heavier than an M14, ammo more powerful than 308, soldiers can only carry 140 rounds. Yet the army call this 6.8 intermediate.
Garbage rifle is being issued right now
heavier than an M14, ammo more powerful than 308, soldiers can only carry 140 rounds. Yet the army call this 6.8 intermediate.
The 6.8 would have been a great replacement for 7.62x51mm, but for 5.56mm it makes absolutely no sense to do so.
It makes sense when you consider that even modern armor can block 5.56, but not 7.62. While 6.8 is taking it a step further. It's just expensive, so are the suppressors, but it can destroy modern plate armor.
>destroy modern plate armor
If the previous rifles could not do that, they needed to be upgraded, there are even AR-15s that fire 7.62.
what.
modern armor can stop 7.62. Just depends on how you define "modern armor" and "7.62"
Modern armor can stop 6.8 as well. You need AP specific ammo to reliably defeat level 4.
they are not getting rid of 5.56mm NATO. they may side line 7.62, but not remove it entirely. the 6.8 is really an attempt to make a better penetrating marksman rifle. they also want to make every front-line infantryman a marksman.
Let's call it the Cohen rifle.
cope
You had one chance. The answer was right in front of you.
Will they still make the ammo?
Apparently, they're planning to release the ammo this summer.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/01/29/shot-2023-new-ammunition-true-velocity/
this was chosen on the real timeline.
President Trump is leading the blitzkrieg into Mexico with an army rocking these behind him in universe A.
What's stopping government, Sig, and General Dynamics from using the plastic ammo in the Spear?
I imagine it wouldn't take all that much to make them compatible.
The sig needs ammo loaded to retardedly high pressure to achieve the velocity required by the contract. That's why they're using a steel base. TV's polymer cases wouldn't handle that.
>America choosing a bullpup rifle for mass service
>ever
lol
You're right, they're babydicks that need a long rifle to show how manly they are.
moron it ran so cold it was the LMG. You could use the rifle itself for LMG roles with a drum mag, or their actual system was just to barrel swap existing LMGs. With just a barrel swap thr M249 and M60 could use their polymer cased 6.8, negating the need to buy anything new except the barrels, and give them opportunity to shoot out all their old ammo supplies. It would've saved taxpayers so much money. Corruption bought the Sig, simple as. But that's not to say fucking General Dynamics and Textron don't participate in corruption, Sig is just the newest ball player in the military industrial complex.
>drum mags
drum mags are so retarded that they've been abandoned by pretty much every military that's worth a damn. they're only good as range toys and in video games where weapon malfunctions aren't modeled.
>M249 and M60
the m249 is heavy as shit and inaccurate as hell, and just lol at using the m60 in the 21st century (or after the 70s for that matter)
nah, that shit sucks. they didn't even submit an lmg
They had their own m240 kit that used the plastic ammo, not sure if it was just a barrel change or other stuff too. But in the demo video the ammo ran very nice, and the chamber was cool to the touch after shooting a belt.
>chamber was cool to the touch after shooting a belt
What the... how? Does this mean the barrel is also cool? Revolutionary if true. Pencil barreled machineguns here we come
The plastic absorbs the heat much better than brass, leaving the chamber cool.
?t=481
this section of the video alone puts the TV ammo way above everything else.
>absorbs
While thermal mass would be nice, absorbing the heat would require high thermal conductivity, and not subsequently transfering heat to the chamber would then violate muh thermodynamics
forgive me my bro i am not a scientist
Plastic can be an incredible insulator. Brass less so. The barrels still got hot.
Plastic is an insulator and the heat doesn’t transfer to the chamber. The heat leaves when the casing is ejected.
Think grabbing rubber covered handles on a boiling pot vs exposed metal ones.
the m240 isn't suitable as fireteam-level weapon due to its weight. we're talking ~22lbs vs 14.5lbs
The program did not ask for an LMG. It asked for an "automatic rifle". The GD rifle was actually the most accurate interpretation of what the NGSW required, which was essentially a heavier version of the rifle with a focus on automatic fire.
Yup, NGSW-R was also deemed more important than the NGSW-AR, so the idea some anon's have been floating around that the program was primarily for the LMG is just plain wrong according to the original NGSW PPON.
get fucking real. everyone knows they weren't looking for a mag-fed ar.
all this says is that tv's rifle was shit or at the very least wasn't any better than sig's, leading to the ar being the deciding factor.
an lmg is just a better type of autorifle. there's a reason the autorifleman in us army and marine fireteams carry lmgs.
ultimately, tv were retards for not reading between the lines. the marine corps keeping all their m249s after getting the m27 should have been evidence enough that the military prefers belt-fed for the ar role.
the marines threw away the m249 because it is a terrible AR. you do not understand what automatic riflemen do if you think a belt fed is what they need.
They even said in the NGSW-AR requirements to include magazines OR linked belts with your submission.
So they CLEARLY had magazine-fed ARs in mind.
>So they CLEARLY had magazine-fed ARs in mind.
>program rules SPECIFICALLY stated that belt-fed was not a prerequisite
Man, they really dropped the ball by including that when they absolutely did want it to be belt-fed.
More like the army had that as an option if the competitors could come up with a mag-fed that was good enough. TV did not come up with a mag-fed that was good enough.
You do realize that LMGs occupy an intermediate space between the classic BAR/RPK-style autorifles and general purpose machine guns, right? Also, nice unsourced image from a random youtube video.
in other words, not an AR
yeah, because ARs are obsolete.
how would you know? you don't understand how to implement them in the first place.
besides the fact that every other modern country uses them. L86 LSW, AUG HBAR, G36 AR, RPKs everywhere, could go on.
Only L86 LSW is use in Britain I think
Germans don't use "AR".
Russians dropped RPK, replaced it with single man operated PKM (dumb btw but whatever).
>L86 LSW
An AR based off of one of the worst modern service rifles. Also, it was withdrawn from service in 2019 and had already been all but completely replaced by the FN Minimi (an LMG) and FN MAG (a GPMG) for years prior.
>AUG HBAR
Who actually uses this? Austria isn't really a country that can be considered militarily relevant, and even they seem to prefer the MG3 (a gpmg) instead.
>G36 AR
Discontinued by HK and replaced by the MG4 (an LMG)
>RPK
A cold-war relic used mainly by thirdie armies. The replacement, the RPK-16, has had such bad feedback that Kalashnikov is currently developing a replacement that is, you guessed it, an lmg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPL-20
So pretty much all of these examples have been replaced by LMGs or GMPGs. It's obvious that you're the one who doesn't understand.
they asked for an automatic rifle which is definitively not belt fed. you clearly do not understand the purpose of an AR within the squad if you think an LMG is equivalent.
>make low effort low testosterone 20rds clip RPK
>competition makes 100rds belt lmg
>you lose
>*surprised Pikachu face*
They listed the order of importance for that kind of shit and being belt fed wasn't a requirement, and they further said the rifle had the most impact on selection, not the AR.
So if it lost because of the AR not being beltfed, that's horseshit.
B-But muh Army procurement is infallible! People only submit what the requirements are because that's what the Army wants!!!!!!
>lost because of the AR not being beltfed
I am not particularly fond of beltfed. High capacity clips are fine too. But GD didn't make high capacity clip either. Their solution was really low effort. 20rds clip? Please...
BTW your posted RPK it is ow effort tio. RPK was adopted instead of RPD while having 75 rds drum. But latter when competition was sacked industry lead by Kalashnikov replayed things and reduced drum deployment, replacing them with lol 45 rds sticks. RPK-74 got no drum whatsoever because it had no RPD to compete against.
And finally Russians dropped RPK entirely since around 2000s
belt feds are not automatic rifles, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know why either weapon exists or how they are implemented.
Why do the army and marines both use LMGs in the automatic rifleman role then?
no
15 men squads? What marine vehicle diesy have 15 dismounts?
>Ass. Squad Leader
Hol up, who's in the ass squad? Is this why they allowed wxmen into the Marines?
They used a m249 in that role for at least 25 years prior (and the m60 prior to that) and the Army still uses it. So answer the question: Why is the M249 used by automatic riflemen if the role requires a mag-fed AR instead of an LMG? This is just pure cope for TV's piss poor AR submission.
>a gun used almost exclusively by thirdie militaries
This is even purer cope
>clip
nogunz underage v&
Lurk more newfag
>Why YES we included a bayonet with your grenade launcher/carbine hybrid!
We need to gaslight senators into thinking cavalry sabers/sword bayonets are a dire military need.
Well obviously bullpups and shorty carbines need better bayonet to compensate their short length...
>he's serious
>Remember what they took from you
that guy looks gay as hell shooting that thing
its what happens when you use a bullpup
Remember when PrepHole told me it was a meme and the military would never REAAALY phase out the M4 soon? Good times
I fucking love their design and ammo idea but you have to admit they completely dropped the ball by not having an LMG variant. Which is clearly the reason they lost
>m-muh bullpup!
europoor pls go
Bullpups are for brown people.
So they would suit amerimongrels perfectly.
fuck thta piece of shit
Good thing about the Russian anti terror campaign in the Ukraine is that it has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that this overmatch garbage that led to this rifle being introduced was all lies made up by some boomer fudd.
except that it is about china who can actually afford level 4 plates
they can't and wouldn't issue them to everyone even if they could
https://www.bodyarmornews.com/chinese-army-body-armor/
might not be level 4 exactly but definitly harder to pen than soft soviet stuff
>but definitly harder to pen than soft soviet stuff
Anon a piece of cardboard is harder to pen than Soviet stuff
Wrong. See
The XM7 (formerly XM5) is meant for hunting chuds who have the audacity to support things like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, racist voter ID, etc.
Bullshit, chuds have level 4 plates that the XM7 can't break anyway.
And if they're issuing tungsten penetrators to break level 4 plates, they could do that with M993 or M995 and wouldn't need the XM7 and 6.8x51 to do it.
The Adept Colossus plates can reportedly stop M993 and M995. I'm not sure if anyone has tested them against the .277 Fury yet.
No one can get their hands on the regular military standard issue ball 6.8x51 ammo, let alone the $20/round "Special Purpose" 6.8x51 round that is probably a tungsten penetrator AP/API/HEIAP.
The $20/round bullet is the only one that can likely penetrate level 4+ plates.
and again, 99.99999% of people aren't buying Colossus plates, and the ones that do you can probably just cross reference whoever ordered those plates from their order database and then send a JDAM to everyone's address that bought one.
No need to get into a firefight against someone wearing level 4+ plates when you're the US military.
>JDAMming people on US soil
Yeah because sending a squad of army door kickers with 6.8x51 M7's on US soil is TOTALLY different.
If your goal is to kill Americans, the M7 and 6.8x51 round mean jack shit. It will do NOTHING to help kill Americans any more than half a dozen other systems the US military has and could use against Americans if they ever wanted to.
Why the fuck do you retards think 6.8 is the key to the lock and NOW the feds have what they need to kill you?
Like do you HONESTLY think they couldn't have done it earlier with 5.56 if that was their goal?
Logically the argument makes no sense either.
The 6.8x51 caliber round is dogshit for actual military roles, yet somehow perfectly suited for killing civilians in high-spec body armor that no military in the world uses.
Like someone please explain how it would be horrible in combat roles, but fantastic in fighting a war against the civilian population?
I think it’s because US civilians actually have body armor. I don’t doubt a M855A1 type bullet in 6.8 goes through level III steel and the AP round will go through level IV. Other non-western countries don’t even have body armor.
Exclusively issuing AP to beat level IV in the next decades worth of wars is not feasible because there isn’t enough tungsten for that to be practical. Having enough to kill 10-30 million people on US soil fighting back is a lot more feasible since you could still source tungsten from China that way.
All that being said, I agree that it’s not like this is what turned the tide and now the govt is going to start rounding people up. They would or wouldn’t regardless of the XM5/7.
>not enough supply to use it to defeat an army
>enough supply to use it to kill 10-30 MILLION in firefights
So this is the power of retards
How many civilians actually have plates? Even among gun owners?
a LOT I iamgine
I think you have an overactive imagination then. In any case, it almost certainly isn't enough that it would necessitate switching to an entire new weapons platform. I think a lot of preppers like to flatter themselves by thinking that they'd be that much of a threat to the government.
I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. Philly police dropped a bomb from a helicopter on a house in 1985 which started a fire and killed other. Dorner got set on fire. Houston PD turned a bomb disposal robot into a suicide bomber to take out one guy in a parking garage. Vicki weaver was shot in the face while holding a baby. 76 people were burned to death in their own home, including 25 children, at Waco.
Dropping a jdam isn’t any worse than that shit. That’s just what has gotten notoriety.
Notice how all of that was law enforcement, not military, and two of them were spree killers holed up in defensive positions. If you're going to make an argument for this kind of subject matter you need to try harder to be convincing and not come off as a guy who condones murder so long as the killer is capping cops.
Don't even (you) me, I'm not responding
Not that anon but when Obama was commander in chief he ordered kill on sight for Dorner. Completely removed his right to due process illegally. Seeing as the POTUS is the leader of the military, it kinda steps into that territory.
>Obama was commander in chief he ordered kill on sight for Dorner.
What?
Commander in Chief when* he... etc
No, where did he state a KOS for Dorner? He doesn't even have authority over local law enforcement.
I wish I could pull up a clip of it. Guess I'll try and see what I can find.
Not how it works
As soon as those types start sobbing over the killing of morons that starting blasting innocents you know you can just ignore them.
It's frustrating because Ruby Ridge, the Philly bombings and Waco were absolute travesties that should have warranted death sentences for those involved, but then they throw in Dorner and the Dallas shooter so you know they're bad faith actors that are just coopting the mentioned travesties for their own half-baked schizo bullshit.
Only bootlickers or zogbots think Dorner did anything wrong
And two of them were federa agencies who the president can order around. Obama drone striked a US citizen in Yemen. Yes he was a durka durka and I don’t care he died but the precedence is there.
>come off as a guy who condones murder so long as the killer is capping cops.
I do and I won’t deny that
>Don't even (you) me, I'm not responding
Pussy. Can’t even handle dissenting opinions.
>muh poor killer morons
>muh poor terrorist
>FUCK AND KILL ALL COPS
you're just an edgy fag, nothing special or unique
>nothing special or unique
When did I claim to be? You’re the one who is acting like you’re the special one and can’t handle a differing opinion
no one on this board is penetrating anything, except themselves.
American civilians probably have more level 4 plates than the Chinese military, and are a more credible threat to the US government.
And the 6.8x51 ball ammo isn't making it through anyway, so what is your point?
Well guess what, the standard round doesn't have the energy or CSD to penetrate level IV plates either.
shut the fuck up war tourist
>XM7
14lbs with can, lam, and glass
>M27
14lbs with can, lam, vcog
>Generic M4 with quad rail
12lns with LAM, can and a dot
Army chose right
>14lbs with can, lam, vcog
An M27 is not 14 lbs. My BRN-4 w/16" heavy barrel, bipod, grip and a Trijicon Credo 2-10x36mm w/T2 top mount is 12 lbs
M4 with quad rail
Who still uses quad rails?
>12lns with LAM, can and a dot
It is not 12lbs
Also you’re carrying 33% less ammo for 40% more weight. That’s another 2.8lbs you need to add for the same combat load. Or if you want 180 rounds as reloads like now for a basic combat load, youre looking at 12.6lbs of mags vs 6lbs with 5.56. Have fun with more than double the weight
Where are the fucking retards in this thread getting these weights from? Am I missing out on some meme? is this some desperate attempt to downplay the XM7's weight?
Any NGSW proponent with real sense bailed as soon as the
>Let's make the rifle carbine length and make the traditional cased ammo fucking overpressured to shit to compensate
entry won, leaving only the halfwits who just want to see beeg boolit go zoooom.
>is this some desperate attempt to downplay the XM7's weight?
Yes it’s honestly all it is
Standard issue plates cannot deter 7.62 AP rounds, but 6.8 has more power than 7.62. They are also pretty pricy and not easily accessible to civilians. I can see why they went with the 6.8 from a strategic standpoint, when other conventional armies are already equipped for 7.62. They just want overmatch.
What is interesting is making suppressors standard issue like they use for special operations. I don't think this has precedent and would really change the entire dynamic of our ground forces. I wonder if they are aiming for a more stealth-focused infantry for modern conflicts.
>I don't think this has precedent and would really change the entire dynamic of our ground forces. I wonder if they are aiming for a more stealth-focused infantry for modern conflicts.
USMC talked about doing it, but they didn't want to pay for it across the board. It's not about stealth, but about improving communication within a fireteam during contact. In fact, the reduction in report from rifles and the reduction of the psychological effect of being shot at downrage is considered a detriment to using suppressors.
Honestly, I think it is more demoralizing when the sound of flesh tearing to shreds is louder than the sound of a hidden, unidentifiable threat tearing your squad into pieces.
Even if it isn't about stealth, you have radios. Very quiet guns + very quiet comms with headsets = deadly silent killing machines. Compare that to sending squads out on patrols in the open looking for fight like in the ME. That did not pan out well. In a conventional war, making infantry more like SF will definitely make them more lethal. Just my two cents if it means anything.
>Compare that to sending squads out on patrols in the open looking for a* fight like in the ME
>In a conventional war, making infantry more like SF will definitely make them more lethal.
It definitely won't. SF are not more lethal than conventional infantry, they're much, much less lethal. A mech or stryker squad is organically far more lethal, tactically mobile and operationally combat sustainable than SF. SF are more lethal only in operations where you place artificial limits on lethality (ie coin and ct) and everything happens at super low tempo. The biggest reason that making infantry more like SF would make them less lethal is that SF are SFlike because they want a lot of time, information and support to conduct direct action, while infantry are a harder and blunter tool that you can keep in the fight without special control measures, consideration or support. SF is like a scalpel that is very sharp but only good for planned surgeries that happen slowly and need a lot of time between to prepare. Infantry are like a sword that you can hack, slash, stab and batter your way through a battle with. The latter is more lethal precisely because it's not as sharp, delicate or small.
I understand your metaphor, but you know things like red dot sights and suppressors were once the exclusive domain of SF. Look at how the CIA is operating in Ukraine. They have tons of intelligence and support because it's a conventional war and not an insurgency. They are not going around provoking insurgents, just going after conventional targets with good intel. If this is making the military worse then perhaps they should listen to you, but I think they know what they are doing.
The landscape of war is changing. Infantry today is not going to be the same as infantry in the 20th century, and they are making these changes for very intentional reason. These reasons are above the pay grade of random anons on PrepHole so am more interested in their tactical thinking than whether or not it's a good idea. Because the old way of thinking did not work in real life, it needs to be adapted.
If you replaced all the infantry in the Ukraine with SF or CIA today, the front would collapse next week. You ought not conflate "more SFlike" with "more spent on their equipment". Red dots are better that irons not because red dots are SFlike and they weren't issued to infantry because we couldn't afford it pre-GWOT.
>Very quiet guns + very quiet comms with headsets = deadly silent killing machines
Suppressors don’t make guns very quiet. They make them hearing safe. Suppressed rifles are louder than jet engines
You can barely hear the report from the rifle over the sound of the supersonic cracks from the bullets when getting shot at
>the reduction in report from rifles and the reduction of the psychological effect of being shot at downrage is considered a detriment to using suppressors.
I don’t think it’s that big of a detriment. It’s not like guns aren’t loud with suppressors on, they just don’t ruin your ears.
Whatever psychological loss there is, the gains of communication and awareness outweigh them
It's about communication and increased accuracy. When the Marines trialed it they found that hits on stationary targets under timed stress went up with suppressors
As for suppression, it has been proven and is taught that only impacts nearby the intended target actually suppress troops with a modicum of combat experience. Perhaps very fresh low morale conscripts will be suppressed by loud noise, but impacts on and around their cover will suppress even the most combat hardened troop
the whole soldiers having to use training ammo because the combat ammo shreds barrels thing seems like such a scam waiting to happen.
theres not much stopping Sig from introducing shitty barrels into the mix that wear out with the training but blame it on the combat loads just so they can make a few more bucks.
>not much stopping Sig from introducing shitty barrels
Except that normal batch acceptance and maintenance surveillance includes MP proofing and x-ray that would immediately catch this. You can dodgy something like optics because there's no equivalent organisation to arsenals and no equivalent process to acceptance and surveillance proofing. If you seriously think no one has ever tried to short change armies on barrel quality then you're a fucking retard who doesn't know why proofing is a thing at all and has no business posting about this shit. Lurk moar.
I like how everyone thinks the government can just be scammed by a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
The world must be magical when you're this naive.
>heavier than an M14
A straight faced lie. The XM7 (3.8kg) is closer in weight to an M16A2 (3.77kg) or A4 (3.4kg) than to an M14 (4.2kg) or EBR (5.1kg). Leading with this extreme a lie reveals that your agenda is dirty as sin.
>ammo more powerful than 308
This is a good thing.
>soldiers can only carry 140 rounds
Better 140 rounds that the enemy knows will kill him, and so is reliably suppressed by, than 240 that he demonstrably doesn't give a shit about and manouevres under fire from.
>Yet the army call this 6.8 intermediate.
And I call you a gay.
It weighs 11 pounds loaded with no optic you disingenuous moron
Are you retarded, or just really bad at lying? It weighs 9 pounds loaded. An M14 was 10.9 pounds loaded, EBR is 12.7lb loaded. M16A2 is 8.56lb loaded, A4 7.75lb.
If I include the weight of a SOPMOD or EBR suppressor on those rifles they get fat as well. Fatter actually, since their suppressors are older and fatter.
Your agendaposting or retardatiob is transparent as fuck.
>It weighs 9 pounds loaded. An M14 was 10.9 pounds loaded, EBR is 12.7lb loaded. M16A2 is 8.56lb loaded, A4 7.75lb.
XM7 weighs 11.2 lbs loaded, its required to run with a suppressor due to the fuck huge fireball it produces shooting magnum 6.5 sneed out of a 13" barrel
So what do the EBR and M16A2 weigh with a suppressor? Inb4, desperate to try to make your bullshit argument stick, you claim that XM7 firing warshot or training ammo has more signiture than unsuppressed M14 and M16. BTW do you add the length and weight of a can to a MK18 every time you quote it, do you concern troll the obscene flash of M995 or 855A1 from carbine and pistol barrels every time you shill them? I didn't think so, you fucking rat.
>a more powerful round with 13" barrel has the same signature as a less powerful round with 16" barrel
I'll take that as admission that you're wrong.
You're both right, I missed saying "with a suppressor" in there. It's meant to read:
>...you claim that XM7 firing warshot or training ammo suppressed has more signiture than unsuppressed M14 or M16...
you are an absolute disingenuous shill moron that should be murdered in the street.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I think the point is the XM7 really isn’t meant to be run without a suppressor due to the uniquely concussive blast which is a result of the barrel length and obscene pressures required. Obviously any difference between XM7 and M14 that’s the result of LAM or optics isn’t a fair comparison, but if the XM7 can’t be used effectively without a suppressor, and an M14 can, I think you have to include it in the comparison. Although I think you both have autism
>the XM7 can’t be used effectively without a suppressor
It can. The fact that it won't be fun doesn't mean you can't. In Vietnam the Australians used field modified L2A1s with the barrels cut down to about 11 inches, and that was with slower burning powder. Similarly the MK18 is 10.3, HK416C and G36c are 9 and with slower powder. These were operator requests and modifications. Higher peak pressure doesn't necessarily translate to the same exit pressure, which depends far more on burn rate. There should be no fireballs at all from the XM7, since a fireball comes from unburned powder and why would your warshot not burn completely in the barrel length you built it for?
The related concept no one wants to engage with is that you can use the training ammo in war if enemies are all unarmored and close. Then it's even softer shooting, but harder hitting, than M16.
>Similarly the MK18 is 10.3, HK416C and G36c are 9 and with slower powder. These were operator requests and modifications.
Which are all run with suppressors you retard.
The fuck huge fireballs produced by short barreled unsuppressed rifles are a huge NO-NO during night time operations due to being massive position indicators for enemy forces.
>all run with suppressors
Not all the time, you cock gobbler. Having an option doesn't compel you to use it. That's the entire point of tryinf to put SPR and CQBR in the SOPMOD kit and having a suppressor as a requirement for NGSW. Using a MK18 for its originally intended purpose, which doesn't involve a can, absolutely sucks, but so does having one used on you. Being a warfighter isn't about being comfortable or happy when you're fighting, it's about being good enough at killing people who are trying to kill you to walk away, damn the consequences later.
XM7 will be used without a suppressor, a fair bit, and it will be pretty good at killing the shit out of people when used that way.
>XM7 will be used without a suppressor, a fair bit
And you know this because...
Sounds like bullshit since every single XM7 ships with a can.
>Sounds like bullshit since every single XM7 ships with a can.
For the military, not so for civilians.
it's not shipping to civilians at all currently. So why does that matter?
You're also not shipping select fire M4's to civilians but you are for the military.
>So why does that matter?
It comes out this year retard, for civilians.
No, it doesn't.
A VERSION of it will, likely with a 16" barrel.
Why the fuck would SIG release it as an SBR?
literally 2 hours ago
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/02/28/sig-mcx-spear-army-xm7-rifle/
So literally what I said
Pistol and SBR no one will buy, and then the actual rifle people will buy.
>So literally what I said
That's not what you fucking said at all you mongoloid. FIRST you said it wasn't coming out. THEN you said they wouldn't sell it as an SBR, which they are. God I fucking hate you, you're the sole hero of your own delusions.
Not that anon but the guns retarded and Sig is gay so it doesn't matter
Well, if anything that's a better argument than constantly flip flopping what you said.
Then why the fuck are you retarded to begin with?
The gun was sold to civilians in 6.8x51 with a 13.5" barrel and a can on it LAST YEAR.
You got the wrong target guy, I'm actually agreeing with you. You're confusing me for that other guy that keeps moving goal posts.
I might be wrong, but I vaguely recall hearing that the SIG cartridge can actually go even higher than 80kpsi, maybe it was like 120kpsi, could just mean proof loads, but if we all thought bubba's handloads were dangerous before... kek
Yes, that's also why the army liked the SIG design because the CURRENT loadings are ~80k PSI but being capable of doing 100k+ PSI later with newer guns/barrels that can withstand the pressures was something army was interested in because it allows years of development and optimization on new loadings with better capabilities without changing the physical size of the rounds.
Their "problem" with 5.56 was supposedly they had optimized about as well as they could and didn't see the value in trying to further optimize something they'd already spent the last 50+ years working to perfect, 6.8x51 is a new blank slate with plenty of room (physically in terms of powder load) to grow and optimize in the future.
Don't agree.
>Take 5.56
>Take SIG case
>Combine
>???
>Their "problem" with 5.56 was supposedly they had optimized about as well as they could
5.56 had atrociously short bullet with terrible form factor. Just increasing COAL of 5.56 and bullet ogive by 1/4" would allow to increase 64 grain bullet G7 BC to about 0.208 (higher than M80. 7.62x51). This alone makes improved 5.56 has better range than 7.62.
Through in 100K psi hybrid case and you get 5.56 size round that absolutely shits over 7.62 at range (main critique of 5.56 is not enough range comparing to "true" rifle round).
Thing is old cartridges are old and outdated for 60-70 years. There is much that can be improved if made from plain sheet. 6.8x51 is such thing, but it itself in the rifle cartridge territory not intermediate.
kek
They also released this a while before for $8k, I think they immediately sold out lmao
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/buy-the-armys-new-sig-sauer-rifle/
I can't find the link on their site anymore, but it exists somewhere.
Which is irrelevant
Oh yeah, and it was literally designed to run the can 24/7/365
You can genuinely have your performance hindered by things like muzzle flash and concussion. Why do you think the early XM177 carbines had moderators made standard within a year if being deployed in Vietnam?
Clearly MACVSOG were just too pussy for Euroanon's rigorous and grounded standards
>XM7 will be used without a suppressor, a fair bit,
Bullshit since it was designed to be used with one. The army says it will be used with it. Sig says it will be used with it.
Common sense also says you’ll need a suppressor because a short barreled 80k psi cartridge will rape eardrums and give an awful concussive blast to your squad. Short barrel 5.56 is bad enough. Now add twice as much powder and 45% more pressure
He's European, he's ignorant on such things.
>The fuck huge fireballs produced by short barreled unsuppressed rifles are a huge NO-NO during night time operations due to being massive position indicators for enemy forces
Also, learn to read. The fireballs are from unburned powder. The reason they have unburned powder is because they're using rounds that are meant to be burning out to 18 inches of a 20 inch barrel and they can't use anything faster burning without exceeding their max pressure (one of the problems with 855A1). The XM7 is going to have a relatively smaller fireball than a 12 inch M4 precisely because of the very high max pressure limit.
Of course, you'd know all this if you weren't some 80iq midwit who relies on guntubers for firearms info.
Before calling someone else a midwit it might be optimal to not say things like
>12 inch M4
and conflating pressure limit with burn rate.
>The XM7 is going to have a relatively smaller fireball than a 12 inch M4 precisely because of the very high max pressure limit.
Prove it.
Even if it does have a smaller fireball, the pressure wave is absolutely not smaller. The muzzle blast is also a huge problem
>It can.
According to whom? Have you ever fired a 13” .270 WSM? And indoors or next to people? With a brake? Let me know how it went.
Honestly I feel like a DMR chambered in .270 would've been pretty sweet
Ive said that if this was developed from the start as a DMR it would be awesome. Give it a couple more inches or barrel length and get one into every squad.
>There should be no fireballs at all from the XM7, since a fireball comes from unburned powder and why would your warshot not burn completely in the barrel length you built it for?
Are you seriously saying that a pissinghot magnum round out of an unsuppressed 13" barrel isn't going to have ludicrous muzzle blast?
Were you dropped on your head as an infant?
To be fair, military can take time to do a custom propellant mix that burn faster.
For the current situation, I'll believe that when I see it.
That can minimize muzzle flash but does little for muzzle blast. You still need a ton of gas pressure built up very quickly to get the velocities they want. That means muzzle blast.
That huge muzzle blast is hot combustion by-products being introduced into atmospheric oxygen under pressure, not unburnt powder.
It can be both. In really shortened barrels that may be still burning powder.
Right. But even if you burned all of the powder you still have a massive amount of gas leaving the barrel
If your barrel is less than 3" maybe.
Why are you mentioning the EBR when that’s a DMR and isn’t a standard issue rifle?
You Siggers are fucking pathetic
>It weighs 9 pounds loaded
Prove it
Both Sig and the army day 8.38lbs empty, a loaded mag is 1.4lbs, and the REQUIRED suppressor is 1.46. Which is 11.24lbs with no optic you dumb moron.
>Which is 11.24lbs with no optic you dumb moron.
As a proud FAL owner, that's heavier than my fal with an LPVO. Mine comes in at 10.6. That's just way too heavy for a 13" infantry rifle. For comparisons sake, PTR and M14 16" variants are around the same weight, and those are known for being heavy mofo.
>A straight faced lie.
Eeeeh consider unloaded fielded weights
M16A2 were fielded naked at 3.77kg (general issue)
M14 were fielded naked at 4.2kg (general issue)
M16A4 fielded with RAS + RCO + PEQ16a at 4.72kg (general issue)
M14 EBR with optic and bipod is in the 6.5kg range although can be heavier with PEQ, depending on which optic was issued, and if it even received the 18" rebarrel which some did not (DMR)
XM7 + XM157 + PEQ15 is going to be in the 5.5kg range (general issue)
So as a general issue rifle it will indeed be more than 1kg heavier unloaded than even a similarly fielded M14. It is lighter than an EBR though.
The problem with your whole argument is that it's not about the XM7 vs M16 vs M14, it's about the XM157 vs RCO vs iron sights (and illuminators vs none) because that's where the weight different you want to complain about actually is.
The not-disingenuous-but-definitely-retarded version of this thread is the one where you argue that the XM157 is not worth the extra weight over iron sights or an RCO. You know we had those arguments here when aimpoints and ACOGs started coming into unit armories from unit funds in GWOT. People like you really did argue with a straight face that the lighter weight of irons was more utile. If you want to argue weight, then do it, but don't try to lie about what parts of the system are adding weight or the capabilities we're actually trying to buy for that weight.
My hope is the XM157 actually improves individual lethality, but we won't know until it's in use. Irons > RCO really just improved individual confidence/bravado and flat range performance. In practice, the RCO is too complicated for most boots to range effectively with. Give them an RCO and they'll find a way to range a 200m target as 500m then wiff a couple mags overhead because "we'll it looked really far away" and there was no foreground splash to tell them they are fucking wrong. 300m ironsight bzo at least ment they were dead holding and still effective until they were far enough away that 5.56 is pissing in the wind anyway.
Hopefully the XM157 makes shooting dumber again and thus more effective.
>Irons > RCO
source
Me. Boots are fucking stupid. I could point at stupid shit like ammo expenditure per kill going up exponentially by conflicts through time, but that really doesn't have anything to do with infantry sighting systems. Just know that an RCO reticle may as well be arcane magic to most enlisted.
I'm actually pretty receptive to this line of argument despite being
. I think the RCO, and all combat optics that are designed to use a 80/100 kind of zero are bad for the same reason as you. They print better on a flat range but 100/300 battle zeros are vastly better for combat.
I was in 1BCT 101 ABN, deployed with M68s for everyone except squad leaders, and the next deployment deployed with ACOGs for damn near everyone. I can safely say that even my dumbest Joes were dropping people with ACOGs much faster.
Something something muh investigation something something muh muhreens something something headshots
OORAH
>The XM7 (3.8kg) is closer in weight to an M16A2 (3.77kg) or A4 (3.4kg) than to an M14 (4.2kg) or EBR (5.1kg).
What the actual fuck are you talking about. Like you can't actually believe this.
he's technically right but he's being disingenuous and purposefully omitting the weight of the optics suite and suppressor from the XM7, accessories that it's literally built around and makes it quite a bit heavier
Also comparing a 20" rifle to a 13"?
Why not compare it to an M4 or MK18?
because that inconveniences his argument.
>Also comparing a 20" rifle to a 13"?
This 13" shits on 20" though.
13" AR15's shit on 20" AR15's too and you can't convince me otherwise. Stop being cheap and buying garbage-tier Wolf steel shit.
While we're at it, how the fuck is the A4 lighter than the A2 in those weight specs? Is the M5 rail made of some hyper light weight metal that makes it weigh less than the A2 handguard?
there is a very real chance he's getting the A4 confused with the M4...
>Better 140 rounds that the enemy knows will kill him, and so is reliably suppressed by, than 240 that he demonstrably doesn't give a shit about and manouevres under fire from.
I've seen some hilarious neverserved bullshit before but this is definitely up there.
Considering the fact he's outing himself as a E*ro with his kg weights and "manoeuvres" it's doubly hilarious
You’re XM7 weight is a lie. It’s 13.5lbs loaded with optic and suppressor.
>Better 140 rounds that the enemy knows will kill him, and so is reliably suppressed by, than 240 that he demonstrably doesn't give a shit about and manouevres under fire from.
I would love you to prove either. Can you show me people not giving a shit they are being shot at by 5.56? Can you show me people being scared by 6.8? Which would be quite the feat since it hasn’t been fielded yet.
Of course you can’t and you’re a lying Sigger
>Better 140 rounds that the enemy knows will kill him, and so is reliably suppressed by, than 240 that he demonstrably doesn't give a shit about and manouevres under fire from.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works you mouthbreather. No one has gotten out of cover to advance because they were not worried about getting hit with 5.56. Ever. Provide one single battlefield account saying this.
>kg
>manoeuvres
I swear to fucking God if we banned all foreign IPs the quality of PrepHole and PrepHole as a whole would skyrocket overnight.
Gratz on probably the most retarded post of the day senpai, real props
Whatever disagreements this thread has I think one thing we can all come to terms on is that you're amazingly confident for someone so blatantly stupid.
I still don't understand if defeating body armor was the goal why they didn't just push m995 and MEN Dm31 into common use, or make it so every service member issued an M4 have a few mags with AP ammo? I don't get it
It's for fighting a civil war in the US. Resupply is not an issue domestically. Weight is less of an issue for defense and door kicking.
why are modern weapons so fucking ugly? the keymod shit looks extremely gay and it gets worse since they're all built like an AR clone
>op is a never served
>cares what rifle the army uses
>op thinks the rifle is currently being issued to soldiers as we speak
kek
It IS being issued as we speak, watch the video in my OP.
for more power why don't they just use supersonic 300blk in a 16 inch for cqb able to swap to a 20in 556 or just have any ar10 as dmr?
Yes, the 6.8 is intermediate.
Must suck after spending decades using a caliber only good for hunting small game.
Performancewise it's in the same ballpark as .270 WSM. It's even less intermediate than .308 was.
You retards act like the US army is somehow going to combat ineffective with this new gun/ammo combo. Seems like a lot of armchair general bullshit to me.
They're going to be as combat ineffective with this battle rifle as they were with the last one.
Meh, I doubt it. We have much better drones, artillery, and air support these days compared to vietnam.
Volume of fire has its place, but I don't think it's as necessary as it was back then.
Yeah I agree, it is a stronger weapon and with advanced attachments, I think the role of infantry has to evolve. But it's up to people whose whole job is to upgrade the rifles and test them. I would have guessed more 7.62 rifles, but they went for an even higher caliber with expensive gear on it as well, for standard issue. Those are some pretty damn expensive guns you use for free while a civilian would pay like $8k or something crazy like that for the same thing.
>Hurr durr, you have to had HELD THE GUN to be able to criticize it!
GTFO gov/SIG shills.
More people have held Glawks than 320's, yet do you know how that trial turned out?
Tell me what's so different about the XM7 than an AR10?
There's plenty of people that served as well that talk about weight/employment/whatever as well.
An absolutely, purely, unadulterated shit take.
>why yes I did make shit up to make this rifle look worse than it actually is, because I have no idea how it actually is since I've never even seen one, let alone shot one.
you didn't need to write anything beyond that anon.
Not an argument.
Have you held it? So are you any better than you accuse me of being?
I can hold any number of similar rifles and relate how they operate with enough confidence to say this SIG rifle is inefficient.
You can't argue with statistics either.
Is it lighter than most AR15's similarly equipped? Is it lighter than designs using different materials/dimensions/etc.? Is it bulkier based on the images and released details than any other firearm in a similar role?
etc. etc.
Get fucked and try harder, shill.
>You can't argue with statistics either
You clearly never took a statistics class, the entire point of statistics is you CAN argue with them. Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways to fit your argument. It's one of the primary ways you use to frame information in a way that fits your narrative, you take the statistics and word it in a way that fits what you want to say.
You aren’t even making an argument you morongay
What did he make up?
Saying shit like it kicks horribly despite having never shot it, or they only fired training ammo during testing with no evidence to support that.
Anyone saying ANYTHING about how the gun shoots/feels/recoils/etc without having fired the gun is just bullshit lies or hearsay.
>Anyone saying ANYTHING about how the gun shoots/feels/recoils/etc without having fired the gun is just bullshit lies or hearsay.
>Observable reality is heckin' unbased, centipedes! We gotta protect chad SIG from the incel poors!!!11!
KYS immediately.
>Saying shit like it kicks horribly despite having never shot it
When was this said?
Also yeah it’s going to recoil pretty hard. That’s how physics works. You can’t get a higher pressure, faster, more powerful round and less recoil. Well you can, but the option to do so is get a really fucking heavy gun. Which you spent all thread arguing it’s not so…
There’s a huge difference between being combat ineffective and pointing out flaws with a new weapon. Flaws that have already been tried and discovered before and weren’t fixed
Keep crying about it. Maybe one more butthurt thread will change the Army's mind. Also, your rifle is fugly. Cope.
Form follows function. People critique the suppressor but making a chode suppressor is very sensible
Can someone please explain why this is better than 7.62 NATO? They'd might as well just use FALs at this point.
Faster, higher ballistic coefficient, flatter shooting and less suspectable to wind at range.
Also due to the increased chamber/barrel pressure you get a smaller barrel for the same (or better) performance than you get from the same size 7.62 rifle.
couldn't you just make a FAL or G3 in 6.8mm?
Neither of those are very accurate.
Well, BAR in 6.8 then
Too heavy.
It's almost 12lbs empty with no can or optics
Also it's fairly long even without a can, throw a can on there and your overall length will be a bit absurd, and basically impossible to get into and out of vehicles easily with it.
Those are inaccurate dinosaur guns by today's standards. I doubt they could handle the chamber pressure of bubba's 6.8x51 pissin' hot loads.
An SFAR in .277 is literally the best choice. The XM5/XM7 is too bulky for literally no reason. If it still had that hydraulic buffer in the back like SIG's original patents, then MAYBE it'd make more sense to be so bulky, but as it stands, it's pointlessly fat for no reason whatsoever.
Better yet, just get the hybrid cased ammo in something like .224 Valkyrie/6mm ARC/6.8 SPC/whatever and jack the pressures up and have an even smaller/lighter gun still.
Massively retarded take by the .mil IMO
M7 is 36" overall length with a can.
SFAR is 34" overall length without a can.
Also I doubt the SFAR is built to regularly shoot 80k PSI rounds, and would need at minimum some barrel thickening near the chamber, the chamber itself would likely need to be built up a bit more, and then the locking lugs on the bolt head would likely also need beefing up.
Pic related, comparison of the barrel and bolt head of an AR-10 vs XM7(XM5)
>Also I doubt the SFAR is built to regularly shoot 80k PSI rounds
M7 isn't rated for 80k PSI either. They'll spend most of their life shooting the weaker training ammo. If they do see combat, they'll be discarded after every rotation.
Lol bullshit, testing done during selection was done using full load rounds, not training rounds.
Meaning any benchmarks they had to meet for barrel life was met with the full load rounds, not some half load training bullshit.
If you want to convince me, provide a source you dumb moron. But since you're pulling it out of your ass with no source, good luck.
"X"M7 has a 13" barrel. It's a trivial matter to chop 3" off the SFAR.
A bolt and barrel are also incredibly simple in the scheme of things. A thicker barrel with a tiny gas port way out towards the muzzle is a non-issue, and there's already plenty of "enhanced" AR-10 bolts, let alone the one that comes with the SFAR, but again, it would be simple to swap to the XM7's bolt.
Nothing the XM7 does is magic or advanced science or anything. It's literally just an AR10 that's been beefed up in some areas, nothing more. Long lugs (not as wide either, for some reason), thicker barrel, tiny gas port close to the muzzle... All within the realm of what's already done on existing AR's.
A 13" SFAR with a stronger bolt and different barrel would be lighter, shorter, more compact, and all-around better than SIG's gun.
Could even knock a few more inches off the gun with a can if you used something like Delta P's designs rather than SIG's longer, more "traditional" (aside from the 3D printing and such) cans.
Sure, and since ruger never even tried to submit it to the army for consideration, it will never and should never be selected.
Welcome to procurement, you have to actually submit a bid to be selected.
Poor argument.
If there's something better out there, it's worth discussing.
And "it will never and should never" is such a retarded take. Small trials are done all the time for different weapons so who knows what the future holds.
No, because you need a spanking new patented COHEN rifle. Old free domain rifles just don't cut it, chud!
Why didn't they just convert all of the M4s to .300BLK supersonic
Because .300blk and 6.8x51 are nothing at all alike?
That's like asking why they didn't go for a .22LR pistol and instead went for .45ACP.
They're not comparable.
my unit is getting the rifle and machine gun (as well as new radios, NODs, vehicles, etc) this year. I'll be sure to write a definitive report once I have some time on them for all of you spergs
thanks anon!
Surely some of the experts in here can produce the documents on the test results and give their first hand experience in handling all of the entries.
They're not publicly released, so no.
Instead, you just have anons pulling shit out of their asses and claiming it's true.
One thing people tend to forget about the XM7 is that it can be barrel swapped in ~90 seconds to either 6.5CM or 7.62 NATO
Sure, you're not going to barrel swap while in combat, but if you're worried about 6.8x51 ammo availability, or compatibility with allies that only have 7.62 NATO, just pack an extra 7.62 barrel and swap it out when needed.
If you've run out of ammo in the military, you have bigger problems.
Having three cartridges in the supply chain is retarded, it would be better to drop .308 entirely if they're dead-set on adopting .277.
You're not going to be scrounging around for .308, it's more likely that it's just a manufacturing efficiency thing so they can just swap barrels to send to someone who uses .308 still without having to do much other "work" to the gun.
In the wildest of unlikely scenarios, you'd be using your .277, run out, and just so happen to be thankfully reinforced by a friendly nation that still uses .308 and your armorers (who are in the field with all their tools somehow?) brought along the spare barrels, for example. Find me ONE example of something like that ever happening before.
It'd also be neat for civilian sales, which I suspect is where it'd get most "use" in that regard.
If you're operating in a NATO country, you want a gun that supports NATO ammo.
Having 7.62 NATO barrels just makes sense.
You're retarded if you think it's dumb.
Then there's no point in .277 if other countries aren't adopting it, right?
Retard take.
Okay, argue the dimensions listed on SIG's website for the gun aren't what they actually are then, gay.
Ahhh so you're just an idiot.
Specifications are not statistics.
You simply don't know the right word choice because you're probably pretty stupid.
So no argument then?
There is no argument to be made against someone that has formed their opinion based on their own asspulled "facts"
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
There "specifications" on the dimensions/weights of the ammo and the XM7 publicly available. You just don't want to argue against them because you know you'll be wrong. Stop trying to avoid it and just admit you're a gay paid SIG shill.
Yes, and those specifications aren't statistics you dumb gay.
Learn English.
So you can't argue against them then and just want to deflect and try and discredit the larger argument because of muh wrong english hurr durr? Glad you admit it.
No, I'm not "arguing" because again
there is no point.
Honestly you're probably just a contrarian retard and if the army was talking about replacing the M14 with the M16 you'd be pulling the same horseshit but in the opposite direction in favor of the M14.
The point is that you have no ground to stand on.
You're doing everything you accuse me of. No-one is debating the M16 vs M14, stop trying to deflect.
Nothing I've said is, as you've said, "asspulled facts", they're literally publicly-available specifications freely available from multiple sources such as the length, width, weight, etc. of the .277 Fury cartridge and SIG XM7 rifle.
For example:
Ruger SFAR: 6.8lbs/3kg (why do you guys keep using kilos? Are you European?)
Source: https://www.ruger.com/products/sfar/specSheets/5610.html
SIG MCX-SPEAR: 8.6lbs/3.9kg
Source: https://www.sigsauer.com/spear.html
This is literally IRREFUTABLE evidence. Nothing was pulled from anyone's ass. The SFAR is nearly TWO POUNDS LIGHTER.
This supports my argument that an SFAR chambered in .277 Fury would be more sensible in that regard than the oversized XM7. Further still, I posited that something like a hybrid-cased 6mm ARC or similar would be even lighter.
I fucking dare you to try and refute this, or, what you'll probably do is just deflect again.
So, again, get absolutely fucked you worthless piece of shit, I sincerely hope you have a nice day to relieve the burden you exert on your family. Your mother deserves a night's rest without having to be ashamed of you.
Asspulled facts like, they only ever shoot training ammo
go ahead and source me on that one chief.
Point to exactly where I said that, stop trying to deflect, debate the arguments I present you instead of trying to shift the goalposts to what you think is an easier "out" to save face.
see
Try again retard.
Except it does.
It really doesn't, the military set out requirements of "be no longer than 35 in (890 mm); no heavier than 12 lb (5.4 kg) including attachments", the XM7 evidently meets those. The SFAR wasn't submitted and doesn't even meet the requested projectile requirements, there is no reason to even bring it up.
the XM7 doesn't meet them, but it was submitted for testing, the army evaluated and determined it was good enough, and better than the others submitted.
You don't have to meet every single requirement for the program, especially if you're better than the other competitors.
I know you can generally fuzz the weight and length requirements slightly and still be accepted. And yeah at the end of the day the military determined it was better than the competitors through extensive trialing. Of course we have experts here who have seen the testing data, and handled all the competitors for a few months who think otherwise.
>No heavier than 12lbs including attachments"
So, barely meeting the requirements is acceptable to you?
Barely meeting, or slightly failing, 1 requirement while excelling in others is fine, yeah.
Refute the weights
Ruger SFAR wasn't submitted so it really doesn't matter.
>Ruger SFAR wasn't submitted so it really doesn't matter.
Why is this even a thing? Sfar can barely hold back .308 and you want to put a pissing hold .308 like load in it? It's going to blow up. An Sfar would need thicker and stronger parts to handle that, which would mean it loses its light weight appeal.
>Sfar can barely hold back .308
Citation needed
Dont bother with him. We all knows he has nothing. He’s literally a paid sig shill
And you still can’t argue against those specifications. Come on Sigger, give it a try
garden gnome. Criticize the Talmud. Bet you won’t
If you think a major operating base wouldn't have a team of armorers that can do basic maintenance and barrel swaps, you're an idiot.
He didn't say you were going to barrel swap in combat. But if you're operating in a region over several months and supplies of 6.8x51 are running low but we've got tons of 7.62 NATO available, it would be trivial to spend a few hours swapping over to 7.62 NATO barrels before you next head off to the front lines.
If you've got that all set up and you're running low on ammo, someone somewhere's royally fucked up. Why would the other bases have a ton of ammo if you don't? Why would they let you take from their supplies if the situation is dire enough that you're running low on ammo? Point to me ONE report of allied bases sharing ammo when one runs low.
And if we're PLANNING on running out of ammo (lol), why not stick with the plentiful ammo? You can also pack more rounds per crate of a smaller round like 5.56 instead of .308 or .277.
You idiots accuse detractors of asspulling things, but here you guys are imagining these wild scenarios so unlikely to happen, it heavily unbalances any sort of pro/con relationship of just sticking with .223/.308 instead of the .mil ultrasupermagnum bullshit.
What world do you live in that the US is running out of ammo but other NATO countries aren’t? What’s the rationale behind making entirely new barrels for a new gun to shoot an ammo it wasn’t designed to shoot, rather than just make more ammo. Furthermore, in what world is the US still has ammo, but is unable to supply it but can supply 7.62 barrels? It doesn’t make sense.
Even Germany and Japan at the end of the war could make ammo
>One thing people tend to forget about the XM7 is that it can be barrel swapped in ~90 seconds to either 6.5CM or 7.62 NATO
Why does that matter? You can swap uppers in seconds on ARs also. You can get ARs with quick change barrels.
If you’re using 7.62 then that defeats the whole purpose of the new cartridge and they should have gone with AR-10s. At least those are lighter. If you use 6.5CM, great you get similar ballistics but add an entirely new round to the supply chain that’s not standard issue. Great plan. If you’re ok with a loss in power but happy with the trajectory of 6.5, why didn’t they use that initially?
Literally no one is worried about running out of 6.8 ammo. There are legitimate worries about the full power ammo burning barrels
>Once again another XM7 thread with bots spamming the same talking points and counterpoints
These threads are a waste of space
I know right? We should save space for more Ukraine threads
We should send all the XM7s to Ukraine with Sig personnel to di- err, fight for democracy or something
Not enough ammo supply.
The only place making the ammo is SIG themselves, and the army wont start their own production line until the new building is set up a lake city, which will take at least another 18-36 months.
I fail to see the problem
I never said or implied anything about ukraine but thank you for revealing what kind of sperg I'm talking to
why are you retards arguing about guns that didn't get submitted for consideration for the program?
The army isn't going to go out and test EVERY possible gun in the world to find the best one, they put out their wants/needs and asked for people to submit bids.
MOST companies didn't submit a god damn thing, so arguing that it could be a Rugar SFAR or HCAR, or whatever other garbage gun you thought would be a good fit is retarded. That's not how the army works, it's never been how the army works, and it wont change because you're upset the army went with SIG.
Because they make more sense and the Army made a mistake by not considering other guns? They base their requirements off existing platforms and express desirable characteristics based on what might be possible from seeing those.
Are you arguing the Army shouldn't choose what's BEST?
They could've easily seen the SPEAR and thought/said
>Hey, this isn't bad, but could it be made lighter/less bulky? The Ruger SFAR/POF Revolution/whatever manages it with .308, could we get something similar?
It's up to SIG to say yes or no. Someone else is bound to come along and submit their shit if nothing works out.
Stop holding water for SIG. Unless you're on their payroll, this does nothing to benefit you.
Companies have to submit a gun to quals, the military doesn't go out and buy shit off the shelf to test.
And it's up to them how close to follow what's requested. The Army doesn't just say "hey, submit guns to us", they lay out requirements and companies try to match it.
This is the whole LMG/SAW thing that people bitch about with Textron/LoneStar/whatever.
SIG submitted what they thought made sense, but there's other people (like me) saying it could, and SHOULD, be better.
Trying to barely fit the requirements is not an indication of a good gun or process.
And I know you're not going to try and tell me there isn't any corruption in the government. Especially after that whole ICSR bullshit fiasco.
What, exactly, is your problem with the SFAR and why are you so keen to defend the SPEAR? What, exactly, would be the harm in SIG having designed the SPEAR to be lighter/shorter/etc.? They tried a bullpup design, their original patents had a hydraulic buffer, but no, they rehashed their bullshit SPEAR line, especially what they submitted to the ICSR thing, and just winged it.
You might not care, but I think that's a problem. We shouldn't be getting the lowest common denominator/effort shit or whatever, we should actually be trying to IMPROVE and all that shit.
Deflect all you want, but it's irrefutable that there's other, BETTER, firearms out there than the SPEAR, and the military would be better off holding a new trial considering their features. How can you tell me these supposed top minds of our military that are supposed to be experts in their field weren't aware of things like the SFAR or POF Revolution/Renegade (I don't remember what theirs is called), etc.
>but there's other people (like me) saying it could, and SHOULD, be better.
Great, so the next time the army puts out a request for prototypes, you can submit yours.
>The gubmint knows best, frend
>Trust the gubmint
>You don't get a say
>Hurr durr, you just start your multi-billion dollar company and submit something in the future, loser
This is you, bootlicker.
No, but pretending the government should ignore any and all laws and regulations because you happen to think a better gun exists for the role is just insane.
There are procedures to follow, you can't just decide willy-nilly to go with a gun that was never even submitted to the program for evaluation because you personally think it's a good idea.
You keep getting hung up the process as if it's above criticism while also ignoring literally everyone one of my other points.
They should've done their due diligence before writing the requirements to ensure our military is getting the BEST equipment the industry can provide. We expect them to be qualified at their jobs, so I find it hard to believe someone that is supposedly an "arms expert" (who, I'd hope/assume, would be helping with the requirements, if not writing them themselves), wouldn't be aware of small-frame AR10's and such.
As the XM7 is still only a trials gun, there's plenty of opportunity for them to decide against it, I feel like you want to ignore that simple fact.
You still aren't debating any of my other points and just resigning yourself and others to "well, what's done is done" and so on.
You are contributing nothing to discussion and just trying to stand up for your corporate paymasters.
your entire "argument" boils down to fantasy-land cope since it's not based in reality, could never happen, and has no chance of EVER happening.
So why are you bringing it up?
You're contributing nothing by even pretending your alternatives are possible to begin with.
You can predict the future now, eh?
There's NEVER been other arms programs since the M16 was first adopted, right? kek
I'm contributing more than you with your bootlicking SIG shilling cope.
What does it excel in?
>There's NEVER been other arms programs since the M16 was first adopted, right? kek
moron are you stupid? I literally already said to submit your own the next time they run a program if you think you have such a good idea
>so the next time the army puts out a request for prototypes, you can submit yours.
But you also said it could NEVER happen? Which is it? Are you the same retard bitching about not speaking English specifications/statistics? Wew.
It'll never happen as in you bitching about it on a taiwanese basket weaving forum is never going to get the army to stop the current procurement and adoption of the rifle, I've been saying the entire time you're free to submit your own proposal the next time they ask for submissions, but it'll be awhile until that happens since they just went with the XM7 recently.
So you never had, and continue not to have an argument(s), got it. Thanks for wasting the planet's oxygen over the past few hours anon, really contributing to the society you apparently simp for so much over here.
>No, but pretending the government should ignore any and all laws and regulations
What laws and regulations would they be ignoring? Be specific.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html
What section specifically? Or are you trying to tell me whatever "argument" you have includes SUBPART 237.71 - LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING SERVICES
Which section prohibits the military from asking companies to provide a new rifle? They can say no. But what law stops them from asking?
That’s how it works but that doesn’t mean it isn’t stupid. If there is a better option in the civilian world the military should get a couple examples, tell their contractors to make something like it, and pay the original royalties.
>by not considering other guns?
Again, that's not how procurement works.
You do NOT find a gun and say hey, make this for us but a bit different.
You set out selection criteria and put out a request for prototypes and go from there.
Turns out, there are actual regulations and procedures that need to be followed when it comes to military arms procurement.
>spending all this money on a new, heavier, more powerful rifle
>not even going caseless
Why bother? Might as well just issue more AR10s as a stop gap if the tech hasn't matured yet.
Why the fuck are there so many mentions of kilograms in here??
Noguns euros. There is a good chance the Sigger is a hired poo shill
I still believe it's not happening. The order rate is just too small.
11k rifles a year, for ten years. By the year of our Lord 2033, almost 5% of all M4s in DoD armories will be replaced by M5s. An absolutely snail paced rollout compared to the Garand, and the M14, and the M16.
I'd say there is also room there to just rejigger it into being the DMR rifle, and it might even be useful in that role because it'd replace a hodge-podge of different M14/AR10/SCAR rifles cobbled together pajeet style
It's not 11k rifles a year, it's ~115,000 rifles in ~4-5 years, the remaining 5 years of the contract are left open for more orders if they want to place them.
And technically they left the contract open to all branches, so if the Marines, or Navy/Airforce/Spaceforce decided they wanted to buy the XM7 and or XM250 in the next 10 years, they can place orders as well under the same price-fixed contract, with no renegotiations or another contract having to be written up.
>115,000 rifles in 4-5 years, the remaining 5 years of the contract are left open
For comparison:
The Springfield rifle saw 80,000 issued the first year and 3 million by the end of the contract
There were 160,000 Garands by the end of year one of mass production and 400,000 by the end of year two (whew) out of 5+ million total
First year in service saw about 100,000 M14s handed out, and by the time they gave up on them, in year five, there were 1.3 million of the fuckin' things
And the very first M16 order, which everyone was very suHispanicious and hesitant about, was for 60,000 rifles in year one before ramping it up to "replace every M14" by year five
Supposedly (according to the press conference when they announced SIG won the contract) from what I remember they said the rifle orders were more predicated on ammo availability, it doesn't matter if you have a million M7 rifles if you only have a million rounds of 6.8x51 in stock.
The army said it would take until ~2030-32 before the army war reserves are filled for 6.8x51 at which point they can start to look at more seriously issuing the 6.8x51 and the XM7 on a wider scale.
Since the Lake City ammo line for 6.8x51 wont be up and running until ~2027/8 it doesn't make much sense to buy 200,000 rifles today when the only production line for 6.8x51 ammo is SIGs own production facility which was barely able to pump out more than a few million rounds a year. Nowhere near enough to outfit the army.
5.56 had a good run but that era of warfare is over
cope and seethe all you want, this is literally how future warfare will be fought
Why didn't they go with caseless ammo afterall?
They're going to have those stupid Boston Dynamics big dog robots following them around with crates of ammo attached, so soldiers won't need to bear the full weight of it. The robo dog will chug along and resupply them as they dome hajjis and slavs from 300 yards.
LOL @ its proprietary ammo too, great for OPSEC
>operating in region
>enemy finds spent casings that are unique to this gun
>they know which units are issued this weapon system
>they now know which forces are active in the region, can deduce operational strength, leadership, etc.
>as opposed to plain old 5.56 that looks the same from a SEAL's gun as it does from a grunt PFC
This sounds like some retarded CSI/Steven Seagull plot more than a realistic scenario tbh.
In any true black ops type shit you're probably using a brass catcher anyway.
? The rifle is literally the best service rifle on the planet Earth. For American-sized men, anyway. Meanwhile the whole world is abandoning bullpups and China switched over to a tweaked AR. This is the real world.
Advertising is against the rules Ron
>Meanwhile the whole world is abandoning bullpups and China switched over to a tweaked AR. This is the real world.
Bullpups are kinda ass. They've tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and still trying to make them work, but no human likes having a small explosion right next to their eye, even if it is self contained.
Flinching when you're eye is about to get hit is just pure human instinct, it takes a lot of training to not flinch.
Holy shit you're fucking retarded, there's problems with bullpups but what you just spouted is not one of them. Are you even aware of how firearms work or even function?
>Are you even aware of how firearms work or even function?
Do you?
>heavier than an M14, ammo more powerful than 308, soldiers can only carry 140 rounds.
one word: lift weight
>one word: lift weight
That’s two words.
Here are two words for you: post body
Guys there's no point in ganging up on the eurocuck in here, he's in bed now and dreaming of being able to own a .22lr in an AR-15 shell, much less the SIG Spear
Gonna be hilarious when zogmutts switch back to 5.56 (probably in a non-fuddy bullpup configuration now) after they realise moron trannies can't handle the recoil of full power rifle cartridges.
I think the 6.8 EPR looks like sex.
Pointy steel goodness.
what's with the black casings?
(we've already done load development that the public doesn't know about)
(not because it's classified spooky shit, but because "we copied M80A1 in .277" isn't really news worthy)
>what's with the black casings?
Steel case
>rail on top of the rail
And how do they plan to open feed cover with rail on top of it?
Today "assault rifle" is just a bussword
How much is the Army paying for it? What about the ammo?
What are the intended large scale production costs?
Cheaper than the 0.25$ of 5.56 and 640$ for an M4A1?
Let's be real.
~$15k/rifle but it includes costs like setting up a production line, further ongoing engineering and development costs for accessories and shit, and also spare parts.
Ammo is ~$2/shot right now cause it's only produced by SIG on a small production line, once the new production facility at lake city gets set up and running the costs should come down.
It's gonna drp with mass production, so how much is the supposed end price?
For the gun? It probably won't come down much at all unless the army orders a lot more. ~130k guns isn't really a big order.
130k guns isn't a massive order, but it's enough to get COMPO 1/2 equipped.
Then why did I carry an M249 as an Automatic Rifleman for so long? Retard.
The Army calls an M249 an Automatic Rifle.
> The USMC is literally retarded, more at 11
because army procurement is ran by retards.
these are the same people responsible for the EBR and M14.
the automatic rifleman's purpose is to kill crew served weapons.
it has to get into action immediately before the crews can set up,
and being operated by an individual, it must be mag fed so that it can share with riflemen.
this is why the m249 has the terrible mag adapter.
did you know the MINIMI was originally meant to be .308? that's why the m249 is so heavy.
the automatic rifleman's role is to provide fire suppression and overwatch. saying that its purpose is limited to taking out crew served weapons is retarded.
>this is why the m249 has the terrible mag adapter.
that is literally never used
also,
>posting a bar
it's not wwii anymore, mr sprey
>the automatic rifleman does what the machine gun team does
LMAO
>adapter
no shit it's never used, that's my point. the m249 is not actually used as an AR because it is a terrible AR. it's treated like machine gun, which it is.
I think the complaints about the XM7 are overblown, however I do wish the textron option won and they weren't retarded and had a belt fed machine gun.
Textron had a belt fed, True Velocity didn't.
Sorry anon, phone posting and barely paying attention. Meant GD's
Rumors are their telescopic case didn't play well with 6.8 GP bullet.
Moving chambers have big problem of non stable accuracy induced by chamber misalignment. Problem is exacerbated by 6.8 GP bullet pushing limits of engraving stability, short shank, forward center if gravity doesn't play well with extra long freebore of the telescoping (pseudo) case.
>He keeps saying it
Made this in photoshop because reasons.
No Punisher skull?
i fucked up
The guys screeching about civilians is fucking mentally ill shill gay that's been doing this for a few months now. Literally NO ONE except him posts that retarded shit. He legit needs help. Or maybe he's a demoralization shill.