Do Ukraine Infantry Need the US Army’s New XM5 Rifle?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Go to buyraycon.com/... for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.
Would the American Military's new 6.8 x 51mm next generation squad weapon perform well in a near peer battle like the one in Ukraine?
NGSW MOD ARMA 3: steamcommunity...
Recent evidence from the front lines suggests some answers about whether or not the Ukraine armed forces would be helped against the Russian military with this weapon system. The Vortex XM154 1-8x optic would give troops 800 meters of max range 3000 feet per second muzzle velocity but 70 less rounds.
This video is a thought experiment on the Ukraine war as the kind of near peer battle that the XM5 SPEAR rifle was designed specifically for. We've learned a lot of interesting information on where battles take place in this kind of warfare and it might challenge our notions before hand.
Discord Channel : / discord
unironically hooah photos: / cappyarmy
uniornically hooah tweets / cappyarmy
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#UKRAINE #NGSW #WAR
Thanks for watching spare parts army, support the channel, Go to buyraycon.com/taskandpurpose for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.
Thank you chris for a other amazing video
Tim Dillon has new merch.
OBVIOUSLY.
All military rifle depends on terrain.
Close quarts urban warfare isn't like warfare on any other tyle of terrain.
like woods plains jungles coastlines mountains etc.
XM5 is objectively better for most terrain. However for INFANTRY in close quarters urban warfare the isreali tavor or Ukrainian malyuk would be best.
And for marksman and snipers the XM5 would be great for urban warfare. Not sqaud vs sqaud but for the marksman in the sqaud definitely.
My raycons stopped working for no reason. The speakers still work but when I try audio they’re just silent. Idk that I’d buy a new pair.
Bahk moot, not bakumat
welp there goes me working on my essay after procrastinating for 30 minutes
Edit: Done 😎
😂😂
Well... I feel called out... lmao.. criminal justice major for me lol
@@aaronjackson2066 I feel double called out 😭
my guy pls do your homework, dont waste your chance at being something
Well the video is only 18 minutes, so your making progress!!! Just chill!!!
Hearing a no-BS opinion from the very soldiers involved : priceless.
Many thanks for that 👍🍻🇨🇦
Ewwww Canadians
Strong feeling that "Ben" was actually a LARPer.
Jk I love Canadians
@@ruskimuejek665 all good brother 👍👍
@@grayman2749 lmao damn I just spat coffee everywhere - got to start the day right 😂
I wore the heavy body armor that we had during Iraq. With all the ammo water and such you were putting allot of stress on your back and knees. Add on your M4 and it's just not reasonable for the military to expect soldiers to physically take that much stress over long periods of combat. Our bodies have a limit. There is a reason why the VA is filled with checks going to vets who filed for knees and back issues after Iraq and Afghanistan. The military needs to greatly reduce body armor weight to at least offset the increase of weapon and ammo. Or else be ready to make huge payouts in the back end through VA claims down the road.
Most intelligent observation I have read.
Holy Moses, combat is physically demanding?
I can't believe you guys carry those damn packs and body armor. That's got to be heavy as hell and just plain awkward.
All the weight makes sense in a war where you really need it. But in Afghan and Iraq we just didn't need it.
@@vyros.3234 maybe u didn’t need it, but some did…
I fought in a unit, we used UZI's, and I was always confident with my UZI, for the jobs we did it was the perfect weapon. In my opinion we should always look at the jobs the unit is created for and not just hand out weapons for "general" use.
Completely in agreement
The UZI is a great weapon, however modern body armor is a thing and even the Israelis have ditched it for the M4 and the Tavor in 5.56.
what branch and unit did you serve?
Im glad we have the tool. Better to have options than hand tied.
@@jager6863 so essentially you never used it, therefore a fucking paperweight would be sufficient?
From the old(er) school perspective it seems like it would be a great option as a Squad Designated Marksman rifle. Maybe one per fireteam? If you can pin down or even just slow down the enemy’s movement at a distance, they become an artillery or CAS target. That range could be key.
But if you're going for a dedicated DMR, you might as well use an actual dedicated DMR. The Spear is an intermediate between your typical assault rifle and battle rifle. Heavier and longer ranged than the former, but not quite as much as the latter. The SVD already has an effective range of around 800m, so the Spear wouldn't be much of an improvement outside of its optic and not really worth the logistical issues. The advantage of the Spear comes out when everyone is carrying one. If you're going to use it in a specialized role, there are more specialized options.
This xm5 is best use for recon mission but you have to manufacturing new round for this rifle.
@@thomasp506 Fair points all. I have to say you are right about the potential logistics and maintenance headaches. I hope they are rugged AF.
Since I have never used the scope, and all I have to go on is essentially (military) advertising, I am not sure exactly how effective it is in real conditions with real soldiers. If it lives up to the promises, its big advantage might be that it could take a couple of guys per each infantry squad from being a banker and a house painter last month, to being able to put consistent accurate fire on targets at 800m - in combat - with very little time in training. Is that worth it? I don’t know if you could do the same if you are handing a guy an SVD.
In the end, I am not sure I would want every one of my guys carrying one in a situation like Ukraine. Resupply with specialized parts and unique ammunition isn’t a sure thing. I believe in Murphy’s Laws of War, and the 10% rule. That fancy, heavy optic would be hard for me to trust until it’s been around for a while and proves itself.
@@thomasp506 but the most important thing when it comes to the ngsw as a whole is using the spear as a multiple weapons in one weapon. Otherwise, what's the point? A DMR, Rifle, and maybe one day soon Automatic Rifle all in one weapon (the Sig Spear) with a new round (6.8) is the key idea.
That's how the Marine corp intends to use it, isn't it? They want to swap the SAW for this DMR style rifle.
Very great but a couple of key points not mentioned might be important:
1. soldier's health (long-term) using the xm5's suppressor is better than when using other suppressed weapons due to less gas blowback
2. use of the new round could now be used against targets in structures due to increased penetration of bullet
3. increased weight might be most stressful for the grenadier
4. although the supplying of ammo might be hard for a non-us force, apparently sig has already made a 7.62x39 variant titled "MCX spear LT" (LT because it is lighter at 7.6 pounds)
5. The decision to use the new round was influenced by afganistan (battle of wanat? i think) which is an environment where an enemy could be seen from farther away but couldn't be accurately engaged by those with m4/m249(and the insurgents using the 7.62x39* round had a range advantage (edit guess I meant 7.62x54R and maybe a different caliber which makes a little more sense than 7.62x39, but I am still a little unsure and it also depends on the barrel length of what it is fired on))
however a lot of great points were mentioned in the video that aren't thought of a lot
1. ability to stage ambushes from farther away
2. maintaining an engagement is very important so having less ammo can be fatal
3. sensor tracking for is great for tracking maintainence as long as things don't go awry
4. scope linking coordinates seems very useful as long as things don't go awry
Your mentioning of the Spear LT in x39 is interesting. One has to wonder if Sig is angling to get the Ukraine service weapon contract if and when they win the war. I know they're looking for a replacement of the AKM.
The problem in Afghanistan was 7.62x54 machine guns.
On the integrated computer systems, they could be very useful as long as they can be easily disabled if and when they are damaged, but only if the conventional systems still work fine without them. Relying on fragile computer systems for the gun to function is a bad idea
7.62 is nice and all, but there's going to be far more 5.45 floating around these days.
The xm5 doesn’t need to fully replace but adding it to one soldier in a squad could add the accuracy when needed while having it protected
A Dmr option seems like a must in open fields like Ukraine.
@@anthonydesisto2328 i could be wrong but I am sure Ukrainian rifle squads already have a marksman with a SVD druganov
Only giving it to a few soldiers counteracts the goal of simplifying logistics. Part of the purpose is to make a squad light machine gun and standard rifle in the same caliber, so they use the same ammo. Just giving this to a few and keeping the current standard caliber does the opposite of that
That's what I would think. One Squad Automatic weapon and one or two XM5 per squad seem like a good way to multiply long range/AP capabilities without burdening the squad more from a weight or logistics perspective than they already are with 7.62 NATO.
@@andrewreynolds4949 DMRs already used different calibers. And the M249 is 100% going away and being replaced by the XM250. M250 weighs half as much as the 249 and is just a better LMG
It seems to me that the best course of action for the army would be to apply the hybrid case technology to 556. Keep the sig MCX platform, maybe with a 16 inch barrel, but chambered in a round that would be light enough to not sacrifice volume of fire or ammunition capacity . It would still offer the increased body armor defeating capacity that the army is looking for (mainly coming from increased velocity). I’m sure the vortex sight technology would still keep that round accurate to 500m+ plus the better accuracy of a lower recoiling cartridge.
That makes sense there for you are wrong
It definitely makes sense to sneak a few 'private' ones over there to well trained units and see how it does. It really was made for that sort of environment, especially the Steppe. I've seen the foreign legion mysteriously have a load of Scars
I actually hope this is just a bs internet clout story. Because if you were actually in a place to have witnessed this, and then felt the need to randomly blab about it in yt comments.... yikes
@@yikemoo You realise there are metric tons of footage from Ukraine, including a lot featuring SCARs?
@@yikemoo who cares , I like his insights
The xm5 isn't fully deployed even within army units.
@@ee-ef8qr I don't think that matters. The war in Ukraine is a golden opportunity to get some real world testing of the rifle in.
Proposal: Cappy plays ARMA III, with three teams - one armed with current US arms, Russian, and the third with a SPEAR loadout in a Ukraine-based map. See which team has the most casualties after a week of play. While not entirely true-to-life, it should give a general impression whether the trade of ammo vs range is worth it.
The simulation we never knew we needed !
That actually sounds pretty legit
I’d watch the helloutta that
@@Taskandpurpose Id watch it too.
Then he renames the channel to "Gaming & Purpose"
I always find it interesting when you discuss the plusses and minuses of different weapon systems with input from people who have used them in the field,. Keep up the good work.
The xm157 Vortex scope is the new standard optic (NGSW-FC) for the US. IR/viz laser, rangefinder, laser designator, weather sensor, compass, variable 8x zoom, interconnection with other Vortex scopes Crazy.
It’s all about the mission. Double the stand off distance super valuable, sometimes. Shared rounds would eventually pay off. I guess we’ll see!
It also has a flatter trajectory and less travel time, so even at the half the distance the Spear could reach it still has an advantage in needing less lead and reaching the target quicker and obviously piercing through body armour like it's made of butter compared to the 556x45.
@@teaser6089 Another thing people neglect is the ability to cut through concealment and light cover and still maintain the ballistics to kill. That's where I think beyond body armor, the XM5's penetration will make the bigger difference
@@joshuapowell2675 I was thinking penetration too. In urban fighting it might be helpful to use something with a greater likelihood of punching through the wall
@@rayzerot Obviously the intention is penetration of body armor, but I think the penetration of cover will prove to be more useful in the long-run. Having rounds that can kill through cover gives you an opportunity for fire superiority similar to how volume gives you an opportunity
@@joshuapowell2675 Exactly
The optics would most likely be different, the US is testing out a new 11k scope that essentially aims for you at a very long range
that is exactly the one being discussed in this video. The reason the XM5 is not going to be used for every soldier is in part that scope and the XM5 relies on it
@@mojothemigo Battle rifles have been used for decades without optical enhancements. The smart scope would certainly better enable a rifleman to take advantage of the XM5's range, but it isn't a necessity.
@@ostiariusalpha Problem with the U.S military is that they dont know the difference between necessity and a bonus.
@@ostiariusalpha it's not a necessity but it's a huge force multiplier, just like modern red dots and other sights aren't necessary over irons, but are a huge advantage.
@@moonasha No argument there, but the XM5 still has a big advantage over conventional intermediate rounds at barrier penetration even without an optic, and it can certainly still be used by trained riflemen with a cheaper "dumb" magnified optic as well.
I noticed they said small arms combat is usually done at 300 meters. Since most the weapons are the AK platform that sounds about right since the AK-47’s effective range is 400 yards. So there is that factor to consider.
If both sides have an effective range of engagement of up to 300m, I reckon it is safe to assume that most engagements happen within 300m... UKR would be a great place to test the XM5 to get real world feedback.
Exactly. It is a chicken and egg question. Is combat at 300m so you need a weapon to support that or is it at 300m because of the weapon that has been chosen.
It is unlikely that these weapons can now be tested in Ukraine, except as part of small units. Currently, Ukrainian logistics are already overloaded due to the fact that the army has more than doubled. On the other hand, anything can happen, Zelensky recently called on weapons manufacturers to send their new products and prototypes to Ukraine, it is possible that the ХM5 will be
The 300 mtr engagement distance comes from studies done by the Germans in WW2, they found that the Mauser rifle was way over ranged as most combats took place at 300m or less so they designed the STG44 to maximize this, everyone followed and we are where we are today, the close combat range is dictated by the weapons not the distance you can engage. BUT and its a HUGE BUT, no one in WW2 had what we have today, 300m is eyeball range and that is a bad place to be now especially with drones, gps artillery and loitering munitions . Ideally you want to engage the enemy before you hit that close a range, and that is where the new rifle will come in.
Anyone remember the sentry guns from Aliens, how long do you think it will be that they become std defensive unit? Anyone want to patrol into their range because your weapon of choice has an engagement range of 100-300metres?
@@MarkTilburgs Obviously both.
However just with battleship cannons having the ability to shoot at 30km doesn't help you in the average combat mission, but by having an over kill range your shots are flying much straighter at that average distance, which does help with actually hitting.
Same would go for 556 vs 6.8, yeah it has about double the range, but that means at the max range of 556, 6.8 will by flying faster, harder and straighter making it much easier to hit those shots out at 300-400 meters.
@@kit.arheolog Yeah small numbers for testing, I mean hell the rest of NATO also still has to switch, can't be sending all of that stuff to Ukraine.
SIG making the "light" version of this rifle is very very smart. I believe the heavy version was designed just for China.
Let's wait and see how bad recoil will be.
@@DeltaTwoZero I also Heard they will have different versions of 6.8x51 also. The high velocity and a lower velocity.
Xm 5 carbine maybe?
@@Fireclaws10 I meant it's for us to fight the Chinese with
@@mrbloby8806 shortening the barrel would kinda defeat the purpose tho because the whole reason for it is the velocity.
9:20 PLR also clearly pushes for short range infantry engagements, from what we see regarding their rifles, optics and training videos (both wechat and official prop), while Taiwan, Philippines and Indian border are full of amazing steep mountains not covered with overly dense foliage (enough to stealth camp as a tourist but in most places it doesn't obstruct view too much) which encourage the abuse of range superiority, and some give amazing view on the sea so that range again will prove amazingly useful.
Their doctrine though does include "letting artillery slug it out" before a potential landing so in this sense Ukraine might be a decent litmus paper
And playing the devils advocate that was a tt33 aka 762x25 a hot hot pistol load that is known for its pass threw in body armor 762x25 is awesome
Definitely looks like the kick is massive. Plenty of TH-camrs have shot the spear but they have only shot the commercial variants of the .277 fury instead of the military version, thus much less kick with the 20k lower psi
Taking everything into account I still think the xm5 looks so sick
I think the only downside to the rifle is the weight. But they made a Spear light for 5.56/.300blk which will also be put into service.
Virus sick or bacterial infection sick? I'm thinking Bubonic Plague level of sick .
I agree with @The Sea Org.. Being able to out range the enemy is super important. I'm thinking of some of the Israel/Arab tank battles. A few Israeli tanks with long range weapons were able to hold off a far more numerous Arab force. The Israelis could destroy the Arab tanks before the Arabs got close enough to fire.
I know tanks and infantry are different but it sure seems like engagement range applies to most military situations.
@@AircraftFTW AFAIK the Spear LT is NOT being adopted by anyone. Unless you're talking about the Sig Rattler which SOCOM uses which is really splitting hairs.
The look of it yeah but the cost and weight would make physically sick.
@@Org80 IMO just replace M249 with M250s and add one or two guys with M5 as marksmen. What is more important, is to have a a drone, capable of illuminating a target for laser guided rounds, and a mortar (possibly with some guided rounds) in every platoon.
Under 300 m the xm5 is at clear disadvantage compared to a 5,56 rifle with very good optics-> less rounds both in reserve and in the mag, more recoil, more weight. It starts making sense after 500m, the problem is that if you are engaging a Russian BTG at that range they are no longer at danger close risk and they are probably covered by heavy artillery umbrella. It would be useful for setting up ambushes at longer ranges overmatching the Russians small arm fire and causing more casualties before the ambushed Russian unit can call artillery support, as well as having a few around for counter sniping work. In this video the two alternatives were iron sight ak74 and xm5, what if the alternatives were m4a1s or even the new mcx spear L in 5,56 outfitted with the new LPVO Sig optics+ some xm5 in 6,8 sprinkled around for DMR work or SOF long range ambush work?
Hey Cappy just thought I'd put in my two cents here seeing as I research a lot of stuff myself.
1. I do not think the XM5 would be good in Ukraine or the US Army as a primary weapon because weight yes but also recoil. Recoil is another thing to consider because it also effects how quickly you can put sights back on target. Now the XM5 withstands up to 80k psi, which I suspect will heavily affect recoil control. I've seen the video of you test firing the XM5 ans it looked like it was kicking you around quite a bit (though maybe that's just me). I understand the want to consolidate ammo down to one ammo type, but I just think the rifle is too big and bulky for a standard infantryman. HOWEVER that being said I do think it is perfect for a DMR type role and could easily replace the M110 in this role should they so choose to.
2. Ammo compatability with our allies. We have many allies that still use the 5.56 round in their primary rifle (L85A3 from Britain, AUG A3 from Austria, HK416 and G36 from Germany, X95 Tavor from Israel, so on and so forth), and I think this would cause a big issue within the supply chain as well as ammo compatability with allied forces.
3. The M4 ain't done yet. The Army is slow to adopt anything, and there are still upgrades being made to the M4 to this date that could expand its capabilities. Up until now, the Army has been using either converted M4s to M4A1s from the 90s, or the SOPMOD Block 1 kit. With the SOF Block II kits only just now being serviced in for regular grunts that has some pretty big advantages the M4 desperately needs. Also the AR system is ubiquitous and has easy to replace parts. A common misconception is that it can't take dirt very well, but it can and it can also deal with mud (see InRangeTV and Military Arms Channel for those tests). It does struggle with sand, which I admit, was a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, but despite that it still soldiered on and acceled in close quarters scenarios. Now, I don't personally have combat experience with it, but from people I have talked to who have had combat experience with it, they personally very much enjoyed the M4A1 and said as long as you took care of it, it ran like a champ. But for people who just a bit more reliability.
4. SIG's recent MCX SPEAR LT. Called the SPEAR light, its their 3rd generation version of the MCX. I suspect they made this as a backup in case the XM5 project falls through. But it has all the benefits of the piston system, can take normal 5.56 ammo, .300 Blackout for SOF use, and 7.62x39. And it's lightweight and fully ambidextrous! And this would fit as the previous models of the MCX, the VIRTUS and RATTLER, are already in use with special forces for super sneaky operations. If any rifle were to replace the M4 and would be good for the US Army and Ukraine, money is on the SPEAR LT. What caliber could we use to replace 5.56 though is the question. Possibly 6Arc as it fits in standard 5.56 USGI mags and PMAGS and all that would be required it's a barrel and possibly a bolt swap.
But this is just my conclusion on everything, if you happen to see this Cappy, let me know what you think!
I’m pretty sure a lot of our allies are moving away from 5.56
The XM-5 was made to fight China, not Russia. The PLA bought literally millions of units of Level IV armor for their troops a couple years ago, so it's safe to say if they decide to tool up then the extra range and power of the 6.8mm will be needed.
TY
Thing weighs twice as much as my AR-15. It better be real special.
It isn't Lv IV armor, at least not yet. The PLA invested in a UHMWPE/titanium hybrid Lv III+ ballistic armor design. Even the very capable 5.56mm M855A1 steel tip would have difficulty defeating this armor from anywhere but very close range and an ideal 90° strike angle, but 6.8mm XM1186 GP steel tip can easily defeat it without requiring special AP ammo. China's production of Lv IV ceramic plates is only getting better though, and it's just a matter of time before they'll start looking at widely issuing that level of ballistic protection as well.
China is more corrupt than Russia so it's doubtful China has many level IV plates. However, the power can help stop the traditional Chinese mob rush as the average bullet could penetrate two Chinese troops at a time even from several meters away. Other things the bullets might be able to do is penetrate some brick, wood and stone walls.
@@ostiariusalpha I've seen videos of 6.8 tearing up level IV, so the devious little commie bastards better come up with level V or something.
I love Capps videos because it teaches history,guns,and all your military needs
Thanks for 45 likes
Assuming all the incoming (300k - 1m +) Russian cannon fodder to arrive sooner rather than later, that presumably will have little to no body armour anyway, i'd take the older rifle with more rounds to up the kill score.
I can also see 22nd century warfare (if we make that far) have guided rounds using drones as awacs and painting the target feeding information to the rifle via datalink....counteracted with EMF Shields/Jammers by the other side.
The thing is Russia isn’t really a peer opponent anymore, that’s China
If you like the idea of self guiding bullets I hope you have seen the EXACTO program that DARPA ran. The results were pretty interesting. I can imagine a future iteration that can get guidance updates as it flies. Then you just need a sophisticated camera system and a machinegun full of those bullets. The gun fires continuously and the camera system detects and forwards guidance information to each bullet as it leaves. Just imagine all the "fun" features modern active-radar guided air-to-air missiles systems have (loitering, lofting, searching last known locations for radar signatures, etc) and apply those to bullets. Fantasy, for now...
@@TheRealBanana I rather doubt the feasibility of mass use and production of those rounds. The volumes required for combat and the expense of even the current enhanced XM5/X250 penetrating rounds pushes military procurement towards its limits
@@andrewreynolds4949 You are quite right, and even cost alone would deem them unusable when a missile cost nearly the same and has a greater area of effect. Its just interesting to imagine from a pure technological perspective what could be achieved.
The answer is to supply the Ukrainian armed forces with M5 rifles and machine guns, ammunition, ammo pouches, maintenance kits, armourers tools, spare parts etc etc, in order to 'battle test' the rifle and machine gun. That way new tactics would be worked out the hard way, where they usually are i.e. in combat, rather than through computer simulated guesswork, or field exercises that are based on the last war one has fought.
Two campaigns come to mind here: the German 1940 Blitzkrieg in Western Europe and the 1982 Falklands War.
In the former, the main weapon of the German squad was their MG34 machine gun, which had several men carrying the ammo for it. The MG provided the suppressing fire which allowed the riflemen to close with the enemy. By comparison, the US Army and Marine Corps of WWII had a good rifle, but it wasn't backed up by a good LMG or GPMG within the infantry squad. The BAR was obsolescent and the Browning M1919 too heavy for the squad's own members to provide good fire support for the assaulting troops.
The Falklands War was one of only two fought by the United Kingdom during the period of the First Cold War (1945-93) against a peer enemy - the other being the Korean War. In the Falklands the infantry battalions had the L1A1 Self-loading rifle, the L7A2 GPMG in both bipod and tripod mounted mode, and the L4A3 Bren LMG. The Argentine army and marines had nearly the same weapons, also in 7.62 x 51mm calibre: FN FALs, FN MAG58s, FN FALOs as the squad LMG as well as M2 Browning HMGs.
The story goes that when the Brits were running low on 7.62mm rounds, they used captured Argentine ammo to finish the job, but you'd have to ask a Falklands War veteran about that. The battles there were mostly fought in mountainous terrain, where resupply would be difficult. They didn't have either mules or ATVs to hump resupply up to the fighting troops, and fighting at night precluded the use of helicopters, which were in short supply anyway.
The role of the infantry is to defeat the enemy in close combat, which was done in France in 1940, the Falklands in 1982 and is happening now in the Ukraine. You don't win battles from 800m away: the ground has to be won and the objective held. Part of the reason the coalition forces failed to win in Afghanistan was that their enemy didn't hang around long enough to be defeated in close combat, but the ground couldn't be held, let alone dominated by the good guys.
I love how a hardened soldier uses Mugi from K-on as his DP
Rock on, Benjamin
Personally I think they should focus putting the optics on the weapons
As a civilian watching the war, it seems the Vortex optic with its ability to target enemies and locations synced with drones able to do the same and cross communicate that information with the squad is the way to go. As long as the optic is set up for the rifle its on (and it has the ability to save many rifle configurations so this is very possible) this seems to be the better option, making the rifle of less consequence.
Thing to remember is how integrated the gun and the optic is to other gear and how it communicates with the squad (mostly the optic)
Weight of the XM5 seems to be more of an issue for long travel on foot more than anything, but would the extra barrier penetration of the 6.8 be useful in urban areas? None of the guntubers I have seen with it have really pushed it in any fashion, except to say that its handling and accuracy is extremely good.
IMO as a civilian, the optic seems to be the big game changer if it lives up to the hype, mount that on any rifle it has a configuration and that can handle the optic properly (retain zero etc) and run with that.
If I remember rightly, the US Army is planning on equipping the XM5 to front line troops only, but the optic is planned to go to all troops with M4's
I'll be honest, I almost didn't click because I thought the title was kind of silly. Like of course they aren't going to get this rifle that hasn't even been mass produced yet, so why are we talking about this situation? Glad I eventually did click, though, since the video is really about trying to assess lessons from Ukraine about modern infantry combat and whether a platform like the XM5 is relevant to near future infantry combat or not.
I think your past infantry experience and the comments of these guys who are fighting in Ukraine really puts this vid on another level from your usual stuff (not that usual vids are bad! I like them as well). Informative and thought-provoking. Thank you.
the war in Ukraine shows us that easily obtainable & reliable weapons is still one of the most important success factor, so in most wars fought around the world, the AK74 will still be the go-to weapon. I notice the mention of optics time and again. I think if soldiers are issued good optics compatible to the AK74, it will help them tremendously in longer ranges. The war in Ukraine is the perfect testing ground for current weapons, tactics and doctrine, and i'm very sure western military planners are closely observing what works, or don't, in Ukraine right now.
I'm not gonna judge which gun is better mechanically and which one is going to fit US doctrine better but I think that General Dynamics bullpup design for the NGSW would be a far better ergonomically than Sig XM5 in that context. Many firearm owners complain about bad triggers in bullpups, awkward reloads, limited ambidextrousnes etc but for average soldier in this war these things are simply not the major issues. However the benefits of bullpup configuration, especially in a rifle which has to have a long and heavy barrel (to provide neccesary muzzle velocity) are very valuable since these designs not only can potentially reduce the weight and lenght of the entire gun (because there is no stock) but they also generally have center of mass closer to the soldiers body and that greatly reduces fatique. When I was climbing with a 20inch barrel 4,5kg AUG up hill, I could do that while holding it in one hand. I would not be able to that with an AK or AR-15 even if they were 0,5-1kg lighter and had shorter barrels because of the fact that center of mass on these things is further away from me.
So if I had to choose a NGSW winner judging purely on the external features of the each submitted gun I would propably pick the Sig LMG and GD rifle.
Eh. I'd say due to the AK working better in the cold and the cartridge not mattering a lot since Russia, well, doesn't have well equipped troops, I'd say the AK is good enough. The optics would be really damn useful though.
I do agree however against better equipped troops I do think the round is necessary
2:17 Suddenly and unexpectedly jumped by Arma 3
Ngl though, ever since the appearance of the SPEAR and certain armored vehicles unveiled by NATO nations, we really are starting to look like what they got in 2035
This wasn't made for near peer adversaries. It was made for peers, if you know what I mean. But I think the M5 is better suited to Squad Leaders and DMs. They'd engage anything at distance while the squad dealt with the closer more immediate threats. If the terrain should change enough where everyone would need extra range, such as open plains or deserts you could convert the M4s to 6mm ARC. As for logistics, the U.S. Army was able to field .45 ACP .30 Carbine and .30-06 in WWII without many supply problems.
"studies show that most engagements are under 300m"
yes, but could that be because most conventional rifles could only engage at that range? Are we doing survivor bias 2.0?
if newer rifles made longer range engagement more plausible would we see the stats change?
Right, because there is a historic trend where most engagements take place at the maximum effective range of the weapons and as weapon ranges have got longer so have engagement ranges.
Sure, urban and close quarters will draw the range down but outside of this areas it should allow the ranges to increase again
No. This came from WW2 where garands, enfields, and g98 were capable of 1000 yards but the majority of engagements were 300m even in open fields.
@@FXIIBeaver That was more due to the lack of optics available for soldiers preventing any feasible use of the weapons beyond what the soldier could distinguish using iron sights.
Since then engagement ranges have started to increase again, namely in places such as afghan where optics have been commonplace amongst troops now leading to the weapons maximum effective range once again becoming the limiting factor.
@@FXIIBeaver with iron sights usually lol. Most never saw a scope
@@Bardghost_Isu except that isn’t what is happening at all most afghans are just spraying and leaving as they know the airforce will come in and decimate them. Afghanistan is also a one off as we won’t be fighting russian or Chinese guerillas in the mountains. We will be facing off against large army’s within spitting distance or BVR at which case no bullet but a 155mm matters.
This new rifle/caliber just seems like a modern interpretation of the main battle rifle. Basically a more powerful 7.62 with better efficiency downrange. It's also heavy with decent recoil despite the suppressor. Couldn't a similar result have been achieved by simply going to a 243 or 260? All existing 7.62 inventory would just require a barrel swap? Ammo weight and round count would be similar. Recoil would be less. Much cheaper with similar capability?
There’s some detailed commentary on the XM5 from a while back on Mike Burnside’s channel. They said something about the new round being designed with an extremely high firing pressure to give the extra range and penetration capability, and some other details I didn’t quite understand. But it sounds like this is designed to possibly be significantly superior to older models of large-caliber rifles
The benchmark for the higher pressure round's performance is the optimized ability to defeat Lv IV ceramic armor at 400m with the XM1184 SP tungsten penetrator ammo; .243 or .260 bullets at conventional pressures would be entirely inadequate for this purpose.
@@ostiariusalpha So a 60k psi 243 shooting say a 100 grain tungsten core ap round at roughly 3000 fps wouldn't defeat LV4 ceramic armour at 400m?
@@Christoph1888 That's what I'm saying, yes. The Army tested multiple projectile weights and calibers in the HVAP study, and the 6.8mm was the minimum that managed to reliably do the job against ceramic plates.
@@ostiariusalpha Cheers, that makes sense then.
I dont think the range advantage would push the average engagement to those ranges, even with the optic. Im going to cite ww1, when every rifle was geared towards marksmanship and range and could hit targets 2 miles away, but combat usually took place between 100-400 meters. This is literally what led to the creation of intermediate cartridges like the 5.56x45 and 7.62/5.45x39. I personally agree with the vet who said the xm5 would be a better special forces weapon than a standard service rifle.
Maybe a universal receiver version of the rifle that uses the same receiver and handguard, but the bolt, barrel and magazines can be swapped between 6.8 or 5.56.
Fantastic video. Love the boots on the ground input
The situations where a Spear is better than an M4 is pretty narrow. At the expense of fire superiority. I'd say the money is better spent on drones, AT or AA launchers. Updating the Stinger design would do way more good for the money than the small and expensive updates to the M4.
I think the work on a guided missile for the M4 Carl Gustaf has promise. 4 kilos, 2 K range, airburst or contact fuse, laser guided. The program seems to be adding capabilities including top attack and possibly a drone variant that is camera guided. That would work well for all armor other than MBTs, troops in the open, drones, and low flying helicopters. A squad could easily carry half a dozen.
Not really, the Stinger is ancient cold war tech at this point. US Army already has better systems to deal with enemy air these days (not to mention the USAF and its fleets upon fleets of combat planes).
@@someguy3766
Drones are the issue. Troops have to have organic AAA missiles in some form
@@theimmortal4718 The future of anti-drone is lasers.
@@deriznohappehquite
Not for anything less than brigade level. That would be a very large and specialized vehicle. A missile would always outrage it, as it doesn't need line of sight like a laser does.
Anti-drone warfare includes electronic warfare, air defense radars, manpads, airburst autocannon smart rounds, and interceptor counter drones. It's an entire effort.
To small teams on the ground, there's not a lot of options for something that is light, easy to use, with a higher hit probability and range than a guided missile like the stinger. It's still incredibly effective.. Maybe a loitering drone could be designed to do a similar job with less weight and cost. Use the Carl Gustaf as a universal launcher for HE, HEAT, Guided HEAT/ airburst for antitank and anti-aircraft, and a kamikaze drone launcher for long range precision strikes with a 2 Kg warhead.
I think this Ukrainian War has once again shown us that it's the will to fight that is most important.
the 300k to 1 million desperate conscripts Russia will attempt to flood Ukraine with will do nothing as most of them will not want to be there and have no idea what they are fighting for (aside from their lack of equipment).
Look no further than the Donbass militias, fighting for eight years knowing that defeat means genocide.
If you're trying pull off longer range engagements, while keeping overall weight to minimum, and still maintain a larger loadout of ammo....why not switch to 6 ARC? It's a 1km cartridge, not much bigger than 5.56, compatible with the AR platform (only need to swap barrel, bolt, and magazines), and you can carry almost as much ammo. The M5 should be a DMR platform - not the standard issue. Cap - consider doing a video on 6 ARC. I think it would be interesting. I believe the U.S. Military issued a contract for it back in 2020. Would be interesting to see what they did with it?
1:54 DEAR LORD ALMIGHTY.. i must own that calendar. 12 Months of Mullets.
Comments from US infantryman using M4 variants (6.4lbs-empty) being creatures of habit , means they have got used to the lightweight weapon issued to them and the thought of carrying something 50% heavier is going to make their job harder, forgetting the benefits the new tech is bringing them.
The British Army were issued with the Fabrique Nationale L1A1 (semi-auto) self loading rifle (SLR) for many years. The rifle weighed in at about 9.6 lbs (empty) and used 20-round magazine 7.62mm x 51mm round, which when you carry a sh1t load of ammo is heavy. Loads carried often were close to 100 lbs or more. The Brit infantry saw the benefit of range, accuracy, reliability and stopping power of the weapon and rarely complained about the weight.
In WWII, the Brits used the Lee Enfield .303 (7.7mm x 56mm) SMLE rifle. The Mark 1 weighed in at 9lbs (Mark III was 8.7lbs) and again Brit and Commonwealth soldiers loved the range, accuracy, reliability and stopping power of the weapon. The bolt action and 10-round magazine with 5-round clip made the soldier adopt the 'Marksmanship Principles'.
Here were are discussing 6.8mm x 51mm XM5 rifle and of course as an infantryman being asked to carry more is going to piss you off as no one likes change! However, having a weapon with all the benefits it brings, US infantryman will not look back at what they used to use and the complaints about weight will likely diminish over time.
In terms of the weight issue, while serving in mortar troop (81mm), we trialled one of our sections using the 60mm for a period of time. Initially this was received with open arms from the lads as the weights for ‘man packing’ the kit was greatly reduced; the only item which weighed the same as an 81mm part was the bipod (just shy of 13kg) so the number 3 of the crew would dip out (the prof’s of being a new lad). In reality there was a degree of disappointment as the section nominated for 60mm ended up carrying just as much weight as us in the remaining sections which were (81mm) due to the extra ammo the carried, as wherever there was the smallest space, they would squeeze an extra ‘greeny’ (bomb container) in.
The point I’m making here is in reality, troops should be carrying the same weight on exercise and certainly on operations; if you’re carrying an M4, then load yourself up to the ying-yang with extra ammo for yourself and link for the troop/platoon support weapon, because that’s what’s going to keep you and your mates alive when things get lively.
@@GoreTexTillEndEx An infantryman's task is thankless but necessary. Just another day at the office!.
I think that its a good choice. Though most fire fights ar at a closer range they don't have to be with the xm5.
Two fully automatic. 22lr or .17 per squad might be able to cause more casualties to the other side in these types of encounter since more soldiers are wearing body armor. A .22lr bullet into the face, arms or legs can take you out of action. A solider can carry ten times more ammo and can release full auto aim fire to the enemy side. Imagine all those. 22 leads flying into your window while you want to shoot from it.
Holy shit
At the end when you were talking about volume of fire I thought about rifle weights getting heavier. The MG is getting lighter. Then I realized it. The next level is a combined/multi-role MG rifle. Thedebate between rifle with MG ammo and MG with rifle ammo has been a long one, but as they get closer, this intermediate cartridge has blurred the lines. This MG and rifle were the same program afterall. The Marines already have the standard rifle being closer to an MG than a rifle with the M27 IAR. With Infantry Automatic Rifle and XM250 I think we're only 1 generation away from an average infantry MG.
I've been designing a gun recently. Using emerging technologies I was able to get the paper design with a large bipod, XM157 FCS, light, laser, battery, and 42rd mag to 6.23lbs on paper. At risk of losing credibility I want to popularize Magnite. Magnite is a magnesium alloy I've been using on my guns and airsoft. I demand everyone learn about it and try it. My IAR is onlu 6lbs with attachments.
This guy is not only hilarious but the information is obviously well thought out and most of all entertaining. Keep it up
It's the new OP Scourge Of The Pacific. It need a damper insert in the extendable stock. It's sensible to also calibrate the additional mass of the dampener mod to rebalance the suppressor and remember that a battle rifle with a bayonet should be weighted for optimal ergonomics when the bayonet is fixed.
I would imagine suppressive fire concerns could be mitigated by issuing more XM250s. Everyone talks about the XM5 being heavier than an M4, but the XM250 is much lighter than an M249 and everyone I’ve ever heard from, even XM5 skeptics, think the XM250 is fantastic.
So it could be that more people in the squad are issued XM250s for suppressive fire and the XM5 is used in a more precision role.
just my 2 cents here
but I believe we will most likely see the long rifle supported by a shorter range weapon. maybe not a 9m but maybe something like a new 4-6mm large pistol calibre (not what US people call "pistols" )
maybe something like SMG's that bridge the gap between PDW, SMG and carbines for those 100-300 while the 6.8 covers 300-1km
I read that those red plates ( 3:28 ) are rated only for 5.45×18mm fired from 5 meters (Russian Class 2), not for regular caliber bullets from Intermediate cartridge. Thus their on at frontline, so its more like logistic mess that they are there.
Thanks, I didn’t even know red plates like that existed, I thought maybe there were something like a training prop or a rifle range target passed off as armor.
Keep the M4 and integrate the XM 5 to at least 2 per Infantry squad or add an XM 5 squad per Infantry platoon. Nothing was mentioned about equipping the XM5 with an M203 Grenade launcher. To find fix and finish the enemy within 50 to 300 meters is what the combat soldier will have to deal with always. It may start at a distance but one is guaranteed a greater kill at this distance of close quarter battles. The XM5 would be suited for Support by fire suppression from 500 meters to allow teams to maneuver and destroy the enemy.
The XM5 is suited for Special forces who are times have to be accurate for their precision fires and maneuvers, Snatch and grab infiltrations as they are not always intended to stay and secure the battle grounds like the Regular Infantry or Combat units. So there are advantages and disadvantages. I am in favor of integrating this weapon and sights with the M4 in the Army. Do not give the Ukraines this weapon system as it might be used against the US forces someday as either they will get their hands to improve on the technology and make a weapon better than the XM5 which could end up in Russia, China, Iran and Palestine. Greed is a major reason why America has problems maintaining its technology Advances as China is trying their best to get at obtaining our blueprints. US all the way
I sense its similar to 5th gen jets, it makes every other gen largely obsolete as 5th gen can engage targets at 5km out easily. You'll destroy them before they can get target.
They will need to come to you to engage therefore it's generally easy picking.
I don't know the terrain in the region that Ukraine needs to liberate. The weapon makes sense when advancing over open terrain. I guess it seems relevant to a WWI stormtrooper role. It was exceptionally effective for the Germans to equip units for a specialty breakout role in conjunction with other special equipment such as flamethrowers. But those units were designed to breach lines, not to maintain an attack. I don't see it being a Special Forces weapon or a regular infantry weapon, rather, I see it as being a "special assault penetration force" weapon. (Sure, we don't want to call them Stormtroopers because they have never hit a target in Star Wars).
SOCOM is still sticking with the the 5.56 in the Sig MCX SPEAR LT
Imo the ballistic computer will play a huge role. However the trade offs for one round are very high. 6.8 spc or 6.5 grendel would have offered better range and penetration without the trade offs
I found the thing about the Russians and their body armor situation very doubtful.
1. Russia began standard issuing armor back in the 1970s.
2. I have never ever seen a Russian red steel body armor plate; it could be something used for costume or a firing Range target
3. Even the lowest GOST armor plate rating will stop handguns and the AK 74 round.
4. We are never shown where they get these things or them up close in any detail.
5. Given how much legacy Russian style equipment has, Ukraine would have a very easy for them to just find cherry picked examples from their own stocks deemed unfit for use and make propaganda with them.
Non-combat vet here, just an observation/question: assuming the 6.8 round has much better armor penetration, it doesn't matter UNTIL some enemy has armor that can stop 5.56 but not 6.8. As soon as they have that armor, you need the new gun badly, yes?
I'm thinking more small scale precision ammo will be more beneficial.
Think 40mm Pike missiles fired from longer grenade launchers coupled with small ( quad) drones with laser designators as spotters.
Think slightly larger drones that carry a couple of pikes ( Anti vehicle optimized or not ) .
Think 81mm mortar round glide kits both for drones as well as tube fired. Tube fired they also extend the range significantly.
Think of HEAT variants of 81mm mortar rounds to improve capability vs IFV/Tanks.
Think of a family of differently sized suicide drones with decoy drones as well as relay drones to cut into the jamming envellope.
The new optics and NVG ( was in the news about a year ago ) seem beneficial by themselves.
The M5 concept wouldve been better off with a bullpup to allow some extra barrel length to negate the need for insane barrel pressure. Probably in something like an 6.5mm variant.
This 6.8mm itteration seems excessively hot for near universal adoptation.
Love the use of Arma footage. U always got some good content.
The question nobody asked but should have is whether 800m range and computerized optics makes it good *for shooting down drones*.
Otherwise, I get the feeling that having two kinds of rifles would be best imho, or outright keeping SMGs or something similar in the doctrine for environments where short ranged engagements are common and the enemy is wearing effective body armor.
Tt-33 is not in 9mm it is 7.62x25 and that round is known for penetrating level 3a kevlar WITHOUT special ammo, but still bad cuz a rifle plate should stop it no problem
Estimates are 185,000 to 245,000 rounds spent per casualty in the GWOT and I've seen higher estimates than that. Losing 70 rounds per combat load per soldier seems excessive. I think most people see the XM5 as a DMR type rifle or in limited use like the SCAR and i think that's how it ends up.
The XM would be cool for a dm. One per squad with the in field barrel change capacity for cqb. I'd be down.
Give them the teledyne bullpup,the only knock on it was it was a bullpup and maybe the plastic ammunition, but it seemed to work especially in that rifle. Didn't like the cta rifle,too many problems I would think its a rifle not a 40mm cannon.
The debate here is good. At the end of the day the issue comes to confidence. The X 5 spear is heavy but simply awesome. There is no question it is a superior weapon. The ability to kill a man at 800 meters brings back to the days of the 30.06!
Hi Chris. Great work as always. One note. Most men are color blind to one degree or another. When you highlight the info with the yellow it just disappears and I have to take your word for it. You might look for another way to "highlight" that doesn't make it disappear for those of us color blind.
As someone serving in Ukraine id say no. We need more drones, mortars and artillery, DMR type rifles. M14s or SLRs would be great. Anything that can shoot a miles. A fancy next gen AR is just an annoying necklace
Honestly, I think a piston-rifle like the M27 chambered in a 6.8mm round like the SPC would've been a better choice than a full battle rifle, which the XM5 is. The XM5 would probably make a great DMR but it's not what an 'average' infantryman needs.
Somehow I think that a bulk package of M4's with scopes that are 'good enough' such as a basic ACOG and easily sourced NATO standard ammunition would suit Ukraine far better than the XM5 in their current situation. Match that up with decent night vision equipment, body armour and anit-tank systems then a lot of their infantry would be much happier.
Thanks for the informed insights on the new Sig rifle. I hope the pentagon takes a lot of notes.
400m is OK for the M16/AK74. Anything further use a MG. Each squad could have a designated marksman. 800M is out of “danger close”, blast em.
British troops: wait you have weapons lighter than the xm5??
The SA80 is the heavyist standard issue rifle.
As a DMR yes! Looking at current rifle squad, Swap x2 M4’s for M5’s and swap in x1/2 M250’s. Your keeping your 5.56 and swapping out the 7.62.
What WILL happen is the M4’s will be replaced with new Gen 3 MCX.
Still making the same mistakes almost 20 years later, no Id rather be able to get out of the humvee quicker then wear a bunch of heavy cremanic plates which arent going to do all that much against an IED. One of the downsides of the AK-47 was it was heavier then its american counterparts, its just that the upside of being extremely reliable is well the biggest upside a weapon can have. I also remember when I worked for a company and we got choose our own side arms, I always wanted the lighter pistol, my logic was I have the lighter weapon Ill get the first shot off and even if it doesnt crack your body armor its going to knock you down and the second shot will win. Also yeah my "armor" is whatever cover I happen to be around who the hell is having a shoot out like the OK Corral. I mean I think it would make sense as a prototype to battle test and eventual improve the design to make it lighter or take features and apply them to lighter weapons but as far as a general use weapon it just seems like we are making the same mistakes we made before.
I think the XM5 would serve very well for a couple designated marksmen in the squad. But i don't get what every solider in the squad would do with it that they can't do with a higher capacity more nimble assault rifle? If you have a couple of marksmen with the long barrel and 20 round mag and then the rest of the soldiers with the short barrel version with like 30-45 round mags would be awesome. I mean like you say are every infantryman going to be an markman? How are you supposed to do sub 200m low sight engagements in a city with a markman sized and weighted rifle? I'm more than sure that in sub 200m engagement's a lighter higher capacity assault rifle will blow the XM5 to bits fore sure.
I think the point about how the Americans fight (by suppressing fire) is a major point here. This sort of rifle was designed for the way the Brits, Australians and New Zealanders fight. Placed shots rather than emptying a mag at an enemy you can't see, so the reduced capacity isn't as critical. As to that, maybe as one post says here, maybe it would be valid as a designated marksman weapon. But then you get the issue of incompatible ammo selection in a squad. Interesting to see how this will play out in the months and years ahead.
How about 1 javelin that shoots 50 rpgs? Get on it DARPA! I wonder if the longer engagement capability of the XM-5 would have some sideways defensive benefits in reducing the effectiveness in incoming artillery. Since most errors in calling for fire are due to bad range estimation, being able to engage from farther away might compound that and give you another round or two of ranging shots to relocate before a fire for effect slams into where you were. Not by any means a decisive advantage, but maybe something that could help?
Another excellent video.
As a soldier I prefer the lighter weight, and greater ammunition capacity. I would prefer a more robust round but, at the end of the day any bullet wins versus flesh.
I would choose a lightweight modular ak platform chambered in the 6.5 grendel
because cities are getting bigger urban combat streches far over 300m
Of course 6.5 is less powerful then the xm5's 6.8 but nonetheless its a deadly bullet outpeforming the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 by a long stretch which makes a change reasonable because remember you have to log that thing around with a lot of ammo a lot of gear a lot of water tired hungry when morale is at its low then every gramm counts
Agree the grendel or 6mmArc would be equally efficient for any realistic combat distances.
Russian body armor is so rare that we might as well call it non-concequential, therefore we should not give Uk weapons that are a specific trade-off for increased lethality againist body armor. In particular, while the 6.8x51 offers great advantages in terms of ballistics, it also increases recoil and the pressure on ligistics because of the size/weight of the cartridge.
What the Ukranians need are rifles and machineguns that use available ammo and considering a big chunk of the Ukraine army is now composed of low training personel, something with low recoil would help a lot. In other words any ar-15 or ar-18 based rifle in 5.56 would be very useful (and NATO has them in huge numbers). There is an argument to be made that Ukraine has a lot of open fields where a higher level of accuracy and range might be helpful, in that case any DMR or bolt action precision rifle in 7.62x51 (with relative optics) would be useful, especially if you give it to previously capable shooters like hunters or officers.
In general, i think giving XM5 to Ukraine would be impractical and not much effective, it would be beter for the U.S.Army to give them loads of M16 and replace such M16 with M5 in the army.
The 6.8x51 is overkill, the 5.56 is just slightly underpowered. A 6mm 90gr bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient traveling at 3000 fps would of been a good compromise for everyone. 5.56 can already be pushed to 800m in a longer barrel with the right optic (Mk12 comes to mind) therefore a bullet with just a little more would make it much easier to do it (.224 valkyrie for example which can do 1000m)
I've said it before and I'll say it again the biggest difference is not the round but the optic. If you can reach out and touch someone reliably at 100-300m range and have capability up to 800m it's a game changer.
Fire less and hit more the stats for rounds fired Vs casualties in Vietnam were crazy. America was way too invested in spray and pray this looks like the start of a doctrine change. If you think Private Conscriptovich can reliably hit targets with an AK and iron sights at 100m you are dreaming at 300m he might as well throw rocks.
300 Blackout is more versatile round IMO, because you can use quiet subsonic round if you work inside the building or hunting for the enemy in the grey zone (e.g. as part of military intelligence unit). And if you need to extend your reach (up to 500 yards), you switch to supersonic rounds.
But if you are considering confronting Chinese army which is heavily equipped with ceramic body armor, then newer 6.8x51 makes sense.
I'm wondering, how good are supersonic 300 Blackout armor piercing rounds against modern ceramic body armor and how they compare to equivalent 6.8x51 rounds?
I believe SOCOM recently accepted as the M4 replacement the SIG Spear LT. That would be a more practical replacement as it's essentially the same short stroke piston design. They have 3 options of calliber 7.62 x 39, 5.56 and 300 blackout so the only thing that might change is the platform which would gain them more reliability and likely consistent.
@Dick Izzinya It's essentially the same thing but a lighter version.
The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rifle cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle. Under STANAG 4172, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries. Sooo, you spoke of ammo availability and interchangeability.
After thinking about it, "what a waste of money," but the I thought about the requirements to join the service being lowered, not even needing to graduate from high school and most of these new soldiers are what I label the "Call of Duty" generation and something like this new weapon system is needed.
Just figured we'd focus on better cheaper AP rounds than a niche rifle
love how you use ARMA 3 all the time
“Most engagements take place around 300 m.” … when both sides have weapons accurate up to that range. Give one side weapons and scopes up to 800 m and those 300 m engagements will start to change.
no it won't. This is where marksmanship comes into play. If this scope has the ability to detect the wind then maybe, then breathing and trigger control becomes critical. A slight jerk at 100 yards that puts you 1/2 inch off will put you off by at least by 4 inches. So if you are 2 inches off from POA at 100 by 800 it becomes 16 inches. Sorry computerized scope can not and will not make you a better shot.
@@danwilliams5867 Fair point. Still, when the XM5 is adopted, training will presumably also change. Maybe firefights won’t immediately move to 800m, but they may go beyond 300. Especially if the Designated Marksman role gets broader.
The M855 is an excellent round. Increase the HRC hardness if that tip and don't spill money to the war industry. Give an FN20 in 6.5 creedmoor to a pair of sharpshooters and put a pair in every team. Give them FN 2000s for self protection. There. Done. At 1/10 of the designated cost of buying new heavier toys for everyone.
Marksmanship, at distance, is usually a fantastic asset. From elevated positions during ambush and assault, two or three rifleman with these, would be worth there weight in platinum! I always tell my wife she's worth her weight in platinum, her reply "whatever!'
I wonder if soldiers will end up defaulting to using the shorter Raptor version of the XM5 instead of the longer "standard" version for the sake of weight reduction and greater maneuverability, similar to choosing the M4 over the M16.
The kind of rifle that will work well in flat open plains may not be the same rifle that will work well in densely wooded, or urban terrain. Use the right tool for the job.
0:00 such cruel joke Chris 😒😒😒
But I'll still watch this video, to understand, how much opportunities we missed (personally mine ambitions finished at FN FAL (long range weapon, to fight at open terrains of the Southern Ukraine)).
Immediately available substitute would be an
HK 417 with Trigicon vcog 1x8 and some AP ammo.
It brings a whole new paradigm with it