The NGSW M7 Rifle: Just My Opinion on the Next Generation Service Weapon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssoluti...
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Centurion Discount Codes:
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Fort Scott Ammunition - Code: SAS to take 10% off
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?r...
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410
"Just" your opinion counts wayyyy more than the store guy selling guns everyday. Thank you for everything, because of you i "had" to buy the Mk12 from PRI and i don't regret it.
I think the M7 would work well as a DMR, but as a standard issue service rifle, not so much. The trend over the past two centuries of US military history has seen rifles get lighter and the number of rounds a soldier can carry becoming more plentiful. This does the opposite.
It honestly completely invalidates the M110A1 as it is superior in pretty much every sense.
@@iamtherealrauschguy As far as I know yes that’s true
100%
It lost out to the M110 A1 from HK as part of the CSASS program. I have only shot the .308 version. The barrel had to be tighten down. It was shooting all over the paper. When my armorer tightened the barrel down it shot a little over 2 moa with M80 ball 147gr ammo. It prefers 175 grain however.
@@iamtherealrauschguy That's why I like 5.56mm chamberings
But, if we were to go with a 4.73mm bullet & CT Chambering, we could theoretically carry even more ammo in a SAW-like platform.
Borrow the 4.73mm bullet from the old Schoool H&K G11 project concept, but don't go crazy by trying to go caseless ammo.
That's a step too far and introduces way more complexity than necessary.
Caseless ammo is good for revolvers & Bolt Action Sniper Rifles, other than that, I don't see the value in caseless ammo.
CT ammo is a different beast. IMO, it's the future of Ammo.
Using a P90-esque magazine and a 40" OAL for the platform, you could easily carry 175 rounds per mag. (I've done the the geometry before, it's wonderful how much ammo you can pack)
Design the 4.73mm ball ammo to tumble upon impact like Russian 5.45 mm bullets, and you have a very potent cartridge in a US made 4.73mm CT Cartridge.
The logical answer to the M9 was the m9a3.
The logical answer for the M4 is to issue mk262. But general officers on Ron Cohens board can't max out profits being logical.
I see the m9a3/a4 being a good option but mk262 is pretty spicy and barrel wear will be an issue. But you're not wrong on the being logical part.
Mk262 isn't as bad as M855A1. 262 is within normal pressure ranges just uses a heavy bullet. @@bmstylee
@@bmstylee It isn't spicy, just heavier, performs better at somewhat longer ranges. I would like to see how much you lose in terms of barrier penetration though, having at least a steel core helps a lot there, the Mk262 loses that.
@@lucastonoli3256 it's definitely hotter than 193 or 855. I was watching Johnny's Reloading Bench when he was doing his mk262 series and there is a ton of powder smoking down the barrel. In addition to throat erosion and barrel wear it will add additional wear and tear to the system eventually beating the gun up. I want a .223 bolt gun just to load a mk262 analog since the Black Hills stuff is really expensive.
@@bmstyleePSI is nearly identical 2-3k from other common 5.56 loads, and 4-6k below M855A1, well within manageable limits with no reports of early throat erosion, at least non that I could fine, if there is one, please do share.
Smoke down the pipe could be to inappropriate powder or primer. Heavier bullets benefit more from slower burning powders.
I agree that we have reached the peak of weapon design for 5.56.
New cartridge with higher pressures has raised the peak. We are at the begining of a transition to higher pressure weapons, the greatest limitation to the rate of innovation around this advancement will be sig's patent on the cartridge.
HK: Our MK23 pistol is a beast! I don’t know why the service members leave them behind in their armories.
Sig: 👀 What if we did the same thing but with service members’ rifles? 😁
In HK's defense, they made what the government said it wanted. One could say that so did SIG in this instance.
You do understand that the Army created the round's specifications and put a contract for companies like SIG to design weapons systems around those specifications? SIG didn't create the round they designed their submissions for the Army specifications. So no matter who got chosen the rifle submission was going to way more.
@@Lewis-jn8ry Yes, I do understand that. Do you understand hyperbole?
@@chud1858Yes, we understand what "hyperbole" is. It's more often than not, used by people without anything constructive or germane to add... Used chiefly by politicians, and armchair experts.
I do agree with the 6.8spc idea, a better all around cartridge would be a much better solution to the current problems, now there will be an entire new set of issues. “We’re from the government and we’re here to help” 🙄
I have to agree with Chris on this one. I believe we should have a battle rifle in the armory for every infantryman if it suits the terrain otherwise from that, the M4 assault rifle is standard issue. The military should have issued MK48s machineguns in Afghanistan or make the M240 the standard as the British did for long distance engagements with 2 marksmen per squad. The M250 looks like a good machinegun that can replace the M249 and M240 in service but I also wonder what's the barrel like and also the parts wear and what cleaning is like compared to the M249/M240.
If only we had a Designated Marksman in the MTO&E with a training syllabus and Additional Skill Identifier, with a choice of 2 different weapon systems to use for the operational environment. 5.56 DMR or Enhanced Performance Cartridge for terrain with longer distances.
Excellent analysis Chris, I believe that just the weight of the rifle itself is a deal breaker. Why didn't they just decide on a 6.8 SPC or 6 ARC upper? The answer, because it would have been logical and cost effective and they don't want that. It's all about the money.
6ARC is the best option at the moment.
Jeff Gurwitch former SF/Green Beret from Modern Tactical Shooting states 6.8SPC kicked like a mule, more than AKMs.
@@ASqdrnDA Yeah, that won't do. It's m14 all over again.
6.5 Grendel ?
I understand a few SMUs have adopted the 6mm ARC and are getting good reviews. An LT in 6mm ARC or 6.8 SPC would be a more viable option in my opinion.
I think this is spot on. There were many instances in history where weapons technology did not advance, and people ended up using essentially the same stuff for centuries even.
This is a bad decision and unnecessary at best.
Then why should we repeat their mistakes? Now is exactly the time for innovation and adopting new technologies. If not now, when?
@@oleboy7615 Why? state what's bad about it.
@@joshklaver47 it's people like you who get people killed in battle always focusing on high tech rather than reliability, simplicity, repairability, etc.
tech is good, but you have to understand when and how to apply it in a way that makes sense.
technology also evolves exponentially, meaning that the more you improve, teh harder it is and more expensive it is to achieve the next leap in capability. and large leaps become less and less possible to achieve.
@@SoloRenegade Onviously you’re not aware of the track record Sig has for producing firearms that require recalls to fix problems that really shouldn’t exist. They’ve had more recalls on more products since 2006 than all other top tier manufacturers combined. This is an irrefutable fact; therefore, I do not waste time on Sig. The fact that the Army is in bed with them is also a red flag. No thanks! Too many other reputable options today.
Also, the round is stupid. Why not just stick with 7.62X51? Plenty of it and it’s effective. That said, there is nothing wrong with 5.56, especially with the right projectile. The Mk262 is a devastating round and allows more ammo per man. This whole thing wreaks of corruption and failure, which is par for the course. The LMT R20 is a far better rifle, and the 5.56 is fine.
It is reasonable to use 6.8 on MG or DMR, but absolutely not on assault rifles. The money that US army spent on NGSW could literally buy every soldier a KAC KS-1, which is one of the best ARs you can find.
Went down to the AMU and got to handle these a bit. A gentleman down there mentioned how during their testing, the barrels were wearing out faster than expected…the rifles were like 12-13lbs, recoil was hefty, optics were cool but complex. After a discussion, we had come to the same conclusion; the rifle makes no sense as every soldier’s rifle, but the machine gun we liked the concept of….they even mentioned how studies have shown that it isn’t necessarily the caliber size of a rifle that helps win the fight, but the amount of ammo that can be carried and fired to allow for suppression, fire and maneuver
Yeah, I don’t understand the claims that with the higher pressure ammo the barrels were somehow not wearing out faster? It would be one thing to claim a new methodology in barrel making, but I don’t know if I heard of anything like that with the NGSW.
@@30wrdy It'd have to be a crazy jump to make a fucking 80,000 PSI cartridge not burn out any barrel.
Im just getting into first AR im a FNFAL and AKS.
But growing up watching the vietnam war on the eavning news every night im really wanting that M-16 clone.
Like i said im new to this channel but i greatly appreciate the no nonsense presentation back by knowledge of the topic.
I haven't dug through your library yet somthing on the FAL and mini14 would be exciting.
Thanks for sharing.
The M - 16 is still good enough and the iterative improvements as well as dedicated accessories make it versatile enough to keep going till we get a rifle that truly takes a full step up from it's capabilities.
I would think this is backdoor method to move to the MCX platform. Probably most infantry will be moved to the MCX LT rifle while the M7 will be for designated marksmen and some of the Rattler type rifles in 300 B.O. for spec ops.
TY I placed my order for your book Americas Rifle this afternoon your knowledge about this platform is incredible TY for all you do
I thought the very same thing you just talked about in this video back when I first heard about this new program, it’s just nice to hear it come out of the mouth of a professional so I know I’m not alone in my thoughts on it, lol
Sig is deep in bed
Which is bad for us civilians. They can be strong armed into doing things not in the interest of the civilian market if they feel their military money is threatened.
The belt fed gun was not meant to replace the M240 and the 7.62. It was meant to replace the M249 and the 5.56 which is completely insane.
Yeah, and as configured cannot be mounted on a tripod, does not have a quick change barrel. Wouldn't be too crazy to fix but the gun is not capable of some things even M249 was.
It's not insane when it ends up weighing half as much, is far more ergonomic, and every soldier who uses it is ecstatic about it. The M240 is an entirely different animal, and is sticking around due to its extreme accuracy, among other things. You can view the NGSW belt fed as an analogue to the PKM, which is generally agreed upon to be the best machine gun ever made, and is used more like our 249. Pretty much all experts agree that the NGSW belt fed is an amazing system and is far superior to the 249. A lot of people here are quite ignorant of the actual facts
The XM250 is very much superior to the 249, but the ammo weighs too much because it is in the wrong role for its caliber. Almost everything you said except for "it's better than a 249" is inane meaningless nonthink@@moonasha
@@moonasha “pretty much all experts agree” code for bullshit
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Sig has versions of the AR that have quick change barrel capability (ie a carry handle attached to the barrel), but they couldn't submit it with that feature because of the Army's weight criteria...in all likelihood, there will be an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to add that to the TDP for the XM250, as well as an ECP for a captured handguard.
As far as tripod mounting, it looks like there is an MLOK slot on the underside of the receiver, just forward of the pistol grip, which would be perfectly placed to allow for a rear tripod mount. My guess is that this MG is tripod capable with removable mounts, which would allow for the capability without the weight cost, as the Army specifically did not request tripod compatibility, but everyone knows this gun will need it.
If they want an all-around gun they need to redesign the current standard upper for the M4. The upper is the limiting factor of the system. If they redesign the M4/AR-15 upper to accept closer to, if not, the LR-308/DMPS Gen 1 barrel extension to give more meat to the bolt for cartridges like the 6mm ARC or the 6.8 SPC to push them harder with more longevity they would have a kick-ass system. 5.56 is at the limit of the case and bolt metalurgy. This is why 6.8 SPC, 224 Valkyrie, 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC have lower SAAMIed pressures than 5.56 NATO. They tried really hard with the 6.8 SPC, but it fell flat with loads of criticism.
This is partly why 300 AAC works well; same bolt, same pressures, and same magazines (for lighter supers). Yes the cartridge is designed to be sub-sonic, but supers are used, and parts don't break any more than 5.56 NATO.
And the lower as well because the magazine well needs to be able to fit that longer cartridge. So, the entire rifle needs to be modified. So... it would just be an AR-10 variant.
@@bobbertbobberson6725 6mm ARC, 6.5 Grendel, 224 Valkyrie, and 6.8 SPC don't need a different magazine well. Stick with the standard lower. Just give me the bigger bolt and bigger barrel extension.
The .300 AAC could be a decent enough answer, but for every single rifleman? I am too "old school" and think that adding different caliber ammunition to the supply train is a problem looking to happen. But I am usually wrong and stuck in how well the AR 15 / M - 16 platform covers so many basic infantry uses, still can be improved, if not significantly "lightened" more...
There is another new caliber floating around for military trials. It’s basically taking the 6.8 concept, and making a 6.5 with more case capacity than 5.56… I cannot remember what it’s called at the moment… But I liked the idea, I have personally felt something like that would be a good option for general issue.
Hope you report back your findings because that does sound VERY interesting.
@@ASqdrnDAI think he's talking about the FN .264 LICC.
.300 AAC will handle most DMR and squad machine gun duties, can work with existing rifles with an unit to change upper receiver and barrel, and is not super expensive or super high pressure...
Just imagine the common 180lb ground soldier lugging around a 12lb rifle with a new 6 lb smart optic on it with a loadout of 308+ weighted cartridges and mags shooting an experimental new round at 70K psi. Sign me up for that!
Not to mention full body armor too. Its a fucking travesty
With optics, suppressor, and magazines I think it will be over $10,000.00++
I think he was giving the contract price that the government would pay per setup. Way lower than what civilians would pay
From what I understand about M855A1, in recent years they’ve reduced the powder charge so it’ll operate at lower pressures and increase the service life.
Big A had basically is getting a new belt fed and the rifle just was tagging along its simply a matter of change in doctrine similar to what the German army was doing in ww2
Agreed: However I feel that the 5.56x45 cartridge still has allot to offer especially with modern propellants, metals, etc just someone needs to do the R&D instead of trying to make a wonder caliber. They should put that effort into the 5.56, instead of trying to replace it
Yes and don't neuter the barrel length. 18"+ makes it a fantastic cartridge.
There are governments that produce the best weapons they can to meet the perceived needs of future conflicts at a cost they can afford. There are other governments who produce weapons to fill a gap in the last war they fought at a cost that is prohibitive.
Completely agree about the 6.8 SPC. I don’t know why the 6.8 never caught on, it delivers more energy on target in the same size weapon platform with the same amount of ammunition and similar effective range.
We should have just went with the FN SCAR that had different versions for different theater of operation.
I wish the government hired you for your military arms expertise. America's military would be much better equipped.
I wonder if they could make a 5.56 conversion kit, like the Colt CM901/LE901, to remedy some of these issues.
Weight of the rifle
This is an example of people who don’t understand the history of small arms, aren’t gun guys or gun culture, that are talked into what they think is a good idea. Same thing happen on sniper rifles.
M7 is an example of the classic saying that generals plan to fight the last war. Future conflicts may not be like Afghanistan, but we’ll have rifles to engage from mountain top to mountain top in a conflict that might need something for door to door.
The last war is their most recent large cache of new information. If you don't learn from it and correct problems that you know you have, what are you relying on? All progress is achieved by standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us. Reading tea leaves is a fine skill to have... if you can really do it.
Cool to see the same about the .338 norma mag machine gun
You said many of the things I thought you'd say on this, and you did a great job putting it into perspective. I think the government is too crazy about Sig Sauer for some reason, and not a good one either, that involves money, power and just plain politics. In other words, screw what the warfighter really needs. Regardless of if the Army goes back to the M4 eventually, I know mine aren't going anywhere.
I blame the Army, Sig gave them what they asked for
I think Sig probably worked all this out from ammunition to rifle to optics (which has just a basic variable zoom optic with it). I think Sig built a good and the 6.8 will do fine.
Couldn’t agree more. No way I’d wanna turn in my M4 for this Bigass thing. For the life of me I can’t figure out how 6.8 SPC hasn’t gained traction
As the saying goes, US generals always fight the last war.
Also to be clear, the real/main issue isn't the actual rifle itself (aside from the usual SIG stuff such as build quality and design problems). It's just an enlarged MCX which is just a warmed over M4 with a more AR-18 derived operating system. So its same/familiar enough to their bog standard AR-15 that it doesn't scare the Americans. The problem is the full size ultra magnum powered cartridge being made to be a standard issue replacement of the 5.56x45 for regular infantry.
What would be so wrong with a lightweight 20" AR-15 platform rifle? Flat top for optics, lightweight handguards, and with the correct bullet weight, can be effective to 600 yards.
I just don't understand.
Extrapolating from the last war won’t give you anything if there is a paradigm shift. MBTs and IFVs are seriously f..ed. Trophy and similar as well as lasers might provide some mitigation. But in a world of drones we might be back to Infantry warfare like we see in Ukraine. Is the 6.8x51 better for tree line to tree line engagements?
I agree 100% if you look at Ukraine. Small Arms mean little on the battlefield but when they do its who can deliver the most rounds the quickest that wins the fight.
Would love to see your take on the FN Individual Weapon System and the .264 LICC/6.5x43
I'm 100% with you sir. I see the exact same multiple issues with the M7 rifle and cartridge as you clearly outlined. It is amazing how people forget hard lessons learned in the past. Great video sir.
The M14 Mk.2
Sometimes I think getting rid of the US Ordnance Dept. was not a very good idea.
I agree fully. And as far as I remember I don't even think it was designed for range, only to defeat body armor. But as others have put forward, a military can easily upgrade and change and improve body armor faster than you can improve your ammunition supply and rifles to defeat that body armor, also all the tungsten cores come from china. All the combat footage I have seen in the last 20+ years is keeping heads down or self defense or room clearing. I would love to know how viable it would even be to use these optics and systems to accurately hit targets in an urban setting. All the footage of Ukraine is soldiers firing without aiming at all, blind firing into trenches. Regardless of any other factor, its still less ammunition, it weighs more, holds less, you would have to have so much more weight on you to carry the same in what you can with 5.56, I don't know if the average solder would want that. Some niche situations of course this would probably be much better than all current DMR rifles for sure. But it should be in selected roles. According to some who have been in combat, at least with SF units, they use their rifle as a PDW as sort, get themselves out, then bring in the heavier equipment to engage the enemy and not stand there trying to snipe them with their own rifle, they bring in HMGs and mortars etc for longer range.
The case technology I believe is the future in performance. I doubt the M5 is going to be the gun to carry that ball all the way to the end zone.
Glad you pitch your opinion on this matter as well, Chris.
and while US Armed Forces opted for this huge and heavy rifle with less ammo cap, the Brits are doing better with their choice to employ KS-1 from KAC 🤣
I think there are some in the army who are just really afraid the 5.56 won't be affective against Chinese body armor.
The Chinese don’t issue that armor
I totally agree with you, Chris.
If they wanted to extend the range of the AR15 and still keep a decent capacity without an increase in weight something like the 6ARC made more sense. This one size fits all high pressure miracle round is a fool errand.
....Chris; I'm going to throw a question or two here for you and other participants. 1. In your honest opinion is a FORWARD ASSIST on an AR really necessary? 2. Have you ever actually had the need to use the FORWARD ASSIST? Thank you. Rick
Sir, the forward assist is NOT necessary and 99% of the time it will cause more problems than it will ever solve. By design, its to force the bolt closed. You never force the bolt closed, you get that round out of there. If the bolt fails to lock, the rifles telling you there is a problem. Most failures to lock is because people load improperly, they ride the charging handle forward. I have never in my career had a malfunction that the forward assist would fix. Are there times it is useful? Perhaps but the problems it can cause far outweigh its usefulness. Stoner was adamantly opposed to the addition of it by the Army. Now, its only use is press checks because now nobody trust the rifles to load properly! Over 50 years, press checks were never a thing. Now, it’s the tacticool way to load your rifle. Same as that sword hold on the handguard. So no, I am not a fan of it and think it was a mistake.
My personal gripes all stem from design. I've dedicated an unhealthy amount of time researching known firearm mechanisms, their strengths, and their weaknesses.
The AR platform as we know it was explicitly designed around recoil control and marksmanship. As time went on, the AR-10 has proven to be the objective best design for a DMR role.
The AR-15, in my opinion, is a wee bit over-engineered for its purpose.
Meanwhile, there is a reason the AR-18's internals are the most copied worldwide. It's simple, flexible, and easy to modify for specific purposes.
The AK platform, despite falling short due to an obsession with tradition, has the benefit of simplicity on its side, making it really easy to just chuck into the hands of some drunkards you need to conscript.
The piston setup of the SCAR that the M7 inherited is just not meant for rifles. On an LMG, it is a far more consistent and robust system than long-stroke, but on a rifle it just makes the weapon perform worse.
The M7 doesn't feel like a purpose-built weapon. It feels like they took an M4, gave it a bunch of features that they thought they'd need, then sent it.
They wanted it to hit super far away so they gave it new fancy ammo and a fancy new scope.
They wanted it to be small so they gave it a short barrel.
They wanted it to be "more reliable" so they gave it an LMG piston setup.
Too mant conflicting features all in one gun. I just hope it's good enough that it won't get anyone killed.
They need to work out caseless ammunition before they worry about building a new weapon. Next they need to change the action and the chambering process in order to reduce heat (or some other heat reduction system).
A buddy of mind is convinced this program is a stealth program for Space Force. Some advanced optic and massive penetration for some unknown ET threat lol. I guess this is the space shuttle door gunner's rifle.
The XM7 is a great DMR, it would be great for missions with longer engagements, but no way will it replace the M4
Also, factor in training. I have no doubts that a soldier who gets a 2 year train up with the M7 will be effective, but what happens when the Surge happens again? I went to Afghanistan ( i know, the surge was for Iraq) months after AIT. I didnt even go to NTC. A 556 M4 is way easier to control, especially at close quarters than what I imagine an M7 will be. Yes, can it hit targets at 700m with the new optic, but what happens when its a boot with a total of 100 rounds on his person, and its Fallujah? If a major conflict kicks off, a new recruit who will ship off to war very quickly will be more effective with an M4. 210 rounds is a lot better than 100. Also, the new round is designed to defeat body armor. Awesome. Thats assuming you see the body armor and shoot it. None of my friends that died, died of a result of the body armor being penetrated.
Leaving boondoggles and corruption aside for the moment, there is a consistent problem in the US military leadership in regards to historical perspective and learning lessons. This rifle seems like a GWOT hangover gun.
I love the look, but i dont think it will last.
I want an investigation into why every weapon system is now being made by sig. follow the money and let’s see which retired generals are getting paid.
This caliber is way better than 308. 3000 fps in a 13” barrel….yeah barrels will wear out faster but when it’s not the primary rifle that’s not as big of a deal.
Here is a grab-bag of comments from others who have examined that XM-7. 1) the M-16 style cocking handle is a trap. It is not really useable. Being very floppy and also very stiff. 2) too easy to overinsert the magazine. Much fiddling to correct. 3) how much does it weigh with mandatory hybrid suppressor and smart scope? A lot. But how much? 4) Very tip heavy. OK I don't know what I'm talking about here. But would that help/ hinder for certain types of shooting? E.g. easy to track fast traversing target. But slow to re-acquire multiple spaced small targets? Again, I do not claim to know. 5) the folding buttstock seems to be an afterthought. I..e. when not in use, it sticks out at an awkward angle, and could get caught on obstructions. This problem is even worse if you leave the buttstock extended to a useful shooting position. 6) the nominal reason for this rifle- versus armour - is basically not improved enough to justify the rifle. I.e. you can toss tungsten core in any assault rifle to meet this requirement. Sure, this rifle can do so at longer ranges. But at what cost? I.e. once suppressor, scope, rifle weight is considered, how few semi-auto 20rd box mags can you carry? Let along belt for the machinegunner.
Hi Chris. Do you think this system was at least partly motivated by the military trying to justify its budgeting?
Never leave your budget unused. Unless you want your budget cut. However with a blank check military budget I don't think they have to worry about that.
Yep.
They should try to focus on a rifle that improves on the modularity of the m4 even more if they want a "do all" type of rifle. Not try to mass adopt a heavy full power rifle cartridge for every role. Develop a service rifle that can more easily be swaped from an intermediate to full power.
I often carried 10+ mags in Iraq. You can carry that much ammo with 6.8x51.
I'd take the M4 in one if its various upgrades over the M7.
A high flow suppressor would be a welcome upgrade to the M4.
You drastically increase your combat burden with the 6.8x51 mm ammo and 10 rounds less per mag
@@SmallArmsSolutions it would be a mess trying to carry the same combat load with the xm7.
I wish there was more work going into a next gen optic like what Holosun is doing with their red dot that has NV/IR integrated in. Having a micro thermal on your M4 would be a huge upgrade for shooting in mixed light environments and in dust/smoke.
I think Matthew meant can’t carry that much ammo…?
@@aoleon3908 I did. Dang auto complete on a touch screen.
The sight appears useful for engaging drones (but impractical until cheap augmented reality _Eye Pro_ exists to point them out). Get the polymer case to work on the existing ones to lower weight/brass consumption first before recapitulating the M14/FAL/.280 missteps.
The shame is that the MCX, which this rifle is just an upscaled version of, It's fantastic in 556.
If they wanted additional ballistic capability they should have adopted something like 6 mm arc or like you said a 6.8 SPC In a regular MCX.
I would favor 6 mm ARK because it gives a considerable range boost over 556 which apparently the army was looking for in the M7
Cris you're correct as usual. The M7 is too big, bulky & pricey! I think a Sig Spear LT chambered in 6.5 Grendal would be an ideal setup for US infantry. I'd like to buy one.
LWRC already has the Six8 rifle that would probably excel as a 6mmARC or the new 6mmMax
Congrats on hitting 100K. Well deserved.
I'd like to see you review Harrington and Richardson rifles. Been wanting a couple of them xm and m16a1 😮
I have not had any luck getting one to review
@@SmallArmsSolutions bummer, you are pretty much the only person I'd like to hear an opinion from.
It failed during the inrange TV mud test after 1 shot
There's nothing wrong with the M4, the government just can't resist another opportunity to spend money.
Whats your thoughts on 6max?
I think polymer cased telescoped ammo would have been the bigger revolution for the weight savings alone. Once you find that, then you can tinker with calibers, but for now, just reduce the weight by 40%.
The M-16 A4 and M4 A1 are about as perfect of a weapon system as I can imagine today. Now you’re giving the ground pounders a heavier rifle, with less ammunition, more recoil that is currently throwing around well built grown men all over the place in ideal conditions when firing it and expect that to be welcomed with open arms?? Listen, I get that we can’t get myopic here and that there were MANY unjustified criticisms when the M-16 arrived. But, for every one advantage this rifle gives us, it seems to have taken away 2 if not 3 in its place. The constant problem the excuse patrol has kept regurgitating is the problem of the 5.56 to kill at far distances or there is some great fear of it not penetrating “next generation body armor”. I suggest any of these members of the excuse patrol go watch ANY footage from Ukraine or Israel lately. Any of the 5.56 rifles on display are doing JUST FINE in the neutralizing the enemy department. Hopefully WW3 doesn’t start out soon. I just don’t see this rifle being universally loved like the M1 Garand was for Grandpa’s war.
Is this new casing going to be one that can be reloaded?
My first thought was that are government was sneaky enough to make it so we can't reload it.
Until you told us they build that way to contain the case pressure.
You should be able to reload a weaker version, but it's most likely not going to use traditional powder. Plastic explosives as a propellant might be used in order to generate the 80,000 psi in a case that delivers up to 62,000 PSI with traditional powder.
@@orlock20 OK thanks
I wouldn't trust a Sig issued shovel; too much money involved
The problem that most people are failing to see is ranges of combat have become more extended because of optics becoming standard issue. Body armor is also becoming standard issue , just because it isn't wide spread yet doesn't mean it's not coming. We use to own the night, now we share it. And that is happening at a larger frequency than before. I have high hopes for this cartridge/rifle/MG combination. I see this as another shift in US small arms tactics and strategies. I believe the M-4 will go back to the use of what it was originally designed for, rear echelon use. And the M7 and M250 will be for front line troops. But I and not ashamed to say that I could be completely wrong and you all may be completely right in your assessment.
Not true, look at the engagement in Iraq! Mostly in urban environments. Long range artillery and air strikes. Then infantry move in close range. You have limited long range opportunities but those are taken by DMR
Agreed
The military and government aren't in the business of giving soldiers the best. They're in the business of making sure their defense contractor buddies get their paydays, and that said payday is reciprocated.
Stick with the M4 with the polymer case ammo for even more weight savings and other benefits.
An M4 in 6.5 Grendel is the absolute MVP.
Pretty insane that they are even considering replacing the m4 with this
I would have gone with a 6 ARK setup
I agree. I think the M7 has a place in the battlefield, just not every battlefield. In the mountains of Afghanistan, absolutely. However in the streets of Baghdad the jungles of Vietnam, or clearing the Gaza Strip. No way. IMO if the Army wants to have them as an option in the Arsenal, great. Nothing wrong with having another tool in the tool box. Again, its success would depend on the theater of operation. But if you ask me, they should just keep the M4 as the "standard" ,give the contract back to Colt/CZ and be done with it. Yes the M4/M16 platform has been in the service for 60+ years. But if it's not broke, no need to fix it.
Spot on assessment. 👌
Excellent analysis.
The average soldier had to engage out beyond 600 yards quite frequently in Afghanistan….there is a role for this big time. Yeah definitely not the best choice for swat room clearing
Thank you. 👍
DMR yes. Service rifle, no. And did we forget we have a radio and crew served weapons on truck mounts in Afghanistan? This (M7) is a waste of time.
I would not want to carry something that heavy. Especially after you add everything to it. Anyone who says it isn't a problem has never done a 20k with 80 to a 100 pounds on there back.
Even hiking the woods with a moderate hunting pack and an average weight gun/bow sucks. I wouldn't want to hump around a heavy rifle on top of a heavy pack unless it really gave me something special the lighter one didn't. It's that whole SAWC thing Nuntnfancy harps about constantly.
Fuckin aye man, 160lbs of gear and I’m looking to drop lbs anywhere I can find an ounce
I almost wonder if they just moved up with 556 to a 70 grain or 69 grain just a hair gain in the charge
77gr FMJ BT
I'm guessing soft barrier penetration, but not sure how big of a difference it makes.
This is the UCP saga playing out as a rifle instead of camo.
I am curious. This is the Army's attempt at replacing the M4 platform. What do you think about the Marines' attempt at such? They replaced their M4s, M16s, and M249s with all HK M27 IARs that they're tricking out with VCOGs and KAC NT4 suppressors en masse.
when you have perfection (M16/M4) leave it alone!
I just wonder if energy type weapons will ever be developed. Lasers and what not. I mean science fiction has become science fact a lot of times. I know they have developed them for air defense. But i wonder if they'll ever be the primary arm of soldiers.
I have heard soldiers complain about the M4 with heavy barrels or the DMR style rifle being heavy after long humps. So what is a rifle that weights more 😂 What is wrong with an AR-10 or the CORE10 7win mag.
The way the US gov treats the m4. Its the equivalent of a man trying to cheat on a unatractive but loving and caring wife. But the man is unable to find a girl to cheat with and is stuck with the wife who deserves better then such man.
The m4 deserves way more respect then is given.
The M7 rifle is for front line troops fighting a war against guys with body armor. No body armor and no long range shooting most likely means no M7 on the battlefield.
I agree. And don’t forget these are 150 lb 18 year olds. These guns are going to be very heavy for them
It's no more heavier than a decked out M1 rifle and we already have the stats on the M1's logistics. If you think the rifle is heavy, just weigh their plate carriers.
I think the cartridge could replace 308 in military service, it's simply a superior cartridge especially in the battle rifle relm, it wont be today or tomorrow but i could see nato eventually moving on to it, military is part of the government and government moves at a molasses pace the 5.7x28 was just adopted in 2021.....it was developed in 1990 hell the m16 and 223 had a infamous road to adoption last smooth transition was 30-06 to 308
Regardless the next few years will be quite interesting, I think the biggest obstacle will be availability as SIG figures out how the production at scale will work