Why the M7 and 6.8x51mm are Bad Ideas: Welcome to my TED Talk (Ad-free)
Added 2025-12-06 12:00:05 +0000 UTC
Comments
I have been wondering about some of the issues that Ian raises. Couldn't the desired effects (stopping a far-away emplaced machine-gun or sniper; defeating lightly armored vehicles/persons) be achieved by giving a squad-level sniper/sharpshooter a big rifle (338 calibre or 50 calibre or even an overpressure 30 calibre, like a 300 magnum) and bullets with a tungsten penetrator? While I am not the biggest fan of the AR-15, it had served well for the most part, and it has evolved to be the rifle/carbine that the typical grunt needs. Could it shoot further? Yes, but at a cost. Could it have more punch against armor? Yes, but at a cost. Could it be suppressed? Yes, but at a cost. The big advantage the AR-15 has is that there are a million of them, and everyone for the last 65 years has learned to shoot them well-enough. Armorers know how to build them and fix them and mod them and upkeep them. The bullets are relatively lightweight, so an individual can carry a dozen and a half magazines (presuming they have a bandolier or a load-bearing vest with lots of pockets), for 360 bullets, which is a *LOT* of firepower. With its aluminum body and plastic human-interface (shoulder-stock, handle, heat-guard), it's pretty lightweight. And the 223 bullets it fires are low recoil, which reduces how much you tire-out the Esoldiersailor/airman/marine who has to shoot it regularly. I am not saying the new Sig Sauer rifle is bad (although the heretofore unprecedentedly high pressure suggest to me that the whole thing will rattle itself apart), but it seems to be an answer searching for a question. But if I were evaluating, I would be Leary about the heavier weight, the more punishing recoil, the fewer bullets you can carry. But what do I know? I was never in uniform, and I never fired a weapon in-anger or at another human person. I am sure they know some things that I don't; I would hope they are better informed than some sideline muppet like me.
David T Klein
2025-12-09 19:59:10 +0000 UTCAll ways prepping for the next war with data from the last. Never forward looking.
Old n Grey Gunner
2025-12-07 17:10:26 +0000 UTCI don't understand why they didn't make a 16in version of this as a DMR, but a better question is why they didn't come up with a 16in 6.5 creedmoor DMR with associated AP rounds, that way one guy is a DMR, fills that role, you have existing supply chains of an existing round.
AI Generated Fish
2025-12-06 18:54:34 +0000 UTCThe world has indeed changed. The M16 was adopted for an undertrained (conscript), under physically conditioned (two year enlistment) army fighting in an environment conducive to very short range engagements. So, a light weapon shooting light ammo that the soldier could carry a lot of, made sense. None of those conditions exist anymore, nor have existed since the mid 70s. During the 80s, the Army was focused on armor killing systems and the need for a new rifle was way down on the priority list. The end of the USSR, the debacle in Somalia, and the Peace Dividend all reduced the urgency of a new rifle, resulting in half hearted efforts such as the OICW. After 9/11, the Army was going to war “with the Army we have not the Army we want”. So, I would say if you are going to modernise the infantry, now is the time to do it, and getting rid of 5.56 for a better performing cartridge is a good decision. I would have preferred something simple, such as a modern 7.62x63, but I didn’t get a vote.
Terry
2025-12-06 17:45:44 +0000 UTCI think a better argument for 'why not the M7' is the simple question of 'how likely are the Chinese and Russians to actually deploy this really expensive body armor'. If you want to argue that the M7 isn't the solution, that's a far better starting point than pretty much every argument that's been made to date in this and a hundred other videos. If you accept the premise that the Chinese will be coming at us dressed like medieval knights with impenetrable body armor, you've more or less already lost the plot because all roads from that starting point lead to the M7. The solution to the Chinese soldier in his Level 4+ body armor essentially looks like an M4 with high-pressure/high velocity ammo. The M4 can't take the pressure and can't be loaded with a long enough cartridge to get the desired terminal effects. The AMICUS bullpup could've done this with normal pressure ammo, but let's be honest. The army isn't buying a bullpup. On the flip side of that coin, the reality is that the Chinese especially are far less likely to hang that kind of armor on their guys than we are. Whatever idiotic study the Pentagon performed to get to the point where they needed a new gun is the root cause of the M7 problem, and only countering that study with hard reality will cause the M7 to go away.
Rich Parker
2025-12-06 17:41:10 +0000 UTCSorry, Ian. You're a great historian, but this one seems to be a bridge too far for you. Ironically, the arguments you're making are the exact same arguments that led to the M-14 and kept the M-16 out of US service for so long. You want to fight Vietnam (high volumes of fire and meeting engagements in the jungle). You think that a cool bullet could resolve the issue, but that's not really a viable answer for what they're positing as the future. The unpleasant reality is that the 9mm bullet you're touting uses TUNGSTEN. We use depleted uranium in our tank ammo because we don't have large enough reserves of tungsten to turn it into war-shot. Since we can't use DU in rifle-caliber ammo, our only real alternative is steel. And that means we have to up the velocity of the round. While our allies have tungsten reserves, we have already seen troubles where allies want to sanction the use of 'their' ammo after it was purchased (the Swiss did this with the ammo for the Gepard AAA vehicle the Germans gave to Ukraine). Since, we don't want to play that game, tungsten's not an option for ammunition.
Rich Parker
2025-12-06 17:35:37 +0000 UTCNot really. There are lots of situations where you don't necessarily have a crew served weapon with you. Just as Afghanistan shouldn't necessarily be the sole justification for the M7, we can't necessarily assume tactics from then are applicable, either.
Rich Parker
2025-12-06 17:29:17 +0000 UTCPresident Eisenhower should be booted in the butt posthumously for starting this shibboleth. There is no Military Industrial Complex. That which you refer to as the MIC is the group of companies (some of them mom-and-pop operations) that are willing to do business with an often schizophrenic US government. This attitude that these businesses are trying to steal from the government is the reason that the defense industrial base in the west is basically in the toilet right now. Nobody wants to do business with an outfit that changes the rules/changes their mind willy-nilly the way the USG does. The Defense Industrial Base builds what the Pentagon asks for. No more. No less. You can be prosecuted for stealing if you don't. As to the example of calling the B-2 or the using a 60mm, I doubt they called a B-2, since those would've had to fly from Guam or Whiteman and aren't typically loitering. Also, having air support is not something you can actually count in, especially in a near-peer war.
Rich Parker
2025-12-06 17:25:37 +0000 UTCI believe Mike from Bloke on the Range summed it up well: Militaries always end up rearming to fight the last war. I would think a 6mm Intermediate cartridge might have been a better path with fewer compromises but potentially better extended terminal ballistics.
Loki
2025-12-06 17:23:16 +0000 UTCTe US already has Designated Marksmann Riles in .308
Ja N
2025-12-06 17:20:38 +0000 UTCWhat ever happened to the concept of the "designated marksman" with a specialized rifle and ammo like the SVD Dragunov, etc? In the US case, a .308 based rifle could fill that role. In addition the US has been fixated on near pear body armor since before the end of the Cold War (think MP7 and P90). It's very likely "near peer" conflicts will quickly go "nuclear" (hence a further reason they are unlikely). Most conflicts of the last 50- to 75-years have been asymmetric -- fighting bands of locals trying to keep an organized army out.
Larry Schwartz
2025-12-06 16:49:50 +0000 UTCPresident Eisenhower wisely warned against the "military industrial complex" and its effects on the US. Point two our NATO allies are not going to be thrilled over an ammo change after their investments in combat weapons and ammunition . Also I saw a film clip of a unit in Afganistan who were fired upon ,range was estimated to be in excess of 2000 yards. Well even 6.8 x 51 would have been ineffective. They had a 60mm mortar but opted to call in a B 2 bomber to suppress the fire which when the aircraft arrived had ceased. Takeaway there are options! Each scenario will be different; do not act hastily. Sig has enough money already.
Daniel Standridge
2025-12-06 16:17:23 +0000 UTCAny situation where an infantryman would need the range advantage of the M7, they would also be in close proximity to a crew served weapon. If that hypothetical scenario you mention is the real reasoning behind the specs for the M7, then whoever set the specs clearly had no idea how the US Army was actually fighting in Afghanistan.
Jon Payne
2025-12-06 15:24:12 +0000 UTC
