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

The Sig XM5, (M7) points of concern with the rifle, and why I think it will not work as a general issue fighting rifle. My predictions with regards to its roll out being affected by the war in Ukraine.
Discount Code 10% off for Slate Black Industries: ModTac
www.slateblackindustries.com/
Garand Thumb Killing it with the Vortex XM157:
• The US Military's New ...
Practical Accuracy Critique of XM5:
• Ukraine proves me righ...

[@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.

[@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.

[@Clean97gti]

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.

[@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

[@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.

[@rayr1642]

Your comments about the rifle being a PDW is spot on. They say a Marine with a rifle is the most dangerous thing on the battlefield but they're wrong. It's a Marine or soldier with a radio that can inflict the most damage.

[@titter3648]

It's the artillery that makes the most damage both in casualty's and to equipment. It was in WW1 and in WW2, and it also is in Ukraine.

[@blueduck9409]

The day is comming where it will be a marine with a laptop. UGH.

[@terryduffield5860]

The days of fighting guys in bedsheets with an AK and 3 mags in open terrain holding Superiority in Air, comms, the night and all technology will be over stepping into Indonesia, the pacific and jungle again. The radio will always be the best weapon in the desert in jungle, heavy woodlands and the next wars terrain the rifle will be back in play big time.

[@theKashConnoisseur]

@@blueduck9409 A marine with an Xbox controller, more likely.

[@classifiedveteran9879]

Prior U.S. Army 13F forward observer here. I can confirm that the radio is the most deadly weapon. I can also say that targeting, or aiming at your target isn't the problem, it's target acquisition that's the problem. Just seeing where they are shooting at you from is the real problem. I tend to laugh when video games show target highlights on the hud. It's so easy in video games because every round is a tracer, and they often give you maps or arrows showing where people are shooting from. I wish I had those in Afghanistan! 😆 Maybe better training? It might help to get a better idea of spotting an enemy before you. Typically the mobile force is the one spotted by a stationary force, for obvious reasons as to why. That's the only thing we need, a heads-up display that puts a dot on every person in our field of vision, or the source of weapons fire. It doesn't have to distinguish friend from foe, we can do that ourselves. I don't know if we are there yet technologically, but that's what we need.

[@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.

[@shaggnar2014]

Honestly I see this thing being relegated to a DMR after a few years and will probably never see full adoption. The new cartage is interesting and if there is enough infrastructure behind it I see it phasing out current 7.62x51 rifles and MGs. I'm hoping they continue development of the polymer ammo since there are benefits to it and was one of the main points of the entire program. The optic from this program will probably see widespread adoption though, that thing is the future Maybe the tech behind this round could be used to make the case behind 5.56 smaller and lighter as well and that could be used on the actual M4 replacement in 15 years lol

[@carbon8ed]

You could feasibly get 22-250 performance out of a 5.56 case if you used Sig's bimetal case tech. Combine that with the 62gr EPR projectile and that's a bullet potentially capable of reliable catastrophic fragmentation past 700m. While retaining all of 5.56's weight and form factor. And at close range it would smoke right through cheaper body armor. Ultimately, 6.8x51 is just another full power rifle cartridge. It's impressive, but not special. A 5.56 round that can leave a grapefruit size fragmentation cavity in your chest at 700m? That's special.

[@shaggnar2014]

@@carbon8ed I mean you could, but I'd rather have the same relative performance but have 40 or even 50rd mags for about the same size and weight.

[@30wrdy]

I’d be curious about barrel life in MG use. Quick swap would perceivably be even more critical than ever before

[@hoosier_tactics]

I think like you it'll be a dmr and the sig mcx spear LT would replace the m4a1.

[@pewpew9193]

@@carbon8ed i could 100% see the US adopt an upgraded 5.56 for primary rifles. Maybe even a 5.7x28 or similar full adoption for handguns & PDWs. It just makes sense to carry the lightest ammo you can. Volume of fire is crucial.

[@manuelsandino9248]

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

[@sirg-had8821]

🤣🤣🤣 That uniform was asinine.

[@BillHesse]

Former USMC infantry and you nailed it! Our squads were a little different than the Army but the idea was still the same regarding the blend of rifles, SAW and attached weapons. Addressing the shortcomings of the SAW cartridge would go a long way to addressing issues with ranged engagements in addition to a host of different target types. I think there is a nostalgia in the minds of many about the crack shot soldier that ends a firefight picking enemies off with precision fire. Sadly, as much as I like the idea of that it doesn’t reflect reality. Battles are won by fire and maneuver and employing CAS/arty etc. Gotta have enough ammo to sustain a fight and enough suppression capability to move.

[@texrule6077]

To be fair you guys already got the best with the IAR 27

[@davidbuck5864]

Agree. We in NZ replaced the 5.56mm Minimi with the new 7.62mm NATO version!

[@asdfdsasdfdsa]

You’ll do what you’re told.

[@IvanDrago-rn3rs]

I generally agree, but with some nuance. I was also in the Corps and due to some recent things I've seen in eastern Europe I have had to readjust some of my thinking. So in near peer conflicts their will almost certainly be occasions where indirect and air assets will be stretched too thin or simply prioritized elsewhere. Generally in the middle east I knew that all I had to due was fix the enemy long enough to get some air or artillery assets on station. In a high intensity conflict with who I'll refer to as the "lab leak" people. I think we will see a significant amount of situations where small arms will be the deciding factor. What I'm noticing where I am currently at is that if the skill level on both sides is roughly the same, the side with more ammunition wins. If one side is comprised of good marksman and the other is spray and praying it, the marksman typically come out on top. I'm not saying the XM-5 is the answer because it isn't, but marksmanship at distance is still important

[@patrickporter1864]

Army ordnance seems to have had that dream since 1775.

[@jean-pascalesparceil9008]

The French army and SF in Afghanistan had HK 417 rifles as DMR at squad or team (6 men in SF) level, the Gendarmes had G3 (donated by the Bundeswehr when they switched to 5.56 rifles) and 7.62 FN Minimi (Mk 48 made in Belgium), also at squad level.

[@richarddo7881]

The army forgot combined arms warfare and wasted money on a shiny new thing. While the French & Brit took the cheaper, effective route by reorganized their platoon to have 1 M240 and 1 DMR for each Squad / Section

[@robertbennett106]

Today’s ARMY forgot a lot of things!

[@madkabal]

combined arms warfare works when you have air supremacy. The Army no longer has confidant that we will always have it.

[@richarddo7881]

​@@madkabal artilleries and indirect fire can still cover the distance in which small arms can't reach. And infantry nowaday with the exception of Airborne, ride to battle in a heavily armed battle bus that is either equipped with .50 cal or 20mm caliber and above autocannon, and even then the Army is currently developing an air-drop light tank to assist the Airborne troop in heavy direct-firepower, much like how the M551 Sheridan used to fulfil that role in the past. If even air supremacy or heavy-firepower supremacy is lost then I doubt you could even win a war with infantry equipped with " overmatch " rifle

[@blackhawk7r221]

Our platoons are usually organized with three squads, with both A and B fire teams each having a SAW. The fourth squad is the weapons squad with the four 240’s. In the company, the fourth platoon will be the weapons platoon with 50’s, mortars, and Javs.

[@richarddo7881]

@@blackhawk7r221 Dont know where you pull that figure but according to TOE, Weapon team in US Army Platoon only has 2 M240. The Brit lack a Weapon team, only has 3 Squad each 8 man with 1 M240 and 1 DMR per Squad, the French employ only 1 M249, but got a DMR and light-mortar operator ( 50mm ) per squad

[@ruslanmarynych8883]

A comment from Ukraine, where I do know the theatre quite well 🙂 In general - you analysis is perfect, done actually by the person who know what firefight actually is, not the theory masters in procurement departments who look at "weapon stats" and think it's superior) I'd like to add some additional context to prove on your points with our experience of full-scale war in very diverse terrain: 1. Ammo/small mag - it's critical issue. Often times you can't clearly see the enemy due to vegetation and terrain, and the engagements can take the WHOLE day long, and you even need MULTIPLE AKs to go through the fight while being able to return fire, because they will get dirty and unoperational from such an intensity, I'm not even mentioning how many MAGS you'd actually need. 2. Armor perentration/Hight velocity - it seems logical, but it's wrong direction, IMHO. To prove on my point - in case of a large-scale conflict, your M4 or AK is not going to earn most of kills - it's going to be the in 80% of cases - other weapon systems. Most of the casualties are here from artillery, mortars, tank fire, MRLSs, etc., so your body armor should be definitely not a modern cool JPC :) And what's saving your life is your mobility, tactics and training, not the body armor. What's even more illustrative - most of wounds are going to legs and arms, body armour isn't saving here, and your cartridge with greater armour penetration - won't help you in this scenario :) "Lethality" is a debatable topic - wounded enemy is a bigger problem for him, his team mates and medics, he's unlikely to return fire, but needs the attention of his team mates -> takes multiple enemies out of fight, based from what I see. 3. Weight - as you can get from my last point - you need to have a good body armor, it's not going to be super-light for sure, it's going to have a lot of cevlar, thus - your mobility will suffer, based on my 1-st point - you need to have a lot of ammo on you, and adding very diverse weather and terrain in Ukraine - you are getting very heavy + it's very likely you'd carry some anti-armour weapon with you at FIRE TEAM level, or even multiple ones per fire team. And XM5 fire here with all of that weight? It's just adding an insult to an injury. 4. Disctance - you're right here, in large scale war, your personal weapon is PDW, nothing more than that, perfect way to describe it! What's actually great about this whole NGSW program - new machine gun! It's suppressed, lighter, has good optics - it's the best part of the program that can really improve the way you engage targets beyond the range of your personal weapon. The biggest problem of PKM in our theater - it's super loud and has a tendency to give away the position of a machine gunner super fast, especially during dark time of the day. Running suppressed and minimizing your sound/light signature gives HUGE advantage in our conflict. This is the real game changer - enemy can't simply return fire easily, when gets ambushed/attacking your positions. 5. Optics - that's true, there are only obscure scenarios when you can notice an enemy in our terrain 700-800 yards away and engage him with your personal weapon, no optics has an ability to look through the vegetation and the enemy isn't going to run through the plain field - he's going to be engaged by other weapon systems there, that have longer range and fire superiority. Vegitation is even causing problems for thermal vision systems, who are really the best system that gives the most advantages in this war - your situational awareness using drones and observation systems is key, not the personal weapon optics) All in all - I guess XM5 it's a good option for DMR, but it's not giving any advantages - the best DMR in our war is PKM😂 with suppressor and optics + a lot of ammo + planned primary and supplemental firing positions for it + drones or other observation systems that can direct it's fire :) And what's even more important - this new fancy scope system DOES NOT ELIMINATE the need to have marksmanship skills. As this war has proved already - even when you have superior weapon systems, they are all useless if you don't have well trained and motivated people and good leadership. We saw that when new Russian T80BVMs were dropped by their teams due to the lack of training on even refueling(!) the tank :) So you've gotta be very careful with these complex and technological things for an average infantry men - it may cost a ton of money, but it's not going to give you an edge in combat. Anyway, thanks for simply the best analysis on KZbin, enjoyed watching the video by a person with real-life experience, not tacticool blogger 😉

[@509Gman]

AKs getting dirty and not working? The internet gun inquisition is gonna burn you for heresy 😅 (sarcasm, btw)

[@alancranford3398]

In his "Shots Fired in Anger" Colonel John George suggested that the Browning Automatic Rifle be used as a sniper (DMR in today's grunt speak) rifle because snipers dealt with high-value targets that might be partially obscured. Colonel George was a US Army veteran of Guadalcanal and Burma (the latter as one of Merrill's Marauders) as well as an accomplished high power rifle competitor before WW2. Odd that you rated the PK with suppressor and optics as the superior DMR. Even more odd is that from the middle of the First World War every major army lusted after a squad light machine gun and semiautomatic service rifles. France came closest to achieving that goal during World War One. The light machine gun and rifle grenade launchers did most of the squad's killing in the latter years of World War One and during World War Two.

[@SoloRenegade]

In Iraq there was a period so many headshots were taken that accusations of executions were flying. no armor on the face.

[@alancranford3398]

@@SoloRenegade That was only possible due to improved rifle marksmanship training and optics that allowed better view of the target. This was already a thing in the First World War with the battle of the snipers on the Western Front. Speaking of head shots, the M1903 Springfield Rifle had a 547-yard battle sight zero that gave a "point blank" range of 600 yards against an enemy company-sized formation. The leaf rear sight was fine-adjustable from 200 yards to 2700 yards and some change. The dirty little secret is that up to six hundred yards the Springfield under ideal conditions was a point target weapon and beyond that range it was an area target weapon. A point target can be thought of as a bullseye a half-meter or 19 inches diameter and an area target is six feet tall by 100 feet wide--an enemy infantry formation in a firing line. Trench warfare forced Germany, France and Britain to go back to the hunting tradition and shots of less than 100 yards because the enemy would only expose a target of about three- or four-inches diameter--just peek over a parapet or through a loophole. For precision rifle matches the 200-yard bullseye is 10 inches (depending upon rifle game) and if a modern rifle/ammo/sights/shooter combination won't put ten consecutive rounds inside of two inches at that distance, the rifle isn't competitive in modern matches. Iron sights can be as precise as optical sights, but optical sights permit better view of the target--and modern infantry uses camouflage in order to stay alive. The hunting tradition in 1914 was to zero the rifle at distances of 80 to 120 yards for woods hunting (depending upon muzzle velocity) because trajectory would put the bullet too far above the line of sight if the rifle were zeroed military style--400 meters or so. Military riflemen aimed at belt buckle level--center of seen mass--so that their bullets would strike the enemy no higher than the head and no lower than the knees at combat distances from the muzzle to maximum trajectory reach (around 500 meters) and then the officer in charge would command the soldiers to set their sights for longer distances. Modern combat requires better target ID--nobody is running around in brightly colored uniforms and remaining out in the open as if they were mindless cannon fodder. Trouble is that even with muzzle velocities of around 3000 feet per second and a high sight line the maximum battle sight zero engagement distance is going to be 350 meters. If only part of a target is visible and the rifle is supposed to hit that exposed piece of meat, there has to be a visible aiming point to achieve the hit. That can limit engagement ranges to 150 meters or less, depending on visibility.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@alancranford3398 I went to Iraq with M16A4, iron sights, no optics, fought in Fallujah, Battle of Ramadi, Haditha, etc. Tell me again how optics were the defining factor for guys taking headshots inside 200yrds? Inside 200yds headshots are childishly easy with irons. And usually you knew where they were popping out from and waiting for them to stick their head out again. On teh range the ivan targets were so full of holes we had to selectively take head and shoulder shots to get registered hits during qual. (range we were at wasn't being well maintained at the time). Red dots helped for sure, but they weren't widespread until after the allegations of executions.

[@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.

[@mikewilliams8151]

I carried the m16a2 in the gulf. Iron sights and 20" barrel. Had no problem getting into and out of my Hummer. Was trained different in CQB. I would still love to use it.

[@anthonyoer4778]

Still using M16A2 in 06/07 with up armored Hummer doors.

[@sirg-had8821]

Used a M16A2 in 2005.

[@Imabananna1]

Dude this was never about providing the best weapon, it was ultimately about the notion that a medium machine gun and battle rifle in the same chambering will be cheaper, and it’s about buying it from Sig. I’m sure there is some insider dealing going on.

[@emileblanche5868]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The XM5 is the unwanted bonus prize of the NGSW program. The new .338 MG is meant to replace the .50 and the 6.8 MG is suppose to fuse the M240 and M249 into one lightweight package. Currently they’re fielding three calibers for the infantry; 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal. So the idea is to consolidate the ammunition being fielded amongst the divisions in an attempt to save money and make logistics smoother. The XM5 is basically a fancier AR 10 with a folding stock because “we might as well replace the service rifle while we’re at it”. This is going to be a modest failure in the short term because the full power/hybrid ammo has too much recoil for CQB. Rapid follow up shots will be difficult to manage making this rifle an expensive DMR.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

I mostly agree with what you said, except maybe... "Currently they’re fielding three calibers for the infantry; 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal" You forgot 9mm. ;) But to the actual topic, is 50 cal really for the infantry? It is on mounted pllatforms and anti-material rifles only. In that way you can say 25mm on Bradleys is also for infantry. And if including snipers, more than 50 cal you'll find everything from 300WinMag to 338Lapua. And 50cal is unlikely to go away, 338 Norma will be just another one if they will accept it into service. And 5.56 is not going away, they are still going to use M4s as PDWs (foolishly). 9mm is completely useless now that everyone wears body armor... What a mess.

[@izoi24]

@@PaulVerhoeven2 theoretically the army wont need nearly as much 5.56 or 7.62, because the 6.8 replaces 7.62 and partially replaces 5.56 since the M4's that are being used as PDW's (ideally) wont be used anywhere near as often as the standard issue rifle is. I cant see the 50 cal going anywhere, I think that the new 338 machine gun gives a more portable middle ground between the M2 and the new 6.8/old 7.62 mg. so we might see infantry using the 338, but I think the 50 will still be the ideal vehicle mounted or emplaced mg.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

@@izoi24 And anyway, you got 6 calibers instead of 4 used now. And no, 7.62 is not going away either, M250 is not going to be installed on all tanks etc magically. Replacing RELATIVELY cheap 5.56 (even it is not cheap anymore in M855A1) by far more expensive 6.8Sig is going to make winning wars even less possible. We keep losing wars while winning battles because our military fights too expensively. Even the richest country in the world cannot sustain it and has to surrender, be it after 9 years in Vietnam or 20 in Afghanistan, against illiterate goat-fu...herders with rusty AKs for God's sake! Calling air strikes on a guy with a PKM on a hill is a sure way to lose wars. Even using mostly copper bullets in brass casings (M855A1, M80A1) is too wasteful. This is the first thing that should be explained to every grunt, but when they are under fire they would not care a bit anyway. And Military-Industrial Complex profits from it so that is what they lobby for.

[@richardlahan7068]

It's not a DMR. The plan is to equip EVERY soldier with the M5 (or whatever they are calling it now). Only time will tell whether this is a huge mistake or not.

[@ralphblack510]

@Richard Lahan learn to read, obviously it is intended to become the new service rifle, the OP is predicting it will simply end up becoming an expensive DMR. Considering it outperforms our current HK DMRs, I think it's a good assessment

[@forrest225]

Big army almost always picks a rifle for the last war.

[@craigjohnson6141]

I agree. The M1 Garand, being fielded just before WWII, would be the exception to the rule.

[@509Gman]

@@craigjohnson6141 meh, everyone was moving toward semiauto. The US just got there first, what with their industrial base not being under bombardment threat and joining the war two years later than some others. It would have really been a (half)step ahead if they had adopted the .276 Pederson for the Garand.

[@cstgraphpads2091]

@Kitty Cat They haven't been in a war since the 1970s, so that's crap.

[@edwardgranger1722]

@@craigjohnson6141 And even that should have been in .276 Pederson to be the best rifle for the job.

[@craigjohnson6141]

@@edwardgranger1722 But it wasn't. It was the 30-06. The US had huge stockpiles of 30-06 at the time. Kind of like now, with 5.56.

[@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.

[@boomerdrew4545]

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

[@TheNatestEver]

Favorite channel on KZbin. Keep up the awesome informative episodes, love how you reference history. Thanks Jeff

[@PracticalAccuracy]

Great insight and video Jeff and thanks for mentioning my channel.

[@brianallen6341]

So many valid points in one video! Really appreciate your content and thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. Please keep up the good work.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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 ;)!

[@grantfitz2047]

As a cavalryman we had an M240 dismounted per section as well an EBR and we took a 60 with us when we were out of reach of the cops 120s. Our mounted set ups were 50s, 240s and mk19s. I never felt under gunned in a fight and typically the insurgents we encountered took to using wadis and rivers to limit our ability to maneuver and close with them.

[@randomname3247]

Same here, 1-10 CAV in FARAH AO

[@nineteendelta770]

SCOUTS OUT!!!

[@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.

[@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.

[@lukelacross190]

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

[@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.

[@rafschar]

I have a feeling the 6.8 will go down in history as the rifle equivalent of the .40 S&W...

[@raifsevrence]

The rifle equivalent of the M14 chambered in .40 S&W . One joke on top of another. The optic and the LMG will be the only viable things to come out of this program.

[@3wolfsdown702]

@@raifsevrence 223 fails at Blades of grass they need a weapon that can shoot through barriers like the 308

[@raifsevrence]

@@3wolfsdown702 been trying to use your AR15 to mow your lawn ?

[@TexasNationalist1836]

@@3wolfsdown702you obviously know nothing about basic ballistics

[@3wolfsdown702]

@@TexasNationalist1836 it's quite obvious that you are fooled easily.

[@akforge]

Spot on, sound logic. 👍🏻🇺🇸 I think Big Army wants this new wonder round for its armor piercing capability as they anticipate our next war(s) they’ll be fighting enemy combatants donning hard plates. But it’s painfully obvious to anyone who understands small-arms and Mil history that the XM-5 is a step backwards in time.

[@AndyAdventuring]

Also, we're not likely to face an enemy wielding hard plates unless that enemy ends up being one of our current allies. Russians are running around Ukraine right now dressed for WW1.

[@raifsevrence]

@@AndyAdventuring Russia is no longer the concern. They have been proving that since February 2022. China is the real concern. Even then, China isn't an actual concern militarily. China is, has and will continue to wage war against us through economics and social engineering rather than with bombs and bullets. Something incredible will have to happen before the USA ends up in a near peer or peer 2 peer conflict like the last world war.

[@akforge]

@@AndyAdventuring when the XM-5 was announced my honest to allah gut feeling about the new high velocity cartridge is that the .gov wants this capability for domestic usage considering the number of private citizens with body armor.

[@AndyAdventuring]

@@akforge Yea ok

[@piercer2]

@@akforge that was my thought too

[@natureb2267]

Thanks for the well thought out analysis.

[@gregorywebb9827]

I appreciate your knowledge and your advice. Keep at it.

[@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.

[@ordinary_american]

Really interesting and valid points, from a civilian, so not that you need my comment or compliment. I heard similar issues from other commentators, but you really did a great job distilling the reasons and giving the "Why" behind weapon selection and utilization in gunfights. Keep up the great videos!

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thank you

[@MCLEO983]

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

[@max10474]

Jeff's channel is like a combination of Paul Harrell and 8541 Tactical and I mean that in the greatest respect. Keep up the great content sir!

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

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

[@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.

[@davepayne2024]

Fantastic analysis!

[@mustardbiscuits9750]

“Hey, all these mountains of stockpiles we have, of systems and ammo that are incredibly effective against who we can reasonably assume to fight? Screw it let’s do something different”

[@josephkalscheur5160]

You were right on the money, sir, with every point, particularly on the TO&E. Also, army platoon’s need to be beefed up to 40 to 50 men to allow for greater incorporation of white motors and machine guns with a larger maneuver base.

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

Lol. Three line squads - 9 men each. Weapons Squad, two MG teams (3 men each), medic, rto, anti armor, fister, PL, and PSG would be 39 men. I was never in a full strength unit. Ever. Wanting 50 per is a pipe dream. Also have an issue with command and control when you get too many at line level.

[@alancranford3398]

@@SonOfTheDawn515 The modern platoon reduced to 16 soldiers is more likely--see SEAL teams. American infantry is rapidly becoming the Mobile Infantry in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

@@alancranford3398 Green Berets run 12 or less. Specialized teams are specialized teams and their structure isn't necessarily the best especially for conventional wars. I take it you've never served (especially since you went with seals).

[@alancranford3398]

@@SonOfTheDawn515 You got that right--27 years in the Marines, Army and in reserve components with very little infantry time, two combat stripes -- and so far in the rear almost all gunfire was from celebrations or weapons qual. Teams are getting smaller due to dispersed operations. The battlefields are getting empty because large concentrations attract artillery, rockets, long-range missiles and even air strikes--in big wars. Small wars are fought on the cheap with minimal investments--that's one reason Special Forces came out. I picked on SEALs because their platoons were 16 men the last time I checked. Remember Henry V's speech about "we few" because full-spectrum warfare is very lethal. World War One witnessed shrinking the maneuver elements from a thousand or more to five and possibly fewer--because of rapidly responding, accurate pre-registered artillery fire. World War Two American "time on target" artillery was more devastating. Then there was the wasteful tactic of carpet bombing--that wasted everything in its path. Smaller combat units widely dispersed don't offer worth-while artillery fire. In "Starship Troopers" a squad would be dispersed with several miles between individuals. Today's "low intensity warfare" puts platoons of nominally 30 soldiers out where the Banana Wars would put a "company" of 60 to 120. Special Forces originally were designed to form the nucleus of a guerrilla battalion with their 12 highly trained and experienced Green Berets, and this was based on WW2 experience with the Maquis and Filippino guerrillas. The proposed Marine Corps rifle squad of 15 Marines looks as if it is designed to operate several miles away from the rest of the platoon--two reasons are limited warm bodies and dispersion required for survival on a full-spectrum battlefield. The 1942 US Army rifle squad was 12 men; going from foot-mobile to vehicle-borne cut into that number, having to work in smaller groups due to WW2 infantry firepower cut into that number, and post WW2 getting enough people to fill out a squad sometimes meant that a Korean War American rifle squad would have as few as six Americans and one or two South Koreans. Special Forces went from one mission (unconventional warfare) to at least five, adding direct action, strategic recon, foreign internal development and counterterrorism. I wasn't inside the SpecOps community, so I don't know the realty, but the A-Team or ODA was designed to divide into two teams, when necessary, with enough redundancy through cross-training to carry out the mission expected of a full A-Team, just not as well. As that dread monster Mission Creep sets in and personnel expenses with limited budgets mean fewer troops, the personnel assigned to "regular leg infantry" will change their mission from the Great War cannon fodder to commando operations specialists supported by robot warriors and long-range munitions strikes. Look at the fallout from the Battle of Mogadishu -- as numbers available shrink, fewer people are put in harm's way. Casualties are no longer acceptable. This is reflected in police work as well. In the eighties overwhelming numbers was the rule for law enforcement response to trouble. There just aren't the numbers of quality cops anymore due to expense. Yes, there are still instances when more than a hundred armed police show up--supporting a SWAT team--but more and more often the first responders will only get a dozen or fewer police on the ground because they're just not as many police on patrol. I've worked in contract security for three decades (had to do something after retiring from the military) and where once a dozen guards would work a mall, now there are half that number. The diminishing numbers are solutions to problems of recruiting, training, and retaining increasingly expensive force professionals. All solutions create new problems.

[@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.

[@user-wd9fu9rm5e]

Great video!

[@stevenmora72]

Good job brother! good job!

[@Yt-gd8ps]

I really question the thought process of the Military command who adopted this. I am unsure whether they are just so disconnected from their soldiers that they don't realize how foolish it is to give everyone an xm5 or if the program was just an excuse to increase the military budget. But hey at least the military will have a nice new DMR and scope to go with it at least.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

I agree the scope is a step ahead, would like to see it on M4s.

[@desertsoldier41]

It was a rifle chosen by congressional special interests

[@classifiedad1]

Not just that. Each XM5 comes with a Magpul SL-K stock. Take that as you will.

[@Yt-gd8ps]

@@classifiedad1 I mean its a good stock.

[@classifiedad1]

@@Yt-gd8ps That's the point. I bet you'll start seeing a lot of M4s with tan Magpul SL-K stocks in the coming years.

[@pistonar]

The Idea Fairies strike again.

[@Coste1072]

Very educational video. Nice job!1

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thanks!

[@EventHorizon1776]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@TaktikDegilManipulasyon]

On point, as always.

[@isafleader]

What I think should have been done is an update to the M4 with a new 556 carbine. ideally in an AR 18 pattern like the M5. They have a lot of advantages, especially if the military wants to issue everyone a suppressor. Then you add squad support weapons and DMRs in 6.8 to every fire team as needed.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Agree

[@hayeswooten]

Thank u for ur service and u r relevant and make a great point thanks for the video and info appreciate it

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Cant wait to see what soldiers think, guns being issued out in 82nd ABN and 101st.

[@jamesstanley4764]

Thank you for your wisdom.

[@michaelnyden8056]

I think the army wasn’t thinking about the performance of the rifle for the tests as much as we think that was the deciding factor, they more liked the logistics of it, ie. They get a lighter replacement for the 240 and get rid of the 249 and in one cartridge and platform. They wanted to consolidate all the platforms but it’s like fitting a round peg into a square hole and one size fits all doesn’t do anything very well. Ie you get a lighter medium machine gun but you lose a lighter individual service rifle in the process. I think they just want to stop making two cartridges and have only one in the inventory for most combat use cases.

[@509Gman]

I think you’re right, but that never seems to work out in the end. The last time armies had their LMGs and rifles firing the same cartridge, they also used pistol caliber submachine guns too. Today we use the M4 and you can call it a carbine or a submachine gun, it does both roles.

[@trofchik9488]

This could have been done with something like 6.5 Grendel or 6.5x40. These can deliver similar amount of energy to 7.62x51 at range while still being intermediate rounds.

[@michaelnyden8056]

They could have just fielded a gas piston 5.56 upper like the hk416 with the hybrid case tech sig brought out to increase pressures and effectiveness of the 5.56. They would have gotten more range and more power that way but used the same bullets already produced in just a different case. Then they would have just need to beef up the bolt and sent out new uppers and still could have fielded the new vortex optic calibrated for such. This would have kept the weight down and kept the round count up. Or they could have just done 300 blackout for urban fighting/conflicts and 6mm arc for open engagements and would have saved us all a lot of money!

[@hurricane3909]

Awesome vidéo !!! Thanks a lot.

[@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.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

the fact that he called the M4 and all "assault" rifles PDWs is absolutely correct and illustrates his credibility. great video and spot on.

[@curtisbottoms3316]

I don't know why they don't just slightly extend 5.56 or use stainless steel casings with slightly reinforced barrel, bcg, buffer tube. So they can get extra velocity out of 77 gr 224 bullets. Change the grendel and valkyrie to skinnier, slightly longer cases and you could get 85 grain bullets going 3200 fps or faster. Especially if you use shell shock technology. Just a thought military. If paired with faster burning powder you might even get almost as fast with xm5 length barrels without it weighing 13 lbs.

[@GBGuns]

Very well-said.

[@picolascage5270]

I think the M5 is going to be a DMR rifle if anything. The army should find ways to apply the 6.8 hybrid case technology to 5.56 to make 5.56 that much better. the M855A1 is an amazing round.

[@trofchik9488]

Or take a look at ~6.5mm intermediate rounds. There was one called 6.5x40 which allowed use in automatic belt-fed weapons (unlike say Grendel) and delivered as much energy as 7.62x51 at distance. Edit: This would make polymer casings easier to implement since round wouldn't be as powerful as 6.8x51. Secondly, this would simplify logistics if rifle round would have 6.5 caliber bullet as well.

[@user-oy9zy4ds9m]

I used to think the same thing but they can just apply it to the current 5.56 because that would only greatly increase the speed of the round and when you approach 4000 fps the barrels wear out extremely fast. Too much heat and friction from the speed.

[@user-oy9zy4ds9m]

**Cant

[@picolascage5270]

@@user-oy9zy4ds9m they could use the same barrel technology in the M5 and apply it to the 556 platforms.

[@trofchik9488]

@@picolascage5270 the chamber pressure might become an issue in that case.

[@mefirst5427]

The movie "Outpost" had an interesting scene, where Clint Romesha played by Scott Eastwood had to grab a Dragunov/NDM/SVD DMR to reach longer distances at the enemy, their M4's were useless in that scenario.

[@tackytrooper]

To be fair if someone hadn't chosen the worst possible position for the base, they never would have been in that position to start with...

[@chuckyxii10]

The thing is the army also solved the range problem with the new round. The m855a1 fired from m4 is capable of similar ranges as dragunov. Though it wasn't available for heaviest fighting in Afghanistan.

[@traaxx6523]

Nice discussion. 😎

[@b.p.stimemachines2327]

I really like your watch it is a timeless classic and am glad they reissued it at a reasonable price

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

I love watch comments...Thank You!

[@dv8322]

I think there should be a discussion as to how Sig managed to get three major weapons contracts (pistol, rifle, machine gun) with the U.S. military. I'm amazed the U.S. military is sticking with Sig after the challenges with the M17 and M18 program. Seriously, who does Sig have in their pocket?

[@509Gman]

Being a (now) totally US based company has to be a big draw.

[@afwaller]

They spend a lot of money on “marketing costs”

[@dv8322]

@@afwaller I'm guessing it has something to do with press releases like this. NEWINGTON, N.H., (October 11, 2022) - SIG SAUER is pleased to announce former JSOC Commander General (Scott) Miller has joined SIG SAUER as Defense Advisor. Or this. Army generals are getting their own variant of the service's new handgun ~Business Insider Or that Sig has lobbyists who previously served in government in positions such as the Chief of Staff to former Senator Inhofe.

[@MF-Rell]

You seem mad about it lol.

[@dv8322]

@@MF-Rell When my tax dollars get wasted? Yes, that upsets me.

[@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.

[@kevinnewberry1116]

I can say that I definitely appreciate your opinion on this. Something that's being greatly overlooked is what happens with overbored rounds at 65,000 PSI, and this bad idea requires 80,000 PSI cartridge to push that 135 gr. bullet out of a 16" barrel at 3000 FPS. Soldiers will be burning up barrels at a much faster rate, and the machine gun version??? The German WW II MG 42 used a cartridge rated at 37,000 CUP or around 39000 PSI. The cyclic rate was very high, but do the math Bean Counters! How much faster is an 80,000 PSI round going to burn up a machinegun barrel. Is Sig furnishing 4 barrels with every XM5 or Machinegun? Of course not. Taxpayers will cover it. And all of this smells like a "Military Only" cartridge for when the Schumerites get their AWB II. AND THERE IS A BETTER WAY ! We now have a pretty good handle on a new AR platform, or Small Frame like the Ruger SFAR and the rifle that preceded it. I'd be willing to bet that Ruger is already working on a 6.5 Creedmoor version, and 123 gr. 6.5mm bullets are both lighter and have higher ballistic coefficients. And there's no reason a 107 gr. 6.5mm bullet couldn't be used. Still have the same 20 round mag limitation, but I've already figured that one out with a smaller diameter case that will provide the same performance as 6.5 CM or .260 Rem where 25 rounds will fit in the mag. Definitely Subscribed and Liked!

[@journeyman1126]

19:54 You guys were grizzly bears. I was a point man on a surveillance team, carried an A1 with an M203, and your PDW comment makes perfect sense to me. One difference is that I would be placing a Claymore and banana peeling away, though. The rest of the weapons on the team were A2s, a goodbye claymore, and one more M203, I think. (BTW, I'm an old punchdrunk peacetime NG has-been who’s not stealing any valor. If you unit coin me I'm buying drinks. I lost it.) So, why no composite ammo? Brass is heavier, hotter, messier. isn't it? Would mean not SIG but troops could carry one of their pistols as PDW if they want.

[@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

[@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🇺🇸.

[@Mrgunsngear]

Thanks

[@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.

[@trey9971]

The military always fights the last war. Afghanistan mountains are the reason they wanted it just switch to 6.8spc or another round

[@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 ?

[@dnuofntsol]

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

[@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...

[@jameshayden5053]

You know a Helluva Lot More than many of those Other Channels.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Well I try...But I am a fan of many of the big firearm You tubers

[@jameshayden5053]

@@ModernTacticalShooting as am I but few actually explain the Reasoning behind their Opinions. Great Video Buddy.

[@yourmother3569]

One thing you didn't mention (that I can recall) is that the widespread proliferation of level IV body armor has made 5.56 less effective against infantry. The main point of the 6.8 round is that it is capable of penetrating said armor, both up close and out to decent ranges. This comes with the downsides of less ammo carried, smaller magazine sizes, and harsher recoil, but I'd say the tradeoff of being able to penetrate body armor out to range is worth it.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

But there does not have to be a downside...they could have made a smaller cartridge with less recoil that defeats armor.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@ModernTacticalShooting Can you really? Physics and engineering do have limits and trade-offs. In the current state of body armor vs ballistics. It appears to be generally easier and cheaper to stop rounds than to make the same size round penetrate more.

[@christopherwombles2867]

The 5.56x45 was designed to be effective and lethal out of a 20 inch barrel but we're handicapping it by firing it out of short barreled weapons. If you what a compact rifle in 5.56x45 to be effective you will need to make it a bullpup type rifle with a 20 inch barrel or push the pressure at launch to ridiculously high levels like sig is doing in the xm-5 . The rm-277 designed for the 6.8 tvcm cartridge is just as effective as the xm-5 but has a pressure at launch equal to that of the .308 . The 6.8 tvcm cartridge is lighter and most of the. 308 caliber systems we have in inventory only need rebarrelled to use it .

[@burtonkephart6239]

Yes correct. Keep the 6.8 caliber but get a lighter rifle and 30 round magazine and you are good to go!! Remember the m16 first used 20 round magazines also but was light enough that adding 30 round mags wasn’t game changer

[@yourmother3569]

​@@christopherwombles2867 I do agree that the rm-277 might've been a better choice but I remember reading somewhere that there were issues with the polymer cased ammunition, both rounds use the same projectile so lower pressure ammunition wouldn't be as capable of penetration.

[@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.

[@bluebayou7472]

Good take and insight. I was always under the impression the purpose for the 6.8 was to defeat near peer adversary body armor.

[@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!!!

[@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.

[@josephgonzales4802]

As a former 11B from the 80s, l totally agree with you. This new rifle should only be used by SF troops or Rangers as needed. The 6.8 round would be better used in a machinegun / support weapons role.😊

[@mirrormonstere113]

You don't need an ir laser. They fixed that with the scope. It integrates with new nods and has a small scope feed.

[@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.

[@wendysbaconator1175]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@ipritch23i93]

The MG is the best thing to come out of the program. It weighs less than half of a 240 so the amount of ammo carried is hugely increased.

[@YTPrule]

Why didn’t they have quick change barrels though?

[@ipritch23i93]

@@YTPrule it does have a quick change barrel

[@YTPrule]

@@ipritch23i93 According to articles I've read "The overall length of the weapons with suppressors attached are 36 inches long for the XM5 and 41.87 inches long for the XM250. The barrel of the XM5 is 15.3 inches long and the XM250 is 17.5 inches long. The barrel on the XM250 is also not considered a quick-change barrel like the M249."

[@TonyYuEvangelism]

Replace existing barrels and bolts with 6mm ARC and you get most of the goodness of 6.8 at a fraction of the cost with a minimal weight penalty.

[@skookapalooza2016]

Jeff, you make a lot of sense...with the caveat that part of the stated reason for the NGSW was the ability to reliably defeat modern body armor. The M-4 won't reliably do that at any real distance. 5.56 AP may defeat it at 100m, but past that I'm not sure it will, especially given the 14in. issue length barrel. I think the M-4 should be, at a minimum, for most Cav Scouts, RTO's, PL's and REMF's. Cav Scouts, because if they make contact...the first thing to do is lay down a base of overwhelming fire & subsequently break contact. RTO's & PL's because they need a light and handy weapon, and REMF's are unlikely to see combat in the first place. Honestly, when they first adopted the XM-5, I thought it would be best as a DMR. It gives the ability for any expert rifle shooter to become a DMR with minimal extra training for the optic. So, I think the question really boils down to how much body armor penetration ability is required from the rifle squad and at what distances.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

My issues is, they could make a lighter, smaller, less recoil armor piercing bullet, that would still allow 30rd mags.

[@fp3359]

At first: many thanks for your services ❤ Imho your analysis is spot on.... the weight & lesser ammo is potential deadly duo. However, many of your fellow mates did adress the weak lethality of the standard 5.56 round. A hackbar in Falluja needed 4 chest shots to be neutralized.... very very dangerous indeed. Is an upgrade of this projectile a possible option on this one? Greetz from 🇳🇱

[@neildegrassetyson1661]

Will the xm5 go out the same way as the scar? Or will they stick with it?. Personally i liked the general dynamics bull pup better