public service announcement: Sig MCX Gen 3 announced

[ABNAK]

When you are looking at an M-14 [+] level weight I doubt it'll be a big hit.

Even in situations where a load might be lightened somewhere on the Infantryman (not in the M5's case) the Army sees that as an opportunity to add something else! I'm sure the Marines are the same in that regard. If you're a grunt it is "lose-lose".

I still think 5.56 in an even more improved version than M855A1 is the answer, at least for the foreseeable future. A standardly equipped grunt should probably not be expected to successfully engage GPMG's at 700 or 800 meters. That is what YOUR 240 gunners are for. *Maybe* morph into the SIG platform but introducing both a weapon system and caliber change simultaneously won't work well. It didn't in the mid 1960's (although it eventually was forced to succeed) and it won't now.

[BoringGuy45]

When you are looking at an M-14 [+] level weight I doubt it'll be a big hit.

Even in situations where a load might be lightened somewhere on the Infantryman (not in the M5's case) the Army sees that as an opportunity to add something else! I'm sure the Marines are the same in that regard. If you're a grunt it is "lose-lose".

I still think 5.56 in an even more improved version than M855A1 is the answer, at least for the foreseeable future. A standardly equipped grunt should probably not be expected to successfully engage GPMG's at 700 or 800 meters. That is what YOUR 240 gunners are for. *Maybe* morph into the SIG platform but introducing both a weapon system and caliber change simultaneously won't work well. It didn't in the mid 1960's (although it eventually was forced to succeed) and it won't now.

I can see logic in looking for more universal cartridge that can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62. The thing is, they have this pipe dream that the .277 Fury is going to punch through Chinese body armor at 600 yards, which just seems very doubtful. With that in mind, a big argument for going to a overpowered battle rifle cartridge loses credibility. However, if they want to extend the range of both the riflemen and the SAW gunners, I can see the logic of going to a true intermediate round along the lines of that hypothetical 7mm UIAC that was floated about 10 years ago. Yes, it would be added weight, but not nearly as much as going to something like the Fury, and it would extend the range for riflemen.

[Alpha-17]

I still think 5.56 in an even more improved version than M855A1 is the answer, at least for the foreseeable future.

The question is, how would this improved M855A1 cartridge actually work? Even the full power version from a decade ago caused problems. What would the solution be? New rifles capable of taking the 5.56 +P loading? How much improvement would that actually achieve for the expense? How much weight would be added to overbuilding that rifle? I'd also wonder about the actual performance improvement against armor and barriers at longer range if they were stuck with a 62-70ish gr projectile. One of my problems with the SAW was how easily the lightweight round was blown off target, and I'd worry about that still being an issue with 5.56 +P.

Bottom line, no matter the change, new problems would develop. The only way to avoid that would be to stick with the status quo indefinitely, and, thankfully, that doesn't appear to be the plan.

[BoringGuy45]

The question is, how would this improved M855A1 cartridge actually work? Even the full power version from a decade ago caused problems. What would the solution be? New rifles capable of taking the 5.56 +P loading? How much improvement would that actually achieve for the expense? How much weight would be added to overbuilding that rifle? I'd also wonder about the actual performance improvement against armor and barriers at longer range if they were stuck with a 62-70ish gr projectile. One of my problems with the SAW was how easily the lightweight round was blown off target, and I'd worry about that still being an issue with 5.56 +P.

Bottom line, no matter the change, new problems would develop. The only way to avoid that would be to stick with the status quo indefinitely, and, thankfully, that doesn't appear to be the plan.

Another idea could be the 6mm-223. With virtually no weight or bulk increase to the soldier, you'd get a bigger, more powerful bullet with much better long range performance in terms of terminal and external ballistics. Would it be a night and day difference like the 5.56 vs. .277 Fury? No, but it would be an improvement, especially at long range.

[MadAngler1]

https://youtu.be/AclyRPnBkGE

Here is another well informed opinion from a retired Navy SEAL. He has some
good videos, including his opinions on prior SOCOM/NavSpec programs. He thinks the Army could be using this to get the MCX family of rifles to replace the M4, not just the MCX Spear itself.

[ABNAK]

The question is, how would this improved M855A1 cartridge actually work? Even the full power version from a decade ago caused problems. What would the solution be? New rifles capable of taking the 5.56 +P loading? How much improvement would that actually achieve for the expense? How much weight would be added to overbuilding that rifle? I'd also wonder about the actual performance improvement against armor and barriers at longer range if they were stuck with a 62-70ish gr projectile. One of my problems with the SAW was how easily the lightweight round was blown off target, and I'd worry about that still being an issue with 5.56 +P.

Bottom line, no matter the change, new problems would develop. The only way to avoid that would be to stick with the status quo indefinitely, and, thankfully, that doesn't appear to be the plan.

Yeah, I get all that, but the Army's stated goal (one of them) is punching through body armor at distance. So while I don't know what BA the Russians or ChiComs wear but let's use ours as an example: ESAPI, roughly equivalent to Level IV. Unless there's some magic unicorn dust bullet (and there may well be, but for general issue?) the .277 Fury ain't gonna punch through it per the specs of ESAPI/Level IV, let alone at distance. Is that worth the gazilions that will be spent on fielding an entirely new weapon/ammo system that harkens back to humping an M14 around?

For the record I love M14's and have since I was in the Army. Never had to hump one though.....an 81mm mortar tube or bipod probably edges that out though, so I can relate!

Not sure what the answer is. We've been on 5.56mm for 55+ years. All things change as they should evolve over time, especially weapon systems. But is the .277 Fury and the Spear what we're looking for?

[mig1nc]

I can see logic in looking for more universal cartridge that can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62. The thing is, they have this pipe dream that the .277 Fury is going to punch through Chinese body armor at 600 yards, which just seems very doubtful. With that in mind, a big argument for going to a overpowered battle rifle cartridge loses credibility. However, if they want to extend the range of both the riflemen and the SAW gunners, I can see the logic of going to a true intermediate round along the lines of that hypothetical 7mm UIAC that was floated about 10 years ago. Yes, it would be added weight, but not nearly as much as going to something like the Fury, and it would extend the range for riflemen.

It would be interesting to see either TVCM or hybrid case technology applied to the 7mm Murray/UIAC concept. Or even something along the lines of the original 6x45 SAW round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Aries144]

What's the advantage? You can add between .25 and .5 lbs to a ceramic plate and stop this new round. There's already a company out there advertising its plates will stop military 6.8x51. This is a boondoggle that serves only to transfer American taxpayer money to SIG. That SIG is getting contracts like this so easily, so quickly should worry people.

The SIG SPEAR weighs too much. An AR10 in the same caliber would sacrifice the folding stock but weigh three pounds less for nearly identical capabilities.

As a service wide infantry rifle, The MCX would add a folding stock, a 5" longer top picatinny rail, a pound or two of weight, a better ability to immediately fire when withdrawn from immersion, and worse resistance to debris trying to enter the ejection port. Many of the other features attempt to improve upper receiver service life, but in practice might instead serve to complicate logistics with multiple small parts and end up with units just buying complete uppers anyway.

SIG is not in the business of making the best weapons available. SIG is in the business of convincing people to give them money, while spending the least amount themselves.

[Alpha-17]

Yeah, I get all that, but the Army's stated goal (one of them) is punching through body armor at distance. So while I don't know what BA the Russians or ChiComs wear but let's use ours as an example: ESAPI, roughly equivalent to Level IV. Unless there's some magic unicorn dust bullet (and there may well be, but for general issue?) the .277 Fury ain't gonna punch through it per the specs of ESAPI/Level IV, let alone at distance. Is that worth the gazilions that will be spent on fielding an entirely new weapon/ammo system that harkens back to humping an M14 around?

For the record I love M14's and have since I was in the Army. Never had to hump one though.....an 81mm mortar tube or bipod probably edges that out though, so I can relate!

Not sure what the answer is. We've been on 5.56mm for 55+ years. All things change as they should evolve over time, especially weapon systems. But is the .277 Fury and the Spear what we're looking for?

Once more, the Army uses the term "defeat" not "punch through" or penetrate. Idea is energy on target. A lot of the talk of going back to 7.62 NATO for body armor used the same argument, and this just ups the energy a bit.

You can add between .25 and .5 lbs to a ceramic plate and stop this new round. There's already a company out there advertising its plates will stop military 6.8x51.

Until we actually get some cartridges type classified, I think any speculation on plates capable of shrugging off 6.8x51 is a bit premature. This is especially true since we (or at least, I) haven't heard word one about what a 6.8x51 AP round is capable of, let alone what it's actual performance stats will be.

[BoringGuy45]

What's the advantage? You can add between .25 and .5 lbs to a ceramic plate and stop this new round. There's already a company out there advertising its plates will stop military 6.8x51. This is a boondoggle that serves only to transfer American taxpayer money to SIG. That SIG is getting contracts like this so easily, so quickly should worry people.

The SIG SPEAR weighs too much. An AR10 in the same caliber would sacrifice the folding stock but weigh three pounds less for nearly identical capabilities.

As a service wide infantry rifle, The MCX would add a folding stock, a 5" longer top picatinny rail, a pound or two of weight, a better ability to immediately fire when withdrawn from immersion, and worse resistance to debris trying to enter the ejection port. Many of the other features attempt to improve upper receiver service life, but in practice might instead serve to complicate logistics with multiple small parts and end up with units just buying complete uppers anyway.

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.

SIG is not in the business of making the best weapons available. SIG is in the business of convincing people to give them money, while spending the least amount themselves.

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.