US Army OFFICIALLY HAS A NEW PRIMARY WEAPON

[@Taskandpurpose]

Hey spare parts army! Thanks for watching the last 3 years of NGSW videos. Stay prepared and armed for all the deals using DealDash! Use the promo code TASK for a bonus worth $10 when making your first bid pack purchase and start bidding at www.dealdash.com/TASK CORRECTION: The Lake City Ammunition Plant is in Independence, Missouri, not Utah like I said like a dummy.

[@jrocks6969]

The 6.8 has got same casing as 7mm

[@17nirmalya]

Thank you for covering the development and adoption of NGSW so well 👍

[@lesterjohnson2621]

I didn't know you were a paid spokesman for the u.s. army.......

[@17nirmalya]

@RR Continued How much do you feel is the incremental weight addition of 30 6.8 over 30 5.56 ?

[@brokeandtired]

5.56mm was designed for pre kevlar era. Post penetration lethality matters and as Terrorists start wearing armour the US military needs a round that retains its lethality . The US had to upgrade. India is going back to 7.62mm because 7.62mm has stopping power and 5.56mm is no longer cutting it.

[@Painfulwhale360]

The new optic is arguably more important than the rifle itself. Although to utilize the optic and squeeze out all its juices you’d need a round that could keep up with it.

[@theimmortal4718]

Yeah, only costs $11000 a piece. All the ones in the arms room will be constantly deadlined

[@Painfulwhale360]

@@theimmortal4718 Price to pay to have have complete superiority on the battlefield. Having a 300m stand-off distance compared to your enemy is a huge deal. Not to mention the option that calculates everything for and all you have to do is pull the trigger.

[@theimmortal4718]

@Enclave Soldier A 11000 dollar LPVO? We already have brand new 1-6 power Tango6Ts for less than 10 percent of that price. Anyone who thinks these scopes will be in operation very long has never spent any time in an infantry company.

[@Painfulwhale360]

@@theimmortal4718 but can it do what this optic can do? Not saying the price isn’t steep but it’s apparent you haven’t been in large business transactions 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@wolverinexo6417]

@@theimmortal4718 lmao. Sure buddy. Those scopes that cost a fraction of the new scope are totally just as good.

[@HerbertLandei]

When I was in the German army, I was shooting the old, "overpowered" HK G3. While I was kind of envious that other armies had lighter guns, and the recoil was no joke, that 7.62 full metal jacket ammunition gave me the fuzzy warm feeling that a wall wasn't really a sufficient cover for an enemy.

[@jenskreibach9424]

I loved the G3 too. Scenarios like Afghanistan showed that the .223 is not sufficient for longer ranges.

[@arra3410]

Then you had a shit rifle. The recoil of our FAL was pleasant. Sorry, Belgian rifles are better.

[@DarkShroom]

@@arra3410 it's unlikely your FAL had recoil as low as 5.56.... so you are only guessing that your rifle is better

[@Rez944]

@@arra3410 single shot both the g3 and fal have controllable recoil its nothing much, but at full auto both of them become uncontrollable and useless

[@afd19850]

@@jenskreibach9424 Afghan was the exception not the rule. I highly doubt US will see similar engagement distances in next 5 years……unless they go back

[@timobutler5061]

Just a small correction on the SIG origins: SIG actually stands for Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft, „Swiss Industry Corporation“ so its a swiss based Company it merged with J.P. Sauer & Sohn of germany to become SIG Sauer. Keep up the great work! Love your channel.

[@greggstrasser5791]

Guy’s name is Cohen.

[@jadger1871]

Actually no, there are a number of companies named SIG Sauer, many owned by the same holding group. the German SIG is not the same company as the American SIG.

[@brianmoore1164]

Your history is good, but times change. It is Sig USA now. What he said is correct.

[@steveclancy6474]

@@brianmoore1164 Timo was just highlighting the long history of SIG. Switzerland outlawed arms exports a few years ago. This led to a large split in the company (though it had been going on for some time) and especially after the US import ban SIG US was set up and I believe now is effectively a completely unrelated entity.

[@brianmoore1164]

@@steveclancy6474 Yes, I know.

[@qsartwrx]

One main topic not covered is the capabilities to field supply ammo to active troops. Autonomous vehicles, bots as well as guided drones supply troops and are incorporated as logistical assets. No weight or expenditure issues with going to a heavier round it seems now but would be concerned with long term weather conditions on the case if not brass. It's good to see the benefits of the blunt force trauma concept being reintroduced into combat.

[@AVweb]

In basic training in 1969, I trained with both the M-14 an M-16A1. Qualified on both. Loved the M-14. Very accurate at long range. But also heavy as hell. The 6.8mm round seems like a good compromise. Guess they'll find out in the field.

[@BOOGiNS]

Less rounds per mag doesn't translate to efficient suppressive fire

[@sleepcast5758]

🤯🤯how did you get here

[@nokiot9]

Dont 90% of troops still use the m16a4? They didn’t get the m4a1 fielded in any significant numbers- im worried this M5 will be the same

[@robertborchert932]

@@reosavant5769 no, because NOTHING IS FOR FREE. Haven't you learned this? The American people, that means your neighbors, are footing the bill. Let's look at your raison d'etre. Govermnent healthcare is a joke. And college? Tell me what the new students can do with that education in the real world. Unless we can defend what we have, we are useless without the ability to do so.

[@nokiot9]

@@reosavant5769 a trillion per year couldn’t pay for free healthcare for even a single year alone. Look up how much states spend on healthcare annually then go look up how many billions are in a trillion.

[@reells571]

I was in the 6th grade in 1961 when a kid in our class brought in a news article about the new M16 and read it out loud. It stated that the new rifle fired a small bullet but the "hydrostatic shock" of this high velocity round could cause death even if the enemy was shot through the hand. Funny how you remember some things.

[@INDICATION002]

If a kid read that aloud in school this day and age, they’d probably be suspended and the fbi would investigate them. How times have changed.

[@agentbarron3945]

@@INDICATION002 sharing a newspaper article? the horror

[@The_Judge300]

And in reality do you many times need to put multiple rounds into the torso of the enemy to neutralize him with the 5.56mm ammo. So much for the "hydrostatic shock".

[@ncooty]

Ah yes, the famed hydrostatic shock of an FMJ.

[@maxortega4690]

I remenber reading about the M-16 round and how this overpowered round would tumble. When it struck it would folliw tumblealong and bounce off bone. A few years later when I was in the Army we were taught to look for two holes/ wound entry & exit. For that same reason, tumbling. 7.62 is .30 cal and has more shall we say UMPH!!!

[@jukkasavolainen5620]

We have had the Valmet RK 7,62 in Finnish army since the 60's as a primary weapon, and I never thought it was heavy or unwieldy, rather it was powerful and accurate killing machine and it still is one...

[@flouisbailey]

You make a lot of sense, you understand no such as overkill?

[@jizzchugger]

@@flouisbaileyi mean better to overkill then be killed

[@MPdude237]

@@flouisbaileyOverkill is a problem because what gets you to overkill is resources or weight that can be spent in more useful ways. I am not saying that the 7.62x39mm is a bad round, it’s just a dated one that even Russia has moved away from.

[@mukkaar]

@@MPdude237 Russia moved away from it since it didn't really suit their operations. Mostly Russia has fought in relatively open areas, just like US. Against people without body armor, just like US. Finland on other hand is almost all forest, and you need a lot of energy behind bullets to be effective in that environment so that trees won't just totally make bullets ineffective. So it's not really any more outdated than 5.56, it's just suited for different kind of combat. That said, if 6.8 gets popular with western militaries, I do wonder if it would work well in Finland too. I don't see us switching weapons anytime soon, but if this ammo is actually suitable for our terrain, I think at some point we would switch to it so we would have NATO compatible ammo. Though, it's honestly kinda low priority when compared to high tech weapons systems, drones etc. Our current service weapon is very well suited for our specific situation, even though it's pretty damn basic.

[@andreasmangs3131]

​@@mukkaarFinland and Sweden is switching weapons soon to a Finnish made 7.62x51 AR looking platform.

[@josephfranzen5626]

That optic is impressive. It makes the ACOGs we had look like WW2 optics. If they can get the shooters spun up on it and it operates as efficiently as they claim, it’ll be an impressive combination of lethality and ingenuity. It’s smart we’re looking at ammunition commonality as well.

[@Talishar]

At least until the enemy deploy laser warning systems which can highlight laser designators and range finders. Modern tanks with a laser warning system can even snap to and target directly at the source of the laser range finder. That's the funny thing about lasers people forget about. Lasers emit energy and everything that you emit can potentially point back at yourself. It's the same with IR lasers. They only work when your enemy is broke and fighting with 50s tech. A near-peer is going to have NVGs and thermals so they'll see that laser like it's plain day and you're going to catch bullets as people shoot at the source. The U.S. military already knows of this though as it was already part of my training decades ago. It'll be funny though for much newer nations that don't have experience in this and are new to the world of advanced warfighting technology and not realize these things until it's too late.

[@mbogucki1]

@@Talishar Judging by the state of Russian equipment and tactics I doubt their tanks are "snapping" to any enemy laser range finders. I also China has the that capability.

[@ronelkind8758]

@@mbogucki1 2

[@jcspoon573]

@@Talishar NVGs are quite cheap and easy to acquire. This sounds like a boondoggle in the making.

[@Talishar]

@@mbogucki1 Ironically, it was Russia that supposedly got a head start in use of laser warning systems due to NATO fielding laser designated weapon systems well before the Soviets/Russia ever fielded them. Since their tech was on the receiving end, they designed their laser warning systems with this in mind. The U.S. caught up to this much later because Eastern Bloc tech wasn't really using many, if any, lasers until very much later so there was no real need to adapt. Most of the U.S.'s advances in laser warning systems was for airborne systems and mostly helicopters as electro-optical guidance systems were common for beam/wave guided manually aimed missiles used against helicopters. So, the Russians were the first to implement a real laser warning system for ground vehicles and it was touted to snap to the source with the thinking that it was to allow the gunner to kill the laser user before whatever bomb or missile that was homing on the laser could hit the tank. The U.S. had been using some form of laser designated munitions systems since at last the late 60s with some prototypes and really kicking it off in the mid to late 70s. The Russians would implement their system for ground vehicles in around the mid to late 80s.

[@scottwilliams645]

Really wonder how this is going to effect the NATO stand since the reason the standard is 5.56 is because it would limit the ammo insecurity amongst ourselves

[@jalpat2272]

And everything basically down to drain as machines and artillery warfare with sprinkle of brutal urban warfare back in menu.

[@Truthbomb918]

No one else will use this round guaranteed. Even America won't field too many of these wastes of money

[@jarvaniv1157]

@@Truthbomb918 I destroys the 5.56 in about every margin for Ballistics tests, ammo has changed in the past and it will change again. Ammo production has revolutionized a ton in the last 6 years. Also no one else needs to use this lol, our production lines can push out these rounds for the troops.

[@Truthbomb918]

@@jarvaniv1157 no one will use this round outside America. Only America would waste huge amounts of taxpayers money on something that will see limited use. Ammo will be expensive and heavy so troops that are issued with this will have to watch their rounds

[@ferdonandebull]

Well… it will take a while but ultimately if this round out performs 5.56 and it is definitely going to nato and firearm manufacturers will began producing weapons for the caliber. Change happens.. there was a lot of resistance when we went to 5.56. But we were in jungles and it made a lot of sense.. But we are starting fighting rifleman wars and the optics prove it.. getting rounds on target at a three hundred meters further than your opponent starts making a lot of sense. Having those rounds defeat helmets and body armor at that distance is a huge advantage. If you look at some of the battles that are being fought in UKraine snipers are making a huge difference. They are shooting a lot of ranges that this rifle will meet .. I do think that in city and jungle fighting this firearm size will be a factor.. but the round will also be a factor also.. Let’s see what five years brings.. I will be happy either way… if this gets relegated to the “special use” category of weapons that will still be an improvement for our forces..

[@craigfurey942]

@7:30 - The Germans thought the same thing regarding range going into WW1. They figured with the introduction of flatter-shooting “spitzer” ammo, there was no need to put sights on the Gewehr 98s that were anything short of 400m. They figured the enemy will never get closer than that, so what’s the point? Well yeah that was a mistake.

[@Justicer3792]

With modern technology, drones, artillery advancements, engagement distances have probably improved over open distances. Cities though, your point definitely stands.

[@thekaxmax]

not the same circumstance at all

[@xander6872]

@@Justicer3792 i wonder if the us will adopt a tactic of never engaging directly in cities, and instead surround them and using stand off distance and air superiority advantages... are we reverting back to medieval sieges?

[@jarvy251]

​@@Justicer3792 How does drone spotting for GPS guided artillery munitions affect rifle engagement distances...??? The rifleman still has to have direct line of sight to his target actually be able to see his target, and be able to hit his target reliably. Guess what, that still means 300m is really pushing it. Even in afghanistan, engagements were at about 100m.

[@keegans5695]

@@jarvy251 re-read what that dude said. He didn't say drone spotting for GPS guided munitions. Drones are good information gathering tools all around and are useful for determining where your enemies are coming from and what threats to expect, allowing for more preparedness when the actual engagement happens. Artillery strikes are relevant because more precise munitions allow for close fire support not previously possible with previous generations of dumb munitions (which Russia is still using). This improves lethality against entrenched enemies at standoff ranges without risking friendly fire.

[@MrTmm97]

It nuts that a couple cruise missles cost as much or more than the 20 million dollar we are spending to arm the entire roster of close combat troops with this new weapon. Pretty crazy to think about.

[@kebabremover970]

It amazes me more that one hour of flying a modern fighter jet is equal to the average annual salary in the U.S.

[@jimsinnovations2737]

Truth

[@santannamv]

Things are fancy & terrorizing in US army until they face a regular army as enemy.

[@Cooper12667]

@@santannamvEllaborate

[@jamesholden5664]

He 4.5 billion dollars.

[@williamgray8499]

I'm old enough to remember a lot of talk when the m-16 was adopted. The older crowd of WW2 veterans thought it was just another "McNamara" boondoggle by his gang of bean counters. I respectfully add this now to give their perspective to the conversation.

[@gameragodzilla]

What’s old is new again as trends change. Hell, speaking of the M16, optics used to be mounted on the carry handle. Then everyone decided that was too much height over bore, so they deleted the charging handle, added on a picatinny rail flat top, and mounted the optic at absolute cowitness. Then everyone decided that was too low and scrunching your face too much, which on top of shifts towards shooting with NVGs or gas masks passively through the optic as opposed to using a laser, resulted in optic mounts getting higher and higher until we looped back to carry handle height.

[@tunnelrabbit2625]

Clearly 5.56 in not the only thing for the future. Accuracy by volume fire is not sufficient. We should have never entirely changed. In fact we should reinstate 7.62 NATO with AP, but in AR-10's, or use the ol'M-16 in 6.5 Grendel with AP and slap on the best scope to adapt quickly, but that is not enough sizzle and money for the Military Industrial Complex. Something new for the future is necessary, yet at this time, too much change at the wrong time, is a very bad idea. Logistics, then tactics are more important than the rifle/cartridge. The Army would be best served by re-learning 'maneuver warfare' of WW2 and basic marksmanship, but it is currently rotting from within.

[@DonkeyThedonk]

The boondoggle was the piece of shit M14 designed by armorer board people with WW1 in mind.

[@baobo67]

The older crowd were right.

[@baobo67]

@@tunnelrabbit2625 Right Tunnel. FAL and G3 are 70 yr old designs. A high tech rifle of today in 7.62 would suffice.Lighter AP projectiles would give the required velocity sabots maybe. But hey that is all a bit too simple for a procurement General trying to look clever.Cheers.

[@foznoth]

The first push for a smaller round was from the British, adopting the EM2 rifle in 1951, with the new .280 British round, but was de-adopted the same year because of pressure from NATO & the US wanting to standardise on the 7.62mm. Even that was a interesting agreement, the European countries agreed to the US 7.62mm if the US agreed to use the FN FAL. We know how that deal went.

[@PencilProper]

That was Americas' loss.

[@johncarl5505]

@@PencilProper Not really, they adopted the AR15 a few years later, which was superior to both the FAL and M14.

[@micahdadbeh5955]

@@johncarl5505 M-16, not the A.R. 15. The AR 15 was based off of the AR 10, which was a 7.62 nato rifle. The M-16 was developed from the AR-15, Which would later become the M-16A1 due the fact that the army ordinance department went out of their way to sabotage the M-16s adoption

[@linus3903]

i actually dont know how it went lol could you please explain

[@stein1919]

@@linus3903 the US agreed to adopt the FN FAL with the rest of NATO then at the last minute, decided on our homegrown M-14

[@JAB6322]

A shame that General Dynamics lost the bid too. I don't mind if the bullpup was rejected but the polymer-cased ammo would've been a great idea to lighten each soldier's loads, increase muzzle velocity, and have twice the ammo for the same weight. If only they can collab with SIG to chamber their polymer-cased ammo with their weapons.

[@Aridanx]

I thought the same

[@bendavies8140]

I think it was because to get the bullit speeds the army wanted the M5 would of had to of had a 20 inch barel with the true velocity/lonestar/GD round. It's a shame as the 240b would have easily converted to polymer cased amunition and Reed Knight even demonstrated a conversion kit. I think the Sig M5 is a mistake because of the weight, I cannot see smaller or female troops being able to handle the new combat load

[@stratometal]

That polymer casing is probably what threw off the older peeps, but its honestly the coolest thing to come out of the competition. They definitely should move on to such ammo rather than steel, better heat management and lighter.

[@Mike-gz4xn]

@@bendavies8140 that’s sexist. Females are just as capable as males!

[@homelessman3483]

caseless ammo is not going to work for another 20 years. that general dynamics rifle was insanely complex and had way to intricate and to many moving parts to ever be reliable as a service weapon

[@student1979oct]

6.20 I think another thing that lead to the larger caliber is the realization of how little we used select/full auto fire. Most firefights were still semi-auto so recoil control on full auto isn't as big an issue.

[@wade6523]

The machine gun makes perfect sense. It's light and you get way more firepower. The rifle though only makes sense in a dmr sense, "maybe" its meant for distance but follow up shots with such recoil is unlikely to he successful. PS. Hilarious that we give billions of dollars to foreign countries but people act like new weapons for OUR military is so expensive.

[@afd19850]

Ah a man of common sense I see

[@wolverinexo6417]

It’s meant for accuracy and range over everything else. Recoil won’t matter when you hit 80%+ of your shots.

[@afd19850]

@@wolverinexo6417 Soooooooooo a DMR like op said yeah?

[@giahuynguyenkim6389]

@@afd19850 yeah

[@johnhenry4844]

That’s my thinking as well, what about CQB, house raids,urban combat, over penetration, or room clearing, surely they will keep the M4 for that. And this weapon is gonna be hell to disembark from any vehicle with, it’s the size of a DMR

[@odenwalt]

time index 7:36 --> I went to Marine Corps bootcamp in July of 1988. Every recruit was trained with a M16a2 service rifle. You cannot qualify on the rifle range without hitting targets at the 500 Meter firing line and we did not have optics. Just plain old mechanical iron sites with a 5.56MM round was all we used. The Squad Automatic Rifle was belt, drum, or magazine fed with a maximum effective range of 1100 Meters it also was 5.56MM rounds. If we needed more than 1100M we just wiped out grid squares with our MK 19's. Granted our M60E3's jammed a lot and had operating rod problems, it fires a 7.62MM and had an maximum effective range of 1000M once again open sites. Although I could not hit targets beyond 500 Meters with an M16A2, I knew many fellow Maines that could.

[@eggbaron3968]

End of an era, wow. Interesting especially in that this feels like the endpoint of infantry doctrine shifting away from the post-war vision of a large, combined-arms conflict and towards smaller maneuver elements. Will be interested to see how this gets iterated on after deployment.

[@colingoichot4245]

I feel like it's kind of a mistake regarding the current warfare being urban and most of the times against bad equipped opponents making a so big riffle and ammo kinda overpowered and unsuitable in close battles however if a good short version comes up it could still be a great gun. As the intention of the US army for going so hard on power being to counter major armies with modern equipment, it start to make a lot more sens (even if i suspect the good old 'murica need to have the biggest one). Overall the US army may have done either a great or a bad choice as i don't think that the indoors capabilities of the xm5 are really optimal

[@eggbaron3968]

@@colingoichot4245 Yeah, that’s kind of my thinking too, unfortunately. Moving back to a standard issue battle rifle feels like a bizarre and inelegant solution. We’ll see, though.

[@colingoichot4245]

@@eggbaron3968 As a french i'm kinda thinking about the impact of the ammo switch on NATO countries

[@andyeighttre]

Considering how Ukraines small units are bashing Russia. The new doctrine of small, fast, and packing lots of firepower makes sense. If your gun is sub moa to 600 yards and you can defeat level at that distance than you could guerilla pop shot raise hell on your enemy.

[@simeon2148]

@@colingoichot4245 Current warfare is no more urban and against weak rebel force. That`s what is used to be for 20 years. The current war in Ukraine is between modern armies with similar weapons and equipment. A better main rifle will be an advantage against an equal opponent. Especially if your most likely opponents already have made the switch to inferior main rifles.

[@skyhigh6]

The US Navy side arms and boarding party weapons were WWII weapon back in 1963 to 1969. I carried the old BAR, it was heavy. My side arm was the M1911A1. And sometimes I carried the old M1 Garand. I have photos of me carrying a M1Garand on shark guard.

[@DonkeyThedonk]

And you carried enough gear to enter a boat and return, not run operations and live in the field for weeks or months. Modern soldiers carry 70 pounds at least. Sometimes twice that.

[@Craterfist]

The weapon definitely speaks to what the US military anticipates. Instead of volume of fire of lighter ammunition to suppress enemies in sub-400 meter engagements in urban areas against unarmored foes, this weapon is clearly intended for 500-800 meter engagements over long, wide-open distances against foes with advanced body armor. Say... the Mongolian Steppe?

[@jiminysnicket86]

Guess how Ukraine is built

[@nicolaiveliki1409]

large swaths of central europe are wide grassland. Major defensive forces will prefer to remain in the cities where their shorter ranged low caliber arms will be more effective, but cities need external resources so disrupting these supply lines is really easy with these arms in these regions

[@jiminysnicket86]

@EJ K if you look at the threat landscape, most engagements will be more like Afghanistan going forward, just based on geography.

[@cloudsmith7803]

Oh good, we can leave thousands of crates of machines behind in the next conflict. Why not?

[@jiminysnicket86]

@@cloudsmith7803 we always do, nothing new there

[@brucealmighty7586]

I remember back in the 1200's we trained with the modern assault sword. Also know as the "Beast." It came with 2 "state of the art" optimal optics know as "Eye's." Yea It was pretty outdated at the time, but our King said it would improve battle efficiency and speed control or something like that. About a year later everyone died of typhoid so I guess it didn't really matter.

[@hmpf]

lol

[@djsonicc]

good ole times

[@contentwarningbros69]

you know back in my days...

[@FFE-js2zp]

Is that really true? Are you pulling our chains?

[@JohnAdams-qc2ju]

@@FFE-js2zp You can afford to buy chains in today's market? Damn, you a baller.

[@rokuth]

Then there is the 6mm ARC round. This is the "Split the Difference" round that apparently some Special Operators in the US Military had requested to be developed and is now in use by these operators. It has a heavier bullet and is suppose to be lethal out to 800 meters. Additionally, it was designed to be able to be used on AR15/M16/M4 platforms by just replacing the upper half of the gun. The round itself is about the size of the 5.56mm NATO round, however, it needs a different magazine. It will fit into the magazine well of the M16/M4 lower.

[@SuperCatacata]

@@Chester_Oliver I mean. The hype is obviously needed in order to be granted the millions required to mass produce it. Edit: guess he deleted his comment. Lol

[@j.muckafignotti4226]

The magazine is the same as long as the follower is changed, feed lip angles are a topic of discussion as they do need to be relaxed to accommodate the larger circumference of the 6 mm ARC.

[@j.muckafignotti4226]

I have shot my 6mm ARC with both types of mags and there is definitely an increase in malfunctions with just the follower changed. I bought specific 6 ARC mags and they are flawless

[@DChrls]

Isn't the 6mm ARC just a 6.5 Grendel necked down to 6mm? Don't get me wrong I love my 6.5 Grendel. I don't understand why you would want to go with the 6mm over the 6.5mm.

[@j.muckafignotti4226]

@@DChrls To be quite honest with you I have NOT looked at the SAAMI case specifications to be able to give you an accurate answer. The simple answer would be “Yuppers” as the magazines are the same. The engineering in the evolvement of this case I’m sure has roots in that area as Bill Alexander and Arne Brennen mentally cogitated on its development. The 6.5 Grendel has its roots in the 6mm PPC cartridge which in itself was a development from the .220 Russian. So as you can see, the incestuous nature of cartridge development is freaky at best!

[@b.vo.]

I think beyond all other reasons, the reason for the caliber switch is because the massive increase in combat ranges. Vietnam the 5.56 was sufficient at an effective range of about 300m. Fighting across a desert ranges can get much farther

[@davidhomer78]

In addition to the ranges being farther they changed the M16 to the M4 with a much shorter barrel. That gives less velocity and less punch down range. After destroying the battle rifle in this manner they can't go back to what works they have to spend of lot of money on something new. We won't need that many boots on the ground in the next big war anyway. They will all die from heat and radiation no matter what weapon they carry.

[@b.vo.]

@davidhomer78 while shortening the barrel 5.5 inches did neuter the power a lot, it was a pretty necessary change in order to more effectively use the rifle in close quarters. Waving a 20 inch barrel around inside is tough to do. Something else I forgot to mention is the ammo weight ideology changed too; it's no longer blasting full auto into the abyss - that's for the 249. Semi auto, somewhat precision shots.

[@davidhomer78]

@@b.vo. The army always tries to get the weapons right after the war is over. They are never ready for the next battle no matter how many trillions they spend.

[@santannamv]

Things are fancy & terrorizing in US army until they face a regular army as enemy.

[@Frankie5Angels150]

@@santannamv Okay, Ivan. I’ll bite: Which invincible army were you in or are referring to? Video games don’t count.

[@MrMewatchstuffnum2]

The image used for the Sarissa is one of a Hypaspists or a Shield Bearer; they were equipped similarly to the Greek hoplite. The Sarissa's spear is about twice as long and carried with two hands.

[@BigusShrimpus]

I’m personally hyped for the XM5. I just hope I get to train with it before 2042 lol

[@keeganbanse8625]

You don't want a m5a3? Lol

[@stevenmike1878]

im excited for our new magical 7mm rem mag in a .308 package, battle rifle.

[@afd19850]

@@stevenmike1878 This has to be an Uber rifle as its heavier than a battle rifle

[@Personell101]

The rifle is a meme that wont go anywhere without major changes imo. The belt fed is good tho.

[@giahuynguyenkim6389]

@@keeganbanse8625 he's scare that he'll become a no pat one day

[@Oddball_E8]

I think most people said this wouldn't happen because if you look back through the last 5 decades, there have been many, many efforts to "improve" and replace the M16/M4 system and they've all been cancelled. Even the very successful ones.

[@thefistofshadow7392]

most of the times because of the immense costs.. oh wait, only the ballistic-scope is around 11'000$ I just think more specialized troops will get the optics but the new rifle only works well if it has that scope on.. hard to make any assumptions

[@michaelstevenson7084]

This is a joke....

[@alexmills1329]

You nailed it on why they want to keep the m240, it’s far more accurate and it’s slower fire rate allows better barrel life when switching out properly, plus they already have MDO scopes that make it easy to shoot to 800M and really 1000M with very minimal thought. I love the 240, and I’ve had hands on time firing the 249 and the 50 as well.

[@25carpe]

How can the M240 be more accurate when it has a MOA of 12 instead of the 8 of the X50? I was very confused by that point in the video.

[@jedibusiness789]

It’s an area weapon.

[@jarvy251]

I just don't get it. From my time in the army, even on "flat" terrain, you'd have a hard time seeing the enemy past 300 meters. There's dips and folds and foliage, and they're cammed up or in cover, etc. When you add actual terrain features like valleys, hills, woods, or buildings... What's with this obsession with range, when every lesson of the last century has taught us that just because a rifle CAN reach out to 800m, it doesn't mean anything if you'll never have the opportunity for an 800m shot.

[@Demane69]

Drones. Drones see things. It's all about drones. I think it's the American obsession with combined tactics. They rely heavily on high tech communications and cooperation. Nobody else can match this (if going off of the Russian's current combat effectiveness, nobody even comes close). Their downfall likely isn't a gun. It's losing this advantage. Baring a massive solar flare or nuclear intervention (geared for EMP and not just destruction), I doubt anyone can effectively counter it right now.

[@jarvy251]

@@Demane69 A drone isn't going to be walking splashes from a rifle onto a target, come on

[@redsauce9135]

Range tests are more of a show of muzzle velocity and armor penetration than anything else.

[@RWebster325]

@@Demane69 Just because you can see them with a drone does not mean that you can shoot them. With a drone you can see thing well outside the range of the Infantry Rifle. And then if you need a drone to see them, it is better left using the bigger mortars or artillery.

[@buddermonger2000]

Well the last century was irons and the limiting factor of 300m was you know... human vision. The designated marksmen and snipers were all made to take out people at longer distances. They did this by having magnified optics. Now what are they giving every soldier who fields one of these weapons? A magnified optic which can automatically do any calculations and thus hit targets far farther out. Issue isn't things like foliage and never has been. Simply human vision.

[@69shadesofyeezeezs47]

DoD: let's put super high-tech scops and make a round to outrange near-peer adversaries. ALSO DoD: Near-peer combat will be fought in underground bunkers and in heavy urban settings...

[@highhow]

Its because of the ease of access of steel plate body armor now

[@jonash5320]

lots of trenches in Ukraine RN. They sure would love the scopes and extra range I bet.

[@Aliothale]

If it's a preparation for European warfare then yes, a lot of it would be ranged combat. Ukraine is proving that there is still a ton of ranged fighting in modern combat. Forests, trenches, ranged building to building fighting. Squads will likely have multiple CQ weapons with them as well. Thermobaric GL's are becoming popular for Urban combat instead.

[@ChefofWar33]

Body armor is the real key factor. Not range. The pathetic 5.56 couldn't even penatrate the weakest least advanced body armor. Making it not just less effective, but completely worthless.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@highhow 5.56 penetrates body armor

[@teutonalex]

Most infantry engagements will still be in under 200 yards as before. Still, a more powerful caliber in the age of universal body armor will be a definite advantage. I also think it’ll be harder for emerging or struggling adversarial powers to afford retooling everything to match it.

[@MasterCarguy44-pk2dq]

Robots and drones will be the infantry after 2030.

[@dragonslayerslayerdragon5077]

@@MasterCarguy44-pk2dq Maybe but they'll never be able to (discreetly) carry enough weight to be considered "light infantry."

[@jmanswat2457]

I'm just suprised they didn't experiment more with 300 blackout. If they overpressurized it with the same hybrid case could it have extended the range? Then all they would've had to do was swap barrels and ammo.

[@OlTrailDog]

Unfortunately, the same "retooling" argument applies to U.S. allies. Too long, too heavy, too much recoil. Why not a lighter, shorter, and readily available caliber, e.g. 6mm or 6.5mm developed in a beefed up M4 platform to fire high pressure loads. Say a 6ARC or 6.5 GRENDEL at the 80K pressure with a beefier bolt face and piston driven system.

[@MissionaryForMexico]

Not in Iraq! You are deeply mistaken! Not even close in Afghanistan, we are being fired upon at from mountain peaks 400 yds away!

[@michaeldelucci4379]

I really like your program it's very informative being an ex-M249 gunner in the late 1980's. Keep up the good work man. I too support the change in caliber and the technology has finally caught up. I hate to see the SAW be replaced but now we need the new weapons.

[@SkankinRep]

The current contract is for their scouting units- not for the whole army. Of course, if that works out in real world application you'll likely see the whole army going over to the M5 (what it will be once proven in the field)- but until that happens the M4 will remain the primary rifle for much of the Army. It'd be good to see that transition happen because the move to the M4 was sloppy and really lacked full follow through on balancing the platform. At least this is a thoroughly tested and balanced platform so you won't see the jamming issues you see with the M4. The army really should have taken more time balancing the move to the M4 but they didn't and thus- the rushed product has numerous hiccups with internal pressures. At least the new product will be balanced with their ammo and probably will function better.

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

Personally given modern tactics focus heavily on fire and maneuver, no matter how much better the new psuedo 308 cartridge is, the M4 will always be better on the sheer fact that you can carry over 2x the amount of ammo per pouch. I know the idea is to penetrate armor with the idea of a peer conflict, but volume of fire has always been more important, not the strength per round, which was originally why the 308 platforms fell to the wayside to being with. The LMG on the other hand is a great choice due to the lighter and cheaper ammo. Plus nearly all the machine guns throughout the DOD are worn out. The updates and replacement is too few and far in-between.

[@haroldfarquad6886]

@@DaveSmith-cp5kj This with the initial comment are where I sit on this one. I like the idea of forward scout units having superior firepower capable of winning first contact battles at greater ranges against modern body armor. That makes sense as a tactical advantage in that scenario. However, I don't see the M4 and .556 being replaced completely as a mass issue platform for most troops. This new NGSW is not going to shine in most urban combat scenarios, or anything where volume of fire and ammo capacity will win the battle. I see this NGSW serving in selective units in certain theaters, not as a standard issue gun. I'm with you on the LMG - it seems like a solid replacement for both the M240 and M249. At least that one doesn't make me grimace about tax dollars going to waste.

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

I was in the USN when the 45 ACP was being phased out for the Beretta 9mm. Oh Nellie was there some hot headed senior NCO's and officers. But once they got a feel for the new kid on the block, all that anger turned into begrudging respect and eventually acceptance. As a 19 year old I loved it. My hero carried the Beretta in Lethal Weapon and if it was good enough for Sgt Riggs, who am I to say different?

[@hannahalice1000]

As a soldier who went through the adoption of the UK bullpup, the SA80. I cannot safely say that the effort in retraining soldiers to use a bullpup was minimal. Of course minimal times hundreds of thousands requires a substantial effort, but as you are training on a new rifle system anyway, then the extra required to adopt to a bullpup would be near negligible

[@afd19850]

I imagine knowing General Dynamics and Sig, the latter probably undercut them on price. Just like Sig did for the MHS with Glock

[@marcusott2973]

I was in service when we passed from the FN FAL to the Steyr AUG, it was a process sometimes painful, especially with the 2 position trigger for full auto.

[@Taskandpurpose]

yeah I dont think it was about the bullpup ergonomics I agree. I think it might have been accuracy and the lack of belt feds

[@gratefulguy4130]

@@Taskandpurpose that's crazy they didn't have a belt-fed version. Still, I think the temptation to have everything use the same round is just too much for paper pushers. Really these are different tools for different jobs, but people are always surprised when their jackhammer-shovel-fork-saw comes out & is completely useless.

[@jtpowell162]

@@Taskandpurpose I suspected that the lack of a belt-fed automatic weapon doomed the True Velocity (GD) bid, but I'm curious about the bullpup's inaccuracy. I assume you heard that from your sources close to the project. All else being equal, a rifle with a 19" barrel will be more accurate than one with a 13" barrel, at least at long range. Was the bullpup trigger pull the problem? The polymer-cased ammo? The recoil mitigation system?

[@deletefacebook8419]

It all depends on how well the new rifles can handle long range combat. With good intel, comes more opportunities to plan ahead and take less risk while also laying out low risk optimal fire that suppresses the enemy and allows for the construction of new structures. Generally speaking, long range capabilities are the safer option because as the distance between you and your targets increases the odds of a stray bullet hitting you decreases. Especially with good recon.

[@AR15andGOD]

no

[@deletefacebook8419]

@@AR15andGOD Jesus isn’t real

[@Nickrioblanco1]

Each configuration has its strengths and weaknesses. My father in the Korean conflict was issued an M1 rifle and hated the weight so he dumped it and picked up a M1 carbine. He was liked with how easy it was to carry but when he had to stop the enemy, he was very unhappy (and terrified). The carbine was exchanged for a rifle again as soon as he got the chance. I was also impressed by how light the M16A1 and its ammo was, UNTIL IT STOPPED WORKING (the honeymoon was over pretty quick). Weapons that are easier to clean are always better to me. As for size/weight you can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. Unless you have a crystal ball that can see the future the best you can do is make an educated guess and hope you're right about what you'll need. TIME WILL TELL. That is if you actually try something new. If you chicken out and do nothing you'll never know. To win the game you have to make the bet. Thank you for yet another excellent video.

[@mkosmala1309]

A very insightful overview.

[@sirg-had8821]

Valid points were made.

[@Mortico88]

What I wonder is how they'll do urban combat with long rifles still. I certainly hope they get some kind of compact 5.1mm semi-auto or burst fire gun for clearing buildings. I'm not a soldier though so, please, someone tell me I'm wrong so I can learn some things.

[@theduke7539]

@@Mortico88 I've seen plenty of guys train to CQB with full sized rifles, I think with training, the rifle size will be less of a problem than people think. That being said, urban combat has evolved a lot thanks to Iraq.

[@granatmof]

There's a rule in engineering that systems designed to be maintenance free really mean 1 of 2 things: they're either disposable or when it inevitably comes time to perform maintenance, the tools and training are going to make it an expensive complicated task. Military tools have to be maintained, and whatever person who envisioned the M16 to be maintenance free really didn't understand that. Though they also undercut themselves but selecting cheaper powder that gummed up the gun.

[@HeathenHammer80]

Half of the trainees I went through basic with were scared of the recoil on the M16. I was at a combat arms training center too. It’s going to be a big hurdle getting fresh troops to get used to that rifle. I grew up shooting guns, so although I had never fired an M16 or even an AR15 I was familiar with recoil, but man there were some people that just couldn’t get it and were scared/intimidated by the rifle. Add that stout recoil and it’s going to be interesting.

[@Redmanticore]

sure, almost everyone who hadn't held a gun before is "scared" (uncomfortable) at first with a rifle recoil. a loud bang really kicks (and bruises you), if you are not holding properly. I remember my first ak 7.62×39. on the second week of boot camp in Finland. I think it was second. and we all get over it. maybe it makes the kids respect the gun a bit more. they get it immediately, it's not a civilian toy meant for cardboard targets. it's a tool meant for war and you are here for war. we originally wanted a 7.62x51mm nato cartridge but noticed while testing, that the shooting distances in the Finnish terrain would inevitably be short, which would make the longer cartridge of no use. 5.56 was never an option for us because it had to go through the Russian body armor, now and decades in the future. so we chose 7.62×39. (even when back then the Russians didn't have one on a large scale. maybe just a prototype. it was 1962. only now, 60 years later, they've even really started wearing them. heh.) and Russians used the 7.62x39 too, so we could pick their bullets and guns. “the 5.56 round, we recognize there is a type of body armor it does not penetrate, and adversarial states are selling that stuff on the Internet for about $250,” said general mark Milley in us senate in 2017. the fact that you have chosen an almost similar, but more advanced, battle rifle round as the 7.62x51, means 1 thing: you are no longer going after illiterate farmers, you are going to use it on Russian or Chinese territory body armors. they have long, flat landscapes. that and the longest distance 11 000 dollar computer scopes. ..I will bet my left ball, that if the 11k computer scope screen really works, then the Chinese will reverse engineer and make the same with a fraction of the cost. they may have the best reverse engineering teams in scope and skill in the world, stealing technology is their army of engineers´ full-time day job, it is perhaps one thing they are better at than anybody else.

[@RallanDOG]

Really? The M16 isn't that bad on recoil though even with burst. You probably had a cycle with a bunch of Californians lol

[@HeathenHammer80]

@@RallanDOG Lol, I think the worst one was from California. The M16 has very little recoil and it’s fun as hell to shoot!

[@HeathenHammer80]

@@Redmanticore I think you’re right 100%. The only thing is we have privates with more combat experience than any Chinese Sergeant Major. They have to be able to bring the technology to bear effectively on the battlefield. We see how well Russia is doing in Ukraine and it was the impression of most that they had one of the top militaries in the world. Off topic, my great grandparents came to America from Finland. Their last name was Salonen. My family members visit there often. I would love to, but haven’t had the opportunity yet.

[@NesconProductions]

One aspect that will mitigate this it seems the US military is moving toward suppressed weapons and think a logical move. For newer shooter important that the reduced noise from this new suppressed XM5 and XM250 would in turn lessen intimidation factor. Also important, would lessen concern of hearing loss issues (short & long term). Being able to communicate with fellow squad members without having to scream in a firefight (from outgoing rounds) is a distinct tactical advantage. Retaining hearing acuity allows you to determine where enemy fire is coming from better. A suppressed weapon (less muzzle flash & sound) makes it more difficult for the enemy to pinpoint, especially from range. Have seen pointed out that suppressed firearms (usually) have tighter groupings. In a nutshell with these newer higher power firearms being suppressed would be the way to go..

[@spoddie]

Man, you can see the kick this thing has in the videos. I hope they're doing the right thing. I trained in the Australia Army with the 7.62mm FN and that thing is big and heavy and kicks like a mule. Yeah, you can hit 300m on a range but I don't know how confident I'd be at hitting something at 300m with iron sights in battle conditions. I only fired the M16 a few times and it felt like a toy gun, then when I trained on the Steyr it was like shooting a laser gun - you can't miss with that thing. It should be remembered that some armies have extended range riflemen in platoons and sections to give further reach, not quite snipers, but they can hit 1000 meters.

[@spartacusrebellion7099]

Yes, and the kick is WITH the suppressor. If anyone's been paying attention, there is a return to higher caliber rounds all over the world, and we have lots of expensive suppressors and muzzle breaks that dont actually solve the problem of significantly increased felt recoil.

[@deansmits006]

Sounds like it will take different training, and a mk2 version to help with recoil more

[@wallythewondercorncake8657]

Never served but I'm British and know quite a few vets and they all loved the FAL

[@olekzajac5948]

@@spartacusrebellion7099 Who else is returning to a higher caliber? China is still using the 5.8×42mm (or whatever they use, I don't remember), Soviets were experimenting with some crazy high pressure 6mm in late 80s, but it went nowhere and today Russia sticks to the 5.45×39mm.

[@rm5902]

Steyr what. ? Aug. ?

[@melsilva9158]

I read an article in G&A that stated the primary reason for switching to the 6.8 was to split the difference between the 5.56 and the 7.62. this allowed an operator to reach out and touch something beyond the 500m mark that was a particular problem they were facing in desert operations. The 7.62 was capable of 800m in the right hands and the 5.56 was just ineffective beyond 500m. Admittedly, this could have been a puff piece article, but that is the way it was presented.

[@syedemtiazhossain7384]

I really loved the general dynamics RM277 rifle, it was really awesome rifle I hope it made a comeback.

[@afd19850]

I am really not a fan of bullpups but I had to agree! Lighter ammo and short package but still keeping that longer barrel length. I imagine it came down to cost and manual of arms.

[@625098evan]

@@afd19850, long term wont SIG's hybrid ammo cost more? it now has more parts, and more different materials, meaning more material and assembly costs.

[@afd19850]

@@625098evan Sorry I meant it cost more than GD. Its obviously more expensive than any current system

[@PitFriend1]

I’m actually wondering how this change will affect NATO. NATO likes to have weapons using the same ammunition to make supply easier. I wonder if the alliance will also eventually switch to the 6.8mm once the US does just like they did the 7.62mm and then to the 5.56mm.

[@TheBucketSkill]

Can we not do this with all the NATO paperwork and pressure going on? Let's standardize important things, like fighting vehicles. This is really irrelevant to waste money on.

[@foxmcld584]

@@TheBucketSkill I would think ammo commonality would be more important than vehicle commonality. You're going to need more ammo supplies much quicker than spare parts for a specific vehicle, for instance. I can see the value in matching both, but I feel like situations where soldiers could share ammo would come up far more often than vehicles needing to work off the same supply chain.

[@GiantJanus]

@@TheBucketSkill Standardizing ammo is very important.

[@Ulvetann]

This puzzles me a bit. I haven't heard a single word about any new NATO-standard on ammunition. What is the US up to now? Forcing the new caliber on Every other NATO-country? This is an odd decision.

[@foxmcld584]

@@Ulvetann It does make me curious if the US will start a direct push to get other nations to convert, or if they're just going to try to let the weapon's performance speak for itself. Though if Cappy is right and 5.56 remains the support troop caliber, there will still be a need for it, so there might be that.

[@cyberherbalist]

I enlisted in the US Army in 1975, and this made me perfectly capable of operating and field-stripping the Army's combat weapon to this day. But now they could hand me one of these, and I'd have to puzzle it all out like a noob. At age 70 I have arguably no need to learn this new weapon, but I'd love do it!!

[@TommygunNG]

Same training issue occurred at replacing the M14 with the M16. And sometimes it was almost reversed. Some National Guard units were still using M1 Garands as late as the 1970s (remember Kent State shooting). Imagine learning the M16 at Basic, then going to your unit and being handed that much more complicated--and HEAVY--relic. The truth is, as a 70yo civilian, you're probably not going to be running around the battlefield much. (I'm 51, and those days are already gone for me.) But the SIG CROSS bolt-action is available in the caliber, allowing for interoperability with military stocks in a "Militia" situation. Simpler to learn, and still effective in a set-position defense setting.

[@kevincoughlin4459]

@@TommygunNG The switch over from the M-14 to M-16 added 2 weeks to Basic training in 1970. It all started poorly, after 1 week of BRM we road marched to the range with our M-14 only to clean them and turn them in at the range. We were issued our M-16 qnd spent the next 8 hours in the blechers learning our new weapon. We spent the rest of the week at the 25 meter range trying to set the battlesight (no one understood how to do it, different instructors offered different advice and the range folks were clueless. The next two weeks were range weeks and it was a new CF each day. Back to the classroom to re-learn how to clean our weapons and then the range for BRM again. Most of the company qualified as "marksman" a few as "sharpshooter" and a handful as "expert". Some of us really took to that rifle and had a great deal of fun. The delay in Basic led to an additiona delay in AIT and then when we returned to our NG unit we found the M-1. Less than a year later the unit transitioned to the M-14 and spent an entire annual training period getting qualified on it. Then 8 months later we transitioned to the M-16. This time it was different. The unit got no instruction and no time for weapons qualification as we also converted from an Infantry unit to Mechanized Infantry. Weapon qualification came nearly a year later. We lived in interesting times.

[@cyberherbalist]

@@TommygunNG - "set-position defense setting", yes, I know about that one. "There's no point in running, because you'll only die tired!"

[@TommygunNG]

@@cyberherbalist I'd try to be a bit more optimistic. But I get the point.

[@Arkanj3l]

The issue of extra weight of the SIG Sauer over current platforms seems so underrated compared to the other platforms in the competition, particularly GD's entry. I wonder how their fighting performance compared point for point in a way which compensated for the extra weight. SIG also seems to have had more lobbying power over GD/Beretta.

[@dee-jay45]

I think an upgrade is well-warranted given the circumstances. My gut-feeling does say the XM5 might be a bit overkill. The sweet spot might be somewhere around 20% less weight/recoil/calibre

[@afd19850]

AR15 in 6mm ARC

[@giftzwerg7345]

we have to keep future armour developments in mind, this caliber is op, the psyicological effect will be deverstating, beeing slowed down by armour that doesnt protect against the enemys bullet, while you cant kill him.

[@carbon8ed]

@@duanemckinley9353 The army is smoking crack and trying to win an unwinnable arms race. Body armor has and will continue to outpace small arms development. There is going to have to be VERY significant advances in chemistry before the weapons side of that race even stands a chance. 6.8x51 was insufficient to pop modern body armor before it was even an idea on a whiteboard. Every other army in the world understands this and also understands that body armor isn't that big of a deal in the first place. 6 ARC would have been fine, reinventing the M14 is not fine.

[@johncena-hq1ti]

@@afd19850 not even as good 5.56 lol😂

[@VechsDavion]

1:30 NO NO NO NO. Deal Dash is a SCAM. Do not take their money... I am so disappointed...

[@brianhall4182]

If only there was a weapon that was light-weight, easy to maintain, easy to manufacture, could be converted to have a multitude of difference uses, fire ammo that defeated all possible enemy body armor, outrange any competitors, yet also be small and mobile enough to be used indoors, in many different environments, that was also accurate with little recoil. I'd call it the M1 Unicorn.

[@PsYDaniel]

It’s the Scar H

[@RosaParksWasWyt]

The mosin obrez

[@SoloRenegade]

M4 with a good optic comes pretty close. can penetrate body armor (5.56), low recoil, light, compact, easy to maintain, easy to mod, comes in many calibers and configs, accurate. With an advanced optic guys could be hitting well beyond 600m with it. I was hitting 450-500m in Afghanistan with EASE with the M4, Eotech, and a 3X flip away zoom. The 5.56 has also been shown to be able to hit man-sized targets beyond 1000yds by multiple people. Imagine the improvement in range average joe could get out of the M4 with this new optic attached.

[@shwethang4347]

@@SoloRenegade bro, hitting someone isnt the same as stopping power. the 5.56 is inadequate, literally ask any deployed soldier.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@shwethang4347 Most deployed soldiers are terrible shots, and blame the ammo for failing to hit the target. 5.56 has tons of "stopping" power. But, please explain, objectively, and scientifically, what you think stopping power is? And then explain why the 5.56 doesn't have it. I deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, fought as a front line grunt for years. The M4 worked just fine for us. We also had the M2 and 240B if we needed to reach out and touch someone. Or, we could get support for helicopters, artillery, marksmen, etc. I was hitting 500m with Ease in Afghanistan with my M4, and could have hit further if necessary. also, 5.56 penetrates body armor that will stop a 6.8, 7.62, etc.

[@tayzonday]

One limitation with this is that there’s no oversupply in the event that the Army were to need to field more than 250,000 infantry. What if the draft were reinstated and the Army tried to field two million infantry?

[@Ghost_of_Robespierre]

Chalk lit rein

[@sprice2719]

The Army would simply reintroduce the M4 rifles to the soldiers who were trained on it before the units phased in the xm.

[@MrNICOYA2009]

Just give me an old M1 Garand with 96 rounds, be fine in a trench!

[@psilobom]

We still have a stockpile of M4s and 556 ammo that well happily redistribute to the mobilized. The enlisted, trained combat infantry will get these new 6.8mm rifles, while logistics and other roles will get the old 556 carbines. We still even have m14s in limited numbers. We would go into full military production before that happens

[@NikoNoxious]

Tay!! my man!

[@greywolfarmory7336]

It will literally take years, maybe a decade, for the military to build enough ammo for strategic reserves to make this new cartridge widely available to soldiers for normal use. This change also throws a giant mega-monkey-wrench into NATO compatibility. Soldiers fielding an M5 will no longer be able to share ammo with our NATO counterparts. This is going to be a wild ride.

[@ghost-jesus]

The answer I see is for the rest of NATO to adopt the cartridge, I Forder this happening in modified FALs, FN MAGs, and PKM-like designs at least initially seeing as that's what a lot of NATO has experience with and armies tend to go with whatever is most similar to current known equipment kind of like how China continues to make pistols based on the C96 design 100 years after that design fell out of favor in the rest of the world.

[@garybrown422]

Excellent comment.

[@ghost-jesus]

Come to think of it the reason the rollout is scheduled to take ten years is likely because it would take that long to build up ammunition.

[@TheMylittletony]

@@ghost-jesus Good luck trying to convince the Dutch military to ditch their old c7's. The government doesn't even invest in proper maintenance, let alone switch to a whole new main weapon and ammo.

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

Sharing ammo has never been a real thing. Everyone brings their own ammo, and the few situations where forces comingle, people typically consolidate ammo to a few guys and the rest leave behind their guns and use local weapons. And let's be honest, 99% of NATO combat operations is just America with just a few other guys along for the ride. America really has no reason to worry about foreign compliance since they are essentially the sole player in the game.

[@zh3401]

I can say that engaging a enemy in open terrain (which we spent the last 20years doing) drove home the reality that a more powerful round was necessary. As a former infantryman I recoil more from claims that the more powerful caliber is unmanageable, particularly in automatic fire than I would from the actual rifle firing. Infantry personnel I fought with had far more challenges to be concerned over than recoil of the rifle. I would rather have 20 rounds of ammo that can reach out and get the job done beyond 500 meters penetrating helmets and some body armor than 30 rounds that cannot.

[@USN1985dos]

I disagree. I don't see how anyone can imagine clearing rooms or getting in and out of vehicles with this thing. That is much more common than long-range fighting in Afghanistan. Look at Ukraine. Most engagements are happening within 100 yards, and volume of fire, rather than stopping power, is what's most valued. Accurately engaging the enemy at 500 meters is the pipe dream of the flat range. They aren't going to stand there as you pop away.

[@danteprice1874]

Thank you a real soldier with real common sense i never served a day in the military but i see the same nonsense and i feel like its from smaller guys or guys that have these gun channels on youtube and they dont really know much more than the next guy firing his gun … appreciate you

[@danteprice1874]

@@USN1985dos this isnt a cqb weapon dip shit .. and soldiers will still keep the m4 platform based on the dossier. Mission specificstions will determine who snd what goes where. Simple logistics

[@USN1985dos]

@@danteprice1874 This is the opposite of common sense. It's taking on a host of drawbacks for two improvements (range/stopping power). It will make the day-to-day life of soldiers worse and negatively affect their ability to engage the enemy in close to medium ranges. As for experience, I spent years as a 13F (we direct artillery and mortar fire) attached to light and mechanized infantry companies.

[@danteprice1874]

@@USN1985dos you act like there aren’t other weapons in the arsenal for situations they never said theyre retiring the m4 mostlikely they will be in conjunction while the XM5 is a step toward the future. So i stand on what i said .. 5.56 should have never been our PRIMARY rifle round it should’ve replaced the mp5 snd the su machine gun role and still keep other operators equiped with dmrs lmgs and battle rifles like the xm5 … its common sense like i said.

[@Reign_Dropz]

We fight at much longer ranges now too. A lot of my infantry buddies agreed saying “the more range we put between each other the better chance I have that they don’t”

[@gone547]

Just stay home.

[@fightingbear8537]

I like the caliber, but I think the weight and rifle length may be a problem. I guess that the military could make a shorter version for close combat. Time will tell. I hope that it works.

[@azairman]

I agree that the 5.56 needs to be replaced but I think the caliber chosen is a mistake. They should have stuck to an intermediate caliber such as the 6.8 SPC or 6mm ARC which would have been a barrel and bolt change instead of buying a completely new rifle. Soldiers are already bogged down with heavy gear and equipment and now are getting a heavier weapon with a higher recoil and less ammo. Hopefully the XM5 will last longer than the M14.

[@SubBubz]

The machine gun is lighter though.

[@aker1993]

@@rhedges9631 5.56. shouldn't be replace but the 7.62 Nato is to replace the newer round

[@azairman]

@@SubBubz I don't have a problem with the machine gun. My concerns are with the rifle.

[@joelau2383]

@@aker1993 6.8 has no significant advantage over 7.62. It will be another 5.7 and 4.6 story.

[@johncena-hq1ti]

Neither of those rounds are penetrating rifle armor at 600+ meters. That’s what the US wants. Intermediate rifle cartridges are too weak for the armor capabilities of modern armies.

[@robertmccutcheon4103]

Technically this does not mean the m5 is going to happen. It only means sigs design is going to the final stage of the trial. At the end of this the army could still say no this rifle is not good enough and go back to modernizing the m4 instead. But we shall see

[@CiviTac]

And I hope they do. Could be wrong but a 20in 556 rifle almost fits the bill in an open field without having to add weight and an overpowered cartridge for the average infantryman.This rifle is being set up almost like a dmr, which makes sense. Is the new philosophy for all soldiers to be DMR? That's what it seems like

[@afd19850]

Thankyou! Too many weebs thinking the Army will get it next week!

[@afd19850]

@Dick Izzinya Everything lol

[@marcusfanning7513]

@@CiviTac I cannot agree more. and I keep losing my mind thinking about how the general dynamics bid had a recoil mitigation system that let it ACTUALLY FUNCTION AS A CARBINE. But hey a bribe is a bribe I guess lol *cough cough* look who also got the pistol bid with questionable reasoning *cough cough*

[@bradenmchenry995]

@@marcusfanning7513 nobody wants a bullpup they are fucking terrible. Short recoil ruins accuracy in a rifle and the general dynamics was way less reliable than the Sig

[@intruder313]

I only heard of this competition via you and as soon as I saw the competitors I knew that Sig were going to win - the other designs were not just risky but radical so really stood no chance when reliability and soldier opinions come into play! I just assumed they had a competition because they had to, and to ensure Sig did their best of course :)

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Yeah its pretty obvious that were going to be as conservative as possible with the choice, which sort of defeats the whole point of the program but it was always going to happen

[@commiecomrade2644]

Yeah changing out the MBR is inherently an insane undertaking I am surprised that they thought it was a good idea to be like HEY PICK US WE'LL make it even harder!

[@trsgringo]

As soon as I saw that SIG's President and CEO was Ron "Cohen", I knew they would get all the contracts for pistols, rifles, machine guns, ammo, mags, parts, everything. It's the only reason the military is doing all of this...to funnel money to an "Israeli".

[@kevinb.8649]

Polymer casings all so put a lot of extra heat into the barrels cause plastic is a insulator vs metal casings act as a heat sink absorbing and taking some of the heat from each shell fired with it when it’s ejected as well as allows the slide and receiver to all so disperse the heat like a heat sink vs putting it all into the barrel forward of the casing.

[@konradviii5663]

I think the main issue with the switch is that the US army decided to go for a full power round instead of an intermediate round.

[@GigaBrand]

What do you think the chance of them switching for a intermediate cartridge later is? They did it last time lol. Probably easier to scale things down than scale up.

[@oliverb.8995]

This is an intermediate round...

[@atomicbuttocks]

@@oliverb.8995 on the cusp of it but still passes

[@828enigma6]

Negative. Not with a 6.8 mm bullet with 80,000 chamber pressure it isn't. Make more sense to have used the 6.5 Creedmoor with a penetrator projectile.

[@cavemanbonk8320]

@@828enigma6 the round doesn't have 80,000psi of chamber pressure, the rifle is built to handle 80,000psi, in total power is in between 5.56 and .308 (7.62 NATO)

[@Userext47]

Lot of people commenting here are missing the point. 5.56 was good enough against insurgents in their daily clothes. 6.8mm is to fight peer to peer wars against trained soldiers in their ballistic armour. You don't get much close to the enemy in a peer to peer conflict to have rifle length be a problem. If you have the range advantage, you take the range advantage.

[@rick-potts]

At last. The number of posts whining about the increase I had to scroll through to get to this...Size matters. Think they missed a trick with lack of bullpup though - seems they could have higher cap mag and lighter rifle.

[@Zdobywczy]

Yeah, we already have 7.62x51 though. It still can't pen level IV body armor maybe with the exception of some crazy m993 or slap rounds that aren't issued commonly. I highly doubt the MCX spear will suddenly be able to punch through lvl 4 plates.

[@rick-potts]

@@Zdobywczy You gotta remember that 6.8 has higher MV and energy than 7.62 NATO...more similar to .300 magnum (7.62x68)... and apparently DOES penetrate lvl4 plates upto 600m. I'd take that stopping power in an AR deployed to all boots rather than rely on the single gimpy (and do we still share the burden of that 7.62 ammo around the section? :) )

[@noonecaresaboutgoogle3219]

Has there been MILES type laser tag training exercise at various ranges where one side has the reduced recoil, higher rate of fire and ammo of a 5.56, and another has the heavier, higher recoil 6.8x51, but hits to body armour count as kills? That might settle a lot of the questions.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@noonecaresaboutgoogle3219 it wouldn't because light cover would stop the laser while a 6.8 would penetrate more cover than 5.56 so it loses the advantage, while 5.56 also loses because the laser doesn't have the physical effects of bullets hitting cover and making people afraid to get out and line up a shot. There would also be issues with how many sensors per person are required, because you can hit someone with 5.56 in the gut, base of the neck, under the arm, etc.

[@robertschneider2366]

I'm concerned about carry fatigue considering weight of the weapon and ammo. Also fatigue during intense firefights. Many might not agree with me , but I think something like a .243 would have been a compromise. Heavier round good ballistics. 243 caliber (6.2mm) bullets. The . 243 is rimless, and uses a large rifle primer. Bullet weights generally range from 55 grains to 105 grains; the lightest bullets have an average muzzle velocity of very slightly over 4,000 feet per second.

[@brettsnow6510]

Sorry, I did not scroll down far enough until after i commented. My thoughts exactly!! Its a hot round. so they might have to experiment to get longer lasting barrels.

[@roybaty4785]

What's with foreign rifles? US can't make a rifle good enough for the little Army crybabies? My Rock River AR-15 should be good enough.

[@danielrobertson2154]

@@roybaty4785 it's All in the name of honoring the global order. The US is the military branch of the order, but they are not the leader. You'd laugh if someone told you who the real power is. And it's not Israel or Russia. The powers that oversee the progress of the US have gone to great lengths to give the people of America the illusion that this is an independent nation with independent interests, but that is meant to be a relatively short lived ruse. We are all being slowly shown the true nature of this part of the beast. Soon America will openly give our power along with all the other nations to this small nation, who once ruled the world by fear, and caused all who would not bow to her authority to be killed, using the means of local governments to carry out the punishments she handed down. She received a deadly wound to her influence for a short time, however, by no small part played by the United States, this small nation has been slowly given her clout back, and uses the great United States as her sword, in secret, unless you know what groups and clubs to look at. My point is, the US turns more to foreign manufacturers to appease the global order and their leaders, ensuring these faithful nations are rewarded for their service to the Mother.

[@morrius0757]

@@roybaty4785 Against modern body armor, it's not. That's the entire reason for the change, 5.56 just doesn't cut it anymore. Why they didn't just go with a more powerful round in the same package I do not know, but we all know the Army higher ups aren't the most intelligent bunch.

[@Wozrop]

Its the US military, they don't have to shop to what exists, they can literally just customize the round to do whatever they want

[@DCIagent]

The Lake City Army Ammunition plant is located in Independence, Missouri (just east of Kansas City), not Utah. It opened in 1941 and is the main supplier of small arms ammo for the Department of Defense. Although it is government owned, it is operated by a private contractor under close supervision by DoD and works with other related private companies in arms and ammo development.

[@CiviTac]

I think this is a huge mistake. The average infantryman having a full powered cartridge plus a heavier rifle wont make things better. I hope I'm wrong but it sure sounds like a dmr rifle, not a standard infantry rifle. Do we think SOG guys will think this is good for urban combat? Their take will be interesting

[@burddog0792]

Funnily enough the rifle was designed for the DMR replacement which H&K won. Sig slapped a 13" barrel on it, loaded it with super hot ammo, and called it a day.

[@SigurdStormhand]

Well, 6.8mm is close to the old .280 British/7mm the FN FAL was originally designed for. This is not a "full power cartridge" like the 7.62mm, it's an intermediate one - just bigger than 5.56mm.

[@frankmcgarry3155]

@@SigurdStormhand 80,000 psi is not intermediate lol

[@vanguard6505]

Will M I totally agree with your opinion. Hi Tech equipment is good until it no longer works. Marksmanship training and the usefulness of backup sights are also important.

[@orlock20]

The South Koreans have a rifle that weighs almost as much as a M60. However, it can do some fancy things such as shooting a programmable 20mm air burst round. Every South Korean trooper has that capability.

[@danielrobertson2154]

I've always thought the 6.5 and 6.8 were superior to both the 556 and 7.62, but we'll see how it plays out in practice.

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Same here. And I prefer the 6.5 Grendel.

[@chrisw2907]

6mm Is really good. 6mm ARC particularly. I penetrated ar550 1/4 plate with it. Something the 556 hot rounds and 308 even 6.5 Grendel cannot do will have light recoil almost as light as 5.56 and you can run a 55 to 105gr bullet and they rip pretty good. Although the 80000 psi chamber pressure is going to blow anything out of the water. They must have one hell of a rifle to run that stuff, to mitigate the power felt by the user.

[@ghost-jesus]

@@chrisw2907 7.62x51 M80A1 EPR already pens Level IV, The 6.8x51 just does it with less recoil and more closely matches the optimal bullet weight for a human target which is best met by 110-120 grain projectile which is perfectly met by 6.5mm. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIHQhpyhjKp6ndk

[@terrencecox3748]

@@chrisw2907 I love 6ARC, but tell us EXACTLY what 6ARC round and barrel you were using and what plate? I'd love to know. Velocity kills armor! And I don't think anybody is pushing 6ARC to those kinds of speeds in 16" to 18" barrels.

[@chrisw2907]

@@terrencecox3748My Barrel is a 20in Faxon Match in a AR15. And the round is a 55 grain sierra blitzking in front of 32 grains of Benchmark. I was. Amazed when I first did it. And keep in mind this is around 25 to 30 yards

[@joejankoski8471]

I thought part of the reason for the earlier changes in ammo type was to be more compliant with other NATO forces (so in a pinch you could use rounds given or found from other countries on the battlefield). At least that was how I remember them pitching the change from the M1911 (.45 cal) to the 92F (.9mm) pistol. Are other NATO forces making this switch to larger caliber rifle ammunition as well?

[@bigdickkillerofliberals8333]

Non American countries relying on America got it.

[@peterroe2993]

Maybe, the UK for one seems fairly unhappy with their rifle and are looking to replace it in 2025.

[@peterroe2993]

@Lurch7861 Thank you cadet. Did you happen to use any other battle rifles during your time in the social club?

[@killinspecialist1965]

@Lurch7861 its not creedmoor thats 6.5 this is .227fury 6.8

[@captnwinkle]

@Lurch7861 lol Putin? You mean Xi

[@dcmueller]

Biggest issue I see with the optics is power. We rarely had enough batteries to power most of the systems we had available when we were down range😊

[@bw1357]

Perhaps it needs a hand crank power option

[@miming3679]

Maybe if you put it in a camp fire it will recharge

[@michaels5210]

My THEORY is they looked at combat data(especially over long range) and found that more accurate fire rather than sheer volume of fire was more effective at suppressing an enemy. Especially if that more accurate fire can possibly defeat modern body armor

[@c.j.3404]

I would really love to see the data, sense what we have in public domain doesn’t support that at all.

[@michaels5210]

@@c.j.3404 like I said…. It’s JUST a theory. I have no concrete evidence to support this lol.

[@c.j.3404]

@@michaels5210 no I believe it i gust don't think the army has any data to back it up. Because it wouldn't say that every soldier a designated marksman isn’t good idea.

[@jcspoon573]

This has been known since after Vietnam, and thus the push for more accurate fire vice "spray and pray".

[@c.j.3404]

@@jcspoon573 vetnam showed that infact more bullets is better for suppression, and nothing thats happened afterword has shown it to be different.

[@Murphy82nd]

It's great that the optic can take into account ballistic calculations, but the service member still has to press a trigger and a poorly pressed trigger can certainly result in a miss at 800 yd.

[@simonsundy518]

I can totally foresee a hell of a lot of flinching due to that recoil if they intend to cut marksmanship training.

[@Murphy82nd]

@@simonsundy518 agreed. The assumption here seems to be that if you equip a service member with an optic, rifle, and cartridge that can reach out to 800 yd then getting a hit is a given. But there is still a person in the loop and it takes solid marksmanship fundamentals to get a hit on a man sized target at 800 yd, even with magnification. I’m not opposed to adding capability, but you need individual skill to go with that capability and developing that skill takes training.

[@isaacsolomon9908]

@@Murphy82nd Some times it isn't about getting hits, its the effect of being under a concentrated and rapid stream of fire, that is accurate enough that will cause your unit to duck for cover, thus pinning you down, from there the infantry can call for fire on stationary target. Its also, as was found by US troops in Afghanistan, that being under fire from an enemy which you can't effectively shoot back at is incredibly demoralizing and changes your operational and tactical planning.

[@deansmits006]

And?

[@Anenome5]

This kind of rifle could likely be fitted with an electronic trigger that lets the optic control firing. Pull the trigger and the round doesn't fire until the optic green lights it. You don't need that capability on day one, but it will be there eventually.

[@KC_Smooth]

Can’t imagine trying to take 4 accurate consecutive shots down a hallway with all that recoil. That’s why I liked the GD bullpup bid with the reciprocating barrel to help mitigate recoil. If the Sig rifle bid had a similar recoil system to their MG, I’d be more excited.

[@acctsys]

I knew Sig was going to win because it's the safest bet. The recoil and weight advantage will be missed.

[@Clockwork0nions]

This says more about your lack of marksmanship than it does about the XM5.

[@dashikashi4734]

@@Clockwork0nions Fudd talking point. This is about as useless a rifle as the M14. Terrible decision made by the DOD.

[@dashikashi4734]

@Dick Izzinya The M14 was a new rifle. If a new rifle is adopted without consideration for modern combat, it is fudd shit. We aren't fighting in Afghanistan anymore, and there is very little evidence that this round would perform effectively enough against armor to justify the adoption of an 8.3 pound (naked) rifle. The other programs offered much more substantial, meaningful options to procurement. GD offered a new cartridge for literally every small arm in current use, and Textron offered a light, innovative round and weapons system. Instead, what we got is an AR-10 with a stupidly high chamber pressure that offers no significant change to anything. As I said, M14 of the modern age. It was literally chosen because of the fudd fear of actual innovation.

[@SoloRenegade]

I was hitting 450-500m in Afghanistan with EASE with the M4, Eotech, and a 3X flip away zoom. The 5.56 has also been shown to be able to hit man-sized targets beyond 1000yds by multiple people. Imagine the improvement in range average joe could get out of the M4 with this new optic attached. 5.56 also penetrates body armor.

[@jasonarmstrong5750]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If the army really wanted to bridge the gap between 5.56 and 7.62 they should’ve designed a 48mm long cartridge case, 10.8mm wide at the rim tapering down to 10.25mm at the shoulder. Throw that together with a 6.6mm steel core bullet and you’d get better penetration against body armor and better effective range without a huge increase in weight or recoil compared to the 6.8x51. But they just had to half ass it and say “well we need to cut costs for this project. Those 7.62 bolts are still good, let’s design a cartridge around that”

[@cameronsmith2928]

i said it first

[@ralphiesrevenge8943]

Great video very informative. I like the general dynamics bid the best the idea of having the bulllpup which is short but still have the barrel length and they even would do barrel swaps for the current machine guns. That is way simpler in terms of logistics because now they need to keep current equipment then also have add the spear, machine gun, and the short spear. General dynamics would be one new platform and barrel conversions and the lighter weight ammo is a big seller, the sig is heavy and then you got heavy ammo not a good combo. Also looking at the video it appears the general dynamics has way less recoil would love a good comparison with recoil and ballistics.

[@dk418]

I think this is a mistake. Success of this project hinges on not just the successful production of XM5, but also successful development of the scope. It has too many contingencies and dependencies - historically these kind of projects fail more often than not. But, I hope for the best.

[@codyerickson3550]

That scope is just begging for issues. It’s far too complicated to be conscript proof. Which, say what you will about ACOG’s and Aimpoints, but at least any idiot can figure out how those work.

[@Verbose_Mode]

Development is _done,_ at this point. The issue is going to be if the on-paper matches the reality, and if you can hand a ~10k$ scope to a grunt without them breaking it.

[@damienthimonier4900]

In our time of urban warfare, it's clearly a mistake.

[@1nfamyX]

You forgot to mention the 80,000 psi. For reference, most large caliber magnum revolvers operate at like 55,000-60,000 psi to get heavy bullets accelerating fast in their shorter handgun length barrels.

[@praporbarton3961]

Actually General Dynamics offered a conversion kit for the M240 to be compatibile with 6.8 polymer case. So they had a GPMG

[@jadger1871]

@E he wrote M240, not M249. the barrel on a M240 is twice as long as the XM5's.

[@aizseeker3622]

@@duanemckinley9353 Bruh do you expect Army have money to replace all M240 after wasted billions on other programs.

[@lqr824]

11:05 hey Cappy, putting these weapons to scale would help us non-military understand better. But I have to say, probably thanks to your background, this channel is at its best talking infantry.

[@bryanrocker5033]

The sole reason for the change to the 6.8 was for the armor penetration at range. Nothing more nothing lest. This big rifle will fail at short range/urban conflicts. It will be to heavy. On a side note, the higher the pressure the faster the wear is, you can't get around it. They should have just made a new upper assembly for the M4 that would shoot the bigger rounds, Oh wait, they are commercially available. Some General is going to be rich when he retires.

[@mannyharris524]

Them general 's will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[@darkiee69]

Yeah, cause a part made for civilian use will survive a military test... 🤔

[@lewisgann280]

@@darkiee69 most reputable civilian brands are better than military gear. “Made by the lowest bidder”

[@tylerclayton6081]

Is there any evidence of corruption in the US military? Because I have never seen any at all. There aren’t any US generals with super yachts. That would be easily traceable as the US is very open with their military contracts. Why suggest there is corruption in the US without providing any real evidence or example of it. You don’t become the world’s greatest economy and country by being corrupt. Corruption takes away money and capabilities

[@bryanrocker5033]

@@tylerclayton6081I have watched General's spend money on pet projects, to the tune of over 1B. The only thing it did other than waste money was build a tool control program that already existed. When the General retired, so did the program. High ranking military and civilian people get CEO positions when they leave the service. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[@paulblart5358]

I personally would train with the new and old variants to get a more accurate data on its long-term efficiency with the new weapons. If one shows a lot of issues depending on terrain and conditions, then switch to the older weapon.

[@paulblart5358]

@@reosavant5769 Surely you know your history and you've heard of General Vegetius and their famous phrase of "If you want peace, prepare for war." If there were no global threats then Education, lowering the cost of living, and health care would become a priority.

[@paulblart5358]

@@reosavant5769 Wars are done for many reasons, like religeon, territory, resources, expansion, ideology, financial gain, power demonstration...ect. I'm not sure what you mean by a social construct. War has been around for a long time and have been waged for millenniums. In the ancient days they pillaged villages left and right because to one faction the other faction was considered inferioror to them, it could be due to one faction thinking their diety was superior, it could be because ones defenses were inadequate enough, or because someone had better technologies for war. There are many reason why people battle. In today's world its mostly for resources, trade, and ideology. We're seeing a rise in Marxist-tribalism ideologies which if you've read the Communist Manifesto creates groups by basic classification such as wealth class, race, gender, or negative labels and uses them and as a divide and conquer strategy to destabilize and conquer other factions through corruption and gradual institutional takeovers. This would be covert warefare. Today we also see trade as a form of covert warfare. That's why we see countries trying to dominate the oil space like Putin and the EU. The reason Putin my be doing this fom of overt (operation in Ukrain) and covert warfare is ideology(rebuilding the soviet empire) and expansionism. Every war has it reasons. Wars won't ever go away. The only thing you can do is be stronger then others to deter them from attacking. Which is why that Roman generals phrase is so important. Romans were not good people. They were brutal barbarians. However, learning from history you learn what works to prevent or be safe from wars. It would be extremely naive to believe people would not fight each other. It's like you trying to share a game console with your siblings, an argument breaks out and there is a fight. The same logic applies scaled up with power. Nations argue and they fight. It's unfortunate but that reality. You're either prepared for it, or you get taken over. There are many nations and civilizations that have come and gone due to war; including the Roman empire. No civilization lasts for more than 200 years. Even the US is coming up around 200 years. So this might be the downfall of the US. It could be infiltrated and taken over from within and another nation will take it over and the US will exist no more. That's why learning history is important. From what it seems with Marxist infiltration right now, this is the likely case. Many people in the US don't travel and they think the laws here are the same everywhere else. They are not, countries have different laws, constitution and cultures. I highly recommend people to travel to see what the rest of the world is like. People will tell you what you can and cannot do. If you visit the middle east, things you say can get you killed. You have to watch what you say. Don't believe me, travel and learn about the realities of the real world. I've traveled to many countries already and even though I'm not glued to the US, I still love what it offers. You don't get a lot of things that the US has in other countries around the world.

[@lilal8848]

@@paulblart5358 Well said. I have to say though I don't have any interest in traveling but I know that other countries are different from ours. I have read about different countries, about their cultures and laws so that way I don't become ignorant to the rest of the world.

[@jonathanpark7658]

Look at that recoil. This decision is on par with the beret, Velcro everything and that fancy acu cammo they made us wear so we would really stand out in those pictures.

[@SirBillyMcSilly]

Everyone cries about the recoil and weight and it isn't even that bad. If you can't hack it, don't be combat arms

[@jonathanpark7658]

@@SirBillyMcSilly everyone fatigues. Everyone will have trouble with fast follow up shots in comparison to a lighter recoiling system. Be stronger is a nice idea but I routinely carried over 100lbs of kit, how much more can any of us really handle over days of fighting, days of running 10-20 miles in that kind of gear. The question is by adding even more weight to a solider, what will it do to overall combat effectiveness. Human bodies can only carry so much weight effectively. The break down of a soliders body will force them out of the military at faster rates. We already have a recruitment problem. I hope that it's the right decision for all our sakes.

[@SirBillyMcSilly]

@@jonathanpark7658 follow up shots is where this weapon system definitely loses out but a better, much more advanced optic with better ballistics should balance it out for that short window you have to put rounds on target. As for weight, our forefathers ran with not much less weight in worse gear without all the advantages modern day equipment, medicine, and physical training affords us. Science and recent decades of on the ground know how is allowing us to push the envelope even further. I know the US military doesn't always get it right but I don't think they'd be making the huge switch to 6.8 without some careful consideration of what future conventional conflicts will require, time will tell.

[@jonathanpark7658]

@@SirBillyMcSilly I'm not sure our forefathers actually had heavier kit. It's my understanding that during WW2 they carried between 60-75 lbs of gear to include weapons and ammo etc. Now a normal load is considered 100lbs and up to 200lbs is done. Marine core times talked about 150lbs for 9 miles. Even 200lbs soliders and marines could be asked to double their body weight. I think the focus on physical fitness is why we can do it. I just don't know how long we could keep it up. I've seen all kinds of injuries from the weight on fit troops. I hope the army is right. I like the increase capability, I just think the cost in overall weight is going to hurt. Maybe they could focus on lightening up other gear to compensate. Time will tell.

[@tumultoustortellini]

General dynamics: We present a rifle that has a longer barrel length for less total length for possible urban combat, new age ammunition that has no danger of cook-off and better energy transfer and is lighter, and also extends combat range by 300 meters for those other possible modern battlegrounds. Despite the different design, it's only as complicated to take apart as the average m4 already in service. Sig: M4 but bigger 👍 Army: M4 but *bigger?* Bravo!🤝

[@jaysonpida5379]

Excellent analysis. Imo the Army has made an excellent decision that 'looks' far into the future of troop warfare where 'average' Amercian soldiers will be meeting other 'average' soldiers 'en masse' on the battlefield. Obviously SOF teams or missions that require speed & extreme mobility will use THEIR own specialty weapons. Looks like the Army will have to program mandatory 'upper-body-strength' training into their soldiers weekly schedules to properly cope with these heavier/more powerful weapons, new body armor & comm/computer systems.

[@Taskandpurpose]

thanks for watching much appreciated ! agreed I think the army is really looking ten twenty years out and trying to prepare for that eventuality and that reality instead of solving todays problems. It will be interesting to see if they keep some 5.56 mm rifles around in regular platoons or not

[@heavyassaultmode1503]

One tactic that got old fast was having to put half an M4 magazine into a target to neutralize it. Why would anyone want to replace the M240? It works. 7.62x51 is an effective battle-proven round. Used thousands in combat. Effective vs targets at 800m. Wouldn't want to roll with anything else. If 6.8 is just as good, great.

[@DonMeaker]

M240 is heavy and has shorter range than 7.62x54R PKU. Add in the expectation that body armor will soon stop the M240 bullets, and there is motivation for change .

[@sirt_t2171]

240 jams so often though…

[@DonMeaker]

The proper use of the M-4 was to shoot at suspected enemy locations, pinning them down, as you adjusted fire, or maneuvered to their flanks and rear. When combat shifted into zones with civilian populations (equiped with video cameras) that tactic became obsolete. With a hostile JAG corps, if you expended 7 rounds, the best defense was to have 7 dead Tangoes, and the M-4 isn't the best for that situation. Like the .45 cap and ball revolver that a lady carried while camping in national parks, the M-4 is as good now at doing what it was supposed to do as ever it was, and perhaps better.

[@Arkanj3l]

@@DonMeaker My guess is that they are going to try and use superior intel capabilities to compensate for having smaller mags = less ability to fix enemies in place. Either that or have more members in the squad using the XM250

[@SaanMigwell]

because now the SAW and the 240 use the same cartridge. We'll see if it works.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

With modern technology, even for ground forces, they can engage the enemy at far greater distances. That would require a heaver projectile traveling at greater speed to reach that further distance and still make a killing or disabling impact. And like you stated, body armor will make larger faster moving projectiles to make at least a disabling hit. The same advanced technology has made recoil absorbing material on the butt stock a lot better as well.

[@adamparker9765]

Or a better bullet with improved ballistic co efficient , like the 6.5 cm .They could have used that with a steel penetrator and made the ammunition cheaper and lighter with a rifle thats either lighter or have less recoil . They are putting a lot of faith in the scope and the barrels ability to not wear out . Time will tell. Also who is to say the enemy are going to be able to be engaged further out . That depends on the terrain.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Those ranges don't exist on a major conventional battlefield, much less close terrain and urban combat. Not even in the desert. The IDF Soldiers dropped their FALS for AKs in 1967 and 1973. The IDF went to 5.56x45mm. The desert IS NOT flat. There are always folds and creases which can provide cover. Even with optics the average Soldier can't hit a one second human sized target much over 350 meters. Long range is for MGs, especially GPMGs on tripods, along with mortars and artillery for indirect fire.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

@@michaelsnyder3871 If you are in the middle of active combat operations, yes. But that does not mean you can not accurately fire at distances greater than 350 meters (1,155 feet) if you have the experience and time to calculate the distance and time to aim. Something you can do if you are in a position to ambush an enemy from a distance. The 5.56×45mm NATO round can penetrate 3.5mm of mild steel at over 600 meters. The OOW240 GPMG fires a 7.62 x 51mm NATO round with a maximum range of 3,725 meters and an effective range of 1,100 meters when mounted on a tripod for stability. And as is true of any machine gun, it is more a matter of sending lots of projectiles down range to hit a target than it is accuracy.

[@deechristensen7527]

Love the discussion. I spent some time studying the weight vs lethality issue back in the 80s. Only in a few cases did the Army concern itself with turning it's light infantry into pack mules. I admire the Ranger's advice to get "stronger", but it is of course nonsense. I also wonder outside of the desert when the light infantry will engage at 800 meters and wether an increase in indirect fire support capability would be a better answer. In any case, if you want increased range and lethality, weight is the price you pay. Now someone start thinking of better ways of weight redistribution. My old boss and I recommended a hand pulled golf cart for extra anti- tank rounds and we were laughed at. Not manly or wooah. Lol

[@landonmarx4753]

The have drones that can follow you. They have motorized golf carts. Link the two and you have a personal support vehicle. Short of this maybe they train dog to carry some of the load.

[@jBKht931]

The golf cart idea 👍. At Camp Perry for the Nationals 20 years ago I pulled all my gear in my kid's Red Ryder wagon. I got. Plenty of looks from the guys with the $250 custom range carts. I wonder how many shooters are using wagons now, if any at Perry?

[@Fightosaurus]

Mistake or not, I want one.

[@zoch9797]

This is the answer

[@messagesystem333]

Ammo is $80 a box of 20 rounds if you can even find it.

[@hanhtooaung1618]

For me, Textron's CT round is the revolutionary one. Also its rifle and its mechanism.

[@logankent5865]

I think GD did much more innovation for a future weapons and soldiers than either other when it came to weapon and ammo.

[@ahsanyasin8980]

Textron's bid had too many new technologies which are not battle proven yet, i think thats why it wasn't selected.

[@nckogle1]

Textron’s entry was a revolution of small arms ammunition. True Velocity’s entry was the next evolution in small arms ammunition, being supplanted in the future only by a more mature Textron ammo, or when we get frickin lasers. Sig’s entry was a cheap trick and hack job to fit a short magnum in an AR platform. And the army will experience all the problems associated with that.

[@logankent5865]

@@nckogle1 I honestly think some one is in sig's pocket for the army to have adopted only sig products is all too convenient. I also think that GD delivered an all around better package than both other competitors in both ammo and weapon platform even the 240 barrel conversion to fire the true velocity ammo was genius way to save lots of money for the defense budget.

[@Clockwork0nions]

@@logankent5865 You’re on some good stuff if you think SIG can “have people in their pocket” at anywhere near the ability of these huge, establishment defense giants like Textron and General Dynamics. SIG isn’t even worth as much as a single division in either of those companies.

[@aleksastankovic4808]

I was hoping for general dynamics rifle, it was the best of all of the three competitors, but guess they have choosen it because of small diferences in manufacturing rounds and other parts.

[@crouthfurniture9817]

Isn’t that the bull pup one

[@wolverinexo6417]

Well, we don’t know all the details, so we can’t really say for sure which one was truly “best”.

[@Legalizeasbestos]

I thought General Dynamics was cool but too much of a change. Army generally just wants the same thing they already have but better, SIG understands that and is blowing the competition out of the water in these contracts.

[@fastestfail2645]

I'm pretty sure sig was the best that's why they won.

[@aleksastankovic4808]

@@Legalizeasbestos Yeah I completely agree with you, its a completely new system and army probably wanted as little changes as possible. Plus they didnt have a machine gun design so having two companies for every firearm is a bit complicated. I was convinced that sig will win because of these aspects

[@davefellhoelter1343]

As a lover of old and new. I love the 6.5 Swede! smaller than 30 06 and 308/7.62, shoots flat as Hell, hits like a 30 06 or 7.62. FMJBT 147 grn, couple hunded FPS faster too, as "I recall? First shots I ever did in the mid 90's with a 1896 6.5 Swede Mauser was about 250 yrds at an abandon old ford twin I beam suspension, fliped out in the Mojove. Darn thing went though the I beams back to back, rims and tires from all directions LIKE a DRILL PRESS! never dimpled the outer impact? Just perfect holes. Gotta wounder what a new Swede 6.5 could do?

[@Ariccio123]

Not gonna lie, little disappointed they didn't go with the polymer cased ammo. Seeing you put your finger in the chamber after firing alone blew my mind. Hearing other things (like less fouling) also sounded great...

[@Legalizeasbestos]

That will come along eventually I’m sure! Give it 10 years.

[@homijbhabha8860]

Sig lobbying maybe?

[@bl8danjil]

@@homijbhabha8860 Probably...they are becoming the Lockheed Martin of firearms.

[@ShooterMedic1818]

Wont be long and we'll have it.

[@bradenmchenry995]

@@homijbhabha8860 bullpups are doa

[@mygodsbleed]

I wonder if the Army hasn’t shot themselves in the foot, pun intended, going with Sig instead of GD. If the intention was to reduce the training needed for the switch, I feel the obvious lean into different tactics in the field and a bigger main weapon might cause some issues. If they wanted long range engagement AND mobility, then the bullpup would serve better regardless if it took a bit more reload drills. On that note, let the Marines and Navy have the bullpup, since mobility and confined spaces are kind of their thing.

[@alexwalker2582]

Agreed. More reload drills would be FAR preferable to trying to swing that giant thing around in the close confines of a ship.

[@mecampbell30]

My guess is that it's the round that won the competition. Apparently the hybrid round has even more room for increased pressure. And you only need to slightly modify your manufacturing process rather than stand up a whole new polymer production line. Metal casings also help act as heat sinks for the weapon.

[@jesseterrell2109]

Marines already switched to the hk16 essentially

[@linmal2242]

All us AUS have a home-grown version of the Steyr in 5.56 as personal weaps. 7.62 in bigger blunderbusses!

[@neniAAinen]

Let's not forget the elephant in the room here. Sig is far more useful in a bayonet charge.

[@colonel__klink7548]

I am skeptical about claims "it's to defeat armor." A modern ceramic plate will stop 7.62 NATO. So the new 6.8 won't penetrate with the initial shot. What has a chance against ceramics however is repeated hits, rapid fire. Which of course is the opposite of the way the army is going. The army has a weapon with more energy and reach at the expense of rapid fire as opposed to the ideal against armor of getting as close as physically possible and pouring rapid fire into the target. In a very real sense even a P90 with dinky little 5.7 rounds has serious potential (on paper) if defeating armor is the primary objective.

[@crumply5959]

Getting hit with a 30 cal round even in body armor that can stop it. You will get knocked down. I mean look at the footage of the us army soldier that got shot in the plate in iraq. He got knocked tf down. He survived though. 556 will still kock you down despite wearing body armor though and i think we should keep the 556.

[@TommygunNG]

It's not simply a matter of diameter. Video mentions 80K PSI pressure. The new composite casings allow for lightweight ammo with that higher power.

[@colonel__klink7548]

@@crumply5959 the surprise knocked him down. The physics aren't there. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the recoil doesn't knock the shooter down it won't have the energy to actually knock the target down. You can find footage of some crazy Italian organization testing rifle plates with a live human being wearing it right here on KZbin. Point blank 7.62x39. Rocks him a little hit that's it and he doesn't even take a braced stance.

[@colonel__klink7548]

@@TommygunNG the energy is greater than the 5.56 but it's not going to penetrate the incredibly hard ceramic armor even if it matches a .308 which is the point. A sapi plate is rated to defeat .30-06 (4000 joules of energy vs 3500 for the .308) armor piercing round. The ceramic weakness is repeat hits. It is almost guaranteed to survive the first impact but it's integrity degrades the more you hit it.

[@TommygunNG]

@@colonel__klink7548 My point was simply that it's about more than diameter.

[@BlaulingHD]

So it’s interesting. A German fireteam is usually equipped with G36s and the Teamleader with the G27. Wich is kind of a dmr on a m4 base. We also use 3 types of mgs at the same time (we are slowly sorting the old ones out): MG3,Mg4,Mg5

[@bondibeachcom]

Back in the day, I used the old 7.62 SLR and boy was that an awesome rifle. By comparison an M16 was like a child's toy.

[@SalveMonesvol]

They went too far. There was a need for something in between the 5.56 and 7.62. this is 90% of a 7.62. I am also doubtful about chamber pressures above 65k psi. Soon we will see them introducing some new caliber with about 1/2 the energy of 6.8 so that it can be used in full auto.

[@hunterh7026]

Yea 80k? Ill stand back and watch someone else shoot one

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

The STRONG issue here is the WEIGHT of the fully-loaded rifle. When you are carrying a burden over a long distance, every gram counts. How will the increased weight affect soldier performance? Missing specifications: Muzzle velocity Bullet mass Case diameter Weight of complete cartridge Size of magazine

[@waltertomashefsky2682]

"The army went for overkill." A lot better than underkill if you’re in combat.

[@codyerickson3550]

I have a feeling this rifle will go the way of the M14 and the Army will go “How do we upgrade the M4 some more?” instead. I also see a lot of logistics issues arising from this new round as well. And lastly, going from a rifle that’s 33 inches long and about 8 lbs fully equipped to a rifle that’s 38 inches long and 13 lbs while fully equipped is a terrible idea. Especially when you remember on how Army infantrymen (particularly during the Iraq War) complained about how the M16A2 and A4 rifles were too long and heavy.

[@crazyfvck]

@Cody Erickson I think the idea might be to move towards a more mechanized infantry, with guys on the ground covering less distance on foot. But who knows :P Only time will tell how this all works out.

[@peterjones4180]

Having used the L14A1 , we preferred it to the M16, which was issued to forward scouts, i think your NCO's, need to work on reducing the troops sense of privilege, you hump what you are given.

[@peternystrom921]

@@crazyfvck We tried this, and tried to sell it as a reality past 70 years. Not going to work and will never ever work. Like loose 2 APC and you are out of ammo for a few Squads, sounds like a terrible idea.

[@grendal113]

Everyone complains there craps heavy or to long....unless it's their dick.

[@codyerickson3550]

@@crazyfvck Even then who in the world would want to constantly get in and out of vehicles with a rifle that’s 3 and a half feet long and over 13 lbs? That was literally one of the biggest reasons why the Army switched from the M16A2/A4 to the M4, because getting in and out of vehicles with a rifle that’s long and bulky is a pain in the ass. Especially if you have to get in and out in a hurry.

[@shynsly01]

All I wanna know is: does this mean 5.56 will finally be available (at a reasonable price) in the civilian market again?

[@redenginner]

For a while,though the lack of manufacturers of the ammo after military contracts dry up will drive presses off.

[@theimmortal4718]

Well, you're not going to see "surplus" M855A1 on the market, ever

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

@@theimmortal4718 Surplus M855A1 has been on gunbroker since it was shipped out. There will always be surplus because there will always be batches of ammo that for whatever reason fail inspection and rather than burn it up, they send it to a munition recycling company that demills them and/or sends them to civilian buyers who then remanufacture or sell components. It's not cheap since it is an essentially monolithic bullet so you are paying "match grade" prices, but you can get it.

[@theimmortal4718]

@@DaveSmith-cp5kj No, it hasn't. That's not surplus. It's rounds stolen off of ranges by soldiers and sold for 2 bucks a round. That's like saying stolen rifles sold on the black market are "surplus"

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

​@@theimmortal4718 They aren't stolen rounds. This isn't like the PEQ-2 that has to be FDA approved for it to be sold to civilians, and so it can only be stolen. Pulled rounds is a necessary step in discarding bad lots and they are no longer ammunition once pulled. There are cases of M855A1 floating around. If they were stolen you would think the FBI would have been on it looking for that one dude with an ammo can in his back pocket. It's perfectly legal to own.

[@MrYoshiEggs]

Hey Cappy, it's been 4 weeks since your last update video on Ukraine. I really value your insight and ability to put things into perspective when analyzing the conflict. Hoping that you'll put out the next episode soon!

[@worldperspective5440]

Finally, a real cartridge, our 155 lbs grandfather's used the 30-06.

[@ZebraActual]

Personally I'm sticking with my archaic .308/7.62 caliber ammunition... works for both hunting as well as a defensive round.

[@billkaldem5099]

Amen

[@vasky22]

Usually a material solution for the Army is to solve a training deficiency, as the Army generally believes it is easier to buy a newer/better/faster system than to train better at using the old one. Now we have fielded a material solution to a problem (perceived penetration and range) that will require even more training. The real long pole in the tent here isn't hoping the system is reliable enough, it is whether the Army adapts training to reflect the need when using this new system. Army qual ranges are out to 300 meters. Hard to train to take advantage of that 800m range when you are never on a range that allows you to see the effects of weather and improper application of fundamentals of marksmanship.

[@strambino1]

I loved the M4 and rarely had any reliably issues, but the 6.8 seems like a practical move forward concerning body armor. I think it’s a good decision to switch.

[@gratefulguy4130]

Unless you ever need more than one shot. You might not get that follow up the same way an M4 does.

[@martinmiller1087]

@@gratefulguy4130 "When caliber is adequate, repeat shots are unnecessary," Elmer Keith.

[@martinmiller1087]

@ Paul Strambi ... "rarely had any reliability issues" implies the M4 had reliability issues.

[@micahdunleavy9227]

The initial gun sig is putting out has a 13 inch barrel and isn’t going through body armor at the velocities it’s going to put out… So I don’t get it at all..

[@dmctztv3842]

arent most xlevel plates able to stop the 6.8 round?

[@drewswanson2701]

Crazy part is the m240 is basically a belt fed version of the BAR that’s over 100yrs old. M2 machine guns also just as old and same designer.