The rifle (Spear is its commercial designation; M5 is the military one) is an evolution of the SIG MCX, which is in turn an evolution of the AR-15 and AR-18 systems. The MCX move the recoil spring assembly into the top of the upper receiver, allowing the use of a folding stock. It also has very easily swapped barrels and a suite of fully ambidextrous controls. Scaled up to AR-10 size and chambered for 6.8x51mm, the MCX became the Spear.
That new cartridge (commercial designated .277 SIG Fury) is designed to produce high muzzle velocities out of short barrel (the M5 has a 13 inch barrel).It does this by boosting the operating pressure up to an eye-watering 80,000psi, which required the development of hybrid case using a stainless steel case head. This allows the case to handle those pressures safely. The currently available commercial ammunition is loaded to lower pressure, however. Much of the military and civilian use of this rifle will be done with downloaded training ammunition, which uses a conventional all-brass case.
Both the M5 and M250 were ordered by the Army with suppressors on every weapon, a significant advancement in Army policy. The can is another SIG development, entirely made using additive manufacturing and designed specifically to prevent gas blowback into shooters' faces (which is succeeds at wonderfully).
Overall, I believe the M5 / Spear is an excellent rifle - soft shooting, reliable, and very accurate. However, that does not mean it is the right rifle for the Army. Will its ability to defeat modern body armor prove worth the tradeoff in extra soldier combat load weight and reduced ammunition capacity? Only time will tell...
VIDEO HERE (35:12 minutes)
*****
I'm sorry, but I don't share Ian's enthusiasm.
With a hybrid case, I can see case separation happening, and the fact that there's two different types of ammo, a combat round and a training round? Sorry, they need to eliminate the training round and be shooting the shit out of those combat rounds instead if for no other reason than to make sure the bugs are all worked out.
Then there's the suppressors..... they say it's to reduce noise on the battlefield. Will somebody explain to me how the suppressor will muffle the sound of mortars, grenades, artillery and bombs that are common on battlefields? They're a hell of a lot louder than rifle fire.
I could go on and on about it, but I'll spare you.
BC Did a pretty spicy writeup on this several weeks ago. One of the biggest problems are single-sourced ammo, and the magical optics. Weight is also a problem. We'll have to see how these rounds will do as far as barrel wear is concerned
ReplyDeleteUNCLEZIP
I think that the need for a longer range weapon has been over emphasized. Sure, in the mountains of Afghanistan, the usefulness of an infantry weapon that could shoot out to 800 meters while retaining lethality would have been helpful. But to be honest, that type of warfare in the modern era is the exception, rather than the rule.
ReplyDeleteThe entire reason that they went with the intermediate caliber was so that the infantryman could carry more ammo. And the shorter barrel of the M-4 was for maneuverability in tight quarters that are encountered in both armored vehicles and urban combat.
It would seem like most modern warfare is going to take place, at least on the macro level, in more urban turf, rather than the jungles of a Vietnam, or the mountains of an Afghanistan. And the long range and lessened ammo loadout are likely to be the total opposite of what will be needed by those who fight on the ground.
Sadly, most changes such as this are made not for practical reasons, but more for political reasons, such as when the 1911 was replaced by the Berretta. Now the M9 is a good, even great weapon. But so is the 1911. However, at the time we were going to be replacing an aging pistol with either new 1911's, or with a completely different one, we wanted to put cruise missiles in Italy. So guess who gets the contract for multi million dollars worth of pistols and parts?
The talk of the rest of NATO wanting us to go to the 9mm so we would have commonality of ammunition is to me total BS, and an afterthought. The U.S. had used the .45 ACP forever, with no problems, so it is unlikely that there was a problem at that time. And to be honest, pistols are a tiny part of the military's weaponry and not a primary weapon system for any nation. They are useful, of course, and for the units that all carry one, very necessary. But they mostly are used by those who man crew served weapons, like missile or Howitzer or other fixed guns. Sometimes machine gunners carry them, from what I have heard, and also troops accompanying convoys have been issued them, such as running large convoys of supplies from Kuwait to Bagdad. This from a friend who was a National Guard on a deployment during Operation Desert Storm. His job was guarding convoys, and while he had an M16A2, I believe, he was also issued an M9. The only problems they had was with Iraqi people who really didn't understand the rules, not that they were trying to cause trouble.
Agreed PigPen. Instead of dreaming up a solution to a non-problem, why didn't the Army just train for the modern battlefield? Shots to 800m are reaching the limits of lethality with 5.56mm so why didn't they search for a DMR that does the job and leave the up close killing to the regular grunts? Besides, isn't that what the DM is for anyway? As far as pistols go, don't get me started. I was in when that transition went from God's gun to the POS M9. I remember reading that the Ruger P85 was the only submission that did not suffer any catastrophic failure during testing but, fuck American made arms for American military. Politicians...fucking up everyone else's life for, just because.
DeleteWe have weapons in inventory that can handle the job, but a walnut stock is not considered a thing of beauty by these folks. Even the resin stock versions are beneath them.
DeleteAnd at the beginning of OIF the military were arming convoy commanders with a M9. Yes we did have a guy up to on a mounted SAW or MK-19 but when you only have a M9 it is not a good feeling. I made 22 trips into Iraq in an unarmored 5-ton with most of them only carrying a M9. We never saw anything.
DeleteSaw the Ruger tested in G&A, accuracy actually improved after 10000-rds!
DeleteNever cottoned to the Beretta.
But those don't concern me- I prefer 1911s.
(For 9mm, 3rd Gen S&W or BHP.)
Need something that will be accurate out to 1000yds ? Go back to the M-14 or is that too heavy for todays momma's boy playacting military? Was issued the M-1, M-2, M-3 ,M-14 and M-16 while serving my 20 year Army career. Used the M-14, m-16, m-3, and M-2 in 'Nam. would take any of them over the M-16. From what I have read the later weapons are is variations of the M-16. Stoner made a very good weapon, but with everything the DOD got it and ruined it.
DeleteThe higher pressure 6.8 Sig Fury would be impressive. I also see problems with the case. If they are going to go 6.8 why don't they fully develop the 6.8 SPC?
ReplyDeleteCase length. The 6.8 SPC is the same length as the 5.56 whereas the 6.8 sig is 7.62x51 length.
DeleteA 5.56 will go further in the 6.8 chamber so the bolt cannot reach it. A 6.8 will jam on the feed ramps of a 5.56. I now have black 5.56 receivers and magazines and desert tan 6.8 receivers/magazines,
DeleteI see your issue. To make it Army proof change the width of the 6.8SPC magazine to hold 30 rounds instead of 25. Also make an alignment cam to work with only 6.8 mags and reject 5.56 mags. Or just make the 6.8SPC belt fed.
I just saw Ian's vid of the new rifle. The rifle is OK but no way am I going to stick my face next to a chamber holding back 80K of pressure on a bullpup
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess the battlefields are ready for suppressors for grenades and artillery. Don't know if you can get the bombs fitted as neatly for hanging on the rack.
ReplyDeleteThe Real one …She’ll be barrel gobbler.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that's why they designed the "easily swapped barrel" feature. Humping a couple of spare barrels should be no big deal, right?
DeleteAll the wiz-bang wonder weapons in the world won't make up for a lack of will to fight. The military has been hollowed out by poor leadership, a department of defense who has literally never won a war since it's inception, vaccine mandates, leftist policies driving out the main cohort of combat arms soldiers, QWERTYs on parade, and an officer corps more interested in their posh defence contractor jobs than the wellbeing of their troops.
ReplyDeleteWho exactly will be left to hold these super guns?
The Taliban.
DeleteI am confused do rifles with short stroke piston systems have much (any) gas blow back issues when shooting surpressed? Isn't all that gas supposed to be vented at the forward part of the gun , not in the chamber.?
ReplyDeleteDid the solve the problem stainless had with developing cracks after a number of rounds were fired?
ReplyDeleteWhen this SIG M5 becomes the standard U.S. Military weapon maybe it'll stop the Liberal twits like Whoopie from describing my antiquated semi-auto M4 as a "Weapon of War".
ReplyDeleteNOTHING will stop them from making a comment that any gunpowder weapon is a weapon of war. A baseball bat is a weapon of war. it kills more people than rifles so shouldn't it be considered a weapon of war?????
DeleteTraining ammo vs fighting ammo......
ReplyDeleteMPBR.....scope sight info.....all change.....right......?
Ed357
Higher pressure equals higher parts wear and breakage and more recoil.
ReplyDeleteTwo piece casings introduce extra failure points and supply chain chokes.
The weight of the weapon and ammo is a major issue.
Most engagements happen well within the range of current munitions. If something is beyond range of the 5.56, it's time for a DMR, or more practically, mortars, air strikes, and artillery.
Most soldiers (most people for that matter) are not able to make use of the full range of the 5.56 as it is.
All these and more are why I call the new round the ".277 Wunder Blunder."
As for the suppressor, part of dominating the close in battlefield is noise. A person might not be able to pick out individual sounds Such as that ping from the M-1 clip being ejected... Man. The guy that started that ridiculous myth should be flogged on the town square. But I can tell you from experience that it's very easy to hear when the other side is throwing more your way than you are throwing their way. Suppress your own team's noise and you give the advantage to the other team every time.
ReplyDeleteThe SIG M5 is a "solution" in search of a problem. The DOD/Pentagon could have solved the problems it says the Sig was designed to address by using existing, off-the-shelf technology, instead of this new and as-yet unproven technology. But never discount the Pentagon's ability to choose the most-expensive and least pragmatic "solution" to any problem, and increased cost to the taxpayers be damned. The 6.5 Grendel outperforms the new cartridge, and it does it using a standard pressure cartridge and traditional brass case, rather than a hybrid case as with the Sig. Best of all, all that would have been required for 6.5 Grendel was to purchase magazines and new uppers. In the bullet weight range being considered, 6.5mm (.264-cal.) projectiles clearly outperform 6.8mm (.277-cal.) chosen by the ordnance dept.
ReplyDeleteI was fortunate enough to play on the edges of the development of the 6.5 Grendel by using it in high power rifle competition. As good as the match level 5.56 was, the Grendel seemed to out perform it significantly. I don't mean in the sense that the groups down at the target were smaller. It was that the punch of the 5.56 at 600 yards sounds like some hit the target with a fly swatter, whereas the Grendel made a sound like the target was hit with a baseball bat. I read somewhere that the main point of resistance to its acceptance was that it was "too high a pressure" round. If I recall correctly, the Grendel ran at about 55,000 psi as compared to the 5.56 at 50,000 psi. That is not even close to the 80,000 psi of the 6.8 Wunder Weapon.
ReplyDelete