you are a twig but not a retard. it's super heavy, and it'll only payoff if we end up fighting a near-peer who can equip its troops with body armor (China, but I'm dubious as to whether they could actually put body armor on every infantryman)
It's not like they're melting down M4s for scrap, they'll still have HUNDREDS of thousands of M4s available if the need is there.
Do you REALLY think they're going to adopt the M7, find out it's shit and just throw their hands up in the air and be forced to use it for the next 20 years even if it's not combat-effective?
If it was just being touted as a new DMR that shares ammo with the new 6.8mm MG no one would get too bothered. But it *has* been claimed to be the M4 replacement that all infantry will be issued. And then people naturally go 'eeh idk if that's a good idea'
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But it *has* been claimed to be the M4 replacement that all infantry will be issued
Show me ANYTHING the army has said that backs this up.
I watched the XM5/XM250 selection press conference live and they specifically said it's for ~120,000 personnel in the "tip of the spear" front-line units only.
Everyone else, still gets M4s for at LEAST the next 10-15 years, if not longer.
That was the OFFICIAL plan announced, if you know something else I don't feel free to source it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Brother, that's sounds an awful lot like they're replacing all the ars with the sig...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There are ~500,000 active duty US army members, they are purchasing ~120,000 M7's over the course of ~8-10 years.
This doesn't include reserves or other branches of service.
The M4 will be in service for decades to come, keep your panties on.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it's for ~120,000 personnel in the "tip of the spear" front-line units only
Lmfao "only", how much personnel do you think we have for frontline fighting you retard? 120k units basically means anyone who even has a chance of actually seeing action is going to have the SIG brick and the M4 is relegated to reserve and support duty like the A2 was when I was in. How is that a good thing exactly?
>same weight as a 416
the 416 is needlessly heavy and a typical example of kraut overengineering. An M4A1 with a better profile barrel made of a more modern alloy would be a better replacement for the M4 >unloaded
this is a very important distinction. The average US infantryman is already carrying too much shit for a combat load, so for the same weight, you'll have half of the ammo that you would with 5.56. volume of fire wins firefights. if you really want more range than 5.56 has to offer, switch to something like 6mm ARC or something similar. But an often quoted stat that I've never seen a source for says that 90% of all infantry engagements for the past 300 (200?) years have been inside of 200 yards. 5.56 is still going to fragment and yaw at that range from a 14.5" barrel. A good optic can help you PID and make hits out to 500 yards. Past 500 yards is the realm of designated marksmen and crew-served weapons anyway. So, how important is that increased effective range? idk, I was never in the army, and I never got high enough in the corps to have input on any kind of institutional decisions >inb4 muh armor penetration
was not a requirement, and it doesn't penetrate armor better than 5.56 or 7.62 NATO with comparable bullet construction
It’s pretty heavy to shoot off hand. Probably a rifle made best with a bipod or rested against something, which is how most rifles are shot in combat conditions anyways.
Okay, whats the actual reason behind the XM7 rename? They say its to avoid trademark issues with the Colt M5, but Colt has been making a .308 AR called the M7 for a while now. Is there something I'm missing?
Brother picture yourself with an even juicier rifle with heavier bullets. A fully powered .308 / 7.62x51 all-American AR-10, double/triple taped up JUNGLE STYLE, a suppressor, and an extended or single unit computerized thermal optic. That's not an easy weapon, but it is an immensely powerful one.
The ballistics of a fully powered cartridge do not ask your preferences.
You want the small bullet? You want it to be lighter, to be EASY?
Brother the killing fields do not cater to WEAKNESS
According to most of what i've seen the 11.5" and 9" barrels have no issues, just the 16" versions
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>According to most of what i've seen the 11.5" and 9" barrels have no issues, just the 16" versions
Shorter barrel = less torque on the receiver lol. Does not mean the design isn't inherently flawed. Not a single one of my free-float ARs has this problem lol.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well the 16" version is showing issues with even 10lbs of force, and the 11.5" has no issues even with 40lbs of force.
If that extra 4.5" does THAT much then okay I guess, but I don't think another 4.5" of barrel length should be THAT big of a difference in the barrel stability.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If that extra 4.5" does THAT much then okay I guess, but I don't think another 4.5" of barrel length should be THAT big of a difference in the barrel stability.
Anon do you know what a cheater bar is?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, and again if 11.5" is fine but 16" is dog shit, it's more than just the 4.5" length, by your logic the 9" should be rock solid and the 11.5" should be nearly as susceptible as the 16" but it isn't.
Not to mention reports of newer 16" barrels NOT having the same problems at all, IE it was a batch issue or similar that got quietly fixed.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>sigfag coping about their constant non-published iterating as if it isn't a massive fucking indicator of shit qc
> by your logic
Explain what YOU think I'm arguing here please
What do you mean "the barrel moves". The only thing you can see in the video is the barrel and the handguard, and they move relative to each other but that's all you can see. Unless you think he has the lower receiver bolted to the floor. The only way to prove the barrel bends is showing the lower receiver as well.
It's depends on the theater and doctrine of use. Will it be used in the fields of europe? Then it's better than the M4. Will it be used in dense jungle combat? Then it's shit
I'm curious to see how a machine gun that sacrifices everything to save weight holds up to a steady diet of overpressure rounds and general field wear and tear over a longer span of time.
its not like the 249 is sturdy, its a jammomatic sheet metal piece of shit that you have to hit with a ball peen hammer and feed a gallon of CLP to make it run
Jesus Christ there are a lot of retards in here. Do you think M249s came out of the factory like that?Just about any gun that went through what it did for how long it did would be clapped out. I bet you think the M60 and M9 we're inherently unreliable too.
there's been a contract for new saws refreshed that doesn't expire until 2025
they get constantly refreshed and checked for spec
every other weapon in the arms room is just as old and isnt a janky piece of junk
>every other weapon in the arms room is just as old and isnt a janky piece of junk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
im sorry how many people have had to lug a 249 through 20 miles of brush and hit it with a fucking hammer to make it shoot...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A new one? Almost never, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that since your neverserved ass clearly hasn't so much as seen an armory, much less a Form 3749. Fuck outta here.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
just spent the last 4 days unfucking our mal and moving everything around in there sooo....
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sure thing kiddo, you expect me to take you seriously after unironically implying the only thing that could be janky in any real armory is the 249. You're a joke that will never understand having a mountain of M9s on his schedule at any point during the last half decade of their issue. Or God forbid the M110 after all of a half year of being out in the shit. You know nothing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
we dont have m9s or 110s so sneethe
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Or God forbid the M110
It always amuses me how much guys who actually have to deal with those things in the military despise them vs. how people online jerk off over them.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why are you pretending to be a welfare queen? Do you have any idea how unglamorous and unimpressive it is to be in the military post-Surge?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you are mentally ill
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>how many people have had to lug a 249 through 20 miles of brush
Brush, no. Dunecoon hovels and roads? Plenty. >hit it with a fucking hammer to make it shoot
Not me or anyone else tasked with lugging it around. It was heavy and miserable to lug around but it was reliable and got more than the rifles ever did.
The machine gun is retardedly big, that's why the M249 is superior. The M4 and the M249 are roughly similar in size whereas the M7 is larger than the M4 and the M250 much larger than the M7.
Really they should go back to the walking fire concept that John Moses Browning pioneered with the M1918 BAR. The automatic rifleman should be able to keep up with the attack, not slow it down.
With the (obligatory) suppressor it weighs as much as a FAL
you are a twig but not a retard. it's super heavy, and it'll only payoff if we end up fighting a near-peer who can equip its troops with body armor (China, but I'm dubious as to whether they could actually put body armor on every infantryman)
what assault rifle hurts the most and does the most damage to your body?
ptrs
but it's old and not in use anymore
The standard round is not capable of penetrating the kind of armor a military would be issuing.
Its not about body armor, Russia and China aren't mass issuing plates to their soldiers. Its about extended ranges
>Its about extended ranges
>heavier, smaller ammo loadout
It's not like they're melting down M4s for scrap, they'll still have HUNDREDS of thousands of M4s available if the need is there.
Do you REALLY think they're going to adopt the M7, find out it's shit and just throw their hands up in the air and be forced to use it for the next 20 years even if it's not combat-effective?
Not a chance.
The M7 is the M14 of our generation
Maybe, why don't we let it get fielded first before making sweeping statements like that though?
It's a new era, with a LOT more battlespace information available at the ground level, this isn't the 1950s, give it a chance before you shit on it.
If it was just being touted as a new DMR that shares ammo with the new 6.8mm MG no one would get too bothered. But it *has* been claimed to be the M4 replacement that all infantry will be issued. And then people naturally go 'eeh idk if that's a good idea'
>But it *has* been claimed to be the M4 replacement that all infantry will be issued
Show me ANYTHING the army has said that backs this up.
I watched the XM5/XM250 selection press conference live and they specifically said it's for ~120,000 personnel in the "tip of the spear" front-line units only.
Everyone else, still gets M4s for at LEAST the next 10-15 years, if not longer.
That was the OFFICIAL plan announced, if you know something else I don't feel free to source it.
Brother, that's sounds an awful lot like they're replacing all the ars with the sig...
There are ~500,000 active duty US army members, they are purchasing ~120,000 M7's over the course of ~8-10 years.
This doesn't include reserves or other branches of service.
The M4 will be in service for decades to come, keep your panties on.
>it's for ~120,000 personnel in the "tip of the spear" front-line units only
Lmfao "only", how much personnel do you think we have for frontline fighting you retard? 120k units basically means anyone who even has a chance of actually seeing action is going to have the SIG brick and the M4 is relegated to reserve and support duty like the A2 was when I was in. How is that a good thing exactly?
>it's super heavy
Its literally the same weight as a 416 (unloaded and without suppressor)
That just means the 416 is also super heavy.
The 416 is much heavier than it needs to be.
>same weight as a 416
the 416 is needlessly heavy and a typical example of kraut overengineering. An M4A1 with a better profile barrel made of a more modern alloy would be a better replacement for the M4
>unloaded
this is a very important distinction. The average US infantryman is already carrying too much shit for a combat load, so for the same weight, you'll have half of the ammo that you would with 5.56. volume of fire wins firefights. if you really want more range than 5.56 has to offer, switch to something like 6mm ARC or something similar. But an often quoted stat that I've never seen a source for says that 90% of all infantry engagements for the past 300 (200?) years have been inside of 200 yards. 5.56 is still going to fragment and yaw at that range from a 14.5" barrel. A good optic can help you PID and make hits out to 500 yards. Past 500 yards is the realm of designated marksmen and crew-served weapons anyway. So, how important is that increased effective range? idk, I was never in the army, and I never got high enough in the corps to have input on any kind of institutional decisions
>inb4 muh armor penetration
was not a requirement, and it doesn't penetrate armor better than 5.56 or 7.62 NATO with comparable bullet construction
It’s pretty heavy to shoot off hand. Probably a rifle made best with a bipod or rested against something, which is how most rifles are shot in combat conditions anyways.
why is it called the xm7? what happened to the m5 and m6?
The M5 name is owned by colt so the army renamed it from XM5 to XM7 (M7 when it enters service)
but what about 6?
probably taken by the LWRC M6
Okay, whats the actual reason behind the XM7 rename? They say its to avoid trademark issues with the Colt M5, but Colt has been making a .308 AR called the M7 for a while now. Is there something I'm missing?
Trade mark mumbo jumbo or some shit man.
It was gonna be named the M5 but Aero made that first
Brother picture yourself with an even juicier rifle with heavier bullets. A fully powered .308 / 7.62x51 all-American AR-10, double/triple taped up JUNGLE STYLE, a suppressor, and an extended or single unit computerized thermal optic. That's not an easy weapon, but it is an immensely powerful one.
The ballistics of a fully powered cartridge do not ask your preferences.
You want the small bullet? You want it to be lighter, to be EASY?
Brother the killing fields do not cater to WEAKNESS
>uwu my rifle is too heavy ~~
Then you are TOO WEAK
Get STRONGER or DIE
Nobody needs them
NOODLE ARMS
If malnourished manlet soldiers could carry the BAR. You can carry the XM7
If you're strong enough to carry it you're strong enough to bend the barrel
Handguards loose you retard
>3 different losers don't know about MCX barrel deflection issues
>Handguard moves
>ITS THE BARREL YOU'RE ALL STUPID IM SMART!!!!!!!!!
The barrel moves too retard watch it again
Also, again, this is a documented fuckin issue lol google "sig barrel deflection"
The gun is shit.
According to most of what i've seen the 11.5" and 9" barrels have no issues, just the 16" versions
>According to most of what i've seen the 11.5" and 9" barrels have no issues, just the 16" versions
Shorter barrel = less torque on the receiver lol. Does not mean the design isn't inherently flawed. Not a single one of my free-float ARs has this problem lol.
Well the 16" version is showing issues with even 10lbs of force, and the 11.5" has no issues even with 40lbs of force.
If that extra 4.5" does THAT much then okay I guess, but I don't think another 4.5" of barrel length should be THAT big of a difference in the barrel stability.
>If that extra 4.5" does THAT much then okay I guess, but I don't think another 4.5" of barrel length should be THAT big of a difference in the barrel stability.
Anon do you know what a cheater bar is?
Yes, and again if 11.5" is fine but 16" is dog shit, it's more than just the 4.5" length, by your logic the 9" should be rock solid and the 11.5" should be nearly as susceptible as the 16" but it isn't.
Not to mention reports of newer 16" barrels NOT having the same problems at all, IE it was a batch issue or similar that got quietly fixed.
>sigfag coping about their constant non-published iterating as if it isn't a massive fucking indicator of shit qc
> by your logic
Explain what YOU think I'm arguing here please
What do you mean "the barrel moves". The only thing you can see in the video is the barrel and the handguard, and they move relative to each other but that's all you can see. Unless you think he has the lower receiver bolted to the floor. The only way to prove the barrel bends is showing the lower receiver as well.
>guy with $2k 3d printed led box doesnt understand handguard rigidity
i dont even like sig, but come the fuck on man.
Focus your attention to any point on the floor and which object moves relative to it every time this retard posts this webm
All you need to do to fix that is to reinstall the handguards right? Loctite it first and get it to the right torque specs?
Yes.
Historically speaking, the US military has a history of switching to battle rifles then a few years later switching back to light weight ammo.
We're going to have these new .277 fury rifles for a few years then we get switched back to 5.56 because of weight reasons.
It's depends on the theater and doctrine of use. Will it be used in the fields of europe? Then it's better than the M4. Will it be used in dense jungle combat? Then it's shit
The sig is a little heavy, but the Xm250 is so much lighter than the godawful 249 that It's a worthwhile trade
the machine gun is the most important weapon in the squad. The rifle isn't that great but the machine gun half of the bid is amazing
m249 is 17 god damm pounds!!!
I'm curious to see how a machine gun that sacrifices everything to save weight holds up to a steady diet of overpressure rounds and general field wear and tear over a longer span of time.
its not like the 249 is sturdy, its a jammomatic sheet metal piece of shit that you have to hit with a ball peen hammer and feed a gallon of CLP to make it run
Jesus Christ there are a lot of retards in here. Do you think M249s came out of the factory like that?Just about any gun that went through what it did for how long it did would be clapped out. I bet you think the M60 and M9 we're inherently unreliable too.
there's been a contract for new saws refreshed that doesn't expire until 2025
they get constantly refreshed and checked for spec
every other weapon in the arms room is just as old and isnt a janky piece of junk
weird cope though
>every other weapon in the arms room is just as old and isnt a janky piece of junk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
im sorry how many people have had to lug a 249 through 20 miles of brush and hit it with a fucking hammer to make it shoot...
A new one? Almost never, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that since your neverserved ass clearly hasn't so much as seen an armory, much less a Form 3749. Fuck outta here.
just spent the last 4 days unfucking our mal and moving everything around in there sooo....
Sure thing kiddo, you expect me to take you seriously after unironically implying the only thing that could be janky in any real armory is the 249. You're a joke that will never understand having a mountain of M9s on his schedule at any point during the last half decade of their issue. Or God forbid the M110 after all of a half year of being out in the shit. You know nothing.
we dont have m9s or 110s so sneethe
>Or God forbid the M110
It always amuses me how much guys who actually have to deal with those things in the military despise them vs. how people online jerk off over them.
Why are you pretending to be a welfare queen? Do you have any idea how unglamorous and unimpressive it is to be in the military post-Surge?
you are mentally ill
>how many people have had to lug a 249 through 20 miles of brush
Brush, no. Dunecoon hovels and roads? Plenty.
>hit it with a fucking hammer to make it shoot
Not me or anyone else tasked with lugging it around. It was heavy and miserable to lug around but it was reliable and got more than the rifles ever did.
You're replying to b8
Yeah by all accounts dudes fucking loved the M60 when they were fresh and new.
The machine gun is retardedly big, that's why the M249 is superior. The M4 and the M249 are roughly similar in size whereas the M7 is larger than the M4 and the M250 much larger than the M7.
Really they should go back to the walking fire concept that John Moses Browning pioneered with the M1918 BAR. The automatic rifleman should be able to keep up with the attack, not slow it down.
the bar is even heavier than the SAW though and some versions weight as much as a 240
The weight of the assault rifle compared to the SAW should be about the same as the M1 to the BAR.
You can be 4'11 and strong enough to carry it because it's like 9 pounds and you have a strap and folding stock as well to carry it around.
It's the plates and mags and pouches and helmet and everything else that makes it seem heavy. A .308 AR can be 12 or 13 lbs with everything attached.
are you a tactical twink?