The Controversial New Civilian Legal Sig M5 - M7 Infantry Rifle.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Unfiltered MAC on Twitter: / mac_arms
Check Out Our Specials: linktr.ee/milit...
Join Patreon and support MAC! / militaryarms
Follow and support us on Utreon!: utreon.com/c/m...
Follow us on Rumble: rumble.com/use...
MAC T-Shirt Store: ballisticink.c...
Modern Gun School: www.mgs.edu
Challenge Targets Discount Code: MAC556 (www.challenget...)
Sig's new M7 rifle, formerly known as the M5, is available on the civilian market. The new Sig XM5 or M7 is available in .308 and will soon be available in 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.8x51 or .277 Fury. We take a look at the Sig M7 and talk about its features and performance.
#sig #m5 #m7
I hate the phrase "civilian legal" we should be able to own whatever the government has...
There's no civilians in America. Just citizens
You're not going to get an argument from me.
I'm in favor of that, with the caveat that you have to secure it by the same standards as the military does. Yes, we should be able to have literally anything, if we can afford it and can secure it.
Agreed, technically we own and pay for all the arms out military has. Just a matter of coming together to sort it out
@Military Arms Channel hey MAC, not sure if you havent caught the news, but they already nixxed and dumped the ngsw program. Not happening anymore. Thankfully. Its going to get used as a dmr, like it always shouldve been and hopefully theyll keep the MG
And if anyone is wondering, LWRC has an M6 line so that's probably why that got skipped as well.
Is M-69/420 taken?
Yep, they didn't have to do it, but it probably wasn't worth the hassle to have the same designation as those commercial rifles.
and aero was years ahead of colt on the m5
The air force used the M6 takedown rifle over 60 years ago, and multiple companies still make copies, and they all have called them the M6 for years. Other companies have also used the M5. Aero Precision has literally been calling their 308 rifles the M5 for years, and was using the M5 name before Colt. It has been that way with a lot of guns. Just look at all the companies that made different guns named M1. Or the M10, which is the MAC10, but other companies have used the M10 name, like Troy who has some 308 rifles they call the M10. The only two companies that I know that have really went all out protecting gun names are Armalite and Colt. Armalite does not want anybody using the AR10 name, and Colt does not want anybody using the AR15 name, and that is their right since they own the names. It is why you never see any non Armalite or Colt rifles engraved with AR10 or AR15, because they know they will get sued by Colt and Armalite. Sure we all know what the rifles are, but companies know better than to engrave the AR10 and AR15 names on their guns.
Guess I'll just have to engrave mine an "AR-14" ;)
Now I need one...
We want to see the MGNG review!
Yes
Yes!
Sucker
do you? or want one?
In the air force they taught us that if we needed to we could use a "ballpoint non-retractable pen" to aid in our disassembly of our bolt carrier group. Might be helpful for the m7
The tip of the bullet is what is supposed to be used I’m pretty sure, or at least that was what was intended
@loganbaileysfunwithtrains yes but in the military you typically don't have ammunition available when you break down your weapon for cleaning. Is the point MAC illustrated when talking about breaking the m7 down for cleaning. In basic training my MTIs taught us to use a ball point non retractable pen if we had trouble with the firing pin retaining pin or the take down pins. This was because we weren't allowed to have ammunition except on the firing line.
A section of cleaning rod also works.
universal disassembly tool
sig`s ingenuity be like ``take a simple existing shyt and make it complicated and overpriced as heck``
In your Big Bore Battlerifles, could you include Scar 17? More of the modern big bore battlerifles.
This! That would be the most appropriate comparison.
I would agree, stuff like modern AR10s, Tavor 7, and anything else far as semi 308 rifles you have on hand
Scar is a peace of crap plastic rifle, the old FAL was much better
@@josevarela834 so's that new-fangled plastic M-16, LOL. The SCAR is by no means as good as they hoped it would be, and the FAL is a great rifle. But as someone that owns them both and actually understands how to setup and run a rifle in that class, I can say the SCAR hands down would be my pick over the FAL. But if you want to relive your glory days reading Soldier of Fortune reporting on the Rhodesian War don't let me stop you.
@@dougo753 The SCAR is not close to the M7 in reliability OR ergonomics.
The M7 took the best of the AR and improved on it with short stroke gas piston, dual charging handles, folding stock, longer Pic rail, etc.
Really like to see this vs other AR10 types.
Like the other Sig 716i in .308
I'm kinda partial to the M17 308.
Nothing my .260 AR10 can't do
Oh and don't forget the A10 WARTHOG!!!
I do not. This Sig's excessive complexity and lots of small bit to break and fail. An AR10 type rifle is still a relatively simple design.
You did an awesome podcast already talking about the 6mm ARC. Would love to see an in-depth comparison and shoot off between 6mm ARC, 6.5 Creedmoor, and 6.8x51mm/.277 Fury
Once I have access to the .277 I will definitely make such a comparison. I'm very interested in the .277 because I think the higher operating pressures are the future of gun powder firearms and likely the last advancement in the tech before we move on to newer technologies.
@@Militaryarmschannel Before laser guns?
Don't understand the mil planners: $ saved, training saved: keep the M4 platform:
1. 6ARC hybrid cartridge:80k+ psi, 3600fps, 1200meters effective, tungsten penetrator for level 4 armour, 14.5 in Bbl.
2. Bullpup for SOCOM, quick change bbls 10in CQB to 22in with bipod. Think Ares Defense for SAW. Think Stoner M63, read its spec, imagine it with 6ARC hybrid cartridge!!!!!!🎉❤⚡️
Great meeting you and Jason briefly/totally randomly at Chick-fil-A on my way home to Wisconsin! I will note that on our 10day trip we spent 5 days in Kentucky and never ran into Scott from Kentucky Ballistics 😂
Don't dox people
@@DinoNuccilol relax dude
@@DinoNucci Settle down, Nancy. Everybody knows where Tim is from, he himself has mentioned his home city in countless videos throughout times.
@@DinoNucci this isn’t risky chrisy calm down
@@DinoNucci he literally says in videos that he resides in Indiana
I'm personally really interested as to how 6.8 will perform from longer 16, 18, even 20" barrels. It should be very impressive
Finding out would probably not be difficult. A barrel and bolt swap on an AR10 type rifle.
Or it could not be that impressive since this cartridge relies on higher pressures. Probably stabilizes with less barrel length and just adding more length does nothing or is detrimental even.
Could negate the need for anything else up to .338
If you want the 6.8mm to perform better, from a longer barrel, you don't have to look far... the 6.5mm has been around for a long time.
@@dmlchannel3262 6.5 creedmore you need a 28 inch barrel to get still worse performance than 6.8 out of a 16" barrel. So no...
Great video Tim. Can we also see a demonstration against more modern battle rifles like the SCAR17 and MR762?
Absolutely. Thank you for watching.
I hate the term “battle rifle” so much. It was literally invented by a columnist in a gun magazine in the 90s then propagated by the internet. It means nothing outside of the American civilian gun community.
I think we'll get into our next war and realize that soldiers still hate carrying 14 lb rifle setups and that hasn't changed since Vietnam lol.
What parts will soldiers ditch? The suppressor? The heavy optic? Some of the ammo?
This rifle was meant to defeat body armor. As long as body armor is on the enemy, the rifle will be used. Once it becomes somewhat peaceful foot patrols, the troops will probably switch to the M4. Soldiers were taking off their body armor in Iraq because they complained it was too heavy and drove around in unarmored humvees because they didn't want to walk.
They became available on the civilian market this past weekend. MSRP is $4220.
That's more like the 1% ers market not civilian
@@jeffccr3620 Hardly. Its just a little more than a FN SCAR and about the same price as a H&K MR762A1.
@@trevordbb pricing it the same as a H&K MR762A1 seems like a fail to me, Ive owned a number of sig products and feel like the build quality is quite a bit lower than H&K…..
Until it goes down under $2k it's not worth it. If you already have an AR you should really buy night vision for $4k, not another rifle.
@musicman1eanda717 bingo I'm more interested in the holosun thermal that's supposed to hit the market in June
Dear Tim, how about you do a special episode on the history of the M249 SAW / FN Minimi because it’s the gun topic that’s very overlooked and the history behind the SAW is actually super interesting, especially with the contenders like XM106, XM235, XM262, etc. and also the proposed 6 mm SAW cartridge.
Tim, being a Marine, may not hold much love for the SAW. The SAW reputation in the field is mixed at best. I still think the FMF should have a belt fed LMG, but not the SAW.
Would love to see you do body armor tests with the 6.8 setup
It doesn't defeat level 4 body armor even with the 80k psi cartridge
Alabama Arsenal did some, check out his channel
Nobody has service ammunition
That new 7.5 fk pistol round is supposed to defeat L-4 armor and engage out over 1000y. Maybe it will get the nod for next gen side arm
@@NihilusTheGreat I have to check it out. Thanks
I’m going to call it. It’s going to be like the Scar. It’ll be adopted, but not used or used very little.
The SCAR had a limited SOCOM adoption, the XM7 has been adopted as the standard service weapon for combat units by the regular Army. They're not really equivalent.
Maybe it will be like the M14
@@ostiariusalpha the army just came out the other day and said this is not gonna be the new service rifle. It’s way too heavy 12 pounds naked unacceptable.
@@joshuacolbert3369 The Army said no such thing, that was just some civilian's article in the Army Times expressing his personal opinion.
@@joshuacolbert3369 That is Fake News. They just changed the name.
In the early 2000s there was a joint study done by Crane and a company called Global something-or-another into the value of different types of propellants used in centerfire cartridges and comparing it with a polymer-cased cartridge. It was specifically using the good ol' .224 bullet. They had found that with an improved "blended" powder charge, they could shrink the overall case width of the round from a tapered 0.376"-to-0.354" with 30 degree tapered neck to a straight walled 0.251" width case and launch exactly the same projectiles at the same velocities. I've had no luck re-finding this study though so I'm going to have to see if I've saved it locally somewhere because it was fascinating as hell.
I mention this because I just don't see this 6.8x51 as a good step forward. It compromises on some pretty important things, arguably the biggest being barrel life. It gets almost-.308 performance to mid ranges and then exceeds .308 performance beyond, at the cost of so much barrel life that a protracted gunfight would wear out the barrel. This on an infantry rifle, not even a crew served! On top of the weight of the weapon system, this feels like a step back.
Assuming we were willing to invest in some serious R&D into new powders / propellants and that the results of that aforementioned study extrapolated to larger rounds, wouldn't it be damned nice to see a 7mm-08 or even basic-bitch .308 type round that retained a 30-round mag capacity (you save so much space with straight-walled cases), out of something like a Ruger SFAR-ized AR-18 w/ ambi controls like we see on the XCR or Knights E3 systems? I feel like this is well within the possibility of current technology to make, and would be both more capable than the current 5.56x45 but retains the light weight and usability of the M4/M16 FOW.
Forget what you know about conventional barrel life. The M7 uses a barrel material called Maraging Steel which is so unusual that it is monitored by the US government because it's used in uranium enrichment centrifuges. This is probably the big reason it's coming in at $4K+
I’d like to see a comparison between this and the Ruger SFAR
Honestly hope that Sig will make a light weight version of the spear that will be closer in weight to the sfar. Like an A1 model.
SIG really should do a "pin and weld" version, even if they decide to go14.5/14.7. The standard pressure ammo could use the length anyway.
3.8k this is the price i was quoted from ffl for .308 caliber, it was a week ago
Give it time and PSA will make a .308 Jakl and you can get that instead lol
I saw a story yesterday claiming this rifle has been canceled
Did you read it?
@nothim7321 watched it actually I'm looking for it again because I can't find anything else
Ok so it appears that production was halted not canceled. The gov contract is being protested by a competitor
@James West that was over a year ago, it's been cleared up, and production has resumed.
In military terms, the M5 Carbine is a pilot survival rifle if they have to bail our. There is also the M6 Carbine survival rifle
Cool gun. I still don't see why the military didn't just convert the M4 over to 6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel, being they like upgrades in the cheapest possible manner. It still would've been a large bump in energy and effective range over 5.56 at a 1/3 or maybe 1/4 of the cost of the Sig, and also be lighter.
Agree!!! I’m sure someone is getting paid to make these odd decisions.
@@rich1958 yeah, someone getting ready to retire and a sweet corporate gig in their future....
The military didn't want some upgrades, they want something that has room for growth throughout this century.
@Shattered Star so like everything the m4 offers. Lol unless you make a recoiless conversion kit for the sig, it's stupid. Folding stocks are only good for storage, who cares. 308 in an m4 platform is more accurate at the price the spear will be AND it'll be available unlike sig. This century 😂😂😂🤡
@@Loyal69 apples to oranges, Spear is a new platform which hasn't gone into mass production yet nor had it had 50+ years head start. Like the 6.5 creedmoor, 6.8 shoots flatter and less drop than a 308, sure you can design/load a 308 ammunition that piss all over the 6.8 and 6.5 but the army isn't going to do that.
Would love to hear your thoughts and a comparison on the Spear vs. SCAR 17 and a comparison of the Spear LT vs. the Virtus (which I believe was a favorite for a while).
Spear vs. Scar……scar pretty accurate, have to re zero for any barrel caliber change most of the mil models still have reciprocating charging handle which sucks ass. Shit furniture and some reliability issues especially when contamination gets in upper receiver. Also beats the hell out of optics…..Spear H…277 fury cool round but doesn’t offer that much advantage over 308. In the field when your out your out no scavenging rounds. Heavy as shit, especially nose heavy as soon as you throw standard mission essentials on it. Nice recoil impulse way smoother then the scar. Accuracy seems to be on par with scar. Ergos of rifle system better and way more comfortable then scar. We will see about reliability but so far so good. Just don’t like how heavy the damn thing is. Wish it was chambered in 7.62 x 51. Also runs way cooler when using sustained fire to scar don’t have to wear a hot mit. Mlok is a bonus and more realestate. Big difference between the virtus and spear lt is weight. Virtus is nose heavy while spear lt feel better balanced. Also spear lt has a smoother recoil impulse. Way easier between that and weight to stay on target for follow up shoots. Less gas in face with Scar while suppressed versus Spear or spear lt. Scar is way more balanced when running suppressor than the spear. As for suppressor though sigs suppressor for the spear out shines a scar with a socom or acc.
Heavy, high recoil, less ammo capacity, and expensive. There's no way in the long run the 6.8 version replaces the M4 for the regular soldier, especially if the US ends up fighting large wars with Russia or China. The logic leading to the 556 originally would still hold today, except for specialized teams.
Unless they start fielding body armor. then the volume of fire Logic falls short.
Would be cool to hear how far can you push (distance wise) that 13.5 barrel and what could be expected out of 16" barrel!!!
Alabama Arsenal recently tested it out to 1000 yards with the high pressure stuff. Granted he is used to shooting at that distance, but still the setup appeared to do this easily.
The XM250 support weapon has the extra barrel length.
At least 10 to 15 feet
It should have the same accuracy as the 16” on my difference would be drop at range. I am curious if the suppressor helps to increase velocity enough to improve how flat it shoots. I know having as little back pressure as possible was one of the goals of the system.
@@chrisjosekuehl suppressor velocity bump is probably too minor to matter. Alabama Arsenal was clocking the rounds at 2900fps though, so plenty fast for anything you want to use a 13" gun for 😁
Amazing how being given the gun for "research", completely changes perspective. I especially like your positive comments on the folding stock fit and finish. You just can't substitute military experience.
I've held all along that my commentary in the past was based on what we knew and other peoples observations. I withheld judgement on the weapon until I could actually use one. Now that I've used the M7 I'm very impressed and interested in the rifle. The ammo (6.8x51) is the next bit I'm curious about. I don't fully understand the cartridge choice for the Army, but that may change once I have experience with it... assuming we ever get our hands on the AP ammo which we likely won't. I suspect the Army will prevent its sale to the commercial market much like FN has voluntarily done with the proper 5.7x28 ammo.
I am hoping Robinson will make its XCR in .277 Fury
Absolutely, wish this rifle had gone forward in testing in place of the military/civilian market beta testing another Sig rifle
The 2nd Amendment if it were written as it is currently enforced in the United States:
“The right to keep and bare sporting goods shall not be infringed, except for bans on semiautomatics with certain cosmetic features and also magazine capacity limits. Also they cannot be carried in most urban locations where people who might attack you are found.”
Yeah, that's exactly what the Founders had in mind. Good point!
You didn’t spell “bear” right
@@sinjin6219 no
@@sackychin6267 I was being sarcastic :)
Forgot to add that if it looks scary by anyone it will be banned…
Very interested in what Tim thinks of the .277 high pressure loads…
This one is in .308.
Based off his podcasts i don't think he likes it.
@@2Potates 2,900 fps out of a 13 inch barrel what is there not to like? It has a flatter trajectory than 6.5 creedmor in a 24 inch barrel
The entire point of that round was to penetrate lvl 4 plates without using tungsten, which according to recent speculation it has failed at, even with M885-A1 style steel tipped projectiles, so I'm not sure it's very advantageous other than being flatter shooting at the cost of more recoil, more barrel erosion, more wear and tear on the rifle... Honestly at this point it looks like the military is just trying to pivot a failed "body armor defeating mass issue infantry rifle" into a specialty use DMR/battle rifle for limited issue... Which basically everyone predicted, even before the Ukraine conflict where both sides are wearing lvl 4 plates, using mostly 5.45 or 5.56 intermediate rifles without the power of that round being a huge factor in stopping infantry, once again the more important lesson is a high caliber light machine guns hopefully with AP ammo is where attention should be focused for really stopping infantry movements in a small arms battle... I think the reality of the Ukraine conflict has really changed the XM5 program... I'd say the USA is probably just gonna start stockpiling tungsten in case a war with the CCP happens, as that's where we get most of it from 😐
We could get the same external ballistics from the FN 6.5x43 105 grain round without the recoil and weight. A much better choice.
A 25 round mag is similar in weight to a 30 round 5.56 mag.
Carrying ammo that weighs twice that of 5.56 is a problem
Thanks for sharing info and insights on this new platform. Your disassembly and review of the internal parts is especially useful since few of us have actually handled the M7.
SIG has touted the hybrid case as being adaptable to 308 & 6.5CM. These projectiles at the same ultra high pressure is far more interesting to me than a 270 variant. In 308 it’d be closer to a 300wm & 6.5PRC/264WM for the other.
Excellent,fun, and thorough review as always. Remember a long time ago in 2012 to 2013. I told you about the SIG MCX coming way before on the XCR Forum. You said I made it look like an advertisement. BADDFROGG
Interesting. This is the first time seeing the internals of the M7 and how different it is from the MCX Virtus' short stroke piston action. The big thing is the single long spring v the Virtus' dual shorter springs and that the piston isn't locked with the bcg where the Virtus is. I was under the impression that SIG used the Virtus as a starting point.
I'm liking the M7's action a lot more than the Virtus. Not that I hated the Virtus, , ,
the virtus is anywhere all the way down to 9" and I'm sure they had to redesign the typical gas system for that, not your typical mid-length gas. If given the choice, they'll use mid length gas for reliability, and I don't expect any shorter versions of the m7 coming.
@@joshcarlson9352 the virtus came in a 16" and 11.5" barrel. but the piston rod was on the barrel
You're not allows to bring weapons to barrack except for Basics Training, to instill weapons handling. All cleaning are done at unit Armory, never in barracks to prevent parts loss.
Gotta love that obnoxious recoil for fast follow up shots with the sig fury
Splits between shots would be 1/10th or 2/10th of a second slower. Who cares? That makes absolutely no difference.
@@gunguru7020 yeah..... Splits matter when you are putting down volume of fire on a target.
@@matthewconnor5483 Of course they do. One train better but importantly as I said 2/10ths of a second slower doesn't matter. 5 shots in 2 seconds compared to 5 in 3 seconds. You think thats a thing? competition of course. holes in people no.
What I would really like to see is a direct video pitting the 7.62 version seen here vs the 6.8 both using the issued Ammunition in a variety of different scenarios.
To see what the pro’s and con’s actually are
Nobody makes the casing for the 7.62 like the 6.8 Fury. It's doubtful that the 6.8 Fury cartridge would be available to non armed federal employees. The 6.8 Fury is the power of a .50 cal, at long distances, in the smallest possible cartridge. There are plenty of rounds that will kill an unarmored person at 1,000 meters.
@@orlock20 what I was thinking was maybe a video done in conjunction with Sig using both rifles that way they would have access too the proper 6.8 rounds.
There have been a few gun tubers who’ve had Sig bring the proper 6.8 for them
Guns are designed to meet performance specs and fit in the using environment. It's the Vortex scope (son of Tracking Point) that is the game changer. As the USMC tests showed, suppressors significantly improve Command & Control (and can't ignore preventing hearing damage). Soldiers are constantly moving in & out of APCs, helicopters, buildings, woods, etc. so a long barrel can be a handicap. Hopefully, the Army will also copy the USMC high fidelity ranges (training is the real force multiplier)..
I’ve said the AR chambered in 7-08 is the ultimate battle rifle. This comes super close- actually referring mostly to the caliber which is .284x51.
I am a USMC Vietnam vet. I qualified in boot camp with the M14 and I carried an M1 Garand in Infantry School. In Vietnam, I carried an M16A1 and later in the reserves stateside I carred an M16A2. They all had bayonets. We trained extensively in bayonet and knife fighting. Today all but one of my AR15s have bayonet lugs. I even obtained bayonet lug extensions for all my carbine length ARs so I could effectively mount bayonets (handy for going after wounded pigs in thick brush). My question is this: "What happened to bayonets?" I don't see how you can mount a bayonet on this M7 rifle. Has the US military given up on bayonets? Have they become obsolete? Am I missing something here?
There is no bayonet lug on the M7, that is correct. It does indeed appear that the military has given up on rifle mounted bayonets.
20 years of fighting in the Middle East probably had less than 5 bayonet kills if we even had any. Our doctrine seems to have changed, although when I went through MCRD in '05 we still had bayonet/knife fighting training.
No bayonets anymore...
Hey Bill. I did basic (army) in the post-bayonet era. We were always told, historically, it just gets the soldiers killed with their own weapons. Your average insurgent had way more knife and close combat training than a kid from anytown USA and it's not hard to disarm someone unfamiliar with that kind of stuff. We were trained to disengage so your buddy could shoot them. Arm brace+headbutt with your helmet on or muzzle strikes. We trained muzzle thumps with our ballistic vests and it'd mess the vests up. It's more effective for a lesser trained soldier, but army doesn't teach dedicated unarmed combat like MCMAP so the Corps might have had their own reasons for sunsetting the bayonet.
I wonder if a chassis and or rifle modification could be made to mount a bayonet inexpensively and easily.
I usually use one of those "CAT" tools to disassemble parts of the bolt carrier. It's also designed to help clean hard to reach parts of it anyways.
What does this rifle do, at least in 7.62x51, that the SIG 716 (either DI or piston) do for a less money?
Good video. That price was way off, though, MSRP for a SREAR in .277 Fury ended up being $7,999.00.
Most of the problems with the M4 is ammo, or the projectiles. It’s a carbine, not a long range sniper rifle.
Biggest problem has always been direct gas impingement which has cost the lives of numerous soldiers in combat. Should have been gas piston like the ar18
@@Truthbomb918 Is it 2004 where you live?
@@ScreechingPossum why, was the ar15 series introduced in 2004 or something? Or did the us military change their rifles to gas piston in 2004?
@@Truthbomb918 how has it caused the deaths of troops? I thought the m4’s teething issues were fixed.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 do some research, it's direct gas impingement system should never have been put on a combat rifle. There's a reason no other rifle used that system. Modern ar15 clones went for gas piston systems. It has plagued the rifle since introduction all the way to Afghanistan
That old RR piston design works pretty well. Charging handle is slightly goofy but functional. As AR pistol it is a good package and well ahead of its time.
I find it odd that they would choose such a short barrel that wouldn't lend itself to being able to allow for full utilization of the power of the cartridge it shoots.
I would imagine it was a compromise to allow for the suppressor without increasing overall length too much. Would have been cool if they figured out a reflex based suppressor so they could stretch out the barrel a little more with the same amount of suppression
That's why General Dynamics went with a bullpup design. But a design closer to the M4 requires less retraining and you know SIG and military contracts . . .
The .277 Fury military loads generate over 80,000psi to get the rounds out to 3000fps out of such a short barrel. In .308 however, you're probably going to need fast burning powder at high pressures to get any sort of meaningful ballistics.
Yes, and if they adopted a round that defeats level 4 armor, what kind of armor has our military developed that we don't know about?
Im sure it does, with the full 80k psi .277 round. After all, Sig chose the powder type and load.
OMG THE CONTROVERSY!
It'll take the place of the shortest serving battle rifle in our military. We'll go right back to the m4 and these will be kept in limited roles.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they didn't simply upgrade the existing guns to use 6.5 Grendel instead. You'd get the extra range without as much extra weight and recoil (not to mention expense).
The thing that bothers me about the full military version of the 6.8x51 cartridge is the three-piece casing. Was the stainless steel base of this casing really necessary to contain the 80K PSI operating pressure? Could they not have used a cheaper all-steel casing?
Curiously, Aero Precision also has an M5 in it's listings... apparently an AR10 long action derivative in .308.
Yes they do, I have the M5 lower with a custom 20" stainless barrel. Aero makes quality stuff.
If I were the Army, I would have told Colt to pound sand regarding names of rifles. "M" designations are military nomenclature, not civilian trade names. Colt does not own the name "M4" and was told so in court.
It was definitely eyebrow raising. I don't want to believe that the defense industry corruption is that bad that they would treat them with such kid gloves, but that seems to be the most likely explanation.
But yeah it's like you said. These are military designations. It's not like the Army is selling this stuff.
When it comes to the Spear and Spear LT family of rifles, I’m like a little kid when it came to Happy Meals or Cereal toys, I WANT TO COLLECT THEM ALL!!!
I am a huge fan of the Spear LT. It's my top 5.56 rifle at the moment.
We've now had good reviews from atleast you, GT and Alabama arsenal of this rifle, and GT made a very nice review of the new XM 157 optic.
But what I am really looking forward to, is a review of the complete system. M7 rifle, 277 fury round, M157 optic and supressor. I have feeling that system will outperform most issue rifles out there, but that is just a feeling. Also, kinda the point of the whole NGSW program is integrating that smart scope. I'tll be very interesting to see how that plays out.
Considering the time they spent asking for the round over the 5.56 and the time they spent making the rifle, with the added complexity and in diff weather conditions I can see the bcg being a hindrance like you said. While the scope intrigues me, I hope the extra capability of the 6.8 makes up for the extra bs. Thanks for the vid.
I think that the Spear platform is likely the finest fighting rifle platform in the world right now. It's the union of the AR-15 and AR-18 designs that we deserve. It's designed with modularity in mind, it's designed with suppression in mind, and it's designed with ergonomics in mind. I think it's as good as you can make a kinetic energy weapon with today's technology. I think the most 'controversial' aspect of the new weapon is the chambering. Now, I don't see anyone complaining that there's anything inherently wrong with 6.8X51 as a cartridge, beyond unfair comments about 'my 6.5 creedmore, or .270 winchester...' which don't factor in a government designed bullet and the desire for getting that bullet to speed from the length barrel that is required.
A lot of more experienced, armed professionals think it's a mistake due to the higher weight of ammo restricting what you can carry. My own experience is far more limited...just a combat support solider in the rear with the gear over 20 years ago. Then, I always subscribed to carry more ammo and still do. I agree that this rifle and cartridge will be a mistake up until the point we run into an adversary with body armor, then suddenly it may not be a mistake anymore assuming it performs as advertised. I'd rather carry 140 rounds that work reliably than 210 that I need to get lucky with shot placement in order to work. M855A1 won't do it, and the army says M80A1 EPR won't do it either. If M80A1 won't do it, then I don't see how you're going to get ANY conventional, intermediate cartridge to do it.
Aaero Precision also has their "M5" which is their big bore/frame AR with barrels/uppers for it in .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor. (sorry if that's spelled wrong) Can't think of anything called an M7 before hearing this change though.
M7 Bayonet ! 😊
Yeah I got a 308 12.5” build.. the sig is just pretty er
Be interesting to compare to sfar. Nothing wrong with LR308s but go going lighter weight and cost of ammo...I myself like the Grendel but cost of ammo shot up and it's not perfect as well
I wonder what a hybrid case 308 would do out of a 13 inch barrel. Maybe on par with 20"?
Every soldier has a ball point pen on them at all times in barracks to take notes on what they should be doing. That's been SOP for a couple decades now. Given that you also have a cleaning kit when you have your weapon issued so that you can properly clean the rifle before returning it to the armory. The cleaning kit and/or the ballpoint pen will suffice for the tool required to maintain the rifle.
It would be trivial to design a small lightweight tool that stores on the rifle itself, either inside the grip or the stock. If a bullet works then some super small, light, cheap tool could be stamped out that works even better and have hole that it just sticks right inside until you need it. Make part of it a bright color so you don't lose it as easily.
I love this rifle and I love the new round, but it's just too much money for me and a lot of other guys. I'm hoping someone will make a knockoff that's really good. Maybe an improved version of the one you showed on there. I think it was Rock River. If it came out first then it looks like Sig really copied them.
We’re issued multi tools for quick maintenance issues like that, and a simple pocket knife or ink pen should suffice as well. No need to spend beaucoup money for an unnecessary solution for a very simple problem.
@@ab5olut3zero95 Yeah that's perfectly fine if it can be one hundred percent guaranteed that they will always have one of those items with them they need it. I was talking about a really cheap stamped piece of steel so there's nothing beau coup about the cost. It's about a nickel each, if that. Mac was talking like it is a problem which is why I mentioned it. The paint stores give customers free paint openers because they are made out of cheap stamped metal and they cost almost nothing to make. Something for this would require a lot less metal than that and would be manufactured pretty much the same way.
Aero Precision has .308 DPMS called M5
Can’t wait to pick one up. When you said 308 it brought a smile to my face.
Yeah .308 is the only caliber I'd be interested in for one of these really as a civilian.
I’m still guessing this is going to be mostly vaporware in the force.
Who is it meant for? Special Forces won't want it, it's too huge and heavy. Standard infantry might use it, but it and it's ammunition is hella expensive, and would eat budgets in huge gulps. Rear echelon folks will include women and smaller men, and it's too huge/heavy, with too much recoil.
So who is going to use it?
@@glock22357 ammo cost is a non issue even if the military is paying $2 a round and I doubt they will be 100 million rounds would only cost 200 million dollars. That is pocket change in a military budget. And I doubt ammunition would be bought at that sort of scale.
Garand Thumb thinks it could be a great long range RECCE rifle, or a specialty gun. I don’t think it’s vaporware, you just won’t see it everywhere
@@glock22357 it's literally lighter than the outgoing m4 and nearly the same size when shown side by side. And it has far more power and fps out of a 13" barrel in 6.8
@@glock22357 It was designed to defeat level 4 plates that the Russians and Chinese don't actually have.
The way the M7 is configured is still lighter than how the Marine Corp runs their M27s
When you do the comparison you should find one of those brownells retro AR-10s.
Test how much sig "improved" the design.
The name change is especially hilarious when you remember that the hk xm7 exists too.
DOD: we're going to appease Colt by not confusing this carbine with a product they used to make.
Everyone else: oh yeah, we forgot that Colt used to make things.
Q: is it really that much better than a decent AR10 setup similarly? Cause I’m not convinced it is.
No one submitted an AR-10 for the NGSW program, so.
@@newdefsys that same notion could mean both that no one has tried to submit an ar-10 or that everyone knew not to submit one. I personally don’t know why they SOMEONE didn’t submit an ar-10 but the sig is so close to it, that it’s practically a custom ar-10.
@@LoneCrusader It's much more simple than that. At the time the Army launched the NGWS program in 2017, none of the manufacturers who submitted a design produced an AR-10 platform.
That said, the NGSW program was managed by Army Acquisition Support Center (USAASC) and they used the 'Middle Tier of Acquisition' as the protocol, which is basically a suitcase full of requirements for the manufacturers. Prospective companies with AR-10 product lines, like Aero Precision, Noveske and POF either did not meet the 'Middle Tier' requirements or were unwilling/unable to invest to meet those requirements. So, no AR-10 platform was submitted.
But yes, the XM7 has a lot of AR-10 elements to it.
Probably because all AR-10’s are unreliable.
@@deleteduser7132 curious as to what you think is more reliable than an ar-10 because this spear rifle sure is not when it can’t overcome mud.
Bought several hundred Norma 150 grain. All got recalled and Norma has left me in the dust. Can sign up to return it, but you have to pay the expensive shipping costs. No offer for replacement to be issued. Only a partial refund. Extremely disappointing considering I’ve been extremely happy with Norma in the passes. Getting burned like this really makes me rethink any future business with them.
I've been getting conflicting reports (or I should say a single article from Army Times on Feb 28th '23) that the M-5/M-7 project had been cancelled. Can you shed any light on this?
No. The article is an opinion written by an academic with no relation to the project. Read the article.
The article is one dude's irrelevant opinion, as Not Him has indicated. It has no influence on the adoption of XM7 or XM250 whatsoever.
Most weight on battle rifle is bolt carrier and barrel. Both can be made lighter by material or design. Long rod on this one can be made hollow forged steel to cut weight.
All the pins, rings, controls can be made with forged aluminum to cut more weight. Folding stock piece can be forged aluminum housing to cut weight. It can save 1.5lbs from all those things.
I dunno. I’m I crazy for still wanting a Desert Tech instead of this? I mean, I’m just a civilian who likes semiautomatic rifles.
Yes. Wierdo... Lol they are pretty cool but, I just can't like the bullpups for whatever reason.
The only issue with the MDR is, for me anyway, the .308 variant is iffy on reliability. Otherwise though I'd say it's the superior platform. You can get a 20 inch barrel in a shorter form factor and a superior balance.
I would take the Dessert Tech over this, either way I can't afford one right now.
You'd still somehow save money with an MDR over this lol
Excellent clip, and very informative. Thank you.
Was there some 'new' news that the military is dropping the xm7 for general implementation? May reserve it for special use. Apparently it is [in short] too proprietary, heavy, expensive and less reliable in adverse conditions. Also it is predicted that it would not significantly improve combat effectiveness...….. just what I heard, could be wrong
I believe it was in the army times
That’s what I had heard..I was hoping the whole damn thing would be dropped…
There is one article in Army Times, written as opinion. By someone who, from what I understand, isn't involved with the process but hates the rifle.
Due to weight... 13 lbs. I guess the people who approved it originally weren’t considering the ergonomics of the rifle in realistic battlefield circumstances.
@@nothim7321 yep, some academic that has a phd in strategic studies, and his entire opinion is based on youtube videos.
M14 all over again "question mark". Only time will tell.
That's my read. This makes an excellent DMR. Don't know about general issue. They should chamber the spear LT in 6mm arc if they want to replace the general infantry rifle.
Everyone forgets that the M14 is a shit rifle, and it was a terrible choice for the type of warfare we entered into in Vietnam. Dozens of post war militaries successfully adopted battle rifles and prosecuted wars with them. the FN FAL, the HK G3.
I don’t know why they just didn’t go with the 243 or the 6.5. They would’ve worked fine.
Military bureaucracy. Lmao
Thats not how you spend $billion$ in R&D
They would need 20-24" barrels to get anywhere near the same ballistics as 6.8 from a 14" barrel, then you add on suppressors and you've got a stupidly long rifle. Not a practical option.
At 02:10 it sounds like he drops the colt m5 on the floor Lol 🤣
I have heard that the military has decided against replacing the M4 with this rifle, I heard they’re still going to field it, but they are not replacing the M4 with the new M7 as a standard infantry rifle, I don’t know how true it is but that’s what I’ve heard🤷🏽♂️
Also hope this is true and maybe in 4-5 years of quietly vetting the 6 Arc by a "unnamed dod entity" they will swap all 5.56 to 6 arc with simple bolt, barrel, and mags
Hence the release... gotta recover costs and Sig turn to their advertisers... er I mean, ‘gun tubers’.
None of this is true
Hope they make a 8.6 BO version.
277 fury sounds great for long distance, but 8.6 is super quiet & light shooting. They both have their own strong suits.
I doubt SIg will, but hopefully someone does.
I doubt 8.6 Blackout cartridge will ever gain the popularity that .300 AAC Blackout has gained in the future. Have fun shooting.
I'd be willing to bet that all the different ambi controls will also be designed out of the gun in future models if it actually makes it to infantry use. It's got too much going on in my opinion. KISS method. I also think they will step down from the 277 fury at some point.
Especially the side charging... I mean like why??? a good T-handle does just fine without the added weight and machining time the side charging requires. It really doesn't make sense. you have a T-handel, side charging handel and a forward assist. Either go with a reciprocating side charger, or the T-hand and forward assit, not all three!!!
Also 6.8x51 is the dumbest thing ever. they should have taken the 6mmARC, added the two-piece case design to crank up the pressure. Then you could push a 108gr pill at ~2800 fps out of a 16" barrel. easily good out to 1K. much more efficient and light weight
@@Nathan-ty6fd The side handle is on there because guys like Tim naturally reached for it, instead of the tee handle, despite AR platforms being as prevalent as they are.
@@FM4AMGV ...What do you mean by guys like Tim?? Sure there are people who like side chargers due to their usage of M1/14, AK, SKS, FAL, etc. So I get the Idea that others may want a rifle that people can be familiar with... however the implementation is horrible.
I.e. one of the benefits of a side charger is that you can use the handle as a forward assist... You can't use the side charging handle on the NGSW like that due to it being non-reciprocating. Another usage of the side charger is that it is easier to mortar the rifle to extract a stuck casing.. which is a little challenging with folding mechanism - which seem to make it more prone to breakage during mortaring. It also creates another ingress point for dirt.
I don't have a problem with side chargers but don't over engineer the thing for crying out loud (Speaking as an engineer) Either put a good radian charge handle on it or a good side charger. Otherwise it is just more machining time, complexity, and breakage than it is worth for a mass produced infantry rifle. And above all else KISS
@@Nathan-ty6fd Guys like Tim as in avid shooters that have plenty of time operating AR platforms.
I own an AR myself and have always liked the conventional charging handle vs the tee handle, never liked the ergonomics of where it was placed. The recoil spring and gas piston almost seem to make this a hybrid of AR and AK.
The "barracks tool" when I was in the Army was your issued Gerber multi tool.
Mad respect for you and your channel. That said, the M7 will never be deployed to the infantry. Too many issues and deficiencies. , such as high recoil, heavy load out , and inability to defeatL4 body armo,r, not to mention how a piston gun misdeeds and malfunctions when there is some snow or mud that the soldier is crawling through. It will be relegated to spec ops folks and that’s about it.
6.8 will defeat level 4 armor easily with a tungsten penetrator
@@bradenmchenry995 That's the problem: we would be dependent on China for tungsten in a hypothetical war with them.
@@bradenmchenry995 so does a 5.56, but since China supplies most of the worlds tungsten, we won’t have enough tungsten to put into millions of rounds, AND. planes, and all the other critical applications. Never mind the incredible cost of tungsten bullets.
How does that can compare to the OSS/HUXWRX flow through cans? As someone who shoots long guns lefty, OSS has spoiled me for every other suppressor on the market.
$4300.....
I am sooooooo invested in the AR15 platform in 5.56, 300 Blackout and (maybe) 6.5 Grendel. I'm also old. Still, I hope I live long enough to at least lay hands on one of these. You can definitely tell it will be significantly more expensive that the AR15 platform. Out of practical financial range for most people. It won't stop me from wanting one, though.
Maybe they will come out with an AR upper that could handle the Fury round .
I definitely want the whole setup. I’ve been looking at lmt, lwrc, and others in this category. I think the m7 is going to fit all my needs. I had a pws 214 that came close to this, but I think after researching the issue, the m7 is going to top anything I can come up with otherwise
I am curious about this rifle and what it does that others don't do. What needs would it fulfill that the others cannot? I understand the military version is a different caliber which is different, but what does this 308 accomplish for your needs?
The caliber for starters, 308/7.62x51 has always been more capable in a military capacity and a civilian/hunting capacity. 223/5.56 started as a small game hunting cartridge and was basically tuned up for military purposes. It worked but lacked the stopping power and range of the 308. It’s actually illegal to hunt deer and other game in my state with 5.56/223 because it lacks the stopping power allowing the game to get away and dying somewhere else creating a inhumane kill. Something no hunter wants and you can get fined and loose you hunt license for awhile as well. Now take that same info and apply it to a military situation, like Mogadishu, where enemy combatants were hit multiple times with 5.56 and still kept going. Same results. 5.56 does well up close but can’t compare to 308. In stopping power and range in either capacity.
The weapon itself suits my needs due to size/length. I live in a heavily wooded area where longer hunting rifles are a hindrance cause your always untangling, having to constantly move the rifle around brush and trees basically getting tired and frustrated moving about. As a veteran and retired Leo as well, i have had experience with both calibers and given a choice I will take the 308 over the 5.56 all day and then some, performance speaks for itself.
@@greggordon9567 So, for you, the size and weight etc make this a better hunting rifle than anything else already out there? There isn't anything better in 308 or a similar round for hunting?
That, and it’s multi functional. Hunting, protection, training. As a veteran and retired Leo I still train with my former department and others, and have served in a reserve capacity, as have other retired officers for operations that require a lot of manpower serve as perimeter or back up officers is thing go south, as they occasionally do. There are other caliber or rifles out there, but the thought process here is on firearm that can be used for multiple uses. The ammo is plentiful, ballistics are predictable and as previously stated, I’ve used this round for hunting, military, and in law enforcement. I know what it can do and what I can do with it. The platform offers flexibility and upgradability. I don’t need 10 different rifles when one can do all I need. Keep mags ready hunting, self defense/tactical loads, and competitive 3 gun as well. Suppressor will protect what’s left of my hearing, piss neighbors of less, and as stated the suppressor is designed to work with the rifle and works better with it. Pluses all around.
Until you see that $5k price tag (without suppressor) for what is really just a modernized battle rifle. Not spending that much until they fire lasers or is a legit rail gun.
Scopes like that are so silly on carbine length.
🤔 ... Wonder if SIG will have sales on these, or increase the price now that the M7 (M5) program is basically imploding and won't go through like planned.
Being dropped... Hence the release on the ‘civilian’ market.
It isn't being dropped. This has not been announced. The idea it is being dropped is based on one opinion article in Army Times by a civilian with no relationship to the project. Not in any facts so far presented by SIG or the US Army.
Hasn't been dropped but it's doubtful many will be issued. What duty position in an infantry company would carry these?
You might give these to team leaders, but riflemen, grenadiers, automatic riflemen , RTOs, etc., are already carrying a ton of weight in weapons and ammo. No way I'd want a guy carrying belts of MG ammo, 40mm grenades, Javelins or AT4s, mortar rounds, or any other heavy ammo load this rifle on top of all that.
@Not Him Oh, I doubt it's getting adopted as an infantry rifle. DMR role, maybe. However, part of the weapon system is the ammo, which requires tungsten imported from... China... d'oh!
@@MrSmith-zy2bp Your "doubt" is entirely irrelevant to the military commanders making the decisions on this rifle.
Finally someone who showed the inside of the xm7
Based of the firing pin safety. Do you think ar triggers will work or does it require the mcx specific hammer like the virtus series?
all trigger should work in this just like the sig spear lt. But sigs match duo triggers are already really good have one in my spear 5.56 pistol.
@@williamwinn948 i don’t mind the match lite, but I still prefer geissele.
Great presentation I like it. Thank you for giving us many information. Looking forward for the next one.
So glad you finally got your hands on one of these. Too bad you can't keep it(or can you?) Can't wait for the follow-up videos.
Also too bad they couldn't/didn't send you one in 6.8/.277, especially with the hot, high pressure ammo. But I imagine for civilians, especially now that(I think?) the army has abandoned the gun, .308 is going to be the preferred cartridge by far.
I haven't watched the video yet(I have a horrible habit of watching the first minute or two of a video and then commenting on things they inevitably talk about later on), but I'm very curious what the MSRP is going to be like on these guns. I know for a while it was listed on Sig's website for either $7 or $8K(though I believe that also included the suppressor.) But still, even if we assume a price of $2k for the can(which would be one expensive noise dampener), that's still $5 or $6k for essentially a scaled up MCX. I don't see many people paying that much, especially if it's not going to be adopted, not going to be chambered in the new cartridge(though maybe they will, I don't know, I don't see the cartridge surviving, let alone thriving without the military contract), and even worse, if it's an SBR(I believe the barrel was/is 13"?), making it a 2 stamp gun.
It also makes me wonder if they're going to change anything to make them cheaper. Personally, I would love to have one, in .308 or 6.8/.277, but I sure as hell ain't paying that much money(not that even have the option to, living in CT. Lol.)
Also, could you imagine if they did adopt this gun at such a price(relative to the current Colt/FN M4s and M16s, since they would obviously get a better deal when buying that many guns) plus spare parts, training, armorer's equipment/training, the suppressor, and the new hotness that is the Vortex LPVO? That is just insane to me. I of course want our guys to have the best, but I'm not sure you need to pay 7 grand(or whatever) for a gun that can do what this gun can. I mean when you throw in the gun, can, and optic, and add on things like a $1500 PEQ-15, possibly an m203 grenade launcher, a bunch $60-80 lancer mags(and the more expensive 6.8 ammo to fill them), flashlights, a reflex sight on top of or offset to the LPVO, etc., and you've got like $15 grand or more per soldier just in the gun(let alone all the other stuff they carry.)
That's just a bit crazy to me, especially for little gain over something like an AR-10(particularly one chambered in 6.8), and worst of all for a gun that virtually everyone thinks is a horrible idea as a replacement for current assault rifles.
**edit**
So after checking out Sig's website, it appears they are currently offering three versions: the one shown here with the 13" barrel and folding/collapsing stock, a 16" version, and a 13" pistol, all on .308(though they say they're offering it in 6.5CM too, with plans for 6.8/.277FURY guns in the future. No MSRPs are listed on the website that I could find.
I found a few places selling/listing them, with the cheapest being $4200 for the pistol version, and the most expensive being $8k for the 13" rifle as seen in the video(which does include the suppressor.)
I suppose I could see some people putting down $4-5k for just the gun, as people do it for certain .308 HK guns, and even the "long range" SCARs in .308 and 6.5, but still. That's a lot of freakin money, especially now that it's not going to be adopted. On top of that, if I paid that much money for a rifle, I wouldn't be happy not having the can too, as it's almost become a part of the gun in the public's eye, as it's always shown with it.
Neither the gun nor ammo as of this video has been canceled. The Army is still buying the M7 and the AP 6.8x51 ammo for it. The ArmyTimes article everyone is citing is factually inaccurate and clearly written to be critical of the M7 without any basis in fact. The performance of the ammo is classified so no one outside of the Army knows what the performance is. What I do know is that neither the M7 nor the 6.8x51 has been canceled by the Army as of this writing.
You went 180 degrees from your round table discussion on the Spear a few months ago.
Is it true that they canceled this program? Apparently there is an article in the army times that says that they are not moving with this program. CRS Firearms also put out a video on that. Does anybody else have any Intel? I would like to know if this information is true or false.
Army Times is reporting the program has imploded.
The article in army times is just an opinion piece that skewers the NGSW, things you have probably heard before. It's not like a military official announcement regarding anything.
@@MrSmith-zy2bp OK, so it is true. From my experience in the service, I had a feeling that this rifle would not be suitable as an infantry style rifle. It’s too bulky and heavy for one person to carry plus all other load outs. I think it’s better suited for a DMR role.
@Blind Fire T.V. Yeah, it's the SCAR program all over again. It will be picked up for DMR role.
@mattigator The specific ammo requires China to supply the tungsten for the rounds... uh, don't think it's going to go beyond DMR role if the ammo can't be procured in large quantities for infantry.
Hoping the battle rifle comparison includes a regular current AR10.
I will be very surprised if this ever actually ends up in any major infantry hands, I'd bet more like special ops groups and small teams that end up with this rifle. But you never know, but I'd be more than surprised if it does
Go read the article in the Army Times on Feb 28th. Basically says the gun is failing and being covered up. There also seems to be a bit more to the rumor that the whole design was to keep them out of civilian hands per NFA items of being automatic and suppressor. Not surprised Sig is pushing the 308 version before the news comes out. The US does need real 308 version for DM work.
@@billalumni7760 oh yeah the one by a aussie analyst with no ties to sig, army, or ngsw program. Makes alot of sense. Meanwhile my buddy already got issued his. Huh doesnt seem failing to me.
@@billalumni7760 Yeah Army Times is spotty at best. I wouldn't take their perspective that seriously.
@@billalumni7760 We dont need a 308 for DMR. This 6.8 round outclasses it in every way. If they were smart they'd take the designs and turn this into the DMR and the M250 for the M240 replacement. Keep M4s in the hand of most
You're going to be surprised then
How does this compare to the Sig 716i? I know they’re not the same operating system, but both are large frame, 7.62 NATO, battle rifles.
The upper on the M7 is close to being a full monolithic which is excellent.
The bolt and recoil spring group reminds me of an AK and looks very strong and beefy.
The side charging handle looks like JP, which is a great idea but I don't care for its folding buttstock; give me the good-looking Sopmod.
If this rifle proves to be reliable and accurate, I'd rather have it than my LMT as I like its overall features better!
I can't believe I said that about my LMT. :-)
Concerning the bolt. A great thing about gas piston ARs is that they run extremely clean. Hundreds of rounds will result in a very slight dirtying of the oil on the BCG, with no carbon build-up at all. They will run much longer between cleanings than a DI gun. As an Army vet from the 70s, I know what a filthy nightmare a couple hundred rounds could make of an M-16. All my ARs now are piston guns, and I ran one at a three-day training, expended upwards of one thousand rounds, and the gun was in no way in need of cleaning at the end of the course.
Ten years from now they will be saying, it’s a great rifle but the ammo is too heavy.
I heard the goobermint removed the M7 from the program
Probably why they are selling them to civilians…gotta make back that money
@@johnnytactical3054 They wouldn't make money because they'd have to make new barrels and receivers. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun. The originals would have to be destroyed, with only the furniture and bolts, pins, trigger, etc. being salvaged.
Here's what I want to know: which do you like better, this rifle or the Ruger SFAR? Could the SFAR serve in place of the Sig M7 with armor piercing .308 rounds? What kind of torture testing if any did Ruger put the SFAR through? Then if it were coupled with armor piercing tungsten or steel core bullets and TrueVelocity polymer casings for a 30% (?) lighter cartridge, it would be virtually identical to the AR-15 in style, function and weight. It would be much cheaper, and .308 / 7.62x51 is already a NATO cartridge. Also, how many Russian and Chinese troops are currently using level 4 body armor?
Didn't they cancel it? 😐
No.
@@Militaryarmschannel it'll be interesting to see it fielded in a few years.
I wish