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

Trendy Digest ^ | 3/7/24 | Emma Talyor

[MAGA2017]

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.

[redcatcherb412]

Had no problem shooting expert with an M14 in ‘66 and the M16 in ‘67, but my love of that times was and always will be the M14. Would love to try the XM, but surely it will stay out of civvie hands for a bit.

[353FMG]

That becomes some expensive hog hunting.

[Jim W N]

what does all the DEI BS have to do with a new weapon for the military?

What does DEI BS ("Didn't Earn It B#ll Sh#t") have to do with any industry, institution, or organization? It necessarily weakens it by FORCING the unqualified to be accepted into positions whereby incompetence could be dangerous and even deadly.

Truth and inevitable results disrupts Woke thinking.

[Charles Martel]

Chambered in 7.62x51, around $4200.

Pricey for an AR-10 with pic rails. Seems like we've circled back to the .280/30 cartridge that NATO (well, the Brits) wanted to begin with.

[DesertRhino]

Because they are universally extra heavy and blocky IMO. But if the SEALS touch something once... it’s assumed to be the bomb forever and can do no wrong.

Euro guns are all inferior to American. WE are the nation of gunfighting on this planet. Going to Europe for a gun is like going to India for cars.

Next week I will discuss the Glock triggers that feel like a Harbor freight staple gun.

[DesertRhino]

“Seems odd and out of place.”

I am often told that about me also.

[Gay State Conservative]

Nope...I not special at all. I was a 71 Hotel (Personnel Specialist) who qualified in BCT and didn’t touch a firearm again.IOW I knew almost noting about firearms then and know almost nothing today. And I guess my use of the word “clip” proves that.

[AndyTheBear]

No, he is right. Prove him wrong of you don’t agree.

His only assertion was that he lacked trust in certain groups of people. Who am I to judge whether he was honest about lacking such trust? Obviously what he said was extremely uncharitable and inconsistent with Christ's example and obviously that was what I was commenting about.

But let us say, I was actually disagreeing with some fact that he had put forward while you agreed with it. Why do you feel I ought to have the burden of proof and not you nor him? Would be kind of a double standard huh?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

If a civie version makes the liberals loose bladder control I WANT ONE! MAKE THAT TWO!

[T.B. Yoits]

Going to Europe for a gun is like going to India for cars.

The FN FAL has entered the chat.

[Paal Gulli]

"And still requires forward assist!"

No gun ever "required" a forward assist. The addition of one to the AR-15 was an engineering abortion. Stoner put a dished area on the bolt carrier that gave enough purchase to put a finger on and push to confirm the bolt was fully in battery. The forward assist applies excessive pressure that's likely to cause more problems than it cures, potentially buckling the cartridge case and putting the user in an even bigger bind than he originally had. If you can't get it into battery with finger pressure, you need to take it apart and figure out why.

[Paal Gulli]

The Army has been wanting something in the .25 to .28 caliber range since the end of WWI, and now they're getting it, but not for the same reasons they used a hundred years ago.

The U.S. Army Ordnance Department hired John Pedersen to work at the Springfield Armory in 1923. This made him the proverbial "fly on the wall" to Big Army's plans to replace the basic issue bolt action rifles with something semi-auto.

They wanted something in the 8-lb. range and at that time no one was building a .30-cal semi-auto (with military durability) that was under 10 lbs. And they also conceded that the .30-06 Springfield was too much gun for a battle rifle, so they set the target caliber for it's replacement at 25-28 cal.

I know that last sentence made some of ya'lls blood pressure spike but it's true.

The Ought-Three Springfield's sights were calibrated to 2850 yards (see proof above). That's 1.6 miles, sports fans. How many shots would you reckon were taken at a target at a distance of 1.6 miles in the whole of the First World War? Not how many hits were made, just how many shots fired. Considering the unlikelihood of being able to identify something that needs being shot at that distance, I'd bet it wasn't very many.

The majority of soldiers (in any army) were having a good day if they could hit an enemy combatant on the move (and who stands still when they're being shot at?) at 300 yards when firing off-hand. Yet the common soldier and Army Ordnance both were paying for the .30-06's extreme capabilities every time they fired a round or shouldered their rifle or shipped a case of cartridges.

And proof that the marksman who could make use of the 2800-yard sights was as rare as a hobbyhorse turd was the sights on the M1903A3, the USMC's battle rifle at the start of WWII:

They're calibrated to 800 yards. And that's the Marines, who take well more pride in their marksmanship than any other service. Even they agreed that those last 2000 yards of the M1903's sight calibration were of no practical use.

But back to John Pedersen. Based on what was going on around him, he designed the .276 Pedersen cartridge. It was 25% lighter, generated 30% less heat (a critical concern in the change to semi-auto) and produced 1/2 as much recoil impulse as the .30-06 Springfield cartridge. And testing showed the .276 had "adequate lethality" at typical battlefield ranges.

In fact the 1928 pig tests and the 1930 goat tests both showed the Pedersen had better terminal ballistics at 300 yards but the '06 was better at 1000. And which do you reckon is nearer to the range the average battlefield shot is taken at?

Enginnering is the science of compromise, and the compromises that came with the .276 Pedersen were simply easier to live with. The .30-06's additional range ... and additional cartridge weight ... and additional heat ... and additional recoil ... were more burden than advantage.

In July of 1929, Army Ordnance accepted six submissions for their semi-automatic battle rifle competition. Early testing eliminated all but two, the Pedersen rifle and the T3 Garand. Both were chambered in .276 Pedersen.

It was only after the Garand was selected by Army Ordnance (and rechristened the "M1") that Secretary of the Army Douglas MacArthur decreed that the new rifle would have to be chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge because they still had 3 billion rounds of the stuff lying around in warehouses.

So that's how the M1 Garand got to be a .30-06. Not because it was the best round for the job (which in fact was not the case) but because we'd made too much of the stuff in WWI.

The reason for the new 6.8x51 cartridge is the Army decided it needed a future-proof rifle which, among other things, means it can defeat body armor. Not soft armor, the real deal, the hard protective inserts. They were never going to get the momentum they needed from a 5.56, and Army Ordnance decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No more Armalite Rifle. And for good or ill, Sig convinced them they could meet their objectives with a 135-grain .28-caliber bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps, but it would take 80,000 psi to get there (from a 16" barrel).

Just a couple of weeks ago a YouTube gun VLogger interviewed a Sig rep at a gun show in Utah (I forget which show and I've lost the link). The Sig rep admitted that they've already had to back off on the chamber pressure from 80,000 psi to just 70k, citing "accuracy problems."

I was a little suspicious of that claim and found other sources that said the "accuracy problem" was in fact bullets being deformed by the extreme pressure. Which means the Sig rep was soft-selling the problem and blowing smoke up the world's skirt.

Why is it they're only now discovering this problem? And why are the putting it down to "accuracy?" The obvious answer to that question is, SIG-Sauer didn't do adequate and/or proper testing. Because there's no doubt they could have engineered a bullet that would have withstood the 80K, but they failed to do due diligence, and now they're caught with their pants down.

But the loss of 10,000 psi isn't all bad, since it will increase barrel life. And of you've ever loaded for a hot-rod cartridge, like the .22-250 or .223 WSSM, you know those final few thousand psi take an entirely unreasonable amount of gunpowder to get. But what will the loss do to its ballistics?

Questions like that is exactly why I have QuickLoad internal ballistics simulation software. What I don't have is the cartridge data for either the 6.8x51 or the .277 Fury, so I substituted the .284 Winchester and the 7mm WSM. And I can get away with 80,000 psi in either of them because it's 'only' a simulation.

This will only produce ballpark figures because I used all generic settings and dimensions, but it's close enough to start an argument with.

I ran Varget powder in both simulations an increased the charge weight to produce 80,000 PSI using a 140-grain Berger VLD bullet. Then I reduced the charge weight to get 70k. And noted the differences in muzzle velocities using a 16" barrel. In both cases, the .284 and the 7mm, velocity was reduced by about 120 fps. So that last 10,000 psi gets you a measly 120 fps.

Then I transferred that data to QuickTarget to see the difference 120 fps made to trajectory. At 1000 yards there's about five inches more drop (0.48 MOA), and the time of flight is 0.07 secs longer. In both cases, pretty insignificant.

Dunno what impact that 120 fps has on DoD's armor penetration requirements but if I were them I'd be BLISTERING mad that Sig had done such slipshod R&D to the effect of selling me a product that only achieves 87.5% of its advertised (pressure) performance.

There's no doubt we need to be ready to put down bad guys in body armor. And I think something in the 28-cal range is still a better compromise. But the whole SIG-Sauer thing, from the steel-headed cartridge casing to the botched bullet selection, leaves me wishing someone would clone Eugene Stoner. Or if that's not an option, turn it over to Chris Barrett and let him figure out the right way to do it.

[Paal Gulli]

Did you ever wonder why the M1's en bloc clip held eight rounds? Why not 10, since that was the maximum capacity prescribed in Army Ordnance's specifications?

It was because the cavity in the gunstock was sized for 10 rounds ... of .276 Pedersen. Garand decided to change as little as possible but he could only get an 8-round stripper clip of .30-06 cartridges into the hole intended for 10 rounds of .276 Pedersen.

[kawhill]

Darn man, I thought I was the only freak of nature who studied that kind of data! I didn’t mean about you, I meant about me. Regards.

[ZULU]

Why a GERMAN rifle? No American product available???

[cdnerds]

Well if you're referring to DEI hires then yes I 100% agree. However, I have met many of my fathers friends from Vietnam and they are real patriots, many of which were black. I think some of these DEI hires need to go to the front lines and see some shit - might change them. Just not too many, I actually want to win the battle. lol

[dfwgator]

As Chris Rock said, there’s a civil war going on between black people, and there are two sides: black people and n_____s.

[Lurker]

“Next week I will discuss the Glock triggers that feel like a Harbor freight staple gun.”

Very apt. I’m used to shooting a mid range Kimber 1911. I checked out a Gen 5 Glock 17 at the gun store last week. Your description of the trigger is spot on.

L

[Reverend Wright]

Galvanic corrosion was my first thought.

The chamber pressure exceeds the yield strength of brass which is why it has a stainless steel base.

The stainless parts for initial production are individually machined. Hence the estimated 10X price increase over current military 5.56

In order to deal with ammunition cost, as well as barrel wear, they are creating a lower pressure all-brass case training ammunition.

Which has a different aiming point. So they have a switchable optic for the two ammunition types.

No problem getting that right under battlefield stress/s

[Celtic Conservative]

I will be suprised if this thing will be widely issued. Due to cost, ammo logistics and extra weight I see it being issued only to specialist units.

CC