Or we need to actually go for systems that function in adverse conditions. The AR platform that we currently use didn't fail without the dust cover. This is a direct downgrade. The M14 2.0.
@@dashikashi4734 Yeah an AR-15 just explodes into your face when a bit of water is in the barrel. This isnt a downgrade just because an excessive amount of mud got onto and into the gun.
I love how everyone else who had one of these said it was too new to do a mud or dirt test and Karl's just like hold my mud while I grab more mud for this thing.
This so reminds me of when I was using the FAL in the Dutch army. It did not have a dust cover, as it fired with a closed bolt. But once the sand entered, the whole mechanism was only moving when I used brute force. And manual reloading.
Apparently it's a similar story when the AUG is tested in China; during the mud test it lost to the more rugged Type 95 which is mechanically more similar to a Czech V58.
@@MellowFellowOfYellow I'm gonna be honest I haven't been interested enough to follow the NGSW development, what's the hindrance with the NFA, barrel length?
A tear down clean for return acceptance and the time it took verses the current army firearm would also be interesting. It looks like it would require a high pressure hose to get all the mud out of the nooks and crannies. Logistics would be upset if it had to house and maintain portable pressure washers so the troops could return their rifles after using them each time.
If the Spear has a similar mechanism as the Virtus, then I am guessing that the recoil spring assembly got fouled. It is just above the bolt carrier group and is open to the ejection port/chamber mouth area. The springs (there are two in the Virtus) move on guide rods in a support frame and the spring coils could act as a perfect receptacle for mud and other fouling.
The thing that I learnt by watch these videos is that all guns are allergic to mud, sand, ect. It’s the guns ability to keep out and even eject gunk out of the action that gives you a passing grade when it comes to these test. Awesome video Karl and keep it up
the AR15 DI platform handles mud and debris rather well. and is easy to remedy when it does become affected. Speaking from actual military/combat experience.
I think quite a lot people were curious and looking forward to this, me included. It really is an interesting thing that the US Army has selected a replacement for the M4 and M249, and with a new cartridge to boot. There are lot of questions and a lot of speculation. Was basically thinking to myself that I hope Karl gets his hands on some of this kit, and then throw it right into the mud test.
@@darkoverladyrosa5264 well its more that no one botherd to put it on, I suppose it could go on it with some sort of deranged attachment, its just more the fact the US doesn't use them, if the UK does adopt this they might end up adapting something akin to that.
@@rygotti510 not really when you look at the bigger picture, I'm afraid. Why the 6.8 round (which _isn't_ the SPC, it just uses the same caliber) is being used because of lessons learned in Afganistan and Iraq against insurgents, where they manage to get body armor highly resistant to 5.56mm rounds and the number of times US soldiers were saved thanks to their armor kit. Basically, the US military realized that 5.56 isn't viable anymore and has to be replaced _double_ pronto.
@@TheTrueAdept yes and no. The Army’s choice for the new round came from other nations ability to get cheap body armor supplied to their troops AND the standard engagement distance in Afghanistan being well over 400 yards. They want a round a soldier can easily engage targets past that distance with stopping power, hence why they also chose the new LVPO next gen scope for these new rifles. IMO, this is a huge mistake. The heavier ammo, less rounds carried, 20 round mags, extra charging handle exposing the internals to debris …
Assuming that's 277 Fury he shot, it's 80,000 PSI, so yeah, lots of kick, which I suppose means there's something good about this gun being heavier than the AR-15.
Gun shop owner: This new US military gun sure is popular, gonna treat it well, right? Karl: *Smiles in a sinister manner while holding a shovel* Gun shop owner: ...Right?
People are going to be so confused when they see the M16 beat this rifle on a mud test, especially if they are those people who still think the M16 is unreliable
@@rogermcbadlad2812 lmao, it's like the boomers in germany that served the Bundeswehr, saying the G3 was the best thing ever (a 4,4kg rifle in 7,62 NATO) and that the G36 is plastic garbage with a too small round. They might have served with the G3 but have no idea wtf they are talking about
I feel like the over complicated charging system(s) was also an issue. Stick with the T handle or commit to the side charger. I noticed during one of the mortaring attempts with the side charger the T handle went back with it.
@@1337penguinman I think the opposite. Side charger is easier to use, stronger, and you can clear malfunctions or manipulate the gun without taking your eye off the scope. It might take a bit before troops get used to it though
It's not runny enough, it needs more water. "And to make sure its runny enough, we'll add a little water. There we go, how's it look?" Good, thank you.
So far only the AR 15 with direct impingement gas system did it without any failure and the HK G36 with only one, and it wasn't even a major problem. Did we actually get an explanation why the G36 did so well?
The more I see piston AR15 types choke on mud tests the more respect I have for the so called direct impingement system. Stoner knew what he was doing.
@@great_deceptionBecause they go in as small teams, and they shoot high volumes of fire during extract at times. The gas tube would burst under the extreme heat. Also, having an adjustable gas block with a piston makes the rifle more tunable for suppression.
I don't even care if the rifle works at this point. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of 80k psi. "I can get 70 mags to the barrel on this hog!" 😄
I believe sig has stated that the 80k psi is considered an upper limit and that most service rounds will be below that threshold though I've also seen people doing range testing on these comment that they kick similar to 7.62x51mm military loads so who knows. I can't imagine many standard rounds would be at or above 80k, surely that would wear the barrels and other components? Idc how sturdy your rifle is, that's gotta take a toll
@@thepinkplushie the thing is hitting higher velocities than the 7.62x51 in 24 inch barrel while being fired from a 16 inch barrel. This is insanely powerful. Sig just need to put a dust cover on the spear
@@thepinkplushie be careful not to equate recoil to chamber pressure. They are almost completely unrelated (45 colt recoils more than 5.7 despite being less than half the pressure for instance)
@@thepinkplushie The military tends to use that upper limit on their ammo though. Look at current 5.56 where they took .223 and upped the pressure by like 8k psi and some loads like M855 A1 may even exceed that 62k psi.
@@thepinkplushie They can always make adjustments to the loads and rifles down the road if need be, of course, and I was obviously exaggerating to make a point with the 70 mags per barrel comment, but I definitely am still blown away by and wary of the 6.8x51's roughly 22-23% higher max chamber pressure over 5.56. I honestly wish them the best with this project for the sake of the troops who will be using these, but I still have doubts about the longevity of the rifle's components. We'll see how it turns out. 👍
Nobody has access to the ammo as of yet. The ammo available has a bi-metal jacket, but it doesn't have the full powder load. It's not generating the 80,000psi the 277 fury is going to produce.
So what I found really interesting… the side charging handle is an open system, meaning that when you use the side charging handle and lock it open, you can see daylight through the receiver. I thought Sig would have invented some sort of closed side charging handle system
Spring loaded dust covers that move out of the way of the bolt handle and then return to place are easy to do and they aren't even new tech. FN-FNCs have them, just off the top of my head.
The side charging handle doesn't reciprocate. So it's only opened to the elements when you charge it, and whatever the gap is between it and the receiver.
Fn fal charging handle is sealed even while charging while fn cal has rubber lips while galil ace has moving dust covers fro charging handle and pkm has ejection port cover which only opens for ejection. So yeah a completely sealed gun can be made but Sig didn't make it why I don't know.
The thing I have seen through this series is that irrespective of operating mechanism if a gun is not sealed enough it will fail. Some piston guns who are sealed were successful while others not like scar and brn 180 were successful while ak was not. Sig should have made the gun more sealed instead of making it familiar in terms of controls to ar platform. Why AR with similar dust cover arrangement is successful because bcg has vent ports to blow of mud, dust and debris when the dust cover is not up. Also the recoil spring is in the buffer tube so it is sealed so the t shape charging handle is not a problem for ingress of contaminants. In case piston driven be short or long strong action one should not copy AR externals or even internals to seal up the action as they have different requirements. They need square bcg like in brn 180 and scar not rounded bcg in ar so that when they lock up their will be no space for ingress. Beside that they need front mounted charging handle like scar and bren2 or one sided charging handle like fal. Of course both types sealed by the square shape of the carrier Or by rubber seals like in fn cal and by moving dust cover like in galil ace. For dust cover I would recommend pkm type one which opens only for ejection.
I don’t think that the army made a mistake on picking this rifle of the 2-3 from the trials, I think they made a mistake on the whole selection process. We are returning to the battle rifle with a longer, heavier gun shooting bulkier, heavier cartridges. I know hits are what counts, but suppression is essential to get you into position to make those hits.
Isn't suppression fire meant to be the role of the M250? The M250 provides full auto suppression while the squadmembers with the M5 maneuver and do some precision fire.
Also you know that whole STANG thing…..that universal magazine that was shared by all sorts of allied countries? I guess they are just replacing that with most likely more expensive proprietary magazines now x3
@@mauzki- I don’t think there is a standard 7.62 magazine. It seems there are a bunch of different designs for the 7.62 magazines depending on which company made the weapon.
I wonder if that recessed area in the bolt (the one the dust cover detent sits in) carried some extra mud into the action. That area, as discussed, is normally cleared by venting gasses in an AR, but not so here. A dust cover system which avoids that might be an improvement.
The thing I have seen through this series is that irrespective of operating mechanism if a gun is not sealed enough it will fail. Some piston guns who are sealed were successful while others not like scar and brn 180 were successful while ak was not. Sig should have made the gun more sealed instead of making it familiar in terms of controls to ar platform. Why AR with similar dust cover arrangement is successful because bcg has vent ports to blow of mud, dust and debris when the dust cover is not up. Also the recoil spring is in the buffer tube so it is sealed so the t shape charging handle is not a problem for ingress of contaminants. In case piston driven be short or long strong action one should not copy AR externals or even internals to seal up the action as they have different requirements. They need square bcg like in brn 180 and scar not rounded bcg in ar so that when they lock up their will be no space for ingress. Beside that they need front mounted charging handle like scar and bren2 or one sided charging handle like fal. Of course both types sealed by the square shape of the carrier Or by rubber seals like in fn cal and by moving dust cover like in galil ace. For dust cover I would recommend pkm type one which opens only for ejection.
How hard would it be to create a dust cover that closes after each round is ejected? I feel like it might introduce malfunctions with the AR flap style, but maybe a shutter style cover like the Galil would work better.
@@PocketDrummer pkm has ejection port cover which flips up when bolt comes back opening and ejecting the round. And the charging handle is non reciprocating with rubber seals and sliding metal cover like fal.
@@TakNuke on rifles like this I suppose it could be seen as another point of failure. The PKM is already big and heavy so the added weight of making something like that durable enough to last was likely minimal in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure there's a reason it isn't often done on infantry assault rifles
This is true though. It's not the same mud. Mud is a mixture of dirt and rocks and sticks and other material that happens to be there. A slurry of whatever. The best way to put it is, I can absolutely guarantee you than an M4 can and will jam up the same way if it happens to catch the right obstruction. It can be said that given a design, random mud drops may have less detrimental affect to certain guns than others.. but at the same time, you'd still have to be scientifically and experimentally fair and go so far as to identify the exact cause of failure in order to compare how that would affect or not affect a different rifle. Just tossing some shit in mud and then going "well that didn't fire" as opposed to tossing a different gun in and seeing that it does fire.. I mean that doesn't seem a reliable approach at all. It's just a basic gathering of empirical data that still needs much further investigation. It's not going to be the "mud" necessarily that has jammed up an action.. I'd want to know what specifically it was. A rock? A twig? Several pebbles at once? Where did they jam? Did some tiny fragment of something stick to the bolt head as another round was being seated and this prevented the firing pin from making full contact? Was it shit stuck to the BCG preventing full action? Was the mag somehow prevented from being fully seated so it wasn't cycling new rounds? That's what appeared to be happening here but we don't know. The needing to mortar it could have been a 1 out of 20 mud-test kind of thing but again we don't know. I just feel like if an argument that various mud has various contents is made into a complaint or joke then these mud tests must not be very useful.
I'm pretty sure my JP Enterprises reduced weight bolt could handle that mud, due to how smooth it runs and due to its shape. And I didn't need 8 grand to do it.
@@dashikashi4734 Just bumping up 5.56x45mm isn't really juice that's worth the squeeze. The 6mm ARC has much better ballistic and barrier penetration potential, although the conventional pressure forces the round to be a bit on the girthy side for an intermediate cartridge. Slim it down to at least a 6.8 SPC/224 Valkyrie case diameter, and with a higher operating pressure, you can surpass 6mm ARC's capabilities.
Assuming you're referring to this video as well (I find the Spear weird too if not unnecessary), the rifle is a response to combatants in sandy environments rather than mud... WE NEED A SAND TEST!
RIGHT?!?!?! I'm not sure how sensitive an AR10 is to barrel length for battle rifle combat but the logistics would've been so simple. The SIG 716 is right there!
This is literally an AR-10 redesigned for the new cartridge with a short stroke piston, though? Do you mean a DI version? Yeah, that would be interesting.
The new cartridge is a waste. They should take lessons from the development to make 5.56 even lighter and smaller so troops can carry more ammo. Imagine those 50rd dessert tech mags loaded to 75 rounds on every infantryman
@@LucidStrike The Spear is more for long-range engagements, is heavier than an AR, and you only have 20 round magazines. I'd still be happier to have am AR in an urban environment.
@@LucidStrike In shelled out urban environments, there's plenty of mud, mixed with bits of concrete, tar, steel, glass, and whatever else shattered near the impact craters.
My thoughts exactly. Snubbed the 280, you know maybe we should go to an intermediate cartridge, I know let's go with a 22 (223)! Now, hmm maybe around 280 wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Honestly, the biggest issue was U.S. and the U.K. wanting one universal round for both the rifle and machine guns. IMO NATO should have took a lesson from the Soviets who kept both the 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 for different roles, which the U.S. and later NATO ended up doing later anyways with the adoption of 5.56.
They're really doing the same thing again though, ignoring practical solutions for some overpowered rifle and cartridge half their soldiers can't even use effectively. Seems this beast has so much muzzle blast it will be issued with a suppressor? I haven't seen a pic of the thing without a can on it. This is a considerably hotter round than 280 Brit or 276 Pederson.
Thanks for the video. Cool to see the results. I wonder how the milspec, high pressure, ammo would do versus the ammo used in this video which would be one of the two commercially available 277 fury loadings.
Of all the videos about this rifle, i haven't seen one yet that includes field strip/disassembly. I'm curious about the internal. I know it's just basically a scaled up MCX with additional features but still Does sig/youtube/us military forbid any in-depth disassembly/field strip video because it's still a new military contract rifle?
@@InrangeTv Finally! Thanks I've read the gun manual that is available for public download on SIG's site and the spear does have a lot of differences fro the original MCX. Anyway, I'm looking forward to it Mr. Carl!
It's more complicated, much higher parts count, external reciprocating mass exposed, and more torque. This makes it less reliable, no matter what they try to claim.
So happy you tested with adverse gas settings. I felt my inner keyboard warrior coming out- only to be hushed by the following scene. Thanks for the awesome test Karl!
Man the moment you started lopping mud onto that rifle, it reminded me of my days as a recruit cleaning our rifles while screaming: "HARDER, FASTER, AYE AYE SIR"
Karl, thank you for this content! Here in Finland I'm already speaking to my reservist conscipts what future we are potentially facing. More brutal the test are, more honest 😎
@@USN1985dos Assault Rifle cartridge 7,62 x 39 RK 95, RK 62 M (1-3) and loads of cheap chinese AK's for the reserve Machineguns PKM and MG3 Sniper rifle Sako TRG-42
@@FinQuerilla You may be required to switch to a completely STANAG standard. MG-3 is my favorite MG and you should get rid of anything Chinese. See if you can personally write to your leaders.
@@kippihiiri Conscripts serve either full year or half of the year. After your service year, you'll be considered as reserve, if you are "active" member of "Suomen reserviläisliitto" you are *"Reservist"* put that on quotes. Finnish language, don't ask 😄😄
I see they're trying to copy the AK. "Ya see, John. If you drop gun in mud, it turns into a straight pull action rifle. Makes for better Marksmanship!"
AK fanboys and people who think the NGSW rifle adoption is stupid are gonna have a field day with this one, seeing as how this is one of the few modern firearms to ever perform worse than the AK. As someone who's both, I know I'm smiling
As someone from Appalachia, I appreciate that you stopped and corrected your pronunciation. Remember, if you pronounce it Appalaychia, I’ll throw an apple at ya
Duster cover: "I'm here to prevent stuff from getting into the action." InRangeTV: "Now let's do it with the dust cover open." Dust cover: "Am I a joke to you?"
@@alexm566 It opens when you fire, and doesn't automatically reset. So it's more of a "We're in combat and I see a mudhole that I need to go across..." kind of situation; something which *not everyone* will remember to close the dust cover for when you're in a firefight. (Greener troops would probably be more apt to forget, I suspect.)
Regarding my time in the German Army in the 1980ies I never had problems with my G3 operating while crawling over muddy or dusty fields and firing blanks or training ammunition (the blue plastic ones). Well, I never made this kind of mud test and shooting FMJ was always done with a clean G3 on the range. The G3 was not perfect, a bit heavy and kicking but reliable and accurate. Would be my choice in a Zombie Apocalypse.
I think what this shows is what happens when you take an action designed around DI and try to kludge it into a piston action. I understand the reasoning behind going to a piston weapon and a new round, and it's not necessarily bad. I just think when you're making changes that radical you need to have a weapon designed from the ground up with that type of setup in mind. This really feels like M14 syndrome to me.
Your comment makes no sense. The XM7 and therefore Spear and MCX were all designed around an AR-18 style operating system. The Spear is not like Those AR-15 Piston conversion kits, totally new operating system.
Meet the new whiz-bang US service rifle. It runs hot, kicks like a mule, holds less ammo, weighs more, costs a ton and pukes in mud. But it's the future in US combat arms. Yippeeeee!!!
Yeah, despite being viewed as more reliable, piston guns are in fact not, though with that side charging gap I am curious if DI would be enough to fix it, or if they should go back to the design board and get rid of those unnecessary features which just create more openings into the action.
@@theblobconsumes4859 Exactly, In the Canadian Infantry we crawl thru thick ass mud and fire our C7s with no problems :) It shows everyone present that there will be no problems with your C7 in the heat of muddy battle, we also do it with snow & ice in -20c birrrrr I'm still cold from that lol.
dust cover with a good enough seal, and some mechanism to clear obstructions(like DI blowing away dirt) from the ejection area, seem to be the key factors in deflecting material intrusions into the inner workings. the side charging handle entry point probably doesn't help either.
I think the most fascinating thing about this gun is I get to witness first hand what people were probably witnessing when the M16 was initially introduced. Which is to say people who committed almost religiously to the old platform desperately nitpicking every issue with the new one.
@@CircaSriYak More just interesting. I know that politics and bureaucracy often take a role in the choices the military makes, but usually thing seem adopted for good reasons. I guess I just have more faith in the people who made the decision than some others. This new rifle seems like no joke. Wish I had $8000+ dollars sitting around gathering dust to get one!
One of their team said after so many testers complaining about it not having the familiar M4 charging handle they added it fast as not to be affected in being chosen.
I like this rifle and the new caliber. I can’t help but see all the parallels to the development of the M14 however. Both of these rifles had long development time, high costs, a round that is harder to control under automatic fire, less capacity than contemporary designs, heavier to carry, and (debatably) more power than usually needed at the most common combat ranges. Of course the widespread use of heavy body armor has created a need that did not exist in the ‘50s and ‘60s so only time will tell of this rifle is more of a success in battle. Even if it is I feel the M4 will soldier on with non-frontline units in a similar role as the old M1 carbine for exactly the same reasons the M1 was created.
It takes some courage to give your Sig product to Karl or Tim from MAC. Because you know they have a slight tendency to throw mud at and break stuff, especially Sig products.
@@dashikashi4734 take it you've never served? In the Army we practically treated it like a game to catch your buddy with his dust cover open. It becomes such an ingrained habit to close it that it's basically a nervous tic to constantly be checking it.
@@dashikashi4734 I mean the project is a waste. But there is also an ejection port that's open on every rifle. If you're dropping that with the charger open the bolt is open too. You're done either way
Not many people would readily throw a 30-40 thousand-dollar rifle in mud how amazing the see this sort of stress test would love to see how it would do spending weeks either underwater or in mud and then how it functioned afterwards...
It's so weird to see Karl actually surrounded by green.
I honestly thought he can only live in the desert :D
@@Bakerkill I know I thought that to
ahhh apalachians, the american 3rd world...
🤣 🌲
Must be just a filter...
I think the lesson of the mud tests overall is that we need dust covers on everything.
Or we need to actually go for systems that function in adverse conditions. The AR platform that we currently use didn't fail without the dust cover.
This is a direct downgrade. The M14 2.0.
@@dashikashi4734 Yeah an AR-15 just explodes into your face when a bit of water is in the barrel. This isnt a downgrade just because an excessive amount of mud got onto and into the gun.
A dust cover for the ejection port never seems to hurt from what I've seen.
Yeah how do u keep the dust cover closed in active combat where its most likely for the gun to get dirty like that lol. This gun is a piece of junk
@@dashikashi4734 actually this applies to all guns even the AK wont function if the dust cover is gone and the junk just accumulated there
I love how everyone else who had one of these said it was too new to do a mud or dirt test and Karl's just like hold my mud while I grab more mud for this thing.
Is it ever really too early to do a mud test?
@@PhycoKrusk right like do we have to wait after the buyers remorse expires or what? Lol
but he didn't change the gas port to adverse conditions. That's what its there for.
@@andrewschliewe6392 yes he did 6:44
@@Seb-Storm I assume they meant until the gun is broken in but that only takes one very expensive trip to the range and like an hour
The birds, the green, Karl struggling with a jammed gun speaking with little inflection as he slowly gets muddy. This is high quality asmr.
This so reminds me of when I was using the FAL in the Dutch army. It did not have a dust cover, as it fired with a closed bolt. But once the sand entered, the whole mechanism was only moving when I used brute force. And manual reloading.
Apparently it's a similar story when the AUG is tested in China; during the mud test it lost to the more rugged Type 95 which is mechanically more similar to a Czech V58.
Damn, yeah that dust cover is nice. Same thing happens with AKs from what I hear if you don't have the gun in safety to cover the internals
I don't know how available these are but damn, that's impressive you were able to get a video like this on it
I think it’s less about stock availability and more about the $8000 price tag that includes dealing with the NFA process
@@MellowFellowOfYellow I'm gonna be honest I haven't been interested enough to follow the NGSW development, what's the hindrance with the NFA, barrel length?
@@tastychunks the included suppressor on this first run. And a 13” barrel
It almost must be a demo, I don’t think the tax stamp would be back from the first run yet.
They are $7,000 too
A teardown after the failures would be interesting to see just how much debris made it's way into the fire control group, but great video nonetheless.
Agreed. If anything to take away from this video is keep your dust cover locked in place.
It amazes me they still havent went to a fully sealed trigger group
@@John_Redcorn_ How do you propose to seal the hammer travel from the FCG? The hammer contacts the back of the firing pin.
@@LRRPFco52 i meant like a drop-in type like a Timney
A tear down clean for return acceptance and the time it took verses the current army firearm would also be interesting. It looks like it would require a high pressure hose to get all the mud out of the nooks and crannies. Logistics would be upset if it had to house and maintain portable pressure washers so the troops could return their rifles after using them each time.
If the Spear has a similar mechanism as the Virtus, then I am guessing that the recoil spring assembly got fouled. It is just above the bolt carrier group and is open to the ejection port/chamber mouth area. The springs (there are two in the Virtus) move on guide rods in a support frame and the spring coils could act as a perfect receptacle for mud and other fouling.
I agree with your analysis. Well stated.
The spear is a virtus, just rechambered and upscaled.
Interesting how the BRN180 works basically the same but didn't have this issue.
@@hellcatdave1 The consistency of the mud being different may have something to do with it.
@@hellcatdave1 Because the BRN180 is a proper AR18 action and not this stupid halfbreed that shouldn't ever have existed.
The thing that I learnt by watch these videos is that all guns are allergic to mud, sand, ect. It’s the guns ability to keep out and even eject gunk out of the action that gives you a passing grade when it comes to these test. Awesome video Karl and keep it up
I don't like sands... It gets everywhere
the AR15 DI platform handles mud and debris rather well. and is easy to remedy when it does become affected. Speaking from actual military/combat experience.
I think quite a lot people were curious and looking forward to this, me included. It really is an interesting thing that the US Army has selected a replacement for the M4 and M249, and with a new cartridge to boot. There are lot of questions and a lot of speculation. Was basically thinking to myself that I hope Karl gets his hands on some of this kit, and then throw it right into the mud test.
If it could take a bayonet it could have still worked as a . . . spear.
>make the first standardised infantry rifle in US history that can't be used as a spear
>call it a spear
Amazing.
Ha! That's pretty rich.
Wait... Really it can't?
I think it is heavy enough to use as a club
@@darkoverladyrosa5264 well its more that no one botherd to put it on, I suppose it could go on it with some sort of deranged attachment, its just more the fact the US doesn't use them, if the UK does adopt this they might end up adapting something akin to that.
This review just kind of feels like life in the US right now.
Full of mud and failure to fire?
@@MrDK0010 that or spending hella money on something no one asked for or needs in the slightest
@@rygotti510 that sums it up
@@rygotti510 not really when you look at the bigger picture, I'm afraid. Why the 6.8 round (which _isn't_ the SPC, it just uses the same caliber) is being used because of lessons learned in Afganistan and Iraq against insurgents, where they manage to get body armor highly resistant to 5.56mm rounds and the number of times US soldiers were saved thanks to their armor kit.
Basically, the US military realized that 5.56 isn't viable anymore and has to be replaced _double_ pronto.
@@TheTrueAdept yes and no. The Army’s choice for the new round came from other nations ability to get cheap body armor supplied to their troops AND the standard engagement distance in Afghanistan being well over 400 yards. They want a round a soldier can easily engage targets past that distance with stopping power, hence why they also chose the new LVPO next gen scope for these new rifles. IMO, this is a huge mistake. The heavier ammo, less rounds carried, 20 round mags, extra charging handle exposing the internals to debris …
Well this is certainly one of the most unexpected yet exciting videos I've been surprised by, well done!
Short stroke piston fanatics BTFO again
Love the dedication to muddying the rifle up.
For the first time in 2 years, you've made me realize DI is more reliable than piston. So happy with my SR15.
Glad ya happy
It depends on what you mean by reliable.
Piston is more reliable, you copelord
@@MidnightSvn facts are against you.
My SR15 is stupid reliable as well.
That new round looks like it's got a healthy recoil to it. I'd like to see Karl give us a tour of the weapon and ammunition.
Assuming that's 277 Fury he shot, it's 80,000 PSI, so yeah, lots of kick, which I suppose means there's something good about this gun being heavier than the AR-15.
those likely weren't the full power military rounds which produce 80,000 PSI.
@@danielcadwell9812 those make the recoil better?
@@jacoblape The full power rounds create even more recoil.
Those weren't even military load, you can tell because of the full brass case
Gun shop owner: This new US military gun sure is popular, gonna treat it well, right?
Karl: *Smiles in a sinister manner while holding a shovel*
Gun shop owner: ...Right?
Hopefully this isn’t the one Brownells is giving away
The good ole padme meme.
It's an old meme my lord, but it checks out.
Kind of wondering if he's the proud new owner of a broken Sig Spear.
People are going to be so confused when they see the M16 beat this rifle on a mud test, especially if they are those people who still think the M16 is unreliable
Look out, here come all the boomers begging the army to re adopt the M14…;)
I guess it's a trade-off? DI will shoot with mud, but explode with water in the system. Short stroke pistons are the opposite.
@@rogermcbadlad2812 lmao, it's like the boomers in germany that served the Bundeswehr, saying the G3 was the best thing ever (a 4,4kg rifle in 7,62 NATO) and that the G36 is plastic garbage with a too small round. They might have served with the G3 but have no idea wtf they are talking about
30 years of studies have shown the m16 to be unreliable.
@@floofy5529 indeed. firearms are tools and no tool is perfect in every scenario.
I feel like the over complicated charging system(s) was also an issue. Stick with the T handle or commit to the side charger. I noticed during one of the mortaring attempts with the side charger the T handle went back with it.
I'm hoping this is a test before they fully commit to side charge only on a different gun in the future.
Yep. I think they fucked up with 2 charging handle. That's TWICE the chance for you bolt travel to be obstructed. Shoulda went with the side charger
To me the side charger is a waste. Extra ingress point for dirt and the t-handle charger has worked quite well for the last 60 years.
@@1337penguinman I think the opposite. Side charger is easier to use, stronger, and you can clear malfunctions or manipulate the gun without taking your eye off the scope. It might take a bit before troops get used to it though
Geez! It's AMAZING how the ol' AR keeps looking like an absolute GENIUS design!! Very intriguing!
As always, these mud tests are interesting, thanks for running them!
Does anyone else think that all of this is really just an indication that Karl didn't get to play in the mud enough as a child?
Yes.
Or perhaps too much.
The AR and Stoner’s design still reigns supreme!!!
It's not runny enough, it needs more water.
"And to make sure its runny enough, we'll add a little water. There we go, how's it look?"
Good, thank you.
Boy....that's confidence inspiring
So far only the AR 15 with direct impingement gas system did it without any failure and the HK G36 with only one, and it wasn't even a major problem.
Did we actually get an explanation why the G36 did so well?
SCAR had one failure to fire and it looked it was bad round. Otherwise without any problem.
The Cetme L also did it without any issues.
They still haven’t tried an SG 55X let alone a cheap US copy 556
I would still like to see that one!
mas49/56 and f2000 tactical tuna passed the test also
The FS2000 ran with no malfunctions, as it's basically sealed up for use in adverse conditions.
The more I see piston AR15 types choke on mud tests the more respect I have for the so called direct impingement system. Stoner knew what he was doing.
What sense does that make. SOCOM and SF overwhelmingly go for piston designs.
@@great_deceptionBecause they go in as small teams, and they shoot high volumes of fire during extract at times. The gas tube would burst under the extreme heat. Also, having an adjustable gas block with a piston makes the rifle more tunable for suppression.
@@cchcch-jw9dw Exactly !
I don't even care if the rifle works at this point. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of 80k psi. "I can get 70 mags to the barrel on this hog!" 😄
I believe sig has stated that the 80k psi is considered an upper limit and that most service rounds will be below that threshold
though I've also seen people doing range testing on these comment that they kick similar to 7.62x51mm military loads so who knows.
I can't imagine many standard rounds would be at or above 80k, surely that would wear the barrels and other components? Idc how sturdy your rifle is, that's gotta take a toll
@@thepinkplushie the thing is hitting higher velocities than the 7.62x51 in 24 inch barrel while being fired from a 16 inch barrel. This is insanely powerful. Sig just need to put a dust cover on the spear
@@thepinkplushie be careful not to equate recoil to chamber pressure. They are almost completely unrelated (45 colt recoils more than 5.7 despite being less than half the pressure for instance)
@@thepinkplushie The military tends to use that upper limit on their ammo though. Look at current 5.56 where they took .223 and upped the pressure by like 8k psi and some loads like M855 A1 may even exceed that 62k psi.
@@thepinkplushie They can always make adjustments to the loads and rifles down the road if need be, of course, and I was obviously exaggerating to make a point with the 70 mags per barrel comment, but I definitely am still blown away by and wary of the 6.8x51's roughly 22-23% higher max chamber pressure over 5.56. I honestly wish them the best with this project for the sake of the troops who will be using these, but I still have doubts about the longevity of the rifle's components. We'll see how it turns out. 👍
You are a beast Karl! I can't recall ever seeing anyone clear a double feed from a magazine with their mouth.
The best thing about the Spear is that it's so inexpensive, as is the ammo.
Lollll
@@alexk6126 I think it's true compared to the others in the ngsw competition
I like all the choices for ammo
Bad choice for the military
@@johnrambo4259i wont disagree. But it was undeniably and unquestionably the lesser of the 3 dogshits that were submitted in the program.
Will you be doing a full review of the rifle and cartridge? Apologies if you already have and I have missed it
I'd love a tabletop video on one of these like he did on the BRN-180
I hope Karl does a deep dive on the Fury cartridge. I also hope Paul Harrel does a deep dive on it, too.
He shot a lot of video with the SPEAR. Expect to see more. Spoiler, it's not great left handed
Nobody has access to the ammo as of yet. The ammo available has a bi-metal jacket, but it doesn't have the full powder load. It's not generating the 80,000psi the 277 fury is going to produce.
So what I found really interesting… the side charging handle is an open system, meaning that when you use the side charging handle and lock it open, you can see daylight through the receiver. I thought Sig would have invented some sort of closed side charging handle system
Spring loaded dust covers that move out of the way of the bolt handle and then return to place are easy to do and they aren't even new tech. FN-FNCs have them, just off the top of my head.
The side charging handle doesn't reciprocate. So it's only opened to the elements when you charge it, and whatever the gap is between it and the receiver.
@@argonzeit I thought they saw that lol.
Fn fal charging handle is sealed even while charging while fn cal has rubber lips while galil ace has moving dust covers fro charging handle and pkm has ejection port cover which only opens for ejection. So yeah a completely sealed gun can be made but Sig didn't make it why I don't know.
The thing I have seen through this series is that irrespective of operating mechanism if a gun is not sealed enough it will fail. Some piston guns who are sealed were successful while others not like scar and brn 180 were successful while ak was not. Sig should have made the gun more sealed instead of making it familiar in terms of controls to ar platform. Why AR with similar dust cover arrangement is successful because bcg has vent ports to blow of mud, dust and debris when the dust cover is not up. Also the recoil spring is in the buffer tube so it is sealed so the t shape charging handle is not a problem for ingress of contaminants. In case piston driven be short or long strong action one should not copy AR externals or even internals to seal up the action as they have different requirements. They need square bcg like in brn 180 and scar not rounded bcg in ar so that when they lock up their will be no space for ingress. Beside that they need front mounted charging handle like scar and bren2 or one sided charging handle like fal. Of course both types sealed by the square shape of the carrier Or by rubber seals like in fn cal and by moving dust cover like in galil ace. For dust cover I would recommend pkm type one which opens only for ejection.
I don’t think that the army made a mistake on picking this rifle of the 2-3 from the trials, I think they made a mistake on the whole selection process. We are returning to the battle rifle with a longer, heavier gun shooting bulkier, heavier cartridges.
I know hits are what counts, but suppression is essential to get you into position to make those hits.
Wait wait wait. You mean maneuver is important to fire and maneuver?
Isn't suppression fire meant to be the role of the M250? The M250 provides full auto suppression while the squadmembers with the M5 maneuver and do some precision fire.
Also you know that whole STANG thing…..that universal magazine that was shared by all sorts of allied countries? I guess they are just replacing that with most likely more expensive proprietary magazines now x3
@@jakeb.7997 the sig mags can take different kinds of ammo and the sig itself can take ya standard 7.62 mag.
@@mauzki- I don’t think there is a standard 7.62 magazine. It seems there are a bunch of different designs for the 7.62 magazines depending on which company made the weapon.
Oh man I was waiting for this but I thought we would have to wait a lot longer nice job getting your hands on one you could mud up so quickly!
Thanks to Illumined Arms!
I wonder if that recessed area in the bolt (the one the dust cover detent sits in) carried some extra mud into the action. That area, as discussed, is normally cleared by venting gasses in an AR, but not so here. A dust cover system which avoids that might be an improvement.
The thing I have seen through this series is that irrespective of operating mechanism if a gun is not sealed enough it will fail. Some piston guns who are sealed were successful while others not like scar and brn 180 were successful while ak was not. Sig should have made the gun more sealed instead of making it familiar in terms of controls to ar platform. Why AR with similar dust cover arrangement is successful because bcg has vent ports to blow of mud, dust and debris when the dust cover is not up. Also the recoil spring is in the buffer tube so it is sealed so the t shape charging handle is not a problem for ingress of contaminants. In case piston driven be short or long strong action one should not copy AR externals or even internals to seal up the action as they have different requirements. They need square bcg like in brn 180 and scar not rounded bcg in ar so that when they lock up their will be no space for ingress. Beside that they need front mounted charging handle like scar and bren2 or one sided charging handle like fal. Of course both types sealed by the square shape of the carrier Or by rubber seals like in fn cal and by moving dust cover like in galil ace. For dust cover I would recommend pkm type one which opens only for ejection.
How hard would it be to create a dust cover that closes after each round is ejected? I feel like it might introduce malfunctions with the AR flap style, but maybe a shutter style cover like the Galil would work better.
@@PocketDrummer pkm has ejection port cover which flips up when bolt comes back opening and ejecting the round. And the charging handle is non reciprocating with rubber seals and sliding metal cover like fal.
@@TakNuke on rifles like this I suppose it could be seen as another point of failure. The PKM is already big and heavy so the added weight of making something like that durable enough to last was likely minimal in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure there's a reason it isn't often done on infantry assault rifles
@@PocketDrummer look at the side of a FNC for your answer.
"But it isn't the SAME mud as the other mud tests! It isn't a fair test!!!" ;) Thanks for the work Karl, always enjoy the videos!
Aren´t the AK fanboys the ones who use that argument all the time? lol
This is true though. It's not the same mud. Mud is a mixture of dirt and rocks and sticks and other material that happens to be there. A slurry of whatever. The best way to put it is, I can absolutely guarantee you than an M4 can and will jam up the same way if it happens to catch the right obstruction. It can be said that given a design, random mud drops may have less detrimental affect to certain guns than others.. but at the same time, you'd still have to be scientifically and experimentally fair and go so far as to identify the exact cause of failure in order to compare how that would affect or not affect a different rifle.
Just tossing some shit in mud and then going "well that didn't fire" as opposed to tossing a different gun in and seeing that it does fire.. I mean that doesn't seem a reliable approach at all. It's just a basic gathering of empirical data that still needs much further investigation.
It's not going to be the "mud" necessarily that has jammed up an action.. I'd want to know what specifically it was. A rock? A twig? Several pebbles at once? Where did they jam? Did some tiny fragment of something stick to the bolt head as another round was being seated and this prevented the firing pin from making full contact? Was it shit stuck to the BCG preventing full action? Was the mag somehow prevented from being fully seated so it wasn't cycling new rounds? That's what appeared to be happening here but we don't know. The needing to mortar it could have been a 1 out of 20 mud-test kind of thing but again we don't know.
I just feel like if an argument that various mud has various contents is made into a complaint or joke then these mud tests must not be very useful.
@@predatorjunglehunter7332 Yep! As is anyone who's rifle failed the mud test that's emotionally invested in their rifle.
I'm pretty sure my JP Enterprises reduced weight bolt could handle that mud, due to how smooth it runs and due to its shape. And I didn't need 8 grand to do it.
@@manictiger well, try it🤔
I have a feeling we will be seeing this on Ian's channel sooner rather than later.
It'll probably stick around as a DMR. But for general infantry this rifle is completely unfitting.
@@tristanc3873 We should've built this round for DMR and MG work, and simply used the case tech to improve 5.56.
@@dashikashi4734 Just bumping up 5.56x45mm isn't really juice that's worth the squeeze. The 6mm ARC has much better ballistic and barrier penetration potential, although the conventional pressure forces the round to be a bit on the girthy side for an intermediate cartridge. Slim it down to at least a 6.8 SPC/224 Valkyrie case diameter, and with a higher operating pressure, you can surpass 6mm ARC's capabilities.
@@ostiariusalpha That sounds fair. The current 6.8 is excessive in regards to being an infantry caliber, so anything would be an improvement.
Assuming you're referring to this video as well (I find the Spear weird too if not unnecessary), the rifle is a response to combatants in sandy environments rather than mud...
WE NEED A SAND TEST!
You win on the mud test I am sure the entire internet had to start mud testing AK's because you did it.
Karl, at this point in your YT career I'm sure you know, but your delivery is great. Something about the way you speak. Love ya man!
Eugene Stoner: I told you, DI is the way to go.
Honestly, they should have just taken an AR10 and revised it for the new cartridge.
RIGHT?!?!?! I'm not sure how sensitive an AR10 is to barrel length for battle rifle combat but the logistics would've been so simple. The SIG 716 is right there!
This is literally an AR-10 redesigned for the new cartridge with a short stroke piston, though?
Do you mean a DI version? Yeah, that would be interesting.
This is literally an AR10
The new cartridge is a waste.
They should take lessons from the development to make 5.56 even lighter and smaller so troops can carry more ammo.
Imagine those 50rd dessert tech mags loaded to 75 rounds on every infantryman
@@shaggnar2014 again, this is designed to be against modern armor
5:15 is where we could have seen Karl fire a round with his bare teeth 😁👍
I would say this was a failure to feed, but not a failure to extract :P and he shot the whole cartridge too! Impressive!
This is an incredible flex and I am 100% here for it
Is it bad that 9/10 times I know the outcome of these mud tests but, garner a small sense of satisfaction from watching Karl's sarcasm & contempt
Looks like a neat rifle. Troop trials are coming up. Field use is the crucible. We will see what breaks and when.
The barrels have a life of 3,000 rounds
@@lordofthepigs888 Jeez, that's awfully low
@@lordofthepigs888 source?
@@lordofthepigs888 I'll also ask for a source, but I believe it, the chamber pressures are ridiculous as hell.
@@lordofthepigs888 you mean 12,000
Finally "AK reliability" in an US army service rifle
The M14 is mad you forgot about it.
Have you seen the AK mudtest?
@@thelastcrusader8140 I said AK reliability, not Stengun reliability
@@gusenborge /thatsthejoke.jpeg
Damn. Looks like a great rifle but standard ar do great with mud tests. Makes me less sad to not have one of these but to still have an ar
Standard ARs also have 50 years of additional development on them, so that may have some impact.
In urban environments, there isn't all that much mud, so I'd still be sad. Heh.
Well this one did the army tests better than the AR.
@@LucidStrike The Spear is more for long-range engagements, is heavier than an AR, and you only have 20 round magazines. I'd still be happier to have am AR in an urban environment.
@@LucidStrike In shelled out urban environments, there's plenty of mud, mixed with bits of concrete, tar, steel, glass, and whatever else shattered near the impact craters.
wow........best content on the interwebz. Thanks for the incliment firearm testing you guys do. Hope this gun never sees a conflict.
Solid test, great stuff as usual Karl
US Army in 1950: ".280? NOPE! We want 308!" US Army in 2022: ".277? Yes please!"
My thoughts exactly. Snubbed the 280, you know maybe we should go to an intermediate cartridge, I know let's go with a 22 (223)! Now, hmm maybe around 280 wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Honestly, the biggest issue was U.S. and the U.K. wanting one universal round for both the rifle and machine guns. IMO NATO should have took a lesson from the Soviets who kept both the 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 for different roles, which the U.S. and later NATO ended up doing later anyways with the adoption of 5.56.
@@leonardwei3914 Meanwhile in Germany (H&K G3 until the 90s): What's the big deal?
They're really doing the same thing again though, ignoring practical solutions for some overpowered rifle and cartridge half their soldiers can't even use effectively. Seems this beast has so much muzzle blast it will be issued with a suppressor? I haven't seen a pic of the thing without a can on it. This is a considerably hotter round than 280 Brit or 276 Pederson.
@@Broken_Yugo You're not wrong. The suppressor is supposed to mitigate recoil, though. Whether that's just marketing BS remains to be seen.
Thanks for the video. Cool to see the results.
I wonder how the milspec, high pressure, ammo would do versus the ammo used in this video which would be one of the two commercially available 277 fury loadings.
my favorite part of this video is the sheer delight Karl gets from screwing with oversensitive gun nuts
Karl achieving so many new levels of awesomeness in this video, while showing that you probably don't want to mess with an original Stoner design.
Karl, you sir are a LEGEND.
Karl spitting out a round of ammunition is just somehow the best thing I've ever seen in my life.
Thanks Us Army for a gun with less rounds, heavier weight and bad reliability, I can’t wait to carry it our next fight , yours truly 11B.
@Shinshocks divide that 100 lol
"Drink water. And here, have some more weight." -Big Army
Got out in 2016(Army Infantry) after 12 years. I am glad to say I will not be a part of this weapon system rollout.
This gun is not unreliable. Very few guns pass the mud test like this.
The Army is always prepping for the last conflict. Afghanistan we needed longer range. Future conflicts, I doubt it will be needed as much.
Of all the videos about this rifle, i haven't seen one yet that includes field strip/disassembly. I'm curious about the internal. I know it's just basically a scaled up MCX with additional features but still
Does sig/youtube/us military forbid any in-depth disassembly/field strip video because it's still a new military contract rifle?
I have that coming.
@@InrangeTv Finally! Thanks
I've read the gun manual that is available for public download on SIG's site and the spear does have a lot of differences fro the original MCX.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it Mr. Carl!
@@InrangeTv Karl, we love you.
It's more complicated, much higher parts count, external reciprocating mass exposed, and more torque. This makes it less reliable, no matter what they try to claim.
@@LRRPFco52 "external reciprocating mass exposed"? What do you mean?
Awesome to see you in my home state! Hope you enjoyed it here
It's awesome to see a mud test in my neck of the woods!
Karl demonstrating the difference between "Marine Resistant" and "Marine Proof."
So happy you tested with adverse gas settings. I felt my inner keyboard warrior coming out- only to be hushed by the following scene. Thanks for the awesome test Karl!
Fastest notifications in the west
I gotta hand it to you for spending the time to clean that weapon after the test.
Man the moment you started lopping mud onto that rifle, it reminded me of my days as a recruit cleaning our rifles while screaming: "HARDER, FASTER, AYE AYE SIR"
Karl, thank you for this content! Here in Finland I'm already speaking to my reservist conscipts what future we are potentially facing. More brutal the test are, more honest 😎
What weapon are you guys running these days?
@@USN1985dos Assault Rifle cartridge 7,62 x 39
RK 95, RK 62 M (1-3) and loads of cheap chinese AK's for the reserve
Machineguns
PKM and MG3
Sniper rifle
Sako TRG-42
@@FinQuerilla You may be required to switch to a completely STANAG standard. MG-3 is my favorite MG and you should get rid of anything Chinese. See if you can personally write to your leaders.
Reservists or Conscripts? You can't be both at the same time.
@@kippihiiri Conscripts serve either full year or half of the year. After your service year, you'll be considered as reserve, if you are "active" member of "Suomen reserviläisliitto" you are *"Reservist"* put that on quotes. Finnish language, don't ask 😄😄
I see they're trying to copy the AK.
"Ya see, John. If you drop gun in mud, it turns into a straight pull action rifle. Makes for better Marksmanship!"
I mean, jokes aside, I would rather clean an AK than this.
AK fanboys and people who think the NGSW rifle adoption is stupid are gonna have a field day with this one, seeing as how this is one of the few modern firearms to ever perform worse than the AK.
As someone who's both, I know I'm smiling
The AK was actually worse.
Just commenting after liking because damn hammering an MCX like that for the audience is super cool. Thanks for filming
Fascinating video, InRange, keep up the good work.
As someone from Appalachia, I appreciate that you stopped and corrected your pronunciation. Remember, if you pronounce it Appalaychia, I’ll throw an apple at ya
Lived in northern WV almost my entire life; Appalayshia is more common up here. Neither is incorrect.
now i really want to see what's going to happen against the "moon dust" you guys used to test the laugo arms alien
I didn't even know I wanted this.
Thanks Ilumend Arms for sacrificing a Spear for this. Good luck cleaning it. And thanks Karl for making this happen.
love to see SIG 716i mud test
Duster cover: "I'm here to prevent stuff from getting into the action."
InRangeTV: "Now let's do it with the dust cover open."
Dust cover: "Am I a joke to you?"
You have time to think about closing the dust cover when you're getting shot at.
@@malldvd why would you open it tho?
@@alexm566 It opens when you fire, and doesn't automatically reset. So it's more of a "We're in combat and I see a mudhole that I need to go across..." kind of situation; something which *not everyone* will remember to close the dust cover for when you're in a firefight. (Greener troops would probably be more apt to forget, I suspect.)
@@alexm566 You don’t know about guns do you.
@@Tigerprowltactical nop, that's why I am asking.
It'll be interesting to see if there would be any difference if it were set to "adverse" from the get go
Yes, but can it beat the unlubricated spinner?
Well this one brought them out of the wood work, thanks Karl
Dammit Karl, you broke the Kraut Wunder Rifle!
Regarding my time in the German Army in the 1980ies I never had problems with my G3 operating while crawling over muddy or dusty fields and firing blanks or training ammunition (the blue plastic ones). Well, I never made this kind of mud test and shooting FMJ was always done with a clean G3 on the range. The G3 was not perfect, a bit heavy and kicking but reliable and accurate. Would be my choice in a Zombie Apocalypse.
G3 is amazing gun
Very iconic gun to me🙂
I think what this shows is what happens when you take an action designed around DI and try to kludge it into a piston action. I understand the reasoning behind going to a piston weapon and a new round, and it's not necessarily bad. I just think when you're making changes that radical you need to have a weapon designed from the ground up with that type of setup in mind. This really feels like M14 syndrome to me.
Your comment makes no sense. The XM7 and therefore Spear and MCX were all designed around an AR-18 style operating system. The Spear is not like Those AR-15 Piston conversion kits, totally new operating system.
M14 2.0 (even the failures)
letttsss goooo.
Meet the new whiz-bang US service rifle. It runs hot, kicks like a mule, holds less ammo, weighs more, costs a ton and pukes in mud. But it's the future in US combat arms. Yippeeeee!!!
I wanted this rifle bad not any more. Thanks for keeping it real.
Yeah, despite being viewed as more reliable, piston guns are in fact not, though with that side charging gap I am curious if DI would be enough to fix it, or if they should go back to the design board and get rid of those unnecessary features which just create more openings into the action.
@@ryantogo8359 Imagine thinking that doing bad on an extreme mud test is somehow a redeeming quality.
@@ryantogo8359 plenty of rifles have passed a mud test lol
Depends on the piston system design. Open pistons are problematic. Pistons in tube are far more reliable.
@@ryantogo8359 Mud tests are some of the most basic ways of checking real world reliability. It is not the only way, but a strong indicator.
@@theblobconsumes4859 Exactly, In the Canadian Infantry we crawl thru thick ass mud and fire our C7s with no problems :) It shows everyone present that there will be no problems with your C7 in the heat of muddy battle, we also do it with snow & ice in -20c birrrrr I'm still cold from that lol.
dust cover with a good enough seal, and some mechanism to clear obstructions(like DI blowing away dirt) from the ejection area, seem to be the key factors in deflecting material intrusions into the inner workings. the side charging handle entry point probably doesn't help either.
I think the most fascinating thing about this gun is I get to witness first hand what people were probably witnessing when the M16 was initially introduced.
Which is to say people who committed almost religiously to the old platform desperately nitpicking every issue with the new one.
Here come the new fudds, same as the old fudds.
Depressing isn’t it
@@CircaSriYak More just interesting. I know that politics and bureaucracy often take a role in the choices the military makes, but usually thing seem adopted for good reasons.
I guess I just have more faith in the people who made the decision than some others. This new rifle seems like no joke.
Wish I had $8000+ dollars sitting around gathering dust to get one!
Very interesting! About what I'd expect really, that was a LOT of mud. But cool to see!
M14 won't be the shortest lived army rifle any more. Stoner was smaaaart!
This has nothing in common with the m14
@@bradenmchenry995 yee its worse
This seem to fail in the same way the HK 416 did. Can't remember how well it was to remedy
Any idea if the Army actually requested BOTH the side charging handle along with the traditional M16 / M4 charging handle?
They did
Yeah. I dislike it. Seems like an overcomplicated waste to me.
One of their team said after so many testers complaining about it not having the familiar M4 charging handle they added it fast as not to be affected in being chosen.
That was very satisfying to watch.
I was waiting the whole time for a Sig employee to run out and ask what the hell are you doing? Really cool to see a mud test on such a new rifle.
I like this rifle and the new caliber. I can’t help but see all the parallels to the development of the M14 however.
Both of these rifles had long development time, high costs, a round that is harder to control under automatic fire, less capacity than contemporary designs, heavier to carry, and (debatably) more power than usually needed at the most common combat ranges. Of course the widespread use of heavy body armor has created a need that did not exist in the ‘50s and ‘60s so only time will tell of this rifle is more of a success in battle. Even if it is I feel the M4 will soldier on with non-frontline units in a similar role as the old M1 carbine for exactly the same reasons the M1 was created.
It takes some courage to give your Sig product to Karl or Tim from MAC.
Because you know they have a slight tendency to throw mud at and break stuff, especially Sig products.
If it actually sees service I think it'll need a few design alterations. That side charging handle seems to expose the action pretty bad.
@@EtherFox Cool, you won't always have the cover closed. The rifle is an absolute POS waste of taxpayer money.
@@dashikashi4734 no
@@dashikashi4734 take it you've never served? In the Army we practically treated it like a game to catch your buddy with his dust cover open. It becomes such an ingrained habit to close it that it's basically a nervous tic to constantly be checking it.
@@thetman0068 You can cope all you want, the proof of it being a POS is right there.
@@dashikashi4734 I mean the project is a waste. But there is also an ejection port that's open on every rifle. If you're dropping that with the charger open the bolt is open too. You're done either way
Thanks for the info! I need to see more of these tests on the spear.
Not many people would readily throw a 30-40 thousand-dollar rifle in mud how amazing the see this sort of stress test would love to see how it would do spending weeks either underwater or in mud and then how it functioned afterwards...
I still can’t believe they retained the forward assist. 🤣
Exactly! There is a side charging handle which can be used as an assist. And they kept the top charging handle! Redundant redundancy!
@@Vuntermonkey I’m just glad that they didn’t attempt to re-introduce the M-14.