An Army infantry officer has made a series of criticisms of the Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle, which is meant to replace the M4A1 carbine.
The Army introduced the XM7 rifle and XM250 light machine gun — both of which chamber a 6.8mm round — partly due to concerns that modern body armor could stop the 5.56mm rounds fired by the M4A1 and M249. The bigger round is also meant to give the XM7 an increased range based on lessons from Afghanistan.
But Army Capt. Braden Trent presented his research into the XM7 at the Modern Day Marine exhibition in Washington, D.C. — research he claims shows that the rifle is inferior to the M4A1.
As part of his research, Trent said he visited the 1st Brigade Combat Team “Bastogne,” 101st Airborne Division, which was the first active-duty Army unit to receive the XM7. Trent said he interviewed more than 150 soldiers and disassembled 23 XM7 rifles.
His 52-page report on the subject, which included testing with experts, ballistic research, and input from soldiers, concluded that the XM7 is “unfit for use as a modern service rifle,” Trent said on April 29 during his presentation at Modern Day Marine.
Trent said his research has shown that soldiers equipped with the XM7 in a live-fire exercise quickly run out of ammunition because its magazine only holds 20 rounds. He also said that gouges and scratches can form in the barrel after firing more than 2,000 rounds, the rifle’s weight makes it hard for soldiers to maneuver.
Trent also said that soldiers told him that nearly all of their engagements in a military exercise were taking place within 300 meters, negating the XM7’s advantage at longer ranges, he said.
“The XM7 is a tactically outdated service rifle that would be better classified as a designated marksman rifle, if that,” Trent said during his presentation. “This rifle is a mechanically unsound design that will not hold up to sustained combat on a peer-on-peer conflict.”
Sig Sauer and the Army respond
However, a representative of Sig Sauer, which the Army selected in 2022 to build the Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle and machine gun, disputed Trent’s findings.
“We have a very large staff of individuals that work daily on that rifle to ensure that every aspect of its performance is scrutinized, every aspect of its safety is criticized,” said Jason St. John, the senior director of strategic products for Sig Sauer. “We are highly confident that we have provided the U.S. Army soldier with a very robust weapon system that is not only safe, but it performs at the highest levels.”
St. John said he did not want to issue a point-by-point rebuttal for all of Trent’s conclusions “because most of them are patently false.”
David H. Patterson, Jr., a spokesman for Program Executive Office Soldier, also said that the Next Generation Squad Weapon is well suited for close combat. Specifically, the weapon “provides greater effects within 300 meters,” he said.
“As the secretary of the Army and chief of staff highlighted in their Army Transformation Initiative memo to the force, ‘Yesterday’s weapons will not win tomorrow’s wars,’” Patterson wrote in an email on Monday to Task & Purpose. “The Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program provides unmatched lethality to our Close Combat Force (CCF). The Army is committed to accepting soldier feedback and enhancing weapons for optimal use.”
Not an official report
Trent is currently a student at the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warfare School and was presenting his personal views on the subject, and his research for the school’s fellowship program is not sponsored or endorsed by the Army, Marine Corps, or Defense Department, according to his research paper, which was obtained by Task & Purpose.
The Modern Day Marine exhibition encourages collaboration and the sharing of ideas, especially among noncommissioned officers and company grade officers who use some weapons and systems showcased at the exhibition, said Marine Corps spokesman Lt. Col. Nick Mannweiler.
“While it remains solely his personal opinion, Capt. Trent’s presentation exemplifies the type of dialogue and feedback we wanted with student presentations,” Mannweiler wrote in an email to Task & Purpose. “This is what the profession of arms looks like.”
In his research project, Trent wrote that his paper is “in no way intended to disparage the United States Army, acquisitions personnel, or private contractors/manufacturers.”
Trent also wrote that the Army can still “rectify the decision to adopt the XM7,” adding that soldiers deserve to go into battle knowing they have been given the best weapons available.
“They deserve to be given a weapon that is safe and efficient to operate,” Trent wrote. “They deserve a rifle capable of providing the fire superiority they need to close with and destroy the enemy. The men and women of the infantry have always fought at the fullest extent of their capabilities, willing to achieve victory at the price of ‘the last full measure of devotion.’ The Army must continue to provide them with weapons capable of matching that devotion.”
Barrel and rifle gouging
The most serious problem Trent said he noticed was that some XM7 rifles developed a scratch or gouge in their barrel after firing more than 2,000 rounds, Trent said.
“This can lead to all kinds of problems with accuracy and safety, and I recommend a full investigation by those who are more qualified — engineers with bore scopes, etc, that I did not have available with me during my time at 1st Brigade,” Trent said.
In his project paper, Trent wrote, “Surface damage to the rifling was visible to the eye at the same location on rifles that had exceeded the 2,000 round count.”
But St. John said Trent’s findings on gouges and scratches in the XM7’s rifle barrel were based on a superficial examination of the weapon.
“Capt. Trent looked down a barrel naked eye, didn’t use a boroscope, didn’t use any gauging to determine if there was any sort of erosive nature to that weapon system, is indistinct in his ability to say what he witnessed other than he believes by naked eye looking down a barrel with natural light that he witnessed some issues,” St. John said.
According to St. John, the XM7 can fire more than 10,000 rounds before the barrel fails — twice the program’s requirement.
Patterson, the Army spokesperson, said the service fired more than 20,000 rounds per barrel while testing the XM7 and found that the rifle’s performance and accuracy were not affected.
Soldiers run out of ammo quickly
Another issue raised by Trent is the 20-round capacity of the XM7’s magazine, compared with the M4A1, which has a 30-round magazine.
If soldiers armed with both weapons are expected to carry seven magazines into battle as part of their universal basic load, or UBL, soldiers with M4A1 carbines would carry 210 rounds while soldiers armed with the XM7 would have 140 rounds, Trent said at Modern Day Marine.
“Now again, a 70-round difference may not seem significant, but to the soldier in the fight, it absolutely is a difference, not to mention that every magazine added to the XM7 — each 20-round loaded magazine — adds another 1.25 pounds to the soldier’s load, meaning that if troops equipped with the XM7 tried to match their old UBLs, they’re going to have even more weight being carried,” Trent said.
Indeed, during a company live-fire exercise that he observed, a platoon of soldiers armed with XM7s tasked with suppressing an objective while other soldiers could maneuver, burned through their ammunition quickly, Trent said.
“Within 10 minutes, the platoon I observed was almost completely out of ammunition after starting the engagement,” Trent said. “And by 15 minutes, their ability to produce effective suppression had become almost zero. This is after having taken spare magazines for the XM7 from radio operators, medics, platoon leadership, etc.”
When asked about the exercise in which soldiers ran out of ammunition, St. John said Sig Sauer has no opinion about how the Army uses the XM7.
“That’s way outside of our realm,” St. John said. “How the Army trains, how the Army utilizes it, what the Army’s tactics, techniques, and procedures are, that’s way beyond Sig Sauer’s opinion level. We’re in the delivering firearms business.”
Patterson said the Army has conducted several different exercises that looked at how much ammunition soldiers armed with the XM7 use.
“Following the completion of the exercises, there was enough ammunition remaining to conduct a follow-on action,” Patterson said.
Patterson also said there is no doctrine dictating a “Universal Combat Load.”
The Army’s Training Publication for infantry platoons and squads says that a platoon’s basic load depends on the mission and may be determined by the unit’s leader or standard operating procedure.
“The unit basic load includes supplies kept by the platoon for use in combat,” the publication says. “The quantity of most unit basic load supply items depends on how many days in combat the platoon might have to sustain itself without resupply. For Class V ammunition, the higher commander or [standard operating procedure] specifies the platoon’s basic load.”
UPDATE: 05/06/2025; this story was updated with information from the Army about exercises involving how much ammunition soldiers armed with the XM7 used and who determines how much ammunition platoons carry as part of their unit’s basic load.