They're actually brass cased with a steel base (stated at 6:43) for the full power 6.8x51mm ammo, not polymer and brass as stated. The steel base was needed to deal with the higher pressure that the round operates at compared to traditional rounds.
Also the 6.8 round shown in the video is the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43) developed 2002-2004, not the 6.8x51 (.277 Fury) which is the round used by the XM7 and XM250.
I came here to say this! The 6.8 spc was an earlier development intended to increase effectiveness of the m4/m16/m249 platforms. 6.8 spc is an intermediate powered cartridge like 5.56. 6.8 sig (or .277 fury) is considered a full power rifle cartridge by most. 6.8 spc can be used from an m4 sized weapon, where the 6.8 sig requires a larger platform like the AR10 type chambered originally in 7.62x51
The introduction of the ACOG resulted in so many 1 shot 1 kill head shots, that an Investigation was opened up to see if Marines were assassinating targets. Nope, just excellent marksmanship.
it wasnt the acog, it was the fact that in urban combat there was no other target shown but the head. also THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION, IT WAS 1 JOURNALIST OF A RANDOM SMALL PAPER FOR 1 DAY
Yea that's false. An investigation was never opened. And its because of the nature of urban warfare, most times the only things presented in windows are heads and upper shoulders. A 4x magnification optic makes it much easier to identify and engage these target profiles.
@@mwdouglas3794 no complaints here, GT and SW are some of my favourite channels. If Simon does a video on the Rhodesian Bush War for Warographics I hope he uses Administrative Results footage for the weaponry of the Rhodies
This video shows a picture of the 6.8 Remington Special Purpose Cartridge, developed in 2004, next to a 5.56x45 - at 3:09 and at 6:46 . The 6.8 Remington SPC is not the same as the 6.8x51 aka .277 Fury that SIG developed recently for the Next Generation Squad Weapon program and the XM7 rifle. The 6.8 SPC is meant to be used in the "mini" length action of the AR-15, it's of similar cartridge length as the 5.56x45/.223 Remington rounds, and as far as I know was supposed to work in STANAG magazines(standard AR mags). The 6.8x51/.277 Fury needs a short action, like it's "parent" 7.62x51/.308 Winchester, and would need the larger AR-10/SR-25 magazines.
Add that the 6.8spc is short range even compared to the 556. But it has 40% more energy than the 556 the 6.8/277 fury is a necked down 308 with higher pressure in the case. Allowing it have as much power as a 308 from a shorter barrel. I would like to see it performance against lvl 4 plates at greater than 500 yards.
The price is pretty high when you take into account the low manufacturing cost. Not to mention, these contracts go to the lowest bidder, so the soldier isn't really getting the best available. Thanks military industrial complex.
So the USA went from 30/06 to .308 to .223 essentially because engagements were closer in Vietnamese, European, and urban scenarios than those previously considered necessary. And the logistics of handling, shipping and storing smaller rounds was so much better. (I think a combat pack of 200 .308 rounds was the same size as a combat pack of 400 .223 rounds.) And now the engagement distances and "knock-down power" are too small. So we need a new round and new rifles and squad machine guns. "The more things change, the more thet stay the same."
I suspect it's what we saw in the police as well: every time a new chief gets appointed, he/she wants to make his/her presence known by changing something. So if a larger caliber was the norm before that new chief, naturally a smaller caliber has to be introduced. That caliber is then "holy", in other words: whole reports will be written to "prove" that the new caliber is far superior. The (in)famous tumbling effect of the 5,56 bullet the troops in Vietnam reported but that somehow never really could be reproduced comes to mind. Some years later cue the next new chief, and the now standard smaller caliber "obviously doesn't cut it" and a larger caliber has to be introduced. Rinse and repeat.
@@tjroelsma , the US have also fought quite different enemies the last few decades, switching from politically motivated, slightly built Asian engaged over short distances to religiously motivated, more stoutly built Middle East people in open landscapes. Different tasks requite different tools.
The Army didn't really develop the NGSW program for longer range or "more knockdown power" (something that doesn't actually exist in small arms - and 5.56x45mm ammo still does MORE damage to human targets than equivalent bullets in 7.62x51mm or .30-06, because of how the physics work out... now, if you're shooting at *horses*, the old full power .30 rounds are the way to go, because the horse is big enough for the larger rounds to get around to doing what 5.56mm does in the first few inches). The driver for the NGSW program was the simple realization that our likely near peer adversaries *aren't stupid* , and if they started widescale issuing of body armor of similar performance to what the US has been using in combat continuously since 2001, the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm weapons *won't be able to penetrate them reliably* (and we know this because of all the US troops who have come back, uninjured, with 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mmR, and 7.62x51mm rounds - even "AP" rounds - stuck in their vests. The Army ballistics labs did some high level calculations and experiments and determined the *minimum* round for defeating the expected near peer, near term, body armor types was a 6.8mm bullet of a specific design (reliably reported to be "based on" the M855A1 projo, but optimized ballistically in ways not available for a bullet that had to be backwards compatible with M855), at a specific velocity (basically a similar velocity as the old 55 gr M193 could get from a 20" barrel). So they handed the designers the bullets, told them the target muzzle velocities they had to hit, gave them the performance and physical requirements of the rifle and LMG competition, and told them, "Go forth and develop weapons that will do X, Y, and Z, with THIS bullet, and develop the ammo as well."
Yep. There really isn't a perfect caliber for assault rifles because battlegrounds can be so different. I would introduce a new assault rifle in two different calibers, but that's just me.
I just wanted to add that the characteristics of NATOs 5.56mm ammunition don't lend well to shooting at very long distances. Saying the ammo wasn't accurate is an odd generalization. The new ammo type is meant to carry a straighter flight path over longer distances. That is the "accuracy" part of the improvement. The old 5.56 ammo is affected by wind a bit more, drops quicker within infantry fighting distances, and doesn't carry as much energy when it hits the target.
Thats a important call out. 5.56 is meant to be accurate within typical engagement range. The important part of the statement with regards to Afghanistan is a lot of engagements were outside the expected engagement ranges the M4 and 5.56 was meant for
The 5.56 was developed off the fact most engagement ranges from WW2 to Korea happened under 200 yards. It's no coincidence it's very effective at that. So of course when you try to shoot from mountain to mountain it sucks. For cover we always had heavier weapons for that. The NGSW program is just the Army wanting a new toy.
while the military has a criteria for accuracy separate from the civilian sector, it is odd to say that the 5.56mm and its weapon systems arent accurate. My understanding is that the need for a 6.8mm wasnt about range (because as testing has proven most fire fights occur within 300 meters) it was about defeating future body armor. The US army wants to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
An interesting difference between the old and new rifles that I didn't hear covered in this article is that the peak barrel pressure in the new design is over 30% higher than what was allowed in the old M4. This allows for significantly more energy imparted to the projectile beyond what would already be expected with the increased diameter (increasing range, lethality, etc). This also will presumably result in greater wear on the inner workings of the rifle, so fewer rounds between scheduled service. Another example of the trade-offs that have to be made in the design process.
To add to this, training rounds are more conventional lower pressure rounds. This means soldiers will not experience the same round and recoil during training versus in love combat. As my couches would say perfect practice makes perfect. If they're not going to train with the full pressure round to save on barrels and components the what's the point?
Honest question from a non-vet here: how much of infantry fire involves shots aimed at actual targets vs a more general "fill the air with bullets to keep the enemy from sticking their head up while we do what we want?" As a layman, it would seem to me that accuracy would help in the first instance, while more ammo per soldier would be more useful in the latter. I am curious to hear from those who've actually been there on what they think. And yes, I understand this can vary, in different engagements and environments but I'm curious about the overall balance people have seen.
Most grunts never see what or who they are firing at. They fire to keep the other guy’s head down until they get close enough to find him dead, gone or ready to be shot.
Afghan War vet here (Kandahar province, 2006 & 2010) and that's a tricky question to answer...but I'll do my best... Accurate fire is obviously important. Bullets going into bad guys means there are now less bad guys, which helps win a TIC (troops in contact, aka firefight) But often times, it's quite difficult to get accurate rounds on target in the initial stages of a firefight as everybody is scrambling for cover. So suppressive fire becomes key, to keep the enemies' heads down and allow your side to maneuver. As the TIC progresses & the suppressive fire prevents the enemy from moving too much, parts of your team maneuver to get closer and better vantage points so they can start to engage the enemy with more accurate fire. So part 1 of winning a TIC - suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down, prevent enemy movement, limit their ability to shoot at you, while maneuvering on them... (aka wall of bullets concept) Part 2 - more accurate fire to eliminate enemy That's why it's tricky to answer. You kinda need both, and both are equally important depending on what part of the TIC one finds themselves in
@chrisburke624 you answered that about as well as possible the only thing I'd add was the urban combat I found myself in when I was in fallujah was very up close and personal in more engagements than not. Not to say that was the case the whole time but I happened more often during operation phantom fury than any of my other deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan. But your statement still rings true
@@richardcostello360the CG seems like one of those weapons that are straight forward and useful enough that you've got to wonder how the ADF managed to get around to actually procuring it.
Honestly, I watched a full video on that optic and it's incredible! Only time will tell if it can take a beating and keep on going, but having your targets acquired and range marked is the next big leap forward.
The functionality uses an IR laser, which will be like a beacon to anyone wearing night vision. So I'm extremely skeptical of the utility of the optic just conceptually, before we even get to usability.
So, 30 Decibels doesn't sound like a lot, but they function logarithmically. That means an increase of 10 Decibels is 10 TIMES louder than before. So while not silent, decreasing by 30 Decibels means the sound is 30 times quieter. Significant, to help with hearing loss
Your point is accurate, but the math is slightly off. It is true that ten decibels is ten times, but twenty decibels isn't ten plus ten, it's ten times ten. Likewise for 30 decibels. It's not 30 times quieter, it's 1000 times quieter.
I was a Combat Engineer in '84 and used the M16a1 and M60. I think the XM250 LMG is definitely an improvement over the M60 and FN 240 but l think the 6.8 is a bit overkill for most engagements and I would not want to lug it around with its ammunition on a 6 mile road march.
Thats a common thing I've seen and you're probably right. Being a technology analyst though I've learned that what we "expect" changes when the tools change. I imagine once these weapons become more common the engagements will change because of it.
the point is barrier penetration. to see why this is important look up the yakut knife fight. if the Ukrainian had the xm7 he would have killed his enemy through the house.
I think you are onto something. For urban combat ranges the 5.56 appears sufficient. The kind of extended combat durations in places like Fallujah appear to be ideal for the 5.56mm platforms. The range of Afghanistan appears to be one of two factors to consider the 6.8mm. I suspect the second is the close ranges of CQB. At some point in the GWOT, USSF units started using .300 Blackout for greater suppression and takedown power in their door kicking operations. Same lower and magazine. Only the upper receiver need to be swapped out. But those operations tend to be of short duration and ranges. In 1998 I had an opportunity to ask MSG Eversman (Black Hawk Down) what was the most effective weapon in what was then our biggest urban combat since Vietnam. His answer was the M249 SAW. That opinion is probably dated since the GWOT...but there it is.
I am going to agree here. I think the XM250 is going to be impressive, especially against lightly armored vehicles and chewing through cover. But the infantry rifle is not going to be a favorite. I guess the Army is done doing CQB?
no, the LMG is the part that matters. The LMG is most of the firepower of the squad. It was literally called NGSW, next generation squad weapon. I.e., LMG. The rifle is just a consequence of the LMG. And as far as we know the M250 is a massive upgrade over the 249
When I first saw the XM7 it was only using 20rd magazines. I still feel that is insufficient for a SAW. I see that they've now created a drum magazine though I don't know it's capacity.
Have you shot much? A lighter weight optic will be used in most applications very soon. All the stuff it can do is no factor within 300m and that's where most fighting is. The very high profile of the scope will be an issue working out of vehicles.
No it's not, but shoots the same 5.56mm round as the "M-16" family of weapons. The Mk-48 is a better SAW. But I am partial to the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56 NATO as a Battle Caliber. This 6.8mm round seems to be reaching higher than it can deliver. When I deployed, my SAPI plates where rated up to 7.62 NATO. I don't understand how that new 6.8mm round, with less powder, in a smaller case can out perform the 7.62 NATO? Maybe I'm missing something? Does it have a new propellant that I'm not aware of? Are the new bullets made of depleted uranium? What I know of guns (i.e. firearms or "weapons") and a limited amount of physics/math, the new 6.8mm is better than the 5.56 NATO. But Why? Is it a DEI thing? A combat ammunition load weight for an Infantryman is about the same as his weapon. Arounnd 7.5lbs (3.4kg)
I am a retired US Army officer with a few years in the infantry. I am impress by the new rifle but believe the M4 should be retained until our fellow services and allies decide to change. Standard ammo is important and the weight factor and fewer rounds carried are an important consideration. More weight always risks the mobility of dismounted infantry. I have seen it. And despite some recent experiences most historical studies that I have read have shown that engagements will take place under 200 meters. The old M60 machinegun was used to engage further out if needed prior to the M249s. Perhaps bringing back the M60 type in place of the M249 might be looked at. Or using one with this new ammo. Just a thought from an old grunt who does remember how the "Old Breed" marines who hated the M1 Grande and favored the 1903 Springfield prior to WW2 until experiences at Guadalcanal changed their minds.
I realize that urban environments and similar environments are, by nature, short engagement lengths. At the same time, more engagements would take place past 200m if more guns and more operators were accurate and confident past those distances An analogy would be like saying someone shouldn't make a longer range grenade because most engagements with grenades take place within 20m
I mean the M16 was in service for many many years whilst the M4 was getting introduced. So even if the XM7 becomes the M7 it would take well over a decade before every single M4 in service has been replaced by the M7.
@@rayzerot Also in a peer to peer conflict you just want to avoid urban combat at all cost anyways. Instead you want to use manouvre warfare and encircle cities
With 8 combat tours total from a tour in Kosovo / Bosnia 1999, 5 tours of Iraq, a tour in Syria and another 3 tours in Afghanistan….the ammo sucks for the M16. No matter what is used, it zips right through when you’re close up and don’t have enough “umph” at a few hundred meters. Thats why the M14’s were refitted and given as the Mk-39 EBR (which I carried). Yet, Afghanistan taught me that we need the extra range, even times in Iraq we needed the extra range. So my thoughts were “why the F-k are we trying to reinvent the wheel here. Make the bi-metal case for the 7.62x51 (308), then call it a day. On the other hand, the 6.8 SPC / 6.5 Grendel were field tested and actually use a lot of the similar parts from the M4, why not use an intermediate bullet. Cost savings by using what we have and changing small things so familiarity is not an issue?? I don’t know……I retired in 2015 and see how things are with the military, yet the Army is still spending a lot of $$ on junk shit like the GayCU’s when the money could have been used elsewhere. The Navy with the wasted billions on the LCS problems. The Chair Farce with the F-35 problems. Yet, I’ve been retired for almost a decade….i don’t know nothing though…..
1:01 *The M249 is not in the same family as the M16.* It's a belt-fed automatic weapon that fires in an open bolt position. Other than firing the same 5.56mm cartridges, it's a totally different weapon.
@@EnigmaticPenguin True, and you can pull back the bolt on an empty M-16 and load bullets into the firing chamber by hand through the ejection port. By the logic of this video, does that put the M-16 in the same family as a bolt-action rifle?
I was a 12B Combat Engineer in a Sapper Company from 2014-2022. The XM7 is an amazing battle rifle, and it's machine gun counterpart is an amazing machine gun. That being said, standard issue rifles are NOT battle rifles, they are assault rifles. Intermediate caliber carbines. The XM7 is a TERRIBLE standard issue rifle. It's too heavy, and the increase in ammo weight along with 20rs magazines is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of ammunition expended in a firefight is suppression, and making the cost of being able to effectively supress the enemy an extra 15-20Lbs when the typical soldier might be carrying 70Lbs on their back with an M4 load out is wholly irresponsible. 140rds for a combat load is actually hilarious. The M4 standard combat load of 210rds isn't enough rounds. A combat load is what's carried on your kit, 6mags on your plate carrier +1 in the gun. Combat load = what's immediately accessible. Everyone carries at least double that in their pack and several people per squad are carrying 2+ 200rd drums for the M249 or 100rd drums for the M240. What the Army is doing is DUMB. Soldiers will simply be carrying much much more weight to satisfy their need to not run out of ammo in combat. The new 6.8 round achieves it's incredible power by using a new case design on the bullets. The back of the case is hardened steel, with a brass body. This new design allows the round to have much more powder in it because the case won't explode, thus the bullet is wicked fast for it's size. What the Army SHOULD have done is replace the M4 with a slightly heavier 5.56 rifle designed for these massive chamber pressures and then taken the bi-metal case design and made an M855A2 round with the same steel penetrator of the M855A1 (which already turns Level III armor into swiss cheese) just going much faster. To defeat body armor you need a bullet that is resistant to deforming on contact (the steel penetrator) and a lot of velocity. 5.56 in a bi-metal case would've achieved this without the silliness of going back to the start of Vietnam where a standard infantry rifle was an M14 with a big round, a small magazine, and a painfully heavy load of ammo on the grunt's back.
In Vietnam many it allowed opted for the M1 over the M16 due to the poor ammunition performance of the M16 and its proneness to jamming. A couple old timers even carried Gerrand M1s.
To be fair the nam era m16s were shot in the foot by not being sent with cleaning kits and the government insisting on using ammo that dirtied the gun faster.
@@tattoochef , the underlying problem is relevant though. In time, soldiers may fiend themselves with substandard ammo and no time for basic maintenance. The old M16 didn't handle that very well, the question is how the new M7 will be able to deal with less than optimal situations. Looking at combat footage from Ukraine, the old M16 would probably not have fared well.
@@tattoochefthe reason cleaning kits were irrelevant is because of the M-14. They wanted the government contract so they put out propaganda that the M-16 didn’t need to be cleaned. They willingly sacrificed American soldiers over a contract. No doubt they were god fearing, pro-life conservatives. Only they can stoop so low.
Since the AR-10 there hasn't been any real advances in infantry rifles. The best change the Army ever made was issuing the ACOG. There's no point in more powerful rifles if you can't hit your targets
mass issue of suppressors is the next big thing. Also LPVOs. And the rangefinder built into the LPVO on the army's vortex optic. Those things alone make the M7 a large advancement. Every infantryman is basically a designated marksman now, with that setup. People say there's less ammo to suppress enemies now, but inaccurate fire is not suppressive fire. If the rounds are closer to the targets due to better optic setups and rangefinder, you'll be able to suppress more with less. That and I have a feeling battlefield resupply will get much easier with drones
The defense industries sure do love pitching the same AR15 to the military over and over again and making billions. I can't believe the DoD is gullible enough to buy it again for the 15th time with a new name
As someone who has followed this for a decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that the current iterations of the 5.56 are increasingly the best option. Drones are dealing with the range issues and improving target acquisition capabilities along with the ability for unmanned platforms to take a 5.56 forward into higher risk situations where they can take the accurate shots necessary negates the need for a bigger more powerful round. The logistics of keeping a round that is about 2/3 the weight and all NATO uses for outweighs any advantages of the more capable round.
NATO standard 5.56 is very important. This is a good rifle from what I have seen, but it seems too expensive and disruptive for the tradeoff of being able to shoot farther, which most soldiers will likely never need to do...?
@@PopeMetallicus Oh wow. The logic behind it replacing the M249 made a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what were your thoughts on the M27? Did you like it?
The one thing I think people are forgetting is that the 6.8 has been fielded in the M4 and it's Civilian Semi-Automatic (only) brother (AR-15) before. So changing over to the 6.8 will require: New Bolt Carrier Group, Barrel and Magazine followers. Plus Gas Adjustments. The lower receiver will remain the same.
Using Garand Thumb in clips is a compliment to one of you, just not sure who though. That was a nice little Easter egg your editors put in this 😂, carry on 🤙
Also I want to add, if you reach out, why not go to his ranch and have first hand experience with these weapons? Food for thought Simon, I'd love to see a video like that as I'm sure most of your viewers would, I'm speaking for all of us
I have a firearms history and mechanics hobby and past-time, so for future reference, any mistakes or oversimplifications I hear in the video I'll post here, for educational purposes. 0:56, The M249 is not a M16 related firearm, they are entirely separate platforms, though they are operated together frequently. 2:20, 5.56 NATO is not inaccurate by any measures. They are high velocity and piercing ammunition, but when insurgents are so drugged that they don't know what planet they're on, it's not as effective as it can be. The civilian version of the round, .223 Remington, is actually a common hunting round for medium sized game, such as deer. 3:00, not necessarily. Yes they aren't as penetrative to armor as they could be, the 5.56 round has many variants that can pierce armor, such as the Green tipped ammo, which was issued commonly. If I find any other issues, I will update and edit the comment as needed.
there's a lot wrong in your comment. 5.56 is not armor piercing whatsoever, unless you're talking about soft armor. For plates, 5.56 will never ever go through a ceramic armor plate ever, including the newest M855A1. Secondly, the reason 5.56 was not effective on people was because the original rifle was designed with like a 20 or 22 inch barrel. The M4 chops it down to what, 14.5, which reduces the power of 5.56 by a massive amount. Out of the original 20 inch barrels 5.56 has a monstrous effect on target. Out of the short barrels it loses effectiveness in as soon as 100 yards, which tracks with the fact the M4 was originally designed as a PDW. And nobody should be hunting deer with .223 ever. If they do they're a bad hunter
Not entirely sure why my first reply got deleted. I'm going to try again just to see if it happens again; The .223 round is illegal to hunt deer with where I live. It is considered underpowered for the job.
I'll be absolutely stunned if the "sticker shock" of the XM7 program doesn't result in the XM7 becoming a DMR instead of a general issue battle rifle. Fully equipped, each XM7 is over $13,000 each. That's not counting the $13.00 per round for the full-power military armor piercing ammunition, spare parts, logistical issues with new ammunition, and training of unit armorers and providing them with the necessary tools, gauges and equipment to properly service the rifles.
The logistics issue brought up near the end should have its own video highlighting what a significant problem this could be. The rifle, machine gun, sights, and suppressors all seem great but that new ammo is going to really throw a wrench into things. My personal opinion here is that if your sights are good enough then you don’t need special ammo to punch through body armor because no body armor is going to save someone from a shot between the eyes.
What's really impressive with this weapon platform is the advanced combat integration program that will also involve the soldier's helmet. That sight computer will do a lot more than just ballistics in the future.
@chrishooge3442 indeed. Think of the advantage of being able to see around a corner from your HUD using your weapon. Being able to spot a target. And lay down a marker so all your sqaud mates see him or it. They immediately all have sights on and firing solutions to hit it. Crazy stuff.
That augmented reality helmet could be amazing. I fuses the different sensors with computer vision so it's kinda like the Predator-vision but actually usable.
at 6:44 is stated the casings are made of plymer with brass base, but actually the .277 fury or 6.8x 51 mm casing is made of brass (body) with steel base, necessary to because of the higher pressure. and the picture at 6:49 looks like is the 6.8 spc highlithed and not the .277 fury.
I was at the School of the Americas on Benning when we were doing the XM8 trials. It was a pretty cool rifle. I have the Sig M17. It's a very good handgun. I like it a lot.
The XM7 and the JLTV are both platforms based on lessons learned in GWOT where combat was in rugged long range and open terrain. The XM7 especially is meant to overcome the issue were insurgents could rain down AK47 fire from a Ridgeline above US personelle and the M4 and M249 could not return fire. The Marines are keeping the old ammo but could effectively turn every rifleman into an auto rifleman. The XM7 was pretty good when it came out, however since then a different company released the Reaper MG which offered more power, less recoil. The big issue to me with the XM7 is the performance in building clear and CQB. It's just so large. However training is what separates the US military from any other military and if they can develope good tactics and training they'll be much better of.
So here's a question: Why can't we just retrofit M4 carbines to handle the new optic and create better shot placement? I'm not saying ditch the M7. I'm saying that right now, the Army is the only one interested in it, but if we can use older weapons with the newer optic, we're improving the odds of a successful hit to target and retaining equipment. It also means that combatants will be familiar with at least half of the new system (the optic), so when current M4 and 5.56mm supplies start drying up, the various branches can evaluate moving to the M7 and it's new round at that point, but their members will already be familiar with an integral part of the arrangement, which is the optic and its many advantages.
I've got a MCX Rattler that I use for deer hunting. I've got well over 10,000 rounds through it as its my favorite firearm at the range. On my 2nd barrel. Never have ever had a malfunction on it. Even when mag-emptying.
well.. special ops have all kinds of guns and rounds under the sun. they go with everything, and constantly experiment with everything, not just with 6.5 Creedmoor... like .300 blackout subsonic rounds for close quarters. or .338NM belt-fed "lightweight medium machine gun." currently, no NATO country uses the AR-10 as their primary service rifle. is there much, if any, difference in 277 Fury(6.8) Vs 6.5 creedmoor long range ballistic results? trajectory, accuracy, penetration with 80000 psi xm7 rifle versus. ar10 platform rifle with 6.5 creedmoors? how about weight of the bullets? you cannot shoot 6.5 creedmoor rounds with an M4 5.56 service rifle, its specifically designed for use with ar-10 style rifles. ar-10 platform is used as designated marksman rifles. and a 7.62×51mm nato round-using rifle is not synonymous with an ar-10 platform rifle. while ar-10 rifles typically use the 7.62×51mm nato round, not all rifles chambered for this cartridge are AR-10s, older battle rifles like the FN FAL and G3 that use 7.62x51 are not ar-10 platforms. you cannot shoot a 6.5 creedmoor round with a rifle chambered for 7.62×51mm nato without changing the barrel. the 6.5 creedmoor uses a 6.5mm (.264 inch) bullet, while the 7.62×51mm nato uses a 7.62mm (.308 inch) bullet, significant difference in bullet diameter makes them incompatible.. the widespread adoption of this caliber as primary service rifle by the usa could create similar interoperability issues within nato as 6.8. while the u.s. special operations command (ussocom) has tested and adopted the 6.5 creedmoor for specific purposes, this is considered a "special purpose use".
creedmoor is a precision rifle for infrequent fire. not a standard issue weapon. unless you want to make special projectiles that are much longer, heavier, and slower so they don't absolutely wreck the barrels.
16:29 , 6.8x51mm CC is designed for around 1km max effective range. It doesn't have ballistics to stay supersonic past 1km. Even 6.5mm Creedmoor with 150 gr tip can do only 1.5km or so.
@@robberyproductions1363 This is normal innhigh rate of fire. This "silencer" (which in reality is rather signature limiter) keeps in particles of unburned powder in so it has to burn afterwards somehow.
The 6,8mm cartridge being shown in comparison to the 5,56mm is actually the 6.8SPC. A different intermediary cartridge. the new 6,8 is dimensioned close to the older 7,62NATO. The difference between that and a 5,56mm is like that between a AA and a AAA battery.
6.8x51mm as adopted does NOT have a polymer case. It's a brass casing with a steel primer cup to prevent the back of the casing from rupturing from the insane pressure exerted.
As an infantry, Marine giving us more weight to carry into combat would definitely piss off a few people. We already carry a ton of gear, and making it heavier makes us more tired by the time we arrive and many other things too. The M-16 and M-249 are pretty good weapons, but they have their down sides, too. If not properly cleaned, they will jam in a bad situation.
It should be noted that a battle rifle can use a few modular pieces to fire shorter rounds when appropriate, but a smaller rifle can't be reconfigured to fire longer rounds. And that before selecting a 6.8mm battle rifle the military did experiment with a 6.8mm assault rifle. So there is a mature, semi-common round that can be used in an assualt rifle module for the M7. Or even just keep using 5.56. Either way the military won't be married to the 6.8×51 cartridge if they're operating in a theatre where it wouldn't be optimal.
At some point in the GWOT the USSF began dropping a .300 Blackout upper on their M4s. They were fighting at extreme short ranges and the subsonic round was both easier to suppress and had greater takedown power. At those close ranges you really want the target to be incapacitated as quickly as possible. A fatally wounded jihadi can still kill you.
The Sig did not utilize the polymer rounds. That was different rifle entry. The Sig 6.8 mm utilizes a brass case with a steel base for combat and a lower pressure brass only case for training.
Choosing the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is a much better option than this new cartridge. It’s essentially just an upgraded version of the 7.62 NATO with slightly better speed and penetration at longer ranges, which are rarely relevant in typical soldier operations.
It will be interesting to see what going back to a Pacific Jungle environment will do for these ammo weights. 6.5mm and .338 Magnum are awesome on paper.
They aren’t giving it up yet. My son graduated Basic and will be finishing Infantry training soon. Still using M4s. A few elite units have the new rifles, but it will be many years before the Army switches over if at all.
The supersonic nature of the 5.56 and 6.8 rounds are difficult to suppress. Flash suppression is the greater advantage especially in the night time fire fights.
Excellent video!!! I have been following the development of the NGSW for many years. As a retired infantryman myself, I am very happy to see the new rifle and machine gun. The M-16 A2 was issued as a stop gap measure when the A1 was found to be horribly lacking in power. Then the M-4 kept the A2s ammo, but uses a short barrel, which precisely destroyed the only advantage the 5.56 ever had. Piles of combat reports were begging for a more capable combat rifle and the Army replied. They have done well.
11:24 is that 9.8LB (4.4kg) with or without the new 10000dollar computer-scope? 20 or 25 round magazine? how much would it be with 30 round mag? in comparison, the lightest civilian model ar-15 weighs 3.8 LB (1.72kg). (BATTLEARMS OIP 002 Ultra Lightweight Rifle Gen2)
XM7 is not a weapon on it's own. No comparison to any other rifle is real, until XM7 is equipped with smart optics XM157 to get one shot one kill at 700 meters. It is no longer designed for Spray and Pray tactics for thick jungles of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. Weakest part of XM7 by Sig Sauer is weight and recoil. General Dynamics had reduced weight overall when fully loaded. But Army didn't see that as overriding other aspects.
The REAL reason - the Pentagon wants the new belt-fed. It's a package deal with the XM7 and the 6.8 round, and the belt-fed is good enough that the Pentagon will accept the XM7 if that's what it takes. For that matter, the Army gets to replace 5.56 and 7.62 with ONE ROUND, and the M249 and M240 with ONE GUN, so I'm getting M14 flashbacks here. Otherwise I knew everything I needed to know about the XM7 when I saw the redundant charging handle and found out that the round has a 70,000 PSI operating pressure - gun was designed by committee and is gonna break a lot. A bunch of officers are getting some shiny golden parachutes.
i was a 249 gunner and carried that shit all over the place. also carried m4 (multiple variations) and 240b when not carrying the 249. the new sig is heavy as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. for anyone thinking a suppresor is quiet, it can still burst your ear drums. real life is very different from the movies.
It'll probably be last as long as the m14 in Vietnam. Training with .308 and switching to .277 in combat zones seems like a weird option they want to do as well. Train the way you'll fight. Even if it burns through barrels fast. I like how the Elite forces in the military saw this and said no thanks... Then proceeded to get more 6.5 Creedmoor's "MRGG program" and also purchased a bunch of 6mm ARC small arms.
More potent ammo makes sense to me. But I don't understand why the Army didn't just get M16/AR pattern rifles in the caliber they wanted. It seems like the AR10 rifles could be fit with the new rounds, or a new receiver set could have been made that worked just exactly like the M4. Perhaps AR10 lowers aren't strong enough for the higher pressure of the hotter rounds?
I'm going to go on record and say what the army wanted was a bullpup chambered in 7.62 or 6.5 creedmore which accomplishes its main goal of maintaining a compact rife while increasing energy on target at range. But when given the bids they somehow chose the worst possible candidate because on the surface it looked like what they already had...as if somehow retraining the manual of arms was such a dealbreaker that it would be worth investing god knows how much in what will likely be the failed implementation of a rifel that significantly increases complexity of ammo production, is heavy, and has substantially more difficult to manage recoil even with the training and civilian loads.
The US Army *didn't* want a bullpup rifle, because of the inherent flaws of bullpup designs. They also wanted a matching squad LMG that fired the same ammunition, and could provide suppressive effects equivalent to the current M249, with range and terminal effects greatly enhanced (to classified levels). In fact the program was *started* as merely a "squad LMG" program. The Beretta designed bullpup mobile with the brass and polymer cased ammunition developed by General Dynamics didn't provide a credible LMG option, and didn't address *any* of the long known to the US Army flaws of bullpups. The Textron/AAI carbine and LMG using the plastic telescoped cased ammunition just failed miserably in terms of reliability and accuracy, and had serious safety flaws in the manual of arms. *THIS* is the competitor the insiders intially running the competition wanted to win; after all, it was the reault of the LSAT development program that the Army had been running nearly 20 years and spending millions of dollars on (the only real differences between the competition entry arms and the final development spiral version of LSAT was the caliber.) Only Sig offered a pair of weapons that met the reliability and performance requirements, and it was the lowest risk (technology, time, and cost) option.
Agree with @geodkyt. Bullpups ability to have barrel length w/ compact dimensions is great but good luck using it in a real world scenario, and an absolute joke for an LMG.
Interesting fact, the recent lawsuit by Mexico against US firearms manufacturers did not include SIG while having most other major manufacturers. I wonder why?
Be a lot easier to just go with the 7.62 FAL rifle that the US should have adopted, but instead adopted the M14 due to politics &/or corruption (M14 was replaced by the M16). The FAL 7.62 will give the needed extra range without all the complications of bells & whistles & a odd sized rounds. Other NATO countries have used the FAL for decades & have no complaints & the 7.62×51 NATO round is very common.
@@sparky6086 If the US just wanted to go to .308/7.62 NATO the AR-10 would have been better as its design and function are nearly identical to the AR-15 everyone is all ready trained and experienced with. Don't get me wrong, for most militaries I'd agree with going FN FAL but experience with a weapon platform is valuable in and of itself. The 6.8x51mm is a significantly higher velocity cartridge than 7.62 NATO and is lighter, personally I think the XM7 looks like a significant improvement and will work well.
@@NelsonZAPTM Murphy's law is a bitch, I only tried using an m249 with a magazine a couple of times on the range and had two jams with one of those magazines and others had similar experience with it. I'm sure under perfect conditions it's fine, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on magazines in an m249 if I could avoid it.
Hey. I don't have a spear clone for you to try, but I DO HAVE an M4 clone that you could try out any time. It would lend a lot of insight into any other weapon if you ever had to extrapolate in the future. You could rely on experience instead of conjecture. Also, the m249 has nothing in common with the m16 family of rifles other than concurrent usage.
What I find amusing about all this is that it's taken this long for the US military bureaucracy to learn what the rest of the allies figured out in a study just after WW2, namely that they need a new weapon and a new round. The round they developed then was called the British .280. The FN FAL was originally designed for it, as was the EN2, which would have been the first operational bullpup rifle. But enough people in the US system basically stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "I want a big, girthy, manly round or I will take my ball and go home. NATO can fuck off." and everyone gave up and switched to 7.62.
no one had any plans to adopt the 5.56 until the US adopted it anyways so that shouldn't be considered. also anyone saying the M4 is just fine has never had to use it to shoot through things in the middle east, the "less ammo" is a moot point as well as instead of using 300 rounds of 5.56 to breach a barrier you can use 2 rounds. the truth is that the min loadout was never the amount of ammo carried by any of our infantry if they were going into a possible situation.
How do you figure? Neither the rifle nor the new scope are *reliant* on electronics. Sure, the scope has some enhancements that are electronic, but if they all die, it still has as its heart a very good 1-8x30mm LVPO optical scope with an etched reticle.
They're actually brass cased with a steel base (stated at 6:43) for the full power 6.8x51mm ammo, not polymer and brass as stated. The steel base was needed to deal with the higher pressure that the round operates at compared to traditional rounds.
Also the 6.8 round shown in the video is the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43) developed 2002-2004, not the 6.8x51 (.277 Fury) which is the round used by the XM7 and XM250.
Can't wait to see what the shelf life of those are going to be.
@@criticalevent If they are stored correctly, the time will be indefinitely.
Thought it was weird about the polymer case. Maybe he was talking about the magazine?
I came here to say this! The 6.8 spc was an earlier development intended to increase effectiveness of the m4/m16/m249 platforms. 6.8 spc is an intermediate powered cartridge like 5.56. 6.8 sig (or .277 fury) is considered a full power rifle cartridge by most. 6.8 spc can be used from an m4 sized weapon, where the 6.8 sig requires a larger platform like the AR10 type chambered originally in 7.62x51
The introduction of the ACOG resulted in so many 1 shot 1 kill head shots, that an Investigation was opened up to see if Marines were assassinating targets. Nope, just excellent marksmanship.
How is assassinating defined here?
@@boglenight1551 He should have said executions, not assassinations.
sounds like another Gunny Fact.
it wasnt the acog, it was the fact that in urban combat there was no other target shown but the head. also THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION, IT WAS 1 JOURNALIST OF A RANDOM SMALL PAPER FOR 1 DAY
Yea that's false. An investigation was never opened. And its because of the nature of urban warfare, most times the only things presented in windows are heads and upper shoulders. A 4x magnification optic makes it much easier to identify and engage these target profiles.
Garand Thumb appearing in a Simon Whistler video was an unexpected crossover
Turtleneck Tutor X Flannel Daddy
@bsmithhammer 2 GOATS in the one pen
I was thinking the same thing. Half the video was just GT.
@@mwdouglas3794 no complaints here, GT and SW are some of my favourite channels. If Simon does a video on the Rhodesian Bush War for Warographics I hope he uses Administrative Results footage for the weaponry of the Rhodies
not a cross over, that was just a B-roll.
This video shows a picture of the 6.8 Remington Special Purpose Cartridge, developed in 2004, next to a 5.56x45 - at 3:09 and at 6:46 . The 6.8 Remington SPC is not the same as the 6.8x51 aka .277 Fury that SIG developed recently for the Next Generation Squad Weapon program and the XM7 rifle.
The 6.8 SPC is meant to be used in the "mini" length action of the AR-15, it's of similar cartridge length as the 5.56x45/.223 Remington rounds, and as far as I know was supposed to work in STANAG magazines(standard AR mags).
The 6.8x51/.277 Fury needs a short action, like it's "parent" 7.62x51/.308 Winchester, and would need the larger AR-10/SR-25 magazines.
Add that the 6.8spc is short range even compared to the 556. But it has 40% more energy than the 556 the 6.8/277 fury is a necked down 308 with higher pressure in the case. Allowing it have as much power as a 308 from a shorter barrel. I would like to see it performance against lvl 4 plates at greater than 500 yards.
yea i caught that too. imho the 6.8spc was a compromise in every way over the more powerful/better ballistics of the 6.5 grendel and the later 6mm ARC
Contracts of $2 billion and $4 billion sounds high until you realize the defense budget is $850 billion.
I mean to me as an American that sounds normal to low, we spend like you wouldn't believe on just R&D.
The price is pretty high when you take into account the low manufacturing cost. Not to mention, these contracts go to the lowest bidder, so the soldier isn't really getting the best available. Thanks military industrial complex.
@@AdamtheRed- also all government contracts are massively inflated, the gov pays top dollar so why not charge them top dollar?
It's good money for rifles
Don’t think like 50 billion could be spent on other things and still spend more than nearly the rest of the world?
So the USA went from 30/06 to .308 to .223 essentially because engagements were closer in Vietnamese, European, and urban scenarios than those previously considered necessary. And the logistics of handling, shipping and storing smaller rounds was so much better. (I think a combat pack of 200 .308 rounds was the same size as a combat pack of 400 .223 rounds.) And now the engagement distances and "knock-down power" are too small. So we need a new round and new rifles and squad machine guns. "The more things change, the more thet stay the same."
I suspect it's what we saw in the police as well: every time a new chief gets appointed, he/she wants to make his/her presence known by changing something. So if a larger caliber was the norm before that new chief, naturally a smaller caliber has to be introduced. That caliber is then "holy", in other words: whole reports will be written to "prove" that the new caliber is far superior. The (in)famous tumbling effect of the 5,56 bullet the troops in Vietnam reported but that somehow never really could be reproduced comes to mind.
Some years later cue the next new chief, and the now standard smaller caliber "obviously doesn't cut it" and a larger caliber has to be introduced. Rinse and repeat.
@@tjroelsma , the US have also fought quite different enemies the last few decades, switching from politically motivated, slightly built Asian engaged over short distances to religiously motivated, more stoutly built Middle East people in open landscapes. Different tasks requite different tools.
The Army didn't really develop the NGSW program for longer range or "more knockdown power" (something that doesn't actually exist in small arms - and 5.56x45mm ammo still does MORE damage to human targets than equivalent bullets in 7.62x51mm or .30-06, because of how the physics work out... now, if you're shooting at *horses*, the old full power .30 rounds are the way to go, because the horse is big enough for the larger rounds to get around to doing what 5.56mm does in the first few inches).
The driver for the NGSW program was the simple realization that our likely near peer adversaries *aren't stupid* , and if they started widescale issuing of body armor of similar performance to what the US has been using in combat continuously since 2001, the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm weapons *won't be able to penetrate them reliably* (and we know this because of all the US troops who have come back, uninjured, with 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mmR, and 7.62x51mm rounds - even "AP" rounds - stuck in their vests.
The Army ballistics labs did some high level calculations and experiments and determined the *minimum* round for defeating the expected near peer, near term, body armor types was a 6.8mm bullet of a specific design (reliably reported to be "based on" the M855A1 projo, but optimized ballistically in ways not available for a bullet that had to be backwards compatible with M855), at a specific velocity (basically a similar velocity as the old 55 gr M193 could get from a 20" barrel). So they handed the designers the bullets, told them the target muzzle velocities they had to hit, gave them the performance and physical requirements of the rifle and LMG competition, and told them, "Go forth and develop weapons that will do X, Y, and Z, with THIS bullet, and develop the ammo as well."
Yep. There really isn't a perfect caliber for assault rifles because battlegrounds can be so different.
I would introduce a new assault rifle in two different calibers, but that's just me.
@@dariozanze4929they effectively have. They recently ordered more of the previous rifle and ordered the new one.
I thought it went like “This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun”
Thats from a matching song
No Private Snowball. Of course its not!
I just wanted to add that the characteristics of NATOs 5.56mm ammunition don't lend well to shooting at very long distances. Saying the ammo wasn't accurate is an odd generalization. The new ammo type is meant to carry a straighter flight path over longer distances. That is the "accuracy" part of the improvement. The old 5.56 ammo is affected by wind a bit more, drops quicker within infantry fighting distances, and doesn't carry as much energy when it hits the target.
Thats a important call out. 5.56 is meant to be accurate within typical engagement range. The important part of the statement with regards to Afghanistan is a lot of engagements were outside the expected engagement ranges the M4 and 5.56 was meant for
The 5.56 was developed off the fact most engagement ranges from WW2 to Korea happened under 200 yards. It's no coincidence it's very effective at that. So of course when you try to shoot from mountain to mountain it sucks. For cover we always had heavier weapons for that. The NGSW program is just the Army wanting a new toy.
while the military has a criteria for accuracy separate from the civilian sector, it is odd to say that the 5.56mm and its weapon systems arent accurate. My understanding is that the need for a 6.8mm wasnt about range (because as testing has proven most fire fights occur within 300 meters) it was about defeating future body armor. The US army wants to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
Precision is different from accuracy. Right on that.
Yeah. Accuracy at the desired distance. You can lob 5.56 inaccurate at a far distance. They want accuracy
An interesting difference between the old and new rifles that I didn't hear covered in this article is that the peak barrel pressure in the new design is over 30% higher than what was allowed in the old M4. This allows for significantly more energy imparted to the projectile beyond what would already be expected with the increased diameter (increasing range, lethality, etc). This also will presumably result in greater wear on the inner workings of the rifle, so fewer rounds between scheduled service. Another example of the trade-offs that have to be made in the design process.
To add to this, training rounds are more conventional lower pressure rounds. This means soldiers will not experience the same round and recoil during training versus in love combat.
As my couches would say perfect practice makes perfect. If they're not going to train with the full pressure round to save on barrels and components the what's the point?
Honest question from a non-vet here: how much of infantry fire involves shots aimed at actual targets vs a more general "fill the air with bullets to keep the enemy from sticking their head up while we do what we want?" As a layman, it would seem to me that accuracy would help in the first instance, while more ammo per soldier would be more useful in the latter. I am curious to hear from those who've actually been there on what they think. And yes, I understand this can vary, in different engagements and environments but I'm curious about the overall balance people have seen.
Most grunts never see what or who they are firing at. They fire to keep the other guy’s head down until they get close enough to find him dead, gone or ready to be shot.
Afghan War vet here (Kandahar province, 2006 & 2010) and that's a tricky question to answer...but I'll do my best...
Accurate fire is obviously important. Bullets going into bad guys means there are now less bad guys, which helps win a TIC (troops in contact, aka firefight)
But often times, it's quite difficult to get accurate rounds on target in the initial stages of a firefight as everybody is scrambling for cover. So suppressive fire becomes key, to keep the enemies' heads down and allow your side to maneuver.
As the TIC progresses & the suppressive fire prevents the enemy from moving too much, parts of your team maneuver to get closer and better vantage points so they can start to engage the enemy with more accurate fire.
So part 1 of winning a TIC - suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down, prevent enemy movement, limit their ability to shoot at you, while maneuvering on them... (aka wall of bullets concept)
Part 2 - more accurate fire to eliminate enemy
That's why it's tricky to answer. You kinda need both, and both are equally important depending on what part of the TIC one finds themselves in
@chrisburke624 you answered that about as well as possible the only thing I'd add was the urban combat I found myself in when I was in fallujah was very up close and personal in more engagements than not. Not to say that was the case the whole time but I happened more often during operation phantom fury than any of my other deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan. But your statement still rings true
Jeez.....the ADF just "hoses" the area with some Charlie Gustavs and then send a couple of Inf up "door to door"
@@richardcostello360the CG seems like one of those weapons that are straight forward and useful enough that you've got to wonder how the ADF managed to get around to actually procuring it.
That's also a 6.8spc round next to the 5.56 at 6:49 in the video not the 6.8x51 used in the rifle
Honestly, I watched a full video on that optic and it's incredible! Only time will tell if it can take a beating and keep on going, but having your targets acquired and range marked is the next big leap forward.
I would bet money that a much lighter, simpler version will be developed. Most of the the things the optic can do are no factor in many engagements.
The functionality uses an IR laser, which will be like a beacon to anyone wearing night vision. So I'm extremely skeptical of the utility of the optic just conceptually, before we even get to usability.
So, 30 Decibels doesn't sound like a lot, but they function logarithmically. That means an increase of 10 Decibels is 10 TIMES louder than before. So while not silent, decreasing by 30 Decibels means the sound is 30 times quieter. Significant, to help with hearing loss
Your point is accurate, but the math is slightly off. It is true that ten decibels is ten times, but twenty decibels isn't ten plus ten, it's ten times ten. Likewise for 30 decibels. It's not 30 times quieter, it's 1000 times quieter.
I was a Combat Engineer in '84 and used the M16a1 and M60. I think the XM250 LMG is definitely an improvement over the M60 and FN 240 but l think the 6.8 is a bit overkill for most engagements and I would not want to lug it around with its ammunition on a 6 mile road march.
Thats a common thing I've seen and you're probably right.
Being a technology analyst though I've learned that what we "expect" changes when the tools change.
I imagine once these weapons become more common the engagements will change because of it.
Most of the guys I talked to think a 6 mm with a bit larger case then. the 5.56 would do the job. The new 6.8 rifle is the M-14 all over again.
the point is barrier penetration. to see why this is important look up the yakut knife fight. if the Ukrainian had the xm7 he would have killed his enemy through the house.
I think you are onto something. For urban combat ranges the 5.56 appears sufficient. The kind of extended combat durations in places like Fallujah appear to be ideal for the 5.56mm platforms. The range of Afghanistan appears to be one of two factors to consider the 6.8mm. I suspect the second is the close ranges of CQB. At some point in the GWOT, USSF units started using .300 Blackout for greater suppression and takedown power in their door kicking operations. Same lower and magazine. Only the upper receiver need to be swapped out. But those operations tend to be of short duration and ranges.
In 1998 I had an opportunity to ask MSG Eversman (Black Hawk Down) what was the most effective weapon in what was then our biggest urban combat since Vietnam. His answer was the M249 SAW. That opinion is probably dated since the GWOT...but there it is.
I am going to agree here. I think the XM250 is going to be impressive, especially against lightly armored vehicles and chewing through cover. But the infantry rifle is not going to be a favorite. I guess the Army is done doing CQB?
The Vortex m157 scope is the only part of this project that actually matters.
no, the LMG is the part that matters. The LMG is most of the firepower of the squad. It was literally called NGSW, next generation squad weapon. I.e., LMG. The rifle is just a consequence of the LMG. And as far as we know the M250 is a massive upgrade over the 249
...but, you still need the shooty bit.
When I first saw the XM7 it was only using 20rd magazines. I still feel that is insufficient for a SAW. I see that they've now created a drum magazine though I don't know it's capacity.
No, XM7 and XM157 are both sides of the same coin. Combined they are more than sums of each.
Have you shot much? A lighter weight optic will be used in most applications very soon. All the stuff it can do is no factor within 300m and that's where most fighting is. The very high profile of the scope will be an issue working out of vehicles.
M249 SAW is not a member of the M16 family.
The ONLY connection between the two is the common ammunition type...
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lhYes. An FN Minimi derivative.
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lh both can use STANAG mags
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lh both use STANAG magazines.
No it's not, but shoots the same 5.56mm round as the "M-16" family of weapons. The Mk-48 is a better SAW. But I am partial to the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56 NATO as a Battle Caliber. This 6.8mm round seems to be reaching higher than it can deliver. When I deployed, my SAPI plates where rated up to 7.62 NATO. I don't understand how that new 6.8mm round, with less powder, in a smaller case can out perform the 7.62 NATO? Maybe I'm missing something? Does it have a new propellant that I'm not aware of? Are the new bullets made of depleted uranium? What I know of guns (i.e. firearms or "weapons") and a limited amount of physics/math, the new 6.8mm is better than the 5.56 NATO. But Why? Is it a DEI thing? A combat ammunition load weight for an Infantryman is about the same as his weapon. Arounnd 7.5lbs (3.4kg)
Error at 6:41
It is a brass case with a stainless case head.
I am a retired US Army officer with a few years in the infantry. I am impress by the new rifle but believe the M4 should be retained until our fellow services and allies decide to change. Standard ammo is important and the weight factor and fewer rounds carried are an important consideration. More weight always risks the mobility of dismounted infantry. I have seen it. And despite some recent experiences most historical studies that I have read have shown that engagements will take place under 200 meters. The old M60 machinegun was used to engage further out if needed prior to the M249s. Perhaps bringing back the M60 type in place of the M249 might be looked at. Or using one with this new ammo. Just a thought from an old grunt who does remember how the "Old Breed" marines who hated the M1 Grande and favored the 1903 Springfield prior to WW2 until experiences at Guadalcanal changed their minds.
I realize that urban environments and similar environments are, by nature, short engagement lengths. At the same time, more engagements would take place past 200m if more guns and more operators were accurate and confident past those distances
An analogy would be like saying someone shouldn't make a longer range grenade because most engagements with grenades take place within 20m
I mean the M16 was in service for many many years whilst the M4 was getting introduced.
So even if the XM7 becomes the M7 it would take well over a decade before every single M4 in service has been replaced by the M7.
@@rayzerot Also in a peer to peer conflict you just want to avoid urban combat at all cost anyways.
Instead you want to use manouvre warfare and encircle cities
With 8 combat tours total from a tour in Kosovo / Bosnia 1999, 5 tours of Iraq, a tour in Syria and another 3 tours in Afghanistan….the ammo sucks for the M16. No matter what is used, it zips right through when you’re close up and don’t have enough “umph” at a few hundred meters. Thats why the M14’s were refitted and given as the Mk-39 EBR (which I carried). Yet, Afghanistan taught me that we need the extra range, even times in Iraq we needed the extra range. So my thoughts were “why the F-k are we trying to reinvent the wheel here. Make the bi-metal case for the 7.62x51 (308), then call it a day. On the other hand, the 6.8 SPC / 6.5 Grendel were field tested and actually use a lot of the similar parts from the M4, why not use an intermediate bullet. Cost savings by using what we have and changing small things so familiarity is not an issue??
I don’t know……I retired in 2015 and see how things are with the military, yet the Army is still spending a lot of $$ on junk shit like the GayCU’s when the money could have been used elsewhere. The Navy with the wasted billions on the LCS problems. The Chair Farce with the F-35 problems.
Yet, I’ve been retired for almost a decade….i don’t know nothing though…..
@@rayzerot Just.... no. Go back to Call of Duty.
1:01 *The M249 is not in the same family as the M16.* It's a belt-fed automatic weapon that fires in an open bolt position. Other than firing the same 5.56mm cartridges, it's a totally different weapon.
It also shares (a janky) magazine compatibility with stanag mags.
@@EnigmaticPenguin True, and you can pull back the bolt on an empty M-16 and load bullets into the firing chamber by hand through the ejection port. By the logic of this video, does that put the M-16 in the same family as a bolt-action rifle?
Sounds like the concluding musical tones are at a better volume! Thanks, Megaprojects!
I was a 12B Combat Engineer in a Sapper Company from 2014-2022. The XM7 is an amazing battle rifle, and it's machine gun counterpart is an amazing machine gun. That being said, standard issue rifles are NOT battle rifles, they are assault rifles. Intermediate caliber carbines. The XM7 is a TERRIBLE standard issue rifle. It's too heavy, and the increase in ammo weight along with 20rs magazines is completely unacceptable.
The vast majority of ammunition expended in a firefight is suppression, and making the cost of being able to effectively supress the enemy an extra 15-20Lbs when the typical soldier might be carrying 70Lbs on their back with an M4 load out is wholly irresponsible.
140rds for a combat load is actually hilarious. The M4 standard combat load of 210rds isn't enough rounds. A combat load is what's carried on your kit, 6mags on your plate carrier +1 in the gun. Combat load = what's immediately accessible. Everyone carries at least double that in their pack and several people per squad are carrying 2+ 200rd drums for the M249 or 100rd drums for the M240.
What the Army is doing is DUMB. Soldiers will simply be carrying much much more weight to satisfy their need to not run out of ammo in combat. The new 6.8 round achieves it's incredible power by using a new case design on the bullets. The back of the case is hardened steel, with a brass body. This new design allows the round to have much more powder in it because the case won't explode, thus the bullet is wicked fast for it's size.
What the Army SHOULD have done is replace the M4 with a slightly heavier 5.56 rifle designed for these massive chamber pressures and then taken the bi-metal case design and made an M855A2 round with the same steel penetrator of the M855A1 (which already turns Level III armor into swiss cheese) just going much faster. To defeat body armor you need a bullet that is resistant to deforming on contact (the steel penetrator) and a lot of velocity. 5.56 in a bi-metal case would've achieved this without the silliness of going back to the start of Vietnam where a standard infantry rifle was an M14 with a big round, a small magazine, and a painfully heavy load of ammo on the grunt's back.
@15:45, Officers, you need to get enlisted POV. They’ll mostly give you a real, honest answer on what they think.
let's be real they don't give a shit, it's about money
@ Of course, money had to be spent before the end of the fiscal year.
@@GryStykerThe renewal will be an ongoing project for decades. It's not about fiscal years or quarterly finances.
@@konzza It was when the project was first initiated.
In Vietnam many it allowed opted for the M1 over the M16 due to the poor ammunition performance of the M16 and its proneness to jamming. A couple old timers even carried Gerrand M1s.
To be fair the nam era m16s were shot in the foot by not being sent with cleaning kits and the government insisting on using ammo that dirtied the gun faster.
@@tattoochef True enough.
@@tattoochef , the underlying problem is relevant though. In time, soldiers may fiend themselves with substandard ammo and no time for basic maintenance. The old M16 didn't handle that very well, the question is how the new M7 will be able to deal with less than optimal situations. Looking at combat footage from Ukraine, the old M16 would probably not have fared well.
@@tattoochefthe reason cleaning kits were irrelevant is because of the M-14. They wanted the government contract so they put out propaganda that the M-16 didn’t need to be cleaned. They willingly sacrificed American soldiers over a contract. No doubt they were god fearing, pro-life conservatives. Only they can stoop so low.
M1 Garand*
Since the AR-10 there hasn't been any real advances in infantry rifles. The best change the Army ever made was issuing the ACOG. There's no point in more powerful rifles if you can't hit your targets
mass issue of suppressors is the next big thing. Also LPVOs. And the rangefinder built into the LPVO on the army's vortex optic. Those things alone make the M7 a large advancement. Every infantryman is basically a designated marksman now, with that setup. People say there's less ammo to suppress enemies now, but inaccurate fire is not suppressive fire. If the rounds are closer to the targets due to better optic setups and rangefinder, you'll be able to suppress more with less. That and I have a feeling battlefield resupply will get much easier with drones
The defense industries sure do love pitching the same AR15 to the military over and over again and making billions. I can't believe the DoD is gullible enough to buy it again for the 15th time with a new name
How does it perform when shooting tiny super fast drones? I guess the extra weight doesn't help.
As someone who has followed this for a decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that the current iterations of the 5.56 are increasingly the best option. Drones are dealing with the range issues and improving target acquisition capabilities along with the ability for unmanned platforms to take a 5.56 forward into higher risk situations where they can take the accurate shots necessary negates the need for a bigger more powerful round. The logistics of keeping a round that is about 2/3 the weight and all NATO uses for outweighs any advantages of the more capable round.
Hit the nail on the head there
NATO standard 5.56 is very important. This is a good rifle from what I have seen, but it seems too expensive and disruptive for the tradeoff of being able to shoot farther, which most soldiers will likely never need to do...?
@nicolasolton the range difference was overstated in this video. Better armor penetration is the part that matters.
3:46 its more complicated I think - marines since 2017 are reaplaceing both M16 and M249 with M27 rifle
I thought it was just the M249 being phased out by the M27.
@@gregrobertson5576 That was the initial plan when my unit tested them in 2011, but the Corps decided to fully switch over later
@@PopeMetallicus Oh wow. The logic behind it replacing the M249 made a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what were your thoughts on the M27? Did you like it?
@gregrobertson5576 I really liked it, it was everything the M16 was, but full auto. A little heavier, but nothing compared to the SAW
The one thing I think people are forgetting is that the 6.8 has been fielded in the M4 and it's Civilian Semi-Automatic (only) brother (AR-15) before. So changing over to the 6.8 will require: New Bolt Carrier Group, Barrel and Magazine followers. Plus Gas Adjustments. The lower receiver will remain the same.
Using Garand Thumb in clips is a compliment to one of you, just not sure who though. That was a nice little Easter egg your editors put in this 😂, carry on 🤙
Also I want to add, if you reach out, why not go to his ranch and have first hand experience with these weapons? Food for thought Simon, I'd love to see a video like that as I'm sure most of your viewers would, I'm speaking for all of us
@@jaceh5109Great idea! 👍
I have a firearms history and mechanics hobby and past-time, so for future reference, any mistakes or oversimplifications I hear in the video I'll post here, for educational purposes.
0:56, The M249 is not a M16 related firearm, they are entirely separate platforms, though they are operated together frequently.
2:20, 5.56 NATO is not inaccurate by any measures. They are high velocity and piercing ammunition, but when insurgents are so drugged that they don't know what planet they're on, it's not as effective as it can be. The civilian version of the round, .223 Remington, is actually a common hunting round for medium sized game, such as deer.
3:00, not necessarily. Yes they aren't as penetrative to armor as they could be, the 5.56 round has many variants that can pierce armor, such as the Green tipped ammo, which was issued commonly.
If I find any other issues, I will update and edit the comment as needed.
there's a lot wrong in your comment. 5.56 is not armor piercing whatsoever, unless you're talking about soft armor. For plates, 5.56 will never ever go through a ceramic armor plate ever, including the newest M855A1. Secondly, the reason 5.56 was not effective on people was because the original rifle was designed with like a 20 or 22 inch barrel. The M4 chops it down to what, 14.5, which reduces the power of 5.56 by a massive amount. Out of the original 20 inch barrels 5.56 has a monstrous effect on target. Out of the short barrels it loses effectiveness in as soon as 100 yards, which tracks with the fact the M4 was originally designed as a PDW. And nobody should be hunting deer with .223 ever. If they do they're a bad hunter
Yup 30-06 or .303 is typical from my knowledge. @@moonasha
5.56 is innacurate as longer ranges not close to early intermediate ranges
Not entirely sure why my first reply got deleted. I'm going to try again just to see if it happens again;
The .223 round is illegal to hunt deer with where I live. It is considered underpowered for the job.
I'll be absolutely stunned if the "sticker shock" of the XM7 program doesn't result in the XM7 becoming a DMR instead of a general issue battle rifle. Fully equipped, each XM7 is over $13,000 each. That's not counting the $13.00 per round for the full-power military armor piercing ammunition, spare parts, logistical issues with new ammunition, and training of unit armorers and providing them with the necessary tools, gauges and equipment to properly service the rifles.
Need to do a deep dive on that optic. It’s awesome.
Thinking your editor should have given some credit to Garand Thumb considering 50% of the footage was taken from his channel.
They don't have to. It falls under "fair use doctrine". Should they have? Sure
7:37 your hearing loss is not service related
The logistics issue brought up near the end should have its own video highlighting what a significant problem this could be.
The rifle, machine gun, sights, and suppressors all seem great but that new ammo is going to really throw a wrench into things.
My personal opinion here is that if your sights are good enough then you don’t need special ammo to punch through body armor because no body armor is going to save someone from a shot between the eyes.
What's really impressive with this weapon platform is the advanced combat integration program that will also involve the soldier's helmet. That sight computer will do a lot more than just ballistics in the future.
I swear I posted this 5 seconds before you went into it in the video lol!
We've come a long way since iron sights only mindset.
@chrishooge3442 indeed. Think of the advantage of being able to see around a corner from your HUD using your weapon.
Being able to spot a target. And lay down a marker so all your sqaud mates see him or it. They immediately all have sights on and firing solutions to hit it. Crazy stuff.
That augmented reality helmet could be amazing. I fuses the different sensors with computer vision so it's kinda like the Predator-vision but actually usable.
Grand Thumb detected
Thought I saw a few clips of Mr Jones, good to know my dodgy facial recognition wasn't totally off.
17:14 “I think they really hit their ‘mark’” ;p lmfao, punny 😅
The more I learn about the XM-7, the less impressive it becomes
The change of clothing by the host was not unnoticed.
at 6:44 is stated the casings are made of plymer with brass base, but actually the .277 fury or 6.8x 51 mm casing is made of brass (body) with steel base, necessary to because of the higher pressure. and the picture at 6:49 looks like is the 6.8 spc highlithed and not the .277 fury.
I was at the School of the Americas on Benning when we were doing the XM8 trials. It was a pretty cool rifle. I have the Sig M17. It's a very good handgun. I like it a lot.
Awesome Garand Thumb collab. Very good videos guys.
The XM7 and the JLTV are both platforms based on lessons learned in GWOT where combat was in rugged long range and open terrain. The XM7 especially is meant to overcome the issue were insurgents could rain down AK47 fire from a Ridgeline above US personelle and the M4 and M249 could not return fire.
The Marines are keeping the old ammo but could effectively turn every rifleman into an auto rifleman.
The XM7 was pretty good when it came out, however since then a different company released the Reaper MG which offered more power, less recoil.
The big issue to me with the XM7 is the performance in building clear and CQB. It's just so large. However training is what separates the US military from any other military and if they can develope good tactics and training they'll be much better of.
So here's a question:
Why can't we just retrofit M4 carbines to handle the new optic and create better shot placement? I'm not saying ditch the M7. I'm saying that right now, the Army is the only one interested in it, but if we can use older weapons with the newer optic, we're improving the odds of a successful hit to target and retaining equipment. It also means that combatants will be familiar with at least half of the new system (the optic), so when current M4 and 5.56mm supplies start drying up, the various branches can evaluate moving to the M7 and it's new round at that point, but their members will already be familiar with an integral part of the arrangement, which is the optic and its many advantages.
we gone full circle and back to the battle rifle, glad to see flannel daddy on in this vid xD
all those clips of Garand Thumb throughout the Video were cool
If Simon did a sleep talk down vid I’d listen to it every night
Lots of @Garandthumb B roll footage, I love it!
In combat, infantrymen count ounces. They abandon as anything that weighs them down. "Travel light to win the fight."
I've got a MCX Rattler that I use for deer hunting. I've got well over 10,000 rounds through it as its my favorite firearm at the range. On my 2nd barrel.
Never have ever had a malfunction on it. Even when mag-emptying.
The XM250 light machine gun and Vortex XM147 scope are the best parts of NGSW acquisition IMO.
Should have just used the 6.5 creedmoor rifle socom is going with, already comes in 14.5 inch carbine and 22 inch designated marksman variants.
6.5 criedmore because it doesn't deliver as much energy on target as a 6.8x51.
Or even a 308 for that matter.
well.. special ops have all kinds of guns and rounds under the sun. they go with everything, and constantly experiment with everything, not just with 6.5 Creedmoor... like .300 blackout subsonic rounds for close quarters. or .338NM belt-fed "lightweight medium machine gun." currently, no NATO country uses the AR-10 as their primary service rifle.
is there much, if any, difference in 277 Fury(6.8) Vs 6.5 creedmoor long range ballistic results? trajectory, accuracy, penetration with 80000 psi xm7 rifle versus. ar10 platform rifle with 6.5 creedmoors?
how about weight of the bullets?
you cannot shoot 6.5 creedmoor rounds with an M4 5.56 service rifle, its specifically designed for use with ar-10 style rifles.
ar-10 platform is used as designated marksman rifles.
and a 7.62×51mm nato round-using rifle is not synonymous with an ar-10 platform rifle. while ar-10 rifles typically use the 7.62×51mm nato round, not all rifles chambered for this cartridge are AR-10s, older battle rifles like the FN FAL and G3 that use 7.62x51 are not ar-10 platforms.
you cannot shoot a 6.5 creedmoor round with a rifle chambered for 7.62×51mm nato without changing the barrel. the 6.5 creedmoor uses a 6.5mm (.264 inch) bullet, while the 7.62×51mm nato uses a 7.62mm (.308 inch) bullet, significant difference in bullet diameter makes them incompatible..
the widespread adoption of this caliber as primary service rifle by the usa could create similar interoperability issues within nato as 6.8.
while the u.s. special operations command (ussocom) has tested and adopted the 6.5 creedmoor for specific purposes, this is considered a "special purpose use".
...and (sorry) a 14.5 inch barrel reduces its effectiveness to that of a 6.5 Grendel with a 16 inch barrel.
creedmoor is a precision rifle for infrequent fire. not a standard issue weapon. unless you want to make special projectiles that are much longer, heavier, and slower so they don't absolutely wreck the barrels.
6:51, that's the wrong 6.8mm. You are showing 6.8mm SPC, not 6.8x51mm aka 6.8mm Combined Cartridge 😅
16:29 , 6.8x51mm CC is designed for around 1km max effective range. It doesn't have ballistics to stay supersonic past 1km. Even 6.5mm Creedmoor with 150 gr tip can do only 1.5km or so.
What makes the rifle deadly is the United States Marine behind the rifle. No matter what model, style or caliber.
15:16 now that's a smoking gun 😆
Saw that too. Wtf was that??
I think this was the endurance test, so they were probably firing till it started to show problems
@@robberyproductions1363 This is normal innhigh rate of fire. This "silencer" (which in reality is rather signature limiter) keeps in particles of unburned powder in so it has to burn afterwards somehow.
The 6,8mm cartridge being shown in comparison to the 5,56mm is actually the 6.8SPC. A different intermediary cartridge.
the new 6,8 is dimensioned close to the older 7,62NATO. The difference between that and a 5,56mm is like that between a AA and a AAA battery.
Reaper machine gun will forever be the greatest opportunity lost by our military
Not me sitting here totally geeking out over the fact that Simon has Garand Thumb stock footage on this episode, Mike just be showing up everywhere🤣🤣🤣
6.8x51mm as adopted does NOT have a polymer case. It's a brass casing with a steel primer cup to prevent the back of the casing from rupturing from the insane pressure exerted.
As an infantry, Marine giving us more weight to carry into combat would definitely piss off a few people. We already carry a ton of gear, and making it heavier makes us more tired by the time we arrive and many other things too. The M-16 and M-249 are pretty good weapons, but they have their down sides, too. If not properly cleaned, they will jam in a bad situation.
It should be noted that a battle rifle can use a few modular pieces to fire shorter rounds when appropriate, but a smaller rifle can't be reconfigured to fire longer rounds.
And that before selecting a 6.8mm battle rifle the military did experiment with a 6.8mm assault rifle. So there is a mature, semi-common round that can be used in an assualt rifle module for the M7. Or even just keep using 5.56.
Either way the military won't be married to the 6.8×51 cartridge if they're operating in a theatre where it wouldn't be optimal.
At some point in the GWOT the USSF began dropping a .300 Blackout upper on their M4s. They were fighting at extreme short ranges and the subsonic round was both easier to suppress and had greater takedown power. At those close ranges you really want the target to be incapacitated as quickly as possible. A fatally wounded jihadi can still kill you.
That's gonna be about 46,000 per gun with the fire control system.
The Sig did not utilize the polymer rounds. That was different rifle entry. The Sig 6.8 mm utilizes a brass case with a steel base for combat and a lower pressure brass only case for training.
You gotta respect a rifle that lights itself on fire! 15:15
Choosing the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is a much better option than this new cartridge. It’s essentially just an upgraded version of the 7.62 NATO with slightly better speed and penetration at longer ranges, which are rarely relevant in typical soldier operations.
Spartanshock117.. Someone in the US army really liked his HALO. :)
I guess it’s still classified as experimental, but that does mean there’s room for improvement and refinement of its imperfections
For those not well versed, the Armor Light Rifle and the 5.56x45 cartridge were completely based on weight at first.
I can't imagine a weapon weighing 10 pounds is going to be very popular with frontline grunts.
At 15:15 the Supressor in the background is on fire.
I think Simon's fighting off a cold
It will be interesting to see what going back to a Pacific Jungle environment will do for these ammo weights. 6.5mm and .338 Magnum are awesome on paper.
Great while the optic works. EMP knocks our guys back to vietnam era weaponry real fast.
Wilson note: A common writing problem is adding words in the brackets, instead of punctuation.
RIP M16 family, you will always look cool as fuck
They aren’t giving it up yet. My son graduated Basic and will be finishing Infantry training soon. Still using M4s. A few elite units have the new rifles, but it will be many years before the Army switches over if at all.
A slight error correction: Finnland is sending 2 ships, NATO will be sending about 12 to 14 ships
Finland*
The supersonic nature of the 5.56 and 6.8 rounds are difficult to suppress. Flash suppression is the greater advantage especially in the night time fire fights.
Excellent video!!! I have been following the development of the NGSW for many years. As a retired infantryman myself, I am very happy to see the new rifle and machine gun. The M-16 A2 was issued as a stop gap measure when the A1 was found to be horribly lacking in power. Then the M-4 kept the A2s ammo, but uses a short barrel, which precisely destroyed the only advantage the 5.56 ever had. Piles of combat reports were begging for a more capable combat rifle and the Army replied. They have done well.
11:24 is that 9.8LB (4.4kg) with or without the new 10000dollar computer-scope? 20 or 25 round magazine? how much would it be with 30 round mag?
in comparison, the lightest civilian model ar-15 weighs 3.8 LB (1.72kg). (BATTLEARMS OIP 002 Ultra Lightweight Rifle Gen2)
XM7 is not a weapon on it's own. No comparison to any other rifle is real, until XM7 is equipped with smart optics XM157 to get one shot one kill at 700 meters.
It is no longer designed for Spray and Pray tactics for thick jungles of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.
Weakest part of XM7 by Sig Sauer is weight and recoil. General Dynamics had reduced weight overall when fully loaded. But Army didn't see that as overriding other aspects.
... on its* own (it's = it is)
12:39 the ammo weight carried goes down as the gun is fired. so the hike back might be better.
2:06 the medieval English longbow has a longer effective kill range
But an effective range of less than 300 yards.
@bradleyanderson4315 I thought it was 400 but either way
A quick Google search says that I am wrong the bow is 300 the m4 400
The REAL reason - the Pentagon wants the new belt-fed. It's a package deal with the XM7 and the 6.8 round, and the belt-fed is good enough that the Pentagon will accept the XM7 if that's what it takes. For that matter, the Army gets to replace 5.56 and 7.62 with ONE ROUND, and the M249 and M240 with ONE GUN, so I'm getting M14 flashbacks here.
Otherwise I knew everything I needed to know about the XM7 when I saw the redundant charging handle and found out that the round has a 70,000 PSI operating pressure - gun was designed by committee and is gonna break a lot. A bunch of officers are getting some shiny golden parachutes.
i was a 249 gunner and carried that shit all over the place. also carried m4 (multiple variations) and 240b when not carrying the 249. the new sig is heavy as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. for anyone thinking a suppresor is quiet, it can still burst your ear drums. real life is very different from the movies.
It'll probably be last as long as the m14 in Vietnam. Training with .308 and switching to .277 in combat zones seems like a weird option they want to do as well. Train the way you'll fight. Even if it burns through barrels fast.
I like how the Elite forces in the military saw this and said no thanks... Then proceeded to get more 6.5 Creedmoor's "MRGG program" and also purchased a bunch of 6mm ARC small arms.
HUD visors and smart-glasses have been promoted as tech demos for decades and I've still never seen any such devices being used by ground infantry.
More potent ammo makes sense to me. But I don't understand why the Army didn't just get M16/AR pattern rifles in the caliber they wanted. It seems like the AR10 rifles could be fit with the new rounds, or a new receiver set could have been made that worked just exactly like the M4. Perhaps AR10 lowers aren't strong enough for the higher pressure of the hotter rounds?
I'm going to go on record and say what the army wanted was a bullpup chambered in 7.62 or 6.5 creedmore which accomplishes its main goal of maintaining a compact rife while increasing energy on target at range. But when given the bids they somehow chose the worst possible candidate because on the surface it looked like what they already had...as if somehow retraining the manual of arms was such a dealbreaker that it would be worth investing god knows how much in what will likely be the failed implementation of a rifel that significantly increases complexity of ammo production, is heavy, and has substantially more difficult to manage recoil even with the training and civilian loads.
The US Army *didn't* want a bullpup rifle, because of the inherent flaws of bullpup designs. They also wanted a matching squad LMG that fired the same ammunition, and could provide suppressive effects equivalent to the current M249, with range and terminal effects greatly enhanced (to classified levels). In fact the program was *started* as merely a "squad LMG" program.
The Beretta designed bullpup mobile with the brass and polymer cased ammunition developed by General Dynamics didn't provide a credible LMG option, and didn't address *any* of the long known to the US Army flaws of bullpups.
The Textron/AAI carbine and LMG using the plastic telescoped cased ammunition just failed miserably in terms of reliability and accuracy, and had serious safety flaws in the manual of arms. *THIS* is the competitor the insiders intially running the competition wanted to win; after all, it was the reault of the LSAT development program that the Army had been running nearly 20 years and spending millions of dollars on (the only real differences between the competition entry arms and the final development spiral version of LSAT was the caliber.)
Only Sig offered a pair of weapons that met the reliability and performance requirements, and it was the lowest risk (technology, time, and cost) option.
Bullpups are stupid and most of the countries that adapted that trash are slowly going with a Stoner pattern (e.g. France, New Zealand, UK etc...)
Agree with @geodkyt. Bullpups ability to have barrel length w/ compact dimensions is great but good luck using it in a real world scenario, and an absolute joke for an LMG.
Bullpup rifles make terrible service rifles. There's a reason every European country that had a bullpup switched to some flavor of the HK 416
Their submittal for a light machine gun sunk the bid . It wasn’t belt fed.
Interesting fact, the recent lawsuit by Mexico against US firearms manufacturers did not include SIG while having most other major manufacturers. I wonder why?
The M249 is not in the M16 family, I think the origional version was built by FN in Belgium.
Interestingly it can technically use an AR magazine, it'll generally just jam if you try it though.
@@scarx4181 only when Jack section pinches your gun on exercise and leaves you with their shitty one with the bent mag catch/dust cover.
Be a lot easier to just go with the 7.62 FAL rifle that the US should have adopted, but instead adopted the M14 due to politics &/or corruption (M14 was replaced by the M16). The FAL 7.62 will give the needed extra range without all the complications of bells & whistles & a odd sized rounds. Other NATO countries have used the FAL for decades & have no complaints & the 7.62×51 NATO round is very common.
@@sparky6086 If the US just wanted to go to .308/7.62 NATO the AR-10 would have been better as its design and function are nearly identical to the AR-15 everyone is all ready trained and experienced with. Don't get me wrong, for most militaries I'd agree with going FN FAL but experience with a weapon platform is valuable in and of itself.
The 6.8x51mm is a significantly higher velocity cartridge than 7.62 NATO and is lighter, personally I think the XM7 looks like a significant improvement and will work well.
@@NelsonZAPTM Murphy's law is a bitch, I only tried using an m249 with a magazine a couple of times on the range and had two jams with one of those magazines and others had similar experience with it. I'm sure under perfect conditions it's fine, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on magazines in an m249 if I could avoid it.
You should give garand thumb some credit since you used a fair amount of his footage he probably doesn't even know.
Sig took a 308 rifle, beefed up some receiver parts, a smaller bore, and sold it as a totally new concept. Smart
Not really, and sig kinda sucks, Remember we don’t buy the best stuff it’s always the lowest bidder
270 swift with a defence contract
Not really. Sig took a 5.56 rifle, sized some parts of it up and sold it as a new concept. Now with two charging handles!
Imagine if they just used a Portuguese contract Ar10 in 7.62x51...instead of the M14 50 years ago.
You get a 3000 fps out of a 16" barrel vs 2600 out of a 20" barrel for .308. Quite a difference.
"Why the US military is replacing *it is* main service weapon."
Hey. I don't have a spear clone for you to try, but I DO HAVE an M4 clone that you could try out any time.
It would lend a lot of insight into any other weapon if you ever had to extrapolate in the future. You could rely on experience instead of conjecture.
Also, the m249 has nothing in common with the m16 family of rifles other than concurrent usage.
What I find amusing about all this is that it's taken this long for the US military bureaucracy to learn what the rest of the allies figured out in a study just after WW2, namely that they need a new weapon and a new round. The round they developed then was called the British .280. The FN FAL was originally designed for it, as was the EN2, which would have been the first operational bullpup rifle. But enough people in the US system basically stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "I want a big, girthy, manly round or I will take my ball and go home. NATO can fuck off." and everyone gave up and switched to 7.62.
no one had any plans to adopt the 5.56 until the US adopted it anyways so that shouldn't be considered. also anyone saying the M4 is just fine has never had to use it to shoot through things in the middle east, the "less ammo" is a moot point as well as instead of using 300 rounds of 5.56 to breach a barrier you can use 2 rounds. the truth is that the min loadout was never the amount of ammo carried by any of our infantry if they were going into a possible situation.
Let's hope they have great shielding or a small range emp wld make all the troops blind and unarmed
How do you figure? Neither the rifle nor the new scope are *reliant* on electronics. Sure, the scope has some enhancements that are electronic, but if they all die, it still has as its heart a very good 1-8x30mm LVPO optical scope with an etched reticle.