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

CV32

CV32

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Location
The Rock
Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise

Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise
The infantry officer and Expeditionary Warfare School student presented his findings, which lambasted the new rifle for its ergonomics, weight, and durability.
Joseph Trevithick, Howard Altman Published May 2, 2025 6:42 PM EDT

Army Capt. Braden Trent has caused something of a stir this week, saying that data he has collected points to his service’s new 6.8x51mm XM7 service rifle suffering from serious reliability and other issues, including excessive barrel wear and regular breakages of key components. He claims, based in part on observations of live-fire exercises involving XM7-armed soldiers, that these problems, together with a host of other factors, make the gun “unfit” for its intended purpose. The gun’s manufacturer, Sig Sauer, has strenuously pushed back on Trent’s assertions and outright denied a number of them.

Capt. Trent presented his findings, which come from an unclassified student thesis, at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. The Army infantry officer is currently attending the Expeditionary Warfare School, part of the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia.

“My project began as a fact-finding mission. I wanted to find out, how does this new product [the XM7] increase soldier lethality and what data can I provide at the unclassified level to help soldiers and leaders alike make better decisions at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels?” Trent said in his presentation at Modern Day Marine. His research, “consisting of in depth historical analysis, testing with experts, ballistics research, extensive dialog with soldiers, industry and leaders,” came “to the conclusion that the XM7 is unfit for use as a modern service rifle.”

What is the XM7 Rifle?

The XM7 is a 6.8x51mm version of Sig Sauer’s increasingly popular MCX Spear family of rifles. Though Sig’s MCX family is a separate development, the core design is derived from the AR-15/M16 pattern family of rifles, and upper receivers from certain versions of the former can be directly paired with lower receivers from the latter with the help of an adapter. The overall configurations of guns in both families are very similar, as are the basic ergonomics and control arrangements.
Click to expand...
[excerpt]
 
Suther said:
Can't say the excessive barrel wear thing or parts breakage is a surprise given the pressures of the ammo.
Click to expand...
It's basic physics that anyone familiar with firearms would know the moment they looked at the numbers. Push a bullet down a barrel at higher velocity, burning more powder and it's gonna wear the barrel faster. Consider that more velocity equals more friction and more burning powder means more heat and things get even worse. Sig seems to believe there is a free lunch with respect to how barrels wear.
 
Um...ok so what are the issues ? The whole excerpt just eludes to "issues" but never specifically mentions what they are is there a link somewhere to the full article ?
 
I Dont Care About You said:
It's basic physics that anyone familiar with firearms would know the moment they looked at the numbers. Push a bullet down a barrel at higher velocity, burning more powder and it's gonna wear the barrel faster. Consider that more velocity equals more friction and more burning powder means more heat and things get even worse. Sig seems to believe there is a free lunch with respect to how barrels wear.
Click to expand...

This sums up my thoughts pretty well.

Generally with anything (cars / tech / firearms) as performance increases reliability decreases and components (barrels in this case) wear out faster, in this instance maybe this could be mitigated somewhat by using different steel (I remember Bartlien was using a new formula steel for their barrels which supposedly getting better barrel life - MOD400BB or something like that) but all things being equal higher pressure comes with a cost.
 
I Dont Care About You said:
The rifle is big and heavy and has a ton of recoil and apparently burns its barrel out and breaks parts.
Click to expand...
Played around with one in florida. Didnt have the can on it but the lpvo was on. Really not that heavy, would never buy one in 6.8. Other than that i really liked the ergos.. They wanted 5500 US hahahaha. Reality is a 16 inch DD ar10 is better, and the military should go back to 762x51
 
BigMasterShrek said:
Played around with one in florida. Didnt have the can on it but the lpvo was on. Really not that heavy, would never buy one in 6.8. Other than that i really liked the ergos.. They wanted 5500 US hahahaha. Reality is a 16 inch DD ar10 is better, and the military should go back to 762x51
Click to expand...
7.62x51 is great until you need to hump it around all day. I'm fine with the C6 gunners using all the 7.62x51 we bring. 5.56 still gets the job done in close quarters. I think the people lobbying for change need to recognize that there's no "silver bullet", pardon the pun.
 
cancer said:
Ok, assuming the Captain's findings are correct, is the XM7 still better than an M4?
Click to expand...

I imagine stopping power on the XM7 is superior by a ways, and ballistics are probably better too.

From the article M4 would have better barrel life and sounds like reliability is superior (once again higher pressure comes at a cost).

As someone mentioned already all things being equal (ie weight) the M4 would have more rounds available but the XM7 would have better stopping force so........

Like many things in life it is a compromise.
 
cancer said:
7.62x51 is great until you need to hump it around all day. I'm fine with the C6 gunners using all the 7.62x51 we bring. 5.56 still gets the job done in close quarters. I think the people lobbying for change need to recognize that there's no "silver bullet", pardon the pun.
Click to expand...
5.56 is fine until you're fighting a modern army with body armour.
 
BigMasterShrek said:
Youre right they dont make men like they used to.
Click to expand...
Not to sound like a #### but speak for yourself.

The argument is that you can carry more 5.56 pound for pound, it’s not about carrying less.

In ww2 they carried 80 cartridges for the m1 which was 6.75lbs

Today they carry 210 cartridges of 5.56 which is 6.3lbs

Although in both cases this is a minimum and in combat you carry what you can
 
Last edited:
Boner said:
Not to sound like a #### but speak for yourself.

The argument is that you can carry more 5.56 pound for pound, it’s not about carrying less.

In ww2 they carried 80 cartridges for the m1 which was 6.75lbs

Today they carry 210 cartridges of 5.56 which is 6.3lbs

Although in both cases this is a minimum and in combat you carry what you can
Click to expand...
Good thing you can carry more cause it takes twice as much to put someone down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom