@@ChrisWoo-d9d 6.8x51 runs from 7.62x51 mags. 6.8x51 NGSW is necked-down 7.62, with a steel head to be able to handle 80,000psi chamber pressure and not blow primers or suffer case head failures. The concept is fundamentally flawed in pretty much every way, as is the execution of it.
The M7 is a gorgeous gun with devastating capability, but if you can’t maneuver the weapon, it doesn’t matter. These guys are elite and you can see it kicking them around.
And you have to include the 45lbs (ish) that full body armor will add. For a 5'5" soldier it'll help but still need major training. The guy that'll probably have the best improvementwith body armor is the 6' soldier that's over 200 lbs. As someone who carried M4 for my 8 years of service I myself wouldn't trade it in
Greatest battle rifle of all time. Comparing this to an M1 makes me feel like we are raising a generation of soft soldiers. Fatigue is a serious issue, and CQB is going to require a different weapon, but this is meant to be a future war system. That extra bit of range and power will be huge when dealing with near peer adversaries.
@skyfirejay6162 that's it exactly they are the x box generation. Lost hard learned lessons about what works and saves lives. Used to the idea of getting close and then do this movie dazzle shoot out. Nope like radiation distance is your friend. Why close to the short range of them whenever you can reach them first. Scopes and distance caliber makes it better when all of you return in. Granted when you come around a bend and oops there they are its Murphys time then fast and accurate wins.
Right? I do have a feeling we will be going back tho and this time they will have all that equipment we gifted them and all the ppl we trained will be fighting against us
To be fair, if the future is fighting a conventional war against a near peer opponent then it seems likely that there will be body armour and distance involved to a much higher degree than against insurgents.
@Rompet0t0 a lot of their issue is they are shouldering it and trying to handle it like an M4. It isn't. You need a more committed, forward agressive stance and a deeper hold in the pocket of the shoulder. Shotgun or AR-10 style, not M4 style.
My money's on it's on the adverse gas setting. For some reason sometimes they just come like that from the factory, it's just a check what it's set on before you shoot it
Keep in mind they were not shooting the military round They were shooting the far heavier 150gr polymer-tip hunting option SIG sells.......the military won't be using that
It has recoil but it cannot be harder than an ar10. And AR10 recoil is really managable. It is not a round for cqb that is for sure but most of the military is not doing CQB. And seeing how war is changing in ukraine, soldiers will need rifles that are able to reach longer distances with decent power. This guys are the top of the top at CQB but this platform looks more to me like a DMR/battle rifle hybrid, maybe I am wrong but having some recce or green beret guys testing this platform would be better.
I’ll say it nice and loud for the people in the back… THE M7 IS NOT MEANT FOR SOF OPERATORS/ASSAULTERS. THE M7 IS MEANT FOR THE INFANTRY. It is meant for the grunts tasked with holding FOB’s/COP’s, doing presence patrols, and engagements at longer distances. The missions that Army and USMC rifle companies/platoons were tasked with were completely different from the DA raids that SOF was tasked with.
I will though I think the marines went the better route with the M27 with there modern load out, load up some MK 262 mod 1 you have a modern mk12 and with different uppers, you can adjust to your mission set.
😂😂 somebody is coping, this gun won’t last long. The average kid enlisting in the military these days has spent more time in a chair then outside. They will get this thing in their hands and be worn out on the range before chow time. Oh and don’t even get me started on reliability, this gun seems to be as reliable as the m17/18. It’s not looking good for it as a regular Joe rifle, DMR maybe if they can figure out the reliability and accuracy thing.
Awesome, a gun perfect for GWOT just in time to completely miss GWOT. A 7.62 squad DMR will be all around better for the infantry than the XM7. Logistics, cross-loads, familiarity, etc.
Exactly. Fun to see what teams guys think but u know spec ops get to use whatever they want. The M7 is for infantry. They'll also have different rounds for the members in the squad. Likely not every infantryman is going to be firing the full power fury. It is a big rifle though.
This thing is probably gonna go the way of the Scar-H/MK17 a special purpose rifle and the M4 is probably gonna remain king. Just a feeling I get watching guys of this size get knocked off balance I couldn't imagine a kid fresh out of high school being handed one of these.
I mean that's what I figure too, it's a good rifle, but it's a battle rifle/heavy assault rifle, like lets say you got a 10 man Ranger squad, 2 guys have a LMG, 2 guys have a battle rifle aka the Spear, and the rest have M4's, that would honestly be the best way to use it, because keep in mind the weapon system is new and like all new weapon platforms as their used and see combat you'll get variants that fix a lot of the issues, for example the M16 and M4 had their issues when they first came out but after years of using them, they've been improved upon and improved upon, pretty sure that'll be the same case with the Spear. but again, that doesn't mean I think they should get rid of 5.56 because it definitely has it's place
I think I’d wait till people actual using the full M7 system(Rifle, suppressor, scope, 6.8x51 full power) instead of trying to form opinions based on 1 part of it (rifle)
@@DefaultProphet agreed, plus they are comparing it to a completely different weapon system, the M7 is a battle rifle, not a Carbine like the M4 is, that's like trying to compare an apple to a carrot, their completely different types of food. not to mention every new weapon system has issues when it's first launched, the M16's and early M4's had plenty of issues when they first launched but those issues were slowly fixed after being used by soldiers and people in both the civilian market and military explaining what needs to be fixed, the M7 Spear will likely be the same thing, we'll get upgrades to it as the rifle is used, Sig has a fairly good rep for constantly upgrading their weapons and having a large aftermarket support. it's just a matter of time
@@jacksonandrews1188 Who admit to themselves that they very rarely ever took shots out past 1-200 m for reference, the average engagement distance for conventional forces in Afghanistan and Iraq was typically between 150 - 400 there's a reason why the Marine corps equips all their m27s with 1-8 vcogs. these dudes are not fighting that type of War. That being said, I would take more ammo for less weight in a long distance gun fight than what the xm7 Is offering
@@FraldinhoBJJthere's no way you've been 11B or 0311 lol. I'm airborne infantry in the army. I promise you, this gun's kick will be a problem for a LOT of above-average, physically-fit infantrymen.
I work with three Marines spanning 35 to 40 years roughly in The Corps. They span The Air Wing, Infantry, Armored/Mechanized Marines. They are also not tall huge guys 6’2 200/250lbs men. All three have said the same thing these guy’s have. In their prime this would be a harder weapon to fight with. I have not served but have a 12lbs Sig 716i and it knocks me around. I’m 5’7/5’8ish 260lbs. The M4/M16 platform is way easier to control. In my experience and, their’s inmhop. Great video I learned a lot. 👍🏻👍🏻
From what I'm noticing with some of the mil guys I've seen talk about it is that it almost seems skewed one way with most of the guys being asked about this topic. What I mean by that is a lot of guys speaking about it seem to have been door kicking types rather than general infantry or even as a DM. The M7 is an answer for something infantry have been having which is what the Army has stated, whereas for the SOF type of guys they tend to have more resources usually at their disposal for how to deal with a problem. The example being how many Army SF guys would outfit, they'd typically go with the shorter mk18 type guns, and if they needed to engage anything past 300m they'd just let the 240/m2/mk19/karl gustav deal with it assuming they don't have any fire support available to call. What I'm saying isn't to denigrate these guys or anything, it's just something I've noticed with a lot of the media on the 2 rifles. Also as 2 side notes 1 as for the malfunctions I think that's just due to the 25rd mags. I haven't had issues with mine, but I do know some guys have issues with them like you would with 40rd 5.56 mags. The round was made mostly for 20rd mags, going past that is just asking for issues right now. And 2 the optic meant for the rifle does have an IR laser built into it to try and move the weight more towards the center of the rifle rather than having it all out front. And of course the issued rifle is a 13in vs the 16in here, so that will help with some of the weight distribution that was mentioned. And one last thing for recoil from what I've noticed about many of the people that have shot it, the gas is sometimes set to the adverse setting from the factory. Which leads people to believe it's an incredibly harsh recoiling rifle when all you need to do is click it onto the regular setting
Came here to say this. This weapon was designed for the infantry, not SF. In other words, it's more of a battle rifle than a CQB rifle. I respect these guys, and they have valid points that NEED to be considered (more weight/recoil = exhaustion). That said, the future forecast for a war is with China (and maybe Russia). For whatever reason, the top brass in the military thinks range and more power is what we need as opposed to speed and lighter recoiling weapons. Not saying I agree with the assessment that we need a new rifle, but I at least understand it's intended use/purpose.
I’m wondering if heavier 5.56 bullets or simply .308 AR10 style rifles would have been the better call rather than re-inventing the wheel for a whole new platform, but I guess when there’s an opportunity to innovate you take it.
I'm one of those smaller guys, of which Cole speaks. I'm in pretty good shape; I'm not the biggest PT stud anyone's ever seen in their lives, but it's also not unusual for me to be one of the higher performers on a PT test and to score into the 90th percentile. I'm also fairly decent at controlling recoil from years of hunting. That said, it's a no from me dawg - for all the reasons mentioned. I really wanted to like the Spear, but that hand guard is massive and it kicks hard. I'm sure it has its uses, but it's not for me, and I certainly don't think it's a "do all, general rifle". Great video! Also, they call it a spear, because that's what it is. You might as well use one - the thing is a friggin pole!
@@MrCashewkitty Fair enough. The one I tried was a .308 variant at my local range, so that makes sense. Also, that Tango LVPO is a brick! The glass is great, but it sure ain't helping the weight issues.
@@bmrz38 the m4 can afford to be a 3 or 4 moa gun with its intended range of 300 meters and in. The supposed 800 meter plus capability of the m7 can not
I’m a LEO on a tactical team. We run the 11.5 SIG MCX 5.56 suppressed with 13in sig hand guard. That gun dominates people. Our unit runs flashlight / PEQ. After a couple minutes on OP you’re smoked. I love the platform on range days but on our operations that rifle is a heavy girl. I have probably put close to 15000- 20000 rounds through it in the last three years with only a handful of issues so it’s very reliable. We’re trying to switch to just a normal AR style Daniel or SIONICS.
One thing I want to point out is it looks like they have a full 16" barrel but from what I can find the service version is a 13" barrel. The change in shooting stance is interesting though. I didn't serve but was taught how to shoot by my dad who did and the shooting stance he taught me is much more similar to the adjusted stance they had to use at 21:57
I was thinking same thing. I was guessing at least one of these dudes were seals and then I heard Kaya say it. These are the dudes I want to train with. Humble but also know what they are talking about
I think the elephant in the room is that transition from battle rifle cartridges, 30.06, 8mm, 6.5 Swiss, to intermediates, 5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, showed the advantages in light, max ammo carry, easy to swing and present weapons. The things to salvage from the XM7 are the hybrid case concept, and electro-optic. Run a spare 300BO upper for CQB. Improve M855A1 penetrator for hybrid case 5.56 to defeat IV and next gen body armor, and I bet everyone would have what they need in one Pelican case!!!!❤🎉❤🎉
They just need to improve the M4 even more. Combine some great ideas from different companies. Kacs ks1 bolt and barrel. A5 buffer. Cobalt c upper receiver handguard lock up, blackout d barrel nut. Reenforced upper with charging handle insert. Radian charging handle. A way to adjust the gas. Angstadt over the barrel suppressor giving you more velocity in a shorter length. Combine this with sigs steel cup case and a 77 grain version of the m855a1 round.
Great video guys. Answers a ton of questions by putting true experts behind the rifle with the actual new cartridge or civi equivalent. Like most, having seen this I’d stick with the M4 every day of the week, and stick the other in a squad level SPR role.
Accurately sure Effectively....well......you can hit the target but how much real effectiveness does 5.56 have at 500........ especially from a SBR system........ Definitely lacking for sure
@@21scavage From what I've seen you get 2500-2600fps from 11.5 AR 55gr and 62gr That's about 44 magnum power or less at the muzzle.......then by the time it gets out to 500+ it's got about moderate 357 magnum power.......that short barrel really holds back the cartridge and 5.56 is a cartridge that is heavily dependent on velocity for its effectiveness Also I'd like to know more about the mk248 mod 0 you mentioned, the one I found is not 5.56
I was USMC 2003-07 and most of us used iron-sighted A4s and we qualified to 500 yards. AFAIK the corps switched to M4s at 300 yards and allowed optics in 2012. Also they're gay now, with women in combat arms, so IDK what's really going on but I'm sure the standards are going down..... and no unit is doing meaningful things at 500 yards plus with SBRs.
A part 2 of this would be cool. Maybe different branches opinions. Not knocking Seals but they mostly operate close quarters. Would be interesting to see the opinions of Marines, Rangers, or Delta.
CAG guys all said the same thing. One of them was a recon Team leader in 1 of my Scout Platoons. He said the XM7 is a total abortion. Same from SF guys. Notice Ranger Regiment wants nothing to do with it, nor does 82nd.
Definitely would like to see a part 2....this time done right 1. Don't use polymer tip hunting ammo like used here ( far heavier than the standard that will be used) 2. Give the guys more time on the platform to train with it as future soldiers will
@@theprfesssor At $13.21/rd, soldiers will get almost no training time on this system. It's a training budget killer. Even the blanks are insane, and you need a separate BCG for the blanks. This is a monstrous abortion of a weapon and those involved should be made an example of.
@@LRRPFco52 that price is for the fancy classified AP round, also it's before SIG had its new ammo factory online Since late summer they have offered multiple options of the hybrid ammo to civilians, including huge bulk options of the 113gr ball round ( which will be the standard round obviously) and they range from $2-3 a round atm, likely go down as mass production picks up
@@theprfesssor If they're using a more powerful hunting round, then the Army will be using a lighter round? So the capabilities are much closer to .308? This begs the question of why they're giving up the .308 then. You're not inspiring confidence in this new round by saying that.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ That range is for area targets. In other words, massed fire to deny the enemy the ability to move through an area. Accuracy at those ranges requires match grade ammo.
This platform seems like a good alternative for recce guys or snipers who want more capacity than the m110s/sr25s in 7.62, but for a standard infantry dude, hit probabilty isnt a weapon or cartridge capability issue. Capacity is king.
A couple points here: 1) I think people are forgetting that the military version of this is isn't a 16" barrel. It's a 13.7" with a 3D printed flow through can. That will change the balance of the gun and affect the recoil impulse. 2) This gun isn't really for spec ops assaulters who need the upmost speed and maneuverability. It's a rifle made for the reality that the modern battlefield that involves a modern army vs a modern army essentially requires an ability to penetrate level 4 body armor as well as other composites. Assaulters and spec ops doing small unit hit and run style tactics can keep their Mk18s and short barrel 416s. The M7 was never meant for them...and if they want it, they'll have the funds and the means to get a short barrel version, either in a cut down 6.8x51 or just buy off the shelf Spear LTs in 5.56 or .300 BO.
6.8x51mm is not enough to defeat level 4 past point blank with AP when bigger and more powerful calibers like .338 lapua can't even do so at moderate range. The reality of the modern battlefield, is that it is usually fought at close cqb distance when it is infantry against infantry.
Then again, though, the average infantry grunt isn't built like these dudes. Average Joe is going to get beat up trying to fling this thing around. Most regular infantry don't run supressors/silencers. They're going to be getting that full recoil and be exhausted by the time they hit that 3rd house.
@@GD-lw9yv The reality of the modern battlefield is no longer the middle east nor is it expected to be urban. The modern battlefield, per the letter of the NSGW program, is expected to be 300-500M engagements against level body 4 armor and lightly armored vehicles. This is not a rifle for GWOT. This is a rifle to defeat China and keep Russia at bay.
How could it be a comparison? 6.8 vs 5.56 and if the military wants guns to fright armies with body armor then the 5.56 will not cut it. GWOT was a lot of terrorists with no body armor. Form fits function.
I just wrapped a 3 day training. My shoulders & traps were done after 800 rounds of 5.56. I can’t imagine 200 rounds of that from what I saw. That said, DJ was right, I’ve never had to encounter near peer with body armor. And that was what this tool was created to work on. Following with interest.
As shown in the comments/GBRS saying it, I think you targeted the wrong people to have the correct perspective. Their mission was CQB/Direct action, not typical infantry mission criteria's. Granted eventually, things will go to urban combat but if we look at what this round was required for, body armor, geographies of I'd assume Russia, China, NK, Iran..etc, it is a different role from their mission criteria's. Based on Cole's impression, I'd assume it has a similar recoil to .308 which in WW2 is what they used for the most part. What were the learning lessons from Korea and WW2 in terms of battlespace readiness ( terrain requirements). It's a different enemy comparted to the GWOT, as they inferred (Properly trained/equipped for the most part). I am glad they addressed that that. We could also look at Ukraine and see how their/our weapon systems affect on Russian Armor. How does the weight and firefight sustainability affect as overall group in terms of effectiveness? Can the extra weight be worth the sustainment or fatigue in a prolonged gun fight? Does the effectiveness to turn hard cover into concealment very advantageous or does that not work for dirt/cement and only tree cover?
Thing is the rifle they are shooting here is not the rifle that most soldiers will have. We have already been told we are going to be issued a 13in barrel and a suppressor. The velocity will be slightly less and the recoil wont be as much when suppressed and gassed correctly
The Army basically went from assault rifles, to battle rifles , to carbines and now back to battle rifles with terminator tech. Referring to the new sighting system that goes with it.
First they had the full caliber rifles but not the optics to make use of the range. Then they had the intermediate cartridge with no optics. Then more recently they had optics that intermediate rounds couldn’t take full advantage of. Now they’ve got the range with a full(ish) caliber and the optics to use that range? Hot damn.
I've heard the same things about the M7... Heavy(er), kicks like a mule, and I've definitely heard about malfunctions being an issue as well. For like a DMR role maybe, but even then there's better tools for the job.
The reasons the military moved from battle rifles to lighter 'assault rifles' still are in play. I think this new M7 platform is better suited to Recce and DMR and similar purposes. Purposes that were already being satisfied by 7.62x51 NATO.
Nah, katana is a sidearm, broadsword is half ceremonial, half specialist weapon. While main work been done by people with long spears, bows and later guns.
One thing not discussed and was not available but the platform was specifically designed and meant to be ran with the XM157 Fire Control Optic System which has a TON of cool features to assist Warfighters in being more effective with the platform.
@@stephanarizona9094 The XM157 adds even more weight and breaks within 1000rds. The multiple G force impulses that resonate through the system are trashing the electronics in the fire control computer. Source: Program Acquisition officers with JSOC/Airborne/Light Infantry background. Stocks are snapping off too because armorers aren't tightening the cross bolts with torque wrenches to-spec. You also need a completely different bolt carrier when firing blanks. The actual XM7 has a 13" barrel, so if you fire it without the suppressor and no ear pro, you will experience hearing loss. Anmunition costs $13.21/rd. It's a training budget killer.
The comparison between the M4 platform and the M7 raises intriguing considerations. Having served in the Army, I have a deep appreciation for the M4 platform. It is evident that the soldiers of World War II were confronted with the challenge of using heavier rifles and firing larger rounds despite being generally more petite in size. This prompts the question of whether modern military tactics or the luxury of advanced firearms have made us more sensitive to slight changes in weight. While I acknowledge the quick onset of fatigue from holding the M4 straight in front of you, it is worth contemplating how veterans from the WWII era would perceive the M4 and M7 platforms if given the opportunity to operate them in their prime.
big reason is sig is huge. they have the machining to actually spin up production and pump out thousands upon thousands of rifles relatively quickly. pof i highly doubt makes more than a couple thousand a year at most.
Proper excellent perspectives from the lads!!! I am that Commando Gnome DJ referred to, weapon manipulation, weight,balance all massively come into to play. No doubt that weapon meets its design criteria, however would I prefer a surgeons scalpel or a huge canon. All day long the M4. I imagine regaining credible target acquisition on that thing takes a few milli secs longer. I’d certainly have one of those in each fire team as a sharp shooter but I’m with the lads.
@@totenfurwotan4478 6.5 creedmore needs a 20+inch barrel to compare to what the 6.8 can from 16in......then there SBR which the actual M7 will be a 13.7in barrel....6.5 definitely not getting standard performance out of SBR systems like the 6.8 can
This was a good overview from spec ops guys , who have done it all. I think the big point that is being missed with this weapon is that it’s designed for the Army , the army is an occupation force, long 12-18 month deployments , not a lot of engagements in 10 meters , if they’re clearing building they will probably frag the dog out of it, or hit it with a bunker buster and about 10’000 slap rounds. With that said, I think the army needs to fix their marksmanship training, I did 8 years in the Marines and 12 in the Army and I’m not bullshitting you the army can not shoot to save their lives. I met more reserve and guard soldiers that shoot better than active guys. So nice weapon but they have other things to fix
I wonder what were the US key decision makers thinking when they agreed to the standardization of the 6.8x51 caliber for assault (or battle?) rifles or, as they say, squad weapons... I think it can be a great caliber for DMR and sniper rifles but a disaster for assault rifles. And I also wonder how fast does it "eat" the barrel considering its about Mach 3 velocity. Great video, thank you!
Start trying to one punch level 4 armor at 100 meters with a M4 let alone trying to one punch level III armor at 300 meters. That's the kind of armor the Chinese are said to be using.
Thank all of you for your services and thank you all for this excellent content classic firearms!!! How's Clint doing and what happened to the ladies you used to have on the show hope they are doing well.
@@totenfurwotan4478 I was just thinking about 6mm ARC few minutes ago. Noveske is working with a US SOF Unit currently doing R&D on 6mm ARC. A video here on YT came out about a week ago. Looks very promising for both cqb and 800m shots all in a smaller package than the XM7.
its all about logistics. This will get "adopted" and then after some time it will get changed back to 7.62 NATO, which is already forward staged across the globe. I'd bet a dollar we never see anything other than a NATO spec cartridge in widespread use unfortunately.
Might has well called this, "Not running out of ammo VS Running out of ammo". The new cartridge makes some sense as a .308 replacement for the GPMG. As a 5.56 replacement it's literally a step backwards.
I love the ironies of the UA-cam algorithm. Before this video I was watching another video of US Marines facing Japanese on a Japanese island during WWII. These Marines were extremely young, thin, and carried 30-06 rifles. and then I opened this video where big dudes cry about the weight and kick of the new M7 rifle... yeah, right! lol
@@GD-lw9yv weight and recoil was not a problem in either world war for either side involved. The point is that since Vietnam, Americans have thought that every war is a COIN (Counterinsurgency) war. The paradigm has changed and we live closer to conventional conflicts. And the answer to cqb in a conventional conflict is the M-10 booker 😉
Beaches and jungles are NOT an urban environment. I can guarantee you if you talked to WW2 vets in the European theater, there's a reason officers carried the Thompson, and many an infantryman would've preferred something other than the M1.
@@blessedone1845 SOF guys are going to have different needs, experiences, and overall gear than regular infantry. Example is how Army SF would kit themselves. Everyone's mostly outfitted with mk18s, and if they need to shoot beyond 300m there's GPMG and HMGs as well as grenade launchers and recoilless rifles for that on top of fire support if any is available in that area
@@ThrashTillDeth85 reg inf has all that, except the MK-18. The mission set was more the difference other than mostly minor upgrades on equipment. SOF got to get in and get out. Reg Inf had to live in the town that SOF just went to and got out of. SOF don't secure their own bases, Reg Inf secures their bases for them. Reg Inf had to walk or drive everywhere for local r&s patrols and presence patrols. SOF got targeted missions.
@@cardboard_shaft never even tried out. So probably not. We'll go with that. Got a lot of invitations, turned them all down. Were you not good enough to join at all?
It just reminds us how tough those WWll soldiers were with their garlands! Heavy rifles, high caliber. Maybe this rifle will get more refined over the years and become what it needs to be
When arguably one of the best Seals of all time and his crew are saying they never had issues with the M4...tells me this new gun was never needed. Someone needed a new contract and some IP on a new toy. I'll stick with my M4s.
the wrong people are talking about this gun. this gun is designed for your "standard grunt" in a unit that sounds like 1-567th Infantry Tennessee National Guard or whatever. they fight over terrain, not rooms in a building to rescue a hostage. they need a powerful gun that will turn rocks and trees into concealment.
@totenfurwotan4478 this clown just said 200m is for a sniper. He doesn't know how to do anything but battle drill 6! So you will forgive me if I don't kiss someone's ass after they showed me they don't know how to do anything outside of clearing a room..
Mostly. Thompson was 14 lbs unloaded carbine were light to those two. Trade off distance short and mid coverage. Bar was 19+ then a belt of mags . M1 looks good to them.
I’m ranger regiment we still ran M4’s and had no issues. The SCAR sat in the weapon racks. People were shot and kept moving sometimes with 5.56 but it happens. The main thing is they’re thinking of near peer military armor. I think the M7 was a sig paycheck and the army could’ve done a lot better or gone a different way
“We never engaged more than 200 meters, especially with a red dot…..” Yet, the Army and Air Force qualifies at 350M with a red dot. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan carrying an M4 with an eotech. I’m honestly not sure we’re going to be in combat that requires 5-600M engagement. As far as the penetration aspect, I Can see a potential issue for the M4. Supposedly Russia and China have developed body armor better than what our military is currently using. That being said, if they really need more power, why not develop a 7.62 with a penetrator? I know they have also developed a new projectile on the 5.56 that’s supposed to penetrate lvl4 armor.
russia and china do not have better body armor than the US. stop reading clickbait articles. if they did, you would see it in use in ukraine and you don’t.
These guys were not patrolling. There job was CQB all the time. It's why they don't understand the purpose of this rifle is fighting in a major war with China where you won't have CQB raids.
I’d have to go with the M4. I cannot see your average soldier (make/female) carrying around that Sig all day especially in a CQB situation. Great video Guys !
I always thought the bullpup from general dynamics was the best option. Lighter, more compact. Seems like there were some nice kickbacks no pun intended
For close quarter combat a 14.5 or 10.5 in 5.56 is a great tool. for maybe up to 150 to 200 yards at 200 to 300 I would prefer a 14.5 inch barrel for long engagements a 7.62 out to 1200 yards is great beyond 1200 to 1350 yards a 308 . AR.10 platform is great what's great in this video is having 3 former military professionals telling us in close quarter combat situations they prefer 5.56 and they get it done with that platform . I personally think 300 BLK is a great round , especially if your using a suppressor . a ton of the bugs have been worked out and there are a few videos on here showing it is an effective round with some types of body armor using 147 Grn FMJ 300 BLK. another awesome video !!!!!
Specs Ops can use whatever they want. As a former 0311 rifleman, I lile the M7 concept for medium range. A DMR in 6.5 Creedmoor makes a lot of sense, and 5.56 is great for volume of fire. My $.02.
Seems like sig got rich again on another government contract with a meh solution. Also what government official got a kickback or a promise with sig to allow this to go through?
Something to consider, these guys are all assaulters. Those guys all didn’t even carry standard issue M4’s with the 16 inch barrels and the A-frame gas block. They were issued different M4s with shorter barrels and gas/piston systems. This is considered the new standard issue so while the current system may not be suitable for assaulter missions much like the standard M4, perhaps with some changes in length, rails, and attachments, and additionally some internal component changes with things like the recoil springs, perhaps it can function better as a CQB weapon
I figure it's more for taking bridges and securing large scale movement/logistical areas and maybe making way for regular infantry. That's probably why they put some focus on airborne units and such right now. Definately not for mop-up though.
The fact the Department Of The Army went through a procurement process for this and got it this far, shows how unqualified the military beauracracy of that organization is. This rifle is a solution a problem that doesn't exist and frankly will not exist. We've gone through the mass issued full power rifle cartridge before and abandoned the concept for a reason. However, it seems we will have to lose American service members for us only to learn it again.
Guess when the last time was that the US Army developed and fielded a successful rifle? Keep in mind Army Ordnance Board under Dr. Carten rejected the AR-15, saying it was totally unsuitable for military use. USAF General Curtis LeMay ordered the Pentagon to type-classify and militarize the AR-15 for USAF service. M-14 was an abortion, unsuccessful, shortest service rifle life in US Army history. So that takes us back to the Garand, no really.
4:27 boom! All you have to do is rapid fire thru a few mags between an ar10 and ar15 side by side this will always be the only conclusion lol when i shoot my ar10, i have a deep profound respect for dudes who had to fight with wooden stock 30.06 rifles. 77g 556 is 👑
you guys are interviewing the wrong people. this gun isnt for Navy SEAL Direct Action SF people who are very specifically trained to kick in doors and CQB. I mean listen to them, they think 200m is a LONG SHOT! That is not a long range shot if you are in the infantry in a gunfight fighting over a piece of real estate that isn't inside a building which is most of the time. This obviously designed "Infantry Rifle" needs to be reviewed by Grunts. Not JSOC dorks with a very specific skill set.
@@madkabal Special Recon and CCTs, Army SF, not really SOCOM but Marine Force Recon. Dude, SOCOM, you can trace our tactics back to 3 main units in 'Nam. Army SF GBs, MFR, and the SEALs. We're not gonna be fighting a conventional war, we're gonna use unconventional schtick in the jungle anyway lol.
Cole had the most 'big picture' insights. If some branches are running this whereas other branches (or even divisions inside branches) are sticking with the M4, then that, indeed, would pose logistical issues when it comes to supply both in training, and more importantly, on the battlefield.
They are all trying so hard to not completely tear apart that M7. Being as polite as possible 😂😂😂
Aren't they sponsored by sig?
It's the .308 version not the 6.8x51
@@ChrisWoo-d9d Did you see them hold up the 6.8x51 bi-metal case cartridges in the video? This isn't .308 Win.
@@LRRPFco52 they were also using pmags too, idk which caliber it's really in cant be 6.8 due to the amount of recoil
@@ChrisWoo-d9d 6.8x51 runs from 7.62x51 mags. 6.8x51 NGSW is necked-down 7.62, with a steel head to be able to handle 80,000psi chamber pressure and not blow primers or suffer case head failures. The concept is fundamentally flawed in pretty much every way, as is the execution of it.
The M7 is a gorgeous gun with devastating capability, but if you can’t maneuver the weapon, it doesn’t matter. These guys are elite and you can see it kicking them around.
It’s meant for armored Chinese and Russians not insurgents in rags
@@earthphoenix7068 yes but it’s not gonna work like they want it to. Contracts probably gonna buckle after the first 4 years of a conflict.
It’s meant for dudes on steroids and meth
@@earthphoenix7068
That is exactly the point.
Night time helo inserted raids in a single house to get one hvt will stay exactly the same, toolwise
And you have to include the 45lbs (ish) that full body armor will add. For a 5'5" soldier it'll help but still need major training. The guy that'll probably have the best improvementwith body armor is the 6' soldier that's over 200 lbs. As someone who carried M4 for my 8 years of service I myself wouldn't trade it in
I get it and I’m not being critical here but it makes you respect those who carried M1 and M14 rifles
@@jameshalfhill9919 or the ar10 with plate carriers and 11 magazines.
lol also they actually ran people through with a bayonet. Those were hard men.
Greatest battle rifle of all time. Comparing this to an M1 makes me feel like we are raising a generation of soft soldiers. Fatigue is a serious issue, and CQB is going to require a different weapon, but this is meant to be a future war system. That extra bit of range and power will be huge when dealing with near peer adversaries.
@skyfirejay6162 that's it exactly they are the x box generation. Lost hard learned lessons about what works and saves lives. Used to the idea of getting close and then do this movie dazzle shoot out. Nope like radiation distance is your friend. Why close to the short range of them whenever you can reach them first. Scopes and distance caliber makes it better when all of you return in. Granted when you come around a bend and oops there they are its Murphys time then fast and accurate wins.
We had our m14’s in 07 😂
Now that the Afghan War is over, glad to see they’ve designed the perfect Afghan War rifle
Right? I do have a feeling we will be going back tho and this time they will have all that equipment we gifted them and all the ppl we trained will be fighting against us
Iran is next on the list.
@@zackmeseyyeah we would be fucked,shows if we go again that we are the terrorists
that was what i was thinking there was a lot of long range fighting going on during that war
To be fair, if the future is fighting a conventional war against a near peer opponent then it seems likely that there will be body armour and distance involved to a much higher degree than against insurgents.
Watching you boys struggle with the M7 recoil during the intro made my decision pretty simple
Completely agree 👍. These are two very different rifles considering the difference in ammunition used
Decision for what?
Yea naturally US army programs are filled with corruption
@Rompet0t0 a lot of their issue is they are shouldering it and trying to handle it like an M4. It isn't. You need a more committed, forward agressive stance and a deeper hold in the pocket of the shoulder. Shotgun or AR-10 style, not M4 style.
They eat Dog like China
That M7 recoil looks like a nightmare.
My money's on it's on the adverse gas setting. For some reason sometimes they just come like that from the factory, it's just a check what it's set on before you shoot it
The can knocks the recoil down quite a bit.
It is. This rifle is cool but for infantry absolutely not. I would be pissed if I had to carry this overseas.
Keep in mind they were not shooting the military round
They were shooting the far heavier 150gr polymer-tip hunting option SIG sells.......the military won't be using that
It has recoil but it cannot be harder than an ar10. And AR10 recoil is really managable. It is not a round for cqb that is for sure but most of the military is not doing CQB. And seeing how war is changing in ukraine, soldiers will need rifles that are able to reach longer distances with decent power. This guys are the top of the top at CQB but this platform looks more to me like a DMR/battle rifle hybrid, maybe I am wrong but having some recce or green beret guys testing this platform would be better.
I’ll say it nice and loud for the people in the back… THE M7 IS NOT MEANT FOR SOF OPERATORS/ASSAULTERS. THE M7 IS MEANT FOR THE INFANTRY. It is meant for the grunts tasked with holding FOB’s/COP’s, doing presence patrols, and engagements at longer distances. The missions that Army and USMC rifle companies/platoons were tasked with were completely different from the DA raids that SOF was tasked with.
I will though I think the marines went the better route with the M27 with there modern load out, load up some MK 262 mod 1 you have a modern mk12 and with different uppers, you can adjust to your mission set.
😂😂 somebody is coping, this gun won’t last long. The average kid enlisting in the military these days has spent more time in a chair then outside. They will get this thing in their hands and be worn out on the range before chow time. Oh and don’t even get me started on reliability, this gun seems to be as reliable as the m17/18. It’s not looking good for it as a regular Joe rifle, DMR maybe if they can figure out the reliability and accuracy thing.
Awesome, a gun perfect for GWOT just in time to completely miss GWOT. A 7.62 squad DMR will be all around better for the infantry than the XM7. Logistics, cross-loads, familiarity, etc.
Exactly. Fun to see what teams guys think but u know spec ops get to use whatever they want. The M7 is for infantry. They'll also have different rounds for the members in the squad. Likely not every infantryman is going to be firing the full power fury. It is a big rifle though.
Mixed ammo types in the squad, low ammo capacity, 50% of the world’s population live in cities and it’s ass in urban environments/ CQB, it’s a dmr.
M4 all day. Someone was just getting a paycheck from Sig with all these new contracts.
Why did they make the m7 when they already had the Scar H
Ok
@@ajmulsharifi Scar H does have its issues it is an optic scrambler lol. Nice light platform however reasonably accurate .
@@swatbwana How many years ago was that? I don't think decent modern optics have that problem.
@@JohnZ556 it’s been happening with issued weapons since they went out even trijicon
This thing is probably gonna go the way of the Scar-H/MK17 a special purpose rifle and the M4 is probably gonna remain king. Just a feeling I get watching guys of this size get knocked off balance I couldn't imagine a kid fresh out of high school being handed one of these.
gotta lean into it a lot more, they seemed to be treating it/handling it like an M4
@@perpetualconfusion5885 Not sure that will help when shooting and moving, especially for the average guy coming out school.
I mean that's what I figure too, it's a good rifle, but it's a battle rifle/heavy assault rifle, like lets say you got a 10 man Ranger squad, 2 guys have a LMG, 2 guys have a battle rifle aka the Spear, and the rest have M4's, that would honestly be the best way to use it, because keep in mind the weapon system is new and like all new weapon platforms as their used and see combat you'll get variants that fix a lot of the issues, for example the M16 and M4 had their issues when they first came out but after years of using them, they've been improved upon and improved upon, pretty sure that'll be the same case with the Spear. but again, that doesn't mean I think they should get rid of 5.56 because it definitely has it's place
I think I’d wait till people actual using the full M7 system(Rifle, suppressor, scope, 6.8x51 full power) instead of trying to form opinions based on 1 part of it (rifle)
@@DefaultProphet agreed, plus they are comparing it to a completely different weapon system, the M7 is a battle rifle, not a Carbine like the M4 is, that's like trying to compare an apple to a carrot, their completely different types of food. not to mention every new weapon system has issues when it's first launched, the M16's and early M4's had plenty of issues when they first launched but those issues were slowly fixed after being used by soldiers and people in both the civilian market and military explaining what needs to be fixed, the M7 Spear will likely be the same thing, we'll get upgrades to it as the rifle is used, Sig has a fairly good rep for constantly upgrading their weapons and having a large aftermarket support. it's just a matter of time
If these guys feel the recoil the average Joe will get an a$$ kicking.
Yeah these are navy guys . Don’t forget that. Any soldier or marine would take it like a champ
@@FraldinhoBJJThese ”Navy guys” are SEAL Team 6 operators lmao
@@jacksonandrews1188 Who admit to themselves that they very rarely ever took shots out past 1-200 m for reference, the average engagement distance for conventional forces in Afghanistan and Iraq was typically between 150 - 400 there's a reason why the Marine corps equips all their m27s with 1-8 vcogs. these dudes are not fighting that type of War. That being said, I would take more ammo for less weight in a long distance gun fight than what the xm7 Is offering
@@FraldinhoBJJthere's no way you've been 11B or 0311 lol. I'm airborne infantry in the army. I promise you, this gun's kick will be a problem for a LOT of above-average, physically-fit infantrymen.
@@bommie I’m also 11b and I agree with this 110%. It’s funny how non infantry guys act like they know more about this stuff than we do.
I agree with these gentlemen, M4 platform for CQB and the 6.8 in the DMR type role.
Or battle rifle
1 per squad or so, i agree, but every swinging Richard infantry wise? Absolutely not. But it is a beautiful gun lol
They have a short barrel version of it for CQB. Garand Thumb has a video on it.
Great replacement for the 7.62, maybe not as much the 5.56.
Allen from the hangover movies is jacked now
was thinking this the whole time watching this just now. thanks for posting my intrusive thoughts
I was thinking he looks like an operator Steve Zahn
Don’t touch it…….. don’t even look at! 😂
Started taking the Mexican supplements
I was thinking the same thing 😂
If given the choice, I’d take the M4. Every. Single. Time.
You're in a shoot-out with a SVD who's 900 meters away.
What ifs.
@@cullenwear8419 Get a longer barrel AR 15, like the Mk12. Still lighter and provides lighter recoil for followup shots.
100%
@@cullenwear8419 Also, the XM7 with ball ammo can't hit out to 900 yards either. Better hope that your platoon has match ammo.
I work with three Marines spanning 35 to 40 years roughly in The Corps. They span The Air Wing, Infantry, Armored/Mechanized Marines. They are also not tall huge guys 6’2 200/250lbs men. All three have said the same thing these guy’s have.
In their prime this would be a harder weapon to fight with. I have not served but have a 12lbs Sig 716i and it knocks me around. I’m 5’7/5’8ish 260lbs. The M4/M16 platform is way easier to control. In my experience and, their’s inmhop. Great video I learned a lot. 👍🏻👍🏻
From what I'm noticing with some of the mil guys I've seen talk about it is that it almost seems skewed one way with most of the guys being asked about this topic. What I mean by that is a lot of guys speaking about it seem to have been door kicking types rather than general infantry or even as a DM. The M7 is an answer for something infantry have been having which is what the Army has stated, whereas for the SOF type of guys they tend to have more resources usually at their disposal for how to deal with a problem. The example being how many Army SF guys would outfit, they'd typically go with the shorter mk18 type guns, and if they needed to engage anything past 300m they'd just let the 240/m2/mk19/karl gustav deal with it assuming they don't have any fire support available to call. What I'm saying isn't to denigrate these guys or anything, it's just something I've noticed with a lot of the media on the 2 rifles.
Also as 2 side notes 1 as for the malfunctions I think that's just due to the 25rd mags. I haven't had issues with mine, but I do know some guys have issues with them like you would with 40rd 5.56 mags. The round was made mostly for 20rd mags, going past that is just asking for issues right now. And 2 the optic meant for the rifle does have an IR laser built into it to try and move the weight more towards the center of the rifle rather than having it all out front. And of course the issued rifle is a 13in vs the 16in here, so that will help with some of the weight distribution that was mentioned. And one last thing for recoil from what I've noticed about many of the people that have shot it, the gas is sometimes set to the adverse setting from the factory. Which leads people to believe it's an incredibly harsh recoiling rifle when all you need to do is click it onto the regular setting
@@ThrashTillDeth85 Every Infantry Platoon and Company has multiple 7.62x51 weapons in the MTO&E, 40mm, Company mortars, Snipers, Bn Mortars on-call.
💯
They were also shooting the hunting bullet option in this video for some reason....... Something the military will never do
Came here to say this. This weapon was designed for the infantry, not SF. In other words, it's more of a battle rifle than a CQB rifle. I respect these guys, and they have valid points that NEED to be considered (more weight/recoil = exhaustion). That said, the future forecast for a war is with China (and maybe Russia). For whatever reason, the top brass in the military thinks range and more power is what we need as opposed to speed and lighter recoiling weapons. Not saying I agree with the assessment that we need a new rifle, but I at least understand it's intended use/purpose.
I’m wondering if heavier 5.56 bullets or simply .308 AR10 style rifles would have been the better call rather than re-inventing the wheel for a whole new platform, but I guess when there’s an opportunity to innovate you take it.
I'm one of those smaller guys, of which Cole speaks. I'm in pretty good shape; I'm not the biggest PT stud anyone's ever seen in their lives, but it's also not unusual for me to be one of the higher performers on a PT test and to score into the 90th percentile. I'm also fairly decent at controlling recoil from years of hunting. That said, it's a no from me dawg - for all the reasons mentioned. I really wanted to like the Spear, but that hand guard is massive and it kicks hard. I'm sure it has its uses, but it's not for me, and I certainly don't think it's a "do all, general rifle". Great video!
Also, they call it a spear, because that's what it is. You might as well use one - the thing is a friggin pole!
The adopted version is 13 or 13.5 versus this 16 inch gun. Still a massive, inaccurate turd though
@@MrCashewkitty Fair enough. The one I tried was a .308 variant at my local range, so that makes sense.
Also, that Tango LVPO is a brick! The glass is great, but it sure ain't helping the weight issues.
@@MrCashewkittyaccuracy will be ammo dependent like most rifles, M4 included.
@@bmrz38 the m4 can afford to be a 3 or 4 moa gun with its intended range of 300 meters and in. The supposed 800 meter plus capability of the m7 can not
@@MrCashewkitty The adopted version also has a 1 lb can hanging off the end, and a 2.5 lb scope on top.
I’m a LEO on a tactical team. We run the 11.5 SIG MCX 5.56 suppressed with 13in sig hand guard. That gun dominates people. Our unit runs flashlight / PEQ. After a couple minutes on OP you’re smoked. I love the platform on range days but on our operations that rifle is a heavy girl. I have probably put close to 15000- 20000 rounds through it in the last three years with only a handful of issues so it’s very reliable. We’re trying to switch to just a normal AR style Daniel or SIONICS.
Watching them is like watching the Army videos from early 60's of the M-14 vs M-16. This feels like a step backwards for the average infantryman.
One thing I want to point out is it looks like they have a full 16" barrel but from what I can find the service version is a 13" barrel. The change in shooting stance is interesting though. I didn't serve but was taught how to shoot by my dad who did and the shooting stance he taught me is much more similar to the adjusted stance they had to use at 21:57
None of these guntube channels has actually used the full weapon system but they sure love making definitive statements
20:00
He looks like if that genius guy from Hangover decided to go buff and get tactical
The “Ole boy here we go” from DJ when dude shot 1 handed 😂
23:15 DJ says what we’re all thinking 😂
*5-MILLION MILES OF KNOWLEDGE RIGHT THERE THANKS FOR ALL YOUR SERVICE GENTLEMAN* 🙏 👍
DJ is mad humble. “17yrs in the navy” not “I was on good squadron as a devgru operator”
I was thinking same thing. I was guessing at least one of these dudes were seals and then I heard Kaya say it. These are the dudes I want to train with. Humble but also know what they are talking about
He was red
@@hvogel7763 Gold
I think the elephant in the room is that transition from battle rifle cartridges, 30.06, 8mm, 6.5 Swiss, to intermediates, 5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, showed the advantages in light, max ammo carry, easy to swing and present weapons. The things to salvage from the XM7 are the hybrid case concept, and electro-optic. Run a spare 300BO upper for CQB. Improve M855A1 penetrator for hybrid case 5.56 to defeat IV and next gen body armor, and I bet everyone would have what they need in one Pelican case!!!!❤🎉❤🎉
Its like choosing between M1 Garand and M1 carbone in WWII.
Retitle to “Cool Spec-Ops Guys Poo Poo on Army’s New M7 Rifle Because it’s Kind of Poo Poo.”
They just need to improve the M4 even more. Combine some great ideas from different companies. Kacs ks1 bolt and barrel. A5 buffer. Cobalt c upper receiver handguard lock up, blackout d barrel nut. Reenforced upper with charging handle insert. Radian charging handle. A way to adjust the gas. Angstadt over the barrel suppressor giving you more velocity in a shorter length. Combine this with sigs steel cup case and a 77 grain version of the m855a1 round.
I like seeing Aaron around. I do miss Clint and Aleks though.....
@@20alroco CF quota hires.
A A Ron is awesome. Kaya, while I’m sure is cool af, is a goober host IMO. Haven’t watched much of Clint’s new channel yet but so far so good. 🇺🇸
Great video guys. Answers a ton of questions by putting true experts behind the rifle with the actual new cartridge or civi equivalent. Like most, having seen this I’d stick with the M4 every day of the week, and stick the other in a squad level SPR role.
In the marines we shot the m4 up to 500 yards effectively and accurately
Accurately sure
Effectively....well......you can hit the target but how much real effectiveness does 5.56 have at 500........ especially from a SBR system........
Definitely lacking for sure
@@21scavage From what I've seen you get 2500-2600fps from 11.5 AR 55gr and 62gr
That's about 44 magnum power or less at the muzzle.......then by the time it gets out to 500+ it's got about moderate 357 magnum power.......that short barrel really holds back the cartridge and 5.56 is a cartridge that is heavily dependent on velocity for its effectiveness
Also I'd like to know more about the mk248 mod 0 you mentioned, the one I found is not 5.56
at at target the size of a jeep lol
I was USMC 2003-07 and most of us used iron-sighted A4s and we qualified to 500 yards. AFAIK the corps switched to M4s at 300 yards and allowed optics in 2012. Also they're gay now, with women in combat arms, so IDK what's really going on but I'm sure the standards are going down..... and no unit is doing meaningful things at 500 yards plus with SBRs.
@@theprfesssor556 has more energy then 45 acp at 500 yards so it’s plenty lethal dupshit
A part 2 of this would be cool. Maybe different branches opinions. Not knocking Seals but they mostly operate close quarters. Would be interesting to see the opinions of Marines, Rangers, or Delta.
CAG guys all said the same thing. One of them was a recon Team leader in 1 of my Scout Platoons. He said the XM7 is a total abortion.
Same from SF guys. Notice Ranger Regiment wants nothing to do with it, nor does 82nd.
Definitely would like to see a part 2....this time done right
1. Don't use polymer tip hunting ammo like used here ( far heavier than the standard that will be used)
2. Give the guys more time on the platform to train with it as future soldiers will
@@theprfesssor At $13.21/rd, soldiers will get almost no training time on this system. It's a training budget killer. Even the blanks are insane, and you need a separate BCG for the blanks. This is a monstrous abortion of a weapon and those involved should be made an example of.
@@LRRPFco52 that price is for the fancy classified AP round, also it's before SIG had its new ammo factory online
Since late summer they have offered multiple options of the hybrid ammo to civilians, including huge bulk options of the 113gr ball round ( which will be the standard round obviously) and they range from $2-3 a round atm, likely go down as mass production picks up
@@theprfesssor If they're using a more powerful hunting round, then the Army will be using a lighter round? So the capabilities are much closer to .308? This begs the question of why they're giving up the .308 then. You're not inspiring confidence in this new round by saying that.
I'll go with the M4, it's lighter and you carry more ammo, the M7 is heavy, you carry less ammo, and the recoil is too much for some people.
Recoil is similar to a 7.62x39 AK. I'll rather have 20 rounds with an 8x and the ability to hit my targets effectively over 1000m 😂.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ That range is for area targets. In other words, massed fire to deny the enemy the ability to move through an area. Accuracy at those ranges requires match grade ammo.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZit's a little bit more than AK but less than a 308 and that suppressor is more like a flash hider than a true suppressor.
@jessitaylor4170 😂 I am still taking the m7 hands down. Way too many times the 5.56 is a mix bag at best of being lethal at a distance
Might as well just gave everybody m14s again haha
This platform seems like a good alternative for recce guys or snipers who want more capacity than the m110s/sr25s in 7.62, but for a standard infantry dude, hit probabilty isnt a weapon or cartridge capability issue. Capacity is king.
It hits like a mule good to get to see the pros shoot it
Never thought I’d see DJ and Cole on a Classic Firearms video. A pleasant surprise
A couple points here:
1) I think people are forgetting that the military version of this is isn't a 16" barrel. It's a 13.7" with a 3D printed flow through can. That will change the balance of the gun and affect the recoil impulse.
2) This gun isn't really for spec ops assaulters who need the upmost speed and maneuverability. It's a rifle made for the reality that the modern battlefield that involves a modern army vs a modern army essentially requires an ability to penetrate level 4 body armor as well as other composites.
Assaulters and spec ops doing small unit hit and run style tactics can keep their Mk18s and short barrel 416s. The M7 was never meant for them...and if they want it, they'll have the funds and the means to get a short barrel version, either in a cut down 6.8x51 or just buy off the shelf Spear LTs in 5.56 or .300 BO.
6.8x51mm is not enough to defeat level 4 past point blank with AP when bigger and more powerful calibers like .338 lapua can't even do so at moderate range. The reality of the modern battlefield, is that it is usually fought at close cqb distance when it is infantry against infantry.
Then again, though, the average infantry grunt isn't built like these dudes. Average Joe is going to get beat up trying to fling this thing around. Most regular infantry don't run supressors/silencers. They're going to be getting that full recoil and be exhausted by the time they hit that 3rd house.
@@andrewwickes1091 EVERY M7 gets issued with a suppressor. It was mandated by the NSGW. That definitely includes the average infantry man.
@@GD-lw9yv The reality of the modern battlefield is no longer the middle east nor is it expected to be urban. The modern battlefield, per the letter of the NSGW program, is expected to be 300-500M engagements against level body 4 armor and lightly armored vehicles. This is not a rifle for GWOT. This is a rifle to defeat China and keep Russia at bay.
Everyone that operates a weapon system should learn how to utilize the C-clamp . You guys are the true professionals!!!
They dont have the one the military is using its a 13.7 barrel with a suppressor and they usually come with the gas system on adverse
Don’t have the scope, don’t have the real ammo, don’t have the training/reps on the gun. But totally a 1:1 test
How could it be a comparison? 6.8 vs 5.56 and if the military wants guns to fright armies with body armor then the 5.56 will not cut it. GWOT was a lot of terrorists with no body armor. Form fits function.
Except the new military cartridge can't defeat modern body armor either@@TonkaFire2019
@@FlashBang33 according to the military it can, also the projectile and cartridge is classified still so how would you have any idea.
Videos have been leaked it doesn’t pen lvl4 plates
I just wrapped a 3 day training. My shoulders & traps were done after 800 rounds of 5.56. I can’t imagine 200 rounds of that from what I saw. That said, DJ was right, I’ve never had to encounter near peer with body armor. And that was what this tool was created to work on. Following with interest.
Curious to see how the Q Boombox compares to the M7 now. My bet is on the Boombox.
Not the same caliber tho right?
@@ADDAmerican Correct, Boombox is 8.6 BO
Dude, im definitely getting rid of my ar10 now, thanks hugley to the experts dj and the rest of the guys
As shown in the comments/GBRS saying it, I think you targeted the wrong people to have the correct perspective. Their mission was CQB/Direct action, not typical infantry mission criteria's. Granted eventually, things will go to urban combat but if we look at what this round was required for, body armor, geographies of I'd assume Russia, China, NK, Iran..etc, it is a different role from their mission criteria's. Based on Cole's impression, I'd assume it has a similar recoil to .308 which in WW2 is what they used for the most part. What were the learning lessons from Korea and WW2 in terms of battlespace readiness ( terrain requirements). It's a different enemy comparted to the GWOT, as they inferred (Properly trained/equipped for the most part). I am glad they addressed that that. We could also look at Ukraine and see how their/our weapon systems affect on Russian Armor. How does the weight and firefight sustainability affect as overall group in terms of effectiveness? Can the extra weight be worth the sustainment or fatigue in a prolonged gun fight? Does the effectiveness to turn hard cover into concealment very advantageous or does that not work for dirt/cement and only tree cover?
people dont care what peace time grunts opinion are, they only want to hear about TeAm GuYs
WW2 was 30-06. 308 came out in the 50s.
Thing is the rifle they are shooting here is not the rifle that most soldiers will have. We have already been told we are going to be issued a 13in barrel and a suppressor. The velocity will be slightly less and the recoil wont be as much when suppressed and gassed correctly
The Army basically went from assault rifles, to battle rifles , to carbines and now back to battle rifles with terminator tech. Referring to the new sighting system that goes with it.
First they had the full caliber rifles but not the optics to make use of the range. Then they had the intermediate cartridge with no optics. Then more recently they had optics that intermediate rounds couldn’t take full advantage of. Now they’ve got the range with a full(ish) caliber and the optics to use that range? Hot damn.
I've heard the same things about the M7... Heavy(er), kicks like a mule, and I've definitely heard about malfunctions being an issue as well. For like a DMR role maybe, but even then there's better tools for the job.
The reasons the military moved from battle rifles to lighter 'assault rifles' still are in play. I think this new M7 platform is better suited to Recce and DMR and similar purposes. Purposes that were already being satisfied by 7.62x51 NATO.
DJ nailed it with the katana vs broadsword comparison.
Nah, katana is a sidearm, broadsword is half ceremonial, half specialist weapon. While main work been done by people with long spears, bows and later guns.
One thing not discussed and was not available but the platform was specifically designed and meant to be ran with the XM157 Fire Control Optic System which has a TON of cool features to assist Warfighters in being more effective with the platform.
@@stephanarizona9094 The XM157 adds even more weight and breaks within 1000rds. The multiple G force impulses that resonate through the system are trashing the electronics in the fire control computer. Source: Program Acquisition officers with JSOC/Airborne/Light Infantry background. Stocks are snapping off too because armorers aren't tightening the cross bolts with torque wrenches to-spec.
You also need a completely different bolt carrier when firing blanks.
The actual XM7 has a 13" barrel, so if you fire it without the suppressor and no ear pro, you will experience hearing loss.
Anmunition costs $13.21/rd. It's a training budget killer.
@@LRRPFco52They make a cheaper training ammo.
The comparison between the M4 platform and the M7 raises intriguing considerations. Having served in the Army, I have a deep appreciation for the M4 platform. It is evident that the soldiers of World War II were confronted with the challenge of using heavier rifles and firing larger rounds despite being generally more petite in size. This prompts the question of whether modern military tactics or the luxury of advanced firearms have made us more sensitive to slight changes in weight. While I acknowledge the quick onset of fatigue from holding the M4 straight in front of you, it is worth contemplating how veterans from the WWII era would perceive the M4 and M7 platforms if given the opportunity to operate them in their prime.
They should have went with a small frame ar-10 like a ruger s far or a pof. Would rather start off with a 7 lb gun vs 9-10 lb.
POF is serious underrated
Exactly
big reason is sig is huge. they have the machining to actually spin up production and pump out thousands upon thousands of rifles relatively quickly. pof i highly doubt makes more than a couple thousand a year at most.
@@lurtiskoe I see why they went with sig. They literaly make everything from the gun optic to the suppressor and on the pistol.
Proper excellent perspectives from the lads!!! I am that Commando Gnome DJ referred to, weapon manipulation, weight,balance all massively come into to play. No doubt that weapon meets its design criteria, however would I prefer a surgeons scalpel or a huge canon. All day long the M4. I imagine regaining credible target acquisition on that thing takes a few milli secs longer.
I’d certainly have one of those in each fire team as a sharp shooter but I’m with the lads.
The 6.8mm round definitely changes the game compared to the 5.56mm, especially for long-range engagements.
Nah, it doesnt even pen level 4. It does nothing a 6.5 creed semi auto does
@@totenfurwotan4478 It does with the hot AP rounds
We already have multiple 7.62x51 weapons in every single Infantry Platoon though.
@@LRRPFco52 yes and it’s given only to the most competent of soldiers and NOT given to every single one. Now make that 308 kick harder and weigh more
@@totenfurwotan4478
6.5 creedmore needs a 20+inch barrel to compare to what the 6.8 can from 16in......then there SBR which the actual M7 will be a 13.7in barrel....6.5 definitely not getting standard performance out of SBR systems like the 6.8 can
This was a good overview from spec ops guys , who have done it all. I think the big point that is being missed with this weapon is that it’s designed for the Army , the army is an occupation force, long 12-18 month deployments , not a lot of engagements in 10 meters , if they’re clearing building they will probably frag the dog out of it, or hit it with a bunker buster and about 10’000 slap rounds. With that said, I think the army needs to fix their marksmanship training, I did 8 years in the Marines and 12 in the Army and I’m not bullshitting you the army can not shoot to save their lives. I met more reserve and guard soldiers that shoot better than active guys. So nice weapon but they have other things to fix
I wonder what were the US key decision makers thinking when they agreed to the standardization of the 6.8x51 caliber for assault (or battle?) rifles or, as they say, squad weapons... I think it can be a great caliber for DMR and sniper rifles but a disaster for assault rifles. And I also wonder how fast does it "eat" the barrel considering its about Mach 3 velocity. Great video, thank you!
Start trying to one punch level 4 armor at 100 meters with a M4 let alone trying to one punch level III armor at 300 meters. That's the kind of armor the Chinese are said to be using.
@@orlock20 I agree with you but, still, this caliber and those guns are for super-humans. Most of the soldiers are only humans.
I'll tell you what they had think:"How many nice things can we buy with those money that SIG SAUER give to us for let them win the race..."
Thank all of you for your services and thank you all for this excellent content classic firearms!!! How's Clint doing and what happened to the ladies you used to have on the show hope they are doing well.
The military should have picked the
FN LICC in .243. Middle of the pack cartridge size, and still innovative.
Yep or just 6mm ARC.
@@totenfurwotan4478
I was just thinking about 6mm ARC few minutes ago. Noveske is working with a US SOF Unit currently doing R&D on 6mm ARC. A video here on YT came out about a week ago. Looks very promising for both cqb and 800m shots all in a smaller package than the XM7.
its all about logistics. This will get "adopted" and then after some time it will get changed back to 7.62 NATO, which is already forward staged across the globe. I'd bet a dollar we never see anything other than a NATO spec cartridge in widespread use unfortunately.
Sig got some guys in the right spot to be awarded these contracts
The M4 was one of the few things our military got right
This needed to be a DMR/SPR role. Have 2 variants. Spear LT for the majority and 6.8 as needed
M7 will be an Infantry weapon. I bet SOF doesn't use them unless Recce.
@@dragonpundit.6443 m7 should be a DMR. Couple guys per platoon at most
It will end up like the EBR. Only in scout platoons.
@lgdurocher there is a belt fed version that will be 1 per squad probably
Djs “oh boy” when he gripped that m7 with one hand hahaha
Might has well called this, "Not running out of ammo VS Running out of ammo". The new cartridge makes some sense as a .308 replacement for the GPMG. As a 5.56 replacement it's literally a step backwards.
Well then everyone should just move to the 4.6 or 5.7 since you can carry more rounds right?
Great video, I hope you do more collabs with them.
I love the ironies of the UA-cam algorithm. Before this video I was watching another video of US Marines facing Japanese on a Japanese island during WWII. These Marines were extremely young, thin, and carried 30-06 rifles. and then I opened this video where big dudes cry about the weight and kick of the new M7 rifle...
yeah, right! lol
Why deal with weight and recoil when you don't need to anymore?
@@GD-lw9yv weight and recoil was not a problem in either world war for either side involved. The point is that since Vietnam, Americans have thought that every war is a COIN (Counterinsurgency) war. The paradigm has changed and we live closer to conventional conflicts. And the answer to cqb in a conventional conflict is the M-10 booker 😉
Just don't make them like they used too
Beaches and jungles are NOT an urban environment. I can guarantee you if you talked to WW2 vets in the European theater, there's a reason officers carried the Thompson, and many an infantryman would've preferred something other than the M1.
@@matheuszanan The JDAM is another good choice.
2nd ranger batt member here. we overhauled our armory recently. i like these m7s
Tell me you only did spec ops without yelling me you only did spec ops. Not land owning troops here😂😂😂
Wdym
@@blessedone1845 SOF guys are going to have different needs, experiences, and overall gear than regular infantry. Example is how Army SF would kit themselves. Everyone's mostly outfitted with mk18s, and if they need to shoot beyond 300m there's GPMG and HMGs as well as grenade launchers and recoilless rifles for that on top of fire support if any is available in that area
were you not good enough to be spec ops?
@@ThrashTillDeth85 reg inf has all that, except the MK-18. The mission set was more the difference other than mostly minor upgrades on equipment. SOF got to get in and get out. Reg Inf had to live in the town that SOF just went to and got out of. SOF don't secure their own bases, Reg Inf secures their bases for them. Reg Inf had to walk or drive everywhere for local r&s patrols and presence patrols. SOF got targeted missions.
@@cardboard_shaft never even tried out. So probably not. We'll go with that. Got a lot of invitations, turned them all down. Were you not good enough to join at all?
first two guys handling of a malfunction was like a national guard😂
I wonder how their opinions would change if they had 15+ years experience on the platform like they do the M4.
Best bet is what they say about the 416
This rifle will not see 15 years of experience. It likely won't get issued outside the Rangers and 82nd who will ultimately abandon it.
@@darrynbrown9211yep, like the scar16
The recoil wouldn't change. Physics is physics.
@@bmrz385.56 scars are still in use by rangers
It just reminds us how tough those WWll soldiers were with their garlands! Heavy rifles, high caliber. Maybe this rifle will get more refined over the years and become what it needs to be
accurate fast and handling so its m4
"Started GBRS"
Slade must be chuckling
When arguably one of the best Seals of all time and his crew are saying they never had issues with the M4...tells me this new gun was never needed. Someone needed a new contract and some IP on a new toy.
I'll stick with my M4s.
It was built for near peer armor pen but doesnt even do that 😂😂
the wrong people are talking about this gun. this gun is designed for your "standard grunt" in a unit that sounds like 1-567th Infantry Tennessee National Guard or whatever. they fight over terrain, not rooms in a building to rescue a hostage. they need a powerful gun that will turn rocks and trees into concealment.
@@madkabal you think standard grunts shoot better then SOF? If SEALS struggle with it grunts will absolutely struggle with it.
@totenfurwotan4478 this clown just said 200m is for a sniper. He doesn't know how to do anything but battle drill 6! So you will forgive me if I don't kiss someone's ass after they showed me they don't know how to do anything outside of clearing a room..
4:30 Solid comments on PROVEN SBR ammo selection. 👍
WWII everyone carried a M1 chambered in 30-06.
Mostly. Thompson was 14 lbs unloaded carbine were light to those two. Trade off distance short and mid coverage. Bar was 19+ then a belt of mags . M1 looks good to them.
1943 isn't a good standard for modern combat
@@GD-lw9yv absolutely but remember we were using tactics for last war ideals as we get dragged into new wars.
@@GD-lw9yv Hasn’t been a peer to peer conflict at that level since then.
Yes, and they would have been trashed by guys loaded out with 5.56
I’m ranger regiment we still ran M4’s and had no issues. The SCAR sat in the weapon racks. People were shot and kept moving sometimes with 5.56 but it happens. The main thing is they’re thinking of near peer military armor. I think the M7 was a sig paycheck and the army could’ve done a lot better or gone a different way
“We never engaged more than 200 meters, especially with a red dot…..” Yet, the Army and Air Force qualifies at 350M with a red dot. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan carrying an M4 with an eotech. I’m honestly not sure we’re going to be in combat that requires 5-600M engagement. As far as the penetration aspect, I Can see a potential issue for the M4. Supposedly Russia and China have developed body armor better than what our military is currently using. That being said, if they really need more power, why not develop a 7.62 with a penetrator? I know they have also developed a new projectile on the 5.56 that’s supposed to penetrate lvl4 armor.
5.8
russia and china do not have better body armor than the US. stop reading clickbait articles. if they did, you would see it in use in ukraine and you don’t.
These guys were not patrolling. There job was CQB all the time. It's why they don't understand the purpose of this rifle is fighting in a major war with China where you won't have CQB raids.
Sure dude russia.. same people using unchanged AKs from 80 years ago and tanks from the cold war russia is sad.
Russia and china have better armor? Ha. Tell that to the Temu plates they are using in Ukraine right now lol
I’d have to go with the M4. I cannot see your average soldier (make/female) carrying around that Sig all day especially in a CQB situation. Great video Guys !
“We definitely don’t love it, but it’s a Sig so we gotta watch what we say.”
informative video, thanks for making
Love your stuff dude, nice to see you stop by
Seeing the intro without Clint made me sad
Clint leaving left some big shoes to fill.
I always thought the bullpup from general dynamics was the best option. Lighter, more compact. Seems like there were some nice kickbacks no pun intended
For close quarter combat a 14.5 or 10.5 in 5.56 is a great tool. for maybe up to 150 to 200 yards at 200 to 300 I would prefer a 14.5 inch barrel for long engagements a 7.62 out to 1200 yards is great beyond 1200 to 1350 yards a 308 . AR.10 platform is great
what's great in this video is having 3 former military professionals telling us in close quarter combat situations they prefer 5.56 and they get it done with that platform .
I personally think 300 BLK is a great round , especially if your using a suppressor . a ton of the bugs have been worked out and there are a few videos on here showing it is an effective round with some types of body armor using 147 Grn FMJ 300 BLK.
another awesome video !!!!!
Specs Ops can use whatever they want. As a former 0311 rifleman, I lile the M7 concept for medium range. A DMR in
6.5 Creedmoor makes a lot of sense, and 5.56 is great for volume of fire. My $.02.
Slade’s concepts look dope on those rifles lol
Seems like sig got rich again on another government contract with a meh solution. Also what government official got a kickback or a promise with sig to allow this to go through?
The military doesn’t pick the best solution, they pick the bare minimum, cheapest option that just barely gets the job done. 😂
Some Pentagon General living the high life in his Richmond VA Mansion is my best bet.
Its open information and 100% the truth. A certain very prestigious Army officer now works for Sig. Former general, and head of JSOC, Scott Miller
Something to consider, these guys are all assaulters. Those guys all didn’t even carry standard issue M4’s with the 16 inch barrels and the A-frame gas block. They were issued different M4s with shorter barrels and gas/piston systems. This is considered the new standard issue so while the current system may not be suitable for assaulter missions much like the standard M4, perhaps with some changes in length, rails, and attachments, and additionally some internal component changes with things like the recoil springs, perhaps it can function better as a CQB weapon
Don't forget ammo count, you're carrying far less in your load out which means you'll run out quick, especially in a full auto scenario
I figure it's more for taking bridges and securing large scale movement/logistical areas and maybe making way for regular infantry. That's probably why they put some focus on airborne units and such right now.
Definately not for mop-up though.
The fact the Department Of The Army went through a procurement process for this and got it this far, shows how unqualified the military beauracracy of that organization is. This rifle is a solution a problem that doesn't exist and frankly will not exist.
We've gone through the mass issued full power rifle cartridge before and abandoned the concept for a reason. However, it seems we will have to lose American service members for us only to learn it again.
Guess when the last time was that the US Army developed and fielded a successful rifle?
Keep in mind Army Ordnance Board under Dr. Carten rejected the AR-15, saying it was totally unsuitable for military use.
USAF General Curtis LeMay ordered the Pentagon to type-classify and militarize the AR-15 for USAF service.
M-14 was an abortion, unsuccessful, shortest service rifle life in US Army history.
So that takes us back to the Garand, no really.
Damnit i love watching the GBRS guys
This will work out well with the military's new physical fitness approach and caliber of recruits, lol.
you should re enlist and show them how it’s done
@cardboard_shaft I already served twice, fairy.
@@cardboard_shaft You should learn writing and grammar, shaft smoker.
@@BalloonKnotConsortium read what i said, i said “re enlist”. go back and read it slowly lmao
@@cardboard_shaft You should make sure you wear your prettiest high heels for me.
4:27 boom! All you have to do is rapid fire thru a few mags between an ar10 and ar15 side by side this will always be the only conclusion lol when i shoot my ar10, i have a deep profound respect for dudes who had to fight with wooden stock 30.06 rifles.
77g 556 is 👑
you guys are interviewing the wrong people. this gun isnt for Navy SEAL Direct Action SF people who are very specifically trained to kick in doors and CQB. I mean listen to them, they think 200m is a LONG SHOT! That is not a long range shot if you are in the infantry in a gunfight fighting over a piece of real estate that isn't inside a building which is most of the time. This obviously designed "Infantry Rifle" needs to be reviewed by Grunts. Not JSOC dorks with a very specific skill set.
And we're fighting a 1st world country mainly made of either jungles or cities in China, or at least preparing to, so their knowledge is relevant lol.
jsoc dorks lol
Agreed .. this is an infantry rifle for broad battlefields not CQB type action...
@@lucashebbe3335 you have to fight your way to the city 1st though. SOCOM boys dont do that.
@@madkabal Special Recon and CCTs, Army SF, not really SOCOM but Marine Force Recon. Dude, SOCOM, you can trace our tactics back to 3 main units in 'Nam. Army SF GBs, MFR, and the SEALs. We're not gonna be fighting a conventional war, we're gonna use unconventional schtick in the jungle anyway lol.
With any new weapon you have to train with it and learn it’s characteristics. The Pros & Cons
WHats their height, for reference to the gun.. very interested.
Cole is like 5’10 ish. DJ said he’s about 6”2 in an interview.
Thank you guys for your service.
The is the army's way of weeding out DI hires lol
Cole had the most 'big picture' insights. If some branches are running this whereas other branches (or even divisions inside branches) are sticking with the M4, then that, indeed, would pose logistical issues when it comes to supply both in training, and more importantly, on the battlefield.
Logistics is the key for why militaries only change calibers once every 30-40 years, generally.