@@Mediiiicc Weight is one of the big ones, there's also expense, logistics, and questions of longevity with how much pressure the cartridges run through it
We're all appreciating that they're doing a full teardown. But I'm really appreciating that torx head construction screws are becoming ubiquitous, thank god the reign of philips is finally waning.
@ 16:36 the brass is probably hitting his face due to being slightly under gassed with civy ammo since the military ammo is much hotter (and per the contract award announcement still having classified specs). Again, InRangeTV, awesome video on the MCX Spear.
that and it still has the x designation they can adjust he brass deflector by the time it hits mass production if they need to. Of course with the all soldiers that already have handled the rifle for testing they probably would have noticed an issue for lefties so it's probably just the civilian ammo running a bit cooler. either way this rifle could definitely replace the SCAR-17 the NGSW carries a lot of energy at range even with a shorter barrel. now whether it can replace the M-4 though is another question entirely.
That's not the civilian round, it's the reduced power training cartridge that they're mostly firing; you can tell by the full brass case. The training round is also going to be what the lower recoil CQB round will be based on, except it will use an M855A1/M80A1 type bullet with exposed steel penetrator.
What pretty much everyone is missing is that the rifle acquisition isn't just itself, the XM250, or the optic, it's a single aspect of the modernization effort as a whole that is shaping to rewrite just about every aspect of the Army's (and military as a whole) doctrine. Most people forget that close combat doctrine is still founded upon Vietnam era philosophy where everyone was using weapons and equipment only slightly better than their WWII era counterparts with iron sights and the only means of communication and information gathering/sharing being binoculars and hand/voice or the Platoon radios. The basis of engaging the enemy for close combat forces was fire and maneuver by achieving fire superiority via volume of fire and closing in. Now we have the ability to equip every rifleman with LPVOs, IVAS, radios at the squad level, medium range drones at the company level and micro drones at the squad or Platoon level. With new technologies and information sharing capabilities, maneuver elements will be able to achieve superiority at range, faster, and with more precision than before. Furthermore, the Army as a whole is becoming more heavily mechanized, meaning the heavier weight and reduced ammunition capacity for the XM5 is less of an issue. Even units like the 82nd are slated to receive light tanks. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not operations being conducted at the BCT level in COINOPs, with light infantry conducting extended dismounted patrols. This is part of a transition to large scale, conventional, force on force, multi-domain operations at the division and Corps level with multiple branches operating together at the same time. The ability to share information at the rate we can today means that the military as a whole is pushing towards being more integrated and data centric, and sharing of fire support in a way that will make the Gulf War look archaic by comparison, but what stays the same is the emphasis on tactical and strategic overmatch. TL;DR The decision to switch to a battle rifle makes sense when you understand the big picture.
I keep looking for it but no one has gotten there yet, but it’s seems pretty loud with the current sig can on the barrel. After the last few years of 300blk/aac everything seems loud now in comparison, but I want to see both side by side of the spear with and without, and then side by side of the Spear and a mk11/sr-25 both with and without a suppressor.
I still don't understand why they keep the charging handle on a weapon that is meant to fire suppressed. Just a large port for gas in your face. I get that the untrained went straight for the charging handle, but that's not a problem that is difficult to correct with training.
I think the future of combat will increasingly see infantry being under threat from airborne drones, who will most likely operate at longer ranges than what infantry does when they run between bushes. Keep in mind, they don't even have to carry weapons - being able to spot you for artillery is more than bad enough. Having a weapon that is able to see those little buggers off without requiring a $100000 Stinger or a 50kg M2 Browning being available will probably end up being as or more important than being able to do supressive fire with a light bullet.
Then the drones will get smaller. Then the robots will just fight each other. Then the robots take over. I suppose we lowly humans will need energy weapons of some sort to deal with them.
I'm pretty sure squad or even fireteam level jdams will be the best move. I watched a small drone drop essentially a pipe bomb into the sunroof of a car in some Ukraine footage from a hundred feet up or so. Micro tactical artillery and precision bombing is probably more important than some ultra rifle.
The army has already stated it’s going to special operations, infantry, scout and combat engineer units first. Other combat arms and support units will keep M4s indefinitely.
@@Soravia Or a need. Giving one to a truck driver or cook isn’t worth the price. Don’t forget the Vortex optic is going to cost more then the rifle and the optic is the thing that is really pushing the rifles capabilities forward.
I'm interested to see how well those rounds will stand up to exposure testing. You have two dissimilar metals in contact, that's a recipe for electrostatic corrosion if I ever saw one.
that's already the case with existing ammo, with the case, jacket, and primer, if your ammo is sitting around in salt water for extended periods you have other problems
@@Broken_Yugo Could have been weight. It's not much, but a few extra rounds per person ads up. Also, if the goal is polymer, then this is the "stopgap." If they can pull it off, then weight goes down and corrosion is not a problem.
Its not two dissimilar metals, its three. There is an aluminum captive ring between the brass and steel. Thats always healthy having Al and Fe in the same place at the same time.
5.56 was insufficient in Afghanistan due to the long-range engagement distances, but the next conflict will have other problems to solve. I'm sure a lot of troops that took indirect fire on the regular in that theater would have loved 6.8. The military always solves problems years late.
What have Your troops been shot at with? 7.62X54R, right? Was it shot from a rifle? No, they shot it from PKM. So instead of doing the logical thing and putting more M240s per unit (they're not patrolling on foot anyway), US army once more fails the subject it passed through almost 60 years ago, and try to make "every marine a rifleman". An inevitable fail waiting to happen, again.
@@worldfamousgi86 M16 is not capable at the distances found in the Helmand valley. When a disgruntled afghan on a hillside opens fire (regardless of caliber), a group of soldiers with M16's are relegated to their MRAPs. With a 6.8 x 51 mm weapon, those soldiers on low ground suddenly have firepower superiority if intel determines that only small-arms fire is the source of indirect fire (common scenario). M4 is a 300 yd weapon, M16 is maybe a 400 yd weapon. Do you really believe that 5.5 inches of barrel make 200+ yards of difference?
I keep thinking that this ammo should not replace 5.56 but it should replace any 308 system. I still belive that 5.56 is the better choice for a lot of scenarioes, but i agree that there should be always someone in the team with a gun capable of engaging targets at longer distances, and this rifle, coupled with the new optics makes for a perfect DMR. The same thing can be said about the new LMG, overall the best part of this program, a lightweight wepon that can finally compete with the PKM. In other words the M4, the M5 and the M250 should all be part of a team, along with 40mm grenade launchers.
What also strikes me is that it looks like they did the full auto test fire with the civilian ammunition, which has 40% of the pressure of the military ammo, per the specification in the NGSW contract. I still think the milspec ammo is going to be tough to shoot continuously and effectively with. The milspec has more power than 308 and 7.62 NATO... I just don't see how that would be "light" shooting... Especially in an AR platform. For reference, the first minute of this video shows a dude who looks like he's 300lb of sheer muscle shooting the milspec stuff... His body moves almost an entire foot backwards with every burst: ruclips.net/video/vlrBEEG__1E/видео.html
At the end of the day it's a guessing game: Where will the next deployments take place? How will logistics be? Who will be the enemy? Just take the war in ukraine as an example: The guys fighting in Kiev, in Mariupol etc probably would love a short handy, light M4 with. Yet their mates fighting the russians out in the trenches and fields of the donbas region or in the vast open spaces north of kiev would likely jump at the option to get a 7.62 NATO oder 6.8 mm rifle. Same thing applies to militaries in general: you don't know what the next battlefield will look like. ISAF vets would've loved more 7.62 rifles in their squads from all I've heard.
@@bavarianpotato I've gotten the impression that these guns are a compromise between 5.56 and 7.62. Basically an "intermediate intermediate" cartridge.
I think it's misleading that some gun channels that get their hands on these rifles are firing non military spec ammo and saying that recoil isn't so bad or the gas isn't getting in their face. I want to see what recoil and gas is like when it's firing 80,000 PSI military ammo.
The more weird thing is, that the military is "training" on this lower pressure round. But intends to issue full pressure rounds during combat. Which completely alters the skills feeling of the weapon. Its completely backwards to the concept of train like you shoot.
@@geronimo5537 I think the military figures the cost savings (both in ammo and wear and tear) is much more valuable than the slight benefit you get from using the higher recoil ammo in training
I see a significant lack of charging handles. Tactical operator need third on a handguard and fourth on a bolt carrier. Also loading lever is fine too.
Honestly, the two charging handles just confuses me. I'm not really a gun guy, so I'm hoping someone here can explain the logic of adding one in the side when you've already got a charging handle on top that just seems better in every way.
@@Corruption922 Only reason they did it was because Army had it listed as one of the requirements. They could have removed the AR style charging handle, but they didn't because during testing under stress soldiers were reaching for the traditional charging handle and not for the side one. Army stubbornly didn't remove the side charging handle requirement so SIG decided it's best to keep both knowing that almost everyone will keep using the the rear one and ignore the side one.
Very cool to see it in full auto. I remember the videos from Task & Purpose about a year ago taking it to a range event and seeing him get rocked by the recoil. I'm definitely not saying I could do better, I haven't shot any semiauto heavier then 5.56 in years. But very cool to see how someone experienced with auto fire handles the NGSW.
The guy in this video did say the civy version of the ammo they were shooting are much lower pressure than the mil rounds. Maybe thats why in this video it seems to be more controllable than T&P video
Body weight plays a difference as well as posture. Cappy didn't have good posture nor weight. Also likely used military load with full power, about 20% more pressure?
@@SoccerVJ2011 to be fair, he always claims to be the "Average Infantryman" and nothing more. And personally, having never shot further than 100yds, I'd be curious how low I'd place on a marksmanship course such as those in Basic. I'd love to try out a range like used in 9 Hole Reviews with any of my rifles.
I literally see where they got all of their ideas from and this gun honestly is starting to a make a lot of sense. Not for an infantry rifle, but definitely for other roles. If BLKLBL made a bipod for this thing, we'd be set.
That would be really cool, especially if this was used more as a DMR. Main down side i could see argued against it would be adding just little more weight to an already heavy rifle. But on the commercial market where most owners dont really need to carry it for long periods of time a little more weight shouldn't be an issue
What would make sense, assuming they ignore the logistical advantage of staying with one combat cartridge, is applying the SIG bi-metal case technology to the 5.56x45mm. Slim the case diameter down from 9.6mm to 8.8mm, shorten the case length down to 35mm, and raise the operating pressure up. You then have an enhanced PDW round that performs identical to the previous 5.56x45mm, but is both lighter weight and higher capacity. Or conversely, go for the gusto and do the same enhancement to 6mm ARC using a 10.7mm 6.8 SPC/224 Valkyrie case diameter; which gives you a 6mm cartridge that matches or even outperforms 6mm ARC from shorter barrels, and lets you use the already designed Magpul Six8 mags as a bonus.
@@ostiariusalpha I kinda like that idea. But what about 1 step further? Apply this tech to something like the 5.7 and try to get near 5.56 performance from a short barrel pistol friendly cartridge? Replace 9mm with it - now you have a light armor penetrating pistol round, and also place it into a pdw system.... say something like a militarized dbx57? Make the pistol/pdw mags compatible/interchangeable.... Eliminate the logistics of 9mm/5.56/7.62 in a normal squad with just 2 cartridges - the fury and this 5.7 super kinda thing. Half the squad has the fury - lots of dmr and saw sorta overlap, couple guys have the pdw/dbx57 in a cqb/door kicker and semi suppression role with the ability to carry loooots of ammo now. Same capability as an m4 now, but lighter and higher ammo count. Bonus - everyone's sidearms are not only more capable, but can supply the pdw guys in a pinch or vice versa if the reduced round count from the big sig fury stuff becomes an issue. Ofc expense and difficulty of producing such a small, higher pressure round (especially when used in an actual service pistol), could be a big pita, but hey.... dream big(small?) I guess.
I give props to the illumined arms guys for being geniuses in their marketing by providing a super rare product to RUclipsrs. Give whoever’s idea this was a huge fucking raise because that’s gotta be some of the smartest marketing I’ve ever seen
you might want to look into the BRN 180, which is a modernized version of the gas piston operated AR-18. (modernization primarily in handguard, and adaptation to mil spec pins) You can get it in a variety of calibers, and the upper drops right in on a mil spec lower.
A lot of people have talked about how this would be a great DMR but a poor infantry rifle, I’m not sure if those people see the point of the NGSW. It seems to me that with the scope and ballistic computer, they’re essentially trying to make every soldier a DMR. Not sure if things will work out the way the Army wants them, but that seems to be the goal.
Imagine a future where there are scopes that work similarly to data link which is used on modern fighter planes. Drones could highlight threats in Realtime, soldiers wielding the MCX, of which the scope has a ballistic computer installed, would have the absolute advantage over many distances, which is further amplified by the new rounds long range capabilities. That would insane! But hey I'm just a dude writing this comment while taking a dump :D
I agree with you. I don’t think they’re trying to push this into the same niche that an M4 or any other 5.56 rifle would fill. Rather I think, like you said, that they want to make every infantryman have the capabilities of what we would nowadays consider a “designated marksmen.” Maybe going forward the designated marksmen role will be pushed into becoming a full on sniper, or being more in line with a standard infantrymen.
You have to remember that this is the same military that took cannon off of ALL military fighter aircraft. The reason given was "missiles were the future" and then had to scramble to put them back on when their planes were getting shot down by Russian MiGs with cannon fire.
I've said it before. This is a rifle and cartridge designed for a war that hasn't happened yet. A war with a near peer who has widespread usage of proper ballistic plates. If that war never happens, us smug keyboard soldiers will say this rifle was a mistake blah blah wasn't needed blah. It will be relegated to the M14's role and that's that. It does fill a capability gap as it stands. The M4 can't quite reach the ranges it needs to in the middle east a lot of times. If it does, I can see it being extremely appreciated, especially considering the scope its meant to work with. That is, assuming it works as intended (the rounds are as potent and penetrate well, have long range etc). The military has tried to replace the AR series for so long, and has rejected so many bids over the past 20-40 years. The fact that they finally got one they feel is a big enough improvement is significant. Time will tell, though.
Most of the commentary on the NGSW completely misses a much larger backdrop of something enormous that's happening in the Army. Long story short, the Army believes that we are on the cusp of losing the military arms race against China unless drastic and preemptive action is taken to reinvent and reorganize the Army. On March 16th 2021 they released a multi decade long plan called the "Army Multi Domain Transformation". Here's two key excerpts: "Although our Army still maintains overmatch, it is fleeting. In the face of determined adversaries and accelerating technological advances, we must transform today to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Future conflicts will manifest at longer range, across all domains, and at much greater speed, both physical and cognitive. We must therefore continue to implement a 21st century talent management system, develop and field new weapon systems, transform our doctrine, build new organizations, and change the way we train." "The Joint Operating Environment (JOE) asserts that by 2040, the decline of the 20th century international order will lead to an unstructured international environment where the line between conflict and peace is blurred. America’s adversaries, enabled by the proliferation of new technologies, will restrict our freedom of action and erode our strategic advantages. By 2040, our adversaries will develop novel asymmetric capabilities. Of these, China presents the most enduring strategic challenge, and is most likely to reach military parity with the Joint Force by 2040. If we fail to address these emerging threats, the Joint Force will face significant risk of being outflanked in competition, globally contested, fractured, and disintegrated." They plan to be completely restructured by 2035, with an assessment point of 2028. This is much more serious business than almost anyone realizes, and it's why I think the Army is going to follow through with the XM5. With the explicit backdrop of China, there are some clues that help the NGSW make even more sense. At first glance, a rifle that can do both DMR work and CQB is pretty ridiculous right? But look at the geography of our potential battlefield against China. South East Asia. Let's have a look at the geography of our allies in the region. Taiwan; mountainous with massive urban centers Japan; mountainous with massive urban centers South Korea; mountainous with massive urban centers Suddenly the rifle makes more sense doesn't it? The fact that this is big Army doing this and not SOCOM or some other branch is also telling. The Army is usually the one dragging their feet when it comes to these things. The M16 was first adopted by the Air Force for instance.
It's useless against near peer opponent as their armor won't be penetrated and war in general will be waged by heavy weapons and air/artillery strikes. So there wouldn't be much difference if M-14 , m-4 or xm-5 or even m-1 garand would be used as a primary infanteyman's firearms.
@Grassy Knoll yeah. Think of any combat footage from the middle east in the last 20 years. The overwhelming majority is in an urban area or the middle of a field, taking fire from God knows where, often at 100s of meters. Instead of lobbing little intermediate rounds that lose a ton of their pep at those ranges (especially from a 14 inch barrel), that's where this comes in. We've had rifles that could do that before, though. In terms of how this thing compares with contemporaries like the m14 ebr, scar h, etc... I'm not so sure. I'm sure it's better in a lot of ways. One thing I am more sure of is that yeah, the lowest enlisted who get armed with this thing are going to struggle, unless training improves. You can't cheat physics. Bigger n heavier guns/bullets are harder for people to lug around, and shoot quickly. I don't mean full auto btw, I mean quick follow up shots. People place too much emphasis on full auto. In almost every scenario except for perhaps building clearing, full auto generally isn't used. If I'm not mistaken, I'm not even sure it's trained for at a basic level. Like many, I'm not sure how to feel about it. However I'm sure that people more informed than I have been mulling over this for a long time. I just hope that they are doing so for technical/performance reasons, not for scandalous/fiscal ones.
I think the armor penetration abilities is necessary to “future proof” this rifle and it’s ammo. I just hope we can some how maintain a similar round count carried by using polymer ammo with steel base and still maintain the range and armor piercing capabilities.
The issue with that line of thought is there's already body armor that can 100% defeat non-tungsten core 6.8x51. Body armor development is just faster than small arms development.
@@carbon8ed but is that what’s currently being issued/planned it be issued to our near pear rivals? If not do they have the capabilities to obtain/produce this armor in sufficient quantities, and is the armor a good choice (light enough & durable)
@@carbon8ed that's what I was thinking. There's no weapon a soldier can reasonably carry today that will reliably go through modern armor at combat distances, anywhere from a foot away to maybe 5 or 600 yards easily with the heavier cartridge. So no, I don't think they're going to get what they're looking for as far as armor penetration. I think the M4 is actually a great compromise because unless they wanna issue .338 armor piercing rounds because it's not going through armor anyway. But you can carry A LOT of ammo that's mostly gonna go over people's heads to suppress them and free up a maneuver element. And since you have so many rounds you can shoot at the enemy until you manage to slip one around his plate. Obviously body armor hasn't gotten in the way of 5.45x39 in eastern Europe. I think it'll be a long time until we really replace the M4. Now I think this could supplement M4s as a sort of DMR, or maybe if special forces think they're going to need the extra effective range and power.But unless we invent some sort of directed energy weapons or have some major leap forward with firearm technology like the introduction of smokeless powder.
Without tungsten forget penetrating 4a esapi or their equivalent plates problem is that most of the source of it is in China and Russia. Fortunately enough ongoing war has shown us that at least one doesn't have enough budget to buy plates for every soldier. That's why they are also adopting high tech scope so that everyone will be doing headshot or near headshots, removing the problem of tungsten source. Beside that one can't armour head enough, even with glacing blow or repeated hits or the time gained by knocking enemy soldier will give time to put second or third shot near or at head. So we shouldn't see it as a rifle but as a weapon system which consist of rifle, cartridge, scope and suppressor. As getting headshot will be making you a priority target for fire support. At this point if one wants to armour head enough to survive headshot then just get exo skeleton or suit ie powered armour.
@@carbon8ed not to mention they could apply the case technology to the 5.56 and put M855A1s proof pressure to shame. They could issue a modified upper receiver to handle the high pressure 5.56. It would solve the range issue, you could probably get 20 inch barrel performance out of a 10 inch gun if that were the case. And scary performance from a 14.5 or 16 inch carbine. You'd probably be able to keep 2200 fps out to 500 yards with the right projectile.
A thought just occurred on carrying all the weight of ammo. Think about the Boston Dynamics robotic dogs they've already developed, and whispers those can be easily adapted to function as material/ammo mules in the military. You put a one or two of those robot dogs carrying cases of pre-loaded mags of .277 Fury in each squad, that makes for a much more valid case to have this rifle supplant the M4. If you can offset the downside of increased weight/decreased capacity with mobile ammo mules, you make this rifle and scope setup absolutely unmatched.
The military already tested this and the biggest drawback was the noise. Technology needs to advance more before it becomes viable. That's why Boston Dynamics was able to direct what they learned into a commercial product like spot. Otherwise it would be proprietary military tech.
@@zacharyolenick1054 Well what do they do with tanks, planes, or other vehicles with proprietary tech behind enemy lines? They either take out the tech or blow it up.
Over/under on how soon after the first batch gets issued to when you've got a squad having recoil spring distance competitions: 3 minutes +/- 30 seconds.
The M4 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Just look at how the army is fielding the xm5. For instance my guard unit just got the sig pistol. It's going to infantry, cavalry scout, and combat engineer units in limited numbers.
Hope you can do some body armor test. And Im impressed that it looks like the recoil is less and more controllable than the some .308 rifles like the Scar 17, AR-10 etc.
Scar heavy does not have heavy recoil. It’s the lightest shooting 7.62 I’ve ever shot, actually not much more than an M4 in my “how it feels to me” test. Shockingly light recoil.
Unless I'm mahoosively mistaken, the ammo used in the full auto test is all brass as you can see through the lancer mag. This would make it the standard pressure ball round and as per SIG's website will only give you 3000fps out of a 24" barrel? Out of a 16" they quote 2750... and this is 13" with a can so maybe a 140 grain projectile at 2600-2650? Not too dissimilar to other full auto .308s which would explain controllability when handled by an experienced shooter like yourself. Would really like to see it done with the 80k psi military load seeing as they're the only ones who are going to be using it in full auto...
We've seen full auto demonstrations by Sig representatives in previous videos (check the TFB TV video), and I'm presuming those are the full power military loads cause it's pushing them back a decent amount with bursts.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this rifle specifically with the optic pushes out firefight distances, with the optic assisting then the average soldier could actually shoot well past 300 yards making longer firefights practical
The 20th century study that showed 300 yards and in as the typical engagement distance (don't recall if it was WWI or WWII), was done in a time of iron sights. And we all know that after a few hundred yards, it becomes hard to spot or ID a target whatsoever with the naked eye. But now that everyone is going to be having 6x magnification, we're gonna be moving past the ability of the human eye, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the average engagement distance goes up. The 300 and in axiom may no longer apply.
@@horatiusromanus I don't see why fighting in urban areas would be any more common than it has been. No great societal change has happened that would affect that. Militaries still avoid cities like the plague, they are nightmares to fight in. The whole point of the scope and this round is to let soldiers be able to still be accurate at longer ranges. Assuming it works as stated, you wouldn't need to be close to ensure first round hits, and I don't see how "shock effect" is a function of the range of the aggressor. Camouflage has remained the same, I agree. But surveillance technology has improved drastically though. Right now militaries are considering putting man portable recon drones on the squad level. I can only see the intelligence capabilities of a soldier getting better as time goes on, which would make longer range engagements more and more probable.
Not very likely, look at engagement distances going back to the American Civil War, usually 100 yards or less. somebody at 100 yards that doesnt want to get shot can be tough to hit, they dont just stand there for you. If they're moving in rushes and well trained, good luck.
@@horatiusromanus I agree urban fighting is only going to get more common but it is still only one part of warfare, and as said in another comment it is a lot easier now to locate enemies further out and then with the new system engage them.
Really happy that you mentioned the point about it not necessarily being adopted widely but very probably only by the army. This is a point that I’ve noticed a lot of other “guntubers” have missed in their discussion of the rifle, and while I do have some gripes with it still I think it is a more suitable choice for the army in their modern doctrinal role
You know, this is one question I don’t think anybody asked: how effective is this round when going up against modern body armor (such as SAPI plates, or the Russian and Chinese equivalents)? I’m pretty sure the SAPI plates I was issued were rated for 7.62x51mm NATO. I mean, part of the reason the P90 flopped is it wouldn’t of done diddly squat to Soviet body armor (and it was designed to counter said armor). If somebody reports or records showing this round can counter body armor then great, but otherwise I’m assuming it’s got the P90’s problem...
Ball ammo at rifle velocities won't defeat armor. I would guess they have a specific AP round. They could issue HK 417 or the like with AP 762 Nato but then they couldn't waste a lot of time or money.
These are smaller projectiles going faster. Yet still have enough mass. These will not suffer those issues. Considering .270 Win smokes plates all day.
Even true tungsten core AP 5.56 struggles against Lv 4 plates at 200+ yards. The new 6.8 will work fine with a tungsten tipped round, but so would M993 7.62. Where this rifle will have an advantage is against Lv3 and 3 special threat plates, the standard ball round will defeat those even near the edge of its effective range. There's two logical possibilities behind the push for regressing to full sized battle rifles. The first is the prevalence of drones, we'll see remotely operated machines small enough to replace frontline infantry in the near future. This is a possibility, but I find it unlikely, because the USA is the only one with the resources to mass produce drones like that. Second is new body armor tech. Today, the USA is the only country that issues body armor to all deployed troops, no other military does that on the same scale. But recently, there's been an announcement of a new form of polymer at MIT, "plastic stronger than steel." You could essentially 3D print body armor that is something like 1/4 of the weight of conventional plates. Not just for vitals, but full body plate, a full suit of LV 4 armor at ~60 pounds or less. Unlike current ceramics, this polymer plate will be far cheaper, and faster to mass produce, plus it can be made to conform to the wearer, meaning more comfortable with greater coverage. Suddenly, every other country can field full body armor for all combat arms troops, and everyone's scrambling to make more effective anti-infantry weaponry.
With AP ammo it will blow through any body armor currently fielded by adversary nations, since we know that current AP 7.62 NATO will through tests, and the 6.8 round is ballistically superior to 7.62 NATO. With ball ammo, probably not, at least not without multiple hits. With something in between like steel core, maybe, that would have to be tested.
I’m just gonna go by the math and numbers that are currently available: Current NIJ level four armor is rated to stop one round of 30-06 steel core, AP ammo, which is approximately 166 grains traveling at 2880 ft/sec and thus delivering 3058 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. Per SAAMI ballistics for the 277 Fury round that are currently available, the 6.8x51 creates 80,000 psi and delivers a 135 grain bullet traveling at 3000 ft/sec delivering 2698 ft/lbs of kinetic energy out of a 16” barrel. Note that the M5 has a 13” barrel, reducing velocity, and is meant to be married to a suppressor, which should also reduce velocity. So, if a steel-core bullet delivering significantly higher kinetic energy won’t penetrate current level 4 armor, I fail to understand, based on running the numbers that are currently available, how the new round will.
Seems like it would truly be a 'force-multiplier' if employed at the squad level, in a 'DMR-ish' type role, coupled with their new belt-fed SIG-LMG in the same caliber. But it would be a force detractor, if they try to use it to replace the 5.56/M4 It's a big boy rifle, not a GP carbine.
"We need more range and armor penetration" M855A1 exists, return to 20 inch barrel? or at least 16.5? Someone should do an armor penetration test with newer 556 rounds out of the m27
The rifle is a perfectly fine rifle, but it’s literally just a super fancy neo-battle rifle with all the same pros and cons when compared to an intermediate cartridge like 5.56, absolutely nothing about this conversation has changed with this new rifle except that it’s a newer fancier battle rifle. That of course means that while this is better than 7.62x51/.308, the reasons we chose the 5.56/.223 over that are the same reasons I would choose 5.556/.223 over 6.8.
i've seen a lot lately about how they are thinking of having more MGs overall due both to how light the new MGs are, and how usable and modern they are. Over the last 30 years, ranges for engagements are now much higher (mostly due to the massive rise in optics being used). The average engagements distance in Iraq and Afghanistan was 500-700m overall (though lower in Iraq due to it having more CQC). This is why the new family of guns use significantly more powerful rounds. Combat over the last 22 years has shown that the MGs have been doing the vast majority of suppression, so having more MGs to make up for each rifleman having less ammo makes sense. The weight savings are also immense for the MGs. The XM250 is almost half the weight of the M249 and the MG338 is almost half the weight of the M240. They both have fantastic quality of life upgrades and new features, and that would make it very easy for them to be trained on and thus fielded in larger numbers. Designated marksmen have also been shown to be extremely effective in recent decades in combat. So the role of the rifleman is going to change from being a source of suppressing fire, to being ammo carriers and guards for the MG gunners and Marksmen (as well as filling specialist roles like Grenadier). If the riflemen use their rifles, it will be to fire single rounds or short bursts at enemies. They wont be a source of suppressing fire.
What's catching me about the Fury is that its dimensions make it sound like a resurrection of the .276 Pedersen. And that was supposed to be what the Garand would've been shooting. Almost a century ago. So instead of making a more potent intermediate round, we're returning to the 1910s and 1920s idea of using smaller rifle rounds in automatic rifles, like the 6,5mm Arisaka. The days when the cult of the marksman still ruled, demanding everyone can make accurate shots up to a mile. First there was the days of the cult of the marksman, then WWII showed that most combat happens within 300-500 meters, so the Germans, Russians and Brits learned this and tried to make their own rounds for this niche. Germans lost, Russia went ahead with their AK cartridge and the Brits got screwed over by the US. So NATO takes the 7,62x51 as their cartridge because the US still believed in the cult of the marksman. Fast forward to Vietnam, and the US panics when they notice the full rifle cartridge is too powerful and unwieldy to the environment, so 5.56NATO is developed, adopted and proliferated. Fast forward to Afghanistan, and it's too anemic to hurt anyone at distance. So instead of adopting something like 6,8SPC, which itself is ballistically identical to the British .280 Enfield that the US killed with the adoption of 7,62NATO, the US adopts a cartridge that is outwardly almost the same as a cartridge they themselves deemed too weak in the days of the cult of the marksman. Why is everything ancient new again?
I strongly suspect that issue with being able to carry fewer rounds is being planned for by incorporating drones and/or autonomous robots capable of resupplying ammo during combat into the infantry platoon structure.
They should’ve gone with the M4 up-cartridged to the 6mm ARC. Same weight as an M4 almost three times the ballistic power, only down 5 rounds from 30. Barrel life is slightly reduced from a 5.56, but still better than the 6.8X51.
My issue remains that I'm not convinced that 6.8x51mm is solving a problem that actually exists, as well as that I don't think there's as much room to develop its case technology as some of the other NGSW entrants that didn't get through. It does seem like a pretty good solution to the problem the NGSW leads think exists though.
Well, there's consistently a range in-between 5.56 and .50BMG that was covered by 7.62 NATO. This is improving that element. M240B sort of improvement.
@@itreehorsenumber3 It extends the point blank range for 7.62 NATO extensively. It's not trying to be .338 Lapua. What it is, is a MG/battle rifle cartridge. Which there is a need for on the modern battlefield.
@@SlavicCelery Thing is, my understanding is that it isn't just supposed to replace 7.62 NATO rifles (and if it was I don't think many people would take issue with the rifle), but also 5.56mm rifles for all frontline infantry. The entire idea of a full-power rifle as a standard frontline rifle has been obsolescent since the end of WWII.
@@Balmung60 That's the marketing right now. Realistically, it slots into being a new DMR and GPMG round. It also brings 7.62 NATO up to more modern spec. There's no way to totally dump the 5.56 and all that ammo without a massive sell off/war. Hell, I knew guys in Afghanistan humping around M16A2s that probably saw action in Grenada. Yeah they worked on bases, but still. If we're holding on to that sort of weapon, they're not dumping that anytime soon.
Exactly my point of view. This will be a nice replacement of the 7.62 for DMR and machingunners. You could pair machin-gunners and DMR together to clear things up from a distance while the rest of the squad could move closer with CQBR 5.56 rifles and shotguns.
For those talking about packing heavier ammo and possibly less of it. When I was deployed it was common to carry more loaded mags in vehicles and in your assault pack for sustainment while mounted or dismounted. I know that anyone who's packed an M249 or 240B is already used to the weight, but I would see the reduced round count on your person being a reasonable tradeoff for the rifle with it's accuracy and terminal ballistics. The optic will be a gamechanger over irons, red dots, and even the ACOG. Training will still matter, so when it gets to the echelons using it, marksmanship and learning the manual of arms for this rifle will also be make/break in the success for adoption.
6:55 is the T Handle necessary to the functionality of the rifle? If not, I can see companies making something to simply fill that gap, as it could decrease some weight (someone will want to do that)
Honestly, the more and more I see this rifle and cartridge, the better I think it is. Full auto looks very controllable. The cartridge is quite the payload as well- probably a 135 or a 140 grain .277 bullet. That will certainly stomp people. This is also a legit 1000 yd cartridge as well. Should be great
I can't help but wonder how the longevity of the firearm is going to be with rounds as hot as these (80,000+ PSI). Especially when conditions may not be ideal.
I assume, requirement for the barrel life would've been at least 20000 rounds. And since it is quickly changeable, i see no problem in relatively short barrel life.
Barrels and bolt are consumables, and easily changed even on the M16/M4( whether they were when needed is another question). One big feature, that I think originally came from Colt in a rejected PIP proposal is the replaceable cam shoulder in the upper. That increases the life of the upper as that is pretty much the only wear area in it. That has been a common feature of the Sig MCX since launch, and this is derived from that.
@@skullofserpent5727 20,000 rounds at 80,000 PSI and over 3,000 fps at the muzzle? Not unless there’s been some major breakthrough in metallurgy for rifle barrels. These rifles are going to burn thru barrels.
I wouldn’t want to lug this around anywhere but if you are flying or driving to most combat zones it makes perfect sense. Running convoy security or just the walls around your FOB like the Army has been doing for a while now.
@@MichaelZeagler "aluminum" and "aluminium" are spelled differently in American English and British English. "Ambidextrous" is spelled the same, people just see a big word and get confused. 🤣
Double watched on the TV and then the phone 📱. Can't get enough breakdown on this new system and just think of the MkII and beyond when they put her on a diet. Keep up the great work guys !
Also the cartridge weill iterate and develop too. just think of how much the M4 changed. Although i doubt this will happen, its a possibility that if the cartridge is too spicy or a barrel burner, they will do what the FBI did with 10mm and download it to something more manageable. but maybe that wont be necesary considering Karl's full auto performance (not with milspec rounds tho)
The rifle with the FCS coupled with the organic capabilities in observation and data sharing of the Armored Vehicles this allow the Infantry and Scout Platoon to push out the engagement distances substantially. With the optics the platoon will be able to identify targets at range and give an accurate ballistic solution which can be shared across the formation. If you can make accurate shots at 300 to 400m at an adversary with a rifle only capable of making effective hits inside of 300m you have a clear advantage. The ability to quickly Identify, Acquire, Range and Engage targets at extended range was a Game Changer with the fielding of modern FCS on the Abrams and Bradley that cannot be understated. With the NGSW program we are pushing this capability down to the individual soldier level. It will also be able to replace other equipment that is carried such as binoculars, kestrels and other LRFs/Designators. While historically most firefights have taken place at ranges under 300m, this is also before every soldier has the optics and equipment to facilitate rapid observation and accurate ranging of targets. It is critical to think of the effects of the program at the Platoon and Company level and not just and individual. Perspective from an Armor Branch Officer.
Maybe I missed it, was the FA shooting with the military spec ammo or civilian loads? FA with lower pressure ammo could give artificially lighter recoil. From military testing videos it looks like the mil spec ammo is harder to control.
It was not the military ammo for sure. And he was not propelling this 140gr points at 3000 fps for sure. But it really wasn't clear if he was shooting the high pressure composite hunting rounds or the only brass ammo...
Check it out…. The days of doing a long range patrol to an ambush point, watching it for three days, then walking out, have been over for a long time. Now you get flown to the Y and do a 2000m patrol in, or you get driven all the way to the X in armored “comfort” and fight with those vehicles as a base and resupply. Power to get over a wall and speed to close the distance are at a premium. That’s why we’ve can cary boat anchors like the Gustav. I like the channel, just giving the boys some things to chew on.
Stoner: How about an AR-10? Army: Too much recoil for full auto 👎 Sig: how about with an overpressure wildcat? Army: Fvck them bore throats, Fvck em good!
@InRangeTV I would say that lefties need to run the gun in adverse condition settings with civilian ammo for the brass deflector to work, didn't look like the bolt was cycling back fast enough on the slo-mo shot for the brass deflector to be engaged
As a suggestion, maybe do the interview part 'boom' where unintelligible boom unintelligible part unintelligible unintelligible isn't unintelligible unintelligible boom somewhere boom unintelligible else.
I'd love to own this rifle myself, but I don't see the case for replacing every M4 with it. It's o heavy, less ammo, way more recoil, and for what? 90% of the time the M4 has what it takes.
Exactly what I think. It could replace the M14 and other 7.62 NATO rifles. But not the M4/M16. Replacing an intermediate caliber rifle with a full powered caliber rifle is historically a pretty bad idea.
My bet is that in 10 years only the squad support weapon remains of this NGSW project. Replacing the SAW with something that shoots a bigger round actually makes sense. How much are we hearing stuff from Ukraine about how 5.45, 5.56 and 7.62x39 rifles are having issues with modern body armor? Exactly. I think the ability of carrying more ammo for prolonged suppression effect matters more than if you are more severely wounded from round A vs round B.
@@LUR1FAX Historically enemies didn't wear body armor. That said I also think it is a bad idea. On paper the 6.8x51 has only a small advantage over 7.62x51.
@@Soravia Body armor also doesn't matter at all in the face of overwhelming fire superiority. And regardless, even if this rifle can pop modern body armor, better armor can simply be developed faster than a rifle that beats it. The entire intent behind the XM5 and .277 fury could be obsolete within the year.
Id like to see this hybrid case technology on a 6.8spc cartridge and an upper built for it. You could keep the weight, size and capacity of your standard issue m4 And surely increase effective range.
Why not just use the same 5.56x45mm case then? Instead of the 6.8 SPC's .30 Remington case. It should be able to achieve the same case pressures without the slight reduction of ammo per magazine.
@@jodricpalisbo7916 Agree on 5.56. An alternative could be hybrid cased 205 Ruger with 50-55gr longrange steel core AP bullet going 3800fps from a fast twist 18" barrel and a much smaller telescopic suppressor.
@@hawaiiangunner The problem with this argument is that cartridge is not designed (from the ground up) to be used on short barrels, high chamber pressures WITH suppressors always on. 6mm ARC is nice but is doesn't make the cut, for me at least.
@@jodricpalisbo7916 it would equate to exactly the same thing. If you're able to increase the chamber pressure of 80000 to 120 thousand the end result is the same.
I'm very curious about using this high pressure case technology in an M4 and how much you could get out of it as far as armor defeating capability and range goes.
I was talking about this in another comment. You could apply the case technology to 5.56 and retain 2200 fps out to 500 yards from a carbine. Issue a modified upper capable of handling the increased pressure. That would be a hell of a round as unless they wanna issue AP .338 Lapua we're not getting through armor anyway, so let's reclaim the infantry half kilometer and reatin the advantage of an intermediate cartridge. Also body armor doesn't seem to be getting in the way of 5.45x39 much in eastern Europe at the moment, and it certainly DID NOT make people invincible in the GWOT. So I'd rather have lighter, smaller rounds that could destroy flesh at 500 yards that I could send a few at a time to slip by the enemy's armor plate. Unless they've really got some super projectile that'll bust armor at a few hundred yards. Then that would actually be worth the hit to capacity and weight. Unless they just upgrade body armor again.
@@andycraig6905 i would say its all been tested and its pretty much a done deal but this weapon adoption isnt all about body armor but also going through cover as well. It less about conflicts like in Ukraine its about being prepared for a much more looming threat that's as or very close to technology as the US is i hate to say this but this isnt about defeating invading Russian army which often defeat by its own lack of preparation and i doubt it will totally replace what is already in the armory but rather a tool that adds to the overall effectiveness. Imo i would rather train with this then any m16/m4 because it offers weapon system and optics package definitely requires training. The m15 you can literally experience any of the many places that sells them at any time provided you have money and time.
I feel the same way generally. I like the new rifle and machine gun but 556 is great. I think that a good idea would be to have the spear setup like the scar L and H, have the spear in something more like a 556 possibly with polymer ammo, as well as a version with the 6.5. Then simply issue both weapon types to a platoon where most have the 556 but some have the 6.5.
@@andycraig6905 I wouldn't mind going up a little in caliber just to get that extra kinetic energy and range with the upgraded optics coming out. As we saw with .224 valc, you can really reach out with a standard ar-15 form factor. I feel like with the amazing new bullet profiles that buck wind better paired with a high pressure cartridge and a slightly larger round (while retaining the 30 rnd capacity) you could easily add a couple hundred yards to the effective range with a bit of extra punch at the end, so even if the armor stops it the guy on the receiving end will feel it.
ther recoil did look more manageabel than what i have seen in previous videos, but was that due to ammo differences? ie was this controllable recoil with the commercial sig futy ammo? or the military 80k psi ammo?
Its cool to finally see a take down of this gun most videos don't go that far. The spears bolt and recoil spring are very different from a original 5.56 MCX and I would say its much simpler.
The cartridge is definitely interesting as is the optic. We already know that some companies like SAKO in Finland are looking at the outcome of the NGSW trials with a very keen eye. One of the big rifle modernization programs right now is the one between Finland and Sweden. Finland is already replacing all of its old DMRs with SAKO made AR-10 .308 rifles but the replacement for the RK62 and the Swedish AK5 is still in the works. If the cartridge proves successful in all likelihood Finland and Sweden will adopt a 6.8 SAKO made rifle. Either way it will probably take realistically at least 10 years to know and even for the US any large scale adoption of the cartridge and the MCX Spear will take a lot of time.
@@RockSolitude True enough for countries like Finland where most combat would be in forests and mostly within about 100 meters. The big consideration is how widespread the adoption of the cartridge would be. If it becomes the next 5.56 that is used everywhere you need to adopt it just for the sake of logistics. Either way the rifle that will be chosen will take time because Sweden and Finland combined will need about 400k-500k rifles.
@@matteusvirtanen392 Who does Finland think they're going to fight in a war? Russia? China? A few dozen hypersonic missiles and Finland would easily be incapacitated. A 6.8x51 battle rifle isn't going to prevent Finland from losing lol. You need to have a realpolitik perspective. Stop larping.
A curious thing about this rifle. I already watched several "video-previews" from several different youtubers. In some videos, the perception of the rifles's recoil was insane, a wild beast, but in others, the gun behaved like a breeze in the hands of the shooter.
Im guessing it has to do with how "hot" the ammo they used are? And another factor can be personal bias, if youve already become fond of it, you are likely to percieve aspects of the gun to be better than they are, eg. Lower recoil. Its hard to be fully non-biased. :)
It depends on what they are comparing it to. If they compare it to 5.56, yeah it kicks a lot. If they compare it to .308, 6.5 CM, or .270 win. it's very manageable.
Such a cool fucking platform. Can’t wait to see version 2 in the future. I hope they address adverse conditions like dirt, sand, and mud locking up the rifle so easily. My theory is they will get rid of the side charging bullshit because it creates a large area for shit to get in the action once cycled. If they get rid of the side charging it may be perfect
I would be interested to see a meltdown video with the spear using the full power military loads to see where the weak points are in the rifle with its 80,000psi operating pressure. Is the barrel gonna burst? Are the bolt lugs going to shear? are parts going to snap? Will the gas system fail? Are the screws holding the barrel in going to shear and the barrel flies out? Than after the test see what the rifling in the barrel looks like
Probably the barrel will burst at gas block. That's it. Nothing is going shear off and fly away. My guess, at a count of 800-1000 rounds of zombie attack rate of fire.
Long oprod + spring on top of receiver + foldinf stock... Your AR is mutating to become AK. How your shoulder feels after that? MCX have suspiciously looking small stock. Can you really shoot stock folded?
I think most people are looking at this procurement backward. The Army clearly wanted a new SAW, they wanted it in a new cartridge that wasn't as heavy as 7.62, but had better performance. That is where the 6.8 fits in. However, once you have a new SAW, you don't want to have two types of ammo in a squad, so you now need a new rifle, to shoot the new round. This riffle is doing well for what it is being asked to do, which is to allow a squad to have a long-range high energy SAW, that weighs less than the current 5.56 SAW while keeping a squad to a single ammo logistics train. With a 12lbs machine gun, your SAW is going to be able to carry much more ammo, and your sustainment in a firefight will be down to the machinegun, and not on ineffective suppressing fire from a riffle.
Putting all issues with the rifle aside, kudos to the mic setup for being 95% hearable despite *constant* nearby gunfire.
"Hi, we're out at the range today-"
What issue is there besides weight
@@Mediiiicc Weight is one of the big ones, there's also expense, logistics, and questions of longevity with how much pressure the cartridges run through it
@@tastychunks lighter and more powerful than an M110 though
@@DollyRanch Significantly less reliable, as evidenced by InRange lmao
We're all appreciating that they're doing a full teardown. But I'm really appreciating that torx head construction screws are becoming ubiquitous, thank god the reign of philips is finally waning.
as a canadian i need a reign of robertson head screws
I work in the automobile industry, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve stripped out the heads on phillips screws.
shitty chinese screws do not help.
I'm not sure that torx is the best option, it is definitely better than Phillips tho. If I had my way it would all be Robertson head or square head.
All my homies hate Phillips heads
“This gun slaps”, Karl is more hip than any other guntubers.
Not sure that fits with his "appearance" he is trying to cultivate..
Idk man James at TFB TV is pretty hip
It does slap indeed
Yea there's more hipsters in the gun community now than there are in the artisinal coffee community
Maybe it'll slap a few or even a dozen lives out one day. Maybe even schoolkids (again!)
@ 16:36 the brass is probably hitting his face due to being slightly under gassed with civy ammo since the military ammo is much hotter (and per the contract award announcement still having classified specs). Again, InRangeTV, awesome video on the MCX Spear.
So maybe left-hand friendly for military, but not for civilian?
that and it still has the x designation they can adjust he brass deflector by the time it hits mass production if they need to. Of course with the all soldiers that already have handled the rifle for testing they probably would have noticed an issue for lefties so it's probably just the civilian ammo running a bit cooler. either way this rifle could definitely replace the SCAR-17 the NGSW carries a lot of energy at range even with a shorter barrel. now whether it can replace the M-4 though is another question entirely.
JWAS87, Good observation
That's not the civilian round, it's the reduced power training cartridge that they're mostly firing; you can tell by the full brass case. The training round is also going to be what the lower recoil CQB round will be based on, except it will use an M855A1/M80A1 type bullet with exposed steel penetrator.
Makes me wonder if that brass deflector is replaceable since it has that metal insert. Maybe another design would work better
It was fun to help film that video and participate in Woodland. And the gun was nice too...lol.
What pretty much everyone is missing is that the rifle acquisition isn't just itself, the XM250, or the optic, it's a single aspect of the modernization effort as a whole that is shaping to rewrite just about every aspect of the Army's (and military as a whole) doctrine.
Most people forget that close combat doctrine is still founded upon Vietnam era philosophy where everyone was using weapons and equipment only slightly better than their WWII era counterparts with iron sights and the only means of communication and information gathering/sharing being binoculars and hand/voice or the Platoon radios. The basis of engaging the enemy for close combat forces was fire and maneuver by achieving fire superiority via volume of fire and closing in.
Now we have the ability to equip every rifleman with LPVOs, IVAS, radios at the squad level, medium range drones at the company level and micro drones at the squad or Platoon level. With new technologies and information sharing capabilities, maneuver elements will be able to achieve superiority at range, faster, and with more precision than before. Furthermore, the Army as a whole is becoming more heavily mechanized, meaning the heavier weight and reduced ammunition capacity for the XM5 is less of an issue. Even units like the 82nd are slated to receive light tanks.
This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not operations being conducted at the BCT level in COINOPs, with light infantry conducting extended dismounted patrols. This is part of a transition to large scale, conventional, force on force, multi-domain operations at the division and Corps level with multiple branches operating together at the same time. The ability to share information at the rate we can today means that the military as a whole is pushing towards being more integrated and data centric, and sharing of fire support in a way that will make the Gulf War look archaic by comparison, but what stays the same is the emphasis on tactical and strategic overmatch.
TL;DR
The decision to switch to a battle rifle makes sense when you understand the big picture.
I see you- voice crying out in the wilderness. You have done your research.
Would love to see a decibel comparison between suppressed and no suppressed.
I keep looking for it but no one has gotten there yet, but it’s seems pretty loud with the current sig can on the barrel. After the last few years of 300blk/aac everything seems loud now in comparison, but I want to see both side by side of the spear with and without, and then side by side of the Spear and a mk11/sr-25 both with and without a suppressor.
Yeah, I'd love to see it compared to .308 as well (though not out of a 13 inch barrel obviously).
I still don't understand why they keep the charging handle on a weapon that is meant to fire suppressed. Just a large port for gas in your face. I get that the untrained went straight for the charging handle, but that's not a problem that is difficult to correct with training.
@@andyholstein237 Karl says he didn't get gas in the face, so it's probably a non-issue with the design of the can.
Decibel reduction is not the purpose of the suppressor IMHO. It's more useful as a flash hider from what I understand.
I think the future of combat will increasingly see infantry being under threat from airborne drones, who will most likely operate at longer ranges than what infantry does when they run between bushes. Keep in mind, they don't even have to carry weapons - being able to spot you for artillery is more than bad enough. Having a weapon that is able to see those little buggers off without requiring a $100000 Stinger or a 50kg M2 Browning being available will probably end up being as or more important than being able to do supressive fire with a light bullet.
Then the drones will get smaller. Then the robots will just fight each other. Then the robots take over. I suppose we lowly humans will need energy weapons of some sort to deal with them.
I'm pretty sure squad or even fireteam level jdams will be the best move. I watched a small drone drop essentially a pipe bomb into the sunroof of a car in some Ukraine footage from a hundred feet up or so. Micro tactical artillery and precision bombing is probably more important than some ultra rifle.
@@rob6850 I assume EMPs will become a big deal in future warfare
@@rob6850 I think a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range should do the trick.
@@mikec8086 fuckin-A it would
The army has already stated it’s going to special operations, infantry, scout and combat engineer units first. Other combat arms and support units will keep M4s indefinitely.
Not going to be truly indefinitely. Only until there is more money
@@Soravia Or a need. Giving one to a truck driver or cook isn’t worth the price. Don’t forget the Vortex optic is going to cost more then the rifle and the optic is the thing that is really pushing the rifles capabilities forward.
Spec op already rejected the rifle though haven't they?
No reason to give a battlerifle to some truck driver with a gut or a cook
@@tisFrancesfault Maybe some units, as I understand it spec ops kinda have their pick of weaponry
I've been waiting for somebody to finally show us the parts of the BCG up close. Thank you. This answers so many questions.
I'm interested to see how well those rounds will stand up to exposure testing. You have two dissimilar metals in contact, that's a recipe for electrostatic corrosion if I ever saw one.
Interesting point. I'm not sure why they didn't just use a full steel case, hardened on the head if needed.
Also, how will it affect the cost of production and therefore pricing?
that's already the case with existing ammo, with the case, jacket, and primer, if your ammo is sitting around in salt water for extended periods you have other problems
@@Broken_Yugo Could have been weight. It's not much, but a few extra rounds per person ads up. Also, if the goal is polymer, then this is the "stopgap." If they can pull it off, then weight goes down and corrosion is not a problem.
Its not two dissimilar metals, its three. There is an aluminum captive ring between the brass and steel.
Thats always healthy having Al and Fe in the same place at the same time.
5.56 was insufficient in Afghanistan due to the long-range engagement distances, but the next conflict will have other problems to solve. I'm sure a lot of troops that took indirect fire on the regular in that theater would have loved 6.8. The military always solves problems years late.
Decades, even
What have Your troops been shot at with? 7.62X54R, right? Was it shot from a rifle? No, they shot it from PKM.
So instead of doing the logical thing and putting more M240s per unit (they're not patrolling on foot anyway), US army once more fails the subject it passed through almost 60 years ago, and try to make "every marine a rifleman". An inevitable fail waiting to happen, again.
All militaries prepare to fight the last war
It was mostly insufficient because they were using m4s instead of m16s.
@@worldfamousgi86 M16 is not capable at the distances found in the Helmand valley. When a disgruntled afghan on a hillside opens fire (regardless of caliber), a group of soldiers with M16's are relegated to their MRAPs. With a 6.8 x 51 mm weapon, those soldiers on low ground suddenly have firepower superiority if intel determines that only small-arms fire is the source of indirect fire (common scenario). M4 is a 300 yd weapon, M16 is maybe a 400 yd weapon. Do you really believe that 5.5 inches of barrel make 200+ yards of difference?
I keep thinking that this ammo should not replace 5.56 but it should replace any 308 system. I still belive that 5.56 is the better choice for a lot of scenarioes, but i agree that there should be always someone in the team with a gun capable of engaging targets at longer distances, and this rifle, coupled with the new optics makes for a perfect DMR. The same thing can be said about the new LMG, overall the best part of this program, a lightweight wepon that can finally compete with the PKM. In other words the M4, the M5 and the M250 should all be part of a team, along with 40mm grenade launchers.
What also strikes me is that it looks like they did the full auto test fire with the civilian ammunition, which has 40% of the pressure of the military ammo, per the specification in the NGSW contract. I still think the milspec ammo is going to be tough to shoot continuously and effectively with. The milspec has more power than 308 and 7.62 NATO... I just don't see how that would be "light" shooting... Especially in an AR platform.
For reference, the first minute of this video shows a dude who looks like he's 300lb of sheer muscle shooting the milspec stuff... His body moves almost an entire foot backwards with every burst: ruclips.net/video/vlrBEEG__1E/видео.html
The entire military disagrees with you buddy.
@@wolverinexo6417 I'd like to see this weapon downsized to 5.56. Imagine the velocity you'd get off an M4 sized Spear running at 80k chamber pressure.
At the end of the day it's a guessing game: Where will the next deployments take place? How will logistics be? Who will be the enemy?
Just take the war in ukraine as an example: The guys fighting in Kiev, in Mariupol etc probably would love a short handy, light M4 with. Yet their mates fighting the russians out in the trenches and fields of the donbas region or in the vast open spaces north of kiev would likely jump at the option to get a 7.62 NATO oder 6.8 mm rifle. Same thing applies to militaries in general: you don't know what the next battlefield will look like. ISAF vets would've loved more 7.62 rifles in their squads from all I've heard.
@@bavarianpotato
I've gotten the impression that these guns are a compromise between 5.56 and 7.62.
Basically an "intermediate intermediate" cartridge.
I think it's misleading that some gun channels that get their hands on these rifles are firing non military spec ammo and saying that recoil isn't so bad or the gas isn't getting in their face. I want to see what recoil and gas is like when it's firing 80,000 PSI military ammo.
The more weird thing is, that the military is "training" on this lower pressure round. But intends to issue full pressure rounds during combat. Which completely alters the skills feeling of the weapon. Its completely backwards to the concept of train like you shoot.
@@geronimo5537 I think the military figures the cost savings (both in ammo and wear and tear) is much more valuable than the slight benefit you get from using the higher recoil ammo in training
I see a significant lack of charging handles. Tactical operator need third on a handguard and fourth on a bolt carrier. Also loading lever is fine too.
Honestly, the two charging handles just confuses me. I'm not really a gun guy, so I'm hoping someone here can explain the logic of adding one in the side when you've already got a charging handle on top that just seems better in every way.
@@Corruption922 Only reason they did it was because Army had it listed as one of the requirements. They could have removed the AR style charging handle, but they didn't because during testing under stress soldiers were reaching for the traditional charging handle and not for the side one. Army stubbornly didn't remove the side charging handle requirement so SIG decided it's best to keep both knowing that almost everyone will keep using the the rear one and ignore the side one.
@@The_Butcher_of_Blaviken I see, thanks for the swift explanation.
@@Corruption922 No problem.
It’s a requirement from. “ The Ministry of Good Ideas “ I.e. too many interested parties have had too much influence . It’s a committee decision
Very cool to see it in full auto. I remember the videos from Task & Purpose about a year ago taking it to a range event and seeing him get rocked by the recoil. I'm definitely not saying I could do better, I haven't shot any semiauto heavier then 5.56 in years. But very cool to see how someone experienced with auto fire handles the NGSW.
The guy in this video did say the civy version of the ammo they were shooting are much lower pressure than the mil rounds. Maybe thats why in this video it seems to be more controllable than T&P video
Body weight plays a difference as well as posture. Cappy didn't have good posture nor weight. Also likely used military load with full power, about 20% more pressure?
The Task and Purpose guy didn’t even shoot expert in the army (which is easy to do)
@@SoccerVJ2011 to be fair, he always claims to be the "Average Infantryman" and nothing more. And personally, having never shot further than 100yds, I'd be curious how low I'd place on a marksmanship course such as those in Basic. I'd love to try out a range like used in 9 Hole Reviews with any of my rifles.
Crappy probably also had a harder time as he’s used to 556, being trained on 6.8 will likely reduce how much even lighter shoots r pushed around
I literally see where they got all of their ideas from and this gun honestly is starting to a make a lot of sense. Not for an infantry rifle, but definitely for other roles. If BLKLBL made a bipod for this thing, we'd be set.
That would be really cool, especially if this was used more as a DMR. Main down side i could see argued against it would be adding just little more weight to an already heavy rifle. But on the commercial market where most owners dont really need to carry it for long periods of time a little more weight shouldn't be an issue
@@dace366 Yea true enough, I just think at this point, it makes a ton of sense.
@@EtherFox Using 5.7x28 and 300 BLK does not make any sense at all.
What would make sense, assuming they ignore the logistical advantage of staying with one combat cartridge, is applying the SIG bi-metal case technology to the 5.56x45mm. Slim the case diameter down from 9.6mm to 8.8mm, shorten the case length down to 35mm, and raise the operating pressure up. You then have an enhanced PDW round that performs identical to the previous 5.56x45mm, but is both lighter weight and higher capacity. Or conversely, go for the gusto and do the same enhancement to 6mm ARC using a 10.7mm 6.8 SPC/224 Valkyrie case diameter; which gives you a 6mm cartridge that matches or even outperforms 6mm ARC from shorter barrels, and lets you use the already designed Magpul Six8 mags as a bonus.
@@ostiariusalpha I kinda like that idea. But what about 1 step further? Apply this tech to something like the 5.7 and try to get near 5.56 performance from a short barrel pistol friendly cartridge? Replace 9mm with it - now you have a light armor penetrating pistol round, and also place it into a pdw system.... say something like a militarized dbx57? Make the pistol/pdw mags compatible/interchangeable.... Eliminate the logistics of 9mm/5.56/7.62 in a normal squad with just 2 cartridges - the fury and this 5.7 super kinda thing. Half the squad has the fury - lots of dmr and saw sorta overlap, couple guys have the pdw/dbx57 in a cqb/door kicker and semi suppression role with the ability to carry loooots of ammo now. Same capability as an m4 now, but lighter and higher ammo count. Bonus - everyone's sidearms are not only more capable, but can supply the pdw guys in a pinch or vice versa if the reduced round count from the big sig fury stuff becomes an issue. Ofc expense and difficulty of producing such a small, higher pressure round (especially when used in an actual service pistol), could be a big pita, but hey.... dream big(small?) I guess.
I give props to the illumined arms guys for being geniuses in their marketing by providing a super rare product to RUclipsrs. Give whoever’s idea this was a huge fucking raise because that’s gotta be some of the smartest marketing I’ve ever seen
Very interesting. Pretty much what everyone else has been saying. Heavy but handles. Always love seeing Russell in a vid. Keep up the great work!
The buffer system is simple yet genius 👏🏼 I wish all my AR’s had that system.
It is an AR system. . . AR18
@@joecary3586 Close to it but the ar18 has two spring as buffers instead of this one which only has one sort of like an ak47.
you might want to look into the BRN 180, which is a modernized version of the gas piston operated AR-18. (modernization primarily in handguard, and adaptation to mil spec pins) You can get it in a variety of calibers, and the upper drops right in on a mil spec lower.
@@nvonliph Thank you Nick, I will 👍🏼
Seems an ideal solution to the problem of being out ranged by PKM fire in Afghanistan, now that that war is over.
A lot of people have talked about how this would be a great DMR but a poor infantry rifle, I’m not sure if those people see the point of the NGSW. It seems to me that with the scope and ballistic computer, they’re essentially trying to make every soldier a DMR. Not sure if things will work out the way the Army wants them, but that seems to be the goal.
@@BruceLortzHI Where facehuggers ever cute?
Those optics will never be issued to soldiers. They are far too expensive and complicated. Commanders won't trust privates with them
Imagine a future where there are scopes that work similarly to data link which is used on modern fighter planes. Drones could highlight threats in Realtime, soldiers wielding the MCX, of which the scope has a ballistic computer installed, would have the absolute advantage over many distances, which is further amplified by the new rounds long range capabilities. That would insane!
But hey I'm just a dude writing this comment while taking a dump :D
I agree with you. I don’t think they’re trying to push this into the same niche that an M4 or any other 5.56 rifle would fill. Rather I think, like you said, that they want to make every infantryman have the capabilities of what we would nowadays consider a “designated marksmen.” Maybe going forward the designated marksmen role will be pushed into becoming a full on sniper, or being more in line with a standard infantrymen.
You have to remember that this is the same military that took cannon off of ALL military fighter aircraft. The reason given was "missiles were the future" and then had to scramble to put them back on when their planes were getting shot down by Russian MiGs with cannon fire.
I've said it before.
This is a rifle and cartridge designed for a war that hasn't happened yet. A war with a near peer who has widespread usage of proper ballistic plates.
If that war never happens, us smug keyboard soldiers will say this rifle was a mistake blah blah wasn't needed blah. It will be relegated to the M14's role and that's that. It does fill a capability gap as it stands. The M4 can't quite reach the ranges it needs to in the middle east a lot of times.
If it does, I can see it being extremely appreciated, especially considering the scope its meant to work with. That is, assuming it works as intended (the rounds are as potent and penetrate well, have long range etc).
The military has tried to replace the AR series for so long, and has rejected so many bids over the past 20-40 years. The fact that they finally got one they feel is a big enough improvement is significant.
Time will tell, though.
Most of the commentary on the NGSW completely misses a much larger backdrop of something enormous that's happening in the Army. Long story short, the Army believes that we are on the cusp of losing the military arms race against China unless drastic and preemptive action is taken to reinvent and reorganize the Army. On March 16th 2021 they released a multi decade long plan called the "Army Multi Domain Transformation". Here's two key excerpts:
"Although our Army still maintains overmatch, it is fleeting. In the face of determined
adversaries and accelerating technological advances, we must transform today to meet
tomorrow’s challenges. Future conflicts will manifest at longer range, across all domains, and at
much greater speed, both physical and cognitive. We must therefore continue to implement a 21st
century talent management system, develop and field new weapon systems, transform our
doctrine, build new organizations, and change the way we train."
"The Joint Operating Environment (JOE) asserts that by 2040, the decline of the 20th
century international order will lead to an unstructured international environment where the line
between conflict and peace is blurred. America’s adversaries, enabled by the proliferation of new
technologies, will restrict our freedom of action and erode our strategic advantages. By 2040, our
adversaries will develop novel asymmetric capabilities. Of these, China presents the most
enduring strategic challenge, and is most likely to reach military parity with the Joint Force by
2040. If we fail to address these emerging threats, the Joint Force will face significant risk of
being outflanked in competition, globally contested, fractured, and disintegrated."
They plan to be completely restructured by 2035, with an assessment point of 2028.
This is much more serious business than almost anyone realizes, and it's why I think the Army is going to follow through with the XM5.
With the explicit backdrop of China, there are some clues that help the NGSW make even more sense. At first glance, a rifle that can do both DMR work and CQB is pretty ridiculous right? But look at the geography of our potential battlefield against China. South East Asia. Let's have a look at the geography of our allies in the region.
Taiwan; mountainous with massive urban centers
Japan; mountainous with massive urban centers
South Korea; mountainous with massive urban centers
Suddenly the rifle makes more sense doesn't it?
The fact that this is big Army doing this and not SOCOM or some other branch is also telling. The Army is usually the one dragging their feet when it comes to these things. The M16 was first adopted by the Air Force for instance.
It's useless against near peer opponent as their armor won't be penetrated and war in general will be waged by heavy weapons and air/artillery strikes.
So there wouldn't be much difference if M-14 , m-4 or xm-5 or even m-1 garand would be used as a primary infanteyman's firearms.
@Grassy Knoll yeah. Think of any combat footage from the middle east in the last 20 years. The overwhelming majority is in an urban area or the middle of a field, taking fire from God knows where, often at 100s of meters.
Instead of lobbing little intermediate rounds that lose a ton of their pep at those ranges (especially from a 14 inch barrel), that's where this comes in.
We've had rifles that could do that before, though. In terms of how this thing compares with contemporaries like the m14 ebr, scar h, etc... I'm not so sure. I'm sure it's better in a lot of ways.
One thing I am more sure of is that yeah, the lowest enlisted who get armed with this thing are going to struggle, unless training improves. You can't cheat physics. Bigger n heavier guns/bullets are harder for people to lug around, and shoot quickly. I don't mean full auto btw, I mean quick follow up shots. People place too much emphasis on full auto. In almost every scenario except for perhaps building clearing, full auto generally isn't used. If I'm not mistaken, I'm not even sure it's trained for at a basic level.
Like many, I'm not sure how to feel about it. However I'm sure that people more informed than I have been mulling over this for a long time. I just hope that they are doing so for technical/performance reasons, not for scandalous/fiscal ones.
M14 was a bad gun. This gun is not. 6.8 is just too powerful.
@@karanvarma5789 Yeah I think the gun is dope I just think 6.8 is a waste of money.
I think the armor penetration abilities is necessary to “future proof” this rifle and it’s ammo. I just hope we can some how maintain a similar round count carried by using polymer ammo with steel base and still maintain the range and armor piercing capabilities.
The issue with that line of thought is there's already body armor that can 100% defeat non-tungsten core 6.8x51. Body armor development is just faster than small arms development.
@@carbon8ed but is that what’s currently being issued/planned it be issued to our near pear rivals? If not do they have the capabilities to obtain/produce this armor in sufficient quantities, and is the armor a good choice (light enough & durable)
@@carbon8ed that's what I was thinking. There's no weapon a soldier can reasonably carry today that will reliably go through modern armor at combat distances, anywhere from a foot away to maybe 5 or 600 yards easily with the heavier cartridge. So no, I don't think they're going to get what they're looking for as far as armor penetration. I think the M4 is actually a great compromise because unless they wanna issue .338 armor piercing rounds because it's not going through armor anyway. But you can carry A LOT of ammo that's mostly gonna go over people's heads to suppress them and free up a maneuver element. And since you have so many rounds you can shoot at the enemy until you manage to slip one around his plate. Obviously body armor hasn't gotten in the way of 5.45x39 in eastern Europe. I think it'll be a long time until we really replace the M4. Now I think this could supplement M4s as a sort of DMR, or maybe if special forces think they're going to need the extra effective range and power.But unless we invent some sort of directed energy weapons or have some major leap forward with firearm technology like the introduction of smokeless powder.
Without tungsten forget penetrating 4a esapi or their equivalent plates problem is that most of the source of it is in China and Russia. Fortunately enough ongoing war has shown us that at least one doesn't have enough budget to buy plates for every soldier. That's why they are also adopting high tech scope so that everyone will be doing headshot or near headshots, removing the problem of tungsten source. Beside that one can't armour head enough, even with glacing blow or repeated hits or the time gained by knocking enemy soldier will give time to put second or third shot near or at head. So we shouldn't see it as a rifle but as a weapon system which consist of rifle, cartridge, scope and suppressor. As getting headshot will be making you a priority target for fire support. At this point if one wants to armour head enough to survive headshot then just get exo skeleton or suit ie powered armour.
@@carbon8ed not to mention they could apply the case technology to the 5.56 and put M855A1s proof pressure to shame. They could issue a modified upper receiver to handle the high pressure 5.56. It would solve the range issue, you could probably get 20 inch barrel performance out of a 10 inch gun if that were the case. And scary performance from a 14.5 or 16 inch carbine. You'd probably be able to keep 2200 fps out to 500 yards with the right projectile.
A big part of the consideration on the load of soldiers is how much this will improve the load out for SAW/MG uses.
A thought just occurred on carrying all the weight of ammo. Think about the Boston Dynamics robotic dogs they've already developed, and whispers those can be easily adapted to function as material/ammo mules in the military. You put a one or two of those robot dogs carrying cases of pre-loaded mags of .277 Fury in each squad, that makes for a much more valid case to have this rifle supplant the M4. If you can offset the downside of increased weight/decreased capacity with mobile ammo mules, you make this rifle and scope setup absolutely unmatched.
The military already tested this and the biggest drawback was the noise. Technology needs to advance more before it becomes viable. That's why Boston Dynamics was able to direct what they learned into a commercial product like spot. Otherwise it would be proprietary military tech.
You are assuming the robot dog wouldn’t break down, and guess who has to carry the dog back so the enemy can’t use it, THE INFANTRY!
@@zacharyolenick1054 Well what do they do with tanks, planes, or other vehicles with proprietary tech behind enemy lines? They either take out the tech or blow it up.
Over/under on how soon after the first batch gets issued to when you've got a squad having recoil spring distance competitions: 3 minutes +/- 30 seconds.
The M4 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Just look at how the army is fielding the xm5. For instance my guard unit just got the sig pistol. It's going to infantry, cavalry scout, and combat engineer units in limited numbers.
The XM5 is only for close-combat soldiers. Around 120,000 soldiers. The rest are going to keep the M4.
Nice to see the evolution of the M14 still be discussed...
There’s not much difference is there just a new tool with the same problem.🤷♂️
Thank you for providing us with this Illumined and Inrange!
A nice honest take on this rifle. Thank you both!
Great video, love seeing Russell taken a few for the team.
The XCR-M would be a great comparison to this gun. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rob Arms release this caliber
Hope you can do some body armor test.
And Im impressed that it looks like the recoil is less and more controllable than the some .308 rifles like the Scar 17, AR-10 etc.
It is due to the supressor, it reduces recoil by 40%
Scar heavy does not have heavy recoil. It’s the lightest shooting 7.62 I’ve ever shot, actually not much more than an M4 in my “how it feels to me” test. Shockingly light recoil.
Karl's tabletop videos give me life
I'd like to see how controllable it is with the full power steel case head ammo.
There are vids out. It is not controllable from the look on the vids.
I think it's an interesting technology shift. Should be fun to watch the changes in cartridge materials over the next decades...
Interesting round, I'd love to see it in a nice scout style bolt action. Thanks for sharing this with us!
Unless I'm mahoosively mistaken, the ammo used in the full auto test is all brass as you can see through the lancer mag. This would make it the standard pressure ball round and as per SIG's website will only give you 3000fps out of a 24" barrel? Out of a 16" they quote 2750... and this is 13" with a can so maybe a 140 grain projectile at 2600-2650? Not too dissimilar to other full auto .308s which would explain controllability when handled by an experienced shooter like yourself.
Would really like to see it done with the 80k psi military load seeing as they're the only ones who are going to be using it in full auto...
We've seen full auto demonstrations by Sig representatives in previous videos (check the TFB TV video), and I'm presuming those are the full power military loads cause it's pushing them back a decent amount with bursts.
Finally someone shows reassembly! Thank you! Great video.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this rifle specifically with the optic pushes out firefight distances, with the optic assisting then the average soldier could actually shoot well past 300 yards making longer firefights practical
The 20th century study that showed 300 yards and in as the typical engagement distance (don't recall if it was WWI or WWII), was done in a time of iron sights. And we all know that after a few hundred yards, it becomes hard to spot or ID a target whatsoever with the naked eye. But now that everyone is going to be having 6x magnification, we're gonna be moving past the ability of the human eye, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the average engagement distance goes up. The 300 and in axiom may no longer apply.
@@horatiusromanus I don't see why fighting in urban areas would be any more common than it has been. No great societal change has happened that would affect that. Militaries still avoid cities like the plague, they are nightmares to fight in.
The whole point of the scope and this round is to let soldiers be able to still be accurate at longer ranges. Assuming it works as stated, you wouldn't need to be close to ensure first round hits, and I don't see how "shock effect" is a function of the range of the aggressor.
Camouflage has remained the same, I agree. But surveillance technology has improved drastically though. Right now militaries are considering putting man portable recon drones on the squad level. I can only see the intelligence capabilities of a soldier getting better as time goes on, which would make longer range engagements more and more probable.
Terrain, not ammunition, determines firefight distance. Assuming terrain is favorable, then sensors do (NVG, thermal, your eyeball)
Not very likely, look at engagement distances going back to the American Civil War, usually 100 yards or less. somebody at 100 yards that doesnt want to get shot can be tough to hit, they dont just stand there for you. If they're moving in rushes and well trained, good luck.
@@horatiusromanus I agree urban fighting is only going to get more common but it is still only one part of warfare, and as said in another comment it is a lot easier now to locate enemies further out and then with the new system engage them.
Really happy that you mentioned the point about it not necessarily being adopted widely but very probably only by the army. This is a point that I’ve noticed a lot of other “guntubers” have missed in their discussion of the rifle, and while I do have some gripes with it still I think it is a more suitable choice for the army in their modern doctrinal role
You know, this is one question I don’t think anybody asked: how effective is this round when going up against modern body armor (such as SAPI plates, or the Russian and Chinese equivalents)?
I’m pretty sure the SAPI plates I was issued were rated for 7.62x51mm NATO. I mean, part of the reason the P90 flopped is it wouldn’t of done diddly squat to Soviet body armor (and it was designed to counter said armor).
If somebody reports or records showing this round can counter body armor then great, but otherwise I’m assuming it’s got the P90’s problem...
Ball ammo at rifle velocities won't defeat armor. I would guess they have a specific AP round. They could issue HK 417 or the like with AP 762 Nato but then they couldn't waste a lot of time or money.
These are smaller projectiles going faster. Yet still have enough mass. These will not suffer those issues. Considering .270 Win smokes plates all day.
Even true tungsten core AP 5.56 struggles against Lv 4 plates at 200+ yards. The new 6.8 will work fine with a tungsten tipped round, but so would M993 7.62. Where this rifle will have an advantage is against Lv3 and 3 special threat plates, the standard ball round will defeat those even near the edge of its effective range.
There's two logical possibilities behind the push for regressing to full sized battle rifles. The first is the prevalence of drones, we'll see remotely operated machines small enough to replace frontline infantry in the near future. This is a possibility, but I find it unlikely, because the USA is the only one with the resources to mass produce drones like that.
Second is new body armor tech. Today, the USA is the only country that issues body armor to all deployed troops, no other military does that on the same scale. But recently, there's been an announcement of a new form of polymer at MIT, "plastic stronger than steel." You could essentially 3D print body armor that is something like 1/4 of the weight of conventional plates. Not just for vitals, but full body plate, a full suit of LV 4 armor at ~60 pounds or less. Unlike current ceramics, this polymer plate will be far cheaper, and faster to mass produce, plus it can be made to conform to the wearer, meaning more comfortable with greater coverage. Suddenly, every other country can field full body armor for all combat arms troops, and everyone's scrambling to make more effective anti-infantry weaponry.
With AP ammo it will blow through any body armor currently fielded by adversary nations, since we know that current AP 7.62 NATO will through tests, and the 6.8 round is ballistically superior to 7.62 NATO.
With ball ammo, probably not, at least not without multiple hits. With something in between like steel core, maybe, that would have to be tested.
I’m just gonna go by the math and numbers that are currently available:
Current NIJ level four armor is rated to stop one round of 30-06 steel core, AP ammo, which is approximately 166 grains traveling at 2880 ft/sec and thus delivering 3058 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. Per SAAMI ballistics for the 277 Fury round that are currently available, the 6.8x51 creates 80,000 psi and delivers a 135 grain bullet traveling at 3000 ft/sec delivering 2698 ft/lbs of kinetic energy out of a 16” barrel. Note that the M5 has a 13” barrel, reducing velocity, and is meant to be married to a suppressor, which should also reduce velocity.
So, if a steel-core bullet delivering significantly higher kinetic energy won’t penetrate current level 4 armor, I fail to understand, based on running the numbers that are currently available, how the new round will.
jeez,you are smart,tough af,and cool.......srry,was talking to the AR. great video guys. Salute !!
Seems like it would truly be a 'force-multiplier' if employed at the squad level, in a 'DMR-ish' type role, coupled with their new belt-fed SIG-LMG in the same caliber.
But it would be a force detractor, if they try to use it to replace the 5.56/M4
It's a big boy rifle, not a GP carbine.
Unless they replace the lmg too, it would only add another caliber making the logistic a mess
@@flip849 they did replace the lmg and getting a 6.8 conversion kit for m240
The way he swapped between the targets in full auto with the camera view made it look like a video game haha. Impressive.
"We need more range and armor penetration" M855A1 exists, return to 20 inch barrel? or at least 16.5? Someone should do an armor penetration test with newer 556 rounds out of the m27
Even with 14.5, 77 grain ammo seems to have pretty good range for combat accuracy
Best vid out on the spear, your conclusions are valid.
For those complaining about the weight, I think it's still less than the L85A2 that the British army has to lug around.
That's less a positive for the XM5 and more the SA80 being ridiculously heavy.
13 pounds.
I like how open sig is regarding letting people to do a full inner gun check, running it at full auto etc.
The rifle is a perfectly fine rifle, but it’s literally just a super fancy neo-battle rifle with all the same pros and cons when compared to an intermediate cartridge like 5.56, absolutely nothing about this conversation has changed with this new rifle except that it’s a newer fancier battle rifle. That of course means that while this is better than 7.62x51/.308, the reasons we chose the 5.56/.223 over that are the same reasons I would choose 5.556/.223 over 6.8.
i've seen a lot lately about how they are thinking of having more MGs overall due both to how light the new MGs are, and how usable and modern they are.
Over the last 30 years, ranges for engagements are now much higher (mostly due to the massive rise in optics being used). The average engagements distance in Iraq and Afghanistan was 500-700m overall (though lower in Iraq due to it having more CQC).
This is why the new family of guns use significantly more powerful rounds.
Combat over the last 22 years has shown that the MGs have been doing the vast majority of suppression, so having more MGs to make up for each rifleman having less ammo makes sense.
The weight savings are also immense for the MGs. The XM250 is almost half the weight of the M249 and the MG338 is almost half the weight of the M240. They both have fantastic quality of life upgrades and new features, and that would make it very easy for them to be trained on and thus fielded in larger numbers.
Designated marksmen have also been shown to be extremely effective in recent decades in combat.
So the role of the rifleman is going to change from being a source of suppressing fire, to being ammo carriers and guards for the MG gunners and Marksmen (as well as filling specialist roles like Grenadier).
If the riflemen use their rifles, it will be to fire single rounds or short bursts at enemies. They wont be a source of suppressing fire.
What's catching me about the Fury is that its dimensions make it sound like a resurrection of the .276 Pedersen. And that was supposed to be what the Garand would've been shooting. Almost a century ago.
So instead of making a more potent intermediate round, we're returning to the 1910s and 1920s idea of using smaller rifle rounds in automatic rifles, like the 6,5mm Arisaka. The days when the cult of the marksman still ruled, demanding everyone can make accurate shots up to a mile.
First there was the days of the cult of the marksman, then WWII showed that most combat happens within 300-500 meters, so the Germans, Russians and Brits learned this and tried to make their own rounds for this niche. Germans lost, Russia went ahead with their AK cartridge and the Brits got screwed over by the US. So NATO takes the 7,62x51 as their cartridge because the US still believed in the cult of the marksman.
Fast forward to Vietnam, and the US panics when they notice the full rifle cartridge is too powerful and unwieldy to the environment, so 5.56NATO is developed, adopted and proliferated. Fast forward to Afghanistan, and it's too anemic to hurt anyone at distance.
So instead of adopting something like 6,8SPC, which itself is ballistically identical to the British .280 Enfield that the US killed with the adoption of 7,62NATO, the US adopts a cartridge that is outwardly almost the same as a cartridge they themselves deemed too weak in the days of the cult of the marksman.
Why is everything ancient new again?
ok expert
I love how the brit worship just oozes from your comment.
14:50
The controllability literally shook Karl
Hands a tremblin' for over 30 seconds
I strongly suspect that issue with being able to carry fewer rounds is being planned for by incorporating drones and/or autonomous robots capable of resupplying ammo during combat into the infantry platoon structure.
that method of logistics sounds fool proof and reliable, for sure.
Makes total sense once they adopt a proper power armor to be able to carry it.
They should’ve gone with the M4 up-cartridged to the 6mm ARC. Same weight as an M4 almost three times the ballistic power, only down 5 rounds from 30. Barrel life is slightly reduced from a 5.56, but still better than the 6.8X51.
I'm still watching this video over again even after I watched it. I love this gun.
My issue remains that I'm not convinced that 6.8x51mm is solving a problem that actually exists, as well as that I don't think there's as much room to develop its case technology as some of the other NGSW entrants that didn't get through.
It does seem like a pretty good solution to the problem the NGSW leads think exists though.
Well, there's consistently a range in-between 5.56 and .50BMG that was covered by 7.62 NATO. This is improving that element. M240B sort of improvement.
Yep. It's a very expensive solution in need of a problem.
@@itreehorsenumber3 It extends the point blank range for 7.62 NATO extensively. It's not trying to be .338 Lapua. What it is, is a MG/battle rifle cartridge. Which there is a need for on the modern battlefield.
@@SlavicCelery Thing is, my understanding is that it isn't just supposed to replace 7.62 NATO rifles (and if it was I don't think many people would take issue with the rifle), but also 5.56mm rifles for all frontline infantry. The entire idea of a full-power rifle as a standard frontline rifle has been obsolescent since the end of WWII.
@@Balmung60 That's the marketing right now. Realistically, it slots into being a new DMR and GPMG round. It also brings 7.62 NATO up to more modern spec. There's no way to totally dump the 5.56 and all that ammo without a massive sell off/war.
Hell, I knew guys in Afghanistan humping around M16A2s that probably saw action in Grenada. Yeah they worked on bases, but still. If we're holding on to that sort of weapon, they're not dumping that anytime soon.
Exactly my point of view. This will be a nice replacement of the 7.62 for DMR and machingunners.
You could pair machin-gunners and DMR together to clear things up from a distance while the rest of the squad could move closer with CQBR 5.56 rifles and shotguns.
i think its great if you look at it as a replacement for the role that the scar currently fills in the army.
SCAR H is only used by SOCOM. Normal army used M110s and M14 EBRs for their DMR role.
Not when you add the new scope in the equation
For those talking about packing heavier ammo and possibly less of it. When I was deployed it was common to carry more loaded mags in vehicles and in your assault pack for sustainment while mounted or dismounted. I know that anyone who's packed an M249 or 240B is already used to the weight, but I would see the reduced round count on your person being a reasonable tradeoff for the rifle with it's accuracy and terminal ballistics. The optic will be a gamechanger over irons, red dots, and even the ACOG. Training will still matter, so when it gets to the echelons using it, marksmanship and learning the manual of arms for this rifle will also be make/break in the success for adoption.
19:47 agree. This is a specialist weapon to fulfill a role within a team. Not to replace the M4
In order to keep the same weight, you would have to carry only about 60% of the number of rounds as 5.56.
6:55 is the T Handle necessary to the functionality of the rifle? If not, I can see companies making something to simply fill that gap, as it could decrease some weight (someone will want to do that)
Honestly, the more and more I see this rifle and cartridge, the better I think it is. Full auto looks very controllable. The cartridge is quite the payload as well- probably a 135 or a 140 grain .277 bullet. That will certainly stomp people. This is also a legit 1000 yd cartridge as well. Should be great
I can't help but wonder how the longevity of the firearm is going to be with rounds as hot as these (80,000+ PSI). Especially when conditions may not be ideal.
That bolt and gas system looked ridiculously robust to me.
I assume, requirement for the barrel life would've been at least 20000 rounds. And since it is quickly changeable, i see no problem in relatively short barrel life.
@@jcoolG192 i wanted to type 15000, but thought us mil would have higher demands :D
Barrels and bolt are consumables, and easily changed even on the M16/M4( whether they were when needed is another question).
One big feature, that I think originally came from Colt in a rejected PIP proposal is the replaceable cam shoulder in the upper.
That increases the life of the upper as that is pretty much the only wear area in it.
That has been a common feature of the Sig MCX since launch, and this is derived from that.
@@skullofserpent5727 20,000 rounds at 80,000 PSI and over 3,000 fps at the muzzle? Not unless there’s been some major breakthrough in metallurgy for rifle barrels. These rifles are going to burn thru barrels.
I wouldn’t want to lug this around anywhere but if you are flying or driving to most combat zones it makes perfect sense. Running convoy security or just the walls around your FOB like the Army has been doing for a while now.
"Ambidextrous" literally a word they need to know to sell their products and almost no firearm sales rep knows how to pronounce it 🤣 🤣 🤣
ambidextreous = clip in cringe factor
Drives me fucking insane 😂
Eh it's probably the new "aluminium" by now
@@MichaelZeagler "aluminum" and "aluminium" are spelled differently in American English and British English. "Ambidextrous" is spelled the same, people just see a big word and get confused. 🤣
Double watched on the TV and then the phone 📱. Can't get enough breakdown on this new system and just think of the MkII and beyond when they put her on a diet. Keep up the great work guys !
Also the cartridge weill iterate and develop too. just think of how much the M4 changed.
Although i doubt this will happen, its a possibility that if the cartridge is too spicy or a barrel burner, they will do what the FBI did with 10mm and download it to something more manageable. but maybe that wont be necesary considering Karl's full auto performance (not with milspec rounds tho)
It has a forward assist... lol Thanks for the video Karl!
The rifle with the FCS coupled with the organic capabilities in observation and data sharing of the Armored Vehicles this allow the Infantry and Scout Platoon to push out the engagement distances substantially. With the optics the platoon will be able to identify targets at range and give an accurate ballistic solution which can be shared across the formation. If you can make accurate shots at 300 to 400m at an adversary with a rifle only capable of making effective hits inside of 300m you have a clear advantage. The ability to quickly Identify, Acquire, Range and Engage targets at extended range was a Game Changer with the fielding of modern FCS on the Abrams and Bradley that cannot be understated. With the NGSW program we are pushing this capability down to the individual soldier level. It will also be able to replace other equipment that is carried such as binoculars, kestrels and other LRFs/Designators.
While historically most firefights have taken place at ranges under 300m, this is also before every soldier has the optics and equipment to facilitate rapid observation and accurate ranging of targets. It is critical to think of the effects of the program at the Platoon and Company level and not just and individual.
Perspective from an Armor Branch Officer.
Maybe I missed it, was the FA shooting with the military spec ammo or civilian loads? FA with lower pressure ammo could give artificially lighter recoil. From military testing videos it looks like the mil spec ammo is harder to control.
It was not the military ammo for sure. And he was not propelling this 140gr points at 3000 fps for sure. But it really wasn't clear if he was shooting the high pressure composite hunting rounds or the only brass ammo...
Check it out…. The days of doing a long range patrol to an ambush point, watching it for three days, then walking out, have been over for a long time. Now you get flown to the Y and do a 2000m patrol in, or you get driven all the way to the X in armored “comfort” and fight with those vehicles as a base and resupply. Power to get over a wall and speed to close the distance are at a premium. That’s why we’ve can cary boat anchors like the Gustav. I like the channel, just giving the boys some things to chew on.
Stoner: How about an AR-10?
Army: Too much recoil for full auto 👎
Sig: how about with an overpressure wildcat?
Army: Fvck them bore throats, Fvck em good!
@InRangeTV I would say that lefties need to run the gun in adverse condition settings with civilian ammo for the brass deflector to work, didn't look like the bolt was cycling back fast enough on the slo-mo shot for the brass deflector to be engaged
Interesting that the trip for the automatic function is built into the upper, much like the MCX.
As a suggestion, maybe do the interview part 'boom' where unintelligible boom unintelligible part unintelligible unintelligible isn't unintelligible unintelligible boom somewhere boom unintelligible else.
I'd love to own this rifle myself, but I don't see the case for replacing every M4 with it. It's o heavy, less ammo, way more recoil, and for what? 90% of the time the M4 has what it takes.
Exactly what I think. It could replace the M14 and other 7.62 NATO rifles. But not the M4/M16. Replacing an intermediate caliber rifle with a full powered caliber rifle is historically a pretty bad idea.
My bet is that in 10 years only the squad support weapon remains of this NGSW project. Replacing the SAW with something that shoots a bigger round actually makes sense.
How much are we hearing stuff from Ukraine about how 5.45, 5.56 and 7.62x39 rifles are having issues with modern body armor? Exactly. I think the ability of carrying more ammo for prolonged suppression effect matters more than if you are more severely wounded from round A vs round B.
@@LUR1FAX Historically enemies didn't wear body armor. That said I also think it is a bad idea. On paper the 6.8x51 has only a small advantage over 7.62x51.
The US is planning to fight people equipped like the US, meaning body armor. The M4 doesn't have the power for armor penetrstion.
@@foleymaj Yeah, I agree. The M4 already defeats body armor < lvl 3 and 4, and that is not often seen in the field.
can't wait to see the freaky suppressor designs we get with 3d printing/additive manufacturing
I can see this as a good implementation of a DMR. Finally replacing the M-14, but not the M-4.
M4 is going away. Body armor is cheap.
M4 isn't going anywhere.
@@Soravia Body armor also doesn't matter at all in the face of overwhelming fire superiority. And regardless, even if this rifle can pop modern body armor, better armor can simply be developed faster than a rifle that beats it. The entire intent behind the XM5 and .277 fury could be obsolete within the year.
The stripping process seems super straightforward
Id like to see this hybrid case technology on a 6.8spc cartridge and an upper built for it. You could keep the weight, size and capacity of your standard issue m4 And surely increase effective range.
Why not just use the same 5.56x45mm case then? Instead of the 6.8 SPC's .30 Remington case. It should be able to achieve the same case pressures without the slight reduction of ammo per magazine.
@@jodricpalisbo7916 Agree on 5.56. An alternative could be hybrid cased 205 Ruger with 50-55gr longrange steel core AP bullet going 3800fps from a fast twist 18" barrel and a much smaller telescopic suppressor.
6mm arc with bi-metal case is the road they should have gone down. They could have had long distance capabilities with a m4 size rifle.
@@hawaiiangunner The problem with this argument is that cartridge is not designed (from the ground up) to be used on short barrels, high chamber pressures WITH suppressors always on.
6mm ARC is nice but is doesn't make the cut, for me at least.
@@jodricpalisbo7916 it would equate to exactly the same thing. If you're able to increase the chamber pressure of 80000 to 120 thousand the end result is the same.
Good on the lads bringing that one out to have a smash with.
I'm very curious about using this high pressure case technology in an M4 and how much you could get out of it as far as armor defeating capability and range goes.
I was talking about this in another comment. You could apply the case technology to 5.56 and retain 2200 fps out to 500 yards from a carbine. Issue a modified upper capable of handling the increased pressure. That would be a hell of a round as unless they wanna issue AP .338 Lapua we're not getting through armor anyway, so let's reclaim the infantry half kilometer and reatin the advantage of an intermediate cartridge. Also body armor doesn't seem to be getting in the way of 5.45x39 much in eastern Europe at the moment, and it certainly DID NOT make people invincible in the GWOT. So I'd rather have lighter, smaller rounds that could destroy flesh at 500 yards that I could send a few at a time to slip by the enemy's armor plate. Unless they've really got some super projectile that'll bust armor at a few hundred yards. Then that would actually be worth the hit to capacity and weight. Unless they just upgrade body armor again.
@@andycraig6905 i would say its all been tested and its pretty much a done deal but this weapon adoption isnt all about body armor but also going through cover as well. It less about conflicts like in Ukraine its about being prepared for a much more looming threat that's as or very close to technology as the US is i hate to say this but this isnt about defeating invading Russian army which often defeat by its own lack of preparation and i doubt it will totally replace what is already in the armory but rather a tool that adds to the overall effectiveness. Imo i would rather train with this then any m16/m4 because it offers weapon system and optics package definitely requires training. The m15 you can literally experience any of the many places that sells them at any time provided you have money and time.
I feel the same way generally. I like the new rifle and machine gun but 556 is great. I think that a good idea would be to have the spear setup like the scar L and H, have the spear in something more like a 556 possibly with polymer ammo, as well as a version with the 6.5. Then simply issue both weapon types to a platoon where most have the 556 but some have the 6.5.
@@andycraig6905 I wouldn't mind going up a little in caliber just to get that extra kinetic energy and range with the upgraded optics coming out. As we saw with .224 valc, you can really reach out with a standard ar-15 form factor. I feel like with the amazing new bullet profiles that buck wind better paired with a high pressure cartridge and a slightly larger round (while retaining the 30 rnd capacity) you could easily add a couple hundred yards to the effective range with a bit of extra punch at the end, so even if the armor stops it the guy on the receiving end will feel it.
@@andycraig6905 you know the military industrial complex,the modified m4a1 upper and ammo would work just fine.
Something tells me that Karl shot black powder guns before the video, LoL! Great content, keep'em coming!
This seems like a great DMR, but sub optimal for a general issue rifle.
Seems like a classic peacetime rifle acquisition
ther recoil did look more manageabel than what i have seen in previous videos, but was that due to ammo differences? ie was this controllable recoil with the commercial sig futy ammo? or the military 80k psi ammo?
Its cool to finally see a take down of this gun most videos don't go that far. The spears bolt and recoil spring are very different from a original 5.56 MCX and I would say its much simpler.
The cartridge is definitely interesting as is the optic. We already know that some companies like SAKO in Finland are looking at the outcome of the NGSW trials with a very keen eye. One of the big rifle modernization programs right now is the one between Finland and Sweden. Finland is already replacing all of its old DMRs with SAKO made AR-10 .308 rifles but the replacement for the RK62 and the Swedish AK5 is still in the works. If the cartridge proves successful in all likelihood Finland and Sweden will adopt a 6.8 SAKO made rifle. Either way it will probably take realistically at least 10 years to know and even for the US any large scale adoption of the cartridge and the MCX Spear will take a lot of time.
@@RockSolitude True enough for countries like Finland where most combat would be in forests and mostly within about 100 meters. The big consideration is how widespread the adoption of the cartridge would be. If it becomes the next 5.56 that is used everywhere you need to adopt it just for the sake of logistics.
Either way the rifle that will be chosen will take time because Sweden and Finland combined will need about 400k-500k rifles.
@@matteusvirtanen392 Who does Finland think they're going to fight in a war? Russia? China? A few dozen hypersonic missiles and Finland would easily be incapacitated. A 6.8x51 battle rifle isn't going to prevent Finland from losing lol. You need to have a realpolitik perspective. Stop larping.
That round would be a sick chambering for M240B, or other GPMGs. Even in the forest locations, that extra power can be useful.
@Aditya Chavarkar If it's such a buzzword why is the Glob0h0m0 American Empire and GAYTO so concerned about it?
Beau of the fifth column made an interesting video about this rifle and the new calibre in relation to school shootings.
A curious thing about this rifle. I already watched several "video-previews" from several different youtubers. In some videos, the perception of the rifles's recoil was insane, a wild beast, but in others, the gun behaved like a breeze in the hands of the shooter.
Im guessing it has to do with how "hot" the ammo they used are?
And another factor can be personal bias, if youve already become fond of it, you are likely to percieve aspects of the gun to be better than they are, eg. Lower recoil.
Its hard to be fully non-biased. :)
It depends on what they are comparing it to. If they compare it to 5.56, yeah it kicks a lot. If they compare it to .308, 6.5 CM, or .270 win. it's very manageable.
Some people are using the actual milspec ammo and others like inrange were using the low pressured training ammo
@@SonofIiberty Yeah, I saw Ian's video and finally understood why such a difference in recoil. Probably the ammo used was different in some reviews.
Such a cool fucking platform. Can’t wait to see version 2 in the future. I hope they address adverse conditions like dirt, sand, and mud locking up the rifle so easily. My theory is they will get rid of the side charging bullshit because it creates a large area for shit to get in the action once cycled. If they get rid of the side charging it may be perfect
I would be interested to see a meltdown video with the spear using the full power military loads to see where the weak points are in the rifle with its 80,000psi operating pressure. Is the barrel gonna burst? Are the bolt lugs going to shear? are parts going to snap? Will the gas system fail? Are the screws holding the barrel in going to shear and the barrel flies out? Than after the test see what the rifling in the barrel looks like
Probably the barrel will burst at gas block. That's it. Nothing is going shear off and fly away. My guess, at a count of 800-1000 rounds of zombie attack rate of fire.
If only someone did comprehensive trials of this rifle or something
You plebs do not deserve my epic awesomeness.
I was REALLY worried that the recoil would be unmanageable, but wow, that was a fantastic demonstration of its capabilities, Karl!
Onlybecause they are shooting extremely weak compartitively peaking civilian .277 fury. No access to the actual round which is like 80,000 psi+
You guys teaming up with 9Hole reviews for a practical accuracy episode on this gun would be amazing!
Long oprod + spring on top of receiver + foldinf stock... Your AR is mutating to become AK. How your shoulder feels after that? MCX have suspiciously looking small stock. Can you really shoot stock folded?
I think most people are looking at this procurement backward. The Army clearly wanted a new SAW, they wanted it in a new cartridge that wasn't as heavy as 7.62, but had better performance. That is where the 6.8 fits in. However, once you have a new SAW, you don't want to have two types of ammo in a squad, so you now need a new rifle, to shoot the new round. This riffle is doing well for what it is being asked to do, which is to allow a squad to have a long-range high energy SAW, that weighs less than the current 5.56 SAW while keeping a squad to a single ammo logistics train. With a 12lbs machine gun, your SAW is going to be able to carry much more ammo, and your sustainment in a firefight will be down to the machinegun, and not on ineffective suppressing fire from a riffle.