The purpose of the LMG-M is to bridge the gap between the M2 and M240 machine guns. The program’s objectives are to deliver a man-portable system that has overmatch capability over opposing enemy 7.62x54R machine guns. The LMG-M’s performance should be close to that of a .50 caliber machine gun in terms of engagement distance, however, the smaller 300-grain projectiles used in the 338 NM will not have the kinetic energy of a 660+ grain projectile fired from a 50 BMG. In addition, there is a growing need for lightweight systems for aircraft and side-by-side type vehicles. In many cases, these heavy gun systems exceed the total system weight (weapon, ammunition feed systems, and ammunition) allowable for operation on these vehicles. They need a lighter-weight option going forward.

To understand the program’s objectives, let’s take a closer look at the systems the LMG-M is designed to replace.

OLD FAITHFUL – THE M2 MACHINE GUN

The LMG-M system is designed to replace John M. Browning’s masterpiece, the .50 caliber/12.7x99mm M2 (“Ma Deuce”) heavy machine gun. This iconic weapon has dominated the battlefield for the last 91 years. It’s been in service since 1933, with no end in sight. “Replace” is probably not the right word. As mentioned, the U.S. M2 will be around for the foreseeable future. The .338 LMG-M is going to replace it in some applications. Why? Because the LMG-M is going to be around 25 pounds versus the 84 pounds of the M2. That’s nearly a 50-pound difference. A complete M2 system including optics, M3 tripod, spare barrel (required because of heat issues), and 400 rounds of ammunition weighs 288 pounds. This is clearly not a single-man portable system; it takes a small team to utilize this weapon.

In a vehicle situation where 4000 rounds are likely present, you now have 1320 pounds of ammo. This additional weight is not an issue in an Abrahams tank, however, it is a no-go for smaller vehicles and modern side-by-sides. Next, of course, is aircraft. This system is far too heavy for many small aircraft and helicopters. I’m sure drones will come into the conversation here too. The M2 and 1320 pounds of ammo is probably a no-go scenario for a typical drone, however, a lighter LMG-M with lightweight ammunition is a different story.

The LMG-M concept is man-portable and considerably lighter, a boon not only for infantry, but for other weight-conscious applications such as in aircraft, boats, or vehicles. The weight of the machine gun and ammo makes a very compelling argument for a lighter-weight weapon and ammo.

LIGHT AND PORTABLE – THE M240 MACHINE GUN

To go a little deeper into history, we need to also discuss the U.S. M240 machine gun in 7.62x51mm. This is the little brother to the .50 cal M2. The LMG-M will become the middle child in the family and have middle child syndrome to boot. The LMG-M is also going to partially replace the M240. Just as with the M2, we foresee the M240 being around for a very long time. The M240 fires the 7.62x51mm cartridge. The M240 has been in service since 1977 and was an upgrade for the prior M60 that was in service since 1957. This system is man-portable and vehicle- and aircraft-mountable. A complete system for this weapon including optics, M192 tripod, spare barrel, and 800 rounds of ammunition is 101 pounds, making it very possible to carry in a multi-person team.

THE OVERMATCH PROBLEM

In the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the troops on the ground had a major problem. These teams would come up against the enemy with the non-standard PKM machine gun firing the 7.62x54mm R caliber (R= rimmed for the protruding rim from original cartridge designs to be easier to extract) that has an effective range of 1500 meters. Troops equipped with this weapon had overmatch capability on U.S. and NATO forces. This has been a known issue for decades, however, the U.S. has been involved in few conflicts where it was a major issue, as it is in the open deserts of Afghanistan.

The overmatch issue is probably driving about 60-70% of the need for the LMG-M. The other 30-40% is the need to reduce the weight of the current machine gun for use in numerous vehicles, boats, and aircraft. A modern, lightweight attack vehicle could not handle carrying a .50 caliber system with 1000 rounds of ammo. Included in that percentage is the capability to be single-man portable, where something in the target weight range would be mission-changing.

Since we are talking machine guns, it’s appropriate to include in our comparison the Soviet-era PK machine gun our allied forces face in the field. The original PK has been in service since 1961. It was designed by probably the world’s number two machine gun designer (after Browning), Mikhail Kalashnikov. The improved PKM variant went into Soviet service in 1969. There are nearly eight variants. It has seen action in as many as 36 conflicts around the globe. The fully equipped weapon is estimated to weigh 65 pounds with bipod, optic, spare barrel, and 800 rounds of ammunition.

THE OBJECTIVE OF SOCOM’s LMG-M PROGRAM

The objectives of the LMG-M program are as follows; to supply a lightweight medium machine gun with the following capabilities and features:

• Weight less than 31.1 pounds (threshold) and (objective) 23 pounds with fully equipped with rail, handle, bipod, buttstock, and suppressor.
• Length less than 61 inches (threshold) and (objective) 56 pounds with fully equipped with rail, handle, bipod, buttstock, and suppressor.
• Barrel changes without tools in less than 10 seconds (threshold).
• Minimum velocity of 2400 fps.
• Trigger pull between 8 and 16 pounds.
• Average mean radius (accuracy): single shot not to exceed 6 MOA (threshold) and 3 MOA (objective)at 100 meters.
• Cyclic rate of 450-750 rounds per minute (threshold) and 550 +/- 25 rpm (objective).
• Capable of 125 rounds at a maximum rate of fire without catastrophic failure both unsuppressed and suppressed.
• Recommended 1:8-inch twist.
• 8,000 round barrel life (threshold) and 15,000 (objective).

Keeping in mind that the U.S. government often asks for near-impossible things, it’s doubtful that any weapon will meet all of these criteria 100%. Then it becomes a guessing game about which of the criteria is deemed more important. For example, would a shorter weapon that is lighter, however less accurate, be preferred over a longer, heavier, and more accurate weapon? How much weight and length are worth the potential sacrifice? The government typically uses a matrix. The scoring parameters and the value of particular scores can only be guessed, depending on the winners and losers.

THE CURRENT CONTENDERS

The LMG-M contract competitors are (in alphabetical order):

• True Velocity
• Ohio Ordnance Works
• SIG Sauer

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROGRAM

Back in 2020, SIG Sauer’s MMG 338 passed safety certification and the company delivered a small quantity (estimated at 8 to 12 units) to SOCOM. These were early weapons to evaluate. It seems like there was a period when the manufacturers were willing to let the government evaluate the weapons while they still had time to make changes. It appears that, over the last several months, the competitors have been more secretive about the status of their weapons.

The program was held up waiting for ammunition to be used to evaluate the machine guns. The delay was due to projectile issues, COVID-19-related issues, and vendor changes. The government believed that they needed their ammunition to fairly evaluate the machine guns. This is probably a good idea in general, as most of the manufacturers might have their weapons function with ammunition of their choosing and maybe not function as well with another type of 338 ammunition. However, the links are different for all three manufacturers’ weapons. However, I’m told that all the links are close enough that they “should” run in the competitors’ weapons. Nonetheless, no one is going to take that chance in a competitive environment.

During the SOFWEEK conference In May 2023, Lt. Col. John “Tosh” Lancaster, program manager for U.S. Special Operations Command’s lethality acquisitions, told Defense News that the lightweight medium machine gun is scheduled to field in fiscal 2026. He also told the outlet that SOCOM is still actively looking for the accessories and suite of ammunition needed for the weapon.

Back on February 7, 2024, the competitors delivered three weapons. As of April 30th, 2024, the competitors will need to deliver a total of 12 weapons for a 10,000-round endurance test. Supplied kits included a conversion barrel to 7.62x51mm and testing for this was an “indeterminate” amount. I assume this means more than the 10,000 338 Norma Mag rounds. They also were required to submit 125,000 bare links to run the unlinked 338 Multipurpose ammunition delivered by UDC USA in support of this contract back in 2022-2023. The manufacturers are also to provide the complete technical data package (TDP).

Now, here’s a breakdown of the companies and weapons that have been submitted to SOCOM for its LMG-M contract.

TRUE VELOCITY RM 338

True Velocity, known for its lightweight ammunition, has the oldest design in the field. The company is in Dallas, TX. Their weapon is the RM 338 for Recoil Mitigation.

The True Velocity contract entry was originally designed and built by the General Dynamics Saco facility back in 2012. To GD’s credit, it saw a capability gap between the 7.62×51 M240 and the non-standard PK machine gun. In around a year, the company developed its weapon, an amazingly fast task for a big, slow-turning ship like GD. However, GD was not rewarded for its Herculean effort. The product of its labor was on display at trade shows for several years while the overmatch issue was hotly debated through 2016. Then, the weapon went out of the public eye for a year or two. Once SOCOM started talking about the LMG-M requirement in around 2017, GD’s machine gun was back in the spotlight. It was part of a Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) Irregular Warfare project from several years ago.

True Velocity acquired the rights to GD’s weapon system in the 2021 timeframe and, soon after, started a sister company that you might have seen associated with the company’s machine development gun effort, Lone Star Future Weapons. This is more of a holding company set up by True Velocity to house the machine gun’s intellectual property.

This weapon visually resembles a slightly upsized M240 Bravo. This is a tried-and-true weapon system. The receiver assembly, cover plate, barrel assembly, and trigger housing assembly all look similar to the M240. The recoil mitigation system is impressive. True Velocity is proud that an operator can fire the RM 338 on targets at 1500 meters and continuously see the point of impact. They say they can also walk and fire the weapon. It’s an amazing weapon and is a serious contender. Its age makes it a little less interesting because it’s been around nearly forever. However, its maturity is a great thing for conservative, risk-averse government selection teams.

The weapon, fully equipped for combat with optics, an M192 tripod, a spare barrel, and 500 rounds of linked ammunition weights 102.7 pounds. Note, this is the weight with the 300-grain projectile, while SOCOM’s multi-purpose ammunition is 272 grains. Running the government ammo will reduce the overall load by two to three pounds for the 500-round load-out.

I had the pleasure of firing the True Velocity RM 338 in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s an impressive weapon. The recoil was very minimal. It cycled like a champ. It seemed accurate; however, we were not shooting on paper, so accuracy was hard to gauge. It feels very familiar to standard machine gun designs. I’m told that it’s had millions of rounds fired through it over the last 12 years. It’s going to work, and work well.

An interesting point is their connection with polymer ammunition. SOCOM originally expressed an interest in lightweight ammo to go along with the weapon. They have placed this desire on hold for now. To meet government standards, qualification of the lightweight ammo could take years (or decades) depending on the approach.

As a salient aside, three weeks ago, True Velocity filed a lawsuit against SIG Sauer in Vermont’s Chittenden Superior Court alleging SIG Sauer stole True Velocity’s recoil mitigation concept by hiring its former employees and used it in its SIG-MMG 338 SOCOM LMG-M submission.

OHIO ORDNANCE WORKS REAPR

Ohio Ordnance Works (OOW), located in Charon, Ohio, was the third company to enter the competition. It specializes in making numerous machine guns, including the M240 and the M2. So, the company is highly qualified and has been around since 1992, pointing to them as a well-established, reliable contractor in the arms manufacturing space. This is a major move for OOW since they traditionally manufacture older designed weapons. Their efforts started before 2020 when patents were filed.

The machine gun is called the Recoil Enhanced Automatic Precision Rifle or REAPR, for short, and its design is pretty impressive. The patented sliding feed tray is unique and purposeful. It’s so unique that it is going to need a lot of testing for the government to feel comfortable with it. It’s probably a game-changer. Having tons of optics mounted and never moving them is a huge deal. Per OOW staff, this gives them the most rail space of any of the guns in the competition. The other big win is the breakdown into three pieces to be backpack-carriable. The barrel is just under 25 inches (and would be the longest part), so we are not talking about a giant pack, here. That makes this a one-man system, with a small load of linked ammunition.

I got behind a gun at a special event in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s really impressive. I know they have fired a ton of ammo over those last few years, so they are trying hard to catch up to the time the other systems have in the space. It seems like they have closed the gap. They fully released the weapon as the REAPR at SHOT 2024. This was strategic to ensure none of its competitors could copy anything from the weapon before the submission was due a very short time later. It is currently capable and has been fired in 338 Norma Mag and 7.62x51mm.

SIG SAUER SIG-MMG 338

SIG Sauer, Inc. was the second company to enter the competition with its SIG-MMG 338. It has two New Hampshire locations for weapon manufacturing and an Arkansas facility for ammunition manufacturing. SIG Sauer was founded in 1976 in Germany. The original SIG Sauer has undergone several corporate transformations and is now two independently operated brands owned by the German management group L&O Holding; the small Swiss manufacturer, SIG Sauer AG, and the much larger American firearm manufacturer, SIG Sauer, Inc. All references to SIG Sauer in this article point to the American company, SIG Sauer, Inc.

The weapon seems like a cross between an M240 and other modern SIG weapons. It does have a short-stroke gas piston system and a SIG proprietary recoil reduction system. In a deviation from the standard M240 style cover, the feed tray cover is a side-opening. This has advantages over non-moving optics. It has other modern features like a folding stock, a quick-change barrel, and a compact suppressor.

SIG had already provided samples to the government in early 2020. It’s been demonstrating the weapon at numerous range events around the country. I was able to shoot the weapon in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s an impressive weapon with reasonable recoil. Unfortunately, the machine gun’s accuracy was hard to evaluate since we were not shooting paper targets. The gun functioned flawlessly. The only complaint I have concerns the suppressor and all the gas blowing back at the shooter. This can be addressed with a different suppressor. All the demos and public exposure have SIG’s effort positioned in the early lead of the competition. Their SIG-MMG 338 has had lots of public exposure in the last few years.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

This will be a tight competition. It will not be as well-publicized (because of the limited field of expertise in machine guns) as the 6.8 NSGW competition, nor will its outcome have the battlefield impact of replacing the entire suite of squad-level weaponry. However, it will still have a large impact on the way the battle is conducted in the future.

Why would True Velocity win? This weapon has 12 years of extensive General Dynamics-style development, testing, and evaluation. It has the longest history and the most amount of rounds down the barrel. If SOCOM wants tried and true, tested, and run to its limits again and again – this is the choice. If SOCOM is really interested in fielding lightweight ammo, True Velocity’s ability to leverage its lightweight ammunition may give it an edge in the competition. There are very few lightweight ammunition options in 338 Norma Mag.

Why would Ohio Ordnance Works win? Its very innovative design, reliability, and extensive experience with belt-fed machine guns are the company’s hallmarks. There are a lot of very nice features, like the sliding feed tray that allows nearly any optic to be placed upon it. Also, there is the one-handed barrel change. Are these “unlisted” items enough to sway SOCOM?

Why would SIG Sauer win? It has a solidly performing weapon and a compelling history of producing weapons under military contracts. It also has a history of treating its major U.S. government contracts as loss leaders, pricing them aggressively and leaving thin margins that it offsets with profits on commercial, international, and other agency sales.

CLOSING

The biggest winner will be the U.S. warrior. Some don’t see the benefit of this system. I 110% see it changing the way warfare takes place. Imagine a single soldier or operator being able to sneak up and lay suppressed suppressive fire on targets 3000+ meters away, then pack up and be gone before the enemy has any idea where it came from. Then repeat 30 minutes later. What it will do for aircraft will be similarly impressive. Longer distances with a lighter weight system.

Some minigun systems may get switched out to the 338 LMG-M due to the weight savings (50 pounds), lesser cost, and greater downrange effects. It’s a long shot. However, it could happen. This will probably be impacted by the future of the 338 Norma Magnum suite of ammunition and the capabilities it provides.

It will be impressive. It will make a difference. It will be the future. It might have 90 years of service life like the M2. This future date is 2114. They should have phasers or laser guns by then, however, I’m sure someone back in 1933 thought we’d have lasers in 2024.

Up until quite recently, the 338 Lapua Magnum cartridge was the preeminent sniper caliber with 338 Norma Magnum looking ready to surpass its popularity. The war in Ukraine caused a resurgence in the Lapua caliber, gifting it a stay of execution, of sorts. There were numerous weapons systems available at the time sniper ammunition was needed, and 338 Lapua Mag fit the bill. It’s unclear how much this spike may add to its life span, though. Some say a decade or more. Regardless, the long-term implications for the round’s future use my today’s militaries are the same. 338 Norma Magnum is set to take the Lapua’s place on the throne of tactical long-range cartridges.

This article will dig a little deeper and provide more information about round’s ascension.

Let’s start with what’s included in the 338 NM kingdom and what is not. Its will eventually reign over the future of U.S. military and law enforcement sniper applications. It will not be the king of civilian long-range precision competitions like “The King of Two Miles.”  It does not have the necessary powder capacity to dominate that domain. That arena will be left to larger platform cartridges for the foreseeable future. It does have a chance at becoming the King of One Mile… however, its little brother, 300 Norma Magnum, seems to have a better shot in this dominion since there’s no need for projectile payload in a target shooting competition.

The jury is out on whether the 338 NM will be the king of international military and law enforcement, as these groups fully adopted the 338 Lapua Mag (however, the U.S. didn’t). Eventually, in 10 to 20 years, the 338 NM will replace the 338 Lapua Mag in any holdout groups or countries. This is because the 338 NM can do everything the 338 Lapua Mag can do, but in a slightly smaller package. This includes smaller rifle actions and chambers, slightly less brass, and slightly less propellants. This might be irrelevant to the individual shooter, but it’s significant to defense departments when they’re paying for millions of rounds.

SO WHY THE CHANGE IN THE U.S.?

The U.S. has held .50 caliber and 300 Winchester Magnum as the prior sniper caliber of choice.  There was a brief glimmer of hope for 338 Lapua Mag in 2014, when Remington Defense won the U.S. Department of Defense’s Precision Sniper Rifle (The Mk 21) competition that fired 338 Lapua Mag, 300 Winchester Magnum, and 308 Winchester. This program failed. However, military and law enforcement officers need a man-portable, robust system that can reach extreme distances in the range of 2500 to 3000 meters. The .50 caliber could meet that requirement; however, the weight of the weapon and the ammunition were and are always a challenge.

In addition, the .50 caliber faced some political stigma as being “overkill”, especially in LE and other applications. The .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun (50 BMG) started its life as a military machine gun round that was anti-material and anti-personnel. Ronnie Barrett turned the .50 caliber into a shoulder fired weapon in the 1980’s. His modern rifle design and muzzle break made shooting the .50 caliber manageable. However, the 660-grain payload is devastating on human targets and in any scenario besides combat the risk of extensive collateral damage to people and property is typically deemed too great for the round to be considered in any civilian roles, and even in some military roles, as well. 

WHAT ABOUT 300 WIN MAG?

Historically, 300 Win Mag has struggled with longer distances, and it’s a belted magnum. Belted magnums headspace off the belt at the base of the cartridge instead of the shoulder. Headspacing from the shoulder is universally considered to give consistently better accuracy. In addition, the 300 Win Mag is only a .30 caliber bullet, and it does not have the ability to go up to 300 grains, as the .338 bullets can and do. This reduces kinetic energy and limits the round’s use in the destruction of vehicles. It also has a major impact on armor piercing capabilities in 300 grains with a tungsten core.  Taking out an engine block is well within the scope of a 300 grain Armor Piercing projectile. 

Moreover, the new Barrett MK 22 MRAD (Kudos again to Ronnie) is the next generation sniper weapon system, and it comes chambered in 338 NM, 300 NM, and 308 Win. This is the first weapon that has been chambered in the 338 NM for the U.S. armed forces. In addition, the Army/SOCOM is ordering these rifle systems by the truckload. Barrett’s initial contract from the Army is nearly $50m for around 2,800 weapon systems. This contract (W15QKN21F0192) was awarded in March 2021. Around $8m was funded with the base award and the rest will be rolled out over the term of the 5-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. The contract is forecasted to be completed in March 2026. This does not include all the weapons that will be ordered by other (three-letter) agencies. Under the contract, weapons will probably be delivered to the Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC, and SOCOM, as the Army is typically the central buying hub for the various services. In addition, the U.S. Army recently awarded a 5-year, $157m contract to Sig Sauer for ammunition in both the 300 NM and 338 NM calibers.

SOCOM’S LATEST MACHINE GUN

The Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG) in 338 Norma Mag has been around since 2012. General Dynamics created this next generation weapon system to get .50 cal performance but at the weight of a standard machine gun. General Dynamics was ahead of their time with a great idea. Unfortunately, their effort was unsuccessful and was basically forgotten. Then, around 2020, SOCOM identified the need for a lightweight medium machine gun in 338 Norma Mag and has been ramping up for a full weapon competition ever since. This included an ammunition contract for the 338 Norma Mag Multi-Purpose round that was awarded to UDC USA, Inc. There have been a couple of evaluation contracts for weapons, including one that was won by SIG Sauer for its MG 338 machine guns in 338 NM. The main competition will close in early 2024 and maybe we’ll have a winner in late 2024.

SO WHY THE 338 NM NOW? 

The 338 Lapua Mag has been the king of the international sniper community for decades. This caliber and weight bullet range (250 to 300 grains, typical) is the right combination for this application. However, the latest modern propellants are fine-tuned for maximum performance and can get the .338 caliber bullet to the ideal velocities in the smaller chassis of the 338 Norma Magnum, which could not be accomplished 30 years ago in the 338 Lapua. In addition, the shorter length of the Norma cartridge opens up the number of rifle actions that can fire the round. 

The number of actions that can fit the 338 Lapua Mag length cartridge is limited. The 338 Lapua Mag is designed to be fired in a belt-fed machine gun. However, since the 1980’s there haven’t been any serious weapon development efforts to fire the 338 Lapua Mag in a machine gun. The 338 NM has been fired in machine guns since General Dynamics created the prototype Lightweight Medium Machine Gun in 2012. This powerhouse system was never adopted by any domestic or international military group, though.

NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE

Why doesn’t the sniper community use “king of two miles” calibers like 375 Cheytac or 375 Enabler? The KO2M distance is 3219 meters. According to the competition’s rules, weapons cannot exceed 40 pounds. Compare this to the Barrett MRAD (MK22) at an extremely light 15.2 pounds. The length of a typical KO2M rifle is 1500mm to 1600mm and is not collapsible. Again, compare this to the MRAD at 1255mm, fully extended, and much shorter when collapsed for transport. The KO2M weapons and calibers are not designed for combat, they are designed for maximum accuracy at maximum distance. Therefore, a larger and heavier cartridge is not an issue, as no one is carrying these rifle systems for days.

WHO DESIGNED THE 338 NM CALIBER?  

Jimmie Sloan is the inventor of the 338 NM caliber. It began as a wildcat caliber in 2008 and entered production with Norma in 2009. It was certified by CIP in 2010. So, clearly, this wildcat was on the fast track to success from the very beginning.

ADOPTION HEADWINDS  

The only competitor to the 338 NM is its brother the 300 NM. At worst, they could end up being co-kings. The 300 NM would dominate in precision long-range and the 338 NM would dominate in combat and anti-material requirements. I believe the 300 NM has an advantage in the number of great bullets available to deploy. I think the 338 NM will see more bullets developed for it in the near future. One popular commercial website has 286 products for .30 caliber bullets and only 72 in .338 caliber bullets. The numbers will never be equal, though, since there are so many .30 caliber cartridge offerings and so few in 338. The additional payload capabilities of the 338 NM allow it to carry more tungsten in a penetrator or other increased energetic materials for downrange impact.

THE FUTURE OF 338 NORMA MAGNUM

Expect to see the following in the coming years for the 338 NM:

• More companies will offer sniper and hunting rifles chambered in this caliber. First, because it’s a good caliber, and second to follow suit with what the U.S. government is using.  
• More weapon systems will be offered in 338 NM. In the past, the systems were created by the end user and there was no standardization. The 408 Cheytac was one of the first to be offered as a complete system based on a cartridge and now Barrett follows suit with its MK 22 MRAD (if you have a spare $22k). These packages included: a weapon, barrels, optics (day and night), a ballistic computer system, and more.
• A suite of military tactical ammunition will be developed, similar to the way the .50 caliber spawned a suite of purpose-built cartridges. This will include sniper rounds and machine gun rounds. Right now, the U.S. military only has two rounds for this caliber, the Army’s M1162 300-grain AP round and SOCOM’s 272-grain Multi-Purpose round. The .50 caliber currently has around a dozen fielded options, dozens of commercial variations, and a couple dozen inactive configurations. Obvious potential versions would include a tracer, M962 Saboted Light Armor Piercing (SLAP), and Mk211 (High Explosive Armor Piercing), or as near to these versions as requested by the government.

SIGNIFICANT GROWING PAINS

This is the first time in history a sniper caliber will become a machine gun caliber. This is nothing to be taken lightly, this may well be a major undertaking. There will be challenges now in the development of future rifles. There will be challenges down the road with sniper ammo not running in machine guns and machine gun ammo not being able to hit the broadside of a barn.

There are significant differences between ammunition optimized for long-range precision use and use in a machine gun. For instance, the brass thicknesses between sniper-grade and machine gun-grade cartridges are different. There are also major differences in the hardness, seating depth, and performance of primers that must be optimized for the two, very different, applications. Ammunition issues across sniper and machine gun platforms using the same caliber may come with a dearth of problems such as accuracy, reliability and other performance issues related to operating temperatures, barrel erosion, and even wear and breakage of weapon system components that may be novel to each system.

It’s clear that long-range precision ammo and machine gun ammo are not interchangeable. The two will have to be developed separately, end-users must learn to differentiate them through education, and they must be carefully segregated in the field in order to maintain safety and performance. Let’s not forget that the .50 caliber cartridge had significant growing pains when it went from a machine gun caliber to a sniper caliber. So, history tells us these issues can be overcome.

On the whole, however, this is an exciting transition in the ammunition and weapon worlds. We should all be looking forward to the enhanced capabilities afforded by the continuing adoption of 338 Norma Magnum. More to follow… 100% guaranteed.

Art Pizza dedicated more than 38 years serving the U.S. Army in its Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) (which is now known as the Combat Capabilities Development Command, Armaments Center) at Picatinny Arsenal. In that time, he spent 17 years as a project engineer on the Mk19 grenade machine gun. He spent five years on the Green Ammo project (5.56mm and 9mm). Then he became the center’s Technical Expert on 40mm ammunition. He later went back into design and became the ARDEC Project Officer on hybrid ammunition (including mortars) and the extended range guided 40mm projectile. Pizza spent the last five years before his retirement as the Project Integrator for Medium and Small Caliber Weapons, Ammunition, and Fire Control systems.

We sat down with Pizza to discuss his long and distinguished career.

Small Arms Defense Journal: Art, thank you for your service to the U.S. Army and the 40mm weapon platforms. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to connect with Small Arms Defense Journal. You have the unique perspective of spending significant time in both 40mm weapons and 40mm ammunition. To solve the age-old question – when there is a system failure, who’s usually to blame, the ammo guy or the weapon guy?

Art Pizza: Around the late-1970s or early ‘80s, when the U.S. Army transitioned the Mark19 40x53mm weapon from the Navy, they were hand fitting/gunsmithing each weapon making 3-7 guns a month at Navy Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky. They were beautiful, hand-built weapons; however, the production numbers were nowhere near the rate the Army needed. The Army was looking to make over 250 weapons a month. They end up contracting to Saco Defense (now General Dynamics Saco, ME). The complete Technical Data Package needed to be reworked. They worked closely with Saco Defense in manufacturing the weapon and improving the mass production and tolerances to make it at a high production rate weapon.

At the same time, we needed to increase the production rate of 40mm High-Velocity ammunition. The Mark19 is an advanced primer, blowback-operated weapon in which the bolt never locks into the receiver and depends on the firing pin tripping as the heavy bolt is moving forward. The velocity of the bolt moving forward is critical to the functioning of the weapon. The contracted 40mm ammunition at that time was purchased as individual components and sent to Milan AAP for final load, assembly and packing into cartridges. Most of the issues pertained to the consistent crimping of the cartridge case (a new 360-degree roll crimp vs. the old, staggered stake crimp.) Unfortunately, the failure to obturate because of the crimp issues caused stuck projectiles in the Mark19. If a second round was fired into the first projectile, on rare occasions it could cause a low-order explosion. This was called an in-bore detonation.

Other ammunition issues early on were related to improper charge weight. They old systems were using a volumetric charge measurement system. These cartridges also often had missing or double copper closure cups, and material flaws in the aluminum cartridge cases. We were looking to increase the production of ammunition from 40,000 units a year to close to 1 million. The solution was to have completely automated loading with net-weight, check weight systems and liner voltage distance transducers (LVDTs) to have a machine check for presence and location of these items.

Mark 19 issues mainly pertained to the timing of the feed system on the weapon resulting in dropped rounds and what we called at the time banana cartridges (because they would get bent by the weapon). Both caused feeding issues and could cause a lodged projectile or even a dropped round. The Mark19 represented new challenges to the infantry in the form of a high explosive machine gun in a small package of 65 pounds. Another issue was using the right lubrication in the field. The Mark19 called for LSAT lubricant, which was in short supply. A lot of feeding issues were based on a lack of adequate lubrication or lubrication not in the right location on the receiver rails or feed tray. Every gun coming out of the Saco factory was function fired for firing rates. If I remember right, we fired three guns 50,000 rounds each for endurance testing each year.

The bottom line was that most of the early stoppages were attributed to ammunition. Improvements to modern manufacturing methods and inspection reduced these to almost non-existent in the early stages. The weapon went through changes, as well. The cocking lever was modified to a two-piece design that reduced the possibility of an out-of-battery firing. Lubrication became more prevalent, and attention was spent on the timing of the feed system. If you had a problem with the Mark 19, it could usually be attributed to either the feed shuttle timing, a dirty weapon, or a broken part. One time I was called in to look at some weapons having issues. It turned out they did not have LSAT lube and were instead using WD40 and Break Free. They would run through maybe a box or two of ammo (32 to 64 rounds) before the gun stopped. We brought one tube with us, and we painted it on using a paintbrush to get through the training until a supply was sent in.

Over time, I was involved in several malfunctioning investigations and would try to get on-site within 48 hours. As an infantry weapon, we were not doing round counts (of how many rounds had been fired through the weapon) so we would never know what to expect, especially at training locations. I would say 80% were attributed to ammunition. If you are making over 1 million rounds a year, it is possible to get one or two bad rounds. The fuses were made back then at KDI and were difficult to manufacture but had double safeties (spin and setback). Most in-bores were attributed to a low order detonation from a round striking a stuck projectile lodged in the barrel.

Therefore, to answer your original question in the 40x53mm platform, at that time, it would have typically been the ammunition guy causing the problem.

SADJ: As an ammo guy, I will humbly accept the criticism. As far as the rest of the story, all I can say is wow! That is an amazing summary of decades of work. Over the course of your nearly 40 years in 40mm, what do you feel was your greatest accomplishment?

AP: The transitioning of the Mark19 to the Army and the rework of the technical data package. Getting it into full-rate production and fielding to the U.S. Army was a terrific feeling. Seeing what you worked on and talking to soldiers about the use of it in combat and how it saved their lives meant a lot to me. I met with some soldiers that were involved with the rescue mission of the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia. The largest weapon they had available on the ground was two or three Mark19s mounted on HMMWVs. They were using it as an anti-sniper weapon and fire was directed by a captain using a laser pointer. The captain talked about the leveling of a hotel in Somalia that was stopping their rescue attempt and which they were receiving heavy fire from. The Mark19 took down the entire building. Knowing what we did at ARDEC saved a lot of U.S. lives, and knowing it was instrumental to the rescue operations, made it all come together for me. I still remember talking to this captain about what the Mark19 enabled him to do. It was hard not getting teary-eyed for him and me while listening to his story.

SADJ: Looking back over your career, was there a particularly fun project that you remember?

AP: The Extended Range Guided 40x46mm cartridge (EGR40) was the most fun. This projectile was for the handheld M79, M203, and the M320 low-velocity 40mm weapon. I was the technical expert for some time in 40mm ammunition engineering and I was asked if I wanted to lead a design team in the development of the early R&D effort. It was an easy choice going from riding a desk to getting back into a real hands-on engineering development project.

My senior design engineer, Ronny Alzamora, and I designed a new finned projectile and cartridge case with an improved combustion chamber. We had a team of engineers working on guidance navigation and control, camera, transmitters, laser receptor, and also working on wings and canards. Every week we were cutting metal and going to the range firing projectiles. It was all hands-on design work which you just didn’t usually see in the government. We had between 20 and 40 people working on various parts of it, along with a contractor and universities. We even did some early work with some students from West Point as a capstone project. We also looked at a rocket assist system. It was a lot of work. We pushed the envelope… a lot. We worked the engineers very hard. I was very lucky to have had that opportunity and it was a lot of hard work getting the separate teams focused on the end game. I learned a lot about human relationships and forming a team.

SADJ: What project was the most challenging?

AP: It was, by and large, the EGR40 because of the hands-on work we did.

SADJ: Are there any projects that you wish you could’ve had a second chance at it?

AP: What we learned about the LV 40x46mm, we never got a chance to put into practice. We found that course correction could not be accomplished in the time of flight and was not enough to make a difference at impact. We did successfully put a camera in the projectile, survive launch, and transmit and receive video and course correction signals. What we did learn was that the current 40mm round is spin-stabilized and lost spin and wobbled, making it difficult to hit a target at 400 meters. When we made our fin-stabilized projectile, we were more accurate out to 600 meters and had some variations that we were able to fly to 1,000 meters. Toward the end of the R&D project, we were pushing to drop the guidance (wings and canards) and convert to just a tail-fined projectile that had the ability to double the range of the standard HEDP projectile. We were able to increase HE and fragmentation by designing a new larger warhead. We could not get the funding to pursue this option and the team was dispersed. They tried to make improvements to the existing spinning projectile but could not demonstrate any major improvements with a spinning projectile. A finned projectile is more accurate and will fly further than a spin-stabilized one.

SADJ: Are there any other areas of your work that you would like to share with our readers?

AP:What we (Army Engineering) do has an impact on soldiers’ lives even if we don’t know about it. Don’t believe that it can’t be done. So many times in my career I was told that this or that wouldn’t work. I was told we would never get a camera to survive a gun launch. We were told we would not be able to transmit a clear image. You have to look at new innovative ideas and methods. Modeling, simulation, and design of experiments are the keys to success. You have to get away from the build-and-break mentality and think about the design of experiments. You need to test statistically with multiple variants to reduce iterative designs. Design decisions are made on statistical-based results.  

SADJ: Can you paint of picture of what the 40mm systems families will look like 40 years into the future?

AP: What I envision for a 40mm low-velocity grenadier M203/M320 weapon:

• 1-2 camera rounds with a GPS location that will transmit enemy positions back. Detect behind berms, buildings, or in defilade.
• Several extended-range projectiles with a higher velocity and flatter trajectory with increased range out to 1,000+ meters. Finned projectile with improved warhead and increased lethal radius.
• Several HE dual purpose projectiles with improved armor penetration.
• Possible netted projectile or an airburst anti-UAV projectile
• Specialty blast overpressure round for room clearing or tunnels.
• Specialty non-lethal projectiles.
• Specialty flechet round for room clearing. HEDP is useless in urban areas, room clearing, etc.
• Specialty door breaching projectile (may be able to do this with a blast overpressure).
• An improved fire control system that would allow the rounds to take on a semi-mortar-like role.

And, for the Mark19 High-Velocity system:

• A camera round that can be used for GPS and intelligence. These rounds will be able to provide intelligence out to 2000 + meters.
• An anti-UAV projectile; blast overpressure, net, etc.
• Flechet round for urban areas.
• Flare rounds, including IR flares, with higher altitudes and longer burn time. These are not currently in the HV systems. This would give night vision extended range.
• Improved cartridge case hemispherical powder chamber.
• Extended range, fin-stabilized rounds for ranges over 2,000+ meters.
• Improved fire control system to allow indirect fire applications.

By Jay Bell

Sometimes what appears to be a good idea is not as good as it seems. That appears to be the case in the 40mm training ammunition world. The U.S. Army’s 40mm Day/Night/Thermal (DNT) effort has stalled and then restarted on the high velocity (M918E1) and on low velocity (M781E1) but has not successfully completed the First Article Acceptance Test (FAAT or FAT). These rounds were supposed to be a major leap in technology. They achieved several key requirements of the U.S. government. The Army got rid of a troublesome fuze in high velocity and added night training capability in low velocity in order to train like soldiers fight, at night. The magic material that made all this happen is called “pyrophoric iron.” Pyrophoric iron spontaneously combusts when exposed to air. It turns out that the pyrophoric iron may not be all it was cracked up to be. It has some serious downsides: It causes range fires, and allegedly, at least one round has gone off prematurely, flashing at 3,000 degrees with the gunner inches away.

Going Back

Now, the U.S. Army appears to be going back to decades-old technology to address the training requirements for the 40mm MK19 machine gun and M320/M203 weapons. The training ammunition for these platforms goes back to the later 1960s. The Army recently made an award to go back to the M918:M385 2:1 Mixed Belt configuration in December 2019. There was also a “Sources Sought” notice that came out in November 2019 to re-ramp for the projectiles, which were shelved a few years ago. The main producer had an auction in July 2019, since the DNT rounds appeared to be the path forward.

The Sources Sought announcement officially kicks off the procurement process for a 5-year “Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity” contract to buy these 1960s technology, high-velocity projectiles. The high-velocity and low-velocity images are the old school rounds—a cutaway of the M918 Flash Band smoke and the M781. These images are courtesy of the U.S. government, and the comments are from one of the early Industry meetings highlighting the deficiencies circa 2014. Images of the M918E1 and M781E1 show only the outside of the new rounds. The insides are not available for public consumption. I attempted to get pictures from the Army, however, due to all the issues with the 40mm E1s, they were not letting any more pictures out. However, all of the market intelligence seems to point back to the 2004 Ted Haeselich patent, with chemical glow stick material in the middle of the round contained in a glass ampule (numbered 21/22). This ampule breaks and mixes upon setback to give a “lava” spurt downrange at night upon impact. The #13 item would be the standard orange powder or “signal dye.” This is to signal the impact area of the round.

Original U.S. government program timeline for the DNT program (see 2013).

A Little History

Since the 1990s, the 40mm high-velocity training ammunition option has been less than desired by the U.S. military. The 40mm M918 “flash, bang and smoke” round had multiple issues:

1) It had an expensive fuze that did not always function as desired and especially had problems in soft range conditions—sand, mud, wet, etc.

2) The fuzes did not have a self-destruct feature.

3) Projectiles that did not function are “unexploded ordnance” UXO and could cause injury if kicked or picked up.

4) The M918 was known to cause range fires that would shut down the training activities in some environments.

5) The M918 had a higher hazard storage and transportation class for the round.

The USMC became so fed up with the M918 situation that in the 1990s it stopped buying the Army’s M918 and started buying the MK281 from a small German company called NICO. The MOD 0 version had an orange signal dye like the Army’s low-velocity M781. Ted Haeselich worked at NICO in the 1990s and into the early 2000s. After an extensive adventure to fully type-classify the round, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the USMC made large purchases of the MK281. Later when NICO was purchased by German Military giant Rheinmetall, Rheinmetall started a U.S. manufacturing facility, and the orders skyrocketed. The original contracts to Germany were around $30M, and once they had the U.S. final assembly included, the contracts shot up to the $300M range. The story is a legend in the defense community.

Ted Haeselich’s patent with chemical glow stick material in the middle of the round contained in a glass ampule (numbered 21/22).

The MK281

The MK281 was perfectly simple. Basically, it is a high-velocity M781. It had a proprietary propulsion design that threads the projectile to the cartridge. The round must shear metal to fire, which is much more consistent than crimps and adhesives. The results are greater accuracy downrange. Later versions of the round added chemical luminescence aka glow sticks, to give a nighttime impact signature. It did not have a fuze, so there was ZERO chance of a dud. An additional plus is that the chemical luminescence materials are totally safe, ala Halloween glow sticks for kids. It can be eaten by kids on Halloween, and they can still eat all the candy they can handle. To meet the requirement of the DNT, the chemical properties were adjusted to add more heat to the process to be picked up with thermal imaging. The chemicals can be tweaked for colors, brightness, duration of glow and heat output.

The German cartridge design is favored by a lot of military forces around the world. Due to some old conflict over patents, the desire for 100% American-made products and a few other reasons, the MK281 has never seen full acceptance in the U.S. It does have one drawback, the chemical luminescence glows a rather long time. When you are training at night and shoot a large number of rounds, say 50 to 100, the target area will end up glowing so much that it is hard to tell when the last round hit. This phenomenon was coined as washout.

The Army Plan

The U.S. Army’s Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM MAS) started the planning for this next wave of development a long time ago. The 40mm DNT Industry Days date back to the early 2010s. The U.S. Army’s competition to solve its need for an improved M918 would be the M918E1 and in low-velocity M781E1. The M918/M781E1s had several key requirements:

1) No or minimal range fires (M918 only);

2) No fuze to fail and reduce costs (M918 only); and

3) Day, Night and Thermal visibility and/or signal (both rounds–new for M781).

PM MAS would have companies compete for the prize of making the rounds. The winning design would get the initial multi-year development contract and be in the leading position to make the rounds for the next 50 years. The M430 effects are the visual effects from an M430A1 HEDP round at 500m. The Army wanted a similar nighttime effect as seen in night vision.

On to the Competition

Nine companies submitted bid samples for evaluation in both 40mm high-velocity and low-velocity versions. These companies spent millions of combined dollars to get their designs mature enough to withstand the rigors of DOD testing. This field included American Ordnance (AO), Amtec, Chemring Ordnance, Cyalume Technologies, General Dynamics (GD), Rheinmetall, ST Kinetics (Singapore) and Universal Defense. Some did not even make it to the testing phase; some failed out early in testing.

These nine were down-selected to two competitors for high velocity—Amtec and AO Ordnance—and two for low velocity—Amtec and GD. Would the 40mm powerhouse Amtec, continue to dominate the 40mm world? Or would the large businesses with their success in ordnance in AO and general small/medium caliber ammunition expertise allow GD a win? Ultimately, it was AO as the high-velocity winner and GD as the low-velocity winner. The MK281 was in the mix along with several other varieties; however, it did not make the cut.

The competition had several deciding elements. The most important was pyrophoric or chemical luminescence. The best attributes of pyrophoric material were: a high heat output for thermal, bright visual light/explosion for the naked eye and lower hazard for storage and shipping. The best attributes of chemical luminescence were that it was totally inert and had zero risks of range fires. The negatives for pyrophoric was the “potential” for range fires. The downside of the chemical material was that it is difficult to see at 1,200m with the naked eye and the washout effect, as described above. The winning solution ended up being a pyrophoric solution for both rounds, which appears to be a key reason the programs have had so much difficulty.

Magic Material

Pyrophoric materials are processed iron particles that are contained in a glass ampule without air. When the ampule breaks and is exposed to air, it oxidizes quickly—actually, very quickly, which results in a lot of heat and a lot of light. It is technically a flash of light; some people might mistake it for a small explosion. The waste material is iron powder. It can be thrown away without concern about hazardous waste. It’s pretty awesome. The more interesting attribute is that if you break the top of an ampule off, the material will just simmer. You would just notice a color change and a slow process happening. If you turn the ampule over, you get a sparkler light show all the way down to the ground. If you smash it against the ground at 700m per second, you are back to the explosion-like effect.

The downside of pyrophoric material and what caused the program to be placed under a temporary Stop Work order is that the rounds were causing a lot of range fires—there was a safety incidence where the round in the chamber was broken and flashed in the weapon (potentially injuring the gunner)—and other performance issues. The M918E1 has a plastic ogive, and underneath it are some pretty powerful materials. The MK281 also has a plastic ogive; however, if this round breaks in the cycling of the MK19 machine gun, the glow stick material is not going to harm anyone.

Low-Velocity Status

The M781E1 delay issues are a little less well known. GD has not made it through first article testing, where AO is in production and has been awarded option quantities already. Is it the same pyrophoric range fire issues as M918E1, or is it something else? The drop test for pyrophoric could be to blame. The standard M781 could never pass a NATO standard 1M drop test. By the look of the design, I imagine that it would still be a problem. The pyrophoric material would make things interesting if it broke upon impact.

I have always been critical of the U.S. government’s typically painstakingly slow methods and processes. They test, test again and then test some more. Then repeat all those tests in multiple temperature phases. Once you are sure you have it nailed, they have someone else try to repeat the results exactly. It can be quite maddening at times, and you wonder how anything gets done. The 40mm DNT program seemed to be moving at light speed. It was extremely impressive. This current situation has given me a greater appreciation for taking it slow. The U.S. government goes slow when one item has been changed. In this case a little more so.

Pyrophoric materials have been successfully used in other military areas like aircraft countermeasure flares. However, it is still a newer process. The processes and applicant for 40mm had to be developed and built for these programs. Sometimes plans don’t work out at well as one would have hoped. This may be the case with pyrophoric—that it is just a little ahead of its time. There are a lot of people in the industry that think the M918E1 and M781E1 are doomed to failure. They believe the range fires might result in the M918E1 and M781E1 to be shelved, and we will go back to the 1960s designs, at least for a little while, and then either back to chemical luminescence or a newer material.

M918E1 the high-velocity round reducing the UXO hazard for the U.S. government.

The government’s original timeline from a 2013 Industry Day shows the program transitioning to full-rate production over / around 5 years. In reality, it took about 6 years. If they have to go back and re-invent the wheel, it will take another 5 years. These things just take time. This is one case where too new and not enough testing set things back, maybe a decade. Only time will tell.

The term Next Generation can mean a lot of things. I recently wrote an article on U.S. Army Next Generation 40mm Day/Night Thermal training ammunition technology. The results are still “to be determined.” I took a hard look at some Next Generation weapons and ammunition in this article. What happens when Next Generation weapons and ammo collide?

Maxim Defense continues to impress with its Next Generation focus and out-of-the-box thinking. Maxim Defense’s short-barreled rifle (SBR) designs are impressive and enthralling enough to be selected by SOCOM for further evaluations. Its success with the U.S. government has carried over to the commercial market with personal defense weapons (PDWs). Commercially, the weapons also have gained a following in the personal defensive arena and in the concealed weapon subcategory of untold possibilities.

I first got my hands on one of these weapons at the 2019 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC). Ammunition and guns are in surprisingly short supply at SOFIC, as the focus is much more on electronics. I was drawn like a moth to the flame.

The weapons are as visually impressive as they are physically stout and well-engineered. The construction is remarkable; some AR platform weapons feel flimsy. The Maxim rifles remind me of HK weapons. The 18.75-inch weapon overall length is impressive, and the punch packed by these weapons blows pistols out of the water. The 5.5-inch barrel length is also amazing. If you add in the massive increase in accuracy over a pistol and the potential magazine capacity, I imagine that many private security forces are in line to grab these SBRs and re-arm their teams.

What About the Ammo?

Defensive pistol ammunition is numerous and widespread. Defensive rifle ammunition, not so much. All the major ammunition producers have versions of defensive pistol ammunition, and the number of niche producers is also a mile long. Many designs go beyond the typical hollow-point designs. There have been more niche designs going back over the last 40-plus years than I can remember. Who remembers the big left-wing hysteria concerning the Black Talon bullets back in the early 1990s? More recently, G2 Research Ammunitions’ fragmenting solid bullets were a big item and huge YouTube sensation. Maxim Defense knew that the weapons needed special rifle ammunition to pair with these very special rifles. The company could have gone with one of the usual suspect bullets in rifle calibers. Instead, Maxim went a whole new direction. In retrospect, it seems only logical that a Next Generation defensive rifle would have its personalized Next Generation defensive ammunition.

Maxim has a truly innovative rifle ammunition product that works superbly in these SBRs. Specialized weapons need specialized ammunition to fully capitalize on the performance limitations of lower velocities with short barrels. The Maxim Defense team saw that if customers did not use the proper ammunition, the effectiveness of the weapons would be massively diminished. To complete Maxim’s total weapon system, the ammunition needed to be the Next Generation to maximize the performance needs exactly specified and to be available to the customers. There are some potential solutions in the marketplace; however, consistent access to the customer is always difficult with niche products. Just as high-performance engines will barely work on low-octane gas, these SBRs need high octane ammo, and Maxim took charge of the situation.

TUI® Projectiles

Fort Scott Munitions™ (FSM®) and Maxim Defense worked together on a 6.5CM project for the U.S. government. Upon starting this relationship, Maxim Defense approached FSM to build and optimize a full-ammo solution for the SBR in critically short-barrel lengths for the PDX and MDX Weapon Lines. Six separate ammo variants were designed and optimized; FSM is Maxim Defense’s Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).

It was not enough to just take one of the top defensive rifle bullets and load it. Maxim Defense knew that the FSM had developed something special with their Tumble Upon Impact™ (TUI®) projectiles. The TUI projectiles are patented Next Generation technology, just like the Maxim rifles. These TUI projectiles increase the effectiveness of Maxim’s weapon system and accomplish impressive terminal ballistic cavities without substantial fragmentation all the way down to minimal velocities and/or until they become unstable.

The impressive part of the TUI projectiles is that they have a solid tip without any flutes/grooves/slots or other special effects that might impede the successful feeding, firing and cycling out of the weapon. These will hold up and function in extreme environments. They surpass the criteria of both expanding and fragmenting projectiles in ballistic gel. These designs and features are only more critical in rifle calibers. Maxim has successfully achieved a winning combination of weapon and ammunition.

These solid copper projectiles appear to maintain extremely high percentages of their initial weight in the pistol ammunition. Many tests indicate 100% retention through ballistic gels. This ensures greater energy transfer, consistency in performance and devastating wound channels. Monolithic solids are great for not having a jacket to separate from the core, which is also very important in close-combat situations where the fragments can be a hazard to the shooter. The projectile stays together in one piece, causes significant damage and gives more knockdown power. The testing for the rifle ammunition appears to have very similar results to the pistol ammunition.

The short barrel ammunition comes in three calibers and six total varieties:

The projectiles being made out of 100% copper also add a nice element of being lead-free. This is ideal for the close-combat training scenarios in which this product will be used. This also opens up use in lead-restricted ranges and states around the country. All the ammo is Match Grade.

After some R&D, FSM recalled the old 5.56mm M855 round that sometimes accidentally tumbled or keyholed. This failure was a huge problem for the M855. However, a tumbling defensive bullet could offer some impressive performance if done right. What if they could make this happen on purpose and with 100% consistency? This would make for some very effective defensive ammunition. They started working on the concept and came up with two patents.

Considerations

Some elements must be considered: First, it is not a traditional FMJ, and it only tumbles on water-based solutions (i.e., water jugs, ballistic gelatin). If it is fired into a wood 2×4, metal, drywall or vehicle windshield, it will not tumble—period. However, for their key customer and the defensive ammo market, these were acceptable parameters.

The energy released because of the tumble is impressive. This is because of multiple elements. First, the bullets have 100% weight retention. With no loss of mass from fragments shedding, the energy is retained. Second, in ballistic gelatin, the projectile will tumble and then briefly stabilize and stay on its trajectory. Then, it will start to tumble for a bit and then track straight again. FSM noted, “Typically, the projectile will get two to three ‘tumble then brief stabilization’ cycles in a 6x6x16-inch-long ballistic gelatin block.” Impressive.

TUI comes in two different materials. The first is solid brass, and the second is copper. The brass version is called “solid brass spun” or SBS. The copper version is similarly “solid copper spun” or SCS. FSM also has a full line of brass projectiles in pistol calibers (.45, 9mm, .40 S&W, 10mm, .380, .357 SIG) that are only LE/military.

The product is well-designed and versatile. It is not a one-trick pony. Ultimate versatility is an objective FSM strived to achieve with the TUI ammunition. They believe the TUI ammo is a great military or law enforcement round. It checks all the boxes: it goes through the barrier, has great accuracy and has an excellent performance in ballistic gel. However, with the same ammunition, you can also go hunting for coyote and even buffalo. Better yet, it has great long-range utility. An FSM employee recently used his 6.5 Creedmoor, 123-grain, TUI factory-boxed ammunition to take a deer at 100 yards (and dropped him cold), and the same round is capable of a distance of 1.39 miles (2,446.4 yards) to hit a 30-inch target twice on a string of 10 with a factory Ruger Precision Rifle (see YouTube video at Longshot Video). Yes, the TUI projectile is still stable out at that distance, despite tumbling in ballistic gelatin. TUI is the complete package—self-defense, hunting and long-range performance.

A key aspect of the ammunition is that there is no mechanical feature to rely on, nothing to fail. So many of the other high-performance bullets are counting on the consistency of the tooling and keeping a close eye on tooling wear and performance. Of course, this means that the bullets made on fresh tooling are going to perform slightly differently than the last rounds before a tool change. I am aware that some of these performance bullets could require tool change in as little as 5,000 to 10,000 rounds manufactured. This all happens on a multi-station transfer press that is running at 60 parts per minute—no small task.

I queried on what feature of the bullet and the bullet design is critical. The answer is not just one thing. It is everything—the tip, the ogive and the boat tail. It can take strenuous testing and a lot of time to develop a single round. It took 1 year to develop the .300 Blackout 190 subsonic. It is one of the few truly subsonic rounds at +/- 950 to 960 fps. It will also function without a suppressor on the Maxim Defense SBR weapons.

Superior Weapon System

Maxim Defense produces high-quality firearms that enhance their ammo and make it perform well. The quality of FSM’s ammo and the weapons mesh so well, they result in an overall superior weapon system. I suspect that both Maxim Defense and Fort Scott Munitions are going to be long-term players in the market.

So, what happens when Next Generation weapons and ammo collide? Nothing short of awesome.

It’s just not right. Someone should do something to stop the bullying. The U.S. government fat-shaming ammunition has got to stop. The messages are loud and clear:

• S. Navy used to cube out ships, now they weigh out ships. Lighten the load fatso.
• 20%-30% lighter ammunition could increase a helicopter strike team by one soldier. One more could mean success or failure on a critical mission. Get lean!
• We need to lighten the load of the soldier, so he can carry other stuff like batteries and electronics!

Ammo is too fat, and it needs to go on a diet!

The ammunition diet fad—aka lightweight ammunition initiatives—has been a key focus for over 20 years within the U.S. government. The recent award of the 6.8 caliber Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program is down-selected to three players with lightweight ammo in mind. To spice things up the government is pushing 6.8 caliber to also add in a little “overmatch” against the 7.62×39 in engagement distance.

The new kid on the block is True Velocity, Inc., with a composite polymer hybrid cartridge. Its weapon partner is General Dynamics (GD). The oldest dog in the game is Textron, with its polymer-cased telescoped cartridge and Winchester as its ammunition load, assemble and pack partner. Textron has been working the Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) in 5.56 for nearly 2 decades and has been designing ammo for the government for over 50 years. SIG SAUER rounds out the group with a bi-metal cartridge design and will go the battle alone for ammo/weapon design and assembly. These awards are the culmination of decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars of public/private development funding in ammunition to shave off those unwanted pounds.

Two of the three awardees have a polymer/plastic design. Will they win the competition? Is the future finally here to depart from the solid brass cartridge design as used since Sharps rifles of the 1860s? Can ammo get skinny and still meet the rugged demands of the government? Does the commercial consumer care about fat ammo? Will the 6.8 replace 5.56 as the high-volume caliber of the U.S. Army?

History

Plastic injection molding was invented in 1872. Plastic ammunition goes back to at least WWII; however, there is not a lot of easy-access information about all the experiments that the government did in this area. There were multiple patents in the early 1950s. One of the first commercial/government endeavors was the Dardick Tround. Dardick Corp. (1954–1962) created multiple calibers in a revolver-like device from .38 to 30mm that was rather short-lived. My father remembers testing rounds in the 1960’s time frame. They worked well; however, they never took off. Plastic shotshell ammunition has been around since the 1960s.

Technical Challenges

I will credit my father with an accurate prediction from the early 1990s when we consulted with some of the early polymer designs. In his opinion, when you are trying to make plastic act like brass, you are going to have problems. A redesign of the weapon chamber with significantly thicker neck walls would allow plastic to function with less technical issues. The three winners have held to this principle with both polymer designs not having a traditional neck and the SIG SAUER design sticking with a brass neck.

The initial technical challenge with most of the early plastic ammunition was the splitting of the case neck wall. Plastic is not as strong as brass or steel when only .008-inch thick. The latest generation of polymer materials has performed much `better; however, they still can be an issue. All three of the NGSWs seem to have a handle on this issue, with kudos to True Velocity for the design departure from having a neck at all, while still looking close to a traditional cartridge case.

The challenge of the last decade is how the ammunition handled the extreme temperature ranges of Department of Defense (DOD) testing. MAC, LLC, and its polymer body and brass head have been very successful in this area with the USMC. MAC has not been able to meet 100% of the U.S. Army’s requirements, therefore it has not been able to make the jump outside of the .50 caliber for adoption. I’m not 100% convinced that interagency politics are not a significant factor in MAC not being fully fielded. The future will tell how the three players fair in the temperature battle.

The government’s success record on these experimental programs in small/medium caliber is very good but not 100% successful. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) from the early 2000s was not successful with over $772M in funding. The departure from traditional cartridge case manufacturing technology and equipment has been of questionable success on the Setpoint case cells at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Setpoint is basically out of the business and appears to not be in consideration for any future equipment.  Insider scuttlebutt is that if the government had to do it over again it would not have chosen Setpoint. The 40mm day/night thermal impact/marking improvement program is pushing $500M in funding and was recently placed under a “stop-work” order due to increased occurrence of range fires. Range fire prevention was one of the key performance criteria, and chemiluminescence with ZERO potential of range fires lost out to pyrophoricity, which had a high probability of causing range fires and other round/weapon safety issues. Therefore, the probability of the NGSW beginning successfully is not a lock. All of the three efforts could fail, or the government could run out of funding (it happens) before a final solution.

Funding Challenges

The funding for these programs has been enormous; however, not enough to get the items into full fielding. The cost to get to a Total Readiness Level 9 is beyond expensive. The NGSW had nearly a dozen bidders to be down-selected to three. It is estimated that each of the original bidders spent at least $1M to $30M of their own money to get to the place where they could bid. This does not include prior U.S. government funding they might have received.

The weapons will also be a funding challenge for the government. Funding will limit the speed at which it can purchase the two different proposed weapons once selected. The cost of the accessories on the weapons will cost money. The cost of the ammo will be more expensive than 5.56, which it will replace. This will also limit the rate at which the government can field the weapons and ammo.

Per the Army’s Program Manager–Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM-MAS), the NGSW ammunition will be built at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. This is going to require multiple pools of funding to make this happen. There will need to be facilities funding to build a new building complex, which I estimate at $200M–$500M depending on the size of the effort and falls outside of the PM-MAS funding pool. [Jay’s edit:] There will need to be new production equipment at Lake City to manufacture any of the current three possible winners. The U.S. government will need to scrap/decommission some to all of the existing equipment since they will not be used to manufacture these rounds.  This will cost an estimated $50M–$500M depending on the initial ramp-up time frame, type of equipment, number of lines, final design and long-term requirements. There will need to be testing equipment that might require some facility money to modify buildings, test weapon money and probably a few areas I am forgetting.

All of these areas need to be funded in conjunction with one another to have this program proceed at a reasonable pace. If you have the ammo manufacturing equipment funding without the weapon funding, the program will drag on without success. In short, we have a long way to go, even if all the designs passed all the gates.

Pro and Cons of Each Team

Each of the cartridge designs has its own niche. The tough questions are: What does the Army want for the ammo and the weapons? What is a key criterion right now that may be waived or reduced later? Is the Squad Automatic Weapon version more important than the carbine? Is weight more important than function? Here are this author’s opinions:

SIG SAUER—SIG is the least experimental and least deviated from traditional brass cases. SIG has the best chance of meeting all the cartridge functional criteria since there is no plastic. The cartridge should be easier to manufacture. It seems to offer the least weight savings. SIG has been on a roll with the win in the Army Pistol competition. It has decades of know-how to make outstanding weapons, and it seems to know what the customer wants and can get close enough to win a competition. SIG is large enough to support dumping a bunch more of its $228M in annual revenue into the program. It is the small guy on the block in terms of revenue. Is there enough defense revenue to support a win if needed?

True Velocity—It has the most experimental design, as this iteration of their ammo only came out just in time for the competition. The lack of a thin neck wall problem is averted with the new design; however, does it create other problems? How easy is it to manufacture repeatedly? Right now, the cartridge wins the “cool factor;” however will the momentum last through the competition? Their claimed 30%-plus weight savings, heat reduction and tighter standard deviation are advantages. True Velocity claims GD is not known for wildly creative weapon designs, and it doesn’t make the volume of weapons that SIG does. True Velocity is individually the low man on revenue, estimated under $20M. Its partnership with GD Ordnance & Tactical Systems brings True Velocity into the $2B-plus range (GD total revenue is $36B); therefore, depending on the relationship, the private funding might be there to support the program, if needed.

Textron—Its ammunition design is not experimental, but it has never hit full-rate production. We (MAST Technology) did a run of around 300,000 units in 2012, and to the best of my knowledge, there has not been another run of this size. How easy will the round be to manufacture for Winchester? One functional issue could be that the cases could be mistaken for the top or bottom of the round in the dark with gloves on. Can Textron fight off Murphy ’s Law to win? On the weapon side, Textron does not have the small-caliber weapon experience of SIG or GD. The revolver-like design seems sound; however, can it stand up to the other rigors of U.S. government testing? Textron does have an extensive background in the design and development of experimental ammunition for the U.S. government going back to the 1960s. Textron is $13B in revenue, so it can contribute significantly more than the other players, if needed.

Below is my ranking system. It does not correlate with the government evaluation criteria. Common sense may or may not be a factor in the final decision. I will not declare a winner, because it only matters what the government wants in the end and what sacrifices it is willing to accept or not accept. Mere mortals may not fully understand all the evaluation factors.

Future Predictions

If the 6.8 program succeeds, the 5.56 usage would be reduced. There would need to be another major decision to replace the 5.56 with the 6.8. Several years ago, the Army was saying it needed to reduce the number of round types to reduce the inventory, and then a couple years later it wanted to add “training-only,” small-caliber ammunition. They seem to change their minds quite a bit. In addition, when 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds became the calibers of choice in the late 1950s/early 1960s, .30-06 was still in production until the mid-1970s at Lake City. So, we will probably have 5.56 for a long time even if it all goes perfectly.

Weighing in on all the factors discussed above, my gut says that SIG SAUER is in the best position to win the NGSW; however, it depends on what the Army wants. A sexy new design that can pass the entire evaluation-criteria lower threshold could easily win, too. If the design just passes the threshold criteria, it might not matter that the SIG passes at a much higher level. Overall I give the Army program a 91% chance of success. My main rationale is there are too many cooks in the kitchen to bring the program to a quick finish and get the ammo skinny. I don’t believe consumers’ care. They want cheap ammo and will not pay for expensive plastic ammo.

On the other hand, I am surprised that 100% steel or stainless-steel solid cases were not in the mix. They have been around nearly as long as brass. There have been trillions of rounds of steel ammo built and successfully fired in the 100 million-plus AK-47s that have been built since 1946. The cartridge manufacturing equipment could be converted to run steel rather than re-inventing the wheel in the manufacturing process. The raw material is cheaper. I believe the negative connotation that steel gets is largely not supported by fact, rather opinion. The average American gun enthusiast or U.S. soldier does not want to admit that Uncle Joe Stalin does ammo and guns better than Uncle Sam. Such heresy would be un-American.