The Reaper isn't a version of this gun, in fact it's made by an entirely different manufacturer and uses an entirely different round. That being said, yes it is a monster. Effectively fires at 6000 yards compared to the M2 .50 Cal reaching out to a max of ~2200 yards.
Luckily, whoever approved this in the Military is a lot smarter than the people commenting on it. CQB is basically over. Drones have completely changed the way war will be fought and improved body armor has made the 5.56 even more useless than it was from the outset. Personally, I think the infantry should go with a .300 WinMag. Something like the OMEN Watchman. If a soldier can't handle the recoil, they can just transfer to the Air Force.
Carbon build-up in the suppressor would be my guess. Another cleaning issue like we had with the M-16. You'll be soaking them in varsol out at Whitesands. Lol
The reason they're implementing heavier rifles with higher penetration capabilities is due to the changed nature of war. WW3 will look nothing like Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. Drone technology, AI robotics, and hiding in buildings is the new strategy for many militaries, and this rifle seeks to counter those strategies for the infantry.
The xm7 is the weight of a 416 and the xm250 is lighter than an m249. The combat loads are the same weight though with the con being they don't carry as much ammo with the rounds being larger.
@@DbolOnlyGangster That's not how it works kiddo... The Spear is a great DMR, but it's not suited to replace the M16/M4. Too heavy, too much recoil, ammo tradeoff...
The trade off though is the weapons are a lot heavier and it’s less ammo can be carried, which means suppressive fire is going to be a lot more restricted. Made even worse by retention of infantry troops dropping in record numbers.
The M250 looks good. I'm sure it'll replace the M240B nicely. The M7, not so much as an M4 replacement. I see it more of a DMR and would excel at that role. The Spear LT seems better suited as an all-around M4 replacement. From what we've been shown (not much at that) is that XM157? smart optic being the real gamechanger.
This is a bad idea. These guns are going to be a whole lot heavier when you’re loaded down with full gear in the field. Not to mention unnecessarily overpowered. We moved away from heavy battle rifles and full sized ammo for a very good reason. Just adopt the MCX Spear LT but convert it to 6.8 Wolverine and make a belt-fed upper for it.
The 5.56 goes way over the threshold of the speed of sound, as with nearly most long gun ammunition. Suppression's major role is not sound reduction, but signature reduction.
@@MrAyybee2cold when doctrinally we prefer to pick fights at night, a suppressor produces a vastly higher signature when under NOD's. I would prefer a muzzle flash personally. The weapon is quite nice though, I got to shoot it a bit. My only gripe was the upper receiver being a little too wide and thick, makes it hard to c clamp and manipulate your PEQ
There will be a lot of problems with these two systems. Parts breaking and excessive maintenance and repair cycles. It's a fragile build weapon system. It will be the modern era M14.
I have recently revisited the topic of the XM7 again and had some thoughts. *The rifle itself is well engineered for the most part, two charging handles is a bit weird, and the folding stock not locking when folded is odd but whatever. *The XM7 is quite front heavy, heavy barrel, plus suppressor, plus extra weight, plus kit on the front. Doesn't seem fun to use. *The Barrel is 13" which is bloody short, it's very inefficient. It's quite wasteful. You have dropped a lot of potential velocity from the round you are firing by giving it so much less barrel length. Hence why a 80k PSI, spicy round is felt to be needed. *Related to above point, there is adversity to increasing the length of the weapon. This isn't unfounded or unreasonable, Long weapons are less suitable for mounted troops and urban fighting like room clearing. * I feel the whole thing may be an over learned lesson from Afghanistan, since the US went into some pretty long range fighting with some pretty short barrels. Onto what I think are some issues and possible solutions: *Training is being done by using a normal brass cartridge, which must obviously not be the full 80k psi round with the Steel and Aluminum reinforcement. This is because the spicy round would be rough as guts on the gun. It's also far more expensive and less available. ***The problem here should be obvious to most people: If soldiers are being trained on a round with different ballistic properties, and different much lighter felt recoil, then handed out the Spicy "Combat Round" when deployed which feels different (Harsher recoil) and acts differently (Different ballistics). Then that's going to cause a lot of problems. Alongside some of the other issues related to ammo capacity and fire superiority you now have troops being issued a round they have no, or limited experience with. Imagine training everyone on SCAR-L then only giving them SCAR-H in combat. There would be problems. Now, maybe you get some range time on the spicy round during training, but the average soldier only has so much range time so you're undercutting the value of the training by using the lighter training round. But, you cant use the spicy round, because it costs too much and is too rough on the rifle. So I suspect what will happen is that the "Training" round will be the normally issued round until such time as the spicy is considered needed because someone made new body armour. Or possibly a third round, a Carbide tipped version of the "Training round" becomes standard issue to defeat body armour Now, I don't have a real practical solution to the issues of the XM7 because the decision has been made and that's locked in a lot of issues that are only going to be solved by throwing money at things. Beyond extending the barrels and using the "Training round." I don't know what you could do. What I would have done. I would of adopted a bullpup with around a full 20" barrel. I know some people in america have an aversion to Bullpups but The French, UK and Australia have or had Bullpups with barrels of around that length, that were shorter overall weapons than the XM7. These weapons have worked well for decades. Obviously the British had some initial issues, but those were solved decades ago. The only outstanding issue with a bullpup weapon is the shell ejection. Which multiple example have solved to one degree or another. Depending on how radical you want to be. A 20" bullpup means increased barrel length which means higher velocities out of lighter rounds, from a barrel that is starting to approach twice the length of the XM7. Or if you want the 6.8mm it means getting much better performance without feeling the need for the 80k spicy round. Whichever way you cut it the performance will be better out of a more compact bullpup. I'm curious to see what the ADF does. I know Thales has made a 6.8mm Steyr for assessment. If we do make the jump to 6.8mm for some reason then i hope we go with that, over the SIG XM7 and I hope we use the normal Brass rounds instead of that hybrid Steel/Aluminum/Brass case thing.
I have a feeling this is going to end up like the FBI’s 10mm…. The FBI complained 9mm was too weak and wanted much more powerful round so the 10mm was developed and most of the agents could not handle the recoil so it was phased out and 30 years later they’re still back to the 9mm lol
Anyone with a semblance of basic common sense can see this rifle is utterly worthless Cool bullet technology Bad design and nothing of value to offer at all
The Russians are already creating their answer and it is called AK22 6.02x41, it is the chassis of the AK12 but its bullet is not hybrid and there is nothing special about it 🤷
The Machine gun version is a monster
The Reaper isn't a version of this gun, in fact it's made by an entirely different manufacturer and uses an entirely different round.
That being said, yes it is a monster. Effectively fires at 6000 yards compared to the M2 .50 Cal reaching out to a max of ~2200 yards.
@@TonyisgamingJesus Christ
@@Tonyisgaming I believe he was referring to the XM250, not the Ohio Ordnance Reaper (however they spell it).
The suppressor that turned into a cigarette lighter is somewhat concerning.
Which becomes a hazard.
Seems like they were complaining about the gas blow back as well.
A suppressed machine gun does not make that much sense anyway. Not for open combat in daylight at least. Surprise night attack, yeah I get that
Well they do need to stress test these things to see where errors are and where they can improve
@@f.schmid468Better coms, less hearing damage, harder to pinpoint source of fire.
Luckily, whoever approved this in the Military is a lot smarter than the people commenting on it.
CQB is basically over.
Drones have completely changed the way war will be fought and improved body armor has made the 5.56 even more useless than it was from the outset.
Personally, I think the infantry should go with a .300 WinMag. Something like the OMEN Watchman. If a soldier can't handle the recoil, they can just transfer to the Air Force.
Carbon build-up in the suppressor would be my guess. Another cleaning issue like we had with the M-16. You'll be soaking them in varsol out at Whitesands. Lol
The reason they're implementing heavier rifles with higher penetration capabilities is due to the changed nature of war. WW3 will look nothing like Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. Drone technology, AI robotics, and hiding in buildings is the new strategy for many militaries, and this rifle seeks to counter those strategies for the infantry.
Wessss Approve “Lightning” “Thundåå” 🏴🏴
is that a C-RAM in the background at the start? 😅
The SCAR-H is a better platform. It is also not as heavy. It also doesn't have the magazine fit issue.
Imagine doing MOUT or rucking that all day. Yeah it's gonna suck . I think these won't be that liked by soldiers all that much.
The xm7 is the weight of a 416 and the xm250 is lighter than an m249. The combat loads are the same weight though with the con being they don't carry as much ammo with the rounds being larger.
Kicks like the 1977, M14 rifle. Recoil killed that program
That gun kicks a lot of soldiers is going to be complaining about recoil
Then man up
@@DbolOnlyGangster the bullpup rifle would have been better
@@DbolOnlyGangster That's not how it works kiddo...
The Spear is a great DMR, but it's not suited to replace the M16/M4. Too heavy, too much recoil, ammo tradeoff...
@@redslate XM7 is not that heavy, recoil isnt bad either and the ammo isnt an issue either since it has a lot lot lot higher kill probability.
@fennoman9241 You don't seem to have any military experience, specifically combat-arms...
massive scope
I feel better already. More Power! Sounds like an M1. They'd better find different paint for that suppressor.
The trade off though is the weapons are a lot heavier and it’s less ammo can be carried, which means suppressive fire is going to be a lot more restricted. Made even worse by retention of infantry troops dropping in record numbers.
Similar recoil.
These are the 13" .277 Fury "M7"s, which are comparable to the 16" .308 XM7s.
The new guns shot by a real Army unit starts at 4:03
The M250 looks good. I'm sure it'll replace the M240B nicely. The M7, not so much as an M4 replacement. I see it more of a DMR and would excel at that role. The Spear LT seems better suited as an all-around M4 replacement. From what we've been shown (not much at that) is that XM157? smart optic being the real gamechanger.
XM157 suffers from occasional red screen of death and unusable on the m250 when there is excessive heat mirage coming from the surpressor
If it ain't broke, don't fix.
This is a bad idea. These guns are going to be a whole lot heavier when you’re loaded down with full gear in the field. Not to mention unnecessarily overpowered. We moved away from heavy battle rifles and full sized ammo for a very good reason. Just adopt the MCX Spear LT but convert it to 6.8 Wolverine and make a belt-fed upper for it.
Yeah but heavy body armor wasn’t a thing when they did that back then either
Beltfed upper and 6.8 Wolverine? Could you have suggested any worse of an idea?
why would you put a suppressor on any bullet that goes way over the threshold of the speed of sound.
To reduce muzzle flash and to increase difficulty in pinpointing the source.
The 5.56 goes way over the threshold of the speed of sound, as with nearly most long gun ammunition. Suppression's major role is not sound reduction, but signature reduction.
@@peady64 This rifle isn't 5.56. Regardless, there is still an inherent benefit with having a suppressor, regardless of load.
@@MrAyybee2cold Shooting with a suppressor is more visible than shooting without a silencer in a thermal camera.
@@MrAyybee2cold when doctrinally we prefer to pick fights at night, a suppressor produces a vastly higher signature when under NOD's. I would prefer a muzzle flash personally. The weapon is quite nice though, I got to shoot it a bit. My only gripe was the upper receiver being a little too wide and thick, makes it hard to c clamp and manipulate your PEQ
silencer/flash hider doubles as a blow touch and flash light
There will be a lot of problems with these two systems. Parts breaking and excessive maintenance and repair cycles. It's a fragile build weapon system. It will be the modern era M14.
It's pretty rugged. I don't see "fragility" hindering this weapon at all.
Weight, recoil, and ammo are the detractors.
M16 platform was pretty dogshit when it was introduced, look where it's at now.
You obviously have never used even the civilian version of that rifle if you think it's fragile
Wow! Mind sharing your crystal ball, wizard? Stupid to say before its even been widely introduced.
GD Bullpup was perfect ❤
Keep the m250 machine gun. The xm7 rifle is just to heavy and too much recoil
Hilll Alley
Mariah Loaf
I have recently revisited the topic of the XM7 again and had some thoughts.
*The rifle itself is well engineered for the most part, two charging handles is a bit weird, and the folding stock not locking when folded is odd but whatever.
*The XM7 is quite front heavy, heavy barrel, plus suppressor, plus extra weight, plus kit on the front. Doesn't seem fun to use.
*The Barrel is 13" which is bloody short, it's very inefficient. It's quite wasteful. You have dropped a lot of potential velocity from the round you are firing by giving it so much less barrel length. Hence why a 80k PSI, spicy round is felt to be needed.
*Related to above point, there is adversity to increasing the length of the weapon. This isn't unfounded or unreasonable, Long weapons are less suitable for mounted troops and urban fighting like room clearing.
* I feel the whole thing may be an over learned lesson from Afghanistan, since the US went into some pretty long range fighting with some pretty short barrels.
Onto what I think are some issues and possible solutions:
*Training is being done by using a normal brass cartridge, which must obviously not be the full 80k psi round with the Steel and Aluminum reinforcement. This is because the spicy round would be rough as guts on the gun. It's also far more expensive and less available.
***The problem here should be obvious to most people: If soldiers are being trained on a round with different ballistic properties, and different much lighter felt recoil, then handed out the Spicy "Combat Round" when deployed which feels different (Harsher recoil) and acts differently (Different ballistics). Then that's going to cause a lot of problems. Alongside some of the other issues related to ammo capacity and fire superiority you now have troops being issued a round they have no, or limited experience with.
Imagine training everyone on SCAR-L then only giving them SCAR-H in combat. There would be problems.
Now, maybe you get some range time on the spicy round during training, but the average soldier only has so much range time so you're undercutting the value of the training by using the lighter training round.
But, you cant use the spicy round, because it costs too much and is too rough on the rifle. So I suspect what will happen is that the "Training" round will be the normally issued round until such time as the spicy is considered needed because someone made new body armour.
Or possibly a third round, a Carbide tipped version of the "Training round" becomes standard issue to defeat body armour
Now, I don't have a real practical solution to the issues of the XM7 because the decision has been made and that's locked in a lot of issues that are only going to be solved by throwing money at things.
Beyond extending the barrels and using the "Training round." I don't know what you could do.
What I would have done.
I would of adopted a bullpup with around a full 20" barrel. I know some people in america have an aversion to Bullpups but The French, UK and Australia have or had Bullpups with barrels of around that length, that were shorter overall weapons than the XM7. These weapons have worked well for decades. Obviously the British had some initial issues, but those were solved decades ago.
The only outstanding issue with a bullpup weapon is the shell ejection. Which multiple example have solved to one degree or another. Depending on how radical you want to be.
A 20" bullpup means increased barrel length which means higher velocities out of lighter rounds, from a barrel that is starting to approach twice the length of the XM7. Or if you want the 6.8mm it means getting much better performance without feeling the need for the 80k spicy round.
Whichever way you cut it the performance will be better out of a more compact bullpup.
I'm curious to see what the ADF does. I know Thales has made a 6.8mm Steyr for assessment. If we do make the jump to 6.8mm for some reason then i hope we go with that, over the SIG XM7 and I hope we use the normal Brass rounds instead of that hybrid Steel/Aluminum/Brass case thing.
In those clips that the mg338 witch is bigger and more powerful than the xm250
Mg338 has a longer barrel and fatter suppressor
Its too big and long pause😂
Por más que veo las nuevas armas no le veo futuro a este proyecto...
I have a feeling this is going to end up like the FBI’s 10mm…. The FBI complained 9mm was too weak and wanted much more powerful round so the 10mm was developed and most of the agents could not handle the recoil so it was phased out and 30 years later they’re still back to the 9mm lol
Corruption 😅
Badass
Anyone with a semblance of basic common sense can see this rifle is utterly worthless
Cool bullet technology
Bad design and nothing of value to offer at all
Thanks you made in germany !
These are made in the US by Sig.
@@joshuab7737sig sauer inc is also an American company owned by L & O HOLDING.
The Russians are already creating their answer and it is called AK22 6.02x41, it is the chassis of the AK12 but its bullet is not hybrid and there is nothing special about it 🤷
Bold of you to assume they could even outfit their troops with that supposed rifle :vv
@@Josua070 Russia can't afford it
@@fleecejohnsonn Exacta.
AK22 is in some guys office and this is in the armoury already