XM-7 the Army's new rifle Pros and Cons

[727Sky]

It is a heavy beast for anyone who has had to carry a rifle for long periods of time; sling or not. Some salty language when the Cons are covered so snow flakes or more sensitive and adverse to strong language might want to avoid the con part of the video.

[Ninurta]

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.

.

[F2d5thCav]

Folding stock carbine with two 30-round banana clips taped to each other 

Cheers

[p358]

IMHO the only and quite sensible reason to move away from 5.56 is to get enough firepower to penetrate a vest.

5.56 is useless for this role.

So ... will this cartridge / weapon combination or whatever they end up using, kill through a vest?

I have never liked the 5.56 for this reason.

P

[SomeJackleg]

It is a heavy beast for anyone who has had to carry a rifle for long periods of time; sling or not. Some salty language when the Cons are covered so snow flakes or more sensitive and adverse to strong language might want to avoid the con part of the video.

makes me think, AR 10 on roids.

[Ninurta]

IMHO the only and quite sensible reason to move away from 5.56 is to get enough firepower to penetrate a vest.

5.56 is useless for this role.

So ... will this cartridge / weapon combination or whatever they end up using, kill through a vest?

I have never liked the 5.56 for this reason.

P

I don't think the 5.56 was ever meant to be a primarily killing round. Instead, it was meant to incapacitate. When you incapacitate an opponent, you take him out of the fight of course, but additionally you take, on average, two more combatants out of the fight, because someone has to care for the wounded and haul them out of the line of fire. If you simply kill him, his cohorts tend to just leave the carcass laying for later retrieval and keep coming at you.

In the early '80's, the USMC insisted on trying to make the 5.56 more lethal, and that led to the Belgian SS109/US M855 round, with increased weight, increased stability, and in theory more lethality, as the mild steel core penetrator was supposed to punch through armor better. The net result of that was to actually create a LESS lethal round, as was discovered by our troops on Somalia. The heavier weight and steel core did do their job of increasing penetration, but over-stabilizing the round led to smaller wound channels, and we found that shooting a Skinny just punched a neat hole right through them, with the net result that they would keep coming at you, failing to realize that they were supposed to be dead.

Then body armor penetration resistance was just increased to stop what penetration they had gained, negating it. That same phenomena will happen for any round they can develop to increase penetration - someone will come along with better armor to stop that. Because of that, armor has to be worked around - if you want to simply kill them, work for head shots, and if you'd prefer to take advantage of the 3-for-one deal, arms and legs have to be damaged... but the ol' "center punching" is not something to aspire towards in the Age of Armor.

Penetration can be a good thing, but they turned the round into TOO MUCH of a "good thing", in my opinion. It hasn't been quite right since the conversion from M193 rounds to M855 rounds.

ETA: Like I said, I'm an Old Guy, so I prefer the M193 concept - higher velocity due to lower weight, and less stability, creating more horrific wound channels. The problem with using it in this day and age is that it is nearly impossible to find a barrel with the correct rifling twist for it. 55 gr M193 is optimized with a twist of 1:14 to 1:12, but 62 gr M855 is optimized for stability at a twist of about 1:7. I have a cache of both M193 and M855, and my own AR has a twist rate of 1:9, to "optimize" for both, but the net result is that it is perfect for neither, just an attempt to be able to use either and be "close enough for government work".

.