When the Army picked the SIG MCX Spear as its Next Generation Squad Weapon, the reaction in a lot of gun circles was mixed.
On paper, the 6.8×51 cartridge promised better armor-penetration and range than 5.56. In the real world, the original M7 Spear carbine came off as heavy, gassy, and hard to control for the average soldier.
What SIG brought out for this recent range session is what the original gun probably should have been from the beginning: an 11-inch, trimmed-down variant that feels a lot more like a fighting rifle and less like a science project.
Garand Thumb and his crew spent time on the range with what they’re calling the M7A1, a prototype the Army hasn’t officially named yet, but clearly represents the next evolution of the program.
From M7 Spear to “M7A1” – What Changed
Side by side with the earlier M7 Spear, the changes are obvious even before you shoot it.
Barrel and profile
- Original M7 Spear barrel length was around 13 inches
- The new variant runs an 11-inch barrel
- Barrel profile has been redesigned specifically around 6.8×51’s high pressures.
The 6.8×51 hybrid case runs around 80,000 psi. The original gun used a fairly overbuilt profile to survive that pressure and unknowns in the early testing cycle.
With more data, SIG has moved to a refined profile that keeps life in the same ballpark while dropping weight. Barrel life is still roughly around the 10,000-round mark for military 277 ammo, which is about what you’d expect at those pressures.
Upper receiver and weight
The upper itself went on a diet. SIG shaved roughly a pound off the system by combining the lighter barrel and trimmed upper.
More important than the raw number is where the weight disappeared from. With mass pulled off the front half of the rifle, the M7A1 feels noticeably handier than the original Spear. It mounts faster, transitions easier, and doesn’t feel like you’re steering a fence post through a doorway.
Handguard and lockup
The handguard is new as well
- More functional M-LOK real estate
- Easier access to the gas adjustment
- Beefed-up attachment with larger screws and improved clamping
Early Spears had visible barrel and rail flex under pressure at the front of the gun. The new lockup stiffens that interface. Pushing on the rail now produces far less visible deflection, and it returns to zero better than previous versions. For a gun that’s going to wear lasers and be used for night work, that matters.
Gas plug and suppressor
The gas plug has been redesigned and is easier to actuate thanks to the new handguard. The suppressor is entirely different in concept from what most shooters are used to on 5.56 guns.
- Flow-through design
- Prioritizes flash reduction and gas management, not sound
- Built to reduce gas to the shooter’s face and long-term health risk
The point here is simple: this is a frontline combat rifle, not a clandestine gun. The designers cared more about flash signature and keeping troops from sucking carcinogenic gas all day than squeezing out a few more decibels of suppression.
You still get flash, and the can heats up fast because 277 burns a lot more powder than 5.56. There’s no way around that. The heat shield helps with handling, but you still do not want that can touching bare skin or clothing.
6.8×51 Out of an 11-Inch Barrel – The Numbers
The big question with cutting the barrel down from 13 to 11 inches is whether you cripple the cartridge.
Garand Thumb ran reduced-range training ammunition through a chrono from the 11-inch barrel. That ammo is designed to limit downrange danger, but it’s loaded to give the same velocity and recoil profile as the full-range combat load.
The five-shot string averaged about 2,943 feet per second with a 113-grain projectile and a standard deviation of around 14 fps.
Put that in context
- A 20-inch M16 with 55-grain 5.56 is usually around 3,100 fps
- This 11-inch 6.8×51 is pushing more than double the bullet weight only about 150 fps slower
That is serious energy out of a very short package. Even with reduced-range ammo, drop at distance was minimal enough that the shooter could see how flat the round flies. With ball ammo, the performance only gets more unforgiving for whatever is on the receiving end.
The tradeoff is barrel wear. High pressure and high velocity eat steel. Nobody should be shocked that you are not getting 30,000 rounds out of a barrel at 80k psi.
Recoil and Controllability – Better Than the Original Spear
Compared to the original M7 Spear, the M7A1 feels like a different gun on the shoulder.
On full auto, both experienced shooters and the camera crew ran mags at CQB distances and kept rounds in the A-zone. The key points
- Noticeably more controllable than early M7 examples
- Recoil impulse feels softer and more linear
- Still more recoil than an M4, but not unmanageable
The lighter front end and tuned gas system help here. The original Spear, especially with early ammo, had shooters climbing all over the target in bursts. The new gun stays much flatter, assuming the shooter does their part and drives the gun aggressively.
Gas blowback is higher than a suppressed 5.56, as expected, but not in the “unshootable” range. Right-handed shooters will tolerate it fine. Left-handed shooters are going to get more gas thanks to where the ejection port lives and the volume of powder being burned. That is not unique to this rifle.
Controls and Ergonomics – Familiar, with Some Army Nonsense
One of the big wins of the M7 program is that it keeps most AR-style controls. That matters for a force that has lived on the M4 platform for decades.
Ambidextrous controls
- Ambi safety that can be run with the firing hand thumb
- Bolt release on both sides
- Ambi magazine release
The safety, in particular, is a real improvement over older service rifles. It feels like a proper modern carbine control layout.
Dual charging handles
Then there’s the charging setup.
The Army required both a traditional rear charging handle and a side-charging handle. That adds complexity and a little weight. It also introduces some quirks.
- If the bolt is locked to the rear and the side charger is still pulled back, dropping the bolt can smash your thumb
- You now have two systems to teach, two ways for troops to half-learn instead of one way to master
There are niche cases where a side charger helps, especially in deep prone with a ruck or barricade in the way. Whether that justifies the cost and complexity is another question. That’s not on SIG that’s on the requirement writers.
Stock and rear end
Soldier feedback killed the folding stock. The M7A1 runs a fixed stock on a 1913 rail rear end using a compact Magpul stock.
- Simpler
- Less to break
- Still allows different 1913 stocks to be mounted if needed
Sling mounting is straightforward QD at the rear and various points along the handguard. No nonsense there.
Magazines, Ammunition Load, and Squad-Level Reality
The rifle uses NGSW-pattern magazines made by SIG. These are designed around the specific feed angle needed for the steel-tipped armor-defeating projectiles in the service load. That’s the same reason you saw Enhanced Performance Magazines for M855A1 in 5.56.
A key point from the Rangers who have worked with the Spear in testing the ammo load penalty is real.
- A squad equipped entirely with 6.8×51 carries roughly 60 percent of the round count they would with 5.56
- Every magazine is heavier
- Belt-fed guns and DMRs add even more weight on top of that
That matters for fire superiority. Thirty rounds of low-recoiling 5.56 that troops can shoot quickly and accurately still count for a lot in any fight.
This is where the role of the M7A1 starts to make more sense. Several experienced voices in the video argue that this should not outright replace the M4. Instead, it makes more sense as a special weapon in the platoon.
Think of it more like
- A heavy hitter for punching through armor and light cover
- A gun for the guy anchoring a sector at distance
- A weapon for specific roles rather than a one-for-one replacement for every rifleman
That aligns with where a lot of people already assumed the program would end up even if the official messaging hasn’t fully caught up.
Armor and Near-Peer Threats
The whole reason this program exists is armor. Potential near-peer adversaries like Russia and China are fielding increasingly effective plates and soft armor.
The idea behind 6.8×51 and the M7 is to keep the U.S. infantry rifle ahead of that curve.
- Higher velocity
- Harder projectiles
- Better performance through modern armor and intermediate barriers
At the same time, armor is a moving target. Plates get better every year. Coverage can increase. There is also the simple fact that armor does not cover the entire body. Bursts of 5.56 into the pelvis, lower abdomen, and thighs still ruin people in a hurry.
- Designed for a fight that may or may not happen
- Tuned for near-peer engagements at distance
- Overkill for many of the low-intensity fights the U.S. has actually been in for the last two decades.
That doesn’t make it a bad weapon. It just means everyone needs to be honest about the tradeoffs. You gain reach and armor defeat. You lose ammo capacity and some of the effortless controllability of 5.56.
Where the M7A1 Actually Fits
After several hundred rounds in the video, the verdict is pretty straightforward: the M7A1 is a clear improvement over the original M7 Spear.
Strengths
- Real battle rifle energy from an 11-inch barrel
- Better weight balance and about a pound lighter than the earlier gun
- Much improved controllability in both semi and full auto
- Stiffer handguard and better barrel lockup for laser-equipped guns
- Optics and controls that feel familiar to anyone raised on the AR platform
Weak points and open questions
- Ammunition load and weight remain a major concern at the squad level
- Barrel life and logistics at 80k psi are going to demand careful management
- Dual charging handle requirement adds complexity for marginal gain
- Left-handed shooters will still get a face full of gas compared to 5.56 guns
- This is not the right rifle for every soldier in every mission
We are watching the U.S. try to leap ahead of the armor curve with a high-pressure hybrid cartridge and a new generation of carbines built around it. The first version of that rifle had real problems. The M7A1 shows that SIG and the Army are actually listening to user feedback and iterating toward something that feels like a real fighting rifle.
If this pattern holds, the final issue gun that lands in infantry units may look a lot closer to this 11-inch, trimmed-down M7A1 than the original heavy Spear.
Read the full article here
