public service announcement: Sig MCX Gen 3 announced

[Aries144]

Honestly, I don't think the issue is with the MCX. I'm no SIG fanboy; I had a bad experience with them about 10 years ago, I was NOT a fan of the idiotic designs like the DAK trigger and the P250 pistols, and I could not believe how bad they shit the bed by cutting every corner imaginable with the SIG551 and ruining one of the best rifle designs of all time. And, right now, I don't personally own a single SIG firearm.

But to be fair, I think they've come a long way this past decade. While their flagship guns (the MCX and the P320) had growing pains, they've improved and fixed most of the issues with them by all reports. The MCX seems, overall, to have become an excellent rifle. A lot of guys with no dog in the fight have given most of the MCX variants excellent reviews. Personally, when I handled the first generation of MCX, my main complaints were that they had a wide, awkward feeling (and looking) Keymod handguard that made no sense considering that the industry was clearly going towards MLOK. The trigger sucked, and the field strip of the BCG and recoil system was too clunky and complicated. And, since then, they've fixed...literally all of that. Of course the MCX is going to have drawbacks compared to the M4, but it also has improvements over the M4. While a switch from the M4 to an MCX variant might not be totally necessary, I don't think it's the most hairbrained consideration the Army has made.

That being said, I still agree with everyone that the Spear is probably going to prove too heavy for what it offers, and the 6.8x51 is probably going to have too many drawbacks to be the new standard issue combat round. However, that's not to say I'm in the camp that thinks that we should stick with the 5.56 until we can develop 10mm armor piercing high explosive caseless rounds, or 40 watt phased plasma rifles. I'm not one who believes that even a single ounce more of weight is not worth the extra performance of a bigger round. I've long thought that a larger intermediate cartridge, whether it fit an AR magazine or not, was probably a good answer to many of the questions raised about the 5.56's performance.



Yeah, but can't that be said about just about every major company? The point is profit margins. Glock spends less than $100 to make their pistols, which they then sell for $500 to $600. Guns from Colt, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, FN, etc, don't always have the most precise, refined parts in them, because that's part of the cost saving. Also, ALL the major companies make backroom deals, lobby Congress, and do shady stuff for contracts I'm not saying SIG is a wonderful company that makes the world's finest weapons. But I think they have, as of late, been doing pretty well overall in terms of their quality, and I think the MCX is a good design that's probably only going to get better.

The thing I seem not to be getting across is that we're giving SIG a lot of money to sell us something that is worse in critical ways than our current weaponry. We're paying a tremendous premium for a rifle that does nothing that couldn't be done cheaper and with far less weight on an AR15/AR10 base. I accuse SIG of making design choices not for what offers improvement in capability, but for what makes the thing different enough to patent.

SIG knows how the shmooze decision makers. That's all SIG excels at.

Further, I think our decision makers are poorly informed and making decisions based on bad criteria.

[BoringGuy45]

The thing I seem not to be getting across is that we're giving SIG a lot of money to sell us something that is worse in critical ways than our current weaponry. We're paying a tremendous premium for a rifle that does nothing that couldn't be done cheaper and with far less weight on an AR15/AR10 base. I accuse SIG of making design choices not for what offers improvement in capability, but for what makes the thing different enough to patent.

SIG knows how the shmooze decision makers. That's all SIG excels at.

Further, I think our decision makers are poorly informed and making decisions based on bad criteria.

The "worse in critical ways" that you cited were the extra weight and less ammo for one thing, which is pretty much universally agreed upon. But those things can, theoretically, be improved upon by further development and engineering, and by going to an intermediate round instead of the Fury, or sticking with the 5.56. The other thing, the byproduct of the venting gas clearing debris, is obviously not necessarily a must have for a service rifle. That would suggest that pretty much every other rifle design other than the AR is lacking an essential feature. The AK, FAL, SCAR, FNC, G36, AUG, SG550, etc. all seem to function fine without it.

Honestly, SIG basically just gave the Army what they asked for: A compact battle rifle that is theoretically able to pierce rifle plates at long range. I don't know enough about the Textron or General Dynamics designs to know if the Spear was genuinely the best choice. I agree that the entire NGSW program appears to be trying to solve one perceived problem by creating a new host of problems that weren't originally there. It reeks of being pushed by guys who "didn't personally experience" the problem they're trying to solve but they "read a lot about it." I don't think the problem is that the Spear is lacking in design as much as much as the NGSW program is misguided.

[SteyrAUG]

Further, I think our decision makers are poorly informed and making decisions based on bad criteria.

So no different than 95% of American gun owners.

[1986s4]

He was talking in reference to a WWI/WWII/Ukraine style war of attrition, not service life in a largely peacetime military, with a few colonial wars or counter insurgencies to contend with.

Overall, I thought Ian did a much better job of showcasing the rifle than Karl did, but that's pretty standard. Also interested about the two piece bolt/op rod connection, and surprised at how small it looks vs the SCAR. Guess time will tell on that one.

Still interested on the weight figures being tossed around. Rifle is supposed to be 8lbs, even if you add 2lbs for the mag (shouldn't be that much) that leaves 4lbs for the optic and suppressor. Unless the optic is heavier than expected, that seems a bit excessive.

Personally, I'm very interested in the rifle IF it can be swapped from .308 to 6.8 relatively easily. That would allow it to be useful with existing stocks of .308 while occasionally using it in the new 6.8 if ammo availability/price allow. Heavy start up cost, certainly, but flexibility over time.

Part two of his video, with him running the gun in a 2 gun match:

I already had an unfavorable impression of the M17 pistol and this video didn't help. Apologies to those who love their M17's..

[VIP3R 237]

Spear LT has been announced.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-mcx-spear-lt/

And it looks like it’ll be available soon, $2499.99 msrp. Won’t lie I think I’ll pick one up if I can find one for non GB prices.

[Bret]

So no different than 95% of American gun owners.

True, but when I buy a gun I’m not spending taxpayer money and making life critical decisions for others.

[Aries144]

That would suggest that pretty much every other rifle design other than the AR is lacking an essential feature. The AK, FAL, SCAR, FNC, G36, AUG, SG550, etc. all seem to function fine without it.

Well, except they don't. A lot of those other rifles don't do as well as the AR15, either because they don't seal well, or even though they do, because they draw in enough debris clinging to the side of the carrier to cause stoppages after a couple of cycles. The AK and FAL in particular don't like gritty mud, though this specific issue is best demonstrated, apples to apples, with piston driven AR-15/AR-10 derivatives like the MCX, 416, and the SPEAR.

I don't think the problem is that the Spear is lacking in design as much as much as the NGSW program is misguided.

I think it's both. Maybe if you wanted the cool lightweight beltfeds you had to take the SPEAR too? The beltfed guns look pretty well designed.

[RHINOWSO]

Another generation of SIG?

Color me shocked... <not>

[mig1nc]

Another generation of SIG?

Color me shocked... <not>

Just like the Virtus, the only thing not compatible with the previous generations is the handguard. And for good reason. It needed to be fixed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1986s4]

I do find the subject of the next Army rifle to be very interesting. I remember reading that the M1 rifle, well regarded in it's time, had teething issues before adoption. As did the M16, etc.. I may never see a SIG MCX G3 outside of a youtube video and am quite certain I will never buy one. My only consideration is the best rifle/cartridge combination for the guys who have to use them.