The Army’s new rifle - the XM7

[burbguy82]

XM5

Right choice or the wrong choice for big Army? And since this is a lubrication forum, what lube would you use for the gun irrespective of the manual recommendations.

 

[Vitamin Yoda]

Your query could be improved by using more descriptive language, as there's no need to limit your word choice.

 

[BISCUT]

XM5

Right choice or the wrong choice for big Army? And since this is a lubrication forum, what lube would you use for the gun irrespective of the manual recommendations.

Gov't changed it to XM7 as Colt whined about the "M5" being too similar to XM5. Sorry, not a COLT fan so it shines at times. Still an accurate statement.

Time will tell. It is not light at over 8lbs without a suppressor. Has all the modularity you'd need and if the spec is up to the abuse I don't see it being a dud. I'm a big fan of the 270 bullet. 30-06 is the bee's knees IMO but if you killed game with a 270WIn there is just something special about that bullet. I was in early on the 6.8SPC and that is my favorite AR cartridge with 110gr SMK's or Accubonds. Great for anything, conservatively speaking 300yards and in. The 6.8x51 is much better and offers an ideal intermediate round for just about anything, including warfare.

Any new weapon platform being introduced at such a large scale will have some issues but overall, I do think this one will finally replace the 5.56 and offer a substantial punch for our soldiers without the weight and logists of a heavier, bulkier, 308 delivery system. One of my former cops was in Iraq for 3 tours as a Marine sniper....he hated the M14 due to lugging the weight of the rifle and ammo around in that nasty heat.

 

[Astro14]

I am a fan of our troops getting new gear. Times change. A super lightweight rifle with lots of ammo per lb on a soldier’s body seemed like a great idea 60 years ago, when we got the M-16. At 6lbs total, and with ammo that weighed less than half that of the 7.62x51, it looked like the future. It was the future. A lightweight, accurate, rifle that could be controlled on full auto.

But then, a couple of things happened, full auto wan’t that useful, it was shortened to get in/out of vehicles, so the gas system changed, the short gas system is hard on the parts, and our guys found themselves engaging targets at much longer ranges, where the 5.56 wasn’t that effective, and soldiers started putting optics on it.

Some SOF guys opted to carry the M-14, because they could still get it. The 7.62x51 was much better at range and more effective per round in a fight. So, even though the rifle was heavy, at just over 9lbs, and the ammo was heavy, they wanted the performance.

I don’t know what the next war will look like on the ground. Not my area of expertise.

But I am a fan of the new rifle, the XM7. It’s modular, it can be reconfigured, it’s designed for optics, it’s designed to be suppressed, the gas system is adjustable.

The new 6.8x51 cartridge, known as a .277 Fury for the civilian market, looks to be a very high performance round, with crazy high pressures. It’s roughly a .308 case with a slightly smaller bore, and some serious reinforcement to handle the 80,000 PSI round. What’s amusing about the round, is that it performs a lot like the 6.5x55 Swedish at range. When all the world’s armies were fielding a big, heavy, powerful round (8mm Mauser, .30-06, .303, etc.), the Swedes, starting in 1894, went with a lower recoil, smaller bore, long bullet, that kept its energy at range, and was very accurate.

Here we are, 130 years later, arriving at the same place - for many of the same reasons.

My only concern with the new rifle, and it’s a practical one, is that it’s very expensive. It cost several times as much per unit to build as the rifle it’s replacing. I don’t know what the government is paying for ammo, but the composite case can’t be cheap. Certainly on the civilian market right now while the round is relatively new, the price on it is crazy expensive. Over five times the price of 5.56mm.

So, bottom line, I am in favor of the Army, and the Marine Corps, and whoever else, getting the new rifle. I think we need much more of an intermediate cartridge than we do the small bore 5.56 mm. We need something both better at range and more effective against a potential adversary with body armor. I think we need a rifle that can be easily suppressed, particularly when operating inside structures. I think we need a more reasonable, adjustable gas system.

This is a good rifle. Can we afford to buy a couple million of them? Can we afford to buy billions of rounds for it every year? That part remains to be seen.

 

[Astro14]

Edit - I see the initial contract is for 100,000 or so.

I don’t actually know how many rifles the army needs, but with over 1 million personnel in the army, and about 180,000 in the Marine Corps, I would hope at least half of them actually need a rifle, so I suspect the future buys will continue to put a few hundred thousand of these in inventory.

Again, I am a fan of the new capabilities of the rifle, and I think our troops just plain need new hardware.

 

[burbguy82]

Your query could be improved by using more descriptive language, as there's no need to limit your word choice.

It is a broad subject.

 

[Astro14]

Interestingly, the M1 Garand was originally specified in a .276 caliber.

Which would have given the rifle, an internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds. That was the design goal, a nice, even 10 round internal magazine.

But the general in charge of Army logistics at the time of the M1 Garand development, one Douglas C. MacArthur, insisted that the rifle be compatible with the current issue 1903 Springfield. He did not want the army to try and field two different ammunition types in combat. They must use the same ammo.

The Army faced a similar problem in World War I, where they did not have enough model 1903 Springfields, and they did not want to send troops into combat with the previous .30–40, Krag-Jorgensen rifle.

So rather than face that logistic challenge, of supplying both .30–40 Krag, and .30-06 Springfield, the Army contracted for a nearly 1,000,000 M1917 model rifles to be built.

I’m fascinated that the army is willing to have two ammunition types these days, when logistics posed such a potential problem in previous major conflicts.

 

[oil pan 4]

I searched high and low for for years and just now was able to get ahold of 6.8x51 hybrid cases.
They're not switching to 6.8 in any kind of big way.

 

[oldgrayman]

So is NATO going to adopt this round ? There are logistical issues to consider .

 

[oldgrayman]

Interestingly, the M1 Garand was originally specified in a .276 caliber.

Which would have given the rifle, an internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds. That was the design goal, a nice, even 10 round internal magazine.

But the general in charge of Army logistics at the time of the M1 Garand development, one Douglas C. MacArthur, insisted that the rifle be compatible with the current issue 1903 Springfield. He did not want the army to try and field two different ammunition types in combat. They must use the same ammo.

Not to mention the U.S. was sitting on a bazillion rounds of leftover 30-06 ammo .

 

[PandaBear]

I am a fan of our troops getting new gear. Times change. A super lightweight rifle with lots of ammo per lb on a soldier’s body seemed like a great idea 60 years ago, when we got the M-16. At 6lbs total, and with ammo that weighed less than half that of the 7.62x51, it looked like the future. It was the future. A lightweight, accurate, rifle that could be controlled on full auto.

But then, a couple of things happened, full auto wan’t that useful, it was shortened to get in/out of vehicles, so the gas system changed, the short gas system is hard on the parts, and our guys found themselves engaging targets at much longer ranges, where the 5.56 wasn’t that effective, and soldiers started putting optics on it.

Some SOF guys opted to carry the M-14, because they could still get it. The 7.62x51 was much better at range and more effective per round in a fight. So, even though the rifle was heavy, at just over 9lbs, and the ammo was heavy, they wanted the performance.

I don’t know what the next war will look like on the ground. Not my area of expertise.

But I am a fan of the new rifle, the XM7. It’s modular, it can be reconfigured, it’s designed for optics, it’s designed to be suppressed, the gas system is adjustable.

The new 6.8x51 cartridge, known as a .277 Fury for the civilian market, looks to be a very high performance round, with crazy high pressures. It’s roughly a .308 case with a slightly smaller bore, and some serious reinforcement to handle the 80,000 PSI round. What’s amusing about the round, is that it performs a lot like the 6.5x55 Swedish at range. When all the world’s armies were fielding a big, heavy, powerful round (8mm Mauser, .30-06, .303, etc.), the Swedes, starting in 1894, went with a lower recoil, smaller bore, long bullet, that kept its energy at range, and was very accurate.

Here we are, 130 years later, arriving at the same place - for many of the same reasons.

My only concern with the new rifle, and it’s a practical one, is that it’s very expensive. It cost several times as much per unit to build as the rifle it’s replacing. I don’t know what the government is paying for ammo, but the composite case can’t be cheap. Certainly on the civilian market right now while the round is relatively new, the price on it is crazy expensive. Over five times the price of 5.56mm.

So, bottom line, I am in favor of the Army, and the Marine Corps, and whoever else, getting the new rifle. I think we need much more of an intermediate cartridge than we do the small bore 5.56 mm. We need something both better at range and more effective against a potential adversary with body armor. I think we need a rifle that can be easily suppressed, particularly when operating inside structures. I think we need a more reasonable, adjustable gas system.

This is a good rifle. Can we afford to buy a couple million of them? Can we afford to buy billions of rounds for it every year? That part remains to be seen.

My heart just stopped as soon as I heard composite rounds.

This would be something not easy to mass produced for cheap and hopefully they don't need that many of them. It is one thing to have logistics for patrolling against a small insurgent but if you have to mobilize troops for a major conflict I don't know how fast you can make composite rounds vs just metal ones.

Also would take time to test them in large scale to get real world data on quality control and stability. New tech takes time to mature unlike just using the same metal casing in different dimension.

Will we need the civilian (police) market to make it cost effective? or would the military side able to absorb all the cost if civilian decide to stick to the cheaper stuff?

 

[ammolab]

Interestingly, the M1 Garand was originally specified in a .276 caliber.

Which would have given the rifle, an internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds. That was the design goal, a nice, even 10 round internal magazine.

But the general in charge of Army logistics at the time of the M1 Garand development, one Douglas C. MacArthur, insisted that the rifle be compatible with the current issue 1903 Springfield. He did not want the army to try and field two different ammunition types in combat. They must use the same ammo.

The Army faced a similar problem in World War I, where they did not have enough model 1903 Springfields, and they did not want to send troops into combat with the previous .30–40, Krag-Jorgensen rifle.

So rather than face that logistic challenge, of supplying both .30–40 Krag, and .30-06 Springfield, the Army contracted for a nearly 1,000,000 M1917 model rifles to be built.

I’m fascinated that the army is willing to have two ammunition types these days, when logistics posed such a potential problem in previous major conflicts

If that cartridge was adopted in the late 1930s …I suspect it would still be in use. It might have given the M14 a longer life and would make a good round for the rifle man’s AR ‘Something‘ and Squad Automatic Weapon.

 

[ripcord]

The new cartridge on the whole is probably a good thing, but there are some downsides. One is weight. Today's infantry is already loaded down to the extreme and a heavier rifle plus ammo that is more than twice as heavy adds to that. Another down side is increased recoil. Body armor mitigates this a lot so not a huge issue but it is a factor.

One of the stated reasons for the switch is because of the increased number of enemy combatants wearing body armor. This isn't a convincing argument for me as the new round isn't fast enough to penetrate lvl IV body armor.

 

[Astro14]

My heart just stopped as soon as I heard composite rounds.

This would be something not easy to mass produced for cheap and hopefully they don't need that many of them. It is one thing to have logistics for patrolling against a small insurgent but if you have to mobilize troops for a major conflict I don't know how fast you can make composite rounds vs just metal ones.

Also would take time to test them in large scale to get real world data on quality control and stability. New tech takes time to mature unlike just using the same metal casing in different dimension.

Will we need the civilian (police) market to make it cost effective? or would the military side able to absorb all the cost if civilian decide to stick to the cheaper stuff?

The case is composite - Steel base, brass case, aluminum ring to bind them together. Production isn't particularly difficult, but it's uncommon and takes a couple of extra steps - so the cost goes up.

The composite construction was necessary to get the 80,000 PSI of pressure out of the round, and the concomitant ballistic performance of that bullet at greater speed, where something like a 5.56 or a 7.62 operates with just brass, at closer to 55,000 PSI.

Since we went to the .30-40 Krag, the projectiles have always been composite construction - lead core, and copper jacket. Prior to that, the .45-70 was a big, solid lead bullet (intially 400 grains, and later 505 grains).

In the M855 round, lead core, steel penetrator, and copper jacket.

So, composite construction has been around for a long time in the manufacture of ammo.

I wouldn't worry about testing - the Army doesn't buy stuff unless they have tested it. They expended several million rounds in the testing to pick a new service pistol.

This new round has been tested, believe me.

 

[Astro14]

The new cartridge on the whole is probably a good thing, but there are some downsides. One is weight. Today's infantry is already loaded down to the extreme and a heavier rifle plus ammo that is more than twice as heavy adds to that. Another down side is increased recoil. Body armor mitigates this a lot so not a huge issue but it is a factor.

One of the stated reasons for the switch is because of the increased number of enemy combatants wearing body armor. This isn't a convincing argument for me as the new round isn't fast enough to penetrate lvl IV body armor.

Penetration was a design goal - hence the 80,000 PSI.

The bullet has a velocity at the muzzle of 3,000 FPS, about the same as the M855.

With a weight of 140 grains vs. the M855 weight of 62 grains.

This rifle was designed to penetrate level 4 body armor at 600 yards.

So, I wouldn't worry about body armor penetration.

The real issue is weight, and the plan is to go with 140 rounds of the new stuff vs. 210 rounds of the old. Still adds a couple pounds, but if you are taking out bad guys with one shot, instead of several, then the new round results in more lethality in each soldier.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Can the composite case be used for reloads?

 

[Astro14]

Can the composite case be used for reloads?

Great question. Wish I knew. My gut feeling says no, because there’s no good way for you, as a casual reloader, to inspect that steel to brass junction.

And, my apologies, I used the word, “composite” which implied something other than metal, when I should have used “hybrid”.

There was, in fact, an actual composite, in the sense of fiber reinforced plastic, case in the competition to deliver ammunition for this weapon.

My use of the wrong word probably confused folks. I knew what I meant, that there were multiple metals used in the manufacture of the case in order to give it the strength necessary for the extreme pressures, but in this article, they call it “hybrid”

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Return Of The Rifleman: The Next Generation Squad Weapons Program

The U.S. Army makes a move toward longer-range, harder-hitting small arms, paired with high-tech optics and suppressors, to give the American infantryman the advantage over the enemy.

www.americanrifleman.org

 

[Pew]

SOF guys will probably get it and use it for a bit but I doubt regular infantry will ever see it. . The XM8, then the SCAR was supposed to replace the M4/16 but that never happened.

The biggest issue with a bigger round is the weight. Our standard loadout is already 7x30 round mags, 2 grenades, IFAK, water, not including extra in our packs and any pistol or 40mm ammo if equipped. We're already over 70 pounds as a bare minimum.

Another issue; any infantry can exchange ammo since 5.56 is our standard with the exception of heavy machine gunners. Having line companies carry two different types of ammo poses a problem if everything is not changed over at the same time.

Like tires though, everything is a compromise. I guess future conflicts will determine what new ammo/rifles we will get to see this century.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Great question. Wish I knew. My gut feeling says no, because there’s no good way for you, as a casual reloader, to inspect that steel to brass junction.

And, my apologies, I used the word, “composite” which implied something other than metal, when I should have used “hybrid”.

There was, in fact, an actual composite, in the sense of fiber reinforced plastic, case in the competition to deliver ammunition for this weapon.

My use of the wrong word probably confused folks. I knew what I meant, that there were multiple metals used in the manufacture of the case in order to give it the strength necessary for the extreme pressures, but in this article, they call it “hybrid”

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Return Of The Rifleman: The Next Generation Squad Weapons Program

The U.S. Army makes a move toward longer-range, harder-hitting small arms, paired with high-tech optics and suppressors, to give the American infantryman the advantage over the enemy.

www.americanrifleman.org

I can see the inability to use the spent brass for reloading as a hinderance to adoption by the civilian market. Then again perhaps some company will introduce a modified gas system which would allow the use of conventional brass for reloads.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I like it, and I want one.

Taking a step back and looking at things - seems to be highly unlikely we need to arm a million men to land on a beach somewhere in a troop transport, or have regular patrols through a jungle somewhere. Not only would the public no longer accept that, everyone can see all troop movements via satellite - which is why nothing ever happens in Ukraine. Each side knows exactly where the other side is.

So the mission has changed, and the needs have changed, and the 5.56 was always a trade off anyway so it will change.