Sneak Peek – General Dynamics Ordnance And Tactical Systems Next Generation Squad Weapon Candidates

General Dynamics OT&S was one of three companies selected to compete for the US Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapons program which will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and M4 Carbine in close combat formations with an Automatic Rifle and Carbine firing a new 6.8mm cartridge with desired performance similar to a 270 Win Short Mag.

Their solution has been under wraps, until now.

These photos, obtained by SSD, show that both the AR and Carbine are in fact, Bullpup designs. Both also feature a suppressor.

Interestingly, the AR is box fed, a requirement insisted upon by the US Marine Corps to satisfy their continued participation in the program. The AR also incorporates a longer barrel as well as a bipod.

They fire a new composite-cases cartridge in 6.8mm, designed and manufactured by True Velocity. GD O&TS is also partnered with Beretta Defense Systems.

Look for more details soon, as the system will be formerly unveiled during this week’s Association of the United States Army annual meeting.

28 Responses to “Sneak Peek – General Dynamics Ordnance And Tactical Systems Next Generation Squad Weapon Candidates”

  1. Alpha2 says:

    Is that a suppressor or a Fram oil filter?!

  2. Strike-Hold says:

    Is the ejection port swappable from right to left?

  3. G says:

    I don’t have firsthand experience with any of the three competitor’s weapons, so perhaps one is significantly better than the others.

    But I have to say that only Sig’s look like production-ready weapons. These and AAI’s scream hastily-cobbled-together prototypes.

    • R Martin says:

      I am looking at my at my Desert Tech MDR, and I can see that this GD NGSW and AR/carbine. Interesting fact since Beretta was aupposed to be a partner of General Dynamics on this project.

      The Textron Submission, hmm ALIENS SPECIAL EFFECTS prop.

      The Sig, hmm looks like MCX, but their Squad Weapon that looks Original and ready to rock.

    • Eddiedi says:

      Do some research before the dumb comment

      • Nick says:

        Research certainly supports the statement that he made, early reports are that the Sig entries are favored by troops that have handled them. Aside from that, anyone who looks at the Textron submissions, but especially the rifle/carbine, can easily see that it’s simply not ready to go. That thing is beyond unwieldy and cannot be efficient to use.

  4. R Martin says:

    I am looking at my Desert Tech MDR, and I can see that this GD NGSW and AR/carbine have a very close resemblance. Interesting fact since Beretta is supposed to be the firearms partner to General Dynamics on this project. Maybe GD had a change of mind, and realized that the opereating system on the MDR with it’s quick change ambidextrous ejection system and barrel change procedures are way more effective than anything offered by Beretta.

  5. Andy says:

    Am I the only one that is reminded of the old Bushmaster bullpup from the 90s?

  6. mark says:

    As a proponent of the bullpup master race, I’m excited to see these.

    Also from my personal experience with the AUG, I would suggest GD add a shell deflector to allow off side shoulder firing.

    • mark says:

      I’d also look to incorporate a ‘competition style’ mag funnel in lieu of the current straight magwell. Being a bullpup, a wider magwell will facilitate easier reloads.

      In terms of trigger linkage, K&M arms has developed one of the crispest and lightest bullpup triggers on the market with their M17s.

      A normal bullpup has a mushier trigger because the trigger is pushing on a ~10″ long thin rod, and the act of pushing it against the sear induces a bit of flex in the rod prior to the break.

      K&M solved this. Rather then pushing on a linkage, they hit upon the ingenious solution of having their trigger PULL against the linkage. Pulling against a thin rod keeps the rod tight like a guitar string, and the result is the trigger is just as crisp as a conventional layout.

      • DangerMouse says:

        Great info. I always wondered how they (K&M) did that.

        As far as the shell deflector… They need to call up Corvus Defensio.

      • Scott M says:

        The L85 (SA80) family of Rifles also uses a ‘pull’ type trigger linkage, and has one of the worst trigger pulls of a military rifle anywhere!

  7. mark says:

    Will GD also be offering a belt fed option for the Army, perhaps like SIG scaling down their own .338 MG to 6.8?

  8. John Martin says:

    Further more, what’s with the German Steiner’s M8Xi 1-8×24 Designated Marksman Riflescope that goes for $3,200. Why not the Trijicon VCOG 1-8×28 Riflescope that has already been selected by various operations groups and it can be had for $1,999,99 or the Nightforce ATACR F1 Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 1-8x 24mm that goes for $2,800, and has also been taking into service by some operations groups.

    • Rob says:

      It is just a place holder that was selected due to beretta being a partner. Beretta owns Steiner.

  9. SGT Rock says:

    No x 1000!!! This is a horrible concept and design. I’m not going to rehash the drawbacks and flaws of a Bullpup platform, especially when it comes to a full auto high rate of fire support weapon.

  10. Something says:

    I can see why they didn’t want to reveal these prototypes.

    This seemed like the most promising cartridge, so I’m terribly disappointed that to see the companion weapon. A box fed LMG? I suppose cutting down on firepower is one way to cut weight… until you add the weight of the literal (do the math) 30 magazines required to carry the ammunition of a SAW currently.

    What a farce. For the first time I really want to see this program fail so we can maintain the status quo until someone figures out an actual solution to this problem rather than some hastily cobbled together prototypes.

    • Richie says:

      “box fed, a requirement insisted upon by the US Marine Corps to satisfy their continued participation in the program”

      How dare they adhere to the requirements?

    • Joglee says:

      USMC loves them some box fed LMGs.

  11. greg stone says:

    they should call the supressor the chode

  12. DangerMouse says:

    Any idea what the actual barrel length is on that? I would have thought they would try to pull off 20 inches or so to get that .270WSM performance level, and hence why the bullpup format.

  13. bulldog76 says:

    a bullpup .. i thought that was off the table

  14. Wolf says:

    Given the way armor is evolving, especially with ballistic helmets and mandables, wouldn’t the non-modular one size fits all nature of the bullpup is obsolete for armored infantry men.

    Why would the usmc limit their suppressive fire capability to a more expensive, lower capacity, logistically more expensive solution?

    Why not use a Fightlite mcr concept where belts are the standard magazine and box mags are only used for emergency situations, extreme environments, and special ammunition?

    • Joglee says:

      IAR. The USMC loves it and wants to continue with it.

      • Wolf says:

        But why?

        • Mike says:

          Because USMC War research has led to changing doctrine that believes steady ACCURATE fire is more suppressive than full auto area fire.

          Personally I say do both. Squad level or fire team level DMRs and fire team level LMGs.