Article Link! Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise

[Racer88]

Ay, ay, ay... it sounds like the new Sig service rifle is a piece of shit and will be a liability to our troops in MANY ways.

I believe the Army Captain over Sig's rebuttals.

How does this happen?!?? Comments?

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

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

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Ay, ay, ay... it sounds like the new Sig service rifle is a piece of shit and will be a liability to our troops in MANY ways.

I believe the Army Captain over Sig's rebuttals.

How does this happen?!?? Comments?

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

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

Please. Who the fuck is this guy. This looks like clickbait to me.

Same bullshit with the intro of the Beretta M9 and the AR replacing the M14. And of course the Sig M17 and M18 (P320) replacing the M9.

This dude has zero cred. ROTC guy with a degree in communications (WTF) from Tennessee State, earned his commission in 2020. Never.Seen.Combat. Stationed in Italy after receiving his commission. Which we know is a hot bed of modern warfare. So he's an expert on infantry weapons.

This guy just tanked his career as an Army officer. Maybe he's looking for a ticket home. He's going to get one for not staying in his lane and running his mouth.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

He will henceforth be known as Captain Reddit.

 

[Racer88]

Please. Who the fuck is this guy. This looks like clickbait to me.

Same bullshit with the intro of the Beretta M9 and the AR replacing the M14. And of course the Sig M17 and M18 (P320) replacing the M9.

This dude has zero cred. ROTC guy with a degree in communications (WTF) from Tennessee State, earned his commission in 2020. Never.Seen.Combat. Stationed in Italy after receiving his commission. Which we know is a hot bed of modern warfare. So he's an expert on infantry weapons.

This guy just tanked his career as an Army officer. Maybe he's looking for a ticket home. He's going to get one for not staying in his lane and running his mouth.

It appears it was a project while attending Expeditionary Warfare School. What does combat experience have to do with determining that the barrel showed excessive wear after only 2000 rounds? Just one example of one SIGNIFICANT problem. What does combat experience have to do with multiple charging handles breaking during field exercises?? And Sig says, "They pulled them too hard???" Puhleeze.

It's a damned good thing these problems are discovered BEFORE combat experience, eh?

Who got the kickbacks for this contract?!??

Maybe he's full of shit. Maybe not. Maybe we need another independent test of this rifle.

Who has a vested interest in this rifle (and contract) being approved?? Not the lowly Captain, that's for sure.

You trust Sig more. You trust a flag officer or senator more, perhaps. I trust an O-3 Marine more. Way more. And combat experience has NOTHING to do with the ability to field-test a rifle and determining whether it can hold up to EVEN THAT. If it doesn't hold up to field testing, it sure as fuck won't hold up in combat. The O-3 will be in that combat, not the O-7 or Senator or CEO of Sig involved in approving this piece of shit. Something stinks.

 

[terraform]

…Same bullshit with the intro of the Beretta M9 and the AR replacing the M14. And of course the Sig M17 and M18 (P320) replacing the M9.

My understanding was that the early ARs had some objectively fatal issues exposed in Vietnam. Some of it was because of government corruption and not the original AR spec itself, sure, but still not a good situation. Was I misinformed In that regards?

 

[no4mk1t]

My understanding was that the early ARs had some objectively fatal issues exposed in Vietnam. Some of it was because of government corruption and not the original AR spec itself, sure, but still not a good situation. Was I misinformed In that regards?

Like any new weapons system, there are teething pains that must be discovered and rectified. Every US infantry rifle in the 20th Century experienced this, the AR15/M16 was no different. The AR had plenty of detractors in the system back in the 50's and 60's. Old dry Ordnance officers that thought a proper rifle can only be made from iron and wood, and not plastic and aluminum. Insisted on features they thought were essential, but were last war thinking instead of next war thinking.

The early AR's as deployed to Vietnam had a few flaws, none of which had to do with the basic design of the weapon.

1. Early rifles did not have chromed lined bores. This had predictable results when used in the jungle. Why is a good question as the M14 had a chrome bore, so why didn't the AR?

2. Early rifles had no cleaning kits in the butt stock. Troops were told the rifle didn't need as frequent cleaning like the M14.

3. The military switched from extruded powder that the AR was designed to function with, to Ball powder and added an excessive amount of calcium carbonate as a stabilizer to the powder when 1/10 the amount would have sufficed. This led to deposits in the gas tube that caused the weapon to stop cycling after a few thousand rounds. Once this issue was rectified, the problem went away.

The AR design has been in service longer than any US service rifle in history. It has undergone continuous improvement that entire time. Any contender being looked at to replace the AR has much to prove. And of course, it will have its own teething pains and issues to be corrected.

If you really want to read all the curious facts about the early days of the AR, get this book, it has details you've never heard before.
There is also a Black Rifle II book about the current variants.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

My understanding was that the early ARs had some objectively fatal issues exposed in Vietnam. Some of it was because of government corruption and not the original AR spec itself, sure, but still not a good situation. Was I misinformed In that regards?

Government/DOD making bad decisions on designs? Sure. Same thing happened with the HiPower. Or the Bradley. A thousand other things I'm sure.

New weapons always go thru an evolution/refinement. And yes, governments can fuck anything up. And usually do.

The legend goes that the early M16 rifles were deemed defective. The claim was a spent cartridge would become lodged in the chamber after the weapon was fired. An FTE. Soldiers had to push a metal rod down the muzzle to remove the cartridge. Obviously bad in a combat situation.

It was later discovered that the jamming was the result of the switch to ball powder, which was done to increase the muzzle velocity. Not a defect in the gun itself. There were a lot of people howling about the gun being a POS. Turned out to be false. I'm sure there are some who will insist to this day the M14 was better.

My two brothers were in VN and neither claimed issues with their rifle. That was mid-late 60's. That's a sample of two of course. Not an indicator of a trend.

Another revelation that sprang from an investigation of the M16 was soldiers were not trained properly in the cleaning/maintenance of an AR when it was introduced. Which also impacted reliability.

Some LEOs who carried revolvers hated semi autos. Semi auto shotguns were not warmly embraced at first (also a Browning invention). Pissing and moaning is par for the course with guns. The ultimate object of fanboy-ism.

Regarding the AR... history speaks for itself. Arguably the most successful and popular rifle in the world. Along with the AK of course. The debate on which is better is endless. Regarding the OP... if a Russian officer who enlisted yesterday and has no combat experience went rogue and talked to the press about a new Russian rifle not being designed well, he would get a bullet in his head or be sent to the gulag.

 

[Racer88]

Ah, but Sig is denying the problems exist. It would be different if they were at least expressing an interest in investigating and rectifying any issues found.

Instead we disparage the O-3 who is pointing out the problems.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Also what @no4mk1t recommended reading.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Ah, but Sig is denying the problems exist. It would be different if they were at least expressing an interest in investigating and rectifying any issues found.

Instead we disparage the O-3 who is pointing out the problems.

His perception of problems. Plying his degree in communications to determine same.

Who asked him to weigh in, talk to the press, and what is his experience with weapons? Looks like the answers to those questions is nobody and zero.

I would discharge him. There's a Major or Colonel who wants this guys head on a pike right now. Who have a General breathing fire after getting a call from a Sig executive.

I'm sure the young Gen Y officer will get a commendation letter addressed to Captain Helpful, thanking him for his unrequested input.

 

[Racer88]

Plying his degree in communications to determine same.

Ummm... He's a Marine. Every Marine is a rifleman. It's their creed.

Strike that! Sorry. He's Army. But in warfare school, apparently.

Yes... I know the M16 had issues early on. And there remain critics today.

 

[terraform]

Thank you for the in-depth response, @Bongo Lewi and @no4mk1t, and the reading recommendation. Vietnam and adoption of ARs was a couple decades before my time, and I wouldn’t claim to know those facts better than y’all. Definitely agree the AR platform is and was a pretty decent weapons system… I need to post the 2 I’ve built some time, just haven’t gotten around to it yet

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Ummm... He's a Marine. Every Marine is a rifleman. It's their creed.

Strike that! Sorry. He's Army. But in warfare school, apparently.

Yes... I know the M16 had issues early on. And there remain critics today.

The surprising thing is the dude didnt work with the people most involved. This was a college assignment. WTF. He presents his findings which were peer reviewed by no one at a conference for Marines. Weird. Then talks to journalists.

He did not engage Sig or the Army personnel working with Sig on development of this rifle. An 'independent review'? Wow. When does that happen in the Army? I think this guy skipped the ROTC training about keeping your mouth shut until you are asked a question.

The guy running the XM7 show for the Army is Lt. Col. Mark Vidotto, program lead for the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team in Ft. Benning ( aka Moore) in Georgia. Cap'n JustFuckedHisCareer never engaged him. Or Sig experts working on the project.

Apart from all that, some people who are in the know and have real experience have said the new ammo has been somewhat unreliable and the Vortex optic is not what it should be. Totally believable. The new ammo is a hybrid steel/brass case type. Made just for this rifle.

I read a more sensible review written by a crusty NCO in the 101st Airborne. He said the rifle has some issues as does the ammo but they are all fixable and probably will be. He was most negative about the optic. And the silencer mount being breakable. Not a show stopper or hard to fix.

This rifle is a derived from the Sig MCX. I have an MCX in 5.56 and it is a very good quality weapon. I've run it hard (civilian hard not combat hard) and had no issues with the gas system. It's obviously not chambered for this new 6.8×51mm ammo.

 

[no4mk1t]

The legend goes that the early M16 rifles were deemed defective. The claim was a spent cartridge would become lodged in the chamber after the weapon was fired. An FTE. Soldiers had to push a metal rod down the muzzle to remove the cartridge. Obviously bad in a combat situation.

This was a direct result of the gas tube becoming clogged by the calcium carbonate in the Ball powder, and possibly corrosion in the chamber.

It was later discovered that the jamming was the result of the switch to ball powder, which was done to increase the muzzle velocity. Not a defect in the gun itself. There were a lot of people howling about the gun being a POS. Turned out to be false. I'm sure there are some who will insist to this day the M14 was better.

Correct, but there were other reasons as well. The original 28 ArmaLite rifles were chambered in 223 Remington, as 5.56 didn't exist at this time, the cartridge went through an evolutionary process that resulted in what became the 5.56. Stoner designed the rifle around commercial 223 ammo which was loaded at the time with extruded propellant. The military wanted to switch to Ball powder for logistical reasons. They were already using it in M80 7.62 ammo and using it in 5.56 would simplify things for Lake City. And getting Ball powder to flow into a 22 caliber case necks was much easier than extruded on the high speed production equipment. The calcium carbonate didn't have any adverse effects on the weapons firing 7.62, and the fact that it took a few thousand rounds to cause problems in the AR didn't surface until the rifles were deployed in test batches to Vietnam.

The Ball powder caused another issue that didn't affect performance, but this illustrates how the military problem solves.

At the Colt factory, each rifle had to pass a series of inspections and tests before being accepted by the military. Each rifle had to for instance fire a high pressure test cartridge as proof of its integrity. There was an accuracy test. There was also a function test in semi and FA. And there was a ROF test in which the cyclic rate in FA was measured. It had to fall within a certain range.

The rifle was designed to pass this test with extruded powder. All was fine and dandy until the switch to Ball powder. Now the cyclic rate was too high and rifles were failing this test and therefore acceptance. Since this test was only conducted for initial acceptance and nowhere else after leaving the factory, the solution was to recall all the lots of ammo worldwide that were loaded with extruded powder and designate them only for the ROF acceptance test.

Fun fact:
The 5.56 was not standardized by NATO until 1980.

Another revelation that sprang from an investigation of the M16 was soldiers were not trained properly in the cleaning/maintenance of an AR when it was introduced. Which also impacted reliability.

No cleaning equipment was issued with the rifle as with previous rifles. There was no equipment well in the stock for it either on the early rifles.

So, this is what the 28 early protypes looked like. No caliber markings and slick sided magwell. Charging handle just like the AR10. Also note selector markings are not what we are used to seeing today. These rifles would go back to ArmaLite several times as the Army wanted changes made to the design.

Very early Colt example with ArmaLite markings. Note 223 caliber designation and does not say US Property. This was probably a civilian model.

This what the test batches (there was more than one) looked like that were sent to Vietnam for field trials. This is before formal adoption as the M16. The "XM" indicates experimental.

 

[Racer88]

This was a direct result of the gas tube becoming clogged by the calcium carbonate in the Ball powder.

Correct, but there were other reasons as well. The original 28 ArmaLite rifles were chambered in 223 Remington, as 5.56 didn't exist at this time, the cartridge went through an evolutionary process that resulted in what became the 5.56. Stoner designed the rifle around commercial 223 ammo which was loaded at the time with extruded propellant. The military wanted to switch to Ball powder for logistical reasons. They were already using it in M80 7.62 ammo and using it in 5.56 would simplify things for Lake City. And getting Ball powder to flow into a 22 caliber case necks was much easier than extruded on the high speed production equipment. The calcium carbonate didn't have any adverse effects on the weapons firing 7.62, and the fact that it took a few thousand rounds to cause problems in the AR didn't surface until the rifles were deployed in test batches to Vietnam.

The Ball powder caused another issue that didn't affect performance, but this illustrates how the military problem solves.

At the Colt factory, each rifle had to pass a series of inspections and tests before being accepted by the military. Each rifle had to for instance fire a high pressure test cartridge as proof of its integrity. There was an accuracy test. There was also a function test in semi and FA. And there was a ROF test in which the cyclic rate in FA was measured. It had to fall within a certain range.

The rifle was designed to pass this test with extruded powder. All was fine and dandy until the switch to Ball powder. Now the cyclic rate was too high and rifles were failing this test and therefore acceptance. Since this test was only conducted for initial acceptance and nowhere else after leaving the factory, the solution was to recall all the lots of ammo worldwide that were loaded with extruded powder and designate them only for the ROF acceptance test.

Fun fact:
The 5.56 was not standardized by NATO until 1980.


No cleaning equipment was issued with the rifle as with previous rifles. There was no equipment well in the stock for it either on the early rifles.
View attachment 31723

So, this is what the 28 early protypes looked like. No caliber markings and slick sided magwell. Charging handle just like the AR10. Also note selector markings are not what we are used to seeing today. These rifles would go back to ArmaLite several times as the Army wanted changes made to the design.
View attachment 31722

Very early Colt example with ArmaLite markings. Note 223 caliber designation and does not say US Property. This was probably a civilian model.

View attachment 31721

This what the test batches (there was more than one) looked like that were sent to Vietnam for field trials. This is before formal adoption as the M16. The "XM" indicates experimental.
View attachment 31724

Is that #00006 gun yours??? Or some "borrowed photos?"

 

[Bongo Lewi]

I have occasionally pondered getting one of those old school demilled lowers and grafting it to a new one. Probably beyond my welding ability but to have a functional, original Colt or Armalite lower would be cool. I thought about not worrying if it worked and just making a wall hanger. I could probably pull that off.

I still think the early topside charging handle was a good idea.

 

[no4mk1t]

Ole number 6 is in a museum collection. Note the person holding it has gloves on and it has a property tag string in the pic.

Compare the profile of the receiver to a modern AR. There are several differences.

This is one of mine.
Aside from the cool factor, it convinces the unknowing that it is a factory rifle. For the possible encounter with a LEO with a greater sense of authority than knowledge, it will pass as factory with him too.

Everyone overlooks the fact that California uses the old abbreviation. The two letter state abbreviations we all use today did not exist until about 1964. The early Colt pic above has CT abbreviated as Conn. So that rifle was made in the very early 60's.
"Patent Pending" also goes unnoticed.

 

[no4mk1t]

I have occasionally pondered getting one of those old school demilled lowers and grafting it to a new one. Probably beyond my welding ability but to have a functional, original Colt or Armalite lower would be cool. I thought about not worrying if it worked and just making a wall hanger. I could probably pull that off.

There was a company we discussed once before that was making lowers with the early makers markings. You could also do like I did and have a 80% lower laser engraved like you want it.

I still think the early topside charging handle was a good idea.

It reciprocated with the bolt. That was one of the first changes the Army wanted. The later ArmaLite prototypes feature the non-reciprocating CH we are familiar with, just with a more triangular shape.

Like this one.

 

[Racer88]

Note the person holding it has gloves on and it has a property tag string in the pic.

I did notice that, but I did not rule out you having gloves or tags on your collector pieces. I thought it was a long shot, but maybe you're secretly a crime-fighting billionaire who has a cave retreat.

 

[no4mk1t]

I did notice that, but I did not rule out you having gloves or tags on your collector pieces. I thought it was a long shot, but maybe you're secretly a crime-fighting billionaire who has a cave retreat.

I wish.
I have a lot of toys on my bucket list in the event of a Powerball win.