Royal Marine Reacts To The U.S. Army's New Service Rifles and Ammo

Original Video (The U.S. Army's New Service Rifles and Ammo)
• Here's The U.S. Army's...
DREADNOUGHT MEADERY!
KZbin: / @dreadnoughtmeadery
Instagram: / dreadnoughtmeadery
MY EQUIPMENT:
Camera: amzn.to/3W9dL37
Lights: amzn.to/3JtLflf
Key Board: amzn.to/3JpPWwx
Headphones: amzn.to/3JrF15x
Mouse: amzn.to/49P81ij
Monitors: amzn.to/4aLd1FP
Mic: amzn.to/3U7XWXY
Audio mixer: amzn.to/4b2FJSr
StreamDeck: amzn.to/4b4lHH1
Favorite Books:
Norse Mythology: Neil Gaiman: amzn.to/4b24Ftc
The Way of Kings: Brandon Sanderson: amzn.to/3JyHIlu
Breath: James Nestor: amzn.to/3Jur9Y7
We Are Nature: Ray Mears: amzn.to/3JurhXB
The Last Kingdom: Bernard Cornwell: amzn.to/3w4JjN0
BECOME A MEMBER
/ @originalhuman
SOCIALS
►Instagram @OriginalHuman_
►Twitter: @OriginalHuman_
►Discord: / discord
►Facebook: / originalhuman.videos
►Business inquires: [e-mail]
OTHER CHANNELS
►The Sword And Scabbard: / @theswordandscabbard7909
►OriginalAdventures: / @originaladventures2728
►OriginalHuman Geek: / @originalhumangeek

[@raxxo69]

The new caliber has nothing to do with being unique and more to do with armor penetration

[@orlock20]

Yes including armored drones.

[@Quinctili]

Also distance. Afghans moved back to 600m with their 7.62, knowing the 5.56 had little to offer over 500m.

[@mostsacredstories]

The polymer casing shrinking during firing is a brilliant innovation

[@ChicanoBarbarian13]

@@Quinctiliif they had used 20inch barrels like the 5.5!6 was intended to be fired from there would’ve been no issue.

[@Quinctili]

@ChicanoBarbarian13 , I couldn't agree more. The optimum is 23/4", but 20" can almost reach out and touch them. I had this chat with Aus SF officers, they were more concerned with urban and jungle warfare. It might have been cheaper to issue interchangeable barrels, depending upon the terrain. The F88 Austeyr is a fantastic piece of kit.

[@mfree80286]

So... ammo. 5.56 was great when initially introduced in 1963 as the M193, with a 55gr standard ball projectile fired at ~3200fps from a 20" barrel, as the original M-16s were. That provided good terminal ballistics (greater than 2500fps) out past 500 yards. Then, NATO cooperation with it's own development team came up with the M855, a 62gr projectile with 3000fps from a 20" barrel (which required a different twist rate, another story). Still decent from the standard 20" barrel out roughly to 500 yards. And... then the field requirements "changed" and rifle handling became more of a priority, and the barrels started shrinking, settling in on 14.5". Handier, yes. BUT.... you also just cut the muzzle velocity down to 2800-2900fps, meaning you only have 300 or 400fps to drop before you come under that 2500fps range where terminal ballistics begin to suffer (as above that both the M193 and M855 will tumble and fragment reliably). What you could do at 500 yards now is a stretch at 250-300 yards, and that started being an issue in desert, field, and mountain warfare. So, some more finagling and here comes the M855A1, revised with a solid copper core 62gr projectile and different propellant that now hits nearly 3000fps at the muzzle of the shorter barrels. That splits the difference and get you that terminal performance at 300-400 yards, but not against the new 'threat', body armor. Time for a major change. So now, here comes the 6.8x51 XM1866 cartridge with a 135gr projectile making 3000fps muzzle out of a 16" barrel, and your terminal ballistics are optimal out nearly to 1000 yards on soft targets and bullet drop is much reduced as well. What this gets us is basically (loosely) the performance of the old 7.62 NATO without the bulk and weight of that ammunition package. Entering this era means we get to sneak back towards a single infantry rifle that may not do everything fantastically well, but does everything well enough (or a bit more than that). With armor becoming commonplace, you just couldn't sneak in on that with the 5.56 cartridge because it's too velocity dependent for shorter barrels and too small to bump the pressure enough to compensate.

[@WonderingWildWanderingRose]

Thanks for that in depth analysis.

[@geronimo5537]

Sadly under 18” 5.56 is losing out on ballastics. With all the shortened rifles aka M4. Their advanatges dwindle outside cqb other than less weight. Which weight is what most infantry care about. Making it no surprise they found poor long range performance. Thus why fixed vehicle guns became the long range solution. More accurate bigger caliber.

[@paulmorrow8372]

The Navy has the MK319 Mod 0 round. This was a 130gr 7.62x51 that was designed for a 16” barrel. It would get 2925 fps from a 16” barrel or 2,750 from a 13”. That this round is even HOTTER, weighs less, and shoots a heavier projectile is pretty damn impressive.

[@Neandradon1]

Could it be possible that they are changing calibers not only because of improved performance ? But , so that the average civilian can't use it. We already know they want to disarm the American public. Interesting the Newsom was giving our adversary a tour of California very recently. Our land is being sold right out from under us by traitors.

[@ModernCobra]

Spot on. More recent testing of the .277/6.8 Fury cartridges are showing 3,000-3,100 fps out of 13” SBR (yup, the Spear is even shorter than the M4). It also shoots very consistent with little deviation, significantly flatter with only -1 MOA drops out 500 yrds, less drop than 6.5 Creedmore at 1,00 yrds, and a much higher BC on target than 556. The increase energy will definitely help against modern enemies w/ level 4 armor. If you think about who the US’s biggest threats are, then you understand the need to modernize our military weapon systems.

[@showaltermicro]

They fixed the M-16 by putting a scope on it - saved billions in a new gun

[@JackofNothingess]

Just like they made it more effective by adding a "bullet button"

[@Cody38Super]

Spent BILLIONS to figure out a scope makes it more accurate.

[@idkmynameis4064]

​​​@@Cody38Super reminds me of when they first gave the Marines some Acog scopes, give someone that mastered irons at 200-300+ yards a scope and ofc your gonna see more holes in more heads😅

[@DiamondSquidy]

Ummm 😅 actually they spent billions creating “futuristic” weapons programs designing various firearms that were very advanced and technical to build and they did alllll that just to come to the decision that putting acogs on standard issue M4’s makes your troops more accurate…. They spent BILLIONS to determine scopes make you more accurate 💀😭

[@LemmyGibbler]

Oh they still paid for the new gun, they just figured out an acog did what they set out to do. Lol

[@davidfreeman6251]

As a veteran of 21 years, the primary problem with the m4 series is the fact that you have to keep it so clean and well maintained. Which is fine if you return to base regularly. But if you’re in the field a long time the weapon starts acting up.

[@shalakabooyaka1480]

What do you mean in the field for a long time? Cleaning kit weighs nothing and takes very minimal time to pop it open for a quick blast.

[@BionicBurke]

Ounces equal pounds. The saying carries so much weight the VA claims it's injuries are not service related.

[@elix901]

I hadn’t had issues with it any weapon needs maintenance. Now I lie I did have one time sand had clogged it but, out of the times we moved with it and have one major clog I’d say that ok. And it wasn’t critical we just pulled the bolt carrier out brushed it up and CLP good to go. I did prefer the M16 over the M4 though.

[@Nick-sx6jm]

Thats not a problem with the gun, its just how the military likes to operate. Despite common myths about the AK platform being the most reliable gun there is, the AR is actually more reliable in mud, sandy, or wet conditions. The only environment where the AK is better is extreme cold, which makes sense since it was developed in Russia. This has been scientifically tested by multiple militaries like the U.S and Australia, as well as tested by people on youtube like garand thumb and inrangetv.

[@adamreed1819]

Yes.. i was going to say the same thing. Especially in sandy environments. I was stuck on a hill in a valley for 10 days after a truck got blown up doing sleep shifts next to a crew served. Literally no time to break it down to clean it and it needed it. Reliability is the main issue i had

[@joeyindahl2593]

The new 6.8 ammo is rated up to 80,000 psi due to the fact it has a steel head on the case , this allows the round to achieve velocities that normally would require a 20 inch or greater barrel , the 6.8x51 will get the same velocities out of a standard 16 inch barrel

[@elix901]

NATO will need to revamp. The 5.56 and 9 mm were agreed upon standards.

[@Nick-sx6jm]

Actually 13 inch barrel. You pretty much get 270 win performance out of a stubby barrel. Its still a trade off since barrel life and internal parts life will suffer. Not to mention the actual rifle will be around 12-13 pounds fully set up (9-10 with M4) and less magazine capacity/carry less ammo and more recoil.

[@joeyindahl2593]

NATO will do whatever the USA does . I don’t like it, Europe should be in charge of their own security , but that is what we are stuck with.

[@Compton3clipsed]

@@joeyindahl2593 The problem with letting Europe handle their own security has made up most of our history books for pretty much the entirety of our existence haha. They always end up fighting and making it a huge problem for everyone around them who get dragged in. We enforce the stability. Can you imagine what Putin and the CCP would be doing if Europe was responsible solely for itself? The sheer corruption alone would be mind boggling.

[@patrickjones6059]

@@joeyindahl2593 LOL!!!!

[@thseed7]

Biggest complaint about 5.56 is the lack of stopping power. If your shots don't kill your enemy, they aren't doing their job.

[@nissan300ztt]

Bull. Never saw an issue in combat with it putting someone to forever sleep.

[@kdot3891]

@@nissan300ztt multiple operators complain that people have taken 10 shots of 556 before going down

[@nissan300ztt]

@@kdot3891 sure. Never had this issue

[@ShrekMedic]

Stopping power is largely a myth. If you hit major blood vessels, heart, brain, or vital organs the target will go down Whether 5.56 or the new round. How long it takes depends on what you hit, it could be instant or take many minutes if you are depending on blood loss. If you hit someone in muscle or get a gut shot that only pierces hollow organs and no major vessels they will most likely be able to stay in the fight for quite a while. The only reason they are switching to the new round with the increased chamber pressure is for a longer effective engagement range and armor penetration.

[@thseed7]

@@ShrekMedic the point is that 5.56 versus modern body armor and plate is less effective than command is comfortable with. I'm not suggesting 5.56 doesn't eliminate threats, just that a rifle round upgrade is beneficial versus better equipped targets.

[@scottstewart5784]

The lethality of the .556 round has been maxed out. It's a 22 caliber after all. A 22 long rifle plinker sends out a 30-40 grain bullet. The 556/22 sends out the same diameter bullet, but longer and weighing 55-75 grains. And much faster. It's a lightweight rifle caliber that struggled at distance (lethality and accuracy) even before body armor. But it's light, and the ammo is light, which means one can carry more. We're always reacting to trends of conflict, and the .556 was a good choice in Vietnam, replacing the M14 in 7.62/308. Now we're attuned to Western Europe again and the 556 comes up short. The 308 or 7.62 NATO, on the other hand, is a 30-caliber, mid-to-heavy-weight round, and doesn't take all that well to controlled automatic fire (recoil). The new round is 6.8mm or .270 inches, the same as the venerable long-range hunting round, the Winchester 270. It maximizes current projectile tech, and pushes the tech on pressure with the unique dual-material cartridge. It's all about the sweet spot between usability, weight, lethality, effective range, and accuracy. The 308 is great "all-rounder" - clicking a lot of buttons, while the new 6.8 and its commercial cousin, the 277 Fury (yes it's a 270) are purpose-built. We need small and big guns, and the 762/308 is the smallest of the big, while the new 6.8 is the biggest of the small.

[@Methsumal]

Is that really a .270? Was wondering what the 6.8 equaled out to

[@MrPandaCommando]

@@Methsumal bullet diameter is .277, bore diameter of the barrel is .270

[@MrPandaCommando]

I would disagree about .308 being the smallest of the big and 6.8 being the biggest of the small. 6.8x51mm (.277 Fury) is a full sized cartridge putting it in the same class as .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor. also, 6.8 isn't purpose built, it's the new all-rounder meant to do the job of 5.56 and 7.62 at once. 5.56 lethality isn't maxed out either, you can apply the bi-metal tech to it and end up with a .22-250 power cartridge pushing 77gr otm out of an M4 at the same velocity you'd be pushing a 55gr pill out of an M16, roughly 3200 fps.

[@quellenathanar]

@@MrPandaCommando Would an upgraded 5.56 round in terms of PSI necessitate using an M-4 H-BAR, or would the standard issue M-4 handle the higher stress?

[@Nick-sx6jm]

@@quellenathanar A standard M4 could handle it, but the question is for how long. Internal parts wear/breakage would increase. They would have to replace all the gas systems on the rifles at the very least. Im sure this new gun is designed to have a beefier bolt to handle the higher pressure, but its still going to burn out barrels much faster than 5.56.

[@MOCOANDINV]

This is a superior round with extremely high accuracy and light weight

[@mfallen2023]

It's not light weight. Both the platform and the cartridge itself are quite a bit heavier than the M4/5.56. Smaller load-outs too (or carry more weight) The only thing that makes sense is having a round that's capable past 600yd, but as is usually the case with military procurement, they prepare for the future war by judging the last. Unless we end up in wide-open deserts or mountain terrain, the average grunt will never use half of the effective range (especially if the next war is in Europe or Pacific island jungle fights). We could have just adopted something like the 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel and went to a 16" barrel. Would have been a LOT cheaper (just a new bolt and barrel for the M4) and we'd get 85% of the benefits past 300yd this round offers. As a machine gun round to replace the 240/7.62, it's kind of a side-grade. Little lighter, bit longer effective range, but it's not going to be a game changer over the 240 by any means.

[@fullmindstorm]

​@mfallen2023 They wanted to move to a bigger caliber non the less, so anything they would choose would be heavier than the m4. With that said they chose well.

[@James_randomleters]

Task and Purpose had several good videos about this rifle and the competition it was against before being selected.

[@m2hmghb]

5.56 has hit the wall. There is no more performance that can be wrung out of it past the M855A1 round. The level 4 plates out there will stop it. The 6.8 fury has a pressure of 80,000 PSI for the AP loading which gives a LOT more room for experimentation. The M4 is a great rifle but it can't handle that pressure - and there are a lot of worn out M4s in inventory.

[@dionh70]

There are numerous videos easily found that document M4 receivers experiencing RUD with conventional 5.56 ammo, and gunTubers like Brandon Herrera quickly point to them as prima facie evidence of the superiority of the AK platform. However, the AK platform was designed to compensate for the (then) prevalent soviet reality of limited machining, lower quality manufacturing, and general lack of field maintenance by troops. At no point in that process was it genuinely deemed a better quality weapons system by anyone who actually understands firearms and still isn't, only a more robust & less expensive platform. Modern metallurgy, manufacturing, and machining all mean that the 6.8 SIG will simply start off as a better quality foundational platform, with the design testing and review processes tweaking that starting point. There's people whose entire careers are spent on refining weapons systems as a result of field experience with the financial leverage of a decent-sized corporation lending them the ability to do so. The biggest worry in my mind is keeping the pork-barrel politicians the hell out of the way so that the actual soldiers make the choices that satisfy the relevant criteria.

[@Yumiko-je1to]

But no enemy of the US has plates like that lol.

[@m2hmghb]

@@Yumiko-je1to China and Russia both have plates that defeat 855A1

[@Yumiko-je1to]

@@m2hmghb russia uses cardboard for plates. No they do not.

[@m2hmghb]

@@Yumiko-je1to Just because the plates get stolen doesn't mean they don't have them. It also doesn't mean that their elite units don't have them.

[@johnathancoker8671]

@3:40 to answer your question the bullet underperforms. the 5.56mm has been something our combat vets complained about for well... eversense it was adopted. its a tiny bullet that doesnt go thru cover or armor or do much dmg to the human body. countless accounts of our vets depict scenes where they have to put 3 or 4 shots into a single enemy combatant to render them safe. while one 7.62 will rock your world. this new round is suppose to punch thru armor and remove combatants from farther away and with less ammo, also bare in mind this is not the final purchase amount, these weapons will be fielded to certain troops, tested and if they are worth the money more will be ordered, but even with the USAs budget they cant just up and buy 2 million rifles that have yet to be combat tested

[@willythemailboy2]

Plus if it works out as expected, who is to say other NATO countries won't also adopt it?

[@jaykaufman9782]

The "tooth-to-tail" ratio in the U.S. military is about 1:6 , so in theory it's enough rifles and machine guns for the actual riflemen; presumably more will be ordered as needed. The $20,400,000 ten-year contract is what surprised me; this is awfully small by U.S. government standards. Probably less than the Department of Defense budgets for Post-It notes and PowerPoint.

[@Montweezy]

Yeah Delta and Devgru say give us this next week. Command: Yes sirs! 😆

[@RyanBrown-hp3sc]

The demonstration i saw of basic function of the new m7 was absolutely HORRIBLE! I TRUST MY LOW BUDGET GARBAGE AR OVER THAT DUMPSTER FIRE! maybe if they fix the issues NOW before it hits the field.

[@johnbuck3374]

One thing not mentioned in the video is that it is a piston system like AK's. So in theory you get the reliability of an AK with better accuracy and power than an AR.

[@munchin40]

A 6.8 x 51 NATO round would be made by taking a standard 7.62 cartridge and narrowing the projectile opening, necking down, to fit the 6.8 round. Creating an over pressured custom round (wildcat). They have created a patented metallurgy for the casing to manage that amount of pressure. The only change that would need to happen is that x51 Nato magazines would become standard issue and you would have to cycle rifles to be rechambered and barreled to fit the new round, no small feat. Increased casing volume equals heavier load capacity. Allowing for further performance improvements such as longer range, increased lethality at stated range increments, more kinetic energy delivered at said increments. Interforce munitions commonality (once implemented), and reduced weight (which we all know means more gear) from a full kit of 7.62 rounds. The largest reason is because the United States is the only economy that can support the R&D on such a large scale that if they truly screw this up... no one would really bat an eye at the waste. The military will chaulk it up to a lesson learned, possibly the hardest way, political fallout will last a few months, and none the wiser.

[@jamesheath1836]

Uh 7mm08 made back in the 80’s. Just beefed up case for pressure.

[@greybone777]

That is basically the only diameter that the 308 hasn't been altered to. 243,260 rem,7mm08,338 federal 358win.

[@IcemanTFV]

So just to comment on the suppressor argument you made. The Marine Corps was a little ahead of the game in fielding suppressors to their battalions specifically in the line platoons. The argument the Marine Corps made was extremely valid, for starters a firefight comes down to 3 main factors: Shoot, Move, Communicate. A suppressor not only reduces both sound and visible signature, but also makes it so much easier to communicate paired with the aftermentioned fact the reduction in signature allows troops to shoot and move more freely around a contested battlespace due to this reduced signature. While I see the military industrial complex shine in Sig Sauer for creating proprietary ammunition and suppressors for their rifle, this will reduce the chance of intigration malfunction as we saw with early M4s and suppressors (gassing issue). Everything should be completely cross functional and working out of the box.

[@Yumiko-je1to]

However a suppressor will overheat and explode much quicker

[@IcemanTFV]

@@Yumiko-je1to Much quicker in what context.....

[@Yumiko-je1to]

@@IcemanTFV quicker then the gun or a normal muzzle brake will.

[@IcemanTFV]

@@Yumiko-je1to you aren’t melting a suppressor on an M27 in combat.

[@Yumiko-je1to]

@@IcemanTFV you can melt a suppressor in your backyard lol. I think you are overestimating how durable suppressors are. In combat those will overheat much faster especially in hot environments. I’m not against the idea obviously it would be an advantage I just think they need to be very thorough in testing to make sure it could withstand combat and wouldn’t put soldiers in danger.

[@lumina1104]

Part of the deal with the U.S. military was for Sig to make their 6.8x51 ammo open source. They are the primary manufacturer at this point, but anyone can make it free of patent violations if they choose to do so.

[@tjboylan20]

I’m waiting for the M4 to be phased out so I can get them for dirt cheap on the surplus market

[@charlesmcdougall2629]

When I served in the Canadian army reserves I was issued a sig 7.62 rifle. I never had a issue with it, and was very accurate with it.

[@scotts6376]

Canadian Army Reserves? I'll take 2 boxes of tagalongs, 1 box of thins mints, and 1 box of adventurefuls.

[@christopalypse2198]

The M4 is good but the new rifle is meant to fight near peer ppl at longer ranges who will carry high level armor. Last month the first unit the 101st officially began fielding the rifle.

[@epope98]

the scope is the big thing on this rifle. the fact a squad can literally ping a target and all you have to do is aim at the shooting dot and pull the trigger and everyone will see it on there scopes. basically turning okay shooters in to marksmen

[@Scorpio.1989]

6.8x51 round is a GREAT middle ground between the 5.56x45 from the M16/M4 and the 7.65x51 from the M14, and it out proforms both… This rifle with the military’s 140 grain 6.8x51 ammunition is getting 915 m/s (3,002 ft/s) out of a 13 inch barrel… *Civilian* versions of the 6.8x51 (.277 Fury) are reaching out to around 656 yards (600 meters) with an estimate maximum range of 2,000+ yards (1,828+ meters) out of a 13 inch barrel… *Keep in mind that there’s still a lot of information about the military 6.8x51 ammunition that hasn’t made it into the public light yet* Compared to the M14 with military 147 grain 7.62x51 ammunition getting 853 m/s (2,800 ft/s) reaching out to 500 yards (457 meters) with a maximum range of 875 yards (800 meters) *under ideal conditions* out of a 22 inch barrel… Or compared to the M4 with military 5.56x45 ammunition (particularly the M855A1 ammunition) 910 m/s 2,970 ft/s reaching out to 500 m (550 yd) with a maximum range of 3,600 m (3,900 yd) *under ideal conditions* out of a 14.5 inch barrel…

[@zacharymartin5033]

Everyone is shooing 5.56 right now but once the US switches we will not be the last country to switch to 6.8.

[@PHARAOH-ZODIAC]

Love sent back across the pond. 🇺🇲🇬🇧 These new rifles & ammunition will fill the gap that's plagued us infantry. The m16 and it's variants are great, but the infantry deserves a upgrade in rifles and ammunition.

[@JamesMathews]

My questions are on weight and maintenance. I was active when the M-16 switched to M-4 and shot both. M-16 could fire in the field dirty for extended times while the M-4 needed too much maintenance but weighed less. I didn’t have a problem with rounds or cleanliness as it was necessary to life but liked different things about each weapon. If this fires well, which it should, and weighs less while needing less maintenance then it is worth it.

[@twokids2011]

SIG Sauer claims that the cartridge has performance superior to the 6.5mm Creedmoor, exhibiting 6 to 9 feet (1.8 to 2.7 m) less bullet drop at 1,000 yards (914 m), while delivering 20-25% greater energy.

[@MrPandaCommando]

The biggest thing about the new ammo is that you're getting identical ballistics to a .270 Winchester, a hunting round capable of dropping bull elk, but out of a shorter, lighter cartridge, and about 9-10 less inches of barrel length. It's probably the most significant advancement in ballistics technology in our lifetimes.

[@joebudi5136]

So it's faster and with a shorter barrel. Must be a larger "explosion" for a faster bullet?? Barrel probably made different and could handle the more powerful "explosion"?? I'm guessing to combat all the armor that soldiers wear now?

[@MrPandaCommando]

@joebudi5136 faster and more efficient powders and loaded to very high pressures. Barrels seem to be a fairly standard profile, but the locking lugs on the bolt and barrel extension have quite a bit more material to handle the high pressures reliably. We found out in Afghanistan that the M4 was severely outranged, so a lot of the requirements for the ngsw program were tailored towards extending the effective range that our troops can engage.

[@RustBrand777]

FINALLY somebody who isn’t freakin negative

[@RustBrand777]

@@joebudi5136pretty much ye. I’ve heard it can practically shoot through most forms of cover and concealment as well. Our most skilled units have tested its capabilities and I was surprised by how much they praise it.

[@Alex.Holland]

@@joebudi5136 indeed. and the barrel life is expected to be only half or 1/3rd of current gen tech because of how hot the rounds are.

[@robwalls6057]

Retired U.S. Army. The M4 platform itself isn't the problem so much , it's the caliber. The 5.56 or the civilian equivalent round , the .223 round is used for and designed for shooting varmints such as coyotes . The 5.56 is a tiny, tiny round and yes it's high velocity round that gives you accuracy at long distances, but for defeating body armor and armor in general, it severely lacks capability . Most military rifles before the M16, most used calibers at or near the . 30 caliber size such as the 30.06 for example which by the way is one the most popular BIG game rounds ever. So why would you shoot a big target like a human with a small round. The main reason why they switched to a smaller round was for the benefits of being able to carry more, cost less and less recoil. In a combat situation you need a round that has knock down power. If you think about it, it's actually cruel to shoot someone with a small caliber round.

[@thatozarklife]

I feel like the new caliber will have much more effective penetration against peers who will also have body armor. That has to be at least A consideration, right?

[@m2hmghb]

It's the consideration. The level 3 plates have no problem stopping 55 grain, there are 3 plus plates that are rated for m855, and level 4 plates will stop m855a1 and 7.62x51.

[@patrickjones6059]

"peers" you mean enemies.

[@williamantico7768]

They wanted a more powerful round than the 5.56 because it was felt that the enemy could have body armor that could stop the 5.56mm round.

[@pugsbella]

america wanted more stopping power and to reach out further

[@MarkGookin-zc7gz]

Aww the main thing to bear in mind is that body armor is vastly improving and more commonly standard issue these days compared to the Vietnam war era when the 5.56 NATO first deployed. While engineering tweaks have been constantly been applied to improve bullet hardness, casing strength and propellant power, there eventually cones a point where the only way,to produce greater range, accuracy, penetration and kinetic stopping power is to use a bigger bullet. At the same time weight is still a major factor in how much ammo a soldier can effectively carry under combat conditions. This was the reason why the M16/M4 was chambered in 5.56 but the Saws M60/M240 stayed in 7.62 because support weapons typically need to reach farther, hit harder and punch deeper tO stay effective. The advantages to the new rounds means that the average infantry man and the machine gunner can use the same ammo. The rifle can shoot farther, hit harder and more accurately, and the machine gunner can carry more ammo at the same weight. This will eventually reduce overall costs and simplify logistic chains

[@Kylsix]

Former US Army. 5.56 out of an M4 has serious issues, especially past 300m. The new 6.8x51 round is piss hot, pushing more than double the PSI than a 7.62x51 round, giving it much further reach than the 5.56 out of a shorter barrel. Additionally, the 6.8x51 specifically is intended to do two things: Defeat body armor, and give US troops greater stand-off range. Russia and China both use cartridges similar to 5.56, which has a realistic engagement range of 300m. The 6.8x51 and the NGSW will let US troops accurately engage out to 600m.

[@realtruthhurts8851]

Biden will ensure new upgraded rifle is given to the Chinese first. Then DOD will cry to the MIC who will have to start over (way to justify) once again at taxpayer expense. It’s a corrupt business model!

[@marcmo7138]

Sig Sauer supplies the side arms also. The m17 and m18

[@boomslangCA]

My understanding is that Sig got that contract in no small part because they offered the guns at cost, or pretty close to. Defense can never resist a bargain.

[@JackofNothingess]

What remains to be seen is what will the Navy (and USMC) will procure after the Army's adoption. And then pass adoption trials by the USAF and USSF. My guess is that the rollout will not be uniform across all service branches. While the 5.56 NATO has reached its technical limit, it still has it's uses, especially in jungle or urban environments where more ammo and higher rate of fire is more important than penetration. And then there's the logistics problem the US Army will have to deal with, and compatibility with NATO STANAG standards. What will NATO do? Will they adopt it as well? Thats an even bigger question to answer before something like this is widely deployed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Luke.

[@One_Rifle]

The Marines just switched over the M27 IAR as their service rifle going forward, it might be a while until they change again

[@martin123b00m]

As an active duty submariner that does not normally handle a rifle every single second of my life like the other branches do I can say for certain that handling an M4 is one of the simplest rifles to pick up, load up, and learn to put rounds on target…assuming it is battle zeroed on the sights which can also be easily learned. It is also very light and parts are very simple to clean and maintain. I think if they just wanted to “modernize” the everyday soldier, they could easily do so with giving everyone the 416. The M4 is so great because of all of that stated above and the versatility it provides when you need to add or remove items such as optics, underbarrel attachments, lasers, flashlights, grips, muzzle attachments or whatever the missions dictates. I would check out Garand Thumb’s review of the rifle to see how it performs if anyone cares for it, the 5.8 rips

[@bulletproofpepper2]

Growing up around gun enthusiasts that talked about guns and ammo like most people talk about the weather, 270 was talked about the Goldilocks round. The powder is also just as import.

[@KenMcGeachy]

'Specialized ammo' makes me think of our Canadian snipers who have the world record for furthest confirmed kill shot... and as far as I know they were able to make the 3+ kilometer kill because of some kick ass American rounds that they had recently recieved...

[@nadjasunflower1387]

yup..read that story way when it came out. Your sniper was using a TAC-50 (if i remember right) and he'd got some .50bmg from an American. (5rounds) as he lay in cover he let the rounds "cook" in the sun on a rock beside him.

[@williamirelan9332]

The government listened to the troops feedback that the 5.56 lacks penetration and did a lot of testing on new technologies. They also looked at history and recognized that the common caliber of rifle and squad weapons worked to great advantage for logics. Yet if you pick up the new rifle and you have used m-4 the controls are familiar . With the suppressor you improve communication and with night opps the hidden flash improves vision and draws less attention from the opposition.

[@StanJamrog]

There was a motorcycle shop near where I used to live. I'm the back room was a private gun shop. He built weapons to specification for special units. So you are right. They will get what they want, even if they have to special order it.

[@thomascameron7004]

I served in the United States Of America Army as a Paratrooper with the 82nd.Airborne Division in 1974 to 1976.And trained with the M-16 Stoner Rifle that used 7.62 mm round.It was effective in bringing down an enemy soldier but this newer rifle looks like it can deliver more fire power and a more leatheal round and a lighter weapon and ammunition round so that a soldier can carry more rounds.

[@Youdaboob]

Flash hide is everything. Even if it’s the only pro to the new round. A single shot can give up your location and open you up to fire from multiple locations. No flash gives you a much more favorable tac advantage and greater probability you get back to base each day. Add the favorable ballistics of this new load and it’s an easy go.

[@alferrera9605]

I love the M4 and own one privately. Up close, I’ll take it. But the 5.56 round reportedly lacked range - and knock down power at range - in Afghanistan. I wasn’t there. So I have absolutely no first hand knowledge, but I’ve heard that given as a reason, along with ability to punch through the new body armor.

[@patrickhenry4675]

It was found that people shot with the M4 sometimes kept fighting. Seals doing room clearing would all put rounds in a down fighter, to be sure he stays down. Also the M4 was limited in long range situation we found ourselves in during the recent war on terror.

[@Animo2006]

Edit: I was in the Marines between 2008-2016 and have used virtually every small arms weapon platform that has ever been fielded by the U.S. Marine Corps in that time period. Edit 2: The reason SIG is developing specialized ammo is because of the chamber pressures. Your standard 5.56/7.62 NATO ammo has an operating chamber pressure of about 55,000-60,000 PSI. The new 6.8x51 ammo from sig will have a standard operating chamber pressure of 80,000 PSI which brass casings cannot contain. That's why the base of the casing is made out of steel. The M4 just needs to be modernized. Take any high end AR platform and give it full auto capability with a 16" barrel minimum. That's the sweet spot imo for an all purpose, standard issue combat rifle. 5.56 is totally fine for conventional engagement ranges. The M4/M16/AR-15 platform has a much longer viability as a small arms weapon platform than a lot of people give it credit. It's light weight, ergonomic, easy to operate, very adaptable and modular. I have zero doubt that it will go down in history as the longest serving small arms standard issue military platform of all time. There's a reason that its so popular among civilians in the U.S. and as a blueprint for foreign military rifles across the world. I think this change in caliber to 6.8 as a standard issue caliber is a bad idea for a few key reasons. 1) Weight. The added weight of this caliber will mean that troops can't carry as much of it as 5.56 and ammo capacity per magazine is lower. 2) Recoil control. This caliber has the same if not more recoil than 7.62x51/.308 due to much higher higher chamber pressures with similar grain weight to 7.62x51/.308. As it is right now, your typical soldier does not train enough with their weapon platform to be proficient at controlling levels of reoil like that in a weapon that has similar weight to an M16 in full auto. There's a reason the FN FAL did not become standard issue for many militaries and was only standard issue for a few of them for a short time period. Controllability in full auto was the main drawback. 3) Ammunition manufacturing/transition from traditional military calibers. As you said, switching the caliber completely may be a bad idea, but I think its a bad idea because of lack of supply and cost. The cost associated with creating this caliber in large quantities will be quite significant simply because they have to make the base of the cartridges out of steel to deal with chamber pressure. Material cost will increase, the complexity of the case will increase production cost and the chamber pressure/velocity of the round will decrease barrel life considerably compared to traditional military calibers. The 2nd part of the issue is that there has been a huge surplus of traditional military calibers for decades because we've been producing them for over half a century at this point. Switching to a different caliber that hasn't been mass produced before with a complex casing manufacture means that we will be reliant on how fast the ammunition can be produced. This isn't an issue in peace time, but unless you've been living under a rock, it does not appear it will be too long until we run headlong into WW3 sometime in the near future.

[@collguyjoe99]

1,073,200 Total US Army Soldiers. That includes Active Duty, National Guard and Reserves. There is also Special Forces and Spec Ops units in the National Guard - the Guard has 2 SF Groups.

[@bloop1264]

That’s not the army that’s the entire us military including all branches he was correct when he said the number being in the 400,000s the us army alone is not 1,073,200 people

[@collguyjoe99]

@@bloop1264 you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about the total end strength of the United States Army is 1.1 million the Marine Corps and the reserve of the Marine Corps alone is 185,000

[@collguyjoe99]

@@bloop1264 by the way I actually served in the Army so I know what I'm talking about where did you serve to gain your knowledge

[@scotts6376]

@@collguyjoe99 lol, you just google'd it. having served has nothing to do with this back and forth.

[@bloop1264]

@@collguyjoe99 you realize I was in the army too right?? You’re not special…. Well…. Maybe you are actually 😬😬

[@justinm7439]

While the M4 platform is highly versatile, there have been a lot of tests done regarding hit percentage of troops in combat. This rifle with this round is meant to be fired and used as more of a battle rifle that is capable of full auto fire if required. The idea was to give troops a more accurate rifle, with significantly better effective range, with a more devastating round that is intended to be shot accurately rather than spraying 3-5 round bursts. What will ultimately determine if this is successful is whether troops can be trained to shoot to kill versus shoot to "make them go away". This rifle and cartridge even without over 50 years of research and improvements is already incredible. It'll be interesting to see how it advances in time as well.

[@Zrodner]

They wanted the round to be a midpoint between the m4 and scout rifles because the range of the 5.56 wasn’t far enough. The 277 fury was made to be the midpoint and still usable

[@talyn5304]

My take of this video is that the Army ordered 250,000 of these new Sauer weapons and distributed them to certain units for long-term field testing and analysis. The M-4's and M249's aren't going anywhere until they're signed off on by the soldiers at the platoon and squad levels. If the manufacturers claims are true: that these new weapons and ammo are light weight and can handle higher stresses than conventional ammunition resulting in dramatically increased velocity, with extended range and increased lethality, then everyone will be happy. Time will tell!! If these new weapons check out, another added benefit of switching will be that equipment left behind in battle can't be used against us by our enemies. Once approved, outfitting all of our allies with these new systems will be child's play.

[@cliffcampbell8827]

Wait just a second... you're a proto American AND an American? That's kinda metal. Welcome brother, good to have ya here.

[@3man659]

I think over time, NATO will transition to the 6.8. It happened post WWII when they made the 7.62 standard across the board, and it happened during Vietnam when the US transitioned to the 5.56. At the end of the day, the M4 firing 5.56 did well against non-armoured combatants, but can’t stack up to the US’s near peer adversaries. It’ll be interesting to see how to program develops and how the overall reaction from the US Army, NATO/ friendly nations, and near peer adversaries (mainly Russia and China) to these new weapons systems turns out.

[@smileyr]

In some aspects the 6.8 round allows for more streamline. Currently there’s the m4 m249 saw and the m240. Both m4 and m249 uses 5.56 and the m240 is the 7.62. Switching to the 6.8 allows them to close the gap between the m249 and the m240. This means that the xm250 can fill the role of both m249 and m240 and it uses the same ammo as the xm7 meaning all weapons use the same ammo.

[@olligesd9343]

As mentioned, the point of .277 Fury is armor penetration, at 80,000 PSI, the ammo will penetrate most body armor as that bullet is really moving. I don't like going away from being able to carry more ammo; that was the whole point of the 5.56/.223 round and the M16/M4

[@DeadDogSanders]

Hey mate. Tyforposting here..

[@robertwood8508]

The M4 which is the same basic Stoner design has pretty tight tolerances. I carried this weapon in the US ARMY and I can tell you 2 things. First, because of those tolerances you must constantly clean it or it is prone to jamming. Second the 5.56 round is not ideal for armor penetration. Sig makes solid, reliable platforms and I think it's great that our soldiers are getting these new weapons.

[@wittsullivan8130]

90% of the Army are not ground troops, but support or support related. The M855 round, the US version of 5.56 Nato was designed for a 20" barreled rifle, the M-16A2. The 62 grain "penetrator" round is going a bit over 2900 fps compared to the older M193 55 grain round going over 3200 fps out of an M-16A1. When the bullet hits, it fragments and the core upsets, making it yaw inside the target causing a lot of damage. The "penetrator" round has a small steel tip in front of a lead core. The tip goes off in a random direction, causing damage, while the core yaws. During Panama, Marine Sharpshooters were able to kill enemy soldiers up to 450 and 500 meters away. The M-4, with a significantly shorter barrel, has a slower muzzle velocity. It's fine for CQB and urban environments, but the bullet loses velocity over distance and loses power. It can barely penetrate a chest rig full of steel AK magazines. The US Special Forces use a different round loaded with 77 grain Sierra Matchking open tipped match bullets. They're open tipped, but not hollowpoint. They don't expand like a hollowpoint because they're not pre-fragmented like a hollowpoint. They're super accurate, even out of the shorter M-4 carbine. The bullet is heavier but more importantly, it's longer than the 62 grain bullet with a better friction coefficient so it won't lose velocity, so it retains it's lethality at longer ranges. Now they're issuing the M-855A1 round, which has the steel "penetrator" tip, but the rest of the bullet is made of copper. It's the same weight, 62 grains, but the bullet is longer, so it also has a better coefficient of friction, so it retains it's velocity at a distance. More velocity also means less bullet drop, so you're more accurate, too.

[@jerryrichards8172]

That funky primer on the 6.8 is so civilians can't reload the brass. Wich is on the government agenda

[@toddmauer9284]

A big problem they found with the M4 were the greater distances of engagements. The GWOT showed a significant shortcoming in the M4 because of this.

[@Sonofaguninmo]

The biggest limiting factor of the m4-m-15 is the 5.56 cartridge in my opinion. The 5.56 is extremely limited in case capacity so if you put a bigger bullet than typical 55 grain you must give up speed. The original m16 had a 20 inches which gave the 5.56 its desired results at the time. The m4 is 14.5 which cut down the speed of the bullet but increased mobility and decreased weight. To defeat armor you need speed. To keep the platform they therefore would have had to backstep to the longer barrel and give up everything that makes the m4 so great. In my opinion the 5.56 was and is a little on the small size and at the very limits of its capability. Therefore an increase in size of ammunition case capacity increases its potential for a wider range of ammunition choices for a given purpose. Accuracy, longer range and armor penetration requires both speed and mass. Todays ammunition such as found in 6mm and 6.5 variants retain more down range energy and have much better ballistic numbers. 5.56 falls short it just doesnt have the numbers

[@michaelsmith2723]

Remember, this gun will be issued with the fire control system, so the gun, optics, and suppressor.

[@michaelsmith2723]

SIG isn't sole source for 6.9 from SIG. The US required the ammo to be open sourced so every ammo company can make it if they want .

[@kriswilson7245]

If we didn't update, upgrade we would be flying p51 Mustangs against su35 😉 Suppressor is easy to pop of if not called for. Ammo will be part of the contract.

[@drzaius5577]

It's not about the rifle, it's about the cartridge. The Brits knew this when they wanted to adopt a similar cartridge (bullet diameter) after ww2 but were overruled by the US who said it was too small and forced the UK to go with the 7.62x51. Then years later the US decided to go with even lighter cartridge (5.56). So measured by this the Brits, the Swedes, the Japanese, and the Italians had it right in the 30's, 40's, and 50's with their 6.5 and 6.8 caliber rifles.

[@P-M-869]

The USA Military also picked the Sig P320C M17 and M18 pistols as their sidearms. I rebuilt my P320C into a M18, with a Holosun Red Dot. It shoots really nice. As the P320 X-Ten (10mm) shoots really smooth. I have Never been in Combat. I have seen where the 5.56 would pass right through the enemy who is hoped up on PCP and they would get up and keep fighting. All the companies who entered firearms in the commutation all used their own 6.8 x 51 ammo. Military is also creating very high-tech optics for the new rifles. I am intrigued by this round, but the civil version is out of my price range.

[@soullessginger8069]

Garrand Thumb tested the 277 fury round it was a 110 grain projectile traveling at around 3100fps

[@sm0k3_l62]

they have been wanting to change the round for years. they wanted something with more stopping power, range, and accuracy. 5.56 in CQC was such a hot round enemy combatants didn't even realize they had been shot until you put about 5 rounds in em.

[@ancientgamer3645]

The M4 is good for shorter ranged combat. The newer models have the range to match conventional battle ranges. Keep in mind the M16/M4 was designed for shorter range fighting against troops not wearing body armor, where it performed well, but lacks the punch to compete at longer ranges and against troops with body armor, like we are experiencing today.

[@terrygore115]

One area the XM7 will never beat the M4 is weight.

[@aj897]

The M4 was perfected in the 2000s.

[@edwardanenberg349]

The rifle is adaptable in that it has an easily changed barrel, changing to 7.62 barrel is all that is needed to chamber and use that cartridge 😎

[@Sonofaguninmo]

One major concern regarding suppressors is the heat retention. Heat kills barrels . If someone is needing to fire these rifles in prolonged firefights to avoid being over run like has historicly been known to happen will these rifles hold up with suppressors on them? If so will they still be accurate? At some point of sustained fire heat destroys barrels , cooks off chambered ammo and becomes inoperable. Hopefully not at a time when one needs it to function the most.

[@echoesofmalachor3700]

The ammo design is not universal and I am not aware of anyone else at this point making this type of case. The .277 Fury has a 2 part case. The body to the mouth is brass while the head is steel that’s joined with a locking washer to prevent the higher pressures from blowing the head of the case or primer pocket out. It’s basically 3000fps(915m/s) with quasi magnum performance out of a 7.62x51 magazine and 16”barrel.

[@ElItEmENZiGgY215]

Hi! Marine Vet, I think a large reason for the caliber change is to eliminate as much commercial competition as possible. More caliber choices means potential logistics chain slow downs based on market values/profitability and outside events. But having just 1 caliber means that they give out a standard and any company can make it, no deciding which caliber is more profitable, and in turn more ammo is more available more often. A LSCO with a near pier will demand intensive amounts of ammo and logistics in general.

[@tinfantry6424]

M4/5.56 is a great round for its purpose but also depends on who you’re shooting at. Tended to go right through Somalis from what I’ve read, which is another reason for a new beefier round in addition to the armor piercing capability.

[@Fragm3n1]

So glad your channel is still running. Remember watching your channel during post-quarantine ❤

[@eakinj]

Also one other thing, regarding the NATO rounds and the ability to grab ammo from others... I think the US Military is cocky to the point where they believe (and very probably correct) that the supply chain they can established and can maintain means that no american boots on the ground should ever have a need to pickup anyone else's ammo. Again it's just a guess. I have no military experience so I'm looking at this entirely from the outside.

[@nadjasunflower1387]

it's a good guess. during WWII we used the massive 30-06 round in our battle rifles (M1 Garand) and our squad weapons (BAR, and they only have a 20round mag) never ran out of ammo, generally speaking as our logistics were always on point. the only time in WWII we had an ammo problem was at the Battle of the Bulge when the 101st was surrounded, even then they got some pathfinders to drop in and call in air drop resupply. I think the point someone else made is the prime motive behind this. While the US is looking to China more, and Euros are looking in their backyard at Ukraine. This is probably a NATO sponsored initiative behind the scenes. As the US has the ability to go through the RnD and if it fails won't be that big of a problem. Like it would be if say the UK tried to take this on, or any other Euro country that's not spending a whole lot on the military. Once it's been tested thoroughly, if it gets the green light to do a complete refit of our military, then NATO countries will be able to swiftly move through a new weapon procurement program of their own, utilizing the 6.8mm cartridge.

[@BillD5244]

My biggest concern is the design of the casesings. With it being a 3 part case before you add in a primer, if there is a failure in the bonding of the lower part of the case and it separates from the main body; you could see a whole lot of ammo failing or being returned due to a simple design issue.

[@ravens.u.a.sflightservices]

the new rounds are lighter, penetrate body armor, and increased range.

[@Lithane97]

The whole point of the new round is increased lethality and body armor penetration at distance. Pretty sure the new rifle can be refitted to shoot 5.56 as well, just swapping a few parts, so it's not like there are no ways to deal with a 6.8 ammo shortage. Also, the new ammo was part of the bid for the new weapon system, the army wanted the new ammo no matter what, and they picked the ammo SIG developed, over the other ammo types (including a hybrid platic round).

[@everypitchcounts4875]

US is shifting towards the Pacific, while you are still only focused on Europe.

[@dbagdave2774]

check out the optic thats going with it, scary combo, or the gen 12 for when you need to knock on some doors.

[@user-tc9ws8ph6i]

I’m a US Army veteran from the 70s (M16A1) the reason we switched from 762 to 223/556 because we could carry more ammunition per soldier because they lighter and for suppression fire in automatic was more accurate the M1 was already heavy and the ammo was heavy. Now with the new technology you can get a bigger caliber with less weight that’s the main reason for upgrading!

[@AKJACKAL99709]

The caliber change had many reasons. The 5.56 of the M-4/M-16 did not have enough penetration for modern body armor or situations where you need to shoot through walls/windows. There are also cases where it was taking up to 6 hits on an enemy before they were neutralized. NATO is a big factor in this, because they want rounds that enter and exit cleanly, increasing the chance that soldiers can be evacuated and survive to go home. Another factor is that while the Army didn't specify caliber, it did have requirements for performance factors like chamber pressure and muzzle velocity. The new rifles resemble a commercial Sig MCX rifle, but the military version is actually more stoutly built to handle higher pressures and the military version of the 6.5mm round has a different bullet composition and higher powder load to meet the Army requirements.

[@painmt651]

I think, making silencer standard issue was a mistake, because sometimes you want the noise and confusion of a loud kinetic action to confuse the enemy

[@skwerl2003]

11 year Army Infantry vet, loved my M4 and the M249 is my favorite weapon of all time but I would be first in line to get the new system. More stopping power is always good! New ammo is no issue when you buy in the bulk like USA does. We bring our own and don't need to borrow

[@ethanwalters3940]

I love this new deal but I agree, the added suppressor as standard issue seems like an unnecessary risk by adding an additional point of failure to the rifle.

[@thomgri]

1/3 was forcabily discharged or retired. They just recently required many retirees to return due to lack of personeel.

[@rhoefelmeyer]

These weapons come with an extra barrel in 7.62x51mm. All that's needed is a barrel change.

[@anthony7440]

a stationary long barreled with mid to high zoom and a stationary iron sight zoom spot would be the best with fiber optics capable of easy motion detection

[@dylansaxman3133]

Love your videos! Been folowing for a minute!

[@NottiOne]

Special operations have been using a 300 black out since before civilians new about it. I'm pretty sure the 6.8 round is because the 300 blackout was used so successfully. They have been wanting to get back to close to a 30 caliber round for 30 years and the 6.8 gets them there. 6.8 doesn't have the pitfalls the 300 blackout has as far as distance shooting. You are right, while active 20 years ago I used 5.56, 300 blk, 308 and 338 lapua and 9 mm in MP5 form.

[@RCXDerp]

The 277 fury has like no drop even at 500m which might help in some situations. It also seems to hit like a truck.

[@TrulyUnfortunate]

MAN!!!! He's lighting that suppressor UP!!!!

[@MarineCARMINE]

I think having these weapons as a option for troops and SF units would be great to have if they are the edge needed to get the mission/missions done.

[@LowcountryMan]

I dont envision this taking over as much as being a specialist rifle in the squad

[@javiercervantes306]

The M4 is a great platform, and use it during my deployments to Iraq. The .556 has been around since the mid 60's and with the new challenges the need for a new caliber might be what is require to engage future adversaries.

[@hpkntnw]

3:45 the lethality of 5.56 past 5-600 meters drops off dramatically. This was learned in Afghanistan and they want the ability to reach out and touch somebody at further distances.

[@jarretthuffin]

5.56 is amazing when done right and combined with the right rifle to push it. Combat changed so much from Vietnam to Desert Storm. Then you go from Desert Storm to WoT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The type of combat was changing so much that it was showing the rifle systems weakness. The desert was too dirty and far-reaching. The urban combat the barrel was too long. Then, when you cut the barrel to give to movement, you lost in punching power and distance. Time will tell if moving up a caliber will prove to be the right move. We gotta get it in combat and see what our boys say.

[@jordanlackey3384]

The rounds for the new weapons will also be produced by government ammunition plants

[@johnrogers1573]

I'm surprised you overlooked the decreased weight. The new ammo is 20% lighter. The spear is also almost a pound lighter than the m14. After years of the military looking at things like exoskeleton bullshittery and things that are meant to allow infantry to carry heavier loads, they finally decided to look the other route and try to make the military kit lighter instead. Taking about 20% of the weight off of Gun and ammo should make things easier for infantry on a number of levels. Again, the lethality and accuracy is a big bonus.

[@usmclobogarcia]

The 5.56×45 doesn't penetrate armor well. The 6.8 shoots at 80,000 psi. Therefore, it pentrates armor more sufficiently