Home Main Category General Firearms

Sig XM5 revisited

Gene LGene L Senior MemberPosts: 12,702 Senior Member
edited November 24 in General Firearms #1
I hate to be a negative nelly, but I think  the Sig XM 5 while being superior to the M4 isn't superior enough to make the grade.  It's shooting a 140 gr. bullet at 2400 fps and weighs too much with the optic sight and suppressor.  The ammo weighs a lot more, too.  I know it takes a while in the development of a military rifle but I think the route to a new combat rifle is long and with some potholes.  The barrel is 13" and with a suppressor keeps the performance down and I don't think the suppressor will withstand a lot of rounds.  The rifle is heavier than the M4. And it takes a special round that isn't made here in the US, but will be.  I'm in love with the M 16 concept but I hate to depend on an off-shore company to manufacture our war weapons.

The optic is 1x8 with a lot of options on it which means mass.  I think it's about 10 years too early.  Convince me I'm wrong.  
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,609 Senior Member
    If I can fly a grenade-carrying drone over your foxhole while sitting comfortably in mine, I'm thinking I'll not be too concerned with what the state of the individual infantry weapon is.

    Which is another way of saying we probably need a simpler rifle that's closer to an AK-47 than Han Solo's blaster, since we'll probably be treating it more like a last-ditch backup - forgotten until needed - than we are the "My Rifle" of USMC creed.  A rifle/optic system that works - no matter how neglected - within the closest couple hundred meters where the "big sticks" cannot be easily brought to bear is what's likely needed.

    Size and weight aside, the M4 is ultimately NOT that weapon for the simple fact that you do have to care for it from time to time - - BUT considering it's the weapon we have, that's paid for with an existing logistics train, and if yours quits, there's likely another one laying around, replacing it with a shiny, gadget-filled box seems imprudent.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member

    I'm not really happy with Sig, but it is going to be whatever. I've shot it. It works. It hits the target. But I see it being a logistical/Sustainment nightmare. Bigslug is correct - we need a simple rifle like the AK-47. 

    We do need to move back to a larger caliber, I think 6.8 is the happy medium. Modern Body Armor is looking to defeat the 5.56, and is there. 

    Weight is not an argument, those ideas went out the window when we realized we are not walking across Europe, trying to climb a mountain near the 38th, or hunting Charlie weeks at a time in the bush. 

    I'm not in favor of giving every damn Soldier an optic. For some reason we think that is going to improve their ability to shoot - 

    In all honesty, I think this is more modernization propaganda than anything else. Do we need a larger Caliber - yes. Do we need completely new platforms - no.... 
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    If I can fly a grenade-carrying drone over your foxhole while sitting comfortably in mine, I'm thinking I'll not be too concerned with what the state of the individual infantry weapon is.


    This is a discussion that I got to see the results of first hand. The future of war along this vein is scary AF. 
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Posts: 4,121 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    If I can fly a grenade-carrying drone over your foxhole while sitting comfortably in mine, I'm thinking I'll not be too concerned with what the state of the individual infantry weapon is.


    This is a discussion that I got to see the results of first hand. The future of war along this vein is scary AF. 
    The futures as a civilian is too since any idiot can buy and advanced drone for a few dollars and improvised explosives info is everywhere in the net.  As soon as one crazy figures it out the assault rifle ban debate is out the door…

    It’s a °IIIII° thing 😎

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,609 Senior Member

    Weight is not an argument, those ideas went out the window when we realized we are not walking across Europe, trying to climb a mountain near the 38th, or hunting Charlie weeks at a time in the bush. 
    Weight is probably ALWAYS going to be an argument, if for no other reason than they'll want you to carry something else as well.  And even if you make it shorter and lighter to the point of ridiculousness, they'll still be bitching for shorter and lighter still.

    I'm not in favor of giving every damn Soldier an optic. For some reason we think that is going to improve their ability to shoot - 
    I look at this as taking every reasonable step to help the lowest common denominators succeed in spite of themselves.  I've been frequently working to salvage something useful from the unfortunate results of total newbies being trained by "instructors" who don't themselves fully understand what they're supposed to be teaching.  And I've also found myself frequently mystified by how things we as lifelong shooters consider simple, obvious, and intuitive are anything but to the layman - including the concept of aligning sights.   To that end, we definitely DO NOT want mil-scales and math, but we probably DO want a basic etched reticle with a light-up diode on something that drops to a true 1x, and a holdover reticle that will at least let them correct quickly and saturate somewhat effectively. 

    To me, one of the humorous aspects of the red dot pistol sight is that we firearm instructors have poured decades of our lives into trying to get students NOT to look at their target and keep their focus on their front iron sights. . .and we've largely FAILED in many cases.  The red dots almost feel like a "FINE! Have it your way.  Take this and have fun" method of dealing with that futile effort.   Approaching a generic issue rifle optic with that same resigned attitude is probably "The Way".
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,702 Senior Member
    edited November 24 #7
    Optic sights on M 4s have had an outstanding record of effectiveness.  Don't think the X5 brand of optics is cost effective as well as the added susceptibility of faults, although I may be thinking of these advanced sights in 1960s terms.  Do a search on the X5 and look at what all is expected of the optics.  I suspect the optic will be the first to go.  Second will be the suppressors and the barrel will be lengthened.

    The AK 47 will give you 2400 fps with a what? 124 gr. bullet.  The enemy adopted the AK 74 out of respect for the 5.56 so what does that say?  

    Sig produces a fine weapon.  Henry Chan, on 9-Hole Reviews, cleaned the course with one (5.56, don't know the model) from 150 to 500 yards....with iron sights. Something he'd never done before and he's shot a lot of guns. Any new weapon is going to have growing pains so we can expect them with the 6.8.  I hope the bugs are out before our troops are issued them in large quantities. 
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member
    In 26 years - most of that time as an RTO or other speciality and just over 84 month deployed for GWOT operations, In a time when SOCOM, REF, and other organizations were throwing equipment at issues....weight was never a consideration in regards to lethality.

    Lethality does not have a weight limit - especially in context of the operational environment when Soldiers are not too far from a mounted platform, and are not moving long distances. 

    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,573 Senior Member
    Tips on dealing with drones would be appreciated, my neighbor spent 22 in the 101st and has some opinions, but he has been out for 10 years.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,609 Senior Member
    Along my same "idiot proofing" line of thought.

    The longer-range considerations are I think pointless for most of the average ground-pounders.  No matter how big a case and how much powder you put in it, you won't be able to generate a max point-blank range (for the vast majority of folks that will never consider trajectories, holdovers, or sight adjustments) much beyond 350 yards, and if you go too far down that rabbit hole, recoil becomes a serious training problem and a detriment to short range control of volume fire.

    The goal here (it seems) is to go back to commonality of ammo between the rifleman and the SAW gunner.  In WWII, the Brits took this to the extreme of replacing the dedicated WWI-era stripper-clip pouches for the SMLE on their web gear with general bulk pouches to make every rifleman little more than carriers of extra magazines for their squad's BREN gunners.  This basically rendered their No.4 rifle a seldom-used, ten-pound chunk of exercise equipment.  It's been pretty clear for a long time that the average rifleman and the MG gunner each have very different needs, and trying to square peg one's ammo into the other's round hole seems like a wasted effort.

    The armor piercing problem isn't really a hard one - the hardened steel core of the old .30-06 AP round looks for all the world like a boat-tail .243 bullet, and it will punch through light fiber vehicle armor like it's not even there.  Putting the same kind of thing inside the supersonic version of the .300 Blackout would neatly address the body armor problem, as well as the "let's stick to the ranges our people actually CAN and WILL shoot" problem.

    The major historical problem of small arms development and selection is that it's the serious gun nerds that get tasked with doing it, and they invariably come up with something that appeals to serious gun nerds.  The Buffington rear sight on the Trapdoor and 1903 Springfields are good examples - expensive and complicated competition match "computers" that the average troop won't exploit a tenth the capabilities of (ANY WWI-era rifle with it's 1500+ yard sight, for that matter).  The Sig P320/M17/M18 pistol with its modularity is a similar, unnecessary "Gee Whiz!" boondoggle.  One man's opinion, but I think Sig is working very hard to crank out "lures that catch fishermen" without much consideration to how well they catch fish.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member
    I get it. And, I also understand you have a different perspective. I wasn't in every meeting, I wasn't even in half of them. But, I was in the squadron that identified a capability gap, determined what was need to close the gap, and pushed it to the pentagon and the SAC. 

    The M4 and the M249 (Saw) both shoot the same Ammunition. In fact, the SAW will take a M4 magazine.

    140 grain, .277 Fury is at 3000fps from a 16 inch barrel. 20fps less than the 62gr 5.56.

    Also, according to ATEC, the .277 Fury does not require much of a range fan change that other tested rounds would require. Meaning we don't have to dump money into redesigning every range..

    I don't think you're wrong about SIG. However, acquisition in the Army are about who has the most rank, with the biggest conflict of interest. 
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,702 Senior Member
    edited November 24 #12
    The military version of the Fury has a 13" barrel and is doing around 2400 according to Wikipedia. And a special two-part cartridge to withstand the pressure.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,993 Senior Member
    The special two part cartridge is part of the original Fury design. 
    I'm just here for snark.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    The military version of the Fury has a 13" barrel and is doing around 2400 according to Wikipedia. And a special two-part cartridge to withstand the pressure.
    The rifle - XM5 ( until official M designation) has a 13 inch barrel. The military .277 Fury round is hybrid to with stand the 80K pressure. 
    The ballistics against the 5.56, with same barrel length, are very comparable. Note the 13 inch barrel 

     

    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,702 Senior Member
    From what I read, the two part cartridge is expensive and the military will train on regular cartridges.  I find it curious that a bi-metal cartridge will only be used in combat zones.  Which, thank God, we don't have at this time. Ammo will be outsourced to Sig or whoever loads for them.  I certainly don't see any advantage for civilian use.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JaphyJaphy Posts: 389 Member
    In my engineering experience a few lessons and concepts have recurred throughout 
    1. add components reliability and availability drop exponentially. 
    2. Simple designs are ALWAYS superior
    3. Simple is NOT easy 

    definition of exact requirements and distilling those requirements to the minimum set is paramount. Success does not come from creeping requirements, wish lists, or the “wouldn’t that be cool” influences. A major problem is few are ever willing to pay for the real engineering to get to the minimal design

    military equipment must work every time, all the time and under all circumstances reliability trumps all. 
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,702 Senior Member
    There has always been a breaking in time for military rifles.  I'm thinking here about the M 16 which took a few years to become effective.  From 1965 to about 1969 or longer.  The problem has always been "solved" by throwing money at it and I'm concerned that throwing money at a heavy rifle with performance not much better than the 7.62 x 39 in an immensely complex rifle gives me pause.   
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JaphyJaphy Posts: 389 Member
    Gene L said:
    There has always been a breaking in time for military rifles.  I'm thinking here about the M 16 which took a few years to become effective.  From 1965 to about 1969 or longer.  The problem has always been "solved" by throwing money at it and I'm concerned that throwing money at a heavy rifle with performance not much better than the 7.62 x 39 in an immensely complex rifle gives me pause.   
    Re-engineering is ALWAYS more expensive in both cost and time and at best works only to salvage an initially deficient design. If the M16 required 4 years of break in to run out bugs the requirements were incomplete and not fully understood or implemented. 
    There is a always a push to utilize and or repurpose existing design to save cost and development time that results in a compromised product.
  • Uncle FesterUncle Fester Senior Member Posts: 1,622 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 said:
    Tips on dealing with drones would be appreciated, my neighbor spent 22 in the 101st and has some opinions, but he has been out for 10 years.
    Shoot them down.
  • Uncle FesterUncle Fester Senior Member Posts: 1,622 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    There has always been a breaking in time for military rifles.  I'm thinking here about the M 16 which took a few years to become effective.  From 1965 to about 1969 or longer.  The problem has always been "solved" by throwing money at it and I'm concerned that throwing money at a heavy rifle with performance not much better than the 7.62 x 39 in an immensely complex rifle gives me pause.   
    Did you mean Nato? The AK round is simply not in the ballpark of the new round. The new round is simply an update on the 7.62 NATO round.  The new round appears optimized for the new machine gun.

     In terms of the actual rifle, it does seem overly complex/innovative to me.  Looks like an updated gas piston rifle design. They main complexity is the optic which can easily be replaced with something lighter if the need arises.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,702 Senior Member
    .
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,567 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    There has always been a breaking in time for military rifles.  I'm thinking here about the M 16 which took a few years to become effective.  From 1965 to about 1969 or longer.  The problem has always been "solved" by throwing money at it and I'm concerned that throwing money at a heavy rifle with performance not much better than the 7.62 x 39 in an immensely complex rifle gives me pause.   
    Did you mean Nato? The AK round is simply not in the ballpark of the new round. The new round is simply an update on the 7.62 NATO round.  The new round appears optimized for the new machine gun.

     In terms of the actual rifle, it does seem overly complex/innovative to me.  Looks like an updated gas piston rifle design. They main complexity is the optic which can easily be replaced with something lighter if the need arises.
    Yes, this round has similar trajectory ballistics to 5.56. 


    However, unless you’re in SOCOM, nothing is easily replaced in the military. 
    We have a serious maintenance/sustainment problem in the force right now. And, it is not getting better. 
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement