Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "SIG M5 Spear Deep Dive: Is This a Good US Army Rifle?" video.

Another useless M14 chosen for the same flawed reasons.
3
TV: "We made this ammo. It weighs 30% less than it's brass counterpart, doesn't use strategic materials, provides more muzzle speed for the same pressure, keeps the receiver cooler, every .308 weapon can shoot it only with a barrel change". US Army. "Too bad. We wanted an higher pressure .308 not compatible with anything we already have".
3
@lobsterbark They gain MUCH for the barrel lenght. In this case 13,5" vs. 19", 5.5" difference.
3
9-Hole Review, that tested the .308 variant, commented it kicked hard to be a .308, "like a FAL on full gas".
1
@tbrowniscool In theory Ukraine would be the ideal scenario for battle rifles. Not much carrying the rifle around, a lot of shooting between sides of farm fields with troops behind bushes and light covers. And yet NONE really wants to use a battle rifle.
1
@Asghaad The reason you see "only short range" combat had been clearly written in US Army studies already in the '50s. In over 90% of possible battlefields, a soldier is not going to see an enemy standing in broad daylight at 300m distance. Because there's something between them. In Ukraine we've seen enemy squads moving at no more than 20m distance without seeing each-other.
1
@Asghaad 600+m is well within the possibilities of .203, and an MG on a tripod can deliver accurate fire at over 1km distance not since yesterday, but since WWI. What optics don't do is to clear the line of sight, and it's pretty dumb to worsen the performances of the infantry issued weapon in 95% of the scenarios to enhance them in the residual 5%.
1