• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Army to buy 107,000 Sig m5 rifles, 13,000 Sig m250 LMG, total $4.7 billion contract

Milf Dots

Milf Dots

Milf Hunter Extraordinaire
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 21, 2019
3,582
6,328
I just saw that the Army is reportedly going to buy 107,000 Sig m5 rifles, 13,000 Sig m250 LMGs, and ammo, for a total contract of about $4.7 Billon dollars.

obviously the m5 is the Sig SPEAR- to replace the m4. M250 to replace the 249.

www.armytimes.com

Army expects Next Generation Squad Weapon to get to its first unit by next year

An unloaded XM5 rifle is two pounds heavier than an unloaded M4. But the XM250 is four pounds lighter than the M249 SAW.
www.armytimes.com www.armytimes.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCX
Bacarrat said:
Who did Sig payoff to get all these contracts? Most of their products are meh. Their older European rifles are sweet though.
Click to expand...
Admiral Levine?
images
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: wildcats, 308pirate, the70cougar and 12 others
...I found the statement about the cartridge selected to be an interesting twist, what with the recent advent of the 6ARC. As was pointed out in the article, it's intended initially for "close combat forces", but also has greater lethality beyond the current 5.56's "300 meters".

....not alot of technical info on the selected round, just it's caliber....wondering if, and how much, it might diverge from the current SAAMI 6.8 SPC II specs, i.e., ala SIG's proprietary casing that allows much greater PSI operation?

...there will be lots of debate in the civilian firearms communities about the "lethality" aspect when comparing the 6ARC & 6.8 cartridges, especially in regards to the "distance" factor.

...it will be a while before the services transition completely due the quantity of 5.56 ammo stocks that the services have inventoried, not to mention NATO allies. I doubt we will be seeing any "dumping" of those inventories to the civilian markets just to hasten the services transition.
 
Last edited:
While the 5.56 mm reaches its lethality limits at or before the 300 meter range, the 6.8 mm can effectively destroy targets at 600 meters and beyond, according to Army officials.

So if I am 301 meters away I'm gtg if the other guy has a 5.56?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RickyRodney, rpoL98, wildcats and 8 others
Remember when we were going to adopt 6.8SPC? I remember. This whole thing is going the way of the SCAR. Supplemental, not replacement.

So lets get this straight. From the article, the M4 replacement is 2 pounds heavier unloaded, bigger, longer and carries heavier ammo yet is also designed for CQB?

 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: rdwhite65, patriot_man, USGILT and 11 others
  • Like
Reactions: padfoot 37
What’s the accuracy requirements on this rifle? And has anyone tested one to see if it actually is accurate?
 
JimmyJr said:
What’s the accuracy requirements on this rifle? And has anyone tested one to see if it actually is accurate?
Click to expand...

I’ve yet to see a number…which is telling

The mg is 8moa per an interview with Sig. Granted that’s an MG but I’ve seen dudes do fairly tight work with newer, serviceable 240 and 249 msg

My pre-Virtus mcx was a fucking dog too for the few weeks I had one.

But damn if this thing wouldn’t shred some hypothetical armor if the under-trained ever get lucky with their new 80k psi heavy recoiling, minute-of-dude blaster…brought to you by some of the d shadiest clowns in the game. 🧐
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickyRodney, cas6969, patriot_man and 1 other person
r.tenorio671 said:
...I found the statement about the cartridge selected to be an interesting twist, what with the recent advent of the 6ARC. As was pointed out in the article, it's intended initially for "close combat forces", but also has greater lethality beyond the current 5.56's "300 meters".

....not alot of technical info on the selected round, just it's caliber....wondering if, and how much, it might diverge from the current SAAMI 6.8 SPC II specs, i.e., ala SIG's proprietary casing that allows much greater PSI operation?

...there will be lots of debate in the civilian firearms communities about the "lethality" aspect when comparing the 6ARC & 6.8 cartridges, especially in regards to the "distance" factor.

...it will be a while before the services transition completely due the quantity of 5.56 ammo stocks that the services have inventoried, not to mention NATO allies. I doubt we will be seeing any "dumping" of those inventories to the civilian markets just to hasten the services transition.
Click to expand...
The m4 & 5.56 aren't getting replaced as a whole
 
TheGerman said:
It's like everything else.

OMG this performed so well in testing!!!1111

Then out in the real world there are problems no one thought to 'test' for.
Click to expand...
Which was why the Marines did their testing of the IAR in the real world before committing to swapping out their rifles.

That whole, "we are replacing the SAW" was just a cover for years of combat testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
well i managed to get a sig spear (and a fn M249s as well) .. its only money
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
TheGerman said:
It's like everything else.

OMG this performed so well in testing!!!1111

Then out in the real world there are problems no one thought to 'test' for.
Click to expand...
I used to work with the Program Manager for the XM25. It was awesome in testing. Then they sent it to units deployed for T&E and after a few blew up, it got shitcanned then cancelled. Turns out it didn't work so well outside of low volume controlled testing in perfect conditions.

Programs and Projects are Money pits. Its in everyone best interest to drag them on for as long and for as much funding as possible. Everyone is getting their nut. Once these guns end up in units that could actually deploy and are run through some cycles of NTC and heavy training, they will either work (which based on everything we know is not likely) well or have significant problems result in recalls/reworks/cancellation of the program.

Even if this does work, its heavier, has more recoil, will break more often and to carry the same amount of ammo, its going to weigh even more. Soldiers are already overloaded to the point of not being combat effective. The place money should be spent is making everything lighter, smaller and more lethal. There is probally a small envolope of engagements where this would be a better choice than an M4 (mountains, desert,ect) but the future of warfare is urban and subterranean where people can hide from sensors. Hanging out in the hills or out in the open in the near future will be a death sentence.

If you look at the special operations community and how their gear has evolved, they have always placed a high priority on mobility for the sake of protection. Its hard to hit something always moving. Smaller kit, less weight allowing them to move fast , climb fast, and beat the shit out of someone without being weighed down by 60-80lbs of shit like a turtle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BELLYCRAWL, pmclaine, patriot_man and 7 others
DeathBeforeDismount said:
I used to work with the Program Manager for the XM25. It was awesome in testing. Then they sent it to units deployed for T&E and after a few blew up, it got shitcanned then cancelled. Turns out it didn't work so well outside of low volume controlled testing in perfect conditions.

Programs and Projects are Money pits. Its in everyone best interest to drag them on for as long and for as much funding as possible. Everyone is getting their nut. Once these guns end up in units that could actually deploy and are run through some cycles of NTC and heavy training, they will either work (which based on everything we know is not likely) well or have significant problems result in recalls/reworks/cancellation of the program.

Even if this does work, its heavier, has more recoil, will break more often and to carry the same amount of ammo, its going to weigh even more. Soldiers are already overloaded to the point of not being combat effective. The place money should be spent is making everything lighter, smaller and more lethal. There is probally a small envolope of engagements where this would be a better choice than an M4 (mountains, desert,ect) but the future of warfare is urban and subterranean where people can hide from sensors. Hanging out in the hills or out in the open in the near future will be a death sentence.

If you look at the special operations community and how their gear has evolved, they have always placed a high priority on mobility for the sake of protection. Its hard to hit something always moving. Smaller kit, less weight allowing them to move fast , climb fast, and beat the shit out of someone without being weighed down by 60-80lbs of shit like a turtle.
Click to expand...

I dont think pushing the envelope on small arms is a bad thing, but I think often think that some of the stuff that we look work better in theory than in practical application.

If you look at who we are getting into fights with, the need to punch through body armor is just isnt there, even in the Ukrainian war most of the Russian force is not fielding body armor. For how we would employ the M5, its really doesn't offer us anything more that 308 at this point when used against dudes that wear flip flops.

The idea just sort of feels dumb and that we have sort of done this experiment before. If I was king, I would say make something like the URG the service rife. Shit Piston guns of gotten to the point that something like the LMT Piston guns would be damn good option for peq's. Instead weighing the guys down with a heavier rifle and less ammo,

I think that weight would be better allocated towards drones at the fire team level. a little bullshit drone with 4k video and thermal is far more useful than a 13-15lb service rifle. Especially if you have 60's and 81's in the back pocket.

Now, I like the idea of the M250, as I think the force could benefit from a PKM type mg that allows line units to employee a larger caliber in the assault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric_F, RUTGERS95 and DeathBeforeDismount
Steve_In_29 said:
Which was why the Marines did their testing of the IAR in the real world before committing to swapping out their rifles.

That whole, "we are replacing the SAW" was just a cover for years of combat testing.
Click to expand...
Sort of.

Gunner Eby wanted to revive the AR role since they identified some short comings with the saw gunner in the role of the assault. I was in that unit at the time and at least at the level, i didn't get the sense that the IAR was never envisioned as a replacement for the A2/A4.

Years later, because the Marines didn't want to waste the time or resources having a new evaluation for their service rifle they essentially said, the IAR works, we will just order more.

As a result they got a heavy, 2006 spec rifle with a heavy 2004 Optic with a heavy late 90's can in 2020. Is it a bad rifle, no, its just dumb for what they paid for compared to what was available at the time.

Something like the URG a Mk6 1-6 optic and light weight low back pressure can would of far better option if the Marines wanted to do the footwork or god forbid use Army test data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LV Precision and camocorvette
GUNNER10 said:
Sort of.

Gunner Eby wanted to revive the AR role since they identified some short comings with the saw gunner in the role of the assault. I was in that unit at the time and at least at the level, i didn't get the sense that the IAR was never envisioned as a replacement for the A2/A4.

Years later, because the Marines didn't want to waste the time or resources having a new evaluation for their service rifle they essentially said, the IAR works, we will just order more.

As a result they got a heavy, 2006 spec rifle with a heavy 2004 Optic with a heavy late 90's can in 2020. Is it a bad rifle, no, its just dumb for what they paid for compared to what was available at the time.

Something like the URG a Mk6 1-6 optic and light weight low back pressure can would of far better option if the Marines wanted to do the footwork or god forbid use Army test data.
Click to expand...
I was civil service working at the EEAP in 29 Palms and we had lots of HQMC high ups come through. The SAW/IAR topic came up and we were given an off the record, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reply that it wasn't what the "official" story was.

It made more sense to go with the weapon they tested and already had a pipeline setup for, then to redo to validate any testing the Army might have had. It was easy to simply increase the numbers being purchased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots and GUNNER10
Steve_In_29 said:
I was civil service working at the EEAP in 29 Palms and we had lots of HQMC high ups come through. The SAW/IAR topic came up and we were given an off the record, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reply that it wasn't what the "official" story was.

It made more sense to go with the weapon they tested and already had a pipeline setup for, then to redo to validate any testing the Army might have had. It was easy to simply increase the numbers being purchased.
Click to expand...

I am sure that this is not too far from how it went down. My only criticism is that at the time of adoption i feel that there were better equipment options available and they past up a decade of platform refinements because it was easier than validating a data set.

I really would of liked to see them follow the path that USASOC took in getting new uppers.

The whole process feels like somebody far removed from one's daily operations shows up one day and tells us, hey guys, we just dropped 90k on a new 2007, 2500 truck for you guys.

Ummm it's 2022, why didn't we get a new truck for that price

Well... we would of had to fill out some paperwork and actually go to the dealer to pick it up, but the 2007, we were able to order online and have delivered to you.

Really, we got a 12 year old truck because you didn't want do some paper work or have somebody pick up.

Yep.

Gee... thanks guys.

Oh well
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Steve_In_29 and camocorvette
Soooo does this mean 566 will once again be on the shelves at pre covid government buy-up the whole market pricing?
 
BCP said:
Gun owners did that to themselves.

You think PMC 223 will be 299 a case again? Not likely since Joe Dumbfuck will buy it for 600$ as fast as he can.
Click to expand...
Some of the shops on the outskirts of town here are selling brass factory ammo at 40-43 cents a round so it’s possible 30-35 centsa rounds comes back this decade or maybe 40 cents a round is the new norm. The steel cased garbage can be found for 30 cents a round today. And while panic buyers didn’t help the situation, neither did the government running contracts for millions of rounds. Supply chain shortages didn’t help either, nor did covid shut downs.
 
GUNNER10 said:
I am sure that this is not too far from how it went down. My only criticism is that at the time of adoption i feel that there were better equipment options available and they past up a decade of platform refinements because it was easier than validating a data set.

I really would of liked to see them follow the path that USASOC took in getting new uppers.

The whole process feels like somebody far removed from one's daily operations shows up one day and tells us, hey guys, we just dropped 90k on a new 2007, 2500 truck for you guys.

Ummm it's 2022, why didn't we get a new truck for that price

Well... we would of had to fill out some paperwork and actually go to the dealer to pick it up, but the 2007, we were able to order online and have delivered to you.

Really, we got a 12 year old truck because you didn't want do some paper work or have somebody pick up.

Yep.

Gee... thanks guys.

Oh well
Click to expand...
Doing it that way allowed them to fly the change under the radar for as long as possible.

We are swapping out our SAWs
Hey we need more IARs since they aren't belt fed
Lets just give everyone an IAR
By the way we still need a new SAW

All happening under an already approved program.

The Marines aren't USASOC (with their unlimited black budgets) and the way military procurement works they are always behind the curve on the latest and greatest or else they would never be able to buy anything. As each change requires the testing/validation/bidding start over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95, Milf Dots and GUNNER10
Steve_In_29 said:
Doing it that way allowed them to fly the change under the radar for as long as possible.

We are swapping out our SAWs
Hey we need more IARs since they aren't belt fed
Lets just give everyone an IAR
By the way we still need a new SAW

All happening under an already approved program.

The Marines aren't USASOC (with their unlimited black budgets) and the way military procurement works they are always behind the curve on the latest and greatest or else they would never be able to buy anything. As each change requires the testing/validation/bidding start over.
Click to expand...
I dont know man.

We've been saying this for generations now and I am not sure if I am buying it anymore. Before going overseas I worked at the test center for almost 10 years the whole testing thing is not as overbearing as they would have us believe. They were more than willing to spend years testinh something like that retarded supper AAV, but something as easy as a service rifle was a non starter.

We love to complain about having the shittiest gear and army hand me downs but in reality we have/had the budget to do things the right way but have a constant urge to be edge lords.

The Army funds 855A1, looks pretty good, says hey guys you want in, we say nope mk318 is the hotness. Blow a ton of money on 318 only to decide years later, oh... we are going to do 855A1 now. The same thing could pretty much happen with anything that has been accepted by the dod for procurement.

Completely retarded, can't wait to see their response towards the new sigs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

308220
New Army Assault Rifle..
Replies
32
Views
2K
hlee
H
LibertyOptics
Rifle Scopes Liberty Optics 2010 SHOT Show Report
Replies
36
Views
13K
One_Man
O
Top Bottom
Back