FN has a new AR style NGSW

Mk-211

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
2,327
https://youtu.be/Q47N9UTjydw?si=tm1DqfwcZbxb6C_g


The new Individual Weapon System, chambered in a new .264 round, was on display in a case, tucked away in the military section of FN America’s booth. On first sight you might mistake the rifle for a SCAR-H or an AR-10 pattern marksman’s rifle but on closer inspection the rifle is a different beast. With the weapon only displayed inside the case this is the best footage I could get of it.

FN explained that the new weapon and ammunition was developed for the Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate (IWTSD). Interestingly, the aim for the project was to provide overmatch against emerging great power competitors and future threats. A similar goal to the US Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon System which coalesced on a 6.8mm round. It’s important to note, however, that the IWS was not FN’s proposal for NGSW – that instead was based around an adapted FN HAMR and a belt-fed weapon in 6.8mm.

What is the IWTSD? The Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate is responsible for carrying out research and development to support U.S. and allied organisations involved in irregular warfare. Originally set up in 1999 as the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, its name was changed in 2021.

The IWS chambers the Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC), developed from .264 USA. The 6.5x43mm round uses a steel case, which FN America says reduces weight by 20% compared to equivalent brass. No data on velocities has been released yet. The round has a two-piece, lightweight steel design with a stainless steel head and case body. A variety of loads have been developed with a number of different projectiles, including a 130gr Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration round, a 109gr copper open tip match (OTM), a 120gr copper OTM and a soft nose 125gr cartridge. To date FN haven’t yet released any data on the rounds performance.

According to the 2019 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), which outlined the programme’s requirements, polymer cased ammunition was considered and two proof of concept rounds were desired for Phase 1: 108gr OTM with a muzzle velocity of 2650 feet per second, from an 11.5 inch test barrel, and a frangible training round.

In Phase 2 IWTSD required Combat Barrier rounds loaded with Special Operations Science and Technology (SOST-style) projectiles and an M855A1-style enhanced penetration round which could penetrate no less than 12-inches of 10% ordnance gelatin at 800m and no greater than 18 inch at 25m-150m when fired from a 14.5 inch barrel or 25m-450m when fired from a 11.5 inch barrel.

A new 25 round polymer magazine has been developed for the rifle, sized somewhere between a 5.56x45mm STANAG magazine and a 7.62×51mm AR-10 pattern magazine. The proprietary magazine was developed by an industry partner – believed to be Magpul. FN say that when fully-loaded loaded with 25 rounds it is equivalent in weight to a Magpul P-Mag loaded with 30 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. From the IWTSD 2019 BAA we know that a box magazine no longer than a STANAG magazine with a “self-lubricating non-tilt follower and high-quality corrosion resistant magazine spring” which could be loaded with ammunition in stripper clips using speed loaders was required

FN-LICC-IWS.jpg
iws-264_component-view_a.jpg
FN-Lightweight-Intermediate-Caliber-Cartridge-IWS.jpg
 
I guess SF already has used weird proprietary rounds from time to time, but man, having both .264 and .277 in inventory along with the legacy .308 and .223 just seems ridiculous.

None of our "allies" have shown any interest in standardizing on these new US rounds either. 🙄

I keep remembering the German Panzer Grenadier who loved his StG44 but had to ditch it after the first battle because they never saw another shipment of the special ammo......
 
I like the notion of the 264/6.5x43--I'm just no sure the market will "catch fire" for yet another 6.5-ish round in the saturated marketplace we have now.

I'm equally unsure if FN's ISW is enough "unique" in the extremely saturated AR marketplace. And, other than some unique fencing on the lower, and the way the butt stock folds, there's not really that much different between the ISW and an AR-18/180 conversion upper.

The can tuned for the 264 ammo will remain problematic in the US until that shiny day when we get legal reform on NFA.

Unlike the NGSW, this one piques my interest; not that I think it has anymore chance of success than the NGSW has.
 
I like the notion of the 264/6.5x43--I'm just no sure the market will "catch fire" for yet another 6.5-ish round in the saturated marketplace we have now.

I'm equally unsure if FN's ISW is enough "unique" in the extremely saturated AR marketplace. And, other than some unique fencing on the lower, and the way the butt stock folds, there's not really that much different between the ISW and an AR-18/180 conversion upper.

The can tuned for the 264 ammo will remain problematic in the US until that shiny day when we get legal reform on NFA.

Unlike the NGSW, this one piques my interest; not that I think it has anymore chance of success than the NGSW has.
I haven't read anything indicating either the gun or cartridge will even be offered to the public.
 
That would be a mistake, the public would probably buy more than the military.
 
The whole premise cited in the article is flawed anyway. Infantry shouldn't be engaging medium machine gun nests at 700YD with direct carbine fire anyway. Those targets should be suppressed/neautralized with their own GPMGs, sniper rifles, and mortars, vehicle-borne support weapons or, ideally, artillery and air support. We also now have a whole host of squad/platoon level drones on the cusp of deployment which can engage those threats without exposing the infantry.
 
You know it's bad, when they just inked a contract with one company and they're looking at another.

Someone in the back of the room shouted out, "should've picked the FAL"!
 
Back
Top