While I’m very skeptical of the XM5, I believe the new XM250 looks to be a fantastic idea. I still think it’ll eventually get shipped in 7.62 Nato though.
Garand Thumb video on it.
All I see is the ‘porn-stache’… did he lose a bet???
Decent video, but would have liked more feedback on shooting.
One thing I really liked was St. John’s openness about what things he thinks will be changing for future iterations. I’ve seen a lot of complaints for both the XM5 and XM250 about odd or missing features that people don’t care for (for the XM250, the non-quick change barrel for instance) and it’s interesting to see him address those and discuss possible changes for the ultimate production models. It’s like watching a Forgotten Weapons “development of” video as it happens.
All that belt dump porn at the beginning and then no real discussion about it. Does the barrel reciprocate? It looked like it, or is that just recoil happening? Is it based on the Ultimax recoil(less) type system to reduce felt recoil?
If the top plate over the barrel switch is going to be removable, at least have an adaptor in it that interfaces with the latch so that you can unlatch the barrel with out touching it. Looking at the top cover and the on-barrel switch, I’d say that they little ‘flipper’ could be expanded to a carry/switch handle pretty easily- maybe even as a post mod…
I think the Forgotten Weapons episode on the gun they talk about the weird quirks. Sig said they built the gun to Army specifications but also developed parts on the side of what they think will be wanted upgrades, such as a carry handle release for the barrel.
Both weapons seem to have had too much input from the good idea fairy.
Totally agree. I like and understand the Army looking for the next thing and I appreciate them for trying to be forward thinking, but this program in the attempt to look forward seems to turn away from history and what has worked in the past. Maybe the MCX platform is something to build off of and maybe we need a heavier round than a 5.56x45 but to make a 11 lbs rifle after having a 7lb rifle and having the ability to carry less ammo seems a step backward.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a modern military weapon that doesn’t have that flaw. A possible exception are the “emergency” weapons that are purchased “off the shelf,” but otherwise military small arms tend to suffer from “designed by committee” issues.
True, but these designs seem to be exceptionally overladen with too much input. Things like the lack of quick change barrel on the XM250; one of the biggest complaints on the M60 was need for an asbestos glove to change the barrel. They fixed that in later M60 models, and it’s standard on the 240…and now they’re going backward. And of course there’s the two charging handles on the XM5 because the Army insisted on a side charger, but also decided that it was too complicated for your average soldier to learn how to use said charging handle and so they have the traditional AR handle. I’m really hoping these things are just part the testing and they’re corrected when/if they get out into the field.
If the XM250 was supposed to be a GPMG, I’d agree that the lack of a quick change barrel was a huge downside. As a SAW, however, I’m not sure I agree. Sure, it’s something SAW gunners are (supposed to be) trained on, but I can’t say I ever found it necessary when firing. The extra barrel was just extra weight, as opposed to a M240B where the team relatively regularly changes the barrel.
The charging handle issue on the XM5 does seem a bit goofy. Give it an ambi charging handle like the SCAR or ACR, and go from there. The AR-style seems more like a step backward than anything else, and keeping it solely for current soldier muscle memory is just dumb.
Maybe there are some things they still can’t contractually reveal…
That being said, the barrel IS already quick change via the demonstrated tab, albeit you have to pop the rail cover off which…is dumb.
I think the XM250 is supposed to replace both the SAW and M240B if I’m not mistaken. Thus, if it’s expected to be a GPMG as well as a SAW, I would think they would need an easy quick change barrel. Also, with the incredibly high chamber pressures, I would imagine that the need for the ability to change a barrel without an insulated glove would be much more necessary than it is with the SAW.
The charging handle issue on the XM5 does seem a bit goofy. Give it an ambi charging handle like the SCAR or ACR, and go from there. The AR-style seems more like a step backward than anything else, and keeping it solely for current soldier muscle memory is just dumb.
If they went for an ambi charging handle, they’d have to do some pretty significant redesigning as they’d have to put the handle higher up on the receiver so that it would clear the ejection port if installed on the right. My thought is either get rid of the side charger and stick with the AR charger, or get rid of the AR handle and just not have it be 100% ambi.
No, the XM250 is just a SAW replacement; 240s will be remaining in service. We have seen some discussion that because the 6.8x51 cartridge outperforms 7.62 NATO the 250 could be pushed into the role, but it’s not its intended purpose. The Army is already looking for kits to convert 240s to 6.8, so it shouldn’t be an issue going forward.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/03/18/us-army-m240-6-8mm-conversion/
The higher pressures of 6.8x51 might necessitate a more frequent barrel change, but that’s the kind of thing that field trials and experience will show. Anything now is speculation. In general, the lack of a hot-swappable barrel does seem to be the current trend for weapons filling the SAW/automatic rifle role, if the M27 and similar weapons are any indications.