With a view to the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) contract, in particular the choice of the 6,8x51mm XM5 rifle, I will discuss the pros and cons of the XM5 “Battle Rifle” versus the actual 5,56x45mm “Assault Rifles” as combat weapons.
There are already numerous articles about the XM5 respectively the civilian version, the SIG SAUER MCX-SPEAR in caliber .277 Fury. According to the U.S. Army announcement, the XM5 will “…provide significant capability improvements in accuracy, range, and overall lethality. They are lightweight, fire more lethal ammunition, mitigate recoil, provide improved barrel performance and include integrated muzzle sound and flash reduction”.
There is no doubt, that the accuracy, range, and overall lethality will be improved compared to the 5,56x45mm respectively in the U.S.A. to the M855A1. The 6,8mm ammo, driving a 135gr/ 8,75g bullet at +3000fts/ 915m/s in a 13” barrel, will deliver better external ballistics (e.g., bullet drop, wind deflection, etc.) and terminal ballistics than any 5,56x45mm cartridge. But what are the downfalls?
What about the weight?
Let’s begin with the weight and try to make a comparison with the M4A1.
| XM5 | M4A1 |
|---|---|---|
Length | ca 36 in – 914 mm (with suppressor) | ca 33 in – 84 cm (without suppressor) |
Weight | 8,38 lbs – 3,80 kg | 6,36 lbs – 2,88 kg |
Weight suppressor | 1,46 lbs – 0,65 kg | - |
Weight Fire Control System | 1,9 lbs – 0,86 kg | - |
Weight 1-6x LVPO | - | ca 1,50 lbs – 0,68 kg |
Weight IWS 17 | 1,21 lbs – 0,55 kg | - |
Weight ATPIAL | - | 0,49 lbs – 0,22 kg |
Weight ammo load (7x20 rds) | 9,8 lbs – 4,44 kg | - |
Weight ammo load (7x30 rds) | - | 7,4 lbs – 3,35 kg |
Total weight weapon empty | 12,95 lbs – 5,80 kg | 8,35 lbs – 3,78 kg |
Total weight load | 22,75 lbs – 10,30 kg | 15,75 lbs – 7,13 kg |
*Remark: weight estimate of the FCS = LVPO 1,5 lbs + weapon mounted range finder 0,9 lbs minus 0,5 lbs = 1,9 lbs
Based on the table above we have:
· a 50% weight increase for the weapon alone
· a 44% weight increase for the weapon + ammo load
· a 33% reduction in ammunition quantity
Of course, we can discuss the relevance of the choices made in the table above, but ultimately, they are representative of the actual and the future configurations. I did all my basic, NCO and officer training with a battle rifle weighting 5,7 kg (12,6 lbs) and I can’t think of making (modern) CQB with this weight/ weapon, without even talking about “losing” 1/3 of the available ammunition.
And what about the recoil?
There are many videos on the internet showing (well-trained) people shooting with the SIG SAUER MCX-SPEAR. The least we can say, it seems massive and difficult to control (except if you are Garand Thumb)! But it’s not a surprise, isn’t it? The 6,8mm ammo has more muzzle energy with the 16” barrel than the 7,62x51mm from a 20” barrel. Physics being physics, the recoil of the MCX-SPEAR is most probably at least as strong as the one from a 7,62x51mm rifle.
When you fight enemies at longer ranges in open terrain, recoil isn’t an issue. Except maybe losing the scope picture after each shot. But in close combat where short ranges and multiple targets are the norm, you probably want a weapon that allows you to shoot fast (first and subsequent rounds), move fast (weight, length), and don’t require many magazine changes (30 vs 20 rds magazine).
Bottom line
Some key questions are: what is your operational distance and what terminal performance do you need?
About the distances: will the Afghan scenario repeat itself? Do I need a weapon that is effective to +600m? If I have this capability, can the enemy change tactics to disrupt it? Do I fight primarily in open terrain (long ranges) or urban terrain (short ranges, compartmented)? Do I have the capability to train my soldiers at those distances (time, ranges, ammo)?
About the terminal performance: at what distance can I perforate the body armor of my enemies? Will it improve relevantly my (collective) performance (what can I hit at what distance/ how many hits in the body armor)? How much improvement versus the 5,56x45mm?
The XM5 surely brings a better range and lethally performance compared to the actual assault rifles. But at a very costly price in my opinion: much more weight, less controllability, less ammunition and eventually greater wear.
It seems, that some Tier 1 units are now buying the SIG SAUER MCX-SPEAR-LT in calibers 5,56x45mm and .300 Blackout. It would come as no surprise, as these units have a large portfolio of CQB missions. They will later be able to choose their mission-specific weapons, e.g., 5,56x45mm or .300 Blackout for HRO or CP and 6,8mm for operations in the desert. But the normal special forces soldiers or infantrymen will not have that choice.
As a conclusion, which of the battle or assault rifles suits you better? There is not one answer to that, and it goes into defining your missions’ profiles/ needs and your training possibilities.
Comments