Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: public service announcement: Sig MCX Gen 3 announced

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    4,565
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by VIP3R 237 View Post
    Fantastic article that made me appreciate the need for something new with the overmatch argument.
    It certainly framed it in a more rational light for me, although I still disagree with the role. It’d be a badass DMR, but as a M4 successor, I’m not into it, for the reasons Chuck gave. I have a good bit of hope for the machinegun, although I have logistics concerns.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    729
    Feedback Score
    0
    Very good article, and I am still reading it as I type this. This quote really stood out though and highlights some of our concerns:

    “Alternatively, according to Jack Leuba of Knight’s Armament Company, “KAC wanted to avoid the service-life problems that would be present with a continuous diet of over-proof round pressure, so elected to avoid ammunition in that elevated pressure range. Given the accepted reduced expectation of service-life [barrel and parts life otherwise], it would be reasonable to assume that KAC may, at some point, release systems in the 6.8 common caliber with some minor changes to the M110/SR-25 architecture.””

    If that is not food for thought I don’t know what is.

    I also don’t understand the knock against 6.8 SPC. It was designed to be a <300-400 meter engagement assault rifle round, not a DMR round. I could argue that the 6.8 SPC would be a better choice at those distances for “overmatch) than a 6.8x51.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,054
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1168 View Post
    Very interesting article. Haven't been able to read it all, but its good to see all the different viewpoints and other potential options being presented.
    ...they should have seen that arms in their citizens' hands could not make them tyrants, but that evil orders of government make a city tyrannize. Since they had a good government, they did not have to fear their own arms.
    --Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    112
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I'll try and find the article again, but Sig claims a 12k barrel life. Considering you can burn a 556 barrel up in 10k, I don't see how running that high of pressure they can get 12k out of it.

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    112
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Here's one bullet point

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    4,565
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MadAngler1 View Post

    I also don’t understand the knock against 6.8 SPC. It was designed to be a <300-400 meter engagement assault rifle round, not a DMR round. I could argue that the 6.8 SPC would be a better choice at those distances for “overmatch) than a 6.8x51.
    IIRC, MSG Holland, one of the 18s that championed it used it as a DMR round early on and thats where that confusion comes in. Someone correct me please if thats not right.

    It never really made sense for conventional Infantry, Rangers, or Delta in the M4 family. Compared to 5.56, it complicates logistics and increases cost, while also weighing more and having reduced MPBR. “Stopping power” isn’t a real problem, and was limited more by M855 in use at the time than anything. Obviously some guys liked it, and Holland did earn his opinion, and I respect it. Perhaps it would have made sense in a new rifle that could handle more pressure instead of having to dumb it down to work with the M4 bolt face. I wouldn’t mind playing with a weapon that uses a larger mag and can handle 60k-65k psi. Anyone know how strong or not the Ruger American Ranch bolt is?

    I think its a great cartridge for hunters, whose needs are different than an Infantry Battalion.
    RLTW
    “Y-you realize that nighttime makes up half of all time?” -Rick Sanchez

    Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    729
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 1168 View Post
    IIRC, MSG Holland, one of the 18s that championed it used it as a DMR round early on and thats where that confusion comes in. Someone correct me please if thats not right.

    It never really made sense for conventional Infantry, Rangers, or Delta in the M4 family. Compared to 5.56, it complicates logistics and increases cost, while also weighing more and having reduced MPBR. “Stopping power” isn’t a real problem, and was limited more by M855 in use at the time than anything. Obviously some guys liked it, and Holland did earn his opinion, and I respect it. Perhaps it would have made sense in a new rifle that could handle more pressure instead of having to dumb it down to work with the M4 bolt face. I wouldn’t mind playing with a weapon that uses a larger mag and can handle 60k-65k psi. Anyone know how strong or not the Ruger American Ranch bolt is?

    I think its a great cartridge for hunters, whose needs are different than an Infantry Battalion.
    I wish we could have a poll here on M4carbine.net of all the vets who would rather have a better 5.56 NATo cartridge using a DI system (whatever SOPMOD iteration) over the new Sig MCX Spear in 6.8x51, which as the article points out will weight more than 13 lbs fully equipped.

    The article brings up good points about the use of light machine guns in infantry. Using a 6 mm cartridge for a belt fed machine gun makes great sense to me over 5.56 NATO. I never understood the Marine Corps push to get rid of the SAW other than to give themselves an excuse to get rid of the older M-16A4s in their inventory.

    I’m just a lowly civilian, but I darn well know that my 16” SCAR 17 is a lot harder to handle and maneuver on the range doing drills than my 5.56 ARs. The Sig MCX Spear to me makes more sense as a DMR platform than for engagements under 300 meters, even when taking into account the threat that “body armor” worn by opposing forces presents to our guys. I would like to hear more opinions from combat guys, but perhaps we all need to pick this rifle up and shoot it, etc. Of course, those range days never show the Youtube stars wearing 80-100 lbs of equipment while shooting the MCX Spear, lol.
    Last edited by MadAngler1; 05-14-22 at 13:03.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    4,565
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MadAngler1 View Post
    I wish we could have a poll here on M4carbine.net of all the vets who would rather have a better 5.56 NATo cartridge using a DI system (whatever SOPMOD iteration) over the new Sig MCX Spear in 6.8x51, which as the article points out will weight more than 13 lbs fully equipped.

    The article brings up good points about the use of light machine guns in infantry. Using a 6 mm cartridge for a belt fed machine gun makes great sense to me over 5.56 NATO. I never understood the Marine Corps push to get rid of the SAW other than to give themselves an excuse to get rid of the older M-16A4s in their inventory.
    I suppose we could make a poll. Are the usernames listed with the votes so we could roughlyish “verify” that its Vets voting? A lot of GWOT Vets have left lately though. We did indeed get a new cartridge, M855A1, and it is excellent. The latest “SOPMOD” (they don’t call it that anymore) is badass. At least in the shorty format.

    The USMC fell victim to the same idea that brought about this NGSW. Sort of. They tried to cure 3 things:
    1) SAW Gunners don’t keep up with their Squads; their Squads slow down for them. Of course with a heavy ass 416 and umpteen mags, they may not have fixed that, but have certainly reduced their Automatic Rifleman’s sustained rate of fire.
    2) the SAW has too many stoppages. Well, no shit, if you have an old, ragged out open bolt gun, which only fires on auto (wear), and fires much more rounds per engagement on average than anyone else in the Squad, you’ll see more stoppages.
    3) the SAW has accuracy problems. Again, no shit. Its a belt fed, open bolt, quick change barrel, likely with a worn barrel and extension, 5.56 gun with extra headspace built in, meant to engage a mongoloid horde out to medium ranges, with like the most imprecise ammo we’ve ever fielded. Because something, something, commie helmets and armor. It wasn’t designed to engage point targets at 1,000m; there are other guns for that. We have a bad habit of training and equipping for our last war, rather than our next war, and it was procured partly based on experience in Viet Nam. And now its being replaced based on our experience in Afghanistan.

    4) as a bonus, it has commonality with the new DMR. Might as well make it the whole Squad, it seems.
    5) a bonus bonus, a 416 might be easier to swim with than a 249.

    The Brits are on a similar path regarding Squad Automatic Weapons.

    With all of that said, maybe it was time for the 249 to be replaced. There are better options today, and USMC felt the need to re-structure their Squads, going back to some of the WWII architecture. Perhaps due to something, something, amphibious. I’m not a Marine, so it really doesn’t matter what I think.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,155
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Caveat this with... I'm just an old civilian gun guy, not a vet.

    Watched Garand Thumbs video today.

    It was pretty interesting and it really looked different in the hands of a good shooter.

    But one thing he said was that for urban fighting he'd rather have an M4.

    Question for you vets: would the significantly better barrier penetration of 6.8x51 be more of an advantage in an urban fight vs the lighter weight of the M4A1?

    Would the trade be with it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    729
    Feedback Score
    0
    Agree with your points.

    Here is the video: https://youtu.be/GEf3ZlUkOCg

    He expresses many of the concerns we all have. Again, remains to be seen. If Sig subcontracts out parts to keep costs down and they start breaking, it will be a huge cluster. Also as he points out, he would much rather lug a M4 in an urban environment. I would be interested to hear from Spec Ops guys and Marines on this.

    Edited to add: I’ll buy a MCX Spear when the ammo is cheaper lol

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •