testtest

M4 VS M7 Sig Spear

10mmLife

10mmLife

Moderator
Staff member
Founding Member
Here's a really good video on the new 6.8 US military infantry rifle that is currently being introduced to service. After watching this video this new rifle looks like a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Three of the main reviewers of the rifle in this video are very experienced retired Navy Seals with a ton of combat experience. The team here brings up some very vaild points on the new rifle design and caliber.

After watching the video what are your thoughts or even experiences with this new chambering?

 
10mmLife said:
Here's a really good video on the new 6.8 US military infantry rifle that is currently being introduced to service. After watching this video this new rifle looks like a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Three of the main reviewers of the rifle in this video are very experienced retired Navy Seals with a ton of combat experience. The team here brings up some very vaild points on the new rifle design and caliber.

After watching the video what are your thoughts or even experiences with this new chambering?

Click to expand...
Good video, while I don’t own any AR style rifle right now, personally I can’t see why you would switch to this, I would go with the .308, I see more recoil which is to be expected, but after time I think the weight may be a factor, me personally, I would stay with the M4 for regular duty requirements, and use this for like a perimeter type/sniper roles, but what do I know
 
Annihilator said:
Good video, while I don’t own any AR style rifle right now, personally I can’t see why you would switch to this, I would go with the .308, I see more recoil which is to be expected, but after time I think the weight may be a factor, me personally, I would stay with the M4 for regular duty requirements, and use this for like a perimeter type/sniper roles, but what do I know
Click to expand...
I was thinking similar. Keep the new caliber as a specific use weapon and not a main infantry rifle. Only if it out performs .308 by a decent margin. Otherwise keep the .308 as it's a much more budget friendly round than the 6.8.
 
Last edited:
good vid - noted a few of their comments - not much taken past 2-300 yds - any shot past 500+ shots they relied on sniper with 308 or 300 wm etc. Plus the one guy spoke of 77gr for the 556 and they used short bbls so agree with 10mm comments - solving a problem we don't have. Note all these guys are built super muscular and hard trained, so a 6.8 rifle weight for a smaller person? Heavier ammo loadouts too? Not feeling it for them.
 
couple more points on the vid - the wear on the soldier fielding this, plus the recoil, it will be a bit much for the average person. Also - I'm a fan of 308 7.62x51 but for cqb, like joe and the other guys said - not happening and not for long. The marines did not adopt this. hmmm.
 
To me if they just stuck with the M4 but standardized on the heavies 75-77 grain bullets that would be an upgrade that would not break the bank.

That would give between longer range performance and not be a hindrance in Building entries for a military application!

But they could have upgraded to the Betetta M9A3 or even a Glock too but went the cool kid route
 
KF - don't forget these guys featured in the vid are cqb, house/building clearing guys, not long in position army tactics. My soldier buddies don't like it and prefer the light to bring on target and engage m4. It is not that they are pussies, can't handle the weight nor the recoil, it's that they can't see it being used for they were trained for - running up stairs, fast engagement type action.
 
trader said:
KF - don't forget these guys featured in the vid are cqb, house/building clearing guys, not long in position army tactics. My soldier buddies don't like it and prefer the light to bring on target and engage m4. It is not that they are pussies, can't handle the weight nor the recoil, it's that they can't see it being used for they were trained for - running up stairs, fast engagement type action.
Click to expand...
Yeah most hobbyists (nothing against the guys in the video just in general a lot of folks that criticize are the weekend shooters and don’t work with a rifle for a living) would have a different outlook of they had to haul around a 10 plus pound rifle and gear for a deployment and not that weekend class.
 
The problem did exist since the troops were being out-ranged in Afghanistan & Iraq and the various cartridge work-arounds really didn't help.

The 5.56 isn't really going away since the front-line troops will be the only ones using the M-7, with the rear-guard using the M4-family.

No different than the two tiers of rifles were used in WW2 & Korea until the US/NATO wholly adopted the 5.56 after VN.

And regarding the weight issue the M14, Garand, Thompson, BAR & 1919s plus FALs weren't exactly light-weight, since the reviewers complained about the M7 weight.

And the M7 is pretty much the same weight as most of the AR10s.

Perhaps the Classic Arms reviewers need to eat more Wheaties.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Ww2 soldiers with an M1 Garand wood stock 9lb 30.06 must be laughing their ass off about recoil and weight.
Click to expand...
Being told that this is what you are getting for a battle rifle doesn't really compare to what actually is the best option. The M1 Grarand was a step up from the bolt guns used before it where the weight difference was probably negligible at the time but the Increased fire rate was a game changer. There is a reason that the M14 didn't stay in service very long as a main battle rifle. I take the experiences of the men in the video as a unique exclusive perspective of what the modern soldier will find as faults with the weapon. WW2 soldiers also weren't lumping body armor and other gear that today's soldiers carry where every ounce counts.
 
The operating conditions in Afghanistan are very similar to what the arid-ish American Interior West is like, and the 5.56 really wasn't cutting it when the bad-guys had weapons that had greater effective range, especially when the bad guys held the higher ground.

Whereas the 5.56 arose since the 7.62 was a bit of overkill for the jungles of VN for a troopers main firearm.
 
10mmLife said:
Being told that this is what you are getting for a battle rifle doesn't really compare to what actually is the best option. The M1 Grarand was a step up from the bolt guns used before it where the weight difference was probably negligible at the time but the Increased fire rate was a game changer. There is a reason that the M14 didn't stay in service very long as a main battle rifle. I take the experiences of the men in the video as a unique exclusive perspective of what the modern soldier will find as faults with the weapon. WW2 soldiers also weren't lumping body armor and other gear that today's soldiers carry where every ounce counts.
Click to expand...
There was also a reason the M1 Carbine was very popular with the troops; it was 2/3 the weight of the Garand.

For a weapon that was supposed to be for support troops, etc…it sure was used a lot in front line fighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top