We initially showed you the FN Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC) Individual Weapon System (IWS) just before SHOT Show 2023. Since then, it’s undergone some improvements. FN America exhibited version 2.2 of the IWS at this year’s AUSA.
Here we see the 11.5″ Close Quarter Battle version with the 2.1 selector (it has been modified slightly more based on user feedback) and slightly larger charging handles as well as an improved buttstock mount. Changes to the operating system have also improved the feeding of the carbine.
This is the latest version of the dedicated magazine, produced by Magpul.
The carbine and machine gun are both chambered to fire the Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC) in .264 USA which was initially developed by the the Army Marksmanship Unit. As you can see, the case is steel.
Here’s a look at the stock which both folds and is collapsible.
Seen here is the latest suppressor, from HUXWRX.
In mid-November, FN will join the Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate (IWTSD) program office in delivering carbines, machine guns, and ammunition to the SOF user community for evaluation.
Steelcase for higher pressures I presume? Interesting…
Should be lighter as well. Cases like the NAS3 cut quite a bit (110gr300blk very close to m262) in addition to being stronger .This looks even lighter and simpler.
What NGSW should’ve been…
Ah another “What the NGSW Shoulda/coulda been”…
FN had a chance to submit something for the NGSW, and were selected for the final six:
https://soldiersystems.net/2018/07/16/fn-down-selected-to-produce-two-prototype-options-for-us-army-next-generation-squad-automatic-rifle-program/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
They submitted: “a lightweight machine gun and the other is the FN HAMR™, a heat adaptive modular rifle.”;
https://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/13/peo-soldier-visits-fn-america/
Spoiler alert: Both were not selected for the final three vendors.
https://soldiersystems.net/2023/05/01/sig-sauer-delivers-next-generation-squad-weapons-to-us-army-for-production-qualification-test/
So…. It sounds like FN didn’t do themselves any favors if they actually had this design present back at that point to submit.
Moreover, the Army looked at .264 USA as a part of their Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study prior to the NGSW.
Spoiler alert; it did not meet their requirements.
It’s easy to say ‘This is the way’ when you overlook:
1) The weapon may not have existed in any form of prototype status at the time the NGSW was being competed.
2) The caliber not meeting the Army’s requirements for their new weapons.
But you do you.
All valid points. NGSW was built to a spec. Big Army had a bullet and told industry to submit a weapon that delivered said bullet to a certain velocity to meet what their data told them they needed to make said bullet perform in a way they wanted. Paraphrased greatly and along with other specfications of course. LICC was built to a different spec for a different reason. It’s not really an apples to apples comparison.
I agree NGSW is a potent beast and will do what the Army wants it to do becasue it was designed to meet the specs they requested. Does that mean it’s the best choice is still somewhat subjective at this point. (Best choice or not it’s a moot point but “cussing & discussing” decisions is an American past time!) Army small arms development and procurement has, let’s say, a checkered past. Color me skeptical they hit it out of the park on this one. 6.8 in an MG or DMR role seems like a no-brainer; it’s more capable than 7.62 essentially all around. I see no problem there. Pure fleeting across the fighting force as an individual weapon, my humble opinion, I’m not convinced. Given an intent to “up gun” from the M4 I would also lean towards the LICC because you are gaining performance all around with less of a size and weight penalty to the soldier who still has to shoot and scoot with it. The recent article here detailing the 101st putting the XM7 through its paces is interesting and I would like to see unfiltered input from those soldiers.
Interestingly enough, Sig stated the advancements in NGSW ammunition could be made backwards compatible to other cartridges. To my point, could a new upper in legacy 5.56 squeeze enough performance to negate abandonment of the M4 entirely? Short of everyone shooting M995 style bullets at insane velocity probably not. What does the data show as the expected engagement distances an infantry fight is and would that cut the mustard then?
Requirements can be written to favor a desired outcome. Happens all the time. Frankly, some of the requirements for the NGSW are odd, to say the least. If 6.5×43 did not meet requirements, that doesn’t mean it was not effective and a significant improvement over 5.56×45.
For NGSW the Army provided the 6.8 bullet and vendors had to design a weapon system around it. FN would not have been able to submit the LICC as currently configured.
I’m still puzzled as to how we ended up with a modern version of the M14 in 2024. It’s like the ghost of the Ordnance Board reached across time and tipped the scales once more toward a full powered battle rifle.
Would be lighter than the XM7 rifle and cartridge being fielded by the Army. The rifle and cartridge that should have had almost 20 years ago. Can be used on the current M-4 or M-16 uppers with a barrel change probably.
I thought the other similar cartridge was developed from the 5th SOF group originally.
Link below.
The US Army Marksmanship Unit’s .264 USA, TFB
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa
6.8SPC (6.8x41mm)was the 5th group cartridge developed with Remington. The original brass cased 264USA (6.5x 48mm?)was developed by the Army Marksmanship Unit along with an “AR12” rifle that was in between the m16 and M110 in size. This is 6.5x43mm . I would expect the mags to be closer to the six8 magpuls optimized for the 6.8SPC..
J- You “might” be able to stuff this into an AR magwell just barely given different bullet profiles. You’d be running into the problems the 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC have in those same respects. Sure they work, not really all that ideal however.
James’ comment about those 6.8 SPC specific PMags is relevant to this point as well. Optimizing the magazine to the round and the magazine to the weapon allows the proper tolerances that’ll benefit reliability in adverse conditions. And Eric even mentions changes to the operating system that improve feeding as well as the newest generation of PMag.
I think the 5th SOF group development for a new cartridge was the 6.8x41mm cartridge on the HK416 platform in the late 2000s.
It was a Barrett upper, although HK did a couple 416s in it at some point. It was in the early 2000s.
I smell a repeat of the 60’s all over again…
SSD, have any of the reps commented on what the rearward MLOK slots on the top of the upper receiver are for? The ones near the stock?
Other picstures on the interwebs have shown just a sling point there. I would imagine maybe a purpose designed, offset/canted BUIS would fit there as well.
I wonder if this will displace NGSW large scale. This along with the ULMG Evolys would be a great match.
Two things:
1) This is a SOCOM program, not Army. The chances of this ‘displacing’ the M7 for the Army are zero. And since that would mean SOCOM would have to use their dollars to pay for it to be adopted large-scale, I doubt it will see widespread use.
2) Pretty sure that FN had the chance to submit this along with the Evolys for the NGSW. They chose to submit “a lightweight machine gun and the other is the FN HAMR™, a heat adaptive modular rifle.”;
https://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/13/peo-soldier-visits-fn-america/
The NGSW wasn’t a “We’ll take ammo vendor A, with Rifle Vendor B, and AR vendor C” type of thing: It was written as an all-or-nothing requirement to be met for all the components (rifle, AR, ammo) of the NGSW system. So whatever FN submitted didn’t make the cut for the final three vendors in comparison to Sig, General Dynamics/Lonestar/ and Textron.
I wonder when we will start seeing this ammo and caliber kits for this pop up?