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.
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?

#61

Post by Doc Dan »

A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.
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?

#62

Post by Scandi Grind »

Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:38 am
A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.
I had heard about smart scopes being developed, but I haven't heard anything about that being used on the new SIG. Is that something they are going to be fielding as standard equipment? Seems like that could cost a lot.
"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?

#63

Post by Ankerson »

Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:38 am
A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.


I noticed the M16A2 was MUCH more accurate than the M16A1 and the M16/AR15 once they made the change.

That faster twist barrel made a large difference even with the 55 grain bullets.

Yeah the AR is NOT a MUD gun at all, never really was, they are a dirt collector.

Remember when I was in the desert the whole lower receiver was filled up with sand, and that was the M16A2. :eye-roll

Thankfully I learned early on to run the ARs dry, as in very little or no oil at all. They collect a lot less dirt that way.
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?

#64

Post by Doc Dan »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 9:50 am
Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:38 am
A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.
I had heard about smart scopes being developed, but I haven't heard anything about that being used on the new SIG. Is that something they are going to be fielding as standard equipment? Seems like that could cost a lot.
Yes, this is part of the package. Not only that, but there is a recoil management system in the rifle. There is also a new generation muzzle brake built into the suppressor to attenuate a lot of the recoil.

The scope is quite amazing. It automatically calculates where to aim and puts the dot on the target. The soldier just needs to press the trigger. If the drop is 40 inches, then the dot moves to the proper hold. Also, a button adjusts for the wind. There is a feature that has the scope mark out targets that the shooter has located for the rest of the team, as well. It does some other things I don't know about, but those are some major important features. The idea is that though there is less ammunition, there is greater hit probability because of the scope and less wasted ammunition. This scope is issued with each carbine, and so is the suppressor.
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
User avatar
The Mastiff
Member
Posts: 5936
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
Location: raleigh nc

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

#65

Post by The Mastiff »

I noticed the M16A2 was MUCH more accurate than the M16A1 and the M16/AR15 once they made the change.

That faster twist barrel made a large difference even with the 55 grain bullets.

Yeah the AR is NOT a MUD gun at all, never really was, they are a dirt collector.

Remember when I was in the desert the whole lower receiver was filled up with sand, and that was the M16A2. :eye-roll

Thankfully I learned early on to run the ARs dry, as in very little or no oil at all. They collect a lot less dirt that way.
I was out and working in the DOC by then but an old buddy that was still in and deployed for Desert Storm asked me to send all the powder graphite I could get my hands on to him there in the next care package I sent. He reported the same thing .

I had M16A1 when I was in and in most cases in Europe it was fairly reliable with care but accurate it wasn't. I was a fairly good shot when I entered the Army and I was surprised at how inaccurate the rifle was. To top it off my 1911A1 ( WW2 era made by Remington) would fail to feed two to three times per magazine. It's accuracy was pretty lousy too compared to the series 70 Gold Cup I was used to. The Gold Cup was completely reliable with ball ammo and some kinds of Hollow point ammo. It was reliable and super accurate with the 185 grain SWC I shot at paper targets. The issue 1911's just plain sucked.

I would have traded a M16 any variant for a M14, G3 or FAL. In fact when I was working with Bundeswere I did. I still have a picture of me carrying A G3A3 out in the field in Germany.

To be honest though I would take the M16A1, or A2 over the AK's in most conditions. I've shot some of those that were way more inaccurate than my worst M16's. The M16's flatter trajectory was appreciated when it came to firing quickly . When possible I'd always carry the M16/203. I really liked that combo.
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?

#66

Post by Ankerson »

The Mastiff wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 4:03 am
I noticed the M16A2 was MUCH more accurate than the M16A1 and the M16/AR15 once they made the change.

That faster twist barrel made a large difference even with the 55 grain bullets.

Yeah the AR is NOT a MUD gun at all, never really was, they are a dirt collector.

Remember when I was in the desert the whole lower receiver was filled up with sand, and that was the M16A2. :eye-roll

Thankfully I learned early on to run the ARs dry, as in very little or no oil at all. They collect a lot less dirt that way.
I was out and working in the DOC by then but an old buddy that was still in and deployed for Desert Storm asked me to send all the powder graphite I could get my hands on to him there in the next care package I sent. He reported the same thing .

I had M16A1 when I was in and in most cases in Europe it was fairly reliable with care but accurate it wasn't. I was a fairly good shot when I entered the Army and I was surprised at how inaccurate the rifle was. To top it off my 1911A1 ( WW2 era made by Remington) would fail to feed two to three times per magazine. It's accuracy was pretty lousy too compared to the series 70 Gold Cup I was used to. The Gold Cup was completely reliable with ball ammo and some kinds of Hollow point ammo. It was reliable and super accurate with the 185 grain SWC I shot at paper targets. The issue 1911's just plain sucked.

I would have traded a M16 any variant for a M14, G3 or FAL. In fact when I was working with Bundeswere I did. I still have a picture of me carrying A G3A3 out in the field in Germany.

To be honest though I would take the M16A1, or A2 over the AK's in most conditions. I've shot some of those that were way more inaccurate than my worst M16's. The M16's flatter trajectory was appreciated when it came to firing quickly . When possible I'd always carry the M16/203. I really liked that combo.

Never really cared much for the AK's either personally.

Not all that accurate as you said from what I saw.

The M14 was/is a great rifle, has some weight to it though because it's not made of plastic and aluminum.

Although people can replace the wood stocks on them and shorten the barrel some to cut the weight down.
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?

#67

Post by Scandi Grind »

I hope using fancy scope technology doesn't start to make our service members less capable with more primitive aiming solutions. Not that I think it should not be done, I think the technology is one of the few ways to increase lethality over past methods, just like using optics in the first place did. Major General J.N. Mattis called the Trijicon ACOG "the biggest improvement in lethality for the Marine infantryman since the introduction of the M1 Garand in World War II.” It is just that guns are a notoriously brutal subject for electronic enhancements, so if your fancy equipment fails, you still have to be able to use your weapon effectively.

I recently saw that Magpul is working with another company to make a round counting system for rifles that will tell you how many shots you have left on a heads-up. It's starting to seem like our weapons could be out of a video game with all this stuff coming out.
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man."

-- Old Norse proverb
Osok-308
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:08 pm

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

#68

Post by Osok-308 »

I'm actually pretty excited to see the military adapt the 6.8x51. I've shot the .308 at 1000+ yards and the drop of the .308 compared to some better BC bullets leaves something to be desired. Granted, the .308 will still be around long after in gone, but it is cool to see 6.8 mm being adopted. Gives me a new reason to buy another ar-10 upper.
User avatar
shunsui
Member
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:22 pm

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

#69

Post by shunsui »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 am
I hope using fancy scope technology doesn't start to make our service members less capable with more primitive aiming solutions. .... if your fancy equipment fails, you still have to be able to use your weapon effectively.
The nice thing about the Vortex scope system is that even if the battery power fails the soldier still has a working optical scope on the rifle. It's not a digital display that goes black, it's an optical scope that they can display/project/superimpose any pixel information on.
Osok-308
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:08 pm

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

#70

Post by Osok-308 »

Scandi Grind wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 am
I hope using fancy scope technology doesn't start to make our service members less capable with more primitive aiming solutions. Not that I think it should not be done, I think the technology is one of the few ways to increase lethality over past methods, just like using optics in the first place did. Major General J.N. Mattis called the Trijicon ACOG "the biggest improvement in lethality for the Marine infantryman since the introduction of the M1 Garand in World War II.” It is just that guns are a notoriously brutal subject for electronic enhancements, so if your fancy equipment fails, you still have to be able to use your weapon effectively.
Any time that you have a jump in technology like that, you run the risk of this kind of thing happening. You cannot prevent the "lowest common denominator" from being lazy and this being inept without the technology present, but you can enforce training that requires training on the more primitive (for lack of a better term) technology and become adequate with it. A perfect case and point right now are red dot optics on handguns. A great invention that boosts the ability of most who shoot with them, but you cannot forget your iron sights in the enemy that the door goes out.
User avatar
The Mastiff
Member
Posts: 5936
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
Location: raleigh nc

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

#71

Post by The Mastiff »

Any time that you have a jump in technology like that, you run the risk of this kind of thing happening. You cannot prevent the "lowest common denominator" from being lazy and this being inept without the technology present, but you can enforce training that requires training on the more primitive (for lack of a better term) technology and become adequate with it. A perfect case and point right now are red dot optics on handguns. A great invention that boosts the ability of most who shoot with them, but you cannot forget your iron sights in the enemy that the door goes out.
I agree. I also can say with confidence that most of the people in the combat MOS I have been around are pretty motivated and intelligent people and take their profession seriously. There might be some nowadays that go in to get free sex change surgeries but people like that are not even going to be in the combat arms typically. There might be exceptions of course but by and large we are talking about people who take their training seriously.
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?

#72

Post by Doc Dan »

This scope has been tested and retested ad nauseam. So far, it has held up. Scopes have come a long way and I like that this one is not dependent upon electronics, but will work without them and has see through ability.

Another thing I find interesting is the choice of cartridge. The 6mm ARC was developed for the military and that short little wonder equals or bests the .243 Winchester, but is half the size. It will shoot pretty flat out to 1000 meters as it uses heavy for caliber high BC bullets of 108gr to 115gr. It is super light weight and a soldier can carry more. Maybe it won't defeat body armor at distance? On paper it stacks up really well against larger contenders.
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
User avatar
The Mastiff
Member
Posts: 5936
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
Location: raleigh nc

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

#73

Post by The Mastiff »

Another thing I find interesting is the choice of cartridge. The 6mm ARC was developed for the military and that short little wonder equals or bests the .243 Winchester, but is half the size. It will shoot pretty flat out to 1000 meters as it uses heavy for caliber high BC bullets of 108gr to 115gr. It is super light weight and a soldier can carry more. Maybe it won't defeat body armor at distance? On paper it stacks up really well against larger contenders.
It'll do better than the 5.56 at penetrating armor and kevlar but like all projectiles it can be stopped with enough armor. I'd guess it would be at 7.62 nato AP levels of penetration which is not all that bad using the same technology as the 7.62 AP which is hardened steel ( T1 or T15) or Tungsten Carbide which gets about all the cartridge is capable of.
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?

#74

Post by max808 »

Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 11:18 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 9:50 am
Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:38 am
A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.
I had heard about smart scopes being developed, but I haven't heard anything about that being used on the new SIG. Is that something they are going to be fielding as standard equipment? Seems like that could cost a lot.
Yes, this is part of the package. Not only that, but there is a recoil management system in the rifle. There is also a new generation muzzle brake built into the suppressor to attenuate a lot of the recoil.

The scope is quite amazing. It automatically calculates where to aim and puts the dot on the target. The soldier just needs to press the trigger. If the drop is 40 inches, then the dot moves to the proper hold. Also, a button adjusts for the wind. There is a feature that has the scope mark out targets that the shooter has located for the rest of the team, as well. It does some other things I don't know about, but those are some major important features. The idea is that though there is less ammunition, there is greater hit probability because of the scope and less wasted ammunition. This scope is issued with each carbine, and so is the suppressor.
Thanks Doc for sharing your tried and tested insights. To me the most intriguing part of this whole package is the inclusion of the Vortex scope and inherent muzzle brake suppressor. In my limited experience this would indicate somewhat of a paradigm shift into more asymmetrical type of warfare for regulars. Also +1 on the Avtomat Universal Gewehr, though I never liked the molded scope much. If memory serves this has been remedied in more recent iterations which is more modular now. Do you have any experience with the H&K G11?
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
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?

#75

Post by Doc Dan »

max808 wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:31 am
Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 11:18 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 9:50 am
Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:38 am
A lot of the problems with the original M16 was that they were issued without cleaning kits. To compensate for this, they told the troops that the new rifle never needed to be cleaned. That resulted in guns that would not work and got a lot of soldiers killed. They finally fixed that issue. There were some other problems, but that was the main one and the one that got the M16 its bad reputation. The round itself would, indeed, tumble and tear off arms, feet, or tear big holes that were often not able to be patched up. It was pretty inhumane, but it was effective. When they changed all of that, the M16 became less effective. It was more accurate than any of the competing rifles and carbines at the time. That, of course, changed. It is not a bad firearm, at all. Are there better choices, yes. The problem is that they all have drawbacks. I personally liked the Steyr AUG and a number of countries agree with me and issue it. However, many other options exist that are newer designs (that does not mean better). The Army has tested a lot of them and they keep coming up wanting compared to the M4, for a lot of reasons. I am not sure the new carbine is the best choice. It apparently is pretty good and good at taming the 6.8 recoil. However, I saw a video where the carbine and mud did not get along. That will need to be addressed.

The cartridge itself is interesting. I think the 6mm ARC was a stellar choice, but the 6.8x51 will put a hurtin' on someone out to ranges farther than I can see. The new scope that automatically adjusts for drop, adjusts for the wind, communicates targets with others in the platoon, has 1x to 8x variable, is really the thing, here. Without the new smartscope, the weapons system would just be another carbine and cartridge. With it, the firearm is deadly.
I had heard about smart scopes being developed, but I haven't heard anything about that being used on the new SIG. Is that something they are going to be fielding as standard equipment? Seems like that could cost a lot.
Yes, this is part of the package. Not only that, but there is a recoil management system in the rifle. There is also a new generation muzzle brake built into the suppressor to attenuate a lot of the recoil.

The scope is quite amazing. It automatically calculates where to aim and puts the dot on the target. The soldier just needs to press the trigger. If the drop is 40 inches, then the dot moves to the proper hold. Also, a button adjusts for the wind. There is a feature that has the scope mark out targets that the shooter has located for the rest of the team, as well. It does some other things I don't know about, but those are some major important features. The idea is that though there is less ammunition, there is greater hit probability because of the scope and less wasted ammunition. This scope is issued with each carbine, and so is the suppressor.
Thanks Doc for sharing your tried and tested insights. To me the most intriguing part of this whole package is the inclusion of the Vortex scope and inherent muzzle brake suppressor. In my limited experience this would indicate somewhat of a paradigm shift into more asymmetrical type of warfare for regulars. Also +1 on the Avtomat Universal Gewehr, though I never liked the molded scope much. If memory serves this has been remedied in more recent iterations which is more modular now. Do you have any experience with the H&K G11?
Some tried, but mostly researched.

I have used the AUG many years ago. It was better than the AR15. However, they quit importing them. Now, I think they have a plant in the USA in Alabama and the prices have come down.

I don't have any experience with the G11. To me, it looks clunky and unwieldy. Like all HK products, I am sure it works fine, but some of their products are larger than they should be and are ungainly.

I am a fan, however, of caseless ammunition. A 6mm caseless round would be highly interesting.
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
soc_monki
Member
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:54 am

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

#76

Post by soc_monki »

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.
Don't forget the bad chrome jobs that colt cheaped out on that allowed the bcgs and barrel internals to corrode. People hold colt up on a pedestal but ****, they haven't been "colt" for a long time and just seem to cut corners wherever they can. In this case, on the m16.

Seen plenty of mud tests (including one by garand thumb) and the ar15 passed pretty handily. The gas blows the gunk out and as long as the mag was clean it ran. Inrange did a mud test with the ngsw and it failed pretty miserably. Piston system doesn't blow the gunk out the problem? Dunno. I haven't been impressed with what I've seen but I'm just a civvie shooting 223 at paper so what do I know.

The AR has had lots of advancement (both good and bad) since it's inception, and it's a good rifle. I'm not a sig fan boy, but if it works it works I guess.
:respect Spyderco : Resilience, Tenacious, Persistence, Manix 2 G10, Para 3 G10, Para 3 LW, Paramilitary 2,
BBS Paramilitary 2, Amalgam, Native Chief, Blade HQ Manix 2 XL, S30V Shaman, Gayle Bradley 2, DLC M4 Shaman, Magnitude, Z Wear Shaman, DLC S30V Shaman, Stretch 2, Kapara, CF/S90V Native Chief, Endela, K390 Endura, DLT 20cv Zome Endela x 2, Police 4 LW K390, SNK Native Chief, SNK Manix 2 XL, K390 Stretch 2, Stretch 2 XL, K390 Endela
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?

#77

Post by Doc Dan »

The M16 is nearly 70 years old, now. It was designed in the 1950's. I don't know if the new Sig is a better rifle in every way. I hope they solve the mud problem. However, in some ways it is a better design. It runs cleaner, for one thing. Something had to be done. We couldn't keep fielding a firearm that was becoming antiquated by world standards.
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
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?

#78

Post by max808 »

Doc Dan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 11:40 pm
max808 wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:31 am
Doc Dan wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 11:18 pm
Scandi Grind wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 9:50 am


I had heard about smart scopes being developed, but I haven't heard anything about that being used on the new SIG. Is that something they are going to be fielding as standard equipment? Seems like that could cost a lot.
Yes, this is part of the package. Not only that, but there is a recoil management system in the rifle. There is also a new generation muzzle brake built into the suppressor to attenuate a lot of the recoil.

The scope is quite amazing. It automatically calculates where to aim and puts the dot on the target. The soldier just needs to press the trigger. If the drop is 40 inches, then the dot moves to the proper hold. Also, a button adjusts for the wind. There is a feature that has the scope mark out targets that the shooter has located for the rest of the team, as well. It does some other things I don't know about, but those are some major important features. The idea is that though there is less ammunition, there is greater hit probability because of the scope and less wasted ammunition. This scope is issued with each carbine, and so is the suppressor.
Thanks Doc for sharing your tried and tested insights. To me the most intriguing part of this whole package is the inclusion of the Vortex scope and inherent muzzle brake suppressor. In my limited experience this would indicate somewhat of a paradigm shift into more asymmetrical type of warfare for regulars. Also +1 on the Avtomat Universal Gewehr, though I never liked the molded scope much. If memory serves this has been remedied in more recent iterations which is more modular now. Do you have any experience with the H&K G11?
Some tried, but mostly researched.

I have used the AUG many years ago. It was better than the AR15. However, they quit importing them. Now, I think they have a plant in the USA in Alabama and the prices have come down.

I don't have any experience with the G11. To me, it looks clunky and unwieldy. Like all HK products, I am sure it works fine, but some of their products are larger than they should be and are ungainly.

I am a fan, however, of caseless ammunition. A 6mm caseless round would be highly interesting.
It does look chunky but weighs in at just under 10lbs loaded with 90 rounds, which ain't half bad I guess. That's the 4.73mm from the last prototype I think. After reading up on the subject I realize I don't know the first thing about caseless ammo or the ACR program so further study is required before I can chime in. Please bear with me Doc and thank you for sending me down this rabbithole...
:cheap-sunglasses
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
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?

#79

Post by Doc Dan »

https://youtu.be/hO4IKxECNzI

Here is a guy shooting the new rifle on full auto. He is not having any trouble staying on target. There is also a take down demo.
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
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?

#80

Post by Doc Dan »

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
Post Reply