"First New American Assault Rifle Since the 1960s" Topic

"The U.S. Army has placed orders for the new M7 6.8mm assault rifle and M250 6.8mm LMG (Light Machine-Gun). These new weapons replace 1960s-era 5.56mm ammunition that also required a new generation of assault rifles and LMGs. The M-16/M-4 assault rifles and M248 LMGs will remain in service but the infantry and SOCOM (Special Operations Command) troops will be equipped with the new 6.8mm weapons. SOCOM was responsible for the acceptance of the 6.8mm ammo and the new weapons. The army will receive 17,000 M7s and 3,000 M250s in 2024. These will be distributed to army troops initially. SOCOM hasn't decided yet because SOCOM has always been free to buy and use whatever weapons it believes it needs. That means SOCOM troops have several assault and automatic weapons available and the M7 may soon join the collection.

The current plan is to purchase enough of the 6.8mm weapons for all army combat troops. That's about 60,000 "shooters". If the marines and SOCOM adopt the 6.8mm weapons, that will mean about 30,000 more M7s will be required. The army plans to eventually 107,000 M7s for infantry and other combat troops (SOCOM, combat engineers and several other combat specialists)…"

Main page

link

Armand

The M7 (previously given the designation of M5 aka XM5) made by Sig Sauer was officially adopted almost two years ago in April of 2022. This was selected from three different entrants for the program that started in 2017

link

There was discussion about the army adopting the new caliber on these boards back in July of 2017

I would say, "why not just go universal with the ammo and go 7.62 all the way, (thereby reducing extra cost and spending), but we know that's not how the defense industrial complex works.
Gotta keep that pork cash flowing…

Will like to see how this turns out …

As an ROTC Cadet, '75 '79', we were first issued the M-14. Than later the M-16. So from '79-'90 on Active Duty, '90-'92 USAR I and pretty much everyone packed the M-16s. Even today I own an AR-15 for self defense.

So from my standpoint as long as the new weapon is dependable, easy to maintain and use, etc. And of course bottom line – will it hit the target/kill the enemy.

Don't forget light! I wasn't infantry but carrying a SA80 with 300 rounds was a pain. Let alone those PBI in Helmands green zone slogging it for 8 hours in the summer, (along with EMC and spare M249 belts and 40mm GL and AT4's and 8-10 litres of water and…and…and….)

How does this effect NATO readiness after decades of forcing standardization onto 5.56? Why not just migrate to 7.62mm which has a longer legacy than a brand new 6.8mm standard?

Yes, Murphy answered that question well:

I would say, "why not just go universal with the ammo and go 7.62 all the way, (thereby reducing extra cost and spending), but we know that's not how the defense industrial complex works.
Gotta keep that pork cash flowing

The real life high $$$$ version of GW issuing yet another rules upgrade for W40K and Wammer (Age of Sigmar much?) that requires new figures to meet new convention competition standards, or you can't play……

Thanks

Armand

Don't forget light!

Yep this why we only dismounted the .50 cal in a deliberate defense ! She's pig !

"I would say, "why not just go universal with the ammo and go 7.62 all the way, (thereby reducing extra cost and spending), but we know that's not how the defense industrial complex works.
Gotta keep that pork cash flowing…"

My understanding is that the new cartridge is designed to penetrate rifle plates better than the 7.62. It also shoots flatter and with a little less recoil.

Some useful comparison info for the new .277 Fury vs .308:

link

My understanding is that the new cartridge is designed to penetrate rifle plates better than the 7.62. It also shoots flatter and with a little less recoil.

That may be true, but from a logistics standpoint US small arms caliber have been guided by the munitions standards of the NATO alliance. A decision made many decades ago standardized NATO country's small arms onto 5.56 and 7.62 so a US soldier who ran out of ammo could be resupplied by a Belgian soldier who also had an infantry weapon with the same 5.56 rounds, or an Italian unit could resupply a German unit, etc.

So now what? Will the US force NATO countries to adopt 6.8mm? If so, at what cost and how long will that take? If not, how will that work from a joint-force logistics perspective?

Yes, logistics is a big concern with NATO … and any military organization. I think US/NATO should always standardize. But that seems that may not always happen.

Will the US force NATO countries to adopt 6.8mm?

Not force so much as "heavily persuade", as they did to get the 7.62mm NATO and 5.56mm ammo' made the standard. It does make sense for all the reasons you stated, SB, and applies equally to the US' other allies outside of NATO.

Given that the initial order of the new rifle is for only 17,000, with 3000 M250 light machine guns (SAW replacement), it'll take a while to replace most of the M4s, etc. Apparently the M7 will be issued to combat units/point of the spear units first, with others later on.

So there will be plenty of M4s/M16 pattern guns and 5.56 ammo around in NATO for a while yet.

Yes, units deployed or will be deployed first will get any new weapons that are issued. E.g. that is what happened with the M1 MBTs and M2 IFVs. Many of the units in West Germany got those first.

While just like in WWII, the PTO was second in priority. In the ROK we were still using M113s, M60A1, etc. while the units in Europe would start to be issued the newer M1s, M2 IFVs, etc. before the units in the ROK. Of course, the USSR/WP would be a bigger threat than North Korea.