Talk:XM7 rifle

Battle Rifle vs Assault Rifle
To head things off, the page, as of right now, states Assault Rifle as that's how the US military is referring to it. Does it fire a higher powered cartridge than most AR's? Yeah. But no citable sources refer to it as a battle rifle and the distinctions between assault rifle and battle rifle get kinda murky. Unless a good source comes up that says it's a battle rifle, leave it as is for now. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur. The Army may even clarify the label, or even change its mind and call it a battle rifle, especially if it suddenly discovers that Congress believes it's an assault weapon, and might cancel its funding! BilCat (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * XM5 meets the general critera of Assault rifle as firing a round in between full size rifle round and pistol round [based mainly on caliber, though casing size/propellant amount matters too] (e.g. Intermediate cartridge). Though the .277 Fury round seems to be fairly close to a full rifle round. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilCat: Yeah, Army does what Army wants.
 * @Fnlayson: I was thinking that the .277 Fury is pretty darn close to a full-powered rifle round but, after going down a rabbit hole, found that the line between full-powered rifle round and not full-powered seems kinda murky/not well defined.  Plus, like BilCat said, Army does what Army want lol. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * .277 Fury is not an intermediate cartridge. Its dimension is 6.8x51.
 * 7.62x51 is a full power cartridge.
 * 7.62x25 is a pistol cartridge (Tokarev)
 * 7.62x39 is an intermediate cartridge (SKS, AK-47 and so on)
 * On the other side, there were many cartridges whose dimension were similar to .277's 6.8x51. For examples, 7×57mm Mauser, and 6.5x50 Arisaka which was the cartridge used in Japanese world war II's Type 38 rifle. They were not intermediate cartridges at all. YGAYR (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't do our own analysis, as that is Original Research. Please cite Reliable Sources. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTZRCEh1Czg (specifically at the 2:15 mark of the video) a video of the XM7 by Forgotten Weapons, of whom is a reliable YouTube channel that provides accurate information for firearms. He mentioned on his video that the XM7 is essentially an MCX Spear scaled up to take 7.62 NATO calibre. Which is true because the civilian variant of the XM7 is capable to be rechambered on the 7.62 NATO calibre and other full rifle cartridge. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which proves what exactly? The 6.8mm cartridge is still called an "intermediate caliber" in reliable sources. If the Army starts calling it a full-rifle cartridge or a battle rifle or enough reliable sources do so, then we'll change it, or at least note the discrepancies. BilCat (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources? every interview they've made the same thing is mentioned that the parent cartridge of the 6.8mm is the 7.62mm NATO calibre. They have to scale up the MCX, like the AR-10. If it was another intermediate round. They wouldn't have to use an AR-10 bolt, etc. If you look at the .277 Fury article on Wikipedia, it was stated with reference that it shares similar length and diameter as with the 7.62mm NATO Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 6.8x51mm is not in the same category with the 6.8mm Remington or the 6.5mm Creedmoor. Those two calibres are an example of an intermediate round. The .277 Fury is however similar with the 7.62mm NATO round. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to this, the article that was cited is not a hundred percent reliable. It's a blog post, and will be biased to the author's narrative. The way he describes the 6.8mm round and compares it to the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO makes me wanna dig my own grave. He assumed that every 6.8mm are intermediate rounds just because of the well known 6.8mm SPC Remington. Now that is an intermediate round. To me the author of that blog post lacks knowledge of the calibre he was describing. I'd rather take the word of Forgotten Weapons or TFB TV which btw had interviewed a guy that works at SIG SAUER and has worked on the XM7 (MCX SPEAR) project. They all mentioned that the hybrid round is derived from the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. It shares similar dimensions and it being its parent case. SO HOW IN THE WORLD ARE WE STILL DEBATING THIS? All 'reliable sources' apart from that one blog post all mentions the same thing. Plus how can you say that that blog post is reliable? It's not a direct post or specifications sheet from any OFFICIAL US ARMY's website. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Guns & Glory The problem is that there isn't a clear cut definition of "Intermediate round" or "Full power" cartridge. Basically, where does one category end and another begin?  The only way you could say for sure is if someone in authority (which would basically be either SIG or the US Army) categorically states that the .277 Fury is an intermediate cartridge or full powered cartridge (or someone in authority, like CIP, categorically defines what either term means).  And since neither one has, there's no real answer.
 * I sympathize with you. I think most people here on the talk page are annoyed by it.  Something along the lines of "call a spade a spade and just move on with our lives".  But wikipedia's No Original Research policy sets the tone here.  Is the .277 derived from the 7.62 NATO cartridge?  Yes.  Is the 7.62 NATO cartridge a full power round?  Yes.  Is a round derived from another round NECESSARILY of the same type? (ie. is a round derived from a full power round necessarily also a full power round?)  No.  So we can't say for sure what the .277 is without doing our own research or analysis.
 * Honestly, the most descriptive you could be is to call the XM7 an automatic rifle since it is A) a rifle and B) capable of full auto fire (note, this isn't original research since the definition for automatic rifle is pretty clear cut). So maybe it should be changed to that (though the fact that they're designating the XM250 as the "XM250 Automatic Rifle" definitely muddies the water on that subject). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The way that the US Military categorises their weapon I'm sure they're gonna end up making a new category. Just like what happened with their 'squad automatic weapon' category. Essentially a light machine gun but they just had to give it another name. From my own understanding it's an intermediate between 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO. I think that's where the 'intermediate round' claim resinates. Best thing is to wait for official designation by the US Army. I agree with you, calling it an assault rifle or battle rifle at this point is neither correct. Automatic rifle makes sense on the other hand. Hopefully when they move the name from XM7 to M7 we will get more information. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The NGSW program was to procure a new rifle and automatic rifle. The XM7 will most likely be used in semi-auto but still has the option to choose to go full auto if the situation requires it. Hence, automatic rifle is more fitting description. The XM250 is more of a light machine gun / squad automatic weapon in nature anyways, and is the direct successor to the M249. But categorising the XM7 as an 'automatic rifle' wouldn't coincide with other rifle articles on Wikipedia.
 * It's a head scratcher. This is due to the rifle's nature, being the first of its kind. So I hope an official source comes up, to settle this once and for all. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * However since the dimensions and weight is similar to 7.62 NATO it is closer to it being classified as a battle rifle then an assault rifle. And in official US Army documents they haven't referred. to it as an assault rifle just yet, simply 'rifle' and 'automatic rifle' for the XM250 Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Guns & Glory Yep, you got it.  Army does what Army wants. Whether for budgeting issues, doctrinal shifts, or even just "there's no point in sticking a label on it right now (to make the lives of those irate wikipedia editors easier)", who knows.
 * If they had called the XM250 a machinegun, that'd make it easier. As it is, simply "Rifle" might be the best we can do.
 * @BilCat what say you?  I definitely agree with you that calling it a battle rifle given the lack of sources would be OR.  But the case for calling it an assault rifle is also kinda thin.  Balancing the usefulness to the reader against absolute accuracy, maybe changing the category as "Rifle" might be best until there's some kinda clarification (maybe in the form of its official M designation/NSN details)? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I say label it as 'selective fire rifle' at the time being. Since both 'assault rifle' and 'battle rifle' labels are technically incorrect and no official designation from the US Army yet apart from the NGSW programme that labelled it as 'rifle'. Selective fire rifle seems to be the middle ground for now and also has its own dedicated page here on Wikipedia. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What proves that 6.8x51 is a full-powered cartridge is its ballistic data. It is much closer to known full-powered cartridges such as 7.62x51, 7.62x54r, and 6.5 Creedmoor. If you used a classification algorithm such as k-means clustering and made 2 clusters for classification, 6.8x51mm would be grouped with known full-powered cartridges, not known intermediate cartridges. Godofgames122 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, "intermediate caliber" means something entirely different than "intermediate power." Caliber refers merely to the bore diameter of a cartridge, while power refers to (obviously) its power. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is small caliber but intermediate power, as opposed to .22 LR, which is small caliber and low-powered, and the 7.62x39mm cartridge, which is intermediate caliber and intermediate power. The 7.62x51mm NATO, .30-06 Springfield, and 6.8x51mm cartridge are all intermediate caliber but full power. The 6.8x51mm cartridge is more powerful than the 7.62x51mm cartridge, is as powerful as the .30-06 Springfield, and nobody would ever argue that the .30-06 Springfield is only an intermediate cartridge, even though the .30-06 Springfield (like the 7.62x51) are both intermediate caliber, being .308 in diameter. All three are full power but intermediate caliber. Get it?
 * For these reasons, despite what the US Army misnames it, the full powered but intermediate caliber cartridge 6.8x51mm should rightly be called a battle rifle. As a US Army Armor (tank) veteran myself, I know the US Army misnames its equipment more often than not (don't get me started on the M10 Booker, which the US Army insists is not a tank but merely "mobile protected firepower," which is the definition of a tank!) The US Army (speaking as a veteran from a military family myself) is not a trusted source for information, as they more often than not get facts and names wrong ("military intelligence" is an oxymoron, as anybody who served in the military knows), and the US military also deliberately spreads disinformation to confuse enemy nations about the capabilities of our weapons systems (but that's a topic for another discussion). Gato63 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is original research. If you are going to claim that it is a full-powered cartridge, then you will have to corroborate that claim with a reliable source that says so, not your own conjecture. Loafiewa (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * >6.5
 * >Arisaka
 * >They were not intermediate cartridges at all
 * In terms of joules, it is an intermediate-ish cartridge, lagging behind 7.62x51 significantly, let alone 7.92x57 Mauser. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It has the same dimensions with the 7.62 NATO cartridge. How would it be an intermediate cartridge if that's the case. During an interview from TFB TV, they specially said that the XM7 (MCX Spear) was a scaled up version of the MCX, akin to the AR-10. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this has come up again, I'm adding the source used in the article here. From "Army chooses Sig Sauer to build its Next Generation Squad Weapon": "The intermediate caliber 6.8mm cartridge falls between the 5.56mm, which is in the M4 and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and the 7.62mm round in the M240 machine gun." (Emphasis mine.) If someone finds another reliable source that calls the Fury a full power cartridge, please cite it, and we can add it as an alternate viewpoint. But we can't just claim it's full powered without a reliable source. BilCat (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * >armytimes.com
 * Smells like WP:NOTNEWS. 2A00:1FA0:48DB:C28E:0:6F:B1E0:1101 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * N/A. BilCat (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, "intermediate caliber" means something entirely different than "intermediate power." Caliber refers merely to the bore diameter of the cartridge, while power refers to (obviously) its power. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is small caliber but intermediate power, as opposed to .22 LR, which is small caliber and low-powered, and the 7.62x39mm cartridge, which is intermediate caliber and intermediate power. The 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, .30-06 cartridge, and 6.8x51mm cartridge are all intermediate caliber but full power. The 6.8x51mm cartridge is actually more powerful than the 7.62x51mm cartridge, so both cartridges are full power but intermediate caliber. For these reasons, the full powered but intermediate caliber cartridge 6.8x51mm should rightly be called a battle rifle, despite what the US Army calls it (as a US Army tank veteran myself, I can tell you that the US Army misnames its equipment more often than not, e.g. don't get me started on the M10 Booker, which the US Army insists is not a tank but merely "mobile protected firepower," while as a former tanker myself, I know that the definition of a tank is mobile protected firepower!) Gato63 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Older specimen

 * The XM7 is not a "first of its kind" unless it's unique by how it combines old good AR-15 style with the output of Cei-Rigotti or the first Russian avtomat. And WWI era 6,5mm rifle rounds with smokeless gunpowder are no different from modern ones - same brass, same igniter, same smokeless gunpowder, same range of conic-shaped projectile thingies called "bullets". That's not "original" to compare two basic numbers. 2A00:1FA0:48DB:C28E:0:6F:B1E0:1101 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Article move to XM7
Per Soldier Systems Daily, the name is being changed because of intellectual property issues. Yay. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. We should wait a bit for other sources to confirm. Schierbecker (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting indeed. The XM250 light machine gun should not be affected at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with waiting, specifically on a report of an official Army or DOD announcement, either directly or from reliable sources. (The one cited doesn't appear to be reliable.) BilCat (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not logged in but this is Jasonkwe. Was corroborated by TheFirearmBlog today.  Probably more corroborations to come since it was an announcement at SIG's pre-SHOT SHOW range day and others were probably present.  Soldier Systems is a pretty reliable source and has broken multiple stories that others cited them on. But I'd also like to wait for the official Army/DoD announcement.  Just wanted to give a heads up. 68.170.146.194 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PEO Soldier is using the new name.
 * https://twitter.com/PEOSoldier/status/1615808876087021589
 * "A Soldier fires the suppressed Sig Sauer XM-7 Rifle with Vortex XM-157 Fire Control from the standing unsupported firing position during a stress shoot trial of the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) Production Soldier Touch Point (STP) #1 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, NOV 2022." Ramlaen (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/01/19/army-forced-change-name-of-its-new-rifle.html --rogerd (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what we've been waiting for. I'll move it in a few hours if no one else does it beforehand. The hatnote will also need to be updated at that time. BilCat (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry if I stole your thunder. Schierbecker (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no, you didn't steal my thunder! I'd had some off-wiki things to do this afternoon, and wasn't able to to it at that time. BilCat (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic (and selective fire)
It appears the XM7 is semi-automatic. This article should indicate this. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It is an assault rifle with selective fire options from semi-automatic to fully auto, not just semi-auto. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fnlayson
 * I do not see that option on the official Department of Defense website.
 * It appears the pairing with the XM250, which is automatic, is creating misinformation.
 * “We should know that this is the first time in our lifetime, the first time in 65 years, that the Army will field a new weapon system of this nature—a rifle, an automatic rifle, a fire-control system and a new caliber family of ammunition,” said Brig. Gen. Larry Burris, the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team Director.
 * The DOD wants a semi-automatic and a separate automatic rifle.Please provide sources to verify the XM7 is automatic.
 * Otherwise this article should include "semi-automatic rifle". Philfromwaterbury (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of info in the article and the sources cited. Check for yourself. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited indicated the XM7 as tested, or that will be produced, will be automatic. This is not to say that when and if the X (experimental) is dropped, and the M7 is incorporated, will not be a fully automatic design.  Roadblocking the ambiguity of the current expression of this project is doing a disservice to (Constitutional) Posterity.
 * The XM7 is part of the SIG MCX platform.
 * I am not indicating this could/will not be done, but that this article should express the current truth.
 * Is there a ask by the U.S. Military that the M7 platform be semi or full automatic? Philfromwaterbury (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The term assault rifle linked in first sentence defines it as a selective fire rifle. Meaning semi-automatic and fully automatic, or semi-auto and burst (auto fire but in limited to a number of shots). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From TESTING THE ARMY’S NEW BATTLE RIFLE: SIG MCX SPEAR: "The civilian version of SIG's XM7 rifle is called the MCX Spear. There seem to be only two mechanical differences with the civilian version. First, it is semi-automatic only; there is no select-fire option." Hope that helps. If not, then we can't help, as talk.pages are not forums. BilCat (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can this link be used to reclassify the XM7 article to a battle rifle then? Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The US Army refers to it as 'XM7 Rifle'. https://www.army.mil/article/264799/army_moving_forward_with_next_generation_squad_weapon_program
 * Here's an infographic of the XM7 which clearly states the full auto capability.
 * https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/43391/military-us-armys-new-rifle Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not classify things on its own. That can be mentioned somewhere appropriate in the article with "according to Guns.com, etc..." though. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why isn’t the title XM7 carbine?
Why is the title XM7 rifle instead of XM7 carbine? Cxiden (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Because the reliable sources refer to it as a rifle, not a carbine. BilCat (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The US Army is not a reliable source (speaking as a US Army veteran, from a family of US Army veterans)! Gato63 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, but Wikipedia rules (WP:Reliable sources, etc.) are still what we are supposed to follow. Non-US military reliable source(s) could be used to state a differing classification with explicit wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A carbine is shorter barreled version of a standard rifle with the same caliber, and usually is only reserved for 5.56 chambered rifles. Ex. the M4 carbine designed from the M16. 208.102.81.80 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in short description - Please fix (I don't know how)
When looking up XM7 on my browser, it shows a short description for the article which reads "Assault rifle designed for the US military NGSW program el diseño fue echo por un infante de marina su puesto fue teníente su nombre es Ricardo Quintana". This is clear vandalism; half of it isn't in English, it has spelling mistakes, and the information is false. I don't know how to fix this though. Ale rc310 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The short description template at the top of the article only lists: "U.S. Army 6.8mm assault rifle". There's nothing to fix in the article itself. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

this isn't an assault rifle??
i am young and i know jack shit about guns even if im an enthusiast, but what i do know, this isn't an assault rifle from my knowledge? this counts as a battle rifle, i mean its in a calibre meant to penetrate body armor meaning its technically higher than 556 (correct me if im wrong) and it has a 20 round mag? Buttermaned (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ignore this post im genuinely stupid sorry lmao Buttermaned (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)