The Army’s new rifle - the XM7

[burbguy82]

slightly narrower, lighter bullet gives the ballistic coefficient, and velocity at range

like a "spear"

Never underestimate the ability of soldiers, sailors, or Marines, to use the wrong part, and screw things up if given a chance.

10000%

hearing damage

of course you cant run around with plugs or muffs all the time.

but the door-kickers/action guys I’ve talked with go in without that kind of hearing protection.

Generally correct 20-25 years ago. Turbo charged door kickers had noise cancelling muffs, coupled with comms, dont remember the brand, (maybe (peltor or motorola) while naturally aspirated kickers had to rely on plugs or cigarette butts. Not sure now, the noise cancelling tech has got way cheaper.

One of the risks of building an extreme pressure round, using an existing caliber/chamber size,

I argue on that point that the M240 (excellent gun) for example could handle the pressure. Or MR762. Perhaps with slight mods to the barrel. I am not an engineer, but there is something to the stainless head on the higher pressure round, I would say the lions share has to be around that feature. I dont see anything special about the MCX in comparison to existing designs. Good thought though. I have some of the brass and polymer cases. I do not reload, but know a guy. Maybe we will do some testing and report back. I my friends reloading program, it would work.

 

[burbguy82]

A somewhat unrealistic test, somewhat.

 

[Pew]

Generally correct 20-25 years ago. Turbo charged door kickers had noise cancelling muffs, coupled with comms, dont remember the brand, (maybe (peltor or motorola) while naturally aspirated kickers had to rely on plugs or cigarette butts. Not sure now, the noise cancelling tech has got way cheaper.

The high speed guys get those Motorola adjustable noise cancelling muffs with radio connections. The gov doesn't care about the rest of us infantry peons.

 

[burbguy82]

The high speed guys get those Motorola adjustable noise cancelling muffs with radio connections. The gov doesn't care about the rest of us infantry peons.

Queen of battle follow me.

 

[xgmad]

XM-7 just like m4 would use gun oil like slip2000 or whatever government contracted clp stuff there is like radco because if the army didn't give me slip2000 then I guess I don't need it.

XM250: cheap stabil CLP or radco.

The infantry component of the army is quite small so it’s probably more sensible to give these rifles to them first as it’s more “beneficial” to them after it actually rolls out.

Bring back m16 but chambered with .303 caliber consisting of tungsten tip for armor piercing

 

[burbguy82]

tungsten tip for armor piercing

I agree with this. If armor is the issue, a round could be made for the M4.

 

[FastLane]

It’s too expensive for a general service rifle. Way over complicated. It major conflict happens, the rifle will become too expensive to build. Russia Ukraine war is showing us this. Same thing as ww2. Thompson was a way nicer sub machine gun than the sten, but the British needed the cheaper gun.

 

[demarpaint]

Very interesting. I like a 6.5mm and 7mm myself, but this is certainly better than a .223 and a big improvement imo.

 

[xgmad]

I agree with this. If armor is the issue, a round could be made for the M4.

The tungsten tip and core 5.56 round exists and in very high quantities. Its called the M995 and at least for us is issued as a standard load and depending on rules of engagement is issued case by case basis

Tungsten:

Lead free round:

 

[HouseTiger]

As long as defense contractrors exist, the military will always need a "new and better" weapon platform. The Taliban were shooting at us with old Lee Enfields and Mosin-Nagants . . . so "better" once again remains the vague and subjective term. As the old saying goes: It's the Indian, not the arrow.

 

[xmanjeff]

I’m fascinated that the army is willing to have two ammunition types these days, when logistics posed such a potential problem in previous major conflicts.

i would be of the opinion , that this decision will bite us in the ass

 

[Speedbird001]

IMO: no matter how awesome/better it is, cost is the reason why not to. WAY better things to spend the $ on. Soldiers get a lot of crappy, uncomfortable gear. Even when better gear is out, the majority are stuck with old stuff for years or decades.

The new M4a1 with epr rounds is fine for 99%. Maybe toss out a few more ACOGs. Definetly more range time. You would be surprised how many Soldiers only shoot once a year. I’m talking only 9-12 rounds to zero, 40 rounds to qual and done until the next FY. (Even pre deployment MOB training, the were Soldiers sent down range having fired only maybe 100 rounds)

Small, relatively lower cost things would be better for morale, retention, focus and an effective fighting force.

Example: helmet: most have older, heavier, much less comfortable ACH; mid or high cut newer model makes all the difference in the world. Same for issue boots, they SUCK, 90% of Soldiers have to pony up $2-3 bills for 2-3 pair of good ones. Allocate the $ for this stuff, plus sleeping pad, decent ruck/IOTV straps, PT shoes, headlamps, belts

(Oh and how about give the guy a pass when he does not have his canteen or sleeping bag cover THIRTEEN hears after it was issued)

 

[burbguy82]

many Soldiers only shoot once a year. I’m talking only 9-12 rounds to zero, 40 rounds to qual and done until the next

100% agree. I relation to ground forces, readiness trumps equipment everytime.

(Oh and how about give the guy a pass when he does not have his canteen or sleeping bag cover THIRTEEN hears after it was issued)

This is ridiculous. Soldier should not be customers to the military.

 

[Shannow]

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/d...ture-australian-designed-and-developed-ar.pdf

Knew that they were developping it at Lithgow Range.

 

[OVERKILL]

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/d...ture-australian-designed-and-developed-ar.pdf

Knew that they were developping it at Lithgow Range.

Nice to see they have a 7.62 version!

 

[burbguy82]

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/d...ture-australian-designed-and-developed-ar.pdf

Knew that they were developping it at Lithgow Range.

Interesting that Australia feels like they have to change over to a similar gun.

 

[samven]

I cant see this as a NATO gun. Too expensive for many NATO countries. And as usual we always design a weapons platform based on the last war, then find the weakness when the next war is the exact opposite. A 20 year volunteer trained force engaging relatively small numbers of poorly equipped but motivated soldiers is a way different war than 8 week draftees facing a large well equipped force. In the first you might get away with a high tech lighter load out in the second suppressive fire becomes a real thing and ammo goes quick with so many new recruits. I dont know what the next war will look like but if we are ever forced to field 20, 30 or 40 million soldiers cost, speed and simplicity of production may play a much bigger part than cutting edge tech. KISS

 

[Ws6]

XM5

Right choice or the wrong choice for big Army? And since this is a lubrication forum, what lube would you use for the gun irrespective of the manual recommendations.

1) It's absurdly heavy at 8.38# "naked". This compares with a bit under 6.5# of the Colt M4.
2) It holds 20 and 25 rounds (depending on mag) instead of 30.
3) The weight and packaging difference in ammo means that the standard loadout goes from 210 rounds to 140.
4) The rail is stupid and makes zero sense to me. Style>Functon, that.

I get that body armor is a threat, especially vs near peers, but the .277 Fury isn't special. It won't even penetrate civilian-available level 4 plates at what amounts to across a large livingroom and down the hall. If budget COTS solutions stop it, I can't imagine a near-peer having issue stopping it.

Next we can get into barrel life. I do not have official specs on it, but there are currently specs for 5.56 barrels being issued which detail the need to maintain accuracy standards to 20,000 rounds of mixed FA/SA fire. I can promise you the .277 Fury isn't going to get there. This means one of two things: More cost and PM, or sub-standard performance from weapons used beyond their PM schedules.



I think it will make for a decent battle rifle to supplement the DMR role, but as for general issue? It's clown shoes. M855A1 and X135 and MK318MOD0/1 kill people dead just fine.

Long and short? I have zero desire to own one as it brings nothing to my table.

 

[burbguy82]

1) It's absurdly heavy at 8.38# "naked". This compares with a bit under 6.5# of the Colt M4.
2) It holds 20 and 25 rounds (depending on mag) instead of 30.
3) The weight and packaging difference in ammo means that the standard loadout goes from 210 rounds to 140.
4) The rail is stupid and makes zero sense to me. Style>Functon, that.

I get that body armor is a threat, especially vs near peers, but the .277 Fury isn't special. It won't even penetrate civilian-available level 4 plates at what amounts to across a large livingroom and down the hall. If budget COTS solutions stop it, I can't imagine a near-peer having issue stopping it.

Next we can get into barrel life. I do not have official specs on it, but there are currently specs for 5.56 barrels being issued which detail the need to maintain accuracy standards to 20,000 rounds of mixed FA/SA fire. I can promise you the .277 Fury isn't going to get there. This means one of two things: More cost and PM, or sub-standard performance from weapons used beyond their PM schedules.



I think it will make for a decent battle rifle to supplement the DMR role, but as for general issue? It's clown shoes. M855A1 and X135 and MK318MOD0/1 kill people dead just fine.

Long and short? I have zero desire to own one as it brings nothing to my table.

Great addition to the thread. Very well thought out opinion. I agree with all you said, accept the body armor thing. The full pressure stuff is not available yet, as the Fury is low pressure stuff, no real gain. Which brings up another logistical nightmare: +P stuff for front liners and "regular P" for everyone else and storage? Steel armor will defeat it no doubt, composite armor, not so sure.

Armor really is only effective while standing squared up to the shooter, not at all effective from the side, or in the prone, which adds to the dumbness of the "armor piercing" requirement.

I would rather be light and fast, but that is just me.

If I remember right, military standard for the M4 was 4 MOA. Way above civilian "standards". The 277 in full pressure flavor will destroy barrels, no doubt. But what's money right??.... especially when you can spend someone elses.

 

[JohnnyG]

I believe that’s already been done. Sig is selling the .277 Fury (civilian name of the same round) in a conventional brass case, naturally, it is loaded to significantly lower pressures. Much more in line with a 7.62X 51.

Full pressure round:

https://www.sigsauer.com/accubond-277-sig-fury-hybrid.html

Conventional brass case:

https://www.sigsauer.com/elite-ball-fmj-277-sig-fury.html

Sig has offered the rifle for sale, but it ain’t cheap. I think it was a bit over $3000 just for the rifle, and if you wanted to suppressor, add another grand. I don’t see any for sale in the new caliber right now, but it is this platform, currently available in 7.62x51:

https://www.sigsauer.com/spear.html

Nobody’s talking too much about the details of the optic system, which was contracted out to Vortex. From the pictures, you can see a low, powered variable optic with a red dot on top. It looks like a pretty capable set up, and there are rumor to be some features like automatic ranging, and management of round count, among others.

What? Are my eyes deceiving me? $80 bucks for 20 rounds!