US Army's new rifle: the XM7

[bojan]

7 hours ago, seahawk said:

Maybe drop the general service rifle..

You have DMR, LMG, crew served weapons etc for those that deserve more.

[seahawk]

8 minutes ago, bojan said:

You have DMR, LMG, crew served weapons etc for those that deserve more.

But that is the point. The DMR, the LMG, the MMG, maybe even the PDW... Why would you want a rifle that can be a standard assault rifle, a DMR and why does it have to share the ammunition with the LMG and the MMG? 

[bojan]

"General service rifle" = rifle issued to anyone that is not issued better weapon (DMR, LMG etc). Not M14 level retardness "it will replace every weapon from a pistol to a LMG".

IMO, GSR - 5.56, 18" and 12" barrel. 18 because it is minimum barrel for full potential of 5.56, infantry gets that, 12 for everyone else (under 12" barrel 5.56 rifle becomes flamethrower). 3kg max weight for 18" version.

[seahawk]

But in combination with the XM250 is it not exactly that level of retardness?

And as it is only supposed to go to "close combat soldiers", the 5.56 rifles will stick around. So I wonder why you can not have a rifle that can be switched between 5.56 and 7.62 for those troops.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

IMO, GSR - 5.56, 18" and 12" barrel. 18 because it is minimum barrel for full potential of 5.56, infantry gets that, 12 for everyone else (under 12" barrel 5.56 rifle becomes flamethrower). 3kg max weight for 18" version.

I've run some numbers for 223/556 with a 10 inch barrel, it looks to me that terminal performance would be acceptable out to about 150 yards with varmint/hunting bullets. What's the expansion/fragmentation envelope look like for Hague-Vaguely-compliant OTM? Or M855A1?

 

[DB]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sure someone could develop a self loading crossbow, with the right cash incentive.

Aside from Hollywood, Joerg Sprave did  one a few years ago, called the "Instant Legolas". Quite effective.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

...So I wonder why you can not have a rifle that can be switched between 5.56 and 7.62 for those troops.

What is a point of 7.62x51 rifle, other than as DMR and niche SF roles?

Rifle that is optimized for 5.56 will be too light for 7.62x51. One optimized for 7.62x51 will be too overbuilt for 5.56.

If you really need both use common lower receiver and that solves most of the cross training issues.

[bojan]

25 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I've run some numbers for 223/556 with a 10 inch barrel, it looks to me that terminal performance would be acceptable out to about 150 yards with varmint/hunting bullets. What's the expansion/fragmentation envelope look like for Hague-Vaguely-compliant OTM? Or M855A1?

 

 I will have to dig up local tests for exact %, but 18" (well, 450mm, close enough...) gave 5.56 best "wounding ability" for the ammo tested (5.45 7N6, 7.62x39 M67 and 5.56 SS109) up the 300m. Very little was lost compared to longer barrels (500 and 550mm/~20 and ~22" were also tested) at distances up the 300m.  With 400mm (~16")  5.56 and 5.45 were equal, 7.62x39 slightly worse. With 300mm (~12") both 5.56 and 5.45 were ~equal to 7.62x39. With 250mm (~10") 7.62x39 was superior to both.

There were separate tests for penetration, in those even at short distances 5.56 SS109 was superior, but penetration tests were barrier penetration tests, not vs body armor.

Those tests are reason why Yugo 5.56 AKs used ~18" barrel vs ~16" for most other AK variants.

 

 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

What is a point of 7.62x51 rifle, other than as DMR and niche SF roles?

Rifle that is optimized for 5.56 will be too light for 7.62x51. One optimized for 7.62x51 will be too overbuilt for 5.56.

If you really need both use common lower receiver and that solves most of the cross training issues.

I do not now what the need is, but imho it is easier to have a largely similar rifle (common lower receiver) with a few conversion kits to 7.62 in addition to your basic 5.56 rifles than to switch everybody to a new fancy medium calibre. You can probably train everyone one the 5.56 and 7.62 variant and the ammo would still be cheaper.

[shep854]

17 hours ago, bojan said:

Return to 7.62x51 for general service rifles would be only slightly less retarded than 6.8.

Are you referring to the 6.8 SPC?  If so, how do you see it as retarded as a 5.56 replacement?

Edited May 7, 2025 by shep854

[R011]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sure someone could develop a self loading crossbow, with the right cash incentive.

Crossbow?  What are you, French?

[Ivanhoe]

The French spelling of his first name should have been a clue. Mary Queen of Scots got buggered thoroughly in Paris, she returned to Scotland, and well here he is.

 

[bojan]

23 hours ago, shep854 said:

Are you referring to the 6.8 SPC?  If so, how do you see it as retarded as a 5.56 replacement?

Yes.

Because rifles are not what inflicts significant number of casualties even at the squad level. 99% of the time they are PDW for people not issued crew served weapons and only really important place for them is in close quarter fighting. Where lighter rifle with more ammo will triumph over heavier one with less ammo.

On 5/7/2025 at 6:15 PM, seahawk said:

I do not now what the need is, but imho it is easier to have a largely similar rifle (common lower receiver) with a few conversion kits to 7.62 in addition to your basic 5.56 rifles than to switch everybody to a new fancy medium calibre.

Yes, that is why I said it was less retarded.

Re: Bold - it is ultimately not needed because idea for the change was based on flawed theory of individual marksmanship that has been proven wrong in the every war so far. IOW, power of cartridge over certain limit does not matter because troops can not hit anything anyway, and those that can are issued more important weapons than rifles.

Quote

You can probably train everyone one the 5.56 and 7.62 variant and the ammo would still be cheaper.

I still don't get why do you think army (outside SF) needs automatic rifle in caliber larger than 5.56 if they have DMR and LMG in 7.62x51.

[shep854]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Yes.

Because rifles are not what inflicts significant number of casualties even at the squad level. 99% of the time they are PDW for people not issued crew served weapons and only really important place for them is in close quarter fighting. Where lighter rifle with more ammo will triumph over heavier one with less ammo.

Yes, that is why I said it was less retarded.

Re: Bold - it is ultimately not needed because idea for the change was based on flawed theory of individual marksmanship that has been proven wrong in the every war so far. IOW, power of cartridge over certain limit does not matter because troops can not hit anything anyway, and those that can are issued more important weapons than rifles.

I still don't get why do you think army (outside SF) needs automatic rifle in caliber larger than 5.56 if they have DMR and LMG in 7.62x51.

Thanks.  There's still something to be said for a better punch at those shorter ranges, especially for the Persons Defending with a Weapon; even more so if it can be done economically--which the XM7 ain't.

Edited May 7, 2025 by shep854

[seahawk]

8 hours ago, bojan said:

I still don't get why do you think army (outside SF) needs automatic rifle in caliber larger than 5.56 if they have DMR and LMG in 7.62x51.

I do not think theydo, I just think even if they think they do, it would be cheaper to have a standard 5.56 and say 7.62 conversion kits for half the troops.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, R011 said:

Crossbow?  What are you, French?

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Is there any way to make the assault rifle more lethal without going to a new calibre? Im thinking of the AN94 and hyperburst for one example. One other thing I remember seeing some 20 years ago on 'future weapons' was a module for a sniper rifle that would   allow you to lock onto a target, and you hold the trigger down and the weapon fires when you are in a position where you are calculated for a round to hit. It function akin to a tank fire control system, exceptof course you were the one moving the gun.

I would imagine both are unaffordable for full sections, but might they be a further supliment for other seciton rifles along with the dedicated marksman rifle? Or would that be getting into nearly bespoke weapons for everyone?

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is there any way to make the assault rifle more lethal

The unspoken assumption here is that current assault rifle calibers aren't lethal enough. I think there are enough to choose from. It's just, you want additional capabilities - make them lighter, make them modular, give them a ballistic computer kit to fit where necessary - and you must over time replace what you have because the manufacturers may no longer be able to provide spares (manufacturing tools wear out over time, too).

[seahawk]

And 6.8 is about the same size as 7.62x51 but even more powerful.

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is there any way to make the assault rifle more lethal without going to a new calibre? Im thinking of the AN94 and hyperburst for one example.

AN-94 was not about being "more lethal" (which 5.45 and 5.56 under 300mm from 16-18" barrel are perfectly adequate for), it was about increasing chance to hit in realistic combat environment. Ofc, whole complication with hyperburst was not worth "25% increase in hit chance in certain cases", which in real world was actually barely noticeable increase.

Quote

One other thing I remember seeing some 20 years ago on 'future weapons' was a module for a sniper rifle that would   allow you to lock onto a target, and you hold the trigger down and the weapon fires when you are in a position where you are calculated for a round to hit. It function akin to a tank fire control system, exceptof course you were the one moving the gun.

It is fine (and exists) for sniper rifles, might be acceptable even for DMRs, but is not providing any real benefits for regular guys with rifles (French run a troop trials in Afghanistan, part of project FELIN), because majority of their fire is suppressive, because over 75-100m (when you don't need FCS) in 99.99% of engagements they can not see the target (because even dumbest derkaderka was not dumb enough to stand in the middle of the field).

Quote

I would imagine both are unaffordable for full sections, but might they be a further supliment for other seciton rifles along with the dedicated marksman rifle? Or would that be getting into nearly bespoke weapons for everyone?

All problems that plague US army from time to time with "overmatch" are solvable with 7.62x51/54 LMG and DMR in the same caliber. Which is a thing that US army discovers after every war since WW2, but then refuses to acknowledge, because myth of the "individual marksmanship making a difference" is still too dominant.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The unspoken assumption here is that current assault rifle calibers aren't lethal enough....

That is IMO one of the biggest issues when talking about rifles, inability of people to understand that with decent* hit 5.45 and 5.56 are perfectly adequate in stopping opponents and that 7.62x51/54 or 6.8x51 or even .338 is not significantly better in lethality at typical small arms engagement range. 300+m - yes, difference starts to show. That is why every section should have 7.62x51/54 LMG and DMR.

*With not decent hit even 12.7mm might struggle sometimes, as evidence by incident in Korea when Chinese soldier was hit 3 times by 12.7, yet still managed to throw grenade at MG position. Hits practically removed his left arm and shoulder, but did not stop him in the tracks.

[bojan]

11 hours ago, seahawk said:

I do not think theydo, I just think even if they think they do, it would be cheaper to have a standard 5.56 and say 7.62 conversion kits for half the troops.

Agree.

[bojan]

18 hours ago, shep854 said:

Thanks.  There's still something to be said for a better punch at those shorter ranges, especially for the Persons Defending with a Weapon; even more so if it can be done economically--which the XM7 ain't.

At close range (50m and less, where it actually matters) there is no practical difference in the size of the wound channel and amount of tissue damaged/destroyed in wounds produced by 5.45/5.56 and 7.62x51/54 except in the extremely specific cases.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, bojan said:

AN-94 was not about being "more lethal" (which 5.45 and 5.56 under 300mm from 16-18" barrel are perfectly adequate for), it was about increasing chance to hit in realistic combat environment. Ofc, whole complication with hyperburst was not worth "25% increase in hit chance in certain cases", which in real world was actually barely noticeable increase.

It is fine (and exists) for sniper rifles, might be acceptable even for DMRs, but is not providing any real benefits for regular guys with rifles (French run a troop trials in Afghanistan, part of project FELIN), because majority of their fire is suppressive, because over 75-100m (when you don't need FCS) in 99.99% of engagements they can not see the target (because even dumbest derkaderka was not dumb enough to stand in the middle of the field).

All problems that plague US army from time to time with "overmatch" are solvable with 7.62x51/54 LMG and DMR in the same caliber. Which is a thing that US army discovers after every war since WW2, but then refuses to acknowledge, because myth of the "individual marksmanship making a difference" is still too dominant.

I notice even the British Army seems to have recognised that and bought its own DMR, the L129, after farting around and seemingly failing to turn the L86 into one.

[shep854]

The more I watch this merry-go-round spin, the more it looks like the 6.8SPC is the best option, but the NIH and possible money trail just don't go there.