The Sig MCX Spear vs MCX Spear LT

NGSW history and Sig MCX Spear overview

The video opens with live fire from a .308, emphasizing how clearly the shooter feels the 7.62x51 recoil. The focus is a comparison between two Sig platforms: the MCX Spear LT chambered in 7.62x39 and the MCX Spear chambered in 7.62x51/.308. The host briefly explains the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, noting that 5.56 NATO was found lacking in long‑range effectiveness. Sig Sauer responded with the 6.8x51 mm cartridge and the XM7 rifle, the military Spear variant, along with the XM250 to replace the M249 SAW and M240 in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO roles. For civilians, Sig offers the MCX Spear in .308, while the true 6.8x51 remains military‑only for now.

Specs, weight, stocks, and optics setup

The MCX Spear in .308 weighs about 8.6 pounds, while the MCX Spear LT in 7.62x39 comes in around 7.6 pounds, roughly a one‑pound difference. Both rifles use a bufferless, short‑stroke gas piston system, eliminating the traditional buffer tube and its associated spring noise. The Spear uses a six‑position adjustable stock mounted to a Picatinny rail, which can be swapped for the lighter skeletonized stock seen on the LT. Likewise, the LT’s skeleton stock can be replaced with the heavier Spear stock, and both stocks fold to reduce overall length. Both rifles feature M‑LOK handguards, with the .308 Spear having a noticeably larger, beefier handguard. Each rifle is equipped with an EOTech EXPS3 optic and paired 3x magnifiers, a G43 on one and a G33 on the other.

Cartridge comparison and NGSW rationale

Before heading to the range, the host lays out three cartridges for comparison: .308 Winchester for the Spear, 7.62x39 similar to an AK‑47 round for the Spear LT, and 5.56 NATO. Visually, 5.56 appears much smaller than the .308 and 7.62x39. This size and performance gap illustrates why the Army’s NGSW program judged 5.56 to lack the desired effectiveness at extended ranges. The 6.8x51 mm military cartridge, while not shown directly, is described as similar in concept to .308 but distinct in design. The civilian counterpart, .277 Fury, is mentioned as being on hand for future testing once a 6.8x51‑chambered Spear becomes available to the commercial market.

Shooting the MCX Spear in .308

On the range, the host engages targets at roughly 40 and 90 yards with the MCX Spear in .308. A key difference highlighted is the Spear’s dual charging system: a traditional rear charging handle plus a side charging handle, which is described as much easier to use. Firing several rounds, the shooter notes that the rifle feels very tight compared to many AR‑10 style rifles, with none of the typical buffer spring rattle associated with M16‑type systems. Recoil is clearly stronger than 5.56 or 7.62x39, and the shooter emphasizes that it is obvious the rifle is chambered in .308. Despite the stout recoil, the overall impression is of a solid, well‑controlled platform with clean cycling and firm handling characteristics.

Shooting the MCX Spear LT in 7.62x39

Switching to the MCX Spear LT in 7.62x39, the host points out the absence of a side charging handle; charging is done in the traditional rear position. Both the Spear and Spear LT share fully ambidextrous controls, including bolt catch, bolt release, magazine release on both sides, and ambidextrous fire selectors. Engaging the same 40‑ and 90‑yard targets, the shooter immediately notices the reduced recoil compared to the .308 Spear. The lighter rifle, slimmer handguard, and softer‑shooting 7.62x39 cartridge make the Spear LT easier to control and more comfortable to run. While acknowledging that .308 and 6.8x51 offer superior range and terminal performance, the host states a personal preference for the 7.62x39 Spear LT based on handling and recoil management.

Modularity, caliber options, and magazine reliability

The Spear LT’s modularity is emphasized as a major advantage. Because it uses an AR‑style magazine pattern and architecture, users who prefer 5.56 NATO or 300 Blackout can convert the rifle by swapping the barrel and bolt head. This allows a single MCX Spear LT to be configured in 7.62x39, 5.56, or 300 Blackout, depending on user preference and application. The host addresses concerns about AR‑pattern 7.62x39 magazine reliability, noting that the DuraMag magazines supplied with the Spear LT in 7.62x39 have run hundreds of rounds without issues in their experience. The .308 Spear is described as delivering a heavier punch suited to different roles, while the LT’s lighter recoil and modular caliber options make it appealing for extended shooting and training.

Final impressions and future 6.8x51 testing

In closing, the host continues to run both rifles, including rapid strings with the .308 Spear, describing it as a powerful, enjoyable platform. Despite favoring softer‑shooting calibers like 5.56, 300 Blackout, or 7.62x39 for ease of control, the host stresses that both the MCX Spear and MCX Spear LT are satisfying to shoot. The main perceived difference is recoil and handling rather than reliability or build quality. There is clear interest in eventually testing a civilian‑available 6.8x51 variant once Sig releases it, especially given the Army’s adoption of that cartridge. Viewers are invited to share their own experiences with the Spear in .308 and the Spear LT in 7.62x39, and to comment on perceived recoil differences and preferred configurations.