US Army's New Mk18? SIG SPEAR ASSAULTER K

[prepare]

10K barrel life...

[Vgex2]

Double retarded. More taxpayer money for the funnel.

[nick84]

The 113gr projectile at the velocity they're getting on the chrono is actually pretty wild. Kinda makes me want to build a shorty .308 out of something, as I'm not getting into Sig's .277 business.

That said, it's probably ultimately pointless.

[Echo40]

I still don't believe that the M7 will completely replace the M4A1 — regardless of whether they intend for it to or not — much less that its adoption will pan out.

I suspect that the M7 is in fact intended as a special purpose weapon to be fielded specifically under circumstances in which the M4A1 won't cut it, but is being preemptively pushed as a replacement due to the assumption that the next war we become involved with involved engagement with enemies outside of the effective range of the M4A1 against enemies equipped with armor which was specifically designed to stop M855A1.
Obviously, it wouldn't be as easy to justify the cost of the SIG MCX Spear if they were upfront about the fact that it is being purchased/fielded to accommodate perceived future battlefield conditions, which may not necessarily occur exactly as planned, so they have to drum it up, making it sound absolutely vital, and indirectly implying that the M4A1 is no longer suitable standard issue equipment for the average soldier.

Ultimately, I believe that the M4A1 will stick around for decades to come due to its basic utility, even if the M7 does become the standard issue infantry rifle. The M4A1 will still most likely see use within the parameters which have kept the basic design relevant for the past 60+ years, although the design may be tweaked to play to its strengths and enhance its utility. (i.e. less stacking peripherals onto it until it ceases to be a lightweight platform)
Furthermore, I feel that if we go another 10 years without any major conflicts occurring in which the M7 is entirely necessary standard issue equipment, then troops are apt to complain about the weight of the rifle they're being forced to lug around, and the military will most likely give into pressure from troops to field lighter, more compact rifles like the M4A1.

[MadAngler1]

https://youtu.be/AcYCsNuTU2c?si=2BC5QXGx57QMQZbW

I think the entire program is a scam. 6.8x51 makes no sense for a general purpose assault rifle for a normal soldier. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or similar makes better sense. Need a DMR? OK, 6.5 Creedmoor or this new round makes sense.

[1168]

https://youtu.be/AcYCsNuTU2c?si=2BC5QXGx57QMQZbW

I think the entire program is a scam. 6.8x51 makes no sense for a general purpose assault rifle for a normal soldier. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or similar makes better sense. Need a DMR? OK, 6.5 Creedmoor or this new round makes sense.

6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC don’t make sense for general issue cartridges, either. They decrease mag capacity, increase weight, and decrease MPBR. Just because you or I can take advantage of the ballistic coefficient of 6.5 Grendel, doesn’t mean that the average Joe can apply his limited range estimation and holdover skills under stress.

The only thing that makes sense to me, is to continue with the cartridge that we have. The one that all of our allies use and produce.

[MadAngler1]

6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC don’t make sense for general issue cartridges, either. They decrease mag capacity, increase weight, and decrease MPBR. Just because you or I can take advantage of the ballistic coefficient of 6.5 Grendel, doesn’t mean that the average Joe can apply his limited range estimation and holdover skills under stress.

The only thing that makes sense to me, is to continue with the cartridge that we have. The one that all of our allies use and produce.

I was assuming if we had to replace 5.56 NATO. If we wanted a cartridge to replace 5.56 NATO, a short 6 mm based round makes sense to me despite the limitations you pointed out.