Yeah it looks a lot more sensible compared to the pig that is the M5. I wonder if it will be another m14 story or if it'll be a remake of the Johnson m1941
It'll probably suck and get sidelined in favor of m4a1s for a few years then see widescale adoption as the improved m5a1. Either that or it'll go the way of the OICW.
OICW my beloved. They could nail that project so easily with how far tech has come. A practical sized support direct fire update on the XM25 would be gorgeous for engaging entrenched or housed targets. I’m sure we’d end up seeing a Uke take out an IFV with one if we spammed enough.
Once they realize they'll have to change doctrine around going from a battle load out of 210 rounds to 140, and I think the machine is going from 600 to 400 , they'll say it doesn't work. Which is a shame because I think going back to a rifle round is badass.
they already did, why do you think they're integrating IVAS with things like the Switchblade? good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m while what used to be the mortar team rains down suicide drones on you, backed by artillery.
>good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m
Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park? It doesn’t account for wind, it doesn’t hold the rifle steady, it doesn’t squeeze the trigger. For fricks sake an 800m shot from a bench with a scope with more than 8x magnification isn’t easy. I’d argue it’s actually hard.
Reminder that even snipers aren't necessarily making first round hits at those distances. Knowing that you only have to worry about windage when making corrections for a followup shot is a massive advantage.
>it doesn’t hold the rifle steady
While you're going to want something to rest the rifle on for 800 meter shots, there's is pic related that came out of that TALOS power armor program for not quite as long range work without needing a rest.
>Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park?
Because it also calculates windage and puts the reticle at the calculated spot for both stationary and moving targets? Just look at MemeThumbs video on it.
It doesn't calculate windage, it does show estimated wind holds I believe.
If you had a drone between you and the target maybe it could provide windage data to the scope, but I doubt they would showcase this unless they're confident it'll work and right now I doubt they're that confident.
>Because it also calculates windage and puts the reticle at the calculated spot for both stationary and moving targets?
No it doesn’t. It has leads for a 10mph crosswind and for the speed of an average soldier when moving. Just like dozens of other reticles. It only calculates drop because that can be calculated purely off ranges.
If I’m wrong, how is it measuring wind down range? How is it calculating how fast someone is moving, at what angle, and how far to lead? Also what’s the furthest you've ever shot with a scoped rifle with what caliber and magnification? Be honest.
This scope is awesome and I want one. Knowing range without breaking your aim is awesome. But it doesn’t make long distance shooting automatic. Only people who have never done that will claim that it does.
>Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park?
I've noticed a running trend of NGSWtards where they seem to have very little understanding of what shooting beyond a couple hundred meters entails.
>NGSWtards where they seem to have very little understanding of what shooting entails
You could have said that and it would be just as accurate of a statement
It's not about hitting at 800 yards. It's about hitting so close at 800 yards that getting closer or returning fire is difficult to impossible. If 1 in 20 shots is hitting you at that range and you have 6 dudes shooting at you, that's a hit every 3-4 shots per troop. That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
So you went from “accurate fire” to “hit in the general vicinity”. Nice. If your plan is to have your whole squad suppress a target at 800m and only 1 bullet per mag gets a hit, then each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty. Sweet. >That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
The round is way better for a GPMG and I admit that. But is it really that much different than a 240? Also remember there is no quick change barrel per the Army’s request. Have fun keeping up suppressive fire when your barrel melts
>But is it really that much different than a 240?
M240 is ~22lbs, even in the newest, lightest configuration, older ones are even heavier.
The M250 is 14.5lbs with suppressor and bipod.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I thought we were talking shooting not weight.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Weight is part of shooting anon.
Weight also determines how much ammo you can carry.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I thought we were talking shooting not weight.
Just for example, 100 rounds of 6.8x51 weighs ~6.75lbs so that extra ~8lbs is another 100 rounds of ammo you can carry.
1 year ago
Anonymous
[...]
Just for example, 100 rounds of 6.8x51 weighs ~6.75lbs so that extra ~8lbs is another 100 rounds of ammo you can carry.
You said >That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
And are trying to use weight to justify this statement. Come on Sigger, you can do better.
I even admitted 6.8 is an improvement for LMGs. It’s compared to the 240 which is more for fixed/semi fixed locations or a M249 which is underpowered for the desired use. There needs to be an upgrade. That said, just explain why it’s > going to be a nightmare to fight against
1 year ago
Anonymous
Are you a glockgay?
1 year ago
Anonymous
No. Also not an argument.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm the original guy you replied to. I didn't make the argument for weight, but the XM250 is overall better than the M240 with better range. Being lighter is a huge advantage for a class of weapon that is well known to be heavy as shit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>XM250 is overall better than the M240 with better range.
Which is offset by the lack of quick change barrels. There’s also the practical limit of how far people can see and see hits. That’s why I’m saying it’s not a game changer. >Being lighter is a huge advantage for a class of weapon that is well known to be heavy as shit.
That’s true which I even admitted it.
>each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty.
With near impunity? Yeah, that's pretty sweet. You're talking about being able to win a fight against a 5x+ larger near-peer force with minimal casualties. Get closer and that number increases significantly while still far outmatching enemy capability. How many hits are you getting with an M4 at that distance even with 1000 rounds of ammo WITH the other guys shooting back with what is essentially a DMR? Volume of fire isn't as high because your suppression is more effective, meaning the effect of each round is several times higher than ineffectively lobbing intermediate rounds with weak magnification.
Get closer and it only gets worse. At 400 yards, you're only able to shoot somewhat accurately while the XM5 is hitting every other shot faster than you can line it up. >Have fun keeping up suppressive fire when your barrel melts
Again, more effective fire means you don't need to shoot as much.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>With near impunity? Yeah, that's pretty sweet. >the other guys shooting back with what is essentially a DMR?
So can they shoot back or can’t they? You’re inconsistent. Did you forget about overmatch anon? We need overmatch? PKMs and SVDs can outshoot our .308s by hundreds of meters. So we need overmatch. >You're talking about being able to win a fight against a 5x+ larger near-peer force with minimal casualties
What? How do you come to that conclusion? >while the XM5 is hitting every other shot faster than you can line it up.
I would love to see you prove that. > Again, more effective fire means you don't need to shoot as much.
I’m talking on the LMG. You have sustained, rapid fire with a LMG. That’s the point. Are you honestly defending a non-quick change barrel in the current year+7?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Are you honestly defending a non-quick change barrel in the current year+7?
Yes, because the army specifically asked to REMOVE the quick-change barrel that SIG has in the design (and still offers in the design to foreign militaries)
1 year ago
Anonymous
>it’s smart because the army said so
Lol. Lmao. Post guns sigger
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why doesn't the army want a quick change barrel? Is this on the M5/M7 or the M250?
1 year ago
Anonymous
M250, and they claim its not needed since it only takes a couple minutes for an armorer to swap the barrels.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because they are idiots. But since they work for the DoD some people claim they are infallible and can’t be questioned. LMGs need the option for a quick change barrel.
>Nice. If your plan is to have your whole squad suppress a target at 800m and only 1 bullet per mag gets a hit, then each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty. Sweet.
You do realize that having the average rifleman be able to score hits on 7 different people, during extended range firefights beyond the effective range of the rifles most countries issue, on a single combat load would, be an absolutely massive upgrade over the current status quo. That's video game level body stacking.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You do realize that having the average rifleman be able to score hits on 7 different people,
You are making this up. You have nothing to support they can do this. Also if we’re only getting into 800m firefights why don’t we give everyone Barrett’s and let them shoot them enemy from a mile out? If everyone on our team was a sniper the enemy could never hit us
And where does the vast majority of combat take place? 0-400m or 500+? Again, it doesn’t keep the rifle steady and pull the trigger. You think pvt rameriz has the control to do that on a 800 yard shot? While holding a 13.5lb rifle? >Imagine if the thing can recognize and target optics on enemy vehicles and suddenly your rifle is capable of crippling targeting capability on tanks. Maybe it picks out weak points for machine guns and now your tank's only defense is its main gun.
Adding a wish list of futuristic items doesn’t change what the gun can do right now. Those same fanciful items can be put on the scope and mounted on any gun. That’s not inherent to the XM5
>each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty.
With near impunity? Yeah, that's pretty sweet. You're talking about being able to win a fight against a 5x+ larger near-peer force with minimal casualties. Get closer and that number increases significantly while still far outmatching enemy capability. How many hits are you getting with an M4 at that distance even with 1000 rounds of ammo WITH the other guys shooting back with what is essentially a DMR? Volume of fire isn't as high because your suppression is more effective, meaning the effect of each round is several times higher than ineffectively lobbing intermediate rounds with weak magnification.
Get closer and it only gets worse. At 400 yards, you're only able to shoot somewhat accurately while the XM5 is hitting every other shot faster than you can line it up. >Have fun keeping up suppressive fire when your barrel melts
Again, more effective fire means you don't need to shoot as much.
Getting some powerful "videogame strats translate directly to IRL" vibes here...
>AR15 gays use the same logic to justify their shitstick
You just described the very logic of McNamara's Wiz Kids in adopting the M16, as they took a look at data and simply said "more rounds gooder" and then bludgeoned Army into compliance. Suppressive fire from rifles is a meme, only accurate fire from rifles and suppression from machine guns matter.
If your gun CAN shoot at 800 yards, 400 yard shots are going to be way easier than with a gun that is only effective at 400 yards max. It's at those ranges where the fancy scope is really going to shine when it takes 1/4 the time to line up a shot and those shots are 4x as accurate. Being effectively twice as accurate at twice the range is going to present a major problem for enemy infantry.
I bet there could be further upgrades to the scope that would make your rifle effective against enemy armor. Imagine if the thing can recognize and target optics on enemy vehicles and suddenly your rifle is capable of crippling targeting capability on tanks. Maybe it picks out weak points for machine guns and now your tank's only defense is its main gun.
>If your gun CAN shoot at 800 yards, 400 yard shots are going to be way easier than with a gun that is only effective at 400 yards max.
Very true and a lot of people miss this, you can see similar ideas at work with precision rifle changes made for smaller units in the last several years, one of the main reasons for going to larger "over powered" magnums is that they have so much less drop and wind drift than predecessors that they're MUCH easier to get good hits with at moderate ranges as opposed to extending maximum effective range. This makes it easier to have more people qualified to a basic degree of proficiency with them
M16 OAL was 39-40" and we did door kicking with those in desert storm and the start of GWOT.
Obviously, M4s were being adopted at the time however which brought OAL down to ~30-33" (depending how far you had the stock extended) but for many years door kicking was done with full-size M16s, even ones with underslung grenade launchers.
The XM7/M7 is only 36" OAL with the stock extended, and it has a folding stock that still allows you to operate the gun, so if you really wanted to go compact, you can.
1 year ago
Anonymous
With the ambi controls that actually does look decently compact and still shootable.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Those M16s were also 9lbs compared to 13.5lbs. With controllable FA fire
1 year ago
Anonymous
you're delusional if you think an M16 was just fine and dandy for door kicking but the XM7 is somehow dogshit.
Get your 5.56-obsessed head out of your ass.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Where did I say it’s fine and dandy? I pointed out OAL isn’t everything
1 year ago
Anonymous
If an M4 is 85/100 for door kicking
an M16 is 75/100
an XM7 would be at least 70-75/100 too.
XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
I'm just tired of morons acting like the XM7 will be HORRIBLE for close-range door-kicking duties when it's just bullshit, it'll be fine. It might not be QUITE as good as the existing M4 SPECIFICALLY in door-kicking duties, but the advantages elsewhere more than make up for that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range
No one uses these. >and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
This is as much a liability as it is a feature. You don't know how much we're trained to take into account noncombatants that could be inside as well. It's a decent chunk of the CQB training course.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Who cares? You can blame the gun if you hit a non-combatant through a wall. Shit happens in door kicking, it's somewhat expected to a certain extent.
I'd rather have a gun that CAN kill whoever is behind furniture/walls than find out my 5.56 isn't penetrating and I might as well be throwing spit balls.
Again, the idea the M4/M16 is just fine for door kicking but the XM7/M7 will be dogshit and get people killed is just asinine.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I don't think you really know what you're talking about, and the direct implication of civilians being merc'd through walls is that your own friendlies can as well. Have you ever done a proper killhouse course? Slinging magnum rounds in room-to-room fighting is asking for trouble. It's literally less dangerous to just use Mr. Frag whenever possible.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I personally have been advocating for a new PDW caliber for the army to use as a dedicated doorkicker caliber. Something like 5.7x28 but using the same hybrid case SIG is using for 6.8x51 to increase chamber pressure and velocity.
I'm just tired of luddites insisting 6.8x51 is going to be an abject failure and only our lord and saviour 5.56 has a place in our small arms.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I'm just tired of luddites insisting 6.8x51 is going to be an abject failure and only our lord and saviour 5.56 has a place in our small arms.
So in response you kneejerk into saying magnum rounds are just dandy for room clearing?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, because they are.
You insisting they're not is moronic.
Do you think we couldn't door clear in WWII because we had .30-06?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Yes, because they are.
I just gave profession-related reasons why they aren't. >You insisting they're not is moronic.
And how much instruction have you received? >Do you think we couldn't door clear in WWII because we had .30-06?
This is childish, we also had steel pot helmets then, should we just revert to that? Switch to Garands while we're at it? Or should we keep the more advanced, more effective equipment and methods that have developed since then?
Tone down the emotion and think rationally.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Think logically, you're acting like 10 less rounds and 3-4lbs of weight + an extra 3-4" of length and a bit more recoil is difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle.
That's childish and moronic.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle.
I'm not even talking about that. I'm purely addressing your substandard points about the .277 round being implemented in room-to-room engagements. Unless you reign in your histrionics, we're done here.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>10 less rounds >3-4lbs more weight >extra 3-4" of length >substantially more recoil >not sizable factors in an infantry rifle
don't even know what to think about this thread anymore, jesus.
1 year ago
Anonymous
like
>NGSWtards where they seem to have very little understanding of what shooting entails
You could have said that and it would be just as accurate of a statement
said, these people haven't done a lot of actual shooting beyond a range setting.
1 year ago
Anonymous
A 33% reduction in combat load, 4 lbs of extra weight, and 4" of added length, and a "bit more recoil" (which for the M7 is more than a bit, and you know that) are absolutely huge factors for a combat rifle....
1 year ago
Anonymous
It’s 70 rounds less which is a 33% reduction. 3-4 more pounds is 30-40% more. Those are huge. >a bit more recoil
Is a massive amount more recoil in actuality. You can’t have a massive increase in power without an increase in recoil. You want magnum round performance you get magnum rifle recoil. That’s only offset if your rifle is heavy as frick.
I doubt you’ve ever carried a rifle or pack significant distance.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you're acting like 10 less rounds and 3-4lbs of weight + an extra 3-4" of length and a bit more recoil is difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle
If you said this was just a literal copy-pasted argument made for the M14 over the M16 in a Ordnance Dept. conference room 60 years ago I'd have believed it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If we were ever going to want a dedicated PDW, the P90 is fine. Assault rifles were invented for the sole purpose of having a room clearing gun that could also work as a service rifle to simplify logistics. I don't think we're ever going to see a dedicated PDW be used for military ops ever again.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If we were ever going to want a dedicated PDW, the P90 is fine. Assault rifles were invented for the sole purpose of having a room clearing gun that could also work as a service rifle to simplify logistics. I don't think we're ever going to see a dedicated PDW be used for military ops ever again.
>PDW for direct action use
Wut? The entire purpose of a PDW was to offer more firepower than a handgun for soldiers who would only be issued a handgun, while being more compact than a service rifle. PDWs for direct action use goes against the entire purpose of the design and makes zero sense outside of video games that try to balance every gun.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Scale up the p90 to 5.56
1 year ago
Anonymous
you dumb Black person, do you actually think M855A1 is going to be having issues swiss cheesing interior furniture or that we're going to be completely tossing aside the decades of refined room clearing methods we've made that allows for efficient room to room clearing with mindlessly blasting through walls?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>CAN kill whoever is behind furniture/walls than find out my 5.56 isn't penetrating and I might as well be throwing spit balls.
What do you think are inside homes and buildings that stop 5.56? Please. I want to hear it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
In Europe? Several inches of brick, stone, or concrete.
Not everywhere is the US with drywall, or Iraq/Afghanistan with mud huts.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Several inches of brick, stone, or concrete.
So things that would also stop a 6.8
1 year ago
Anonymous
>XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range
Irrelevant since no one uses those. Even M193 from longer barrels at interior distances. >and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
Literally any centerfire rifle can too >I'm just tired of morons acting like the XM7 will be HORRIBLE for close-range door-kicking duties when it's just bullshit, it'll be fine.
Yeah it’s fine. Didn’t mean to say it’s awful for that. I think there are other detriments which are problems. Room clearing is gay anyhow. Chuck in a grenade and call it a day or leave it to the hostage rescue teams
And where does the vast majority of combat take place? 0-400m or 500+? Again, it doesn’t keep the rifle steady and pull the trigger. You think pvt rameriz has the control to do that on a 800 yard shot? While holding a 13.5lb rifle? >Imagine if the thing can recognize and target optics on enemy vehicles and suddenly your rifle is capable of crippling targeting capability on tanks. Maybe it picks out weak points for machine guns and now your tank's only defense is its main gun.
Adding a wish list of futuristic items doesn’t change what the gun can do right now. Those same fanciful items can be put on the scope and mounted on any gun. That’s not inherent to the XM5
>And where does the vast majority of combat take place? 0-400m or 500+?
Only because shooting at 500+m is ineffective with current armament. You need to get into 400 yards when your gun is only good out to 400 yards. You're trying to make the gun fit with current assault rifle doctrine when it's evolved past it. Indoor fighting is a legitimate concern, but outdoor engagement is dynamic and doctrine can be modified to fit your capability.
The existence of the F-35 makes it way easier to see the benefit. We have an aircraft right now that is basically the Eye of Sauron that can survey enemy movements with impunity and lets your guys on the ground work around its information.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>the only reason people don't shoot beyond 500m is because the guns aren't good enough
Once again, people who don't really shoot commenting on this matter.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, moron. 5.56 struggles at 500 and makes accurate fire difficult. Shooting that far is difficult on its own without your shots dropping like a rock. Knowing the exact hold with faster travel time makes hitting a lot easier. Yes, you will have to line up the shot and that's makes shooter skill an issue, but the smart scope makes it possible where an M4 would be improbable.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If you think that a BDC is enough to turn your average infantryman into a marksman at 800m then I don't know what else to tell you.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Knowing the exact hold with faster travel time makes hitting a lot easier.
Except for that whole wind and moving target thing. Yeah those don’t matter >Yes, you will have to line up the shot and that's makes shooter skill an issue,
I love how you gloss over the most important component by far. The whole >every soldier is a marksman
Has been proven wrong time and time again throughout history. Wrong before WWI, wrong in WWI, WWII shows volume of fire matters, and it was wrong again with the M14. A scope won’t make it true now.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If you think that a BDC is enough to turn your average infantryman into a marksman at 800m then I don't know what else to tell you.
Anon, the hold for wind drift on the hybrid case loading of .277 Furry at 1000 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 600 yards, and at 500 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 300 yards. That, plus the fancy scope with built in atmospheric sensors and ballistics calculator that gives the soldier a precise hold for drop at the specific range they're shooting at will massively boost the ranges that soldiers will be able to get hits at.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're still not taking into account the human factor of trying to hit those ranges. Why you people think a BDC will make these long distance shots feasible for a typical infantryman is blowing my mind, but then again I've worked with said infantrymen for years so I guess I have a better grasp of what limitations are at play here.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Have your SEEN the videos of people using the scope? They nail shots at long range on the first shot.
It's not going to do EVERYTHING, but having a predicted bullet drop for the range instantly displayed in the reticle, being able to set multiple targets at multiple ranges and swap between them very quickly with a new bullet drop displayed for each, that's just good technology that CAN be incredibly useful.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Have your SEEN the videos of people using the scope? They nail shots at long range on the first shot.
On the range.
1 year ago
Anonymous
don't be mad, we COD now.
1 year ago
Anonymous
wtf that's awesome. does something like that exist?
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's literally what the NGSW scope does.
It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press (just like in COD) and shows you the bullet drop with an LCD overlay in the scope.
Works great in COD, not sure how well it will work in real combat though
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Works great in COD
I got a 740 meter first-shot headshot with it last week. It's pretty fun to hit people at exteme range in warzone 2.0
1 year ago
Anonymous
Its literally the vortex scope from the m4 program. Not pictured is how squad mates can designate positions that will show up in your reticle when you aim with it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes. People who are way better shots than the typical grunt, shooting from a fricking bench.
1 year ago
Anonymous
They're still just aiming where it tells them to, and potentially using the suggested wind holds as needed
1 year ago
Anonymous
Black person have you ever shot a rifle?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yup, you have no idea what the scope does do you? There are tons of videos you can watch if you wanted to learn something instead of looking moronic.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>still hasn’t posted guns >still doesn’t deny never shooting at distance >still doesn’t deny not even shooting a rifle
By your own admission here
It's literally what the NGSW scope does.
It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press (just like in COD) and shows you the bullet drop with an LCD overlay in the scope.
Works great in COD, not sure how well it will work in real combat though
In the post directly above, you say that it doesn’t account for windage. And as I have shown you have 7ft feet of wind drift at 1000 yards with 6.8. Yet you still claim the average grunt can hit that…
1 year ago
Anonymous
>our wind holds are comparable to 5.56 at 60% the range.
And those holds are considerable.
Why are we assuming there is always a steady wind and why are we assuming it can never be accounted for?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why are we assuming there is always a steady wind
Because that’s the easiest way to estimate. Which you’d know if you shot at the distances you say are so easy >and why are we assuming it can never be accounted for?
Why are you assuming the scope IS accounting for it?
Post guns gay. Here’s a common one of mine
1 year ago
Anonymous
I never said the scope was, I said it had suggested wind holds and it's up to you if you want to use them or not, but even if you don't, your first shot will still be closer than if you didn't have a bullet drop calculation at all to assist you.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes you have. You’ve repeatedly claim it tells you exactly where to aim.
Post guns.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Black person have a nice day.
It's literally what the NGSW scope does.
It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press (just like in COD) and shows you the bullet drop with an LCD overlay in the scope.
Works great in COD, not sure how well it will work in real combat though
>It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press
That's what I've said in all of my posts.
Just because you selectively choose to understand what you're reading doesn't change what I've written.
1 year ago
Anonymous
So
>Even a fricking .30-378 weatherby has nearly 10ft of drop at 800 yards. But somehow grunts will be able to make those shots with more drop. And all it takes is a rangefinder. Sure…
[...] >BDC
These are disingenuous. The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go. Actually getting on target is hard on its own, but you arent hitting shit if you don't know where your shot is going to land in the first place. That's the difference between being a couple feet off and a few yards off.
>Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park?
Because it also calculates windage and puts the reticle at the calculated spot for both stationary and moving targets? Just look at MemeThumbs video on it.
Arent you? It’s someone else with no knowledge about long range shooting saying that the scope tells you where to aim?
Post guns. We know you don’t have any. We know you haven’t shot any
1 year ago
Anonymous
You tell me
1 year ago
Anonymous
Ok. Still waiting for you to post a single firearm.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Only because shooting at 500+m is ineffective with current armament.
Confirmed for never shooting at that range. Yes it’s 100% the gun and nothing to do with the inherent difficulties that increasing distance has on making hits.
Even a fricking .30-378 weatherby has nearly 10ft of drop at 800 yards. But somehow grunts will be able to make those shots with more drop. And all it takes is a rangefinder. Sure…
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Even a fricking .30-378 weatherby has nearly 10ft of drop at 800 yards. But somehow grunts will be able to make those shots with more drop. And all it takes is a rangefinder. Sure…
If you think that a BDC is enough to turn your average infantryman into a marksman at 800m then I don't know what else to tell you.
>BDC
These are disingenuous. The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go. Actually getting on target is hard on its own, but you arent hitting shit if you don't know where your shot is going to land in the first place. That's the difference between being a couple feet off and a few yards off.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go.
What is windage.
1 year ago
Anonymous
We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE, and again if your first shot is within a foot or two, that's a simple quick correction compared to 5-10 yards where you're having to walk your shots towards your target more slowly.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE
Oh my fricking God have you even seen a range that goes beyond 500?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE
Lol. Lmao.
I was being super generous using a .30-378. With that it’s still 65” of wind drift at 1000 yards with a 10mph crosswind. 5.5ft of drift. It’s 13.5” at only 500 yards. When we use 6.8 specs it’s 83.5” of drift at 1000 yards. That’s 7ft you fricking troglodyte.
1 year ago
Anonymous
the fact you're not even taking windage into account is classic NGSWtard behavior
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go
Which it doesn’t do. For like the 4th time, confirmed for never shooting at distance.
I also find it hilarious you haven’t refuted people calling you out in this.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Even if it didn't tell you EXACTLY where it'll go, it'll be pretty close allowing manual correction for follow up shots.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>allowing manual correction for follow up shots.
At ~900m. By the average infantryman. In combat conditions.
1 year ago
Anonymous
See:
[...]
Anon, the hold for wind drift on the hybrid case loading of .277 Furry at 1000 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 600 yards, and at 500 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 300 yards. That, plus the fancy scope with built in atmospheric sensors and ballistics calculator that gives the soldier a precise hold for drop at the specific range they're shooting at will massively boost the ranges that soldiers will be able to get hits at.
. Your wind holds are comparable to 5.56 at 60% the range.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I don't think you fully grasp how significant the windage impact is, and even then, you're displaying a lack of comprehension about what goes into long range shooting. You can have the reticle magically tell you where it will land, but at the ranges we're discussing here the average infantryman is STILL going to struggle because the human body is not a clamped bench rest.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I don't think you fully grasp how significant the windage impact is,
One of the main kinds of shooting I've enjoyed over the past couple years is shooting .22lr out to 200 yards, where I'm dialing similar corrections for wind to this at 900-1000 yards.
>because the human body is not a clamped bench rest.
So fricking what? This isn't a single ethical shot in hunting, or not wanting to waste money completely missing what you're shooting at at the range. This is infantry combat where the vast majority of rounds normally don't hit anything. The entire point of this is to simply get the likely dispersion tight enough that there's a much higher probability of one of those shots hitting what the soldier is aiming at, rather than so low of a probability that the gun is only rated as being effective against an area target at that range.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>This is infantry combat where the vast majority of rounds normally don't hit anything.
Then wouldn’t you want to carry more rounds?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because it's now technologically possible to significantly increase the effective range against point targets that an infantry rifle is capable of, and this is being adopted alongside new systems that greatly increase the situational awareness of infantry and will reasonably increase possible engagement distances.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>our wind holds are comparable to 5.56 at 60% the range.
And those holds are considerable.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Even if it didn't tell you EXACTLY where it'll go,
It doesn’t. Post guns
>good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m
That assumes whatever area you're operating in allows you to engage from 800m away and doesn't force you into typical infantry engagement ranges. The XM5 is a rifle being touted as the next generation of smalls arms when it's really a rifle developed to fight the last war.
Anon, the NGSW program doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's being adopted alongside and is designed to be integrated with other hardware that's intended to significantly increasing the situational awareness of infantry so that they can respond with accurate fire. When soldiers have HUDs, the ability to spot targets like in the Battlefield series, and squad level drones enabling an unprecedented level of situational awareness at longer ranges, the post WWI status quo of focusing primarily on volume of fire breaks down.
, unless you're talking about some fantasy situation where the AO is an island in the Bermuda triangle where radio waves stop working, or some fantasy situation where the US decides to declare war on the rest of NATO/aliens/the US from a parallel universe/another force that would reasonably be near peer.
As others have said, this case length is just too long, forcing an AR-10 sized action and a heavy b***h gun. Coming up with a new case length in between 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 is a much better idea.
They wanted cartridge case internal grain capacity to play with, it's what they're missing with the existing 5.56x45. Only 28.5 gr H2O available for powder in 5.56. Whereas you have basically double that when you step up to the 7.62 cartridge case size.
Double the potential powder capacity gives the army a TON of loading options for now, and the future when they can potentially safely run 120k+ PSI loadings.
The biggest regret will be that we had yet another opportunity to invest in, research, and get a leg up in other countries with telescopic and/or polymer cased ammunition, and instead chose S*gs cope solution brass-steel cased ammo hybrid bullshit, which invariable set the future of firearms back another decade.
>7.62 too heavy, get rid of it >5.56 doesn’t pack a big enough punch, get rid of it >go back to what is essentially a full size rifle round, while still using brass casing, meaning they can’t even carry as much as they should
We’re going full circle with the 7.62/5.56 bullshit. Without lighter ammo, there’s not much to be done.
>The biggest regret will be that we had yet another opportunity to invest in, research, and get a leg up in other countries with telescopic and/or polymer cased ammunition
This. The weight savings and cooler operating temperatures of polymer could have completely changed how we fight wars. Imagine a helicopter carrying twice as much ammo for the same weight.
I wish we could see the official reasons Textron got rejected, because it seems like with a little more work to fix the faults, Textron would have been much more of a gamechanger
>I wish we could see the official reasons Textron got rejected, because it seems like with a little more work to fix the faults, Textron would have been much more of a gamechanger
It couldn't meet the reliability requirements with the rifle or the ammo. Plastic gays stay coping.
>The biggest regret will be that we had yet another opportunity to invest in, research, and get a leg up in other countries with telescopic and/or polymer cased ammunition
This. The weight savings and cooler operating temperatures of polymer could have completely changed how we fight wars. Imagine a helicopter carrying twice as much ammo for the same weight.
I wish we could see the official reasons Textron got rejected, because it seems like with a little more work to fix the faults, Textron would have been much more of a gamechanger
We don’t need more fricking plastic leeching into the soil and water supply. Frick polymer casings
>But copper mining
Localized in one location >and lead pollution is a-okay?
Not a thing unless you eat a ton or are exposed to vapors.
Neither frick with the water supply like plastics.
>Polycase usually has a steel base too, meaning you can pick them up with a good magnet
Only useful on ranges and if people care. Which you know a lot wont
Honestly the only reason I’m against it. Eventually it would hit the civilian market as commonplace and I don’t want to litter all over my land when I shoot
It's ok once the marines show how effective a Do-It-All Direct Impingement AR15 in 5.56 will do in the next conflict the army will quickly switch back the round by utilizing the SIG SPEAR LT LMFAO
I don't think it will fail. I think it is a miraculous thing, the optic practically aims for you at practical distances, and PIP in all new NODs with a pissing hot rifle cartridge along with the most integrated Squad and Platoon comms we've ever seen in history is absolutely kino.
I think the redundant charging handles are kind of dumb, but in the same way a forward assist is just kind of there 99% of the time.
> Be Muhreen Core > Need a rifle that shoots further than the M4A1 > Adopt another 5.56 rifle > It's not even 18-20"
It's going to fail because of 3 things.
1.) the full power cartridge absolutely cannot be tolerated without full hearing protection. 5.56 can be, although it does lead to hearing loss, 277 furry will be immediate hearing loss similar to a 357mag
2.)the suppressor will be a full on requirement for operation. The fact that the current iteration has a detachable suppressor and not integral means the gun is going to be known by stupid grunts at inaccurate after they've bashed the detachable permanently out of alignment
3.) price
it exchange's the M16/M4's advantages in size, weight, capacity, ruggedness, ergonomics, refinement, low-cost, and god knows what else in exchange for marginally better terminal ballistics designed to penetrate body armor that doesn't actually exist
They should have just paid FN for a 6.8x51mm rechamber of the SCAR-H which we already frickin have / have infrastructure to support, and not to mention is a much lighter and softer recoiling rifle to begin with.
Wasn't the M5 just a commercial model name tho? Why the hell would the military care about a commercial name when they already have multiple M1s 2s etc.
The way army nomenclature there can be many M1s, but there can only be one M1 rifle.
So, for example: >CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M1
The M1 carbine >CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M2
Full auto M1 carbine >CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M3
Full auto M1 carbine with a night vision scope >CARBINE, CALIBER 5.56MM, M4
14.5" AR15
The new optic plus suppressor hanging off the end contradicts a doctrinal carbine
1 year ago
Anonymous
Well wikipedia says it has a 15.3 inch barrel, so it's still considered a carbine. Generally speaking, rifles with barrels under 18" or so inches are called carbines by today's standards.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I wish I had the confidence you do to go through life this stupid
1 year ago
Anonymous
Seethe, cope, mald, dilate, etc.
>rifles with barrels under 18" or so inches
technically it's under 20".
The first US carbine was 18" coming from a 24" "short" full-size rifle (M1 Garand)
Yeah officially it's 20" but the Mk 12 SPR is called a "rifle" and it has an 18" barrel.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>No rebuttal >Ad-hominem
Done.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nice reddit logical fallacies
My rebuttal is that your argument is patently moronic
1 year ago
Anonymous
>rifles with barrels under 18" or so inches
technically it's under 20".
The first US carbine was 18" coming from a 24" "short" full-size rifle (M1 Garand)
1 year ago
Anonymous
The first US Carbine used by US military had a 22" barrel
1 year ago
Anonymous
Which was?
The M1 Carbine was an 18" barrel coming from the M1 Garand's 24" barrel.
If you're talking about some meme trialed gun that had a few dozen units see limited use I don't really give a shit as that doesn't count. That's like claiming the FN SCAR counts as a US infantry rifle because SOCOM happened to buy a few hundred of them.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not him but Krag Jorgenson carbines for the cavalry. Not a meme gun, procured in serious quantities.
Will be horrible for urban combat and is far too stupid for what the Americans will probably will be fighting and will not work in the combat conditions you are likely to be fighting in mainly concerte jungles like Taipei or Shanghai or Beijing or Seoul
Overall great for the Taliban and the Russians in the trench across but other then that will be questionable until 30 rounds come into play or recoil is reduced
>It's a battle rifle that flies in the face of everything we have collectively learned about modern combat since WWI >Derived from a need that was moronic to begin with. "Our soldiers are being OVERMATCHED™ by Taliban who are using a mix between rocket launchers, medium machine guns and heavy machine guns that used to be fricking anti aircraft guns! WE NEED OVERMATCH™ CAPABILITIES!" >Blatant cash grab for MIC and politicians in bed with the companies >Fancy technology that sounds cool on paper but is just more shit to carry that when used in a real war, everything past 250 meters is vehicles to mortar/rocket/artillery/tactical nuke territory i.e. rendering the "advantage" of this rifle complete pointless >Body armor is a literal non issue since most of the killing by infantry against enemy infantry is usually done during the assault through phase of combat where grenades and mag dumping into fighting positions is the preferred tactic, which makes the latter task more difficult because meme round
I'm sure there is more things but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Its 6.5x43. Its performance is supposedly better than 6.5x39 Grendel’s and knocking on 6.5CM in terms of energy at range. Its action is a long stroke piston with a 3 lug bolt.
Honestly I think FN kind of nailed it. The NGSW program was odd from the beginning and I get this feeling like FN was thinking “christ, they don’t know what the frick they want, well we’ve got this other small contract, lets do that project and low key show it off when its ready”.
I think the best way I could describe it is like the Ferrari 550 vs the Ferrari 575. Ferrari made the 550 as their flagship front engine V12. Supposed to be one of the great Ferraris of all time. Then Ferrari contacted all of their 550 buyers and flew them to Italy for a luncheon to ask them what they wanted in the next iteration. The 575 was the result and it was soft, with a shitty transmission, and all kinds of minor compromises that made it an overall much worse car despite being newer and more powerful. Similarly the Army was telling gun companies what they wanted instead of letting the big forehead guys in lab coats at the gun companies come up with a solid but novel solution to modern small arms issues, which is what FN did this time around.
>“christ, they don’t know what the frick they want,
i think they know exactly what they want, its just unfeasable so manufacturers just go >sigh* we'll do our best
1 year ago
Anonymous
Its like dealing with a toddler. The toddler is adamant about what it wants, but it doesn’t really know what that means and so in that regard it doesn’t really know what it truly wants in reality. It thinks it does, but it really doesn’t.
1 year ago
Anonymous
this is what happens when you have POGs in the upper echelons of the military
FN made it for a small special request contract as far as I can tell. It shoots a round that’s in between 5.56 and .308 in size and has a magazine well that is neither 5.56 stanag or .308 in size, it’s its own thing. 6.5x43mm with 6.5creedmoor-like performance from a smaller lighter rifle than a .308-sized gun.
only thing in could find was atwitter post from FN herstal UK and a r*ddit post
https://twitter.com/FNHerstalUK/status/1615043174493290497
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/10dxgi2/fn_65x43_mm_lightweight_intermediate_cartridge/
>It just makes a shit ton of sense.
It's literally just yet another meme caliber to add to the combat rifle meme caliber pile, that's been having meme calibers added to it since before you got into guns. I'm pretty sure this isn't even the first gun to do an intermediate size action between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO either.
t. someone who remembers 6.8 Special and 6.5 Grendel being hyped as the next big thing in the 00s, because 5.56 didn't have adequate stopping power or adequate effective range respectively.
I’m 39. I remember this ‘uge hype around 6.8spc just before the awb sunset. The thing is, this actually is the first time a big company has designed a cartridge that’s too big to fit stanag 5.56 mags and too small to reliably feed from .308 mags. Those two magazine sizes have been the primary drivers of meme wonder cartridges over the past 30 years. Everyone tries to shoehorn or neck down or neck up into one or the other.
Bot a .308 case head. Meaning you can build a rifle and an action around it thats much lighter than a typical semi-auto .308 rifle which is whats needed for 6.5cm. FN claims 7.5lbs for that gun, which is about par for piston 5.56 and 7.62x39 guns, but firing a much more potent round.
>FN claims 7.5lbs for that gun, which is about par for piston 5.56 and 7.62x39 guns, but firing a much more potent round.
Wait until you see the Ruger SAFR, which is 6.8lbs with a 16" barrel or 7.3 lbs with a 20" barrel, and uses a .308 length action.
https://ruger.com/products/sfar/specSheets/5610.html
https://ruger.com/products/sfar/specSheets/5611.html
1 year ago
Anonymous
Tell me about the longevity of those locking lugs. Same goes for the POF revolution rifle or the PSA KS47 . For a rifle that’s plinked from time, it might be fine. But for hard use and abuse, i wonder.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not the anon. I scratched my head about this one and did some googling.. I haven’t heard any issues about POF bolts breaking. They are made of this unobtainium called are met, apparently a lot stronger than steel.. It is quite remarkable that an AR15 sized bolt is withstanding the bolt thrust of a 308, and makes me think a hybrid case high pressure 5.56 can simply be adapted to the AR15 without receiver dimension changes.
>So what eceleb shilled this that made so many posters here act like it's such hot shit?
When you see the Sig Spear, it's ugly. It's bigger than it needs to be. It's cobbled together from different parts found in the industry. Likely Sig just giving the Army what they whine for instead of telling them to frick off and giving them what they SHOULD have. Other anons in the thread have alluded to it.
When you see the FN IFC you think, damn that's very fricking nice. It's slim, it's sleek, long and short barrel versions would be easy, no weird frame or systems to get in the way. You don't lose capacity, weight gains are negligible and you get .308 like performance. Can you imagine carrying that 12lbs-13lbs Sig Spear with an optic and a Silencer? Soldiers just aren't going to frick with that shit and put set it down from fatigue, and that's what you don't want. Soldiers should carry their weapons on their body 24/7.
Army went with the Spear, Civilians are going with FN IFC and 6mm ARC. Civilians will win this one.
>suggest soldiers are going to stop carrying their rifles >calls others noguns
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm not a soldier, but I am an expert in carrying rifles. It's just common human nature to set something down if its heavy and putting pressure on your shoulders. I think you're pretty fricking moronic, if you don't realize that common fact.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're obviously a fricking snot nosed cake eating civilian who never heard the ballistic crack of a passing round and felt the electrifying sensation of death every passin round has crawling over your skin.. I fricking swear your skin can literally sense the bullets going by. Soldiers put even the light shit they got now down out of exhaustion. Even a bullet can seem to weigh more than your ass if you carry far enough and past exhaustion. I carried a battle rifle and still carry one today. But I'm a freak with a rare metabolic disorder that gives me inhuman levels of endurance, especially in extreme cold and high altitude. I've had to carry my teammates and their gear many times, because I knew they are just normal people. Well, drag them in a litter. I'd make them feel better by saying I need them to cover our six. And a couple of times it actually worked that way, they saw a threat and dealt with it before I could even turn around, so I just moved faster. But most soldiers are NOT going to handle that much weight in a rifle well on patrols or even stationary guard duty. The Army fricked up. They ain't getting the beef and cornfed country boys they used to. They're getting skinny limp wristed b***h boy homosexuals at MEPS.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>fatigue isn’t a thing >history didn’t happen >soldiers haven’t complained about too much gear for 20 years >soldiers have perfectly fine knees and backs after deployment
Post body
try harder, shills... there is a shill zone called /arg/ u should try posting this bullshit there instead of sliding threads off the catalog u dickheads
What do you expect a modern gun is supposed to look like? Modern AKs look AR-like to the point where the AKV-521 has a break apart upper and lower and the M19 has a fricking T charging handle. Moreover internally it has nothing to do with an AR
Reposting myself for the tenth time >at least 13lbs loaded with fancy scope >80k psi round with nearly 3000 ft lbs of energy >nearly uncontrollable in FA because of this round >barrel life severely diminished because of pressures >20 round mags for a battle load of 140 rounds >33% less rounds than now (or 50% if you want to say 20 to 30 vs 30 to 20) >mags weigh 40% more which is another 2.8lbs for a battle load >army making a new rifle for the last war (Afghanistan engagement distances) rather than for the next war (sub 500 yard engagements)
I don’t see where any of this could go wrong
>>army making a new rifle for the last war (Afghanistan engagement distances) rather than for the next war (sub 500 yard engagements)
Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight? Especially with all the situational awareness boosting hardware for infantry the US is pushing for along with this.
Soviets tried to get as close as possible to Germans in Stalingrad due to German firepower advantage. Not saying it’s a perfect analogy but it may very well be the case that you’d rather hug US soldiers than sit back and get wrecked by their fancy scopes, drones, air support, and artillery.
Then they just get wrecked by the US armor that's supporting the soldiers. Also, if the US Army does go forward with the IVAS, throwing ground surveillance radar on any armor supporting infantry and feeding that data to infantry in the area will definitely be the future of urban warfare.
Afghanistan was open desert. Iraq was city fighting. Turns out the terrain has an influence on the average distances gunfights take place. The reality is is that most "average" terrains will only occasionally have sight lines stretching farther than 300 meters.
>Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight? Especially with all the situational awareness boosting hardware for infantry the US is pushing for along with this.
If anything. The smartest move to make against the US if you're trying to decisively engage them (clear winner and loser from the fight rather than just pop shots and withdrawal) is to establish complex battle positions to allow for US forces to get within the center of your defensive position(s) before engaging them. That way they are well within minimum danger close ranges making it so that they are unable to utilize their heavier equipment and support such as artillery and air strikes. Furthermore, if they still do utilize them in a last ditch effort, it will be your men that are in covered and concealed fighting positions and the US soldiers that are up top and unprotected, essentially calling in artillery on themselves would only result in them taking the overwhelming amount of casualties. This was pretty much what the NVA meant when they said "grab them by the belts".
>Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight?
No but terrain dictates a lot of it. How many places have wide open deserts and mountain ranges and no infrastructure?
You should be looking at engagement distances in Ukraine.
Both sides have drones, which makes crossing no-man's-land a suicidal task, there are constant artillery barrages and actual (if at times limited) armored support and yet small arms fire rarely needs to cross even 300 yards.
Would either vatniks or ukrops benefit from having a rifle with greater reach and armor pen compared to the AKs and ARs they now have?
Sure but there will still be occasions you can take shots, just look at all the Ukrainian snipers putting in work. If everyone in your squad has a gun and scope that can take those shots you'll see an increase in average engagement distance.
As it is with 5.56 there is little point outside of suppression firing beyond ~400-500 meters. With 6.8x51 you could double that distance.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Okay, now imagine outfitting all of the Ukie infantry squads with nothing but SVDs, then telling them to retake a factory complex.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>occasions
exactly. occasions. you're giving everyone a 13 lbs. rifle, castrating close-in fighting capability, dramatically reducing combat loadout etc. etc. for the *occasion* that you actually manage to get a 800m clear line of sight where your enemy is exposed.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>As it is with 5.56 there is little point outside of suppression firing beyond ~400-500 meters. With 6.8x51 you could double that distance.
Then you call up the DMR or GPMG. We always had the means to address these relatively rare instances like what you described, but we weren't stupid enough to make our riflemen dedicated entirely to those instances by having it so EVERYONE was the DMR guy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If that was true why have we dropped the .30-06 then dropped the 7.62 NATO.
Oh right because they're moronic long range procure 0 benefits overthe infantry having MOAR AMMO.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>B-But My cod kill shot video
Listen kids 99.99999999999% of all ammo is used to shoot IN THE APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF INCOMING FIRE.
You can build fricking railguns that shoot a mouse at 1000 miles. YOU'RE NEVER EVER GOING TO SEE THE MOUSE.
'Cause the mouse isn't fricking stupid it knows that if you can see it you're killing it. So your job is to make sure the mouse keep it's head down by SCARING IT enough that it will stop shooting in YOUR approximate direction.
That's how firefights really work IRL.
You want to improve your riflemen capacity you issue them with one of those each.
It's the SAW on steroids.
That's why we went from 12 guys with one MG42 to 12 guys with two MG42s. To 12 guys with 3 MGs.
The natural evolution is not a return to the M1 Garand. The natural evolution is to give MOAR MGs.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Thank God for the M250 and the light weight medium machine gun firing .338NM
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anon, the NGSW program doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's being adopted alongside and is designed to be integrated with other hardware that's intended to significantly increasing the situational awareness of infantry so that they can respond with accurate fire. When soldiers have HUDs, the ability to spot targets like in the Battlefield series, and squad level drones enabling an unprecedented level of situational awareness at longer ranges, the post WWI status quo of focusing primarily on volume of fire breaks down.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>focusing primarily on volume of fire breaks down.
Squad level drones will change the game. Rifles will be for self defense only, so they should be as light and unobtrusive as possible. Air, mortars, drones, and artillery will be the main killers guided by drone surveillance. Suicide first person drones will kill more people than rifles in a decade, so this whole conversation is pretty irrelevant. It's peacetime so no one really cares and Mensch Sauer makes the big shekels, but as soon as we go to war again we will realize.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Air, mortars, and artillery will be the main killers
Has been the status quo for the past century you fricking moron, yet rifles have stuck around in more than just a PDW role. Increased precision of those, along with loitering munitions being thrown into the mix, isn't going to render service rifles obsolete. Besides that, it's not like the US isn't also developing technologies to better protect soldiers from those, because the military doesn't have a one track mind that can only focus on a single piece of new technology like posters here do.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>cool laser gun, bro. I just strapped some C4 to an RC airplane 6 confirmed kills
1 year ago
Anonymous
>If that was true why have we dropped the .30-06 then dropped the 7.62 NATO
Because you get 90% of the range and effectiveness for a shorter action with less weight, use less powder, and a huge cost savings over the billions and billions of rounds made. I hate the XM5 but the change from .30-06 to .308 made sense
If that’s the only rebuttal you have then that alone is quite telling. Two other things. First, despite how much of a gay Karl is, he is quite a good shooter and practices far far more than the average grunt. Secondly, that was likely the training ammo. Not the full power ammo. Could be wrong about that though
All I know is it's designed to use expensive ammo.... And if we've learned anything about the US military is they'd rather have their guns jam during battle, during war, than pay for the right ammo. I'm looking at you m16 in the Vietnam war.
Geissle, FN, Glock and others are have banded together to shilling the 6mm ARC as the future with their coming rifles aimed at the civilian, special forces and law enforcement sectors. Think AK round size with .308 power. US Army is going with 6.8Fury and 20,000 rifles. Personally, I think FN, Glock and Geissle have the right idea. Sig Spear will fall out of favor with how huge and heavy it is. 9lbs before you get into optics and ammo.
I'm sure it's a good rifle, but it is just so soulless design wise because of how much AR back compatibility it has. The entire lower receiver, grip, stock, magwell, just doesn't complement the upper attached to it.
Am I wrong in thinking that this will end up being used for DMRs, machine guns, and nothing else?
I can kind of see the logic. On the off chance you're fighting somewhere like Afghanistan with super long lines of sight you can just give everybody one, but everywhere else, it's just a good 7.62 replacement.
Cities often have very long lines of sight. It's just that people flit in and out of cover quickly. Roads, even in forests, have long lines of sight.
Some forests allow for quite long lines of sight (e.g. the birch groves around Flagstaff, the Pacific Northwest outside of the Olympia style rainforest) while others offer very low visibility and make movement incredibly slow due to brush (e.g., Maine or the Adirondacks).
The problem in urban combat isn't lack of long lines of sight, it's the difficulty hitting people far out when they are moving between so many obstructions. The usefulness of 6.8mm in this context will live and die on how good the smart optic is or if they can implement true fire control systems like SHARP that will let people pick off a guy moving between buildings in the few seconds he is exposed.
The other big question is how well IVAS and drone implementation works and how feasible it is to keep drones up consistently. Can they use increases loitering time sensor packages, something like a derigible?
Because if you have full EM sensors helping you spot hostiles in the woods from a way off, there are shots that can be made in some types of forest at quite a distance.
Aside from that, 6.8mm just has way better ballistics got the indirect fire role. No crazy maximum ordinate and rainbow trajectory, much better for raking enemies with traversing fire given short windows of opportunity. Also, larger rounds just suppress better. There is something terrifying about subsonic rounds falling around you, but it doesn't keep heads down the same way.
>The problem in urban combat isn't lack of long lines of sight, it's the difficulty hitting people far out when they are moving between so many obstructions. The usefulness of 6.8mm in this context will live and die on how good the smart optic is or if they can implement true fire control systems like SHARP that will let people pick off a guy moving between buildings in the few seconds he is exposed.
This is also why they wanted a heavier bullet, so you can penetrate light cover (light masonry/wood/etc) even at ranges of 500-600+ meters while still having the energy/velocity to kill whatever is behind that cover.
Not him. Do you honestly think a 13” barrel magnum rifle caliber is usable with suppression? Shorty ARs are awful already. This is 45% more pressure and 80-90% more powder. Have fun with deaf soldiers.
>company that makes it couldn’t make a drop safe pistol in 2018 >dozens of recalls on all new product launches >new round is 3 steps past bubbas pissin hot handloads
I can’t see how this will go wrong
Look at that boy almost fall over after every shot.
He clearly has to brace and prepare for every joule that beast is putting into his shoulder.
Imagine being this much of a simp for the XM5 and not knowing that there's a huge different between the brass-cased "training" rounds that everyone has had access to and the actual issue rounds.
lightweight suppressed ARs with real range seem like a practical advancement, but I would guess these are used for shorter ranges
lightweight AR design is practical as it reduces carrying weight and changes handling, also allows you to mount more gear like ir lasers and night vision
overall am just proud of the engineers who designed this and look forward to seeing it available commercially, and I imagine many of them will end up in the hands of police departments
It's clearly designed for shooting white supremacist domestic terrorists seeing as how goatherders don't have level IV armor, Russians don't have level IV armor, and I'm pretty sure Chinese don't have level IV armor either. It looks too heavy for the modern feminized US military anyway. That being said, I will probably buy one since I'm an unashamed Sigger and it'll go with my M17.
>SIG claims they almost doubled the army requirement for the program (5000 rounds).
Which is absolute bullshit. Rounds with comparable velocities and much lower pressures get half of that barrel life and they are also usually fired slowly through bolt actions. Sigs barrel isn’t a new steel, doesn’t have anything new for coatings, and is the same as other offerings around. But magically the can get great barrel life. Either they are lying or the accuracy is like 5-6 MOA.
Its honestly >oy vey what about the 5000 bullets goyim
Then it should be dog shit easy to disprove their claim in the coming months.
Why makeup bullshit now when we can just wait for REAL proof and then shit all over siggers with ACTUAl proof instead of blustering about something that hasn't happened yet.
even if it gets adopted, what does it mean for America's allies?
Will they continue using 5.56 nato (or 7.62 in the case of poos or whatever) or will they have to bust their ass and make rifles that take 6.8(.277 sig fury) and not explode in their face due to its stupid high pressure.
Christ I saw a guy posting a vid as a thread saying the vid testing the ballistics of .277 furry and the other big boi round is proof it's bad penning level 4 armor. Yet in the vid they both do extremely well for being standard rounds and not AP.
> proof it's bad penning level 4 armor
The only proof you need is the hard numbers behind the CSD and energy of more capable rounds failing to penetrate.
All I remember from the video was the big boi round (6.8 I think?) Took two round to pen with the first round practically making a bulge bigger than superman's.
Appeal to authority doesn’t work when they’ve proven themselves to have moronic ideas. For the love of everything holy, please read this overmatch presentation and then tell me you sincerely think they are smart. >https://www.slideshare.net/James8981/overmatch
It doesn't look cool and it's not the enormous leap in design philosophy that the AR-15 was. The other, more ambitious programs would have had more staying power, but obviously the Army wasn't seeing the numbers they wanted, and they decided to buy a stopgap for limited issue until we do this shit again in a few years. Until the industry provides a G11 in heat seeking airburst 20mm with 60 round magazines, no perceived recoil, and also it sucks you off, the army is going to continue balking at the price for anything as cool and marginally improved as say textron's offering. Spear won't fail but it will quietly disappear like XM-25 as it fails to deliver on project goals. The ammo fricking sucks and I don't think it will get any better. If there's anything likely to endure it's the new FCS, which is conveniently backwards compatible with the M4.
siggers unironically clinging to the battlerifle justification and just ignoring the fact that a rifle that needs to reach 800 meters doesn't need a 13 inch barrel. that autistic barrel selection is where the circus starts and if it weren't for that, and the copes required to make that chode work, all the FAL, scar, ar-10, and M14 chads would be smug-posting over the return to a higher power infantry rifle doctrine. to say nothing of the cold hard fact that siggers have zero right to claim any benefits from vortex's optics, rifle-integrated LRFs were coming to small arms anyway.
just give the fricking gun a normal barrel and you can get the exact same ballistics with a NORMAL case that gives you NORMAL wear and tear and NORMAL bolt velocities instead of this hot fricking barel-chewing mess of a borderline blowback turd.
frick siggers. for real. dumb frick welfare-queens, every single one of you.
>seething this hard about Sig
Anon, you do know it's possible to think that Sig had the worst entry for the NGSW program, but still acknowledge that the direction the Army is going with the NGSW is the future.
I don't. it is just an update on the M14 called the AR-16. No, I got that right. >AR-16
the US military needs a "multi-caliber" capable, base design that can me modified for future use. I still think they should have chosen a AR-10 style lower, or a HK-33 style lower.
things I wish for: >independent "drop-in" trigger assembly and grip. >independent mag well assembly. >independent rifle upper and gas system. >independent rear buffer/stock assembly. >captured pins
I mean the stoner 63 was on to something, but making something that has both backward and forward compatibility isn't an easy feat. I think the halfway is just to have rifles scaled to: >Pistol caliber (.22 LR-FN5.7) >Intermediate( 5.56 NATO/ 7.62x39) >Battle rifle (7.62 NATO-.450 marlin) >Anti-material (.30-06 - .45-70gvt) >Man-portable cannon (.50 BMG-20mmx102mm)
if we could just build a system that fits just intermediate to my definition of anti-material then we could have a lot of interchangeability for common service rifles and a platform to build future development off of.
>If that was true why have we dropped the .30-06 then dropped the 7.62 NATO
Because you get 90% of the range and effectiveness for a shorter action with less weight, use less powder, and a huge cost savings over the billions and billions of rounds made. I hate the XM5 but the change from .30-06 to .308 made sense
I like that new FN rifle
This, the FN one is what the military wil go to when they see the XM5 isn't working out
Yeah it looks a lot more sensible compared to the pig that is the M5. I wonder if it will be another m14 story or if it'll be a remake of the Johnson m1941
So do I
Why does the XM5 think that /k/ will fail?
We always fail.
I don't. All in all it seems like an upgrade.
>think it will
I KNOW it will you little c**t
Wrong
Yes, you are.
It'll probably suck and get sidelined in favor of m4a1s for a few years then see widescale adoption as the improved m5a1. Either that or it'll go the way of the OICW.
OICW my beloved. They could nail that project so easily with how far tech has come. A practical sized support direct fire update on the XM25 would be gorgeous for engaging entrenched or housed targets. I’m sure we’d end up seeing a Uke take out an IFV with one if we spammed enough.
I know people have probably said this a million times on this board but god DAMN that thing is ugly.
Once they realize they'll have to change doctrine around going from a battle load out of 210 rounds to 140, and I think the machine is going from 600 to 400 , they'll say it doesn't work. Which is a shame because I think going back to a rifle round is badass.
they already did, why do you think they're integrating IVAS with things like the Switchblade? good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m while what used to be the mortar team rains down suicide drones on you, backed by artillery.
>good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m
Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park? It doesn’t account for wind, it doesn’t hold the rifle steady, it doesn’t squeeze the trigger. For fricks sake an 800m shot from a bench with a scope with more than 8x magnification isn’t easy. I’d argue it’s actually hard.
Reminder that even snipers aren't necessarily making first round hits at those distances. Knowing that you only have to worry about windage when making corrections for a followup shot is a massive advantage.
>it doesn’t hold the rifle steady
While you're going to want something to rest the rifle on for 800 meter shots, there's is pic related that came out of that TALOS power armor program for not quite as long range work without needing a rest.
>Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park?
Because it also calculates windage and puts the reticle at the calculated spot for both stationary and moving targets? Just look at MemeThumbs video on it.
It doesn't calculate windage, it does show estimated wind holds I believe.
If you had a drone between you and the target maybe it could provide windage data to the scope, but I doubt they would showcase this unless they're confident it'll work and right now I doubt they're that confident.
>Because it also calculates windage and puts the reticle at the calculated spot for both stationary and moving targets?
No it doesn’t. It has leads for a 10mph crosswind and for the speed of an average soldier when moving. Just like dozens of other reticles. It only calculates drop because that can be calculated purely off ranges.
If I’m wrong, how is it measuring wind down range? How is it calculating how fast someone is moving, at what angle, and how far to lead? Also what’s the furthest you've ever shot with a scoped rifle with what caliber and magnification? Be honest.
This scope is awesome and I want one. Knowing range without breaking your aim is awesome. But it doesn’t make long distance shooting automatic. Only people who have never done that will claim that it does.
How can the scope compensate for (or know) anything other than ambient windage? What about the wind speed and direction at 100, 200, 300 etc yards?
>Why do you morons think that just because the scope can range and tell you drop that suddenly 800m shots are a walk in the park?
I've noticed a running trend of NGSWtards where they seem to have very little understanding of what shooting beyond a couple hundred meters entails.
>NGSWtards where they seem to have very little understanding of what shooting entails
You could have said that and it would be just as accurate of a statement
It's not about hitting at 800 yards. It's about hitting so close at 800 yards that getting closer or returning fire is difficult to impossible. If 1 in 20 shots is hitting you at that range and you have 6 dudes shooting at you, that's a hit every 3-4 shots per troop. That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
So you went from “accurate fire” to “hit in the general vicinity”. Nice. If your plan is to have your whole squad suppress a target at 800m and only 1 bullet per mag gets a hit, then each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty. Sweet.
>That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
The round is way better for a GPMG and I admit that. But is it really that much different than a 240? Also remember there is no quick change barrel per the Army’s request. Have fun keeping up suppressive fire when your barrel melts
>But is it really that much different than a 240?
M240 is ~22lbs, even in the newest, lightest configuration, older ones are even heavier.
The M250 is 14.5lbs with suppressor and bipod.
I thought we were talking shooting not weight.
Weight is part of shooting anon.
Weight also determines how much ammo you can carry.
Just for example, 100 rounds of 6.8x51 weighs ~6.75lbs so that extra ~8lbs is another 100 rounds of ammo you can carry.
You said
>That's not even including the implementation of the XM250 which is going to be a nightmare to fight against at that range by itself.
And are trying to use weight to justify this statement. Come on Sigger, you can do better.
I even admitted 6.8 is an improvement for LMGs. It’s compared to the 240 which is more for fixed/semi fixed locations or a M249 which is underpowered for the desired use. There needs to be an upgrade. That said, just explain why it’s
> going to be a nightmare to fight against
Are you a glockgay?
No. Also not an argument.
I'm the original guy you replied to. I didn't make the argument for weight, but the XM250 is overall better than the M240 with better range. Being lighter is a huge advantage for a class of weapon that is well known to be heavy as shit.
>XM250 is overall better than the M240 with better range.
Which is offset by the lack of quick change barrels. There’s also the practical limit of how far people can see and see hits. That’s why I’m saying it’s not a game changer.
>Being lighter is a huge advantage for a class of weapon that is well known to be heavy as shit.
That’s true which I even admitted it.
>each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty.
With near impunity? Yeah, that's pretty sweet. You're talking about being able to win a fight against a 5x+ larger near-peer force with minimal casualties. Get closer and that number increases significantly while still far outmatching enemy capability. How many hits are you getting with an M4 at that distance even with 1000 rounds of ammo WITH the other guys shooting back with what is essentially a DMR? Volume of fire isn't as high because your suppression is more effective, meaning the effect of each round is several times higher than ineffectively lobbing intermediate rounds with weak magnification.
Get closer and it only gets worse. At 400 yards, you're only able to shoot somewhat accurately while the XM5 is hitting every other shot faster than you can line it up.
>Have fun keeping up suppressive fire when your barrel melts
Again, more effective fire means you don't need to shoot as much.
>With near impunity? Yeah, that's pretty sweet.
>the other guys shooting back with what is essentially a DMR?
So can they shoot back or can’t they? You’re inconsistent. Did you forget about overmatch anon? We need overmatch? PKMs and SVDs can outshoot our .308s by hundreds of meters. So we need overmatch.
>You're talking about being able to win a fight against a 5x+ larger near-peer force with minimal casualties
What? How do you come to that conclusion?
>while the XM5 is hitting every other shot faster than you can line it up.
I would love to see you prove that.
> Again, more effective fire means you don't need to shoot as much.
I’m talking on the LMG. You have sustained, rapid fire with a LMG. That’s the point. Are you honestly defending a non-quick change barrel in the current year+7?
>Are you honestly defending a non-quick change barrel in the current year+7?
Yes, because the army specifically asked to REMOVE the quick-change barrel that SIG has in the design (and still offers in the design to foreign militaries)
>it’s smart because the army said so
Lol. Lmao. Post guns sigger
Why doesn't the army want a quick change barrel? Is this on the M5/M7 or the M250?
M250, and they claim its not needed since it only takes a couple minutes for an armorer to swap the barrels.
Because they are idiots. But since they work for the DoD some people claim they are infallible and can’t be questioned. LMGs need the option for a quick change barrel.
>Nice. If your plan is to have your whole squad suppress a target at 800m and only 1 bullet per mag gets a hit, then each soldier can engage 7 enemies before they are empty. Sweet.
You do realize that having the average rifleman be able to score hits on 7 different people, during extended range firefights beyond the effective range of the rifles most countries issue, on a single combat load would, be an absolutely massive upgrade over the current status quo. That's video game level body stacking.
>You do realize that having the average rifleman be able to score hits on 7 different people,
You are making this up. You have nothing to support they can do this. Also if we’re only getting into 800m firefights why don’t we give everyone Barrett’s and let them shoot them enemy from a mile out? If everyone on our team was a sniper the enemy could never hit us
Getting some powerful "videogame strats translate directly to IRL" vibes here...
>AR15 gays use the same logic to justify their shitstick
You just described the very logic of McNamara's Wiz Kids in adopting the M16, as they took a look at data and simply said "more rounds gooder" and then bludgeoned Army into compliance. Suppressive fire from rifles is a meme, only accurate fire from rifles and suppression from machine guns matter.
If your gun CAN shoot at 800 yards, 400 yard shots are going to be way easier than with a gun that is only effective at 400 yards max. It's at those ranges where the fancy scope is really going to shine when it takes 1/4 the time to line up a shot and those shots are 4x as accurate. Being effectively twice as accurate at twice the range is going to present a major problem for enemy infantry.
I bet there could be further upgrades to the scope that would make your rifle effective against enemy armor. Imagine if the thing can recognize and target optics on enemy vehicles and suddenly your rifle is capable of crippling targeting capability on tanks. Maybe it picks out weak points for machine guns and now your tank's only defense is its main gun.
>If your gun CAN shoot at 800 yards, 400 yard shots are going to be way easier than with a gun that is only effective at 400 yards max.
Very true and a lot of people miss this, you can see similar ideas at work with precision rifle changes made for smaller units in the last several years, one of the main reasons for going to larger "over powered" magnums is that they have so much less drop and wind drift than predecessors that they're MUCH easier to get good hits with at moderate ranges as opposed to extending maximum effective range. This makes it easier to have more people qualified to a basic degree of proficiency with them
800 yard gun will be different than door kicking gun. Can you imagine if everybody door to door with Zastava M91, shooting inside?
M16 OAL was 39-40" and we did door kicking with those in desert storm and the start of GWOT.
Obviously, M4s were being adopted at the time however which brought OAL down to ~30-33" (depending how far you had the stock extended) but for many years door kicking was done with full-size M16s, even ones with underslung grenade launchers.
The XM7/M7 is only 36" OAL with the stock extended, and it has a folding stock that still allows you to operate the gun, so if you really wanted to go compact, you can.
With the ambi controls that actually does look decently compact and still shootable.
Those M16s were also 9lbs compared to 13.5lbs. With controllable FA fire
you're delusional if you think an M16 was just fine and dandy for door kicking but the XM7 is somehow dogshit.
Get your 5.56-obsessed head out of your ass.
Where did I say it’s fine and dandy? I pointed out OAL isn’t everything
If an M4 is 85/100 for door kicking
an M16 is 75/100
an XM7 would be at least 70-75/100 too.
XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
I'm just tired of morons acting like the XM7 will be HORRIBLE for close-range door-kicking duties when it's just bullshit, it'll be fine. It might not be QUITE as good as the existing M4 SPECIFICALLY in door-kicking duties, but the advantages elsewhere more than make up for that.
>XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range
No one uses these.
>and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
This is as much a liability as it is a feature. You don't know how much we're trained to take into account noncombatants that could be inside as well. It's a decent chunk of the CQB training course.
Who cares? You can blame the gun if you hit a non-combatant through a wall. Shit happens in door kicking, it's somewhat expected to a certain extent.
I'd rather have a gun that CAN kill whoever is behind furniture/walls than find out my 5.56 isn't penetrating and I might as well be throwing spit balls.
Again, the idea the M4/M16 is just fine for door kicking but the XM7/M7 will be dogshit and get people killed is just asinine.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about, and the direct implication of civilians being merc'd through walls is that your own friendlies can as well. Have you ever done a proper killhouse course? Slinging magnum rounds in room-to-room fighting is asking for trouble. It's literally less dangerous to just use Mr. Frag whenever possible.
I personally have been advocating for a new PDW caliber for the army to use as a dedicated doorkicker caliber. Something like 5.7x28 but using the same hybrid case SIG is using for 6.8x51 to increase chamber pressure and velocity.
I'm just tired of luddites insisting 6.8x51 is going to be an abject failure and only our lord and saviour 5.56 has a place in our small arms.
>I'm just tired of luddites insisting 6.8x51 is going to be an abject failure and only our lord and saviour 5.56 has a place in our small arms.
So in response you kneejerk into saying magnum rounds are just dandy for room clearing?
Yes, because they are.
You insisting they're not is moronic.
Do you think we couldn't door clear in WWII because we had .30-06?
>Yes, because they are.
I just gave profession-related reasons why they aren't.
>You insisting they're not is moronic.
And how much instruction have you received?
>Do you think we couldn't door clear in WWII because we had .30-06?
This is childish, we also had steel pot helmets then, should we just revert to that? Switch to Garands while we're at it? Or should we keep the more advanced, more effective equipment and methods that have developed since then?
Tone down the emotion and think rationally.
Think logically, you're acting like 10 less rounds and 3-4lbs of weight + an extra 3-4" of length and a bit more recoil is difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle.
That's childish and moronic.
>difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle.
I'm not even talking about that. I'm purely addressing your substandard points about the .277 round being implemented in room-to-room engagements. Unless you reign in your histrionics, we're done here.
>10 less rounds
>3-4lbs more weight
>extra 3-4" of length
>substantially more recoil
>not sizable factors in an infantry rifle
don't even know what to think about this thread anymore, jesus.
like
said, these people haven't done a lot of actual shooting beyond a range setting.
A 33% reduction in combat load, 4 lbs of extra weight, and 4" of added length, and a "bit more recoil" (which for the M7 is more than a bit, and you know that) are absolutely huge factors for a combat rifle....
It’s 70 rounds less which is a 33% reduction. 3-4 more pounds is 30-40% more. Those are huge.
>a bit more recoil
Is a massive amount more recoil in actuality. You can’t have a massive increase in power without an increase in recoil. You want magnum round performance you get magnum rifle recoil. That’s only offset if your rifle is heavy as frick.
I doubt you’ve ever carried a rifle or pack significant distance.
>you're acting like 10 less rounds and 3-4lbs of weight + an extra 3-4" of length and a bit more recoil is difference between great infantry rifle and a dog shit infantry rifle
If you said this was just a literal copy-pasted argument made for the M14 over the M16 in a Ordnance Dept. conference room 60 years ago I'd have believed it.
If we were ever going to want a dedicated PDW, the P90 is fine. Assault rifles were invented for the sole purpose of having a room clearing gun that could also work as a service rifle to simplify logistics. I don't think we're ever going to see a dedicated PDW be used for military ops ever again.
>PDW for direct action use
Wut? The entire purpose of a PDW was to offer more firepower than a handgun for soldiers who would only be issued a handgun, while being more compact than a service rifle. PDWs for direct action use goes against the entire purpose of the design and makes zero sense outside of video games that try to balance every gun.
Scale up the p90 to 5.56
you dumb Black person, do you actually think M855A1 is going to be having issues swiss cheesing interior furniture or that we're going to be completely tossing aside the decades of refined room clearing methods we've made that allows for efficient room to room clearing with mindlessly blasting through walls?
>CAN kill whoever is behind furniture/walls than find out my 5.56 isn't penetrating and I might as well be throwing spit balls.
What do you think are inside homes and buildings that stop 5.56? Please. I want to hear it.
In Europe? Several inches of brick, stone, or concrete.
Not everywhere is the US with drywall, or Iraq/Afghanistan with mud huts.
>Several inches of brick, stone, or concrete.
So things that would also stop a 6.8
>XM7 is also going to destroy level 3 plates at close range
Irrelevant since no one uses those. Even M193 from longer barrels at interior distances.
>and blow through any interior walls or furniture being used as cover.
Literally any centerfire rifle can too
>I'm just tired of morons acting like the XM7 will be HORRIBLE for close-range door-kicking duties when it's just bullshit, it'll be fine.
Yeah it’s fine. Didn’t mean to say it’s awful for that. I think there are other detriments which are problems. Room clearing is gay anyhow. Chuck in a grenade and call it a day or leave it to the hostage rescue teams
well thank God we never have any combat within 0-400m
And where does the vast majority of combat take place? 0-400m or 500+? Again, it doesn’t keep the rifle steady and pull the trigger. You think pvt rameriz has the control to do that on a 800 yard shot? While holding a 13.5lb rifle?
>Imagine if the thing can recognize and target optics on enemy vehicles and suddenly your rifle is capable of crippling targeting capability on tanks. Maybe it picks out weak points for machine guns and now your tank's only defense is its main gun.
Adding a wish list of futuristic items doesn’t change what the gun can do right now. Those same fanciful items can be put on the scope and mounted on any gun. That’s not inherent to the XM5
>And where does the vast majority of combat take place? 0-400m or 500+?
Only because shooting at 500+m is ineffective with current armament. You need to get into 400 yards when your gun is only good out to 400 yards. You're trying to make the gun fit with current assault rifle doctrine when it's evolved past it. Indoor fighting is a legitimate concern, but outdoor engagement is dynamic and doctrine can be modified to fit your capability.
The existence of the F-35 makes it way easier to see the benefit. We have an aircraft right now that is basically the Eye of Sauron that can survey enemy movements with impunity and lets your guys on the ground work around its information.
>the only reason people don't shoot beyond 500m is because the guns aren't good enough
Once again, people who don't really shoot commenting on this matter.
Yes, moron. 5.56 struggles at 500 and makes accurate fire difficult. Shooting that far is difficult on its own without your shots dropping like a rock. Knowing the exact hold with faster travel time makes hitting a lot easier. Yes, you will have to line up the shot and that's makes shooter skill an issue, but the smart scope makes it possible where an M4 would be improbable.
If you think that a BDC is enough to turn your average infantryman into a marksman at 800m then I don't know what else to tell you.
>Knowing the exact hold with faster travel time makes hitting a lot easier.
Except for that whole wind and moving target thing. Yeah those don’t matter
>Yes, you will have to line up the shot and that's makes shooter skill an issue,
I love how you gloss over the most important component by far. The whole
>every soldier is a marksman
Has been proven wrong time and time again throughout history. Wrong before WWI, wrong in WWI, WWII shows volume of fire matters, and it was wrong again with the M14. A scope won’t make it true now.
Anon, the hold for wind drift on the hybrid case loading of .277 Furry at 1000 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 600 yards, and at 500 yards is comparable to 5.56 at 300 yards. That, plus the fancy scope with built in atmospheric sensors and ballistics calculator that gives the soldier a precise hold for drop at the specific range they're shooting at will massively boost the ranges that soldiers will be able to get hits at.
You're still not taking into account the human factor of trying to hit those ranges. Why you people think a BDC will make these long distance shots feasible for a typical infantryman is blowing my mind, but then again I've worked with said infantrymen for years so I guess I have a better grasp of what limitations are at play here.
Have your SEEN the videos of people using the scope? They nail shots at long range on the first shot.
It's not going to do EVERYTHING, but having a predicted bullet drop for the range instantly displayed in the reticle, being able to set multiple targets at multiple ranges and swap between them very quickly with a new bullet drop displayed for each, that's just good technology that CAN be incredibly useful.
>Have your SEEN the videos of people using the scope? They nail shots at long range on the first shot.
On the range.
don't be mad, we COD now.
wtf that's awesome. does something like that exist?
It's literally what the NGSW scope does.
It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press (just like in COD) and shows you the bullet drop with an LCD overlay in the scope.
Works great in COD, not sure how well it will work in real combat though
>Works great in COD
I got a 740 meter first-shot headshot with it last week. It's pretty fun to hit people at exteme range in warzone 2.0
Its literally the vortex scope from the m4 program. Not pictured is how squad mates can designate positions that will show up in your reticle when you aim with it.
Yes. People who are way better shots than the typical grunt, shooting from a fricking bench.
They're still just aiming where it tells them to, and potentially using the suggested wind holds as needed
Black person have you ever shot a rifle?
Yup, you have no idea what the scope does do you? There are tons of videos you can watch if you wanted to learn something instead of looking moronic.
>still hasn’t posted guns
>still doesn’t deny never shooting at distance
>still doesn’t deny not even shooting a rifle
By your own admission here
In the post directly above, you say that it doesn’t account for windage. And as I have shown you have 7ft feet of wind drift at 1000 yards with 6.8. Yet you still claim the average grunt can hit that…
Why are we assuming there is always a steady wind and why are we assuming it can never be accounted for?
>Why are we assuming there is always a steady wind
Because that’s the easiest way to estimate. Which you’d know if you shot at the distances you say are so easy
>and why are we assuming it can never be accounted for?
Why are you assuming the scope IS accounting for it?
Post guns gay. Here’s a common one of mine
I never said the scope was, I said it had suggested wind holds and it's up to you if you want to use them or not, but even if you don't, your first shot will still be closer than if you didn't have a bullet drop calculation at all to assist you.
Yes you have. You’ve repeatedly claim it tells you exactly where to aim.
Post guns.
Black person have a nice day.
>It doesn't account for windage for you, but it does bullet drop calculation with a button press
That's what I've said in all of my posts.
Just because you selectively choose to understand what you're reading doesn't change what I've written.
So
Arent you? It’s someone else with no knowledge about long range shooting saying that the scope tells you where to aim?
Post guns. We know you don’t have any. We know you haven’t shot any
You tell me
Ok. Still waiting for you to post a single firearm.
>Only because shooting at 500+m is ineffective with current armament.
Confirmed for never shooting at that range. Yes it’s 100% the gun and nothing to do with the inherent difficulties that increasing distance has on making hits.
Even a fricking .30-378 weatherby has nearly 10ft of drop at 800 yards. But somehow grunts will be able to make those shots with more drop. And all it takes is a rangefinder. Sure…
>Even a fricking .30-378 weatherby has nearly 10ft of drop at 800 yards. But somehow grunts will be able to make those shots with more drop. And all it takes is a rangefinder. Sure…
>BDC
These are disingenuous. The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go. Actually getting on target is hard on its own, but you arent hitting shit if you don't know where your shot is going to land in the first place. That's the difference between being a couple feet off and a few yards off.
>The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go.
What is windage.
We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE, and again if your first shot is within a foot or two, that's a simple quick correction compared to 5-10 yards where you're having to walk your shots towards your target more slowly.
>We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE
Oh my fricking God have you even seen a range that goes beyond 500?
>We are talking sub 1000m yes it matters a little, but it's not MASSIVE
Lol. Lmao.
I was being super generous using a .30-378. With that it’s still 65” of wind drift at 1000 yards with a 10mph crosswind. 5.5ft of drift. It’s 13.5” at only 500 yards. When we use 6.8 specs it’s 83.5” of drift at 1000 yards. That’s 7ft you fricking troglodyte.
the fact you're not even taking windage into account is classic NGSWtard behavior
>The scope tells you exactly where your bullet will go
Which it doesn’t do. For like the 4th time, confirmed for never shooting at distance.
I also find it hilarious you haven’t refuted people calling you out in this.
Even if it didn't tell you EXACTLY where it'll go, it'll be pretty close allowing manual correction for follow up shots.
>allowing manual correction for follow up shots.
At ~900m. By the average infantryman. In combat conditions.
See:
. Your wind holds are comparable to 5.56 at 60% the range.
I don't think you fully grasp how significant the windage impact is, and even then, you're displaying a lack of comprehension about what goes into long range shooting. You can have the reticle magically tell you where it will land, but at the ranges we're discussing here the average infantryman is STILL going to struggle because the human body is not a clamped bench rest.
>I don't think you fully grasp how significant the windage impact is,
One of the main kinds of shooting I've enjoyed over the past couple years is shooting .22lr out to 200 yards, where I'm dialing similar corrections for wind to this at 900-1000 yards.
>because the human body is not a clamped bench rest.
So fricking what? This isn't a single ethical shot in hunting, or not wanting to waste money completely missing what you're shooting at at the range. This is infantry combat where the vast majority of rounds normally don't hit anything. The entire point of this is to simply get the likely dispersion tight enough that there's a much higher probability of one of those shots hitting what the soldier is aiming at, rather than so low of a probability that the gun is only rated as being effective against an area target at that range.
>This is infantry combat where the vast majority of rounds normally don't hit anything.
Then wouldn’t you want to carry more rounds?
Because it's now technologically possible to significantly increase the effective range against point targets that an infantry rifle is capable of, and this is being adopted alongside new systems that greatly increase the situational awareness of infantry and will reasonably increase possible engagement distances.
>our wind holds are comparable to 5.56 at 60% the range.
And those holds are considerable.
>Even if it didn't tell you EXACTLY where it'll go,
It doesn’t. Post guns
>good luck advancing under accurate fire from over 800m
That assumes whatever area you're operating in allows you to engage from 800m away and doesn't force you into typical infantry engagement ranges. The XM5 is a rifle being touted as the next generation of smalls arms when it's really a rifle developed to fight the last war.
>typical infantry engagement ranges
See:
, unless you're talking about some fantasy situation where the AO is an island in the Bermuda triangle where radio waves stop working, or some fantasy situation where the US decides to declare war on the rest of NATO/aliens/the US from a parallel universe/another force that would reasonably be near peer.
Yeah, ammo capacity.
Thought on FN?
What is that wraparound grip on the handguard? Will it fit on aero's quantum handguard?
Why the frick didn't FN have this shit ready for the NGSW???
Or is this for a different program and they just couldn't be bothered to do both?
there were specific requirements for ngsw coming from the military side.
DoD program, not Army
NGSW required the use of the 6.8x51 round, you could customize the case type, but overall size and the bullet dimensions were set in place.
As others have said, this case length is just too long, forcing an AR-10 sized action and a heavy b***h gun. Coming up with a new case length in between 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 is a much better idea.
They wanted cartridge case internal grain capacity to play with, it's what they're missing with the existing 5.56x45. Only 28.5 gr H2O available for powder in 5.56. Whereas you have basically double that when you step up to the 7.62 cartridge case size.
Double the potential powder capacity gives the army a TON of loading options for now, and the future when they can potentially safely run 120k+ PSI loadings.
The biggest regret will be that we had yet another opportunity to invest in, research, and get a leg up in other countries with telescopic and/or polymer cased ammunition, and instead chose S*gs cope solution brass-steel cased ammo hybrid bullshit, which invariable set the future of firearms back another decade.
the only people coping are morons who think plastic ammo could ever work.
>7.62 too heavy, get rid of it
>5.56 doesn’t pack a big enough punch, get rid of it
>go back to what is essentially a full size rifle round, while still using brass casing, meaning they can’t even carry as much as they should
We’re going full circle with the 7.62/5.56 bullshit. Without lighter ammo, there’s not much to be done.
Look at Ukraine, anon. Massing SAF does not win conflicts in the future against near peer nations.
>The biggest regret will be that we had yet another opportunity to invest in, research, and get a leg up in other countries with telescopic and/or polymer cased ammunition
This. The weight savings and cooler operating temperatures of polymer could have completely changed how we fight wars. Imagine a helicopter carrying twice as much ammo for the same weight.
I wish we could see the official reasons Textron got rejected, because it seems like with a little more work to fix the faults, Textron would have been much more of a gamechanger
>I wish we could see the official reasons Textron got rejected, because it seems like with a little more work to fix the faults, Textron would have been much more of a gamechanger
It couldn't meet the reliability requirements with the rifle or the ammo. Plastic gays stay coping.
We don’t need more fricking plastic leeching into the soil and water supply. Frick polymer casings
But copper mining and lead pollution is a-okay? Polycase usually has a steel base too, meaning you can pick them up with a good magnet
Copper doesn't nuke your fertility
>But copper mining
Localized in one location
>and lead pollution is a-okay?
Not a thing unless you eat a ton or are exposed to vapors.
Neither frick with the water supply like plastics.
>Polycase usually has a steel base too, meaning you can pick them up with a good magnet
Only useful on ranges and if people care. Which you know a lot wont
Yes.
>t. mine geologist
Honestly the only reason I’m against it. Eventually it would hit the civilian market as commonplace and I don’t want to litter all over my land when I shoot
We do need more plastic leeching into the soil and water supply - the soil and water supply of our adversaries.
It's ok once the marines show how effective a Do-It-All Direct Impingement AR15 in 5.56 will do in the next conflict the army will quickly switch back the round by utilizing the SIG SPEAR LT LMFAO
>Army learn from Marines
you could be a comedian, anon.
I don't think it will fail. I think it is a miraculous thing, the optic practically aims for you at practical distances, and PIP in all new NODs with a pissing hot rifle cartridge along with the most integrated Squad and Platoon comms we've ever seen in history is absolutely kino.
I think the redundant charging handles are kind of dumb, but in the same way a forward assist is just kind of there 99% of the time.
> Be Muhreen Core
> Need a rifle that shoots further than the M4A1
> Adopt another 5.56 rifle
> It's not even 18-20"
It's a complexly designed battle rifle with a pissing hot barrel burner for a cartridge, all manufactured by a company with a questionable reputation.
/thread
unironically moronic and you always look moronic every time you post this.
No Sigger, you didn’t get that right
It's going to fail because of 3 things.
1.) the full power cartridge absolutely cannot be tolerated without full hearing protection. 5.56 can be, although it does lead to hearing loss, 277 furry will be immediate hearing loss similar to a 357mag
2.)the suppressor will be a full on requirement for operation. The fact that the current iteration has a detachable suppressor and not integral means the gun is going to be known by stupid grunts at inaccurate after they've bashed the detachable permanently out of alignment
3.) price
any reason they didn't pursue more of a "big schv" type round?
it exchange's the M16/M4's advantages in size, weight, capacity, ruggedness, ergonomics, refinement, low-cost, and god knows what else in exchange for marginally better terminal ballistics designed to penetrate body armor that doesn't actually exist
They should have just paid FN for a 6.8x51mm rechamber of the SCAR-H which we already frickin have / have infrastructure to support, and not to mention is a much lighter and softer recoiling rifle to begin with.
or KAC with the sr25. im curious how 6.8x51 does with DI
Also this Scar exsited could've bought the new fn lmg as well
XM7, not XM5 anymore
>Since then, the service learned that the M5 name is used by Colt Industries for one of its 5.56mm carbines.
>As a result, the NGSW Rifle will now be called the XM/M7.
>The NGSW Automatic Rifle will continue to be known as the XM250/M250, PM SL said in a short press statement.
weird
>The Colt M5 Carbine is truly the next generation in a long legacy of Colt high performance assault weapons.
Colt trolling on their website
Wasn't the M5 just a commercial model name tho? Why the hell would the military care about a commercial name when they already have multiple M1s 2s etc.
The way army nomenclature there can be many M1s, but there can only be one M1 rifle.
So, for example:
>CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M1
The M1 carbine
>CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M2
Full auto M1 carbine
>CARBINE, CALIBER .30, M3
Full auto M1 carbine with a night vision scope
>CARBINE, CALIBER 5.56MM, M4
14.5" AR15
Wait so why is the Sigger not under the rifle naming scheme? It's no carbine
It has a 13" barrel so yes it is a carbine.
No it doesn't
The new optic plus suppressor hanging off the end contradicts a doctrinal carbine
Well wikipedia says it has a 15.3 inch barrel, so it's still considered a carbine. Generally speaking, rifles with barrels under 18" or so inches are called carbines by today's standards.
I wish I had the confidence you do to go through life this stupid
Seethe, cope, mald, dilate, etc.
Yeah officially it's 20" but the Mk 12 SPR is called a "rifle" and it has an 18" barrel.
>No rebuttal
>Ad-hominem
Done.
Nice reddit logical fallacies
My rebuttal is that your argument is patently moronic
>rifles with barrels under 18" or so inches
technically it's under 20".
The first US carbine was 18" coming from a 24" "short" full-size rifle (M1 Garand)
The first US Carbine used by US military had a 22" barrel
Which was?
The M1 Carbine was an 18" barrel coming from the M1 Garand's 24" barrel.
If you're talking about some meme trialed gun that had a few dozen units see limited use I don't really give a shit as that doesn't count. That's like claiming the FN SCAR counts as a US infantry rifle because SOCOM happened to buy a few hundred of them.
Not him but Krag Jorgenson carbines for the cavalry. Not a meme gun, procured in serious quantities.
Doctrinal carbine
Will be horrible for urban combat and is far too stupid for what the Americans will probably will be fighting and will not work in the combat conditions you are likely to be fighting in mainly concerte jungles like Taipei or Shanghai or Beijing or Seoul
Overall great for the Taliban and the Russians in the trench across but other then that will be questionable until 30 rounds come into play or recoil is reduced
Military's always preparing for the last war fought
Yeah I notice that
>suppressor
That is why
elaborate
>It's a battle rifle that flies in the face of everything we have collectively learned about modern combat since WWI
>Derived from a need that was moronic to begin with. "Our soldiers are being OVERMATCHED™ by Taliban who are using a mix between rocket launchers, medium machine guns and heavy machine guns that used to be fricking anti aircraft guns! WE NEED OVERMATCH™ CAPABILITIES!"
>Blatant cash grab for MIC and politicians in bed with the companies
>Fancy technology that sounds cool on paper but is just more shit to carry that when used in a real war, everything past 250 meters is vehicles to mortar/rocket/artillery/tactical nuke territory i.e. rendering the "advantage" of this rifle complete pointless
>Body armor is a literal non issue since most of the killing by infantry against enemy infantry is usually done during the assault through phase of combat where grenades and mag dumping into fighting positions is the preferred tactic, which makes the latter task more difficult because meme round
I'm sure there is more things but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Sorry, Amerishart. The super duper Ratnik Power Armor being deployed by Wagner in Ukr*ine right now is utterly impenetrable to 5.56.
>Everything out past 250 meters is for nooks, artillery, tanks, etc.
This isn't even true with 5.56mm and it's certainly not true if you have something like 6.8mm in your fire team level LMG.
Looks like steel 6.5 Grundel. Less than 80kpsi?
Its 6.5x43. Its performance is supposedly better than 6.5x39 Grendel’s and knocking on 6.5CM in terms of energy at range. Its action is a long stroke piston with a 3 lug bolt.
Nice. Who do you think has the bigger dick - Army procurement or this DoD program?
Honestly I think FN kind of nailed it. The NGSW program was odd from the beginning and I get this feeling like FN was thinking “christ, they don’t know what the frick they want, well we’ve got this other small contract, lets do that project and low key show it off when its ready”.
I think the best way I could describe it is like the Ferrari 550 vs the Ferrari 575. Ferrari made the 550 as their flagship front engine V12. Supposed to be one of the great Ferraris of all time. Then Ferrari contacted all of their 550 buyers and flew them to Italy for a luncheon to ask them what they wanted in the next iteration. The 575 was the result and it was soft, with a shitty transmission, and all kinds of minor compromises that made it an overall much worse car despite being newer and more powerful. Similarly the Army was telling gun companies what they wanted instead of letting the big forehead guys in lab coats at the gun companies come up with a solid but novel solution to modern small arms issues, which is what FN did this time around.
>“christ, they don’t know what the frick they want,
i think they know exactly what they want, its just unfeasable so manufacturers just go
>sigh* we'll do our best
Its like dealing with a toddler. The toddler is adamant about what it wants, but it doesn’t really know what that means and so in that regard it doesn’t really know what it truly wants in reality. It thinks it does, but it really doesn’t.
this is what happens when you have POGs in the upper echelons of the military
Reminds me of that Bradley design video
FN made it for a small special request contract as far as I can tell. It shoots a round that’s in between 5.56 and .308 in size and has a magazine well that is neither 5.56 stanag or .308 in size, it’s its own thing. 6.5x43mm with 6.5creedmoor-like performance from a smaller lighter rifle than a .308-sized gun.
This will be the army’s next rifle. The xm5 will be a DMR
So what eceleb shilled this that made so many posters here act like it's such hot shit?
only thing in could find was atwitter post from FN herstal UK and a r*ddit post
https://twitter.com/FNHerstalUK/status/1615043174493290497
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/10dxgi2/fn_65x43_mm_lightweight_intermediate_cartridge/
Nobody. It just makes a shit ton of sense. To the point where people naturally think, “shit, this is it”.
>It just makes a shit ton of sense.
It's literally just yet another meme caliber to add to the combat rifle meme caliber pile, that's been having meme calibers added to it since before you got into guns. I'm pretty sure this isn't even the first gun to do an intermediate size action between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO either.
t. someone who remembers 6.8 Special and 6.5 Grendel being hyped as the next big thing in the 00s, because 5.56 didn't have adequate stopping power or adequate effective range respectively.
I’m 39. I remember this ‘uge hype around 6.8spc just before the awb sunset. The thing is, this actually is the first time a big company has designed a cartridge that’s too big to fit stanag 5.56 mags and too small to reliably feed from .308 mags. Those two magazine sizes have been the primary drivers of meme wonder cartridges over the past 30 years. Everyone tries to shoehorn or neck down or neck up into one or the other.
>What if 6.5 Creedmoor... BUT LE SHORTER?!
This is pointless and does nothing.
Bot a .308 case head. Meaning you can build a rifle and an action around it thats much lighter than a typical semi-auto .308 rifle which is whats needed for 6.5cm. FN claims 7.5lbs for that gun, which is about par for piston 5.56 and 7.62x39 guns, but firing a much more potent round.
i think it is a .308 case head
Its not. Its 11mm. .308 is 12.01mm and 5.56 is 9.6mm
Sauce on where you got case specs from? I looked around and found nothing.
11mm is 7.62x39 case head right?
>FN claims 7.5lbs for that gun, which is about par for piston 5.56 and 7.62x39 guns, but firing a much more potent round.
Wait until you see the Ruger SAFR, which is 6.8lbs with a 16" barrel or 7.3 lbs with a 20" barrel, and uses a .308 length action.
https://ruger.com/products/sfar/specSheets/5610.html
https://ruger.com/products/sfar/specSheets/5611.html
Tell me about the longevity of those locking lugs. Same goes for the POF revolution rifle or the PSA KS47 . For a rifle that’s plinked from time, it might be fine. But for hard use and abuse, i wonder.
Not the anon. I scratched my head about this one and did some googling.. I haven’t heard any issues about POF bolts breaking. They are made of this unobtainium called are met, apparently a lot stronger than steel.. It is quite remarkable that an AR15 sized bolt is withstanding the bolt thrust of a 308, and makes me think a hybrid case high pressure 5.56 can simply be adapted to the AR15 without receiver dimension changes.
>So what eceleb shilled this that made so many posters here act like it's such hot shit?
When you see the Sig Spear, it's ugly. It's bigger than it needs to be. It's cobbled together from different parts found in the industry. Likely Sig just giving the Army what they whine for instead of telling them to frick off and giving them what they SHOULD have. Other anons in the thread have alluded to it.
When you see the FN IFC you think, damn that's very fricking nice. It's slim, it's sleek, long and short barrel versions would be easy, no weird frame or systems to get in the way. You don't lose capacity, weight gains are negligible and you get .308 like performance. Can you imagine carrying that 12lbs-13lbs Sig Spear with an optic and a Silencer? Soldiers just aren't going to frick with that shit and put set it down from fatigue, and that's what you don't want. Soldiers should carry their weapons on their body 24/7.
Army went with the Spear, Civilians are going with FN IFC and 6mm ARC. Civilians will win this one.
>Soldiers just aren't going to frick with that shit and put set it down from fatigue
Opinions from nogunz doesn't concern me. Only thing you're used to carrying for miles is that buttplug.
>suggest soldiers are going to stop carrying their rifles
>calls others noguns
I'm not a soldier, but I am an expert in carrying rifles. It's just common human nature to set something down if its heavy and putting pressure on your shoulders. I think you're pretty fricking moronic, if you don't realize that common fact.
You're obviously a fricking snot nosed cake eating civilian who never heard the ballistic crack of a passing round and felt the electrifying sensation of death every passin round has crawling over your skin.. I fricking swear your skin can literally sense the bullets going by. Soldiers put even the light shit they got now down out of exhaustion. Even a bullet can seem to weigh more than your ass if you carry far enough and past exhaustion. I carried a battle rifle and still carry one today. But I'm a freak with a rare metabolic disorder that gives me inhuman levels of endurance, especially in extreme cold and high altitude. I've had to carry my teammates and their gear many times, because I knew they are just normal people. Well, drag them in a litter. I'd make them feel better by saying I need them to cover our six. And a couple of times it actually worked that way, they saw a threat and dealt with it before I could even turn around, so I just moved faster. But most soldiers are NOT going to handle that much weight in a rifle well on patrols or even stationary guard duty. The Army fricked up. They ain't getting the beef and cornfed country boys they used to. They're getting skinny limp wristed b***h boy homosexuals at MEPS.
>fatigue isn’t a thing
>history didn’t happen
>soldiers haven’t complained about too much gear for 20 years
>soldiers have perfectly fine knees and backs after deployment
Post body
>6mm ARC
This is 264 USA or 6.5 freedom or whatever they'll call it.
What is a sling for 100?
this just looks like an AR
Yeah that's what /k/ likes. If it's not another AR, then it's bad, unless it's an AR made by Sig, then it's bad. Keep up, homosexual.
try harder, shills... there is a shill zone called /arg/ u should try posting this bullshit there instead of sliding threads off the catalog u dickheads
You tagged two people with opposite opinions, jackass.
and i dont fricking care how 'bout dah
Its neither internally or externally an AR
What do you expect a modern gun is supposed to look like? Modern AKs look AR-like to the point where the AKV-521 has a break apart upper and lower and the M19 has a fricking T charging handle. Moreover internally it has nothing to do with an AR
Reposting myself for the tenth time
>at least 13lbs loaded with fancy scope
>80k psi round with nearly 3000 ft lbs of energy
>nearly uncontrollable in FA because of this round
>barrel life severely diminished because of pressures
>20 round mags for a battle load of 140 rounds
>33% less rounds than now (or 50% if you want to say 20 to 30 vs 30 to 20)
>mags weigh 40% more which is another 2.8lbs for a battle load
>army making a new rifle for the last war (Afghanistan engagement distances) rather than for the next war (sub 500 yard engagements)
I don’t see where any of this could go wrong
>>army making a new rifle for the last war (Afghanistan engagement distances) rather than for the next war (sub 500 yard engagements)
Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight? Especially with all the situational awareness boosting hardware for infantry the US is pushing for along with this.
Look /k/ has its worn out meme and it's going to drive it into the ground. Get used to it.
Soviets tried to get as close as possible to Germans in Stalingrad due to German firepower advantage. Not saying it’s a perfect analogy but it may very well be the case that you’d rather hug US soldiers than sit back and get wrecked by their fancy scopes, drones, air support, and artillery.
Then they just get wrecked by the US armor that's supporting the soldiers. Also, if the US Army does go forward with the IVAS, throwing ground surveillance radar on any armor supporting infantry and feeding that data to infantry in the area will definitely be the future of urban warfare.
You may be right, but I’m not as optimistic.
Afghanistan was open desert. Iraq was city fighting. Turns out the terrain has an influence on the average distances gunfights take place. The reality is is that most "average" terrains will only occasionally have sight lines stretching farther than 300 meters.
>Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight? Especially with all the situational awareness boosting hardware for infantry the US is pushing for along with this.
If anything. The smartest move to make against the US if you're trying to decisively engage them (clear winner and loser from the fight rather than just pop shots and withdrawal) is to establish complex battle positions to allow for US forces to get within the center of your defensive position(s) before engaging them. That way they are well within minimum danger close ranges making it so that they are unable to utilize their heavier equipment and support such as artillery and air strikes. Furthermore, if they still do utilize them in a last ditch effort, it will be your men that are in covered and concealed fighting positions and the US soldiers that are up top and unprotected, essentially calling in artillery on themselves would only result in them taking the overwhelming amount of casualties. This was pretty much what the NVA meant when they said "grab them by the belts".
>Turns out the terrain has an influence on the average distances gunfights take place.
Too bad they want one gun to fight in both.
>Is there really a reason to believe enemies are going to try to get even closer to the US to fight?
No but terrain dictates a lot of it. How many places have wide open deserts and mountain ranges and no infrastructure?
American heartland.
>live in swamp and thick brush country, no visibility past 100yds max
They’re gonna get fricked up. M14 all over again.
You should be looking at engagement distances in Ukraine.
Both sides have drones, which makes crossing no-man's-land a suicidal task, there are constant artillery barrages and actual (if at times limited) armored support and yet small arms fire rarely needs to cross even 300 yards.
Would either vatniks or ukrops benefit from having a rifle with greater reach and armor pen compared to the AKs and ARs they now have?
You're mistaking the unique terrain in A-stan essentially forcing the infantry combat doctrine for a calculated choice made by the people in it.
To be fair, tons of Ukraine is open stretches of flat wheat fields.
And that still is going to provide a load more sightline obstruction that then absolute barren expanses of A-stan's mountain valleys and flatlands.
Sure but there will still be occasions you can take shots, just look at all the Ukrainian snipers putting in work. If everyone in your squad has a gun and scope that can take those shots you'll see an increase in average engagement distance.
As it is with 5.56 there is little point outside of suppression firing beyond ~400-500 meters. With 6.8x51 you could double that distance.
Okay, now imagine outfitting all of the Ukie infantry squads with nothing but SVDs, then telling them to retake a factory complex.
>occasions
exactly. occasions. you're giving everyone a 13 lbs. rifle, castrating close-in fighting capability, dramatically reducing combat loadout etc. etc. for the *occasion* that you actually manage to get a 800m clear line of sight where your enemy is exposed.
>As it is with 5.56 there is little point outside of suppression firing beyond ~400-500 meters. With 6.8x51 you could double that distance.
Then you call up the DMR or GPMG. We always had the means to address these relatively rare instances like what you described, but we weren't stupid enough to make our riflemen dedicated entirely to those instances by having it so EVERYONE was the DMR guy.
If that was true why have we dropped the .30-06 then dropped the 7.62 NATO.
Oh right because they're moronic long range procure 0 benefits overthe infantry having MOAR AMMO.
>B-But My cod kill shot video
Listen kids 99.99999999999% of all ammo is used to shoot IN THE APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF INCOMING FIRE.
You can build fricking railguns that shoot a mouse at 1000 miles. YOU'RE NEVER EVER GOING TO SEE THE MOUSE.
'Cause the mouse isn't fricking stupid it knows that if you can see it you're killing it. So your job is to make sure the mouse keep it's head down by SCARING IT enough that it will stop shooting in YOUR approximate direction.
That's how firefights really work IRL.
You want to improve your riflemen capacity you issue them with one of those each.
It's the SAW on steroids.
That's why we went from 12 guys with one MG42 to 12 guys with two MG42s. To 12 guys with 3 MGs.
The natural evolution is not a return to the M1 Garand. The natural evolution is to give MOAR MGs.
Thank God for the M250 and the light weight medium machine gun firing .338NM
Anon, the NGSW program doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's being adopted alongside and is designed to be integrated with other hardware that's intended to significantly increasing the situational awareness of infantry so that they can respond with accurate fire. When soldiers have HUDs, the ability to spot targets like in the Battlefield series, and squad level drones enabling an unprecedented level of situational awareness at longer ranges, the post WWI status quo of focusing primarily on volume of fire breaks down.
>focusing primarily on volume of fire breaks down.
Squad level drones will change the game. Rifles will be for self defense only, so they should be as light and unobtrusive as possible. Air, mortars, drones, and artillery will be the main killers guided by drone surveillance. Suicide first person drones will kill more people than rifles in a decade, so this whole conversation is pretty irrelevant. It's peacetime so no one really cares and Mensch Sauer makes the big shekels, but as soon as we go to war again we will realize.
>Air, mortars, and artillery will be the main killers
Has been the status quo for the past century you fricking moron, yet rifles have stuck around in more than just a PDW role. Increased precision of those, along with loitering munitions being thrown into the mix, isn't going to render service rifles obsolete. Besides that, it's not like the US isn't also developing technologies to better protect soldiers from those, because the military doesn't have a one track mind that can only focus on a single piece of new technology like posters here do.
>cool laser gun, bro. I just strapped some C4 to an RC airplane 6 confirmed kills
>If that was true why have we dropped the .30-06 then dropped the 7.62 NATO
Because you get 90% of the range and effectiveness for a shorter action with less weight, use less powder, and a huge cost savings over the billions and billions of rounds made. I hate the XM5 but the change from .30-06 to .308 made sense
No. The NGSW is to fight against an American “insurgency”.
>commercially available level IV armor can block AP rounds and some models can even stop 50BMG
wut
.277 fury pressure is insanely high--it's not just a diameter issue.
>.277 fury pressure is insanely high
are you morons still trying to use this meme?
>American insurgency
>dosen't penetrate Lv.IV
Wut
Karl Kucksada showed it in full auto and it looks very controllable
If that’s the only rebuttal you have then that alone is quite telling. Two other things. First, despite how much of a gay Karl is, he is quite a good shooter and practices far far more than the average grunt. Secondly, that was likely the training ammo. Not the full power ammo. Could be wrong about that though
M14 but 10x the unit cost and with a cartridge that can't be adapted to any other weapon.
wdym it just takes a barrel change thats part of the whole thing
All I know is it's designed to use expensive ammo.... And if we've learned anything about the US military is they'd rather have their guns jam during battle, during war, than pay for the right ammo. I'm looking at you m16 in the Vietnam war.
Geissle, FN, Glock and others are have banded together to shilling the 6mm ARC as the future with their coming rifles aimed at the civilian, special forces and law enforcement sectors. Think AK round size with .308 power. US Army is going with 6.8Fury and 20,000 rifles. Personally, I think FN, Glock and Geissle have the right idea. Sig Spear will fall out of favor with how huge and heavy it is. 9lbs before you get into optics and ammo.
I'm sure it's a good rifle, but it is just so soulless design wise because of how much AR back compatibility it has. The entire lower receiver, grip, stock, magwell, just doesn't complement the upper attached to it.
Am I wrong in thinking that this will end up being used for DMRs, machine guns, and nothing else?
I can kind of see the logic. On the off chance you're fighting somewhere like Afghanistan with super long lines of sight you can just give everybody one, but everywhere else, it's just a good 7.62 replacement.
Cities often have very long lines of sight. It's just that people flit in and out of cover quickly. Roads, even in forests, have long lines of sight.
Some forests allow for quite long lines of sight (e.g. the birch groves around Flagstaff, the Pacific Northwest outside of the Olympia style rainforest) while others offer very low visibility and make movement incredibly slow due to brush (e.g., Maine or the Adirondacks).
The problem in urban combat isn't lack of long lines of sight, it's the difficulty hitting people far out when they are moving between so many obstructions. The usefulness of 6.8mm in this context will live and die on how good the smart optic is or if they can implement true fire control systems like SHARP that will let people pick off a guy moving between buildings in the few seconds he is exposed.
The other big question is how well IVAS and drone implementation works and how feasible it is to keep drones up consistently. Can they use increases loitering time sensor packages, something like a derigible?
Because if you have full EM sensors helping you spot hostiles in the woods from a way off, there are shots that can be made in some types of forest at quite a distance.
Aside from that, 6.8mm just has way better ballistics got the indirect fire role. No crazy maximum ordinate and rainbow trajectory, much better for raking enemies with traversing fire given short windows of opportunity. Also, larger rounds just suppress better. There is something terrifying about subsonic rounds falling around you, but it doesn't keep heads down the same way.
>The problem in urban combat isn't lack of long lines of sight, it's the difficulty hitting people far out when they are moving between so many obstructions. The usefulness of 6.8mm in this context will live and die on how good the smart optic is or if they can implement true fire control systems like SHARP that will let people pick off a guy moving between buildings in the few seconds he is exposed.
This is also why they wanted a heavier bullet, so you can penetrate light cover (light masonry/wood/etc) even at ranges of 500-600+ meters while still having the energy/velocity to kill whatever is behind that cover.
ukraine/russia war is showing us that fighting in cities just turns the cities into rubble. most casualties coming from mortars and artillery
I can't see the suppressor surviving the "E-4 test".
>Couldn't even be used safely without custom SiG-made sound suppressor due to large muzzle blast and noise
Nope.
t.made it the frick up
Not him. Do you honestly think a 13” barrel magnum rifle caliber is usable with suppression? Shorty ARs are awful already. This is 45% more pressure and 80-90% more powder. Have fun with deaf soldiers.
do you mean without ear protection?
You shouldn't be shooting 5.56 without ear protection, let alone something larger.
No shit. 5.56 is bad enough now make is substantially worse. The concussion from a braked 6.8 will be awful also
>company that makes it couldn’t make a drop safe pistol in 2018
>dozens of recalls on all new product launches
>new round is 3 steps past bubbas pissin hot handloads
I can’t see how this will go wrong
/arg/ twinks and discord trannies of this board can't handle the devastating recoil of the weapon, so they hate it.
Look at that boy almost fall over after every shot.
He clearly has to brace and prepare for every joule that beast is putting into his shoulder.
Imagine being this much of a simp for the XM5 and not knowing that there's a huge different between the brass-cased "training" rounds that everyone has had access to and the actual issue rounds.
Found the butthurt twink. Stick to your .22 toy and let men handle real guns.
>doesn’t deny the training rounds are underpowered
Wow a watered down round to below .308 power doesn’t recoils much in a 13.5lb gun. Shocking.
Because it's a highly specified rifle, not even an assault rifle.
lightweight suppressed ARs with real range seem like a practical advancement, but I would guess these are used for shorter ranges
lightweight AR design is practical as it reduces carrying weight and changes handling, also allows you to mount more gear like ir lasers and night vision
overall am just proud of the engineers who designed this and look forward to seeing it available commercially, and I imagine many of them will end up in the hands of police departments
Nice bait
It's clearly designed for shooting white supremacist domestic terrorists seeing as how goatherders don't have level IV armor, Russians don't have level IV armor, and I'm pretty sure Chinese don't have level IV armor either. It looks too heavy for the modern feminized US military anyway. That being said, I will probably buy one since I'm an unashamed Sigger and it'll go with my M17.
Well good news, the issue round won't pen level IV armor either.
It looks ugly
1st and foremost, it's made by Sig
Secondly, I think the barrel life will be complete dog shit.
SIG claims they almost doubled the army requirement for the program (5000 rounds).
so we'll see how that goes when it starts entering service with units later this year.
>SIG claims they almost doubled the army requirement for the program (5000 rounds).
Which is absolute bullshit. Rounds with comparable velocities and much lower pressures get half of that barrel life and they are also usually fired slowly through bolt actions. Sigs barrel isn’t a new steel, doesn’t have anything new for coatings, and is the same as other offerings around. But magically the can get great barrel life. Either they are lying or the accuracy is like 5-6 MOA.
Its honestly
>oy vey what about the 5000 bullets goyim
Then it should be dog shit easy to disprove their claim in the coming months.
Why makeup bullshit now when we can just wait for REAL proof and then shit all over siggers with ACTUAl proof instead of blustering about something that hasn't happened yet.
Because Siggers make me angry and I like to call out bullshit when I see it. But you are right
>xm5
It's been adopted, it's the M5
even if it gets adopted, what does it mean for America's allies?
Will they continue using 5.56 nato (or 7.62 in the case of poos or whatever) or will they have to bust their ass and make rifles that take 6.8(.277 sig fury) and not explode in their face due to its stupid high pressure.
The US has no plans to introduce 6.8x51 as a NATO standard.
They also have no plans to reduce 5.56 and 7.62 production capacity.
I find most people who shit on the xm5 have good points at first but eventually go down the rabbit hole of obsessing over siggers.
Once again basement virgins on some cringe weeb webzone know better about everything than the big wigs at the DoD
People will unironically tell you that they are in fact way better.
I can assure you most people posting here believe they're smarter than the DoD/army procurement.
Christ I saw a guy posting a vid as a thread saying the vid testing the ballistics of .277 furry and the other big boi round is proof it's bad penning level 4 armor. Yet in the vid they both do extremely well for being standard rounds and not AP.
> proof it's bad penning level 4 armor
The only proof you need is the hard numbers behind the CSD and energy of more capable rounds failing to penetrate.
All I remember from the video was the big boi round (6.8 I think?) Took two round to pen with the first round practically making a bulge bigger than superman's.
Appeal to authority doesn’t work when they’ve proven themselves to have moronic ideas. For the love of everything holy, please read this overmatch presentation and then tell me you sincerely think they are smart.
>https://www.slideshare.net/James8981/overmatch
It doesn't look cool and it's not the enormous leap in design philosophy that the AR-15 was. The other, more ambitious programs would have had more staying power, but obviously the Army wasn't seeing the numbers they wanted, and they decided to buy a stopgap for limited issue until we do this shit again in a few years. Until the industry provides a G11 in heat seeking airburst 20mm with 60 round magazines, no perceived recoil, and also it sucks you off, the army is going to continue balking at the price for anything as cool and marginally improved as say textron's offering. Spear won't fail but it will quietly disappear like XM-25 as it fails to deliver on project goals. The ammo fricking sucks and I don't think it will get any better. If there's anything likely to endure it's the new FCS, which is conveniently backwards compatible with the M4.
siggers unironically clinging to the battlerifle justification and just ignoring the fact that a rifle that needs to reach 800 meters doesn't need a 13 inch barrel. that autistic barrel selection is where the circus starts and if it weren't for that, and the copes required to make that chode work, all the FAL, scar, ar-10, and M14 chads would be smug-posting over the return to a higher power infantry rifle doctrine. to say nothing of the cold hard fact that siggers have zero right to claim any benefits from vortex's optics, rifle-integrated LRFs were coming to small arms anyway.
just give the fricking gun a normal barrel and you can get the exact same ballistics with a NORMAL case that gives you NORMAL wear and tear and NORMAL bolt velocities instead of this hot fricking barel-chewing mess of a borderline blowback turd.
frick siggers. for real. dumb frick welfare-queens, every single one of you.
Then it's a 40" long rifle like the M16 was
>seething this hard about Sig
Anon, you do know it's possible to think that Sig had the worst entry for the NGSW program, but still acknowledge that the direction the Army is going with the NGSW is the future.
I don't. it is just an update on the M14 called the AR-16. No, I got that right.
>AR-16
the US military needs a "multi-caliber" capable, base design that can me modified for future use. I still think they should have chosen a AR-10 style lower, or a HK-33 style lower.
things I wish for:
>independent "drop-in" trigger assembly and grip.
>independent mag well assembly.
>independent rifle upper and gas system.
>independent rear buffer/stock assembly.
>captured pins
I mean the stoner 63 was on to something, but making something that has both backward and forward compatibility isn't an easy feat. I think the halfway is just to have rifles scaled to:
>Pistol caliber (.22 LR-FN5.7)
>Intermediate( 5.56 NATO/ 7.62x39)
>Battle rifle (7.62 NATO-.450 marlin)
>Anti-material (.30-06 - .45-70gvt)
>Man-portable cannon (.50 BMG-20mmx102mm)
if we could just build a system that fits just intermediate to my definition of anti-material then we could have a lot of interchangeability for common service rifles and a platform to build future development off of.
The M250 will be successful, but the M5 will have no impact. Troops won't use it and they'll favor the weapons firing 7.62
>they'll favor the weapons firing 7.62
Lol what weapons?
>M5
>XM5
M7 and XM7
Get with the times gramps
whats the deal with all these new rifles being metallic gold colored?
I believe Barrett started it back in like 2005 with "burnt bronze" and top tier companies have copied them ever since
Bronze metallic looks dope as frick in person, I don't care for desert colors especially flat dark earth or coyote tan
>company ran by israelites
>surprised when it looks like coin colors
Gee anon you tell me
you're a sorry loser and will live a sad life
cry about it noggler
i can see the logic in that
Is Sig not run by the small hat tribe? Also
>what is a joke
You are the one living a sad life simping for israelites
Blends in to most environments and doesn't get as hot when left in direct sunlight
It's not a bad color? Idk I think it's better than an all black rifle. Nothing wrong with all black but you gotta change things up sometimes.
Not sure it will fail. Don't think it will ever fully replace the m4. I also don't trust 18year olds to not break it or it's fancy optic.
The gun is bigger than the latest generation of rifleman recruits.