Popular Mechanics shoots the new military arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Riomouse911

Riomouse911

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
11,887
Location
Ca.
apple.news

Here’s What It’s Really Like to Shoot the Army’s New Rifle and Machine Gun — Popular Mechanics

The new M7 rifle and M250 machine gun are designed to give U.S. soldiers the upper hand in the global shooting match.
apple.news apple.news

I hope the link works, Popular Mechanics sent a writer to SIG Sauers training center in New Hampshire to check out and shoot the military’s future rifle and SAW.

It’s written by a gun neophyte, which is obvious by some of the stuff stated (higher pressure equals greater accuracy, etc.) but it is sort of nice seeing a beginners impression of these arms. (Many soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines first encounter with firearms is in basic.)

I wish they could have delved into the improvements made to the guns to handle volumes of fire from 80,000 psi ammo, but take it for what it’s worth. If things go as planned it looks like our forces should be getting a heavier, but more lethal, fighting carbine in the next few years.

Stay safe.
 
Riomouse911 said:
apple.news

Here’s What It’s Really Like to Shoot the Army’s New Rifle and Machine Gun — Popular Mechanics

The new M7 rifle and M250 machine gun are designed to give U.S. soldiers the upper hand in the global shooting match.
apple.news apple.news

I hope the link works, Popular Mechanics sent a writer to SIG Sauers training center in New Hampshire to check out and shoot the military’s future rifle and SAW.

It’s written by a gun neophyte, which is obvious by some of the stuff stated (higher pressure equals greater accuracy, etc.) but it is sort of nice seeing a beginners impression of these arms. (Many soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines first encounter with firearms is in basic.)

I wish they could have delved into the improvements made to the guns to handle volumes of fire from 80,000 psi ammo, but take it for what it’s worth. If things go as planned it looks like our forces should be getting a heavier, but more lethal, fighting carbine in the next few years.

Stay safe.
Click to expand...

Looks like I have to subscribe to read it. Arrrgh.
 
If you can open it still OP, you can screen shot all the parts of the article.

Then you can post it here for everyone to read.
 
OK! Finally! Buried within the article (think hidden) is the new caliber. It's ...

''but most meaningfully, they’ll fire punchier, longer-ranged 6.8-millimeter ammunition compared to the 5.56-millimeter ammo fired by the M4/M249.''

Buried even deeper in the clickable link to 2022 article almost to bottom...

''Both weapons will be chambered for the new 6.8-millimeter (.277-caliber) round, which the Army describes as superior in lethality and range to common battlefield rounds such as 5.56-millimeter and 7.62-millimeter.''

Just in case no one had heard about the new caliber :)
 
I remember back in the 60s, PM did a similar report on the "new" M16. They claimed the bullet was so fast that even normal non-lethal hits would turn the tissue surrounding the wound to "mush" and that the projectiles were intended to "tumble" in order to create more damage using bullets that fit into the category deemed by the Hague Declaration.

Being 12-14 at the time, I actually believed them. Didn't take me long to realize they didn't have a clue.
 
I look at PM like Consumer Reports. Sometimes they know very little or have clue about what they are reporting on.

Due to a very bad oilfield bust which is our main industry here our son became '80's Army and was close to being too old to join. I had taught him to shoot as soon as he was old enough to hold up a little single shot 22 and when I was satisfied he was safe enough to turn loose he stared rabbit hunting across the road in front of home. It was several sections of land and the owner had no objection so he spent a lot of time there. On the first range trip in basic he shot expert with the worn out ARs they had. No others knew squat about shooting and his reward for being able to shoot so well was to be detailed to help the others. Oh goody, no shooting, just work at the range plus continuous chewing outs for not shaving close enough. He finally got it across that since he was no longer an 18 year old he had five o'clock shadow as soon as he put down his razor
 
I wonder if they fired the 80K pressure ammo or the lower pressure training rounds. Every review I've seen references the 80K rounds but have not seen many that have actually fired those rounds, if any. I can speculate with the best of them, and I am dubious how widespread the actual 80K rounds will end up being. Thus, taxpayers will end up spending a lot of money on a necked down .308 Win in a heavier than necessary rifle. Don't get me started on the boulder of a sighting system.

My iron sighted M16A1 and A2s suited me fine back in the day, but I was probably too young and stupid to know any different.
 
Riomouse911 said:
... .

It’s written by a gun neophyte, which is obvious by some of the stuff stated (higher pressure equals greater accuracy, etc.) but it is sort of nice seeing a beginners impression of these arms. (Many soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines first encounter with firearms is in basic.)

...
Click to expand...

Well, if they had sent someone from THR, they would have said the new caliber will do nothing better than the old 270 Winchester 😆

I do like that fact that our military is pushing the envelope to give us an edge over the enemy.
 
buck460XVR said:
I remember back in the 60s, PM did a similar report on the "new" M16. They claimed the bullet was so fast that even normal non-lethal hits would turn the tissue surrounding the wound to "mush" and that the projectiles were intended to "tumble" in order to create more damage using bullets that fit into the category deemed by the Hague Declaration.

Being 12-14 at the time, I actually believed them. Didn't take me long to realize they didn't have a clue.
Click to expand...
People still repeat this stuff, and I mean younger generations.

The greatest tradition we have is spreading bad data from one generation to the next.
 
I have never been a AR fan or a 5.56 fan. When my state started talking about banning AR's I decided it was time for me to finally purchase one. With all the AR options out there it is kind of mind numbing. I decided to purchase just one AR and purchase the best available instead of a half dozen cheap AR's like many seem to do. I purchased a SIG MCX Spear LT with 16" 5.56 barrel. After getting a Tax Stamp I added a 6.5" 300 AAC blackout barrel.

The 16" 5.56 barrel makes the gun a touch front heavy with accessories but pretty well balanced without accessories. The 6.5" 300AAC barrel with the folding stock makes a very nice compact pretty lite weight package with what I consider to be a much better round.

I realize that the military is adopting the larger, heavier rifle comparable to the SIG Spear, not the SIG Spear LT. But I do have to say that they chose a very fine rifle and finally figured it out with the new 6.8 ammo.

I have some Swedish military rifles in 6.5 x 55 that are 100+ years old. I don't understand why it took the US military so long to figure out what the Sweeds figured out 100+ years ago?

P.S. I was able to open the article and it was basically "Nothing worse than carrying a varmint round and shooting an enemy only to have the enemy not go down after a hit because you are under gunned."
 
Last edited:
This is actually quite old news. And it shows how deep the dog-and-pony show will go that they have not gotten around to PM for coverage.

The part that does not get a lot of scrutiny is that the current pricetag is for only 2500 weapons (2/3 of those the proposed SAW replacement, XM250). Despite dozens of headlines to the contrary this new wonder round is not "replacing" anything.

Scuttlebutt out of Crane is that they are asking for RFP to have the XM250 set up on 7.62x51 rather than the whiz-bang 6.8x51, as ammo is already available, and not special order and functionally still in Beta testing.
 
hso said:
And violate copyright law and the THR Code of Conduct.
Click to expand...
It does not necessarily violate copyright law since he gave credit to the publication it was in. And it was shared in the spirit of fair use for purposes of commentary and criticism. Might have been more appropriate to not copy and paste the entire article but limited parts to discuss in particular.
 
citizenconn said:
It does not necessarily violate copyright law since he gave credit to the publication it was in. And it was shared in the spirit of fair use for purposes of commentary and criticism.
Click to expand...
It being behind a pay wall and copying the entire article instead of simply part of it is the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Homeland Tours: Soldiers in our Streets?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
Tactical shooting: A new take on weekend recreation
Replies
1
Views
735
Preacherman
P
C
  • Locked
Military Approves FN SCAR System for Full-Rate Production
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
rtz
R
Shawn Dodson
  • Locked
Army's Proposed New M855A1 to Use Solid Copper Bullet
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
42K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
T
  • Locked
This, from today's New York Times
Replies
1
Views
503
Car Knocker
C
Back
Top