US Army to replace the M16\M4 as it's primary service rifle

[lomiller]

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else so I'm starting a thread. Hopefully this is the right sub-forum.


The M16 and it's variants have been the primary service rifle for 60 years but that's cumming to an end as the Army and Marines have announced they will be replacing it with SIG's XM5 rifle (the X will get dropped as it's no longer experimental) They are also introducing new optics, and the M249 light machine gun with the XM250.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...mbat-soldiers/


This is a controversial decision, mainly because these weapons use a new 6.8x51mm cartridge, which is much larger and heavier than the 5.56 cartridge used by the M16\M4. This will give it more range and more punch. It's possible the new cartridge is designed to defeat body armor, but it seems to me it's easier to upgrade body armor than replace your rifle and ammo so I don't see the balance shifting much. This is also just speculation, not enough is known about the new cartridge to make


The trade off is that the larger heavier round means magazine size will be smaller (probably 20 rounds instead of 30), soldiers won't be able to carry as much ammunition and the rifle will have a much heavier recoil which could make for lower rates of aimed fire and possibly reduced accuracy. The rifle itself will almost certainly be more accurate but getting it back on target after the fist shot will be more difficult and burst or automatic fire could be very difficult to use effectively. There may also be issues with barrel lifespan as the new cartridge used ultra high pressure to get high muzzle velocity from a short barrel.

[Hellbound]

Interesting. I suspect part of the decision is to focus on aimed fire, rather than volume of fire. This trend has already been seen in M-4/16 evolution: removal of full auto for three-round burst, for example, and the addition of red dot type sites for almost all rifles.

Using a more accurate, longer range round seems to follow this trend. Whether or not that’s the right decision, time will tell, but it seems a logical extension to me.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

[theprestige]

The logistics side will be interesting. New ammo means zero backwards compatibility in the field. My guess is that units will be upgraded as they deploy, at least at first.

[a_unique_person]

It will be the same ammo for the rifle and light machine gun.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It will be the same ammo for the rifle and light machine gun.

FFS.

It will be different ammo than that used by the hundreds of thousands of service rifles currently in use. They won't be handing soldiers a rifle substantially similar to the one they're already familiar with, that uses the ammo they already have on hand by the bucketload.

Making that switch, of rifle and ammo and training and tooling, all at once, will be interesting to watch.

[Captain_Swoop]

Already covered by Forgotten Weapons take apart and on the range

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and InRangeTV

Disassembly, Live Fire & Discussion

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Mud Test

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Both channels are linked as anyone who knows them is aware, it's the same rifle they are testing.

[JoeMorgue]

The military was going to replace both the M-9 Pistol and M-16/M-2 family of rifles about a dozen times while I was in.

99% of this is the four (or five or hell six depending on how you want to look at it now) services all wanting to have their own equipment and Congress trying (with varying degrees of success) trying to force conformity to save money, wash, rinse, repeat.

The military is the biggest case of "We have 10 competing standards, come up with one standard everyone can agree on... okay now we have 11 competing standards." you'll ever see.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It will be the same ammo for the rifle and light machine gun.

The rifles and squad machine gun were already both using the same 5.56 ammo. There would probably be some M240's in each platoon, those use 7.62 ammo, but it sounds like there may be a conversion kits to change 7.62 weapons to use the new 6.8mm ammo. That would reduce the number of ammo types that are in use and make things simpler in the long run, but it in the short term it's definitely going to be a logistical problem.

The new cartridge looks more complicated though. There could be cost issues and building up a stockpile of the new ammo will likely be a challenge.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

FFS.

It will be different ammo than that used by the hundreds of thousands of service rifles currently in use. They won't be handing soldiers a rifle substantially similar to the one they're already familiar with, that uses the ammo they already have on hand by the bucketload.

Making that switch, of rifle and ammo and training and tooling, all at once, will be interesting to watch.

Ammo production is already underway, mothballed production has been refurbished.
M4 and M16 will be retained for non combat troops. It will be similar to the Garand - M1 Carbine of old

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Ammo production is already underway, mothballed production has been refurbished.
M4 and M16 will be retained for non combat troops. It will be similar to the Garand - M1 Carbine of old

A switch seen by few in living memory. So it will be interesting to watch as it happens.

Also: Holy ******* ***** !!! They're actually producing ammo for the new service weapon! Stop the presses! We've got a real scoop here! /s

Of course ammo production has started, now that the Army has decided to move forward with the new weapon. I have no idea why you thought it needed to be pointed out.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

A switch seen by few in living memory. So it will be interesting to watch as it happens.

Also: Holy ******* ******!! They're actually producing ammo for the new service weapon! Stop the presses! We've got a real scoop here! /s

Of course ammo production has started, now that the Army has decided to move forward with the new weapon. I have no idea why you thought it needed to be pointed out.

Because there are two types of ammo. General issue is practice ammo. Combat ammo is a lot more powerful and will not be issued apart from in combat because of wear issues on the barrel and mechanism.
It's covered in the linked videos.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Already covered by Forgotten Weapons take apart and on the range

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

So they will use lower pressure ammo for training? That will reduce the issues with barrel life, but is it really wise to train with one set of characteristics but change to a higher recoil more difficult to handle cartridge for actual combat?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Because there are two types of ammo. General issue is practice ammo. Combat ammo is a lot more powerful and will not be issued apart from in combat because of wear issues on the barrel and mechanism.
It's covered in the linked videos.

Totally irrelevant to the point I was making and the nature of my interest in this change. Did you mean to reply to some other post? Or do you really think I'm hung up on ammo production?

Though now that you mention it, different ammo for training and combat sounds incredibly ******* stupid, and drastically lowers my opinion of the people responsible for this transition.

[Captain_Swoop]

They want a rifle powerful enough to overcome any future body armour development.

InRangeTV has a series of videos they have done over the years testing various body armour and AP ammunition.

[tyr_13]

I've been following the NGSW program for years now, and forgive me if these points have already been made. The switch isn't as out there as it seems.

The Sig ammo is the least ambitious of the bids, but it does have some great improvements over older stuff. The high pressure and velocity, apart from the range gained and the anti-armor abilities, also gives a flatter trajectory which makes even closer ranged shots easier to take. It in extends point blank range.

This is sort of a throw back to battle rifles, the things that filled the role of primary infantry weapon before assault rifles. It used to be though that it was important to have a round that could reach out a kilometer and hit. The problem was that engagements usually happened much closer, and that often happened in part because even if your round could kill out to 1000 meters, you couldn't see that target let alone hit it. So being able to put more rounds on target, hold more lighter ammo, and have less kick made the intermediate power cartridges work better.

What has changed? Apart from peer and near peer armor expansions, the US now has the optics that make long range shots feasible. The new optics for the NGSW are probably more important for the success of the system than the round is. These rifles are extremely accurate (all the bids were). Front line combat troops likely can make use of the range now.

Having a full power round for squad machine guns isn't to be written off either.

Now I'm going to gripe a bit because from what I've seen the General Dynamics polymer rounds were the better round. As much power, just as reliable, able to be used in more older weapons with a rebarrel, keeps the weapon system much cooler, and is lighter making it easier to carry more. Personally I also thought the rifle was a better one as well, balancing better than the Sig. I don't know what data made the Army go with the Sig, but I'm betting it's down to the Sig ammo being the least ambitious and the rifle being basically an AR-10. The dread the Army has at 'retraining' people to use a rifle that isn't laid out the same as every AR derivative is pathological at this point. The General Dynamics machine gun bid was lacking, but the fact that the round could be used in current machine guns just fine should have made up for that in my opinion. I'm also deeply concerned about how many contracts Sig is winning from the military lately.

They are building out new buildings for ammo production as well in two places as well as retooling old lines (which I knew years ago because some local tooling makers were getting government orders already and a drunk guy at a business dinner came over to give us way too much information he was not cleared to give). Unless something catastrophic shows up soon, this is going through.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by theprestige

A switch seen by few in living memory. So it will be interesting to watch as it happens.

Also: Holy ******* ***** !!! They're actually producing ammo for the new service weapon! Stop the presses! We've got a real scoop here! /s

Of course ammo production has started, now that the Army has decided to move forward with the new weapon. I have no idea why you thought it needed to be pointed out.

The problem is the M4 is still good for attacking people with no body armour. Modern technology has produced body armour that is cheap and stops those bullets. So, what do you do?

[a_unique_person]

Also, it's got an innovative suppressor that's 3d printed.


A bull pup config would have probably been better but that would never sell.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Also, it's got an innovative suppressor that's 3d printed.


A bull pup config would have probably been better but that would never sell.

The fashion for Bullpups has passed. They have advantages in some situations but they bring a number of disadvantages too. Even the French have dropped the Famas for an H&K AR and the UK has started moving to the L119A1, an AR manufactured by Colt Canada. The Royal Marines have already switched.

3d printed suppressor

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The problem is the M4 is still good for attacking people with no body armour. Modern technology has produced body armour that is cheap and stops those bullets. So, what do you do?

You do exactly what the army is doing. I'm excited to see the logistics of switching over to a new service rifle and ammo. It seems like an interesting challenge to me, and I want to see how the army goes about meeting it.

Why? What do you do?

[Captain_Swoop]

Body armour has been considered in the past.
FN P90 and the H&K MP7 were designed to meet a NATO requirement for a compact personal defence weapon capable of penetrating Soviet armour.
It was expected that Soviet paratroopers would be dropped behind the lines and rear echelon troops and drivers would require weapons capable of better penetration that the various SMGs and pistols then issued.

[Bikewer]

I was in the army in the mid-60s, when the switchover from the M14 to the M16 was going on. We were in Germany, and we’d trained in basic with the M14 and that’s what we used.
A “battlefield” rifle for what was expected to be WWII conditions.

At the time, there was PLENTY of controversy over the M16. New recruits (and draftees) were being trained on that weapon and it was being issued in Vietnam.
It took years before the teething problems with that rifle were sorted and the weapon became standard across services.
Currently, we’ve seen complaints about the AR-platform rifles in Afghanistan and Iraq, mostly along the lines of the 5.56 cartridge having shortcomings for longer-distance shooting and more-armored enemy. You may recall that they re-issued the M14 as a squad “Marksman” rifle to engage further targets.

It’s always a trade-off. Rapid fire and light recoil better for close-combat…. Range and accuracy better for longer distance engagements.
Unfortunately, in those environments, you get both. Everything from open-desert combat to very intimate house-to-house combat in tight villages.
And who knows what conditions will obtain in the NEXT combat situation?

[Captain_Swoop]

I was in RN when the changeover started from the SLR to the SA80 but they hadn't made it through to general issue on ships by the time I left.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Also, it's got an innovative suppressor that's 3d printed.


A bull pup config would have probably been better but that would never sell.

That would have been the General Dynamics bid.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

The fashion for Bullpups has passed. They have advantages in some situations but they bring a number of disadvantages too. Even the French have dropped the Famas for an H&K AR and the UK has started moving to the L119A1, an AR manufactured by Colt Canada. The Royal Marines have already switched.

3d printed suppressor

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The advantages of bullpups include getting the most velocity from a round out of a compact package, advantages which align perfectly with the stated goals of the program. It's not coincidence that the above mentioned desert-to-urban combat leads to things like the Tevor (which, yes, has a lot of political decisions driving it's design as well). Getting the most accuracy at range, energy on target, and still being short/balanced enough to maneuver in urban combat seems to lean to the bullpup.

The Sig Spear is long and front heavy, but I guess they get over the tight quarters thing with it's side folding stock. This is, in my view, a bad compromise as it well and truly f's your accuracy and target acquisition speeds. That's fine for something you're going to use like an SMG with a short, controlled burst, but for a full powered battle rifle round out of a smaller capacity mag, not good. That said, the recoil of all the bids was reported as being surprisingly controllable.

[sackett]

Amusing, how armies keep trying to convert to 7 mm mauser and [i]almost [/] doing it.

[Doubt]

I've been following this for a while.

People that have shot the new gun like the experience. As stated above and on many websites/youtube videos, the gun and ammo are heavier. But the idea that you cannot carry as much ammo is laughable in a not all that funny way.

Infantry get loaded down with all sorts of extra stuff to carry. When the light infantry concept was started in the 80's, the basic load for infantry included two motor bombs. They cannot use them but the motor squad needed help carrying the ammo, so everybody ended up with a heavier load. And then there was still more stuff to carry you cannot use in combat yourself.

The current infantry basic load starts with 210 rounds right now. That is seven, 30 round magazines with one in the rifle and the rest in ammo pouches. I suspect the number of rounds will stay the same but the number of magazines will go up. Not going to make that big of a difference in actual combat. The weight of the rifle will have an impact. But doing fire and maneuver is already exhausting enough. The machine gun in the only thing that will really tire out the solider faster.

It is the extra ammo beyond one basic load that will go in the soldier's pack where the weight difference will have some impact. But again, the army never seems to lower the weight carried anyway.

[theprestige]

Mortar bombs*

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That would have been the General Dynamics bid.



The advantages of bullpups include getting the most velocity from a round out of a compact package, advantages which align perfectly with the stated goals of the program. It's not coincidence that the above mentioned desert-to-urban combat leads to things like the Tevor (which, yes, has a lot of political decisions driving it's design as well). Getting the most accuracy at range, energy on target, and still being short/balanced enough to maneuver in urban combat seems to lean to the bullpup.

The Sig Spear is long and front heavy, but I guess they get over the tight quarters thing with it's side folding stock. This is, in my view, a bad compromise as it well and truly f's your accuracy and target acquisition speeds. That's fine for something you're going to use like an SMG with a short, controlled burst, but for a full powered battle rifle round out of a smaller capacity mag, not good. That said, the recoil of all the bids was reported as being surprisingly controllable.

InRangeTV did a series on Bullpups, advantages and disadvantages. Apart from being compact in vehicles, there's not that much in their favour apart from the 'cool' factor.
I certainly haven't shot one I prefer to a conventional layout especially when it comes to clearing stoppages or switching left or right.
But then, my weapon of choice would be an L1A1 SLR

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Mortar bombs*

There are no words in English that I cannot mangle.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Doubt

There are no words in English that I cannot mangle.

I thought you meant one of these.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Doubt

I've been following this for a while.

People that have shot the new gun like the experience. As stated above and on many websites/youtube videos, the gun and ammo are heavier. But the idea that you cannot carry as much ammo is laughable in a not all that funny way.

Infantry get loaded down with all sorts of extra stuff to carry. When the light infantry concept was started in the 80's, the basic load for infantry included two motor bombs. They cannot use them but the motor squad needed help carrying the ammo, so everybody ended up with a heavier load. And then there was still more stuff to carry you cannot use in combat yourself.

The current infantry basic load starts with 210 rounds right now. That is seven, 30 round magazines with one in the rifle and the rest in ammo pouches. I suspect the number of rounds will stay the same but the number of magazines will go up. Not going to make that big of a difference in actual combat. The weight of the rifle will have an impact. But doing fire and maneuver is already exhausting enough. The machine gun in the only thing that will really tire out the solider faster.

It is the extra ammo beyond one basic load that will go in the soldier's pack where the weight difference will have some impact. But again, the army never seems to lower the weight carried anyway.

Am I right in thinking that one driver for the adoption of the 5.56mm was the experience in Vietnam and ammunition amounts being carried on long patrols?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Am I right in thinking that one driver for the adoption of the 5.56mm was the experience in Vietnam and ammunition amounts being carried on long patrols?

There was already a general movement to 'intermediate' cartridges in WW2. Experience inWW2 and the Korean War showed that 'full power' rifle rounds were over powered for the ranges that most combat was taking place at.

Soviet Union was using intermediate rounds and the British adopted the EM-2 bullpup with a .280 intermediate cartridge for a short time in the early 50s but was abandoned as part of a drive for a standard cartridge in NATO.

In the end NATO went with the full power 7.62 before switching to the 5.56 which resulted in the switch to the M-16. Plus the M-14 is awful as a battle rifle.
M16 got off to a bad start because the propellant specification was changed at the last moment to use up existing stocks and changed the burn characteristics and pressure of the round resulting in operating problems.
Also to save money cleaning kits were not issued resulting in weapon stoppages due to fouling.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

In the end NATO went with the full power 7.62 before switching to the 5.56 which resulted in the switch to the M-16. Plus the M-14 is awful as a battle rifle.

Specifically, the M-14 design idea was to take the M-1 and switch it to a 20 round magazine in place of the 8 round clip and then add full auto to it. Those rifle bullets don't lend themselves to full auto in a rifle and doing so can result in the user getting hit in the face with their own gun.

There is a Forgotten Weapons bit where Ian tried one on full auto and was not happy with the result. Although he did not get a bloody nose from it.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Doubt

Specifically, the M-14 design idea was to take the M-1 and switch it to a 20 round magazine in place of the 8 round clip and then add full auto to it. Those rifle bullets don't lend themselves to full auto in a rifle and doing so can result in the user getting hit in the face with their own gun.

There is a Forgotten Weapons bit where Ian tried one on full auto and was not happy with the result. Although he did not get a bloody nose from it.

The British version of the FN FAL, the L1A1 SLR was restricted to semi auto where other users went with the full auto option.
Like the M14, it's pointless.
There was a 'heavy' version that came with a bipod so it could be used as a squad machine gun but it wasn't ideal.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The military was going to replace both the M-9 Pistol and M-16/M-2 family of rifles about a dozen times while I was in.

99% of this is the four (or five or hell six depending on how you want to look at it now) services all wanting to have their own equipment and Congress trying (with varying degrees of success) trying to force conformity to save money, wash, rinse, repeat.

The military is the biggest case of "We have 10 competing standards, come up with one standard everyone can agree on... okay now we have 11 competing standards." you'll ever see.

Actually, the US Army has always had the lead when it comes to small arrms, with the other services generally, not always, following .

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else so I'm starting a thread. Hopefully this is the right sub-forum.


The M16 and it's variants have been the primary service rifle for 60 years but that's cumming to an end as the Army and Marines have announced they will be replacing it with SIG's XM5 rifle (the X will get dropped as it's no longer experimental) They are also introducing new optics, and the M249 light machine gun with the XM250.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...mbat-soldiers/


This is a controversial decision, mainly because these weapons use a new 6.8x51mm cartridge, which is much larger and heavier than the 5.56 cartridge used by the M16\M4. This will give it more range and more punch. It's possible the new cartridge is designed to defeat body armor, but it seems to me it's easier to upgrade body armor than replace your rifle and ammo so I don't see the balance shifting much. This is also just speculation, not enough is known about the new cartridge to make


The trade off is that the larger heavier round means magazine size will be smaller (probably 20 rounds instead of 30), soldiers won't be able to carry as much ammunition and the rifle will have a much heavier recoil which could make for lower rates of aimed fire and possibly reduced accuracy. The rifle itself will almost certainly be more accurate but getting it back on target after the fist shot will be more difficult and burst or automatic fire could be very difficult to use effectively. There may also be issues with barrel lifespan as the new cartridge used ultra high pressure to get high muzzle velocity from a short barrel.

The M16 family of weapons has not had full auto since the early 80's. When I was in in the late 80's it has two settings single shot and three round burst.

The army always frowned at soldiers using "Rock and Roll" but no matter how much they tried to train soldiers away from it, the soliders contnues to use it. So they took the option away.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I was in the army in the mid-60s, when the switchover from the M14 to the M16 was going on. We were in Germany, and we’d trained in basic with the M14 and that’s what we used.
A “battlefield” rifle for what was expected to be WWII conditions.

At the time, there was PLENTY of controversy over the M16. New recruits (and draftees) were being trained on that weapon and it was being issued in Vietnam.
It took years before the teething problems with that rifle were sorted and the weapon became standard across services.
Currently, we’ve seen complaints about the AR-platform rifles in Afghanistan and Iraq, mostly along the lines of the 5.56 cartridge having shortcomings for longer-distance shooting and more-armored enemy. You may recall that they re-issued the M14 as a squad “Marksman” rifle to engage further targets.

It’s always a trade-off. Rapid fire and light recoil better for close-combat…. Range and accuracy better for longer distance engagements.
Unfortunately, in those environments, you get both. Everything from open-desert combat to very intimate house-to-house combat in tight villages.
And who knows what conditions will obtain in the NEXT combat situation?

A lot of the M16 early woes were becuase of incredibly stupid decisions by the US Army Bureau of Ordance,so much that a congressional investigation happened, and, althogh they could never actually prove it, there was a strong supscion that Buord delibertely sabotoged the M16 because it was replacing Buord's own beleoved M14. Changes were made ,kits were sent out to Nam to upgrade exisitng rifles and the id 1969 the M16 was a reliable weapon.
The Buord Never recovered. It lost much of it once autocratic power over US Army weapons, and the other branches now played a major role in selection of weapons. which they had not before, incredibly as it now seems.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by dudalb

The M16 family of weapons has not had full auto since the early 80's. When I was in in the late 80's it has two settings single shot and three round burst.

The army always frowned at soldiers using "Rock and Roll" but no matter how much they tried to train soldiers away from it, the soldiers continue to use it. So they took the option away.

Ironically the British Army introduced full auto in the 80s.

Maybe they are better trained.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A lot of the M16 early woes were becuase of incredibly stupid decisions by the US Army Bureau of Ordance,so much that a congressional investigation happened, and, althogh they could never actually prove it, there was a strong supscion that Buord delibertely sabotoged the M16 because it was replacing Buord's own beleoved M14. Changes were made ,kits were sent out to Nam to upgrade exisitng rifles and the id 1969 the M16 was a reliable weapon.
The Buord Never recovered. It lost much of it once autocratic power over US Army weapons, and the other branches now played a major role in selection of weapons. which they had not before, incredibly as it now seems.

Quite a bit of mythology in there.

The changes were to the ammunition to save money and use existing stocks of propellant which resulted in ammunition of different specification and characteristics..
Lack of cleaning kits, another money saving exercise was also a problem.

[theprestige]

It'll be interesting to see what teething problems the M5 has. I imagine there will be several, and that each one will be overblown into cries of complete disaster, wholesale corruption, and total idiocy. In fact, I may already be guilty of some of that myself. I suppose I should probably start walking things back a bit.

I wonder if the most important thing about this weapon isn't the ammo or the accuracy, but the suppressor. Hearing loss has turned out to be a big problem in modern armies. It was probably always a problem but (a) it was dwarfed by all the other problems, and (b), there wasn't much to be done about it. Hopefully a suppressed rifle will end up being big improvement in the quality of life in combat.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It'll be interesting to see what teething problems the M5 has. I imagine there will be several, and that each one will be overblown into cries of complete disaster, wholesale corruption, and total idiocy. In fact, I may already be guilty of some of that myself. I suppose I should probably start walking things back a bit.

I wonder if the most important thing about this weapon isn't the ammo or the accuracy, but the suppressor. Hearing loss has turned out to be a big problem in modern armies. It was probably always a problem but (a) it was dwarfed by all the other problems, and (b), there wasn't much to be done about it. Hopefully a suppressed rifle will end up being big improvement in the quality of life in combat.

I predict problems with the optics, it will be down to quality control.
I agree with you about the suppressor.