I get replacing 5.56, but why is 7.62 being replaced too?

>>64020995 (OP)
Because a new group of people need to wring some money out of the endless supply of tax dollars

>>64020995 (OP)
I'm confused why this was a 5.56 replacement in the first place. Smaller magazine capacity, stronger than 5.56 with greater range, it's all sounding like 7.62 2.0. Not 5.56: the sequel.

>>64020995 (OP)
Why would you take a case that is functionally identical to 7mm-08 but far more expensive, known for burning barrels, when we have something that does the same fucking thing in widespread use?
Someone at Sig gave enough government blowies to get a contract approved. I'm talking Baywatch levels of blowies. Shamu at Sea world levels of blowies.

>>64020995 (OP)
because they want the supply to dry up and to adopt a new cartridge that would be illegal for civilians to own.

>>64020995 (OP)
What does the next generation of OnlyFans ammunition mean?

>>64020995 (OP)
will those bullets go off by themselves?

i am once again reminding everyone that /k/ used to be full of people who wanted the US to go back to a battle rifle, then the spear got announced and every single one of those anons manually switched their opinions to hating battle rifles because sig won.

>>64022265
That's because you're retarded. No one on /k/ ever cared about the infantry being the most effective fighting unit possible. We simply wanted a cool gun and got the least interesting gun ever made.

>>64021056
Meme about armor penetration. People get this mixed up because the requirements went way down with the short-ass barrel.
XM1186 steel core is the general round. It defeats Level III ceramics. It is like a larger M855A1 and is similar to M80A1.
XM1184 tungsten core is the actual special purpose Level IV-killer and is not general issue. It mirrors M1158 ADVAP and will likely clear XSAPI-level armor rated to M993.

>>64022303
>the least interesting gun ever made.

you complain about any gun that has an m-lok handguard.

>>64022265
277 is too weak to be a battle rifle

>>64021056
You can't make fuck tons of money by selling a militarized select fire AR10 in 7.62x51 NATO loaded with steel core AP rounds.

>>64020995 (OP)
Fury has more energy and lower drag, it's better than 7.62x51 in every way.

>>64022349
its a barrel burner

>>64022265
My only problem with it is the two piece case drastically increasing ammo cost.

>>64022355
Only matters to chumps like us that can't ask congress for a $10b barrel budget.
Even if barrels only last 10,000 rounds that's still more than most infantry are going to fire before getting rotated.

>>64022363
>10000
more like 1000

>>64022372
Got any testing data to back that up?

>>64022373
Yea my dad works at the pentagon and he told me so

>>64022381
Thanks anon but you shouldn't be telling the internet about your dads work.

>>64022381
Sounds legit

>>64020995 (OP)
What’s wrong with 5.56?

>>64022415
it's not 30-06

>>64022338
Sig Sauer made an AR-10 that shoots it's pissing hot load so we can always go back to a 7-8lb fighting rifle for the military. 16 inch HBAR AR-10's.

https://youtu.be/XDm-Cb4UzZs?si=8umBh7abafsaFVZ-

>I get replacing 5.56, but replacing 7.62 is mysterious.

It’s the other way around. 6.8 is a comprehensive improvement over 308 in every metric, but an abysmal replacement for 5.56. It is a head scratcher why the army is (apparently) retaining its 308 guns. They’re gonna field 308 and 6.8 simultaneously?

>>64022363
>two-piece case increases cost.

Nah, either sig is doing things the wrong way or is just being extremely Jewish about their prices. Shell shock will sell you two-piece pistol cases for about 10-15 cents a pop, and 5.56/300BLK cases for like 20-25 cents a pop. There is no reason loaded two-piece case ammo has to cost 4 dollars a round or whatever hybrid 6.8 costs these days.

>>64022312
That whole spiel was sold as same ar.or pen at greater range unless I'm remembering incorrectly, and it's physically impossible for it to perform any better than black tip 7.62 in that regard.

1) I hate Sig
2) I love 7.62 Nato
that being said, in (current year), 7.62 Nato is basically like a big fat muzzle loader compared to what can be done with modern cartridges of similar or even smaller sizes

>>64022265
battle rifles are 100% gay and retarded. They all break, can't hit the broad side of a barn, cost an arm and a leg, or some combination of the three.

>>64022265
/k/ is full of noguns neverserved cocksucking faggots

>>64023237
> it's physically impossible for it to perform any better than black tip 7.62 in that regard.

Anything black tip 7.62 will do, a 6.8 of equal bullet construction will do better and at longer ranges, on account of there being more energy behind a smaller frontal area.

>>64020995 (OP)
>I get replacing 5.56, but why is 7.62 being replaced too?
Do you have any idea how much money you could make by replacing both cartridges? Sure it will be expensive for the tax payer but not for the company selling the rounds.

>>64021056
>Not 5.56: the sequel.
That's 6arc or 6max with polymer case and a quad mag. Not sig's meme round.

>>64022312
You got mirroring XM1158 correct, but XM1158 doesn't penetrate XSAPI.

>>64024192
>6max
It's just 6.8 SPC III. Why does this board shill it so much?

>>64020995 (OP)
5.56 should've been replaced with 6.8 SPC II years ago. The biggest weakness of the AR-15 is that it can't use anything that won't fit in a magwell originally designed for a literal squirrel cartridge. The new Sigger cartridge should've been reserved for the M240B replacement.

>>64024352
The M240B is getting replaced by .338 Norma Magnum, not a deer cartridge.

>>64024352
>6.8 SPC ii

lol, lmao.

6.8 SPC is an excellent example of the value of ogive space in a cartridge. In this case, about 1 caliber in ogive space is the difference between an excellent, efficient medium-range cartridge, and something nerfed by too blunt a nose shape.

What should replace 5.56 is another version of 5.56. With a shorter case, much finer bullet - the lowest possible drag shape for about a 5 caliber long bullet - and 80kpsi chamber pressure. Something with only a moderate increase in muzzle energy but a massive increase in energy at 300yds.

>>64024192
>6 max
Also something of a meme, not as good as it could be, because its designers were tunnel visioned on muzzle energy and so did not give the case provisions for a long and sleek bullet. Not really a bad cartridge at all from the looks of it, just that it could be better.

>6ARC quad stacks
Dude you should see what 7.62x39 quad stacks look like. Shits a 2x4 lol. I wanna say 10mm is the max case head size for making a quad stack that isn’t so wide it’s cumbersome to manipulate. Every mm after that adds ~3.7mm to the total mag width.

>>64021004
100% accurate

>>64024523
>What should replace 5.56 is another version of 5.56
And that's exactly what will happen. It always does.
>issue lightweight carbine, increase amount of spare ammo carried
>"uhhh cinder blocks or something"
>issue rifle with full power cartridge for barrier pen
>cant carry enough ammo, follow up shots take longer, load out is significantly heavier
>someone pumps out a faster, flatter, heavier 5.56 round
>go back to issuing lightweight carbines
It just works.

>>64024337
REV. D, perhaps, but XSAPI A-C are M993 @ 3,050ft/s +-50ft/s. They do not have a lot of headroom - they're light for what they do - and M993 is antiquated.
Can you point to a test report or other evidence indicating M1158 or XM1184 is defeated at a set velocity by a certain XSAPI variant?

>>64020995 (OP)
Because sig got their inside men to squeeze the federal government of every red cent they could

>>64022265
Battle rifles are cool but impractical. SIG America is the worst company in modern firearms manufacturing, making the blandest guns with the worst QC out of anyone in the US, and then bribing the government to secure contracts. It's disgusting and I hope the 320 scandal combined with the M7 being a total boondoggle bankrupts SIG America.

>>64022303
This. Small arms have not been the decisive war-winning weapon since before any of us were born.

>>64024523
>What should replace 5.56 is another version of 5.56. With a shorter case, much finer bullet
Like an 88gr .221 Fireball?

>>64024352
>6.8 SPC II
>exact same external ballistics
>more recoil, heavier ammo, bigger mags
Peak "future weapons" fudd-headed bullshit. Everything built on the 30Remington is a waste of time and money. A needless distraction from what has to happen.

>>64024523
>>6 max
>Also something of a meme, not as good as it could be, because its designers were tunnel visioned on muzzle energy and so did not give the case provisions for a long and sleek bullet.
It loads a 105...what more do you want? The whole fucking point of these cartridges is for 19yo infantrymen to see an enemy, put the thing in the middle of their reticle on the enemy, pull the trigger, and see the enemy fall down. That's it.
They don't need super-heavy ELD projectiles (which neither the 6ARC or 6MAX shoot fast), they just need low recoil and a long MPBR, which 85-100gr 6mm exceeds at. Even if they gave 6MAX a turbo steel/polymer case, 105 would be preferable to 110/115, again, for MPBR.

>>64021056

So the official answer is that modern Russian body armor has gotten good enough to the point where the 5.56 can't reliably defeat it anymore, which is true enough. However, the claims that the Russians were actually producing and issuing such body armor in any real quantity was total bullshit, as evidenced by the war in Ukraine.

The 5.56 platform has capped out with the M855A1 round. It can't be made to fire any any hotter or more penetrating without mass-issuing rounds with tungsten penetrators, at which point it's more cost effective to go to a new round that can penetrate modern armors using a steel core.

>>64029484
XM1186 has to significantly outperform 7.62x54R steel-core API to defeat GOST BR5 armor at close range. This isn't a huge ask. That's the highest the Russian armor standard goes except for vaporware BR6 plates rated for 12.7x108mm B-32 API.