Is XM7 / M7 NGSW well worth the research? Or just another .gov funded money pit? Henry's full thoughts here: th-cam.com/video/4I7pSaUyPgs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pgdS_GYYjCGPaf3I 👉or on HWOW for free: www.weaponsandwar.tv/videos/20240722-m7-xm7-discussion-2 👉 Check out this video on History of Weapons and War app! www.weaponsandwar.tv/videos/20240718-sig-spear-11 When youtube kicks us all off, we will live on there with our syndicate of historical gun tuber nerds!
Greetings bro, for recommendation, try to contact the company fn herstal, they are creating the licc iws 264 for the irregular warfare community together with the Canadian special forces.
Nope. It was a stupid video by clueless fanboys. The M7 is the US Army's new service rifle for Close Combat forces (only) and the standard rifle has a 13 in barrel specifically for the 6.8 x 51 ... with Sig's Suppressor .. on suppressed setting .. with the $10 00 XM157 FCS on top of Sig's 1 x 6 scope. Now rewatch the rifle they reviewed ...and then proceeded to bitch about the Army's M7
As a former USMC rifle company cmdr, I would say you are absolutely right about the logistic impacts versus the rifle performance per se. But when you add the new Vortex sight with 90% hit probabilities at 900 meters and transitions to multiple targets at varied ranges you've added a system capability that will significantly improve engagements at any range.
@@odrspentagram worrying about penetrating body armor when over 70% of casualties against near peer advisaries will be from artillary and strike aircraft. This is one overpriced hunk-o-crap i wont be buying. Just not a sig sucker
SMGLee lol. That name is so nostalgic for me. I remember a photo set inside a seal armory he uploaded on the forums like ten years ago, a wall of unused Mk25s, a desk drawer full of old worn out lasers.
After owning and spending time with the 13" version of the MCX-SPEAR, I will say that it is a night and day difference when shooting it suppressed. Especially with a flow through can. It became clear that it is designed to be used in conjunction with a suppressor which makes a much more pleasant shooting experience. At least in my experience. Great video guys.
@BrandonMeyer1641 I pulled off a sub moa group (only 5 shots to be fair) with seller & ballot 168gr match ammo. Had a 2" group with 175gr Federal SMKs as well. All with a pistol brace haha.
Bad video. This haters used the civilian Spear in 308 with a 16 in barrel with no brake or suppressor .. and no $10 000 XM157 FCS ... to compare the Army's M7 ... to the Scar 17, HK417, G3 a dime a dozen DI AR10's and even AR15's .... to bitch about about the Army's foolish or coerced new service rifle ( for the close combat forces only).
I think the bigger deal here is the 6.8x51 cartridge running 3000fps out of a 16" barrel. I wonder how such ballistics would have fared in similar wind conditions.
It already kicks harder than many other .308 rifles, how much is it gonna kick in the full powered military 6.8 loads? I'm predicting this will never fully replace the m4 and may get cancelled completely in the next 5 years.
@@SkenderbeuismyheroMy prediction is they made a big deal about penetrating black magic Russian body armor to adopt it in 6.8 but they're probably gonna throw out the 6.8 barrel and use them in 7.62
When garandthumb mentioned a while back how it didnt recoil too bad i added up the weight on the setup he had and itd have been almost 15lbs loaded and he didnt even have the chonky XM optic on it lol
@@KnifeCursed Imagine being a Grenadier, RTO, Ammo Bearer, Assistant Gunner, Mortarman, Combat Medic, Forward Observer, Supply, etc. and they have you draw this out.
Those deer probably figured out the gun range is the safest place to be during hunting season. Nobody is allowed to shoot them there, so naturally they hang out and munch on all that grass out in the nice warm Texas sun. Biggest danger is probably lead poisoning from all the bullets in the dirt.
Dam as a Canadian and former Ammo Tech. The consideration of logistics is huge. Sig making this rifle in 7.62x51 is brilliant. It allows allies to rearm to this platform but use the inventory or even buy the surplus ammunition off the US. While then offering a conversion later to 6.8x51. Also buy offering the “civilian” market to buy them it covers cost of tooling up for production and if another allied partner wants them in .308 then the production is already available. So like Henry said about logistics but it’s also setting up Sig for production early on.
It's interesting how Henry talks about the Garand being rechambered for the .30-06 over the .276 Pederson. However, the M1 Garand didn't use the existing ammo stocks. Manual on the M1 Garand says that the ball ammo it requires is the M2 Ball that wasn't created until 2 years after the adoption of the rifle. Granted, it could shoot M1 Ball but there are concerns with high pressure and heavy bullets in the Garand rifle. What we had in inventory were BARs, M1919 (and leftover M1917) machine guns and Springfield 1903s which didn't care what ammo you fed them. Pointing to the Garand as using existing ammo isn't technically correct and there were other reasons for adopting the lighter weight M2 ball. But the Army had to create a whole new loading to be the standard anyway. It was more than just the Garand that drove Army logistics to retain the .30-06.
True, but you could also say that they already had the machines set up to make 30-06. The dies for the other ammo would be a couple pennies more... plus they really liked 30 caliber back then.
To Henry's point, while M2 ball was in '38 and the Garand prefers that, the initial phases in the late 20s and early 30s concluded when Douglas MacArthur (Chief of Staff at the time) and the Secretary of War ordered any further development of the .276 pattern halted in favor of the .30 version because of those existing stocks of M1 Ball. It wasn't really noticed how much of a hinderance M1 Ball was until about '36-37, but the caliber decision was made before that came to light. So, again to Henry's point, it was a decision made with existing logistical supply in mind versus whatever firing characteristics of the .276. I think the M7 is gonna be in an interesting situation for the next few years for much of the same reasons, but with 6.8 and 7.62 NATO.
Which manual? I've checked 1940, 1951, and 1965 versions of FM23-5 and the ammunition sections says no such thing about not shooting M1 ball. The 1951 and 1965 versions don't even mention M1 ball probably because stocks were expended by then. I do find some second hand accounts of MacAurthur (chief of staff at the time) not liking .276 specifically because of the existing massive stockpiles of .3006 ammo. Whether he directed the .276 to be canceled because of that, or simply gave his opinion is unclear to me from my reading.
@@DriveCarToBar it really doesn't specify anything like that. It mostly just talks about the identification of ball rounds vs blanks, etc. The picture of ball ammo it gives is M2, then it later gives max ranges for both M1 and M2 ball. It's totally ambiguous on the subject. Which version are you looking at?
@@rickyspanish9002 Small arms are chump change in the DoD budget, not even worth getting involved with for Senators. Defense contractors at the top of the chain who do multi-billion dollar deals aren't even in the top 20 industries in the US. Senators chuckle in big pharma money at pea shooters.
On the recoil: having a few guntoobers shot the XM7 _and also_ having shot the SCAR, G3, and SR25 rifles on camera this rifle recoils more than the rest. Not by a ton, but by enough to matter.
I have a SCAR 17S and it is my prized possession. I bought mine before I'd even heard of them. My dealer told me about a rifle someone had ordered but didn't pick up. I saw the SCAR and fell in love. Then he told me the price. Full-boat retail. When I regained consciousness, I handed the man a few thousand dollars. (Around $3,200 I think.) It came with one mag. Over a year, maybe two, I was able to purchase 4 more mags at $65 a pop. No buyer's remorse. I hope you have a video review of the SCAR 17 and have a comparison with this new Sig. I honestly can't imagine why the Army would choose this Sig over a SCAR 17S.
The weight of the rifle and the ammunition is an issue. Recoil is another. The whole system seems like someone's Frankenstein Monster of a wonder weapon.
@9HoleReviews the issue is not the cartridge. They could very well use a higher velocity full power cartridge in a battle rifle. But the weapon itself is not making sense. It's overweight. You could easily build a 7 pound ar10. This is 9 pounds with the suppressor. They could and done away with a lot of the metal around the upper and lower receiver. The barrel is wayy too thick if you're still getting 2 moa accuracy. The m250 is a much more sensible weapon. They actually saved weight and the cartridge is gonna for sure be better than 556 or 308 for everything encountered in the field. Cinder blocks or sheet metal vehicles etc. But the rifle is trying to do everything with the side folder and side redundant side charging. The small frame ar10s don't have this issue. They also don't have to recoil like crazy either. However The individual rifleman would have would have much rather had a ultra lightweight 5 pound m4 with mlok rail than a battle rifle for most situations.
I've seen a few reviews of the M7/Spear, both in .308 and .277 Fury and it seems consistent that the .308 version is unimpressive at best, but the .277 Fury version is a completely different beast that has a handful of surprises up its sleeve. Hopefully you can get a Fury chambered version in for review to give a true apples-to-apples comparison.
3 minutes into the debrief and I've never heard so many caveats. Which is of course a credit to you guys and your fairness, but damn this did not make a good first showing of itself.
I think if they spent more time with gun before firing the course Henry would have shot better. Evidence seems to suggest this is around a 2 moa gun. When he didn’t adjust his aim between shots, the rounds stacked.
@@BrandonMeyer1641i think you want to believe that, but let's be real Henry is a fantastic shooter, and sig, well is sig...its gained the reputation it has for a reason
@@rickyspanish9002 so sigs reputation means THIS rifle isn’t a 1.5-2.5 moa gun? What kind of groups do you think this gun shoots? Consdering a perfect run is 21, 24 is really quite good especially considering they had weird wind and bad holds.
@rickyspanish9002 Considering the standard MOA for an M4A1 is 4 MOA, the M7 is doing quite well. It seems a lot of people hate Sig because they gave the Army the best and most reasonable rifle out the participants.
@@robertkohnke873 i don't hate sig because they've provided a competitor to the m4, I hate sig because they sell garbage at exuberant prices to idiots who don't know any better
Setup for the higher pressure .277 cal. round, Can increase barrel length but keep fps. the same to reduce recoil/pressure. If you wish to keep same barrel length, you will have to go up to .338 cal. or .35 cal. with same bullet weight, but now you have knock down power and not a penetrator. For a penetrator with more legs, .308 case, with a 100 grain .26 cal. / 6.5 bullet. That will still give you 3100 fps. but with a slightly heavier bullet, and better B.C.'s of the 5.56, and have no need of the higher pressure case, which will give you better barrel life, but yes, they will stay with .308 cal. rounds until they run out and spin up the other 6.8/.277 cal. if they ever do, the 6.5 is the ideal middle between the 5.56 and 7.62. Great show.
Tbf the AR platform has gone through over 150 individual changes since it was adopted. The civilian XM7 is the earliest version of the weapon. Also keep in mind it’s made by Sig USA, so chances are it’s got a bendy barrel
Josh commented that the wind was pretty crazy that day. But I noticed that too. Henry said he held on the same point for a 2nd shot and got a considerable shift. Maybe it was wind, or maybe it was ammo.
@@somethinganything4864exactly it’s a known design everyone bashed the ak12 initial designs but even that is a bigger departure from anything known than this is
My homeboy works for the local Sherrif's office and bought the 762x51 13" version with the 762 SLX Suppressor attached. After a full day, we did stretch her out to 800 yards. It was unimpressive to them. I was excited to shoot it, but I'm a civi and have never been in combat, urban or rural . I'm also not a precision rifle competition shooter either so I have nothing to reference scenario or equipment wise. They're are all former Army or Marine infantry/snipers that have GWOT deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We were using a Nightforce ATACR - 1-8x24mm F1 for optics, in FDE of course. He still had the tag on the trigger guard as well, haha!
I would love to see if sig could apply the hybrid case tech to a 5.56 sized cartridge. If they could push the heavier .224 bullets above 3000fps in a 14" barrel that would be badass.
Exactly what I was thinking. Push the shoulder out so you can’t chamber the “hot” 5.56 in a weaker gun, and an extra 20k psi could probably push a 77gr up past 3k fps out of a 14” barrel. That’s be a fantastic firearm.
Freaking FMG Lee. I love that guy. I took a training class that was set up by him with Larry Vickers. Cool guy. He got the local PD to let us shoot a full auto HK G36. I think you have to put a muzzle brake on the rifle to help with the felt recoil. I put a Lantac Dragon on mine. I had send it back to Sig to remove the flash hider. Great idea to put it on the suppressor setting.
@@timothywright2953with the limited experience I have with suppressors I have not found that to be the case. The physics that cause recoil are still in play, weight may lower recoil but not on a 9 lb rifle.
I was hoping to hear mention of ammo weight. I found that M855a1 weighs 12grams each, and M80 weighs 24grams each, lastly 6.8mm bi-metal weighs 22.4 grams. Switching from 6.8mm to 7.62mm would mean an increase in weight. One that may defeat the purpose of the switch to a “stronger round”. Already switching from 5.56mm means the standard load of 7 mags is going from 210 rounds w/5.56mm to 140 rounds w/6.8mm, and 6.8mm weighs much more then the 5.56mm. To then switch to 7.62mm, which weighs even more then 6.8mm for the same amount of rounds and less “power” then 6.8mm may defeat the purpose of the switch. It will take time for stockpiles to be sufficiently filled with the 6.8mm. Also the rifle isn’t intended for everyone (yet) it’s just for “front line” troops. Which would mean things like all Infantry and like the whole of an Airborne unit. But the signal guy in an all signal brigade or the mechanic in a sustainment brigade, likely won’t be seeing M7’s for decades. I’ll use my self as an example, I’m in a signal MOS and I’ve got 9 years in…I’ve never fired 7.62x51!
I don't care what the Army says, I do not believe the 6.8 will not replace 5.56. The weight increase alone will kill the 6.8 as a universal cartridge. You've never fired 7.62 x 51 because there is no need for signal troops to have 7.62 DMRs. Your job is to operate and maintain communications equipment, not to engage the enemy. Your weapons are primarily for defensive purposes. So I don't get your point.
@@cvr527 I was more arguing that switching the m7 to 7.62 is a bad ideas. And signal units/sections still get M240’s. I brought it up to show that while yes having sufficient stock piles of 6.8mm will be an issue, not all units/roles are gonna need it. The army may procure 6.8mm barrels for the M240 so there’s still a chance support roles will have to get 6.8mm.
These two are clueless fanboys. They just used a 16 in 308 Spear with no brake ... to compare the M7 suppressed with 13 in barrel in 277 Fury ... to bolt rifles, Scar 17s, HK417, G3 a dime a dozen AR10 No kidding that Spear kicked like a mule. It is not the M7. And just like a typical Liberal & supporter of the Party of the Confederacy & minority rulel, these two completely ignored all the facts given by the Army about the NGSW ... to believe the bs from fellow Liberals & fake news media about replacing the M4, coercion from Sig, penetrating armor, the US Army know nothing about 556/AR15 and 308/AR10 or the 6.5 GR, 6.8 SPC & 6mm ARC, is once again betraying Nato allies switching cartridges etc. Again. That was not the M7 ... but is a 16 " 308 semi auto with NO Brake as springs for suppressed fire from a 13 in barrel. The Spear Heavy is the civilian legal version of the M7 in 308 at first but will eventually include 6.5 CM and 277 Fury. The NGSW ... is about replacing the 5.56 & 7.62 ... with 6.8 Common Cartridge for the 200 000 strong Close Combat forces. The Army clearly said the rest of their forces will continue using the 556 & 308 rifles & MGs. But the Close Combat Forces ... will eventually .. only have one catridge (6.8 CC), one rifle (M7) and one MG (M250). The M7 is simply the service rifle which can do DMR duty out to 1000 yds with the XM157 FCS. The dedicated SPR M7 ... with longer barrel & hand guard, bipod, single stage trigger, new stock, springs etc .. will replace the M110. But the current M7 with the XM137 FCS ... will allow most to immediately do DMR duties. Likewise the M250 immediate replaces the M249 and is dramatically better .. and with a longer barrel and tweaks to improve accuracy ... it would replace the M240. It is Liberal BS the Army made the M7 & M250 modular .. so they could fall back to 556 & 308 ... if the 277 Fury is an abject failure. The only failure by the Army with the 277 Fury ... is that should have been AR cartridge in at least 308 case with a high BC bullet .. performing better than the 6mm ARC in full brass ( normal pressure) and close to 308/6.5 CM in HP steel head. For crying out loud ... along with Hornady the US Army ... helped develop the 6mm ARC. Why the hell didn't they get Hornady to develop a 6.8 mm ARC ... for an AR rifle ... that could replace the M110? And then the NGSW .. would only be about the new rifle & MG ... in 6.8 CC. And the rest of the Services will switch to the clearly better cartridge, rifle & MG. The 6.8 CC should have been 50% heavier at most than the 5.56 not 100%. See. This is the only major screw up by the US Army selecting the 277 Fury. There should have been the 6.8 CC ... should have been developed by Hornady as the 6.8 mm ARC. They would have figure out the Steel Head once they maxed out the full brass.
It’s a SIG, of course early versions have issues… don’t worry after all the poorly documented rolling changes without easy ways to know what revision any model is, it will come up to snuff, until then enjoy the high price tag for being a beta tester. (Throwing shade cause I hate that this is my impression of the company, I don’t want it to be this way but this is my perception)
Well, SIG can't fix the M17/M18 that was a dumpster fire from the failed hammer fired SIG 250. No firing pin block is going to continue to injure users and perhaps kill users soon. So happy the Army didn't pick the proven Glock or the Beretta APX, LOL.
I hope you two get ahold of a 6mm ARC SPR. I've seen some interesting things out the cartridge and systems that are typically paired with it. I realize that the 6mm ARC came years after the NGSW program adoption but I feel that the ARC is really what the army was (is) looking for all along. A round that does more than the 5.56 with better terminal effects, less wind drfit, and better range, but is not as much of a burden as 7.62. The 6mm ARC also uses mags that fit into current plate carriers and mag pouches. In my understanding 6mm ARC is that "better 5.56". I realize there's also 6mm MAX but 6mm ARC is the cartridge that special operations are supposedly using in their SPR's. So the round is already being (or is) vetted and also wouldn't too crazy of a learning curving for current riflemen.
Sure there are good 6mm options or 6.5mm such as Grendel. That is more sensible for overall utility. Pretty much any high BC option in the 6-6.5 range could work. But doesn’t meet the arbitrary and silly armor pen requirement.
Any chance of a follow up with one chambered .277/6.8? You might have to do it twice, once with the low pressure ball ammo and once with the highest pressure stuff you can get ahold of. The Army's stated intent with this rifle is to use a low pressure load for training and use a very high pressure AP round for combat.
The reason to go with 7.62 is because of logistics, supply and availability. This system should be with the 6.8x51 cartridge. Since it is not, you may need more data. How does this 7.62 version compare to the M110 ( or similar) or M1A? Is it heavier? How is the reliability compared to the other options? Does it offer faster velocity? How does AP do out of 7.62? How is the accuracy and recoil impulse for each system? Which system offers less recoil and faster shots? Which system offers a free floated option? All valid questions By 7.62 i mean the 175gr M118LR load ( or similar)
They have a short buttstock to meet the OAL requirements set in place by the army - if it’s too small for someone they should swap it for a stock of their choice. Solid video as always, Highly recommend you do a follow up in the future with the suppressed 13” 6.8x51 version since you could then compare it to the .308 16” version.
On the Army's ideas with armor penetration, it factually does not matter. Take a look at an infantryman wearing full body armor from any angle, above, below, from the side, front profile of them in the prone, whatever you like. They always have 60-70% of their area exposed, unarmored by anything that will stop rifle rounds. Body armor does not create walking tanks or CoD juggernauts. It saves lives and makes you heavier, which in certain situations takes lives. You may need this capability for a GPMG, but it is utterly unnecessary for a standard rifle and frankly it's a nice-to-have even for a DMR/sniper rifle.
The army trains to shoot center mass. Armor is designed to cover your center mass… The reason 6.8 was made is that the armed forces defines incapacitation as “the enemy can no longer carry out battlefield functions” like picking up a gun or running away. Testing has shown that for the 5.56 platform can’t deliver that reliably at 400m+ on a target with body armor It’s really a simple concept of why 6.8 was created. I find it odd people have such a hard time understanding the origin
@@pluemasthe idea of 6.8 is that it now opens your imprint back up to the entire torso+pelvic region, essentially doubling or tripling your lethal aim area
Always great videos and definitely know you guys can shoot but what are the chances we could see you guys run the course with some shooting in different positions other than prone. Practical Accuracy from sitting/sling, kneeling/sling, or off hand/sling? Maybe a tri-pod standing? Would be kind of interesting to see the top rifles come back and take a run but a different shooting position.
I think People need to stop focusing on the M7 as if it were a standalone program. NGSW was about a projectile at a specific velocity, fired from two different platforms. M7 in a vacuum makes a lot less sense than considering the context of what seems to be a good MG with a good cartridge, with the M7 being a rifle that conveniently shoots the same round being somewhat of a bonus. Does this justfiy mass replacement of the AR for frontline units? I don't know, but thinking of the M7 per se is dumb.
Everyone pearl clutching about the costs of converting from one ammo to another has me shaking my head. It’s the US Army, they have billions of dollars. They were going to buy lots of one cartridge next year and now they’re buying another. There’s plenty of money for ammo. Regarding the logistics? Who knows. But the M7 does seem to put the most powerful rifle available in the hands of US soldiers. That has to count for something. If a soldier runs into a target the 6.8 can’t kill it wasn’t for lack of trying. Cheap Chinese body armor is all over the world. A 556 may not cut it at 500m anymore.
@@JimmySailor body armor is a non issue, this gun is a money pit to steal tax money like always. Rifles take out like .5% of all causalities in war and through every conflict since ww2 the side that can sustain fire the longest wins in confrontations. The round and the gun make it so every person is less capable at sustaining fire as they will carry way less rounds. The us army has a hard on for convincing congress war is like saving private ryan so they can waste money on a super duper marksman rifle for all
Just get an LMT external piston MWS if you go 308. I see this gun only being worthwhile in the 6.8 Fury because of the increased pressure of the cartridge. Plus we are just waiting for the customary Sig recall as well. This gun is a miss for me too. Great review though as usual.
If they actually do start trying to replace the M4A1 carbine with this, it will be one of the most pointless wastes of money the government has put into a weapon system.
@@jintsuubest9331 the amount of money and re-allocation of resources to replace the M4 platform en masse, on top of adding an entirely new cartridge into inventory, would cost a LOT more than you might think. Not to mention, you’re ignoring a key point from my comment. *pointless* wastes of money, which this crap is a perfect example of.
That has some serious kick for what is meant to be a general infantry rifle. It makes little sense to me even in an army setting for infantry to be able to hit targets out to 800 meters and penetrate armor when you also have artillery, mortars and so on that can and will be able to do that job much better.
But thats the thing: We don't. The idea that we will just hit all targets outside of 500 yards with Arty and air power is completely unrealistic. All of CENTCOM nearly ran out of guided bombs trying to fight ISIS in a low intensity war in Syria, and we are struggling to keep up with supplying Ukraine with artillery shells. The infantry WILL have to fight that far out. Why do you think light infantry units are getting the new light tank the Army just got?
7.62x51/.308 already is able to hit out to 800m. The perceived body armor issue isn’t much of an issue in real adversary forces but even if it was, using more grenade launchers, mortars, and drones is a more practical option than trying to increase penetration. Thicker rifle plates are easier to develop and issue to counter a new caliber than development, training, procurement, and logistics of a more powerful caliber and rifle. It is a foolish fight to choose.
@@stupidburp You are half right on drones and 7.62, but not for the way you think. It won't be dropping grenades or FPVs, but greater SA and CnC. You can find footage of squads being micromanaged in the push up to, and even during, CQB, down to which rooms to clear in what order. Now Take IVAS into account, IVAS will allow soldiers to see what the drone sees in a 3D space, literally marking targets like a video game. In such a scenario, having the increased penetration that battle rifles provide will allow you to shoot through most building materials with relative ease. None of this is Sci-fi or what-if concepts. The tech is here now, and has been for at least 10-15 years on the civilian side in one form or another. We are experiencing a real breakthrough of Infantry fighting. I wish more people could see it rather than holding onto the biases of past experiences.
I cant remember who it was, possibly chris bartocciwho had the cost of each round for the 6.8x51 military rounds that we were actually paying... the ball ammo was like $4 per round and the good stuff, high pressure Ap was $22 or $25 per round. Something absolutely ridiculous. Ill look for the video but its so absolutely stupid how much money we wasted on this program and the p320/m17/m18 program. Leave it to the govt to choose the absolute worst option. Imagine if they would have spent that money on research on new technology for 556 projectiles. We could literally be shooting artificial diamond tipped, or some terminator type metal 556 for the money we wasted on this joke. We should be shooting caseless ammo and caseless guns. Instead we get an alright 762 based gun and a cool machine gun we cant afford to feed. Belt of 100 would cost $2,200... all made in one place, great idea in the event we go to war.... its almost like the military is putting us in the worst position possible. Absolutely absurd.
that 276 pederson looks like such a nice cartridge. Straighten those walls out a bit and it would be proper modern. Oh what a coincidence, the pederson case is also 51mm. ha ha ha
When I first heard about the ngsw program I thought "oh cool" when I saw what had won I thought "oh shit! why did they pick that?" it's like they went for the M14 all over again.
I bought a spear in april and i was very disappointed in the results after i shot it. I expected it to be perfect for the price tag. First thing i had to do was pull off the awful, magpul stock. $4k plus for a rifle and you cant even get a decent stock, B5 sop mod was a great replacement. Going back now i wish i wouldve bought the scar or the mr762 which is funny because i had the mr762 in my hands and i chose the spear. Im glad im not the only one particularly disappointed in the spear
Dude, lets be real. For the money and hype its a dud. Henry has cleared the 650 yard course WITHOUT A MISS with a 7.62 AK, wolf ammo and 3x prism. He just had 4 misses with the Sig before clearing 500 yards with a extremely expensive setup between optic and rifle. Lets call it like it is here. The platform is way too heavy and frankly im pissed my tax dollars went to this. They could have kept tbe same AR small frame and beefed it up for high psi 6ARC. Soldiers don't have as much to carry, they have more ammo on hand, less recoil, more accuracy and the entire system doesnt cost us taxpayers more.
I shoot mine, consistently 1 to 1.25 inches. I've upgraded the stock to a b5 which is considerably more stable and mounted a mk6 leupold, 18x. Great gun, I love it.
yeah that's why we had to make the caveats during the debrief. We've seen / heard people talk about the spear LT being much better after pushing some rounds down range. We didn't have the opportunity to shoot more than what we did here, so i'm sure we'll revisit when we have a rifle to hold on hand for long term and evaluate.
@@9HoleReviews then what was the point? I understand as I watched the video you mentioned some of these caveats but why much later & after the straight "C" mentality, y'all let your bias show and rather than front loading the "discussion & scene setting" you give it a nod halfway through the title is misleading as the variant fired is a "pre production XM7 in 7.62x51 with a 16" barrel" at best y'all didn't give any velocity nor did I catch the ammo (someone else mentioned M118 & not M118LR 168 vs 175 as well as bt shape change) misrepresenting this video & the NGSW program is not a good look if you wanted to represent the NGSW program wait for the 6.8 run & review it if you want to use the material because you know it cost money to create this content then be upfront properly name it & say "video why we think the MCX Spear in 308 sucks for a civilian rifle, if 6.8 fails is there a Military role in 7.62" or something be upfront at the intro say when the filming of shooting happened then the date of discussion recording & provide the context/info learned between the two perhaps we didn't clean/check torque specs etc as it was a loaner... At this point & the timing of the video release to the announcement from SIG on the 6.8 variant comes across as a dishonest attempt to cash in on the popularity of NGSW content. In your discussion mentioning the NGSW program & thoughts on what could or might happen without any information on the current up to date fielding initiative or understanding of what data or updated information is readily available is also a massive slap in the face to those of us that are still suiting up & carrying it
For some reason, that rifle looks very fragile. I don't know why, but it looks like a system that will have a lot of breakage during it's service life.
I love 9hole reviews. But the Spear is designed for 277 fury cartridge. If the test was done using typical 308 cartridge then results are obsolete imo. This rifle was not intended for 308. Adaptable yes, but we need the test of 277.
If one of the goals for the military is modularity. It would make more sense for the army to go with the Colt CM 7.62/901 rifle. The Colt can be converted from a 7.62 to a 5.56 and everything in between while still retaining the AR platform. No need to go to a different platform and I am pretty sure a barrel could be made to chamber Sigs precious 6.8x51 cartridge.
SIG must have the right people in the gov. in pocket because that wasn't very impressive. Heavy ass rifle, overpowered unnecessarily so round that would be a nightmare to mass produce. But after they got away with that trash pistol (bought the right ppl) nothing is a surprise.
well wrong round and sig kinda flubs gen 1s lol, but kinda concerning about some of the issues with the .308 versions so far. Like the design, but its pretty pricey for something that isnt as next gen as it seems.
@@noobasdfjkl Drop safety issues aside, the best part of it is the chassis system.. slide finish is garbage, rear sights fly off regularly, and the triggers are spongy.
Just a thought but I think having guests bring on rifles and shoot the course would be cool. They could share about the rifle they brought, their background, and demonstrate their skills. It would be cool if they struggled some too because most people don’t practice this kind of long distance shooting
I Loved the SIG 226, 229 and 239. I'm not a fan of any of their newer bullshit. Honestly I would rather have a M-16A1 20" than the M7. The DOD is being retarded again. The 277 Fury AP is $25 per round and the military doesn't have any rifle ranges that can handle it without getting shredded. It addresses a non existent threat.
Isn’t the idea that training will use mostly ball rounds? Same logic with tanks, save the hot stuff for combat, train with the training rounds. I wouldn’t call the promblem it’s trying to solve ‘non-existent’. Optics have gotten significantly better since the m14 days, and body armor is the norm. Sure, mout is not gonna be this things favorite environment, but as engagement distances have increased, 5.56 might not be the best option if you’re regularly fighting at 300m.
In reality the US Army didn't have "a lot" of .30-06. The M2 ball, that the M1 Garand shot almost exclusively during the war, was introduced only 2 years after the rifle. Much of the old ammo in storage (that would have been consumed in few weeks of actual fight) ended up being barely used in WWII, because they had mostly been made in haste during WWI to abysmal quality, and had been discarded on inspection lately. Same for the BAR magazines (good part of the reason the BAR had been kept in service instead of a real LMG). Once the stored magazines were really needed only 1 out of 5 passed inspection. The .276 Pedersen meant two rounds more in the M1 clip, and more rounds being made and transported with the same resources. It was the best choice. Not in absolute (the .30 Remington would have been, allowing a lighter rifle), but surely the best between the two. If you wanted to "use both", TV-General Dynamics bid was the best one, since every .308 weapon could have been retrofitted to the new cartridge.
I've heard that the SCAR beats up optics but I've seen zero evidence to support these claims that being said the SCAR and Spear have a very similar gas system/bolt so in theory your right it should have the same issue just worse but unless I see proof of it happening im just going to assume its just internet rumors that have been perpetuated over and over again to the point people actually believe it
The SCARs problem is the polymer lower in conjunction with its massive bolt carrier. This creates harmonic issues, I would assume the sig doesn’t suffer the same problem because it’s all metal.
If I had to guess, AP core size. The 6.8mm round carries a significantly larger core at the same absurd velocity as 5.56 out of an 18-20" barrel, on top of having an excellent ballistic coefficient. There's also the issue of urban warfare and room clearing, where that long barrel is a pain in the ass to maneuver around, especially if you have a suppressor mounted. Whether or not those are worth the weight and recoil tradeoffs is yet to be seen, and I personally think the RM277 would've been a better pick if they could improve the trigger, but that's a whole other issue.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Like I said before, I'm no expert... But I am a tax payer. And the new rifle is going to cost us a ton of money. Whereas the price for new 20 inch 5.56 barrels and a modern rail system would only cost us a couple hundred bucks per gun... 8^)
@@quoderatdemonstrandum5442Tons of taxpayers have strong opinions about things they know nothing useful about. The A-10 should have been retired 15 years ago when most of the people involved with actually FLYING IT said it should be, while dumbasses who just LIKE the idea of it demanded it be kept in service.
@@EtherFox Retired pilot here. And I hear what you're saying. But I still think the XM7 is just another Pentagon boondoggle that will cost us waaaay more money for no good reason. And how are small-framed female troops supposed to hump and shoot that high-recoil and overweight behemoth? Only from prone? And with a bipod? ROFLMAO. Might as well go back to the M-14 !!!
I don’t see this weapon becoming a full general issue weapon, especially in this new 6.8 cartridge. I’d expect it to possibly be modified into a DMR in 7.62 NATO due to logistics.
"Let's give every soldier an overbuilt, boutique caliber sniper weapon that downgrades weight, maneuverability, ammo capacity, and recoil back in time to the M14, which we moved away from because it was overbuilt for overly long ranges and had obsolete weight, maneuverability, ammo capacity, and recoil" -The US Army M4's/M16's/M27's and SOCOM HK416's in something like 6mm arc with a military specific armor piercing load is a WAY better idea for an upgrade.
as you can see, it isn't a sniper weapon or a dmr, Henry's done better with iron sighted 556s, its a pig of a gun but its a door wedge, it keeps the door open to "fix it" or to find a true replacement for the AR platform and the 556.
I knew SIG would win the contract, but I thought General Dynamics should have won. They had a much better system between the rifle itself and the polymer cased ammo. The recoil on the rifle itself looked more like what you'd get from a 5.56 and the didn't transfer heat into the gun. But that that's big government making big dumb decisions. Somebody over there at SIG must be giving the Army brass the hawk tuah.
@@dariuswilliams7509hell nah M27 is also a dumpster fire, 8.2lb for a 556 gun is comical considering most AR style guns weigh around 6.4-7lb also NT4 is outdated as shit Should’ve just taken the urgi path like socom all did for the time being
Sometimes companies win bids because there's no better option. I work for a large governmental agency in a large state. A few years ago we put out a tender for a large project and had two two bids from companies that have sufficient staff and experience to actually deliver. One of those two companies had won a prior contract and did a terrible job. They lost this contract because of that fact alone. Then the company that won the contract stole somebody else's property to fulfill the contract and we had to cancel the whole project.
Can you confirm the two gas settings? I thought it was set up the way you said, but in talking with small arms solutions it would appear that the 308 version had normal and suppressed? I don’t know if there are two different 308 versions going around or what.
It feels to good to be vindicated , Been saying the xm7 is a POS and a straight up bad option for the army since it came out, nice to see people willing to say it out loud instead of going with the flow like almost all youtubers
Guess you didn't see the same program I did or you weren't paying attention. They said this is far from a piece of s***. They said it would be good in 308 for the military but civilians probably wouldn't be good for it. I haven't just disagree. Because I think the Army wouldn't buy something like this if they're not going to use 277 Fury in the first place.
What guntubers are you watching? I can’t think of one that thinks the XM7 is fire. I think they’re wrong and stuck in an M16/M4 mindset but whatcha gonna do
As a DMR, the M7 makes sense. As a battlerifle replacing the M4, the Army is screwing up. If they wanted a 6.8 round, the 6.8SPC has been around for about 20 years now and would require a barrel, bolt, and mags to be replaced.
I have been saying the same thing since the 6.8 x 51 first entered the scene. This rifle and the 6.8 x 51 will not replace the M4A1. The weight increase for the average soldier alone will kill the M-7. The 6.8 SPC should have been adopted 20 yrs ago.
The M7 absolutely can smartly replace the M4. Will it do everything the M4 does, and better? No, just like the M4 did not perfectly replace the M16, as evidenced by the late years of the GWOT. The M7'll be a better rifle. The Army should and will adopt another carbine to fill the shorter-range, weaker-armed gap that adopting the M7 will create.
@@EtherFox The M4 is a proven rifle. I have personally carried them all across the planet. Notice that SEAL TMs, SF etc, scrapped the SCAR and went back to M-4s. Go back to playing video games where you belong.
@EtherFox it's approximately 5 lbs heavier. You have 10 less rounds per mag, and you can carry fewer mags on your body. For those reasons alone, it's not a viable replacement. The fact is that the average engagement range is 200-300 yards, with more firefights occurring between 150-200 yards. That's why the Army standardized on a 300m range. This rifle is too much gun and not enough firepower. Every test I've seen of it on full auto shows that it's no more controllable than the M14 was. So, you carry less ammo per mag, and overall, you can't gain fire superiority. You can't control it when you do try to use it to gain fire superiority, so you're wasting rounds, and worse, it's pounds heavier, which means it's more of a burden. Oh, and for all of these negatives, you're only gaining the ability to shoot at ranges that you should just call in artillery or CAS. It's worthless to the BASIC INFANTRYMAN.
The DMR to choose right now is the HK417/M110A1 and the M4 replacement should be the HK416/M27 IAR how did the marines outsmart the army this time around is beyond me😂😂😂
on the geissele comparison, remember this is a military contract rifles, which is to say, sold for the highest possible price, made the cheapest possible way.
Just to reiterate a comment I had made so others can see for context: I do think what was said about 7.62 being the mainstay round until we can build up stockpiles is true. But this is very much a necessary change. Drones have evolved land warfare at the level tanks and machine guns did 100 years ago. Large scale formations can't hide or use maneuver the same way we are used to. Also Syria and Ukraine have shown we can't rely on artillery or air support like we have in the past because we can't keep up with how much is needed. Infantry will have to fight from further out or in a less aggressive manner. But its not all bad. Drones aren't just dropping grenades or kamikaze striking tanks. They are being used to actively guide troops in contact, even in CQB, thus the traditional limiters of Battle rifles are mitigated, and the effective range of the infantry is enough to deal with modern realities. Also Trench Warfare in Ukraine is a red herring.
I think most of the lessons of Ukraine are red herrings at least in the context of the US military. Air superiority alone would drastically change how tactics evolved in Ukraine.
I think you're not considering some important factors, in that for infantry engagements to increase not only would soldiers have to double their individual marksmanship skills, but ammunition quality would have to quadruple. Thats not to mention the reality of how often do soldiers find themselves in a position where they can take a supported shot from over 500m away. The whole theory of this is pure fantasy and completely ignores real life
@@rickyspanish9002 The fundamentals of marksmanship certainly still apply, of course, but the XM157 is already proving to take most of the guesswork out. This is precisely why it was developed to do what it does. Also, none of this is theory. The part I had mentioned about troops being guided by drones in the open and in CQB is straight from Ukraine.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 all the XM157 does is integrate a BCD calculator and range finder into the optic. This is nice ofcourse, but only shows where to aim, it doesn't guarantee a hit. I've spent enough time on military ranges to know that hoardes of soldiers struggle and fail qualification at distances of 300m or less. Now we expect riflemen to engage targets at twice or more at that distance? Do you expect every single round to be of match grade quality? Plus how are we to keep all rifles shooting at a maximum of 2 MOA if the caliber being used is going to burn out the barrels at 10,000 rounds? The logistics of this train of thought are fairly tale follies. How often do soldiers in combat find positions to have a clear line of view for positions over even 300m, let alone a position where they can take a supported shot.. Yes drones are changing warfare. But countermeasures have been and continue to be introduced that will mitigate their effectiveness. Just like any new tech, it has its peak effectiveness when initially introduced, and gradually becomes less effective. In either case, if engagement distances are going to increase, expecting rifleman to increase their engagement ranges with their individual weapons is not the solution. We figured that out in the 50s man.
I think Kevin from Q is right about Sig. they focus on too many things at once instead of doing proper R&D along with QC on one thing at a time. This rifle is about 70% complete of what it should be. That being said I still want and will buy one but in the 6.8x51 caliber
US civilians are likely the largest holders of individual body armor in the world. The Gov't specifically states the need to defeat body armor. I'm not convinced the NGSW program was intended to defeat a foreign adversary...
The M7 is only issued to Close Combat forces. All others keep the M4. The real power is the M7/M5 rifle smart sight combo. If you watch the folks shooting multiple head shots at different ranges in a few seconds, it’s impressive. The reality is combat shooting is different than hunting…..Soldiers shoot buildings, vehicles, berms, etc. Lots of data in combat shooting studies. Suppressive fire? AMU defines that as very close to the enemy soldier. The really good news is the suppressor. The USMC test showed they improve communication. You really want high quality ranges like the new USMC ones.
I'm sure it's a great sight but in a world where you can build an FPV drone for $150 bucks and engage a target multiple KM out with precision, is it really cost effective to generally issue a $10000 smart rifle sight?
Each Soldier costs a lot to recruit and train. We spend $millions on places like CTC and NTC. Drones are just another weapon system in the mix. Most are way more than $150. Drones are way more effective on equipment than individual soldiers.
@BrandonMeyer1641 in that vein, screw having an infantry rifle at all, just field the whole force of 6-foot-3 cornfed offensive tackles carrying Mk48's with a few belts each. accuracy by volume.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
![M16A2 to 500yds: Practical Accuracy ...was Eugene Stoner wrong? [ USMC experiences in Iraq ]](/img/n.gif)
Is XM7 / M7 NGSW well worth the research? Or just another .gov funded money pit? Henry's full thoughts here: th-cam.com/video/4I7pSaUyPgs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pgdS_GYYjCGPaf3I
👉or on HWOW for free: www.weaponsandwar.tv/videos/20240722-m7-xm7-discussion-2
👉 Check out this video on History of Weapons and War app! www.weaponsandwar.tv/videos/20240718-sig-spear-11
When youtube kicks us all off, we will live on there with our syndicate of historical gun tuber nerds!
Greetings bro, for recommendation, try to contact the company fn herstal, they are creating the licc iws 264 for the irregular warfare community together with the Canadian special forces.
No such thing as .gov funded .. only tax payer funded ;)
Money pit.
Another great clip but I’m quite suspicious 😂 that the recording failed when the deer appeared and then the deer disappeared?😊 venison anyone ?
Government funded boondoggle
Damn was hoping it was the 6.8 Fury version. Cool nonetheless though.
Same
Nope. It was a stupid video by clueless fanboys.
The M7 is the US Army's new service rifle for Close Combat forces (only) and the standard rifle has a 13 in barrel specifically for the 6.8 x 51 ... with Sig's Suppressor .. on suppressed setting .. with the $10 00 XM157 FCS on top of Sig's 1 x 6 scope.
Now rewatch the rifle they reviewed ...and then proceeded to bitch about the Army's M7
@@abelincoln.2064😂
ya i was hoping the same because otherwise, we don't see shit. since 277 fury is the entire point of the m7.
@@abelincoln.2064 You're the fanboy
Deer deploying electronic countermeasures to cover itself
He gave all of us his shiny white hiney!
They're getting wily
Shika
@@nam430 Shinkan nokonoko koshitantan
yeah wtf was that
As a former USMC rifle company cmdr, I would say you are absolutely right about the logistic impacts versus the rifle performance per se. But when you add the new Vortex sight with 90% hit probabilities at 900 meters and transitions to multiple targets at varied ranges you've added a system capability that will significantly improve engagements at any range.
Yeah woulda been a great rifle in the 1910z
@@rustys.1070 what penetrates Russian body armor this is clearly needed by infantry forces
@@odrs The same round that is unable to penetrate nij level 4 will most definitively fail to penetrate GOST 5a, GOST 5 or GOST 6a.
@@odrspentagram worrying about penetrating body armor when over 70% of casualties against near peer advisaries will be from artillary and strike aircraft. This is one overpriced hunk-o-crap i wont be buying. Just not a sig sucker
SMGLee lol. That name is so nostalgic for me. I remember a photo set inside a seal armory he uploaded on the forums like ten years ago, a wall of unused Mk25s, a desk drawer full of old worn out lasers.
4:57 the shrapnel from the round hitting the target cut down a nearby thistle. Definitely shows why you don't want to be too close to steel
lol i was just about to comment that
Or wear it on your chest!
@@MrCashewkitty exactly
After owning and spending time with the 13" version of the MCX-SPEAR, I will say that it is a night and day difference when shooting it suppressed. Especially with a flow through can. It became clear that it is designed to be used in conjunction with a suppressor which makes a much more pleasant shooting experience. At least in my experience. Great video guys.
How did yours group?
@BrandonMeyer1641 I pulled off a sub moa group (only 5 shots to be fair) with seller & ballot 168gr match ammo. Had a 2" group with 175gr Federal SMKs as well. All with a pistol brace haha.
You mean a weapon system that has 4 important components isn’t the same as just the base rifle in a different caliber? Wild
@@DefaultProphet explain yourself
Bad video. This haters used the civilian Spear in 308 with a 16 in barrel with no brake or suppressor .. and no $10 000 XM157 FCS ... to compare the Army's M7 ... to the Scar 17, HK417, G3 a dime a dozen DI AR10's and even AR15's .... to bitch about about the Army's foolish or coerced new service rifle ( for the close combat forces only).
I think the bigger deal here is the 6.8x51 cartridge running 3000fps out of a 16" barrel. I wonder how such ballistics would have fared in similar wind conditions.
I'm curious how effectively the $10,000 scope will do the aim corrections for the user
It already kicks harder than many other .308 rifles, how much is it gonna kick in the full powered military 6.8 loads? I'm predicting this will never fully replace the m4 and may get cancelled completely in the next 5 years.
@@Skenderbeuismyhero I predict your prediction is is correct.
to bad he is running the .308 variant.
@@SkenderbeuismyheroMy prediction is they made a big deal about penetrating black magic Russian body armor to adopt it in 6.8 but they're probably gonna throw out the 6.8 barrel and use them in 7.62
19:38. When using an M4 w/ M203, I put the chonky Magpul buttstock and put batteries in it. It weighed more but pulled the balance back some.
Weight with force multipliers is only 87lbs. Perfect for everyone!
"You got soft hands boi"
-Internet commentators
@@flopus7 😂
When garandthumb mentioned a while back how it didnt recoil too bad i added up the weight on the setup he had and itd have been almost 15lbs loaded and he didnt even have the chonky XM optic on it lol
He also wasn’t using full power ammo
@@KnifeCursed Imagine being a Grenadier, RTO, Ammo Bearer, Assistant Gunner, Mortarman, Combat Medic, Forward Observer, Supply, etc. and they have you draw this out.
These deer crack me up, like bro you didn't even know your life is balancing on a razor's edge
Those deer probably figured out the gun range is the safest place to be during hunting season. Nobody is allowed to shoot them there, so naturally they hang out and munch on all that grass out in the nice warm Texas sun. Biggest danger is probably lead poisoning from all the bullets in the dirt.
Its also funny how gun people are portrayed in media as bloodthirsty but deer are the safest on a gun range.
@@DriveCarToBar yup. Deer would show up on numbers to our ranch during hunting season. I don't like venison.
@@ddigre01 Nah they're good. They have electronic warfare to protect them, as seen by the camera messing up
@@agentwashingtub9167 I saw they want to make an EW version of the F15 so I assume these little fellers are the Mk 1 version out of skunkworks
Dam as a Canadian and former Ammo Tech. The consideration of logistics is huge. Sig making this rifle in 7.62x51 is brilliant. It allows allies to rearm to this platform but use the inventory or even buy the surplus ammunition off the US. While then offering a conversion later to 6.8x51. Also buy offering the “civilian” market to buy them it covers cost of tooling up for production and if another allied partner wants them in .308 then the production is already available. So like Henry said about logistics but it’s also setting up Sig for production early on.
@9holereviews THERE IS ONE RIFLE GLARINGLY ABSENT FROM THE PRACTICAL VIDEOS: THE 30-40 KRAG!
It's interesting how Henry talks about the Garand being rechambered for the .30-06 over the .276 Pederson. However, the M1 Garand didn't use the existing ammo stocks. Manual on the M1 Garand says that the ball ammo it requires is the M2 Ball that wasn't created until 2 years after the adoption of the rifle. Granted, it could shoot M1 Ball but there are concerns with high pressure and heavy bullets in the Garand rifle. What we had in inventory were BARs, M1919 (and leftover M1917) machine guns and Springfield 1903s which didn't care what ammo you fed them.
Pointing to the Garand as using existing ammo isn't technically correct and there were other reasons for adopting the lighter weight M2 ball. But the Army had to create a whole new loading to be the standard anyway. It was more than just the Garand that drove Army logistics to retain the .30-06.
True, but you could also say that they already had the machines set up to make 30-06. The dies for the other ammo would be a couple pennies more... plus they really liked 30 caliber back then.
To Henry's point, while M2 ball was in '38 and the Garand prefers that, the initial phases in the late 20s and early 30s concluded when Douglas MacArthur (Chief of Staff at the time) and the Secretary of War ordered any further development of the .276 pattern halted in favor of the .30 version because of those existing stocks of M1 Ball. It wasn't really noticed how much of a hinderance M1 Ball was until about '36-37, but the caliber decision was made before that came to light. So, again to Henry's point, it was a decision made with existing logistical supply in mind versus whatever firing characteristics of the .276. I think the M7 is gonna be in an interesting situation for the next few years for much of the same reasons, but with 6.8 and 7.62 NATO.
Which manual? I've checked 1940, 1951, and 1965 versions of FM23-5 and the ammunition sections says no such thing about not shooting M1 ball. The 1951 and 1965 versions don't even mention M1 ball probably because stocks were expended by then.
I do find some second hand accounts of MacAurthur (chief of staff at the time) not liking .276 specifically because of the existing massive stockpiles of .3006 ammo. Whether he directed the .276 to be canceled because of that, or simply gave his opinion is unclear to me from my reading.
@@ColburnFreml it doesn't day not to shoot M1 ball. It specifies M2 ball.
@@DriveCarToBar it really doesn't specify anything like that. It mostly just talks about the identification of ball rounds vs blanks, etc. The picture of ball ammo it gives is M2, then it later gives max ranges for both M1 and M2 ball. It's totally ambiguous on the subject. Which version are you looking at?
Always fun to hear the results of the current incarnation of the never ending battles between the military’s team Gunfighter and team Marksman.
@@EricDaMAJ This whole program has always felt like Team Gunfighter and Team Marksman weren't even invited into the room. More like team mongo.
@@LRRPFco52 or team "we have a senator in our pocket"
@@rickyspanish9002 There is that too.
@@rickyspanish9002 Small arms are chump change in the DoD budget, not even worth getting involved with for Senators. Defense contractors at the top of the chain who do multi-billion dollar deals aren't even in the top 20 industries in the US. Senators chuckle in big pharma money at pea shooters.
@450 Yards you killed a Tree , Tree Killer!
Or from "oh brother we're art thought" "COW Killer"
WHAT KIND OF MAN GIVE CIGARETTES TO TREES?
That killed me.
It was other shooter nearby who did it, not henry
@@ebehdzikraa3855 It looked like it ricocheted off the left edge of the target. But if you have some independent knowledge, I'll concede.
Xm7 is literally m14 2.0
Peace time rifle that makes sense on paper but will be phased out by whatever will actually become practical in the next war
Which will probably still be the M4.
@@twelvepercentitalian2511 In a full peer to peer conflict, i honestly see the M16 making a bit of a comeback for its range and increased lethality.
Other than magazine capacity, even weight and length are the same, once installed the suppressor (that's mandatory at 80.000 psi pressure).
On the recoil: having a few guntoobers shot the XM7 _and also_ having shot the SCAR, G3, and SR25 rifles on camera this rifle recoils more than the rest. Not by a ton, but by enough to matter.
That pic with Henry as a butter bar... I want all of that! I'd love to have an inert collection like that! Some really cool stuff there.
Imagine the chamber pressure (80,000psi). Has to be a barrel burner. The longevity of the various assemblies must be taken into consideration as well.
10,000 rounds supposedly which someone said was the same as some of the 7.62x51mm semi auto rifles in service now
@@DefaultProphetand what 7.62x51 semi auto rifles are in service now, other than DMR guns??
Not just the barrel, the whole gun is going to beat itself to death. What a boondoggle
@@rickyspanish9002 Yes those ones
80,000 isn't the operating pressure, it is the max pressure. Most of the rounds are actually at like 69,000-72,000
That deer cameo lol
P.S. Why my deer cameo comment gets more recognition than request for Brandon's VSS on the channel(
Dat Texas Heart Shot
Good vid and discussion. Thanks guys. Always learning.
I have a SCAR 17S and it is my prized possession. I bought mine before I'd even heard of them. My dealer told me about a rifle someone had ordered but didn't pick up. I saw the SCAR and fell in love. Then he told me the price. Full-boat retail. When I regained consciousness, I handed the man a few thousand dollars. (Around $3,200 I think.) It came with one mag. Over a year, maybe two, I was able to purchase 4 more mags at $65 a pop.
No buyer's remorse.
I hope you have a video review of the SCAR 17 and have a comparison with this new Sig. I honestly can't imagine why the Army would choose this Sig over a SCAR 17S.
Am I the only one who's noticed almost everyone who shoots this thing is rather unimpressed with it or legitimately doesn't like it?
yeah, not great seems to be the consensus
Yeah bro! it’s an ar180 in a full size cartridge. You can either beat the gun or the shooter. No free lunch
By beat up I mean the force or the recoil. Nothing against nine hole. These dudes are great.
@@derrickvarnadore1682 the scar does fine
The weight of the rifle and the ammunition is an issue. Recoil is another. The whole system seems like someone's Frankenstein Monster of a wonder weapon.
@9HoleReviews the issue is not the cartridge. They could very well use a higher velocity full power cartridge in a battle rifle. But the weapon itself is not making sense.
It's overweight. You could easily build a 7 pound ar10. This is 9 pounds with the suppressor. They could and done away with a lot of the metal around the upper and lower receiver. The barrel is wayy too thick if you're still getting 2 moa accuracy.
The m250 is a much more sensible weapon. They actually saved weight and the cartridge is gonna for sure be better than 556 or 308 for everything encountered in the field. Cinder blocks or sheet metal vehicles etc.
But the rifle is trying to do everything with the side folder and side redundant side charging. The small frame ar10s don't have this issue. They also don't have to recoil like crazy either.
However The individual rifleman would have would have much rather had a ultra lightweight 5 pound m4 with mlok rail than a battle rifle for most situations.
Not even close to finishing the video and I already can't wait to read the comments
I've seen a few reviews of the M7/Spear, both in .308 and .277 Fury and it seems consistent that the .308 version is unimpressive at best, but the .277 Fury version is a completely different beast that has a handful of surprises up its sleeve. Hopefully you can get a Fury chambered version in for review to give a true apples-to-apples comparison.
3 minutes into the debrief and I've never heard so many caveats. Which is of course a credit to you guys and your fairness, but damn this did not make a good first showing of itself.
I think if they spent more time with gun before firing the course Henry would have shot better. Evidence seems to suggest this is around a 2 moa gun. When he didn’t adjust his aim between shots, the rounds stacked.
@@BrandonMeyer1641i think you want to believe that, but let's be real Henry is a fantastic shooter, and sig, well is sig...its gained the reputation it has for a reason
@@rickyspanish9002 so sigs reputation means THIS rifle isn’t a 1.5-2.5 moa gun? What kind of groups do you think this gun shoots?
Consdering a perfect run is 21, 24 is really quite good especially considering they had weird wind and bad holds.
@rickyspanish9002 Considering the standard MOA for an M4A1 is 4 MOA, the M7 is doing quite well. It seems a lot of people hate Sig because they gave the Army the best and most reasonable rifle out the participants.
@@robertkohnke873 i don't hate sig because they've provided a competitor to the m4, I hate sig because they sell garbage at exuberant prices to idiots who don't know any better
Setup for the higher pressure .277 cal. round, Can increase barrel length but keep fps. the same to reduce recoil/pressure. If you wish to keep same barrel length, you will have to go up to .338 cal. or .35 cal. with same bullet weight, but now you have knock down power and not a penetrator. For a penetrator with more legs, .308 case, with a 100 grain .26 cal. / 6.5 bullet. That will still give you 3100 fps. but with a slightly heavier bullet, and better B.C.'s of the 5.56, and have no need of the higher pressure case, which will give you better barrel life, but yes, they will stay with .308 cal. rounds until they run out and spin up the other 6.8/.277 cal. if they ever do, the 6.5 is the ideal middle between the 5.56 and 7.62. Great show.
It's seems like this rifle doesn't like to hit near the same spot at all... which is very weird with how good of a shot you are
Tbf the AR platform has gone through over 150 individual changes since it was adopted. The civilian XM7 is the earliest version of the weapon. Also keep in mind it’s made by Sig USA, so chances are it’s got a bendy barrel
Not a sig defender by any means, but I have to wonder how much is the rifle and how much was odd wind conditions
@@Courtesyflush52 wdym it's a lf ar180
Josh commented that the wind was pretty crazy that day. But I noticed that too. Henry said he held on the same point for a 2nd shot and got a considerable shift. Maybe it was wind, or maybe it was ammo.
@@somethinganything4864exactly it’s a known design everyone bashed the ak12 initial designs but even that is a bigger departure from anything known than this is
1. I would love to see you do this back to back with the 6.8 and compare.
2. Looking at the weight is a big ooof. That's like an M16A4 w/ M203.
And the M203 is a more effective counter to bypass body armor out to 400m.
Oh yeah what happened to the 6.8??
Cool. The day was slow, thank you guys
My homeboy works for the local Sherrif's office and bought the 762x51 13" version with the 762 SLX Suppressor attached. After a full day, we did stretch her out to 800 yards. It was unimpressive to them. I was excited to shoot it, but I'm a civi and have never been in combat, urban or rural . I'm also not a precision rifle competition shooter either so I have nothing to reference scenario or equipment wise. They're are all former Army or Marine infantry/snipers that have GWOT deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We were using a Nightforce ATACR - 1-8x24mm F1 for optics, in FDE of course. He still had the tag on the trigger guard as well, haha!
I would love to see if sig could apply the hybrid case tech to a 5.56 sized cartridge. If they could push the heavier .224 bullets above 3000fps in a 14" barrel that would be badass.
PSA is now loading a hybrid stainless steel case 5.56.
Exactly what I was thinking. Push the shoulder out so you can’t chamber the “hot” 5.56 in a weaker gun, and an extra 20k psi could probably push a 77gr up past 3k fps out of a 14” barrel. That’s be a fantastic firearm.
Freaking FMG Lee. I love that guy. I took a training class that was set up by him with Larry Vickers. Cool guy. He got the local PD to let us shoot a full auto HK G36. I think you have to put a muzzle brake on the rifle to help with the felt recoil. I put a Lantac Dragon on mine. I had send it back to Sig to remove the flash hider.
Great idea to put it on the suppressor setting.
Why tf does your local PD have a full auto? They fighting a war?
@@h.c5750 probably owned by swat. My friend was able to shoot a full auto MP7
@@ShadowboostAgreed. Gotta be SWAT. Although being a normal officer and being handed a G36 would probably be pretty cool
With that recoil I don’t see much accuracy from average soldier not having the luxury of shooting prone with sandbag and/bipod.
Try clearing a room with the mandatory (in 6.8) suppressor.
This is the earliest iteration, they already released a new one just months ago with stiffer recoil springs and removal of the forward assist
It’s meant to me suppressed, that will reduce recoil by 30%
@@jager6863 use a grenade
@@timothywright2953with the limited experience I have with suppressors I have not found that to be the case. The physics that cause recoil are still in play, weight may lower recoil but not on a 9 lb rifle.
I was hoping to hear mention of ammo weight. I found that M855a1 weighs 12grams each, and M80 weighs 24grams each, lastly 6.8mm bi-metal weighs 22.4 grams.
Switching from 6.8mm to 7.62mm would mean an increase in weight. One that may defeat the purpose of the switch to a “stronger round”. Already switching from 5.56mm means the standard load of 7 mags is going from 210 rounds w/5.56mm to 140 rounds w/6.8mm, and 6.8mm weighs much more then the 5.56mm. To then switch to 7.62mm, which weighs even more then 6.8mm for the same amount of rounds and less “power” then 6.8mm may defeat the purpose of the switch.
It will take time for stockpiles to be sufficiently filled with the 6.8mm. Also the rifle isn’t intended for everyone (yet) it’s just for “front line” troops. Which would mean things like all Infantry and like the whole of an Airborne unit. But the signal guy in an all signal brigade or the mechanic in a sustainment brigade, likely won’t be seeing M7’s for decades.
I’ll use my self as an example, I’m in a signal MOS and I’ve got 9 years in…I’ve never fired 7.62x51!
I don't care what the Army says, I do not believe the 6.8 will not replace 5.56. The weight increase alone will kill the 6.8 as a universal cartridge.
You've never fired 7.62 x 51 because there is no need for signal troops to have 7.62 DMRs. Your job is to operate and maintain communications equipment, not to engage the enemy. Your weapons are primarily for defensive purposes. So I don't get your point.
@@cvr527 I was more arguing that switching the m7 to 7.62 is a bad ideas.
And signal units/sections still get M240’s. I brought it up to show that while yes having sufficient stock piles of 6.8mm will be an issue, not all units/roles are gonna need it.
The army may procure 6.8mm barrels for the M240 so there’s still a chance support roles will have to get 6.8mm.
@@cvr527this
Not just round weight but also volume is an issue. Especially the case diameter and taper which constrains magazine capacity and shape.
These two are clueless fanboys.
They just used a 16 in 308 Spear with no brake ... to compare the M7 suppressed with 13 in barrel in 277 Fury ... to bolt rifles, Scar 17s, HK417, G3 a dime a dozen AR10
No kidding that Spear kicked like a mule. It is not the M7.
And just like a typical Liberal & supporter of the Party of the Confederacy & minority rulel, these two completely ignored all the facts given by the Army about the NGSW ... to believe the bs from fellow Liberals & fake news media about replacing the M4, coercion from Sig, penetrating armor, the US Army know nothing about 556/AR15 and 308/AR10 or the 6.5 GR, 6.8 SPC & 6mm ARC, is once again betraying Nato allies switching cartridges etc.
Again. That was not the M7 ... but is a 16 " 308 semi auto with NO Brake as springs for suppressed fire from a 13 in barrel. The Spear Heavy is the civilian legal version of the M7 in 308 at first but will eventually include 6.5 CM and 277 Fury.
The NGSW ... is about replacing the 5.56 & 7.62 ... with 6.8 Common Cartridge for the 200 000 strong Close Combat forces. The Army clearly said the rest of their forces will continue using the 556 & 308 rifles & MGs. But the Close Combat Forces ... will eventually .. only have one catridge (6.8 CC), one rifle (M7) and one MG (M250).
The M7 is simply the service rifle which can do DMR duty out to 1000 yds with the XM157 FCS.
The dedicated SPR M7 ... with longer barrel & hand guard, bipod, single stage trigger, new stock, springs etc .. will replace the M110. But the current M7 with the XM137 FCS ... will allow most to immediately do DMR duties.
Likewise the M250 immediate replaces the M249 and is dramatically better .. and with a longer barrel and tweaks to improve accuracy ... it would replace the M240.
It is Liberal BS the Army made the M7 & M250 modular .. so they could fall back to 556 & 308 ... if the 277 Fury is an abject failure.
The only failure by the Army with the 277 Fury ... is that should have been AR cartridge in at least 308 case with a high BC bullet .. performing better than the 6mm ARC in full brass ( normal pressure) and close to 308/6.5 CM in HP steel head.
For crying out loud ... along with Hornady the US Army ... helped develop the 6mm ARC. Why the hell didn't they get Hornady to develop a 6.8 mm ARC ... for an AR rifle ... that could replace the M110? And then the NGSW .. would only be about the new rifle & MG ... in 6.8 CC. And the rest of the Services will switch to the clearly better cartridge, rifle & MG. The 6.8 CC should have been 50% heavier at most than the 5.56 not 100%.
See. This is the only major screw up by the US Army selecting the 277 Fury. There should have been the 6.8 CC ... should have been developed by Hornady as the 6.8 mm ARC. They would have figure out the Steel Head once they maxed out the full brass.
Excellent discussion guys
I can see this rifle as the M14 or Scar 2.0, it's going to have the same fate and be dropped, the Army will stay with the M4.
Loving the combat Chanclas.. 😅😂😂 Battle tested and approved!
It’s a SIG, of course early versions have issues… don’t worry after all the poorly documented rolling changes without easy ways to know what revision any model is, it will come up to snuff, until then enjoy the high price tag for being a beta tester. (Throwing shade cause I hate that this is my impression of the company, I don’t want it to be this way but this is my perception)
Think that impression is earned lol (tbf a lot of manufacturers have issues early and sneak in updates as well lol).
People magically forget every issue every other v1 of any rifle has had (including the SCAR) when it’s time to drag SIG 😂😂😂
Outside of being overgassed … there isn’t really issues with the rifle.
@@Clockwork0nions Yea early units had some issues like the stock collapsing, parts issues,... they fixed essentially most of it I think.
Well, SIG can't fix the M17/M18 that was a dumpster fire from the failed hammer fired SIG 250. No firing pin block is going to continue to injure users and perhaps kill users soon. So happy the Army didn't pick the proven Glock or the Beretta APX, LOL.
I hope you two get ahold of a 6mm ARC SPR. I've seen some interesting things out the cartridge and systems that are typically paired with it. I realize that the 6mm ARC came years after the NGSW program adoption but I feel that the ARC is really what the army was (is) looking for all along. A round that does more than the 5.56 with better terminal effects, less wind drfit, and better range, but is not as much of a burden as 7.62. The 6mm ARC also uses mags that fit into current plate carriers and mag pouches. In my understanding 6mm ARC is that "better 5.56". I realize there's also 6mm MAX but 6mm ARC is the cartridge that special operations are supposedly using in their SPR's. So the round is already being (or is) vetted and also wouldn't too crazy of a learning curving for current riflemen.
Sure there are good 6mm options or 6.5mm such as Grendel. That is more sensible for overall utility. Pretty much any high BC option in the 6-6.5 range could work. But doesn’t meet the arbitrary and silly armor pen requirement.
Any chance of a follow up with one chambered .277/6.8? You might have to do it twice, once with the low pressure ball ammo and once with the highest pressure stuff you can get ahold of. The Army's stated intent with this rifle is to use a low pressure load for training and use a very high pressure AP round for combat.
Love your guys channel! Appreciate all the vids coming out so fast 💨
The reason to go with 7.62 is because of logistics, supply and availability.
This system should be with the 6.8x51 cartridge. Since it is not, you may need more data.
How does this 7.62 version compare to the M110 ( or similar) or M1A?
Is it heavier?
How is the reliability compared to the other options?
Does it offer faster velocity?
How does AP do out of 7.62?
How is the accuracy and recoil impulse for each system?
Which system offers less recoil and faster shots?
Which system offers a free floated option?
All valid questions
By 7.62 i mean the 175gr M118LR load ( or similar)
They have a short buttstock to meet the OAL requirements set in place by the army - if it’s too small for someone they should swap it for a stock of their choice.
Solid video as always, Highly recommend you do a follow up in the future with the suppressed 13” 6.8x51 version since you could then compare it to the .308 16” version.
On the Army's ideas with armor penetration, it factually does not matter. Take a look at an infantryman wearing full body armor from any angle, above, below, from the side, front profile of them in the prone, whatever you like. They always have 60-70% of their area exposed, unarmored by anything that will stop rifle rounds.
Body armor does not create walking tanks or CoD juggernauts. It saves lives and makes you heavier, which in certain situations takes lives. You may need this capability for a GPMG, but it is utterly unnecessary for a standard rifle and frankly it's a nice-to-have even for a DMR/sniper rifle.
volume of fire might be more effective as "anti armor" because it's more likely to hit the unarmored area
Most shots are taken center mass and the first thing you do when taking fire is get to cover and return fire.
@@LIGHTNING278TH current training is shots aimed at abdomen/pelvic girdle. This places shots beneath the plate.
The army trains to shoot center mass. Armor is designed to cover your center mass…
The reason 6.8 was made is that the armed forces defines incapacitation as “the enemy can no longer carry out battlefield functions” like picking up a gun or running away. Testing has shown that for the 5.56 platform can’t deliver that reliably at 400m+ on a target with body armor
It’s really a simple concept of why 6.8 was created. I find it odd people have such a hard time understanding the origin
@@pluemasthe idea of 6.8 is that it now opens your imprint back up to the entire torso+pelvic region, essentially doubling or tripling your lethal aim area
Always great videos and definitely know you guys can shoot but what are the chances we could see you guys run the course with some shooting in different positions other than prone. Practical Accuracy from sitting/sling, kneeling/sling, or off hand/sling? Maybe a tri-pod standing? Would be kind of interesting to see the top rifles come back and take a run but a different shooting position.
I think People need to stop focusing on the M7 as if it were a standalone program. NGSW was about a projectile at a specific velocity, fired from two different platforms. M7 in a vacuum makes a lot less sense than considering the context of what seems to be a good MG with a good cartridge, with the M7 being a rifle that conveniently shoots the same round being somewhat of a bonus. Does this justfiy mass replacement of the AR for frontline units? I don't know, but thinking of the M7 per se is dumb.
☝️
Everyone pearl clutching about the costs of converting from one ammo to another has me shaking my head. It’s the US Army, they have billions of dollars. They were going to buy lots of one cartridge next year and now they’re buying another. There’s plenty of money for ammo.
Regarding the logistics? Who knows. But the M7 does seem to put the most powerful rifle available in the hands of US soldiers. That has to count for something. If a soldier runs into a target the 6.8 can’t kill it wasn’t for lack of trying.
Cheap Chinese body armor is all over the world. A 556 may not cut it at 500m anymore.
@@JimmySailor body armor is a non issue, this gun is a money pit to steal tax money like always. Rifles take out like .5% of all causalities in war and through every conflict since ww2 the side that can sustain fire the longest wins in confrontations. The round and the gun make it so every person is less capable at sustaining fire as they will carry way less rounds. The us army has a hard on for convincing congress war is like saving private ryan so they can waste money on a super duper marksman rifle for all
Just get an LMT external piston MWS if you go 308. I see this gun only being worthwhile in the 6.8 Fury because of the increased pressure of the cartridge. Plus we are just waiting for the customary Sig recall as well. This gun is a miss for me too. Great review though as usual.
If they actually do start trying to replace the M4A1 carbine with this, it will be one of the most pointless wastes of money the government has put into a weapon system.
BIGGEST BOONDOGGLE EVER
This wouldn't even come close to the top 100 system US wasted pointless amount of money.
@@jintsuubest9331 the amount of money and re-allocation of resources to replace the M4 platform en masse, on top of adding an entirely new cartridge into inventory, would cost a LOT more than you might think. Not to mention, you’re ignoring a key point from my comment. *pointless* wastes of money, which this crap is a perfect example of.
@GetTheFO Why is this crap? You do realize this isn't the actual M7?
I also love rifle that buffer tube with spring iron bounce as piston driver to help reduce the impact recoil on our shoulders . I’m fan of M4😊❤
After watching almost every video you’ve ever posted, Josh needs stronger glass to spot. Outside 300Y he has trouble.
omg I know seriously, half the time he can't even tell man, I feel so bad for him
Great content as usual
That has some serious kick for what is meant to be a general infantry rifle. It makes little sense to me even in an army setting for infantry to be able to hit targets out to 800 meters and penetrate armor when you also have artillery, mortars and so on that can and will be able to do that job much better.
Newer versions have stiffer recoil springs, they havent rolled it out on the .308 version yet
But thats the thing: We don't. The idea that we will just hit all targets outside of 500 yards with Arty and air power is completely unrealistic. All of CENTCOM nearly ran out of guided bombs trying to fight ISIS in a low intensity war in Syria, and we are struggling to keep up with supplying Ukraine with artillery shells. The infantry WILL have to fight that far out. Why do you think light infantry units are getting the new light tank the Army just got?
Imagine trying to take a house with this thing.
7.62x51/.308 already is able to hit out to 800m. The perceived body armor issue isn’t much of an issue in real adversary forces but even if it was, using more grenade launchers, mortars, and drones is a more practical option than trying to increase penetration. Thicker rifle plates are easier to develop and issue to counter a new caliber than development, training, procurement, and logistics of a more powerful caliber and rifle. It is a foolish fight to choose.
@@stupidburp You are half right on drones and 7.62, but not for the way you think. It won't be dropping grenades or FPVs, but greater SA and CnC. You can find footage of squads being micromanaged in the push up to, and even during, CQB, down to which rooms to clear in what order. Now Take IVAS into account, IVAS will allow soldiers to see what the drone sees in a 3D space, literally marking targets like a video game. In such a scenario, having the increased penetration that battle rifles provide will allow you to shoot through most building materials with relative ease. None of this is Sci-fi or what-if concepts. The tech is here now, and has been for at least 10-15 years on the civilian side in one form or another.
We are experiencing a real breakthrough of Infantry fighting. I wish more people could see it rather than holding onto the biases of past experiences.
As a follow up. Please run a Sig Cross in 18" 277 Fury . These are excellent civilian options. Perhaps chrono it for future comparison to the 13" NGSW
I cant remember who it was, possibly chris bartocciwho had the cost of each round for the 6.8x51 military rounds that we were actually paying... the ball ammo was like $4 per round and the good stuff, high pressure Ap was $22 or $25 per round. Something absolutely ridiculous. Ill look for the video but its so absolutely stupid how much money we wasted on this program and the p320/m17/m18 program. Leave it to the govt to choose the absolute worst option. Imagine if they would have spent that money on research on new technology for 556 projectiles. We could literally be shooting artificial diamond tipped, or some terminator type metal 556 for the money we wasted on this joke. We should be shooting caseless ammo and caseless guns. Instead we get an alright 762 based gun and a cool machine gun we cant afford to feed. Belt of 100 would cost $2,200... all made in one place, great idea in the event we go to war.... its almost like the military is putting us in the worst position possible. Absolutely absurd.
aaand another animal has wandered into the range. henry truly attracts deers and birds whenever hes on the range
The funny thing is it’s the same thing as the 50s 🤷♂️ power weight balance the only thing lose is 6” of barrel.
that 276 pederson looks like such a nice cartridge. Straighten those walls out a bit and it would be proper modern.
Oh what a coincidence, the pederson case is also 51mm. ha ha ha
When I first heard about the ngsw program I thought "oh cool" when I saw what had won I thought "oh shit! why did they pick that?" it's like they went for the M14 all over again.
We took the bait and thought that the near peers cared enough about their boys to buy actual body armor for them!
@@jamesrussell5196If you don’t think near peers will in the next 10-20-30 years you’re fooling yourself.
I bought a spear in april and i was very disappointed in the results after i shot it. I expected it to be perfect for the price tag. First thing i had to do was pull off the awful, magpul stock. $4k plus for a rifle and you cant even get a decent stock, B5 sop mod was a great replacement. Going back now i wish i wouldve bought the scar or the mr762 which is funny because i had the mr762 in my hands and i chose the spear. Im glad im not the only one particularly disappointed in the spear
Dude, lets be real. For the money and hype its a dud. Henry has cleared the 650 yard course WITHOUT A MISS with a 7.62 AK, wolf ammo and 3x prism. He just had 4 misses with the Sig before clearing 500 yards with a extremely expensive setup between optic and rifle. Lets call it like it is here. The platform is way too heavy and frankly im pissed my tax dollars went to this. They could have kept tbe same AR small frame and beefed it up for high psi 6ARC. Soldiers don't have as much to carry, they have more ammo on hand, less recoil, more accuracy and the entire system doesnt cost us taxpayers more.
I shoot mine, consistently 1 to 1.25 inches. I've upgraded the stock to a b5 which is considerably more stable and mounted a mk6 leupold, 18x. Great gun, I love it.
yeah that's why we had to make the caveats during the debrief. We've seen / heard people talk about the spear LT being much better after pushing some rounds down range. We didn't have the opportunity to shoot more than what we did here, so i'm sure we'll revisit when we have a rifle to hold on hand for long term and evaluate.
@@9HoleReviews then what was the point? I understand as I watched the video you mentioned some of these caveats but why much later & after the straight "C" mentality, y'all let your bias show and rather than front loading the "discussion & scene setting" you give it a nod halfway through the title is misleading as the variant fired is a "pre production XM7 in 7.62x51 with a 16" barrel" at best y'all didn't give any velocity nor did I catch the ammo (someone else mentioned M118 & not M118LR 168 vs 175 as well as bt shape change) misrepresenting this video & the NGSW program is not a good look if you wanted to represent the NGSW program wait for the 6.8 run & review it if you want to use the material because you know it cost money to create this content then be upfront properly name it & say "video why we think the MCX Spear in 308 sucks for a civilian rifle, if 6.8 fails is there a Military role in 7.62" or something be upfront at the intro say when the filming of shooting happened then the date of discussion recording & provide the context/info learned between the two perhaps we didn't clean/check torque specs etc as it was a loaner...
At this point & the timing of the video release to the announcement from SIG on the 6.8 variant comes across as a dishonest attempt to cash in on the popularity of NGSW content.
In your discussion mentioning the NGSW program & thoughts on what could or might happen without any information on the current up to date fielding initiative or understanding of what data or updated information is readily available is also a massive slap in the face to those of us that are still suiting up & carrying it
Personally, I think 9 Hole Reviews went out of their way to be fair to a rifle that struggled to perform.
For some reason, that rifle looks very fragile. I don't know why, but it looks like a system that will have a lot of breakage during it's service life.
I love 9hole reviews. But the Spear is designed for 277 fury cartridge. If the test was done using typical 308 cartridge then results are obsolete imo. This rifle was not intended for 308. Adaptable yes, but we need the test of 277.
Go buy one and test it lmao
Do you really mean "straight out of the box"? No cleaning the shipping preservative out of the barrel and action? Really??????
Logistics talk is delicious
If one of the goals for the military is modularity. It would make more sense for the army to go with the Colt CM 7.62/901 rifle. The Colt can be converted from a 7.62 to a 5.56 and everything in between while still retaining the AR platform. No need to go to a different platform and I am pretty sure a barrel could be made to chamber Sigs precious 6.8x51 cartridge.
As a layman, the stock do be looking anemic.
It's the only way this pig of a rifle could hit the size and weight constraints of the NGSW outlines.
Classic sig laziness.
3:48 those 2 shots hit the same exact spot 😮
SIG must have the right people in the gov. in pocket because that wasn't very impressive. Heavy ass rifle, overpowered unnecessarily so round that would be a nightmare to mass produce. But after they got away with that trash pistol (bought the right ppl) nothing is a surprise.
well wrong round and sig kinda flubs gen 1s lol, but kinda concerning about some of the issues with the .308 versions so far. Like the design, but its pretty pricey for something that isnt as next gen as it seems.
The Army has always been a disaster when choosing weapons. The Air Force brought us the M16 & M9. Maybe they should be in charge.
Why is the M17/18 trash?
@@noobasdfjkl Drop safety issues aside, the best part of it is the chassis system.. slide finish is garbage, rear sights fly off regularly, and the triggers are spongy.
Just a thought but I think having guests bring on rifles and shoot the course would be cool. They could share about the rifle they brought, their background, and demonstrate their skills. It would be cool if they struggled some too because most people don’t practice this kind of long distance shooting
I Loved the SIG 226, 229 and 239. I'm not a fan of any of their newer bullshit. Honestly I would rather have a M-16A1 20" than the M7. The DOD is being retarded again. The 277 Fury AP is $25 per round and the military doesn't have any rifle ranges that can handle it without getting shredded. It addresses a non existent threat.
Isn’t the idea that training will use mostly ball rounds? Same logic with tanks, save the hot stuff for combat, train with the training rounds.
I wouldn’t call the promblem it’s trying to solve ‘non-existent’. Optics have gotten significantly better since the m14 days, and body armor is the norm. Sure, mout is not gonna be this things favorite environment, but as engagement distances have increased, 5.56 might not be the best option if you’re regularly fighting at 300m.
In reality the US Army didn't have "a lot" of .30-06. The M2 ball, that the M1 Garand shot almost exclusively during the war, was introduced only 2 years after the rifle. Much of the old ammo in storage (that would have been consumed in few weeks of actual fight) ended up being barely used in WWII, because they had mostly been made in haste during WWI to abysmal quality, and had been discarded on inspection lately.
Same for the BAR magazines (good part of the reason the BAR had been kept in service instead of a real LMG). Once the stored magazines were really needed only 1 out of 5 passed inspection.
The .276 Pedersen meant two rounds more in the M1 clip, and more rounds being made and transported with the same resources. It was the best choice. Not in absolute (the .30 Remington would have been, allowing a lighter rifle), but surely the best between the two.
If you wanted to "use both", TV-General Dynamics bid was the best one, since every .308 weapon could have been retrofitted to the new cartridge.
SCAR 17s already have a reputation of beating optics to death. If this recoils even harsher than a SCAR 17, could this also have the same problem?
I've heard that the SCAR beats up optics but I've seen zero evidence to support these claims that being said the SCAR and Spear have a very similar gas system/bolt so in theory your right it should have the same issue just worse but unless I see proof of it happening im just going to assume its just internet rumors that have been perpetuated over and over again to the point people actually believe it
True good point
The SCARs problem is the polymer lower in conjunction with its massive bolt carrier. This creates harmonic issues, I would assume the sig doesn’t suffer the same problem because it’s all metal.
scar problem is harmonic, not recoil, it's actually pretty smooth recoil
Awesome run! Would love to see the sig cross in 277 fury at some point, doesnt seem like anyone has them in the wild yet
I'm no expert, but why not just re-install 20 inch barrels to the M16 platform and shoot modern ammo?
Because that does not even remotely meet the required performance standards.
If I had to guess, AP core size. The 6.8mm round carries a significantly larger core at the same absurd velocity as 5.56 out of an 18-20" barrel, on top of having an excellent ballistic coefficient. There's also the issue of urban warfare and room clearing, where that long barrel is a pain in the ass to maneuver around, especially if you have a suppressor mounted.
Whether or not those are worth the weight and recoil tradeoffs is yet to be seen, and I personally think the RM277 would've been a better pick if they could improve the trigger, but that's a whole other issue.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Like I said before, I'm no expert... But I am a tax payer. And the new rifle is going to cost us a ton of money. Whereas the price for new 20 inch 5.56 barrels and a modern rail system would only cost us a couple hundred bucks per gun... 8^)
@@quoderatdemonstrandum5442Tons of taxpayers have strong opinions about things they know nothing useful about. The A-10 should have been retired 15 years ago when most of the people involved with actually FLYING IT said it should be, while dumbasses who just LIKE the idea of it demanded it be kept in service.
@@EtherFox Retired pilot here. And I hear what you're saying. But I still think the XM7 is just another Pentagon boondoggle that will cost us waaaay more money for no good reason. And how are small-framed female troops supposed to hump and shoot that high-recoil and overweight behemoth? Only from prone? And with a bipod? ROFLMAO. Might as well go back to the M-14 !!!
I don’t see this weapon becoming a full general issue weapon, especially in this new 6.8 cartridge. I’d expect it to possibly be modified into a DMR in 7.62 NATO due to logistics.
.308s need a 20" barrel to be shot at distance reliably.
Agreed.
Bigger rifle looks uncomfortable handguard than m1 garand and M4.😢 maybe those cocking handle the left side, making the rifle extra bigger
"Let's give every soldier an overbuilt, boutique caliber sniper weapon that downgrades weight, maneuverability, ammo capacity, and recoil back in time to the M14, which we moved away from because it was overbuilt for overly long ranges and had obsolete weight, maneuverability, ammo capacity, and recoil" -The US Army
M4's/M16's/M27's and SOCOM HK416's in something like 6mm arc with a military specific armor piercing load is a WAY better idea for an upgrade.
gotta make dem private contractors money so that they can wire half of it to the generals/command.
6mm max is better for both case volume and magazine capacity/size
as you can see, it isn't a sniper weapon or a dmr, Henry's done better with iron sighted 556s, its a pig of a gun but its a door wedge, it keeps the door open to "fix it" or to find a true replacement for the AR platform and the 556.
6 arc would be great if the barrel life wasn’t so short, I think I’ve heard it’s around the 3k-5k round mark.
Every soldier isn’t getting this though…
The Army’s been very clear about that since the beginning
"Henry walking up the stairs with the rifle in question"
Everyone:Oh, that's how big the rifle is.
Me: What rifle? Where's a rifle?
He should flex his butt cheeks
The general dynamics bullpup had full auto recoil like an HK-5. This SIG clunker out recoils an M1A1. Mistakes were made.
I knew SIG would win the contract, but I thought General Dynamics should have won. They had a much better system between the rifle itself and the polymer cased ammo. The recoil on the rifle itself looked more like what you'd get from a 5.56 and the didn't transfer heat into the gun. But that that's big government making big dumb decisions. Somebody over there at SIG must be giving the Army brass the hawk tuah.
They might have better product, but sig bribes better apparently.
@@zelenizub2036because Sig has deeper pockets than the massive defense contractor General Dynamics?😂
Marines got it right with HK416/M27 IAR. Watch the army end up just fully adopting the HK417/M110A1 more often 😂😂
@@dariuswilliams7509hell nah M27 is also a dumpster fire, 8.2lb for a 556 gun is comical considering most AR style guns weigh around 6.4-7lb also NT4 is outdated as shit
Should’ve just taken the urgi path like socom all did for the time being
Sometimes companies win bids because there's no better option. I work for a large governmental agency in a large state. A few years ago we put out a tender for a large project and had two two bids from companies that have sufficient staff and experience to actually deliver. One of those two companies had won a prior contract and did a terrible job. They lost this contract because of that fact alone. Then the company that won the contract stole somebody else's property to fulfill the contract and we had to cancel the whole project.
Hi! Could you please borrow Brandon's VSS for testing?
Writing this while the comments are still not full
Can you confirm the two gas settings? I thought it was set up the way you said, but in talking with small arms solutions it would appear that the 308 version had normal and suppressed? I don’t know if there are two different 308 versions going around or what.
It feels to good to be vindicated , Been saying the xm7 is a POS and a straight up bad option for the army since it came out, nice to see people willing to say it out loud instead of going with the flow like almost all youtubers
...it doesn't seem like you really listened to any of the discussion...
Guess you didn't see the same program I did or you weren't paying attention. They said this is far from a piece of s***. They said it would be good in 308 for the military but civilians probably wouldn't be good for it. I haven't just disagree. Because I think the Army wouldn't buy something like this if they're not going to use 277 Fury in the first place.
What guntubers are you watching? I can’t think of one that thinks the XM7 is fire.
I think they’re wrong and stuck in an M16/M4 mindset but whatcha gonna do
It would be fun to have a comparison against the Armalite SASS, Knights M110& SR 25, and a UG boot Scar.
As a DMR, the M7 makes sense. As a battlerifle replacing the M4, the Army is screwing up. If they wanted a 6.8 round, the 6.8SPC has been around for about 20 years now and would require a barrel, bolt, and mags to be replaced.
I have been saying the same thing since the 6.8 x 51 first entered the scene. This rifle and the 6.8 x 51 will not replace the M4A1. The weight increase for the average soldier alone will kill the M-7. The 6.8 SPC should have been adopted 20 yrs ago.
The M7 absolutely can smartly replace the M4. Will it do everything the M4 does, and better? No, just like the M4 did not perfectly replace the M16, as evidenced by the late years of the GWOT. The M7'll be a better rifle. The Army should and will adopt another carbine to fill the shorter-range, weaker-armed gap that adopting the M7 will create.
@@EtherFox The M4 is a proven rifle. I have personally carried them all across the planet. Notice that SEAL TMs, SF etc, scrapped the SCAR and went back to M-4s.
Go back to playing video games where you belong.
@EtherFox it's approximately 5 lbs heavier. You have 10 less rounds per mag, and you can carry fewer mags on your body. For those reasons alone, it's not a viable replacement.
The fact is that the average engagement range is 200-300 yards, with more firefights occurring between 150-200 yards. That's why the Army standardized on a 300m range. This rifle is too much gun and not enough firepower. Every test I've seen of it on full auto shows that it's no more controllable than the M14 was.
So, you carry less ammo per mag, and overall, you can't gain fire superiority. You can't control it when you do try to use it to gain fire superiority, so you're wasting rounds, and worse, it's pounds heavier, which means it's more of a burden. Oh, and for all of these negatives, you're only gaining the ability to shoot at ranges that you should just call in artillery or CAS. It's worthless to the BASIC INFANTRYMAN.
The DMR to choose right now is the HK417/M110A1 and the M4 replacement should be the HK416/M27 IAR how did the marines outsmart the army this time around is beyond me😂😂😂
Fantastic info, thanks
on the geissele comparison, remember this is a military contract rifles, which is to say, sold for the highest possible price, made the cheapest possible way.
Henry dropping truth bombs. I can't see big army adopting the next sexy civil cartridges.
Just to reiterate a comment I had made so others can see for context:
I do think what was said about 7.62 being the mainstay round until we can build up stockpiles is true. But this is very much a necessary change. Drones have evolved land warfare at the level tanks and machine guns did 100 years ago. Large scale formations can't hide or use maneuver the same way we are used to. Also Syria and Ukraine have shown we can't rely on artillery or air support like we have in the past because we can't keep up with how much is needed. Infantry will have to fight from further out or in a less aggressive manner. But its not all bad. Drones aren't just dropping grenades or kamikaze striking tanks. They are being used to actively guide troops in contact, even in CQB, thus the traditional limiters of Battle rifles are mitigated, and the effective range of the infantry is enough to deal with modern realities.
Also Trench Warfare in Ukraine is a red herring.
I think most of the lessons of Ukraine are red herrings at least in the context of the US military. Air superiority alone would drastically change how tactics evolved in Ukraine.
I think you're not considering some important factors, in that for infantry engagements to increase not only would soldiers have to double their individual marksmanship skills, but ammunition quality would have to quadruple. Thats not to mention the reality of how often do soldiers find themselves in a position where they can take a supported shot from over 500m away. The whole theory of this is pure fantasy and completely ignores real life
@@rickyspanish9002 The fundamentals of marksmanship certainly still apply, of course, but the XM157 is already proving to take most of the guesswork out. This is precisely why it was developed to do what it does.
Also, none of this is theory. The part I had mentioned about troops being guided by drones in the open and in CQB is straight from Ukraine.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 all the XM157 does is integrate a BCD calculator and range finder into the optic. This is nice ofcourse, but only shows where to aim, it doesn't guarantee a hit. I've spent enough time on military ranges to know that hoardes of soldiers struggle and fail qualification at distances of 300m or less. Now we expect riflemen to engage targets at twice or more at that distance?
Do you expect every single round to be of match grade quality? Plus how are we to keep all rifles shooting at a maximum of 2 MOA if the caliber being used is going to burn out the barrels at 10,000 rounds? The logistics of this train of thought are fairly tale follies.
How often do soldiers in combat find positions to have a clear line of view for positions over even 300m, let alone a position where they can take a supported shot..
Yes drones are changing warfare. But countermeasures have been and continue to be introduced that will mitigate their effectiveness. Just like any new tech, it has its peak effectiveness when initially introduced, and gradually becomes less effective.
In either case, if engagement distances are going to increase, expecting rifleman to increase their engagement ranges with their individual weapons is not the solution. We figured that out in the 50s man.
@@rickyspanish9002 You should really look up the XM157 scope. Garand Thumb has a good video of him using it
I like my AR 10 Live Free Armory 🦅🦅 ⚡ Thank you for sharing with us. My 2nd choice would of been a SIG battle rifle. 3rd Springfield
I think Kevin from Q is right about Sig. they focus on too many things at once instead of doing proper R&D along with QC on one thing at a time. This rifle is about 70% complete of what it should be. That being said I still want and will buy one but in the 6.8x51 caliber
I'll just wait for Robinson Arms to come out with their version in the XCR-M. It's a better rifle.
Americans love innovation. We have the hope, and Sig delivers in this regard. Sure it's version 1.0. But it will get dailed for sure.
Hey easy on the knuckle dragger comment supply boy lol. Can't wait to see you guys do this with the 277 version one day
haha you know it's out of jealousy. Sucks babysitting an ASP.
US civilians are likely the largest holders of individual body armor in the world. The Gov't specifically states the need to defeat body armor. I'm not convinced the NGSW program was intended to defeat a foreign adversary...
🤔 hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. Good take brother. 🤙🏻
The M7 is only issued to Close Combat forces. All others keep the M4.
The real power is the M7/M5 rifle smart sight combo. If you watch the folks shooting multiple head shots at different ranges in a few seconds, it’s impressive.
The reality is combat shooting is different than hunting…..Soldiers shoot buildings, vehicles, berms, etc.
Lots of data in combat shooting studies.
Suppressive fire? AMU defines that as very close to the enemy soldier.
The really good news is the suppressor. The USMC test showed they improve communication.
You really want high quality ranges like the new USMC ones.
I'm sure it's a great sight but in a world where you can build an FPV drone for $150 bucks and engage a target multiple KM out with precision, is it really cost effective to generally issue a $10000 smart rifle sight?
Each Soldier costs a lot to recruit and train. We spend $millions on places like CTC and NTC.
Drones are just another weapon system in the mix. Most are way more than $150.
Drones are way more effective on equipment than individual soldiers.
If the 7.62 version has heavy recoil, imagine what the full power 6.8 is going to kick like. Itll be a full auto flinch-o-matic.
close enough, welcome back M14
It’s stout but it’s nothing an Iowa farm boy couldn’t handle.
@BrandonMeyer1641 in that vein, screw having an infantry rifle at all, just field the whole force of 6-foot-3 cornfed offensive tackles carrying Mk48's with a few belts each. accuracy by volume.
Watch Grand Thumbs M7 videos not these two fools. He's fired the full auto with 277 fury.
@@tiny_tex it’s not like the US hasn’t handed every Tom, dick, and harry a rifle chambered in a full powered rifle cartridge before.