It's just a meme I came across while looking for more NGSW content. 

Design wise, the only real downside is weight. Otherwise it's basically an ambidextrous, folding stock piston AR.

Excellent history, overview, and insights into the NGSW program:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/return-of-the-rifleman-the-next-generation-squad-weapons-program/

Some excerpts:

The Army’s ballistic needs required a cartridge larger than the 5.56 NATO and a weapon larger than an M4 to fire it. A loaded XM5 with the XM157 optic will weigh about 3 lbs., 4 ozs., more than a loaded M4A1 with an M68 optic. With a full combat load, the XM250 outweighs the M249 by about 3 lbs., 8 ozs., while carrying 200 fewer rounds.

...

According to the Army, the XM5 basic combat load is seven, 20-round magazines, which weighs 9 lbs., 13 ozs., in total.

..

For the XM250, the basic combat load is four 100-round pouches at 27 lbs., 1 oz.

...

For comparison, the M4 carbine combat load, which is seven 30-round magazines, weighs 7 lbs., 6 ozs., and the M249 combat load is three 200-round pouches weighing 20 lbs., 14 ozs., in total.

...

This would result in a real-world total combat weight of 21 lbs. for the XM5 and 43 lbs., 6 ozs., for the XM250, versus 15 lbs., 10 ozs., for the M4 and 39 lbs., 14 ozs., for the M249.

Also some looks at the EPR; not sure if factory or prototype:

Weight estimation for 6.8x51:

Pretty well-written article, although IMO this weight comparison is flawed and rather unfair:

"A loaded XM5 with the XM157 optic will weigh about 3 lbs., 4 ozs., more than a loaded M4A1 with an M68 optic."

An apples-to-apples comparison to M4A1 with suppressor, polymer mag, and XM157 optic (or at least a LPVO) would show less weight difference.

stancrist said:

Pretty well-written article, although IMO this weight comparison is flawed and rather unfair

I think it's both a fair and unfair comparison. 

Unfair, for as you say the weight is based on the NGSW with its big FCU and suppressor vs M4 with a red dot and IR laser, no suppressor. 

Yet the comparison is fair if we view the systems by their 'fighting weights' as the two systems are actually deployed by the US Army.

For the last 20 years, the basic M4 loadout for the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan was the M4 with either a Aimpoint or ACOG + IR laser, no suppressor. That represents its 'fighting weight'.

If NGSW is intended to always be suppressed and use a special FCU, then thats its 'fighting weight.' 

And so an Army soldier transitioning from a M4+M68+IR to NGSW+FCU+Suppressor will notice a +3lb weight gain in what they're carrying. 

Since I cannot resists any NGSW related meme if I encounter one:

The original Overmatch weapon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

gatnerd said:

Yet the comparison is [also] fair if we view the systems by their 'fighting weights' as the two systems are actually deployed by the US Army.

I would be inclined to agree, but that idea ignores some pertinent facts.

1.  The US Army would not be the sole user.  The XM7 would also be used by the Marines, who have used suppressor-equipped M4 carbines for several years.  https://youtu.be/8-FuLw_6KgQ?t=98

2.  Since we're talking about the future, nobody knows how the M4 will be "actually deployed" if the XM7 is fielded.  The XM157 FCS is not dedicated to NGSW guns; it could also be used on the M4.

3.  Since we're talking about the future, nobody knows for certain if the XM7 will be "actually deployed" only with the suppressor attached.  Evidence suggests that it may not.

Are we totally sure that M7 is going to be fielded in numbers as an "assault" rifle? 

I find it really difficult to understand

I think they're gonna go through with it, and if they do well... 

It will tell us some stuff 

poliorcetes said:

Are we totally sure that M7 is going to be fielded in numbers as an "assault" rifle?

I am not totally sure that NGSW will be fielded at all.    But, the stated plan is to field the M7 as a replacement for the M4 in the infantry and some other close combat elements.