(мерзко хихикая) врут, наверное
My understanding (based on recent conversations with people in the know) is that the US Army is still experiencing significant issues with 6.8 mm NGSW:
- Accuracy beyond 200 metres
- Stoppages
- Barrel and parts life
- Gas blowing back in the firer's face
Troops trialling the weapon are being actively discouraged from saying anything about the lacklustre performance in public, but the problems are significant enough that word has got out. Some soldiers have asked not to fire the weapons until these problems are addressed. Suffice it to say that further changes will need to be made before a universal NGSW standard can be adopted.
A new projectile design has already been produced, but still hasn't fixed the accuracy issue. I am expecting a revised hybrid cartridge with reduced chamber pressure. I also understand that a non-hybrid traditional brass case is being looked at. While power may be dialled-down, any improved specification should still dramatically outperform 7.62 mm NATO.
Meanwhile, 6.5 mm Creedmoor has also benefitted from improvements. A government-designed 6.5 mm EPR-style projectile weighing 113 grains / 7.3 grams has been developed and fielded. The GFX bullet is slightly shorter than before which increases barrel life versus the original VLD match bullet, but still delivers superb long-range accuracy thanks to more power behind it (and increased chamber pressure).
Essentially, we are seeing a convergence in specifications between these ammunition types. 6.8 mm NGSW is still more powerful than 6.5 mm Creedmoor, but the performance is closer than before. The crucial difference is that 6.5 mm Creedmoor can be adopted with just a barrel change, enabling it to be fired from legacy weapons. This makes adoption easy and low-risk. If further issues with 6.8 mm NGSW are encountered, the specification may be brought closer still to 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
The standard 6.8 mm steel core loading of NGSW GP loading does not penetrate Level IV body armour at any range. In other words, 6.8 mm NGSW cannot deliver against the program requirement. This has caused NGSW detractors to say that the juice is not worth the squeeze. It will be interesting to see what Trump's new Secretary of the Army thinks about it given budget pressures. For sure, NGSW's future is in question, especially as most members of NATO have said they won't adopt it. At least not in its present format. We also need to remember that whatever happens with NGSW, it will not replace the M4 or 5.56x45 mm M855A1 EPR ammunition.
What is clear is that both 6.8 mm NGSW and 6.5 mm Creedmoor can replace 7.62 mm NATO. If they can do this while saving weight and reducing recoil in a smaller cartridge, it will be a step forward.
ссылка
каг же таг, чтобы новейшая инновационная американская вундервафля не укладывалась в ТТТ и вообще работала ниочень? Никогда же такого не было, и вот опять.
Не удивлюсь если вангование цитируемого автора в конце концов окажется правдой, и все кончится просто перестволом оружия (пулеметы и ДМРки) под 6.5 Кридмур.
И где-то горько засмеются какие-то там шведы, 50 лет назад занимавшиеся ровно обратным - перестволом 6.5мм пулеметов FN MAG и более старых танковых Браунингов под 7.62х51 :)