What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

If your topic has nothing to do with Spyderco, you can post it here.
max808
Member
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:26 am

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#41

Post by max808 »

wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.
MNOSD 0047 - mens sana in corpore sano -
Do more than is required of you . Patton
For man's only weapon is courage that flinches not from the gates of **** itself, and against such not even the legions of **** can stand. Robert E. Howard
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#42

Post by Ankerson »

max808 wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:45 pm
wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.

Subsonic is less than 1,126 feet per second.
max808
Member
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:26 am

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#43

Post by max808 »

Ankerson wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:59 pm
max808 wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:45 pm
wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.

Subsonic is less than 1,126 feet per second.
Thanks for the correction, guess my Yankee math is way off then. We were taught you break the sound barrier anywhere from 800 to 1200 kph depending on atmospheric conditions, not sure what that translates to in imperial units.
MNOSD 0047 - mens sana in corpore sano -
Do more than is required of you . Patton
For man's only weapon is courage that flinches not from the gates of **** itself, and against such not even the legions of **** can stand. Robert E. Howard
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#44

Post by Scandi Grind »

The Sig MCX has been one of my favourite AR-15 alternatives, so I am happy to see the military using a MCX based platform. I believe the gas system is superior to the AR rifles. Weight could be a concern, not for me personally, I always seem to end up with 8.5 pound rifles for some reason, but for a soldier, I don't know. I have mixed feelings about the round, I kind of wondered if a 6.5mm or even a 6mm would have been better. I always thought that the 5.56 was a bit small for some applications, but reading up on military history will explain how we ended up using it.

In WWII we realized that volume of fire and ease of control won battles more often than long range and high power, so we ended up using a lot of sub machine guns whenever possible. But pistol rounds left range and lethality to be desired. The 5.56 was an attempt to provide light recoil while increasing lethality over pistol calibers and maintaining the range of a rifle caliber. By the time the M16 evolved into a carbine, the M4, we now had the ultimate compromise between a sub machine gun and a battle rifle. It was a general purpose weapon capable of being used in almost any situation, but did not excel at any given task. I think it accomplished the goal well, but when the rifle and round were originally developed, nobody on the battlefield was wearing body armor.

I feel like an increase in lethality is good, but it comes at the cost of weight, and I'm not sure that every soldier needs the extra umph. That being said I think standardizing on ammo across weapons as much as possible can be a good thing, so having 5.56 and 6.8 at the same time might not be the best either. In the end it is all a balancing act that has no perfect answer, but overall I think the platform is a good thing for U.S. military, but what about the commercial market?

I think eventually this platform will be a good thing for the commercial market, what I don't like is that I'm sure Sig doesn't want to share the MCX Spear with any other manufacturer, so we won't benefit from the competitive nature that we see in the AR-15 market. What Sig wants it to be, it will be, nobody to challenge their decisions on their platform. Now I'm sure other manufacturers will chamber for the 277 Fury, but I can't say I'm very interested in an AR-10 chambered in the Fury. Maybe other manufacturers will invent new platforms that compete will with the Spear, but I doubt many will be worthwhile. I also don't feel like the .277 Fury provides any significant advantage to me personally. It just isn't useful enough over anything else that already exists. When the round becomes common, I may just change my tune since to be honest, I don't think it would be any worse than a .308 or 6.5 Creedmore, it just has to get to the point that it is something you can find almost anywhere before I would prefer it over a .308.

All in all, I must say that it is very interesting to see American military and firearms history in the making!
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#45

Post by Scandi Grind »

max808 wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:45 pm
wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.
He he, I wondered about the SCAR for years, seemed good on paper, don't know why it is so expensive, but for a while I couldn't figure out why it only got used by Special Forces. I am now a gunsmithing student and had a gunsmith who started his career in the military take me through the SCAR. As it turns out it is a pain to disassemble and reassemble so it was not something the military was comfortable making standard issue. It also has a poorly designed rubber buffer that can wear out quickly and needs to be replaced all the time and they inexplicably made the extractor out of aluminum! It had a tendency to sheer off and lodge itself somewhere unfortunate. Hopefully they fixed that now.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
User avatar
Doc Dan
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:25 am
Location: In a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#46

Post by Doc Dan »

The 6.8x51 is basically a short action .270 Winchester. The higher pressure of the 6.8 keeps the velocity even when using 13" barrels with suppressors. It is pretty impressive. I wonder what it would do in a good bolt action hunting rifle?
I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof! (John Adams regarding the White House)

Follow the Christ, the King,
Live pure, speak true, right wrong, follow the King--
Else, wherefore born?" (Tennyson)



NRA Life Member
Spydernation 0050
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#47

Post by Scandi Grind »

I think the round would perform very nicely in a bolt gun with a 22" barrel. With velocities over 3000 fps it will be very flat shooting, though I suppose barrel life expectancies will be a bit lower than many more common cartridges, but I know very few people who shoot enough for this to be a significant factor. Plus Sig is selling a lower velocity non-hybrid cased version of the cartridge for those that have no interest or no need for the extra speed.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
max808
Member
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:26 am

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#48

Post by max808 »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 7:44 pm
max808 wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:45 pm
wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.
He he, I wondered about the SCAR for years, seemed good on paper, don't know why it is so expensive, but for a while I couldn't figure out why it only got used by Special Forces. I am now a gunsmithing student and had a gunsmith who started his career in the military take me through the SCAR. As it turns out it is a pain to disassemble and reassemble so it was not something the military was comfortable making standard issue. It also has a poorly designed rubber buffer that can wear out quickly and needs to be replaced all the time and they inexplicably made the extractor out of aluminum! It had a tendency to sheer off and lodge itself somewhere unfortunate. Hopefully they fixed that now.
Thank you for your reply and insightful posts. It seems the SCAR is a love it or hate it kinda tool. Some people swear by it, others won't have anything to do with it. Pretty sure for the reasons you mentioned, also quite expensive to adopt for a standing army of 1,000,000+ like the US. Don't quote me on that though, I've been known to brainfart on here before... 😎 Your explanation of 5.56 history is very enlightening and much appreciated, from what I heard it was mostly designed to wound and maim, taking not only the shooter out of the fight but also a medic and a couple of others who now have to tend to that wounded soldier. Apparently the terminal ballistics cause horrific injuries twisting and turning inside a target instead of exiting like a 7.62 normally would, not to mention the detrimental effect on troop morale.
MNOSD 0047 - mens sana in corpore sano -
Do more than is required of you . Patton
For man's only weapon is courage that flinches not from the gates of **** itself, and against such not even the legions of **** can stand. Robert E. Howard
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#49

Post by Ankerson »

max808 wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 5:56 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 7:44 pm
max808 wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 4:45 pm
wrdwrght wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 10:09 am
Mike Jones (Garand Thumb), who knows a thing or two about modern combat rifles and is a strong M4 advocate, has some thoughtful things to say about the MCX-SPEAR: http://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg.

He’s “100% on the fence”…. :thinking
Thanks for sharing, 2 minutes into the video I was reminded once more what a capable warrior he is. I've always loved his humble demeanor but he's definitely not one to mess with. Stock folded in and muffler removed his Sig looks surprisingly compact, guess I confused it with the minimi one Mike Glover handled. This one was clocking 2,823 fps on regular ammo so barely subsonic if memory serves. It looks very stable on full auto so could very well supplant the 5.56's suppressive role. Before this video I was gonna say 7.62 SCAR for the win but he seems to prefer this Sig over it and I'll take his word for it, having shot neither.
He he, I wondered about the SCAR for years, seemed good on paper, don't know why it is so expensive, but for a while I couldn't figure out why it only got used by Special Forces. I am now a gunsmithing student and had a gunsmith who started his career in the military take me through the SCAR. As it turns out it is a pain to disassemble and reassemble so it was not something the military was comfortable making standard issue. It also has a poorly designed rubber buffer that can wear out quickly and needs to be replaced all the time and they inexplicably made the extractor out of aluminum! It had a tendency to sheer off and lodge itself somewhere unfortunate. Hopefully they fixed that now.
Thank you for your reply and insightful posts. It seems the SCAR is a love it or hate it kinda tool. Some people swear by it, others won't have anything to do with it. Pretty sure for the reasons you mentioned, also quite expensive to adopt for a standing army of 1,000,000+ like the US. Don't quote me on that though, I've been known to brainfart on here before... 😎 Your explanation of 5.56 history is very enlightening and much appreciated, from what I heard it was mostly designed to wound and maim, taking not only the shooter out of the fight but also a medic and a couple of others who now have to tend to that wounded soldier. Apparently the terminal ballistics cause horrific injuries twisting and turning inside a target instead of exiting like a 7.62 normally would, not to mention the detrimental effect on troop morale.

The M16 (AR-15) was a POS that fired a worthless combat round from the beginning.

They replaced the reliable M14 with an unreliable AR-15/M16 and then it took awhile (YEARS) to iron out those issues. In combat none the less at the cost of American lives. And the M16A1 was still a total POS while I was in the Military. It did get somewhat better with the M16A2 and those improvements.

Make no mistake the change was more about making certain people rich than it was about what the Combat troops needed. THAT is what it was all really about in the end.

Now this time, after decades, 5 decades of being stuck with a mistake they finally are owning up to that fact and making a change BACK in the right direction.

We all heard the BS reasons behind the M16 before, and that is what they all are, complete total BS.

NO, I am not a fan of the M16, neither was anyone else who I was in with, and some of them were Viet-Nam Vets and they all hated that POS.

I have a pretty long list of rifles I would take into combat over that thing. Would throw the M16 in the trash can on my out.
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#50

Post by Scandi Grind »

max808,

Interesting you bring up the 5.56 tendency to tumble on impact. That reminds me of another reason why the 5.56 struggles to meet expectations today. The round was originally designed for the m16, which was equipped with a 20 in. barrel, a length that obtained the maximum velocity out of the cartridge, but today most commercial AR-15s feature 16.5 in. barrels, and military M4s feature even shorter 14.5 in. barrels which steals much of the velocity potential and obviously as a side effect, energy on target. That is one reason we lose some lethality, but another reason is related to tumbling bullets.

The longer barreled M16 as it was fielded in Vietnam in the mid-60s used comparably light bullets weighing 55 grains with a barrel twist that just barely stabilized the bullet well enough to maintain accuracy. The result of unstable bullets on impact was tumbling, which resulted in signature key hole exit wounds and far more terminal damage. This worked excellent until the advent of body armor. When a tumble happy 5.56 hit body armor it was stopped in it's tracks. To compensate for this the military began using a heavier bullet, the SS109 62 grain steel core, and they choose a twist rate that would properly stabilize the bullet. This gave the 5.56 the penetration it needed to put a hole in common body armor of the time, but also decreased to terminal ballistics significantly as the bullet no longer tumbled on impact with armored and also non-armored targets, leaving very small wound channels. My FFL owner back in Texas called the 5.56 of today the most inhumane round that could do the job, but if you are shooting an original M16 with 55 gr. bullets, you have a weapon capable of far more damage to soft targets than most any modern AR.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#51

Post by Ankerson »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:03 pm
max808,

Interesting you bring up the 5.56 tendency to tumble on impact. That reminds me of another reason why the 5.56 struggles to meet expectations today. The round was originally designed for the m16, which was equipped with a 20 in. barrel, a length that obtained the maximum velocity out of the cartridge, but today most commercial AR-15s feature 16.5 in. barrels, and military M4s feature even shorter 14.5 in. barrels which steals much of the velocity potential and obviously as a side effect, energy on target. That is one reason we lose some lethality, but another reason is related to tumbling bullets.

The longer barreled M16 as it was fielded in Vietnam in the mid-60s used comparably light bullets weighing 55 grains with a barrel twist that just barely stabilized the bullet well enough to maintain accuracy. The result of unstable bullets on impact was tumbling, which resulted in signature key hole exit wounds and far more terminal damage. This worked excellent until the advent of body armor. When a tumble happy 5.56 hit body armor it was stopped in it's tracks. To compensate for this the military began using a heavier bullet, the SS109 62 grain steel core, and they choose a twist rate that would properly stabilize the bullet. This gave the 5.56 the penetration it needed to put a hole in common body armor of the time, but also decreased to terminal ballistics significantly as the bullet no longer tumbled on impact with armored and also non-armored targets, leaving very small wound channels. My FFL owner back in Texas called the 5.56 of today the most inhumane round that could do the job, but if you are shooting an original M16 with 55 gr. bullets, you have a weapon capable of far more damage to soft targets than most any modern AR.

The 62 Grain bullet did not happen until the M16A2. In the 80's, it had a faster twist rifling and heaver barrel than the prior versions.

I know because I was in the Military when they made the change.

But we still never got the 62 grain ammo while I was still in. ;)
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#52

Post by Scandi Grind »

Ankerson wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:07 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:03 pm
max808,

Interesting you bring up the 5.56 tendency to tumble on impact. That reminds me of another reason why the 5.56 struggles to meet expectations today. The round was originally designed for the m16, which was equipped with a 20 in. barrel, a length that obtained the maximum velocity out of the cartridge, but today most commercial AR-15s feature 16.5 in. barrels, and military M4s feature even shorter 14.5 in. barrels which steals much of the velocity potential and obviously as a side effect, energy on target. That is one reason we lose some lethality, but another reason is related to tumbling bullets.

The longer barreled M16 as it was fielded in Vietnam in the mid-60s used comparably light bullets weighing 55 grains with a barrel twist that just barely stabilized the bullet well enough to maintain accuracy. The result of unstable bullets on impact was tumbling, which resulted in signature key hole exit wounds and far more terminal damage. This worked excellent until the advent of body armor. When a tumble happy 5.56 hit body armor it was stopped in it's tracks. To compensate for this the military began using a heavier bullet, the SS109 62 grain steel core, and they choose a twist rate that would properly stabilize the bullet. This gave the 5.56 the penetration it needed to put a hole in common body armor of the time, but also decreased to terminal ballistics significantly as the bullet no longer tumbled on impact with armored and also non-armored targets, leaving very small wound channels. My FFL owner back in Texas called the 5.56 of today the most inhumane round that could do the job, but if you are shooting an original M16 with 55 gr. bullets, you have a weapon capable of far more damage to soft targets than most any modern AR.

The 62 Grain bullet did not happen until the M16A2. In the 80's, it had a faster twist rifling and heaver barrel than the prior versions.

I know because I was in the Military when they made the change.

But we still never got the 62 grain ammo while I was still in. ;)
Thanks for the clarification there.

It is quite horrible the results of using the M16 in it's original state and the lives lost as a result as you said. It frustrates me to no end when politics get in the way of common sense, especially when such decisions effect lives on the line. It's disgusting.

I have heard a lot of your sentiment in general from other members of the military, and wanted to stay away from the AR platform as a result. At the same time I have heard a lot of good about it, more modern versions anyway, from other military members, Tom Spooner for example. I continue to believe that the gas system of the AR platform is inferior to gas pistons, but the proliferation of the weapon and modern design and material improvements have made it too good a value of a gun for me to ignore as a civilian. If I was headed into combat though, I'd rather have a Tavor, Galil, AK, and am even considering trying to get an M-14 despite it's age because I believe in the reliability of that platform and the firepower of a .308.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#53

Post by Ankerson »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:22 pm
Ankerson wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:07 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:03 pm
max808,

Interesting you bring up the 5.56 tendency to tumble on impact. That reminds me of another reason why the 5.56 struggles to meet expectations today. The round was originally designed for the m16, which was equipped with a 20 in. barrel, a length that obtained the maximum velocity out of the cartridge, but today most commercial AR-15s feature 16.5 in. barrels, and military M4s feature even shorter 14.5 in. barrels which steals much of the velocity potential and obviously as a side effect, energy on target. That is one reason we lose some lethality, but another reason is related to tumbling bullets.

The longer barreled M16 as it was fielded in Vietnam in the mid-60s used comparably light bullets weighing 55 grains with a barrel twist that just barely stabilized the bullet well enough to maintain accuracy. The result of unstable bullets on impact was tumbling, which resulted in signature key hole exit wounds and far more terminal damage. This worked excellent until the advent of body armor. When a tumble happy 5.56 hit body armor it was stopped in it's tracks. To compensate for this the military began using a heavier bullet, the SS109 62 grain steel core, and they choose a twist rate that would properly stabilize the bullet. This gave the 5.56 the penetration it needed to put a hole in common body armor of the time, but also decreased to terminal ballistics significantly as the bullet no longer tumbled on impact with armored and also non-armored targets, leaving very small wound channels. My FFL owner back in Texas called the 5.56 of today the most inhumane round that could do the job, but if you are shooting an original M16 with 55 gr. bullets, you have a weapon capable of far more damage to soft targets than most any modern AR.

The 62 Grain bullet did not happen until the M16A2. In the 80's, it had a faster twist rifling and heaver barrel than the prior versions.

I know because I was in the Military when they made the change.

But we still never got the 62 grain ammo while I was still in. ;)
Thanks for the clarification there.

It is quite horrible the results of using the M16 in it's original state and the lives lost as a result as you said. It frustrates me to no end when politics get in the way of common sense, especially when such decisions effect lives on the line. It's disgusting.

I have heard a lot of your sentiment in general from other members of the military, and wanted to stay away from the AR platform as a result. At the same time I have heard a lot of good about it, more modern versions anyway, from other military members, Tom Spooner for example. I continue to believe that the gas system of the AR platform is inferior to gas pistons, but the proliferation of the weapon and modern design and material improvements have made it too good a value of a gun for me to ignore as a civilian. If I was headed into combat though, I'd rather have a Tavor, Galil, AK, and am even considering trying to get an M-14 despite it's age because I believe in the reliability of that platform and the firepower of a .308.

I would personally never buy any AR, ever. That is how much I hate that platform.

There are just way too many better battlefield rifles to choose from.

I can think of a few WW2 Semi-autos that I would pick over it. :rofl

I doubt many actually know how bad that platform really is in comparison to others.
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#54

Post by Scandi Grind »

Most are unfamiliar with the platforms potential problems, but many don't need anything better. I know a retired Police Chief who is also a Master Armorer and Master Gunsmith with over 20 years of experience fixing every problem that the AR can dish out, and he still believes they were the best option available to his fellow officers and the officers under his command. They did the job that was required and did it well for their application. I think for most civilians the same can be said. Plus the 5.56 also is a very good home defence round due to it's comparably less over-penetration through walls. That said over-penetration must always be accounted for, even with .22s.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#55

Post by Ankerson »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:55 pm
Most are unfamiliar with the platforms potential problems, but many don't need anything better. I know a retired Police Chief who is also a Master Armorer and Master Gunsmith with over 20 years of experience fixing every problem that the AR can dish out, and he still believes they were the best option available to his fellow officers and the officers under his command. They did the job that was required and did it well for their application. I think for most civilians the same can be said. Plus the 5.56 also is a very good home defence round due to it's comparably less over-penetration through walls. That said over-penetration must always be accounted for, even with .22s.

Well he had to do with what he had to work with. ;)

There is always something better, normally that is. Something that would take the place of what is being used.

They don't pick the AR because it's the best option around in the end.

Like I said there are far way too many other better options out there.

Something to think about.

Nothing beats a .12 Gauge for home defense. ;)
Scandi Grind
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:37 pm

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#56

Post by Scandi Grind »

The 12 GA. is my personal preference for home defence, but I wouldn't hand it to everybody else in my family because the recoil is too stout. For them, they get a 5.56, and in this case a Tavor, which maneuvers very well indoors.

At one point I went through a faze of analyzing every gun I knew of and finding what was wrong with it until it seemed like nothing that existed was good enough. I realized that nothing was perfect and there are always trade offs, sometimes that trade off is price, which is what makes most Law Enforcement choose the AR, and many civilians. I'd rather them be armed with something cheap than nothing at all. In the end, if I only ever liked perfect guns, I wouldn't like guns, so I think some guns just have a certain place. That is how I feel about the Reising sub-machine gun from WWII, it was resented because it didn't work reliably like a Thompson did in the trenches, but it was cheap, and if you weren't fighting in mud, it ran very well, so they issued it to troops who weren't fighting in trenches who still needed guns.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#57

Post by Ankerson »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 8:21 pm
The 12 GA. is my personal preference for home defence, but I wouldn't hand it to everybody else in my family because the recoil is too stout. For them, they get a 5.56, and in this case a Tavor, which maneuvers very well indoors.

At one point I went through a faze of analyzing every gun I knew of and finding what was wrong with it until it seemed like nothing that existed was good enough. I realized that nothing was perfect and there are always trade offs, sometimes that trade off is price, which is what makes most Law Enforcement choose the AR, and many civilians. I'd rather them be armed with something cheap than nothing at all. In the end, if I only ever liked perfect guns, I wouldn't like guns, so I think some guns just have a certain place. That is how I feel about the Reising sub-machine gun from WWII, it was resented because it didn't work reliably like a Thompson did in the trenches, but it was cheap, and if you weren't fighting in mud, it ran very well, so they issued it to troops who weren't fighting in trenches who still needed guns.

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect gun, if there was nobody would be able to afford it.

Different situations require different options.
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#58

Post by Ankerson »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:22 pm




It is quite horrible the results of using the M16 in it's original state and the lives lost as a result as you said. It frustrates me to no end when politics get in the way of common sense, especially when such decisions effect lives on the line. It's disgusting.




In short, it's always about the money. ;)

Military arms contract (Money Machine), people drooling over the money they are going to make. :eye-roll

Doesn't matter if it's needed or not, useful or not.

They will always spin it in favor of those who will get richer in the end. It's never about the Men and Women in the military who have to end up using whatever those who will be richer are selling.

Example, being stuck with the AR for 50+ years and with all of the efforts to improve it because it is a POS when it was useless from the beginning and not needed.

In the end it is a 50+ year mistake that was forced on us and then due to money they never admitted that it was in fact a mistake and went back to a more reliable proven platform.

And without a major war after Viet-Nam that just helped them forcing it.
JRinFL
Member
Posts: 6145
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:30 am
Location: Unfashionable West End of the Galaxy (SE USA)

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#59

Post by JRinFL »

The early failures of the M16 are well documented and have nothing to do with the platform or the round. They are the failure of the US Army to provide the proper powder for the ammunition, failure to provide cleaning kits, and failure to provide proper training.

Remember, the 30-06, the 7.62 NATO, 45 auto, 9 mm and the 5.56 have all been declared a bad mistake by some. There is no perfect round, troops will continue to complain about what they are issued and pundits will continue expound why their pet is the only smart choice.
"...it costs nothing to be polite." - Winston Churchill
“Maybe the cheese in the mousetrap is an artificially created cheaper price?” -Sal
Friends call me Jim. As do my foes.
M.N.O.S.D. 0001
User avatar
Ankerson
Member
Posts: 6917
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: What do you think of the US Army going to the Sig XM5 6.8x51?

#60

Post by Ankerson »

JRinFL wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 7:35 am
The early failures of the M16 are well documented and have nothing to do with the platform or the round. They are the failure of the US Army to provide the proper powder for the ammunition, failure to provide cleaning kits, and failure to provide proper training.

Remember, the 30-06, the 7.62 NATO, 45 auto, 9 mm and the 5.56 have all been declared a bad mistake by some. There is no perfect round, troops will continue to complain about what they are issued and pundits will continue expound why their pet is the only smart choice.

The 30-06, 7.62 Nato, 45 Auto and the 9mm are battle proven in major wars.

Among others like the 30-40 Crag, 8mm Mauser, 7mm Mauser, 7.62x54R all battle proven in MAJOR WARS.

The AR, the 5.56mm is not battle proven, never was. It was a failure, a proven failure in Viet-Nam and it wasn't just the ammo that was the issue either.

It's just there have been zero MAJOR Wars after WW2, and then Korea and Viet-Nam, not MAJOR, but enough.
Post Reply