US Army's new rifle: the XM7

[bojan]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

Yes, in the one of the rare acts of reason BA introduced DMR and MAG back at section level, after they actually interviewed soldiers which of 3 would they rather carry on patrol - L86, Minimi or MAG. And guess what? Something like 80% picked MAG, despite it being heavy motherfucker.

[shep854]

13 hours ago, bojan said:

Yes, in the one of the rare acts of reason BA introduced DMR and MAG back at section level, after they actually interviewed soldiers which of 3 would they rather carry on patrol - L86, Minimi or MAG. And guess what? Something like 80% picked MAG, despite it being heavy motherfucker.

Weren't those soldiers were in open Afghanistan?  Was there any feedback from troops fighting in much more urban Iraq?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think the prefered weapon in Iraq was the 30mm and the 120mm....

16 hours ago, bojan said:

Yes, in the one of the rare acts of reason BA introduced DMR and MAG back at section level, after they actually interviewed soldiers which of 3 would they rather carry on patrol - L86, Minimi or MAG. And guess what? Something like 80% picked MAG, despite it being heavy motherfucker.

Yes, I remember the Army going lukewarm on Minimi, though I didnt hear the precise reasons why.

[bojan]

9 hours ago, shep854 said:

Weren't those soldiers were in open Afghanistan?  Was there any feedback from troops fighting in much more urban Iraq?

Both cases.

7.62x51 is superior to 5.56 in urban also, due the barrier penetration ability.

[Olof Larsson]

On 5/7/2025 at 3:30 PM, seahawk said:

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.

The XM250 is supplied with belted 6,8x51, while the XM7 is supplied with 6,8x51 in boxes. So there isn't that much logistical advantage in using the same caliber for both. As far as switching calibers it makes the rifles larger, heavier and more expensive. And changing caliber takes time, as you also have to change the optics and/or zero your rifle, swap around your pouches on your webing and so on. You might as well keep extra rifles in 7,62x51 around, for units that might be sent to places like Afghanistan, the Sahel and so on.

[Markus Becker]

1 hour ago, Olof Larsson said:

The XM250 is supplied with belted 6,8x51, while the XM7 is supplied with 6,8x51 in boxes. So there isn't that much logistical advantage in using the same caliber for both. 

Let me guess, disintegrating belts are standard. 

[bojan]

21 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...Yes, I remember the Army going lukewarm on Minimi, though I didnt hear the precise reasons why.

Short effective range, not helped by the fact they got short barrel version also.

[Olof Larsson]

On 5/11/2025 at 11:10 AM, Markus Becker said:

Let me guess, disintegrating belts are standard. 

Yes. The most reasonable way forward for the US Army is probably to get the XM250 in 7,62x51 as a SAW, stick with the AR-15 in 5,56x45, and perhaps use the new optics in AR-10 DMR's (or rebarrel XM7's with longer 7,62x51 barrels) until they have a meaningful improvement in ammo tech to warant a cgange in calibers. With meaningful being less ammo and weapon weight, without a noticable increase in ammo cost, and decreased service life. 

 

If that could be combined with better range, penetration and lethality then great. 

 

But the key is not to get a rifle that makes the infantryman less able to do his main job. i.e. carry machinegun ammo, anti tank mines, extract wounded, dig entrenchment, camoflage fighting positions and so on.

[bojan]

This.

Problem is that US military for some reason always thinks of infantrymen as riflemen first, but "riflemen first" became basically obsolete when first at least semi-portable machineguns appeared.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Perhaps it's the Minuteman legacy.

[shep854]

There were also the restrictive ROEs that limited troops' ability to call in fires on targets just outside of 5.56 effective range

[Stuart Galbraith]

British Army solved that problem by using Javelins on it. An expensive way to do it, but it seems to have worked.

[Markus Becker]

22 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

Yes. The most reasonable way forward for the US Army is probably to get the XM250 in 7,62x51 as a SAW, stick with the AR-15 in 5,56x45, and perhaps use the new optics in AR-10 DMR's (or rebarrel XM7's with longer 7,62x51 barrels) until they have a meaningful improvement in ammo tech to warant a cgange in calibers. With meaningful being less ammo and weapon weight, without a noticable increase in ammo cost, and decreased service life. 

 

If that could be combined with better range, penetration and lethality then great. 

 

But the key is not to get a rifle that makes the infantryman less able to do his main job. i.e. carry machinegun ammo, anti tank mines, extract wounded, dig entrenchment, camoflage fighting positions and so on.

 

Right, 6.8 is crazy high velocity and pressure.

Also like the detailing of PBI main jobs. 

[shep854]

A former enlisted infantryman weighs in:

 

[rmgill]

On 5/8/2025 at 5:23 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is there any way to make the assault rifle more lethal without going to a new calibre?

Folding stock? Barrel shroud? Black furniture? Bayonet lug?

[Stargrunt6]

On 5/5/2025 at 11:31 AM, bfng3569 said:

somebody wasn't too impressed...

https://www.twz.com/land/army-captain-slams-new-xm7-rifle-as-unfit-sig-sauer-says-otherwise

 

Yeah, I'm just catching up. Not shocked.  All I'm saying is some generals are living well.

 

Edit: @shep854beat me to it

Edited May 14, 2025 by Stargrunt6

[Stargrunt6]

On 5/7/2025 at 3:01 PM, 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.

Does anyone remember the pc game TacOps? This USMC major wrote it as a training game for .mil in one of his faqs he pointed out that studies show the lower in a firefight is usually the side that ran out of ammo first.  

12 hours ago, bojan said:

This.

Problem is that US military for some reason always thinks of infantrymen as riflemen first, but "riflemen first" became basically obsolete when first at least semi-portable machineguns appeared.

The Marines are very much riflemen-first in their philosophy, at least. The Army seems to take a holistic approach, in spite of becoming a missile-alache-tank force with some infantry. 

Did stuff like this happen in medieval times btw?  "The Crown has decided to forgo longswords and replace them with 10" daggers. You see, it's not important to break armor but to find gaps in it..." I'm sure some baron got strumpets and mead out of it.

[bojan]

11 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

...The Marines are very much riflemen-first in their philosophy, at least. The Army seems to take a holistic approach, in spite of becoming a missile-alache-tank force with some infantry. ...

In theory US Army take different aproach than USMC, but in practice they are even more into "Davy Crocket" myth about "American riflemen". USMC after all was one that wanted full auto M16s, because their study found out that full auto is way more useful than limited burst in certain cases.

Unlike USMC that at least understands reality of the use of the automatic fire US Army (or rather it's brass) will always try to solve "overmatch" problem with a riflemen and rifle, in general by focusing on "aimed and precise semi-auto fire", rather than trying what their studies have always pointed as a solution since WW2 - proper LMG and DMR in every squad and controllable full auto capable rifle for everyone else.

Quote

 This USMC major wrote it as a training game for .mil in one of his faqs he pointed out that studies show the lower in a firefight is usually the side that ran out of ammo first.  

Studies also show that side that can initially throw more shit out is the one that will either win, or at least gain severe advantage in firefight even if it's training is not really comparable (to a certain level ofc) and that "lot of firepower with limited ammo now" is better than "some firepower all the time". Because second one is just an excuse for for not improving logistics.

Quote

Did stuff like this happen in medieval times btw?  "The Crown has decided to forgo longswords and replace them with 10" daggers. You see, it's not important to break armor but to find gaps in it..." I'm sure some baron got strumpets and mead out of it.

Historically swords sucked vs almost any kind of armor, very few armor they could "break" (far more likely to break sword) Reason they were used (but not as much as depicted*) was because they  were relatively versatile - you could reach opponent from a horseback, had good synergy with shield and could be used as a improvised mace if needed. And significant armor was not that common after all. Mounted warrior's main weapon was either bow/crossbow for lighter forces or lance for heavier. For dismounted combat spear (later pike) were a king, with halberds as a more specialist weapon and swords/maces/axes being basically sidearms (+ bows/crossbows as support).

*Since swords were most expensive and difficult to make from sword/axe/mace trio they became most praised in the myths and legends. IOW, they were often status symbols, not most effective weapon as often depicted.

Once (partial) plate armor appeared in masses of infantry (about the time of Burgundian/Italian wars) swords basically died off as a primary weapons and  with advance of pike formations swords carried became shorter, "katzbalger" type. Since they were now just sidearms (they were even seldom carried by unit leaders, who mostly preferred various polearms).

It will not be until 30 years war (IOW, about a century later) that swords (or sabre in particular) will have renaissance in cavalry (Swedish first, then it spread around), because cavalry was loosing armor and sword/sabre once again became effective and way more practical and versatile than a lance.

 

[Ivanhoe]

10 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

 I'm sure some baron got strumpets and mead out of it.

12th Century hookers and blow.

On the topic of medium caliber, I had been a 6.5CM skeptic due to the overbearing marketing in the civilian hunting sector. Paid trolls extolled the superiority of the New Thing over tried-and-true classics to a farcical extent.

But eventually I put my prejudices aside and looked at it from a strictly civilian context, and its pretty good. One you give up the fantasy of using a single medium-small bore cartridge for prairiedog hunting on Saturday and polar bear hunting on Sunday, the 6.5CM covers whitetail thru hog/black bear really well.

For military use, I like the idea of a heavier, more streamlined bullet for aimed fire. But I'd also want to see some research done on a lower pressure load for LMGs. For a 123 grain bullet, QuickLoad predicts 2650 fps at 57,500 psi from a 16 inch barrel. Drop down to a 100 grain ELD-M, MV gets to 2900 fps roughly at that pressure level. Sort of hoping for an RPD-like performance envelope. 

Recently I've watched a couple of videos that show full-throttle 6.5CM performance against basic cover as well as ceramic plates, seems to do OK. 

Given the USian log train already deals with multiple 5.56 loadings, it wouldn't be too hard to inventory a full-throttle load for aimed semi-auto use, and a milder load for bullet hoses. Burn thru the older 5.56 loadings and simplify to just M855A1, then having two CM loads isn't too bad.

[DB]

Are we channelling the (now retired) Anthony Williams again?

Has anything changed in favour of the mythical intermediate cartridge since just about everyone here was against it then?

[bojan]

Nothing changed, it is interesting as a way to lighten load on section most effective weapons - LMG and DMR while keeping ~800m effective range. It is not worth for rifles since both rifle and ammo will be heavier than 5.56 version (and harder to control on full auto).

IOW, overall it is not worth investment, since there is only one big benefit (more ammo carried for LMG)  and one minor benefit (more ammo carried for DMR) and all other disadvantages compared to 5.56+7.62 in the rifle section.

Unification of ammo is not real as benefit for an army, since linked and loose ammo are still two different types for logistics.

 

 

[seahawk]

But 6.8 Sig hardly does this.

The cartridge is as long as 7.62 NATO, Rim diameter is also the same and weight is 10% less - at best. It is faster though.

Edited May 15, 2025 by seahawk

[bojan]

I was talking about theoretical 6.something intermediate cartridge, not 6.8x51 stupidity.

[seahawk]

Yes, for such a cartridge I would even understand the switch to the calibre for the rifles as well.

[Olof Larsson]

21 hours ago, bojan said:

I was talking about theoretical 6.something intermediate cartridge, not 6.8x51 stupidity.

I could se something like the 6mm ARC replacing 5,56x45 and 7,62x51 for sharpshooters and MG's on bipods. Possibly as standard issue for snipers as well. 

And someting like the .338 Norma replacing vehicle and tripod mounted 7,62x51 and some .50 BMG MG's, and possibly as standard issue for snipers. 

And then 30x113 replacing the remaining .50 BMG and the vehicle mounted AGL's.

So three calibers replacing three current ones and partially replacing a forth (40mm AGL), with no "new" caliber being a straight replacement for a current one.