Comments by "Be Kind To Birds" (@BeKindToBirds) on "SIG M5 Spear Deep Dive: Is This a Good US Army Rifle?" video.

  1.  @808bigisland  The suppressors are 3D printed and far advanced of any other kind of suppressor. Traditional suppressors have already been proven in mass US military adoption so going cheaper and more durable is a major step which is why the Army is going 100% suppressed. Also because of the payouts to folks like me who got issued bad ear protection, further adding to the cost savings. Additionally, it's the US, not a smaller country. Throwing away the can after a few years is something the US can afford easily, you would be shocked at some of the other things we do. Money burning lol. But this is actually designed from the start to mitigate these issues. This isn't try #1, the Army has been at this a very very long time. They don't change ammo lightly at all but this is a very long time coming. The optic is much much more bold, dramatic, and risky but that also is proven. I can't speak on its comparison to the round you mentioned, I haven't shot it or this. I know that the Army Futures command is absolutely on the cutting edge though so if this performs slightly worse than another round at penetrating green wood then I am positive the round has loads of advantage elsewhere to more than make up for it. Accuracy and range no doubt, the lighter high velocity is always the choice taken va slightly heavier and slower. I do find it very interesting how we have moved back to those cartridges that were initially turned down for the intermediate ones though. Physics is clearly showing the bias here in terms of similarities. It is a saying in the US military: "Nothing ten years and then billion dollars can't fix."
    17
  2.  @ReaperofValhalla  Well I'm out of the Army myself but let me simplify for you: In ww2 they issued rifles and carbines yeah? Garand and M1 Different rifles for the secondary units and the main units. Now instead you have lower power ammo which is still deadly and hot ammo How is it different from issuing a carbine and a rifle? And idk what unit you are in but in the 101st we had plenty of opportunity to train lmao. Plenty. So don't worry man, the units than need to kill guys aren't going to be like "uh oh, we don't know how to shoot hurr" And the units that aren't ever going to shoot bad guys in armor don't need to be using high velocity super ammo do they? And I'm sorry dude but an 11 series is probably the absolute worst place you can be in the army for seeing what is going on overall. Brigade level is barely able to see big army's plans for 95% of the command. The US Army is not dumb and believe it or not it won't be that hard to learn to shoot hot ammo. And the key point is everything that might have some slight complications for the US Army is going to be impossible for China or Russia. And that's the point. For the next few decades we are guaranteed to overmatch in infantry v infantry. And overmatch is what the US military is doing. Bet And I'm sorry if I made it seem like I'm talking down, it's just we've heard this before with NVG's and all kinds of stuff
    13
  3. If you think it's going to be hard to do now imagine how hard it will be for China or Russia to catch up and be able to peer with HV ammo like this. This rifle is the cutting edge and this is what uncle sam does, we do it because it is hard and no one else can. It represents literal decades of superiority over our adversaries. I am absolutely confident in the US Army and US Marine Corps being able to dominate with this weapon. Everything you said applies to literally every single equipment the military uses. Maybe you were national guard, idk why you lack confidence.
    11
  4. Better than the M14
    8
  5. The learning curve from 1 way range to 2 way range is also high.
    5
  6.  @freedomloverusa3030  I doubt it. The Army is very well committed to the high velocity and short barrel length. The US has the money to outfit all of NATO.
    3
  7. @kevin pierson gasp, if only everyone had known that for the last 15 years!
    2
  8.  @MadMax-bq6pg  That is a panic scenario. The US is issuing them now, years before a conflict. So everyone will be extremely familiar with them. They are also so near other weapons and calibers that it will be easy to adapt a novice average american
    2
  9.  @freedomloverusa3030  Oh, you are a troll bot. Boring.
    2
  10.  @famalam943  Bot account lying lmao. How is a lower ballistic force in a heavier rifle going to hit harder?
    1
  11. The extra lethality in light cover for urban environments is exactly in line with this requirement. It is also going to be very difficult for China or Russia or any adversary nation to equip it's force with sufficient armor to stop this kind of round. Exactly like tank warfare.
    1
  12. Unless you do it wrong and stupid yeah, there should be no problem. That problem would be insufficient exposure to full power rounds but that's easily solved in a hot range every now and then and by using hot ammo in your ramp up to deployment. The muscle memory of firing full power vs lower isn't going to be that big compared to the shock of going from a 1 way range to a 2 way range.
    1
  13. Is it really very different from issuing a carbine and rifle? The units that need hot ammo will be familiar with it.
    1
  14. You are thinking in terms of old how hard they were to make. Nowadays it's a lot easier and they can be easily mass produced. If the can breaks, ...put a new one on. But the new manufacturing method should be a lot more durable as well as cheaper.
    1
  15.  @SergeiMosin  The opposite, they are MORE durable. Better support structures are possible and weld free. Or ... entirely made of weld in a way lol.
    1
  16. No, it is the military industrial complex working well and providing the best. Unless you can provide a reason why this isn't the best option I can't see a reason why the company shouldn't get the full ride like when they made the PT boats and what else.
    1
  17. It was even a bullpup which we still haven't gotten to lol. Shocking.
    1
  18.  @Hawk7886  Wow I wish the US military, the most powerful warfighting organization to ever exist, has people as smart as you making decisions for the Army Futures Command. It would be so useful if the Defense Future Command knew about time. Dumb internet dork, the whole point of this move is that TIME is on our side and strongly against China, and Russia. I am really starting to hate the video game generation.
    1
  19.  @G58  If that is your future analysis then you are absolutely garbage at it. And you really think that the US has any near-peers yet? Or that we are going to be bottlenecked at a single factory in a war? Honestly, ...find a new hobby. You are terrible at this.
    1
  20.  @MadMax-bq6pg  You've given me a lot to think about actually. I'm going to have to come back to it even. Cheers mate, take care and God bless
    1
  21.  @N0sf3r4tuR1s3n  Lame bot, only 5 months old and can't even use punctuation
    1
  22.  @kekula69  Your prediction is stupid because soldiers are already and have already been shooting the AP ammo...
    1
  23.  @kekula69  I know. This weapon was not literally built when the video came out mate.
    1
  24.  @kekula69  The weapon was developed for the ammunition.
    1
  25.  @sheikbombalot5781  The US isn't good at occupation But we killed two entire generations of military aged men with virtually no effort and time. Dont confuse the occupation with the overwhelming crushing power of our army. Or do and see for yourself whatever wanna be country you are from. Come break into an americans house and see if you don't get a lot more than you expect lmao. China and Russia are going to take decades to catch up to american equipment NOW. Don't you even dare think how long it's going to take to catch up with us with new guns and all the new tech from the Ukraine war lmao. F.A.F.O.
    1