The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.

Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)

In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.

I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.

It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.

Oh, absolutely - but Glock has had its hits and misses over the years. The primary reason the 19X is still selling, and still in production, is due to its MHS rep. Otherwise, Glock should have phased it out by now to concentrate on production of the G45.

My point, though, is that the consolation prize of the 19X's popularity on the civilian market still doesn't mean Glock didn't feel obligated to protest its MHS loss.

Yes, this is true also, though I should point out that there is still a market for bullpup designs in the U.S., which is why firearms manufacturers continue to bring them to market. But yes, American civilians and LE agencies are so addicted to AR-15-pattern rifles that bullpups will always be a curiosity and a novelty for collectors, rather than a serious contender for most folks' go-to rifles.

I also do think that in GD/LoneStar's case, they were always going to take a bigger loss than Glock took on the 19X (which really wasn't much of a loss) by virtue of the fact that the market for expensive military-style semi-auto rifles is far smaller than the market for handguns.

The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.

The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Colt’s web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.

Pretty sure the army would ignore what random civillian firearms someone has slapped an "M" designation on, they can just keep with their sequence and pretty sure there wouldn't actually be an issue on the army's end. I think where the issue would be is that if Colt has a trademark on "M5" Sig would not be able to market civillian versions of the gun that way. Similarly LWRC will have IP protection on the "M6", so "M7" is probably the first that doesn't have trademark issues. I assume the Colt "M7" is less of an issue as it is actually the "CM7".

Hmmm...

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/28/the-not-really-next-generation-weapons-program/


Love this quote in particular:

I'm surprised the XM7 is having issues considering the MCX has been a pretty solid platform so far. But a first-round failure? Sounds like an ammo issue to me.

So I've been hearing rumors on the DL that since the first XM7s (and XM157 optics) started reaching the 101st Airborne this year, they're apparently not well-liked by the paratroopers that have been issued them. The biggest complaint - surprise surprise - is the weight of the rifle/optic setup. I'm also hearing that HQDA is already discussing whether to scale back the current procurement plan. There have already been at least a few public statements where the Army has suggested that the M4A1s will remain in the inventory of the units getting XM7s, which suggests that they've already not confident in their idea and intend to hold the M4A1s in reserve until the T&E period results come back.

For those who missed it - Jeff Gurwitch (former Army SF) already put out his take more than a year ago on why the XM7 was a bad idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAYSEm5zJA

His key points:
(1.) XM7 is too heavy, and larger caliber = too few rounds per individual infantryman. (In a firefight: The name of the game is to throw a lot of rounds down range to break contact and keep enemies' heads down.)
(2.) The entire idea of the XM7 (then called XM5) was to achieve overmatch over enemies armed with long-range weapons (e.g., Dragunov and PKM) at the individual rifleman level, which is a fallacy from the get-go. He argues that an infantry rifle like the M4 tends to get used more as a personal defense weapon - the actual effects on target come from heavier weapons and/or air support.
(3.) Russian and Chinese body armor was also a factor, but the Ukraine War is demonstrating that in combat against near-peer adversaries in urban environments, a more traditional carbine in a caliber like 5.56 or 5.45 - and equipped with a good old-fashioned red dot optic - works fine for the type of combat that we and/or our allies are likely to experience. An XM7 with the XM157 would be a horrible choice for this type of conflict because urban/village combat is where most firefights take place, while longer-range engagements involve artillery and drones, not infantry weapons.
(4.) A typical Army SF ODA never felt out-matched in a firefight in Afghanistan, because they had a variety of longer-range weapons in 7.62x51mm such as the SCAR-17S, MK 48, and M240 to use in response to fire from PK/PKM or Dragunov-wielding enemies. He thinks it would have been more efficient for the Army to procure some of these weapons and re-structure the firepower of a typical infantry platoon to match what an ODA carries so that there are more longer-range weapons available.