https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...mpaign=dfn-dnr
Lawsuit claiming that Sig stole IP for this program.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Printable View
https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...mpaign=dfn-dnr
Lawsuit claiming that Sig stole IP for this program.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And Ben Stoeger just posted another broken P320 frame.
I switch mine out for a Wilson Combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by JediGuy
This thread has been very technically interesting, but I wonder about the long term logistics and supply chain if we get into a hot conflict....
All too common. Surprised it took them this long after Sig was selected to start their lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wake27
At least in the article, it seems like they're boo boo butthurt that Sig poached some of their engineers, improved their concept, and won the contract. They're probably also mad that people aren't buying their ammo at $70 a box.
Considering how many great things you hate, you disliking this is a great endorsement to my ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by markm
Good thing they can be swapped out in a minute, and are pretty cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by JediGuy
Saw this on Reddit the other day. I think this is the first time we've seen a foreign military with the XM7/XM250.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c8487b93_c.jpg
No clue on the context of the photo, I assume they got a couple examples for a familiarization T&E.
They're visiting Fort Campbell and got a show-and-tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha-17
I keep reading fluff pieces on my click bait feed. Today it was a in depth analysis of the 5.56 projectile is small, and the 7.62 is big. But the 6.8 is medium so it's good. The article was literally that retarded. Not one ounce of quantifiable analysis.
I truly have no idea if this gun will be a good thing, but it feels like a massive piss stream running down the back.
Like I said before, they're doing all of these puff pieces on the M7 because it is not in fact going to be an all-out replacement for the M4A1, but rather a special purpose rifle. However, the military would have a hard time justifying the cost of adopting the SIG MCX Spear if they were upfront about the fact that it's a special purpose weapon adopted preemptively in anticipation for a potential war with China in the not-too-distant-future based on intelligence of China developing/fielding armor which stops M855A1 and the anticipation that said war will occur at distances beyond the effective range of the M4A1.
So they're making it out that the M7 is not only going to completely replace the M4A1 as the standard issue rifle of the U.S. Army, but also that it's necessary because the M4A1 no longer suits their needs.
It's fake news.
Well it's not supposed to replace the M4A1 completely, at least in the near future anyway. It's ostensibly for the "shooters": Infantry, Cav Scouts :rolleyes: (just a jab, don't take it personally any of you 19D's), Combat Engineers, Rangers, and SF. It is VERY similar to the USMC adopting the HK M27 for the "shooters", but at least the M27 is the same caliber as the M4A1/M16A4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo40
I still say that the logistics of 3 different calibers for long guns is gonna be a nightmare for the Army.....the new 6.8x51, 5.56, and the venerable 7.62x51.
BTW, has anyone read anything about the USMC adopting this weapon/caliber?
The USMC has a history of being behind the Army and more often than not going off in their own direction.
So yeah, no word on them adopting the M7, and they'll most likely stick with the M27 for awhile yet.