Whether you're a hunter, outdoor enthusiast, military professional, or law enforcement officer, Armasight’s Night Vision and Thermal Imaging gear offers durability, reliability, and top performance you can trust. Check out the full line at: armasight.com/
Haha, I like their 3,5x Vulcan NVG scope in Tarkov. I made a montage of kills using it and other odd scopes in a video on my channel, its almost the last one called "SCOPES". Also, a funny coincidence today I finished my 14 kills SAG AK + Thermal challenge and the last kill finishing this challenge was against a guy that looted (I think from Cultists on Shoreline) the gun from your video - 6,8mm SIg Sauer....... I posted a video from this challenge like 2 hours ago. This SAG 5.45 AK is a civlian semi-auto AK, I found they dont make AKs but just a chasis kit that is a M.LOK handguard + railed receiver combined together haha, in game it very low recoil and a great ergo, with silencer and thermal it still had 64 So when ur video popped up 40 mins ago I just finished my Peacekeeper 3 tasks to get the FMJ ammo, I'm going to use that Sig Sauer with Thermal now as kind of a Marksmanship rifle, mostly using semi-auto and I'm going to get one 25-round magazine
M855 was 51k+ PSI. M855A1 is over 61k PSI. The SP version of the 6.8x51 is an Uber-magnum. Which begs the question: what kind of lining are they using on the barrel?
Unfortunately the US military machine has mostly been short sighted when it comes to new hardware that doesn’t always get to there troops until it’s too late. I hope that the regulars are outfitted with the new gear sooner than later, especially not having to wait until the early 2030’s. Just my two cents.
@@crusaderman4043 Yes, but at unacceptable costs: monetary cost, weight of gun, size & weight of ammo, recoil. The army could just equip all soldiers with 7.62 NATO rifles & ammo with the new optics at a much lower price.
You're ignoring the key advantages the XM7 is bringing. One of the main issues with the M4 and its 5.56 round is that it struggles against body armor and cover at longer ranges. The XM7 fixes this issue and then some. Yes it is heavier and carries less ammo, but this is a necessary loss to gain the ability to overcome near-pear threats that make heavy use of body armor.
"I need a heavier rifle capable of laying down better suppressive fire and with better stopping power" said every infantryman ever stfu and re-enlist or keep it pushing normie.
@Micah-y3n he was the one that inspired me to get into engineering lmao. We live near a lake and one time he was on the beach, just staring at the sky at night. I stopped by to ask what was up, and he told me he was using the NoDs he was issued in Mosul to stargaze. Absolute baller
People are frustrating... -Complaining that the M16 was heavy is nuts. - Hey not only is this rifle too heavy it's too long. - Ok it's lighter & we took 6-8 inches off the barrel.... - Hey this thing isn't dropping targets at distance! - Ok here's a Ox of a rifle with a bigger bullet. - This thing is heavy and it doesn't hold as much ammo! Here's to going in circles....again.
It depends on the use case. And in most Cassie’s more shots is better than bigger shots (because bigger shots usually come from something that is rolling or flying anyway).
Basically. They just want back to the M1 Garand / M-14 battle rifle approach.They could have at least have done it in a way that takes into account new wisdom, not just repeat the old regular rifle big bullet model. They could have used a newer style of bullet, such as 6.5CM, that outperforms the 308 in range and power while having substantially less recoil, closer to 5.56, and maybe put that in a bullpup, so you have something relatively compact for CQC but that still has a 16" barrell and can develop large velocities and range.
@@zelenisokHave you seen the rifle that general dynamics made for this project, the RM277? Garand thumb has a video on it and its pretty similar to what you're describing
The Roman shield weighs 20 lb and is carried on the left hand while the Romans wore 40 lb of body armor. A long pike weighs about 13 lb and is held near the end making it forward heavy. A decked out M1 rifle weighs 11lb. Time to hit the gym.
@@orlock20True, but put a modern military against the Romans and they'd wipe the floor with em. You have a point that it's not so heavy it can't be carried, but there are other factors to consider, like how fatigued a troop is after a long day of marching with the weapon. You also have to be much more precise with a gun, if your shield is slanted at 3°, that's nothing, but if your gun is 3° off target, you are inaccurate. Basically, it'd be easier to operate a 20lb shield with no support than to aim a 20lb rifle with no support.
The positives: +Higher penetration The negatives: -Heavier -Fewer rounds in the mag and carried -Harder to maintain -No allied soldier can hand you spare ammo -Ammo costs are 20x higher The grunts are going to hate it. Although they won't care about the monetary costs.
I only met very very few soldiers and civs that "like" it. I did not see much praise at all besides the penetration. Thats not really a shining star upgrade when you got 12.7mm and 20mm out there usually as well. Also I held one, its heavier for very little to no benefit, have fun clearing corners with that chunky shit lol. Not a fan of the profile either.
You can add a bit more positives to the XM-7 like longer reach, body armor and light vehicle armor busting capability but that was it... Not a big advancement at all. Maybe a good choice for desert and open field battle but not in a city which also includes CQB operations.
Hence why the M1 carbine was more effective and used in WWII than the garand. Oh, no, troops were actively told not to use the thing because it was not great(tm) at penetration and stopping power.
@@fraleo2192 One dif/concern is that your FAL was a "clean" weight. Modern weapons are frequently quoted for weight as if scopes, lights, lasers, or other furniture are not going to be attached. There are some comments here that 14lbs will be the LOW end for the Spear.
As a soldier in the 101st on the ground with these weapons I can say the attitude towards the xm7 is NOT a positive one . Most people agree that it should be in an SDMR position . The 250 however is a welcome change , love it
It’s almost like the weight isn’t a concern to people who don’t have to actually carry it ….. I can tell you I’ve never hear anyone say the increase in weight is “negligible”
Former Navy public affairs officer here - TLDR, this is 100% NOT what soldiers *really* think of the XM7. Officially released troop “feedback,” quotes given to “Stars & Stripes,” these are all carefully managed by DOD PAOs (public affairs officers). It’s called “command information,” aka, propaganda. Info produced for public release won’t contain factual errors…but it (generally) will also *never* include negative criticism.
@@dead-claudia sure. My point is, & I state this with true respect for all our servicemembers, officially released “feedback” from active duty isn’t a credible source. That’s not the fault of the soldiers; that’s just PAOs doing their job. It’d be like calling a tobacco PR rep’s answer about cigarette health affects “facts.”
@@firefighter1c57 theres a reason not every soldier is equipped like a marksman, more ammo wins gunfights, always. if you need bigger boom, call in the firesupport.
@@svenrio8521 It's hard to disagree with that, but you should also consider the effect of lobbyists lining pockets one way or another. That heads it towards the corruption side. Either way it's got to get fixed.
As a SAW gunner in Afghanistan, I would have loved to have had the XM250. This definitely seems more like a DMR than a gun to give to everyone. Losing basically three mags of ammo and lowered CQB seems like a losing proposition. Maybe the increased accuracy and efficiency of the optic makes up for it, but in my experience sending a high volume of lead down range denies the enemy the ability to maneuver or fire effectively is what wins firefights.
@giftzwerg7345 unfortunately it doesn't work like, you would still only be able to use the same rates of fire. The advantage is in logistics as 2 nature's of ammunition are effectively replaced with one, however the machine gun being belt fed kind of still means that it is two. The likely scenario in a war is that the machine guns link would be broken down to provide enough ammunition for the rifles during ammunition shortages, due to the rifle being better for ammunition preservation.
I don't know how they managed to pick the few guys who actually like it. My 2 buddies I went to osut with in 506 say the gun is comically heavy and you can only carry like 140 rounds. They said the optic is dope as hell though
"The 6,8 mm round would be better for plunking thru those walls" ~ meaning walls made of cinder blocks. Building construction in Europe (I live in The Netherlands) is different but we don't use cinder blocks, we use reinforced concrete. And that's a whole different ball game. The walls of my apartment are made of 18 cm (7+ inch) reinforced concrete and there is no way the 6,8 mm would punch thru that, not even a penetrator.
The XM7 is the modern version of the M14. We want a bigger bullet. But will ultimately find it too bulky for most use cases. So it goes into a support role.
But who really wants a bigger bullet? Usually soldiers want MORE bullets. And 5.56 is pretty good for conscripts and other less “infantry whooa!” Types of soldiers. They are easy to handle and hit something with even with less training. Sure, soldiers doing lots of shooting can do well with a bigger caliber but generally not the bulk of the army.
What they are not telling you is how much they love the new optic... I am not joking when I say this, I have seen the tests and demonstrations, that new optic makes shooting that rifle almost like a video game. It's almost like playing Battlefield 4, you can "tag" multiple targets and it remembers the location, distance, wind speed and direction so all you have to do is point the crosshair directly at the target and it does the rest for you, BAM rounds on target at range. Again, I am not making this up, that optic is that good, it has a built in laser rangefinder, and atmospheric monitor built into it.
Forgetting about the batteries that will go dead as soon as you need them...Does a Laser Range Finder emit something that could be detected by an opposing force? Giving that force a bearing and range? A bunch of Privates with lasers...Sounds like a GREAT IDEA.
20rd mags instead of 30 is a huge deal too. A bog complaint with the M14 and early M16 was the small 20rd mags while the VC got AK's with 30's. Wonder what those soldiers would think about the Army going back to huge 20rd mags again.
@@theflyingfish66its crazy how fast militaries can forget, like, one of the key lessons of Viet Nam: volume of fire usually wins, because most people are too scared sh*tless to do any of the other things that could win a gun fight.
@@grogdizzy5814 i guess its the same as with most other rifles. If you git the dronw its going down, i think most Rifle calibers would probably do that
The weight isn't an issue, until it turns out that overland speed and range reduce for the footsoldier carrying the thing in combat conditions. You can't gym your way out of physics.
Yeah, anyone who says weight isn't an issue has never had to carry 120lb+ for weeks on end. Every gram counts, especially when your life is on the line. It'd be excusable if they weren't trying to make every soldier a marksmen for no reason, we operate with combined arms specifically so your average grunt doesn't need to engage a technical with his rifle half a mile away.
@@Xynth25 This most likely be a 50-year rifle. 50 years was the difference between the bi-plane in service and the F-15 in service. We don't know where drone and robot technology will be going in 50 years. Those rifles might be going against T-800s for all we know.
I was wondering what the regular soldier will use to zero and qualify with,which is still a big issue in the army. Lots of soldiers don't shoot very well,most have trouble zeroing and qualifying with the M-4.I'm speaking from experience,did 7 yrs in the army and volunteered to go on 4 deployments to go fight in Iraq with Texas Guard infantry units ( also did 2 tours back-to back ) boy,was I-CRAZY-I look back now and wonder what was I thinking ??? LOL. Or smoking ??? LOL.
XM-7 be used as a DMR and same 6.8 round in the light machine gun? Develop smaller round for standard infantry? I mean isn't that what we have now? i.e. 5.56 and .308.
@@Keithustus That's true,but,what happens if soldiers ( there's a reason things in the army are called soldier proof ) break the optics or it malfunctions ??? I'd have soldiers shoot with optics,then shoot using iron sights.
It's easy to impress someone with a new range toy. Living 99.92% of your infantryman life not firing your gun...the extra 4 lbs. in your arms will get old really quick. "living" with your gun is a big component of a common infantry weapon. Carrying it, stashing it, getting in/out of vehicles, cleaning it, maintaining it, etc. Almost more important than any other aspect of your basic infantry weapon. I think this weapon and it's insane optic will be fine for special units, but will never make it into the hands of your average grunt (fortunately). Direct action elements, and special sauce boys will probably appreciate it's capabilities.
Not to mention we operate with combined arms specifically so your average grunt doesn't need to engage targets half a mile out with his rifle. Looking forward to command slowly admitting they didn't actually test this with anyone who knows what they're talking about and delay until everyone forgets... again.
Having to present the weapon on-target quickly equals living vs dying. This is a major step away from a good weapon in that regard, as all the weight is forward due to that stupid gas piston system and weak folding stock.
@@warbuzzard7167 no, smaller fast ships definitely. Your brain jumps to warship and that's silly but there are plenty of smaller vessels where it could be in crazy efficient
@@warbuzzard7167nice logic bro. Cause Russia is gonna be using revell model ships in their navy. Of course we’re talking about smaller boats. Not full fledged warships
@@kyledabearsfan My first thought was 'swift boat'. I am quite surprised that someone might actually think 'Mighty Mo'.😄 Love the 'Battleship' movie, btw.
Not yet , negative feedback will start to leak here and there , then it’ll reach even the friendly outlets eventually , by then it’ll be safe to assume the brass has already decided to cancel the program
When we are talking about "punching through steel" keep in mind 3 things, 1) the type of steel (is it a high RHC or something akin to armored steel with a hardness of 450-600) 2) the type or "composition" of 5.56 or 6.8, meaning what type of 6.8 is being used compared to the 5.56 (M995) that would likely penetrate that amount of steel 3) what barrel length was being used to fire that projectile=what speed the projectile was moving when it penetrated that amount of steel
It's mild steel. If it's steel at all and not a very soft iron alloy. Targets aren't made of hardened steel, ricochets would cause safety problems. This AP round will not go through any armored vehicle, not even close. It's a gigantic scam, 15 bucks a round is going to make some people who are already rich even richer. And the grunts will have a heavier rifle with less ammo when all statistics show you need on average a very large amount of rounds fired to achieve a kill. The M4 is plenty accurate by the way, it's not the rifle that causes that hit to miss ratio. Most fire is suppressive fire and when you only have 20 rounds and fewer mags keeping suppressive fire on a target is going to be a problem.
Yeah, saying something "punches through steel" is like saying "it flies". Paper airplanes fly, and so does the most advanced aircraft in the world, but at *very* different degrees. Overall just seems like a downgrade IMO, heavier, less overall rounds per soldier, smaller magazine so we get a bit more range and pen despite operating with combined arms so your average grunt doesn't need to take out technicals with his rifle lol.
soldier A: "didn't notice the double weight" soldier B: "when you picked it up you immediately noticed the extra weight of it" also, soldiers never speak badly of the military when press is around........
Everyone also have differing opinions. They aren't a hivemind. But yes, military press is always going to be praise. Only time will tell if it's the right decision. I'm personally cautiously optimistic but I understand the concerns.
I imagine in terms of having it around all day, the increase in weight wasn't considered a deal-breaker. But when actually having to handle it in CQB, the weight did make it sluggish. I'd always heard the opposite, that the rifles ideally would weigh nothing for carrying around all day, cuz a long patrol with a 10lb gun sucks; but in combat a little extra weight was suddenly worthwhile if it gave you a firepower benefit. It would be one thing if it was only slightly heavier than an M-16 and still had a 26-30 round mag. But it's basically just like saying "do you want to ditch the M4 and issue the AR-10?"
@@scottwatrous I'm a combat vet, weight matters. Try carrying a combat load for 10+hrs every day, and then having to fight an ambush when you are exhausted. Adrenaline helps, but all grunts end up with physical injuries for life. Never has a grunt asked for More weight. No amount of weight lifting will protect you from injuries due to carrying excessive weight. Doubling the weight of a rifle is Huge. And we did change our weapons overseas to reduce weight. Many guys stopped running all sorts of issued accessories as they deemed the weight not worth it. The XM7 is like carrying a SAW or 2x M4 rifles at once. And for added capabilities most guys don't need, or lack the skill to use. Most guys can't hit 300m with an M4. And most engagements occurred inside 200m where the M4 has Significant advantage over the XM7 (speed, weight, maneuverability, rate of fire, controllability, mag capacity, total ammo capacity....). And the US remains one of the only countries on earth that uses body armor. No enemy we've faced issues body armor. And body armor doesn't cover the vast majority of teh body such as the pelvis, gut, and head.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I can already tell you from years of combat experience, including being interviewed by the press, that this is a mistake. I'm also a mechanical engineer and military historian. tons of issues with the XM7 becoming the standard issue rifle. I would chose an M4 or M16 over the XM7 any day. I'd even pick an M110 over the XM7 in a heartbeat. Been there, done that, and used a variety of weapons. The only thing the XM7 has that I'd be interested in is the optic, which is not a part of the XM7, and can be mounted on literally any rifle.
Personally, I think they would be better if they went to each rifle squad and upgraded them with 1-2 XM7s for designated marksmen and one of the machine gunners with an XM250. I know it would add a logistical burden, but >90% of engagements are won by the quantity of lead, not the quality of the round. It would add the additional capability without majorly sacrificing the squads ammunition capacity.
The army probably wants soldiers to kill faster with fewer shots. Because the more lead you fire down range, the more sound and light you generate. Sound will make you an target for any enemy artillery that can hear you. Light will get you killed by drones at night. The marines are so worried about sound that they're starting to issue suppressors across the board.
This. I think quantity of bullets per soldier is vastly underestimated. Ukrainian soldiers usually surrender because they run out of bullets, not because they couldn’t penetrate Russian airsoft quality vests.
Yep, also ignores that in generall soldiers shoot okay, not amazingly. The amount of time and training it takes to get someone from "okay" to "great" in order to actually use this rifle to the full extent will never happen. Also we sorta operate with combined arms specifically so your average grunt doesn't need to engage targets half a mile out with his rifle lol.
$15.00 a round for now.. If the M7 and the M250 are accepted into production then economies of scale kick in. Also the US wouldn't need to manufacture both 5.56 and 7.62 anymore further simplifying logistics as you would only need 1 big bin of 1 ammo size instead of 2 smaller bins of 2 different sizes.
"So it is better because it is bigger and more powerful than a 556?" said the 7.62x51, and 30/06 interjects, back in my day sonny, we went through full trees to show our stuff...
@@andrewreynolds4949 It would have higher penetration, yes, but not as much energy. A 30.06 Springfield, what the M1 Garand used, comes in 3,800 to 4,100 joules of energy with a 7.62 mm bullet that was FMJ copper with a lead core. The hybrid rounds for AP the Spear is firing have only 3,650 joules of energy according to the manufacturer's specs. If that is what the Army's ammo is at, we don't know. It could be heavier and/or faster, so more energy than that. It having a special composition tom make it penetrate better, mainly something really dense and hard, like, say, a tungsten rod or tip, or some other technology in the round, is where it really performs well. The round penetrating body armor and killing the target wearing it is another thing it does better. A pine or other soft wood tree the 30.06 would go through better. A hardwood tree, like oak or a tropical hardwood would likely favor the Spear's rounds. But they aren't killing treas with this. The US uses Napalm for that anyway...
@@andrewreynolds4949The 308 runs at 55kpsi. The 277 runs at 80kpsi. If you construct a 308 with the steel case head and jack it up to the same pressure, there's no real advantage to the 277. Apples to apples.
@@CR67 and then redesign every 308 platform from the ground up so the rifle doesn't just shit itself after a magazine from the massively increased chamber pressure
If the Rifle Platoon gets this, I would keep the M4 for Squad Leader, RTO's, Medic, Ammo Bearers in Weapon Squad. Comparable to the role of the M1/M2 carbine from the 40's to the 60's.
I agree but the whole point of this rifle and the XM250 was to get everyone on the same caliber, including machine gunners who previously would've had a M240 in 7.62. One caliber that rules them all so to speak. So it has the same energy as a 7.62, with weight and recoil somewhere in the middle of 5.56 and 7.62, so you get the best of both worlds. This comes with a lot of compromise though as does anything
Ok, usual thing that happens when Squaddies get a new bit of kit is that they manage to break it 20 mins later in ways the designers couldnt have imagined...
They went with the 5.56 specifically because it doesn't over penetrate, they wanted the round to dump all it's energy into it's target and not continue through and hit a potential non-combatant, the fact that the Army is pushing for these now tells me they're preparing for operations outside of the urban settings we've been in the past few decades. I'm sure they'll keep the M4 around specifically for urban ops, but it sounds to me like they're serious about being ready for a real military opponent.
I'm part of the over 50 crowd and I don't have any war stories to share, but I do have some personal anecdotes. After I retired to rural Montana I decided I needed a bigger thumper to deal with any predators that got too close to my home, family, pets, or livestock. Over the course of a couple of years I engaged wolves, coyotes, and cougars at ranges from under 20 meters to over 100 meters with a scope mounted FAL in 7.62 NATO. The result of these encounters was apparently all misses. The FAL proved too awkward to swing and engage at close range, plus the scope made it difficult to judge where to aim. Even when using the scope at 100m meters on coyotes, I was missing them by a wide margin as they ran. My takeaway from this was a need for a light handy iron-sighted carbine, so I returned to using the AR15. While not ideal bear medicine (I have other long guns for them), the AR remains king of CQB and out to 250 meters without a need for any sight change or fancy optics.
@@donaldmartin4980 No, I checked it for accuracy afterwards and nothing had shifted. It's simply an awkward rifle to maneuver quickly and easily. This is equally true of the AR10, G3, M1, and M14. From a well supported rest they perform well. Offhand or from an unstable support they are trickier to handle than an AR15.
@@Paladin1873 Just looking at what your application of this weapon was ….have you ever considered a short barrel lever action carbine in .357 magnum?.. 125 grain loads get 2,100 to 2250 fps great for self defense and coyotes, 158 grain for deer, 180 grain for hogs or black bear. Not to mention .38 special for small problems ….they handle fast, virtually no recoil, hit hard, nine in the tube another nine on a butt cuff…and it all weighs about 5.5 pounds. I have a Rossi M 92, 16 inch barrel .357 magnum…..it gets used about 90 percent of the time around my place. They need a little clean up of rough edges and set of skinner sights but they are a pretty awesome little tool in my humble opinion.
@@donaldmartin4980 Yes, I keep a Rossi 16" Model 92 handy that is loaded with 180 grain Bear loads. I often take it with me when I walk the dog. I also have a Rossi Rio Grande in 45/70, but it is simply too large and unwieldy when compared to the 92.
It's way heavier and carries less ammo, I'm willing to bet the general consensus among grunts is that it's not that great. Stars and stripes isn't an unbiased source lol
I have 12 relatives in Ukraine fighting on the frontline. NONE of them said they would trade the ability to carry more ammo for a rifle that weighs more, even if it is more precise and has more stopping power. Russian body armor is mostly garbage and they say even the 5.56 given to them from the west usually kills the russians with armor... also noting, in their experience, only about 30% of the Russian soldiers they find dead even have actual body armor equipped (most are just given a carrier, with no actual plates inside). They say asking them to cut their ammo supply down by 40% or more would be a death sentence, since a vast majority of gunfighting in Ukraine by infantry is suppressive in nature, NOT on-target aimed shots. Less ammo means less ability to suppress enemies, which to my cousins, they say is far more important than having a more precise / harder hitting rifle in the few times they can actually SEE the soldier they are shooting at.
If there's anything to learn from the russo-ukrainian war - firearms are rarely even used, and when they are - it happens at such a distance where caliber and ballistics barely matter. Also, an average grunt is already carrying way too much stuff and specialists like LMG gunners are expiriencing constant back issues. I'd rather carry a portable jammer that may protect me from drones than a chunk of a rifle I'm not even sure I'm gonna use.
@@ОлегКорнійчук-е1х This is the experience of my cousins and uncles fighting in Ukraine. Most (all in fact) have killed Russian soldiers, but they say 9 times out of 10, it was with blind suppressive fire at range, not precision shots. Both sides exchange a constant barrage of bullets, the winner is usually the one with a better position and more ammo. Ukrainians carry about 50% more ammo (100%+ more if the Russian is a prisoner conscript, they usually only have 1 or 2 mags on them) per infantryman than the average Russian soldier does. None of them said they would ever trade more ammo for a more precise / harder hitting rifle. The reality of war is very different from expectation of war. Everyone thinks they're going to have clean lines of sight from a safe position aiming at an enemy soldier. In reality, you CAN'T see your enemy 90% of the time due to concealment, range and constant suppression / flying dirt etc. So both sides just suppress one another, with random blind-fired bullets doing most of the small-arms killing in infantry combat. But the bulk of actual kills comes from which side can call in drone support, artillery or utilize mortar strikes to kill the other side first. Speaking to one of my cousins, he says he's killed far more Russians with lobbed grenades than he has with his rifle. "I suppress the enemy position with my rifle while we get closer... then we kill them with grenades. We usually never even see them, ever. We just find their bodies afterwards."
The complaints I have heard so far: - This gun was made for a war that is already over (Afghanistan) where engagement ranges were beyond that of the M4 - This is an unwieldly gun for urban combat and CQB - This gun is heavy, enjoy carrying on 20 mile ruck marches. - 40% less ammo is no bueno - Not using NATO standard rounds means no compatibility with allies - Why not just give everyone a SCAR-H I am no longer in the Service so I am curious to see how the platform ultimately performs in the field
This is more about Sig becoming the Boeing of the firearms world. They are deep in that government pocket now and need to justify more purchases/money/investment.
Based on historical precedent (Rhodesia and vietnam), it'll perform well in the jungle. Its basically an expensive FAL that's easier to fire full auto. And 7.62 FAL's are adored in the jungle because they can blast through cover that'll stop weaker rounds. That's why half the military's in south America still use the FAL.
@6:40. It sounds like this rifle is more fitted as a Designated Marksman’s (DM) rifle, instead of an every infantrymen rifle. Because of the increased weight, decreased ammo capacity, different round than normal military units and the rounds ability to reach out and seriously touch someone.
I get the feeling they are gearing more toward a UMG focused squad again. And you want ammo commonality. The machine guns are far more important in large set piece battles. This whole thing feels like a throwback to the logic of sticking with 7.62 after ww2.
Yep, heavier, smaller magazine, less rounds overall, etc. Just seems like a massive downgrade when your individual soldier isn't meant to be a marksmen, there's a reason we operate with volume of fire and combined arms, specifically so your average grunt doesn't need to take out a technical half a mile away with his rifle. Well, at least some politicians will make bank on their investments right?
@@Stealth86651with the optic/technology it seems like the military is pivoting towards attempting to make every infantryman a marksman. Not sure it will work out look Iike planned
When I was in the US Army, we had m16's. In about 2004, this was too long and slowed down soldiers being transported via HMMWV. I would like to own my own XM7. For protection of my residence of course, I have nothing to compensate for!
I remember seeing that Sig had a 9” barreled version of this weapon, so I wonder if that’s something they’ll move forward with. It seems like that would be a lot easier to maneuver around with in CQB environments.
So, ‘I have nothing to compensate for,” could be interpreted two ways. 1. Whatever you have requires no compensation OR 2. You literally have nothing so compensation is unnecessary. The second interpretation is probably the more precise use of language.
I instructed in rifle marksmanship, for US Army under contract, and LE. With a higher recoiling rifle shoulder placement, sling, and forearm grip all become more critical. This can be overcome with a serious amount of training. But even with optics it's doubtful that engagements will be farther than 200 meters away. On a battlefield that isn't a desert, just farmland in middle US, you cant see 800 meters. Too many things in the way and they wont be on a Known distance range. With targets moving at angles and with less than 10 seconds to engage wil it hit? Doubtful. Even with new optic I would be very surprised at even 500 meters that a target that doesn't want to be hit , would be.
Not to mention at those ranges you shouldn’t be shooting and giving away your position, you should be calling in support assets like call for fire, CAS, tanks, or Bradley’s.
Should Pin this msg. Also I do believe it was the best of the worse. The caseless gun was a no go and no confidence in the ergo design and others and seems dirty(familiar problem?), The bullpup was sweet and great ammo, but we won't go with an bulpup are we, it just, beyond any technical, psychologically just is bad plus culturally doesn't fit. The army really wanted the XM250 and it was sweet and they came in a package. TBH, select backtroop can have the bullpup and in select situation. Also i thought they could have mixed up the gun and ammo to use TVelocity ammo. Perhaps and hoping in the future.
@@danwilliams5867 I think the point isn't to be lethal at 500 meters but to have effective suppression. Part of the reason the Marines got rid of their machine guns is they found that well-aimed shots were just as effective at suppression as spraying bullets from an inaccurate machine gun. And if you have some idea of the equipment your adversary is working with, you improve your ability to maneuver with the additional standoff range because they can't effectively return fire.
Cappy said something interesting that I'd never really considered. If his point about the chamber pressure of the spicy round is about the same as being 3 miles deep, that means those poor bastards in the Oceansgate sub got to feel what it's like inside the chamber of an XM7
Yeah, I will believe them AFTER they have gone on long patrols, firefights and carrying that load all day every day! Also, doubt they would say anything bad about them, this was clearly a very controlled environment!
Yep...as I mentioned in my own response, 99.92% of the time an infantry is just carrying his gun...or cleaning it...or moving in and out of vehicles with it. In essence "living" with it. Shooting a gun prone at a range is not anything like living with it day-to-day. Taking it to the sh_t-shed in your shorts while at a FOB, etc.
I'd take this rifle hands down. The stopping power is something that I want and I would carry extra weight for. I mean come on, not that it's a good thing, but the weights we carry just keep going up and up. I'd still take it.
Hotshot Lasguns, capable of taking out the fabled Power Armored Space Marine, requires a power pack in the back and is mostly reserved for more elite and specialized units. The humble and regular flashlight is of course less powerful but doesn’t require a large backpack to power the thing. That and regular guardsman most prominent opponents lore wise are equivalent to them despite the popularity and constant glazing of the Space Marines by GW and the rest of the Warhammer 40K community.
@edwademberpants2552 No, canonically the most common enemy by far for the Imperial Guard are rebels and cultists. These usually use stubbers and mesh armor. Flak armor is immune to stubbers short of a heavy or hand cannon and mesh armor is useless against a lasgun. The vast majority of aliens are likewise much less advanced than the Guard. Meaning the average Guardsman is a nearly unstoppable juggernaut to the vast majority of his enemies.
Even if they say the weight isn’t as big of a deal as most people think (which I find highly unlikely, since EVERY bit of extra weight affects the soldier’s ability to fight)-they’re still carrying less ammunition than whatever the enemy is going to have. And thus run out of bullets MORE QUICKLY. Not to mention, they’re still going to need to fight in close quarters combat against enemies with 30-round magazines.
Isn’t it designed to try to out-range the enemy? If it does, that would compensate. And the ammo amount isn’t all that different from a normal magazine before. It isn’t everything for a gun, either. Not by a long shot.
So? tghe US army really runs out of bullets and if they do they just broke out of a bubble which how I envision this weaponsystem being use is death star tactics put your disvsion here make a FOB and now you denied the enemy a sector... THE US ARMY NEVER HAD IT THIS GOOD!
I heard guys in Ukraine say that In an ideal situation you have 9 to 11 mags. One in the gun 8 on a chestrig and two on the sides (very specific chestrig to be fair).
@@mecampbell30 Yea, good point. The M27 IAR is same weight as the XM7. So I actually believe when soldiers say (even those that didn't go through the military press release) you notice the weight but quickly get used to it. Length wise, the XM7 is in the middle of a fully extended IAR and full retracted stock IAR. And definitely still shorter than the M16, but longer than the M4. The main difference with the M27 IAR is that the IAR is similarly balanced as the M4. XM7 is more front heavy which is why people think it'll be worse in CQB. I heard rumors that Sig will try to address some of these with better cuts to shift the weight around. But those are internet rumors. Either way, it's still in field trials so things might change for the better in this regard. So, I think the concerns about weight and length is a bit overstated. People are just used to the older M4 but both weight and length isn't that unreasonable relative to the M16 and M27 IAR. the comparison with the M14 is poor because the M14 is even HEAVIER and LONGER than the XM7. M14 also was far harder to control when fully auto. Everyone who fired it I've seen say the XM7 is very controllable despite the extra power. Lastly, and where I do personally have concerns for is the reduced ammo count from 30 per mag to 20. There's also 25 round magazine available which I think might mitigate some of the issues, but of course that means extra weight. I never seen a infantrymen say they ever have enough ammo. That said, there's a bit too much doom posting on the whole M7 rifle. There was a lot of doom posting on the M250 too saying how "it's better than the M249 but M249 was just bad, th XM250 isn't a good gun either." but once people got to shoot it, tat all went away. Same with the Vortex NGSW optic. People talked about the weight of the optic (despite its replacing MULTIPLE systems not just the previous optic) but once people got to try it out, everyone is saying how they love it.
My biggest worry is the change in tactics for suppressing fire and drawn out engagements. The decrease in ammo and increase in fatigue is going to have huge effects on the battlefield. Body armor or not, nobody wants to be hit by a bullet. Just because 5.56 wont outright kill someone with plates, doesn't mean it has physical and huge psychological effects. The extra ammo means you can afford to suppress your enemy continue to maneuver. It wont be the same with the new weapon. People are going to have to relearn everything.
thing is, bigger bullets you know can rip through your body armor coming from from 800m away will have a much worse psychological impact than ammo you know your body armor can take coming from 200m away. light ammo from 200m away you have a chance of surviving, and you'd likely be able to see where it came from. heavy ammo from 800m away renders your body armor useless, and you'd never be able to find where it came from. it takes fewer shots to effectively pin, which is kinda the point of suppressive fire.
even if the 5.56mm won't outright kill the torso-armoured enemy, that doesn't mean his unarmoured limbs might not get hit and get wounded and this might be an even worse capability loss, since he is just wounded, the squad would have to expend another guy to carry him back
@@dead-claudia I don't know anyone who has been shot at that has ever felt invincible in the moment, usually the opposite. The psychological effect of getting shot at is the same, especially since the enemy sure as hell isn't thinking in the moment what kind of new gun the enemy is shooting you with. If anything, the part they care about most is the rate of fire, accuracy, and how much ammo they have. Two things the XM7 loses to the M4 in.
Do not care, not in the slightest. Hell, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a positive. I really, really don’t want to see what will happen to civilians hit by these rounds, and that’s what’s going to happen if everyone and their dog starts buying XM-7s.
The truth is it’s a total POS. That’s from retired JSOC guys who are dealing with it back for big Army as contact officers managing acquisitions. Their words, “This thing is a total abortion.” Guys from within PEO said major subcontractors are pulling out because they can’t get the systems to work, and don’t want their brand name associated with failure. Notice that Ranger Regiment, SF, and JSOC are avoiding this POS like the plague.
Those criticisms are why I personally felt they should have gone with 6mm ARC. It provides near .308 performance out of a standard M4 size rifle, minimal loss of overall round count, and minimal increase in ammo weight. Aside from the machine gun variant I suspect the M7 will be a dud similar to the M14. We will see though.
yeah, M7 gives harder punch and further range but cost in larger recoil, weight and ammo capacity, and not saying common soldiers doesn't need to shoot further than 400m which makes it is unecessary, but M250 was a good choice to replace m249, as it has harder punch and further range, but only cost in minimal ammo capacity, it has lighter weight, and recoil is not that matter cuz machine gun always has help from bipod and M250 has specific recoil reducing mechanic
@@pandatanoao9384 thing is, the M7 comes down to the 250. It's really only there to compliment the 250. Most of a squad's firepower comes from the LMG. And for logistics purposes, the riflemen need to use the same round. Don't get why people can't figure this out
LOL, the 6MM ARC is nowhere close to the 308 in combat performance and even further away from the new 6.8. I'm no M7 or 6.8 fan but suggesting the 6MM ARC is a viable option is just silly. The 6MM needs a nice long barrel to reach it's advertised performance numbers, run it through a 16" barrel like the military uses and it's small margin over the old 5.56 starts to diminish. It's a neat cartridge for poking holes in paper at long range and maybe taking small game at short range but that's about it.
Here in Brazil we carry the 10 Pound FAL every day and we are half the size of the Americans, not to mention the capabilities that you gain with this new rifle. It's worth it.
Respectfully, Sgt, you aren't humping that thing around foreign countries. I don't know what your total combat load looks like, but my kit with the lighter M16A2 was over 75 lbs. Adding another 7 lbs on top of that, while also restricting me to half of the ammo load, sounds foolish.
@@0num4 I'm not sure how much weight we carry, because we are in a weird phase of changing kits, where everybody brings their own kit. But the Brazilian standard is the pasgt kit with alice gear below the vest, PARAFAL with four 20 mags and Beretta pistol. Very old school. I'm not saying the XM7 is better in a combat situation (my reality is periodic urban operations that don't surpass 24h), but what I meant was that the XM7 is pretty bearable in a normal situation. I suppose it's a good rifle for designated marksman activities in the reality of us army.
Lug a 20lb Roman shield around in your left hand while wearing 40 lb of body armor or carry a 13lb pike around. It's just a tad heavier than the decked out M1 weighing 11lb.
Mission is fucked if you have rug for 3 days. Still less ammunition and more expensive ammunition could be cause for concern. Despite longer Engagement ranges
There have been multiple videos by service members that say that the new rifle and new round makes zero sense for basic infantry, since the doctrine is designed around suppressive and overwhelming fire for cover. Doing that with 20 rounds is pretty hard and you carry 100 less rounds. It would probably be cheaper to simply give every infantryman green tip 556. Not only that, the rifle is 4b heavier, and the ammo carried would weigh another 2 pounds more. That is 4.5lb more weight for basic infantry. The 6.8 is not going to go through a BTR, that has to be some disillusion joke. 10mm of BTR armor at an angle quickly becomes 15mm or more. 7.62 nato does not go through BTRs today, even with armor piercing lmfao. Again, pure delusion. Lets not even mention that the xm7 recoils more and has more muzzle rise, even with a suppressor. The best way to go about this, is to give this rifle only to certain units and task forces, but now you introduce logistics issues with different mags and ammo. Yay. We brought back every issue that we solved last time.
Why not change the doctrine? I mean - yes, suppression and fire superiortiy are important. That's what we (Germans) use our machine guns for. We almost never use our rifles as machine guns tho. "Slay 'em, don't spray 'em!"
As a former 11B . . . bigger, hotter round, heavier weapon, less ammo, more expensive. Sounds like a winner to me. Actually the new sight seems to be the real improvement.
What were the generals supposed to do when they got a report that the Russians possibly are working on body armor that could defeat 7.62 NATO AP? It's not like the Russians ever exaggerated their capabilities! You might think the sensible course of action would be to replace the 7.62 NATO platforms in the squad while retaining the M4, and that Russians dying every day in Ukraine to far weaker rounds are proof that maybe the whole squad doesn't need a marksman rifle on steroids, but that's why those generals get paid far more than you did.
I’m gunna be honest. I think it’s more likely the vehicles they’re thinking about would be Chinese amphibious vehicles, which is what would be used in Taiwan.
The AP capabilities of the 6.8mm will only be a little higher than the 7.62 NATO round. Basically higher sectional density and velocity. All they have to do is add a tiny bit more armor
@@Nathan-jh1ho the ap capabilities are unknown as is the actual bullets material composition. Obviously they could add more armor but there’s only so much you. Can add before your amphibious vehicle is no longer amphibious or slow enough to be a very easy target. Amphibious vehicles have to play by different rules then normal 100% ground based vehicles.
I think the key to understanding the intent with the XM7/XM250 is to get out of the COD/Battlefield/Airsoft/CQB-assault-course mentality, and instead look at it within a more classical infantry warfare framework: In that framework, the job of infantry units encountering other infantry units isn't actually to gun them down, it's to suppress/pin them (if they have effective cover) or push them back (if they don't have cover or if the cover can be penetrated at that range), with any casualties just being bonus. Opposing infantry units are supposed to be neutralized by artillery and/or air (and/or drone, now?) strikes once they've been pinned and their location called in. At that point, the deciding factor in infantry-on-infantry engagements is each unit's effective range, which is an emergent property of both the unit's accuracy and the range at which a hit will still be potentially lethal (which can be affected by the target's armoring), leavened by volume of fire. From what I've read/heard, M4s seem to have an accurate range around 400 yards, and the current Army standard 5.56 can penetrate plate body armor but only at significantly shorter ranges than that. From requirements docs, it sounds like the target that Army strategists are going for with NGSW is an effective range of 600 yards through a combination of accuracy (hence the scope) and power (hence the round), including against body armor equipped targets. Theoretically, if your peer infantry opponent was equipped with something more along the lines of 5.56 (like, say, 5.8x42) with the corresponding 400 yard effective range (not even factoring in body armor), and the NGSW weapons really can hit an effective range of 600+, that could mean that Army infantry units could keep peer infantry pinned/suppressed at 200 yards past their own effective range, meaning your troops probably wouldn't even have to worry about stray shots hitting unarmored spots. I would presume that within this framework, room-to-room house breaching is what you have SOCOM guys with their custom ordered .300blk PDWs for, and clearing bunkers is what you have grenades and AT4s for (notably, there's a new XM919 shoulder launched munition being introduced with what they're calling "behind the wall" effects), or else an M10 Booker rolls in and makes it go away.
Eh. Thats all well and good until the enemy enters an apartment building that your ROE won’t let you destroy, so you have to clear it room by room, block by block. With a longer, heavier weapon indoors.
Yeah there’s valid points on all sides of the argument. In theory there wouldn’t be close quarters room clearing in the next war. Buildings would be flattened. Bulldozed, and bombed. These aren’t for raids, it’s not for counter insurgency . Like you said , soldiers need to get out of COD mentality to see what they’re going for. Not sure if it’ll work tho
Funny how the 5.56 was adopted so that troops could carry more ammunition (as the side with more ammo typically wins) but now less ammo is thought to be better
Regarding shooting through concrete. In Europe, there are clay? bricks, porous concrete and solid reinforced concrete - all circa 20 to 30 cm (little under 8 to little under 12 inches) deep. I doubt the bullet goes through solid concrete. But I could be mistaken.
The Chinese are equipping their soldiers with body armor equal to American soldier's body armor. Hell, American body armor is probably made in China. Yeah right, its all about the concrete.
Yeah, cinder blocks are much weaker than the brick and reinforced concrete that European homes are constructed. Cinder block buildings are more what you encounter in 3rd world towns and sub-urbs.
They don't. You can see footage from the balkan wars where DShK rounds are failing to go through commie block apartment building walls. That's a .50 (12.7 actually, similar ballistics) failing to penetrate. A puny 6.8 will do absolutely nothing. This is a scam. 15 bucks a round? It's obvious why they are pushing it as hard as they do....
In all shooting tests in the U.S. (both military and RU-vid) we like to shoot basic, unfilled concrete bricks and exclaim how much penetrating power they have. It looks good on camera.
jup buildings build after 1960 are mostly made out of somethign with a hollow core or very porous material, cement is like 2,4g/cm³ (is used mostly only for cellars and ceilings) where building walls are between 0,3 and 1,2g/cm³. the newer the building the less it is.
@@Spaatz77 if talking about M855A1, it just cost about 0.6 dollar per round in 2012, maybe it could be less now, means 1 6.8 round you could buy more than 20 M855A1
As an infantryman in the 30th Armored Brigade who went on orders to get early experience on the weapon before the rest of the unit, I can say that there are a few common comments from our guys missed in this video: 1) The XM250 is lighter than the M249 that it's replacing, which is nice. However, the $14000 scope is mounted on the feed tray cover, and apparently shifts when swinging it open and closed. This was heavily emphasized and we heard that it did reach the manufacturers, so, hope that will be changed before full fielding. 2) The scope is almost more impressive than the weapon. Both are impressive, but the scope's powered and unpowered abilities enhance capabilities for long-ranged engagements significantly. The powered capabilities are highly technical, and hold menus to customize an almost HUD-like digital sight picture. The ballistic solver that calculates where you need to aim to hit some 900m> target is insane. The ability to make points inside the scope will be great for sectors of fire, and there are many empty spaces for future modules to be added for different missions. 3) The M4 charging handle is still there on the XM7, but an additional charging handle is on the left side of the weapon, meaning you can actually charge the weapon in your workspace and without taking your dominant hand off the trigger. Everything else is covered excellently in this video
Sure, but what's funny is everyone likes to cite Ukraine and trench warfare as an example, yet in urban areas, cqb is often left to their special forces.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 But Rember only shock troops fight CQB rutialy in an assault troop dioes they've won already. Which in trench warfare range and supresstion is king which the m7 has 3x more then the m4.
New CQB tactics will instruct the team, not to enter the room, but to go line abreast in the hall outside it. They will then shoot through the wall until it doesn’t exist. Then they will enter the room and inspect it. Rinse and repeat. Could get tricky for load bearing walls so one civil engineer will be attached to each team.
Everyone in WW1 wanted to avoid trench warfare too. Conditions on the battle field, technology and your enemy all get a say in how you have to fight. Also the rifle has a frost bite problems that the m4 doesn't in the arctic.
The big factor with WW1 was that communications and transport technology hadn’t reached the point where mobile warfare was possible, as commanders would be completely in the dark once an engagement started because there were no portable radios and telephone lines would get ripped up by artillery fire, while soldiers could and would outrun their logistics and their artillery cover, and artillery had to operate off of preset plans, without knowing if they’re having the right effect. Nowadays, America is banking on being able to rely on airpower to prevent the sort of deadlock that’s going on in Ukraine, as neither side there has truly established air superiority. That could be a bit of a gamble, but that’s what they treat as a winning formula.
@jason200912 it gives soldiers blebs(stage before frostbite) through their insulated gloves, specifically their support hand. The M4, M249 and M240 do not have this problem
@@beibotanov This is why I have MLOK covers on all my rifles and why I have started to prefer plastic grips on my pistols Picking up cold metal SUUUUUUUUUCKS (I'm sure hot metal sucks just as much but I don't experience that as much as cold). The aluminum is great for the accuracy (now my barrel is free floated) but terrible for comfort.
Just 4 lb heavier - does the new sight include an IR aiming laser? Visible laser for zeroing? MILES compatible laser for training? White light for urban searches when we next do COIN? Forward vertical grip because SOF have them? Decent sling with QR hardware? 4lb is going to become 8lb in a heartbeat.
I mean the xm 25 was scrapped because explosive bullets are a war crime. And the size and weight of its round are within ‘explosive bullet’ category rather than a propelled grenade.
I mean, the Rangers couldn't get enough of it during actual combat. But then someone checked some rules again and realized "Hold up... We accidentally created a warcrime... How do we get rid of this thing?..."
tbf the xm-25 wasn't scrapped bc infantry hated it. it was scrapped bc the explosive rounds it shot were (barely) small enough to count as exploding bullets, and direct hits with those goes against the geneva convention.
I'm not ex-military or particularly knowledgeable about this stuff, but it seems to me that a huge determining factor on whether the rifle will be a success or failure depends on the kind of future combat that takes place. If future combat takes place across longer ranges, with enemies in body armor, maybe the extra weight of the rifle no longer matters. You won't really know this until the next conflict actually happens.
"at longer ranges, with enemies in body armor" sure, but at a certain point snipers & artillery become the dominant threats every infantryman with this rifle only makes sense against light arms engaging across large open distances with no support (afghanistan)
Like the M16/M4 was ever designed for anything other than infantry. We’ve had 50 BMG in service for 106 years on light armor. $15 a round for this M7 behemoth is insane. Pure stupidity.
Really can't stress enough the importance of the "system." We tend to fixate on the rifles when it's really going to be the SAW that does most of the work. And that XM250 is a mean fuckin' SAW.
it's the weak point of the System actually. Only they didn't realise it yet. Because the US amy can't get over the fact that the belt fed weapon is a CREW SERVED WEAPON. In their concept the MG gunner must carry the gun, ammo and all needed for it to work. So the XM250 doesn't have a quick exchange barrel, because the 400 rounds max the gunner can carry are not enough to require it. And it has not an attachment for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod. Unfortunately, while any GPMG can provide accurate fire at over 1km distance from a tripod, no GPMG or SAW can hit anything at 800m without it, because the burst is too disperse. So the XM250 is a way to be outranged always, and outgunned in short time.
Interesting point on not being able to get on target as quickly as with the M4. Usually with weight concerns my first and only though would be weighing the soldiers down and increasing fatigue, not actual combat efficiency
Sure, but those come hand-in-hand. On a long deployment, or a lengthy firefight...stuff gets progressively heavier. I don't mind admitting that even an 8 lb. (fully loaded/equipped) gun wears me out over an all-day shooting course. By the end of the day, it feels like it's 14 lbs, lol.
@@charleslennonbakergood training costs time and training facilities. And continuous effort. You can’t make every military air defense software specialist into an infantry monster. And if you spent the money you save with the old caliber for more training… results with the old caliber might already be better.
@@HuskyOwner-bl1jfsure but you also need that anti IR coat with you soon, probably a drone remote control, that new EW gun, a tablet for your digital map to swiftly call in precise artillery fire, that new IR scope weighs a little more, and and and… Every gram more needs to be worth it.
Forcing a country like Russia, who is already seeing its military stock of light armored vehicles become severely depleted, to rethink their light armored vehicles would definitely be a pro gamer move for the US.
What would change though? Russia uses the vehicles it has anyways. Not the ones they want like T14 armata or T15. Russia doesn’t care what the enemy has but how many guys of their own they can send for the next meat wave. And to stop infinite meat waves of zombies in airsoft gear you don’t need super penetration but simply lots of shots.
@@TheOpethOfMastodon Because these weapons will not be deployed against Russia unless you're giving them to the Ukranian army. And that will not happen because Trump will be President again in a few months and he will broker a peace deal so that we all can stop killing each other. You really think that the US is going to start WW3 over an age old conflict that none of you American liberals understand? Besides, cheap fpv drones are much more effective.
if they ever produce saboted DU rounds with 6.8, it will be a terrifying round to be up against. These types of rounds were already made for 7.62 and penetrated level 4
Too many reviewers keep comparing 6.8x51 to 5.56x45. Of course it does better, its a much larger cartridge! 6.8 needs to be predominately compared to 7.62x51. This would be a more honest comparison to range, recoil, pentration, and most importantly ammo capacity
Well I'll give it to you straight. The 6.8 is better in just about every way. Higher chamber pressure by about 20,000psi. Better bullet design, and it is slightly more compact.
There’s a reason, and that’s because the round is replacing the 5.56x45 not the 7.62x51. Comparing the 6.8 to the 7.62 isn’t really meaningful for the army other than giving a relatively good idea of how the round performs from an objective view. However the round is being compared to the 5.56 because that’s the round it’s replacing meaning soldiers will be carrying this over the 5.56 so having a direct comparison on how much more lethal the soldier will be with the 6.8 over the 5.56 is much more relative to the army and their decision to adopt the round
And this is the amusing part. The hilarity of "it's more powerful..."...so was the .308 and we still ditched it. We're reintroducing the same issues we had previously.
The problem is 7.62 isn’t the current caliber being used by the majority of the us military and so its comparison is less meaningful in terms of decision making and drawback comparison.
I think it’s valid because that’s the ammo it should replace. But “shots per gram” is underestimated. 20 shots in a magazine or 30 shots can mage a huge difference, especially. For soldiers that aren’t infantry gods.
Honestly, i think people are slightly "off" you talk about penetrating light armored vehicles and such. but consider... at ranges beyond 100 yards a 5.56 may not always go through a car door... at 200 yards the weapons lost almost half its energy... at 300 yards its at about 550 lbs of force. These spicy rounds... larger, heavier... will rip up tacticals at much longer ranges. Many of the forces fighting now are using pickup trucks with heavy machine-guns, 23mm cannons and such mounted on them, able to engage well outside of the range of normal 5.56... these rounds will let troops disable or kill these vehicles or their crews at ranges where they believe they would have the advantage.
Correct, but thinking it will go through 10mm of steel at an angle of lets say, 30 degrees, already makes it effectively 20mm, at any angle above 30 degrees you will need much much larger rounds.
@@singular9 yep, but again, i'm not talking about going through and armored vehicle at 400 yards, i'm talking about doing enough damage to effectively stop a pickup truck at 400 yards :) Which is what the infantry actually, really does need.
You can already kill the crew in a pickup if you aim for the crew/windows, instead of through the doors. (so putting the optic on M4s would already suffice) Sure, the new gun would surprise those crew - at first. But how many days does it take for the enemy to wisen up, and adjust their behavior? Looking at WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan - we _always_ see the enemy adapt _unpleasantly quickly._ The only times they didn't, was when the tech gap was _such_ a wide _chasm,_ that it didn't matter what they tried to change (Gulf War, but sadly not even Afghanistan). And a fast war definitely helps too, but as Russia and Ukraine show (and even Afghanistan fwiw), no halfway-near-peer is gonna crumble _that_ fast. So China certainly won't. I think one mistake that's being made by a lot of people is focusing on what this one weapon could do, while any military is really a system-of-systems. It's not about whether your rifle can stop a tactical, but whether your combined arms toolkit can. And everything is a balance of compromises... I fear that the Chinese might be smart enough to realize that, if American rifles can pierce body armor, they should just never wear it. That would make their troops faster and less fatigued (or carrying more ammo instead). And the Chinese military could stop wasting money on body armor and get more drones instead. This would turn the US advantage into a disadvantage, especially on a macro scale. You'd just be spending more money to make your opponent spend less money... 😢
If they only cost $5 a round, someone should be put in prison. No way we should be paying that much for a single round of rifle ammo. Especially considering the sheer numbe of rounds a military contract has.
They changed the brass casing to a hybrid steel/brass case to handle the 70-80K PSI this rifle shoots. Normal rounds before this one were around 50-62K PSI. The higher pressure round is what pushes the 6.8 bullet down the barrel faster getting better armor penetration. You're getting close to 2700-3000 fps muzzle velocity out of a 16" barrel.
Those guys were told to say that no doubt. No doubt. This shouldn’t be the standard weapon to everyone on a fireteam. This shouldn’t be a supporting role. 1-2 guys should have it but not everyone.
This is a rifle designed for Afghani plains/mountains... long ranges and ridiculously long sight lines. Europe is not like that, this weapon is clearly overly specialized for a combat environment that doesn't take priority over expected peer conflict zones, and thats my biggest gripe. It's a supplement to a n established general capability, not a replacement.
The lighter round in Vietnam wasn't good it didn't travel through the bush as well as the 7.62 of the M14 or the weapons used by the Vietnamese and at very close range an attacker could take multiple rounds and keep coming as a number of accounts of fighting showed. That said at $13 a pop I highly doubt this will end up as a general service issue even once they are producing this calibre in greater bulk it's still going to be a costly round to just be blasting away with. The biggest problem is the weight and anyone that says an extra four pounds on just your weapon isn't a problem has either never done a tab with it or is a damn liar pounds equal pain the simplest measure.
One of the big think tank imagined issues that this new round spawned from is that there isn't enough US accessible tungsten to make enough to deal with an army worth of cheap steel body armo.
7.62 doesn't do well in 13 inch barrels. Military prefers carbine length rifles. So, unless you go bullpup, you will need very high chamber pressure and fast burning power to get that kind of performance just like the 6.8 already does.
One aspect the critics forget, is the UAF and orcs use the same weapon with 200m operational range. If the UAF had the XM7, those open fields would simply be 800m death traps,
yep, this is basically giving us infantry the tech to all be designated marksmen with much less training and practice. and tbf that standoff distance is crucial when you're likely outnumbered 2-3 to 1.
uh, there's a reason they are hiding in trenches. It's not the other guy with the rifle you're worried about on those big open fields of Europe. It's the artillery. Both Ukraine and Russia have full power 7.62 cal rifles at their disposal.
and landmines and the drones especially the drones, who can ignore if the drone starts dropping down a grenade or pin pointing a 122mm shell toward your location
Every single military study I've heard about comes to the same conclusion: the more bullets infantry can fire downrange, the higher the likelihood that they'll be successful in the engagement. And our infantrymen are losing a third of their ammo capacity while carrying a significantly heavier weapon and ammo.
There are a 2 problems with this whole idea that yet have not been solved in any way: 1. Armor can already stop this there is even armor that can stop much more powerful rounds. 2. To engage a target at longer distance you need to see them before they come closer.
1. near peers arent adopting that armor, this can penetrate level 4 plates i hear. also, that armor is heavy as fuck that you’re referring to. 2. this has been solved. with improved ISR and better and more available thermals to infantry and mechanized squads
"Just don't get into cqb engagements" Sure thing, Sir. Next time we're ordered to take a building or a trench, we'll just not do that instead. What an incredibly stupid way to address a problem. In modern warfare, adaptability is the most important aspect of any fireteam. I could understand giving specific units the M7 system, but you can't just ask us to never clear a building. Unless they plan to just decimate everything that stands with overwhelming artillery and airstrikes, i guess. And the concern about maintenance is the biggest problem, imo. I still think the HK416, aka the M27 is superior. Easier to maintain and more powerful than the m4, even if it's not by much. They could just up the m27 to 7.62 if they're worried about stopping power. I'm getting Vietnam vibes from these concerns. How well does it operate when dirty? What about mud, rain, and sand? How long does it take to clean? How reliable is tap rap bang with it? I'd rather have a shittier gun that works than a fancy futuristic gun that might not be able to perform.
50 years is the difference between the bi-plane in service and the F-15 in service and this could be a 50 year rifle. With drone and robotic technology ever growing, there could be armored battle bots in that time.
How reliable it is? It is just a piston AR. Mags look worse than P-Mag, seem to have no overinsertion stop, STANAG plague lives on. But otherwise it should be fine, if designed and manufactured correctly
i mean, with the m10 booker rolling out, we’re not really gonna be in cqb anymore. we’re not fighting an insurgency where we need to be door kickers to minimize civilian casualties. this is a near peer war, just send a 105mm towards the building and make a new door. cappy already said in a previous video that the army is moving away from cqb, and with the new programmable airburst rounds on the booker, they’ll just clear a trench for you.
Reminds me of when somebody had a "Designated Marksman" M14 boner when I was in Iraq, and some genius put a gang of them on our books, making us turn in our M4s to pack that ridiculous and fussy hog. At no point did it ever prove helpful during anything from Cordon & Search jobs to longer range Checkpoint operations, which was the rightful domain of our crew serves.
@@rampaginwalrus i thought a fully tricked out m27 is about the same weight as the spear, is it not? anyways, its not insurgency warfare anymore, with m10 bookers rolling off the production line why risk kicking in a door in a near peer war? theres no civilians to watch for collateral damage, just make a new door with a 105mm shell. cappy already was talking about in a previous video that the army is moving away from doorkicking. why up the m27 to 7.62? thats even more weight than just moving to the .277 fury, and you’ve still got the magazine capacity problem, but with an even heavier and inferior system
Since no one's done a comment about it yet. Here you go. "She weighs 150 kilograms and fires 200 dollar custom-tooled cartridges at 10,000 rounds per minute." *Looks towards camera with malicious intent* "It costs 400,000 dollars to fire this weapon, for TWELVE seconds."
About 60 troops of the 101st airborne are visiting the Netherlands at the moment for the anniversary of operation market garden. I got to talk to some of them about the new rifle. They said pretty much the same as said in this video. They really love the new rifle and the extra range and penetration it brings. Although some said they do say it's noticeably heavier but absolutely worth it.
I’m skeptical it will be a better MOUT/close fighting weapon than the M4, and that’s where most infantry-on-infantry combat deaths occur. If SIG can continue to refine the weapon and cut some of the front-heavy weight it might be successful. More importantly if the 6.8 round wins out, it’s likely NATO will adopt it, and we will see new rifles and carbines in 6.8 moving forward.
I am against 6.8mm round because current 5.56 mm and M4 carbine is more than enough for personal defense and suppression fire purpose. 80% of casualty of battle field are by artillery shell, not infantry bullet. 6.8 mm gun may be good for special force or specific mission like urban warfare, but not good for general infantry mission in the field like trench warfare.
