AR-15 and 5.56 Obsolete? - TASKER Network Talks Sig XM5 and 6.8 x 51

[@romeoechofoxtrot18]

In my opinion the XM5 seems like a reaction to the last war. I'm not saying that it doesn't show promise it just seems like we wish we had that platform in the gwot

[@dreknows]

That's such nice gun

[@hairydogstail]

Watching the M-5 fire shows it recoils far more than an M-4, so saying otherwise is stupid..Having a farther reach and more killing power is a positive, but it seems we are going backwards after years of pulling away from the heavier M-1 and M-14 mentality..The high pressure ammo will eat barrels up quickly causing more expense that if history repeats will keep worn weapons in the pipe line longer than they should be causing more problems and issues.. Many M-4 rifles that failed in Iraq were not maintained properly and had parts replaced by questionable venders do to cost..Hope they work the bugs out before issuing these new weapons unlike they did the M-16...

[@lefunnyN1]

that short barreled raptor variant seems to jump much much more

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Well said and agree totally

[@DutchK75]

Yep, cage code 1B1B6 is a perfect example of the .gov/.mil going outside the normal channels. And getting burned. The M5 is a turd. SGM Chuck Pressburg talked about the unintended consequences of fielding battle rifle on P&S. I'm more interested in improving 5.56. The bi-metal case could be the ticket. I'd like to see a URG that could handle those pressures. There is no near peer threat.

[@skookapalooza2016]

The XM-5 barrel life is supposed to be around 10k. Granted, that's not a lot, but not terrible either. I have an idea that there are some smoke & mirrors with this adoption. IIRC, the Army was, essentially, strongarmed by Congress into conducting these trials, at a minimum, to replace the M-4. So, my theory on this is that the Army actually has no intention of replacing the M-4 in the foreseeable future. They'll use this as a DMR first. Remember, it's supposed to take 3 to 4 years to get the ammo plant up & running. A LOT can change in 4 years. Say, we get a new Army Chief-of-Staff and new Secretary of the Army. They could always decide to forego production of the 6.8x51 and decide they want the XM-5 chambered in 7.62 NATO. They could decide, before production of the XM-5 has a chance to ramp-up, that they only want to replace the DMR. They could also decide to replace M240/FN-MAG with the XM-250, which could also be easily produced in 7.62 NATO. So, none of that would involve swapping-out any of the M-4/M-4A1's or M-249's with the new weapons systems. It could, potentially, become an open contract, as the need arises, for more. So, the Army could keep its options open.

[@abelincoln8885]

Ukraine showed us ... the importance of Air Defense systems, drones/uavs and long range artillery & MRLS with thermobaric warheads. Armoured mobile Infantry .... is the immediate future ... with loitering munitions, drones, and artillery/air strikes ... does most of the clearing & killing ... and the infantry only moves to quickly mop up what's left ... with APC & IFV with remote MG338, and autocanon etc providing fire support ... as was as carrying additional 6.8 ammo, grenades, etc & drones. The Army wants a common MG round ... and knows about the option of the 6.8 sig for the Automatic Rifle & DMR ... with the M4 for the service rifle. It would have moved from the 5.56 to the 6.5 grendel if it it was going to retain the M4. But the Army wants a single MG round to Combat forces. It is not replacing the M4 ... but moving from 5.56 & 7.62 ... to ... 6.8. And possibly 338 to replace the 50 cal MG and Sniper Rifles infantry weapons. The Army knows all about the negatives of moving from the 556 to the 68 especially with loadout weight, less ammo, and the required new training and tactics to make every round count. Europe had battle rifles for over 20 years when the US switched to the 556 & M16 ... and soldiers were not bitching about the heavier rifle and less ammo because this was normal for them. But when the Free world switched to the 556 ... liked and got use to less weight but more ammo, and developed new tactics for the lighter round. And this is why there is so much bitching with the US moving back to a battle Rigle ... with fanboys believing they know more than the US Army moving from the 556 to 68 ... when it was the Army that moved from the 762 to the 556 ... when most in the free world were using battle rifles. They had a good reason to abandon the battle rifle. They have a good reason to move back to the battle rifle. This is not the 1950's ... and the M5 is not the M14.

[@stevenbates7790]

Three minutes in and you lost me. At this point I'm thinking holy crap this guy must enjoy the sound of his own voice... Word salad B.S., talking in circles, get off the pot man!

[@skookapalooza2016]

Just read his article. It's excellent. So, if you really had trouble following his interview here, than I would recommend his article on the NGSW. I found it to be very cogent.

[@SDPLISSKEN81]

You must be from one of the large derpy gun groups on FB 😏

[@dreknows]

That round seems like great compromise between weak 5.56 and inaccurate 7.62

[@dreknows]

Sig p320 best handgun ATM conceal

[@mbenjamin292]

Wouldn't it be great if you could send your rifle in for heat treat and you could double the powder you use to make it twice as great as 556 and a stronger spring for the extra abuse on your ar 15 I would pay 800 dollars for that psckage.

[@nightsight85]

I kinda feel like 5.56x45 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It may evolve a bit… like the m855-a1. That stuff is super hot. That being said, I have zero combat experience so I don’t know. I’m just a regular dude. Lol

[@jpk9171jpk]

The 249 definitely. The XM5 Is a better scar and the ammo is better. I’d like to see what they could do with 5.56 with a steel base and optimized for a shorter Barrel. I’d also like to see what kind of speeds the could get with 300blk supers.

[@rattlesnakesam7806]

Good job Frank

[@ivtones]

Jesus Loves You

[@sunnycat69]

Lol wow