![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/xm7-suppressed-300x200.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As we’ve previously discussed, the Army decided they needed a more-lethal, longer-range round – too many firefights in Afghanistan where we were outranged, they say. I can sorta see that – the M4\/M16 family uses a pretty short-legged cartridge in the 5.56. It’s better than it was in the old days, when a 55 grain bullet and slower rifling twist limited its effective range(460 meters according to what the drill sergeants beat into us!) but still falls short at the 700 meter area.<\/p>\n
Now, I hope someone can explain – I keep seeing articles comparing our rounds to the enemy’s – but they always compare apples and oranges. Seems I never see peer-to-peer comparisons, like between our 5.56 and their 5.45, but always comparing our rifles to their machine guns. Which begs the question of shouldn’t we be comparing theirs to 7.62 NATO? Especially when we’re spending billions on the M7 family. The new 6.8 (think of it as a rimless .270 on steroids) is impressive – but are we answering a question only being peripherally asked?\u00a0 More knowledgeable folks than I can answer that better. But back to the M7:<\/p>\n
\nThe Army\u2019s new generational replacement for the M4-style rifles that infantry soldiers have carried into battle for nearly 50 years will receive less independent and real-world testing after it was taken off a Pentagon oversight list.<\/p>\n
The M7 is part of the Army\u2019s Next Generation Squad Weapon program that will replace the service\u2019s M4 carbine. The service officially designated the M7 as its new rifle in May, announcing that it met \u201cstringent standards for operational performance, safety, and sustainment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, the rifle\u2019s removal from oversight by a Pentagon-level office tasked with conducting tests that are independent from the Army is getting heat from a federal watchdog.<\/p>\n
Greg Williams, a lead defense analyst for the Project on Government Oversight, said that between May and August, the Department of Defense Test & Evaluation office, DOT&E,\u00a0 dropped 99 programs from the list of programs it oversees \u2014 including the M7 rifle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
DoT&E was created after a weapons introduction debacle… the M-16:\u00a0 It didn’t require cleaning, it wouldn’t jam, etc. – but it did. And cost lives in Vietnam. What DOT&E does is operational testing, to see how a weapon works in the REAL world, not a testing lab. We’re cutting the ammo load-out for Joe Snuffy by a third – is he going to run dry? The round works at 80,000+ psi pressure, which in sporting rifles would guaranteed cause premature barrel erosion. Will the 6.8?<\/p>\n
\nWithout that DoT&E oversight, Williams argues that the weapon won\u2019t get enough testing that puts the gun through realistic combat scenarios or has oversight by an agency outside of the Army.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor meaningful operational testing to occur, it must be overseen and evaluated by a party independent of the Army and the rifle\u2019s manufacturers,\u201d Williams told Task & Purpose. \u201cJust doing the tests isn\u2019t enough. You wouldn\u2019t let a student take an exam and then grade their own test, would you?\u201d<\/p>\n
A defense official said that M7 fire control assessments were dropped from the oversight list in July after \u201cextensive\u201d operational tests completed by the Army between October 2023 and 2024 \u2014 which were observed by DOT&E personnel. The official said DOT&E completed \u201cassociated reporting to inform fielding and full-rate production\u201d and fulfilled a Congressional requirement with its Early Fielding Report published in June.<\/p>\n
The decrease in Pentagon testing oversight comes months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth axed more than half of the office\u2019s staff.Task and Purpose<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Guess we will find out the usual hard way – in soldier’ lives. Think I exaggerate?\u00a0 Let’s see, the Army went to copper-cased .45 rifles – ask Custer how well they worked. They changed to .38s which didn’t kill Moros. They brought in the M16 and had to make a host of changes to make it a worthwhile weapon as our kids suffered with it. Then there are systems like the Sergeant York, or etc. etc. etc. Guess I am old fashioned – I’d a lot rather that a guy in a testing lab find the warts on a weapon, not my kid.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"