I like Brandon Hererra's videos - his presentation is always lively - but I'm not a fan of the XM-7. I reckon that's to be expected. I'm an old guy, and old guys generally resist change. kinda like the old guys did when the M-16 was first adopted to replace the M-14. I'm also not a fan of all the Buck Rogers-ish crap folks are abusing the M-16 platform with these days, and this seems to be just another one of those goofy modifications. What can I say? I wasn't raised on Call of Duty, so I still think basic equates to less breakable, and less breakable is something I look for in a combat weapon.
It looks to me like Sig just stole an AR platform and then tried to convert it to be more AK-ish, especially with that gas system. If the US just wants an AK - and clearly the fact that they are looking for foreign nations to supply domestic defense roles does not bother them as much as it does me - then why not just go with an AK?
The folding AND collapsing stock seems a little redundant to me, but I suppose it does have it's uses in this day and age of body armor. Folding reduces the size of the overall package for tight quarters, like a bunch of guys packed into an APC like sardines in a microwave, so that's useful for someone, and the adjustable pull on the stock does lend itself to adjusting for various body armor thicknesses, so I reckon that's useful, too, but all the extra motion seems to me to present more opportunity for breakage and jamming, which is not really something I look for in a combat weapon.
Ambiodextrous controls are always a plus, because you just never know how jammed up you'll get on which side in the middle of a firefight, but TWO charging handles are a little redundant, too, and offer one too many avenues for dust and sand to enter the action. Since the traditional charging handle is a bear to operate against all the other changes, that one probably should be scrapped and just the side-charger used.
I'm REALLY not a fan of the caliber change, but I was never a big fan of the ammo changes to make the M-16A2 work, either. A .308 is too much for an assault rifle, and the 6.8 adds weight, reduces ammo carrying capacity, yet does not offer any significant performance improvement over the 5.56... so to me that makes it the worst of both worlds. I've fired .308 full auto in an assault rifle platform before (G3), and quickly learned why the British limited their SLR version of the FN-FAL to semi-auto only. It's uncontrollable on full auto, despite the weight. Assault rifles are not heavy enough to be even LMG's, but ARE heavy enough when you beef up the caliber to make them a pain in the ass to carry around all day up and down through hill and dale.
I'm not a fan of SBRs either. If you want a rifle, get a rifle, and if you want a pistol or SMG, get one of those. it makes no sense to me to try the middle ground between the two, because you are reducing the effectiveness of a rifle round, while not quite matching the performance of an SMG. So, again, the worst of both worlds in a single package. With that said, I did run a Colt Model 653 for a couple years, and did like it - but it was firing 5.56, not trying to run some over-amped cartridge through a drinking straw barrel. It had it's uses, generally limited to close-in and cramped fighting, like in thick jungle. Trying to run it in more open terrain as if it were a sniper rifle tended to showcase it's weaknesses and negate it's strengths.
Adding weight to smaller rifles seems to be a trend these days, sort of negating the reason your rifle is smaller to begin with. My own AR weighs about 8.2 pounds, with a 16" barrel, because the only barrel configuration I could get it in was a heavy barrel. I dunno why that was the only thing on offer, but it adds about a pound toi the overall package for no significant advantage that I can see over a pencil-profile barrel. So the weight of the XM-7 beast is probably par for the course, but seems excessive when compared against the reasons assault rifles were developed to begin with.
So, overall, I'm not a fan. Why did they try to fix what wasn't broke, and then farm out American independence to a foreign supply power on top of that? Makes no sense to me, prolly 'coz I'm an old guy.
.
It looks to me like Sig just stole an AR platform and then tried to convert it to be more AK-ish, especially with that gas system. If the US just wants an AK - and clearly the fact that they are looking for foreign nations to supply domestic defense roles does not bother them as much as it does me - then why not just go with an AK?
The folding AND collapsing stock seems a little redundant to me, but I suppose it does have it's uses in this day and age of body armor. Folding reduces the size of the overall package for tight quarters, like a bunch of guys packed into an APC like sardines in a microwave, so that's useful for someone, and the adjustable pull on the stock does lend itself to adjusting for various body armor thicknesses, so I reckon that's useful, too, but all the extra motion seems to me to present more opportunity for breakage and jamming, which is not really something I look for in a combat weapon.
Ambiodextrous controls are always a plus, because you just never know how jammed up you'll get on which side in the middle of a firefight, but TWO charging handles are a little redundant, too, and offer one too many avenues for dust and sand to enter the action. Since the traditional charging handle is a bear to operate against all the other changes, that one probably should be scrapped and just the side-charger used.
I'm REALLY not a fan of the caliber change, but I was never a big fan of the ammo changes to make the M-16A2 work, either. A .308 is too much for an assault rifle, and the 6.8 adds weight, reduces ammo carrying capacity, yet does not offer any significant performance improvement over the 5.56... so to me that makes it the worst of both worlds. I've fired .308 full auto in an assault rifle platform before (G3), and quickly learned why the British limited their SLR version of the FN-FAL to semi-auto only. It's uncontrollable on full auto, despite the weight. Assault rifles are not heavy enough to be even LMG's, but ARE heavy enough when you beef up the caliber to make them a pain in the ass to carry around all day up and down through hill and dale.
I'm not a fan of SBRs either. If you want a rifle, get a rifle, and if you want a pistol or SMG, get one of those. it makes no sense to me to try the middle ground between the two, because you are reducing the effectiveness of a rifle round, while not quite matching the performance of an SMG. So, again, the worst of both worlds in a single package. With that said, I did run a Colt Model 653 for a couple years, and did like it - but it was firing 5.56, not trying to run some over-amped cartridge through a drinking straw barrel. It had it's uses, generally limited to close-in and cramped fighting, like in thick jungle. Trying to run it in more open terrain as if it were a sniper rifle tended to showcase it's weaknesses and negate it's strengths.
Adding weight to smaller rifles seems to be a trend these days, sort of negating the reason your rifle is smaller to begin with. My own AR weighs about 8.2 pounds, with a 16" barrel, because the only barrel configuration I could get it in was a heavy barrel. I dunno why that was the only thing on offer, but it adds about a pound toi the overall package for no significant advantage that I can see over a pencil-profile barrel. So the weight of the XM-7 beast is probably par for the course, but seems excessive when compared against the reasons assault rifles were developed to begin with.
So, overall, I'm not a fan. Why did they try to fix what wasn't broke, and then farm out American independence to a foreign supply power on top of that? Makes no sense to me, prolly 'coz I'm an old guy.
.