The M7 was selected to replace the US Army’s standard M4 carbine as the workhorse rifle. It fires a more powerful round (the .227 SIG Fury) that has increased stopping power (especially against body armour) and has a new integrated fire system. But that’s where the advantages stop and the negatives start rolling in:
With suppressor, optics and full magazine it weighs 10 pounds. With the same configuration, the M4 weighs about 8 pounds.
It has a high recoil, which reduces accuracy during rapid fire.
The ammunition is heavier and bulkier than for the M4, resulting in about 40% less being able to be carried by a soldier. Individual M7 magazines only hold 20 rounds versus 30 rounds for the M4.
The addition of a suppressor to the front of the weapon adds more weight and makes the weapon more unstable (exacerbating the issues caused with the recoil). The M7 comes standard with a suppressor, which was not the case with the M4; previously suppressor use was relatively rare.
The M7 and its supply chain are very expensive:
Standard rifle: M4 US$1,000 vs M7 US$2,500
M7 fire control (M4 uses standard optics): US$2,000
Ammunition per round: M4 50 cents vs M7 US$6
Initial ammo M4: 270 rounds = US$135
Initial ammo M7: 150 rounds = US$900
Total cost (rife+fire control+initial ammo): M4 US$1,135 vs M7 US$4,590.
The cost differential widens more and more as more ammunition is used. In Vietnam the average use was at least 5,000 rounds per month. With the M4 that’s US$2,500, with an M7 that’s US$30,000. Manufacturing the new more complex rounds has not been straightforward, with generally low yields; costs could actually be higher than stated above.
When looking at the total cost, and especially the cost of the ammunition, this looks like the perfect US MIC weapon; designed to print money for its manufacturer (Sig Sauer, owned as a family business by Michael Luke and Thomas Ortmeier). The ammunition is also of a non-standard size, so ammunition cannot be shared between the M4 and M7, as well as other military’s weapons. A US$10 billion contract has already been awarded to the manufacturer. Sig keeps winning one personal weapon contract (rifle, machine gun, handgun), after another with the US military; which raises its own questions. Sig has its own US Political Action Committee (PAC) and its production facilities are located in three specific congressional districts.
New Hampshire 1st Congressional District: Chris Pappas
Arkansas 2nd Congressional District: French Hill
Oregon 6th Congressional District: Andrea Salinas
SIG also has a number of senior ex-US military personnel working for it, such as the ex-head of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and all US forces in Afghanistan: General Scott Miller. Also the US military representative to NATO: Lieutenant General E. John Deedrick. This is how the US MIC works; politics, lobbying contacts, and very well paid positions for retired senior military personnel. Perhaps only the senior military personnel who “play nice” with the contractors and don’t rock the boat get such positions? The early stages of the Next Generation Squad Weapon program (NSGW) were overseen by the Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, Bruce Jette and James F. Davies. The former is a 28-year army veteran, who worked in procurement within the US Army before going into the private sector, and the latter was a defence contractor senior executive. Basically the US MIC overseen by its own, foxes guarding the hen house.
The Russian standard rifle, the AK-12, is much more akin to the M4 and is described as affordable, lightweight with proven reliability and with design simplicity. The latter being a general trait with Russian rifles, such as with the famous AK-47. The Chinese QBZ-191 follows the same design rational. The M7 is a much more complex weapon, and more complexity does not usually equal more reliability. The extra barrel pressure required for the armour piercing ammunition will also decrease barrel life. Its weight and standard suppressor also reduce its accuracy when firing automatically, which is a severe shortcoming during combat; especially with less ammunition to begin with. The reliance on a complex fire control system instead of standard optical sites also creates a point of failure which will render the weapon unusable, while also reducing the skill of its users. The possibility of running out of rounds faster than the opponent is also a distinct possibility. With a 20-round magazine vs. a 30-round magazine exacerbating this.
The M7 may also be designed for a type of conflict that no longer exists, e.g. Afghanistan. With the advent of cheap drones (cheaper than the M7!) and peer-level warfare (e.g. Ukraine), traditional firefights can many times be replaced with drone attacks. Drones put a greater emphasis on infantry maneuverability and the ability to shoot rapidly at a moving target in the air. Both not helped by the M7’s weight, recoil and suppressor. Perhaps, just have one person in a squad with a sniper rifle and another with an automatic shot-gun (as the Russians do)? The longer range of the M7 will also be pretty much wasted, with individuals generally being unable to see another standing human being beyond 300 metres. Also, in urban condition combat ranges will be much shorter than 300 metres.
The Russian Dragunov SVD and SVCh auto-loading sniper rifle (with a ten round cartridge) also follows the AK-47 approach, being simple to operate and maintain, very reliable, and with the ability to operate in extreme heat and cold. Its been in operation for six decades. The Russians tend to develop weapons that meet most cases well, while being extremely rugged, while the US selects more complex weapons to meet edge cases. The most important thing is that the weapon keeps functioning in a modern battlefield environment and is not too complex to operate; a truism for all weapon systems which tends to be ignored by the US MIC.
There also seem to be significant issues with the Sig P320 handgun selected by the US military, including the gun discharging while in the holster, no trigger safety and the gun possibly firing when dropped. Other competitors, such as Glock, have lodged formal complaints about the procurement process. Beretta, the previous provider, had offered a cost effective upgrade of its handgun. Supposedly, the P320 was selected because it was cheaper than the Glock; which is strange given the massive cost increase allowed for the M7.
At least the Sig machine gun seems to be good weapon, but one out of three is not good.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.