Industry-leading prices on quality products. Check out what's on sale today!
SHOP NOWFormer Navy SEALs from GBRS Group break down the M4 and the Army’s new 6.8 M7 Sig Spear NGSW. They focus on real-world use, ballistic performance, and training tradeoffs.
The video opens at the Blackwater Center with Classic Firearms hosting members of GBRS Group: DJ Shipley, Cole Facer, Joe Han, and Aaron. The discussion centers on comparing the legacy M4 platform to the Army’s new Next Generation Squad Weapon, the 6.8mm M7 Sig Spear, formerly designated XM7. The host frames the conversation around which platform better fits real-world combat use and who is best qualified to weigh in. The GBRS team briefly outlines their backgrounds as former Navy SEALs with long careers centered on the M4 family, including the Colt M4 and HK416. The plan is to dig into the strengths and limitations of the M4 and 5.56 before moving on to hands-on impressions of the M7 and its new 6.8mm cartridge.
The host summarizes why the NGSW program was launched. The military questioned 5.56 NATO performance at longer distances, through intermediate barriers, and against modern body armor, including concerns about terminal ballistics even on direct hits. This drove a move to a larger caliber with better reach and retained energy. SIG Sauer’s 6.8mm solution won the competition and is now being slowly fielded as the M7. The cartridge shown is the .277 Fury, a hybrid design with a steel base and brass upper case to handle higher chamber pressures. Muzzle velocities are described as roughly 3,100–3,300 feet per second from 16–18 inch barrels. The host notes that while some ergonomics are similar to the M4, the M7 uses a bufferless operating system and represents a significant shift from 5.56 platforms.
DJ explains that across 17 years in the Navy, he exclusively ran M4-based platforms, starting with the Colt M4 and later the HK416, and continues to favor M4 variants in civilian life. He emphasizes the ergonomics, comfort, and modularity of the platform, noting how easily configurations can be tailored to individual users. DJ states he never experienced reliability or performance issues with the M4 in combat. With heavier 5.56 loads such as 70- and 77-grain ammunition, he feels the stopping power is more than adequate. Most of his engagements were close range, with some out to 100–200 meters, and he reports no failures or complaints from teammates. For him, the M4 with quality 5.56 ammunition remains a proven, dependable system.
Joe and Cole address whether 5.56 caused problems at longer distances or against armor, as often cited in arguments for NGSW. Joe notes that during the GWOT, many adversaries did not routinely wear body armor, except some foreign fighters. When longer shots were required, units typically shifted to different platforms rather than pushing the M4 beyond its ideal role. Recce and designated marksman elements would move to rifles like the Mk12 or 7.62 NATO guns in .308 (7.62x51). Cole adds that assaulters using short-barreled 5.56 carbines, often with red dots, rarely had a tactical reason to shoot much beyond 200 yards. True long-range engagements were handled by snipers or designated marksmen using platforms such as SR-25s or .300 Win Mag rifles, rather than expecting an M4 with 5.56 to fill every role.
The team discusses how engagement distance, optics, and identification drive weapon selection more than raw ballistic capability. Joe points out that reliably identifying targets at 500 yards, especially at night, is difficult with typical assaulter optics like an ACOG or a red dot with a 3x magnifier. Night vision and clip-on devices such as UNS units are required for proper target ID at those ranges, and those tools are usually assigned to specialized shooters. Cole stresses that assaulters are not expected to take every long-range shot; instead, units rely on subject-matter experts trained on higher-caliber platforms. This context shapes their view that many perceived shortcomings of 5.56 in line units were mitigated by doctrine and role-specific weapons, rather than needing to overhaul the standard carbine for all soldiers.
When the conversation shifts to the M7, the GBRS team notes they have no direct trigger time on it yet but raise practical concerns. The 6.8mm round is acknowledged as fast and powerful, but they question how it will affect close-quarters training and live-fire in shoot houses, similar to earlier issues units faced when trying to run .300 Blackout indoors. Higher-velocity rounds can require new bullet traps and range infrastructure, adding training artificiality. Cole highlights the added weight and bulk of 6.8 magazines and ammunition, and how that impacts load carriage on long movements and performance upon arrival at the objective. Joe and DJ also worry about barrel length, overall weight, recoil, and how these factors affect presentation, follow-up shots, and weapon manipulation in CQB. They emphasize that for assaulters, speed, accuracy, recoil management, and reliability in realistic ranges matter more than maximizing ballistic reach.
Loading... 
