Quantico Tactical

Another Look At SIG’s Next Generation Squad Weapons

Last week the US Army announced the three companies which will compete in phase 2 of their search for new Squad Weapons to replace the M4 and M249. So far, only SIG has shown off their entry, with General Dynamics-OTS Inc and AAI Textron remaining in the shadows.

A Soldier could easily pick the SIG candidates up and know how to operate them considering the similarities to currently fielded weapons. In addition to the new 6.8mm cartridge, there are a bunch of other changes under the hood. For instance, the Machine Gun incorporates recoil mitigation technology Additionally, the optic isn’t mounted to the feed tray cover and it can be easily converted from left to right hand feed. The Carbine can be fired with the stock folded and features both side and AR-style charging handle.

17 Responses to “Another Look At SIG’s Next Generation Squad Weapons”

  1. Jan says:

    Sig shills coming in 3.. 2.. 1..

  2. Joe says:

    I’m hoping there is recoil mitigation technology in the carbine as well.

    Unless full auto is intended to be as unused as 3 round burst has been for decades, 6.8 ArmyMag is going to need something extra to tame it.

  3. Peter says:

    Patiently awaits TheScrutineer’s objective voice on this post.

  4. Pete says:

    Unbelievably stupid waste of time. The caliber is interesting and all but what we need in a new carbine is an updated manual of arms. Specifically ambidextrous, index-finger bolt hold-open, release, and mag release. Also need to go away from rear charging handle although that is a trickier fix. Also need to move recoil assembly into and/or forward of receiver to allow folding stock.

    The SAW replacement is sitting in Vero Beach Florida with Reed Knight at the moment. Why we don’t just use that? I can tell you that, as an Infantryman, if you ask me if I would prefer for the automatic rifleman role, the concept of an 8.9 lb belt fed 5.56 with quick change bbls firing from SAW nut sacks will win against basically anything.

    The M249 (and any FN Minimi derivitive) is a bulky, pokey, heavy, pain in the ass and the M240 (or any FN MAG derivitive) is rock solid reliable and long-lasting but heavy, bulky, long, and not great in the dismounted gpmg role. Keep M240 derivitives in co-axial and turret uses, switch to the KAC LAMG or something like it for the fireteam level Automatic Rifleman role and switch to something else for the dismounted GPMG role (Barrett M240 LWS, M60E6, KAC LMG, IWI Negev 762, etc, there are lots of good choices, although the MK 48 ain’t one of em).

    • Chuck says:

      At the risk of sounding like a Sig Bot, doesn’t Sig’s carbine address those concerns? (Folding stock with a forward recoil assembly, side charging handle)

    • SVGC says:

      Putting my opinions on this program and the idea of replacing the M4 with a battlerifle aside, I’ll point out a few things. Namely that the rad ambi controls and folding stock and recoil mechanism you speak of… are in fact a part of this weapon. If you’d take a second to familiarize yourself with some of the elements of the MCX, SIG CSASS, SIG NGSW or even read some blurbs from this very article you’d know some of that dude.

      The forward charging handle has never been great to me for a few reasons.
      If you’re familiar with using the MP5 with modern ancillary equipment or have messed with the new HK 433 a little you’ll start to notice that the forward charging handle becomes a pain in the ass for modern attachments like flashlights, laser/illuminators, LRFs and so on. Even if you get a setup to clear all that it can be a pain to actually reach and use the CH. Seeing as that I can’t predict what future technology will bring me in the form of capability via attachments I become weary about denying space on the handguard for said attachments.

      I’ll agree that the Knights LAMG seems enticing but it’s not part of this unfortunately. Maybe we’ll see it somewhere else in another way to see how it stacks up.

    • TheScrutineer says:

      Like everything new the Knight’s LAMG is unproven, but it IS genuinely impressive. I wonder if hauling around an integrally suppressed barrel to swap in is all that practical for big army or the Marine corpse though. I’m just picturing it getting dented or flattened by some crayon eater.


  5. TheScrutineer says:

    I have to admit, SIG has the visuals down and the mentioned features are properly updated. I think we all have questions about the ammo (really for all the participants) but like every other new fangled weapons program it’s all going to come down to the details and whether or not the the whole program is let down by the process itself. Is that a non-SIG optic on top of the machine gun? It doesn’t quite look like their boxy red dot.

    I’m genuinely not trying to s**t stir here but when I hear recoil mitigation tech I begin to think proprietary. How much of these new weapons ( not just the SIG offering) are chock full of stuff that isn’t going to play nice with the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of existing supply all of us tax payers have already ponied up for? I wouldn’t throw a new gen rifle out of bed just because it won’t take colt type BCG but would we need new muzzle devices, new suppressors, new butstocks, new grips (etc. etc. etc.)as well? Getting milked out for a ton of cash in acc. and whatnot is a bit galling.

    • Rgy says:

      At some point we will have to bite the bullet logisticaly for your concern about parts commonality. The M4/M16/IAR design and capability is more or less at the matured limitations of lethality, weight reduction, and effective range that you can squeeze out of 5.56. the longer we wait to implement a new weapon system, the worse it will be if we suddenly find our small arms innefective in a future conflict against an enemy that did invest in small arms. Granted, up to this point the improvements available in another platform are only marginable.

      • TheScrutineer says:

        It may, or may not, be possible to make a clean break to an entirely new platform (weapon, accs. ammunition the whole shebang) but the more amazing a new replacement might be, or the more severe our change in doctrine the more likely we are to see it.
        I’m not advocating a stay with the status quo because change hurts. I just see most new weapons programs like I see high speed rail programs for the country – full of potential but fuller of s**t and graft in the end. the impetus to push a new weapons program is more likely come from external factors (like getting our asses kicked) than the good will of agencies and contractors. Says me.

        • TheScrutineer says:

          Plus I’m not actually advocating the status quo at all. If it smells funny I’d like to air that out.
          The fact is we have yet to really see just how good any of this new next gen stuff is. I hope it’s amazing but, like you said, its only appears to be a marginal increase for soldiers but a big opportunity for contractors. This doesn’t impress me as a program of high science and innovation. To some extent, we’re trying to fit it all within an existing frame work so maybe we SHOULD start further upstream at the doctrine end and go down from there – a ground up upgrade. Question is… who is the next enemy exactly? This whole process is pretty fractured.

        • SSD says:

          Industry didn’t ask for this, the Army did.

          Although they didn’t bother to consult you, the Army actually did put a bunch of thought into this requirement and it’s all based on effect. They didn’t say build us this ammo, or this gun, they said, we want velocity X for this projectile we’re going to give you and you offer us ammo and a way to shoot it.

          • TheScrutineer says:

            Briefly to your point; I think the Army shares a MAJOR part in the end result of any program – the Army canceled the MHS after phase I not SIG. This does not however absolve contractors of their own conduct.

            I’m perfectly happy to let this post move it’s way down the entry list but I would like to address your participation as well as the conduct of myself and other commenters. You had previously made a post about this but having taken a good long look at where some of this talk has taken us all I fell like its worth discussing here because I like this blog and do feel strongly about certain industry developments.

            Any participation will be point oriented. None of this discussion is supposed to generate stress or angry emails but since this is one of many places where industry press releases are second sourced it’s an apt place for related discussions.

            I’d like to take responsibility for the tone, language and less than purely objective phrasing of some previous posts as well as try to foster a better place for discussing subjects I and other viewers feel are important. I would also like to make these points where everyone has gone to post.

            With regards to comment conduct going forward:

            1.No spam.
            2.No foul language.
            3.No derogatory or inflammatory comments.
            4.No bots or anonymous comments.
            5.No off-topic rants.
            6.No blog posts parading as comments.
            7.No embedded links to another website.
            8.No anchor text or keywords in commenter’s name.
            9.No sales pitch.
            10.No affiliates.

            With regards to blog conduct I would like to suggest the following going forward:

            1. It is your right to voice your opinion
            2. Be critical of everything, even your self
            3. Use your power to protect
            4. Tell the truth at all times
            5. Present your opinion as your opinion
            6. State your allegiances to stay independent.
            7. Reveal your sources unless doing so can harm your sources.
            8. Be critical of your sources and seek independent verification.
            9. Always give credit where credit is due.
            10. Always preserve the intended meaning of a given statement.
            11. Give your opponent a chance to respond.
            12. Admit and correct your mistakes immediately.

            I think the nature of semi-anonymous or anonymous posting can be blamed for some of this but, speaking for myself, I don’t sound at all like most of the comments I make in less than 200 characters and that’s not the effect any of this is supposed to have.

            Thank you for your participation. I hope you all have yourselves a stress free day.


            • SSD says:

              I’m not angry. I’m not even emotionally invested in this. I long ago went through the stages of grief on this one. I just hope they don’t bet the farm on something that doesn’t work.

              However, it certainly seems you are wrapped up pretty heavily in this. You know how I can tell? TL/DR.

  6. Amer-Rican says:

    Gods of inconsistent logic: “When it comes to PRIMARY weapons in 5.56- Direct Impingement is good enough- we don’t need piston carbines like the FN SCAR L, or HK 416… But for SECONDARY weapons like pistols: the Army didn’t truly test to see which pistol was the absolute best”!

    Brought to you by Americans Against Whining and Hypocrisy- AAWH

    • TheScrutineer says:

      The MHS program is a whole other ball of wax. There is plenty to be said there about the Army and SIG. Keeping it relevant to this post though my main concern is threefold:

      Are SIG going to try and hypnotize the uniformed brass with low low prices like a cudgel ( there is more to value than cost)?

      And are SIG, the “Total systems provider”, going to replace all the round holes with square ones for the duckets?

      Quality control quality control quality control.

      Historically the military has been a conservative duck even when there is a genuine argument to be had that a new, proprietary, design brings a performance increase. Take a look at the knight’s bolt; rounded lugs last longer but don’t fit the mil-spec foot print. Now LMT is favored. That was a valid decision in my opinion (and yes I’m aware that Knight’s and LMT share mfg. and licensed patents).

      Tim @ MAC brought up the fact that his MCX rattler wouldn’t take any of his cans out of the box and even after he wrestled an adapter from SIG the damn thing just wouldn’t shoot:
      (it’ a long one but informative)

      That doesn’t seem to me like a valid, performance increasing design. It looks like a less than clever attempt at turning one purchase into two. But what do you do if you’re an arms company that goes from selling firearms to selling pretty much everything? You’ve invested tons of money to gear up and you have to sell or sink? It’s annoying to me as a consumer but avoidable. As a professional shooter this would genuinely worry me and so far, in dealing with the new SIG, the Military has decided that cheap = expedient. How many examples can we bring up in the last 100 years where the average man in uniform was taken for granted in the name of expediency? This kind of stuff should piss off everyone that stands a chance of having to truly depend on this stuff.

  7. mark says:

    The specs for SIG’s new LMG are very impressive; 12lbs + a novel recoil reduction system.

    I’m curious what the cartridge weight will be for their new 6.8 hybrid case ammunition. I still can’t figure out how a steel+brass case is going to be substantially lighter regular steel case ammunition.