The XM7 has one ability not often talked about. It appears it can be rechambered to 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO with just a barrel swap. It seems if the 6.8mm doesn't work out, lack of 6.8mm rounds but plenty of NATO rounds or is not needed in a battle space. It appears the US Army has given itself options for their new rifle.
@@dwnrange7812 The US Army has stated they are not dropping 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm at least for a while. Basically the 6.8x51mm M7 and M250 will operate in infantry units well the lighter less powerful M4A1 will be retained as a carbine/PDW. What the M4 was originally developed for. In this way The US Army can have NGSW and NATO commonality too. Overtime other NATO states may even adopt their own versions of the same. Much as we saw with NATO.
Opinions can vary, but it's essential to recognize that different nations prioritize and invest in equipping their troops with efficient body armor based on their own strategic considerations and technological advancements.
@@Interestingengineeringofficial I don't mean to say they cannot, but it seems that Russian soldiers have to buy their own kit because the money that was spent for vests somehow vanished and the vests never arrived in the arsenal.
XM7 is NOT assault rifle. It is Battle Rifle with longer range, more terminal impact, and less emphasis on reduced weight and round capacity. Assault Rifles focus on more on shorter range spray and pray for increased hit probab than longer range and Precision.
No, technically it *IS* an Assault Rifle: An *ASSAULT RIFLE* is a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. An *INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE* is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges. *ACCORDING TO SIG SAUER THE 6.8x51 CARTRIDGE IS AN INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE* A *BATTLE RIFLE* is a service rifle chambered to fire a fully powered cartridge. A *FULLY POWERED CARTRIDGE* also called full-power cartridge or full-size cartridge, is an umbrella term describing any rifle cartridge that emphasizes ballistic performance and single-shot accuracy, with little or no thought to its weight or recoil.
@@Scorpio.1989 considering .308 WIN aka 7.62mm NATO is full power replacement for 30-06, and M14 and M1 Garand are both Battle Rifles, and BAR shooting 30-06 is called "Light Machine-gun", I can only logically follow MCX Spear based M7 shooting 6.8mm CC with more power as Battle Rifle due to cartridge power, range, and rifles role as infantry primary weapon.
To me this has always been like when people argue whether things are SMGs or PDW's. The distinction isn't universal. There's not even a universal distinction between a fucking assault rifle and SMG. There are intermediate rifle cartridge long arms that are officially SMGs in some countries. There are some pistol caliber solid-stock long arms that are deemed PDW's. Generally we go with consensus i.e. distinctions that most of the world agrees upon but they're not entirely uniform everywhere. By lieu of this simple fact people will always argue amongst each other, especially considering comment sections are international.
You made a few mistakes on this one. It’s not an intermediate cartridge. It’s a full power cartridge with an intermediate projectile diameter between 556 and 762.
@@Scorpio.1989 its also not an assault rifle, its a battle rifle. They have to change their doctrine and teach soldiers to fire semi-automatic most of the time. too much recoil for controllable automatic fire. ammo will be twice as heavy which means fewer rounds can be carried.
@@Hornet_Legion it’s actually considered an assault rifle, they’re still calling the 6.8x51 an intermediate cartridge… And I’ve seen video of the XM7 on full auto, it’s actually fairly controllable with it’s suppressor on, and it’ll probably be even better if they as a modular forward grip..
The real reason Sig made a new cartridge for the rifle was so they could have a monopoly on the ammo manufacturing process and make even more money off the industrialized military complex.
@Hitman_Zulu I'll be more specific; Hornady, Remington, Lake City, literally zero ammo manufacturers make it but Sig. Designed from the ground up for the rifle ensuring that they continue to turn a profit. Will they allow others to priduce them (for the DoD)? If they do im sure sog will still get a cut.
@@Scorpio.1989 US will try to stanag the .277 fury in NATO with the monopoly of it's manufacturing and make money. the .277 fury as it is will never accomplish the "need" to the common soldier to perfurate tungsten, those are the two truly harsh truths. And I'm betting Europe will follow this mistake; or surprise us all and bury this trial alike ready system.
The real advancement here is the Vortex scope. Put that on any existing gun and it becomes a significantly more lethal device in open terrain. Since speed is what defeats body armor, it would have been more interesting to apply the new steel case head technology to 5.56. Imagine a 77gr round moving at 3,200+ fps.
They should just create 7.62x41mm with sigs 120 000 psi hybrid cased tech and small, lightweight 40 round drum mags and boom, a legitimate solution to replace the old obsolete 5.56 and 7 62 nato trash.
Speed is not the only thing that matters, no. Energy on target is what matters. Speed gives you more of it, but so does mass. Also, bullet mass grows with diameter^3, but drag only with diameter^2, meaning that a beefier bullet retains its punch over a longer distance.
Funny talking about what a game changer this rifle is, meanwhile, they are discussing if they want to drop the program because it doesn't make any sense. It cant penetrate Level IV body armor, its heavier, harder to maintain, is a cartridge no ally will adapt to and has 2/3s the rounds per magazine. I don't see that rifle going anywhere. The only thing the 6.8mm makes sense is for Infantry MGs and maybe DMRs.
It apparently *can* penetrate Level 4 body armor. The tests seen on YT use the currently available civillian versions of the cartridge without the steel core. Though given the recent progress in body armor in these odd 20 years, I don't believe it's gonna matter much in the long run when you consider the practical disadvantages and trade-offs the 6.8mm makes if the trend continues to evolve in favor of the armor. You need volume of fire, not sheer kinetic energy on each individual round to defeat modern body armor. Specially ceramic plates which have a finite multi-hit capability. Even if your gun is a pea shooter, if it fires and hits dozens upon dozens of repeated "peas" on the armor it's still gonna be good for something.
The 6.8x51 out of the XM7's 13 inch barrel doesn't penetrate armor any better than 7.62x51 out of a 20 inch barrel because the muzzle velocities are about the same. That means for the XM7 to penetrate any level 4 armor it will need a tungsten core projectile, which leads me back to wondering why the army would adopt this instead of just going back to 7.62x51.
Armour penetration depends more on the energy delivered. The 6.8×51mm has about 3,650 J, the 7.62x51mm around 3,560 J and the 5.56x45mm 1,860 J at most.
@@Tealice1 I'd say its also combined with the material. You can shoot an FMJ at a steel plate with 6000j while it wont make armor penetration better at all from a certain point. You would need different materials inside the same bullet, a core or so.
It was interesting to see the folding cocking handle, which is very similar to the one found on the FN C1 rifle that was used by the Canadian Forces from 1956 until about 1987. Built under licence from FN at the Canadian Arsenals Limited plant in Long Branch, Ontario, many improvements were made, including the innovative cocking handle, which was less likely to catch on clothing The FN C1 was replaced by the C7, which was essentially a licence-built copy and further development of the M16A1E1. The C7 family of rifles (C7A1, C7A2, C7IUR, C8A1 carbine) are due for replacement soon. As the Colt Canada plant that made these rifles was recently bought out by CZ, it remains to be seen whether Canada's next service rifle will be a further development of the C7, or possibly something like the upcoming Bren 2.
so they go from m16a2 which had good ballistics and penetration , down to the M4 which is more like .30 carbine performance (which by the way the .300 black out is only marginally better than the .30 carbine.), back to something with long range again. Except the ammo will be twice as heavy and full auto fire will be useless except at across the room distances. the final goal with the m16a2 development was to eventually equip it with an 70-80 grain bullet in a 1 n 7 twist barrel. .5.56 had black tip that could match the penetration of the 7.62 ap. a future black tip in the heavier projectile would have had even more penetration. the heavier projectile over long distance with the excellent BC began to catch up to the 7.62 as the distances increased. energy would still not be quite matched to the 7.62 at 1000 yards but it would have definitely get to the target faster and with a flatter trajectory. its the senselessness of spending taxes to fill the pockets of the weapon industry by creating new guns that basically do what guns in the past did just as well , just like big pharma. the medicine that has worked for 50 years is not as good as the new medicine which has more side effects and cost a lot more.
Vietnam veterans had the same rifle type M14 they stopped using it after it became useless in close quarters combat were volume of ammo matters. Even the SCAR H does the same job as this rifle with less weight. I recommend it for special forces only regular infantry no. You don't need it to be honest.
@@joshklaver47 have you tried it already to be so sure? if you did how many rounds did you use in total? in what circunstances? I think it's not clever to have a full army equiped with "DMR" just because Afghanistan was more prone to long distance weapons. How abou urban warfare? this gun is heavy as heck, it does have a 13" barrel but it measures in total more than 910mm. Not the best option for soldiers to use in APCs and even less in cqc... one or two xm7 per platoon would suffice. But you got to feed the industry...
Wasn't the chief issue with the M14 how out-of-control it was on full auto? Then when they switched to the M16, accurate shooting became unimportant due to the volume of fire. Guys would empty their magazine in in general vicinity of an NVA soldier and not hit them once.
@@trofchik9488 It's 3.8kg. For reference, the IAR used by the Marines is 3.6kg. That also doesn't account for the ridiculous amount of ammo the Marines have to carry, often as many as 16-22 mags.
It's not and wasn't. But we work with what we got. I think this rifle without the suppressor and a shortened stock should be ok. With suppressor 36inches. Prob closer to 30 without.
As the same time ,Russia just push PKM down to the squad level,replacing the lighter RPK . Problem solved . Most infantry casualties in open battlefield come from mortal and machine gun , assault rifles only shines in urban warfare and literally …assault
So a heavier rifle with less ammo and not Nato standard or even stockpiled in sufficient quantities for war. just a clusterf boondoggle of money. The MG version is awesome adopt that immediately but not the cartridge
I’m VERY on the fence about this, for a few reasons. First and foremost is weight. The thing is a brick when it’s completely empty. Throw a full mag and an optic on it, and we’re right back to M-14 weight. An 0311 is already carrying a ludicrous amount of weight on their person as is. Which brings me to my next problem. Since it’s a bigger round, there’s no way that a infantryman is going to be able to carry anywhere near as much ammo as they could for their 5.56 combat load. The idea that we needed to go to a 6.8 x 51 to defeat the Russian’s “highly effective body armor” is laughable. Go watch ANY video coming out of Ukraine. I don’t see a single person wearing any of that and if they ARE wearing it, it does not seem to be very effective at stopping any 5.56 or 5.45 being slung at it. They’re basically wearing flak jackets and a 5.56 is more than capable of going through that. If they military was SO concerned about the combat effectiveness of the standard 62 gr NATO round, they can blame that on their decision to give the overwhelming majority of our units a 14.5 inch M4. Why not go back to an 20 inch barrel M-16 then? That alone would increase the 62 gr round’s effectiveness in combat. Good luck in qualification as well with this rifle. A 18 year old private who’s NEVER fired a gun in their life goes behind a M4, winces as they pull the trigger, finds out it’s soft shooting, then qualifies. Now you’re going to put a 6.8x51 behind their shoulder and BAM….it’s exactly what they thought it was going to be like. Mark my words, the first set of qualification scores with this are going to nose dive. On that topic, in 2014, there was a report that the US military was using 250,000 rounds, PER ENEMY KILL. Read that number again to yourself. We actually needed to borrow ammo from Israel at multiple points, cuz we were running that low. That’s with the soft shooing, 5.56 rifle, outfitted with a ACOG optic. Now, you’re going to throw a harder recoiling rifle into that with less ammo per infantryman????? Good luck with that. Good luck to the poor guy who has to do a room clearing with a 6.8x51 round and not worrying about it over penetrating into the next room. On that note, 80,000 PSI????? How often are we going to be replacing barrels in these rifles?? All in all, I feel like there was much more logical ways around this perceived problem, then going back in time to basically, a modern day battle rifle. The M16 and M4 weren’t perfect, but solved more problems than this weapon system is set to do at this time.
the 250k bullets per kill were mostly adressed to the absurd long ranges the engagements occurred for which 556 was not designed for, given than for the past 20 years the us were engaged in mostly long range shootouts, it was obvious that the m4 and the 556 would lack effectiveness at those ranges given that in both afghanistan and iraq the avg engagement was over 300 yards and the effective range for the 556 was 280 at most, according to what the army said /which we should be on the fence about because obvious reasons/ the effective range for 6.8 is 600mts/660 yds, again, thats maximum effective range, even if the real effectiveness is half at 330 yds, that range increase more than adequatly bridges the obvious faults of 556 at the avg engagement range, which would certainly bring those 250k bullets down by a significant factor
@@spidlenexor I don’t see any of that as a reason to dump an entire weapon system that we’ve adopted for 60 years with a proven track record of success and adaptability, to go to a heavy rifle, a heavy recoiling round that we can’t carry as much ammo with. Adopting an entire new round/weapon system to address the shortcomings of the 5.56’s performance in the Afghanistan/Iraq war after we just got all of our NATO allies to switch to a 5.56 gun, so if we ever have to go to a WW3 scenario and we have mass adoption with this rifle across all branches, we’re on our own for supply lines, is one of the best know examples I can think of, of throwing the baby out with the dishwater or using a canon to kill a mosquito.
The XM7 is no heavier than the IAR the Marines are already using, and gives vastly superior capabilities. It also has far better ergonomics than the M-14. It can use standard 7.62x51mm with just a barrel swap. They tried improving the 5.56 round, but it's just never going to perform well enough beyond 400 metres. That's why so much ammo was wasted in Afghanistan. They were just engaging targets way beyond their effective range, while getting hit hard by PKMs. Some XM7s could have turned those gunfights around very quickly. China has just started mass-issuing body armour, and we know from importing and testing Chinese ceramic plates that they perform just fine. We were long overdue for a new calibre and service rifle. The M4 and M16 just don't give the overmatch they used to, and unless they develop a hybrid case version of 6.8 SPC, they never will. The US military is trying to take the capability of individual soldiers to the next level. The XM7, along with its optic and suppressor, the M17 and M18, along with their +P ammo, 21 round magazines, and slide-mounted optics, are just some examples of how they're doing it. Mass-issuing pistols to infantry is a pretty new concept for militaries, so it's nice to see they're open to new ideas.
Too heavy and only carries 20 rounds. That means squaddie has to carry a lot more ammo, slowing him down and making him a target for longer. Make the gun lighter!
The concern about it's weight is utter nonsense. The Current Sa80a2 rifle is heavier loaded. I'm sure if the UK could get this rifle as standard they'd be delighted.
This is for 20+ years down the line. These rifles are going to take years to distribute not to mention the millions if not billions of rounds that have to be made and put in storage.
@@TheSixteen60it would be similar or little bit less compared to 7.62 nato since 6.8 used in army will be chambered in incredibly high pressured powder.
Modern level IV plates can stop 30-06 Ap @ 3800 fps, the .277 is a smaller bullet leaving the muzzle at no more than 3500. Explain to me how this is capable to penetrating Level IV body armor?
Will it replace M4 /556 in all Situations ? No dont think so. Will it replace the SCAR-L which itself should replace the M4 some years ago ? Yes i think so, at least it doesnt destroy the optics like the SCAR-L 😅
I believe the whole U.S. military will have less than 200,000 of these rifles. That's about how many are in the infantry. The whole purpose is to defeat body armor and if one is in a tank or have access to a 20 mm auto cannon, they really don't need a rifle to defeat body armor.
Arms room concept is way to go. Why not both m7 and m4? Issue soldiers both and they choose the right tool for the area of operations they are in. Is it that complicated?
Knowing the military like I do. I fully expect to see these being mostly converted to 7.62 NATO. With the surplus of 7.62 ammo out there units will find the 6.8 ammo not practical. At least at this time. I am a big AR10 guy and honestly the average soldier will still have M4 rifles for the foreseeable future. Just too heavy for most of our troops these days.
This ammo has 80,000 PSI behind it which is 14,000 more PSI than a .50 Cal rifle round. I only know what it can do on paper since nobody has shown what it is suppose to do and that is to defeat body armor at a distance. On paper, it looks like it can one shot level 4 armor at up to 100 meters, one shot level 3A armor at up to 300 meters and one shot level 3A armor at up to 600 meters. This will be an infantry rifle and the military will have less than 200,000 of these rifles and machine gun variant. They are about as heavy as a loaded up M1 rifle.
I like the part where they showed it penetrating "Russian body armor" and told us *which* rating of Russian body armor it will defeat. 6.8 will easily defeat NIJ IIIA, but does that mean it will defeat NIJ IV or SAPI? No.
M855A1 was also supposed to penetrate modern Russian body armor. It doesn't and didn't, and you can find dozens of video tests of this right here on YT. In the aftermath, the US military went looking for a different round and dialed the powder charge on it back to cut back on barrel/chamber erosion and SAAMI pressure. Until I see a video of 6.8x51 Fury penetrating a 6B45 Granit Gost-R-50744-95 5A plate, it doesn't. This video shows no such evidence.
This rifle doesn’t make much sense. With 30cal in widespread demand and being a NATO round I don’t see a point for this. There is nothing the 6.8x51 can do that the 7.62x51 won’t do better. This was just a huge cash grab. They could’ve built the 7.62 to handle that pressure, they could’ve made the two piece case for it and you’d have the added bonus that it could shoot all the stock we already have. It’s a waste
@@itstiny.Yes there are way better and more correct ways of phrasing it. Guess I expected a little more from a channel that has "engineering" in the title
In ukraine both sides use mainly AKs chambered in 5,45x39 and they both use bodyarmor. So far I havn't heard of issues about the cartridge being "too small" from neither side and still there are plenty of videos on social medias where soldiers complain about the horrible conditions in the trenches so if their rifle was ineffective it would have probably already come out. Why? Because in a high intensity conflict like the one in ukraine statistically artilery causes 80% of the casualies and small arms are used just in close quarters or to pin down the enemy waiting for friendly artillery or mortar fire to bomb them. The concept behind this cartridge is intresting but I thik that it adressed the wrong problem and considering the cost of this type of ammunition I think that it is just a waste of money by the us military. The "smart" scope is intresting though and I think that in the future it will be slowly adopted by all the other militaries around the world
Calling the m4 a peashooter is insane 😂 granted the 556 projectile may look petite but the speeds it’s traveling at that shit will fuck you up. And from what we seen in Ukraine I don’t think Russian troops are equipped with adequate body armor
Penetration depends mostly on the bullet you are shooting, you can make many AP type of variants of calibers. This video stating this title is truly stupid. And which russian armor does it penetrate? If you are wondering for more "interesting engineering" check out oxide's channel for russian armor penetration tests.
Russian body armor…aka the wave before yours. So develop new cartridges based entirely off of body armor that Russia would never give there armed forces and body armor on Chinese that is probably made in china soooooo. This is monumentally unnecessary and detrimental from how wars are actually fought to the logistics and supply aspects of having common cartridges across all nato members. Not saying you couldn’t develop a new platform with better attributes but should remain the standard nato cartridges.
"Russian and Chinese armies are improving their body armor, here's how we made the XM7 to penetrate it." Russian and Chinese people: …so we'll just make new body armor
The math I came up with says it'll one shot level 4 body armor up to 100 meters and one shot AR 500 Level 3A armor at 300 meters. Level 5 armor is put on a vehicle because it's too heavy for a human to carry.
Yup. These last 20 odd years have been an unprecedented time period for the military history of body armor ever since the previous 400 years of "no armor best armor" meta. But it makes sense since we're nearing the tail end of the practical limits of smokeless gunpowder and material technology has been experiencing a new "Renaissance" for the application of armor technology. Never in my life would I have expected to live to see it happen.
The most pressing issue is that its ugly as hell. The whole rifle looks clumsy. It's 2023 we should be able to make things work and look cool😂 take a submarine for example billions of dollars to look like an office building on the inside.
LMAO highly effective and effecting body armour No they don’t!!! Most of them have wish armour hahahah The footage of Ukraine and western volunteers proved their body armour is a joke. One guy literally punched a Russian helmet into a crumbled mess. With his fist in two punches……
The Chinese military just mass-issued body armour, and we know from importing and testing their ceramic plates that they work just fine. That is why the ability to use armour-piercing ammunition is important.
It seems that there are 2 drawbacks of XM7:- (1) Std. Mag capacity of only 20-rounds (2) Size The problem with Modern Warfare is that the battlefield shifts from Urban-Centres to Open areas in few hours or days. I think US-Military should've considered the option of a "Bull-up" rifle to get the required Compactness & Barrel-length.
This is all about armor piercing. From the math I have seen, this round should be able to one shot level 4 armor at 100 meters, one shot level 3+ at 300 meters and one shot level 3 armor at 600 meters.
@@orlock20Even though some armchair soldiers think the weight of the rifle is too much, and round limit is a deal breaker, I have to admit the power, reach, and (with the scope) accuracy is an amazing combo. I hope our soldiers like it, they were consulted heavily when down selecting this rifle. Being able to target someone 600m and take them down in one shot is incredible
Ever one knows speed beats armor not so much weight this gun is going to probably burn barrels up fast the 6.5 dont get mine rounds on a bolt gun before you start seeing barrel wear
Its basically the 6.5 creedmore and 6.5 grendel but in a platform that would require a whole new manufacturing chain. Which may or may not be bad depending on what weight/size rounds are used.
When I see programs like this it always amazes me people still believing money exist when it comes to what a nation has on their agenda. If we want new weapons build it. Wtf is a budget when it comes to security
It's pretty wild that Barrett tried convincing the US army to adopt their M468 (6.8x43mm SPC) 20 years ago, the platform was identical to that of your standard M4/M16, so Identical that all the military would have needed to do was purchase the upper receiver assembly and put it on their existing M4/M16 lower receivers and bam, you now have more punch and range than 5.56 while still being lighter than 7.62x51, used the same magazines and accessories already in the US inventory, and Barrett was already a contracted manufacture within the US military. It's kinda weird they passed and then forgot about it, because I don't see much of a reason to switch to the XM7 (yes the XM7 fires a slightly spiceyer round [6.8×51mm vs 6.8x43mm] but still) when the M468 already exist and doesn't change literally anything for a soldier already intiment with an M4/M16, yes, the XM7 has the same manual of arms, but they are still going to need to be trained on disassembly and maintenance while also paying for a weapon platform that doesn't share any internal components with the existing M4/M16 parts. Dunno, maybe I played too much Splinter cell, but, I really wish the M468 had become mainstream
There is more to the new rifle than just firing a "spicier" round, though the new round does matter considerably. 3,000 f/s out of a suppressed 13in barrel is not a simple ask. Then there is the folding stock, which the M468 simply can't have, and the improvement to the gas system in the REC7 still only solved one issue, without adding any features. Bottom line, a folding stock was mandatory, so anything operating with a buffer tube is out.
The issue with the 6.8spc was the SAMMI specing and Remington fumbling the bag hard. In order to get approved, they had to spec it at way lower velocities because their chamber dimensions were bad and caused way too much variance. We now have the SPC II chamber which fixes it and brings it to what it was intended to do, but all ammo is loaded to the old spec chamber pressures so unfortunately the only people getting the true 6.8 SPC as envisioned are people who handload it to the correct specs that it was supposed to be originally.
Can understand the need for new rounds but what is impeding modifications to existing arsenal to accept new rounds. Find it hard to believe that the new rifle is not just a waste of precious funds that can better serve the national defense there should be transparency on the cost of modifications M-4
The M4 has just run out of potential. Other than making a hybrid case 6.8 SPC round, there's just no way to make an M4 perform to the level the US military wants to achieve.
Probably should ask soldiers. Marines switched to the heavier M27, but feel it's worth it. The XM7 is heavier, yes. But it may be worth it, depends on the soldier
⚙ Want to know more about the latest tech and innovations? Don’t Miss Out!
*SUBSCRIBE & HIT THE BELL* 👉bit.ly/SubscribeNowIE
A small correction, but I believe the weights mentioned in the video are sans magazine (rifle only)
The XM7 has one ability not often talked about. It appears it can be rechambered to 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO with just a barrel swap. It seems if the 6.8mm doesn't work out, lack of 6.8mm rounds but plenty of NATO rounds or is not needed in a battle space. It appears the US Army has given itself options for their new rifle.
Smart thinking..
They’re going to have to swap if they want any interoperability w/ NATO partners, now more important than ever
I'm pretty sure you can't just barrel swap a 5.56.
The lower receiver needs to seat the 556 mag
@@dwnrange7812 The US Army has stated they are not dropping 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm at least for a while. Basically the 6.8x51mm M7 and M250 will operate in infantry units well the lighter less powerful M4A1 will be retained as a carbine/PDW. What the M4 was originally developed for. In this way The US Army can have NGSW and NATO commonality too. Overtime other NATO states may even adopt their own versions of the same. Much as we saw with NATO.
It's more of a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle.
@Gameprojordan it's a full power rifle cartridge and has nothing to do with intermediate calibers.
It looks like the Bas B battle rifle in COD MW3
@@not_your_business666correct. Thank you for doing your part to address this very common misconception
Can Russia even afford body armour
@@jism1125 it could be state propaganda but from what I've read, theirs is not modernised or that effective
Russia equips its troops with highly efficient body armour? In your dreams, pal.
It is a mishmash for some countries. If, for instance, the United Kingdom were ever to go to war, again, it would lose.
Opinions can vary, but it's essential to recognize that different nations prioritize and invest in equipping their troops with efficient body armor based on their own strategic considerations and technological advancements.
@@Interestingengineeringofficial I don't mean to say they cannot, but it seems that Russian soldiers have to buy their own kit because the money that was spent for vests somehow vanished and the vests never arrived in the arsenal.
@@Interestingengineeringofficial In the U.K bottom of the pile.
Don't just think today think tomorrow
XM7 is NOT assault rifle. It is Battle Rifle with longer range, more terminal impact, and less emphasis on reduced weight and round capacity.
Assault Rifles focus on more on shorter range spray and pray for increased hit probab than longer range and Precision.
No, technically it *IS* an Assault Rifle:
An *ASSAULT RIFLE* is a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
An *INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE* is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges.
*ACCORDING TO SIG SAUER THE 6.8x51 CARTRIDGE IS AN INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE*
A *BATTLE RIFLE* is a service rifle chambered to fire a fully powered cartridge.
A *FULLY POWERED CARTRIDGE* also called full-power cartridge or full-size cartridge, is an umbrella term describing any rifle cartridge that emphasizes ballistic performance and single-shot accuracy, with little or no thought to its weight or recoil.
@@Scorpio.1989 considering .308 WIN aka 7.62mm NATO is full power replacement for 30-06, and M14 and M1 Garand are both Battle Rifles, and BAR shooting 30-06 is called "Light Machine-gun", I can only logically follow MCX Spear based M7 shooting 6.8mm CC with more power as Battle Rifle due to cartridge power, range, and rifles role as infantry primary weapon.
@@Scorpio.1989 Assault rifle is a term invented by a politician who hated guns.
Ok I want it
To me this has always been like when people argue whether things are SMGs or PDW's. The distinction isn't universal. There's not even a universal distinction between a fucking assault rifle and SMG. There are intermediate rifle cartridge long arms that are officially SMGs in some countries. There are some pistol caliber solid-stock long arms that are deemed PDW's. Generally we go with consensus i.e. distinctions that most of the world agrees upon but they're not entirely uniform everywhere. By lieu of this simple fact people will always argue amongst each other, especially considering comment sections are international.
6.8x51 is not an intermediate cartridge.....
You made a few mistakes on this one. It’s not an intermediate cartridge. It’s a full power cartridge with an intermediate projectile diameter between 556 and 762.
Actually, according to Sig, the 6.8x51 *IS* an intermediate cartridge
@@Scorpio.1989 Sig is objectively full of it on this one. The kinetic energy and case length speak for themselves.
It’s a battle rifle cartridge, pure and simple.
@@Scorpio.1989 its also not an assault rifle, its a battle rifle. They have to change their doctrine and teach soldiers to fire semi-automatic most of the time. too much recoil for controllable automatic fire. ammo will be twice as heavy which means fewer rounds can be carried.
@@Hornet_Legion it’s actually considered an assault rifle, they’re still calling the 6.8x51 an intermediate cartridge…
And I’ve seen video of the XM7 on full auto, it’s actually fairly controllable with it’s suppressor on, and it’ll probably be even better if they as a modular forward grip..
The real reason Sig made a new cartridge for the rifle was so they could have a monopoly on the ammo manufacturing process and make even more money off the industrialized military complex.
lol the US created the program wanting a new cartridge XD
@Hitman_Zulu I'll be more specific; Hornady, Remington, Lake City, literally zero ammo manufacturers make it but Sig. Designed from the ground up for the rifle ensuring that they continue to turn a profit. Will they allow others to priduce them (for the DoD)? If they do im sure sog will still get a cut.
@@MFCSteele actually, Lake City is currently in the process of building a factory for 6.8x51 (.277 Fury)
@@Scorpio.1989 US will try to stanag the .277 fury in NATO with the monopoly of it's manufacturing and make money. the .277 fury as it is will never accomplish the "need" to the common soldier to perfurate tungsten, those are the two truly harsh truths. And I'm betting Europe will follow this mistake; or surprise us all and bury this trial alike ready system.
SIG will not be the only ones making ammo, and the hybrid case design was the only way to achieve velocities that high in short barrels.
5.56 .35 cents per round, 7.62 .60 cents per round, Sig's new 6.8 22.00 dollars per round for military budgets only 😆 🤣 😂
Another game-change weapon? 😄 i already hear that so many time over ukraine war
The real advancement here is the Vortex scope. Put that on any existing gun and it becomes a significantly more lethal device in open terrain.
Since speed is what defeats body armor, it would have been more interesting to apply the new steel case head technology to 5.56. Imagine a 77gr round moving at 3,200+ fps.
A hybrid case 6.8 SPC would probably be the most effective intermediate cartridge possible.
They should just create 7.62x41mm with sigs 120 000 psi hybrid cased tech and small, lightweight 40 round drum mags and boom, a legitimate solution to replace the old obsolete 5.56 and 7 62 nato trash.
@@joshklaver47 BULLSHIT.
Well said my friend
Speed is not the only thing that matters, no. Energy on target is what matters. Speed gives you more of it, but so does mass. Also, bullet mass grows with diameter^3, but drag only with diameter^2, meaning that a beefier bullet retains its punch over a longer distance.
The old British 7.62mm SLR would pretty much stop anyone.
Hell you see a man go down.....he stays down ,the beauty of 7.62👍.
Семерка конечно хороша, если ты комплекцией как дуэйн джонсон, иначе просто заебешся таскать полную выгрузку
@BlackFlag714Body armor today could easily stop a 7.62.
ua-cam.com/video/XHb--g49wsc/v-deo.html
So would a 30.06 from a Garand.
Funny talking about what a game changer this rifle is, meanwhile, they are discussing if they want to drop the program because it doesn't make any sense. It cant penetrate Level IV body armor, its heavier, harder to maintain, is a cartridge no ally will adapt to and has 2/3s the rounds per magazine. I don't see that rifle going anywhere. The only thing the 6.8mm makes sense is for Infantry MGs and maybe DMRs.
No, they are talking about how it nails the testing and defeats all current known armor.
It apparently *can* penetrate Level 4 body armor. The tests seen on YT use the currently available civillian versions of the cartridge without the steel core. Though given the recent progress in body armor in these odd 20 years, I don't believe it's gonna matter much in the long run when you consider the practical disadvantages and trade-offs the 6.8mm makes if the trend continues to evolve in favor of the armor. You need volume of fire, not sheer kinetic energy on each individual round to defeat modern body armor. Specially ceramic plates which have a finite multi-hit capability. Even if your gun is a pea shooter, if it fires and hits dozens upon dozens of repeated "peas" on the armor it's still gonna be good for something.
They aren't saying any of that step outside your eco chamber
How do you know if it can't break level 4 armor?military rounds aren't the same as civilian rounds.
The 6.8x51 out of the XM7's 13 inch barrel doesn't penetrate armor any better than 7.62x51 out of a 20 inch barrel because the muzzle velocities are about the same. That means for the XM7 to penetrate any level 4 armor it will need a tungsten core projectile, which leads me back to wondering why the army would adopt this instead of just going back to 7.62x51.
Poop balls.
yummy@@fugfuggerton9595
Less recoil.
Armour penetration depends more on the energy delivered. The 6.8×51mm has about 3,650 J, the 7.62x51mm around 3,560 J and the 5.56x45mm 1,860 J at most.
@@Tealice1 I'd say its also combined with the material. You can shoot an FMJ at a steel plate with 6000j while it wont make armor penetration better at all from a certain point. You would need different materials inside the same bullet, a core or so.
It was interesting to see the folding cocking handle, which is very similar to the one found on the FN C1 rifle that was used by the Canadian Forces from 1956 until about 1987. Built under licence from FN at the Canadian Arsenals Limited plant in Long Branch, Ontario, many improvements were made, including the innovative cocking handle, which was less likely to catch on clothing
The FN C1 was replaced by the C7, which was essentially a licence-built copy and further development of the M16A1E1.
The C7 family of rifles (C7A1, C7A2, C7IUR, C8A1 carbine) are due for replacement soon. As the Colt Canada plant that made these rifles was recently bought out by CZ, it remains to be seen whether Canada's next service rifle will be a further development of the C7, or possibly something like the upcoming Bren 2.
upcoming? the CZ Bren 2 is already out and serving. Including in my country's air force special forces...
so they go from m16a2 which had good ballistics and penetration , down to the M4 which is more like .30 carbine performance (which by the way the .300 black out is only marginally better than the .30 carbine.), back to something with long range again. Except the ammo will be twice as heavy and full auto fire will be useless except at across the room distances.
the final goal with the m16a2 development was to eventually equip it with an 70-80 grain bullet in a 1 n 7 twist barrel. .5.56 had black tip that could match the penetration of the 7.62 ap. a future black tip in the heavier projectile would have had even more penetration. the heavier projectile over long distance with the excellent BC began to catch up to the 7.62 as the distances increased. energy would still not be quite matched to the 7.62 at 1000 yards but it would have definitely get to the target faster and with a flatter trajectory.
its the senselessness of spending taxes to fill the pockets of the weapon industry by creating new guns that basically do what guns in the past did just as well , just like big pharma. the medicine that has worked for 50 years is not as good as the new medicine which has more side effects and cost a lot more.
Tool heavy, when you lug this around all day.
Vietnam veterans had the same rifle type M14 they stopped using it after it became useless in close quarters combat were volume of ammo matters. Even the SCAR H does the same job as this rifle with less weight. I recommend it for special forces only regular infantry no. You don't need it to be honest.
The M14 was cumbersome and heavy, and the SCAR H has reliability issues. The XM7 is in a different league, especially with the new calibre.
@@joshklaver47 have you tried it already to be so sure? if you did how many rounds did you use in total? in what circunstances? I think it's not clever to have a full army equiped with "DMR" just because Afghanistan was more prone to long distance weapons. How abou urban warfare? this gun is heavy as heck, it does have a 13" barrel but it measures in total more than 910mm. Not the best option for soldiers to use in APCs and even less in cqc... one or two xm7 per platoon would suffice. But you got to feed the industry...
Wasn't the chief issue with the M14 how out-of-control it was on full auto? Then when they switched to the M16, accurate shooting became unimportant due to the volume of fire. Guys would empty their magazine in in general vicinity of an NVA soldier and not hit them once.
@@trofchik9488 It's 3.8kg. For reference, the IAR used by the Marines is 3.6kg. That also doesn't account for the ridiculous amount of ammo the Marines have to carry, often as many as 16-22 mags.
@@joshklaver47no its not. It's basically the same shit
I would love to see them clearing a room with that broomstick
i mean we did it with M16s, they are 3 inches longer sooooo should be ok
@@criscolgan5546 we should have choose a bullpup rifle for our next military rifle.
Yes I watch those Iraq videos and it didn't look practical
It's not and wasn't. But we work with what we got. I think this rifle without the suppressor and a shortened stock should be ok. With suppressor 36inches. Prob closer to 30 without.
Kinda looks like they chose it to gear towards a long range battle scenario, instead of urban. 🤔🤔 foreshadowing possibly
We’re worried about China, not Russia
*Battle rifle
The XM7 is a Battle rifle. Literally by definition, it's a Battle rifle.
Its about time we start upgrading.
Just be sure not to insert any pmags too firmly or it locks up. Lol
Yeah, I remember see that happen to reviewers too
That will be sorted before long. What new weapon system doesn't have initial teething problems?
I like how it doesn't just say "body armour" but specifies the target. Don't mess with us my friends 😊
As the same time ,Russia just push PKM down to the squad level,replacing the lighter RPK . Problem solved . Most infantry casualties in open battlefield come from mortal and machine gun , assault rifles only shines in urban warfare and literally …assault
I feel like I just watched a Starship Troopers commercial.
So nothing new here, just a roll-up of other's content.
So a heavier rifle with less ammo and not Nato standard or even stockpiled in sufficient quantities for war. just a clusterf boondoggle of money. The MG version is awesome adopt that immediately but not the cartridge
So basically the question in the title is not even addressed, let alone answered. Great job, guys.
I’m VERY on the fence about this, for a few reasons. First and foremost is weight. The thing is a brick when it’s completely empty. Throw a full mag and an optic on it, and we’re right back to M-14 weight. An 0311 is already carrying a ludicrous amount of weight on their person as is. Which brings me to my next problem. Since it’s a bigger round, there’s no way that a infantryman is going to be able to carry anywhere near as much ammo as they could for their 5.56 combat load. The idea that we needed to go to a 6.8 x 51 to defeat the Russian’s “highly effective body armor” is laughable. Go watch ANY video coming out of Ukraine. I don’t see a single person wearing any of that and if they ARE wearing it, it does not seem to be very effective at stopping any 5.56 or 5.45 being slung at it. They’re basically wearing flak jackets and a 5.56 is more than capable of going through that.
If they military was SO concerned about the combat effectiveness of the standard 62 gr NATO round, they can blame that on their decision to give the overwhelming majority of our units a 14.5 inch M4. Why not go back to an 20 inch barrel M-16 then? That alone would increase the 62 gr round’s effectiveness in combat. Good luck in qualification as well with this rifle. A 18 year old private who’s NEVER fired a gun in their life goes behind a M4, winces as they pull the trigger, finds out it’s soft shooting, then qualifies. Now you’re going to put a 6.8x51 behind their shoulder and BAM….it’s exactly what they thought it was going to be like. Mark my words, the first set of qualification scores with this are going to nose dive.
On that topic, in 2014, there was a report that the US military was using 250,000 rounds, PER ENEMY KILL. Read that number again to yourself. We actually needed to borrow ammo from Israel at multiple points, cuz we were running that low. That’s with the soft shooing, 5.56 rifle, outfitted with a ACOG optic. Now, you’re going to throw a harder recoiling rifle into that with less ammo per infantryman????? Good luck with that. Good luck to the poor guy who has to do a room clearing with a 6.8x51 round and not worrying about it over penetrating into the next room. On that note, 80,000 PSI????? How often are we going to be replacing barrels in these rifles?? All in all, I feel like there was much more logical ways around this perceived problem, then going back in time to basically, a modern day battle rifle. The M16 and M4 weren’t perfect, but solved more problems than this weapon system is set to do at this time.
For the weight issue, we will be moving to unpowered and powered exoskeleton suits for dismounted movements
@@jonmyers1017I’m sure to go with our walking Mech Tanks and Phased Plasma rifles in a 40 watt range…..
the 250k bullets per kill were mostly adressed to the absurd long ranges the engagements occurred for which 556 was not designed for, given than for the past 20 years the us were engaged in mostly long range shootouts, it was obvious that the m4 and the 556 would lack effectiveness at those ranges given that in both afghanistan and iraq the avg engagement was over 300 yards and the effective range for the 556 was 280 at most, according to what the army said /which we should be on the fence about because obvious reasons/ the effective range for 6.8 is 600mts/660 yds, again, thats maximum effective range, even if the real effectiveness is half at 330 yds, that range increase more than adequatly bridges the obvious faults of 556 at the avg engagement range, which would certainly bring those 250k bullets down by a significant factor
@@spidlenexor I don’t see any of that as a reason to dump an entire weapon system that we’ve adopted for 60 years with a proven track record of success and adaptability, to go to a heavy rifle, a heavy recoiling round that we can’t carry as much ammo with. Adopting an entire new round/weapon system to address the shortcomings of the 5.56’s performance in the Afghanistan/Iraq war after we just got all of our NATO allies to switch to a 5.56 gun, so if we ever have to go to a WW3 scenario and we have mass adoption with this rifle across all branches, we’re on our own for supply lines, is one of the best know examples I can think of, of throwing the baby out with the dishwater or using a canon to kill a mosquito.
The XM7 is no heavier than the IAR the Marines are already using, and gives vastly superior capabilities. It also has far better ergonomics than the M-14. It can use standard 7.62x51mm with just a barrel swap. They tried improving the 5.56 round, but it's just never going to perform well enough beyond 400 metres. That's why so much ammo was wasted in Afghanistan. They were just engaging targets way beyond their effective range, while getting hit hard by PKMs. Some XM7s could have turned those gunfights around very quickly. China has just started mass-issuing body armour, and we know from importing and testing Chinese ceramic plates that they perform just fine. We were long overdue for a new calibre and service rifle. The M4 and M16 just don't give the overmatch they used to, and unless they develop a hybrid case version of 6.8 SPC, they never will. The US military is trying to take the capability of individual soldiers to the next level. The XM7, along with its optic and suppressor, the M17 and M18, along with their +P ammo, 21 round magazines, and slide-mounted optics, are just some examples of how they're doing it. Mass-issuing pistols to infantry is a pretty new concept for militaries, so it's nice to see they're open to new ideas.
😂😂 13 inch barrel 😅 loss all power use bulpup gun 22 inch barrel you will have saem gun size but with real power of this ammo
This video sounds like an advert for the rifle and its ammo.
Too heavy and only carries 20 rounds. That means squaddie has to carry a lot more ammo, slowing him down and making him a target for longer.
Make the gun lighter!
The concern about it's weight is utter nonsense. The Current Sa80a2 rifle is heavier loaded.
I'm sure if the UK could get this rifle as standard they'd be delighted.
Did sig write this script for you? Lol
What would i use as a civilian in the US? A FAL-Rifle, similar Performance, but muuuch cheaper . Right arm of the free world 😊
How would 4-5 foot Asians handle an 80,000 psi high-recoil rifle like that?
All the fancy buzzwords mentioned, 10/10
I think that the government’s near peer adversaries include the American people.
That’s a complete overkill rifle for Russians that wears airsoft vests…
Russia doesn't use real armor lol
It looks like it weighs as much as a truck
Except that Russia doesn't have any stocks of modern body armor worth mentioning.
This is for 20+ years down the line. These rifles are going to take years to distribute not to mention the millions if not billions of rounds that have to be made and put in storage.
@@orlock20 It's not for 20 years down the line, but for 7. And they're not re-equipping the entire US Army, only close combat forces.
Wow, an advertisement completely lacking and factual basis. They don’t know the difference between intermediate and battle cartridge.
LOL… sig couldn’t engineer their way out of a paper bag
Hmm, the recoil tho
Well it won't be as bad as the M14 since the 6.8 is like between 5.56 and 7.62 in terms of size.
@@TheSixteen60 wait, so it's actually better than the M4's?💀
@@I_am_MeriumT Well it's shooting a higher caliber than the M4 so it's bound to have higher range and stopping power.
@@TheSixteen60 Thanks for taking your time and helping with my concerns, really grateful to you bro
@@TheSixteen60it would be similar or little bit less compared to 7.62 nato since 6.8 used in army will be chambered in incredibly high pressured powder.
“Assault rifle”…..🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤣🤣
So, US army is returning to M14. 😀
What Russian body armor?
As Reinhart would say: Precision German engineering!
What if you ran out of ammo?
Modern level IV plates can stop 30-06 Ap @ 3800 fps, the .277 is a smaller bullet leaving the muzzle at no more than 3500. Explain to me how this is capable to penetrating Level IV body armor?
Will it replace M4 /556 in all Situations ? No dont think so. Will it replace the SCAR-L which itself should replace the M4 some years ago ? Yes i think so, at least it doesnt destroy the optics like the SCAR-L 😅
I believe the whole U.S. military will have less than 200,000 of these rifles. That's about how many are in the infantry. The whole purpose is to defeat body armor and if one is in a tank or have access to a 20 mm auto cannon, they really don't need a rifle to defeat body armor.
0:06 AR stand for ArmaLite rifle, not assault rifle!
It's an M14, only it looks different.
Arms room concept is way to go. Why not both m7 and m4? Issue soldiers both and they choose the right tool for the area of operations they are in. Is it that complicated?
Wow... Miracle super weapon
That thing is massive, wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled.
I love it the heat shelving is big should could slim it down but love it greatly appreciated for the military
trash
Should really give credit to the other creators whos footage you used to make this video.
he did, their yt id is in the video for each one
And I thought the ACR would be a better replacement.
Knowing the military like I do. I fully expect to see these being mostly converted to 7.62 NATO. With the surplus of 7.62 ammo out there units will find the 6.8 ammo not practical. At least at this time. I am a big AR10 guy and honestly the average soldier will still have M4 rifles for the foreseeable future. Just too heavy for most of our troops these days.
This ammo has 80,000 PSI behind it which is 14,000 more PSI than a .50 Cal rifle round. I only know what it can do on paper since nobody has shown what it is suppose to do and that is to defeat body armor at a distance. On paper, it looks like it can one shot level 4 armor at up to 100 meters, one shot level 3A armor at up to 300 meters and one shot level 3A armor at up to 600 meters. This will be an infantry rifle and the military will have less than 200,000 of these rifles and machine gun variant. They are about as heavy as a loaded up M1 rifle.
Not practical? so theyd rather bring a peashooter to a gunfight?
The 6.68 doesn't use normal bullets,this rifle shoots hybrid ammo which can handle more pressure than the normal 6.68 round.
"Knowing the military like i do" translation: i think i know everything about the army because i watch garand thumb and fox news
@@TetoSuperFan your bad at translating. Lol
I like the part where they showed it penetrating "Russian body armor" and told us *which* rating of Russian body armor it will defeat. 6.8 will easily defeat NIJ IIIA, but does that mean it will defeat NIJ IV or SAPI? No.
I see you stitched together other UA-camrs' contents. where are the references? did you ask for their permission?
Bro, the russians has had body armor that can stop 5.56 since the 80s
not really, first soviet body armor used in Afghanistan sucked.Only in 1999-2000 6B13 came out and yeah it capable of stopping 5.56
@@JohnSmithWesson6b13 stops 855 no problem
And by time they roll it out, 90% of all battles will likely be faught from a sea-can state side...
They have the pattons on the round so they will be the only ones that can make that round so it will be scrace
M855A1 was also supposed to penetrate modern Russian body armor. It doesn't and didn't, and you can find dozens of video tests of this right here on YT.
In the aftermath, the US military went looking for a different round and dialed the powder charge on it back to cut back on barrel/chamber erosion and SAAMI pressure.
Until I see a video of 6.8x51 Fury penetrating a 6B45 Granit Gost-R-50744-95 5A plate, it doesn't.
This video shows no such evidence.
This rifle doesn’t make much sense. With 30cal in widespread demand and being a NATO round I don’t see a point for this. There is nothing the 6.8x51 can do that the 7.62x51 won’t do better. This was just a huge cash grab. They could’ve built the 7.62 to handle that pressure, they could’ve made the two piece case for it and you’d have the added bonus that it could shoot all the stock we already have. It’s a waste
You can't really assess it since your sample rifle is in 308 not 6.8.
what is the equation for calculating "stopping power" ?
I think a better way of phrasing it would have been "energy ft lbs", the .277 hits insanely hard.
Speed is what defeats body armor, it's measured by speed of the round.
@@itstiny.Yes there are way better and more correct ways of phrasing it. Guess I expected a little more from a channel that has "engineering" in the title
@@icanhas11b I don't blame you, stopping power has always been a dumb term anyway
Narrator script is filled with errors.
In ukraine both sides use mainly AKs chambered in 5,45x39 and they both use bodyarmor. So far I havn't heard of issues about the cartridge being "too small" from neither side and still there are plenty of videos on social medias where soldiers complain about the horrible conditions in the trenches so if their rifle was ineffective it would have probably already come out. Why? Because in a high intensity conflict like the one in ukraine statistically artilery causes 80% of the casualies and small arms are used just in close quarters or to pin down the enemy waiting for friendly artillery or mortar fire to bomb them.
The concept behind this cartridge is intresting but I thik that it adressed the wrong problem and considering the cost of this type of ammunition I think that it is just a waste of money by the us military.
The "smart" scope is intresting though and I think that in the future it will be slowly adopted by all the other militaries around the world
Basically American ak47 for ww3
Calling the m4 a peashooter is insane 😂 granted the 556 projectile may look petite but the speeds it’s traveling at that shit will fuck you up. And from what we seen in Ukraine I don’t think Russian troops are equipped with adequate body armor
I like what New Volosity doing
Penetration depends mostly on the bullet you are shooting, you can make many AP type of variants of calibers. This video stating this title is truly stupid. And which russian armor does it penetrate? If you are wondering for more "interesting engineering" check out oxide's channel for russian armor penetration tests.
You know its junk when they say its a 'gamechanger' 😂😂😂
Russian body armor…aka the wave before yours. So develop new cartridges based entirely off of body armor that Russia would never give there armed forces and body armor on Chinese that is probably made in china soooooo. This is monumentally unnecessary and detrimental from how wars are actually fought to the logistics and supply aspects of having common cartridges across all nato members. Not saying you couldn’t develop a new platform with better attributes but should remain the standard nato cartridges.
"Russian and Chinese armies are improving their body armor, here's how we made the XM7 to penetrate it."
Russian and Chinese people: …so we'll just make new body armor
The math I came up with says it'll one shot level 4 body armor up to 100 meters and one shot AR 500 Level 3A armor at 300 meters. Level 5 armor is put on a vehicle because it's too heavy for a human to carry.
Yup. These last 20 odd years have been an unprecedented time period for the military history of body armor ever since the previous 400 years of "no armor best armor" meta. But it makes sense since we're nearing the tail end of the practical limits of smokeless gunpowder and material technology has been experiencing a new "Renaissance" for the application of armor technology. Never in my life would I have expected to live to see it happen.
Sheesh mate you don’t gotta take shit seriously yk@@CheapSushi
The most pressing issue is that its ugly as hell. The whole rifle looks clumsy. It's 2023 we should be able to make things work and look cool😂 take a submarine for example billions of dollars to look like an office building on the inside.
Amo yes new rifel burning of limited resources just modifie Existing inventory
This video has clearly been made by someone who has no clue about weapons.
I wouldn't be happy if they issue me this clumsy heavy rifle. Doesn't look reliable either.
LMAO highly effective and effecting body armour
No they don’t!!! Most of them have wish armour hahahah
The footage of Ukraine and western volunteers proved their body armour is a joke.
One guy literally punched a Russian helmet into a crumbled mess. With his fist in two punches……
The Chinese military just mass-issued body armour, and we know from importing and testing their ceramic plates that they work just fine. That is why the ability to use armour-piercing ammunition is important.
It seems that there are 2 drawbacks of XM7:-
(1) Std. Mag capacity of only 20-rounds
(2) Size
The problem with Modern Warfare is that the battlefield shifts from Urban-Centres to Open areas in few hours or days.
I think US-Military should've considered the option of a "Bull-up" rifle to get the required Compactness & Barrel-length.
This is all about armor piercing. From the math I have seen, this round should be able to one shot level 4 armor at 100 meters, one shot level 3+ at 300 meters and one shot level 3 armor at 600 meters.
They did, but it didn't make the cut. Shrug
@@orlock20Even though some armchair soldiers think the weight of the rifle is too much, and round limit is a deal breaker, I have to admit the power, reach, and (with the scope) accuracy is an amazing combo. I hope our soldiers like it, they were consulted heavily when down selecting this rifle. Being able to target someone 600m and take them down in one shot is incredible
Xm7 weighs less than the m27
M-4 drawbacks. jams easy, difficult to clean,and can't kill at longer distances past around 400 yards.
Why does it feel like only an excuse for US military to spend money upgrading their small arms
Ever one knows speed beats armor not so much weight this gun is going to probably burn barrels up fast the 6.5 dont get mine rounds on a bolt gun before you start seeing barrel wear
Its basically the 6.5 creedmore and 6.5 grendel but in a platform that would require a whole new manufacturing chain. Which may or may not be bad depending on what weight/size rounds are used.
When I see programs like this it always amazes me people still believing money exist when it comes to what a nation has on their agenda. If we want new weapons build it. Wtf is a budget when it comes to security
Ah yes, everyone knows about how 6.5 Creed and 6.5 Grendel can achieve 3,000 f/s out of a 13in barrel with a suppressor.
Its way too big and to heavy to replace m4. Would be like come back to m14😂
It's pretty wild that Barrett tried convincing the US army to adopt their M468 (6.8x43mm SPC) 20 years ago, the platform was identical to that of your standard M4/M16, so Identical that all the military would have needed to do was purchase the upper receiver assembly and put it on their existing M4/M16 lower receivers and bam, you now have more punch and range than 5.56 while still being lighter than 7.62x51, used the same magazines and accessories already in the US inventory, and Barrett was already a contracted manufacture within the US military.
It's kinda weird they passed and then forgot about it, because I don't see much of a reason to switch to the XM7 (yes the XM7 fires a slightly spiceyer round [6.8×51mm vs 6.8x43mm] but still) when the M468 already exist and doesn't change literally anything for a soldier already intiment with an M4/M16, yes, the XM7 has the same manual of arms, but they are still going to need to be trained on disassembly and maintenance while also paying for a weapon platform that doesn't share any internal components with the existing M4/M16 parts.
Dunno, maybe I played too much Splinter cell, but, I really wish the M468 had become mainstream
6.8x43 does not have better range then 556 😂
Especially since both cartridges increase recoil and reduce the amount of ammunition carried by the soldiers...
There is more to the new rifle than just firing a "spicier" round, though the new round does matter considerably. 3,000 f/s out of a suppressed 13in barrel is not a simple ask.
Then there is the folding stock, which the M468 simply can't have, and the improvement to the gas system in the REC7 still only solved one issue, without adding any features.
Bottom line, a folding stock was mandatory, so anything operating with a buffer tube is out.
The issue with the 6.8spc was the SAMMI specing and Remington fumbling the bag hard. In order to get approved, they had to spec it at way lower velocities because their chamber dimensions were bad and caused way too much variance. We now have the SPC II chamber which fixes it and brings it to what it was intended to do, but all ammo is loaded to the old spec chamber pressures so unfortunately the only people getting the true 6.8 SPC as envisioned are people who handload it to the correct specs that it was supposed to be originally.
That 6.8 had a bullet shaped like a football. Not better down range performance.
Can understand the need for new rounds but what is impeding modifications to existing arsenal to accept new rounds. Find it hard to believe that the new rifle is not just a waste of precious funds that can better serve the national defense there should be transparency on the cost of modifications M-4
The M4 has just run out of potential. Other than making a hybrid case 6.8 SPC round, there's just no way to make an M4 perform to the level the US military wants to achieve.
If they make normal 6.8 with drum mag with 14 inch and muzzle break add to them in the squad 338 bullpup with 17 inch barrell that would help
@@CheapSushi it will be desgnated marksman roll works great not cqb hard hitting acuurate round that gives 5 times more power at 1 mile that 308
What a dumb idea
Really good news for those of who chose to join military in 2025 infantryman unit.
There is noting about penetrating Russian body armor on this video.
This gun has a very bad magazine feeding issue once the mag is inserted and a slight slap better
the M855A1 would penetrate russian body armor
6.8x51 isn't intermediate.
Every soldiers on earth required light weight firepower weapon to ensure for Lethal bite...
Probably should ask soldiers. Marines switched to the heavier M27, but feel it's worth it. The XM7 is heavier, yes. But it may be worth it, depends on the soldier
Vive les Usa humanitaires démocrates❤❤❤❤