Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The US Army’s new Service Rifle - The SIG SPEAR / NGSW XM5" video.

  1. Would be fun for civilian rifles, not much use in 5.56. A slightly heavier bullet and regaining velocity lost from the 20" barrel days would be great, but wouldn't do much to justify the cost. Sending a 140gr flying ashtray of a steel core... now that's interesting.
    2
  2. Sig claims better energy retention than Creedmoor and a 12,000 round barrel life. Sure, that's the brochure claims so we'll see. I'll gladly trade barrel life for performance. 6mm ARC is interesting but doesn't fit the requirements, 6.5 Grendel needs too much barrel to be relevant as a modern military cartridge.
    2
  3. 6.5 Grendel doesn't cut it. Not enough power, the range argument doesn't involve actual military needs such as being effective with a FMJ round (rather than hollow points 6.5 Grendel users can shoot) or penetrating cover, versatility doesn't matter because most soldiers only get issued one round to maintain zero, the short barrel won't have the needed energy. It's a good round. It's not perfect in any way.
    2
  4. Ukrainian troops are already taking pictures in the border. Kiev offensive failed, Kharkiv offensive failed, encirclement failed... How are their chances so low?
    2
  5. Them upgrading body armor is the best case scenario. They'll either be more fatigued, or carrying less ammo. Easy. Your worry should be them dropping the armor and making use of their higher mobility.
    2
  6. Issuing 5.56 AP rounds as standard would be a nightmare. That's a lot of tungsten being tossed into the dirt. They want to use cheaper steel.
    2
  7. The XM8 was a underhanded move. It was never going to replace the M4 because H&K had won the contract for the OICW and there was an attempt to use the 5.56 rifle part of the OICW to get the M8 in service. As soon as Colt made some noise everyone realized that some officers were trying to press a new rifle into service without trials being conducted. It would have been literally illegal to do that. This time, the armed forces actually asked for it rather than it being slipped under the radar.
    1
  8.  @UnfollowYourDreams  If you got that argument from Beau of the Fifth Column, you should stop listening to a man convicted of human trafficking.
    1
  9.  @UnfollowYourDreams  They don't stand on their own. Thinking about them for 30 seconds is enough to debunk them. His bad reputation as an habitual liar, scammer and grifter is just the cherry on top. He didn't help refugees cross the border. He helped hotels get cheap labor while the "refugees" had their documents seized and ripped so they couldn't flee their working conditions. He didn't help people in need. He exploited them. Know the difference.
    1
  10. Yeah. And if you train with cheap 55gr 223 which save on powder loads, you're not using the full power M193 55gr. This has always existed.
    1
  11. 6.5 Grendel doesn't cut it.
    1
  12. M855A1 is the standard round. If you've fired M855 in service in the last few years, they were getting rid of old stock because I've heard of people using M855A1 in combat since 2011 when it was introduced.
    1
  13. This war clearly shows Russia is not competent enough to carry out those psyops.
    1
  14. Oh no, a harder to use rifle with less ammunition.
    1
  15. Yeah I want 5.56 Magnum.
    1
  16. M855A1 was a bespoke custom bullet. Three part, three-metallic case construction seems easier.
    1
  17. 300 BLK has its uses but it's garbage as a main infantry round. I'm sorry but why does everyone bring up Blackout? It's 5.56 necked up to 30-cal. It's fat and slow. Literally a step backwards.
    1
  18. Seems easier to make. A normal cartridge is actually a difficult production process that we've mastered after doing it for over a century, but it's not for the faint of heart or the smooth brained. A flat sheet of brass is punched and cupped, the cup is drawn and ironed in several stages, with annealing and washing stages in between because working the metal actually hardens it and it's necessary to soften it up. Then in the end you have a thick base and thin walls, with the brass done with the cold working at the right spot to give the base the necessary strength. An automated lathe cuts the extractor groove and the mouth of the case is annealed so that the front of the case is soft while the base retains the hardness. With this new case, you run steel bar stock through the automated lathe, shove a brass tube in the base, then press an aluminum washer to lock them together. Done.
    1
  19.  @Alen725  I didn't overcomplicate. Brass case manufacturing is complex and you can watch videos on youtube of how many steps it takes to draw a cup into a finished cartridge. Making brass tubes is easy. Steel case ammo has been used by many armies and it's actually cheaper than brass. The locking seems simple enough, it's a washer. It's not an assumption. By your logic modular products are "harder" to manufacture even though modularity greatly improves manufacturing abilities.
    1
  20. It literally wouldn't make sense. Putting a fat bullet on a small casing is not going to cut it.
    1
  21. But those are short-ranged cartridges with a rainbow trajectory. They were replaced by smaller caliber precisely because they were inferior. This is treading on full rifle power. This isn't going back to basics. This blows 7.92x33 out of the water and eats 7.62x39 for breakfast.
    1
  22. So anyone with a M1A or AR-10 could have done the same? Take your meds.
    1
  23. The F-35 is demonstrably competent, please stop reading Forbes articles by known brainlet David Axe.
    1
  24. Why? It's going to weigh the enemy down. It's either going to fatigue them, or force them to carry less ammo. Easy fight.
    1
  25. You don't need a long action and a long barrel to get the performance.
    1
  26.  @secrityforcemarine  If you don't give it the added pressure, velocities drop.
    1
  27.  @secrityforcemarine  Not at all. 6.5 Creedmoor gets ~2700 fps with a 143gr bullet out of a ~28 inch barrel. This gets 2800 out of a 13 inch barrel. You more more FPS, almost the same bullet weight, with half the barrel length. There is a great difference.
    1
  28.  @secrityforcemarine  So is it the bullet or the cartridge? Because even if the bullet had worse ballistics, it would still come out with more energy. The fact that it has good ballistics is why civilian 277 Fury beats Creedmoor. Military 6.8 is even hotter. SOCOM already uses 6.5 Creedmoor. In 7.62x51 NATO weapons that got converted. Anything that shoots 7.62 NATO can be converted to this, so it doesn't matter.
    1
  29.  @secrityforcemarine  No point is being missed. The new round outperforms existing rounds. Any change is going to be costly no matter what it is, so might as well go big on performance.
    1
  30.  @secrityforcemarine  The civilian Fury ammo has a 25% increase in performance over Creedmoor, the military ammo is even hotter. You can't mod existing weapons for a low price. The results aren't nearly the same.
    1
  31.  @secrityforcemarine  You're not talking to a wall, you're talking to someone dealing with the facts. Any change in weapon will cost billions, so might as well go big. 6.5 CM needs a 24" barrel to get even close to Fury performance out of 16".
    1
  32.  @secrityforcemarine  Doesn't matter, still loses to civilian Sig Fury. The mil load would only make it worse for CM.
    1
  33.  @secrityforcemarine  Glad we have people who can't even spell "glad" question everything. I'm sure you ask the real questions.
    1
  34.  @secrityforcemarine  Your point that large hunting cartridges which require 20" barrels are better than modern military tech?
    1
  35.  @secrityforcemarine  Okay, so you have even lower performance than advertised. Anything else?
    1
  36.  @secrityforcemarine  If you've done the research, surely you're making billions off government contracts by selling them hunting weapons.
    1
  37.  @secrityforcemarine  You're here too claiming you're better at researching than the military.
    1
  38.  @bboness713  Not without nukes, which is the big no-no. How did people in sandals and turbans resist US occupation for 20 years? They're defeating the giant country because the giant country is mostly unpopulated, with the vast majority living in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The giant country's military shoved the money down their pockets instead of spending it where needed. The giant country is giant, and thus can't commit too much military force to Ukraine without leaving the rest of the country unmanned. They have claimed territory in the past that many countries would enjoy retaking. The giant country's military is fighting for a measly paycheck, the smaller country is fighting for survival. Hypersonics are a meme. Their hypersonic missile launched in the conflict is a Iskander missile launched from the air in a fighter jet rather than a stationary ground launcher vehicle, so it can go faster. Meanwhile the US was flying manned hypersonic aircraft in the 60s. The reason it didn't end in 5 minutes is because using their only trump card would mean destruction of Russia. A loose cannon with nukes and the willing to use it upsets the balance of MAD. Anyone who shows the willingness to use nukes must be destroyed immediately to prevent them from using them again. That's how the world works.
    1
  39. Years ago they said the 6.8 round would have the EPR construction (M855A1). Not sure what they're doing now.
    1
  40. Sig is mostly USA now.
    1
  41. Why 300 BLK? It's 5.56 necked up to 30 cal. It's another short and fat round, a step back in technology to the 7.92x33 Kurz days.
    1
  42. The SCAR program was a mess (such as requesting in the design a reciprocating charging handle that the users didn't care much for) and what we figured out was that minor gains for high cost didn't make sense in the 5.56 weapon, the 7.62 was nice enough to keep. Caliber and rifle have to be new. A new rifle in 5.56 won't beat the M4, a new caliber in the M4 will not beat 5.56. This is not the SCAR program. It's a leap ahead.
    1
  43.  @DaveSmith-cp5kj  I said what I thought about the SCAR program and why a 5.56 rifle would not cut it. We can reductio ad absurdum all day long but that's not what I was replying to.
    1
  44. Nobody claimed that. 6.8 SPC was dropped from SOCOM testing in around 2007, that's when they stopped ammo acquisitions.
    1
  45. He's using the low pressure ammo.
    1
  46. He's a convicted human trafficker.
    1
  47. Moving in and out of vehicles.
    1
  48. To be fair they used M4s like SAWs. Most guns will either start to choke or have the handguard catch fire when abused like that.
    1
  49.  @aaronbone4572  Why would they want a heavier round than 5.56 that's much slower?
    1