OK. So far, I've discovered that on an AR board, the AR will get the nod. On an HK board, the HK will get the nod.

Is there WRITTEN proof ( not just our word, however true it really is ) that the XM-8 is going to go under?

After all. I really don't want our troops, the people who's lives will be dependent upon their rifle, to have one that won't do the job.

Man, I know this is an Ar board so its obvious that the AR is going to be more popular here, but to me the XM8 seems like a pretty good rifle. It looks a little big and bulky, but other than that I would love to test one out.  I'm a big fan of Glock's, so when I read that the improved clean gas system allows the rifle to go 15,000 rounds without lubrication or cleaning thats will be a huge selling point to the military. And yes, you can change barrel sizes with two push pins on an AR, but why not just change the barrel for alot less money? Also, my guess is that the modular nature of this weapon will allow us to change calibers in the future which is the biggest complaint about the M16 based weapons now. Slim it down a little, come up with a cartridge that will eliminate the shortfalls of the current 5.56, but still allow an individual soldier to carry the same number of rounds, and I can guarantee the US military will be breaking down HK's door to draw up a contract. The M16 is a fantastic rifle, but I can easily see the benefits that this rifle will offer.......

Why are they trying out a new design, their G-36 is fairly new?  Why not customize it to meet U.S. military requirements, (especially with the construction of a new plant here in the States.) Wasn't there talk of a M-16 magwell for the G-36. It seems extremely inefficient to go back to the drawing board to come up with a new idea and then work the bugs out of it.  They should build on their progress already to date, instead of spending research capital on a new project, one that may not pan out.

I can remember some rifle that NEVER needed cleaning, needed no forward assist and the chamber did not need to be chromed.

Lots of people could "easily see the benefits that this rifle" offered.

I'm pretty sure the GI's that were killed by this rifle's inability to perform were not among those who could "easily see the benefits that this rifle" offered.

5sub

As I've probably stated before, I don't think that the XM8 is necessarily [i]bad[/i].  Just unnecessary.

The AR15/M16 family of weapons can already be changed between calibers by switching out the upper reviever(s).  The AR15/M16 weapons-system is already light and handy.  The AR15/M16 series of weapons can be reconfigured into a light machinegun (in point of fact, Colt Firearms Manufacturing markets such a weapon right now, in addition to the commercially-available Shrike™ systme currently under development).

I just don't see the big revolutionary feature of the XM8.  In point of fact, I can see one [i]big[/i] feature that it lacks:  Configurable modularity.

I wonder if the Army does adopt the XM8 will the Corps be forced to do the same? It happened once before! So will history repeat itself again?

no you won't those are dealer samples! only class 3 SOT, and class 2 SOT's, police department's can have them.

One thing that still gets to me. For a new-generation (har!) rifle, why the heck does the thing still has the mag catch behind the mag? Why make the rifle slower to load and reload? So it is ambidextrous?

And the absence of back-up iron sights bugs me to no end.

What a tough crowd! You want the M16 platform to go on for 100 years? It's 1960's technology, let it go! It's a great system, but it's time to try new technologies, new systems. Any military that refuses to try new technological advances will be left standing, they know that, that's why they are trying to move forward.

I love my AR15s, but our troops deserve the latest technology, if well proven (and that is the key) if they are going to put their lives on the line. All the dissent here I have seen so far is mostly people saying the favorable government tests are not true, that the XM8 does not do what they say it does, it can't be true because the M16/m4 platfrom is better. Maybe yes , maybe no. The only ones who know for sure are the guys doing the tests, we are just speculating.

Fine, Send it to Iraq and Afghanistan for field trials on the ground. Let the grunts decide what they want to use.

But we should accept the fact that the M16/M4 platform WILL be superceded and declared obsolete. It is the way of all things, like it or not. Will it stop me from owning and shooting them, and enjoying them; no of course not. But technology does not stand still, neither can our Military.

Nothing wrong with improvement but...
The mag release is not an improvement.  Talk about old design features.  An improvement would be to have the mag release automatically after the last round.  Eh?
There seems to be a lack of attachment points to accesorize.
I've read military studies before, and if the executive officer is pushing the project through, they will order the troops giving the demo to talk up the capabilities.
Besides, it looks like if you leave it in the sun too long it will melt.  I'm open for new weapon suggestions, but this one doesn't have it all.

XM-8:
1. Trades the collapsable stock for ballistic performance ( they took the collapsable stock away, which is a better option for compactness, and shortened the barrel - big mistake )

2. Damage the optic, and you have a gun you can't aim ( backup irons like on the M-16/M-4 is a good move )

3. The barrel is so thin, and has such a badly designed contour, that it will fold if they ever manage to put a bayonet on it, and it does NOTHING to redirect heat outwards.

4. Use that '100 round high-reliability' mag, and your gun will melt, barrel and handguard first. The M-16/M-4 has the gas tube burn out first as a 'fuse', and can still be fired manually.

5. The stock is badly designed ( low comb prevent holding it to your shoulder for a long time, because your cheek cannot rest on it unless you are a fatass, and the loss of in-line construction redirect recoil upwards, making recovery time in between shots worse.

6. You loose the compensating effect of the A2 flashhider, and dust signature will be increased, as well as visible muzzle flash.

7. 12.6" barrel not only lowers the velocity to horrible porportions, but results in lots of unburned powder igniting OUTSIDE the barrel, causing inconsistent pressures on the bullet, and a huge muzzle flash. The M-4 has a avg. fragmentation range of 50 yards. To kill someone with the XM-8, you need to put your barrel to their chest... Slow .224 rounds overpenetrate when moving below 2,750 FPS.

8. R/D costs for the project have already skyrocketed, as this is basically the result of the OCIW's death throes. When the USMC discovered how stupid the project REALLY was, they dumped it, and all this exposure is a result - HK is trying to salvage the project.

9. I see no rails to mount goodies that assist the user in combat. You are stuck with one optic, so far.

10. You have a 21st. century gun using an AK-74-style magazine release. WTF? I'm sticking to the FAST one finger method of the M-16. It is easy for southpaws to do it, too.

11. Reliability wise, the whole G-36 family is reliable. There has been a Canadian C-7 ( basically an M-16A2 ) that fired 25,000 rounds without a hitch. The M-16 already rivaled it's 'replacements' over 15 years before they existed.

12. You gain the advantage of a quick barrel changeout, but in the field, NOBODY is going to carry spare barrels. They can easily be damaged, bent etc. If they are to be changed, it will probably be done in the rear area, making the advantage a moot point. The AR, OTOH, can easily bolt on entire UPPERS with different calibers, optics, etc. It has been done in the field - after all, I don't see a .458 SOCOM variant of the G-36, nor do I see any promising sniper variants ( SPR for the AR-15 ). Hell, I see M-16s being used in a support weapons rofle. What in the hell can the G-36 do that the M-16 can't? NOTHING.

13. To change to a new rifle now, will mean less money for AMERICAN small arms industries. Additionally, you will have to modify the training programs, the manuals, the support infastructure, all at the cost of millions of additional dollars ( on top of the billions wasted already on the troubled OCIW - If you want the list of problems, tell me ), and possibly lives. We all know what happens when you introduce an underdeveloped firearm in the middle of a conflict - the M-14/AR-15 changeover was proof during the Vietnam Conflict.

14. You are changing over to a new weapon because of several troops who complain about the reliability of the M-16 - these troops are in rear-echelon maintainence companies who cannot clean their own gear, and needed to be instructed on how to fire the M-16 - twice. The Army itself claims that the soldiers are not proficient with their basic weapons. Will giving them an entirely NEW weapon change that? I think not.

Meanwhile, the USMC is enjoying more combat success with the very weapon that was deemed 'antiquated'. They will take down a house with that weapon. They will take down that elusive terrorist at 600 yards with one. Their cooks will do the same. The Corps has no reliability problems - the problem in the Army lies within the training.

What is the weapon the Corps uses? The M-16.

Good question and I sure don't know the answer.

I remember when the Marines wanted the Stoner 63. They went all the way to Congress who told them no.

5sub

I dont see the Browning M2 .50 BMG going anywhere and its a hell of a lot older than the m16.  That argument based on age is weak at best. The Army made the mistake of adapting the m9 over the battle proven 1911.  Some guns were/are ahead of their time and were built much better back then than the guns being considered to replace them.

This is a function of a .22 caliber barrel holding water through capilary action.

This is equally true of the XM-8.  You will just as surely blow it up firing it with a bore full of water.



The XM-8 is also 60's technology with some 90's plastic technology thrown in on the side.

Because I enjoy a good discussion just wanted to rebut certain points based on the Government documentation:

1. First, they have stated they have both fixed and collapsible stock variants. second they have stated they have optional 10", 14.5" and 20 inch barrels much like the current system.

2.The documentation states they will have legacy picatinny rails for back up irons and legacy optics/accessories.

3. I agree, this would need to be addressed.

4. I agree, in general.

5. I agree.

6. That could be added with a heavier barrel

7. Again, documentation states a 20 inch barrel will be available, and is pictured in the "comments" video.

8. I agree, it hasn't been well handled, but then neither was it in the original M16.

9. They have said they will add legacy rails.

10. I agree, the mag release needs to be similar to the M16 or a new better design, not the AK style.

11. I agree, but sand/grit trials need to be conducted, then compared to the M16/C7 for reliability under adverse conditons. Reliability under ideal range conditions is important, but does not indicate a good combat weapon.

12. I don't agree. When I was in, my squads that had SAWs or M60's carried spare barrels, it was a must. While spare barrels for the Xm8 might not be carried by individual soldiers in standard load (too bulky, heavy), spare barrels could easily be added to TO&E loadout for organic vehicles such as HMMWVs and Bradleys.
The fact that you would not need an armorer to replace a barrel could make small units that much more independent. Carrying entire uppers would take up more space, more weight unneccesarily, especially for airborne units.

13. I agree, I would have preferred and American design and American manufacturers.

14. They claim the XM8 is easier to clean and maintain, and more reliable when not maintained, for rear-echelon troops (Jessica Lynch).


I do think if the M16 was kept it would need to be radically revised, with mods such as the LR300 has, with a gas piston instead of a internal gas discharge, putting the recoil spring forward, allowing a true folding stock and other radical changes. I think part of the problem is the Pentagon has not been willing to consider radical design changes to the existing M16 design.

Individual weapons do not need spare barrels, they are not sustained fire weapons.

Have you guys actually gone to the site and looked over the data sheets?

Even in this early prototype stage the XM8 looks quite a bit more modular then the AR/M series.

It also seems to have all the normal features as the AR/M series (Bolt hold open device, forward assist, ect.) plus being more ambidextrous to boot!

If they can get the weight down to less then 6lbs as projected with all the needed features and improved reliability over the AR/M series, then it IS the weapon of the future.  

Not true........there are so many half truths and open faced lies in that comparison spreadsheet it is hilarious.  One of the most obvious being that the M4 collapsible buttstock in not operator changeable.  TOTAL BS.  A kid could do it!  The fact they basically use the same stoner bolt group, etc.  The fact they have an integrated ir laser without mentioning how well it compares to the outstanding peq2.  The fact they state how light it is in coparison without (drop a few lines) stating milspec rails will be added in the future.  It is easy to make something sound great when you leave alot of facts out.

I am sure it will end up being a fine rifle in and of itself but better?  doubt it!

Typical HK bullshit.
I will have to see it before I believe it.

This has been mentioned before and I second it. The XM8 is really a G36 under the skin and the G36 is in service with other militaries right now. The only negative that I have read about the G36 is the plastic trunion melting under sustained fully automatic fire. Once this is fixed the G36 may prove to be one helluva weapon. So with all that, why does'nt someone with in the Army just say move toward the G36 and refine it? I know money has already been dumped into this program but it would seem to me the Army could get the rifle that it wants sooner with going the G36 route instead of trying to develope the XM8!

Name one thing that is useful.

What do you mean by latest technology?  Lock works, gas systems, bolt designs, etc. Everything in the current firearms design catalog was tried 100 years ago.  We should be talking about rail guns or at least caseless ammo with electronic ignition.  As it stands the only advantage the XM8 has over an AR is  a new wrapper.  

Once again to the HK supporters. Name one thing the XM-8 can do that the M-16/M-4 cannot.

Visually, I like it. I really like the way it looks. The full auto control looked pretty good. I do like the stock design. Overall, I think its a pretty good gun, and I'd sure like the chance to own one.
However, I dont think that the AR/M16 series needs to be replaced yet. So, I dont see it as a replacement or better than an AR type rifle. I think its different, and good in its own respect. I'd like to have one, but it wouldnt replace my AR's, and I dont think it should replace the M16.

Just my crazy $.03.

So let’s see here:

Same bullet.
Same barrel twist.
Locking rotating bolt.
The original M-16 was in the 6 lb. range.

This is the "big" difference:  Matthew Cox at Army Times -

"This improved reliability can be credited to differences in the XM8's operating system from the one in the M16, the Army officials said.

For instance, a thin gas tube runs almost the entire length of the barrel in all of the M16 variants. When the weapon is fired, the gases travel back down the tube into the chamber and push the bolt back to eject the shell casing and chamber a new round.

The XM8's gas system instead is connected to a mechanical operating rod, which pushes back the bolt to eject the casing and chamber the new round each time the weapon is fired. So there's no [b]*[/b][red]carbon[/red] residue constantly being blown back into the chamber, reducing the need to clean the weapon as often."

[b]*[/b] [red]Natural graphite is derived from mining. The quality of natural graphite varies as a result of the ore quality and post mining processing of the ore. The end product is graphite with a content of carbon (high grade graphite 96-98% carbon), sulfur, SiO2 and Ash. The higher the carbon content and the degree of graphitization (high crystalline) the better the lubricity and resistance to oxidation.[/red]

So how does it handle sand?  Jungle environments?  Cold weather?  I want to see reliability data that shows a significant difference in performance.  I bet you won't because their is no "Significant" difference in the design.

The US Military will not change untill ther is a change in caliber.

The only time the .mil has changed rifles and not calibers was from the 03 Springfield to the M1 Garand.

This thread is proof that as a whole, mankind has not progressed much since the Salem trails. LOL

Since you boys seem to be much more educated then most of the weapons designers of today, why aren’t you actually working in the field? LOL

I for one would love to hear your professional credentials. [:D]

I'm a Mechanical Engineer (specialize in production automation) myself, but would not feel qualified to question those in the Firearms Industries unless I had quite a few years ACTUAL experience working in said Industries!

You gotta love the net.

You may be a mechanical engineer but I am (was) also a logistican.  Do you realize the logistical nightmare of a service rifle change for a .mil a large as ours?  Do you realize how many spare parts, magazines, web gear, publications, weapons racks not to mention millions of man-hours of training that would have to be thrown out the window?

If you are going to take on that shit sandwich, you better have a damn worthwile reason before you act.  This is not a casual decision to be made lightly for trivial reasons.

Being somewhat easier to clean is not advantage enough to justify a change that will cost huge sums of money and create new training and supply requirments.

A superior caliber [i]might[/i] possibly justify it but there would have to be a cost/benefit analysis done.

The XM-8 simply does not offer near enough benefit for the costs incurred.

Like I said before, READ the data sheet!

The XM8 WILL do everything the AR/M series can do today, and with quiet a bit less overall weight, less overall maintenance and less cost over time.

It's not the magic sword, but neither is the AR/M series!



Ohh…. That's known as PROGRESS and being able to see the BIG picture!  

I personally would like to see my tax dollars going to something like this then say......welfare issues!

Funny,

I get paid to evaluate designs.  The reason I do not work in the firearms industry is I make more money in the automotive field. (This way I can actually buy guns instead of work with them)[;)]

However, I do agree that you need more experience before you can form an intelligent thought on the subject.

Gene Krantz would love you QCMGR!

We did.



At least that is what they say.  But why do you need to replace one product with the same type of thing.



The same weight as the AR-15 before they added all of the accessories.



How do you know that?



No one said it was but they are not significantly different.

Well, just be happy that the M-16 is here to stay for a lot longer.

What I want to see, is the SIG 552 and the AN-94 Abakan go head to head. THAT will be a competition.

I agree!

OK, for the sake of the argument, I'll play.

ASSUMING that the comparison and data sheet that the US government has provided are accurate, these are things that the XM8 can do, that the M4 cannot(If you don't assume they are telling the truth, then obviously there is no argument, agreed?):


1> Reliability: Per tests conducted, the XM8 fired 20,000 rounds without cleaning or lubrication, with no stoppages or parts failures. The M4 only made it to 6,000. This is useful.

2> Zero drain time: XM8 does not require draining with firing, even with suppressor attached (barrel blow out vents). The M4 cannot be fired until the bore and gas tube are drained before firing to prevent weapon damage, operator injury or stoppages. This is useful.

3>Grenade Launcher Zero: The XM320 40x46 side loading launcher with integral sight replaces hand guard in seconds without tools, maintains zero when removed from host weapon, accepts ALL lengths of 40x46mm grenades. The M4's M203 40x46 breech launcher has separate sight, and requires rezeroing each time it is removed from the host weapon. It requires tools to remove and install, can take several minutes. It cannot fire longer 40x46 rounds. This is useful.

It's all in the interpretation of what you expect from a weapons system, I suppose. I know I would rather have an M16 to buttstroke or bayonet with, but that is just one interpretation. What I would really want to see is what the reaction of troops in the field will be. We should not forget that the M16 was very poorly received when first fielded, and only after at least 3 versions did it become what it is today. I do wish they had stayed domestic, though, despite H&K's track record of making excellent weapons.

In my opinion I still think we should field a selective fire version of the AR10 to designated sharpshooters on the squad level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
less overall maintenance and less cost over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know that?


Ohh, I read the comparison sheet also. Perhaps you should do the same, and then you would know what I was talking about! LOL

....in an ideal world where you ignore sunk costs.  How many decades would it take to recoup your overall costs when you have to overcome the replacement cost of replacing a functional existing system?

There are cars that require less overall maintainence and cost less over time than mine [b]but mine is already paid for![/b]  I am not going to come out ahead cost wise replacing it before it is worn out, it is that simple.

The datasheet ignores sunk costs resulting in a false comparison spun in the most favorable light.

The M-16 system represents a huge sunk cost.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.  The lock up of the G-36 is virtually identical to the M-16 and the barrel is even thinner.  What magic is going to keep the barrel from bursting when the non-compressability of water rears its ugly head?  That claim defies logic.

They claim it has barrel vents, in theory that would work although I would think it would also decrease muzzle velocity. That's what it says in the documentation. Again, there is no discussion if the test documentation is not assumed to be accurate. They have a lot of explaining to do if it isn't. Perhaps there are more variations from the standard G36 design than we thought, it does seem hard to believe. I do know H&K did design an electrically fired powder cartridge pistol that was designed to be fired underwater, the P11 7.62x36 5-shot underwater pistol,A weapon specially made for the German Bundeswehr "Kampfschwimmer" (Combat Divers), but I think it has 5 sealed barrels so that would not be obstructed by water.

[img]http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Single-Shot-Pistols/HK_P11.jpg[/img]

I agree with other posts. It has a lot of bad qualitys, mostly plastic with the exception of internals, has an ak47 style paddle magazine release, no bolt catch, no options for optics, and the 12.5in barrel.

I think it's overall a piece of crap, it would take probably three times as long to reload, it's all plastic and will get broken under combat conditions, the barrel is too short to give you accuracy or a muzzle velocity that will kill someone.

If the military picks this rifle they are just dumb.

Didn't the G-36 have problems with the reciever delaminating ? It seems I saw that somewhere. I am not certain that it is fact , but I recall reading about problems of that nature. It seems to me that if the the G-36 has these kinds of problems the XM-8 isn't going to do much better.

They claim to have a higher sustained fire rate than the M-4.

The aluminum upper on the M-16 series makes a wonderful heat sink.  Aluminum is fantastic for dissapating heat.  Your CPU's heat sink is proabally Al.

It is unquestionably better than plastic.

Read carefully.  Those vents are a one time safety feature.  Then the weapon is inoperable.

Well Im not going to cover anything new but this is my opinion: lose the carry handle, put a M4 type mag release,14.5/16" barrel and make the trunion stronger. After these problems have been fixed let me and my boys have a few and after we put alot of rounds downrange and conduct some airborne ops then I will tell you if its good or not. Give the rifle to the soldiers if they cant break it or make it malfuntion maybe just maybe we'll have a new rifle.
        FREE

Your beloved comparison sheet is skewed to be an ad for H&K.  Many of the items they discuss arent even made for the weapon yet.  Many are "plans" for the weapon.  As far as the GL concern.  Thats being addressed by other companies as well.  LMT, KAC, ARMS, etc. will all have a GL design and mounting capability with the HK GL.  So much of what they state as being proprietary is simply old news.....or written to favor the xm8.

I go back to the buttstock issue as point in fact the comparison contains bs!

Horik nailed it on the primer. The 'data' sheet is probably 'adjusted' to give the XM-8 a favorable edge.

Then you have to deal with melting magazines...

Perhaps if you guys should remove your Tin foil Hats before reading the pages, more of the info might actually sink into your brain. LOL

I mean, come on guys......do you actually think our military does not want to remain on top of the game by as large a margin as possible??? This can only be done by remaining ahead of the game!

As much as I hate using trendy terms, I must say…. “Thinking outside the box” seems to fit the situation at hand!

And this is thinking outside the box ........unless your talking about using plastics.....Oh wait thats already been done!

The SCAR-L wishes they talk about!  They don't of course tell you that other companies are already working on this as well......all while maintaining use of the AR based design.  The only thing WOW about it is the bbl. change ability but again it's being done/been done.

When they state to change calibres in the xm8 all is necessary is reciever changes.  The AR does that plain and simple.  But they dont say that.  They say the M4 cannot be changed without the whole rifle being taken apart!  pure BS!

If sinking large sums of money on a weapons system that gives no significant improvement in performance to the existing system is "thinking outside the box"  then mabey the box was put there with a reason.

For the money spent on a changeover to the XM-8 for little to no advantage, we could use this cash to give the guys on the ground real improvements in lethality.

Asking H&K for an objective comparison is like asking the Ayatolla for an objective comparison of Mohammed and Jesus.  At best we need a third party evauluation.

The price is $2539 dollars, WAY too much. The fucking thing is plastic that will melt under sustained fire.

The m16 will get hot and maybe cook off the chambered round, so it fires once on its own big deal compaired to that and the gun turning into a pile of melted plastic.