Significantly, its not a bullpup. The cartridge seems to be what a .270/308 Ackley Improved would look like. The stainless steel base and 80,000 psi of the round are extraordinary, and I would imagine, expensive.
Expensive is mostly what this is. It brings nothing new to the table for what the entire program costs, and I'd imagine that introducing another round on top of the 8 or 9 different types of ammunition the military already uses is going to make logistics a bit tougher. Unless SIG produces 7.62x51mm conversions for the rifle as a redundancy, ramp up production of the .277 Fury round, and give the licensing and tooling to a number of other companies to produce more of them on top of that, I don't see it being used in any real capacity to justify the costs for another 10 years.
@@dave_riotsLake City is going to be mass producing this round very soon. There has been/is being a vast investment at the plant in new improved facilities.
@@dave_riotsThe weapon is part of a system, including everything from the rifle & mg and the fire control/optic, to tactics & doctrine. Units of the 101st which are currently training with & implementing these systems now, as well as 75th & other SOF units which helped with hands-on applications & weapons development, testing & identified needs, and largely developed tactics & doctrine specific to the system's applications, utilization & fielding, will tell you that, put together & utilized properly, it just isn't fair how much better of a system the NGSW program offers vs legacy front line & close combat infantry models utilizing M4/M249 5.56 systems. Also, Army already has production of 6.8 Common underway at one facility and are constructing another. With that, on top of Sig's production and any 3rd parties that'll inevitably produce 6.8/.277, capacity won't be an issue - certainly not for the Army, anyway - especially since the weapon system is going to be phased in at a rate which, by design, will not outpace ammunition capacities or parts availability. XM7 & XM250 are, indeed, convertible to 7.62x51 NATO, as well as 6.5 Creedmoor, with Sig offering the parts & furniture for units requesting one or both conversions. Several SOF units have already acquired parts for all 3 calibers, and have acquisition arrangements with multiple 3rd party groups for unique needs. The Marine Corps, SOCOM & JSOC (of course, as some SOF units have already acquired the system even made modifications according to their needs), and even a couple Air Force close combat units are also taking very serious looks & forays into the NGSW program as well.
It hasnt any more performance that a 762 which is better really and LMT 762 fits the bill with little muzzle climb on auto theres your rifle for all infantry men.
@@Baostaff2274 The whole purpose of the rifle is armor penetration so all the non training rounds should be AP. Once the situation goes from active combat to reconstruction patrols, the troops will be using M4s.
Given the amount of 5.56 and 7.62 in NATO stocks and the money in production plants making them I can't really see the 6.8mm being taken up across Europe anytime soon.
You can always “ just say that “.. I can’t see the 308 being taken up anywhere anytime soon , given the millions of 303 rounds and many millions of 303 rounds so soon after the war !. European culture of seeing stupid cheap - is what causes them to Start wars and lose wars.. ( British and France to start )( Germany and Japanese to lose , thank goodness)..
So to get the overall required length and ballistics, we adopted a significantly more complicated cartridge construction with insane barrel pressures as opposed to idk say, lengthening the barrel and adopting a bullpup platform? I mean at least it vaguely looks like an ar platform for whatever that is worth.
So increased range and penetration, at the cost of increased weight and reduced ammunition capacity (down to 140 rounds as a basic load from the 210 rounds you'd carry for an M4/M16). Basically the opposite from the tradeoff we made half a century ago when we switched to assault rifles from battle rifles. The difference now is that body armor makes penetration more important, and the optic for this rifle should make it possible to use the greater range. My remaining question is about the recoil. How controllable is it in full auto with the bigger round (fighting in close quarters, where full auto is useful, will still occur, even with an extended effective range)? We got a clip of a guy firing it in full auto in this video, and it looked pretty controllable. But he was firing from a supported position. How controllable is it when firing unsupported?
You light up that optic in Ukraine with laser you have become target #1, two most engagements there max 300 meters most occuring 100 meters or less. Multiple hits with 5.56 with AP ammo will do the same at close range to body armor.
@@danwilliams5867 I don't know most of the details about the optic. So I wasn't aware that it "lights up" in any sense. Can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you referring to the laser rangefinder? Do modern infantry carry around laser warning receivers? Personally I'd guess that you wouldn't need to use the laser rangefinder most of the time anyway. The round's velocity is high enough that I'm betting that keeping the range set at a battlesight distance would be good enough most of the time. I'm aware that, according to statistics gathered from WW1, WW2, and Korea, almost all infantry combat takes place at ranges of 300 meters or less. That figure might hold into the future. But I don't think it's necessarily safe to assume that the 300 meter figure will remain unchanged going forward. For one thing, every rifleman in WW1, WW2, and Korea was firing over unmagnified iron sights. With just the unaided Mk1 human eyeball it's pretty hard to see another human being at much beyond 300 meters (at 500 meters they're just a dot). So it's possible that nearly all infantry combat was taking place at 300 meters or less simply because no one could see each other at longer ranges anyway. With a scope on every rifle, that might change. We might start seeing infantry combat at longer ranges. Even so, I'm not entirely convinced that going up to 6.8x51mm is really an improvement for the rifle. Sure, it means more penetration and more range. But it also means more weight, more recoil, and less ammo. And, as you say, it is possible to defeat body armor with 5.56x45mm. Also, it remains entirely possible that it might not mean more range in reality (even with a scope on every rifle, 90% of infantry combat might still take place at 300 meters or less). But I think that the principle reason to switch rounds for the rifle is to maintain ammunition compatibility with the squad light machine gun. The thing to understand here is that the US Army believes that the basic squad level service rifle and the basic squad level light machine gun should both use the same ammunition. It makes logistics a bit easier if the squad level weapons use the same ammo. The trouble is that the ideal round for your rifle may not be the ideal round for your machine gun. So you have three options. You can choose the best round for your rifle, and accept that your machine gun won't have the optimal round (the choice we made with the current M4/M249 combo). You can choose the best round for your machine gun and accept that your rifle won't have the optimal round (what I think we're doing with the M7/M250 combo). Or you can use two different types of ammunition on the squad so that both your rifle and your machine gun have the best rounds they can have, and accept that your supply situation will be more complicated (basically what we were doing with the M16/M60 combo for much of the Cold War (I know that the M60 was a platoon level asset in the light infantry, but it was a squad level weapon in the mech infantry)). Basically I think the M7 is going with 6.8x51mm for the same reason that the M249 used with 5.56x45mm. To maintain ammunition compatibility with the other primary squad weapon. Remember that the complete story here is not that the M4 is being replaced by the M7. It's that the M4/M249 combo is being replaced by the M7/M250 combo. I may not be entirely convinced that the M7 is really a step up from the M4. But the M250 is absolutely an improvement over the M249! It's lighter, more accurate, has more penetration (which isn't just about body armor, we're also talking about barrier penetration here (and being able to defeat armor with fewer hits is worth something)), a longer effective range (though, as we've established, just how useful a longer effective range will be remains to be seen), and it has no felt recoil after the first round (the recoil of a long burst from the M250 just feels like a continuous pressure on your shoulder, so you don't feel the recoil of individual rounds at all). We won't know for sure until the new weapons are tested in battle (so hopefully we'll never know for sure). But, however you feel about the M7 compared to the M4, I think that the M7/M250 combo is going to be a real improvement in infantry firepower over the M4/M249 combo.
@@GarethThompson-u1w well since they don't like what I said4 paragraphs, here is highlights. Yes people look for infrared targeting. That means incoming artillery, missles ATGMS etc. You are target 1. No scope wont make Pvt Snuffy any better shot nor will distance increase. This ammo is stupid, you want AP penetration use M995. Full auto in rifle wont work. any better than M14 did. We have billions of rounds forward loaded that would have to be replaced like yesterday to make this work
@@danwilliams5867 Did you include a link in your original 4 paragraphs? I think the youtube bots automatically delete comments that contain links (they probably assume that they link to malware). Are you saying that the optic actively emits light in the near-infrared spectrum (remember that I said I don't know most of the details about the optic)? Is it emitting that light constantly, or only when conducting certain actions (such as when lasing a target)? If it is constantly emitting infrared light (specifically near-infrared, which can be picked up by absolutely everyone with a set of NVGs (everything warm emits in the deep-infrared, so the soldier operating the rifle is already emitting in the deep-infrared anyway)), then that's a real problem. It might be a more manageable problem if it's only emitting when conducting certain actions (it might be a good idea for most soldiers to avoid using the laser rangefinder most of the time). The success of the ACOG proves that scopes will make PVT Snuffy more accurate. It won't get him up to 'one shot, one kill'. But that's an unachievable standard under realistic conditions anyway. But rifle fire with ACOGs was definitely more accurate than rifle fire without ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree that this may not be the best round for the rifle. But, again, I'm pretty sure the ammo was selected for the machine gun, not the rifle. I think the rifle is using the ammo to maintain ammunition compatibility with the machine gun. Full auto is important, and the larger round certainly means that the rifle won't be as controllable as the M4. But from what I've heard it is definitely much more controllable than the M14. That's not a high bar though, since even most contemporary battle rifles were more controllable in full auto than the M14. So I'm still waiting to hear more about how controllable this rifle is in full auto.
@@GarethThompson-u1w This is typical US way of lets use tech instead of training. Let's look at Pvt Snuffy, either US Army or USMC. Like the majority of his generation , Gen Z or Millenials he has never fired a weapon in his life until he got to basic training. (note I used to do Pooley training with USMC where we taught some basics like sight picture, breathing. trigger control etc. This made a difference as 90% of pooleys who received this training were able to pass USMC rifle quals first time vs 75% who didn't) Now Pvt Snuffy in US Army is shooting at pop up targets where even today all they have to do to qualify is hit 23 out of 40 targets. 57% hit rate on a target that is roughly 18inches wide by 36 inches tall. Now with ACOG , a CQB modifier, hits under 200 meters increased due to ability to snap shot. On US Army qual course the max range is 300 meters. They use standing unsupported, prone unsupported, standing supported, kneeling unsupported. Whoopee, in NRA HP service rifle competition I saw 15 year old females knock the center out of the bull with iron sights at 200 yards standing with no support, 3 inch bulleseye. Beyond 200 weird things start to happen. Windage becomes a problem even with uber XM157 scope. Now you can have no wind by you yet have a 10 mph wind by target that can and will blow bullet off target. The mistakes made at 200 meters or less can maybe keep a bullet on target, maybe. You have wrong trigger control you can jerk the round off even US Army targets. Now considering normal ball round has accuracy of 3 MOA at 100 yards. This doubles for every 100 yards you go. So with normal ball by the time you hit 300 yards you are looking at about 12 inch circle. Now this is with a locked down rifle in a vise, not human shooter. So at 600 yards with ball ammo you are looking at a maybe 60 inch at best circle? (This is why snipers use match grade ammo and so do HP rifle competitors) Now throw in a 1inch error at 100 yards with even match grade ammo 1 MOA. Now at 200 it's 2 inches off, 300 4inches off, 400 8 inches off 500 16 inches off and so on. You cannot tech your way out of this, it wont work. This is a knee jerk response to Taliban taking 600 meter shots with 100 year old Mosins (91/30) and making hits. Not knowing that in this culture marksmanship is highly prized and they practice since they were young and hunt at far distance
-> A very well RE-desibned AR type rifle , FINALLY ditching the Direct Impingement for a good, durable, CLEAN, COOLER short stroke piston system, All teh AR control ergonomics plus a side charging handle in addition to the typical AR charging handle. -> SIG'S printed suppressor baffle system is genius and extremely durable. ->The REAL revolution is the M157bsight system by VORTEX. With atmospheric and positional sensors and laser rangefinder working through a ballistic engine the "average infantryman" can get 80% (!!) hit probability to 7000 meters! So theammo is heavier than 5.56 but LESS ammo is needed for hits. I WANT ONE! I'd even sell ny gen.1 AUG to get this setup.
You light up a laser rangefinder in Ukraine you have just elevated yourself to target #1. The world will come crashing down on you. The snipers learned this, no infrared rangefinders, that's a huge no. Also unless you are in a desert you wont have 700 meter shots. Add the normal smoke or artillery supplied smoke you wont see spit. Get into wooded or urban, lucky to see 150-200 meters. Thats just the beginning, go to some other reviews on this abomination and you can slam the mag in hard enough to jam the rifle.
its funny. so they come up with a good long range , accurate and with the right ammo (the 1 in 7 barrel twist was capable of propelling larger bullets) M16a2. The M16a2 in the right hands could make reliable 600 meter hits. They piss on it by shortening the barrel creating a weaker gun in the M4 with less accuracy. Turning a high velocity tack driver into a submachine gun. which by the way the original intention was to push the limits of the m16a2 - a4 platforms by introducting 77 grain bullets.At extreme range the 77 grain bullet had significant BC advantage which allowed it to inch closer and closer to bigger cartridges ability at extended range. with black tip the m16a2 could out penetrate the 7.62x51 ap because of higher velocity and small bullet diameter against steel plate. I have nothing against a more powerful round but if they are gonna keep using short barrels whats the use? Which the .30 caliber still has greater momentum which helps it breaking up barriers better than the 6.8. They have to resort to using a steel alloy headcase to get teh desired velocity out of a short barrel. It seems a headache is sure to come of that. Considering that brass case head ammo is used for training. I can see a situation down the road in a war training ammo being sent to frontline units instead of the alloy case head ammo.
Best comment here. I came up with 20' barrels and even break out the A1 and Tell the kids" This is the Is length of barrel That the rifle was made for look what it can do. Unfortunately everybody's got to be Tactical nowadays and can't hit anything on iron sights. Unfortunately looks like a lot of A2's got sent to mexico And then sent to drug cartels, They'll be telling the civilians they came from US gun shops to further the disarmament narrative
The AR is not an assault weapon. Soldiers aren't familiar with AR style platforms. They are familiar with the M16/M4 platform. Wow who is this guy? Toxic gases and melanoma on the face. Who wrote these talking points! I really think a mistake was made with this weapons system. It's way to expensive and the ammo is way to hot for barrel longevity. 80,000 psi is going to smoke a barrel in no time. How long can the suppressor hold up at. 80,000 psi at the chamber. What is the uncorking pressure with a 13.5" barrel. The sighting/scope system is crazy expensive. I bet they are at least $3000 a pop just for the scope. If this weapon has an under $10,000 total cost for rifle, suppressor, and aiming device I would be surprised. The ammo has to be double the cost of standard ammo. This is just insane.
The ar is exactly the same in terms of function as compared to the m4/m16 the only difference is the third pin in the m16/m4 lower receiver for the auto seer. Everything else in principle is exactly the same. And yes, it’s a well known fact that when you put a suppressor on an ar type rifle that more gas is blown back into the action and thus into the shooters face. It causes you to tear up and lose focus on the target. The reduced gas to the face is a legit selling point for the rifle especially when you consider how many soldiers currently use ar type rifles with suppressors. The gun has the same barrel life as the mk18 at 10k rounds. However, the barrel is easier to replace without requiring specialized tools beyond a torque wrench as compared to the ar 15 which requires a special tool to remove the barrel nut. Your criticism on cost of the system and ammunition is valid. However, if the army is able to make it work logistically and produce the ammo in large quantities, it wouldn’t be surprising if the cost of ammunition comes down in line with the price of 7.62x51.
@@BrandonMeyer1641 Well you don't have gas in the face if you don't have a suppressor on the weapon. They are making flow through suppressors now that do mitigate substantially the gases blowing back into the receiver if they insist a suppressor is necessary. I don't see how this ammo can ever be as cheap as 5.56 or even 7.62 no matter how much they produce. They would be better off dropping the two piece case and just making normal brass case. I would have to it to believe with full power 80,000psi loads the barrels lasting 10,000 round when a hunting rifle barrel at that pressure would lose it's accuracy before 1,000 rounds.
@@longbow6245 the sig suppressor is flow through but it’s also the fact that it’s short stroke piston instead of di that’s keeping gasses out of the face. They are seen as something that is necessary moving forward because they make it harder for the enemy to locate where they are being shot from due to the lower sound and flash signature. Barrel life depends on more than just pressure. It also has to do with how the barrel is made and the materials used. It also depends on what the acceptable amount of accuracy loss is before the barrel has reached end of life.
Not impressed with the XM7 at all. The gun is bulky and heavy with the do it all SIG fury cartridge not the direction to go with the two piece over pressure cartridge detrimental to the longevity of the rifle. The side charging handle is also a gimmick. They didn't have to try to reinvent the wheel just evolve it a bit more. I think SIG got a bit cocky after they won the Modular Handgun competition and the new less than stellar firearms are the result. 😎🇦🇺
Significantly, its not a bullpup. The cartridge seems to be what a .270/308 Ackley Improved would look like. The stainless steel base and 80,000 psi of the round are extraordinary, and I would imagine, expensive.
Expensive is mostly what this is. It brings nothing new to the table for what the entire program costs, and I'd imagine that introducing another round on top of the 8 or 9 different types of ammunition the military already uses is going to make logistics a bit tougher.
Unless SIG produces 7.62x51mm conversions for the rifle as a redundancy, ramp up production of the .277 Fury round, and give the licensing and tooling to a number of other companies to produce more of them on top of that, I don't see it being used in any real capacity to justify the costs for another 10 years.
@@dave_riotsLake City is going to be mass producing this round very soon. There has been/is being a vast investment at the plant in new improved facilities.
@@dave_riotsThe US army is building a whole factory to produce 6.8x51mm ammunition on top of the Sig ammunition production.
@@dave_riotsThe weapon is part of a system, including everything from the rifle & mg and the fire control/optic, to tactics & doctrine. Units of the 101st which are currently training with & implementing these systems now, as well as 75th & other SOF units which helped with hands-on applications & weapons development, testing & identified needs, and largely developed tactics & doctrine specific to the system's applications, utilization & fielding, will tell you that, put together & utilized properly, it just isn't fair how much better of a system the NGSW program offers vs legacy front line & close combat infantry models utilizing M4/M249 5.56 systems.
Also, Army already has production of 6.8 Common underway at one facility and are constructing another. With that, on top of Sig's production and any 3rd parties that'll inevitably produce 6.8/.277, capacity won't be an issue - certainly not for the Army, anyway - especially since the weapon system is going to be phased in at a rate which, by design, will not outpace ammunition capacities or parts availability.
XM7 & XM250 are, indeed, convertible to 7.62x51 NATO, as well as 6.5 Creedmoor, with Sig offering the parts & furniture for units requesting one or both conversions. Several SOF units have already acquired parts for all 3 calibers, and have acquisition arrangements with multiple 3rd party groups for unique needs.
The Marine Corps, SOCOM & JSOC (of course, as some SOF units have already acquired the system even made modifications according to their needs), and even a couple Air Force close combat units are also taking very serious looks & forays into the NGSW program as well.
@@dave_riotsthey don’t care they have money to spend and they’re going to use it to keep their corporate buddies rich
"We wanna keep things simple for the infantryman."
Thanks
It’s the little things that make grunts happy.
It hasnt any more performance that a 762 which is better really and LMT 762 fits the bill with little muzzle climb on auto theres your rifle for all infantry men.
Sweet! I like these ROE's, "we can engage them before they become a threat"
Caught that too, good to know lol
Sales pitch hyperbole.
So, can this caliber penetrate LEVEL III+?
It can even penetrate level 4 armors
@@christianmutaba Only with AP rounds
@@Baostaff2274 The whole purpose of the rifle is armor penetration so all the non training rounds should be AP. Once the situation goes from active combat to reconstruction patrols, the troops will be using M4s.
This should have been a bulpup with longer barrel.
Given the amount of 5.56 and 7.62 in NATO stocks and the money in production plants making them I can't really see the 6.8mm being taken up across Europe anytime soon.
You can always “ just say that “.. I can’t see the 308 being taken up anywhere anytime soon , given the millions of 303 rounds and many millions of 303 rounds so soon after the war !. European culture of seeing stupid cheap - is what causes them to Start wars and lose wars.. ( British and France to start )( Germany and Japanese to lose , thank goodness)..
So to get the overall required length and ballistics, we adopted a significantly more complicated cartridge construction with insane barrel pressures as opposed to idk say, lengthening the barrel and adopting a bullpup platform? I mean at least it vaguely looks like an ar platform for whatever that is worth.
So increased range and penetration, at the cost of increased weight and reduced ammunition capacity (down to 140 rounds as a basic load from the 210 rounds you'd carry for an M4/M16). Basically the opposite from the tradeoff we made half a century ago when we switched to assault rifles from battle rifles. The difference now is that body armor makes penetration more important, and the optic for this rifle should make it possible to use the greater range. My remaining question is about the recoil. How controllable is it in full auto with the bigger round (fighting in close quarters, where full auto is useful, will still occur, even with an extended effective range)? We got a clip of a guy firing it in full auto in this video, and it looked pretty controllable. But he was firing from a supported position. How controllable is it when firing unsupported?
You light up that optic in Ukraine with laser you have become target #1, two most engagements there max 300 meters most occuring 100 meters or less. Multiple hits with 5.56 with AP ammo will do the same at close range to body armor.
@@danwilliams5867 I don't know most of the details about the optic. So I wasn't aware that it "lights up" in any sense. Can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you referring to the laser rangefinder? Do modern infantry carry around laser warning receivers? Personally I'd guess that you wouldn't need to use the laser rangefinder most of the time anyway. The round's velocity is high enough that I'm betting that keeping the range set at a battlesight distance would be good enough most of the time.
I'm aware that, according to statistics gathered from WW1, WW2, and Korea, almost all infantry combat takes place at ranges of 300 meters or less. That figure might hold into the future. But I don't think it's necessarily safe to assume that the 300 meter figure will remain unchanged going forward. For one thing, every rifleman in WW1, WW2, and Korea was firing over unmagnified iron sights. With just the unaided Mk1 human eyeball it's pretty hard to see another human being at much beyond 300 meters (at 500 meters they're just a dot). So it's possible that nearly all infantry combat was taking place at 300 meters or less simply because no one could see each other at longer ranges anyway. With a scope on every rifle, that might change. We might start seeing infantry combat at longer ranges.
Even so, I'm not entirely convinced that going up to 6.8x51mm is really an improvement for the rifle. Sure, it means more penetration and more range. But it also means more weight, more recoil, and less ammo. And, as you say, it is possible to defeat body armor with 5.56x45mm. Also, it remains entirely possible that it might not mean more range in reality (even with a scope on every rifle, 90% of infantry combat might still take place at 300 meters or less). But I think that the principle reason to switch rounds for the rifle is to maintain ammunition compatibility with the squad light machine gun.
The thing to understand here is that the US Army believes that the basic squad level service rifle and the basic squad level light machine gun should both use the same ammunition. It makes logistics a bit easier if the squad level weapons use the same ammo. The trouble is that the ideal round for your rifle may not be the ideal round for your machine gun. So you have three options. You can choose the best round for your rifle, and accept that your machine gun won't have the optimal round (the choice we made with the current M4/M249 combo). You can choose the best round for your machine gun and accept that your rifle won't have the optimal round (what I think we're doing with the M7/M250 combo). Or you can use two different types of ammunition on the squad so that both your rifle and your machine gun have the best rounds they can have, and accept that your supply situation will be more complicated (basically what we were doing with the M16/M60 combo for much of the Cold War (I know that the M60 was a platoon level asset in the light infantry, but it was a squad level weapon in the mech infantry)).
Basically I think the M7 is going with 6.8x51mm for the same reason that the M249 used with 5.56x45mm. To maintain ammunition compatibility with the other primary squad weapon. Remember that the complete story here is not that the M4 is being replaced by the M7. It's that the M4/M249 combo is being replaced by the M7/M250 combo. I may not be entirely convinced that the M7 is really a step up from the M4. But the M250 is absolutely an improvement over the M249! It's lighter, more accurate, has more penetration (which isn't just about body armor, we're also talking about barrier penetration here (and being able to defeat armor with fewer hits is worth something)), a longer effective range (though, as we've established, just how useful a longer effective range will be remains to be seen), and it has no felt recoil after the first round (the recoil of a long burst from the M250 just feels like a continuous pressure on your shoulder, so you don't feel the recoil of individual rounds at all). We won't know for sure until the new weapons are tested in battle (so hopefully we'll never know for sure). But, however you feel about the M7 compared to the M4, I think that the M7/M250 combo is going to be a real improvement in infantry firepower over the M4/M249 combo.
@@GarethThompson-u1w well since they don't like what I said4 paragraphs, here is highlights. Yes people look for infrared targeting. That means incoming artillery, missles ATGMS etc. You are target 1. No scope wont make Pvt Snuffy any better shot nor will distance increase. This ammo is stupid, you want AP penetration use M995. Full auto in rifle wont work. any better than M14 did. We have billions of rounds forward loaded that would have to be replaced like yesterday to make this work
@@danwilliams5867 Did you include a link in your original 4 paragraphs? I think the youtube bots automatically delete comments that contain links (they probably assume that they link to malware).
Are you saying that the optic actively emits light in the near-infrared spectrum (remember that I said I don't know most of the details about the optic)? Is it emitting that light constantly, or only when conducting certain actions (such as when lasing a target)? If it is constantly emitting infrared light (specifically near-infrared, which can be picked up by absolutely everyone with a set of NVGs (everything warm emits in the deep-infrared, so the soldier operating the rifle is already emitting in the deep-infrared anyway)), then that's a real problem. It might be a more manageable problem if it's only emitting when conducting certain actions (it might be a good idea for most soldiers to avoid using the laser rangefinder most of the time).
The success of the ACOG proves that scopes will make PVT Snuffy more accurate. It won't get him up to 'one shot, one kill'. But that's an unachievable standard under realistic conditions anyway. But rifle fire with ACOGs was definitely more accurate than rifle fire without ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I agree that this may not be the best round for the rifle. But, again, I'm pretty sure the ammo was selected for the machine gun, not the rifle. I think the rifle is using the ammo to maintain ammunition compatibility with the machine gun. Full auto is important, and the larger round certainly means that the rifle won't be as controllable as the M4. But from what I've heard it is definitely much more controllable than the M14. That's not a high bar though, since even most contemporary battle rifles were more controllable in full auto than the M14. So I'm still waiting to hear more about how controllable this rifle is in full auto.
@@GarethThompson-u1w This is typical US way of lets use tech instead of training. Let's look at Pvt Snuffy, either US Army or USMC.
Like the majority of his generation , Gen Z or Millenials he has never fired a weapon in his life until he got to basic training. (note I used to do Pooley training with USMC where we taught some basics like sight picture, breathing. trigger control etc. This made a difference as 90% of pooleys who received this training were able to pass USMC rifle quals first time vs 75% who didn't) Now Pvt Snuffy in US Army is shooting at pop up targets where even today all they have to do to qualify is hit 23 out of 40 targets. 57% hit rate on a target that is roughly 18inches wide by 36 inches tall. Now with ACOG , a CQB modifier, hits under 200 meters increased due to ability to snap shot. On US Army qual course the max range is 300 meters. They use standing unsupported, prone unsupported, standing supported, kneeling unsupported. Whoopee, in NRA HP service rifle competition I saw 15 year old females knock the center out of the bull with iron sights at 200 yards standing with no support, 3 inch bulleseye. Beyond 200 weird things start to happen. Windage becomes a problem even with uber XM157 scope. Now you can have no wind by you yet have a 10 mph wind by target that can and will blow bullet off target.
The mistakes made at 200 meters or less can maybe keep a bullet on target, maybe. You have wrong trigger control you can jerk the round off even US Army targets. Now considering normal ball round has accuracy of 3 MOA at 100 yards. This doubles for every 100 yards you go. So with normal ball by the time you hit 300 yards you are looking at about 12 inch circle. Now this is with a locked down rifle in a vise, not human shooter. So at 600 yards with ball ammo you are looking at a maybe 60 inch at best circle? (This is why snipers use match grade ammo and so do HP rifle competitors) Now throw in a 1inch error at 100 yards with even match grade ammo 1 MOA. Now at 200 it's 2 inches off, 300 4inches off, 400 8 inches off 500 16 inches off and so on.
You cannot tech your way out of this, it wont work. This is a knee jerk response to Taliban taking 600 meter shots with 100 year old Mosins (91/30) and making hits. Not knowing that in this culture marksmanship is highly prized and they practice since they were young and hunt at far distance
-> A very well RE-desibned AR type rifle , FINALLY ditching the Direct Impingement for a good, durable, CLEAN, COOLER short stroke piston system, All teh AR control ergonomics plus a side charging handle in addition to the typical AR charging handle.
-> SIG'S printed suppressor baffle system is genius and extremely durable.
->The REAL revolution is the M157bsight system by VORTEX. With atmospheric and positional sensors and laser rangefinder working through a ballistic engine the "average infantryman" can get 80% (!!) hit probability to 7000 meters! So theammo is heavier than 5.56 but LESS ammo is needed for hits. I WANT ONE! I'd even sell ny gen.1 AUG to get this setup.
You light up a laser rangefinder in Ukraine you have just elevated yourself to target #1. The world will come crashing down on you. The snipers learned this, no infrared rangefinders, that's a huge no. Also unless you are in a desert you wont have 700 meter shots. Add the normal smoke or artillery supplied smoke you wont see spit. Get into wooded or urban, lucky to see 150-200 meters. Thats just the beginning, go to some other reviews on this abomination and you can slam the mag in hard enough to jam the rifle.
Sold my 6.8 upper years ago, just to expensive to shoot. .308 is where it's at, this makes no sense!
its funny. so they come up with a good long range , accurate and with the right ammo (the 1 in 7 barrel twist was capable of propelling larger bullets) M16a2. The M16a2 in the right hands could make reliable 600 meter hits.
They piss on it by shortening the barrel creating a weaker gun in the M4 with less accuracy. Turning a high velocity tack driver into a submachine gun.
which by the way the original intention was to push the limits of the m16a2 - a4 platforms by introducting 77 grain bullets.At extreme range the 77 grain bullet had significant BC advantage which allowed it to inch closer and closer to bigger cartridges ability at extended range. with black tip the m16a2 could out penetrate the 7.62x51 ap because of higher velocity and small bullet diameter against steel plate.
I have nothing against a more powerful round but if they are gonna keep using short barrels whats the use? Which the .30 caliber still has greater momentum which helps it breaking up barriers better than the 6.8. They have to resort to using a steel alloy headcase to get teh desired velocity out of a short barrel. It seems a headache is sure to come of that. Considering that brass case head ammo is used for training. I can see a situation down the road in a war training ammo being sent to frontline units instead of the alloy case head ammo.
Best comment here. I came up with 20' barrels and even break out the A1 and Tell the kids" This is the Is length of barrel That the rifle was made for look what it can do. Unfortunately everybody's got to be Tactical nowadays and can't hit anything on iron sights. Unfortunately looks like a lot of A2's got sent to mexico And then sent to drug cartels, They'll be telling the civilians they came from US gun shops to further the disarmament narrative
Notice how they are piston driven?
Short-stroke piston systems have less inherent gas blowback when using a suppressor on the rifle.
Changed the grip angle and the buttsock
Only a 20 mag vs a 30? and overall carry is 170 rounds vs 240, dont like that.
We've already got a replacement for the M4 & M16 the HK416 & HK417.
They are not replacements. They are basically the same weapon.
Yeah I don’t get living the heavier HK that much… slight reliability improvement?
DI vs Piston but super similar
Printer ink cartridge economics on this gun.
Thats 5 years old video
I still don't understand the point of having two charging handles.
Same. I suspect they are going to pick one in later iterations. It will bring down the weight of the rifle.
Technical review in 4 minutes?
The AR is not an assault weapon. Soldiers aren't familiar with AR style platforms. They are familiar with the M16/M4 platform. Wow who is this guy? Toxic gases and melanoma on the face. Who wrote these talking points! I really think a mistake was made with this weapons system. It's way to expensive and the ammo is way to hot for barrel longevity. 80,000 psi is going to smoke a barrel in no time. How long can the suppressor hold up at. 80,000 psi at the chamber. What is the uncorking pressure with a 13.5" barrel. The sighting/scope system is crazy expensive. I bet they are at least $3000 a pop just for the scope. If this weapon has an under $10,000 total cost for rifle, suppressor, and aiming device I would be surprised. The ammo has to be double the cost of standard ammo. This is just insane.
The ar is exactly the same in terms of function as compared to the m4/m16 the only difference is the third pin in the m16/m4 lower receiver for the auto seer. Everything else in principle is exactly the same. And yes, it’s a well known fact that when you put a suppressor on an ar type rifle that more gas is blown back into the action and thus into the shooters face. It causes you to tear up and lose focus on the target. The reduced gas to the face is a legit selling point for the rifle especially when you consider how many soldiers currently use ar type rifles with suppressors. The gun has the same barrel life as the mk18 at 10k rounds. However, the barrel is easier to replace without requiring specialized tools beyond a torque wrench as compared to the ar 15 which requires a special tool to remove the barrel nut. Your criticism on cost of the system and ammunition is valid. However, if the army is able to make it work logistically and produce the ammo in large quantities, it wouldn’t be surprising if the cost of ammunition comes down in line with the price of 7.62x51.
@@BrandonMeyer1641 Well you don't have gas in the face if you don't have a suppressor on the weapon. They are making flow through suppressors now that do mitigate substantially the gases blowing back into the receiver if they insist a suppressor is necessary. I don't see how this ammo can ever be as cheap as 5.56 or even 7.62 no matter how much they produce. They would be better off dropping the two piece case and just making normal brass case. I would have to it to believe with full power 80,000psi loads the barrels lasting 10,000 round when a hunting rifle barrel at that pressure would lose it's accuracy before 1,000 rounds.
@@longbow6245 the sig suppressor is flow through but it’s also the fact that it’s short stroke piston instead of di that’s keeping gasses out of the face. They are seen as something that is necessary moving forward because they make it harder for the enemy to locate where they are being shot from due to the lower sound and flash signature. Barrel life depends on more than just pressure. It also has to do with how the barrel is made and the materials used. It also depends on what the acceptable amount of accuracy loss is before the barrel has reached end of life.
@@BrandonMeyer1641the ar15 still is not an assault rifle
As I understand it, the concern is velocity down the barrel, not the pressure that will "smoke a barrel."
ผมชอบคับ
form factor on this is terrible
Not impressed with the XM7 at all.
The gun is bulky and heavy with the do it all SIG fury cartridge not the direction to go with the two piece over pressure cartridge detrimental to the longevity of the rifle. The side charging handle is also a gimmick.
They didn't have to try to reinvent the wheel just evolve it a bit more.
I think SIG got a bit cocky after they won the Modular Handgun competition and the new less than stellar firearms are the result.
😎🇦🇺
You sound like a corporate sabotauer from rival comp.
80K psi cartridge says your wrong.