SIG wins NGSW

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I heard, but I'm still of a "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality right now. For as long as I've been a gun geek (25+ years), I've seen too many attempts to replace the basic DI AR which came and went.

Yeah, true, but this is the first time a new standard cartridge has been seriously considered and I've always been of the mind that changing platforms without ditching 5.56 was pointless because one 5.56 rifle is really no better than another of comparable barrel length. Every so-called "M4 killer" (XM8, SCAR-L, ACR, etc) has been more or less a dud in that regard, while the HK416 only managed an in-road when it did because CAG needed a 10" gun that could run reliably with a suppressor and the CQBR hadn't quite matured enough to do so at the time.

That said, the XM5 and XM250 are still technically in the experimental stage, so there's still the distinct possibility that (A) the 6.8mm round doesn't perform as well as hoped against modern body armor or (B) the DoD just up and cancels it out of the blue because reasons. Plus, you probably recall the XM25 grenade launcher that was popular among troops and performing well when a single faulty cartridge detonated inside one and killed the whole program. As I said previously, though, the MCX is a proven system now despite early teething problems (not unlike the M16/M4) and I don't see there being any catastrophic issues with the rifle itself.

Edit: On the more philosophical side of things, though, I do question that if body armor is that much of a concern, why do prospective near-peer enemies like Russia and China not seem to share it? They seem to be perfectly happy soldiering on with their existing service calibers rather than beating the "bigger stick" drum that NGSW and 6.8x51mm ultimately is. On TFB, for example, there isn't a single comment defending the new round. Everyone there seems to think we should stick with 5.56 and keep upgrading the M4 platform.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Yeah, true, but this is the first time a new standard cartridge has been seriously considered and I've always been of the mind that changing platforms without ditching 5.56 was pointless because one 5.56 rifle is really no better than another of comparable barrel length. Every so-called "M4 killer" (XM8, SCAR-L, ACR, etc) has been more or less a dud in that regard, while the HK416 only managed an in-road when it did because CAG needed a 10" gun that could run reliably with a suppressor and the CQBR hadn't quite matured enough to do so at the time.

This is a legitimate point; certainly, changing cartridges is a better reason to switch platforms than simply getting a newer platform for the sake of the new. That being said, I don't even think changing cartridges is enough of a reason to switch platforms. So long as assault rifles with intermediate-power cartridges are the standard-issue infantry weapons in all modern militaries, it makes little difference what caliber or platform is issued from a bigger strategic picture. Whenever something like caseless ammo becomes available and the M41A Pulse Rifle becomes a reality, then maybe there will be a reason to ditch the AR*. I also think it's telling that every time a new platform or cartridge has become available in the past 20-25 years, SOCOM has (mostly) stood by the good old M4.

*On that note, it's kinda weird to say this, given that the MCX itself is still heavily rooted in the AR platform.

Originally Posted by Spartan198

That said, the XM5 and XM250 are still technically in the experimental stage, so there's still the distinct possibility that (A) the 6.8mm round doesn't perform as well as hoped against modern body armor or (B) the DoD just up and cancels it out of the blue because reasons.

Agreed, and I do think that's going to make the biggest difference between whether the NGSW becomes standardized, or goes the way of the SCAR.

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Plus, you probably recall the XM25 grenade launcher that was popular among troops and performing well when a single faulty cartridge detonated inside one and killed the whole program.

I think that in retrospect, the XM25 was more a victim of sequestration-era budget cuts, combined with the catastrophic malfunction, which enabled the bean-counters who write the NDAA to conveniently write it off.

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Edit: On the more philosophical side of things, though, I do question that if body armor is that much of a concern, why do prospective near-peer enemies like Russia and China not seem to share it? They seem to be perfectly happy soldiering on with their existing service calibers rather than beating the "bigger stick" drum that NGSW and 6.8x51mm ultimately is. On TFB, for example, there isn't a single comment defending the new round. Everyone there seems to think we should stick with 5.56 and keep upgrading the M4 platform.

In the case of the Russians, I think it's because they've been more concerned lately about slapping down their neighbors than fighting near-peer adversaries, and most of their neighbors aren't fielding the latest body armor. With that being said, I am sure that their experiences in Ukraine (where the U.S. has shipped quite a bit of high-end vests and helmets) will change their attitude in the future.

Perhaps we're just a bit more forward-thinking than our adversaries. Not sure. I certainly wouldn't be surprised, though, if what you've said above proves to be yet another excuse that Congress uses to axe the entire NGSW program.

[Ultimate94ninja]

The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Ultimate94ninja

The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.

The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Colt’s web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by MT2008

The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Colt’s web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.

Pretty sure the army would ignore what random civillian firearms someone has slapped an "M" designation on, they can just keep with their sequence and pretty sure there wouldn't actually be an issue on the army's end. I think where the issue would be is that if Colt has a trademark on "M5" Sig would not be able to market civillian versions of the gun that way. Similarly LWRC will have IP protection on the "M6", so "M7" is probably the first that doesn't have trademark issues. I assume the Colt "M7" is less of an issue as it is actually the "CM7".

[MT2008]

Hmmm...

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/28/the-not-really-next-generation-weapons-program/


Love this quote in particular:

The fundamental problem with the program is there remains not enough tungsten available from China, as Army knows, to make the goal of making every round armor piercing even remotely feasible. The plan also assumes that the world’s by far largest supplier will have zero problems selling tungsten to America only for it to be shot back at its troops during World War III.

[Spartan198]

I'm surprised the XM7 is having issues considering the MCX has been a pretty solid platform so far. But a first-round failure? Sounds like an ammo issue to me.

[MT2008]

So I've been hearing rumors on the DL that since the first XM7s (and XM157 optics) started reaching the 101st Airborne this year, they're apparently not well-liked by the paratroopers that have been issued them. The biggest complaint - surprise surprise - is the weight of the rifle/optic setup. I'm also hearing that HQDA is already discussing whether to scale back the current procurement plan. There have already been at least a few public statements where the Army has suggested that the M4A1s will remain in the inventory of the units getting XM7s, which suggests that they've already not confident in their idea and intend to hold the M4A1s in reserve until the T&E period results come back.

For those who missed it - Jeff Gurwitch (former Army SF) already put out his take more than a year ago on why the XM7 was a bad idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAYSEm5zJA

His key points:
(1.) XM7 is too heavy, and larger caliber = too few rounds per individual infantryman. (In a firefight: The name of the game is to throw a lot of rounds down range to break contact and keep enemies' heads down.)
(2.) The entire idea of the XM7 (then called XM5) was to achieve overmatch over enemies armed with long-range weapons (e.g., Dragunov and PKM) at the individual rifleman level, which is a fallacy from the get-go. He argues that an infantry rifle like the M4 tends to get used more as a personal defense weapon - the actual effects on target come from heavier weapons and/or air support.
(3.) Russian and Chinese body armor was also a factor, but the Ukraine War is demonstrating that in combat against near-peer adversaries in urban environments, a more traditional carbine in a caliber like 5.56 or 5.45 - and equipped with a good old-fashioned red dot optic - works fine for the type of combat that we and/or our allies are likely to experience. An XM7 with the XM157 would be a horrible choice for this type of conflict because urban/village combat is where most firefights take place, while longer-range engagements involve artillery and drones, not infantry weapons.
(4.) A typical Army SF ODA never felt out-matched in a firefight in Afghanistan, because they had a variety of longer-range weapons in 7.62x51mm such as the SCAR-17S, MK 48, and M240 to use in response to fire from PK/PKM or Dragunov-wielding enemies. He thinks it would have been more efficient for the Army to procure some of these weapons and re-structure the firepower of a typical infantry platoon to match what an ODA carries so that there are more longer-range weapons available.