In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military’s standard assault rifle.
About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military’s most fielded personal weapon.
The range day is intended to help familiarize key lawmakers with possible alternatives to the M16 and M4 once the exclusive contract with Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn., ends in the summer of 2009, a senior senate aide told Defense Tech.
“When you re-compete the M4 it shouldn’t just be for the same thing we’ve been building for the last 20 to 30 years,” said the senior senate staffer who requested anonymity because the issue is so sensitive with the Army.
Over the past year the Army has taken fire from M4 critics who say there are better options available to troops, weapons that require less intensive maintenance and fire more lethal rounds. While the Army — which is responsible for procuring small arms for all the services — continues to stand by the M4 and M16, a small group of tenacious senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Coburn, have pressed the issue, forcing the service to subject the M4 to rigorous environmental tests and pushing for side-by-side competitions with several M4 alternatives.
“There’s no urgent need to improve the M4, it’s clearly working better than the M16,” the senior senate aide said. “Our concern is that, urgent or not, we really ought to be improving it on par with technological improvements [and] not be wedded to an older weapon just because that’s the way we’ve always been doing it.”
While the aide declined to list all the companies participating in the demo, congressional and industry sources say the shoot will feature the standard 5.56mm M4 carbine, the FNH USA-build Mk-17 — which fires a 7.62mm round — and a modified “M4-style” rifle that fires a new 6.8mm special purpose cartridge round, among others.
The 6.8mm SPC round was born of a 6-month program launched by the interagency Technical Support Working Group which looked into how an M4 or M16 could be easily modified to fire a round that had better ballistic characteristics than the current arsenal when fired from a short barrel.
According to the TSWG, the so-called “modified upper receiver group” that accommodates the 6.8mm round “can be installed on [government-issued] M4 carbine lower receivers by operators in the field quickly and without tools for an immediate, considerable increase in projectile weight, surface area, and on-target terminal performance.”
“The 6.8mm MURG offers improved combat capability and user survivability over comparable 5.56mm platforms,” a TSWG statement said.
A consistent criticism of the M4 has been the 5.56 round’s perceived lack of stopping power. A 2006 Center for Naval Analyses report conducted for the Army showed 30 percent of Soldiers surveyed wanted a rifle with a more deadly round.
“Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality,” the report said.
And one special operations Soldier who spoke to Defense Tech couldn’t agree more.
“I know that when I’m shooting at someone I want to be confident that when I hit him, he’s going to go down,” the Special Forces operator said during a recent interview. “That’s why I like the AK and its 7.62 round. It’ll drop whatever you’re aiming at.”
The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you’ll stop him, Army leaders argue.
The point of the July 11 test shoot is to allow manufacturers to showcase their M4 alternatives before an audience that’s becoming more influential on small arms procurement decisions. The senate group tried to hold a similar demo last year, but the Army abruptly pulled out when news reports of the event leaked out, senate sources said.
Participants will have the opportunity to observe the effects of different caliber rounds in ballistic jelly, be shown how to fire each weapon and, of course, there will be some hands-on time as well.
Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar is heavily involved in the M4 alternative push and wants a competitive process that rewards the kind of innovation that leads to a host of choices when the M4 is re-bid in June of next year.
“Senator Salazar’s concern is that the process itself could stifle industry innovation, it can result in lower weapons reliability and it can increase costs,” said Salazar spokesman, Matt Lee-Ashley.
“He’s going to work through the Army and the Armed Services Committee to make sure that when [the M4] is re-competed next June the process is open, that it’s based on performance-based requirements and that it encourages industry innovation.”
– Christian
Bring back the M-14!
Sorry I had too…
The comments they made about ‘more accurate shots result in more kills’ but if I remember line from Jarhead ‘It takes 10,000 rounds from a grunt to produce a kill’ along those lines. Some of the quotes aren’t lining up with statistical reality. But hell… everyone likes new toys
My God, I saw this story on military.com, and the Comments section left me sad and dissilusioned…“The M-16 was made by Mattel!” “Only big bullets can kill!” “The M-16 is a POS!” “The AK kills people dead!”…etc.
Such idiotic spouting off by people who “know” that the puny 5.56 is just no good, and that the 7.62 and 6.8 would be better because they are “big”.
Well, what is the cut-off between “big” and “little” bullets? 6.5mm? 6.4? 6.3? 6.2? 6.1? 6? 5.9? 5.8? Well, what is it? And does it even matter, anyway?
Obviously they never read the history of these rounds and the weapons. Or like me know men who have survived multiple hits from AK-47s and survived. Or looked at the number of people who have been killed by the lowly .22LR. Or seen the studies that >95% of small arms fire occurs at ranges of 100 meters (which has been the max engagement range for infantry combat in Iraq). Or know that killing or incapacitating the enemy is a matter of Shot Placement, not how big the bullet is. Or how much a loadout of 7.62 NATO weighs. Or what an anachronistic mechanism the M-14 is.
Eff it I give up…
“The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you’ll stop him, Army leaders argue.“
Unfortunately, the enemy doesn’t always let you shoot them “in the right place”. There is this thing called “cover” & body armor, ya know. Somebody has been studying Napoleonic tactics a little too much lately.
Like this guy… (graphic)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2X_1NDkxFgo
Ok ok, why did we select M-16s over the M-14s during the Vietnam War era in the first place
“When you re-compete the M4 it shouldn’t just be for the same thing we’ve been building for the last 20 to 30 years,“
Um last time I checked the M-16 of 30 years ago isn’t even used yet alone made. The modern M-16 is much different and better. Id carry the M-4 over any weapon out there just because I am familiar with it, and know how to take care of it if it has a issue (no gun will ever be 100% jam proof/unbreakable).
My pleasure SMSgt Mac…I knew you’d like it.
Daneil Watters, I’m aware of the 5th SFG original development of the 6.8 but, seriously, for brevity and clarity I had to keep it like I wrote it. I actually agonized over how better to phrase it and I knew someone would call me on it and I’d have to explain my logic.
Sorry about that…
great so now we have a bunch of paper pushers desk jockeys picking the rifle grunts will carry?
Got some answers for a few of you in here. We replaced the M14 with the M16 for multiple reasons, those being, lighter weapon weight, more ammunition per standard soldier loadout, was designed to work at the shortened range of modern combat at the time.
For those that want to bring back the M14, I would disagree for a few reasons, one is the weapon would be a throwback to another era, and a step backwards. I would say that the 6.8mm spc is the system I would like to see adopted for ease of adoption. Buy the upper receiver group, the magazines and the ammunition, done deal.
If all is the same except the bolt and barrel and designed for a larger round then even training soldiers on the weapon won’t change any. I would hope however that the new receiver uses the gas-piston system rather than the gas tube. The gas piston driven bolt makes the weapon that much easier to service and lowers the amount of carbon in the bolt of the weapon. This action also makes the firearm much cooler when fired.
That being said, if they still don’t think they will replace the M4, then why did they cancel the XM8 program? The weapon seemed to be doing reasonably well with the combat tests in Iraq and it was the top firearm in the sand table tests in terms of least amount of jams.
Barrett M468 or HK416. Either one would make a perfect replacement in my opinion.
The FN SCAR is going to be a winner in my opinion. Piston driven, requires no lubricant, and you can have both 5.56mm and 7.62mm variants that have 80% commonality of parts. Not to mention ambidextrous ergonomic controls. Very simple maintenance and take-down.
Another reason to go with FN is they already make the M-240 7.62mm machine gun, the M-249 SAW, and the M2 .50 cal for our military (they make 70% of all US military weapons), so they have proven themselves quite well. Also, they currently hold the contract for regular M-16 rifles (that
First; I don’t see how congressional aides can “evaluate” these weapons unless they have the relevant military experience.
Second; The whole “better bullet” controversy should have been settled in the 1950’s when the US adopted the T65 round, thus foisting it onto NATO when it was patently too powerful for the envisaged role.
The .280 British (in fact a round developed by FN-Herstal)was more accurate & better suited to automatic fire from light weight rifles.
Like the choice of the m14 over the FN FAL, the choice of round was made for reasons other than “best suited for purpose“
No doubt any new rifle will also be chosen for reasons not necessarily relevant to its purpose.
Pork barrel politics = poorer products.
Mike S., They won’t even consider the M-14 or FN FAL those are old weapons. The M-14 has already been re-deployed with rifle squads in Iraq for a long time now.
For more gas-piston systems see:
1) Patriot ordinance
2) lwrifles.com
3) And, Bushmaster has contracted to make the Magpul
The first two already have various calibers available.
Who needs a competition? Bushmaster ACR, 5.56 or 6.8 SPC. Best out there.
FN SCAR H/L and especially Patriot Ordinance Factory P416 ‘s rock too.
one more thing…
7.62 rounds, despite their lower velocity, also have problems with overpenetration. mass is a measure of inertia. inertia is resistance to change in motion. translation: a more massive bullet is harder to slow down. massive bullets are good for long range weapons, like sniper rifles, because the extra inertia resists the influence of the wind. if wind were not a factor, snipers would be better off with fast, small caliber bullets.
finally, it’s worth noting that the 7.62 NATO round is 9.5g. that’s over twice the mass of the 4.0g 5.56 NATO. so a soldier can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo, and still be carrying less weight (magazine weight excluded).
The AK-47 is a “pray & spray” weapon given by totalitarian regimes to people they don’t trust knowing that it can’t shoot straight or be used to overthrow them,unless used in such great numbers that the said regime would be overthrown anyway,even by people carrying picks,rakes,& other sharp objects.The AK-47 does what it’s supposed to do when used in mass human wave tactics where everybody would be up in everybody else’s faces & shooting each other point blank.The AK-47 is also the weapon you’d give to 8 year olds to send them on their merry way to kill other kids & adults.It’s a “mob” weapon to be used by mobs in unorganized battle.I’m not putting it down,because I do love its simplicity & minimalist nature(its so easy,a “caveman” could use it).
They’d f**k up building a simple paper airplane like we all use to make when we were in school.To quote Bugs Bunny,“What a bunch of ‘maroons’”.
“…a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military’s standard assault rifle.“
Pardon my language, but,
in all reality,
what would Senate staffers know sh*t from sugar about what makes for a superior combat carbine in a given caliber?
Considering that those legislative aides, let alone all the Congressmen and –women who OK the checks cut for programs,; considering they won’t be the ones whose very lives will be at stake using whichever weapon,
the last thing we need is another government committee totally stuffing up yet another defense program.
Why don’t they let the troops have a go at it?
No, not the super-priviledged blank-check-in-hand children of the SOCOM elite,
but rather everyday “average” Soldiers, Marines, Airmen/women, and whoever other trigger pullers, everyone from front line grunts who’ll use it daily, to desk jockeys who only ever fire once a year to stay qualified,
let them judge which weapon design is most user friendly (ease and accuracy of putting brass on target, ease of maintenance, reliability in the hands of perhaps a minimally-experienced shooter, etc…) ?
Letting the bureacrats’ aides and assistants out of the shop to go play with some guns for a weekend won’t prove anything all that useful, will it?
Just the facts please.
Opinion are like…well everybody knows that one.
Lets dispense with opinion and work with facts.
The original 5.56mm/.223 round was meant to create large wounds because of the tumbling effect. It worked but was inaccurate. Make it accurate and you lose the effect.
So the modern 5.56 round is ineffective as it is designed unless we change the round itself again and make it so that it can penetrate and then fragment. This would solve a lot of problems but does it go against the Geneva convention?
The 7.62 round it great but a little too powerful for what is needed. So we have to find something in-between. It has to have good penetration, be accurate, have enough velocity at medium ranges to be accurate and lethal yet be controllable in fully automatic fire. It can’t be too heavy in weight and be fired by shorter barrels for CQB/CQC use.
The 5.56mm round doesn’t cut it, close but no cigar. The 7.62 NATO is too powerful. Modern piston weapons are superior to direct gas impingement for true combat environments. They do not even need lubricant, as made by companies like POF. I said modern, modern not an AK or FAL or M-14, Garand, Carbine and so on. Those are the facts.
One thing I hated about the M-16 was the gas in my face and breathing that stuff. It’s a dirty rifle and needs a lot of cleaning. It also jams more frequently than piston weapons. These too are facts that are indisputable. You can make up any thing you want these are facts people.
So if the 6.8mm, 6.5mm or something else like the 6.8x45 Kramer or anything else works better than the 5.56mm lets use it. It’s not that hard to test them. It just has to be done without political interference, that is something I fear cannot be done by the DOD, Army and our government.
Also the weapon that works the best for our troops would be very easy to pick, just ask them. Blind test without interference from staff officers. Again I doubt that can be done with the way things work.
If you back to the Civil war the powers that be always choose the weapon by some criteria that has nothing to do with what the troops need to be effective and have the edge on the battle field. They never ever considered what weapon would give the war fighter a better chance to live. It was always about cost, what company would make the weapon and other issues that have nothing to do with what the guys carrying them need and want.
It’s funny that the medium machine gun we rejected for the M-60 was accepted some 30 years later. Why didn’t we accept it from the beginning, it was superior. But again it was chosen for all the wrong reasons.
For once can this countries military do something right.
If the best weapon is the M-4 in 5.56mm then prove it, I know it’s not.
This is such an easy decision, why must it be made complex. Pick the best round and design a rifle and system around it.
Make the rifle and an open bolt/quick change barrel version for a SAW. No need for belts anymore with magazines like the Beta C. With a better round they will also work much better as a marksmen weapon on the platoon/squad level too.
KISS.…not the band the philosophy, Keep It Simple Stupid.
swith to direct impingement uppers and hollow point 5.56mm ammo. Keep the lowers, mags, etc. Get the guys on the ground what they need and keep the bean counters happy. Everyone wins.
Ryan,
The problem with people like you is that you appear to know JUST ENOUGH to get your self into trouble.
SOME of us people clamoring for a larger round know our physics better than you.
“Stopping power” is not JUST the amount of kinetic energy (KE) delivered INTO the target, there are other factors.
The 5.56x45mm DOES NOT have greater energy than the 7.62x39mm.
Distance (yds)
0000 0050 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500
Energy (ft-lbs.)
1323 1178 1050 0825 0640 0488 0368 (5.56x45mm 62g)
1509 1302 1121 0814 0584 0425 0326 (7.62x39mm 123g)
The “slowness” of the 7.62x39mm DOES NOT mean it is more likely to “stick” the target. In fact, the 7.62x39mm has greater penetration than the 5.56x45mm.
Now 5.56x45mm are designed to fragment &/or tumble inside the target. When they DO they are fairly effective. The problem is that they don’t always do so & when they don’t they are not effective.
And another problem with the 5.56x45mm is insufficient penetration through obsticals.
The 6.8x43mm IS NOT a step backwords & I guarantee that the people who developed it know more about what does & does not work than you even THINK you do.
We can’t forget about international treaties htat restrict what kinds of bullets we can & cannot use. Even if on a purely legal sense we could on a ploitical world opinion sense we can not even though our enemies can.
Why have congressional staffers shooting different candidate replacements for the M4? I could see some use if any of them had any kind of ordnance experience.
What I’d like to see is a group of real warfighter types with recent combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq shoot these weapons along side the staffers. Get their opinions. The guys on the sharp end of the spear are better judges of their needs.
Oh, ues, my “perfect solution” would be to dump Eugene Stoner’s gas impingement system of the M16/M4 rifles. I would retrofit the current legacy M16/M4 platforms with a gas piston operated upper receiver (there are several different kinds available) and covert to the 6.8x43 SPC (6.8 Remington) cartridge.
Now, before we hear all the squawks from the usual suspects why we can’t, it’s not like America has not bludgeoned NATO over the head to adopt its pet cartridge of the day.
In the early 1950’s, COL Rene Studler of Army Ordnance got the T65E3 cartridge adopted by NATO. (The 7.62x51 NATO is a product improved caliber .30 (7.62x63) cartridge.)
When the Vietnam War cranked-up, America adopted the .223 Remington cartridge for the AR-15/M16 rifles. The Army got the round type classified as the 5.56x45 NATO — at the time the only users were the American forces in Vietnam — and while all other U.S. and NATO users had the 7.62 NATO as a main battle rifle caliber.
For the “suits” at the Pentagon or Army to say we cannot go to a “non-standard NATO caliber” is a specious argument. We have done it before … TWICE.
This whole thing is a joke, a dog and pony show for Congressional staffers to pump up a cause celebre.
We take more casualties in the GWOT from IEDs than small arms fire. That’s not where we’re hurting.
If we really need a cartridge between 5.56 and 7.62mm, and we don’t, we’d be better off engineering a better 7.62x39mm projectile/cartridge/AK combination. The 6.8mm is still a paper athlete. It’ll do good things for Remington, but add little to the GWOT that isn’t already there, or can’t be done with better versions of existing systems.
Truth is, it’ll take more away. It’s not compatible with the SAW, or its feed system. We can get better performance out of the 5.56/M16/M4/SAW with better projectiles and lubricants, and they’re in the pipeline. And if they can’t do the job, you step up to 7.62mm. If we don’t have enough M-14s, we can ramp up M110 production.
IMHO, 6.8mm’s a boondoggle. IIRC, SOCOM already looked at it, and moved on. That’s why the SCAR’s in the two calibers we have, and not the one we don’t.
And if after all that, we really do need another cartridge, then we should look at solutions that are more directly compatible with the equipment in the field, like 6x45mm, or 6.5mm MPC.
Easier and cheaper to pull out of antiquated treaties (like the abm treaty) and begin using hollow-nose ammo. Whats good for domestic criminals is good for foreign fighters, right?
Hollow point bullets have little or no penetrative ability, which is needed to shoot through cover, body armor etc.
What are alternatives to M4?
German 416/G36 (i heard Capitol Swat loves them)
FN SCAR ? (nothing heard about for around 1 year now)
Robinson XCR
Bushmaster ACR
“FN SCAR ? (nothing heard about for around 1 year now)“
The SCAR is still being evaluated by SOCOM, so it’s getting plenty of real world experience. Having had to maintain an M-4 in the desert, switching to a weapon which requires no lubricant would be a soldiers dream. Not to say it still wouldn’t require maintenance, but it would be a big improvement.
The rifle in the article’s photo is a SCAR Heavy standard, also known as the Mk-17.
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF045&gid=FNG007
Most of the comments I read on here border on rediculous.
Those saying the 5.56NATO round was meant to tumble are FULL OF SHIT.
Yaw yes, tumble no, quit dispensing innacuracies.
6.8SPC has not even been finalized yet, and it is not the answer.
It is not better than 5.56NATO by any means, and in fact possesses less range if a decent bullet is used in 5.56NATO
Just look at Camp Perry to see how many 5.56NATO rifles are used to win.
Marksmanship is the answer in that accurate shot placement rules.
Those commenting insist they know that the 7.62x39 is a one shot kill cartridge, when in fact the truth is nothing is more important than shot placement.
There have always been arguments that the rounds used were ineffective, going back to the venerable 30–06 in WWI and WWII, there have been those that complained that 7.62NATO was zipping right through without stopping the bad guy.
There was only one poster on here that realized the answer, CNS hits are the stopper, that is one reason soldiers are taught to shoot center mass, it is an effort to sever the spine.
That is also the reason we now see so many enemy combatants shot in the head, it is an assured kill if the brains are not in the cranium any longer.
There have been enemy combatants shot with a .50BMG, and not killed instantly.
Should we replace ol ma deuce because it lacks power?
Hell no.
Should we possibly use a different bullet design?
We have one, it is called MK262 Mod 0 and MK262 Mod 1.
It is not a fit for every scenario, we should probably make a longer ogive round similar to the MK262 in a 75 grain steel core bullet with a polycarbonate nose, that way we get fragmentation with the ability to pucng through cover, as well as the increased range that a longer bullet, having more weight provides.
I think we’re getting away from the real topic at hand, which is not centered around ballistic properties of the bullet, but the reliability of the shooting platform. Direct gas impingement and it’s sensitivities to carbon fouling needs to go the way of antiquity. Modern low friction materials and the proven piston driven systems can deliver better reliability and less maintenance for troops in the field, that’s what matters.
RB,
Yaw & tumble are used interchangeably when describing that 5.56x45mm NATO is designed to do. But TECHNICALLY speaking it would be more/most accurate to say that they are designed to yaw causing the buttlet to frangentation &/or tumble. Unfortunately the yaw/fragment/tumble effect has proven inconsistent & enemy combatants have FAR TOO OFTEN been found with “through & through” hits with no noticeable yaw much less fragmentation &/or tumbling.
Aside from getting the beurucratic BS out of the way of type classification & adoption by the US military what is left to do for the 6.8x43mm SPC?
The 6.8x43mm SPC is better than the 5.56x45mm by virtually ALL means. It was said by those who tested it that it generally matched BOTH the “flight” ballistics & wound ballistics of the 7.62x51 NATO.
I would agree that the 6.8x43mm is not the BEST answer but it is a GOOD answer & won we could have had years ago.
While I TOTALLY agree that shot placement is a key factor, proper shot placement is OFTEN not that easy to achieve for MOST people in combat situations.
***
demophilus,
The 6.8x43mm Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC) was conceived and designed with the help of members of the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group as a much better answer for urban warfare and CQB (Close Quarters Battle) than the 62gr 5.56x45mm NATO round, and a much better short and intermediate distance sniping round than the 77 gr. 5.56mm round that’s been utilized of late in the SPR (Special Purpose Rifle) by U.S. Spec-Ops personnel in the Middle East.
USSOCOM tested 6.8x43mm SPC & was very pleased with it. It was even recommended that it be adopted by all USSOCOM forces in 2002. But resistance within the Army to any caliber change has thus far prevented that from happening.
@pfcem:
“It was even recommended by” whom? Its developers? Remington?
I’ve shot 6.8mm SPC. I can see where SOF guys and other expert marksmen might like it.
I can also see why Big Army might not want to hand it out to every E-1, across every performance percentile, or swap out the entire shoulder arms inventory in the middle of two wars.
demophilus,
Recommended by the USSOCOM soldiers (& others) who tested it (yes a few of which helped develope it).
But the point is that the 6.8x43mm SPC has not yet been adopted, not because USSOCOM did not want to but because of resistence from “Big Army” to the change.
Interesting and qualified debat here! Thanx
We use the Diemaco C8 / Colt Canada version of the Colt M4 in the Danish Armed forces. It works quiet well but their M/203 40 mm grenadelauncher version sucks big time :-p
Small-caliber infantry weapons have never impressed me. Regardless, if the U.S. Army is not willing to give up the advantage of the 30-round capacity of our current M16-series magazines, then how about necking up the 5.56x45mm NATO to a larger caliber? 6.5mm caliber is likely the upper limit that provides engough case shoulder to properly function in semiauto/automatic rifles. Both the 6.35mm and 6.5mm will propel 87–90 grn bullets at over 2700 FPS from the M16’s 20-inch barrel.
My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.
Afterward I saw that someone is accepting the apprentice, I ran to him said that you accepted me, I will have a good future of cronous money.
I as if could also recall minding initially your appearance because of have no dofus kamas, and then you met misfortune.
Ah, Christian’s Friday Red Meat Post!
Yeah, getting Congress MORE involved will certainly help. /sarc I suggest we let the staffers do extended field trials in Peshwar.
But you every time always were left after you took my imvu money. You will also be not giving me a smile.
So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lovable gray wolf became collapses at the first blow.
Because each people is not so rich, you have Hellgate London gold and you might save much time that practice the level.
For in the game I can have a family, I was go all out to work make Lord Of The Rings Gold, so long as there were the methods which could make money I has tried.
As your apprentice, I always waste your cheap Habbo Coins. But I really not to think that you left so suddenly, then am duty-bound not to turn back!
My friends also told me that there is a web site http://www.hameim.com supplies cheap Lunia gold. If one day you want to buy Lunia gold you can go to the above company.
Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.