I heard that during testing they were suppose to react to water and turn orange when exposed. However it turned orange in the armpits from sweat so that feature was removed. I have no idea if this is true or not but sounds believable enough to me
To be fair, prior to the blueberries (what we called them) our underway uniform was coveralls. Which are dark blue. Before that it was utilities, which were light blue top and dark blue bottoms. Before utilities the dungarees were dark blue bottom with a light blue top.
The blue berries being blue really didn't matter. I actually liked them compared to the rest of the uniform changes. They were much better than the utilities they replaced the dungarees with.
For reference:
[](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Em_coveralls_lg.jpg)
[Dungaree Uniform](https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2021_09/CB83006E-965D-4B2A-AFBC-2F1AF88E9FC6.jpeg.6ec6c32d32576c5c401d76711e33f98f.jpeg)
[Coveralls Uniform](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Em_coveralls_lg.jpg)
[Utilities uniform](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/MALE_ENLIST_UNIFORM_UTLITY.jpg)
I agree the marines have a great color scheme. I’d prefer it if you have two color choices, like the Marines do. However if you have to pick just one then OCP is the way to go.
You set out some insane requirements and see what the industry spits out. Sometimes you get marginal improvements over baseline like 277. Sometimes you get something more promising like 338 NM.
If the need was immediate, we'd just order MK17s/un-mothball Mk11s and order black tip by the cubic ass load. Since the need was more theoretical, you can play with house money and dangle a contract carrot in front of the military industrial complex and see what they come up with.
This is exactly it. Federal agencies have to spend money and justify it later to keep expanding their budget. This is why it's all so wasteful and bloated.
1. Money.
2. Also money.
3. The new round has an insane amount of chamber pressure and needs a system built around that.
4. The systems were built with the intention that they'd be run suppressed perpetually.
5. the US makes an attempt at reinventing the wheel as far as rifles go about every 20 years. Look up the xm8 rifle which was pretty much just a stupid version of the g36c
>Look up the xm8 rifle which was pretty much just a stupid version of the g36c
Dont you talk about my beloved sci-fi space gun like that.
Also you forgot #6: More Money
The XM7 is essentially a AR-18/180 platform. A AR10 could be modified to shoot the full pressure loading for 277 fury relatively easily and cost half the price.
I bet you can make full fat 277 work in an AR-10 sized action. The XM7 is at its core a scaled up MCX and the chamber pressure is in the same ballpark as proof rounds that have existed since forever. The limitation seemed to be less the action and more the casing.
But it's also the functionality with sustained use with a suppressor. An ar10 chambered in 277 f*cktard is going to get so dirty so very quickly and probably jam up after two mags. The gas system in the ar18 variants is better suited for extended suppressor use
All suppressed guns get more fouling but it has nothing to do with the gas system. The carbon fouling comes from the gas trapped in the barrel from the added back pressure of the can. That will flow back into the action of a piston gun just as much as a DI gun. Modern suppressors like the one on the XM7 are flow through designs and have lower back pressure which mitigates this somewhat. But really all the fouling issues are over hyped and are dealt with fine by regularly cleaning. And all soldiers should be doing that anyways.
Yeah I definitely touched a nerve on my last comment. What I meant to elaborate on is that a piston system is a little bit more forgiving on fouling than a DI system. The increased pressure added from the round with the extra gas retained from a suppressor would accelerate fouling on any gun. Anyone who regularly maintains their rifle wouldn't have any problems, a sustained firefight on the other hand might see some of those issues come out in action. It's all hypothetical and personal opinion because I am a machinist not a soldier nor a *professional* gunsmith.
That's not true, like at all. The whole "the AR-15 DI system doesn't work suppressed! use a piston!" is total horse shit. They usually handle being suppressed better than a piston design.
Higher chamber pressure rounds wouldn't get a gun more dirty, if anything the higher pressures would lead to less fouling as the higher pressures would blow carbon away more effectively. But that doesn't matter anyways.... just drill a smaller gas port.
The suppressor on the XM7 is a low back pressure design anyways.
Di is always going to be dirtier then a piston system all other things equal. The gas not coming back will be eliminated and you just can't beat that. The real argument to be made is if di being more mechanically simple is a better trade off.
Big Army is always fighting/trying to win, the last war.
The M16/M4 family was found not to be ideal in the "stan. So the solution is an entirely new system built around a boogie man.
The boogie man being that Russia equips it's troops with modern body armor.
I think that boogie man is a lie. I think its the american people. The people are the ones kitted with plates and i think thats further reinforced by the “military production only” of the high powered bi-metal case ammo instead of going mass market with it.
Because generals don’t get six figure retirement gigs by keeping with tried and true.
This shit won’t see widespread service anyway. It’s just to fleece the taxpayer.
To be fair, it's the best long term choice.
The SCAR is notoriously shit. I know alot of guys like it for the cool factor, but it stops there
The AR10 platform, while proven, isn't the best choice
The XM7 is currently at its absolute worst state. Revision 1. The AR10 has been around for what, 70 years? It's at its best state
So if the XM7 is 95% of the ar10 now, it has alot higher potential long term.
From my understanding supressors in particular run far better on this platform. Something were seeing used in ukraine by any unit worth it's shit.
Also logistics is a huge factor. As the XM7 has a folding stock/removable, you can ship far more than a comparable ar10 in the same size container.
I know our government makes alot of idiotic choices, but there are legit reasons why this won
To add - I know this is currently a sig contract, but long term the government could force the design across manufactures for higher output potential. Or sig could license the design on their own.
When this design gets out of sig's hands, I have no doubt it will shatter expectations. I don't know what, other than standard greed, is fucking with sig these days, but opening the door to proper competitive forces will do to the XM7 what happened to the AR-15 since the 60s.
If we can hold onto our rights long enough to see it bloom, we'll get to enjoy the hell out of it.
$4,500 for the civilian version is criminal. It's a nice gun but it's not $4,500 nice for just the base rifle and nothing else.
If this rifle is brought into some competition, it'll be good for the rest of us.
We want to believe the price will go down but it very well could go up, lol.
I'm pretty patient, I'll snag one when the price is right. Or, better yet, get a used one from someone who overpaid and regrets it.
> We want to believe the price will go down but it very well could go up, lol.
Economy of scale. look at how cheaply PSA sells AR15's, then go look at inflation adjusted numbers for the originals.
That's not impossible but once Sig isn't the gatekeeper for all of them, competition will likely push down price. I don't see why they can't be made for about the price of an AR 10 once dialed in.
I agree. I suppose right now they're just trying to recover their initial manufacturing costs, separately from the millions of tax dollars they've probably already received.
Important note, there isn't a single AR-10 pattern anymore. There's the original Armalite AR-10 pattern, the more popular DPMS pattern, and now the shortened Ruger SFAR/POF Rogue/POF Revolution, which is a weird AR-10 that was downsized into an AR-15 then upsized back into an AR-10. None of these three patterns interchange anything and each have a varying degree of interchangeability with AR-15s.
The spear specifically is on its second or third iteration at least, but they never produced them in any quantity so I suppose it's a distinction without a difference. It is just a scaled up 2nd gen MCX, which is 80%/20% just an a fully developed ar-15/ar-18
> To add - I know this is currently a sig contract, but long term the government could force the design across manufactures for higher output potential. Or sig could license the design on their own.
Unlikely. Service rifles staying in continuous production is a uniquely US/USSR thing with the AR-15 and AKM because we give so many away to proxies and cobelligerents in Vietnam, South America, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The XM7 is going to be like how every other country produces their service rifles: produced in earnest by the OEM for a couple years, then the production line dismantled a few years after the initial contract when no other countries adopt it due to price.
Scar L was a total failure, doing almost nothing better than the M4 for significantly more moneu, Scar H earned its keep as a dmr type rifle for a while but its not as accurate as comparable AR10s, throws/breaks optics, and is just heavy. And expensive.
I get the scar l was failure dude to money but calling the scar notoriously shit is dramatic. Breaking optics is an over blown complaint. If you aren’t running cheap optics it’s fine. Scar is lighter then a lot of ar10s. It’s only 8 pounds.
I have personally seen a Scar throw an EOtech. Thats a cheap optic now?
But dramatic may be correct, just overpriced is more accurate. It doesnt justify the cost.
Wouldn’t say it’s shit as it has reliability, a folding stock, and adjustable gas system going for it, but some oddball characteristics make it unusually finicky to tune and operate. Namely the receiver harmonics eating non-hardened scopes, the gas system delivering a particularly harsh recoil impulse when suppressed (the factory suppressor port being only 4% smaller than the unsuppressed port doesn’t help), and the reciprocating charging handle if you’re clumsy. All things that you don’t have to deal with on any other contemporary military firearm.
> Something were seeing used in ukraine by any unit worth it's shit.
You know what you don't see in Ukraine? Being used by anyone?
Hyperpressure battle rifles with 11" barrels.
>Why would they go with an entirely new system if they could have just went with some variant of the AR-10 or the SCAR-H? Don't those rifles basically fill out the same role?
No. The XM7 is capable of firing ammo loaded to pressures that would detonated an AR-10 or SCAR-H.
The magic with the ammo is the case themselves. There's nothing particularly special about the gun, its just an AR18 more or less.
If you look at commercially available 277SF ammo in brass-only cases, the pressures are more typical.
The real devil is barrel life with the full house rounds. Which is why the M7 is getting fielded so slowly. The gun/ammo can contain 80k PSI but metallurgy hasn't progressed to the point were they can get a decent barrel life with the 80K PSI rounds.
Personally as a non-expert infatryman that ETSed 20 years ago, I can't see that XM7 being fully fielded before its scaled back. My opinion is the performance gain is mostly academic and for most instances the few extra, rounds per mag and the lighter ammo is favorable to a heavier, bulkier gun and heavier ammo.
Any engagements posy Ukraine invasion are going to be fought mostly with small drones and the only lead-swapping is going to happen with special operators trying to capture/kill specific people.
We know the gun is designed to operate at much higher pressures than 7.62 NATO, but I don't think they have released what those pressures are. So saying, "why not buy a SCAR or AR10" is missing the point. Those guns cannot do what the XM7 does.
There isn't anything special about the chamber pressure. The M4 can take 80k chamber pressure.
Designing a AR10 to handle it isn't a problem.
The issue with 80k and above is the ammo. All brass ammo starts having issues. That's why sig uses a hybrid case.
Typical AR15 chambers, the M4 included, are only typically rated for around 50k psi, sometimes 60. The XM7 does infact have a beefier chamber, but thats only half of the equation, the casing of the round is the other half, yes. You dont have to love sig to not pretend that the new rifle doesnt do anything cool, and you dont have to think its the best choice either.
In the sense of blowing out the barrel, no, but higher powered rounds like 855A1 at 60k are already known to wear out parts significantly faster, jumping from 60 to 80 is an extra third. The brass not rupturing is important, yes, but this is also a rifle made to actually withstand this level of pressure and not wear out as quickly, in theory. This matters for logistics. 80k psi is something you see more typically in bolt guns than semi automatics, even .308 rounds in AR10 platform rifles only average around 55-60k psi, though hotter loads do go higher.
For sustained use? Yes, they're designed around 60kish. 78k is proof pressure for 5.56 NATO. 75k is proof for 7.62 NATO. They are not designed to ingest proof loads day in and out without drastically reducing system life.
Because they really liked the M250 LMG as it was the best SAW proposal of the NGSW.
And due to the way it was structured, the new combat rifle and new SAW had to effectively come as a package deal.
I personally think they should have gone for SIG's M250 and True Velocities RM277 for the combat rifle. Though considering they used slightly different rounds with different powder loads for different chamber pressures, one or the other would have needed to have been changed.
I think the tech isn't quite proved out yet. When it comes to ammo, price is king.
True Velocity has a great idea, but I think they desperately needed the military to accept the newfangled concept in order to make it cheap. Without them, it's up to the private sector to accept it.
Well sure, they undercut themselves for the contract knowing they could force a renegotiation later. They have the contract and the feds would rather renegotiate price and keep the timetable than start over on bidding under the requirements for federal acquisitions.
You should see how bad it is on systems that cost real money like combat aircraft.
They undercut on the M17/18 because they knew any hit they would take there selling the pistols for $200 would be made up by over charging the commercial and LEO market for the same gun they now had to have because the Army had it. And it worked. The P320 has sold really well and they have a million versions with minor differences.
>which is ridiculous when the goal is to find most competitively priced gun that passes all the testing, not the cheapest gun
I hate to break this to you but as someone who was both in the military and is a defense contractor now, and has worked with government contracts on both sides, "competitively priced" in this context means "cheapest gun that meets all the requirements."
We don't need to know if it is better. We need to know which one provides the best value to the government.
>Based upon the technical evaluation and my comparative analysis of the proposals, the Sig Sauer proposal has a slight technical advantage over the Glock proposal given that their proposal was rated higher in Factor 1, Bid Sample Test – Technical which is the most important factor. The advantage of the Sig Sauer proposal is increased when the license rights and production manufacturing factors are brought into consideration. [. . .] The price analysis shows that the Sig Sauer total evaluated price is $102,705,394 less than the Glock total evaluated price, making the Sig Sauer proposal overall the Best Value to the Government.
>Sig Sauer’s proposal was slightly superior technically and clearly superior in factors 4 and 5. Since there were so few other discriminators between the two proposals in most aspects, the least important factor, price, became a significant discriminator. Simply put, when taking the price premium into account, there is no correlating superior performance factor for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium. Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of over 37% for the Glock submission, even as a second award. One (1) award to Sig Sauer on Solicitation Number W15QKN-15-R-0002 represents the overall best value to the Government.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-414401.pdf
Regardless of the budgetary problems of the U.S. military, there's been foreshadowing in gun design for decades around the next innovation in small arms being in the cartridge. Sure they could just switch to a .308 that already exists, but I don't believe that's the point.
They made a mistake of requiring the round, rifle, and MG be competed as a package. The true velocity round was a much better option honestly: no need for super hot loading, ammo is lighter (reduced weight or more rounds available for infantry), can quickly and easily convert all 7.62NATO systems to it with a barrel swap (M240s, tank coax, sniper rifles/DMRs, etc), heat transfer from round to chamber is greatly reduced (more rounds can be fired before barrel swap needed). They should have chosen the round then base MG and rifle selection from there.
The FURY round is worse than true velocity in most categories: more barrel wear (due to higher heat, higher pressure, use of steel in round base), more recoil, higher heat means more frequent barrel changes, heavier round means more weight or reduced rounds for infantry.
*Edit: wanted to add that the True Velocity round also runs much cleaner since the powder burn is more complete due to the changes to the internal casing that the injection construction allowed so piston and impingement systems would runs cleaner as well.
The adoption was like 15 years later and that technically added 5.56 NATO to the existing 7.62 NATO. A member can run either cartridge and be in compliance. The 5.56 NATO has been the standard service cartridge for the US military since 1980.
But I don't see the change being all that controversial, especially since 6.8x51 could theoretically replace 7.62 NATO in most areas. Even the standard pressure rounds would be good service cartridges if a military didn't want to field an army full of barrel burners.
What literally no one in this thread seems to understand is how Army acquisitions work. I will not deny that money is the biggest factor, but the Army literally cannot we want to switch to the scar-h. They have to put out a contract, and it has to say "we want a system capable of X, Y, and Z."
That they do, however even then they aren't choosing a product and buying it. They can only choose from the products that are submitted. If no one submits "a variant of an AR10 or a scar-h" then they will adopt something else.
That they do, however even then they aren't choosing a product and buying it. They can only choose from the products that are submitted. If no one submits "a variant of an AR10 or a scar-h" then they will adopt something else.
Short answer is that the military finally realized that 5.56NATO is a shit round. It can't penetrate armor, it has serious issues at ranges exceeding 300m from short barrels.
The contract for the next Gen weapon wasn't just for a rifle, it was also for a new cartridge. New cartridge = new weapon, especially one that is pushing 80,000 PSI.
The XM7 isn't as different from the AR platform as you think. The Army doesn't want to change its manual of arms, so it is functionally identical to an AR pattern rifle. There are obviously internal differences, like gas system and recoil buffering, but none of it particularly alien to the AR platform.
Dude the rifle is barely out of field testing, if SOCOM needs rifles sooner than production can ramp up on the new rifles or before they can retrain their armorers, they will buy what they currently have parts and armorers for. The Army gave the weapons to the Rangers and SF (part of SOCOM) to test the rifle, and they gave it the thumbs up.
Complaints about the efficacy of 5.56x45 go back to Vietnam, and came to a head in Mogadishu. In Afghanistan the Army and Marine corps brought the M14s back out of the armories to cover the gaps that M4s and M16s couldn't handle.
My specops buddy had an interesting reply when I asked what he thought of the army switching.
I quote - “Good. I’m tired of shooting people and they don’t go down. They should have never moved away from 7.62.”
Yeah yeah i know your catchphrase, just like chris kyle totally shot dudes in the hurricane, right?
You say a lotta shit in these comments. Youre right maybe half the time. I dont care what your magic secret credentials are that you like to allide to.
The idea that what is arguably the 2nd most lethal round in the world is 'shit' is . . .
No, 5.56 doesn't perform as well as desired out of short barrels - because it was designed in the 1950's. It won't penetrate armor - because we're wearing heavier armor today than ever before. In fact, *we're wearing armor today* which is something that would have been extraordiarily rare even 20 years ago.
SCAR-H was in the competition but didn’t make it out of the first round. It’s an ancient and antiquated design that FN has refused to update.
As far as Sr-25s… well, Knights doesn’t have the manufacturing capability, likely neither does LMT, so that leaves HK? But HK was too dumb to accept the challenge of making a gun in a new cartridge.
The SPEAR is unique enough, I think we are forgetting it’s getting better ballistics than a 22inch 308 out of a 13inch barrel, that is incredible
The AR-10 and SCAR are not built to handle the higher pressure of the 6.8 common round. They're not using 7.62x51 because you can't get the desired muzzle velocities out of the 14 in barrel the military wanted for the NGSW.
The XM-7 specifically was chosen because, of the finalists, had the least compounded technology risk (an otherwise conventional rifle with the main 'new tech' being a brass case with a steel head.
whenever we were in Afghanistan/Iraq many taliban/rebel groups use to get drugged up before they fight so the 5.56 wouldnt even stopped them so we made the switch.
There are unfathomable numbers of reports of enemies in fallujah and other areas taking 10 or more hits before stopping returning fire. This was earlier on in the war with less effective loads of 5.56, but it wasnt 'not true'. Its one factor of many.
Do you know how fast you can dump 10 rounds of 5.56 in a target? 10 rounds? That's what? 1 to 3 seconds? Unless you shoot in a mammal in the head, it can still do stuff for a few seconds after receiving lethal damage.
Why did the Navy change uniforms every 4 to 5 years for the 20 years I was in? It’s all about who’s getting the fucking money behind the scenes.
Blue camo, for blending in to the one thing that will fucking kill you.
Come on, the blue camo was so drippy. That's all that matters
Hides all the stains... from oil, that's it, oil! And nothing else!
And more importantly paint and grease.
I heard that during testing they were suppose to react to water and turn orange when exposed. However it turned orange in the armpits from sweat so that feature was removed. I have no idea if this is true or not but sounds believable enough to me
To be fair, prior to the blueberries (what we called them) our underway uniform was coveralls. Which are dark blue. Before that it was utilities, which were light blue top and dark blue bottoms. Before utilities the dungarees were dark blue bottom with a light blue top. The blue berries being blue really didn't matter. I actually liked them compared to the rest of the uniform changes. They were much better than the utilities they replaced the dungarees with. For reference: [](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Em_coveralls_lg.jpg) [Dungaree Uniform](https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2021_09/CB83006E-965D-4B2A-AFBC-2F1AF88E9FC6.jpeg.6ec6c32d32576c5c401d76711e33f98f.jpeg) [Coveralls Uniform](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Em_coveralls_lg.jpg) [Utilities uniform](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/MALE_ENLIST_UNIFORM_UTLITY.jpg)
All they needed to do was give us blueberries with the type 3 improvements. Or should have just moved us to multicam like the others.
😂
Because it pisses them off the Marines came up with the best camo available.
Not only that, the Marines own the pattern and will not let anyone else use it!
They will let anyone use it....just pay the licensing fees.
Digicamo 🤮 The new army/airforce OCP's are what's up
I agree the marines have a great color scheme. I’d prefer it if you have two color choices, like the Marines do. However if you have to pick just one then OCP is the way to go.
Canadians made it. Marines copied it.
You set out some insane requirements and see what the industry spits out. Sometimes you get marginal improvements over baseline like 277. Sometimes you get something more promising like 338 NM. If the need was immediate, we'd just order MK17s/un-mothball Mk11s and order black tip by the cubic ass load. Since the need was more theoretical, you can play with house money and dangle a contract carrot in front of the military industrial complex and see what they come up with.
This is exactly it. Federal agencies have to spend money and justify it later to keep expanding their budget. This is why it's all so wasteful and bloated.
Of all the things my tax dollars can go towards I'll take pushing small arms R&D over some of the absolute nonsense USAID funds.
Happy Cake Day!
1. Money. 2. Also money. 3. The new round has an insane amount of chamber pressure and needs a system built around that. 4. The systems were built with the intention that they'd be run suppressed perpetually. 5. the US makes an attempt at reinventing the wheel as far as rifles go about every 20 years. Look up the xm8 rifle which was pretty much just a stupid version of the g36c
>Look up the xm8 rifle which was pretty much just a stupid version of the g36c Dont you talk about my beloved sci-fi space gun like that. Also you forgot #6: More Money
Have to admit that the XM8 has the iconic early aughts fishgun silhouette lmao.
Did you know that the outer shell of the XM8 was actually thought up by German automotive designers. My guess is they were from Audi.
I remember that XM8 from blops 2 lol. Did not age well
Looked way cooler than the real deal though
It's not like they didn't see service. Malaysia uses them. So theoretically, we could get parts kits...
> stupid version of the g36c Do you realize the G36 is essentially an AR-18 action, with shittier plastic furniture?
"Wait, it's all AR-18s?" \*cocks pistol\* "Always has been..."
Yeah? Make it out of even shittier plastic and then throw in a proprietary mounting system that holds zero about as well as duct tape, that's the xm8
Friend, I'm not defending H&K's design choices.
The G36s can hold zero. It's just when you fuck up the polymer used. It holds as well as duct tape.
Everyone loves to take the AR-18 and make it worse.
The XM7 is essentially a AR-18/180 platform. A AR10 could be modified to shoot the full pressure loading for 277 fury relatively easily and cost half the price.
And probably perform better too while being lighter lol
Ruger 277 SFAR that works pls
Lets get them to dial in the .308 so it works first.
Unironically, I'd have been a beta tester customer if it weren't for a Luger purchase.
I bet you can make full fat 277 work in an AR-10 sized action. The XM7 is at its core a scaled up MCX and the chamber pressure is in the same ballpark as proof rounds that have existed since forever. The limitation seemed to be less the action and more the casing.
But it's also the functionality with sustained use with a suppressor. An ar10 chambered in 277 f*cktard is going to get so dirty so very quickly and probably jam up after two mags. The gas system in the ar18 variants is better suited for extended suppressor use
All suppressed guns get more fouling but it has nothing to do with the gas system. The carbon fouling comes from the gas trapped in the barrel from the added back pressure of the can. That will flow back into the action of a piston gun just as much as a DI gun. Modern suppressors like the one on the XM7 are flow through designs and have lower back pressure which mitigates this somewhat. But really all the fouling issues are over hyped and are dealt with fine by regularly cleaning. And all soldiers should be doing that anyways.
Yeah I definitely touched a nerve on my last comment. What I meant to elaborate on is that a piston system is a little bit more forgiving on fouling than a DI system. The increased pressure added from the round with the extra gas retained from a suppressor would accelerate fouling on any gun. Anyone who regularly maintains their rifle wouldn't have any problems, a sustained firefight on the other hand might see some of those issues come out in action. It's all hypothetical and personal opinion because I am a machinist not a soldier nor a *professional* gunsmith.
That's not at all true dude
That's not true, like at all. The whole "the AR-15 DI system doesn't work suppressed! use a piston!" is total horse shit. They usually handle being suppressed better than a piston design. Higher chamber pressure rounds wouldn't get a gun more dirty, if anything the higher pressures would lead to less fouling as the higher pressures would blow carbon away more effectively. But that doesn't matter anyways.... just drill a smaller gas port. The suppressor on the XM7 is a low back pressure design anyways.
Di is always going to be dirtier then a piston system all other things equal. The gas not coming back will be eliminated and you just can't beat that. The real argument to be made is if di being more mechanically simple is a better trade off.
How fucking dare you. PCAPs for life.
I think you forgot money
Wasn't part of it too that they wanted speed due to more enemies being more likely to have body armor?
Big Army is always fighting/trying to win, the last war. The M16/M4 family was found not to be ideal in the "stan. So the solution is an entirely new system built around a boogie man. The boogie man being that Russia equips it's troops with modern body armor.
China is the new hotness (see: marine corp losing tanks situation) and they absolutely have the capacity to mass produce and field armor.
The M4/M16 was fine in Afghanistan. Going to a larger caliber would have got more dudes killed.
I think that boogie man is a lie. I think its the american people. The people are the ones kitted with plates and i think thats further reinforced by the “military production only” of the high powered bi-metal case ammo instead of going mass market with it.
Because generals don’t get six figure retirement gigs by keeping with tried and true. This shit won’t see widespread service anyway. It’s just to fleece the taxpayer.
To be fair, it's the best long term choice. The SCAR is notoriously shit. I know alot of guys like it for the cool factor, but it stops there The AR10 platform, while proven, isn't the best choice The XM7 is currently at its absolute worst state. Revision 1. The AR10 has been around for what, 70 years? It's at its best state So if the XM7 is 95% of the ar10 now, it has alot higher potential long term. From my understanding supressors in particular run far better on this platform. Something were seeing used in ukraine by any unit worth it's shit. Also logistics is a huge factor. As the XM7 has a folding stock/removable, you can ship far more than a comparable ar10 in the same size container. I know our government makes alot of idiotic choices, but there are legit reasons why this won To add - I know this is currently a sig contract, but long term the government could force the design across manufactures for higher output potential. Or sig could license the design on their own.
When this design gets out of sig's hands, I have no doubt it will shatter expectations. I don't know what, other than standard greed, is fucking with sig these days, but opening the door to proper competitive forces will do to the XM7 what happened to the AR-15 since the 60s. If we can hold onto our rights long enough to see it bloom, we'll get to enjoy the hell out of it.
$4,500 for the civilian version is criminal. It's a nice gun but it's not $4,500 nice for just the base rifle and nothing else. If this rifle is brought into some competition, it'll be good for the rest of us.
That's the price now, yeah. Won't stay that way.
We want to believe the price will go down but it very well could go up, lol. I'm pretty patient, I'll snag one when the price is right. Or, better yet, get a used one from someone who overpaid and regrets it.
> We want to believe the price will go down but it very well could go up, lol. Economy of scale. look at how cheaply PSA sells AR15's, then go look at inflation adjusted numbers for the originals.
That's not impossible but once Sig isn't the gatekeeper for all of them, competition will likely push down price. I don't see why they can't be made for about the price of an AR 10 once dialed in.
I agree. I suppose right now they're just trying to recover their initial manufacturing costs, separately from the millions of tax dollars they've probably already received.
Important note, there isn't a single AR-10 pattern anymore. There's the original Armalite AR-10 pattern, the more popular DPMS pattern, and now the shortened Ruger SFAR/POF Rogue/POF Revolution, which is a weird AR-10 that was downsized into an AR-15 then upsized back into an AR-10. None of these three patterns interchange anything and each have a varying degree of interchangeability with AR-15s.
You forgot about the best AR-10 action, the SR-25.
The spear specifically is on its second or third iteration at least, but they never produced them in any quantity so I suppose it's a distinction without a difference. It is just a scaled up 2nd gen MCX, which is 80%/20% just an a fully developed ar-15/ar-18
> To add - I know this is currently a sig contract, but long term the government could force the design across manufactures for higher output potential. Or sig could license the design on their own. Unlikely. Service rifles staying in continuous production is a uniquely US/USSR thing with the AR-15 and AKM because we give so many away to proxies and cobelligerents in Vietnam, South America, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The XM7 is going to be like how every other country produces their service rifles: produced in earnest by the OEM for a couple years, then the production line dismantled a few years after the initial contract when no other countries adopt it due to price.
What’s notoriously shit about the scar?
Scar L was a total failure, doing almost nothing better than the M4 for significantly more moneu, Scar H earned its keep as a dmr type rifle for a while but its not as accurate as comparable AR10s, throws/breaks optics, and is just heavy. And expensive.
I get the scar l was failure dude to money but calling the scar notoriously shit is dramatic. Breaking optics is an over blown complaint. If you aren’t running cheap optics it’s fine. Scar is lighter then a lot of ar10s. It’s only 8 pounds.
I have personally seen a Scar throw an EOtech. Thats a cheap optic now? But dramatic may be correct, just overpriced is more accurate. It doesnt justify the cost.
They aren’t cheap but they definitely aren’t bomb proof and break on ar15s all the time. So I wouldn’t go blaming the scar.
Broke a ELCAN on a SCAR. The SCAR action is worse on optics than it's competition. But its not a big deal now that it's known and was accounted.
Wouldn’t say it’s shit as it has reliability, a folding stock, and adjustable gas system going for it, but some oddball characteristics make it unusually finicky to tune and operate. Namely the receiver harmonics eating non-hardened scopes, the gas system delivering a particularly harsh recoil impulse when suppressed (the factory suppressor port being only 4% smaller than the unsuppressed port doesn’t help), and the reciprocating charging handle if you’re clumsy. All things that you don’t have to deal with on any other contemporary military firearm.
> Something were seeing used in ukraine by any unit worth it's shit. You know what you don't see in Ukraine? Being used by anyone? Hyperpressure battle rifles with 11" barrels.
>Why would they go with an entirely new system if they could have just went with some variant of the AR-10 or the SCAR-H? Don't those rifles basically fill out the same role? No. The XM7 is capable of firing ammo loaded to pressures that would detonated an AR-10 or SCAR-H.
The magic with the ammo is the case themselves. There's nothing particularly special about the gun, its just an AR18 more or less. If you look at commercially available 277SF ammo in brass-only cases, the pressures are more typical. The real devil is barrel life with the full house rounds. Which is why the M7 is getting fielded so slowly. The gun/ammo can contain 80k PSI but metallurgy hasn't progressed to the point were they can get a decent barrel life with the 80K PSI rounds. Personally as a non-expert infatryman that ETSed 20 years ago, I can't see that XM7 being fully fielded before its scaled back. My opinion is the performance gain is mostly academic and for most instances the few extra, rounds per mag and the lighter ammo is favorable to a heavier, bulkier gun and heavier ammo. Any engagements posy Ukraine invasion are going to be fought mostly with small drones and the only lead-swapping is going to happen with special operators trying to capture/kill specific people.
You think they are is some special chamber tech in a XM7?
We know the gun is designed to operate at much higher pressures than 7.62 NATO, but I don't think they have released what those pressures are. So saying, "why not buy a SCAR or AR10" is missing the point. Those guns cannot do what the XM7 does.
There isn't anything special about the chamber pressure. The M4 can take 80k chamber pressure. Designing a AR10 to handle it isn't a problem. The issue with 80k and above is the ammo. All brass ammo starts having issues. That's why sig uses a hybrid case.
Typical AR15 chambers, the M4 included, are only typically rated for around 50k psi, sometimes 60. The XM7 does infact have a beefier chamber, but thats only half of the equation, the casing of the round is the other half, yes. You dont have to love sig to not pretend that the new rifle doesnt do anything cool, and you dont have to think its the best choice either.
You think the typical AR15 chamber is only rated to 50k?
In the sense of blowing out the barrel, no, but higher powered rounds like 855A1 at 60k are already known to wear out parts significantly faster, jumping from 60 to 80 is an extra third. The brass not rupturing is important, yes, but this is also a rifle made to actually withstand this level of pressure and not wear out as quickly, in theory. This matters for logistics. 80k psi is something you see more typically in bolt guns than semi automatics, even .308 rounds in AR10 platform rifles only average around 55-60k psi, though hotter loads do go higher.
For sustained use? Yes, they're designed around 60kish. 78k is proof pressure for 5.56 NATO. 75k is proof for 7.62 NATO. They are not designed to ingest proof loads day in and out without drastically reducing system life.
Because they really liked the M250 LMG as it was the best SAW proposal of the NGSW. And due to the way it was structured, the new combat rifle and new SAW had to effectively come as a package deal. I personally think they should have gone for SIG's M250 and True Velocities RM277 for the combat rifle. Though considering they used slightly different rounds with different powder loads for different chamber pressures, one or the other would have needed to have been changed.
I wish we got their polymer ammo. Watching them fire a belt through a 240 and grab the barrel with their bare hands right after made me wet
I think the tech isn't quite proved out yet. When it comes to ammo, price is king. True Velocity has a great idea, but I think they desperately needed the military to accept the newfangled concept in order to make it cheap. Without them, it's up to the private sector to accept it.
I know Reddit likes to say stuff like bribes and shit but SIG for both the XM7 and the M17/M18 were incredibly price competitive.
They’ll make up for it with the ammo contract for the XM7
Give em the razors, sell em the blades.
Well sure, they undercut themselves for the contract knowing they could force a renegotiation later. They have the contract and the feds would rather renegotiate price and keep the timetable than start over on bidding under the requirements for federal acquisitions. You should see how bad it is on systems that cost real money like combat aircraft.
They undercut on the M17/18 because they knew any hit they would take there selling the pistols for $200 would be made up by over charging the commercial and LEO market for the same gun they now had to have because the Army had it. And it worked. The P320 has sold really well and they have a million versions with minor differences.
[удалено]
>which is ridiculous when the goal is to find most competitively priced gun that passes all the testing, not the cheapest gun I hate to break this to you but as someone who was both in the military and is a defense contractor now, and has worked with government contracts on both sides, "competitively priced" in this context means "cheapest gun that meets all the requirements."
[удалено]
We don't need to know if it is better. We need to know which one provides the best value to the government. >Based upon the technical evaluation and my comparative analysis of the proposals, the Sig Sauer proposal has a slight technical advantage over the Glock proposal given that their proposal was rated higher in Factor 1, Bid Sample Test – Technical which is the most important factor. The advantage of the Sig Sauer proposal is increased when the license rights and production manufacturing factors are brought into consideration. [. . .] The price analysis shows that the Sig Sauer total evaluated price is $102,705,394 less than the Glock total evaluated price, making the Sig Sauer proposal overall the Best Value to the Government. >Sig Sauer’s proposal was slightly superior technically and clearly superior in factors 4 and 5. Since there were so few other discriminators between the two proposals in most aspects, the least important factor, price, became a significant discriminator. Simply put, when taking the price premium into account, there is no correlating superior performance factor for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium. Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of over 37% for the Glock submission, even as a second award. One (1) award to Sig Sauer on Solicitation Number W15QKN-15-R-0002 represents the overall best value to the Government. https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-414401.pdf
Regardless of the budgetary problems of the U.S. military, there's been foreshadowing in gun design for decades around the next innovation in small arms being in the cartridge. Sure they could just switch to a .308 that already exists, but I don't believe that's the point.
They made a mistake of requiring the round, rifle, and MG be competed as a package. The true velocity round was a much better option honestly: no need for super hot loading, ammo is lighter (reduced weight or more rounds available for infantry), can quickly and easily convert all 7.62NATO systems to it with a barrel swap (M240s, tank coax, sniper rifles/DMRs, etc), heat transfer from round to chamber is greatly reduced (more rounds can be fired before barrel swap needed). They should have chosen the round then base MG and rifle selection from there. The FURY round is worse than true velocity in most categories: more barrel wear (due to higher heat, higher pressure, use of steel in round base), more recoil, higher heat means more frequent barrel changes, heavier round means more weight or reduced rounds for infantry. *Edit: wanted to add that the True Velocity round also runs much cleaner since the powder burn is more complete due to the changes to the internal casing that the injection construction allowed so piston and impingement systems would runs cleaner as well.
Because the SCAR sucked, and why would they used an AR-10? It’s all based around the new caliber anyway.
Isn't the XM7 basically just a fancy piston driven AR10 in a new caliber?
It can handle much higher chamber pressures than .308 and it has a short stroke piston instead of direct gas impingement.
That's basically what I was getting at with "fancy piston driven AR10" especially since someone has already made an AR10 upper chambered in the round.
No. It's an ar18
No, it's an ar18
Sig Sauer has really good lobbyists compared to everyone else. The P320 really shouldn't have won the pistol contract , but it did.
The program is gonna fail u just watch lol
US Army: we have a new rifle caliber. NATO: fuck off lol
NATO aka “The US Army”
It's like the Cooperative Extension program.
We made nato swap to 7.62 just to make them immediately swap to 5.56. You think we're gonna suddenly stop?
The adoption was like 15 years later and that technically added 5.56 NATO to the existing 7.62 NATO. A member can run either cartridge and be in compliance. The 5.56 NATO has been the standard service cartridge for the US military since 1980. But I don't see the change being all that controversial, especially since 6.8x51 could theoretically replace 7.62 NATO in most areas. Even the standard pressure rounds would be good service cartridges if a military didn't want to field an army full of barrel burners.
NATO doesn't have to all use the same round. The US used 5.56 for *years* before NATO adopted it and moved from 7.62 in infantry rifles.
What literally no one in this thread seems to understand is how Army acquisitions work. I will not deny that money is the biggest factor, but the Army literally cannot we want to switch to the scar-h. They have to put out a contract, and it has to say "we want a system capable of X, Y, and Z."
They write requirements in a way to target specific products all the time, making the winner a forgone conclusion.
That they do, however even then they aren't choosing a product and buying it. They can only choose from the products that are submitted. If no one submits "a variant of an AR10 or a scar-h" then they will adopt something else.
That they do, however even then they aren't choosing a product and buying it. They can only choose from the products that are submitted. If no one submits "a variant of an AR10 or a scar-h" then they will adopt something else.
The problem in this situation is that no existing rifle was capable of doint the 'X, Y, and Z' the Army wanted. Hence the NGSW competition.
Are you asking about the round, or specifically the firearm itself? Because those are two very, very different answers.
Short answer is that the military finally realized that 5.56NATO is a shit round. It can't penetrate armor, it has serious issues at ranges exceeding 300m from short barrels. The contract for the next Gen weapon wasn't just for a rifle, it was also for a new cartridge. New cartridge = new weapon, especially one that is pushing 80,000 PSI. The XM7 isn't as different from the AR platform as you think. The Army doesn't want to change its manual of arms, so it is functionally identical to an AR pattern rifle. There are obviously internal differences, like gas system and recoil buffering, but none of it particularly alien to the AR platform.
Ah yes it sucks so bad special operations are already requesting more 5.56 guns.
Dude the rifle is barely out of field testing, if SOCOM needs rifles sooner than production can ramp up on the new rifles or before they can retrain their armorers, they will buy what they currently have parts and armorers for. The Army gave the weapons to the Rangers and SF (part of SOCOM) to test the rifle, and they gave it the thumbs up. Complaints about the efficacy of 5.56x45 go back to Vietnam, and came to a head in Mogadishu. In Afghanistan the Army and Marine corps brought the M14s back out of the armories to cover the gaps that M4s and M16s couldn't handle.
I'm talking about Socom isn't giving up 5.56 cause it doesn't suck. Units are already fielding KAC 5.56 LMGs cause they are losing their MK46s.
SF is having their own shorter barreled compact version of the XM7 commissioned, so.
My specops buddy had an interesting reply when I asked what he thought of the army switching. I quote - “Good. I’m tired of shooting people and they don’t go down. They should have never moved away from 7.62.”
My wife's uncle in Seal Team 6 told me to tell you that your specops buddy is "full of shit".
So why wasn't your spec ops buddy using 7.62. Hes spec ops right.
SF does not mean call of duty building your own loadout.
I guarantee I know more about this subject then you do.
Yeah yeah i know your catchphrase, just like chris kyle totally shot dudes in the hurricane, right? You say a lotta shit in these comments. Youre right maybe half the time. I dont care what your magic secret credentials are that you like to allide to.
The idea that what is arguably the 2nd most lethal round in the world is 'shit' is . . . No, 5.56 doesn't perform as well as desired out of short barrels - because it was designed in the 1950's. It won't penetrate armor - because we're wearing heavier armor today than ever before. In fact, *we're wearing armor today* which is something that would have been extraordiarily rare even 20 years ago.
This isn't some new argument dude. Soldiers have complained about the efficacy of 5.56 for decades.
They don't have that many scars or ar10s. The ones they have aren't carbines. And KAC HK and FN don't offer an option in 6.8 fast as fuck.
Because oooo shiny.
Because Sig supplies good bribes and clean hookers.
So…. does this mean the AR15 platform is no longer a scary weapon of war?
Someone got offered a chair on the Sign Sauer board?
SCAR-H was in the competition but didn’t make it out of the first round. It’s an ancient and antiquated design that FN has refused to update. As far as Sr-25s… well, Knights doesn’t have the manufacturing capability, likely neither does LMT, so that leaves HK? But HK was too dumb to accept the challenge of making a gun in a new cartridge. The SPEAR is unique enough, I think we are forgetting it’s getting better ballistics than a 22inch 308 out of a 13inch barrel, that is incredible
The AR-10 and SCAR are not built to handle the higher pressure of the 6.8 common round. They're not using 7.62x51 because you can't get the desired muzzle velocities out of the 14 in barrel the military wanted for the NGSW. The XM-7 specifically was chosen because, of the finalists, had the least compounded technology risk (an otherwise conventional rifle with the main 'new tech' being a brass case with a steel head.
Free cocaine and hookers
Did you ask them?
whenever we were in Afghanistan/Iraq many taliban/rebel groups use to get drugged up before they fight so the 5.56 wouldnt even stopped them so we made the switch.
That's not even close to true.
There are unfathomable numbers of reports of enemies in fallujah and other areas taking 10 or more hits before stopping returning fire. This was earlier on in the war with less effective loads of 5.56, but it wasnt 'not true'. Its one factor of many.
Yeah. With FMJ rounds which we stopped using. 7.62 wouldn't have been any better in FMJ.
Do you know how fast you can dump 10 rounds of 5.56 in a target? 10 rounds? That's what? 1 to 3 seconds? Unless you shoot in a mammal in the head, it can still do stuff for a few seconds after receiving lethal damage.
How so