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

[I Dont Care About You]

It is the supply chain and the logistic issue.

It is also having enough rifles to make up for the 20% that are down at any one time because their barrel is burnt out. Then there is having the people to repair all those rifles that keep burning out their barrels. It really creates a bit of a nightmare.

I thought the whole idea of going to a new ammo and gun platform was to have the ability to defeat level 4 armor without the use of tungsten based AP rounds ?

The body armour makers will adapt much faster than the ammo makers can.

 

[wai762]

this seem to provide some interesting info

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/29/level-iv-unbeatable-armor-caliber-problem-tungsten/

He seem to say that it is currently impossible to have AP steel core round that will defeat Level 4 armor, and tungsten is too expensive and supply too low to be a solution in a sustain war.

What would happen if China decide to flood the market in Africa/Asia/South America with cheap level 4 armor.
There is currently a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, if China decide to equip the Cambodian army with level 4 armor, it will make life difficult for the Thails.

 

[RRCo.]

Trent observed a platoon’s live-fire exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where elements of the 101st Airborne Division have been testing and carrying the rifle for over a year. Trent watched soldiers run “almost completely out of ammunition” in 10 minutes while using XM7s to suppress a simulated enemy as fellow platoon mates made tactical maneuvers. By 15 minutes into the exercise, their situation was even more dire, as soldiers had to retrieve spare magazines from radio operators, medics and platoon leaders.

So they've been given what amounts to a sniper's rifle, but are using it like an assault rifle with a banana mag. They have the scope to find and aim single effective shots at an enemy, they just need to be trained to use the rifle and scope appropriately to the situation. It was proven generations ago that aimed single shots are more intimidating and suppressive than any other kind. Close range or urban combat is a different thing of course, but there are complementary weapons for that.

 

[woodchopper]

this seem to provide some interesting info

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/29/level-iv-unbeatable-armor-caliber-problem-tungsten/

He seem to say that it is currently impossible to have AP steel core round that will defeat Level 4 armor, and tungsten is too expensive and supply too low to be a solution in a sustain war.

What would happen if China decide to flood the market in Africa/Asia/South America with cheap level 4 armor.
There is currently a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, if China decide to equip the Cambodian army with level 4 armor, it will make life difficult for the Thails.

body armour is not going to prevent troops from getting wounded, just better chances of surviving.

 

[greentips]

armour is statistics - it reduces the chance somewhat. The answer to people with armour is robotizing and automating the battle field, and reducing human presence drastically, which is where we are heading ( maybe not canada)

 

[greentips]

People constantly cite China as a threat of human wave attacks - these are outdated ideas and uninformed.

China has been suffering from declining birth rate, like Japan, where the demographic is pointing to a society where fewer young people supporting many people in an aging population. Young people are valuable, and unlike western countries, China ( and Japan) are not willing to import mass number of people to solve this issue.

This is why China has been aggressively moving to AI, robotics etc. If people want to worry, they should worry that China will field a robotic and AI army before the western militaries do, not that they are giving joe ceramic armour plates.

 

[Jarvy]

They have the scope to find and aim single effective shots at an enemy, they just need to be trained to use the rifle and scope appropriately to the situation.

What they need is an enemy with the courtesy to ease up their own suppression enough to let them line up that nice crisp shot, is what you're saying. If you can find such an opponent, I'm sure the army would be thrilled.

 

[Gunnerlove]

What they need is an enemy with the courtesy to ease up their own suppression enough to let them line up that nice crisp shot, is what you're saying. If you can find such an opponent, I'm sure the army would be thrilled.

From what I have seen given zero stress and all the time in the world a large portion of soldiers will struggle to consistently connect with a target smaller than the earth.

 

[RRCo.]

What they need is an enemy with the courtesy to ease up their own suppression enough to let them line up that nice crisp shot, is what you're saying. If you can find such an opponent, I'm sure the army would be thrilled.

So you envision an enemy who carries a lot more ammo? And how is their fire directed? Spray and pray in your general direction? How effective is their "suppression" going to be and how long is it going to last? If everyone ducks down out of sight when enemy fire isn't on target or effective, then I guess you have to stay there until they've burned off their basic load or they decide to scarper, but troops who aren't blasting away in similar fashion are pretty hard to locate in most circumstances, aren't they? Automatic fire is a lot easier to locate than single shots isn't it? Who's going to be harder to locate and actually suppress effectively and whose ammo is going to last longer? I suggest that the aimed and effective suppressive fire is not only going to suppress better, it's going to last a lot longer because it uses up ammo more slowly. If the goal is fire and movement the combination of truly effective fire of longer duration gives a much better chance of making it onto the objective alive. The troops advancing can spray if they want, but those covering them would be better advised to concentrate on precisely aimed fire in many or most situations I suggest. A lot less likely to have friendly fire incidents as well.

 

[Jarvy]

So you envision an enemy who carries a lot more ammo?

If they're in a defensive position, they don't have to carry it, so yes. This insistence on forgetting every lesson learned in every peer conflict in the last 100 years is very strange to me, especially when it's been attempted so many times before with abysmal failure.

 

[RRCo.]

If they're in a defensive position, they don't have to carry it, so yes. This insistence on forgetting every lesson learned in every peer conflict in the last 100 years is very strange to me, especially when it's been attempted so many times before with abysmal failure.

They might, or they might not and the same could be said for the attacking troops. Lots of troops carried a lot more than the basic load in past wars, and often by their own choice.

I suggest that the lesson of every peer conflict from say the American revolution onward is that fire which hits the target is effective and fire which doesn't is ineffective unless it is so close as to suggest to the target that they are being aimed at specifically. That's why a single sniper can put a whole company or more to ground and keep them there indefinitely, whereas well trained and led troops can and will advance against ineffective fire. Of course where heavier weapons and support are available, troops prefer to call on those to eliminate the enemy rather than using fire and movement and that's a good call when the support is available. The problems arise when it isn't available.

Anyway, with every man now equipped better than a sniper of WWII there's no reason not to teach them to shoot like they are and to insist that they do. After all, you're much less likely to be targeted yourself when firing single, aimed shots, and much less likely to run out of ammo. The trick will probably be getting troops to assess the situation they are in, individually and collectively, and adjust their methods to suit the situation. However, self preservation is generally the best motivator.

 

[Jarvy]

That's why a single sniper can put a whole company or more to ground and keep them there indefinitely

That sniper can do that specifically because they are NOT advancing at the same time, and they certainly wont be jumping into the trench to clear it out. This is just a bunch of stuff that sounds good in theory but never actually works out in practice.

The assault rifles in use now ended up that way because they are superior in the attack and adequate in defense. The reality is in most situations you simply will not have the line of sight to take those long range engagements. Anyone whos been in the army can tell you you often can't see very far even in fields that look empty on a map. Theres bush, trees, buildings, folds in the ground, etc. The capabilities of the rifle and the rifleman have very little to do with it.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Consider the Battle of Mogadishu or the jungles of Vietnam. How well would a squad of long range, heavy caliber equipped riflemen with limited ammunition have faired in those conflicts? Military engagements are much more often about mass of fire over shorter distances. These days a military engagement is much more likely to occur in a city.

 

[Ustauk]

SIG may be hedging their bets a bit, not on the cartridge, but the rifle. They are doing their own beefed-up AR10 upper on a DPMS pattern lower for 277 Fury. It uses steel wear components from the Spear to lessen wear and tear, but is a DI-ish internal piston gun, so it will be less front heavy. You trade no-folding stock for less front-heaviness, but I suspect operators not running in a vehicle, hoofing it around and carrying the firearm off-hand at ready would prefer this.

 

[RRCo.]

That sniper can do that specifically because they are NOT advancing at the same time, and they certainly wont be jumping into the trench to clear it out. This is just a bunch of stuff that sounds good in theory but never actually works out in practice.

The assault rifles in use now ended up that way because they are superior in the attack and adequate in defense. The reality is in most situations you simply will not have the line of sight to take those long range engagements. Anyone whos been in the army can tell you you often can't see very far even in fields that look empty on a map. Theres bush, trees, buildings, folds in the ground, etc. The capabilities of the rifle and the rifleman have very little to do with it.

That's true, but my point is that if troops providing covering fire are in a comparable situation where range and environment permit, they will be more effective and safe if they shoot in a comparable way given that they now have the scopes and cartridge to do so. I realize that in close engagements or the advance roughly aimed and rapid fire is inevitable and usually preferable for those moving. The superior effect of heavier cartridges against enemy behind vegetation or structures is proven I believe. It's ironic that the small calibre intermediate cartridge which was intended to provide the advantage of greater volume of fire not only violated the principle of a single, uniform ammunition supply, but reversed the trend that began with the Minée cartridge of longer and longer effective ranges. I guess the EM2 was the first general issue rifle to have optical sights after the K43 and the first somewhat intermediate cartridge rifle to do so, and since the general issue scopes are now so good and so greatly increase the ability to aim accurately at longer ranges, it only makes sense to go back to a longer range cartridge. As Churchill said, the Americans will always do the right thing after exhausting every other possibility.