Polartec Military

US Army Selects True Velocity Composite-Cased Ammunition For Next Generation Squad Weapon

GARLAND, TX – True Velocity composite-cased ammunition has been selected for the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) modernization program. True Velocity’s 6.8mm composite-cased cartridge was submitted as part of an overall NGSW weapon system in partnership with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems and firearm manufacturer Beretta Defense Technologies.

True Velocity’s proprietary 6.8mm case design will provide end users with significant logistical and operational advantages over traditional brass-cased ammunition, including substantially increased effective range and muzzle energy, drastic reduction in cartridge weight and enhanced accuracy. The combination of True Velocity’s ammunition with the General Dynamics OTS weapon submission results in a state-of-the-art weapon system capable of long-range lethality, short recoil impulse, significant ballistic improvements and enhanced operational effectiveness for the soldier.

“True Velocity’s 6.8mm composite case design produces a level of performance, consistency and efficiency never before seen in small arms ammunition,” said Chris Tedford, president and chief operating officer for True Velocity. “Combining True Velocity’s innovation and technology with the expertise of General Dynamics OTS and Beretta results in a weapon system solution that exceeds NGSW requirements and provides the U.S. Army with a definitive edge on the field of battle.”

 

51 Responses to “US Army Selects True Velocity Composite-Cased Ammunition For Next Generation Squad Weapon”

  1. Marcus says:

    Serious question. Somebody please explain to me how the type/material of casing leads to “increased effective range, muzzle energy and enhanced accuracy”?

    Not the design of the cartridge, capacity, bullet or propellant.

    Thanks.

    • dan says:

      Lol, my same EXACT question. Maybe they are referring to the 6.8 cartridge in general vs. The 5.56?

    • Lt. Dan says:

      I too had those same questions

    • Sean says:

      Case materials have pressure limitations, their case allows maximum pressure to be increased, which improves powder burn consistency, and maximum achievable speed in a given barrel length/bullet weight. Additionally, the reduced case weight means more powder and a heavier bullet can be used for the same overall cartridge weight.

      • Marcus says:

        Sorry for being pedantic, but I thought that case pressure was driven by factors such as propellant, projectile seating/type, primer, neck, etc. so are you saying the type of casing allows increased pressure (over brass) in a situation where all other factors are the same?

        • Johnny says:

          Everything you mentioned effects case pressure, but having a case that can handle more pressure is going to equal better terminal performance. A simple way to look at it is .357 mag and .38 special. While you can actually use .357 load data in a .38 case, the case itself is generally thinner as it’s only supposed to handle around 18,000 PSI compared to .357 at 35,000 PSI. So while loading a .38 special brass to .357 mag specs and putting it in a .357 mag revolver won’t cause the cylinder to explode, there’s a fair chance that you would get a case rupture or popped primer over using the purpose built stuff.

          Long story short as someone already mentioned if you’re able to safely contain more pressure for a given volume you are going to see an increase in performance.

        • Sean says:

          Correct, different case materials have pressure limits, true velocity’s case can handle higher typical operating pressures than brass, and can therefore have powder, and loadings selected to use that higher pressure. same with weight, more powder and a heavier projectile can be used for the same per-cartridge weight compared to brass cased ammunition.

          • Marcus says:

            Thanks to both of you for the explanations.

            I suppose the next issue is how higher muzzle velocity will translate into enhanced accuracy since the former will also increase felt recoil. But I’m going to initially posit that depends on what the pressure ultimately is (equivalent to today’s cartridges) and perhaps, beyond the cartridge, the rifle delivering it.

            • SkyeWolf says:

              Simple answer, the weapon platform being paired with this ammunition has recoil impulse dampening to keep things under control compared to current squad weapons as it designed handle the new loads.

            • Sean says:

              higher muzzle velocity doesnt inherently result in better accuracy, but it does mean that flight time over any given distance is shorter, which reduces drop, wind drift, spin drift, coriolis effect, and the impact of ranging errors. in short, with a given specific bullet, higher speed means a greater effective range before environmental factors, and shooter error would affect the round to the same degree.

      • Jack says:

        Isn’t that going to be more wear and tear on the barrel/gun?

        • Sean says:

          the gun can be designed to run at those pressures with relative ease. throat erosion due to pressure is less than you’d think, but yes it does reduce potential barrel life

        • mark says:

          The NGSW is also working on a next gen barrel technology as well, to go with the new performance levels.

          Stuff like TA-10W barrel liners that have to be made with external pressure rifling:

          ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Rice.pdf

    • Richard says:

      I could take a guess at it…since I do and have reloaded often enough that I take notice of the particular shape of the casing and I’m wondering if it allows for more powder to be placed into this type of round and therefore with the right length barrel to build sufficient pressure to where they have now increased the velocity, range and therefore lethality.

    • Darein says:

      Seems like everyone is assuming that the Army just went ahead and accepted this ammunition without extensive testing by folks at ARDEC, etc. First there must be some kind of specification requirements already established for the ammunition to match the performance requirements of the weapon. Second, everyone was assuming that the propellant and primer used in the manufacture of this new ammunition is the same used on the 6.57, 7.62, etc? Why would one assume that packing or loading more propellant into a ammunition would result in improved performance? Last, why will everyone be assuming that the Army already selected this particular ammunition for the as yet to be designed weapon? It could be assumed that the Army just accepted this particular ammunition for use on testing the as yet to be designed weapon(s)?

    • [WR] says:

      Looks like a reporter doesn’t know much about firearms. They mixed the new rounds performance billing with the casings’ touted weight and cost savings.

      Been following both the 6.8 development for military use and have been waiting a long time for True Velocity to bring the composite case to civilian use. For comparison the 6.8 is about the same diameter as the 280. Remington in a slightly shorter case

      The 6.8 round is a major step up for military use over the aging 5.56 round. Let’s face it, its age is telling, and so is that of the 7.62 NATO. Not saying they are completely dead, just that theyve not aged well for combat use.

      SOCOM units have been pushing for this particular update for several years and have had a few specialized weapons created for them. Mating the composite casing and the newer round makes sense. We still want to keep weight down while giving our folks better small arms capabilities.

      I had a chance during my Army days to help experiment with plastic and polymer cases training rounds. Major fiasco doesn’t even begin to cover that. What we’re seeing here is a merger of old ideas and current technology. I hope it works out for them.

    • Daniel Mahoney says:

      How many times have we heard definitive statements about new technology only to have fizzle out over actual implementation/use? The 10 mm FBI load as an example. Clearly, I take all new “suggestions” with a grain of salt. We have a proper load, the 7.62x51mm. We have the rifle platform the AR-10/SR-25. I swear the government “needs” to spend tax money on “improvements.” The M-4 should assume the role of a P.D.W., and Tier 1 should be equipped with .308 Winchester.
      Careless Ammo was tried by H.K. but given up on in the ‘80’s.
      We just don’t need this!
      Just a novice’s opinion.

  2. Eric says:

    So this is obviously the ammo general dynamics/beretta submitted with their rifle, I think Sig could easily adopt this to their submission. My understanding however is textron/HK/Winchester submitted a cased telescoping round (lsat program) and I don’t think they can adjust their entry to this new ammo so easily. We’ll see. I’m very pro-sig but all the competitors are well known and high quality brands. Guess the years of no R&D department really kicked colt and Remington out of trying to submit something.

    • AK. for T-7 says:

      Beretta ARX-200 shooting True Velocity 6.8 ammo.

    • Aaron Orr says:

      This is creative writing on the part of True Velocity. Truth is the program they are working with has been narrowed as one of the three. So Sig and its ammunition is still in the running, as is Olin Winchester in partnership with AAI.

      • A.K. for T-7 says:

        It seems that you are correct. This kind of misleading public announcement is punished by law here in Brazil.

  3. Adam says:

    Man I am loving all the cool new high speed procurements. It’s about time out soldiers and Marines get the latest kit. Polymer casings will shed a lot of weight, next it’ll be lighter bullets, propellant, clothing, plates, and lord knows what else.

    Keep it up

  4. Gary says:

    So, how far off is this ammo, and can we assume that our current barrels, and or our current 6.8 setup isn’t going to work with it. I wonder how that will affect our current crop of ammo, will it still be made in quantity to keep it relatively cheap, or what.

  5. David whitson says:

    I just don’t think plastic van with stand heat, abuse of battlefield conditions

    I believe this will flop

  6. Bill says:

    I’d venture a guess that since th case pictured does not appear to have the typical shoulder found on brass cases, it has more case capacity. Reduced wall thickness, speculated above, has same effect but to a much lesser degree. But, w/o more information, we’re all speculating.

  7. Wayne says:

    My question is; will this inovative new ammo be available to the general public or is it only for the military?

  8. Joe Bentley says:

    I am a reloader and retired military officer, having been at it a few years and I think this article is either false or somebody has been sold a bill of goods. Why would we be reporting on this if it was such a success? Logistically, the changes in bolts, magazines and barrels will not overcome weight savings in brass.

    • Mike Heggen says:

      The press release from True Velocity is a little dishonest. Yes, they will be providing new ammo to the Army. But it’s part of the Army’s “Next Gen Squad Weapons” program. Big Army has developed a 6.8mm projectile and has left it to industry to figure out a load. IIRC, True Velocity is partnered with General Dynamics for it’s submission in the NGSW trials. The other competitors are AAI/Textron with a cased telescoping load and Sig using what it calls a “hybrid” case, which probably means some mix of brass and polymer. Each competitor will submit 50 carbines and LMGs plus ammo for testing with a winner to be determined.

  9. hubert townsend says:

    Why is there nothing specified such as bullet weight feet per second muzzle energy?

  10. hubert townsend says:

    Why is there nothing of value in this article? I would like to know the feet per second the bullet weight and the muzzle energy in order to make a comparison to present weapon systems. Also what is the difference in group size at a hundred yards compared to our present-day weapon systems. Just saying more accurate doesn’t tell me a doggone thing. Give me some stats and this article might make some sense

  11. Daniel says:

    Are these reloadable? Recyclable like brass? Or just more waste for the planet?

  12. Lee Richardson says:

    No neck on the cartridge. In brass cases if you load it up too much it will blow the neck of the cartridge off and jam the barrel. No neck means no neck to blow off..

  13. PTMcCain says:

    Is that plastic biodegradable? If not, don’t they care about the environment?

    :)

  14. Blue says:

    Would love to see the BC and velocity on this

  15. Maskirovka says:

    Will the ejected case be hotter or cooler when it gets down my collar? 😉

    • Sean says:

      cooler. Might actually be a problem as it isnt taking heat with it in the case. they specifically state on their website that one design goal was reduced signature on thermal imaging.

  16. MSquared says:

    So one of the functions of the metalic case is to take heat generated from firing away from the system, IE the action and barrel. How does this composite case do that? If not the case, how is this being accomplished? I don’t recall any army regulations that prohibit or modify the effects of the laws of thermal dynamics.

  17. Brass casings expand and then pressure builds causing bullet to move. Then case cools and recoil extraction begins. I wonder if the composite case also expands and for the same reasons.

  18. Spooky5150 says:

    No not really back in the early 2000’stages when the war s first began special forces guys used 6.8mm over there because the .223 were not killing some of the bad guys
    high on drugs over there in Irag during raids like in stareways hallways or just close combat.

    Some guys came across some contactors who had 6.8’s and the rest is history.

    The contractors went on raids with them as the story goes and they used the 6.8’s
    and the guys saw how effective they were both at close range and far range.

    Word pasted around and so word goes Spec-Ops started using the the 6.8.

    The cool thing is that some guys who work in the armory for the Army came up with the 6.8mm in their spare time and the Army tested it loved it took it to Congress and they said fuck no we like what we got plus the local bullet makers are not into the 6.8 yet.

    But like I said the rest is history.

    I own a .223 Ar-15 and a 6.8 AR-15 if I was toops go into combat to day I would take the 6.8mm first for the 80% stopping power of a .308 round.

    So ya the rest is history.
    Semper Fi
    Ava8harrierusmc1

    • Seans says:

      It’s amazing how you have actually no clue what you are talking about. 6.8SPC was developed as a DMR round and it failed. It’s ballistics were not great. MK262 was adopted.

      6.8 wasn’t used in SOCOM. And please explain how you think the round has 80% of a 7.62s stopping power. I mean plenty of 5.56 rounds out perform 7.62 in terms of terminal ballistics.

  19. Samuel L Lord says:

    The ideal case would remove _no_ heat. Plastics generally have far lower thermal conductivity, so have less acquired heat at ejection. The goal of the combustion heat is for gas to expand, not for cases to absorb. This is why both conventionally-shaped polymer-cased rounds as well as polymer-cased-telescoped rounds deliver higher muzzle energies, in general, than brass-cased rounds. Also, with polymers less heat is transferred to the throat from the chamber because the chamber is left much cooler after each polymer-cased round. Of course, there is a greater heat transfer in the opposite direction. But the net effect of the two transfers is a much cooler chamber and slightly cooler throat.

  20. Nicholas Drummond says:

    This new case design seems to be a halfway house between cased-telescoped and legacy brass.I look forward to learning about the design choices that were made to end-up with this particular configuration. I am also looking forward to seeing the weapons that fire it. I am also looking forward to seeing how it compares to Textron and SIG offerings for NGSW.

  21. Patrick Sweeney says:

    Samuel L Lord, please stop. Just stop. Heat is created form combustion. heat has to go someplace. if it doesn’t go into the case, to be tossed overboard, then it stays in the system, that being the chamber, etc.

    If the polymer case truly doesn’t absorb heat, then the heat has to funnel out of the case, and into the throat, making things worse,not better.

    No matter how good your lawyer is, you can’t beat the laws of physics.

  22. lorenzo says:

    What is the point in creating a new powerful rifle by reducing the shots available in the magazine? Having seen in photos the prototypes created by Textron I didn’t really want to believe that they wanted a rifle with 20 shots instead of 30. What is the point? You have the most powerful gun in the world, but you will have less shots than an Ak 47 of a terrorist.

Leave a Reply