Comments by "R" (@rdrrr) on "Does The US Military’s New Combat Rifle Kinda Suck?" video.

@mortiarty7842 Kinda wild how ahead of their time the 6.5mm Swedish, 6.5mm Carcano etc. were, huh
2
@martinjrgensen8234 I guarantee China's procurement and logistics is every bit as fucked as Russia's. China just hasn't had the chance to embarrass itself that bad yet.
1
@jonnyw82 Probably been sold for hashish by now I mean just because the Taliban took possession of 'em doesn't mean they have the means to maintain them. And now they're no longer fighting the government but actually are the government I can definitely see them engaging in rampant corruption
1
@stacktus9158 62gr doesn't have sufficient stopping power? Then just use 77gr Mk262 rounds. Much cheaper than designing a hot as fuck cartridge that rapidly wears out the load-bearing parts of the overweight rifle that chambers it.
1
The M16A4 weighed 8.7lbs with a loaded 30 round magazine. The XM7 weighs just under 9.9lbs with a loaded 20-round magazine (without the suppressor). Basic combat load of the XM7 will be 7 magazines, that's 140 rounds at just under 10lbs total. Basic combat load of 5.56 is also 7 magazines, that's 210 rounds at 7.5lbs. The XM7's ammunition weighs twice as much per round. Yeah, the XM7 has a lot more stopping power / will be more effective against body armor... but I'm not convinced the majority of likely adversaries actually deploy body armor in the quantities needed to justify the expense - and weight - or that 5.56mm M855 will actually fail to consistently penetrate, say, Chinese body armor anyway. We saw that Russia didn't have anything like the equipment they pretended to when they went to war. China is also a corrupt autocracy, I'm willing to bet a lot of their apparent capability is bullshit too. Shit, wouldn't it be a reasonable decision just to standardise Mk 262 77gr 5.56 ammo instead? Wouldn't make the military-industrial complex horny enough, I guess.
1