Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
Would have loved to see how the xcr would have done in the scar program. Small arms soloutions on youtube has a very interesting video comparing the 2. The xcr h is still one of my favorite 308 rifles.
Interesting enough the US army is cutting a lot of things - M10 Brookers,, Stryker, old Apach, AMPV, ripsaw....no more old hummv
Listen to the nrew Army secretary. They are completely rethinking what the future looks like with robots and AI. IFV and new tanks got the money. Survivability in a drone world. Either things that are made super hard to kill by drones, or drones + drone swamp defence. The expensive toys sitting in between get wiped out in the future procurement. If it is robotic, it must be cheap and mass produceable because they will be consumable.
Personally don't think M7 ( but not M250 and 6.8 ammo) will end up with everyone. It will be one M7 and one M250 per squad likely at the end, that sort of things. In a world full of fast moving drones, what is M7 going to do?? Did you see a Ukrainian guy shot down a FPV with a 556, can you do it with a 6.8 that fast? how about carrying a battle rifle and battle rounds and a "drone gun" ( microwave, shotgun, whatever) in addition to more rockets and grenade rifles? is your back hurting yet?
I wouldn't be going anywhere near a battlefield without a long barrelled shotgun.
You're right. But it's actually more than that. A soldier carrying a rifle isn't only carrying 5.56mm. They're also carrying 7.62x51 for the GPMG, 84mm rounds, 81mm rounds, M72 tubes and grenades. You don't only carry your kit, you share the load and carry the Platoon or Company's kit as well. This is why I'm fine with 5.56mm. It's good enough up close and it leaves room for carrying all the support ammo, of which we bring A LOT.
After years of the U.S. trying to convince every ally it could of the efficiency and effectiveness of the intermediate cartridge and succeeding (OK you're right, we're all convinced and we've adopted the concept) they now try to yank us back to 1957 thinking. Why should anyone believe anything the U.S. says anymore.
The intermediate cartridge concept is sound and makes sense so let's hang on to the advantages it offers and improve on it. Could not an intermediate cartridge have been developed with the characteristics required (range and armour piercing)??
I thought Hornady's development of the 6mm ARC was an excellent step in that direction. Still available in a lightweight M4/M16 type rifle and offering lighter rounds with higher mag capacity than 7.62, it just requires the right bullet configuration to offer armour piercing capabilities.
According to Hornady's Jayden Quinlan, the cartridge was developed at U.S. Army's special request in response to the extended range engagements encountered in Afghanistan. By all accounts Hornady has succeeded and the cartridge delivers good performance well past 1000 yds.
So run with that - you're on the right track!! How many times do you need to reinvent the wheel??
The intermediate cartridge concept is sound and makes sense so let's hang on to the advantages it offers and improve on it. Could not an intermediate cartridge have been developed with the characteristics required (range and armour piercing)??
I thought Hornady's development of the 6mm ARC was an excellent step in that direction. Still available in a lightweight M4/M16 type rifle and offering lighter rounds with higher mag capacity than 7.62, it just requires the right bullet configuration to offer armour piercing capabilities.
According to Hornady's Jayden Quinlan, the cartridge was developed at U.S. Army's special request in response to the extended range engagements encountered in Afghanistan. By all accounts Hornady has succeeded and the cartridge delivers good performance well past 1000 yds.
So run with that - you're on the right track!! How many times do you need to reinvent the wheel??
tactical lever
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Fox Creek, Alberta
I wonder now if the bigger round was actually a pre-emptive measure for lightly armoured "slaughterbots"?
This is the opposite of what happened. Everyone wanted an intermediate cartridge after WW2 but the US insisted on the 7.62x51. The British even tried to defy them, and push through their own .280 cartridge anyway, but it got shut down - NATO standardization trumps everything, even good sense. Then, just a few years after NATO relented and stocked up on 7.62, the US found out first hand it was totally outclassed in Vietnam and switched mid-conflict to an intermediate cartridge like everyone wanted in the first place.
The world didn't have to be convinced it was a good idea, they already knew. The world had been pressured into taking a full powered rifle cartridge it didn't want, and unlike the US, didn't have the budget to switch back after the massive investment had already been made.
The cult of the American Marksman is trying to have a comeback, attempting convince everyone that with a whiz bang wonder gun you can sit outside of enemy rifle range, pick them off, then walk onto the objective unopposed. No one is buying it this time, we've heard this song before.
Imagine dragging a full sized XM7 through trenches. It would be the least handy rifle under such close quarters conditions and the 20 round mags would be a serious limitation.
The XM7 and its super high pressure round are serious stupidity.
The XM7 and its super high pressure round are serious stupidity.
What Jarvy said is correct. I should have been clearer.
I was mainly referring to the U.S trying to standardize on the 5.56 cartridge for NATO well after they finally figured it out (post Vietnam) that full powered cartridges were not what was needed or desired for the infantry.
Now it's going to be very difficult to convince NATO to again completely reverse course.
I was mainly referring to the U.S trying to standardize on the 5.56 cartridge for NATO well after they finally figured it out (post Vietnam) that full powered cartridges were not what was needed or desired for the infantry.
Now it's going to be very difficult to convince NATO to again completely reverse course.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
somewhere in my files I have a number of papers that were written about the ideal caliber, the British tried in 1913 but then stuck with 303 for the war and then there was no interest in carrying on after the war. High praise was given to the 6.5 Japanese round and the thinking that the 303 was more then required for an infantry rifle. WW2 everyone came with what they had and only at the end of the war that intermediate rounds were seen as the answer to high rates of fire for the infantry.
British were developing a 270 and a 280 round, and the US kept saying 'not powerful enough' the final result was the 280 loaded hot, 7x43mm, and the US still decided they just wanted a modern 30-06 so forced the 7.62x51 on NATO. Really the first iteration of 270 would have been a great round and the 280 Enfield compromise would have been perfectly fine. When the US finally realized that the 7.62x51 was not what was needed they just grabbed on to what was available.
so now were here looking at something between 7.62x51 and 5.56x45
but someone wants the terminal performance of the 7.62x51 in a smaller package.
British were developing a 270 and a 280 round, and the US kept saying 'not powerful enough' the final result was the 280 loaded hot, 7x43mm, and the US still decided they just wanted a modern 30-06 so forced the 7.62x51 on NATO. Really the first iteration of 270 would have been a great round and the 280 Enfield compromise would have been perfectly fine. When the US finally realized that the 7.62x51 was not what was needed they just grabbed on to what was available.
so now were here looking at something between 7.62x51 and 5.56x45
but someone wants the terminal performance of the 7.62x51 in a smaller package.
I was all over the 6.8 exploration. I think that I still am.
The US and NATO relation has always been awkward. From this to their norma sniper platform. Just weird.
It still blows me away that they chose a plain jane version of 9mm-not a new 9.4 hurricane creedmore magnum.
The US and NATO relation has always been awkward. From this to their norma sniper platform. Just weird.
It still blows me away that they chose a plain jane version of 9mm-not a new 9.4 hurricane creedmore magnum.
The 7x43 prob would have been a good round. Compared it to something like 762x39 for ballistics and power.
277 Fury is neither between 762 Nato and 556 Nato, nor is it smaller package than 762 Nato.
HunterKillerV
CGN Regular
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
What do they care about increased barrel wear? They have a bottomless pit of money when it comes to invading other countries for resources or defending corpo interests.
It is not the money, there is always money somewhere.
It is the supply chain and the logistic issue. There will be money, but will there be barrels? If there are barrels, how many, where and how they are stored and distributed -who can ask for it? There are already millions of things out there that joe needs to constantly request - the one less item the less handache. When there are 250k of these things out there, and the part request is 2X more frequent, it is an issue that needs to address. Are they going to order 4 spare barrels for each rifle order? Where do these spare barrels go? how to make sure joe doesn't order too many barrels? What is the standard ( wear gauge) and who it is going to authorize a 700 dollar part?
So the questions that need to be asked is here
1) Does it accomplish that?
and
2) Do you need to accomplish that?
The answer to both appears to be no. This seems to be yet another American project based on the incoherent obsession with "outranging your opponent with rifles to win" by pretending the last 100 years of combined arms doctrine never happened.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Having sat in many military meetings I can tell you that boardrooms are where good ideas go to die. Anyone clinging to the idea that the best and brightest are running things needs to let that go yesterday.
I am sure some of the staff are busy building a cool DMR with improved capabilities while their empire building bosses try to take over control of all rifles by making promises they don't believe or understand.
I am sure some of the staff are busy building a cool DMR with improved capabilities while their empire building bosses try to take over control of all rifles by making promises they don't believe or understand.
