Army's XM7 Canceled?

[Crash]

Any truth to the rumors floating around the internet that the Army's new XM7 rifle is going to be canceled? Or is it just the insane 80k psi, barrel-burning 6.8 cartridge that's going to be canceled?

Crash

[RPBrown]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... at%20force.

In October the above article came out stating that the XM7 and XM250 were issued to the 101st airborne and 75th Ranger Divisions for testing later that month. Additional units will be testing them in 2024 with a final assessment to be delivered in 2025.

[Crash]

RPBrown,

What I gather from that article is that they will be issued for testing purposes. This view is reinforced by the last paragraph of the article:

"As units continue to test the weapons, the Army has scheduled a cold weather test for early next year, followed by a tropics test, then a hot weather test. Operational assessments of the systems are planned for early fiscal 2025."

I infer from this that, even if the tests are successful, general issue of the weapon wouldn't be until late 2025 or early 2026.

More weight for the soldier to carry, fewer rounds in the standard issue, more recoil, more cost, very likely a short barrel life and if the metallurgy on one of the rifles is substandard or if one of the cartridges is substandard, that 80k psi chamber pressure could result in serious injury or death

Crash

[The Annoyed Man]

RPBrown,

What I gather from that article is that they will be issued for testing purposes. This view is reinforced by the last paragraph of the article:

"As units continue to test the weapons, the Army has scheduled a cold weather test for early next year, followed by a tropics test, then a hot weather test. Operational assessments of the systems are planned for early fiscal 2025."

I infer from this that, even if the tests are successful, general issue of the weapon wouldn't be until late 2025 or early 2026.

More weight for the soldier to carry, fewer rounds in the standard issue, more recoil, more cost, very likely a short barrel life and if the metallurgy on one of the rifles is substandard or if one of the cartridges is substandard, that 80k psi chamber pressure could result in serious injury or death

Crash

It’s a cool rifle in concept, but the cartridge is a singularly bad idea for any kind of military weapon other than maybe a low round count long-range bolt action rifle. As I’ve stated before, and the insane 80,000-100,000 psi chamber pressure aside, the muzzle velocity and bullet weight (140 grains) produce ballistics VERY similar to the now nearly defunct .264 (6.6mm) Remington Magnum. The .264 has very high performance, but it is defunct for a reason….it eats barrels for breakfast. Round counts of 1,000 rounds or less burn the throat and rifling right out of the barrel.

You might be able to extend that barrel life a little bit with chrome lined bores, but it wouldn’t be a HUGE improvement. A battle rifle should be able to handle tens of thousands of rounds before giving up the ghost, and the full power 6.8x51 isn’t the cartridge for that. Now, MAYBE its civilian .277 Fury counterpart might be a more reasonable choice, if the chamber pressure is say in the 60,000 psi range. The current crop of commercial 6.0 and 6.5mm cartridges have great ballistics and produce somewhat milder recoil than .308 Winchester/7.62x51 NATO.

And then there’s the rifle. It’s too heavy even without a scope—9.84 lbs with the suppressor mounted that was the rifle was specifically designed to be used with it. (Firing that 6.8x51 full pressure cartridge without a suppressor is just stupid. Firing it a LOT without a suppressor is certifiably insane.) By comparison, an unloaded SCAR Heavy weighs 8.0 lbs, and can be fired unsuppressed without producing the same kind of instant hearing destruction of the full-power 6.8x51 cartridge. When you add the weight of a LVPO to the XM7, you’ll be looking at 11 pounds or more. When you substitute the special XM157 Fire Control Optic currently under development for it, I wouldn’t be surprised of the unloaded weight exceeds 12 pounds. It’s not a realistic expectation for a combat rifle.

And while folding stocks are no doubt a convenience to the individual soldier, armies have existed for hundreds of years without them. They’re more of a "nice to have" than an absolute necessity…AND they’re a potential point of failure. A friend of mine who made multiple deployments with MARSOC in the GWOT, and who personally owns a SCAR17, once told me that their gun trucks—and some of the Special Forces guys gun trucks they worked alongside—regularly stored a spare SCAR17 buttstock in their onboard gear because they were known to sometimes break at the hinge/latch under hard use in the field. The XM7 buttstock has the same potential. My personal SCAR17's buttstock seems fairly solid, but then I’m not coming under mortar fire from Taliban fighters, and having to run and dive for cover with it.

Given the design modularity of the current stock of M16/M4 rifles and M240/M249 machine guns, it would be FAR more expedient to simply rebarrel the existing weapons in a more reasonable and currently available commercial caliber. My suggestion would be to chamber the 5.56 weapons in a 6mm class cartridge…6.8 SPC comes to mind…and the 7.62 weapons in something like 6.5 Creedmor. Alternatively, if ammo compatibility between infantry rifles and special rifles is a consideration, then keep the SR25/M110 rifles and M240 machine guns, but rebarrel them in 6.5 Creedmor (or something similar), and issue carbine length versions of the AR10 platform also chambered in the same cartridge to the general infantry.

It’s my personal opinion that Sig provided ALL the hookers and blow in the world at their meetings with Army procurement officials to convince them that the XM7/6.8x51 combination and that XM157 Fire Control Optic was the way to go. And (maybe the USMC excepted, because they often get the hand me downs) the DoD procurement officer hasn’t been born yet that doesn’t love to liberally spread the taxpayers' dollars around.

Other than that, I have no opinion…but I’m just a lowly taxpayer, so what would I know about it?

[Crash]

The Annoyed Man,

Your ideas are absolutely spot on. They should have hired you to design the rifle and cartridge.

Crash