Army Runs Large Scale Tests on XM7 and XM 250

US Army has started to issue the XM7 and the XM250 to selected groups for actual field testing and has issued contracts for optics and weapons. Don't know how it will work out but larger bullet, 6.8, suppressors, and operating rod action, so it has a chance. Sights do not include metal backup. Flash hider - suppressor should help in both dust signitures and hearing protection. Like old story about how you knew a tanker. HE WAS THE ONE THAT COULDN'T HEAR.

Army to field new rifle, machine gun and optic in 2024
In 2024 US Army plans to equip soldiers with 6.8mm XM7 assault rifles & XM250 machine guns | Defense News December 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year

The optics are all computer and high tech. One estimate on cost per unit was $10,000 to 12,000. But it in theory be able to talk to your hi tech future helmet and to other computers. The quickest promotions in the next generation are going to go to the best surviving jammer operators and everyone is going to out to kill them so the new tech actually works

Army finally picks an optic for Next Generation Squad Weapon
NGSW-FC « Daily Bulletin

Because of weight of new equipment and new round, combat loadout is going down about a third to 140 for rifle and 400 for XM340. Spray and pray will be in a couple minutes for either weapons system

The cartridge is a little strange, case has metal base, locking ring, and brass body and a high chamber pressure. It is about 80,000 PSI versus the average in military rifles of about 60,000. What the pressures etc will do to barrel wear will be interesting.

Sig 277 Fury Ballistics Chart

Here is army pictures of the rifle.

XM7 NGSW-R XM5 SIG MCX Spear 6.8mm assault rifle data

Interesting comments, sound good, don't know.

Sig Spear 7.62x51 is out and she's a porker | Page 4 | Sniper's Hide Forum

 

I see a future where High Tech is actually a BAD THING! And battle field survivability will be the ultra low tech, Iron Sights, Dumb Bullets, and MK-1 eyeballs! All this new tech makes war unwinnable against a peer force, it will come down to the team with the ability to fight with out tech that will win!

Edit, being able to fight Low Tech against High Tech and not only survive, but thrive, that's the key, look at how well a bunch of Ukrainia are doing against Mother Russians finest, you throw millions of dollars against a problem, Ukraine throws low tech brain power and the unbeatable will to win at all costs, that's some powerful lessons we should be learning!

 

Gee, a battlefield RF emitter on each Grunt....
What could possibly go wrong?


“Comrade Li, I have multiple emitters at 300 Meters! Prepare a fire order...”

 

Less ammo is the way to go, don't want to hurt any of those guys, gals and whatevers on the other side!

 

Ummm, the Ukes are having their lunch handed to them unless you are listening to all the bullshit coming out of DC and the MIC bought and paid for generals that are about as useful as a jar of piss in a hurricane. Ukraine has had the best of NATO equipment and so called training but they don’t have air support and the West doesn’t have the industrial capacity to make all the ammo and equipment that the Ukes need, Russia does and in this case artillery wins the day.

 

80,000 psi chamber pressures will eat those barrels for lunch.

 

Hmmmm. Seems we had our asses handed to us in Afghanistan and we had all of the latest tech then too.

 

"Because of weight of new equipment and new round, combat loadout is going down about a third to 140 for rifle..."
I cannot see this happening. Going into combat with only 140 rounds, less than 5 mags? Hell, even support troops in Vietnam carried more than that (200 rounds).

The battlefield is definitely changing $2M tanks are destroyed by ~$75K Javelin missile. An unmanned fighter drone could pull far more G's than a piloted fighter could, carry more weaponry, fuel and if shot down there is no body to recover, no casket to transport, no insurance or benefits to worry about. Big changes coming to the battlefield. Personally, I think the days of the big carriers are over. They will still have their place to project power and humanitarian scenarios but not so much on the battlefield.

 

Soon we will have the weapons we wanted to fight the last war we lost so we can have them ready in time to fight the next war we lost. After that we will decide on a whole new weapons platform that would have been perfect for our most recent loss so we can use them inadequately for the one after that.

 

A good solar flare/CME and we’ll be looking for good rocks, a nice tree to make a bow, certain plants for cordage, a nice sharp piece of flint.

 

I hope the first test will be called the hamas experiment.

 

I don't believe it was because of the equipment it was due to poor leadership and too restrictive rules of engagement. The blue lipped Kenyan got a lot of good men killed.

 

That's just the basic loadout they set them up with. No NCO is going to limit their Joes if they want to carry more. It will get heavy quick but I've never heard anyone say anything about how many mags and frags you want to carry as long as you have the basic loadout. All of this said, I've very skeptical of this whole project. I think decisions were made with a huge budget bankrolled by the taxpayer.

 

We keep getting our collective asses handed to us by armies of goat herders and rice farmers using low tech weapons, and our response is to weigh our soldiers and marines down with more futuristic high-tech equipment and weapons that deliver less bang for more bucks. The biggest things that need changing is US foreign/military policy and the woke culture in the military. Wars, and military actions, should be rare and the military should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to win!

 

They definitely need to lighten the weight carried by the average grunt. We are totally mechanized, and there is little to no need to have everyone packing 60+ lbs on every patrol. Special troops sometimes need more equipment than normal, but not often.
Pack more food water, ammo, and grenades, not unneeded crap that gets ditched along the way during real ops.

And most of all, LEARN HOW TO SHOOT. A man that can hit what he shoots at doesn’t need a case of ammo on his back. Yes, suppressing fire is good and needed sometimes, but not all the time. I bounced guys out of my team that couldn’t or wouldn’t learn to shoot or have proper fire control.


Jim

 

And a dozen more Gerald Ford class super carriers.....

As an Infantryman, I just don't get it. It seems everybody is carrying around a 800-1600 mile range Tomahawk equivalent these days.

 

And I definitely have to agree that the ROE are far too restrictive, and foolish. If we send the military in to fight, then we should let them win. Stay out of the way until the military says they’ve completed the task. As long as they aren’t behaving like communists, nazis, or mongol hordes I don’t care what they do overseas.

Jim

 

I had a sergeant in ROTC that had served in Vietnam, and he told the old story about the FNG that shot off all of his ammo in an ambush, when he asked for more ammo, he was told to fix bayonet and that's how he finished the patrol. I bet he learned an important lesson that day! The sergeant added that had they run into real trouble he would have tossed the guy a magazine.
Pack more water, ammo and grenades, and an MRE (remember, it takes a month to starve), but that's just me!