logo
Why the Army's new XM7 rifle reignited a debate over volume of fire

Why the Army's new XM7 rifle reignited a debate over volume of fire

Yahoo12-05-2025

An Army captain's research paper, written at a Marine Corps professional school, criticized the service's move to a new rifle and reignited a long-standing debate among infantrymen: heavier caliber or more rounds?
In 2018, the Army began developing its Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle, the XM7, as a replacement for the M4A1 carbine. Compared to its predecessor, the Sig Sauer-produced XM7 fires a heavier round that the Army says improves 'accuracy, range, signature management, and lethality.'
But the larger 6.8mm round comes with a price: the XM7 can only carry 20 rounds in a magazine, while the M4's standard load is 30.
Army Capt. Braden Trent argued in a recent academic paper that the lower ammo count was a major flaw. Combat training and marksmanship experts who spoke with Task & Purpose were split.
Brig. Gen. Phil Kinniery, commandant for the Army's Infantry School and Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, was adamant that the new XM7 is an improvement on the firearms used by the Army for 20 years of war in the Middle East.
'From having been in several firefights throughout my career and deployments in Afghanistan and in Iraq, that [6.8mm round] round stops the enemy,' Kinniery told Task & Purpose. 'What we're actually bringing to infantry soldiers or, really, the close combat force across the Army, is something that stops the enemy at one round versus having to shoot multiple rounds at the enemy to get them to stop.'
Trent wrote his report as part of a fellowship program at the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Warfare School. He presented his findings at a Modern Day Marine exhibition in Washington, D.C. April 29, criticizing the Army's new rifle, specifically its capacity for fewer rounds.
Though he developed the paper as a student at the Marine school, his work was not sponsored or endorsed by the Army, Marine Corps, or Defense Department, according to his paper.
Trent observed a platoon's live-fire exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where elements of the 101st Airborne Division have been testing and carrying the rifle for over a year. Trent watched soldiers run 'almost completely out of ammunition' in 10 minutes while using XM7s to suppress a simulated enemy as fellow platoonmates made tactical maneuvers. By 15 minutes into the exercise, their situation was even more dire, as soldiers had to retrieve spare magazines from radio operators, medics and platoon leaders.
The issues raised by Trent represent longstanding disagreements within the infantry on the weapons that soldiers carry, dating as far back as the 1960s, said Thomas McNaugher, who wrote a book on the Army's transition from the M14 to the M16 rifle.
'The rifle may look like a simple technology, but it is the last ditch defense weapon of the average infantry soldier, so it's a personal thing and there are about 1,000 opinions out there about the best size round, the best range,' McNaugher said. 'Changing rifles is often very controversial.'
Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and current senior advisor on defense for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington D.C. think tank, said there are two camps of thought: those who prefer to do more with less and using a heavier round, versus others who want a higher volume of fire, lighter recoil and less weight.
'You're never going to sort of bridge that gap because it's baked into the military problem,' Cancian said. 'People who are expert marksmen value the heavier caliber, and people who aren't, don't. The former tend to be more heavily represented in the infantry, of course, but they're particularly represented in rifle teams and snipers and these elite shooters.'
An Army marksmanship instructor told Task & Purpose that the service will have to rethink how it teaches soldiers to shoot with the new rifle.
'We need to account for every one of our rounds that we shoot — marksmanship matters,' the instructor said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they weren't clear to speak to media.
Close combat forces are expected to carry out firefights with the enemy, and with that come tactics like suppression, or firing to prevent the enemy from being able to fire back or to protect a friendly squad during maneuvers, according to the Army's ATP 3-21.8 manual for infantry rifle platoons and squads.
In his paper, Trent argued that infantry soldiers' suppression tactics could be impacted by needing to reload more often. The consequences of having fewer rounds could be critical in a future fight where the military is preparing for limited logistics and resupply.
'It is unlikely that an infantry company will be provided with constant logistical support,' he wrote. While the XM7 could be useful for suppressing targets in a single engagement, 'it is not likely' that those soldiers would get a timely resupply for a subsequent mission.
Army officials said they've run tests in which the rifle is used to both attack an evenly matched opponent and defend against a larger one. An operational assessment of the NGSW 'specifically addressed this concern with a threat ratio of one-to-one in the offensive scenario and three-to-one in the defensive scenario,' according to David Patterson, a spokesperson with Program Executive Office Soldier, which is in charge of the rifle development. 'The resulting [assessment] allowed both a live fire squad attack and counterattack to be conducted with ammunition remaining.'
McNaugher investigated the trade-offs when the Army went from the M14's more powerful and accurate 7.62mm round to the M16's smaller and lighter 5.56mm round. The M16, he wrote in a 1979 RAND essay, allowed for more 'spray-like automatic fire' that 'was the product of newer trends in rifle design based on the premise that marksmanship had at best a limited role to play on the battlefield.'
From McNaugher's own experience in Vietnam, he said the simple idea of having more or fewer rounds before having to reload was at the forefront of his mind as he trudged through the jungles and worried about being ambushed. He said the issue is 'an existential question for the infantrymen.'
'I was forced to carry the 45-caliber pistol, which was about nine rounds and there had been Browning 9 millimeter pistols at 13 rounds, and I really wished I could have carried that,' he said. 'In the end, it didn't matter. I never got ambushed, but that question of how many rounds you can fire before you have to reload is an important one.'
Retired Marine Col. J.D. Williams, an adjunct defense policy researcher with the RAND Corporation, told Task & Purpose in an email that various exercises could lead to 'different conclusions about magazine capacity.'
Williams said marksmanship proponents argue that higher magazine capacity 'encourages indiscriminate fire and expends ammunition supplies more rapidly.' Smaller magazines lead to more frequent reloads, which 'can create a lull in fire that the enemy can exploit,' he said.
'It is not surprising that firepower exercises could reach different conclusions about magazine capacity, as the structure of the exercise will impact outcome of the exercise,' Williams added.
Kiniery said if suppression is defined as being able to identify a target, use a 'lethal round,' and suppress their movement, then the new rifle does just that.
'The power of this weapon system and the round that we're giving the soldier far exceeds the capability of the 5.56, so no longer can you hide behind a tree,' Kiniery said. 'No longer can you hide behind a wall. When we know you're there, we're going to be able to kill you.'
The XM7 has a 20-round capacity compared to the Army's previous M4A1 30-round magazine. Soldiers' current basic combat load means they carry seven magazines into battle for M4A1 carbines, which equates to 210 rounds. Soldiers with the XM7 would have 140 rounds.
'A 70-round difference may not seem significant, but to the soldier in the fight, it absolutely is a difference,' Trent said at Modern Day Marine.
To compensate for lower magazine capacity, soldiers could carry more magazines, but that would add weight.
An unloaded XM7 weighs 8.18 pounds, while the unloaded M4A1 weighs 6.54 pounds. Add the suppressor to the XM7, and that goes up to 9.84 pounds, a difference of more than three pounds from the older rifle, before loading it with heavier ammunition, according to Trent's paper.
The marksmanship instructor told Task & Purpose that soldiers needing to carry a heavier rifle, an optic, a suppressor, and extra ammunition is a concern for large-scale combat operations. As the Army trains soldiers on new concepts for 21st-century combat, where detection by drones and sensing technologies reveal troop locations, soldiers will be expected to physically move locations more often and across greater distances.
'Walking up and down the mountains out of Afghanistan, if I had to carry a full combat load of this and it weighs X amount more, that would suck,' the marksmanship instructor said. 'I'm literally just carrying too much weight.'
The issue of how much soldiers carry into battle is something that the Army has long known about and is actively working to improve by getting rid of excess batteries and cables that have accumulated over the years.
Kinniery challenged the universal basic load amounts, saying that each formation will carry more or less ammunition, depending on what their commanding officer decides is needed. He also said that the common practice of carrying seven-round magazines could be adjusted.
'One of the first questions I asked when I took the job over is, where did the science come from for having 210 rounds, and where did that get justified?' Kinniery said. 'I have searched for the science on this, and I'm still looking for it.'
Army infantry officer calls new XM7 'unfit for use as a modern service rifle'
Attempted Fort Leavenworth prison break leaves military inmate tangled on fence
When Americans, Germans and POWs fought the SS from the walls of a castle
This Army combat medic fought off an active shooter and rendered first aid
This 53 aircraft 'elephant walk' has everything you'd need for a war in the Pacific

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Meta and Anduril defense startup partner on VR, AR project intended for U.S. Army
Meta and Anduril defense startup partner on VR, AR project intended for U.S. Army

CNBC

time19 hours ago

  • CNBC

Meta and Anduril defense startup partner on VR, AR project intended for U.S. Army

Meta and Anduril, the defense-tech startup founded by Palmer Luckey, announced Thursday that they've formed a partnership to create virtual and augmented reality devices intended for use by the U.S. army. The partnership represents a major step by Meta to supply cutting-edge technology to the government in addition to working once again with Luckey, who sold his Oculus VR startup to the social media company for $2 billion in 2014. Luckey and Meta had an acrimonious split, with the Anduril founder telling CNBC in 2019 that he "got fired" from the company formerly known as Facebook "for no reason at all," suggesting that a $10,000 donation to a pro-Donald Trump group ahead of the 2016 U.S. election could have contributed to the decision. With Trump winning the U.S. presidency in November for the second time, Zuckerberg and other tech executives have since courted favor with the White House by making sweeping policy changes like relaxing content-moderation guidelines. Meta has also been pitching its open-source Llama family of AI models to government agencies and in November said it would make the those tools available to government units "working on defense and national security applications, and private sector partners supporting their work." "Meta has spent the last decade building AI and AR to enable the computing platform of the future," Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement. "We're proud to partner with Anduril to help bring these technologies to the American service members that protect our interests at home and abroad." In February, Anduril and Microsoft said that the defense tech startup would take over the enterprise giant's AR headset program with the U.S. army. Meta and Anduril have placed a joint bid on an Army contract for VR devices that is worth up to $100 million, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. The two companies are working on EagleEye, a system that carries sensors that enhance soldiers' hearing and vision, according to the report. Meta and Anduril will move forward on their partnership whether or not they win the Army contract, per the Journal. The two companies pitched their partnership as helping the U.S. maintain a "technical edge" while aiding national security and saving the military "billions of dollars by utilizing high-performance components and technology originally built for commercial use." "I am glad to be working with Meta once again." Luckey said in a statement. "Of all the areas where dual-use technology can make a difference for America, this is the one I am most excited about." Anduril also announced in December that it partnered with OpenAI on an artificial-intelligence initiative related to "national security missions."

From Gods To Code: A Brief History Of Human Meaning
From Gods To Code: A Brief History Of Human Meaning

Forbes

time19 hours ago

  • Forbes

From Gods To Code: A Brief History Of Human Meaning

How to find purpose in an age where even our thinking and creativity can be outsourced to AI. Fantasy Moon over ocean and mountain ridge, Far-side of the moon,Darkside of the Moon Human beings are wired to seek meaning — a subjective sense that life is coherent, purposeful, and significant (even though, in objective terms, it is none of that). From early cognitive psychologists like Jerome Bruner, who argued that we create meaning through narrative, to modern neuroscientists studying the brain's default mode network, the consensus is clear: Meaning isn't a luxury, but a psychological necessity. Indeed, meaning helps us tolerate uncertainty, make sense of chaos, and stay motivated through suffering. It also helps us make sense of ourselves and develop a sense of identity. Viktor Frankl compellingly illustrated that people can endure almost anything if they believe it has meaning. Referencing his own experiences in a Nazi concentration camp he noted 'Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'. Neurologically, meaning activates areas tied to reward, self-reflection, and emotion, integrating experiences into coherent stories. It's not given to us — we construct it, and often defend it, especially during crises. Cognitive and emotional systems work together to build and sustain these frameworks — through memory, identity, and perceived agency. Empirical studies show people find meaning most often in relationships, purposeful work, personal growth, and even suffering — particularly when it's reframed. While past societies imported meaning from religion, tradition, or social roles, modern individuals must manufacture their own. This makes meaning deeply personal, but also vulnerable to fragmentation and disillusionment. In the age of AI, where work, creativity, and cognition can be outsourced, we risk losing traditional sources of meaning without obvious replacements. With its impressive repertoire of synthetic knowledge, creativity, and intelligence, AI is forcing us to rethink what truly makes us human (in the sense of our unique capabilities and skills), and what it means to be human in an age in which we outsource even our thinking to machines. If machines can perform the tasks that once made us feel useful, valuable, and unique, what's left for us to build a life around? Furthermore, what does it mean to be human if we can be without thinking? In every era, humans have asked some version of the same question: Why am I here, and what is this all for? It's the same existential riddle posed by philosophers and pop culture alike — from Nietzsche to Tony Montana, who, after climbing the capitalist mountain in Scarface, asks what's left beyond the pile of cocaine and paranoia. Or Citizen Kane's dying whisper of 'Rosebud,' a child's sled standing in for a lost, possibly meaningless life. While the human quest of meaning is perennial, the answers have changed as dramatically as our technology, politics, and hairstyles — from gods and rituals to careers and personal brands. As AI begins to take over not just our labor, but our thinking, our creativity, and our productivity, we're left asking whether meaning itself can be outsourced, and found just one click or prompt away. To understand the scale of this moment, it helps to zoom out — way out — and trace the evolution of meaning across time. Below is a brief intellectual history of what humans have lived for, and how those sources of purpose have shifted with each transformation in how we live and work. 1. Mythic & Tribal Meaning (Prehistory – 600 BCE) Slogan: We are one with the gods. In humanity's earliest chapters, meaning was not something you found — it was something you were born into. Life was interpreted through the lens of nature, spirits, and ancestors. The world was enchanted, alive with gods, totems, and unseen forces. Purpose was communal and ritualistic. You belonged to a tribe, you played your part, and the question of individual meaning rarely emerged. The collective mattered more than the self. You knew who you were by knowing where you belonged. Think of it as the original operating system for meaning — closed-source, pre-installed, and immune to customization. Opting out wasn't a philosophical stance; it was a death sentence or, worse, exile. Today, we call it "community." Back then, it was life. 2. Religious & Divine Order (600 BCE – 1500 CE) Slogan: My purpose is God's plan. With the rise of the Axial Age came organized religions that framed human life as a moral journey, guided by divine command. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism all offered grand narratives in which human beings had cosmic significance. Meaning was found in obedience, sacrifice, and spiritual striving. The purpose of life wasn't invented by the individual — it was discovered in scripture. To live meaningfully was to live rightly, according to sacred law. Fulfillment came in service to a higher power. This was the theological equivalent of a franchise model: the rules came from headquarters, your job was to follow the manual, and if things went wrong, it was your fault for not having enough faith — not a flaw in the system. Think less personal startup, more divine bureaucracy: your life had a mission, but the job description was carved in stone. 3. Rationalism & Humanism (1500 – 1800) Slogan: I think, therefore I Enlightenment changed everything. Reason replaced revelation, and individuals became the new arbiters of truth. Thinkers like Descartes, Locke, and Kant argued that humans could construct meaning through intellect, ethics, and personal autonomy. The Renaissance celebrated the dignity of man; science opened new frontiers. Meaning began to shift from divine will to human capability. Life became a quest not to obey, but to understand — and to act morally out of reason, not just faith. Meaning was no longer handed down from the heavens; it was drafted, debated, and footnoted by men in powdered wigs. Humanity became its own mythmaker — the sole author, editor, and sometimes unreliable narrator of significance. It was as if the universe outsourced meaning to us, trusting we'd be rational (or at least confident) enough not to mess it up. 4. Scientific & Industrial Progress (1800 – 1945) Slogan: To work is to live. As revolutions roared and factories rose, human worth became increasingly tied to productivity. The industrial age recast people as workers — gears in the great machine of economic progress. Purpose was found in contribution: building, inventing, conquering, producing. Even philosophies of meaning (Marxism, nationalism, utilitarianism) took on a mechanistic bent. Labor was no longer just a necessity; it became an identity. Your job wasn't just what you did — it was who you were. It was the age when the soul clocked in. Humans became their CVs, and meaning punched a timecard. Fulfillment was measured not in prayers or principles, but in output per hour — a kind of existential capitalism where your worth was your work ethic, and vacation was moral suspicion. In a way, this was the analogue version of the digital revolution or data-driven capitalism. Meaning through the ages 5. Existentialism & Absurdism (1945 – 1980s) Slogan: Life is meaningless — now make it count. The aftermath of two world wars shattered many of the old certainties. God seemed silent, progress suspect. Philosophers like Camus and Sartre embraced the absurd: life has no inherent meaning, so we must create our own. This was the era of freedom and anxiety, where responsibility became the burden of the individual. Meaning was no longer handed down from on high — it was something you assembled from scratch. You were condemned to be free, and what you made of your life was entirely on you. It was as if the universe had ghosted you — no guidance, no purpose, just infinite autonomy and a vague sense that whatever you did next better be meaningful... or at least look good in a memoir. 6. Consumer Identity (1980s – 2000s) Slogan: I shop, therefore I am. As neoliberalism took hold, the market moved into the space once occupied by the sacred and the social. Identity became a product, and meaning was increasingly expressed through what you bought, wore, posted, and owned. Careers replaced work. Brands filled in for belief systems. You didn't just work a job — you crafted a meaningful lifestyle and aspired to becoming a brand. The rise of advertising, credit, and Facebook made meaning feel personal but hollow. Influencers emerged as human brands and sources of meaning. Consumption became performance, and success was measured in likes, logos, and LinkedIn endorsements. Our digital selves begun to subsume our real selves. 7. Wellbeing & Inner Growth (2000s – 2020s) Slogan: Find your truth. As burnout and disillusionment with materialism set in, a new quest began: inward. Meaning shifted from status to self-awareness, from hustle to healing. Mindfulness apps replaced religious rituals. Therapy-speak became a second language. Self-actualization became the new salvation. You were expected not only to work and consume, but to grow, evolve, and become your "authentic self." This era promised meaning through alignment — between who you are, what you do, and how you feel. This era of existential freedom—where meaning must be handcrafted from the raw materials of one's own psyche—was not without cost. As the contemporary philosopher Byung-Chul Han observes, we have transitioned from a society of repression to one of depression. No longer oppressed by external authority, we are instead crushed by the weight of limitless possibility. 'If you can be anything,' Han warns, 'then you must be everything'— a pressure that turns potential into paralysis. In the absence of fixed roles or inherited purpose, freedom becomes a tyrannical demand for self-creation. The individual is now CEO, brand, therapist, and motivational speaker all in one — like a one-person startup permanently pitching to an invisible investor called 'self-worth,' with exhaustion as the only guaranteed return on investment. 8. AI & Automation (2020s – → ) Slogan: I prompt, therefore I am. And now, we arrive at the present moment — a time in which AI, which had been in the making since the 1960s, finally woke up, going mainstream and beginning to absorb not just our labor, but our cognitive and creative functions. AI can now write, draw, analyze, strategize, and even empathize (or at least simulate it well enough to fool us). The very domains where humans once found purpose — problem-solving, innovation, self-expression — are increasingly shared with, or surrendered to, machines. We are no longer just workers or thinkers; we are prompters — directing generative systems that do the work for us. Meaning becomes mediated through interface. If AI can perform our jobs, generate our ideas, write our stories, even express our feelings — where does that leave us? Are we curators of meaning, or passive consumers of it? Can we still find fulfillment in being the prompt engineers of our own existence? Expertise is no longer about knowing the answer to many questions, but asking the right questions; and creativity, well, it is the human leftover to what AI can't do (or doesn't want to). The optimistic account is that our lives will be more fulfilling because all the boring and predictable tasks can be outsourced to AI; the pessimistic account sees us as the digital version of assembly line workers, training large language models on how to automate us, in the huge virtual factory called AI. 'Ctrl + Alt + Purpose: Rebooting Meaning in the Age of AI' Throughout history, every era has rewritten the script of human meaning — from divine decree to industrial purpose, from moral codes to personal brands. We once searched the skies, then the self; now, we consult the algorithm. Each answer reflected the technologies, fears, and fantasies of its time. But today, meaning has become strangely urgent. When machines can paint, write, and diagnose — even simulate empathy — what's left for us to be? If productivity no longer depends on us, why should purpose? Maybe this is the moment meaning finally stops being about output. Maybe our value isn't in what we produce, but in what we notice, nurture, or choose to care about — in the deliberate, non-automatable act of consciousness. Or maybe we'll just scroll past it, distracted by another synthetic dopamine hit. Either way, in a world where everything can be faked — intelligence, emotion, even purpose — the real danger isn't that AI will outthink us. It's that we'll forget the value of meaning altogether.

Meta Fired Palmer Luckey. Now, They're Teaming Up on a Defense Contract.
Meta Fired Palmer Luckey. Now, They're Teaming Up on a Defense Contract.

Wall Street Journal

time20 hours ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Meta Fired Palmer Luckey. Now, They're Teaming Up on a Defense Contract.

Meta META 0.37%increase; green up pointing triangle Platforms had a messy split with its virtual-reality chief Palmer Luckey. Now, the two have reconnected to build high-tech headsets for the U.S. Army. Luckey's defense firm Anduril Industries and Meta said Thursday they will together build a line of new rugged helmets, glasses and other wearables that provide a virtual-reality or augmented-reality experience.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store