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.
yablanowitz
Member
Posts: 6881
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Liberal, Kansas

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

#21

Post by yablanowitz »

I've always felt that the lighter weapon/lighter ammo so the individual could carry more rounds encouraged "spray and pray" over marksmanship. In jungle warfare where the enemy may be concealed at close range (Viet Nam when the M16 was adopted) that is understandable, maybe even acceptable. Marksmanship is less effective when the target is invisible. It has been a while since the U.S. Army was stuck in a jungle, where a shotgun was actually a viable choice. When ranges started increasing, that "spray and pray" just doesn't work very well. One soldier may be able to carry enough ammo to put a round into every square foot of his assigned field of fire at 25 yards, but Hercules couldn't carry enough .22 short ammo to do so at 600 yards. A change is long overdue.

8.4 pounds plus ammo may sound like a lot but my Thompson 1927A1 carbine with a loaded 30 round stick mag weighs a bit over 12 pounds. 10 pounds for a main battle rifle and ammo is actually pretty light.
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?

#22

Post by Ankerson »

Doc Dan wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:33 am
What do you all think of the US Army adopting the Sig Sauer XM5 6.8x51 to replace the M4 and M16 and etc.? I am of two minds about it. For one thing, it will give soldiers the ability to defeat modern body armor and longer ranges. It will give soldiers the ability to engage targets at very long range, especially with the new sight.

On the other hand, it is almost going backwards (not quite) to a heavier weapon with heavier ammunition. It might have been okay if they had gone with the plastic cased ammunition, but they didn't. They stuck with heavy brass and steel. Soldiers already carry heavy combat loads. The other thing I think is that the new weapon will be a problem for most shooters because of the recoil, even in semi-automatic mode. In full automatic I think it will be uncontrollable. I think that, but not having shot it I can't say for certain.

Still, the new rifle gives soldiers the ability to engage across mountain ridges and will shoot through obstructions. I wonder, though, if a shorter and lighter cartridge could not be found, or developed, that achieved the same goals.

Not a bad idea really, getting away from the 5.56mm is LONG overdue.

Never should have been adopted in the 1st place. That and the .30 Carbine are pathetic.

Time will tell in the end however. (Not convinced in the making a better mouse trap concept yet)

As far as recoil goes... Remember rounds like the .308, .30-06, .7.62x54R, 7mm Mauser, and 8mm Mauser were used in past wars. (And some are still used today) Not even getting into the .45-70 and .303 British.

Still something around 7mm is not a terrible idea as far as ballistics go.
User avatar
Doc Dan
Member
Posts: 14753
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?

#23

Post by Doc Dan »

As I now understand it, the Sig has a recoil modifier of some sort built into it and the carbine and LSMG also have a built on muzzle brake. These are supposed to help tame the recoil on a cartridge that is faster with a 16" barrel than a 308/7.62 with a 26" barrel.

I guess we will see how it stacks up in real use. I would love a chance to test one of these.
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: 14753
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?

#24

Post by Doc Dan »

There were a lot of our troops killed in the middle east because they were out ranged by some of the weapons they encountered over there, apparently. The 5.56 has a lot going for it, but it is lacking in a lot of ways, too.
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
TomAiello
Member
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:34 pm
Location: Twin Falls, ID

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

#25

Post by TomAiello »

I think it's a mixed blessing for the individual rifleman, because of the added weight (or the reduced round count). But for the logistics chain, it's definitely a win to put the same ammunition in the SAW and the rifles. And logistics wins wars.

I think for an individual rifle, there are much more ideal rounds (like 6mm ARC), but if you are trying to find one round to do everything, from a DMR role to a SAW, and simplify your supply chains on that round, then the 6.8 sig round makes a lot of sense as an all around 'do it all' compromise solution.

It may cause complaints from the guys with boots on the ground, but honestly, in this case I think the logistics needs to win the day, because in the end, wars--real wars, the kind that grind on for years and are an existential threat to a nation--become a competition of industrial production and logistics, and the real purpose of the military is to win real wars.

This is not the right solution for the kind of SF units that you see video games based on, the kind that every high school kid with a .22 wants to be in when he grows up. But those units are already procuring off-spec ammo (like 6mm ARC). For rank and file line troops in mass actions, having the bullets continuing to arrive and work is going to be a lot more important than having exactly the right bullet for the job. Comrade Mikhail Timofeyevich taught the world that quite a few year ago.
TomAiello
Member
Posts: 6655
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:34 pm
Location: Twin Falls, ID

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

#26

Post by TomAiello »

Doc Dan wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 8:27 am
There were a lot of our troops killed in the middle east because they were out ranged by some of the weapons they encountered over there, apparently. The 5.56 has a lot going for it, but it is lacking in a lot of ways, too.
I think mostly they just couldn't hit the people they were shooting at, because everyone learned what the maximum effective range of the 5.56 round was. That was the impetus for trying to design longer range infantry rounds like the 6.5G and 6.8 SPC. The effective range of the small arms used by opposing forces (largely 7.62x39 and 5.45x39) don't really have much more effective range than the NATO standard 5.56. In sparsely forested rural areas (common in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East) engagement distances were frequently very long for 5.56 rounds, but also for other common small arms, resulting in a whole lot of shots fired with very little result.
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?

#27

Post by max808 »

I wouldn't confuse effective range with bullets dropping to the ground like in the matrix... it's still a hot piece of metal traveling at ridiculous speeds, just gradually losing altitude and kinetic energy on account of gravity and friction.
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: 14753
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?

#28

Post by Doc Dan »

TomAiello wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 12:51 pm
Doc Dan wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 8:27 am
There were a lot of our troops killed in the middle east because they were out ranged by some of the weapons they encountered over there, apparently. The 5.56 has a lot going for it, but it is lacking in a lot of ways, too.
I think mostly they just couldn't hit the people they were shooting at, because everyone learned what the maximum effective range of the 5.56 round was. That was the impetus for trying to design longer range infantry rounds like the 6.5G and 6.8 SPC. The effective range of the small arms used by opposing forces (largely 7.62x39 and 5.45x39) don't really have much more effective range than the NATO standard 5.56. In sparsely forested rural areas (common in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East) engagement distances were frequently very long for 5.56 rounds, but also for other common small arms, resulting in a whole lot of shots fired with very little result.
I think some were using 7.62x54R and other such rounds, at least that is what I heard. The 7.62x39 does not have the effective range of the 5.56, though when you shorten the barrel to the M4 length you lose a lot of velocity and it may be close to the same, in reality, but with a slight edge to the 5.56. I think the 5.56 velocity is specced out of a 20" barrel. A problem that I immediately see is that with such a small bullet, reduced velocity means less effectiveness. What made the 5.56 so feared was its high velocity. It you take that away, you basically have a .22 magnum super or something.
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
bearrowland
Member
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: Julian Pennsylvania USA Earth

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

#29

Post by bearrowland »

The 5.56 is an accurate round in the right weapon, but keep in mind that Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 and round for controllable automatic fire. I don't think he ever envisioned it for the conditions found in Afghanistan.
Barry

Bonne Journey!

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword

Do what you can, where you are, with what you have! Theodore Roosevelt

MNOSD member 0032
User avatar
The Mastiff
Member
Posts: 5935
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?

#30

Post by The Mastiff »

I don't have direct experience but if I have it right this was driven largely by the need to have a rifle caliber that would be able to penetrate the armor expected to be seen on peer/near peer soldiers. There is only so much you can do with a small caliber 22/5.56 round at the speeds practical in rifles. Recall in the 60's and 70's they tried sub caliber sabots and flechettes at speeds over 4000 fps. That never really worked out for several reasons.

As a soldier I liked the idea of having more ammo but I also liked the effects of the 7.62 Nato and would switch with the German soldiers and their G3's every chance I had . I just didn't mind the extra weight. The M60 plus bipod was pushing it and others had to help carrying the extra ammo belts. 7.62x51 can get heavy when you are talking about 200 rounds and on up but it is worth it IMO.

They can do so much more with the new calibers . Penetration and long range work are two obvious but vital ones. I'm all for it. This was coming more or less since the PRC went to their newer heavier caliber with better performance. We were expecting situations where their rifle could defeat our armor but ours couldn't theirs. There again we have gotten better armor since then but the need for a better caliber for us remained.
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?

#31

Post by Ankerson »

bearrowland wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 10:37 am
The 5.56 is an accurate round in the right weapon, but keep in mind that Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 and round for controllable automatic fire. I don't think he ever envisioned it for the conditions found in Afghanistan.

Yes, start trying to actually hit something with a 5.56mm at 300 - 500 meters in high wind that is normally found in the Mountains and or wide open spaces. And then a moving target and or one behind cover with an A4 or M16.

GOOD LUCK :rofl

A MUCH more powerful round with better down range ballistics was needed.

Like I said before in this thread they are on the right track with something around 7mm. ;)
bearrowland
Member
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: Julian Pennsylvania USA Earth

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

#32

Post by bearrowland »

Exactly! I recall seeing that the British, when NATO was just getting started, found that the 7mm was about as ideal as you can get.
Barry

Bonne Journey!

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword

Do what you can, where you are, with what you have! Theodore Roosevelt

MNOSD member 0032
User avatar
Jim Malone
Member
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Absurdistan E.U.

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

#33

Post by Jim Malone »

What i see as two problems is
-why did the USA decided to use a propietary cartridge other NATO members don't use?
-better penetration against body armour? Like soft body armor? Or is this cartridge capable in defeating level 3+ or level 4 ceramic plates that can withstand say a 7,62x54R AP round? It might be more lethal on non body armor carrying insurgents but why didn't they go back to the old 7,62x51 NATO for that? This cartridge is abundant and can be procured around the world.
Bemo
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 pm
Location: Boise Idaho

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

#34

Post by Bemo »

bearrowland wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 2:43 pm
Exactly! I recall seeing that the British, when NATO was just getting started, found that the 7mm was about as ideal as you can get.
And ironically was the first round that Garand was looking at and actually submitted one of his rifles chambered in 7mm for early testing trials.
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?

#35

Post by Ankerson »

bearrowland wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 2:43 pm
Exactly! I recall seeing that the British, when NATO was just getting started, found that the 7mm was about as ideal as you can get.

And it really still is even to this day, the 7mm Ultra Mag is I believe the flattest shooting rifle round made today. All that is really is a 7mm STW.

Other than for extreme ranges that rounds like the .338 LP and .50 BMG are king.

But that's a different type of rifle and shooting.
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?

#36

Post by Ankerson »

edit, double post.
Last edited by Ankerson on Sun May 15, 2022 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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?

#37

Post by Ankerson »

Jim Malone wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 3:27 pm
What i see as two problems is
-why did the USA decided to use a propietary cartridge other NATO members don't use?
-better penetration against body armour? Like soft body armor? Or is this cartridge capable in defeating level 3+ or level 4 ceramic plates that can withstand say a 7,62x54R AP round? It might be more lethal on non body armor carrying insurgents but why didn't they go back to the old 7,62x51 NATO for that? This cartridge is abundant and can be procured around the world.

Remember, the 5.56mm wasn't a standard round either nor was the 7.62x51 at one time before NATO standardized them. ;)
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?

#38

Post by shunsui »

Well, looks like you will have a better option than spray and pray with the upcoming scope. You might not be wasting much ammo at all.

https://youtu.be/y7NLMU1JZkY

And it sounds like the rifle will be adaptable to other calibers.

https://youtu.be/vlrBEEG__1E
User avatar
Doc Dan
Member
Posts: 14753
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?

#39

Post by Doc Dan »

Jim Malone wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 3:27 pm
What i see as two problems is
-why did the USA decided to use a propietary cartridge other NATO members don't use?
-better penetration against body armour? Like soft body armor? Or is this cartridge capable in defeating level 3+ or level 4 ceramic plates that can withstand say a 7,62x54R AP round? It might be more lethal on non body armor carrying insurgents but why didn't they go back to the old 7,62x51 NATO for that? This cartridge is abundant and can be procured around the world.
The 7.62x51 requires a long barrel to actually get publicized ballistics and it is never that fast. It recoils heavily in the best bullet weights for caliber and the rifles have to be too long for urban use. The new 6.8x51 operates at an astounding 80,000psi so it is over 3000fps muzzle velocity with a short 16" barrel. The new rifle is short and handy and it has recoil mitigation.
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
wrdwrght
Member
Posts: 5078
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:35 am

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

#40

Post by wrdwrght »

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
-Marc (pocketing an M4 Sage5 today)

“When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
Post Reply