Designers don't carry these things bro. Neither do the profiteers.
In addition, if the last few years have illustrated anything, it's that senior leaders are a lot more concerned about their retirement gig than the welfare of the troops.

Trust me I am tracking all :D Did you see that giant IFV as big as a M-1 tank they want to replace the Bradley with it will be a missile magnet for sure.

A few other considerations on adopting this new rifle on which I haven't seen much discussion:

1) Ammo - I recall reading that units will need to use reduced power ammo to shoot on existing rifle qual ranges due to the 6.8's larger SDZ. How much will that ammo cost vs. the 'go to war' ammo? Will the Army primarily buy low power ammo to support training range requirements, and in doing so will that mean soldiers won't ever get to fire the full-power ammo in training to understand its capabilities? Will the Army build new ranges that support the capabilities of the new ammo? How much of a PIA will it be for units equipped with the XM5 or XM250 to compete for range time on the limited number of these new ranges?

2) Equipment - Most of the soldiers that may be issued this rifle have magazine pouches and bandoliers sized for 5.56 mags. It won't be an insignificant cost to replace all that nylon with new pouches sized for the bigger round (although, since its the same length as existing 7.62 rounds there are already pouches in the system so it won't require a newly designed item).

3) Logistics - Infantry and SOF units get the new rifle/MG/ammo, but everyone else still has to order 5.56 and 7.62, which the close combat guys won't be able to use in their nifty new go-fast guns. Yeah, I can't see anything going wrong with that concept.

4) Existing Small Arms - The Army just started issuing the M110E1 SDMR in 7.62 to infantry units. Will the need for this rifle go away with the new XM5, or will the Army keep it in its close combat units? If they keep it, will they spend the money to rechamber it in 6.8? How about sniper weapon systems (including the new MRAD)- rechamber (where possible), or replace with something that fires the 6.8?

That's a fair statement on the barrel lengths. The other thing is the .277 Fury is spec'd at 80,000psi. The .270 Winchester at 65,000psi.
BTW my .270 is a Tikka with the barrel cut to 20 inches. I guess I should chrono some ammo.

logistics isn't really a problem
works out like this -

when "we" got 45s and Glocks - the first place they showed up at group was at BAF
...because the folks at BAF needed that shit more than the ODA
...same went for the first DD uppers / I seemed to see more at BAF or Kabul than the ODA level

Pouches - pfft
non-starter - the solution is simple: '.gov' just buys shitty shitty shitty punches in the most minimal quantities required
...as a result, operators will rush right out and buy something expensive and Gucci out of their own pockets

the profiteers that are in cahoots on the procurement of shitty gear they wont have to use win - because the dot-gov buys a shit ton of product,
the operator wins because they get what they want (even if they do end up buying it themselves)
- problem solved

I will stir the pot
 

I did Combat Development/Force Mod at 1st GP.

The new gun and ammo at 80K chamber pressure looks to be a logistic nightmare on parts wear. But maybe something will be different. The plastic ammo. sounds great but we all know it will just take time to. knock brass off its pedestal as. a reliable cartridge case material. Who has not shot old green crusty ammo through their guns?

Had anyone done their research we could have fielded a new cartridge in the 1970s. The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) did a study for the USMC in 1976 which predicted that the optimum single or two cartridge design would be between 6 and 7mm. The 5.56 was to light for wounding/incapacitation and the 7.62NATO to heavy in weight and recoil. In 2015 you should have seen the faces of the USMC Wpns Bn Commander at Quantico when I asked him and his Marines if they had seen the study. Could have heard a pin drop. It is a great study that takes into even carrying the weapon, ammo, recoil control.

The history of high velocity light weight rifleman rifle and ammunition post Korean War is very interesting and the end concept for the projectile would have raised the lethality rate for the rifle above its current rate of 30%. History shows that the rifle lethality rate hovers around 30% in all wars. Think 3 KIA per 30 round magazine due to the chaos of the battle field. Incapacitation rates around 60%.

The main weapons they needed upgrade for light infantry ground combat was the two killers, belt feed LMG and the organic 60/81mm mortars. All that Todd Hodnett long range SO ballistic computer tech need to be pushed over to the MG Tms to get first burst rounds on target other than walking tracers in. On the mortar side we need PGM mortar ammunition. We also need the wheeled vehicle mounted smart mortar system that are out there, basically the Dragon Fire on a JLTV. Mali could have been different if we had pushed for these as then the Team does not have to ask for anyone for anything and it is all weather capable.

I think they did...

The UK realized after WWII that 1) The .303 was a week round and 2)more importantly the bolt action was dead to the battlefield.

Hence their development of the FAL/L1A1.

The 70ts was a re-hash of the post-WWII UK work with the .280 British round developed for the FAL/L1A1. The US had a "not invented here" hissy fit and wanted nothing less than a 30 cal, and nixed the FAL/L1A1 for the M14

They forced the 7.62x51 on the world, 20 minutes later the US went to the 5.56x45 and AR family.

ref: 280 British

ref: picture of 30.06, 280 British, and 7.62x51

Not invented here hissy fit
 

Agree with that statement. Plus the USMC Shooting Team, the Army AMU shooters have always had an influence in these decisions. Back then 7.62mm ruled the international competitions.

Yes they did,, BUTT

Go back to the early 1900's, when the Swedish 6.5x66 was a leading competition round. The 6.5x55 Swed is the near equivalent to today's 6.5 Creemore, without the fancy hi-speed trappings of the .277 Fury

ref: The 6.5 Creedmoor Vs. the 6.5×55 Swedish


It makes one wonder why we kept the 5.56 for 60 years,, maybe the SP4 mafia liked the weight-reduction?? :D

A real 6.5x55 Carl Gustaf's scoped with a 4x remains THE favorite "loaner" rifle up at the property where I hunt. Just as 7mm-08 was to be 7x57 with modern powders/pressures, the .260 Rem is the Swede's modern battle buddy. Both of those have excelled for years at checking the competitive shooting & pleasant to shoot boxes.

I admittedly haven't done the research into how this new combo has come upon the scene but wonder if impressions taken from those using Mk.262 were part of that analysis.

Keeping 5.56 this long might have to do with amount of production/machines already in use to make 5.56(doubt it ofc, but switching entire production line would probably come at a hefty price, dunno if civilian market can even support this production. I'd love some cheaper 5.56 thought, prices at my local sports store are beyond comical at this point).

The not-really Next Generation Weapons Program

Our military....ships that can't go to sea because their systems don't work, rifles that don't shoot, billion dollar planes that can't fight.

https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-myth-...ilitary-might/

Read the last two paragraphs.

Yes, the US Military can be way better at most things.

Yes, there are significant issues with procurement of systems.

Yes, our personnel are weak, both in mind and body.

Yes, our leadership has a hard time leading a dead-horse to the ground sometimes.

China is worse. By a long shot.

No, they don’t have fuel.

No, they don’t have a Navy (not that they don’t have a “good Navy”, they have NO Naval power of consequence)

No, they can’t enforce any semblance of “ownership” of anything they purchase (“belt and road” is “smoke and mirrors” if you can’t keep what you take)

No, they can’t de-centralize leadership. Xi is a one-man show, and he kills any and all descent (literally kills them)

No, the Chinese are not a threat……..

It would be interesting to see how many former US GO's are on the board at SIGARMS...
...purely by coincidence of course - not because there is ever a connection between senior leaders that retire and industry leaders that have an "in" on the military selection and procurement process.

Thieves and whores - the lot of them.