They're actually brass cased with a steel base (stated at 6:43) for the full power 6.8x51mm ammo, not polymer and brass as stated. The steel base was needed to deal with the higher pressure that the round operates at compared to traditional rounds.
Also the 6.8 round shown in the video is the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43) developed 2002-2004, not the 6.8x51 (.277 Fury) which is the round used by the XM7 and XM250.
I came here to say this! The 6.8 spc was an earlier development intended to increase effectiveness of the m4/m16/m249 platforms. 6.8 spc is an intermediate powered cartridge like 5.56. 6.8 sig (or .277 fury) is considered a full power rifle cartridge by most. 6.8 spc can be used from an m4 sized weapon, where the 6.8 sig requires a larger platform like the AR10 type chambered originally in 7.62x51
This video shows a picture of the 6.8 Remington Special Purpose Cartridge, developed in 2004, next to a 5.56x45 - at 3:09 and at 6:46 . The 6.8 Remington SPC is not the same as the 6.8x51 aka .277 Fury that SIG developed recently for the Next Generation Squad Weapon program and the XM7 rifle. The 6.8 SPC is meant to be used in the "mini" length action of the AR-15, it's of similar cartridge length as the 5.56x45/.223 Remington rounds, and as far as I know was supposed to work in STANAG magazines(standard AR mags). The 6.8x51/.277 Fury needs a short action, like it's "parent" 7.62x51/.308 Winchester, and would need the larger AR-10/SR-25 magazines.
Add that the 6.8spc is short range even compared to the 556. But it has 40% more energy than the 556 the 6.8/277 fury is a necked down 308 with higher pressure in the case. Allowing it have as much power as a 308 from a shorter barrel. I would like to see it performance against lvl 4 plates at greater than 500 yards.
@@Angl0sax0nknight 115 grain 6.8 spc will have around 8" more drop than 77 grain 5.56 nato at 600 yards while dealing with wind better. It's not a short range cartridge it just excels at it.
@@mwdouglas3794 no complaints here, GT and SW are some of my favourite channels. If Simon does a video on the Rhodesian Bush War for Warographics I hope he uses Administrative Results footage for the weaponry of the Rhodies
The introduction of the ACOG resulted in so many 1 shot 1 kill head shots, that an Investigation was opened up to see if Marines were assassinating targets. Nope, just excellent marksmanship.
it wasnt the acog, it was the fact that in urban combat there was no other target shown but the head. also THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION, IT WAS 1 JOURNALIST OF A RANDOM SMALL PAPER FOR 1 DAY
Yea that's false. An investigation was never opened. And its because of the nature of urban warfare, most times the only things presented in windows are heads and upper shoulders. A 4x magnification optic makes it much easier to identify and engage these target profiles.
@@MrSwccguy I think you are missing the point, there are still lots of weapons more powerful than a .50cal, you can get 20mm cannons, 40mm cannons etc. That doesn't automatically make them more effective. On the side of heavy support weapons the .50cal is actually a very light small round, this is what makes it so ideal as a mobile support weapon. A 20mm cannon may be more powerful but a .50 can lay down more support fire, you can carry more ammo for it etc.
So the USA went from 30/06 to .308 to .223 essentially because engagements were closer in Vietnamese, European, and urban scenarios than those previously considered necessary. And the logistics of handling, shipping and storing smaller rounds was so much better. (I think a combat pack of 200 .308 rounds was the same size as a combat pack of 400 .223 rounds.) And now the engagement distances and "knock-down power" are too small. So we need a new round and new rifles and squad machine guns. "The more things change, the more thet stay the same."
I suspect it's what we saw in the police as well: every time a new chief gets appointed, he/she wants to make his/her presence known by changing something. So if a larger caliber was the norm before that new chief, naturally a smaller caliber has to be introduced. That caliber is then "holy", in other words: whole reports will be written to "prove" that the new caliber is far superior. The (in)famous tumbling effect of the 5,56 bullet the troops in Vietnam reported but that somehow never really could be reproduced comes to mind. Some years later cue the next new chief, and the now standard smaller caliber "obviously doesn't cut it" and a larger caliber has to be introduced. Rinse and repeat.
@@tjroelsma , the US have also fought quite different enemies the last few decades, switching from politically motivated, slightly built Asian engaged over short distances to religiously motivated, more stoutly built Middle East people in open landscapes. Different tasks requite different tools.
The Army didn't really develop the NGSW program for longer range or "more knockdown power" (something that doesn't actually exist in small arms - and 5.56x45mm ammo still does MORE damage to human targets than equivalent bullets in 7.62x51mm or .30-06, because of how the physics work out... now, if you're shooting at *horses*, the old full power .30 rounds are the way to go, because the horse is big enough for the larger rounds to get around to doing what 5.56mm does in the first few inches). The driver for the NGSW program was the simple realization that our likely near peer adversaries *aren't stupid* , and if they started widescale issuing of body armor of similar performance to what the US has been using in combat continuously since 2001, the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm weapons *won't be able to penetrate them reliably* (and we know this because of all the US troops who have come back, uninjured, with 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mmR, and 7.62x51mm rounds - even "AP" rounds - stuck in their vests. The Army ballistics labs did some high level calculations and experiments and determined the *minimum* round for defeating the expected near peer, near term, body armor types was a 6.8mm bullet of a specific design (reliably reported to be "based on" the M855A1 projo, but optimized ballistically in ways not available for a bullet that had to be backwards compatible with M855), at a specific velocity (basically a similar velocity as the old 55 gr M193 could get from a 20" barrel). So they handed the designers the bullets, told them the target muzzle velocities they had to hit, gave them the performance and physical requirements of the rifle and LMG competition, and told them, "Go forth and develop weapons that will do X, Y, and Z, with THIS bullet, and develop the ammo as well."
Yep. There really isn't a perfect caliber for assault rifles because battlegrounds can be so different. I would introduce a new assault rifle in two different calibers, but that's just me.
1:01 *The M249 is not in the same family as the M16.* It's a belt-fed automatic weapon that fires in an open bolt position. Other than firing the same 5.56mm cartridges, it's a totally different weapon.
@@EnigmaticPenguin True, and you can pull back the bolt on an empty M-16 and load bullets into the firing chamber by hand through the ejection port. By the logic of this video, does that put the M-16 in the same family as a bolt-action rifle?
The price is pretty high when you take into account the low manufacturing cost. Not to mention, these contracts go to the lowest bidder, so the soldier isn't really getting the best available. Thanks military industrial complex.
I was a 12B Combat Engineer in a Sapper Company from 2014-2022. The XM7 is an amazing battle rifle, and it's machine gun counterpart is an amazing machine gun. That being said, standard issue rifles are NOT battle rifles, they are assault rifles. Intermediate caliber carbines. The XM7 is a TERRIBLE standard issue rifle. It's too heavy, and the increase in ammo weight along with 20rs magazines is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of ammunition expended in a firefight is suppression, and making the cost of being able to effectively supress the enemy an extra 15-20Lbs when the typical soldier might be carrying 70Lbs on their back with an M4 load out is wholly irresponsible. 140rds for a combat load is actually hilarious. The M4 standard combat load of 210rds isn't enough rounds. A combat load is what's carried on your kit, 6mags on your plate carrier +1 in the gun. Combat load = what's immediately accessible. Everyone carries at least double that in their pack and several people per squad are carrying 2+ 200rd drums for the M249 or 100rd drums for the M240. What the Army is doing is DUMB. Soldiers will simply be carrying much much more weight to satisfy their need to not run out of ammo in combat. The new 6.8 round achieves it's incredible power by using a new case design on the bullets. The back of the case is hardened steel, with a brass body. This new design allows the round to have much more powder in it because the case won't explode, thus the bullet is wicked fast for it's size. What the Army SHOULD have done is replace the M4 with a slightly heavier 5.56 rifle designed for these massive chamber pressures and then taken the bi-metal case design and made an M855A2 round with the same steel penetrator of the M855A1 (which already turns Level III armor into swiss cheese) just going much faster. To defeat body armor you need a bullet that is resistant to deforming on contact (the steel penetrator) and a lot of velocity. 5.56 in a bi-metal case would've achieved this without the silliness of going back to the start of Vietnam where a standard infantry rifle was an M14 with a big round, a small magazine, and a painfully heavy load of ammo on the grunt's back.
Yeah, let's just throw the lessons from Project Salvo right into the waste bin. This full sized cartridge is a BIG mistake. When we go to the Middle East we can rely on our allies to provide compatible ammunition which we can use. That will go out the window now. Also, the new rifle uses an insanely high chamber pressure. How much more frequently will these weapons blow up or give up the ghost?
The M4 is absolutely not an assault rifle. It lacks the full auto capability to be considered such, because neither the US Army nor Marines ever adopted the assault doctrine.
That is a reminder that there are shotguns and naval guns; grunts have rifles and pistols. Don't repeat the mistake of calling your rifle a "gun", or the next time you will be expected to pull it out for display.
@@everettputerbaugh3996I saw a lot of pushups for that. Luckily my dad had been a drill sergeant and in the 1st Air Cav. I knew it was a rifle. But I still knocked out a lot of pushups for other brain farts.
I just wanted to add that the characteristics of NATOs 5.56mm ammunition don't lend well to shooting at very long distances. Saying the ammo wasn't accurate is an odd generalization. The new ammo type is meant to carry a straighter flight path over longer distances. That is the "accuracy" part of the improvement. The old 5.56 ammo is affected by wind a bit more, drops quicker within infantry fighting distances, and doesn't carry as much energy when it hits the target.
Thats a important call out. 5.56 is meant to be accurate within typical engagement range. The important part of the statement with regards to Afghanistan is a lot of engagements were outside the expected engagement ranges the M4 and 5.56 was meant for
The 5.56 was developed off the fact most engagement ranges from WW2 to Korea happened under 200 yards. It's no coincidence it's very effective at that. So of course when you try to shoot from mountain to mountain it sucks. For cover we always had heavier weapons for that. The NGSW program is just the Army wanting a new toy.
while the military has a criteria for accuracy separate from the civilian sector, it is odd to say that the 5.56mm and its weapon systems arent accurate. My understanding is that the need for a 6.8mm wasnt about range (because as testing has proven most fire fights occur within 300 meters) it was about defeating future body armor. The US army wants to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
I'll be absolutely stunned if the "sticker shock" of the XM7 program doesn't result in the XM7 becoming a DMR instead of a general issue battle rifle. Fully equipped, each XM7 is over $13,000 each. That's not counting the $13.00 per round for the full-power military armor piercing ammunition, spare parts, logistical issues with new ammunition, and training of unit armorers and providing them with the necessary tools, gauges and equipment to properly service the rifles.
Yeah, it's over priced. If it was made from titanium and half the weight it is now, maybe. Reminds be of purchasing a full size truck, all useful, and all over priced.
I was a Combat Engineer in '84 and used the M16a1 and M60. I think the XM250 LMG is definitely an improvement over the M60 and FN 240 but l think the 6.8 is a bit overkill for most engagements and I would not want to lug it around with its ammunition on a 6 mile road march.
Thats a common thing I've seen and you're probably right. Being a technology analyst though I've learned that what we "expect" changes when the tools change. I imagine once these weapons become more common the engagements will change because of it.
the point is barrier penetration. to see why this is important look up the yakut knife fight. if the Ukrainian had the xm7 he would have killed his enemy through the house.
I think you are onto something. For urban combat ranges the 5.56 appears sufficient. The kind of extended combat durations in places like Fallujah appear to be ideal for the 5.56mm platforms. The range of Afghanistan appears to be one of two factors to consider the 6.8mm. I suspect the second is the close ranges of CQB. At some point in the GWOT, USSF units started using .300 Blackout for greater suppression and takedown power in their door kicking operations. Same lower and magazine. Only the upper receiver need to be swapped out. But those operations tend to be of short duration and ranges. In 1998 I had an opportunity to ask MSG Eversman (Black Hawk Down) what was the most effective weapon in what was then our biggest urban combat since Vietnam. His answer was the M249 SAW. That opinion is probably dated since the GWOT...but there it is.
I am going to agree here. I think the XM250 is going to be impressive, especially against lightly armored vehicles and chewing through cover. But the infantry rifle is not going to be a favorite. I guess the Army is done doing CQB?
Honest question from a non-vet here: how much of infantry fire involves shots aimed at actual targets vs a more general "fill the air with bullets to keep the enemy from sticking their head up while we do what we want?" As a layman, it would seem to me that accuracy would help in the first instance, while more ammo per soldier would be more useful in the latter. I am curious to hear from those who've actually been there on what they think. And yes, I understand this can vary, in different engagements and environments but I'm curious about the overall balance people have seen.
Most grunts never see what or who they are firing at. They fire to keep the other guy’s head down until they get close enough to find him dead, gone or ready to be shot.
Afghan War vet here (Kandahar province, 2006 & 2010) and that's a tricky question to answer...but I'll do my best... Accurate fire is obviously important. Bullets going into bad guys means there are now less bad guys, which helps win a TIC (troops in contact, aka firefight) But often times, it's quite difficult to get accurate rounds on target in the initial stages of a firefight as everybody is scrambling for cover. So suppressive fire becomes key, to keep the enemies' heads down and allow your side to maneuver. As the TIC progresses & the suppressive fire prevents the enemy from moving too much, parts of your team maneuver to get closer and better vantage points so they can start to engage the enemy with more accurate fire. So part 1 of winning a TIC - suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down, prevent enemy movement, limit their ability to shoot at you, while maneuvering on them... (aka wall of bullets concept) Part 2 - more accurate fire to eliminate enemy That's why it's tricky to answer. You kinda need both, and both are equally important depending on what part of the TIC one finds themselves in
@chrisburke624 you answered that about as well as possible the only thing I'd add was the urban combat I found myself in when I was in fallujah was very up close and personal in more engagements than not. Not to say that was the case the whole time but I happened more often during operation phantom fury than any of my other deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan. But your statement still rings true
@@richardcostello360the CG seems like one of those weapons that are straight forward and useful enough that you've got to wonder how the ADF managed to get around to actually procuring it.
Honestly, I watched a full video on that optic and it's incredible! Only time will tell if it can take a beating and keep on going, but having your targets acquired and range marked is the next big leap forward.
The functionality uses an IR laser, which will be like a beacon to anyone wearing night vision. So I'm extremely skeptical of the utility of the optic just conceptually, before we even get to usability.
@@skyhop I mean that depends on the wavelength of IR but also IR headlamps are not very common in many militaries even at night time outside of special ops so that’s less of a factor than you think it is
@@Constance_tinople I already looked up the wavelength, it's visible under nightvision, same as your PEQ. I guess it's alright if you're only doing ranges during daylight.
The logistics issue brought up near the end should have its own video highlighting what a significant problem this could be. The rifle, machine gun, sights, and suppressors all seem great but that new ammo is going to really throw a wrench into things. My personal opinion here is that if your sights are good enough then you don’t need special ammo to punch through body armor because no body armor is going to save someone from a shot between the eyes.
Optics don't really do that. There is no shot possible with an ACOG that isn't possible with iron sights, it's just much faster. The idea of hitting the 6x6" facial zone in 1-2 seconds is just silly.
That kind of accuracy is not achievable in combat. Not even snipers try for headshots, for the most part. The point is to be able to punch through modern body armor. That alone will discourage enemy heroics before shots are even fired.
no, the LMG is the part that matters. The LMG is most of the firepower of the squad. It was literally called NGSW, next generation squad weapon. I.e., LMG. The rifle is just a consequence of the LMG. And as far as we know the M250 is a massive upgrade over the 249
When I first saw the XM7 it was only using 20rd magazines. I still feel that is insufficient for a SAW. I see that they've now created a drum magazine though I don't know it's capacity.
Have you shot much? A lighter weight optic will be used in most applications very soon. All the stuff it can do is no factor within 300m and that's where most fighting is. The very high profile of the scope will be an issue working out of vehicles.
As an infantry, Marine giving us more weight to carry into combat would definitely piss off a few people. We already carry a ton of gear, and making it heavier makes us more tired by the time we arrive and many other things too. The M-16 and M-249 are pretty good weapons, but they have their down sides, too. If not properly cleaned, they will jam in a bad situation.
The weight, recoil, and logistics are going to catch up to the Army once they begin issuing this en-masse. Whoever thought this could replace the M4 played too much CoD. It's a solid DMR, but not a GP rifle.
An infantry weapon that cannot penetrate high-quality body armor will be obsolete before 2040. Maybe quite a bit before. Can't give the grunts what they want. Gotta give them what they need.
@charlesfaure1189 Not when our near-peer adversaries, Russia and China, can't field body armor en-masse. Trading movement/maneuver for range & pen makes zero sense for the foreseeable future.
The adoption of the new round also demonstrates that the US army does not value the logistical meshing of NATO allies anymore, the entire reason the 9mm was adopted as the main sidearm caliber.
Correction Simon . It's not a new program. They have been considering replacing the M16/M4 for decades and have tried different designs most failed the tests because as it turns out we grunts can and will break anything you want us to test.
An interesting difference between the old and new rifles that I didn't hear covered in this article is that the peak barrel pressure in the new design is over 30% higher than what was allowed in the old M4. This allows for significantly more energy imparted to the projectile beyond what would already be expected with the increased diameter (increasing range, lethality, etc). This also will presumably result in greater wear on the inner workings of the rifle, so fewer rounds between scheduled service. Another example of the trade-offs that have to be made in the design process.
To add to this, training rounds are more conventional lower pressure rounds. This means soldiers will not experience the same round and recoil during training versus in love combat. As my couches would say perfect practice makes perfect. If they're not going to train with the full pressure round to save on barrels and components the what's the point?
On paper the extra barrel thickness adjusts for this and should have a lifetime similar to the M4, but as I said, on paper. Perhaps they have some new alloy tech that is also allowing for increased barrel life.
Since the AR-10 there hasn't been any real advances in infantry rifles. The best change the Army ever made was issuing the ACOG. There's no point in more powerful rifles if you can't hit your targets
mass issue of suppressors is the next big thing. Also LPVOs. And the rangefinder built into the LPVO on the army's vortex optic. Those things alone make the M7 a large advancement. Every infantryman is basically a designated marksman now, with that setup. People say there's less ammo to suppress enemies now, but inaccurate fire is not suppressive fire. If the rounds are closer to the targets due to better optic setups and rangefinder, you'll be able to suppress more with less. That and I have a feeling battlefield resupply will get much easier with drones
The defense industries sure do love pitching the same AR15 to the military over and over again and making billions. I can't believe the DoD is gullible enough to buy it again for the 15th time with a new name
The ar18*. Every meaningful rifle development since the adoption of intermediate cartridges has been accomplished by moving from ar-15 to ar-18 design.
@@mojrimibnharb4584they really gas you guys up w that don't they?...the target at 500 is the size of a Toyota prius...I go to the cmp range all the time and stay at 600...an actual person or animal at 500 is hard to even see without glass and movement
Choosing the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is a much better option than this new cartridge. It’s essentially just an upgraded version of the 7.62 NATO with slightly better speed and penetration at longer ranges, which are rarely relevant in typical soldier operations.
I am a retired US Army officer with a few years in the infantry. I am impress by the new rifle but believe the M4 should be retained until our fellow services and allies decide to change. Standard ammo is important and the weight factor and fewer rounds carried are an important consideration. More weight always risks the mobility of dismounted infantry. I have seen it. And despite some recent experiences most historical studies that I have read have shown that engagements will take place under 200 meters. The old M60 machinegun was used to engage further out if needed prior to the M249s. Perhaps bringing back the M60 type in place of the M249 might be looked at. Or using one with this new ammo. Just a thought from an old grunt who does remember how the "Old Breed" marines who hated the M1 Grande and favored the 1903 Springfield prior to WW2 until experiences at Guadalcanal changed their minds.
I realize that urban environments and similar environments are, by nature, short engagement lengths. At the same time, more engagements would take place past 200m if more guns and more operators were accurate and confident past those distances An analogy would be like saying someone shouldn't make a longer range grenade because most engagements with grenades take place within 20m
I mean the M16 was in service for many many years whilst the M4 was getting introduced. So even if the XM7 becomes the M7 it would take well over a decade before every single M4 in service has been replaced by the M7.
@@rayzerot Also in a peer to peer conflict you just want to avoid urban combat at all cost anyways. Instead you want to use manouvre warfare and encircle cities
With 8 combat tours total from a tour in Kosovo / Bosnia 1999, 5 tours of Iraq, a tour in Syria and another 3 tours in Afghanistan….the ammo sucks for the M16. No matter what is used, it zips right through when you’re close up and don’t have enough “umph” at a few hundred meters. Thats why the M14’s were refitted and given as the Mk-39 EBR (which I carried). Yet, Afghanistan taught me that we need the extra range, even times in Iraq we needed the extra range. So my thoughts were “why the F-k are we trying to reinvent the wheel here. Make the bi-metal case for the 7.62x51 (308), then call it a day. On the other hand, the 6.8 SPC / 6.5 Grendel were field tested and actually use a lot of the similar parts from the M4, why not use an intermediate bullet. Cost savings by using what we have and changing small things so familiarity is not an issue?? I don’t know……I retired in 2015 and see how things are with the military, yet the Army is still spending a lot of $$ on junk shit like the GayCU’s when the money could have been used elsewhere. The Navy with the wasted billions on the LCS problems. The Chair Farce with the F-35 problems. Yet, I’ve been retired for almost a decade….i don’t know nothing though…..
The REAL reason - the Pentagon wants the new belt-fed. It's a package deal with the XM7 and the 6.8 round, and the belt-fed is good enough that the Pentagon will accept the XM7 if that's what it takes. For that matter, the Army gets to replace 5.56 and 7.62 with ONE ROUND, and the M249 and M240 with ONE GUN, so I'm getting M14 flashbacks here. Otherwise I knew everything I needed to know about the XM7 when I saw the redundant charging handle and found out that the round has a 70,000 PSI operating pressure - gun was designed by committee and is gonna break a lot. A bunch of officers are getting some shiny golden parachutes.
I was thinking, damn why not just get the new LMG and retool the M4s to like a .300 Black Out with that fancy new optic. Problem solved. Or, if the new LMG is so damn awesome and really light, fuckin give every infantryman a belt fed machine gun lol.
@@theroachden6195 Yeah... Um .300 Wisper/Blackout is probably the absolute worst caliber you would want the military to retool the M4's in. It's ballistic trajectory is far inferior to modern 5.56 ammo. Not to mention 300 Blackout (or 300 whisper they're both the same thing) was designed with 1 just 1 purpose in mind. Thats to be able to run a full size rifle round sub sonic. Socom wanted to get away from the MP5 and go to a platform that number one had more commonality with what they were already using( which was the M4) and number two could be designed with armor piercing capabilities in a subsonic platform so that sound could be reduced to a minimum level for covert operations. And that's literally the only thing that 300 Blackout goes well.
And unlike the assault weapons, a machine gun has a barrel designed to be replace with minimal effort. The friction cause by firing that many rounds that quickly causes the barrel to heat up enough that it is possible for the barrel to warp. It also makes the barrel wear out really fast. Early belt fed machine guns had a jacket filled with water around the barrel to carry off the heat and the water in that barrel could be replaced while being fire to keep cool water inside it with the proper equipment and a supply of water.
I'm going to go on record and say what the army wanted was a bullpup chambered in 7.62 or 6.5 creedmore which accomplishes its main goal of maintaining a compact rife while increasing energy on target at range. But when given the bids they somehow chose the worst possible candidate because on the surface it looked like what they already had...as if somehow retraining the manual of arms was such a dealbreaker that it would be worth investing god knows how much in what will likely be the failed implementation of a rifel that significantly increases complexity of ammo production, is heavy, and has substantially more difficult to manage recoil even with the training and civilian loads.
The US Army *didn't* want a bullpup rifle, because of the inherent flaws of bullpup designs. They also wanted a matching squad LMG that fired the same ammunition, and could provide suppressive effects equivalent to the current M249, with range and terminal effects greatly enhanced (to classified levels). In fact the program was *started* as merely a "squad LMG" program. The Beretta designed bullpup mobile with the brass and polymer cased ammunition developed by General Dynamics didn't provide a credible LMG option, and didn't address *any* of the long known to the US Army flaws of bullpups. The Textron/AAI carbine and LMG using the plastic telescoped cased ammunition just failed miserably in terms of reliability and accuracy, and had serious safety flaws in the manual of arms. *THIS* is the competitor the insiders intially running the competition wanted to win; after all, it was the reault of the LSAT development program that the Army had been running nearly 20 years and spending millions of dollars on (the only real differences between the competition entry arms and the final development spiral version of LSAT was the caliber.) Only Sig offered a pair of weapons that met the reliability and performance requirements, and it was the lowest risk (technology, time, and cost) option.
Agree with @geodkyt. Bullpups ability to have barrel length w/ compact dimensions is great but good luck using it in a real world scenario, and an absolute joke for an LMG.
2:45 The limitation is not the cartridge itself but the M4. There have been several studies over the last several decades that proves reducing the barrel to less than 16” reduces MV which reduces effectiveness at range. The 5.56 was designed as a high velocity projectile that has a 50% chance of yawing and fragmenting at 2500 FPS (percentages go up as MV increases). If you field a rifle with a 14.5” barrel (2750 FPS at the muzzle with 97% fragmentation out to 100 yards) then you’re begging for trouble. This is why the Marine Corps is fielding a new rifle firing 5.56 from an 18” barrel (3050 FPS at the muzzle with 97% fragmentation out to 200 yards). The problem is not the 5.56 cartridge. It’s the fascination of making the barrel length shorter and shorter.
No it's not, but shoots the same 5.56mm round as the "M-16" family of weapons. The Mk-48 is a better SAW. But I am partial to the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56 NATO as a Battle Caliber. This 6.8mm round seems to be reaching higher than it can deliver. When I deployed, my SAPI plates where rated up to 7.62 NATO. I don't understand how that new 6.8mm round, with less powder, in a smaller case can out perform the 7.62 NATO? Maybe I'm missing something? Does it have a new propellant that I'm not aware of? Are the new bullets made of depleted uranium? What I know of guns (i.e. firearms or "weapons") and a limited amount of physics/math, the new 6.8mm is better than the 5.56 NATO. But Why? Is it a DEI thing? A combat ammunition load weight for an Infantryman is about the same as his weapon. Arounnd 7.5lbs (3.4kg)
As a marine, I gotta say you are right, we do love our rifles. Whether we are talking about my ak-47, my ar-15s (I have 2 of them), my 700 win-mag, my 7mm magnum, my .338 Lapua, my lever action 30-30, or my m-40-a5. I also really love my shotguns and pistols.
Everything you need to know about why the army made this decision is summed up in the fact that one of the officials who was in charge of this procurement, left the government and now sits on the Sig board of directors.
@@PopeMetallicus Oh wow. The logic behind it replacing the M249 made a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what were your thoughts on the M27? Did you like it?
Which itself is now arguably outdated compared to all the better ar-18 inspired designs since then. And no, France accepting economic backroom deals to accept two decade old designs doesnt count.
I have a firearms history and mechanics hobby and past-time, so for future reference, any mistakes or oversimplifications I hear in the video I'll post here, for educational purposes. 0:56, The M249 is not a M16 related firearm, they are entirely separate platforms, though they are operated together frequently. 2:20, 5.56 NATO is not inaccurate by any measures. They are high velocity and piercing ammunition, but when insurgents are so drugged that they don't know what planet they're on, it's not as effective as it can be. The civilian version of the round, .223 Remington, is actually a common hunting round for medium sized game, such as deer. 3:00, not necessarily. Yes they aren't as penetrative to armor as they could be, the 5.56 round has many variants that can pierce armor, such as the Green tipped ammo, which was issued commonly. If I find any other issues, I will update and edit the comment as needed.
there's a lot wrong in your comment. 5.56 is not armor piercing whatsoever, unless you're talking about soft armor. For plates, 5.56 will never ever go through a ceramic armor plate ever, including the newest M855A1. Secondly, the reason 5.56 was not effective on people was because the original rifle was designed with like a 20 or 22 inch barrel. The M4 chops it down to what, 14.5, which reduces the power of 5.56 by a massive amount. Out of the original 20 inch barrels 5.56 has a monstrous effect on target. Out of the short barrels it loses effectiveness in as soon as 100 yards, which tracks with the fact the M4 was originally designed as a PDW. And nobody should be hunting deer with .223 ever. If they do they're a bad hunter
Not entirely sure why my first reply got deleted. I'm going to try again just to see if it happens again; The .223 round is illegal to hunt deer with where I live. It is considered underpowered for the job.
I get the impression that very few infantry weapon sized rounds outside of specialist anti-materiel calibers or exotic armour penetrator rounds such as using depleted uranium or subcaliber projectiles seem to be able to defeat modern armour consistently, even at meaningful distances.
i was a 249 gunner and carried that shit all over the place. also carried m4 (multiple variations) and 240b when not carrying the 249. the new sig is heavy as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. for anyone thinking a suppresor is quiet, it can still burst your ear drums. real life is very different from the movies.
The XM7 and the JLTV are both platforms based on lessons learned in GWOT where combat was in rugged long range and open terrain. The XM7 especially is meant to overcome the issue were insurgents could rain down AK47 fire from a Ridgeline above US personelle and the M4 and M249 could not return fire. The Marines are keeping the old ammo but could effectively turn every rifleman into an auto rifleman. The XM7 was pretty good when it came out, however since then a different company released the Reaper MG which offered more power, less recoil. The big issue to me with the XM7 is the performance in building clear and CQB. It's just so large. However training is what separates the US military from any other military and if they can develope good tactics and training they'll be much better of.
I was at the School of the Americas on Benning when we were doing the XM8 trials. It was a pretty cool rifle. I have the Sig M17. It's a very good handgun. I like it a lot.
As someone who has followed this for a decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that the current iterations of the 5.56 are increasingly the best option. Drones are dealing with the range issues and improving target acquisition capabilities along with the ability for unmanned platforms to take a 5.56 forward into higher risk situations where they can take the accurate shots necessary negates the need for a bigger more powerful round. The logistics of keeping a round that is about 2/3 the weight and all NATO uses for outweighs any advantages of the more capable round.
NATO standard 5.56 is very important. This is a good rifle from what I have seen, but it seems too expensive and disruptive for the tradeoff of being able to shoot farther, which most soldiers will likely never need to do...?
@@nicolasolton well the standard isn't as much of a standard for the zones for nato to likely engage with russia in. like all of the border countries have some 7.62 at least still in stockpiles if not as the main mass stockpile like in some of them. in practical terms for today, right now, nato runs a lot of russian 7.62x39, it's defacto the 2nd caliber in practice. it's also the most stockpiled for nato. possibly more so than 5.56 even, certainly there's more stockpiled 7.62x39 guns in nato hands than 5.56 still for a good long while (it's just due to the universal conscript army countries having used it, finland has enough guns to arm entire german and french active military in that caliber). so anyway, as much as they might not like it nato is stuck with 7.62x39 for a long while still as the bigger caliber and say finland is unlikely to completely transition out of it for decades.
@@daniels2761Which also isn't a factor, because no adversary nation can field body armor en-masse. Russia can't even arm the troops it's sending to Ukraine. They're giving many of them literal relics from the second World War and hunting rifles. Penetration is a non-issue.
I heard the US Marine Corps is also buying this new service rifle. I remember going thru Marine corps bootcamp way back in 1978. The emphasis put on marksmanship was no joke, make the first and every round count. We also learned to use our rifles in hand to hand combat.
I wonder if one day going to this new ammo will be like when law enforcement agencies moved to the 40s&w. They wanted a harder hitting round and gave up capacity in the magazine. Then they all want back to 9mm because they realized having more rounds in the magazine was important. I know that there have been improvements in 9mm capabilities, which also helped make the decision. So what else could be done to help make 5.56 ammo a little more effective?
@@scottwilson1420 1. 10mm was never adopted by more than a few agencies. 2. The problem was recoil, not capacity. 3. We have already reached he physical limits of the 5.56 cartridge.
It depends, from observations of what's happening in Ukraine it seems as if the largest hazard is shrapnel from either Artillery, Drones or bombs from drones. And I think I'm correct in saying that in WW1 and WW2 artillery was the largest reported reason for combat deaths. While we are all having a debate about 5.56/6.8/7.62 I think it's important to remember the context of a peer to peer conflict.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Dude never said anything about 10 mm bro. He said .40 Smith & Wesson. And no we haven't reached the Pinnacle of what 5.56 is capable of. If they were to switch over to issueing M995. Voila!!! Body armor defeated. M995 will punch holes in level 4 ceramic plate 7 days a week 365 days a year. Even from an 11.5 barrel inside of 200yards. With a 16" or 14.5" you can add quite a bit of yardage to that figure. I'm not even talking about what a 20-inch Barrel is capable of. From an M4 it will punch a hole in 12.5 mm or roughly a half inch of rolled homogeneous steel armor at 100M thats outstanding!!! And I'm here to tell you nobody is going to be walking around with half inch thick SAPI steel plates on their chest back and flanks.
@@ryanfilter7545 You're right about (1) but you just made my point on (2). That's it, end of the road. The need case is level IV at 500m+ That said, I could swear it originally said 10mm...
And a couple of dudes in home-made body armor outshot dozens of them in LA some years back. The spec for the new rifle is to make modern body armor ineffective against infantry fire. A rifle that can't do that job is going to be obsolete.
One other thing to mention is the weight distribution. The XM7 increased weight is more in the front away from the body caused by the shortstroke gas piston while the M4 uses the lighter weight direct impingement gas system. So keeping it up and on target will be more taxing on the arms than the M4. The M4 has a better center of gravity bringing it closer to the body.
IRONIC ! Back in the 1890's, Mauser marketed its bolt action rifle in the 7mm Mauser cartridge, which was adopted by many nations. The new cartridge replacing the 223/5.56 seems like a "throwback" to that old 7mm. Sure, with newer gun powder and "advanced" bullets. But nonetheless, "everything OLD is NEW again !"
In Vietnam many it allowed opted for the M1 over the M16 due to the poor ammunition performance of the M16 and its proneness to jamming. A couple old timers even carried Gerrand M1s.
To be fair the nam era m16s were shot in the foot by not being sent with cleaning kits and the government insisting on using ammo that dirtied the gun faster.
@@tattoochef , the underlying problem is relevant though. In time, soldiers may fiend themselves with substandard ammo and no time for basic maintenance. The old M16 didn't handle that very well, the question is how the new M7 will be able to deal with less than optimal situations. Looking at combat footage from Ukraine, the old M16 would probably not have fared well.
@@tattoochefthe reason cleaning kits were irrelevant is because of the M-14. They wanted the government contract so they put out propaganda that the M-16 didn’t need to be cleaned. They willingly sacrificed American soldiers over a contract. No doubt they were god fearing, pro-life conservatives. Only they can stoop so low.
What's really impressive with this weapon platform is the advanced combat integration program that will also involve the soldier's helmet. That sight computer will do a lot more than just ballistics in the future.
@chrishooge3442 indeed. Think of the advantage of being able to see around a corner from your HUD using your weapon. Being able to spot a target. And lay down a marker so all your sqaud mates see him or it. They immediately all have sights on and firing solutions to hit it. Crazy stuff.
That augmented reality helmet could be amazing. I fuses the different sensors with computer vision so it's kinda like the Predator-vision but actually usable.
The Army's been concepting helmet/uniform integrated electronics for decades. Doubt they're anywhere near field implementation. The all-in-one sight developed for the M7 will be enough of a challenge on its own to deliver en-masse.
Oof already out of date. Some M7s are being procured but in small amounts the M4 is being updated in the Army the M4 will stay in service. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force are not looking to replace it. Theyve dropped the number they want to procure. XM250 procurement has barely materialized. Ammo loadouts also tends to be much higher. Iraq surge 249 Gunners carried 1k plus of ammo with 2k not being unlikely. With XM250 gunners being expected to carry 1k still today. Ive also seen no movement on the XM157. The 5.56 AR is still king as a combat rifle. I like the 249 but its antiquated and not as unkillable as the FN MAG.
The 5.56 cartridge is a penetrating monster. "Insufficient penetration" is definitely not describing the 556. The issue we had with it at longer ranges (500 meters and out) is that it wasn't delivering enough punch way out there to guarantee a casualty. Inside of 300m the 556 is a very effective cartridge and produces very little recoil compared to the larger diameter options.
Right, and most engagements occur _within_ the 300m envelope, which is why the AR-15 is so effective. Switching to a heavier GP Rifle with more recoil and less ammo on-hand for a threat that likely won't be encountered is extremely short-sided.
With AP cores yes, with standart fmj and the like, not at all, at least not when body armor or proper cover comes into play. It´s a decent light to medium game hunting round but not a war round against near peer armies.
@@redslate They take place within 300m because that's our doctrine, not a natural law. Afghanistan taught us different lessons and doctrine is changing to match.
There was a lot of incorrect information in that, including the picture of the 6.8 next to the 5.56. what you showed was 6.8 SPC not the 6.8x51 which is significantly bigger than both.
well.. special ops have all kinds of guns and rounds under the sun. they go with everything, and constantly experiment with everything, not just with 6.5 Creedmoor... like .300 blackout subsonic rounds for close quarters. or .338NM belt-fed "lightweight medium machine gun." currently, no NATO country uses the AR-10 as their primary service rifle. is there much, if any, difference in 277 Fury(6.8) Vs 6.5 creedmoor long range ballistic results? trajectory, accuracy, penetration with 80000 psi xm7 rifle versus. ar10 platform rifle with 6.5 creedmoors? how about weight of the bullets? you cannot shoot 6.5 creedmoor rounds with an M4 5.56 service rifle, its specifically designed for use with ar-10 style rifles. ar-10 platform is used as designated marksman rifles. and a 7.62×51mm nato round-using rifle is not synonymous with an ar-10 platform rifle. while ar-10 rifles typically use the 7.62×51mm nato round, not all rifles chambered for this cartridge are AR-10s, older battle rifles like the FN FAL and G3 that use 7.62x51 are not ar-10 platforms. you cannot shoot a 6.5 creedmoor round with a rifle chambered for 7.62×51mm nato without changing the barrel. the 6.5 creedmoor uses a 6.5mm (.264 inch) bullet, while the 7.62×51mm nato uses a 7.62mm (.308 inch) bullet, significant difference in bullet diameter makes them incompatible.. the widespread adoption of this caliber as primary service rifle by the usa could create similar interoperability issues within nato as 6.8. while the u.s. special operations command (ussocom) has tested and adopted the 6.5 creedmoor for specific purposes, this is considered a "special purpose use".
creedmoor is a precision rifle for infrequent fire. not a standard issue weapon. unless you want to make special projectiles that are much longer, heavier, and slower so they don't absolutely wreck the barrels.
The entire point of switching rounds is defeating lvl lll & lV body armor 6.5 creedmoore lacks the sectional density for that job, also its a long skinny bullet which in case you didn't know burns out barrels & shortens their lives (I low key wonder if that's not one the reason its been hyped so much in industry because it really is only a so-so hunting round it was really designed for target shooting)
@@robberyproductions1363 This is normal innhigh rate of fire. This "silencer" (which in reality is rather signature limiter) keeps in particles of unburned powder in so it has to burn afterwards somehow.
One issue not mentioned is how does it handle not being cleaned. the original M-16 quickly jammed if it wasn't clean. There's a reason the AK-47 has lived so long, it can be fired pretty dirty.
@@JoeJohnson-i9d im not talking about mud, im talking carbon build up. my mosin nagant when i had it, never jammed on me. that thing was a truly tough bastard. thats more than i can say for USA rifles I fired.
Never had a SVD or an SKS fail at fire, extract or feed because of the rifle's maintanence. Have had a few in the 16/4 and 249, even the pig, have the no boom problem.
Using Garand Thumb in clips is a compliment to one of you, just not sure who though. That was a nice little Easter egg your editors put in this 😂, carry on 🤙
Also I want to add, if you reach out, why not go to his ranch and have first hand experience with these weapons? Food for thought Simon, I'd love to see a video like that as I'm sure most of your viewers would, I'm speaking for all of us
Be a lot easier to just go with the 7.62 FAL rifle that the US should have adopted, but instead adopted the M14 due to politics &/or corruption (M14 was replaced by the M16). The FAL 7.62 will give the needed extra range without all the complications of bells & whistles & a odd sized rounds. Other NATO countries have used the FAL for decades & have no complaints & the 7.62×51 NATO round is very common.
@@sparky6086 If the US just wanted to go to .308/7.62 NATO the AR-10 would have been better as its design and function are nearly identical to the AR-15 everyone is all ready trained and experienced with. Don't get me wrong, for most militaries I'd agree with going FN FAL but experience with a weapon platform is valuable in and of itself. The 6.8x51mm is a significantly higher velocity cartridge than 7.62 NATO and is lighter, personally I think the XM7 looks like a significant improvement and will work well.
@@NelsonZAPTM Murphy's law is a bitch, I only tried using an m249 with a magazine a couple of times on the range and had two jams with one of those magazines and others had similar experience with it. I'm sure under perfect conditions it's fine, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on magazines in an m249 if I could avoid it.
So why is the US Army replacing it is main service weapon? Sorry Simon, I couldn’t resist. The urge of this American to correct the grammar of an Englishman was too strong. Mad love for you and the channel!
I have the civilian version of this rifle with the 16” barrel in 7.62x51/.308 and it def packs a punch. Can hit a target at 1,000 yards. Which is why one was correct in saying it’s more of a DMR than an infantry rifle. The only downside for me is the ammo price. 1 d0llar a round. The 5.56 is a lot more affordable to shoot.
The 6.8mm cartridge shown in comparison to 5.56mm NATO looks like 6.8mm Remington SPC. The XM7 et al uses the hybrid case 6.8 x 51mm cartridge (also known as the .277 Sig Fury). The 6.8 Rem SPC is an intermediate cartridge similar to 5.56 NATO. It was designed to be used in standard assault rifles like the M4, but others like the Bushmaster/Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle; originally developed by Magpul under the name "Masada"). On the other hand, the 6.8 x 51mm cartridge is a short-action full-powered rifle cartridge derived from 7.62 x 51mm NATO; the cartridge case is dimensionally very similar. Interestingly, the hybrid case design is so the case can survive the insane chamber pressure of around 80,000 psi that's required to propel the bullet to 3,000+ FPS out of the short 13 inch barrel.
Yeah I’ve heard they’re doing this because they want to penetrate body armor. Go to a longer barrel and use a tungsten penetrator and I bet 556 will do just fine. Idk though I’m no ballistics expert.
US army: Witness our new rifle, equipped with a 20rnd mag, mid length barrel, and capable of piercing the best body armor with its higher caliber ammo. The SCAR 17 from like 20+ years ago: ... am i a joke to you?
XM7 is significantly lighter, as is the ammo. Significantly cheaper. Significantly easier to maintain and clean under combat conditions. The SCAR-17 was universally hated by everybody.
6.8x51mm as adopted does NOT have a polymer case. It's a brass casing with a steel primer cup to prevent the back of the casing from rupturing from the insane pressure exerted.
The Sig did not utilize the polymer rounds. That was different rifle entry. The Sig 6.8 mm utilizes a brass case with a steel base for combat and a lower pressure brass only case for training.
It's possible ofc. But, imo, the simplest explanation for an editor putting this video together would be Google/search YT for some footage and use what's readily available
Excellent video!!! I have been following the development of the NGSW for many years. As a retired infantryman myself, I am very happy to see the new rifle and machine gun. The M-16 A2 was issued as a stop gap measure when the A1 was found to be horribly lacking in power. Then the M-4 kept the A2s ammo, but uses a short barrel, which precisely destroyed the only advantage the 5.56 ever had. Piles of combat reports were begging for a more capable combat rifle and the Army replied. They have done well.
The XM7 would make a great Designated Marksman or Special Purpose Rifle. It's a terrible choice as a standard issue rifle and I'm fairly comfortable asserting that it won't ever fill that role. Too heavy, too little ammo in a standard load out, and impractical for use in suppressive fire. There's a reason why special operations wants nothing to do with that rifle. Just like every other attempt to replace the M16/M4, this is another waste of taxpayer dollars.
@@brendanhickey4955 They've tried. M855A1 has its own issues. The more you push a bullet beyond current limits, the more wear you're putting on the firearm itself.
So here's a question: Why can't we just retrofit M4 carbines to handle the new optic and create better shot placement? I'm not saying ditch the M7. I'm saying that right now, the Army is the only one interested in it, but if we can use older weapons with the newer optic, we're improving the odds of a successful hit to target and retaining equipment. It also means that combatants will be familiar with at least half of the new system (the optic), so when current M4 and 5.56mm supplies start drying up, the various branches can evaluate moving to the M7 and it's new round at that point, but their members will already be familiar with an integral part of the arrangement, which is the optic and its many advantages.
Because that doesn't solve 556's inability to defeat body which only going to become more & more of a problem seriously even AP 556 rounds are defeated by Polyethylene body armor.
The optic doesn't increase range. Range and penetration were driving factors behind adopting the M7. With that being said, extra weight, more recoil, and less ammo make the M7 an unideal replacement for the M4, even accounting for the reduced range and prenetration of 5.56. Russia and China can't field body armor en-masse; most engagements take place within 300m, and volume of fire has consistently proven to be more valuable than any other metric in combat. Giving up 1/3 your ammo and tacking on several pounds for an extreme edge-case scenario is a poor trade.
@@Terminalsanity Right. I know that. My idea here is based on the fact that none of the other service branches, at least according to this video, are interested in adopting the M7. They're sticking, apparently, with the M249 and M4. Given that choice, whysoever it was made, it seems prudent to give those units, fielding those weapons, every advantage they can have. The M7 and its extra weight and ammo that seem to be objectionable to most of the naysayers. The optic itself seems to be praiseworthy for most people. Therefore, it seems, let's say silly, not to adopt and/or adapt the optic to work with the older weapons system (if adaptation is necessary for adoption) and give infantry units whatever advantage they can have to increase effective shot placement.
@@redslate I'm with you. I figured that the optic would increase effectiveness through better shot placement on target: increase hit ratios and shots on unarmored aspects of targets. The concepts of ballistic penetration are not new to me, but the math of it is beyond me. The logistics of developing new ammunition, which seems to have been the primary driving force here, are therefore also beyond my ken. I think the problem is that people are trying to get as much as they can out of the intermediate caliber concept that spawned the assault rifle to begin with. This seems to be the result of trying to make a do-all solution; the bullet becomes a jack of all trades and master of none. It's the kind of thinking that drove development of the Bradley fighting vehicle, among other things. I don't have a ammunition solution, and I think nobody does, hence the division amid the service branches vis a vis adoption of the M7 itself. But if the optic helps 5.56 be more effective through better placement, then it's at least worth consideration by branches that want to keep older (but still reasonably effective) platforms in the field.
@@cp37373 It does. "Its" is possesive like his or her but for something indecisive like an animal for example. "It's" is an abbreviation for "it is". Same ball game as "their" and "they're".
If you mean Winny the Phoo, yes. This is pretty much build to shoot through the body armor Chinees troops wear. The Russian armor is only there to be used for parades.
China can only outfit 1 out of every 3 of their soldiers with helmets, and 1 out of every 2 with armor. So 33% dont have a helmet and 50% dont have armor@@JL-cn1qi
Hey. I don't have a spear clone for you to try, but I DO HAVE an M4 clone that you could try out any time. It would lend a lot of insight into any other weapon if you ever had to extrapolate in the future. You could rely on experience instead of conjecture. Also, the m249 has nothing in common with the m16 family of rifles other than concurrent usage.
I bet it was said during the 60s. Have you forgotten how many issues the M16 had? Yet the black rifle became ubiquitous in less than 10 years. Stick to your fidget spinners.
at 6:44 is stated the casings are made of plymer with brass base, but actually the .277 fury or 6.8x 51 mm casing is made of brass (body) with steel base, necessary to because of the higher pressure. and the picture at 6:49 looks like is the 6.8 spc highlithed and not the .277 fury.
My kid tested them and he wasn't impressed either. But remember: They hated the M-16 when it was first issued. Now, the platform is considered reliable and trustworthy.
I had the privilege to hold one with the new scope at an sig event a local gun store held. While it is super cool, it is super heavy, I do not envy someone having to patrol with that monstrosity (+extra ammo, food/supplies ect.) I may be mistaken but I’m pretty sure nearly every study done basically determined : more rounds down range= winning the gunfight. In one of the quotes you put up it included the would “should” when referring to more accurate and effective fire, which “should” make you skeptical.
They're actually brass cased with a steel base (stated at 6:43) for the full power 6.8x51mm ammo, not polymer and brass as stated. The steel base was needed to deal with the higher pressure that the round operates at compared to traditional rounds.
Also the 6.8 round shown in the video is the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43) developed 2002-2004, not the 6.8x51 (.277 Fury) which is the round used by the XM7 and XM250.
Can't wait to see what the shelf life of those are going to be.
@@criticalevent If they are stored correctly, the time will be indefinitely.
Thought it was weird about the polymer case. Maybe he was talking about the magazine?
I came here to say this! The 6.8 spc was an earlier development intended to increase effectiveness of the m4/m16/m249 platforms. 6.8 spc is an intermediate powered cartridge like 5.56. 6.8 sig (or .277 fury) is considered a full power rifle cartridge by most. 6.8 spc can be used from an m4 sized weapon, where the 6.8 sig requires a larger platform like the AR10 type chambered originally in 7.62x51
This video shows a picture of the 6.8 Remington Special Purpose Cartridge, developed in 2004, next to a 5.56x45 - at 3:09 and at 6:46 . The 6.8 Remington SPC is not the same as the 6.8x51 aka .277 Fury that SIG developed recently for the Next Generation Squad Weapon program and the XM7 rifle.
The 6.8 SPC is meant to be used in the "mini" length action of the AR-15, it's of similar cartridge length as the 5.56x45/.223 Remington rounds, and as far as I know was supposed to work in STANAG magazines(standard AR mags).
The 6.8x51/.277 Fury needs a short action, like it's "parent" 7.62x51/.308 Winchester, and would need the larger AR-10/SR-25 magazines.
Add that the 6.8spc is short range even compared to the 556. But it has 40% more energy than the 556 the 6.8/277 fury is a necked down 308 with higher pressure in the case. Allowing it have as much power as a 308 from a shorter barrel. I would like to see it performance against lvl 4 plates at greater than 500 yards.
yea i caught that too. imho the 6.8spc was a compromise in every way over the more powerful/better ballistics of the 6.5 grendel and the later 6mm ARC
@@Angl0sax0nknight 115 grain 6.8 spc will have around 8" more drop than 77 grain 5.56 nato at 600 yards while dealing with wind better. It's not a short range cartridge it just excels at it.
Garand Thumb appearing in a Simon Whistler video was an unexpected crossover
Turtleneck Tutor X Flannel Daddy
@bsmithhammer 2 GOATS in the one pen
I was thinking the same thing. Half the video was just GT.
@@mwdouglas3794 no complaints here, GT and SW are some of my favourite channels. If Simon does a video on the Rhodesian Bush War for Warographics I hope he uses Administrative Results footage for the weaponry of the Rhodies
not a cross over, that was just a B-roll.
The introduction of the ACOG resulted in so many 1 shot 1 kill head shots, that an Investigation was opened up to see if Marines were assassinating targets. Nope, just excellent marksmanship.
How is assassinating defined here?
@@boglenight1551 He should have said executions, not assassinations.
sounds like another Gunny Fact.
it wasnt the acog, it was the fact that in urban combat there was no other target shown but the head. also THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION, IT WAS 1 JOURNALIST OF A RANDOM SMALL PAPER FOR 1 DAY
Yea that's false. An investigation was never opened. And its because of the nature of urban warfare, most times the only things presented in windows are heads and upper shoulders. A 4x magnification optic makes it much easier to identify and engage these target profiles.
"'More powerful' doesn't always equal 'more effective'."
- Paul Harrell
@herknorth8691 May He rest in peace
Lmao tell that to the .50 cal
@@MrSwccguy I think you are missing the point, there are still lots of weapons more powerful than a .50cal, you can get 20mm cannons, 40mm cannons etc. That doesn't automatically make them more effective. On the side of heavy support weapons the .50cal is actually a very light small round, this is what makes it so ideal as a mobile support weapon. A 20mm cannon may be more powerful but a .50 can lay down more support fire, you can carry more ammo for it etc.
So the USA went from 30/06 to .308 to .223 essentially because engagements were closer in Vietnamese, European, and urban scenarios than those previously considered necessary. And the logistics of handling, shipping and storing smaller rounds was so much better. (I think a combat pack of 200 .308 rounds was the same size as a combat pack of 400 .223 rounds.) And now the engagement distances and "knock-down power" are too small. So we need a new round and new rifles and squad machine guns. "The more things change, the more thet stay the same."
I suspect it's what we saw in the police as well: every time a new chief gets appointed, he/she wants to make his/her presence known by changing something. So if a larger caliber was the norm before that new chief, naturally a smaller caliber has to be introduced. That caliber is then "holy", in other words: whole reports will be written to "prove" that the new caliber is far superior. The (in)famous tumbling effect of the 5,56 bullet the troops in Vietnam reported but that somehow never really could be reproduced comes to mind.
Some years later cue the next new chief, and the now standard smaller caliber "obviously doesn't cut it" and a larger caliber has to be introduced. Rinse and repeat.
@@tjroelsma , the US have also fought quite different enemies the last few decades, switching from politically motivated, slightly built Asian engaged over short distances to religiously motivated, more stoutly built Middle East people in open landscapes. Different tasks requite different tools.
The Army didn't really develop the NGSW program for longer range or "more knockdown power" (something that doesn't actually exist in small arms - and 5.56x45mm ammo still does MORE damage to human targets than equivalent bullets in 7.62x51mm or .30-06, because of how the physics work out... now, if you're shooting at *horses*, the old full power .30 rounds are the way to go, because the horse is big enough for the larger rounds to get around to doing what 5.56mm does in the first few inches).
The driver for the NGSW program was the simple realization that our likely near peer adversaries *aren't stupid* , and if they started widescale issuing of body armor of similar performance to what the US has been using in combat continuously since 2001, the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm weapons *won't be able to penetrate them reliably* (and we know this because of all the US troops who have come back, uninjured, with 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mmR, and 7.62x51mm rounds - even "AP" rounds - stuck in their vests.
The Army ballistics labs did some high level calculations and experiments and determined the *minimum* round for defeating the expected near peer, near term, body armor types was a 6.8mm bullet of a specific design (reliably reported to be "based on" the M855A1 projo, but optimized ballistically in ways not available for a bullet that had to be backwards compatible with M855), at a specific velocity (basically a similar velocity as the old 55 gr M193 could get from a 20" barrel). So they handed the designers the bullets, told them the target muzzle velocities they had to hit, gave them the performance and physical requirements of the rifle and LMG competition, and told them, "Go forth and develop weapons that will do X, Y, and Z, with THIS bullet, and develop the ammo as well."
Yep. There really isn't a perfect caliber for assault rifles because battlegrounds can be so different.
I would introduce a new assault rifle in two different calibers, but that's just me.
@@dariozanze4929they effectively have. They recently ordered more of the previous rifle and ordered the new one.
1:01 *The M249 is not in the same family as the M16.* It's a belt-fed automatic weapon that fires in an open bolt position. Other than firing the same 5.56mm cartridges, it's a totally different weapon.
It also shares (a janky) magazine compatibility with stanag mags.
@@EnigmaticPenguin True, and you can pull back the bolt on an empty M-16 and load bullets into the firing chamber by hand through the ejection port. By the logic of this video, does that put the M-16 in the same family as a bolt-action rifle?
I think he meant “family” as in American infantry small arms use, not direct lineage of design
Or to be more specific, rifleman use as opposed to general infantry like the 240, duece, and mk19
It’s purely because of the round that he lump them together. They were looking for something with a little more punch, is how he put it I believe
Contracts of $2 billion and $4 billion sounds high until you realize the defense budget is $850 billion.
I mean to me as an American that sounds normal to low, we spend like you wouldn't believe on just R&D.
The price is pretty high when you take into account the low manufacturing cost. Not to mention, these contracts go to the lowest bidder, so the soldier isn't really getting the best available. Thanks military industrial complex.
@@AdamtheRed- also all government contracts are massively inflated, the gov pays top dollar so why not charge them top dollar?
It's good money for rifles
Don’t think like 50 billion could be spent on other things and still spend more than nearly the rest of the world?
I was a 12B Combat Engineer in a Sapper Company from 2014-2022. The XM7 is an amazing battle rifle, and it's machine gun counterpart is an amazing machine gun. That being said, standard issue rifles are NOT battle rifles, they are assault rifles. Intermediate caliber carbines. The XM7 is a TERRIBLE standard issue rifle. It's too heavy, and the increase in ammo weight along with 20rs magazines is completely unacceptable.
The vast majority of ammunition expended in a firefight is suppression, and making the cost of being able to effectively supress the enemy an extra 15-20Lbs when the typical soldier might be carrying 70Lbs on their back with an M4 load out is wholly irresponsible.
140rds for a combat load is actually hilarious. The M4 standard combat load of 210rds isn't enough rounds. A combat load is what's carried on your kit, 6mags on your plate carrier +1 in the gun. Combat load = what's immediately accessible. Everyone carries at least double that in their pack and several people per squad are carrying 2+ 200rd drums for the M249 or 100rd drums for the M240.
What the Army is doing is DUMB. Soldiers will simply be carrying much much more weight to satisfy their need to not run out of ammo in combat. The new 6.8 round achieves it's incredible power by using a new case design on the bullets. The back of the case is hardened steel, with a brass body. This new design allows the round to have much more powder in it because the case won't explode, thus the bullet is wicked fast for it's size.
What the Army SHOULD have done is replace the M4 with a slightly heavier 5.56 rifle designed for these massive chamber pressures and then taken the bi-metal case design and made an M855A2 round with the same steel penetrator of the M855A1 (which already turns Level III armor into swiss cheese) just going much faster. To defeat body armor you need a bullet that is resistant to deforming on contact (the steel penetrator) and a lot of velocity. 5.56 in a bi-metal case would've achieved this without the silliness of going back to the start of Vietnam where a standard infantry rifle was an M14 with a big round, a small magazine, and a painfully heavy load of ammo on the grunt's back.
Yeah, let's just throw the lessons from Project Salvo right into the waste bin. This full sized cartridge is a BIG mistake. When we go to the Middle East we can rely on our allies to provide compatible ammunition which we can use. That will go out the window now. Also, the new rifle uses an insanely high chamber pressure. How much more frequently will these weapons blow up or give up the ghost?
Whome do we buy Tungsten off ?
Russia and China.....
So in that peer conflict will our enemies sell us any tungsten?
The M4 is absolutely not an assault rifle. It lacks the full auto capability to be considered such, because neither the US Army nor Marines ever adopted the assault doctrine.
Ngl an upgraded 5.56 aimed at emulating part of the .277 properties at less cost in weight and size sounds like an interesting idea.
@@WhatIsThatThingDoing We have already reached the upper limit of what can be done with that casing/diameter/chamber pressure.
I thought it went like “This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun”
Thats from a matching song
No Private Snowball. Of course its not!
That is a reminder that there are shotguns and naval guns; grunts have rifles and pistols. Don't repeat the mistake of calling your rifle a "gun", or the next time you will be expected to pull it out for display.
That's the marching cadence my friend.
@@everettputerbaugh3996I saw a lot of pushups for that. Luckily my dad had been a drill sergeant and in the 1st Air Cav. I knew it was a rifle. But I still knocked out a lot of pushups for other brain farts.
I just wanted to add that the characteristics of NATOs 5.56mm ammunition don't lend well to shooting at very long distances. Saying the ammo wasn't accurate is an odd generalization. The new ammo type is meant to carry a straighter flight path over longer distances. That is the "accuracy" part of the improvement. The old 5.56 ammo is affected by wind a bit more, drops quicker within infantry fighting distances, and doesn't carry as much energy when it hits the target.
Thats a important call out. 5.56 is meant to be accurate within typical engagement range. The important part of the statement with regards to Afghanistan is a lot of engagements were outside the expected engagement ranges the M4 and 5.56 was meant for
The 5.56 was developed off the fact most engagement ranges from WW2 to Korea happened under 200 yards. It's no coincidence it's very effective at that. So of course when you try to shoot from mountain to mountain it sucks. For cover we always had heavier weapons for that. The NGSW program is just the Army wanting a new toy.
while the military has a criteria for accuracy separate from the civilian sector, it is odd to say that the 5.56mm and its weapon systems arent accurate. My understanding is that the need for a 6.8mm wasnt about range (because as testing has proven most fire fights occur within 300 meters) it was about defeating future body armor. The US army wants to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
Precision is different from accuracy. Right on that.
Yeah. Accuracy at the desired distance. You can lob 5.56 inaccurate at a far distance. They want accuracy
That's also a 6.8spc round next to the 5.56 at 6:49 in the video not the 6.8x51 used in the rifle
That's correct. He talking about it's development at that stage of history. He was not referencing the 6.8x51.
I'll be absolutely stunned if the "sticker shock" of the XM7 program doesn't result in the XM7 becoming a DMR instead of a general issue battle rifle. Fully equipped, each XM7 is over $13,000 each. That's not counting the $13.00 per round for the full-power military armor piercing ammunition, spare parts, logistical issues with new ammunition, and training of unit armorers and providing them with the necessary tools, gauges and equipment to properly service the rifles.
Functionally, it's better suited as a DMR anyway.
Yeah, it's over priced. If it was made from titanium and half the weight it is now, maybe. Reminds be of purchasing a full size truck, all useful, and all over priced.
@gld1010 I wonder if this will be one of those programs looked at by DOGE.
Error at 6:41
It is a brass case with a stainless case head.
As a gun nerd this entire video makes no sense.
I was a Combat Engineer in '84 and used the M16a1 and M60. I think the XM250 LMG is definitely an improvement over the M60 and FN 240 but l think the 6.8 is a bit overkill for most engagements and I would not want to lug it around with its ammunition on a 6 mile road march.
Thats a common thing I've seen and you're probably right.
Being a technology analyst though I've learned that what we "expect" changes when the tools change.
I imagine once these weapons become more common the engagements will change because of it.
Most of the guys I talked to think a 6 mm with a bit larger case then. the 5.56 would do the job. The new 6.8 rifle is the M-14 all over again.
the point is barrier penetration. to see why this is important look up the yakut knife fight. if the Ukrainian had the xm7 he would have killed his enemy through the house.
I think you are onto something. For urban combat ranges the 5.56 appears sufficient. The kind of extended combat durations in places like Fallujah appear to be ideal for the 5.56mm platforms. The range of Afghanistan appears to be one of two factors to consider the 6.8mm. I suspect the second is the close ranges of CQB. At some point in the GWOT, USSF units started using .300 Blackout for greater suppression and takedown power in their door kicking operations. Same lower and magazine. Only the upper receiver need to be swapped out. But those operations tend to be of short duration and ranges.
In 1998 I had an opportunity to ask MSG Eversman (Black Hawk Down) what was the most effective weapon in what was then our biggest urban combat since Vietnam. His answer was the M249 SAW. That opinion is probably dated since the GWOT...but there it is.
I am going to agree here. I think the XM250 is going to be impressive, especially against lightly armored vehicles and chewing through cover. But the infantry rifle is not going to be a favorite. I guess the Army is done doing CQB?
Honest question from a non-vet here: how much of infantry fire involves shots aimed at actual targets vs a more general "fill the air with bullets to keep the enemy from sticking their head up while we do what we want?" As a layman, it would seem to me that accuracy would help in the first instance, while more ammo per soldier would be more useful in the latter. I am curious to hear from those who've actually been there on what they think. And yes, I understand this can vary, in different engagements and environments but I'm curious about the overall balance people have seen.
Most grunts never see what or who they are firing at. They fire to keep the other guy’s head down until they get close enough to find him dead, gone or ready to be shot.
Afghan War vet here (Kandahar province, 2006 & 2010) and that's a tricky question to answer...but I'll do my best...
Accurate fire is obviously important. Bullets going into bad guys means there are now less bad guys, which helps win a TIC (troops in contact, aka firefight)
But often times, it's quite difficult to get accurate rounds on target in the initial stages of a firefight as everybody is scrambling for cover. So suppressive fire becomes key, to keep the enemies' heads down and allow your side to maneuver.
As the TIC progresses & the suppressive fire prevents the enemy from moving too much, parts of your team maneuver to get closer and better vantage points so they can start to engage the enemy with more accurate fire.
So part 1 of winning a TIC - suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down, prevent enemy movement, limit their ability to shoot at you, while maneuvering on them... (aka wall of bullets concept)
Part 2 - more accurate fire to eliminate enemy
That's why it's tricky to answer. You kinda need both, and both are equally important depending on what part of the TIC one finds themselves in
@chrisburke624 you answered that about as well as possible the only thing I'd add was the urban combat I found myself in when I was in fallujah was very up close and personal in more engagements than not. Not to say that was the case the whole time but I happened more often during operation phantom fury than any of my other deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan. But your statement still rings true
Jeez.....the ADF just "hoses" the area with some Charlie Gustavs and then send a couple of Inf up "door to door"
@@richardcostello360the CG seems like one of those weapons that are straight forward and useful enough that you've got to wonder how the ADF managed to get around to actually procuring it.
Sounds like the concluding musical tones are at a better volume! Thanks, Megaprojects!
Honestly, I watched a full video on that optic and it's incredible! Only time will tell if it can take a beating and keep on going, but having your targets acquired and range marked is the next big leap forward.
I would bet money that a much lighter, simpler version will be developed. Most of the the things the optic can do are no factor in many engagements.
The functionality uses an IR laser, which will be like a beacon to anyone wearing night vision. So I'm extremely skeptical of the utility of the optic just conceptually, before we even get to usability.
@@skyhop I mean that depends on the wavelength of IR but also IR headlamps are not very common in many militaries even at night time outside of special ops so that’s less of a factor than you think it is
@@Constance_tinople I already looked up the wavelength, it's visible under nightvision, same as your PEQ. I guess it's alright if you're only doing ranges during daylight.
@daniels2761 I've watched many videos on the next gen rifles and counter-parts. I haven't heard any talk on the weight of the optic. 4½ lbs is wild!
The logistics issue brought up near the end should have its own video highlighting what a significant problem this could be.
The rifle, machine gun, sights, and suppressors all seem great but that new ammo is going to really throw a wrench into things.
My personal opinion here is that if your sights are good enough then you don’t need special ammo to punch through body armor because no body armor is going to save someone from a shot between the eyes.
Optics don't really do that. There is no shot possible with an ACOG that isn't possible with iron sights, it's just much faster. The idea of hitting the 6x6" facial zone in 1-2 seconds is just silly.
That kind of accuracy is not achievable in combat. Not even snipers try for headshots, for the most part. The point is to be able to punch through modern body armor. That alone will discourage enemy heroics before shots are even fired.
@@charlesfaure1189 Ehhhh... Right idea, wrong conclusion. That's not how it works when the lead is flying.
The Vortex m157 scope is the only part of this project that actually matters.
no, the LMG is the part that matters. The LMG is most of the firepower of the squad. It was literally called NGSW, next generation squad weapon. I.e., LMG. The rifle is just a consequence of the LMG. And as far as we know the M250 is a massive upgrade over the 249
...but, you still need the shooty bit.
When I first saw the XM7 it was only using 20rd magazines. I still feel that is insufficient for a SAW. I see that they've now created a drum magazine though I don't know it's capacity.
No, XM7 and XM157 are both sides of the same coin. Combined they are more than sums of each.
Have you shot much? A lighter weight optic will be used in most applications very soon. All the stuff it can do is no factor within 300m and that's where most fighting is. The very high profile of the scope will be an issue working out of vehicles.
As an infantry, Marine giving us more weight to carry into combat would definitely piss off a few people. We already carry a ton of gear, and making it heavier makes us more tired by the time we arrive and many other things too. The M-16 and M-249 are pretty good weapons, but they have their down sides, too. If not properly cleaned, they will jam in a bad situation.
The weight, recoil, and logistics are going to catch up to the Army once they begin issuing this en-masse. Whoever thought this could replace the M4 played too much CoD.
It's a solid DMR, but not a GP rifle.
An infantry weapon that cannot penetrate high-quality body armor will be obsolete before 2040. Maybe quite a bit before. Can't give the grunts what they want. Gotta give them what they need.
@charlesfaure1189 Not when our near-peer adversaries, Russia and China, can't field body armor en-masse. Trading movement/maneuver for range & pen makes zero sense for the foreseeable future.
Well done vid! Thanks for making it understandable for a person not knowledgeable in military arms! Keep up the good work Simon and team!
The adoption of the new round also demonstrates that the US army does not value the logistical meshing of NATO allies anymore, the entire reason the 9mm was adopted as the main sidearm caliber.
@15:45, Officers, you need to get enlisted POV. They’ll mostly give you a real, honest answer on what they think.
let's be real they don't give a shit, it's about money
@ Of course, money had to be spent before the end of the fiscal year.
@@GryStykerThe renewal will be an ongoing project for decades. It's not about fiscal years or quarterly finances.
@@konzza It was when the project was first initiated.
Lots of @Garandthumb B roll footage, I love it!
Correction Simon . It's not a new program. They have been considering replacing the M16/M4 for decades and have tried different designs most failed the tests because as it turns out we grunts can and will break anything you want us to test.
He mentioned some of those attempts at the start
An interesting difference between the old and new rifles that I didn't hear covered in this article is that the peak barrel pressure in the new design is over 30% higher than what was allowed in the old M4. This allows for significantly more energy imparted to the projectile beyond what would already be expected with the increased diameter (increasing range, lethality, etc). This also will presumably result in greater wear on the inner workings of the rifle, so fewer rounds between scheduled service. Another example of the trade-offs that have to be made in the design process.
To add to this, training rounds are more conventional lower pressure rounds. This means soldiers will not experience the same round and recoil during training versus in love combat.
As my couches would say perfect practice makes perfect. If they're not going to train with the full pressure round to save on barrels and components the what's the point?
On paper the extra barrel thickness adjusts for this and should have a lifetime similar to the M4, but as I said, on paper. Perhaps they have some new alloy tech that is also allowing for increased barrel life.
The real trade off is using tungsten ammo.
Which we source from Russia and China.
So in that peer conflict......
Since the AR-10 there hasn't been any real advances in infantry rifles. The best change the Army ever made was issuing the ACOG. There's no point in more powerful rifles if you can't hit your targets
mass issue of suppressors is the next big thing. Also LPVOs. And the rangefinder built into the LPVO on the army's vortex optic. Those things alone make the M7 a large advancement. Every infantryman is basically a designated marksman now, with that setup. People say there's less ammo to suppress enemies now, but inaccurate fire is not suppressive fire. If the rounds are closer to the targets due to better optic setups and rangefinder, you'll be able to suppress more with less. That and I have a feeling battlefield resupply will get much easier with drones
The defense industries sure do love pitching the same AR15 to the military over and over again and making billions. I can't believe the DoD is gullible enough to buy it again for the 15th time with a new name
The ar18*. Every meaningful rifle development since the adoption of intermediate cartridges has been accomplished by moving from ar-15 to ar-18 design.
But we can. I was taught to hit at 500m with iron sights. The ACOG merely makes this possible at battle speeds.
@@mojrimibnharb4584they really gas you guys up w that don't they?...the target at 500 is the size of a Toyota prius...I go to the cmp range all the time and stay at 600...an actual person or animal at 500 is hard to even see without glass and movement
Thinking your editor should have given some credit to Garand Thumb considering 50% of the footage was taken from his channel.
They don't have to. It falls under "fair use doctrine". Should they have? Sure
Choosing the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is a much better option than this new cartridge. It’s essentially just an upgraded version of the 7.62 NATO with slightly better speed and penetration at longer ranges, which are rarely relevant in typical soldier operations.
In combat, infantrymen count ounces. They abandon as anything that weighs them down. "Travel light to win the fight."
I am a retired US Army officer with a few years in the infantry. I am impress by the new rifle but believe the M4 should be retained until our fellow services and allies decide to change. Standard ammo is important and the weight factor and fewer rounds carried are an important consideration. More weight always risks the mobility of dismounted infantry. I have seen it. And despite some recent experiences most historical studies that I have read have shown that engagements will take place under 200 meters. The old M60 machinegun was used to engage further out if needed prior to the M249s. Perhaps bringing back the M60 type in place of the M249 might be looked at. Or using one with this new ammo. Just a thought from an old grunt who does remember how the "Old Breed" marines who hated the M1 Grande and favored the 1903 Springfield prior to WW2 until experiences at Guadalcanal changed their minds.
I realize that urban environments and similar environments are, by nature, short engagement lengths. At the same time, more engagements would take place past 200m if more guns and more operators were accurate and confident past those distances
An analogy would be like saying someone shouldn't make a longer range grenade because most engagements with grenades take place within 20m
I mean the M16 was in service for many many years whilst the M4 was getting introduced.
So even if the XM7 becomes the M7 it would take well over a decade before every single M4 in service has been replaced by the M7.
@@rayzerot Also in a peer to peer conflict you just want to avoid urban combat at all cost anyways.
Instead you want to use manouvre warfare and encircle cities
With 8 combat tours total from a tour in Kosovo / Bosnia 1999, 5 tours of Iraq, a tour in Syria and another 3 tours in Afghanistan….the ammo sucks for the M16. No matter what is used, it zips right through when you’re close up and don’t have enough “umph” at a few hundred meters. Thats why the M14’s were refitted and given as the Mk-39 EBR (which I carried). Yet, Afghanistan taught me that we need the extra range, even times in Iraq we needed the extra range. So my thoughts were “why the F-k are we trying to reinvent the wheel here. Make the bi-metal case for the 7.62x51 (308), then call it a day. On the other hand, the 6.8 SPC / 6.5 Grendel were field tested and actually use a lot of the similar parts from the M4, why not use an intermediate bullet. Cost savings by using what we have and changing small things so familiarity is not an issue??
I don’t know……I retired in 2015 and see how things are with the military, yet the Army is still spending a lot of $$ on junk shit like the GayCU’s when the money could have been used elsewhere. The Navy with the wasted billions on the LCS problems. The Chair Farce with the F-35 problems.
Yet, I’ve been retired for almost a decade….i don’t know nothing though…..
@@rayzerot Just.... no. Go back to Call of Duty.
I can't imagine a weapon weighing 10 pounds is going to be very popular with frontline grunts.
Neither would a weapon that can't penetrate modern body armor. The old Garand weighed ten-plus pounds. The 60 weighed about 23 without ammo.
"I'm better off with less ammo"
said no one ever...
Tell that to an M1911 fanboy.
The REAL reason - the Pentagon wants the new belt-fed. It's a package deal with the XM7 and the 6.8 round, and the belt-fed is good enough that the Pentagon will accept the XM7 if that's what it takes. For that matter, the Army gets to replace 5.56 and 7.62 with ONE ROUND, and the M249 and M240 with ONE GUN, so I'm getting M14 flashbacks here.
Otherwise I knew everything I needed to know about the XM7 when I saw the redundant charging handle and found out that the round has a 70,000 PSI operating pressure - gun was designed by committee and is gonna break a lot. A bunch of officers are getting some shiny golden parachutes.
I was thinking, damn why not just get the new LMG and retool the M4s to like a .300 Black Out with that fancy new optic. Problem solved.
Or, if the new LMG is so damn awesome and really light, fuckin give every infantryman a belt fed machine gun lol.
@@theroachden6195
Yeah... Um .300 Wisper/Blackout is probably the absolute worst caliber you would want the military to retool the M4's in. It's ballistic trajectory is far inferior to modern 5.56 ammo. Not to mention 300 Blackout (or 300 whisper they're both the same thing) was designed with 1 just 1 purpose in mind. Thats to be able to run a full size rifle round sub sonic. Socom wanted to get away from the MP5 and go to a platform that number one had more commonality with what they were already using( which was the M4) and number two could be designed with armor piercing capabilities in a subsonic platform so that sound could be reduced to a minimum level for covert operations. And that's literally the only thing that 300 Blackout goes well.
And unlike the assault weapons, a machine gun has a barrel designed to be replace with minimal effort. The friction cause by firing that many rounds that quickly causes the barrel to heat up enough that it is possible for the barrel to warp. It also makes the barrel wear out really fast.
Early belt fed machine guns had a jacket filled with water around the barrel to carry off the heat and the water in that barrel could be replaced while being fire to keep cool water inside it with the proper equipment and a supply of water.
I'm going to go on record and say what the army wanted was a bullpup chambered in 7.62 or 6.5 creedmore which accomplishes its main goal of maintaining a compact rife while increasing energy on target at range. But when given the bids they somehow chose the worst possible candidate because on the surface it looked like what they already had...as if somehow retraining the manual of arms was such a dealbreaker that it would be worth investing god knows how much in what will likely be the failed implementation of a rifel that significantly increases complexity of ammo production, is heavy, and has substantially more difficult to manage recoil even with the training and civilian loads.
The US Army *didn't* want a bullpup rifle, because of the inherent flaws of bullpup designs. They also wanted a matching squad LMG that fired the same ammunition, and could provide suppressive effects equivalent to the current M249, with range and terminal effects greatly enhanced (to classified levels). In fact the program was *started* as merely a "squad LMG" program.
The Beretta designed bullpup mobile with the brass and polymer cased ammunition developed by General Dynamics didn't provide a credible LMG option, and didn't address *any* of the long known to the US Army flaws of bullpups.
The Textron/AAI carbine and LMG using the plastic telescoped cased ammunition just failed miserably in terms of reliability and accuracy, and had serious safety flaws in the manual of arms. *THIS* is the competitor the insiders intially running the competition wanted to win; after all, it was the reault of the LSAT development program that the Army had been running nearly 20 years and spending millions of dollars on (the only real differences between the competition entry arms and the final development spiral version of LSAT was the caliber.)
Only Sig offered a pair of weapons that met the reliability and performance requirements, and it was the lowest risk (technology, time, and cost) option.
Bullpups are stupid and most of the countries that adapted that trash are slowly going with a Stoner pattern (e.g. France, New Zealand, UK etc...)
Agree with @geodkyt. Bullpups ability to have barrel length w/ compact dimensions is great but good luck using it in a real world scenario, and an absolute joke for an LMG.
Bullpup rifles make terrible service rifles. There's a reason every European country that had a bullpup switched to some flavor of the HK 416
Their submittal for a light machine gun sunk the bid . It wasn’t belt fed.
2:45 The limitation is not the cartridge itself but the M4. There have been several studies over the last several decades that proves reducing the barrel to less than 16” reduces MV which reduces effectiveness at range. The 5.56 was designed as a high velocity projectile that has a 50% chance of yawing and fragmenting at 2500 FPS (percentages go up as MV increases). If you field a rifle with a 14.5” barrel (2750 FPS at the muzzle with 97% fragmentation out to 100 yards) then you’re begging for trouble. This is why the Marine Corps is fielding a new rifle firing 5.56 from an 18” barrel (3050 FPS at the muzzle with 97% fragmentation out to 200 yards). The problem is not the 5.56 cartridge. It’s the fascination of making the barrel length shorter and shorter.
where'd you hear that the marines are adopting a 18" rifle?
M249 SAW is not a member of the M16 family.
The ONLY connection between the two is the common ammunition type...
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lhYes. An FN Minimi derivative.
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lh both can use STANAG mags
@@paulwollenzein-zn1lh both use STANAG magazines.
No it's not, but shoots the same 5.56mm round as the "M-16" family of weapons. The Mk-48 is a better SAW. But I am partial to the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56 NATO as a Battle Caliber. This 6.8mm round seems to be reaching higher than it can deliver. When I deployed, my SAPI plates where rated up to 7.62 NATO. I don't understand how that new 6.8mm round, with less powder, in a smaller case can out perform the 7.62 NATO? Maybe I'm missing something? Does it have a new propellant that I'm not aware of? Are the new bullets made of depleted uranium? What I know of guns (i.e. firearms or "weapons") and a limited amount of physics/math, the new 6.8mm is better than the 5.56 NATO. But Why? Is it a DEI thing? A combat ammunition load weight for an Infantryman is about the same as his weapon. Arounnd 7.5lbs (3.4kg)
As a marine, I gotta say you are right, we do love our rifles.
Whether we are talking about my ak-47, my ar-15s (I have 2 of them), my 700 win-mag, my 7mm magnum, my .338 Lapua, my lever action 30-30, or my m-40-a5.
I also really love my shotguns and pistols.
Everything you need to know about why the army made this decision is summed up in the fact that one of the officials who was in charge of this procurement, left the government and now sits on the Sig board of directors.
Oooh Simon on guns is always a good time 🤣 blooper watching with a drink, didn't take long this time... Love you Simon 😂
3:46 its more complicated I think - marines since 2017 are reaplaceing both M16 and M249 with M27 rifle
I thought it was just the M249 being phased out by the M27.
@@gregrobertson5576 That was the initial plan when my unit tested them in 2011, but the Corps decided to fully switch over later
@@PopeMetallicus Oh wow. The logic behind it replacing the M249 made a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, what were your thoughts on the M27? Did you like it?
@gregrobertson5576 I really liked it, it was everything the M16 was, but full auto. A little heavier, but nothing compared to the SAW
Which itself is now arguably outdated compared to all the better ar-18 inspired designs since then. And no, France accepting economic backroom deals to accept two decade old designs doesnt count.
I have a firearms history and mechanics hobby and past-time, so for future reference, any mistakes or oversimplifications I hear in the video I'll post here, for educational purposes.
0:56, The M249 is not a M16 related firearm, they are entirely separate platforms, though they are operated together frequently.
2:20, 5.56 NATO is not inaccurate by any measures. They are high velocity and piercing ammunition, but when insurgents are so drugged that they don't know what planet they're on, it's not as effective as it can be. The civilian version of the round, .223 Remington, is actually a common hunting round for medium sized game, such as deer.
3:00, not necessarily. Yes they aren't as penetrative to armor as they could be, the 5.56 round has many variants that can pierce armor, such as the Green tipped ammo, which was issued commonly.
If I find any other issues, I will update and edit the comment as needed.
there's a lot wrong in your comment. 5.56 is not armor piercing whatsoever, unless you're talking about soft armor. For plates, 5.56 will never ever go through a ceramic armor plate ever, including the newest M855A1. Secondly, the reason 5.56 was not effective on people was because the original rifle was designed with like a 20 or 22 inch barrel. The M4 chops it down to what, 14.5, which reduces the power of 5.56 by a massive amount. Out of the original 20 inch barrels 5.56 has a monstrous effect on target. Out of the short barrels it loses effectiveness in as soon as 100 yards, which tracks with the fact the M4 was originally designed as a PDW. And nobody should be hunting deer with .223 ever. If they do they're a bad hunter
Yup 30-06 or .303 is typical from my knowledge. @@moonasha
5.56 is innacurate as longer ranges not close to early intermediate ranges
Not entirely sure why my first reply got deleted. I'm going to try again just to see if it happens again;
The .223 round is illegal to hunt deer with where I live. It is considered underpowered for the job.
I get the impression that very few infantry weapon sized rounds outside of specialist anti-materiel calibers or exotic armour penetrator rounds such as using depleted uranium or subcaliber projectiles seem to be able to defeat modern armour consistently, even at meaningful distances.
i was a 249 gunner and carried that shit all over the place. also carried m4 (multiple variations) and 240b when not carrying the 249. the new sig is heavy as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. for anyone thinking a suppresor is quiet, it can still burst your ear drums. real life is very different from the movies.
The XM7 and the JLTV are both platforms based on lessons learned in GWOT where combat was in rugged long range and open terrain. The XM7 especially is meant to overcome the issue were insurgents could rain down AK47 fire from a Ridgeline above US personelle and the M4 and M249 could not return fire.
The Marines are keeping the old ammo but could effectively turn every rifleman into an auto rifleman.
The XM7 was pretty good when it came out, however since then a different company released the Reaper MG which offered more power, less recoil.
The big issue to me with the XM7 is the performance in building clear and CQB. It's just so large. However training is what separates the US military from any other military and if they can develope good tactics and training they'll be much better of.
7:37 your hearing loss is not service related
True. But it is.
I was at the School of the Americas on Benning when we were doing the XM8 trials. It was a pretty cool rifle. I have the Sig M17. It's a very good handgun. I like it a lot.
As someone who has followed this for a decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that the current iterations of the 5.56 are increasingly the best option. Drones are dealing with the range issues and improving target acquisition capabilities along with the ability for unmanned platforms to take a 5.56 forward into higher risk situations where they can take the accurate shots necessary negates the need for a bigger more powerful round. The logistics of keeping a round that is about 2/3 the weight and all NATO uses for outweighs any advantages of the more capable round.
Hit the nail on the head there
NATO standard 5.56 is very important. This is a good rifle from what I have seen, but it seems too expensive and disruptive for the tradeoff of being able to shoot farther, which most soldiers will likely never need to do...?
@nicolasolton the range difference was overstated in this video. Better armor penetration is the part that matters.
@@nicolasolton well the standard isn't as much of a standard for the zones for nato to likely engage with russia in. like all of the border countries have some 7.62 at least still in stockpiles if not as the main mass stockpile like in some of them. in practical terms for today, right now, nato runs a lot of russian 7.62x39, it's defacto the 2nd caliber in practice.
it's also the most stockpiled for nato. possibly more so than 5.56 even, certainly there's more stockpiled 7.62x39 guns in nato hands than 5.56 still for a good long while (it's just due to the universal conscript army countries having used it, finland has enough guns to arm entire german and french active military in that caliber).
so anyway, as much as they might not like it nato is stuck with 7.62x39 for a long while still as the bigger caliber and say finland is unlikely to completely transition out of it for decades.
@@daniels2761Which also isn't a factor, because no adversary nation can field body armor en-masse. Russia can't even arm the troops it's sending to Ukraine. They're giving many of them literal relics from the second World War and hunting rifles. Penetration is a non-issue.
I heard the US Marine Corps is also buying this new service rifle. I remember going thru Marine corps bootcamp way back in 1978. The emphasis put on marksmanship was no joke, make the first and every round count. We also learned to use our rifles in hand to hand combat.
I wonder if one day going to this new ammo will be like when law enforcement agencies moved to the 40s&w. They wanted a harder hitting round and gave up capacity in the magazine. Then they all want back to 9mm because they realized having more rounds in the magazine was important. I know that there have been improvements in 9mm capabilities, which also helped make the decision. So what else could be done to help make 5.56 ammo a little more effective?
@@scottwilson1420 1. 10mm was never adopted by more than a few agencies.
2. The problem was recoil, not capacity.
3. We have already reached he physical limits of the 5.56 cartridge.
It depends, from observations of what's happening in Ukraine it seems as if the largest hazard is shrapnel from either Artillery, Drones or bombs from drones.
And I think I'm correct in saying that in WW1 and WW2 artillery was the largest reported reason for combat deaths. While we are all having a debate about 5.56/6.8/7.62 I think it's important to remember the context of a peer to peer conflict.
@@mojrimibnharb4584
Dude never said anything about 10 mm bro. He said .40 Smith & Wesson. And no we haven't reached the Pinnacle of what 5.56 is capable of. If they were to switch over to issueing M995. Voila!!! Body armor defeated. M995 will punch holes in level 4 ceramic plate 7 days a week 365 days a year. Even from an 11.5 barrel inside of 200yards. With a 16" or 14.5" you can add quite a bit of yardage to that figure. I'm not even talking about what a 20-inch Barrel is capable of. From an M4 it will punch a hole in 12.5 mm or roughly a half inch of rolled homogeneous steel armor at 100M thats outstanding!!! And I'm here to tell you nobody is going to be walking around with half inch thick SAPI steel plates on their chest back and flanks.
@@ryanfilter7545 You're right about (1) but you just made my point on (2). That's it, end of the road. The need case is level IV at 500m+
That said, I could swear it originally said 10mm...
And a couple of dudes in home-made body armor outshot dozens of them in LA some years back. The spec for the new rifle is to make modern body armor ineffective against infantry fire. A rifle that can't do that job is going to be obsolete.
One other thing to mention is the weight distribution. The XM7 increased weight is more in the front away from the body caused by the shortstroke gas piston while the M4 uses the lighter weight direct impingement gas system. So keeping it up and on target will be more taxing on the arms than the M4. The M4 has a better center of gravity bringing it closer to the body.
A short stroke gas piston makes the XM7 more reliable than a M4, making the extra weight worth it.
The more I learn about the XM-7, the less impressive it becomes
IRONIC ! Back in the 1890's, Mauser marketed its bolt action rifle in the 7mm Mauser cartridge, which was adopted by many nations. The new cartridge replacing the 223/5.56 seems like a "throwback" to that old 7mm. Sure, with newer gun powder and "advanced" bullets. But nonetheless, "everything OLD is NEW again !"
Sig took a 308 rifle, beefed up some receiver parts, a smaller bore, and sold it as a totally new concept. Smart
Not really, and sig kinda sucks, Remember we don’t buy the best stuff it’s always the lowest bidder
270 swift with a defence contract
Not really. Sig took a 5.56 rifle, sized some parts of it up and sold it as a new concept. Now with two charging handles!
Imagine if they just used a Portuguese contract Ar10 in 7.62x51...instead of the M14 50 years ago.
You get a 3000 fps out of a 16" barrel vs 2600 out of a 20" barrel for .308. Quite a difference.
Awesome Garand Thumb collab. Very good videos guys.
How does it perform when shooting tiny super fast drones? I guess the extra weight doesn't help.
Irrelevant: Tiny Drones get jammed & fall to the ground useless, medium sized one get shout the sky by the hundreds by standard air defense systems.
No rifle is ideal for dispatching drones, but less ammo certainly doesn't help. Shotguns are far better suited for such a task.
That's not gonna matter.
Need to do a deep dive on that optic. It’s awesome.
In Vietnam many it allowed opted for the M1 over the M16 due to the poor ammunition performance of the M16 and its proneness to jamming. A couple old timers even carried Gerrand M1s.
To be fair the nam era m16s were shot in the foot by not being sent with cleaning kits and the government insisting on using ammo that dirtied the gun faster.
@@tattoochef True enough.
@@tattoochef , the underlying problem is relevant though. In time, soldiers may fiend themselves with substandard ammo and no time for basic maintenance. The old M16 didn't handle that very well, the question is how the new M7 will be able to deal with less than optimal situations. Looking at combat footage from Ukraine, the old M16 would probably not have fared well.
@@tattoochefthe reason cleaning kits were irrelevant is because of the M-14. They wanted the government contract so they put out propaganda that the M-16 didn’t need to be cleaned. They willingly sacrificed American soldiers over a contract. No doubt they were god fearing, pro-life conservatives. Only they can stoop so low.
M1 Garand*
What's really impressive with this weapon platform is the advanced combat integration program that will also involve the soldier's helmet. That sight computer will do a lot more than just ballistics in the future.
I swear I posted this 5 seconds before you went into it in the video lol!
We've come a long way since iron sights only mindset.
@chrishooge3442 indeed. Think of the advantage of being able to see around a corner from your HUD using your weapon.
Being able to spot a target. And lay down a marker so all your sqaud mates see him or it. They immediately all have sights on and firing solutions to hit it. Crazy stuff.
That augmented reality helmet could be amazing. I fuses the different sensors with computer vision so it's kinda like the Predator-vision but actually usable.
The Army's been concepting helmet/uniform integrated electronics for decades. Doubt they're anywhere near field implementation. The all-in-one sight developed for the M7 will be enough of a challenge on its own to deliver en-masse.
Grand Thumb detected
Thought I saw a few clips of Mr Jones, good to know my dodgy facial recognition wasn't totally off.
He has a high sperm count
Where in the video?
Garand, Jethro.
Forgot that I wasn’t on pepper box…
Oof already out of date. Some M7s are being procured but in small amounts the M4 is being updated in the Army the M4 will stay in service. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force are not looking to replace it. Theyve dropped the number they want to procure. XM250 procurement has barely materialized. Ammo loadouts also tends to be much higher. Iraq surge 249 Gunners carried 1k plus of ammo with 2k not being unlikely. With XM250 gunners being expected to carry 1k still today. Ive also seen no movement on the XM157. The 5.56 AR is still king as a combat rifle. I like the 249 but its antiquated and not as unkillable as the FN MAG.
The 5.56 cartridge is a penetrating monster. "Insufficient penetration" is definitely not describing the 556. The issue we had with it at longer ranges (500 meters and out) is that it wasn't delivering enough punch way out there to guarantee a casualty. Inside of 300m the 556 is a very effective cartridge and produces very little recoil compared to the larger diameter options.
Right, and most engagements occur _within_ the 300m envelope, which is why the AR-15 is so effective.
Switching to a heavier GP Rifle with more recoil and less ammo on-hand for a threat that likely won't be encountered is extremely short-sided.
It's barely adequate for mule deer. Good luck against cinder blocks and body armor.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No adversary is fielding body armor en-masse.
With AP cores yes, with standart fmj and the like, not at all, at least not when body armor or proper cover comes into play.
It´s a decent light to medium game hunting round but not a war round against near peer armies.
@@redslate They take place within 300m because that's our doctrine, not a natural law. Afghanistan taught us different lessons and doctrine is changing to match.
There was a lot of incorrect information in that, including the picture of the 6.8 next to the 5.56. what you showed was 6.8 SPC not the 6.8x51 which is significantly bigger than both.
Should have just used the 6.5 creedmoor rifle socom is going with, already comes in 14.5 inch carbine and 22 inch designated marksman variants.
6.5 criedmore because it doesn't deliver as much energy on target as a 6.8x51.
Or even a 308 for that matter.
well.. special ops have all kinds of guns and rounds under the sun. they go with everything, and constantly experiment with everything, not just with 6.5 Creedmoor... like .300 blackout subsonic rounds for close quarters. or .338NM belt-fed "lightweight medium machine gun." currently, no NATO country uses the AR-10 as their primary service rifle.
is there much, if any, difference in 277 Fury(6.8) Vs 6.5 creedmoor long range ballistic results? trajectory, accuracy, penetration with 80000 psi xm7 rifle versus. ar10 platform rifle with 6.5 creedmoors?
how about weight of the bullets?
you cannot shoot 6.5 creedmoor rounds with an M4 5.56 service rifle, its specifically designed for use with ar-10 style rifles.
ar-10 platform is used as designated marksman rifles.
and a 7.62×51mm nato round-using rifle is not synonymous with an ar-10 platform rifle. while ar-10 rifles typically use the 7.62×51mm nato round, not all rifles chambered for this cartridge are AR-10s, older battle rifles like the FN FAL and G3 that use 7.62x51 are not ar-10 platforms.
you cannot shoot a 6.5 creedmoor round with a rifle chambered for 7.62×51mm nato without changing the barrel. the 6.5 creedmoor uses a 6.5mm (.264 inch) bullet, while the 7.62×51mm nato uses a 7.62mm (.308 inch) bullet, significant difference in bullet diameter makes them incompatible..
the widespread adoption of this caliber as primary service rifle by the usa could create similar interoperability issues within nato as 6.8.
while the u.s. special operations command (ussocom) has tested and adopted the 6.5 creedmoor for specific purposes, this is considered a "special purpose use".
...and (sorry) a 14.5 inch barrel reduces its effectiveness to that of a 6.5 Grendel with a 16 inch barrel.
creedmoor is a precision rifle for infrequent fire. not a standard issue weapon. unless you want to make special projectiles that are much longer, heavier, and slower so they don't absolutely wreck the barrels.
The entire point of switching rounds is defeating lvl lll & lV body armor 6.5 creedmoore lacks the sectional density for that job, also its a long skinny bullet which in case you didn't know burns out barrels & shortens their lives (I low key wonder if that's not one the reason its been hyped so much in industry because it really is only a so-so hunting round it was really designed for target shooting)
we gone full circle and back to the battle rifle, glad to see flannel daddy on in this vid xD
15:16 now that's a smoking gun 😆
Saw that too. Wtf was that??
I think this was the endurance test, so they were probably firing till it started to show problems
@@robberyproductions1363 This is normal innhigh rate of fire. This "silencer" (which in reality is rather signature limiter) keeps in particles of unburned powder in so it has to burn afterwards somehow.
The XM250 light machine gun and Vortex XM147 scope are the best parts of NGSW acquisition IMO.
One issue not mentioned is how does it handle not being cleaned. the original M-16 quickly jammed if it wasn't clean. There's a reason the AK-47 has lived so long, it can be fired pretty dirty.
Not true at all, the Ak actually fails if too much mud gets into it the ar does not
@@JoeJohnson-i9d im not talking about mud, im talking carbon build up. my mosin nagant when i had it, never jammed on me. that thing was a truly tough bastard. thats more than i can say for USA rifles I fired.
@ no ars now can take a ton of carbon too
@@JoeJohnson-i9d like i said, the "original M16"
Never had a SVD or an SKS fail at fire, extract or feed because of the rifle's maintanence. Have had a few in the 16/4 and 249, even the pig, have the no boom problem.
Using Garand Thumb in clips is a compliment to one of you, just not sure who though. That was a nice little Easter egg your editors put in this 😂, carry on 🤙
Also I want to add, if you reach out, why not go to his ranch and have first hand experience with these weapons? Food for thought Simon, I'd love to see a video like that as I'm sure most of your viewers would, I'm speaking for all of us
@@jaceh5109Great idea! 👍
The M249 is not in the M16 family, I think the origional version was built by FN in Belgium.
Interestingly it can technically use an AR magazine, it'll generally just jam if you try it though.
@@scarx4181 only when Jack section pinches your gun on exercise and leaves you with their shitty one with the bent mag catch/dust cover.
Be a lot easier to just go with the 7.62 FAL rifle that the US should have adopted, but instead adopted the M14 due to politics &/or corruption (M14 was replaced by the M16). The FAL 7.62 will give the needed extra range without all the complications of bells & whistles & a odd sized rounds. Other NATO countries have used the FAL for decades & have no complaints & the 7.62×51 NATO round is very common.
@@sparky6086 If the US just wanted to go to .308/7.62 NATO the AR-10 would have been better as its design and function are nearly identical to the AR-15 everyone is all ready trained and experienced with. Don't get me wrong, for most militaries I'd agree with going FN FAL but experience with a weapon platform is valuable in and of itself.
The 6.8x51mm is a significantly higher velocity cartridge than 7.62 NATO and is lighter, personally I think the XM7 looks like a significant improvement and will work well.
@@NelsonZAPTM Murphy's law is a bitch, I only tried using an m249 with a magazine a couple of times on the range and had two jams with one of those magazines and others had similar experience with it. I'm sure under perfect conditions it's fine, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on magazines in an m249 if I could avoid it.
So why is the US Army replacing it is main service weapon?
Sorry Simon, I couldn’t resist. The urge of this American to correct the grammar of an Englishman was too strong. Mad love for you and the channel!
I have the civilian version of this rifle with the 16” barrel in 7.62x51/.308 and it def packs a punch. Can hit a target at 1,000 yards. Which is why one was correct in saying it’s more of a DMR than an infantry rifle.
The only downside for me is the ammo price. 1 d0llar a round. The 5.56 is a lot more affordable to shoot.
Why would you waste your money 😂😂
SIG is also coming out with a carbine length M7 supposedly for SOCOM, but I could see it becoming standard rifle with the longer rifle becoming a DMR.
"The bow and arrow will fail to replace my sling " David
1. He never said that.
2. Slingers were extremely dangerous back in the day.
@@TecnamTwin The oldest slinger in town.
Somebody didn't like David being called a Fudd.
"Airplanes will never sink a battleship."
The 6.8mm cartridge shown in comparison to 5.56mm NATO looks like 6.8mm Remington SPC. The XM7 et al uses the hybrid case 6.8 x 51mm cartridge (also known as the .277 Sig Fury). The 6.8 Rem SPC is an intermediate cartridge similar to 5.56 NATO. It was designed to be used in standard assault rifles like the M4, but others like the Bushmaster/Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle; originally developed by Magpul under the name "Masada"). On the other hand, the 6.8 x 51mm cartridge is a short-action full-powered rifle cartridge derived from 7.62 x 51mm NATO; the cartridge case is dimensionally very similar. Interestingly, the hybrid case design is so the case can survive the insane chamber pressure of around 80,000 psi that's required to propel the bullet to 3,000+ FPS out of the short 13 inch barrel.
Reducing the ammo count by a third and still increasing the weight is a brain dead move.
Yeah I’ve heard they’re doing this because they want to penetrate body armor. Go to a longer barrel and use a tungsten penetrator and I bet 556 will do just fine. Idk though I’m no ballistics expert.
US army: Witness our new rifle, equipped with a 20rnd mag, mid length barrel, and capable of piercing the best body armor with its higher caliber ammo.
The SCAR 17 from like 20+ years ago: ... am i a joke to you?
XM7 is significantly lighter, as is the ammo. Significantly cheaper. Significantly easier to maintain and clean under combat conditions. The SCAR-17 was universally hated by everybody.
@@MrFoodforthought92 also kills optics, also suppresses poorly to the point where FN will void your warranty if suppressed.
6.8x51mm as adopted does NOT have a polymer case. It's a brass casing with a steel primer cup to prevent the back of the casing from rupturing from the insane pressure exerted.
Last time I was this early Simon still didn't have hair
I think GarandThumb did a video on this system a while back. The sight on it was insane.
4 comments from 4 bots. Something's wrong.
Go away bot
@cp37373 Sorry Bozo, but I'm not a bot, but can the same thing be said about you?
The Sig did not utilize the polymer rounds. That was different rifle entry. The Sig 6.8 mm utilizes a brass case with a steel base for combat and a lower pressure brass only case for training.
What makes the rifle deadly is the United States Marine behind the rifle. No matter what model, style or caliber.
Overthrowing democratic governments for over a century 🦅
It looks fantastic. I’d love to see a comparison between the M7 and the similar chambered EM2.
lol, no credit for the Garand Thumb channel footage 🤣
I was just gonna post the same thing. Everyone is hating on flannel daddy these days.
I'm wondering if the footage comes from Sig directly, they might have been filming GT when he was demoing the hardware
It's possible ofc. But, imo, the simplest explanation for an editor putting this video together would be Google/search YT for some footage and use what's readily available
Excellent video!!! I have been following the development of the NGSW for many years. As a retired infantryman myself, I am very happy to see the new rifle and machine gun. The M-16 A2 was issued as a stop gap measure when the A1 was found to be horribly lacking in power. Then the M-4 kept the A2s ammo, but uses a short barrel, which precisely destroyed the only advantage the 5.56 ever had. Piles of combat reports were begging for a more capable combat rifle and the Army replied. They have done well.
The XM7 would make a great Designated Marksman or Special Purpose Rifle. It's a terrible choice as a standard issue rifle and I'm fairly comfortable asserting that it won't ever fill that role.
Too heavy, too little ammo in a standard load out, and impractical for use in suppressive fire. There's a reason why special operations wants nothing to do with that rifle. Just like every other attempt to replace the M16/M4, this is another waste of taxpayer dollars.
100% agreed
Suppressive fire as you know it is a doctrinal artifact of the cold war, and it is obsolete.
They should develop better bullets instead
@brendanhickey4955 We're at the limit of the 5.56 cartridge. Physics is unforgiving.
@@brendanhickey4955 They've tried.
M855A1 has its own issues. The more you push a bullet beyond current limits, the more wear you're putting on the firearm itself.
So here's a question:
Why can't we just retrofit M4 carbines to handle the new optic and create better shot placement? I'm not saying ditch the M7. I'm saying that right now, the Army is the only one interested in it, but if we can use older weapons with the newer optic, we're improving the odds of a successful hit to target and retaining equipment. It also means that combatants will be familiar with at least half of the new system (the optic), so when current M4 and 5.56mm supplies start drying up, the various branches can evaluate moving to the M7 and it's new round at that point, but their members will already be familiar with an integral part of the arrangement, which is the optic and its many advantages.
Because that doesn't solve 556's inability to defeat body which only going to become more & more of a problem seriously even AP 556 rounds are defeated by Polyethylene body armor.
The optic doesn't increase range.
Range and penetration were driving factors behind adopting the M7.
With that being said, extra weight, more recoil, and less ammo make the M7 an unideal replacement for the M4, even accounting for the reduced range and prenetration of 5.56. Russia and China can't field body armor en-masse; most engagements take place within 300m, and volume of fire has consistently proven to be more valuable than any other metric in combat.
Giving up 1/3 your ammo and tacking on several pounds for an extreme edge-case scenario is a poor trade.
@@dakotahrickard Giant waste of money.
@@Terminalsanity Right. I know that. My idea here is based on the fact that none of the other service branches, at least according to this video, are interested in adopting the M7. They're sticking, apparently, with the M249 and M4.
Given that choice, whysoever it was made, it seems prudent to give those units, fielding those weapons, every advantage they can have.
The M7 and its extra weight and ammo that seem to be objectionable to most of the naysayers.
The optic itself seems to be praiseworthy for most people.
Therefore, it seems, let's say silly, not to adopt and/or adapt the optic to work with the older weapons system (if adaptation is necessary for adoption) and give infantry units whatever advantage they can have to increase effective shot placement.
@@redslate I'm with you.
I figured that the optic would increase effectiveness through better shot placement on target: increase hit ratios and shots on unarmored aspects of targets.
The concepts of ballistic penetration are not new to me, but the math of it is beyond me.
The logistics of developing new ammunition, which seems to have been the primary driving force here, are therefore also beyond my ken.
I think the problem is that people are trying to get as much as they can out of the intermediate caliber concept that spawned the assault rifle to begin with.
This seems to be the result of trying to make a do-all solution; the bullet becomes a jack of all trades and master of none.
It's the kind of thinking that drove development of the Bradley fighting vehicle, among other things.
I don't have a ammunition solution, and I think nobody does, hence the division amid the service branches vis a vis adoption of the M7 itself.
But if the optic helps 5.56 be more effective through better placement, then it's at least worth consideration by branches that want to keep older (but still reasonably effective) platforms in the field.
This weapon will dominate the battle field.
I love it! 👊🏼
Simon is showing off some guns of his own
just go back to the .308
When are you guys gonna learn the difference between “it’s” and “its”?
Its not a problem
You sound pretty incompetent.
Exactly most don't know the difference between possessive and contraction...
@@xxcjsniperxxmc8917 it makes no difference little fella
@@cp37373 It does. "Its" is possesive like his or her but for something indecisive like an animal for example. "It's" is an abbreviation for "it is". Same ball game as "their" and "they're".
Good report.
the 🐻 is worried!
If you mean Winny the Phoo, yes. This is pretty much build to shoot through the body armor Chinees troops wear.
The Russian armor is only there to be used for parades.
China can only outfit 1 out of every 3 of their soldiers with helmets, and 1 out of every 2 with armor. So 33% dont have a helmet and 50% dont have armor@@JL-cn1qi
TLDR, your stated purpose is incorrect.
They’re not lol
Hey. I don't have a spear clone for you to try, but I DO HAVE an M4 clone that you could try out any time.
It would lend a lot of insight into any other weapon if you ever had to extrapolate in the future. You could rely on experience instead of conjecture.
Also, the m249 has nothing in common with the m16 family of rifles other than concurrent usage.
This entire stupid idea will be cancelled very soon. No warfighters asked for this and Special Ops doesn't want it.
I bet it was said during the 60s. Have you forgotten how many issues the M16 had? Yet the black rifle became ubiquitous in less than 10 years. Stick to your fidget spinners.
Says you dude, when I was in back in 09 my rifle stove piped every 3 to 4 rounds I dreamed of having something like this
@@jager6863 We're already way past that point. I would have done anything to get my hands on this in Afghanistan.
at 6:44 is stated the casings are made of plymer with brass base, but actually the .277 fury or 6.8x 51 mm casing is made of brass (body) with steel base, necessary to because of the higher pressure. and the picture at 6:49 looks like is the 6.8 spc highlithed and not the .277 fury.
My kid tested them and he wasn't impressed either.
But remember: They hated the M-16 when it was first issued. Now, the platform is considered reliable and trustworthy.
I had the privilege to hold one with the new scope at an sig event a local gun store held. While it is super cool, it is super heavy, I do not envy someone having to patrol with that monstrosity (+extra ammo, food/supplies ect.)
I may be mistaken but I’m pretty sure nearly every study done basically determined : more rounds down range= winning the gunfight. In one of the quotes you put up it included the would “should” when referring to more accurate and effective fire, which “should” make you skeptical.