I think it might be concealed by the suppressor; the hand guard looks large enough to have a bayonet lug under it, and the flash hider seems to have a thinner part where you’d put the ring
Worth considering that we developed this weapon in anticipation of meeting Russian body armor, to later discover that Russians have never met Russian body armor.
@@Drownedinblood it’s a lot higher than 7.62. Watch the video Task & Purpose did on this. He’s a former infantryman and even he struggled with follow up shots.
Sig Sauer, so it's a Swiss-German Rifle and as a Bavarian joking about Swiss-Germans using too large springs, cogs, other pieces in their products etc. except in their watches is sort of a running gag. So when i saw that comically large spring i yelled "Of course!" at the Screen, in english, despite being german
@@damoclesecoe7184 yea if thats a fingerprint it was handled by a giant lol edit: at 10:28 you can see its much larger than his fingers and thats not a print pattern @Mattle_lutra
@@SpydersByteIt's from the melted plastic sandbag it was resting on. Never had that with burlap. Super common. Surprised all these experts are having so much trouble identifying it.
@some tanker very good point about vehicle hard point/coaxial mounts. Based on what we've seen from the xm250 or even the 338 mg that sig is offering they are not compatible with current vehicle mounting hardware. Now this could be wrong based on the limited information on the weapons in question but it could lead to a long and costly process to retrofit the absolutely massive vehicle fleet the army has let alone the Marine's vehicle fleet.
I've seen a ton of "I shot this at the range and here's what I think" videos about the new Army rifle. This is the only one that actually talks about how the dang thing works! Thank You!
Yea me too. Even though you can't actually get the XM-5 rifle with the military 6.8 rounds. They all shoot the MCX Spear which is the CIVILIAN version with the .277 fury ammo which is CIVILIAN version of the ammo.
History is fascinating like that. I just find it hilarious that we are essentially adopting a modern AR10, obviously with some differences. The circle has been completed again
all technology goes round in circles, computers are the same, we keep swapping between centralised and decentralised processing (everything was mainframes, then everything was done locally, now we use the cloud, which is basicly a big mainframe).
Having been in the military and worked in logistics I can say with a 100% certainty that troops in combat will be issued training ammo and troops at the range for training will get service ammo. It's going to happen. It's a when, and not an if. I knew guys who got the 9mm training AT4 instead of live AT4 in country because somebody put in the wrong NSN. Thankfully they were never in a situation during the time between initial discovery and corrected supply req that required an AT4, but it does happen.
Lol imagine needing an AT4 and it shoots the 9mm training round, obviously you’d know but thats just a funny thought.. I just joined the US Army as a medic and signed up for Airborne school already. I do hope that i get an M4 rather then the new M5..
For ammunition they really need computer software to automatically put in the right number everytime, so that troops get the right ammunition. That's a huge safety and performance issue.
If I understand correctly, the "training" round would still be lethal, it just has less performance, specifically range. So probably not as much of an issue.
When I see a rifle being considered or introduced into the infantry, all I see are all the nooks and crannies a Drill Instructor or Squad Leader can pull a Q-Tip out of with traces of 'not perfectly white" on it during rifle maintenance inspection.
I had a basic training fix for that. I quickly noticed two things when trying to get my M16A1 accepted; everyone had to get rejected the first time, and since the armorers day ended at 5, everyone got accepted starting at 4:15 or so. I grew up with guns and hunting and knew how to clean a rifle, so i would get my weapon clean, take it up early to be rejected, then go back, light a cigarette and swipe aimlessly at the bolt with a rag until 4:45 so as to avoid being done in time to be put on a detail before chow time, then turn my weapon in just in time for boot-polishing/cigarette time before dinner. It was a system that worked.
@@micahj9828 The US military already produces some awesome soldiers (despite all of the politics, would be even better without all that crap). But you can only make soldiers so good. Then, ounces are pounds. Weight will never stop being a factor.
They pushed that lightweight ammunition thing for nearly 20 years and in the end it didn't even matter. Imagine how frustrating that must have been for the competitors developing the polymer and ceaseless ammo systems for all that time. Looking at you Textron.
Yep a fucking joke, then after all of that the pick a huge heavy rifle with 150+ grain load... And since 2022 we have been watching Ukraine vs Russia shooting within 200m all day everyday.
@@tbrowniscoolI was thinking the same thing. Every environment is not Afghanistan or huge open valleys. In fact if I walk outside and look 360 degrees I can't see anything over 200 meters away. Too many trees.
@@xxTAARGUS Yep it just too much gun for the average soldier. Amazing for long range but I wouldn't want to carry it over an M4. The L85a2 was heavy enough when I was running around with one. I don't think it needed that huge front hand guard.
Except its both short range AND vast open fields in between ... Only reason you see "only short range" combat is because both sides field the same intermediate cartridge that is most effective at that style of combat... In fact the M7 would be absolutely ideal gun for that war, because it works well in cqb due to compact size and at the same time can reach out beyond 1000m range...
The train vs combat ammo issue reminds me of the problems police had with K frame S&W revolvers in the 1960s-1980s. They made what was basically a 38 revolver in 357 magnum and told officers to practice with 38 but carry 357. The problem came when the 357 ammo didn't hit where their guns were sighted to hit and the extra recoil made making multiple hits difficult. Some tried training with 357 but that wore the guns out faster. Service rifles are not disposable because the military will keep junk in service long after it should be retired. How many troops issued M9 pistols in Iraq were issued guns older than they were while new unissued M9 pistols sat in storage? I see big problems coming up if this rifle is issued in large numbers
I was in a testbed brigade that deployed in 2008, we had "state of the art" Landwarrior systems, a computer on every soldier; We also had clapped out, first gen M249s that had the AR mag well and worn out receivers that made them *incredibly* unreliable. Pretty sure this whole rifle and ammo package is just the Pentagon trying to figure out where their unnecessary budget is going to get spent now that our two double decade wars in the middle east are over. I'm unable to find a great deal of information on the subject, but from what I understand, this rifle and cartridge combo won't defeat level 4 body armor, so I'm quite confused about it's purpose. If they're going to use exotic bullet materials to achieve armor penetration, the same materials would enable 5.56 to succeed as well, but at 1/3 the material by bullet weight. Ah well, we've got all this taxpayer money to burn with absolutely nothing better to use that money for, nothing at all.
@@steventatlock5443 God I love the use of the word clapped out in this situation. It just is so fucking funny. Fascinating to hear about the state of thighs, though.
@@steventatlock5443 I think there is some decent reasoning behind the high velocity ammunition. Because even if it doesn't penetrate level 4, that kind of kinetic energy is going to at least break a few ribs. And a soldier thats coughing out blood. Is probably a soldier thats out of the fight.
@@neckbeardpig279 my great great grandfather killed 4 Germans with a 9mm round in his right lung, never told us how he lived but he had a scar between his ribs. Tbh I'd wager in the heat of war you don't really notice immediately.
This is the old "use .38 Special to practice for .357 Magnum" philosophy. Soldiers aren't going to become familiar with the true recoil of the cartridge until they are actually in battle. It doesn't make sense.
All depends how much difference there is. If it's the .38 to .357 difference, its clearly stupid, but if it's closer to the difference between 2 different brands of the same ammo with similar loadings, then it may be viable. It's one of those decisions you can't make without trying both side by side. I suspect the practice ammo loading may be different but still just close enough that you'll rapidly be able to compensate for it. That and the practice ammo is more than enough for defeating non-armoured enemies, which accounts for basically everyone that the US will be fighting without a world war occurring.
Keep in mind too that Ian said that this was his supposition: there is nothing stated from the US Army or DoD that they will use two different cartridges.
You're stupid if you think soldiers won't practice and familiarize themselves periodically with the full power ammo as well as conducting all of their work up ranges with it
Returning to the ammo needs of the German sturmgewehr: Just about every field test report (frontline troops using it in actual combat) stated that it's a great weapon, but demanded that the ammunition supply must be increased substantially.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND It's a really funny story of the ordnance department going over his head honestly. That's why you sometimes see it designated MP-44, because that was its designation to trick Hitler into thinking it was a submachine gun.
@@rolux4853 Yep. And the U.S. military accordingly ditched the select fire facility from M16 with the A2 variant. Technically, the "Burst" select was still a form of automatic fire; but 1) the burst doesn't reset, so if the operator only squeezes off two rounds in "Burst" setting, the next pull of the trigger will only fire a single shot, and 2) anything beyond three shots is of course impossible, Stoner's original design scope envisioning five (5) round bursts in select fire nonwithstanding. This carried on with subsequent rifles. The A3 had full, actual select fire facilty, but these variants were produced in limited numbers for specific units. The standard rifle (M16A4) retained a safe-single-burst (three round) trigger group. So the irony being, for all the talk of the M16 "proving in practice the superiority of the assault rifle concept," vis-à-vis the battle rifle, the reality was that the standard arm (ie. M16A2 and A4) was functionally a battle rifle; but chambered in an assault rifle (intermediate) cartridge. Strange turn of events, to say the least. The M4, meanwhile, would eventually see the reappearance of true select fire (with the A1), but anyone will tell you that full auto was all but never used in combat. Regardless, because of the concurrent adoption of 16 and then 14.5 inch barrels, we have another interesting historical development here, because the .223 and later SS109 was conceived as firing from a 20 inch barrel. The eventual development of 855A1 ammunition, resultant poorer ballistics of 5.56 NATO out of 14.5 inch barrels, testifies to that.
@@nandayane probably but it was a bullpup which the government was probably less interested in(should be noted most major militaries are moving away from their bullpup rifles).
I think it's important to remember they're not adopting this rifle to meet the needs of the past, they're adopting these rifles to meet the current and future needs. It's not like they specifically want a heavier cartridge you can carry less of, they want a cartridge that fares better against body armor. And a change was inevitable, so I think it's good to adopt a modern platform that they believe they can develop further and improve over time. M16 was far from perfect when it was first adopted, so as always with development of any kind, obviously it'll take a bit of time to get the most out of any platform. Same applies here, it's not like the development of this cartridge and rifle ends the moment it's adopted.
If you paid attention this rifle wasn't designed for that kind of war. It's designed for a scenario where US would actually have to fight a modern military; Not a local milita carrying 50 year old AK's and no protective gear. I know, it's a crazy concept building an army with the assumption that your enemy won't always be 3 generations behind in military development.
I gotta be honest, I thought the plastic cased ammo in the other weapon designs for the NGSW program were more intriguing and offers more potential long term developement. The significant weight reductions offer a lot of potential, although such a plastic case needs probably a decade of testing and developement, far longer than the NGSW program lasted. Sig's entry offered a much more conservative and conventional solution which is probably why the Army selected it.
The stainless steel base is somewhat of a compromise. Steel is less dense than brass and is stronger, allowing the cartridge to be thinner and lighter still. Apparently they got some decent weight savings out of the switch to the bi-metallic cartridge and without the potential problems of polymer cased ammo.
what we might see is polymer cased steel based ammo, for this, best of both worlds, it's just that sig didn't have the capacity to produce the ammo hence why they went for brass
honestly i think a big issue is that polymer/plastic cases just aren't 'there' yet. Not to say it's not worth further development, just that i don't blame a military for not trusting the reliability of it for mass issue.
Yeah I was very intrigued with the polymer case ammo. In range did a video last week about the M5 and he said that the stainless steel base allows for the possibility of moving to a polymer/hybrid case like was said before. The more I learn about the spear the more it looks like a rifle that will be able to adapt for years to come.
@@crown7639 Good point. The steel base could be used with a future polymer case, i.e., replace the existing brass portion with some future polymer development. In fact, weren't there some earlier case designs like that (aside from shotshells)?
I served in the "brown shoe" Army of 1957 where we carried the good old M1 Garand in 30-06. It was "only" 10 pounds, but got really heavy marching out to the field. In simulations of "attack" charging up hills and dales, it got even heavier. The new recruits will need a lot more PT to be able to like this thing. When you fired an M1, you knew the guy on the receiving end was going to be hurt bad. That made everything else not matter so much.
The snowflakes of today are going to throw these rifles and all their ammo on the ground, and scream "give me a lightweight 22LR single shot bolt action, and a 50 round box of ammo".....
Nobody. and I mean Nobody, brings the balance of detached professionalism and involved enthusiasm that Ian does. Great content, as always. I look forward to seeing the next video in "A" field. :)
Well-said. This is peak info-tainment. It reminds me somehow of those 1940s DoD instructional manuals and videos illustrated by cartoonists to teach important technical details in a manner which would pass on the pertinent information in a manner which would hold the student’s attention. That’s not to cast Ian as some kind of silly person; I mean it as a profound compliment. He is, above all else, a teacher.
No. The standard MCX chambered in 5.56 and 300BLK has replaceable steel inserts for the brass deflector and an interior part of the upper receiver where the BCA would cause wear. They’re made out of steel to increase longevity and they’re removable so you can replace just those parts when they do wear out rather than replacing the entire upper. That was a thing on the MCX long before anyone had the idea of using a hybrid case with a stainless case head
135 years ago, norway and sweden deemed the 6.5x55 as the best all around cartridge when it came it came to weight, range and power.. then we went to 7.92mm and 30-06. then 7.62 nato.. then 5.56.. and low and behold we are almost back to the 6.5x55 with the 6.8x51 xD what a ride its been. (ppl take it so damned seriously as always)
@@jbloun911 advanced.. lol. It's only been done for decades now. It's only now just looking like it's feasible on a military production level. And length, it's not unheard of to run cartridges that are supposed to be 2.8" max oal in 3" actions because there are benefits. Remember, some people also rebarreled 8 mausers to 30-06, which is longer than the mauser. Potato, potatoe. Split hairs. Not enough real world difference.
Greece used 6.5×54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer during the Balkan Wars. Then also use 8×50mmR during the ww1. 8mm Mauser and British 303 during ww2. 30-06 after ww2. Now 7.62×51 NATO.
@@randomidiot8142 right, you're name is fitting. Must be from Sweden. 🤣 80000 psi vs max 42000 in the Nordic round...no where near the same. Learn more about ballistics you failed miserably.
How you just send the wartime ammo to war and keep the training ammo. Worst case scenario you run out of the good shit and forced to use the old stuff I don't see how that's a logistical issue
I’m more concerned about training and whether the difference in recoil will matter much. I would hope they tested that transition with some of their soldiers, but we’ll see how it turns out in actual combat.
I've yet to get a proper answer to this, either, but did anyone remind SiG that galvanic corrosion is a thing between brass and most engineering grades of stainless steel? Those cartridges make me uncomfortable on an engineering level. They are simply wearing the guns out faster and appear prone to corrosion issues in storage, all to achieve a performance benchmark that GD achieved with a lighter, lower pressure round, but got rejected because the US hates bullpups.
The original submission only had the side charging handle. Soldiers in the test asked for the T handle because they just spent years using one. So Sig added it.
I believe the plan is to initially only field 20,000 rifles to gather long term maintenance and feedback data, and then produce an A1 and produce the rest in that model
I would imagine they are going to find the cartridge is going to beat that rifle to pieces. I bet they lower the chamber pressure and go with a traditional all brass cartridge design when all is said and done.
@@PewKittens let's be real, they only are replacing the rifle so they can give a multi billion dollar contract to their political allies. If the rifle happens to be good, so be it.
When Task & Purpose (Chris Cappy) was invited to shoot the full tilt Army Spear, he was getting knocked about a lot. Either he was shooting full power ammo or he weighs 47 pounds.
In TFB’s breakdown of the Spear/M5 a year ago, the Sig rep, who is most definitely shooting the higher psi, hybrid round (I double checked using slow motion, clearly the 80,000 psi round), who is a big dude, and who probably has tons of experience shooting it because he’s Sig’s Spear guy, gets knocked back a fair bit shooting full auto. Now let’s be fair, though: a rifle’s recoil at full auto, unless it’s an LMG or HMG, is not really a good metric to pay attention to. Full auto is not a commonly used mode in an assault or battle rifle. In my several years, dozens upon dozens of combat missions, and many, many TICs, never once did anyone ever need to nor choose to fire their M4 in full auto.
One thing you've said in the past, Ian, is that militaries often develop their next thing (rifle, camo, tank, etc.) to be perfect for the last war but ill suited to the actual next war they get into. The adoption of this rifle and cartridge with body armor penetration being the key requirement means they definitely aren't thinking about the last war. Very few of the adversaries faced in Iraq and Afghanistan wore body armor of any kind. Whether it is well suited for the next war we won't know until the next war.
its more like their thinking about the last war in europe and trying to predict off "expected" development of the enemy they have been expecting / calling for war with for the last 8 decades.
If you look at Ukraine right now I think that its about the best view of modern combat we have currently and this rifle isnt suited for it. Drones, artillery, and vehicle combat are doing all of the long range fighting and making body armor negligible anyways. The up close fighting is being done with 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62 rifles and those rounds are killing just fine even with both sides wearing body armor. This rifle is solving a problem that doesnt exist, and adding a ton more weight for less ammo and overall less firepower for the average soldier. Yeah its a more powerful round, but you can carry half the ammo for the same weight as 5.56. We already got rid of 7.62 Battle rifles for similar reasons why are we going back to larger cartridges? It just doesnt make sense.
@@josiahsawyer1105 So you don't think the US Army issued M14 EBRs to infantry squads in Afghanistan for a reason other than them being stupid? Firepower isn't just about how many rounds you can send downrange in a hurry to scare the enemy into covering up. IMHO its a lot more about the ability to hit the target and affect the target.
@@CarlAlex2the M14 was because they didn't have a DMR worth a fuck to go up against 7.62x54r They'd have been better off more widely issuing 7.62x51 MMGs and LMGS with a good tripod and a better light mortar/actually allowing troops to use the mortar to regain that ground. Afghanistan was an aberration. Those distances and the range disparity aren't going to be the norm for conflicts and taking the need for 800 to 1000 yard infantry rifles is the DUMBEST lesson they could have learned. If yiu want a HV round to gain range, update the UGLM to use HV grenades like the Swiss grenade
Wouldn’t the training ammunition train soldiers to expect an improper amount of drop because of the lower muzzle velocity? My cousin is big into hunting, and always told me that you need to practice with what you plan on shooting. Because if you train with crappy ammo, you are expecting crappy performance, and that can throw your aim off.
@@charlesjohnsontribe1629 Never put your trust in a piece of gear, lest Private Murphy show up and fuckup your day. You should always be trained on iron sights and always have them available and feasible to use. I think using two different types of ammo is a mistake.
Not really. Honestly we shoot at 300 meters. Even 5.56 will hit a human torso simply by aiming center mass as shown in our manuals at any range under 300 meters. This round is considerably flatter shooting. The soldiers that will be good enough to shoot further out will also be good enough to figure out the compensation of their bullet drop pretty quick. Everyone else will be sufficiently accurate.
@@OspreyKnight It's more the recoil that I'm talking about, it's harder to manage and anything different in training and combat is going to be a problem.
@@TresTrefusis Well gear has gotten better as well as means of measuring it. US Army doctrine is largely shaping up to be a longer range force to adapt to present interests where recoil isn't as important as it was.
Super surprised the angled locking surfaces at 27:30 did not get mentioned. Those transition a ton of shear force from the lugs into a friction and expansion force at the barrel extension which fully takes advantage of the different alloys as well as modern manufacturing tolerances. It essentially brings bring big artillery technology (interrupted screw breech) to small, shoulder-fired repeaters. It's like a tapered bearing for your bolt head. The friction marks at 25:48 on the exterior of the extension also seem to correspond with the extension interior lug faces which would mean it's doing its job. Simple solutions are really elegant!
Well... sig. So not surprising. They've had some things that werent strictly speaking "totally awesome" but the overwhelming majority of their designs are pretty f-ing awesome.
@@charliemccutcheon6030 I have seen it, but the design is for a different purpose. IN the AK50 I believe it was mentioned that the bolt change made for easier extraction/cycling. On this design, it seems to be as a more capable pressure bearing surface. The slope also offers greater surface area which would lower the force (P=F/a)
Is it really valid to rely on low recoil training ammo (with different ballistics?) for a soldier's entire career, and then on day 1 of the war, swap his ammo with hot-as-hell 'real' ammo, and expect the soldier to instantly adapt to the higher recoil, different ballistics?
Yeah imagine swapping out all your optics and attachments, getting used to the new recoil, etc. just in pre-deployment training. Nightmare! I imagine the compound rounds will only be used in (hopefully) rare situations where adversaries have modern body armour, not just for any and all combat deployments.
The program is heavily relying on the optic to achieve the accuracy they want. One of the guiding inspirations for the system was the M1 Abrams and its sensor suite, which helped it dominate Desert Saber. In the war, tank crews also reported their real ammo flew radically different than their training rounds, but their advanced optics more than made up for the difference.
Yeah, I'd definitely like to see a comparison of the finalists, though like Zurkov I'm mostly interested in the Textron offering rather than the GD/Beretta one.
This has really opened my eyes to the impressive engineering going on in this rifle. A lot of my prior views were changed. As usual you have gone above and beyond any other gun reviewer/commentator when it comes to the details of this weapon. Any chance you could do a SIG MCX review? I know it's hardly forgotten, but if the normal 5.56mm/.300blk MCX is as well engineered as this I might need to get one.
I'm not sure the engineering is that impressive. I've seen tests of the XM250 MG and it would be fun to see the basic shooting/recoilhandling compared to the German MG81 that has the same weight. I've tested the MG81 in "infantery mode" and I had no problem handling the 1600 rpm 8x57 with 186gr bullets. A MG81 with reduced rof convertet to 277Fury would be a pussycat to shoot. A new slim compact MG using the MG81 operating priciples with qd barrels and a suppressor mounted on the forend/cooling jacket, not barrel, would be interresting to look at.
Would love to see a breakdown of the General Dynamics rifle, since it was the only other rifle that really had a chance of contending (and because I know you love bullpups)
I thought general dynamics had an overall better weapon, iirc it had lower pressure, and they were struggling to get the chamber hot enough for the cook off simulation because the polymer cases did so well at absorbing heat
The M14 used lower power, lighter and therefore lower recoiling rounds than the M1 (7.62x51 so it will still fuck you up) and carried more of them in a magazine. The *only* reason it weighed more than the M1 was because they were issued with 20 round mags as standard, and 20 rounds of 7.62x51 is not light at all, in fact an unloaded M14 weighed LESS than an M1. Per unit ammo and rifle costs were lower, and overall it was an objectively better rifle in almost every respect. Costlier/Less ammo for the M5 won't even matter anyway, since the optics will have an integrated FCS, there will be a *significant* increase in accuracy, higher round lethality and penetration means that less rounds will be needed to put someone down compared to 5.56 as well. Due to this, troops will likely be carrying less rounds overall per person, leading to the same if not lower overall weight of ammo carried compared to 5.56. More recoil doesn't really matter either, considering the lesser need for follow up shots, and the fact that the recoil is still very controllable (as described in the video, did you even watch it?). "More" recoil than a 5.56 round doesn't say very much anyway, considering how light shooting they are.
I appreciate the intellectual humility of admitting that you were skeptical of whether the NGSW program could produce a design that operates with the higher chamber pressures required. This is one of the reasons why so many people trust your opinion.
Honestly, I've watched every possible video about this weapons system, and this video by far was the most comprehensive technical and straightforward video on it, which is what I've come to expect from Forgotten Weapons. The fact is though, while a weapon has been selected and will be deployed, there remains large numbers of issues around it that remain to be seen. Production scalability and reliability for both the weapons and the ammo. The Amry will not deploy weapons that don't have adequate ammo supply. These issues aren't things that can only be discovered by doing, just like the complicated deployment issues with the original m16.
Prediction: In 5 years, the Army will stop procuring the advanced hybrid ammo (everyone outside the Ordinance Corps having forgotten that it was a key part of the weapon system) because budget, and then everyone will be talking about how heavy it is, and how 6.8x51 isn't all it was cracked up to be.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to just invest in a really well made, reliable M16/AR15 type of rifle. Like what New Zealand, France etc are doing.
You really think that will take 5 years? I'd expect next presidential cycle all budget priorities will change as they inevitably do. Granted it seems we have different global threats depending on who's in office.
Considering the extremely poor availability and performance or Russian "next generation" body armour in Ukraine I wouldn't be surprised if the entire system ends up being shelved seeing as the primary threat it was supposed to counter is seemingly non-existent.
As someone who has worked in additive manufacturing, I have concerns about SIG's ability to mass produce the suppressors in quantities needed for a real conflict. SLM printers (at least the ones I worked with) are slow as hell and can only produce a few units at a time. Given the chamber pressure is so high, it's likely the suppressors will wear out and require frequent replacement. I think a suppressor is a great idea but honestly the more I learn about this rifle the more it seems like it was designed to be a maintenance/service cash cow for SIG and not a truly worthy replacement to the M4. I just don't understand the ammo choice at all. If you're going to go battle rifle calibers, why not use the 7.62x51 cartridge you spent decades convincing other NATO countries to adopt? Swapping from "training" to "combat" rounds is a terrible idea not only in terms of logistics but also because you, uh, shouldn't train your soldiers to a different ammunition to what they'll use in combat? The steel casing contacting the brass has the potential to degrade in storage, is more expensive, requires more logistical and material resources to produce, etc. There's some cool features on this gun but like I said it seems like the epitome of what's wrong with modern defense contractors...
I think you have some pretty valid points. I think there will be major re-evaluations once this thing gets serviced. For some reason I'm reminded of the painful development of the CV-22
"the more I learn about this rifle the more it seems like it was designed to be a maintenance/service cash cow for SIG and not a truly worthy replacement to the M4" Navy: Haha, look at you dirt-dwellers and your tiny 10-figure contractor scams. Add two zeros YEARLY and you'll be at my level.
I'd also point out at 26:50 the profile of the back shoulder of the locking lugs. The AR-10 has a fairly sharp corner which is a stress riser while the M5 is angled with a rounded relief behind it which greatly reduces the peak stress in the material.
@@vasky22 The high pressure round is hardly an inconsequential detail, it's the source of all the main advantages and disadvantages of this platform. if the optics deliver as promised that will also be a big deal
@@CorpseBike Yeah i know all that. I'm asking vasky22 why he would think this rifle wasnt a pretty large leap forward in technology for the entire industry. The way he frames his comment makes it sound like the M5 will be dated on releasee and I don't agree.
Just a small note in defense of the Yuts: Marine Corps decided on widespread fielding of suppressors from KAC 2 years ago. They had around 14k then and are looking to have at least 30k in inventory by close of FY23. They did some battalion level testing across all weapons to see if it was worth the money, logistics, and effort around 2016. Ofc M27/M4/M4A1 aren't exactly designed from the get go to be used with a suppressors like the XM5/XM250 systems. Absolutely a huge deal when talking about just the rapid deployment divisions in the USA let alone all infantry units, that's a bigger scale than the USMC.
@@dustysandals5466 F-35 and MV-22 debates aside, the aviation didn't get gutted as hard as tanks and arty. Thankfully a smaller budget and big dreams in the POS 35B led Big Navy to say "nah, you're gonna get C's and still be involved with CAG's." Besides, like many places there is a pilot crunch on the horizon anyways for the Corps anyways. All the airframes in the world don't mean anything if you don't have the people to operate them. Regardless, irrelevant to small arms acquisition, other than fighting for budgets: MARCORSYSCOM and DOA aren't integral at all. Also the DCA has to not only deal with branch needs but they fall under NAVAIR as well and have to deal with demands and such there.
@@dustysandals5466 there's a reason Eisenhower wanted to disband the "second army." Marines don't need to be performing occupation duties in the desert. Not their mission. And amphibious/airborne ifvs are much more conducive to what Marines are supposed to be, which is highly flexible, expeditionary capable light infantry.
@@that_guy_3714 The M27 was trialed and adopted before this test. I *think* the decision to arm the Grunts across the board came before the supressor adoption across the board. Then came the rifle squad reorganization semi-recently.
Makes me wonder if the reason all these rifles are being issued with suppressors is because they have to be. Otherwise, an 80,000 psi cartridge out of a 13" barrel would be obnoxiously, prohibitively loud.
I don't think chamber pressure is the primary reason for the suppressor but that will absolutely make it much louder. From the limited amount of shooting I've done there is a large difference between high pressure 'hot' ammo and standard pressure. It lets me know if my ear protection needs re-adusting and I dang sure make sure I'm wearing it when shooting the hot rounds even if I take less care about full ear canal plugging with the standard pressure stuff.
As a 76 year old machine gunner with hindsight I LOVE this gun! A year as an Infantry Instructor at the Infantry School Weapons Committee, Machine gun Sub-committee and later a gunner in Nam with the M60, which I always loved. Others came and went, but I always wanted the 60. NOW I would like this gun... Christmas is coming up.
Please forgive the El Horrendo character. When he should have been learning to respect veteran combat soldiers he chose to play video games instead. And when he should have been learning how to comprehend written material he again, chose to play video games instead. So he wasn't able to understand that when you wrote you "always wanted the [M]60" you were implicitly referring to when you were in the Army and in combat. Thank you for your service. We owe the country we have and enjoy to the risks and sacrifices of you and those like you, including my Son, an infantry soldier, combat engineer and as of today an SFC after just nine years in the service. (Pardon the bragging by a proud Dad).
Thank you for your observations, Ian, and for explaining how the rifle actually handles the 80K chamber pressure. Having spent nearly 40 years working on Army Small Arms, I have a few concerns about this new rifle/cartridge combo. First, is the concept of having 'training ammo,' and 'go-to-war ammo." I foresee units deploying to combat and suddenly discovering that all they have is training ammo. And conversely, going to the range to fire qualification and discovering that they have 'go-to-war' ammo. Next, I'm hoping that the optic has settings for the two different trajectories of the different types of ammo. Next, is the QD suppressor. Some commanders won't want them attached at all, simply because they either don't understand the concept, or for some other trivial reason. They'll have all of the suppressors removed and stored in the Arms Room. When they reach their destination, they'll find that the suppressors are still there - in the Arms Room, back in the States. Don't laugh, I've seen similar things happen too frequently - units that went to war with zero cleaning equipment; units that deployed to a potential war zone and didn't bring any magazines, etc. Alternately, the suppressors will start to 'walk away.' Some entrepreneur will develop an adapter to mount the Sig suppressor on an AR-15, and some soldiers will begin 'losing them' during field exercises. Then the investigations will begin - first by Army CID, then by the ATF, and then by Congress. Time will tell, and I hope that the weapon system is a huge success! I can already anticipate some future modifications to the weapon and changes in procedures, however.
A couple of mistakes here. XM157 us going to be the optic. It's fully digital. So it can adjust to multiple amo, as well as building in a lot of other adjustments. The optic will calculate and adjust for bullet drop, windage, angle, etc. The optic has a compass, atmospherics, and a laser rangefinder to get the data it needs to make ballistic calculations. The reticle is fully digital so it can move in fractions of a second based on these calcs - the goal is to get to a point and shoot system where you have much better accuracy at range. What I like, it's still an OPTIC vs a screen, so it's the overlayed reticle that is digital. And the non-go to war ammo still works if you end up with it. And many troops are not going to be using this if you are just carrying a rifle to a duty station.
@@randominternet5586 Sounds like a cool sight. What happens when it takes a hit or the mud, snow or sand and heavy rain gets hold of it. Every combat rifle should have a backup set of the old iron sights. For just that reason. Having been in more than one combat zone I can promise you it's not like any one way rifle range I've ever been on.
@@nightrider1850 Like he said, it's still an optic rather than a digital screen. If the computer is no longer functioning, you can still manually zero it just like you could any other optic.
Ian, I'd love to see a follow-up on this weapon updating us on any new developments/flaws. I've recently been hearing that the guns are having problems with jamming.
30:48 As someone who was a POG in the Army (Both slang and actually belonging to Psychological Operations Group) my thoughts may not be worth much, but I do express concern at the idea they are using different rounds for the training and actual combat. We are supposed to train how we fight. But I also can't help but notice this is turning into the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand scenario, where the M4 will be relegated to a support weapon and the M5 as the main rifle of combat troops. I can imagine a future scenario where some future vets recounting experiences from Korean War 2 and complaining the M4 Rifle and the 5.56 round was ineffective against Chinese body armor.
@@highhow I think the bigger problem is the difference in muzzle velocity and hence ballistics. Switch to the full power stuff and everyone will need to hold low on any long enough for bullet drop to come into play, or re-zero their optics, which might include the primary scope or red dot/holo sight, backup iron sights, and any IR laser aiming devices. Seems like a royal pain in the ass at the very least.
I get the feeling that division is probably really intended a cost-saving and hopefully temporary measure - bring in the M5, get some real-world usage data, and phase out the sunk cost of the M4 over time. Don't throw out working rifles, but likely don't buy new M4s either. (Of course, that type of type of 'temporary' measure has a habit of staying around well past any useful point...)
@@joeymobb8438 in that case this is 'one of' the videos we have all been waiting for and we can simply wait and hope for him to get his hands on the others
I'm still watching the video, just got to the part on the suppressors but I have concerns about the ammo. Actually a few but most specifically, training with such a huge downgrade in pressure. It really is the equivalent of using two totally different cartridges. Now you go into battle where everything is already amplified but your rifle actually is behaving differently from your training. Muscle memory dealing with recoil staying on target and getting back to target, etc etc. It just is an odd concept to me. You train hard to play hard. This method is; train soft to save money.
The suppressor also makes it for difficult for the enemy to determine where the shots are coming from and eliminates muzzle flash for night operations. That’s primarily the reason the army chose to have the suppressor standard issued.
It's not standard issue. The suppressor is not part of the contract. Sig threw it on there in hopes to force the issue to get the government to purchase the rifle and suppressor but the Army is going to have a separate competition for the suppressor.
I agree! but see both sides of the coin. Having used both big bro and Lil bro! or old and in an AR version. I think "I would want" 20 to 30 rounds on board with lighter resupply on hand in a lightweight CARBINE in most conditions! especially if half my brothers at arms had big Bro, and I would be willing to bet they would like the other 1/2 hitting faster and more but not as hard? I bet you are 100% on to how it ends up?
@@that_guy_3714 The difference is that the m1 carbine shoots a round comparable to .357 magnum. 5.56 has around double the muzzle energy of .357. Additionally the.6.8 doesn't do anything besides increase range.
Kudos to Ian for getting this content up so quickly in the wake of the army's announcement of SIG as the winner of the 6.8mm trial. I'd love to see Ian get his hands on the XM250, the belt-fed machine gun the army plans to use to compliment this rifle.
I was issued an M16 in Vietnam and for that war, it was an adequate round, although I guess I would have preferred more power. When I got home and went deer hunting, there was no way I wanted such a puny round for taking deer on the open prairie, my round of choice was the 25-06, it was much more powerful but maintained a very flat shooting long range capability, topped with a Buris 3X9 power scope made a wonderful hunting rifle that provided me with sausage for many years. My old Remington is still being used every year by one of my nephews who begged the rifle off me when I decided to hang up my hunting gear. This new round resembles the 25-06 and should make a great man stopper. Luck to those soldiers who have the opportunity to use it in battle.
As a former infantryman, I would be concerned about the added weight, but I am also glad to see an anti-armor (body armor) capability. I do not like seeing the saw replaced with a mag-fed weapon though.
Only the Marines are replacing the SAW with a mag fed rifle (M27 IAR... which the MC decided to replace all M16/M4 in the Infantry with, so kinda back to the M16A1 days of the Automatic Rifleman carrying the same weapon as the other Rifleman... although supposedly each Company will retain 6 SAWs in their arms room the CO can divvy out at their discretion), whereas the Army's NGSW-AR replacement for the SAW, the M250 is still belt fed (firing the same ammo as the M5)
I understand where you're coming from. I got in in 2010 and we still had the saws in our squads until they got switched out in 2012 with m27s. However, the added accuracy of the m27 was no joke, and even though the volume of outgoing fire is less, we were able to do more with that rifle because of the accuracy. Nowadays all Marine Corps infantryman have m27s from what i understand. And with some extra ammo on each guy, i can see having all the firepower spread around the squad as being a good boost overall.
The only part of the SIG M5 Spear that eludes me is if the .277 Fury's performance is *really* worth the extra barrel weight, materials cost, and ammo cost compared to an equally good, equally modernized AR-10?
It depends on what body armor it comes up against really, and no one can really predict the future no mater how hard they try. Thats the crux of Military R&D, you got to spend money to try and stay ahead of the game by finding and deploying the next transformative tech (as opposed to iterative tech) without ruining you right now. The days of turning out improved weapons systems in months have been over for a long time and they are not coming back, at best you get a kludge fix but typically you get something that doesn't work all. And you got to design with a peer/near peer adversary in mind as they are the real threats. The logic here isn't 'we want something better than 5.56 against body armor" its "we think body armor has improved enough to sway fights where 5.56 is used, and will continue to eat into the advantages of 5.56 to the point where it will be non-viable in the future as body armor improves". This really is a question of energy more than anything else as that determines how much penetration a round has. In that case 300 blackout isn't a good replacement as it actually has less energy than the standard 5.56 and even hot loads only push the energy up slightly. Same with the other 5.56 rounds, they just don't generate enough energy. As such 5.56 basically falls out of the running because it just none viable, leaving the beefier NATO rounds. The 7.62 and .308 are comparable to the .227 Fury generating similar 2500 Joules of energy (in comparison 5.56 barely breaks 1800 at best), but generate something like 20,000 less PSI meaning they need full 20-24 inch barrels to get that performance. In comparison the .227 gets that with a 16 inch barrel due to its absurd 80,000 PSI. In other words, the .227 Fury lets you get Battle Rifle performance out of a Assault/Carbine Style Rifle. Does this mean its worth it? No idea, time will tell.
My inclination is "no." I suspect they're significantly overestimating how effective Russian and Chinese body armor is, if they think a round *this* hot is necessary to beat it.
@@RedXlV Again, maybe. but when the consequences of failure is "your armies primary weapon doesn't work" erring on the side of caution is understandable. The fact that said adversaries have the tendency to either not tell the truth, or not know the truth, of their own forces capabilities doesn't really matter in the face of that reality.
By the way, couldn't they have just made the entire case out of steel? Or does a stainless steel case head have some different properties than a case made completely out of lackered steel?
As a prior infantryman, Sig lost me when they introduced a heavier rifle with heavier ammo, ain't no one wanna carry that 20 miles. The complexity of the parts, the surfaces for debris to get into/stick on making cleaning more of a chore, this was designed to please the brass, not infantry companies. The half commitment to a side charging handle is dumb, choose one or the other and eliminate moving parts. I have friends that are still in who are absolutely not looking forward to this rifle and the SAW being introduced to their units. I might be crazy, but I think this will be the M14 all over again.
You need to expand your interpretation of what an enemy infantryman in the near future will look like before casting judgement on why the Army is futureproofing itself with a heavier rifle firing such a heavy and powerful round. To put it bluntly, the M5 isnt being adopted to engage Taliban fighters or Russians troops in the Donbass, this rifle will likely be shooting at armoured exoskeletons and autonomous combat robots in as little as 10 years. Our centuries long understanding of the basics of fire and manoeuvre is about to get completely upended in a future battlefield where the opponent not only can withstand multiple hits and still return fire, he might not even be human.
I wonder how they managed before the introduction of the AR 15? All those infantrymen humping M1s and .30 Cals across Europe and Asia. Definitely didn’t happen.
@@fludblud what good is a rifle meant for exosuits and aliens if they are fighting Russians? Exosuits have been in the work for years and years now and I doubt we will still be seeing them any time soon.
@@fludblud I seriously doubt these "autonomous combat robots" understand the concept of surrender. They should be banned by international treaty. Though countries would still probably keep them in some warehouse bunkers waiting for the next big one.
I think the fact that the interior of the suppressor is entirely 3d printed is absolutely groundbreaking, especially for the FOSSCAD movement. It's not only a giant step forward in the development of mass 3d printing for high stress components, but also a clear indication by traditional industry that 3d printing may be up to the job for much more in the near future, which could bring massive 2A accessibility!
Several high-profile 3D-printed metal products have come to market recently, so I hardly think this would qualify as "groundbreaking." Additionally, a variety of very tricky technical issues mean AM'd metal products usually have inferior mechanical properties, looser tolerances, and/or a higher price tag compared to those produced conventionally. For the foreseeable future, metal 3D-printing will remain limited to applications where a highly complex shape is required, but low cost, optimized materials, and high precision aren't. That's pretty niche. Having said that, I've stumbled across some things in academic papers that sure sound like they have the potential for near-term revolution, and I'm scratching my head as to why they haven't been blasted all over the news and had buckets of money thrown at them. I'm not an expert, though, so perhaps it's just my ignorance showing.
@@markdoan1472 it's an early technology, things improve. I was around 3d printing during the reprap days, seeing how fast it's improved over the last decade is quite impressive, printers are getting much much faster, new materials become printable all the time as well. Just with any technology it needs time to mature, and a nod of confidence in its future by industry, which is what this provides. It might not be up to the task immediately, but the demand require dto fulfill this will help create new innovations in the field and propell it further and further.
@@markdoan1472 100% true, additive 3D printing is VERY expensive. It blows my mind people/governments are trying to reinvent the firearm, Nothing has changed in 50 years. How about training every soldier in marksmanship + Drone operating? Ukraine has showed that most warfare is not "rifle-based" Unless your shooting tribes with sharpened pineapples.
@@tbrowniscool There are different types of warfare, and Ukraine is only representative of some of them. For others, rifles will likely remain a primary weapon system for quite some time. Yes, drones should be employed more than they are, but unfortunately, there's often no effective substitute for a human with a firearm. Additionally, while they both could and _should_ reinvent the firearm, the world's militaries have actually been doing a bang-up job of avoiding doing so. I can think of a number of technologies capable of dramatically improving firearms' performance that have become feasible in the last fifty years, but the only industry more resistant to change than small arms is residential construction, so every effort to innovate has been firmly squashed.
Interesting the addition of a surpressor. Since silencer technology was fully developed by 1914 it was postulated at the time that all military rifes would be equipped with one, and exactly for the reason Ian mentioned, noise supression for easier communication of orders on the battlefield. It took 108 years for it to become a reality.
While the principles may have been in place by 1914, the practicalities of designing and manufacturing suppressors on this mass-issue scale have massively advanced in the past few decades. Computer modelling of gas flow making designs more efficient, compact and lightweight; manufacturing technologies like additive manufacturing (here) and CNC milling of complex geometries that would have been impractical 20 years ago; better materials to aid longevity and minimise balance and barrel harmonic issues -- these are just a few reasons why this is one of the first general-issue suppressed rifles. Similar to why the M1 was the first general-issue semi-auto rifle -- semi-auto rifles were available before 1900, it took a long time for the combination of technologies to make the bolt-action obsolescent, when the overall advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
Something I've wondered about is: How does everyone using a suppressor affect suppressive fire? Is the noise component of firing your rifle integral or is the sonic crack and bullet impacts alone sufficient, or perhaps, Is suppression increased because it harder to determine where you are taking fire from without the noise?
@@lordsummerisle87 What you say is certainly true, and there were good reasons why it took silencers 100 years to be considered a general issue item. One I can think of is how do you mount a bayonet on a rifle with a silencer? In 1914 the bayonet was far from out of the military picture. Apparantly that's no longer a concern. The fragility and expense of a traditional Maxim silencer's no longer an issue either. What I was trying to point out was a silencer equipped infantry rifle's not a new idea.
in fairness a big problem with mass-issuance of suppressors for a long time was ammunition. Suppressors can only handle a certain pressure curve and are always subject to fouling. Ammunition standardization, especially wartime manufacture ammunition, could not really be relied upon until fairly recently. A single 'bad batch' of ammo could wind up blowing out the suppressors of an entire unit, or foul them up too quickly, and that's a big expense to replace or time sink you clean, especially if your still thinking of army sizes in terms of millions For a long time this was one of those ideas that everybody liked in concept but hated in practicality
@@tropictiger2387 You are correct. The suppressors will mask the source of the shot, which can lead to the enemy acting more disorganized as they can't tell where the shot came from.
About all you can add is a VFG and maybe a flashlight. The XM157 optic replaces and consolidates all the big ticket add ons (IR laser/illuminator, RDS, magnifier etc) into one item and it does so at a lower combined weight than the separate accessories by themselves.
Ian really is at the cutting edge of firearms here 32:30 I don’t doubt Ian when he says this is a fantastic rifle, but it seems to present a choice between adopting a higher powered cartridge and heavier rifle with much less in ammunition for the average infantry man, or dealing with three calibers instead of two. Adopting, say the ‘true velocity’ lightweight ammunition, knights armament LAMG and some additional AR-10s seems like an 80% solution, for 20% of the cost, and complete forwards and backwards compatibility.
I’m sure 99% of people who will be using it care far more about a lot of things ahead of how it looks. Having said that, it’s certainly a lot better looking than some of its competitors.
Well, boys, We've finally perfected the M-16/M4 series of weapons and got them proliferated all through NATO as well in various forms to the point they can be produced very cheaply. Welp, Time to go back to battle rifles that are uncontrollable in full auto and only hold 20rds - and make a new caliber nobody else in NATO will want to switch to. In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with enormous profits in the short term for Sig.
And instead of using an existing high-velocity cartridge like .224 Valkyrie or making a modern, rimless equivalent of .220 Swift, giving you a faster bullet better able to defeat armor, let's go with 6.8mm at 80,000 psi with a stupidly complex case construction! Heavier ammo, more recoil, less velocity = definitely better!
I am on the fence.. yes the longer range is great.. the new optic sounds great but might be problematic. I don’t think this new rifle will be uncontrollable full auto.. everyone that reviews it says it’s felt recoil is almost negligible. I can see a problem with these rifles in close quarter situations like urban battles, but I can see the advantage in wars requiring real riflemen. We will not live long enough to see the last M4 leave the US Military.. it does to much to be replaced by this new weapon.. However having said all that a war between our forces and very well equipped Russians or Chinese is something that isn’t impossible. A firearm that gives a two hundred meter advantage to our soldiers that can defeat body armor doesn’t seem like a bad thing to go for. The M16 was ridiculed when it was issued… let’s see if this was a mistake over time.. I actually liked the firearm that ran against this one.. polymer shell casings would have driven the liberals nuts!
@@ferdonandebull No one who's reviewed it has used the full-power ammo, according to Ian in this video. CQB is one of the places this rifle would work best, as that's where you need maximum stopping power, and where it can actually penetrate hard armor. That's why the 6.8 SPC was adopted: for extra stopping power at short range. Defeating body armor is definitely something the military needs to plan for, but for hard armor, what you need is speed. You get more speed with lighter bullets. So if your goal is defeating armor, a more powerful cartridge in 5.56 or 6mm makes WAY more sense. And we already have two 5.56/.224 rounds that can do it without needing to operate at 80K psi. One even works in existing AR-15 platforms, and the other works in AR-10s (though it could stand to be updated). I'd bet .243 Win could beat Level 3 armor with the right bullet, too.
I think it also has to do with the US wanting less to do with NATO. It's vastly a who's who of immigrant countries to America from the 20th century and before. Those same countries citizens (that stayed) seam to only resent Americans. So why be a tight Ally with them to the point you are logistically bound?
Yes Ian, the case deflector does work properly when firing the "combat" ammunition. Something worth mentioning here is that because of the combination of the full power "combat" issue ammunition coupled which the unique cartridge case design, that stainless steel case head destroyed the case deflector on early prototypes. That is why you will see, if you look closely, that the M5 Spear uses a replaceable case deflector that slides into position and is locked in place with a roll pin.
In early discussions about the cartridge there was much angst expressed by some over the high chamber pressure. Thanks for pointing out that high pressure per se doesn’t automatically mean increased bolt carrier velocity; perhaps explanations like yours will lead to more general understanding of the issue. And thanks for an excellent video in general.
No but it does mean increased throat wear and barrel wear. If you need more velocity you can go with a longer barrel or a different cartridge. This is more a sign of idiots behind desks in positions of power that want to write stupid specifications. I want to be able to pull 1g on the skid pad, go 200mph, get 36MPG, carry 1 Ton of cargo and pull 10,000lbs. trailer.....Make it happen! Just like only a moron would chose a short fat 6.8mm projectile when you could have a sleeker, heavier, and in all ways better 6.5mm projectile. You have sound scientific reasoning and good engineering then you have this dumpster fire of unreal expectations from a 16 inch barrel with a short fat lighter than ideal projectile and to make it all work we will push the chamber pressure up to 80K PSI. Genius! I have nothing at all to say about the new rifle as I have not handled one but there is no perfect anything all weapon systems have pro's and con's! It is the ammo that has my panties in a twist!
@@lllhunterlll9644 Oops that must include you. I re-barreled my first X-Course and Palma rifle in middle school back in 1985 or 1986. That said you do not need to manufacture your own weapon system to have a valid opinion as an engineer, shooter, reloader and someone with experience with development of other US Army weapon systems. I worked at General Motors in Engineering Department. I have never designed an entire car that does not mean I am not qualified to have an opinion on various parts of a car I have never designed. You are not as smart as you think you are!
@@lllhunterlll9644 Specifically what part of what I said is either wrong? Put-up or Shut-up that is how the sawing goes. Be very specific please or you will only confirm your foolish nature!
I love technological advances. This configuration definitely shows substantial improvements but I hope that they'll be able handle the huge undertaking of adopting new platforms with a new cartridge. In the past we've seen failures in platform adoption and also adoption of new cartridge individually by itself.
What advances? Weak ammo is what you’ll get. Better off with AR10. AR15 is still the best. There is no one size fits all. The whole concept is stupid. But government and military elites know no better.
Uh...Ian, the barrel extensions on the AR are also a separate piece and are threaded and pinned on. They just usually come from the factory already assembled, headspaced, and pinned. The AR-10/15 indexing pin on the top of the barrel are also the pin that secures the threaded on barrel extension.
Depends though. Extensions and barrels can be made from the same material. I bought a few extensions from custom shops that are heat treated 4140, and I've got 4140 barrels too. Extensions don't need to be broached like the milspec ones are, most of mine are milled. It's entirely feasible to have a one piece barrel with an 'extension' milled into it.
@@DesertCoyotes yep. I have profiled and chambered a few custom AR barrels. I just got to the part of the video where the op got confused, as did I. There is just no way you could traditionally broach the extension lugs if the extension was integral to the barrel. Mill, yes. Broach, no. All of my broached extensions have broach marks down into the threads, the milled extensions don't have any extra cuts in the threads.
I came here to say this. I used to work at a barrel shop and I've personally assembled AR-10 and AR-15 extensions onto barrels so I was a little surprised when Ian said that lol.
@@randomidiot8142 If you did make one monolithic out of an alloy like 4140 or 4150, you'd want to harden the whole thing to upper 40s, then induction temper the rest of the barrel past the chamber back down to mid 30s for ductility. Would be an interesting project to see how it fares compared to case hardened extensions!
The barrel indexing pin does not actually secure the barrel extension. The pin does not protrude into the threads on the vast majority of designs nor by specification. The barrel extensions are held on by torque and the pins by a tight fit. @random idiot As for the locking lug reliefs on the barrel extensions not needing to be broached.. no, they kind of need to be broached. You say it depends as if there is any ambiguity and its common that barrel extensions and barrels are the same part and no, there is no ambiguity here. You say most of yours are milled and to this I say BS, you are almost certainly wrong or lying. The only way to mill them to get the same profile between the lugs would be to mill from the outside through the diameter of the extension compromising it substantially or overcutting between the lugs which would compromise it substantially unless one were using exceptionally small tooling, at which point it is way cheaper and easier to just use broached ones. What brand or brands are you using such that "most" of your barrel extensions potentially have their safety and function compromised for absolutely no reason and they have provided a lower quality product at a higher cost? Why would you ever buy multiples of this product so that their shoddy product represents the majority of your inventory??? Again, I am 99.99% certain you are wrong or lying. I have been shooting for 30 years and been in the firearm manufacturing business as a designer for over a decade (including several lines of AR platform products) and I have only ever seen one example of a fully milled barrel extension (from BHW) that was able to work with a standard bolt and I only saw it because the extension failed because they had to overcut the reliefs which thinned the wall of the extension leading to them cracking and the locking lugs popping off from the barrel assembly. They changed back to broached but the company still went out of business because of very poor quality overall. I would absolutely love for you to name this big brand that I have never heard of that is currently making fully milled barrel extensions to learn something new and make me look like a total A-hole but otherwise your take seems like lame cope for not being able to comprehend the fact that despite all the things he gets right Ian often does not actually know how guns work and he still occasionally gets things wrong. The barrel extension is the largest diameter of a barrel assembly so using a separate extension saves waste metal, reduces machining time, allows complicated geometry to be machined that it being part of the barrel would substantially complicate (can still broach on the barrel), and because it is the standard geometry they can be made at scale at a substantially lower cost than someone wanting to make a special milled one that is worse in literally every way. The only exception to this is most pistol caliber barrels since, in the case of direct blowback, there are no lugs which need to lock and so no complicated geometry. Most AR pistol caliber barrels have the external geometry of the extension on the barrel itself but some pistol caliber barrels also still have separate extensions. In this case, the waste metal of the larger diameter blank is a compromise with the additional waste from the extension and the added difficulty of properly torqueing a thin walled round extension on a round barrel.
During my time in the Army I spent a lot of time on range details and the part that always sucked the most was having to clean all the rifles afterwards. The arms room wouldn't accept them unless they were cleaned to the point that they looked like they were brand new and had never been fired. This new rifle looks like it will be a pain in the ass to clean that thoroughly. It has so many nooks and crannies for dirt and carbon to get stuck in and you need separate tools to remove the handguard, which you don't need on the M16.
The piston system of the sig makes it a lot cleaner, the m27 uses a piston system also and is super easy to clean in the Marine Corps. I’ve gotten mine cleaned and accepted by the armory within 30-60 minutes a lot. Meanwhile like you mentioned the direct impingement rifles like the m16a4 (boot camp) and m4 took FOREVER. Like a couple hours to a whole day. I don’t think cleaning will be an issue for the everyday grunt, I’m just more concerned about humping all that heavy ammo around. Luckily I’ll be chilling with 5.56 for a loooong time ahaha
I'm going to second Zachary. I've owned a piston operated AR.... the sig 516, for almost 10 years now. I've owned an impingement for about a year. The two don't even compare. The 516 is ALWAYS clean, even after a 120 round range trip. The piston is really easy to clean. My impingement is 100 times dirtier after a single magazine. The piston system is a blessing to people like you who hate cleaning guns.
@@chloehennessey6813 i think that something should instead be reading FM7-8 or drilling tactics, or practicing communication with other units like artillery or air, or working out. There's about a million other better busy work things a soldier can do that isn't cleaning his rifle.
MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY, this all looks like a giant tax dollar suck, and it'll take years, and it'll slowly fade away with a return to the previous weapons platform or a replacement for that, that'll cost even more... to ME, a brigade armorer and production gunsmith, I don't think its simple enough, and they're gonna make it even more complicated with different configurations and calibers and its not going to be integrated worth a damn. I NEVER cared for the m16 platform, or the m4s, but simple enough they are. Easier ways to go 30 caliber, cheaper ways, and with less headache.
@@boscoalbertbaracus1362 not enough people are considering the LMG replacement also. That can replace the M249/M60/M240 with one machine gun. Many believe that more accurate, less drop, longer range MG fire will will more than make up for the extra ammo weight compared to the saw even for suppressive fire A version of the M14 has been in service from 1957 until Today
@@removedot and versions of 1911s are currently in military and law enforcement use doesn't mean they're gonna be widely used or adopted, just like the handful of m14s that are in use. But don't listen to me, just watch this project cost 100s of millions and end up with little to show for it.
@@boscoalbertbaracus1362 Heavier, more expensive, more complicated. Procurement in a nut shell. A more rational system would constantly be focusing on user experience, capability, reliability, and cost. If you're not improving 3 of the 4, and don't need to match some enemy capability, then you're probably wasting money and time.
I would LOVE to see a post-mortem of Textron's submissions to the competition. Was it poor execution, or is case telescoped ammunition just fundamentally unsound?
Political corruption. It was the clear choice, otherwise why bother. This "hybrid" case ammo is completely absurd. The rifle is too weak to feed it's actual ammo. This is the perfect "upgrade" for this clown world era.
The specifics of this program more likely. The Textron submissions might of had some minor annoyances that could have been worked out, but the fundumentals of this program actually evolved from the CSASS and then the battle rifle program that was recently cancelled (because the requirements of that found its way into the NGSW making it redundant).
Well it does inherently come with lower chamber pressure and thus lowered velocity, therefore having decreased armor penetration and range, which seem to be the two most important factors considered in this program. Additionally, the rifle itself has some strange design choices (ejection port right by the handguard, where most soldiers hold the weapon, why?).
Seems weird to have different rounds. So when troops go to combat, they're going to use a more powerful round that they have no experience with. There's going to be a learning curve that's potentially going to take place in combat.
The learning curve is a certain danger, but when everything is considered, it's just a high-risk, high-reward gambit... In theory, one should factor in both the overall training the soldier has received with the weapon system, and assume they have in fact at some point shot the "real deal" in training and not been kept on the "fakeouts" for the entirety of the thousand practice shots they had at basic, to get a grip on the difference, at the very least. I would also argue that adrenaline is one hell of a learning/focus booster, since it speeds up EVERYTHING related to survival while it's flooding your bloodstream. A soldier confident enough in their training will (unkowingly) tap into that sped-up mental process to adapt to the different recoil and performance, instead of freezing or panicking in the middle of combat. That learning curve will not be as steep as one may think, if the rifle behaves not-so differently. That being said, it doesn't erase the fact that it's a high-risk, high-reward gambit, and I cannot condone betting the well-being of a person on whether they will react as a third party expects it or not...
As Ian mentioned: the small round is for training and normal, aysymetric conflicts, with the big one against protected targets. If troops are expected to be used to encounter such targets, they will used this ammunition in Training as well. Also there isn‘t really any such armour out there on a relevant scale. At least yet. If this becomes an issue, they certainly will drop the small version.
@@mar71n32n0v1lLL0 If they're smart, what they'll do is the bulk of their training with the training ammo, but do semi-annual full pressure shoots. Also require rifle quals to be done with the real deal.
Ian, when you weighed the reciprocating mass you needed to include the buffer as well... since the BCG doesn't reciprocate without it, much like the op rod on the Spear... In reference to all the steel wear inserts, cam track, deflector face... they also put steel pins on either side of where the top charging handle catches, a typical wear point on AR style rifles. Not sure if those pins go into blind holes making them non-serviceable, or if you can just punch them through and put new ones. ALSO, in theory you could have a different shape deflector face to help prevent the brass from hitting the face of lefties.
If this thing somehow manages to be a success, I'd honestly be excited for when it's time to improve on this rifle. It's already a pretty solid concept, so I'd really like to see what SIG engineers will do when an M5A1 is required.
Indeed, this thing already drinks heavily from M16A4 improvements (as long as other SIG designs and even H&K derived designs coming from AR-18) over more than 40 years. But I guess they will do soemthing with that folding stock.
Your going to see a small frame sig spear like the POF revolution. I feel like they could gave used a small frame 308 with those three upgraded parts for the pressure (bolt lug, barrel and piston lug). I understand sig has proprietary designs but if they made the spear the same size as the 556 mcx. Like how POF made the 308 reciever the same size as the 556 minus the magwell then they would cut down on weight and overall size. Truthfully this could be their plan and they are rolling it out like this so they keep a contract for 20+yrs
I wonder how long it will take before the training ammo becomes the regular issue rifle ammo and the full-pressure ammo becomes MG-only. This looks like a great recipe for making sure your troops can't hit anything when it really counts.
The SPEAR is basically a shorter, modified version of the SIG MCX-MR that they submitted to the CSASS trials. Surprised nobody seems to remember that gun.
Ultimately the Army went with the least risky platform and cartridge that met their armor defeat specifications. Sig did a great job balancing proven designs, new materials and meeting their assigned metrics. Polymer/Semi telescoping ammunition would have been a game changer in terms of weight savings, but apparently that was not a priority for this tasking. I still am skeptical that big Army will adopt this, though it is reassuring that this option exists should the next threat be near peer.
@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater he said “big army” which i assume means the whole entire army units. This rifle is only for the close combat units i.e. the “tip of the spear” hence the name.
@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater There's a difference between a contract and having it actually issued to units. Plenty of contracts have been killed early on: OICW, Crusader, Comanche to name a few. We're not going to see widespread adoption of the M5 for years, and there are a lot of logistics to be determined including how our current qual ranges will handle the new ammunition.
I feel like armor defeat specs are probably the wrong way to go. Sure modern armor is good but it only covers a small area on the chest, and basically no adversaries we are up against wear heavy armor. And the primary way guys die in the field is to artillery, airstrikes, or heavy weapons - not rifle fire. So why carry a heavier rifle that can defeat armor? 5.56 can still inflict debilitating wounds on the extremities, and torso areas not protected by armor. And lethal wounds on the unarmored head/kneck areas (head being what is often exposed over your cover). So I say stick with the lighter weapon system and ammo. You're still going to be very effective and more combat mobile. This feels like expensive overcompensation.
I have a feeling the troops won't like to lug this around after they've gotten used to the m4 for so many years. Also, the ammunition no longer seems "intermediate" like other assault rifle rounds, it's eerily close to the 7.62 NATO in recoil from the videos I've seen. They might as well have gone with an AR 10 in that case.
It's not eerily close, it is. 2694 ft lbs muzzle energy vs 2700 ft lbs for similar projectile weights, the smaller caliber just helps with penetration, the higher pressure maintain the kinetic energy by increasing projectile velocity. Out of a firearm with the same mass and operating system, they would produce the same recoil. M14 was a 9 lb rifle, Sig MCX Spear is like 8lbs before you cover it in crap. To be clear, the 6.8x51 is a full power cartridge, same as 7.62x51. This is a change in doctrine as much as a change in hardware.
This gun is seriously so beautiful. When you break it down and see how it all comes together under that shiny exterior, it just enhances my sense of awe
Ian is the GOAT! Love his hair, so sexy and luxurious! As a woman watching his videos, sometimes I get caught up in how cute he is to look at, so down to earth and considerate too!
i really hope i get my hands on this before I leave the army... interested on how the ballistics will change. after years of being used to the m4, shooting a new rifle round should be quite a bit different.
Ian makes a good final point- this will be looked upon as a “good” or “bad” decision down the road, but at the end of the day, we are just trying to stay ahead of potential threats. There is just no possible way to see into the future, and there are countless stories where militaries have made decisions for the future that have paid off, and countless stories where they have not- I hope this is the right move, but even if it isn’t, thank God that we are trying. That is all we can do.
What are we future-proofing with this rifle? The cartridge is incapable of defeating current body armor, what's the likelihood it's going to be able to defeat future armor technology?
@@steventatlock5443 Source that a full-power AP round can’t defeat modern body armor? Level IV can stop one AP .30-06 round, but I haven’t heard it can stop AP .277. And even if some Lv IV can, there’s also cost. Would China want to spend the money to upgrade their troops with the armor needed to stop .277? Or would the number crunchers say that the cost of upgrading their army for a war against the US is too much?
@@Florkl There has yet to be any data suggesting that *any* round out of that 13" barrel is capable of defeating level IV body armor, so until there is, you're the one short on sources. Level IV plates can stop a heavier round with a tungsten carbide penetrator going only 100f/s slower. There are plates that will stop .50 BMG. Would Chinese number crunchers render a $30,000 rifle package ineffective with $100 ceramic plates? Yeah, probably?
@@John_Redcorn_ Level IV ceramic plates *SELL* for $250. Swimmers cut, tri-curve plates with coating. If you think China can't stamp out flat ceramic plates for significantly less than $100 a unit, you're utterly clueless.
I get why they picked it... it "looks" very similar to a standard issue AR platform already... even if it kinda doesn't... but I feel like the weight issue isn't something to gloss over. The heavier the shit you make soldiers carry, the easier they're going to get exhausted. So either they're carrying less stuff that isn't munitions (might be first aid stuff, might be less armor, might be less food, whatever), or they're going to carry less ammunition... or they're carrying more weight and becoming exhausted faster and requiring more water and food and still performing a bit worse. I think the polymer-cased ammo submissions were good BECAUSE they had polymer-cased ammo. Polymer is lighter than brass. If you have to give up some pressure compared to a comparably-sized casing made of brass... well it's already a higher-caliber round, so you can still probably get better penetration than standard 5.56. Idk, just my dumb monkey-brain thoughts, but I feel like a compromise between contracts could have yielded a better weapon.
Well they wasn't willing to give up penetration if they're willing to deal with the higher pressure. Plus as many points out Polymer in the army isn't willing to go though with it untested ammo + the fact that Polymer isn't as durable. Also many have commented that the Fury .277 being hybrid means a good chance if Polymer becomes acceptable then it should be changeable with the brass on the Fury round. I heard that the military brass wanted the Dynamics entry to have them try with the same Sig Hybrid ammo so the Polymer ammo wasn't acceptable after all.
You have to factor in that the current M4's with quadrails are a lot heavier than current civilian AR15's which average 6-7 pounds without magazine or optics. Those quadrails, obsolete on the civilian market, add a good 2-3 pounds to the weapon. You have a weapon that weighs 9-10 pounds just stock, with a LOT of weight up front. Modern M-Lok handguards are only around 10-14 ounces, and that's for full length 15" versions. Basically, these guns aren't going to be noticeably heavier at base weight than a current military M4, and the balance point will probably be better without that brick of a rail system up front. Also note that the balance point WILL shift backwards with the optic on top of it.
@@WardenWolf yeah at BASE weight. what makes you think they're not going to end up putting a bunch of shit on these? they're gonna be so much fuckin heavier
Having been haunted by the M203 for my entire 13 year military career as infantry and intelligence soldier. Its all about training. Having been out through CQB dry fires for one or two hours while using the M249 saw. 10 pounds for a rifle feels light.
@@WardenWolf you neglect the fact that you’re also carrying ammo and that these rifles will be loaded with all sorts of attachments. The ammo is close to 7.62 in weight. You’re not only starting off with a heavier base weight, you’re adding attachments and a heavier ammo load on top.
Based on what Ian is saying, the high pressure ammo is likely for combat use only. So it will get used. Whether or not it will become available for civilians is to be determined.
I imagine there's going to need to be some new logistics and armory considerations to compensate for the suppressor requirements. I'm interested to see what the lifespan of the suppressors actually is under field conditions. It can't be THAT long considering the pressures involved, which is going to require a fairly substantial number of spares to be available
Marine corps infantry battalions have been using suppressors for at least 6 years not for their 0311’s not a huge logistical problem. Most of the work done is by them. They shoot till they reach a number then throw them out to my knowledge.
@@micahwilson9346 Very interesting. I'm curious how the 3D printed ones will hold up in the field, though. I can't imagine they're anywhere near as durable as the machined aluminum variants of previous years. On the other side of that coin, it's possible the decrease in durability is mitigated somewhat by the construction techniques being one solid piece instead of several smaller pieces. I'll be extremely interested to see the data when it's available either way. This could pave the way for all sorts of interesting innovations in firearms design if it's successful
@@SergeiMosin In Brownells video spotlight of this rifle, the speaker specifically mentions that the suppressors are made out of Inconel Alloy. So it should be substantially durable enough.
@@SergeiMosin Since additive manufacturing is used in aerospace for some time already, you can be sure those things are durable. Additive manufacturing gives a lot of advantages esp. when using topology optimization.
From what I'm seeing, it would be relatively simple to make an M5 DMR in a couple minutes by swapping the 13" barrel for a longer one. The gas port could be left the same distance from the chamber so the operating rod and recoil spring would remain the same. It may require a different sized gas port to operate with the longer barrel being plugged with bullet for a longer time. This would also give an NFA compliant option for the U.S. civilian market.
ex US soldier does a series of videos under the name of task and purpose. In one of the videos he talks to sig and they have an 8 inch and 20 inch barrel (ie dmr) on display
If the 5.56 m4 is so flawed and anemic that they have to bring in "dmr's" to make up for the m4's weaknesses, then they need a new caliber for the m4, NOT a "dmr" or "battle rifle". The 6.5 grendel using a 140 grain projectile and sigs hybrid cased technology and 30 round mags for the m4, would have been far more practical and efficient. It would be the same rifle but just improved.
Just throwing this out there: if this was the play, wouldn’t it have also been possible to adopt this platform in 7.62 NATO? - use our vast amounts of 7.62 NATO in inventory for ‘training’ - create a high pressure dual material cased 7.62 NATO loading for ‘combat’ that meets meets velocity/barrel specs - not screw over allied forces with change to 6.8/277 Fury I’m sure the rifle is very capable, I just find it odd with choice of round, especially since the rifle is completely capable of swapping a few parts and using 308/7.62 NATO. It already uses AR10 pattern mags.
Luckily the MCX platform is really modular; all you need to do is swap barrels, which is easy, and then you have a different caliber. It also makes it easier if the military decided it wanted a longer or shorter barrel.
Totally agree, 7.62 would be a viable option especially with the seemingly simple changes that would be required to adopt that cartridge. My sneaking suspicion is that Sig wanted a preliminary cartridge purely for padded margins.
Perhaps weight had something to do with it? I don't know how much lighter this cartridge is than 7.62 NATO, but considering the amount of ammo a modern soldier is expected to carry, and how important it is for militaries to minimize how much weight does an infantryman has to carry, even the smallest difference would stack.
I was hoping at first this would be 7.62 at 80,000 psi. That would be like a .300 Win Mag in a service weapon! The zombies wouldn't stand a chance lol...
First, this gun is cool and I think provides a great advantage to our troops. Having said that, it becoming the standard infantry rifle is a mistake. It will probably have a short service life similar to the M14. Unfortunately every time the military tries to make a jack of all trades system, then it is a master of none. This has serious disadvantages in CQB and will add much more weight on top of all their gear with less ammo available to them. Defeating body armor at the ranges the army wants is also impractical for most infantry troops. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Rifles don’t win wars anyways, never have and especially these days so think may see nothing in particular like did with m14, because militaries are relying less and less on massed troops with rifles every day.
@@BRBMrSoul yeah, but the solidiers have their own lives decided by their rifle, so maybe the military doesn't care, but families and solidiers do. But how much does high command care about insignificant casualties?
I foresee a carbine variant of the Spear coming out in the nearish future to address that concern. I was personally disappointed at the weight but i understand the doctrinal concerns with adopting a bullpup rifle and try to get everyone to switch to it. I do believe that they are looking in the wrong place if they want to be defeating body armor, they need to be looking at ammunition and making it more capable of penetration, and at the ranges most engagements are at considering that modern conventional warfare will be centered around urban areas i think the obsessive need for range is going to bite us in the ass. Sure you can engage targets at 300m, but the likelihood of you actually hitting a damn thing between them running for cover and your adrenaline messing you up is pretty low, not to mention those ranges are a machinegun thing where you can make up for lack of accuracy with sheer number of projectiles.
If I remember correctly, Sig actually designed the system to handle higher pressure in case there was any future demand for high roressure rounds they could readily be swapped to it in field.
i think the reason this was chosen because it resembled the already known AR platform and because it wasnt that much more expensive but i also think they really liked it due to the fact that there are parts specifically made to be replaceable and is made to last longer. that firing pin retainer was honestly the most impressive part IMHO, it also was sort of genius to use a separate recoil spring guide rod tube that is the part that gets the most beatings in the front, and due to the fact it is basically a tube with a small lug, its very inexpensive to replace compared to the whole bolt assembly of an AR only glaring issue was the thing Ian mentioned about the stock being unlocked at all times
No, the stock locks *back* it just doesnt lock *forward* which... is honestly weird and doesnt seem that hard to fix, but is bettet than 'at all times.'
US Army: "We've chosen a new service rifle for the future of modern combat."
Ian: "Today on Forgotten Weapons..."
!!! My immediate thought when this started was: "What does Ian think about this?"!
A gun that’s being freshly manufactured and adopted is on
Forgotten Weapons…
Ha
Ian is pointing out the linage of certain parts of the weapon.
PS - no doubt there will be a WWSD Spear version in 10 years.
Hang it on the pegboard next to the OICW and the XM8. "Clever sh** from the Germans that nobody was going to pay for."
loool
We’re all glossing over arguably the most shocking part of the rifle; no bayonet lug.
Japan has rejected it on this alone
No, it just have a baton-bayonet
I think it might be concealed by the suppressor; the hand guard looks large enough to have a bayonet lug under it, and the flash hider seems to have a thinner part where you’d put the ring
Thats to avoid any "assault weapons" ban
12 years in the infantry we haven't pulled out or trained with bayonets. Including deployments
Next service rifle will have three charging handles, so there is absolutely no confusion.
Maybe four, for redundancy
@@grob011 You got the T-handle, the side-charging handle, an AK charging handle, then throw in a G36 one in for good measure lol
The M7 will be made entirely of charging handles.
@@ventroid4473 forgot the fore grip pump
With the way things a going , swapping mags will charge the rifle that way any chowder noggin can run it.
Worth considering that we developed this weapon in anticipation of meeting Russian body armor, to later discover that Russians have never met Russian body armor.
That's sad and funny at the same time
It's a pity that Russian Military is compromised so much by its own Corruption
There might not even metal plate underneath Body armor
russian body armor is wood blocks that Oligarchs got paid to replace
Sharp comment, sir.
Lmao
It is disappointing that basically anyone we see shooting it and commenting on how soft shooting it is, isn’t shooting the full pressure ammunition
Imma have a laugh if it's only marginally less recoil than 7.62.
its like firing .38 in a .357 revolver and saying hey .357 is pleasant
Only one I've seen shoot full power ammo was task and purpose and it was throwing him around more that .308 throws around most people.
Pretty sketchy to see so many people only shooting the brass cased ammo over all.
@@Drownedinblood it’s a lot higher than 7.62.
Watch the video Task & Purpose did on this. He’s a former infantryman and even he struggled with follow up shots.
Modern guns: "The charging handle and ejection is swappable from right to left hand"
Sig: "Right ejection only, but we have *three* charging handles!"
AK74M: wait you guys are getting updates?
@@newchillynoble2412 AK12; "not us bro, we just get different furniture and more rails"
So if m16 scar and fal had sex this is the result?
@@MagnumLoadedTractor SCAR only has sex with fanbois, never anyone else.
@@ninjasquirrels nice one
“The recoil spring is under a LOT of compression”
*Ian then pulls out a comically large spring*
Funniest shit I’ve ever seen
It's like when a magician pulls out an unreasonable amount of cloth from his mouth lol
249 spring is still longer lol
Sig Sauer, so it's a Swiss-German Rifle and as a Bavarian joking about Swiss-Germans using too large springs, cogs, other pieces in their products etc. except in their watches is sort of a running gag.
So when i saw that comically large spring i yelled "Of course!" at the Screen, in english, despite being german
@@chartreux1532 Sig Sauer Inc (who make the Spear) is American, though isn’t it?
My favorite feature is the burned off finger prints on the suppressor. That's a great addition.
Nope, bench rest mark. It's at the 6 o'clock
@@jbrucksnc You can even see the print pattern :D
Too large to be a fingerprint, more likely a palm print from when somebody tried to take off the suppressor too soon.
@@damoclesecoe7184 yea if thats a fingerprint it was handled by a giant lol
edit: at 10:28 you can see its much larger than his fingers and thats not a print pattern @Mattle_lutra
@@SpydersByteIt's from the melted plastic sandbag it was resting on. Never had that with burlap. Super common. Surprised all these experts are having so much trouble identifying it.
Since the brass deflector is an insert, they should be able to easily make a new insert that handles the training ammo ejection angle better.
Good point.
If only engineers were that smart....
Hmmm, I can see how this might replace the M249 SAW, but a belt-fed M240 on a tripod generating a lot of daka and beaten zone? 🤔
@@nhansemark This is the rifle portion of the contract. The belt-fed machine gun in the same caliber is a totally different weapon. That’s the M250.
@some tanker very good point about vehicle hard point/coaxial mounts. Based on what we've seen from the xm250 or even the 338 mg that sig is offering they are not compatible with current vehicle mounting hardware. Now this could be wrong based on the limited information on the weapons in question but it could lead to a long and costly process to retrofit the absolutely massive vehicle fleet the army has let alone the Marine's vehicle fleet.
Ian: "Your Riflemen will carry... more ammo and less of everything else."
Chain of Command: "Hold my beer."
Yep. Brass would rather have grunts carry stupid gadgets and overbulked overweight versions of everything rather than ammo. More contracts to sign.
@@grahamhawes7089 The Army: "You're Light Infantry."
Your Knees, Hips and lower Back: "I beg to differ."
@@GrimRX can confirm *cracks knees*
*You are overencumbered and cannot run.*
Infantry may be “light” but not their kit.
I've seen a ton of "I shot this at the range and here's what I think" videos about the new Army rifle. This is the only one that actually talks about how the dang thing works! Thank You!
Yea me too. Even though you can't actually get the XM-5 rifle with the military 6.8 rounds. They all shoot the MCX Spear which is the CIVILIAN version with the .277 fury ammo which is CIVILIAN version of the ammo.
I read that as “.277 furry ammo”. I am looking forward to furry ammunition. Furry ammo sounds much nicer than furry ammo.
@@dallen521 Furry ammunition is what happens when you leave your powder cartridges out in the rain.
Furry Ammo is what my ex used.
Quite effectively.
Still why such a short barrel even if it has higher pressure ?
Garand originally designed the M1 for an experimental .276 (or so) cartridge. We just go around in circles.
History is fascinating like that. I just find it hilarious that we are essentially adopting a modern AR10, obviously with some differences. The circle has been completed again
Same story with FN FAL and CETME
Not to mention that this is basically an AR10
all technology goes round in circles, computers are the same, we keep swapping between centralised and decentralised processing (everything was mainframes, then everything was done locally, now we use the cloud, which is basicly a big mainframe).
Also .280 British was in contention for NATO adoption.
Having been in the military and worked in logistics I can say with a 100% certainty that troops in combat will be issued training ammo and troops at the range for training will get service ammo. It's going to happen. It's a when, and not an if. I knew guys who got the 9mm training AT4 instead of live AT4 in country because somebody put in the wrong NSN. Thankfully they were never in a situation during the time between initial discovery and corrected supply req that required an AT4, but it does happen.
More to the point, a frontline combat unit issued a full supply of brand new M855A1 for their M5 SPEAR rifles that can't shoot it.
Lol imagine needing an AT4 and it shoots the 9mm training round, obviously you’d know but thats just a funny thought..
I just joined the US Army as a medic and signed up for Airborne school already. I do hope that i get an M4 rather then the new M5..
@@ItchyPilauBoto don’t worry- most troops wont see this rifle for 4 years at a minimum
For ammunition they really need computer software to automatically put in the right number everytime, so that troops get the right ammunition. That's a huge safety and performance issue.
If I understand correctly, the "training" round would still be lethal, it just has less performance, specifically range. So probably not as much of an issue.
When I see a rifle being considered or introduced into the infantry, all I see are all the nooks and crannies a Drill Instructor or Squad Leader can pull a Q-Tip out of with traces of 'not perfectly white" on it during rifle maintenance inspection.
Pretty sure this was designed by a drill instructor to give him more excuses to scream at people.
XD I thought the same.
I had a basic training fix for that. I quickly noticed two things when trying to get my M16A1 accepted; everyone had to get rejected the first time, and since the armorers day ended at 5, everyone got accepted starting at 4:15 or so. I grew up with guns and hunting and knew how to clean a rifle, so i would get my weapon clean, take it up early to be rejected, then go back, light a cigarette and swipe aimlessly at the bolt with a rag until 4:45 so as to avoid being done in time to be put on a detail before chow time, then turn my weapon in just in time for boot-polishing/cigarette time before dinner. It was a system that worked.
Infantryman: "ounces are pounds"
US Pentagon: "make it bigger and heavier"
Everyone who wants an effective military: Make better soldiers.
@@micahj9828 this. We've gone so far away from this.
@@micahj9828 The US military already produces some awesome soldiers (despite all of the politics, would be even better without all that crap). But you can only make soldiers so good. Then, ounces are pounds. Weight will never stop being a factor.
@@SoloRenegade There's a reason so much time and effort is put into developing exoskeleton suits.
@@bubba200874426 and there are many reasons we still don't have an operational combat ready exosuit. and until then.....
They pushed that lightweight ammunition thing for nearly 20 years and in the end it didn't even matter. Imagine how frustrating that must have been for the competitors developing the polymer and ceaseless ammo systems for all that time. Looking at you Textron.
Yep a fucking joke, then after all of that the pick a huge heavy rifle with 150+ grain load... And since 2022 we have been watching Ukraine vs Russia shooting within 200m all day everyday.
@@tbrowniscoolI was thinking the same thing. Every environment is not Afghanistan or huge open valleys. In fact if I walk outside and look 360 degrees I can't see anything over 200 meters away. Too many trees.
@@xxTAARGUS Yep it just too much gun for the average soldier. Amazing for long range but I wouldn't want to carry it over an M4. The L85a2 was heavy enough when I was running around with one. I don't think it needed that huge front hand guard.
Except its both short range AND vast open fields in between ...
Only reason you see "only short range" combat is because both sides field the same intermediate cartridge that is most effective at that style of combat...
In fact the M7 would be absolutely ideal gun for that war, because it works well in cqb due to compact size and at the same time can reach out beyond 1000m range...
@@Asghaad100%. Line of sight isn’t the major limitation in most combat footage I’ve seen - lack of optics and training looks much more like it.
The train vs combat ammo issue reminds me of the problems police had with K frame S&W revolvers in the 1960s-1980s. They made what was basically a 38 revolver in 357 magnum and told officers to practice with 38 but carry 357. The problem came when the 357 ammo didn't hit where their guns were sighted to hit and the extra recoil made making multiple hits difficult. Some tried training with 357 but that wore the guns out faster. Service rifles are not disposable because the military will keep junk in service long after it should be retired. How many troops issued M9 pistols in Iraq were issued guns older than they were while new unissued M9 pistols sat in storage? I see big problems coming up if this rifle is issued in large numbers
I was in a testbed brigade that deployed in 2008, we had "state of the art" Landwarrior systems, a computer on every soldier; We also had clapped out, first gen M249s that had the AR mag well and worn out receivers that made them *incredibly* unreliable.
Pretty sure this whole rifle and ammo package is just the Pentagon trying to figure out where their unnecessary budget is going to get spent now that our two double decade wars in the middle east are over. I'm unable to find a great deal of information on the subject, but from what I understand, this rifle and cartridge combo won't defeat level 4 body armor, so I'm quite confused about it's purpose. If they're going to use exotic bullet materials to achieve armor penetration, the same materials would enable 5.56 to succeed as well, but at 1/3 the material by bullet weight. Ah well, we've got all this taxpayer money to burn with absolutely nothing better to use that money for, nothing at all.
@@steventatlock5443 God I love the use of the word clapped out in this situation. It just is so fucking funny. Fascinating to hear about the state of thighs, though.
@@steventatlock5443 I think there is some decent reasoning behind the high velocity ammunition. Because even if it doesn't penetrate level 4, that kind of kinetic energy is going to at least break a few ribs. And a soldier thats coughing out blood. Is probably a soldier thats out of the fight.
@@neckbeardpig279 that's not how it works. if you cannot penetrate a hard plate there's a good chance you won't break anything inside at all.
@@neckbeardpig279 my great great grandfather killed 4 Germans with a 9mm round in his right lung, never told us how he lived but he had a scar between his ribs. Tbh I'd wager in the heat of war you don't really notice immediately.
This is the old "use .38 Special to practice for .357 Magnum" philosophy. Soldiers aren't going to become familiar with the true recoil of the cartridge until they are actually in battle. It doesn't make sense.
All depends how much difference there is. If it's the .38 to .357 difference, its clearly stupid, but if it's closer to the difference between 2 different brands of the same ammo with similar loadings, then it may be viable. It's one of those decisions you can't make without trying both side by side. I suspect the practice ammo loading may be different but still just close enough that you'll rapidly be able to compensate for it.
That and the practice ammo is more than enough for defeating non-armoured enemies, which accounts for basically everyone that the US will be fighting without a world war occurring.
Keep in mind too that Ian said that this was his supposition: there is nothing stated from the US Army or DoD that they will use two different cartridges.
The best marksman I have ever met practice with airsoft guns in the garage.
You're stupid if you think soldiers won't practice and familiarize themselves periodically with the full power ammo as well as conducting all of their work up ranges with it
@@dasboot9471 Shooting as a marksman is different
Returning to the ammo needs of the German sturmgewehr: Just about every field test report (frontline troops using it in actual combat) stated that it's a great weapon, but demanded that the ammunition supply must be increased substantially.
Hitler: "What rifle are they talking about?" True story.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND It's a really funny story of the ordnance department going over his head honestly. That's why you sometimes see it designated MP-44, because that was its designation to trick Hitler into thinking it was a submachine gun.
But why do people tend to fire more rounds with it?
Same when the guys in nam changed to M16?
Full Auto was just to easy to handle?
@@rolux4853 bolt actions fire slow ad require more reloading, so the ammo consumption witht he stg is much higher than with a k98
@@rolux4853 Yep. And the U.S. military accordingly ditched the select fire facility from M16 with the A2 variant. Technically, the "Burst" select was still a form of automatic fire; but 1) the burst doesn't reset, so if the operator only squeezes off two rounds in "Burst" setting, the next pull of the trigger will only fire a single shot, and 2) anything beyond three shots is of course impossible, Stoner's original design scope envisioning five (5) round bursts in select fire nonwithstanding.
This carried on with subsequent rifles. The A3 had full, actual select fire facilty, but these variants were produced in limited numbers for specific units. The standard rifle (M16A4) retained a safe-single-burst (three round) trigger group.
So the irony being, for all the talk of the M16 "proving in practice the superiority of the assault rifle concept," vis-à-vis the battle rifle, the reality was that the standard arm (ie. M16A2 and A4) was functionally a battle rifle; but chambered in an assault rifle (intermediate) cartridge.
Strange turn of events, to say the least.
The M4, meanwhile, would eventually see the reappearance of true select fire (with the A1), but anyone will tell you that full auto was all but never used in combat. Regardless, because of the concurrent adoption of 16 and then 14.5 inch barrels, we have another interesting historical development here, because the .223 and later SS109 was conceived as firing from a 20 inch barrel. The eventual development of 855A1 ammunition, resultant poorer ballistics of 5.56 NATO out of 14.5 inch barrels, testifies to that.
Hearing Ian make a comparison to a "gym bro who skips leg day every day" made me laugh a lot more than really made sense.
That’s some Cassady Campbell shit. His channel is hilarious
New rifle, ammo and pistols for US Armed forces. Some salesman over at SIG deserves a raise. What an accomplishment!
the general dynamics prototype looks like it might be better for troops to carry around.
@@nandayane probably but it was a bullpup which the government was probably less interested in(should be noted most major militaries are moving away from their bullpup rifles).
Not how it works... and the MCX was Already incredibly popular.
Salesman? Nah, some VIP just got "lobbied" with a "big bonus", that's how it always works these days
And MG.
When I was in Iraq I always wished for two things:
1. A heavier rifle.
2. Less ammunition that also weighed more.
I'm sure you were super jealous of your M240 gunner.
So many salty boys that didn’t grow up on .30.06 and .300 win mag ahaha
I think it's important to remember they're not adopting this rifle to meet the needs of the past, they're adopting these rifles to meet the current and future needs. It's not like they specifically want a heavier cartridge you can carry less of, they want a cartridge that fares better against body armor.
And a change was inevitable, so I think it's good to adopt a modern platform that they believe they can develop further and improve over time. M16 was far from perfect when it was first adopted, so as always with development of any kind, obviously it'll take a bit of time to get the most out of any platform. Same applies here, it's not like the development of this cartridge and rifle ends the moment it's adopted.
Just here to see the comments from the bois "well ackshuslly"ing the combat vet.
If you paid attention this rifle wasn't designed for that kind of war. It's designed for a scenario where US would actually have to fight a modern military; Not a local milita carrying 50 year old AK's and no protective gear. I know, it's a crazy concept building an army with the assumption that your enemy won't always be 3 generations behind in military development.
I gotta be honest, I thought the plastic cased ammo in the other weapon designs for the NGSW program were more intriguing and offers more potential long term developement. The significant weight reductions offer a lot of potential, although such a plastic case needs probably a decade of testing and developement, far longer than the NGSW program lasted. Sig's entry offered a much more conservative and conventional solution which is probably why the Army selected it.
The stainless steel base is somewhat of a compromise. Steel is less dense than brass and is stronger, allowing the cartridge to be thinner and lighter still. Apparently they got some decent weight savings out of the switch to the bi-metallic cartridge and without the potential problems of polymer cased ammo.
what we might see is polymer cased steel based ammo, for this, best of both worlds, it's just that sig didn't have the capacity to produce the ammo hence why they went for brass
honestly i think a big issue is that polymer/plastic cases just aren't 'there' yet. Not to say it's not worth further development, just that i don't blame a military for not trusting the reliability of it for mass issue.
Yeah I was very intrigued with the polymer case ammo. In range did a video last week about the M5 and he said that the stainless steel base allows for the possibility of moving to a polymer/hybrid case like was said before. The more I learn about the spear the more it looks like a rifle that will be able to adapt for years to come.
@@crown7639 Good point. The steel base could be used with a future polymer case, i.e., replace the existing brass portion with some future polymer development. In fact, weren't there some earlier case designs like that (aside from shotshells)?
I served in the "brown shoe" Army of 1957 where we carried the good old M1 Garand in 30-06. It was "only" 10 pounds, but got really heavy marching out to the field. In simulations of "attack" charging up hills and dales, it got even heavier. The new recruits will need a lot more PT to be able to like this thing. When you fired an M1, you knew the guy on the receiving end was going to be hurt bad. That made everything else not matter so much.
nowadays u can add the weight of armor and batteries etc.
10 pounds was a light one.
The snowflakes of today are going to throw these rifles and all their ammo on the ground, and scream "give me a lightweight 22LR single shot bolt action, and a 50 round box of ammo".....
@@larrymabe1146"snowflakes of today"
okay boomer
Nobody. and I mean Nobody, brings the balance of detached professionalism and involved enthusiasm that Ian does. Great content, as always. I look forward to seeing the next video in "A" field. :)
Well-said. This is peak info-tainment. It reminds me somehow of those 1940s DoD instructional manuals and videos illustrated by cartoonists to teach important technical details in a manner which would pass on the pertinent information in a manner which would hold the student’s attention. That’s not to cast Ian as some kind of silly person; I mean it as a profound compliment. He is, above all else, a teacher.
@@mattguest6326 Drewl... Love old Army Manuals :-)
The primary reason for the steel insert on the deflector was due to damage from the stainless steel case heads on the aluminum chassis.
Considering that the US is going to slaughter soldiers who use those weapons as "glass cannon" things, it's not surprising.
No. The standard MCX chambered in 5.56 and 300BLK has replaceable steel inserts for the brass deflector and an interior part of the upper receiver where the BCA would cause wear. They’re made out of steel to increase longevity and they’re removable so you can replace just those parts when they do wear out rather than replacing the entire upper. That was a thing on the MCX long before anyone had the idea of using a hybrid case with a stainless case head
135 years ago, norway and sweden deemed the 6.5x55 as the best all around cartridge when it came it came to weight, range and power.. then we went to 7.92mm and 30-06. then 7.62 nato.. then 5.56.. and low and behold we are almost back to the 6.5x55 with the 6.8x51 xD what a ride its been.
(ppl take it so damned seriously as always)
.277 fury is nowhere near 6.5 x55. This uses an advanced bi-metal cartridge and has 80,000 psi. The length isn't the same either.
@@jbloun911 its a bit in jest mate :3
@@jbloun911 advanced.. lol. It's only been done for decades now. It's only now just looking like it's feasible on a military production level. And length, it's not unheard of to run cartridges that are supposed to be 2.8" max oal in 3" actions because there are benefits. Remember, some people also rebarreled 8 mausers to 30-06, which is longer than the mauser. Potato, potatoe. Split hairs. Not enough real world difference.
Greece used 6.5×54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer during the Balkan Wars. Then also use 8×50mmR during the ww1. 8mm Mauser and British 303 during ww2. 30-06 after ww2. Now 7.62×51 NATO.
@@randomidiot8142 right, you're name is fitting. Must be from Sweden. 🤣 80000 psi vs max 42000 in the Nordic round...no where near the same. Learn more about ballistics you failed miserably.
The training ammo vs "war time" ammo is going to create so many logistical nightmares
How you just send the wartime ammo to war and keep the training ammo. Worst case scenario you run out of the good shit and forced to use the old stuff I don't see how that's a logistical issue
I’m more concerned about training and whether the difference in recoil will matter much. I would hope they tested that transition with some of their soldiers, but we’ll see how it turns out in actual combat.
@@westonford6774Imagine the learning curve of aiming wrong first time you get into combat due to training with lower powered ammo...yikes
I've yet to get a proper answer to this, either, but did anyone remind SiG that galvanic corrosion is a thing between brass and most engineering grades of stainless steel?
Those cartridges make me uncomfortable on an engineering level. They are simply wearing the guns out faster and appear prone to corrosion issues in storage, all to achieve a performance benchmark that GD achieved with a lighter, lower pressure round, but got rejected because the US hates bullpups.
Train with what u gonna fight with
I like it, but it definatly requires more charging handles to be exceptionally effective in battle.
I need more cowbell!
I have a fever, and the only prescription is more charging handles.
@@LeavingGoose046 we need a stoner 63 handguard charging handle as well godammit this bitch must be able to be cocked from every position
needs an HK slap
The original submission only had the side charging handle. Soldiers in the test asked for the T handle because they just spent years using one. So Sig added it.
I believe the plan is to initially only field 20,000 rifles to gather long term maintenance and feedback data, and then produce an A1 and produce the rest in that model
I think that might be too smart and economical for US military
I would imagine they are going to find the cartridge is going to beat that rifle to pieces. I bet they lower the chamber pressure and go with a traditional all brass cartridge design when all is said and done.
@@PewKittens let's be real, they only are replacing the rifle so they can give a multi billion dollar contract to their political allies. If the rifle happens to be good, so be it.
When Task & Purpose (Chris Cappy) was invited to shoot the full tilt Army Spear, he was getting knocked about a lot. Either he was shooting full power ammo or he weighs 47 pounds.
Any regular watching his channel knows he is a pretty short and a light weight. There are jokes about it made regularly by him on the channel
147 maybe
It's firing shit with more punch than 308, if you aren't used to it you're gonna get knocked around
In TFB’s breakdown of the Spear/M5 a year ago, the Sig rep, who is most definitely shooting the higher psi, hybrid round (I double checked using slow motion, clearly the 80,000 psi round), who is a big dude, and who probably has tons of experience shooting it because he’s Sig’s Spear guy, gets knocked back a fair bit shooting full auto.
Now let’s be fair, though: a rifle’s recoil at full auto, unless it’s an LMG or HMG, is not really a good metric to pay attention to. Full auto is not a commonly used mode in an assault or battle rifle. In my several years, dozens upon dozens of combat missions, and many, many TICs, never once did anyone ever need to nor choose to fire their M4 in full auto.
Which is why using training ammo you are wasting your time.
One thing you've said in the past, Ian, is that militaries often develop their next thing (rifle, camo, tank, etc.) to be perfect for the last war but ill suited to the actual next war they get into. The adoption of this rifle and cartridge with body armor penetration being the key requirement means they definitely aren't thinking about the last war. Very few of the adversaries faced in Iraq and Afghanistan wore body armor of any kind. Whether it is well suited for the next war we won't know until the next war.
its more like their thinking about the last war in europe and trying to predict off "expected" development of the enemy they have been expecting / calling for war with for the last 8 decades.
I think the reason they issued M14 EBR to infantry in Afghanistans was more about effective range than armour penetration.
If you look at Ukraine right now I think that its about the best view of modern combat we have currently and this rifle isnt suited for it. Drones, artillery, and vehicle combat are doing all of the long range fighting and making body armor negligible anyways. The up close fighting is being done with 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62 rifles and those rounds are killing just fine even with both sides wearing body armor. This rifle is solving a problem that doesnt exist, and adding a ton more weight for less ammo and overall less firepower for the average soldier. Yeah its a more powerful round, but you can carry half the ammo for the same weight as 5.56. We already got rid of 7.62 Battle rifles for similar reasons why are we going back to larger cartridges? It just doesnt make sense.
@@josiahsawyer1105 So you don't think the US Army issued M14 EBRs to infantry squads in Afghanistan for a reason other than them being stupid?
Firepower isn't just about how many rounds you can send downrange in a hurry to scare the enemy into covering up. IMHO its a lot more about the ability to hit the target and affect the target.
@@CarlAlex2the M14 was because they didn't have a DMR worth a fuck to go up against 7.62x54r
They'd have been better off more widely issuing 7.62x51 MMGs and LMGS with a good tripod and a better light mortar/actually allowing troops to use the mortar to regain that ground.
Afghanistan was an aberration. Those distances and the range disparity aren't going to be the norm for conflicts and taking the need for 800 to 1000 yard infantry rifles is the DUMBEST lesson they could have learned.
If yiu want a HV round to gain range, update the UGLM to use HV grenades like the Swiss grenade
Wouldn’t the training ammunition train soldiers to expect an improper amount of drop because of the lower muzzle velocity? My cousin is big into hunting, and always told me that you need to practice with what you plan on shooting. Because if you train with crappy ammo, you are expecting crappy performance, and that can throw your aim off.
Yes, but the new optic can easily be adjusted for the proper ammo type.
@@charlesjohnsontribe1629 Never put your trust in a piece of gear, lest Private Murphy show up and fuckup your day. You should always be trained on iron sights and always have them available and feasible to use. I think using two different types of ammo is a mistake.
Not really. Honestly we shoot at 300 meters. Even 5.56 will hit a human torso simply by aiming center mass as shown in our manuals at any range under 300 meters. This round is considerably flatter shooting. The soldiers that will be good enough to shoot further out will also be good enough to figure out the compensation of their bullet drop pretty quick. Everyone else will be sufficiently accurate.
@@OspreyKnight It's more the recoil that I'm talking about, it's harder to manage and anything different in training and combat is going to be a problem.
@@TresTrefusis Well gear has gotten better as well as means of measuring it. US Army doctrine is largely shaping up to be a longer range force to adapt to present interests where recoil isn't as important as it was.
Super surprised the angled locking surfaces at 27:30 did not get mentioned. Those transition a ton of shear force from the lugs into a friction and expansion force at the barrel extension which fully takes advantage of the different alloys as well as modern manufacturing tolerances. It essentially brings bring big artillery technology (interrupted screw breech) to small, shoulder-fired repeaters. It's like a tapered bearing for your bolt head.
The friction marks at 25:48 on the exterior of the extension also seem to correspond with the extension interior lug faces which would mean it's doing its job. Simple solutions are really elegant!
I'm assuming you are closely watching the R&D on the AK-50?
Well... sig. So not surprising. They've had some things that werent strictly speaking "totally awesome" but the overwhelming majority of their designs are pretty f-ing awesome.
@@charliemccutcheon6030 I have seen it, but the design is for a different purpose. IN the AK50 I believe it was mentioned that the bolt change made for easier extraction/cycling. On this design, it seems to be as a more capable pressure bearing surface. The slope also offers greater surface area which would lower the force (P=F/a)
Read this comment 12 hours ago
Had to wait till after work to actually see what you were talking about
Makes sense now
Is it really valid to rely on low recoil training ammo (with different ballistics?) for a soldier's entire career, and then on day 1 of the war, swap his ammo with hot-as-hell 'real' ammo, and expect the soldier to instantly adapt to the higher recoil, different ballistics?
Yeah imagine swapping out all your optics and attachments, getting used to the new recoil, etc. just in pre-deployment training. Nightmare!
I imagine the compound rounds will only be used in (hopefully) rare situations where adversaries have modern body armour, not just for any and all combat deployments.
@@bubsnicket It's doesn't look like Russia even has modern body armour, or modern anything.
I really don't imagine them solely using this training ammo and then dumping hot ammo on them
Not to mention the extreme heat and barrel wear that’s going to occur.
The program is heavily relying on the optic to achieve the accuracy they want. One of the guiding inspirations for the system was the M1 Abrams and its sensor suite, which helped it dominate Desert Saber. In the war, tank crews also reported their real ammo flew radically different than their training rounds, but their advanced optics more than made up for the difference.
Would love to see a video on True Velocity/Beretta’s NGSW submission. That was a much more interesting rifle, to me.
Trust me, the most interesting rifle is the Textron's. Too bad they went with a traditional design instead of a bullpup
@@user-pq4by2rq9y Textron failed earlier anyway.
@@user-pq4by2rq9y that rifle very was interesting but abysmal, the ejection port location and how tall it is gave this rifle no chance to compete.
@@gerogyzurkov2259 But it made it to the final three? Do you mean the LSAT program that got rolled into the NGWS program?
Yeah, I'd definitely like to see a comparison of the finalists, though like Zurkov I'm mostly interested in the Textron offering rather than the GD/Beretta one.
The barrel extension has always been a separate component in the AR-15. The SIG simply uses two pins instead of a single pin to lock the extension.
This has really opened my eyes to the impressive engineering going on in this rifle. A lot of my prior views were changed. As usual you have gone above and beyond any other gun reviewer/commentator when it comes to the details of this weapon.
Any chance you could do a SIG MCX review? I know it's hardly forgotten, but if the normal 5.56mm/.300blk MCX is as well engineered as this I might need to get one.
I am planning to do a deep series on the MCX, but it is several months away.
its SIG bro
I'm not sure the engineering is that impressive. I've seen tests of the XM250 MG and it would be fun to see the basic shooting/recoilhandling compared to the German MG81 that has the same weight. I've tested the MG81 in "infantery mode" and I had no problem handling the 1600 rpm 8x57 with 186gr bullets. A MG81 with reduced rof convertet to 277Fury would be a pussycat to shoot. A new slim compact MG using the MG81 operating priciples with qd barrels and a suppressor mounted on the forend/cooling jacket, not barrel, would be interresting to look at.
@@agskytter8977 I would love to see a full comparison of this, and the good old H&K G3-model. Old reliant versus SIG Edgelord here.
Would love to see a breakdown of the General Dynamics rifle, since it was the only other rifle that really had a chance of contending (and because I know you love bullpups)
And polymer ammo
Me too, the GD rifle was my personal fav.
I thought general dynamics had an overall better weapon, iirc it had lower pressure, and they were struggling to get the chamber hot enough for the cook off simulation because the polymer cases did so well at absorbing heat
@@bagochips834 it was also not very accurate due to short recoil action
@@bradenmchenry995 Wait isn't it short stroke piston?
Heavier ammo.
Heavier gun.
More recoil.
Less ammo carrying capacity.
Costlier ammo;
Ladies and gentlemen, we did it! We did the M14 all over again!!!
The M14 used lower power, lighter and therefore lower recoiling rounds than the M1 (7.62x51 so it will still fuck you up) and carried more of them in a magazine. The *only* reason it weighed more than the M1 was because they were issued with 20 round mags as standard, and 20 rounds of 7.62x51 is not light at all, in fact an unloaded M14 weighed LESS than an M1. Per unit ammo and rifle costs were lower, and overall it was an objectively better rifle in almost every respect.
Costlier/Less ammo for the M5 won't even matter anyway, since the optics will have an integrated FCS, there will be a *significant* increase in accuracy, higher round lethality and penetration means that less rounds will be needed to put someone down compared to 5.56 as well. Due to this, troops will likely be carrying less rounds overall per person, leading to the same if not lower overall weight of ammo carried compared to 5.56. More recoil doesn't really matter either, considering the lesser need for follow up shots, and the fact that the recoil is still very controllable (as described in the video, did you even watch it?). "More" recoil than a 5.56 round doesn't say very much anyway, considering how light shooting they are.
Precision Rifle, Seal teams used the m14 up untill the early 2000’s untill the scar came along numbnuts.
I appreciate the intellectual humility of admitting that you were skeptical of whether the NGSW program could produce a design that operates with the higher chamber pressures required. This is one of the reasons why so many people trust your opinion.
Honesty Too!
Honestly, I've watched every possible video about this weapons system, and this video by far was the most comprehensive technical and straightforward video on it, which is what I've come to expect from Forgotten Weapons.
The fact is though, while a weapon has been selected and will be deployed, there remains large numbers of issues around it that remain to be seen. Production scalability and reliability for both the weapons and the ammo. The Amry will not deploy weapons that don't have adequate ammo supply. These issues aren't things that can only be discovered by doing, just like the complicated deployment issues with the original m16.
After Ian spent months touting how great the Hudson and HMG Sturmgewehr were maybe he realized that he isn't always right.
Prediction: In 5 years, the Army will stop procuring the advanced hybrid ammo (everyone outside the Ordinance Corps having forgotten that it was a key part of the weapon system) because budget, and then everyone will be talking about how heavy it is, and how 6.8x51 isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Gimmie dat 5.56
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to just invest in a really well made, reliable M16/AR15 type of rifle. Like what New Zealand, France etc are doing.
@@jone002 if you watch people shoot with the live ammo, you'll see the recoil will prevent full auto or even 3 round burst.
You really think that will take 5 years? I'd expect next presidential cycle all budget priorities will change as they inevitably do. Granted it seems we have different global threats depending on who's in office.
Considering the extremely poor availability and performance or Russian "next generation" body armour in Ukraine I wouldn't be surprised if the entire system ends up being shelved seeing as the primary threat it was supposed to counter is seemingly non-existent.
As someone who has worked in additive manufacturing, I have concerns about SIG's ability to mass produce the suppressors in quantities needed for a real conflict. SLM printers (at least the ones I worked with) are slow as hell and can only produce a few units at a time. Given the chamber pressure is so high, it's likely the suppressors will wear out and require frequent replacement. I think a suppressor is a great idea but honestly the more I learn about this rifle the more it seems like it was designed to be a maintenance/service cash cow for SIG and not a truly worthy replacement to the M4. I just don't understand the ammo choice at all. If you're going to go battle rifle calibers, why not use the 7.62x51 cartridge you spent decades convincing other NATO countries to adopt? Swapping from "training" to "combat" rounds is a terrible idea not only in terms of logistics but also because you, uh, shouldn't train your soldiers to a different ammunition to what they'll use in combat? The steel casing contacting the brass has the potential to degrade in storage, is more expensive, requires more logistical and material resources to produce, etc. There's some cool features on this gun but like I said it seems like the epitome of what's wrong with modern defense contractors...
I think you have some pretty valid points. I think there will be major re-evaluations once this thing gets serviced. For some reason I'm reminded of the painful development of the CV-22
"the more I learn about this rifle the more it seems like it was designed to be a maintenance/service cash cow for SIG and not a truly worthy replacement to the M4"
Navy: Haha, look at you dirt-dwellers and your tiny 10-figure contractor scams. Add two zeros YEARLY and you'll be at my level.
@@gastonbell108 F-35
Bro I bet a Chinese spy was in charge of this rifle
Every component of this rifle is garbage.
Duh... Grifting has been a core tenant of American Military Procurement since the 60s and it didn't exactly get better over time.
I'd also point out at 26:50 the profile of the back shoulder of the locking lugs. The AR-10 has a fairly sharp corner which is a stress riser while the M5 is angled with a rounded relief behind it which greatly reduces the peak stress in the material.
this really seems like the army looking around and realizing there's been 30+ years of development on AR's and getting ahead of it again
Not so sure about 'ahead of it again' other than that very high pressure round. The rest of it is more 'catching up' than anything else, IMO.
@@vasky22 The high pressure round is hardly an inconsequential detail, it's the source of all the main advantages and disadvantages of this platform. if the optics deliver as promised that will also be a big deal
@@vasky22 what about the sight?
@@crawlmanjrable its supposed to be smart. auto zero, ping targets and send that info to friendly's sight and probly other stuff.
@@CorpseBike Yeah i know all that. I'm asking vasky22 why he would think this rifle wasnt a pretty large leap forward in technology for the entire industry. The way he frames his comment makes it sound like the M5 will be dated on releasee and I don't agree.
Just a small note in defense of the Yuts: Marine Corps decided on widespread fielding of suppressors from KAC 2 years ago. They had around 14k then and are looking to have at least 30k in inventory by close of FY23. They did some battalion level testing across all weapons to see if it was worth the money, logistics, and effort around 2016.
Ofc M27/M4/M4A1 aren't exactly designed from the get go to be used with a suppressors like the XM5/XM250 systems.
Absolutely a huge deal when talking about just the rapid deployment divisions in the USA let alone all infantry units, that's a bigger scale than the USMC.
The same branch that basically set itself up to only fight in the pacific by gutting its aviation and mechanized arms and eating crayons.
@@dustysandals5466 F-35 and MV-22 debates aside, the aviation didn't get gutted as hard as tanks and arty.
Thankfully a smaller budget and big dreams in the POS 35B led Big Navy to say "nah, you're gonna get C's and still be involved with CAG's."
Besides, like many places there is a pilot crunch on the horizon anyways for the Corps anyways. All the airframes in the world don't mean anything if you don't have the people to operate them.
Regardless, irrelevant to small arms acquisition, other than fighting for budgets: MARCORSYSCOM and DOA aren't integral at all. Also the DCA has to not only deal with branch needs but they fall under NAVAIR as well and have to deal with demands and such there.
That could be a reason the marines adopted the m17 IAR, which is a piston gun
@@dustysandals5466 there's a reason Eisenhower wanted to disband the "second army." Marines don't need to be performing occupation duties in the desert. Not their mission. And amphibious/airborne ifvs are much more conducive to what Marines are supposed to be, which is highly flexible, expeditionary capable light infantry.
@@that_guy_3714 The M27 was trialed and adopted before this test. I *think* the decision to arm the Grunts across the board came before the supressor adoption across the board. Then came the rifle squad reorganization semi-recently.
Makes me wonder if the reason all these rifles are being issued with suppressors is because they have to be. Otherwise, an 80,000 psi cartridge out of a 13" barrel would be obnoxiously, prohibitively loud.
Good point.
Pretty sure that is what Task and Purpose said but I may be remembering incorrectly.
Just one point, the military m5 is a 16 inch barrel
Yeah I’m pretty sure they have a fat short one that looks like a damn oil filter almost. It was tfb tv or whatever the UA-cam channel is I think
I don't think chamber pressure is the primary reason for the suppressor but that will absolutely make it much louder. From the limited amount of shooting I've done there is a large difference between high pressure 'hot' ammo and standard pressure. It lets me know if my ear protection needs re-adusting and I dang sure make sure I'm wearing it when shooting the hot rounds even if I take less care about full ear canal plugging with the standard pressure stuff.
As a 76 year old machine gunner with hindsight I LOVE this gun! A year as an Infantry Instructor at the Infantry School Weapons Committee, Machine gun Sub-committee and later a gunner in Nam with the M60, which I always loved. Others came and went, but I always wanted the 60. NOW I would like this gun... Christmas is coming up.
What about the Squad Automatic version? With the belt feed? I'm sure they are expensive, but hopefully you are comfortable and can splurge.
Hopefully you got a Tavor in 7.62
Will you be using it to replace the M60 you have set up at the picket behind your front door for “home defence” or for hunting mincemeat?
Please forgive the El Horrendo character. When he should have been learning to respect veteran combat soldiers he chose to play video games instead. And when he should have been learning how to comprehend written material he again, chose to play video games instead. So he wasn't able to understand that when you wrote you "always wanted the [M]60" you were implicitly referring to when you were in the Army and in combat. Thank you for your service. We owe the country we have and enjoy to the risks and sacrifices of you and those like you, including my Son, an infantry soldier, combat engineer and as of today an SFC after just nine years in the service. (Pardon the bragging by a proud Dad).
Living proof that veterans should not be asked to dictate the requirements for small arms moving forward.
Thank you for your observations, Ian, and for explaining how the rifle actually handles the 80K chamber pressure. Having spent nearly 40 years working on Army Small Arms, I have a few concerns about this new rifle/cartridge combo. First, is the concept of having 'training ammo,' and 'go-to-war ammo." I foresee units deploying to combat and suddenly discovering that all they have is training ammo. And conversely, going to the range to fire qualification and discovering that they have 'go-to-war' ammo. Next, I'm hoping that the optic has settings for the two different trajectories of the different types of ammo. Next, is the QD suppressor. Some commanders won't want them attached at all, simply because they either don't understand the concept, or for some other trivial reason. They'll have all of the suppressors removed and stored in the Arms Room. When they reach their destination, they'll find that the suppressors are still there - in the Arms Room, back in the States. Don't laugh, I've seen similar things happen too frequently - units that went to war with zero cleaning equipment; units that deployed to a potential war zone and didn't bring any magazines, etc. Alternately, the suppressors will start to 'walk away.' Some entrepreneur will develop an adapter to mount the Sig suppressor on an AR-15, and some soldiers will begin 'losing them' during field exercises. Then the investigations will begin - first by Army CID, then by the ATF, and then by Congress. Time will tell, and I hope that the weapon system is a huge success! I can already anticipate some future modifications to the weapon and changes in procedures, however.
Insightful comment
A couple of mistakes here. XM157 us going to be the optic. It's fully digital. So it can adjust to multiple amo, as well as building in a lot of other adjustments. The optic will calculate and adjust for bullet drop, windage, angle, etc. The optic has a compass, atmospherics, and a laser rangefinder to get the data it needs to make ballistic calculations. The reticle is fully digital so it can move in fractions of a second based on these calcs - the goal is to get to a point and shoot system where you have much better accuracy at range. What I like, it's still an OPTIC vs a screen, so it's the overlayed reticle that is digital. And the non-go to war ammo still works if you end up with it. And many troops are not going to be using this if you are just carrying a rifle to a duty station.
Just imagine all the guys with M17 frames and M18 magazines.
@@randominternet5586 Sounds like a cool sight. What happens when it takes a hit or the mud, snow or sand and heavy rain gets hold of it. Every combat rifle should have a backup set of the old iron sights. For just that reason. Having been in more than one combat zone I can promise you it's not like any one way rifle range I've ever been on.
@@nightrider1850 Like he said, it's still an optic rather than a digital screen. If the computer is no longer functioning, you can still manually zero it just like you could any other optic.
I love how in depth you went on the bolt and barrel for the higher pressure cartridge and comparison to an original AR10
Same here! Greatly appreciated to have that cover
The Sig M5 having a forward assist perfectly encapsulates the military in simplest terms.
Yeah, this thing is supposed to contain an 80,000 psi reaction and you want to force the bolt into battery with your palm??
It is absolutely the thing that confirms it's military
Ian, I'd love to see a follow-up on this weapon updating us on any new developments/flaws. I've recently been hearing that the guns are having problems with jamming.
30:48 As someone who was a POG in the Army (Both slang and actually belonging to Psychological Operations Group) my thoughts may not be worth much, but I do express concern at the idea they are using different rounds for the training and actual combat. We are supposed to train how we fight. But I also can't help but notice this is turning into the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand scenario, where the M4 will be relegated to a support weapon and the M5 as the main rifle of combat troops. I can imagine a future scenario where some future vets recounting experiences from Korean War 2 and complaining the M4 Rifle and the 5.56 round was ineffective against Chinese body armor.
Marksmanship is all fundamentals, recoil is an after thought... you can train fundamentals on a .22
@@highhow I think the bigger problem is the difference in muzzle velocity and hence ballistics. Switch to the full power stuff and everyone will need to hold low on any long enough for bullet drop to come into play, or re-zero their optics, which might include the primary scope or red dot/holo sight, backup iron sights, and any IR laser aiming devices. Seems like a royal pain in the ass at the very least.
Don't ever apologize for not being an infantryman.
I get the feeling that division is probably really intended a cost-saving and hopefully temporary measure - bring in the M5, get some real-world usage data, and phase out the sunk cost of the M4 over time. Don't throw out working rifles, but likely don't buy new M4s either.
(Of course, that type of type of 'temporary' measure has a habit of staying around well past any useful point...)
@@jarink1 Nah, no apologize, lol, I'll give my fair share of ribbing to the 11bangers out there, but we are all on the same side in the end.
I believe this is the video we have all been waiting for
Nah we need him to look at the general dynamics bullpup one with the reciprocating barrel.
@@joeymobb8438 in that case this is 'one of' the videos we have all been waiting for and we can simply wait and hope for him to get his hands on the others
I'm still watching the video, just got to the part on the suppressors but I have concerns about the ammo. Actually a few but most specifically, training with such a huge downgrade in pressure. It really is the equivalent of using two totally different cartridges. Now you go into battle where everything is already amplified but your rifle actually is behaving differently from your training. Muscle memory dealing with recoil staying on target and getting back to target, etc etc. It just is an odd concept to me. You train hard to play hard. This method is; train soft to save money.
i think its more so, if body armour bekomes a problem, you upgrad, without neding a new caliber weapon
The suppressor also makes it for difficult for the enemy to determine where the shots are coming from and eliminates muzzle flash for night operations. That’s primarily the reason the army chose to have the suppressor standard issued.
It's not standard issue. The suppressor is not part of the contract. Sig threw it on there in hopes to force the issue to get the government to purchase the rifle and suppressor but the Army is going to have a separate competition for the suppressor.
If the enemy has NV, your squad's suppressors will be like beacons after any kind of sustained fire.
@@DiggerTRock365 The barrel glow under sustained fire anyways under NVGs.
I think it's a good idea, less noise on the battlefeild.
Almost every military has some kind of thermal now.
My hypothesis is someone in the DoD figured the US army can go back to the WW2 model of rifle for riflemen, and carbine for everyone else.
The rangers were never a fan of the heavier weapons and eventually got their hands on carbines and smg’s. Ounces are pounds...
@@mursalot Theres something to be said about recoil and magazine capacity too, the m1 carbine outdoes the garand in those 2 aspects
@@mursalot they have different procurement than everyone else I’m sure they could get there hands on some 416s or M4s
I agree! but see both sides of the coin.
Having used both big bro and Lil bro! or old and in an AR version. I think "I would want" 20 to 30 rounds on board with lighter resupply on hand in a lightweight CARBINE in most conditions! especially if half my brothers at arms had big Bro, and I would be willing to bet they would like the other 1/2 hitting faster and more but not as hard? I bet you are 100% on to how it ends up?
@@that_guy_3714 The difference is that the m1 carbine shoots a round comparable to .357 magnum. 5.56 has around double the muzzle energy of .357. Additionally the.6.8 doesn't do anything besides increase range.
Kudos to Ian for getting this content up so quickly in the wake of the army's announcement of SIG as the winner of the 6.8mm trial. I'd love to see Ian get his hands on the XM250, the belt-fed machine gun the army plans to use to compliment this rifle.
I was issued an M16 in Vietnam and for that war, it was an adequate round, although I guess I would have preferred more power. When I got home and went deer hunting, there was no way I wanted such a puny round for taking deer on the open prairie, my round of choice was the 25-06, it was much more powerful but maintained a very flat shooting long range capability, topped with a Buris 3X9 power scope made a wonderful hunting rifle that provided me with sausage for many years. My old Remington is still being used every year by one of my nephews who begged the rifle off me when I decided to hang up my hunting gear. This new round resembles the 25-06 and should make a great man stopper. Luck to those soldiers who have the opportunity to use it in battle.
As a former infantryman, I would be concerned about the added weight, but I am also glad to see an anti-armor (body armor) capability. I do not like seeing the saw replaced with a mag-fed weapon though.
Only the Marines are replacing the SAW with a mag fed rifle (M27 IAR... which the MC decided to replace all M16/M4 in the Infantry with, so kinda back to the M16A1 days of the Automatic Rifleman carrying the same weapon as the other Rifleman... although supposedly each Company will retain 6 SAWs in their arms room the CO can divvy out at their discretion), whereas the Army's NGSW-AR replacement for the SAW, the M250 is still belt fed (firing the same ammo as the M5)
I understand where you're coming from. I got in in 2010 and we still had the saws in our squads until they got switched out in 2012 with m27s. However, the added accuracy of the m27 was no joke, and even though the volume of outgoing fire is less, we were able to do more with that rifle because of the accuracy. Nowadays all Marine Corps infantryman have m27s from what i understand. And with some extra ammo on each guy, i can see having all the firepower spread around the squad as being a good boost overall.
Hey don't worry this isn't replacing the SAW, that's the m250 and it's belt fed. Also more importantly are you demanding the destruction of Canada?
Have you ever shot people that then didn't die when you expected they would?
It isn't being replaced by a mag fed weapon, google the XM250
The only part of the SIG M5 Spear that eludes me is if the .277 Fury's performance is *really* worth the extra barrel weight, materials cost, and ammo cost compared to an equally good, equally modernized AR-10?
It depends on what body armor it comes up against really, and no one can really predict the future no mater how hard they try. Thats the crux of Military R&D, you got to spend money to try and stay ahead of the game by finding and deploying the next transformative tech (as opposed to iterative tech) without ruining you right now. The days of turning out improved weapons systems in months have been over for a long time and they are not coming back, at best you get a kludge fix but typically you get something that doesn't work all. And you got to design with a peer/near peer adversary in mind as they are the real threats.
The logic here isn't 'we want something better than 5.56 against body armor" its "we think body armor has improved enough to sway fights where 5.56 is used, and will continue to eat into the advantages of 5.56 to the point where it will be non-viable in the future as body armor improves". This really is a question of energy more than anything else as that determines how much penetration a round has. In that case 300 blackout isn't a good replacement as it actually has less energy than the standard 5.56 and even hot loads only push the energy up slightly. Same with the other 5.56 rounds, they just don't generate enough energy. As such 5.56 basically falls out of the running because it just none viable, leaving the beefier NATO rounds. The 7.62 and .308 are comparable to the .227 Fury generating similar 2500 Joules of energy (in comparison 5.56 barely breaks 1800 at best), but generate something like 20,000 less PSI meaning they need full 20-24 inch barrels to get that performance. In comparison the .227 gets that with a 16 inch barrel due to its absurd 80,000 PSI. In other words, the .227 Fury lets you get Battle Rifle performance out of a Assault/Carbine Style Rifle.
Does this mean its worth it? No idea, time will tell.
@Dick Izzinya Also seems more powerul, especially at distance. Which is nuts for infantry but ok.
My inclination is "no." I suspect they're significantly overestimating how effective Russian and Chinese body armor is, if they think a round *this* hot is necessary to beat it.
@@RedXlV Again, maybe. but when the consequences of failure is "your armies primary weapon doesn't work" erring on the side of caution is understandable. The fact that said adversaries have the tendency to either not tell the truth, or not know the truth, of their own forces capabilities doesn't really matter in the face of that reality.
By the way, couldn't they have just made the entire case out of steel? Or does a stainless steel case head have some different properties than a case made completely out of lackered steel?
As a prior infantryman, Sig lost me when they introduced a heavier rifle with heavier ammo, ain't no one wanna carry that 20 miles. The complexity of the parts, the surfaces for debris to get into/stick on making cleaning more of a chore, this was designed to please the brass, not infantry companies. The half commitment to a side charging handle is dumb, choose one or the other and eliminate moving parts. I have friends that are still in who are absolutely not looking forward to this rifle and the SAW being introduced to their units. I might be crazy, but I think this will be the M14 all over again.
You need to expand your interpretation of what an enemy infantryman in the near future will look like before casting judgement on why the Army is futureproofing itself with a heavier rifle firing such a heavy and powerful round.
To put it bluntly, the M5 isnt being adopted to engage Taliban fighters or Russians troops in the Donbass, this rifle will likely be shooting at armoured exoskeletons and autonomous combat robots in as little as 10 years. Our centuries long understanding of the basics of fire and manoeuvre is about to get completely upended in a future battlefield where the opponent not only can withstand multiple hits and still return fire, he might not even be human.
I wonder how they managed before the introduction of the AR 15? All those infantrymen humping M1s and .30 Cals across Europe and Asia. Definitely didn’t happen.
@@fludblud what good is a rifle meant for exosuits and aliens if they are fighting Russians? Exosuits have been in the work for years and years now and I doubt we will still be seeing them any time soon.
@@fludblud I seriously doubt these "autonomous combat robots" understand the concept of surrender. They should be banned by international treaty. Though countries would still probably keep them in some warehouse bunkers waiting for the next big one.
@@fludblud Lol, as if anyone other than us has that kind of capability. Stop playing Call of Duty and resync with the real world.
I think the fact that the interior of the suppressor is entirely 3d printed is absolutely groundbreaking, especially for the FOSSCAD movement. It's not only a giant step forward in the development of mass 3d printing for high stress components, but also a clear indication by traditional industry that 3d printing may be up to the job for much more in the near future, which could bring massive 2A accessibility!
They are finding in most manufacturing that 3D printing is too costly and slow
Several high-profile 3D-printed metal products have come to market recently, so I hardly think this would qualify as "groundbreaking." Additionally, a variety of very tricky technical issues mean AM'd metal products usually have inferior mechanical properties, looser tolerances, and/or a higher price tag compared to those produced conventionally. For the foreseeable future, metal 3D-printing will remain limited to applications where a highly complex shape is required, but low cost, optimized materials, and high precision aren't. That's pretty niche.
Having said that, I've stumbled across some things in academic papers that sure sound like they have the potential for near-term revolution, and I'm scratching my head as to why they haven't been blasted all over the news and had buckets of money thrown at them. I'm not an expert, though, so perhaps it's just my ignorance showing.
@@markdoan1472 it's an early technology, things improve. I was around 3d printing during the reprap days, seeing how fast it's improved over the last decade is quite impressive, printers are getting much much faster, new materials become printable all the time as well. Just with any technology it needs time to mature, and a nod of confidence in its future by industry, which is what this provides. It might not be up to the task immediately, but the demand require dto fulfill this will help create new innovations in the field and propell it further and further.
@@markdoan1472 100% true, additive 3D printing is VERY expensive.
It blows my mind people/governments are trying to reinvent the firearm, Nothing has changed in 50 years. How about training every soldier in marksmanship + Drone operating?
Ukraine has showed that most warfare is not "rifle-based" Unless your shooting tribes with sharpened pineapples.
@@tbrowniscool There are different types of warfare, and Ukraine is only representative of some of them. For others, rifles will likely remain a primary weapon system for quite some time. Yes, drones should be employed more than they are, but unfortunately, there's often no effective substitute for a human with a firearm.
Additionally, while they both could and _should_ reinvent the firearm, the world's militaries have actually been doing a bang-up job of avoiding doing so. I can think of a number of technologies capable of dramatically improving firearms' performance that have become feasible in the last fifty years, but the only industry more resistant to change than small arms is residential construction, so every effort to innovate has been firmly squashed.
Interesting the addition of a surpressor. Since silencer technology was fully developed by 1914 it was postulated at the time that all military rifes would be equipped with one, and exactly for the reason Ian mentioned, noise supression for easier communication of orders on the battlefield. It took 108 years for it to become a reality.
While the principles may have been in place by 1914, the practicalities of designing and manufacturing suppressors on this mass-issue scale have massively advanced in the past few decades. Computer modelling of gas flow making designs more efficient, compact and lightweight; manufacturing technologies like additive manufacturing (here) and CNC milling of complex geometries that would have been impractical 20 years ago; better materials to aid longevity and minimise balance and barrel harmonic issues -- these are just a few reasons why this is one of the first general-issue suppressed rifles. Similar to why the M1 was the first general-issue semi-auto rifle -- semi-auto rifles were available before 1900, it took a long time for the combination of technologies to make the bolt-action obsolescent, when the overall advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
Something I've wondered about is: How does everyone using a suppressor affect suppressive fire? Is the noise component of firing your rifle integral or is the sonic crack and bullet impacts alone sufficient, or perhaps, Is suppression increased because it harder to determine where you are taking fire from without the noise?
@@lordsummerisle87 What you say is certainly true, and there were good reasons why it took silencers 100 years to be considered a general issue item. One I can think of is how do you mount a bayonet on a rifle with a silencer? In 1914 the bayonet was far from out of the military picture. Apparantly that's no longer a concern. The fragility and expense of a traditional Maxim silencer's no longer an issue either.
What I was trying to point out was a silencer equipped infantry rifle's not a new idea.
in fairness a big problem with mass-issuance of suppressors for a long time was ammunition. Suppressors can only handle a certain pressure curve and are always subject to fouling. Ammunition standardization, especially wartime manufacture ammunition, could not really be relied upon until fairly recently. A single 'bad batch' of ammo could wind up blowing out the suppressors of an entire unit, or foul them up too quickly, and that's a big expense to replace or time sink you clean, especially if your still thinking of army sizes in terms of millions
For a long time this was one of those ideas that everybody liked in concept but hated in practicality
@@tropictiger2387 You are correct. The suppressors will mask the source of the shot, which can lead to the enemy acting more disorganized as they can't tell where the shot came from.
I predict that once the troops put all the normal accessories on this rifle it’s weight will earn the M5 a very unfavorable reputation.
Better than the M14
@@BeKindToBirds that's kind of a low bar, isn't it?
About all you can add is a VFG and maybe a flashlight. The XM157 optic replaces and consolidates all the big ticket add ons (IR laser/illuminator, RDS, magnifier etc) into one item and it does so at a lower combined weight than the separate accessories by themselves.
@@CircaSriYak how does it replace IR laser?
@@OrloTheM3D1C there is an IR module built into the optic
Ian really is at the cutting edge of firearms here
32:30 I don’t doubt Ian when he says this is a fantastic rifle, but it seems to present a choice between adopting a higher powered cartridge and heavier rifle with much less in ammunition for the average infantry man, or dealing with three calibers instead of two.
Adopting, say the ‘true velocity’ lightweight ammunition, knights armament LAMG and some additional AR-10s seems like an 80% solution, for 20% of the cost, and complete forwards and backwards compatibility.
Though, the channel is called "Forgotten weapons", not "Brand new weapons" or "New weapons" or something...
You might even say he is at the tip of the spear
Yeah im pretty sure the future of the past, military or otherwise, is the present.
I didn’t see a bayonet lug, how can he be on the cutting edge without one?
@@c1ph3rpunk touché!
Regardless of performance, it is extremely aesthetically pleasing. I love the way it looks.
ehhhhh
"Form follows function" is a design aesthetic I'm particularly fond of and this is a very nice example.
@@shaunpoland5656 Gun elitist
I’m sure 99% of people who will be using it care far more about a lot of things ahead of how it looks. Having said that, it’s certainly a lot better looking than some of its competitors.
@@borismuller86 All the new vid game recruits will care about is how cool it looks. Later, they will mature into form follows function soldiers.
Well, boys, We've finally perfected the M-16/M4 series of weapons and got them proliferated all through NATO as well in various forms to the point they can be produced very cheaply.
Welp, Time to go back to battle rifles that are uncontrollable in full auto and only hold 20rds - and make a new caliber nobody else in NATO will want to switch to. In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with enormous profits in the short term for Sig.
There's a reason why it's already on "Forgotten weapons". 🤔
And instead of using an existing high-velocity cartridge like .224 Valkyrie or making a modern, rimless equivalent of .220 Swift, giving you a faster bullet better able to defeat armor, let's go with 6.8mm at 80,000 psi with a stupidly complex case construction! Heavier ammo, more recoil, less velocity = definitely better!
I am on the fence.. yes the longer range is great.. the new optic sounds great but might be problematic.
I don’t think this new rifle will be uncontrollable full auto.. everyone that reviews it says it’s felt recoil is almost negligible.
I can see a problem with these rifles in close quarter situations like urban battles, but I can see the advantage in wars requiring real riflemen.
We will not live long enough to see the last M4 leave the US Military.. it does to much to be replaced by this new weapon..
However having said all that a war between our forces and very well equipped Russians or Chinese is something that isn’t impossible.
A firearm that gives a two hundred meter advantage to our soldiers that can defeat body armor doesn’t seem like a bad thing to go for.
The M16 was ridiculed when it was issued… let’s see if this was a mistake over time.. I actually liked the firearm that ran against this one.. polymer shell casings would have driven the liberals nuts!
@@ferdonandebull No one who's reviewed it has used the full-power ammo, according to Ian in this video.
CQB is one of the places this rifle would work best, as that's where you need maximum stopping power, and where it can actually penetrate hard armor. That's why the 6.8 SPC was adopted: for extra stopping power at short range.
Defeating body armor is definitely something the military needs to plan for, but for hard armor, what you need is speed. You get more speed with lighter bullets. So if your goal is defeating armor, a more powerful cartridge in 5.56 or 6mm makes WAY more sense. And we already have two 5.56/.224 rounds that can do it without needing to operate at 80K psi. One even works in existing AR-15 platforms, and the other works in AR-10s (though it could stand to be updated). I'd bet .243 Win could beat Level 3 armor with the right bullet, too.
I think it also has to do with the US wanting less to do with NATO.
It's vastly a who's who of immigrant countries to America from the 20th century and before. Those same countries citizens (that stayed) seam to only resent Americans. So why be a tight Ally with them to the point you are logistically bound?
Yes Ian, the case deflector does work properly when firing the "combat" ammunition. Something worth mentioning here is that because of the combination of the full power "combat" issue ammunition coupled which the unique cartridge case design, that stainless steel case head destroyed the case deflector on early prototypes. That is why you will see, if you look closely, that the M5 Spear uses a replaceable case deflector that slides into position and is locked in place with a roll pin.
I was curious about that insert, I was wondering if you could make it from a flexible polymer to negate the need to replace it.
In that case it'd make sense to have two different deflector designs, and switch them over anytime you're switching ammo type.
@@justindunlap1235 This one looks like steel.
In early discussions about the cartridge there was much angst expressed by some over the high chamber pressure. Thanks for pointing out that high pressure per se doesn’t automatically mean increased bolt carrier velocity; perhaps explanations like yours will lead to more general understanding of the issue. And thanks for an excellent video in general.
No but it does mean increased throat wear and barrel wear. If you need more velocity you can go with a longer barrel or a different cartridge. This is more a sign of idiots behind desks in positions of power that want to write stupid specifications. I want to be able to pull 1g on the skid pad, go 200mph, get 36MPG, carry 1 Ton of cargo and pull 10,000lbs. trailer.....Make it happen! Just like only a moron would chose a short fat 6.8mm projectile when you could have a sleeker, heavier, and in all ways better 6.5mm projectile. You have sound scientific reasoning and good engineering then you have this dumpster fire of unreal expectations from a 16 inch barrel with a short fat lighter than ideal projectile and to make it all work we will push the chamber pressure up to 80K PSI. Genius! I have nothing at all to say about the new rifle as I have not handled one but there is no perfect anything all weapon systems have pro's and con's! It is the ammo that has my panties in a twist!
It will still EAT GAS PORTS which means when PMS is lacking in the wild that bolt velocity will increase over time and it will beat itself up.
It will still EAT GAS PORTS which means when PMS is lacking in the wild that bolt velocity will increase over time and it will beat itself up.
@@lllhunterlll9644 Oops that must include you. I re-barreled my first X-Course and Palma rifle in middle school back in 1985 or 1986. That said you do not need to manufacture your own weapon system to have a valid opinion as an engineer, shooter, reloader and someone with experience with development of other US Army weapon systems. I worked at General Motors in Engineering Department. I have never designed an entire car that does not mean I am not qualified to have an opinion on various parts of a car I have never designed. You are not as smart as you think you are!
@@lllhunterlll9644 Specifically what part of what I said is either wrong? Put-up or Shut-up that is how the sawing goes. Be very specific please or you will only confirm your foolish nature!
I love technological advances. This configuration definitely shows substantial improvements but I hope that they'll be able handle the huge undertaking of adopting new platforms with a new cartridge.
In the past we've seen failures in platform adoption and also adoption of new cartridge individually by itself.
What advances? Weak ammo is what you’ll get. Better off with AR10. AR15 is still the best. There is no one size fits all. The whole concept is stupid. But government and military elites know no better.
Uh...Ian, the barrel extensions on the AR are also a separate piece and are threaded and pinned on. They just usually come from the factory already assembled, headspaced, and pinned. The AR-10/15 indexing pin on the top of the barrel are also the pin that secures the threaded on barrel extension.
Depends though. Extensions and barrels can be made from the same material. I bought a few extensions from custom shops that are heat treated 4140, and I've got 4140 barrels too. Extensions don't need to be broached like the milspec ones are, most of mine are milled. It's entirely feasible to have a one piece barrel with an 'extension' milled into it.
@@DesertCoyotes yep. I have profiled and chambered a few custom AR barrels. I just got to the part of the video where the op got confused, as did I. There is just no way you could traditionally broach the extension lugs if the extension was integral to the barrel. Mill, yes. Broach, no. All of my broached extensions have broach marks down into the threads, the milled extensions don't have any extra cuts in the threads.
I came here to say this. I used to work at a barrel shop and I've personally assembled AR-10 and AR-15 extensions onto barrels so I was a little surprised when Ian said that lol.
@@randomidiot8142 If you did make one monolithic out of an alloy like 4140 or 4150, you'd want to harden the whole thing to upper 40s, then induction temper the rest of the barrel past the chamber back down to mid 30s for ductility. Would be an interesting project to see how it fares compared to case hardened extensions!
The barrel indexing pin does not actually secure the barrel extension. The pin does not protrude into the threads on the vast majority of designs nor by specification. The barrel extensions are held on by torque and the pins by a tight fit.
@random idiot As for the locking lug reliefs on the barrel extensions not needing to be broached.. no, they kind of need to be broached. You say it depends as if there is any ambiguity and its common that barrel extensions and barrels are the same part and no, there is no ambiguity here. You say most of yours are milled and to this I say BS, you are almost certainly wrong or lying. The only way to mill them to get the same profile between the lugs would be to mill from the outside through the diameter of the extension compromising it substantially or overcutting between the lugs which would compromise it substantially unless one were using exceptionally small tooling, at which point it is way cheaper and easier to just use broached ones. What brand or brands are you using such that "most" of your barrel extensions potentially have their safety and function compromised for absolutely no reason and they have provided a lower quality product at a higher cost? Why would you ever buy multiples of this product so that their shoddy product represents the majority of your inventory??? Again, I am 99.99% certain you are wrong or lying. I have been shooting for 30 years and been in the firearm manufacturing business as a designer for over a decade (including several lines of AR platform products) and I have only ever seen one example of a fully milled barrel extension (from BHW) that was able to work with a standard bolt and I only saw it because the extension failed because they had to overcut the reliefs which thinned the wall of the extension leading to them cracking and the locking lugs popping off from the barrel assembly. They changed back to broached but the company still went out of business because of very poor quality overall. I would absolutely love for you to name this big brand that I have never heard of that is currently making fully milled barrel extensions to learn something new and make me look like a total A-hole but otherwise your take seems like lame cope for not being able to comprehend the fact that despite all the things he gets right Ian often does not actually know how guns work and he still occasionally gets things wrong.
The barrel extension is the largest diameter of a barrel assembly so using a separate extension saves waste metal, reduces machining time, allows complicated geometry to be machined that it being part of the barrel would substantially complicate (can still broach on the barrel), and because it is the standard geometry they can be made at scale at a substantially lower cost than someone wanting to make a special milled one that is worse in literally every way. The only exception to this is most pistol caliber barrels since, in the case of direct blowback, there are no lugs which need to lock and so no complicated geometry. Most AR pistol caliber barrels have the external geometry of the extension on the barrel itself but some pistol caliber barrels also still have separate extensions. In this case, the waste metal of the larger diameter blank is a compromise with the additional waste from the extension and the added difficulty of properly torqueing a thin walled round extension on a round barrel.
During my time in the Army I spent a lot of time on range details and the part that always sucked the most was having to clean all the rifles afterwards. The arms room wouldn't accept them unless they were cleaned to the point that they looked like they were brand new and had never been fired. This new rifle looks like it will be a pain in the ass to clean that thoroughly. It has so many nooks and crannies for dirt and carbon to get stuck in and you need separate tools to remove the handguard, which you don't need on the M16.
The piston system of the sig makes it a lot cleaner, the m27 uses a piston system also and is super easy to clean in the Marine Corps. I’ve gotten mine cleaned and accepted by the armory within 30-60 minutes a lot. Meanwhile like you mentioned the direct impingement rifles like the m16a4 (boot camp) and m4 took FOREVER. Like a couple hours to a whole day.
I don’t think cleaning will be an issue for the everyday grunt, I’m just more concerned about humping all that heavy ammo around.
Luckily I’ll be chilling with 5.56 for a loooong time ahaha
I'm going to second Zachary. I've owned a piston operated AR.... the sig 516, for almost 10 years now. I've owned an impingement for about a year. The two don't even compare. The 516 is ALWAYS clean, even after a 120 round range trip. The piston is really easy to clean. My impingement is 100 times dirtier after a single magazine. The piston system is a blessing to people like you who hate cleaning guns.
@@JathTech yeah it takes my pof 1000 rounds to look like a single mag of any direct gas. Though I still favor gas impingment for my "duty" gun.
Eh a lot of time “cleaning rifles is busy work and it’s used to give Joe something to do” that’s my dads statement A 1-9 Cav.
@@chloehennessey6813 i think that something should instead be reading FM7-8 or drilling tactics, or practicing communication with other units like artillery or air, or working out. There's about a million other better busy work things a soldier can do that isn't cleaning his rifle.
I think the M5 will have the same life span as the M14 debacle.
MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY, this all looks like a giant tax dollar suck, and it'll take years, and it'll slowly fade away with a return to the previous weapons platform or a replacement for that, that'll cost even more... to ME, a brigade armorer and production gunsmith, I don't think its simple enough, and they're gonna make it even more complicated with different configurations and calibers and its not going to be integrated worth a damn. I NEVER cared for the m16 platform, or the m4s, but simple enough they are. Easier ways to go 30 caliber, cheaper ways, and with less headache.
@@boscoalbertbaracus1362 not enough people are considering the LMG replacement also. That can replace the M249/M60/M240 with one machine gun. Many believe that more accurate, less drop, longer range MG fire will will more than make up for the extra ammo weight compared to the saw even for suppressive fire
A version of the M14 has been in service from 1957 until Today
@@removedot and versions of 1911s are currently in military and law enforcement use doesn't mean they're gonna be widely used or adopted, just like the handful of m14s that are in use. But don't listen to me, just watch this project cost 100s of millions and end up with little to show for it.
if that
@@boscoalbertbaracus1362 Heavier, more expensive, more complicated. Procurement in a nut shell.
A more rational system would constantly be focusing on user experience, capability, reliability, and cost. If you're not improving 3 of the 4, and don't need to match some enemy capability, then you're probably wasting money and time.
I would LOVE to see a post-mortem of Textron's submissions to the competition. Was it poor execution, or is case telescoped ammunition just fundamentally unsound?
I would say risk management. The military had enough failures with innovative new designs, they took a safer bet with more familiar design.
Political corruption. It was the clear choice, otherwise why bother. This "hybrid" case ammo is completely absurd. The rifle is too weak to feed it's actual ammo. This is the perfect "upgrade" for this clown world era.
The specifics of this program more likely. The Textron submissions might of had some minor annoyances that could have been worked out, but the fundumentals of this program actually evolved from the CSASS and then the battle rifle program that was recently cancelled (because the requirements of that found its way into the NGSW making it redundant).
Well it does inherently come with lower chamber pressure and thus lowered velocity, therefore having decreased armor penetration and range, which seem to be the two most important factors considered in this program. Additionally, the rifle itself has some strange design choices (ejection port right by the handguard, where most soldiers hold the weapon, why?).
@@jonathanpfeffer3716
Where'd you find info that is has lower chamber pressures?
I love that it still has the forward assist after all the years of almost everyone saying that it's useless.
That was the first thing I saw.
@@craigbenz4835 I think Kyle Rittenhouse proved that a forward assist is important.
@@blackwoodsecurity531 Someone at Sig watched the trial and went "Oh fuck, it is useful".
It's not entirely useless, but it is arbitrary.
Seems weird to have different rounds. So when troops go to combat, they're going to use a more powerful round that they have no experience with. There's going to be a learning curve that's potentially going to take place in combat.
The learning curve is a certain danger, but when everything is considered, it's just a high-risk, high-reward gambit... In theory, one should factor in both the overall training the soldier has received with the weapon system, and assume they have in fact at some point shot the "real deal" in training and not been kept on the "fakeouts" for the entirety of the thousand practice shots they had at basic, to get a grip on the difference, at the very least.
I would also argue that adrenaline is one hell of a learning/focus booster, since it speeds up EVERYTHING related to survival while it's flooding your bloodstream. A soldier confident enough in their training will (unkowingly) tap into that sped-up mental process to adapt to the different recoil and performance, instead of freezing or panicking in the middle of combat. That learning curve will not be as steep as one may think, if the rifle behaves not-so differently.
That being said, it doesn't erase the fact that it's a high-risk, high-reward gambit, and I cannot condone betting the well-being of a person on whether they will react as a third party expects it or not...
They’ll probably fire this ammunition on ranges before they deploy because that’s what they do with m855a1 rn range shooting is just 855 green tips
As Ian mentioned: the small round is for training and normal, aysymetric conflicts, with the big one against protected targets. If troops are expected to be used to encounter such targets, they will used this ammunition in Training as well.
Also there isn‘t really any such armour out there on a relevant scale. At least yet. If this becomes an issue, they certainly will drop the small version.
There would already be a learning curve since most troops don’t see combat
@@mar71n32n0v1lLL0 If they're smart, what they'll do is the bulk of their training with the training ammo, but do semi-annual full pressure shoots. Also require rifle quals to be done with the real deal.
Ian, when you weighed the reciprocating mass you needed to include the buffer as well... since the BCG doesn't reciprocate without it, much like the op rod on the Spear...
In reference to all the steel wear inserts, cam track, deflector face... they also put steel pins on either side of where the top charging handle catches, a typical wear point on AR style rifles. Not sure if those pins go into blind holes making them non-serviceable, or if you can just punch them through and put new ones.
ALSO, in theory you could have a different shape deflector face to help prevent the brass from hitting the face of lefties.
Epic comment. Thank you for your mechanical engineering insight. Very thought provoking.
If this thing somehow manages to be a success, I'd honestly be excited for when it's time to improve on this rifle.
It's already a pretty solid concept, so I'd really like to see what SIG engineers will do when an M5A1 is required.
make a longer barrel
Indeed, this thing already drinks heavily from M16A4 improvements (as long as other SIG designs and even H&K derived designs coming from AR-18) over more than 40 years.
But I guess they will do soemthing with that folding stock.
Your going to see a small frame sig spear like the POF revolution.
I feel like they could gave used a small frame 308 with those three upgraded parts for the pressure (bolt lug, barrel and piston lug).
I understand sig has proprietary designs but if they made the spear the same size as the 556 mcx. Like how POF made the 308 reciever the same size as the 556 minus the magwell then they would cut down on weight and overall size.
Truthfully this could be their plan and they are rolling it out like this so they keep a contract for 20+yrs
Make it a bull pup! With a longer barrel and shorter overall length.
@@aethelwolfe3539 nerp. I ain't havin a round of 80k PSI ignite right next to my face. You let us know how that goes.
I wonder how long it will take before the training ammo becomes the regular issue rifle ammo and the full-pressure ammo becomes MG-only. This looks like a great recipe for making sure your troops can't hit anything when it really counts.
its more likely the lower pressure ammo becomes the standard and the full pressure ammo will only be issued in case its actually needed.
The SPEAR is basically a shorter, modified version of the SIG MCX-MR that they submitted to the CSASS trials. Surprised nobody seems to remember that gun.
Its basically just another DMR. At this point not exactly spectacular.
Hmm, i have never seen what weapons were submited to those trials.
@Dick Izzinya this or the HK? I'll take the .277 round over the 308
next Forgotten Weapons topic!! the de-evolution of the MCX?
@Dick Izzinya
HK will make a new cartridge to compete. 😂
Amazing video Ian! You unpack the science of firearm in a way that even a pilot can understand!
You're the first person I've heard call it an "M5" and it gave me chills. I'm 30 years old so it's crazy to think we finally have something new.
"I'm 30 years old" Lmao you're talking like you're 70 or something
Ultimately the Army went with the least risky platform and cartridge that met their armor defeat specifications. Sig did a great job balancing proven designs, new materials and meeting their assigned metrics. Polymer/Semi telescoping ammunition would have been a game changer in terms of weight savings, but apparently that was not a priority for this tasking. I still am skeptical that big Army will adopt this, though it is reassuring that this option exists should the next threat be near peer.
How are you skeptical that it will be adopted when the Army already adopted it?
I have to wonder how much less risky it really is, though I get their reasoning
@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater he said “big army” which i assume means the whole entire army units. This rifle is only for the close combat units i.e. the “tip of the spear” hence the name.
@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater There's a difference between a contract and having it actually issued to units. Plenty of contracts have been killed early on: OICW, Crusader, Comanche to name a few. We're not going to see widespread adoption of the M5 for years, and there are a lot of logistics to be determined including how our current qual ranges will handle the new ammunition.
I feel like armor defeat specs are probably the wrong way to go.
Sure modern armor is good but it only covers a small area on the chest, and basically no adversaries we are up against wear heavy armor. And the primary way guys die in the field is to artillery, airstrikes, or heavy weapons - not rifle fire. So why carry a heavier rifle that can defeat armor? 5.56 can still inflict debilitating wounds on the extremities, and torso areas not protected by armor. And lethal wounds on the unarmored head/kneck areas (head being what is often exposed over your cover).
So I say stick with the lighter weapon system and ammo. You're still going to be very effective and more combat mobile. This feels like expensive overcompensation.
I have a feeling the troops won't like to lug this around after they've gotten used to the m4 for so many years. Also, the ammunition no longer seems "intermediate" like other assault rifle rounds, it's eerily close to the 7.62 NATO in recoil from the videos I've seen. They might as well have gone with an AR 10 in that case.
Dang I was thinking the same thing.
5.56 is inadequate, full power 7.62 is too powerful so something in between is needed.
@@LazyLifeIFreak the mil loading of the 6.8 has much higher chamber pressure and recoil than 7.62x51
im shocked they didnt simply neck down 7.62 nato to 7 or 6-point-whatever and call it a day
It's not eerily close, it is. 2694 ft lbs muzzle energy vs 2700 ft lbs for similar projectile weights, the smaller caliber just helps with penetration, the higher pressure maintain the kinetic energy by increasing projectile velocity. Out of a firearm with the same mass and operating system, they would produce the same recoil. M14 was a 9 lb rifle, Sig MCX Spear is like 8lbs before you cover it in crap.
To be clear, the 6.8x51 is a full power cartridge, same as 7.62x51. This is a change in doctrine as much as a change in hardware.
This gun is seriously so beautiful. When you break it down and see how it all comes together under that shiny exterior, it just enhances my sense of awe
Hey Ian, you're such a good presenter and your content provides so much useful and interesting informations.
Great work!
Ian is the GOAT! Love his hair, so sexy and luxurious! As a woman watching his videos, sometimes I get caught up in how cute he is to look at, so down to earth and considerate too!
i really hope i get my hands on this before I leave the army... interested on how the ballistics will change. after years of being used to the m4, shooting a new rifle round should be quite a bit different.
Ian makes a good final point- this will be looked upon as a “good” or “bad” decision down the road, but at the end of the day, we are just trying to stay ahead of potential threats. There is just no possible way to see into the future, and there are countless stories where militaries have made decisions for the future that have paid off, and countless stories where they have not- I hope this is the right move, but even if it isn’t, thank God that we are trying. That is all we can do.
What are we future-proofing with this rifle? The cartridge is incapable of defeating current body armor, what's the likelihood it's going to be able to defeat future armor technology?
@@steventatlock5443 Source that a full-power AP round can’t defeat modern body armor? Level IV can stop one AP .30-06 round, but I haven’t heard it can stop AP .277.
And even if some Lv IV can, there’s also cost. Would China want to spend the money to upgrade their troops with the armor needed to stop .277? Or would the number crunchers say that the cost of upgrading their army for a war against the US is too much?
@@Florkl Bruh it’s China, the answer is YES with their slave labor workers.
@@Florkl There has yet to be any data suggesting that *any* round out of that 13" barrel is capable of defeating level IV body armor, so until there is, you're the one short on sources. Level IV plates can stop a heavier round with a tungsten carbide penetrator going only 100f/s slower. There are plates that will stop .50 BMG.
Would Chinese number crunchers render a $30,000 rifle package ineffective with $100 ceramic plates? Yeah, probably?
@@John_Redcorn_ Level IV ceramic plates *SELL* for $250. Swimmers cut, tri-curve plates with coating. If you think China can't stamp out flat ceramic plates for significantly less than $100 a unit, you're utterly clueless.
I get why they picked it... it "looks" very similar to a standard issue AR platform already... even if it kinda doesn't... but I feel like the weight issue isn't something to gloss over. The heavier the shit you make soldiers carry, the easier they're going to get exhausted. So either they're carrying less stuff that isn't munitions (might be first aid stuff, might be less armor, might be less food, whatever), or they're going to carry less ammunition... or they're carrying more weight and becoming exhausted faster and requiring more water and food and still performing a bit worse.
I think the polymer-cased ammo submissions were good BECAUSE they had polymer-cased ammo. Polymer is lighter than brass. If you have to give up some pressure compared to a comparably-sized casing made of brass... well it's already a higher-caliber round, so you can still probably get better penetration than standard 5.56.
Idk, just my dumb monkey-brain thoughts, but I feel like a compromise between contracts could have yielded a better weapon.
Well they wasn't willing to give up penetration if they're willing to deal with the higher pressure. Plus as many points out Polymer in the army isn't willing to go though with it untested ammo + the fact that Polymer isn't as durable. Also many have commented that the Fury .277 being hybrid means a good chance if Polymer becomes acceptable then it should be changeable with the brass on the Fury round.
I heard that the military brass wanted the Dynamics entry to have them try with the same Sig Hybrid ammo so the Polymer ammo wasn't acceptable after all.
You have to factor in that the current M4's with quadrails are a lot heavier than current civilian AR15's which average 6-7 pounds without magazine or optics. Those quadrails, obsolete on the civilian market, add a good 2-3 pounds to the weapon. You have a weapon that weighs 9-10 pounds just stock, with a LOT of weight up front. Modern M-Lok handguards are only around 10-14 ounces, and that's for full length 15" versions. Basically, these guns aren't going to be noticeably heavier at base weight than a current military M4, and the balance point will probably be better without that brick of a rail system up front. Also note that the balance point WILL shift backwards with the optic on top of it.
@@WardenWolf yeah at BASE weight. what makes you think they're not going to end up putting a bunch of shit on these? they're gonna be so much fuckin heavier
Having been haunted by the M203 for my entire 13 year military career as infantry and intelligence soldier. Its all about training.
Having been out through CQB dry fires for one or two hours while using the M249 saw. 10 pounds for a rifle feels light.
@@WardenWolf you neglect the fact that you’re also carrying ammo and that these rifles will be loaded with all sorts of attachments. The ammo is close to 7.62 in weight. You’re not only starting off with a heavier base weight, you’re adding attachments and a heavier ammo load on top.
The training ammo reminds me of the whole 10MM thing. I suspect we won't see the high-pressure ammo actually used as much as the training ammo.
Sad memories of a lost opportunity 😢
Based on what Ian is saying, the high pressure ammo is likely for combat use only. So it will get used. Whether or not it will become available for civilians is to be determined.
That kind of the point to use lower pressure ammo to extend the weapon's life
@The Silenced he's talking specifically about the combat version which is tungsten.
@@IAM-o7o there is no way it's tungsten, shits too expensive
Can't believe this is a forgotten weapon already!
I imagine there's going to need to be some new logistics and armory considerations to compensate for the suppressor requirements. I'm interested to see what the lifespan of the suppressors actually is under field conditions. It can't be THAT long considering the pressures involved, which is going to require a fairly substantial number of spares to be available
Marine corps infantry battalions have been using suppressors for at least 6 years not for their 0311’s not a huge logistical problem. Most of the work done is by them. They shoot till they reach a number then throw them out to my knowledge.
@@micahwilson9346 Very interesting. I'm curious how the 3D printed ones will hold up in the field, though. I can't imagine they're anywhere near as durable as the machined aluminum variants of previous years. On the other side of that coin, it's possible the decrease in durability is mitigated somewhat by the construction techniques being one solid piece instead of several smaller pieces. I'll be extremely interested to see the data when it's available either way. This could pave the way for all sorts of interesting innovations in firearms design if it's successful
@@SergeiMosin In Brownells video spotlight of this rifle, the speaker specifically mentions that the suppressors are made out of Inconel Alloy. So it should be substantially durable enough.
@@SergeiMosin Since additive manufacturing is used in aerospace for some time already, you can be sure those things are durable. Additive manufacturing gives a lot of advantages esp. when using topology optimization.
They're probably paying for it with the money the VA is going to save not having to provide a lifetime of medical care for half-deaf 11Bs.
I’d really like to see a video on the bullpup and polymer ammunition that was part of the General Dynamics proposal.
From what I'm seeing, it would be relatively simple to make an M5 DMR in a couple minutes by swapping the 13" barrel for a longer one. The gas port could be left the same distance from the chamber so the operating rod and recoil spring would remain the same. It may require a different sized gas port to operate with the longer barrel being plugged with bullet for a longer time.
This would also give an NFA compliant option for the U.S. civilian market.
ex US soldier does a series of videos under the name of task and purpose. In one of the videos he talks to sig and they have an 8 inch and 20 inch barrel (ie dmr) on display
If the 5.56 m4 is so flawed and anemic that they have to bring in "dmr's" to make up for the m4's weaknesses, then they need a new caliber for the m4, NOT a "dmr" or "battle rifle". The 6.5 grendel using a 140 grain projectile and sigs hybrid cased technology and 30 round mags for the m4, would have been far more practical and efficient. It would be the same rifle but just improved.
Just throwing this out there: if this was the play, wouldn’t it have also been possible to adopt this platform in 7.62 NATO?
- use our vast amounts of 7.62 NATO in inventory for ‘training’
- create a high pressure dual material cased 7.62 NATO loading for ‘combat’ that meets meets velocity/barrel specs
- not screw over allied forces with change to 6.8/277 Fury
I’m sure the rifle is very capable, I just find it odd with choice of round, especially since the rifle is completely capable of swapping a few parts and using 308/7.62 NATO. It already uses AR10 pattern mags.
Luckily the MCX platform is really modular; all you need to do is swap barrels, which is easy, and then you have a different caliber.
It also makes it easier if the military decided it wanted a longer or shorter barrel.
Totally agree, 7.62 would be a viable option especially with the seemingly simple changes that would be required to adopt that cartridge. My sneaking suspicion is that Sig wanted a preliminary cartridge purely for padded margins.
Perhaps weight had something to do with it?
I don't know how much lighter this cartridge is than 7.62 NATO, but considering the amount of ammo a modern soldier is expected to carry, and how important it is for militaries to minimize how much weight does an infantryman has to carry, even the smallest difference would stack.
@@brunoratto253 It weighs more than 7.62 nato.
I was hoping at first this would be 7.62 at 80,000 psi. That would be like a .300 Win Mag in a service weapon! The zombies wouldn't stand a chance lol...
First, this gun is cool and I think provides a great advantage to our troops.
Having said that, it becoming the standard infantry rifle is a mistake. It will probably have a short service life similar to the M14. Unfortunately every time the military tries to make a jack of all trades system, then it is a master of none. This has serious disadvantages in CQB and will add much more weight on top of all their gear with less ammo available to them. Defeating body armor at the ranges the army wants is also impractical for most infantry troops. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Rifles don’t win wars anyways, never have and especially these days so think may see nothing in particular like did with m14, because militaries are relying less and less on massed troops with rifles every day.
@@BRBMrSoul yeah, but the solidiers have their own lives decided by their rifle, so maybe the military doesn't care, but families and solidiers do. But how much does high command care about insignificant casualties?
A lot of people have been saying it should be the standard DMR instead of the primary infantry weapon. I'm starting to agree.
@@tulipalll I also think it will be relegated to that role.
I foresee a carbine variant of the Spear coming out in the nearish future to address that concern. I was personally disappointed at the weight but i understand the doctrinal concerns with adopting a bullpup rifle and try to get everyone to switch to it. I do believe that they are looking in the wrong place if they want to be defeating body armor, they need to be looking at ammunition and making it more capable of penetration, and at the ranges most engagements are at considering that modern conventional warfare will be centered around urban areas i think the obsessive need for range is going to bite us in the ass. Sure you can engage targets at 300m, but the likelihood of you actually hitting a damn thing between them running for cover and your adrenaline messing you up is pretty low, not to mention those ranges are a machinegun thing where you can make up for lack of accuracy with sheer number of projectiles.
You hardly ever hear him say, “they knocked it out of the park “.. kudos sig
I wondered how the rifle was built to stand that high pressure. Very well done video, well explained.
With metal.....
More weight
@@maximusjoseppi5904 "With metal....." Correction: with FANCY metal.
Brass cartridge cases were the real limit on pressure for a long while.
If I remember correctly, Sig actually designed the system to handle higher pressure in case there was any future demand for high roressure rounds they could readily be swapped to it in field.
i think the reason this was chosen because it resembled the already known AR platform and because it wasnt that much more expensive
but i also think they really liked it due to the fact that there are parts specifically made to be replaceable and is made to last longer.
that firing pin retainer was honestly the most impressive part IMHO, it also was sort of genius to use a separate recoil spring guide rod tube that is the part that gets the most beatings in the front, and due to the fact it is basically a tube with a small lug, its very inexpensive to replace compared to the whole bolt assembly of an AR
only glaring issue was the thing Ian mentioned about the stock being unlocked at all times
No, the stock locks *back* it just doesnt lock *forward* which... is honestly weird and doesnt seem that hard to fix, but is bettet than 'at all times.'