YOu have never heard of $20,000 toilet seats? or a hammer? 😁

 

So fitting . . . seeing as it's "Independence Day" soon . . . LoL!

 

It’s called spend it, or lose it. And have a reduced budget next year.

nobody has ever accused the military complex of being frugal with tax payer money.

 

Universally applied to most 99.999999% of government contracts at all levels, not just military exclusive. There are more money governments wasted. Whenever money are issues, politicians find more way to get money out of our pockets.

 

I read that the M110 is being replaced because it doesn't do well suppressed. I hope it comes to fruition so I can gleefully point out to the "sHoRtEsT sErViCe LifE" crowd that as a DMR the M14 lasted nearly 4 times longer than the AR-10, haha.

 

The problem with this thing is the same problem with the F35 — ordered to be jack of all trades, replace everything. And it’ll be another money pit.

Just have an arsenal of various tools for various jobs. Jungle warfare? Grab the M4s. Mountain warfare? Grab the SCAR 17s, HKs, or these new things.

Clearing houses? They shot Bin Laden in the face three times, point blank, with 77gr hollow points. Seemed to work fine.

 

If the M5 ever does see the light of day I hope the military goes all in and we do not wind up with another boondoggle weapon. I am not too sure about the chamber pressures but people smarter than I figured that one out. We need to identify the best equipment for warfighters and supply them with it so they can do their jobs. A lot of the gear I see my son issued I would have coveted in my time.

 

The last adventure in rifle replacement, the 6.8, developed by Rem Arms, and the US Army Markmanship unit was a complete waste of money. It never measured up to the requested velocity standards without blowing up.
Now we have another 8-9 lb rifle developed by Sig Sauer in 6.8 caliber that, from what I've read, is a great shooter, with all the fancy sights and stuff, but very expensive to produce. This rifle is to replace the M4, M16, and M14.
I doubt very much that the M5 will ever be standard issue to our troops, if produced at all. I can see the M5 as a replacement for the M14 to select troops, but not all.
I'm confused that an AR10 could have been rechambered and Tuned up to meet the so called steel plate penetration request, without spending $billions.
I realize that I'm not in the chase, but why spend a fortune for something we already have available?

Cmarsh164 CWO4 USCG (ret)

I know we have discussed this in other threads but my biggest concern is actually less about changing service rifles and more with an entirely new caliber. The Army changing calibers to a new caliber will play logistical nightmares among the Services and NATO during mass conflict. I would guess that concern is why they never went with their 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel the last time there was an attempt to move away from 5.56.

 

I give the Russians credit! They saved that million dollars used on a pen and just used #2 school yard/classroom pencils.

 

I get that everything is signed, etc but I don't see this new M5 rifle going all the way. I suspect this program will be scrapped.

 

I’ll say it again, the Army wanted to replace the old M249 Squad Automatic light machine guns with something that provides much more effective range, much more kinetic energy (to defleat modern body armor), and possibly wanted more accuracy. (M249s are not accurate weapons).

They told industry that they wanted a 1200 meter effective of range (presumably) for a new light machine gun with a cartridge that weighs equal or less than common M80 7.62 ammo. The high pressure 6.8x51 with hybrid-case was thus developed to meet that requirement. (Along with the innovative composite-cased True Velocity ammo that was ultimately not selected). Presumably Big Army also decided that since the M4 w/ M855 ammo was limited to 300 meter effective range, it would be best to have a new replacement infantry rifle using the same caliber (as the forthcoming light machine gun), with a 600 meter effective range - given that was one of the main battle field "lessons learned" in Afghanistan (and to some extent Iraq).

A 2021 dated Army document refers to fielding a “reduced range“ ammo during Fiscal Year 2023, which is presumably for the M5 infantry rifle.

So time will tell, but a new and more capable squad light machine gun was the genesis of the NGWS program, and the XM5 with lower pressure ammo was a secondary development. My understanding is that both platforms can use either ammo, and a program to retrofit the M240 7.62 machine guns to the new 6.8 caliber is underway. Again, Big Army wanted a light machine gun with a 1200 meter range, and that requirement is driving the program.

Fwiw, I think a common Army infantry solider with a new M5 (6.8x51 ammo and a 1-6x optic) will be more effective and more lethal compared to a common Army Infantry soldier with an M4 (5.56x45 ammo and perhaps a 3.5x ACOG) - when it comes to battle field fights. Along with the M250 light machine gun, they will no longer be out-gunned in a place like Afghanistan, etc.

I agree that NATO adoption is likely a real issue.

 

Change the bullets core to tungsten. I believe some WW2 surplus tungsten German 8mm rounds that weigh about 173 hrs can be found and have a dramatic affect on level four body armor. Now they could do the same with a 7.62x51 and not have to change anything. I think they already have them in stock for 7.62x51 & 5.56x45 AP. Improve the ammo is cheaper than any new play pretty.

 

I’m a M5 hater, I thought the M80A1 penetrated Level IV. I guess not!

 

The change will happen and it is Big Army's way of modernizing their weapons.

The Marines will stay with M4's until the new weapons have been proven. And the M14 will stay around unless they are given away to the UK's. No matter what the 5.56 and the 7.62 will be around 20 more years as secondary weapons.

 

They have to give big money to the contractors in order to get their kickbacks.....somebody has to pay for those $4000.00 refrigerators .....

 

I've been reading seemingly reputable sources that cite the 6.8x51 round runs at 80,000 PSI. It sounds like the ammunition had to be to this pressure level in order to get the specified velocities and energy levels required out of the relatively short barrel of the SIG platform. This is why the other entrants in the competition offered bullpup configurations to get the extra barrel length. I think it will be interesting to see how the rifles and the squad weapon hold up to a steady diet of those rounds. Bolts and bolt locking lugs, barrel chambers and bores will take a beating. Armorer support and rebuild capabilities will probably be crucial.

 

The last adventure in rifle replacement, the 6.8, developed by Rem Arms, and the US Army Markmanship unit was a complete waste of money. It never measured up to the requested velocity standards without blowing up.
Now we have another 8-9 lb rifle developed by Sig Sauer in 6.8 caliber that, from what I've read, is a great shooter, with all the fancy sights and stuff, but very expensive to produce. This rifle is to replace the M4, M16, and M14.
I doubt very much that the M5 will ever be standard issue to our troops, if produced at all. I can see the M5 as a replacement for the M14 to select troops, but not all.
I'm confused that an AR10 could have been rechambered and Tuned up to meet the so called steel plate penetration request, without spending $billions.
I realize that I'm not in the chase, but why spend a fortune for something we already have available?

Cmarsh164 CWO4 USCG (ret)

From what little I have read the requirement is to be capable of defeating the new level 5 body armor. This required projo and case development for the velocity necessary.
Nothing in the inventory is capable of the chamber pressure needed to meet that velocity including the cartridge case.

IMO all the time wasted with 6.8 SPC etc was from DOD looking for a cheap quick fix from a re-chamber instead of admitting the limitations of the 5.56. It was the dimensions of the platform that limited the adoption of an effective chambering for the job.

 

Well I have found that a 5.56 loaded with 45 or 55 grain blitz bullets works wonders on armor plated Crows that destroy our farm food. And with an accurate rifle can be quite effective on these critters a long ways away. But that's totally off the subject of the Government spending our money for a toy that may not last. Easy to spend other people's money when it seems an unending supply. Congress figured that out a looooong time ago.

 

Steel plate is not relevant to the discussion I dont think. Military body armor is all synthetics or alloys I believe.

 

If they are wearing body armor, I just need a little 40mm HEDP medicine.

 

I loved that stuff, HEDP

 

Without getting into the weeds.... what bothers me is we have seen 20 plus years of back and forth, indecision, and separate approaches regarding procurement with respect to everything from uniforms to weapons without a concerted effort to get it right. Somebody pointed out logistical nightmare ...yeah, no kidding. The money, time, risk of confusion in the face of a real contingency. These aren't issues to be played with unless you are looking to create a problem. Any trained nco or officer could point out these risks. And as far as this special round... I have an issue with that too. It shouldn't be something reserved for a select few. That's all I'm saying.

It used to be with a weapon e.g. m16a2 the branches would collaborate to adopt 1. Now it's like a freak show.

 

And the bad guys keep killing the good guys with a commie rifle designed almost 80 years ago.

 

Last word I got was that the M5 has been cancelled.

 

Interesting, was that more recent than this?

Next Generation Squad Weapon on target for 2023

 

The last adventure in rifle replacement, the 6.8, developed by Rem Arms, and the US Army Markmanship unit was a complete waste of money. It never measured up to the requested velocity standards without blowing up.
Now we have another 8-9 lb rifle developed by Sig Sauer in 6.8 caliber that, from what I've read, is a great shooter, with all the fancy sights and stuff, but very expensive to produce. This rifle is to replace the M4, M16, and M14.
I doubt very much that the M5 will ever be standard issue to our troops, if produced at all. I can see the M5 as a replacement for the M14 to select troops, but not all.
I'm confused that an AR10 could have been rechambered and Tuned up to meet the so called steel plate penetration request, without spending $billions.
I realize that I'm not in the chase, but why spend a fortune for something we already have available?

Cmarsh164 CWO4 USCG (ret)

8 to 9 pounds? Try 17 pounds with a suppressor and optic fully loaded. A buddy of mine got to shoot it at the Texas DPS range, and he hated it. But the M14 was too heavy at 11 pounds.

 

Will let y'all know how the round shoots. Have the brass, and reamer. Just waiting on the barrel.

 

Please do! I’d be very curious to see what kind of powder loads you end up and at what velocity nodes. What length and thickness barrel?

I had the impression that saboted or sub-caliber penetrators would be the new sliced bread. Skinny little flechettes making their way through composite armor. A fair amount of recent military sci fi also seems to be leaning that direction, but I digress as that is another discussion.

I’ll be curious to see if AMU sees any merit in the new platform and petitions to have it allowed in service rifle competition. If it happens, I wonder if it would even be affordable for the civilians to get the commercial Sig Spears and compete. Those guys already hot rod their >5.56 loads on the short and especially long yard lines. Thus far, I’ve only seen anecdotal reports on the new cartridge accuracy, but the kind of descriptions I’ve seen seem to point to it slicing through the wind.