Thoughts on these new Sig military rifles?

[Aim1]

Interesting.


Thoughts?




https://twitter.com/sigsauerinc/status/1654211998765252609?t=qdoeLxFcq9rL_amglLsplw&s=19

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

This cartridge runs into all the same reasons they dumped the 7.62x51 for infantry issue in the first place- heavy ammo, limited loadout, heavy recoil, then add silly high pressures and accelerated bore erosion. Not a fan.
The LMG is nice, should be issued at the squad level in 7.62, but I dont see a bright future for the rifle in general issue, though SOF may be able to use the added ME and armor penetration.
Better to spend the money on suppressors for all existing squad weapons.

But, they didn't ask me, so.....(shrugs).

 

[CapnMac]

The XM-7 (originally touted as the XM-5) weighs only 13# empty, and the whiz-bang scope adds a bit more than a pound to that.

Why they would give up the 7# M-4 for that is open to speculation.

The ammo weighs the same as 7.62nato, more than twice the weight of 5.56nato.

You basically lose 55-58% of your ammo capacity (depending on whether you are measuring by volume or by weight).

Apparently you need four stars to be able to explain how this is "better."

Luckily, the contract is only around US$4.5 billion to supply around 2500 weapons (around 2100 XM-250 SAW and 400 XM-7 Carbines).

 

[ClemY]

SAW, perhaps.
Rifle, probably not for long.

 

[Gun4Fun90]

Well from my understanding the switch is based on shifting from an army geared towards fighting insurgents and terrorists to an army geared towards near peer adversaries.

The logic being near peer adversaries would be better trained and better equipped than the past enemies we have faced. (ie. proper armor)

now whether they are still thinking that after this whole Russia/Ukraine deal is too be seen. But I am pretty sure near peer adversaries means Russia and China.

 

[C-grunt]

I don't see the rifle getting past the XM phase for the reasons listed above.

We already have AP 7.62 Nato that fires a 130 grain bullet at 3000 FPS and there is already widely available armor that will stop that. The XM5 shoots a 130 grain bullet at 2800ish FPS. I'm not seeing how that is going to outperform the 7.62 AP.

The LMG on the other hand, could be a game changer.

 

[FL-NC]

Doing a massive switch in weapons design and ammunition is a huge undertaking financially and logistically in an organization the size of the US mil. It is never seamless and numerous problems occur in the supply chain. I have undergone this process numerous times during my 23 years of service. It also throws the entire concept of NATO standardization out the window regarding ammunition. While improvements in areas such as effective range are supposedly there, current training in the "big army" doesn't even take full advantage of the capabilities of the existing weapons systems currently in use. With all of these factors in mind, the question that needs to be answered is if it is all worth it.

 

[12Bravo20]

Doing a massive switch in weapons design and ammunition is a huge undertaking financially and logistically in an organization the size of the US mil. It is never seamless and numerous problems occur in the supply chain.

Just switching everyone from the M16A1 to the M16A2 took some time to complete. The Army first adopted the A2 in 1986 and even Divisions that were considered forward deployed and had first priority on weapons and repair parts still had some units using the A1 until the end of 1991. I didn't get issues my first A2 until I got to Germany and was assigned to the 1st Armor Division in Jan 1992.

It was the same way with the Beretta M9 that was officially adopted in 1985. Again while assigned to the 1st AD, we still had the M1911A1 until late 92/early 93. We also still had the M3A1 SMG until that time too.

From what I remember, it was the fact that the 1st AD was designated as the Quick Reaction Force for Europe and Africa plus being put on alert for the Bosnia peace keeping mission all in 1993 was the reason to finally get everyone updated to the M16A2 and M9.

While I was never a big fan of the M249 SAW, it has its place and fits the needs while still using the same ammo as the squad rifles and can use STANAG mags in a pinch. Now if the XM250 is quite a bit lighter than the M60 or M240, then it will be a viable replacement for both. I mostly carried the M60 as a junior enlisted and did not get rid of it until being promoted to E-5.

 

[American_Fusilier]

They are answers to questions nobody was asking in my opinion.

 

[Nature Boy]

My thoughts.

Not every adversary encountered on the battlefield will be armored like a juggernaut in a Call of Duty video game so why spend billions re-equipping the entire force to face this unlikely scenario.

My opinion is this is just another needless cash dump into the an already bloated military/industrial complex.

Besides, how would any of this further the inclusion of gender-fluid soldiers and drag queens into the military culture, which seems to be the chief mission these days

*climbs down from his soap box*

 

[Terry G]

As an old Vet I have to say I would rather NOT haul around a heavy rifle with heavy ammunition. The Infantrymen of today are already carrying a heavy load before he even picks up his weapon and ammunition.

 

[C-grunt]

While I was never a big fan of the M249 SAW, it has its place and fits the needs while still using the same ammo as the squad rifles and can use STANAG mags in a pinch. Now if the XM250 is quite a bit lighter than the M60 or M240, then it will be a viable replacement for both. I mostly carried the M60 as a junior enlisted and did not get rid of it until being promoted to E-5.

From what Ive read/heard the XM250 will replace the SAW and the Mk46/48. It is not slated the replace the M240 as the lighter weight construction causes it to have a significantly lower sustained rate of fire.

If the 6.8 gets full adoption, there is a conversion kit for the M240. Sig also makes the XM250 in 7.62 Nato, which I think will be what ends up actually being fully adopted after all this.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Looks like a good stopper. That cartridge seems potent.

Much better than the glorified .22 poodle shooter round.

 

[Terry G]

"Poodle Shooter" M-16A1 never let me down. I want a Colt AR 15 to hand if things get interesting..

 

[C-grunt]

View attachment 1149754 "Poodle Shooter" M-16A1 never let me down. I want a Colt AR 15 to hand if things get interesting..

They had some big poodles running around Iraq when I was there. They carried AKs and RPGs too. Luckily we had the poodle shooters because it worked well on those poodles.

 

[21H40]

I remember some people getting their congressmen all excited - maybe 20 years ago - complaining that we were fighting with inferior weapons because the 5.56 wasn't good enough for one shot stops. This feels like an answer to those appeals on a congressional timeline.

I think there is some interesting stuff with changing the M240 to 6.5 Creedmore, but I'm not sure about replacing the 5.56 with something heavier. I always had my guys load up extra ammo in the vehicles because I felt that having more was usually better. I wouldn't like to have to add weight and carry fewer rounds.

I don't know. I had nothing to do with autopsies or anything scientific, but the targets who earned a couple of 5.56mm holes tended to stop their nefarious activity.

Maybe this is the first step to diversify the US Army's equipement - let every division have a different caliber and platform. That should make everyone happy, right?

 

[FL-NC]

Just switching everyone from the M16A1 to the M16A2 took some time to complete. The Army first adopted the A2 in 1986 and even Divisions that were considered forward deployed and had first priority on weapons and repair parts still had some units using the A1 until the end of 1991. I didn't get issues my first A2 until I got to Germany and was assigned to the 1st Armor Division in Jan 1992.

It was the same way with the Beretta M9 that was officially adopted in 1985. Again while assigned to the 1st AD, we still had the M1911A1 until late 92/early 93. We also still had the M3A1 SMG until that time too.

From what I remember, it was the fact that the 1st AD was designated as the Quick Reaction Force for Europe and Africa plus being put on alert for the Bosnia peace keeping mission all in 1993 was the reason to finally get everyone updated to the M16A2 and M9.

While I was never a big fan of the M249 SAW, it has its place and fits the needs while still using the same ammo as the squad rifles and can use STANAG mags in a pinch. Now if the XM250 is quite a bit lighter than the M60 or M240, then it will be a viable replacement for both. I mostly carried the M60 as a junior enlisted and did not get rid of it until being promoted to E-5.

When the army switched from the A1 and early 5.56 carbines (which were only in SOF units) to the A2 and the M4 (designed for 62 gr M855), 55 gr M193 ammunition was still issued for years in order to expend the stockpiles. But not always- so you never knew if the rounds you were issued next was the round your weapon was zeroed for at any given time. The same situation for 7.62 sniper systems- 150 grain M80 ball (garbage), 168 grain M852, 173 grain M118, and 175 grain M118 LR were all in the inventory. When we got the M9, it took forever to get adequate 9mm ammo for training, but there was still lots of 45 ACP in inventory- useless, since the 1911 pistols were gone. Getting MK262 (77 grain 5.56) was nearly impossible state side, even though that was the only round that performed correctly in the MK12 series of rifles. 300 Win mag ammo supplies took forever to become sufficient to support our MK13 rifles and the other rifles in that caliber big army used. Linked 40 mm HE ammunition for the MK19 (standard issue in the early 90's) was completely unobtanium in CONUS in the 90's- the best we could hope for almost always was the training rounds. Obviously, not getting the correct rounds (or even obsolete rounds) for a given weapon system isn't conducive to maintaining proficiency and readiness, esp. in units expected to deploy world wide at short notice. We almost never got the good ammo for the Barrett rifles in CONUS- we either "made do" with de-linked MG ammo or just didn't train with them, even though every team had 2 Barretts.
Then add to that, depending on the weapon in question- shortages that will happen in basic issue items like spare barrels, magazines, pouches for magazines, holsters, ancillary gear like tripods and cleaning equipment, blank ammunition/adaptors, MILES, and simmunitions kits for training, additional items that may be needed for specialized tasks like airborne operations, day and night optics that work properly with the new weapon systems, and repair parts (because you know Joe is going to break stuff) - and now you have a logistical mess.

 

[Slamfire]

I am concerned with the case design and the pressures they are operating, which is 80 Kpsia.






the great military cartridges of the past operated around 40 kpsia. Some of the reasons are, the action is not as stressed, and that requires less expensive steels. Alloy steels require alloys, and if there is an ocean filled with sharks and U boats between you and that alloy mine , then maybe you ain't making alloy steel. Also, the slope of the pressure curve is exponential, so little changes in things like temperature, will cause pressures to increase exponentially. I have no idea whether these guns will function with red hot barrels in 120 F heat. Might be a lot of jams given combinations of high rate of fire and high ambient temperatures.

I think a joint between the case head and the case body is a bad idea. Joints in the sidewalls will create new and novel failure mechanisms. Be interesting to find out if industry can produce reliable cartridge cases with that joint.

 

[Nature Boy]

It’s a boondoggle

 

[codytrucker]

They could just go to something like Ruger's SFAR . Use a 20 or 22 inch barrel with a good muzzle break/flash hider , optional silenced shorter barrel , and save a lot of $$$ and weight . Chamber it in the new round at standard pressure with a good 140 grain boattail with a penetrator tip and call it good . As long as that and the new MG use the same mag's , problem solved .

 

[CapnMac]

I think a joint between the case head and the case body is a bad idea. Joints in the sidewalls will create new and novel failure mechanisms. Be interesting to find out if industry can produce reliable cartridge cases with that joint.

That's what's suggesting to many of us that this is to wind up being an SF-only arm.

Having a "short" 240 equivalent as a base of fire makes a lot of sense for SF operations. And, the "higher trained" operators are more likely to be able to cope with case issues over long courses of fires. And, would be more likely to benefit from this 6.8x51 round.

The "carbine" to accompany it makes sense in SF application, too.

We can't lose sight of the fact that DoD is getting a "practice" round that is "range safe" (and may or may not be a reduced performance "277fury" round)

 

[21H40]

They could just go to something like Ruger's SFAR . Use a 20 or 22 inch barrel with a good muzzle break/flash hider , optional silenced shorter barrel , and save a lot of $$$ and weight . Chamber it in the new round at standard pressure with a good 140 grain boattail with a penetrator tip and call it good . As long as that and the new MG use the same mag's , problem solved .

Yeah, but that’s illegal. The DoD has some of the most expensive requirements for contracting equipment, and the only people who have authority to make changes are too invested in the process to want changes.

There are loopholes- SF has historically been able to use - that allow some “commercial off the shelf” (cots) solutions, but equipping the Army doesn’t fit into a loophole. I’m sure these will cost taxpayers $3 to $5 thousand each. These loopholes allowed the SF guys to switch to Glock 19s with extended magazines while us less special guys had the M9

 

[Slamfire]

Yeah, but that’s illegal. The DoD has some of the most expensive requirements for contracting equipment, and the only people who have authority to make changes are too invested in the process to want changes.

There are loopholes- SF has historically been able to use - that allow some “commercial off the shelf” (cots) solutions, but equipping the Army doesn’t fit into a loophole. I’m sure these will cost taxpayers $3 to $5 thousand each. These loopholes allowed the SF guys to switch to Glock 19s with extended magazines while us less special guys had the M9

Small Arms wastage is small peanuts compared to other Government projects. The NRO Future Imagery Satellite development budget was only supposed to be $5 Billion, with a total lifetime cost of $10 billion. Sometime after $10 billion dollars were spent, the contractor estimated that project finish would cost $25 Billion. At that point an adult stepped in and canceled the program. Only a fool would believe the contractor's estimates of $25 Billion were realistic, given the cost growth. Anyway, $10 Billion down the toilet and no one knows about this.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Small Arms wastage is small peanuts compared to other Government projects. The NRO Future Imagery Satellite development budget was only supposed to be $5 Billion, with a total lifetime cost of $10 billion. Sometime after $10 billion dollars were spent, the contractor estimated that project finish would cost $25 Billion. At that point an adult stepped in and canceled the program. Only a fool would believe the contractor's estimates of $25 Billion were realistic, given the cost growth. Anyway, $10 Billion down the toilet and no one knows about this.

We are retiring 4 YEAR OLD Littoral Combat ships because the steel-hulled ships had bad transfer cases, which cost more to fix than a whole new ship, and the aluminum ones had uncontrollable corrosion issues (go figure).
Meanwhile, our geriatric cruisers are literally falling apart, with no real replacement on the horizon, and some of our subs have been waiting years to be drydocked for maintenance.
With full scale war in the Pacific looming, new infantry rifles are the least of our problems.

 

[Slamfire]

We are retiring 4 YEAR OLD Littoral Combat ships because the steel-hulled ships had bad transfer cases, which cost more to fix than a whole new ship, and the aluminum ones had uncontrollable corrosion issues (go figure).
Meanwhile, our geriatric cruisers are literally falling apart, with no real replacement on the horizon, and some of our subs have been waiting years to be drydocked for maintenance.
New infantry rifles are the least of our problems.

Maybe we can give our Infantry rocks to throw. Rocks are cheap, and durable. Assuming their ship does not sink on the way to Taiwan.

Feed the sharks!