FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Fort Campbell is testing some of the Army’s newest weapons that has the potential to redefine the capabilities of U.S. infantry forces. Last month Soldiers began field testing the Sig Sauer XM7 Rifle and XM250 Automatic Rifle before the they respectively replace the M4/M4A1 carbine rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
The contract, awarded by the U.S. Army, represents a significant investment in enhancing the Soldiers’ effectiveness on the battlefield.
“The XM7 has no fixed front sight post, allowing for full length rail systems and eliminating a heat source that interferes with thermal weapon sights,” said Communications Director Bridgett Siter, Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team at Fort Moore. “Both [Next Generation Squad Weapons] were purpose built and integrated to fire with visual and acoustic suppressors to improve survivability and command and control, and they have ambidextrous controls and improved operating systems. The XM250 incorporates a select fire system that allows automatic riflemen to maintain volume of fire in the team while improving their ability to do other tasks in semi-automatic mode.”
The transition isn’t just about the introduction of new firearms; it also signifies a shift in ammunition caliber from the 5.56mm to the more potent 6.8mm. This decision was fueled by the need for ammunition with improved armor-penetrating capabilities, and it is expected to bring about a substantial boost in lethality.
“The move to 6.8mm improves the probability of hitting a target, increases resistance to wind drift and enhances performance against personnel and battlefield barriers,” Siter said. “The NGSW weapons make the [close combat force] Soldier more lethal and survivable.”
These new weapons are not only armed with the common 6.8mm ammunition, which includes government-supplied projectiles and specially designed cartridges, but they also come equipped with the cutting-edge XM157 Fire Control optic. Crafted by Vortex Optics, the optic is equipped with a laser range finder, ballistic calculator, visible and infrared lasers, and even a compass, providing Soldiers with unmatched precision and tactical advantages.
This pivotal shift to an “intermediate caliber” round marks a departure from the Army’s reliance, for more than half a century, on the 5.56mm ammunition. The decision emerged from a comprehensive series of studies conducted, highlighting the limitations in range and energy delivery exhibited by the existing small-caliber squad-level weapons.
These groundbreaking weapons are designated for close combat forces, including infantry, combat engineers, and select enablers like scouts and special operations units. The integration of the 1-8x magnified XM157 fire control, with its advanced computer-assisted rifle optic, extends the weapons’ range, bolsters accuracy, and delivers more formidable hits.
“The Army adjusts tactics, techniques and procedures frequently based on many variables. As the Army transforms the [close combat force] into the future, the concepts of NGSW and other efforts will be integrated to attain and maintain overmatch,” said Siter.
“These efforts combined will give the [close combat force] better ability to detect and engage targets; improved performance of ammunition against personnel and battlefield barriers; better [commad and control] and nighttime fighting capabilities; greater effects against targets in defilade; and more. As we experiment, test, and field systems — through Soldier touchpoints, formal test events, and tactical training — leaders at all levels will develop and adapt [tactics, techniques and procedures] to capitalize on these synergistic gains.”
Fort Campbell Garrison Commander Col. Chris Midberry and Command Sgt. Maj. Chad Stackpolehad experienced the new weapon system firsthand.
“It is an incredible piece of equipment, incredible lethality,” he remarked. Looking ahead to the future, Midberry expressed anticipation about the widespread deployment of this advanced weaponry to units stationed at Fort Campbell. “I’m looking forward to getting it fielded to our units here on Fort Campbell.”
By Kayla Cosby
A heavier weapon
With heavier ammo
So you can carry less of it
Luckily you’ve got two charging handles
Overmatch for days
State. O’. The Art.
The future is now.
I like how you keep referring to the two charging handles as if that’s a problem.
No shit it’s a heavier weapon, it’s a larger caliber.
No shit the ammo is heavier, it’s larger.
Why are you going to carry less?
“Reliable firearms are those that minimize the entry points for dirt, grime, mud and dust to the bare minimum. The best way to ensure the least amount of entry points for obstructions is to minimize the number of machined openings in the receiver and other areas with critical moving parts.”
– Ian McCollum
There is literally no reason to have two different ways to charge the weapon in any manual of arms, especially if one of those methods is 99.9999% time-tested and reliable. All you’ve done is cut another hole in the receiver that doesn’t need to be there. At all.
You’re not going to change my opinion. It is a stupid weapon. An overweight weapon. With an overweight round. It is a poor design, in my opinion. It is America’s 21st century M14.
Except there is a very valid reason: To allow for less muscle memory transition problems.
I don’t have to change your opinion, as such isn’t required. Your points aren’t valid. No shit it’s “overweight”, it fires a larger round. No shit the ammo is heavier, it’s larger. You’re crying about things that are either chickenshit issues or strawman problems.
It isn’t even close to the M14. The only way you’re going to see these two rifles weigh the same and have even close to the same overall length is if you put both a suppressor AND optic on the new one.
It’s designed to be used with both of those things.
Johnathan Fergusson, I read it as he meant putting a suppressor and XM157 on the M14 (which if it’s in the Sage EBR stock would be heavier than the XM7 by far) to get as close to an apples to apples comparison with the XM7.
Double CH is bonus ingress point and bonus parts for someone to fuck up
You are going to carry less ammo because soldiers load is a thing and more importantly the magazines are physically large. Where are you actually putting them? Did the avg soldier get 30% wider in a good way in the past 10 years?
How many M4 charging handles have been “fucked up”? Go on, present a number.
It’s only a “bonus ingress point” in the minds of overly-verbose nitpickers. Go on, present reliability tests that prove it’s a problem.
Oh wait, what’s that? You can’t do either of those things? Go figure.
No shit the magazines are physically larger, it’s a larger round. Why are you acting as if this is a problem?
Why would you carry less ammo? Why are you assuming that you wouldn’t be putting these magazines in the same places as the old ones? You do understand that modern 308 rigs exist where the magazines are places 3 across, right?
People are so desperate to claim this is a “modern M14” but fail at basic math. The M14 weighs 9.2 pounds empty. The XM7 weighs 8.38 pounds empty. The M14 has a 22 inch barrel. The XM7 has a 13 inch barrel.
Well would you look at that. People hyperbolizing their issues with something in order to make those issues look more pressing than they actually are? Who’ve thought?
Do you work for Sig or something?
How much will the XM7 weigh after the new optic, WML, LAM, bipod, can, whatever else gets slapped on it? Fascinating, now it’s even heavier.
You can carry more ammo, once we’ve stripped away the hundred pounds of other stuff we have to carry now. Pretending that everyone can just keep carrying more and more weight forever is absurd.
Also, I bet that our next major conflict will be in tight urban quarters, and 5 years after that winds down we’ll be back to a smaller, more maneuverable rifle after “lessons learned”. This whole thing is absolutely peak Big Mil taking the wrong lessons and applying them too late.
5.45×39 in a short package seems to be slaying plenty of infantry these days.
I will say the new MG is awesome. Maybe we can even start using tripods again…
“How much does an M4A1 weigh with and URG-I upper, a Mk VI 1-6×24, a PEQ-15, and a suppressor? Fascinating, it’s heavier”
So just because the SOPMOD weapon is heavier than a base M4A1 with iron sights, we shouldn’t adopt it right? Apparently the SOCOM commander accepted the risk of increased weight for increased capability for their Soldiers. The question soldiers have to ask is: does the increased capability of the XM7/XM250/XM157 warrant the increased weight that comes with it?
“A smaller, more maneuverable rifle”: The XM7 is the same approximate length as the M4A1. It points almost as fast as a similarly equipped M4A1 (i.e. our URG-I M4A1 w. all the bells and whistles). So what are they missing for CQB?
“5.45×39 in a short package seems to be slaying plenty of infantry these days.” Really? What are you basing how effectively has it performed on? Not Telegram anecdotes or youtube videos; What legitimate analyses of 5.45×39’s performance in Ukraine have you seen? And how much of the UAF actually uses 5.45×39 in comparison to other calibers?
“You can carry more ammo, once we’ve stripped away the hundred pounds of other stuff we have to carry now. Pretending that everyone can just keep carrying more and more weight forever is absurd.” I will agree that a lot of what is carried by the Soldier is not necessary. But a lot of that comes down to unit SOP and the individual Soldier. The former can be fixed by leaders seeing the impact of the load on their Soldiers. The latter? Soldiers that want to carry every piece of gear from the cool-guy catalog only gets trained out of them through pain. When the pain of carrying that item is too great, they won’t.
“This whole thing is absolutely peak Big Mil taking the wrong lessons and applying them too late.” What lessons should they have taken then? You seem to know what right looks like. Inform the rest of us ignorant masses and the Army what they should have done for the modernization of its weapons.
I think you’ve missed the point here, the terminal effects to defeat modern body armour is the point. Not being able to carry more to be more lethal….
98% of all battlefield casualties are caused by things that go boom, not bang. The US Army is moving away from the NIJ III standard and moving towards NIJ III(+) and NIJ level IV, and so are our near peers in 5-10 years. This 80,000 PSI round is getting outclassed by armor in 5 years and it doesn’t even matter because the major purpose of small arms on the battlefield is to fix and pin enemy units and destroy them with things that go boom. More than that, the more ammunition you can carry = being able to pin and fix strong points and hang it firefights longer.
We’re trading endurance and weight of fire for accuracy and a slightly high Kp. That’s it. These guys will fire their super whizzbang rounds at the same target in defilade that their pog ancestors fired 5.56 into only to call in the same artillery and air support that does the actual killing. That new round sure is shiny though…it’s heavy too. I hear tell that weight is a sign of reliability. Good thing the gun that’ll fire it has two charging handles, that’s like 4 times the reliability!
There’s a fair few assumptions there but I realise you’ve made your mind up. Although, it’s pretty unreasonable to boldy pretend that caliber is irrelevant because the dumb bombs will do the work once you finish throwing enough small arms ammunition in the general enemy direction. At some point in time the dumb bombs no longer do the the work, they don’t just stop and everyone happily bumbles up onto an empty enemy objective.
People seem to forget that the stated rollout for the M7 is for door kickers. Guys that often engage in combat that is outside the normal combined arms umbrella, that missing 2% you mentioned. REMFs and even line infantry will still be sporting an M4, M27 or M16 for decades to come.
80k PSI is the starting point, SIG says that the system can handle over 100k, with the same service life as a 60k-ish PSI 5.56 barrel. Barrel and bolt metallurgy has come a long way, as has case, propellant and projectile design. This gives them a lot more headroom than the tapped out 5.56 or even 7.62×51 platforms can provide.
Though I can see the hybrid case concept and “wonder barrels” extending the lethality of the existing AR-15 family while still letting them use up massive stocks of conventional 5.56 ammo. I’d imagine 80K PSI 77gr out of a 14.5″ would be pretty impressive in terminal performance and ballistics.
No, all Close Combat Forces, including Infantry and Cav Scouts will be issued the XM7.
The focus on the rifle is incorrect. The m250 machine gun and the xm157 optic are the keys to this program. It is more like 80 percent of casualties are caused by indirect fire, on that note the machine guns in a squad produce more casualties than all of the rifles combined. This is why they are described as “key” or “most casualty-producing” weapons. If you look at near-peer combat in Ukraine soldiers are conducting long movements under armor or on wheeled vehicles to enhance mobility and reduce exposure to artillery. They often dismount at the nearest terrain feature to the objective and assault. Defeating barriers and body armor is critical at range.
This will not be like not Iraq or Afghanistan where soldiers are shooting people from shouting distance and calling close air for everything farther than 200-300 yards. While 5.56 is deadly at spitting distance, from a 14.5in rifle it sucks beyond 300 yards. The new optic allows regular guy soldiers to make reliable hits beyond 600 yards and deliver better penetration and energy at that distance than an m4 at 100. The role of a rifleman is to protect the machine guns until the final assault and these rifles will allow said rifleman to keep enemy soldiers at the extreme range of their smaller weapons systems.
Again trading m249s for these lighter, much more powerful, and accurate m250 dramatically increases the firepower of the squad. The army is concerned with the fighting power of formations, not individuals and the squad or platoon in the basic element of maneuver see (the old I know i’m a dinosaur) fm7-8 infantry rifle platoon and squad manual.
So you are correct in that historically, more casualties can be attributed to indirect fire than direct fire. However you are not keeping up with current realities impacting how this weapon will be employed.
You seem to have forgotten that if Soldiers are in contact with a peer adversary: The enemy has a vote and Counterbattery is a thing. The current conflict in Ukraine has shown that ‘scoot and shoot’ artillery missions are more important than ever, which means artillery will likely be displacing a LOT more then they did in previous conflicts for survivability. Which means artillery support may be limited at best in a peer/near peer conflict. That’s assuming we don’t have air superioritity either. You know: worst-case scenario planning, that thing we’re supposed to do.
FM3-0 (Operations) states that ‘Multi-Domain Operations’ will be what Soldiers will be expected to operate in. This means operations other than war that can escalate to Offensive operations and vice versa. Being able to operate under changing rules of engagement, with changing weapons control statuses is a critical component of this:
https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1025593
As an example: Rules of of engagement were starting to get restrictive in the GWOT in the early 2010’s. It was not uncommon for Soldiers to be limited to their organic squad weapons for ROE, without having to get clearance from higher headquarters. This included having to request clearance to use crew-served weapons (M240) and the time delay that entails. To paraphrase an old saying: “When seconds count, ROE clearance from higher is minutes away.” Meaning good luck getting a fire mission approved under restricted RoE that comes with MultiDomain Operations; If you even have priority of fires.
All of that means Soldiers will have to rely more on what they are carrying on them to solve the tactical problem, and less on fire support from other elements. And since we are considering a fight against a peer adversary who is likely wearing body armor, not to mention that they have a range and terminal ballistic advantage with their squad weapons currently: The XM7/XM250 make a little more sense: We are giving the Soldier better terminal ballistics to be applied to operations other than war through offensive operations. This means Soldiers will be more lethal under the restrictions of the modern battlefield.
But keep your focus on the important stuff like charging handles; And try not to sound like a fudd polishing his M1911 talking about “two world wars” while you’re at it.
“The XM7 has no fixed front sight post, allowing for full length rail systems and eliminating a heat source that interferes with thermal weapon sights”
Please please please tell me someone told this genius that the front sight base is not a requirement for building an M4. This statement saddens me so much, we are not progressing when project “directors” say absolutely uninformed shit like this.
Its the gradeschool exercise in which, the teacher said come up a dozen reasons why its better!
The from sight post is required for all factory M4s unless your are in a special unit that can buy their own uppers. Remember, the M4/M4A1 has a TDP which FN and Colt HAVE to follow and can’t make improvements without the military agreeing to it.
Not a huge fan of the logic behind the NGSW-AR, but I think it’s reasonable to consider the XM7’s lack of FSB to be an improvement over the M4A1 it’s replacing.
Seriously. SOCOM has been running free float rails on M4s for what, 15 years? And this genius is like “XM7 is superior because it finally removes the front sight.”
“”The XM7 has no fixed front sight post, allowing for full length rail systems and eliminating a heat source that interferes with thermal weapon sights,” said Communications Director Bridgett Siter, Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team at Fort Moore”
Notice who said this: the COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR (AKA public affairs) from Fort Moore. PAO’s are not always known as people who are interested in weapons, and in my experience they don’t always or have the time to understand the systems they are reporting on. The SL CFT is responsible for a LOT of stuff, meaning this PAO is a “mile wide and an inch deep” without time to understand what they are reporting on thoroughly. Not making excuses for them, just explaining why this likely happened.
““The XM7 has no fixed front sight post, allowing for full length rail systems and eliminating a heat source that interferes with thermal weapon sights,” said Communications Director Bridgett Siter, Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team at Fort Moore.”
^^^Notice who said this: the COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR (AKA Public Affairs Officer). PAO’s of big organizations like the Lethality CFT are an “inch deep and a mile wide” trying to report on a broad variety of systems/topics. PAO’s are not always known for their interest in weapons, even in the Army, and as such they don’t know what they don’t know. Not trying to excuse the inaccuracy of the comment, just trying to explain where it came from and what might have caused it.
“This pivotal shift to an “intermediate caliber” round marks a departure from the Army’s reliance, for more than half a century, on the 5.56mm ammunition. The decision emerged from a comprehensive series of studies conducted, highlighting the limitations in range and energy delivery exhibited by the existing small-caliber squad-level weapons.
These groundbreaking weapons are designated for close combat forces, including infantry, combat engineers, and select enablers like scouts and special operations units.”
a) Pretty sure that 5.56 is an intermediate cartridge by anyone’s definition
b) “we need 6.8 because we need more range! Also this is for troops engaging primarily in close combat!”
The M250 actually makes sense as it turns the machine gun back into the long range suppressive weapon it was meant to be. But the M5/6/7/8/whatever they call it makes less and less sense every time they talk about it, and I can’t help but be reminded of a comment I saw when it was first announced: “The last US grunt to be issued an M4 hasn’t been born yet”.
An intermediate cartridge in modern parlance is something between 5.56 and 7.62.
Is it? I must have missed that memo. Intermediate cartridge to most of us means intermediate between pistol and full bore rifle. Perhaps a different term would avoid confusion.
Yes, in the US it is. In fact, .264 is the precise median between those two NATO calibers and it is called…the lightweight intermediate caliber cartridge.
Yeah they want “moar range!!!”, but also gave it a 13” barrel…
They then gave it 80K PSI to make up for the 13″ barrel.
Almost like they just had a huge multi-year scandal involving hearing loss and decided that a suppressor was a more reliable way to reduce it. We can argue about the performance they wanted, maybe even the increased blast negatively impacting the sound suppression, but the shortish barrel is pretty much a requirement for a suppressed gun.
My bet: this will be the first 21st century clone of the Mk23. Sig has delivered everything the DoD asked for, and it’s a hot mess. It will get issued, it will be hated, it will not deliver as promised (mostly because of lack of training and focus on what matters; soldier performance) and be replaced or dropped.
With luck, someone will manage to wrestle some good out of it, perhaps by dialing back the chamber pressure (80K PSI is just crazy) and rebuilding the fleet in 6.5CM, with a SAW (not the M249) in a smaller 6.5. Or add in a box-fed 6.5CM as a 21st century BAR, to back up a semi-auto rifle and a belt-fed, all in 6.5CM.
But the real solution, actual training and emphasis on marksmanship? Not gonna happen. Too much like real work.
Do we have evidence that the high chamber pressure is actually a problem? Why are you assuming that it will be hated when there hasn’t even been a conflict to use it in? I seem to recall the M16 being hated when it first rolled out too, and yet…
6.5CM? I think SOCOM is more likely to transition to 6.8×51 than vice versa. But to humor you: If your dream happened and the Army did adopt 6.5CM, all it would take would be a re-barreling of the XM250/XM7 with a new suppressor and feedtray/magazine. Why would the Army need to go through another downselect of another vendor(which is what would likely happen in your dream scenario) setting the fielding of this capability back even further?
Like Yawnz mentioned: why do you believe that the high chamber pressure is an insolvable problem?
As to training: do you really think a transition to 6.5CM will address a training deficiency? I seriously doubt it. I agree that an emphasis on the Soldier learning their shot process as a part of the direct-fire kill chain is essential. And that comes down to a cultural change, which is nowhere as easy as changing a weapon.
As to what Soldiers will think of this weapon: We’ll agree to disagree.
“A hot mess”… I’m pretty sure that a capability based assessement was conducted for these weapons. So you’re saying you’ve been read in on all the requirements from that CBA for these weapons and can objectively say that it does not meet them? Moreover, you can honestly say that training was not addressed at all in the DOTMLPF-P analysis conducted as a part of the capability based assessment? If you don’t recall what DOTMLPF-P is for a capability based assessment: (Hint: look at the ‘T’ section)
https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/dotmlpf-p-analysis
As to your theory that 6.5CM would be accepted by the Army in lieu of 6.8x51mm: what are the requirements for that? What capability gaps does 6.5CM meet that 6.8x51mm does not? Does it have better terminal ballistics? Better velocity? Lighter weight? What does 6.5CM do that neither the legacy 5.56x45mm and 6.8x51mm do not do? Here’s your chance to show what the requirements should be for 6.5CM to be accepted by big Army. Keep in mind, they need to have either a threshhold and objective (for requirements with a number associated with them) or boolean (either the requirement is met or not met if it does not have numbers associated with it). I’m sure the both the Commandant of the Infantry school, and the Commanding General of the Manuever Center of Excellence will be awaiting your correspondence containing these requirements with baited breath.
Emphasis on training and fielding materiel solutions do not happen in isolation. Training the direct-fire kill chain and the shot process is a cultural shift. For example: People raised a fit when the 25m ALT-C qual was removed, claiming they wouldn’t be able to resource ranges, even when it was shown they could; Now try convincing leaders that their Soldiers should only get one attempt at individual weapons qualification since they only get one attempt at the ACFT, Gunnery tables, etc. You’d be amazed how quickly people backpedal on their emphasis on weapons training, even with the M4A1. Cultural shifts take time, and are influenced by the entirety of DOTMLPF-P.
Saying “This thing sucks, we should’ve used x” is easy, especially online: But actually looking at the second- and third-order impacts of changing calibers and what those requirements might be? Not gonna happen by any of the people saying fudd things on the internet about the XM7/XM250… Too much like real work.
Next gen weapons that all still look like they were designed in the 50’s. Why does nothing other than hideous gae r 15 clones have a dust cover. Nothing else does. We need to make it all look exactly the same cuz mil people are too stupid to learn something else,, no not true, stop focusing on the exact same look and controls. Holy boring crap that does not look new at all even when it is.
It’s almost like different weapons are different, and the AK has a dust cover too. It’s that larger piece of sheet metal that cover the entire rear portion of the rifle. Why is having a dust cover a big deal anyway?
Why are the looks such a big deal to you?
Because it’s my money being spent. Looks are a factor to everyone no matter if it’s a tool or a woman. I take no shame in admiting it means a lot to me. There wouldn’t be many sites about this stuff if looks were not s factor.
Yeah pretty sure that Eugene Stoner didn’t have free-floated M-LOK handguards, and a suppressor as a part of his initial build of the AR-10. But you believe what you will.
The AR-10/AR-15 have proven to be able to reconfigure rapidly to have the best ergonomics for usage by a large population. Many other weapons may interface with an individual more efficiently, but are not practical for use by a large population in combat. The same could be said for the controls: They have proven to be functional over decades of use for a large population of users without significant training issues.
A dust cover, like many of the features of the M16 have been proven over time to be necessary for any weapon of a similiar design. So if it is functional and serves a purpose, where’s the issue?
Let me guess: You wanted the General Dynamics/LoneStar bullpup submission to win because it ‘looked cool’; even though bullpups have a lot more interface issues for a large population of people. Focusing on ‘It doesn’t look cool’ on a multi billion dollar program that is based on function over form is bass ackwards.
Why am I down on 80KPSI+? Because it is bad engineering, and using the wrong tool to solve a problem that can’t be solved. Go ahead, issue your “armor-busting” new round. I’ll just add a couple of pounds more of protection to my guys armor, and now your super-bullet doesn’t bust armor.
If busting armor was the only thing that mattered, armies would be issuing steel-cored ammo in their issue .375 H&H chambered rifles.
Hits not on armor still make people bleed, and you can’t cover everything with armor.
If you want performance at distance, but you also want a short, SBR-like barrel, I’m going to talk to you like you’re the Spaniard: “Get used to disappointment.”
“Why am I down on 80KPSI+? Because it is bad engineering, and using the wrong tool to solve a problem that can’t be solved.”
I’m pretty sure if the higher chamber pressure didn’t meet the requirements the Army specified, it wouldn’t have made it past the first round of downselects. And just because you can’t see a solution for the higher chamber pressure does not mean the Army and Sig Sauer were unable to find one.
“Go ahead, issue your “armor-busting” new round. I’ll just add a couple of pounds more of protection to my guys armor, and now your super-bullet doesn’t bust armor.”
An peer adversary may be willing to accept adding a few more pounds of armor, but that puts them in the boat of having to deal with decreased mobility as a result. if the peer threats are moving slower, they are going to be eaier to engage and defeat.
“Hits not on armor still make people bleed, and you can’t cover everything with armor.”
Exactly! What this cartridge provides the Soldier is an improved overall probability of incapacitating threats over a longer distance than 5.56mm.
“If you want performance at distance, but you also want a short, SBR-like barrel, I’m going to talk to you like you’re the Spaniard: “Get used to disappointment.””
Well if that is the case, why did Sig not lose this competition? There were several vendors who had submissions for the XM7 with longer barrels: All of them were eliminated. Pretty sure the Army has put the XM7 through a lot of developmental testing (both before and after contract award) with people a lot smarter on internal ballistics than anyone on here. And they must feel the chamber pressure, barrel length, and performance at distance are not as significant an issue as you believe it its.