As of Mar 23, Army says they are continuing with trials limited issue of rifles coming May-July, then FY24 (oct 2023) larger test issue coming.
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
Ah..ok
@AlejandroRGR_275
Жыл бұрын
@@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).
@petesjk
Жыл бұрын
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.
@hanzusmc7898
Жыл бұрын
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.
@matchesburn
Жыл бұрын
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?
@LUR1FAX
Жыл бұрын
Keep in mind that every KZitemr 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.
@38north15
Жыл бұрын
That’s an important note
@calvinslater3695
Жыл бұрын
Task and Purpose fired the issued stuff I believe. It was recoiling pretty hard. I wonder how long these barrels would last.
@buddyfaris5996
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelhill6451 Which means Soldiers will be training with less recoil, unlike how they fight. I think that’s a huge mistake in and of itself.
@jonathanrogers9961
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelhill6451 sig is touting some new barrel technology that is supposedly going to give it an approximately 10k round barrel life.
@jonathanrogers9961
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelhill6451 still trying to figure out what advancements they are. Cant find any other references to it.
@9HoleReviews
Жыл бұрын
As you know I share a lot of similar sentiments. I really hope we get to look at an actual one. Awesome take as always Jeff.
@Valorius
Жыл бұрын
9HR: One of my favorite youtubers.
@asdfdsasdfdsa
Жыл бұрын
For sure unsubscribing to you now. Terrible video
@johnwheatley5171
Жыл бұрын
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
@cordellej
Жыл бұрын
yups i agree with u i did 2 of iraq and 2 of afghan, even as a royal engineer attached to the infantry that was how it went down
@classifiedveteran9879
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Dezzyyy
Жыл бұрын
@@classifiedveteran9879 army adopted the m110a2 . It just needs to be issued at a squad level.
@chocolatedumdum2
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Averagegunenthusiast
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Front-Toward-Enemy
Жыл бұрын
The Army obviously didn’t fire the guys responsible for adopting the UCP camo pattern. Instead, I suspect, they moved them to ordinance procurement.
@kolinmartz
Жыл бұрын
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.
@DriveCarToBar
Жыл бұрын
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.
@davetaylor8350
Жыл бұрын
Yes😂
@Wastelandman7000
Жыл бұрын
SOP.
@Orphican
Жыл бұрын
Hey UCP worked sometimes! I sat down on my grandma's couch one time and completely disappeared.
@rayr1642
Жыл бұрын
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.
@titter3648
Жыл бұрын
It's the artillery that makes the most damage both in casualty's and to equipment. It was in WW1 and in WW2, and it also is in Ukraine.
@blueduck9409
Жыл бұрын
The day is comming where it will be a marine with a laptop. UGH.
@terryduffield5860
Жыл бұрын
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.
@theKashConnoisseur
Жыл бұрын
@@blueduck9409 A marine with an Xbox controller, more likely.
@classifiedveteran9879
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mikehagan4320
Жыл бұрын
It seems most War Stories include the phrase " We were running low on Ammo!"
@yum9918
Жыл бұрын
It's a genius psyop maneuver. They're just trying to increase the likelyhood of heroic war stories by lowering the ammo supply.
@khalee95
Жыл бұрын
And no one came to aid because they were using 556.
@TheJohn_Highway
2 ай бұрын
When you miss 90% of your shots, that's bound to happen
@ruslanmarynych8883
Жыл бұрын
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 KZitem, enjoyed watching the video by a person with real-life experience, not tacticool blogger 😉
@509Gman
Жыл бұрын
AKs getting dirty and not working? The internet gun inquisition is gonna burn you for heresy 😅 (sarcasm, btw)
@alancranford3398
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
In Iraq there was a period so many headshots were taken that accusations of executions were flying. no armor on the face.
@alancranford3398
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@SoloRenegade
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Durandalski
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mrkeogh
Жыл бұрын
I think that was always the plan...
@kennylamorena6339
Жыл бұрын
We already have the DMR in place. The M1110A1 are already in the squads as of today.
@fujimi715
Жыл бұрын
Exactly what I was saying. For sure replace the 249. Maybe not the 240. Add the M5 as a DMR and keep most of the squad with M4 and a shitload of ammo.
@richardlahan7068
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jsdomingos4909
Жыл бұрын
I agree with this.--gets a far better belt fed mg and keeps most riflemen with light weight m4s.
@BillHesse
Жыл бұрын
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.
@texrule6077
Жыл бұрын
To be fair you guys already got the best with the IAR 27
@davidbuck5864
Жыл бұрын
Agree. We in NZ replaced the 5.56mm Minimi with the new 7.62mm NATO version!
@asdfdsasdfdsa
Жыл бұрын
You’ll do what you’re told.
@EastTexan2644
8 ай бұрын
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
@patrickporter1864
4 ай бұрын
Army ordnance seems to have had that dream since 1775.
@HamSandwich277
Жыл бұрын
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.
@robertgorman8977
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Anarcho-harambeism
Жыл бұрын
if your talking about the m14, that thing sucked before it ever saw service.
@robertgorman8977
Жыл бұрын
Aussies use the FAL in Vietnam
@ryanjordan7268
Жыл бұрын
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.
@tackytrooper
Жыл бұрын
The "someone in the room" that voices an observation like that is very quickly the guy falling out the window.
@emileblanche5868
Жыл бұрын
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.
@PaulVerhoeven2
Жыл бұрын
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.
@izoi24
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@PaulVerhoeven2
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@richardlahan7068
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ralphblack510
Жыл бұрын
@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
@forrest225
Жыл бұрын
Big army almost always picks a rifle for the last war.
@craigjohnson6141
Жыл бұрын
I agree. The M1 Garand, being fielded just before WWII, would be the exception to the rule.
@509Gman
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@cstgraphpads2091
Жыл бұрын
@Kitty Cat They haven't been in a war since the 1970s, so that's crap.
@edwardgranger1722
Жыл бұрын
@@craigjohnson6141 And even that should have been in .276 Pederson to be the best rifle for the job.
@craigjohnson6141
Жыл бұрын
@@edwardgranger1722 But it wasn't. It was the 30-06. The US had huge stockpiles of 30-06 at the time. Kind of like now, with 5.56.
@jean-pascalesparceil9008
Жыл бұрын
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.
@richarddo7881
Жыл бұрын
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
@robertbennett106
Жыл бұрын
Today’s ARMY forgot a lot of things!
@madkabal
Жыл бұрын
combined arms warfare works when you have air supremacy. The Army no longer has confidant that we will always have it.
@richarddo7881
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@blackhawk7r221
Жыл бұрын
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.
@richarddo7881
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@charleyscurr8228
Жыл бұрын
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.
@manuelsandino9248
Жыл бұрын
Asking too much from the people that gave us the ACU uniform.
@sirg-had8821
4 ай бұрын
🤣🤣🤣 That uniform was asinine.
@swan6807
18 күн бұрын
Yup
@PracticalAccuracy
Жыл бұрын
Great insight and video Jeff and thanks for mentioning my channel.
@Imabananna1
Жыл бұрын
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.
@boomerdrew4545
8 ай бұрын
Sir you nailed it! Always down to earth, no bs!
@triplefshooting
Жыл бұрын
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.
@wildcard556
Жыл бұрын
You definitely hit some key points Jeff, your knowledge is awesome and humbling, and I appreciate your opinions and reasoning, along with factual information.
@Chiller01
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Lifechanging99999
Жыл бұрын
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).
@edwardgranger1722
Жыл бұрын
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.
@richarddo7881
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@dangvorbei5304
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jonathanbaird8109
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@randomposter8964
Жыл бұрын
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
@LuvBorderCollies
Жыл бұрын
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.
@timl8302
Жыл бұрын
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"?
@stupidburp
Жыл бұрын
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.
@grantfitz2047
Жыл бұрын
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.
@randomname3247
Жыл бұрын
Same here, 1-10 CAV in FARAH AO
@nineteendelta770
Жыл бұрын
SCOUTS OUT!!!
@VTdarkangel
Жыл бұрын
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.
@rafschar
Жыл бұрын
I have a feeling the 6.8 will go down in history as the rifle equivalent of the .40 S&W...
@raifsevrence
Жыл бұрын
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.
@3wolfsdown702
Жыл бұрын
@@raifsevrence 223 fails at Blades of grass they need a weapon that can shoot through barriers like the 308
@raifsevrence
Жыл бұрын
@@3wolfsdown702 been trying to use your AR15 to mow your lawn ?
@TexasNationalist1836
4 ай бұрын
@@3wolfsdown702you obviously know nothing about basic ballistics
@3wolfsdown702
4 ай бұрын
@@TexasNationalist1836 it's quite obvious that you are fooled easily.
@brianallen6341
Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheNatestEver
Жыл бұрын
Favorite channel on KZitem. Keep up the awesome informative episodes, love how you reference history. Thanks Jeff
@uhohstinky5925
Жыл бұрын
100% best take I've heard on this subject. It seems everyone thinks this as well but are coping hard with the fact the Army is messing up once again.
@mikewilliams8151
Жыл бұрын
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.
@anthonyoer4778
Жыл бұрын
Still using M16A2 in 06/07 with up armored Hummer doors.
@sirg-had8821
4 ай бұрын
Used a M16A2 in 2005.
@vaclavjebavy5118
2 ай бұрын
How did the training differ from training with shorter carbines?
@lukelacross190
Жыл бұрын
This channel is gold, I don’t know how Jeff doesn’t have more subscribers yet
@Yt-gd8ps
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
I agree the scope is a step ahead, would like to see it on M4s.
@desertsoldier41
Жыл бұрын
It was a rifle chosen by congressional special interests
@classifiedad1
Жыл бұрын
Not just that. Each XM5 comes with a Magpul SL-K stock. Take that as you will.
@Yt-gd8ps
Жыл бұрын
@@classifiedad1 I mean its a good stock.
@classifiedad1
Жыл бұрын
@@Yt-gd8ps That's the point. I bet you'll start seeing a lot of M4s with tan Magpul SL-K stocks in the coming years.
@dirt007
Жыл бұрын
The army was scared of fighting an enemy with body armor. Little did they know Russian body armor was made of cardboard.
@GmailNexus
2 ай бұрын
this
@Maryland_Kulak
8 ай бұрын
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.
@ModernTacticalShooting
8 ай бұрын
Priceless
@samuelpope7798
Жыл бұрын
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 kzitem.info/news/bejne/w62o1n98hJWTpaA. 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.
@darklyripley6138
Жыл бұрын
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.
@pagannova3621
Жыл бұрын
this is too wise for the military, sadly. but would work perfectly, we already have those rifles, that ammo, and that method of training.
@stevenkent5351
Жыл бұрын
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.
@darklyripley6138
Жыл бұрын
@@stevenkent5351 They literally have stated that what I said was the reason. The whole armor thing was only a reason they came up with afterwards.
@carbon8ed
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ronskancke1489
Жыл бұрын
Maybe we will need it in Saudi arabia.
@akforge
Жыл бұрын
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.
@AndyAdventuring
Жыл бұрын
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.
@raifsevrence
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@akforge
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@AndyAdventuring
Жыл бұрын
@@akforge Yea ok
@WesternReloader
Жыл бұрын
@@akforge that was my thought too
@saltysaty8686
Жыл бұрын
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.
@MCLEO983
Жыл бұрын
man, you are clear, concise, logical, and informed. Thank you for this.
@josephkalscheur5160
Жыл бұрын
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.
@SonOfTheDawn515
Жыл бұрын
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.
@alancranford3398
Жыл бұрын
@@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."
@SonOfTheDawn515
Жыл бұрын
@@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).
@alancranford3398
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@JP-tw8ns
Жыл бұрын
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
@superfamilyallosauridae6505
Жыл бұрын
Additionally, the XM157 can be used on 5.56 rifles and is programmable for whatever. It is not married to the XM5
@Chickenfriedstek
Жыл бұрын
I don't know why they don't just slightly extend 5.56 or use stainless steel casings with slightly reinforced barrel, bcg, buffer tube. So they can get extra velocity out of 77 gr 224 bullets. Change the grendel and valkyrie to skinnier, slightly longer cases and you could get 85 grain bullets going 3200 fps or faster. Especially if you use shell shock technology. Just a thought military. If paired with faster burning powder you might even get almost as fast with xm5 length barrels without it weighing 13 lbs.
@neildegrassetyson1661
Жыл бұрын
Will the xm5 go out the same way as the scar? Or will they stick with it?. Personally i liked the general dynamics bull pup better
@ericschumacher5189
Жыл бұрын
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.
@vicnighthorse
Жыл бұрын
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.
@spinetanium3296
Жыл бұрын
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.
@aaronthompson192
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ericschumacher5189
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ericschumacher5189
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jeremywatson9129
Жыл бұрын
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.
@gregorywebb9827
Жыл бұрын
I appreciate your knowledge and your advice. Keep at it.
@isafleader
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
Agree
@michaelnyden8056
Жыл бұрын
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.
@509Gman
Жыл бұрын
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.
@trofchik9488
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mefirst5427
Жыл бұрын
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.
@tackytrooper
Жыл бұрын
To be fair if someone hadn't chosen the worst possible position for the base, they never would have been in that position to start with...
@chuckyxii10
Жыл бұрын
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.
@PBRstreetgang88
2 ай бұрын
Hollywood. .223 is good out to 1000 yards if you score a head, spine, or heart shot. Dragunov’s have like a 4X scope, that’s what the ACOG is.
@hkpro99
Жыл бұрын
Great analysis. I carried a pimped out G3 with my private 1-4 S&B short dot on my 3rd tour in northern Afghanistan back in 10/11 and I loved it ! 1-4 S&B was the shit back than ;)! My G36 stayed in the armoury pretty much the whole deployment. The scope and 7.62 worked great in that Environment. Never went through more than 3 mags ( carried 6+1 in the rifle) downside was weight and size, only wish I had an 1-8 back than. The SIG is the right rifle for Afghanistan, not for General issue, too heavy and too much recoil. We're buying HK 416s with 1-4 Elcans and 417s with 1-8 S&B for the Bundeswehr now. We'll see how that works out ;)!
@DeskPop
Жыл бұрын
Hey man, I've actually shot this rifle pretty extensively and I think you're missing a huge factor. The "influencers" Get to shoot the .308 rifle on camera and most of them don't get to touch the .277 fury version. If you meet the right people you'll get a range day with the .277 fury and find out it recoils a LOT softer than .308 and shoots even flatter. On top of that it's being designed to accept an ammo type they're already providing to reduce logistics on rounds; the reduce ammo capacity is going to be a factor, but it may simply result in certain units fielding M4's or Spear it's.... The spear with the .308 is very manageable too. I think this rifle will continue and probably get adopted.
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your input, perhaps il get to shoot one, and if I'm wrong then its a win for the soldiers which of course is good.
@ColdSteel-oi3um
Жыл бұрын
I agree, all they had to do was replace the the M-249 with the M-240.
@michaelnyden8056
Жыл бұрын
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!
@davidphillips8674
Жыл бұрын
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
@rcolavito1234
Жыл бұрын
Remember that the Army is also replacing the SAW with the XM-250 - Which apparently is awesome.
@raifsevrence
Жыл бұрын
The LMG is dope. The new optic is also dope. The hyped up , jacked up MCX is a joke.
@3wolfsdown702
Жыл бұрын
@@raifsevrence you do realize in Most states you can't even hunt with a 223 because it's not considered lethal enough
@raifsevrence
Жыл бұрын
@@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 ?
@natureb2267
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the well thought out analysis.
@georgejoseph4164
Жыл бұрын
While the new round might be the bee's knees, it's another logistical muck-up waiting to happen. You make very good points as do others...
@TonyYuEvangelism
Жыл бұрын
Replace existing barrels and bolts with 6mm ARC and you get most of the goodness of 6.8 at a fraction of the cost with a minimal weight penalty.
@wendysbaconator1175
Жыл бұрын
I think the XM5 would be great as DMR option. Im not convinced it’s a good replacement to the M4.
@picolascage5270
Жыл бұрын
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.
@trofchik9488
Жыл бұрын
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.
@user-oy9zy4ds9m
Жыл бұрын
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.
@user-oy9zy4ds9m
Жыл бұрын
**Cant
@picolascage5270
Жыл бұрын
@@user-oy9zy4ds9m they could use the same barrel technology in the M5 and apply it to the 556 platforms.
@trofchik9488
Жыл бұрын
@@picolascage5270 the chamber pressure might become an issue in that case.
@blacktronpavel
4 ай бұрын
I agree with your assessment. Besides the M4A1 Block IIs and URGI already answered much of the problems. It's tried and true.
@cokedaz
Жыл бұрын
I keep hearing that the intent of it was primarily to defeat high level body armor. But as others have mentioned before, you can't chase that desire with a round because the body armor can be improved easier and quicker than logistics of replacing a round that is issued, and that the tungsten for the AP rounds used comes from china who we could be up against in the near future. Unless they know something we don't and we expect to be fighting unmanned robots that we need to penetrate. I just can't see how its an advantage. The main issue is that they are trying to give every soldier a designated marksman rifle, where instead they should be using this rifle to replace or add in better and more effective replacement for 7.62x51. It should be there to add in and replace that, not try to replace 5.56. The machine guns and what gets used as a DMR haven't been updated as long as or if not longer than the M4/M16. Most people overlook that. I have always felt this was some sort of a bit of a scam, claim they are going to every soldier, see how many can be acquired, and then only give them to a designated marksman and integrate it in with the M4s like they should. There is nothing wrong with the M5/M7, its just being pushed as the main rifle where it should be being pushed as a much needed DMR, because it seems better in every way to a SCAR-H or M110 if even weight is just a factor. That makes the most sense. Great points made here, not many take it into consideration.
@robertgarcia6561
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree on all points. I've said the army needs to modernize the m4 not replace it. Another point is that new soldiers in basic who never shot before will be more recoil shy with the XM5. Plus smaller framed soldiers will have a harder time handling it.
@rodneyalaking8241
Жыл бұрын
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🇺🇸.
@rabbitholereviews
Жыл бұрын
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.
@chiefkikyerass7188
Жыл бұрын
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...
@Droid_Behaviour
11 ай бұрын
Totally agree with you. Former French Soldier here, two tour in A-Stan, and if i had to do the same thing with this new XM5 rifle, with all the gear we had on our back, on our chest...never! I understand the use of a better round, more powerful, supressed rifle, new MLOK handguard and so on... But, your exemple with the GoPro video from Ukrainians soldiers, wich send lot of rounds downrange in a short amount of time, as you say, maybye four or five 30 rounds of 5.45 magazines, with this new SIG XM5...in this case, you're running out of ammo very fast...! Too heavy, (13 pounds, really??!) small capacity magazines, yes the round is maybye better than the 5.56 for some applications...but no, really, no thanks. My old and dusty Famas at the time was accurate, reliable, and better balanced than this enormous Sig XM5 rifle... When we see nowadays the new conflict with Hamas/Israël, i don't see Tsahal guys in tights streets in Gaza with this very BIG XM5, they have some COLT M653/M733 or TAR21/X95 are way better in this situation for a lot of reasons. The future could tells us if this XM5 was a good idea...or not.
@Sun-Warrior1911
Жыл бұрын
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?
@ericschumacher5189
Жыл бұрын
Based on my reading / research I have the same questions as you.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD
Жыл бұрын
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.
@nickloven6728
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Hibernicus1968
5 ай бұрын
So the U.S. army is doing what armies do best: preparing to fight the last war better.
@TheLogitech91
Жыл бұрын
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??
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
6.8 SPC recoil is practically that of 7.62. basically, a high-speed AK 7.62x30 round. Too much for the ballistic trade off.
@user-oy9zy4ds9m
Жыл бұрын
They could negate the recoil with a special muzzle brake however that would add weight and the rifle is already too heavy
@volk528
Жыл бұрын
@@user-oy9zy4ds9m muzzle brakes have their own downsides like muzzle flash and horrendous concussion to whoever is next to you while shooting
@joquin4618
Жыл бұрын
@@volk528 exactly… I despise muzzle brakes, prefer a suppressor 😊
@donalddickins8493
Жыл бұрын
Because 6.8 is ballistically ass. Worse than 6.5 grendel and 6mm arc. Same distance as 5.56.
@Coste1072
Жыл бұрын
Very educational video. Nice job!1
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@highlife7241
4 ай бұрын
Terrific analysis! Was gung-ho about getting the .277 Spear until discovering LMT. Good with 7.62 and 6.5 Cr on their MARS AR-10 for now. The LMT quick barrel swap is nice!
@kendelvalle8299
Жыл бұрын
I was in Nam in 65, 66 and 67. Started with an M-14 and then we got the M-16. I’ve had dozens of AR’s since then as well as several M-14’s. I think the 6.8 is the perfect “in between” round. I find the AR’s 6.8 to be as handy as the M-16 but more effective at long range.
@robertford8489
Жыл бұрын
This video is tough to watch an most comments are ignorant and opinionated. Thank you for your service and for sharing your insight having carried multiple service weapons. I think the one round to serve multiple platforms with the increased range and penetration will make up for the slightly heavier round.
@kevinblackburn3198
Жыл бұрын
the fact that he called the M4 and all "assault" rifles PDWs is absolutely correct and illustrates his credibility. great video and spot on.
@ipritch23i93
Жыл бұрын
The MG is the best thing to come out of the program. It weighs less than half of a 240 so the amount of ammo carried is hugely increased.
@YTPrule
Жыл бұрын
Why didn’t they have quick change barrels though?
@ipritch23i93
Жыл бұрын
@@YTPrule it does have a quick change barrel
@YTPrule
Жыл бұрын
@@ipritch23i93 According to articles I've read "The overall length of the weapons with suppressors attached are 36 inches long for the XM5 and 41.87 inches long for the XM250. The barrel of the XM5 is 15.3 inches long and the XM250 is 17.5 inches long. The barrel on the XM250 is also not considered a quick-change barrel like the M249."
@jamesstanley4764
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for your wisdom.
@tx611
Жыл бұрын
Every time I pick up my Zastava m70, I realize how outdated and out matched the AK platform is compared to a specd out m4 rifle with 77 grain OTM. Speed kills, and these heavier beefed up platforms are considerably slower and provide no ballistic advantage.
@paulwilson8672
Жыл бұрын
You make valid arguments!!! Several I made myself. The round reduction and weight being the biggest concern. I've recently been learning about the history of the M14. It was meant to be used in Europe and not the jungles of Vietnam. Based on a 7 mag load out you have a delta of approximately 70 rounds. The M7 is also going out with the M250 which uses the same ammo. So you will have more than that 100 belt in your pack now. It wasn't just long range shooting the Army was trying to address it was near peer adversaries that would have body armor like we do. The M7 and M250 would be much more effective than our current weapons. Also how effective and reliable these new weapons will be determined by privates in the field. Anything can be broken by a private. Also when we started the gulf war optics where not standard issue. However, the Marine Corps used the ACOG to devastating effect. So much so that they were being accused of war crimes because of all the head shots they were making. I think we need to field these new weapon systems and let the privates break them so we can really know what they are made of. Then work on tactics that can better take advantages of there assets and reduce the impact of there hindrances. I like what you were saying about having mix of weapons. We might find a magical combination that will make our units much more effective. Good discussion. We need more of this. Great Video!!!
@donalddickins8493
Жыл бұрын
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.
@EverydayMarksman
Жыл бұрын
Great video, Jeff. Since the announcement of the XM-5, I kept wracking my brain unsuccessfully trying to figure out how it made sense as a general issue weapon. My non-infantry opinion based on reading the history of small arms tells me that your conclusion of keeping the 5.56 as general issue and the XM-5 platform for SAW and DMR use (while increasing the numbers issued to each platoon) is the way to go.
@kalliste23
Жыл бұрын
Improvements to 7.62x51 could me made without breaking pre-existing stuff. This is simply a boondogle for military industrial complex.
@unknownalias5538
Жыл бұрын
Yep , battle rifles are obsolete . Assault rifles and lmgs are the way to go
@LuvBorderCollies
Жыл бұрын
The Army had concluded some time ago that 5.56 would be general issue and the new 6,8 would be only to actual infantry. So Jeff isn't conjuring up fantastic idea that the Army didn't already have. 🙄
@EverydayMarksman
Жыл бұрын
@@LuvBorderCollies Where is that? The last thing I saw was from the announcement, and it stated the XM5 was intended for all close combat units and roles, with slow expansion from there.
@henrikrothen5640
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Sparks68
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jeromesimpson7701
Жыл бұрын
I remember in in the 90s with the A2, small soldiers and females struggled with the A2 I cannot imagine them with the new rifle.
@ericmckinley7985
Жыл бұрын
Maybe we can all stop kidding ourselves and not have those as infantry anymore.
@fat_basturd5345
Жыл бұрын
You’d have to be an infant to struggle with the a2.
@pootytang2872
9 ай бұрын
When wearing full body armor, the A2 stock is too long for most soldiers @@fat_basturd5345
@trey9971
Жыл бұрын
The military always fights the last war. Afghanistan mountains are the reason they wanted it just switch to 6.8spc or another round
@AndyAdventuring
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Drago2600
Жыл бұрын
I am willing to bet that was considered and possibly done. 5.56 seems to be doing very well in Ukraine.
@Dezzyyy
Жыл бұрын
@@Drago2600 because most engagements are urban or sub 400 yards. 5.56 thrives in those ranges.
@zack9912000
Жыл бұрын
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
@carbon8ed
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@AndyAdventuring
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Ratkill9000
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mattp7828
Жыл бұрын
In the British Army in the late 1980s we had the LSW in each infantry Section and it was a heavy barrelled and bipod version of the SA80, with 30 round box magazines. Lasted about 2 years before it was replaced by the GPMG which is same as your M240. I carried it in the 1st Gulf War and we had 3 in a platoon. Mine was in the SF variant so with a tripod, C2 sight and additional ammunition issue. They say Generals always fight the last war in the next war, seems like they're refighting Afghanistan with this new weapon system. Though the new sight and the M250 both look interesting.
@forgedwithin5037
Жыл бұрын
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.
@30wrdy
7 ай бұрын
That’s exactly what I thought when I first heard of the program
@ChristianMcAngus
Жыл бұрын
There's also the issue of cartridge cost. The 6.8mm round uses an expensive case made of a composite of brass and stainless steel. The Russian and Chinese tradition of making cases out of mild steel has a lot of advantages in reducing cost.
@AndyAdventuring
Жыл бұрын
Well yea because former soviet states invested heavily in steel manufacturing infrastructure. They have absolutely tons of it. If Russia takes Ukraine, they become the world's 2nd largest global supplier of steel. In order for us do have a similar benefit, we would need that infrastructure -- which we don't have. We import massive amounts of steel.
@PaulVerhoeven2
Жыл бұрын
@@AndyAdventuring We used to have steel manufacture before traitors gave it all to China. Still, imported or not, steel is MUCH cheaper than brass (copper+zinc). Are you saying we do not import copper and zinc?
@Xogroroth666
Жыл бұрын
The FN Maximi (MK48) would do the job as well, being it the "bigger brother" (7.62) of the FN Minimi (M249'er SAW) (5.56). Merely mentioning.
@davidbuck5864
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Xogroroth666
Жыл бұрын
@@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 ... .
@pootytang2872
9 ай бұрын
that gun wasn't even out yet. you're in fantasy land. @@Xogroroth666
@mustardbiscuits9750
Жыл бұрын
“Hey, all these mountains of stockpiles we have, of systems and ammo that are incredibly effective against who we can reasonably assume to fight? Screw it let’s do something different”
@samuelferrell9257
Жыл бұрын
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.
@davidb9323
Жыл бұрын
When you have somebody behind a desk telling those on the front lines what they need, it will always be wrong.
@Galildoughty
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ModernTacticalShooting
Жыл бұрын
Good point a newer better 5.56 I would love to see if I were still in.
@absoluteresolution3822
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ES-je3em
Жыл бұрын
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 ?
@509Gman
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@huntmatthewd
Жыл бұрын
That is most likely why Sig released the Spear LT. In case the XM5 fails (likely) they can just roll in with the 5.56 contract.
@bryanr8897
Жыл бұрын
I could be wrong, but I thought the reason for going to the .277 was to defeat next gen body armor. Also, the scope has the ability to broadcast its image for C2 observance which is where its value really is.
@tommyspann9740
Жыл бұрын
The ammo amount and weight issue, was the FIRST thing I thought of when I read about the SIG XM5. "The return of the M14" was what sprung to mind. We didn't learn ANYTHING from our party in Nam? I can easily see the belt-fed SIG light MG, though. Hopefully your conclusions are correct and the Army sees the folly of it.
@izoi24
Жыл бұрын
Definitely, the impression that I've got from the program was that the reasoning behind the rifle was sound. Body armor is becoming more and more prevalent so switching to a round capable of penetrating body armor is good. Overmatching the enemies range is also good, since I think that the AK's time is numbered as both China and Russia (though we've seen that the Russians aren't as modern as we thought they were) are trying to move to longer range, optics capable systems, and thanks to the worst pullout game in history, I'm sure M4's will be popping up around the third world. Making normal riflemen carry the same ammo as the machine gun also makes sense, it streamlines logistics and makes it easier to carry or deliver more rounds, since now a pallet of 6.8 ammo can be used by everyone. I think the trials were too strict in the wrong areas and too loose in others, the end result was that the rifle was too heavy, and 20 round mags is quite the step back, it makes sense for a long range rifle since shooting prone with 30 round mags can be pretty awkward, and 20 round mags are easier to carry since they are shorter (but you'll need to carry more for the same amount of ammo). The real winners of this trial are the suppressor and machine gun, both of which seem amazing, and I can definitely see why the army adopted them.
@horatiusromanus
Жыл бұрын
@@izoi24 Army logistician, over a decade of time. The big question I have every time that people use the argument, “well the rifle and machine gun use the same ammo,” is, “Yes, but in what configuration?” There is a world of difference between 6.8 ball and 6.8 linked. They are palletized in different ways, and are issued in different ways. Do we believe that a platoon leader will strip out the cartridges from his 6.8 linked to issue down to the riflemen? If I found out a PL was doing that I would drive down there and beat the hell out of him. I gave you ammo for your machine guns, use it properly. Are we going to pick up all the links from our last fire fight and use them to put together new belts for the machine guns? In the field? I don’t think that’s feasible. It’s not a video game where you walk to the ammo pallet and magically your belts/mags are filled because it’s “the same ammo.” So you go right back to the same problem we had before. Ammo for rifles and ammo for machine guns. And the least used and least favorite part of the SAW was using a 30 round magazine from an M4. Cool, it doesn’t feed fast enough, and I’m down a rifleman’s magazine. Lake City and all the other places can make millions of rounds and prepackage all ammo at the factory. Units get prepackaged ammo containers, that’s not an issue. What is an issue is how much ammo the Soldier can carry themselves. It doesn’t matter if your whiz bang rifle can blow through body armor if: A you are not hitting (most rifleman’s shots in combat are misses) and B you have less ammo than your opponent. If you are carrying 100 rounds to your opponents 300 rounds, you are the one that will be suppressed and you are the one about to learn about HE delivered from some bored artilleryman. The goal is to not configure ammo in the field. It’s dangerous and wastes time. Body armor doesn’t matter when you are blown to atoms by HE or shot in the face at close range from a maneuvering unit that has ammo. Grenades still exist and will be employed on your suppressed unit with your heavy rifles. War is a team sport and riflemen are not the most lethal things on the battlefield, but they allow the lethal things to be lethal. That’s not even getting into the fact these boys have to walk with the 15 lb monstrosity. Light infantry still walks to the objective, with 100lbs of equipment on their backs. Mech still has limited space for people and equipment. Good lord, I have yet to meet a Soldier that says, “Sir, if you could find a way to make my stuff a bit heavier I would be so thankful.”
@WALTERBROADDUS
Жыл бұрын
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.
Пікірлер: 2,2 М.