Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but looking at the XM-5, I just don't really see it replacing the M4.  I know they've begun the procurement process for thousands of them, and the ammo to match, but they just look really cumbersome and unwieldy.  Then you have the reduced ammo capacity as well.  I can't visualize our guys doing room clearing with these things, or other operations where space is at a premium.  

I know the argument for them is that we need a new, more lethal caliber to penetrate near-peer body armor, but just looking at Ukraine, nobody seems to be having much trouble killing each other with their 5.45 rifles.

It just feels like we're going backwards, and SIG is getting richer and richer.

No. It'll fall into the same fate as the SCAR17 as a heavy dedicated marksman rifle infrequently used compared to standard M4 rifles and a 240.

Now the belt fed is a different story.

And the new Vortex optic remains to be investigated, but is probably a bigger boost to capability than the XM5 is.

Soon to be on this episode of Forgotten Weapons...

$4.5B says “yes”

I see a lot more promise for the XM5 as a DMR than as a general purpose rifle, and a lot more promise for the belt fed in general.

Yeah, the belt fed variant actually looks like it could be an improvement for a SAW/240 replacement.  And the XM5 would seem like a decent DMR weapon.  

But an M4 replacement?  I'm not seeing it.  I think upgrading the M4's to a free-floated hand guard would be a far more practical improvement, and far more cost efficient.

It's still an "X" for Experimental.

There's no new course of fire, so that hasn't been defined.  There's a new proposed range, with moving targets, which is going to compound complexity and the chances the rifle looks bad because Joe can't hit movers past 200 yards (even given the definitive range-to-targets).

It hasn't been field-tested by troops, so that has to be worked out.  There's no method of mounting an M320 / M203, so the grenadier role requires a stand-alone grenade launcher (back to a kinda-sorta M79 frame for the 320 he carries along with his XM5).

The proposed basis-of-issue plan is for infantry, cavalry scouts, and combat-assault engineers (sappers).  That's it (maybe SOF).  Everyone else keeps an M4.

Here's a sample infantry squad:

Joglee thread

I'd say it is incredibly likely.

I highly doubt the XM5 will entirely replace the M4. The XM5 will probably get relegated to being a DMR type weapon like most are saying. It's a lot more effective than an M14, but it still has the same issues of heavier ammo, less capacity, and greater recoil. It's still too close in those aspects, which were the main reason they moved away from the M14 in the first place (yes I know the M16 originally had 20 round mags). The XM5 is just too close to the M14 compared to the M4 in terms of class of weapon. The capabilities of the new 6.8 ammo are pretty awesome, but those aforementioned issues matter.

I have to wonder if SIG will use the XM5 in some weird way to worm their way in with its little brother, the MCX, to replace the M4 sort of like HK did with the OICW and the XM8. I don't hate the MCX, and actually want one. I'm just thinking out loud.

The M320A1 GLM looks gay AF...it might work. But doesn't look big enough to aim properly imo.

Yes, it’s too big to fail.

Army has pumped tons of money into this and developed their own bullets for this.

I really wanna know how they plan to sell this to NATO considering most of the neu members are just getting around to going all in on 5.56 and 7.62. Or is this a signal that the Alliance going to be the B-Squad behind the Big Army Juggernaut (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)...

SPOILER ALERT:

No.

My take…

It’s far more capable.  If I were to design a weapon that is both a battle rifle and an assault rifle hybrid, for multi role, this would be it.  The belt fed is incredible too. But the XM5 is a huge leap in lethality as a total package. (Range, accuracy, power, penetration, optics package, suppressor, recoil.)

The problem is weight.  This initial version is just too heavy.  Ammo and mags, accessories…  it needs a few pounds shaved off a load.  Perhaps a shorter barrel will become popular.

Materials and engineering need to focus on weight reduction now, before it’s finalized and goes into mass production.

No, it will not.

No, it wont

Attached File

DMR maybe.

Just because they are spending billions doesn't mean it will happen we are talking Gov procurement here.

As a MG round ? If M80 stinks why not just use AP or a heavier bullet load already around like M118SB , M852 or M118LR as the standard issue MG 7.62 round and dump M80.

It’s going to be too heavy for the women and trannies to carry so the M4 will reign supreme for some time.

Every few years something comes along that is supposed to replace the M4/M16. I'll believe it when it happens.

Boom

The M4 will soldier on until a phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range is deployed.

I'd prefer the stand alone launcher as opposed to how they mount now.



Also the sight looks quite similar to the M203 launcher one that goes on the top rail.

What's their weakness, their breaking points? Imagine a bunch of E2-3s training without their E5 because he has an appointment.

NGL that looks sexy af

I like it.

It'll take a decade or so but I can see it happening..

Why do only leaders get pistols?

No idea if it'll replace the M4, but outside a specialty DMR or belt fed/machinegun role, I think it's a mistake.

I haven't followed the project very closely, but it's never seemed like a great idea to me.
If I understand right, its intent is to defeat body armor at range.  (200 yd?  300?  I don't know their goal)

Without putting a whole lot of thought into it, my problems/questions/thoughts with this are:
- Near peer enemies don't really use armor (meaning torso plates, and sure, they could in the future)
- If they do have torso plates, how much does that really affect an engagement?
- Most shooters don't have the skill to make use of this capability at range (system range of 300 or 400 yards or whatever)
- If they have the skill, will they have the opportunity?
- I believe we're looking at a loss in capacity and a weight gain over current systems that doesn't buy us a capability we'll use
- Even defeating body armor, we're only talking hard armor/torso plates.  A system that can't defeat a torso plate will still ruin your day with an arm/leg/stomach/wherever hit.

The only capability we seem to gain is defeating body armor.
I'd argue that there's another way to do that.  Instead of going through armor, go around it

Push more fragmentation and explosive weapons out to soldiers at lower levels.  (dumb or drone-based if you want to be high tech)
Instead of a system that relies on soldier skill to land hits at range to defeat armor and kill the enemy, field weapons where "close enough" works.
More medium and high velocity grenade launchers (that outrange our 40mm) and airburst munitions.  More recoilless rifles.  Systems along these lines.
(Plus, once "close enough" is acceptable marksmanship, that training time/range time can be reallocated to SHARP and other critical soldier skills)

I think other nations (China, if I understand correctly) are taking the explosive/fragmentation weapon approach.  All else being equal, I think a force equipped along those lines would fare better.

The carbine variant weighs 8.3 lbs unloaded and optic free. I'm betting 2 lbs for optic another lb for ammo and another lb for the can.

Projects like the Comanche say otherwise.

Similar to why leaders got swords long after they were truely useful. Badge of rank. Or given to people who a long arm would get in the way or they aren’t likely to need a gun so they get a small token one. They aren’t that useful, and that’s more than they used to issue them.

Looks like something you would want for a conventional war with China. Is that even a likely conflict?

To me, this project (the rifle side, at least) looks like the Good Idea Fairy looked at the arguments the army made for the M14 immediately after watching a promo video for the possibilities of a "smart" scope.

So now you have upper leadership that wants Joe to be able to do one-hit, one-kill on an armored enemy out to 500 yards.  They're so scarred from the "underwhelming" performance of the 5.56 and red dot sights in Afghanistan that they're now going to overcompensate for those terrain-specific issues while also preparing for the body armor of near-peer enemies.  

But based off of history and current events, that's moronic.  Nobody in Ukraine aside from snipers are trying to accurately engage targets at long distances.  Instead, they're doing what soldiers have always done.  Spray relatively aimed fire in that direction and hope something hits.  In urban environments, high volumes of fire are even more valuable as they suppress and maneuver on each other.  And nobody's body armor really seems to be that important.  There are plenty of dead Russians and Ukrainians that either get shot so much that they bleed out, or, they eventually hit something vital.  It's surprising to see so many soldiers who are dead, but they have one or more tourniquets on.  You kind of have to wonder if it might have just been better to get shot lethally early on and go faster.

Personally, I feel like body armor is far more useful when you're fighting an insurgency.  It stops those lucky shots that would've been fatal otherwise, and the combat tends to be low-intensity enough that CLS can keep guys alive long for medevac. But when you're in a more conventional fight, the enemy is attacking, artillery is splashing all around, and your own forces who aren't wounded are either staying low or falling back, CLS and body armor aren't quite as useful IMO.  And so developing a new rifle that banks on Joe being accurate, is heavier, limits ammo capacity, is more unwieldy making vehicle ops and urban terrain ops more difficult, is more expensive, and will further complicate logistics, it just seems so absurd.

As for usage, I think it will be like the Brits with the L85.  The 11-series, 19D's, 13F's, 68W's and combat engineers will get saddled with it, but the SOF guys will stick with their more compact AR platforms, the same way the UKSF, Royal Marines, and Paras are using the L119/C8 while the British infantrymen suffer with the hideous bullpup rifle.

Bump to top with a couple o' fanboi videos





The main problem I see is in the two-component cartridge case.  A more complicated ammo manufacturing sequence and composition is going to slow down the supply chain and little gremlins will eventually creep in, I think.  

I think if it's adopted at all it will be for specialty use.

When fragmentation is the primary concern you want as much coverage as possible for the armor. With the trend towards nothing but rifle plates in a carrier we are going in the wrong direction for a ln arty fight. If your primary job isn't producing casualties with a rifle you want the smallest lightest, least in the way thing possible.  Again, the xm5 is a move in the wrong direction.  

The MG is arguably an improvement and the ammo is a cool concept I'd like to see applied to a smaller cartridge. Imagine an 80ksi 6x35 in a Knight's PDW sized weapon.

I don’t see much reason not to chamber an AR in .277.

God I hope not... it's a step in the wrong direction.

The M250 is cool as fuck and will be a great replacement of both the M249 and M240B

The M5 I am not so sure about being a big enough improvement over the M4/M16 platform on a squad level

I still think it was a mistake going with the sig over the bullpup and true velocity ammo

My friend loved his, carried it in lieu of a pistol depending on where they were sending him.


...and No, I don't think the military is going to see wide use of the XM5. I think we will see a MCX upper though. I saw ramblings that the newest/next gen MCX may fit on a M4 lower. Obviously the military is sucking Sig's cock, so I could see it happening.