The Army’s new rifle - the XM7

[Astro14]

This principle is so obvious, but so often ignored, that I think it bears repeating - You start by defining the operational requirement.

What does the weapon need to be able to do?

All of JCIDS*, the realm in which I once worked, is based on mission analysis, to identify required capabilities in order to execute that mission.

So, I don’t know enough about being on a battle field to be able to say, with certainty, “the rifle needs to be able to ___”. Instead, I rely on those in the Army to define the requirement. I take them at their word, that it has to have better terminal performance at 300-600 yards, that it needs to be suppressed, and that it needs to be relatively short in order to allow vehicle entry/exit.

Well, that’s a tall set of requirements. Very tall. Nothing I own would be able to meet all three, even Patton’s favorite rifle, which fails on the suppressed length requirement.

The challenge in the world of JCIDS is separating “requirement” from “dream sheet” AKA “desire” and realizing that not every solution requires new gear, when often, a change in doctrine, organization, training, personal, etc. can yield the same capability improvement without needing new gear, in this case, rifle.

This rifle feels a bit like the dream sheet, and the final bit, where the rifle really pushes the envelope, is the hybrid steel/brass cartridge, which is expensive. So, from a doctrinal perspective, does every soldier need this rifle? Do we go to a high/low mix, like the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand? Are we willing to accept the cost of multiple supply chains for ammo?

All questions that I ask, but am unable to answer.


* More here. I worked in requirements across USN fleets. Nerdy, laborious, detailed work, but critical to spending the money wisely, to gain the warfighter the best capability improvement for the dollar spent.

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Process Overview - AcqNotes

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process is one of three (3) procurement processes in the Defense Acquisition System.

acqnotes.com

 

[burbguy82]

The challenge in the world of JCIDS is separating “requirement” from “dream sheet” AKA “desire”

This is 100% true.

This rifle feels a bit like the dream sheet,

Right, well put.

I have come to the opinion, that this initial order, is more for further field trials than full adoption. I cant see the cost per soldier being advantageous, as their is "better ways" to equip soldiers.....but like I said, who cares if the money is not yours anyway.

It’s too expensive for a general service rifle. Way over complicated. It major conflict happens, the rifle will become too expensive to build. Russia Ukraine war is showing us this. Same thing as ww2. Thompson was a way nicer sub machine gun than the sten, but the British needed the cheaper gun.

In many ways the Grease gun was better than the Thompson, to your point. The world theater is different now, but not at the core.

 

[Pew]

Average Vietnam engagement was under 300m, ambushes usually within 50m. Average Iraq engagement range was under 100m. Average Afghanistan engagement is 5-600m. So I imagine it'll keep going back and forth. Something else to overcome is our allies adapting the round; logistically it would be a nightmare if the biggest military force changes ammunition while it's allies don't.

The lack of training for 500m+ firefights for some might also have to do something with it. The USMC quals out to 500m and I think the Army quals up to 300m? Both have ACOGs as standard though so that makes things easier to spot than ironsights at least.

 

[Tikka]

Hi.
Will the 80,000 psi version be compatible with the bolt action sporting rifle that is commonly used by civilians? For example, would a Remington 700 be safe to use at 80,000 psi?

 

[burbguy82]

Hi.
Will the 80,000 psi version be compatible with the bolt action sporting rifle that is commonly used by civilians? For example, would a Remington 700 be safe to use at 80,000 psi?

why not, am a sure I could put one together

 

[HouseTiger]

Does the military NEED this particular rifle/cartridge combo ? It's not so much about need as money being poured into defense contractors' coffers. Lake City (Winchester) is adding a new wing to that complex for making this round . . . it's all about money.

The U.S. and Britain, along with a few other countries, went down this 6.5, 6.8, and 7mm rabbit hole in the late 19th and early 20th Century. There is no such thing as one cartridge to do it all, but throw enough money at the project, and you're bound to come up with something resembling a solution.

 

[burbguy82]

Hi.
Will the 80,000 psi version be compatible with the bolt action sporting rifle that is commonly used by civilians? For example, would a Remington 700 be safe to use at 80,000 psi?

The Remington 700 is one of the strongest actions out there. The real magic in the pressure is the cartridge.

 

[Astro14]

Does the military NEED this particular rifle/cartridge combo ? It's not so much about need as money being poured into defense contractors' coffers. Lake City (Winchester) is adding a new wing to that complex for making this round . . . it's all about money.

The U.S. and Britain, along with a few other countries, went down this 6.5, 6.8, and 7mm rabbit hole in the late 19th and early 20th Century. There is no such thing as one cartridge to do it all, but throw enough money at the project, and you're bound to come up with something resembling a solution.

Again - what are the requirements to accomplish the mission?

IF the requirement is for a 300+ yard terminal effectiveness, suppressed, short rifle, then YES, they NEED the rifle.

Remove one of those, and no, they don’t need the rifle. If the rifle can be long, you can get this with a 7.62x51. If the rifle can be unsuppressed, you can get this with 7.62x51. If you don’t need decent range capability, then, you can get a short barreled, suppressed rifle in an existing cartridge.

Sure, this costs money…but…

How much does the hearing loss incurred by combat veterans cost the VA every year? It’s a common disability, and I bet it’s over $1 billion just for that. Suppressing future rifles is cheap in comparison to causing massive disability across our force and then paying for future VA claims.

 

[burbguy82]

Again - what are the requirements to accomplish the mission?

The tactical requirement of any mission requires modification to load-out, the same holds true with fighter planes as it does foot soldiers, I would assume. Of course there is always the "Be Prepared To...." clause in any operations order, hahaha, it is what makes rucksacks 100 lbs. dry!!!

The curse is that we, in the past, have armed and trained for the war that we just fought, using lessons learned from that, and incorporating knowledge into gear and tactics.

In my experience, it seems as though this particular development, of this rifle, follows suit to the old curse. It would have been great for the normal infantry in AFG or Iraq, being as most operations were vehicle-borne or directly supported by armor. The one outlier is the body armor requirement...........which was not an issue in the GWOT.......so why bother?

Weird thing is that programs like this take time, from concept to reliable development. Usually 8-10 years.

Which brings me back to the armor-defeating requirement. Seems to me to be quite forward thinking, by our decision makers. The only theater in which a weapon like this would be suitable for active ground forces would be Eastern Europe and maybe China, (Meaning western Russia). A modern, advanced military, with body armor. Again, pretty forward thinking.

But these thing take 8-10 years to come to reliable fruition........coincidence?

 

[Astro14]

Rifles, perhaps, can’t be modified or adapted in the way that larger weapon system platforms, like tactical aircraft, can.

We can put different barrel lengths, different optics, even suppressors, or not, on a particular rifle, but fundamentally the cartridge itself defines the performance envelope.

It is interesting to note that the M1 Garand was built out of the experience of World War I and turned out perfectly suited for World War II.

I’ve watched fighter aircraft get new weapons, develop new capabilities, while the same basic parameters of airframe engine, fuel capacity, flight performance, etc. remain relatively static.

My old airplane, the F14, was built for Fleet Air Defense. Long range, high speed, supersonic intercept of multiple targets, while simultaneously maintaining good dogfighting capability.

It turned out, that you could make some mild modifications to the weapon system, give the RIO control of a laser targeting and infrared pod, and it turned into a long range, high-speed, precision, strike aircraft, that was instrumental in providing close air support and Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a great FAC-A platform.

The basic performance parameters of speed, range, and payload, which were defined by engine, airframe, fuel, etc. turned out to be very adaptable into other mission sets.

Wars are won on logistics. I recognize the logistic challenge of having two primary rifles for the US Army, but I think a low/high mix, like the F-16 and F15, or the F35 and F22, might be a better way to outfit our troops for a future, as yet undefined, conflict.

It takes a while to buy and build enough rifles. Having the option of the lightweight, high capacity, M4, and the heavier weight, longer range, suppressed M7, while posing logistic challenges, might better optimize our soldier’s success, depending on the terms of the next conflict.

As I said, in my opening post on this, I am all in favor of our soldiers getting new gear. It has to be good gear.

 

[burbguy82]

Wars are won on logistics

more truth cannot be said

Wars are won on logistics. I recognize the logistic challenge of having two primary rifles for the US Army, but I think a low/high mix, like the F-16 and F15, or the F35 and F22, might be a better way to outfit our troops for a future, as yet undefined, conflict.

I agree. Do you see this as a budgetary strategy? Or from a training and readiness stance? Of course, this would translated to the new rifle the same way. Tank crews for instance could have their own weapon, like a sub gun, in a pistol caliber aswell, better suiting their needs.

It has to be good gear.

This is key. Not just to direct action, but for morale aswell. In the winter of 2002, I had a "trusty" assault pack, made of 1000d cordura nylon, in woodland camo, but it had not seen -40 degrees with a bunch of weight. It tore like paper. I venture to say that if you did not have 100% trust in your F-14, your level of "gung ho" would be decreased.

 

[Hohn]

Can the composite case be used for reloads?

If by composite you mean the polymer case, then no. But if you just mean the military style case with the steel base, then it's "maybe" because there are other reloadable steel/alloy cases on the market in other calibers. For example, the Shell Shock Technologies cases in 9mm.

The advantage of the hybrid case construction is the stronger case head which prevents primer pocket loosening at higher pressures. Since the pockets will stay tight, I'd think you could reload these cases several times. Heck, with the part of the case that tends to stretch made from steel, it's possible these hybrid cases might be good for dozens of loads at lower pressures.

 

[Hohn]

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.

Everyone has a take. Here's mine, as a non-ground pounding USAF vet who's really into guns.

I'd lube them with RadcoLube or any other lube that meets MIL-PRF-63460F TY:A. This is a pretty short list of lubes because the spec is brutally demanding (I think it's only Breakfree, G96,and Radco that are commonly available that meet it--other search results include brands I've never heard of). Google it up and read what it was required to do in an M249 and you'll know it's good enough for anything less. My match rifles still get a good cleaning with Iosso down to bare metal. But my gas guns and pistols just get Radco and dang is it convenient and effective.


That's the easy answer, the tougher answer-- was Big Army right to adopt the new cartridge and rifles)? Probably. As engineers, we just design to and validate to requirements. So whether or not something is good really comes down to whether the requirements were the correct requirements.

So, did the Army use the correct requirements here? That's hard to say. Times change and so should requirements. That's partly why we're "always fighting the last war"-- we don't realize how much things have changed until we show up in a new war with the wrong tactics and gear. Such was the lesson in Korea, again in VietNam, and yet again in Desert Storm.


I can see a future where the Army has geared itself up for long range shooting across mountains in Afghanistan only to be stuck trying to clear rooms with an XM7 going house to house.


IMO, the more general-purpose you make something, the less suited it can be for any one purpose. Specialty tasks need specialty tools.

The 6.8x51 will indeed vastly outperform even M118lr at distance. The M118lr has more energy and is "more powerful" in that regard, but the 6.8 will have superior penetration, a lot less wind, less recoil and less elevation drop.

I think that the 6.8 still needs a companion firearm in a smaller chambering. I'd suggest that they Army should adopt 5.7x28 is the smaller companion and field sidearms and carbines in this chambering. This is vastly better for room clearing and personal defense.

I personally think the choice of the 277 caliber was a mistake-- it was an Army dictate, not anything an ammo maker or vendor recommended. You cannot convince me that there's anything at all magical about .277 diameter bullets that isn't shared with 284 diameter. Going up to 7mm/.284 would have brought a much wider range of bullet weights as options. The 7mm option gives you a 150gr SMK which can achieve the same 2950fps at similar or less pressure but have higher energy, longer barrel life, less windage, less drop.

There's a reason the civilian market basically abandoned the 277 bore in favor of 284. It's the same reason that 25 calibers largely disappeared after the .243 Win and .244 Rem appeared in the early 1960s. Nobody introduced a new 25 cal since the 25-06, because anything the 257 bullet does, a .264 bullet also does. Seven thousandths of an inch just isn't enough bore size difference to really matter outside PRS and some niche applications. Notice that pattern of bore size progressions follows a pattern? .204, .224, .244, .264, .284? It makes sense. It works. And it shows that .257 and .277 are oddballs with not enough redeeming virtues to justify deviating from the pattern.

The Army's love of 6.8 goes back to the 6.8 SPC and when SOCOM tested rounds and decided that 7mm was too much and 6.5 (I believe tested in the 6.5 Grendel) was too little. Well, in a 5.56 frame rifle with a STANAG magazine, yeah, the 7mm might be too much because you're so limited on overall length. But not in a larger frame AR10/M110/SR25 pattern rifle.

I contend that 7mm was a smarter choice for the new round just because 277 is now a niche that only the 270 Winchester really occupies (and which will not be redeemed by the 6.8 Western round trying to capitalize on the free marketing for 6.8 that comes with the military media coverage).

The argument cuts the other way though-- if the 6.8 is a mistake vs 7mm, it is a small mistake. Because frankly, we're talking 0.007" here. It's not much.


The 277 will also be the first military round NOT to see widespread civilian adoption. Civilians won't be able to afford the special cases, which means that the pressure will drop to normal levels. Which means the civiliant 277 sig fury at 60ksi is basically a 277 Creedmoor, an upsizes 6.5 with lower BC for a given speed (and thus worse external ballistics).

I'm glad to see our troops get updated small arms. I just hope that it actually does save lives instead of just costing taxpayers a mint on new rifles and EXPENSIVE new ammo.

 

[burbguy82]

So whether or not something is good really comes down to whether the requirements were the correct requirements.

I agree

So, did the Army use the correct requirements here? That's hard to say.

That is the real question, whether we should as opposed to if we can.

I can see a future where the Army has geared itself up for long range shooting across mountains in Afghanistan only to be stuck trying to clear rooms with an XM7 going house to house.

I can almost guarantee it.

I'm glad to see our troops get updated small arms. I just hope that it actually does save lives instead of just costing taxpayers a mint on new rifles and EXPENSIVE new ammo.

All in all, I think it will be found to have little juice for the squeeze.



Great post BTW, well thought out.