Goody bye M16! Military Adopts the M5 rifle and 6.8x51. Are they crazy?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Join Patreon and support MAC! / militaryarms
Follow and support us on Utreon!: utreon.com/c/m...
MAC T-Shirt Store: ballisticink.c...
Modern Gun School: www.mgs.edu
Join us on Discord: Join us on Discord: / discord
Join us on Twitch: / militaryarms
Challenge Targets Discount Code: MAC556 (www.challenget...)
OpticsPlanet Discount Code: MAC556
It happened when many said it wouldn't. The US military adopted not only a new service rifle but a whole new cartridge, the 6.8x51 also known as the .277 Fury. The gun is solid, but the 6.8x51 seems like a huge step backwards and the US military has abandon the assault rifle in favor of a Cold War era type battle rifle.
#Sig #M5 #277Fury
Seems like military doctrine and procurement is always a war behind. This cartridge and optic probably would have been great in Afghanistan, but we're no longer there.
No it wouldn't have been. This rifle would still have been a DMR rifle because of its caliber. The reason why 6.5 Grendel is the best option is because it's a caliber conversion and the manual of arms are the same. It also defeats level 4 body armor put to 300 meters when made with the right powder. It has a bullet that's closer to the 7.62x39mm end but is still lightweight like 5.56x45mm. It's a better overall round. If not, it is the best overall round.
Generally true with the exception of the m16
@@picklerick9578 I seriously doubt Grendel could pen lvl 4.
the military has seemed to be one war behind.
I agree we could've used this rifle in Afghanistan, although, I have it on good authority that they're also taking "modern Chinese body armor" into account...
This adoption makes sense in light of what they want to achieve - a firearm that will be able to defeat level 4 body armor at distance. With these rifles US will once again have superior firepower.
Level 4 plates are now widely available and you can buy them from China for less than $100 if you order in bulk.
Though personally i think that the General Dynamics rifle had a better design, less recoil and the True Velocity ammo achieved similar ballistics at lower pressures
Oh, and i should mention that the adoption of this rifle only makes sense if it's paired with the next generation optic
Show me the stats of the probability of a center mass hit in a real firefight?
@@jonlong2663 and especially a firefight in optimum conditions and visibility
I agree if only better trained infantry use, but wide scale adoption is a head scratcher
They literally could have accomplished this with 6.5 Grendel. Past 400m this thing will do the same thing. 6.5 Grendel is also a conversion that works better and is cheaper with no new weapons training.
Oh, side note. With a caliber as manageable as a 5.56x45 we were trained to keep it on semi unless providing suppressing fire, which mostly fell on the gunners (249/240). In actual combat, even in close quarters, building hoping, most of us always kept it on semi.
I have spent time in the Army and Marine Corps and I was shocked on how bad overall marksmanship training was in the Army I was at the range once out of 41 people I was the only one that qualified and I don’t even think I am all that great of a shot that day I qualified sharpshooter but I agree with you if they can’t shoot the M4 in 5.56 how are they going to do in 6.8 with recoil just below that of 7.62x51?
How you could have served in today's military and then be surprised that they wouldn't think things through, is absolutely mystifying to me.
"today's military is the same as yesterday's. Not thinking it through is customary.
"Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron in the opinion of this retired Marine.
That Military Procurement thinks things through is a myth.
Gotta keep those arms companies/buddys paid!
In early 1966 I was inducted into the Army, sent to Vietnam and issued a brand spanking new M16 rifle, without having rec'd any formal stateside training on the weapon. Compared to the M-14 rifle in caliber .308 we trained with in both basic and AiT, I was very happy with how lightweight it was, not to mention the low .556 recoil experience. Of course, at the time I did not know how unreliable the AR platform would become in actual combat use, exposed to frequent FTE issues and while we rarely used our M-16's on full auto, when we did, reliability issues were amplified. Troops being deployed to Nam in later yrs were issued new and improved M-16's. One month into my tour, I was required to be an RTO, carrying a heavy PRC-25 radio, weighing in around 24 lbs by itself + spare battery. Add a soldier's backpack, poncho and liner, three canteens, canned c-rations, ammo and other gear, I was easily now carrying 60-70 + lbs. To put this in perspective, most current AT hikers think that 40 lbs. is too much pack weight for the trail and they don't have the added stress of being shot at. I was so overwhelmed by all this weight, I was forced to make a conscious decision, after just a few days on patrol, to see what I could discard to lower my gear weight. I got rid of my grenades and went from carrying 200 rounds of .556 ammo, to just 5 20 rnd mags of same, one in the rifle and 4 in my ammo pouches, rationalizing in my own mind that if I ran out of 100 rnds of ammo, there would be casualties around me that wouldn't need their ammo. Encountering my first ambush by Charlie, one month into my tour, I took a round in the leg, as I just couldn't scramble quickly enough to find effective cover. At least, my purple heart wasn't awarded posthumously and this event quickly taught me the difference between cover and concealment. I cannot emphasize enough how great a bearing SAWC has on how mobile, competent and effective a soldier you are. To this day, over fifty yrs later, I still have knots on the top of both shoulders, acquired from the pack straps digging into my shoulders from a yr of strenuous combat patrols through wait a minute vines and rugged mountainous terrain, aggravated by frequent repels from our Huey sorties. For forty five + years, after rotating back to states, I refused to wear any kind of backpack while hiking, no matter how comfortable a modern newer pack might be. Noting that today's soldiers are also carrying plate carriers and rifle optics, helmets equipped with night vision capabilities, I just cannot imagine how they will deal with the added weight that this new 6.8 cartridge and rifle will bring to the patrol and battle experience. I truly feel for them. While we want our soldiers to have the most capable weapons, I seriously doubt enough consideration by the design group was given to how does a soldier carry all this heavier gear?? Hats off to all our soldiers, who have to carry it, rarely asked for their input about effectiveness or combat practicality of same. Very much enjoyed this video and the take that you three gentlemen brought to the discussion.
Robot dog will hold your ammo
The grunt never asks "How well does it perform?" The always ask "What does it weigh?" The poodle shooter is a failure. In Vietnam, trees provided cover for "Charlie" against the 5.56 but only offered concealment against AK's. Int he Middle East, the Poodle shooter was outranged by 100 year old Mosins.
Conscripts who fire a lot of rounds without concern for hitting anything are not the standard for what is the best fighting rifle
Thank you for your service sir.
@jackthegamer Those before us trudged through the cold of Europe and Korea, the steaming jungles of the Pacific carrying a 9.6 lb. Full powered rifle. Because of that rifle, they were able to win without the air, armor, and artillery support we have today. If a soldier gets tired too easily, it is because our society from which we draw our recruits from has become soft.
I can already see Ian from forgotten weapons reviewing the XM5 in a future episode: “ the XM5 was designed and intended to defeat heavy ceramic body armor at range but still didn’t quite have the ability to do so without the use of expensive tungsten based ammunition Just like that of it’s predecessor the m993 7.62x51 nato, which is actually quite similar ballistically to that of the 6.8x51. “
LOL 😂😂
lmfao THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE WILL SAY. and not JUST excuse he reads this comment and does it as a parody... lol that really made me laugh and I heard his voice while reading it! ty
"While also having harsher recoil and eroding barrels faster than M993."
I really dont think so. The SPEAR is just such a nice rifle that even if they dont like 6.8 they might just barrel swap them to other cartridges (its ready out of the box for .308 swaps and i think 6.5). So maybe 6.8 doesnt last but the gun will.
At exactly 1/10th the cost
This is for local urban combat. The penetration is for better accuracy through front doors, refrigerators, stoves, living room walls etc... :D
That is where the next war will be fought.
(removes tinfoil hat)
I hope your full of horse shit
@@johnreeves6727 I wish I was... :)
Don't sound like to much of a nut for saying that nowadays
You're absolutely right, although I do believe they're imagining more war in urban areas of other countries, not our own. Besides, our walls are so paper thin here that 5.56 would do just fine. Ironically it's third world nations that still use brick and mortar and concrete construction.
@@TheSpecialJ11 the cat , he's right !!
See the trick is to buy a surplus M9 and then to go ahead and rebuild it with all Beretta parts and then it'll work like a good old-fashioned 92F that you get from your gun store
If civilians really want to keep up with what the military is doing, then for the time being, they should stick with .308, since it's a proven, common cartridge, and give the 6.8×51 mm at least a few years to see if the cartridge sticks. 15 years ago, they said the SCAR platform was going to replace the M4, yet here we are.
The losers might try to sell their plastic cased cartridge's in order to make up for R&D costs
Good advice.
@@paulbarclay4114
$8K 💀
Also, I'm skeptical of the three piece cartridge, three or more different metals, how will it fare in long term storage, sub optimal conditions especially corrosive electrolytic reation, are they willing to bet it all, I'm sure the field test is gonna show, the scope is mostly useless, most of the time, the system is too heavy and 99% of the users weren't able to take advantage of any of the improvements over avaliable .308 systems
@@ThisFish888, you have a point. Advancements in technology generally should be avoided when they first become available to the consumer to see if any issues arise due to oversight on the part of the engineers who designed it. It can happen even with the best companies out there. Same thing applies to vehicles. My truck is 2001, and it was only the second year the manufacturer used plastic intake manifolds on the engine. Those plastic manifolds are notorious for cracking and leaking antifreeze. Only time will tell what happens with this new cartridge, but given current events, we might just find out soon enough.
My reserve unit was still stuck qualifying with M16A1 rifles in 2003. We finally got the A2 in 2004. I'm sure the Army will field this new rifle just as quickly.
basically the combat arms will get the new rifles and the M4, 240, 249 will remain in the support or non combat arms.
Sig simply undercut HK once again with their s**t QC lacking firearms.
I live in Canada. We'll probably adopt this round in 2070 or thereabouts.
We had Vietnam issue XM-16E1s from Harrington and Richardson and original AR-15s from Colt when I was last in a reserve unit in 1989 before I went active. We still had 90mm Recoilless Rifles also. The tank battalion I went to in Germany still had M-3 SMGs in the maintenance sections and M1911A1s for all the tank crews.
@@paulmaul2186 US will be fielding plasma by the time we get a new service pistol
The M17 does one thing the M9 doesn't do... it fires when dropped
I think what everyone is missing across the internet is why the Army suddenly jumped with both feet on this change. It is important to realize the Army has been looking for a better replacement or theM16 for 2 decades, but why now? One of the panel members talked about fighting he last war etc., but I think 90% of the comments are comments about the last war and are not looking at all to the here and now. Specifically, this announcement comes 3 months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and rising tensions in the Pacific with China.
The harsh truth is the most likely theaters of war now are Eastern Europe and China. There is heavily urbanized centers and urban combat in Ukraine, but what is happening outside the urban warfare? Ukraine is showing a different and significantly shifting infantry war. Units are not closing to the short combat range of the M16 staying further out and launching manpad missiles. However, the units are not freely moving around at the greater distances due to drones. Drones and the open farming terrain of Ukraine are making it hard for infantry to engage with the short range weapons. Whoever has longer range rifles will have the edge. Much of he terrain in Korea and China would create a similar impact. Distance is a survival factor for infantry.
Please reconsider some of your comments because I think the truth is the new gun and round reflect the changes now being demonstrated in Ukraine and ones that will be reality for infantry warfare for the next two decades. In this, I think the US Army is in fact grasping something most commentary are not. It is clear tis has been a raging debate in the DoD for well over a decade. I think the trigger was pulled based on what is happening n Ukraine. Nor does this mean the M16/M4 is scrapped. More likely they are stored in case there is a need for the lighter weapons and ammo.
Small arms in the Ukraine war isnt going to make a hell of a lot of difference. Theyre getting smoked by artillery/drone strikes. Quite simply put, burdening our troops with even more weight so they can use a cartridge that reaches out a few hundred meters more than a 5.56, seems ridiculous. Seems like a PR stunt that will have no benefit on the battlefield. Wonder how much money the DoD made with Sig on that contract.
So the next target for an invasion is China? 😂 Good luck
Your point of current threats are well spoken.
While I have agreed we need a higher power rifle option for quite some time, I believe for less upfront money and less retraining money we could have had an AR-10 rifle for the same effect.
I would like to see 11 series, 12 series, and 19 series troops having both AR-15 and AR-10 issue options depending on the theater of operations.
Seems that a mix might be a better option. Maybe the days of "one size fits all" rifle with the soldier likes it or not, is an outdated concept. With the modern advancement of weapons, there seems to be no weapon that will do everything well. Maybe its time to mix it up abit?
The post that I just made in response to this video reflects many of the same points you are making: to quote that post:
-=-=-=-=-
In my opinion, concerns about how the new platforms will be adapted to by individual soldiers are mostly valid, but the implications of these concerns are overblown. Small arms are primarily about giving soldiers confidence and secondarily about giving them capabilities to defend themselves when and if they need to. In 2022, it is safe to say that "small arms are not the most vital element in winning wars," and they are also not the most consequential commitment a national military industrial complex makes. Obviously the nature of small arms and how they are used are often vital to how specific battles are won or lost, and this is more true for some battles than for others. It also needs to be noted that, "adopting" these new platforms does not mean that all the knowledge, all the stockpiles, all the production capacities centered around 5.56x45 platforms will be somehow magically erased. When and if, in some future conflict, deficiencies of the 6.8x51 platforms are revealed then the option to re-integrate stockpiled 5.56x45 assets, or even some other assets, will always exist. What this all means is that: the risk that these changes reduce U.S. military competency is probably very close to zero, and the possibility that they enhance U.S. military competency is reasonably high that the decision probably does not reflect a drug-addled psychotic delusion, as so many "gun guy" channels seem to think. I would be more engaged and entertained if guys like these (Mac, Jason, Pat) attempted to apply their extraordinary expertise in firearms to try to UNDERSTAND: (a) why and how the top brass made the decisions they made; and (b) what the full implications of those decisions could prove to be, rather than taking the very simplistic and frankly presumptuous stance that, their experience puts them into a position to second guess those top brass decisions. No one is infallible, so maybe second guessing that top brass is warranted, but this form of commentary doesn't convince me as such; it simply gives me the sense that a lot of guys who know a lot about firearms and their operations assume that that means they understand military science better than the top graduates of West Point and Annapolis who have been studying military science for 30 year long careers.
Feel free to disagree with me or point out where I'm not quite getting it right; I don't presume to be a Ph.D. in Military Science! :P
But that is my take at this point!
We don't really use full auto on the line. I can count on my fingers the numbers of time I fired full auto through an M4 in training. Never once in combat. I'd venture to say most 11B's would have similar experiences.
1960s: People hating on the M16
2022s: People hating on the next thing
Yup. The only units we used AUTO were in Recon Platoons doing Break Contact drills in our 5-6 Man Recon Teams, or sometimes in the line when I was a Team Leader or Squad Leader when one of my SAWs went down, I would switch over to lay down higher volume of fire as the SAW gunner fixed his mess and got back into the fight.
7 different units all over the world as an 11B, and I try to tell people that Full Auto just isn’t a thing for an Infantryman outside of the SAW, M60 or M240. That said, this isn’t something I would want for every Rifleman in the line. Same for Grenadiers, Team Leaders, Squad Leaders, RTOs, PLs, PSGs, Medics, FOs, XOs, Drivers, etc. So basically nobody except DMs.
Very true, my combat experience and training reflected the exact same thing.
So you are saying that the whole assault rifle was a mistake and we should have stuck with the M14/FAL style battle rifle, because you never used the auto feature much? In any case, the complaint is with the weight of the ammo. We recognized that we didn't need full auto much when we adopted burst fire rifles. But light, small ammo is important.
@@justforever96 There are some features on the Sturmgewehr that have never really been understood or adopted by subsequent designs that made its automatic mode of fire relevant.
1. It had a very low cyclic rate.
2. It used constant recoil.
As a result, it was excellent for shooting movers in the European plains and urban environments with very short, controlled bursts that don't come off-target.
You can also make single shots very easily with it on auto, because cyclic rate is so slow.
A faster cyclic rate rifle with higher recoil just isn't useful.
Even 5.56 is hard to control on auto with a faster cyclic rate. 2rd burst would make more sense for 5.56, but it's easy enough to shoot 2 rounds fast on semi if you have a fast cyclic rate.
@@justforever96 I think all the OP was saying is that critiquing the recoil of the rifle based on full auto isn’t really very applicable, since full auto isn’t commonly used.
Good discussion. For me, I can't see this ever being an option. For my needs, 5.56 and 7.62 will be good to go. I do hope it takes off so that my 5.56/7.62 ammo gets a HUGE surplus surge in availability!
any company makeing ammo for the millitary will be pushing out this new round..and since its bigger it will take more material to make it..i dont think you see much change in 5.56 availabillity
..about as good as it gets..FOR CIVILIANS yeah
It won't be as good as you think for 5.56 availability
Our stupid government destroys surplus ammunition
I personally believe that 6mm ARC is the best round for the civilian market going forward. I could be wrong of course, I'm basing this off of the data Hornady released about it not personal experience.
6.5 grendel or 6mm arc... just saying...
I don't see anything wrong at all with the DI AR platform. I like the balance and the way it works. 6mm arc would have done the job just fine with a barrel and bolt swap.
Money money money is the whole plan. Makes those with stock wealthier..
You are correct Sir!
A different magazine is also required. That said, I'm a big fan of 6.5 Grendel. Alexander Arms was very smart to get Wolf to make and sell cheap 6.5 Grendel ammo. Of course, the Wolf ammo was 1/3 the cost when I bought it a few years ago compared to now.
I always hated using such a small caliber while being a SAW gunner with the m249 . So when I was able to use the 240B it was a better day.
"For the average troop". Army acquisition has been getting too much of the "special ops" mentality. Like MAC said, 99% are not big, experienced operators. Standard service rifle selection needs to be viewed in context of mass issue, not small elite units.
The average operator isn’t that big
The M5 should replace the SCAR17, not the M4. SpecOps guys would probably like an improved 308-type rifle.
The Tire 1, 2, and 3 guys can get whatever weapon system they want that meets the need of the mission. This is not a gun for general troop.
@@czluver4338 Concur
Military has become too dependent on spec ops, next war may be far more like Ukraine than Afghanistan
The thing is: we didn't leave the .308 behind. 5.56 was a fine round for the jungles of Vietnam (and its arguably still best for a submachinegun or carbine), but for the past 20 years of deployments we got the old M14s out of storage because sometimes the enemy is more than 300m away, and sometimes you need to penetrate barriers. I'd be opposed to giving the new 6.8 rifles to everyone because the weapons are heavier and harder to handle, and most support troops who shoot twice a year and mostly just carry their rifle on their back while they do their real job would not be able to handle the new rifles, but in the real world we've seen too many times where the designated marksmen and machinegunners are the only ones fighting, and everyone with a carbine sits around. It's logical to give a different, more powerful battle rifle to infantry and cavalry while vehicle crews and support troops stick with carbines.
Great points!
From what I recall about Afghanistan, the issue is that troops were being fired upon from ridges.
It's like if you're standing on a hilltop aiming downward, of course it's going to be harder for enemies to reach you because you're firing from a higher level than them.
Also, there is the problem of weight in this. Modern Great Power militaries sre overloading their troops already. This thing is even worse in that regard.
Hell, the cartridges in this wete supposed to be lighter but I don't think that'd the case anymore thanks to this overpowered round that won't be able to penetrate Level IV body armor.
I like a 308..DOD couldve made some Modified AR10s in 308 with 16 &18" Barrels for Iraq in no time and provided better for Infantry, and M.P.s
Definitely agree it doesn't make sense for vehicle crews, especially in regular force on force combat. Insurgency type asymmetric combat might be a little different, shit my tank platoon even had an M14 and an M590 because we weren't on our tanks. I still think this round is a bit excessive, a bump up from 5.56 is a great idea but this is leaning way into the 7.62 side of things.
5.56 was an awful round in Vietnam. The viet Cong themselves were baffled by its use.
In Afghanistan our troops faced the PKM and we fought back with the M240B. It was never an M4 issue as it was used against AKM rifles.
It is what it is. You want more power, you make the tradeoff. You want it easier to shoot, you make the tradeoff. From a minuteman perspective, if infantry squads are rolling around with full auto and armor penetration capability, I need to be fast and light, therefore the AR still has a huge purpose for the average american citizen.
Honestly they had a point with 6mm arc. It's fairly capable and an actual do-all cartridge that performs well out of various barrel lengths and so far it's proven to be an all around great round. I just wish we had more of it, it's a great match round and even overmatch in some cases to larger platforms and calibers.
@@gavindooly2375 maybe a .243 made necked down into an suto.
@@navigator1372 a 6mm arc can go 1000 yards and has a weight of 108 grains. Heavier than a 5.56, but capable of going greater distances with reduced wind holdover and supersonic capability past 650 yards. Plus it's an intermediate rifle caliber that can be shot out of an AR-15 meaning you can carry more of it and it generates the same chamber pressures as 5.56 so barrel life is more or less the same. This cartridge does .308 things that we love .308 for but it's a literal do-all cartridge that can do close quarters work, DMR work, general purpose work, and hunting everything up to white tail deer. Give that damn thing a bimetal casing and a steel penetrator and you have everything we need.
So does the M1 Garand in 7.62. Keep the goblins as far away from the family as possible. Those infantry squads will have plenty of 7.62 belts to trade. And there are other scenarios.......
Honestly you can take away the brass deflector, forward assist, rear charging handle and left side charging handle and just have a fixed reciprocating right side charging handle on it and call it a day. It saves a shitload of time and cost plus it does three jobs in one so it's arguably more efficient. Plus with last round bolt hold open available if everything works as intended you only have to worry about the initial charge. If the bolt hold open fails it's still objectively superior to rear charging because it's less awkward especially with mounted optics, you don't have to take your head off the stock when you do it so you don't lose sight picture or eye relief plus it reduces the number of snag points. This was over engineered and way too expensive, on top of that why didn't we just do a bimetal casing for an intermediate rifle cartridges that can go 1000 yards like 6mm arc or 224 Valkyrie? This could have been done better if not cheaper and easier on everyone including the people who are going to train with it right down to the armorers who are going to have to maintain it. Plus get this, 6mm arc result-wise nets you similar capabilities to a .308. it's faster, lighter, capable of the same distances, and you can convert any AR-15 to fire it. Meaning we could have overmatch, lightweight, easy to use m4s with MLOK if we really wanted to. Plus fixed right side charging uppers are becoming more common and popular because of all those features I mentioned earlier. A caliber and slight ergonomic change would make our current weapons equally capable if not more so. The only thing missing would be a gas piston.
“Supplemented” by M5 would be a better term than “replaced”. Most members of the military will keep their M4. The M5 and the ammo met the criteria of the program: cartridge and rifle that can defeat armor, without using tungsten, and with a bullet design the Army already owns.
I think this will be a DMR and will only have an LPVO. A whole new rifle, calibre and scope, (hyper expensive scope), isn’t happening.
This is what i heard as well so was confused by the podcast
@@afd19850 Yea that's my exact point. Right now the military has a boner for Sig. THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT ITS BEEN.
Front line infantry isnt even half the entire army population, doubt how well those cooks and clerks would use the m5 to full potential when its heavier harder recoiling and accuracy in combat requires good shooting fundamentals and focus under stress anyways
@@afd19850 The order for the scopes has allready gone out
No need to retrain armorers, the military will do what they always so. When we switched to the m240 and 249, they sent out the technical order and said figure it out.
Probably depends on which they figure costs less- retraining armorers or fixing all the problems caused by not training them.
Same as they did when they first fielded P-51 Mustangs to some squadrons/wings back in WW2.
@@TheKyleMark You actually believe they think that far ahead?
I wouldn't say I'm a "gun guy" but this discussion was pretty cool and has sparked my interest in learning more about modern warfare and weaponry.
Budding systems engineer here. :)
Awesome, welcome
Just remember not every modern warfare and weaponry decision is a great idea even if it "appears to work" Logic tells me this will be a huge cost in time and money to retrain so many soldiers if they plan to replace every firearm as it has been discussed with the new NGSW-FC to go on top of these new platforms.
Welcome!! I’m not really a rifle guy( like pistols) so we are halfway there!!
Honestly you can take away the brass deflector, forward assist, rear charging handle and left side charging handle and just have a fixed reciprocating right side charging handle on it and call it a day. It saves a shitload of time and cost plus it does three jobs in one so it's arguably more efficient. Plus with last round bolt hold open available if everything works as intended you only have to worry about the initial charge. If the bolt hold open fails it's still objectively superior to rear charging because it's less awkward especially with mounted optics, you don't have to take your head off the stock when you do it so you don't lose sight picture or eye relief plus it reduces the number of snag points. This was over engineered and way too expensive, on top of that why didn't we just do a bimetal casing for an intermediate rifle cartridge that can go 1000 yards like 6mm arc or 224 Valkyrie? This could have been done better if not cheaper and easier for everyone including the people who are going to train with it right down to the armorers who are going to have to maintain it. Plus even if you're left handed, shooting from the prone is easier with side charging rifles. Especially if the side charging handle isn't forward of the Bolt carrier but on it directly. Seriously, a company builds a reputation as a good manufacturer with a reputation for efficient design and they made this over priced, over weight, over designed rifle platform. And the funnier thing is that side charging AR uppers are becoming more common. You can buy one online and it's compatible with almost all the same AR shit. I own one made by Bear Creek Arsenal and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that side charging the AR was a great choice. We could have just done a caliber and slight ergonomic change to current weapons and easily converted our existing platform to something objectively better. All it would have been missing is a gas piston.
Combat troops in Vietnam were primarily urban draftees with no weapons experience prior to boot camp. Quite simply there was not enough time to train them to competency with a high recoil rifle. Thus the 5.56.
We now have a volunteer military which is significantly more rural in background, serving longer enlistments and re-enlisting for multiple tours. They now have the time to train troops in competency in their weapons.
I foresee retention of the M4 for non frontline troops, in the same rolls the M1 carbine was designed for.
Sig’s sales team are basically legends from what it sounds like.
best knee pads in the business
The woman Jason saw firing the Sig Spear in full auto was Lena Miculek. If Lena can't hold that in full auto, I feel confident that generally the standard Joe won't be able to hold it down.
@@JohnDoe-yq9ml You got me all wrong. A bigger dude will have an upper hand. I didn't deny that. The thing is she shots for a living since she was really young. So any female soldier, or a smaller man in the military, will have an even harder time trying to hold the 6.8x51 down in full auto. A stronger dude with training will do better, but still as is shown in the video, have a hard time with the gun in full auto.
@@ThadeuAzevedo "female soldier" rofl. Even Ukranians are finding out quickly it's a bad idea to have them anywhere near the front.
Exactly. She was taught recoil control by one of the masters of the art, pretty much from birth.
No fucking joke.
@@hilltop4847 k
Outstanding video, literally. It stands out from other discussions of this change that I've come across. The depth and breadth of discussion was really great to see, and just when I thought you weren't going to cover the one last thing I was curious about, defeating "near peer" body armor, you did so quickly and effectively!
Instant sub!
Hell imagine a 5.56 with that hybrid case design, they could have gotten it up to probably about 3500fps or more out of a 14.5in barrel
A soft point 5.56 would also be very effective and would extend lethal range
@@jackomalley3687 soft points have “less range” just due to not being as aerodynamic
Their might be a downside to that burning barrels out with that much pressure and powder through a 22 cal barrel
I think the bigger question that needs to be asked here is who the hell did Sig pay off to get all of the new military contracts...
Bingo.
Gas prices
💯 Exactly!
They only have 4 contacts. Not that Many.
@@djl5634 4 contracts worth billions and billions of dollars...
The Army literally said that they wouldn't adopt the rifle unless soldiers in the field wanted it, and desired it over the M4. They literally put 100's of thousands of hours of field time into this and the other candidate rifles. One thing that isn't mentioned here is that the US Army has no intention of deploying an iron sight version of this. The optic is part of the weapon. This optic will automatically adjust the sight for range up to 800 yards, and this round will get there.
At what 10, 11, 12 lbs?
@@claudhenrysmoot7957 yea, that's the kicker. Thats exactly what the US army is saying happened
I'd have a hard time adjusting to that. I always looked UNDER the ACOGs to use the iron sites. I shot worse with that stupid scope they stacked on top the A4s & A5s. I hated the fact I could not count on my rifle delivering a good buttstroke more than once too. I far prefer a solid rifle w iron sites.
@@deathguppie I think they've also said that they may include the polymer ammo from the other weapon system, that will reduce the weight by some amount.
The same army that adopted ACU against the opinion of everyone who isnt colour blind?
As far as I know the biggest reason for the new calibre is to be able to penetrate enemy body armour as most near peer forces now wear body Armour.
Don't forget that when we shoot, an opposite soldier should be injured before death. An injured soldier requires immediate help, takes resources, also provides a physiological factor. A dead soldier is dead immediately they die, they are still dead a day, week, month later. They require no immediate help or resources.
@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming yeah a dead soldier Is out of the game a injured one is in the game better be safe then sorry
@@dt-lg2oc I don't think you get what I was saying. A dead soldier is dead. No rush to evac the body, it's not going anywhere and it doesn't heed anything. An injured soldier will scream, jump about, be the reason for putting his immediate comrades have to stop their defence/attack to tend to them. Then the MERT will require more assets, putting them in danger. One person injured requires circa 20 people to treat, evac and MERT. A dead soldier only needs a body bag and two others to carry them.
I think people are forgetting the other technological differences of the Vietnam era, almost none of our enemies had body armor and jungle based warfare is limited to very select portions of the world. The battle rifle doctrine had a place in just about every terrain EXCEPT the jungle XD its not ideal for urban areas either but certainly works, many countries using the FAL and other long ass rifles have already proven that it's not the best choice for close range engagements but with large unit tactics it definitely gets the job done. It has an even better place in the modern age with the majority of near peer threats bearing some kind of body armor, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate higher level body armor at greater distances the incapacitation effect will be far greater. Not to mention the fact modern infantry units rarely operate without some kind of armored or air support. These more advanced supporting units alleviate the need for sheer volume of fire and allow for a more precision based style of warfare on the infantry side of things which is heavily complemented by the new fire control system. This of course only works under ideal conditions however...
err, you're nuts if you think this is good for owners of civilian 5.56 platform rifles.
The major manufacturers will retool for this round and leave 5.56 a "boutique" round that will be more expensive and harder to find than it already is.
@@vancomycinb No I don't really give a shit about civilian gun owners right now this conversation is about the newest military rifle, not sure where you got that idea from. Who brings up how it will affect the civilian market when discussing a weapons aptitude for military service? lol XD
I've actually got to hold and fire the MCX Spear in 6.5 Creedmoor with very little recoil with a 1-6 scope. Loved it. But that is still less power than the 6.8 x 51. The rifle is about the weight of the M4. However its new optics will add another 2 lbs. To change to another caliber (X x 51 size or .308) is two screws after the hand guard is removed. To change calibers is not that hard on this rifle if they need to. They could also use the polymer ammo that was developed if necessary.
One thing you leave out in your conversation is that when the M14 was issued was we didn't have the SAW when we were using the M14. The new Sig claims their new light machine gun has the recoil of the M4. It has more than just one recoil spring to dampen the recoil. So your full auto is covered by the M250 with a larger round, longer range, more range, and more penetration. The M250 will be in each fire team so your fire team fire power just increased. Once again to change calibers on this is very easy to do. The Army also wanted to use the same ammo for both the SAW and Rifle. I've seen in another video that the Army is looking to upgrade the M240 to the 6.8 x 51. Now your logistics just got simplified....in theory.
I think the Army is betting on the optics to improve the accuracy to reduce the amount of ammo needed for a kill. The Marine Corps proved that when they started using the ACOG and were being accused of executing people because of the number of head shots they were making. So optics has really improved, and increased our lethality. The new optics takes setting your dope to a new level. You can laser rang your target and it will automatically change your optics dope. Now you need to trust the computer on the optics. Going from iron sights to optics took a leap of faith and it worked. This is another leap of faith.
The amount of ammo for a load out is going to be lower because of the case size. That will be an issue. Shooting in a built up area is going to be an issue because now you will go through multiple buildings now because of the increase penetration. Shooting in the off hand will be interesting to see. However, even on the old Marine Corps shooting positions most shooting positions the weapon is supported. That combined with the optics the qualifications may increase. But I fully understand your position. It is a wait and see at this point.
You are correct that the increase pressure was in order to reduce the barrel length. That was one of the key requirements for the program. As you pointed out being able to penetrate modern body armor was also a critical requirement. It wasn't too long ago that most countries didn't have body armor. That is changing. Plus what we gave away in Afghanistan will be used against us. So the idea is to prepare for the future so when they catch up we will be ready.
You keep going back to the 7.62 x 51 as a fall back round. The 6.5 Creedmoor is a much better round for long range with less recoil with more lethality at longer ranges. I think the standard round used is evolving and it sounds like it will be in the 6mm range.
Great discussion!!!!
You do understand the 5.56 haa near identical ballistics to 7.62x51 the US Army rates all 5.56 ammo as combat ineffective past 200m and little use below that.
You make many good points bud. I agree with you on nearly everything, except the 6.5 CM being better than the .308 for long range. Well let me rephrase that, I don't agree with it being deadlier at long ranges. I'll give you it does shoot flatter. That little joker amazed me the first time I got to fire one at distance! What blew my mind was the recoil, and pressure! More like lack of lol. I was really impressed. I guess I'm as guilty of being partial to the .308 as anyone. Because if you read what I just typed I guess it's hard to see what my point is lol. I still say the .308 is deadlier at long range.
Another thing, I haven't read up on barrel life of the Creedmoor, but it's gotta be substantially longer than the .223 and .308
I think everything you say here is very well thought out and none of it is necessarily wrong, I'll just add this caveat: all the talk of accurate and controlled fire can easily get out from under you when you start getting attacked by a significant amount of firepower. Even the Russians and Middle Eastern insurgents know how to lay down intense amounts of lead, I'd even say the Russians and Chinese specialize in it. I worry that this rifle+optic+cartridge combo is all fine and dandy when guys are taking pot shots at insurgents at 1000m but when they are in an ambush at 200-600m taking withering amounts of incoming fire are our guys going to be able to use these magic new optics and this extremely powerful round to provide effective return fire? Not to mention when the fight is back in the cities like in Baghdad and Mosul (where I fought) are these fancy new optics even going to be a gamechanger? I doubt it. All I know for sure is that it's us who are going to be fronting the bill whether it flies or flops...
@@tankerd1847 Yea, Overall i highly doubt that these weapons, sight and all, will wind up being the game changer that they claim it to be... it would have likely been very useful for people out on convoy rides through afghanistan, all the way from the pullout back to the start 20 years ago, but the war this weapon would have been useful for is over, and unless we plan on heading right back into Afghanistan, i doubt very much that this weapon will get much use. The sights would probably sooner find themselves mounted on the new M250 and currently available DMRs than this weapon as well, since the sight seems based around those longer-than-usual ranges as well.
It's certainly not a good bye to the m16 family. They only ordered 16,000 and will wait for field testing to order more.
Considering it's increases weight and reduced ammo capacity it's not likely to be the rifle of choice so that potential order of 100,000 plus rifles isn't likely to happen.
It'll have its role but not as a rifle for troops who spend a lot of time moving on foot for long periods of time. The weight alone is a major negative to the current duty rifle.
@@thinkharder9332 same weight without the 2lb optic and a loaded mag now add those and it’s about 3 lbs heavier
@@thinkharder9332 M27 doesn't increase ammo weight and bulk like this XM5 does, that's the main factor.
You’re unquestionably right. What I read so far said that, in addition to the extra weapon weight, a soldier is going to have 70 less rounds for an additional 4 1/2 pounds. Bad trade. The problem was the M4 just doesn’t have the range needed in combat situations that were encountered in Afghanistan where are soldiers perceived that they were outranged. I hadn’t even thought about recoil impulse because I had come to apparently an incorrect conclusion they figured that out - but the weight issue alone is daunting.
They have a lower power all brass round that will probably be used for training ammo - that is the rumor anyways. That means people might be able to qualify on the range but could have a tough time with the full power war ammo.
As an ex British Army veteran from 82 onwards so started with the 7•62/51 SLR so knew how to manage recoil. One obvious problem the lady shooter had with the M5. She did not have the butt secured into her shoulder. Several times when cross training US National Guard troops to use UK weapon systems. Even after demonstrating and repeatedly hammering home just how important a secure/firm grip of the weapon was. At least one in ten attempted to fire the SLR as if it was a M16 half of them learned after firing one round. Some threw the weapon refusing to even pick it back up. Our NCO’s and their TOP had an interesting time re-educating them. A handful of old school Vietnam vets who started with M14 preferred our battle rifle. When they returned home some of them bought them for hunting.
"Are they really going to get it?" Well, remember how long it took to replace the M1 with the M14? They actually never completely did. The M14 was officially adopted in 1957 and the last M1 wasn't removed from service until 1974. Thousands of troops went straight from M1s to M16s without ever seeing an M14.
It took the Army a better part of ten to fifteen years to replace the old .45 cals with M9's.
Though officially entering service in 1936. Did not see significant numbers produced until 1942. Too late for those on the Philippine Islands or on Guadalcanal.
my number one question is just how the barrels will hold up
@@DeltaEchoGolf True. Garands didn't show up on Guadalcanal until the Army came to relieve the Marines
Marines were using the Johnson rifle.
@@shotbytim9624
Once again, they are preparing for the last war we fought. We've spent all these years reducing the weight of the service rifle and now have gone way off in the other direction.
Well there is plenty afghan like terrain’s in the world. But to make a rifle just focused on one theater of warfare is not smart.
no they are taking lesson from previous AND looking forward to the next, this solves both the range limitations that were issue in Afghanistan AND solve the issue of peer body armor 556 simply cant do jack to ...
@@Asghaad I sincerely doubt this rifle has any capability of busting modern body armor without tungsten core ammo.
@@carbon8ed uhhh yeah ... thats the fact of the matter that you need AP ammo to beat modern armor ...
noone EVER claimed that 6.8 can beat modern body armor with FMJ ...
@@Asghaad There is not enough tungsten in the world for AP .277 fury to be standard issue for anyone. Especially when 90% of tungsten is coming from Russia and China, *both* of our potential enemies in this "near peer" conflict people keep going on about.
Killing the enemy isn’t always just hitting them it’s suppression with heavy ammo and 20 round mags that might be a problem and the weight I’m currently serving as a infantryman so it worries me quite a bit.
If you spray a lot of bullets that are nowhere near hitting. You are not suppressing anything. Fewer shots fired more accurately forcing the enemy to take cover or die is more effective suppressive fire. The poodle shooter is s failure
@@scoutdynamics3272 It's replacing the M16 not the M4. Accuracy wasn't the concern with the M16. This firearm suffers from the same shortcomings that lead to the M16 being used over the M14.
@@abonynge The A1 was not accurate. The A2 was accurate but didn't hit hard. The poodle shooter is a failure
@@Me-yq1fl It never won a ground battle, it has been outranged and out penetrated. It is a failure. Without the Air Force to first pound the enemy into dust, it cannot win. It is an execution tool, not a fighting tool
@@scoutdynamics3272 OK boomer.
Everybody: "5.56 or 7.62 gets the job done! This new caliber is unnecessary and stupid!"
Also everybody: "I can't wait to get my hands on one of these M5's!!!"
They clearly are very much expecting a tussle with a conventional army, And chose defeating body armor over being controllable
That sliding scale - the bullet does have to hit the body armor in order to defeat it.
Global lockdown
A unique caliber capable of defeating commonly available body armor has more utility against a domestic population armed with 5.56 AR's and commercially available plates. I suspect it was a factor in their decision.
@@EclecticBuddha Problem with that is the new round won't penetrate level IV or III+ body armor, so unless the person is using III or IIIA, the .277 isn't going to penetrate it.
Cant really beat armor if you cant hit it HMMMMM
You said it - "You are always fighting the last war"- We have spent almost 20 years in Afghanistan where the 5.56 hasn't worked all that well. This rifle has a place, but NOT as an everyday, every troop carry weapon IMO.
Personally, I prefer my .308. Even a 7.62x39 packs more of a punch than a 5.56.
@@robertgantry2118 5.56 goes far fast.7.62 goes "slow" but hits like a sledge hammer 🔨
5.56 actually did fine when u find out that the only thing that matters is who can shoot enough bullets to keep your enemy down while others flank them
@@cla45matt55 and that worked out great in Afghanistan didn't it? 20 years and trillions wasted , just to leave behind billions in military equipment! And what round were the Afghans firing at U.S. troops? Yup that's right 7.62x39👍
@@royadams3620 I don’t remember saying anything ever worked out great in Afghanistan.
They aren't crazy though... This is about money, not practicality.
I was dissappointed that 6.5 Grendel didn't get adopted. I love shooting mine. Ex Army BTW .
IMO it's the most American round there is.
Man moves from tyrannical Europe to build the 'perfect' cartridge. Does it extremely well. To the point they started printing it off in steel on the other side of the world. BUT AA wasn't a giant, privately traded company and senators / congress couldn't get rich through insider trading if they adopted the round.
meanwhile, Serbia is adopting Grendel as their primary cartridge...
Doesn't hurt that AA is 25 minutes down the road from me...
@phantommaggotxxx Serbia is adopting the 6.5mm because all they need to do is rebarral their rifles since the 6.5mm GR is based on the 7.62x39.
Love this style of video, loving the conversation everyone has valid points to throw in and it's all very interesting and entertaining. Thanks for the content folks.
My hope is that they focus on training and accuracy and keep our troops farther back from the enemy that'll be shooting 5.45 or 7.62x39 weapon systems and be more out of range and have less efficacy at the distances that the new rifle is effective. Putting an advanced scoping system on it should also give that advantage. I've watched people get behind an AR10 with a decent scope for the first time and hit a bullseye first shot with some instruction, so imagine having training and a targeting system in their hands? Lots of potential.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the 6.8x51 becomes something more like a 6.5 Grendel or a down powered round that is still more effective than the 556 and quieter with the suppressor.
Yea, but see, 6.5 Grendel was the better option to begin with.
The entire reason for 5.56 to begin with is that you can't keep your troops further back. Any confrontation in an urban setting will end with enemies right in your face. You cannot prevent that.
@@Maniac742 Yes. And once again, 6.5 Grendel is the better solution.
5.56 NATO already outclassed 5.45x39 and 7.62x39.
@@Maniac742 Exactly, you don't get to choose your range. Arming up for the previous war isn't going to help anything. The next war could be totally urban where no one in their right mind wants this 6.8.
As you pointed out, it seems as if US Army Infantry Board has come full circle with this new cartridge that has the recoil of the 7.62X51mm (another NATO standard in 1954).
thank you, enjoyed the conversation very much. However at the ripe old age of 70, I will not be changing my shooting habits anytime soon.
That M-16 saved my life in Vietnam but it left me with a deaf left ear and ear ringing for over 50 years. Damn thing is loud. But I hated letting go of the 14. Vietnam 65-68. Airborne!
As loud as 5.56 is, 6.8 is gonna be even louder with those crazy 80,000 PSI pressures. Suppressors are always a good idea, but it is a downright necessity on this new monster.
Like my grandfather you were in right in 65 at the major start. My grandpa was on a battleship that got blown up in that huge sea battle another reason I'm here today. Mad respect with much respect to you and ones like grandfather. Stronger generation. I will need his guidance from above when it goes down.
God-bless you for your service sir
All rifles are loud as F.
@@brandonwood3442 I mean that's not the PSI that the rounds are going to be running that's just what they wanted the barrel to be able to handle
This whole thing smells like a 401k supplement for one or more generals. Who is gonna be getting a "Consulting" job after retirement.
Yup. Why did the US Army go to velcro? Look at which Congressman's wife was an owner of the company who got the velcro contract. Velcro on a combat uniform? Sure, that's tactical.
Nailed it.
I just wish more people grasped this, but if it’s not spoon fed to them by the nightly news....
Has anyone thought about the failure rate and the types of failures of the multi-part ammo that feeds this thing?
I can't see nor have heard any concerns about the ammo failing.
"I would never switch to it"
Lol, I will remember this.
Good comments and points all! I will disagree to some extent with the recoil issue and the military based on the following. I was a Us Marine in the latter 60's. In boot camp at PI, we were all issued M-14's. We had to qualify with them and some of the recruits in my platoon were all of 5' 2" and 120 lbs. sopping wet. There was no choice, we were told "you will qualify or you will not leave this island!"
Needless to say the diminutive recruits qualified with some even racking up a great score. We shot offhand 200 yards, sitting and kneeling 300 yards, and prone 500 yards. I do agree that a beltful of 7.62X51mm, 20 round mags was a load on the pistol belt and required suspenders.
Its about being able to penetrate other powers (china russia etc) armour. That is the troops plate carriers and such. 556 just dosent have enough power anymore to penetrate the most modern armour at any sort of range especially.
Uh huh, so when are we getting the new M1 Carbine replacement for non combatant and specialist roles? They might even need to rush in some P90s and MP7s if they end up in a long war.
Neither does this
Meanwhile those "armored" Russian troops are getting obliterated by 5.45 and grenades dropped by drones. They don't look that hard to kill to me.
@@GD-lw9yv You don't know that.
@@cod6guy12 Literally tungsten-core stuff in 5.56 already defeats modern body armor just fine, same for 7.62. This caliber does nothing new, except ruin ammo compatibility with NATO and cost our military a ton of money
Having served in the Army I can honestly say from my observations that most people are barely capable of shooting 5.56mm. I doubt that this is going to be an easy transition. What could make some sense is for the combat arms and possibly some combat support to be outfitted with this. The majority of those serving only shoot the rifle each year for qualification. Cooks, truck drivers, medical, and many other specialties do not need an upgrade.
Having 2x to 3x more rounds in the 5.56 was a key innovation. The vast majority of shots fired in modern warfare is aimed at nothing but air to suppress the enemy so that your team can maneuver. I get that we need a new round to defeat armor, but surely we could have come out with a slightly larger 6mm high velocity round that can defeat plate armor so that we don't lose that much round capacity and we don't get that much more recoil.
I think the 6.8 round was chosen specifically for this, while retaining 556 flight trajectory. It is less rounds, and we will see if that's a big problem. There will still be machine guns in squads to provide cover. Time will tell if the optics+firepower are enough to save on wasted rounds
The rifle is a meme that won’t go far without serious design changes.
LMG is a big upgrade though.
Just another lateral engineering scam for private contractors to make money. Exactly nobody was clamoring for this soon-to-be failure.
Such as?
@@dipschmidt4116 Any of the following would go a long way (Lower on the list == More important):
-Increase Magazine Size
-Smaller Caliber
-Longer Barrel (Less need for 80K PSI loads that will decimate barrel rifling)
-Reduce Weight (Dunno how they would do this without reducing Caliber)
-Reduce Recoil (Again, dunno how they do this without using a smaller caliber)
-Make the rifle exclusive to designated marksman roles
LMG is a go especially with the new Vortex Smart optic.
You could reduce felt recoil by moving to a long stroke piston system instead of a short stroke. That spreads out the recoil impulse and makes it smoother, because the energy is released and transferred more slowly. Lowering the chamber pressure would help too.
I don't know if that would make it "good" but it would be an improvement.
MAC, I’ve been subscribed since the OG “ACR vs SCAR” videos back in the day. This is some of the best content you’ve put out. The professional quality podcast set up putting out a discussion video/podcast specifically geared towards military weapons is something I’d watch weekly.
It seems like the only real upside to the new cartridge is commonality of ammunition between all the weapons within the platoon. So the army knows that it’s gonna be harder to use and they just don’t really care because it’s simplifies ammunition logistics and it also simplifies weapons spare parts logistics, by combining two different weapon systems in the one.
"This Is Why The 6.8 Spear Can Never Replace The 5.56 NATO" interesting video...
For general use it seems adapting the current platforms to 6.8 SPC would be a better option. It would save cost as well as training. The drop in ammo capacity per shooter is minimal.
No need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to platform and magz. The Spear seems to be better suited for more specialized groups, situations, etc...
The ammo will cost more and weigh more. Drop in shooters ammo load-out. Rifle will also be heaver. Accessories and gear...every once counts.....
MAC: "The Army didn't think this through."
The Army: "He knows."
24:45 7 years of watching you're channel, I never thought Tim would be peddling propaganda of the warmongers that deployed us to Iraq to secure "Iraqi WMDs". NACP is a government agency controlled by Igor/Ihor Kolomoisky, the epitome of corruption. The same oligarch that funded the CIA led coup that installed the current client regime.
And according to Radio Free Europe (anti Russian media) funded the establishment of Azov and Aidar -battalions- Divisions. Using them as his personal army to extort rival oligarchs, and intimidate rivals to the current guy "in charge".
Not saying the conscripts were given top of the line Russian kit, but his source of the information shows how easily influenced he is.
IMO its already stupid that the US army is doing this on their own. Not just ignoring other miltary branches, but the entirety of NATO as well as asian allies.
That alone will make it very difficult to ever make it a mainstay cartridge.
@@termitreter6545 imo, if the US moves, NATO will also eventually move over to this new round and rifle.
@@Gberg8888 Unlikely imo, as long as its not somehow super succesful or literally every russian soldier in Ukraine uses top tier body armor.
And even then its questionable, the round seems like a slight upgrade to 7.62x51 at best. And nobody seem to complain about 308s performance; the only complaint of that ammo was its weight and recoil, ironically enough.
Histroically, look how long it took to standardize on 5.56. UK did it in the late 80s, Germany in the 90s, even more recent for eg the Baltic states. A lot of them also recently got new 5.56 rifles, which they dont want to give up.
And its not just that you'd need to convince them to switch out weapons and ammo, but make changes to infantry doctrine again. Going away from 5.56+DMR tactics means making organisatorial changes yet again.
Idk, maybe if "eventually" means in 30+ years. But who knows if the US army will actually switch over, rather than declare it yet again another failure to replace the M4...
@@Gberg8888 Perhaps Western European allies and Japan will switch, but the rest of the "American sphere" has only really now got fully used to 5.56 NATO. You're gonna have the NATO Eastern Flank & the Ukrainians running 5.56 NATO for at least a decade and then some.
Which might be actually good, since the West will be able to support them with spare out of service 5.56 cartriges in case we in the end have to brawl with Russia.
The MCX Spear was a 6.8 adaptation of their failed M110 replacement
Big Army seems to want to consolidate DMR-men into riflemen
What is more interesting though is that they want 6.8 barrel conversions for the M240b (though they are running them with TVCM 6.8). This effectively means all squads in the basic platoon can share the same ammo because the rifleman, autorifleman (saw gunner) and machinegunner all shoot the same caliber. On paper, this sounds amazing, let's see if the benefits of uni-caliber squads outweigh the costs
The issue is you're converting all your riflemen and machine gunners that previously benefited from lighter weight weapons and ammunition, and now they have to deal with the weight and recoil.
Is that ever going to happen? Strip cartridges off links of belted ammunition then thumb them into magazines?
The US has managed quite well having incompatible ammunition between their medium machine gun and their rifle for years, it was never really a situation where somehow only the riflemen could shoot a they were all shooting so much that the machine gunner needed to distribute their ammunition to the riflemen.
@@weasle2904 The weight of the XM250 is lighter than the 249 though, so the machine gunners at least will have an easier time and could potentially carry more ammo than before, as long as the 6.8 is lighter than the 7.62
Good point. Hopefully this would never happen.
But in many front line areas, a lot of units were loading up their Humvees with a lot more ammo.
And QRF units loaded up their Humvees with lots of loaded magazines and Carl Gustavs.
@@zach1972 The KAC LAMG in 6.8 would've been lighter and more controllable.
When they went into Afghanistan I thought “Man you guys are going to need your 7.62mm rifles back soon.” Soon enough, the locals were sitting up on the hills and mountains and berms at 400m plus picking off the troops with impunity. Then the M14, AR10 and their iterations came back. Now we are back to the big hitters.
I was in The Corps when we switched to the 16 from the 14. I grew up shooting and hunting as a very young boy so carried a lot of "heavy" rifles and shotguns (.30-06 bolt action, .30-30 Winchester lever action, Wingmaster 12 gauge pump, etc.) as a small framed person so as a strapping teen boy the weight of the 14 in boot and ITR never bothered me. I qualified Expert with both the 14 and then the 16. I preferred the 14 just because, at that time, I felt safer with the wood rather than the plastic and as i was a good shot I liked the ballistics/energy advantages out past several hundred yards that the .308 provided and it generally felt more like the rifles I grew up with. From what I read about the trigger pullers in Iraq and 'Stan, they experienced stopping power issues with the M4 out past as little as 175 yards and specifically in 'Stan the 5.56 jus wasn't up to the shooting distances they faced (which is why the 14's were unmouthballed and brought back as squad marksman weapons.I for one am pleased to see the 5.56 go bye bye. I just hope the new platform is piston driven rather than pure gas tube.
Everyone has been trying to compare going to the 6.8x51mm as the military going back to the days of the M14, seemingly forgetting that the main complaints of the M14 and the 7.62x51mm, the recoil and weight, are either solved or negated by the XM5 and, more importantly, the XM157 sight and the issuing of suppressors as standard.
Yes, the XM5 weighs more than the M16 and the 6.8x51mm weighs more than the 5.56x45mm. However, thanks to the XM157 sight, soldiers can achieve more hits faster at a longer range than with the M16 and those hits will be more effective on the target than 5.56 would be. Being able to hit your target more often has long been a major goal, with things such as duplex rounds and burst functions being created to try and put more rounds on target. Also, being able to hit your target more often means you need less ammo. Put more simply, the increased weight is mitigated or negated by the fact you'll need to carry less ammo and magazines to achieve the same results.
For the recoil, the issuing of suppressors will largely negate the increase in recoil. Not completely but more than likely enough to make the difference in recoil between the unsuppressed M16 and a suppressed XM5 the difference between being poked by a finger and being "Atleast you tried" patted by your uncle. The XM157 again plays a part here. Yes, your aim will be thrown off more but with the XM157 substantially increasing your ability to put your first round on target, the need for follow up shots is also reduced.
Overall, I think the XM5 and 6.8x51 will turn out as a fine replacement for the M16 and let's be honest, the military has been trying to replace the M16 since it was introduced. The Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Advanced Combat Rifle, and Objective Individual Combat Weapon programs, which combined tried for four decades to replace the M16, failed to meet the military's desires despite creating weapons that were as good, or in a few cases better, than the M16. The fact that the military has decided after 70 years that they have found the replacement they were looking for should say a lot. Contrary to the general feeling I get when reading comments and articles that question the decision, the military has clearly put a tremendous amount of thought into this decision. I also feel a lot of the pushback and concerns are from the fact that we have gotten so used to the M16 platform that we're getting into "If it's not broke, don't fix it" territory, which is usually a good mindset but not when planning for future wars. Of course, only time and a baptism by fire will tell if the decision was the right one.
I do think the 6.5 opinions are better for most troops. But im not going to criticize to much be for i learn about it, I did see some guys shooting the new round very skilled shooters they did not seem to be affected by the recoil much.
"Hand held full auto fire is of questionable value" The late Colonel Cooper
Full auto is for machine pistols and hard mounted weapons.
I have been in love with 6.5 ever since I was gifted an ex WW2 sweed.
Have fired a lot of .308 and .223, and 6.5 is always my go to.
I feel these 6.8’s will be pretty handy.
The M5 (now the M7) only gets issued to the Close Combat forces. The rest of the Army stays with the M4.
The real game changer will be if the Army moves to the sophisticated USMC ranges.
The M5 and the M157 are a system that gives you a flat shooting cartridge with very high accuracy.
The integral suppressor enhances command and control.
War is shooting at a variety of targets at different ranges on various terrains under all weather conditions behind a variety of barriers (foliage, brush, walls, vehicles, dirt, etc.).
The M5 system has the potential to change how we fight….. if you’re 90+% accurate do you need to carry 200+ rounds?
Remember the military 6.8x51 comes in 2 forms…. The training round and the combat round.
Infantryman for almost 20 yrs here...uh, I'm not excited for this. I'm on board with Tim, use the same idea with the 6.8 spc. LWRC six8 is an amazing rifle and has a dedicated magpul magazine or just make an MCX to fit the magpul 6.8 mag. The M5 and cartridge tech is amazing, but it's too heavy, way too much recoil, and less ammo capacity. All three things an infantry leader doesn't need for the soldiers/marines under their charge. Working out more and training for aimed fire will not suffice to counter act this. I mean we can't even make an MOS specific PT test that incorporates a leg tuck because of a certain group that can't meet the standard, and now we have a massive weapon/optic? No Bueno. Idc who you are, even doing a mission for a few hours with a basic combat load, pulling security with a decked out mk18 or m4 will exhaust you. I think we'll see a scaled down version eventually. Big fan of the 6.8 beltfed concept though.
Maybe this will move that certain group out of combat before the next war starts, and wouldn't that be nice?
The XM5 will go the way of the LSAT, the SCAR, and the XM8. It will be turned down by the few troops in the field who get it, and the M4 will live on. The M4 will only be replaced if a war breaks out that forces the issue. If we get into a conflict that severely exposes the weakness of the M4, and I'm not talking about insurgents in some faraway land, then the army will literally be forced to switch weapons at gun point. Until then, everything they do is wasting money. Wasting OUR money.
They're trying to meet a threat, give the best weapons to the soldiers in the field. The people criticizing this would also be the first to criticize the status quo in the next war if the equipment wasn't working. And the government wastes our money all day every day anyway, so that argument is not relevant.
But making somebodies friends/connections money.
Yup. Give the cqb boys some blackout barrels and the guys in the mountains some modular SR-25s with 6.5 or 6.8 and save us billions. Make our ammo cheaper while they are at it.
@@cjc1103 The same people who is criticizing this new platform also criticized the 5.56 for being too inadequate a cartridge for combat. You just can't please everyone no matter what.
So your saying until our Soldiers start dieing because they faced a firepower overmatch we should not bother? Whose side are you on "Comrade"?
I’m sorry but that “spread those legs lean into it” cracked me up.
15:24 I disagree with your assessment of newbies. It's well known that recruits with no firearm experience shoot better than experienced shooters during boot camp qualification. I had no firearm experience along with my shooting partner and we both ended up qualifying the highest. He was platoon high shooter with a 237 and I was second with a 234. This was back in the '80s with a possible 250 maximum score. The recoil of the M16 is basically nothing due to the spring. I would imagine that this new weapon has more recoil but going from "nothing" to more is more likely negligible. I do agree with you guys when it comes to the military's choice. It doesn't make any sense. If I shot a ball round at an enemy at 500 meters center mass and he fell down and got back up due to his armer, then I would consider upgrading. Stealing 30% of our money needs to be justified no matter how nonsensical their arguments. It's laughable. Semper Fi.
Suppression is meant to be achieved by the light machine gunner carrying the XM250. People are focusing way too much on the rifle change, but the whole point of the *NGSW (Next Generation Squad Weapon)* program was always about finding a superior replacement for the M249 SAW, which the US Army absolutely did. The rifle replacement tagged along with the bid that ended up replacing the SAW.
In the same way that the M249 SAW is meant to suppress the enemy while the rifleman with the M4 is meant to flank them, the XM250 can do the same job of suppression even better while the rifleman with the XM5 can flank around to destroy the enemy with even more penetration, range, and knockdown power.
The M4 was not intended to be fired at full-auto for suppression, and it can often lead to disastrous results when soldiers fire it at anything more than semi-auto, which is why most soldiers are only ever trained to fire it in controlled single shots. Likewise, the training/doctrine will still be the same for soldiers when they use the XM5, which will also be staying in the semi-auto position like the M4, while the light machine gunners continue to do the actual job of suppression in full-auto.
Either way, you've just sent yourself back doctrinally 80 years. Plus this will piss off a lot of allies behind closed doors. Again, it seems your brass forgot the whole issues people had in France getting ammo, as all 3 groups had different ammo and it's why 5.56 and 7.62 NATO were adopted.
If you think regular troops don't suppress with their rifles and they wait for the SAW or a crew served to come up and do it all for them then I don't know what to tell you because that's not how it went in all my combat experience... I agree we need to move up from 5.56 but the idea that we need a rifle to shoot mountaintop to mountaintop in a caliber intended to defeat body armor our closest peers aren't even close to having just seems pretty weak. It just seems like more classic "good ideaism" coming from the brass. Fat cats that feel more of a need to make their mark on the service than to improve it.
@@tankerd1847 The main thrust of what he's saying I agree with - the rifle is a side-grade on paper, and the main purpose would just be to get all weapons on the same caliber. The main point of the competition was to get a new SAW and be able to commonize the M240. The AR is more tentative. As far as the SAW goes, this new MG is looking to be way better.
So brilliant way to phase out the abundant production of 5.56. (the common civilian's affordable carbine round) and have an expensive replacement and eventual very pricey round that keeps it just out of reach of vast civilian implementation
For sure. Been starting to diversify my calibers a few years ago into 6.5 Grendel(when it was relatively cheap), 300 blackout, and a few others along with some extra uppers in different calibers. Luckily many of us stacked enough 5.56 to last and satisfy our needs long term years ago. I find the 6.5 grendel is an excellent round of you can find a good deal on it as it offers much longer range similar to the 6.8, better overall ballistics, and not much more recoil. Plus the 6.5 Grendel uppers fit on any standard lowers that are already plentiful. Perfect alternative imo.
SIG SAUER is pleased to announce former JSOC Commander General (Scott) Miller has joined SIG SAUER as Defense Advisor.
Their it is lol this should be illegal af
I was drafted in 1971. I did my Basic Training and AIT at Fort Ord. It was infantry training. They were sending soldiers, still, to Vietnam. We shot the M16 one time during all that training.
When it comes to training, the army knows how to save money.
LOL brother, nothing changed. We were given our rifles, sent to Iraq, never allowed to fire them, didn't even sight them in, and off to Iraq we went.
Great points. Our foes can easily upgrade their body armor. I love 6.8 SPC and it does really well out of a shorter barrels. I think MAC is spot on, the SPEAR will end up being a DMR and a lighter hybrid cartridge will eventually replace 556.
no they cant "easily" upgrade the armor ... not feasible economically, nor viable due to weight... yes that armor exists even today ... and NOONE uses it because its too heavy and cripple the soldiers endurance and mobility
@@Asghaad idk what planet u live on. All military police and most civilian shooters have body armor.
1) 6.8x51 won't penetrate an NIJ IV or ESAPI plate as-is, and that's the de-facto size/weight of 90+ of worldwide hard armor, so the armor piercing argument never made any sense to me.
2) Even if a foreign military were using a weaker armor that will stop 5.56 or 7.62 but won't stop 6.8, that's just a matter of them upgrading to a commercially available / easily manufactured alternative that will.
3) Most ceramic armor has a 5-10 year claimed service life, so any organization on that schedule and motivated to upgrade could do so in that time period without any significant added cost (certainly less cost than their initial adoption)
@@djl5634 so fcking what? are you talking about china or russia or the US?
@@Werepie 1. yeah i would love to see your source on that ... you know testing modern composite AP projectile 6.8x51 vs current body armors ...
2. again, you base that on assumption that AP round for 6.8 wont beat the most modern armor types. Cite your source on that please.
secondly you make it as if anyone could just snap theyr fingers nad have hundreds of thousands of cutting edge armor ... meanwhile mighty Russia is seen in Ukrain struggling to provide even legacy armor to theyr troops let alone the most modern stuff ...
3. again that assumes the opponent actually uses ceramic armor ...
I can't speak for the Army before 2015, but since I've been in, ALL the training I've done has been semi automatic with the M16 and M4. I don't think a larger cartridge is a bad thing considering 99.99% of soldiers won't be using the M5 in full auto ever. That's what a machine gun is for.
When you brought up qualification, Army rifle/carbine qualification doesn't involve any full auto fire.
I believe what they were referring to is that higher recoil = worse shooting with most shooters. The increase in recoil causes them to move and prepare for the shot in a way that causes them to move off target in anticipation of the shot. So you are correct that qualification doesn't involve any full auto fire, even on semi auto the scores are going to go down because it hurts to shoot.
@@SirPunch2Face you have years to aquire each target for our qualification. Especially with the new rifle qual. Anyone who's scores go down just sucks.
@@Starlesslemon It's not about time required to acquire and engage the target; it's about jumping and missing what you just spent years aiming at because you're afraid of the gun punching you in the shoulder for the 30th time in a couple minutes.
We trained on full auto on active duty with the M4-a1 I was 3-61CAV Fort Carson 2017 to 2020
@@nikkigonzalez1526 even when I've done training with 5th SFG, never used full auto besides with machine guns. Absolutely useless and waste of ammo with an M4.
This is the rifle to hold over until they issue energy guns of what ever sort!!!!!!
More like “Goodbye, M4." The US Army said goodbye to the M16 twenty years ago.
I have a feeling this is going to be specialist units only in about five years. I can see the MG taking off in all sectors though, maybe sub fleet can finally retire our shorty M60's.
I was thinking a same thing, you'll have a "squad heavy rifleman" or something like that
@@YourMiddleBroPhil It'll just replace the SAW for the Automatic Rifleman position in a fireteam.
If you cannot defeat the enemy's armor, the other benefits of the weapon matter little.
Wot about their legs? Dey don't have armor on dose!
@@alpine7313 If all your enemy's hits can kill, but your hits'll only matter if you hit them in the legs, your situation is not good.
@@oneukum Kills in modern war are made by machineguns, rockets, and artillery. Also, .277 won't be able to pen Level IV plates anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Run out of ammo then what?
When I read the title my first reaction was, The army wants a weapon and ammo that very few civilians can use in their AR rifles.
That is based on reading all the hype about banning and rounding up the AR's. I always thought it was because the civilians could use the military rounds. Rogue gov doesn't like that so they talk about banning the AR. Well, since they finally realized they were never going to get away with that, "then let's switch to something the civilians don't have".
yes, that's part of the purpose of this.
That would be about the only reason for chambering a custom round no one has ever seen before.
It doesn’t make sense, otherwise.
the main purpose is a round that can pierce body armor. Body armor has been making the m4 obsolete, and the fact the its only getting cheaper and better is very concerning for the military.
@@user-qj9ye1uv8g yep, the “body armour in civilian hands” thing is totally on my radar with this one…
thats a no brainer lol
On average it took 50,000 rounds to kill each insurgent in Afghanistan, 45,000 rounds in Vietnam. At an average cost of .96 per round, that works out to just about $48,000 per insurgent. I'd say the cost of an accurized, long distant rifle will pay for itself over time.
Yay! Multiple calibers on the battlefield. Because that worked out so well for the French and Italians.
In WW2, we had .45, 30-06, .30 carbine, and .50cal on the battlefield. Having multiple calibers worked fine then, just like how we currently use 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, .50cal, and 40mm together today.
And for the US Cavalry when they adopted the Schofield revolver in .45 S&W (AKA .45 Schofield) caliber in the 1800s. Nothing is better on the battlefield than opening your ammo resupply to find out that its in .45 Colt, which is a tenth of an inch longer than the .45 S&W, and thus cannot be chambered or fired.
This is how the .45 Colt got its NICKNAME(not official) of the .45 "long" Colt. Because its longer than the Schofield round, the Cavalrymen that got the .45 Colt and couldn't use it, started calling the 2 different .45 rounds the long and the short.
Logistically, one of the .45 rounds had to go away, so that units would get the proper ammo. OFC it was the Schofield, or short, round that got dropped, because the Army had far fewer Schofields in inventory than they had Colts.
That could well have been a mistake, because the Schofield shorter Schofield round would still chamber and fire in the .45 Colt "Peacemakers" that the infantry had, but the longer Colt round would not function in the Schofield's shorter chamber. If the Army had standardized on the .45 S&W instead, that ammo would have worked in any of their pistols, either Colt or Schofield. But, they preffered to lose the Schofields and replace them with Colts. A waste of the resources that designed the Schofield, and also the Cavalry lost the one handed reload capability that was the reason for the Schofield's top break design in the first place. Major Schofield felt (correctly) that a Cavalryman would have an advantage if he could reload while still mounted and on the move.
His idea was, since Cavalry primarily attacks by charge anyway, they could charge straight through the enemy at full gallop while firing their first six chambers, and then while pulling up and spinning around for a second pass, they could be reloading their Schofields with their strong hand, while still having their off hand free for the reins to control the horse.
OFC, there did exist real people like the character; "Rooster Cogburn", portrayed by John Wayne, that could control their horse with the reins in their teeth, freeing up one hand. But only a few can perform such a feat. Remember that raw troops are trained as quickly as possible, to get them into the fight quickly. Things that take years of practice just aren't practical for the average recruit.
A commander who sees a man do such a thing, would generally recommend that man for some special unit where his talents can be taken advantage of, not try to train everybody to do it! 🙂
Pretty sure even the 240 is being converted and new squad auto weapon are 6.8x51
Or the US in Vietnam. We had. 7.62x51 , 30-06, 5.56, .30 carbine, .50 cal 45 acp, 9mm, .38 special. 357 magnum, 12 guage. Plus probably more.
@@knlazar08 Actually what the Army needed to do was standardize on a short rim Schofield.
They should've adopted the mcx but make it multi-caliber for both 5.56, 6mm ARC, 6.5 Grendel, and 300 AAC. Easier for caliber adoption. The M5 is a billion dollar step backwards, especially in a near peer conflict. Might as well issue everyone AR-10s in 6.5 creedmoor.
Why? What does the MCX do that the AR15 doesn't? A folding stock? Sig is just snagging up a ton of military small arms contracts, I think this is clear by the whole P320 fiasco, so quality and performance are completely meaningless criteria. The MCX does nothing better, but switching to that lines Sig's pockets which lines the pockets of whatever military members/government officials who were bribed to make all of this happen.
I'll take an ar10 in 6.5 creed
I think the 6.8 is going to be just fine for defeating modern body armor at distance.
I think ar10’s in 6.5 cm is a good idea
@@LawlessNate the point I was making is that they adopted a rifle that is no different from an AR-10, G26, or a M14. If they wanted the 6.8 round, they could've rechambered all of the M110s in stock for less than it costs to adopt a brand new rifle. It seems the army wants both a new caliber and a new rifle, which is I suggested the MCX if they wanted for quicker round adoption. The M4 is a great rifle and just need to be improved upon iteratively, but the top brass would rather spend top dollar for a rifle that only my future grandchildren will someday get shoot.
Valid points, but it seems the main concern is recoil. I have to wonder how 150lb (malnourished) Russians dealt with 7.62x54r recoil. Lots of variables but I keep going back to we are softer every year.
From the looks of it the issues with the smaller calibre rifles are 2 fold, 1st range and second body armour, looking at how different infantry rifles look now compared to the 1990s you can see that range engament capabilities have increased. Engament range in WW2 was based on when you could see the enemy, if everyone has a 2.5x scope, your going to see people at longer ranges. I think time will tell if that translates into longer engagement ranges.
Modern rifle plates are good enough to withstand belted magnum class rounds now. So this new round will be stopped just as well as the a 5.56 will. 7.62x51 is fine for the longer ranges. no need for this newfangled mickey mouse bullshit
@@telesniper2 yes the round can be stopped, but the effect on the chest from blunt force trauma may make it a moot point. I am also unfamiliar with how effective Ap ammo is against those plates, I know 5.56mm AP ammo is struggling even at 200m to go through current high end armour.
Engagement ranges are mostly dictated by terrain.
@@colonelwest5443 to a point, for example in Afghanistan where you often have engagement across racines/valleys you have longer engagement ranges. In places with forest, jungle or in cities ots smaller. However, in places where engagement ranges are not limited, it depends on how easily and accurately people can engage a target, in WW2 that was 400m +- 100m, cause everyone had iron sights. Now everyone has some form of optical sight, which makes engagement ranges viable out to 600m. The limiting factor was sights in WW2, now it's ammunition capability. Also this ignores the fact that 5.56mm has issues with wounding capability, which the enhanced capability of the rifle deals with
@Riorozen of course they arnt using the brand new calibre, the Russians are using surplus soviet gear (with some modernization), engagement range is also determined by the maximum range of the rifle your using, of course they are going to be within 500m they can't hit anything beyond that.
Also China has its fair share of open terrain and mountains, so assuming there was an engagement, it could be close or long range.
Realistically if they had gone with the plastic ammo for the weapon I think this gun would be better since that removes the one benefit of 5.56 ammo. Still there are advantages to using 7.62 x51mm power cartridges. In terms of suppressive effectiveness the larger rounds are better, DoD did a study, most infantry do nit use full auto out of a 5.56, however the higher pressure round might be overkill for now, until high level body armour becomes more common.
We are at once repeating history, as well as being on the cusp of it. Not all that long ago, both the US military and citizenship were looking at the supplanting of the .30-06 Garand with the .308 M-14, and then very quickly, the 5.56 M16-- How does it feel to be old enough that they're replacing your "caliber of choice" with "something better?" Lol!
Truth lmao, this "Next Generation Squad Weapon" has nothing really next generation about it. It's more like a return to form, the old but reliable form lol
YES EXACTLY. This is a fucking waste of money. We should've gone with 6.5 Grendel.
@@f1r3hunt3rz5 My brother was a Marine in Ramadi '03. He told be stories of how enemy 7.62 x 39 rounds would penetrate trash heaps & other barriers that their 5.56 wouldn't. I'm glad our boys are finally getting a cartridge that will...
@@picklerick9578 the Grendel doesn't meet the programs required benchmarks. The bullet travels too slowly.
The 6mm arc is even better at range and velocity than the 6.6 G, but even it is inadequate.
@@ravissary79 Yes because they're using a 7.62x39 casing and putting a 6.5 bullet in it. It's a slower burning powder. You put fast burning powder in it, that changes the scenario.
Knowing the Army, we’ll get into a war and soldiers will be like, “Wow, the M5 sucks in these conditions. We got any of those old M4s in storage somewhere?”
They will keep the M4 for cooks, depots, tankers, convoys and support such.
LOL....no. The M5 is a piston gun - WAAAAAY more reliable then the M4s. No comparison, really.
@@theforest4956 yeah, the m4 was so unreliable, they kept it in service for over 50 years What a terrible weapon, right?
@@theforest4956 Pistons are great for full auto. Pretty useless for the M5. Anyone shooting full auto with the m5 is wasting ammo.
Then the war after that it will be the opposite
After doing more research, it turns out the M5 is gonna be a family of weapons. This partly because for training purposes the US Army is using a lighter, lower recoil and lower pressure cartridge. But it seems as if this cartridge could be used in most US conflicts. With the 6.8mm only being used to fight enemies that use body armor. This possibility makes many think their will be more than one version of the rifle. The lighter general purpose MCX like rifle firing either 5.56NATO or some of the new 6mm rounds. That will have 30 round magazine and be a much better M4 (due to the MCX superiority over the M4). But in hot conflict against near peer adversary, switch out the barrels and frame for 6.8mm.
Well trained guys with the semi FN 7.62, single (terror shots) would keep enemy heads down. With 5.56 its just more trigger pulls. Maybe.
Wow, this could be a disaster.
1) NATO Standardisation. This is huge. Ukraine is showing that logistics wins wars and the fact is the US will never fight a major conflict alone. There are NATO countries that have literally JUST adopted new weapons and ammunition in 5.56 who will be unimpressed with this. The US may be willing to spend eye-watering sums on this but most other NATO members won’t have the political appetite to, and damn right because…
2) Cost. That money could be spent on so many better things. Vehicles, artillery, comms equipment, electronic warfare tech, you name it. Spend the money on our soldiers even, through training, education and higher wages!
3) The range objective is ridiculous. Yes, people have made the point the most fighting is within 300m but more importantly: the purpose of the infantry is to close with the enemy! Overmatch at range comes from heavier weapon systems (MGs, mortars, guided weapons, artillery etc). Also, that vortex optic is great but the average soldier still won’t be able to hit a barn door at 1000m.
4) The body armour objective is ridiculous. Plates protect maybe 30% of your body stood square on and even less when lying prone, facing sideways etc. So in a way it’s a matter of hit probability. Except felt recoil impulse and reduced ammunition capacity actually reduce hit probability for the squad. Also good point there about body armour simply getting better in the future.
5) Modularity is redundant. A minor point but a good one they raised: who cares if you can change the stock or the handguard? Soldiers will use the one they’re issued. Privates aren’t about to start modding their rifles.
Best case scenario 6.8 just replaces 7.62 and we get better DMRs and GPMGs. But this must not replace 5.56…
Calm down Beavis, if this ever gets green lite only front line US soldiers and SOCOM will be issued them for years to come. Support units and Allies will still be using the 5.56 and .308
@@jbloun911 that’s what he said eventually what will happen…
@@Me-yq1fl Ukraine is using AKs
I feel like there's a middle step in terms of cartridge size that the military missed out on. Both the weight and the recoil will definitely be a problem.
6.8 is BARELY enough to go through current body armor, the "middle of the road" is completely pointless ... all disadvantages of larger cartridge with none of the benefit if its not good enough to go through that armor ...
@@Asghaad Not really, no. That's just buying into the narrative that the brass in the military were pushing with this program in the first place: that the cartridge had to be able to defeat Level 4 body armour at 600-800 metres or more without the use of specialised bullets, and that this takes primacy above all else because it is a future certainty. In other words: overmatch. The middle of the road OP is referring to is an "intermediate" cartridge. The 6.8 SIG is a full sized magnum cartridge. Like everyone has been saying, and as was originally attempted in the 50s before the US steamrolled everyone into using 7.62x51, a more powerful "intermediate" cartridge (more power than 5.56) is the middle ground for your average infantry automatic weapon that should have been pursued. Just like in the 50s, it has been ignored yet again by the US army in pursuit of full size full power cartridges and giving all infantry long range marksman capabilities. Would a more powerful intermediate round penetrate next gen Level 4 body armour at 600-800 metres? Perhaps not, at least not without armour piercing rounds, but then again such a requirement is wasteful, unnecessary overkill, letalone unrealistic.
Something like 6.5 grendel was my first thought as well but as pointed out, it wouldn't have the armor penetrating potential of the fury. However, can the fury realistically defeat lvl 4 armor at range without special ammo? If it can, is it worth the downsides?
@@RockSolitude what the fuck are you talking about? .277 fury is absolutely not a full sized or magnum cartridge, it's the same length as a .308 and fits in a short action rifle
@@Lucas12v lv4 armor can stop an armor piercing 30-06 at 200yds. Given that .277 has similar muzzle energy and that the bullet has both a vastly superior ballistic coefficient and cross sectional density, the answer is that .277 is more than capable dealing with level 4+ armor at extended ranges
As long as the .556 stays in action.. not everyone is going to be able to shoot the new M5
The Spear is NOT a replacement for the AR 15 family. Its for the eventuality of a near-peer conflict and only for frontline combat troops
Too big, too heavy, ammo is too heavy, too much recoil, terrible decision.
and the ONLY thing in current inventory that can penetrate current body armor unless you go insane with 50 BMG ... kinda the point of it ...
@@Asghaad
Have you seen it penetrate plates?
@@Asghaad , false - 7.62x51 using M993 AP ammo.
Is it possible that they bring exoskeletons and robotic mules to the field?
It weighs a little under the m14
I feel this will become the SCAR 17, adopted but in fewer quantities. Perhaps one/two per squad.
The optic will be issued 1-2 per section/platoon as its awesome but just too expensive for the average grunt to be issues with. This may be rolled out to every frontline trooper but I imagine they will have LPVO’s as per the SIG photo.
6mmARC was still a better way forward.
At least it's mechanically better than the SCAR17 by a longshot
This is exactly the SCAR. If it survives, it will be on civilians sales only.
@@NeedsMoDakka Oh definitely!!! No argument there
@@Maniac742 Hopefully for less than $14-20k it’s currently at!!!
6mm ARC was a joke. What we actually needed was 6.5 Grendel. Simple caliber conversion, nearly the same magazine capacity, and can fly much further with better ballistic coefficient
This is like watching a train wreck in slow mo, as to who thought this was a good idea is beyond me.
It’s the optic and reliability of that optic is the game changer. Practically making every grunt a marks man on the battlefield. The heavy round should defeat body armour that Russians and Chinese use.