Navy SEAL's Thoughts On The New SIG SAUER XM5 Rifle
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2022
- Retired Navy SEAL, Mark “Coch” Cochiolo, shares his thoughts on the new SIG SAUER XM5 rifle.
The SIG XM5 is the U.S. Army variant of the SIG MCX Spear, a 6.8×51mm (.277 in), gas-operated, magazine-fed, assault rifle designed by SIG Sauer for the Next Generation Squad Weapon Program in 2022 to replace the M4 carbine.
TACTICAL HYVE LINKS
- Tactical Hyve Website | tacticalhyve.com
- Marksmanship Standards | go.tacticalhyve.com/marksmans...
FOLLOW US
- Instagram: / tacticalhyve
- Facebook: / tacticalhyve
- TikTok: / tactical.hyve
RECOMMENDED
- CCW Safe Insurance | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/c...
- Dry Fire Mag | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/d...
- Mantis Blackbeard | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/m...
- Mantis X10 Elite | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/m...
- Mystery Ranch Backpacks |
- NeoMag | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/n...
- Nutrient Survival | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/n...
- Tenicor Concealed Carry Holsters | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/t...
- Safariland Tactical Holsters |
- Vedder Holsters | tacticalhyve.com/recommends/v...
VIDEO EQUIPMENT WE USE:
- Sony Alpha 7S III Camera: amzn.to/3xkspGD
- Sony FE 24-70 mm Lens F2.8 G Master: amzn.to/3O4jqjK
- Ronin-S Gimbal: amzn.to/3O2MlVg
- GoPRO Hero 10: amzn.to/3tsNbTo
- GoPRO Max: amzn.to/3O4M6cr
- Sennheiser EW 112P G4 Lav Mics: amzn.to/3ttXYNn
- Rode Microphones Wireless GO II: amzn.to/3tvNkW9
(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Tactical Hyve will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to create more content for you! Thank you for the support!)
#tacticalhyve #sigsauer #navyseals - Sport
As usual, Coch is level headed and practical in his analysis. Great job,
Right on.
@@TacticalHyve what is you're opinion on the United states GOV lying about the "killing of Osama" hmmm ? seal team 6 KILLED A BODY DOUBLE... show me 1 JUST 1 front body picture and ill give you EVERYTHING I OWN.
Well. Here are some other level headed and practical analyses you may enjoy...
Goody bye M16! Military Adopts the M5 rifle and 6.8x51. Are they crazy?...- czcams.com/video/nzxA2XnqZ_k/video.html
Army Veteran’s thoughts on the Next Generation Squad Weapon...- czcams.com/video/sWCmde3B4sk/video.html
XM5 Spear. Did the military just make a mistake?...- czcams.com/video/ZHHWGFaCKIk/video.html
Except he has no experience with the weapon that he is analyzing lol.
For real. This was a great video.
When I went back in time to 1914 and briefed General Pershing and the War Department on this new thousand yard rifle he and they were very pleased.
General Pershing was a great man, do not mock him!
The full powered 6.8 AP might have been able to defeat some of the early WW1 tank armour too.
@@Future-Preps35 Im still mad at my Dad for selling his at a pawn shop in the early 2000's. The owner bought it for himself.
And they said, "just like the Springfield, only better!" Grandpa went after Poncho Villa with him. "Hero! Hero!"
Just as I expected
I work at FN America and love my job and what I do. The only thing I had a problem was when they put a gun system in the hat for the replacement. They put the SCAR HAMMER, and that's like a 20 year old system and I knew they would not get picked. But we still make damn good weapons! And that's good enough for me! Love the break down!
FN makes good stuff! I'm still a Wilson Combat fan!!
I trust FN to make 240Bs and 249s but the scar is the firearms equivalent of abandonware. Every problem with it can be solved with aftermarket parts but FN hasn't touched it in 20 years because they know all they need to do is the bare minimum to sell
No, you make good weapons for Belgium.
@@onseki1774 Yep! F*ck them.
Don't fix what ain't broken. They should have gone with the scar. Something is up with sig saur they're picking up every single government contract.
This is one of the few takes that understands this new system. M4s aren’t gonna get retired. They will still have their use mission dependent. The M5 brings back the battle rifle capability. More important new systems imo are the new light machine gun and sniper rifles.
army literally stated the M4s will be kept for non frontline combat use while M5s will become the general purpose combat rifle for frontline infantry. so yes m4s arent getting "retired" will still be in inventory, just not issued to the guys up front because if you get them trained at M5, that wouldnt translate well to M4 and vice versa.
Yeah. I expect this comes with a structural and tactic realignment of the military. The m4 will be kept around for Urban Combat.
But the US has started to seriously consider what a War with a Near Peer would be like, and they realized Urban Combat is not going to be as large of a factor as it has been. You don't need to clear a building if you can level that building with drone strikes.
@@darkhobo " if you can level that building with drone strikes." We're now seeing drones drop mortars\grenades and are even sometimes designed to Kamikaze into targets[possibly one tank in Ukraine KO'd from one]. Soon if we don't already have them we'll have those smg or assault rifle UAVs floating around skirmishing against units like those things from "Dark Angel". So I guess take a cold war style Big army Vs Big army fight and add a drone element to it? That's wild.
They're de facto retired. Infantry guys don't get to pick their kit and their kit is never "mission dependant" they get a bologna sandwich and they're told to like it
Ah yes the new LMG is definitely much better. That was desperately needed. Not sure about the rifle though.
I've been told troops will train with low pressure rounds and fight with high pressure rounds. I hope not. I remember the lecture we received about the infamous Newhall shootout that left four California Highway Patrol officers dead. It was partly blamed on their training, which included the use of low pressure 38 Special loads on the range and high pressure 357 Magnum loads in a real gunfight.
The Army has indicated that they are interested in developing a reduced power full-auto/CQB round that will more closely match the recoil of the training round.
There are now three rounds. The high pressure round the military is using. The FMJ lower pressure training round and a low pressure hunting round. See the Forgotten Weapons video on the subject.
I think once barrels start burning out and parts start breaking, the FMJ "training" round will be the standard issue.
Most engagements aren't at distance and that's how the 5.56 came about in the first place. I also don't think the gun will be as controllable in full auto with the high pressure round as they are trying to make us believe.
The difference is the optic. The optic the Army chose will be able to compensate for the different round being used. It has a ballistic computer built into it, so selecting the ammo type I'm sure will be a part of it.
@@1957robertjohnson completely reasonable analysis, but like ian himself said, when running in these higher power rounds the army considers the rifle itself to be more expendable under combat conditions, thus the reliability of the thing, at least under relatively short periods of time, isn't as much of a concern. Also shown is that the barrel itself is easily changeable and there's only so many parts that have to handle that 80,000 psi of pressure. I'm on the fence about it myself but it seems like the rifle is built to create workarounds for this issue
@@1957robertjohnson The entire problem with the 5.56 underperforming is that it was NEVER designed for 11-14" barrels, it was designed for 18-20".
20" vs 14" is a drop in 17% energy, at 11" its a drop in energy of ~36%.
Its why 5.56 bullpups are generally a good idea, you can have the barrel length of 18-20" with a carbine length non bullpup of 14"
"Tack hammer, framing hammer, and sledge hammer."
I wish the generals and admirals could grasp this concept.
The XM5 has both sledgehammer and framing hammer covered. The support troops would still have the tack hammer.
I agree that the military needs to understand that we need rifles for the mountainous terrain and urban terrain.
In a perfect world, of course. It would be much better to have one rifle and cartridge for urban settings, another combo for open terrain, and another for whatever other application. However, introduction of different incompatible systems in the same unit exponentially complicates production and logisitics efforts. By trying to get the perfect tool for each application, you might end up losing the war.
Firearms are ultimately tools, so your comparison makes sense. Just as a skilled tradesman has a variety of tools for a variety of tasks and jobs, so too should the infantry soldier. Why is it so hard for the brass and policy wonks at the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace to comprehend that fact? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all weapon, at least not one worth adopting. You figure ordnance would have learned that lesson with the M-14 rifle, which was supposed to replace weapons firing everything from .30 Carbine to .45 Auto to 30-06! The guys who drafted that wish list, what were they drinking and smoking? I'd like to know! Because that was some seriously screwed up thinking. It appears that the 21st century Pentagon is going to make the same procurement mistakes as so often in the past. They could have adopted 6.5 Grendel and been done already, and at a fraction of the cost of this program and with better performance and lighter weight. But no, they had to choose the most-expensive, least-practical option.
Driver = sniper rifle. Battle rifle = 3 iron. Assault rifle = 7 iron. Pistol = putter. Now an admiral, general, or even a politician can understand.
I did my military service using 7.62x51. They were deadly to carry. In a contact situation however, that bullet went right through trees making "cover" more difficult to find. When we moved to 5.56, it was great to carry more ammo but the hitting power was always viewed as "iffy" by the old school. A modern 6.8 is probably the best compromise particularly with the higher chamber pressures achievable these days. Whether the Sig is the weapon, I dont know. I think the power rail could be significantly redesigned to make it less bulky. What I do like is that it is not a bullpup as the magazine changes when you are flattened as low as you can go with rounds overhead, I guess I just grew up getting to absolutely love the FN style 7.62
This guy is awesome. So down to earth, and shares some great thoughts and experiences. Well done 👍
Very interesting to hear feed back from someone who got a hell of a lot more training than the usual line grunt or Three gunner.
Your feed back is amazing and frankly is helping me check myself in how I portray some things in a project I am working on.
In my opinion the Army needs more than one rifle. Fighting ridgeline to ridgeline in Korea this makes sense urban combat perhaps the AR makes more sense.
I agree entirely.
Logistics is the biggest problem the army faces. Having multiple rifles will seriously cause detrimental issues. For big army one rifle that can find a compromise and do everything would be beneficial. Regular infantry dudes don't need a MK18 when fighting conventional forces they need to reach out not only focus on CQB because Special operations does it.
Also, if for some reason if the big army gets called to fight in a new warzone how is that equipment going to be carried or stored? GWOT is practically over we're not going be coming out of FOBs or COBs where I can store all my extra gear then go out on missions fighting terrorist who only have machine guns, aks and RPGs. All that extra equipment is going to have to be carried which adds up very quickly.
13" barrel of M5, in "ridgeline to ridgeline"? Nope. In 6.8x51 a barrel this short has even less sense than in 7.62x51 (for TWO reasons, because of the smaller cross-section of the barrel AND because of the higher peak pressure of the round).
The cartridge would be great in a 22-24" rifle barrel, but in a 13" carbine barrel it is a massive waste. They should have chosen a bullpup.
Rifles are virtually irrelevant in modern combat.
I got to shoot the XM-5 at the SIG event in Phoenix. Very impressive. Un-zeroed, I was hitting steel out to 600yd, with a pretty heavy crosswind. Less recoil than my AR-10, very quick to re-acquire a target. I just wish they had the new optic, XM-157.
Nice! Was it the all-brass training ammo or the steel/brass hybrid ammo?
@@dclark1980 My question as well. But I think the training ammo will become the one round, turning this into 6.5Creedmore-minus.
LOL, its rare to find a post on YT where it´s clear somebody knows what they are talking about! Salute!
I heard its really top heavy from some people, what are your thoughts on the weight?
Ya but u don’t even know about your ammo how’s it going to be with that super hot ammo. As far as we know they had the gas set for low pressure stuff and had it set up for that range. It wouldn’t be hard to impress with a fancy new tailored gun. Since they gave away so many m4s they need a save face better gun for America now. The name is a bit odd and generic Xm5 Next is the xm5 extreme. Well Glad u liked it either way. 7billion in weapons gave away now we’re buying this new stuff.
I always look forward to the videos from Coch. His years of experience shine through and he presents his thoughts on things quite well. But this time I was derailed… what a WATCH COLLECTION🙌🏼
I always look at mans or woman's background to see what their made of and that Watch collection got bigger as I was able to make out that there was darkness hiding some of it then looked at his favorite on his wrist . The same is true when you look at what they READ.
As an ex Infantryman what I always wanted was a rifle that weighs more, holds less, has heavier ammo and has enormous recoil.
Well done big Army. Well done.
SILENCE Leg!
as someone who doesnt have to walk everywhere i go and just leaves it in the vehicle, i wish we had a bigger rifle that makes us look cooler. big amy done just that. well dun.
I would have rather had the spear 6.8 rilfe in Afghanistan then the damn 5.56 ammo that wasn't effective past 350 meters.
@@zack9912000 I would agree M855 is not terribly effective past 350, but that's not the case with M855A1. Also....the 14.5" barrel was the biggest part of the problem, not the caliber.
@@zack9912000 Gee maybe sawing 6" off the M16 barrel wasn't the best idea afterall.
Thanks Coch, always enjoy the way you deliver the info, here in OZ we are still on the 5.56 wagon. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that our SF chaps are using it, cheers
Replacement for battle rifles ("the Army does not even have") but not for the M4 platform, makes more sense.
When I was going through gunsmithing school one of my master smiths pointed out we haven't really had any leaps in firearms technology for awhile. In terms of operating systems we haven't really seen anything majorly new for about a century till recently. (I think the Lago Alien counts as something new, even if it's using similar principles as what came before. There's some other interesting recent innovation too, but that's very recent and this was 2014.) Where we've seen innovation in terms of bang sticks specifically has been material. The WWSD rifle's probably an ideal embodiment of just what we can do with modern material sciences that simple wasn't possible 50 odd... or even 10 or 20 odd! Years ago. The other place our class determined we'd see a lot of innovation besides manufacturing techniques, was ammunition. Sig's new round, the 7.5 FK BRNO round, and numerous others appear to be proving that little bit of noodling and discussion out.
Great point. I would also add advances in optics tech to your list, even though optics are not intrinsic to the firearm design itself.
@@KidNato Oh yeah 100%, optics have come leaps and bounds in the last century. Look at the old starlight scopes. You can buy cars that size these days. Now we have a new form of night vision that highlights humans like something out of a video game if the images the US military released recently are even vaguely accurate. Then you have the targeting computers that have finally made their way into a military optic. I see a lot of people fussing about those and whinging about how such fancy and expensive scopes should only be for DMs... and I can't figure out what they're on. Why wouldn't we want to make every single infantryman as lethal as possible if the tech is reliable and affordable? Don't get me wrong I'm sure it's expensive... but I bet it's expensive in today's terms the way red dots, the forerunners of LPVOs and other optics were about 50 years ago.
I we saw the innovation earlier but the cost for the return finally comes into line 🤷♂️ plastic rounds and high capacity rounds were super old but cost effectiveness is a huge factor when it comes to bullets
Guns it’s more of what preferences are gonna win out it’s been a battle of ideas and battle testing
@@kalashnikovdevil the new optics are fucking wild the highlights on
Silhouettes and color blind modes are next level , plus the cost has come way down making it worth arming everyone with it
Gunpowder fueled projectile weapons have mostly reached the peak of their development.
Anything else that can be done with them is not going to be a revolutionary technology.
It will just be a small innovation.
Technology is a very long way from advancing beyond gunpowder.
Until then, we're not likely to see anything impressive coming from the global small arms industry.
Very informative and well purposed explanation regarding where this weapon fits in our fighting tool box.
Well done as usual … your military experience is so valuable in this discussion 👍
I think Big Army looked at what USMC did with the M27 and is trying to backdoor this to replace all .308 battle rifles (Mk.17, M110E1, whatever M14s are left) and eventually .308 GPMGs (M240L, Mk.48s, whatever M60s are left). I guarantee the M4/AR-15/HK416 will be around in inventory until some seriously revolutionary change in firearms technology comes about.
80,000 psi instead of 62,000 psi of 5.56/308 is a quite revolutionary change (as small arms technology goes in the last 100 years), after all, 65,000 psi has been the max from at least 1925 (270Win).
They just didnt use it right, told everybody that they are replacing 5.56 but have effectively improved on 308 instead.
And plastic casing could have been a revolutionary change, as well as bullpup (for US army), but they chose Sig instead which does not have these advantages.
I agree with your take Eddie.
The revolutionary change was the GD bullpup
M14s converted to 6.8x51 is some optimistic thinking. Enough good money has been thrown at bad ideas involving the M14.
@@WaukWarrior360every time I see GD bullpup I instantly think not General Dynamics, lol
I really enjoyed your well articulated yet soft spoken and deeply knowledgeable analysis. Family friendly so even my kids could watch.
Subscribed to your channel.
Coch, thank you for an honest evaluation of the XM 5. Your one hell of a teacher for us want to be operators!
Hi Coch, thanks for a very well-thought out video.
In particular, I like your "toolbox" approach. Instead of relying on a high spec/high risk new rifle platform, maybe a re-evaluation of the various roles of squad members could help solve some of the problems. Why have all squad members blaze away expensive, heavy ammo at a distant target, when one dedicated DMR (properly armed) could do that job, while the rest do the normal stuff? Incidentally, FN have a new product called the Evolys platform to replace the venerable SAW, and it comes with interchangeable barrels (5,56 & 7,62mm) so roles can be adapted prior to the mission, for best effect. It is super light, and belt fed.
I appreciate your knowledge and your perspective on this new and very interesting rifle. You definitely filled in the blanks I had questions about. I am stillconcerned about how hard this cartridge is going to be on the rifle and will the military up its maintenance schedule for this rifle pro actively, rather than when the rifles are already worn out and risk of catastrophic failure is high.
First off... Thank you for your service.
I like when our military makes technological advances. Bringing new platforms with new cartridges is definitely going to have barriers for success. Let's hope it doesn’t go to waste...
Thanks for your perception on this topic..
I can see the XM5 Spear filling a niche, as a platoon "heavy hitter", a sniper support weapon (spotters rifle with an LPOV), and a SASS replacement/supplement.
But does it do anything a 7.62x51 SASS wouldn't? I.e. is it worth the hassle? (I'm a bit late to the party, I know :)).
Weapons R&D Mil Contractor here:
I was relieved to hear your opinion! I had this take when NGSW closed because I was familiar with the MCX Rattler getting favorable reviews in combat. My personal take is that it will be a family of firearms (MCX Rattler using .300 blk, M5 and M250 using 6.8, MG 338 using .338 Norma Mag [I get it, only two in that ‘family’ are MCX, but keep reading]) but also a family of cartridges. There is a distinct design effort put into the M5 and M250 that gives them function at a range of chamber pressures. The 6.8 hybrid is not just an 80k bullet- it can be loaded from 60k to 120k psi. It would make sense to have the 60-80k carts primarily for the M5 and the 80-120k carts for the M250. This would only be a problem if either weapon would malfunction under adverse chamber pressures, but both are designed to function normally from 60-120k psi, so in a pinch you can throw the LMG rounds into your battle rifle and vice versa. More evidenced by the implementation of the M157 fire control package that will issue with both of these systems.
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT breakdown of what is going on with the whole SIG system they've chosen! The ENTIRE package rides on those chamber pressures!!! Wonderful, wonderful takeaway, good Sir!
I'd imagine that you'd admit that the GD bullpup was the superior option then. At this rate, by adopting rhe Spear they might as well have just used hybrid 5.56 in an M4
120psi! What a beast of a round!
cartridge if it works reliably and without major issues will likely check all the boxes but the video host says "no such thing will exist, nor will this round but such a thing" and he's right because it needs to be roughly 7 thousandths of an inch greater in diameter for that to actually be a reality.
@@WaukWarrior360not really. 5.56 has a lot of limitations. Especially in the lethality at range department. This is not the first time we've sought a better round. 6.8 SPC for instance. And the mcx is arguably a better weapon than the ar platform. Also, most countries that adopted a bullpup, have since moved away from them because from an ergonomic standpoint they are trash
We predated the British EM2 280 with the Garand in .276 Pederson but MacArthur nixed that because of all the 30/06 Ammunition left over from WWI. The British also had a .276 cartridge even earlier this one in their Pattern 1913 Enfield with ballistics similar to the 7x57 Mauser and now we are back to the future with a 277 caliber rifle which I think is great
Mauser is 8x57.
Actually the 8x57 Mauser is correctly called the 7.92x57mm. There is also a 7x57mm Mauser. This is what the Spanish were using in Puerto Rico in the Spanish American War. Great cartridge.
Oh look, a railed polymer FN FAL ... the wheel comes full circle. The new scope is the only revolutionary thing here .....
the only thing stopping 277 from being a great caliber is roughly 7 thousandths of an inch
For some a logical reason I've always preferred they 6.5 or the 7 mm to the .277. but that is my personal problem
If they actually start selling these bi-metallic cases on the civilian market I am interested to see what the other 7.62x51mm based rounds will do
Just came across your channel. First of thank you for your service. Also just want to say thanks for sharing some of the wisdom and knowledge you no doubt spent years learning.
Best sense explanation I’ve heard.
Thank you sir
Thank you for your service Coch . That was a great explanation of the use or uses of this new platform .I was thinking they went with this new battle rifle because of the larger more effective round , I've heard stories of our heroes putting 5 or 6 or more accurate shots on the enemy with the 5.56 round and that enemy is still in the fight because the enemy was drugged up in Iraq and Afghanistan .
I personally feel like there is a connection to DARPA’s Exacto program and the reason they are switching to 6.8 and polymer shell casings. In that scenario it is not apples to oranges at all. Our military has been developing weapons in a much quieter way recently and we should keep it that way.
Man is it awesome to hear the term "Battle Rifle". Will come back to watch the rest because hearing just the first descriptors he is using is highly motivatind.
This has got to be the most reasonable and humble assessment I've ever seen. You admit you don't know the full plan, and acknowledge that there's unkown variables to the public, but you also bring in actual combat experience from the M14 that no one else has shown yet. Everyone I have watched has parroted the typical assumption about the history of the M14 to the M16 like they were there.
Love anything from Mark! Would really love to see a knife video by him.
I like when Coch explains things, so that I can understand them
Right on.
@@TacticalHyve I mean it , if that guy had been my teacher in school, I probably would have graduated.
😂
@@TacticalHyve 🤠
Love your content, You've become one of my favorite channels to watch. Keep doing what you do best, you're awesome!!
I always love it when these specops guys are quite humble and soft-spoken in person.
I’m sure not all specops guys are like this, but it is common
I've always been concerned about the ballistic differences between the M 14 and M 16. I appreciate your professionalism and delivery of your informed opinion 👍.
Interesting, I hadn't got the similarities to the FAL and EM2 projects in intermediate calibre but you're right this is a call back to that concept. I trained on the L1A1 or SLR for a few weeks before we switched to the SA80, I ended up on the GPMG in the 1st Gulf War so my take on this is, the guys will learn how to use it effectively with enough rounds in training. Soldiers are adaptable. Is it the right weapon for room clearing and fighting in urban areas, probably not. The military will have to come up with another option there.
and that option will be issuing different ammo - hot max pressure loads for open terrain, lower pressure one with mild recoil for urban unless full pressure is required for armor penetration and thus dependent on the opposing force
Thank you sir for protecting me and my family over the years of your service to our great country. 👍👍
Thank you for your clear and thoughtful presentation on the XM5
One thing you're missing in this analysis is that it's paired up with a special optic that will mark all targets, rangefind, compute ballistics.
This gives every user competent with it the accuracy to make that round very useful.
I think you'll see more a DMR role like soviet doctrine, but it makes sense to stay with intermediate cartridge for most people.
Yeah but you can use the optic on any rifle so that alone that doesn’t make the weapon stand out they just used money from the program to make new optics it’s not like they only work on that gun lol
Whenever you use something in war that runs on batteries you're asking for trouble!
Not every M5 will be issued with a $20,000 optic.
Hey Coch, thanks for a great video as always. One point I think you'd find value in talking about in the future (once you have data or experience with it) would be the integration of the m5 with the m250 in squads and platoons. I think it was Ian from FW who pointed out that Army tries to select weapon systems that share a caliber between rifle and LMG. With the 250 firing the .277 fury, I think we're looking at providing volume of fire from machine gunners who can now reach out accurately over really long distances and with much greater AP and suppressive power than the m249. I totally agree with the concerns about the appropriateness of either of these platforms for urban or CQB environments, it'll certainly be interesting to see what doctrinal and equipment adjustments are made there as the Army prepares for near-peer conflicts. Personally, I'm always a big fan of Peter Zeihan's geopolitical analysis, so I think our next major geopolitical focus should be the security and stabilization of Mexico and Central America, and I think those are the battlefields our equipment should be tailored towards.
Great VDO - Thank you.
The first sensible analysis ive seen , well done chap .
The round itself is for sure one of the biggest changes along with the computerized optic.
One of THE BEST discourses on small arms technology I ever heard. The importance of platform types (or "families" if you will) as an assurance to provide some form of standardisation for the soldier was a point WELL stated. I LOVE the FN-FAL but I must concede that the arguments in favor of the AR series platform (from battle rifle/AR10, to Assault Rifle/AR15 to the 9mm submachine guns built around AR chasis were impossible to argue against.
Awesome video
Would love to see you do some stuff like in the team room channel where you could interview old seals and talk about their awesome stories
Thanks and keep up the good work
Thank You for your Service..
Hands down best assessment I've seen. My argument has been the same, that procurement numbers don't match a full replacement of the m4 and that it will be rolled into use depending on the situation. And depending on the situation it has some fantastic capabilities that currently aren't offered.
First time coming across your channel, definitely subscribing.
You summed it up right at the end. “If you know how to shoot.”
This gun seems well suited for operators, Rangers and well trained infantry (Army and Marines). Not so sure its a good idea to be adopted by everyone else. Although they’re probably not going to use it as much so maybe it doesn’t really matter.
Your analytics are very well rounded and presented.
Most intelligent info that I have heard yet on the XM5 .... thank you!
Thank you for your thoughts.
Besides the M4/XM5 discussion, at least there will be a significant improvement in the light machine gun fire in every squad. Giving them the suppressor, long-range high-penetration bullet, new optic, and retaining the ability to go with a minimum of 50 rd. pouches and compatibility with belts over the base M249 should be a pretty good bump. It's reported they also requested a conversion kit for the M240 to use the new 6.8 round, and that's where it gets a little bit fuzzy to me. Where would the M240 have an advantage over the proposed M250 if it merely adopted the same round? I guess barrel-swapping capability and that should be about it?
If they follow through with the plan to implement the XM5 to all or most riflemen, then I believe they should design a 30-rd. magazine and offset the extra weight plus reduced magazines carried by any given squad (in the US Army at least) with their automated robotic mule program. The current program carries up to 1,100 pounds and is being trialed by the 101st. They just released a request for bids on an "increment 2" model which should enhance the carrying capacity and also allow for the integration of offensive modules such as a remotely controlled machine gun or grenade launcher. Perhaps that is the actual plan since the request for a new variant and many more units (quantity) comes only a couple months after increasing the average riflemen's individual kit considerably.
If they do it properly, I assume a squad heading out on patrol or out in the field, in general, could utilize the new robotic mules by storing most of their long-term supplies on and in that thing, allowing for each rifleman to carry the same ~8 extra magazines or whatever the average is for 5.56, despite using the heavier 6.8.
@Dick Izzinya I have those exact 25-rd mags, they are neither long nor cumbersome compared to a 30-rd 5.56mm mag. The weight when stuffed full of metallic cartridges is their only real drawback.
6.8x51=7.62x51 with a .270 bullet instead of.308 and since we have ware houses full of BILLIONS of 7.62x51[.308 Winchester] couldnt we just go back to .308?
@@glennlee6274 No. 7.62x51 does not have the armor defeat capability.
@@user-hg2gt2wb3c ....lol
Or you could use bikes for a fraction of the cost. That's what Ukraine has been doing.
I think the M5 is awesome. It has its place and for special operators it is another tool in the tool box. I thought it was the best DMR maybe ever. I can understand the military wanting to roll this out as a near peer conflict is always coming closer. The M4 will also be around a long time, maybe as long as the M5 or longer. Supply depos, tankers, cooks, truckers can all make use of the M4.
As a civilian I would love the M5 for hunting either long distance or larger game. The ammo you can always down load depending on your game, especially as full brass cases will be available.
Bravo, Little Brother! I LOVE the fact that You used the proper nomenclature for the rifle designation! Good video.
Very nice input.
I feel that General Dynamics' polymer cartridge can achieve the ideal effect of lower the weight and still deliver the punch that they are looking for. The trade off of heavier round vs punch would not have been a factor with polymer cartridge. I think that's a big difference and has been a topic of intense discussion among others. Good video, love the different point of view. Here's hoping you get a unit soon to test/play with so you can let us know more feedback from the hands on.
The GD/True Velocity polymer case design might have a future yet with the 6.8x51mm. The Army has indicated that they want a full-auto/CQB round that recoils more like the reduced pressure training ammo. The TV hybrid case would be a perfect application for a CQB cartridge type at the 60K PSI pressure regime.
@@ostiariusalpha That's dumb you adopt the TV cartridge and hence also the rifle for both applications then. This is Sig greasing the right hands and as a result we're getting a turd, UCP all over again but with rifles.
have you seen the ballistics out of the high pressured round on these? With a 13 inch barrel, they are getting greater terminal ballistics than 7.62, and a similar bullet trajectory to 6.5 Creedmoor out of a 24 inch barrel. That's prity incredible ballistic performance out of a 13 inch gun that can also be fired with the stock folded.
If they are able to also adopt the polymer cased lower pressure ammo for cqb, i see no reason why this gun cant replace everything from dmr rifles, down to mark 18s.
What it wont replace is sniper rifles and squad mg's, which i presume is why they fielded separate systems for those platforms.
Love your videos. Looking forward to seeing more on this.
I enjoyed the honest thought on this video. It will be interesting to see Army Doctrine changes with this new rifle combine with Fire control computer.
Thank You for all you done.
I envision the 6.8×51mm to be used far more in the belt-fed role--ground, wheeled or air---than as a simple grunt rifle. I see that cartridge replacing the 7.62 NATO in this role, but not supplanting the 5.56 for some time.
It’s replacing all m4s for combat roles. Pogs will still have m4s
The real secret sauce is it’s optic is auto-aim. Even crappy shots can hit steel at 600yards with penetration.
it is a battle rifle,its a ar10 based rifle in a 6.8x51 vs the 7.62x51
Wud love to see more content like this from u man honestly
Love the way u break it down an explain it so i get it
Awsome video
You're like the Bob Ross of weapons, and it's amazing.
The great thing about the sig ecosystem is that you can fill a lot of roles with a single manual of arms. 9mm mpx, 556/300 mcx, 762/6.5/277 spear
So, just like AR.
The new optic is probably the most intriguing part of this new weapon system. It supposedly can laze the target, measure wind speed, and adjust the optic automatically for range and windage. If true, that will make a lot of average shooters much better at range. The high-pressure round is also likely to have an absurd amount of muzzle energy that might give it penetration beyond just body armor. I'm only speculating, but I imagine this gun is at least trying to be a true game-changer in many respects.
There will be no excuse to get a perfect score during rifle Qual lol.
They ditched the scope, was too complicated
@@boywhohasl1vedhascometodie469Where did you see that? I cant find anything that says that
I love how soft spoken and chill you are. Very good breakdown.
Part of the tradeoff is a common effective cartridge for the Squad machinegun and the frontline infantry rifle. Add sound suppression and top-level optics with a ballistic computer you get the XM5 and the squad weapon pair. Most of the rear area troops will have M4 variants for another 20 years. The XM5 is meant to be normally used in rapid semi auto in close, slow fire single shots out past 500 meters while the machinegun plugs the gaps along with mortar fires.
6mm ARC cartridge seems to give high velocity, long range, and good accuracy. The 6mm can use existing 5.56 magazines as well. Foot pounds of energy is very similar to a .308 cartridge at similar distances. What is your thoughts on this change?
I think the 6 mm Arc with a bi-metal case would be the correct answer. That would give you the ability to use a shorter Barrel and still Attain the needed FPS. But the military specified what caliber they were looking for and that was 6.8
I have a wildcat upper for one of my juggernaut lowers, it was made by a gun Smith in Arizona. It's a .25 SPC, utilizing 6.8X43mm cases, it can shoot a Hornady 117gr SST bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps.
This set-up will deliver just over 2,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, and stays supersonic out to 800 meters, and has about 600 ft-lbs energy at 600 meters. The drawback is cost, since the ammo is hand-made its "Mucho-Expensive", but then again it's an Arizona "Wild Cat".
A lot of the guys you see, in videos, who are struggling with the recoil - they may not have tip-top form, but they're still experienced shooters and are fairly strong guys. If they're struggling, how will more average soldiers do?
They better hit their first shot then😂
@Dick Izzinya The Electro-Optical Aiming System will not see through dust, nor will it help a soldier return fire under stress as rounds impact near, fly overhead, and spall debris around them. That's why soldiers return fire in the general direction where fire appears to be coming from.
20rd mags firing a battle rifle cartridge is really bad to have for everyone in typical react-to-contact scenarios.
@Dick Izzinya This is not 1914. The slow methodical aimed fire concept has always been a total fantasy.
Who have you seen struggle with it? The guys at InRange TV said it was extremely controllable even in full auto.
@@Bibitybopitybacon They're running the low power ammo. To my knowledge nobody took the steel base casing and tried to overcharge it to match the military spec.
Great video thanks sir
Best talk on this new rifle I have seen as of yet - liked and sub
When do you think was the earliest that someone tried a pistol grip on the M-14? I’ve fired one that without the pistol grip, but not one with it. I did get to hold one with the pistol grip… and like most every rifle with that feature it felt so natural & controllable that it makes me wonder why they didn’t go with that from the beginning. I’m left wondering how far back it was when they introduced that option.
Thanks for another interesting video!
They had an NSN national stock number and were issued in Vietnam. The m14 stocks were turned extending the wooden stocks pistol butt area. We had an XM21 (M14 DM variant) with that stock turned out of birch in the arms room. Went to an M8 from ART3 and it turned into a trustworthy rifle out to 800 yds.
@@jamesbeason9256fsn, not nsn
I love this take on this. Like he says, not everyone in the platoon will likely have this. You can still have half the guys with 5.56 rifles and maybe some rattlers for door kickers but to have even one person with the spear is a big advantage given it’s capability especially once they put those vortex futuristic weapon scopes on em.
But why not just give this/these guy/s a more common 7.62x51 rifle?
As I understand it, the point of the Spear is to give everyone in a platoon the same weapon because it's supposed to be versatile and, it's ammunition, ubiquitous. If versatility and logistics are not primary concerns, then it would make more sense to just give some guys 5.56 guns and others 7.62 guns, since these calibres respectively perform better than the other in their separate roles and niches.
The optic would probably work even better on an actual battle rifle or marksman rifle anyways.
Even if these two-part casing cartridges perform better at range than a conventional 7.62x51mm NATO, that doesn't exclude the possibility that a larger-than-6.5mm, super high pressure cartridge could be developed, with better range and penetration than the Creedmoor.
@@lordtomlluckrahthegreat9014 The point of the new round is to tackle body armor that has been developed over decades to defeat the 5.56 round. Even though the 6.8x51mm cartridge is large, it is useful because it provides a balance between ammo capacity and power. The .308 cartridge is ultimately an MMG and battle rifle cartridge, and while still smaller than heavier rounds like 8mm Mauser it is still huge and doesn’t work in the hands of an average infantryman. The point of the assault rifle is to consolidate roles. Sure, you can spread it out for different roles, but that just makes for soldiers being given entirely different training. The .277 cartridge is purely a response to advancing militaries, and aims to keep up standards while also not screwing over the average infantryman with recoil meant to be felt from a bipod at semi or auto rates. The XM5 or now XM7 is simply evolutionary, not revolutionary. Like this man stated, recoil will not be too bad with minimal training. The .277 is just the next evolution from the M3 .45, to the M4 .223, and now to the M5 .277.
@@lordtomlluckrahthegreat9014And also for sake of argument, what about .338 Magnum? It is just like the other modernizations taking place, seeing where militaries have improved and changing with them. It may be a bandaid fix, but it’s necessary to keep what works and improve as you go. Giving average assault units .308 caliber weapons would hinder their performance greatly because it ultimately doesn’t matter within 300 meters. So does .277, however it is a compromise do to battlefield needs. These calibers will push us through the problem instead of sending out troops who have no expertise with each others weapons. I would have more hope for an M4 fitted soldier picking up an M7 than one picking up a G3.
Yeah I think this whole thing was to get a foot in the door for getting the MCX "family"
Thanks so much, helpful info
Really good assessment
Feels like we're just inching our way to another military era where we drop plated body armor if we're gonna make penetration the meta. I'm sure other militaries are completely fine with an intermediate cartridge on its worst day winding someone for a few minutes, and more likely at the very least incapacitating them. They'll save themselves 10 pounds just adopting advanced soft armor so long as it's not gonna make a difference either way, while fielding more ammo than we can. You could make a more intermediate cartridge that would weigh less and still unload a bucket load of fps onto someone's plates.
No current intermediate cartridge will cause enough backface deformation on modern Lv IV armor to even slow down the wearer. You could take a 6mm ARC and apply SIG's high pressure case design to it for enhanced penetration, probably even outperforming hot loaded .243 Winchester.
@@ostiariusalpha In point of fact the US Army did a study in the 00's and determined that any projectile with 2700fpe of impact energy would likely cause significant internal injury, even through the plate armor issued at that time.
@@Valorius That's why modern armor isn't the same as the stuff from over a decade ago. They specifically wanted to address non-penetrating hits that could cause enough backface deformation to be debilitating or lethal.
@@Valorius "at that time" being the important information ...
@@Valorius Yeah nah, can basically guarantee thats bullshit, heres a video of Rich Davis shooting somebody point blank with an FAL in 1984 czcams.com/video/o5f1Fo4r4_I/video.html
Not to mention, 2700fpe is like, twice the energy that any intermediate cartridge is going to produce. Thats 54r and other similar full rifle caliber round levels of energy, so it wouldn't even be relevant to intermediate cartridges anyway.
In regards to Coch talking about a family of arms, Sig has also demonstrated a version of the Spear with an 8" barrel. While the 13" might not be needed for every infantry man, the smaller version would probably suffice and lower the weight of the system while still having the regular version as a DMR and the belt fed gun as the SMG.
I like your straight talk. You tell it like it is. Hope you get a copy of the M6X and video your tests.
Thanks Coch always like to hear you talk !
*PRAISE ME* Frogman!
Must wait until Flannel Daddy fondles you more Spear Daddy.
One thing that I'm curious about is what could have been achieved had the 5.56 or something more beefier, like the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or the 6 ARC, been done with the steel base to increase pressures to what SIG uses in their 6.8x51 ammo.
That's actually exactly why the SIG ammo is so much better than the pressure limited plastic stuff
SIG has already shown that ANY conventional round can be retrofitted (like .308 or 6.5 CM)
Imagine a .300 BLK that hits like a light load .308
@@DD-hz3ts why don't they just do that to 5.56 and 7.62?
@@chancecisneros3492 they might do it eventually. They didn’t at first because the Army wanted a 6.8mm cartridge. It was a requirement for the program.
I think the arc route would have been the better option, recoil is the big one, at the speeds they want to push these (3000+), 6mm/100 grains is kind of the ceiling if you want controlled rapid fire in a sub-10 lb rifle.
@@chancecisneros3492 it's called the 224 valkyrie, if I had to guess it would be that it looses too mutch velocity, velocity is a square root of energy, mass is linear, so increasing the velocity is less efficient than increasing weight, combine that with a increase in momentum, and it's pretty clear a 6.5-6.8 round just does it better.
Edit: at longer ranges
Thank you for the assessment! It's nice knowing what people who have done this in real life are thinking.
Excellent Summary. Cheers 🍻
It seems to me that they bought a new rifle to do what 20” M4 uppers could have done better.
I think the M4’s days are numbered, but not entirely bc of the MCX replacing it. The MCX’s cartridge gets all the attention but it’s also got an excellent gas system/suppressor combo which eliminates gas in the face problem inherent in the Stoner design. The army has explicitly stated that suppression is a must for all rifles.
It seems logical that even if the MCC/M4 can coexist tactically the M4 will be replaced by a similar rifle which doesn’t have the gas issue.
Suppression for infantry weapons is completely retarded.
The gas is from the top CH, not the DI system
A 416 or MCX still gasses you if you don't have RTV sealant or a CH gas check lip because the majority of the gas is coming from the bore, not the gas tube which taps off gas only toward the end of the muzzle
The MCX platform is absolutely genius. Only issue is how poorly it handles of you get too much mud in it. Overall, its basically everything the M16/M4 platform wishes it was
I dont think the MCXwill replace it. Believe the US army is looking for a better round
And there's also the sight to consider. Don't forget that aspect. If we are to believe everything they say, every soldier will be a Carlos Hathcock, basically.
Interesting on your information. Great information. Thank you very much for your video.
Informative. Love your relaxed style.
My biggest gripe with the design is that it copied the charging handle and forward assist inspite of the left side charging handle. I know why they did but pick one option and go with it. The caliber seems very interesting though, if you get a chance to shoot it keep in mind the current commerical ammo is not true mil spec.
they started with just the side handle. Then they added the rear one after soldiers got their hands on it and under pressure they were fumbling with the side because of old habits. The forward assist is still necessary because neither charging handle is reciprocating. Reciprocating charging handles are basically obsolete. I'm guessing under one of the A designations the rear charging handle will be removed as people used to rear charging handles diminish.
Left side only sucks for left hand people. Witch is about 16 percent of people.
Sounds like the US Army is going to the 1 shot, 1 kill methodology. That’s fine for a sniper/DMR role. As a general purpose rifle, I would think adopting the MCX in 6mm ARC would make more sense. Lighter than the M5, yet more powerful than 5.56 with similar ammo capacity.
Ammo capacity in 6mm ARC is more similar to 7.62x51/6.8x51 than to 5.56x45.
Max diameters of the cartridges:
5.56x45 - 9.6mm
6mmARC - ~11.4mm
7.62x52/6.8x51- ~12mm
The 6mm ARC in a redesigned bolt carrier, not an AR15 or AR10, but AR15 length makes sense to me, let it run at 63,000 PSI in an 8 pound total weight rifle. The standard dimension AR15 bolts would not handle the pressure. My high capacity ARC mags hold 24 rounds and function flawlessly, the SD/BC of 6MM projectiles will reduce wind drift at range over a 77 grain 5.56 x nearly 70%. Trajectory is significantly superior to the 7.62x51 or the 6.8x51 at all supersonic ranges. Energy on target with a military projectile will penetrate lever 4 plate in close but like the 6.8x51 not at 200 yards. I do hear rumors the 6.8x51 has specialized ammo at near 100,000 PSI though. Might be BS.
In high winds at range the 300 Norma or other similar special purpose cartridges make hits easier, you gotta love them but no use as general issue.
From my experiance it would be easier to make me look good in a Catholic School Girl skirt then it will be to make a general issue rifle that can fight well in close, make hits through armor at 500 yards and be light enough not to get the team killed on those 5 days humps trying to survive when intelligence was crap.
25 rounds from what I heard, not a bad compromise for what that little guy can do.
@@PaulVerhoeven2 Right, you would want to apply SIG's high pressure cartridge design to the 6mm ARC to slim the case diameter down; either to 6.8 SPC/224 Valkyrie size for better than 6mm ARC performance, or all the way down to 5.56x45mm size to just match performance. You would increase loadout weight slightly with the 6.8 SPC case diameter (though most of the weight gain over 5.56mm would come from the 6mm bullet), but you wouldn't lose any capacity over 5.56mm since there are already 30-rd mags available for the cartridge size.
That's right Mike better choice indeed. Still a role and place where squad size groups need suppressing fire. Things like the 243 saw will have to stay. Cyclic rate is fast as hell and one guy can carry a good amount of ammo. The 6mm whatever they choose would be a good dmr rifle or possibly a handful of squad guys carring it out for front line open engagement. Just know our president left the middle east where we would have to fight against all our bery own modern equipment. So punching plates will be a necessity. I can see a 6mm screamer doing that.. But a change to magazine to hold a min 25 rounds id think. Like you said, hopefully just another tool the platoon has a choice off. Our current administration who knows then again. Every soldier carries one. Idiots!
Thank you for your insight.
wow, very interesting, good research and analysis
Two things:
The weight. Per Ian over at Forgotten Weapons, the fully-kitted M5 (meaning loaded mag, suppressor & Vortex NGSW optic) will weigh about 14 pounds. That’s more than 30% heavier than the fully-kitted M4 I humped down range. Combat troops already carry far more weight than is healthy.
2nd: The available specs for the new round definitively show it will not defeat NIJ level four armor (I’m happy to demonstrate the math on this in a following comment should someone wish me to).
Here are the conditions in which a variant MIGHT be capable of defeating lvl four armor:
The XM1184 round is actually as rumored on forums: if rumors are accurate, it has a tungsten penetrator.
The military has access to a variant round producing significantly greater than the 80,000 psi chamber pressure currently documented.
Some combination of the above.
However: based on all current official information available without a clearance, even the hybrid-cased 6.8x51 will absolutely not defeat lvl four armor despite producing 80,000 psi chamber pressure.
id like to see the source for the math. or just a video. if the round cant pen lvl4, whats the point.
The hybrid case is capable of 120k psi. Its only the SAAMI specs that are 80k rated. So they designed the round with wiggle room for greater ballistics and im sure this wasnt by accident.
@@John_Redcorn_ respectfully, I’d love to see some official source for this. It’s not that I’m doubting you, it’s just that I’ve looked and looked, and while I’ve heard many, many rumors as to greater psi potential, I’ve yet to see anything other than that.
@@jackface2499 lol okie dokie, here we go:
My sources for armor & ammo specs were the NIJ and SAAMI, respectively. The equation to determine a bullet’s kinetic energy (KE) is available all the web, as are calculators where one can just plug in the important values, and the equation is (KE) = (weight of bullet in grams)*(velocity of bullet in feet/sec squared), and then that result is divided by 450,437 to convert the answer from joules to foot/lbs.
So, going by the official and unclassified numbers that are currently available:
Current NIJ level four armor is rated to stop one round of M82AP, which is 30-06 steel core, AP ammo, which is approximately 166 grains traveling at 2880 ft/sec and thus delivering 3058 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. Per SAAMI ballistics for the 277 Fury round that are currently available, the 6.8x51 creates 80,000 psi and delivers a 135 grain bullet traveling at 3000 ft/sec delivering 2698 ft/lbs of kinetic energy out of a 16” barrel. Note that the M5 has a 13” barrel, reducing velocity, and is meant to be married to a suppressor, which may or may not have a very slight effect on the bullet velocity. The only scientific study I could find measuring this showed that, depending on suppressor design, suppressors can either slow or speed up bullet velocity by about 10 feet/sec in either direction.
So, if a steel-core bullet delivering significantly higher kinetic energy won’t penetrate current level 4 armor, I fail to understand, based on running the numbers that are currently available, how the new round will.
@@methodsocratic Kinetic energy is only part of the story when it comes to armor penetration, though. For example, SS190 5.7x28mm can defeat Level IIIA body armor despite having less kinetic energy than a 9mm FMJ round. It depends on the bullet design, pressure, and velocity.
Most likely, the bullet design itself has armor piercing capabilities, and it’s being propelled at a faster velocity (both of which are why specific armor piercing 5.7 rounds can defeat Level IIIA armor that stops things like 9mm or even .44 Magnum).
Great analysis. One of the things that concerned me was how the generals in the press conference were saying how it was so much more powerful than the 5.56 round, but never mentioned the 7.62 NATO, which this is much closer to. That has me worried this could be a nice weapon, but a bureaucratic failure to get what was initially envisioned.
I agree the M4 platform still has a place, but I wonder what job the 5.56 really has now. You gave the example of being in an open area against an opponent with armor as kind of the ideal use for the M5, so on the other end of the spectrum, a close urban area against an unarmored opponent. In that scenario, wouldn't something like the .300 Blackout be better than the 5.56?
Problem is also, the M5 likely wont be able to pierce body armor >200m. Not without some kind of crazy tungsten round or so, which is unlikely to be amassed.
And the US has even amassed XSapi plates that can protect vs 7.62 tungsten, like 10 years ago.
@@termitreter6545 I truly think this switch to 6.8 has something to do with DARPA’s Exacto program. When you add the polymer casings and the lower capacity of rds. Also the railing and that seem to match the smart optics… I’m not sure what else it could be… call me a conspiracy theorist but I think something is happening we don’t quite understand.
@@pabis6817 Infra-Soldier Wireless was part of the deal for the NGSW-FC. The optic uses augmented reality for its display and can communicate with other allowing for target marks or waypoints.
Great stuff, well thought out
Thank you for the info.
This new rifle is like a tv set on your honeymoon. (Not necessary)
As far as I can tell this rifle is being billed as the new infantry rifle, thus it will replace the M4 in infantry units. This is the type of rifle I personally love, and would truly have loved this weapon and especially the cartridge in the mountains of Afghanistan. Yes it is heavy, but hell my SPR weighed almost 12 pounds fully kitted out, and my MK48s were 17 pounds or so. this rifle would've given my platoon significant overmatch on that deployment. now, on my 3 Iraq tours things may be looked at differently, however we operated out of vehicles often, and having the added penetration against barriers in an urban environment would've been quite usefull indeed. Hell, one of my guys on my 2nd tour put an eotech on his m14 EBR while in Baghdad because it was such a great weapn for use against barriers and he didn't see the need for magnified optics. It worked. I am curious though how this all pans out, especially in this age of smaller more petetit infantryman, er infantrywomen, uh infantrypersons? Regarldess, its a rad weapon, and new weapons and tech is good, but will it go the path of the M14?
This will weigh 14+lbs fully kitted out. Plus, you were a DMR. This is not a bad idea for a DMR. As a general issue rifle its idiotic.
The war in Afghanistan is not just over, it was also completely irrelevant. It was barely even a war. We probably lose more US citizens in a single weekend in Chicago than we lost in the last 5 years of Afghanistan combined.
We can only hope it goes the path of the M14.
@@Valorius You meant we lost more kids in school shootings then any death in that senseless war
@@Valorius I wasn't the DMR, I was a light infantry platoon sergeant. My DMRs carried M14 EBRs, of which I had 7. I replaced my M240Ls with MK48s, as well as My M249s. On that deployment the M4 was not useful. Most of our engagements were beyond 500 meters, a few were within 200. The thing is a weapon that works at extended ranges also works at close range, not so much vice versa. My rifle, a version of the MK12, was absolutely accurate out to 800 meters but not near as effective as 7.62. I think you're correct about the comparison to Afghanistan and Chicago in regard to lives lost, I mean pretty close. However Afghanistan is not irrelevant. It has so many lessons to teach with regard to mountain warfare, an active insurgency operating across international borders, long range engagements and the use of IDF and CAS in the combined arms fight. These are real experiences that the predominantly urban conflict in Iraq didn't provide. I was able to learn form both and pass these lessons on to the next generation of warfighters before I retired.
@@pandafish5926 you said you had a mk12 didnt you? I had never heard of a platoon Sergeant carrying a mark 12. Afghanistan was a complete and total outlier and totally irrelevant to anything besides Afghanistan. If you know what we were doing there for 20 years please feel free to fill me in.
Well-balanced preliminary review. Good food for the thoughts - kudos!
Excellent analysis!