To be clear, I'm not a slavering XM-7 fan. It's OK. It's a step forward (IMO) from a .308 battle rifle because it gets all of or more of the "longer range, higher energy on target" positives in a shorter, lighter, handier package than a .308. Combined with the optics and targeting it makes for pretty solid increased lethality of well trained troops.
That said, it is still, basically, a battle rifle and that means it's many of the things we went to an intermediate cartridge carbine to avoid. Bigger, heaver, recoils more, ammo is heaver and bigger (so you carry less of it). Do we need that capability in the force? Dunno. Maybe.
One thing to think on: I took a class with Sidewinder Concepts last year and Adrian was talking about the need for most people to get batter with their rifles. He espoused his belief that 300yds and in was effectively CQB range. This is why: I can take an M4 or an AK, bone stock, and any average 14 year old in the world, and in a week train them to be capable of hitting a man size target at 300 yds 50% or so of the time. I don't need to train them on ballistics, or drop, or any of that "shooter" *expletive deleted*it. A battlesight zero and a decent rest and they'll hit a torso at 300. So it follows that if you are on a two way range and you are within 300yds of the enemy you are probably in THEIR range. Hence CQB. Ideally you want your team (people, weapons, ammo, optics, all of it together) to be able to effectively engage the enemy BEFORE you are in their range. With modern mass production of small arms, that means more than 300 yds. So if you are training for a two way range, you should have, and be able to use, a weapons system that allows PID and effective engagement from 600yds and in, or more.
Now, obviously for a civilian, where Rule of Law is still a thing, other considerations take over. Also Adrian is a qualified Sniper, and brings that mindset to battle, but his reasoning gives me food for thought, and I think is relevant to modern armies. We are integrating new and better ISR assets to find and ID the enemy farther out, we are dealing with better systems integration on both sides, and we are gearing up to fight people that actually train, unlike the screaming beards of the GWOT. One of the US's advantages for years has been that we throw money and tech at the problem instead of bodies, and the idea of extending the lethality range of the standard infantryman out to 700yds-800yds allowing the whole squad to leverage the increased coms and sensors we are also fielding is not a bad idea. Much better to shoot them before they have the ability to shoot you.
Is the XM7 the weapon to do that? Will we actually manage to field the sensors, coms and weapons to allow it? Will we actually manage to train the Close Combat Force to that standard? Will our next war be fought in underground tunnels at SMG distance? I dunno about any of that, but extending our lethality isn't a BAD idea, on it's face.
