What U.S. troops really thinkg of their new XM-7 (Spear) rifle.

[sigstroker]

[k1dude]

The video still doesn't convince me the inherent weaknesses of the M7 rifle are worth widespread adoption over the M4. $15.70 per round! Yikes! And 3 MOA is nothing to write home about.

The M250 makes all the sense in the world. I hope they quickly adopt it to replace the M249.

As far as the M7, I could see it being used as a squad designated marksman rifle. But most should still carry an M4 unless we get involved in another Afghanistan with extended ranges.

As the one unnamed officer complained, he was far slower with the heavy and unwieldy rifle in CQB exercises. Slower movements, slower on target, and delayed response and engagement. Not good. I'd also like to hear all the complaints after carrying the M7 and ammo on long foot patrols with battle rattle in the mountains.

I was also curious about the performance of the suppressor that will be issued along with the rifle. The unnamed officer said it was more like a fancy flash hider than an actual suppressor. I guess that's all you need for battlefield conditions. Although I'm not sure it's worth the extra weight and hassle.

The unnamed officer also said the weight was painfully evident when trying to shoot while standing. Not good. The same officer complained he despised the rifle when it came to maintenance. Also not good.

I think the Army is making a very expensive mistake with widespread adoption of the M7.

[Pofoo]

Elite units may prefer the increased penetration, but most regular infantry will prefer the lighter weight of the m4. After full integration of the m16 into VN, how many soldiers would prefer to carry a m14? Or, even Korea or WW2, with the m1 carbine vs the Garand?
And per the video on soldiers opinions?
Do you think any of them would be allowed to criticize the rifle?

[sigstroker]

The video still doesn't convince me the inherent weaknesses of the M7 rifle are worth widespread adoption over the M4. $15.70 per round! Yikes! And 3 MOA is nothing to write home about.

The M250 makes all the sense in the world. I hope they quickly adopt it to replace the M249.

I think it's supposed to replace the M240B too.

As far as the M7, I could see it being used as a squad designated marksman rifle. But most should still carry an M4 unless we get involved in another Afghanistan with extended ranges.

As the one unnamed officer complained, he was far slower with the heavy and unwieldy rifle in CQB exercises. Slower movements, slower on target, and delayed response and engagement. Not good. I'd also like to hear all the complaints after carrying the M7 and ammo on long foot patrols with battle rattle in the mountains.

I was also curious about the performance of the suppressor that will be issued along with the rifle. The unnamed officer said it was more like a fancy flash hider than an actual suppressor. I guess that's all you need for battlefield conditions. Although I'm not sure it's worth the extra weight and hassle.

The unnamed officer also said the weight was painfully evident when trying to shoot while standing. Not good. The same officer complained he despised the rifle when it came to maintenance. Also not good.

I think the Army is making a very expensive mistake with widespread adoption of the M7.

Everyone is remembering Iraqistan goathumper enemy. The military is trying to look into the future. Against near-peer enemy with ceramic body armor.

WRT the silencer, who knows if this guy knows anything about silencers. Maybe he thinks they're like the ones on tv. Centerfire supersonic cartridges are friggin loud with a silencer, but not so loud that you can't hear guys shouting. The .mil cans are free-flowing, so you don't gas out your eyes and give yourself cancer. That also makes them a little louder then a Surefire.

[walmart_ar15]

The new tech is in the ammo, NOT the rifle (it was advertised they can switch the new caliber into current M240). So why not boost the current 556 or if want a bit bigger, 6.8SPC with the same ammo technology (80kpsi). The SIG rifle just provide more revenue for the MIC and the generals/procurement officers in charge.

[Enthused]

As far as the M7, I could see it being used as a squad designated marksman rifle. But most should still carry an M4 unless we get involved in another Afghanistan with extended ranges.

I think the Army is making a very expensive mistake with widespread adoption of the M7.

I too get DMR vibes from this thing, particularly with that included optic. What a fantastic DMR platform it would be.

Now giving this thing to everyone? I dunno. In a CQB/Urban scenario, I don't know if I would even take an M7 over an M16A2.

[jarhead714]

If the 240 can be produced in the new round then why have Sig build another GPMG? It might be a little lighter but it couldn’t possibly be a more effective weapon of that type than the big Belgian is and has been for over 60 years.

[smle-man]

This looks like the endless struggle in the Army between volume of fire and precision shooting continues. Post war the Army seems to forget that volume of fire and maneuver wins engagements and the precision shooting crowd gains control. When the shooting starts, volume of fire proves itself again.

For example, we think of the M1 rifle as a precision shooting piece, but it was developed as a volume of fire weapon for that time. The M1 carbine was widely issued during WW2 and Korea for its volume of fire capability. Afghanistan taught the U.S. the wrong lesson, that engagements would typically be beyond 300 meters, and we developed an overweight, under capacity, and over-powered arm for the next conflict that will find that arm to be as unsatisfactory as the M14 in Vietnam. The British learned a similar incorrect lesson from the 2nd Boer war and almost adopted a turn of the century 7mm magnum infantry round due to the long range riflery practiced by the Boers. The next war found them in trenches engaging at 100 yds.

If Russian body armor was as significant an issue as the Army seems to think it is, we would be hearing that the Ukrainians are having problems penetrating it with the 5.45, 7.62, and 5.56 weapons that they are using and that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Canadadry]

This won't get adopted. The was a way for the army to get a new 308. Just like the M27 was only supposed to replace saw. This was a way to get a new rifle for the Marines.

[Duck Killer]

They should have increased the pressure of the 7.62 round and changed the bullet design and weight to meet the new requirements. I don’t believe that the new round is going to be capable of doing anything significant better than an upgrade to the current 7.62.

[k1dude]

They should have increased the pressure of the 7.62 round and changed the bullet design and weight to meet the new requirements. I don’t believe that the new round is going to be capable of doing anything significant better than an upgrade to the current 7.62.

That's a good thought. Increase chamber pressures of the 7.62x51 to 80,000 psi and reap the benefits. It would probably still need a 2 part steel/brass case to handle the pressure. But that would be good to keep confusion to a minimum so no one accidentally chambered the new round into a M14, M110A1, FN SCAR, etc... Or simply rebarrel all those weapons with new bolts and eliminate the legacy 7.62x51 round. But that would cost a fortune and all the stores of legacy 7.62x51 ammo would wind up as civilian surplus ().

[sigstroker]

They should have increased the pressure of the 7.62 round and changed the bullet design and weight to meet the new requirements. I don’t believe that the new round is going to be capable of doing anything significant better than an upgrade to the current 7.62.

So you think the .308 in underloaded for no specific reason?

[Duck Killer]

So you think the .308 in underloaded for no specific reason?

7.62 nato was created to match the ballistics of m2 ball ammo without the extra length of 30-06. Increasing 7.62 nato to 80,000 psi with a 130 grain ap core would give roughly the same bullet length as a 150 grain bullet allowing for the bullet to be stabilized in current bullets. I don’t know what the proof load pressure for 7.62 nato is but I would assume it is close to 80,000 psi. Staying with 7.62 nato chambering would allow the ability to use normal ammo and the new ap rounds accordingly to the need at that moment. It would also be a lot cheaper and easier on the supply chain.

My personal opinion is that they should have adopted the Ohio Ordinance HCAR in 30-06. The gas system can handle almost any pressure. You can also load 30-06 to high pressures that the velocity is close to 300 win mag loads. Mixed with new technology in ap bullets it would outperform everything else in the market. 30-06 ap loaded to m2 standard is still considered the best ap round ever to be mass produced and is still used in body armor testing