Sig MCX Speer (XM5)

[BreechFace]

Try again Sig.



AR15 T Charging handle AND a side charging handle. Sig should have just kept with the AR15 Charging handle, much more closed off from ingress of foreign material. But instead they decided to do both, so now there's two places that needs to be clear of foreign matter. Notice how the T handle comes back when Karl is mortaring using the side charging handle.

If anyone has watched Karl's AR15 mud test or his AR15 vs AK47 mud test they've seen what he mentions in this video that the gas ports on the side of the Stoner BCG does a good job of expelling foreign material away from the surface of the BCG exposed in an open dust cover scenario.



Sig could fix the first point I mentioned by eliminating the side charger as that is too much area exposed in adverse conditions which is a huge place for failure to occur with ingress of foreign matter into the action. They should have just kept going with the T-Handle Charging handle, it doesn't take an engineer to take one look at the two types of charging and realize that one is a whole lot better at keeping the action sealed than the other.

As for the second point above, that's tough to solve if Sig/Army wants to commit to piston driven platform. But they are going to have to go down the road of "sand cuts," and the like that predecessor military weapons went down, with some success, but then that still doesn't take care of problems with the fire control group getting jambed up.

 

[BreechFace]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/has-ukraine-killed-armys-next-generation-squad-weapon-201889

Wonder which retired General is working for Sig in their procurement division. "Buy the rumor, sell the news."

 

[General Geoff]

It passed with the dust cover closed, so I consider that a pass from an engineering standpoint, if not a real world worst-case perspective.

Keep your ejection port covers closed when crawling through the mud, people!

 

[BreechFace]

It passed with the dust cover closed, so I consider that a pass from an engineering standpoint, if not a real world worst-case perspective.

Keep your ejection port covers closed when crawling through the mud, people!

Agreed, for the most part. Managing one's dust cover is crucial in adverse conditions. It is providing a potential weak point when one considers how the Stoner AR design faired with the gas ports on the BCG blowing contaminates out of the way in the second video.

I personally, don't think that the XM5 is going anywhere in great numbers in our military, there are too many deficiencies when compared to the 5.56. I could see it being fielded as a DMR role, but other than that, in my mind they need to go back to the drawing board to outright replace the M4, M16, etc.

XM5/XM7 suppressed
Combat Loadout 9.84 lbs with 140 rounds

M4A1 unsuppressed
Combat Loadout 6.34 lbs with 210 rounds

So our soldiers will be carrying 3.5 lbs. more with a 70 round reduction in ammunition. Now the XM5/XM7 loadout includes a suppressor but that is still a big change in quantity of ammunition and weight on our already overburdened soldiers.

But if .mil can prove better hit percentage so as to not expend as much ammunition from one's loadout they may have something, but it is often the case that front line infantry when given a choice will take more ammunition.

 

[C-grunt]

I don't think a heavier gun with more recoil is going to increase hit percentages

 

[Robert]

A non-reciprocating left side charging handle is far superior to the standard AR charging handle or a AK charging handle.

 

[BreechFace]

A non-reciprocating left side charging handle is far superior to the standard AR charging handle or a AK charging handle.

Key word, "non-reciprocating," and it better seal well when closed.

As far as "far superior" I would say to what extent is debatable.

 

[BreechFace]

I don't think a heavier gun with more recoil is going to increase hit percentages

Agreed, I think this rifle platform is being sold with the fancy Vortex sighting and it's been touted as improving hit percentage. However, one can apply similar optic sighting to an M4 and improve hit percentage as well I would presume.

 

[N555]

We know St. Stoners design was best.
The further deviation from stoners design just makes the platform heavier and less reliable.
If you want to run gas piston because you're suppressed to eliminate the DI pop or you just want to flex on the poors, I get that.
You would think that the army of all institutions would have did a mud test, unless they just had to have gas piston for reasons only known to them.
My own personal XM5 build assuming hybrid 6.8x51 cases become available would absolutely be DI, probably have at least a 20'' bbl with a magnum length gas system if possible.
The way I figure it we got maybe till this evening before the sig imps get the post locked.

 

[Robert]

Key word, "non-reciprocating," and it better seal well when closed.

As far as "far superior" I would say to what extent is debatable.

I'll take the charging handle on my FAL over my ARs any day of the week. Love my ARs, but the charging handle is simply terrible. And reciprocating charging handles are absolutely dumb.