Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
10/30/2020 2:42:12 PM
Posted: 7/24/2003 12:25:24 PM EDT
Before this XM8 takes on a life of its own (keeping in mind it already has sucked up over $5M for ATK, Brashear and Omega), let's think of ways we can tube this project and breathe new life into the AR family.  After all, what is the the XM-8 other than just another 5.56mm bullet launcher? Our Armed forces and indeed our Country has other budgetary priorities.  So give me your ideas.  Talk to me about subsystems, manufacturing processes, metallurgy and synthetics.  Talk to me about ammunition improvements.  Believe me, this is intended not just save the AR design, but to do the proper thing for the US Taxpayer and the Armed Forces.  Believe me, I will incorporate your input. Now sound off!    
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 2:13:50 PM EDT
LOL.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 2:17:17 PM EDT
Well, keeping in mind the budgetary limitations you spoke of (saving $$$), there are a few things that could be done.  First, change over to a round in the area of 77 grains or so. such rounds seem to fragment more reliably and at lower velocities.  With a penetrator core like the current 62 grain ammo, it would likely be a good way to increase the system's ability to penetrate cover and also improve lethality with the M4.  Also, instead of replacing the current SAW (5.56mm) with the same model when they wear out, consider a system like the SHRIKE if it proves reliable.

Now, if you want genuine improvements to the system (besides the SAW upper), consider:

Replacing the 20" barrels on rifles with 18" barrels.  18" produces the same velocities as 20" with most ammo and handles better.

Use flat-top (Picatinny rail) uppers with a sighting device that offers daylight, night, and thermal capabilities.  Such a device will be available soon - the technology is there.  Of course, also have a flip-up rear iron sight just in case.

use a bolt similar to that in the SA-80 (the bolt was about the only good thing about that system).  It does away with the sharp angle on the side of the locking lugs in favor of a more rounded design that offers more strength.

HK seems to have designed a steel 30 round magazine that is far more reliable than the current issue magazine.  Such a mag would fix the one real weak point in the M-16 system.

Use the SIR system on all rifles for attachment of a grenade launcher (if required).  If the 20mm grenade system works out, there isn't any reason it couldn't be adapted to current rifles.

Use a little better ammunition.  Current issue ammo doesn't kill very well at distances greater than 250 - 300 yards.  It also doesn't penetrate cover and barriers very well. (the 6mm SAW round comes to mind here, unless caseless ammunition of equal power can be made to be as tough and water proof as current ammo.  However, that would probably require a new rifle, like the G11)

Develope a sturdier collapseable stock with a storage compartment for a cleaning kit .There also needs to be a place on the rifle for cleaning rods to clear a stuck case, not just a pull-through cleaning kit!  How many M-4s in the hands of Special Operations troops have cleaning rods taped to the handguard?  Answer :  A lot!

A folding stock is an answer to a question nobody asked (nobody who uses a rifle in actual combat every day, anyway).  The collapseable stock is useful if you have on heavy clothing or armor.  A folding stock only encourages troops to fire from the hip and hit nothing and takes up time deploying (because the stock has to be unfolded before the soldier can lay down accurate fire).

If you wanted a polymer lower to save weight and manufacturing costs, Cavalry Arms has shown us the way with their CAV-15 rifle.  It is one nice unit.

Some people bitch about the direct gas impingement method of operation in the M-16.  If it is so bad then why does it regularly beat out competing gas piston designs in real-world torture tests?

Really the bottom line is that there isn't anything that the XM8 (G-36) can do that the M-16 can't.  Any technology developed in the program could be adapted to the M-16 family of weapons anyway.  There just aren't any advantages to the XM8 other than possibly developing some new technology (20mm grenades).

I hope this helps.

Link Posted: 7/24/2003 2:25:42 PM EDT
Send letters to congress critters urging them to cut funding.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 3:13:31 PM EDT
While the M16 family is a very good weapons system, It is getting old.    The reason we have one of the most powerful militarys in the world is because we are always coming up with inovations for our weapon desings. And becuase we have the money and resorces to do so. Sure we could continue to ride the M16 desings for 10 or 15 years before they will really be obsoleat but it is best to imporve you weapons BEFORE some one else has something better. That way your always the one who has the best and every one else has to play catch up.

While at first it will not greatly improve over the M16 it will offer a platform that will be capible of being expanded upon farther into the future than the M16.  The XM8 is the direction all military weapons tehcnology is heading. Lighter, tougher, and more userfrendly.

And besides It will be intimidating to are enimes when the hear we have a new high tech assualt rifle.  And that can be just as important as the rifles actual capibillites.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 3:36:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By High_Plains_Drifter:
...Some people bitch about the direct gas impingement method of operation in the M-16.  If it is so bad then why does it regularly beat out competing gas piston designs in real-world torture tests?
View Quote


The SIG55x is most reliable modern design in service. The AR's ammo sensitivity is due in no small part to the fact that it deficates on itself. Gene Stoner even stated that the original design was intended to use a particular kind of ammo. That makes for finnicky functionality, not one that can "roll w/ the punches". The priority was on controllability & accuracy. For whatever reason, tolerance for debris contamination & ammo variation didn't factor higher on the list of requirements. The most reliable AR ever produced was Colt's indirect-impingement prototype (using an AK-type long-stroke gas piston) that never made it to mass production, since the M16 had already been accepted & issued in quantity. The AR's tighter tolerances also factor into the debris intolerance issue, but the fact is, direct impingement isn't duplicated in modern designs because it makes the gun more ammo finnicky.

Of course, I'm crossing my fingers & hoping that the newer bolt & carrier designs (LMT, KAC, et al) will result in significant improvements in performance.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 3:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2003 3:39:55 PM EDT by ZRH]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Send letters to congress critters urging them to cut funding.
View Quote


Like that has ever helped before. [:P]

Congress has already spent a shitload of money on the OWICS, and thats all that matters to them.

If I had a voice in the matter though.

The time for AR system has come, but the XM8 is not the solution. I've always thought that a Stoner 63A type thing would be better. IIRC the Marines wanted to adopt the the Stoner 63A but it was shot down by the DOD.

Even though the gas impingment system makes the AR more accurate it has always been the crutch for the system. It was also the last rifle design to incorperate that system.

The bolt design is also pretty bad. I dont have enough technical experiance to comment on it though.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 3:59:16 PM EDT
the x in xm means experimental and there have always been experimental weapons.  unless it means more kills in a battlefield situation it will remain an experiment.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 6:04:45 PM EDT
Master_Blaster,

I am not attempting to flame you, but...

First, the XM8 is a G36, not a sig550 series of weapon.
Second, in many military trials the last two weapons standing are the M-16 series and the Sig-550 series of rifles.  Of these two, many still choose the M-16 series (notably the M-4).  Hell, the M-16 won the NATO trials for dependability with different types of ammunition in 1979.  It's not THAT sensitive.  

I'm not going to tell you that the Sig is a bad weapon; it is one of the best rifles out there.  It just isn't THAT much better than the M-16 series.  Why waste the cash and resources on a weapon that doesn't SUBSTANTIALLY improve on what you have?  Until there is a substantial improvement, like a change in caliber, durable caseless ammo, laser guns, or some other new technology that makes 5.56mm ammo obsolete or ineffective (I know, it's not the best) it doesn't make sense to blow the cash on a new system.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 6:49:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2003 6:53:04 PM EDT by mach6]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Send letters to congress critters urging them to cut funding.
View Quote

----------------
You're more on the money than you think.  I've got a PPT briefing to prepare and your input is vital to the success of my mission. Now here's your chance to do the proverbial right thing. If this effort is done right it will enjoy considerable bipartisan support. So put on your thinking caps and start identifying those vendors and their technologies.  I'm not kidding.  The hour is late. Again, appreciate your help!

PS -- I'm not here in DC by choice, get it?  It's a job.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 9:56:50 PM EDT
One of the mods should probably tack this. If our support to your research could affect the evolution of the m16, or how our military uses it, I'd say that is very important to this board.

That said I'd like to see some better ammo. The 6mm sounds great. If we could make a similar gas system to the Sig 550 series that would be really nice too. The Xm8 I've seen pictures of seems like a real turd. Good luck keeping it away from our troops.
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 11:44:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By High_Plains_Drifter:
Master_Blaster,

I am not attempting to flame you, but...

First, the XM8 is a G36, not a sig550 series of weapon.
View Quote


Yes. I know. I was merely pointing out that the SIG does a [u]better[/u] job of persisting in harsh conditions. The AR design is simply more sensitive.


Second, in many military trials the last two weapons standing are the M-16 series and the Sig-550 series of rifles.  Of these two, many still choose the M-16 series (notably the M-4).  Hell, the M-16 won the NATO trials for dependability with different types of ammunition in 1979.  It's not THAT sensitive.
View Quote


I've heard as much. However, I've also heard the the M16 is the most maintenance-intensive service rifle in modern times. From the sum of various accounts, AAR's, general opinions, etc., indications are that the design isn't as robust as NATO trials would seem to attest. The inconsistent reports here on the forums regarding use of Wolf ammo also seem to indicate a problem. Haven't had the opportunity to shoot one, but I bet the SIG eats Wolff w/o complaints.


I'm not going to tell you that the Sig is a bad weapon; it is one of the best rifles out there.  It just isn't THAT much better than the M-16 series.  Why waste the cash and resources on a weapon that doesn't SUBSTANTIALLY improve on what you have?  Until there is a substantial improvement, like a change in caliber, durable caseless ammo, laser guns, or some other new technology that makes 5.56mm ammo obsolete or ineffective (I know, it's not the best) it doesn't make sense to blow the cash on a new system.
View Quote


I agree that changing over to an entirely new system may not be warranted. But, at some point, it will have to happen. If PIP's can yield significant improvements in reliability (& there is room for improvement), then implementing them would be the best operational & cost-effective approach. For that matter, I'd like to see PIP's that can resolve the issue entirely.

The AR is still the best handling, most ergonomic, & most user-friendly battle implement around, & a joy to shoot, IMO. But, the problems associated w/ direct-impingement have to be resolved if the system is to continue to improve. I'm hoping some of the most recent mods will serve to this end.

BTW - no flame taken.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 12:03:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Yes. I know. I was merely pointing out that the SIG does a [u]better[/u] job of persisting in harsh conditions. The AR design is simply more sensitive.

View Quote


And what are we basing that conclusion on?
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 9:45:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2003 11:19:46 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Yes. I know. I was merely pointing out that the SIG does a [u]better[/u] job of persisting in harsh conditions. The AR design is simply more sensitive.

View Quote


And what are we basing that conclusion on?
View Quote


First-hand accounts of those who've used both. For one, a C3 dealer I often do biz. with has pretty much run both extensively, & has said as much. But, of course, if someone has access to both here on the boards, I'm willing to see what happens when they run both through the wringer of extensive fire testing, using multiple types/mfg's of ammo. Maybe brouhaha can do something along this line, since, last I heard, he has a SIG55x in his arsenal.

I'm game.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 11:10:05 AM EDT
I have a family member that owns a SIG 550.  Its never malfunctioned.  I own several ARs.  None have malfunctioned (with a few exceptions I can blame on me or bad magazines).

Can I draw any wide reaching conclusions about the reliability of either from this?  No

I do know the service rifle of the United States for 30 years has been the M16, and the SIG has no where near this record of use.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 12:43:54 PM EDT
You look for a new type weapon when the one you have does not do the job anymore.

The rifle is a short range, defensive weapon. Modern battles are now fought with the high tech gizmo's that are the favorites of the camera's. The objective of all the think tanks is to develope a military force that is capable of projecting force from afar.

Link Posted: 7/25/2003 12:56:46 PM EDT
The M16 is the most ergonomic rifle ever produced. This is not only my opinion but also that of most professional firearm instructors. Therefore I see no reason to stray too far from the basic layout of the M16 lower and control surfaces. The biggest bitch, and you can read it in just about every critique of the M16, is the gas system and the weight of the rifle when decked out with the lasted optics and other devices.

I see that the following improvements should be made to the M16 system to keep it competitive with our changing world.

1. Incorporate new materials into its construction. When the M16, or should I say AR-15, was first introduced it used state of the art (at the time) aluminum forging in the construction of the upper and lower receivers. Fast forward 30+ years and look at what is state of the art now in the construction of weapons. It is polymers.

2. The gas system. Since this is the biggest gripe one should explore what can be done to improve it without reducing its reliability or its compatibility with current M16’s already in service. In other words, develop a gas system that is a simple change out of the upper receiver so as rifles wear out they can be up graded by a simple swap out of the old upper with a new one. Commonality of parts should be maintained when possible (i.e. bolt, bolt carrier, hand guards and charging handles)

3. The new upper should allow for the changing of and installation of new barrels at the operator level. The current system is antiquated and overly complicated.

4. Modular systems such as the SIR or RAS should be manufactured out of lighter, stronger materials in place of steel. This will lighten the rifle.

5. Expansion of modular designs should be applied to other areas of the rifle. One very good example is the Vltor stock. Adding a compartment to the Vltor to carry cleaning equipment should be explored and it would surprise me if Vltor were not already working on this.

That my $.02
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 1:12:14 PM EDT
This amuses me.  By the time you implement all the changes suggested, it'd be cheaper to adopt a new weapons system.
Incidentally why doesn't our military take a hard look at the Russian AN 94?  The Russians themselves rate it as 1.5 times as efficient as the M16 (they also rated the AK 74 as 2/3 as effective as the M16).
I AM an AR15 lover - have had 6,and still have 4.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 1:54:46 PM EDT
The AN-94 is a great weapon, but the only unique feature that it has is its automatic fire mode (1800 rpm for the first two rounds).  If we developed a mechanism similar to that for the M-16, we would have no reason to adopt the AN-94.  
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 2:59:50 PM EDT
Adopt the AN94???

Even the Russians arent.

Anyone seriously believe the US is going to adopt a Soviet design???
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 4:04:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2003 4:11:47 PM EDT by strider]
High Plains drifter has the right idea.

How about this, which is "doable", ie; readily available and in the pipeline, not to mention compatible with existing M16s and let's not forget, affordable:

1-  Specialized Armament Heavy Duty Extractor spring $6
2- Treat the M16 mags as they were designed- as an inexpensive, lightweight dispasable and replaceable commodity.  Or go to the Superb HK SA80 mag albeit at a weight penalty.
3- Crane M4 stock- aleady has improved cheekweld and integral storage compartments.

That is a lot cheaper and more effective than a new system.

The other improvements are in the supply system and relatively available for those who need them.

A few comments on Lucky Stiffs post

1- Aluminum forgings have proven to be an overall good choice in the construction of the M16.  The only tangible benefit to polymer receivers would be in cost reduction on large scale production.  Stick with alloy IMO.

2- I like your idea regarding the gas system, though to be honest, the direct gas impingement method of operation used on the M16 works very well when used with MIL SPEC ammo.

3-Operator level barrel changes is not a Mission Essential Need for the *vast* majority of the US military.  The high speed guys, maybe.  Right now they just switch uppers which IMO is a better system and definitely poses less potential for problems.

4-The SIR and RAS are made from aerospace aluminum and glass filled nylon.  What materials do you have in mind which would be lighter, cost effective, and have the same strength and environmental properties?  

5-The M16 is already about as modular as it gets, as evidenced by the voluminous catalog of accessories in and out of the supply system.    

There is a potentially better mousetrap out there, it's called a Robinson M96.  Time will tell if it lives  up  to it's potential, until then the M16 is pretty good in it's current guise.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 6:44:51 PM EDT
Check your IM... I would like to find out more about what you are looking for? I may have something that you would be interested in, an M4 reliablility and function upgrade that is working out and being very well received.

Oh... very low cost...

Aardvark
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 7:23:25 PM EDT
There is nothing wrong with the gas system on thte M-16.

CampyBob put 3000 rounds on his M-4 PMDS without cleaning it.

What it needs most are a high clearance uppar and bolt carrier to allow the weapon to accept more crud without interference.
Link Posted: 7/25/2003 8:12:01 PM EDT
Why bother?
The rifle is useless without the rifleman,and the current crop of recruits are more and more alienated from the rifle than ever before.

Quit wasting time,and money on another techno gadget that in the end will be abused and poorly used by the troops that are NOT Riflemen but "Qualified" on paper.

Spend the money on improving the quality of training,and double the training time for the average grunt.They live for that shit and it will improve Morale AND increase effectiveness.

Raise the standards for qualification.
Require intimacy with the rifle at all levels of our armed forces.Bring back the performance based marksmanship pay bonus,and the open range days on base.Let the animals sharpen their own fangs.

Give the Boots a whizbang shooting gadget that still requires skill to be effective,and keep the current standards and the result will be the same as now.

Top notch Infantry will be proficient.
Leg units will be "Qualified".
Support troops will continue to be less than effective.

Raise the bar for all of them.

We have a good thing in the M16A2(And variants),and I'm afraid our troops have been let down by a lack of solid training and expectations.

New toys means new failures to be corrected after battlefield immersion.
Funding for new toys will detract from the training that actually wins the fights.
The Hardware is cool,but it's the software that does the killing.

Just a mad thought.
S-28



Link Posted: 7/25/2003 8:50:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mach6:
Before this XM8 takes on a life of its own (keeping in mind it already has sucked up over $5M for ATK, Brashear and Omega), let's think of ways we can tube this project and breathe new life into the AR family.  After all, what is the the XM-8 other than just another 5.56mm bullet launcher? Our Armed forces and indeed our Country has other budgetary priorities.  So give me your ideas.  Talk to me about subsystems, manufacturing processes, metallurgy and synthetics.  Talk to me about ammunition improvements.  Believe me, this is intended not just save the AR design, but to do the proper thing for the US Taxpayer and the Armed Forces.  Believe me, I will incorporate your input. Now sound off!    
View Quote


People thought the same thing about the Garand and that is how we got the M14.  I love the AR design, but why live in the past?
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 12:37:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QCMGR:
People thought the same thing about the Garand and that is how we got the M14.  I love the AR design, but why live in the past?
View Quote


Actually, the M14 wass the result of a search for a weapon that could fire the slightly smaller 7.62mm NATO round wasn't it?  

The XM8 still uses 5.56mm like the M16.  It is not superior in versatility or ergonomics.  Its sturdiness is still in question.  Any and all of the imporvements in the XM8 already exist or could be retrofitted to the m16 family.  It is a waste of time, energy, and funding to implement a new 5.56mm weeapon.  Product improvements to the M16 should suffice until one or two decades from now when technological advances and world political climate deem it necessary to change cartridges.  That is when it will be more cost effective and time efficient to change weapons systems.
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 12:40:03 AM EDT
Exactly...

It would be one thing if we were getting an improvement of some sort, especially if it meant a more effective and versatile cartridge.  But were not, we're looking at the same thing in a new package...one thats not any more attractive.
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 4:39:02 AM EDT
[b][size=6]Can I get a "Hell, Yeah!"[/size=6][/b]

Originally Posted By S-28:
Why bother?
The rifle is useless without the rifleman,and the current crop of recruits are more and more alienated from the rifle than ever before.

Quit wasting time,and money on another techno gadget that in the end will be abused and poorly used by the troops that are NOT Riflemen but "Qualified" on paper.

Spend the money on improving the quality of training,and double the training time for the average grunt.They live for that shit and it will improve Morale AND increase effectiveness.

Raise the standards for qualification.
Require intimacy with the rifle at all levels of our armed forces.Bring back the performance based marksmanship pay bonus,and the open range days on base.Let the animals sharpen their own fangs.

Give the Boots a whizbang shooting gadget that still requires skill to be effective,and keep the current standards and the result will be the same as now.

Top notch Infantry will be proficient.
Leg units will be "Qualified".
Support troops will continue to be less than effective.

Raise the bar for all of them.

We have a good thing in the M16A2(And variants),and I'm afraid our troops have been let down by a lack of solid training and expectations.

New toys means new failures to be corrected after battlefield immersion.
Funding for new toys will detract from the training that actually wins the fights.
The Hardware is cool,but it's the software that does the killing.

Just a mad thought.
S-28
View Quote


... and force the Reserves to do two (two week) annual training periods, one for MOS proficiency, the second for markmanship, and then other ground, training.

Time to put the "Armed" back in "Armed Forces"!
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 5:40:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GunnyG:
[b][size=6]Can I get a "Hell, Yeah!"[/size=6][/b]

Originally Posted By S-28:
Why bother?
The rifle is useless without the rifleman,and the current crop of recruits are more and more alienated from the rifle than ever before.

Quit wasting time,and money on another techno gadget that in the end will be abused and poorly used by the troops that are NOT Riflemen but "Qualified" on paper.

Spend the money on improving the quality of training,and double the training time for the average grunt.They live for that shit and it will improve Morale AND increase effectiveness.

Raise the standards for qualification.
Require intimacy with the rifle at all levels of our armed forces.Bring back the performance based marksmanship pay bonus,and the open range days on base.Let the animals sharpen their own fangs.

Give the Boots a whizbang shooting gadget that still requires skill to be effective,and keep the current standards and the result will be the same as now.

Top notch Infantry will be proficient.
Leg units will be "Qualified".
Support troops will continue to be less than effective.

Raise the bar for all of them.

We have a good thing in the M16A2(And variants),and I'm afraid our troops have been let down by a lack of solid training and expectations.

New toys means new failures to be corrected after battlefield immersion.
Funding for new toys will detract from the training that actually wins the fights.
The Hardware is cool,but it's the software that does the killing.

Just a mad thought.
S-28
View Quote


... and force the Reserves to do two (two week) annual training periods, one for MOS proficiency, the second for markmanship, and then other ground, training.

Time to put the "Armed" back in "Armed Forces"!
View Quote


I would definitely have to agree here.  Firearms training for normal units is extremely lacking.  It always has been, but it has only gotten worse.  It seems as if the more/better techinques that are brought to the tactical field, the less the military trains its personnel and what little training they receive is extremely dated.  
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 5:45:57 AM EDT
Reasons to change weapon design:

1) It don't work

2) Bad guys got somethin better

3) Change caliber

4) Lighter(signifigantly)

No reason to change right now cause we're fine in every catagory. Instead we should put the money into a new sidearm in .45 ACP to replace the M-9 for general issue(not Delta's $2k 1911's). We could use the money to get more M-11's(Sig 228) out there but that doesn't change much over the M-9 since its the same caliber and the M-9 is working. Maybe get new mags for the M-9's, they seem to have week spring's and other problems.

I also agree with GunnyG and S-28 on better weapons training with M-16's and M4's. Since we can't improve the weapon itself then the only way to improve would be to become better trained with it. Should have a STRICT course where guys go out to some desert and practice live fire situations a ton in bad conditions to get used to having to clean your gun a lot.

Lastly, we could go without all this and keep the money since we got N Korea ahead of us and will need the money for that.

Heck, use the money and give our guys more pay.

My thoughts.
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 7:20:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By knightone:
...Actually, the M14 wass the result of a search for a weapon that could fire the slightly smaller 7.62mm NATO round wasn't it?
View Quote


No, it resulted from a request to improve the Garand.  

"The design of the United States Rifle, Caliber 7.62mm, M-14 was first conceived during the final years of World War II. Airborne units wanted a weapon with lightness and select-fire capabilities of the M1 Carbine, but with the killing power of the M1 Rifle, so in May, 1944, Colonel René Studler began the development of just such a rifle under the auspices of the T20 Project. Remington Arms Company was also contracted to develop a design as the T22.1 Both projects had to meet the following requirements:


Weigh no more than 4.1 kilograms(9 pounds).
Be capable of selective semi- or fully automatic fire.
Mount a bipod.
Use a twenty round magazine.
Have a folding stock to minimize length.
Be able to launch rifle grenades.
Use the same basic action as the M-1 Rifle.
[b]By setting these requirements without changing the ammunition used in the weapon, the projects were ultimately doomed to failure.[/b]"


You guys sound like the M-14 curmudgeons.  If they would have made a leap in the fifties, they would have fielded the AR-10.  Using your logic we would still be driving the 57 Chevy.
Link Posted: 7/28/2003 4:51:49 PM EDT
NO QCMGR you are wrong.

The T22 was cancelled at the end of the war. Strictly because of the war ending and the budget cutbacks for the Army.

The M14 was produced because of the cartridge change to 7.62mm.

Now the engineers did raid the T20/T22 rifle, and also the T25 "tanker" rifle projects for design changes to implement in the M14. But the M14 wouldn't of happened if the cartridge had not changed.

Had they gotten the chance to build and field the T22 they would of discovered that they needed a new, smaller cartridge just like the British insisted. We would of ended up with a .30/06 BM59 and they would of found how uncontrollable it was on FA, and how hot it got.  If a .30/06 rifle weighing 9 pounds was practical John M. Browning wouldn't of had to make the BAR weigh 16 pounds when he tackeled the same project 30 years earlier.

And there is NO logical parallel between the M14/M16 debate and this. There is no cartridge change, there is no increase in range, weight, rate of fire, or lethality. The XM8 does not offer any improvements in any of these areas.

If they want to do something that will impress and will be useful-start developing a rifle/cartridge combination that will penetrate Level IV body armor with good wounding effects afterward. That will be a expensive and monumental undertaking and they need to start now before we lose our monopoly on rifle defeating body armor. Anything less replacing the 5.56 is a waste of money, and replacing the M16/M4 without replacing this caliber is a even bigger waste of money.

As for updating the M16A4 and M4A1 the only things I can think of are;

Universal adaptation of a free floating rail forend capable of handling the M203 Quick Disconnect and 12ga Masterkey mounts for both rifle and carbine.

Universal adaptation of the TA31 series BAC equipped ACOGs, in two models calibrated for the 14.5 and 18.5 barrels with the 77gr OTM ammo.

Change the rifles to 18.5in like the SPR, which will also make the ballistics identical to the M249-also a 18.5" barrel- and allow the rifle type ACOG to be used on both weapons.

Adopt Mk 262 cartridge as standard.

Find a durable telestock, and fit it to BOTH rifles and carbines to accomidate body armor and different statures and shooting positions.

Remove the 3rnd burst and replace with full auto on all weapons.

Straight profile barrels for both rifle and carbine.

Build a adjustable red dot sight for the M203 to replace the quadrant sight that the flattops cannot use.

Get rid of the bolt forward assist to reduce the weight of the upper.

If you need images, copy pics of newarguys M4gery.

Also for GunnyG. The reserves and ANG don't need to be FORCED to do anything. The people who need to be FORCED in to doing something are the American taxpayer who refuses to PAY them for two two week exercises and also the American business community who needs to be forced to hire, and NOT fire, employees that would need six weeks of vacation when all their other employees take less than two.
Link Posted: 7/28/2003 5:23:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
...Also for GunnyG. The reserves and ANG don't need to be FORCED to do anything.
View Quote


You haven't met some of my SMCR Marines (the ones who must've spent the first few days of their last AT looking for the shop steward! We came to an understanding. There is no such thing as "Air Cargo Ordnanceman's Local #452")

The people who need to be FORCED in to doing something are the American taxpayer who refuses to PAY them for two two week exercises and also the American business community who needs to be forced to hire, and NOT fire, employees that would need six weeks of vacation when all their other employees take less than two.
View Quote
...as well as paying for the extra Beans, Bullets and Bandaids! So... no arguement there!
Link Posted: 7/28/2003 7:38:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
NO QCMGR you are wrong.

The T22 was cancelled at the end of the war. Strictly because of the war ending and the budget cutbacks for the Army.

The M14 was produced because of the cartridge change to 7.62mm.
View Quote


Look, I did not make it up.  You can put your head in the sand, but that was the genesis of the M-14.  My point, and clearly I must belabor it, is the M-1 rifle, "the greatest battle implement ever devised" is the direct ancestor to the M-14.  By trying to push the design envelope of the M-1 we got the M-14 when were really should have got the AR-10.  I love the AR's, but I also want to see "what's next".  
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 6:08:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2003 6:09:34 PM EDT by LARRYG36]
900,000 GUNS, Its been over 40 years since this has happen 40 years!!! M14 to M16

THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL FOR THE US MILITARY, AND OUR COUNRTY.





[IMG]http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/xm8.jpg[/IMG]
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 11:21:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By knightone:
Originally Posted By QCMGR:
People thought the same thing about the Garand and that is how we got the M14.  I love the AR design, but why live in the past?
View Quote


Actually, the M14 wass the result of a search for a weapon that could fire the slightly smaller 7.62mm NATO round wasn't it?  

View Quote


Actually the FAL beat the M14 in all the Army trials. The M14 was chosen to boost the dying Springfield Armory. And why would we ever choose a foreign designed weapon over one of our own?

JoeLad
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 11:36:49 AM EDT
Holy thread resurrection Batman!
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 12:00:55 PM EDT
I guess this is the time to let all my ideas out.

First, I would like to know exactly how the SIG55 series works. What kind of bolt lockup system does it use?

I think we ought to have an 18" 1:8 twist barrel ( 18" because ballistic performance isn't that bad, 1:8 twist to better stabilize light rounds if the need arises and for longer life with full auto fire, which includes using the A1 fire control group ). Have a one piece bolt with a G-3 - style lockup system, utilizing two sping loaded balls. Have every rifle with either an A2 stock or a Magpul ( carbine versions with 16" barrel ) for greater strength ( ability to buttstroke someone ). As for the magazines, have a stronger magazine spring, or just use HK or SA80 steel magazines. Have a slightly stronger recoil spring.

As for external changes, say have the usual flattop with a low-power ( 1-3 power ) optic on top. Have ordinary handguards.

And don't forget the bayonet.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 12:23:06 PM EDT
S-28:
 You have said all my thoughts and more I am in total agreement with you on this. When weapon systems for the individual evolve beyond brass cased smokeless powder lead projectiles then its time to look at new armaments for our troops, until then lets get them the time with more rounds down range and the best training possible. I just do not see what a new weapon  will gain us at this point.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 3:36:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2004 4:33:18 PM EDT by AKM]
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Adopt the AN94???

Even the Russians arent.

Anyone seriously believe the US is going to adopt a Soviet design???
View Quote


I agree as the ergonomics are no better if not worse then the AK!

As the earlier poster said: until we advance beyond the Brass cartridge improvements will be incremental.

If the XM8 can incorporate all the goodies of the SOCOM package at 2 lbs or less overall weapon weight with greater ergonomics and modularity then that’s quite an "incremental" improvement in my book!

[url]http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison.pdf[/url]

Link Posted: 1/3/2004 5:43:36 PM EDT
Those weight numbers appear fishy.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 6:23:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Those weight numbers appear fishy.
View Quote

That, sir, is because they're bunk.  Heckler & Koch is trying to sell a product.  Read their head to head comparison.  It is so biased and full of outright falsehoods (zero drain time my ass!) that it shouldn't be considered official information.

They're selling their product, and they'll say whatever they need to in order to make it sound good.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 6:26:09 PM EDT
you know the days are counting down for the M16.

I Very strongly aggree we place too much tech into a weapon and depend on the weapon do its job instead of training a soldier to be a weapon to have the tools to do His/her job.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 7:56:05 PM EDT

THE M16 WAS/IS LEAP AHEAD TECHNOLOGY!
THE XM8 IS NOT LEAP AHEAD TECHNOLOGY!
THE XM8 HAS WASTED TO MUCH TAX MONEY!
THE M16 IS A BETTER KNOWN QUANTITY $!
PIP THE M16 IS BEST DOLLARS TO SPEND!
THE XM8 A POLITICAL PROMOTERS WEAPON!
GOOD SHOOTIN, JACK
Top Top