SIG wins NGSW

[Ultimate94ninja]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Ultimate94ninja

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.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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".

[MT2008]

Hmmm...

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


Love this quote in particular:

The fundamental problem with the program is there remains not enough tungsten available from China, as Army knows, to make the goal of making every round armor piercing even remotely feasible. The plan also assumes that the world’s by far largest supplier will have zero problems selling tungsten to America only for it to be shot back at its troops during World War III.

[Spartan198]

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.

[MT2008]

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.) 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.
(2.) 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, until you bring your heavier weapons to bear against them.)
(3.) Russian and Chinese body armor was also a factor in the NGSW concept, 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.

[Spartan198]

Just feels like history is repeating itself. The XM7 is the new M14, the M320 is the new M79, and CCP/Russian Fed are the new Red Scare.