like he got to play with some weapons for a day that will all end up on the forgotten weapons channel later while Sig will get one more contract.

    Reply
      • Sounds like fake news. Karl is pro freedom, pro 2A and regularly speaks out against Antifa, BLM, and all other sorts of commie scum.

        Reply
          • Ok, so post the pic and ID the guy.

            Was kinda surprised you didn’t respond to my wtf question earlier. Not what I’ve come to expect on here.

            It’s your site and you can say what you want to say any time you like but if you can’t back it up with anything you can feature me in the Hate Mail section and I’ll be on my way.

          • I don’t give enough of a shit about your opinion on me or Karl or this website or what you’ve “come to expect” from me to argue with you about it. No matter what I say or do it will be “fake news” or ” thats photoshopped” or some other reason for you to white knight for him. So, I said all that to say. Bye then.

        • Using this logic, everyone who has taken a picture with Bill Clinton is now a rapist also. I’ve talked to Karl and he’s a decent, hardworking, patriotic human being.

          Reply
  3. I feel if they were billing this as more of an experiment to see what they can do vs the “this will replace everything” we could appreciate it more. Nothing wrong with R&D. Or even “hey we are thinking with more and more forces wearing some sort of plate armor we want to be ready with something that can defeat it. But don’t expect to field this anytime soon.” We would be satisfied. But saying we’re going to replace everything and it will be a wunderwaffe is guaranteeing eyerolls.

    Reply
    • Personally, I think that this is exactly what’s wrong with our current small arms development paradigm: It’s all blue-sky fantasy-land, where they’re gonna develop and issue the ultimate rifle/MG, and it will be a 100% improvement on what we have now.

      Slight problem, with that: The state of the art is such that an improvement of that scale just ain’t likely, and if it were, then the technological risk involved is going to be ugly. Look at the history of the French, with smokeless powder, the 8mm Lebel cartridge, and the Lebel rifle itself. Smokeless was revolutionary, but they rushed the development and instead of issuing a cartridge that could be adapted to box magazine feed easily, they just did a quick-and-dirty make-it-work improvement on the black powder round and rifle they already had. This literally screwed French small arms design up until well into the 1930s, which is a testament to why you don’t rush these things, and why going for blue-sky perfection isn’t a good idea. On the one hand, the French rushed fielding smokeless, yet on the other, they tried to shoehorn that into legacy systems that had no real growth potential.

      You have to have a balanced approach; look at the iterative manner in which Paul Mauser designed the 1898 version of his rifle, and continued its evolution into the 1900s. That’s how you go about things, and if you look at the history of the Mauser rifles in Turkey, you get a good example of doing that such that you get the most serviceable rifles possible while keeping up with the times, technologically.

      I think they ought to take a more evolutionary approach to these things; it’s completely nuts that the Technical Data Package for the M16 and M4 rifles has basically been frozen since adoption. Instead of taking advantage of the latest technology, we build even the latest purchases with the technology which was prevalent when the design was frozen. Which is why the Canadians were making bank selling our rifles to the Europeans–They could offer cold hammer forged barrels when all Colt could produce was the button-broached stuff they’d frozen into the design. FN wanted to put CHF barrels on their versions of the M16 and M4, but because the TDP called for the old technology, that was a no-go. Likewise with all the coatings…

      There’s something to be said for standardization, but there’s also the point that if you’re going to refresh the damn fleet by buying new weapons, why the hell don’t you take advantage of new technology? We should be setting things up so that there’s always a new version of the rifles ready to go, and when it comes time to replace the fleet because it’s worn out, you get updated rifles with the latest in technology baked in, rather than new rifles built to the old standards. And, when you develop new technology like the cased telescopic, you slipstream that in at the next round of purchases, after it has been thoroughly validated and wrung out on a small scale. You don’t try to do what we did in Vietnam with the M16, and just fling the thing out on mass-issue without a thorough fielding process that really wrings the design out.

      We ain’t doing this right, at all.

      Reply

Leave a Comment