Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: US Army's New Mk18? SIG SPEAR ASSAULTER K

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Former USA
    Posts
    3,149
    Feedback Score
    0

    US Army's New Mk18? SIG SPEAR ASSAULTER K

    10K barrel life...


    You won't outvote the corruption.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    657
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Double retarded. More taxpayer money for the funnel.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    406
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The 113gr projectile at the velocity they're getting on the chrono is actually pretty wild. Kinda makes me want to build a shorty .308 out of something, as I'm not getting into Sig's .277 business.

    That said, it's probably ultimately pointless.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2024
    Posts
    48
    Feedback Score
    0
    I still don't believe that the M7 will completely replace the M4A1 — regardless of whether they intend for it to or not — much less that its adoption will pan out.

    I suspect that the M7 is in fact intended as a special purpose weapon to be fielded specifically under circumstances in which the M4A1 won't cut it, but is being preemptively pushed as a replacement due to the assumption that the next war we become involved with involved engagement with enemies outside of the effective range of the M4A1 against enemies equipped with armor which was specifically designed to stop M855A1.
    Obviously, it wouldn't be as easy to justify the cost of the SIG MCX Spear if they were upfront about the fact that it is being purchased/fielded to accommodate perceived future battlefield conditions, which may not necessarily occur exactly as planned, so they have to drum it up, making it sound absolutely vital, and indirectly implying that the M4A1 is no longer suitable standard issue equipment for the average soldier.

    Ultimately, I believe that the M4A1 will stick around for decades to come due to its basic utility, even if the M7 does become the standard issue infantry rifle. The M4A1 will still most likely see use within the parameters which have kept the basic design relevant for the past 60+ years, although the design may be tweaked to play to its strengths and enhance its utility. (i.e. less stacking peripherals onto it until it ceases to be a lightweight platform)
    Furthermore, I feel that if we go another 10 years without any major conflicts occurring in which the M7 is entirely necessary standard issue equipment, then troops are apt to complain about the weight of the rifle they're being forced to lug around, and the military will most likely give into pressure from troops to field lighter, more compact rifles like the M4A1.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    825
    Feedback Score
    0
    https://youtu.be/AcYCsNuTU2c?si=2BC5QXGx57QMQZbW

    I think the entire program is a scam. 6.8x51 makes no sense for a general purpose assault rifle for a normal soldier. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or similar makes better sense. Need a DMR? OK, 6.5 Creedmoor or this new round makes sense.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    6,364
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MadAngler1 View Post
    https://youtu.be/AcYCsNuTU2c?si=2BC5QXGx57QMQZbW

    I think the entire program is a scam. 6.8x51 makes no sense for a general purpose assault rifle for a normal soldier. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or similar makes better sense. Need a DMR? OK, 6.5 Creedmoor or this new round makes sense.
    6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC don’t make sense for general issue cartridges, either. They decrease mag capacity, increase weight, and decrease MPBR. Just because you or I can take advantage of the ballistic coefficient of 6.5 Grendel, doesn’t mean that the average Joe can apply his limited range estimation and holdover skills under stress.

    The only thing that makes sense to me, is to continue with the cartridge that we have. The one that all of our allies use and produce.
    RLTW

    “What’s New” button, but without GD: https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php...new&exclude=60 , courtesy of ST911.

    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 and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    825
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 1168 View Post
    6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC don’t make sense for general issue cartridges, either. They decrease mag capacity, increase weight, and decrease MPBR. Just because you or I can take advantage of the ballistic coefficient of 6.5 Grendel, doesn’t mean that the average Joe can apply his limited range estimation and holdover skills under stress.

    The only thing that makes sense to me, is to continue with the cartridge that we have. The one that all of our allies use and produce.
    I was assuming if we had to replace 5.56 NATO. If we wanted a cartridge to replace 5.56 NATO, a short 6 mm based round makes sense to me despite the limitations you pointed out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,532
    Feedback Score
    0
    I read a book about the small arms used since the revolution in the US army. The overall story was between two schools. One is the ‘marksman’ school that wants the best rifle, round and rate of fire for the individual soldier and aimed fire. On the other side is the idea that good-enough is good-enough and slow and massed fire in the general direction is the best plan. I think that distinction is still a thing. With the GWOT and the emphasis on special warfare groups, the individual focused group is winning. But Ukraine and Taiwan would give the other side a use case.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    6,364
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    I read a book about the small arms used since the revolution in the US army. The overall story was between two schools. One is the ‘marksman’ school that wants the best rifle, round and rate of fire for the individual soldier and aimed fire. On the other side is the idea that good-enough is good-enough and slow and massed fire in the general direction is the best plan. I think that distinction is still a thing. With the GWOT and the emphasis on special warfare groups, the individual focused group is winning. But Ukraine and Taiwan would give the other side a use case.
    A blend of the two thoughts you are referring to is common. For example, I think good enough is good enough, when referring to a firearm, but want to take a high-quality approach when it comes to training the user, who also needs to be skilled on at least 4 tasks that don’t directly involve shooting the gun at all.
    RLTW

    “What’s New” button, but without GD: https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php...new&exclude=60 , courtesy of ST911.

    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 and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    343
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    I read a book about the small arms used since the revolution in the US army. The overall story was between two schools. One is the ‘marksman’ school that wants the best rifle, round and rate of fire for the individual soldier and aimed fire. On the other side is the idea that good-enough is good-enough and slow and massed fire in the general direction is the best plan. I think that distinction is still a thing. With the GWOT and the emphasis on special warfare groups, the individual focused group is winning. But Ukraine and Taiwan would give the other side a use case.
    You probably read MisFire by HAllAan (SP), or maybe the Great Rifle Controversy by Ezell. Does the phrase 'Gravel-Belly" ring a bell?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •