← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64326816

313 posts 98 images /k/
Anonymous No.64326816 >>64326983 >>64327021 >>64327105 >>64327234 >>64328051 >>64328175 >>64328291 >>64328544 >>64330017 >>64330608 >>64335630 >>64342397 >>64344862 >>64345082 >>64349917 >>64357522 >>64357854 >>64368980 >>64371396 >>64374742 >>64376310 >>64380120
FN IWS .264
what happened to it?
Anonymous No.64326858
Still in the pipe, its been given NSNs if that means anything to you. I don't think that automatically means its officially being procured, but presumably trials are ongoing.
Anonymous No.64326983 >>64326998
>>64326816 (OP)
imo there will be no new cartidge adopted as we are facing a large scale conflict it makes no sense to change 5.56 or 7.62 nato
Anonymous No.64326998 >>64327234
>>64326983
considering its a socom driven project, I don't think adding yet another boutique calibre to their logistics will even be noticed regardless of whether theres a war on.
Anonymous No.64327021 >>64327097 >>64343880
>>64326816 (OP)
https://soldiersystems.net/2025/06/02/canada-pursues-nato-stanag-of-6-5-x-43/
https://soldiersystems.net/2025/06/11/nsns-for-lightweight-intermediate-caliber-carbine/
tldr LICC is alive and well, total sigger dead
Anonymous No.64327097 >>64344581
>>64327021
>With an eye to the future, CANSOFCOM is pursuing a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) for 6.5 x 43 mm in partnership with at least one additional NATO member. At this point, the other party has not been disclosed. However, I know it is not the US, which has been working on the 6.8 x 51mm common case cartridge as their path forward.
Not necessarily. SOCOM openly and unabashedly never gave a single fuck about NGSW, nor did the marines, navy or air force. I think the marines are committed to the M27, but the other two could reasonably have an interest in the LICC. Its not like they'd be any less ignorant of the issues the M7 has been having than anybody else, and having the USAF adopt the lightweight futuristic gun while the army gets stuck with the boat anchor would be a poetic repetition of the M16 adoption.
Anonymous No.64327105 >>64327160 >>64327239 >>64327750 >>64328284
>>64326816 (OP)
I have a question for anons with the knowledge: why is the case two parts ? IF it's all stainless steel ?
Anonymous No.64327160
>>64327105
If I had to guess I'd say it's because it's easier to make a stronger case head if you're not also worried about trying to draw the body from the same material.
Anonymous No.64327234 >>64327244 >>64327245 >>64327273 >>64328231 >>64328291 >>64329139 >>64335362 >>64336038 >>64339777
>>64326816 (OP)
People coping and seething about 6.8 common being the goat. People literally only care about 6.5 Grendel 2.0 because they don't like sig. SIGs cartridge is actually a huge step up in capability. Noguns think a 13" gun that has the ballistics of a 22" 6.5CM is a waste of time and they're retarded and blindly following memes.

>>64326998
SOCOM adopting a 22" musket in 6.5CM to own the siggers will never not be funny to me. They need to move on from their competition cartridge like people who shilled for and competed with it did.

They're literally just buying random shit now. 6mm ARC is also a meme.

If I was head of doge I'd completely gut SOCOM weapon procurement and make them use standard issue guns + some memes like 338LM and 300BO. All their random cartridge shit is retarded and so is their snowflake logistics chain.
Anonymous No.64327239 >>64328291
>>64327105
Weight savings plus the primer pocket is machined and not drawn. It needs to be thick to avoid blowing out primers and suffer fatigue cracking and blown primers when drawn.
Anonymous No.64327244 >>64327266
>>64327234
>if I were head of doge I’d gimp our military
>imblygn that African retard isn’t already doing that
Anonymous No.64327245
>>64327234
Nobody wants to touch that sigger shit
Anonymous No.64327266 >>64327798
>>64327244
>It's gimped to demand retards not spend hundreds of millions on grift contracts for no benefit
Nigger they literally have 300WM, 300NM,338LM,and 338LM in inventory. It's a fucking scam. Plus they're running 7.62 NATO AND 6.5CM and are now demanding the LAMG in 7.62 NATO.

They need to be reigned in. 6.8 sigger can cover every caliber I just listed except the 338s of which they need to use 338LM instead of min max fagging for a 5% gain at the cost of literally no one else in NATO using the round.

I'm not even going to get into their retarded AR variants all of which are basically M4A1s in drag. INTO THE TRASH!
Anonymous No.64327273 >>64327281 >>64327696
>>64327234
>SOCOM adopting a 22" musket in 6.5CM to own the siggers
They've been using various creedmeme AR10s since like 2016. MRGG was just a formalized branch-wide adoption.
Anonymous No.64327281 >>64327696
>>64327273
I'm aware. It's a garbage musket. Remember the original justification was not needing 308 and 300wm rifles.

We saw how that played out.
Anonymous No.64327696 >>64328239
>>64327273
>>64327281
It's been mostly consolidated down. 338NM is a belt fed meme. Unclear why you're so butthurt.
Anonymous No.64327750
>>64327105
It's a Shell Shock Technologies case. I think it's because the case head is harder to form and has more material than the rest of the case, so it works out cheaper and lighter if you made it out of aluminum and joined it to the nickel-steel alloy case wall later.
I believe SIG uses machined steel for their hybrid case heads.
Anonymous No.64327752 >>64327826 >>64327915 >>64332296
>AK piston
Anonymous No.64327798 >>64328239
>>64327266
I’m aware of what we use lmao stay mad poor man
Anonymous No.64327826 >>64362261
>>64327752
DI is dead
Anonymous No.64327915 >>64328006 >>64328129 >>64331315 >>64332296
>>64327752
>it's true
Yike. Won't stop me from liking the thing, but that's pretty questionable. Maybe it has something to do with the trilug bolt?
Anonymous No.64328006 >>64328291
>>64327915
nvm the XCR has a short stroke gas
Anonymous No.64328051
>>64326816 (OP)
this gun is pure sexo
Anonymous No.64328129 >>64369006
>>64327915
It's honestly very weird decision
What's was NATO's last long-sroke piston gun? M1 Garand?
Anonymous No.64328175 >>64335409
>>64326816 (OP)
>that ejection port slot
swappable ejection?
Anonymous No.64328231 >>64328282
>>64327234
>SIGs cartridge is actually a huge step up in capability
except the gun is bad, the cartridge is too much for a general issue carbine and the ammunition as currently designed and manufactured is 6moa garbage.
Anonymous No.64328239 >>64328328 >>64334992
>>64327696
>>64327798
>Do something retarded
>That's retarded
>Lmao why you so mad?
Okay
Anonymous No.64328282 >>64334958
>>64328231
>Match ammo is better
>The gun itself is shit
>It shouldn't be standard issue
Completely separate arguments independent of the 6.8 Common. I'm in favor of a 3 cartridge solution. 50, 6.8, and 5.56 tbqhwy
Anonymous No.64328284 >>64350199
>>64327105
Stainless steel can't be formed like brass. So the thick part is turned on a lathe and the thin part is formed from sheet.
Anonymous No.64328291
>>64326816 (OP)
Spook XCR. Hopefully the newer 6.8 mag standard is a similar COAL to 264 so I can get a lower for this eventually
>>64327239
Dingdingding
Case wall is also thinner than a comparable brass case, adding a bit of volume (in the case of nas3, but 264 may be slightly different)
>>64328006
Only the type 2 gas. Carbines are for the most part an adjustable gas long stroke
>>64327234
Idk I'd rather have 264 spook. You don't need 308 cartridges in a general use carbine unless your fighting 9+ ft brown bears
Anonymous No.64328328 >>64328345 >>64328416
>>64328239
>ussof is the uncontested special operations world wide champ
>we do what we want as a result
>some retard on a peruvian wheat harvesting forum gets assblasted about it
>retard is so assblasted he fantasizes about gimping the most lethal fighting force in history
Yeah dude you seem well adjusted and normal
Anonymous No.64328345 >>64328357
>>64328328
>The most lethal fighting force in history
>Brutally mogged by afghan cave dwellers with PKMs
Anonymous No.64328357 >>64328381
>>64328345
>brutally mogged by RoE
FTFY. We are very efficient at killing. The most efficient, probably
Anonymous No.64328381 >>64328401 >>64376855
>>64328357
>The most efficient
>Has lost every war since WW2
What?
Anonymous No.64328401 >>64328451
>>64328381
>RoE
Anonymous No.64328416 >>64328644
>>64328328
>Yeah dude you seem well adjusted and normal
Mike fuck off. Youre the definition of not adjusted popping roids and murdering random people in their sleep for decades. Not normal even for a soldier tbqhwy.
Anonymous No.64328451 >>64328501 >>64328518
>>64328401
You lost to literal subhumans, get over it already
Anonymous No.64328501
>>64328451
I didn't lose to anyone
You, however, are clearly coping by insisting to be offtopic
Anonymous No.64328518
>>64328451
Not to derail the thread, but you do realize it was your guy who signed the Doha Agreement that effectively handed the country to the Talibs, right? His first great deal, even managed to fuck his successor over in the the process.
RoE was involved even here. As part of the agreement, US aircraft were prohibited from striking Taliban forces if they were more than 500 meters away from Americans or ANA, so the clever hajis just shot at them from exactly that distance.
Just fuck off.
Anonymous No.64328544
>>64326816 (OP)
brutally raped by the SIG .277 FURY
>>64328536
they would've destroyed everyone if they had the new SIG
Anonymous No.64328644
>>64328416
Those sleeping people deserved it
Anonymous No.64329139 >>64330140 >>64334955
>>64327234
>a 13" gun that has the ballistics of a 22" 6.5CM
This would be impressive if the gun wasn't 6 MOA.
Anonymous No.64330017 >>64330106
>>64326816 (OP)
Dumb niggas will do ANYTHING but use a 20 inch AR
Anonymous No.64330106
>>64330017
based m16 chad
Anonymous No.64330140 >>64330412
>>64329139
Gun issue not a cartridge issue. Completely separate argument.
Anonymous No.64330412 >>64330464 >>64330530
>>64330140
>Gun issue not a cartridge issue.
Sure, but the gun is made the way it is because they were trying to make it shoot ammo with 80k psi, and they failed and settled for 70k psi. It was the extremely powerful cartridge that led to the rifle with many shortcomings (that have not been fixed).
Anonymous No.64330464
>>64330412
cannot be fixed
Anonymous No.64330530 >>64331181
>>64330412
They literally just made a di at in this caliber and fly by night companies do too. Your fear of a high psi cartridge because you read about it online is fucking STUPID. It's the equivalent of someone used to black crying about smokeless.
Anonymous No.64330608
>>64326816 (OP)
>what happened to it?
Military being retarded.
>5.56 kinda sucks
>We want something better, but exactly the same
>AR 15 kinda sucks
>We want something better, but exactly the same
They understand the problem, but instead of working past towards new solutions, they keep trying to fit the same mold, leading to unsatisfactory outcomes.
Anonymous No.64331181 >>64333529
>>64330530
>Your fear of a high psi cartridge
I'm not afraid of it; I wish they would have succeeded in their 80k psi goal and actually produced an accurate and durable gun in the process. I merely pointed out that the gun shooting it is 6 MOA due to all the compromises in making it. There are smoothbore shotguns shooting slugs more accurately than the XM7 shoots the round; you're dick-riding.
Anonymous No.64331315
>>64327915
prolly to feed steel more reliably ?
Anonymous No.64332296 >>64333112 >>64334976
>>64327752
>>64327915
>long stroke
Long vs short stroke really doesn't make a difference for the function of the gun, it's just a packaging question. They probably designed the gun and then noticed that they get some minor benefit by going to long stroke.
>trilug
More strength for longer lifespan at high operating pressures.
Given the same size a 7 lug bolt is much weaker than 3 or 2 lug bolt.
Anonymous No.64333112
>>64332296
When you don't have to maintain ar15 compatibility you can go a bit bigger on bolt face. I've always felt the ar15 bolt was a bit small
If they've mimic'd the XCR upper in any way, there's a lot of surface area for the oprod carrier to ride and interface with the upper. It shifts the recoil induced wear elsewhere. This could potentially be a disadvantage like the cz75 full length slide rails filling with crap slowing the action, but for the most part it's self cleaning.
AFAIK there are no public pics of the operating system guts so we still have to speculate.
Anonymous No.64333529 >>64333610 >>64335304
>>64331181
>you're dick-riding.
You're ignorant and can't keep up with the program. Accuracy has been addressed. It's a gun issue now not an ammunition issue. That was done by dropping the pressure to 77k for consistency. Now the rail needs to be fixed.

Winchester even got good regarding the discard rate on the round.

Youre the dickrider here not even aware of the guns issues. All it is is a heavy mcx. Rail is fucked. Once fixed it'll be good to go.

If your info isn't literally sub 90 days old you don't know what you're talking about with this program.
Anonymous No.64333610 >>64334661
>>64333529
>Accuracy has been addressed.
No, it hasn't. The "superior" match ammo makes the new guns 2 MOA, LOL. Forget 6.5 Creedmoor; that's worse than .308.
>It's a gun issue now not an ammunition issue.
>That was done by dropping the pressure to 77k for consistency.
Pick one, LOL.
>All it is is a heavy mcx.
Another gun that had problems, LOL.
Anonymous No.64334661 >>64334880 >>64334884
>>64333610
>It's 2MOA
It isn't but that's perfectly acceptable and better than the tdp for the M4.

Are you retarded or just pretending?

>Pick one
It was a combination of multiple factors one of which is now fixed.

>Another gun that had problems
Yeah it's the rail like I said spergtard.
Anonymous No.64334880 >>64334942
>>64334661
>It isn't
That's because it's worse if it's using any ammo that isn't the match ammo.
>but that's perfectly acceptable and better than the tdp for the M4.
Not for a precision/DMR rifle, you doofus. The military accepted 4 MOA with the original M14 and M-16 back when they expected the rifles to have an engagement range of 300 meters or less. The whole reason to not use an intermediate cartridge this time and return to a fully-powered cartridge was to be able to hit targets from farther away.
>Are you retarded or just pretending?
Well, I read your replies to other people, and it seems more likely that you're devoid of brain cells rather than everyone else. I suppose you wouldn't have the capacity to realize that.

You going...
>I said its been fixed, if you don't believe me you're retarded.
... is a non-argument, but you do you, dumbass.
Anonymous No.64334884 >>64334942
>>64334661
>barely an improvement over a tdp from 1968

Damn what a high bar siggers have vaulted here.
Anonymous No.64334942 >>64334990 >>64334990 >>64335304
>>64334880
>That's because it's worse if it's using any ammo that isn't the match ammo.
There is no match ammo. Cite a aingle source showing production of mil ammo.
>Not for a dmr
It isn't a dmr

Again what the FUCK are you talking about? The cartridge is perfect and a massive upgrade over 6.5CM and 7.62 which was my entire argument. You're babbling about the M7 like it's relevant.

>>64334884
>Get btfo
>N...no it's old so it doesn't count anyway
Nigger make up your mind. The 6.8 is going to be some of the most accurate mass produced ammo ever fielded. Cope more.
Anonymous No.64334955
>>64329139
>if the gun wasn't 6 MOA.
I guess you're agreeing then, since it isn't and the only person who concluded it is was either a retard or a scam artist and did the shooting with the optics rail fucking unscrewed. Fucking wish I was joking.
Anonymous No.64334958 >>64335009
>>64328282
>50, 6.8, and 5.56 tbqhwy
The .338 Norma Mab ousting the .50BMG M2s seems worthwhile to me
Anonymous No.64334976 >>64336305
>>64332296
>Long vs short stroke really doesn't make a difference for the function of the gun
It does affect barrel harmonics and recoil impulse, although the differences are smaller than the change from any of blowback, delayed blowback, tilting breach, DI or manual to either of the normal piston systems with a rotating bolt.
Anonymous No.64334990 >>64335009
>>64334942
>There is no match ammo.
Anon, SIG has already made 4 different loadings for the cartridge, one of the four is the "accurate" match ammo (only 60k psi). There is also the regular "elite" ammo (also 60k psi), the ammo that the military is currently fielding (not for civilians 77k psi), and their theoretical tungsten core rounds (not for civilians either, also 77k psi) that they'll make if our enemies start wearing level IV plates. None of the 77k psi ammo has had good accuracy.
>You're babbling about the M7 like it's relevant.
>"You're babbling about the gun this cartridge was designed for."
The M250 also wasn't too accurate, but then again, it doesn't need to be when you're depending on accuracy by volume of fire.

>>64334942
>Nigger make up your mind.
>Cope more.
You're so brain-dead that you haven't realized it's multiple people responding to you, picrel.
>The 6.8 is going to be some of the most accurate mass produced ammo ever fielded.
Then why are you struggling so hard to prove this claim? You've only been repeating it all thread to 3-4 different people.
Anonymous No.64334992
>>64328239
>>Do something retarded
>>That's retarded
>>Lmao why you so mad?
Yeah, the long-stroke piston is retarded
Anonymous No.64335009 >>64335084 >>64335304
>>64334990
>SIG has already made 4 different loadings for the cartridge
Winchester (olin) produces military ammo. Of which there are no match loadings currently in mass production.

>Prove it's a DMR
It isn't. Sperg.

It's already better in terms of accuracy than M855. Cry more.

>>64334958
>seems worthwhile to me
It's cool until you realize their excuse is abandoning 7.62 which is fucking retarded. Plus 338 simply doesn't have the payload necessary for specialty loads. 50 bmg doesn't either compared to bigger rounds but it's not completely gimped like 338.
Anonymous No.64335084 >>64335136 >>64343633
>>64335009
>Prove it's a DMR
You said the cartridge was accurate, and now you've been asked to prove your claim that it's accurate. If you can't, then you're full of shit. LOL
>It's already better in terms of accuracy than M855.
Again, prove it. LOL
>Cry more.
Anon, we can all tell you are projecting. This thread was about the IWS .264 and you started sperging about 6.8x51mm completely unprompted. Nobody else was talking about 6.8 until you started dick-riding a different cartridge and seething against the 6 people who didn't worship your dumb statement.
Anonymous No.64335136 >>64335304
>>64335084
LMAO you're not even moving the goalposts you're just running around with shit in your pants.
>Prove it's accurate
Weren't you claiming SIG made match ammo for the round two posts ago?

>I'm not samefagging you're talking to multiple people
Yeah no shit that's why I quoted two people. Are you autistic?
Anonymous No.64335257
Fuck off sigger
Anonymous No.64335304 >>64335395
>>64335136
>Weren't you claiming SIG made match ammo for the round two posts ago?
That's still 2 MOA; that's pathetic, LOL. Plus their match ammo is the 60k psi ammo, not the 77k psi that the military is using.

That being said you still havent proved your claim from...
>>64333529
>Accuracy has been addressed.
... and...
>>64334942
>The 6.8 is going to be some of the most accurate mass produced ammo ever fielded.
... and...
>>64335009
>It's already better in terms of accuracy than M855.
Wow, you've been making false claims for a while, LOL. Being full of shit must be your life's passion.
Anonymous No.64335362 >>64335395
>>64327234
>SIGs cartridge is actually a huge step up in capability.
The only thing useful out of it is the bimetal cartridge for hot loading actual rifles. The round itself is absolute garbage and so is the rifle.
Anonymous No.64335395
>>64335304
Uh huh.
>>64335362
Nah it matches 6.5 creed out of a shorter barrel. Pretty much what every cartridge has been moving toward for years now. IMO 6.5 CM is obsolete now that the 6MMs are taking over competitions and the .277/7mms are revitalizing the hunting market. It was a very quick flash in the pan cartridge that immediately stopped making sense once they tried to make it viable in gas guns outside of competition use. People were claiming the long barrel ballistics while wanting it to shoot out of 16" guns.
Anonymous No.64335409
>>64328175
Yes.
Anonymous No.64335417 >>64339454
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
And, ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.
Anonymous No.64335630
>>64326816 (OP)
The AR15 is this generation's Winchester '73, it is the standard intermediate cartridge rifle that all others are compared to. Since time is a flat circle the AR15 will slowly be replaced by civilians and militaries seeking more performance, after the '73 came the '94 chambered in 3030, which was a significant upgrade at the time. We will see a new standard one day, but we are currently in the experimentation phase so it'll be quite a while.
Sig Schizo No.64336038
>>64327234
Yeah a huge step up in cost, weight, pressure, and case ruptures.
Anonymous No.64336305
>>64334976
>It does affect barrel harmonics and recoil impulse
It does not. In both systems the gas piston provides an impulse to the bolt carrier. Both of them are off axis from the barrel.
The only difference is whether the piston is attached to the carrier or a separate part.
Anonymous No.64336407
>70 posts
Which part of this thread discusses OP topic?
Anonymous No.64338009
Why did this entire thread become about the upchuck-M7
Anonymous No.64339454 >>64339766
>>64335417
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
And, ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.

6.8 anything and .277 slop = Garbage
Anonymous No.64339766 >>64339865 >>64339868 >>64340132
>>64339454
>6.5 Grendel
The cartridge inferior to 6mm ARC? Okay.
Anonymous No.64339777 >>64340370 >>64350144
>>64327234
>SIGs cartridge is actually a huge step up in capability.
why not just use the tech for 556?
Anonymous No.64339865 >>64339868
>>64339766
every cartridge is inferior to 6.5 Grendel, <--greatest invention of modern small arms
Anonymous No.64339868
>>64339766
>>64339865
well except for FN IWS .264
Anonymous No.64339898 >>64340108
7mm rem mag would have addressed the intermediate cartridge problem better and I wouldn’t have to read so many faggots arguing about it.
Anonymous No.64340108 >>64342710
>>64339898
I know what you mean anon but we're talking about cartridges that can feasibly be used in a select fire infantry rifle. Also belted magnums aren't ideal for multi-small arm mil use (in machine guns for example)
6.5 Creedmoor, 7 Rem Mag are too big for an "intermediate" <--hate the categorizations but here we are cartridge to be used in an infantry rifle, it needs to be sized comparable to the 5.56 OAL
Anyway the OP FN IWS .264 is the most advanced and optimal yet available.
Anonymous No.64340132 >>64340204
>>64339766
It's a bit smol
264 gets similar BC with more charge volume
Anonymous No.64340204 >>64340278 >>64360916
>>64340132
The .264/6.5x43mm does seem interesting, but 6.5x39mm/6.5 Grendel has already been outclassed. Grendel belongs in a museum; it has the same BC as 6mm ARC, less flat shooting than 6mm ARC, slower than 6mm ARC, similar bullet weights (90 gr or 108 gr being common); it's just old news. It did do a great job of outperforming 6.8 SPC though.
Anonymous No.64340278 >>64340713
>>64340204
>outclassed
No, it hasn't.
.30-06 hasn't been "outclassed"
(You) can make an argument that cartridge X outperforms cartridge Y in certain metrics, but each cartridge also has its disadvantages. Barrel burning one of them, but there are others.

6.8 was always a fucking joke. Solution to a 'problem' that never existed
Anonymous No.64340370
>>64339777
>why not just use the tech for 556?
Because we've got nas3 for that already being fielded. SIGs case in the m250 and rebarreled 240 plus a dmr would be ideal.
Anonymous No.64340713 >>64341222 >>64341765
>>64340278
>No, it hasn't.
>.30-06 hasn't been "outclassed"
See when two rounds serve a different purpose, then they can both exist alongside one another; however, when two cartridges serve the same purpose, like two intermediate cartridges known as 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC, it's unnecessary to own both. The people who already own 6.5 Grendel will continue to use it and the people who are now looking for an upgrade to 5.56 will likely consider the superior cartridge (the 6mm ARC or the .264/6.5x43mm). Look at how .450 Marlin slowly started dying out when 45-70 became the standard, how 6.5 Creedmoor is slowly making .270 Winchester die out, or look at how .38 Colt disappeared when .38 Super came around; the only people who kept the obsolete cartridge were those who bought into it before the upgrade came along.
>6.8 was always a fucking joke.
The funny thing about this statement is that while I meant 6.8x43mm/6.8 SPC (6.5 Grendel's main competitor in the early 2000s), you could apply this statement to 6.8x51mm/.277 Fury and it'd still be 100% accurate. LOL
Anonymous No.64341222 >>64341765
>>64340713
I don't see 6 mm ARC as a direct supplanting of 6.5 Grendel nor do I have a requirement for it
Yes agreed, some ? newer calibers can make older ones obsolete. .260 Remington though will probably stay around despite 6.5 Creedmoor's now-wide adoption. There are many other examples that can go either way

RE: 6.8, I meant all/both
Anonymous No.64341765 >>64344119
>>64340713
>>64341222
6.8/277 is such a joke, 20+ years of the Army retardation
Anonymous No.64341858
You guys know that Sig's dumb three-piece case is just patent dodging right? NAS3 can probably handle up to 80,000 PSI average and even more if it were actually designed specifically for extreme pressures. Shit, steel case head polymer wouldn't do much worse.
Anonymous No.64341927 >>64341931
Dad says we have knights armament at home.
Anonymous No.64341931
>>64341927
Whats KAC about this?
Anonymous No.64342397
>>64326816 (OP)
puro sexo my god
Anonymous No.64342710 >>64343307
>>64340108
>It can’t be used in that thing we don’t use
More like
>The recoil hurts little bitch boi shoulders!
These people should be removed from service.
Anonymous No.64343307 >>64346474
>>64342710
Yeah but 7 mm Remington Magnum isn't an infantry rifle cartridge.
(.300 Win Mag has been used as a long range sniper round, in bolt actions)
Anonymous No.64343633
>>64335084
>This thread was about the IWS .264 and you started sperging about 6.8x51mm completely unprompted
Mods need to edit this topic, entirely remove the sig6.8furyspew
Anonymous No.64343880
>>64327021
>https://soldiersystems.net/2025/06/11/nsns-for-lightweight-intermediate-caliber-carbine/
For me it's the belt fed MG in .264
Anonymous No.64344119 >>64344788
>>64341765
Trying to get higher psi was a good idea/concept. It was just implemented very poorly, as SIG was trying to evade already existing patents like Shellshock's NAS3 patent.
Anonymous No.64344581
>>64327097
Maybe but a new infantry rifle (and LMG) standardized caliber is still needed.
FN IWS .264 = The Solution
Anonymous No.64344788 >>64344845 >>64344873 >>64344889
>>64344119
>Trying to get higher psi was a good idea/concept.
No, it's not
stop with this bubba nonsense
5.56/5.45 is more than enough
Anonymous No.64344845
>>64344788
>No, it's not
>stop with this Poudre B nonsense
>Chassepot/Dreyse is more than enough
Anonymous No.64344862 >>64345023 >>64345151
>>64326816 (OP)
>Weighs as much as a 308 AR10
>Less powerful than a 308 AR10
>Retarded controls
Sounds like eurosissies couldn't handle real fuckin NATO, which is funny since the original AR10 weighed 7 lbs empty which is less than this meme gun
Anonymous No.64344873
>>64344788
>stop with this bubba nonsense
The bubbas were turning .30-06 into .35 Whelen and then abandoning both rounds to get .300 WinMag. They are as appalled by 6.8 as we are, even if it's for entirely different reasons.
Anonymous No.64344889
>>64344788
Nas3 doesn't afraid of anything
>except reloading
Anonymous No.64345023
>>64344862
>original AR10
all of the military rifles today 2020s, of whatever chambering, are massively overloaded with slop
No, the OP rifle doesn't weigh as much as a 21-century 'AR-10' pattern rifle (such as LMT)
Anonymous No.64345082
>>64326816 (OP)
>what if the XCR but ugly
Cool why do people slop this up like piggies?
Anonymous No.64345151 >>64345378
>>64344862
Sounds like somebody is too broke for a 45-70 Comsi
Anonymous No.64345378 >>64346596
>>64345151
>File: cosmi-rigato
tell me more
Anonymous No.64346474 >>64347701
>>64343307
>300 Win Mag as infantry rifle cartridge
The Omen Nitemare has always been the final solution to the infantry rifle question.
Anonymous No.64346596
>>64345378
https://www.cosmi.net/en/semi-automatic-cosmi-rigato/
Anonymous No.64347701 >>64347736
>>64346474
looks better than the nu-SIG
Anonymous No.64347736 >>64348814
>>64347701
New sig is so ugly it's unreal
just ewwwww
Anonymous No.64348814 >>64348855
>>64347736
do not be demoralized by irrelevant nu-SIG
Anonymous No.64348855 >>64348969
>>64348814
Cohen won
Anonymous No.64348969 >>64349302
>>64348855
who is buying what they're selling
Anonymous No.64349293 >>64349309
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
And, ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.
Anonymous No.64349302 >>64349324 >>64349950
>>64348969
the army lmao
Anonymous No.64349309 >>64349334 >>64349940
>>64349293
it is better than 277, but the 308 case ruins it
too wide
Anonymous No.64349324
>>64349302
observe how and why they obtained those contracts
Anonymous No.64349334 >>64349360
>>64349309
>wide
all of the 6.5 Grendel / 6.8 rounds are that dimension
doesn't "ruin" IWS .264
Anonymous No.64349360 >>64349483
>>64349334
LICC is fatter than grendel
Anonymous No.64349483 >>64349545
>>64349360
by how much? (and who even gaf)


Also does anyone have a cartridge size side-by-side comparison pic of the .264 with its closest relations-competitors
>5.56
>.308
>6.5 Grendel
>5.45Γ—39
>7.62Γ—39
Anonymous No.64349545 >>64349812 >>64349957
>>64349483
>by how much?
473 LICC
441 Grendel
>and who even gaf
retard alert
Anonymous No.64349812 >>64349864
>>64349545
Nobody gives a fuck *DUMB FUCK* SIGgger.
Anonymous No.64349864 >>64349881
>>64349812
277 is 473 too
once again: stop posting and lurk for 10000 years
Anonymous No.64349881
>>64349864
Nobody gives a fuck SIGger
get off of my board
Anonymous No.64349901
Anyone have a cartridge size side-by-side comparison pic of the .264 with its closest relations-competitors
>5.56
>.308
>6.5 Grendel
>5.45Γ—39
>7.62Γ—39
Anonymous No.64349917
>>64326816 (OP)
Should've been in 6.7
Anonymous No.64349940
>>64349309
Why? It's a new bolt and mag
Anonymous No.64349950 >>64350019
>>64349302
If Steyr is to be believed Austria is rolling .277 fury into their dmr now that it got adopted. For as slow as Steyr is theyve been historically very tuned in to what cartridges will take off. After the fall they were one of the first to adopt the 5.56 AND they did it in a barrel twist ready to accept heavier cartridges that they saw as being an obvious upgrade.
Anonymous No.64349957 >>64349993
>>64349545
LMAO I didn't know that. Wow it's shit. 280 brit all over again. The worst traits of a battle rifle cartridge with the ballistics of a warmed over Grendel.

OOOOOF
Anonymous No.64349993 >>64350033
>>64349957
>muh battle rifle
fuck off SIGlarp videogamer funkopop nogunz
/k/ = Dead.
Anonymous No.64350019 >>64350031
>>64349950
>Steyr
not sure if that has anything to do with them, sounds more like Austria and their army/procurement
Anonymous No.64350031 >>64350038
>>64350019
They're getting the rounds from SIG not Olin/Winchester for obvious reasons.
Anonymous No.64350033 >>64350044 >>64353345 >>64361021
>>64349993
Every problem with boomerslop battle rifles is fixed by picrel, zoomers win again
Anonymous No.64350038 >>64350049
>>64350031
then it's a SIG-state of Austria cabal
nu-SIG is wielding its global clout to monopolize western mil small arms, caliber-first
Anonymous No.64350044
>>64350033
They're nice, anything LMT is
Anonymous No.64350049 >>64350067 >>64350540
>>64350038
The fuck are you on about retard. No one is going to adopt 264 dickLICC because no institution has more influence than the US army regarding caliber procurement. 6.8 Common will be a NATO standard cartridge within 10 years.
Anonymous No.64350067 >>64350102
>>64350049
>6.8
Mogged by 6.7 sneedmoor
Anonymous No.64350102
>>64350067
>67
BUSSIN
Anonymous No.64350144
>>64339777
>why not just use the tech for 556?
They are
Anonymous No.64350199 >>64351217
>>64328284
Hey retard stainless steel can be deep drawn just like brass.
Anonymous No.64350540
>>64350049
nu-SIG is wielding its global clout to monopolize western mil small arms, caliber-first
Anonymous No.64351065 >>64353320 >>64371610
Anyone have a cartridge size side-by-side comparison pic of the .264 with its closest relations-competitors
>5.56
>.308
>6.5 Grendel
>5.45Γ—39
>7.62Γ—39
Anonymous No.64351217 >>64355115
>>64350199
No it can't, not to the same extent.
Forming brass is so fucking easy compared to stainless.
Anonymous No.64353320 >>64353871
>>64351065
long image ahead

According to Perplexity Pro:

Prompt:
Perform a comparison between the following weapon calibers. Compare energy retentions and ballistic coefficients, weight, volume and volume efficiency, typical magazine capacity, whether they require specialized parts, terminal ballistics, and other characteristics you deem relevant.

The calibers are:
5.56 NATO (m855, m885a1, mk262)
7.62 NATO
7.62x39
6.5 grendel
5.45x39
.264 USA
.264 LICC
Anonymous No.64353345
>>64350033
>foreward assist

GIT
Anonymous No.64353803 >>64357519
It's basically 6.5g with a bit more juice
Anonymous No.64353863 >>64355115
I don’t quite get the push to move away from 5.56. It’s good enough, and we’ve already got decades worth of supply and infrastructure built up around it.
Anonymous No.64353871 >>64353891
>>64353320
Asked for a picture aka an Image showing the cartridges themseves
side-by-side
Anonymous No.64353891 >>64353997
>>64353871
whoops
Anonymous No.64353997
>>64353891
searched everywhere on internet
apparently the only photos of IWS .264 cartridge(s) avialable are from FN themselves, or pics of the rifle and cartridge(s) at trade shows being reviewed by some blog/magazine
Nobody has any *photographs* of the FN IWS .264 rounds displayed side-by-side for visual size comparison alone, with its near-purpose competitors
Anonymous No.64354891 >>64354966 >>64355822 >>64355869 >>64356034
Here's parent case specification
>tldr:
>.4449 base
>nearly zero case taper
>probably +5gr volume over 6.5 Grendel
Anonymous No.64354966 >>64355076
>>64354891
FN's 264 is wider
Anonymous No.64355076
>>64354966
Source?
Anonymous No.64355115 >>64355150 >>64356037
>>64351217
Look it up you fucking failed abortion. >>64353863
Because some tard at the pentagon thinks somehow magically chink made body armor won't be junk like everything else they make produce
Anonymous No.64355150 >>64355302
>>64355115
Even if the chinesium armor is somehow actually decent, you’re not gonna punch through plates with anything resembling a practical infantry rifle anyway.
Anonymous No.64355302
>>64355150
You will if its made out of old phone books and chines menus
Anonymous No.64355822
>>64354891
Thanks for this
Anonymous No.64355869 >>64355978 >>64356053
>>64354891
Scaled to Grendel
Anonymous No.64355978 >>64357156
>>64355869
Called it. .280 British again. What a turd.
Anonymous No.64356034
>>64354891
There's no dimension for the case diameter at the base. Is it a zero taper round then?
Anonymous No.64356037 >>64357659 >>64358654
>>64355115
You can buy competent chink body armor that will stop any rifle cartridge for like $50 a pop on alibaba.
Stop coping, Chinese manufacturing is already ahead of the west.
Anonymous No.64356053 >>64357110 >>64357156
>>64355869
.264 LICC isn't quite the same thing as .264 USA, it has a shorter neck and a steeper shoulder. IIRC Effen changed the case diameter for use with existing machine gun links too.
Either way
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D
Anonymous No.64356154 >>64356173 >>64357110 >>64357440 >>64357890
Can someone just say what the best 6mm round is?

>6 ARC
>6.5CM
>6.5 Grendal
>6.8 NGSW
>6.8 SPC

Just pick one.
Anonymous No.64356173 >>64357440
>>64356154
>general purpose cartridge
6 ARC
>.308 replacement
6.5CM, 6.8 NGSW if ever fixed
Anonymous No.64357110
>>64356053
Yeah it was just the closest reference I could find. Any suggestions for further reference?

Lots of autism lately to stretch out the magwell to something closer to 308 for these ultra long high BC bullets. LICC and the 6.8 (not sig) pmags etc
>>64356154
ARC is neat but your limited in bullet weight/volume compared to Grendel. Grendel's taper hamstrings it for STANAG shaped magazines and you are forced to use exotic 2 part meme followers if you want to maintain that shape. Grendel's COAL also limits it for the top end of the weight range, a compressed load is required to make most 129gr-ish loads really sing.
Both run higher bolt thrust that tend to eat thin walled AR15 bolts in an accelerated manner compared to 5.56
Anonymous No.64357156
>>64355978
>>64356053
ok boomer
Anonymous No.64357440 >>64358654
>>64356154
>>64356173
>6 mm
6.5 is different, and so is 6.8

>ARC general purpose
it's the same performance as 6.5 Grendel
Anonymous No.64357519 >>64357796
>>64353803
accubond LR's? what weight and how fast are you able to push them
Anonymous No.64357522
>>64326816 (OP)
Another pointless failed venture
Anonymous No.64357659 >>64357775 >>64357870
>>64356037
By rifle round you mean .22 long rifle. Chinks can't make anything decent. The only quality ones they make are for thier propaganda videos. While regular old chang chong gets imitation body armor. The chinks don't care. Their soldiers are expendable. The commies value the soldiers equipment then the soldier themselves.
If their body armor is so great why is russian bought body armor from china keep getting penertrating holes in it ?
Anonymous No.64357775
>>64357659
Ok boomer. How's the weather back in 1990's?
Anonymous No.64357796 >>64359379
>>64357519
2150ish from a 12"
Anonymous No.64357854
>>64326816 (OP)
>Chop down ARs for muh CQB
>Why does 556 perform like shit now wtf?
>Looks like we gotta spend 6 gorillion dollars on a new meme round!
Anonymous No.64357870 >>64357876
>>64357659
>increasingly desperate man denies reality for Nth time this week
China fielded millions of modern Lvl 4 ceramic plates back in the 2010s.
Anonymous No.64357876 >>64357885
>>64357870
>Fielded plates to an army that hasn't shot another human being in decades
Bravo chinamen
Anonymous No.64357885 >>64358459 >>64359827
>>64357876
The PAP (their gendarmarie) was using plates back in the 00s and they shot quite a few Muslims.
Anonymous No.64357890 >>64358466 >>64358654
>>64356154
6.8 Common (NGSW) is the only one offering anything new.

6.5CM is dogshit since it's basically 6.5swede and needs a musket barrel to do anything. 6ARC is a pellet gun. 6.5 Grendel is actually pretty good but doesn't have a good magazine. It's be cool to see it with a nas3 case.
Anonymous No.64358459
>>64357885
That's like saying the navy seals are the best because they shot a few kids in bed, wow so implessive and groundbreaking
Anonymous No.64358466
>>64357890
>6.8 common
Corny ass name
Anonymous No.64358654 >>64358866
>>64356037
>You can buy competent chink body armor that will stop any rifle cartridge for like $50 a pop on alibaba.
Anon, their level IV is garbage, and some of their supposed level III is actually IIIA, and they won't be truthful to the customer.

>>64357440
>ARC general purpose
>it's the same performance as 6.5 Grendel
NTA but, 6.5 Grendel is a heavier, less efficient cartridge. If both had the same performance (they don't, all else being equal, 6mm is still flatter shooting), then all the more reason to go the 6mm ARC route.

>>64357890
>6ARC is a pellet gun. 6.5 Grendel is actually pretty good
Opinion discarded.
Anonymous No.64358866 >>64358931 >>64359087
>>64358654
ARC and Grendel in their respective weight ranges and BCs are very similar in performance, to the point if you're already invested in one it's pointless to get the other
Anonymous No.64358931 >>64359101
>>64358866
>ARC and Grendel in their respective weight ranges and BCs are very similar in performance
They have a similar ballistic coefficient so they are affected by air resistance in similar ways and they lose velocity at similar rates, but 6mm ARC is still a flatter-shooting cartridge because it's still shooting a higher-velocity projectile.
>to the point if you're already invested in one it's pointless to get the other
Of course, I've mentioned that earlier; the people who own Grendel should keep it. However, as for the people who are now currently looking for an upgrade over 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm, it's a no-brainer to choose the superior cartridge (6mm ARC) if all you care about is maximizing performance.
Anonymous No.64359087
>>64358866
checked, this anon is correct.
there's no 'advantage' to ARC over Grendel (it's analogous to the 'difference' between .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor)
Neither is what the OP topic of this thread is
Anonymous No.64359101 >>64359142
>>64358931
6.5 Grendel is going to be less susceptible to wind drift at medium to long ranges than 6 mm ARC
Anonymous No.64359142 >>64359220 >>64362010
>>64359101
Everyone who's shot both will tell you the opposite. Despite 6.5 Grendel being heavier, which is nice at close range, the more aerodynamic and faster 6mm ARC outperforms it at long range.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmrchJbonc
Anonymous No.64359220 >>64359351
>>64359142
>"the opposite"
Not what that video says (or even what (You) posted)
Heavier projectiles always have better wind drift resistance.
Anonymous No.64359270
Anyone have the LICC magazine dimensions? I wonder how close it is to the sf/LWRC et al ICAR PMAG
Anonymous No.64359351 >>64359367 >>64362010
>>64359220
>"I'm going to worship one factor and ignore the others"
You are retarded.
Anonymous No.64359367 >>64359909
>>64359351
Nobody cares. Crosswinds don't care, retard. (You) know nothing at all about long range marksmanship
Anonymous No.64359379 >>64359399
>>64357796
does that give reliable expansion? iirc nosler doesnt list minimum expansion velocity but that just seems like it would quickly slow down before reliably opening up
but if it does do fine how do they perform on game?
Anonymous No.64359399
>>64359379
It's a thin wall bonded bullet and they claim 1300ish expansion threshold. All the gel testing I've seen has been adequate
Anonymous No.64359827
>>64357885
Did the muslims have modern firearms ? Or did they use AP rocks with thier assault slings ?
Anonymous No.64359909 >>64359984
>>64359367
Uh huh. This is definitely not you projecting after someone shows you the formula for BC. LOL
Anonymous No.64359984 >>64362010 >>64369283 >>64369398 >>64369469
>>64359909
He's right though, BC isn't related to crosswinds, it's a coefficient of drag. The drag vector is along the flight path, perpendicular to the crosswind vector.
Heavier bullets buck wind by inertia, it takes longer for the wind to impart momentum on them. Faster bullets are less susceptible to wind because the shorter the flight time is, the less time there is for wind to move them sideways. There is a break-even point between speed and projectile weight when it comes to crosswinds.
Weight will usually win, though not because of crosswinds, but because drag is proportional to the velocity squared, whereas drag force impacts the bullet linearly to weight (F=ma). i.e: heavier bullets retain energy better at ranges (at the cost of more drop because they're slower and gravity affects objects over time).
Anonymous No.64360678 >>64360896
FN IWS .264 and 6.5 Grendel are the two best 'intermediate' infantry rifle rounds currently available.
Anonymous No.64360896 >>64361496 >>64361649
>>64360678
Is that why nobody uses them and everyone keeps adopting 556 rifles?
Anonymous No.64360916 >>64360919 >>64362010
>>64340204
6.8 SPC is bad now?
Anonymous No.64360919 >>64360961
>>64360916
Yes, you'll end up dead in a ditch when SHTF kicks off
Anonymous No.64360961 >>64360966
>>64360919
>shtf
>ever happening ever
Is this you?
Anonymous No.64360966
>>64360961
>t.future ditch corpse
Anonymous No.64361021 >>64361041 >>64365119
>>64350033
Anonymous No.64361041 >>64361058
>>64361021
Manlet baby hands alert
Anonymous No.64361058
>>64361041
that little nook is going to collect so much smegma
Anonymous No.64361496
>>64360896
5.56 is around first because the other catridges are relatively new, and second because 556 is the NATO standard into which billions have been invested
Anonymous No.64361649 >>64362474
>>64360896
5.56 was never heard of (by worldwide militaries) prior to 1965
even by 1980, only a handful of military rifles had been chambered let alone adopted in that caliber
Anonymous No.64362010 >>64363675 >>64368543
>>64359984
>He's right though, BC isn't related to crosswinds
Whoa, another person who can't read. Nowhere in my comments or in the picrel did I mention crosswind at all; he brought it up as a red herring once he lost. What I said in >>64359142 was that the 6mm ARC matches the 6.5 Grendel despite being lighter due to having a much more aerodynamic bullet. In the picrel in >>64359351 I even circled why. Him whining about crosswinds is him being a crybaby.

>>64360916
No, it did its job of being better than 5.56x45mm; however, ballistically, 6.5 Grendel (a cartridge that was invented first) was better than 6.8 SPC so few people cared about the 6.8 SPC. That happens sometimes; look at how 6mm MAX was completely ignored (justifiably so) because 6mm ARC is just better.
Anonymous No.64362261
>>64327826
thank god
Anonymous No.64362474
>>64361649
Serbia is the only one seriously looking at it but they "adopt" guns that sit in limbo for decades and never get any serious use.

They "adopted" the m85/m90 30 years ago and they still have M70s as the primary rifle.bindont believe the m19 will go anywhere. Plus they just released the M24 so it's not even seen mass production before it got "replaced."
Anonymous No.64363675 >>64363857
>>64362010
>Nowhere in my comments or in the picrel did I mention crosswind at all
Who's ignoring factors now?
Anonymous No.64363857 >>64365111
>>64363675
>"Who's ignoring factors now?"
You (picrel), because crosswinds do not change the calculation for BC, you just added a red herring because you lost, you crybaby.

If they have the same BC, then the crosswind will affect them the same way. Even the guy who tried to defend you correctly stated...
>BC isn't related to crosswinds
... in doing so he helped prove how much of a retard you are.
Anonymous No.64365111 >>64366724
>>64363857
Anonymous No.64365119
>>64361021
Actually hate how badly some AR grips fit some receivers
Anonymous No.64366724 >>64368214
>>64365111
What your parents should do to you until you're 18.
Anonymous No.64368214 >>64368720
>>64366724
still butthurt about being BTFO permanent for all time eternally on /k/
grow up 12-year-old edgelord nogunz
Anonymous No.64368382
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
Ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.

FN IWS .264 and 6.5 Grendel are the two best 'intermediate' infantry rifle rounds currently available.
Anonymous No.64368543 >>64368591 >>64368720
>>64362010
6.8 SPC was basically propped up by Dr. Gary K. Roberts and a couple of other ballisticians. Once they were out of the limelight, 6.8 lost its luster.
Anonymous No.64368591 >>64368720 >>64368922
>>64368543
6.8 spc will come back into the limelight since the projectiles used for .277 fury will be applicable to the SIX8 platform. Should breathe new life into it on the civilian side in the same vein of 300BO using m80 projectiles did.
Anonymous No.64368720 >>64369022 >>64369398 >>64376284
>>64368214
>Imagine projecting this hard.
Remember when we were talking about BC and you started whining about crosswinds? I do. Anyone else would understand that two bullets with the same ballistic coefficient would be affected the same way under crosswind. Both would lose velocity at the same rates and experience the same levels of drag; in that case, the bullet with a higher velocity has the advantage, you delusional nitwit.

>>64368543
Yes, they were pushing for any round that could "outperform" 5.56. Yet, while 6.8 had much better terminal ballistics (effect on target), it suffered a lot on its external ballistics (how it performs in flight) compared to 5.56, so the world just lost interest.

>>64368591
Will 6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel II reach a III iteration? That'd be cool if it did.
Anonymous No.64368922 >>64376284
>>64368591
I see your point but I don't think this will be the case. The weight ranges and expansion threshold will be off
Anonymous No.64368980 >>64369489
>>64326816 (OP)
Solves a problem no one has.
Was probably designed for the NGSW program and after flopping FN is looking for a crashpad to get back some engineering money.
Anonymous No.64369006
>>64328129
The FNC and the AR70 were both long-stroke.
Anonymous No.64369022 >>64369158
>>64368720
It's time to stop posting.
Anonymous No.64369068
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
Ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.

FN IWS .264 and 6.5 Grendel are the two best 'intermediate' infantry rifle rounds currently available.
Anonymous No.64369158 >>64369199
>>64369022
You keep saying that. Is it perhaps because you have no proper response? You got BTFO'd so you must pretend that the other guy was BTFO'd instead.
Anonymous No.64369199 >>64369283
>>64369158
(You) are a larperstreamertard 12-year-old nogunz Faggotard boomerbook tranny that knows nothing at all about firearms engineering physics or long range marksmanship.

(You) were forever BLOWN THE FUCK OFF of /k/ by: ------------------------------ #64359984


Get off of this board and stay off of it.
Anonymous No.64369283 >>64369317
>>64369199
>(You) were forever BLOWN THE FUCK OFF of /k/ by: ------------------------------ #64359984
Wow, you illiterate fuck, he specifically said...
>>64359984
>Heavier bullets buck wind by inertia, it takes longer for the wind to impart momentum on them. Faster bullets are less susceptible to wind because the shorter the flight time is, the less time there is for wind to move them sideways. There is a break-even point between speed and projectile weight when it comes to crosswinds.
>Weight will usually win, though not because of crosswinds, but because drag is proportional to the velocity squared, whereas drag force impacts the bullet linearly to weight (F=ma). i.e: heavier bullets retain energy better at ranges (at the cost of more drop because they're slower and gravity affects objects over time).
If you had any brain capacity at all, then you'd realize what he's saying agrees with everything I'd said. He just thought I was arguing against crosswind when he saw your ignorant red herring, you worthless imbecile.
Anonymous No.64369317 >>64369334
>>64369283
It's time to stop posting.
Anonymous No.64369334 >>64369363
>>64369317
Look in the mirror and repeat that over and over.
Anonymous No.64369363
>>64369334
It's time to stop posting. (You)r nogunz never-been-within-100-miles-of-any-firearm larperstreamvideogamer 12-year-old Mom-just-made-me-another-hot-pocket-for-the-stream upchuck itt has destroyed the OP topic and further evidence of the plebbitard degeneracy of /k/ the board.
Anonymous No.64369398 >>64369469
>>64368720
>Anyone else would understand that two bullets with the same ballistic coefficient would be affected the same way under crosswind.
No, you dumbass...you forget mass and velocity are a factor. You could have two bullets with the same BC but different mass and velocities, and they would be differently affected by crosswind.

>Both would lose velocity at the same rates and experience the same levels of drag
Yes
> the bullet with a higher velocity has the advantage
Not necessarily. See >>64359984
Anonymous No.64369469
>>64369398
>you forget mass and velocity are a factor.
I'm the one who's been talking about mass and velocity since the beginning. The other abysmal retard ignores velocity completely and is pretending his intermediate cartridge is an ELR round. The minor difference in weight between 103 gr (6mm arc) and 123 gr (6.5 Grendel) is not enough to offset the difference in velocity which is about 300 fps (this is highly dependent on barrel length; no need for another red herring). The guy in >>64359984 had to use the word "usually" because he knows the difference in weight has to be enough to be significant.
>Weight will usually win
>usually

Every single comparison between 6mm ARC and 6.5 Grendel has shown them to be of comparable BC, but if you get nitpicky about it, 6mm ARC always has a higher BC, even if it's just by a little bit, and always has a higher velocity as well.
Anonymous No.64369489 >>64369502
>>64368980
google is free dude. You can actually look up the origins without making wild shit up.
Anonymous No.64369502
>>64369489
This thread is filled with ignorant fantasy snipe-posts like that
Anonymous No.64371396 >>64371729 >>64372781 >>64374536 >>64376865
>>64326816 (OP)
>what happened to it?

Got some news
https://soldiersystems.net/2025/10/08/fn-delivers-weapon-system-test-samples-to-dods-irregular-warfare-technical-support-directorate/
Anonymous No.64371443
Anonymous No.64371610 >>64371729 >>64372672 >>64374254 >>64374655
>>64351065
>Anyone have a cartridge size side-by-side comparison pic of the .264

https://xcancel.com/nicholadrummond/status/1975826889588474060
Anonymous No.64371729 >>64371789 >>64372033
>>64371396
>>64371610
Honestly, I don't like it.
Too small for a rifle cartridge, too big for an intermediate cartridge.
Anonymous No.64371789 >>64371914 >>64372033
>>64371729
>Too small for a rifle cartridge, too big for an intermediate cartridge.

Agreed. Often the case with these "universal" cartridges (and they often lean more toward 7.62 size).
That's why the 2 cartridge paradigm is still the best at the time.

Even the rifle looks way bigger than i though
Anonymous No.64371914 >>64371978 >>64372324
>>64371789
Ultralight bullets are the only way of making this feasible. High BC 77 gr 6mm at 2900-3000 ft/s. You'd still have a two cartridge paradigm at higher echelons (maybe company level and platoon for some units) because you'd still need something for barrier penetration and shit, probably something like .338 NM.
Anonymous No.64371978 >>64372324
>>64371914
>Ultralight bullets are the only way of making this feasible.
Hear me out: Replace the M4 with the KAC PDW
Anonymous No.64372033 >>64372087 >>64372324
>>64371729
>Too small for a rifle cartridge
NTA, but while I agree here, I disagree on...
>too big for an intermediate cartridge.
If it wasn't for US military corruption, we might've had the 6mm Lee Navy in the early 20th century or the .276 Pedersen. Later on, our British allies were experimenting with .280 British (lame) and .270 British (better) before NATO forced them to use .308. My point is that there are a lot of intermediate cartridges that have a larger overall length than 5.56, so while 5.56 is great, we can't expect all the cartridges of the future to be that short.

>>64371789
>That's why the 2 cartridge paradigm is still the best at the time.
Oh definitely, that will remain the case for a long time (maybe forever).
Anonymous No.64372087 >>64372106
>>64372033
>we can't expect all the cartridges of the future to be that short.
They can be even shorter, 7.62x39 is 2.205
Anonymous No.64372106 >>64372146
>>64372087
>They can be even shorter, 7.62x39 is 2.205
That is true; you chose a bad example though as 7.62x39mm sucks balls and only exists because it was slightly better than the 8mm Kurz that the Nazis were using.
Anonymous No.64372146
>>64372106
Well, it's old as fuck. New cartridges can be short AND good
Anonymous No.64372324 >>64372351 >>64373244 >>64373418
>>64372033
Most cartridges made before the SCHV and SALVO programs are no good. The intended doctrine of a cartridges matters as much if not more than the design itself because it influences how the loads are made and the guns it will be used in. e.g., it may be difficult to salvage .277 Fury as a DMR round because it carries the NGSW baggage and the existing ammo stocks weren't meant to have sub-MOA accuracy.

Even though we appear to be stuck with 60s++ cartridge case technology for the foreseeable future, we have nicer propellants and can do higher pressures. I think "micro" calibers like 5.56 and 6mm are the to go >>64371914 for the extended range approach. .264 LICC doesn't appear to be *too* bad. I agree that it should still be called an intermediate cartridge though, if on the bigger end of the spectrum. A slightly smaller caliber like 6mm with the same charge would make it unquestionably intermediate IMO.
>>64371978
I'm sorry anon but that's a terrible idea.
Anonymous No.64372351 >>64372446
>>64372324
>I agree that it should still be called an intermediate cartridge though, if on the bigger end of the spectrum.
LICC's case is 473, that's a hell of a intermediate cartridge
Anonymous No.64372446 >>64372787
>>64372351
I agree. But this is where its intended role and doctrine come in. The fact that the FN IWS is designed to be controllable in full auto with a not-too-elaborate recoil reduction system and the existence of 25-round magazines that are not ridiculously long are traits that, in my mind, make it closer to an intermediate cartridge than a small full-powered cartridge.
Muzzle energy and size are good indicators of "power" in the doctrinal sense, but they're not the end-all-be-all. Eventually, in the future, we may have a cartridge that shoots a 55 gr bullet at 4100 ft/s, it could still qualify as an intermediate cartridge if it meets the above criteria, or others, depending on what the future holds. We have modern handgun cartridges like the 7.5 FK that would be in the same league as 7.92x33mm Kurz if fired from a longer barrel, but we don't call it an intermediate cartridge in spite of that.
Anonymous No.64372672
>>64371610
Thank you anon.
Anonymous No.64372781
>>64371396
Thanks.
Anonymous No.64372787
>>64372446
Well said
Anonymous No.64373244
>>64372324
it's a lot more 'intermediate' than whatever is in nu-SIG's atrocity rifle
Anonymous No.64373418 >>64373662
>>64372324
Long ogive high BC bullets are the future, IMO
Whether it's 6 or 6.5
Anonymous No.64373662 >>64373716
>>64373418
>Long ogive high BC bullets are the future
why
Anonymous No.64373716
>>64373662
>long ogive
Better accuracy and stability
>high BC
Longer effective range
Anonymous No.64374015 >>64374626
It's too bad 6x6.8 stayed an obscure wildcat cartridge. 6.8 SPC was a great round for short barrels under 300 yards, but using a 6mm bullet would have extended the energy at range with a better drop. People are trying to reinvent the wheel when it would be easier to just improve what's already in the garage
Anonymous No.64374254 >>64374378
>>64371610
wew, thats looks really handy
Anonymous No.64374378 >>64374431 >>64374475
>>64374254
3 piece receiver? upper, middle and lower...?
Anonymous No.64374431
>>64374378
Looks like the top rail is just bolted on. Vltor CASVs weren't considered part of the receiver, so this wouldn't count either IMO.
Anonymous No.64374475
>>64374378
Upper, lower, and insert to change ejection port
Anonymous No.64374536 >>64374655 >>64374740
>>64371396
I really wish Soldier Systems had higher-res photos in their articles. I also wish FN would publicly release ballistic data for the LICC cartridge and discrete weight stats for the three IWS variants, just because I'm curious.
Anonymous No.64374542
heh
Anonymous No.64374626
>>64374015
>hurr durr
then 6.8 should never have existed *ever* and whoever was doing whatever, should have used a 6.5 mm projectile
Anonymous No.64374655
>>64374536
I'd like to see more independent-review comparisons of the IWS 264 with the other close legacy cartridge competitors (.308, 5.56, 7.62Γ—39, 5.45Γ—39) and photographs of these >>64371610
cartridges next to each other
Anonymous No.64374740
>>64374536
Bigger pics (although not really hi res)
https://fnamerica.com/press-releases/fn-delivers-weapon-system-test-samples-to-dods-irregular-warfare-technical-support-directorate/

>I really wish Soldier Systems had higher-res photos in their articles.
True. Guess the res is modified to suit the website but sometimes (not in this case, and not sure if they still do it) you can check the URL to see if it was indeed modified (the res is written at the end of the URL) and you just have to delete this part.

It was the cas in their previous FN IWS articles
For example
https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/img_8172-1536x540.jpg
Becomes
https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/img_8172.jpg
Anonymous No.64374742 >>64374862 >>64376178
>>64326816 (OP)
I like AR-15s, but I fucking hate how every fucking gun is just
>AR-15
or
>AR-180 so it has a folding stock
Anonymous No.64374862
>>64374742
I'd like to see this in FN IWS .264 chambering
Anonymous No.64376178 >>64377237
>>64374742
It's carcinization, the AR layout is peak rifle.
Anonymous No.64376284
>>64368720
Grendel won't. It's pretty maxed out. Maybe if they went to a six8 size lower.
>>64368922
>weight ranges and expansion threshold
Not necessarily. I think the fact that the new projectile is designed for longer range necessitates it expand at lower velocities. Plus the training ammo is ~110gr iirc. I know it's on the high end but I think it'll be accommodated.
Anonymous No.64376310 >>64376344
>>64326816 (OP)
Mogged in every way by an 11.5 PSA AR unironically
Anonymous No.64376344 >>64377142
>>64376310
>bolt quickly mogged by large base cartridge
Oops
Anonymous No.64376482
It's the most interesting recent small arms cartridge after 6.5 Grendel.
Ought have been the new USA and NATO standard small arms cartridge.

FN IWS .264 and 6.5 Grendel are the two best 'intermediate' infantry rifle rounds currently available.
Anonymous No.64376855
>>64328381
The US ate south american countries for breakfast during the cold war and buttfucked Saddam twich.

Hell, in 1954 the US kicked Britain, France and Israel out of Eqypt, just to prove who was top dog of NATO
Anonymous No.64376865 >>64376933 >>64376991
>>64371396
>https://soldiersystems.net/2025/10/08/fn-delivers-weapon-system-test-samples-to-dods-irregular-warfare-technical-support-directorate/

Btw, was reading the comments on this and Eric G (soldiersystems.net editor, so he knows what he's talking about and is well informed) posted this:

"The Army has an effort afoot to double down on the 6.8 projectile, to create a 6.8Γ—63 cartridge for use in a medium machine gun."

So it seems like there is another programm with another ammo in the work for an mmg.
6.8x63mm, maybe instead of the 338 norma that they worked with until now in order to use a common 6.8 projectile...
Anonymous No.64376933 >>64376991 >>64377048
>>64376865
Even if SIG's package is meh the Army's 6.8 projectile is really good so it would make sense to have a 'magnum' magnum cartridge to replace the MG.
Anonymous No.64376991 >>64377016
>>64376933
>>64376865
>6.8 would make sense
No it wouldn't.
Anonymous No.64377016 >>64377132
>>64376991
What issue do you have with the Army's 6.8mm projectile?
Anonymous No.64377048 >>64377066
>>64376933
>6.8 projectile is really good so it would make sense to have a 'magnum' magnum cartridge to replace the MG.

For an mmg i feel a bigger projectil would make more sense.
.338 (8.6) norma was ok but even a bit bigger. More volume to work with for penetrators, specialized projectile like high explosive-incendiary... less barrel wear probably also.
Anonymous No.64377066
>>64377048
This wouldn't be an HMG though.
Anonymous No.64377132 >>64377139
>>64377016
see upthread. Read the thread (many comments besides mine)
Anonymous No.64377139 >>64377170 >>64377259
>>64377132
I asked about the projectile, not SIG's gun.
Anonymous No.64377142 >>64377146 >>64377177
>>64376344
>Large base cartridge
Why would I get some hipster slop when I can use 556, the best rifle caliber in history
Anonymous No.64377146 >>64377160 >>64377177
>>64377142
>best rifle caliber in history
Erm acktually that would be 30cal, which has been the meta since the introduction of smokeless powder
Anonymous No.64377160
>>64377146
>t.gun grabbing fudd
Anonymous No.64377170 >>64377477
>>64377139
see upthread. Read the thread (many comments besides mine)
shove (You)r SIGcrap up (You)r fat diabetic Orifice.
Anonymous No.64377177 >>64377181
>>64377142
>>64377146
>best rifle caliber in history
is 6.5 mm
as proven by Sweden a century ago
Anonymous No.64377181 >>64377209 >>64377222
>>64377177
Is that why nobody of note has used it?
Anonymous No.64377209 >>64377216
>>64377181
>Everywhere that isn't the US isn't of note
KYS burgermutt, go die in a school shooting or something already
Anonymous No.64377216
>>64377209
sweden uses 308 and 556 anon, is spending time on /int/ healthy for you?
Anonymous No.64377222 >>64377236 >>64377239
>>64377181
>Is that why nobody of note has used it?
The US military uses it. SOCOM loves 6.5 Creedmoor.
Anonymous No.64377236
>>64377222
Special ed forces uses fucking everything anon, even 22lr
Anonymous No.64377237
>>64376178
what is the difference in manufacturing cost and complexity for an AR15 or a extruded aluminum AR18slop?
Anonymous No.64377239
>>64377222
>SOCOM
>noteworthy
Anon I...
Anonymous No.64377259 >>64377295 >>64377482
>>64377139
NTA but 6.8 only exists for people who don't want to have an efficient 6.5 mm and they don't want to have a powerful 7 mm. 6.8 mm only excels in its own mediocrity.
Anonymous No.64377287 >>64377304
Do you remember it back in the late 2000s-early 2010s when most people thought the most important aspect of a cartridge was its bullet diameter? People used to have protracted arguments about whether "6.5" or "6.8" was better, and they weren't talking about the Grendel and SPC. Stuff like BC was either completely forgotten or too implicit for me to notice.
Anonymous No.64377295 >>64377482
>>64377259
Excellent high IQ post that enhances the standing and reputation of /k/
Anonymous No.64377304 >>64377333
>>64377287
Grendel was always (and still is, except for FN IWS .264) the best.
Anonymous No.64377333 >>64377349
>>64377304
I will never support general purpose cartridges until they make one that's high BC, 2900+ fps, and still soft shooting.
Well, they have already come up with stuff like this, militaries just seem to love sidegrades for some reason.
Anonymous No.64377349 >>64377713 >>64377754
>>64377333
checked, as you imply there's all kinds of excellent cartridges for various rifles and purposes now available. (Most of these have been available for decades already, e.g. 260 Remington: who needed 6.5 Creedmoor?)
As some of the data and articles posted itt show, the FN IWS .264 would be an ideal adoption for infantry rifle and light machine gun standard. Why don't they do it?
Anonymous No.64377477 >>64377507
>>64377170
You keep talking about SIG when being asked about the Army's 6.8mm projectile. Do you not know every NGSW bid used the same Army projectile?
Anonymous No.64377482 >>64377507
>>64377295
>>64377259
The Army's 6.8mm projectile exists because a 6.5mm projectile in the desired weight would be too long.

Is this just a general ignorance of where the Army's 6.8mm projectile came from?
Anonymous No.64377507 >>64377598
>>64377477
>>64377482
Nobody cares about (You)r evidence-free retarded spew, the U.S. Army, or nu-SIG
get off of this board and *STAY OFF* of it
Anonymous No.64377598 >>64377631
>>64377507
Loterally who is talking about SIG other than you?
Anonymous No.64377631
>>64377598
>'Loterally'
back to plebbit, Brainlet.

(You)r buddy's first 50 posts on this OP topic = 6.8 $#@m
Anonymous No.64377713
>>64377349
>Why don't they do it?
Anonymous No.64377754 >>64377779
>>64377349
>who needed 6.5 Creedmoor?
Everyone who liked .270 Winchester and wanted to fit it into every semi-auto .308 gun.
>the FN IWS .264 would be an ideal adoption for infantry rifle
Would have been great, but the current administration was obsessed with long range and penetrating level IV armor.
>and light machine gun standard
Meh, there are better options. Keep in mind that in the desert, intermediate cartridge machine guns sucked. No matter how much they pushed for the M249, oftentimes what was needed was an M240.
Anonymous No.64377779 >>64377814
>>64377754
>the current administration
is this partisan...?
Anonymous No.64377814
>>64377779
Not the federal administration; I meant the top brass in the military. Sorry for wording it weirdly.
Anonymous No.64380120
>>64326816 (OP)
Still alive
https://fnamerica.com/press-releases/fn-delivers-weapon-system-test-samples-to-dods-irregular-warfare-technical-support-directorate/