Criticisms of the Military’s XM7 Rifle Spill Into the Open

When it comes to those of us who choose our own rifles, it’s possible to get the “perfect” gun. We each have our own wants, needs, and and preferences we can accommodate. Only the thickness of our wallets limit how satisfied we can ultimately be. Hunters, target shooters, people defending their families, and many law enforcement officers can pick the platform, choose the caliber, and select the accessories that will ride on it.

But the United States Army doesn’t get to do that. No matter how many wants and needs the military may specify in its procurement process, they still need to come up with a “one size fits most” solution. Sure, every soldier could theoretically build their own rifle that fits their tastes and the needs of their particular job, but that would make things far too expensive and complicated logistically. Worse, the military has to be prepared to go up against the mass manufacturing power of China, so volume has to be an important consideration, too.

The military’s answer in its search for a next generation rifle has been the XM7. Unlike the intermediate cartridge M16 and M4 rifles, the plan this time was to pack in a lot more pep, even at the cost of how much ammunition a given soldier can carry into the fight. That decision has, of course, led to inevitable comparisons with the M14 rifle, and virtual barrels of digital ink have been spilled criticizing the philosophy of battle rifles versus the intermediate-cartridge rifles virtually every military has shifted to since World War II.

But, despite widespread criticism, the Army has gone all-in on defending the brass’s choice of the XM7. The first soldiers to experiment with the weapon, we’ve been told, gave it glowing reviews. Then, subsequent units that picked it up had nothing but good to say about it. This led public opinion to waver a bit. Maybe the brass was right if all of the grunts love it…right?

It turns out that (as is often the case) we may not have been told the whole story. This video by Cappy Army goes into great detail on what the public and lawmakers were told about the XM7 versus what was actually said when soldiers were handed a copy of the rifle.

In short, the soldiers weren’t big fans. The rifle certainly has some upsides, and legitimate praise for it was passed on to the public. But, when anyone had something negative to say about the gun, that part got left out of press releases, reports, and other materials the public was given. As happens these days, many soldiers then took their unedited and uncensored feedback online, while a few more stubborn and brave officers decided to push against the chain of command to look at both the good and the bad.

The video itself is worth watching, but in a nutshell, it’s a mix of “the M14 haters were right,” technical problems with the gun (sloppy accuracy, jams, cases coming apart), and problems with overheating cans and faulty “smart” optics. Worst of all, feature bloat has led to the weapon weighing several pounds more than the old M14 ever did. There’s more recoil and reduced barrel life. And then there’s the fact that soldiers can only carry about two-thirds as many rounds into combat as they can for an M16/M4.

When faced with a captain’s report detailing these criticisms and calling the rifle “unfit” for its intended use, SIG SAUER said that he wasn’t close enough to the program and its goals to understand it. The company also made it clear that the rifle’s development isn’t yet fully complete, and that problems will still be resolved.

Again, it’s very much worth reading about the issues and responses to them in depth and watching the video above. I’m just scratching the surface here.

Solutions

On top of what’s being said about the rifle at this stage in development, it’s also important to note that discussion of possible improvements is also well underway. Even the program’s most ardent critics aren’t saying it should be canceled entirely.

For one, it’s well known that it wasn’t just the M14 that had issues. When the venerable M16 was first introduced, it had serious problems that had to be resolved. And just as now, the military didn’t want to acknowledge them or let the public or Congress know about it. This, of course, led to a lot of anger over the “Mattel gun” and deaths associated with its early failures. To this day, there are people who don’t trust the M16 or AR platform rifles based on those early issues which have long since been resolved.

In other words, we’ve been here before, and any mechanical problems can and will very likely be resolved. Doing much about the rifle’s weight and the reduced number of rounds a soldier can carry for it, however, is another story.

One thing that could salvage the program is refocusing and rescoping it. Even if it’s ultimately determined that the 6.8x51mm is too much for a general use rifle in close combat situations, it could still make a very good designated marksman weapon. Or it could land somewhere between those roles.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that we’ll see the XM7 go away. Many of its biggest civilian detractors would love to see that, but informed and reasonable critics see room for both improvement and perhaps finding a better niche for the rifle to serve in.