@@Motoboo_Marine If you look at the request the army put out, it was a 6.8mm 90 grain bullet going 3,000 FPS through a compact rifle with a suppressor and a gee whiz computer optic. They really didn't say much more than that. True Velocity didn't pass trials and there were other problems with the Textron submission. There were only 3 entrants in the program because the Army had baked so many other applicants in the past, and their requirements were so onerous. They wanted something like 80,000 PSI in a carbine. It had to be overbuilt, and the plastic munitions just didn't work very well. That left SIG with a conventional rifle with familiar ergonomics based around their proven Sig Spear platform. It was an easy choice for Big Army. I'd argue that their requirements were pretty dumb, and all three applicants tried to meet it, only one succeeded, Sig. Thus, you have this thing. It probably won't last, either, and/or will be procured in limited quantities like the FN SCAR.
I agree that this will end up a as a pretty good dmr but then they should have adopted the whole MCX platform to have the ability to use different features and calibers set for different mission objectives. Like the 5.56 for the rifleman, 300 blk out for subsonic shhhh-suppressor sneeky missions and the big boy spear heavy for dmr and heavy hitters of longer range.
@@TheMarvin784 Funny enough, I saw M-7 cleaning kits at the military uniform store we have on base. Maybe they are going full send after all...We haven't really heard anything about it but why make M7 kits when its still an xm7? I'll get pictures when I go back there next time.
Fully kited this rifle weights close to 13lbs with a loaded mag .Everyone who has ever picked mine up at the range is surprised by the weight, making it awkward to shoot from the standing position. Im 6'3 230 and can't imagine humping it around all day with a full load out. Not sure what Uncle Sam was thinking on this one.
Man being all kitted up and packing your ruck in top with even a M4 is rough. I don't even want to think about packing this thing, and I've owned one for a brief second. Bought it while on deployment, heard about the magazine issues, got home tested it on mine, realized how heavy the MFer was(compared to my scar 17 even), and sold it. I didnt even bother to shoot it.
I agree with Chris' assessment of this weapon and program overall. Having worked on the NGSW program. I can say a few things; one, all the submissions used the same u.s. Gov't designed solid copper 130gr bullets. The performance envelope for this bullet necessitated between 75k & 85k psi for almost all the submissions. All that said, having been around both the Sig rifle and ammo, there's no way they're getting the claimed durability or longevity out of these rifles. I suspect these will be on a limited issue type schedule. I think the 5.56 and M4(& M4 type) will hang around for quite some time.
Chris: "I can't see why the U.S. government would pay that kind of money for this." Me: "It's not their money." Government: "It's to save the children."
@@thetest8777 i used to like them untill i bought their product, was part of their experimental and testing, and they offered no help or product support other than " buy more of our products to try and fix the problem"
I totally agree with Chris opinions on this. Looks to me this thing was chosen by logistics guys, that think there is such a thing as a single bullet design that can do it all, short and long ranges. That is great for the logistics guys, but bad to the soldier in the front line, that have to deal with a sub-optimal weapon because guys in the back want their work to be easier.
This really makes no sense from a logistics perspective. This is twice the weight of 5.56 NATO for a dubious, in fact, nearly nonexistent gain, increases the number of issued cartridge types as now we have 5.56 NATO, .277 Sig Fury, 7.62 NATO all at the same time. Remember, only the Close Combat Force is getting the XM7 and XM250. The rest of the Army and the rest of the entire military that isn't adopting this will still be using 5.56. It also, as of this current time, does not even intend to replace the M240 and 7.62 NATO, despite the size and capability overlap being nearly perfect. This is just a really capable 7.62 NATO sized cartridge, same weight within a few % per cartridge, more capability, similar OAL.
I think the biggest problem with this design is actually logistics. There is no parts compatibility with the M4, no cartridge compatibility with the M249 or the 240B, let alone the M4. On top of that, it's a completely non-NATO cartridge not used by anyone else. On top of this, you have one proprietary design from one manufacturer for both the cartridge and the rifle, both likely patented. Oh, and it's expensive as hell compared to an M4A1 from FN or Colt. You can also buy dimestore parts for an M4A1 from any COTS reseller and same with 5.56 NATO. It isn't even planned to be issued force-wide, and I don't think there is any plan to replace the M4 with this rifle. They are going to leave the M4. I doubt anyone in logistics had a damn thing to say about this because they were run over roughshod. Your analysis seems completely off the mark based on the above. What this really came down to was a military procurement program to do to things they have wanted to do for decades - increase "hit probability" through the use of a computer assisted optic, and increase "lethality" through a higher powered cartridge. The US Army determined long ago that the ideal caliber for lethality is somewhere between 6.5 and 7 mm, and they decided on 6.8mm as being the best blend. However, they also wanted it to run at 3,000 FPS for the best blend of external ballistics (trajectory and penetration). Hence the NGSW was based around nothing more than a request to develop a cartridge, weapon system, and optic that could handle the pressure of such a powerful load in a compact package to be comparable in dimensions to the M4, with a powered rail to mount the computerized optic.
@@armorer94 This was designed to please Mark Milley and others who thought we lost overmatch to magical 1800 meter accurate PKMs and SVDs in Afghanistan, who somehow don't comprehend what "combined arms" or "crew served weapons" are. Not "everyone", though I can see why you might think that
I think your analysis of the M7 infantry rifle is spot on. A huge waste of money on a heavy expensive rifle that was never needed. As a DMR it's great but for an infantry rifle a step backward 60 years.
@@hannibalbarca2939 That's optimistic, I'd be surprised if the average soldier shoots more than 60 rounds a year. It's basically annual zero (18 rounds max, preferably less), plus the actual qualification (40 rounds). But then again, this is only being issued to infantry, and I would hope they shoot more than the average soldier in the motor pool.
@@tedhodge4830Former infantry here. What you describe is pretty much if from a fundamental marksmanship angle. There are field problems in which a culminating live fire may see a soldier fire 1-3 mags (with more than that being very rare in my experience) and that’s only if there’s actually that much going around. Army ammunition allocation and logistics were always a head scratcher to me. One of my first field problems with my first unit, I was issued a saw and 1200 rnds in 200rnd boxes we called “porkchops”. The rest of my teammates got 10 rounds for their M4s each. I was not allowed to split my ammo with peers are even share the weight with them and promptly overheated on the assault attempting to keep up with teammates who were comparative sprinting jack rabbits. Back from the tangent, in those final live fires, the objective was almost never practical fundamental marksmanship. So you’re more right than you know.
@@othernamesweretaken1871 That's interesting feedback, and worth a read for anyone. Did you end up dumping those rounds during the live fire exercise, or they were just training you to be a packhorse for combat? Just to clarify, you carried 6 200 round boxes on your person during these live fire exercises? I'm also curious about how frequently you had these live fire exercises. Did you shoot at point or popup targets, or was it entirely simulated?
Can someone tell my why they wanted a “modular handgun system” that can change back straps for the smaller statured females but then adopts a heavy ass rifle for those same females?
The assault rifle concept has been vindicated in modern, peer/near-peer conflict in Ukraine. Infantry aren't getting in long range rifle duels. Infantry aren't squaring up to each other, shooting each other center-mass, and deciding to call it a day if it doesn't penetrate after 2-3 rounds. The primary killer has been, and still is, artillery and heavy weapons. Rifles are used when infantry are at close range, at which point intermediate rounds are more appropriate.
I believe the XM-7 is an end around to put some version of the Spear LT into military service. You can't justify replacing an M4 with a piston 5.56 gun. But it would be much easier to "compliment" the XM-7 with a lighter weight and higher capacity version of the already fielded rifle. And you could just call it the XM-5.
This 200% my thoughts as well. I think they set it up this way on purpose. In that case, the Spear heavy and the Spear LT would be a perfect pairing. The crazy Vortex optic may accompany the M-7 in that DMR role on that specific basis. I never thought that an optic that complex makes sense for every soldier. The Spear LT showing up on the scene so soon after the M-7… it’s pretty obvious to me that the whole idea was baked in from the beginning. So no fretting, the real replacement of the M-4 will be the Spear LT in 5.56.
The first video I saw of this rifle was by Task & Purpose. The recoil in Full auto looked ridiculous. Every video of full auto since then has looked totally different, somewhat tame. I've always wondered if this was bc Sig just quit letting anybody shoot the full power, military ammo after that first video showed how uncontrollable it looked.
The brass cased load is actually very comparable to off the shelf .308, with very slightly better ballistics. This rifle is in standard .308 Winchester, so it's not even the right caliber. Only the military and SIG has the real .277 Fury with the steel base.
@@armorer94 I'm going to quote my drill sergeant. You don't use full auto unless your fob is being overrun or something. I think full auto is primarily for burning up ammunition for shits and giggles at the range. In combat, that's what the SAW is for. Total red herring IMHO. Also, it's funny that no one ever mentions the M14 USAIB model with a pistol grip and forward grip, rubber buttplate and muzzle brake that was designed specifically to address this shortcoming anyway. It also had the hinged buttplate that you also see on the 240B that I also never see anyone use. I only ever see people literally standing unsupported and squeezing the trigger on a full auto M14 just to say "see, I told you so!" Maybe if you used a bipod and the model that was specifically designed for full auto, went in the prone position like you're supposed to, it would actually work much better than you think in the role it was intended, providing supporting fire. But then again, full auto on a magazine fed battle rifle is a fool's errand. Direct your grief at the M27IAR.
@@armorer94 and absurdly heavy, and expensive, and unsuitable to the assault rifle role while being inadequate for the SAW role. Truly time is a flat circle. I look forward to an even heavier and more expensive DMR retrofit showing up of it in the 7th Iraq war
Couple of recent changes to the military version to note: -They switched from using the Lancer Mags to Sig in-house laser welded steel magazines allegedly due to steel tipped EPR ammo beating up the polymer body of the Lancer. -The forward assist has been deleted
I noticed that in the photo of the Fort Campbell post commander holding an XM7 that didn’t have Forward Assist. My neighbors in 19th SFG said over a year ago they were supposed to be getting these carbines, then said they haven’t seen anything yet. Only photo ops with Fort Benning Infantry Center and the post commander from Campbell. No photos in Ranger Regiment or SF, who were some of the first soldiers to get the M16A2 when it came out, as well as the M4A1 10 years later.
You are not the first one to say. I haven’t had the change to shoot it but lots of people are saying the same thing. Good video, it looks big even in your hands.
The true experts in this industry can only go of their training and experience. This program, is not rocket science. Take some mechanical expertise and combine it with knowledge of weapon history, this is clear!
I still never understood why the DOD just tested different/better calibers for the m4 platform. Something along the lines of a 6ARC. Ray on X-Ring is swearing by the new 6MAX round. Anything except a modern day M14.
Looks like more recoil than other AR platforms in .308 .... I'm sure some desk General made this purchase decision and will be a consultant for Sig upon retirement.
Are the barrels Nitride? What kind of barrel life can they expect with 80k psi and full auto. With M855a1 and m80a1 what increases besides cost are they getting? I think 2 high ranking US generals have gone to work at high paying jobs at Sig recentl? Boondoggle
in my opinion it does have some potential, but the ar15 style charging handle is silly when you have the side charging, also the stock is really very short and small compared to the rest of the rifle
The stock is the same LOP as any AR15, the proportions make it visually seem a bit odd, but better to look weird and function better than to give it a big stock and make an already excessively large and heavy gun even worse. IMO, the AR15 charging handle is superior to the side charging handle anyways. It's more inherently ambidextrous, is better for receiver strength, and creates less points of ingress for debris. But people wanted side charging, for some reason, even though retraining men who've had hundreds or thousands of hours with the T-handle doesn't make much sense. So they have both now.
@@coreymoyers While that's true, that's an extremely specific and limited scenario given the AR15 type system is designed for you to touch the charging handle as little as possible outside of initial charging of the rifle. As well, it only applies to right handed shooters- Lefties will still likely find it much easier to use the T-handle, for obvious reasons. IMO, the T-handle is not in any way significantly worse than the side charging handle in any scenario, especially when combined with ambi bolt catches. Comparatively, having the side charging handle legitimately makes the rifle worse by virtue of weakening the receiver, making the rifle heavier, more complex, and more expensive, and adding additional points of failure and ingress.
Someone in the military command is getting money under the table from this because his buddy works at Sig and solicited it to him. The fit and finish may be nice but that recoil looks to be absurd along with the price and the expectation that all the soldiers will have one and be proficient with it. I hate to say it but brass cased cartridges are at the end of their usefulness. Until soldier mounted energy weapons are developed and viable I honestly don’t think we will see anything ground breaking in the small arms industry. It just seems to be more of the same. The last innovation was by Stoner with the internal piston (DI) gun everything else is just a remake or slight modification of something. Great video and have a Merry Christmas Chris and Heather!
Having shot one in full auto, I can say for sure that it is the least controllable infantry rifle out there since the M14. I agree it would make an excellent DMR but I can’t see this seeing much success with doorkickers and support roles.
I really don't see the M4 & 5.56 being replaced by this monstrosity. The 5.45 seems to be working pretty well in spite of everyone wearing body armor. Arms, legs & heads are very vulnerable. 🤠
Imagine handing this to someone in Mortars Section, or an RTO, or an AG, AB, FO, Combat Medic, Anti-Armor Weapons Specialist, K-9 Handler, Grenadier, Driver, Weapons Squad Leader, CO, 1SG, Platoon Leader, JTAC, or Combat Engineer. It’s already a hard sell for a Rifleman, but every one of those duty positions I just listed is going to want their M4 back immediately.
Most shots fired in combat don't hit anyway. Speculative fire, suppression, harassment, or being hopped up on adrenaline etc. The XM7 and 6.8mm doesn't help these scenarios like the AR-15 family and 5.56mm do.
That's what's really crazy to me... a soldier wearing full level IV plates on front and sides is still completely unarmored on 80% of his surface area from almost any angle. It sometimes saves lives, it does NOT generally prevent you from being taken out of the fight. This is nothing like the world of tanks were 90% of the area of the tank from the front is armored and you need to develop ammunition that penetrates that armor, and missiles that attack the roof. If the Chinese had fully fielded Level IV plates, front, back, and sides, it doesn't matter, this rifle still makes no sense.
Another great video Chris! I'm pretty shocked by the amount of recoil, it's almost like you're running a shotgun. It appears to be quite a bit more than any of the AR10 variants I've experienced shooting. By the way, I'm really enjoying the Small Arms Solutions T-shirt I picked up a couple of months ago. Great quality shirt and always generates some great conversation regarding your channel and content (all positive) when I get together with friends to go out shooting. Merry Christmas to you!
Oddly, I just went and compared Garand Thumb shooting the same weapon and it looked like very different recoil. I think shooting from the bench like Chris is doing makes it seem worse because your not using your off hand to pull the rifle in and tighten everything up. It also didn't look much different than Chris's SCAR/XCRm video from the bench. I honestly think this has zero chance of replacing the m4. Certain SOF units across the globe have been seen with the LT, not the 6.8
Interestingly, I just googled 'US Marines M7 Rifle' and got one hit from 2020 that said the Marines 'may' replace the M27 with the NGSW, before the Sig was selected. The Corps doesn't seem to be impressed at all.
6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel are in my opinion the best calibers for a assault Rifle. I also like the new russian caliber 6.02x41mm. P.S: The serbian military are switching the caliber from 7.62x39 to 6.5 Grendel. Best regards from Serbia.
How much corruption did it take to get Ordnance to adopt this ridiculous package instead of cancelling the NGSW program outright ? The M7 is the M14 part deux electric boogaloo to the Nth degree. The LMG looks like a real improvement. It's the only part of the NGSW program that makes any sense.
Great video and well explained opinion. Worst thing is losing ammunition carrying capacity. Afghanistan was an anomaly in combat ranges. Every combat study since Vietnam has shown that the force with most firepower (ammo that can be slung down range) wins the fight most times. Look at Ukraine. Despite some longer range combat most of the fighting is in close quarters and both sides are using the same 5.45 rifles and neither side is looking for a battle rifle cartridge. They seem happy with 5.45
Good assessment regarding the military usefulness of this gun. Do you know who may use body armor? Apparently, it's popular with a lot of American civilians.
Even if you can't defeat body armor. Most of the dead in the Ukraine Russia war are from artillery. They are speaking there about providing soft body armor instead of hard due to the threat of frag.
Chris. Reach out to Druid Hill Armory for their 6.8SPC. They load a 90gr maker Rex or T-Rex at 3000fps in an 18" barrel. It's an excellent load, and my LWRC Six8 A2 loves the stuff. As I'm writing this, components are hard to get right away, but I feel they've picked up the torch from SSA for 6.8.
@@humanbassis that your experience from a 6.8 SPC SAAMI spec cartridge? Or from the hotter loaded 6.8 SPC II loads? I'm sincerely asking cause Druid Hill loads their 6.8mm hotter than SAAMI spec. I just jumped on this cartridge myself and am curious about these hotter loads and I saw this 90 gr recently.
That rifle is way too expensive, also the two piece cartridge construction of the 6.8x51 is concerning. How would this fair in a heavy engagement with ever increasing chamber pressures?
Heavy, despite using one of the cheapest lightest magpul stocks they make. High recoil despite this weight. I canot help but hate this rifle and it seems like a huge step in the wrong direction.
Back to the m14. I’m still an advocate for slapping the vltor a5 tube on a m16a3/4 and calling it good. M855a1 out of a 20” makes more sense logistically and training wise. But hey, those retired generals with stocks and shares in sig know better than me.
M855A1 in a 20 in bbl would be even more devastated that it fired in the M4! Higher pressures in that 20 in bbl than the 14.5 in. I would love to see those numbers.
The Canadians knew this decades ago, why can’t Ordnance just copy their homework? (Because then they couldn’t become “consultants” for SIG after retiring)
Every single video I've seen of someone shooting this rifle with the military-issue, full-power 6.8 ammo looked like the recoil was INSANE. Totally uncontrollable in full auto and barely controllable in semi. Like full-auto M14 levels of uncontrollable. And all of those videos showed MEN shooting the rifle. A female soldier (or even a tiny man) shooting this thing would only be good for making a video that everybody could laugh at on social media. No way she is eliminating an enemy combatant with it. Frankly, this whole program seems like a massive clusterfvck in every way to me. What they should've done instead was focus on something it seems like they've been dabbling with for decades now, and that is designing a round that is more effective than 5.56 WITHOUT needing to replace the AR-15-based rifles. Just as an example off the top of my head, something like 6.8 SPC. And if they really feel like they need something bigger/more powerful, then go back to .308 rifles. Just design a more effective 7.62x51 cartridge/bullet. I get wanting to have "overmatch" over our enemies. We all get that. But this whole program seems like a delusional fever dream of an idea that someone in the US government pulled out of their ass at random one day...and for whatever reason, it's seemingly one of the only programs in US military history where the bureaucrats REFUSE to kill it off for any reason whatsoever. Rather than doing what I suggested earlier and developing a 5.56 replacement that is more effective than 5.56 is, or a 7.62 replacement that is more effective than 7.62 is, they seem hellbent on being able to "punch through enemy body armor at "X" distance" no matter what the tradeoffs are. That sounds awesome on paper...until the ammo they developed to meet that requirement operates at insane pressures of 80,000 PSI, requires a ridiculous hybrid case just to prevent it from blowing up the gun when it shoots AND costs a fortune to manufacture. AND until they hand the troops that gigantic monstrosity of a rifle and tell them that is replacing their M4 and they get to hump that giant chunk of metal around all day and all night. AND until the troops actually fire the gun and realize they can't hit shit with it because the recoil is uncontrollable compared to the M4 they just had taken away from them. As a final side note, did the dumbasses in the US military suddenly forget that THE ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT of standardizing all of NATO on 5.56 and 7.62 ammo was so that we could all share common ammo in the event of a major conflict?! Apparently they did, because NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH is going to switch to this dumbass caliber OR reduce their production capacities of 5.56 and 7.62 just to start making this hybrid-cased 6.8x51 BS that only the US military is ever going to use. This whole program seems like just another Zumwalt or LCS debacle in the making.
The Colt M5 vs XM5 hiccup IMO illustrates how deeply in bed Colt was and or is with the US Government apparatus. They almost certainly changed it for the sole benefit of Colt.
Beef it up a little more, integrate grenade launching capability, and you have the modern American version of the Stgw57-from a company calling itself "Sig".
After seeing so many review videos for this rifle, I'm going to say it if no one else here will; this program REEKS of payola. There needs to be a full tax audit and financial investigation of everyone involved in it's procurement. That's my personal opinion. That said - it's a fine rifle. Too bad it's going to get mired in its political ramifications.
Holy mother at the recoil! I agree with everything you have said about this platform. I also agree 6.8spc would be the way to go. I own two LWRC six8 rifles and they are both great. I have an spr and a uicw with an 8.5 inch barrel, both guns are super reliable and solidly built. I have been burned too many times by sig to wish any of there American made rifles on any poor GI. I have owned a couple of the 550 series Swiss rifles and they were solid. I don’t see this program being totally fielded before cancellation. It will be the scar 2.0. Merry Christmas
@@Enjoyer.762 If you have, or get a chance to handle a 551 you may not see the shortcomings. These guns have a mythical quality reputation in the US because of the scarcity. There is no way I found to reliably and repeatedly mount a laser aiming module for night vision. The railed handgaurd are heavy and no suppressor use because the flash hider is milled from one piece with the barrel, so yes. For a modern fighting rifle the 500 and 551 are not well suited. Those were the two I have owned. The 553 is to short to be viable in my opinion. If I could own another it would be a 553 lb, by the time they were available I was well past the myth. They are 1.5-2.5 Moa guns. They are well built but not my 1st choice. The platform is very dated.Cheers
You, know this weapon is a reaction to long range engagements in Afghanistan. And it's awesome for a DMR. It'll never be given to all the troops, but the ones that have it are going to be extremely lethal.
I'd doubt they'd be much more lethal then the guys with Mk14 EMR setups. The difference being the optic giving you slighty faster dope options with a target you can see
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family and all the work and video information you do of pistols and rifles. Thanks, and your opinion always counts.
So I have to ask.... Why didn't the gubbment just solicit a 'souped up' 5.56 with the hybrid casing design to handle the higher pressures with modified barrel extensions (if needed) and/or a different receiver set with a slightly larger magwell, like what LWRC did with their Six8 platform, to allow for more powerful round designs??? Seems like any combination of these would've been cheaper than a completely new weapons platform to achieve the stated objectives.
It appears that in a military context, the M7/M250 systems are strongly reliant on the 'smart' optic/FCS it has to be able to make use of the capabilities of the weapon and round. The issue that is dawning a lot faster than threat groups in good to high-quality armor is individual laser warning receivers becoming more common, especially in the likes of Ukraine. If the capability of your system is built around an integrated laser it could now be mitigated to a large degree by a small device carried by an individual that will provide them your direction and range the second you lase/range them before they have even fired a shot.
Stock nice, forward assist nice, color nice, full ambi nice., QD points nice. Weight sucks, recoil sucks, thick handguard sucks, needing an accu-wedge sucks, barrel life sucks, price totally sucks. Overall rating by me 6.5 out of 10, and I'd still prefer a SCAR 17 (or LWRC 6.8 SPC) for everyday carry - still all these years later. Edited for spelling.
I thought you referred to these as external pistons? If so, I'm misunderstanding you then at 26:35. Perhaps you're just referring to the design of the BCG.
You always get these types. Gear snobs. I have crazy stuff and I even picked up a set of quads with L3 Harris tubes (not GPNVG) last year. I paid $13,500 for the tubes alone from Steele Industries. But that doesn't make the tubes the best. The tubes are all around mid to high 2400 FOM and +35 SNR. They do well in very low light conditions. But when I drive with them on, they are WAY too sensitive to oncoming lights. I have to drive on backroads that are less populated than scenes in post apocalyptic movies. I tried to drive to work one night with them on using all backroads. I gave up after about 30 minutes because I had to keep flipping them up and down with one hand. Imagine going around a corner and being hit with high beams with nvgs on. They get temporary burn ins almost INSTANTLY to even small illumination; tv screens, phone screens, light posts, etc... My unit has no manual gain either so... There is nothing wrong with photonis tubes if they have good specs. A few months ago I had to tell some guys at a range to buy what they could afford. I just took things to an extreme because I love this stuff and will make crazy sacrifices to get it. The gear shaming stuff is crazy. I didn't know Photonis was in Lancaster. That's only an hour away from me.
You got 4 L3 Harris WP filmless tubes for 13k? Sorry if I don’t believe that. Unless you meant a PAIR for 13k each. I bought a PVS-31 last year from TNVC, around 15k, and have tried them in the living room, around lasers, in the pitch black mountains, and on a city street. Never got burns how you describe. I do kinda baby these things when im around bright lights(even though you really dont have to)basically i dont stare at a source of bright light for over a second if i can help it. You can fix burns though. Slap on the caps, and turn on the unit(just makes sure its in a closet with the light off or something like that). 5 min later, good as “new”.. They auto gate so the tubes never get blown out. The only time bright lights suck is when i went to the mountain roads and people hit their brakes. Tubes were fine, and nothing washed out, but its like shining a torch in your eyes. They have a manual gain adjustment. It was a while ago, but i think if i turned down the gain to where the lights would not “hurt” there was still enough illumination to work with(moonless night). Specs are FOM 2909/2873 respectively with an SNR of 40.4/39.9 respectively. Photonis sucks because they flicker with newer laser tech. Objectively nothing wrong with them otherwise. If someone is gonna run quality LAM’s, then they need to stay away from photonis.
As far as your Gear Snob take: id say someone is a snob if they look down or patronize someone for not jerking off their cash. We kinda think the same, i go extreme as well solely for the purpose of real world practicality, future proofing, and being too poor to buy the same thing twice. If it’s good for the Delta Boys, then I want it too.
@@copperjarhead this was actually supposed to be sent to an entirely different video on night vision. What the heck. RUclips error. But yes $13,500 for 4 gen 3, white phosphor, filmless tubes. Around $3,300 per tube from Steel Industries. Cooper was the sales rep. I still have his number. What is hard to believe about that. The housing cost $6,899.
Chris, the Tungsten having projectile is classified and we don't currently know what that projectile looks like. The EPR is just going to be steel, and that is the GP projectile. So far as I can tell, specifically the barrel length is 13.5". There was some confusion, as sometimes it is more vaguely stated as "13" and a couple times it was very badly misprinted as "15.3", but it appears 13.5 is what it actually is and these other lengths are erroneous. As for the upper being an extrusion, is Anchor Harvey in the extrusion game now? It was clearly designed to be extruded, which is why there are all those inserts for anything that sticks out too far sideways. However, it has forge marks, both upper and lower the same. I wonder if the .308 barrels are the same material as the .277 barrels. The Army told entrants that barrel life wasn't a problem, so they may have given them a specific steel to play with and use.
What a shame. I love the coverage of these new rifles, and once you break it down the way you are, it just seems DOD is repeating the same mistakes from WW2 and Vietnam. The AR-15 platform is a pretty perfect design, and we see that when even Spetznas has been seen running around with them. The only thing I am liking with the Sig design is the delete of the buffer tube. Unless told otherwise, I just dont trust that thing to not bend when using the rifle as a bludgeon, or if it hits the ground too hard the wrong way. That said, I think LWRC is severely underrated, and if it was my choice, every m4 would be replaced either with their M6-IC Enhanced.
As a former small arms repairman, 100% agree with everything in this video. The average grunt can barely take advantage of all the nice things an M4 can do, this thing is just gonna be wasted potential at best and a liability at worst.
Is LMT even developing 6.8x51 barrels, or is it possible? I mean, would a LMT MWS 6.8x51 chambered barrel just drop in and work with their H3 buffer and spring?
I think the militaries idea with the 277 fury is to train with the cheaper brass cased stuff, but when the situation calls for it switch up to the hot hybrid case stuff
I got to handle the sig spear at joe bobs outfitters this summer. Way to heavy compared to my scar. I did buy the spear lt but not to excited about it. My goto in 556 is lmt spec war and the spear lt just doesn't do much for me. I hate the stock on the sig and that folding latch is a pos!
Something he didn't know, is the difference in recall between the 762 and Military 6.8. I assume the military rounds are going to be hotter in an attempt to squeeze all performance out of the rifle they can. So imagine the recoil
I said I did not know the difference. I ave not had access to the new caliber nor military ammunition. The ammo you would think would be lighter because of the lighter bullet. Then again it’s 80K PSI! So I would expect them to be comparable.
The body armor justification seems like it would be easily be addressed by training. At long range, nobody wants to get shot, whether or not they're wearing armor. In close quarters, aiming at different parts of the body becomes feasible. Either way, there is still an advantage in having more ammo and less recoil with a 5.56x45. In the long run, I do not believe the M7 will replace the M4. It will likely become a DMR, if anything at all, while the M4 will likely be replaced by an improved version of itself such as a "WWSD"-inspired design.
Ill never not believe that there are insider shenanigans going on with Sig.
Top brass gettin' handies under the table big time.
Sig made what the Army asked for, simple as.
@@tedhodge4830 more like the army wanted to buy a sig product and decided they were gonna get it regardless of whether or not it was a good idea.
@@Motoboo_Marine If you look at the request the army put out, it was a 6.8mm 90 grain bullet going 3,000 FPS through a compact rifle with a suppressor and a gee whiz computer optic. They really didn't say much more than that. True Velocity didn't pass trials and there were other problems with the Textron submission. There were only 3 entrants in the program because the Army had baked so many other applicants in the past, and their requirements were so onerous. They wanted something like 80,000 PSI in a carbine. It had to be overbuilt, and the plastic munitions just didn't work very well. That left SIG with a conventional rifle with familiar ergonomics based around their proven Sig Spear platform. It was an easy choice for Big Army.
I'd argue that their requirements were pretty dumb, and all three applicants tried to meet it, only one succeeded, Sig. Thus, you have this thing. It probably won't last, either, and/or will be procured in limited quantities like the FN SCAR.
@@Motoboo_MarineWho should have gotten the contract then? S&W? 😂
I don't think the DOD even knows what is going to happen with the rifle, I think you're right that it'll end up a DMR.
This is spot on commentary on the DOD.
I agree that this will end up a as a pretty good dmr but then they should have adopted the whole MCX platform to have the ability to use different features and calibers set for different mission objectives. Like the 5.56 for the rifleman, 300 blk out for subsonic shhhh-suppressor sneeky missions and the big boy spear heavy for dmr and heavy hitters of longer range.
@@TheMarvin784 Funny enough, I saw M-7 cleaning kits at the military uniform store we have on base. Maybe they are going full send after all...We haven't really heard anything about it but why make M7 kits when its still an xm7? I'll get pictures when I go back there next time.
I think the Sig-Sauer M-7 would make a very good DMR and S.F. only rifle.
Fully kited this rifle weights close to 13lbs with a loaded mag .Everyone who has ever picked mine up at the range is surprised by the weight, making it awkward to shoot from the standing position. Im 6'3 230 and can't imagine humping it around all day with a full load out. Not sure what Uncle Sam was thinking on this one.
Dude they never really think😂
13lbs really wouldnt be to bad for what you're getting. The USMC M38 shoots 5.56 and with its suppressor itll be nearly 11 lbs
@@TheSugarWeasel93I’d way rather have the 38 or a 27.
Man being all kitted up and packing your ruck in top with even a M4 is rough. I don't even want to think about packing this thing, and I've owned one for a brief second. Bought it while on deployment, heard about the magazine issues, got home tested it on mine, realized how heavy the MFer was(compared to my scar 17 even), and sold it. I didnt even bother to shoot it.
Uncle Sam was thinking, "Think about all the kickbacks our investors will get!"
I agree with Chris' assessment of this weapon and program overall. Having worked on the NGSW program. I can say a few things; one, all the submissions used the same u.s. Gov't designed solid copper 130gr bullets. The performance envelope for this bullet necessitated between 75k & 85k psi for almost all the submissions. All that said, having been around both the Sig rifle and ammo, there's no way they're getting the claimed durability or longevity out of these rifles. I suspect these will be on a limited issue type schedule. I think the 5.56 and M4(& M4 type) will hang around for quite some time.
I love the line “1 or 2 shots on target then this turns into an antiaircraft weapon”
Chris: "I can't see why the U.S. government would pay that kind of money for this."
Me: "It's not their money."
Government: "It's to save the children."
Won't somebody think of the children!?!?!
Can we get serious and talk like adults? This rifle will fight climate change that's why we like it. How'd I do?
@@markwhite6782 🤣😂😂🤣
@@markwhite6782Methane Free Propellants Give It That 80,000 PSI Pressure 😬😂😂😂
Well, I was thinking more like solar powered bullets but OK.@@chrischiampo7647
The British made the smart choice adopting the 5.56mm Knight’s Armament SR16 derivative
I agree.
I personally don’t see the XM7 adopted in Large scale, while the 6.8 not being the US Military and NATO wide standard round.
That UK KS-1 Carbine system is freakin’ sweet. You can tell people who know what they’re doing spec’d it out.
can't love this comment more @@Enjoyer.762
@@Enjoyer.762Nah. LMT used to be right there with KAC but their recent QC woes have brought them down quite a bit.
@@Enjoyer.762 Lowers leaving the factory with no buffer retainer pin hole drilled was the most common.
Speciality ammo, heavy, expensive..... makes sense ( government and Sig employees working for each other)
I never really liked sig just seems like a Shady company
@@thetest8777 i used to like them untill i bought their product, was part of their experimental and testing, and they offered no help or product support other than " buy more of our products to try and fix the problem"
Gee. It's almost like the military already went through this with the M14.
I totally agree with Chris opinions on this. Looks to me this thing was chosen by logistics guys, that think there is such a thing as a single bullet design that can do it all, short and long ranges. That is great for the logistics guys, but bad to the soldier in the front line, that have to deal with a sub-optimal weapon because guys in the back want their work to be easier.
This really makes no sense from a logistics perspective. This is twice the weight of 5.56 NATO for a dubious, in fact, nearly nonexistent gain, increases the number of issued cartridge types as now we have 5.56 NATO, .277 Sig Fury, 7.62 NATO all at the same time. Remember, only the Close Combat Force is getting the XM7 and XM250. The rest of the Army and the rest of the entire military that isn't adopting this will still be using 5.56.
It also, as of this current time, does not even intend to replace the M240 and 7.62 NATO, despite the size and capability overlap being nearly perfect. This is just a really capable 7.62 NATO sized cartridge, same weight within a few % per cartridge, more capability, similar OAL.
I think the biggest problem with this design is actually logistics. There is no parts compatibility with the M4, no cartridge compatibility with the M249 or the 240B, let alone the M4. On top of that, it's a completely non-NATO cartridge not used by anyone else. On top of this, you have one proprietary design from one manufacturer for both the cartridge and the rifle, both likely patented. Oh, and it's expensive as hell compared to an M4A1 from FN or Colt. You can also buy dimestore parts for an M4A1 from any COTS reseller and same with 5.56 NATO. It isn't even planned to be issued force-wide, and I don't think there is any plan to replace the M4 with this rifle. They are going to leave the M4. I doubt anyone in logistics had a damn thing to say about this because they were run over roughshod. Your analysis seems completely off the mark based on the above.
What this really came down to was a military procurement program to do to things they have wanted to do for decades - increase "hit probability" through the use of a computer assisted optic, and increase "lethality" through a higher powered cartridge. The US Army determined long ago that the ideal caliber for lethality is somewhere between 6.5 and 7 mm, and they decided on 6.8mm as being the best blend. However, they also wanted it to run at 3,000 FPS for the best blend of external ballistics (trajectory and penetration). Hence the NGSW was based around nothing more than a request to develop a cartridge, weapon system, and optic that could handle the pressure of such a powerful load in a compact package to be comparable in dimensions to the M4, with a powered rail to mount the computerized optic.
Generally speaking trying to design something to please everyone ends up pleasing no one.
@@armorer94 This was designed to please Mark Milley and others who thought we lost overmatch to magical 1800 meter accurate PKMs and SVDs in Afghanistan, who somehow don't comprehend what "combined arms" or "crew served weapons" are.
Not "everyone", though I can see why you might think that
@@armorer94 the military seems to always want a swiss armyknife fix all weapon system that ends up fixing nothing.
I think your analysis of the M7 infantry rifle is spot on. A huge waste of money on a heavy expensive rifle that was never needed. As a DMR it's great but for an infantry rifle a step backward 60 years.
The ammunition is so expensive and the Army barely trains as is.
There is no way that the Soldiers will become proficient with this rifle.
The average soldier shoots 100-150 rounds a year. Absolutely pathetic.
Seriously? I shoot more than a soldier.... wow.
@@hannibalbarca2939 That's optimistic, I'd be surprised if the average soldier shoots more than 60 rounds a year. It's basically annual zero (18 rounds max, preferably less), plus the actual qualification (40 rounds). But then again, this is only being issued to infantry, and I would hope they shoot more than the average soldier in the motor pool.
@@tedhodge4830Former infantry here. What you describe is pretty much if from a fundamental marksmanship angle. There are field problems in which a culminating live fire may see a soldier fire 1-3 mags (with more than that being very rare in my experience) and that’s only if there’s actually that much going around. Army ammunition allocation and logistics were always a head scratcher to me. One of my first field problems with my first unit, I was issued a saw and 1200 rnds in 200rnd boxes we called “porkchops”. The rest of my teammates got 10 rounds for their M4s each. I was not allowed to split my ammo with peers are even share the weight with them and promptly overheated on the assault attempting to keep up with teammates who were comparative sprinting jack rabbits. Back from the tangent, in those final live fires, the objective was almost never practical fundamental marksmanship. So you’re more right than you know.
@@othernamesweretaken1871 That's interesting feedback, and worth a read for anyone. Did you end up dumping those rounds during the live fire exercise, or they were just training you to be a packhorse for combat? Just to clarify, you carried 6 200 round boxes on your person during these live fire exercises? I'm also curious about how frequently you had these live fire exercises. Did you shoot at point or popup targets, or was it entirely simulated?
Can someone tell my why they wanted a “modular handgun system” that can change back straps for the smaller statured females but then adopts a heavy ass rifle for those same females?
WE, as in American citizens, are the ones with the body armor you mention around 18:35.
The assault rifle concept has been vindicated in modern, peer/near-peer conflict in Ukraine. Infantry aren't getting in long range rifle duels. Infantry aren't squaring up to each other, shooting each other center-mass, and deciding to call it a day if it doesn't penetrate after 2-3 rounds. The primary killer has been, and still is, artillery and heavy weapons. Rifles are used when infantry are at close range, at which point intermediate rounds are more appropriate.
I believe the XM-7 is an end around to put some version of the Spear LT into military service. You can't justify replacing an M4 with a piston 5.56 gun. But it would be much easier to "compliment" the XM-7 with a lighter weight and higher capacity version of the already fielded rifle. And you could just call it the XM-5.
That’s a pretty sharp theory
This 200% my thoughts as well. I think they set it up this way on purpose. In that case, the Spear heavy and the Spear LT would be a perfect pairing. The crazy Vortex optic may accompany the M-7 in that DMR role on that specific basis. I never thought that an optic that complex makes sense for every soldier. The Spear LT showing up on the scene so soon after the M-7… it’s pretty obvious to me that the whole idea was baked in from the beginning. So no fretting, the real replacement of the M-4 will be the Spear LT in 5.56.
5 minutes into your video and I think this is gonna be another m14 situation. It sure does look like a nice gun tho
Its a 2nd m14 problem 😂
The first video I saw of this rifle was by Task & Purpose. The recoil in Full auto looked ridiculous. Every video of full auto since then has looked totally different, somewhat tame. I've always wondered if this was bc Sig just quit letting anybody shoot the full power, military ammo after that first video showed how uncontrollable it looked.
My thoughts exactly, no way that stuff is controllable at all.
The brass cased load is actually very comparable to off the shelf .308, with very slightly better ballistics. This rifle is in standard .308 Winchester, so it's not even the right caliber. Only the military and SIG has the real .277 Fury with the steel base.
It would seem that we're right back to the major shortcoming of the M-14: it's uncontrollable on full auto.
@@armorer94 I'm going to quote my drill sergeant. You don't use full auto unless your fob is being overrun or something.
I think full auto is primarily for burning up ammunition for shits and giggles at the range. In combat, that's what the SAW is for. Total red herring IMHO.
Also, it's funny that no one ever mentions the M14 USAIB model with a pistol grip and forward grip, rubber buttplate and muzzle brake that was designed specifically to address this shortcoming anyway. It also had the hinged buttplate that you also see on the 240B that I also never see anyone use.
I only ever see people literally standing unsupported and squeezing the trigger on a full auto M14 just to say "see, I told you so!" Maybe if you used a bipod and the model that was specifically designed for full auto, went in the prone position like you're supposed to, it would actually work much better than you think in the role it was intended, providing supporting fire. But then again, full auto on a magazine fed battle rifle is a fool's errand. Direct your grief at the M27IAR.
@@armorer94 and absurdly heavy, and expensive, and unsuitable to the assault rifle role while being inadequate for the SAW role. Truly time is a flat circle. I look forward to an even heavier and more expensive DMR retrofit showing up of it in the 7th Iraq war
That recoil is Stout😮. Imagine shooting it from the kneeling or standing without a bipod... I agree with Chris
Couple of recent changes to the military version to note:
-They switched from using the Lancer Mags to Sig in-house laser welded steel magazines allegedly due to steel tipped EPR ammo beating up the polymer body of the Lancer.
-The forward assist has been deleted
Yep, NRCH side charging can be used as a forward assist
Next they need to get rid of the AR style charging handle.
I have seen both military versions with and without the FA..
I noticed that in the photo of the Fort Campbell post commander holding an XM7 that didn’t have Forward Assist. My neighbors in 19th SFG said over a year ago they were supposed to be getting these carbines, then said they haven’t seen anything yet. Only photo ops with Fort Benning Infantry Center and the post commander from Campbell. No photos in Ranger Regiment or SF, who were some of the first soldiers to get the M16A2 when it came out, as well as the M4A1 10 years later.
@@boygonewhoopdataZZ i have been WONDERING FOR YEARS why this was not the most setup. Non reciprocating and can be used as a forward assist, perfect.
You are not the first one to say. I haven’t had the change to shoot it but lots of people are saying the same thing. Good video, it looks big even in your hands.
The true experts in this industry can only go of their training and experience. This program, is not rocket science. Take some mechanical expertise and combine it with knowledge of weapon history, this is clear!
I still never understood why the DOD just tested different/better calibers for the m4 platform. Something along the lines of a 6ARC. Ray on X-Ring is swearing by the new 6MAX round. Anything except a modern day M14.
Looks like more recoil than other AR platforms in .308 .... I'm sure some desk General made this purchase decision and will be a consultant for Sig upon retirement.
Are the barrels Nitride? What kind of barrel life can they expect with 80k psi and full auto. With M855a1 and m80a1 what increases besides cost are they getting? I think 2 high ranking US generals have gone to work at high paying jobs at Sig recentl? Boondoggle
in my opinion it does have some potential, but the ar15 style charging handle is silly when you have the side charging, also the stock is really very short and small compared to the rest of the rifle
The stock is the same LOP as any AR15, the proportions make it visually seem a bit odd, but better to look weird and function better than to give it a big stock and make an already excessively large and heavy gun even worse. IMO, the AR15 charging handle is superior to the side charging handle anyways. It's more inherently ambidextrous, is better for receiver strength, and creates less points of ingress for debris. But people wanted side charging, for some reason, even though retraining men who've had hundreds or thousands of hours with the T-handle doesn't make much sense. So they have both now.
@@KeterMalkuthSide charging is more effortless when lying prone.
@@coreymoyers While that's true, that's an extremely specific and limited scenario given the AR15 type system is designed for you to touch the charging handle as little as possible outside of initial charging of the rifle. As well, it only applies to right handed shooters- Lefties will still likely find it much easier to use the T-handle, for obvious reasons.
IMO, the T-handle is not in any way significantly worse than the side charging handle in any scenario, especially when combined with ambi bolt catches. Comparatively, having the side charging handle legitimately makes the rifle worse by virtue of weakening the receiver, making the rifle heavier, more complex, and more expensive, and adding additional points of failure and ingress.
@@KeterMalkuth herrera said that his xm5 had a very stiff rear charging handle and that the side charger was much easier to work
I think they should have left the side charger off.
Someone in the military command is getting money under the table from this because his buddy works at Sig and solicited it to him. The fit and finish may be nice but that recoil looks to be absurd along with the price and the expectation that all the soldiers will have one and be proficient with it. I hate to say it but brass cased cartridges are at the end of their usefulness. Until soldier mounted energy weapons are developed and viable I honestly don’t think we will see anything ground breaking in the small arms industry. It just seems to be more of the same. The last innovation was by Stoner with the internal piston (DI) gun everything else is just a remake or slight modification of something. Great video and have a Merry Christmas Chris and Heather!
I just cannot get over how comically massive this thing is. God willing it goes the way of the M14 and the army adopts something more sensible soon.
WOW, that recoil! Chris, you deserve compensation from Sig for having to endure it.
Having shot one in full auto, I can say for sure that it is the least controllable infantry rifle out there since the M14. I agree it would make an excellent DMR but I can’t see this seeing much success with doorkickers and support roles.
How history repeats itself I bet it becomes the M14 of the gen z
I really don't see the M4 & 5.56 being replaced by this monstrosity. The 5.45 seems to be working pretty well in spite of everyone wearing body armor. Arms, legs & heads are very vulnerable. 🤠
Imagine handing this to someone in Mortars Section, or an RTO, or an AG, AB, FO, Combat Medic, Anti-Armor Weapons Specialist, K-9 Handler, Grenadier, Driver, Weapons Squad Leader, CO, 1SG, Platoon Leader, JTAC, or Combat Engineer. It’s already a hard sell for a Rifleman, but every one of those duty positions I just listed is going to want their M4 back immediately.
Most shots fired in combat don't hit anyway. Speculative fire, suppression, harassment, or being hopped up on adrenaline etc.
The XM7 and 6.8mm doesn't help these scenarios like the AR-15 family and 5.56mm do.
That's what's really crazy to me... a soldier wearing full level IV plates on front and sides is still completely unarmored on 80% of his surface area from almost any angle.
It sometimes saves lives, it does NOT generally prevent you from being taken out of the fight.
This is nothing like the world of tanks were 90% of the area of the tank from the front is armored and you need to develop ammunition that penetrates that armor, and missiles that attack the roof. If the Chinese had fully fielded Level IV plates, front, back, and sides, it doesn't matter, this rifle still makes no sense.
I honestly think this rifle is going to flop.
Another great video Chris! I'm pretty shocked by the amount of recoil, it's almost like you're running a shotgun. It appears to be quite a bit more than any of the AR10 variants I've experienced shooting. By the way, I'm really enjoying the Small Arms Solutions T-shirt I picked up a couple of months ago. Great quality shirt and always generates some great conversation regarding your channel and content (all positive) when I get together with friends to go out shooting. Merry Christmas to you!
I would assume the lack of rear weight from a buffer increases felt recoil unlike an ar10.
Yeah, and that's not even the hopped up mil ammo.
Oddly, I just went and compared Garand Thumb shooting the same weapon and it looked like very different recoil. I think shooting from the bench like Chris is doing makes it seem worse because your not using your off hand to pull the rifle in and tighten everything up. It also didn't look much different than Chris's SCAR/XCRm video from the bench. I honestly think this has zero chance of replacing the m4. Certain SOF units across the globe have been seen with the LT, not the 6.8
Bravo Chris !!! ✅
Yes, you’re 100% spot on - and I appreciate your honesty and willingness to share & speak the TRUTH !!!
Interestingly, I just googled 'US Marines M7 Rifle' and got one hit from 2020 that said the Marines 'may' replace the M27 with the NGSW, before the Sig was selected.
The Corps doesn't seem to be impressed at all.
I would hope they aren't, the M27 looks to be a really neat setup.
That general dynamics rifle looked pretty cool.
6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel are in my opinion the best calibers for a assault Rifle. I also like the new russian caliber 6.02x41mm. P.S: The serbian military are switching the caliber from 7.62x39 to 6.5 Grendel. Best regards from Serbia.
How much corruption did it take to get Ordnance to adopt this ridiculous package instead of cancelling the NGSW program outright ?
The M7 is the M14 part deux electric boogaloo to the Nth degree.
The LMG looks like a real improvement. It's the only part of the NGSW program that makes any sense.
A lot of people are reporting mag over insertion issues with pmags, seems they have some QC issues to work on like all their products
Great video and well explained opinion. Worst thing is losing ammunition carrying capacity. Afghanistan was an anomaly in combat ranges. Every combat study since Vietnam has shown that the force with most firepower (ammo that can be slung down range) wins the fight most times. Look at Ukraine. Despite some longer range combat most of the fighting is in close quarters and both sides are using the same 5.45 rifles and neither side is looking for a battle rifle cartridge. They seem happy with 5.45
Good assessment regarding the military usefulness of this gun. Do you know who may use body armor? Apparently, it's popular with a lot of American civilians.
Even if you can't defeat body armor. Most of the dead in the Ukraine Russia war are from artillery. They are speaking there about providing soft body armor instead of hard due to the threat of frag.
Thing looks huge
Chris. Reach out to Druid Hill Armory for their 6.8SPC. They load a 90gr maker Rex or T-Rex at 3000fps in an 18" barrel. It's an excellent load, and my LWRC Six8 A2 loves the stuff. As I'm writing this, components are hard to get right away, but I feel they've picked up the torch from SSA for 6.8.
90gr 6.8 has awful ballistics.
@@humanbassis that your experience from a 6.8 SPC SAAMI spec cartridge? Or from the hotter loaded 6.8 SPC II loads? I'm sincerely asking cause Druid Hill loads their 6.8mm hotter than SAAMI spec. I just jumped on this cartridge myself and am curious about these hotter loads and I saw this 90 gr recently.
thank you for taking the time
That rifle is way too expensive, also the two piece cartridge construction of the 6.8x51 is concerning. How would this fair in a heavy engagement with ever increasing chamber pressures?
Heavy, despite using one of the cheapest lightest magpul stocks they make.
High recoil despite this weight.
I canot help but hate this rifle and it seems like a huge step in the wrong direction.
Back to the m14. I’m still an advocate for slapping the vltor a5 tube on a m16a3/4 and calling it good. M855a1 out of a 20” makes more sense logistically and training wise. But hey, those retired generals with stocks and shares in sig know better than me.
M855A1 in a 20 in bbl would be even more devastated that it fired in the M4! Higher pressures in that 20 in bbl than the 14.5 in. I would love to see those numbers.
The Canadians knew this decades ago, why can’t Ordnance just copy their homework? (Because then they couldn’t become “consultants” for SIG after retiring)
When it comes to external piston rifles I am partial to PWS.
I sold my 6.8 rifle from LWRCi and bought another rifle from PWS.
Thank you!!!!!
No idea what the new and improved lighter Chris weighs but the recoil is moving him as if he was 110lbs.
EPCP=>Enhanced Performance Chris Program
Every single video I've seen of someone shooting this rifle with the military-issue, full-power 6.8 ammo looked like the recoil was INSANE. Totally uncontrollable in full auto and barely controllable in semi. Like full-auto M14 levels of uncontrollable. And all of those videos showed MEN shooting the rifle. A female soldier (or even a tiny man) shooting this thing would only be good for making a video that everybody could laugh at on social media. No way she is eliminating an enemy combatant with it.
Frankly, this whole program seems like a massive clusterfvck in every way to me. What they should've done instead was focus on something it seems like they've been dabbling with for decades now, and that is designing a round that is more effective than 5.56 WITHOUT needing to replace the AR-15-based rifles. Just as an example off the top of my head, something like 6.8 SPC. And if they really feel like they need something bigger/more powerful, then go back to .308 rifles. Just design a more effective 7.62x51 cartridge/bullet.
I get wanting to have "overmatch" over our enemies. We all get that. But this whole program seems like a delusional fever dream of an idea that someone in the US government pulled out of their ass at random one day...and for whatever reason, it's seemingly one of the only programs in US military history where the bureaucrats REFUSE to kill it off for any reason whatsoever. Rather than doing what I suggested earlier and developing a 5.56 replacement that is more effective than 5.56 is, or a 7.62 replacement that is more effective than 7.62 is, they seem hellbent on being able to "punch through enemy body armor at "X" distance" no matter what the tradeoffs are.
That sounds awesome on paper...until the ammo they developed to meet that requirement operates at insane pressures of 80,000 PSI, requires a ridiculous hybrid case just to prevent it from blowing up the gun when it shoots AND costs a fortune to manufacture. AND until they hand the troops that gigantic monstrosity of a rifle and tell them that is replacing their M4 and they get to hump that giant chunk of metal around all day and all night. AND until the troops actually fire the gun and realize they can't hit shit with it because the recoil is uncontrollable compared to the M4 they just had taken away from them.
As a final side note, did the dumbasses in the US military suddenly forget that THE ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT of standardizing all of NATO on 5.56 and 7.62 ammo was so that we could all share common ammo in the event of a major conflict?! Apparently they did, because NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH is going to switch to this dumbass caliber OR reduce their production capacities of 5.56 and 7.62 just to start making this hybrid-cased 6.8x51 BS that only the US military is ever going to use. This whole program seems like just another Zumwalt or LCS debacle in the making.
Love the graphics!
Should do a comparison between this and the mr762.
The Colt M5 vs XM5 hiccup IMO illustrates how deeply in bed Colt was and or is with the US Government apparatus. They almost certainly changed it for the sole benefit of Colt.
Beef it up a little more, integrate grenade launching capability, and you have the modern American version of the Stgw57-from a company calling itself "Sig".
The only region on the planet where that body armor would realistically be found in significant numbers is the US itself.
holy cow, you're not kidding about that recoil... woof...
Merry Xmas from Upstate NY Chris and Heather!
After seeing so many review videos for this rifle, I'm going to say it if no one else here will; this program REEKS of payola. There needs to be a full tax audit and financial investigation of everyone involved in it's procurement. That's my personal opinion. That said - it's a fine rifle. Too bad it's going to get mired in its political ramifications.
Thank you.
Holy mother at the recoil! I agree with everything you have said about this platform. I also agree 6.8spc would be the way to go. I own two LWRC six8 rifles and they are both great. I have an spr and a uicw with an 8.5 inch barrel, both guns are super reliable and solidly built. I have been burned too many times by sig to wish any of there American made rifles on any poor GI. I have owned a couple of the 550 series Swiss rifles and they were solid. I don’t see this program being totally fielded before cancellation. It will be the scar 2.0. Merry Christmas
@@Enjoyer.762 how so
@@Enjoyer.762 ok I get it
@@Enjoyer.762 If you have, or get a chance to handle a 551 you may not see the shortcomings. These guns have a mythical quality reputation in the US because of the scarcity. There is no way I found to reliably and repeatedly mount a laser aiming module for night vision. The railed handgaurd are heavy and no suppressor use because the flash hider is milled from one piece with the barrel, so yes. For a modern fighting rifle the 500 and 551 are not well suited. Those were the two I have owned. The 553 is to short to be viable in my opinion. If I could own another it would be a 553 lb, by the time they were available I was well past the myth. They are 1.5-2.5 Moa guns. They are well built but not my 1st choice. The platform is very dated.Cheers
Mountains mullets Mercia has just tested the high pressure round. A limb saver on the butt stock is the way to go for the 308
You, know this weapon is a reaction to long range engagements in Afghanistan. And it's awesome for a DMR. It'll never be given to all the troops, but the ones that have it are going to be extremely lethal.
I'd doubt they'd be much more lethal then the guys with Mk14 EMR setups. The difference being the optic giving you slighty faster dope options with a target you can see
Wow, that recoil! Nevertheless, it was a great video on reviewing the Spear.
I want to see 9 Hole Reviews do a video on it
It’d essentially be a long diss track on the XM7 and I’m here for it.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family and all the work and video information you do of pistols and rifles. Thanks, and your opinion always counts.
Looks like were going back to the M-14
Been waiting for this review!!!
The BAS-B with a Corio Eagle Eye 2.5? nice.
Thanks for the video. Keep up the good work.
I always look forward to ur videos! It’s a great breakdown and commentary!!
The military is so hyper-focused on defeating body armor they sacrificed everything good about the current service rifle.
Thank you for your review looks like one less gun I do not need!!
Merry Christmas to the SAS family and viewers.
You said its one if the finer 308 rifles. Would you take it over a LMT Mars-H?
Great video.
No
Damn, that felt brutal on the range - and I'm only watching you shoot it.
So I have to ask.... Why didn't the gubbment just solicit a 'souped up' 5.56 with the hybrid casing design to handle the higher pressures with modified barrel extensions (if needed) and/or a different receiver set with a slightly larger magwell, like what LWRC did with their Six8 platform, to allow for more powerful round designs??? Seems like any combination of these would've been cheaper than a completely new weapons platform to achieve the stated objectives.
Exactly
It appears that in a military context, the M7/M250 systems are strongly reliant on the 'smart' optic/FCS it has to be able to make use of the capabilities of the weapon and round. The issue that is dawning a lot faster than threat groups in good to high-quality armor is individual laser warning receivers becoming more common, especially in the likes of Ukraine. If the capability of your system is built around an integrated laser it could now be mitigated to a large degree by a small device carried by an individual that will provide them your direction and range the second you lase/range them before they have even fired a shot.
Stock nice, forward assist nice, color nice, full ambi nice., QD points nice. Weight sucks, recoil sucks, thick handguard sucks, needing an accu-wedge sucks, barrel life sucks, price totally sucks. Overall rating by me 6.5 out of 10, and I'd still prefer a SCAR 17 (or LWRC 6.8 SPC) for everyday carry - still all these years later. Edited for spelling.
As always the army learns the wrong lessons, draws the wrong conclusions and makes bad choices because of it.
Just like the UCP Pattern and countless uniform changes
I thought you referred to these as external pistons? If so, I'm misunderstanding you then at 26:35. Perhaps you're just referring to the design of the BCG.
You always get these types. Gear snobs. I have crazy stuff and I even picked up a set of quads with L3 Harris tubes (not GPNVG) last year. I paid $13,500 for the tubes alone from Steele Industries. But that doesn't make the tubes the best. The tubes are all around mid to high 2400 FOM and +35 SNR. They do well in very low light conditions. But when I drive with them on, they are WAY too sensitive to oncoming lights. I have to drive on backroads that are less populated than scenes in post apocalyptic movies. I tried to drive to work one night with them on using all backroads. I gave up after about 30 minutes because I had to keep flipping them up and down with one hand. Imagine going around a corner and being hit with high beams with nvgs on. They get temporary burn ins almost INSTANTLY to even small illumination; tv screens, phone screens, light posts, etc... My unit has no manual gain either so...
There is nothing wrong with photonis tubes if they have good specs. A few months ago I had to tell some guys at a range to buy what they could afford. I just took things to an extreme because I love this stuff and will make crazy sacrifices to get it. The gear shaming stuff is crazy.
I didn't know Photonis was in Lancaster. That's only an hour away from me.
You got 4 L3 Harris WP filmless tubes for 13k? Sorry if I don’t believe that. Unless you meant a PAIR for 13k each.
I bought a PVS-31 last year from TNVC, around 15k, and have tried them in the living room, around lasers, in the pitch black mountains, and on a city street. Never got burns how you describe. I do kinda baby these things when im around bright lights(even though you really dont have to)basically i dont stare at a source of bright light for over a second if i can help it. You can fix burns though. Slap on the caps, and turn on the unit(just makes sure its in a closet with the light off or something like that). 5 min later, good as “new”.. They auto gate so the tubes never get blown out. The only time bright lights suck is when i went to the mountain roads and people hit their brakes. Tubes were fine, and nothing washed out, but its like shining a torch in your eyes. They have a manual gain adjustment. It was a while ago, but i think if i turned down the gain to where the lights would not “hurt” there was still enough illumination to work with(moonless night). Specs are FOM 2909/2873 respectively with an SNR of 40.4/39.9 respectively.
Photonis sucks because they flicker with newer laser tech. Objectively nothing wrong with them otherwise. If someone is gonna run quality LAM’s, then they need to stay away from photonis.
As far as your Gear Snob take: id say someone is a snob if they look down or patronize someone for not jerking off their cash. We kinda think the same, i go extreme as well solely for the purpose of real world practicality, future proofing, and being too poor to buy the same thing twice. If it’s good for the Delta Boys, then I want it too.
@@copperjarhead this was actually supposed to be sent to an entirely different video on night vision. What the heck. RUclips error.
But yes $13,500 for 4 gen 3, white phosphor, filmless tubes. Around $3,300 per tube from Steel Industries. Cooper was the sales rep. I still have his number. What is hard to believe about that. The housing cost $6,899.
Correction: It was first submitted into the CSASS competition where HK won the contract, then the MRGG contract and finally the NGSW contract.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on fn americas 6.5X43 LICC IWS and EVOLYS systems.
Thanks alot! Love your work
Thanks 👍
Chris, the Tungsten having projectile is classified and we don't currently know what that projectile looks like. The EPR is just going to be steel, and that is the GP projectile.
So far as I can tell, specifically the barrel length is 13.5". There was some confusion, as sometimes it is more vaguely stated as "13" and a couple times it was very badly misprinted as "15.3", but it appears 13.5 is what it actually is and these other lengths are erroneous.
As for the upper being an extrusion, is Anchor Harvey in the extrusion game now? It was clearly designed to be extruded, which is why there are all those inserts for anything that sticks out too far sideways. However, it has forge marks, both upper and lower the same.
I wonder if the .308 barrels are the same material as the .277 barrels. The Army told entrants that barrel life wasn't a problem, so they may have given them a specific steel to play with and use.
that definitely look like a lot of recoil for 308, also the impulse seems very harsh.
What a shame. I love the coverage of these new rifles, and once you break it down the way you are, it just seems DOD is repeating the same mistakes from WW2 and Vietnam. The AR-15 platform is a pretty perfect design, and we see that when even Spetznas has been seen running around with them. The only thing I am liking with the Sig design is the delete of the buffer tube. Unless told otherwise, I just dont trust that thing to not bend when using the rifle as a bludgeon, or if it hits the ground too hard the wrong way. That said, I think LWRC is severely underrated, and if it was my choice, every m4 would be replaced either with their M6-IC Enhanced.
Thanks!
As a former small arms repairman, 100% agree with everything in this video. The average grunt can barely take advantage of all the nice things an M4 can do, this thing is just gonna be wasted potential at best and a liability at worst.
Have you wondered about 6.8x51 barrel 13.5 in barrel for a lmt
Is LMT even developing 6.8x51 barrels, or is it possible? I mean, would a LMT MWS 6.8x51 chambered barrel just drop in and work with their H3 buffer and spring?
No idea. The 6.8x51mm ammunition is not readily available and when you can find .277 Fury is around $100 per box
I agree, fantastic info, thanks
Congrats on 100k subs, onward to 1mil
I think the militaries idea with the 277 fury is to train with the cheaper brass cased stuff, but when the situation calls for it switch up to the hot hybrid case stuff
What could go wrong! Lol
That’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.
@@hannibalbarca2939 that is government for you!
I got to handle the sig spear at joe bobs outfitters this summer. Way to heavy compared to my scar. I did buy the spear lt but not to excited about it. My goto in 556 is lmt spec war and the spear lt just doesn't do much for me. I hate the stock on the sig and that folding latch is a pos!
Mine doesn't like M80 ball ammo. Even after I had the barrel tightened to spec. It shot better but still not good. I hear that they prefer 175 grain.
Something he didn't know, is the difference in recall between the 762 and Military 6.8.
I assume the military rounds are going to be hotter in an attempt to squeeze all performance out of the rifle they can. So imagine the recoil
I said I did not know the difference. I ave not had access to the new caliber nor military ammunition. The ammo you would think would be lighter because of the lighter bullet. Then again it’s 80K PSI! So I would expect them to be comparable.
The body armor justification seems like it would be easily be addressed by training. At long range, nobody wants to get shot, whether or not they're wearing armor. In close quarters, aiming at different parts of the body becomes feasible. Either way, there is still an advantage in having more ammo and less recoil with a 5.56x45.
In the long run, I do not believe the M7 will replace the M4. It will likely become a DMR, if anything at all, while the M4 will likely be replaced by an improved version of itself such as a "WWSD"-inspired design.