A Critical Analysis: The Sig XM5 (M7)in 6.8, the Army got it Wrong.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

As of Mar 23, Army says they are continuing with trials limited issue of rifles coming May-July, then FY24 (oct 2023) larger test issue coming.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Ah..ok

[@AlejandroRGR_275]

​@@ModernTacticalShooting dude, I've had this convo with former teammates several times. With what the Army wants, and with it to be issued only to line combatant elements. Why not just make 7.62x51 the standard again? 3 weapon systems at Battalion level are already chambered in it. GPMG's, SPR's, and whatever the new sniper rifles are. Why not just add a rifle in 7.62x51 (there's already a few with NSN's to choose from) back into the mix. We already have a fuck ton of 7.62x51 stocked up as do our allies, and it's already a NATO standard caliber and has been for several decades (no need to adopt a new round and stockpile a bunch of it). It's already a proven performer. If I had it my way, the M4 abd M249 would be replaced by the FN MK17 and FN Maximi/MK48. Both already have DoD contracts lol. Honestly have to question who is coming up with these programs and maybe look into who is putting money into their pockets (saying that in jest of course).

[@petesjk]

7.62x51 is considered not as versatile, since it’s a little too large for standard infantry rifles and carbines, and it’s a bit underpowered for GPMG. With modern ballistics technology, the 6.8mm can perform better the 7.62x51 for GPMG and rifle applications, while being slightly lighter and smaller. It’ll be difficult to supplant 7.62x51 as the standard, though. The different power class rounds will only compound this difficulty, in my opinion. I think the 6.8 has some merit, but we live in a time of conflict, and changing standards is difficult and requires clearly significant advantages to be worthwhile. The cost of the program is probably not feasible when our spending priorities need to be elsewhere.

[@hanzusmc7898]

I totally agree this XM5 or M7 is a waste of time and money. I do like the MG side of it replacing the 249s and 240s with one caliber. As you pointed out the 20 round magazines and weight are huge things like the M14 in Vietnam and they didn’t have body armor back then. Put that ammo load out on a plate carrier with ESAPI plates and side plates life will suck! The old saying ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain. With modern M4s and ammo they are still relevant. The army never bought in on the MK318 round but it was pretty impressive in JSOC and USMC use before the USMC went over to the M855a1 with the army. Based on loadouts I rather see the military move to the Mk 318 round or Mk262 round which was really for the Mk12 rifles. The Mk318 though with the OTM projectile with a rear penetrator I thought was a much round and it’s still 556 which gives you more capabilities to carry ammo. I think the funds invested in this program would’ve been better invested in researching better ammunition with technology or building up stocks of Mk318 and or Mk262 and shit canned that M855a1 round. My 2 worthless cents. I love loved the Mk318 round so much I bought it up while still available for my personal rifles. Hard to find now and extremely expensive if you do find it somewhere.

[@matchesburn]

The biggest issue I see with the rifle is that the Army is going with this two ammunition variants for the rifle. The first being conventional 6.8x51 with regular brass and muzzle velocities and pressures that you'd expect. This will be "training ammunition" for the most part because it won't put undo stress on the rifle's internals and barrel. The other is the bimetal/composition two metal cases with 80,000 PSI loadings which are basically "Throat Erosion Inc." for any rifle and are super-duper-hot rounds. They will be what is supposedly issued in combat. Supposedly. So now we're going to train with ammunition that is *_radically and wildly different from what we'll be shooting in combat,_* and these rifles will have service lives that are some of the shortest of any standard or commonly issued rifles in American history. ...How is this wise in any way?

[@LUR1FAX]

Keep in mind that every KZbinr using the SIG XM5 rifle is using the weaker ammo with regular brass casings. So whenever someone comments on how controllable and soft shooting the rifle is, remember that they're not using the full-powered ammunition for it.

[@38north15]

That’s an important note

[@calvinslater3695]

Task and Purpose fired the issued stuff I believe. It was recoiling pretty hard. I wonder how long these barrels would last.

[@buddyfaris5996]

@@michaelhill6451 Which means Soldiers will be training with less recoil, unlike how they fight. I think that’s a huge mistake in and of itself.

[@jonathanrogers9961]

@@michaelhill6451 sig is touting some new barrel technology that is supposedly going to give it an approximately 10k round barrel life.

[@jonathanrogers9961]

@@michaelhill6451 still trying to figure out what advancements they are. Cant find any other references to it.

[@mikehagan4320]

It seems most War Stories include the phrase " We were running low on Ammo!"

[@yum9918]

It's a genius psyop maneuver. They're just trying to increase the likelyhood of heroic war stories by lowering the ammo supply.

[@khalee95]

And no one came to aid because they were using 556.

[@johnhighway7399]

When you miss 90% of your shots, that's bound to happen

[@johnwheatley5171]

I’ve done 4 tours of Afghan with the British army. This advice is completely correct each section on the ground had multiple 7.62 weapons to engage at distance, the 5.56 was used as initial suppression before the use of other weapon systems, fast air & artillery

[@cordellej]

yups i agree with u i did 2 of iraq and 2 of afghan, even as a royal engineer attached to the infantry that was how it went down

[@classifiedveteran9879]

Agreed, the American military should follow a similar doctrine. A DMR is definitely needed in the US army. The closest thing we typically have in the average infantry arms room is a couple dozen M-16s and a few EBR M-14s that are 35 inches long, one inch shy of a full yard. One is just a spicier 5.56, and the other is so cumbersome, you really can't use it tactically like an M-4.

[@Dezzyyy]

@@classifiedveteran9879 army adopted the m110a2 . It just needs to be issued at a squad level.

[@chocolatedumdum2]

In ww2, the parachute infantry redid their organization at least 4 times in a 6 year period... .30-06 for the M1's aside, they finally settled on 1-2 grenadiers and 1 m1919 GPMG per squad. Back to relearn our lessons.

[@carguy3028]

I read that the reason the US military went to 5.56 was being able to carry more ammo and few engagements were won with rifle fire alone, it’s artillery and aircraft that are used at greater distances.

[@Front-Toward-Enemy]

The Army obviously didn’t fire the guys responsible for adopting the UCP camo pattern. Instead, I suspect, they moved them to ordinance procurement.

[@kolinmartz]

That’s why Sig has won or is very confident they’ll win a contract once it’s announced for every major small arms “replacement” in the span of a few years.

[@DriveCarToBar]

There is no better example of "Why'd you do that?" than the NWU Type 1 uniform. The blueberries were a camo pattern nobody asked for, didn't actually provide any sort of concealment or disruption (where you gonna hide on a well-lit ship with gray corridors?) and failed at being properly flame retardant which is arguably the most important thing. NWU-1 didn't actually offer any improvement over the old Utilities. Any job on-board where you might get dirty, you're wearing coveralls anyway. And when it came time to replace the NWU-1, did they just do the smart thing and adopt MARPAT which was already in the Dept. of Navy supply chain? Nope. Did they adopt UCP or OCP? Nope. How about just going back to the Utilities which were a great working uniform? Or maybe the Coasties all blue uniform? Nope. The US Navy decided it needed its own arid and woodland camo patterns. Very important that you blend into the hills of Appalachia when you're sitting on a well lit ship with gray walls.

[@davetaylor8350]

Yes😂

[@Wastelandman7000]

SOP.

[@Orphican]

Hey UCP worked sometimes! I sat down on my grandma's couch one time and completely disappeared.

[@Durandalski]

I like your solution, I think it nails the best of everything. That sig 6.8 machinegun is a beast. Lighter than a 249, powerful round, light recoil, it’s a huge step up. Replace your 249s and 240s with that and plug a couple M5s in as DMRs and you have a hell of a lot of firepower and reach without burdening every single rifleman with a heavy unwieldy rifle that carries less ammo.

[@mrkeogh]

I think that was always the plan...

[@kennylamorena6339]

We already have the DMR in place. The M1110A1 are already in the squads as of today.

[@fujimi715]

Exactly what I was saying. For sure replace the 249. Maybe not the 240. Add the M5 as a DMR and keep most of the squad with M4 and a shitload of ammo.

[@richardlahan7068]

The M240 could be upgraded to the 6.8 by simply swapping out the 7.62 barrels. It wouldn't be suppressed but it could be a stopgap measure until enough M250s are produced.

[@jsdomingos4909]

I agree with this.--gets a far better belt fed mg and keeps most riflemen with light weight m4s.

[@9HoleReviews]

As you know I share a lot of similar sentiments. I really hope we get to look at an actual one. Awesome take as always Jeff.

[@Valorius]

9HR: One of my favorite youtubers.

[@asdfdsasdfdsa]

For sure unsubscribing to you now. Terrible video

[@manuelsandino9248]

Asking too much from the people that gave us the ACU uniform.

[@sirg-had8821]

🤣🤣🤣 That uniform was asinine.

[@HamSandwich277]

Yup. All your points are valid. They're selecting tomorrow's rifle to fight yesterday's war. Someone in the room should have said "Well what if we have to go back to the jungle"? In the 60's a change in combat environment rendered heavy caliber, long-range battle rifle ineffective. Now they're going back to basically that because the desert war favoured that type of rifle. It makes no sense.

[@robertgorman8977]

Didn't the Australian army use the FAL in Vietnam. I don't think the America army can afford to issue this to every solider, and that would not makes sense. My understanding they have only committed to buying 20 000 of these firearms. To me, that is them saying ok, this has some potential lets see how we can integrate into their tactics. The best fighting units have a diversity of weapons to handle different situations. I would never switch from 308 to .277 as a civi but there is merit when the army does this. For an army to remain effective they need to keep on trying new equipment/ technology. The whole point of switching to .277 is it is has a little better performance than 308. We have plateau on perfomace with current brass case ammunition design. Hats of to sig on designing a case that can produce more pressures. At least the USA is doing weapon trails during peace time, unlike when they introduced the M-14, M-16, M-27, scar light and heavy.

[@Anarcho-harambeism]

if your talking about the m14, that thing sucked before it ever saw service.

[@robertgorman8977]

Aussies use the FAL in Vietnam

[@ryanjordan7268]

The next conflict will be fought in the Pacific. Let's revisit what was successful during WW2. Terrain and tactics don't change. Political doctrine and Allies do.

[@tackytrooper]

The "someone in the room" that voices an observation like that is very quickly the guy falling out the window.

[@charleyscurr8228]

I haven’t actually served in the military but your videos help me to understand the history and what equipment the military use which is really interesting.

[@boomerdrew4545]

Sir you nailed it! Always down to earth, no bs!

[@wildcard556]

You definitely hit some key points Jeff, your knowledge is awesome and humbling, and I appreciate your opinions and reasoning, along with factual information.

[@VTdarkangel]

I think reorganizing the weapon layout of the platoon and squad is probably the correct way to address the problem. This is what happens when you start looking at the problem from holistic perspective and don't get gear focused. We've gotten too gear focused.

[@Chiller01]

There is a second issue for the new rifle ie Russian and Chinese body armour. I was not high speed and my war was in Southeast Asia but so many of my experiences were at medium to very short ranges and we were shooting at muzzle flashes or tracers coming from a tree line or through elephant grass. The key was volume of fire more rarely aimed shots. It was the M60’s in the patrol that kept us alive.

[@Lifechanging99999]

First off, Thank you for your service. I tried to explain this to an alleged Marine Gunner on youtube and his pompous attitude kept him from understanding the volume of fire concept. I was specifically arguing the stupid decision of the Marine Corps to get rid of the m249 SAW for the IAR. He made claims about accuracy and some other baloney. I served in Afghanistan as an infantry rifleman (0311).

[@edwardgranger1722]

Exactly - this has nothing to do with fighting the Taliban again and doing better in hilltop-to-hilltop firefights. It has to do with near-peer conflict. Which is why we will inevitably wind up fighting some version or other of the Taliban again in a future near-peer proxy war. Good news is, those M4s will still be sleeping in their Cosmoline.

[@richarddo7881]

​@@Lifechanging99999 if he was arguing against the M249 then I doubt he is in the infantry. Every grunts I spoke with thought that the decision to throw the SAW away was stupid. The idea of " every riflemans are an AR " is stupid consider that in the recent conflict we've been in. Never did we go outside the wire with full strength, it was always squad with half of their strength instead of standard 12 man USMC rifle squad or 9 man of the Army. Putting that in perspective I doubt a 7 man armed with only M27 IAR would farewell against a similar size Squad but have with them 2 belt-fed LMG. Why do the top brass always have to be so disconnect with reality when experienced in WW2 with the BAR vs MG42 or early stage of Vietnam when a Squad only has M16 & M79 vs RPD armed VC proved contrary to that retarded idea of an 30 rds rifle can replace a belt-fed MG, it like these senior officer never opened a history book in the 1st place

[@dangvorbei5304]

If you put any stock in the Wehrmacht squad concept in which everybody just supported a GPMG, it doesn't matter what the rest of the guys carry, aside from belts of ammo. One thing that hasn't changed is the significance of the machine guns.

[@jonathanbaird8109]

@@Lifechanging99999 Did they get rid of it? The most recent info I can find states that they're still being issued and that the M27 replacing the 249 was just a backdoor procurement method to replace the M16/M4. I don't have firsthand experience and there's no to&e floating around so I don't know either way for sure.

[@uhohstinky5925]

100% best take I've heard on this subject. It seems everyone thinks this as well but are coping hard with the fact the Army is messing up once again.

[@saltysaty8686]

The mx5 is a awsome replacement for the m249 with the belt fed option, it's lighter and has better long range balistics than the 7.62. For the basic 556? Not going to replace it.

[@randomposter8964]

From what I remember from the articles describing the development of 6.8 spec was hard target penetration, lethality are extended ranges 300-600 yds, increased lethality with shorter barrels, a ballistic trajectory that matched 5.56 with a minimum penalty of weight and recoil. It achieved this in a package that only required bolt and barrel change, but if you want a full 30 rd mag it did require a redesigned lower and mag. LWRC sells that rifle and mag

[@LuvBorderCollies]

The critics of the new round keep forgetting to mention the #1 concern of the US Army is an armor-wearing enemy. That is the driving force behind the bigger caliber. Reminds me exactly of the whining critics of the Marines switching to the M27. Belly-aching and blabbering about everything but "forgetting" to whine about WHY the Marines wanted that configuration. Right now all the Russian forces in Ukraine should be equipped with plate carriers and kevlar helmets. Thanks to rampant corruption in the Russian army there is close to zero genuine armor, but a lot of phony garbage that stops nothing. The Russians curled up in their holes are well aware of their fake body armor and fake "kevlar" helmets,..while drones drop explosives on them at will. If they did have genuine body armor and helmets they'd make a more effective force, or at least one that survives without being shredded by shrapnel of all kinds. There's loads of videos on the net showing fake body armor, fake armor helmets, fake add-on armor on vehicles. The whiners also forget the next probably near-peer army in Beijing has been itching for war and getting bolder by the month. Thanks to Ukraine they're closely noting what needs changing before launching their invasion of Taiwan and/or neighbors. The CCP/PLA is as thoroughly corrupt as the Russian government and military, its like they are carbon copies of official corruption to the finest details. Chy-na has also been investing in body armor and kevlar helmets. Be interesting to find out if their stuff has been faked. Its well known they don't get training and the officers steal fuel, tires, everything like crazy. The big exception is the CCP has been psyching up their people to invade not just Taiwan but all the neighboring countries. The Chinese are as crooked as the Russians but they're not totally stupid and they will avoid the countless clumsy mistakes Putin & Thugs have made.

[@timl8302]

Also, There is the "2008' Roberts Report" . IMHO- The .270 (6.8 SPC) has at least 40% more energy more than the .223 used today. I think he is advocating "Spray & Pray"?

[@stupidburp]

An explosive weapon such as a mortar is a far better way to defeat hard armor plates by damaging around it. Upping the rifles to extreme penetration degrades their utility in other ways and the adversary can issue new plates more easily than our forces can switch primary rifles. Should focus on issuing more mortars and keep the rifles at modest weight and modest recoil with good long range performance. I would go with a 6.5 round as long as a Creedmoor but slightly skinnier for slightly more magazine capacity in reasonable length magazines.

[@triplefshooting]

Very much enjoy your perspectives on things like this. What you're saying makes a ton of sense. It's wild how often concepts circle back around like a brand new solution.

[@lukelacross190]

This channel is gold, I don’t know how Jeff doesn’t have more subscribers yet

[@MCLEO983]

man, you are clear, concise, logical, and informed. Thank you for this.

[@dirt007]

The army was scared of fighting an enemy with body armor. Little did they know Russian body armor was made of cardboard.

[@GmailNexus]

this

[@ericschumacher5189]

In the future it would be cool to see a video on the history / efforts to switch to 6.8-SPC-2. From what I’ve read it seemed like an overall positive, given goals / reasons for which it was developed, also it seems that in an AR based weapon (or weapons from the SCAR program like XCR-L) would be a happy “middle-ground” between the XM5 and the latest SOF-AR (URGI).....lastly I don’t understand how the armor-pen couldn’t be accomplished with tungsten penetrators and less power than XM5 like was originally proposed / developed for the 6.8-SPC-2, given the ranges you discussed in this video.

[@vicnighthorse]

Not sure rounds that can penetrate lvl 4 and better armor are cost effective, even in 6.8x51. Tungsten is very expensive and mostly in China. However, I too suspect a significantly lighter rifle with an intermediate cartridge like 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel but keeping the XM157 fire control system would be a better choice.

[@spinetanium3296]

Tungsten ammo (ie SLAP) is a one-trick pony. All it does is punch through the target and keep going. It won't knock down the target by transferring kinetic energy to it. We learned that back in Somalia in '93.

[@aaronthompson192]

@@vicnighthorse exactly, just convert the AR's to Grendel or something similar and you get more ammo and amazing ballistics. Make the ammo with the new polymer or bimetal cases if you want and you've saved more weight. Penetrating body armor doesn't matter if your recoil is manageable and you can make quick follow up shots. Chances are you'll it something important.

[@ericschumacher5189]

I’m not talking about SLAP rounds, just a tungsten penetrator like the tip of M855A1.....the 6.8X55 lower pressure ammo only has a hardened steel penetrator, which kneecaps its performance, and requires the power it has to be as effective as less mass / velocity with tungsten.

[@ericschumacher5189]

I’m not against 6.5-G it’s just that 6.8-SPC uses a straight wall case that helps with reliability in AR-platform, and it outperforms 6.5-G in barrels under 16” (so if they were sticking with the m4’s 14.5” barrel, and maxing capability 0-300m (like the m4’s original intent / doctrine) then I’d favor 6.8mm....if barrels grew to 16” for general purpose and the extended range was imperative, then 6.5-G would be the way to go.....with modern tech, both could be cartridges could be improved, and probably a happy medium struck between them if the development $$$$$ was there to back a “ground-up” protect like that......many people have tried to do this with 6.5X40, 6.5 PCC, 6.5 TCU, and several other wildcat rounds I can’t remember, so there’s still some wiggle room left for optimization.

[@darklyripley6138]

I predicted that this would happen. We got this gun for distances in Afghanistan, but we got out before it could be adopted. Afghanistan is the only place where we see 600-1,000 meter engagements. What we should do is either get one or two more DM’s per platoon, or give more MK12 type rifles out. That way you can have an 800 meter rifle, but still have ammo compatibility with the rest of your platoon.

[@pagannova3621]

this is too wise for the military, sadly. but would work perfectly, we already have those rifles, that ammo, and that method of training.

[@stevenkent5351]

what you just said is wrong. its because green tip 5.56 wont penetrate modern plates. so they went with a higher power riffle to have a higher possibility of penetration on plates. This is a near peer rifle not a DMR.

[@darklyripley6138]

@@stevenkent5351 They literally have stated that what I said was the reason. The whole armor thing was only a reason they came up with afterwards.

[@carbon8ed]

@@stevenkent5351 The Army doesn't use green tips any more, they use M855A1, which will smoke a lvl 3 plate no problem. Russia and China are not issuing lvl 4 equivalent body armor to the majority of their troops, they're not even issuing body armor *at all* to most of their troops. Russia has been caught on multiple occasions issuing fake plates to their soldiers.

[@ronskancke1489]

Maybe we will need it in Saudi arabia.

[@americanpatriot9193]

Sounds like to me someone in the selection process of the new rifle that choose the Sig model is either getting a kick back from Sig or looking to get a job with them when they get out of the service.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

Additionally, the XM157 can be used on 5.56 rifles and is programmable for whatever. It is not married to the XM5

[@JP-tw8ns]

Love the videos keep them coming, I especially love the armor and sopmod videos! You can learn alot from history as evidenced by your input in this video

[@henrikrothen5640]

The Swedish Army kept a few G3 7.62mm rifles, upgraded to marksman capabilities around, when moving to a 5.56mm system. A mech squad would keep a few of them with them in their vehicle, making it possible for certain squad members, to temporarily "upgrade" to longer range, as the need arises. Will all infantry be mechanized and have a vehicle available for storage always. No. But I feel a dual setup, depending on circumstances is not a bad solution. The firearm itself is not the most expensive weapon system of the squad, so its not really cost argument against that setup. Sweden´s new main assault rifle will move (back) to 7.62mm. Probably for the same reason as USA is upgrading to 6.8mm. (To defeat the non-existing ratnik body armours?). Whereas a new 5.56mm system will be used as a sort of PDW for non-frontline troops (instead of what used to be 9mm submachine-guns). My suspicion is that many frontline troops will going to want some lighter 5.56mm systems with them, exactly for the sort of situations described in the video, long range foot patrols, assault and urban operations, etc. I suspect the SigXM5 might go the way of the M14, or be more of a specialist role weapon.

[@pauldarling330]

I can't remember how many times I thought to myself, "Damn, I wish I had a heavier gun, with more recoil and less ammo!" in Afghanistan.

[@samuelpope7798]

You are absolutely right. I've never met a weapon system I didn't like, but the XM5 6.8 is a big waste of money. Money that could have been used to replace old worn weapons with new ones and provide a lot more range time per soldier. High pressure = high temp and will cause problems with heat/metallic fouling during sustained fire. I think the M110 with 6.5CM upper would make a better DMR. Like an updated BAR in 6.5x55mm kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKjVoX58gMiVqM0. The 6.8 140gr to 150gr at 3000fps is not very different from a 7mm Rem. Mag. in terms of recoil and pressure/heating. Fine for one cold shot at big game but if you are banging away at enemies on a battlefield the recoil and barrel heat are going to dramatically reduce your effectiveness in short order.

[@jeremywatson9129]

It's like they have to relearn the lesson that made them drop the M-14 and .308 and go with 556. They don't have to go with a full power cartridge there are many great intermediate rounds these days if they wanna get away from 556. Edit: that's what I get for commenting then watching. You covered the M-14 to M-16 timeline.

[@Hibernicus1968]

So the U.S. army is doing what armies do best: preparing to fight the last war better.

[@hkpro99]

Great analysis. I carried a pimped out G3 with my private 1-4 S&B short dot on my 3rd tour in northern Afghanistan back in 10/11 and I loved it ! 1-4 S&B was the shit back than ;)! My G36 stayed in the armoury pretty much the whole deployment. The scope and 7.62 worked great in that Environment. Never went through more than 3 mags ( carried 6+1 in the rifle) downside was weight and size, only wish I had an 1-8 back than. The SIG is the right rifle for Afghanistan, not for General issue, too heavy and too much recoil. We're buying HK 416s with 1-4 Elcans and 417s with 1-8 S&B for the Bundeswehr now. We'll see how that works out ;)!

[@kendelvalle8299]

I was in Nam in 65, 66 and 67. Started with an M-14 and then we got the M-16. I’ve had dozens of AR’s since then as well as several M-14’s. I think the 6.8 is the perfect “in between” round. I find the AR’s 6.8 to be as handy as the M-16 but more effective at long range.

[@robertford8489]

This video is tough to watch an most comments are ignorant and opinionated. Thank you for your service and for sharing your insight having carried multiple service weapons. I think the one round to serve multiple platforms with the increased range and penetration will make up for the slightly heavier round.

[@Fer-De-Lance]

As I have aged. I have believed in becoming more flexible and adapting to things as they arise and not using old paradigms.

[@georgejoseph4164]

While the new round might be the bee's knees, it's another logistical muck-up waiting to happen. You make very good points as do others...

[@TheLogitech91]

That 6.8 at 80,000 PSI has to be a barrel burner. On the Tactical Rifleman channel he did a episode with the guy who developed a lot of the rifles for SOCOM. He showed a picture of an HK416 chambered ins 6.8spc. Why didn't they just continue to develop that gun??

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

6.8 SPC recoil is practically that of 7.62. basically, a high-speed AK 7.62x30 round. Too much for the ballistic trade off.

[@user-oy9zy4ds9m]

They could negate the recoil with a special muzzle brake however that would add weight and the rifle is already too heavy

[@volk528]

@@user-oy9zy4ds9m muzzle brakes have their own downsides like muzzle flash and horrendous concussion to whoever is next to you while shooting

[@joquin4618]

@@volk528 exactly… I despise muzzle brakes, prefer a suppressor 😊

[@donalddickins8493]

Because 6.8 is ballistically ass. Worse than 6.5 grendel and 6mm arc. Same distance as 5.56.

[@AndyAdventuring]

Use the steel backer tech from the .277 Fury and build a new 5.56 with even higher pressures. It'll shoot even flatter and give you some more unf at range.

[@Drago2600]

I am willing to bet that was considered and possibly done. 5.56 seems to be doing very well in Ukraine.

[@Dezzyyy]

@@Drago2600 because most engagements are urban or sub 400 yards. 5.56 thrives in those ranges.

[@zack9912000]

M855A1 already has insane high pressures now and wears out the M4 50% faster and destroys feed ramps. You cant go any higher in pressures for 5.56. Hence why they went with the 6.8

[@carbon8ed]

@@zack9912000 If sig can build a rifle that can handle an 80k PSI 6.8x51 cartridge, they can build a rifle that can handle an 80k psi 5.56 cartridge. You absolutely can go higher with 5.56, the problem is the M4 was never built to handle thousands of rounds of what is essentially a proof round in terms of pressure.

[@AndyAdventuring]

@@zack9912000 You're correct. You wouldn't be able to use a steel backed high pressure 5.56 round in a current 5.56-chambered gun. You'd need something beefed up. Which is why I think the Spear LT will come out with a gen 2 relatively quickly.

[@rcolavito1234]

Remember that the Army is also replacing the SAW with the XM-250 - Which apparently is awesome.

[@raifsevrence]

The LMG is dope. The new optic is also dope. The hyped up , jacked up MCX is a joke.

[@3wolfsdown702]

@@raifsevrence you do realize in Most states you can't even hunt with a 223 because it's not considered lethal enough

[@raifsevrence]

@@3wolfsdown702 what's that got to do with my post ? The new lmg is good. The new optic is good. The new rifle is bad. Where did I say anything about hunting ? What does hunting and the .223 chambering have to do with the NGSW program ?

[@Maryland_Kulak]

I’m a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry and I was a GS-14 at HQDA. If you’re expecting a good decision to ever come out of HQDA, don’t hold your breath. I would be happy to elaborate.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Priceless

[@Slick64]

The problem is the people making the decisions on weapons are not the people using them.

[@wendysbaconator1175]

I think the XM5 would be great as DMR option. Im not convinced it’s a good replacement to the M4.

[@rodneyalaking8241]

Your 26 years of Infantry and SF combat experience make you a subject matter expert. POGs in Washington always like shiny new toys to spend our money on. And thank you for fighting for our country🇺🇸.

[@Xogroroth666]

The FN Maximi (MK48) would do the job as well, being it the "bigger brother" (7.62) of the FN Minimi (M249'er SAW) (5.56). Merely mentioning.

[@davidbuck5864]

When I was in the Army in NZ, we had recently replaced the C9 Minimi with the larger 7.62 x 51mm version. After some teething problems, it has settled in nicely. Never heard it called the Maximi, or the Mk48, tho, but I believe we were the first customer, so no names or Mk numbers were known. We just called it the LMG.

[@Xogroroth666]

​@@davidbuck5864 You can google both the FN Maximi or MK48, if you like. ;) Back in 1990, during my army days, it was my base weapon. I noticed it could be 'single shot fired' if you had a decent trigger reflex to let go. seeing the accuracy, range, I figured, to alter it a tad ... and placed a scope onto it. Now, when using a 200 round ammo box, I had a 200 round sniper rifle. And used it as such. The first time they saw me with the scope attached, they laughed ... Until I took out target after target at 800 meters. That was my moment to laugh ... .

[@pootytang2872]

that gun wasn't even out yet. you're in fantasy land. @@Xogroroth666

[@erwinpatio8160]

I don't understand why I see a lot of KZbin reviews comparing the Sig XM5/XM7 to CQBs like the M4 platform. Sig did not design the XM7 for CQB - they have the Rattler for that. XM7 is designed more like a DMR (Designated Marksman Riffle), where it shines at the mid-range of somewhere around 300 to 600 meters. And not to mention that the Sig Fury cartridge is supposed to be able to penetrate class III ballistic armor (Class IV if it's made in China :) ). Its true that you can suppress the enemy with whatever riffle you have until the Warthogs and the Apaches arrive, but reinforcement could take hours to get to you. But if you have a riffle that can shoot further than the enemies', you could a least keep them at a distance until the 1st Cavalry arrives.

[@dnuofntsol]

Man you said it with the MTOE. They are too focused on the hardware upgrade instead of the software.

[@mattp7828]

In the British Army in the late 1980s we had the LSW in each infantry Section and it was a heavy barrelled and bipod version of the SA80, with 30 round box magazines. Lasted about 2 years before it was replaced by the GPMG which is same as your M240. I carried it in the 1st Gulf War and we had 3 in a platoon. Mine was in the SF variant so with a tripod, C2 sight and additional ammunition issue. They say Generals always fight the last war in the next war, seems like they're refighting Afghanistan with this new weapon system. Though the new sight and the M250 both look interesting.

[@happyhaunter_5546]

It's like we just never learn. The advent of the Spitzer bullet caused higher ups in military to believe that that alone would increase reliable accurate ranges, which turned out to be almost never the case for regular infantry; and the worst part is that they predicted most combat by regular infantry would just take place at a longer range just because the projectile was capable of it, resulting in "battle zero" rifle to be at 300m, so they had to "belt buckle hold" and shoot way low at practical ranges.

[@davidphillips8674]

6.8 will probably end up replacing 7.62 instead, its considerably lighter, has more energy and better BC. The same bullet tech will be applied to 5.56, using a heavier round with the same velocity because of the bi metal casing(which is also lighter than all brass). They will probably also take a shot at redesigning the bullet for 5.56 to give it a better BC as well with a shorter casing to allow for a longer bullet. You have then solved all of the issues, giving soldiers overmatch AND lighter weight. Look for the SPEAR LT to be the rifle that actually gets adopted. Short stroke gas piston is where its at. The Marine Corps got it right with the M27 IAR

[@paulwilson8672]

You make valid arguments!!! Several I made myself. The round reduction and weight being the biggest concern. I've recently been learning about the history of the M14. It was meant to be used in Europe and not the jungles of Vietnam. Based on a 7 mag load out you have a delta of approximately 70 rounds. The M7 is also going out with the M250 which uses the same ammo. So you will have more than that 100 belt in your pack now. It wasn't just long range shooting the Army was trying to address it was near peer adversaries that would have body armor like we do. The M7 and M250 would be much more effective than our current weapons. Also how effective and reliable these new weapons will be determined by privates in the field. Anything can be broken by a private. Also when we started the gulf war optics where not standard issue. However, the Marine Corps used the ACOG to devastating effect. So much so that they were being accused of war crimes because of all the head shots they were making. I think we need to field these new weapon systems and let the privates break them so we can really know what they are made of. Then work on tactics that can better take advantages of there assets and reduce the impact of there hindrances. I like what you were saying about having mix of weapons. We might find a magical combination that will make our units much more effective. Good discussion. We need more of this. Great Video!!!

[@jamesstanley4764]

Thank you for your wisdom.

[@samuelferrell9257]

This could be an excellent dmr weapon. However, to issue this to everyone in front line service in favor of m4s is probably too much too fast. In close urban or wooded environments where your likely to make enemy contact, you need manuverablity and high volume of fire. 5.56 is going to be very deadly even against body armor at extremely close range.

[@EverydayMarksman]

Great video, Jeff. Since the announcement of the XM-5, I kept wracking my brain unsuccessfully trying to figure out how it made sense as a general issue weapon. My non-infantry opinion based on reading the history of small arms tells me that your conclusion of keeping the 5.56 as general issue and the XM-5 platform for SAW and DMR use (while increasing the numbers issued to each platoon) is the way to go.

[@kalliste23]

Improvements to 7.62x51 could me made without breaking pre-existing stuff. This is simply a boondogle for military industrial complex.

[@unknownalias5538]

Yep , battle rifles are obsolete . Assault rifles and lmgs are the way to go

[@LuvBorderCollies]

The Army had concluded some time ago that 5.56 would be general issue and the new 6,8 would be only to actual infantry. So Jeff isn't conjuring up fantastic idea that the Army didn't already have. 🙄

[@EverydayMarksman]

@@LuvBorderCollies Where is that? The last thing I saw was from the announcement, and it stated the XM5 was intended for all close combat units and roles, with slow expansion from there.

[@ChristianMcAngus]

There's also the issue of cartridge cost. The 6.8mm round uses an expensive case made of a composite of brass and stainless steel. The Russian and Chinese tradition of making cases out of mild steel has a lot of advantages in reducing cost.

[@AndyAdventuring]

Well yea because former soviet states invested heavily in steel manufacturing infrastructure. They have absolutely tons of it. If Russia takes Ukraine, they become the world's 2nd largest global supplier of steel. In order for us do have a similar benefit, we would need that infrastructure -- which we don't have. We import massive amounts of steel.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

@@AndyAdventuring We used to have steel manufacture before traitors gave it all to China. Still, imported or not, steel is MUCH cheaper than brass (copper+zinc). Are you saying we do not import copper and zinc?

[@Matt-416]

Absolutely correct. As a former Airborne Infantryman, I can tell you that pounds count. Hell, ounce count. And, having been in the mountains of Afghanistan, I never finished a firefight wishing that I had brought less ammo. I came close to running out a few times, and that's not a very good feeling. Great content. H-minus

[@ivaniuk123]

I own the 7.62 version in 13 in barrel lenght and I really like the rifle. It is very compact and even in a 13 in 7.62 caliber it outperforms an 18 in ar15. Combining this rifle with a good lpvo would greatly enhance a soldiers capacity to hit targets at all ranges. It seems like in Ukraine now are 5-500m. Having something better then a 5.56 would be of benefit.

[@Galildoughty]

I agree. The XM5 seems tailor made for Afghanistan. With the "light", 5.56 version of the XM5, they should employ the same case tech and get the 5.56 up to crazy velocities.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Good point a newer better 5.56 I would love to see if I were still in.

[@absoluteresolution3822]

That’s what I thought all along. Why not make the 556 round capable of 80K PSI pressures. The M855A1 at 80K PSI would defeat ALL body armor and have a longer ranger with none of the downsides of the larger calibers. The only issue would be barrel life but with Sigs MCX Spear design the whole point is to change barrels and calibers quickly to match the mission. I just don’t understand their thinking.

[@ES-je3em]

Sig did recently release the new Spear Lt in 5.56. Do you think it would make more sense of maybe adopting the MCX platform without the need for the 6.8 caliber ?

[@509Gman]

@@ES-je3em it seems many teams are testing out MCXs in 5.56 and liking it better than the 416 (not sure why, probably not having to deal with stubborn H&K ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). The trend seems to be going to short barreled and suppressed rifles with high tables of full auto, so a short stroke piston system is desirable.

[@huntmatthewd]

That is most likely why Sig released the Spear LT. In case the XM5 fails (likely) they can just roll in with the 5.56 contract.

[@newdefsys]

I'm half expecting to see the Army drop a PR release announcing that it has approved the MCX LT in 5.56, without any trials, on the basis that "its the same rifle as the XM7, so we dont need to test it" and I can easily imagine having just one XM7 per squad (with the XM157 optic used to assist the squad leader in directing fires) along with two M250's with everybody else getting MCX LT's, including the grenadiers. But who knows how things turn out. They could just as easily cancel the whole damn thing.

[@Sparks52]

I also predict it won't go past the first few dozen in a combination of XM7 and XM250 being delivered for operational testing during 2024. Too costly, too heavy even with reduced basic load, with reliability and durability problems under adverse field conditions in mud, dusty mud, frozen dusty mud, and frozen, sandy, dusty mud. The logistics of maintaining ammo resupply with increased weight is combined with complexity of having to provide more calibers of small arms carved up for delivery of different calibers to different units. The U.S. Army only plans on deploying the XM7 and XM250 to line infantry, combat medics and combat engineers. Everyone else keeps the M16A2 and M4A1. Imagine a brigade now with sorting out who gets the 6.8mm and who gets the 5.56mm, and keeping it sorted out. Logistical nightmare.

[@bryanr8897]

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason for going to the .277 was to defeat next gen body armor. Also, the scope has the ability to broadcast its image for C2 observance which is where its value really is.

[@DeskPop]

Hey man, I've actually shot this rifle pretty extensively and I think you're missing a huge factor. The "influencers" Get to shoot the .308 rifle on camera and most of them don't get to touch the .277 fury version. If you meet the right people you'll get a range day with the .277 fury and find out it recoils a LOT softer than .308 and shoots even flatter. On top of that it's being designed to accept an ammo type they're already providing to reduce logistics on rounds; the reduce ammo capacity is going to be a factor, but it may simply result in certain units fielding M4's or Spear it's.... The spear with the .308 is very manageable too. I think this rifle will continue and probably get adopted.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thanks for your input, perhaps il get to shoot one, and if I'm wrong then its a win for the soldiers which of course is good.

[@D.L.Hunter.Palmer]

This is such a well reasoned and informative video. Your arguments regarding the shortcomings of the Sig and how it's strengths are unlikely to be realized in the most likely future battle spaces is the best I've ever seen. At the start of this video I thought it was going to be just another retried guy telling us why what we used in his day was the best, and new tech is bad because he didn't use it. I couldn't have been more wrong. The explanations of the many ways the weapon may prove to be a step in the wrong direction in a near peer fight are spot on. And I think the description of the standard rifle as a PDW is basically right too. If not, why do we pay all those billions for heavy Vehicles like tanks and IFVs, squad level machine guns and shoulder fire rockets, not to mention the massive expense and difficult logistics required to allow for calling in close air support. Not to mention all the drones, missiles,strategic bombers and fighters taking out whole enemy positions.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

I for one love new tech, if its the right tech for the job.

[@forgedwithin5037]

Great points throughout. That bad boy is gonna be real heavy after 2-3 days outside the wire, especially with a full combat load of the full power rounds that were part of the contract for this puppy (that none very few if any of the influencers are demo’ing). After Russia’s weak display of military ability and surprisingly inferior equipment compared to what they were believed to possess, I no longer think they were the primary driver for the contract and development of this firearm. Maaaaaybe it’s for a near peer war against a certain aggressively communist country in Asia, but as soon as Americans all started buying level iii and iv plates, it seems like the Army put out a contract almost immediately for a new service rifle to defeat said plates. Not a conspiracy theorist, but have been hearing this same opinion on several mainstream 2A channels lately and it isn’t the most outrageous thing to imagine anymore. Either way-I think it’s a cool gun and I 100% want to pick one up one day when they’re in stock everywhere and not exorbitantly priced anymore! Love US military history and I’m sure this gun will be a big part of our country’s history whether loved or hated (TBD whether it’s remembered as the next M14 or the next M16 LOL). Thanks for always putting out videos that make us think! Your experience and insight on things like this is super interesting.

[@30wrdy]

That’s exactly what I thought when I first heard of the program

[@EventHorizon1776]

Very informative. I’m gonna have to agree with you.

[@Bombsuitsandkilts]

I suspect the idea is to tie into the sensor packages that every infantry unit is supposed to have so that they always see the enemy before the enemy sees them. Sounds good on paper but....

[@americasrifle7868]

The vortex optic is about 2 lbs! It’s going to be around 14-15 lbs fully loaded, so a hair heavier than what you guessed. Great video!

[@x01macmilsim86]

Check the internet rifles loaded weigh is 8.38 lbs

[@americasrifle7868]

@@x01macmilsim86 go watch the military arms Chanel on the weight, a sig scope and suppressor, weighs in at 10.5lbs without ammo

[@tackytrooper]

@@x01macmilsim86 Definitely not with the optic on it, let alone laser unit, flash light, etc.

[@ezOqekuRitusohI]

The Army is always trying to fight yesterday's war.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

It seems I will be correct in that this rifle is failing already, Army Times article...... www.armytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/28/the-not-really-next-generation-weapons-program/

[@foodforfighting4724]

Do you think 5.56 will stay as main infantry cartridge ? Or will Army push this through with negative feedback ?

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@foodforfighting4724 I think 5.56 will still be the main round for at least 5 more years maybe 10.

[@akmjolnir-v4r]

@@ModernTacticalShooting Have you had any experience with the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm) cartridge? It would seem like an upgraded upper receiver with an easy barrel-change system between 5.56 NATO to 6.8SPC for close engagements vs. more open terrain would be ideal to retain existing M4/M16 lower receivers (and training/familiarity). Would the 6.8SPC bridge the gap between the 5.56 NATO and full-power 6.8x51mm SIG? In the end it's all politics, right?

[@bobsmith7916]

6.8 SPC would help I’m certain applications vs 5.56, but fail at others. It’s not a revolutionary jump like the 6.8x51 claimed to be. No system right now delivers first round hits against level 4 plates without tungsten. That was supposed to be the huge reason we got the NGSW going.

[@fanman8102]

Yep. Made no sense anyway. Way back when we forced NATO to accept the 308 then change to 5.56. Now we expect NATO to change to a round that is ballistically similar to what they wanted originally? Yeah, I know some will argue that point but it is ballistically similar. Change the name and add a wee bit more propellant then angels start singing. “ There’s nothing new under the sun.”

[@Keithrrr]

Best video on the Army’s latest Cluster F@ck.

[@johnclark2212]

The military is always gearing up for the last war, your comments are spot on.

[@nate665]

My understanding is the caliber change has nothing to do with extending the range and everything to do with body armor penetration.

[@tx611]

Every time I pick up my Zastava m70, I realize how outdated and out matched the AK platform is compared to a specd out m4 rifle with 77 grain OTM. Speed kills, and these heavier beefed up platforms are considerably slower and provide no ballistic advantage.

[@echodelta9983]

This was probably the most blanced take I've heard on the subject

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thank You

[@shook0002]

Maybe the Army should be looking into different cartridges for different theaters of operation. The AR style platform can and has been modified for multiple calipers. Same platform different rounds for the situation.

[@mitchellstrunks7214]

As an ex Infantry guy with a couple tours in Iraq I completely agree. Its a great weapons system but not for everybody in the platoon.

[@stefanstoyanov7460]

Used as squad sniper rifle, the XM5 will do wonders, but others should rock the usual 5.56 platforms.

[@imhotep561]

Why not use what we have and upgrade to the 6arc if they want “overmatch distance” ability. Would save a ton of money and would Keep the weight down and the capacity up. And if the claim that the new 6.8 isn’t a barrel burner than the 6arc should be fine.

[@Davidmoore-xy6wu]

I wish to wait until it sees its combative testing is concluded and it’s either seen as another xm25 dilemma but I do agree and have said since the ngsw began trial it would be another scar / ar 10 that specific units may outfit with but mainline infantry will still end up using 556 as there many engagements are within closer then wanted distances and this is why the m4 and the mk18 became such an icon

[@johnw4999]

The M4 was heavy enough humping those @&#*% mountains in Afghanistan. I was just a regular Grunt. Seems like the immediate answer is tweaking the 5.56 to suite the realistic threat, example 77 OTM for unarmored threats. Anyway, maybe see what the 5.56 can do with the .277 Fury cartridge technology (and up barrel life to sustain 10k or more rds.). Along with, shoot some sort of AP capable of defeating Lv4 plates at 100-300m/y while turning meat in to jello.

[@Sam-ix9gd]

In 1930 the 276 caliber was deemed the most favorable round by testing at aberdeen. They used kill boards something that may be hard to do today. Seems they may have finally gotten it right.

[@drexel5146]

Will woke trans Army "Men" complain about the recoil bruising them? "It's too heavy" You expect me to carry this and my Purse?

[@RobertDumont-q8d]

Great video!

[@fanman8102]

Coming to this late and I agree with your basic premise. However I would also like to point out that all that is needed to increase the range and lethality if the 5.56 is to increase the MV. If you want the 5.56 to perform well at 500 meters you must have a 16” barrel minimum. The Army didn’t need a new rifle with a new caliber, just a longer barrel. Also, is it really necessary for every infantryman to have a suppressor in a high intensity conflict?

[@twatts45]

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying this since it was announced. Most conflicts are won by the guy with the most ammo. That's probably an oversimplification, but still true. The xm5 seems like a step back not forward. I think the 6.8x51 would be fantastic in a dmr or lmg role, but I don't think a 13ish pound rifle with 20rd mags is the right answer. For that weight, and no I don't actually condone this, we could just outfit everyone with a mk46.

[@Steeveajocelyn]

Well said, I concur.

[@paymanalimi8201]

Absolutely true what you said. I believe somebody getting paid in the side to have that contract. 1.I would’ve have update the MK18 with selective fire. Safe, semi, three round shot, full auto.. 2. Update the platform M 60 machine gun with a better component less recoil. 2. Long range weapon beyond 1000 yards. 3. designated update grenade launcher 200 m to 600 m range.

[@Ratkill9000]

The speculation I've been hearing is because they want a round that will penetrate Chinese body armor with ease and still take out the enemy soldier. People said the Russian armor is just cardboard, I don't think that is an accurate assessment.

[@vladepast4936]

Thank God we have people like yourself that really know what the US Army needs! I would bet $1000 against $1 you are a FAX news viewer.

[@reedr1659]

All the problems that were originally solved by the introduction of the M16 seem to have been forgotten about. Now they basically want to issue another M14. Heavy, bigger cartridge, lower capacity, more recoil. Seems like we're going backwards with the new Sig.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Agree

[@Droid_Behaviour]

Totally agree with you. Former French Soldier here, two tour in A-Stan, and if i had to do the same thing with this new XM5 rifle, with all the gear we had on our back, on our chest...never! I understand the use of a better round, more powerful, supressed rifle, new MLOK handguard and so on... But, your exemple with the GoPro video from Ukrainians soldiers, wich send lot of rounds downrange in a short amount of time, as you say, maybye four or five 30 rounds of 5.45 magazines, with this new SIG XM5...in this case, you're running out of ammo very fast...! Too heavy, (13 pounds, really??!) small capacity magazines, yes the round is maybye better than the 5.56 for some applications...but no, really, no thanks. My old and dusty Famas at the time was accurate, reliable, and better balanced than this enormous Sig XM5 rifle... When we see nowadays the new conflict with Hamas/Israël, i don't see Tsahal guys in tights streets in Gaza with this very BIG XM5, they have some COLT M653/M733 or TAR21/X95 are way better in this situation for a lot of reasons. The future could tells us if this XM5 was a good idea...or not.

[@J-K-A]

This is an interesting analysis. It seems like the rifle still has a role if we are fighting someone with proper communication suppression and we can use drones like they are in Ukraine. This rifle seems like a good option to replace something like the the designated marksman rifle especially if it comes with the aim assisting scope.

[@valiant545]

Regarding 6.8 being lighter than .308, this is true just from the size difference, but not the weight savings the Army initially wanted. Since they chose Sig and this .277 Fury hybrid cased ammo, it is only SLIGHTLY lighter than .308. If they had gone with say, General Dynamics gun, the ammunition would have been a lot lighter.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thank you for the input

[@whiskey11niner]

I have to admit everything you said in this video is well thought out and correct, I still want a SIG Spear though 😂

[@K-bob_45]

Stupid question time: when they were wanting overmatch at 700 yards in Afghanistan why didn’t they just issue match ammo and Mk12’s? To go further why are we switching calibers instead of just using modern bullets? Swap out the 77 gr Sierra for a berger and swap out the 168 in 308 for a berger hybrid? Never understood how that wasn’t the easy choice.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Army stuck on tradition, which is really the main issue. The four 9-man squad concept, with only two M240 machine guns not adequate.

[@hatuletoh]

So what you're saying is that the Army is planning and equipping soldiers for the last war instead of trying to anticipate the next one? Where have I heard this before..?

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Yep

[@nickibateson1466]

Amazing very informative video. Thank you very much.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@nickibateson1466 Thank you

[@WarDaddy1919]

After years of using an M27 all I can say is "damn that bitch heavy". and it was about 12-13lbs fully equipped. I can't imagine the poor guys that will have to lug around the XM5 at nearly 13-14lbs. I feel like top brass never ask for the input of the guys who actually carry and use the weapons.

[@orlock20]

If one is lugging these things around for any great distance, something has gone horribly wrong including having bad command.

[@williamashbless7904]

The M-14 was too heavy at 10 lbs. So, a 13 lb rifle must 30% better. Right?

[@stupidburp]

A long and narrow 6.5 round with a high BC bullet pushed at modest velocity would be better. Something like a slightly skinnier 6.5 Creedmoor. This would maintain good magazine capacity while increasing effective range with decent energy and low bullet drop snd wind drift with a high ballistic coefficient 6.5 bullet. Don’t try to overmatch adversary armor plates. Instead, use good range and accuracy combined with advanced computer and sensor assisted optics to shoot around the plates. If you want extreme effects at extreme ranges, use a lightweight 60mm mortar with a small drone to spot. Or if you have a vehicle, make it a JLTV with 120mm Elbit SPEAR mortar or Stryker with 120mm Patria AMOS gun mortar turret. Rifles for clearing trenches and buildings with occasional long range shots from high positions. Mortars for degrading forces just beyond rifle ranges.

[@stevenmora72]

Good job brother! good job!

[@homevalueglass3809]

I'm just glad the xm5 doesn't have a buffer tube. That way once we start getting civilian versions available, we can finially use foldable stocks. 👍