Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Cappy Army" channel.

I did the math. A mk18 m4 AND m14 DMR are 17 lbs. Figure in more 5.56 than 7.62 and the load out weight would actually be the same as if soldiers just carried both weapons compared to the XM7. That is simply shocking. Need more range, stopping power and shorter barrel for cqb? Just carry both existing weapons. It's the same load out weight as the XM7!
132
@anthonykaiser974 You're right. I was more highlighting how ridiculous the XM7 is if you're carrying it (troops could literally carry 2 weapons for the same weight), let alone attempting to use the 14 lbs system in cqb (report noted troops having trouble holding the thing at the ready and longer reaction times).
59
Thank you for volunteering to defend your country and fight for democracy and freedom, "American" values that we (Americans) seem to have forgotten about. Half of us don't agree with the nonsense our current president is doing. Just remember...don't go starting any more wars with bigger countries! (joke, you get it).
44
@oofoof1206 What do YOU think Ukranians are fighting for? They are a democratic country, unlike Russia, and they are fighting for their freedom from an oppressive former subjugator (something every American ought to understand). So, what do you think Ukranians are fighting for? Just to make Russia look bad?
20
@henry_tsai I got curious and actually looked it up. Considering the 14 lbs xm7, a soldier would have the same load out weight if they carried both a mk18 m4 AND m14 DMR just with more 5.56 than 7.62 rounds. That's ridiculous.
17
Or, if Army demands larger caliber, just use the SCAR H? Larger caliber, accurate and powerful at range and more reliable (optics not withstanding).
15
 @oofoof1206 You didn't answer my question and redirected onto an unrelated issue. So, your comments actually prove my point. Thanks for backing me up!
12
@brianclassen5221 You made a key statement. This rifle was designed for Afghanistan (Because 5.56 m4 and m249 couldn't respond to enemy pk using 7.62x54). Even if we went back there, after advancements seen in Ukraine, we'd just be using FPV drones from hard cover for longer range engagements than what 5.56 is effective at.
10
 @vladislavsuone7350 if you're referring to elections in Ukraine, you really want to be asking for Russia to leave Ukraine so Ukraine can end their state of marshal law and hold those elections.
9
@vladislavsuone7350 Which countries, exactly, have had elections during war time while enemy troops occupy part of the country? Give examples please. If you look back at World War II, Britain didn't have elections during the war. Churchill must've been a dictator and against democracy, then, right?
7
Make the person signing off on it and designing it carry it for a day. They'll have better perspective.
6
Fail up!
5
Happens outside of creative fields, too. Company I work with got bought and new parent company has zero experience in the business but starts making foolish heavy handed decisions anyway.
3
@gunguru7020 a naked m4, with just a light optic, can be used for the closer range stuff that the xm7 will be very bad at. How many troops are currently issued a laser or suppressor with their m4?
3
It's not just private equity. I worked with a company, either as an employee or contractor, for 16 years. The owner decided he was old and wanted the money more than the company, so he sold to a larger company that had ZERO experience in the business we do. After 6 years of ownership and learning virtually nothing, they started making heavy handed changes that were based on the other divisions the parent company had. This led to a huge increase in turnover (and associated problems of replacing experienced and loyal people with FNGs that don't care about the company or customers), lower customer satisfaction, lost accounts, lower pay, etc. The only reason I didn't cut and run is because my direct contact stayed and I'd invested so much time with the organization. They keep doubling down on stupid. The people in the big offices with the comfy chairs think they must know what they're doing solely because they are in that office and chair...despite having no experience in how the actual work is done.
3
@thomgizziz umm, "no you"? Also, your argument against penetration doesn't include ammunition type. Not every 5.56 bullet is same. Further, you're not addressing the issue of "what's the point of 6.8 if existing 7.62 weapons can do that job with less weight and greater accuracy and reliability?" And, you're completely ignoring the fact that the XM7 was designed around combat conditions in Afghanistan which are very different from combat conditions in the Ukraine war. The XM7 is supposed to be a 1 size fits all solution but it's not designed for the closer fighting seen in a war with a (supposedly) near peer enemy, Russia.
2
The problem is that Ukraine has featured much less video of failed drone operations because it's not interesting. Ukraine has also featured, mind bogglingly so, a disproportionate use of drones and anti drone defenses that are in existence. An over reliance on drones against an enemy who DOES massively deploy anti drone systems will seriously hurt the force relying on drones.
2
@thinkharder9332 you're missing the point that the mk18 wouldn't be equipped similarly to the XM7 because it doesn't need to be to do it's job. The XM7 is wearing a lot of crap that is useless or not required for most of the use cases on an actual battlefield. I wasn't trying to sell the m4 variant as a replacement for the XM7. I was pointing out that 2 guns could be carried for nearly the same weight. In that case, neither the shorter range m4 variant or longer ranged 7.62 NATO weapon would be Gucci'd up. You're imagining a special use case where these guns are used atypical from how the m4 is issued to most troops. Pentagon is trying to force that extra weight onto the troops and the extra cost onto the taxpayer.
2
@thinkharder9332 I commend you on your dissection of the m4 mk18 and DMR vs XM7 weight issue. But, dude. You really jumped into the deep end without even bothering to realize if you were near the pool. You entirely missed the point. I wasn't trying to sell the mk18. I was pointing out that the XM7 is very heavy and over equipped for a standard issue rifle to the point that it's nearly the weight of 2 individual weapons. I was also using the 2 weapons vs XM7 to highlight the fact that the XM7 is the "do everything...at the price of being good at nothing" option compared to 2 weapons that are good at what they're designed to do. You cannot argue that: - a 14 lbs rifle is going to be good at cqb because it has a short barrel -an inaccurate or inconsistent weapon with 6 MOA accuracy is going to be good at 800 meters because the bullet has more energy and penetration -suppressors and a heavy, complex optic (instead of lighter optic) are wastes of weight that would be better served as ammo weight in a general issue use -excessive wear of components that compromise reliability is a direct hazard to troops engaged in firefight Well, you COULD argue those things but you wouldn't have logic on your side. You also seem very hung up on ir designators and suppressors. Again, you're missing the point that if you're going to carry the extra weight of XM7 you can carry 2 lighter, less Gucci'd weapons for the same weight. Here, you go into the argument of how a typical mk18 would be equipped. You completely missed the point that I was using the bare weapon as an example of a lighter, smaller weapon with a 10 inch barrel that will do the close range work much better than the XM7. If you want to really do the mental exercise, realize that if you were going to carry 2 weapons, you would limit the accessories you would equip to what's absolutely necessary to keep weight down and allow for more ammunition weight. Since you know a lot about what troops are equipped with, you know they will be taking much more than standard load out ammunition. While you're on that train of thought, keeping to essentials, ask yourself if the XM7 weight is essential. Further, since we're on thought exercises, ask yourself if you would take an ir aiming device into battle over another magazine if you were fighting a near peer enemy using NVG instead of going against dudes in sandals. There's a trade off to that ir device and no trade off to using the weight for ammo. Obviously, I'm not going to affect a change in how troops are equipped, but it's worth pointing out if we're talking about smart weight. My argument is that the XM7 is not smart weight. It has less accuracy, consistency, and longevity than systems that already exist like M110 or SCAR H (2 examples) if you want a battle rifle that can be effective at ranges beyond 5.56. The XM7 is a hodge podge of conflicting compromises to achieve "1 size fits all" on paper. Think "littoral combat ship program" and you get the idea. I was using the example of a short barrel m4 variant combined with a DMR as being a similar weight with much greater capability to highlight the conflict of compromise that is the XM7. Good discussion. Cheers.
2
@LRRPFco52 I think your response highlights the point (which another commenter missed) that equipping every soldier with a heavy battle rifle designed for a conflict that's over and one that is probably dissimilar to other likely future conflicts or hot spots isn't the answer. It's like saying drones are a problem so every soldier should be switched over to carrying a shotgun. Sure, it handles a couple specific situations well, but you don't want only shotguns. The XM7 is supposed to be a "do all". I submit the failed LCS program and stillborn Comanche program as examples of what happens when you want 1 system to do multiple things poorly.
2
It's almost like you're actually considering real world conditions. Soldiers don't fight in real world conditions! Oh, wait.
2
15:53 re, key thing we should learn from the XM7 exercises "conserve ammo" Meanwhile, in the largest land war in Europe since WWII, Russia is employing the Master Strategy of sending more warm bodies at the Ukrainians than the Ukrainians have ammo to knock down so that eventually, when Ukrainian defenders run out of ammo, Russia can advance and overwhelm their positions.
2
With the XM7 at 14 lbs, each soldier could almost carry a mk18 m4 AND m14 DMR for similar weight. Okay, actually curious, I looked it up. Carrying both rifles would be about 17 lbs, but that's still shocking considering XM7 is 2 weapons worth of weight and overall carried load weight would actually be similar with lower amount of m14 ammo and more 5.56.
1
Beanbag or weighted net, maybe
1
Hey! Nice cos play!
1
 @jasonbrody8724 it's not going to be fielded with no optic. The government is buying the optics and suppressors along with the guns.
1
5:01 Apparently, I knew of that channel from the beginning of your takeoff. I remember that video.
1
"Hey, the democratic world is only helping Ukraine "not lose", so that's a green light to invade Taiwan." -Xi Jinping
1
@fELONsBelongInJail hi, your comment doesn't fit anything I previously said. To what are you referring?
1
@minhducnguyen9276 the chunky optic which is also a ballistic computer and the suppressor add a lot of weight. The barrel is a smidge shorter than the stock m4 barrel, but it's probably thicker and heavier because of the extra pressure from the ammo. The internal parts are probably also heavier for the same reason. And, they'd need to be heavier or harder still to avoid the excessive wear problem.
1
 @Jairion that kind of complexity would certainly appeal to Army leadership. Just call it modular.
1
@gunguru7020 + or - a pound? An m4 with ranged optic (say, ACOG) is under 9 lbs. A MK18 is probably 8 lbs. You can't count the weight of Gucci items like a laser or suppressor or even flashlight because most troops don't have that on their current m4.
1
Which doesn't work if the enemy has anti drone defenses which exist but have been disproportionately not featured in the Ukraine war.
1
I wasn't a subscriber of tnp, but as an entrepreneur (albeit a broke hard working one) I subscribed here to help the algorithm and your endeavor. I didn't agree with some of the vids you put out that seemed either short sighted, not fully researched, or borderline misinformation. Although most of the stuff was well produced and informative.
1
@zigbeegooblesnort125 Obviously not! Just as I expect the people in the big offices and comfy chairs at the company I work for know exactly what's best despite never having actually done the work.
1
@Averagegunenthusiast the problem is that in Afghanistan, the enemy was engaging with the pk machine guns (7.62x54) at farther ranges than the typical m4 or m249 (5.56 NATO) could respond to. The issue wasn't penetration. It was range and effectiveness and knocking out the enemy when they were hit. So, instead of adding another 7.62 NATO (7.62x51) DMR or LMG to squads, the Pentagon wanted a 1 size fits all solution for longer range, greater penetration, and small size for vehicles and cqb. Since we left Afghanistan, the Pentagon is now trying to field a battle rifle designed for Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in the current actual war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians reported (shown in this vid) that most engagements are under 300m and indeed there is actual trench fighting at very close range. Currently, we have 5.56 ammo that is capable of penetrating Russian body armor at the combat ranges being seen in the Ukraine war (and that's assuming it has actual steel or ballistic plate instead of cardboard). So, the Pentagon is pushing this xm7 project as a way for officers and officials to to retire and enjoy kickbacks from Sig. That's probably not true. It's never fair to assume malice where mere incompetence explains the situation.
1
"Air bursting, man portable, counter defilade system"
1
6:12 "It didn't fkn hold zero!" - Robski...probably It sounds like Sig is trying to do what Century Arms did with their AK clone...make one that looks decent but has frighteningly short longevity. The bad reputation of the M16 (even up to the A2 variant, that I viewed as a metal club more than a rifle when I used it) was due in part to worn components, like magazines and low quality ammo, causing the weapon's infamous failure to feed. Premature wear on internal components isn't nearly as easily solved. It almost sounds like Sig is trying "firearms as a service" intending for early wear that creates more business for Sig in replacement parts.
1
The problem is that Ukraine has featured much less video of failed drone operations because it's not interesting. Ukraine has also featured, mind bogglingly so, a disproportionate use of drones and anti drone defenses that are in existence. An over reliance on drones against an enemy who DOES massively deploy anti drone systems will seriously hurt the force relying on drones.
1
"affordably" is needed at the end of your comment
1
I'll bet the XM7 could be fixed if they... Oh, maybe...made it more modular. Modularity fixes everything. Edit, 7:24 re, engagements under 300 meters But...but.. In the mountains of Afghanistan, the enemy would engage from farther and we needed more than 1 DMR! Yup modularity fixes everything. Make the weapon larger caliber for more range. Make the barrel shorter for easier vehicle and CQB. Build in a suppressor that doesn't dissipate heat effectively enough for a combat situation and you have 1 weapon that can do everything and quietly too. A genuine spork!
1