Army infantry officer calls new XM7 ‘unfit for use as a modern service rifle’
An Army infantry officer has made a series of criticisms of the Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle, which is meant to replace the M4A1 carbine.
The Army introduced the XM7 rifle and XM250 light machine gun — both of which chamber a 6.8mm round — partly due to concerns that modern body armor could stop the 5.56mm rounds fired by the M4A1 and M249. The bigger round is also meant to give the XM7 an increased range based on lessons from Afghanistan.
But Army Capt. Braden Trent presented his research into the XM7 at the Modern Day Marine exhibition in Washington, D.C. — research he claims shows that the rifle is inferior to the M4A1.
As part of his research, Trent said he visited the 1st Brigade Combat Team “Bastogne,” 101st Airborne Division, which was the first active-duty Army unit to receive the XM7. Trent said he interviewed more than 150 soldiers and disassembled 23 XM7 rifles.
His 52-page report on the subject, which included testing with experts, ballistic research, and input from soldiers, concluded that the XM7 is “unfit for use as a modern service rifle,” Trent said on April 29 during his presentation at Modern Day Marine.
Trent said his research has shown that soldiers equipped with the XM7 in a live-fire exercise quickly run out of ammunition because its magazine only holds 20 rounds. He also said that gouges and scratches can form in the barrel after firing more than 2,000 rounds, the rifle’s weight makes it hard for soldiers to maneuver.
“The XM7 is a tactically outdated service rifle that would be better classified as a designated marksman rifle, if that,” Trent said during his presentation. “This rifle is a mechanically unsound design that will not hold up to sustained combat on a peer-on-peer conflict.”Sig Sauer and the Army respond
However, a representative of Sig Sauer, which the Army selected in 2022 to build the Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle and machine gun, disputed Trent’s findings.
“We have a very large staff of individuals that work daily on that rifle to ensure that every aspect of its performance is scrutinized, every aspect of its safety is criticized,” said Jason St. John, the senior director of strategic products for Sig Sauer. “We are highly confident that we have provided the U.S. Army soldier with a very robust weapon system that is not only safe, but it performs at the highest levels.”
St. John said he did not want to issue a point-by-point rebuttal for all of Trent’s conclusions “because most of them are patently false.”
David H. Patterson, Jr., a spokesman for Program Executive Office Soldier, also said that the Next Generation Squad Weapon is well suited for close combat. Specifically, the weapon “provides greater effects within 300 meters,” he said.
“As the secretary of the Army and chief of staff highlighted in their Army Transformation Initiative memo to the force, ‘Yesterday’s weapons will not win tomorrow’s wars,’” Patterson wrote in an email on Monday to Task & Purpose. “The Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program provides unmatched lethality to our Close Combat Force (CCF). The Army is committed to accepting soldier feedback and enhancing weapons for optimal use.”
Not an official report
Trent is currently a student at the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warfare School and was presenting his personal views on the subject, and his research for the school’s fellowship program is not sponsored or endorsed by the Army, Marine Corps, or Defense Department, according to his research paper, which was obtained by Task & Purpose.