US Army says goodbye to the M4 / SAW, hello SIG Next Gen. weapons

[DadSmith]

We've been using 5.56 for 20 years to kill a lot of guys at that distance and beyond. The m4 or m16a4 with acog became a very lethal combo. My issue is just sheer cost of all this. Why isn't this across al the branches? And is it really effective when even most combat units qualify once a year.

Didn't work so great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The distances were to far for the 556 to be very effective. That's why the M14 made its appearance again. M4 and A4 are out ranged and out gunned at 500 meters for the avg infantryman vs Dragunov's and other high power rifles they used.
A lighter more powerful rifle than a M14 is welcome news.

 

[Cavman]

Didn't work so great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The distances were to far for the 556 to be very effective. That's why the M14 made its appearance again. M4 and A4 are out ranged and out gunned at 500 meters for the avg infantryman vs Dragunov's and other high power rifles they used.
A lighter more powerful rifle than a M14 is welcome news.

I've seen it work well. Seen the m14 used too. But in only a dmr roll. Were buying a Ferrari for people who can barley control a Ford escort. If we changed the culture of the army to be harder and shoot more and become tougher and bigger then maybe adding this weapon would make sense to me.. but shooting once a year makes this weapon as useful as the m4/m16.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Didn't work so great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The distances were to far for the 556 to be very effective. That's why the M14 made its appearance again. M4 and A4 are out ranged and out gunned at 500 meters for the avg infantryman vs Dragunov's and other high power rifles they used.
A lighter more powerful rifle than a M14 is welcome news.

Why not double the number of G28s instead of using a different caliber?

COTS MCX/Spear is 8K. What is projected .mil price?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I remember when Big Army went to the M8. Those were the days.

 

[Brad69]

So SIG wins another big contract?

I wonder if I have and SIG swag left from my last deployment?

 

[Ark]

Didn't work so great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The distances were to far for the 556 to be very effective. That's why the M14 made its appearance again. M4 and A4 are out ranged and out gunned at 500 meters for the avg infantryman vs Dragunov's and other high power rifles they used.
A lighter more powerful rifle than a M14 is welcome news.

One squad took inaccurate rainbow trajectory fire from Mosins and a PKM at 1,400 yards like ten years ago and the brass has been in a freakout over "overmatch" ever since.

 

[KokomoDave]

Give our troops AKMs. They run forever, hardly jam and are effective at a longer distances than 5.56.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Good, now I can just fade away...……………….loved the M4, SAW, and M-60 series, may God bless them all who have to defend us with the new stuff.
I did my time.

 

[Tombs]

I'm actually happy the army has come to it's senses, and are going to a round that will actually work well beyond 400 meters.

Most troops can't land a first round hit at 200 yards on a human target.

Thinking they're going to be popping heads at 1000 yards is hilarious.

This isn't to say they can't shoot. Some can. Shooting a target that doesn't want to be shot is a very different ball game.
This new rifle might have made sense to replace M14 EBRs, M110s, and SCARs in inventory... The cartridge is ridiculously dumb but at least they'd have something formal rather than a mystery bag of guns and parts. But as an average infantry rifle, this is negligence.

I'm also betting barrel life is going to be hilariously short, and this hasn't been properly evaluated and tested, because sig won the contract. Last contract sig won went without formal testing either.

If they were going to a new cartridge, they should have listened to the army marksmanship unit and went to the 264 USA. That would have been a more sensible and realistic choice.

 

[Ark]

Most troops can't land a first round hit at 200 yards on a human target.

Thinking they're going to be popping heads at 1000 yards is hilarious.

This isn't to say they can't shoot. Some can. Shooting a target that doesn't want to be shot is a very different ball game.
This new rifle might have made sense to replace M14 EBRs, M110s, and SCARs in inventory... The cartridge is ridiculously dumb but at least they'd have something formal rather than a mystery bag of guns and parts. But as an average infantry rifle, this is negligence.

I'm also betting barrel life is going to be hilariously short, and this hasn't been properly evaluated and tested, because sig won the contract. Last contract sig won went without formal testing either.

If they were going to a new cartridge, they should have listened to the army marksmanship unit and went to the 264 USA. That would have been a more sensible and realistic choice.

It does seem to make more sense as an M110 replacement.

I also wonder about the barrels, especially depending on projectile types. M855A1 already out there burning out barrels, now imagine that projectile at 90,000 psi. I hope every FOB and outpost has an armorer...

 

[Tombs]

Give our troops AKMs. They run forever, hardly jam and are effective at a longer distances than 5.56.

7.62x39mm goes subsonic around 400m, and where it lands after that is anyone's guess.

5.45x39mm behaves almost identical to 5.56. Both 5.56 and 5.45 are sufficiently accurate at extended ranges to make hits.

 

[Cavman]

Most troops can't land a first round hit at 200 yards on a human target.

Thinking they're going to be popping heads at 1000 yards is hilarious.

This isn't to say they can't shoot. Some can. Shooting a target that doesn't want to be shot is a very different ball game.
This new rifle might have made sense to replace M14 EBRs, M110s, and SCARs in inventory... The cartridge is ridiculously dumb but at least they'd have something formal rather than a mystery bag of guns and parts. But as an average infantry rifle, this is negligence.

I'm also betting barrel life is going to be hilariously short, and this hasn't been properly evaluated and tested, because sig won the contract. Last contract sig won went without formal testing either.

If they were going to a new cartridge, they should have listened to the army marksmanship unit and went to the 264 USA. That would have been a more sensible and realistic choice.

Exactly. You're supposed to get enough rounds to zero your iron sights, optics and laser and do a practice qual and record qual. My experience is ya can zero your optic then ya get 1 chance to qual. Even with new qual its rushed and gotta make sure we don't shoot any more rounds then supposed too

 

[DadSmith]

Imo they should have went with 6.5 Grendel. It has more power than a 5.56x45mm and with 123gr bullets has the same trajectory as 150gr 7.62x51mm. All that was needed to change over was a barrel, bcg, and magazines. Recoil is very low also. Even the new 6mm that Hornady came out with would have been a smarter choice.

 

[Tombs]

Imo they should have went with 6.5 Grendel. It has more power than a 5.56x45mm and with 123gr bullets has the same trajectory as 150gr 7.62x51mm. All that was needed to change over was a barrel, bcg, and magazines. Recoil is very low also. Even the new 6mm that Hornady came out with would have been a smarter choice.

Well, 264 USA was somewhere between a 6.5 grendel and 6.5 creedmoor, and was a suitable replacement for both 5.56 and 7.62x51.

Optimized for feeding from belts, light recoil, and long range trajectory.

You'd need a new rifle for 6.5 grendel anyway. In civilian applications having a hogged out bolt is fine. In military applications that'd lead to too many broken parts to be viable. So why not just have a more optimized version of it, hints 264 USA.

 

[DadSmith]

U.S. Military Adopts Hornady's New Cartridge: 6mm ARC - Guns and Ammo

Hornady's 6mm Advanced Rifle Cartridge (ARC) is the first time in history that the commercial announcement of a cartridge was preceded by adoption within the military. While Hornady has been extremely secretive about who adopted the cartridge, they can say that it is a "notable Department o

www.gunsandammo.com

 

[Cavman]

Imo they should have went with 6.5 Grendel. It has more power than a 5.56x45mm and with 123gr bullets has the same trajectory as 150gr 7.62x51mm. All that was needed to change over was a barrel, bcg, and magazines. Recoil is very low also. Even the new 6mm that Hornady came out with would have been a smarter choice.

Now that would make more sense.

 

[BigMoose]

U.S. Military Adopts Hornady's New Cartridge: 6mm ARC - Guns and Ammo

Hornady's 6mm Advanced Rifle Cartridge (ARC) is the first time in history that the commercial announcement of a cartridge was preceded by adoption within the military. While Hornady has been extremely secretive about who adopted the cartridge, they can say that it is a "notable Department o

www.gunsandammo.com

6mm arc is a SpecOps cartridge.

 

[rooster]

How many of you can hit a moving target at 300 meters with iron sights? With a red dot? With a straight 4 power scope?

Fire superiority is needed when you don’t have the optics to even see the target you are shooting.

A variable optic of a decent magnification will be a game changer.

 

[Ark]

How many of you can hit a moving target at 300 meters with iron sights? With a red dot? With a straight 4 power scope?

Fire superiority is needed when you don’t have the optics to even see the target you are shooting.

A variable optic of a decent magnification will be a game changer.

I honestly think the ACOG on every rifle was a bigger infantry game changer than even the AR platform and 5.56.

Remains to be seen what kind of optics are committed alongside this.

 

[DadSmith]

6mm arc is a SpecOps cartridge.

Yet it could be used by them all. It doesn't have to be Spec Ops only.