Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "What U.S Troops Think of Their New XM-7 Rifle" video.

@squidwardo7074 it was not suited to any modern war. Too heavy, too bulky, too few ammo carried.
3
@thelordofcringe They disliked it as long as it had problem with ammo, because the Ordnance Corp actively tried to sabotage the rifle by not providing the ammo it was designed for. As soon as the m16A1 was issued, none in his right mind preferred the M14.
3
it's the weak point of the System actually. Only they didn't realise it yet. Because the US amy can't get over the fact that the belt fed weapon is a CREW SERVED WEAPON. In their concept the MG gunner must carry the gun, ammo and all needed for it to work. So the XM250 doesn't have a quick exchange barrel, because the 400 rounds max the gunner can carry are not enough to require it. And it has not an attachment for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod. Unfortunately, while any GPMG can provide accurate fire at over 1km distance from a tripod, no GPMG or SAW can hit anything at 800m without it, because the burst is too disperse. So the XM250 is a way to be outranged always, and outgunned in short time.
3
An army of snipers that train at 25m.
1
Not if you carry 1/3 less ammo.
1
Nothing out of the ordinary. It's from the Springfield 1907 that the Ordnance Corp chases the myth of the one-shot-one-kill infallible riflemen at the centre of the infantry squad. And it's since then that troops on the field grab anything that gives them more volume of fire instead, because one-shot-one-kill doesn't exist IRL, and you have to shoot fantastic quantities of ammo for every enemy casualty. Started the Korean war with M1 Garand, ended it with M2 Carbine. Started Vietnam war with M14, ended it with M16. Started war on terror with M16A2, ended it with M4. This is only another way to start the next war with the wrong rifle.
1
To me the MG is even worse than the rifle. Only they didn't realise it yet. Because the US amy can't get over the fact that the belt fed weapon is a crew served weapon. In their concept the MG gunner must carry the gun, ammo and all needed for it to work. So the XM250 doesn't have a quick exchange barrel, because the 400 rounds max the gunner can carry are not enough to require it. And it has not an attachment for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod. Unfortunately, while any GPMG can provide accurate fire at over 1km distance from a tripod, no GPMG or SAW can hit anything at 800m without it, because the burst is too disperse. So the XM250 is a way to be outranged always, and outgunned in short time.
1
@John-n2x4s It's the scenario that justified the adoption of the NGSW, that of the US soldiers being "outranged" in Afghanistan. What was outranging them were ass-old PK firing from semi-prepared positions by people that had more than 400 rounds to fire.
1
@John-n2x4s If the new setup is not well suited for long distance, because it lacks accuracy an not for short distance because the heavier rifle is slower at acquiring the target, what remains?
1
Nothing out of the ordinary. It's from the Springfield 1907 that the Ordnance Corp chases the myth of the one-shot-one-kill infallible riflemen at the centre of the infantry squad. And it's since then that troops on the field grab anything that gives them more volume of fire instead, because one-shot-one-kill doesn't exist IRL, and you have to shoot fantastic quantities of ammo for every enemy casualty. Started the Korean war with M1 Garand, ended it with M2 Carbine. Started Vietnam war with M14, ended it with M16. Started war on terror with M16A2, ended it with M4. This is only another way to start the next war with the wrong rifle.
1