Has the Ukraine war proved the Sig M5 battle rifle concept to be retarded?
>If you’re far enough away that a 5.56/5.45 can’t kill you then drones, tanks, artillery, air strikes etc will
>If you’re close enough that the enemy can’t risk friend fire via drone, artillery, air strike etc then a 6.8 rifle is retarded and a 5.56/5.45 is more than enough even if you’re wearing body armor
Has the Ukraine war proved the Sig M5 battle rifle concept to be retarded?
Has the Ukraine war proved the Sig M5 battle rifle concept to be retarded?
Yes, that's why the US is buying another 17,000 XM7 rifles in 2024 to add on to the ~10,000 from this year.
You used to brag about 124k for the "close combat force" goal shifter.
...yes that's still the plan moron it's a 10 year contract. it has ALWAYS been a 10 year contract.
The Sig M5 battle rifle has proved the Sig M5 battle rifle retarded.
I'm certain this trashfire won't get Comanche'd or anything.
I imagine that the process may have looked a bit like that bullshit story about the Bradley from the Pentagon Wars, if it started out as some bullshitter desperately hawking the HK417 at retard boomer brass.
>silencers are for operators
or anyone who wants to hear shit
I'm honestly imagining the H&K salesman egging them on and telling them a bunch of bullshit to get them more excited.
The XM5 is an atrocious battle rifle though, we'd be far better off with a modernized FAL if we're gonna rock big rifle cartridges. Aluminum 25rd mags with a slight curve, railed upper receiver with something nice like an ACOG, paratrooper stock, dustcover for the ejection port, and then add a forward assist function for the charging handle.
The bayonet lug stays, because bayonets are good, and we're doing good old 7.62mm NATO, no Sig Fag cartridges, barrel no shorter than 18". If we give them a camo paint job, then we can really slot some floppies.
So what you're saying is something that meets basically none of the NGSW program requirements as they were set.
The goddamn XM5 and XM250 don't fucking meet the NGSW's requirements themselves, they don't bust Lv.4 plates and the terminal ballistics aren't appreciably different from M80A1 Ball. Add being unbearably loud and harsh recoiling even by battle rifle / GPMG standards, with a barrel life comparable to that of a fruit fly's, and it's not exactly impressive.
If you're gonna rock full power, you can do MUCH better than what Sig Sauer is doing.
The retarded ass .277 Fury cartridge is part of why the XM5 is a terrible rifle.
Sure, but only if it's in god's own battle rifle cartridge, 7.62mm Real Fucking NATO, and if it retains the buffer tube and proper gas system. Fuck the HK416 and its inbred progeny, we're not doing any half-measures, do the AR10 and AR15 right, or don't do them at all.
Correct, as did a few others, like the US T48 prototypes, and I believe also the trials versions of the British L1A1 SLR, possibly also the Canadian trials rifles. Sometimes you need to give your carrier a tap or push, just like the slide on a pistol.
The machinegun is particularly horrible, I can only imagine how quickly those things will go through barrels. Spend the money on more M240Ls instead.
>they don't bust Lv.4 plates
Was never part of the PPON, you can read it yourself it's public information.
Which is a fucking cope argument, and makes the NGSW program yet more retarded, a feat I thought impossible.
I'm just telling you the facts retard so you can stop saying bullshit and getting called out for it.
People love to say BUT IT DOESN"T EVEN BUST LVL 4 PLATES
as if that was EVER part of the program requirements in the first place and then when shown proof it was never there they then cry about how WELL THEN WHATS EVEN THE POINT!?>!!?!
You fucks have no consistency.
So what is the point then? I'm expressing actual confusion and you get your lace panties in a twist, Christ
he's just cranky that it's getting increasingly hard for him to defend his neo-M14
The point is to fight against PKM harassment fire in Afghanistan. There was a whole laughable PowerPoint presentation made a ways back that premeditated all this and it revolved around overmatch.
>The point is to fight against PKM harassment fire in Afghanistan.
Correction, PKM harassment fire in a single incredibly specific environment.
>So what is the point then?
The new optic and penetrating body armor at extended ranges.
>People love to say BUT IT DOESN"T EVEN BUST LVL 4 PLATES
>cites a video of a guy shooting lead core SMK
The Army isn't going to be poking plate at 400m with steel core ammo either, if only they had more effective material to construct projectiles from...
So we're only giving grunts 12lbs battle rifles chambered in a pissinghot magnum rounds in the hope that a BDC calculator turns them into snipers?
hello??? based department???
What if we chambered your updated FAL for basically a bottlenecked version of 7.62 NATO (a sort of best-of-both-worlds in between it and the 5.56) which we could call .277 SIG Fury--- oh wait.
We're going with an AR-10, and you better fucking love it.
Israeli fal already had a forward assist function on the charging handle. Fyi
This. BRs (like the NGSW) are a solved problem. Slap on the fancy Vortex scope and you're good.
Neither does the XM7, by those standards. It's a BR in a meme cartridge with marginally different performance from 7.62 (still can't pierce NIJ IV lmao), no matter how you try to move the goalposts.
literally everyone should use silencers.
Return to /v/ plz.
anyone posting pentagon wars unironically needs to an hero
>louder even though silenced
That's pretty much right, in that it replicates the Pentagon Wars' depiction of the Bradley, as opposed to the hype-ass beast machine that haunts the dreams of T-72s that the Bradley was in real life
funny maymay but suppressors are widely used in Ukraine
nah it'll be epic, for the first time in history we are not moving to smaller bullets, but larger ones
battle rifle bros....our return is nigh
jesus christ this is overgassed FAL levels of recoil
what in tarnation were they thinking
You're basically not intended to use it on automatic fire.
Single shots or short bursts at most.
Which is probably fine and is what you should be using 99% of the time anyway unless you're on an LMG.
That's still happening anon.
How many M4s does the military have, d'ya figure?
I don't know this number off hand, it's not a rhetorical question
I'm assuming it's a seven digit number but it might be an eight digit one.
The M7 isn't intended to replace the M4
Not really sure what your point is here besides showing off your own retardation like it's going out of style.
>besides showing off your own retardation like it's going out of style
What the fuck are you even seething at about my post
Because you're comparing M4 and M7 numbers as if that has ANY relevance to ANYTHING.
Rifles really don't matter. The US Army could go to war with M1s and it wouldn't change a thing. It's really just to give more money to SiG and have a cool new gun for recruiting posters.
Ukraine and Russia aren't hypermodern militaries with counters on a unit level to deal with threats like drones
Defeating near peer body armor was the reason behind going to the new round. It was never explicitly said "Russian" but when there's only two near peer threats the US faces its not hard to figure out what it's alluding to. With small arm engagements coming out of Ukraine 5.45 and 5.56 are still doing just fine. But like everything in the 2014 to Feb 22 time frame. Russia looked to be more formidable than they turned out to be and this was just another product of that thinking.
my issue with this program is the deviation away from NATO standardization. the big selling point with 5.56 and stanag magazines is that we can all use the same shit if need be. Right now if a land war in Euroupe did break out and for some fucking reason an American, British, Dutch, Belgian etc unit is OPCON or TACON to a unit of different nationality there is no change to the resupply process. This heap of Sigshit is a wrench in the gears of that.
Don't try to explain it bud this shit heel has never seen how many times people miss or don't even shoot at the 300m pop up at a Qual range
Good designs are never designed the way the customer wants.
They are designed the way the designer knows the customer actually wants it without knowing.
If the army actually knew how to build a good rifle they would.
Instead sig makes shit to their specs and we end up with another lemon just like the last rifle project.
Gun designers need to ignore the military contracts and just make the best next gen rifle they can and if the army knows what is good for them they will adopt it.
That's what FNH did with the LICC and it's at the very least a less stupid caliber.
>Gun designers need to ignore the military contracts a
>t. Carl Walther
Big issue with that is, you might make a better product but it isn't used by the customer because they have retarded goals/expectations.
If a retarded focus group made a rifle this is what you would get
How many SCAR-H's did the military buy when rangers were rolling around with them for a deployment?
I think the military only accepted a few thousand at most.
It's official designation is the M7 now, since Colt had a rifle in consideration called the XM5 that was not chosen. Try to keep up.
>Has the Ukraine war proved the Sig M5 battle rifle concept to be retarded?
A war that has stalemated in trench warfare? If anything, this type of weaponry is needed now more than ever.
US military is all fatties, manlets and women now. None of these cretins can handle a 13-lb battle rifle with a loadout of ammo that weighs twice as much also.
Should supply some to Ukraine for field testing and find out.
Pretty much anon, in the start of the war there were alot of SCARs and the occasional m1a, but now everyone has reverted to only the ak or m4 variant. As always, battle forces the soldiers to stick with what’s most useful and not what’s best on paper
why are you trannies still seething over the US going back to battle rifles?
Battle rifles are more common among trannies than even AK’s are. For every chud posing with an ar, there 500 tank top tards with their red triggered AR. Half of all SCAR’s posted are usually by trannies. There’s a big divide between the former base of battle rifle owners which were mostly boomers and the new cod and fortnite zoomer base which is full of trannies. AR’s by comparison are normie tier most owned by millenials and early zoomers
Are these trannies in the thread with us right now, anon?
I'm an artist and can't own guns because illegal.
What makes it so bad? What's the best rifle if not the new modern one?
It's bad because PrepHoletards who have only ever shot 5.56, or who served in the last 40 years and have only ever shot 5.56 think that the ONLY round capable of being a good standard issue infantry round is 5.56 (or something very similar).
They honestly can't fathom a reality where the army carries slightly less bullets because the bullets are bigger and weigh more.
They want to pretend if the US adopts this rifle, somehow the US army will be defeated by goat farmers, let alone china.
It's absurd and frankly makes me laugh at the retards who think it can't replace 5.56.
We're just repeating the 60s when boomers bitched about the M16 and the 80s when boomers bitched about the M9. Everyone who cries about the NGSW and even the MHS only do so because they've invested time, money, and feelings into their AR and 92 and now they're scared of the M5 and M17/18 becoming the new standard while the AR and 92 fade into obscurity.
Yup, age old issue of whatever I have no is the best thing ever, and whatever is coming next sucks ass.
the problem with this brainlet take is that it completely ignores the obvious M14 similarities and pretends that the detractors aren't dubious because it's new, but because it shares so many aspects with a failed, older concept.
Yes, and morons like yourself love to "forget" that we didn't have smart optics in the 1950s, we didn't have satellites or drones in the 1950s, and we sure as fuck didn't have GPS and real time bulk data sharing in the 1950s
It's a different age and pretending it's the M14 all over again makes you at BEST look stupid, and at worst look like a biased gay.
>it's different now that we have a push-button BDC and real-life combat is totally going to be like my Ghost Recon Future Soldier vidya where we shoot through cover at neon-color highlighted infantry and enemies just stand out in the open to be shot and we always have clear 400m+ lines of sight and we just whip out pistols when we need to CQB and
Blow yourself noguns
I find your faith in the marksmanship of the typical grunt to be endearing but naive. And before you bring up the scope and GPS shit again, no, that does not negate the fact that your average ground-pounded will have issues hitting an in-cover opponent trying his best to not be shot at the ranges that you'd want to have a magnum rifle round.
you push a button and it estimates the range, you think that shit gives you windage, which has always been the real kicker in longer ranged shooting? bet your ass hasn't ever shot beyond 200 lmao.
>We have a better idea of where the enemy is
Sounds like a good time to call in some ordnance rather than lob rounds a quarter mile.
The 11B now knows what range the weaving and bobbing upper torso is at when it's flitting between cover. Now tell me how the 11B, and I want you to keep in mind the capabilities of the average 11B (if you've ever interacted with one or seen their marksmanship), fares when trying to hit that target at 500y. Do you see why those of us who actually have an idea how infantry warfare pans out in the battlefield and not on the range would be skeptical about the degree of an advantage this new system gives us in regards to being a standard issue rifle. A DMR, abso-fucking-lutely.
>new caliber and scope will force a new infantry doctrine with new training
>old fuds who only ever did training with M4s/M16s, and iron sights or ACOGs don't understand how their M4/M16 training will translate to the M7 (because it wont)
>somehow fuds are still unable to understand training will change for the new guns and ammo
Wow it's almost like none of you have had the training that the soldiers who will field this weapon will have to go through.
You didn't address any points directly, you just said
and acted like that negated everything. Do you think the training received in Basic is going to overcome the inherent difficulties of longer-ranged shooting, paired with an enemy that is very much going to try his hardest to not get shot? Once again, an auto-BDC is not a magical implement.
have you ever shot at anything beyond 200y? you got any rifles capable of being effective at those ranges at all? got anything to offer other than reddity snark?
>rifle marksmanship principles will no longer apply because caliber different
>i was never trained for long range marksmanship on my M4 and therefore no one will ever get proper training for the M7 at long range
wow you got me, you all proved the M4 is the best military rifle ever invented.
Close the thread, we're done now.
Anon, are you even going to try to refute or are you just going to fall back on lazy hand-waving that do not address any points directly?
you literally argue like a woman on tumblr c.2014 and don't even shoot rifles, just have a nice day midwit.
It’s hilarious because the actual old fudd take would be jubilant, because this would mimic the training they had on an 03 Springfield and the military moving away from the piddly wounding round in 30 too high capacity magazines that you can’t use to take deer.
Are you retarded??
The OLDEST living active member of the military trained on an M16 in basic training.
None of the people who trained on M14's or earlier are even still in active service, and most are dead.
given the last third of his post I'm assuming he's being sarcastic...I hope
Are you? Do you even know what an old fudd is or has it just become the new PrepHole byword for thing-I-don’t-like amongst ingrates?
When we're talking about old fuds in the military brass that made the decisions for this program and who have an age limit and are all younger than 65?
This is something I don't get, I keep hearing people say the military generals want to go back to the M14 because they're boomer morons, but as you pointed out here, none of those generals ever trained with an M14, they all entered service in the 1960s or later.
>somehow fuds are still unable to understand training will change for the new guns and ammo
How does training change to account for the fact that A-stan sightlines are the exception and not the rule, that long range shooting is hard on moving and concealed targets in battlefield conditions because of outside factors that are innate to existing as a human on planet Earth, that range estimation is something like 1/3 of the battle for a marksman and the easiest of the lot to overcome, and that heavier rifle + less ammunition is going to have issues?
You don't understand. If every rifleman can't individually outrange emplaced, crew-served PK machine guns, then we're going to be overmatched and just die en mass. The M14 should have never been replaced. 5.56 is the sole and only reason we failed in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. We would still have Subic Bay and Clark AF too if it weren't for the obvious lack of capability that 5.56 communicated to our enemies. SCHV cartridges have emboldened our enemies and sapped the vitality and fighting capability from our brave warrior Marines. The inestimable Dave Grossman in is genius work talked about soldiers in Vietnam deliberately missing NCA and VC. The soldiers thought that they're tiny bullets wouldn't kill and they didn't want to inflict torture on even those communists. I *know* that if you looked at combat data, M14 armed units would have had better accuracy because they believed in the inherent killing power of a .30 caliber bullet.
The M16 and it's consequences have been a disaster for the American people.
Number of world wars the US won while issuing .45ACP: two
Number of world wars the US won while issuing 9mm: zero
That’s damn right boys!!! If the LIBERALS hadn’t issued us that CRAP made by MATTEL we would have WON.
Alan “gooseneck” Richards
D.O.D.: WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS AND KISS MY COLD DEAD ASS!!!
US Army Reserve 1968-1972
100% DISABLED VETERAN
1968 PONTIAC FIREBIRD
Proud American Diabetes Association Member
I STAND WITH ISREAL...LIBS DONT EVEN STAND TO PISS!!!
~ Q ~ TRUST THE PLAN
STOP THE STEAL, MAGA!
STAND FOR THE ANTHEM
KNEEL FOR THE FLAG
LETS GO BRANDON!
TRUMP 2024, BRANDON CANT EVEN HOLD HIMSELF UP BY HIMSELF
M1911 IS THE ONLY GUN ONE WILL EVER NEED
" You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. " - Yamamoto
I FEAR NO MAN....THE WIFES A DIFFERENT STORY!!!
" May God have mercy on my enemies, because I won't. " - George S. Patton
I ROLL COAL...GONNA CRY SNOWFLAKE? GET A JOB!!!
Ok, then why not just use a FAL or G3 or other proven rifle without an $8000+ pricetag for a silly cartridge incompatible with everything else?
A long time ago the US adopted a main infantry rifle with a similar line of thinking which shares some on paper characteristics, the M14. The idea was a full power semi auto mag fed rifle with a capacity of 20. The thinking by the big brains in the army was that the greater recoil, lower capacity, and less usable full auto fire would be more than negated by increased per round power and increased effective range backed up by more marksmanship focused training. This didn't work out in practice for a variety of practical and technical reasons and the rifles time as standard issue was short lived. It was replaced by the M16, which proved to be much more successful in practice with it's lower recoil and lighter weight of ammunition. Midwits look at this chain of events and think it's obvious that going back to a more powerful rifle with lower capacity is a bad idea which will result in the same outcomes as last time.
well it will given the limits of marksmanship training and the fact that the smart scope was a BDC with an LED
The following is IMO so consider that:
The problem with this hot take is simply that it isn't 1960 anymore. The M14 was doomed by the simple fact that the weak point in the whole idea of a more powerful marksmanship intensive rifle is the human operator using iron sights, not to mention the vast majority of casualties are inflicted by crew served weapons like aircraft and artillery. Studies dating back to WW2 have consistently shown that actual grunts using guns with iron sights under realistic circumstances have shit practical accuracy and your typical marksmanship training does not adequately remedy this problem. Similarly the US was about to find itself in a war in Vietnam which is hardly an ideal situation for a rifle and combat style of that type. The introduction of modern optics over the last 30yrs has already resulted in a night and day difference in combat accuracy, to such a degree that initially investigations where launched as there was suHispanicion that troops were executing prisoners and misreporting them as killed in combat. We're currently poised for another leap forward in practical combat accuracy with next generation scopes looking to offer built in ballistic computers, aim assist, networking, thermal imaging, and tons of other nifty shit. Soldier HUDs and networking combined with proliferation of loitering munitions and drones is expressly planned for the near future, which may significantly reduce soldier reliance on calling in artillery/air support reducing the amount of rounds needed for suppressing an enemy for them to be destroyed by crew served weapons. Body armor proliferation with enemies is a concern, people question whether the M5 will be able to effectively counter even current armor but that remains to be seen, the military has a specialty load(people like to forget this actually prompted the program in the first place) that they've been very hush hush about and being effective against armor is one of the programs main goals.
Overall I don't think that the M5 will turn out to be the shit show that the M14 was due to technical improvements in small arms and small unit lethality in other areas but it's still gonna probably be a mixed bag. Even if I'm right about all this stuff it wouldn't surprise me if the M5 ends up eventually being relegated to somewhat limited use and replaced with something in between it and the 5.56 in terms of long range performance and weight efficiency.
>to such a degree that initially investigations where launched as there was suHispanicion that troops were executing prisoners and misreporting them as killed in combat
I know laymen love to point to this tidbit from Fallujah, but it really needs to be known that a 4x nailing complacent, stationary heads at ranges that maxed out at, and I'm not exaggerating here, 120y is not such an incredible feat. This does not mean your typical IIB is doing the same thing at ranges quadrupling that, on account of them still being human and long-range shooting is still going to be relatively difficult no matter what do-dads you have in your optics.
Argument is invalid on its face. The point was made to show that technology can and has significantly improved combat accuracy. Pointing out that this was with 4x scopes at X range is not an indemnification as the scopes for the M5 are not going to be 4x acogs, they're considerably higher magnification with additional training wheels for improving practical accuracy at these longer ranges
>long-range shooting is still going to be relatively difficult no matter what do-dads you have in your optics.
Barely even worth addressing. Technology has made long range shooting massively easier, suggesting that there will not be significant future improvements despite many being near fruition "because I say so" is retard levels of logic.
Sure, because it's not like one of the major factors in current projectile design by the army is finding ways to avoid tungsten use in AP loads due to the Chinese problem. Absolutely no way that the specialty round the military literally adopted a new rifle to field while refusing to elaborate on the details of it's construction could in any way be different.
It's like I'm talking to somebody with a complete inability to read between the lines and make the smallest of logical jumps, like playing peekaboo with a child who hasn't developed a sense of object permanence yet.
You're accusing me of just using "because I say so" while you're just using blanket statements of technology overcoming physics and human physiology because of...reasons. The ACOG in Fallujah remark was to show that the feat wasn't that impressive in any event for just about any optic. You're overhyping a BDC calculator and pretending that things like stress-induced heartrate, terrain obstruction, the limitations of training an 11B is going to be receiving in any scenario etc. etc. don't matter.
I'll make things blunt; if you had a scope that was capable of taking range *and* windage into account, your typical infantryman is still going to struggle to shoot an enemy at magnum round-appropriate ranges. This is because he is in combat and stressed, still has to take into account shot-to-impact time, is facing an enemy that doesn't want to get shot and is almost always in cover etc. etc.
No amount of technology changes this. Knowing where the bullet will land at that given instant is not the game-winning breakthrough it's being presented as in this thread. It's a decent chunk out of the equation, but I highly encourage you to try actually shooting at ranged targets when not perfectly calm and off an impromptu rest, if not off-hand. You'll be surprised at all the factors that come into play that a scope is not going to account far. Then imagine those target are shooting at you and trying to remain in as much cover as possible. You get the idea.
>Marksman principles will be thrown completely out the window by muh snazzy scoops because....BECAUSE THEY JUST WILL OKAY?
>the military is gonna develop some radical new elemental alloy that will be cheaper and more readily available than DU and tungsten, just TRUST ME BROS
It's gonna be tungsten core and I'm going tot think back to your posts and laugh.
>Technology has made long range shooting massively easier,
Have you ever taken a rifle beyond 300m?
Have you taken 6.5cm or .300WM out to 500m+?
Unless you've got a TON of wind you're still gonna be able to get pretty close, and knowing nearly instantly where the bullet drop point is going to be is certainly going to help you get your shot out faster. No one is saying it's an aimbot or anything, but you're retarded if you think the army can't train you for wind holds with a ballistic calculator doing all the bullet drop for you at the push of a button.
>Unless you've got a TON of wind you're still gonna be able to get pretty close
Bruh, a decent crosswind is going to make that shit shift significantly...
>Have you taken 6.5cm or .300WM out to 500m+?
I can tell from your post you haven't.
>Unless you've got a TON of wind you're still gonna be able to get pretty close
A 10mph crosswind is going to make .300WM drift 18MOA @ 500m in ideal shooting conditions
Yeah?? Like I said, close enough to make accurate followups.
>for crosswinds @500m+
FFS this thread is embarrassing
>combat loadout of 140 rounds
>making multiple shots just to account for windage and praying there's no shifting and the guy stays exactly where he's at despite already having been shot at
I'm loving the M7 more and more.
You don't understand, anon. The windage means you'll miss by so much that the other guy won't even realize he was shot at so you can try for a follow up!
>11B laying in the dirt, engaging some PLA retard at 600m
>first shot goes 24 MOA left
>crosswind went from 10mph to 6mph in the meantime
>round is now 6 MOA to the right
>alerted PLA retard goes back into cover
>repeat until all rounds expended
This assumes you don't compensate at ALL, why are we assuming the soldier hasn't been trained even in the slightest?
I swear to god you morons are going to give me an aneurism, firstly you're advocating making every grunt go through marksman-level training then you just assume that making windage corrections in combat with crosswinds at long-range is something you can do quickly.
>making every grunt
anon, it's only ~110,000 rifles
that's far from "every grunt"
That's essentially every frontline rifle carrier in the Army...
>people question whether the M5 will be able to effectively counter even current armor but that remains to be seen
moron we have readily-available data on rounds with higher BDC and energy than .277 failing to pen IV plates within 50 yards, it's not exactly rocket science to deduce.
>a specialty load
Spoiler; it's a tungsten core.
Thanks for your replies. It does sound like a downgrade.
It sounds like snipers/drone operators are better suited to deal with anything long range
>dramatically increasing combat loadout weight (rifle alone is going from 9 lbs to around 12 lbs)
>dramatically decreasing combat loadout capacity
>is categorically less suited for close-in engagements (210 rounds to 140 rounds)
>revolves around the supposition of longer-ranged combat being the norm, something that is being thrown into doubt in the current Ukraine situation and had always relied on anecdotes of long-ranged harassments fire in Afghanistan
>serious concerns about barrel longevity
>the whole "muh plates" argument is turning out to be more and more bullshit by the week, since Level IV plates will still remained intact from impacts unless AP rounds are used...just like with everything else
>the wunderscope is really just a snazzy BDC and isn't the aimbot marvel it was presented to be by proponents
Lots to wonder about...
>Level IV plates will still remained intact from impacts unless AP rounds are used
Hardened steel tip M855A1 isn't AP
The 6.8 military round will have a hardened steel tip. It won't be AP.
My brother in Christ I hope you're not insinuating that the regularass 6.8 round is going to do what tipped .300 WNM can't.
>the regularass 6.8 round is going to do what tipped .300 WNM can't
Tipped with what? Steel?
You know we're talking ceramic armor here, right? No, steel tipped 6.8 is not penetrating IV plates. Not when steel tipped rounds with higher BDC and energy can't.
That's why I asked. Commercial 277 seems to fail to penetrate IV but obviously make it fail backface deformation standards.
A heavy steel penetrator in 6.8 should do better.
I was just waiting for this to come up.
>The 6.8 military round
The ball ammo sure, you have no idea what the "SP" special purpose $22/shot round is going to be.
money is on tungsten, but could be some crazy new super alloy as well.
even if it's some superduper wonderalloy, my money is on that turning into some $40 a pop nightmare that the DoD will toss and just go for tungsten.
It's $22/shot right now when it's being bought from SIG being produced at SUPER low volume.
Once the lakecity ammo plant gets their 6.8x51 line up and running the price should come down significantly, not go up further.
After WWII research indicated that combat took place closer than planers had expected and that increasing the number of projectiles in the air increased the chance of a hit. This flew in the face of older doctrine that focused on precise aimed fire at great range, with soldiers discouraged from rapid fire “wasting” of ammunition. It is feared that this rifle is a reversion to incorrect older thinking prompted by unique anecdotes from Afghanistan, a country the United States is no longer in.
New isn't always better
But specifically it's heavier than it needs to be
Just do an actual AR-10
Every war since WWI has proved the Sig M5 battle rifle concept to be retarded.
>it's another "NGSWiggers do not understand long range marksmanship and think a BDC calculator turns every grunt into a sniper" episode
never fails, really.
What I'd like to know is where people got the idea that the scope was supposed to do all kinds of crazy shit like automatically leading moving targets or whatever. I remember someone posting Vortex's patent documents that laid out exactly how it works in a thread sometime early last year or even as far back as late 2021.
COD literally made a carbon copy of the scope.
It gives you a range and a bullet drop hash mark, the actual aiming and shot choice is still up to the individual.
>It gives you a range and a bullet drop hash mark, the actual aiming and shot choice is still up to the individual.
>the actual aiming and shot choice is still up to the individual.
COD managed to grasp something that retards in this thread cannot. It's amazing.
There's a couple of smartscopes out there that have shown the ability to do things like that in testing, which is what retards are parroting, and the Vortex system comes with room intended for upgrades to be slotted into so once the capabilities mature, it'll be fairly low cost to just slap it in.
Every fucking time the actual fundamentals of long range shooting shows up to the fray of this particular debate topic, the lid gets blown off and they show how little they know about shooting fundamentals. Every. Fucking. Time.
The nature of engagements where a range finder would be useful arent engagements where reliable hits can be made against an enemy that knows youre there, let alone the infantry that will be given this rifle being able to make hits in ideal conditions.
Tbf, the m4/m16 and xm7 just seem to not fill the same role. M4/m16 is more suited for close to medium distances where the volume of fire wins out while the xm7 seems like a dmr considering that fancy optic. Pentagon deciding all Grunts should use the xm7 seems like a bad move though.
Trying to take what's happening in Ukraine, between two militaries that have fractions of the capabilities of the US, and apply it to our own weapons doctrine is going to always be a difficult affair.
The reasons the US wants the M7 may be somewhat outdated, since so much of our experience was in the middle east with engagement distances that could meet or exceed the maximum effective range of 5.56, but still that idea is there. The idea still remains that US forces will use their superior range and suppression capabilities to pin an enemy down, and wait for some sort of ordinance to drop on the opponent.
As far as capability of volume of fire versus the M4, I'm positive the military has gathered together the biggest statistician autists to look at combat data over the last several decades to determine whether soldiers carrying fewer rounds would operationally impact them or not and found it to be a non factor, or perhaps with weighting for additional round lethality/casualty rates from the larger round.
Regardless, I think the M7, despite all the contentions around it, probably won't substantially change the US tendency to simply wait for CAS to blow their enemies up.
> I'm positive the military has gathered together the biggest statistician autists to look at combat data over the last several decades to determine whether soldiers carrying fewer rounds would operationally impact them or not and found it to be a non factor, or perhaps with weighting for additional round lethality/casualty rates from the larger round.
Brilliant anon, bravo.
NGSW (NIGSAW) a play on words likening the acronym NGSW with the word moron.
ITT: Everyone talking out of their ass once again
The M5 is clearly designed to destroy battlefield robots. You think 5.56 is gonna take out Boston Dynamics killer robots?
DAMN - I feel salty as hell having been a 1980's Marine. Woodland camo, M16A2, black leather boots. Rifle expert due to be able to drill out the black at the 500 yard line with iron sights. Every 6 months to the range for a week of just rifle quals. Loved it.
Shooooters READY !
ALLLLL ready on the firing Line !!!!! Taaaaargetsss !
Ronald Reagan loved his Marine Corps too ..Good times.
Big bullet hurt more
>Create circular argument about the M5's range and capabilities
>Too far is too far
>Too close is too close
>There is no good disance to fire this rifle at
>Therefore rifle bad
Wow we're reaching new levels of IQ that we didn't thought were possible
>Chamber "carbine" in magnum round
>Make standard issue for frontline grunts
>Too big and powerful for close-in combat
>Training every grunt to be a marksman for the ranges that a magnum round is suitable for is unrealistic and time consuming and basically makes the infantry squad into a memey DME stack minus said marksman training
It's not circular reasoning, your just dense and don't grasp the issues at hand.
In a real conflict with near peer adversaries enemies will exclusively expose an 8x10 portion of their midsection to our troops. They will be so ideologically steadfast that 200 rounds of suppressive fire will NOT deter them! Our studies have shown that you only need 63.4 rounds of ammunition given the superior penetration and stopping powah of the .277 cartridge to match a basic 5.5.6 loadout.
And we all know 30 round magazines and the M16 with its itty bitty bullet were the reasons we lost 'nam, so we're going back to a real man's cartridge! Hell yeah Brother!
Mitch "Razorback" McNeil
"Real patriots don't file tax returns, our democracy needs every last cent!"
I've been tellin these kids all they need is Good M1, No man ever carried a Mattel toy into combat, I would have ditched that plastic crap the second I got into combat and picked up another rifle.
Barrack is NOT my president!
U.S Army 1960-1960 (I was smarter than the Generals and tougher than the D.I's and they KICKED me out because I was too damn tough for those commies!
These kids are just coddled to hell and back I tell ya. And now they're crying about too little ammo and too much recoil. A real man just shuts up and handles it. Giving people them high-capacity clips just made em worse at shootin. If you gotta count your bullets, you'll learn real fast how to make em count.
You can just see them underfed pasty kids on the news shootin up places with their little .22s, if we didn't have them small caliber rifles, we'd not even have them gun-control problems.
Proud American, Proud husband to a lovely wife and proud stepfather to two lovely daughters!
WTS: 1996 Ford Mustang V6 Coupe w 98,000 miles. $49,000 OBO. No lowballs, I know what I got!
The ordnance department tried to stop the M16 which was a horrible rifle and was a mistake to adopt a intermediate caliber rifle, Battle rifles have always been the victors in war.
No it hasn't. The machine gun is significantly better than the M249 and the M240. The rifle needs to use the same ammo as the machine gun for logistics reasons. You're getting GPMG range and energy in an LMG form factor. That's the point.
But now we can't wildly shoot ineffective 5.56 spray all the time :c
What are grunts going to do for fun?
They watch all the tagged hostiles on their VR goggles get blown up.