@@ModernTacticalShooting dude, I've had this convo with former teammates several times. With what the Army wants, and with it to be issued only to line combatant elements. Why not just make 7.62x51 the standard again? 3 weapon systems at Battalion level are already chambered in it. GPMG's, SPR's, and whatever the new sniper rifles are. Why not just add a rifle in 7.62x51 (there's already a few with NSN's to choose from) back into the mix. We already have a fuck ton of 7.62x51 stocked up as do our allies, and it's already a NATO standard caliber and has been for several decades (no need to adopt a new round and stockpile a bunch of it). It's already a proven performer. If I had it my way, the M4 abd M249 would be replaced by the FN MK17 and FN Maximi/MK48. Both already have DoD contracts lol. Honestly have to question who is coming up with these programs and maybe look into who is putting money into their pockets (saying that in jest of course).
7.62x51 is considered not as versatile, since it’s a little too large for standard infantry rifles and carbines, and it’s a bit underpowered for GPMG. With modern ballistics technology, the 6.8mm can perform better the 7.62x51 for GPMG and rifle applications, while being slightly lighter and smaller. It’ll be difficult to supplant 7.62x51 as the standard, though. The different power class rounds will only compound this difficulty, in my opinion. I think the 6.8 has some merit, but we live in a time of conflict, and changing standards is difficult and requires clearly significant advantages to be worthwhile. The cost of the program is probably not feasible when our spending priorities need to be elsewhere.
I totally agree this XM5 or M7 is a waste of time and money. I do like the MG side of it replacing the 249s and 240s with one caliber. As you pointed out the 20 round magazines and weight are huge things like the M14 in Vietnam and they didn’t have body armor back then. Put that ammo load out on a plate carrier with ESAPI plates and side plates life will suck! The old saying ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain. With modern M4s and ammo they are still relevant. The army never bought in on the MK318 round but it was pretty impressive in JSOC and USMC use before the USMC went over to the M855a1 with the army. Based on loadouts I rather see the military move to the Mk 318 round or Mk262 round which was really for the Mk12 rifles. The Mk318 though with the OTM projectile with a rear penetrator I thought was a much round and it’s still 556 which gives you more capabilities to carry ammo. I think the funds invested in this program would’ve been better invested in researching better ammunition with technology or building up stocks of Mk318 and or Mk262 and shit canned that M855a1 round. My 2 worthless cents. I love loved the Mk318 round so much I bought it up while still available for my personal rifles. Hard to find now and extremely expensive if you do find it somewhere.
The biggest issue I see with the rifle is that the Army is going with this two ammunition variants for the rifle. The first being conventional 6.8x51 with regular brass and muzzle velocities and pressures that you'd expect. This will be "training ammunition" for the most part because it won't put undo stress on the rifle's internals and barrel. The other is the bimetal/composition two metal cases with 80,000 PSI loadings which are basically "Throat Erosion Inc." for any rifle and are super-duper-hot rounds. They will be what is supposedly issued in combat. Supposedly. So now we're going to train with ammunition that is *_radically and wildly different from what we'll be shooting in combat,_* and these rifles will have service lives that are some of the shortest of any standard or commonly issued rifles in American history. ...How is this wise in any way?
Keep in mind that every RU-vidr using the SIG XM5 rifle is using the weaker ammo with regular brass casings. So whenever someone comments on how controllable and soft shooting the rifle is, remember that they're not using the full-powered ammunition for it.
That’s why Sig has won or is very confident they’ll win a contract once it’s announced for every major small arms “replacement” in the span of a few years.
There is no better example of "Why'd you do that?" than the NWU Type 1 uniform. The blueberries were a camo pattern nobody asked for, didn't actually provide any sort of concealment or disruption (where you gonna hide on a well-lit ship with gray corridors?) and failed at being properly flame retardant which is arguably the most important thing. NWU-1 didn't actually offer any improvement over the old Utilities. Any job on-board where you might get dirty, you're wearing coveralls anyway. And when it came time to replace the NWU-1, did they just do the smart thing and adopt MARPAT which was already in the Dept. of Navy supply chain? Nope. Did they adopt UCP or OCP? Nope. How about just going back to the Utilities which were a great working uniform? Or maybe the Coasties all blue uniform? Nope. The US Navy decided it needed its own arid and woodland camo patterns. Very important that you blend into the hills of Appalachia when you're sitting on a well lit ship with gray walls.
Your comments about the rifle being a PDW is spot on. They say a Marine with a rifle is the most dangerous thing on the battlefield but they're wrong. It's a Marine or soldier with a radio that can inflict the most damage.
The days of fighting guys in bedsheets with an AK and 3 mags in open terrain holding Superiority in Air, comms, the night and all technology will be over stepping into Indonesia, the pacific and jungle again. The radio will always be the best weapon in the desert in jungle, heavy woodlands and the next wars terrain the rifle will be back in play big time.
Prior U.S. Army 13F forward observer here. I can confirm that the radio is the most deadly weapon. I can also say that targeting, or aiming at your target isn't the problem, it's target acquisition that's the problem. Just seeing where they are shooting at you from is the real problem. I tend to laugh when video games show target highlights on the hud. It's so easy in video games because every round is a tracer, and they often give you maps or arrows showing where people are shooting from. I wish I had those in Afghanistan! 😆 Maybe better training? It might help to get a better idea of spotting an enemy before you. Typically the mobile force is the one spotted by a stationary force, for obvious reasons as to why. That's the only thing we need, a heads-up display that puts a dot on every person in our field of vision, or the source of weapons fire. It doesn't have to distinguish friend from foe, we can do that ourselves. I don't know if we are there yet technologically, but that's what we need.
The army forgot combined arms warfare and wasted money on a shiny new thing. While the French & Brit took the cheaper, effective route by reorganized their platoon to have 1 M240 and 1 DMR for each Squad / Section
@@madkabal artilleries and indirect fire can still cover the distance in which small arms can't reach. And infantry nowaday with the exception of Airborne, ride to battle in a heavily armed battle bus that is either equipped with .50 cal or 20mm caliber and above autocannon, and even then the Army is currently developing an air-drop light tank to assist the Airborne troop in heavy direct-firepower, much like how the M551 Sheridan used to fulfil that role in the past. If even air supremacy or heavy-firepower supremacy is lost then I doubt you could even win a war with infantry equipped with " overmatch " rifle
Our platoons are usually organized with three squads, with both A and B fire teams each having a SAW. The fourth squad is the weapons squad with the four 240’s. In the company, the fourth platoon will be the weapons platoon with 50’s, mortars, and Javs.
@@blackhawk7r221 Dont know where you pull that figure but according to TOE, Weapon team in US Army Platoon only has 2 M240. The Brit lack a Weapon team, only has 3 Squad each 8 man with 1 M240 and 1 DMR per Squad, the French employ only 1 M249, but got a DMR and light-mortar operator ( 50mm ) per squad
I’ve done 4 tours of Afghan with the British army. This advice is completely correct each section on the ground had multiple 7.62 weapons to engage at distance, the 5.56 was used as initial suppression before the use of other weapon systems, fast air & artillery
Agreed, the American military should follow a similar doctrine. A DMR is definitely needed in the US army. The closest thing we typically have in the average infantry arms room is a couple dozen M-16s and a few EBR M-14s that are 35 inches long, one inch shy of a full yard. One is just a spicier 5.56, and the other is so cumbersome, you really can't use it tactically like an M-4.
In ww2, the parachute infantry redid their organization at least 4 times in a 6 year period... .30-06 for the M1's aside, they finally settled on 1-2 grenadiers and 1 m1919 GPMG per squad. Back to relearn our lessons.
I read that the reason the US military went to 5.56 was being able to carry more ammo and few engagements were won with rifle fire alone, it’s artillery and aircraft that are used at greater distances.
As a cavalryman we had an M240 dismounted per section as well an EBR and we took a 60 with us when we were out of reach of the cops 120s. Our mounted set ups were 50s, 240s and mk19s. I never felt under gunned in a fight and typically the insurgents we encountered took to using wadis and rivers to limit our ability to maneuver and close with them.
I like your solution, I think it nails the best of everything. That sig 6.8 machinegun is a beast. Lighter than a 249, powerful round, light recoil, it’s a huge step up. Replace your 249s and 240s with that and plug a couple M5s in as DMRs and you have a hell of a lot of firepower and reach without burdening every single rifleman with a heavy unwieldy rifle that carries less ammo.
The M240 could be upgraded to the 6.8 by simply swapping out the 7.62 barrels. It wouldn't be suppressed but it could be a stopgap measure until enough M250s are produced.
A comment from Ukraine, where I do know the theatre quite well 🙂 In general - you analysis is perfect, done actually by the person who know what firefight actually is, not the theory masters in procurement departments who look at "weapon stats" and think it's superior) I'd like to add some additional context to prove on your points with our experience of full-scale war in very diverse terrain: 1. Ammo/small mag - it's critical issue. Often times you can't clearly see the enemy due to vegetation and terrain, and the engagements can take the WHOLE day long, and you even need MULTIPLE AKs to go through the fight while being able to return fire, because they will get dirty and unoperational from such an intensity, I'm not even mentioning how many MAGS you'd actually need. 2. Armor perentration/Hight velocity - it seems logical, but it's wrong direction, IMHO. To prove on my point - in case of a large-scale conflict, your M4 or AK is not going to earn most of kills - it's going to be the in 80% of cases - other weapon systems. Most of the casualties are here from artillery, mortars, tank fire, MRLSs, etc., so your body armor should be definitely not a modern cool JPC :) And what's saving your life is your mobility, tactics and training, not the body armor. What's even more illustrative - most of wounds are going to legs and arms, body armour isn't saving here, and your cartridge with greater armour penetration - won't help you in this scenario :) "Lethality" is a debatable topic - wounded enemy is a bigger problem for him, his team mates and medics, he's unlikely to return fire, but needs the attention of his team mates -> takes multiple enemies out of fight, based from what I see. 3. Weight - as you can get from my last point - you need to have a good body armor, it's not going to be super-light for sure, it's going to have a lot of cevlar, thus - your mobility will suffer, based on my 1-st point - you need to have a lot of ammo on you, and adding very diverse weather and terrain in Ukraine - you are getting very heavy + it's very likely you'd carry some anti-armour weapon with you at FIRE TEAM level, or even multiple ones per fire team. And XM5 fire here with all of that weight? It's just adding an insult to an injury. 4. Disctance - you're right here, in large scale war, your personal weapon is PDW, nothing more than that, perfect way to describe it! What's actually great about this whole NGSW program - new machine gun! It's suppressed, lighter, has good optics - it's the best part of the program that can really improve the way you engage targets beyond the range of your personal weapon. The biggest problem of PKM in our theater - it's super loud and has a tendency to give away the position of a machine gunner super fast, especially during dark time of the day. Running suppressed and minimizing your sound/light signature gives HUGE advantage in our conflict. This is the real game changer - enemy can't simply return fire easily, when gets ambushed/attacking your positions. 5. Optics - that's true, there are only obscure scenarios when you can notice an enemy in our terrain 700-800 yards away and engage him with your personal weapon, no optics has an ability to look through the vegetation and the enemy isn't going to run through the plain field - he's going to be engaged by other weapon systems there, that have longer range and fire superiority. Vegitation is even causing problems for thermal vision systems, who are really the best system that gives the most advantages in this war - your situational awareness using drones and observation systems is key, not the personal weapon optics) All in all - I guess XM5 it's a good option for DMR, but it's not giving any advantages - the best DMR in our war is PKM😂 with suppressor and optics + a lot of ammo + planned primary and supplemental firing positions for it + drones or other observation systems that can direct it's fire :) And what's even more important - this new fancy scope system DOES NOT ELIMINATE the need to have marksmanship skills. As this war has proved already - even when you have superior weapon systems, they are all useless if you don't have well trained and motivated people and good leadership. We saw that when new Russian T80BVMs were dropped by their teams due to the lack of training on even refueling(!) the tank :) So you've gotta be very careful with these complex and technological things for an average infantry men - it may cost a ton of money, but it's not going to give you an edge in combat. Anyway, thanks for simply the best analysis on RU-vid, enjoyed watching the video by a person with real-life experience, not tacticool blogger 😉
In his "Shots Fired in Anger" Colonel John George suggested that the Browning Automatic Rifle be used as a sniper (DMR in today's grunt speak) rifle because snipers dealt with high-value targets that might be partially obscured. Colonel George was a US Army veteran of Guadalcanal and Burma (the latter as one of Merrill's Marauders) as well as an accomplished high power rifle competitor before WW2. Odd that you rated the PK with suppressor and optics as the superior DMR. Even more odd is that from the middle of the First World War every major army lusted after a squad light machine gun and semiautomatic service rifles. France came closest to achieving that goal during World War One. The light machine gun and rifle grenade launchers did most of the squad's killing in the latter years of World War One and during World War Two.
@@SoloRenegade That was only possible due to improved rifle marksmanship training and optics that allowed better view of the target. This was already a thing in the First World War with the battle of the snipers on the Western Front. Speaking of head shots, the M1903 Springfield Rifle had a 547-yard battle sight zero that gave a "point blank" range of 600 yards against an enemy company-sized formation. The leaf rear sight was fine-adjustable from 200 yards to 2700 yards and some change. The dirty little secret is that up to six hundred yards the Springfield under ideal conditions was a point target weapon and beyond that range it was an area target weapon. A point target can be thought of as a bullseye a half-meter or 19 inches diameter and an area target is six feet tall by 100 feet wide--an enemy infantry formation in a firing line. Trench warfare forced Germany, France and Britain to go back to the hunting tradition and shots of less than 100 yards because the enemy would only expose a target of about three- or four-inches diameter--just peek over a parapet or through a loophole. For precision rifle matches the 200-yard bullseye is 10 inches (depending upon rifle game) and if a modern rifle/ammo/sights/shooter combination won't put ten consecutive rounds inside of two inches at that distance, the rifle isn't competitive in modern matches. Iron sights can be as precise as optical sights, but optical sights permit better view of the target--and modern infantry uses camouflage in order to stay alive. The hunting tradition in 1914 was to zero the rifle at distances of 80 to 120 yards for woods hunting (depending upon muzzle velocity) because trajectory would put the bullet too far above the line of sight if the rifle were zeroed military style--400 meters or so. Military riflemen aimed at belt buckle level--center of seen mass--so that their bullets would strike the enemy no higher than the head and no lower than the knees at combat distances from the muzzle to maximum trajectory reach (around 500 meters) and then the officer in charge would command the soldiers to set their sights for longer distances. Modern combat requires better target ID--nobody is running around in brightly colored uniforms and remaining out in the open as if they were mindless cannon fodder. Trouble is that even with muzzle velocities of around 3000 feet per second and a high sight line the maximum battle sight zero engagement distance is going to be 350 meters. If only part of a target is visible and the rifle is supposed to hit that exposed piece of meat, there has to be a visible aiming point to achieve the hit. That can limit engagement ranges to 150 meters or less, depending on visibility.
@@alancranford3398 I went to Iraq with M16A4, iron sights, no optics, fought in Fallujah, Battle of Ramadi, Haditha, etc. Tell me again how optics were the defining factor for guys taking headshots inside 200yrds? Inside 200yds headshots are childishly easy with irons. And usually you knew where they were popping out from and waiting for them to stick their head out again. On teh range the ivan targets were so full of holes we had to selectively take head and shoulder shots to get registered hits during qual. (range we were at wasn't being well maintained at the time). Red dots helped for sure, but they weren't widespread until after the allegations of executions.
@@craigjohnson6141 meh, everyone was moving toward semiauto. The US just got there first, what with their industrial base not being under bombardment threat and joining the war two years later than some others. It would have really been a (half)step ahead if they had adopted the .276 Pederson for the Garand.
Former USMC infantry and you nailed it! Our squads were a little different than the Army but the idea was still the same regarding the blend of rifles, SAW and attached weapons. Addressing the shortcomings of the SAW cartridge would go a long way to addressing issues with ranged engagements in addition to a host of different target types. I think there is a nostalgia in the minds of many about the crack shot soldier that ends a firefight picking enemies off with precision fire. Sadly, as much as I like the idea of that it doesn’t reflect reality. Battles are won by fire and maneuver and employing CAS/arty etc. Gotta have enough ammo to sustain a fight and enough suppression capability to move.
I generally agree, but with some nuance. I was also in the Corps and due to some recent things I've seen in eastern Europe I have had to readjust some of my thinking. So in near peer conflicts their will almost certainly be occasions where indirect and air assets will be stretched too thin or simply prioritized elsewhere. Generally in the middle east I knew that all I had to due was fix the enemy long enough to get some air or artillery assets on station. In a high intensity conflict with who I'll refer to as the "lab leak" people. I think we will see a significant amount of situations where small arms will be the deciding factor. What I'm noticing where I am currently at is that if the skill level on both sides is roughly the same, the side with more ammunition wins. If one side is comprised of good marksman and the other is spray and praying it, the marksman typically come out on top. I'm not saying the XM-5 is the answer because it isn't, but marksmanship at distance is still important
The mx5 is a awsome replacement for the m249 with the belt fed option, it's lighter and has better long range balistics than the 7.62. For the basic 556? Not going to replace it.
The rifle equivalent of the M14 chambered in .40 S&W . One joke on top of another. The optic and the LMG will be the only viable things to come out of this program.
Yup. All your points are valid. They're selecting tomorrow's rifle to fight yesterday's war. Someone in the room should have said "Well what if we have to go back to the jungle"? In the 60's a change in combat environment rendered heavy caliber, long-range battle rifle ineffective. Now they're going back to basically that because the desert war favoured that type of rifle. It makes no sense.
Didn't the Australian army use the FAL in Vietnam. I don't think the America army can afford to issue this to every solider, and that would not makes sense. My understanding they have only committed to buying 20 000 of these firearms. To me, that is them saying ok, this has some potential lets see how we can integrate into their tactics. The best fighting units have a diversity of weapons to handle different situations. I would never switch from 308 to .277 as a civi but there is merit when the army does this. For an army to remain effective they need to keep on trying new equipment/ technology. The whole point of switching to .277 is it is has a little better performance than 308. We have plateau on perfomace with current brass case ammunition design. Hats of to sig on designing a case that can produce more pressures. At least the USA is doing weapon trails during peace time, unlike when they introduced the M-14, M-16, M-27, scar light and heavy.
The next conflict will be fought in the Pacific. Let's revisit what was successful during WW2. Terrain and tactics don't change. Political doctrine and Allies do.
I predicted that this would happen. We got this gun for distances in Afghanistan, but we got out before it could be adopted. Afghanistan is the only place where we see 600-1,000 meter engagements. What we should do is either get one or two more DM’s per platoon, or give more MK12 type rifles out. That way you can have an 800 meter rifle, but still have ammo compatibility with the rest of your platoon.
what you just said is wrong. its because green tip 5.56 wont penetrate modern plates. so they went with a higher power riffle to have a higher possibility of penetration on plates. This is a near peer rifle not a DMR.
@@stevenkent5351 The Army doesn't use green tips any more, they use M855A1, which will smoke a lvl 3 plate no problem. Russia and China are not issuing lvl 4 equivalent body armor to the majority of their troops, they're not even issuing body armor *at all* to most of their troops. Russia has been caught on multiple occasions issuing fake plates to their soldiers.
So many valid points in one video! Really appreciate your content and thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. Please keep up the good work.
Dude this was never about providing the best weapon, it was ultimately about the notion that a medium machine gun and battle rifle in the same chambering will be cheaper, and it’s about buying it from Sig. I’m sure there is some insider dealing going on.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The XM5 is the unwanted bonus prize of the NGSW program. The new .338 MG is meant to replace the .50 and the 6.8 MG is suppose to fuse the M240 and M249 into one lightweight package. Currently they’re fielding three calibers for the infantry; 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal. So the idea is to consolidate the ammunition being fielded amongst the divisions in an attempt to save money and make logistics smoother. The XM5 is basically a fancier AR 10 with a folding stock because “we might as well replace the service rifle while we’re at it”. This is going to be a modest failure in the short term because the full power/hybrid ammo has too much recoil for CQB. Rapid follow up shots will be difficult to manage making this rifle an expensive DMR.
I mostly agree with what you said, except maybe... "Currently they’re fielding three calibers for the infantry; 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal" You forgot 9mm. ;) But to the actual topic, is 50 cal really for the infantry? It is on mounted pllatforms and anti-material rifles only. In that way you can say 25mm on Bradleys is also for infantry. And if including snipers, more than 50 cal you'll find everything from 300WinMag to 338Lapua. And 50cal is unlikely to go away, 338 Norma will be just another one if they will accept it into service. And 5.56 is not going away, they are still going to use M4s as PDWs (foolishly). 9mm is completely useless now that everyone wears body armor... What a mess.
@@PaulVerhoeven2 theoretically the army wont need nearly as much 5.56 or 7.62, because the 6.8 replaces 7.62 and partially replaces 5.56 since the M4's that are being used as PDW's (ideally) wont be used anywhere near as often as the standard issue rifle is. I cant see the 50 cal going anywhere, I think that the new 338 machine gun gives a more portable middle ground between the M2 and the new 6.8/old 7.62 mg. so we might see infantry using the 338, but I think the 50 will still be the ideal vehicle mounted or emplaced mg.
@@izoi24 And anyway, you got 6 calibers instead of 4 used now. And no, 7.62 is not going away either, M250 is not going to be installed on all tanks etc magically. Replacing RELATIVELY cheap 5.56 (even it is not cheap anymore in M855A1) by far more expensive 6.8Sig is going to make winning wars even less possible. We keep losing wars while winning battles because our military fights too expensively. Even the richest country in the world cannot sustain it and has to surrender, be it after 9 years in Vietnam or 20 in Afghanistan, against illiterate goat-fu...herders with rusty AKs for God's sake! Calling air strikes on a guy with a PKM on a hill is a sure way to lose wars. Even using mostly copper bullets in brass casings (M855A1, M80A1) is too wasteful. This is the first thing that should be explained to every grunt, but when they are under fire they would not care a bit anyway. And Military-Industrial Complex profits from it so that is what they lobby for.
It's not a DMR. The plan is to equip EVERY soldier with the M5 (or whatever they are calling it now). Only time will tell whether this is a huge mistake or not.
@Richard Lahan learn to read, obviously it is intended to become the new service rifle, the OP is predicting it will simply end up becoming an expensive DMR. Considering it outperforms our current HK DMRs, I think it's a good assessment
I really question the thought process of the Military command who adopted this. I am unsure whether they are just so disconnected from their soldiers that they don't realize how foolish it is to give everyone an xm5 or if the program was just an excuse to increase the military budget. But hey at least the military will have a nice new DMR and scope to go with it at least.
What I think should have been done is an update to the M4 with a new 556 carbine. ideally in an AR 18 pattern like the M5. They have a lot of advantages, especially if the military wants to issue everyone a suppressor. Then you add squad support weapons and DMRs in 6.8 to every fire team as needed.
Honestly I see this thing being relegated to a DMR after a few years and will probably never see full adoption. The new cartage is interesting and if there is enough infrastructure behind it I see it phasing out current 7.62x51 rifles and MGs. I'm hoping they continue development of the polymer ammo since there are benefits to it and was one of the main points of the entire program. The optic from this program will probably see widespread adoption though, that thing is the future Maybe the tech behind this round could be used to make the case behind 5.56 smaller and lighter as well and that could be used on the actual M4 replacement in 15 years lol
You could feasibly get 22-250 performance out of a 5.56 case if you used Sig's bimetal case tech. Combine that with the 62gr EPR projectile and that's a bullet potentially capable of reliable catastrophic fragmentation past 700m. While retaining all of 5.56's weight and form factor. And at close range it would smoke right through cheaper body armor. Ultimately, 6.8x51 is just another full power rifle cartridge. It's impressive, but not special. A 5.56 round that can leave a grapefruit size fragmentation cavity in your chest at 700m? That's special.
@@carbon8ed i could 100% see the US adopt an upgraded 5.56 for primary rifles. Maybe even a 5.7x28 or similar full adoption for handguns & PDWs. It just makes sense to carry the lightest ammo you can. Volume of fire is crucial.
The French army and SF in Afghanistan had HK 417 rifles as DMR at squad or team (6 men in SF) level, the Gendarmes had G3 (donated by the Bundeswehr when they switched to 5.56 rifles) and 7.62 FN Minimi (Mk 48 made in Belgium), also at squad level.
Spot on, sound logic. 👍🏻🇺🇸 I think Big Army wants this new wonder round for its armor piercing capability as they anticipate our next war(s) they’ll be fighting enemy combatants donning hard plates. But it’s painfully obvious to anyone who understands small-arms and Mil history that the XM-5 is a step backwards in time.
Also, we're not likely to face an enemy wielding hard plates unless that enemy ends up being one of our current allies. Russians are running around Ukraine right now dressed for WW1.
@@AndyAdventuring Russia is no longer the concern. They have been proving that since February 2022. China is the real concern. Even then, China isn't an actual concern militarily. China is, has and will continue to wage war against us through economics and social engineering rather than with bombs and bullets. Something incredible will have to happen before the USA ends up in a near peer or peer 2 peer conflict like the last world war.
@@AndyAdventuring when the XM-5 was announced my honest to allah gut feeling about the new high velocity cartridge is that the .gov wants this capability for domestic usage considering the number of private citizens with body armor.
You were right on the money, sir, with every point, particularly on the TO&E. Also, army platoon’s need to be beefed up to 40 to 50 men to allow for greater incorporation of white motors and machine guns with a larger maneuver base.
Lol. Three line squads - 9 men each. Weapons Squad, two MG teams (3 men each), medic, rto, anti armor, fister, PL, and PSG would be 39 men. I was never in a full strength unit. Ever. Wanting 50 per is a pipe dream. Also have an issue with command and control when you get too many at line level.
@@SonOfTheDawn515 The modern platoon reduced to 16 soldiers is more likely--see SEAL teams. American infantry is rapidly becoming the Mobile Infantry in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."
@@alancranford3398 Green Berets run 12 or less. Specialized teams are specialized teams and their structure isn't necessarily the best especially for conventional wars. I take it you've never served (especially since you went with seals).
@@SonOfTheDawn515 You got that right--27 years in the Marines, Army and in reserve components with very little infantry time, two combat stripes -- and so far in the rear almost all gunfire was from celebrations or weapons qual. Teams are getting smaller due to dispersed operations. The battlefields are getting empty because large concentrations attract artillery, rockets, long-range missiles and even air strikes--in big wars. Small wars are fought on the cheap with minimal investments--that's one reason Special Forces came out. I picked on SEALs because their platoons were 16 men the last time I checked. Remember Henry V's speech about "we few" because full-spectrum warfare is very lethal. World War One witnessed shrinking the maneuver elements from a thousand or more to five and possibly fewer--because of rapidly responding, accurate pre-registered artillery fire. World War Two American "time on target" artillery was more devastating. Then there was the wasteful tactic of carpet bombing--that wasted everything in its path. Smaller combat units widely dispersed don't offer worth-while artillery fire. In "Starship Troopers" a squad would be dispersed with several miles between individuals. Today's "low intensity warfare" puts platoons of nominally 30 soldiers out where the Banana Wars would put a "company" of 60 to 120. Special Forces originally were designed to form the nucleus of a guerrilla battalion with their 12 highly trained and experienced Green Berets, and this was based on WW2 experience with the Maquis and Filippino guerrillas. The proposed Marine Corps rifle squad of 15 Marines looks as if it is designed to operate several miles away from the rest of the platoon--two reasons are limited warm bodies and dispersion required for survival on a full-spectrum battlefield. The 1942 US Army rifle squad was 12 men; going from foot-mobile to vehicle-borne cut into that number, having to work in smaller groups due to WW2 infantry firepower cut into that number, and post WW2 getting enough people to fill out a squad sometimes meant that a Korean War American rifle squad would have as few as six Americans and one or two South Koreans. Special Forces went from one mission (unconventional warfare) to at least five, adding direct action, strategic recon, foreign internal development and counterterrorism. I wasn't inside the SpecOps community, so I don't know the realty, but the A-Team or ODA was designed to divide into two teams, when necessary, with enough redundancy through cross-training to carry out the mission expected of a full A-Team, just not as well. As that dread monster Mission Creep sets in and personnel expenses with limited budgets mean fewer troops, the personnel assigned to "regular leg infantry" will change their mission from the Great War cannon fodder to commando operations specialists supported by robot warriors and long-range munitions strikes. Look at the fallout from the Battle of Mogadishu -- as numbers available shrink, fewer people are put in harm's way. Casualties are no longer acceptable. This is reflected in police work as well. In the eighties overwhelming numbers was the rule for law enforcement response to trouble. There just aren't the numbers of quality cops anymore due to expense. Yes, there are still instances when more than a hundred armed police show up--supporting a SWAT team--but more and more often the first responders will only get a dozen or fewer police on the ground because they're just not as many police on patrol. I've worked in contract security for three decades (had to do something after retiring from the military) and where once a dozen guards would work a mall, now there are half that number. The diminishing numbers are solutions to problems of recruiting, training, and retaining increasingly expensive force professionals. All solutions create new problems.
Bout time someone with experience speak the truth..I've been saying this for 9 months..Stoner was on target..the M4 weapon system is far superior than most people realize......lightweight...effective to 400+ yrds...ez to maintain..reliable..these are facts ppl...
I carried the m16a2 in the gulf. Iron sights and 20" barrel. Had no problem getting into and out of my Hummer. Was trained different in CQB. I would still love to use it.
There is a second issue for the new rifle ie Russian and Chinese body armour. I was not high speed and my war was in Southeast Asia but so many of my experiences were at medium to very short ranges and we were shooting at muzzle flashes or tracers coming from a tree line or through elephant grass. The key was volume of fire more rarely aimed shots. It was the M60’s in the patrol that kept us alive.
First off, Thank you for your service. I tried to explain this to an alleged Marine Gunner on youtube and his pompous attitude kept him from understanding the volume of fire concept. I was specifically arguing the stupid decision of the Marine Corps to get rid of the m249 SAW for the IAR. He made claims about accuracy and some other baloney. I served in Afghanistan as an infantry rifleman (0311).
Exactly - this has nothing to do with fighting the Taliban again and doing better in hilltop-to-hilltop firefights. It has to do with near-peer conflict. Which is why we will inevitably wind up fighting some version or other of the Taliban again in a future near-peer proxy war. Good news is, those M4s will still be sleeping in their Cosmoline.
@@Lifechanging99999 if he was arguing against the M249 then I doubt he is in the infantry. Every grunts I spoke with thought that the decision to throw the SAW away was stupid. The idea of " every riflemans are an AR " is stupid consider that in the recent conflict we've been in. Never did we go outside the wire with full strength, it was always squad with half of their strength instead of standard 12 man USMC rifle squad or 9 man of the Army. Putting that in perspective I doubt a 7 man armed with only M27 IAR would farewell against a similar size Squad but have with them 2 belt-fed LMG. Why do the top brass always have to be so disconnect with reality when experienced in WW2 with the BAR vs MG42 or early stage of Vietnam when a Squad only has M16 & M79 vs RPD armed VC proved contrary to that retarded idea of an 30 rds rifle can replace a belt-fed MG, it like these senior officer never opened a history book in the 1st place
If you put any stock in the Wehrmacht squad concept in which everybody just supported a GPMG, it doesn't matter what the rest of the guys carry, aside from belts of ammo. One thing that hasn't changed is the significance of the machine guns.
@@Lifechanging99999 Did they get rid of it? The most recent info I can find states that they're still being issued and that the M27 replacing the 249 was just a backdoor procurement method to replace the M16/M4. I don't have firsthand experience and there's no to&e floating around so I don't know either way for sure.
I think the army wasn’t thinking about the performance of the rifle for the tests as much as we think that was the deciding factor, they more liked the logistics of it, ie. They get a lighter replacement for the 240 and get rid of the 249 and in one cartridge and platform. They wanted to consolidate all the platforms but it’s like fitting a round peg into a square hole and one size fits all doesn’t do anything very well. Ie you get a lighter medium machine gun but you lose a lighter individual service rifle in the process. I think they just want to stop making two cartridges and have only one in the inventory for most combat use cases.
I think you’re right, but that never seems to work out in the end. The last time armies had their LMGs and rifles firing the same cartridge, they also used pistol caliber submachine guns too. Today we use the M4 and you can call it a carbine or a submachine gun, it does both roles.
This could have been done with something like 6.5 Grendel or 6.5x40. These can deliver similar amount of energy to 7.62x51 at range while still being intermediate rounds.
I’m a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry and I was a GS-14 at HQDA. If you’re expecting a good decision to ever come out of HQDA, don’t hold your breath. I would be happy to elaborate.
I haven’t actually served in the military but your videos help me to understand the history and what equipment the military use which is really interesting.
You definitely hit some key points Jeff, your knowledge is awesome and humbling, and I appreciate your opinions and reasoning, along with factual information.
I completely agree with his statements. The XM5 and New LMG could be used to supplement each squad (2-XM-250 LMGs and 2-XM5s) but not replace the standard infantryman’s M4s. What are these Army Generals smoking?! Our tax dollars wasted down the drain! I hope they come to their senses, and quickly!
I think reorganizing the weapon layout of the platoon and squad is probably the correct way to address the problem. This is what happens when you start looking at the problem from holistic perspective and don't get gear focused. We've gotten too gear focused.
From what I remember from the articles describing the development of 6.8 spec was hard target penetration, lethality are extended ranges 300-600 yds, increased lethality with shorter barrels, a ballistic trajectory that matched 5.56 with a minimum penalty of weight and recoil. It achieved this in a package that only required bolt and barrel change, but if you want a full 30 rd mag it did require a redesigned lower and mag. LWRC sells that rifle and mag
The critics of the new round keep forgetting to mention the #1 concern of the US Army is an armor-wearing enemy. That is the driving force behind the bigger caliber. Reminds me exactly of the whining critics of the Marines switching to the M27. Belly-aching and blabbering about everything but "forgetting" to whine about WHY the Marines wanted that configuration. Right now all the Russian forces in Ukraine should be equipped with plate carriers and kevlar helmets. Thanks to rampant corruption in the Russian army there is close to zero genuine armor, but a lot of phony garbage that stops nothing. The Russians curled up in their holes are well aware of their fake body armor and fake "kevlar" helmets,..while drones drop explosives on them at will. If they did have genuine body armor and helmets they'd make a more effective force, or at least one that survives without being shredded by shrapnel of all kinds. There's loads of videos on the net showing fake body armor, fake armor helmets, fake add-on armor on vehicles. The whiners also forget the next probably near-peer army in Beijing has been itching for war and getting bolder by the month. Thanks to Ukraine they're closely noting what needs changing before launching their invasion of Taiwan and/or neighbors. The CCP/PLA is as thoroughly corrupt as the Russian government and military, its like they are carbon copies of official corruption to the finest details. Chy-na has also been investing in body armor and kevlar helmets. Be interesting to find out if their stuff has been faked. Its well known they don't get training and the officers steal fuel, tires, everything like crazy. The big exception is the CCP has been psyching up their people to invade not just Taiwan but all the neighboring countries. The Chinese are as crooked as the Russians but they're not totally stupid and they will avoid the countless clumsy mistakes Putin & Thugs have made.
Also, There is the "2008' Roberts Report" . IMHO- The .270 (6.8 SPC) has at least 40% more energy more than the .223 used today. I think he is advocating "Spray & Pray"?
An explosive weapon such as a mortar is a far better way to defeat hard armor plates by damaging around it. Upping the rifles to extreme penetration degrades their utility in other ways and the adversary can issue new plates more easily than our forces can switch primary rifles. Should focus on issuing more mortars and keep the rifles at modest weight and modest recoil with good long range performance. I would go with a 6.5 round as long as a Creedmoor but slightly skinnier for slightly more magazine capacity in reasonable length magazines.
You are absolutely right. I've never met a weapon system I didn't like, but the XM5 6.8 is a big waste of money. Money that could have been used to replace old worn weapons with new ones and provide a lot more range time per soldier. High pressure = high temp and will cause problems with heat/metallic fouling during sustained fire. I think the M110 with 6.5CM upper would make a better DMR. Like an updated BAR in 6.5x55mm ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bwrpKFKcbrk.html. The 6.8 140gr to 150gr at 3000fps is not very different from a 7mm Rem. Mag. in terms of recoil and pressure/heating. Fine for one cold shot at big game but if you are banging away at enemies on a battlefield the recoil and barrel heat are going to dramatically reduce your effectiveness in short order.
Idk why your so fixated on weight being 13lbs supposedly when you said your 5.56 you had weighd 11 lbs. I mean tiny difference when your literally stepping up to an ar10 size platform. And were talking about with the accessories. The gun being a little over 8lbs with nothing on it is pretty good. Seems the issue is the 90 additional heavy accessories put on it. And theirs 25rd ar10 mags commonly available from lancer and magpul, so mag capacity not that big an issue, if we were to go with 6.8spc, 6.5 gtendel, or 6mm arc they would all have 25rd mags too because of round geometry and feed reliability. So that argument is out the window. Only one true is ammo weight being more, which is expected, again ar10 sized round meant for a medium action, would never be in realm of a short action cartridge.
Why don’t they take a look at the 6.8 SPC & combine it with the steel/brass hybrid case. That’s gotta be an good improvement with little downside! Why did the SPC fail & would the hybrid case be good enough to replace the 556 in 10.3, 11.5, 12.5, 14.5, 16in rifles?
Because SPC was a mess. If you're going to be using the hybrid case tech you're going to be beefing up the lugs which means you might throw OAL requirements out the window and start a new 6.8 from scratch since you're not bound to the 5.56 magazine anymore. SPC failed because *two times* chamber drawings were submitted to SAAMI with mistakes and a number of 6.8 SPC barrels were cut with chambers that caused overpressure and 6.8 SPC II did not fix completely. So few manuacturers loaded true 6.8 SPC loads as everyone else was conscious about blown up guns. Several alternative chambers were developed to give back SPC the intended performance but it was too little, too late.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD plus we have no idea what barrel life looks like when feeding a steady diet of ammo loaded to around 80,000psi. I'm guessing they would just give every gun a quick detach barrel and send the tax payers the bill.
Here's another major reason why I don't think itll be generally issued. Women. I have already seen several women in the army incapable of charging and handling the M4, no way they could use the xm5.
In the future it would be cool to see a video on the history / efforts to switch to 6.8-SPC-2. From what I’ve read it seemed like an overall positive, given goals / reasons for which it was developed, also it seems that in an AR based weapon (or weapons from the SCAR program like XCR-L) would be a happy “middle-ground” between the XM5 and the latest SOF-AR (URGI).....lastly I don’t understand how the armor-pen couldn’t be accomplished with tungsten penetrators and less power than XM5 like was originally proposed / developed for the 6.8-SPC-2, given the ranges you discussed in this video.
Not sure rounds that can penetrate lvl 4 and better armor are cost effective, even in 6.8x51. Tungsten is very expensive and mostly in China. However, I too suspect a significantly lighter rifle with an intermediate cartridge like 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel but keeping the XM157 fire control system would be a better choice.
Tungsten ammo (ie SLAP) is a one-trick pony. All it does is punch through the target and keep going. It won't knock down the target by transferring kinetic energy to it. We learned that back in Somalia in '93.
@@vicnighthorse exactly, just convert the AR's to Grendel or something similar and you get more ammo and amazing ballistics. Make the ammo with the new polymer or bimetal cases if you want and you've saved more weight. Penetrating body armor doesn't matter if your recoil is manageable and you can make quick follow up shots. Chances are you'll it something important.
I’m not talking about SLAP rounds, just a tungsten penetrator like the tip of M855A1.....the 6.8X55 lower pressure ammo only has a hardened steel penetrator, which kneecaps its performance, and requires the power it has to be as effective as less mass / velocity with tungsten.
I’m not against 6.5-G it’s just that 6.8-SPC uses a straight wall case that helps with reliability in AR-platform, and it outperforms 6.5-G in barrels under 16” (so if they were sticking with the m4’s 14.5” barrel, and maxing capability 0-300m (like the m4’s original intent / doctrine) then I’d favor 6.8mm....if barrels grew to 16” for general purpose and the extended range was imperative, then 6.5-G would be the way to go.....with modern tech, both could be cartridges could be improved, and probably a happy medium struck between them if the development $$$$$ was there to back a “ground-up” protect like that......many people have tried to do this with 6.5X40, 6.5 PCC, 6.5 TCU, and several other wildcat rounds I can’t remember, so there’s still some wiggle room left for optimization.
I don't understand why I see a lot of RU-vid reviews comparing the Sig XM5/XM7 to CQBs like the M4 platform. Sig did not design the XM7 for CQB - they have the Rattler for that. XM7 is designed more like a DMR (Designated Marksman Riffle), where it shines at the mid-range of somewhere around 300 to 600 meters. And not to mention that the Sig Fury cartridge is supposed to be able to penetrate class III ballistic armor (Class IV if it's made in China :) ). Its true that you can suppress the enemy with whatever riffle you have until the Warthogs and the Apaches arrive, but reinforcement could take hours to get to you. But if you have a riffle that can shoot further than the enemies', you could a least keep them at a distance until the 1st Cavalry arrives.
The speculation I've been hearing is because they want a round that will penetrate Chinese body armor with ease and still take out the enemy soldier. People said the Russian armor is just cardboard, I don't think that is an accurate assessment.
Use the steel backer tech from the .277 Fury and build a new 5.56 with even higher pressures. It'll shoot even flatter and give you some more unf at range.
M855A1 already has insane high pressures now and wears out the M4 50% faster and destroys feed ramps. You cant go any higher in pressures for 5.56. Hence why they went with the 6.8
@@zack9912000 If sig can build a rifle that can handle an 80k PSI 6.8x51 cartridge, they can build a rifle that can handle an 80k psi 5.56 cartridge. You absolutely can go higher with 5.56, the problem is the M4 was never built to handle thousands of rounds of what is essentially a proof round in terms of pressure.
@@zack9912000 You're correct. You wouldn't be able to use a steel backed high pressure 5.56 round in a current 5.56-chambered gun. You'd need something beefed up. Which is why I think the Spear LT will come out with a gen 2 relatively quickly.
I think the M5 is going to be a DMR rifle if anything. The army should find ways to apply the 6.8 hybrid case technology to 5.56 to make 5.56 that much better. the M855A1 is an amazing round.
Or take a look at ~6.5mm intermediate rounds. There was one called 6.5x40 which allowed use in automatic belt-fed weapons (unlike say Grendel) and delivered as much energy as 7.62x51 at distance. Edit: This would make polymer casings easier to implement since round wouldn't be as powerful as 6.8x51. Secondly, this would simplify logistics if rifle round would have 6.5 caliber bullet as well.
I used to think the same thing but they can just apply it to the current 5.56 because that would only greatly increase the speed of the round and when you approach 4000 fps the barrels wear out extremely fast. Too much heat and friction from the speed.
I'm half expecting to see the Army drop a PR release announcing that it has approved the MCX LT in 5.56, without any trials, on the basis that "its the same rifle as the XM7, so we dont need to test it" and I can easily imagine having just one XM7 per squad (with the XM157 optic used to assist the squad leader in directing fires) along with two M250's with everybody else getting MCX LT's, including the grenadiers. But who knows how things turn out. They could just as easily cancel the whole damn thing.
It's not 13 pounds, it's 8.3lb. That compares to 10.7 pounds for the M14 and 11.3 pounds for the M1 Garand, so it's not the heaviest service rifle. The 13 pound measurement is a measure of the rifle and 9 extra magazines.
It seems I will be correct in that this rifle is failing already, Army Times article...... www.armytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/28/the-not-really-next-generation-weapons-program/
@@ModernTacticalShooting Have you had any experience with the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm) cartridge? It would seem like an upgraded upper receiver with an easy barrel-change system between 5.56 NATO to 6.8SPC for close engagements vs. more open terrain would be ideal to retain existing M4/M16 lower receivers (and training/familiarity). Would the 6.8SPC bridge the gap between the 5.56 NATO and full-power 6.8x51mm SIG? In the end it's all politics, right?
6.8 SPC would help I’m certain applications vs 5.56, but fail at others. It’s not a revolutionary jump like the 6.8x51 claimed to be. No system right now delivers first round hits against level 4 plates without tungsten. That was supposed to be the huge reason we got the NGSW going.
Yep. Made no sense anyway. Way back when we forced NATO to accept the 308 then change to 5.56. Now we expect NATO to change to a round that is ballistically similar to what they wanted originally? Yeah, I know some will argue that point but it is ballistically similar. Change the name and add a wee bit more propellant then angels start singing. “ There’s nothing new under the sun.”
They could have just fielded a gas piston 5.56 upper like the hk416 with the hybrid case tech sig brought out to increase pressures and effectiveness of the 5.56. They would have gotten more range and more power that way but used the same bullets already produced in just a different case. Then they would have just need to beef up the bolt and sent out new uppers and still could have fielded the new vortex optic calibrated for such. This would have kept the weight down and kept the round count up. Or they could have just done 300 blackout for urban fighting/conflicts and 6mm arc for open engagements and would have saved us all a lot of money!
I thought the xm7/.277 was really intended to give the army more options when faced with sophisticated opponents with state of the art body armor. We know the army will have to keep the m4 kit due to its great modularity and of course they’re paid for!
The ironic part about Our Gracious Host saying "What do I know? I'm just a retired SF guy." is that this rifle and its verkakte bi-metal 80k-PSI cartridge is the result of relentless lobbying by retired Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales based on his experiences as an artilleryman in Viet Nam.
Your 26 years of Infantry and SF combat experience make you a subject matter expert. POGs in Washington always like shiny new toys to spend our money on. And thank you for fighting for our country🇺🇸.
When I was in the Army in NZ, we had recently replaced the C9 Minimi with the larger 7.62 x 51mm version. After some teething problems, it has settled in nicely. Never heard it called the Maximi, or the Mk48, tho, but I believe we were the first customer, so no names or Mk numbers were known. We just called it the LMG.
@@davidbuck5864 You can google both the FN Maximi or MK48, if you like. ;) Back in 1990, during my army days, it was my base weapon. I noticed it could be 'single shot fired' if you had a decent trigger reflex to let go. seeing the accuracy, range, I figured, to alter it a tad ... and placed a scope onto it. Now, when using a 200 round ammo box, I had a 200 round sniper rifle. And used it as such. The first time they saw me with the scope attached, they laughed ... Until I took out target after target at 800 meters. That was my moment to laugh ... .
I agree. The XM5 seems tailor made for Afghanistan. With the "light", 5.56 version of the XM5, they should employ the same case tech and get the 5.56 up to crazy velocities.
That’s what I thought all along. Why not make the 556 round capable of 80K PSI pressures. The M855A1 at 80K PSI would defeat ALL body armor and have a longer ranger with none of the downsides of the larger calibers. The only issue would be barrel life but with Sigs MCX Spear design the whole point is to change barrels and calibers quickly to match the mission. I just don’t understand their thinking.
Sig did recently release the new Spear Lt in 5.56. Do you think it would make more sense of maybe adopting the MCX platform without the need for the 6.8 caliber ?
@@ES-je3em it seems many teams are testing out MCXs in 5.56 and liking it better than the 416 (not sure why, probably not having to deal with stubborn H&K ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). The trend seems to be going to short barreled and suppressed rifles with high tables of full auto, so a short stroke piston system is desirable.
That 6.8 at 80,000 PSI has to be a barrel burner. On the Tactical Rifleman channel he did a episode with the guy who developed a lot of the rifles for SOCOM. He showed a picture of an HK416 chambered ins 6.8spc. Why didn't they just continue to develop that gun??
Not being a professional in the army I will defer to your experience. However we've had the same debate with almost every generation of small arms adoption going back post Civil War. We went to the trapdoor Springfield because those are the times wanted power and the economy of rebarrowing existing weapons. The 30-40 Krag. Everyone was getting a bolt action, so we decided to give troops one. Turned out to be a bad choice. The 1903 Springfield. We decided we wanted something as good as the Mauser 98. The M1 Garand. The whole debate there versus small calibers versus the traditional bolt gun went on for years. I think the M16 system is due for replacement. Is this the right replacement? Hard to say.
Maybe someone here can answer, but as someone with no real knowledge on ammo or the intricacies of weapon making, why not make a 5.56 hybrid ammo and beef up the m4/AR platform to take higher pressures? It wouldnt have the same ballistics as the 6.8, but I imagine it would still increase range/energy on impact at farther distances. You'd be able to carry the same weight in ammo as you do now, and the weapon would only be a little bit heavier than it is now, while being smaller than the xm5. The downside, other than not having the same ballistics as the 6.8, would be not everyone having the same ammo, so it wouldn't help much logistics wise. But at the same time, you'd be able to use all the stock piles of 5.56 still
They could have made a true armor piercing 5.55 round beyond M855A1 and the old black tip..but Army still thinks sizes matters most. Id argue bullet weight, Velocity and shape can be balanced for optimum performance in 5.56 or even smaller 5.45.
Very much enjoy your perspectives on things like this. What you're saying makes a ton of sense. It's wild how often concepts circle back around like a brand new solution.
It's like they have to relearn the lesson that made them drop the M-14 and .308 and go with 556. They don't have to go with a full power cartridge there are many great intermediate rounds these days if they wanna get away from 556. Edit: that's what I get for commenting then watching. You covered the M-14 to M-16 timeline.
The Swedish Army kept a few G3 7.62mm rifles, upgraded to marksman capabilities around, when moving to a 5.56mm system. A mech squad would keep a few of them with them in their vehicle, making it possible for certain squad members, to temporarily "upgrade" to longer range, as the need arises. Will all infantry be mechanized and have a vehicle available for storage always. No. But I feel a dual setup, depending on circumstances is not a bad solution. The firearm itself is not the most expensive weapon system of the squad, so its not really cost argument against that setup. Sweden´s new main assault rifle will move (back) to 7.62mm. Probably for the same reason as USA is upgrading to 6.8mm. (To defeat the non-existing ratnik body armours?). Whereas a new 5.56mm system will be used as a sort of PDW for non-frontline troops (instead of what used to be 9mm submachine-guns). My suspicion is that many frontline troops will going to want some lighter 5.56mm systems with them, exactly for the sort of situations described in the video, long range foot patrols, assault and urban operations, etc. I suspect the SigXM5 might go the way of the M14, or be more of a specialist role weapon.
@ 18:40 : the mortar thing with SF teams is also similar to the French. The French have, for decades, run small ("knee") mortars for their infantry; they also have rifle grenades that can be shot from the standard rifle (FAMAS), which are considerably longer ranged and have a larger warhead than the 40mm U.S. grenade. Combined with the prevalence of battle rifles with scope (FR2) for the attached sharpshooters that Mr. Gerwitch highlighted, and the excellent AA52 MG, the French system really did/does seem superior to the U.S. infantry platoon setup.
Great points throughout. That bad boy is gonna be real heavy after 2-3 days outside the wire, especially with a full combat load of the full power rounds that were part of the contract for this puppy (that none very few if any of the influencers are demo’ing). After Russia’s weak display of military ability and surprisingly inferior equipment compared to what they were believed to possess, I no longer think they were the primary driver for the contract and development of this firearm. Maaaaaybe it’s for a near peer war against a certain aggressively communist country in Asia, but as soon as Americans all started buying level iii and iv plates, it seems like the Army put out a contract almost immediately for a new service rifle to defeat said plates. Not a conspiracy theorist, but have been hearing this same opinion on several mainstream 2A channels lately and it isn’t the most outrageous thing to imagine anymore. Either way-I think it’s a cool gun and I 100% want to pick one up one day when they’re in stock everywhere and not exorbitantly priced anymore! Love US military history and I’m sure this gun will be a big part of our country’s history whether loved or hated (TBD whether it’s remembered as the next M14 or the next M16 LOL). Thanks for always putting out videos that make us think! Your experience and insight on things like this is super interesting.
It's definitely not lighter than 6.8 SPC. It's about 21 grams and 7.62 NATO is something like 24 grams. It's similar enough in mass that a light .308 load will be lighter and a heavy .277 load would be heavier. It is nearly twice the weight of 5.56, the design isn't actually lightened in any way. The True Velocity and Textron ammunition types were light for their size, .277 Sig Fury is only light for its performance. 100 rounds of 6.8 in the top-of-my-head (21 grams) numbers for cartridge mass is 4.6lbs 100 rounds of 7.62 NATO (24grams) 5.3lbs 210 rounds of 5.56 (12 grams/cartridge) 5.5lbs 210 rounds of 6.8 (21 grams again) 9.7lbs None of this includes magazines, and 210 rounds wouldn't make sense in 20 round mags so you'd either have to round up or down. 10lbs or 10 rounds less than 5.56?
The M4 was heavy enough humping those @&#*% mountains in Afghanistan. I was just a regular Grunt. Seems like the immediate answer is tweaking the 5.56 to suite the realistic threat, example 77 OTM for unarmored threats. Anyway, maybe see what the 5.56 can do with the .277 Fury cartridge technology (and up barrel life to sustain 10k or more rds.). Along with, shoot some sort of AP capable of defeating Lv4 plates at 100-300m/y while turning meat in to jello.
The movie "Outpost" had an interesting scene, where Clint Romesha played by Scott Eastwood had to grab a Dragunov/NDM/SVD DMR to reach longer distances at the enemy, their M4's were useless in that scenario.
The thing is the army also solved the range problem with the new round. The m855a1 fired from m4 is capable of similar ranges as dragunov. Though it wasn't available for heaviest fighting in Afghanistan.
6.8 will probably end up replacing 7.62 instead, its considerably lighter, has more energy and better BC. The same bullet tech will be applied to 5.56, using a heavier round with the same velocity because of the bi metal casing(which is also lighter than all brass). They will probably also take a shot at redesigning the bullet for 5.56 to give it a better BC as well with a shorter casing to allow for a longer bullet. You have then solved all of the issues, giving soldiers overmatch AND lighter weight. Look for the SPEAR LT to be the rifle that actually gets adopted. Short stroke gas piston is where its at. The Marine Corps got it right with the M27 IAR
I also predict it won't go past the first few dozen in a combination of XM7 and XM250 being delivered for operational testing during 2024. Too costly, too heavy even with reduced basic load, with reliability and durability problems under adverse field conditions in mud, dusty mud, frozen dusty mud, and frozen, sandy, dusty mud. The logistics of maintaining ammo resupply with increased weight is combined with complexity of having to provide more calibers of small arms carved up for delivery of different calibers to different units. The U.S. Army only plans on deploying the XM7 and XM250 to line infantry, combat medics and combat engineers. Everyone else keeps the M16A2 and M4A1. Imagine a brigade now with sorting out who gets the 6.8mm and who gets the 5.56mm, and keeping it sorted out. Logistical nightmare.
Excellent points! The XM5 (like the SIG M17) seems like a cash grab to me. The DoD always has money to spend, so companies come up with the next "big thing" to get paid.
@@3wolfsdown702 what's that got to do with my post ? The new lmg is good. The new optic is good. The new rifle is bad. Where did I say anything about hunting ? What does hunting and the .223 chambering have to do with the NGSW program ?
For commonality of training and the modularity of it, I like the idea of the MCX LT being the infantry rifle and the XM5/7 as a DMR. That way you'll have all of the rifles with the same controls/similar parts, and it's very modular for swapping barrels/suppressing if the army wants to go that direction. I still like the idea of 6.8spc as well as 6.5 ARC as an infantry caliber. I think you're right on solving overmatch problems with DMRs and MGs rather than trying to swap out all of the rifles and carbines, and that means they'll likely never get rid of the M4. I think as more comes out from the Marines' use of the HK rifle, likely the Army will want to transition to that for the infantry over something like the XM5/7.
The few Sig MCX rifles students have brought to my courses, Ive seen nothing but issues. Can Sig make good designs? Yes...But their quality control suffers.
@Modern Tactical Shooting that's unfortunate, I've had good luck with mine, but I've not taken it to a course. Hopefully they get their stuff together if they actually do put these rifles in the hands of the infantry guys, or fix it quick if they mess up like the M17/18
Love the videos keep them coming, I especially love the armor and sopmod videos! You can learn alot from history as evidenced by your input in this video
I thought the thought-process behind the M7 was to provide greater effective range, but more so for defeating modern body armor? Additionally, it also lessens the calibers of ammo that have to he distributed to line units by providing riflemen and machine gunners with the same ammo.
This could be an excellent dmr weapon. However, to issue this to everyone in front line service in favor of m4s is probably too much too fast. In close urban or wooded environments where your likely to make enemy contact, you need manuverablity and high volume of fire. 5.56 is going to be very deadly even against body armor at extremely close range.
