The NGSW M7 Rifle: Just My Opinion on the Next Generation Service Weapon
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssoluti...
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Centurion Discount Codes:
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Fort Scott Ammunition - Code: SAS to take 10% off
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?r...
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410
I think the M7 would work well as a DMR, but as a standard issue service rifle, not so much. The trend over the past two centuries of US military history has seen rifles get lighter and the number of rounds a soldier can carry becoming more plentiful. This does the opposite.
It honestly completely invalidates the M110A1 as it is superior in pretty much every sense.
@@iamtherealrauschguy As far as I know yes that’s true
100%
It lost out to the M110 A1 from HK as part of the CSASS program. I have only shot the .308 version. The barrel had to be tighten down. It was shooting all over the paper. When my armorer tightened the barrel down it shot a little over 2 moa with M80 ball 147gr ammo. It prefers 175 grain however.
@@iamtherealrauschguy That's why I like 5.56mm chamberings
But, if we were to go with a 4.73mm bullet & CT Chambering, we could theoretically carry even more ammo in a SAW-like platform.
Borrow the 4.73mm bullet from the old Schoool H&K G11 project concept, but don't go crazy by trying to go caseless ammo.
That's a step too far and introduces way more complexity than necessary.
Caseless ammo is good for revolvers & Bolt Action Sniper Rifles, other than that, I don't see the value in caseless ammo.
CT ammo is a different beast. IMO, it's the future of Ammo.
Using a P90-esque magazine and a 40" OAL for the platform, you could easily carry 175 rounds per mag. (I've done the the geometry before, it's wonderful how much ammo you can pack)
Design the 4.73mm ball ammo to tumble upon impact like Russian 5.45 mm bullets, and you have a very potent cartridge in a US made 4.73mm CT Cartridge.
More on the 6.8x51, I heard that the training cartridge would essentially be a 6.8 Western round to save the barrels. So the troops will train on a subdued round, and then go into combat with an overpowered round they aren't used to. If true, it seems like a recipe for disaster.
That would be regular sig 277fury standard brass case ball from my understanding but you are correct the high pressure light weight Ammo is for deployment use and everything else like you said thankfully both ammunition is available on civilian market, of course minus the AP rounds.
The barrel lifecycle is said to be 10,000 rounds and it is suppose to have a quick change barrel. The suppressor is basically a tube with holes in it that fit inside the canister. The are no baffles in the suppressor.
@@orlock20 yeah 10,000 rounds but with what ammo? Most of the ammo that they will be using, will be the lower pressure all brass rounds. So is Sig saying that the all brass rounds get 10000 rounds, or the high pressure ammo? Because the barrel life will not be same with both rounds. And what rate of fire is the gun supposed to get that 10000 round barrel life?
@@orlock20 10k rounds is still really bad lol
@@es4583 I'll bet money the average barrel firing even the lower pressure .227fury isn't going to hold 4 or 5 moa after 10k rounds. Especially if the firing schedule is on the rapid side.
"Just" your opinion counts wayyyy more than the store guy selling guns everyday. Thank you for everything, because of you i "had" to buy the Mk12 from PRI and i don't regret it.
I concur with your opinion. I've had a chance to handle the M7 a little and am familiar with some of the advantages and disadvantages of the rifle. The rifle was designed to address the concerns of infantrymen fighting in Afghanistan. This is a case where the guy in the field was wrong. The infantrymen were looking for a solution to their problem right now, not the problems they would face in the future or under different circumstances. Infantrymen in Afghanistan were being outranged by PKMs (surprise, surprise) and they didn't want to leave it to their designated marksmen or machinegunners to respond. They also did not want to give up the maneuverability of a short barrel. The end result is a rifle that needs to withstand enormous chamber pressure to get a bullet to exceed 2,000 ft/sec out of a 14.5" barrel with accuracy and killing energy out to 700+ meters. They also get a rifle that weighs 15 lbs (with the optic) and they will have to carry a third less ammunition due to the size and weight of the cartridge. This is not a rifle designed for large-scale combat operations against a peer or near-peer military, it is a rifle designed to engage insurgents and third-world militaries over open terrain. How would you like to go into a fight similar to what we see in Ukraine with a third less ammunition than you had with the M16-family of rifles?
We always fight the last war.
I agree the average Joe’s complaints from Afghanistan were given more credence this go around. But our next wars won’t be like Afghanistan. Parts of Iran, which is a possibility, might be similar. Current conflicts show World War I type tactics when uncontested air superiority can’t be achieved or heavy urban combat. Neither need universal issue of high-powered, DMR type rifles and loadings.
I’ll play devil’s advocate for the army’s R & D and procurement. I think Russia’s announcement of their Ratnik program in 2013 and limited appearance of components in the 2014 Crimean invasion had more to do with the NGSW program than complaints about range and power from the field. The brass were probably afraid a modernized Russian army with body armor made to specifically defeat 5.56 made them decide a a more powerful caliber was the answer and a great bullet point on someone’s OER. The Chinese were/are also interested in similar upgrades so that may have added to the urgency of wanting a new caliber. It didn’t hurt that the 6.8mm would also calm complaints about range and power from the plebs as well.
What they failed miserably in was realizing that the Crimean invasion was nearly bloodless. The claimed upgrades in armor and capability of the Russians were not really tested. Years later everyone now sees that any of Russia’s planned upgrades were all smoke and mirrors or so limited as to have no effect on the battlefield. Russia and China are also worse off financially today so neither can produce and widely adopt these upgrades if they ever really existed. We know Russian and Chinese bureaucracies are very corrupt and their programs might have never been more than a way to funnel tax payer dollars to private hands for nebulous results that never materialized in the Ratnik program. Which makes “upgrading” to the NGSW moot because the dragon it was designed to slay never really existed.
I don’t have any inside info or special technical experience. It’s just a possibility when you add the timelines of other things going in the world besides complaints from the field right before the NGSW program gained steam.
the rifle is only around 9-11lbs with the optic and suppressor and other crap on it. Don't know where you pulled that figure from. The optic is designed to increase the first hit probability of infantry, something the army has been chasing for 50+ years, and it seems they've finally found it. I would also like to point out that the M7 is not the primary weapon of the NGSW, the belt fed weapon is. The 249, weighing in at a horrific 22lbs, was always intended to be replaced. The infantry rifle is there to simplify logistics, as well as other advantages, such as increased barrier penetration. There is so much misinformation out there about this weapon system it's unbelievable. I don't know where you got your 2000ft/sec stat from either, it's 3000. The war in Ukraine is also nothing like a war a US would fight, it's two very weak armies playing trench warfare. The united states would never be involved in a war like that, ever, especially not against russia who we'd gain air superiority against in a week. Our conflicts will either stay in the middle east, or extend to the pacific. The pacific is the most likely.
Keep the M4 with the ARC or 6.8
@@moonasha, so two pounds heavier than a standard M4. Great! Have you ever completed an Air Assault Ruck with that extra two pounds? Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.
As such, the optic if it does have electronics in it (which it does) will always make the optic heavier. More technology always means heavier weight, not less. So, it is likely heavier than what you are claiming. I will ask one of my fellow armorers at the 101st to weigh it. As I am curious what the actual weight is, rather than relying on Wikipedia or guesses.
As for near peer adversaries, you are correct. It is likely the Pacific. Which means jungle warfare which is typically close in engagements. Personally, I will run the lighter weapon that is able to carry more ammunition. Plus, it allows for more water to also be carried.
@@freddyw4555 That's what I've been saying too. The M$ has come a long way. And is a proven rifle. Just use a different caliber. 6.5 creedmore, has a flat trajectory at distance. So the military can use the new optic created. I think our next war will be similar to what's occurring in Ukraine. If that's the case, then 5.56mm wiill more than suffice. I hate how our govt. doesn't spend "our money" wisely. NO accountability when it comes to the US spending.
The real innovation with the M7 is the composite brass/stainless steal armor piecing cartridge and the "smart optic". These paired together will make one hell of a longer range DMR set up. This ammo can be shared with the machine gunner who uses the same round. The rest of the squad will likely stick with a 5.56 M4 variant.
Overall, agreed. The M7 will likely mostly be used as a DMR. But I think there’s something a lot of people are forgetting. While the army’s only ordered a couple 1000 rifles, they’ve already ordered a quarter-million of the scopes. Add to that the fact that the scope can be reconfigured to work with other rifles (like the M4), and it looks like the army is going to make this their standard-issue scope 10-20 years in the future.
Aside from the cartridge issues, the U.S. Army seems to have a love affair with Sig Sauer and that should be looked at closely.
I agree seems like someone or somebody's are influencing decisions and the other party is making a lot of money off of those decisions is very concerned because even HK has not had that much influence outside of socom.
That they went with the P320 after the drop safety debacle and then gave a rifle contract to Sig for a significantly heavier rifle (that also happens to he their current flagship) reeks of greased palms.
HK: Our MK23 pistol is a beast! I don’t know why the service members leave them behind in their armories.
Sig: 👀 What if we did the same thing but with service members’ rifles? 😁
In HK's defense, they made what the government said it wanted. One could say that so did SIG in this instance.
You do understand that the Army created the round's specifications and put a contract for companies like SIG to design weapons systems around those specifications? SIG didn't create the round they designed their submissions for the Army specifications. So no matter who got chosen the rifle submission was going to way more.
@@Lewis-jn8ry Yes, I do understand that. Do you understand hyperbole?
@@chud1858Yes, we understand what "hyperbole" is. It's more often than not, used by people without anything constructive or germane to add... Used chiefly by politicians, and armchair experts.
Someone received a good OER and possibly a job after retiring. I started with the M16A2 and finished with the M4. The one constant we complained about in the infantry was weight. If this thing is going to be heavy, it will not be popular especially with the new generation. However, the 240B was heavier than the M60, and I think the change was worth it.
I can’t imagine lighter than the M4. Considering the reduction from M1 Garand to the M16A1, i don’t see them getting much lighter. This newer generation really has to man it up! Their gear is a fraction of the weight of their great grandfathers!
@@SmallArmsSolutionsAn example would be something like the Daniel Defense MK18, which weighs under six pounds empty and under eight fully loaded with an optic, weaponlight, and laser. The 10.3" barrel is fantastic for CQB and still plenty accurate to 300+ meters.
As for other equipment, an IOTV weighs over thirty pounds with soft armor and plates, over three for the helmet, a minimum basic ammunition load of around seven pounds, a pound for a first aid kit, a couple pounds for NOD's/batteries, and over six pounds of water in a 100-oz. CamelBak. With a rifle, that's nearly sixty pounds, and we haven't even gotten to radios, food, sleep systems, additional ammunition, batteries, and any other weapons/equipment the mission required. While I respect the hardships faced by our forebears, overall equipment weight for the average infantryman has increased significantly.
The result is I've personally known Marines, Special Forces, Navy SEAL's, Rangers, and many other solid individuals in their late twenties and thirties with joint, neck, knee, and spinal degradation you'd expect in the elderly, all from carrying sixty-plus pounds of gear literally every day for months and years at a time during their late teens and early twenties. Bottom line, combat troops tend to appreciate and endorse any reduction in the weight of our loadout, however "soft" that may seem to all the hard-core operators on the internet. 😎
@@SmallArmsSolutionsgood luck getting that to happen
We agree, mistake. I think we will see Army backtrack in terms of just how large the roll out will be. And SOF will for the most part stay 5.56. Plus according to the Armys' own schedule they're are behind... regular ARMY combats units supposed to start trial phase last jun/July. They are currently sitting in Arms rooms in the 82nd have yet to issued. SF was supposed to start trials last month.
Jeff! Glad to see you here. Also that sounds terrible, shows a little bit of contempt and hesitation to even use the guns for trial.
It's replacing the scar at this point but the doctrine is sound. Accurate Fire Superiority over Fire Superiority, because you out of most of these commenters have first hand experience how pathetic being suppressed with overwhelming smalls arms fire is a non-issue when you're whole team/squad are trained professionals with 4x+ magnification.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZI think the concept is flawed. The body armor justification is bs. We have never up to date in our history come across this type of body armor. It’s an answer to a question that was never asked. The next wars will not be 500 yard engagement. There are limited opportunity to take advantage of the longer range and penetration. Not to justify replacing a more efficient system for actual combat.
@@SmallArmsSolutions My humble ques is that M7 will eventually go a way of the dodo as the data from Ukraine conflict indicates that the current issue assault rifles chambered in 5.56 or 5.45 are still sufficient as the engagements oftentimes take place at close range when clearing out trenches or in urbanized terrain with longer distances being covered by anything else from artillery to drones.
The logical answer to the M9 was the m9a3.
The logical answer for the M4 is to issue mk262. But general officers on Ron Cohens board can't max out profits being logical.
I see the m9a3/a4 being a good option but mk262 is pretty spicy and barrel wear will be an issue. But you're not wrong on the being logical part.
Mk262 isn't as bad as M855A1. 262 is within normal pressure ranges just uses a heavy bullet. @@bmstylee
@@bmstylee It isn't spicy, just heavier, performs better at somewhat longer ranges. I would like to see how much you lose in terms of barrier penetration though, having at least a steel core helps a lot there, the Mk262 loses that.
@@lucastonoli3256 it's definitely hotter than 193 or 855. I was watching Johnny's Reloading Bench when he was doing his mk262 series and there is a ton of powder smoking down the barrel. In addition to throat erosion and barrel wear it will add additional wear and tear to the system eventually beating the gun up. I want a .223 bolt gun just to load a mk262 analog since the Black Hills stuff is really expensive.
@@bmstyleePSI is nearly identical 2-3k from other common 5.56 loads, and 4-6k below M855A1, well within manageable limits with no reports of early throat erosion, at least non that I could fine, if there is one, please do share.
Smoke down the pipe could be to inappropriate powder or primer. Heavier bullets benefit more from slower burning powders.
A smaller cartridge with higher ballistic coefficient should have been utilized. Something like the 6.5mm Grendel would have been perfect. Ballistics are fantastic, and it’s still lightweight and can still be used in an M4 style package.
I could be off base but doesn't the 6.5 Grendel have the potential to break bolts as it makes the edge thin? Or am I thinking of something else.
@@bmstylee I think 7.62X39 does but 6.5 Grendel also probably has that issue due to the case dimensions. Could do what CMMG did though and use an AR-10 sized bolt.
@@jamesodonovan8917 makes sense. I knew 7.62x39 has issues in ar15 sizes guns for a variety of reasons. Bolt face being one of them.
I’ve heard the Grendel does have the potential to break more bolts but also feed reliability due to the shoulder has also been an issue. Even with the 6mm arc it hasn’t been fully reliable although the duramags may solve that.
@@bmstylee the brits had that done and covered back in the late 40s early 50s with the .270 and .280 british cartridges . basically the 6.5 grendel back in the day . but the us threw there toys out the pram and said its the us 7.62 or 5.56 or nun.
now its come full circle back to the 270/280 style cartridges after the brits solved the issue over 5 decades ago
I can see the US military issuing the M7 for all troops in a squad in a specific theater like the Arctic or sub-Saharan Africa, etc. but that's as far as it will go. As you said, DMR use only. I'm expecting some kind of "M4A2" program led by Big Army in the next 10 years that builds on the Block II and URG-I programs of SOCOM.
That's not how the army works at all. If their buying these guns you're going to use them. They're not going to be issuing some squads with m4s and others with m7s for combat MOSs, This Idea that they're just going to make this rifle for certain situations or a DMR is just wrong. They've never spent this much money in the past to put a DMR in every squad or create special weapon systems for large units to use in specific situations when it comes to small arms. Its too complex and then they have to explain why the brand new weapon systems meant for the conventional army are not being used. So no I don't see the army adopting brand new weapon systems to only use them in specialized theaters or roles.
@@Lewis-jn8ry Actually, that's exactly how Big Army works. Rewatch the video re: the M14 - general purpose for a few years, bought in numbers to equip entire divisions, and then essentially relegated to the DMR role, sniping, Arctic stuff, and ceremonial stuff. The Army makes procurement decisions and then the end users adapt to them according to operational need, regardless of cost. How did they explain it to Congress? Operational need.
That is how the AR-platform became the rifleman's weapon, the M14-platform became the DM's weapon, the M60/SAW became the automatic rifleman's weapon. In fact, considerable cost was spent post-9/11 on retrofitting M14-based DMRs for all platoons in the entire force structure. And they succeeded.
Footnote: Designated marksmen are NOT an MOS - they are still infantry. Their equipment is issued based on unit TOEs for their billet/MOS.
I wonder how many times they'll have to be recalled and redesigned, like all of Sig USA's other products?
An expensive disaster in the making.
I wonder the same. Sig has become junk.
Wonder if they'll have the patented sig "drop fire" option?
My opinion is they've never built anything I'd buy.
The MCX and P320 are serving very well in military and law enforcement units around the world. Apart from getting rid of the useless rear charging handle, the XM7 is largely sorted. It won't be perfect, but it undoubtedly offers a whole new level of capabilities.
@@joshklaver47 Yeah, after they were both recalled and redesigned several times each.
I agree that we have reached the peak of weapon design for 5.56.
New cartridge with higher pressures has raised the peak. We are at the begining of a transition to higher pressure weapons, the greatest limitation to the rate of innovation around this advancement will be sig's patent on the cartridge.
It is reasonable to use 6.8 on MG or DMR, but absolutely not on assault rifles. The money that US army spent on NGSW could literally buy every soldier a KAC KS-1, which is one of the best ARs you can find.
I think the cartridge should’ve changed. They could’ve used 6ARK, 6.8, or 6.5 Grendel. These bullets fused with the new polymer cartridge design would’ve been a better choice. They could’ve loaded these rounds at higher pressures, expanding performance.
I totally agree with you. The Spear heavy would make a great DMR. It would've been more feasible to field a Sig LT in 6mm ARC for a replacement weapon for the M4.
Totally agree, Chris. The M7 will go no further than languishing in the back of the arms room of the units that do the user acceptance testing.
Reminds me of the Mk23 OHWS (or the "crew-served handgun" as Chris has appropriately named it). Cool capabilities on paper, but nobody wanted to carry the damned thing. It sat in armories, unused.
I do agree with the 6.8spc idea, a better all around cartridge would be a much better solution to the current problems, now there will be an entire new set of issues. “We’re from the government and we’re here to help” 🙄
Interestingly while Sig used a two piece case in order to get high velocities out of short barrels FN went the other direction and used it to scale down cartridge cases.
Textron's polymer telescoped cases were also a neat idea but until they release a full report on the testing during this program i can't tell how well they actually worked.
@@Clockwork0nions It's odd we don't know the specifics of why they failed. The CTA concept doesn't seem to be dead however because France did adopt a vehicle with a 40mm CTA cannon.
@@2PotatesIt's a real shame as well. The Textron CT solution seemed, to my eyes, like the only solution that truly had merit and may possibly have been enough of an evolution to be worth a completely new rifle.
That said, I suspect Sig primarily won because the Army is in bed with them, so whatever the reason Textron lost, its anyone's guess if its legitimate or just invented.
Took the USMC ten years to release their IAR trial program results back in 2009 and we all know HK wasn't exactly the best nor the cheapest.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ Yeah this is why i believe they probably made the wrong decision.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ IAR trial? I haven't heard of this one.
I think all the focus is on the XM7 while the real advancement is the XM250, which offers a huge leap over the M249. The XM7 is intended for semi auto fire, while the XM250 fills the full auto role for suppressing fire. I agree that the M4 will probably continue to be the most common rifle, and the XM7 is a tough sell.
Congrats on 100,000 subscribers Chris!
Thank you!
As a DMR great, but for the average rifleman I'd stick with the ar-15, and if I could pick any cartridge id get the 300 Ham'r. Ak hitting power in SBR length barrels, all you need is a barrel and mag change. So, if you have a squad all with 12.5 in suppressed AR's shooting 125 grain 30 caliber bullets around 2350-2400 FPS, a few DMR's, one machine gun team, you could cover anything IMO.
The belt fed gun was not meant to replace the M240 and the 7.62. It was meant to replace the M249 and the 5.56 which is completely insane.
Yeah, and as configured cannot be mounted on a tripod, does not have a quick change barrel. Wouldn't be too crazy to fix but the gun is not capable of some things even M249 was.
It's not insane when it ends up weighing half as much, is far more ergonomic, and every soldier who uses it is ecstatic about it. The M240 is an entirely different animal, and is sticking around due to its extreme accuracy, among other things. You can view the NGSW belt fed as an analogue to the PKM, which is generally agreed upon to be the best machine gun ever made, and is used more like our 249. Pretty much all experts agree that the NGSW belt fed is an amazing system and is far superior to the 249. A lot of people here are quite ignorant of the actual facts
The XM250 is very much superior to the 249, but the ammo weighs too much because it is in the wrong role for its caliber. Almost everything you said except for "it's better than a 249" is inane meaningless nonthink@@moonasha
@@moonasha “pretty much all experts agree” code for bullshit
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Sig has versions of the AR that have quick change barrel capability (ie a carry handle attached to the barrel), but they couldn't submit it with that feature because of the Army's weight criteria...in all likelihood, there will be an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to add that to the TDP for the XM250, as well as an ECP for a captured handguard.
As far as tripod mounting, it looks like there is an MLOK slot on the underside of the receiver, just forward of the pistol grip, which would be perfectly placed to allow for a rear tripod mount. My guess is that this MG is tripod capable with removable mounts, which would allow for the capability without the weight cost, as the Army specifically did not request tripod compatibility, but everyone knows this gun will need it.
How about the LMT 16" piston rifle in 6.8spc? The caliber could've gotten a little more development and then replaced the 5.56. Or swap out the 16" barrel for the 12" for CQB. All you need for 500 yard engagements. 6ARC is also a possibility. Let the new and more advanced calibers like 6.5CM, 6.8x51mm, 300 Norma, 338 Norma do the distance work as they are way better at it.
11:00 they really should have just adopted a 6mm ARC upper and called it a day. maybe use something like desert tech's quattro mags to give soldiers more firepower. more rounds down range more effectively is what you need.
The thing is, it's not going to replace the M4. First of all, rear echolon troops, non combat troops are never going to get the M7. Probably ever. On top of that, the M4A1 is always going to be on the rack, similar to how the M14 was still in cold storage, for when someone wants to select a combat platform for a mission, and my guess is that a lot of units that have a choice are going to retain it, especially special forces. I will say, though, M855A1 is here to stay. It's all they're issuing right now. Green tip doesn't exist any more. I don't know if they downgraded the pressure spec however. I couldn't really tell much of a difference between A1 and green tip as far as felt recoil. The M855A1 would probably be fine if they just standardized on PMAG Gen 3 and dropped the pressure on the propellant. I do think the projectile is a big improvement over green tip, and it's still 62 grain, so it still works with existing BDC optics, BZO, and ranges, unlike the 77 grain OTM. I still think the military should have gone with Mk318.
Also, I highly recommend reading Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, among other things, he claims that around 50% of the engagements in Afghanistan were past 300 meters because that's all US small arms doctrine allows for, and that's what soldiers train and qualify for, so the enemy noticed that and started creating ambushes and cauldrons, opening up with mortar fire and PKMs to pin down troops who could not effectively respond. There is a place for a larger caliber in a combined arms force, and there is definitely room for improvement on green tip. But the M7 should be maybe one rifle per squad.
I would also be hesitant to overgeneralize based on Afghanistan, just like I would be cautious about overgeneralizing based on Vietnam. Vietnam was a very dense forest, and those experiences did not and will never equate to combat in mountainous terrain such as Afghanistan. I think it would be wise to include designated marksmen in every combat platoon with a longer range caliber and accompanying optics.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. I believe we should have a battle rifle in the armory for every infantryman if it suits the terrain otherwise from that, the M4 assault rifle is standard issue. The military should have issued MK48s machineguns in Afghanistan or make the M240 the standard as the British did for long distance engagements with 2 marksmen per squad. The M250 looks like a good machinegun that can replace the M249 and M240 in service but I also wonder what's the barrel like and also the parts wear and what cleaning is like compared to the M249/M240.
If only we had a Designated Marksman in the MTO&E with a training syllabus and Additional Skill Identifier, with a choice of 2 different weapon systems to use for the operational environment. 5.56 DMR or Enhanced Performance Cartridge for terrain with longer distances.
If the M16/M4 lasts in service another 30 years, it will be rivaling flintlock muskets in terms of length of service. Remarkable in modern times.
It just may
I think this is spot on. There were many instances in history where weapons technology did not advance, and people ended up using essentially the same stuff for centuries even.
This is a bad decision and unnecessary at best.
Then why should we repeat their mistakes? Now is exactly the time for innovation and adopting new technologies. If not now, when?
@@oleboy7615 Why? state what's bad about it.
@@joshklaver47 it's people like you who get people killed in battle always focusing on high tech rather than reliability, simplicity, repairability, etc.
tech is good, but you have to understand when and how to apply it in a way that makes sense.
technology also evolves exponentially, meaning that the more you improve, teh harder it is and more expensive it is to achieve the next leap in capability. and large leaps become less and less possible to achieve.
@@SoloRenegade Onviously you’re not aware of the track record Sig has for producing firearms that require recalls to fix problems that really shouldn’t exist. They’ve had more recalls on more products since 2006 than all other top tier manufacturers combined. This is an irrefutable fact; therefore, I do not waste time on Sig. The fact that the Army is in bed with them is also a red flag. No thanks! Too many other reputable options today.
Also, the round is stupid. Why not just stick with 7.62X51? Plenty of it and it’s effective. That said, there is nothing wrong with 5.56, especially with the right projectile. The Mk262 is a devastating round and allows more ammo per man. This whole thing wreaks of corruption and failure, which is par for the course. The LMT R20 is a far better rifle, and the 5.56 is fine.
Honestly, I think the M16/M4 family of rifles has come so far and advanced so much, there doesn't really need to be something much different. I do love the Sig MCX, FM-15, and PSA JAKL with their contained buffer systems. I think that was one of the only updates we were really looking for in the AR platform. The 5.56, for all the whining and complaining, still won EVERY SINGLE ENGAGEMENT in Afghanistan and Iraq. The DI system does make the gun run hot, but there's ups and downs to the DI system. In terms of the 5.56, the round does the job it's made to do, and it has the accuracy, and you can carry more ammunition. The round works.
The point about operating systems is very crucial. You have long-stroke (M1 Garand), short stoke (AR-18), and internal piston (M16). We're pretty much at our peak for the moment, until we get something like electrical ignition caseless guns like in Aliens or other weapons of much more advanced technology.
I've said elsewhere, but it's amazing when you realize the fundamentals of small arms technology pretty much peaked 80 years ago between the MG42, the M1 Garand, STG44, AK47, and the AR shortly after. Very little has changed since then... just marginal improvements around the edges.
@@haroldfarquad6886 Yeah. About the only outliers are roller delay blowback (G3 family), lever delay blowback (FAMAS), and roller-locked (CZ-52). Just about everything we have was more or less figured out over 100 years ago and we merely have been making small improvements over time. The most recent game changer was having lights and lasers mounted on a pistol (which quickly spread to long arms) as pioneered by H&K with their USP family. Sure the rail they created was superseded by the M1913 and Glock designs, but they came up with it first.
@@RaderizDorret I'd also add the P90. Having a feeding mechanism like that in that small of package is pretty unique compared to most 'new' guns in the last several decades.
Don't forget the ACR.
You’re absolutely right. The correct upgrade is an M4 or M16 chambered in 6 ARC or even 22 ARC.
Neither can penetrate Level 4 body armor at 100 meters with the first hit or penetrate level 3A armor at 600 meters with the first hit.
@@orlock20
Everything is a trade off. I wouldn’t want to carry around the heavy XM7 and reduced ammo.
Excellent analysis Chris, I believe that just the weight of the rifle itself is a deal breaker. Why didn't they just decide on a 6.8 SPC or 6 ARC upper? The answer, because it would have been logical and cost effective and they don't want that. It's all about the money.
6ARC is the best option at the moment.
Jeff Gurwitch former SF/Green Beret from Modern Tactical Shooting states 6.8SPC kicked like a mule, more than AKMs.
@@ASqdrnDA Yeah, that won't do. It's m14 all over again.
6.5 Grendel ?
I understand a few SMUs have adopted the 6mm ARC and are getting good reviews. An LT in 6mm ARC or 6.8 SPC would be a more viable option in my opinion.
Every video I've seen of anyone shooting it shows immensely more recoil and less control. That alone makes it less than ideal for general adoption. Foolish waste of money to do so and something stinks at Sig with all of their recent contracts. Incestuous relationship there. Good video.
"Incest is a Mortal Sin...!"
They always try to lie (Garand thumb) about the recoil impulse by firing the standard 6.8 round (NOT the military-issue high pressure combat round) and go, “see, look how controllable the recoil is!”
@@hannibalbarca2939yup, the fact they’re not using military spec ammo is very suspicious and surely an intentional act on the part of Sig.
“Cohen”
SIG has been winning lots of contracts with other militaries as well. Could it be that they just make good guns? Nah, must be some conspiracy, right?
Went down to the AMU and got to handle these a bit. A gentleman down there mentioned how during their testing, the barrels were wearing out faster than expected…the rifles were like 12-13lbs, recoil was hefty, optics were cool but complex. After a discussion, we had come to the same conclusion; the rifle makes no sense as every soldier’s rifle, but the machine gun we liked the concept of….they even mentioned how studies have shown that it isn’t necessarily the caliber size of a rifle that helps win the fight, but the amount of ammo that can be carried and fired to allow for suppression, fire and maneuver
Yeah, I don’t understand the claims that with the higher pressure ammo the barrels were somehow not wearing out faster? It would be one thing to claim a new methodology in barrel making, but I don’t know if I heard of anything like that with the NGSW.
@@30wrdy It'd have to be a crazy jump to make a fucking 80,000 PSI cartridge not burn out any barrel.
Love it or hate it this system is an important experiment and a stepping stone to increased range. Range of engagement has a history of increasing, don't bet against it. We are no longer limited by the human eyeball (which is what set the 300m engagement range), we have an information advantage through optics and drones, utilize that advantage to fight unfairly from a range our enemies cannot match.
Even if this rifle fails, the cartridge and pressure increases will remain to be used in the next system.
Yes, and no. Engagement ranges *for infantry* peaked at the First World War, and have been decreasing since, with Afghanistan being a brief return to that peak. Most of the battlefields where you'd have the opportunity for longer shots have now become cities. Which can present long shots, but that is not the bulk of the fighting.
What you're saying makes sense, but the world we live in has become more urbanized in the last 50 years than the last 500. And while the technology showcased here is certainly interesting, I'd rather have seen more time and money dedicated to polymer cases.
@fnzer0 It is important to have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it, like was found in Afghanistan. Of course everything is a compromise, and in this instance little is given up for a large gain.
@@MediiiiccCorrect. I do think there are better ways to skin this cat, like SDM programs, or sticking to larger caliber MGs for the squad. Kinda like what the Brits and kiwis are doing. My qualm isn't having the ability to fight at longer ranges, it is overly compromising the performance envelope most relevant for most conflicts in the name of a niche, if important capability.
Historically rifle calibers have been getting smaller every time, for good reasons. I understand that the advancements of detection technology (thermal, drones) have massive potential to extend ranges in the right circumstances, I just think the situations where infantry will be able to leverage all these elements to take that long shot are sparse enough you shouldn't change every weapon in a squad to suit it.
Just imagine the common 180lb ground soldier lugging around a 12lb rifle with a new 6 lb smart optic on it with a loadout of 308+ weighted cartridges and mags shooting an experimental new round at 70K psi. Sign me up for that!
Not to mention full body armor too. Its a fucking travesty
From what I understand about M855A1, in recent years they’ve reduced the powder charge so it’ll operate at lower pressures and increase the service life.
Agreed. Good analysis. Everybody has dreamed of an intermediate military cartridge between 6mm-7mm as the ideal compromise between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. So greater stopping power and range than 5.56mm NATO, but less recoil and weight than 7.62mm NATO. But when you have to have a special bimetal steel/brass case to cope with greater pressures, a whole new (unproved) rifle/carbine design, and complex optic, the entire replacement program begins to seem impractical and stupid. I also did not know about the pressure issues with the M855A1.
Give me an M16A2 or M16A4 with 20-inch barrel and M193 or SS109 ammo.
This is why the Marines standardized on the M27/38, it wasn't because of "OVERMATCH". The Mk318/855A1 is fine, if the piston M4 is reliable with it. A slightly longer barrel and better optics solve the infantry problem, plus the key part of that is infant, an infantry man is going to break the M7 optic.
It's probably telling that big army isn't actually retiring the M4 and the IDIQ has a low bar that is in the hundreds of thousands, IIRC it's something like 10k.
If they want an all-around gun they need to redesign the current standard upper for the M4. The upper is the limiting factor of the system. If they redesign the M4/AR-15 upper to accept closer to, if not, the LR-308/DMPS Gen 1 barrel extension to give more meat to the bolt for cartridges like the 6mm ARC or the 6.8 SPC to push them harder with more longevity they would have a kick-ass system. 5.56 is at the limit of the case and bolt metalurgy. This is why 6.8 SPC, 224 Valkyrie, 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC have lower SAAMIed pressures than 5.56 NATO. They tried really hard with the 6.8 SPC, but it fell flat with loads of criticism.
This is partly why 300 AAC works well; same bolt, same pressures, and same magazines (for lighter supers). Yes the cartridge is designed to be sub-sonic, but supers are used, and parts don't break any more than 5.56 NATO.
And the lower as well because the magazine well needs to be able to fit that longer cartridge. So, the entire rifle needs to be modified. So... it would just be an AR-10 variant.
@@bobbertbobberson6725 6mm ARC, 6.5 Grendel, 224 Valkyrie, and 6.8 SPC don't need a different magazine well. Stick with the standard lower. Just give me the bigger bolt and bigger barrel extension.
The .300 AAC could be a decent enough answer, but for every single rifleman? I am too "old school" and think that adding different caliber ammunition to the supply train is a problem looking to happen. But I am usually wrong and stuck in how well the AR 15 / M - 16 platform covers so many basic infantry uses, still can be improved, if not significantly "lightened" more...
Sig has said in Podcasts that the M7 on avg has 12.5k barrel life / expectancy . I have not heard them put a number on M250 but they did say barrels will last almost double when compared to FNMI MK48 .
They are using some new vudoo barrel material that's significantly better than HF . Have 0 clue what it called . I call BS and I'll believe it when I see it from an actual reputable source..
I agree 100000000%
Yeah that 12.5k comes from "internal reports", but no actual data to back it up. 4-5k round life is still the only believable estimate.
I also seen some people claim their barrels are made from the same material used in SpaceX rocket boosters. Just ignore the fact that Sig has listed the barrel material as being the same as all their other rifles in the past.
@@DeusMalleus I would say possibly less considering 6.5 Creedmoore barrels don't even last that long and that's a much lower pressure round.
@@2Potates and those people just show what they're smoking cause metals used for sintering the rocketbells are titanium, nickel, stainless, and copper, chosen not for pressure performance but thermal characteristics lol
I hate marketing
Agreed. Seems like a mighty fine rifle, but just not for general issue. Nice Fulton you got on top of the safe.
Various points in no particular order:
1. The primary appeal of the M7 program for DOD isn’t turning troopers into long range DMR shooters, but instead defeating next gen body armor.
2. I bet within 10-15 years, US’s major near-peer adversaries also field 2-piece, hyper-velocity ammo.
3. The arms race never stops. Not so long ago, the US Military owned the night. We certainly don’t have a monopoly there anymore, and that is reflected in the military’s emphasis on passive NODS. Why? The red team can see the NV floods. In that same vein, DOD is very concerned about body armor.
4. The M7 isn’t really a rifle program as much as an ammunition program, with a rifle built around it.
5. Predicting the demise of the M7 program mathematically isn’t really going out on a limb. Historically Most programs get cancelled. But time will tell. Looking at how F’ed up the M16 program started, anyone who predicted a M16 derivative would be in service 60 years later would have been committing professional suicide. So time will tell.
6. But…you said the M4 will be around another 20 years. I don’t disagree, but when that day comes, the writing is on the wall a replacement rifle will be much more like the M7 than the M4. Better to start that shakedown now.
7. It’s been my professional observation that suppressing 30 cal AR’s has always been a borderline disaster. It seems the M7 was designed from the ground up to be suppressed. This is a good thing.
8. The M7 in essence is an AR. People can quibble about the gas system, or the maker’s plate, but their real complaint is actually about the ammo.
9. The arguments about longer range shooting and the last war in Afghanistan are completely wrong in the DOD’s eyes. They see future major combat happening where the bulk of the world’s population lives: in mega cities. Not the Fulda gap. And contrary to popular assumptions about all urban warfare being room to room distances; thoroughfares, bridges, squares, roofs of buildings, etc provide ample “long range” opportunities past 300 yards.
As a matter of fact, the average 1 stoplight town has beyond 300 yard shots all over the place. Now imagine municipalities like Baghdad or Gaza City. Sure. Room to room is a thing, but as soon as one steps outside, engagement ranges could EASILY and instantly be 600 yards or longer.
Summation: the primary complaint people seem to have about the M7 is that it’s not an M4. Which I suspect was the idea.
People hated the M16 until they didn’t. People hated the M9 until they didn’t. A lot of people hated the 1911 until it was replaced, then everyone got all
Nostalgic.
Let’s wait and see what happens.
Regards,
Marky
John1911
You grasp the idea unlike most. And you hit the nail on the head, people want a 68arc. Or 6.5 m4 but fail to see that the Army already tested that and arrived at this for what they see coming next with combat. My only hope is that the Army puts in the $$ for proper training as well.
@@boblawblaw892 Time will tell. Programs die all the time. The Navy’s stealth fighter-bomber. Zumwalt destroyers. The Seawolf Submarine. The Sgt York AA system. Irrespective of that, the fundamental weakness of most of my gun peers is they look at the M7 from a gun enthusiasts perspective, not from a major war perspective. Civilians worry about AI and terminators taking over the world. Generals worry about fighting a near peer war where any center mass hit with a rifle is stopped. If the M16 is essentially the same over the past 60 years, just take a casual look at how much body armor has changed in the last 25. There are people in the basement of the DOD who are completely freaked out by this. -Marky
The XM7 is a great DMR, it would be great for missions with longer engagements, but no way will it replace the M4
The US government had the LSAT programme (or program for my American readers) going for well over a decade - including both rifle and squad automatic weapon flavours, and it worked. It was good. They chucked tens of thousands of rounds of polymer-cased CTA bullets downrange through both types of guns, so they knew it was a valid weapon programme, and junked all that accumulated knowledge and testing out of the window in favour of a rifle that gets outshot by a Brazilian PARA-FAL. Which is cheaper.
Point of order:
The 6mm SAW worked very well, but political & fiscal considerations killed it. The Army didn’t want to spend a bunch of money rechambering newly built weapons (this was the 70’s after all) along with the fact that they just bullied NATO into adopting yet another small-arms cartridge. Pressuring them to adopt a THIRD caliber in such a short period of time would’ve likely led to open revolt amongst NATO members.
This is not about caliber size to put a larger hole in a person. This round is made against a threat where a smaller hole will be made. The bullet is meant to house the tungsten penetrater. The tungsten then penetrates the armor and enters the body of the enemy. Bullet resistant body armor in mass is a new concept on the battlefield.
I would think this is backdoor method to move to the MCX platform. Probably most infantry will be moved to the MCX LT rifle while the M7 will be for designated marksmen and some of the Rattler type rifles in 300 B.O. for spec ops.
Spot on, perfect analysis - I had the exact same thoughts on this rifle, the program, the whole thing. The U.S. military establishment for lack of a better word goes through this cycle of forgetting the reason behind certain weapons development at various times. Why go with the M-14 when the writing was clearly on the wall at that point with the Stg-44 and AK???
The military and government aren't in the business of giving soldiers the best. They're in the business of making sure their defense contractor buddies get their paydays, and that said payday is reciprocated.
I think the real purpose is to defeat armor plates on the home front, where artillery, drones, armored vehicles, and air strikes aren't a viable option.
And even for that scenario I don't see the value. 99% of civilians don't own ballistic armor.
Even if they did, they are not going to have the ammo on person to sustain any ad hoc engagement. A random civilian with 4 magazines is already carrying more ammo than a full load out of xm7
Tinfoil nonsense.
Total rubbish. The only time you deploy the army or the guard in the US is to put down civil unrest and in the worst case scenario it's always been poor minority communities crushed under the jackboot. Not paranoid white dudes with gun collections who have completed a tour of duty in Whitemanistan.
Plates on the home front? Like sand bags or those clay fences they had in the ..stan? Even 50 cal had trouble with those at times, if that's what you mean.
This is an example of people who don’t understand the history of small arms, aren’t gun guys or gun culture, that are talked into what they think is a good idea. Same thing happen on sniper rifles.
Big A had basically is getting a new belt fed and the rifle just was tagging along its simply a matter of change in doctrine similar to what the German army was doing in ww2
I think the development of the 6mm arc is a game changer for the ar-15 platform.
It takes advantage of modern bullet technology, and seems to be a good balance between extending range and increasing nock down power without having a bigger rifle.
There are governments that produce the best weapons they can to meet the perceived needs of future conflicts at a cost they can afford. There are other governments who produce weapons to fill a gap in the last war they fought at a cost that is prohibitive.
Sig is deep in bed
Which is bad for us civilians. They can be strong armed into doing things not in the interest of the civilian market if they feel their military money is threatened.
I wish the government hired you for your military arms expertise. America's military would be much better equipped.
I agree with those facts. After serving 30 years in the military, it seems that most of the military improvements to weapon systems and small arms cost more with little benefit.
One of the supposed reasons for the new round was to defeat body armor which doesn't seem like a valid expectation. The idea is that in a near-peer fight the adversary will be fielding armor similar to ours. We've seen in Ukraine though that Russia isn't actually issuing body armor and those that have it are buying their own (and hoping it's not stolen before they reach their duty station). I'm not sure what China is issuing but it doesn't look very likely that a conflict with them will be on land, it will be naval & air. Additionally I'm not confident that the new .277 round will even defeat current Level IV at ranges beyond 100 yards, much less "any existing or proposed" armor. All in all it seems we're sinking a lot of money into a system that won't do what they claim and will fall short of what we already have.
we can easily defeat modern body armor with special sabot projectiles. Obviously if we had such a projectile, we're going to keep it a secret until the next war breaks out.
The Chinese are mass-issuing functional body armour, and the Russians are very slowly doing the same. The penetration capability of the new AP rounds is still classified, but most likely it will punch through current armour quite easily with tungsten or hardened steel core ammo. That isn't the main reason for adopting the 6.8x51mm, but it may come in handy.
@@joshklaver47 The scary part is that the Chinese are letting us beta test their products for them
The line I was hearing at first was that it was supposed to defeat level IV plates without the use of tungsten sabots. This is a good idea. Tungsten is a strategic resource and there are far better uses for it than for PV2 Snuffy to shoot into the dirt.
But that capability never panned out.
@@mr.stotruppen8724 It was never really feasible to shoot through ceramic armour with standard ball ammo, unless velocities were pushed to insane levels, like 5,000 fps. It's probably possible with hardened steel penetrators, but not with any lead or mild steel core ammo.
I really think the FN IWS .264 LICC is going to be the next service rifle and the XM7 will be a DMR/SASS
I said the same thing. It appears to be FN copied some Robinson Arms XCR's homework. But that gun looks badass
Im just getting into first AR im a FNFAL and AKS.
But growing up watching the vietnam war on the eavning news every night im really wanting that M-16 clone.
Like i said im new to this channel but i greatly appreciate the no nonsense presentation back by knowledge of the topic.
I haven't dug through your library yet somthing on the FAL and mini14 would be exciting.
Thanks for sharing.
The M - 16 is still good enough and the iterative improvements as well as dedicated accessories make it versatile enough to keep going till we get a rifle that truly takes a full step up from it's capabilities.
I remember an A&E Mini Series on the history of firearms from the 1990's. In one segment, I remember Ian V. Hogg, saying that the modern military rifle had by then been so perfected as of that point, that in order to come up with anything better would take a hell of a lot of research and a hell of a lot of money. Well, the US Army has spent a hell of a lot of money, but they haven't gotten anything worthwhile in return.
Pretty sure Sig wasn't the one who specified the cartridge pressure and velocity that results in the YET TO BE SEEN barrel life issues. The optical unit is NOT going to require a college degree to use and isn't Sig's fault anyway since they aren't producing it. People here keep whining and complaining that the new rifle isn't good but the requirements are the thing that's all messed up, not the companies who met the requirements.
You are correct. Sig gave the Army exactly what THEY wanted.
TY I placed my order for your book Americas Rifle this afternoon your knowledge about this platform is incredible TY for all you do
I have no say in this for sure, but as a lowely former US Army Infantryman that served in OIF, I don't see the reason to keep trying to replace the M4. It works and can be easily modified for use and mission. It is also easy to work on for the unit level if needed.
Two guys are dukeing it out in a building. Both have level 4 armor. One has an M4 and the other has the M7. The guy with the M7 has a much better chance of winning, because the level 4 armor is useless at that range against the M7.
I love the AR10 gun. But you are right. The M4 just can be evolved to any basic role.
Completely agree about the 6.8 SPC. I don’t know why the 6.8 never caught on, it delivers more energy on target in the same size weapon platform with the same amount of ammunition and similar effective range.
I heard they were basically married to this new 6.8 round to achieve their goal of reliable success against enemy (or civilian) armor
I still haven’t seen anything to convince me that the new round is able to defeat common armor. Level IV stops 30-06 AP rounds point blank. That’s a tough round with a hardened penetrator. Even with the higher pressure it’s probably going to be around the same velocity as 30-06 because of the short barrel.
I think the 5.56 MCX is the next level improvement after m4,
Very solid points Chris. Your comments on the M7 barrel longevity are correct, with reports of sustained full auto use dropping its life to sub 1k. Also regarding current and future development of the M4 platform, it's really going to be incremental improvements from here on. Great video.
Too powerful for regular human, too weak for regular human in armored power exoskeleton.
Yep - .300 Blackout *might be* more of a thing for powered and armoured exoskeleton use... maybe
With optics, suppressor, and magazines I think it will be over $10,000.00++
I think he was giving the contract price that the government would pay per setup. Way lower than what civilians would pay
We should have just went with the FN SCAR that had different versions for different theater of operation.
I'm sorry, but chopping 12 inches of barrel off an M16, then shoe horning it into roles it was never meant to perform in, was never going to end well. It's time that the M4 return to its original intended role as a rear echelon rifle. The M7 seems better in pretty much every way, from the fact it's issued with a silencer, to the fact its optic is as generational a leap as the original ACOG was. The M16 was an amazing system when it had 20 inches of barrel pushing that projectile. It was turned into something it was never meant to be, and stoner would certainly be horrified to see what was done to it. I for one am excited to see how tactics will change with the M7, and the idea of your entire squad basically having the capability of DMs.
12 inches? Interesting math.
@moonasha Iyou and I are the only ones in the comments that have the same line of thinking. Everybody else is stuck in the now and not looking at how combat has changed and where it's headed. 20 years ago we started mass issuing body armor, 16 years ago we started mass issuing optics. And around the same time we started mass issuing NVGs to nearly every body. Those 3 things alone changed how we fight. And so will the M7 /M250.
M7 is an example of the classic saying that generals plan to fight the last war. Future conflicts may not be like Afghanistan, but we’ll have rifles to engage from mountain top to mountain top in a conflict that might need something for door to door.
The last war is their most recent large cache of new information. If you don't learn from it and correct problems that you know you have, what are you relying on? All progress is achieved by standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us. Reading tea leaves is a fine skill to have... if you can really do it.
Agreed: However I feel that the 5.56x45 cartridge still has allot to offer especially with modern propellants, metals, etc just someone needs to do the R&D instead of trying to make a wonder caliber. They should put that effort into the 5.56, instead of trying to replace it
Yes and don't neuter the barrel length. 18"+ makes it a fantastic cartridge.
I thought the very same thing you just talked about in this video back when I first heard about this new program, it’s just nice to hear it come out of the mouth of a professional so I know I’m not alone in my thoughts on it, lol
I want an investigation into why every weapon system is now being made by sig. follow the money and let’s see which retired generals are getting paid.
There is another new caliber floating around for military trials. It’s basically taking the 6.8 concept, and making a 6.5 with more case capacity than 5.56… I cannot remember what it’s called at the moment… But I liked the idea, I have personally felt something like that would be a good option for general issue.
Hope you report back your findings because that does sound VERY interesting.
@@ASqdrnDAI think he's talking about the FN .264 LICC.
.300 AAC will handle most DMR and squad machine gun duties, can work with existing rifles with an unit to change upper receiver and barrel, and is not super expensive or super high pressure...
About Afghanistan - they used PKMs to reach out, and every time US military tried to answer with a rifle. Just stupid.
Precision was Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles
We should use the MCX platform but with a 6mm arc, 6.8 SPC, or my favorite 277 Wolverine (my favorite) All using the new hybrid case bump up the pressure a bit for the longer ranges they are “worried about.” The XM7 becomes the DMR and the XM250 is the replacement for the M240 and 249.
Honestly I think they were trying to make something that would go through level 4 armor. Considering how rare that is in other armed forces, it's a bit of a head scratcher.
Let's say this is a 50-year rifle. 50 years is the difference between the bi-plane and the F-15. There is a big race for body armor and "light weight" remote controlled weapon systems. Those bullets might be piercing robots in a conflict 40 years from now.
The way the US gov treats the m4. Its the equivalent of a man trying to cheat on a unatractive but loving and caring wife. But the man is unable to find a girl to cheat with and is stuck with the wife who deserves better then such man.
The m4 deserves way more respect then is given.
The M7 rifle is for front line troops fighting a war against guys with body armor. No body armor and no long range shooting most likely means no M7 on the battlefield.
I think there are some in the army who are just really afraid the 5.56 won't be affective against Chinese body armor.
The Chinese don’t issue that armor
Thank you for your observations. Unlike sooooo many, I don’t feel the AR - M4 is the end all and the 5.56 is not either. It disturbs me that we can’t seem to build something better and that the selection process is anything anyone could be proud of.
Looking forward to seeing how this pans out, the new rifle. I think it will probably be killed, restricted, limited by Congress directly or by Congressional limits on military spending in general.
Just a guess on my part after decades of watching weapons projects produce nothing meaningful in the long run.
We did build something better, and now we're adopting it.
Firearms have simply reached a technological plateau. Once you have semi-autos, full autos, and select fire; then you can't really do much to improve the weapons themselves. You can improve the optics. You can change the materials you build the weapons from. You can change the ammo you chamber them in.
The entire NGSW program began because of classified congressional hearings. Very unlikely they will axe it.
The wait is so long between new videos we all need our Small arms solutions fix.
I'm not really an AR guy, but it speaks volumes for the weapon system that it's survived this long being surrounded by bureaucrats and corrupt officers, hell-bent on ruining it and replacing it in the name of a juicy advising position, post-retirement.
I agree 100% if you look at Ukraine. Small Arms mean little on the battlefield but when they do its who can deliver the most rounds the quickest that wins the fight.
Sometimes I think getting rid of the US Ordnance Dept. was not a very good idea.
I agree, I have 2 6.8 SPC ARs and love them. Most mags hold 28 rounds and some 30. The recoil is just a little more than the 556 and far less than the 308 IMO. I have talked to a one person that used some test weapons in the Army some years back in the 6.8 SPC and said Full Auto was controllable about the same as 556. Time well tell if we are still in the game down the road. At the rate this Country is going down there may not be a concern or reason to even care sadly. Great video as always, I really enjoy your channel and contribution put out.
Should have chosen the 6.5 Grendel, better cartridge, better range, better stopping power
6.8mm SPC. It works well in full auto, Grendel does not. One company I worked with tried this. Grendel just was not reliable due to the case configuration
My personal gripes all stem from design. I've dedicated an unhealthy amount of time researching known firearm mechanisms, their strengths, and their weaknesses.
The AR platform as we know it was explicitly designed around recoil control and marksmanship. As time went on, the AR-10 has proven to be the objective best design for a DMR role.
The AR-15, in my opinion, is a wee bit over-engineered for its purpose.
Meanwhile, there is a reason the AR-18's internals are the most copied worldwide. It's simple, flexible, and easy to modify for specific purposes.
The AK platform, despite falling short due to an obsession with tradition, has the benefit of simplicity on its side, making it really easy to just chuck into the hands of some drunkards you need to conscript.
The piston setup of the SCAR that the M7 inherited is just not meant for rifles. On an LMG, it is a far more consistent and robust system than long-stroke, but on a rifle it just makes the weapon perform worse.
The M7 doesn't feel like a purpose-built weapon. It feels like they took an M4, gave it a bunch of features that they thought they'd need, then sent it.
They wanted it to hit super far away so they gave it new fancy ammo and a fancy new scope.
They wanted it to be small so they gave it a short barrel.
They wanted it to be "more reliable" so they gave it an LMG piston setup.
Too mant conflicting features all in one gun. I just hope it's good enough that it won't get anyone killed.
As the saying goes, US generals always fight the last war.
Also to be clear, the real/main issue isn't the actual rifle itself (aside from the usual SIG stuff such as build quality and design problems). It's just an enlarged MCX which is just a warmed over M4 with a more AR-18 derived operating system. So its same/familiar enough to their bog standard AR-15 that it doesn't scare the Americans. The problem is the full size ultra magnum powered cartridge being made to be a standard issue replacement of the 5.56x45 for regular infantry.
Should've built a rifle around the m855a1, if we're gonna increase the pressures anyway, why not stick with the 5.56 and put +70kpsi chamber pressures on that.
Couldn’t agree more. No way I’d wanna turn in my M4 for this Bigass thing. For the life of me I can’t figure out how 6.8 SPC hasn’t gained traction
I think the optic is as close to idiot proof as it could be. It has a range finder built in that adjusts the zero based on the range. I don’t know if it will get the average soldier to engage at 600m, but the auto adjusting reticle and the 1-8x zoom means that switching between close and long range enemies will be easier. Even if the tech in the scope is damaged it still has an etched reticle so worse case scenario it becomes a 1-8x ACOG.
I don’t think the rifle will be brilliant in close quarters. The rifle was designed to have easily replaceable parts. The barrel might not last long but they planned for that. Maybe that makes it more of a waste of money.
The British KS-1 seems neat.
Anyone remember watching Aliens from 1986? Even the Colonial Space Marines still had M16's in their armory racks. . . In the year 2179. . .
So yeah, the M16/M4 is gonna be with us for a long time to come. 🤪
And a pump action for close encounters…
All infantry weapons should be chosen by E5's with combat experience or their equivalents . Exceptionally heavy weapons and heavy and expensive ammunition is a crazy rifle from a non grunt's dream.
This rifle is about the same weight as a decked out M1 rifle. There are many anti-tank missiles that cost as much as a house and the full price per hour of flight in a jet fighter can buy a car. I don't believe they care about costs unless it's about getting rid of black mold and having clean drinking water.
In my opinion, the best caliber for a assault rifle is 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel. In my country Serbia the military wont to switch from 7.62x39mm to 6.5 Grendel. In think the new Sig rifle is awesome, but the caliber is not optimal. Best regards from Serbia.
Your Zastava is beautiful!
It is interesting that there is a military out there that actually uses 6.5 Grendel now.