U.S. Army to Introduce XM7 Rifle, Marking the End of the Iconic M16 Series

After over five decades of faithful service, the M16 series, an icon of American military might and a direct descendant of the AR-15 designed by Eugene Stoner will be succeeded by Sig Sauer's advanced XM7 rifle. The M16, first introduced in 1964, has been the most-produced 5.56x45mm weapon, marking a significant chapter in the annals of U.S. military history. The latest variant, the M16A4, known for its three-round burst feature, will soon yield to the cutting-edge design of the XM7, a testament to the relentless pursuit of small arms excellence.

I gave this some thought.

First I saw it as a plus, a calibre that has more punch in the day of body armor, more effective range, and a newer weapon that eliminates of some of the weaknesses of the AR15 platforms.

But on further reflection, it’s the wrong answer.

The one size fits all solution seldom works well.

It fails as camouflage ACU, as a fighter/bomber Tornado, as an all purpose vehicle and as a universal weapon.

Why?

You have mutually exclusive variables.

Think of a car, the traits of an off road utility vehicle are entirely different than a spots car. One sits high, the other low, one has a softer suspension the other stiffer. One wants big wheels and rims that can take a blow the other light and heat dissipating. One wants more torque, the other horsepower...

When it comes to the combat rifle, these mutually exclusive variables can be bundled into two categories.

1. Heavy: penetration, accuracy, range.

2. Light: CQB (buildings, trenches, jungle), target rich environment (quantity of ammo and quick successive shots).

All we did was make sacrifices with weight, size and ammo allotment so that we can maximize the heavy at the expense to the light.

You can’t have it all.

Or can you?

How about we field one lower and two upper receivers with every weapon?

Why is this important?

The idea of having two calibers carried in smaller units is less than ideal. Soldiers need to be able to share ammo. If the threat has a lot of folks with advanced body armor, carry the heavy; if we’re in a jungle and no one has body armor, carry the light.

What I foresee happening is that you’ll end up with 6.8 and 5.56 mixed in a squad and that isn’t ideal.

Given the weight and volume of the new ammo, the recoil, the weight of the new weapon, I can tell you with certainty, if we’re in a Somalia 1993 scenario, even today, I’d prefer the old AR15 over the newer and cooler toy.

Two upper receivers is my suggestion, one in 68 and the other in 556.

Take advantage of new materials, lessons learned and newer designs. But stop trying to pretend you can make a camouflage suit that covers it all, it ain’t gonna happen. A rifle that can cover it all and does well isn’t happening either.

The “science” behind it all wasn’t that refined yet.

They simply took what was already available (off the shelf), and where you could ramp up production, of a very accurate and long range round and made that the caliber.

I hunted bears with 308.

30-06 is total over kill especially since few folks had any body armor back then.

It’s the body armor that is shifting things back to a heavier and higher power round.

Already in 2003, 1/4 of the Iraqi army had simple kevlar style body armor, very few had plates.

Today, if you look at Ukraine, many if not most have plates that’ll stop M80 ball. 68 is obviously geared towards high penetration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.