testtest

New Sig XM7 6.8 gets bad reviews by Army Capt

Does anyone else think it’s bad optics that “supposedly “ the General overseeing the M17 tests after Sig gets it goes to work for Sig and now they get every contract thrown around?

As far as the new rifle not sure why the hoopla they have had the 308 for years and. The one item I did like was the 338 Machine Gun as that does fill ina. Gap from the 7.62 to the 50

And as far as the 320 drama it seems Sig went to crap around 2005 and close to the time their current CEO took over which was later pled guilty to a German court for a felony and apparently spared jail time in key of a 600K fine


www.nhpr.org

SIG Sauer CEO Avoids Jail Time For Role in Illegal Arms Shipment

Court officials in Germany announced Wednesday that Ron Cohen, CEO of Newington-based gun maker SIG Sauer, will avoid jail time for his role in an illegal…
www.nhpr.org www.nhpr.org
 
“The gun’s manufacturer, Sig Sauer, has strenuously pushed back on Trent’s assertions and outright denied a number of them.”

Say it isn’t so! Personally, I’ll take the word of folks actually using the weapons in the field over those testing in a sterile laboratory type setting.

Full disclosure, I dumped all my Sigs (3 - P320 variants, 4 - P365 variants, and one P229 Legion) after they refused to accept responsibility for their unsafe P320.

They HAVE recently changed the P 320 manual to state “The most effective safety is to carry your pistol without a round in the chamber…”, though they still claim it’s a safe platform.

So glad there are LOTS of other choices.

IMG_0433.jpeg
 
that is what modern generals do all the time - it's called the revolving door. No surprise there. Guess we'll see on the rifle(s) and the odd ammo
 
“X” = Experimental!
I remember going through the evaluation fielding of the M249 SAW. The monthlong evaluation was spent on a range complex. We shot thousands of rounds. We did daily written evaluations. The folks that took us through the fielding were very knowledgeable and listened to our concerns.
We got the improved M249 fielding a little over a year later. The issues we had were rectified. The 249 has gone through more changes and improvements over the years.
The Captain didn’t bother to do any real follow up before reaching his conclusion. Sounds like this “First Lieutenant 2nd Award”. Only did half a thesis🪖

​

 
Last edited:
So if it is experimental, don’t you want to hear about the shortcomings. For example the barrel cracking or deformation whats up with that? Does it make sense that a Captain and the armorers that showed him the damage would just outright lie about something that can be verified?
 
xdman said:
So if it is experimental, don’t you want to hear about the shortcomings. For example the barrel cracking or deformation whats up with that? Does it make sense that a Captain and the armorers that showed him the damage would just outright lie about something that can be verified?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that. What I think he should have done is use the Chain -of-Command.
As a retired Senior NonCommissioned Officer I would have placed the safety of the soldiers ahead of some new “Do-All Weapons system” and stood on the desks of the Brass to get the issues resolved. Not write a thesis for my class and then go find a reporter to air my complaints.
If it don’t work in a peacetime training environment it sure in the hell won’t work in real world combat conditions.
 
I’ll be honest. I just don’t get the rationale for the new round at all. I mean it’s not much different than an old 7mm-08 or even an ancient 276 Pederson. It requires a “Special” case to hold a LOT higher than normal pressure (meaning it’s going to be extra $$$) to produce, recoil appears fairly substantial on par with .308. And surely running an additional 20k psi isn’t going to help barrel life (or ANY part of the rifle). I fully agree that themilitary needs a far more potent round than the 5.56, but something like a 6,8 SPC seems to this old boy to be a better solution than this new SiG /rifle combo. Remember the .308 was too heavy, recoiled too much. So does this wunderwaffe. I expected better. I really thought a 6mm caseless (or plastic case) round at 2900-3100 fps was what was coming😏
 
Last edited:
Shibadog said:
I’ll be honest. I just don’t get the rationale for the new round at all. I mean it’s not much different than an old 7mm-08 or even an ancient 276 Pederson. It requires a “Special” case to hold a LOT higher than normal pressure (meaning it’s going to be extra $$$) to produce, recoil appears fairly substantial on par with .308. And surely running an additional 20k psi isn’t going to help barrel life (or ANY part of the rifle). I fully agree that themilitary needs a far more potent round than the 5.56, but something like a 6,8 SPC seems to this old boy to be a better solution than this new SiG /rifle combo. Remember the .308 was too heavy, recoiled too much. So does this wunderwaffe. I expected better. I really thought a 6mm caseless (or plastic case) round at 2900-3100 fps was what was coming😏
Click to expand...
Without a “need” for a new round/gun, backs wouldn’t get scratched and brothers-in-law wouldn’t make bank!
 
I get the need for a longer range battle rifle for terrain specific missions. Just not for general issue as Ukraine has proven artillery is king. They could have just issued the M14 as it is lighter

Jeff Gurwitch is a retired Green Beret and touched on the new M7 rifle in this video.

Jeff’s Modern Tactical Shooting channel on YouTube is one of the best matter of fact channel on YouTube .

 
ECS686 said:
I get the need for a longer range battle rifle for terrain specific missions. Just not for general issue as Ukraine has proven artillery is king. They could have just issued the M14 as it is lighter

Jeff Gurwitch is a retired Green Beret and touched on the new M7 rifle in this video.

Jeff’s Modern Tactical Shooting channel on YouTube is one of the best matter of fact channel on YouTube .

Click to expand...
Makes sense, his thoughts of one or two per squad (kind of like 203s back in the day). And humping a 14 lb rifle does not sound like fun. The thoughts on closer engagement makes perfect sense as well, especially effective targeting of enemy combatants, though not giving position up to facilitate incoming artillery certainly seems logical.

On a side note, I speculated long ago over on SigTalk (before I got fed up with Sig) that parts were moving around inside the P320 because, unlike civilian users who constantly load/unload/shoot their P320s so everything gets regularly reset, LE sometimes go months without unholstering, let alone unloading, reloading (thus resetting everything), and over time things can eventually slip, causing failure. Not bigger departments, where I’d imagine they may actually be issued their duty weapon and load up at shift start and their weapons stay at precincts, but smaller departments where folks maintain their duty weapon on and off duty. I really didn’t think of it as micro vibrations, just the “bumps and bangs” a pistol takes being carried on a duty belt.
 
I also don’t understand the weight of modern military rifles-I mean Why? Does anybody who actually has to carry one (vs some clown sitting in a pentagon office) really think humping a 12 lb rifle is better than toting a 6lb one? There was a reason WW2 troops loved the M1 carbine.
 
WW2 was won with a 10 3/4 lb rifle called the M1 Garand.

It's amazing that the Greatest Generation won the war with it and the standard load-out of only 88 rds. without complaining.
 
Shibadog said:
I also don’t understand the weight of modern military rifles-I mean Why? Does anybody who actually has to carry one (vs some clown sitting in a pentagon office) really think humping a 12 lb rifle is better than toting a 6lb one? There was a reason WW2 troops loved the M1 carbine.
Click to expand...
Not every soldier loved the M1 carbine.
There are many reports of the rifle being ill suited for distances in European theaters among other areas of operation.
Remember that the M1 carbine was primarily issued to support troops that needed more than a pistol, but less than a Garand.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Not every soldier loved the M1 carbine.
There are many reports of the rifle being ill suited for distances in European theaters among other areas of operation.
Remember that the M1 carbine was primarily issued to support troops that needed more than a pistol, but less than a Garand.
Click to expand...
True, it was not designed to be a long range rifle, and was pretty weak sister compared to the old ‘06, however remember that the old carbine had energy at 200 yards just a tad less than the 55 grain 5.56 at that range. As a ‘short range” weapon it was pretty decent. Uncle (Army) carried one all over the Pacific. Dad (Air Corps-China) swapped his Thompson for one and was a lot happier with it than toting the Thompson around. Second &ncle lugged a BAR around Europe from D+1 to the end. He loved its firepower but hated carrying it😊
 
More...

www.thefirearmblog.com

Army Captain's Report Outlines Problems with NGSW XM-7

A new monograph written by a US Army Captain is making some waves around the XM-7 Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle.The report contains information about observed issues with these guns.It also draws some interesting historical parallels to earlier infantry rifle procurements.XM-7 @ TFB: TFB...
www.thefirearmblog.com www.thefirearmblog.com

and the actual report from the author (Capt. Trent - US Army).

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com acrobat.adobe.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top