Sig SPEAR (M7 / XM7 NGSW base rifle) practical accuracy to 800y video is available on HWOW now! forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/videos/20240718-sig-spear-11 (free release) You'll have to wait till Thursday to see it on TH-cam though. P.S. I realized I called the XM157 the XM158 in the video, sorry... but what do you think about the NGSW project? P.S.S. One other potential instead of just DMROing (destroying essentially) a stock of unused rifles, storing indefinitely, giving them away as Military Aid, or caliber conversion is to "surplus" them to SIG to sell off like the M17 pistols that didn't pass spec... However this may be less likely as it could be politically touchy to "surplus" a magazine-fed modern rifle.
Aight I made a comment but I guess a really dumb-looking question to some firearms nerds but... Has anyone atm tried seeing how 6.8 handles within the bounds of the AR platform? As in has any asked the caveman form of the question "can we just modify the M4's to fire new bigger boolet?" since it's so modular nowadays I feel like someone has to have thought about it and tried by now...
I remember when some army general wanted to switch back to 7.62x51 for all weapons and it died a quiet death, thankfully. The big caliber mafia, regrouped and decided that they needed to justify what they wanted because of body armor and the "need" for long range rifle engagements in order to get their way. SOCOM and the infantry troops in the field never asked for this. In fact, even the Marine Infantry would rather have their M4's back, instead of the heavy and overburdened M27. SOCOM went to the URG-I and I am told the H&K 416's are not as ubiquitous as they once were in Tier 1 units. My prediction is the SIG Spear and the 6.8x51 ammo will very shortly beat the M14's record as the shortest service life of any Army rifle. The new lighter 7.62x51 and 338 Belt feds do have a future, however everyone needs to compete for that contract award. Don't even get me started on that stupid $15,000 do all optic they are bolting on to the M7 and the suppressors (or bright glowing night lights) on every weapon. Perhaps we shouldn't have people who are charge of buying computers and office furniture in charge of weapons trials and procurement???
With all due respect I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees- As far as I'm concerned the clear intention between the NGSW was for a SAW upgrade and the rifle is the secondary component of that. The XM250 is an upgrade over the M249 in basically every way and the way I see it big army is trying to transition the firepower of the unit away from the individual riflemen and onto the SAW gunner. If you're trying to get a round that can defeat barriers and moderate body armor then you have to go up in caliber to a battle rifle, and the only way to do that while maintaining the same volume of fire as before is to move the firepower away from the rifleman (who cannot keep up the same volume of fire as someone with an intermediate cartridge) and onto the MG. Now is that a necessary change? Debatable- I think a SAW upgrade in 5.56, a new AR upper in 5.56, and MAYBE some development to the 5.56 cartridge but moving to 6.8x51 also fulfills this requirement. Only time will tell if it was a good idea or not however.
@@JonManProductionsyou cannot put 308 in an AR-15 without changing the lower. The Ruger SFAR fits it into a similar package but it is proprietary and not compatible. Magazines will not fit in the mag well. You can put 6mm ARC in a 5.56 lower or 300BO.
@@davidtbk8789not to be philosophical, but right as we assess it is right, and truth, by its very nature, is always that. So I agree with you. The reason virtue provides fruit is universal.
@@MJA5 I've always agreed with this, but today I'll say that I see a lot of naivete' around truth being universal. You and I see truth as universal, but many people are not mentally capable of facing truth or even understanding it. Our nation and it's system functioned well-enough because of the population being the population it was designed by and for. Today that population is very different, and the goals, morality, and sense of justice of the other populations is not universal. It's a lot to explain, and TH-cam often removes me comments when I get into it.
@@drownthepoor True, this is a nation designed for and by Liberals, freethinking individuals who value democracy above all else. But now we have a country filled with submissively minded Conservatives, who want screen daddy to tell them what they believe this week.
As something of an importer/exporter myself, I would also love to get your guys’ take on military logistics. The ultimate wunderwaffe was the 40’ shipping container.
The marine corps back dooring a new service rifle is still one of the funniest things ever. "we need a SAW replacement". *just gives everyone M27s and still retains the saw to be issued at the company commanders discretion.*
Company commanders discretion. but there is not 1 infantry unit or weapons platoon that uses a saw. They dont even teach the SAW at IWC, only 240's 50's and mk19s so realistically SAW's are gone in the mc.
@vac1376 I believe you but sad to see. I had a saw. Big picture level I have no expertise to argue. Individually the "aw he'll naw" ability of a dedicated weapon can't be replicated. Maybe it is made up for by other means idk
Not the best. But the best available on their limited time frame, and budget while meeting very specific requirements. And they ended up with a rifle that really isn't that great as a result.
@KingdomKillaz117 Possibly. They would have made better rifles for sure. But the USMC wasn't able to push a request for rifles past Congress. The MC wanted new rifles to replace the semi-aged A4s and M4s in inventory. More importantly, abide with the MC's future idea of suppressor usage and infantry theory. They had to sacrifice a true LMG (the 249) to get what they wanted. They justified the HK416 mod as capable of filling in but really it was the proliferation of mmg 240 teams. The 416 (m27) was a shoe horn m4 replacement for combat mos's. It is a very roundabout and political way to get new rifles. But one they did none the less. Tradeoffs be damned. As a result, I don't think LMT could be a contender in that time frame. USMC big brained the shit out of it.
The part where he talked about additional capabilities is solid. AR development is already peaked, there's little to improve on the assault rifles concept and that's not just with the M16. Even the Chinese decided that all there is to do is copy what they considered the best features of every prolific assault rifle on the market and call it the day. Russia tried to put the counter recoil system but it's not worth the trouble since the 5.45 cartridge is already low on the recoil. So to justify the need for a new rifle you need to make it do something that other rifles cannot.
Henry’s background projects are always interesting. You raise some valid, well-reasoned points. I’m reminded of something Ryan McBeth has said in his videos: The Department of Defense is actually a logistics organization that dabbles in warfare. Our logistic capabilities is what separates us from almost every other military force on the planet, and discounting the logistics of a problem is a recipe for disaster. An old saying I’m reminded of, and I’m sure I’m not quoting it correctly, but the point is still valid: Amateurs discuss strategy. Professionals discuss logistics.
@@cwolf8841 A civilian model test of the weapon revealed that the M4-style charge handle gets caught on the stock. The rifle is dominantly intended to use the side charge handle and more issues are evident in how to engage it! Honestly, I fail to see the point of this new system and the round design in question! If I had the power, and I hope the military community would entertain me on the pitch I am going to make. Use an AR-10 as the base, allowing kit swaps of the barrel and receiver and to change between direct-impingement to short stroke gas-piston operation where silencer use is required for a mission, and design the rifle with collective recoil absorbing damper systems. Instead of sticking to the 7.62x51 NATO round, we are going with a modernized Mauser 8mm s.S. Patrone "effect-firing" round with new computerized aerodynamic and weight distributed/balanced design to achieve the ballistic coefficient and desired flat trajectory. The round will utilize a lightweight hybrid-polymer cartridge and the effective propellent chemistry and measurement to enhance the lethality of the already hard-hitting and legendary round. The chamber pressures will certainly not be an issue for this round! This is of course, if I had a say in the Army's project for a new standard of rifle/sniper rifle and light machine gun.
Maybe I’m a nerd but I would LOVE more long form content on procurement. It might sound dumb but I think it’s wild how much the process has dictated what everyone uses regardless of if it was the best choice or not.
Someone got mad they were being sprinkled with 7.62 from 900m away by a PKM in the desert and they decided this was the only kind of fight an infantryman ever needs to overcome.
How often are officers in direct combat leadership role? One, two tours, maybe three but generally then they are a on the fob. Add in a timeline for career progression to being in charge - junior officers getting shot at from the hinterland in early to mid 2000s are just now old enough to 'solve' the problems they encountered in combat. 20 years later. America's robust civilian firearm's industry present a LOT of options for COTS solutions for unexpected shortfalls in small arms in future complex. How many units just adopted glocks in GWOT? Millions purchased.
I’ve been saying this on Reddit. The PKM/ 7.62R has been shot against us for ages, and the best idea was to turn every infantryman into DMR shooter? Really?
Being suppressed by a belt fed 900 meters away is a very viable threat in any environment. This is just the advanced version of swapping from the 30 carbine to the m1 garand. Eventually the army will come full circle and adopt another decent intermediate cartridge and phase out the xm7 like they always do
I’ve been out of the infantry since 07 and the army since 09, so my 2 cents aren’t worth too much. But one thing that seems overlooked is changing caliber changes everything. I hated 556 in Iraq. I don’t think it’s got enough “stopping power”. But….you can carry a whole lot of it. Heavier ammo means you carry less or your dudes suck more. Your suppressive fire has to come more from saws than your riflemen. Like I said, I haven’t been in combat for 17 years lol but I just feel like there aspects that are being overlooked long term. Everybody wants the cool new shit but when you gotta change everything about how you fight, it can turn out to be not that cool.
M855 really sucks for Anti-Personnel use. The DOD has been screwing up the AR-15 since the start. The original Colt 601 had 1-14 twist and optimized for 45gr-50gr. Projectiles. The DOD wanted 55gr and the 1-14 twist couldn't stabilize it so 1-12 twist barrel's were adopted to stabilize 55gr M193. I've been doing testing with 45gr-50gr projectiles out of 1-12 twist barrel's for the past 25 years and lighter really is the best way to go. The ballistic performance of a 45gr bullet traveling 3,400fps is absolutely amazing. When you get into 45gr-50gr Ballistic Tips the results get even more dramatic and impressive.
@@jason200912 That's what the rifle *should* be, should doesn't mean that's what will happen. They are saying it's for all army infantry, which is monumentally bad idea, but don't put it past the army to make horrible decisions.
I think we've seen before, there's always some high level dipsh*t that in a meetings says "This thing needs to do (Insert stupid unrealistic thing here)!" and the rest scratch their head, look around at each other and go "y-yeah, ok, sure General Dipsh*t, ah, we can do that." and it gets added to the "Requirements".
It's fairly obvious to me that this is what happened. You see this all the time: it would actually be nice if you could defeat peer armor at 600 yards, and so when a bigwig gets it in his head that that's a requirement, the program is really imperilled if you can't talk him out of it. You see this all the time. The IFV to replace the Bradley is the XM30. The program before the XM30 was the GCV. The GCV was cancelled because it was heavier and more expensive than an Abrams. Why? "The reason was the vehicle had to have enough armor to protect a squad of nine troops from all battlefield threats (from rocket-propelled grenades to IEDs) as good as or better than other vehicles can protect against specific threats individually." Ok. Somebody important got this added as a requirement and overruled all objections. This is very obviously just a case of "it would be nice if the rifle could do X" transformed into "the troops need this rifle to do X, no matter the cost".
I just wanted to add that for the logistics side of things it’s not the first time the US strong armed NATO into adopting a round against their will, especially once they had more or less standardized on another cartridge
However, as I mentioned in the video, this wasn't a joint service decision... which is certainly not a DOD decision, which holds WAY LESS weight in NATO standardization.
@@9HoleReviewsOh I know. That’s why I said it wouldn’t be the first time the US rammed a particular weapon or cartridge through despite NATOs protests. And many of the logistics arguments on it are probably similar to what was said during the adoption of 5.56 and look at where we are now. All of NATO uses 5.56 despite their reservations initially simply because the US wanted it
Ft Campbell 11B NCO here, we tested them. Not a fan of this weapon along with the rest of the team who did for all the statements that were said in this video. 2 steps back for one step forward. This is hindering the Infantry more than benefiting them in my opinion.
I'm just curious what the ACTUAL DREAM SERVICE RIFLE AND CARTRIDGE would be? Like no one is happy with anything it seems. 556 is weak, 308 is bulky and sucky bc, 277 still has to much recoil, the scar has a a stupid charging handle and kills optics, on and on and on. What is the answer please. I want to know what dream gun military guys want.
@@chupacabra304there are plenty of proven options on both the global military market as well as the civilian market that we can look to. A simple caliber conversion to something like 6mm max that has similar enough ballistics to 6mm arc while using standard 5.56 bolts and magazines would be a game changer right away. In an alternate timeline, I would’ve liked to have seen an XCR in 6mm max with a trijicon VCOG as a standard issue rifle.
In his video about the NGSW, Chris Bartocci at Small Arms Solutions called the program "Section 8 for army procurement". He sees no upside, and he predicted it will be scrapped. He also pointed out the astonishing fact that the Army prices the hybrid high-pressure version of the 277 Fury at over $20 PER CARTRIDGE. He says that alone spells out the cartridge's demise, seeing as how the non-hybrid version has no real advantage over 308.
Interesting that Henry’s argument against the 6.8 is the same as General MacArthur’s was against the Garand in .276. We have all this 30-06 why change.
Re: "Interesting that Henry’s argument against the 6.8 is the same as General MacArthur’s was against the Garand in .276. We have all this 30-06 why change." Then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur has taken a lot of heat retroactively for turning down the .276 Pedersen cartridge - but he was correct in his decision then and he is still correct today. Proponents of the 276 seem to proceed from it being some sort of given that the 30-06 was mediocre or even a failure in wartime and military use, when precisely the opposite was the truth. The now-legendary 30-06 has carved its name into the pages of our military history of the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean conflict, not to mention many smaller ones. Many firearms historians rate the cartridge as the most-influential of the 20th century, not just in military use, but overall. While it is true that the 276 might have offered a few potential improvements to the '06, those gains simply did not amount to enough to justify the switch. And we are not even yet discussing the ways in which the '06 was a better choice. Even if General MacArthur had wanted to make the switch, it would have been a very tough sell on the 'Hill and to Congress during the lean years of the Great Depression. It is difficult for 21st century people to imagine, perhaps, but the between wars army was so strapped for cash that they often held maneuvers during which some soldiers used broomsticks instead of rifles and Model T Fords substituted for tanks, or cavalrymen on horses. The expense of switching from 30-06 to 276 would have eventually involved rebarreling every rifle and medium machine gun in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but worse yet, retooling all of the ammunition plants and arsenals making weapons and ammo. To say nothing of having to revamp and redo training, and all of the rest of it. Funding to do that would have had to come out of budgetary allocations made to other important purposes, because the cupboard was bare. Congress wasn't in the mood to allocate more money. In short, MacArthur made the only rational choice he could have, given the economic and other realities of the time. Regarding the 6.8 Fury, do its benefits outweigh the costs associated with adopting it? Does it solve the problems the army wanted solved in the best and most-efficient way possible? I'd argue not, but your mileage may vary....
No, he didn't really address the cartridge itself aside from noting that 7.62 nato already did 80% of what 6.8 does, and isn't sure that the 20% more matters. He just talked about the reality of big army.
I wonder how much increased performance could have been gotten applying same cartridge tech to the 5.56? Change the shoulder if we don't want to blow up older rifles. Applying the tech something like the 5.6x50mm case with an obviously longer magazine could be interesting
@GeorgiaBoy1961 No it didn't require rebarrelling all rifles. It means new rifles and guns would be in the new caliber. And there was no demand to make machine guns in 276 as you said. 276 would only be for the garand as pedersen and John garand had developed. Garand developed it in both 276 and 30-06 because he was aware of the political factions fighting over it. Take a guess what happened when 223 was used in vietnam..Vietnam... did they recharger every single mg and rifle from 7.62 nato to 223? Nope. They built new rifles for the new caliber.
Looking at the M7, it doesn’t seem like much of an advantage over an M4. But when you look at the ngsw program as a whole, the m250 is leaps and bounds ahead of the M249 and the M240
the M7 is a major upgrade it can easily hit 500 yards compared to an M4 which is 300 yards and thats with a good shooter behind it. I can see the M7 being more of a dmr rifle over the main service weapon which the Army is going for. But then again knowing every soldier is going to have the capability to reach out to 800 yards with the included XM157 aiming system is kind of wild.
In the "Band of Brothers" miniseries, when Easy Company was moving into the front to counter the 1944 Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), the most poignant questions from Easy Company soldiers to those soldiers coming off of the line was "Do you have any ammo? Gimme your ammo."
Fun Fact. Only like 10% of that series was historically correct. Also the 101st was only encircled for 6 days. The series makes it look like they were encircled for weeks.
@@waltski4375 my dad was one of those troopers, and his squad wasn't just asking for ammo, was also looking for a weapon because he had gotten back to his unit the evening before after being in the hospital since October, being wounded in Holland, he was looking for a weapon, ammo AND field and cold weather gear... 101st was sent to Bastogne with little more than the uniforms they were wearing... no cold weather issues, very few crew-served weapons...
@@waltski4375 another fun fact... my dad said that when they asked retreating US troops for weapons, often, they would just throw them down and keep running... talk about making an airborne guy wanna fight...!
Having worked on the NGSW program from the industry side, the rumors floating around are the Sig made none of the threshold requirements, the biggest in my mind being the durability/reliability requirement. Having handled the Sig at length I can look at some of their design choices and see why.
Once it's in the supply system, you're golden. I'm sure there's a .ppt deck ready for the caliber conversion retrofit project with internal prices already mapped out.
@@Klovaneer Isn't the SR-25 more expensive than the spear..? Not to mention, you can run the 13" barrel on the spear and get either better or similar results as compared to a 16" SR-25.
Henry's questions in the last segment remind me of the way the Army stumbled into adopting UCP for its field uniforms. It seemingly came from nowhere, without a clear trail of accountability.
There must always be a way to obscure the trail of accountability. You need to protect senior leadership from being held accountable for incompetence, deriliction of duty, and corruption. And keep the masses placated. Example: 911 Hearings. That was held because they had to. But in the end it was all grand theater. And not one of those that failed in senior leadership really paid a price.
Except in the case of ACU/UCP, there is a clear trail of accountability... The biggest hurdle is getting someone high enough in the food chain to say it was a Bad Idea and get the ball rolling.
Good officers talks about tactics, great officers talk about logistics. Keep the m-4 and switch to 77grain bullets. Train soldiers to, when they can take an accurate shot( which is not as often as you think) shoot for the groin area. With 77grain bullets and better optics you can shoot out to 600 meters with an M-4. You can also carry more ammo with the M-4.
Why shoot for the groin tho? The thigh with that gigantic femoral artery (and femur) is right there. Can't really fight if you can't walk, or if you're bleeding out from a major artery. That's gonna 100% remove someone from the fight, no 2 ways about it. Plus, Nobody's wearing bulletproof armor on their thighs, not even in the best-armored and best equipped soldiers. Closest you get is an armored bit to protect the groin, the very area you're saying to aim at. The thigh is a hard area to apply good armor to unless you literally make combatants wear a kevlar Kilt (tho to be fair Ireland and Scotland might be interested in that). The idea behind using guns is never to kill people, it's to make them no longer capable of fighting, and "Femur fracture or femoral artery tear" is 100% a combat casualty every time. In fact, if you DO NOT kill them, you occupy more people than if you DO kill them, because if they stay living for a little while people are going to try to administer medical attention, and if they're doing that that's TWO people that can't shoot back at you, whereas if you just killed them, you only took ONE set of crosshairs off your fire team.
@@44R0Ndin in combat you first try to eliminate the threat before rendering first aid. Yes sometimes you try to help a wounded soldier but if the threat is still persistent I’ll guarantee you will try to eliminate the threat first. Most soldiers don’t wear nut protectors but if they do then yes shot the legs but remember you can put a tourniquet high up on the leg and possibly still stay in the fight until the threat is eliminated, again possibly not likely but I would say situation dictates what you will try to do. The thing is the groin is a larger target. Also your primary objective in a firefight is to eliminate the threat(kill). Not occupy the enemy with their wounded. Sure it occupies more assets to tend to the wounded and possibly give you more targets but I believe that is secondary. Every time I was in a firefight I shot to kill never to wound the enemy.
Never been a fan of 223/5.56, but ammo & mags are every where. So my SHTF round is 77 grain 5.56. I miss the days when surplus 7.62 x39 Com Bloc ammo was so cheap!
I think Henry hit the nail on the head with the calibre conversion point. These will probably end up converted to 7.62 as a DMR to supplement the M110 until the time when the 6.8 cartridge finds its niche.
Assuming it ever does. The grossly accelerated wear and tear on the rifles, which we also see with the 855a1, is going to limit that and yes, there is the underpowered "training load"/civilian 277 Fury but that doesn't do anythign 7.62x51 hasn't for three generations. The juice isn't worth the squeeze on the new round.
@@tenchraven it will probably only find a role with 6.8 when a new bullet is developed to combat a new armour or a new threat on the battlefield but like you said currently "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". The XM7 really is a solution looking for a problem.
To me it looks like the best use requires a change in squad level tactics. We may be taking a bigger backward step than even henry realizes. The adoption of body armor and light vehicles coupled with changing terrain projections for future wars necessitated the change of round. We may need to adopt a similar squad set up from ww2. Team one has a weapon in dmr config, 2 in battle rifle, and one perhaps a 5.56 in carbine or machine pistol set up. Team two has a saw, 2 battle rifle, and a carbine with a grenade launcher. Two squads may be needed to handled what one can do in a mout situation but it would give them flexibility those squads currently lack against body armor and targets at range. I think the logistics is a bigger issue than many believe.
@@mrbreck1 I think it more likely that the pressures being put on the battlefield by drones are leading to more emphasis on small unit sizes and rapid reconfigurations for different battle scenarios than larger more diversified squads. Eventually it will be fire teams running around in constant communication setting up maneuvers to overcome the enemy's command and control and disrupt their movements with high level of fire team or squad lever firepower over the traditional company or platoon level centered command structure and centralized movements. It's easier for four men in a small vehicle to avoid drones and artillery spotters than a platoon of squads maneuvering on the battlefield.
The M7 is a step backwards to the m14 where we found that the weight and ammo capacity of 308 or 277 were unsatisfactory when compared to the 556. The amount of you can carry 120 rounds of 556 in 4 magazines or 60 rounds of 308/277 in 3 mags at roughly the same weight. Infantry doctrine and lessons learned in Ukraine show ammo capacity > ammo capability
The US is stepping up caliber because experience in Iraq showed them that a man can take 3 5.56 to the chest and keep going for up to a full minute, if not 2. Turns out weight matters, and 180-250 pound western and middle eastern men don't just explode like 120 pound Vietnamese men did to the 5.56. Its like trying to shoot a deer with a varmint rifle, you are only gonna kill quickly if you hit a critical organ. So he will die, but he won't fall down disabled before he does damage to friendlies. What are soldiers then gonna do? Use their knives? Now add in plate armor, that ALL universally stops all 5.56mm without question and the army is gonna be facing down dudes who take 3 to the chest and don't even flinch or stop charging. Then we factor in that 5.56 doesn't offer good terminal ballistics past 400 meters. So long range options are utterly off the table. Which also make all those modern optics a waste of time and weight since its limited to "iron sights" ranges. The entire point of spending $$$ to get scopes on every rifle was to extend range for a tactical advantage. They need their cartridges to support that. Dunno if 6.5mm is the answer, but all I know is 5.56 is NOT the answer. More ammo doesn't do piss when not only can it not stop the enemy, the enemy an't even scared of it anymore because the KNOW it can't kill them unless lucky shots are had.
Your self-made commercials and plugs for Patreon are the best. I know what's coming every time, and it's so well-executed and humorous I have to watch all the way through each time. Love the channel.
Naw I think its the way honestly. Handing out a DMR platform to every rifleman to make them be able to engage longer distances. Isnt this literally one of the issues that US troops were facing in afghanistan.
@@zeparagonze6148 Yes, so they solve the problem of long range engagements. Now they will have the problem not being able to carry enough ammo to maintain fire superiority for extended periods of time. And that latter problem is significantly more problematic than the former.
@@damncritics If you can hit further shots more accuracly you're gonna be able to use less ammo. I dont think ammo would be a problem. I would assume it would be the same combat load except you just get issued more mags.
Hy garbage take: they should have gone with a 6mm-6.5mm cartridge in the AR platform and focused on getting that solid. It's got light recoil, plenty of punch, and it's still light so you can have a happy medium on ammo capacity and performance.
@@zeparagonze6148 I honestly don't think so. This seems like a MASSIVE overreaction to what happened in Afghanistan, an environment the AR was not made for. While I think the machine gun might go somewhere and seems like a good idea, I'm not sure about the rifle or the 6.8x51.
From what I remember hearing about XM157, it sounded like it had more potential than just making range-finding simple. It sounded to me like it had the potential to be used as a sort of infantry level HUD, with datalink. Which could maybe allow for things like "pinging" the location of suspected enemies, increasing the speed and accuracy that an entire unit gets onto target.
@21:42 That's kind of a moot point when talking about the M17 contract. SIG did not procure a solution for logistics. SIG did not provide testing data. SIG did not have decades of contracting with the DOD to facilitate a contract. Beretta had all of that and more with the M9A3. The difference being that SIG was already converted into an American corporation and Beretta was Italian and had wronged the Army by not taking their accusations of jeapordized reliability lying down (they sued the Army and won). That's why I also have disdain for the M7 and NGSW programs.
What I never understood was the contract being for the package (rifle, MG, cartridge) from a sole source: You're practially guaranteed to get maybe 1/3 thats good, and the rest being a bit rubbish. That's what made NGSW look like an elaborate under-the-table deal rather than a serious upgrade program.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZBut the point is, wouldn’t you WANT help? To me, it generally seems to get more quantity out and, on top of that, tends to breed competition (which means innovation).
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ Why would you want them to do it by themselves though? Instead of getting one company that does a mediocre job at different products, why not diversify among companies with appropriate expertise for better results? People start asking question like "Was getting the best equipment not the intent of the contract? Was it all just a charade to funnel money to SIG?" When they were developing the AR15, no one expected Armalite to invent a new round! They did the sensible thing and went to a major ammunition manufacturer with the specs.
A sig mcx in a hybrid 6mm arc would be so much better. It's lighter than the spear with marginally worse range and still having much better performance against armor compared to 5.56.
I would love to see something like a 6mmArc or even 6mmPPC developed with the hybrid bimetalic case that sig developed. I want to see what kind of velocity they can get with the higher pressures this cartridge provides.
What armor? The armor that our near peer adversaries don't even issue or the basic level IV armor from a decade ago that still stops anything shy of a .50BMG? Every modern armor stops .277 and the second something general issue can get through that armor it gets replaced in six months during actual wartime or troops will ditch it like they did with their flak jackets in Vietnam.
@@DaleErnieMichael Yeah, this whole idea was "We need something to to penetrate body armor, because suddenly war with a near-peer adversary looks more likely than we used to think. Wait, Russians don't actually wear body armor? I'll pretend I didn't hear that."
Dear Sir, As a combat veteran and long time shooter we really loved the M-14 as our first service rifle. The M-14 was accurate and super reliable in any condition that you can think of... Then one day came the dreaded day that we were ordered to turn in our M-14's for the M-16s. While the rifle was lighter it didn't have the range, penetration and deadly effect that the M-14 had. Later on we realized that the main issue of reliability was not the rifle itself but the dirty and over powered gun powder that the M-16 used. Later on after the Vietnam War and while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan our Special Forces together with the experts from Remington develop the 6.8 SPC cartridge giving our rifles new range and deadly results. I myself bought a Ruger Ranch Rifle in 6.8 SPC caliber and was highly impressed with the results. Why do we still have to keep experimenting with all these new cartridges and weapons systems when we have what we need right in front of us?
A 6mm Arc with a sized up receiver and barrel extension so they can increase the bolt wall size probably would have been the best choice. Geiselle has 30 rd mags too now. Another option would be the 6mm Max that can increase velocity over 5.56, perform better at range, and only requires a barrel and mag swap.
On paper, yes, but now you run into the same logistical issues but worse, because then you can't even switch to existing stock for anything. I'm pretty sure this is why the Army said the NGSW explicitly must be chambered in 6.8x51. Both the SIG and Beretta rifles could be chambered in 7.62.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6if we had adopted the XCR during the scar trials like we should’ve, this would be such a non issue. That being said, line units, the units most likely to get these, would never run out of ammunition and parts before any meaningful stockpile was created.
I feel that if this rifle was adopted specifically to replace the armies DMR, there would be a lot less pushback and confusion. Adopting this rifle for the standard infantry rifle makes no sense.
American military leaders have some kind of manic obsession with the constant introduction of rifle cartridges. Instead of the .280 Petersen cartridge they were stuck with the .30-06. When they realized that the intermediate cartridge was the future and the 7.92x33, 7.62x39 and .280 British were created, the USA created the same .30-06 in a shorter cartridge case. And now they are doing the same thing again in the USA. They are making a new M14. But you can make a new armor-piercing cartridge and remain within the framework of an intermediate cartridge for automatic fire, for example, the new 6.02x41 cartridge, which was created in this concept and has increased armor penetration.
@@mghegotagunDrop off in capability at distance due to accuracy and velocity effects They honestly do have a paint with this cartridge. It's at the upper limit for recoil, we're mostly operating in semiautomatic, and having something that hits a little harder, a little further, with a shorter barrel...
@cmdrwilmot2696 I think the caliber debate was in 1930-1935, which is plenty of time for ww2. Italy and Japan screwed up and upgraded their caliber right before ww2 in 1938 and 1940 for Japan. It was unnecessary too as the rifles back then just weren't accurate enough to be used for long range combat, so their small calibers they originally had would have been totally fine.
It's almost like they thought "Hey we need more DMRs to overcome armor at range" but instead of just making more members of a squad deisgnated marksmen and equipping them with existing DMRs and new optics, they created a boondoggle with a new weapons platform and new cartridge.
Keep in mind that the Army has been rolling out combat helmets and body armor that are lighter in weight than the last. Nothing is happening in isolation.
@@cwolf8841 True, and with lighter ammo the soldier can go longer without resupply. Put another way; 'No one ever complained of too much ammo in a firefight.'
@@Gridlocked The newer protective gear isn't much lighter, though, and then there is all the gear, especially electronics and batteries that must be considered.
Seemed like about everybody loved the BAR in WW2. As many as 1/4 of dudes in the Pacific had one by the end of the war. European platoons often carried six BARs instead of the standard three
That was equal parts the big wigs realizing they were undergunned at the tactical level as it was soldiers loving them. The Marines were smart enough to start the war with a BAR assigned to each fireteam (3 to a squad). The Army started the war with one assigned to a squad. Match that against a squad built around a top fed LMG with 30 round mags, designed for suppressing fire, and at least a dedicated ammo feeder, if not everyone else on the squad contributing mags to feed the LMG, meant we had to throw more BAR’s into each squad to compensate with multiple overlapping fields of fire to overcome the problem.
@@UMADBRO64 BARs weigh 20lbs, a Garand weights 10. That's a big reason. It's telling that we didn't see Easy company use the BAR much if at all in the tv show.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I made no claim that the BAR was "optimal", whatever that word means to you. I just mentioned its popularity, soo.. aren't we saying the same thing?
The BAR is often evaluated in light of light machine guns, but it was not technically a machine gun, but instead an automatic rifle. Browning designed not to be a light MG, but to be a machine gun "killer," something an individual GI or team could use to assault and take out enemy trench lines and MG positions in WW1. As an actual light machine gun, the BAR had some faults: It lacked a quick-change barrel, and could not feed from linked or belted ammunition. It was not designed to be used from a tripod, merely off-hand (using the steel cup at the waist or fired from the shoulder), or prone from a bipod. The British/Czech BREN was/is probably better in that role, to name one example - but again, the BAR was not a LMG, but an automatic rifle. The BAR excelled as a counter-sniper and counter-MG weapon, and was used extensively in both ways. It was also highly prized as a weapon for use in ambushes and for counter-ambush work. Patrols in the jungle or in built-up urban areas like the BAR in case the forward part of the column made contact. In the Pacific Island-hopping campaigns, riflemen would flush out Japanese snipers in the tops of trees and the BAR man would hose them down and take 'em out. You note how common they were in both Army and Marine units, by the time WW2 ended; this is a good testimony as to how effective and well-regarded a weapon it was.
Here's my prediction. Rock, paper, logistics. No one else is making 6.8x51. There is no industrial base for the barrels, mags, brass, bullets, etc.... 7.62 on the other hand has massive industry support. Pretty much any ammo producers, mag manufacturers or barrel producers could tool up to make rounds and parts by the millions with the drop of a contract because they have the machines. I still think the modernized m4 is still a better weapon in the vast majority of situations because of the ammo of ammo you can carry and the the ability to quickly lay down accurate fire. Applying the hybrid case tech to 5.56 does open up weight savings and possibilities for pushing a 77+grn round even faster out of a 10.5 or 14.5" barrel.
Yeah, that has been my thought since this whole thing started. Why not just apply the hybrid case tech to the 5.56 and replace M4 barrels and receivers if they need to be beefed up?
The fact that 6.8x51mm is cross compatible with 7.62 magazines means that some of these issues are already dealt with. Also, the fact that the M7 can be barrel swapped to 7.62 is why I think SIG won, on top of the fact that True Velocity didn't have a belt fed option.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 I think sig won because they are all up in that Virginia swamp with Boeing, Raytheon and everyone else offering sweet retirement plans for retired officials. Anything technical is just a good cover story for keeping the DOD dollars flowing. And yes I'm super skeptical after having worked on pretty much every side of the system and leaving it to make an honest living.
@@COMMANDandConquer199 we already have a ton of m4/16 along with all the tools and parts in the inventory so an upgrade path makes way more sense. Unless you are trying to but a new house in Alexandria Virginia...
@@matthewconnor5483 there is nothing to support that. It just sounds like you hate SIG more than anything, to be honest. Textron dropped out on it's own and True Velocity/Beretta didn't have a belt fed option. If you want to be pessimistic, you could say that they won by default, but "muh backroom deals" or "muh gubmint kickbacks" doesn't really hold water.
I’ve been saying from the beginning this weapon should be DMR only. The XM250 should replace the 240 and 249. The MCX LT chambered in a 6.8spc or 277 Wolverine (because same pills as the 6.8x51) using the hybrid case technology as the standard infantry rifle. If needed we would still have the barrels and conversion kits to swap to the 556 in emergencies or any other caliber that special operations needs using the same rifle. I still would love to see Sig use that new case technology and see how current ammo performs first though although moving to a 277 or 6.8 would be better for the overall system.
.277 Wolverine is just an upgraded 300 blackout, still retaining a 5.56 nato case capacity. The 6.8 spc would be the more optimal choice because of the larger case capacity, although I would like to see the 6mm max take the stage because it has parts commonality with 5.56 guns, only requiring a barrel and magazine change.
As a Brit, I think the real shame is that they didn’t go with the .277 TVCM polymer-cased cartridge (from the RM-277R). I think this was a cartridge NATO would have been interested in. Much lighter and cheaper than the 6.8 Fury. I can’t see the UK or other NATO countries ever adopting a round so complicated to manufacture and so limited in firing platform.
277 TVCM is somewhat lighter (although both are lighter than 7.62), but the US Army pays $2.08 - $2.15 USD a round for 6.8CC ammo and TVCM charges $3.50 a round for generic 308 ammo. What's more, a traditional ammo factory could relatively easily convert to producing 6.8 CC which is 90% the same from a manufacturing process as traditional ammo but could not switchover to TVCM without completely changing both the facility and most of the technical staff. Ease of manufacture and cost both seem to substantially favor the Fury.
@@duanemckinley9353 that’s a really good point but the cost of 277 TVCM would come down considerably in mass production as the raw materials are much cheaper; currently the low production keeps costs high. The steel / copper construction of 6.8 is much more complicated than traditional brass or a polymer mould and cannot be done in legacy manufacturing without considerable modifications. It could have also driven a move over to polymer from brass, saving considerable weight for legacy 7.62 weapons (M240 / UK GPMG). Additionally, as it relied on barrel length rather than super pressure to achieve its results, it would have been easier for NATO countries to swallow and develop weapons for (and no need for a training round to preserve barrel life). I think the real winner was the XM250. In the long run, polymer (and .277) will be seen as a missed opportunity.
I’ve got a MCX Spear in .308 and as of right now I hate it. Had it for less than a week and have put only 65 rounds through it. Accuracy is fine, and its shoots 175 grain HPBT just fine, but shooting it suppressed is brutal. Major blowback and it feels like the gun is getting beat to hell. Guess I have to shell out another $1200 or so for a flow through suppressor.
That was a war on insurgents. A proper war is going to be flat out destruction and occupation. You don't hear Ukrainian insurgency in Russian Controlled Cities do you?
As a former enlisted guy who carried a gun professionally (in and out of the U.S. Army) for twenty two years, I have to say something stinks here. Is it A: we need to spend so we can get as much in the budget next year? B: Bob is a good field grade officer, but he needs a successful project manager role and the attendant Legion of Merit award to make general. Whatever else might be going on something stinks.
How is it that it took the YT algorithm so long to bring me to this channel? Love it! Am a USMC vet, a former grunt, and I appreciate what you're doing! New subscriber!
I think it will be converted to 7.62x51mm in a lot of cases, as will the XM250. I think it will be a prominent system as a DMR with a longer barrel. I think the winter charging handle is genius, and the AR charging handle will go away in later iterations. (Mittens in -40 suck.) I think suppressors will not be used most of the time. I think the laser rangefinder optic will stay in service as part of the DMR package, and the analog LPVO optic will be standard issue. Garand Thumb's review of it makes it pretty clear just how broken (in gaming terminology) of a system it is. 3 seconds between clicking a button and getting a round out the barrel and onto a target six hundred and some change meters away for the first shot of the day is absurd. If there is a group of people 25 to 50 meters between each other range-wise, (say a V formation or something similar,) all it takes is the first lase on one of them, and everything else is a slight adjustment from the user up or down.
The USgov took a gamble that rifles would matter in "next gen warfare". It turns out that small payload drones on the squad level was the horse to bet on.
This might sound like a stupid question: But why not go with a new type of armor piercing 7.62x51mm cartridge with a chamber pressure of 80,000psi instead of developing a new 6.8x51mm cartridge (which also has a chamber pressure of 80,000psi)? Even if it's going to be incompatible with most (if not all) weapons chambered in standard 7.62 NATO (which has a chamber pressure of 50,000 psi), all you'd have to do is change the barrel and the receiver to accommodate the chamber pressure of the new 7.62 cartridge rather than develop a whole new family of weapons!
If a HP cartridge got into the mix with a standard 7.62 it could grenade the rifle. So you’s have to make the cartridge dimensionally different so it won’t chamber in a normal 7.62 weapon. At that point you might as well go for the most advanced bullet shape which is 6.8. The 6.8 cartridge has major advantages over 7.62, it’s a more efficient design. And if it was only used to replace the 7.62 as DMR and MG cartridge I don’t think people would be scratching their heads so much.
Honestly dude the issued plates are already much lighter for their protection level than what most of the affordable options on the commercial market are. The real struggle is figuring out soft armor that covers all the junctional areas and soft bits on your sides and armpits without making you heat cat or weighing as much as the rifle plates you're also wearing.
On an unrelated issue: good to see the 3 lions on your shirt, Henry. Your sartorial choices on the range are one thing, this is of another level. Thanks for the great work, always of interest.
I really think they should have continued work on the original 264 USA cartridge the US Army marksmen team was working on. It was an intermediate cartridge using a Carcano casing with a 6.5mm projectile (6.5x48). It has an enormous amount of potential without needing a full sized frame. It was something that would have been in between the AR-15 and AR-10. For civilian use, a lightweight AR-10 build is still the best option today. Generally more accurate than a SCAR, lighter, less expensive, parts available, and just as reliable when maintained, etc.
I'm not sure you can get an AR10 lighter, more accurate, and less expensive than a MK 17 while retaining reliability and not cheaping out on parts. But I also haven't looked into quality builds in the last 2 years.
@@nigerianslumlord ...I've built a couple affordable/quality builds around the $1,500 area. The real key parts to ensure accuracy and reliability is obviously the barrel and BCG. A billet receiver set for a little beef, Faxon Gunner barrel (or similar), and melonite BCG is the foundation. Then you can usually cheap out on much of the other furniture by shopping sales. You don't need to spend $250 for a handguard, or $200 for a stock. That's where the price really tends to make them skyrocket. Also, picking up something like a RAVE trigger for around $100 on sale is also a good bet. If you know how to properly build it, you'd be amazed at how you can keep the weight down and still maintain a high level of accuracy for a general battle rifle. The key to reliability of any AR platform is keeping it clean. The melonite BCG really helps in that area, but nothing can replace maintenance.
@@Condor1970 What kind of accuracy are you able to get out of the Faxon barrels and with what ammo? Those kinds of concerns are what's keeping me from buying one.
@mandaloin My 18in does standard ball ammo around 2MOA on a good day, and match ammo will get me around 1MOA at best. It's not a sub MOA target rifle barrel, but a very accurate and lightweight battle rifle barrel. If I was younger and more steady, it may even do better.
The modularity of the SIG isn't very different from the AR. You have lowers for 15's and 10's (and technically others) then uppers of your choice... So they didn't wildly improve the modularity
Hey guys, Kevin Owens would be a great guest for you in regard to discussing this. He was part of the weapons procurement in SOCOM. I think I've heard him mention this weapon. His channel is Overmatch consulting.
There's absolutely no way the XM7 with a 13" barrel and a hot load can penetrate level 4 armor at 600m. It's absurd. Kinda strange that the DOD hasn't released anything about it's armor penetration yet...
It's not supposed to penetrate. It's supposed to give sufficient back deformation to actually take a man out of the fight. Going cleanly through is great but they're settling for deformation.
What i could see the program achieving is getting the machinegun standardized and getting the xm-7 into squads not as a common rifle but a longer range dmr thing that shares the ammo of the mg to help get the squad more reach, kinda like the soviets did with putting both a guy with a pkm and a guy with an svd into most squads while having the rest of the guys using smaller caliber aks.
@@Gridlocked The AKS-74U uses the same caliber as the AK-74, and isn't a standard line weapon like the PKM and SVD. It's clear 'smaller caliber AKs' means the AK-74s which have smaller calibers than their MGs and DMRs.
@@vaclavjebavy5118 You’re right, a smaller caliber would be the standard issued AK-74, but in this particular context about the modern U.S. Army squad weapon configuration, the standard issued weapon in-place of the AK-74 would be the M4A1, which is a carbine and it is too underpowered for duties outside of security and close quarter combat or being used in confined spaces. The M4A1 suffers from a lot of the same ballistic performance issues as the AK/AKS-74U does, those mainly being reduced muzzle velocity and effectiveness at range. Outside of a few security services, many Russian soldiers who’ve had to use the AKS-74U hated it and complained that it was too underpowered. Now, the XM7 is set to replace the M4A1. Which means that the average U.S. Army squad will no longer be burdened with an underpowered carbine for main combat duties and will be deployed with a far better optic than the last, all while still being able to maneuver in confined spaces due the XM7 being even shorter than the standard M4A1.
@@Gridlocked I do think you're comparing apples to oranges since an AK-74 carbine might not be the same as an M16 carbine, since both use different ammunition and the AKSU has a significantly shorter barrel than the M4. But at the same time I concur that these higher caliber rifles do bring greater capability, even in closer quarters.
@@vaclavjebavy5118 I’m glad that we’re in agreement, and I truly believe and what people are failing to understand is that the caliber and rifle in question will only continue to be improved upon and bring great lethality to the U.S. army squad from this point forward.
Great conversation between you two, yes more chats about logistics and how they win ( and have lost wars) interesting to see how the whole XM7 project pans out.
Lake City (where the DoD makes all its own ammo) is building a new building just for 6.8x51. Until that's up and running they are getting the new rifles slowly as Sig is the only source for ammo. Once that is up how long do you think it would take for them to build and and stage all the ammo they will want globally?
Plastic ammo is the future. Weapon agnostic, the ammo should have been the first priority, not the weapon. I don't think the current sig offerings will be competitive for the dismounted infantry in 5-10 years if the ammo and weapons are just keep getting heavier
(also, my take is that sig won't want the army developing a more modular M7 because they're going to want the US using their special 6.8 ammo instead of common stock 7.62 ir 5.56 nato.)
@@stefthorman8548 Believe it or not they actually can't. That's just the nature of the materials. With the heat issue, it's kind of one or the other. There might be an aluminum alloy case that could maybe work but heat capacity is at least indirectly tied to mass. This is kind of fundamental physics land. Brass may not be perfect but plastic isn't a solution for a full auto system, and if it isn't a solution for that it's not a solution.
This is 1000% about near-peer conflict. The US is the uncontested global leader in asymmetric warfare. We have a very long way to go in learning conventional war against an enemy who has legitimate individual capabilities such as night vision and armor.
I think you're very wrong on that. This is for the next one. Distance + reaction time will matter more than ever. CQB & risking highly valuable and expensive human lives will be the job of drones. Keep the fanatical Chinese at a distance with their heads down while artillery, aircraft and drones do the main work will be key. The Chinese conscripts, let alone their higher tier forces, will make every battle like the WW2 Japanese on Okinawa. Why would we want to play the same game? Plus with more and more focus on swarming & autonomous air and ground drones, you want that distance & time for countering. Throwing bodies at a problem, like in Ukraine's situation, especially door-to-door, trench-to-trench, is not the way to ever think again with our folks.
The munition logistics is the tip of the iceberg with this rifle. Not only is there a problem with ammo, but there needs to be better ergonomics with the rifle itself. We dont need 3 ways to charge the rifle, and we don’t need to worry about being gentle with the rifle either. The optics will more than likely break AFTER the rifle does. The water and mud tests were a fail. The tolerances inside the rifle cause over loading of the magazine disabling the rifle completely. And, as I mentioned, 6.8x51mm is almost non existant compared to military logisitics. I feel like this is a newer gen NGSW project when the US tried to replace the M16 platform just to find out that making the rifle more accurate was to throw an optic on it.
To the idea of fighting WW2 with the last wars gear…the M1 Garand was the exception to that. And then, logistics before deployment, one could easily argue that the M16 violated that principle, being produced without enough of the proper ammo, and then not being tested properly with the substitute ammo, to the tragic and pointless detriment of a number of Marines, and the reputation of the M16/AR15 family of weapons.
Honestly I was an infantryman and a Paratrooper once upon a time as a young soldier, I did the Panama Invasion and Iraq 2006-08. I'm retired from the Army now but some of my old soldiers are now senior NCO and field grade officers now. I have always instilled in them was to have an over abundant supply of ammunition once in combat along with water, food, and batteries for NVGs and radios. Dad told me about combat in the Korean War that you are going to have more enemy than the ammo that you have stocked up on. My Uncles from Vietnam carried more ammo for a rifleman using the 5.56mm which was twice the 7.62 NATO M-14 initially 140 rounds VS 100 for the M-14 as a basic load. Most units by 1967 till the end who had 20 round magazines carried an additional 2 bandoliers of 100 rounds each total of 200 extra rounds and each squad member carried a bandolier of 7.62 NATO for the M-60 squad machine gun, besides all their personal gear. An infantry squad in Vietnam had a firepower of a WWII infantry squad and a platoon more than an infantry company as in rifle and machine gun firepower. The XM7 and M7 NGSW is a step back to the M-14 era trying to "Over Match" the range of the weapon. But modern combat has shown that combat ranges are 300 meters or less since WWI till present. I would have my soldiers carry more ammo into combat than run out with heavier ammo and carry less. Perfect example is Black Hawk Down, me and my soldiers watched this over and over during pre-deployment training at Ft. Dix before deploying to Iraq. In Kuwait we zeroed more and did battle drills, in Iraq we did quarterly zero and training, every mission was test fire and clean weapons after every mission. I don't want to be caught short in a convoy, combat patrol, or combat operation where you didn't anticipate combat when it happens. The enemy is always watching you and taking notes and discriminate units who are easy targets because they were complacent. The enemy loves to test you on their home turf.
My prediction of future: long range stuff will be done with automated systems, drones, artillery etc. and the role of rifles will be reduced to short range, CQB, trench stuff. So, shorty, agile and low recoil (M4 type) weapons will be king for infantry. See Ukraine footage for examples of this.
I don't get why the USMC went with all m27 IARs. It's a heavier ar variant that does slightly better with sustained fire. I also hate that the Army's new rifle that has practice ammo and polymer cased combat ammo. This is a logistical nightmare.
The marine corps has a more specific mission set than the army. This ain’t the GWOT anymore, the marine corps knows the next fight is likely in the pacific where amphibious assaults will be commonplace. The m27 uses a gas piston instead of direct impingement which makes it more reliable in sand, water and mud, it’s also far lighter than the saw and only a little bit heavier than the m4, so it won’t be too cumbersome when fighting to a beachhead. You have to remember the marines are an expeditionary force meant to secure beachheads in enemy territory to make way for the army which is the invasion force. I think there might’ve been better options than the m27, but I’d rather have the m27 than the M7 any day.
Everyone hated whimpy 30-06 when it came out cuz it’s small bullet compared to 45-70 Everyone hated 308 cuz it’s slower than 30-06 Everyone hated 223 cuz a bunch of “hits” didn’t stop the enemy And now everyone hates the 6.8/277 fury
I get your point but look at the actual calibers: 30-06 is better than its predecessor because it's lighter and better in every way. .308 was better because it's lighter and doesn't actually sacrifice much at combat ranges. .556 is as better because it's lighter and doesn't sacrifice much at combat ranges. .277 is heavier and DOES sacrifice a LOT at combat ranges, all in the name of performance at ranges that were unlikely to face.
@@TheBennett388 The thing about that is, you might be engaging airborne targets at significant range. That's where a much flatter shooting rifle could be useful. Think about engaging a drone like a Baba Yaga. You could feasibly have to engage that at 500+ meters. Anything with less bullet drop is going to make that engagement easier. That's the distance that I think people are missing.
Only at Minute 13:00 but a few initial comments: 1) if you're going to throw data/info graphics up on the screen (always a good thing IMHO) then leave them up long enough for the viewer to recognize & digest them. 2-3 seconds isn't adequate. Somewhere between 10-20 seconds depending on how "dense"' the material is and how important it is for informing the viewer. 2) acronyms are constantly being invented... So old soldiers like me... 77-81' 82nd ABN & 2nd ID on the DMZ in Korea... will need you to define a current acronym the first time you use it. It's old hat to you... Not necessarily to your audience. Bring them so they stay engaged & don't miss what you're trying to share as they try to figure out what you said 15 seconds ago..
I think that the "hybrid" cased ammunition, could be a possible solution to increase lethality, from the current 5.56mm cartridge. Higher pressure, heavier bullet, different barrel twist rates(?). Uprating barrels to the higher cartridge pressures, would still leave you able to use the existing 5.56 ammo, that's currently in the logistics supply chain. For me, this would be a far more logical progression, than reinventing everything around a completely new calibre of bullet.
Why just not use the hybrid cases technology in 7,62NATO and up pressure to app 70000psi. All modern weapons will handle 70000psi with steel bottomed cases. Then you have the 7.62NATO with 90% of 277Fury performance with 200% better barrel life and no logistical problems.
Just loading 7.62 up to civilian 308 levels would be a big upgrade. A 24” 308 with a long 130gr hardened steel AP round functionally duplicates the 277 fury with much longer barrel life, less muzzle blast, cheaper projectiles, and is compatible with existing systems.
Really would love to hear about procurement and logistics, been kinda obsessed. Also I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast systems in different countries and times such as Russian vs US procurement. Keep up the great work!
This is a mistake to ditch the M-4 and the 5.56X45. The Army has a long history of picking the wrong gun. The 30-40 Kraig over a Mauser the 1903 over the M-1917 the M-14 over the FN FAL in the British intermediate cartridge the M60 over the MG-42/MG-3 the M9 over the Colt 1911 so why not this too.
Picking 30-06 over .276 Pederson for the M1 due to supply alone :( .276 is ballistically near identical to .277 fury, just out of a 24” barrel instead of a 16.
Note that we got the M16 into the system the same way - limited (but formal) procurement for a specialty purpose, then rolled into full issue. Or the M4 - designed as a PDW for truck drivers, tankers, etc., and a handy carbine for SOCOM to the stabdard issue rifle. As for ammo clearance. We managed to shift from .30-06 to 6 62x51mm over all in a realtovely short period (at least for the active Army & Marine Corps), and then oivoting a few years later for rifle ammo to the non-NATO 5.56mm. I think the 7.62x51mm is going to have enough uses, (even if Big Army and the Marine Corps goes "all in" on the M7, M250, and 6.8x51mm at the rifle platoon level) to use up our stocks of 7.62x51mm by the time we are ready to field the 6.8x51mm beyond infantry platoons. Im.curious to see if the military leans towards some.of the .338 GPMGs to replace 7.62mm MGs and at least partially displace the M2HB and M2A1. (Honestly, my back of the envelope calcs of space & weight for gun & ammo, and considering the other weapons avaliable, a strong case could be made for replacing both the M240 and M2 on the Abrams and sinilar AFVs with a "pure" battery of .338 GPMGs).
Points well taken, but we're taking about very different philosophies: The M16 being adopted during an era of jungle warfare when ammunition count, and mobility was absolutely required. the 7.62x51mm was adopted to usher in a magazine fed weapon when the soviets were moving to an AK system. in this case... the 6.8x51 is adapted for..... ? requirement? for what type of war?
I honestly think the XM7 is the American AK-12 shenanigan (But with 10x the budget): - Designed-by-a-committee level of features, regardless of actual practicality & aesthetics. - Boring-ass design compared to the competition. - WAAAAY too overpriced for seemingly not much advantage over the M4. - Smells of prioritizing business/politics connections over actual troop feedback and needs.
@@9HoleReviews Fucking do it, dude. XM-7 vs AK-12 with side tangents into M14 and PSL (feat. Brandon, Ziga, Josh, maybe Gun Jesus himself). The most EPIC of committee warfare story ever told!
I know bullets are bullets and fragmentation is largely something for people who are training to discuss. That is precisely why this makes sense. Picking holes with a 22 caliber bullet at even 500 yards is never becoming a universal standard where grunts have even consistent killing potential. They want bigger wound channels with the same flat shooting and a considerable effective range. They dole out quadrails because nobody is training them to shoot without it. I know you think it's shitty to point that out but it shows the lack of disciple related to current standards. Many other western armies have no issues making sure folks can shoot a carbine by starting them with standard clamshell furniture.
Counterpoint, I don't see any reason why a cheapo-depot AR-10 generic rifle, say like an Aero Precision M5, couldn't just be adapted to function with even the higher power 277 Fury loads. You'd need to adjust the gas system perhaps, perhaps a rifle speed or superlative arms gas block would help, but there's no reason to believe that a quality AR-10 bolt and barrel chambered for 277 Fury couldn't handle the pressures with a traditional AR-10 DI system. Again, maybe some adjustment to the gas system may be necessary, maybe an adjustable gas block or a smaller gas port on the barrel, but no reason to believe that there's some magic with the SIG SPEAR that a SIG 716 chambered in 277 Fury couldn't also handle.
I've yet to see why we need a new round in the first place. A .308 with the same weight bullet as the .277 would go the same speed without such a high chamber pressure needing all new case designs and needing more barrel replacements than the belt fed machine guns. You maybe get a better ballistic coefficient with .277 but .308's effective range is already further than anyone is going to shoot, and the M7 isn't even accurate enough to use past 600 yards to begin with. It's a solution in search of a problem and is going to lead to major supply chain issues.
@@userJohnSmith the Sig Spear bolt is dimensionally equivalent to your typical AR-10 bolts in terms of the lugs and diameter and what not. Obviously the backend is different due to connection to a piston driven carrier, but the bolt face and lug dimensions are the same.
@@DaleErnieMichael The 277 Fury is pretty much just a hot loaded 6.5 Creedmore. If they made it 6.5 instead of 6.8, I doubt there would be any noticeable difference in performance. The bimetal construction of the casing simply allows the cartridge to be loaded to higher pressures without the primer being blown out, as is common with 6.5 CM PRS match loaded cartridges.
Because most AR10s on the market have reliability issues of some kind once you actually run them. Especially once you stack aftermarket parts into em, I sadly know this first hand from building 2 AR10s
For some reason the .mil types are fixated on 14" barrels. Take a 277 Fury at 80k psi working pressure, fire it out of a 22"-24" RIFLE barrel and you get level IV body armor destruction.
I think that's down to the amount of urban warfare that's been done in recent history. A barrel that long is a pain in the ass to maneuver in close quarters, especially if you have a suppressor hanging off the end. The only way around that is to switch to a bullpup configuration, and there's no way in _hell_ the U.S. military's gonna do that at this point.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 so basically they want a long range, urban warfare, short barreled, suppressed, armor destructing rifle huh. Sounds like a woman is in charge
As US troops learned in Vietnam and Iraq, 20"+ barrels are a major pain in the ass in CQC. A rifle length barrel would be great for the mountains of Afghanistan or the plains of Europe but it's a hindrance in Urban Warfare. I wouldn't be surprised if a rifle length Spear ends up fulfilling a DMR role though.
That's all well and good for a DMR or LMG, but not as a battle rifle that has to do CQB or quick vehicle dismounts. Not to mention the extra length of a suppressor on it
@@janvavra1333 I'm sure there is much more design and math involved beyond my simple numbers. I think of it this way, what is the best 5.56 round people generally to go for ballistics and terminal performance? Generally that would be Mk262 or a 77 gr bullet at above 2700 fps. If we are thought gaming with 21st century warfare and what round would best be suited. Why not an intermediate cartridge that involves higher pressures/go bullpup/telescoping Ammunition to get a 85gr bullet with a good BC up to 2800-3000 fps? Manageable weight gain but at increased performance without heavy recoil. If the geometry of the bullet and case is managed I don't think there would be a huge loss of capacity compared to 5.56. 6.8x51 is a hot round that's impressive downrange, but in the Spear it's just too much. Watch dudes shooting the full power ammo, even with the trained guys they are fighting that gun. I think this whole program ends up with the M7 being regulated to an oddity in the arms room or at best the new DMR role with the MG being the star of the show.
I always thought this as well. still a compromise round, but you could move to a 6x45 and belted magnum instead of 7x62x51 dual round setup.. or skip the dual infantry round and make it 6x45 and 50bmg + artillery. a saw in 6x45 would give a pkm a tough fight.
The bullpup one maybe but the one they chose no… they should just have made it 7.62 anyways or 5.56 in the bullpup configuration. All this crap they did is so bad and just idk it really makes me upset.
That's probably the best comparison. It'll sit around unused until some niche application comes around like with the M14 being used as a DMR in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From an outside perspective, us army is keen on the idea of making everyone a sharpshooter. Every time a war ends, people start to draw experience from the shooting range, where they shoot targets that don't shoot back, and assume that they'll do the same thing on the battlefield. Than the war comes, soliders become disappointed in their weapons, the army adopts rifles that are more suited for volume of fire (m16 vs m14, m4 vs m16), than the war ends and the cycle repeats
So I just wonder why we can't work a better optimized 7.62x51mm cartridge that has the same ballistic coefficient as the 6.8x51mm. I get updating the M240B to the M250 and making a bigger round and a lighter gun, that makes sense. As Henry said, we got a TON of 7.62x51 all across the world, so pushing a new round without the support could mean front line troops don't have the ammo required to fight. In that case, if you wanted a main battle rifle that didn't suck a metric ton of ass like the M14 did, fine, upgrade to the XM7 and rework the 7.62 cartridge to hit with more power and be able to penetrate armor at distance.
![M16A2 to 500yds: Practical Accuracy ...was Eugene Stoner wrong? [ USMC experiences in Iraq ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sqOiTXmi1QU/mqdefault.jpg)
Sig SPEAR (M7 / XM7 NGSW base rifle) practical accuracy to 800y video is available on HWOW now! forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/videos/20240718-sig-spear-11 (free release)
You'll have to wait till Thursday to see it on TH-cam though.
P.S. I realized I called the XM157 the XM158 in the video, sorry... but what do you think about the NGSW project?
P.S.S. One other potential instead of just DMROing (destroying essentially) a stock of unused rifles, storing indefinitely, giving them away as Military Aid, or caliber conversion is to "surplus" them to SIG to sell off like the M17 pistols that didn't pass spec... However this may be less likely as it could be politically touchy to "surplus" a magazine-fed modern rifle.
Aight I made a comment but I guess a really dumb-looking question to some firearms nerds but...
Has anyone atm tried seeing how 6.8 handles within the bounds of the AR platform? As in has any asked the caveman form of the question "can we just modify the M4's to fire new bigger boolet?" since it's so modular nowadays I feel like someone has to have thought about it and tried by now...
I remember when some army general wanted to switch back to 7.62x51 for all weapons and it died a quiet death, thankfully. The big caliber mafia, regrouped and decided that they needed to justify what they wanted because of body armor and the "need" for long range rifle engagements in order to get their way. SOCOM and the infantry troops in the field never asked for this. In fact, even the Marine Infantry would rather have their M4's back, instead of the heavy and overburdened M27. SOCOM went to the URG-I and I am told the H&K 416's are not as ubiquitous as they once were in Tier 1 units. My prediction is the SIG Spear and the 6.8x51 ammo will very shortly beat the M14's record as the shortest service life of any Army rifle. The new lighter 7.62x51 and 338 Belt feds do have a future, however everyone needs to compete for that contract award. Don't even get me started on that stupid $15,000 do all optic they are bolting on to the M7 and the suppressors (or bright glowing night lights) on every weapon. Perhaps we shouldn't have people who are charge of buying computers and office furniture in charge of weapons trials and procurement???
With all due respect I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees- As far as I'm concerned the clear intention between the NGSW was for a SAW upgrade and the rifle is the secondary component of that. The XM250 is an upgrade over the M249 in basically every way and the way I see it big army is trying to transition the firepower of the unit away from the individual riflemen and onto the SAW gunner. If you're trying to get a round that can defeat barriers and moderate body armor then you have to go up in caliber to a battle rifle, and the only way to do that while maintaining the same volume of fire as before is to move the firepower away from the rifleman (who cannot keep up the same volume of fire as someone with an intermediate cartridge) and onto the MG.
Now is that a necessary change? Debatable- I think a SAW upgrade in 5.56, a new AR upper in 5.56, and MAYBE some development to the 5.56 cartridge but moving to 6.8x51 also fulfills this requirement. Only time will tell if it was a good idea or not however.
@@JonManProductionsyou cannot put 308 in an AR-15 without changing the lower. The Ruger SFAR fits it into a similar package but it is proprietary and not compatible. Magazines will not fit in the mag well. You can put 6mm ARC in a 5.56 lower or 300BO.
I think drones will be more of a problem in the future than any enemy body armour upgrades.
"I either want less corruption, or I wish to be a part of it."
Believe it or not I came up with the following as the answer to a question: ‘If they’re killing cows anyway, I’m gonna eat steak’.
Less of that attitude and more of a justice mindset might be good just now
@@davidtbk8789not to be philosophical, but right as we assess it is right, and truth, by its very nature, is always that. So I agree with you. The reason virtue provides fruit is universal.
@@MJA5 I've always agreed with this, but today I'll say that I see a lot of naivete' around truth being universal.
You and I see truth as universal, but many people are not mentally capable of facing truth or even understanding it.
Our nation and it's system functioned well-enough because of the population being the population it was designed by and for. Today that population is very different, and the goals, morality, and sense of justice of the other populations is not universal. It's a lot to explain, and TH-cam often removes me comments when I get into it.
@@drownthepoor True, this is a nation designed for and by Liberals, freethinking individuals who value democracy above all else. But now we have a country filled with submissively minded Conservatives, who want screen daddy to tell them what they believe this week.
As something of an importer/exporter myself, I would also love to get your guys’ take on military logistics. The ultimate wunderwaffe was the 40’ shipping container.
goddamn aren't you correct on this! I cannot stress how awesome this comment is! (but only log nerds like us understand)
@@9HoleReviews I feel like this is the same energy as how the 'Jerry can' was the logistics wunderwaffe of WW2...
@@V3RTIGO222 Even their ammo cans were better. You could carry 2 in each hand. We still haven't figured that one out.
@@9HoleReviews conveyer belts, pallets and forklifts are just as deserving of a video as a rifle.
name checks out...
The marine corps back dooring a new service rifle is still one of the funniest things ever. "we need a SAW replacement". *just gives everyone M27s and still retains the saw to be issued at the company commanders discretion.*
Company commanders discretion. but there is not 1 infantry unit or weapons platoon that uses a saw. They dont even teach the SAW at IWC, only 240's 50's and mk19s so realistically SAW's are gone in the mc.
Eghh
Sorta
@@vac1376Sad
@@vac1376 got 12 sitting in the airwing's armory that havent been touched since gwot lol
@vac1376 I believe you but sad to see. I had a saw. Big picture level I have no expertise to argue. Individually the "aw he'll naw" ability of a dedicated weapon can't be replicated. Maybe it is made up for by other means idk
The M27 IAR was 100% an end run around the Army from the USMC to get what they considered the best infantry weapon to replace the M4A1.
Exactly and what makes it worse is that the HK 417 already exist as well
Not the best. But the best available on their limited time frame, and budget while meeting very specific requirements. And they ended up with a rifle that really isn't that great as a result.
@@nigerianslumlord Could've adopted an LMT for a fraction of the cost I'd bet.
@KingdomKillaz117 Possibly. They would have made better rifles for sure. But the USMC wasn't able to push a request for rifles past Congress. The MC wanted new rifles to replace the semi-aged A4s and M4s in inventory. More importantly, abide with the MC's future idea of suppressor usage and infantry theory. They had to sacrifice a true LMG (the 249) to get what they wanted. They justified the HK416 mod as capable of filling in but really it was the proliferation of mmg 240 teams. The 416 (m27) was a shoe horn m4 replacement for combat mos's. It is a very roundabout and political way to get new rifles. But one they did none the less. Tradeoffs be damned. As a result, I don't think LMT could be a contender in that time frame. USMC big brained the shit out of it.
@@nigerianslumlord MARCORSYSCOM and Gunner Wade were pretty crafty.
Henry saying the quiet stuff out loud
Benefits of having a lovely DD214
Seems a lot of people same the exact same thing, out loud. Spear platform catches a lot of heat.
I'm messing around with an AR10 in 277 fury. I don't understand the purpose of the xm7 itself.
@@andrewshoaf1842 "modularity"
The part where he talked about additional capabilities is solid. AR development is already peaked, there's little to improve on the assault rifles concept and that's not just with the M16. Even the Chinese decided that all there is to do is copy what they considered the best features of every prolific assault rifle on the market and call it the day. Russia tried to put the counter recoil system but it's not worth the trouble since the 5.45 cartridge is already low on the recoil. So to justify the need for a new rifle you need to make it do something that other rifles cannot.
Henry’s background projects are always interesting. You raise some valid, well-reasoned points. I’m reminded of something Ryan McBeth has said in his videos: The Department of Defense is actually a logistics organization that dabbles in warfare. Our logistic capabilities is what separates us from almost every other military force on the planet, and discounting the logistics of a problem is a recipe for disaster. An old saying I’m reminded of, and I’m sure I’m not quoting it correctly, but the point is still valid: Amateurs discuss strategy. Professionals discuss logistics.
Dude Ryan is awesome at what he does, I'm an avid follower to McBeth Programming!
There's already a name for that. It's called an Expeditionary Force.
The bigger-er question is "Does it have enough charging handles?"
The Soldiers in test units requested adding the M4 style charging handle so Sig gave them what they wanted.
Sig shouldve told the soldier to buzz off and get used to the new rifle
@@cwolf8841 A civilian model test of the weapon revealed that the M4-style charge handle gets caught on the stock. The rifle is dominantly intended to use the side charge handle and more issues are evident in how to engage it! Honestly, I fail to see the point of this new system and the round design in question! If I had the power, and I hope the military community would entertain me on the pitch I am going to make. Use an AR-10 as the base, allowing kit swaps of the barrel and receiver and to change between direct-impingement to short stroke gas-piston operation where silencer use is required for a mission, and design the rifle with collective recoil absorbing damper systems. Instead of sticking to the 7.62x51 NATO round, we are going with a modernized Mauser 8mm s.S. Patrone "effect-firing" round with new computerized aerodynamic and weight distributed/balanced design to achieve the ballistic coefficient and desired flat trajectory. The round will utilize a lightweight hybrid-polymer cartridge and the effective propellent chemistry and measurement to enhance the lethality of the already hard-hitting and legendary round. The chamber pressures will certainly not be an issue for this round! This is of course, if I had a say in the Army's project for a new standard of rifle/sniper rifle and light machine gun.
No cup/clipboard holders for seniors NCOs?
Ps. Sorry that was my time…Tablets now.
The rear charging handle is rendered useless by the higher spring tension.
Maybe I’m a nerd but I would LOVE more long form content on procurement.
It might sound dumb but I think it’s wild how much the process has dictated what everyone uses regardless of if it was the best choice or not.
I agree!
Have you discovered Perun's channel? I'd love to see a 9 hole/Perun collaboration
The Pentagon Wars staring Kelsey Grammer. Almost a documentary of chicanery of DoD acquisition.
Someone got mad they were being sprinkled with 7.62 from 900m away by a PKM in the desert and they decided this was the only kind of fight an infantryman ever needs to overcome.
How often are officers in direct combat leadership role? One, two tours, maybe three but generally then they are a on the fob. Add in a timeline for career progression to being in charge - junior officers getting shot at from the hinterland in early to mid 2000s are just now old enough to 'solve' the problems they encountered in combat. 20 years later.
America's robust civilian firearm's industry present a LOT of options for COTS solutions for unexpected shortfalls in small arms in future complex. How many units just adopted glocks in GWOT? Millions purchased.
I’ve been saying this on Reddit. The PKM/ 7.62R has been shot against us for ages, and the best idea was to turn every infantryman into DMR shooter? Really?
Oh fuck, this is the hot take I was looking for!
Goddamn this made me laugh 😆
Being suppressed by a belt fed 900 meters away is a very viable threat in any environment. This is just the advanced version of swapping from the 30 carbine to the m1 garand. Eventually the army will come full circle and adopt another decent intermediate cartridge and phase out the xm7 like they always do
I’ve been out of the infantry since 07 and the army since 09, so my 2 cents aren’t worth too much. But one thing that seems overlooked is changing caliber changes everything. I hated 556 in Iraq. I don’t think it’s got enough “stopping power”. But….you can carry a whole lot of it. Heavier ammo means you carry less or your dudes suck more. Your suppressive fire has to come more from saws than your riflemen. Like I said, I haven’t been in combat for 17 years lol but I just feel like there aspects that are being overlooked long term. Everybody wants the cool new shit but when you gotta change everything about how you fight, it can turn out to be not that cool.
M855 really sucks for Anti-Personnel use. The DOD has been screwing up the AR-15 since the start. The original Colt 601 had 1-14 twist and optimized for 45gr-50gr. Projectiles. The DOD wanted 55gr and the 1-14 twist couldn't stabilize it so 1-12 twist barrel's were adopted to stabilize 55gr M193. I've been doing testing with 45gr-50gr projectiles out of 1-12 twist barrel's for the past 25 years and lighter really is the best way to go. The ballistic performance of a 45gr bullet traveling 3,400fps is absolutely amazing. When you get into 45gr-50gr Ballistic Tips the results get even more dramatic and impressive.
Thats why the polymer cartridges would have been the best pick IMO
The sig is likely a supplemental rifle for rural and mountain warfare. It probably will not replace 556 in urban suburban combat
@celmer6 it doesn't help when barrel lengths have been getting shorter, enough so as to affect muzzle velocity.
@@jason200912 That's what the rifle *should* be, should doesn't mean that's what will happen. They are saying it's for all army infantry, which is monumentally bad idea, but don't put it past the army to make horrible decisions.
I think we've seen before, there's always some high level dipsh*t that in a meetings says "This thing needs to do (Insert stupid unrealistic thing here)!" and the rest scratch their head, look around at each other and go "y-yeah, ok, sure General Dipsh*t, ah, we can do that." and it gets added to the "Requirements".
We need it to have anti armor capabilities"
"sir we are researching a new GPS nav system."
"I said what I said. I am a visionary."
and don't forget general dipsh*t is getting kickbacks on the decision
*donations for his think-tank.
@@9HoleReviewsjokes have to be half true to be funny. Half. That hypothetical situation hits a little too on the nose to get a laugh.
It's fairly obvious to me that this is what happened. You see this all the time: it would actually be nice if you could defeat peer armor at 600 yards, and so when a bigwig gets it in his head that that's a requirement, the program is really imperilled if you can't talk him out of it.
You see this all the time. The IFV to replace the Bradley is the XM30. The program before the XM30 was the GCV. The GCV was cancelled because it was heavier and more expensive than an Abrams. Why? "The reason was the vehicle had to have enough armor to protect a squad of nine troops from all battlefield threats (from rocket-propelled grenades to IEDs) as good as or better than other vehicles can protect against specific threats individually." Ok. Somebody important got this added as a requirement and overruled all objections.
This is very obviously just a case of "it would be nice if the rifle could do X" transformed into "the troops need this rifle to do X, no matter the cost".
I just wanted to add that for the logistics side of things it’s not the first time the US strong armed NATO into adopting a round against their will, especially once they had more or less standardized on another cartridge
However, as I mentioned in the video, this wasn't a joint service decision... which is certainly not a DOD decision, which holds WAY LESS weight in NATO standardization.
@@9HoleReviews And yet Beretta already has started to also produce the hybrid casings.
@@9HoleReviewsOh I know. That’s why I said it wouldn’t be the first time the US rammed a particular weapon or cartridge through despite NATOs protests. And many of the logistics arguments on it are probably similar to what was said during the adoption of 5.56 and look at where we are now. All of NATO uses 5.56 despite their reservations initially simply because the US wanted it
@@FortuneZer0As well as Lake City
Wouldn't this be at least the third time?
If i had a SIG SPEAR i would name it "William"
William SIG SPEAR
i don't get it
@@armorers_wrenchit's a "play" on William Shakespeare
@@jasonspeirs6981 It's terrible.
The auto captions just give up and say Shakespeare lol
@@pablowentscobar I didn't say, if it was good or bad pun. That's a matter of opinion.
Ft Campbell 11B NCO here, we tested them. Not a fan of this weapon along with the rest of the team who did for all the statements that were said in this video. 2 steps back for one step forward. This is hindering the Infantry more than benefiting them in my opinion.
Super curious, in your experienced opinion,
What would be the equivalent of something 1 step forward with no steps back, or even 2 steps forward?
@@chupacabra304 Nothing. Enlisted personnel don't like new equipment, in any case, ever.
I'm just curious what the ACTUAL DREAM SERVICE RIFLE AND CARTRIDGE would be? Like no one is happy with anything it seems. 556 is weak, 308 is bulky and sucky bc, 277 still has to much recoil, the scar has a a stupid charging handle and kills optics, on and on and on. What is the answer please. I want to know what dream gun military guys want.
Right on, man!
@@chupacabra304there are plenty of proven options on both the global military market as well as the civilian market that we can look to. A simple caliber conversion to something like 6mm max that has similar enough ballistics to 6mm arc while using standard 5.56 bolts and magazines would be a game changer right away. In an alternate timeline, I would’ve liked to have seen an XCR in 6mm max with a trijicon VCOG as a standard issue rifle.
In his video about the NGSW, Chris Bartocci at Small Arms Solutions called the program "Section 8 for army procurement". He sees no upside, and he predicted it will be scrapped.
He also pointed out the astonishing fact that the Army prices the hybrid high-pressure version of the 277 Fury at over $20 PER CARTRIDGE. He says that alone spells out the cartridge's demise, seeing as how the non-hybrid version has no real advantage over 308.
Me, a poor, dropping some emotional support in the comment section below*
many thanks sir. we are all poor peasants who (unwillingly) support these military boondoggles
Interesting that Henry’s argument against the 6.8 is the same as General MacArthur’s was against the Garand in .276. We have all this 30-06 why change.
Re: "Interesting that Henry’s argument against the 6.8 is the same as General MacArthur’s was against the Garand in .276. We have all this 30-06 why change."
Then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur has taken a lot of heat retroactively for turning down the .276 Pedersen cartridge - but he was correct in his decision then and he is still correct today. Proponents of the 276 seem to proceed from it being some sort of given that the 30-06 was mediocre or even a failure in wartime and military use, when precisely the opposite was the truth.
The now-legendary 30-06 has carved its name into the pages of our military history of the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean conflict, not to mention many smaller ones. Many firearms historians rate the cartridge as the most-influential of the 20th century, not just in military use, but overall. While it is true that the 276 might have offered a few potential improvements to the '06, those gains simply did not amount to enough to justify the switch. And we are not even yet discussing the ways in which the '06 was a better choice.
Even if General MacArthur had wanted to make the switch, it would have been a very tough sell on the 'Hill and to Congress during the lean years of the Great Depression. It is difficult for 21st century people to imagine, perhaps, but the between wars army was so strapped for cash that they often held maneuvers during which some soldiers used broomsticks instead of rifles and Model T Fords substituted for tanks, or cavalrymen on horses.
The expense of switching from 30-06 to 276 would have eventually involved rebarreling every rifle and medium machine gun in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but worse yet, retooling all of the ammunition plants and arsenals making weapons and ammo. To say nothing of having to revamp and redo training, and all of the rest of it. Funding to do that would have had to come out of budgetary allocations made to other important purposes, because the cupboard was bare. Congress wasn't in the mood to allocate more money.
In short, MacArthur made the only rational choice he could have, given the economic and other realities of the time.
Regarding the 6.8 Fury, do its benefits outweigh the costs associated with adopting it? Does it solve the problems the army wanted solved in the best and most-efficient way possible? I'd argue not, but your mileage may vary....
No, he didn't really address the cartridge itself aside from noting that 7.62 nato already did 80% of what 6.8 does, and isn't sure that the 20% more matters. He just talked about the reality of big army.
And the Garand went down in infamy as the best battle implement of it's time and made major steps to win the war.
I wonder how much increased performance could have been gotten applying same cartridge tech to the 5.56? Change the shoulder if we don't want to blow up older rifles. Applying the tech something like the 5.6x50mm case with an obviously longer magazine could be interesting
@GeorgiaBoy1961
No it didn't require rebarrelling all rifles. It means new rifles and guns would be in the new caliber. And there was no demand to make machine guns in 276 as you said. 276 would only be for the garand as pedersen and John garand had developed. Garand developed it in both 276 and 30-06 because he was aware of the political factions fighting over it.
Take a guess what happened when 223 was used in vietnam..Vietnam... did they recharger every single mg and rifle from 7.62 nato to 223? Nope. They built new rifles for the new caliber.
Looking at the M7, it doesn’t seem like much of an advantage over an M4. But when you look at the ngsw program as a whole, the m250 is leaps and bounds ahead of the M249 and the M240
The machinegun piece makes more sense then the rifle.
the M7 is a major upgrade it can easily hit 500 yards compared to an M4 which is 300 yards and thats with a good shooter behind it. I can see the M7 being more of a dmr rifle over the main service weapon which the Army is going for. But then again knowing every soldier is going to have the capability to reach out to 800 yards with the included XM157 aiming system is kind of wild.
A belt fed without a quick change barrel is kinda silly
The M7 is a proper battle rifle for occupation and conquering, not policing.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZbattle rifles lose gun fights
In the "Band of Brothers" miniseries, when Easy Company was moving into the front to counter the 1944 Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), the most poignant questions from Easy Company soldiers to those soldiers coming off of the line was "Do you have any ammo? Gimme your ammo."
Fun Fact. Only like 10% of that series was historically correct. Also the 101st was only encircled for 6 days. The series makes it look like they were encircled for weeks.
@@hunterjager9538How did you come by that statistic?
@@sebastianprimomija8375 rectally
@@waltski4375 my dad was one of those troopers, and his squad wasn't just asking for ammo, was also looking for a weapon because he had gotten back to his unit the evening before after being in the hospital since October, being wounded in Holland, he was looking for a weapon, ammo AND field and cold weather gear... 101st was sent to Bastogne with little more than the uniforms they were wearing... no cold weather issues, very few crew-served weapons...
@@waltski4375 another fun fact... my dad said that when they asked retreating US troops for weapons, often, they would just throw them down and keep running... talk about making an airborne guy wanna fight...!
Having worked on the NGSW program from the industry side, the rumors floating around are the Sig made none of the threshold requirements, the biggest in my mind being the durability/reliability requirement. Having handled the Sig at length I can look at some of their design choices and see why.
Once it's in the supply system, you're golden. I'm sure there's a .ppt deck ready for the caliber conversion retrofit project with internal prices already mapped out.
I thought I heard Ian McCollum say the XM7 was supposed to last a certain amount of full-power rounds and then they will be disposed of
@@jimjamautobarrel life of 10k full power rounds and only had one malfunction during those 10k rounds.
@@zombeeofdtx The Marines got it right M27 IAR>XM77.
@@zombeeofdtxWhich many forget is also about the barrel life of a mk18
Converting that thing to 308 with a simplified optic was the first thing I thought of when it came out. Good job guys!
Yeah, but at that point just pick something else (from a civilian perspective). The military one is more arguable as touched on in video.
Reinventing -AR-10- SR-25 at this point.
@@Klovaneer Isn't the SR-25 more expensive than the spear..? Not to mention, you can run the 13" barrel on the spear and get either better or similar results as compared to a 16" SR-25.
"I would use a SCAR over this!" Purchase...... justified, Thanks Henry!
@@davidjob4909 got mine for 2900 which was acceptable for me
Did you know that running a suppressor on the scar voids it's warranty?
@@briansouth9325 yeah, and I do it anyway
@@Aztaldealing with FN for warranty isn't worth the $3300 I'd pay for a new rifle anyway.
Run a hux flow on my scar. I dont care about the warranty guns are meant to be used not sit in a safe under warranty @briansouth9325
Henry's questions in the last segment remind me of the way the Army stumbled into adopting UCP for its field uniforms. It seemingly came from nowhere, without a clear trail of accountability.
Fraud, waste, and abuse. We are a banana republic. Except nobody has come to terms with it. Yet.
There must always be a way to obscure the trail of accountability. You need to protect senior leadership from being held accountable for incompetence, deriliction of duty, and corruption. And keep the masses placated.
Example: 911 Hearings. That was held because they had to. But in the end it was all grand theater. And not one of those that failed in senior leadership really paid a price.
Except in the case of ACU/UCP, there is a clear trail of accountability... The biggest hurdle is getting someone high enough in the food chain to say it was a Bad Idea and get the ball rolling.
@@johnhermann7498 👍That's what make the issue so frustrating.
To the end of my days will always be head scratching, wondering why the army adopted UCP!!
Good officers talks about tactics, great officers talk about logistics. Keep the m-4 and switch to 77grain bullets. Train soldiers to, when they can take an accurate shot( which is not as often as you think) shoot for the groin area. With 77grain bullets and better optics you can shoot out to 600 meters with an M-4. You can also carry more ammo with the M-4.
Why shoot for the groin tho? The thigh with that gigantic femoral artery (and femur) is right there. Can't really fight if you can't walk, or if you're bleeding out from a major artery. That's gonna 100% remove someone from the fight, no 2 ways about it.
Plus, Nobody's wearing bulletproof armor on their thighs, not even in the best-armored and best equipped soldiers. Closest you get is an armored bit to protect the groin, the very area you're saying to aim at.
The thigh is a hard area to apply good armor to unless you literally make combatants wear a kevlar Kilt (tho to be fair Ireland and Scotland might be interested in that).
The idea behind using guns is never to kill people, it's to make them no longer capable of fighting, and "Femur fracture or femoral artery tear" is 100% a combat casualty every time. In fact, if you DO NOT kill them, you occupy more people than if you DO kill them, because if they stay living for a little while people are going to try to administer medical attention, and if they're doing that that's TWO people that can't shoot back at you, whereas if you just killed them, you only took ONE set of crosshairs off your fire team.
@@44R0Ndin in combat you first try to eliminate the threat before rendering first aid. Yes sometimes you try to help a wounded soldier but if the threat is still persistent I’ll guarantee you will try to eliminate the threat first. Most soldiers don’t wear nut protectors but if they do then yes shot the legs but remember you can put a tourniquet high up on the leg and possibly still stay in the fight until the threat is eliminated, again possibly not likely but I would say situation dictates what you will try to do. The thing is the groin is a larger target. Also your primary objective in a firefight is to eliminate the threat(kill). Not occupy the enemy with their wounded. Sure it occupies more assets to tend to the wounded and possibly give you more targets but I believe that is secondary. Every time I was in a firefight I shot to kill never to wound the enemy.
Possibly the issue is the terminology of groin instead of pelvic girdle.
@@RailRoad188 yes sir thank you
Never been a fan of 223/5.56, but ammo & mags are every where. So my SHTF round is 77 grain 5.56. I miss the days when surplus 7.62 x39 Com Bloc ammo was so cheap!
I think Henry hit the nail on the head with the calibre conversion point. These will probably end up converted to 7.62 as a DMR to supplement the M110 until the time when the 6.8 cartridge finds its niche.
Assuming it ever does. The grossly accelerated wear and tear on the rifles, which we also see with the 855a1, is going to limit that and yes, there is the underpowered "training load"/civilian 277 Fury but that doesn't do anythign 7.62x51 hasn't for three generations. The juice isn't worth the squeeze on the new round.
@@tenchraven it will probably only find a role with 6.8 when a new bullet is developed to combat a new armour or a new threat on the battlefield but like you said currently "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". The XM7 really is a solution looking for a problem.
6.8 is WAY too ahead in every performance metric over 308 for them to convert superior firearms back to inferior legacy cartridge ...
To me it looks like the best use requires a change in squad level tactics. We may be taking a bigger backward step than even henry realizes. The adoption of body armor and light vehicles coupled with changing terrain projections for future wars necessitated the change of round. We may need to adopt a similar squad set up from ww2. Team one has a weapon in dmr config, 2 in battle rifle, and one perhaps a 5.56 in carbine or machine pistol set up. Team two has a saw, 2 battle rifle, and a carbine with a grenade launcher. Two squads may be needed to handled what one can do in a mout situation but it would give them flexibility those squads currently lack against body armor and targets at range. I think the logistics is a bigger issue than many believe.
@@mrbreck1 I think it more likely that the pressures being put on the battlefield by drones are leading to more emphasis on small unit sizes and rapid reconfigurations for different battle scenarios than larger more diversified squads. Eventually it will be fire teams running around in constant communication setting up maneuvers to overcome the enemy's command and control and disrupt their movements with high level of fire team or squad lever firepower over the traditional company or platoon level centered command structure and centralized movements. It's easier for four men in a small vehicle to avoid drones and artillery spotters than a platoon of squads maneuvering on the battlefield.
The M7 is a step backwards to the m14 where we found that the weight and ammo capacity of 308 or 277 were unsatisfactory when compared to the 556. The amount of you can carry 120 rounds of 556 in 4 magazines or 60 rounds of 308/277 in 3 mags at roughly the same weight. Infantry doctrine and lessons learned in Ukraine show ammo capacity > ammo capability
The US is stepping up caliber because experience in Iraq showed them that a man can take 3 5.56 to the chest and keep going for up to a full minute, if not 2. Turns out weight matters, and 180-250 pound western and middle eastern men don't just explode like 120 pound Vietnamese men did to the 5.56. Its like trying to shoot a deer with a varmint rifle, you are only gonna kill quickly if you hit a critical organ. So he will die, but he won't fall down disabled before he does damage to friendlies. What are soldiers then gonna do? Use their knives?
Now add in plate armor, that ALL universally stops all 5.56mm without question and the army is gonna be facing down dudes who take 3 to the chest and don't even flinch or stop charging.
Then we factor in that 5.56 doesn't offer good terminal ballistics past 400 meters. So long range options are utterly off the table. Which also make all those modern optics a waste of time and weight since its limited to "iron sights" ranges. The entire point of spending $$$ to get scopes on every rifle was to extend range for a tactical advantage. They need their cartridges to support that.
Dunno if 6.5mm is the answer, but all I know is 5.56 is NOT the answer. More ammo doesn't do piss when not only can it not stop the enemy, the enemy an't even scared of it anymore because the KNOW it can't kill them unless lucky shots are had.
@@nordoceltic7225false, look at the mirror peer
@@nordoceltic7225sounds like you don’t know much, who is using 6.5 anyways
Also 5.56 is less effective in really short barrels
@@nordoceltic7225 5.56 20 inch barrel ap rounds is all you need to penetrate lvl 4 look what the mirror peer is using
Your self-made commercials and plugs for Patreon are the best. I know what's coming every time, and it's so well-executed and humorous I have to watch all the way through each time. Love the channel.
Yes, it is stupid. DMR? Sure. Infantry rifle? Hard no.
Naw I think its the way honestly. Handing out a DMR platform to every rifleman to make them be able to engage longer distances. Isnt this literally one of the issues that US troops were facing in afghanistan.
@@zeparagonze6148 Yes, so they solve the problem of long range engagements. Now they will have the problem not being able to carry enough ammo to maintain fire superiority for extended periods of time. And that latter problem is significantly more problematic than the former.
@@damncritics If you can hit further shots more accuracly you're gonna be able to use less ammo. I dont think ammo would be a problem. I would assume it would be the same combat load except you just get issued more mags.
Hy garbage take: they should have gone with a 6mm-6.5mm cartridge in the AR platform and focused on getting that solid. It's got light recoil, plenty of punch, and it's still light so you can have a happy medium on ammo capacity and performance.
@@zeparagonze6148 I honestly don't think so. This seems like a MASSIVE overreaction to what happened in Afghanistan, an environment the AR was not made for. While I think the machine gun might go somewhere and seems like a good idea, I'm not sure about the rifle or the 6.8x51.
From what I remember hearing about XM157, it sounded like it had more potential than just making range-finding simple. It sounded to me like it had the potential to be used as a sort of infantry level HUD, with datalink. Which could maybe allow for things like "pinging" the location of suspected enemies, increasing the speed and accuracy that an entire unit gets onto target.
@21:42 That's kind of a moot point when talking about the M17 contract. SIG did not procure a solution for logistics. SIG did not provide testing data. SIG did not have decades of contracting with the DOD to facilitate a contract. Beretta had all of that and more with the M9A3. The difference being that SIG was already converted into an American corporation and Beretta was Italian and had wronged the Army by not taking their accusations of jeapordized reliability lying down (they sued the Army and won). That's why I also have disdain for the M7 and NGSW programs.
What I never understood was the contract being for the package (rifle, MG, cartridge) from a sole source: You're practially guaranteed to get maybe 1/3 thats good, and the rest being a bit rubbish. That's what made NGSW look like an elaborate under-the-table deal rather than a serious upgrade program.
Wink wink, nod nod. That's how the deep state stays entrenched.
Sig was the only one out of the three participants that can actually do it by themselves without calling for other companies to help.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZBut the point is, wouldn’t you WANT help? To me, it generally seems to get more quantity out and, on top of that, tends to breed competition (which means innovation).
Yeah, that was suspect the way the program had all 3 in one.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ Why would you want them to do it by themselves though? Instead of getting one company that does a mediocre job at different products, why not diversify among companies with appropriate expertise for better results? People start asking question like "Was getting the best equipment not the intent of the contract? Was it all just a charade to funnel money to SIG?"
When they were developing the AR15, no one expected Armalite to invent a new round! They did the sensible thing and went to a major ammunition manufacturer with the specs.
A sig mcx in a hybrid 6mm arc would be so much better. It's lighter than the spear with marginally worse range and still having much better performance against armor compared to 5.56.
Or even a 6mm Max
Not worse range. 6 arc has exactly the same ballistics as 6.8
I would love to see something like a 6mmArc or even 6mmPPC developed with the hybrid bimetalic case that sig developed. I want to see what kind of velocity they can get with the higher pressures this cartridge provides.
What armor? The armor that our near peer adversaries don't even issue or the basic level IV armor from a decade ago that still stops anything shy of a .50BMG? Every modern armor stops .277 and the second something general issue can get through that armor it gets replaced in six months during actual wartime or troops will ditch it like they did with their flak jackets in Vietnam.
@@DaleErnieMichael Yeah, this whole idea was "We need something to to penetrate body armor, because suddenly war with a near-peer adversary looks more likely than we used to think. Wait, Russians don't actually wear body armor? I'll pretend I didn't hear that."
The cost of the actual armor piercing hotrod 277 ammo is absolutely insane, even for military spending
currently yeah but price will go down as more and more of it is made
@jedinutcracker no, it wont, because tungsten isnt more and more available.
@@JohnBrowningsGhost tungsten isnt as expensive as you think it is
@@JohnBrowningsGhosttungsten bird shot is 10 bucks per round
@@JohnBrowningsGhost but.. it is..
Dear Sir, As a combat veteran and long time shooter we really loved the M-14 as our first service rifle. The M-14 was accurate and super reliable in any condition that you can think of... Then one day came the dreaded day that we were ordered to turn in our M-14's for the M-16s. While the rifle was lighter it didn't have the range, penetration and deadly effect that the M-14 had. Later on we realized that the main issue of reliability was not the rifle itself but the dirty and over powered gun powder that the M-16 used. Later on after the Vietnam War and while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan our Special Forces together with the experts from Remington develop the 6.8 SPC cartridge giving our rifles new range and deadly results. I myself bought a Ruger Ranch Rifle in 6.8 SPC caliber and was highly impressed with the results. Why do we still have to keep experimenting with all these new cartridges and weapons systems when we have what we need right in front of us?
A 6mm Arc with a sized up receiver and barrel extension so they can increase the bolt wall size probably would have been the best choice. Geiselle has 30 rd mags too now. Another option would be the 6mm Max that can increase velocity over 5.56, perform better at range, and only requires a barrel and mag swap.
On paper, yes, but now you run into the same logistical issues but worse, because then you can't even switch to existing stock for anything. I'm pretty sure this is why the Army said the NGSW explicitly must be chambered in 6.8x51. Both the SIG and Beretta rifles could be chambered in 7.62.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6if we had adopted the XCR during the scar trials like we should’ve, this would be such a non issue. That being said, line units, the units most likely to get these, would never run out of ammunition and parts before any meaningful stockpile was created.
Would’ve been a great DMR maybe GP rifle for Afghanistan.. it’s only decades late in true government procurement fashion.
But you don't issue the whole squad the DMR.
@@RedXlV in afghanistan you would. you would also issue everyman with a personal fpv drone, for everyman to have their personal close air support.
I feel that if this rifle was adopted specifically to replace the armies DMR, there would be a lot less pushback and confusion. Adopting this rifle for the standard infantry rifle makes no sense.
American military leaders have some kind of manic obsession with the constant introduction of rifle cartridges. Instead of the .280 Petersen cartridge they were stuck with the .30-06. When they realized that the intermediate cartridge was the future and the 7.92x33, 7.62x39 and .280 British were created, the USA created the same .30-06 in a shorter cartridge case. And now they are doing the same thing again in the USA. They are making a new M14. But you can make a new armor-piercing cartridge and remain within the framework of an intermediate cartridge for automatic fire, for example, the new 6.02x41 cartridge, which was created in this concept and has increased armor penetration.
At least with the .276 Pedersen, the Army not adopting it was the correct choice as WWII happened shortly after.
Did tungsten tipped 5.56 not cut it somehow?
@@mghegotagunDrop off in capability at distance due to accuracy and velocity effects
They honestly do have a paint with this cartridge. It's at the upper limit for recoil, we're mostly operating in semiautomatic, and having something that hits a little harder, a little further, with a shorter barrel...
@@mghegotagun Tungsten is too valuable to make standard issue ammo.
@cmdrwilmot2696
I think the caliber debate was in 1930-1935, which is plenty of time for ww2. Italy and Japan screwed up and upgraded their caliber right before ww2 in 1938 and 1940 for Japan. It was unnecessary too as the rifles back then just weren't accurate enough to be used for long range combat, so their small calibers they originally had would have been totally fine.
It's almost like they thought "Hey we need more DMRs to overcome armor at range" but instead of just making more members of a squad deisgnated marksmen and equipping them with existing DMRs and new optics, they created a boondoggle with a new weapons platform and new cartridge.
There's also the issue of soldiers' load with the larger cartridge; bulk as well as weight.
Keep in mind that the Army has been rolling out combat helmets and body armor that are lighter in weight than the last. Nothing is happening in isolation.
Look at the studies re ammo expended vs enemy dead.
The Army study re SDM in Iraq was impressive.
@@cwolf8841 True, and with lighter ammo the soldier can go longer without resupply. Put another way; 'No one ever complained of too much ammo in a firefight.'
@@Gridlocked The newer protective gear isn't much lighter, though, and then there is all the gear, especially electronics and batteries that must be considered.
They will probably be drilled to do semi auto only, as they are trained to do now
Seemed like about everybody loved the BAR in WW2. As many as 1/4 of dudes in the Pacific had one by the end of the war. European platoons often carried six BARs instead of the standard three
That only tells us that they preferred BARs over M1s. Not if BARs were the optimal choice.
That was equal parts the big wigs realizing they were undergunned at the tactical level as it was soldiers loving them.
The Marines were smart enough to start the war with a BAR assigned to each fireteam (3 to a squad). The Army started the war with one assigned to a squad. Match that against a squad built around a top fed LMG with 30 round mags, designed for suppressing fire, and at least a dedicated ammo feeder, if not everyone else on the squad contributing mags to feed the LMG, meant we had to throw more BAR’s into each squad to compensate with multiple overlapping fields of fire to overcome the problem.
@@UMADBRO64 BARs weigh 20lbs, a Garand weights 10. That's a big reason. It's telling that we didn't see Easy company use the BAR much if at all in the tv show.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I made no claim that the BAR was "optimal", whatever that word means to you. I just mentioned its popularity, soo.. aren't we saying the same thing?
The BAR is often evaluated in light of light machine guns, but it was not technically a machine gun, but instead an automatic rifle. Browning designed not to be a light MG, but to be a machine gun "killer," something an individual GI or team could use to assault and take out enemy trench lines and MG positions in WW1.
As an actual light machine gun, the BAR had some faults: It lacked a quick-change barrel, and could not feed from linked or belted ammunition. It was not designed to be used from a tripod, merely off-hand (using the steel cup at the waist or fired from the shoulder), or prone from a bipod. The British/Czech BREN was/is probably better in that role, to name one example - but again, the BAR was not a LMG, but an automatic rifle.
The BAR excelled as a counter-sniper and counter-MG weapon, and was used extensively in both ways. It was also highly prized as a weapon for use in ambushes and for counter-ambush work. Patrols in the jungle or in built-up urban areas like the BAR in case the forward part of the column made contact. In the Pacific Island-hopping campaigns, riflemen would flush out Japanese snipers in the tops of trees and the BAR man would hose them down and take 'em out.
You note how common they were in both Army and Marine units, by the time WW2 ended; this is a good testimony as to how effective and well-regarded a weapon it was.
Here's my prediction. Rock, paper, logistics.
No one else is making 6.8x51. There is no industrial base for the barrels, mags, brass, bullets, etc....
7.62 on the other hand has massive industry support. Pretty much any ammo producers, mag manufacturers or barrel producers could tool up to make rounds and parts by the millions with the drop of a contract because they have the machines.
I still think the modernized m4 is still a better weapon in the vast majority of situations because of the ammo of ammo you can carry and the the ability to quickly lay down accurate fire.
Applying the hybrid case tech to 5.56 does open up weight savings and possibilities for pushing a 77+grn round even faster out of a 10.5 or 14.5" barrel.
Yeah, that has been my thought since this whole thing started. Why not just apply the hybrid case tech to the 5.56 and replace M4 barrels and receivers if they need to be beefed up?
The fact that 6.8x51mm is cross compatible with 7.62 magazines means that some of these issues are already dealt with. Also, the fact that the M7 can be barrel swapped to 7.62 is why I think SIG won, on top of the fact that True Velocity didn't have a belt fed option.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 I think sig won because they are all up in that Virginia swamp with Boeing, Raytheon and everyone else offering sweet retirement plans for retired officials. Anything technical is just a good cover story for keeping the DOD dollars flowing. And yes I'm super skeptical after having worked on pretty much every side of the system and leaving it to make an honest living.
@@COMMANDandConquer199 we already have a ton of m4/16 along with all the tools and parts in the inventory so an upgrade path makes way more sense. Unless you are trying to but a new house in Alexandria Virginia...
@@matthewconnor5483 there is nothing to support that. It just sounds like you hate SIG more than anything, to be honest. Textron dropped out on it's own and True Velocity/Beretta didn't have a belt fed option. If you want to be pessimistic, you could say that they won by default, but "muh backroom deals" or "muh gubmint kickbacks" doesn't really hold water.
I’ve been saying from the beginning this weapon should be DMR only. The XM250 should replace the 240 and 249. The MCX LT chambered in a 6.8spc or 277 Wolverine (because same pills as the 6.8x51) using the hybrid case technology as the standard infantry rifle. If needed we would still have the barrels and conversion kits to swap to the 556 in emergencies or any other caliber that special operations needs using the same rifle. I still would love to see Sig use that new case technology and see how current ammo performs first though although moving to a 277 or 6.8 would be better for the overall system.
.277 Wolverine is just an upgraded 300 blackout, still retaining a 5.56 nato case capacity. The 6.8 spc would be the more optimal choice because of the larger case capacity, although I would like to see the 6mm max take the stage because it has parts commonality with 5.56 guns, only requiring a barrel and magazine change.
What about the 6.5x43 cartridge? Sounds to me a quite reasonable sweet spot.
But the US hates sweet spot cartridges. The British 7x43 remembers 😢
As a Brit, I think the real shame is that they didn’t go with the .277 TVCM polymer-cased cartridge (from the RM-277R). I think this was a cartridge NATO would have been interested in. Much lighter and cheaper than the 6.8 Fury. I can’t see the UK or other NATO countries ever adopting a round so complicated to manufacture and so limited in firing platform.
277 TVCM is somewhat lighter (although both are lighter than 7.62), but the US Army pays $2.08 - $2.15 USD a round for 6.8CC ammo and TVCM charges $3.50 a round for generic 308 ammo. What's more, a traditional ammo factory could relatively easily convert to producing 6.8 CC which is 90% the same from a manufacturing process as traditional ammo but could not switchover to TVCM without completely changing both the facility and most of the technical staff. Ease of manufacture and cost both seem to substantially favor the Fury.
@@duanemckinley9353 that’s a really good point but the cost of 277 TVCM would come down considerably in mass production as the raw materials are much cheaper; currently the low production keeps costs high. The steel / copper construction of 6.8 is much more complicated than traditional brass or a polymer mould and cannot be done in legacy manufacturing without considerable modifications. It could have also driven a move over to polymer from brass, saving considerable weight for legacy 7.62 weapons (M240 / UK GPMG). Additionally, as it relied on barrel length rather than super pressure to achieve its results, it would have been easier for NATO countries to swallow and develop weapons for (and no need for a training round to preserve barrel life). I think the real winner was the XM250. In the long run, polymer (and .277) will be seen as a missed opportunity.
I’ve got a MCX Spear in .308 and as of right now I hate it. Had it for less than a week and have put only 65 rounds through it. Accuracy is fine, and its shoots 175 grain HPBT just fine, but shooting it suppressed is brutal. Major blowback and it feels like the gun is getting beat to hell. Guess I have to shell out another $1200 or so for a flow through suppressor.
that's been our experience, the 308 version recoils like crazy! (not on adverse mode too!)
Nuts that a 10+lb rifle would recoil like that. My 10lb M1 is quite soft shooting, no worse than a 12 gauge with birdshot.
You have to wait till they come up with M7A1 or M7A2 variants to fix the issue, or wait until FN comes up with a better version of it
Every day we stray further from Eugene stoner...
I'd be interested in how the felt recoil is compared to AR10, Galil, FAL and other .308 rifles.
Did the army consider how terrible this weapon would be at cqb?many more men died in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan because of iad's and cqb.
That was a war on insurgents. A proper war is going to be flat out destruction and occupation. You don't hear Ukrainian insurgency in Russian Controlled Cities do you?
There's a mark 18 version already that's like 7 or 9 inches
Probably why the rifle is shorter than the standard M4A1.
cqb? You're going to die to the mass of drones and artillery
As a former enlisted guy who carried a gun professionally (in and out of the U.S. Army) for twenty two years, I have to say something stinks here.
Is it A: we need to spend so we can get as much in the budget next year?
B: Bob is a good field grade officer, but he needs a successful project manager role and the attendant Legion of Merit award to make general.
Whatever else might be going on something stinks.
Probably Bob's fault
How is it that it took the YT algorithm so long to bring me to this channel? Love it! Am a USMC vet, a former grunt, and I appreciate what you're doing! New subscriber!
I think it will be converted to 7.62x51mm in a lot of cases, as will the XM250.
I think it will be a prominent system as a DMR with a longer barrel.
I think the winter charging handle is genius, and the AR charging handle will go away in later iterations. (Mittens in -40 suck.)
I think suppressors will not be used most of the time.
I think the laser rangefinder optic will stay in service as part of the DMR package, and the analog LPVO optic will be standard issue. Garand Thumb's review of it makes it pretty clear just how broken (in gaming terminology) of a system it is. 3 seconds between clicking a button and getting a round out the barrel and onto a target six hundred and some change meters away for the first shot of the day is absurd. If there is a group of people 25 to 50 meters between each other range-wise, (say a V formation or something similar,) all it takes is the first lase on one of them, and everything else is a slight adjustment from the user up or down.
The USgov took a gamble that rifles would matter in "next gen warfare". It turns out that small payload drones on the squad level was the horse to bet on.
They have more of those than your probably realize. US drone tech is pretty good actually.
Unlike most militaries, the US army has the budget for all of the above.
@@positiveanion4085Right, so good that we had to ban DJI drones, and can't replace them with anything equivalent made in the US
Well, small arms always matter, just not for the reasons many people think.
look up Anduril, the US is absolutely shredding the small payload drone/ew front
This might sound like a stupid question: But why not go with a new type of armor piercing 7.62x51mm cartridge with a chamber pressure of 80,000psi instead of developing a new 6.8x51mm cartridge (which also has a chamber pressure of 80,000psi)?
Even if it's going to be incompatible with most (if not all) weapons chambered in standard 7.62 NATO (which has a chamber pressure of 50,000 psi), all you'd have to do is change the barrel and the receiver to accommodate the chamber pressure of the new 7.62 cartridge rather than develop a whole new family of weapons!
If a HP cartridge got into the mix with a standard 7.62 it could grenade the rifle. So you’s have to make the cartridge dimensionally different so it won’t chamber in a normal 7.62 weapon. At that point you might as well go for the most advanced bullet shape which is 6.8.
The 6.8 cartridge has major advantages over 7.62, it’s a more efficient design. And if it was only used to replace the 7.62 as DMR and MG cartridge I don’t think people would be scratching their heads so much.
@@JimmySailorGood point. Thanks for the reply.
The Army should focus on developing body armor that's lighter and doesn't interfere with shouldering a weapon instead.
Never had the displeasure outside of air force basic, while my personal hesco/RMA lvl3s have been a joy. How bad is it to deal with issue plates?
Absolutely. Also designing full body armor that look badass armor would do wonders for recruitment
Honestly dude the issued plates are already much lighter for their protection level than what most of the affordable options on the commercial market are.
The real struggle is figuring out soft armor that covers all the junctional areas and soft bits on your sides and armpits without making you heat cat or weighing as much as the rifle plates you're also wearing.
I really enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.
On an unrelated issue: good to see the 3 lions on your shirt, Henry. Your sartorial choices on the range are one thing, this is of another level. Thanks for the great work, always of interest.
I really think they should have continued work on the original 264 USA cartridge the US Army marksmen team was working on. It was an intermediate cartridge using a Carcano casing with a 6.5mm projectile (6.5x48). It has an enormous amount of potential without needing a full sized frame. It was something that would have been in between the AR-15 and AR-10.
For civilian use, a lightweight AR-10 build is still the best option today. Generally more accurate than a SCAR, lighter, less expensive, parts available, and just as reliable when maintained, etc.
I'm not sure you can get an AR10 lighter, more accurate, and less expensive than a MK 17 while retaining reliability and not cheaping out on parts. But I also haven't looked into quality builds in the last 2 years.
@@nigerianslumlord ...I've built a couple affordable/quality builds around the $1,500 area. The real key parts to ensure accuracy and reliability is obviously the barrel and BCG. A billet receiver set for a little beef, Faxon Gunner barrel (or similar), and melonite BCG is the foundation. Then you can usually cheap out on much of the other furniture by shopping sales. You don't need to spend $250 for a handguard, or $200 for a stock. That's where the price really tends to make them skyrocket. Also, picking up something like a RAVE trigger for around $100 on sale is also a good bet.
If you know how to properly build it, you'd be amazed at how you can keep the weight down and still maintain a high level of accuracy for a general battle rifle. The key to reliability of any AR platform is keeping it clean. The melonite BCG really helps in that area, but nothing can replace maintenance.
@@Condor1970 What kind of accuracy are you able to get out of the Faxon barrels and with what ammo? Those kinds of concerns are what's keeping me from buying one.
@mandaloin My 18in does standard ball ammo around 2MOA on a good day, and match ammo will get me around 1MOA at best. It's not a sub MOA target rifle barrel, but a very accurate and lightweight battle rifle barrel. If I was younger and more steady, it may even do better.
@Condor1970 Ah I see. What's the weight without magazine, optic or etc?
The modularity of the SIG isn't very different from the AR. You have lowers for 15's and 10's (and technically others) then uppers of your choice... So they didn't wildly improve the modularity
HK 416 frankengun replacing belt fed guns is example of circle back to a stupid idea...for 5th time despite every failure .
Interesting discussion boys, thank you.
Really enjoy these discussions along with all the other content you guys bring to us. 👍🏻🔥
Hey guys, Kevin Owens would be a great guest for you in regard to discussing this. He was part of the weapons procurement in SOCOM. I think I've heard him mention this weapon. His channel is Overmatch consulting.
There's absolutely no way the XM7 with a 13" barrel and a hot load can penetrate level 4 armor at 600m. It's absurd. Kinda strange that the DOD hasn't released anything about it's armor penetration yet...
It can with tungsten I bet.
It's not supposed to penetrate. It's supposed to give sufficient back deformation to actually take a man out of the fight. Going cleanly through is great but they're settling for deformation.
What i could see the program achieving is getting the machinegun standardized and getting the xm-7 into squads not as a common rifle but a longer range dmr thing that shares the ammo of the mg to help get the squad more reach, kinda like the soviets did with putting both a guy with a pkm and a guy with an svd into most squads while having the rest of the guys using smaller caliber aks.
I hope your idea of smaller caliber aks isn’t the AKS-74U, Russian Armed Forces absolutely hate that thing.
@@Gridlocked The AKS-74U uses the same caliber as the AK-74, and isn't a standard line weapon like the PKM and SVD. It's clear 'smaller caliber AKs' means the AK-74s which have smaller calibers than their MGs and DMRs.
@@vaclavjebavy5118 You’re right, a smaller caliber would be the standard issued AK-74, but in this particular context about the modern U.S. Army squad weapon configuration, the standard issued weapon in-place of the AK-74 would be the M4A1, which is a carbine and it is too underpowered for duties outside of security and close quarter combat or being used in confined spaces. The M4A1 suffers from a lot of the same ballistic performance issues as the AK/AKS-74U does, those mainly being reduced muzzle velocity and effectiveness at range. Outside of a few security services, many Russian soldiers who’ve had to use the AKS-74U hated it and complained that it was too underpowered.
Now, the XM7 is set to replace the M4A1. Which means that the average U.S. Army squad will no longer be burdened with an underpowered carbine for main combat duties and will be deployed with a far better optic than the last, all while still being able to maneuver in confined spaces due the XM7 being even shorter than the standard M4A1.
@@Gridlocked I do think you're comparing apples to oranges since an AK-74 carbine might not be the same as an M16 carbine, since both use different ammunition and the AKSU has a significantly shorter barrel than the M4. But at the same time I concur that these higher caliber rifles do bring greater capability, even in closer quarters.
@@vaclavjebavy5118 I’m glad that we’re in agreement, and I truly believe and what people are failing to understand is that the caliber and rifle in question will only continue to be improved upon and bring great lethality to the U.S. army squad from this point forward.
Great conversation between you two, yes more chats about logistics and how they win ( and have lost wars) interesting to see how the whole XM7 project pans out.
"Be first to be second in line." Great life advice. Early adopters pave the way for the rest of us, but definitely at high cost.
Lake City (where the DoD makes all its own ammo) is building a new building just for 6.8x51. Until that's up and running they are getting the new rifles slowly as Sig is the only source for ammo. Once that is up how long do you think it would take for them to build and and stage all the ammo they will want globally?
10 years is a realistic time to setup a new factory
The United States military should have kept the M-4 / M-16 weapons system, but up gunned to caliber 6.5mm Grendel or .224 Valkyrie.
I agree. A deeper look into procurement would be fascinating.
I’d be cool to see a vid where you guys discuss your ideal M4 replacement & the round it should fire.
Plastic ammo is the future. Weapon agnostic, the ammo should have been the first priority, not the weapon.
I don't think the current sig offerings will be competitive for the dismounted infantry in 5-10 years if the ammo and weapons are just keep getting heavier
(also, my take is that sig won't want the army developing a more modular M7 because they're going to want the US using their special 6.8 ammo instead of common stock 7.62 ir 5.56 nato.)
Unlikely. Like caseless ammo it's too vulnerable to the elements and not as good at removing heat from the system.
@@userJohnSmith those things can be solved, but having lighter ammo, can't be solved with just an redesign
@@stefthorman8548 Believe it or not they actually can't. That's just the nature of the materials. With the heat issue, it's kind of one or the other. There might be an aluminum alloy case that could maybe work but heat capacity is at least indirectly tied to mass. This is kind of fundamental physics land. Brass may not be perfect but plastic isn't a solution for a full auto system, and if it isn't a solution for that it's not a solution.
Wait till the GI-Robots or just exo-skeletons come into play
This is 1000% about near-peer conflict. The US is the uncontested global leader in asymmetric warfare. We have a very long way to go in learning conventional war against an enemy who has legitimate individual capabilities such as night vision and armor.
I am so mad that I got unsubscribed without my knowledge. Really enjoyed this chat.
I absolutely love the military logistics stuff. Please do more of that!
The Army has again adopted equipment for its’ last War, not the next one.
The last war was WWII. Everything after had been against Insurgents.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ Korea.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZOperation desert Storm.
I think you're very wrong on that. This is for the next one. Distance + reaction time will matter more than ever. CQB & risking highly valuable and expensive human lives will be the job of drones. Keep the fanatical Chinese at a distance with their heads down while artillery, aircraft and drones do the main work will be key. The Chinese conscripts, let alone their higher tier forces, will make every battle like the WW2 Japanese on Okinawa. Why would we want to play the same game? Plus with more and more focus on swarming & autonomous air and ground drones, you want that distance & time for countering. Throwing bodies at a problem, like in Ukraine's situation, especially door-to-door, trench-to-trench, is not the way to ever think again with our folks.
The last war was Vietnam, anything after was UN sanctioned police-action.
The munition logistics is the tip of the iceberg with this rifle. Not only is there a problem with ammo, but there needs to be better ergonomics with the rifle itself. We dont need 3 ways to charge the rifle, and we don’t need to worry about being gentle with the rifle either. The optics will more than likely break AFTER the rifle does. The water and mud tests were a fail. The tolerances inside the rifle cause over loading of the magazine disabling the rifle completely. And, as I mentioned, 6.8x51mm is almost non existant compared to military logisitics. I feel like this is a newer gen NGSW project when the US tried to replace the M16 platform just to find out that making the rifle more accurate was to throw an optic on it.
Spuhr furniture
To the idea of fighting WW2 with the last wars gear…the M1 Garand was the exception to that. And then, logistics before deployment, one could easily argue that the M16 violated that principle, being produced without enough of the proper ammo, and then not being tested properly with the substitute ammo, to the tragic and pointless detriment of a number of Marines, and the reputation of the M16/AR15 family of weapons.
Garand was still a ww1 rifle
Honestly I was an infantryman and a Paratrooper once upon a time as a young soldier, I did the Panama Invasion and Iraq 2006-08. I'm retired from the Army now but some of my old soldiers are now senior NCO and field grade officers now. I have always instilled in them was to have an over abundant supply of ammunition once in combat along with water, food, and batteries for NVGs and radios. Dad told me about combat in the Korean War that you are going to have more enemy than the ammo that you have stocked up on. My Uncles from Vietnam carried more ammo for a rifleman using the 5.56mm which was twice the 7.62 NATO M-14 initially 140 rounds VS 100 for the M-14 as a basic load. Most units by 1967 till the end who had 20 round magazines carried an additional 2 bandoliers of 100 rounds each total of 200 extra rounds and each squad member carried a bandolier of 7.62 NATO for the M-60 squad machine gun, besides all their personal gear. An infantry squad in Vietnam had a firepower of a WWII infantry squad and a platoon more than an infantry company as in rifle and machine gun firepower. The XM7 and M7 NGSW is a step back to the M-14 era trying to "Over Match" the range of the weapon. But modern combat has shown that combat ranges are 300 meters or less since WWI till present. I would have my soldiers carry more ammo into combat than run out with heavier ammo and carry less. Perfect example is Black Hawk Down, me and my soldiers watched this over and over during pre-deployment training at Ft. Dix before deploying to Iraq. In Kuwait we zeroed more and did battle drills, in Iraq we did quarterly zero and training, every mission was test fire and clean weapons after every mission. I don't want to be caught short in a convoy, combat patrol, or combat operation where you didn't anticipate combat when it happens. The enemy is always watching you and taking notes and discriminate units who are easy targets because they were complacent. The enemy loves to test you on their home turf.
You guys should do the debriefs as a podcast as well.
My prediction of future: long range stuff will be done with automated systems, drones, artillery etc. and the role of rifles will be reduced to short range, CQB, trench stuff. So, shorty, agile and low recoil (M4 type) weapons will be king for infantry. See Ukraine footage for examples of this.
Allow me to introduce you to an old friend of mine: 7.62x39
I saw a lot of footage from Ukraine where AR-10 variants with suppressors and thermal optics were used to great effect...
I don't get why the USMC went with all m27 IARs. It's a heavier ar variant that does slightly better with sustained fire. I also hate that the Army's new rifle that has practice ammo and polymer cased combat ammo. This is a logistical nightmare.
The marine corps has a more specific mission set than the army. This ain’t the GWOT anymore, the marine corps knows the next fight is likely in the pacific where amphibious assaults will be commonplace. The m27 uses a gas piston instead of direct impingement which makes it more reliable in sand, water and mud, it’s also far lighter than the saw and only a little bit heavier than the m4, so it won’t be too cumbersome when fighting to a beachhead. You have to remember the marines are an expeditionary force meant to secure beachheads in enemy territory to make way for the army which is the invasion force. I think there might’ve been better options than the m27, but I’d rather have the m27 than the M7 any day.
Everyone hated whimpy 30-06 when it came out cuz it’s small bullet compared to 45-70
Everyone hated 308 cuz it’s slower than 30-06
Everyone hated 223 cuz a bunch of “hits” didn’t stop the enemy
And now everyone hates the 6.8/277 fury
I get your point but look at the actual calibers: 30-06 is better than its predecessor because it's lighter and better in every way. .308 was better because it's lighter and doesn't actually sacrifice much at combat ranges. .556 is as better because it's lighter and doesn't sacrifice much at combat ranges. .277 is heavier and DOES sacrifice a LOT at combat ranges, all in the name of performance at ranges that were unlikely to face.
@@TheBennett388 The thing about that is, you might be engaging airborne targets at significant range. That's where a much flatter shooting rifle could be useful. Think about engaging a drone like a Baba Yaga. You could feasibly have to engage that at 500+ meters. Anything with less bullet drop is going to make that engagement easier. That's the distance that I think people are missing.
Only at Minute 13:00 but a few initial comments: 1) if you're going to throw data/info graphics up on the screen (always a good thing IMHO) then leave them up long enough for the viewer to recognize & digest them. 2-3 seconds isn't adequate. Somewhere between 10-20 seconds depending on how "dense"' the material is and how important it is for informing the viewer. 2) acronyms are constantly being invented... So old soldiers like me... 77-81' 82nd ABN & 2nd ID on the DMZ in Korea... will need you to define a current acronym the first time you use it. It's old hat to you... Not necessarily to your audience. Bring them so they stay engaged & don't miss what you're trying to share as they try to figure out what you said 15 seconds ago..
I think that the "hybrid" cased ammunition, could be a possible solution to increase lethality, from the current 5.56mm cartridge.
Higher pressure, heavier bullet, different barrel twist rates(?).
Uprating barrels to the higher cartridge pressures, would still leave you able to use the existing 5.56 ammo, that's currently in the logistics supply chain.
For me, this would be a far more logical progression, than reinventing everything around a completely new calibre of bullet.
Why just not use the hybrid cases technology in 7,62NATO and up pressure to app 70000psi. All modern weapons will handle 70000psi with steel bottomed cases. Then you have the 7.62NATO with 90% of 277Fury performance with 200% better barrel life and no logistical problems.
Just loading 7.62 up to civilian 308 levels would be a big upgrade. A 24” 308 with a long 130gr hardened steel AP round functionally duplicates the 277 fury with much longer barrel life, less muzzle blast, cheaper projectiles, and is compatible with existing systems.
Well thought out opinion, my friend…🤙🏽
Really would love to hear about procurement and logistics, been kinda obsessed. Also I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast systems in different countries and times such as Russian vs US procurement. Keep up the great work!
This is a mistake to ditch the M-4 and the 5.56X45. The Army has a long history of picking the wrong gun. The 30-40 Kraig over a Mauser the 1903 over the M-1917 the M-14 over the FN FAL in the British intermediate cartridge the M60 over the MG-42/MG-3 the M9 over the Colt 1911 so why not this too.
Picking 30-06 over .276 Pederson for the M1 due to supply alone :(
.276 is ballistically near identical to .277 fury, just out of a 24” barrel instead of a 16.
M-4 will still be in use, this is like a decade long process before it is phased out if at all (will still be stockpiled).
@@EbonyPhoenix true
Note that we got the M16 into the system the same way - limited (but formal) procurement for a specialty purpose, then rolled into full issue.
Or the M4 - designed as a PDW for truck drivers, tankers, etc., and a handy carbine for SOCOM to the stabdard issue rifle.
As for ammo clearance. We managed to shift from .30-06 to 6
62x51mm over all in a realtovely short period (at least for the active Army & Marine Corps), and then oivoting a few years later for rifle ammo to the non-NATO 5.56mm.
I think the 7.62x51mm is going to have enough uses, (even if Big Army and the Marine Corps goes "all in" on the M7, M250, and 6.8x51mm at the rifle platoon level) to use up our stocks of 7.62x51mm by the time we are ready to field the 6.8x51mm beyond infantry platoons.
Im.curious to see if the military leans towards some.of the .338 GPMGs to replace 7.62mm MGs and at least partially displace the M2HB and M2A1. (Honestly, my back of the envelope calcs of space & weight for gun & ammo, and considering the other weapons avaliable, a strong case could be made for replacing both the M240 and M2 on the Abrams and sinilar AFVs with a "pure" battery of .338 GPMGs).
Points well taken, but we're taking about very different philosophies:
The M16 being adopted during an era of jungle warfare when ammunition count, and mobility was absolutely required.
the 7.62x51mm was adopted to usher in a magazine fed weapon when the soviets were moving to an AK system.
in this case... the 6.8x51 is adapted for..... ? requirement? for what type of war?
@@9HoleReviews Fulda Gap to the Urals 😅
I honestly think the XM7 is the American AK-12 shenanigan (But with 10x the budget):
- Designed-by-a-committee level of features, regardless of actual practicality & aesthetics.
- Boring-ass design compared to the competition.
- WAAAAY too overpriced for seemingly not much advantage over the M4.
- Smells of prioritizing business/politics connections over actual troop feedback and needs.
ahh ha! I've been throwing around the idea of doing the XM7 vs the AK12 - battle of the committees.
@@9HoleReviews XM-7 vs AK-12 vs M14: War of the Committees 😆
@@9HoleReviews Fucking do it, dude. XM-7 vs AK-12 with side tangents into M14 and PSL (feat. Brandon, Ziga, Josh, maybe Gun Jesus himself). The most EPIC of committee warfare story ever told!
Points well taken. I appreciate the point counterpoint. Conversation about logistics.
I know bullets are bullets and fragmentation is largely something for people who are training to discuss. That is precisely why this makes sense. Picking holes with a 22 caliber bullet at even 500 yards is never becoming a universal standard where grunts have even consistent killing potential. They want bigger wound channels with the same flat shooting and a considerable effective range. They dole out quadrails because nobody is training them to shoot without it. I know you think it's shitty to point that out but it shows the lack of disciple related to current standards. Many other western armies have no issues making sure folks can shoot a carbine by starting them with standard clamshell furniture.
Counterpoint, I don't see any reason why a cheapo-depot AR-10 generic rifle, say like an Aero Precision M5, couldn't just be adapted to function with even the higher power 277 Fury loads. You'd need to adjust the gas system perhaps, perhaps a rifle speed or superlative arms gas block would help, but there's no reason to believe that a quality AR-10 bolt and barrel chambered for 277 Fury couldn't handle the pressures with a traditional AR-10 DI system. Again, maybe some adjustment to the gas system may be necessary, maybe an adjustable gas block or a smaller gas port on the barrel, but no reason to believe that there's some magic with the SIG SPEAR that a SIG 716 chambered in 277 Fury couldn't also handle.
I've yet to see why we need a new round in the first place. A .308 with the same weight bullet as the .277 would go the same speed without such a high chamber pressure needing all new case designs and needing more barrel replacements than the belt fed machine guns. You maybe get a better ballistic coefficient with .277 but .308's effective range is already further than anyone is going to shoot, and the M7 isn't even accurate enough to use past 600 yards to begin with. It's a solution in search of a problem and is going to lead to major supply chain issues.
It's the bolt lugs and barrel diameter. They require more meat. I have similar issues with a .284 win build that I have to load soft to keep happy.
@@userJohnSmith the Sig Spear bolt is dimensionally equivalent to your typical AR-10 bolts in terms of the lugs and diameter and what not. Obviously the backend is different due to connection to a piston driven carrier, but the bolt face and lug dimensions are the same.
@@DaleErnieMichael The 277 Fury is pretty much just a hot loaded 6.5 Creedmore. If they made it 6.5 instead of 6.8, I doubt there would be any noticeable difference in performance. The bimetal construction of the casing simply allows the cartridge to be loaded to higher pressures without the primer being blown out, as is common with 6.5 CM PRS match loaded cartridges.
Because most AR10s on the market have reliability issues of some kind once you actually run them. Especially once you stack aftermarket parts into em, I sadly know this first hand from building 2 AR10s
For some reason the .mil types are fixated on 14" barrels. Take a 277 Fury at 80k psi working pressure, fire it out of a 22"-24" RIFLE barrel and you get level IV body armor destruction.
I think that's down to the amount of urban warfare that's been done in recent history. A barrel that long is a pain in the ass to maneuver in close quarters, especially if you have a suppressor hanging off the end. The only way around that is to switch to a bullpup configuration, and there's no way in _hell_ the U.S. military's gonna do that at this point.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 so basically they want a long range, urban warfare, short barreled, suppressed, armor destructing rifle huh. Sounds like a woman is in charge
As US troops learned in Vietnam and Iraq, 20"+ barrels are a major pain in the ass in CQC. A rifle length barrel would be great for the mountains of Afghanistan or the plains of Europe but it's a hindrance in Urban Warfare.
I wouldn't be surprised if a rifle length Spear ends up fulfilling a DMR role though.
That's all well and good for a DMR or LMG, but not as a battle rifle that has to do CQB or quick vehicle dismounts. Not to mention the extra length of a suppressor on it
6x45mm
85-105 gr projectiles
2800-3000 fps
There you go
only issue is that 105 is probably not realistic...
@@janvavra1333 I'm sure there is much more design and math involved beyond my simple numbers. I think of it this way, what is the best 5.56 round people generally to go for ballistics and terminal performance? Generally that would be Mk262 or a 77 gr bullet at above 2700 fps. If we are thought gaming with 21st century warfare and what round would best be suited. Why not an intermediate cartridge that involves higher pressures/go bullpup/telescoping Ammunition to get a 85gr bullet with a good BC up to 2800-3000 fps? Manageable weight gain but at increased performance without heavy recoil. If the geometry of the bullet and case is managed I don't think there would be a huge loss of capacity compared to 5.56.
6.8x51 is a hot round that's impressive downrange, but in the Spear it's just too much. Watch dudes shooting the full power ammo, even with the trained guys they are fighting that gun. I think this whole program ends up with the M7 being regulated to an oddity in the arms room or at best the new DMR role with the MG being the star of the show.
6mm Remington lmao
I always thought this as well. still a compromise round, but you could move to a 6x45 and belted magnum instead of 7x62x51 dual round setup.. or skip the dual infantry round and make it 6x45 and 50bmg + artillery. a saw in 6x45 would give a pkm a tough fight.
Instantly subscribed as soon as you mentioned OER bullets… hashtag nailed it…
Love the logistical/ procurement aspect of this. Thank you for sharing.
The bullpup one maybe but the one they chose no… they should just have made it 7.62 anyways or 5.56 in the bullpup configuration. All this crap they did is so bad and just idk it really makes me upset.
The RM277 is a marvel of modern firearm engineering
It's the new M14 it will be gone in a few years, waste of money.
At least the m14 looked nice.
That's probably the best comparison. It'll sit around unused until some niche application comes around like with the M14 being used as a DMR in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From an outside perspective, us army is keen on the idea of making everyone a sharpshooter.
Every time a war ends, people start to draw experience from the shooting range, where they shoot targets that don't shoot back, and assume that they'll do the same thing on the battlefield. Than the war comes, soliders become disappointed in their weapons, the army adopts rifles that are more suited for volume of fire (m16 vs m14, m4 vs m16), than the war ends and the cycle repeats
So I just wonder why we can't work a better optimized 7.62x51mm cartridge that has the same ballistic coefficient as the 6.8x51mm. I get updating the M240B to the M250 and making a bigger round and a lighter gun, that makes sense. As Henry said, we got a TON of 7.62x51 all across the world, so pushing a new round without the support could mean front line troops don't have the ammo required to fight. In that case, if you wanted a main battle rifle that didn't suck a metric ton of ass like the M14 did, fine, upgrade to the XM7 and rework the 7.62 cartridge to hit with more power and be able to penetrate armor at distance.
It seems physics really prefers 6mm ammo whether it be ARC, Grendel, Creedmoor, or SPC
The goal was to get the velocity out of the short barrel. It works, theoretically.