You would hope that the military would see that a simpler and less expensive case design is a better idea. Hope....
The infantry hates the XM7 rifle (and why the US Army doesn’t care) NB that part 2 is on post #8.
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
You would hope that the military would see that a simpler and less expensive case design is a better idea. Hope....
Sure feels like they didn't learn anything from the switch away from the m14....
Yeah that's basically what I'm thinking. Although it's possible there's reasons it won't work, I could imagine a scenario where the 75k psi steel case doesn't function nicely in full auto for example. I've only seen bolt actions in 7BC so far.
But IF it does work, and IF they actually put these rifles in the hands of every infantryman, I can't imagine they'd stick to the two piece design forever strictly due to a cost perspective.
Barrel life will be abysmal and the govt will care when a big portion of its shiny new rifles are N/S and sitting in depot waiting for a barrel replacement.
Less weight might make the things easier to carry around but it will greatly exacerbate the excessive recoil problem at the same time.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
if only we had adopted the 280Enfield 7x43mm
well perhaps next time
well perhaps next time
M7 is garbage. Two charging handles, adds complexity and weight. The point of the suppressor isn't had 2 functions for flash, and sound, and now they've chopped that glow bug up to reduce weight, so there goes the sound suppression.
Next, 80,000 psi, and you just reduced the effectiveness of the suppressor, plus, the stupid thing will still glow after enough runs are fired, despite them wrapping it in another shell.
Anyone with a clue would realize, the suppressor idea needs to go in the garbage can.
Also, chuck the 80,000 psi garbage. You can basically get the FPS and ballistic average back with a normal case and 60,000 psi, but PUTTING A LONGER BARREL ON IT, the length the barrel had with the suppressor.
Supposedly, they chopped the barrel too 11" now, so they lost what, 200fps, which means that 80,000 psi needs to go higher for the same ballistics?
With a longer barrel replacing the suppressor, flash is reduced by more burn off in the longer barrel, no giant glowing bug on the end, FPS is back, the barrel can be tapered to trim weight, no destroying barrels and bolts and other parts with excessive pressure, and screw that stupid scope they want to put on it.
They're making it like troops are making 800 yard shots now, cause it calculates wind and drop? Gtho with that dung. From what I've heard and read, this pos is 3 and 4 moa.
Two DMRs per platoon, everyone else M4. Who TF wants to CQB with 11 lbs of rifle room to room?
NO ONE!
They can still keep the LMG to replace the 249 and 240. It's lighter, and if that round IS actually more effective, then it's a good fit. Plus, the caliber change won't matter, since 240 was a different caliber.
Realistically, they screwed up not going with the bullpup. Would've been lighter, full length barrel would still keep it compact also.
This pile of dung will be dropped shortly. It's embarrassing they'd even pass it out.
Next, 80,000 psi, and you just reduced the effectiveness of the suppressor, plus, the stupid thing will still glow after enough runs are fired, despite them wrapping it in another shell.
Anyone with a clue would realize, the suppressor idea needs to go in the garbage can.
Also, chuck the 80,000 psi garbage. You can basically get the FPS and ballistic average back with a normal case and 60,000 psi, but PUTTING A LONGER BARREL ON IT, the length the barrel had with the suppressor.
Supposedly, they chopped the barrel too 11" now, so they lost what, 200fps, which means that 80,000 psi needs to go higher for the same ballistics?
With a longer barrel replacing the suppressor, flash is reduced by more burn off in the longer barrel, no giant glowing bug on the end, FPS is back, the barrel can be tapered to trim weight, no destroying barrels and bolts and other parts with excessive pressure, and screw that stupid scope they want to put on it.
They're making it like troops are making 800 yard shots now, cause it calculates wind and drop? Gtho with that dung. From what I've heard and read, this pos is 3 and 4 moa.
Two DMRs per platoon, everyone else M4. Who TF wants to CQB with 11 lbs of rifle room to room?
NO ONE!
They can still keep the LMG to replace the 249 and 240. It's lighter, and if that round IS actually more effective, then it's a good fit. Plus, the caliber change won't matter, since 240 was a different caliber.
Realistically, they screwed up not going with the bullpup. Would've been lighter, full length barrel would still keep it compact also.
This pile of dung will be dropped shortly. It's embarrassing they'd even pass it out.
There is nothing wrong with the M4. the problem with the lethality is an ammo problem or more correctly the projectile.
There is a third function for sound suppressors. They really help to reduce the muzzle blast, which can be very unpleasant when it is near to you. It is especially hard on the head.
HunterKillerV
CGN Regular
- Location
- Central Kootenays, BC
This, and I feel all of Sigs contract wins, are merely the corruption of the military industrial complex surfacing. Sig has clearly run a major bribery campaign and is now shoving all this junk out the door to it's cash cow before they lose their contracts. P320 is a recycled 250, m7 is a polished turd of a sig 716.
The military is always fighting their last war. In Afghanistan, ranges were long and cover was hard. The 5.56 out of a 14.5" barrel was dismal at the extended ranges that the enemy had learned to fight at decades before the USA showed up. Now, in preparation for the next Afghanistan (which undoubtedly will never come), the US brass is fielding the weapon they wish they would have had 20 years ago - all while the Ukraine/Russia conflict is clearly demonstrating that the 5.56 is still formidable for today's modern battlefield (think CZ Bren 2, etc).
What is even more dense is their commitment to the 6.8mm round that is not a standard round anywhere. A round that necessitates a large, heavy launcher. A round that is powerful, but not able to be carried a-plenty. Modern doctrine is superior firepower and absolute target saturation. Good luck with that with fewer rounds. Just my $.02 worth. It's no wonder the soldiers don't like it, never mind all the usual Sig Sauer problems that go with their products as they beta test on the end user.
What is even more dense is their commitment to the 6.8mm round that is not a standard round anywhere. A round that necessitates a large, heavy launcher. A round that is powerful, but not able to be carried a-plenty. Modern doctrine is superior firepower and absolute target saturation. Good luck with that with fewer rounds. Just my $.02 worth. It's no wonder the soldiers don't like it, never mind all the usual Sig Sauer problems that go with their products as they beta test on the end user.
Indeed. And we're now at the point where no one will be taking a 600+yd shot with a rifle. They'll just pull a drone out of their backpack or vehicle, fly it out and blow the guy up. If anything, they should be optimizing for <300yds with small arms and the M4 is already really good for that, especially with the M855A1 ammo.
Mark
I've often thought that the 6mm ARC had great potential if it could have been developed further. Retaining effective (supersonic punch) and excellent wind drift performance well past 1000 yds and still retaining most of the advantages of the assault intermediate rifle cartridge system.
Recoil is a smidge above a 5.56 round but not at all objectionable. Cartridge capacity around 26 rounds giving a load out of 26X7 or around 180 rounds - not bad at all. Modify the bullet to M855A1 specs and it would be a very capable armour penetrator. Base weight would be very comparable to the traditional M4/M27 allowing for the addition of the essential add ons like optics, laser and white light, suppressor and perhaps be piston driven (HK 416) without the crazy weight/length increase that the M7 promises.
Existing lower M4 receivers could have been retained or slightly modified for a very significant cost per unit saving.
Downsides would have been a slightly weaker bolt which maybe could be solved by better heat treating and/or a different composition such as titanium. I'm sure the metallurgy issue could be solvable.
Sometimes good ideas get trash canned when there was no need at all. IMHO
Recoil is a smidge above a 5.56 round but not at all objectionable. Cartridge capacity around 26 rounds giving a load out of 26X7 or around 180 rounds - not bad at all. Modify the bullet to M855A1 specs and it would be a very capable armour penetrator. Base weight would be very comparable to the traditional M4/M27 allowing for the addition of the essential add ons like optics, laser and white light, suppressor and perhaps be piston driven (HK 416) without the crazy weight/length increase that the M7 promises.
Existing lower M4 receivers could have been retained or slightly modified for a very significant cost per unit saving.
Downsides would have been a slightly weaker bolt which maybe could be solved by better heat treating and/or a different composition such as titanium. I'm sure the metallurgy issue could be solvable.
Sometimes good ideas get trash canned when there was no need at all. IMHO
small arms will be straightly self defence in the future, or to dispatch pests out in the field.
Last ditch defence against robots. Most soldiers will be working remotely away from the frontline, working with and supervising AI
Last ditch defence against robots. Most soldiers will be working remotely away from the frontline, working with and supervising AI
Last edited:
