Thoughts on these new Sig military rifles?

[illinoisburt]

Drones concern me much more than a conscript at 800 meters. Even if the conscript has plate armor and safety glasses.

Seeing combat footage from Ukraine these days seems to bear that out! Lots of drones flying around there dropping grenades and mortar bombs through windows and behind walls.

Im not the biggest fan of the dual component cartridge cases. It seems like they would be less durable and likely prone to being breakage when a gun does inevitably get jammed up.

 

[DeepSouth]

I’m glad to see a side charging handle, I despise rear charging handles to a point of unreasonableness.

That said I’m probably the last guy that should be consulted on military weapons. That should be left up to the people that use them for their intended purpose, in my view anyway.

 

[CapnMac]

like rifle fired EFPs* that melt through armor. Hopefully someone is also working on anti-drone 40mm EMPs** with air-burst capability. Drones concern me much more than a conscript at 800 meters. Even if the conscript has plate armor and safety glasses.

Would need some unique physics to get EFP down to 40mm size projectiles (now of the missile & mine launched ones as 50-70mm diameter--you need a definite amount of explosives to both compress and accelerate the copper slug).

EMP is not nearly as easy as too many in the popular press make it sound. The amount of magnetic flux needed beggars imagination, and the range of the effect is very much limited by inverse cube root functions. So, getting the effect to be "effective" much beyond a projectile diameter is extremely problematic. That, and if you can get your projectile that close to the target, it's far easier to just defeat that target with time-tested proximity fusing (if not a direct kinetic kill).

Current research is leaning strongly toward just using simple microwave energy or RF jamming to feat drones. Defeat the date link back to the operator, or the motion/location sensors on the drone, and it stops being very effective. There's some very interesting stuff going on in signals intercept/electronic warfare side of things which are very much "My, look how nice the weather is today . . ."

The other real question with the 6.8x51 ammo is, with infantry engagement ranges dropping to well under 300m, and very often 150m (having to identify targets to comply with ROE is a real thing), just what use is 1000m ammo. We already have any number of weapons for engaging enemy forces at a kilometer. We have any number which are even better to 4-5 km, and we have been requiring Infantry to lug around mortars for right at a century now--proven tech, too.

 

[mshootnit]

the future comes whether we want it to or not. 80,000 psi vs 40,000 psi,
Blackpowder vs. smokeless.
Loading from the breech is too dangerous and complicated they thought. We can reason our way back to muzzleloaders with 30" barrels if we want to, but the future always comes and we have to deal with it.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

the future comes whether we want it to or not. 80,000 psi vs 40,000 psi,
Blackpowder vs. smokeless.
Loading from the breech is too dangerous and complicated they thought. We can reason our way back to muzzleloaders with 30" barrels if we want to, but the future always comes and we have to deal with it.

Smokeless offered new capabilities and clear advantages over any previously available weapons systems.
This. Does. Not.

 

[21H40]

Engaging

Would need some unique physics to get EFP down to 40mm size projectiles (now of the missile & mine launched ones as 50-70mm diameter--you need a definite amount of explosives to both compress and accelerate the copper slug).

EMP is not nearly as easy as too many in the popular press make it sound. The amount of magnetic flux needed beggars imagination, and the range of the effect is very much limited by inverse cube root functions. So, getting the effect to be "effective" much beyond a projectile diameter is extremely problematic. That, and if you can get your projectile that close to the target, it's far easier to just defeat that target with time-tested proximity fusing (if not a direct kinetic kill).

Current research is leaning strongly toward just using simple microwave energy or RF jamming to feat drones. Defeat the date link back to the operator, or the motion/location sensors on the drone, and it stops being very effective. There's some very interesting stuff going on in signals intercept/electronic warfare side of things which are very much "My, look how nice the weather is today . . ."

The other real question with the 6.8x51 ammo is, with infantry engagement ranges dropping to well under 300m, and very often 150m (having to identify targets to comply with ROE is a real thing), just what use is 1000m ammo. We already have any number of weapons for engaging enemy forces at a kilometer. We have any number which are even better to 4-5 km, and we have been requiring Infantry to lug around mortars for right at a century now--proven tech, too.

Drones are without a doubt the future, and swarms of AI-empowered ones are not too far away. Have you seen what they can do for marketing stunts with swarms? Yeah. The potential military drone applications with interlocking communications and having the swarm able to identify targets and work with minimum input from a human is the future. No rifle will balance this out.

You're on to something with the ROE. These rifles assume a WWI battlefield where civilians are long gone, or a small SF team who can sneak into a place and engage a few specific targets. We had to wait until we were fired upon to return fire. That means anyone 300 meters away was called in so something flying could deal with them. There was so much pressure to avoid killing anyone who might look like a civilian that it wasn't worth shooting at them.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any other situations where these new capabilities make sense. Seriously, can anyone explain to me how this is a significant improvement over what we have now?

 

[westernrover]

My thoughts.

Not every adversary encountered on the battlefield will be armored like a juggernaut in a Call of Duty video game so why spend billions re-equipping the entire force to face this unlikely scenario.

My opinion is this is just another needless cash dump into the an already bloated military/industrial complex.

Besides, how would any of this further the inclusion of gender-fluid soldiers and drag queens into the military culture, which seems to be the chief mission these days

*climbs down from his soap box*

We already know the performance of this rifle with non-tungsten AP bullets. It does not do anything special. To make any effective use of this system, would require tungsten AP, but projectiles of the same composition used in more ordinary, existing rifles would also perform with only a marginal gain going to the higher pressure system. It's a huge expense for a marginal gain that's totally dependent on special material bullets that the US does not have enough of.

Given current conditions, it seems like the US would probably be better off producing a lot more artillery ammunition and cutting these high-cost programs that just enrich defense contractors and win points for the congressmen who bring the winnings back to their states and districts.

 

[westernrover]

Drones, both DJI-size and Predator/Reaper size, are vital for the dwell time they add over manned aircraft for surveillance and foreward observation. They obviously have an abundance of uses where there are no air defenses or anti-drone weaponry. In an environment with sophisticated radar air defense, anti-drone tech, including electronic countermeasures, jamming, and sophisticated radar-directed mobile anti-drone systems (ie Rheinmetall's Oerlikon Skyranger), drones become ineffective. The cheap drones we see being used in Ukraine could easily be defeated simply by jamming the radio frequencies they're controlled with. As drones get more and more costly to harden against defenses, plain old artillery looks better and better. Ukraine is expending as many as 7000 shells every day and will consume millions in the course. Consider that the US can produce about 14,000 155mm shells per month. Ukraine is going through current monthly US production capacity in a matter of days. Suppose the US sees a large expansion in the theater of operations and it becomes evident it needs explosive shells more than it needs a fancier way of delivering them using lithium batteries and quad-copters with FPOV game pads. I've read the plan is to double artillery shell production capacity this year, and to increase it six-fold over the next five years.

Consider that unguided 155mm 777 shells are said to cost about $800 a piece. I doubt the governments price of an XM-5 aka XM-7 is more than that, and they're anticipating ordereding a little over 100,000 of them. They certainly won't need more than 1 million. 155mm shells? The current stockpile isn't publicly known, but it would seem rational and sane to add 10 million to it. Drones? They'll certainly have their niche.

 

[CapnMac]

I doubt the governments price of an XM-5 aka XM-7 is more than that, and they're anticipating ordereding a little over 100,000 of them.

Er, the entire 6.8x51 program is US$4.6 billion, for 2500 weapons. And the ammo, both hot stuff and wimpy.

Not that those numbers are yet another red flag on this thing.

 

[12Bravo20]

Er, the entire 6.8x51 program is US$4.6 billion, for 2500 weapons. And the ammo, both hot stuff and wimpy.

Not that those numbers are yet another red flag on this thing.

One has to remember that there are other things included in that price. Spare parts, training, and maintenance over the life of the weapon are included in the total price.

But I agree that is too much for this program.

 

[Terry G]

I saw a NVA Lieutenant shot dead at 20 yards with one M-16 round to his BICEP. Medic couldn't figure it out. Shock, he thought. I heard about a VC taking a three round burst to the stomach from an M-60 machine gun and later walked to a Fire Base three thousand meters away to surrender. Two months later he was a Kit Carson Scout. A 5.56 will put a man down quite nicely. I always like Jeff Coopers writing, but his thoughts were some times dated. His wartime experiences were with .30/06 and .45 ACP equipment, not modern stuff.

 

[d2wing]

Between good luck and sheer will to live, some guys can go a long wsys after taking egregious wounds. Some even survive.

In 2005 our snipers shot an IED switchman off a roof at a distance of roughly 200 meters. The 175 SMK 7.62 Nato hit him in the side of the lower chest (side profile shot) and exited the other side of his chest, which ripped open the side of the abdomen as well. Guy ran off the roof, through the building, outside, and part way down the block before he collapsed. He ran a good 150 yards. Even had a few feet of intestines hanging out of the exit wound.

One of the tanks shot a RPG gunner with 7.62 from it's coax. Guy was hunched over running away after firing the RPG and the round hit him in the lower back and excited one of his nipples. I can't remember which one anymore. Distance was about 100 meters. We found him laying in the grass a good 30 minutes after the ambush. He was still alive and moving around. He even got med-evac back at the FOB. I've heard both that he lived and died, so I don't know what happened to that guy.

Also that deployment I shot a guy at 400 meters with my SDM-R 5.56. My range estimation was off so instead of hitting him in the chest I hit him in the lower abdomen, just below the belly button. The round exited his lower back in two pieces. That shot dropped him instantly and he was completely out of the fight. Showed up dead at the hospital a couple days later.

Does that mean I think 5.56 is more effective than 7.62 Nato? Not at all. But it just shows that sometimes weird things happen. Usually a good COM shot to the torso with a rifle at reasonable ranges results in the guy falling down and immediately taken out of the fight. But that isn't always the case.

I was issued both the M-14 and M-16. I liked both. Some early guys had serious issues with the M-16 and hated it due to jams. But I have never heard anyone say the 5.56 NATO was not effective. I also agree that the M2 .50 Cal. was most effective. FMJ bullet results can be unpredictable. But I have seen that with expanding hunting bullets too.
As far as the new weapon is concerned, I have my doubts about unforeseen problems like any new weapon.

 

[C-grunt]

I was able to talk to some guys involved in the testing process. From what they say, it's a fantastic rifle. I just don't see is going back to a battle rifle and changing to a non standard cartridge.

 

[P89DCSS]

....Much better than the glorified .22 poodle shooter round.

Did you receive sufficient feedback on your false claim about 556 being inadequate to stop making the comment?

 

[Hunter 08]

The reasoning with going to the .277 Fury 6.8x51mm is to defeat body armor, specifically Chinese body armor. Or at least that's what the rumor mill was spouting. Why they went with an 80k psi round instead of 7.62 NATO? Better ballistics maybe? Supposedly the barrel life is supposed to be very similar to .308 but that was just speculation. I like the design of the rifle and machine gun, would hate to be the Grunt that has to lug all that gear plus body armor and whatever else the normal combat load is.

 

[Crosshair]

Well from my understanding the switch is based on shifting from an army geared towards fighting insurgents and terrorists to an army geared towards near peer adversaries.

The logic being near peer adversaries would be better trained and better equipped than the past enemies we have faced. (ie. proper armor)

now whether they are still thinking that after this whole Russia/Ukraine deal is too be seen. But I am pretty sure near peer adversaries means Russia and China.

Now we see that the assumptions that went into this program have been tossed out the window by what modern peer level combat is really like.

Anyone, who isn't a sniper, that tries to take a 400+ yard shot is typically just identifying themselves for enemy artillery and drones.

Russian pre-2022 doctrine is proving to be more correct, that airspace WILL be contested at all times and units need plenty of integrated SPAA. Airpower, while important, will augment the tube/rocket artillery. Not the other way around. Artillery, and lots of it, will continue to be king.

 

[Crosshair]

In an environment with sophisticated radar air defense, anti-drone tech, including electronic countermeasures, jamming, and sophisticated radar-directed mobile anti-drone systems (ie Rheinmetall's Oerlikon Skyranger), drones become ineffective. The cheap drones we see being used in Ukraine could easily be defeated simply by jamming the radio frequencies they're controlled with.

As someone who consumes alternate media, this is exactly what is happening. Early on, drones did have pretty free reign. By the end of summer, the Russian Electronics Warfare and air defence units were really was laying down the hurt on drone operations. The jamming, both drone control and GPS, is not ubiquitous across the front and small drones can operate in these areas. High value areas are under nearly constant EW countermeasures though. SPAA radars have been tuned to better detect the smaller drones. The larger drones have been effectively swept from the sky. Obviously nothing is 100% and things ocasuonall get though on both sides.

 

[21H40]

I was able to talk to some guys involved in the testing process. From what they say, it's a fantastic rifle. I just don't see is going back to a battle rifle and changing to a non standard cartridge.

Did they talk about how it was expected to be used? A lot of this feels like the stories about the Army adopting the M-14 because it worked well on the range and the primary decision makers were focused on rifle range type operations.

I still think this doesn't provide the "next level" in performance to make the additional weight (never mind the cost) worthwhile. Now if it also pierced T-72 armor at 1000 meters, then it would be much more interesting. Still outdated and unusable in policing or counter insurgency environments where noncombatants exist, but more interesting.

 

[upptick]

Interesting.


Thoughts?




https://twitter.com/sigsauerinc/status/1654211998765252609?t=qdoeLxFcq9rL_amglLsplw&s=19





View attachment 1149606 View attachment 1149607 View attachment 1149608 View attachment 1149609

Given that the U.S. has lost or fought to a draw all of its wars since WW2 (okay, I'll admit that we beat the 300 Cuban construction workers in Grenada) but somehow continues support a gigantic defense industry, it would seem that the ONLY entity to benefit from this new contract is Sig Sauer. In other words -- like others have mentioned -- there does not seem to be any military advantage to adopting the new rifle.

 

[C-grunt]

Did they talk about how it was expected to be used? A lot of this feels like the stories about the Army adopting the M-14 because it worked well on the range and the primary decision makers were focused on rifle range type operations.

I still think this doesn't provide the "next level" in performance to make the additional weight (never mind the cost) worthwhile. Now if it also pierced T-72 armor at 1000 meters, then it would be much more interesting. Still outdated and unusable in policing or counter insurgency environments where noncombatants exist, but more interesting.

Very short conversation with them at the Infantry Museum. Just asked a few questions about the rifle. The short of it: It's a fantastic battle rifle that has all the same pros and cons of a battle rifle.

 

[Mosin77]

Everyone rightfully decries this as a bad idea for the average soldier when the M4 et al. are so capable and versatile. That said…

Given how at the beginning of the Afghan campaign, we found ourselves, as I recall, scrambling for 7.62x51 rifles due to the long distances, even to the extremity, as some news reports of the time claimed, of private-purchasing rifles from US gunshops, is it a terrible idea to adopt this new battle rifle for limited issue strictly to those units that might need it, due to mission or terrain?

 

[CapnMac]

is it a terrible idea to adopt this new battle rifle for limited issue strictly to those units that might need it, due to mission or terrain?

Not per se, if that is required (predicting future mission needs is a voodoo of its very own). The question then becomes why use a brand new, fourth, caliber to the mix, rather than just using the functionally similar 7.62x51. Which will be required in inventory for all the vehicle-mounted 240 MGs along with aviation weapons.

Even within the Services, there remains considerable debate about equipping DMR with a different caliber versus just giving them better long-range sights. That, along with the whole question about how many DMR to have in the Table of Organization.

Let's presuppose a need is identified that two 7.62 DMR are wanted per Platoon. Do you then 'short' two of the three Rifle Squads, or do you stick them in the Weapons Squad (where they may wind up being more needed as AG). If they are in the Rifle Squads, how do you cope when you are under-strength? Logistically, there will be a reflex to dump the DMR into Weapons Platoon, as they already have enough atypical Supply needs. But, a Squad Leader will need to go 'past' (or through) the Platoon Leader to call for DMR support at the pointy end.

Now, that's not a huge deal, as long as you are using 7.62x51, the MG guys can spot the DMR guys ammo out of their belts, as it's only 60-80 rounds per DMR (or Battalion Supply can just add a couple of cans of ammo to the Supply drop in the truckload needed). Now, add in 6.8x51, and now you have a unique bit of ammo. Which will have to not get lost moving down from Regiment to Battalion to Company.

It's very tricky to think in terms of the needs of 700 or 1200 troops at a time.

 

[CapnMac]

if it also pierced T-72 armor at 1000 meters

Lol, that's easy, you just need to get a 55x800(ish)mm penetrator rod up to around 3500fps. (Probably good to 2.5km, actually.)

You want that performance at 3-4KM, that needs a 77x1200(ish)mm rod goosed up to past 4000fps.

Ok, so those, you wan a two-foot long tank cannon cartridge behind them, so, maybe not man-portable.

 

[dweis]

I would stick with the Marines M27 and fine H&K rifle.

 

[Mosin77]

Not per se, if that is required (predicting future mission needs is a voodoo of its very own). The question then becomes why use a brand new, fourth, caliber to the mix, rather than just using the functionally similar 7.62x51. Which will be required in inventory for all the vehicle-mounted 240 MGs along with aviation weapons.

Even within the Services, there remains considerable debate about equipping DMR with a different caliber versus just giving them better long-range sights. That, along with the whole question about how many DMR to have in the Table of Organization.

Let's presuppose a need is identified that two 7.62 DMR are wanted per Platoon. Do you then 'short' two of the three Rifle Squads, or do you stick them in the Weapons Squad (where they may wind up being more needed as AG). If they are in the Rifle Squads, how do you cope when you are under-strength? Logistically, there will be a reflex to dump the DMR into Weapons Platoon, as they already have enough atypical Supply needs. But, a Squad Leader will need to go 'past' (or through) the Platoon Leader to call for DMR support at the pointy end.

Now, that's not a huge deal, as long as you are using 7.62x51, the MG guys can spot the DMR guys ammo out of their belts, as it's only 60-80 rounds per DMR (or Battalion Supply can just add a couple of cans of ammo to the Supply drop in the truckload needed). Now, add in 6.8x51, and now you have a unique bit of ammo. Which will have to not get lost moving down from Regiment to Battalion to Company.

It's very tricky to think in terms of the needs of 700 or 1200 troops at a time.

Thanks for the very thorough answer. The question would then seem to be “is the trick new ammo good enough to justify reequipping the whole army with eventually, or is 7.62x51 almost as good, at vastly reduced cost.”

I think for a civilian today, it’s easy to assume that because my Amazon order gets here quick and accurately, that logistically in the 21st century, surely an extra caliber wouldn’t be THAT challenging to distribute where it’s needed through the existing supply chain. But of course, the government isn’t Amazon, and a warzone is a vastly different environment than a fixed address in a city.