A better look at the M8 Carbine, the product improved compact variant of the M7 rifle.
Posted by Old_Boah@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 137 comments
gggg_4_l@reddit
It's such a cool rifle, but I still don't understand why they felt the need to fully switch over to it.
Kagenlim@reddit
Body armour basically
Iirc, this rifle was formed out of experience fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2010s, insurgents would fire from distances where an M4 can't reach and even if you could, many of them would be wearing body armour
A slightly more powerful cartridge would help mitigate that, essentially doing what the assault rifle did in WW2
BigBoarBallistics@reddit
Low cost fpv drones make the distance a non-issue in 2026.
M855A1 can defeat Level III plates and lets be honest until there are some major break throughs in armor technology no large scale fighting force is going to be fielding level IV plates. They're just too heavy.
I still stand by the sentiment that the M7/M8 program is a huge mistake and waste of government resources.
Kagenlim@reddit
The issue isn't just penetration it's also effective range
The M7/M8 comes from Afghanistan/Iraq experience, where US forces reported they were unable to effectively engage enemy forces because they would be further away than what the M4/M16 was built to do and to top it off, they were wearing armour too
The alternative was 7.62 which wasnt exactly great because of the increased recoil and the big arse mags
Something in between would have been ideal, which is why the M7/M8 exists
therealrobokaos@reddit
This is my understanding. Especially moving towards Pacific conflict against well-funded armies that also own most of the world's heavy metals, tungsten for AP rounds isn't going to be available in the quantities necessary. A larger cartridge was required.
Kagenlim@reddit
And of course, most Pacific actors have BA as well too
The M7 is trying to bridge the gap between an assault rifle and a battle rifle to pen It and I'm interested to see if this makes class III armour lesser like how we treat pistol caliber only armour rn
Honestly, I can see the world move back to IOTV style armour instead of the lightweight JPC style armour most countries run now for standard infantry
therealrobokaos@reddit
Absolutely on that last point. The Ukraine war has so many groin and butt plates in use.
Zealousideal_Crow841@reddit
Not to mention side plates too on the war belt and the vest
OTL22@reddit
Which is not necessary in a peer-peer conflict. Not only is body armour of that level not issued, the amount of small arms fire that kill people is minimal in the overall picture. And it's not because they shoot bullets that can't penetrate body armour.
Sad-Commission2027@reddit
Yeah Ukraine war has both sides use body Armor, yet most casualties is like 70% drones and 30% Artillery/MLRS
As a DMR this rifltis great.
But as a replacement for the M4A1 for Assault rifle role ?
Absolute trash, they could have either went HK416/M27 IAR or URGI upgrading kit.
BigBoarBallistics@reddit
The M7/M8 program solves a non-existant problem in 2026. Ukraine and Iran have shown just how extremely effective low cost fpv drones are at taking down targets miles away. The whole goal of replacing the 5.56 as our standard service cartridge was to give our guys extended effective range.
Meanwhile, you have a much heavier rifle/carbine and ammo, much harder to produce rifles/carbines and the ammo for them, a cartridge that is not NATO standard (and likely never will be), is very hard on the guns, and significantly reduced ammo load.
Nero_Team-Aardwolf@reddit
Still standing by the opinion that it was a bad choice. But hey here we are. Atleast we have two charging handles… lmao
Pratt_@reddit
Well for its job it's definitely not great : heavy, lower overall ammo capacity per soldier, high recoil, quick wearing of internal part because of the high pressure, and subpar accuracy, which is a bit ironic when their whole (absurd) concept of "outmatch" is based on outranging your adversary (which doesn't matter as infantry combat was still < 300m when everyone was using full power rifle cartridge, because you still use your eyes to spot an enemy), only the scope seems to be decent, even though it apparently has some teething issues.
It's honestly a bad rifle...
therealrobokaos@reddit
How many of these issues are inherent to the desire to combat the proliferation of high level body armor?
I don't keep up with this stuff really but I would imagine a lot of these wear and tear and recoil and high pressure issues are kinda necessary for the penetrative capability the military is looking to achieve.
Necessary-Ranger-924@reddit
I know I’m late, but if memory serves, the high pressure is to both aid in range & armor penetration, and the new calibre is just to help with body armor. I don’t know enough about firearms to make my own judgements, but hopefully the end result is better than broader consensus point to.
Dredgeon@reddit
I really want to see some war games played out with the new sight. I'm skeptical of the new 'every soldier a marksman' doctrine as well, but I want to see if the optic can make soldiers ammo efficient enough to be effective with the smaller volume.
Oxytropidoceras@reddit
Honestly I think the optic and suppressor on every gun are the best parts to come out of this program. I don't expect it to make ammo usage more efficient, but wars like Ukraine make it clear that having optics is a massive benefit, well worth the weight added to the gun.
Dredgeon@reddit
The self ranging is what I was really thinking about. I'm curious if the losses in ammo count are made up for with less missed shots
WulfeHound@reddit
That's if the optic works, which it doesn't a lot of the time.
Kagenlim@reddit
This looks like an LPVO, the technology is well established
burntendsdeeznutz@reddit
You're out of your element donny
Kagenlim@reddit
? The dude clearly has an LPVO on his rifle
burntendsdeeznutz@reddit
They are talking about the optic that originally won a government contract with this rifle.
Oxytropidoceras@reddit
Do you have any source for that?
WulfeHound@reddit
Soldier reports from testing done on the XM157 LPVO over 2024 into 2025, when it works it works great but when it fails (and it does, a lot) it fails in a way that blocks visibility through it.
isayeret@reddit
It has an etched reticle, there's nothing that can 'block visibility'. If it fails, run out of juice or you simply don't want it, just turn it off and you got a great X8 LVPO.
Oxytropidoceras@reddit
Okay, again, do you have a source for that?
WulfeHound@reddit
Not on-hand, but I do remember a couple articles (one from Military.com that mentions a report, another that was on Reddit last year).
Oxytropidoceras@reddit
I was able to find the military.com one. Here and fair enough, but my problem with this article is this line:
And specifically the fact that it says the XM7 with mounted XM157. This doesn't necessarily mean that the optic is an issue and it doesn't say what is considered low probability. Just that this optic and rifle together have whatever the army is considering a high probability to incur a critical failure (again undefined) in a 72 hour mission. That could mean a failure of the rifle could be reported as a failure for the optic, it could mean the scope ran out of battery with supplies given, we just don't know. It makes it hard to definitively say there's an issue with the optic. I'll also point out here that it's still in testing, there are very, very few military contracts that are filled without any hitches. The radio silence on the XM157 since could mean that a new iteration has been made which resolved the issues. Again, we just don't know
ItchySnitch@reddit
The military wanted a rifle for the last war, which was shooting insurgency from a hill top. When it turned out the new war is doing cqc and trench raids
mattumbo@reddit
The problem they’ve had so far in exercises is that you’re not usually actually shooting at a distinct target but instead laying down fire to fix the enemy in place while another unit maneuvers to flank and destroy them. No amount of accuracy will overcome an enemy that’s dug in, you might be able to shoot the dick off a fly but only if you can see it and get it to hold still long enough to ever line it up, and like a fly dick a dug in enemy is not giving you that chance to take super cool accurate shots. So in these exercises the attacking side has simply run out of ammo and been forced to withdraw having failed to sustain suppression of the enemy long enough to allow the maneuver group to strike the killing blow. Maybe those exercises were flawed but I think sacrificing volume of fire and sustainment was a mistake.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
The optic is fine, it's a very solid 1-8X LPVO even without the computer on top. It's really just about how well the Army logistics train can keep soldiers from running black on ammo. If they can provide enough rounds for squads to move and shoot and kill, the weapon will survive. If it fails at that, it won't.
CyberSoldat21@reddit
The caliber and demand for over pressure is the wrong decision. The entire program is wrong lol.
leovicentefrancisco@reddit
Elite combat units and SoFs will carry the M7 and M8. Everyone else, including support troops and National Guard will still be carrying M4s or some other AR-15 derivative
Greedy-Thought4793@reddit
Don't know why they would use the M7/M8. You get higher power ammo, sure, but 5.56 is more than enough nowadays in terms of stopping power. 6.8 Common Cartridge is better against body armor, but that cons outweigh the pros. Heavier ammo, less capacity since they use SR-25 magazines, and shorter barrel life. It is just a bad idea.
OTL22@reddit
No they won't. There hasn't been a single SOF unit adopting the M7/M8. Or even frontline infantry. 501st (basically the only regiment using it) is not frontline infantry anymore, compared to 82nd.
Due-Gap1848@reddit
National guard combat units are already getting them too.
https://www.army.mil/article/277191/guard_soldiers_test_nextgen_squad_weapons
sacritide@reddit
That looks like it uses a stamped sheet metal magazine as well. Did they ditched rh the original polymer mag?
Greedy-Thought4793@reddit
It can probably take different types of mags.
Silent-chatter@reddit
Why the skip, where’s the m5-7
Greedy-Thought4793@reddit
The XM7 used to be the XM5, and now the newer Carbine version of the XM7 is the XM8.
Greedy-Thought4793@reddit
I wish it wasn't called the M8 because the XM8 is already a previous rifle program.
homerthethief@reddit
Doesn’t look very compact
isayeret@reddit
It's the same size a M4.
homerthethief@reddit
Oh doesn’t look it from the photo, especially now that they’re putting suppressors on everything.
isayeret@reddit
Have you ever seen a M4? This is the size of Mk18. It smaller then a M4.
Simon-Templar97@reddit
It's like an M4 but heavier, less accurate, holds less ammo, is 4x the price, will jam in the mud, and apparently can't even handle the high pressure AP ammo that doesn't exist yet.
isayeret@reddit
In reality it has similar accuracy, the wight is similar to the M27 carried by the Marines, the new mags are 25 rounders, and can kill anything within 600 meters, including cars and APC.
LoneroftheDarkValley@reddit
What's the point of a caliber designed to be able to reach out and penetrate through body armor if it can't be accurate enough? Is there any verifiable source that has shown the accuracy is not up to minimum requirments for the program?
Simon-Templar97@reddit
Brassfacts was reporting an average of 8-10 MOA with the 113gr reduced ranged loading, which IMO if you're training soldiers on 8 MOA ammunition you're just wasting your time. Their handguards are notorious across the 3 generations now for loosening up which will cause pressure changes around the receiver extension or possibly impacting kn the gas block leading to recoil problems, and the early SPEARs has issues with wobbling barrels but I'm not sure what that turned out to be.
kilroy-was-here-2543@reddit
Everything else aside, we seem to slowly be building up to have a land war with China. Will that ever materialize? Maybe, probably not if I’m being honest
Simon-Templar97@reddit
I think ultimately with my suspicions of SIG/DOD corruption and scams aside the goal is for it to be used in a hypothetical Pacific confrontation.
If they are able to mass issue M7s and 8s with heaps of ammunition that are truly capable of penetrating L4 plates within 300M in a ground war with China will it matter? Yes absolutely, but the question is how much?
How many times does the average soldier actually score a center mass hit in a high intensity gun fight, and how lethal is the penetrator after clearing the plate. How do the results compare to a Chinese guy taking a high velocity slug from 5.56 or 7.62 NATO to the plate and it stopping it? How many times is it an arm, leg, throat, stomach, hit etc. That's what interests me is obviously plate shredding rounds are valuable to specialized troops but does the average infantryman really have the skill to make full use of an AP projectile?
But same as you I think China is comfortable simply waiting out the collapse of the U.S. government and taking Taiwan and the Pacific without a fight.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
The concern was not about Level IV plates, but rather Russian equivalent to our Level III/RF1 plates. And I wouldn't doubt it's ability to penetrate low rifle rated plates at that distance, considering the Sig Hybrid case loaded with M80A1 projectiles was able to pass through 9.5mm of rolled homogeneous steel.
I genuinely think the concern is mostly less body armor and more like barriers or thinner skinned vehicles such as the BMP, where conventional 30 cal isn't really able to deal with it
Simon-Templar97@reddit
If that's the case with the A1 projectiles, and I've suspected it is, then they should just have some NAS3 M80A1 and M855A1 developed and fielded and drop 6.8. I'm not saying 6.8 is a bad cartridge, it's just not better enough than 7.62 NATO in combat applications to justify a multi billion dollar changeover.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
The NAS3 isn't anywhere capable of performing anywhere close to Sigs hybrid casing. Remember SAAMI significantly downloaded the PSI from what the cases are capable of handling.
And lighter 30 caliber bullets, tend to have poor BCs, theoretically the 6.8 would have a better BC and the better sectional density.
You're also looking at straight production levels, the Sig hybrid case has significantly longer time to cook and production over the shell shock NAS3 casings. (Not saying that NAS3 is bad) But there's also the concern that the NAS3 cases, for example from Badlands isn't really loaded as hot as you think, being pretty on par with most higher end hand loaded ammunition
Nonions@reddit
I am 100% armchair general here but I'm skeptical about the move away from 5.56.
Ammo of that calibre and similar seems to be perfectly adequate in Ukraine right now, where engagement ranges are nowhere near what the M7 is optimised for. And there are still ways to get more from 5.56 - a longer barrel for example.
kilroy-was-here-2543@reddit
Not to mention, haven’t we learned from multiple previous wars that volume of fire is largely more valuable than accuracy of fire. This rifle is basically a middle finger to that
This really does feel like sig walked into some big offices with power points and promises of high paying positions in sig. I guess we’ll know in 15 years when we see some powerful people get bougie jobs with sig
Lowenley@reddit
No
LoneroftheDarkValley@reddit
Figured as much
Gunner117@reddit
Looks I disagree that this should be adopted for everyone but like most of this isn’t true, it’s not less accurate, it’s not 4 times the price of a FN m4, as for mud it’s about same as the m4 and I’ve not seen anything from the army about it not handing the high pressure ammo that does very much exist.
It is dumb for the army to go to a heavy rifle that you can carry less ammo for but we don’t need to make up issues with the rifle.
Put it in a DMR role and replace all the 7.62 guns.
Q-Ball7@reddit
The problem here is threefold:
Yes, the rifle (and MG) probably do have teething issues, but so did literally every other rifle (infamously, the AR-15, which didn't really get its legs in the US market until after "muh Vietnam" and "muh shits where it eats" was dead and buried). And consumables (like barrels and bolts) are consumable; service intervals (of the equipment that is probabilistically expected to survive long enough to need service) exist for a reason. Preventative maintenance is already a thing they do on the M16s since given enough time it'll crack around the cam pin (and, with M855A1, shear lugs).
Plasma_48@reddit
I’m saying this as some with no military experience, no automatic firearms experience, and only a little experience with guns. But I got to shoot the XM250 with its high pressure rounds, and it was a pleasure to shoot. I’ve heard a lot more positive things about the m250 than the m7 though.
Q-Ball7@reddit
I see the M7/M8 as a rifle that does need to be adopted sooner or later (the US has no significant stock of full-power rifles in its inventory, and despite all the shitting on the M7 it's [will be] still a better rifle than the 417/M110A1 is).
Is it going to find itself sidelined in favor of a specialty weapon if the US really gets into a war in terrain that doesn't favor the M7? Yeah, probably; this strategy has been standard operating procedure for the US since WW1. But intermediate cartridges do struggle in some terrain types the US believes it'll have to fight in- mostly wide open spaces (Afghanistan being the obvious example, but so are the other deserts of the Middle East and the plains of Ukraine/Mongolia/Africa provided you don't get bogged down in trench warfare)- and I think it's foolish to discount that just because most of the US' wars of the '50s-'70s lent themselves particularly well to intermediate cartridges. That really wasn't as true in the '90s and beyond that, except for maybe Fallujah.
Simon-Templar97@reddit
The high pressure ammo exists it's just not confirmed that they have a loading that can penetrate level 4 plates, and they have struggled with case head separation on the hybrid cased ammo.
The estimated per rifle cost for an M4 is around 650-750 per rifle with the estimated cost for an XM7 being estimated to between $4-5,000 "per unit." I'll concede that per unit probably includes the XM157 and suppressor which the M4s from FN obviously don't.
The mud is a guess on my part but being that Gen 1 and 2 MCXs and most other AR-18 derivatives jam up in the mud when DI / Internal Piston M4s don't as often is because they don't have the excess gas ports on the side of the BCG to self clean the carrier before cycling. The SPEAR has the same carrier design as the old MCXs that struggled in the mud plus has a new redundant side charging handle which just adds a new ingress point for debris.
thatARMSguy@reddit
The contract price of the M7 is somewhere around $3700 per rifle not including the suppressor, which adds another $1800 or so. The current issue optics for the M7 are the Vortex M157 which carries a $17,000 price tag, the Vortex AMG 1-10x Compact which is $6,000, and the Eotech EXPS3. An FN M4A1 is approximately $750-800, the various suppressors the military uses are between $1,000-1800 per unit depending on which model it is, and the standard issue LPVO in Army service (Sig Sauer Tango6T) is around $1,200. The armor piercing 6.8x51mm ammo is currently quoted at around $21/round and the barrels have an approximate lifespan of 2500-3000 rounds before throat erosion reaches an unacceptable limit. This is all publicly available information that’s easy to find. The M7 is a massive money pit, even if we ignore the countless performance issues it is simply not economically viable as a standard issue service rifle. If it were to be relegated as a DMR, it’s about the same cost as a Knight’s Armament SR-25 or HK 417, both of which are vastly superior as marksman’s rifles.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
1) it's 3-4 moa, meaning it's as accurate as an M4
2) the AP ammo does exist lol, idk who told you it doesn't , matter of fact the AP bullet existed WAY before the NGSW contract, matter of fact it's exactly why one of the requirements was a 6.8mm bullet
Snarkyish-Comment@reddit
And don’t forget the 8 billion dollars it took us to get there.
BlueBrye@reddit
You can argue it isn't a good rifle to switch to without spouting non-sense.
local_meme_dealer45@reddit
Makes a new rifle with one of the main objectives to have a high muzzle energy to penetrate body armour. Then shortens the barrel... ok.
isayeret@reddit
It's too inches, the loss is marginal, and if they wanted to they can easily make up it with a bit more pressure. The Spear is rated for almost double is current pressure so plenty of room to go up if needed.
Emiian04@reddit
i don't get why they didnt want a bullpup if having such a high pressure round was so important, having to cut the barrel sorta defeats the purpouse no?
guilmon999@reddit
The US is allergic to bullpups. We break out in hives and, eventually, full blown anaphylactic shock if we're within one football field of a bullpup.
ScreamingMidgit@reddit
I would wager because they want to keep the same manual of arms, probably due to thinking grunts are too dumb to memorize how to operate more than one rifle.
Also because of SIG lobbying.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
Well, the thing about this bullet is you're still able to hit pretty hard even with a smaller profile, which is good, all things considered.
Eisenbahn-de-order@reddit
this thing would've been much better as a dmr and/or a lar (longer barrel ofc)
MidWesternBIue@reddit
I mean the extra barrel length is pretty pointless.
It's getting 20" 6.5 CM ballistics out of a 10", while having better sectional density allowing it to pen barriers better.
VauItDweIler@reddit
A longer barrel might have made it possible to get similar ballistics with the cartridge not loaded to such an insane pressure. I say might very literally because I'm spitballing here.
I do know that the insane psi generated is a pretty common critique, a critique that I share. The pressure is so high in order to match the ballistics of longer barrels.
isayeret@reddit
The high pressure ammo is the most exciting thing in the NGSW, and is the future of small arms. The fact the an 11 barrel can kill targets with armor in ranges that only 20 years you needed a sniper with M24 is a remarkable achievement. The new Seekings SIC is another example, built for the ground up for high pressure ammo.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
You're aware that if we went with that line of thinking we'd be sitting at ballistics with 20k PSI right?
We were at one point able to make firearms out of brass, and we had to stop because it could not handle the output that smokeless powder was able to generate
Even later on, 223 Remington started out at roughly 40k PSI and now it's sitting at ~52k PSI.
Tldr my entire point is that during our entire arms evolution process we were increasing pressure of our firearms while also looking to permit such while having a shorter barrel length.
VauItDweIler@reddit
Absolute nonsense. I don't care what firearms were once made of, the .277 fury operating at 20k+ more psi than .50 BMG is worth an eye raise. Invoking old tech is just a dodge.
CHF is not some magic new technology, it has been around since the Cold War and its primary purpose was to expedite the barrel making process. It makes strong steel at a fast rate, it does not make steel that is significantly stronger than other high quality forgings. I have and remain skeptical of the barrel life claims. If Sig created some magic new alloy that makes barrels last far longer than expected....then the uses of said alloy go far beyond some silly barrels. They'd be far richer liscensing that to every other industry in the world than they would be cranking out some gun barrels.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
...that's not how firearm pressurez work at all. The limiting factor of the pressure is specifically the case, matter of fact M855A1 has a higher pressure rating than 50 BMG...because M855A1 is proof tested to 62k...while 50 BMG is at ~53.6k, Hell M855 is at 58.7k, are you suddenly raising your eye at M855?
That's the difference. You can make high quality barrels at a faster rate (important for a military acquisition). Again, CHF barrels are infact better quality than the Milspec M4 barrels who have a suspected barrel life of 10-12k and with M855A1, 5-6k, so again even if Sigs quote is doubling the barrel life, it's still on par with issued M4s.
VauItDweIler@reddit
You're ignoring the impact of the pressure on parts. The "limiting factor" of pressure is irrelevant fluff. 70k plus psi is a barrel burner and bolt breaker until proven otherwise.
CHF has been used in the combloc forever (actually since they acquired the tech from the west but that's a different tangent). It hasn't helped 5.45 barrels to have a long barrel life, something many a parts kit builder learned the hard way when their original 5.45 barrels were toasted. It is also consistently used by European manufacturers of NATO guns. Those barrels have good life, but are not magic.
My good sir you are overestimating the value of CHF while underestimating the effect of high pressure on components. I suppose the only real answer to this debate is time, but I'm sticking with the knowledge we have gained from a century of smokeless powder loadings as opposed to dubious claims by Sig.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
I am not, matter of fact I gave you an example with M855A1 cutting M4 part and barrel life in half.
The reason 5.45 barrel life wasn't improved is the fact Russia was using corrosive ammunition, ofc your barrel life is going to rapidly decrease and you're not going to see a tangible benefit.
Correct, and those barrels are rated often to 30k+ rounds. And considering I've talked to someone who shot his Sig Spear in 308 to ~32k (mostly suppressed) before it started having issues, that would be a great example of a massive decrease on barrel life (as it would have a decrease of nearly 66% of its possible barrel life)
No I am not lmao
Again, if this is the case how far back are we going? Back to Cordite, where pressures were literally 33% less than they are now?
Again weapons R&D requires investment and testing new theories and ideas. And while I don't trust the Army's implementation of the Spear, the M250 has had tons of glowing reviews from everyone I've talked to that has used it, especially over the 249.
VauItDweIler@reddit
No, corrosive 7.62 was also used in both x39 and x54 variants but only 5.45 barrels have the issue of being shot out. The exception here is Yugo barrels. There is also a very obvious difference between a pitted and dark bore, and a bore that is shot out.
I maintain my point. You are overestimating CHF tech that has been around for decades, which is strange since you keep mentioning the evolution of technology, while ignoring the pressure problems.
Time is the only answer here and once again I'm sticking with what decades of knowledge has taught us. Not with claims by Sig or by gullible (in my opinion) redditors.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
This is a very reformer level thought process. We wouldn't be running missiles on airplanes, especially after the problems with had with the first set of Sparrows on the F4 in Vietnam, we wouldn't have the Bradley, we wouldn't have the AR15, etc etc etc.
Not really, it shows that even if you count for significant wear, their 10k number may be absolutely right, as a 66% decrease in barrel life is a massive change, hell let's say they lied and it's closer to 5k...it's still on par with an M4 lmao.
guilmon999@reddit
Where are you seeing that it has better sectional density? Im about 99% sure that 6.5 CM have better sectional density than 6.8x51
The reason for this is material. Most 6.8x51 (the military version of the round) have a steal core while most 6.5 CMs will have a lead or copper core. Lead and copper are much denser than steel so 6.5 CM is going to have better sectional density.
Now the civilian version of 6.8 (277 fury) can use off the shelf bullets which may have a copper or lead core. But that means they'll be in the same ball park as 6.5 CM's sectional density not exceed it.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
I just double checked, and I misunderstood.
They picked 6.8 because of its higher sectional density compared to 7.62x5
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
Idk about being an IAR wheb it has a pretty low mag capacity
HELLFISH-762@reddit
that's where it'll go. the MG though...I'm still interested unfortunately
MuddlinThrough@reddit
Oh I'm far too poor to be interested in that
Eisenbahn-de-order@reddit
Nothing against the new mg, aside from how seemingly complicated it is lol
GodHatesColdplay@reddit
And that's a bingo
Bubsiebadman@reddit
Everything about this is a terrible idea that is a failure for a modern military doctrine in the 21st century
biddinge@reddit
Barrel life down the drain.
slodge4@reddit
im probably more favorable on this program than most people on the whole but theres a good handful of things that still scratch my head here
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
Imagine if the internet had existed when the M16 was introduced. We'd be back to the M14 before 1966.
OTL22@reddit
Unlike with the M16, there are NO justifiable reasons for the adoption of M7.
No, body armour penetration is not important in modern infantry combat. That is fucking fact.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
Reserve some of that energy for the marines killing SAWs for the same reason. (Makes sense if they’re actually a naval force for real this time finally, but I doubt it)
UtgaardLoki@reddit
1) It’s a bad idea, just in terms of doctrine. 2) 2 charging handles is a war crime according to IHL 3) It’s still cool (but seriously, scrap the rear charging handle)
Cristoff13@reddit
Yes, just train soldiers to use the side charging handle and scrap the rear ones.
But wouldn't having both a left and a right charging handle offer much greater flexibility? Designers can never decide whether the charging handle should be on the right or the left, so why not both.
But then again, greater cost, greater complexity, more chance for dirt to get into the receiver, so probably not a good idea.
FlammulinaVelulu@reddit
Off topic but. . . Is there some sort of utility in the cut to the brim of his hat?
Psychological-Carob7@reddit
It’s for glasses. Check out Notch hats.
FlammulinaVelulu@reddit
I've been wearing a ball cap and sunglasses for 40 years, and have never had the problem this product solves. Weird...
And now I'm getting Notch hat ads on YouTube. I hate this world.
Thanks!
TacTyger@reddit
The military wanted an MCX and of course the boomers wanted another battle rifle. I don't see this gun going anywhere posititve. Just another expensive scar h imo.
gigas-chadeus@reddit
It looks exactly the fucking same
The_First_Curse_@reddit
The handguard is shorter so it looks the same but it is shorter.
StonewallSoyah@reddit
Fuck you. The XM8 cannot be replaced. Just like the Mach-E isn't a real mustang
Cyan6010@reddit
The question is whether is has that dogshit gap in between the upper and lower
TJfromSG@reddit
just do note that this MCX SPEAR variant should not be confused with H&K's XM8 rifle that uses the G36 design (which if the US Army would have adopted it, it would be the "M8 rifle" by then)
guynamedgoliath@reddit
Are we officially past the "X" designations yet? Or are they still in the testing phase?
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
We're past the X. They're being issued. Obviously the Army can choose to buy and field as many or as few as they want, but so far the contract is ahead of schedule.
guynamedgoliath@reddit
Being issued doesn't mean it's officaly past the X designation. The XM177 series was issued as well and saw quite a bit of real world use.
The M8 being a standalone designation and not just the M7A1 tells me they will likely abandon the M7 in favor of the M8 if the program moves forward.
On the other hand I could point to the M110 (knights SR25 derivative) vs the M110A1 (G28/417 derivative) and how that should have received a new designation.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
It is past the X designation, last year, per the US Army. It's no longer X. It received type classification already.
guynamedgoliath@reddit
Thanks
Grand_Cookie@reddit
The whole point of the pipe bomb 7 was that you had a shorter barrel but the fps still. What’s the point of making it even shorter?
They’re speed running proving that it was just some lobbyist bullshit.
wearyshoes@reddit
Why does man's hat brim have a dent in it. I've never seen that before.
Modern_Doshin@reddit
Sarn't Major got mad at him
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
For specific styles of eyepro/sunglasses that sit below the brim there. It's a shooter's hat. Naturally the AMU guys that get the gun first have special Army caps.
MidWesternBIue@reddit
Genuinely I think what's going to happen is they're going to move the hybrid casing to 5.56 and end up rocking mostly AR15s.
That being said I think the M7/M8 has the ability to push the G28 out of service, as of right now, assuming they change to a higher BC bullet, they can turn the rifle into a 1-1.5 MOA gun, and end up creating a DMR that's half the length and still better performing, and still allows them to penetrate hardened barriers if need be by a simple reload
DrZedex@reddit
I'm actually more interested in the technology of that hat. I need one with cutouts for my shades like that.
Speaking of shades, where's this goober's eye pro?
Plasma_48@reddit
He’s using ISO certified safety squints which he has removed for the photo.
Efflux@reddit
Why is there a notch cut out of his hat?
katril63@reddit
Tactical bottle opener, obviously
Plasma_48@reddit
If your product doesn’t have a bottle opener on it, is it really an adaptable, tactical, modular, next generation product?
ajyanesp@reddit
I’m guessing so the “legs” of a pair of sunglasses can go though there, when resting on top of the visor when not in use.
TF141_Disavowed@reddit
It's called a Notch hat, they're supposed to be for large sunglasses/safety glasses
italian_olive@reddit
Apparently it's for sunglasses, called an "Operator hat"
kilroy-was-here-2543@reddit
Handled one at the gun store and my biggest take away was that the stock was way too small for how big of a gun it is. And it just generally get too large
bmbreath@reddit
Remember most people using one will probably be wearing armor.
Or do you think it's too small even for that?
Or did you mean small, as in the buttpad is undersized?
kilroy-was-here-2543@reddit
The buttpad is undersized in my opinion. Width is fine, it’s the height that is the issue
It could definitely be to work around body armor though
Jim556a1@reddit
Marines are keeping their M27's.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
Sort of a non-news item, that. A journalist asked if they were switching, they got the "no plans to switch but we are monitoring" line that they were always going to get. Having done PR, you don't say what you're going to do until you're releasing a press release saying you've done it or are doing it.
Jim556a1@reddit
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2026-02-25/marines-m27-rifle-army-m7-20869549.html
This is the article I was referring to.
bmbreath@reddit
Link is dead when I tried.
Old_Boah@reddit (OP)
Yes I am aware. These articles are all sourcing a very, very expected PR statement. You do not tell media "oh we're going to do X, probably in a few years" or "we're doing X when Y happens." You say "we're not doing X" because it's true at the time. I wouldn't expect to learn the Marines are adopting the M7/M8 until they write the release themselves. Certainly would have been dumbfounded if they said to a reporter's inquiry that they will be buying it.
Zealousideal_Ad2379@reddit
“improved” bruh
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.