The new rifle is only fielding to specific MOSs in specific units. The rest of the force is still MTOED 5.56mm rifles.

Lake City will still crank out 5.56mm. They are standing up another line to produce the 6.8mm.

FWIW the "Militia" won't be drawing ammo and parts, they'll be drawing draft notices.

A Suppressor is BII. Electronic hearing protection for each soldier is something that the Army has been working on for a while.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of this is about giving the other side(s) food for thought. They base their tactics and equipment on going up against the 5.56. Now they have to deal with a round that will defeat their armor at a farther distance. This means that they have to take resources from other things to adjust to this new weapon or at least determine it's impact on how they do things. This is a chess game that goes on with everything from thermonuclear weapons to handguns. Look at all the discussion lately about hyper sonic weapons. A lot of that is designed to get the other side to divert resources from other things. The xm7 adoption is no different.

Eventually the M4 will be phased out of inventory just like all other US military weapons. Having been in the military I can tell you that sooner or later a better mousetrap comes along and once tested and deemed better it will be adopted throughout the military.

Too many examples exist as proof. Once the M9 was determined superior to the 1911, it didn't take long for the Army to mothball all 1911's. I have one that set in a crate in warehouse for maybe 40 years. It wasn't issued to anyone after it was rebuilt, just stored in a crate with 80,000 other 1911's. The reason was logistical and economical. The military had a new cartridge just like they do now with their new rifle. They will not support two rifles using different cartridges any more than they will support two pistols.The math just doesn't work for the bean counters. Does anyone see any M9's in the military inventory these days? Nope. Even though it uses the same cartridge. Other factors determine the longevity, like parts and replacement. My understanding is the SIG costs the military less than $200 per pistol.

I went to boot camp in the Navy in 67. We didn't have any M-16's to train with, but we were probably the last few companies who didn't. Every service had those by 69, four years after the Army got them.

My guess is the M4 isn't long for this world for any military training or issue. I'll say 5 years and it will be gone, just like the M9.

Don't look for any barrels full of mil surp M4's for cheap either. They will all go into the recycle bin just like the M-14's.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

In basic training in the US army back in 2008, one of the books we had indicated that the M16-a2 rifles we were using, were purchased by the federal government for 250$ each.

I was a unit armorer in the USAF in the late '80s and when I did the bi-annual inventory on the CACRL the price per unit for all the slick side AR15s we had (only a couple even had chrome bores) was $141.00 ea.

Where are the bad guys getting all the ******* body armor????
Best guess is that we are probably selling it to them.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Forgot to mention that the bevy of PK/PKM LMGs in African services are not troubled by dody armor - 7.62x54R Russian. Neither are DsHKs. 😀

They haven't sat around wringing their hands since M885A1 round was introduced, they've been dreaming up new stuff. Dismiss the inventiveness of our enemies at your peril.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Al Shabab, IS, AL Qaeda can buy or get it free from their sponsors; especially IS and Al Shabab seize it when attacking national forces that are equipped with body armor (and trucks, and armored vehicles, and radions, and NVGs, etc.). For perspective, al Shabab collected more 'taxes' from Somalis than did the Somali Federal Govdrnment over past year or two.

Wish I knew some guys at APG, be interesting to talk to.

Dead On Arrival.
With one or more world wars on the horizon due to the current administration’s (military and civilian) bumbling, and all kinds of munitions in short supply, this is the worst possible time to be making significant changes in small arms or ammunition.
Similar to what happened to the .276 cartridge just before we got into WWII. There were plans to drop the .30-06 and go with the smaller caliber in the Garand and other weapons. Bad time to be retooling and creating the logistical nightmares associated with having a third rifle cartridge in the existing system.

Not from my view. In the West Philippine Sea, the international courts have ruled against China's '9 Dash Line' - continuing, nonfatal scuffles with our ally, the Philippines, have been ongoing for decades without serious escalation. The saber-rattling over Taiwan has encountered a Ukraine problem (determined resistance trumps large militaries without combat experience), and Ukraine has fought Russia to a stalemate with Russians having to rely on poor quality North Korean artillery and rocket systems as well as Iranian drones. As long as Ukraine keeps fighting, Russia can only threaten an invigorated, expanded NATO.

These aren't armchair opinions. I worked in security assistance programs in the Philippines from 2013-2018 and just left Armenia a few weeks ago. I'll be in Tbilisi in a few more weeks. The pre-Ukraine aggressor nation confidence in 'soft power' backed by paper tiger militaries has been badly broken after prior low-cost successes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Crimea.

Not worried about world war. Small conflicts are ongoing, though, and any tool that gives special units an advantage deserves serious testing (including supported battlefield testing) IMO.

With the obvious differences of the complicated/expensive to produce cartridge case and 30+% higher chamber pressure, what real difference is there between the 6.8x51mm new cartridge and the .270x51 wildcat, better known as .270-308! Performance wise how will it differ from the .270 Winchester?

Now we will have .243/6mm-'08, 6.5-'08, .25-'08, .270-'08, and now what sounds like really a 6.8-'08. WHY??

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

I question a few things in your post. When the military replaces a weapon, they do it in a few years. The 1911A1 and M9 pistol is a good example. Gone from all military arsenals in a few years. One of the reasons is training and ammo costs. Why would you have people trained on obsolete weapons? I had training on an outdated rifle in the military, but it was in transition that only lasted a few years. That was because the Navy was the last service to get upgraded. By the time my enlistment was over, 4 years, that rifle was gone in all military units.

The new rifle for the military is the XM-7. Your forecast is for the M4 to be common in military arsenals for decades is fictional. My experience would lead me to believe it won't be longer than a few congressional defense budgets. Rifles are cheap compared to everything else in the defense budget.

I would be interested in your military experience regarding small arms and transitions to newer weapons.

Change my mind.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

Well , as we all know , it did not work out worth a flip !
They also built the NAVY F-4s for VIET NAM without a gun (STUPID) But every airplane after that has got either a 20MM or 30MM gun . And we practiced with them all the time.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

Yes, every one of those calibers is better than the previous. But now visualize carrying 300-400-rounds of .338 plus your 50# ruck and pistol + 100rounds and a knife. Then commence the 16 mile road march. That lets you know the best caliber has a price.
Been there , done that got many t-shirts.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

The tables are about 16" apart at Boggy Head rifle range. We were next to a guy shooting full blast NATO rounds out of his shorty AR-15. It was nigh intolerable even with my plugs and muffs combination of ear protection. I don't want to find out what an 80,000 psi round would sound like. I wonder how long the barrel throats are suppose to last under that?

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

There is probably not much dimensional difference between the 6.8 and the rounds you mention. The difference is in the operating pressure and the two piece case. The go to war round obviously has the steel head to contain that pressure. I think that steel head is also to help to keep the rounds from getting battered in the new SAW when they are operating at full pressure. If you have ever had the rim rip off of a 7.62x51 in an M60, anything that will prevent that is very welcome. The round that they will be using for training is going to operate in the same 60000psi range that the 5.56 uses. It is loaded in a conventional all brass case.

You can buy Russian and Chinese made body armor on-line, or from the manufacturers. Though I wouldn't necessarily trust the Russian stuff if I purchased it from a Ukrainian. Rifle rated hard plates are hardly difficult to make.

We did transfer a number of US SAPI plates to the Iraqi Army in 2007-8 time frame when we went to the E-SAPI. Apparently it was cheaper to give them to the Iraqis then ship them home. I inventoried some of the one my unit handed over.

Read the BOIP, given your time in service you should be able to access FMS Web relatively easily.

The XM-7 fielding is different then the M4, M16 and M14 fieldlings. The M4,M16 and M14 fieldlings replaced the existing service rifle (and several other weapons (M1 Carbine, M3 Submachinegun, etc.). The rollout was unit by unit and took a while to do, but they got the whole force. The M4s where interesting, as both the M4 and M4A1 where issued at the same time for a number of years. The M-7 BOIP specifically identifies the Units and MOSs within those unit that will receive the new rifles. For example in an Infantry unit, an 11B in a Rifle PLT may have the M-7, however the Supply SGT in the same Company will have an M4A1. It would be similar to WWII where you saw Rifles, Carbines, Automatic Rifles, in the same unit. There is also the question of the SDMR in XM-7 equipped units. It will complicate logistics and training. There is currently no talk of expanding the XM-7 issuance outside of the BOIP at this time, that I know of. Of course that could change in either direction.

As for weapons staying in service. The M14 left service in 1964 (per Wikipedia, I wasn't around back then and I don't feel like walking to my book shelf). The M14s remained in DoD's stocks and in 2006 when my Unit did an ONS for a 7.62mm rifle, we got the M14s and some COTS Optics and Rails. So the M14 remained in the DoD system for at least 42 years, assuming the rifle was aquired in the M14s last year of service. Another example is the M60 Machine gun. Most of the force transitioned to the M240 in the late 90s early 2000s, yet in 2007 We still had M60Ds in the Arms Room and had used it on deployment. The M1911s are still around and I'm tracking that we stopped buying them in WW2. They used Vietnam era M16 and M16A1 lowers for the MK12 rifles during the GWOT, but we also retrofit M16A1s to M16A2s and over stamped them to M16A2, similar to how we retrofited M4s to M4A1s so I don't think that counts.

Thats only in US service. When I walked through an Iraqi BN's Arms Room in 2007, I found stacks of SMLE MK4s

My agency occasionally acquired M-14s with selectors removed through the 1033 program in the early 2000s, usually at the nearest DRMO.

I too read that it was to deal with body armor.

__________________
No baby we aint

That's intresting. I knew we transfered weapons via 1033, I didn't know it was done at the local DRMO. I had always though it was a transfer from central stocks.

Our process was complicated by having to get approval from a HIDTA board as well.

Non-firearms stuff we would find in the DRMO warehouse, tag, then we'd get a call to pick stuff up once approved. Not like firearms. We used DRMO Ft. Bliss until they changed it to Holoman AFB.

I've read that too. However, none of the open source info I've found has indicated which armor the round is intended to beat.

There was some congressional testemony from GEN Miley, that referenced an armor threat and aeroshell armor piercing ammo, but it didn't go into specifics. It did create the ill fated Intermediate combat service rifle program (circa 2016/2017ish). Part of me wonders if the ICSR proponents hijacked the next gen squad weapon program similar to how the M855A1 project got hijacked.

Couple of comments. First off, electronic hearing protection has been (selectively) used by the military for quite some time. More recently (comparatively), multi channel communication has been included. Our tax dollars at work. The company that used to make the Wolf Ears active hearing protection only deals with government contracts these days.

Secondly, suppressor use isn't-aside from some training- primarily for hearing protection. It pretty much eliminates muzzle flash, but not necessarily the heat bloom. It also makes the users location somewhat more difficult to locate.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Once I found out the DRMO process, I equipped every officer, Sgt, and Lt with M1949 sleeping bags, PASGT helmets with suspension, blankets (for covering dead bodies), steel folding e-tools, woodland cammie BDUs, one generation old desktops, goretex full-length cammie hooded jackets, and a host of other equipment we couldn't get through NMSP HQ. I could have had a pair of M-113 APCs, but had no way to transport them. The acquisition of near-new gear for free infuriated my chain--of-command; they made a special rule that I had to get permission from them to get more free stuff. Too late; my command area remained the best equipped in the state for years after I left. For free.

In my post-NMSP years, I got an unused UPS capable of powering our consolidated dispatch center completely for 72 hours. Also free, but the city and county appreciated this transaction. 😀

Nice, I bet those officers loved that gear when it got cold and windy.

That UPS acquisition warms my Commo guy heart. Thats a great use of that program.

I question issuing the new, totally different round and weapon to the same people who, if deployed, would have the WORST possible chance of resupply.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

The .45 ACP and the .30-06 were good enough to make the US Military the leaders of the world. Nuff said.

I second all that suggested a 6.5. It has the nearest to perfect coefficient of any caliber. My current favorite deer rifle is a highly custom AR with walnut furniture, a nice Leupold VX3 3.5x10, fluted 20" barrel in 6.5 GR. If I miss, it's all my fault!

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

Unless they can find a way to make hunting ammo which will kill a deer and not blow through, I say it'll never take hold on the civilian market.

The army has trouble now getting grunts to carry the gear they are required to carry, plus trouble having them obtain the level of discipline necessary to be soldiers, how are they going to get them to carry an extra pound or three of added weight.

Oh, sergeant you're being mean to me, here is my chit saying you can't treat me like that. Don't laugh, it happens.

I hate it when one of my posts ends up the very last one on a page because it always gets completely overlooked as a result...

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I thought your comment was good.

Thats the IDEA... we switch to the new stuff, the "correct peopel in power" get the correct amount of kickbacks for the change. And when the **** flies and we cant supply the troops...

we have to spend billions and billions on RE-equiping the troops with new made versions of the old gun and ammunition, and the "proper people" get the proper kickbacks once again.

Remember when the PHILIPINES were providing almost ALL of the bullets for the 5.56 caliber in the 1990s?