Revolutionizing the Battlefield: SIG Sauer's Next-Gen Weapons for the U.S. Army | Exclusive

Discover the groundbreaking announcement from April 19, 2022, as the U.S. Army unveils its game-changing decision after 27 months of rigorous testing. Join us as we delve into the future of military weaponry with SIG Sauer's XM7 and XM250, set to replace the iconic M4 carbine and M249 SAW. Learn why these cutting-edge rifles are the talk of the town and what they mean for the future of warfare. Don't miss out on this exclusive insider look at the dawn of a new era in combat technology!

[@ericb.4358]

I notice the M250 LMG uses the same Vortex sight system and SIG 3D printed baffle suppressor as the M7. Lookin' GOOD!

[@nathanashley5260]

Don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of the newer technology. But want the rangefinder in the optic the range finder be traceable? Therefore giving away position?

[@CKS1432]

Spread peace around the world....

[@Dd-uu4vo]

They are good and crazy accurate specially with then new electronic optics down side an emp could take it down at least nv time

[@Greekmilsim]

G3 in AR platform 😂😂😂😂

[@user-buck-b7j]

Ok video but I had to mute that awful music then missed half the commentary

[@LuizHenrique-yr4zb]

Model of the sight used in this rifle?

[@AvianAnchor]

Vortex Optics XM157

[@wildbill9490]

This is a bad idea. We dropped battle rifles for standard troops for a reason. They should go for the Spear LT chambered in .277 Wolverine.

[@smileyr]

I disagree the reason for a switch is constantly changing. There isn’t a fixed “reason” and as a result you need to change with the times along with the adversaries. We could afford to go with a smaller caliber because the adversary fee we’re fighting at the time allowed us to. If you look at Vietnam and most recently in Afghanistan we were able to use the 5.56 because the adversaries we were facing at the time didn’t use body armor and thus allowing us to stay with that caliber. However if we look at our potential adversaries we don’t have that luxury because they will be just as well equipped as us and thus if we want to keep up with the same philosophy of being overmatched switching to this rifle is the right thing to do. Keep in mind, china just switched to another riffle with a smaller caliber, logic dictates that they won’t be switching to another rifle anytime soon it would cost them too much. That’s why the switch needed to happen sooner than later.

[@wildbill9490]

@@smileyr our potential enemies still aren’t fielding reliable body armor in large numbers, and are still engaging within intermediate caliber ranges. Ukraine has proven that. A battle rifle is more likely to cause collateral damage and the size of its ammunition limits the carrying capacity of frontline troops. Not to mention the fact that the XM7 is heavy, loud and has too short a barrel.

[@Avera9eWh1teShark6]

@@wildbill9490 we dropped battle rifles because we were still using iron sights in the 50s and 60s and didn't have things like drones that gave us situational awareness past hills and buildings. None of those limitations are present anymore. Also, it doesn't matter if our potential adversaries have body armor or not because traditional cover still exists, and as we saw in the video and others you can find, it has no issue punching through steel or concrete barriers that OPFOR may be hiding behind. The difference in weight and ammo capacity is negligible. This isn't like Afghanistan anymore where infantry are conducting endless foot patrols operating out of remote long range patrol bases and the only ammo you have is what you carry and resupply comes from helicopters. Even the lightest units in the 82nd are going to be motorized for the majority of their time, so ammo is less of a concern. You also forget this is the US military, with the undisputed best logistics in the world which is what won us WWII and the Gulf War of 1991. Hell one of the most iconic images of GWOT was the Burger King truck rolling out of the back of a C-130. Ammo isn't a problem. And because its no longer light infantry on foot, weight isn't an issue either. As for Ukraine, you are taking the wrong lessons. Russia, despite having more ammo for their tanks, infantry, and artillery, as well as having a larger force, have stalled to a gridlock. Why? Drones. You can't hide anymore. If you can't hide and you have weapons with the same effective range as the enemy, you die. we see this in Ukraine right now. This is why we need battle rifes. 240s, .50s, and DMRs won't cut it. We need everyone to have that range overmatch.

[@wildbill9490]

@@Avera9eWh1teShark6you’re right about one thing, this isn’t Afghanistan anymore. Tomorrow’s enemy won’t be shooting at us from on top of mountains beyond the effective range of intermediate-caliber weapons. We can increase the range and power of our infantry without going back to battle rifles and overpowered full sized rifle rounds. .277 Wolverine can do the job of both 5.56 and 300 Blackout and when used in tandem with a 16” barrel will give grunts all the range and power they need. And if they want to make the XM7 more combat effective, they should at least give it a standard 16” barrel of its own and a bayonet lug. The Army is acting as if hand to hand combat is no longer a thing, which will be a handicap in an urban environment.

[@Avera9eWh1teShark6]

@wildbill9490 how much do you actually know about the XM7? The .277 Fury is to 7.62 what .300BLK is to 5.56. That 13" barrel is so the weapon isn't overly long, unlike what you are asking for. .277 fury with its bimetal cartridge allows the superior effects to 7.62 out of a 20" barrel in a 13" barrel And no, the enemy won't be engaging us from the top of mountains with intermediate cartridges, they'll be engaging with drones and artillery because we don't have enough pilots to man our planes at all ours a day leading to potential gaps in air support. We are almost 700 pilots short, actually. This means we won't have access to CAS or air interdiction at the same rate we were used to durn the Cold War era. We also don't have the ability to produce artillery at the rate we used to either, which means the traditional methods of dealing with threats outside of the range of 5.56 are called into question. This means that infantry (and our close combat force of the Army as a whole [this decision is not made in isolation but as part of a greater army-wide modernization effort, look up force design 2030]) has to be more lethal at greater ranges, to include penetrating body armor and light cover at range. Your wildcat is ineffective for what the Army wants. Being a flatter shooting 5.56 isn't good enough.

[@davidphillips8674]

Everyone complaining about the extra weight is probably weak and soft. I carried a MK 17 in Afghanistan for the extra range and it was fine. Quit complaining troopers will adjust

[@totoitekelcha7628]

The barrel is too short. The gun itself is bulky especially the machine gun. Its is untrollable in automatic fire. They should have gone with True velocity bullpup

[@great_deception]

Since when are troops using automatic rifle on carbines? They have chrono'd that round at 3,000 fps even with the 13" barrel. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Lol, getting half a million soldiers to switch to bulbul layout.

[@totoitekelcha7628]

@@great_deception getting 3000fps in 13" Barrel is not a good sign for barrel life and so does the sound. I know what I am talking about. You can get 3000fps even in 12" Barrel by increasing the gunpowder loadout but it came with side effect. You don't know what you're talking about so you better study how guns work

[@great_deception]

@@totoitekelcha7628 re barrel life, it’s already announced the M7 barrel life is similar to existing military ARs shooting M855A1. but then again, No one in the comments can expect you to know any of this. Thank God you aren’t active duty.

[@totoitekelcha7628]

@@great_deception Just because you said so does not mean it will be similar with AR barrel life. You can't change physics it's either you choose long barrel for long range and longer barrel life or you go for shorter barrel with hight pressure rounds with shorter barrel life.

[@great_deception]

@@totoitekelcha7628 You clearly have not done your research. But that's OK, you never will. No point in arguing.

[@edgewisefirearms1667]

More technology = more problems