XM7 worries from the field.

Terry Cross

Terry Cross

Dingleberry
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 15, 2003
3,202
12,742
Alexandria, LA 71303
www.kmwlrs.com
#1
Plenty if XM7s getting issued and legit complaints surfacing.
Army dude tried to document a few things. Sig is dismissive and condescending.
Interesting read.

www.twz.com

Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As "Unfit," Sig Sauer Says Otherwise

The infantry officer and Expeditionary Warfare School student presented his findings, which lambasted the new rifle for its ergonomics, weight, and durability.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt33, Jsp556, st1650 and 5 others
#3
I believe that media officer for sig, Mr Saint John, is the same MSG Saint John formerly of group and then later cag, winner of several best ranger comps, and a bad, bad man to stand across a battlefield from.

This captain made a whole bunch of errors in his report: barrel length, weight etc., and honestly doesn't seem to understand much of what he is saying, (which is par for the course for anyone in the officer corps). If this scathing report was written by a CSM of a line battalion or larger unit, or a door kicker in the ops community, it would be more credible in my opinion.

I also couldn't help but laugh at the desired weight load of 55lbs. Get outta here with that bullshit. A full set of XL armor with green plates was right at 45lbs iirc. That's where the development should be done is finding an armor replacement that is about 10lbs and leave them with m4's for a few more years. Maybe then every single infantry vet with more than a few years in wouldn't be lining up for knee replacements and back surgeries in the decades following their service. The m4 worked great. The .223 was enough, (especially when you understand how many bullets are wasted to hit one enemy solder, (it's thousands)). I'm sure the rifles are better than the capt said and worse than the sig report says, but ultimately the bail out for sig if the rifle sucks will be the same bail out KAC used when they gave us those garbage M110 rifles: "we built the rifle the Army wanted, not what we wanted to give you".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic user, Jsp556, GhostFace and 1 other person
#4
Very interesting, and pretty direct hands on observance / experience. XM250 seemed like the best part of this program from the start and I hope Vortex implements the XM157 tech asap in their commercial stuff!

I’ve been interested to watch the XM7 and MRGG-A (public, I have no inside info) results roughly in parallel (XM seems to be about a year ahead). If SOCOM wanted the XM7 I’d guess they would have it already but from what I’ve seen they’re focused on 6 ARC and 6.5 Creed. From a civilian standpoint the proliferation of 6.5 Creed is hard to beat which is why I’m running a MRGG-A type setup this summer

ETA: In my opinion SOCOM should look at the 25 Creed because you can launch lighter higher BC bullets faster than the 6.5 and still use the AR10 platform. I can already see myself struggling to not build a 25 CM upper and I’ve not seen ammo on the shelf yet. Maybe real world results won’t be much different between the 6.5 and 25
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: diverdon and Hecouldgoalltheway
#6
The effects on target for the round are a definite step up, esp. against armor. Sig's refusal to take constructive criticism and improve their product is disappointing.
-not referring to this particular article, but previous feedback Sig received much earlier in this rifle's development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bfoosh006
#7
SortOfClear said:
The effects on target for the round are a definite step up, esp. against armor.
Click to expand...

I have little doubt this is true.

However, it is my long and deeply held belief that effect on target is only significant if the user gets the weapon to the fight, and get the bullet to the target.

I have not read the article, and I'm going to take a wild guess:
-Weight/Soldiers load is the primary issue.
-The super spicy ammo in the super shitty Sig production guns are having problems far earlier than intended in life span
-Hit probability is still low due to a variety of factors (a) the Vortex widget isn't as good as advertised. b) the Sig prints shitty groups c) user training combined with a & b.)
 
Last edited:
#8
Jason St John is pretty legit. At least he definitely used to be.

I can see both sides. There is an undeniable "joe" factor that will apply abuse to a piece of equipment that no down select or operator testing can accurately proof. The more poorly trained the user, the more abuse that equipment is going to experience. Joes will cram as many rifles as they can in a tough box, a trained operator will carry his NODs, radio, and pistol in a well padded 1750. Some people call the SF E7 " the most highly paid rifleman in the US Army" as a derogatory term but that selective training and experience does get you something.

I remember the propaganda of "the massive rate of failures" of the M4 coming out in 2005'ish. Quotes from Rangers in the account of QRF'ing at Roberts Ridge. "I got off the helicopter as we were taking fire and returned fire with two rounds and my rifle jammed. I pulled out a cleaning rod I carried for just this issue and cleared the rifle...". I remember reading that in a article that was making the case for the 416. There was a flurry of that stuff for a year or two before fading away. I remember reading that and being amazed at how my experience with the M4 was nothing even remotely close.

I do agree that we need to develop the next generation of weapon systems. Every major state is innovating at a rapid pace. If we think we're just going to stick with the M4 for the next 20 years we're going to be in a state of panic one day and forced to whip out some serious garbage in a reactionary emergency. Right now is not a time to stick your head in the sand when it comes to keeping up with the Joneses. I won't say the current process and cost of how we do that is perfect but it's not like there's a long line of really good credible, privately well funded companies generating the perfect rifle ready to hand it to DOD for free. I really don't have an extreme opinion of SIG one way or the other that people on this site seem to. I don't own a single gun of theirs. But I think they need to iterate in order to develop. When you read St Johns comments, he's absolutely right. Even if we decide to move away from a large frame platform and cartridge and have to start over, DOD needs to learn that lesson. Like a lot of things, success comes from learning from failure.

I wouldn't condemn either side and I also wouldn't get your panties in a wad over teething issues and a series of iterative improvements.

As far as a BN CSM writing a white or information paper, LMAO. Ain't no line BN CSM writing a report. Dudes got 99 problems but he ain't writing papers. And if he did, guess who he would use to do it? A CPT. AKA the " MK 1 MOD III prod generator".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogtown, 71firebird400 and Hecouldgoalltheway
#10
Bacarrat said:
Check their bank accounts. No way Sig "won" all these contracts without someone getting paid-off.
Click to expand...
1000007305.gif
 
#11
JR1200W3 said:
Jason St John is pretty legit. At least he definitely used to be.

I can see both sides. There is an undeniable "joe" factor that will apply abuse to a piece of equipment that no down select or operator testing can accurately proof. The more poorly trained the user, the more abuse that equipment is going to experience. Joes will cram as many rifles as they can in a tough box, a trained operator will carry his NODs, radio, and pistol in a well padded 1750. Some people call the SF E7 " the most highly paid rifleman in the US Army" as a derogatory term but that selective training and experience does get you something.

I remember the propaganda of "the massive rate of failures" of the M4 coming out in 2005'ish. Quotes from Rangers in the account of QRF'ing at Roberts Ridge. "I got off the helicopter as we were taking fire and returned fire with two rounds and my rifle jammed. I pulled out a cleaning rod I carried for just this issue and cleared the rifle...". I remember reading that in a article that was making the case for the 416. There was a flurry of that stuff for a year or two before fading away. I remember reading that and being amazed at how my experience with the M4 was nothing even remotely close.

I do agree that we need to develop the next generation of weapon systems. Every major state is innovating at a rapid pace. If we think we're just going to stick with the M4 for the next 20 years we're going to be in a state of panic one day and forced to whip out some serious garbage in a reactionary emergency. Right now is not a time to stick your head in the sand when it comes to keeping up with the Joneses. I won't say the current process and cost of how we do that is perfect but it's not like there's a long line of really good credible, privately well funded companies generating the perfect rifle ready to hand it to DOD for free. I really don't have an extreme opinion of SIG one way or the other that people on this site seem to. I don't own a single gun of theirs. But I think they need to iterate in order to develop. When you read St Johns comments, he's absolutely right. Even if we decide to move away from a large frame platform and cartridge and have to start over, DOD needs to learn that lesson. Like a lot of things, success comes from learning from failure.

I wouldn't condemn either side and I also wouldn't get your panties in a wad over teething issues and a series of iterative improvements.

As far as a BN CSM writing a white or information paper, LMAO. Ain't no line BN CSM writing a report. Dudes got 99 problems but he ain't writing papers. And if he did, guess who he would use to do it? A CPT. AKA the " MK 1 MOD III prod generator".
Click to expand...
Solid points. I also have no issue with sig. I own or have owned a pile of them, and they were and are all pretty darn good. Their optics are severely underrated. I just don't understand why they felt the need to try a new untested platform. What they thought they needed here was available in easier ways. A 6arc piston ar from a good manufacturer would have been a better idea. They could have kept all of their parts and made a relatively seamless transition. I guess you'd have to worry about Joe stuffing a 5.56 round into the 6arc, but I don't think you could make it fire. The recoil of this cartridge alone makes it a bad idea in my opinion. Joe can't shoot now, so giving them a 500% increase in recoil doesn't seem like a great idea. They better start worrying about issuing them shotguns with a load of 3-1/2" tungsten #2 to shoot down drones. That seems to be the current immediate battlefield threat. Next, they can start teaching them to knife fight so they don't end up going viral for getting stabbed to death by a man with a helmet mounted go pro.
 
#12
I think it makes sense to design from scratch. Unconstrained. I don't know what the Goldilocks cartridge is. I used to think 6 Grendel was it back in 2009'ish but these days I think there is a better design waiting to be designed.

I think 6 ARC is a trend currently. People like to compare it with other cartridges in it's best possible boutique configuration. 105's at 2900 with Lever revolution or something and then they settle on 90gr bullets in 14.5" going 2550 or something. When you compare a 224 in a 77gr bullet at 2600 vs a 243 in a 85gr bullet going 2700 is there a huge leap forward in capability? Not really imo. I also don't think a large frame cartridge is going to work in the long run for an industrial standard across the board for massive formations of infantry. There's just too many small people out there.

And I think we really need to focus on defeating armour at range. That's just my personal opinion. As far as I know that's velocity, precision, and bullet construction.

Whatever it ends up being, it's not going to happen without the help of a company that has a pretty large and impressive capacity for development. Manufacturing and development infrastructure is an extremely important war time factor that you need to create prior to conflict. Building manufacturing capacity in a country that can be quickly rolled over to make inexpensive one way attack drones during war is an example of how you build national resilience to external threats. If we were to pick a company to iterate and develop with, it seems like SIG is a company that has capacity.
 
#13
At the end of the day, in a modern infantry company, 240B's kill people, apaches kill people, vehicle mounted crew serves kill people, indirect kills people, and rarely but sometimes, small arms fire kills people. Mostly they are just making noise and spending money while laying scunion. I gather from your responses that you understand this. This is why I really don't see the need to give everyone something bigger than .223. Expand the ddm numbers in m-tow in long range engagements are more realistic, and fit them with great equipment and train them correctly. M14 ebr's weren't the worst idea, but there are far better options out there. But largely, giving Joe a more lethal round at the cost of diminished ammo carrying capacity is completely illogical if you understand what's actually happening out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic user
#14
Sure. Combined arms warfare is the bigger picture. There's a lot more impactful systems at play, agree with you there. But I don't think any of that negates the prudence of developing the next generation of rifle. Someone is going to do it. Do you want to be the small group of paratrooper out there on the fringe in a comms denied environment without the ability to leverage all those other assets knowing you're outgunned? at the basic rifle level?

I agree, it can't come at the cost of basic combat load. It's a tough problem to solve. And the one who does, wins. And that's what America does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hecouldgoalltheway
#15
The Marines are on to something with a 416 based individual weapon with suppressor. What can be done with powder and bullet design to get the leathality increase within reason? The M250 gets me all warm in the jiggly bits for a 240L replacement, and two more to each squad is a lot of damm firepower.
 
#17
I'm just a guy who enjoys shooting and training, I've never been in the military. That said, this Sig rifle seems to miss the mark on so many obvious levels.

Not to mention the very significant increase in weight and reduced ammunition both in the rifle and in the soldier's loadout, the other problems are equally glaring to me.

This rifle is touted as having increased range, but every test I've seen shows that it is significantly less precise than some of the more modern M4 derivatives such as the URGI and even the block 2.

What good is having a hot rod cartridge if it is shooting 4 MOA? The poor accuracy more than offsets the increased effective range. It kind of makes the Uber expensive Vortex optic a waste as well.

If I was running the ship and I insisted on a cartridge with greater range, the 6 ARC or 6 Max seems like the obvious solution. Same small frame AR platform, same manual of arms, not much more recoil, not giving up much in terms of magazine capacity, and a significant increase in effective range.

Personally, a Geissele URGI with 77 grain mk262 and a Vortex Razor 1-6 or Nightforce NX8 1-8x would be my choice as the standard service weapon and ammunition.

But again, I'm just some guy in the woods who likes to shoot.

I'd be willing to bet my house that someone at the DOD is personally benefiting from the decision switch to that POS rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyTheTiger
#19
Hecouldgoalltheway said:
At the end of the day, in a modern infantry company, 240B's kill people, apaches kill people, vehicle mounted crew serves kill people, indirect kills people, and rarely but sometimes, small arms fire kills people. Mostly they are just making noise and spending money while laying scunion. I gather from your responses that you understand this. This is why I really don't see the need to give everyone something bigger than .223. Expand the ddm numbers in m-tow in long range engagements are more realistic, and fit them with great equipment and train them correctly. M14 ebr's weren't the worst idea, but there are far better options out there. But largely, giving Joe a more lethal round at the cost of diminished ammo carrying capacity is completely illogical if you understand what's actually happening out there.
Click to expand...
This is true, but our acquisition process requires too many civilians and officers, and not enough trained, competent E5's and E6's. When they start using people that are too high up in the chain, they start to lose sight of 'whats goin on out there'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hecouldgoalltheway
#21
Small arms don't produce battlefield casualties. They are personal defense weapons for maneuver units that bear down HE. Worrying about penetrating armor is retarded when you can just kill them with overpressure and you don't need a sharpshooter to do it. Reduce weight, add HE and EW is the future. Add more indirect fire, NLOS type systems, cheaper and more plentifully armed drones. Add a Carl G or two to each squad. Bring back squad knee mortars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
Replies
126
Views
7K
Charcoal Victorious Alp
C
U
Marburg is coming!
Replies
53
Views
3K
AK264
A
sirhrmechanic
Just thought this merited a re-post... A bit late, but, hey. Worth the read.
Replies
41
Views
3K
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
B
Lessons Learned from a beginners perspective
Replies
20
Views
2K
91Eunozs
91Eunozs
lonegunman762x51
Taking a cruise with a$$holes.........................
Replies
129
Views
8K
Big Phish
Big Phish
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts