Another blow to SIG - the XM7?

[300_whisper]

That’s just a random captains white paper that doesn’t sound very scientific. It was all opinion based. I’ve had to write white papers on engineer capabilities.

I don’t care much for sig but we have a tendency to assume a written paper is the end all be all or final say in a topic, the fact the guy couldn’t clearly articulate throat erosion and he did it with out bore scoping tells me everything I need to know about his expertise. Infantry officer does not equal engineer.

The ergonomics and weight issues are valid though since he and his soldiers are the end user. Plus you need to take into account armor, radios, and special E.

That’s just my opinion.

 

[WinstonSmith]

Warfare has certainly evolved beyond WW2 standards. The 5.56 is actually a really good "balance point" as someone suggested earlier. Everything is a compromise. Firearms are just a tool. You don't use a flathead to turn a bolt. 5.56 is a Leatherman.

That's why you have a fire team. Not everyone has a 203. Not everyone has a precision rifle. Not everyone has a med pack. Not everyone carries demo. No one can carry every capability and still effectively move. It's hard to do all of that and still try to keep an interchangeable load out in a team. The answer is a well trained fire team that works well together, knows their individual jobs, and has spent a lot of time and money on cross training.

And, as someone else pointed out, air superiority, armor, and some kind of answer to how drones are changing the battlefield.

And, of course, logistics and support. We are far from the days of small armies taking to the field and living off the land as they pillage the locals and the enemies.

 

[bambam]

Is this offered in .40 cal?

 

[basstracker89]

Is this offered in .40 cal?

That's 10mm short to you.........

 

[BHPSteel]

That's 10mm short to you.........

"10mm kurz" sounds much more like the kind of name the Europeans would give it.

 

[Gixxer]

Not that my opinion carries any weight whatsoever, but I have said from the inception of the XM7/NGSW program that it looks like it could serve a good specialist role in a squad size element. Similar to your DM or MG.

But to become the standard issue service rifle? Does not make sense on the modern battlefield across the board. Conventional nor Guerilla.

 

[EliChamp]

To me the biggest issue is less ammo. BUT you get more stopping power and penetration. Maybe more accurate fire and slower suppression needs to be stressed.

If soldiers armed with both weapons are expected to carry seven magazines into battle as part of their universal basic load, or UBL, soldiers with M4A1 carbines would carry 210 rounds while soldiers armed with the XM7 would have 140 rounds, Trent said at Modern Day Marine.

“Now again, a 70-round difference may not seem significant, but to the soldier in the fight, it absolutely is a difference, not to mention that every magazine added to the XM7 — each 20-round loaded magazine — adds another 1.25 pounds to the soldier’s load, meaning that if troops equipped with the XM7 tried to match their old UBLs, they’re going to have even more weight being carried,” Trent said.

I Googled WWII Basic load and found this:

During WWII, a typical US rifleman's ammunition load consisted of an 8-round clip in their M1 Garand rifle, plus 80 rounds in a bandolier, totaling 88 rounds. They might also carry extra ammunition in bandoliers or pockets, potentially bringing their total to over 200 rounds.

Its also much easier to gain fire superiority when you're one of the very few nations at the time to employ a semi automatic rifle in a war dominated by bolt action rifles supported by much less mobile machine guns. More relavent to the xm7 would be doing research into the vietnam war and the failure of the m14 against ak pattern rifles used by north Vietnamese fighters. The m14 had less ammo per mag and was significantly more difficult to control, especially on full auto which made it difficult to gain the advantage when under fire.

Soldiers and marines carry much more equipment today than even vietnam, body armor alone is another 20 lbs. The ammo and rifle are heavier meaning you get less ammo for the same weight, most infantry engagements are 300 yards and in and the 6.8x51 round still can't pierce modern armor plates without using specialized AP ammunition. Every advantage the 6.8 round and xm7 rifle offers becomes less relavent when you take all of this into consideration. It would make a good DMR but outside of that there are simply better options for every other role this rifle is expected to fill.

 

[ReservoirDawg10]

In WWII, the soldier and Marines were handed an M1 Garand and / or 1911 pistol to fight with. No modularity crap, the men came in all shapes and sizes. They learned to shoot what they had, and it worked out pretty good. The SCAR wasn't embraced like it was supposed to have been, but hangs around.

In medieval times, soldiers where handed swords and spears to fight with. No modularity crap. The men came in all shapes and sizes. They learned how to fight with what they had, and it werkd out purdy guud.

 

[basstracker89]

Till they ran into a Gatling Gun......

 

[mikef60]

I would think in war continuity of fire trumps everything else the majority of the time. Which is why 556 has dominated the infantry mans load out for so many decades.

Battle rifles have their niche, but it's hard to beat a light weight carbine with as much ammo as can be carried.

in killing deer with both the 6.8spc and the 5.56, at ranges under 200 yards I can make out no significant difference in the two. I did use hard Barnes bullets in both, and I think the velocity of the 5.56 skews things toward more effectiveness with the 5.56 I was not impressed with the 6.8 and the 95 grain Barnes. I have given up on anything that will fit into a 5.56 framed receiver except 5.56 as there is only "so much" you can do with that cartridge length. A 62 grain TTSX bullet will kill the biggest deer in the woods if you hit him in the front half. The army is wasting money on some attempt to put 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.