We all wonder what's the point of the XM-8.  It doesn't seem to affer any REAL advantages over the M16/4.  The XM-8 program seems to be pushed along by an unseen hand that has no idea (or doesn't care) what its effect will be in real-life combat operations and logistics.

Tin foil hats in place?  Drum roll, please...

The strength of the AR15 is that it is the civilian counterpart to the current military weapon.  This is what spurs interest, provides a huge parts supply, provides a solid base on which the civilian market runs.  As long as a manufacturer can build parts for guns at volume for the military, there will be "spillage" of parts into the civilian market.

If the XM-8 is chosen, that base is severely undermined.  The incentive for manufacturers to build parts and accessories dries up, because without military contracts to built volume, hobbyist shooters don't buy enough to make it profitable.

By going whole-hog to the XM-8, the popular AR platform is relegated to hobby-only status.

And this makes Washington bureaucrats very, very happy.  Regulating a firearm that has no military manufacturing base is easy.  Hunt down the manufacturers, and one-by-one convince them that there's little point in building AR parts, since the military won't buy any more.  Maybe offer them side contracts for XM-8 add-ons.  Throw them a bone.

Once the AR is relegated to "military antique curio" status, manufacturing and distributiion of parts and accessories dries up.  And soon it's only of interest to a relative handful of collectors, who don't shoot them anymore because parts are hard to get.

And H&K will never in a million years build a civilian XM-8.

I'm not writing this because I believe it could happen (I dont').  But it is highly likely that the people pushing the XM-8 believe it.

You couldn't just post this in the XM8 thread right below this one?

Quoted: You couldn't just post this in the XM8 thread right below this one? www.mattandpamazon.com/images/matt/IBTL.gif

Man, I spent a whole FIVE minutes thinking and writing that topic.  My brain nearly exploded.  And all I get is criticism.  What's up with that?

Where are the cries of YOU'RE A GENIUS! and WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!?!? and WHAT'S FOR LUNCH?

Ingrates!  

Quoted: Quoted: You couldn't just post this in the XM8 thread right below this one? www.mattandpamazon.com/images/matt/IBTL.gif Man, I spent a whole FIVE minutes thinking and writing that topic.  My brain nearly exploded.  And all I get is criticism.  What's up with that? Where are the cries of YOU'RE A GENIUS! and WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!?!? and WHAT'S FOR LUNCH? Ingrates!   hr

YOU'RE A GENIUS!

WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!?!?

WHAT'S FOR LUNCH?

Quoted: WHAT'S FOR LUNCH? Ingrates!

Pizzer.... colling down now. Now that was a very thought provoking question. It worked on so many levels. I laughed, I cried... it was much better than Cats

Carbine Man, I have had the same thoughts as you about the XM-8 but never posted them. It makes perfect sence to get rid of civilian guns incrementally than trying to ban them outright. Hopefully though, the civilian market will continue, with or without the militaries help in pushing for another weapon.

Dude, I'll give you the credit you deserve.  Although my personal thoughts haven't quite developed as much as yours, it is along the same lines.  Many of those in power now seem to understand the power of the internet in determining public policy.  People have mountains of information at their fingertips, and so, it has become harder and harder for politicians to "pull the wool over the eyes" of the citizenry.  As much as they want to try, it is still a delicate balance, and they know that their jobs are at stake, more than ever.  Knowing that, doing everything short of "prohibiting" ownership will practically fall off the radar.  The AR-15 might end up in the same status as NFA weapons: too valuable as a whole to shoot.  And there isn't a damn thing we as civilians can do to influence military procurement, not like the constant hounding we gave the Senators back in February.  

Guys, guys, guys...

The AR can and will survive as a "citizen-only" weapons platform, if it comes to that (and eventually it will).

First, I don't believe that the Pentagon will (or can afford to) replace every M-16 and M-4 in the inventory (including Guard and Reserve units) with XM-8 variants. Second, look at dinosaurs like the M-1 Garand and the M-14/M-1A; those designs haven't seen frontline service with the US military in decades, but they're still quite popular (and quite supported) with civilian shooters.  Ditto the AK series; it has *never* had the support of a US military contract, but there's certainly no shortage of US-made variants and accessories available...

Not saying Big Brother doesn't want to take away our guns, ultimately, but I don't think the possible adoption of the XM-8 is a means to that end.  From what I've heard, it's only a handful of Army brass that's pushing the program along... that hardly constitutes whole-hog support from the US Military.

My $.02.

On a related note, the only U.S. Supreme Court case that addresses the second amendment (Miller) indicates that a weapon is protected by the second amendment only if it has a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."  It seems to matter whether the weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment."  If the amy uses M16s, you might claim that your AR-15 is protected by the second amendment because it is basically identical to the military issue weapon.  It looks the same, fires the same round, and uses the same magazines.  If the army is using an entirely different system, you might be out of luck.

The judges in the recent Emerson case noted that the defendant had a Beretta, the US military issue handgun.

Interesting and thought provoking.   Now...........what's for lunch?

Right now I"m concerned about coming up with the funds for a Surefire Weapons Light.  I'll worry about all the above at a later date.

Quoted: We all wonder what's the point of the XM-8.  It doesn't seem to affer any REAL advantages over the M16/4.  The XM-8 program seems to be pushed along by an unseen hand that has no idea (or doesn't care) what its effect will be in real-life combat operations and logistics. Tin foil hats in place?  Drum roll, please... The strength of the AR15 is that it is the civilian counterpart to the current military weapon.  This is what spurs interest, provides a huge parts supply, provides a solid base on which the civilian market runs.  As long as a manufacturer can build parts for guns at volume for the military, there will be "spillage" of parts into the civilian market. If the XM-8 is chosen, that base is severely undermined.  The incentive for manufacturers to build parts and accessories dries up, because without military contracts to built volume, hobbyist shooters don't buy enough to make it profitable. By going whole-hog to the XM-8, the popular AR platform is relegated to hobby-only status. And this makes Washington bureaucrats very, very happy.  Regulating a firearm that has no military manufacturing base is easy.  Hunt down the manufacturers, and one-by-one convince them that there's little point in building AR parts, since the military won't buy any more.  Maybe offer them side contracts for XM-8 add-ons.  Throw them a bone. Once the AR is relegated to "military antique curio" status, manufacturing and distributiion of parts and accessories dries up.  And soon it's only of interest to a relative handful of collectors, who don't shoot them anymore because parts are hard to get. And H&K will never in a million years build a civilian XM-8. I'm not writing this because I believe it could happen (I dont').  But it is highly likely that the people pushing the XM-8 believe it.

Bushmaster doesn't have any (large) Govt' contracts, but they are the largest seller of AR's and AR parts than any other manufacturer (except FN, but thats by contract) )

Quoted: Bushmaster doesn't have any (large) Govt' contracts, but they are the largest seller of AR's and AR parts than any other manufacturer (except FN, but thats by contract) )

I think your thinking 'Large MILITARY Contracts'.  Bush over the years has had several large 'Govt' contracts (i.e. the Department of Energy comes to mind as one of them).

I think Carbine has some really good points, however, I think there is another over-riding reason for pushing XM8:

The "Private Lynch Syndrome"

Bear with me on this.....

Most folks in the Army are support folks. Most of them touch a rifle once a year for annual qualification.

Annual qualification means less than 100 rds per person, on average? Yes no? (for the sake of argument, let's up the count to 250)

So....the vast majority of the US Army is firing less than 250 rds once per year. This is under safe, slow, and pristine range conditions.

Take these same folks, put them in a convoy (lost?) during a swirling sandstorm and hit them with small arms, RPG's, and light machineguns. What is the result?  

A cluster-F@#% of mass proportions.....

.......Folks trying to fire/reload weapons they hardly touch, under stressful, combat conditions. You get all kinds of stoppages, mis-feeds, etc when this happens.

"my gun jammed...."

That's all you hear when support folks get hit.

Now...contrast this with the 3rd ID (Rock of the Marne...HOOAH!)
The USMC
The 101st Abn
and all of other frontline combat units that are at the tip of the spear.....

No major complaints about the M16/M4....Yes, there are niggling gripes about proper lube for a sandy envirionment and so forth, but no large scale tales of weapons going tits-up in a firefight either.

We know what the difference is:

Training, pure and simple......

There are those in the Army that want a "wonder gun" that any person (read: non-combat arms) can reliably use under most conditions......
A "wonder gun" that won't jam when used during a stressful event.....
A "wonder gun" that allows the Army to continue the trend of not giving support troops proper weapons training......

I personally feel that this is a major reason behind the XM8. It is not a weapon for the grunts, it is a weapon for the non-grunts.....

YOU'RE A GENIUS!

WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!?!?

WHAT'S FOR LUNCH?

just give me a gun that works in any condition! i think thats important regardless of  your position in the military. i dont care how quick you can clear a jam i dont want my gun jamming it the first place.?but you could be on to something.Bently

Quoted: IAnnual qualification means less than 100 rds per person, on average? Yes no? (for the sake of argument, let's up the count to 250)

40 rounds (if you pass the first time).  Plust at least 3 rounds to confirm zero (more if your zero is off, rarely more than 3 unless you're a knucklehead)

There are those in the Army that want a "wonder gun" that any person (read: non-combat arms) can reliably use under most conditions...... A "wonder gun" that won't jam when used during a stressful event..... A "wonder gun" that allows the Army to continue the trend of not giving support troops proper weapons training......

No such beast.  Even the vaunted AK needs some maintenance under those conditions.

Those same support troops had issues with their M249s and M2s jamming from poor maintenance - what are you going to do about that?

"No such beast. Even the vaunted AK needs some maintenance under those conditions.

Those same support troops had issues with their M249s and M2s jamming from poor maintenance - what are you going to do about that?"

My sentiments exactly....

There is no wonder weapon. Training, proper training, is the key here. Problem is, when you are one of the procurement Generals,  you cannot get a fat job with a defense contractor if you push for training over one of their fancy toys. The XM8 is a solution in search of a problem......

Quoted: Plust at least 3 rounds to confirm zero (more if your zero is off, rarely more than 3 unless you're a knucklehead)

Ever seen support people shoot? It's sad. Most of the ones I have seen use up almost as much to zero as to qual.... then they usually need to shoot twice to qual marksman. Support people are about the non-shootinist mo-fos. How many clerks do you see sporting an expert badge? Or sharpshooter for that matter. It doesn't help that most of them have little interest in weapons to begin with.

No gun, no matter how idiot proof, is going to improve the aim of someone who picked a job in the Army that would be the least likely to put them in combat. Give support people backpack nukes. When they get surrouned by the enemy they can just blow themselves up. There's plenty of support people to go around. Sorry, that was in bad taste. The problem isn't the gun... it's the training. once a year is absurd, although I believe it was upped to twice recently, like that'll make experts out of all of them.

Quoted: Ever seen support people shoot? It's sad.

Uhh yeah - I was one (Aviation might be a Combat Arms branch - but as far as personal weapons we are trained like support).  The only people I noticed having issues were the two who transferred in from the Navy and hand't fired M16s.

Support people are about the non-shootinist mo-fos. How many clerks do you see sporting an expert badge?

Funny you should ask that.

I had one (well I was a 93P - its not a clerk, but close enough for Military work...)

Our Unit Administrator (a CWO) had one (of course I should mention he was an 11B before going to flight school...)

I know we had several others (a decent percentage of our unit had personal weapons and actually shot when we had the time).

Of course this was almost 20 years ago.

I think the bigger problem has been societies attitude as a whole towards firearms and shooting - and its infecting our military.  Most people are not 'into it' and actively hostile toward the idea.  I think that is a bigger issue.

This may be a reason, its certainly a danger

Quoted: Uhh yeah - I was one (Aviation might be a Combat Arms branch - but as far as personal weapons we are trained like support).  The only people I noticed having issues were the two who transferred in from the Navy and hand't fired M16s. I had one (well I was a 93P - its not a clerk, but close enough for Military work...) Our Unit Administrator (a CWO) had one (of course I should mention he was an 11B before going to flight school...) I know we had several others (a decent percentage of our unit had personal weapons and actually shot when we had the time). Of course this was almost 20 years ago. I think the bigger problem has been societies attitude as a whole towards firearms and shooting - and its infecting our military.  Most people are not 'into it' and actively hostile toward the idea.  I think that is a bigger issue.

Sorry... I am always thinking from my experience... need to work on that. When I say support I'm talking about all the clerk in PAC, or the average supply guy, intel, or people who work in a health clinics.

And you're right, the anti-gun attitude is infecting the military... In Germany the BSB Commander closed down all the Outdoor Rec ranges... and when my friend/coworker started a petition to get them reopened a lot of the people wouldn't sign it because they didn't think that shooting civilian weapons was necessary. Madness!!!

The long period of peacetime prior to 9/11 also brought in a lot of people who were using the Army for college and had never even considered the possibility of deploying and actually using a weapon.