Is the M16 now obsolete?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2022
- Join Patreon and support MAC! / militaryarms
Follow and support us on Utreon!: utreon.com/c/militaryarmschannel
MAC T-Shirt Store: ballisticink.com/collections/...
Modern Gun School: www.mgs.edu
Join us on Discord: Join us on Discord: / discord
Join us on Twitch: / militaryarms
Challenge Targets Discount Code: MAC556 (www.challengetargets.com/SFNT...)
OpticsPlanet Discount Code: MAC556
The M16 has served our nation for some 60 years. It's the longest serving rifle in American history. It's now being replaced by the Sig Spear / M5 along with a new cartridge, the 6.8x51. So the question is, has the M16 become obsolete?
#m16 #m5 #obsolete - Розваги
Like Flannel Daddy said "When shooting a 20 inch AR, you turn practice ammo into duty ammo".
I will soon have a 20” AR in my arsenal. 😈
@Chano Leyva on a round that is very velocity dependent it makes a big difference
To me the 20" AR is smoother shooting.
@@RickNethery definitely has a smoother recoil impulse
@@jeremyjeremy8795 that’s what a lot of people misses. Since Eugene Stoner designed the .223/5.56 for a 20 inch barrel at least, if you use anything less, there will be unburned powder and thus, the bullet will not achieve max velocity and spin. This means the round will loose speed much much faster. Yes, Paul tested it, but later, he tested the effect on pork meat target out at 50 yards and 400. Even at 50, the effects of a 14.5 M-4 is….Anemic….Tim here also tested both an M-16A1 with a 1/12 twist, an M-4 with 1/7 twist and an M-16A2 with 1/7 twist. Both the of the M-16’s, using M193 and M855 absolutely shattered, as in SHATTERED their watermelon targets at a range of 25 yards. The M-4? As Tim said especially with the M193, even at 25 yards, “the fall from the table probably hurt it more than the bullet!” Not impressive at all! So no. Even if the speed is close, the result is soooooo NOT even close it’s not even funny!
US Army-"We need a longer range rifle and cartridge".
US Army-"We'll still only train out to 300 meters".
For now...
Which is why the Army said they will have to make plans to extend/ the current ranges/make new ranges upon issuance of the XM5
Don’t have to train last 3-400 yards . Because the Blackhawk’s and f-15 get radio in and bomb the hell out off any enemy fire
Marines qualify at 500
I remember when I was in the Army we had to shoot out to 500 meters on the range. I mean yes that was back in the late 90's and shooting with the M16A2 and open sights, but I don't think things changed that much.
Big army wants 5 foot tall 99 pound women in combat and at the same time adopting a super high pressure round in a 10 pound platform. This will work out great.
Plus it’s over 8 lbs unloaded. That’s fine for the range but having to lug that around as an EDC for soldiers and marines I’d going to be backbreaking, much less using it in combat. I sure hope the DoD and Sig figures out how to lighten that thing.
@@OceanGuy808 8.38 lbs without the suppressor, 9.8 lbs with the suppressor and 11 lbs with suppressor an loaded, the optic weighs about 2 lbs and there are plans for a self-stabilizing foregrip and maybe a stock mounted power pack for the optic in the future.
Yea my thought was maybe certain people in a squad being designated with these rifles similarly how they did with Designated marksmen.
Even most of the men that the Army is recruiting nowadays are about that same size. As if any of these little scrawny, soy boys who drink soy lattes from Starbucks can lift anything more than five pounds, let alone a 9.5-pound rifle unloaded with a suppressor attached to it (which all the guns come with the suppressor already installed and intended for the gun).
@@OceanGuy808 Soldiers through history carried guns around that weight. Stop crying about it.
I think the M5 is great for engaging at extended ranges, but the M4/M16 seems superior for almost every other practical purpose.
I think if we can get a 5.56 to go even faster velocity in shorter barrels itll stay useful because most people ate not vody builders and cant carry something vuilt to replace the m249
My biggest issue with the M5 is the fact that they use 2 different ammo types/pressures for training and field use. It's like training with a 22lr with the intention of being proficient with 5.56, I'm worried grunts will be caught off guard when they finally shoot the higher pressure round when they are actually in the shit.
That's exactly what the USAF did with AR. Heck I had to qualify 2x using an AR15 (wouldn't trust us with an M16) with a 22LR adapter ( jams after 10 rounds constantly) for the National Guard. Only fired 556 at basic and to go overseas when active.
So, no real change there.
Better than shooting bbs at the enemy
My issue is the overall weight of the platform. 8 lbs unloaded!
@@OceanGuy808 Ya, however how much does a M4 with glass, magnifier, night scope , gun light, laser and non pencil barrel weigh?
Remember, your grandad hauled a 9lb. Garand and 150-200 round od 30-06 all over WW2
@@paulzaborny6741 About 2lbs less than a M5 with glass, light, laser, et. al.
So let me get this straight - they're going to use a cheaper, lower-pressure round with lower recoil for training and qualifications then issue more expensive higher-pressure rounds with more recoil for deployments/combat instead of just using the deployment rounds for training and qualifications?
Yeah, sure what ever could go wrong with that?
👍👍Riiiiight.🤞 2 things that immediately come to my mind are over-gassing and under-gassing malfunction issues. There used to be a saying, "Train like you fight, and you'll fight like you train." I always thought it sounded like it could be a paraphrase of something from Sun-Tzsu. Apparently it's not applicable in this century, though. 🤔😉
I'm in Australia, and hunt with bolt action rifles in .375ruger, .30-06, 7mm08, with my "weakest" centrefire cartridge being .22-250. Always cracks me up when uninformed idiots claim AR-15's to be high powered death machines, but those same people would be happy for people to own bolt action rifles, yet they don't realise that most of them are chambered in way more devastating rounds than .223
I hear you "MATE". I've been saying similar things for decades. Any of the WW-1-2 veteran rifle cartridges are far more dangerous than the 5.56mm NATO round, and EVERYONE of them will punch holes in Level III+ body armor, and most will severely hurt Level IV body armor too.
I have a feeling the same thing that happened to the M-14 will happen to the M-5.
I like most Sig firearms, and own several. However, this same thought has occurred to me too. I suppose time will tell.
Nah, it's the SIG M-5 will become the new SCAR H.
I agree, the weight and limited ammo capacity not going to play out well. Its a rifle great for Afghanistan but no where else
The LMG version will get used. Rifle seems to be specialist weapon with a limited role.
So what's the quick follow-up?
I have come to appreciate a light rifle and number of rounds to carry - especially now as a civilian. The humanitarian 5.56/.223 works out great ... varmints and people don't like being hit by the round. Battle rifles are heavy and expensive to feed.
This is exactly right.
I think a 556 77gr high bc bullet would've been the best option.
If they were to do that, it would go perfect with LMT MRP considering the longer barrel will wear out the rifleing more quickly. Since the MRP has quick barrel change and is cold hammer forged chrome lined.
Still not adequate for medium bi pedal game... it's still a varmint round
A high pressure 6 ARC would have been the perfect middle ground. Less recoil, weight, size, while having more capacity, velocity, armor penetrating potential, and overall much more flexible.
@Rabbi Tannenbaum huh? The m4 is decades old and the 77gr 5.56 is nothing new.
I wonder what the velocity increase is in 5.56, if they did the case like the 6.8x51 and upped the pressures. If they are able to add several hundred feet per second to a 77 grain, I'd be interested to see how much better it would be.
I agree. It would be like a 22-250 in a M4 platform. Add a steel core and that should take care of the armor problem. Barrels are cheep and the military obviously isn't concerned about the Barrels. Then you keep the weight down and ammo capacity up.
@@keith9444 Exactly......It's not just a new weapon platform, it's also a new way to do ammo. M855A1 is a lot better than M855, or M193, except it's hard on barrel extensions, but it had a small pressure increase as well, which is part of it's effectiveness. Seal that core up, do the different case and push it to 80K and lets see what happens then. Probably still not quite as good as the 6.8x51, but then you wouldn't have the weight issue.
Agreed, this would be a very interesting test.
the challenge with 5.56 is that you’re already maxed out in case capacity. A 77gr BTHP is the biggest bullet you can seat to mag length. Dropping back to 62-69gr you can get about 2gr more powder. If you changed to a pistol powder to get ridiculously high pressures like 277 Fury (XM 6.8) then you would get screaming velocities that you’d need a solid projectile to handle unless you went back to a much slower twist, which won’t stabilize the heavier bullets. 5.56 is simply maxed out.
277 Fury has a ton more case capacity. but the M5 is also designed with a short barrel. You’re basically getting .308 w/ 22 inch barrel ballistics from a 13” barrel. The tradeoff is that it’s going to burn barrels like they’re free.
I don’t wanna find out what the velocity would be. Pretty sure a black hole would open
The Philippine army still using the colt M16A1. The M16 still relevant in modern battlefield even the M14, 1911 or the M3A1 Grease Gun.
Just a bump up in caliber to something like the 6.5 Grendel would have made more sense. It’s a significant increase in performance at all ranges in the same platform. I’m betting the M5 never gets fully implemented. Like you said, it’s a step backwards to the M14 days.
an upper rebuild/swap is all that would be required, and they could refit the existing guns with ambi-controls while they're at it.
6.5 Grendel does not have significantly better body armor penetration than 5.56x45 which was the supposedly the reason for the 6.8x51 high pressure cartridge. Kind of backward looking IMO to put so much emphasis on near-peer conflicts when insurgent fighters have been making our military look bad since the 60's.
Agree, add the ‘suppressor’ (really more of a counterweight to tame the rise and reduce muzzle blast) and the fancy new scope and you have eerily similar weight and length to the M14. Then, reduce the standard mag capacity to 20 (just like the M14) and reduce the ammo load you can carry (just like the M14)… Time will tell but it’s hard not to draw the comparison.
David Brainard I totally agree with you on just changing the caliber not the entire platform. Makes more sense for reaching targets farther away. But then again I don't have the resources like they do.
@@eloiseharbeson2483 Problem is, with Russia's horrible performance in Ukraine, I don't think we really have a "near-peer". Now like you said with the insurgents, I think the issue is more of a rules of engagement issue than weapon issue.
It's not obsolete, and it won't be until there is a huge firearm technology leap (like bolt action to semi automatic self loading). You could use a 12.5+ 5.56 AR-15 until then and be fine.
I dont thing M5 will ever replace like mk18s or Sig MCXs for CQB
@@920utdoors9 I mean, since the XM5 is quite literally the SIG MCX Spear, the very gun you said it won't replace, well, is the same gun supposed to replace the same gun? I guess this is kinda like the M16A4 replacing the M16A2 and M16A3, or something
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
Exactly. This conversation is ridiculous. We have a literal mountain of human bodies as testament to the effectiveness of the 5.56 out of an AR platform. Human physiology didn’t change overnight. Nor do most engagements occur over 300m, especially factoring that urban fighting is only more likely these days. DMRs using enhanced cartridges (6.5, 7.62, 6.8, etc) make sense, but will be less effective for close combat, fire and maneuver, ergonomics, weight, ammo capacity, etc. Who’s harder to kill at close range, a dude with a full auto URGI with m855a1 or someone with the M5 with a 4 lb scope on top using the military grade round? I know who I would choose.
@@remogaggi82 check out my fowdy…watt ray gun
I don’t think any rifle is obsolete as long as it’s reliable.
Guns like kar98k are reliable, it is still obsolete (at least as a standard infantry rifle)
Trap door Springfield? Definitely reliable but pretty obsolete.
Here, take this Musket. Now try to fight off the Russians!
Not a very well thought out comment as pointed out by previous responses. 😕
Arnt some Ukrainian soldiers using Lewis guns?
I am still skeptical of the M4 being replaced. The M5 adoption will be a mammoth undertaking of training, infrastructure, and most of all expense. The 5.56 mm is underpowered but there are bilions of rounds out there with the corresponding weapons equipping us and our allies. A 6mm would be better cartridge for the military rifle and 6.8mm would be a better machine gun cartridge but I see it as pipe dream to replace the system of weapons that are already in place.
Can we get a 5.56 to go out even faster
5.56 is a good round out to medium ranges like 400 meters beyond that it’s mediocre asf and actually sucks ass
@@BaconSlayer69 yes, but I was lucky if I could hit the 300 meter target half the time when I was qualifying in tbe army.
Buffer tube never bothered me, I wouldn’t carry a stock folded and I don’t care how much space it takes up in the arms room.
Honestly 6mm arc would of made such a great replacment for 556. 6mm is effective up to 1000 yards and isnt a battle rifle cartridge like 6.8x51.
I think the original M16a1 was the epitome of design. If we could develop/redevelop the 20” lightweight m16 with a flat top for optics, we would have something useful again. The ever shortening of the barrels over the years has crippled the 5.56 cartridge. A 16-18 inch lightweight that shoots 55 grain bullets at high velocity and there is no need for these high tech/expensive bullet designs.
I think the M16A3 actually because it has much better anodizing, fully reinforced lower receiver and better hand guard than the triangular one.
Carbines exist for a reason. A 20" barrel is spectacular for optimal velocity, but not for CQB.
@@Stevarooni a 20” barrel IS a carbine. We need to understand that a pistol length barrel on a rifle isn’t good for anything else but targets within a few yards. We just spent the last 2 decades trying to develop ammo that would do what the original 55 grain bullet would do from a 20”carbine barrel. We failed. The 77 OTM came close and is really good from a 16 inch or longer barrel but the short 10” barrels pushes any bullet so slow that they drop below 2200 FPS at really close distances, negating the reason we switched to the 5.56 in the first place.
@@possumpopper89 I believe the military classifies 20” m16 as a rifle. Also the gas system for the 20” is officially called ‘rifle ‘ length. But anyway yeah I agree about the 77 grain the army should simply add this hybrid case system to the 5.56, change the m855a1 cartridge to tungsten instead of steel, beef up whatever parts necessary like the bolt lugs etc, to allow it to endure 100k+ pressures. A tungsten based 77 grain m855a1-type bullet going over Mach 3 should be quite devastating for many years to come.
@@user-oy9zy4ds9m currently they do classify it as a rifle as they do the shorter lengths. Historically speaking, when they switched from the 24” M14 to the 20” M16, most folks considered the M16 a carbine. It didn’t have the range or power to do as much at the longer ranges as the M14 could do.
I agree with y'alls assessment of cartridge technology, just imagine using a cartridge such as that and raising the pressure of a 5.56x45
Nope.
6.8x51mm is a better round all around.
5.56mm will be relegated to POGs and civilian rifles.
Then you would have to strengthen all the parts to handle it. Might as well make a new gun.
MCX anyone?
@@easye4798 -
Not sure what the big advantage of the 6.8 over the 7.62 is.
Seems like they could have just gone with an M-10. (Or whatever they would have called it.)
What am I missing?
@@EchoTangoSuitcase much higher velocity.
@@easye4798 a 6.8x51 is better than a 5.56, but there are things you can do with 6 mags of 5.56 that you can't with 6 mags of 6.8
Its sad to see it go. Its been such a faithful weapon and its civilian counterpart gets so much hate because of evil people. More of an ak guy myself i dont like the word obselete because it implies its usless. These rifles whether ak or ar are far from obselete. I wouldnt be surprised if its around like the 1911 still is 100 years from now.
Yes, I think it will be around for a long time in the civilian market. With several million made, (short of anti-gunners getting their wet dream) it not going anywhere.
Look at the lever action rifles as an example. How old is that design?
Also, it will still be for a while in the hands of the non-frontline troops, likely, becoming their PDF weapon like the M2 was in WW2
@@paulzaborny6741 yeah I think it's a time-tested design and it's definitely not going anywhere in our lifetime
It will never happen, and here's why. They may make the M5 the new "Battle Rifle", but the M -16 and the M4 will never be eclipsed because of the cartridge. The 6.8x51 being a 3 part cartridge inherently makes it exponentially more difficult to field in great quantity. A 5.56 is just a bit of copper, a dab of brass with a dash of powder. You can crank that out 'til the cows come home. We have already. There's millions upon millions of rounds already out there, more than we can remember where we put it all. That is how you win wars. The new one is not only more copper, and more brass, and more powder, but steel too. It uses up too many resources. The M-16s and M4s will drop back to the role of a carbine, but it will still be around, and in huge numbers.
Even if you just fielded .277 Fury it's still a lot more than the 5.56. Give the M5 to the Frontline Troops. Give them to Squad Leaders & DMs. Some of the Spec Ops Team members? Sure. But for the main force and those in the rear with the gear? No. You can give the M-16s and M4s an upgrade to the 6mm ARC as needed. It's a little bigger than the 5.56 and you can only have 25 rounds per magazine. But it's still lighter and easier to field than the 6.8x51. There's no reason to replace them all of them with M5s? It's just a waste of resources. Why would you throw all those weapons and ammo away? Short answer is you don't. M5s? Use it where it's needed. But the M=16s and the M4s will become the new M1 Carbine,. The M5s will be the Garand, there just won't be as many Garands because we can't churn out as much ammo for them, and without ammo it's just an expensive club. More than 1 million more M1 Carbines were produced during WWII than M1 Garand Rifles. That's a fact! Can you imagine trying to give everyone in WWII who had an M1 carbine an M1 Garand and 30-06 ammo to go with it? We would have lost the war!
Cartridge development and a change in case material is really important. Brass is the most expensive "disposable" component of warfare.
I do think that the core technology of the AR platform will continue in one form or another. Eugene Stoner was a pretty smart cookie.
When is Jason (the camera man) going to do a video on your 6mm ARC build that shoots .5 MOA? The M-5 with the hot ammo is out of reach for 99% of your patreons but Jason's rifle can be built and shot by all of us.
Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have demonstrated that their rifles or cartridges are more potent or capable than our own. China appears to be riding and dying on the 5.8x42. In terms of enerygy, it's about the same as 5.56x45. Instead, the PLA is focusing on airpower, modern mechanized combined arms, air defense, and long range strike capability.
Do I agree that certain components and aspects of the M4A1 as issued today could use some work? I do. The URGI program came about for a reason. However, the M5 does nothing to address the needs of security personnel, CQB missions for SOF, and the bulk of both the USMC and US Army's line units. Sig does not have the production capacity to build the M5 in the numbers where the whole of the Army will have its combat rifles replaced in less than ten to fifteen years. The 6.8x51 really seems like too much cartridge for 90% of military personnel, even the infantry. As Ian of Forgotten Weapons noted, this seems to be an MG cartridge shoehorned into a rifle. You can't tell me that even the 3 or maybe 4 divisions that will get it will see any increase in long range capability with the M5 when troops often struggle beyond 300 meters due to a lack of training. It strikes me as an attempt to replace a small finishing hammer with a sledge when all you needed for the job was a framing hammer.
I dont really understand the need to go back to a battle rifle. Take the same technology used in the .277 fury, and apply it to a 6 arc or 6.5 grendel, etc.
That keeps the platform small and light, but still provides the armor piercing velocity at longer ranges. That being said, I think spending a ton of time and energy on small arms is going to prove futile.
Rail gun armed drones are probably not that far away, assuming they aren’t already here.
Well put
I think it will be mission specific, not sure they'll replace the M4, as I don't see the M5 being used in all roles..This seems more like a DMR and you'll still see most still rocking the M4..I just don't see the practical application of the M5 in CQB, so don't see why you would want everyone outfitted with a 20 round select fire battle rifle inside an urban environment..
@@NoBody-pw3kf For now, the second tier non frontline troops will still use the M4. Frontline combat troops will get the new rifle
@@fnkdtnk Those drones are not here and won't be. Lasers, probably, but railguns wont be on drones. Physics says so.
They’ve officially already stated they will use brass lower pressure ammo for training, and the hybrid stuff for combat, it will extend the life of the barrels.
5.56x45 might be on the way out. M4 with a hybrid 6mm Arc (so faster than normal Arc) or something like that might start showing up as a lighter option than the new m5.
Mac to be honest about the FA capability and controllability of the M5, I have to disagree that the rifle is uncontrollable for most people. Ian at Forgotten Weapons shot it in full auto and said it was really controllable. I have also seen many types of shooters at the SIG Freedom Days events and I'd say even for small statured/inexperienced people once they get used to the impulse they generally can control the M5 pretty well.
It would be really nice to see the 6mm ARC get a nod from big Army. I mean a simple barrel swap and a magazine mod and all your m4s become 6mm arc capable.
I like the capability provided by the 6mm ARC, just not the case. I think maybe a slightly difference case to achieve the same performance capability would be ideal. Modifying the Osprey Combat 6.5mm Super Z cartidge case to use the 6.2mm/.243 bullet would be ideal, especially if the cartridge case used a variant True Velocity's semi-composite case.
IMO, any inexpensive to manufacture semi auto which accepts commonly available ammunition and has a detachable magazine will still see use until its ammo runs dry. So I don't know if I'd call it obsolete. Definitely not going the way of the musket. Then again, I'm not sure how cheap it is to produce. If it's expensive, then yeah, maybe it'll be too much of a bother to be adopted by countries that aren't already used to it...
You mean commonly unavailable ammo ....
Eh I’m a veteran who sold all his AR’s except my A4 build. So you can probably guess my opinion. (I had like maybe 7 at the most from 11.5”-24”) the A4 is my do anything I need it to do rifle.
Do I think the M4’s and M16’s in inventory are going to all be replaced by the M5’s, nope. Different tools for different wars in different environments… it would be stupid to toss them all.
Stupid yes, but this administration is in bed with stupid. Its the lefts banner flag.
@Rabbi Tannenbaum I mean people did love the M4’s as far as weighing less and being more compact… that’s going to be what people hate about the M5 is the weight. People moaned about the M14 EBR’s we used in Afghanistan so they’re definitely going to hate the weight of the M5 especially once it’s got the whiz bang optic.
So far as the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan though, eh. I wanted and actually got an A2 in 05 Iraq plain old A2 but with M203 and aimpoint, then in 08 an A2 with the M5 KAC RAS and aimpoint (no M203) then in Afghanistan in 2010 A2 w/ M5 KAC RAS and aimpoint, some guys had trijicon’s. Some had M4’s. But with the 1km engagements we often got into there we soon got M14 EBR’s which were great…..but that weight sucked.
The M16 is a variant of the AR platform of rifles and the AR platform has stood up to the testament of time much like the AK and the M1911. The AR platform is very ergonomic, versitile, and is so adaptable to modernization. It's practically why this platform of rifles is still used all around the world even to this day, albeit in different variations. Even the new M5 rifle that the US has adopted is essentially another AR platform. So even if the M16 ends up seeing much more limited use in the military service, it'll still be around in the civilian hands and police services so that doesn't mean that it'll become obsolete. So to say that the M16 is obsolete is to kind of like saying that the AR platform of rifles is obsolete and the AR is far from being obsolete.
If there’s an urban conflict next you will see the 5.56 guns coming out of mothballs just like what happened with m14’s in afghan.
Urban or jungle. Anything with high likelihood of CQC
@@MichaelJohnson-mt6ey So every conflict over the last 150 years. Plenty of studies done since WW1 and WW2 showing the average engagement is within 300 meters. The US military ignored these studies until we adopted the M16.
@@MichaelJohnson-mt6ey yup or majority of engagements being 0-2/300 meters.
@@schocker3387 Moreover, Afghanistan was somewhat of an anomaly, because the military did have solutions to deal with those longer engagements (mortars, etc.) They just opted not to use them due to the restrictive Rules of Engagement and the concerns about collateral damage in what was supposed to be more of a "police action" and a hearts and minds sort of shtik than a full-on war.
Against a near-peer opponent, however, those concerns wouldn't apply.
Makes me wonder if the qualification scors are going to go down. Even with the training ammo.
Down? Why do you think? Too much recoil?
@@Stevarooni Yes most low 2 mid level people have a hard time with 7.62x51/308 recoil now were handing out 7.62x54 or greater recoil loads but until I see someone I trust get hands on were not even sure what felt recoil will be
@@thekingjdd most of what I've seen has been the training ammo. Presumably quals will be done with that? Definitely more recoil than 5.56NATO, even then. Not punishing levels, but you won't be having drill sergeants put the stock on their balls and firing to demonstrate to scared recruits that the recoil is nothing.
Agreed....as a prior infantryman I can honestly say most service members can't shoot to the proficiency levels believed by the public. If we already had a huge number of troops struggling to Qual on 5.56, it's only logical to assume that number is going to increase.
@@Stevarooni true they may not train with full power loads but still anything more than a varmint cartridge is going to negatively impact the test results of low skill shooters which is a large part of all militates even ours and my bigger concern is if your not training with the full power load then your not going to be ready for it during real combat but I digress time will tell
The AR-15 was so ahead of it’s time that it is just now starting to somewhat show it’s age and or limitations. But even those are few and far between. Many designs that have come well after it’s creation still can’t hold up to the modularity and track record of it. Great Britain gives their regular infantry troops the SA-80 which was first fielded in 1985 to use, but their elite Tier-1 groups like the SAS and SBS were often found using an M-16 for years before that and uses that or an M4/AR-type rifle often to this day. I really do hope the M5 is all that it COULD be, but I have a sneaking suspicion that when we look back decades from now, we will see how good we had it for so long with AR/M16/M4 family. The civilian ownership and numbers of them today is testament to that and they defiantly have earned it’s spot in the “best US rifle ever” conversation. If you want to have a conversation about the effectiveness of the .223 cartridge, that’s a whole separate issue. As far as the design of the rifle itself, it’s as solid as they come folks. 60+ years of service, and still going strong.
Amen to that brother. As long as it’s updated, it can last forever.
..also Amen..it AIN’T GOING NOWHERE.
UKSF use the c8 by colt canada, but yes an ar15 variant. In my opinion the reduced capacity and difficulty for the average soldier to carry/shoot the m5 will cause issues. Not to mention cqb with 20 round mags…
@@TheSafkan Yeah, it’s definitely going to be have to be an overall of our current combat doctrine to make it work. Trying to bring Assault rifle ideology to the battle rifle has very rarely worked in the past.
The M16 had limitations since its development began back in 1957. One issue was low confidence by the big brass. Another is that the cartridge isn't a 16-inch 50 caliber naval rifle (think Iowa-class battleships). The biggest problems with the M16 is tactical doctrine--which drives training programs. What is an individual weapon supposed to do?
To me, the term "obsolete" means that a weapon will not perform a spectrum of tasks as well as newer weapons. Sometimes a weapon will remain quite serviceable for a specific mission even though there are better weapons--the double-action revolver will still work as a private-citizen personal defense firearm even though a semiautomatic pistol can do that mission better. Another aspect of "obsolete" is how much more training is required to achieve the same performance level. On Nevada's recommended Concealed Firearm Permit marksmanship test, a five-shot snub nose revolver at 3 yards, 5 yards and 7 yards will take more skill than firing a 9mm service pistol over the same course of fire to achieve a 70% score on standard police silhouette targets, but with administrative reloading (recharging a handgun against the clock during a shooting string) and the large, stationary target at those short distances make the overall revolver performance nearly as good as the full-size and "easier to shoot" fifteen or twenty-shot 9mm pistol. Since paper targets don't discriminate between target wadcutter ammunition and +P jacketed hollow points, the scoring system can't establish that the more powerful ammunition is "better."
Sea story time! I cannot verify this SEAL Team Six story but a request for Smith and Wesson Model 19 Combat Magnums in .357 Magnum was sent in. The procurement officer took a Combat Magnum, a S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece and a box of .38 Special M41 cartridges to the pistol range and fired both side by side. The SEALs wanted the .357 Magnum to crack the blocks of outboard motors at short range--the procurement officer sent them Combat Masterpieces with the light M41 Ball load because his testing demonstrated no advantage to the more expensive revolver. The .38 Super and .357 Magnum were developed during the Depression in order to allow police to shoot through car bodies. The .357 Magnum was popular--except to bean counters and bureaucrats. HORRORS! Penetrate a car body! Cost too damn much! Cannot be controlled by the average Officer Fudd street cop! No difference in the hole sizes made on paper targets.
the biggest mistake any military makes is to have one rifle and one round for everything. 6.8 is better for some circumstances, but worse for others. M4 and 5.56 is not obsolete, but it is not going to be a "be all end all" rifle forever, and we will need new weapons to fill new situations.
the m4 is perfect some scenarios, adequate at some scenarios, and bad at some
the m5 is perfect for some scenarios, adequate at some, and bad at some
it just makes logical sense to me to have each soldier capable of using both. they should only be changing DMRs into m5s in my eyes. replacing every m4 with the m5 just seems crazy
@@newerest1 I think the M4 will become the M2 carbine of WW2 and Korea fame for the 21st century
AR15 are the new AKs, everyone's gonna have them poor man's rifle.
I never found much use myself for 5.56, as I am an avid hunter. I had a Ruger Ranch rifle when I was a kid, but I've always preferred the AR-10 myself. My wife has a WWSD AR - 15 and loves it.. I guess I'm behind the curve, don't tell anyone but I own a Glock 21, shh. I also have a Ruger Vaquero in 44 mag.
@@newerest1 the problem with 556 now is Russian and Chinese body armor. Even with a 20 inch barrel it really struggles against it if not completely stopping 556 every time. That’s what the new 6.8 was designed for
I agree with one of your side comments about the AR buffer tube. The Evo/Law bufferless BCGs seem like the perfect way to address a potential genetic dead-end without going to a piston or some other change that requires new upper/lower/etc. A side folding AR PDW with a shorter barrel, that can fire with the stock folded, seems like the logical solution for air- and vehicle- crews. It also maintains parts compatibility because ONLY the BCG changes. You can drop the new BCG into any rifle/carbine/PDW, so there are NO logistical issues. It also offers the ability to develop a new bullpup AR lower if you really want to go apeshit.
Why hasn't the idea gone mainstream?
Actually only the carrier itself needs to change, can still use same bolt. Something like the Dissent or bufferless like you mentioned definitely makes sense. The M5 makes next to no sense as a PDW/Close Quarters weapon.
Based on my digging a lot of it apparently has to do with L4 body armor becoming a lot more common. China is apparently handing it out like candy and it's now so cheap and available you can buy a set for like 300.00, and it'll stop damn near all 5.56 short of M995. So why not use that? The US does not have enough Tungsten to fight a prolonged war, we'd actually run out of the stuff, unlike China which has most of the metal on the planet. That leaves high velocity rounds, and rather than dust off flechette concepts like the ACR, the Pentagon opted for the "bigger hammer" approach with 6.8. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it's a stop gap measure until they can find a more permanent solution. I can't see these things being general issue, you've got most of the same issues you had with the M14 only with 80,000 PSI pressures. This is essentially the Bradley all over gain.
READILY (& WILLINGLY) AVAILABLE ARTILLERY FIRE SUPPORT IS THE SOLUTION.
I seen a video I cant remember who made it but they did say that they were using standard pressure 6.8 for training and only using the hybrid case stuff for deployment. Id like to see a 6 arc with this hybrid case design with the upped pressures out of a shorter barrel in a lighter package.
A lightweight AR-15 size rifle, with SPEAR function (short piston), firing 6mm ARC with 80,000 psi option and swappable barrels would be VERY interesting to me.
I had an ACR and it completely killed my interest in folding stocks. Adding forward weight, complexity and recoil so you can get out a car marginally easier is marketing fluff. Id rather have the ARs buffer tube and soft recoil over just about any piston gun.
..sounds like YOU’RE ‘handgun/pistol’-only then, or maybe a bullpup..? HOW heavy..”LIGHT” (?) would you EXPECT a typical, issued rifle to be IF ALL were perfect?
Then again the acr never came out with the shorten barrels caliber swaps. Bushmaster just released the acr made crazy promises like I do to my wife and never fill them
But the acr could've been more so much more. I believe in retractable stocks like mp7 retractable not m4
The acr could have had a mp7 style retractable stock
When you're crammed in a BFV, or a Blackhawk, or jumping out of a plane a folding stock could be handy.
Maybe we need to look at outfitting our soldiers with exo-suits with the heavier load outs.
Love these round table discussions!
6:48 dead arms has a full pot adapter with a dual buffer spring system and a shortened down BCG and I've enjoyed it and you can fire it while folded
The 5.56 round is not as capable as the newer rounds, but the AR platform is second to none. It’s so adaptive, modular, and upgradable that it will be relevant for another couple decades.
@XTHE12THMONKEYX .277 Fury most likely (6.8x51 with steel case head)
Great discussion. As a civilian, I am doing almost all of my shooting these days with a POF Rogue, which is a 16.5" .308 in an AR-15 sized package. Empty weight is just under 6lbs, it takes AR15 parts (including bolt carrier and handguards), and recoil is easily managed with solid fundamentals. Ammo is (relatively) cheap and plentiful and I'm not engaging in sustained firefights so 20rd or 25rd mags are plenty. So for me, AR15s in 5.56 are not as interesting but neither are 8lb battle rifles.
Are you seriously crying over 2lbs?
@@chroma6947 Ounces equal pounds in the field...
Regardless, he clearly said this is his personal weapon. Why does it matter to you that he prefers a lighter weapon? Are you the one buying said weapon for him or what?
The problem I see with training/combat ammo being different is the shift in point of aim/point of impact between the 2 types.
The problem I see is the recoil in full auto between the two ammo types. Everyone will think it is a soft shooter until their in combat.
You guys are missing the main talking point of this M5. The new generation squad scope is calibrated for this rifle and cartridge. This scope has rage finder, can adjust for windage so all you have to do is line up the cross hairs up to 800 meters and it will hit. you can pre calibrate it if you want close quarter with a red dot or use it as a traditional scope. Even if the batteries fail its still a functioning scope. Also the new Cartridge is designed to defeat modern Chinese and Russian Body armor. This rifle and scope has increased the lethality making non expert shot into a expert shot every time and extending or max effective range to 800 meters. You guys failed talking about the most important function about this weapon system. I have shot the new M5 with sigs steel rim ammo (Generic scope obviously) and guess what? Recoil was very minimal. also i noticed that since it was suppressed there was no gases coming out of the ejection port unlike most m-16 m-4 do.
I don’t believe it is obsolete. Technology has not improved enough to make it worth the change. The m4 has evolved to meet all our needs as a standard battle rifle without any significant issues. The m4 is just now reaching its peak as far as accessory use, gas control, triggers, weight, all other features. So yes I do believe at this time there might not be more ways to improve the m4 platform but that means is just now at the most opportune time to use the m4 not replace it. Yes it has its limits as far as caliber but all those issues are solved on teams with special purpose rifles,sniper rifles,or squad weapons. As a standard issue battle rifle I don’t see any other platform better that does anything better than an m4 period. I understand the caliber debate but there is a reason we went to using the 556 caliber for general issue, and all those reasons still exist. No caliber serves better for the TYPICAL battle distances, ammo capacity, recoil management, weight, and use ability AT THIS TIME. Every caliber is give and take, weight, pressure, capacity, lethality, range, all variables change with each caliber. Until technology creates a round that has all the benefits without the downfalls we need different rounds for different purposes and the 556 is still the best standard issue.
I agree. I believe the short comings of the M4 can be overcome with a new cartridge. I’m thinking 6 ARC with bi-metal case!! Much higher BC and we gain the range we are looking for while maintaining mild recoil and light duty loadout.
Just my bean in the pot:
To add to that; According to findings in the Vietnam conflict (and many of the tier 1 dudes I follow on various social media platforms) caliber size within typical engagement distances, excluding extreme ranges, doesn't seem to be a deciding factor so much as tactics and suppressive capabilities of said cartridge. Combined arms and not running out of pills takes precident over how large or powerful your round is. I'm not sure why Tim said the 5.56 doesn't classify as devastating. When within its effective distances, 5.56 is incredibly potent against soft tissue and even armor (at sufficient velocities and bullet construction) especially in CQB environments.
The new cartridge is impressive, especially at range. But giving up the capacity, combat load, low recoil and low weight just to stretch a general infantryman's effective range seems odd unless this optic plans on carrying on its shoulders, the future of small arms conflict. We can't forget that these gentlemen are engaging not static steel or paper at these 500m++ distances, but potentially moving or obscured targets. Can a squad sized element (just as an example) carry enough of this ammo to remain affective in a drawn out firefight? I wouldnt know personally but from personal testimonies of combat vet friends, combat footage and professional opinions on the matter (mostly the SF guys we all know and love here on UA-cam) there was a great expendeture of ammunition in our last war at targets that are often not, or just barely, visible. Rounds don't land where you want them to when your being shot at, trying to lay effective fire on a bunch of shrubs with bullets coming out of them so it seems more ammo than the other guy is ALWAYS better. I'm sure it is a question many people are asking, especially those affected by it. Maybe the faith in this flat shooting, extremely hot cartridge rides on the ballistic computer in the optic overcoming all of the short comings against the rifle, even more so than the rifle its self?
They center fire cartridge has maxed out its capabilities. Any improvement will be different technology
5.56 is obsolete
except the M4 isn't a battle rifle. It is an assault rifle carbine using an intermediate sized round.
The M4 was a suicide note for the M16. The whole system was destined to be replaced when they rolled out that system which wasn't balanced for the shorter barrel. You can debate the M16 versus the Spear - I don't think you can debate the M4 versus the spear. The M4 chronic jamming that has plagued that platform has left it behind.
The M16 will be around for a long time, hell the army adopted the M1 in about 1936 and it didn’t fully replace the M1903 as a service rifle until mid 1944. Even then the Springfield was a secondary/specialist weapon up to the end of the Vietnam war. Even the M1 didn’t leave service fully until the late 1970s.
totally different situation. and M1 was a HUGE leap forward over the 1903.
Hey I joined your Patreon like a week ago and I still haven’t been accepted into the private fb group. Been a fan for many years, keep up the awesome content!
Say you have a large army and you know that for the last 60 years your enemy has been using 5.56 x 45. You develop and implement body armor for your troops to stop 5.56 x 45 which provides confidence among your troops and commanders. Now your enemy comes out with a rifle that fires a round that will penetrate your massive amount of body armor. I think that is the concept around 277. Think China or something.
6.5 grendal, with the new hybrid case tech, long heavy bullet, 14 to 16 inch barrel, ar-15 size weapon instead of an ar-10, can make the sig spear, smaller, lighter, more deadly than a standard ar-15, while maintaining a lightweight package overall. It will increase weight albeit, but it would be way less drastic than this weapon system. Pretty much all of the benefits with less drawbacks, if anyone has any thoughts or criticisms let me know what your opinion of this idea is.
I Like It 🔥😎🔥 In an M-16 M-4 Package 😀
6mm ARC seems to be the best choice, although Grendel is not bad, the 6ARC is flatter shooting. You're right though.
@@life_of_riley88 Either one seems suitable, the main factor is the compatability with the AR-15, and higher pressures of the hybrid cased ammo imo.
The largest drawback to the New M5 is going to be carrying less ammo, for same weight, or same ammo for more weight, combined with the rifle itself being significantly heavier.
If you could extend the average soldiers effective range out to 500-700, with enough energy at that range to put down man sized targets, that would satisfy the only real and legitimate complaint of the M4 imo.
@@memeier9894 True true. My one gripe is that I'm a pretty good shot, and 500+ yard shots, even with a good rifle and optic, are tough. The average soldier should probably not be shooting at those ranges anyway.
@@life_of_riley88 you don't always get to pick the engagement distance...
The fact they plan to throw a computer on top of the M5 that should in theory increase the average soldiers marksmanship out to at least 3-500 should help with hits at those distances.
The theory there is pretty solid, if i can increase the distance that I am lethally effective, and it is beyond your effective range as an enemy, I should be able to keep you pinned, and ultimately come out on top of the engagement.
Plus maybe armor penetration.
If my eyes were still as good as they were when I was a Marine, I would love to have an AR with a 20" barrel and the A2 sights. My only real complaint about the weapon was the fixed stock - changed my firing position when I wore armor. The easy upgrade for the Army would be to something like 6mm ARC or .224 Valkyrie. But that would be too easy and cheap.
I mean the Marines had a decent idea going in pushing for the M16A5 project back in the day (swap to a collapsing stock, free float the barrel, make an ACOG or low power variable optic standard), just a shame they dumped it because they went for the low hanging fruit of hopping on the Army’s M4A1 contract.
I got all nostalgic after I shot a buddy’s FN M16a4 clone three years ago. So, found a FN A4 upper and put it on a Novesks N4 lower that already had an A1 length stock. The Corp really did mess it up, when they design the A2 stock. You wouldn’t think adding 5/8 of an inch on the A2 makes a difference. But it does. I’ve shot my A4 with plate carriers or chest rigs on. It’s so much easier to get the proper eye relief on the RCO with the A1 length.
.224 Valk requires a new barrel and 6.8 SPC bolt and mags
Thoroughly enjoying these videos and format fellas! Keep them coming 🇺🇸
I love these round (square) table discussions. Please continue this style of video!
It was cool to see how you guys kinda developed your opinion as the dialouge went on. Good point on how rifleman only use semi. And the M250 has the moving barrel to reduce the Recoil at full Auto. It kinda all makes sense. I do think the optic however only see limited production. I also would like them to just pick a charging handle instead of having both side charging and AR Style. Pick one to save money, weight and manual of arms.
SIG went with side charging lever. Thank the army for insisting on having the rear one and the forward assist knob.
They’re making 250,000 m157s
@@bradenmchenry995 Over several years.
I personally think the days of the AR-15 in military service aren't over yet. There are still many advantages the AR-15 has such lightweight, compact, ease of shooting and from what I've seen the military still hasn't adopted things for the AR for general issue use like mid length gas systems instead of carbine length, free floated barrels, full monolithic uppers, PMAGs, caliber conversions to 6.8 SPC or 6ARC. All that stuff being reserved for special forces use. Hell we're still using M4s that have the front sight post. So I think the AR, if they added those changes for general service could extend the life them a little more.
As for things like the SCAR-H, KAC SR-25, HK417, etc, I think we're seeing the last days of those instead as I personally think the SPEAR is much more suited for a DMR role and 6.8x51mm will kick 7.62x51mm to the curb. Is it heavier than those 3 other options, maybe, but I think the .308 guns in military service, their days are numbered.
The Army brass have already said that the M4 is going to be relegated to being a PDW for support troops.
On paper the M5 looks awesome but My grandmother had a saying,
"You can't squeeze the blood out of a turnip."
6:00 MCX is basically a short stroke piston AR-15 with the spring in the top side of the receiver.
I don't think the m16 will be obsolete for some time. Over the decades we've keep improving the design. New barrels that can withstand more powerful round lighter materials that can still take a beating. I mean if want to split hairs the 1911 is considered obsolete. Because it's low capacity and reliably. But if you we're to buy a high-end 2011 race gun it'll run circles around a standard glock or an m17. (Just ignore the price tag when you do.)
The only way I think it will become obsolete is if we we're able to design a wepon that Eliminated a function of the of a modern rifle. Without adding any new issues. (G11 with caseless ammo but the ammo works and isn't extremely complex)
Good thing they didn't tell Brandon about 10mm that one makes all your insides outside
Awesome video mac. Love the candid thinking out loud vibe. That’s a sign of strength. I would have liked to hear thoughts regarding the lack of bullpup platform in the US military. All
Good. Ttyl
I watched somewhere that there was a challenge to the Sig winning bid and Sig had to halt production?
Love the roundtables as always.
SOP for this level of procurement competition. Was Textron.
Those velocities out of that short of barre is crazy. I'm curious as to how that 6.8x51 handles barrel length. I wanna see some rail gun velocities with a 24" barrel M5, lol.
Probably won’t change that much because it’s designed to burn through all the propellant before the round would have exited the barrel on a 24” length.
For the all brass .277 fury version I'm thinking a long barrel would be 16"(404mm) as the rifle and cartridge was designed to be 13" (330.2mm) and burn much of it's powder by then.
Can't say for the mil spec version; likely similar.
A 16” barrel length in the new 6.8 has the same velocity as 22” due to the PSI being 20,000 higher than the standard 55
The issue with be the life of the barrels
I want to see the actual numbers on a chronograph. I'm not buying that velocity from that length
For civilians, I think the AR is still fine, and will be for the foreseeable future. For home defense it will remain a solid choice, since it's easy for low-skill shooters, and range and armor penetration don't matter much.
For the military, police marksmen, and anyone planning to fight bad guys who might have armor or might be farther than 300m, the AR15 has always been obsolete, but increasing use of body armor means it should probably be replaced. .308 (or similar) rifles like the AR10 or M1A should still be fine for police and civilians though. It's just the ubiquity of armor which is driving the AR15 to obsolescence.
I don't think the AR15 will be completely replaced, even in the military. Lighter rifles with lighter ammo and lighter recoil are still useful for second line troops, vehicle crews, and CQB.
U don’t understand how combat works then
Combat is not a flat range
When my grandpa was in Vietnam he did love the M16. He loved how it was lightweight and was able to lay down a large volume of fire. He liked the M14 too when he was in basic but he said it was just too heavy to move around with in the war.
the other benefit to the TV polymer cartridge is that the internal geometry doesn't have to match the exterior geometry and you can get a more efficient burn getting the same or better performance out of less powder, AND the steel case head makes range cleanup easier [magnetic collection].
and there is also the 30% weight savings
There was that OA 93 rifle and pistol. Lacking a buttstock or buffer tube, the OA-93 disperses recoil through a specially designed flat top upper receiver similar to the Armalite AR-18. It looked like an AR 15 but differnt. But yeah I think the Ar 15/ M16 is at its peak. Theres really nothing else to do to it. Unless you bump it up to the new cartriage that the Army is adopting. Also 2 Im in the NM National Guard and Ive been hearing that some of the armoies have some M5 that they are testing.
Here's my concern that I'm absolutely puzzled why no one seems to be bringing up whatsoever:
We're replacing a 5.56x45 assault rifle/carbine with rifle chambered in an absurdly high pressure rifle cartridge. That has a *_13 inch barrel._* That will have a *_general issue suppressor_* on every rifle. For regular infantry. And this suppressor will be *_made with additive manufacturing (e.g. 3D printing/metal sintering)_* which has known issues of defects and failures high stress parts. And we're going to be firing an *_80,000 PSI cartridge in potentially full auto from a 13" barrel with said suppressor._* Um... The words "suppressor detonation" come to mind.
And, it gets worse: current word on the street, courtesy of Ian, is that they'll be using full-brass regular pressure .277 Fury for training and general use and then issue hybrid-case .277 Fury with 80K PSI loads for combat. Uh, no one sees the problem of training with and sighting in a rifle for one load and then using a radically different load for combat? I mean, even sighting and point of aim/point of impact changes notwithstanding (which they are) - you're not going to be used to that recoil impulse and handling. And what of this hybrid case ammunition? What happens after it's been subjected to moisture, age, temperature for years on end? What happens if years down the road we pull out the hybrid-case ammunition loads and find out that, well gee, now the case rims are being ripped off the rest of the case due to the inherent weak-point where the two metals are joined in the hybrid case design? What if suddenly every few rounds you have to put in a broken case extractor and take out the stuck case? What if fouling causes an issue? Or solvents? Some of these things you can only find out in very long term testing. Testing that wasn't done for that long, if at all in some cases.
And let's say it all works out well, somehow: what about the fact that guys are going to be carrying less ammunition and more magazines? And the ammo is heavier? What about the increased recoil and difference between training/practice ammo and combat loadouts? What about the logistics of ammunition, magazines and spare parts?
It seems like a very good idea in concept with a very rushed and half-baked execution. And the fact that it happened *_so fast_* and without much oversight makes me very, very cautious about it.
Edit:
If you're wondering what I mean with the issues with 3D sintering/metal 3D printing/Direct Metal Laser Sintering/Selective Laser Sintering (they're the same thing, only DMLS refers specifically to work with metal alloys), here's an excellent engineering video on why:
watch?v=fzBRYsiyxjI - "The Material Science of Metal 3D Printing" by Real Engineering
The suppressor is a flow through design so back pressure is minimal that’s why nobody is bringing it up. Do you really think SIG produced the suppressor without testing it?
@@douglasm3310
"The suppressor is a flow through design so back pressure"
What you are talking about and what I am talking about are two different things. I didn't mention anything about out-gassing and having the gas come back at you. Suppressor detonations have *_nothing - absolutely nothing_* to do with back pressure. So you bringing that up? That's irrelevant. It's only slightly more related to the topic than you bringing up penguins for some reason.
"Do you really think SIG produced the suppressor without testing it?"
"Do you really think Lockheed-Martin produced the F-35 without testing it?"
Turns out, yes, they did enter LRIP and had almost 100 airframes produced before they needed to redesign it due to structural bulkheads breaking because they only did finite element analysis on the airframe and not actual flight testing long enough to check for issues. Same thing applies here. I can look at how long this program was in development. It wasn't that long to test for things. I can also look and see that SIG, out of all manufacturers, hasn't fixed the issue with 3D metal sintering technology.
So if SIG didn't fix it - who did? All I'm hearing is crickets.
Whoever you are, you have my vote for Congress.
@@matchesburn how exactly would a suppressor explode not caused by pressure?
@@douglasm3310
The bold/italics in my comment showcase the problem, but lemme just state this: Suppressor detonations are caused, usually, by unburnt powder in the suppressor causing conflagration and/or mechanical/structural failure of the suppressor due to any number of issues (e.g. heat/melting, metal fatigue/cracking, etc.). There's a reason why full-auto fire rated suppressors took such a long time to develop as a technology. And how they are labelled "full-auto rated" and not "sustained full-auto rated." I know someone that has put thousands of rounds, lifetime, through a Silencer Central Banish 30 multi-cal suppressor with absolutely no issues. If you do that at cyclic rates, however, without allowing it to cool down... Well... You'll be looking to buy a new one soon.
Now what are we doing here? We're firing out a 13" barrel. Less barrel length = more unburnt powder, in theory at least. It definitely means more pressure. 80,000 PSI round load? Definitely more heat. Full-auto fire? Definitely even more heat. Suppressor made by a means that has defects inherent to it? Kinda playing with fire there. And, potentially, guys are going to be firing off full-auto with these? And just general infantry who range from "Me put rifle in ocean to clean it when eventually me have to clean it" to "consummate professional soldier and rifleman" and you're playing with fire while juggling kerosene. There will be guys who will not disassemble and clean their suppressors as much as they should. Unburnt propellant will build up in the suppressor. They'll start firing full-auto because giggle/fun switch shenanigans and we'll be pouring 80,000 PSI pure hellfire into the suppressor which, due to not being cared for, has structural cracks that have grown and weakened the suppressor.
Thankfully, suppressor detonations aren't the most violent things that can happen to you, but... I wouldn't want it to happen to me. Especially several hours into a firefight and I'm already having a very bad day.
I'm still waiting for someone to test that cartridge on modern body armor. If it gets a special AP load cool, but most likely that won't even be mass issued.
Under test conditions designed so that the 762mm NATO AP round will fail but the .277 Fury AP round won't, the test might have no real-world application. I spent 27 years in uniform with more than half on active duty and I was an experienced military armorer--I didn't see any 7.62mm NATO AP ammo. AP ammo in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62x39mm were rumored to be in service, but I missed the memo on 5.54x39mm AP. There are also issues with possibly different trajectories--the trajectory of the M855 Ball and M856 Tracer are "close enough for government work" but if you manage to zero your rifle with M856 Tracer at 500 meters and then try shooting a ten-shot 500 meter match using 36-inch bullseye targets for scoring (on a ten-point system) the zero shift will be sufficient to cost you the match. Funny thing about body armor--if you miss the body armor and hit flesh, it's as if that body armor wasn't there on the part you hit. Body armor panels cover only part of the body. I regard body armor as foul-up insurance for when my use of cover failed me. My individual movement techniques and use of concealment also failed me. Armor is the last layer of the onion.
As an illustration of that last layer is the 1997 North Hollywood Bank Shootout. Despite what you may have heard from LAPD, that department had longer gunfights with more flying bullets, but the LAPD surrounded two armored machine-gun-armed bank robbers and using pistols and a small amount of buckshot (four buckshot shells per shotgun was still doctrine for LAPD back then) managed to eventually capture two corpses. The homemade body armor wasn't NIJ Level IV body armor but it was resistant to buckshot, .38 caliber revolver bullets, and 9mm pistol projectiles. The police body armor was probably Level II -- which shotgun slugs can defeat, along with just about anything fired from a rifle. The bank robbers' home-made body armor didn't cover everything, either. However, "well-trained" street cops usually won't be able to achieve 25 yard head shots on the range with their issue pistols--double that distance on a moving target that is flinging lead and even a patrol rifle might not be up to the headshot. LAPD hastily acquired surplus M16A1 rifles from the US Army and for morale purposes issued them to selected LAPD patrol supervisors. I wonder what the issue 5.56mm ammo was--probably a law--enforcement edition of 55 grain FMJ, even though there was a shift to expanding bullets to "prevent overpenetration.'" Optimize service pistol cartridges to Baby Bear's Just Right penetration (not Papa Bear's too much or Mama Bear's not enough) and when the target hides behind a car or wears several layers of phone book...
@@alancranford3398 Sorry for the late reply. I like how you mention that armor only covers part of the body, and bring up how it is more of an insurance for when you may or may not take a direct hit. Like a last chance safety. It makes sense, if you get hit in a spot without armor, you're getting hit.
I bring up wanting to see a test, a fair one, because there is a lot of talk about how .277 fury was chosen for greater armor penetration at range. If the round can't penetrate modern armor at range, the swap from 5.56 becomes questionable. We coud have chosen a cheaper option to increase hit chance at range, we didn't have to also go for possible armor penetration.
Like you mention with getting hit in spots without body armor. Those hits can be deadly. And from what we are seeing in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian troops are getting kills with mutiple hits to the body. With standard 5.45x39 ammunition. Some AP mixed in here and there. I assume that we would see similar outcomes with 5.56 Nato. Modern forces will eventually fight up close, 300m and in. This has been a constant since WW2. The increased range also seems questionable.
I also want to see a test done to account for different armor types. The US civilian market is used to seeing tests only done on plates. But if we look at Russian and Chinese body armor, like the US armor, they run a two tier system. Plate sto slow and possibly catch the round, and a a kevlar or modern backer to catch any penetration. If the new round can't penetrate passed that second layer of soft armor, then it still bring up the question of why. At range the probability of penetration decreases.
I really just want to know if the switch from 5.56 is worth the financial, logistical, and training costs. I want the Spear to be great, but I feel like it is going to fall flat, especially with the switch to .277.
Not to mention that the new rifle offers nohing over a modified AR platform. The folding stock is cool but in all honesty folding stocks are only useful on long barreled rifles and even then only for transport and storage.
@@juliancuevas6728 Those are valid points. I've studied body armor history and used it professionally since my Marine Corps days (1975 to 1979 on active duty) starting with issue flak vests and a "rifle-rated" Second Chance vest I purchased in 1978. Study of combat gunshot injuries indicated that half of them (roughly) hit limbs, especially legs. Some medical people wanted to put rifle plates on all areas but the suit would weigh more than 100 pounds and would also severely impede mobility.
When we decommissioned the USS PAUL F FOSTER (DD 964) in 2003, although we had M-9s we still had M-14s - not a single M-16 on the ship. And we also had a few M-79s.
SCAR, Bren, ARX, Bullpups, none outperform the AR/M4 in terms of Shootability. Hence why numerous Tier 1use it , and its the most used platform in competitive shooting like 3-Gun.
..it AIN’T going anywhere.
AR15 are the new AKs, everyone's gonna have them poor man's rifle.
Even an OG m16a1 with modern ammo and a pic rail adapter kills people just as dead, just as efficiently as any modern intermediate rifle out there. 5.56 through a 20" barrel will never not rule.
It’s the new body armor tech. 556 struggles with new Russian and Chinese body armor even out of a 20 inch barrel. This new cartridge is an answer to that.
@@HatsuneM1ku01 Ukraine has shown that most Russian troops aren't being issued body armor and the ones that do get older plates that can't stop steel core 5.45 and 5.56
@@2Potates Aren’t those guy conscripts? Their serious soldiers would be ready I think.
You guys are over thinking it. Body armor won't keep anyone alive. People get shot in the legs, hands, shoulders, arms, groin, neck, head . . .etc Any rifle that shoots easily and accurately will allow a soldier to put bullets downrange in the right vicinity, that's what matters. Body armor be damned, it will only save you once or twice in perfect head on circumstances, right in the chest. It's a silly argument.
@@bensears7499 No both the conscripts and regular military are lacking in modern equipement, though they aren't as worse off as the sepetarist forces who have to carry cold war and sometimes WW2 gear.
I feel like Jason's experience of never going to full auto might to some degree be a reflection of the war he fought in, rather than a reflection of the efficacy of full auto
Keep it coming. I have really like these episodes keep it coming.
I still think they should have went 6.5 Grendel. Then they could also use the M4/M16 with a bolt and barrel swap
Short Answer: No! Long Answer: It depends on the environment your using it in.
We need two rifles avliable for Big Army. 5.56 for Units deployed in jungles or cities. The big rifle for units like 10th Mountain
They are using unicorn dander for the increase in pressures. We will see how that works with today’s new troops.
I agree. My experience in the Army using full-auto seemed like it was wasteful. 3-round burst was good, but semi-auto was perfect.
3 round burst is stupid u obviously don’t know what ur talking about
@@BaconSlayer69 I served in the US Army. I preferred semi-auto. Its my opinion based on my experience. Take care man.
@@carrow2250 3round makes zero sense if u understand recoil patterns
Just like on the AK video... No, it is not obsolete. It is a select-fire carbine firing an intermediate rifle cartridge. Weapons like these are not obsolete and wont be for some time.
AR15s are the new AKs, everyone's going to have them, poor man's rifle.
I think optics are the game changer here back then having big rounds with iron sigth were not that effective at long range anyway but with the advantages of modern optics revolutionised fighting and now that hitting long range easier...
Now this rifle is like a lance instead of a sword for longer engagement. Having a bit more reach is useful I'm sure against another real military.
I wonder what is the plan for shorter range engagement because room clearing with a 14pounds rifle must be pretty rough
This makes the most sense to me and it’s a point that should have been raised.
With the steel case head you might be able to retrieve spent cartridges easily using a powerful magnet. That's an advantage over brass or polymer.
Fine work and great ideas and considerations. I will not get one but I like the fact that a new alternative has been researched. I have AR 10 s . Got them when surplus as 25 cents a pop. I reload enough to keep them working.
The better idea would be to make a new upper for the M4s that can handle a bimetallic 5.56 case, a 16 or 18 inch gunner profile barrel with a free float rail system, reprofiled bolt head lugs, etc.
80 grain projectile moving at 3500 fps sounds pretty legit
Is the Sig even a new rifle? It looks more like the M16 than the M14 looked like the M1; the MCX is a piston-driven proprietary AR15. Likewise, the cartridge is a refinement of cutting-edge rifle cartridges from the end of the 19th Century: a high-pressure .276 Enfield for short-barrel performance.
It's really just a practical design decision. The military rejected superior firearms on the basis they would have to retrain their soldiers to do basic field maintenance on firearms that were more simple to maintain. They did so when the controls were somewhat different.
The M5 is near identical by design.
I can appreciate the discussion, I want to hear what you guys think should be the next military caliber/rifle/operating system combo for troops on the ground. it seems youre looking for a problem with anything that comes up ..
I was looking at sigs website concerning the MSRP of the spear and their first production run special editions are $8,000.
If defeating body armor is the real issue, then 6.8x51mm even at 80k or 100k psi is NOT going to be the answer. To see where things are headed, just look at the developmental history of tanks and warships. There is always a balancing act of offensive punch, defensive armor or other protection, and mobility. More powerful weapons lead to more capable armor, which leads to yet more powerful weapons. This offensive/defensive back and forth continues until one technology jumps out so far beyond the capability of the other that the whole doctrine changes fundamentally. Body armor was a thing until firearms came into widespread use. Guns quickly became powerful enough to make effective body armor too heavy to be practical. Armor then fell out of use for several hundred years. It was only with modern materials technology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that body armor once again became a serious thing. The future is going to be something like a modern version of a .45-70...like a .450 Bushmaster, or perhaps an .358 Winchester, or a .308 necked up to .375...loaded with a miniaturized high explosive shaped charge projectile, and coupled with an electronic sighting optic that is range finding, measures other ambient conditions including shooting angle, etc, and automatically calculated a ballistic shooting solution and projects an aiming dot/reticle where it needs to be to hit the target. Or something like that.
What is the ballistics of a .450 bushmaster? Why such a large bear round for a person?
@@dustyrhodes2717 for the payload capacity of a projectile with a high explosive shaped charge for penetrating body armor.
Pentagon: "We need to change from the M4 to the M5 so we have better rifles than the Taliban."
And the Taliban were shooting us and you with .303’s that they got when we left the subcontinent, or had made out of bits of old car over a charcoal fire !
Gotta love how the only reason they have the level IV plates the 6.8 is supposed to defeat is because Biden handed it to them on a silver platter.
you should probably take a second look at the Spear. It’s not just an upscaled Mcx, there are some noticeable differences
This whole time I thought Speer Gold Dot was a quality 9mm cartridge but apparently there's a thermobaric 9mm that exists out there somewhere and I need it!
I think that the army and marines will adopt the m5 and the LMG68 will slowly start replacing front line units weapons over time and the m4 will still be widely used across the military until it can be logistically sound and economical for the rest of the military to fully switch.. heck they make barrels for both the 5.56 and the 6.8 so I honestly don't see the 5.56 going away truly any time within the next 5 years or so.. but only time will tell once all the major ammo manufacturers get the tools and equipment to pump more 6.8.
Keep up the awesome work guys I really appreciate it and I look forward to more "round table reviews" 👍
AR15s are the new AKs, everyone's going to have them poor man's rifle.
Military is making flight suits for women who are pregnant and adopting a rifle that weighs the same as her 3 year old child!!! What am I missing??? Good luck to our troops carrying this rifle!!!
The Army is very inclusive if you want to drive a truck or be a clerk, but if you want to be in a combat MOS then you now have to qualify with a man's rifle; and good luck doing that without a body forged by testosterone, little girl.
What is a woman?
@@bobbyraejohnson It's a human with two X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes. But keep that on the downlow, okay? 🤫
You gotta first realize that the new rifle is only going to frontline units ( i.e combat arms MOS’s like the Infantry, Cav Scouts, SF Units, etc ). I don’t ever think they will have someone who is pregnant fighting on the frontline. Those in the rear echelon units and in the back will still be issued with the M4 similarly to how the M1 Carbine originally was.
Do you guys have a show/podcast? How do I watch the full show?
Over a decade ago I corresponded with Bob Schuetz of Olympic Arms about his new game changing cartridge for the AR15 platform, the .300 OSSM (Olympic Super Short Magnum). It pushed a 150 grain 30 caliber bullet at over 3000 fps. As I recall, that was out of a 22" barrel. I don't know what the velocity would be from a 14" barrel, but I suspect around 2500 - 2600 fps.
Call me what you will, but I think the government is tired of civilians having virtually the same firepower as the military.
😂
That argument has more merit too it to than most would like to admit.....at minimum it’s going to cut down on 5.56 production, which means less cheap gov surplus on the civi market.....that also isn’t a good outcome.
@@ericschumacher5189 my thoughts exactly. I just didn’t want my comment to be 10 paragraphs long. Haha
I can't imagine with their lowering standards and weakening our military that many will be able to handle a larger, higher velocity round or even shoot accurately enough to qualify with. This is a big reason police are going back to 9mm, a lot of the new recruits can't handle and qualify with the .40
They lowered standards because no one is signing up to be a foot soldier.
..the “9 & .40” debate has (generally) been over for a LONG time..for MOST.
"Everything woke turns to shit" DJT
Just sounds like the same old bellyaching about how every newer generation is a bunch of incompetent wimps compared to their forebears; the WWII vets called the ‘Nam guys wimps, the ‘Nam vets called the Desert Storm guys wimps, the DS vets called the Iraq War guys wimps, etc., etc.
@@bigvaxmeanie925 Mostly for women. Which is a horrible idea from what I have seen from police body cam videos.
Good to see Jason, I still like the m16, was trained on the A1 and loved it.
What I want to know is what would the velocity be in a 16 or 20 inch?