The new POS rifle for the Army

[Inspector44]

When the rifle first came out there were glowing propaganda reports about what a fine weapon it was... This latest report reminds me of the M-16 issued to the troops in Vietnam which at first was also a POS that got our troops killed. It is a heavy weapon which means it is slow on target and the suppressor after a few 100 rounds washes out your night vision goggles due to heat glow.
[Video: https://youtu.be/hTqZZMeb7w0]

As a former aircraft maintainer for the Navy and civilian service, I understand my knowledge on this subject is limited but I never understood the need to field weapons and weapon platforms whose ammo type vary wildly from both other branch's platforms and the enemy's. Spare parts was always my issue. If every platform was the same, then maintenance of and procurement of parts would be a breeze. I know for a fact ammo runs out in large battles and its hard replenishing troops so I just think it would be handy to be able to pick the enemy's ammo up and be able to use it (not like a video game), or hell, even the ammo of another soldier in a different branch. Now we have .556, 9mm, 40mm, 45, 6.8 Creedmoor, .308, and probably two or three more all out there having to be made and stored. I think it would be simple to develop a weapon platform (rifle and sidearm) that chamber the same round for all members in all branches including NATO.

[727Sky]

More info on the rifle

[727Sky]

Real world deployment

[LordVoraxx]

I agree with you about the M16. The abandonment of the 7.62 round was a grave mistake as well. The Russians didn't make that mistake either.

The Soviets actually did go to a smaller round - the 5.45x39mm, AK-74. But I don’t believe they fully got rid of the 7.62x39mm round as a battle rifle round, like we did (we only use 7.62x51mm NATO for the M60 machine gun and for sniper rifle use (with a 168-gr. Match round).

[MalevolentTwitch]

The Soviets actually did go to a smaller round - the 5.45x39mm, AK-74. But I don’t believe they fully got rid of the 7.62x39mm round as a battle rifle round, like we did (we only use 7.62x51mm NATO for the M60 machine gun and for sniper rifle use (with a 168-gr. Match round).

…and the 240B, M134, various designated marksmen rifles, etc…

But I digress, the primary trouble I’m having with M7, and the M250(?), is that the whole thing comes across to me as a multi-billion dollar boondoggle solution for a question that only the Good Idea Fairy ever asks.

Yes, I will admit the 6.8x51mm (.277 Fury) is really neat and I have always been a fan of the "Higher Velocity = More Better" approach to most things. That being said, from my perspective, when it comes to combat equipment, "Good Enough is Fucking Perfect." I will also admit that I'm a little biased. I loved my M4. It was light enough, accurate enough... If I ran it wet (I was constantly requesting gun lube care packages from home...), all I ever had to do was wipe it down. It ran flawlessly... Was it a little underpowered? Sure. Who cares though? Leave the whole One Shot = One Kill for motivational posters and T-shirts. The average grunt is going to be putting multiple rounds downrange per target anyway so ammunition capacity is far more important than single shot lethality. And the ammo weighs more, FAR more than most want to admit. If I'm looking at this correctly, each single round of .277 Fury is nearly 3x heavier than 5.56... So, in order to maintain the same combat longevity without resupply, that means heavier magazines, more magazines carried, etc...

As far as rifle weight? Look, in my personal case? In peak condition, nearly 20 years ago? I was still only roughly 140 lbs soaking wet. I'm still the definition of scrawny white meat... Think about it like this.. The M7, rifle only, already weighs 2 more pounds than the M4... Loaded and kit'd out with optic and suppressor... That skyrockets to roughly 15 lbs... More than 1/10 of what my naked ass weighs... And you want someone like me to transition from cover to cover and target to target as quickly as I could with my M4?!? 

This is further compounded by the fact that most modern combat happens at less than 150 meters. Hell, even in WW2, the average engagement distance was still under 200 meters, and WW1 was mostly inside of 250... This can very rapidly pull me into a survivability bias rant but I'll save you all from most of that for now. Instead, I just want to focus on the need to be most effective in the most common situations... Yes, I get it. Every soldier is a rifleman. But not every rifleman is a sniper. The focus should be on maximizing effectiveness inside of 250 meters at the most. That means smaller, lighter, and more agile rifles, not bigger and bulkier. And don't even get me started on optic weight and how much that can fuck with rifle balance. We'll be here all day...

Next issue... For now... Let's say PorkChop is right, and the average grunt doesn't get the magically spicy rounds for everyday field use. Not only does that take away the main selling point of the M7, but it also creates a secondary issue.... Every time you switch between the 2? You're going to have to re-zero the rifle. Which means more time fixing a problem that doesn't need to exist, and less time either training or handling a problem that's going to exist either way.

I apologize for the rant, and I'm sure most of that was already covered in the videos posted... I've just really needed to get that off my chest for a while now...

Edit note: I really need to start proofreading again.

[FlyersFan]

All I know is that when I was in the Army I had an M16.
First thing I noticed upon being issued it was that it felt like a toy.
Very light weight.
I was a lousy shot.
I don't think a change of weapons would have helped me out.
I can't shoot for anything ....

[MalevolentTwitch]

All I know is that when I was in the Army I had an M16.
First thing I noticed upon being issued it was that it felt like a toy.
Very light weight.
I was a lousy shot.
I don't think a change of weapons would have helped me out.
I can't shoot for anything ....

We ever met in person, I promise to take you shooting. I'm pretty good at "delousing" that kind of thing.

[FlyersFan]

We ever met in person, I promise to take you shooting. I'm pretty good at "delousing" that kind of thing.

I dunno.  The other female soldiers called me Private Benjamin.  And it kinda fit.  (except for the 'rich' part).  

[MalevolentTwitch]

I dunno.  The other female soldiers called me Private Benjamin.  And it kinda fit.  (except for the 'rich' part).  

Hey. Look.. Not to get off topic here but my bros dubbed me "Crepes".... All because a certain brother in my unit called me it one day. Everyone just stared at him... So he says, "I'd've called him "Pancake" cuz he's short but stacked... Only, he ain't stacked." And the name kind of stuck.

[Sky727]

The Army pulled its new M7 rifle, the one replacing the M4, from independent testing under the Director, Operational Test And Evaluation, or DOT&E. (Yes, I say it wrong every single time in the video. I don’t know why in my head it is ODT&E.) Anyway, the decision to pull the weapon before it completes testing in a tropical environment has some concerned. But maybe the rifle is ready to go and the negative feedback is isolated or outdated. The Army will still conduct testing, so it isn’t like they’re just saying all is well, but removing a layer of relatively unbiased feedback doesn’t inspire confidence. In this video, we discuss what led the Army to this decision, why it might be a mistake, or why it could be a way to reduce unnecessary red tape and get a good weapon into soldier’s hands sooner.

Intro - 00:00-01:10 Ad read - 01:10-02:36 What is the M7? - 02:36-05:13 Removed from oversight - 05:13-07:11 What is DOT&E - 07:11-10:56 The Army’s take - 10:56-13:04 Why this matters - 13:04-End