I’m a machinist at sig and take a lot of pride in the parts I’ve made for SPEAR and hearing you sing the praises of the rifle make me extremely happy. Keep up the great work!
As an armed forces memeber who has terrible hearing loss for my age, i cant express how thankful I am for supressors on service rifles. With the amount training you do, this is a godsend regardless of tactical advantage.
@@4runnercolorado422 I have no idea why the ATF hates you guys having suppressors so much, here in Europe most rifles come with one already threaded on - it's an expectation and etiquette to use one.
@@nxxynx5039 It's because the entire existence of their agency is based on a century old bill that they are desperate to keep the general public from knowing about. They're so afraid, they don't even ask Congress to raise the price of the tax stamps, when passed it was equivalent to $4,000 current dollars (probably more with inflation lol).
@@nxxynx5039 the problem with the US is, most people usually fall into one of two camps, morons that think any gun should be able to be owned by any idiot with the cash for it, or people who have never shot a gun that think everything about them is terrifying. Funny thing is people think that paying a couple hundred bucks for a suppressor is "infringing on their rights" but nobody has any problem with a rifle that costs several thousand dollars
about 5-9% of combat losses is from firearms, the rest is artillery - and US spends billions to replace fully capable M4, not the 60 years old 3 rounds per minute paladin, complete junk against Msta or Coalitsiya. Keep it up!😆 And yeah, if you are shoot - you are dead, was it M4, AK-12, XM5 or Kar98 - no matters
Actually the M16A1 was a very good an reliable weapon system. Most jams on the M16 was always magazines. The problem in Vietnam didn't come from the M16A1. It came from the experimental version that they bought off the shelf instead of waiting for the production version to be produced.
@@maddogs1989 Nah just good ole M16A1 30 round mag, birdcage flash hider, but improved sight system to be able to attach scopes and other machinery, it worked in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf war and Iraq, and sure as hell outclasses the AK platform (albeit 74 is on almost on par)
@@dobridjordje the A1 never had the birdcage that was the A2. It was the A2 in Grenada and onwards at least for the Marines and for the Army it was the A2 from 86' onwards
lets hope MW2 isn’t like that and has it that almost every gun is viable and balanced. no more of this single gun metas we’ve seen for years now. edit: this aged terribly
BrightPri It released twice with the remaster, I guess the reboot is it’s own series right? Certainly with the goofy redesign of ghost and price now sounding like the great value version of himself. But hey money right?
Shame the trade-off for that velocity is extreme pressures. I wonder if the new round will have ERP projectiles, like the ones used in the m855a1 and 7.62x51mm
I feel like the charging handle issue is something that will phase out in due time as more soldiers get a hold of the rifle and find which they prefer and they pick one and stick with it.
The introduction of the side charger was for when having issues getting the bolt unstuck as to the T handle having little leverage and possibly having to mortar it. The reason for having the T handle is training/habits, so I would guess if they did remove one it would be the T handle but it too has a small benefit of being ambi. My thoughts though would be they just keep it cause getting changes done in military equipment is a lot of processing.
@@ellysiakyoki5587 when you explain the reasoning for it, it makes a lot more sense to have both. The ambi use of it is a plus and I don't think they could remodel this to have an ambi side charger. Also, the side charger being mainly for dealing with malfunctions that the T handle just can't really handle makes sense for long and dirty deployments.
@@BionicBurke Yes I agree, the T handle has been in the training regiment for years and the ambi option gives more benefits than just for a lefty, it gives the soldier easier access if he/she has injured their arm or hand. Could also think of it like if you're in a position where you wouldn't be able to have access to the side charger. Even though the side charger handle folds in a bit the T handle is a little less protruding to have possible snags too. In the end I think its only an advantage in clearing stuck cartridges but that was the intent so it works 🤷♀️ Very excited to see more vids of it though, I like it a lot.
I understand the benefits of both. But considering how beefy the rifle is already, I wish they just picked one to save some. weight. I know that there is gonna ne some guy saying "Just suck it up. Soldiers are supposed to be strong." Those dudes never seem to understand that it just helps the military in general in the long run. Ounces equal pounds. But my first thought was also that one of the charging handles would be deleted eventually.
@@leroyatleroys having the T handle kinda does reduce the weight because if it was only the side charger then all that material that's removed where the T handle is would actually add weight. The T handle itself is nearly weightless. I understand your input but charging handles are usually a weight loss positive with the area of material removal compared to the handles weight itself.
The principle of using a higher pressure in the round to maximize the effectiveness of a shorter barrel has also been adopted by the Japanese in their updated MX10 tank.
I love this gun because it’s everything annoying AR guys hate, it keeps the forward assist, it’s a larger caliber, it’s short stroke piston system, and it has a side charging handle. Also the pseudo monolithic upper is super cool.
18:25 For what it's worth, for my line infantry company in 2008/2011 we honestly shot somewhere between 250 to 400 live rounds through our rifles in a calendar year. It was a bit of a joke how little we shot "to maintain proficiency". Gearing up for deployment it'd be closer to 200 or 300 a month, but still. Everything else was blanks with BFDs. Very OSUT-esque. Mileage may vary of course. My unit was probably trash, too. Just figured I'd throw this in there.
Sounds exactly correct, that's just a tad more than what we were doing in the Marine Corps reserves in 2003-2007ish (I was an 0341). It's one of the main reasons I got out: I was just so disappointed with the training we were getting, I didn't have confidence in my abilities or that of my fellow Marines.
So.... we have an all volunteer military. It ain't the Vietnam thing anymore ( GOD BLESS THOSE WHO SERVED) Take it from the USMC. Not much chance of jungle War with Russia or PRC.
In my time with the 101st Airborne as an infantryman from 2014 to 2018 we actually shot a ton of live rounds during training. I would shoot about 300 rounds in one day of training. When I moved up to be a Weapons Squad leader my machine gun teams would put out about 600 rounds or more in a day. We were in the field quite a bit, a lot was shooting blanks but we did shoot a lot of live ammo as well.
Well, the need for a more powerful longer range round was apparent immediately in Afghanistan, now, 21 years later, after we left Afghanistan, we have it(Yet to be phased in). Great success!!!
@@smudge7057 Army planners are afraid that ballistic protection already exists within Russia and China that makes the very best 7.62 AP rounds useless, so they want something moving faster and with more energy to be able to defeat it.
The Army is known for “fighting the last war”. While in some ways taking lessons learned and applying them can be good the Army often comes to the wrong conclusions and/or the lesson learned dont apply to the next conflict.
@@smudge7057 because they also approved a sig sauer replacement for the m249 saw (the xm250) also chambered in 6.8mm, having the ammo standardization helps a ton and it has better ballistics and penetration than 7.62 anyways. The xm5 is absolutely not designed for the last war, it’s designed for any future large brigade combat instead of the lightly equipped guerrilla forces we’ve been fighting. The gun also really shouldn’t be discussed in a military context without mentioning the special fire control system/sight that will be equipped on every single one
Something to consider, when thinking about the switch from the M14 to the M-16 with respective calibers is that something like the M249 didn’t really exist. Now that we have squad level weapons that are some thing that can be carried and sustained more easily than something like the M 60 moving back to a heavier rifleman round does kind of make sense.
I was thinking the same thing after rewatching that part of the video just now and I’m glad someone said it. With the Spear also comes the xm250 which is just a Saw on steroids. Meant to fill the same role while being lighter, able to engage at longer ranges (with 6.8), and has quick change barrels
I carried the M249 and it was so cumbersome and heavy, it limited my mobility and running distance. The Spear weighs less than half what the Saw does and isn't as bulky. The transition from the M14 to the 16 saved around four pounds for just the rifle, going from the M4 to the SAW almost triples the weight, whereas transitioning from the 7.75lb M4 to the MX7 would be similar in weight to returning to the M14. I can advocate the change to a larger, more powerful round, but I won't have to carry it. When I served, I would have preferred the M14 to the M16.
The M249 wasn’t too bad, but it so often got assigned to the smaller guys of the platoon. If you didn’t get cursed w/ an unadjustable stock, then pop on the short barrel and it’s pretty easy to maneuver. To your point though, that run time and distance plummets.
Two thoughts cross my mind. The original post war thinking was that NATO standardisation was needed and a common single cartridge shared by all countries was ideal. That was supposed to be 7.62, until the US changed their minds and brought in 5.56 for the M16 (ironic because the UK originally pushed for .280). The UK, then stuck with 7.62, used it for riflemen (FN FAL) and machine gunners until the 1980s when they moved to 5.56. If you bring in a 3rd new cartridge, that is going to really complicate logistics and tactics... or is the plan to phase out 7.62? Even if it is, that will take some time, and what about all the many allied NATO countries? The other thing, is that 5.56 still has massive advantages.. you can carry 10kg of 600 rounds. The rifle platforms using it are 5kg or less. The recoil is very low, and it's much more manageable in full auto. This makes it much easier to train basic infantry to use it, especially if you have a conscript army in a time of war. I will be really surprised if 5.56 dissappears.
Previously on GT: “plate carriers are more common place now, here's how to set yours up" GT now: "Why would the government switch to an AP round with less overall ammo?" Coincidence? I think not
I’ve seen a lot of controversy surrounding this rifle but to me, it makes sense. Regarding your point about volume of fire winning firefights, and not being able to carry as much 6.8 vs 5.56; my own experience tells me this isn’t going to be as much of an issue as we might expect. very recently we (British Army) have been moving away from the philosophy of filling every square inch of an enemies space with hot lead. We phased out our FN Minimi’s and instead of having an LMG gunner per section, we now have a 7.62 sharpshooter in every section instead. Filling much the same role as intended by your new Sig rifle. I think most modern western forces are going to go through this “evolution” in tactics. We learn from every conflict, we’re not totally regressing back to the Cold War era mentality, and carrying large powerful rifle cartridges, but we understand the limitations of our current ammunition technology. I don’t know if I’ve articulated myself particularly well, but the new Sig and it’s ammunition makes sense to me.
For the kind of war we faced in Afghanistan that combat philosophy works. But in a near peer war, I'm not convinced that volume of fire has taken the back seat. The war in Ukraine will be the big study on what does/doesn't work at the end of the day for near peer fighting though.
@@Dim2134 I think the idea is if you're gonna hose, have it come from a gunner trained in that role with an appropriate weapon. Having the entire squad emptying their mags into the air drains everyone. Make at least half your composition use the Spear and now the enemy knows they're peeking into a wall of essentially DMRs. Psychological suppression. In the cold war those big battle rifles were using irons, not delivering the same precision we can now. They weren't giving up as much as we are now by focusing on suppressive fire.
@@ShimmeringSword No, I get the idea of the doctrine. It's just that there's still a lot of theory involved and us in the chairs, at least myself in the chair for what I know, I can only weigh things from a position of safety so I don't know. We won't really know until it's tested and money is put where our mouth's are you know? Still I kind of understand what you're getting at and I get the arguments for both sides but frankly we don't know how doctrine or even how the troops will evolve tactics to support these weapons yet since... doctrine is only useful if it works you know?
I’m honestly impressed that he managed to control this gun in full auto mode so well that he makes it look as if the gun has the recoil of a 5.56. I suppose that all his experience in firearms training has paid off!
You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
@@meta55645 You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
@@johnmartin6420 Is that what they call the recoil spring now? jeez, lol. You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
Regarding training issues, look how long it took the US Army to fully adopt the M-4. Even today, most POG units still have the M-16. Even if the SIG SPEAR does become the "new" Army rifle, it will take years after that for Joes in S-1 to get them in-hand.
@@MandatedCupcake Well when we get back from this deployment we are spending 2 weeks on the ranges to qualify on these new weapon systems. Shouldn’t be too different from the M-4 and the 249. Only difference is the weight and they both take a different caliber round so it’s more accurate and effective than the 556 NATO rounds we use. We will see though, I can’t imagine it be that much different to be honest
It is initially to be adopted by 20-25% of the armed forces personnel, mostly the combat units. Everyone else will stay with ye olde M4s for the time being.
I think it makes a lot of sense as a specialist rifle, for certain people like a Designated Marksman... just use .277 as a replacement for 7.62x51 and keep 5.56 as the standard for the regular infantry.
I think that’s what is going to happen. The M4 will stay the standard infantry rifle. This will become a DMR and squads will either replace their current DMR setup or they will add this as a supplement.
the new optic package combined with this rifle is hella crazy. basically aims itself. put all that with the next gen nightvision theyve shown as well and the lethality range is tremendous in any condition. maybe not necessary for every infantryman but its crazy stuff. the new sig machine guns are even cooler
My 2 cent is this: yes the Army as adopted this rifle, and it seems to be a great rifle; but like GT said in the video, this is aimed toward the infantry units, direct action units (SF, 75th, etc.). As for the rest of the Army, Reserves and Guards included, the M4s will stay around for a long, long time. Now infantry platoons in the 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, etc., will probably get outfitted with the Spear rifles and MGs in the next 3 to 5 years. But for the rest of us POGs, it'll be DECADES before we even see this; especially if you're Reserves or Guards. Heck, my current arms room still have tons of M16A2s and M9s and those are still being used. Would I like to have this rifle for myself, absolutely! But as a Medical POG, the M4 and M18 are plenty for me.
The major issue with that will be the ammunition difference if the US military is involved in a major conflict that requires activation of those Guards or Reserve units.
@@evannmason6376, I was a Combat Engineer in the reserves before I went active. Served a tour in Afghanistan with them, cleared routes of IEDs, saw a lot of combat, slept in the same grime and hell hole, etc. We used all the same gear and weapons the rest of the Army did. It would be stupid not to get the reserves and guard the same equipment and trained on it, especially if you have to go to war with a major power like Russia or China and you need the bodies from the reserves and guard.
One thing that everyone forgets is that when the military was using the M14, and during Vietnam using the M16A1, we didn't have the M249 or now the M250. These are fire team level fully automatic weapons. In a fire team (in the Marine Corps) you have fully automatic gunner (M250), an assistant gunner (M5 simi-auto), a rifleman (M5 semi-auto), and the fire team leader and grenadier (M5 and/or grenade launcher). Only one person is to have their weapon on full auto. The M4 only has a burst of three rounds, (recently switched to full auto). In any case you're not suppose to put it on those settings (burst of full auto) except when being over ran. You will always be more effective with semi-auto except at very close range (trench fighting). So the concern about full auto on the M5 is valid to a small point. What you did miss is the additional 2 lbs for optics. Now how that new optic will help or hinder people will be found out once it gets deployed. Most new weapon systems don't survive first deployments as is. A private can break anything!!! Even unbreakable items. Where there is a will there is a way. Murphy's Law is alive and well. In my day we only used iron sights. When the Marine Corps switched to the ACOG all of us old Corps didn't trust it. Yet the Corps went on faith (and 2 years of field testing) to use the ACOG. Once the Marines were being accused of war crimes because of all the head shots they were getting, caused us old Corps to change our opinions. We will need to take another leap of faith on this. Great review!!!
The problem of being able to carry less rounds still stands tho, and its not a small one; you cant suppress much(even with a SAW) if your squad is out of ammo. On the other hand you need the round to be lethal enough, otherwise it doesnt matter how many you can carry, both concerns are valid. Polymer cased ammo seemed a good way to mitigate the issue of weight to some extent, and imo was the truly meaningful innovation of the program, its a shame they didnt give it a chance, but perharps it was too big a leap. The rifle itself seems to be a modernized scarH with a spicier load, a bit underwelming. I'd love to shoot them side by side, maybe it would change my mind
@@matteocesa9017 Fair. You are 8-10 less per mag. The belts will still be 100 rounds. I think the idea is that you will have a more accurate weapon (new optics) and more lethal (better penetration), and require less rounds to inflect damage (guessing). It is a leap of faith in any direction you go. In WWII we only had 8 rounds and the Garand ping that the Germans listened for. I think the recoil is more manageable than than the M14 or what we are imagining. We need to field it and break it and then we will know and can fix it.
I just realized an advantage that the XM5/XM250 will have over in urban warfare: The majority of peer/near-peer combat we are seeing in Ukraine that falls into the CQB realm is being decided primarily with superior initiative, better reconnaissance and with whoever is better at getting grenades into the enemy’s lap. There’s no real advantage to the Spear vs the M4 in the grenade aspect, the Army’s said the fireteam will retain its grenadier, whether it’ll be an underslung M320/M302 or something else I don’t know. But there’s the recon value: The Spear coupled with its new optic will be leaps and bounds more effective in seeking and picking off the main opponent of an infantry formation in an urban environment: Snipers. Now each American soldier can effectively act as a poor-man’s sniper, pinning, communicating positions and allowing other elements to move in and take tactical initiative. And overall the Army’s banking on its ability to be better aware of the battle space than their opponents, as evidenced by the sheer amount of information sharing and networked capability the infantry has now compared to what it did even as recently as Fallujah or Mosul. The Spear itself comes into play here in the ability of these weapons to make structures that were once considered cover against 5.56 penetrable to the average soldier if he knows what/who is there. This allows the Spear to use its size to its advantage by standing off and picking apart enemy units from locations placed at ranges that their weapons wouldn’t necessarily be able to punch through, and attempts at closing the distance would reveal their locations to superior reconnaissance and allow for counter maneuver to be conducted to defeat them or allow air support to counter them. It is either that or the enemy would be forced to vacate the position and surrender ground. At least, that is what I think (emphasis on “I think”) is the theory of the Army’s future tactics.
@@DPolk98 ...but...but...but, whut abouwt mUh 556??? I thought the m4 in 556 wuz the gr8test thang since sliced bread, naw whut am I gunna dew??? -random fudd
When i first saw the power of this new cartridge and the emphasis on armor penetration, my first impression was that the US higher-ups were planning a war against Russia.
If you think using a a literal Battle Rifle for CQB role is good, the M5 failed that role in every sense, and yeah you are just wrong, there is reason we go for 5.56 and AR for a reason, and not 7.62 with BR after WWII
Great rifle. I agree with your findings as a main battle rifle. Now in my 20 years as infantry (now retired), I think that would be an awesome SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) rifle. It is lighter than the souped up M-14 they had us using for years that weighed over 14 lbs. Throw a 3-9×40 or a 4-16×50 on it and you have a great longer range weapon while still keeping that armor piercing capability within the infantry rifle squad. Just my opinion.
We have the m110 which is basically an updated sr-25. This will be helpful against A proper military, yet you know and even I know with only my 4yrs in as of right now that it won’t just be proper military. We will still have to fight an insurgency
Seems the military is going towards special forces style combat on a mass scale using intelligence as the first line of offense with the F35B's in the air, a more surgical approach rather than the suppressive fire style of old. If you know where the enemy already is and aren't walking into the unknown then the more accurate, powerful rifles will serve better. If you're just a group of soldiers without the intel and surveillance then you'll definitely want more ammo
It seems like it may be a decent rifle, what I would really like to see is someone on the shorter side (or a less experienced shooter) shoot the full power ammo side by side with Garand Thumb. It would provide a good contrast.
@@Wonderboy205 makes sense, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I’d imagine that your average soldier would be less experienced that either of these guys and would get pushed around just as much
Honestly how is the new woke transformer, bundle of sticks, Female Dominated US military ment to operate this weapon and use it to the full extent of its capability
Supposedly, this weapon isn't complete without the "fire control system", which allegedly will negate some of the "problems you foresee". I'm skeptical, but I assume there are many professionals who have already tested the system and agree that the concept functions and provides us a significant overmatch. If all of that is true, and they are able to train the average troop to take advantage of all that overmatch, then I'm all for it.
Yeah to me that looks like just more complication that the average soldier has to deal with. I've heard military dudes talk about how hard it is just getting average guys to understand how to use the BDC in an ACOG. If it all works it'll be awesome, but i just don't see the average soldier using it to its potential, and it has a lot of stuff to go wrong compared to something like an ACOG. Hope i'm wrong, because in a vacuum the technology looks amazing.
Between the scar and this rifle, I like the fact that most of the functionality of the old m4 still remains visible, probably to make soldiers more able to adapt!
Personally I don't understand this ammo OR gun. Since they are still using AR-10 magazines, it seems redundant making an entire new round for "armor piercing" abilities when you can modernize the 7.62x51mm and push more pressure out of it(or just use the same 7.62); no need to reinvent the wheel. The Ruger SFAR did an amazing job keeping the AR-15 chassis with a .308 chambering. Its capable of a 30 round magazine while keeping the same layout that everyone knows. Fits the "keep it simple" assessment AND it would have saved MILLIONS of dollars in contracts that are now going towards a gun manufacturer and not some other government project, or civilian project.
@@Technie87 Because this ammo is more effective then the 7.62x51mm, on top of being lighter weight and allowing you to carry more of it effectively. Also, the idea of 'don't reinvent the wheel' doesn't really work with Ammo in the modern age. Every military is on the hunt for the new future round for their military processes. The same way we developed 5.56 post WW2 and the USSR came up with the 5.45 in the same time frame.
GT out here showing us why training is important. Recoil control is hands down THE BEST I have seen on this weapon. Watching literally everyone else shoot it, you would think it's an unweildy weapon that can't be used. Shows you how much people need to spend more time training and less time filming.
To be fair, he outright says he's using a lower pressure round. Given the full brass case and the specs from other civ spec 6.8 he's probably shooting a round that's around 20,000-30,000 psi lower than mil spec
@@chrisclark6161 also fair. Would like to see him slinging some full pressure rounds. I have a suspicion that he manages the recoil with similar results. He's also the first person I've seen running a BCM foregrip (reversed) on that weapon and running a proper C-clamp on it. But you're right, full pressure rounds would be nice to see. Maybe in a few years when they're actually available.
He clearly states that he is not firing the high-pressure military round in the montage, so the excellent recoil management he demonstrates is not representative and can't be compared to the footage of the actual round other sources have provided. We'll have to wait to get a fair comparison ground.
Glad that i was able to try SIG Spear out.. its a great badass weapon, bit hard to get, but the marked rooms in Reserve usually have one, it rips PMCs and bosses aswell! Tarkov finally has a new king!
Not to mention it has an easier adoption. I don't understand why having more options without increasing complexity is a bad thing. The experienced can use what they want, and the newly trained can adopt either/or. For me, its like saying ambidextrous controls are a bad thing.
I much prefer a non-reciprocating left side charging rifle vs the AR style as you can charge the weapon without unshoukdering the weapon or losing sight picture... although this mainly becomes an issue with a malfunction as hot weapon on safe is the way to roll
@@wtice4632 I meant in regards to manufacturing. The rear charging handle and side charging handle can effectively be activated from the same point, only adding a contact point. I'm sure there's more to it, but in the overall sense, it isn't too complex. In regards to operational complexity, the user just has to get used to operation from a side-mount perspective ie making sure dirt doesn't get in from the side.
This could be good in a "Tier" system, being issued to troops depending on what type of terrain they're operating in. It would be great in desert or mountains, but in jungles, you would run into the same problems we had in Vietnam with the M14. I guess it will do until we can make a Plasma Rifle in the 40 Watt Range!
it might be closer to the 1918 Bar or m1 garand in the ww2 pacific jungles/korea thru Vietnam which have a great track record. both the m14 - m16 failed the Vietnam reliability test. so the m14 isn't a reliable representation as it was the rifle design more failing then the cartridge.
@@TechnoMinarchist You mean,you hope we don't !!! Things are subject to change.The new army is marsh-mellow SOFT.And when the army first started fighting in Iraq they were a hot mess !!! LOL. No up-armored vehicles,trying to turn non-combat arms into doing convy escorts,combat patrols. Soldiers who didn't know enough to clean their weapons,to points the weapons wouldn't fire !!! Ncos & officers didn't know how to read a map !!! In 2004,a 4 star general was on tv saying his troops didn't have AMMO and were going thru garbage to find something to use as armor for their vehicles.
I have a strong feeling that the spear xm5 won’t replace all M4s but will be relegated as the new DMR with that new vortex smart scope. Maybe some riflemans would have it, but likely not all considering the big reduction of fire superiority with less ammo. They’ll still get to be ran with the ngsw xm250 as the saw for ammo compatibility. DOD likely wouldn’t like the logistical nightmare of needing sig proprietary ammo for big army while other branches still use 5.56 with their newly procured HKs and noveskes. I’m guessing there could be a better m855a1 in the future with a beefier chamber on new barrels and perhaps a more robust bolt and bolt carrier group. Especially considering the relatively recent adoption of the urgi and the tango 6t, I’m thinking those m4s will get stretched a bit more. Similar to how 9mm made the millennium caliber .40’s reign so short-lived with ammo developments in view of wanting more capacity. In other news, US Army will soon be called SIG army. Ngsw: spear xm5 Ammo: 6.8 fury of sig Ngsw saw: xm250 6.8 can: sig Full size handgun: m17 Compact handgun: m18 Lpvo: 6t Sig Uniform and humvees next anyone?
Yeah agree it's self a great candidate for a DMR. With a flatter trajectory than 308 I'm sure more hits will achieved with it in combat. 1 or 2 of these plus 1 or 2 XM250s in a squad and the remainder with AR15 carbines would be a great mix. Add medium velocity 40I'm ammo for grenadiers and you have a squad that rocks from CQB ranges to beyond 600 AND can carry reasonable amounts of ammo.
Not only that, but replacing a NATO standard round now when everyone is finally standardized on 5.56 and NATO is more relevant than ever would be.... odd.
The XM250 looks great and I think this would be epic as a DMR or an option, like you said, for missions that have the majority of firefights taking place at 400-500 meters but I think the military is going to rediscover the same lessons pretty quickly when their guys are saying that carrying less than half the number of rounds you can carry with a 5.56 just isn't enough. I really don't think the ability to defeat body armour is important enough to offset the round deficit.
As someone who has deployed and engaged targets that wouldn’t stop with (1) 556, this concept is relevant. 556 doesn’t put people down past 200m. When my DMRs/Snipers weren’t taking the M39 or M110 I did instead as the stopping power of the 762 projectile far off set the less rounds I took as one round stopped the engagement.
It's ability to defeat modern body armor is questionable as well. M14A1 API out of 20" barrel can't penetrate modern Russian plates. 6.8 is overpressured and afaik uses tool steel in it's penetrator but it's shot out of 16" barrel. ua-cam.com/video/Ywlf6uaDvjQ/v-deo.html
If you swap out the operator foregrip for the ranger foregrip you'd reduce vertical and horizontal recoil by 12% only at a cost of 10% reduced ADS movement speed...
And while it is a "short range" RF signal, it still means a signature that can be detected intermittently for 40,000 feet due up. When you have a dozen or more of them, you give them a free gift- airstrike, artillery, whatever the flavor of the day is.
Agreed about this probably being a reaction to mountain fighting in Afghanistan. The generals are always preparing for the last war rather than the one they're likely to fight next. If they wanted longer effective range they could've just converted existing M4s to 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel and replaced ACOGs with the new Vortex smart scopes.
problem with 6mm ARC and 6.5 Grendel is they only hold 25 rounds in a magazine and use a bored out bolt face which would lead to shorter parts life. So a lot of the same issues still persist just without the added benefit of a superior round like 6.8x51. if the 6.8x51 is simply to much SIG can always oblige the army with Maxwell conversion and new barrel to chamber what ever whizzbang intermediate caliber the army cooks up.
@@notjaisavage740 I honestly thought that was the entire point, and I'm kind of surprised there's so much backlash. I was under the impression that our "near peers" wear armor, and 5.56 straight up can't penetrate it. That's it.
This rifle and cartridge seem like an excellent M110 replacement! In-fact from looking at the ballistic charts, it seems that the 6.8x51 would make an excellent 7.62 replacement pretty-much across the board (due to higher muzzle velocity as well as ballistic coefficient) in stuff like GPMGs & MMGs (like the M240) But, when joes start running out of ammo in firefights more and more often because a 7 magazine loadout only gets you 140 rounds (vs the current 210 5.56mm) while also weighing more, I'd wager a lot of questions are going to get asked about why this was adopted for this role. As for armor penetration capability, I'm a bit dubious of the 6.8x51mm's capability given that NIJ IV plates (which I'll use interchangeably with SAPI & foreign equivalents) are rated to stop a larger, heavier, & faster bullet with a tungsten penetrator (The M2AP) than what this caliber can deliver. 6mm ARC seems much better suited to the "Oh no, our infantry rifle can't reach out far enough" problem that was endemic of the war in Afghanistan, without sacrificing the M4's size or weight, and only moderately compromising on magazine capacity (30 rounds being reduced to 25, rather than 20) while still keeping the same magazine form-factor (As opposed to the significantly bulkier AR-10 pattern magazine)
30-06 will be hitting with 60,000-70,000PSI even while using Tungsten tips. The SPEAR can hit with 80,000PSI using regular ammunition, and even harder with AP rounds. Thats a SIZEABLE difference in terms of striking force. So your thought process about it not hitting as hard as the 30-06 is incorrect. This thing hits much harder. Can it penetrate as far as a 30-06? Perhaps not. But it'll get close due to the massive increase in striking force. And I guarantee you that if you get hit with this round, regardless of body armor, its going to put you on your ass and take you out of the fight all the same.
@ObiWanShinobi The PSI is the operating pressures of the cartridge and not a factor in the ability of the projectile to penetrate armor. It is the mass and the speed, as well as the composition, of the bullet that determine it's ability to penetrate armor. I agree with everything stated by Caleb
Personally I’d like to run this with a 16-20” barrel configuration with Sig’s Tango MSR LVPO with 1-10x Magnification. This would make a killer DMR platform for sure.
@@SeanMcDermott True but I’d like to start off with less expensive glass to learn to shoot with an LPVO. I’d switch off to Sig Sayer’s more premium options or run something from Trijicon later after getting more practice.
@@gtmike916 no reason to start off with cheap glass. Buy once cry once with glass. If you're on a budget spend less on the gun. You can get a fine gun for less than several thousand dollars, glass you cannot
The sig spear basically shoots a .270 Winchester short mag. I was asking years ago why the military never entertained .270 rounds. It’s a great balance between Linda range accuracy, power and light recoil.
They told us it was mostly because our NATO "partners" only used 5.56, so a European war made getting ammo easier. BUT we found out in Iraq the Brits used less powder, thus throwing our zero and quals out of whack!
Mr. Garand originally designed his rifle for a new .277 round. General MacArthur said we had huge warehouses full of 30.06 and made Ordinance change it.
If history is any guide, in America’s next war the soldiers will be like, “Wow, this rifle sucks in these conditions. We got any of those old M4s in storage somewhere?”
That and the Krauts will refuse to sell parts and new rifles, because they would rather lick whatever dictators' toes for a few euros. The US Military should become independent of foreign companies and foreign designed/ made weapons.
honestly even if the rifle turns out to be successful you are correct about what a shit-show new weapon system rollouts usually are. look up the debut of the Bradley
Totally should have stuck with side charging. I prefer that over the other for ARs. This is is probably the best review of this gun I have seen. Great job Mr. Thumb
This seems like a good *conventional war* rifle. Open ground, basic infantry tactics, support by fire type stuff alongside beltfeds. Any close range stuff, or like you said Vietnam, I’d rather have something else.
@@Dim2134 that’s what I was thinking, like in Battalion we have the Geissele upper, we still have the short Daniel Defense MK18 and guys can use either one. We even have SCARs laying around but, those go to new privates lol. So that’s probably what’ll happen with this rifle
@@brotherjew1Hmm, it's probably going to be something developed more as time goes on like the M-16 was at minimum though. Things always change in implementation.
@@Dim2134 Yeah like maybe a shorter CQC version? I dunno if that would fuck with the ballistics, like I dunno what they’d do to make it more SOF friendly.
The MCX Mk2, the Virtus, is a fantastic rifle in both 5.56 and .300 blackout, even though it is a bit heavy. I think this Spear is the result of that Sig design, isn't it?
I really wished they had adopted 300blk when it was developed. Replace 556 and keep 308 for DMRs. Would've been financially economical too since all they have to change is a barrel, or for really quick change, an upper. Absolute minimal change to current "systems" and familiarity. But... They wanted a better BC bullet so here's we go...
The type of enemy and the setting of an engagement matters. This weapon wasn't designed to fight in the streets of Fallujah but to engage the Russian army in the woodlands of eastern Europe or to blast through the light body armor of Chinese infantry in the mountainous island of Taiwan. They're swapping to to this weapon because of the nature of the enemies we'll be fighting before this decade is over.
@@goochencore4128 It's a bluff. No one is stupid enough to resort to nuclear weapons unless they're truly backed into a corner. Unless we invaded Russia itself and tried to take Moscow, I doubt Putin would actually press the button. Why would he? It's not like he'd benefit from nuclear annihilation.
I think Sig got it pretty much dead on with the spear for a service rifle. It’s an evolution, yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The velocities coming out of it are pretty damn impressive, and the ammo will evolve and improve in short time. Ergonomically familiar. Quality components. Well thought out. I’m just a retired old grunt, but the Spear gives me a warm and fuzzy for our warfighters.
Seems like a a midway between a proper DMR and a standard infantry rifle. More rounds really are just more important than better rounds for standard infantry. The use for this seems like a SOCOM type of deal, replacing that shitty SCAR-H. Hard to see us moving away from 5.56 unless it was to use 5.45, which is really unlikely. I'd like to see a replacement for the M4 that's more reliable with less maintenance, and I think the Corps nailed it with the pick of the IAR. It's really smooth in operation, rugged, and accurate.
@@bokiNYC its heavy, bulky, not as ergonomic, and shoots a .308 with not enough barrel to make full use of the cartridge. Its still a fantastic firearm just not a good infantry rifle, if only just because of the cost.
@@bokiNYC Th reciprocating charging handle is annoying, and it kills optics for some unexplained reason. Way overpriced if you ask me. Optics are usually way way more expensive than guns are so I'd rather get a cheaper gun that still reliable like many AR's and AK's over some microscopic gains that some lab tests say the gun does better.
i think it's really the evolution of optics that's leading us back to long range accuracy in rifles, because it's going to become very easy for even inexperienced shooters to hit targets at very long distances as the technology progresses. the new optic supposedly lets you automatically zero the optic by pressing a button while aiming it at a target, and that sounds incredible. 20 round magazines in CQB doesn't sound very fun, but i suppose CQB is less of a concern in a near peer conflict than it has been during insurgency conflicts. we'll just have to wait and see how it performs in actual combat.
you have a point about CQB. but i disagree. Urban warfare is here to stay. Ukraine has been sucking Russia into prolonged deathtraps in cities for a while now. But I'm not sure the 10 less rounds will make as big of a difference when you hit actually hit people twice as much or if all it takes is one shot to incapacitate.
The question is still, is a war against a near-peer opponent pure fantasy or likely to happen? No such war has existed since 1945. War after war has been fought, but none against near-peer opposition. If, by adopting this rifle, all you do is make it ten times more expensive to put a bullet in the stomach of a farmer off his tits on khat and fighting with an antique AK47 (the opponent most likely to be fought against), that is hardly an improvement.
@@Alex-jf4ui The much heavier rifle in combination with heavier recoil will mean you usually hit less, regardless of some Gucci optic. You still have to be able to hold the rifle still and squeeze the trigger properly. Also the biggest reason why it will be worse is because you can carry less ammo. In urban fights it's all about suppression and maneuver. To suppress targets you need more bullets. It's almost as if that's been the whole basis of squad tactics for over a century now. Nothing has changed enough technology wise to make that not a simple reality.
Our standard load out was 7 magazines. I had 28 rounds in each for 196 rounds. 7 20 round mags would only be 140 rounds plus all the new pouch’s they need to hold the new mags. I like the rifle but the logistics of it look daunting.
It's not worth the weight. The rifle itself is 3 pounds heavier than the M4 before you figure the weight of the ammo you lose total round count for. "It's more powerful." So what? The 5.56 punches way above it's weight. This is "more powerful" but not as efficient as far as what you trade in round count.
@@johnmoore8067 That reminds me of when they tried to issue us all SCARs. Fucking thing has the exact same 5.56 rounds but it’s like 85 million pounds heavier, with no ballistic advantage.
We also need to discuss real estate. You only have so much space on your plate carrier, cummerbund, belt etc. You can only carry so many mags on your person, and the larger the mag, the less you can carry, regardless of weight. Given that the Spear mag appears to be the same rough size as most .308 20 round mags, you can only carry 2 mags in the same footprint as 3 M4 mags. So, for roughly the same amount of space on your person, if you're carrying 7 M4 mags (6 on your person, 1 in the gun), you're now carrying 5 (4 on gear, 1 in rifle) Spear mags, which means 100 rounds total. The weight of the mag is also a factor. I almost bet you that an empty Spear mag weighs twice that of an empty M4 mag. You're going to have more weight for less than half the ammo.
7:48 No photo popped up showing anything But awesome breakdown of the XM5. Absolutely love the design and function of this platform. I don't think anything will ever really replace an M4A1 or any AR15 platform for that matter, but this definitely has my acceptance of coming close.
Got really excited see him shoot that on full auto without a problem…then he said these are low pressure rounds. I also think accuracy is a bigger point of discussion than normal, since the doctrine of this rifle is to extend “typical combat ranges.” If 800-1000 meters is the extension, accuracy becomes a lot more important especially with that new Vortex optic. I’ll be interested to see how it performs.
800yrd it the effective range. so average solder getting kill shots easily (with an 8x it would seem like a 100yrd shot". the super sonic range is 1400yrd, the energy to deemed acceptable for ccw self defense makes it a 1900+yrd round.
We would need to see the numbers, its advertised ~2600-2700 fpe ......... that's 300-400 away from .308 and literally double the power of 5.56, like 1300 foot pounds above 5.56. Low pressure loads ha? Why not just use even lower pressure .308 and not waste billions of $ ....
I think the rear charging handle is a way to not have to deal with retraining every soldier to use the side charge but no doubt it will eventually be fazed out while the boot camp training changes to favor and teach all new recruits to use the side charge.
Great job on the review, can't wait till you get the Vortex optic to expand on your review. Also the XM250 when ammo allows you to do a proper test. Thanks and keep up the good work. (former US Army NG 19E20 and 11C20, unit armorer, 82-88) and (yes qualified expert with 1911A1 and M16A1) I have been shooting the AR-15 platform since 1976 when I was in high school and have many rounds down range with the MIA, M1 and many others. I was an FFL dealer, gunsmith for 13 years also employed at Cabelas as an outdoor product specialist. Currently at Academy Sports and Outdoors for the last 10 years. Still selling firearms. I think the system that the Army chose is a good choice. Commonality of ammunition with an upgrade path as well as firearm controls that anyone who has handled an AR-15, M-16, M4 will be able to easily adapt to. I think too many are focusing on the weight and lack of rounds that will be carried. Time will tell, but with the new optic and greater lethality and hit probability. Less rounds will need to be expended. How many rounds of .30 06 do you think were carried in WW1 and WW2 on average? Time to return to a nation of riflemen and step up to our legacy, of past warriors who served. And like GT likes to remind us no excuses or substitute if you don't get out and train. I was blessed, my father and his 3 brothers were all veterans and I grew up in rural Nebraska. Hunters and shooters, from Korea till the 90s they all served their time. One uncle who impacted my love for shooting was former US Army, trained for SWAT at Quantico and was federal law enforcement for 28 years with the National Park Service and DEA. He hunted all over the US and only way we could join him was if we too could shoot well. Lessons learned, to shoot well, shoot often. GOD Bless the USA and may our enemies respect and fear our wrath. Let freedom ring (gong)...lol
Large AAR studies post-WWII showed a big complaint in not enough ammo carried, ammo too heavy, rifles too heavy, too much recoil, harder for new shooters to learn fundamentals with, scaled into too heavy of a logistics footprint as well when talking about .30 Cal Rifle M2 ammo (.30-06). Army Ordnance tackled the problem and were asked to replace the following weapons with 2 weapons chambered in a single cartridge. .45 ACP M1 Thompson SMG M1 Carbine .30 Carbine M1 Garand .30 Cal Rifle BAR .30 Cal Rifle M1919 MG .30 Cal Rifle Their solution was: M14 7.62x51 M60 7.62x51 This failed miserably. As an armorer back in the 1970s or 1980s, you will recall the reliability issues we had with the M60. M14 was a non-starter due to soldier's load, which got heavier than the M1 Garand because of the added weight of the steel mags.
@@LRRPFco52 I am so glad for this reply as well as all the other views and comments expressed on the subject at hand. So much diversity of opinion and a wealth of experiences. By the way after having to deal with the M73, M219 and the M85. The M60D and M240 were wonders. The marines, army ranger and other Vietnam vets I trained and served with almost to a man lamented not having the M14 instead of the M16. Generational differences, practical experience and real world use definitely make for varied responses. Got to love it. I agree to disagree with you all. But I would be proud to have your back or be shoulder to shoulder with anyone of you in defending this country and for what it stands for.
@@scoots60 We had M21s in my first 2 Scout Platoons, and we had M14s in my first line unit, along with M16A1s, even though I went through Infantry OSUT with M16A2s. I have worked with and lived with all of those rifles pretty extensively across multiple continents, as well as the M4/M4A1. I like the M14/M21, but would never choose one to go outside the wire if I had other options for a DM or light sniper system. Nobody in Ranger Regiment wanted anything to do with an M14 once the SR25s came into the inventory, and even prior to that, they used M4A1s with ACOGs suppressed in the Sniper sections, along with free-floated Recce carbines, barreled with accurate pipes and float handguards. JSOC dropped M14s and went to SR25s in the early-mid 1990s as well in their Sniper sections. Old inventory M14s were issued to line units for DMRs with varying degrees of success in GWOT, but SOF units who actually had a choice used SR25s, SR25Ks, and SCAR-Hs. Some Teams tried going with all-7.62 NATO load-out, and ditched that idea after 1 or 2 missions due to weight and limited mag capacity. They tried configuring their kit with as many mags as possible, to include mag pouches on the backs of their plate carriers so dudes would act as combat squires for each other, which was just unnecessarily cumbersome and clumsy in a tactical sense. This is one reason why 6mm ARC in a standard AR-15 receiver set was chosen to supplant or replace 7.62 NATO semi auto sniper systems in certain units. We keep re-learning the lessons we already knew after the 1914-1918 Great War about appropriate rifle cartridges. 5.56 was the only cartridge adopted that benefitted soldier's load and combat persistence. 7.62x51 was warmed over .30 Cal in a slightly shorter case, pushed to higher chamber pressure to meet the same mv as the Garand. Didn't really change anything for Joe tentpeg other than having a detachable magazine and overall excessive weight.
@@scoots60 I started out with M60s in the line, to include being in Weapons Squad. The M60s we had were malf-o-matics. When we got M240Bs in late 1997 in the Light/Airborne/Airmobile Combat Divisions, they were very well-received because they actually worked. M60 was more ergonomic for carrying since it's basically a half bullpup FG42 design with MG42 feed tray and cover. Belgians made a far superior feed tray and cover mechanism with the MAG58, which we make as the M240. I ended up being a Weapons Squad Leader later on with M240s in my gun teams. It's much more rewarding to talk the guns that ran so well, vs M60.
I think it’s worth mentioning that the M5 is only planned to replace the M4 in “close combat“ forces for the time being. I think that the shift to a bigger “battle rifle” cartridge is a good thing because of the rise of effective body armor. During Vietnam and up until fairly recently there was no body armor out there capable of reliably stopping intermediate rounds. However, now that armor is cheaper and more effective than ever the change to a bigger round could mean the difference between a shot being a kill and a shot getting stopped. Just my 2 cents though.
Wouldn't this rifle be a bigger burden in close combat because of the weight, recoil, and lower rounds capacity? Close combat is a more dangerous and quicker-paced environment and therefore being able to land faster and more accurate shot placements on target would be more ideal.
@@MinecraftGuy237 When big army says “close combat force” they mean the frontline combat force like infantry, cav scouts, and combat engineers. It doesn’t refer to their engagement distances.
you re globally right, but i m just gonna correct a little detail: there where at that time rifle rated body armor (on the US side there where the fiberglass + alluminium oxyde "chicken plates" and on the soviet side, as early as 1983 the 6B3 came with his 6.5mm titanium alloy scales followed by an aramid soft insert. both could sotp intermediate cartridges at the typical engagment distance ). but your argument still make sense, as indeed body armor evolved in such a way that not being able to beat an opponent using it will proove to be a problem.
Crazier than that. This is a .277 or so in a necked down .308 cartridge. Mr. Garand originally designed the M1 Garand in a new …. .277 round! But General MacArthur said we had millions of rounds of .30-06 in storage and ordered it changed to .30-06. So it’s more like a hundred years.
Seems like a lot of the experience from engagements in the hills/mountains of Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq was put into this rifle. We where typically engaging past 500m and relying on suppression and air support to take out enemy. I think that’s the headspace of the army in this particular case. Just my two cents
IMO there’s better ways to kill the enemy at >600 meters than small arms. Things like switchblade 300, 40mm Pike, Carl Gustaf M4, lightweight commando mortars, etc. Who really thinks the average infantryman or woman is gonna pick off individuals at >600 meters who are evading and firing back? Don’t even get me started on the asinine “penetrate level IV at 600 meters” requirement.
Maybe they think they're being forward-thinking with this, but I think it's the opposite. Sacrificing firepower, suppression, rounds carried, and lighter weight for a rifle that's better in certain scenarios is a mistake imo. I think it does make sense to have it in inventory for specific missions/environments, but for mass adoption I think it's a mistake.
@@unhingedhobbyist6722 No, he's got a point. I don't see this rifle becoming the standard issue infantry rifle for the US military as a whole ....ever. I see this quickly becoming a DMR platform rifle only.
After using modified versions of M4s in theater, i would have loved to have used this on deployments. Really like this platform. Multi purpose and 6.8? OOF. CQB with 6.8 is devastating for anyone on the receiving end of the boomstick
So my opinions on the Spear is that for me, if the combatants are all starting to widely adopt Armor-capabilities. This Spear would be superior as it seems like we're shifting from focusing on Civilian/Guerrilla fighters to perhaps Future expectation that a whole other Military Force in the future would be the Primary Hostiles for the US Army. Hence the change for Armor Piercing. So the need for how many bullets you can put down range would be instead more cumbersome as the battlefield is going to change to Tactics instead of Guerrilla Warfare seemingly every engagement has been since the Vietnam War.
Well if you’ve seen the new optic for this thing that basically does the aiming for you. I don’t know if just having fire superiority is gonna be the new way to win a firefight
i agree on the body armor. There is a lot of surplus body and commercial armor out there. ISIS and Al Queda had some and the Taliban has plenty. Also i thought the Sig spear rifle was being adopted to fire lightweight 6.8mm so the army will have armor penetration, range and lightweight ammunition they can carry more of. If this is the case it could be the end of body armor on the battlefied, no point wearing a heavy vest that slows you down if the enemy cant shoot through it. A lot of varibles and future possiblities
Yeah but i feel like most places likely to fight the us are smart enough to realise their body armour is no longer adequate protection and just fast track advancements on new models of body armour with higher protection thus making 6.8 redundant.
I was watching MAC the other day and they said they wouldn’t be surprised if they nerf the round to GT’s pressure or even re-chamber this into regular 7.62x51 NATO, and I completely agree.
If I recall correctly, one of Sig’s representatives did say their new cartridge technology could be applied to other already existing cartridges and significant performance increases could be gained by doing so. I’m no expert, nor do I know the exact details of the NGSW program, but did anybody on that board raise their hand and ask sig to apply the bimetal case to 5.56 or any other actual intermediate cartridge that already exists to improve said cartridge’s performance and still retain roughly the same size as the m4/m16? The DOD keeps talking about how they want to keep up with near-peer threats like China, but China has a roughly 3 million man military. So the U.S army’s solution is to adopt a heavier rifle with less magazine capacity and most likely a lower ammunition load out than 5.56? Once again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me there is a disconnect here. The rifle seems like it is a good rifle, wether or not it’s a good standard-issue rifle remains to be seen. EDIT: You guys all correctly brought this up, and yes, I do understand the m4 would require retrofitting, perhaps to a substantial level, in order for it to be able to take high pressure bimetal cartridges. I do think it can be done, but it of course requires funds and resources I don’t have. I do love seeing you guys being all smart and scientific down here, though. Garand thumb’s comment section is far more intelligent then they give themselves credit for. Keep it up, gentlemen. 👍
I recently got to talk to some of the sig representatives and they did indeed confirm that this ammo technology could be applied to about any cartridge as long as the weapon could handle the new chamber pressures crated by the new round
I wonder what the round performance is going to be like? I’m discussion of the foreseen conflict with China I think back to the stories from troops in Korea who were able to take down several Chinese soldiers at a time during mass charges because of the 30-06. I doubt China would forget the lesson learned there considering they hid their true losses as well as feared joining in Vietnam openly due to the losses in Korea.
I think it’s more the concept of having a cartridge that significantly outranges the enemy, 5.56 made sense in Vietnam where you dealt with close ranges, but it was criticized constantly in the Middle East for its range limitations and if we’re expecting war in places like Eastern Europe and Asia, we may be dealing with far more open areas.
Interesting review. From my armchair research about the push for the 6.8mm cartridge- more penetration from the carbine and rifle, to deal with body armor and barriers(i.e. car doors, and the like). 6.8mm is close enough to replace 7.62mm for gpmg, and improves firepower of the saw. Having 1 round for all 3 simplifies supply logistics. So this certainly can make sense for a team only if you include saws and gpmg in the overall ammo count. As an individual, I would rather have more ammo than my opponent. So, being able to carry at least 60 more rounds of 5.56mm can be a big difference.
With the new optics package I'll pick the new round every time. Much more capable rifle with a sophisicated optic, with rangefinding and environmental adjusted hold overs making it much easier to get the most out of said capability.
Binge watching your videos is a guilty pleasure of mine. You guys do a very nice job with the production. 0:48 to 0:60 the quick snap movements, suppressing a large sector alone... into the mag change at the end gave me all 2 inches my friend! I thought it displayed the versatility of this rifle well in a possible defensive posture. Looking forward to seeing the kinks worked out and getting her streamlined. $4500?!? OUCH Loved the M1A video as well, keep up the good work boys 🤟
Not going to lie, I absolutely love your intro's. They're always on point. I have a big crush on all of the MCX's and when I saw this one about a year ago my feelings weren't any different. When I saw you made a video with the Spear I knew the introduction was going to be good and you did not disappoint. That was the best video clip with the Spear yet!
Gonna be interesting to see how long the barrels last, also given what just happened with the Army PT test, gonna be interesting to see how some people handle lugging a heavier system around.
@@thomasroberts5658 this Rifle is going to the Infantry and not support personal, support personal likely will receive MCX, that is already in use by the U.S Army, Navy and Air Force special Forces and are replacing the worn out M-4's and HK-416 rifles as the weat out, the MCX has also been adopted or in the process of being adopted by various foreign militarys.
I don’t agree with completely replacing the M4 with this but instead supplementing our current capabilities with it to add to a squad. I really like the MCX platform, but not sure if I need one being a Scar H owner.
Soon as we get in a jungle type or short range environment it'll be like what happened in nam. I'd of tried something more along the lines of beefing up a m4 variant. Maybe little longer bullets with a steel base so it could still fire current stock 5.56 and the new model stuff. The slightly longer case would also keep the hot loads from working in the current m4s causing catastrophic failure.
@@afd19850 exactly. just toss a few to each squad, it's not a replacement, it's an additional weapons system. Still, it won't do any better against armor than 5.56 will.
My primary gripe with this rifle is its 100% engineered around the .277 fury round to operate properly with the 13” barrel. Without that cartridge you’re simply shooting a .308 from a very short barrel.
Keep both the m4 & spear. Apply them when necessary. SOF constantly talks about building your gear out for the mission, installing gear on your gun that applies to the mission, wearing the right camo for the mission... I really feel this mindset should be applied to the entire military.
The moment you have 120,000 combat troops mixing and matching their gear based on personal preference is the moment your entire logistics apparatus crumbles to a grinding mess of inefficiency and uselessness, particularly when you're now introducing a third primary caliber stream that complicates dealing with demand. US logistics flexibility is already strained enough due to its "pull" based structure. You get half your units deciding one day that 5.56 is a bit easier to use in their environment and they have to stall their entire advance to get adequate inventory to continue operations, or you force yourself to lug around half as much ammunition of each type only to never even use one of the rounds because it doesn't seem beneficial. The only reason SOF can afford to have some degree of flexibility is because theyre small units comprised of small teams and dont conduct persistent, continuous operations like conventional forces. That would never work.
@@reillybrangan2182 yea but then again you can have units which are with the spear and others, most likely reserves with the M4. We have so many M4s its pointless to just put them to the depths of the armory forever so mine as well find some purpose for them once the transition is full and done.
@@shadowyairsoft7970 you don’t have to worry about m4 rusting in storage once the army gets enough m5 they will sell them to developing countries. And before then you will have support troops luging around the m4 for the next 50 years. Heck we still have support units with m16. But as far as having infantry solders equipped with both rifles is a no go as supply will be a problem
@@broncostearsaremostsavory2041 screw that, sell em as surplus to our own damn people. If frickin Boris over in Eastern Europe gets to have an M4 but I, an American, cannot then that's some bullshit.
@@septimus7524 you wouldn’t want them better gear on the civilian market. Plus it’s not about giving them to someone it’s about winning wars and strategic alliances. They will be used to bring countries under the USA sphere of influence. Plus my civilian ar is way more accurate than any m4 I’ve ever shot.
"There is no free lunch" That about sums it up. I am excited about this choice. The power of this round is undeniable. In the past enemies were deterred by volume of suppressing fire. Maybe tomorrow they will be deterred by a giant hole being blown though their level 4 plates. Will training, marksmanship, and fitness be a big factor here? Absolutely yes.
Idk man. Biggest enemy of NATO rn are Russia and China. Russian soldiers dont really have excellent equipment anyways and considering how much money they burned in this war I’m pretty sure they won’t get new top of the game armour anytime soon. What Russia do has is a big military with weapons that hold more bullets than the MCX Spear. So I see this rifle and rounds as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and a downgrade in a problem that does exist. But let’s just hope there won’t be any need for this and there won’t be any big scale war anytime in the future.
You will never see this weapon, for recruiting purposes only! You are a naïve youngling if you think the Army will give this weapon to an infantry man!
@@raygetard3444 China does not, it's all for show of power, that's how the military works, in any country, to make the enemy "think" they have the best stuff, in reality, most countries soldier's have the shit of the shit, made by the lowest bidder, and yes this includes the US, sadly to say, I speak from experience as a former soldier.
I think that when it is paired with its super lightweight lmg buddy from sig, the fire superiority issue won't exist as much, and I wouldn't be surprised if squads and platoons start getting more machine gunners because it is so lightweight.
I remember reading somewhere not sure if it was ever implemented that the iar which was originally assumed to replace saw and probably would have failed in the role of suppression was going to replace the m4 giving fire teams the ability to have suppressive fire from different angles which would normally require a squad level coordination. If so and they so something similar here where there are more belt feds and suppressive fire isn't really required at the rifleman level could be interesting. I might be talking out my ass tho
That is the plan. I remember reading somewhere recently that the number of MGs and marksmen are going to be increasing. Both the MG338 and the M250 are ridiculously lightweight considering what they are and the ammo they fire (.338 Norma Magnum and 6.8 Sig Fury respectively) and they are going to be fielded in far larger numbers. The role of the rifleman is pretty much to guard the MG gunners and marksmen who are going to be the main damage dealers and suppression sources.
Large scale after action research has consistently said its mg guys doing most actual killing at platoon level so you may be right. Highly accurate rifle fire (when paired with the new vortex optic) plus a sizable increase in the amount of mg guys. Could theoretically turn platoon tactics upside down.
@@timwooten7165 yeah I agree with titytitmk12 too. It seems that the German mg centered squad is most effective. I don't think the increased weight will be good the rifleman. To defeat armour spicy rounds are needed. Idk if it is a good to issue battle rifle/dmrs to everyone in a squad. Every rifleman will have to be much proficient and accurate with there weapon. This armour defeat problem is tricky.
I guess it really depends on the conflict and situation, would something with these capabilities really matter in urban settings. I kinda liked the m27 just because it seemed like more of a move towards generalization rather than specialization
As an infantryman right now, my main concern with this rifle is the weight and the amount of ammunition we're going to be carrying is going to run out quick. I've actually held the rifle before, and it would suck to haul that for miles at a time. An M4 is proven, light and adaptable to any situation. We're also moving to a more conventional warfare role instead of GWOT, so engagement ranges are going to be less, we're going to be fighting in cities, and doing more CQB. I'd hate to use this in urban warfare. It seemed short-sighted of them to produce a new weapon like this when the M4 has proven itself capable in any situation, urban or rural.
I gotta agree with you, brother. I'm not an infantryman. I'm a medic. But we usually carry an m4 and an m17. If you've been rucking for 10, 15, 20 miles, you know that every pound makes a difference. After 20 miles, a 9 pound rifle is gonna feel a lot heavier than 9 pounds. The combat loads being reduced is also concerning. Ammo goes quick, and if you're trying to suppress a position, I want more ammo. I think the new MG is a good move. But I am not convinced on this rifle at all. But I guess time will tell.
Protected from what exactly? None of the last probably 10 countries the US has invaded/bombed has posed a threat to the USA. And meanwhile its supposed allies undermine or target or have targeted the US and killed US civilians and are at least partially responsible for 9/11. Meanwhile your own government is your enemy, opening up your southern border while destroying your economy and undermining your constitution.
Years ago I carried a FN, as an infantry soldier it just came down to getting used to it……weight wasn’t an issue. The reduced ammo carried not an issue, just carry more. Every time I deployed always threw extra ammo in both my webgear and ruck. Doesn’t take long to get used to the weight. Motrin and tylenol are your friend.
Garand Thumb is easily the most informative gun content creator out there. I knew nothing about guns before I found him. I still no pretty much nothing now but I learn a little more about guns every video. Thanks Garand 👍
Just held one at the Sig pro shop. It's very heavy! Literally feels twice as heavy as a military m4 even if it's not technically. I can't see this being standard issue
The potential adoption of the XM5 to replace the M4 is directly tied to - and maybe even driven by - the XM-250 replacing the M249 as the SAW. The SAW is meant to be a LMG at the squad level which was done away with in the adoption of th M14. Every rifleman was now an automatic-rifleman and that was the problem with the M14 (ammo capacity). The M16 series was a dramatic improvement within this concept. Now the rifleman had the ammo to go "full auto". This changed with the adoption of the M249. Now the squad had a designated automatic-rifleman or LMG. But the 249 has it detractors (to say the least). The army seems to have found their solution (pending field testing of course) with the collective adoption of the 6.8 round and the XM5 and XM250. In army thinking - just as it has been for decades - it is more about the firepower of the squad than the individual. These new weapons and the new round APPEAR to accomplish that. Again, field testing yest to occur and prove - or disprove - the wisdom of this decision.
Field testing has been done. Combat proven is still to be seen. I think some tactics will need to change. We will need to be farther from the enemy when we engage them. They'll be depending on the M-250 much more and hopefully their IDF assets at the company level.
"Assault rifles" were created by the Wehrmacht to support their tactical strategy for urban warfare in Europe: crush with artillery, spray lead as fire suppression, move up tanks and your own antitank weapons.
@@catherinemacleod4985 I don’t know why you’re mentioning the translation of German naming conventions in this thread. Please elaborate into its relevance. But you are actually wrong in your description of tactics, the Wehrmacht used much more blitzkrieg like strategies. Though I guess you may be referring to the urban operations in the far eastern front, where fighting was much more “siege” like and was house to house and door to door. You are simply just translating a naming convention and saying that it is a term for a whole type of rifle class… the Germans produced nothing of this sort beyond a pistol caliber carbine, and virtually every country in the war had their own versions of this concept. I believe that the modern characterization of assault rifles comes from some sort of misnomer about the abbreviation “ar” in ar-15, which stands for armalite. If you really wanted to debate the origination of the term, your most valid argument might be with the Soviet AS-44. I have not ever heard the term “assault rifle” outside of modern media.
@@casey6104 I thought this 6.8 was only replacing the M4 and M249, not the M240 (I have also not been keeping up with this very much. I sure hope they keep the M240s... love those things
With Vortex's new NGSW-FC "smart" scope, this may make sense to replace the 7.62x51 M110A1 and SCAR-H as a battle rifle to reach out to 1,000+ meters in open terrains like those encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I don't see a heavy-barrel battle rifle with a base weight (no scope, no suppressor) of 8.4 pounds being issued to the 75% of the U.S. Army personnel that have rear-echelon non-combat roles. So, the M4 will likely remain in the US Army's inventory for a few more decades ... especially if NATO also has a say in keeping the 5.56x45 around (pun not intended).
I completely agree. At least for the foreseeable future the M4 will have its place in the armed forces. That kind of tracks with respect to the world's militarys over the course of history in terms of non forward units having things like the grease guns or other shorter barrel carbines in general. Whats your opinion on the spear overall?
bro i totally agree the rest of the Army you ass in the grass shooter will not see this snipers, ddms and Special forces hell yea everyone else hell no
The army is changing to a round that can reach out more due to the issues we had in Afghanistan. Where engagement was 300 plus meter on a very common basis.
average joe here, i wanted to ask your thoughts others, do u think that maybe a better move wud have been just to increase the bullet weight of 556 to something like 77g and just use the bimetal case and the new sig optic on a modified m4....increase the mv and get her shooting to 800yrd or watever they desire....it actually lets u keep 30rd mags and i argue better armor piercing capabilities...no new training required and u get the same capabilities of practical shooting from soldiers? plus the benefits of a much lighter rifle than the m7 ....ur thoughts plz
My theory on the larger cartrage: Since vietnam, all of our military ventures have been against entrenched and much less advanced armies, able to fight thanks to gorilla tactics and agility. If you were anticipating a more orginized, higher funded, and advanced military possibly making an agressive move, what would be a better move from a defensive position? Larger caliber that can pierce body armor? or a smaller caliber to carry more ammo?
Bro you asked the right questions . Ppl forget that machine rifles are totally made for long reliable streams of lead to keep the other side disorganized and demoralized
the term is "near peer adversaries"; the ol' big brains believe we'll return to conventional military vs conventional military engagements and the main adversaries are boasting using improved body armor. unfortunately new intelligence from Ukraine is showing us that body armor isn't as big of an issue as believed thus going to a new caliber might be overkill--and more importantly--a waste of taxpayer dollars in development/adoption.
@@Author_Paluthor Level IV Armor stops Armor Piercing 30-06. I highly doubt the 6.8x51 will defeat it and even if it does they just make better armor. I think we would be far better off to have lighter ammo and lots of it and train to shoot around the armor. Being able to carry more ammo also makes the use of suppressive fire more effective. Which makes it easier to fire and maneuver around your enemy. I think a weapon like this has great potential for specific engagements but not for a general issue weapon. It seems like a step backwards to me, but hay maybe I'm way off base.
I think the main reason we went to smaller calibers after Vietnam was because less people shot guns going into a draft so they couldn’t handle it as good
Higher pressures tend to lead to shorter barrel life’s. Idk, as a DMR role i think the rifle is excellent, the entire company wielding them… seems a step backwards. Not to mention the optic is going to be 3 times the cost of the rifle
The thought of some shitbag 42a carrying this big ol boi around and barely being able to carry the weight of his own kit not including the magazines and ammo just fills me with joy.
Since when does a DMR have a 13 inch barrel? Also, barrel life is tied to bullet/rifling surface ratio, not chamber pressure. This is basically a 270 in a 51mm overall length, so it won't be any worse than the old 270.
Have to agree. For private ownership this rifle will be amazing to have. Hope to have one some year. As a general purpose military rifle yeah I don't know. Weight is such a factor and the lack of ammo is such a compromise. I really think the US Army should have waited until they could have designed a smaller caliber with similar ballistics to this new round. Could have gone with the MCX still since I think that rifle looks to be one of the best rifles on the market. The new machine gun that comes with this rifle however is an absolute unit. That thing is a huge improvement over the M249 to the point where they could have just chambered it in 7.62x51 and just adopted that thing.
@@maxwell120L55 in afghanistan they used to run out of ammo in like 10 minutes and then they'd go about occasionally shooting when the enemy tries to move waiting for air support,evac or for taliban to retreat to to lucky hits. Supressing fire is bs IMO. Whether you have 1000 or 10000 rounds makes no difference when your rifle shoots 800 rounds per minute and you're never going to hit your enemy. It's all about precision which the new computerized scope is all about. Imagine fighting a near peer adversary. In comparison the Taliban were COD players. You aren't going to win with childish tactics such as supressing fire. In a world with thermal imagery and 8x magnifications on ordinary scopes it'll be quick and absolutely lethal.While you supress and your troops advance the enemy will ambush you given your lack of accuracy and situational awareness and quickly retreat to inflict maximum damage and avoid a confrontation on equal footing. Firefights in Afghanistan used to last hours to days. Also there is a saying about guns which is that there are no inaccurate guns only inaccurate shooters. Think about it....
What I love about this review and specifically around this rifle is the controversy and how you upon getting hands on and experince with the rifle changed some of your opinions where as a lot of people who will probabbly never touch the rifle will bash it simply because "the M4/M16 platform is better", "it's a battle rifle", "It's made by Sig."
My biggest issue the XM5/MCX Spear is the cartridge size. They should have stayed with 5.56. I've shot the MCX Virtus which is where the Spear came from and it is great rifle to shoot.
@@andrewschliewe6392 you have no idea why they need a new cartridge. 556 has gone as far as it can. It cannot defeat body armor. It has a relatively limited range. There would be no need to replace the m4 without using a new round. Y'all always saying ThEy ShOuLdVe StAyEd WiTh 556. Why? Because YOU like it? The military wanted 6.8x51 for a reason. Range and lethality. Paired with the xm157 optic, this rifle can be used to engage out to 800m by infantry. Many modern wars have huge engagement distances. This is an innovation. The military will adapt tactics to get the best from this rifle. Modern US tactics are built for the m4. They will now be built for the m5. My cousin (2-5 Marines) would've loved this rifle.
@@seanmccarty1176 Clearly you have never served. What you are describing is a throwback to early 20th century thinking. Perhaps in a mountainous area the range is a plus but likely they will be in an urban environment where your targets aren't more than a couple hundred meters. You assume that all future fighting is going to be exactly like A-stan. The reason for keeping the 5.56 is weight and that means more rounds the soldier can carry. With the spear, they will be carry around 70 rounds less. And with the improved optics, then the M4 can hit the target someplace other than the chest.
While incredibly innovative, I don't see this design in this particular cartridge replacing the M4 personally. Supplementing it, absolutely. Replacing it however, no
Exactly. This will be a solid addition to squad tactics, but I can't see the tradeoffs in capacity, weight, recoil, and barrel life allowing this to completely replace the M4. The M4 has been refined for over 50 years, and has stayed in service that long for a reason. I can see this NGSW integrated alongside the M4 - have one or two guys on the squad carrying this to reach out while the other riflemen can still lay down more lead.
I think something we might see is it majority replacing the M4 but perhaps the m4 is kept around for a long while for CQB, however its worth nothing the MCX spear raptor which while performs good in CQB, I could say hypothetically (as the thing can change barrels really easily) we'll see them making the raptor variant fireing 5.56. For instance the mcx spear is heavy but quite comparable to the L85 the brits use, so I'd suspect the lighter M4 would be confined to a more and more controlled situation.
Just face it bro M4 is obsolete now just like the AK rifles, M4s and AKs are the things of the past, and aren't really proven anymore they aren't effective.
I was Infantry for 33 years, I'm having a hard time considering that your average Joe Grunt will be issued a suppressor/silencer, we shall see 👀???? I absolutely agree with the comments made 👍
![The M4 vs M7 Sig Spear NGSW [feat. GBRS Group]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZZ3bbUw3skw/mqdefault.jpg)
A big thank you to Illumined Arms for lending us this weapon!!!
Can I be borrow one…asking for a friend?
Totally agree Afghan war mind set designed weapon.
@@rootbowy825 the ATF are on the way to your house ! i hope you dont have a dog
saw with no sights. let's go!
Muhahahahah
I’m a machinist at sig and take a lot of pride in the parts I’ve made for SPEAR and hearing you sing the praises of the rifle make me extremely happy. Keep up the great work!
Dang that's the job I wanted lol
One does not simply has a job that any normal man would want. :D
No u keep up the great work
Ayo all my fellow NH homies in the chat! Then again all you seacoasters are like masshole transplants 😂.
What are the tolerances at sig?
As an armed forces memeber who has terrible hearing loss for my age, i cant express how thankful I am for supressors on service rifles. With the amount training you do, this is a godsend regardless of tactical advantage.
If I remember the suppressors on these make the gun perform better than with out it as well
They need to be readily available to the general public without the whole ATF process.
@@4runnercolorado422 I have no idea why the ATF hates you guys having suppressors so much, here in Europe most rifles come with one already threaded on - it's an expectation and etiquette to use one.
@@nxxynx5039 It's because the entire existence of their agency is based on a century old bill that they are desperate to keep the general public from knowing about. They're so afraid, they don't even ask Congress to raise the price of the tax stamps, when passed it was equivalent to $4,000 current dollars (probably more with inflation lol).
@@nxxynx5039 the problem with the US is, most people usually fall into one of two camps, morons that think any gun should be able to be owned by any idiot with the cash for it, or people who have never shot a gun that think everything about them is terrifying. Funny thing is people think that paying a couple hundred bucks for a suppressor is "infringing on their rights" but nobody has any problem with a rifle that costs several thousand dollars
Am I the only one who felt strangely satisfied when he was shooting full auto with the clear mag and saw the bullets rising up?
I really liked that too
That’s what your mum said.
I was rising up too, if you know what I mean
Something else was rising up while I was watching that.
I don't understand why redditors so often feel the need for internet strangers to affirm their feelings and beliefs. Quit it, it's lame.
Good gun but need L4 traders for any good ammo
And by the time you have L4 traders, global restock is out and you can't get it, anyway.
If u know u know
And when you finally get the ammo and the weapon, you get stomped by a wild scav
@@anttikoljonen1941 on streets. Two minutes into the raid.
It’s 350k roubles not worth
I think the greatest innovation is that it's balanced well enough to stand on the magazine floor plate. Makes photoshoots way nicer. Welcome to 2022
General's lives matter xD
Thank goodness that's the modern blue-hair problem solver.
@@denmanfite3156 blue haired people don’t wear body armor.
Thats not innovation lol tons of guns balance well on the mag.
At least it's better than AK-12
about 5-9% of combat losses is from firearms, the rest is artillery - and US spends billions to replace fully capable M4, not the 60 years old 3 rounds per minute paladin, complete junk against Msta or Coalitsiya. Keep it up!😆 And yeah, if you are shoot - you are dead, was it M4, AK-12, XM5 or Kar98 - no matters
The AK-12 is giving you nightmares isn’t it? 😏
@@Mkvine ye
Ak12 isnt real and you cant use monkey emojies on YT apparently
Depends on the purpose
What an awesome preview of a future episode of forgotten weapons!
Thank you US army! Very cool!
BASED
Fake, not French enough Ian would never review
Based AF🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Gonna be better than the current standard issue, m4 troons seething.
Damnit. This made me laugh. It's a tragic possibility
Thing to note is that the m16 wasn’t an immediate home run. I’m sure they’ll learn a lot in the next few years and make adjustments where needed
Actually the M16A1 was a very good an reliable weapon system. Most jams on the M16 was always magazines. The problem in Vietnam didn't come from the M16A1. It came from the experimental version that they bought off the shelf instead of waiting for the production version to be produced.
@@maddogs1989I'd return the A1 as an official assault rifle, probably one of the best rifles ever made.
@@dobridjordjereally an A1 lower and A2 or A4 upper would be perfect
@@maddogs1989 Nah just good ole M16A1 30 round mag, birdcage flash hider, but improved sight system to be able to attach scopes and other machinery, it worked in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf war and Iraq, and sure as hell outclasses the AK platform (albeit 74 is on almost on par)
@@dobridjordje the A1 never had the birdcage that was the A2. It was the A2 in Grenada and onwards at least for the Marines and for the Army it was the A2 from 86' onwards
Finally an actual in depth review and not just small snip bits of shooting and rambling about how it’s gonna be another M14 blunder
Don’t listen to boomers
@@bradenmchenry995 flashbacks to 6.8 grendell
This will ultimately make the m14 look like a brilliant design in the long run.
@@blackhawk65589 6.8 SPC? Not aware of any 6.8 "Grendel" the military has looked into
It wont
Looks like the starting assault rifle you get in every COD game that ends up being the most reliable and OP choice.
lets hope MW2 isn’t like that and has it that almost every gun is viable and balanced. no more of this single gun metas we’ve seen for years now.
edit: this aged terribly
Swickzy
MW2 already released, Twice,
The one we’re getting sold is…
Just fucking why?
@@Caliborino mw2 released once, and the new "mw2" game is a diffrent game than the og mw2
BrightPri
It released twice with the remaster,
I guess the reboot is it’s own series right?
Certainly with the goofy redesign of ghost and price now sounding like the great value version of himself.
But hey money right?
@@Caliborino not the mulitplayer. The mulitplayer never got rematstered only the campain
Easily the most highly anticipated video of all time. This should have been in theaters
Finally! It is here!
I am everywhere around you. Do you not feel my *Fury* ?
The taliban wants to know when they will be getting these
@@deadboltzz5199 I will automatically disable myself if I detect the presence of a heathen operator.
@@deadboltzz5199 Taliban is just civilian talk to AL-CIA-DUH
This guy just killed me on Lighthouse
USEC mfs fr 😭
Skill isue
Thats what you get for playing fucking Lighthouse
I think the army is going to use DARPA quadrupeds to mule ammo around for each battalion, which is one reason for the bulkier ammo.
Instead of doing that. The army will rely on the same beast of burden they've used for generations. The U.S. Infantryman.
No they aren't, soldiers will always be mules
@@Truthbomb918 I don't think you're looking far enough ahead. Those quadrupeds will absolutely be used.
More likey they will arm these bots and use them like they do with drones right now.
@Commie Hammer LOL yeah they are
The fact that this rifle reaches 2800+ fps out of a 13 inch barrel is pretty amazing. Also really dig the color!
Shame the trade-off for that velocity is extreme pressures.
I wonder if the new round will have ERP projectiles, like the ones used in the m855a1 and 7.62x51mm
@@josedorsaith5261 the barrel is very thick in comparison to normal ar 10s along with other thicker components, should do just fine
The Military rounds velocity is still classified but it is more likely 3100+ fps from the 13 inch barrel.
@@jeffkenkel4257 really? Damn
SIG spent a lot of R&D on these firearms. Time for the US consumer to purchase. Create jobs.
I feel like the charging handle issue is something that will phase out in due time as more soldiers get a hold of the rifle and find which they prefer and they pick one and stick with it.
The introduction of the side charger was for when having issues getting the bolt unstuck as to the T handle having little leverage and possibly having to mortar it. The reason for having the T handle is training/habits, so I would guess if they did remove one it would be the T handle but it too has a small benefit of being ambi. My thoughts though would be they just keep it cause getting changes done in military equipment is a lot of processing.
@@ellysiakyoki5587 when you explain the reasoning for it, it makes a lot more sense to have both. The ambi use of it is a plus and I don't think they could remodel this to have an ambi side charger. Also, the side charger being mainly for dealing with malfunctions that the T handle just can't really handle makes sense for long and dirty deployments.
@@BionicBurke Yes I agree, the T handle has been in the training regiment for years and the ambi option gives more benefits than just for a lefty, it gives the soldier easier access if he/she has injured their arm or hand. Could also think of it like if you're in a position where you wouldn't be able to have access to the side charger. Even though the side charger handle folds in a bit the T handle is a little less protruding to have possible snags too. In the end I think its only an advantage in clearing stuck cartridges but that was the intent so it works 🤷♀️ Very excited to see more vids of it though, I like it a lot.
I understand the benefits of both. But considering how beefy the rifle is already, I wish they just picked one to save some. weight. I know that there is gonna ne some guy saying "Just suck it up. Soldiers are supposed to be strong." Those dudes never seem to understand that it just helps the military in general in the long run. Ounces equal pounds. But my first thought was also that one of the charging handles would be deleted eventually.
@@leroyatleroys having the T handle kinda does reduce the weight because if it was only the side charger then all that material that's removed where the T handle is would actually add weight. The T handle itself is nearly weightless. I understand your input but charging handles are usually a weight loss positive with the area of material removal compared to the handles weight itself.
The principle of using a higher pressure in the round to maximize the effectiveness of a shorter barrel has also been adopted by the Japanese in their updated MX10 tank.
I love this gun because it’s everything annoying AR guys hate, it keeps the forward assist, it’s a larger caliber, it’s short stroke piston system, and it has a side charging handle. Also the pseudo monolithic upper is super cool.
Haha yes, AR guys cope hard
Not sure why they would hate it. But cliques seem to be in literally every hobby out there,so weird on either side to me. A rifle is a rifle.
@@brianrich7828 it is because he is a contrarian no guns.
Yeah!
We all know a Russian designed rifle from 1947 is the only way to go.....
Ohh the sig does have the forward assist still didn't even notice until u said that interesting
18:25
For what it's worth, for my line infantry company in 2008/2011 we honestly shot somewhere between 250 to 400 live rounds through our rifles in a calendar year. It was a bit of a joke how little we shot "to maintain proficiency". Gearing up for deployment it'd be closer to 200 or 300 a month, but still. Everything else was blanks with BFDs. Very OSUT-esque. Mileage may vary of course. My unit was probably trash, too. Just figured I'd throw this in there.
Lol i guess some things never change.
That has not changed in my experience.
Sounds exactly correct, that's just a tad more than what we were doing in the Marine Corps reserves in 2003-2007ish (I was an 0341). It's one of the main reasons I got out: I was just so disappointed with the training we were getting, I didn't have confidence in my abilities or that of my fellow Marines.
So.... we have an all volunteer military. It ain't the Vietnam thing anymore ( GOD BLESS THOSE WHO SERVED) Take it from the USMC. Not much chance of jungle War with Russia or PRC.
In my time with the 101st Airborne as an infantryman from 2014 to 2018 we actually shot a ton of live rounds during training. I would shoot about 300 rounds in one day of training. When I moved up to be a Weapons Squad leader my machine gun teams would put out about 600 rounds or more in a day. We were in the field quite a bit, a lot was shooting blanks but we did shoot a lot of live ammo as well.
Well, the need for a more powerful longer range round was apparent immediately in Afghanistan, now, 21 years later, after we left Afghanistan, we have it(Yet to be phased in). Great success!!!
Why not just have more weapons in 7.62x51 issued to units to support the 5.56 weapons?
@@smudge7057 Army planners are afraid that ballistic protection already exists within Russia and China that makes the very best 7.62 AP rounds useless, so they want something moving faster and with more energy to be able to defeat it.
This is exactly what I was thinking lmao
The Army is known for “fighting the last war”. While in some ways taking lessons learned and applying them can be good the Army often comes to the wrong conclusions and/or the lesson learned dont apply to the next conflict.
@@smudge7057 because they also approved a sig sauer replacement for the m249 saw (the xm250) also chambered in 6.8mm, having the ammo standardization helps a ton and it has better ballistics and penetration than 7.62 anyways.
The xm5 is absolutely not designed for the last war, it’s designed for any future large brigade combat instead of the lightly equipped guerrilla forces we’ve been fighting. The gun also really shouldn’t be discussed in a military context without mentioning the special fire control system/sight that will be equipped on every single one
Something to consider, when thinking about the switch from the M14 to the M-16 with respective calibers is that something like the M249 didn’t really exist. Now that we have squad level weapons that are some thing that can be carried and sustained more easily than something like the M 60 moving back to a heavier rifleman round does kind of make sense.
I was thinking the same thing after rewatching that part of the video just now and I’m glad someone said it. With the Spear also comes the xm250 which is just a Saw on steroids. Meant to fill the same role while being lighter, able to engage at longer ranges (with 6.8), and has quick change barrels
You make a great point.
I carried the M249 and it was so cumbersome and heavy, it limited my mobility and running distance. The Spear weighs less than half what the Saw does and isn't as bulky.
The transition from the M14 to the 16 saved around four pounds for just the rifle, going from the M4 to the SAW almost triples the weight, whereas transitioning from the 7.75lb M4 to the MX7 would be similar in weight to returning to the M14.
I can advocate the change to a larger, more powerful round, but I won't have to carry it. When I served, I would have preferred the M14 to the M16.
The M249 wasn’t too bad, but it so often got assigned to the smaller guys of the platoon. If you didn’t get cursed w/ an unadjustable stock, then pop on the short barrel and it’s pretty easy to maneuver. To your point though, that run time and distance plummets.
Two thoughts cross my mind. The original post war thinking was that NATO standardisation was needed and a common single cartridge shared by all countries was ideal. That was supposed to be 7.62, until the US changed their minds and brought in 5.56 for the M16 (ironic because the UK originally pushed for .280). The UK, then stuck with 7.62, used it for riflemen (FN FAL) and machine gunners until the 1980s when they moved to 5.56.
If you bring in a 3rd new cartridge, that is going to really complicate logistics and tactics... or is the plan to phase out 7.62? Even if it is, that will take some time, and what about all the many allied NATO countries?
The other thing, is that 5.56 still has massive advantages.. you can carry 10kg of 600 rounds. The rifle platforms using it are 5kg or less. The recoil is very low, and it's much more manageable in full auto. This makes it much easier to train basic infantry to use it, especially if you have a conscript army in a time of war. I will be really surprised if 5.56 dissappears.
Previously on GT: “plate carriers are more common place now, here's how to set yours up"
GT now: "Why would the government switch to an AP round with less overall ammo?"
Coincidence? I think not
Because they might use against its own citizens to enforce a mass disarmament of lawful abiding citizens.
Head, shoulders, knees and toes bro
@@TheAnonymous111111 we're just gonna add velcro to everything and strap up mags everywhere. careful not to get ammo racked as a walking tank XD
@@TheAnonymous111111 what is that referencing lol
@@sigspearthumb8856 soft points of armor
I’ve seen a lot of controversy surrounding this rifle but to me, it makes sense. Regarding your point about volume of fire winning firefights, and not being able to carry as much 6.8 vs 5.56; my own experience tells me this isn’t going to be as much of an issue as we might expect. very recently we (British Army) have been moving away from the philosophy of filling every square inch of an enemies space with hot lead. We phased out our FN Minimi’s and instead of having an LMG gunner per section, we now have a 7.62 sharpshooter in every section instead. Filling much the same role as intended by your new Sig rifle. I think most modern western forces are going to go through this “evolution” in tactics. We learn from every conflict, we’re not totally regressing back to the Cold War era mentality, and carrying large powerful rifle cartridges, but we understand the limitations of our current ammunition technology.
I don’t know if I’ve articulated myself particularly well, but the new Sig and it’s ammunition makes sense to me.
Still can't deny the appeal of lead hoses. Something enticing about the idea no?
For the kind of war we faced in Afghanistan that combat philosophy works. But in a near peer war, I'm not convinced that volume of fire has taken the back seat. The war in Ukraine will be the big study on what does/doesn't work at the end of the day for near peer fighting though.
@@Dim2134 I think the idea is if you're gonna hose, have it come from a gunner trained in that role with an appropriate weapon. Having the entire squad emptying their mags into the air drains everyone. Make at least half your composition use the Spear and now the enemy knows they're peeking into a wall of essentially DMRs. Psychological suppression.
In the cold war those big battle rifles were using irons, not delivering the same precision we can now. They weren't giving up as much as we are now by focusing on suppressive fire.
@@ShimmeringSword No, I get the idea of the doctrine. It's just that there's still a lot of theory involved and us in the chairs, at least myself in the chair for what I know, I can only weigh things from a position of safety so I don't know. We won't really know until it's tested and money is put where our mouth's are you know? Still I kind of understand what you're getting at and I get the arguments for both sides but frankly we don't know how doctrine or even how the troops will evolve tactics to support these weapons yet since... doctrine is only useful if it works you know?
@@ShimmeringSword
They wouldn't be peeking out. Mirrors have been around for longer than guns.
I’m honestly impressed that he managed to control this gun in full auto mode so well that he makes it look as if the gun has the recoil of a 5.56. I suppose that all his experience in firearms training has paid off!
@@meta55645 Or more Likely, it's the "Recoil Mitigation System And Smuzzle Can", that reduces the felt Recoil of the weapon.
Bruh he was spec ops what did you expect
You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
@@meta55645 You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
@@johnmartin6420 Is that what they call the recoil spring now? jeez, lol. You never fired one? My DS showed us how soft the M-16 was by holding it on his groin while he pulled full auto. The recoil spring looks the same length as the original M-16 so I expect it to be smooth as butter.
Regarding training issues, look how long it took the US Army to fully adopt the M-4. Even today, most POG units still have the M-16. Even if the SIG SPEAR does become the "new" Army rifle, it will take years after that for Joes in S-1 to get them in-hand.
The 101st is getting them this month. My brigade is getting both the XM5 and the XM250
@@collins4984 good luck with your 12lb rifles and greatly reduced combat loads
@@MandatedCupcake Well when we get back from this deployment we are spending 2 weeks on the ranges to qualify on these new weapon systems. Shouldn’t be too different from the M-4 and the 249. Only difference is the weight and they both take a different caliber round so it’s more accurate and effective than the 556 NATO rounds we use. We will see though, I can’t imagine it be that much different to be honest
It is initially to be adopted by 20-25% of the armed forces personnel, mostly the combat units. Everyone else will stay with ye olde M4s for the time being.
@@ponraul1221 theyre the same weight as an M27 IAR
I figured 6.8 would be pretty hard to handle on full auto but GT seems to do alright with it.
@@ASS_ault waaay more than that my friend.
Hes not exactly a basic grunt, dude. Your weapon has to be optimally effective for least trained and experienced.
@@springbloom5940 Exactly. I want to see a female or smaller framed male soldier shoot it.
He can handle 7.62 just fine, 6.8 should be alright.
He's shooting the underpowered non steel base ammo so it's easier to manage.
I think it makes a lot of sense as a specialist rifle, for certain people like a Designated Marksman... just use .277 as a replacement for 7.62x51 and keep 5.56 as the standard for the regular infantry.
Technology has moved on...insurgents are rocking body armour now. Its about post penetration lethality.
I think that’s what is going to happen. The M4 will stay the standard infantry rifle. This will become a DMR and squads will either replace their current DMR setup or they will add this as a supplement.
the military thinks otherwise & they do war fighting for a living =/
In terms Ww3 or civil war 2 miltary might need everyone in the squad to effectively engage longer distances effectively 😅
@@LIONTAMER3D No, the brass thought otherwise because they needed to justify their bloated budget
the new optic package combined with this rifle is hella crazy. basically aims itself. put all that with the next gen nightvision theyve shown as well and the lethality range is tremendous in any condition. maybe not necessary for every infantryman but its crazy stuff. the new sig machine guns are even cooler
Russia gonna be crying when they find out America has aim bot
@@knightpal1545and they would also be crying since this weapon can penetrate body armor that they claim to “possess”
@@thekiller7994 well shooting through card board isn't that hard so what's your point?
@@knightpal1545 I’m just pointing out the fact that this rifle was made to shoot a bullet to penetrate Russian “body armor”
@@thekiller7994 I was making a joke, that came off as a little aggressive sorry there.
My 2 cent is this: yes the Army as adopted this rifle, and it seems to be a great rifle; but like GT said in the video, this is aimed toward the infantry units, direct action units (SF, 75th, etc.). As for the rest of the Army, Reserves and Guards included, the M4s will stay around for a long, long time. Now infantry platoons in the 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, etc., will probably get outfitted with the Spear rifles and MGs in the next 3 to 5 years. But for the rest of us POGs, it'll be DECADES before we even see this; especially if you're Reserves or Guards. Heck, my current arms room still have tons of M16A2s and M9s and those are still being used. Would I like to have this rifle for myself, absolutely! But as a Medical POG, the M4 and M18 are plenty for me.
The major issue with that will be the ammunition difference if the US military is involved in a major conflict that requires activation of those Guards or Reserve units.
You’re correct that POGs in the part time service don’t need it haha
I doubt SF guard will have to wait, but you know everything it seems.
@@evannmason6376, I was a Combat Engineer in the reserves before I went active. Served a tour in Afghanistan with them, cleared routes of IEDs, saw a lot of combat, slept in the same grime and hell hole, etc. We used all the same gear and weapons the rest of the Army did. It would be stupid not to get the reserves and guard the same equipment and trained on it, especially if you have to go to war with a major power like Russia or China and you need the bodies from the reserves and guard.
Im still jealous of you yanks with all your pretty toys.
One thing that everyone forgets is that when the military was using the M14, and during Vietnam using the M16A1, we didn't have the M249 or now the M250. These are fire team level fully automatic weapons. In a fire team (in the Marine Corps) you have fully automatic gunner (M250), an assistant gunner (M5 simi-auto), a rifleman (M5 semi-auto), and the fire team leader and grenadier (M5 and/or grenade launcher). Only one person is to have their weapon on full auto. The M4 only has a burst of three rounds, (recently switched to full auto). In any case you're not suppose to put it on those settings (burst of full auto) except when being over ran. You will always be more effective with semi-auto except at very close range (trench fighting). So the concern about full auto on the M5 is valid to a small point.
What you did miss is the additional 2 lbs for optics. Now how that new optic will help or hinder people will be found out once it gets deployed. Most new weapon systems don't survive first deployments as is. A private can break anything!!! Even unbreakable items. Where there is a will there is a way. Murphy's Law is alive and well.
In my day we only used iron sights. When the Marine Corps switched to the ACOG all of us old Corps didn't trust it. Yet the Corps went on faith (and 2 years of field testing) to use the ACOG. Once the Marines were being accused of war crimes because of all the head shots they were getting, caused us old Corps to change our opinions. We will need to take another leap of faith on this.
Great review!!!
Well said.
The problem of being able to carry less rounds still stands tho, and its not a small one; you cant suppress much(even with a SAW) if your squad is out of ammo. On the other hand you need the round to be lethal enough, otherwise it doesnt matter how many you can carry, both concerns are valid.
Polymer cased ammo seemed a good way to mitigate the issue of weight to some extent, and imo was the truly meaningful innovation of the program, its a shame they didnt give it a chance, but perharps it was too big a leap.
The rifle itself seems to be a modernized scarH with a spicier load, a bit underwelming. I'd love to shoot them side by side, maybe it would change my mind
The kids are too young to remember - totally agree with you.
@@matteocesa9017 Fair. You are 8-10 less per mag. The belts will still be 100 rounds. I think the idea is that you will have a more accurate weapon (new optics) and more lethal (better penetration), and require less rounds to inflect damage (guessing). It is a leap of faith in any direction you go. In WWII we only had 8 rounds and the Garand ping that the Germans listened for. I think the recoil is more manageable than than the M14 or what we are imagining. We need to field it and break it and then we will know and can fix it.
@@hefeibao LOL!!!
I just realized an advantage that the XM5/XM250 will have over in urban warfare:
The majority of peer/near-peer combat we are seeing in Ukraine that falls into the CQB realm is being decided primarily with superior initiative, better reconnaissance and with whoever is better at getting grenades into the enemy’s lap. There’s no real advantage to the Spear vs the M4 in the grenade aspect, the Army’s said the fireteam will retain its grenadier, whether it’ll be an underslung M320/M302 or something else I don’t know. But there’s the recon value: The Spear coupled with its new optic will be leaps and bounds more effective in seeking and picking off the main opponent of an infantry formation in an urban environment: Snipers. Now each American soldier can effectively act as a poor-man’s sniper, pinning, communicating positions and allowing other elements to move in and take tactical initiative. And overall the Army’s banking on its ability to be better aware of the battle space than their opponents, as evidenced by the sheer amount of information sharing and networked capability the infantry has now compared to what it did even as recently as Fallujah or Mosul. The Spear itself comes into play here in the ability of these weapons to make structures that were once considered cover against 5.56 penetrable to the average soldier if he knows what/who is there. This allows the Spear to use its size to its advantage by standing off and picking apart enemy units from locations placed at ranges that their weapons wouldn’t necessarily be able to punch through, and attempts at closing the distance would reveal their locations to superior reconnaissance and allow for counter maneuver to be conducted to defeat them or allow air support to counter them. It is either that or the enemy would be forced to vacate the position and surrender ground.
At least, that is what I think (emphasis on “I think”) is the theory of the Army’s future tactics.
Even if you’re wrong about literally everything you’ve said here, it’s still a really well thought out thought process
@@DPolk98 fr 😂
@@DPolk98 ...but...but...but, whut abouwt mUh 556??? I thought the m4 in 556 wuz the gr8test thang since sliced bread, naw whut am I gunna dew??? -random fudd
When i first saw the power of this new cartridge and the emphasis on armor penetration, my first impression was that the US higher-ups were planning a war against Russia.
If you think using a a literal Battle Rifle for CQB role is good, the M5 failed that role in every sense, and yeah you are just wrong, there is reason we go for 5.56 and AR for a reason, and not 7.62 with BR after WWII
Great rifle. I agree with your findings as a main battle rifle. Now in my 20 years as infantry (now retired), I think that would be an awesome SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) rifle. It is lighter than the souped up M-14 they had us using for years that weighed over 14 lbs. Throw a 3-9×40 or a 4-16×50 on it and you have a great longer range weapon while still keeping that armor piercing capability within the infantry rifle squad. Just my opinion.
We have the m110 which is basically an updated sr-25. This will be helpful against A proper military, yet you know and even I know with only my 4yrs in as of right now that it won’t just be proper military. We will still have to fight an insurgency
Idk about using this as an SDM.. it has a 13.5” barrel
@@Painfulwhale360 but even the non military version of the round is getting 2800 ft/s. Wonder what it's ballistics look like out of 16 and 18?
Seems the military is going towards special forces style combat on a mass scale using intelligence as the first line of offense with the F35B's in the air, a more surgical approach rather than the suppressive fire style of old. If you know where the enemy already is and aren't walking into the unknown then the more accurate, powerful rifles will serve better. If you're just a group of soldiers without the intel and surveillance then you'll definitely want more ammo
@@taelandinow everybody’s gonna be in meal team 6
*SIG should have hired you for their promo materials. You are the only one I have seen that can handle the recoil effortlessly*
keep in mind that he's not shooting the mil spec ammo. the mil spec round's a bit hotter than the civilian market version.
@@apple_with_a_human_butt true but he is a marine though.
@@infinitespeen3092 Thought he was airforce?
@@jameslarsen5764 i just checked this, i guess he is i thought he was a marine whoops lol
What does that say about the recoil and how good of an idea it is to equip every infantryman with this rifle?
It seems like it may be a decent rifle, what I would really like to see is someone on the shorter side (or a less experienced shooter) shoot the full power ammo side by side with Garand Thumb. It would provide a good contrast.
@Commie Hammer yeahhhh, homie was getting shoved by this thing
@@adamho8059 I think he was using the military ammo where as GT was not.
@@Wonderboy205 makes sense, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I’d imagine that your average soldier would be less experienced that either of these guys and would get pushed around just as much
How tall is Garand thumb exactly?
Honestly how is the new woke transformer, bundle of sticks,
Female Dominated US military ment to operate this weapon and use it to the full extent of its capability
Supposedly, this weapon isn't complete without the "fire control system", which allegedly will negate some of the "problems you foresee". I'm skeptical, but I assume there are many professionals who have already tested the system and agree that the concept functions and provides us a significant overmatch. If all of that is true, and they are able to train the average troop to take advantage of all that overmatch, then I'm all for it.
Yeah to me that looks like just more complication that the average soldier has to deal with. I've heard military dudes talk about how hard it is just getting average guys to understand how to use the BDC in an ACOG. If it all works it'll be awesome, but i just don't see the average soldier using it to its potential, and it has a lot of stuff to go wrong compared to something like an ACOG. Hope i'm wrong, because in a vacuum the technology looks amazing.
Yeah I'm sure a bunch of woke female truck drivers can handle a 12 pound rifle just fine 😂😂😂
@Riorozen have you shot this?
The average troop has 80IQ mate
“If it works then I like it” basically what you said dude, way to make a very decisive argument…
UA-cam recommended me this video because i play tarkov and love the SIG spear
I was looking for this comment
Between the scar and this rifle, I like the fact that most of the functionality of the old m4 still remains visible, probably to make soldiers more able to adapt!
No way bro... Lol
Personally I don't understand this ammo OR gun. Since they are still using AR-10 magazines, it seems redundant making an entire new round for "armor piercing" abilities when you can modernize the 7.62x51mm and push more pressure out of it(or just use the same 7.62); no need to reinvent the wheel. The Ruger SFAR did an amazing job keeping the AR-15 chassis with a .308 chambering. Its capable of a 30 round magazine while keeping the same layout that everyone knows. Fits the "keep it simple" assessment AND it would have saved MILLIONS of dollars in contracts that are now going towards a gun manufacturer and not some other government project, or civilian project.
@@Technie87 He said why. It's to carry more rounds.
@@Technie87 Because this ammo is more effective then the 7.62x51mm, on top of being lighter weight and allowing you to carry more of it effectively. Also, the idea of 'don't reinvent the wheel' doesn't really work with Ammo in the modern age. Every military is on the hunt for the new future round for their military processes. The same way we developed 5.56 post WW2 and the USSR came up with the 5.45 in the same time frame.
@@weeboftheleft5113 Well its more effective on papierre.
GT out here showing us why training is important.
Recoil control is hands down THE BEST I have seen on this weapon. Watching literally everyone else shoot it, you would think it's an unweildy weapon that can't be used. Shows you how much people need to spend more time training and less time filming.
To be fair, he outright says he's using a lower pressure round. Given the full brass case and the specs from other civ spec 6.8 he's probably shooting a round that's around 20,000-30,000 psi lower than mil spec
You just described what I see in the range weekly. People's recoil management/stance/control is Awful.
I second this!
@@chrisclark6161 also fair. Would like to see him slinging some full pressure rounds. I have a suspicion that he manages the recoil with similar results. He's also the first person I've seen running a BCM foregrip (reversed) on that weapon and running a proper C-clamp on it. But you're right, full pressure rounds would be nice to see. Maybe in a few years when they're actually available.
He clearly states that he is not firing the high-pressure military round in the montage, so the excellent recoil management he demonstrates is not representative and can't be compared to the footage of the actual round other sources have provided. We'll have to wait to get a fair comparison ground.
Impressive, let's see Paul Allen's next generation service rifle.
It's even got a water mark.
@@jeremiahm3765 Oh my god, the subtle THICCness of it!
Your compliment was sufficient
@@amoredfist A:Hey man, when can I come pick up that 6.8x51mm you promissed me?
B:next Saturday?
A:sure that works for me
B:Can't >leaves
Glad that i was able to try SIG Spear out.. its a great badass weapon, bit hard to get, but the marked rooms in Reserve usually have one, it rips PMCs and bosses aswell! Tarkov finally has a new king!
They have both charging handles so when the stock is folded over you can still load and clear without having to extend the stock.
Not to mention it has an easier adoption. I don't understand why having more options without increasing complexity is a bad thing. The experienced can use what they want, and the newly trained can adopt either/or. For me, its like saying ambidextrous controls are a bad thing.
I much prefer a non-reciprocating left side charging rifle vs the AR style as you can charge the weapon without unshoukdering the weapon or losing sight picture... although this mainly becomes an issue with a malfunction as hot weapon on safe is the way to roll
@@dgtldead but it does increase the complexity and dirt ingress points. This thing sucks
@@wtice4632 I meant in regards to manufacturing. The rear charging handle and side charging handle can effectively be activated from the same point, only adding a contact point. I'm sure there's more to it, but in the overall sense, it isn't too complex. In regards to operational complexity, the user just has to get used to operation from a side-mount perspective ie making sure dirt doesn't get in from the side.
As long as the SAW gunners do their job it shouldn't be an issue
This could be good in a "Tier" system, being issued to troops depending on what type of terrain they're operating in.
It would be great in desert or mountains, but in jungles, you would run into the same problems we had in Vietnam with the M14.
I guess it will do until we can make a Plasma Rifle in the 40 Watt Range!
In the end having more specialized divisions looks like the way to go
it might be closer to the 1918 Bar or m1 garand in the ww2 pacific jungles/korea thru Vietnam which have a great track record. both the m14 - m16 failed the Vietnam reliability test. so the m14 isn't a reliable representation as it was the rifle design more failing then the cartridge.
Mark,has this new weapon been tested in a desert environment ??? That's my main concern for soldiers who may have to fight in the desert again.
@@powerbad696 No one in the west will be fighting in the desert for at least the next 50 years. And if we do, it'll be in Western China.
@@TechnoMinarchist You mean,you hope we don't !!! Things are subject to change.The new army is marsh-mellow SOFT.And when the army first started fighting in Iraq they were a hot mess !!! LOL. No up-armored vehicles,trying to turn non-combat arms into doing convy escorts,combat patrols. Soldiers who didn't know enough to clean their weapons,to points the weapons wouldn't fire !!! Ncos & officers didn't know how to read a map !!! In 2004,a 4 star general was on tv saying his troops didn't have AMMO and were going thru garbage to find something to use as armor for their vehicles.
I have a strong feeling that the spear xm5 won’t replace all M4s but will be relegated as the new DMR with that new vortex smart scope. Maybe some riflemans would have it, but likely not all considering the big reduction of fire superiority with less ammo. They’ll still get to be ran with the ngsw xm250 as the saw for ammo compatibility.
DOD likely wouldn’t like the logistical nightmare of needing sig proprietary ammo for big army while other branches still use 5.56 with their newly procured HKs and noveskes. I’m guessing there could be a better m855a1 in the future with a beefier chamber on new barrels and perhaps a more robust bolt and bolt carrier group. Especially considering the relatively recent adoption of the urgi and the tango 6t, I’m thinking those m4s will get stretched a bit more. Similar to how 9mm made the millennium caliber .40’s reign so short-lived with ammo developments in view of wanting more capacity.
In other news, US Army will soon be called SIG army.
Ngsw: spear xm5
Ammo: 6.8 fury of sig
Ngsw saw: xm250
6.8 can: sig
Full size handgun: m17
Compact handgun: m18
Lpvo: 6t
Sig Uniform and humvees next anyone?
Yeah agree it's self a great candidate for a DMR. With a flatter trajectory than 308 I'm sure more hits will achieved with it in combat. 1 or 2 of these plus 1 or 2 XM250s in a squad and the remainder with AR15 carbines would be a great mix. Add medium velocity 40I'm ammo for grenadiers and you have a squad that rocks from CQB ranges to beyond 600 AND can carry reasonable amounts of ammo.
If they can realistically phase out 7.62x51 and replace it with 6.8 NGSW, that might make sense, provided you can maintain barrel life.
It's a great DMR.
Just not a regular grunt's weapon.
Probably
Not only that, but replacing a NATO standard round now when everyone is finally standardized on 5.56 and NATO is more relevant than ever would be.... odd.
The XM5 has been renamed to the XM7 due to avoiding Trademark Issues with Colt’s Manufacturer LLC from the M5 Carbine
That’s Bullshit they should’ve made Colt change it.
I will still call it the XM5
The XM250 looks great and I think this would be epic as a DMR or an option, like you said, for missions that have the majority of firefights taking place at 400-500 meters but I think the military is going to rediscover the same lessons pretty quickly when their guys are saying that carrying less than half the number of rounds you can carry with a 5.56 just isn't enough.
I really don't think the ability to defeat body armour is important enough to offset the round deficit.
As someone who has deployed and engaged targets that wouldn’t stop with (1) 556, this concept is relevant. 556 doesn’t put people down past 200m. When my DMRs/Snipers weren’t taking the M39 or M110 I did instead as the stopping power of the 762 projectile far off set the less rounds I took as one round stopped the engagement.
Buy the solders a gym membership and the heavier ammo wont be a issue
It's ability to defeat modern body armor is questionable as well. M14A1 API out of 20" barrel can't penetrate modern Russian plates. 6.8 is overpressured and afaik uses tool steel in it's penetrator but it's shot out of 16" barrel. ua-cam.com/video/Ywlf6uaDvjQ/v-deo.html
Are they setting up to switch to the polymer case rounds though? I don’t know much about what pressures those can take but certainly helps the weight
@@TheUsmc0802 You need a Spear in .375 Fury.
250 Grain at 2600 FPS. 16 inch Barrel.
Shoots through buildings like a DShk.
If you swap out the operator foregrip for the ranger foregrip you'd reduce vertical and horizontal recoil by 12% only at a cost of 10% reduced ADS movement speed...
Rangers are operators also what is a ranger grip or operator grip?
@@jonahjones5736 it's just a video game joke, like Call of Duty and that stuff.
@@jonahjones5736 boomer….
Ha!
or you could use RKP zenitco grip and get that massive ergo boost. (head, eyes) for days.
The fact that the optic let's you ping positions with your squad is mind blowing 🤯
That is going to be majorly deadly
First thing that someone is going to do is draw a dick with the ping marks
And now consider the disadvantages to pinging
And while it is a "short range" RF signal, it still means a signature that can be detected intermittently for 40,000 feet due up. When you have a dozen or more of them, you give them a free gift- airstrike, artillery, whatever the flavor of the day is.
@@btglass60 there's going to be pings from everyone..
The Montage at the beginning of each of Mike's Videos are becoming that of Legend. Great Video Gents. Big Fan of the Spear
Agreed about this probably being a reaction to mountain fighting in Afghanistan. The generals are always preparing for the last war rather than the one they're likely to fight next. If they wanted longer effective range they could've just converted existing M4s to 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel and replaced ACOGs with the new Vortex smart scopes.
problem with 6mm ARC and 6.5 Grendel is they only hold 25 rounds in a magazine and use a bored out bolt face which would lead to shorter parts life. So a lot of the same issues still persist just without the added benefit of a superior round like 6.8x51. if the 6.8x51 is simply to much SIG can always oblige the army with Maxwell conversion and new barrel to chamber what ever whizzbang intermediate caliber the army cooks up.
Nope
The range is part of it, but they're preparing for china and russia's body armour
The entire system is basically designed to counter modern body armor, which kicks 5.56's ass currently.
@@notjaisavage740 I honestly thought that was the entire point, and I'm kind of surprised there's so much backlash. I was under the impression that our "near peers" wear armor, and 5.56 straight up can't penetrate it. That's it.
I agree
This rifle and cartridge seem like an excellent M110 replacement! In-fact from looking at the ballistic charts, it seems that the 6.8x51 would make an excellent 7.62 replacement pretty-much across the board (due to higher muzzle velocity as well as ballistic coefficient) in stuff like GPMGs & MMGs (like the M240)
But, when joes start running out of ammo in firefights more and more often because a 7 magazine loadout only gets you 140 rounds (vs the current 210 5.56mm) while also weighing more, I'd wager a lot of questions are going to get asked about why this was adopted for this role.
As for armor penetration capability, I'm a bit dubious of the 6.8x51mm's capability given that NIJ IV plates (which I'll use interchangeably with SAPI & foreign equivalents) are rated to stop a larger, heavier, & faster bullet with a tungsten penetrator (The M2AP) than what this caliber can deliver.
6mm ARC seems much better suited to the "Oh no, our infantry rifle can't reach out far enough" problem that was endemic of the war in Afghanistan, without sacrificing the M4's size or weight, and only moderately compromising on magazine capacity (30 rounds being reduced to 25, rather than 20) while still keeping the same magazine form-factor (As opposed to the significantly bulkier AR-10 pattern magazine)
30-06 will be hitting with 60,000-70,000PSI even while using Tungsten tips.
The SPEAR can hit with 80,000PSI using regular ammunition, and even harder with AP rounds. Thats a SIZEABLE difference in terms of striking force.
So your thought process about it not hitting as hard as the 30-06 is incorrect. This thing hits much harder.
Can it penetrate as far as a 30-06? Perhaps not. But it'll get close due to the massive increase in striking force. And I guarantee you that if you get hit with this round, regardless of body armor, its going to put you on your ass and take you out of the fight all the same.
@ObiWanShinobi The PSI is the operating pressures of the cartridge and not a factor in the ability of the projectile to penetrate armor. It is the mass and the speed, as well as the composition, of the bullet that determine it's ability to penetrate armor. I agree with everything stated by Caleb
You’re far too logical for the comment section here. Be gone with you and your valid question asking ways!
@@ObiWanShinobi917 psi is chamber pressure. Impact energy of a round is measured in joules, or kgs/pounds per ft/m2
@@l5mtf393 fpe
Personally I’d like to run this with a 16-20” barrel configuration with Sig’s Tango MSR LVPO with 1-10x Magnification. This would make a killer DMR platform for sure.
Except the Tango MSR 1-10 is entry level and you could do MUCH better.
@@SeanMcDermott True but I’d like to start off with less expensive glass to learn to shoot with an LPVO. I’d switch off to Sig Sayer’s more premium options or run something from Trijicon later after getting more practice.
@@gtmike916 I get that but this rifle is $8000. Someone buying this would likely not put anything entry level on it.
@@gtmike916 no reason to start off with cheap glass. Buy once cry once with glass. If you're on a budget spend less on the gun. You can get a fine gun for less than several thousand dollars, glass you cannot
@@SeanMcDermott Right but like I said I would get the better stuff later after training.
The sig spear basically shoots a .270 Winchester short mag. I was asking years ago why the military never entertained .270 rounds. It’s a great balance between Linda range accuracy, power and light recoil.
They told us it was mostly because our NATO "partners" only used 5.56, so a European war made getting ammo easier. BUT we found out in Iraq the Brits used less powder, thus throwing our zero and quals out of whack!
@@fyrdoc Not having the exact amount and type of powder is crazy if you are aiming for unified ammo in NATO.
@@fyrdoc I think NATO is a thing of the past and everyone is preparing to fight one another like pre-WWII.
@@BarisPalabiyik Always the fucking Brits
Mr. Garand originally designed his rifle for a new .277 round. General MacArthur said we had huge warehouses full of 30.06 and made Ordinance change it.
If history is any guide, in America’s next war the soldiers will be like, “Wow, this rifle sucks in these conditions. We got any of those old M4s in storage somewhere?”
That and the Krauts will refuse to sell parts and new rifles, because they would rather lick whatever dictators' toes for a few euros.
The US Military should become independent of foreign companies and foreign designed/ made weapons.
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
honestly even if the rifle turns out to be successful you are correct about what a shit-show new weapon system rollouts usually are.
look up the debut of the Bradley
More likely “Wow, this rifle sucks in these conditions. We got any of those old M14's in storage somewhere?”
@@martyc1533 This rifle is basically a better M14.
Totally should have stuck with side charging. I prefer that over the other for ARs. This is is probably the best review of this gun I have seen. Great job Mr. Thumb
Mr Thumb😭😭😂😂
He should rename to Mr Thumb, officially.
My buddy has a side charging AR15 in 22LR
I'll stick with traditional, thanks
This seems like a good *conventional war* rifle. Open ground, basic infantry tactics, support by fire type stuff alongside beltfeds. Any close range stuff, or like you said Vietnam, I’d rather have something else.
In those instances it'll probably be a good thing that we keep the old shit around for.
@@Dim2134 that’s what I was thinking, like in Battalion we have the Geissele upper, we still have the short Daniel Defense MK18 and guys can use either one. We even have SCARs laying around but, those go to new privates lol. So that’s probably what’ll happen with this rifle
@@brotherjew1Hmm, it's probably going to be something developed more as time goes on like the M-16 was at minimum though. Things always change in implementation.
@@Dim2134 Yeah like maybe a shorter CQC version? I dunno if that would fuck with the ballistics, like I dunno what they’d do to make it more SOF friendly.
@@brotherjew1 Not sure, still being able to shoot fellas with body armor is at least a good thing.
The MCX Mk2, the Virtus, is a fantastic rifle in both 5.56 and .300 blackout, even though it is a bit heavy. I think this Spear is the result of that Sig design, isn't it?
I really wished they had adopted 300blk when it was developed. Replace 556 and keep 308 for DMRs. Would've been financially economical too since all they have to change is a barrel, or for really quick change, an upper. Absolute minimal change to current "systems" and familiarity. But... They wanted a better BC bullet so here's we go...
@@jmanswat2457 how is 300blk a better cartridge? It has less range than 5.56
The type of enemy and the setting of an engagement matters. This weapon wasn't designed to fight in the streets of Fallujah but to engage the Russian army in the woodlands of eastern Europe or to blast through the light body armor of Chinese infantry in the mountainous island of Taiwan. They're swapping to to this weapon because of the nature of the enemies we'll be fighting before this decade is over.
This, 5 56 is more than enough for talis without body armor, but the game changes with body armor...
I hope we don't go to war..
@@AJ-iu6nw si vis pacem para bellum
i dont think itll matter much if the nukes start flying
@@goochencore4128 It's a bluff. No one is stupid enough to resort to nuclear weapons unless they're truly backed into a corner. Unless we invaded Russia itself and tried to take Moscow, I doubt Putin would actually press the button. Why would he? It's not like he'd benefit from nuclear annihilation.
I think Sig got it pretty much dead on with the spear for a service rifle. It’s an evolution, yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The velocities coming out of it are pretty damn impressive, and the ammo will evolve and improve in short time. Ergonomically familiar. Quality components. Well thought out. I’m just a retired old grunt, but the Spear gives me a warm and fuzzy for our warfighters.
Seems like a a midway between a proper DMR and a standard infantry rifle. More rounds really are just more important than better rounds for standard infantry. The use for this seems like a SOCOM type of deal, replacing that shitty SCAR-H. Hard to see us moving away from 5.56 unless it was to use 5.45, which is really unlikely.
I'd like to see a replacement for the M4 that's more reliable with less maintenance, and I think the Corps nailed it with the pick of the IAR. It's really smooth in operation, rugged, and accurate.
@@DavidFrycSaber Just curious, why is SCAR-H crappy?
@@bokiNYC its heavy, bulky, not as ergonomic, and shoots a .308 with not enough barrel to make full use of the cartridge.
Its still a fantastic firearm just not a good infantry rifle, if only just because of the cost.
@@bokiNYC watch this video he even said the scar H is bad. Holding the hand guard feels like holding a brick
@@bokiNYC Th reciprocating charging handle is annoying, and it kills optics for some unexplained reason. Way overpriced if you ask me.
Optics are usually way way more expensive than guns are so I'd rather get a cheaper gun that still reliable like many AR's and AK's over some microscopic gains that some lab tests say the gun does better.
i think it's really the evolution of optics that's leading us back to long range accuracy in rifles, because it's going to become very easy for even inexperienced shooters to hit targets at very long distances as the technology progresses. the new optic supposedly lets you automatically zero the optic by pressing a button while aiming it at a target, and that sounds incredible.
20 round magazines in CQB doesn't sound very fun, but i suppose CQB is less of a concern in a near peer conflict than it has been during insurgency conflicts. we'll just have to wait and see how it performs in actual combat.
you have a point about CQB. but i disagree. Urban warfare is here to stay. Ukraine has been sucking Russia into prolonged deathtraps in cities for a while now. But I'm not sure the 10 less rounds will make as big of a difference when you hit actually hit people twice as much or if all it takes is one shot to incapacitate.
The question is still, is a war against a near-peer opponent pure fantasy or likely to happen?
No such war has existed since 1945. War after war has been fought, but none against near-peer opposition.
If, by adopting this rifle, all you do is make it ten times more expensive to put a bullet in the stomach of a farmer off his tits on khat and fighting with an antique AK47 (the opponent most likely to be fought against), that is hardly an improvement.
You still gotta hit what you see.
@Adam Khan XM5 won't even defeat current issue body armor. What are you on about?
@@Alex-jf4ui The much heavier rifle in combination with heavier recoil will mean you usually hit less, regardless of some Gucci optic. You still have to be able to hold the rifle still and squeeze the trigger properly. Also the biggest reason why it will be worse is because you can carry less ammo. In urban fights it's all about suppression and maneuver. To suppress targets you need more bullets. It's almost as if that's been the whole basis of squad tactics for over a century now. Nothing has changed enough technology wise to make that not a simple reality.
Sig bypassed the rigors of phase 2 testing to be adopted as preferred firearms of us military
Our standard load out was 7 magazines. I had 28 rounds in each for 196 rounds. 7 20 round mags would only be 140 rounds plus all the new pouch’s they need to hold the new mags. I like the rifle but the logistics of it look daunting.
That's assuming troops don't just load the mags with 18 rounds like you did. So it's really just 126 rounds in total.
Good point man, I didn’t even think of that.
It's not worth the weight. The rifle itself is 3 pounds heavier than the M4 before you figure the weight of the ammo you lose total round count for. "It's more powerful." So what? The 5.56 punches way above it's weight. This is "more powerful" but not as efficient as far as what you trade in round count.
@@johnmoore8067 That reminds me of when they tried to issue us all SCARs. Fucking thing has the exact same 5.56 rounds but it’s like 85 million pounds heavier, with no ballistic advantage.
We also need to discuss real estate. You only have so much space on your plate carrier, cummerbund, belt etc. You can only carry so many mags on your person, and the larger the mag, the less you can carry, regardless of weight.
Given that the Spear mag appears to be the same rough size as most .308 20 round mags, you can only carry 2 mags in the same footprint as 3 M4 mags. So, for roughly the same amount of space on your person, if you're carrying 7 M4 mags (6 on your person, 1 in the gun), you're now carrying 5 (4 on gear, 1 in rifle) Spear mags, which means 100 rounds total.
The weight of the mag is also a factor. I almost bet you that an empty Spear mag weighs twice that of an empty M4 mag. You're going to have more weight for less than half the ammo.
7:48 No photo popped up showing anything
But awesome breakdown of the XM5. Absolutely love the design and function of this platform.
I don't think anything will ever really replace an M4A1 or any AR15 platform for that matter, but this definitely has my acceptance of coming close.
And the Russian AK-12???? Hahahaah AR All the way
Got really excited see him shoot that on full auto without a problem…then he said these are low pressure rounds.
I also think accuracy is a bigger point of discussion than normal, since the doctrine of this rifle is to extend “typical combat ranges.” If 800-1000 meters is the extension, accuracy becomes a lot more important especially with that new Vortex optic. I’ll be interested to see how it performs.
They aren't necessarily low pressure rounds
Low pressue, but still higher pressure than 5,56 :P
800yrd it the effective range. so average solder getting kill shots easily (with an 8x it would seem like a 100yrd shot". the super sonic range is 1400yrd, the energy to deemed acceptable for ccw self defense makes it a 1900+yrd round.
Average grunt isn’t landing hits at 800 to 1000 meters.
We would need to see the numbers, its advertised ~2600-2700 fpe ......... that's 300-400 away from .308 and literally double the power of 5.56, like 1300 foot pounds above 5.56.
Low pressure loads ha? Why not just use even lower pressure .308 and not waste billions of $ ....
I think the rear charging handle is a way to not have to deal with retraining every soldier to use the side charge but no doubt it will eventually be fazed out while the boot camp training changes to favor and teach all new recruits to use the side charge.
Great job on the review, can't wait till you get the Vortex optic to expand on your review. Also the XM250 when ammo allows you to do a proper test. Thanks and keep up the good work. (former US Army NG 19E20 and 11C20, unit armorer, 82-88) and (yes qualified expert with 1911A1 and M16A1) I have been shooting the AR-15 platform since 1976 when I was in high school and have many rounds down range with the MIA, M1 and many others. I was an FFL dealer, gunsmith for 13 years also employed at Cabelas as an outdoor product specialist. Currently at Academy Sports and Outdoors for the last 10 years. Still selling firearms. I think the system that the Army chose is a good choice. Commonality of ammunition with an upgrade path as well as firearm controls that anyone who has handled an AR-15, M-16, M4 will be able to easily adapt to. I think too many are focusing on the weight and lack of rounds that will be carried. Time will tell, but with the new optic and greater lethality and hit probability. Less rounds will need to be expended. How many rounds of .30 06 do you think were carried in WW1 and WW2 on average? Time to return to a nation of riflemen and step up to our legacy, of past warriors who served. And like GT likes to remind us no excuses or substitute if you don't get out and train. I was blessed, my father and his 3 brothers were all veterans and I grew up in rural Nebraska. Hunters and shooters, from Korea till the 90s they all served their time. One uncle who impacted my love for shooting was former US Army, trained for SWAT at Quantico and was federal law enforcement for 28 years with the National Park Service and DEA. He hunted all over the US and only way we could join him was if we too could shoot well. Lessons learned, to shoot well, shoot often. GOD Bless the USA and may our enemies respect and fear our wrath. Let freedom ring (gong)...lol
Large AAR studies post-WWII showed a big complaint in not enough ammo carried, ammo too heavy, rifles too heavy, too much recoil, harder for new shooters to learn fundamentals with, scaled into too heavy of a logistics footprint as well when talking about .30 Cal Rifle M2 ammo (.30-06).
Army Ordnance tackled the problem and were asked to replace the following weapons with 2 weapons chambered in a single cartridge.
.45 ACP M1 Thompson SMG
M1 Carbine .30 Carbine
M1 Garand .30 Cal Rifle
BAR .30 Cal Rifle
M1919 MG .30 Cal Rifle
Their solution was:
M14 7.62x51
M60 7.62x51
This failed miserably. As an armorer back in the 1970s or 1980s, you will recall the reliability issues we had with the M60.
M14 was a non-starter due to soldier's load, which got heavier than the M1 Garand because of the added weight of the steel mags.
@@LRRPFco52
I am so glad for this reply as well as all the other views and comments expressed on the subject at hand. So much diversity of opinion and a wealth of experiences. By the way after having to deal with the M73, M219 and the M85. The M60D and M240 were wonders. The marines, army ranger and other Vietnam vets I trained and served with almost to a man lamented not having the M14 instead of the M16. Generational differences, practical experience and real world use definitely make for varied responses. Got to love it. I agree to disagree with you all. But I would be proud to have your back or be shoulder to shoulder with anyone of you in defending this country and for what it stands for.
@@scoots60 We had M21s in my first 2 Scout Platoons, and we had M14s in my first line unit, along with M16A1s, even though I went through Infantry OSUT with M16A2s.
I have worked with and lived with all of those rifles pretty extensively across multiple continents, as well as the M4/M4A1.
I like the M14/M21, but would never choose one to go outside the wire if I had other options for a DM or light sniper system.
Nobody in Ranger Regiment wanted anything to do with an M14 once the SR25s came into the inventory, and even prior to that, they used M4A1s with ACOGs suppressed in the Sniper sections, along with free-floated Recce carbines, barreled with accurate pipes and float handguards.
JSOC dropped M14s and went to SR25s in the early-mid 1990s as well in their Sniper sections.
Old inventory M14s were issued to line units for DMRs with varying degrees of success in GWOT, but SOF units who actually had a choice used SR25s, SR25Ks, and SCAR-Hs.
Some Teams tried going with all-7.62 NATO load-out, and ditched that idea after 1 or 2 missions due to weight and limited mag capacity. They tried configuring their kit with as many mags as possible, to include mag pouches on the backs of their plate carriers so dudes would act as combat squires for each other, which was just unnecessarily cumbersome and clumsy in a tactical sense.
This is one reason why 6mm ARC in a standard AR-15 receiver set was chosen to supplant or replace 7.62 NATO semi auto sniper systems in certain units.
We keep re-learning the lessons we already knew after the 1914-1918 Great War about appropriate rifle cartridges. 5.56 was the only cartridge adopted that benefitted soldier's load and combat persistence. 7.62x51 was warmed over .30 Cal in a slightly shorter case, pushed to higher chamber pressure to meet the same mv as the Garand. Didn't really change anything for Joe tentpeg other than having a detachable magazine and overall excessive weight.
@@scoots60 I started out with M60s in the line, to include being in Weapons Squad. The M60s we had were malf-o-matics. When we got M240Bs in late 1997 in the Light/Airborne/Airmobile Combat Divisions, they were very well-received because they actually worked. M60 was more ergonomic for carrying since it's basically a half bullpup FG42 design with MG42 feed tray and cover. Belgians made a far superior feed tray and cover mechanism with the MAG58, which we make as the M240.
I ended up being a Weapons Squad Leader later on with M240s in my gun teams. It's much more rewarding to talk the guns that ran so well, vs M60.
I think it’s worth mentioning that the M5 is only planned to replace the M4 in “close combat“ forces for the time being. I think that the shift to a bigger “battle rifle” cartridge is a good thing because of the rise of effective body armor. During Vietnam and up until fairly recently there was no body armor out there capable of reliably stopping intermediate rounds. However, now that armor is cheaper and more effective than ever the change to a bigger round could mean the difference between a shot being a kill and a shot getting stopped.
Just my 2 cents though.
Wouldn't this rifle be a bigger burden in close combat because of the weight, recoil, and lower rounds capacity? Close combat is a more dangerous and quicker-paced environment and therefore being able to land faster and more accurate shot placements on target would be more ideal.
@@MinecraftGuy237 When big army says “close combat force” they mean the frontline combat force like infantry, cav scouts, and combat engineers. It doesn’t refer to their engagement distances.
They should have done a longer barrel then
you re globally right, but i m just gonna correct a little detail: there where at that time rifle rated body armor (on the US side there where the fiberglass + alluminium oxyde "chicken plates" and on the soviet side, as early as 1983 the 6B3 came with his 6.5mm titanium alloy scales followed by an aramid soft insert. both could sotp intermediate cartridges at the typical engagment distance ).
but your argument still make sense, as indeed body armor evolved in such a way that not being able to beat an opponent using it will proove to be a problem.
@@ejectedcasings7302 I am pretty sure he is personally referring to engagement distance when he means close combat.
Production value of this channel has come so far, amazing work as always
I was in the Marine Corps when they promoted the 223 round. After over 50 years, they are going back to the bigger round. Crazy.
Crazier than that. This is a .277 or so in a necked down .308 cartridge. Mr. Garand originally designed the M1 Garand in a new …. .277 round! But General MacArthur said we had millions of rounds of .30-06 in storage and ordered it changed to .30-06. So it’s more like a hundred years.
Gotta keep the funding coming in.
Seems like a lot of the experience from engagements in the hills/mountains of Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq was put into this rifle. We where typically engaging past 500m and relying on suppression and air support to take out enemy.
I think that’s the headspace of the army in this particular case. Just my two cents
IMO there’s better ways to kill the enemy at >600 meters than small arms. Things like switchblade 300, 40mm Pike, Carl Gustaf M4, lightweight commando mortars, etc.
Who really thinks the average infantryman or woman is gonna pick off individuals at >600 meters who are evading and firing back?
Don’t even get me started on the asinine “penetrate level IV at 600 meters” requirement.
Maybe they think they're being forward-thinking with this, but I think it's the opposite. Sacrificing firepower, suppression, rounds carried, and lighter weight for a rifle that's better in certain scenarios is a mistake imo. I think it does make sense to have it in inventory for specific missions/environments, but for mass adoption I think it's a mistake.
Taliban living rent free in the Army brass' heads
@@gabagool2055 you salty bro?
@@unhingedhobbyist6722 No, he's got a point. I don't see this rifle becoming the standard issue infantry rifle for the US military as a whole ....ever. I see this quickly becoming a DMR platform rifle only.
After using modified versions of M4s in theater, i would have loved to have used this on deployments. Really like this platform. Multi purpose and 6.8? OOF. CQB with 6.8 is devastating for anyone on the receiving end of the boomstick
@@niklas6405 The 5.56 is a varmint round. .277 is a .270.
@@niklas6405 a partition projectile in cqb measuring 6.8-7.62mm is nasty. Redepositing flesh
China'll think twice, I'd say
It'll surely leave some nasty dents on a concrete wall but it'll just whizz through your enemies due to bullet restraints the military has to abide to
@@stockloc a war with china is unlikely even before xm5.
So my opinions on the Spear is that for me, if the combatants are all starting to widely adopt Armor-capabilities. This Spear would be superior as it seems like we're shifting from focusing on Civilian/Guerrilla fighters to perhaps Future expectation that a whole other Military Force in the future would be the Primary Hostiles for the US Army. Hence the change for Armor Piercing. So the need for how many bullets you can put down range would be instead more cumbersome as the battlefield is going to change to Tactics instead of Guerrilla Warfare seemingly every engagement has been since the Vietnam War.
Well if you’ve seen the new optic for this thing that basically does the aiming for you. I don’t know if just having fire superiority is gonna be the new way to win a firefight
Yeah, it seems like a lot of people consider defeating body armor a niche thing, instead of a necessity like it would be going up against a near peer.
The Army said they were preparing for combat against near peer combatants so this makes sense.
i agree on the body armor. There is a lot of surplus body and commercial armor out there. ISIS and Al Queda had some and the Taliban has plenty. Also i thought the Sig spear rifle was being adopted to fire lightweight 6.8mm so the army will have armor penetration, range and lightweight ammunition they can carry more of. If this is the case it could be the end of body armor on the battlefied, no point wearing a heavy vest that slows you down if the enemy cant shoot through it. A lot of varibles and future possiblities
Yeah but i feel like most places likely to fight the us are smart enough to realise their body armour is no longer adequate protection and just fast track advancements on new models of body armour with higher protection thus making 6.8 redundant.
Can't say enough good about your reviews bro. You are definitely a person I would base my purchase options from. Solid review
I was all excited like “Damn he’s handling that reportedly high recoil very well!”, then he said he wasn’t using the higher pressure 227’s 😭.
The Department Of Defense Should Be Ashamed.
I was watching MAC the other day and they said they wouldn’t be surprised if they nerf the round to GT’s pressure or even re-chamber this into regular 7.62x51 NATO, and I completely agree.
@@peasantjeff4731 doing either of those things invalidates the entire rationale for this rifle and caliber. They'll do neither.
@@Grinchlip They will. Once they realize that the recoil makes the hit to miss ratio weird.
He's not the average shooter. Look at other people shooting it. It's throwing them around.
If I recall correctly, one of Sig’s representatives did say their new cartridge technology could be applied to other already existing cartridges and significant performance increases could be gained by doing so. I’m no expert, nor do I know the exact details of the NGSW program, but did anybody on that board raise their hand and ask sig to apply the bimetal case to 5.56 or any other actual intermediate cartridge that already exists to improve said cartridge’s performance and still retain roughly the same size as the m4/m16? The DOD keeps talking about how they want to keep up with near-peer threats like China, but China has a roughly 3 million man military. So the U.S army’s solution is to adopt a heavier rifle with less magazine capacity and most likely a lower ammunition load out than 5.56? Once again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me there is a disconnect here. The rifle seems like it is a good rifle, wether or not it’s a good standard-issue rifle remains to be seen.
EDIT: You guys all correctly brought this up, and yes, I do understand the m4 would require retrofitting, perhaps to a substantial level, in order for it to be able to take high pressure bimetal cartridges. I do think it can be done, but it of course requires funds and resources I don’t have. I do love seeing you guys being all smart and scientific down here, though. Garand thumb’s comment section is far more intelligent then they give themselves credit for. Keep it up, gentlemen. 👍
The issue is the m4 wont handle the higher chamber pressures if they switch to the bimetal cartridges.
I recently got to talk to some of the sig representatives and they did indeed confirm that this ammo technology could be applied to about any cartridge as long as the weapon could handle the new chamber pressures crated by the new round
NAS3 cases the tech of which sig is using, are already available in most common handgun and rifle calibers. They are also much lighter than brass.
I wonder what the round performance is going to be like? I’m discussion of the foreseen conflict with China I think back to the stories from troops in Korea who were able to take down several Chinese soldiers at a time during mass charges because of the 30-06. I doubt China would forget the lesson learned there considering they hid their true losses as well as feared joining in Vietnam openly due to the losses in Korea.
I think it’s more the concept of having a cartridge that significantly outranges the enemy, 5.56 made sense in Vietnam where you dealt with close ranges, but it was criticized constantly in the Middle East for its range limitations and if we’re expecting war in places like Eastern Europe and Asia, we may be dealing with far more open areas.
Interesting review. From my armchair research about the push for the 6.8mm cartridge- more penetration from the carbine and rifle, to deal with body armor and barriers(i.e. car doors, and the like). 6.8mm is close enough to replace 7.62mm for gpmg, and improves firepower of the saw. Having 1 round for all 3 simplifies supply logistics. So this certainly can make sense for a team only if you include saws and gpmg in the overall ammo count. As an individual, I would rather have more ammo than my opponent. So, being able to carry at least 60 more rounds of 5.56mm can be a big difference.
9mm goes through car doors
With the new optics package I'll pick the new round every time. Much more capable rifle with a sophisicated optic, with rangefinding and environmental adjusted hold overs making it much easier to get the most out of said capability.
@@allcapsboy9139 right, every caliber goes through a car door
@@allcapsboy9139 at 300 meters?
@@dwood2010 its thin sheet metal, id be surprised if it didn't.
Binge watching your videos is a guilty pleasure of mine. You guys do a very nice job with the production. 0:48 to 0:60 the quick snap movements, suppressing a large sector alone... into the mag change at the end gave me all 2 inches my friend! I thought it displayed the versatility of this rifle well in a possible defensive posture. Looking forward to seeing the kinks worked out and getting her streamlined.
$4500?!? OUCH
Loved the M1A video as well, keep up the good work boys 🤟
Not going to lie, I absolutely love your intro's. They're always on point. I have a big crush on all of the MCX's and when I saw this one about a year ago my feelings weren't any different. When I saw you made a video with the Spear I knew the introduction was going to be good and you did not disappoint. That was the best video clip with the Spear yet!
Gonna be interesting to see how long the barrels last, also given what just happened with the Army PT test, gonna be interesting to see how some people handle lugging a heavier system around.
Especially with the "New and Improved" 🤣 recruits that the military is allowing in!
Weight is always a problem with me I’ll keep my m4
@@thomasroberts5658 this Rifle is going to the Infantry and not support personal, support personal likely will receive MCX, that is already in use by the U.S Army, Navy and Air Force special Forces and are replacing the worn out M-4's and HK-416 rifles as the weat out, the MCX has also been adopted or in the process of being adopted by various foreign militarys.
@@marktwain2053 Yeah god forbid they let in those gays amirite?
@@johnmartin6420 ok
I don’t agree with completely replacing the M4 with this but instead supplementing our current capabilities with it to add to a squad. I really like the MCX platform, but not sure if I need one being a Scar H owner.
This is it! Just add two per squad to complement the M4’s. Edit: The MG’s will be great replacements for the SAW too
Soon as we get in a jungle type or short range environment it'll be like what happened in nam. I'd of tried something more along the lines of beefing up a m4 variant. Maybe little longer bullets with a steel base so it could still fire current stock 5.56 and the new model stuff. The slightly longer case would also keep the hot loads from working in the current m4s causing catastrophic failure.
@@afd19850 exactly. just toss a few to each squad, it's not a replacement, it's an additional weapons system. Still, it won't do any better against armor than 5.56 will.
@@thejoatmoo it’s a been a great rifle. But it’s 10+ year old tech. I’m excited to see what the Spear can become
snorf
My primary gripe with this rifle is its 100% engineered around the .277 fury round to operate properly with the 13” barrel. Without that cartridge you’re simply shooting a .308 from a very short barrel.
Yup
the civilian version of the rifle comes with 16 inch barrels for both .277 and .308.
Keep both the m4 & spear. Apply them when necessary. SOF constantly talks about building your gear out for the mission, installing gear on your gun that applies to the mission, wearing the right camo for the mission... I really feel this mindset should be applied to the entire military.
The moment you have 120,000 combat troops mixing and matching their gear based on personal preference is the moment your entire logistics apparatus crumbles to a grinding mess of inefficiency and uselessness, particularly when you're now introducing a third primary caliber stream that complicates dealing with demand. US logistics flexibility is already strained enough due to its "pull" based structure.
You get half your units deciding one day that 5.56 is a bit easier to use in their environment and they have to stall their entire advance to get adequate inventory to continue operations, or you force yourself to lug around half as much ammunition of each type only to never even use one of the rounds because it doesn't seem beneficial. The only reason SOF can afford to have some degree of flexibility is because theyre small units comprised of small teams and dont conduct persistent, continuous operations like conventional forces. That would never work.
@@reillybrangan2182 yea but then again you can have units which are with the spear and others, most likely reserves with the M4. We have so many M4s its pointless to just put them to the depths of the armory forever so mine as well find some purpose for them once the transition is full and done.
@@shadowyairsoft7970 you don’t have to worry about m4 rusting in storage once the army gets enough m5 they will sell them to developing countries. And before then you will have support troops luging around the m4 for the next 50 years. Heck we still have support units with m16. But as far as having infantry solders equipped with both rifles is a no go as supply will be a problem
@@broncostearsaremostsavory2041 screw that, sell em as surplus to our own damn people.
If frickin Boris over in Eastern Europe gets to have an M4 but I, an American, cannot then that's some bullshit.
@@septimus7524 you wouldn’t want them better gear on the civilian market. Plus it’s not about giving them to someone it’s about winning wars and strategic alliances. They will be used to bring countries under the USA sphere of influence. Plus my civilian ar is way more accurate than any m4 I’ve ever shot.
"There is no free lunch" That about sums it up.
I am excited about this choice. The power of this round is undeniable. In the past enemies were deterred by volume of suppressing fire. Maybe tomorrow they will be deterred by a giant hole being blown though their level 4 plates.
Will training, marksmanship, and fitness be a big factor here? Absolutely yes.
Idk man. Biggest enemy of NATO rn are Russia and China. Russian soldiers dont really have excellent equipment anyways and considering how much money they burned in this war I’m pretty sure they won’t get new top of the game armour anytime soon. What Russia do has is a big military with weapons that hold more bullets than the MCX Spear.
So I see this rifle and rounds as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and a downgrade in a problem that does exist.
But let’s just hope there won’t be any need for this and there won’t be any big scale war anytime in the future.
@@mihnealazar7039 China has all of those nice things though
You will never see this weapon, for recruiting purposes only! You are a naïve youngling if you think the Army will give this weapon to an infantry man!
@@raygetard3444 China does not, it's all for show of power, that's how the military works, in any country, to make the enemy "think" they have the best stuff, in reality, most countries soldier's have the shit of the shit, made by the lowest bidder, and yes this includes the US, sadly to say, I speak from experience as a former soldier.
@@JENDALL714 true true, my dad served and said the same thing. But, China is definitely up there technology wise.
I think that when it is paired with its super lightweight lmg buddy from sig, the fire superiority issue won't exist as much, and I wouldn't be surprised if squads and platoons start getting more machine gunners because it is so lightweight.
I remember reading somewhere not sure if it was ever implemented that the iar which was originally assumed to replace saw and probably would have failed in the role of suppression was going to replace the m4 giving fire teams the ability to have suppressive fire from different angles which would normally require a squad level coordination. If so and they so something similar here where there are more belt feds and suppressive fire isn't really required at the rifleman level could be interesting. I might be talking out my ass tho
That is the plan. I remember reading somewhere recently that the number of MGs and marksmen are going to be increasing.
Both the MG338 and the M250 are ridiculously lightweight considering what they are and the ammo they fire (.338 Norma Magnum and 6.8 Sig Fury respectively) and they are going to be fielded in far larger numbers.
The role of the rifleman is pretty much to guard the MG gunners and marksmen who are going to be the main damage dealers and suppression sources.
Large scale after action research has consistently said its mg guys doing most actual killing at platoon level so you may be right. Highly accurate rifle fire (when paired with the new vortex optic) plus a sizable increase in the amount of mg guys. Could theoretically turn platoon tactics upside down.
@@timwooten7165 yeah I agree with titytitmk12 too. It seems that the German mg centered squad is most effective. I don't think the increased weight will be good the rifleman. To defeat armour spicy rounds are needed. Idk if it is a good to issue battle rifle/dmrs to everyone in a squad. Every rifleman will have to be much proficient and accurate with there weapon. This armour defeat problem is tricky.
I guess it really depends on the conflict and situation, would something with these capabilities really matter in urban settings. I kinda liked the m27 just because it seemed like more of a move towards generalization rather than specialization
As an infantryman right now, my main concern with this rifle is the weight and the amount of ammunition we're going to be carrying is going to run out quick. I've actually held the rifle before, and it would suck to haul that for miles at a time. An M4 is proven, light and adaptable to any situation. We're also moving to a more conventional warfare role instead of GWOT, so engagement ranges are going to be less, we're going to be fighting in cities, and doing more CQB. I'd hate to use this in urban warfare. It seemed short-sighted of them to produce a new weapon like this when the M4 has proven itself capable in any situation, urban or rural.
You prolly have very little experience based off this assessment
@@lost6672 you probably have 0 experience with this weapon, Have you even held the rifle? Your opinion holds no value.
That’s because the people responsible for this kind of decision will likely have been given a massive brown envelope by the weapon manufacturer.
I gotta agree with you, brother. I'm not an infantryman. I'm a medic. But we usually carry an m4 and an m17. If you've been rucking for 10, 15, 20 miles, you know that every pound makes a difference. After 20 miles, a 9 pound rifle is gonna feel a lot heavier than 9 pounds. The combat loads being reduced is also concerning. Ammo goes quick, and if you're trying to suppress a position, I want more ammo. I think the new MG is a good move. But I am not convinced on this rifle at all. But I guess time will tell.
@@callum1465 6 years in the army as an 11b. 3 of which spent in 3/75. I’ve had plenty of experience.
It makes me feel so much better knowing that this country is protected by people like this. Dude's shooting capabilities are outstanding.
yeah..... most guys barely qual.....
USAF trains their special Warfare Hard
Protected from what exactly? None of the last probably 10 countries the US has invaded/bombed has posed a threat to the USA. And meanwhile its supposed allies undermine or target or have targeted the US and killed US civilians and are at least partially responsible for 9/11. Meanwhile your own government is your enemy, opening up your southern border while destroying your economy and undermining your constitution.
US Border Patrol’s shooting skills will never match daddy garand
He is not your average Joe in the field.
Years ago I carried a FN, as an infantry soldier it just came down to getting used to it……weight wasn’t an issue. The reduced ammo carried not an issue, just carry more. Every time I deployed always threw extra ammo in both my webgear and ruck.
Doesn’t take long to get used to the weight.
Motrin and tylenol are your friend.
Thank you for your service
Thank you for your service and insights.
@@navjotsingh8800 Google it. Google is your friend. Do your own research. Better is in some ways relative to your own personal preference and need.
Garand Thumb is easily the most informative gun content creator out there. I knew nothing about guns before I found him. I still no pretty much nothing now but I learn a little more about guns every video. Thanks Garand 👍
Just held one at the Sig pro shop. It's very heavy! Literally feels twice as heavy as a military m4 even if it's not technically. I can't see this being standard issue
The potential adoption of the XM5 to replace the M4 is directly tied to - and maybe even driven by - the XM-250 replacing the M249 as the SAW. The SAW is meant to be a LMG at the squad level which was done away with in the adoption of th M14. Every rifleman was now an automatic-rifleman and that was the problem with the M14 (ammo capacity). The M16 series was a dramatic improvement within this concept. Now the rifleman had the ammo to go "full auto". This changed with the adoption of the M249. Now the squad had a designated automatic-rifleman or LMG. But the 249 has it detractors (to say the least). The army seems to have found their solution (pending field testing of course) with the collective adoption of the 6.8 round and the XM5 and XM250. In army thinking - just as it has been for decades - it is more about the firepower of the squad than the individual. These new weapons and the new round APPEAR to accomplish that. Again, field testing yest to occur and prove - or disprove - the wisdom of this decision.
Field testing has been done. Combat proven is still to be seen. I think some tactics will need to change. We will need to be farther from the enemy when we engage them. They'll be depending on the M-250 much more and hopefully their IDF assets at the company level.
Kind of sad they’re switching the m240 to this caliber as well. Who knows how much accuracy those platforms will lose in that switch.
"Assault rifles" were created by the Wehrmacht to support their tactical strategy for urban warfare in Europe: crush with artillery, spray lead as fire suppression, move up tanks and your own antitank weapons.
@@catherinemacleod4985 I don’t know why you’re mentioning the translation of German naming conventions in this thread. Please elaborate into its relevance.
But you are actually wrong in your description of tactics, the Wehrmacht used much more blitzkrieg like strategies. Though I guess you may be referring to the urban operations in the far eastern front, where fighting was much more “siege” like and was house to house and door to door.
You are simply just translating a naming convention and saying that it is a term for a whole type of rifle class… the Germans produced nothing of this sort beyond a pistol caliber carbine, and virtually every country in the war had their own versions of this concept. I believe that the modern characterization of assault rifles comes from some sort of misnomer about the abbreviation “ar” in ar-15, which stands for armalite. If you really wanted to debate the origination of the term, your most valid argument might be with the Soviet AS-44. I have not ever heard the term “assault rifle” outside of modern media.
@@casey6104 I thought this 6.8 was only replacing the M4 and M249, not the M240 (I have also not been keeping up with this very much. I sure hope they keep the M240s... love those things
With Vortex's new NGSW-FC "smart" scope, this may make sense to replace the 7.62x51 M110A1 and SCAR-H as a battle rifle to reach out to 1,000+ meters in open terrains like those encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I don't see a heavy-barrel battle rifle with a base weight (no scope, no suppressor) of 8.4 pounds being issued to the 75% of the U.S. Army personnel that have rear-echelon non-combat roles. So, the M4 will likely remain in the US Army's inventory for a few more decades ... especially if NATO also has a say in keeping the 5.56x45 around (pun not intended).
I completely agree. At least for the foreseeable future the M4 will have its place in the armed forces. That kind of tracks with respect to the world's militarys over the course of history in terms of non forward units having things like the grease guns or other shorter barrel carbines in general. Whats your opinion on the spear overall?
bro i totally agree the rest of the Army you ass in the grass shooter will not see this snipers, ddms and Special forces hell yea everyone else hell no
Yes. Dumb move by the Army.
The army is changing to a round that can reach out more due to the issues we had in Afghanistan. Where engagement was 300 plus meter on a very common basis.
Does the 7.62 not fit the bill?
@@Technie87it does but the 6.8 does too while having reduced weight and better performance than the 7.62
Either increase the bullet size or increase the powder. They increased both. Just focused less on led and more on powder than 308 does.
average joe here, i wanted to ask your thoughts others, do u think that maybe a better move wud have been just to increase the bullet weight of 556 to something like 77g and just use the bimetal case and the new sig optic on a modified m4....increase the mv and get her shooting to 800yrd or watever they desire....it actually lets u keep 30rd mags and i argue better armor piercing capabilities...no new training required and u get the same capabilities of practical shooting from soldiers? plus the benefits of a much lighter rifle than the m7 ....ur thoughts plz
My theory on the larger cartrage: Since vietnam, all of our military ventures have been against entrenched and much less advanced armies, able to fight thanks to gorilla tactics and agility. If you were anticipating a more orginized, higher funded, and advanced military possibly making an agressive move, what would be a better move from a defensive position? Larger caliber that can pierce body armor? or a smaller caliber to carry more ammo?
Bro you asked the right questions . Ppl forget that machine rifles are totally made for long reliable streams of lead to keep the other side disorganized and demoralized
Also back in vietnam there was no body armour that could stop the intermediate rifle rounds
the term is "near peer adversaries"; the ol' big brains believe we'll return to conventional military vs conventional military engagements and the main adversaries are boasting using improved body armor. unfortunately new intelligence from Ukraine is showing us that body armor isn't as big of an issue as believed thus going to a new caliber might be overkill--and more importantly--a waste of taxpayer dollars in development/adoption.
@@Author_Paluthor Level IV Armor stops Armor Piercing 30-06. I highly doubt the 6.8x51 will defeat it and even if it does they just make better armor. I think we would be far better off to have lighter ammo and lots of it and train to shoot around the armor. Being able to carry more ammo also makes the use of suppressive fire more effective. Which makes it easier to fire and maneuver around your enemy. I think a weapon like this has great potential for specific engagements but not for a general issue weapon. It seems like a step backwards to me, but hay maybe I'm way off base.
I think the main reason we went to smaller calibers after Vietnam was because less people shot guns going into a draft so they couldn’t handle it as good
Higher pressures tend to lead to shorter barrel life’s. Idk, as a DMR role i think the rifle is excellent, the entire company wielding them… seems a step backwards. Not to mention the optic is going to be 3 times the cost of the rifle
not only is the optic going to be expensive, it's also going to be a shit ton of weight.
The thought of some shitbag 42a carrying this big ol boi around and barely being able to carry the weight of his own kit not including the magazines and ammo just fills me with joy.
Since when does a DMR have a 13 inch barrel? Also, barrel life is tied to bullet/rifling surface ratio, not chamber pressure. This is basically a 270 in a 51mm overall length, so it won't be any worse than the old 270.
@@ishitrealbad3039 Also, it is very advanced, which might sound great, but it's definately not grunt proof
The optic system is the biggest upgrade of the whole system. It does some really cool stuff.
Have to agree. For private ownership this rifle will be amazing to have. Hope to have one some year. As a general purpose military rifle yeah I don't know. Weight is such a factor and the lack of ammo is such a compromise. I really think the US Army should have waited until they could have designed a smaller caliber with similar ballistics to this new round. Could have gone with the MCX still since I think that rifle looks to be one of the best rifles on the market.
The new machine gun that comes with this rifle however is an absolute unit. That thing is a huge improvement over the M249 to the point where they could have just chambered it in 7.62x51 and just adopted that thing.
"Lack of ammo" is only because it's new. That has been an issue with pretty much every US service rifle of the last century.
@@cstgraphpads2091 I think he meant that soldiers will not be able to carry as much 6.8 as they could 5.56
I think 6.8 is superior to 7.62 and actually bigger too.
@@maxwell120L55 in afghanistan they used to run out of ammo in like 10 minutes and then they'd go about occasionally shooting when the enemy tries to move waiting for air support,evac or for taliban to retreat to to lucky hits. Supressing fire is bs IMO. Whether you have 1000 or 10000 rounds makes no difference when your rifle shoots 800 rounds per minute and you're never going to hit your enemy. It's all about precision which the new computerized scope is all about.
Imagine fighting a near peer adversary. In comparison the Taliban were COD players. You aren't going to win with childish tactics such as supressing fire. In a world with thermal imagery and 8x magnifications on ordinary scopes it'll be quick and absolutely lethal.While you supress and your troops advance the enemy will ambush you given your lack of accuracy and situational awareness and quickly retreat to inflict maximum damage and avoid a confrontation on equal footing.
Firefights in Afghanistan used to last hours to days.
Also there is a saying about guns which is that there are no inaccurate guns only inaccurate shooters. Think about it....
@@maxluthor6800 Why are you responding to me? I was just explaining what OP meant.
I can’t wait to learn more about this weapon. I might be interested in this one for sure!
I think the MCX Spear has a lot of potential. However, first generation SIG products are usually a huge mess.
@@mosescelica17 What do you think of the mcx virtus is it good?
What I love about this review and specifically around this rifle is the controversy and how you upon getting hands on and experince with the rifle changed some of your opinions where as a lot of people who will probabbly never touch the rifle will bash it simply because "the M4/M16 platform is better", "it's a battle rifle", "It's made by Sig."
My biggest issue the XM5/MCX Spear is the cartridge size. They should have stayed with 5.56. I've shot the MCX Virtus which is where the Spear came from and it is great rifle to shoot.
How bout “I could buy multiple high end ARs for the price of one of these”
@@andrewschliewe6392 you have no idea why they need a new cartridge. 556 has gone as far as it can. It cannot defeat body armor. It has a relatively limited range. There would be no need to replace the m4 without using a new round. Y'all always saying ThEy ShOuLdVe StAyEd WiTh 556. Why? Because YOU like it? The military wanted 6.8x51 for a reason. Range and lethality. Paired with the xm157 optic, this rifle can be used to engage out to 800m by infantry. Many modern wars have huge engagement distances. This is an innovation. The military will adapt tactics to get the best from this rifle. Modern US tactics are built for the m4. They will now be built for the m5. My cousin (2-5 Marines) would've loved this rifle.
@@seanmccarty1176 Clearly you have never served. What you are describing is a throwback to early 20th century thinking. Perhaps in a mountainous area the range is a plus but likely they will be in an urban environment where your targets aren't more than a couple hundred meters. You assume that all future fighting is going to be exactly like A-stan. The reason for keeping the 5.56 is weight and that means more rounds the soldier can carry. With the spear, they will be carry around 70 rounds less. And with the improved optics, then the M4 can hit the target someplace other than the chest.
@@andrewschliewe6392 body. Armor. Penetration
While incredibly innovative, I don't see this design in this particular cartridge replacing the M4 personally. Supplementing it, absolutely. Replacing it however, no
Exactly. This will be a solid addition to squad tactics, but I can't see the tradeoffs in capacity, weight, recoil, and barrel life allowing this to completely replace the M4. The M4 has been refined for over 50 years, and has stayed in service that long for a reason. I can see this NGSW integrated alongside the M4 - have one or two guys on the squad carrying this to reach out while the other riflemen can still lay down more lead.
I think something we might see is it majority replacing the M4 but perhaps the m4 is kept around for a long while for CQB, however its worth nothing the MCX spear raptor which while performs good in CQB, I could say hypothetically (as the thing can change barrels really easily) we'll see them making the raptor variant fireing 5.56. For instance the mcx spear is heavy but quite comparable to the L85 the brits use, so I'd suspect the lighter M4 would be confined to a more and more controlled situation.
You're right.
People seem to be over looking the Squad part of the name. The LMG version will more than likely replace the 249.
Just face it bro M4 is obsolete now just like the AK rifles, M4s and AKs are the things of the past, and aren't really proven anymore they aren't effective.
I was Infantry for 33 years, I'm having a hard time considering that your average Joe Grunt will be issued a suppressor/silencer, we shall see 👀???? I absolutely agree with the comments made 👍