I am more interested in a 308. I shot the SR25 in the corps. It was a 1 MOA gun. I have so many AR’s. Just like other things too.
Proof you can polish a turd when you have no other options? Not exactly breaking news.
Maybe you should take your on advise.
Sick burn I guess?
You just love to see your own messages. Stop being such an ass.. you bring nothing to the table but freaking drama.. go away.. damn
Pot=kettle and all that. My interaction with you started with two fairly blah posts that didn't warrant the novel you wrote in response. This is a forum, people say things, you don't have to agree, be offended by, or even respond to any of them. Sorry we don't have the same high hopes for a new rifle, I guess I'll bow out since you want a pro-Sig echo chamber in here and any opinions to the contrary aren't welcome. Have a good one.
You are right, people say things. With you it tends to be foolishness and never knowing when to stop. You attack me and another poster. Short man’s syndrome I guess.
Dangit man, I have nothing left to say about the Spear, and thus hoped to be done with this thread. But the egregious misuse of the word "attack" can't be overlooked. Show me these attacks.
Bubble burst moment. I'll be real for a change. My 130gr , 3060 fps Max load has a 5" MPBR of 284 yards.
| 302 | -2.5206 | 2533 | 2137 | 0.0000 | 323 |
Someone said in this post or I read it somewhere else that sig is using a different barrel steel to stop premature barrel wear with the 277. Anyone know anything?
Different weapons system but the LT is currently in use with at least the USN.
I know they're using a variation of the Rattler for a PDW in certain branches, know what the USN version is? Just curious! The 300Blk LT version is a tidy little package, wonder if that's what they're using or is it the 5.56?.
how about these parts
I had read somewhere they figured out how to DLC coat the barrel bore. No idea if true
I have heard it mentioned in literature and videos. But nothing specific.
Another question for you. On the SBR 308 version, it’s says they are DLC and chrome lined??? I’ve never seen that before..I had read somewhere they figured out how to DLC coat the barrel bore. No idea if true
I had the exterior of a LW Chrome Lined barrel DLC coated. DLC is a line of sight process, so I'm not sure if they've figured out how to coat the bore as well. Chrome coated in DLC is slick stuff. @MSTN had Young's Chrome BCGs coated years back.
Technically the SPEAR LT is a Gen III version so Maybe it will have all the kinks worked out I will get to shoot mine Friday.
It didn’t really have kinks. They just made improvements
Naval Land Warfare is using the 11.5 and 16 inch uppers in 5.56
I have the 16" version and love it.
Well to be fair, the SCAR isn’t near as popular among SOF as it is with civilians…
One thing I was thinking about is even though the mags weight a little more, are a little bigger and have less rounds per mag. There is a lot more actual projectile weight and energy per mag.
You think all of the duty positions within an Infantry Rifle Company will end up carrying this for the foreseeable future?
.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1c7500eab2d1b46c6e7029c240ae59655a8c31c05444f5a8646d3a8745c7f4ca&ipo=images)
Don't bother him with facts. Just worship at the Spear altar. Anything else will just get a bunch of ad hominem anger sent your way.You think all of the duty positions within an Infantry Rifle Company will end up carrying this for the foreseeable future?
Here are some other "done deals" that the Army decided were the future you might not have heard of:
SPIW (The AR-15 was a "tolerated stop-gap" until the SPIW was definitely going to be adopted by the Army, after Army Ordnance failed with the M-14.) Army Ordnance hated the AR-15, and the only reason it really got type-classified against Ordnance Board’s wishes was because the USAF ordered it. Army responded with work on the Special Purpose Infantry Weapon, the ultimate dual weapon blaster nobody wants to carry.
The XM148 and later M203 Grenade launchers were what became of SPIW, hung from underneath M16A1s:
To replace the M16A2, the Army launched the Advanced Combat Rifle in the late 1980s:
The only things adopted from ACR were the ACOG and Elcan optics, with an evolution of the Colt submission’s stock becoming the LMT SOPMOD stock for SOCOM.
Then there was the XM25 Wunderwaffen:
Then the Hk XM8 was declared the new US Army modular weapon system:
Then came LSAT, which showed a lot of promise for lightweight ammo for SAW gunners:
Then came the 7.62 NATO ICSR. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley (now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), mentioned the need for it. In August of 2017, the Army issued a formal solicitation for 50,000 ICSR rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO.
NGSW was in development along that time.
SIG was announced the winner of both the NGSW Rifle and Automatic Rifle. Vortex was announced the winner for the integrated fire control electro-optical aiming system.
SPIW (Cancelled for being too heavy, cumbersome, imbalanced, issues with the darts)
ACR (Cancelled after not showing much improvement over the M16A2)
XM25 (Cancelled after safety issues with the fusing, which detonated inside the system while a guy was firing it.)
XM8 (Cancelled for not showing enough improvement over M4, M4A1, CQBR.)
LSAT (Cancelled after challenges with scaling the medical grade polymers and dimensional uniformity required for mass production.)
ICSR (Cancelled due to weight, recoil, disinterest, failure to learn lessons from the past with 7.62 NATO.)
NGSW < (We are here right now. It’s totally going forward, a done deal.)
No matter what happens, the XM157 Fire Control System will be used by at least some Snipers and hopefully DMs, just like we got the XM148 and M203 from the SPIW program, ACOGs, Elcans, and SOPMOD stock from the ACR program, and the silly Hk Grenade Launcher from XM8. I also think the XM250 Automatic Rifle is going to be loved by NCOs who used to be SAW gunners. M240s are going to enjoy the increased performance of 6.8x51 barrels and lighter weight of the ammo.
IF this new ammunition works out, the technology will be used for future small arms cartridge configurations. That’s where the real game-changer is.
The heavy piston AR-10 carbine will be rejected by most of the duty positions within a Rifle Company, and the AARs and feedback from soldiers will show this. If they are forced to carry it, most will complain about how they wish they had their M4A1s back. One of the biggest AAR comments will be how soldiers can’t carry enough magazines to sustain the fight as they work through live fire exercises and field problems.
100% agree that, after initial field testing, the scope will change and it will not be issued to every member of a rifle company. That’s just a stupid idea. I foresee it replacing the riflemen’s rifles in a squad. And maybe team leaders and/or grenadiers. But everyone else will keep M4A1s. The XM250 is such a great SAW replacement that it’s not going to be big deal to supply the 6.8 ammo to a couple other people in a squad.You think all of the duty positions within an Infantry Rifle Company will end up carrying this for the foreseeable future?
Here are some other "done deals" that the Army decided were the future you might not have heard of:
SPIW (The AR-15 was a "tolerated stop-gap" until the SPIW was definitely going to be adopted by the Army, after Army Ordnance failed with the M-14.) Army Ordnance hated the AR-15, and the only reason it really got type-classified against Ordnance Board’s wishes was because the USAF ordered it. Army responded with work on the Special Purpose Infantry Weapon, the ultimate dual weapon blaster nobody wants to carry.
The XM148 and later M203 Grenade launchers were what became of SPIW, hung from underneath M16A1s:
To replace the M16A2, the Army launched the Advanced Combat Rifle in the late 1980s:
The only things adopted from ACR were the ACOG and Elcan optics, with an evolution of the Colt submission’s stock becoming the LMT SOPMOD stock for SOCOM.
Then there was the XM25 Wunderwaffen:
Then the Hk XM8 was declared the new US Army modular weapon system:
Then came LSAT, which showed a lot of promise for lightweight ammo for SAW gunners:
Then came the 7.62 NATO ICSR. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley (now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), mentioned the need for it. In August of 2017, the Army issued a formal solicitation for 50,000 ICSR rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO.
NGSW was in development along that time.
SIG was announced the winner of both the NGSW Rifle and Automatic Rifle. Vortex was announced the winner for the integrated fire control electro-optical aiming system.
SPIW (Cancelled for being too heavy, cumbersome, imbalanced, issues with the darts)
ACR (Cancelled after not showing much improvement over the M16A2)
XM25 (Cancelled after safety issues with the fusing, which detonated inside the system while a guy was firing it.)
XM8 (Cancelled for not showing enough improvement over M4, M4A1, CQBR.)
LSAT (Cancelled after challenges with scaling the medical grade polymers and dimensional uniformity required for mass production.)
ICSR (Cancelled due to weight, recoil, disinterest, failure to learn lessons from the past with 7.62 NATO.)
NGSW < (We are here right now. It’s totally going forward, a done deal.)
No matter what happens, the XM157 Fire Control System will be used by at least some Snipers and hopefully DMs, just like we got the XM148 and M203 from the SPIW program, ACOGs, Elcans, and SOPMOD stock from the ACR program, and the silly Hk Grenade Launcher from XM8. I also think the XM250 Automatic Rifle is going to be loved by NCOs who used to be SAW gunners. M240s are going to enjoy the increased performance of 6.8x51 barrels and lighter weight of the ammo.
IF this new ammunition works out, the technology will be used for future small arms cartridge configurations. That’s where the real game-changer is.
The heavy piston AR-10 carbine will be rejected by most of the duty positions within a Rifle Company, and the AARs and feedback from soldiers will show this. If they are forced to carry it, most will complain about how they wish they had their M4A1s back. One of the biggest AAR comments will be how soldiers can’t carry enough magazines to sustain the fight as they work through live fire exercises and field problems.
Federal ammunition is working on a load right now that looks promising.
Biggest problem for the XM7 even in the Rifle Squad is limited magazine depth plus more weight.
I don’t think it will. Scar 17 was never made to replace anything really.
7 mags?? What unit were you with? In the Corps our combats loads were more then 7 mags. I am talking Grunts though. With optics the M7 will be more effective. Especially when you factor in Machine gunners. I think many people on here don’t realize that things evolve. That is a good thing. It’s almost as if many of you are armchair quarterbacks and just expect it to fail ( some even come across and wanting it to fail). Combat arms and tactics evolve. I haven’t even been in since 2013 and it came along way from 2001-2013. Leaps and bounds. It will continue this trend. I know a lot of people can’t wrap your heads around it but things change and get better. Again, this is a great thing.
This reminds me of the... what was it, the Future Warrior stuff they came out with around 15 years ago? This whole ensemble with helmet HUDs and advanced comms and personal equipment and a uniform and even those fancy HK XM8s that got cancelled within a couple years. IIRC bits and pieces got off the ground in varying stages of adoption, but no branch ever materialized the entire setup. Except MAYBE the Air Force because it was mostly integrating new electronics into aircraft/equipment.You think all of the duty positions within an Infantry Rifle Company will end up carrying this for the foreseeable future?
Here are some other "done deals" that the Army decided were the future you might not have heard of:
SPIW (The AR-15 was a "tolerated stop-gap" until the SPIW was definitely going to be adopted by the Army, after Army Ordnance failed with the M-14.) Army Ordnance hated the AR-15, and the only reason it really got type-classified against Ordnance Board’s wishes was because the USAF ordered it. Army responded with work on the Special Purpose Infantry Weapon, the ultimate dual weapon blaster nobody wants to carry.
The XM148 and later M203 Grenade launchers were what became of SPIW, hung from underneath M16A1s:
To replace the M16A2, the Army launched the Advanced Combat Rifle in the late 1980s:
The only things adopted from ACR were the ACOG and Elcan optics, with an evolution of the Colt submission’s stock becoming the LMT SOPMOD stock for SOCOM.
Then there was the XM25 Wunderwaffen:
Then the Hk XM8 was declared the new US Army modular weapon system:
Then came LSAT, which showed a lot of promise for lightweight ammo for SAW gunners:
Then came the 7.62 NATO ICSR. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley (now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), mentioned the need for it. In August of 2017, the Army issued a formal solicitation for 50,000 ICSR rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO.
NGSW was in development along that time.
SIG was announced the winner of both the NGSW Rifle and Automatic Rifle. Vortex was announced the winner for the integrated fire control electro-optical aiming system.
SPIW (Cancelled for being too heavy, cumbersome, imbalanced, issues with the darts)
ACR (Cancelled after not showing much improvement over the M16A2)
XM25 (Cancelled after safety issues with the fusing, which detonated inside the system while a guy was firing it.)
XM8 (Cancelled for not showing enough improvement over M4, M4A1, CQBR.)
LSAT (Cancelled after challenges with scaling the medical grade polymers and dimensional uniformity required for mass production.)
ICSR (Cancelled due to weight, recoil, disinterest, failure to learn lessons from the past with 7.62 NATO.)
NGSW < (We are here right now. It’s totally going forward, a done deal.)
No matter what happens, the XM157 Fire Control System will be used by at least some Snipers and hopefully DMs, just like we got the XM148 and M203 from the SPIW program, ACOGs, Elcans, and SOPMOD stock from the ACR program, and the silly Hk Grenade Launcher from XM8. I also think the XM250 Automatic Rifle is going to be loved by NCOs who used to be SAW gunners. M240s are going to enjoy the increased performance of 6.8x51 barrels and lighter weight of the ammo.
IF this new ammunition works out, the technology will be used for future small arms cartridge configurations. That’s where the real game-changer is.
The heavy piston AR-10 carbine will be rejected by most of the duty positions within a Rifle Company, and the AARs and feedback from soldiers will show this. If they are forced to carry it, most will complain about how they wish they had their M4A1s back. One of the biggest AAR comments will be how soldiers can’t carry enough magazines to sustain the fight as they work through live fire exercises and field problems.
Everyone is complaining about the weight of the new weapon system. The biggest complaint about the Garand was its weight.
When I showed up to the 82nd in 2000, they just happened to have the Airborne Land Warrior Test Platoon in my Battalion, and I ended up in that Company. The Helmet-Mounted Display was integrated with a ruggedized mouse pad that wrapped around the mag well on the M4. You could scroll through different headers and call for fire without even breaking squelch. With a LRF attached to the M4, you could laze a target and have an immediate 10-digit grid to it based on polar plot since you had GPS integrated into an iPhone sized aluminum box built into the vest that was also the squad Radio. The 42-man Land Warrior Test Platoon completed the EIB Land Nav course in 45 minutes, 100% points found, because you could just run and see yourself on the map.
Found the basic picture of the Land Warrior system ca 2006. Doesn't include any rifle changes or some of the extra armor I've seen in places, but he's got the HUD goggles and the weird plate carrier that I guess has a hard plastic battery cage under the separate plate pocket? From a distance he wouldn't look THAT much different from a contemporary soldier who ponied up for some private purchase gear and a pair of Crye trousers. But I'd guess that no soldier who tried that plate carrier setup or those bulky goggles liked them very much.When I showed up to the 82nd in 2000, they just happened to have the Airborne Land Warrior Test Platoon in my Battalion, and I ended up in that Company. The Helmet-Mounted Display was integrated with a ruggedized mouse pad that wrapped around the mag well on the M4. You could scroll through different headers and call for fire without even breaking squelch. With a LRF attached to the M4, you could laze a target and have an immediate 10-digit grid to it based on polar plot since you had GPS integrated into an iPhone sized aluminum box built into the vest that was also the squad Radio. The 42-man Land Warrior Test Platoon completed the EIB Land Nav course in 45 minutes, 100% points found, because you could just run and see yourself on the map.
I was used to running EIB Land Nav committee because I got my EIB first time back when I was a PFC. No matter what duty station I was at, I always ended up on EIB until I was a SSG. We never had any group even come close to 100% GO on Land Nav. There were always dudes getting lost, coming in late, and I think it was 4hr time allotted to find 5 points spread out over a pretty large piece of terrain, usually at least 9-14 grid squares, depending on duty station.
I was very skeptical of Land Warrior when I first saw it on the cover of Soldier’s Magazine in 1994 or 1995, but that was just a proof of concept demonstrator with giant co-ax cables and huge battery boxes on some poor Joe’s back. They proceeded to scale it all down to where it was actually viable, but we had problems with the batteries and moisture exposure. We were down at JRTC coming out of the box stated for exfil when one of the guy’s Land Warrior systems batteries went off like an M18 smoke grenade. That’s what I though it was at first, and he frantically ditched his whole vest, which melted from the battery fire.
Looked like this back then:
