"The SIG Sauer M7 is dead. How long does the XM8 have?" Topic

"The M14 rifle replaced the venerable M1 Garand in 1957 and infamously served as the primary U.S. service rifle for only five years before it was replaced by the M16 rifle. In 2022, the Army selected the SIG Sauer XM5 rifle, later redesignated the M7, to replace the M4 carbine that evolved from the M16.

Designed to increase lethality and precision at long range, troops took issue with the M7's heavy weight and the reduced ammunition capacity of its 6.8x51mm cartridge…"

link

Armand

It's a bit heavier than the FN FAL/L1A1 you and I carried, Armand, but they weren't "too heavy" as some claim, either. If the weight's well distributed then carrying the weapon is also easier (eg the M60 as opposed to the lighter L4A4 Bren- the heavier M60 was easier to carry then the muzzle-heavy L4A4). If they want the soldiers' loads lightened then they should have a look at how many battery-operated devices they all have to carry, these days.

Thanks my friend…

Armand

When I did my stint in our Territorial Army the regulars and the infantry units had all gone over to the M16 while we engineers still used the SLR (FN FAL/L1A1). We had a go with the M16 but I actually preferred the SLR. It might have weighed more but it just felt "right" using it and having been told and read about it's "putting down" capabilities I'd much rather a one shot per hit and know whatever I hit was neutralised.

Thanks also…

Armand

Do I color myself shocked? Another $300 USDM in taxpayer dollars lost to an ineffective weapon system, poorly tested?

This is like the third or fourth time in my life the Army has tried to move away from the M16 series of weapons, and each time a failure was introduced. On top of that, we now have the USMC and SOCOM getting their own weapon systems, with entirely different ammunition trains!

Well done Chiefs of Staff, well done. Blow that tax payer money; make sure you have that cushion job after you retire…
I weep for my nation.

Serious question, Maggot, but in the US procurement system would the Infantry chief (what we call Head of Corps- as in head of that arm of service) choose the new weapons to be evaluated, or- as it sometimes happens here- some support service (maintenance or supply) bod or public servant in procurement (who wouldn't know a sight picture and magazine from a postcard and Consumers Digest)?

I don't understand why militaries cannot trust their troops with selection of load-out for a particular task.

Squads should have something like this: A-Team Van to carry a selection of weaponry.

Replenishment should be out-sourced to professionals such as Amazon/Ebay/Alixpress/UPS, etc.

My tuppenceworth:

Open country: Something powerful like a STGW57 (single fire: 800m) backed up with GPMG (bipod: 800m, tripod: 1200m)

Close country/urban: Combat shotguns, something like ar15 (5.56mm), and minimis

Dal
If I remember correctly the Army Material Command is responsible for equipment procurement for the Army. The Secretary of the Army can technically be a "final say" as could the SecWar (Hegseth). Yeah, the Army Chief of Staff is unlikely to be in that decision loop, but they could interject.

Something as important as the base small arms for the combat brigades should have a lot of input. But with any government organization, bureaucracy, petty chiefdoms and office politics are a norm.

My brief study on the subject shows almost 30 years of poor decision making, likely billions wasted, and GIJOE is still carrying a rifle developed in the 1950s , just with more crap attached!

Nonetheless I defend my criticism: careerist crap decisions, purchases made well before solid field trials, manufacturers given crony capitalism deals with no penalty for failures.

I don't understand why militaries cannot trust their troops with selection of load-out for a particular task.

Maggot touches on part of the answer, Stoppage- the main people making the decisions make those based on criteria other than what's best for the role. I saw that a few times, when we had to make "directed buys"- someone at the Secretary/Minister level telling us we had to buy a particular bit of kit from a particular vendor. That got us one system that wasn't fully operation for 14 months, and had been discarded as a contender at the start of the project.

If I remember correctly the Army Material Command is responsible for equipment procurement for the Army.

So much the same setup as us, Maggot- and similar problems- only here it's called Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG- there are other translations of that acronym, but if I typed them out then there'd be nothing but bleeps to read). The title alone should tell you the type of bureaucratic insect farm it is. It was called "Support Command" before that, and had become the near-private preserve of one empire-building Senior Executive Services (SES) berk.

Sometimes I think the best idea would be to have WO1 and COY-level officers of the appropriate service/corps (arm of service) as the project managers for personnel equipment, rather than multi-degreed engineers, self-serving bureaucrats and graduates of the public service system. That's never going to happen, though.

Good points…

Armand