site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's significant context behind some of these theories, the main one is that SIG USA is widely believed to be gaming/bribing/conning the US military procurement tests.

Some readers here may remember the release of SIG USA's replacement for the M-16, which was "adopted by the US Army" before being quietly skuttled at the cost of several hundred million dollars. Keen readers may recall that I called all that long before it happened based on nothing but the claimed weight and chamber pressures. It was such an obvious lie that any expert in the field should have been able to spot it immediately. Is that because I'm smarter than the entire Ordnance Corps, or because I'm not being paid to lie?

Some things to keep in mind. SIG USA is not Sig Sauer, it's a spun-off triple-shell corporation built out of the old Sigarms importer. But now they manufacture, and they don't manufacture anything by Sig Sauer. They just license the logo so people will think this start-up gun company that somehow got a military contract in its first ten years is actually a bespoke european manufacturer.

Now, everything OP says about people being unable to reliably recreate the discharge is true. But equally true is some of the more damning stories, some with video evidence, that show 320s going off with apparently no input. The one that killed an airman recently wasn't even being worn at the time, it was in the holster, sitting on a table some feet from any people. There was also recently a case in the state police of my state had one go off, they sent it to the FBI labs, which were able to recreate the discharge, but not reliably.

https://www.survivalworld.com/second-amendment/fbi-report-alleges-sig-p320-can-fire-without-pulling-the-trigger/

In several trials mimicking movements similar to those made by officers in the field,like pressing the gun into a wall, jumping, or running, researchers were able to make the P320 fire without the trigger being pulled. In nine out of 50 attempts using a primed case, the pistol fired after only holster manipulation and sear release, indicating failure of the striker safety lock.

Maybe a 20% chance doesn't sound conclusive, and to be fair it isn't. But you can buy other guns that are just as good as the P320 that don't have a one in five chance of putting a round in your leg if the gun jostles just right in the holster.

In the case of the M-16, Forgotten Weapons has a great show on that, basically the corrupt Ordnance Corps tried to sabotage the first major run of M-16s, and they did. But they still couldn't get the shitpile M-14 back, so they reverted the design to the one Stoner told them to use, chrome-lined the barrels and the gun was fine ever after.

The thread I think you should consider is not the conspiracy theory, which was temporarily correct, but the deep corruption of military procurement, and the sort of dirty tricks that go on there.

Is this the FBI report where they cut the slide prior to testing, or a newer test? I'm unable to read the PDF in the article well on mobile.

Are you talking about the M7 replacing the M4? Because that is being fielded now.

https://www.twz.com/land/sig-sauers-m7-rifle-gets-official-army-seal-of-approval-despite-controversy

Is it a great idea? Probably not at scale, for the same reasons that 5.56 is easier to employ than 7.62 for the average troop--a lighter rifle with 50% more ammo. The Army should have fielded the AR10 over the M14 in terms of modernity/ergonomics, but the AR15/M16 with the lighter round sure is nice. Classic assault rifle vs. battle rifle tradeoffs argument.

I think for the M4/5.56 replacement they should have stuck with something with at least an easy 25-round mag, like 6.8 SPC or 6mm ARC.

The .277 Fury is legitimately a cool round though.

https://old.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1csuwkh/a_three_day_review_of_the_m7_spear/ https://old.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1cry8oq/a_review_of_the_277_fury_training_and_combat/

It's not, but there's a sucker born in the MIC every minute.

And your article says the Army announced a plan to think about maybe at some point asking a guy about ordering a hundred thousand M7s. That's not "fielded" in any way shape or form. My guess is even that won't happen, but if it does there's a kickback.

The M7 Rifle and M250 Automatic Rifle are currently being fielded across the Close Combat Force (CCB) to replace the M4A1 Carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) respectively.

https://www.army.mil/article/285678/project_manager_soldier_lethality_announces_type_classification_approval_for_next_generation_squad_weapons_ngsw

It's a limited amount thus far, yes, but at least one operational unit has them in hand. Perhaps the Army will back out of its planned purchase of 100k+ of them, but there's no indication of that presently.