I debated on posting that vid, but figured I'd poopoo'd the Spear enough. It seems to me a repeat of HK MK23, where the people asking for a product were retarded, and Sig was just happy to oblige. The only difference being the MK23 is a brick shithouse, and the Spear is, well, a shithouse.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
There are a lot of reviews online about the XM7. This one:

https://youtu.be/b9DeCud0IaM?si=YVpKUUVbu4TyB0xe

Actually involved the shooting a a few thousand rounds of ammo by experienced and IMO HONEST shooters.

That was an excellent video. Thanks for sharing.

I guess the good news is that the M7 isn't intended to fully replace the M4 in Army service, just among frontline infantry units. So this means the majority of soldiers will retain the M4, and there will be plenty of M4s and 5.56 ammo still available in military channels (and in stateside production capability) if a conflict kicks off and the M7 has to be quickly sidelined in favor of rapidly reverting back to reissuing the M4 to the infantry as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
After almost 100 years the army realized John Garand was right and a .270 projectile was superior to a .30 for combat.

They designed what they thought was the "ideal" .270 / 6.8 mm projectile and told the bidders to provide a rifle and cartridge that would launch their projectile at 3000 fps from a 16" barrel. That is what Sig did, and they did it in an otherwise "normal" rifle and action that mostly follows the AR manual of arms. The bimetal case was the trick to get pressures high enough to get the required velocity.

The army did NOT give the desired range, trajectory, and terminal ballistics to the bidders and ask them to come up with a suitable cartridge and projectile. If they had done that the .277 Fury would likely have a much better ballistic coefficient, retain velocity at longer ranges, have a lighter projectile, and use less powder and pressure. A slightly different caliber may have resulted as well.

This is the folly of the army. Make stupid assumptions and ask for something stupid, then complain that you got what you asked for.

Just after WW2 the British developed a .280cal round for the EM2 bull-pup rifle and LMG. It was sh*t-canned by NATO because of the humungous US pressure from the US military lobby and we all ended up with the 7.62x51 NATO.

Read - 'The .280 British was tested in a variety of rifles and machine guns including the EM-2, Lee–Enfield, FN FAL, Bren, M1 Garand and Taden gun.

Despite its success as an intermediate cartridge, the .280 British was not considered powerful enough by the US Army and several variants of the .280 British were created in an attempt to appease the US Army. However, the US Army continued to reject these variants, ultimately adopting the cartridge that was then designated the 7.62×51mm NATO.'

Ian McCullum has a great video about it, in which he actually gets to shoot the rifle!!

The Brits had also earlier tried to ditch their .30 caliber .303 cartridge and go to a .276/7mm cartridge in 1911-1913, with the intent to adopt it along with the new Pattern 1913 rifle, but that development was quashed in 1914 with the start of WW1 and the recognition that attempting to change standard rifle calibers in the midst of a war is folly. (Something the Italians and Japanese would later find out the hard way during WW2...)

This .276 caliber Pattern 1913 rifle would then go on to be adapted into the British Pattern 1914 rifle in .303 and American M1917 in .30-06.

The M1917 is still in active military use:

THE DANISH SERIUS DOG SLED PATROL IS SERIOUS

Excerpt:
“A final group of 12 patrolmen is chosen then sent to Greenland for 26 consecutive months of duty. Patrolmen carry Gevær M/53, which is an M1917 bolt-action rifle chambered in .30-06, loaded with both 168-grain armor-piercing M2 military rifle round and civilian hollow-points. The first is used for protection against polar bears while the latter is used on charging muskox. Patrolmen also carry a 10mm Glock 20. Patrolmen used to carry 9mm Glocks but they were found to be too light for close contact with enraged polar bears.”

The story I’ve often read about MacArthur’s decision about not changing the standard Army rifle cartridge from 30-06 Springfield is that he didn’t want the wastage of on-hand stocks and the costs of converting to a different round. Anyone who believes that was Colonel Blimp short-sightedness should look at figures relating to money being spent on the Army during the post-WW I period, and especially during the Great Depression during which MacArthur was Chief of Staff of the Army.

And in addition to the fiscal considerations, M1903 rifles were in use into WW II, and two different main rifle cartridges to serve the same purposes would have added to logistical burdens—something else the Army didn’t need during the 1930s, or even later for that matter, and certainly not after the US became involved in WW II.

I think that the longevity of the M16 family of rifles underscores a point that the recent YouTube video was making. Specifically that a rifle close in size to the M4 is really the sweet spot for general issue to the military. While a battle rifle does offer some advantages in ballistics, it comes at a considerable weight penalty, reduced maneuverability and a limitation on ammunition able to be carried. While it makes sense to have some designated marksman within a fighting element that carry heavier battle rifles that have extended reach, that would also fall to the back of the stack for CQB, room entry type work, it actually diminishes the overall capability of the whole fighting force if everyone is equipped with heavier rifles.

As for this particular XM7 rifle, I applaud the innovation of the development of the hybrid type ammunition but I think the the rifle as a whole is a failure. There have been a number of issues reported and frankly the delivered accuracy is unacceptable given what else is on the market. Hopefully this rifle can get dropped before too much money is wasted on it.

Maybe keep the M4 and have one squad member with a M-14 with a scope to reach out a bit farther with some punch.

quote:

Originally posted by abnmacv:
Maybe keep the M4 and have one squad member with a M-14 with a scope to reach out a bit farther with some punch.

The aged M14 isn't ideal for this, with its issues with weight, accuracy, reliability, and modernization. (Sure, some saw use as a stopgap DMR-ish rifle during the GWOT, but even there its efficacy was debatable and it was reportedly not popular.)

There are already new Squad Designated Marksman Rifles in current military service, like the Army's/Air Force's M110A1 CSASS/SDMR or the USMC's M38 SDMR. The plan is to have one of each per infantry squad, though they're not quite there yet.

So absent WW3 jumping off with a huge upswing in demand that grossly outstrips M110A1/M38 supply, there shouldn't be the need to pull the M14 out of mothballs (again).