>be long range battle rifle in an era of urban cqb
>use 20 big round mag instead of 30 small round mag despite small round mags being better in almost every way
>know this because of current and past wars
>be heavy as shit for no reason
>be so unreliable that the zippy looks like an ak in comparison
>ignore allies request to use 5.56 standard round for arbitrary reasons
>be m7
pic unrelated. also the m7 isnt hated enough i want this to become a full blown movement

>>63795842 (OP)
You ruined the bait and switch by putting M7 in the title. But otherwise, yes I agree.

>>63795842 (OP)
Speaking of SIG, remember that time German police found SIG guns unreliable and threw them away for H&K? Is there hope for better quality control here?

you just don't get it. what if you need to make 1,000 yard shots like in afghanistan!? a sniper!? but what if we don't have one!? a marksman.... they need a different rifle and cartridge to the rest of the squad! they might run out of ammo otherwise!

it's funny seeing history repeat. replacing the m4 with a battle rifle and non-standard cartridge is one of the more retarded decisions lately.

>>63796167
7.62
7.62
Get a 7.62
No they don't
Borrow a 240 belt

>>63796167
>non-standard cartridge
But this is the US of A we're talking about and they get to set the standards for NATO munition and if all us Euro-cucks fail to keep up considering all the M855 rifles we've adopted within the last 10 years then that is TOO FUCKING BAD

>>63795842 (OP)
>M1 Garand regarded as one of the best rifles ever created
>M14 is just an upgraded M1
>M14 regarded as horrible unreliable shit
why

>>63797675
Reliability standards have gone up over time. What people considered good back then, we'd consider bad now.
The M14 was particularly cursed with bad contractors who constantly had production screwups.

never understood why they don't just adopt the XM806 for long range infantry suppression if you're going into a situation where you need to make 1000 yard shots and can't just use a mortar

>>63797675
Manufacturing logistics, if you get a brand new one right now from Fulton armory or lrb they're fantastic, even the Springfields are mostly ok. Back when they were first designed and contracted the tech data was completed as shit and QC was monumentally bad. Even though HR and some other guys were meant to be some big players the (original) Springfield armory were the only ones who really knew how to make them. Auto sear for no good reason also really took away from what a fantastic piece this could've been.

>>63797675
1936 -> 1958 standards changed, tech changed, a world war and part of a space ran went down in that time

>>63796167
How did they manage to create a rifle that is neither accurate enough for long range shooting, nor powerful enough to reliably defeat modern body armor, yet successfully managed to market it as a rifle that could supposedly do both?

Remember that study recently?

>>63795842 (OP)
You're drastically uninformed on the state of current warfare. Most militaries worldwide that US will ever fight do not have organic rifleman optic, few have organic rifleman red dot, and if they have any sort of airland combined arms, its because of commercial drones, not integration with their airforce.

All of them utilize weapons that are ineffective at night, ineffective outside of 100 yards, and consistently lack body armor, or refuse to wear it.

Thing is, they know the M4A1 sucks just as much. All 5.56 guns do. The idea that if two forces meet on the plains and start throwing little balls of lead at each other, one of them can decisively pin the other for some 'other gun' to finish the job is laughable, and simply leads to either side breaking contact. Over the years the M4A1 and the like became a platform for advanced optical devices, but the rifle itself did not evolve to match the capability of detection the optics upon it can provide.

The M7 is thus the weapon that, if facing a foe with conventional arm, can detect him, zero on him, and deliver severe wounding in spite of cover and ballistic plates short of M2 AP capable protection. If he tries to break contact, he's simply reducing his ability to return fire. If he hunkers down, he simply pinned himself in place to a weapon that is likely to still see him and is likely to still be able to hit him in spite of cover or protection.

Not only is this better as a pinning weapon for some other platform to destroy the enemy, but it also makes it safer and more effective for infantry alone to engage targets with the objective of destroying them.

The bulk and ammo capacity make it less desirable for CQB, but CQB is one of the worst places to be in, and by all means it should be avoided due to immense factor of chance and massive reduction in effectiveness of all weapon systems and force multipliers. A doctrinal shift away from CQB is as sane as doctrinal shift away from dogfighting for air force.

I don't like the M7 at all, I think its an ugly bloated unergonomic piece of shit, however, I do understand why the big Army is investing in the XM157 in the pursuit of increased first round hit probability. I also understand why they were running up against the wall in armor penetration capability with M855A1 and the actual solution had to be a new cartridge, and naturally a new rifle system to go with it.

Personally I don't care if every third guy in an infantry squad is carrying an XM7, these guys train to shoot all the time and can probably use this system to good effect, however, they need a large volume of support fire from the rest of the squad. They need even more capacity than what the M4 offers, perhaps a 350 round (7x50) combat load at the same weight.

What the Army should really be doing is issuing some kind of tiny 5.56x30 or 5.7esque cartridge thats shared between the standard service rifle and the standard pistol. Why even a pistol really? Why not a PDW with a folding stock that can be holstered and fired one handed

>>63797807
>All of them utilize weapons that are ineffective at night, ineffective outside of 100 yards, and consistently lack body armor, or refuse to wear it.
In other, the XM7 is no improvement.

>>63797853
>Retard reply
Thanks, /k/.

M7's ballistics are greatly improved compared to M4A1 at ranges over 100 yards, and not only is it fully compatible with all current issue nightfighting solutions, it comes pre-issued with a can to even further optimize it's capacity for sighted night shooting.

>>63797853
Forgot to mention, M7 has improved terminal effect on target compared to 5.56, so both armored and unarmored targets suffer more serious wounds from the impact.

>>63797816
Smaller, lighter cartridge to carry more ammo is a dead end. At certain point the ammo is no longer carried ready for combat due to lack of places to draw it from, and volume becomes so that a much larger pack is needed to fit both extra ammo and sustainment. It's even worse with long magazines, a magazine the size of your forearm can only be carried ready on your hips, along the side of thigh, on a hip-platform so that you can sit down in a vehicle, which is a stupid fucking place to carry it

Bonus points if the ammo carried is of little range and effectiveness out of an M4A1 (or god forbid, a PDW), so you really need to waste it to land a wounding shot. With that in mind, ability to carry extra ammo is not an advantage, but requirement to make use of the weapon, and with it comes a bunch of logistical issues both for soldiers and for shipping it to them.

Why can't the Army just have a dude at the platoon level who gets to go to one more range a year and quals on a precision rifle. How the fuck is that so difficult why do we have to do it again after every war.


One dude is gonna shoot a 40 give that dude the rifle with the scope on it.

>>63797896
Because what you're describing is requiring that only one dude in the whole fucking platoon can engage targets at range, so when an enemy sniper takes his head, you're well and truly fucked unless you close into 100 yard range or even CQB.

Imagine if you said
>Why can't only one dude in an entire platoon go to MG school and get the m240? Surely he is enough, he's gonna kill 40-50-100 billion dudes on his own.

>>63797880
I do understand this, however with multiple M7s in the squad carrying significantly less ammunition than an M4, something must be done to compensate for the lost volume of fire, especially for ambushes and urban combat where the entire squad is basically just suppressing areas with targets behind cover all day.

It seems like the entire NigSaw concept was dreamt up by colonels that deployed to afghanistan as captains and majors where their M110s and M21s alone were just not able to make the difference. A highly accurate .30 caliber rifle doesn't make a difference if the enemy is behind cover 600y away

>>63797967
M110s, improved optics, and squad level drones seem like a much solution compares to M7. Hell if we've decided the M4 just isn't working as a proper service rifle, then they should have just come up with a modernized M16a5 variant with an adjustable stock for issue in theaters where CQB isn't the primary focus.

>>63798001
Honestly the ruger SFAR is very compelling as a squad level large caliber rifle. 6.8lb unloaded with a 16" barrel. If you cut it down to 14.5" and suppressed it it wouldn't be any longer than an M16A4.

I will never understand why the army issues M4s to POGs. They could have just kept using the M16A2/4/5 indefinitely, POGs should suffer more since they don't have to carry belt fed ammo or mortar plates or crew served weapons

>>63797967
Volume of fire as a concept doesn't exist for precision weaponry, it exists to offset the low chance of a hit, and low lethality of a singular hit. Funnily enough, all hallmarks of a CQB weapon.

You don't put 5 tank cannons on a tank to fire simultaneously because magdumping is a preferred tactic of a 9mm pistol.

So the closer you are to a precision weapon high lethality weapon, the less ammo you need to carry, and generally the less ammo you want to carry due to the weight of it, and most importantly, the less ammo you need to shoot.

One HE from Carl Gustav achieves such effect on target in an ambush, that an entire fireteam of M4A1s can't achieve.

M7 is an attempt to increase hit probability, lethality and reduce the effect of cover and barricade. Even if you have to fire blindly against cover, the chance of penetrating it and wounding the enemy is still higher. For some reason many people seem to confuse suppressive fire and harassing fire. Ineffective fire can never be suppressive.

With that in mind, the only truly big issue here is op tempo and op sustainment. If troops overspend the ammunition, despite the advantages of the weapon system, then it'll be harder for them to break contact from a bad situation, and it'll be hard for them to hit target after target if their combat load doesn't last as long as one for M4A1.

Thus what we're trying to see with M7 currently is if the reduced combat load is enough to achieve same objectives as a higher M4A1 combat load. It would be very interesting if an M7 combat load can last longer than M4A1 combat load if troops are sufficiently drilled to use the new combat approach.

>>63796708
I would IF I COULD FIND ONE. Now a days, even with Colt it's collapsing buttstocks and even if you find a fixed one it's got rails

>>63797776
>>63797807
Is 2.5 MOA with match grade ammo satisfactory?

>>63798184
I read 3-6 MOA at 800 meters myself. https://www.mediafire.com/file/91xl8q839hn28uj/Trent_NGSW-EWS_Fellowship_Project_%2528Final%2529.pdf/file

>While it has some impressive terminal ballistic potential, the adoption of the XM7 represents a significant downgrade to the ability of Soldiers to fight and win the next peer on peer war. From World War I to the battlefields of the Russia-Ukraine War, a huge majority of infantry engagements have occurred within 300 meters. The lesson learned in blood from these conflicts is that fire superiority--not long range, aimed fire--is what wins firefights. This monograph seeks to re-examine the lessons of the past in combination with unclassified technical and tactical data to make a compelling argument against the continued adoption of the XM7. It will also examine the programs which led to the creation of the XM7, reports from units currently equipped with the XM7, and potential alternatives for consideration.

>>63798184
Of course, if you use it as part of a weapon system. If you discard all the optics, drop the can, and then lose the intel advantage, then try to take on someone 600 yards away with irons, you'll find that it'll require serious precision shooting training, but each hit will still be more wounding than previous rifle.
>>63798198
God, I adore midwits writing papers.
>From World War I to the battlefields of the Russia-Ukraine War, a huge majority of infantry engagements have occurred within 300 meters
They occurred within 100 meters because for a long ass time it was extremely unlikely to make visual contact with an enemy and then be in a position to land a shot without any sort of optic or exact range measurement. The range for sniping quickly overtook it as quality glass, shooter skill and rifles able to take advantage of that have become available. The M7 is an attempt to bring these concepts to a rifleman without making every rifleman a sniper, that's why the optic is the main element of the weapon system, and the weapon itself is a SIG piece of shit.

>>63798166
I know the feeling, you can't even find a proper detachable carry handle for AR-10s anymore. PA-10 looks neat, but I don't like the stainless barrel and solid trigger guard.

>>63797675
>in service: 1936
>in service: 1957

>>63798040
>the ruger SFAR is very compelling
It's really not. Have you looked at the thing? There's holes on both sides and on top of the chamber. They're literally planning on that thing failing catastrophically.

>>63797912

Anon I was describing how the US Army has been picking its Dms for the past 80 years...

Im not sure how it went in the GWOT but every picture I see of a DM is at least a PSG so I assume it was more of a "this thing looks cool and I dont have to move much" job.

>>63798267
>If you discard all the optics, drop the can, and then lose the intel advantage, then try to take on someone 600 yards away with irons
>you can't carry as much ammo as the M4
>it's no more accurate than an M4 so "long range" it ain't
>it weighs a shitload more than M4
>it recoils more than an M4
>it can't pen common armor without tungsten core ammo...just like the M4
You can slap a high tech scope on a peashooter and it's not going to hit. If the optic is the saving grace to a crap rifle like you suggested, why not save the optic for a better rifle? The Colt ACR program didn't work out but the Canadians liked the optic and adopted it for C7/C8s.

>>63798545

Anon the C7 optic is fucking dogshit.

>>63798552
It's still proof militaries can and will keep parts they like even from unsuccessful projects. There's nothing stopping the rifle from being ditched and the optic kept unless there's something in the contract forbidding it.

>>63798543
I know. DM is a dead job if you have only one man in a platoon that's DM, because his only use is to fire potshots back at a lone afghan sniper on the other mountain top, who nobody can reach with their shitty ass peashooters unlike this retard here thinks:
>>63798545
>you can't carry as much ammo as the M4
Don't need to.
>it's no more accurate than an M4 so "long range" it ain't
Yes it is, better and flatter ballistics, as well as much better terminal effect at range. 5.56 out of 14.5" loses a shitload of lethality after just 150 yards.
>it weighs a shitload more than M4
Not an issue due to doctrine and use-case.
>it recoils more than an M4
Not an issue due to doctrine and use-case
>it can't pen common armor without tungsten core ammo...just like the M4
False. If you're retarded and don't understand how penetration works, don't bring it up. It might not be able to beat a level IV plate, it beats level III plates, has better effect against cover, has better effect against vehicles, has better effect against armor at extended ranges and retains terminal effect after penetration.

If you need to invent an entire new job, arm it with an entire new gun, and wait for him to come and rescue your M4A1-armed infantry from a lone hilltop sniper, then obviously M4A1 is failing as an infantry weapon.

>>63797872
That is irrelevant because so too does the M1 Garand.
Intermediates replaced full power rifle caliber cartridges in assault rifles because they have more than enough killing power, while being lighter and far easier to shoot.

>>63798600
Well apparently it's so relevant that M7 was adopted because M4A1 no longer has enough killing power, is no longer a light rifle, and is much harder to shoot than M7 due to lack of issued optical computerized device.

I could as easily reach in the past and say they abandoned AA autoguns around WW2 in favor of missile systems, and then berate computerized CIWS, even though the comparison is superficial and incorrect.

>>63797807
Anything you can put on an M7 for night use, you can put on an M4.
Most night vision is limited in effective range to under 300 yards, anyhow. So you're not going to get much benefit out of a cartridge that was designed to shoot out to 1000m, in a conventional carbine format.

You cannot doctrinally shift away from CQB or general combat under 300 yards and substantially under 100 yards.
If that was possible, they've have done it during WW2 or in Korea. But in all cases, combat ends up very close together, because regardless of everything else, a couple hundred yards is basically how far you can see with detail unaided.
You are trying to force reality into a box that it obviously never will fit in.

>>63798598
>>it weighs a shitload more than M4
>Not an issue due to doctrine and use-case.
>>it recoils more than an M4
>Not an issue due to doctrine and use-case
It's at least one more thing for logistics to keep track of. At this rate why say it's a M4 replacement and instead advertise it as a replacement for your 7.62x51 or your DMR?

>>63798103
Every attempt to increase troop skill rather than augment it with technology to make up for the average soldier being a shitty shot, basically has failed or it ends up not mattering. The British Expeditionary Force was once of the most well trained group of riflemen ever, and it ultimately didn't mean much when it came to real combat.
Fundamentally, most soldiers are not great at shooting and never will be. That isn't really a bad thing, because shooting is one part of their much broader set of duties and responsibilities.
Giving them an optic increases their ability to suppress through volume of fire, but that doesn't change the basic mechanism of what they're doing. Trying to suppress through precision is going to fail because the average soldier will never be that precise.

>>63798610
Any optic you can put on the M7 can go on the M4 with a minimum of BDC adjustment.
Assuming that the Army makes a good choice when given the opportunity between a smart one and a dumb one, is a losing bet. Especially regarding rifles.
The logic behind the M7 goes back to an obviously bogus theory of 'overmatch' peddled by a guy back in the early 2000s based around fearmongering of hadjis blind firing PKMs from 1000m away.

>>63795842 (OP)
A common complaint in Afghanistan was the enemy was able to shoot at soldiers from a mountain away and the soldiers didn't have weapons effective for shooting back. Big, scary SVDs and PKMs. But it wasn't even indicative of THAT conflict, it was indirect harassing fire from old clapped out rifles and machineguns which was kind of a hassle, but not actually a big deal, and which American troops could already respond to with GPMGs and DMRs.

My question is how necessary this all is. The people in Ukraine are using a lot of 5.56x45 and especially 5.45. Are they dissatisfied? Is it just survivorship bias we don't have tons of complaints and requests for this new cartridge?

>>63798491
I blew out a gas ring on my first range day with mine, but this may have been due to wwb ammo. I failed to stop and check after an unusually soft shot, the next one was violent and gassy. Sqib? Btw I have the 20" version, my first ar10

>>63798267
You're the midwit here because most of your time in a firefight is not spent aimed down your optic.
Most of your time in a firefight is spent with looking around with your fleshy little eyeballs.
An optic increases sight distance in specific instances within that firefight, but it will extremely rarely change the overall distance for the entire firefight because most of the time that you're looking for people to shoot/trying to find who is shooting you, you're not doing it through an optic.

Just like how the ACOG didn't suddenly make it so that platoons regularly engaged targets several times farther away than before their issue.

>>63795842 (OP)
>fat autistic unfuckable retards on the intertoobs
>tHe m14 WAs a pIeCe oF sHiT
>actual fucking veterans who used it in actual combat
>the M14 is great
This is the biggest BTFO to /k/ possible, it's completely undeniable.

>>63798614
>Anything you can put on an M7 for night use, you can put on an M4.
And suffer the downsides of a huge ass optic on a weapon whose cartridge loses terminal effect after 150 yards unless you're lobbing match hollow-point-esque bullets that can only contend with soft armor.
>Most night vision is limited in effective range to under 300 yards, anyhow. So you're not going to get much benefit out of a cartridge that was designed to shoot out to 1000m, in a conventional carbine format.
This is false, long range night vision shooting is part of the 21st century precision shooter's skillset.
>You cannot doctrinally shift away from CQB or general combat under 300 yards and substantially under 100 yards.
That's what they're trying to see with the M7, if innovation in technology can enable US to leave all opposition behind by fighting in a way that makes the enemy's infantry weaponry entirely ineffective.

Leaving 100 yard and 300 yard brackets should be priorities for doctrine research, because it allows you to exit the one place where technology and training-per-soldier matter less and less. 100 yards bracket is where an untrained sandal wearer with PKM can use his own eyesight to locate your troops and use volume of fire to inflict casualties on you without even using sights. 300 yards bracket is where a professional soldier with AK and an x4 scope is effectively a peer to your fighters. You remove your troops from these problems, and your casualties evaporate, and you enable to use less discretion in air support. If your troops also gain ability to eliminate infantry from those ranges, you have even less of a chance of an infantry loss.
>If that was possible, they've have done it during WW2 or in Korea.
>BRO IF IT WAS POSSIBLE THEY'D DO IT IN NAPOLEONIC WARS BRO
Boomer with fossilized brain please, you thought that them norks wearing soviet coats immunized them from bullets, when in reality you had an obscene marksmanship problem.

>>63795842 (OP)
If you ask me, they should sell these to Mexico. Those guys were never the biggest on 5.56mm and still use G3s today. Tell them this is is the 21st Century's new and improved replacement for 7.62mm. I bet they'd love it.

>>63798623
Because its trying to bring all the lessons learned from DMR into the hands of all riflemen.

>>63798645
>Any optic you can put on the M7 can go on the M4 with a minimum of BDC adjustment.
Any optic you can put on M7 you can also put on a Mossberg 590, you wont even have to adopt a new gun for services. The obvious problem is that neither M4, nor Mossberg 590, can make any use of these optics the way M7 can. Blame M855.

>>63798669
Wasn't the M14 forced into tons of roles it wasn't suited for in Vietnam?

>>63798654
>Are they dissatisfied?
Yes, since both sides actively avoid directly engaging each other until a billion drones rammed everything that walks into giblets. Side that doesn't do it never gets to see infantry combat, being destroyed on the way.

>>63798685
>The obvious problem is that neither M4, nor Mossberg 590, can make any use of these optics the way M7 can.
There are two above posts citing tests where it does 2.5 or 3 to 6 moa with match grade ammo.

>>63798667
>In m-muh combat
>In m-muh firefight
The problem of that logic is the fact that when your doctrine is built around M4A1, you try to maximize your upsides and minimize your downsides. So of course you don't look for a target at 100 yards or in the next fucking room through an optic. Meanwhile trying to locate a target at 400 yards with your naked eye, spot them despite camouflage, cover and concealment and then land an accurate shot is absolutely stupid without optic, and absolutely pedestrian with even a civilian thermal scope, and the exact ranging of the optic makes you know exactly how the bullet will fly and where it will land.

While ACOG can assists with spotting the enemy via increased magnification, and you can spend time ranging the enemy with the reticle, it doesnt even hold a candle to computerized systems.

Like, think for one fucking second.

>>63798630
>Giving them an optic increases their ability to suppress through volume of fire, but that doesn't change the basic mechanism of what they're doing. Trying to suppress through precision is going to fail because the average soldier will never be that precise.
This is also a concern I have. Some weapon can theoretically nail someone across the planet but the average soldier unable to use it a fraction of its potential. I don't want to say the average infantryman is half blind the user is always an important factor unless we start fielding cyborg super soldiers.

>>63798670
Milspec 5.56 out of a stock M4 kills like the plague out past 300m without issue.
This idea that it drops off so short is genuinely reliant on pure misconceptions.

Precision shooters are not the same as standard infantry.
The type of night vision used by standard infantry, when issued, have practical limits of around 300 yards.
You cannot give specialized long range night vision tools to every soldier in the Army, and practically the trade-offs would not be worth it.
Conventional night vision, even the good stuff, has an effective cut off point that is well within the effective range of any decent intermediate caliber rifle.

This idea that you can innovate beyond practicalities is nonsensical.
First, you mention target acquisition through eyesight. Which will consistently be true even with these new optics because soldiers will always spend most of their time looking around with their eyes and not panning the scenery through an optic with a far more limited FoV.
Unless you enhance their natural physical vision through other means, the optic can only be effective within limits of how far a soldier can see without it.
This differs from snipers that shoot out past 1000m, because they already know what they're shooting at.

Marksmanship problems are never going away.
They're endemic to reality because shooting is hard and most soldiers will always be bad at shooting no matter how much technology you give them.
You can't ever force soldiers to be better shots nor assume that technology will make them a better shot.
What optical technology facilitates in reality is more effective application of volume of fire. With an ACOG compared to irons, you can apply volume of fire more effectively, even if precision is only slightly better. And that makes ACOGs absolutely successful.
This new scope won't make the average soldier a better shot. It will potentially make them better at applying volume of fire. Distinct things.

>>63798695
And there's like 5 posts of me saying that it's not the MOA, it's the ballistics and terminal effect. Are you gonna be an idiot and advocate next for a match-grade .177 because it does sub-MOA but can't reach past a 100 yards, or fell a mosquito?

>>63798686
Not really, it's just that removing the full auto turned it into a semi auto rifle in a SMG range war. However the ability to punch through foliage and trees and the stopping power of 7.62x51mm was loved by the troops, as VC and NVA were often on opium and 5.56 could oftentimes take multiple hits to put someone down.

>>63798721
>Milspec 5.56 out of a stock M4 kills like the plague out past 300m without issue.
Except the physics demand it to stop fragmenting at 150 yards. .22LR too can kill someone, but they're not picking M7 over M4 because M4 stopped killing, they're picking it because it has bad performance for the range bracket in which M7 is meant to operate in.

>>63798722
And where's the evidence you read those tests right and better than the testers who did them? Anons have ARs which do better. You're assuming high accuracy and another reason beyond SIG lack of quality control.

>>63798630
That's the point I'm trying to relate here. The idea isn't to demand a better shot from a rifleman. The idea is for the computerized scope to reduce the skill ceiling, and for the rifle to take the possible improvement out to a much greater range to combine into an overhaul, rather than just slightly improving M4A1 performance until they hit the ceiling of cartridge and weapon.

M7 as a system is an attempt to make precision replace volume of fire, by using modern technology offset previous obstacles to this concept.

>>63798686
The M14 was designed to fight and win WWIII by the men who fought and won WWII. It's a common problem that the military prepares to fight the last war and not the next. The heavy and long M14 was especially unsuited for Vietnam, where combat ranges were relatively close. Even then, the Army and Marines didn't want to change to a smaller cartridge and it took an order from the Secretary of Defense at the time to make the M16 standard issue.

Carbines reign supreme today, but the M14 (like any battle rifle) is a much more well-rounded rifle.

>muh range
Other than people in specifically marksman roles, there's absolutely no reason in any squad would need to engage at anywhere near 800 fucking meters. That shit is for artillery and close air support to deal with when you're talking about engaging from that far away. You can't just train every single grunt in long range shooting like that, it's a waste of time and money. You'll be lucky if you can even see anything beyond 200-300 meters when you're in the shit, especially in urban combat. And forget about it in a forest. That's the exact reason AKs were raping guys with m14s in vietnam, controllable high volume fire and mobility is much better than raw power when you can barely see much less engage at a distance much greater than 50 meters. Americans couldn't even pick up their heads long enough to get aimed shots off when they were ambushed. That's why people are literally saying that choosing this rifle is literally making every single mistake that was made with the m14 all over again.

>>63798736
Find a single post of me saying that M7 has superior MOA, or relies on superior MOA, or that I said the tests are wrong or bad.

I repeat for you once again, it isn't the MOA, it's everything that isn't MOA.

>>63798686
The M14 was so bad that they shitcanned it before they even had a decent replacement. Which was why the M16 adoption was so hasty and troubled.
The Issues with the M14 also directly killed the Springfield armory. As they had no choice but to diverge from their given task of designing rifles, and switch to producing rifles, because the M14 was such a pain in the ass to manufacture that Winchester and H&R couldn't do it without half the rifles being defective.

Winchester and H&R lost money on every single M14 they made. As soon as they'd fulfilled their government contracts they shut down their production lines and never looked back.

The production lines were long gone by the time the US involvement in Vietnam truly kicked off, and the sudden desperate demand for more rifles in the void left by the M14 actively harmed the M16.

>>63798714
I want you to think.

Try pulling out a rifle with an optic or even just an optic you have lying around, with high magnification. Pan it around quickly to find a target far away from you. Like something far down the street or across a large pond or down a hill.
It doesn't work well. The low FOV makes that miserable at best, and if what you're trying to find is hiding or moving fast, you're spending too much time not getting into a safer or better position yourself.
Instead, what is far easier, is to see something with your unaided eyes, and then use the optic to acquire a better picture of it than you could naturally.

Until we got cyborg eyes or the IVAS stops being a dream and actually does useful things, this is going to be forever true: you do most of your target acquisition with your eyeballs, and the optic comes secondary and works as an enhancement.

Thermal optics have significant practical limitations that make their issue in a military setting a no-go.
While they do certainly have advantages in most areas, they're impractical as of yet.

>>63798756
Holy midwit rant. Every single sentence you output describes why you want to shoot people from 800 yards away, and not walk up to them and catch a burst of unaimed lead from an 80 year old rifle.

If you'd think for a second and reverse the scenario, and would put a bunch of tards with AKs to try and close in 800 yards against M7-armed infantry unit, you'd realize that one side would have 0 casualties, and other would be decimated to a man with no chance of retreat.

>>63798758
Find tests which actually support this new gun being any better at hitting in general. Because you can't just say this takes better advantage of the optic and everyone just swallows it.

>>63798763
>the M14 was bad
>vets loved it
It was the DoD who sabotaged the M14 by cutting corners and slashing the budget, a tale as old as time.

>>63798772
>If you'd think for a second and reverse the scenario, and would put a bunch of tards with AKs to try and close in 800 yards against M7-armed infantry unit
The M7 squad wouldn't hit for shit because this whole thing is just corporate handshakes + money laundering. A Police Force in Germany replaced all their SIG MCXs with HK437s after discovering many problems. Militaries these days are always about the lowest bidder. That + Sig-Saar mean the rifles themselves are going to suffer.

>>63798770
And I want you to think back.
>and if what you're trying to find is hiding or moving fast
This is an exclusively CQB problem. The longer the range, the slower something moves from your point of view. You're also never doing a 360 degree scan on everything, the longer the range, the more compact your target area is. An entire building up close, never fitting into your mark 1 eyeball FOV, can be viewed almost entirely from a distance without any shift of viewpoint. That's how snipers work, they don't fucking scan the entire world.

That is part of what's called Situational Awareness, and modern C3I systems improve it drastically.

The objective is never 'find a bunch of tards in the whole fucking world', its to 'close in to located enemy positions, and engage them in that specific section of the world'.

Here's a practical example, if you're a practical sort of guy. Look out of your window, see if you can find an object 100 yards away, let's say a house. Designate it as enemy outpost. Now look at it with or without your scope. Now try to figure out which way would actually allow you to spot a shooter in the window.

And before you start talking shit about 'historical uses', this is what people did for hundreds of years with binoculars and spyglasses.

>Thermal optics have significant practical limitations that make their issue in a military setting a no-go.
An entire war is currently being fought with thermals.

>>63798772
That was talking
>m14s in vietnam
where everyone was sawing off guns including M14s and captured RPDs. One side would be hidden in the bushes to ambush the other.

>>63798773
The tests performed during the NGSW competition that led to the system's adoption.

>>63798803
>meme guns including lots of bullpups competing which all stared as a machinegun replacement program
The XM-7 only exists to simplify logistics for squads. You forget why the program came into existence in the first place before they lost track then came up with a new reason every week for the program's existence.

>>63798802
Because doctrinally, walking a patrol into a jungle to have a 20 yard full auto fight against people who are born to die, for the explicit purpose of the country accepting one political system over the other, is an ineffective way to wage warfare, and will force your country to withdraw from the conflict with severe losses.

The rest is just your grunts trying to do their best to survive the shitshow you threw them in. Or do you suppose it was part of US Doctrine at the time to locate your nearest RPD, saw off its barrel, put linoleum into the can, slide on your anti-leech pantyhose and then walk around jungle rivers, trying to shoot people who live their lives in fucking dirt holes?

>>63798810
This. NGSW is the continuation of the LSAT program, which only in its later stages included a rifle. The automatic rifle submission wasnt the deciding factor for SIG winning the contract. SIG won because GD utterly failed their LMG submission.

>>63798803
the fact of the matter is all of the rifles were garbage. they were essentially disqualified for being shit on every level, sig's shit was the least new shit

>>63798824
It is entirely valid for the program to end in failure with no adoptions, see XM8. SIG's offer obviously met the criteria, regardless of coping. First as XM7, then as M7.

>>63798812
When doctrines fail, people improvise. The SOG and then-era people were orders of magnitude more badass than today. They fought far closer a peer an enemy than terrorists with rusty rifles and sheep herders with an AK.

Why aren't the other ngsw weapons on market anyway?

>>63797675
people who fought in vietnam and complainged about the m14 were whiny bitches and would bitch about anything they could.

>>63798849
I think some try https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/rifles/true-velocity-the-genesis-the-civilian-version-of-the-rm277-ngsw/ and I mean try

True Velocity arguably produced the best service rifle, but Sig apparently had a better LMG which is what the army really cared about and won (though I think lawsuits over various aspects are still ongoing). If the bid including TV had won then they'd have gotten billions to produce this ammo tech at scale (though in 6.8 caliber) and that in turn would have solved the initial capex issue, and made it basically guaranteed to go to civilian market as well. But since they aren't getting that now it's kinda less sure. It's cool tech but brand new which means new costs and R&D figuring out scaling and so on. They'll have to decide whether to take the risk of going it alone based just on the civilian market or on contracts they can win from other governments, if any.

And arguably this entire competition took place at a bad time with tech not quite fully baked so who knows what the next decade will bring.

>>63795842 (OP)
Why do people keep talking about the gun when the major issue with the entire project is it means change in fucking DOCTRINE. As it stands now, you get more rounds per rifleman than you would with the NGSW. Which means you're specifically taught to make use of those additional rounds/mags to do various things (pin target for support rounds to hit them, saturation fire etc etc etc) and now you're reducing the amount of rounds a guy has they're either going to keep the same doctrine and run out of rounds quicker OR have to be taught to make each round count so to speak in which case that means teaching marksmen skills much more and all the additional shit with it.

I am absolutely convinced the NGSW will eventually be 'changed' to smaller purchase amounts and be used as a DMR by units rather than standard issue. With the M4 kept. Then they'll replace the M249 with the LMG Siggers also produced... but I have no idea how good the LMG is I heard some say it was great and some say it was absolute crap compared to the M249 due to weight or something.

>>63798830
their offer was the lmg. you can be the least bad rifle while having the lmg carry you through the contest. most ngsw threads complain about the rifle and not the lmg.

>>63798842
Generally speaking that's almost every war, and a lot of GWOT was Cold War era officers ordering the troops to fight iraqis and afghanis like they would soviets. Which did result in Iraq's asses being handed to them when M1 tanks could outrange Iraqi, and AWACS could beat Iraqi SAM.

Then mountain footmarches and door-to-doors started, which were both incompatible with then available kit, and called for excessively funny behaviors, and excessively funny procurement programs, like the SPR giving birth to the one fucking type of bullet that would fly OK out of a 10" M4 CQBR (a borderline hollowpoint design which had sufficient wounding even past the no-fragment threshold), and then being forgotten forever, or the idea to wear only the plate part of your large assault vest because if something explodes in a shoddy handmade hut-house, you're dead anyway and the thing collapses on your head.

>>63798871
>Bro trust me it went like
>"Well this rifle is a piece of shit, but the MG is alright. We'll adopt the rifle then."
Good grief. Next time SIG should just offer them an ice cream instead of a rifle, it'd make it even easier to win these contracts.

>>63798884
It's SIG. They find ways to win competitions selling anything already.

>>63798655
>ruger being meh trash
Unsurprised

>>63798866
The idea here is that smartgun technology is going to mean that any old ground pounder straight out of basic will be a DMR class marksman level. Not that you're wrong we're looking at a serious doctrine shift with that and that there will need to be new training, but the concept has already been proven and writing has been on the wall since like 10 years ago when Talon demoed that v1 linux powered gun. Total rando noguns tech journalists could ring metal at 1000yd on their first time. We've come a long way since then.
That said, this is part of my disagreement with how the program was run too, it feels like they tried to "compromise" and the old generals aren't REALLY embracing the change. The sig service rifle was the worst of the lot in this regard, instead they had the best LMG. But depending on the LMG is current doctrine, not "every single infantryman aimbots at 600-1000yd" next gen doctrine. The entire way the program was run still seems weird. They should have standardized on ammo first for example, and not tied the service rifle and LMG together. Oh well.

>>63797807
>The M7 is thus the weapon that, if facing a foe with conventional arm, can detect him, zero on him, and deliver severe wounding in spite of cover and ballistic plates short of M2 AP capable protection.
You write like such a retard. No joke start filtering your thoughts through ChatGPT.

>>63797807
>A doctrinal shift away from CQB is as sane as doctrinal shift away from dogfighting for air force.

I guess all those guys in WW1 should have just doctrinally shifted from the trench stuff back to the long range since all their sights had 300m zeros. Or maybe everyone should just doctrinally shift from drones since they're so complicated. Kill yourself.

>>63798267
Your whole argument just sounds exactly like what everyone thought before WW1. Back then everyone thought engagement ranges were going to scale to the range ability of the new smokeless cartridges, so everyone went into the war with the 300m zeros and whatnot only to fight at bayonet and pistol caliber ranges for most of the war. I can't see it being any different with the optics here. Drones are the new long range artillery/MG/biplane element. I think its safe to say all future engagements are going to be defined by this new rock paper scissors that includes drones and then guys are gonna be fighting each other once again at 30 - 300 meters.

>>63798871
>most ngsw threads complain about the rifle and not the lmg.
That's because comparatively very few people have any experience with LMGs, especially this brand new one, vs. all the people with experience shooting rifles very similar to the XM7, not to mention the actual semi-auto Spear models on the market.

M7 a shit, M4s on Mars.

>>63799907
The only really baffling decision I still don't understand is why the army explicitly directed Sig not to include a quick change barrel system. Other than that I'm at worst ambivalent about the XM250 if not actually cautiously optimistic about it. I do think they're overly complicating things by having it phase out only the M249 but insisting that the new LMG will supposedly have better performance than both the current LMG and GPMG instead of having a better version of the weapon that could actually replace both the M249 and M240 with only a few relatively minor changes to the design.

>>63797746
brand recognition
muh 6.8mm

and hoping that people don't realize sig has always been overrated and if 7.62x51mm can't do the armor, 6.8x51mm isn't either

>>63799890
The funny thing is that the idea of taking pot shots at 1000m was actually kinda vindicated before WW1, because there was a war where the global hegemon fought a bunch of bearded religious fanatic insurgents in open, arid countryside and were routinely outranged by them and subject to 1000m pot shots, i.e. the second anglo-boer war.

The mistake made was thinking that a high intensity, artillery-heavy war in the dead flat, muddy and densely populated parts of Europe would be anything like the above scenario.

>>63799890
Yeah, except those were non-repeating, one-shot, optic-less weapons. Don't see you talking shit about modern Assault Rifle's zero being commonly 300m.

>>63797675
>>M14 is just an upgraded M1
Because it wasn't.
Going into it, that was the intention. What ended up happening is they had to redesign practically everything so none of the M1 tooling could be used on the M14 like they promised.
So of course, the military redesigning a rifle from scratch turned out to be a big problem.

>>63797675
>m1's contemporaries: mausers and arisakas
>m14's contemporaries: ak's and the fal
A lot can change in a couple of decades. Also, as others have pointed out, things that were considered adequate in the 30's were unacceptable in the 50's.
>reliability
The M14 had a lot of problems, but this wasn't one of them.
>>63797717
QC was one of those many problems, but not the only one.
>>63798686
>M14 forced into tons of roles it wasn't suited for in Vietnam
Vietnam itself was a role it wasn't suited for.
>>63798669
>actual fucking veterans who used it in actual combat
Are all in nursing homes. (The ones that haven't died of old age by now anyway.) I'm specifically talking about the M14, not that contraption that they kimchi rigged early in GWOT as a DMR and promptly got rid of once something else was available in useful quantities.
>t. oldfag that actually had to deal with these fucking things

>>63797807
And then there's the Taliban who lobs Ten Rounds Rapid of .303 from a hilltop 600 yards away out of his great grandaddy's SMLE and skedaddles before any air support shows up. And the accurized M14 the SDM had last deployment os gone because some general who wants an "advisor" job with Colt Defense ordered it replaced with a supposedly accurized M16 because the baddies could single out the 7.62 shooter, or something.

>>63796167

Intermediate cartridge rifles are not suitable for engaging armored combatants, but your petty little buttfrustration takes precedence over the laws of physics and apparently the English language as well.

Enjoy plinking your little carbines at plate armor and engaging threats beyond the effective range of your weaponry (and training). Get a booster shot and walk your way through a PT running test while you are at it.

>>63802606
>not that contraption that they kimchi rigged early in GWOT as a DMR and promptly got rid of once something else was available in useful quantities.
Not him but the EBR? I don't know which one you mean elsewise.

>>63796167
>what if you need to make 1,000 yard shots like in afghanistan!?
The worst part of this is that the perceived range disadvantage came engagements in which Taliban/other enemy forces occupied high ground while our guys were downhill. The range disadvantage and need for overmatch in reality was either nonexistent or actually slanted in our favor.
>>63797807
You talk like a combination of a redditor and AI. Jeet word salad.
>The M7 is thus the weapon that, if facing a foe with conventional arm, can detect him, zero on him
Not with inferior accuracy to a fucking M4 it can't kek
As for detection and target acquisition, there is zero reason why the XM157 or another computerized optic cannot be mounted on the M4 or any other weapon. The scope is not a strength of the M7.
>and deliver severe wounding in spite of cover and ballistic plates short of M2 AP capable protection.
Plates that our own forces have and an increasing number of foreign adversaries do. 6.8x51mm cannot penetrate NIJ IV armor without tungsten tipped ammo, which is the same as .308 anyway since M993 can do so. Even 5.56 can sort of do it at close range with M995.
>A doctrinal shift away from CQB is as sane as doctrinal shift away from dogfighting for air force.
Evidently fucking not, armchair generals have been saying this since the fucking 1880s. In reality, which is currently playing out in a peer to peer modern conventional conflict in Ukraine, CQB is inevitable in every scenario except for battle on an open, completely featureless field with zero concealment, cover, or terrain advantage.
>>63798001
>M110
Yeah. It's already in service and can feasibly be converted to other calibers like the GD/TV 6.8mm cartridge or whatever else. It's certainly cheaper, on top of being better designed and already proven.
>M16A5
a NAS3 cartridge with a 77 gr. bullet coming out of a 20" barrel would be pretty damn good and probably provide sufficient range overmatch to satisfy (practical) needs.

>>63803538
And you talk like a 70 IQ tard. I mean, look at what the fuck you're saying.
>M4A1 is TOTALLY not a 4+ MOA rifle with effective range of under 200 yards due to the awful ass cartridge! YOU SHOULD PUT A PRECISION OPTIC ON IT!
>M7 is TOTALLY useless since it needs armor piercing ammo to beat IV plate! Please forget that M4A1 can't pierce a level III plate.
>If your computerized weapon system is gonna get troops out of CQB, why didn't it work in 1880, doofus?!

You're everything wrong with /k/.

>>63804327
>M4A1 is TOTALLY not a 4+ MOA rifle with effective range of under 200 yards due to the awful ass cartridge!
You don't know how to fucking shoot if you think the M4 and other intermediate caliber rifles have an effective range that low. The minimum accuracy specified for the XM7 is the same, and in practice it's worse. The M7 achieves 2.5 MOA with match ammo, which is roughly the same as a Colt or FN rifle in new condition and trash ammo.
>M7 is TOTALLY useless since it needs armor piercing ammo to beat IV plate! Please forget that M4A1 can't pierce a level III plate.
What the fuck are you talking about? Even just steel core 5.56 can penetrate NIJ III, and you were also the person who made the assertion that most enemy forces would not use quality body armor that 5.56 could not penetrate. As it stands, because it does not offer armor or barrier penetrative capability decisively greater than .308, the Sig cartridge does not offer increased capability worth taking its drawbacks in comparison to in-service calibers or conceptually similar calibers that are better designed.
>If your computerized weapon system is gonna get troops out of CQB, why didn't it work in 1880, doofus?!
My point is that average engagement distances were not changed by increased capability of infantry hardware, because there are physical limitations on the battlefield that force CQB to occur you fucking retard. And I never said that the XM157 wouldn't work, I literally said that it would be useful on other weapons.
Allow me to reiterate: you are a fucking simpleton and you need to reevaluate your beliefs about the 5.56 caliber based on reality rather than vomiting all over your screen on 4chan.

>>63797896
We did in Afghanistan with the DMR program and it was pretty damn logical.

>>63797912
>100 yard range
Oh no it's retarded.

>>63804644
>Bro I can totally engage threats over 100 yards.
>WHERE'S MY FUCKING DM?! HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AND RESCUE ME FROM THIS FUCKING HAJI WITH LEE ENFIELD
>IT'S LOGICAL!
You. You are retarded. Go clear a room or something, tard.

>>63795842 (OP)
I've been telling people for the longest time, just force everyone to carry a ar10 chambered in 6.5creedmoor, make it have a 20 inch barrel and now everyone can play marksman.

What the military really should do is issue a better caliber sidearm. I am of the honest opinion that the default firearm should be switch to 6.5creedmoor with a 20 inch barrel ar10 and a p90 as the sidearm of choice with every soldier carrying 120 rounds in total of creedmoor on them and 150 rounds in total of the p90.

You use the creedmoor for anything longer than 100 yards and the p90 for cqc.

>>63804327
NTA

I’m not one to sing the praises of the M7, ever, but I see the arguments you’re making here (assuming the walls of text are yours) and I’m nodding my head in agreement. The reasoning is sound. But none of this necessitates a short action magnum cartridge in a 14lb rig. Why must the caliber be 6.8? Size and weight of the gun and ammunition scale (roughly) with caliber, so why not a .224 with the same SD and a proportional amount of propellant behind it?. The exact same external ballistics and armor pen can be achieved with a .224, in a gun no heavier than the m4, in a cartridge perhaps 1 gram heavier than m855. It would be like a comprehensive upgrade to the m4 with virtually zero downsides. So why go full retard with a 3000ft*lb cartridge in a chonk ass rifle?

>>63804676
DMR engages point targets 600-800m (depending on who you ask) where the 5.56mm rifles begin to struggle. The 5.56mm rifles still engage but the effective accuracy drops. Even without a DMR, the platoon can engage at range especially when supported by weapons teams, but it takes longer. Nobody on the ground was freaking out about being outranged, all of that hysteria was drummed up by industry shills and put into the heads of officers who themselves were looking for a payday, and now we have the NSGW as a "solution" to an invented problem.

>>63804615
See what I mean? Total tard. Fine, I'll humor you.
>You don't know how to fucking shoot if you think the M4 and other intermediate caliber rifles have an effective range that low
5.56x45mm is a .22 caliber bullet that relies on explosive fragmentation upon entering a body above certain velocities. The shorter the barrel, the slower your muzzle velocity, the faster you drop under this velocity. For a 14.5" M4A1, the required velocity is lost before the point of 200 yards, resulting in 'barrier-blind' arrowhead loadings like M855 to zip through the target without sufficient wounding. Additionally, around this bracket it can no longer muster the velocity required to pierce the cold war-era steel/titanium vests.

This is why SPR gave birth to mk262 in an attempt to rectify it by supplying heavier lead bullet with an open tip to try and get solid enough wounding at marksman ranges. The SPR project went the way of the dodo, but mk262 stayed for simple reason that it made M4 CQBR/Mk18 able to have effective range over 50 yards.

>Even just steel core 5.56 can penetrate NIJ III
SAPI plate cannot be penetrated by any variation of 5.56 until you start using tungsten, midwit. And that's a fucking ICW plate.

>you were also the person who made the assertion that most enemy forces would not use quality body armor that 5.56 could not penetrate
5.56 can't penetrate any body armor that isn't a soft vest. Cold war era steel stops it, chink ceramics stop it, even a polyethylene plate at a stand off can stop it.
>As it stands, because it does not offer armor or barrier penetrative capability decisively greater than .308
Yes it does so.
>My point is that average engagement distances were not changed by increased capability of infantry hardware
Sure they did. Since retards like to reach into pre-history, compare line infantry firing muskets at each other with effective-up-to-200-yards-M4A1

>>63804688
>p90
>sidearm

I don’t think you understand how big and heavy a p90 is. Just because it chambers a diminutive cartridge doesn’t make it a small and light gun. It might actaully be one of the worst gun designs ever. cool and interesting though, but impractical, unergonomic, and too big and heavy for what it is/does.

An mp7 style sidearm makes more sense, and even that’s pushing the definition of what a sidearm is. That gun is huge too, but Atleast it’s holsterable/wearable. The Cartridge leaves a lot to be desired though.

But no, one gun per soldier is always gonna be better than 2 guns. One of the guns is extra weight you could be carrying in mags. It’s 2 manuals of arms to learn. It’s bulk on your hip restricting movement. So there’s gonna be compromise, and loathe as I am to say, the m7 seems to fit the bill of what it is you want - ELR + CQB capability for every soldier. Well the only way to combine both capabilities into one rifle is to shoot a very overbore cartridge from a short barrel. Yeah the cartridge is nerfed, but Atleast the gun isn’t a million feet long. It’s maneuverable indoors and what not.

>>63804615
>And I never said that the XM157 wouldn't work, I literally said that it would be useful on other weapons.
And I said that it wouldn't be useful on other weapons because they can't utilize the advantages offered by the sight. You can tell it by mere fact that there's currently no commercial solution because it would have no market due to there not being a weapon fit for it.

>>63804689
Because the idea isn't to improve on the concept of intermediate rifle, nor is it meant to improve on the concept of short-range or fix-the-enemy-by-volume firearm. It's there to try and combine a flat-flying heavy projectile with a lot of energy, with computerized scope that can handle calculating the data for the shooter quickly, so that in the end you have DM capability for less time, and ideally, less near-misses and more fatal shots at ranges double or triple of those of an M4A1, through cover, through armor.
>>63804691
The M7 is an attempt to make DM the default rifleman, in the same way the M4A1 was an attempt to make mounted assaulter the default rifleman. Again, the 5.56 had reached the limit of innovation here, if you want it to go places it has to be a very specific lead match bullet, which robs from it any pretense of beating anything other than soft vest, and then you start meeting the issue of bypassing cover. You try to improve AP performance and you top yourself at 200 yards and get all the awful downsides of M855A1 and the SOST.

The problem, like stated a billion times, is not that M4A1 can't put enough holes in a circle at whatever range, the problem is that at the ranges enabled by computerized optics and C3I, M4A1 starts failing to execute its main wounding effect, and starts failing to penetrate cold war era vests and chink plates.

>>63804720
What they should do is remodel the casing of a .308 such that a 150 grain .308 bullet reaches 3300fps from a 20 inch barrel. And they should make it so that the p90 is rechambered for 10mm.

Since 10mm has zero drop off at 100 yards and less.

120 rounds of the new .308 and 150 rounds of 10mm per person.

I know it sounds unreasonable but everytime they try to make a do it all gun problems occur

>>63804784
>120 round rifle combat load
Absurd. You want MORE ammunition, not less. You want to find yourself in the middle of a firefight with 4 AR mags worth of ammo?

>10mm
Somehow a worse choice than 5.7/4.6. Pistol calibers have dogshit BCs and lose quite a bit of energy quite quickly. They also have more recoil for a given amount of energy

>150rds 10mm
Weighs 5 pounds without any magazines.

>>63804762
> Because the idea isn't to improve on the concept of intermediate rifle

Doesn’t matter, it would have this effect. It is unquestionable that the assault rifle and intermediate cartridge have some very desireable attributes to them, and you can achieve everything the m7 was designed to achieve without sacrificing these attributes.

> flat-flying heavy projectile with a lot of energy

But how much energy do you really need? A .224 with the same sectional energy as 6.8x51 (from a 13” barrel, 2700ft*lbs), produces 1800ft*lbs. that’s already quite high, and a high BC will hang on to more of it at range.

My whole point is that the goals the m7 was created to achieve are all well and good, but the execution is suboptimal in its scale. Which is a really big deal cause 14lbs and 140rds for 1.33x the ammo weight is a huge price to pay. Recoil, from what I’ve seen, is punishing and renders full auto a non-starter (not the point of the gun, I know). If everything were smaller, one could make faster follow up shots and carry much more ammunition. And if the whole point is increasing lethality of the system, extra ammunition does that.

I applaud sig for introducing 80kpsi to the world, btw. I’m glad the industry is moving in that direction. interesting things are on the horizon as the gun world shakes up and resettles around 80kpsi cartridges. One day I will have my MP7 MK18.

>>63804812
I have faith that if less ammunition is required to be carried that the soldier will be more careful of their aim.

For example, I am of firm belief that if a .308 20 inch barrel ar10 chambered in new .308 that travels 3300fpa at 150 grams, is only issued as a semi automatic weapon and not as a fully automatic weapon, leads to a higher hit probability.

For their sidearm being a p90, simple having 150 rounds in total suffice for the p90 while for the new ar10 anywhere between 120 round to 180 rounds, most likely 140 rounds in total, should suffice.

>>63804826
Most likely if my idea was implemented, each soldier would have an ar10 that already has 20 rounds, not including the six 20 round magazines carried on their chest. For the p90, one magazine already chambered with two extra magazines attached to their lower back portion of their rig suffices.

>>63804784
>308, 150fr, 3300fps

That’s >3600ft*lbs. not possible from the 308 case, not even with 80kpsi. Maybe at 100k?

But why 150@3300? What is this intended to accomplish?

>>63804828
Redesign the case entirely, make it wider and thicker to handle higher pressures.

At 3300fps all 150 grain fmj .308 rounds punch through ceramic and steel plates, even the latest it will punch through.

The p90 should be equipped as a sidearm to only be used in less than 100 yards fighting.

>>63804834
Or it can be used as a full auto room clearer, the p90.

>>63804826
>I have faith

Well, stop. Magic is not real and things can be known. It’s a terrible idea to reduce the combat load and expect better marksmanship.

>>63804834
>spicy 308 punch through armor.

See my post about how the same thing can be accomplished with smaller, less energetic calibers. >>63804812

>p90 sidearm

Do you know what a p90 is? How would you carry it as a sidearm? The thing is gigantic and heavy as shit. It’s not an alternative to a holstered pistol. Just try to imagine yourself carrying a full size 20” rifle, with 4 or 5 mags, and ALSO carrying the 6lb p90 with like 7 pounds worth of mags.

>>63804856
I understand you, but no way the m7 can be a do it all weapon.

I really think my idea is ideal. Let's say you only carry 120 rounds in total of super .308 with an ar10, this is already including the magazine, and the rifle is only capable of firing semi automatically. This would force the soldier to aim better due to lower ammo carried.

The p90 as a sidearm can be slung across the lower back with only 3 magazines, one magazine chambered ready to fire and 2 more magazines, with one on each side of the soldier, preferably on the thighs, attached to said thighs.

The p90 would only be used for, most likely, room clearing, and 100 yards or less firefights. While the ar10 with super .308 is used for everything else.

I just don't think the xm7 will last more than 15 years, it has shifty accuracy, is heavy, soldiers can't reliably fire it on full auto, the ammo it uses isn't really that accurate.

If I were a general or in charge of the military it would be every soldier carries two firearms. The first being a semi automatic only 20 inch barrel ar10 that fires .308 at 3300fps for which they carry 120 rounds of ammunition for, also including a p90 for cqc at less than 100 yards, with 150 rounds in total on person.

It amazes me how accurate a p90 is at 100 to 150 yards.

>>63796754
It took less than 4 years after the M16 and 5.56's adoption before the Germans made the HK33 - not to mention the Stoner 63 and AR-18 were ready in this time frame as well.
Absolutely no NATO partner is considering 6.8x51 and it has nothing to do with US influence waning - .300bo designs were coming out of Europe fairly quickly after SOCOM adoption.
6.8x51 is 2 steps back - Ukraine is showing the futility of the whole idea of resuscitation battle rifles for standard issue

>>63795842 (OP)
>tfw the m7 only is slightly lighter and shorter than an m14
Why they dont put a 21 inch barrel on it, or chamber it in an even more stupid cartridge is beyond me.

>>63796167
>But duuuuh what if a sandnigger with a PKM
I have my LAVbro rip his shit up from two klicks away with the gun. Or ask my marksman to kick his face into his own ass with 7.62 REAL FUCKIN NATO. Or bounce up and facefuck him with my rifle. Which 5.56 is fine at. Fuck OFF with the M7.
>t. Was actually in Trashcanistan

>>63804928
Below
>>63804910
>>63804928
You had actual experience, what do you think of my idea of equipping everyone with an ar10 ranged firefighting and a p90 for less than 100 yard firefights including cqc and room clearing.

>>63797675
Because it wasn't an upgraded M1.
It required new machine tooling, had a new reciever and an entirely different gas system.
The BM59 is literally a .308 mag fed garand - and it enjoyed general issue service until the 90's

>>63797807
You could general issue a light 5.56 lmg like the KAC LMG, slap an optic on, and get better results at the 500m and above while matching or saving weight over the m7

A 20 inch barreled ar10 chambered in 150 grain super .308 which travels at 3300 fps or chambered in 120 grain 6.5 creedmoor which travels at 3500 fps which every soldier carries only 120 rounds in total for.

And a FN P90 which every soldier carries 350 rounds for, 150 rounds on their thighs.

I really think this is the better choice. You can perform cqc such as room clearing and suppressive fire with the p90 while anything greater than 100 yards you use your rifle for.

Let's say there is a target at exactly 500 yards away. You use your p90 for suppressive fire pot shots against that target while your homie sets his sight on them. For house clearing and under 100 yard fights you use the p90.