US Army's new rifle: the XM7

[Stargrunt6]

https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/43391/military-us-armys-n

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/04/armys-new-rifles-have-optic-problem.htmlew-rifle

https://www.wearethemighty.com/feature/what-troops-really-think-of-the-armys-new-xm7-rifle/

 

 

 

So the US Army is going the FAL route. With the optic, they want to hit first round.  

From videos, firepower is excellent. But, it has bugs, such as overinserting mag can cause a jam and, well, it's heaby and sucks for close quarters.

I was surprised Vector got the contract for the scope. Most gun types regarded them as mixed quality; I have one of their RDS' and I like it.

What thinks the forum?

 

Edited February 18 by Stargrunt6

[bojan]

US army does not understand what is a job of the rifle, take 564654669.

[Ivanhoe]

Crazy high-pressure cartridge to achieve 3000 fps out of a 13 inch barrel. Then add a can. Still going to cause permanent hearing loss.

A hybrid case which seems guaranteed to ensure numerous kabooms. After reports of the first few kabooms propagate across the RUMINT News Network, shooters are gonna be flinching badly. Don't need quality glass when your shooters are closing their eyes when the sear breaks.

All to provide .270-08 ballistics.

 

 

[Stargrunt6]

And it's heavy!

Did they not learn from the M14 debacle?

[bojan]

No. Because myth of the American riflemen, superior to everyone else is still a thing in US army R&D.

[Markus Becker]

Calling DOGE, urgently.  

Edited February 18 by Markus Becker

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

US army does not understand what is a job of the rifle, take 564654669.

Or the next iteration of finding the "one rifle to rule them all".

[Markus Becker]

11 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Or the next iteration of finding the "one rifle to rule them all".

Only if it is the 2025 equivalent of the improved BAR known as the FN D. 

[Stargrunt6]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

No. Because myth of the American riflemen, superior to everyone else is still a thing in US army R&D.

Funny enough, field stripping has been considered maybe a tad too complex for non-grunts

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Calling DOGE, urgently.  

RUMINT sez Sig did some shady dealings to get the nod on this one.

[Stargrunt6]

New platform teething issues or?

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/sig-sauer-the-u-s-militarys-big-gun-mistake/

 

[Olof Larsson]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Crazy high-pressure cartridge to achieve 3000 fps out of a 13 inch barrel. Then add a can. Still going to cause permanent hearing loss.

A hybrid case which seems guaranteed to ensure numerous kabooms. After reports of the first few kabooms propagate across the RUMINT News Network, shooters are gonna be flinching badly. Don't need quality glass when your shooters are closing their eyes when the sear breaks.

All to provide .270-08 ballistics.

 

 

And so far with a per round cost higher then .50BMG for the high pressure ammo...

[Markus Becker]

39 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

 

RUMINT sez Sig did some shady dealings to get the nod on this one.

Some? 😅

[Stargrunt6]

46 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

And so far with a per round cost higher then .50BMG for the high pressure ammo...

Cuz who else makes it.... wow. Well played, Sig

Give em the razor....

[Rick]

22 hours ago, bojan said:

US army does not understand what is a job of the rifle, take 564654669.

The" job of the rifle" is ?

[Markus Becker]

PDW for short range. The infantry fire fight is done with machine guns. 

[Rick]

13 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

PDW for short range. The infantry fire fight is done with machine guns. 

My understanding is that an infantry squad has one or two machine guns?

[Stuart Galbraith]

41 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

PDW for short range. The infantry fire fight is done with machine guns. 

Issue them all handguns, make the buggers work for a living.

[shep854]

45 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

PDW for short range. The infantry fire fight is done with machine guns. 

And radios.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

PDW for short range. The infantry fire fight is done with machine guns. 

"PDW" is somewhat a misnomer, since rifles can and will be used for attack also, and their value goes up up in urban, forest and trench environment. I which case shorter, lighter rifle, in the mild cartridge (help with both rapid fire single and automatic fire*... and amount of ammo carried) with red dot and suppressor is preferable to a meter long, high power/high recoil rifle with "very smart"** sight.

* And yes, automatic fire from the rifle has it's legit place on battlefield. If you do not believe me find USMC study about chance to hit moving and rapidly appearing target (and in combat practically every single target is moving and rapidly appearing).

**Smart sight should go to a section DMR, which should be, as should section LMG in "full" caliber.

[Rick]

52 minutes ago, bojan said:

"PDW" is somewhat a misnomer, since rifles can and will be used for attack also, and their value goes up up in urban, forest and trench environment. I which case shorter, lighter rifle, in the mild cartridge (help with both rapid fire single and automatic fire*... and amount of ammo carried) with red dot and suppressor is preferable to a meter long, high power/high recoil rifle with "very smart"** sight.

* And yes, automatic fire from the rifle has it's legit place on battlefield. If you do not believe me find USMC study about chance to hit moving and rapidly appearing target (and in combat practically every single target is moving and rapidly appearing).

**Smart sight should go to a section DMR, which should be, as should section LMG in "full" caliber.

What is a "smart sight?" I'm I reading your post correctly that your fine with smaller caliber automatic rifles while the machine guns should be a larger caliber?

[bojan]

16 minutes ago, Rick said:

What is a "smart sight?"

Electronic sight that includes laser range finder and calculates ballistic solution for weapons, which is part of the XM7 project.

Quote

 I'm I reading your post correctly that your fine with smaller caliber automatic rifles while the machine guns should be a larger caliber?

Yes, because they serve two fundamentally different roles in the rifle section.

[Rick]

13 minutes ago, bojan said:

Electronic sight that includes laser range finder and calculates ballistic solution for weapons, which is part of the XM7 project.

Yes, because they serve two fundamentally different roles in the rifle section.

Thank you.

[Ivanhoe]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Issue them all handguns, make the buggers work for a living.

Single-action revolvers, with a dot sight, to inhibit ammo wastage.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Single-action revolvers, with a dot sight, to inhibit ammo wastage.

 

Future soldier is suddenly looking entirely affordable.

[Ivanhoe]

5 hours ago, bojan said:

* And yes, automatic fire from the rifle has it's legit place on battlefield. If you do not believe me find USMC study about chance to hit moving and rapidly appearing target (and in combat practically every single target is moving and rapidly appearing).

I have the impression that the US Army infantry types like the SAW, I am guessing for sustained suppressive fire.

However, I've never heard of a M240 gunner wanting to trade down to the SAW, so there's that.

For auto fire against a specific moving target, I am still thinking that the standard-issue rifle should have SA/FA built into the happy switch, but the current 0-90-180 lever is not the thing for quickly changing modes during a firefight. Something like -45/0/45 would be better for humans born without freak thumbs.