10K barrel life…
[video=youtube_share;FBw9iLa1vJA]https://youtu.be/FBw9iLa1vJA?si=tLaMgT5SsKmsZYIn[/video]
Double retarded. More taxpayer money for the funnel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read a book about the small arms used since the revolution in the US army. The overall story was between two schools. One is the ‘marksman’ school that wants the best rifle, round and rate of fire for the individual soldier and aimed fire. On the other side is the idea that good-enough is good-enough and slow and massed fire in the general direction is the best plan. I think that distinction is still a thing. With the GWOT and the emphasis on special warfare groups, the individual focused group is winning. But Ukraine and Taiwan would give the other side a use case.
A blend of the two thoughts you are referring to is common. For example, I think good enough is good enough, when referring to a firearm, but want to take a high-quality approach when it comes to training the user, who also needs to be skilled on at least 4 tasks that don’t directly involve shooting the gun at all.
You probably read MisFire by HAllAan (SP), or maybe the Great Rifle Controversy by Ezell. Does the phrase 'Gravel-Belly" ring a bell?
I’m tracking that the XM-7 is speced with a 13" barrel. I am not tracking that they are looking at a short barrel version at this time.
I love Garand Thumb, he is a ton of fun to watch and he drops some interesting info, but when did he become “Future Weapons”? I keep thinking he is going to bust out a “Game Changer!” in an aggressive whisper.
If we look over the introduction of new service rifles to the US Army over the past 70 years, we see certain units as the first adopters, followed by some rapid-deployment forces, then the overall Light Combat Divisions before the Mech and other Army units finally get the new system.
For example, in the 1950s, SF’s primary issue “rifle" on an ODA was the M1 Carbine, which they replaced with the new M14, only to be replaced with the M16 very early and before the US committed large forces to Vietnam in 1965. SF Advisors were primarily using M1 Carbines and then Colt 601 AR-15s in the early days of Military Assistance to Vietnam.
When the M16A2 was type-classified and issued to replace the M16A1 starting in 1983, USMC, SF, and Ranger Regiment were the early adopters, followed by 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne (Airmobile), 7th ID, 25th ID, 10th Mountain, 2nd ID, etc. That process went-on throughout the 1980s and wasn’t overnight, but the Special Ops and Joint Rapid-Depolyment Forces were the first adopters.
When the M4A1 went into production after many years of development off the Colt 723 and 727 Carbines in the 1980s-1993, JSOC, then SOCOM began issuing it to replace M16A2s, 727s, and 727s, then the M4 with S-S-B FCG began being issued to the JRDF units. We turned in out M16A2s and drew out new M4s in fall of 1997, for example in 1st Brigade of 25th ID, with Recon Platoons getting them first.
Now we see this XM7 still undergoing changes as it’s being issued to a few units in 101st? Weird. Why isn’t it being adopted by the leads in small arms?
In Ranger Regiment, they have 3 different belt-feds at the Squad and Platoon level already:
M240L
M249 PIP
KAX LAMG
SOCOM has gone through how many SOPMOD Block iterations (now with URGI after Block II and Block I that evolved from the original M4A1s with 727 barrels)?
For Semi-Auto Sniper Systems and DM Carbines, SOCOM has a bunch of different weapons in various calibers even.
For Low-Vis and ADVON, there’s the LVAW.
But when they looked at the costs of 6.8x51 ammo, I think they just said, “Naw dog. We’re not doing that.”
If the numbers I’ve seen are accurate, any unit that shoots and trains will reject it up-front. The EPR was over $20/rd if I recall correctly. Training non-EPR ammo was orders of magnitude higher than the most expensive match ammo you can find on the civilian market, and blanks were off the chart as well. Were the ammo costs mentioned in this video confirmed or denied?
[video=youtube_share;AcYCsNuTU2c]https://youtu.be/AcYCsNuTU2c?feature=shared[/video]
SOF Elements are on the basis of issue plan for the XM-7. I don’t where they are on the fielding plan nor could I disclose it if I did.
Wasn’t Army SOF involved with the development of the Next Gen Weapon Systems? I have read on Soldier Systems that they did acknowledge the NGSW program.
I have a lot of neighbors in 19th Group who said they were scheduled to get them 2 years ago (that’s when it was mentioned), then they haven’t heard or seen anything since.
Just with the training ammo that isn’t an EPR, it’s $3.39/rd.
Imagine doing just a day of CQM and DM work for one guy busting through 500rds. That’s $1,695.
In 2016, M855A1 was $0.36/rd, so you’d be looking at $180/500rds.
I think for any unit looking at their training ammo budget, these are going to be huge factors moving forward.
6.8x51 seems purpose-built to shut down training.
19th, would probably be lower on the roll out then the Active Duty Groups.
We’ll see, some one on-line mentioned that a SOF element couldn’t train with theirs in an indoor range because the back stop wasn’t rated for it. Kind of like when M855A1 rolled out and we had to redo a number of ranges.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they pushed a SRTA at a lower cost. They are also supposed to be making some production changes to drop the cost of the round. That’s a whole lotta risk IMHO.
I’m wonder how we went from .264 USA and LSAT to what seems like a high pressure 7.62mm NATO necked down to 6.8mm. Did the ICSR crew infiltrate the NGSW when their project got cancel? What threat are we trying to defeat with the 6.8x51?
Not only do shoot houses need to be re-built, but the Surface Danger Zones on ranges need to be extended or training needs to be confined to SDZs that already allow the ballistic reach for that type of weapon.
SIG also said they backed off the chamber pressure from 80ksi to 70ksi because of early barrel wear and loss of accuracy.
In the Garandthumb video, they all agreed that the recoil on this mini blaster was too much for the average shooter.
The biggest thing for me that seems like a massive oversight is all the duty positions in an Infantry Company are going to be saddled with something that just doesn’t make any sense.
CO
1SG
XO
Commo NCO
NBC NCO
FSO
Company Medic
Supply SGT
Supply Clerk/Driver
RTOs
(All of the above would be better-served with a modern PDW AR-15 variant, not even an M4.)
(All below would be better served with a PDW or 11” Carbine.)
RIfle Platoon Leader
PLT RTO
Platoon Sergeant
Combat Medic
FO
Drone Operator
K-9 Handler
Combat Engineers
USAF JTAC
Rifle Squad Leader
Fire Team Leader
Grenadier
Weapons Squad Leader
Assistant Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Javelin Gunner/Anti-Armor Wpns Specialist
Mortar Platoon Leader
Mortar PSG
Mortar Team Leader
Mortarman
If they issue out XM7s to all of these guys, it’s going to really saddle them with weight and bulk they never have dealt with before. The M14 is lighter than the XM7 w/suppressor before you even attach the XM157 Fire Control system, a WPL, and sling to the carbine.
I can just see that new RTO’s or Mortarman’s face when they have to draw out their weapon, basic load, and equipment. With the diminishing baseline T-levels, it’s going to be even worse for muscle-skeletal and nerve injuries, as it would have sucked for the older generations as well.
These guys already need something smaller than the M4, not bigger, heavier, with heavier ammo and larger mags.
I have no interest in watching any video by that channel, but I’m willing to bet he’s wrong. He’s been factually wrong before on different things, and very much has a bone to pick with Sig for some reason. I have seen some folks talk about the problems with his “cost per round” argument, as it was figured by simply dividing the contract by the amount of ammo purchased to come up with a cost per round, ignoring other aspects of the contract. Seems in line with other issues I’ve seen with his videos.
I’ve seen this play out in real life, on deployments. Organizations using the 416 transition to a lighter gun (DI, even) for the assaulters, and the medics or corpsmen get stuck with the 416. First thing the medic/HM does is remove the silencer. Everyone then pretends to be surprised.
Historically in SOF organizations that mostly use the M4, dudes like K9 and Medics got Mk18s. Mortars still got the M4, because monke stronk; me want do battle drill.
He’s just not a shill. Seems to have a bone to pick with everyone. I don’t think he’s been any harsher to Sig than Colt. I also have no factual evidence supporting or refuting his claims. But the shills with their glowing “reviews” are really good at manipulating one’s confirmation bias, regardless of gun or brand.
But there is absolutely no room for debate that the .277 costs more per round than 5.56. It does, has, and always will. It uses more powder, primer, brass, and projectile, while also having a more complex to manufacture case. Lemme know when you can load .270WSM or 6.8x51 for less money than .223Rem or 5.56 NATO, and I’ll convert my Apex 10 machine immediately and expedite getting a Bbl spun up.
No, he’s slobbed on Colt’s knob before, especially in regards to Colt pushing certain things early in the M16’s history vs what the Army wanted. He definitely seems to love crapping on anything adopted in favor of the “what could have been”. He even talked about the XM16E1 being his favorite M16 variation, all the while forgetting the dudes that died because of them.
And I never said it wasn’t more expensive than 5.56. Anything will be more expensive than the varmint cartridge based on raw materials alone. If you can cite the part that I said that, it would be appreciated. I simply said any allegations are probably crap, and find fault with his claim, mentioned above, of “$20 per round”.