Interesting discussion on the XM7

[.455_Hunter]

An Army O3 has rocked the boat a bit with his less than stellar review of the new XM7 rifle system...

https://www.twz.com/land/army-captain-slams-new-xm7-rifle-as-unfit-sig-sauer-says-otherwise

His key concerns include durability, ergonomics, and sustained firepower.

Thoughts?

 

[sarduy]

The new weapon is trash, nothing more than a compact AR10 performance. Too much recoil and weight for regular sustain fire. Sig got the contract because corruption, just like the X17/P320 just another way to enrich some corrupt politicians. Develope that round in a 556 case with a 7mm diameter and call it a day. If you want more power then use a 6.5 Creedmoor more power? 300WM/ 7mm PRC more power? 50bmg more power? Arty strike....

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel all you need to do is get a 556, neck it up to 6.5 or 7mm in one of those new 556 NAS3 cases and put a 90gr bullet like the one in M855A1 loaded to Mach Jesus and call it 6.5 NAS / 7mm NAS.

 

[Steve S.]

I remember the same talk about the M16A1 during my Vietnam era service AND, our Government has always had corruption - nothing new here.

 

[CapnMac]

Replacing a light intermediate cartridge with a battle rifle sized one sounds like a simple thing if the largest thing you need to command is a desk.

The notion of a half-sized 240B or a 3/4 sized M60E5 has appeal, especially for SF types. But, that's not the only use for GPMGs, they wind up as coax weapons, mounted at Loader's hatches, pt on pintle mounts of various vehicles where a longer barrel and potentially more accurate long range fire are good things.

The problem for both SIG and General Dynamics (the loser in the competition) was that they could not earn back the R&D costs on the NGSW by only selling Squad Automatic Weapons. The could not make enough money selling, perhaps, half a million units (that would be across the entire DoD and foreign sales). So, both of them had to, for economic reasons, offer up a "Carbine Replacement" in an effort to actually profit.

And that's where the rubber largely left the road. The needed to make a case where replacing 7# long-proven Carbines wit h14# ones made sense. With a lot of glossing over the nearly 50% reduction in ammo capacity per soldier (40% if you could convince the Bosses to accept an 18-22% weight increase.

The other item glossed right over was the inherent need to replace around a million sets of LBE (and the weight change means needing more than just new pouches).

The SIG response of basically "Nuh-uh, yu doan kno!" sure does scream "Pay no attention to the P-320, it's Fine, Every Thing is Fine!"

The 6.8x51 is 95% the dimensions of the 7.62x51, this was not a smart pick for riflemen. SAW gunners, maybe, as long as TraDoc can allow needing another AG as an ammo carrier at the Squad level.

Everyone seems stuck on the "We're still using the M-16!?! Why?" question. And without asking "What's right with a design that has been in use for half a century? This is not an iPhone, where more that two years old is "junk." (And rather brings up the "What's enough better in iPhone N+1 versus iPhone N?" comparison.)

There's no such thing as a perfect infantry weapon, partially because there's not really any such thing as a perfect infantry tactics, situations, personnel, etc.

 

[jmr40]

The M16/5.56 was not well received but has evolved into a pretty good rifle/cartridge combo that works for most applications. No, it's not the best choice for long range or for barrier penetration. But for 90% of what our military needs it's a good choice.

I think the idea of trying to issue every soldier with identical weapons using the same cartridge is a flawed idea. I think back to the WW-2 and Korean war concept of having every platoon carrying various weapons. We had Garands, M1919 machine guns, BAR's and various bolt action rifles shooting 30-06. There were some M1 Carbines, Thompson sub machine guns in 45 ACP, 1911 pistols and in some cases various 12 ga shotguns. They had a lot of tools in the toolbox for different situations.

The logistics of supplying ammo to that many different weapons was more challenging than having them all the same, but if they made it work 80 years ago, we can do it today.

I hope the new system works and think that with time they will get the bugs worked out. But we've been down this path before. The M14 was a good idea in theory, but in practice it was too heavy, recoiled too much and soldiers couldn't carry as much ammo. Even if it works perfectly the new XM7 has the same negatives.

 

[R Reed]

We needed a new intermediate cartridge, not a battle rifle. We needed something better, not the best that checks all the boxes. And sig seems to design things with tolerances that are too tight, makes it easily for them to not work properly.

 

[MikeInOr]

I believe SIG gave the military what they asked for. I believe the militaries whole acquisition process is flawed.

I am shocked that every infantry boot that the military acquires isn't sized 10. I can't imagine what idiot would screw up the whole supply chain by deciding to issue boots in sizes other than size 10!

 

[CapnMac]

The logistics of supplying ammo to that many different weapons was more challenging than having them all the same, but if they made it work 80 years ago, we can do it today.

And, despite using, generally, the same ammo in WWII, each weapon system wound up with its own supply train & method.
So rifle ammo was in clips in bandoliers in spam cans in wooden crates.
BAR ammo was in magazines in wooden boxes, and typically loaded up at Regiment or Battalion level.
MG ammo was belted and put in cans loaded in wooden crates.

So, MacArthur's argument in 1935 was flawed even then, and just as inapt a mere six years later. The need for special ammo lie Tracer and AP for BAR and MG use was also much glossed over, too.

In the present day, infantry rifle ammo has it's own Supply, as does SAW ammo, which is different from MG ammo supply. And each of these has Basic Unit of Supply weight goals.

I believe the militaries whole acquisition process is flawed.

You are not alone in that belief. That it works in even a half-donkey manner is astounding.

 

[derek45]

the XM7 is a stupid idea

 

[d2wing]

New people forgot why we ended up with the M-16 in the first place and the M-14 failed. Controllable full-auto fire and effectiveness at normal engagement range. You have to limit recoil if you want a managable size and weight weapon. Then there is the ammo load as well. The downside is you lose some long range and power. Pretty hard to cover unless you have two weapons. In Nam, M-60's were widely used and some units had a Sniper with a scoped M-14. I don't see a future for the new weapon but my opinion doesn't count for much.

 

[d2wing]

I think the idea of one weapon or one cartridge to cover all bases is a flawed idea. They want to spend money on something new.

 

[WestKentucky]

It’s been said that the US flexes its muscles the most in logistics. Whatever you want can be delivered by the US military anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. If we think we need to streamline the process of what we do the best then there are other questions to ask. I could get behind having maybe as few as 3 or 4 ammo types for infantry but to hamstring every soldier to a single type just seems like a mistake. Basic infantry has a rifle and a sidearm. Special infantry will have light machine gun, heavy machine gun, or other special weaponry, not to neglect grenades, and other disposable battle materials. In today’s battlefield there had better be a couple seasoned duck hunters with shotguns ready to take out drones. That makes 4 types of primary weapon ammo, sidearm ammo, and then the specialty stuff. If we are fighting off of FOBs then that’s easy. If we are near-peer fighting like what’s in Ukraine then I can see it getting tougher. Maybe that’s the concern and the reason for the shift.

 

[FL-NC]

Would have made more sense to me to go to a AR10 in 7.62 NATO and develop a sabot round similar to the SLAP rounds for the M134 minigun that fires accurately and reliably from it. This would address the armor defeat "they" are obsessing over, and the lighter sabot rounds would decrease the weight penalty on the user. It could also be used with the billions of NATO spec rounds in storage, currently being manufactured and stored, and in use globally.

 

[TTv2]

Either Sig sold the brass on this or the brass really did believe we need an infantry rifle that's capable of defeating Lvl IV armor. That would indicate there are concerns that we're close to a war with a nation state and not simple terrorist organizations, but when I hear that Yemen caused a US aircraft carrier to have to take evasive maneuvers causing a $60m fighter to fall overboard and sink to the bottom of the sea and Yemen launched missiles that defeated Israeli countermeasures and hit Ben Gurion airport, perhaps there is reason to be concerned that even Houthi rebels are something to be concerned about.

It's not 2001 anymore, the abilities of other nations, terror groups, drug cartels to make drones and equip their troops with body armor and nightvision is a real threat.

It's logical to want to prepare for that threat, but if in the future US forces are still dealing with poorly equipped enemies then slapping a rifle that weighs twice as much and reduces the ammo capacity an individual grunt can haul, then that's putting them at a disadvantage.

If the threat is serious (and I don't doubt it is in the long term) then we do need a rifle that is capable of defeating body armor that the 5.56 cannot and the .308 would struggle to. Was this XM7 the correct choice? Time will tell, but my opinion is that there is a need for both a rifle capable of defeating body armor and the M4/M16 for unarmored opponents and non frontline troops. The military will hate having to supply all the different ammunition for all the rifles, but we're at a point now that the troops need every advantage they can get because opposing forces are becoming more difficult to defeat.

 

[R Reed]

Either Sig sold the brass on this or the brass really did believe we need an infantry rifle that's capable of defeating Lvl IV armor. That would indicate there are concerns that we're close to a war with a nation state and not simple terrorist organizations, but when I hear that Yemen caused a US aircraft carrier to have to take evasive maneuvers causing a $60m fighter to fall overboard and sink to the bottom of the sea and Yemen launched missiles that defeated Israeli countermeasures and hit Ben Gurion airport, perhaps there is reason to be concerned that even Houthi rebels are something to be concerned about.

It's not 2001 anymore, the abilities of other nations, terror groups, drug cartels to make drones and equip their troops with body armor and nightvision is a real threat.

It's logical to want to prepare for that threat, but if in the future US forces are still dealing with poorly equipped enemies then slapping a rifle that weighs twice as much and reduces the ammo capacity an individual grunt can haul, then that's putting them at a disadvantage.

If the threat is serious (and I don't doubt it is in the long term) then we do need a rifle that is capable of defeating body armor that the 5.56 cannot and the .308 would struggle to. Was this XM7 the correct choice? Time will tell, but my opinion is that there is a need for both a rifle capable of defeating body armor and the M4/M16 for unarmored opponents and non frontline troops. The military will hate having to supply all the different ammunition for all the rifles, but we're at a point now that the troops need every advantage they can get because opposing forces are becoming more difficult to defeat.

Is a rifle that is significantly heavier which reduces mobility and cqb abilities an advantage?
Is a rifle that has more recoil and is harder to control and or use in full auto for suppressing fire, an advantage?
Are smaller capacity magazines an advantage, or is having less magazine changes a good thing?
Is heavier ammo, giving you a lower round count for your loadout a good thing?

Is the ammo more capable, yes, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. to me the extra capability of the ammo is a good advantage for our troops, but it is heavily out weighed by the disadvantages to where it is not even close to equal to a net positive outcome.

Personally I feel like they needed something in the middle. bigger than 223, smaller than 308, case size wise. 6mm arc would be my choice. GIVEN, LWRCI™ Six8™ receiver system (larger mag well), magpul mags to match (25rnds, a middle ground loss) and the Geissele beefed up uppers and bolts to fix the strength reliability issues with the barrel extension and bolt lugs. Pair that with Sigs fancy high pressure cases. Presto, you now have a round that is effective out to around 1000yds instead of around 600-700, and hits a lot harder at all distances.

 

[CapnMac]

believe we need an infantry rifle that's capable of defeating Lvl IV armor.

And, that's not guaranteed with the new 6.8x51.
The original notion was to defeat a "level II (ish)" armor at 800 to 1000m. Mind, that required the 80Kpsi loading. Which has already been brought back to 70-ishK for reliability reasons. Also, the "paratrooper armor" this was proposed to defeat was never actually fielded (and was the same mythical armor the 5.7 and 4.8 were meant to stop).

 

[BreechFace]

Shocker, who could have seen this coming?