Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles Remember the Army's new rifle/SAW

A good article in some respects. Personally I like the rifle for a designated marksman weapon. Neat weapons systems in total. Me I think the XM250 will pale in comparison to the 249. Way more rounds easily available for the old 249. This weapon also will not adequately fill the shoes of the old M240. What it is compares more with the M14 which interestingly weighed about the same. Weight being why we ditched the M14, that and the weight of the 7.62x51 ammo.

https://www.guns.com/news/2022/05/17/more-on-the-armys-new-xm5-xm250-next-gen-weapons

https://www.military.com/equipment/m240b-machine-gun

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...-2-new-rifles-for-close-combat-soldiers/

The cartridge is expensive to manufacture, Is more complicated than the average steel or brass cased ammo. Pressures are high, I think I read more than 80K psi. Both versions have suppressors. How many rounds will they take before they need maintenance? That much heat and muzzle pressure would take a toll on your average suppressor. How loud is it to fire without the suppressor? If it is tuned to function using the suppressor will it function reliably without it installed?

Saving grace could be that it can have differently chambered uppers for it just like an AR15. I note the immediate possibilities are the 6.5 Creedmoor and the old 7.62x51.

Are suppressors even that expensive to manufacture, if you make them for Uncle Sugar and remove all of the bullschìt that drives costs up for the civilian market? 🤔

For a lucrative enough defense contract, I am guessing that a big company could churn out suppressors for a lot less than they cost the rest of us to buy. But I may be wrong, who knows.

Suppressors are not hard to build. Suppressors that can take high muzzle pressures and full auto fire are very expensive due to the necessary metals needed to produce them. Without a suppressor I bet that thing is super loud. However will the rifle function well without a suppressor installed? The price means nothing to Uncle because it is our money.

Just a dumb hillbilly, but I'm not seeing any barrel life.
Not at those pressures, and full auto.
They gotta be smoking by the time one mag is gone.
The suppressors really gotta heat up.

I can only see problems with this gun/ammo combo…

Yep.
IMO it's a race car being used in a hostile environment.
What could go wrong?

Pretty much my thoughts also.

I don't think every infantryman's rifle needs a suppressor. I'm guessing that is added/needed due to crazy muzzle blast.

My thoughts are not even relevant, but I would prefer further development of 5.56 ammo, with maybe 75-80gr projectile with improved BC, and the terminal ballistics needed for combat ammo.

Then just tweak the regular M16 rifle with an 18" or so barrel, adjustable buttstock, battle optic, and maybe a barrel that is just a little heavier under the handguards than the standard govt profile. In other words, take some hints from the SPR, but don't go crazy with added weight.

This is revolutionary, and we arrived at this point in record time because we leveraged [the] middle-tier of acquisition rapid fielding authorities to enable speed and flexibility in defining requirements," he said.

From one of the op's links. Typical gov-speak!

Guess my biggest issue with this weapon concept is the far fewer rounds carried both in combat load and in the magazines. We moved away from the 7.62 as our main combat rifle cartridge for good reason. The M249 being very dear to my heart anyway.

It seems like the optic is the real "game changer".
I get the fact the military wanted/needed more range than the 5.56 could deliver.

I am sure the 6.8 is a good round, I thought the 6 arc might he a contender, more range and energy than the 5.56, still compact and light.

Optics are common nowadays, so many different kinds available and sanctioned for military use.

Europe wanted a light, small caliber gun.
America threw a pout and we got the 308 and heavy guns.

Very few years later, America changed HER mind.
We all got the 5.56 and M16.


It took 60 years, but SHE went Bat Shìt Crazy.
Now, it's a small caliber, heavy gun, heavy ammo, very high pressure!






And we wonder why they might look sideways at U.S.
Without our money and influence, we would be too big a PITA to put up with.

I thought I read where this venture was dropped?

IIRC the point of it is to defeat body armor. More weight, more recoil, less rounds carried by troops who are already overburdened. That's my take, which of course is worth what you just paid for it.

Well the "more weight, more recoil,less rounds" will certainly make all the difference with the body armor issue. In fact body armor heavy enough to defeat what the 5.56 offers is getting pretty heavy itself.

Drop some hair brained idea that will somehow get the Biden family a kickback? Put the pipe down.

You can always pick up more ammo when you go to the chow hall for dinner. /sarc

Silly crapola. The Russians figured this out long ago, you just give everyone stuff, that they can not break, that also works in the real crud of field service, and you go off to war.

I know a head of R&D for a national military outfit. Gave him 15 scientists and told him to go invent something. Total waste and a squirrel city.

The fixation with hitting something a 2 miles is astounding.

the 6.8x51 is a pipe dream. it kicks to hard, it only shoots 20 cartridges, going 80,000psi it's rifling will be a smoothbore, we don't have technology to make the rifling withstand 80,000psi. yes, the barrel will withstand 80,000psi, but the rifling won't. then we are going hope that NATO will come in, Nato just got done with 5.56 (Poland, Balatic States, Eastern Europe) rifle, i doubt that they are going to 6.8x51. the weight of 5.56 ammo and 6.8x51 ammo is massive.

the only thing good about it, is the new scope. battery operated and when it dies, it will still have crosshairs.

Just carry quick change barrels...lol