Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise

Evanguy said:
Compare all of those things to find the overall winner.
Click to expand...
You completely missed the point there. You can't just 'compare' those things, you have to pick priorities and balance things that are mutually incompatible, which is exceedingly difficult to do well. There are centuries of history showing governments and military's around the globe making the wrong choices, probably more often than the right ones.


Mark
 
BigMasterShrek said:
Good thing you can carry more cause it takes twice as much to put someone down
Click to expand...
You are deflecting, let’s stay on topic…however I’ll argue that:

The advancements in war tactics comes with experience. The objective is not always to kill the enemy but to cripple them until they fold. It takes more men and resources for the enemy to deal with an injured soldier then a dead one. Generally speaking, in a firefight the winners are the ones with the most ammo, not the more powerful cartridge (note: I’m not comparing to heavy machine guns, this is a light infantry comparison and I am challenging a statement you made about men, not lethality of the cartridge)
 
Last edited:
Didn't both the Russians and Germans try issuing their infantry with lots of SMG's because they could carry way more ammo (about 5 times as much) for their SMG's compared to their rifles but after the war both felt it was a mistake and went back to using a more powerful rifle cartridge equipped infantry squad.
 
mmattockx said:
You completely missed the point there. You can't just 'compare' those things, you have to pick priorities and balance things that are mutually incompatible, which is exceedingly difficult to do well. There are centuries of history showing governments and military's around the globe making the wrong choices, probably more often than the right ones.


Mark
Click to expand...
For those unaware, this cartridge was developed to penetrate body armour of a modern day military, specifically China. The other requirement was better long range capability, a lesson from Afghanistan although the projections of future war are more cqb and the optics that the rifle comes with falls short of the capacity of the rifle/cartridge.

The cartridge itself is fire, the rifle may need some tweaks and improvements to make it more reliable, same thing applies with all products and technology. The barrel wear issue sig might see as an advantage rather then problem.$$$
 
Boner said:
You are deflecting, let’s stay on topic…however I’ll argue that:

The advancements in war tactics comes with experience. The objective is not always to kill the enemy but to cripple them until they fold. It takes more men and resources for the enemy to deal with an injured soldier then a dead one. Generally speaking, in a firefight the winners are the ones with the most ammo, not the more powerful cartridge (note: I’m not comparing to heavy machine guns, this is a light infantry comparison and I am challenging a statement you made about men, not lethality of the cartridge)
Click to expand...
I agree with that logic and thats the great benefit of 556. Im just a boomer at heart and if their goal with the spear project is to put people down and have better armour penetrative capabilities, then x51 is the goat.
 
mkrnel said:
Didn't both the Russians and Germans try issuing their infantry with lots of SMG's because they could carry way more ammo (about 5 times as much) for their SMG's compared to their rifles but after the war both felt it was a mistake and went back to using a more powerful rifle cartridge equipped infantry squad.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to argue that but that is a more extreme example. SMG cartridge doesn’t have a very effective range where 5.56 has a pretty nice sweet spot. I think their thinking was because of the extremely close combat condition, they were probably thinking of what would be most effective for trench sweeping.
We could exaggerate this further and say “hey let’s replace 5.56 with 22LR cuz you can carry more”

You may hear the odd story about how it took 20 rounds to put down a Taliban fighter but overall you don’t hear many complain about the 5.56 cartridge. It’s not perfect but I would say it’s the perfect compromise.
 
BigMasterShrek said:
I agree with that logic and thats the great benefit of 556. Im just a boomer at heart and if their goal with the spear project is to put people down and have better armour penetrative capabilities, then x51 is the goat.
Click to expand...
Hard to make money off old technology, it wasn’t the 5.56 itself that lost any wars or put their military at any sort of noticeable disadvantage to warrant such change. The replacement of the M4 has more to do with hypothetical scenarios then actual challenges they face. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to think ahead, it’s just part of this rapid arms race we’re seeing world wide.
 
Boner said:
Hard to make money off old technology, it wasn’t the 5.56 itself that lost any wars or put their military at any sort of noticeable disadvantage to warrant such change. The replacement of the M4 has more to do with hypothetical scenarios then actual challenges they face. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to think ahead, it’s just part of this rapid arms race we’re seeing world wide.
Click to expand...
Ironically the us hasnt won a war since the adoption of 556. Not that Im attributing the adoption to that just a note
 
870P said:
IMO, the future of military "small arms" will increasingly lie with semiautomatic mini grenade launchers of the kinds now being tested under the U.S. military's PGS program.

https://www.twz.com/land/one-of-the...ould-succeed-where-the-armys-punisher-failed/
Click to expand...
Future of war is in drone’s and guided munitions. Check out military trade shows. Right now we’re in the hybrid phase. Soon it will be Killer AI robots. We’re so effed, it’s gunna suck, won’t even have a chance. Like fish on a hook..yeah, fish on a hook.
 
Last edited:
xxDaveMcxx said:
Isn't that why they went to the M855A1 upgraded cartridge? Better penetration on body armour and better terminal effects when it enters a body?
Click to expand...
Sure but it still sucks compared to .308, magnums or the new sig round. .22-250 would likely be the best cartridge for penetration, just worse for barrel life etc.
 
Last edited:
I am glad that I fought the Cold War, and when the shooting started, it was a Low to Mid-Intensity Counter-Insurgency Operation and not modern State on State warfare such as that which we are seeing in Ukraine. The rapid development of First-Person and AI-guided suicide and ordnance-delivery drones is terrifying. Similarly, the concurrent rise of cheaply-made Thermal Imaging Devices has left the infantryman with few places to hide, and total exposure whenever changing positions. The two combined are murder on dismounted infantry and even armoured vehicles with open hatches. Scary times to be taking on a near-peer adversary....

Personally, when it comes to Small Arms I believe the next wave of future development lies in the realm of electro-optical aiming devices to increase hit probability and consequent lethality. The XM7's Vortex-manufactured, full-solution fire control system is a good first attempt at integrating all of the required capabilities into one system. Although currrently too bulky and heavy, the M7 Fire Control System will soon shrink in size and weight to a form-factor consistent with current tactical optics offerings.
 
Kevin32 said:
Sure but it still sucks compared to .308, magnums or the new sig round. .22-250 would likely be the best cartridge for penetration.
Click to expand...

Bartok5 said:
I am glad that I fought the Cold War, and when the shooting started, it was a Low to Mid-Intensity Counter-Insurgency Operation and not modern State on State warfare such as that which we are seeing in Ukraine. The rapid development of First-Person and AI-guided suicide and ordnance-delivery drones is terrifying. Similarly, the concurrent rise of cheaply-made Thermal Imaging Devices has left the infantryman with few places to hide, and total exposure whenever changing positions. The two combined are murder on dismounted infantry and even armoured vehicles with open hatches. Scary times to be taking on a near-peer adversary....

Personally, when it comes to Small Arms I believe the next wave of future development lies in the realm of electro-optical aiming devices to increase hit probability and consequent lethality. The XM7's Vortex-manufactured, full-solution fire control system is a good first attempt at integrating all of the required capabilities into one system. Although currrently too bulky and heavy, the M7 Fire Control System will soon shrink in size and weight to a form-factor consistent with current tactical optics offerings.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct about fire control systems.

Even a 5 lb AR in .17 Rem Heavy EPRs (40gr) might be better then M855A1.

7N6 has shown us that volume and quantity beats most all.

.17 Wounds as bad as 7N6 or worse.

40gr, 52gr, 62gr, 77gr, and all others...doesn't matter if you don't have massive drone and air supremacy.
 
Reading the detailed article, I detect the whiff of failure with this new rifle, starting with the carry weight, but that will likely depend on where the next major war is fought. It was the open ranges of Afghanistan and Iraq that made the 5.56x45 round look obsolete and you would hear and read accounts of even successful head shots failing at 300-400 metres- this new rifle is of course a proposed answer to that. It's a cliche that the West, meaning the US, fights every war based on the previous one but I just hope the US remembers the lessons of the premature introduction of the M16 in Vietnam. However their adoption of the Sig P320 as their standard service pistol argues against that; there seems to be a strange ongoing enthusiasm for Sig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom