A Critique of the XM-7

A recent video from Modern Tactical Shooting covers a few topics, but at the 9:40 mark takes up some recent criticisms of the XM-7 rifle by an Army captain that has had an opportunity to observe its use in live fire testing. Not surprisingly, the weapon was exactly what was predicted by many: too heavy (both the weapon and the ammo) for combat use; and, as some predicted, the high pressure load resulted in significant throat erosion. According to the Army captain cited in the video, barrels are wearing out after about 2,000 rounds. Even the long range capabilities of the weapon are questionable, not because it is not capable of engaging targets at longer ranges, but as the video points out, the lessons from Ukraine is that troops are waiting until enemy troops are within 150 yards before engaging them because, otherwise, the Russian troops will simply take cover and call in artillery fire. The video concludes that the XM-7 may work fine as a designated marksman rifle, but not as a combat rifle for front-line troops. 

VIDEO: "Sig P320 issues, my thoughts on GBRS response, and the Sig M7 failing with the Army".
Modern Tactical Shooting (20 min.)

The article cited in the video is "Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As 'Unfit,' Sig Sauer Says Otherwise" at the War Zone. From the lede:

Army Capt. Braden Trent has caused something of a stir this week, saying that data he has collected points to his service’s new 6.8x51mm XM7 service rifle suffering from serious reliability and other issues, including excessive barrel wear and regular breakages of key components. He claims, based in part on observations of live-fire exercises involving XM7-armed soldiers, that these problems, together with a host of other factors, make the gun “unfit” for its intended purpose. The gun’s manufacturer, Sig Sauer, has strenuously pushed back on Trent’s assertions and outright denied a number of them.  

Trent initially notes that the total combat weight is 8.5 lbs. for the M4 versus 15.4 lbs. for the XM-7 (with total combat weight being "the weight of the weapon, along with a loaded magazine and any accessories that would be expected to be issued to soldiers receiving the system”. As a result of the higher pressure, Trent had observed cartridge cases tearing apart and "gouges" inside the barrel forming after approximately 2,000 rounds. The side charging handle, he indicates, is too close to the face to be used effectively, particularly when shooting prone. He also noted problem with the suppressor mounting system including catastrophic disassembly, that the ambidextrous magazine release is too easy to hit and inadvertently release the magazine. Combined with the weight, Trent also faulted the bulk, increased recoil, and reduced magazine capacity as reasons that the weapon is not suitable for combat.

    ... He also argued that evidence continues to show that the majority of infantry engagements occur at ranges of 300 meters or less, negating the increased effective range and improved terminal ballistic performance that the Army has cited as core reasons for adopting the new 6.8x51mm service rifle.

    “I was able to observe … a combined arms live fire exercise, or company live fire for those who aren’t familiar,” Trent explained. “The platoon I was tasked with observing was tasked to suppress the objective for the other two platoons of that company to then maneuver and provide effects on the battlefield.”

    “Within 10 minutes, the platoon I observed was almost completely out of ammunition after starting the engagement. By 15 minutes, their ability to produce effective suppression had become almost zero,” he continued. “This is after having taken spare magazines for the XM7 from radio operators, medics, platoon leadership, etc.”

The article includes Sig's rebuttal to most of the points raised by Trent as well as some comments from the Army indicating that it did not have any reports of some of the failures witnessed by Trent and that the troops that had used the weapon really liked the side-charging handle. (See also this video, "Is The Army's XM7 Unfit For Service?" which provides a more detailed summary of the article if you prefer that to reading the article. Administrative Results also has a thoughtful video on the pros and cons of the XM-7 system and opining that the electronic scope will be the biggest winner).

     I would note that every new rifle introduced into the military is often accompanied by criticism, sometimes valid and sometimes not. For instance, the adoption of the M1 Garand was opposed at the time by many "experts" (although they later recanted). And the hatred of the M16 in some circles was legendary and persists to this day (although today it is mostly focused on the cartridge). Perhaps, like with the M1 Garand, the naysayers of the XM-7 will be proven wrong. Or perhaps the XM-7 will beat the M-14 as the shortest lived infantry rifle.