Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2004 6:41:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 11:10:21 AM EST by bigcountry]
Could someone please explain to me why our government has spent so much money on this Fussed Over Rebuildt Dod... er, G-36, and not just get the real thing and spend ALL that money on ammo and kevlar? Oh yeah, if this new gun becomes official, what's the word on a civillian version? Perhaps a SL8-2?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:01:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 7:03:28 PM EST by model927]
Both pieces of garbabge that offer no new advancements over the M16 and in some cases with those weapons durability has been questioned at times especialy with the G36.You may not be able to shoot leave dirty and shoot some more day after day after day without cleaning the 16 but it is reliable enough if given a minimum of maintenence.In the desert like in Iraq any weapon will eventually fail if not cleaned even an AK.The g36 and XM8 have nothing realy new to offer that a polymer upper and lower M16 couldnt do better and without having to revamp the whole logistics system.Besides last thing I want is a weapon made by a country who wont stand by us and the war on terror,screw them we should have let the russians have them in 45.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:02:11 PM EST
politics
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:09:54 PM EST
over the M16, the XM8 has a quick change barrel, which I suppose is nice.
and over the G36, I think we like the M16 type of collapsable stock better than the folding stock of the G36 (I dont' think that would take that much R&D to develop though).

The XM8's grenade launcher attachment is more versatile than the M203.

The XM8 is completely ambidextrous, which is nice if you can't see out of your right eye.

And of course we wouldn't want out troops running around with an obviously German gun.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:13:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By bigcountry:
Could someone please explain to me why our government has spent so much money on this Fussed Over Rebuildt For.. er, G-36, and not just get the real thing and spend ALL that money on ammo and kevlar? Oh yeah, if this new gun becomes official, what's the word on a civillian version? Perhaps a SL8-2?


Same reason we made the 1903 instead of adopting the 98 series of mausers.
Instead, we bought the rights and made our own, which was basically the exact same gun.
Politics
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:16:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 7:18:37 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Capro:
over the M16, the XM8 has a quick change barrel, which I suppose is nice.
and over the G36, I think we like the M16 type of collapsable stock better than the folding stock of the G36 (I dont' think that would take that much R&D to develop though).

The XM8's grenade launcher attachment is more versatile than the M203.

The XM8 is completely ambidextrous, which is nice if you can't see out of your right eye.

And of course we wouldn't want out troops running around with an obviously German gun.



The 'quick change barrel' is just a quick change upper...

Which we all know the M16 has anyway...

It's a waste of money either way, there are no improvements between the 2 designs, other than the XM8 takes less elbow-grease to make 'parade clean'...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:23:20 PM EST
I heard that the real gem of the XM8 program was to get the 40mm grenade launcher H&K makes.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:30:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 7:31:13 PM EST by Capro]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

The 'quick change barrel' is just a quick change upper...

Which we all know the M16 has anyway...



well it's supposed to be "quick change" but you're right it doesn't look much different than the AR.
www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_assembly.php
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:42:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Capro:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

The 'quick change barrel' is just a quick change upper...

Which we all know the M16 has anyway...



well it's supposed to be "quick change" but you're right it doesn't look much different than the AR.
www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_assembly.php



Yup...

HK's marketing for the XM-8 is disingenuous at best...

Their idea of 'quick change' is pop front & rear takedown pins, swap uppers... Sound familliar?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:55:06 PM EST
Maybe they're comparing it to how easy it is to swap a barrel on a G3/HK91.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:51:06 PM EST
OMG here we go again with the XM8/G36 vs M16


Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:15:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:58:19 AM EST
I have a relative by marriage who works at Picatinney Arsenal.

He is not a gun guy, and thinks the XM8 is "JUNK" according to feedback.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 2:48:25 AM EST
Not to split hairs ,but, wasnt the M-16 regarded as 'junk' when it was first implemented?

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:53:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 3:54:55 AM EST by _DR]
Funny, AR15.com's own Stickman was impressed with the second generation XM8 when he got to shoot it recently. The 10th Mountain(200 regular soldiers) got the opportunity to shoot it several months ago and almost all had very good things to say.


MOST of the negatives I have heard are from people who HAVE NOT laid hands on the weapon system, or third party anecdotal accounts like "my brother in law's cousin saw one and said it sucked". I'm not implying those third party accounts aren't true, but this sure seems a LOT like early days for the M16, where traditionalists were doing everything to sabotage and arrest the adoption of the M16. Even to the point of sabotaging the Arctic trials by the Army, where the test weapons were deliberately modified to render them innaccurate and unreliable. Eugene Stoner said in an interview that he had to fly up to Alaska himself to find this being perpetrated by high-ranking Army personnel who were resisting the change.

All I hear from you guys is- "it's no improvement, it's not better than the M16, we don't need a change" from the naysayers everytime this is discussed, yet consistently the reports I read from troops and individuals who have actually fired the weapon are glowing. I will hold my judgement on this system until the final facts come out, like the M16A1 after the second or third round of development. The first M16s were flimsy rifles that had ridiculously thin barrels and fragile bakelite foregrips, look at what it has become today.

Until then I suppose I will have to endure the littany of "why fix it if it aint broke" "the M16 can do everything the XM8 can do, why change".
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 4:02:40 AM EST
These threads are hilarious!

Gee, it's comforting to know that we've reached the pinnacle of small arms design and we can all kick back. LOL
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 5:17:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 5:27:56 AM EST by Tweak]
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 5:39:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:21:56 AM EST by _DR]
The 1903 was a fine weapon, probably a better weapon than the M1917. Even though supplemented by large numbers of M1917 "U.S. Enfield" rifles in the World War I, the M1903 remained a significant part of the arsenal of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) until the Armistice in 1918. "Between the wars," the M1917 was relegated to the war reserve stockpile while the '03 remained the standard rifle in U.S. military service. When the M1 Garand came around in 1936, the '03 was still the sniper rifle of choice, even though the M1C and M1D variants were developed later in WWII and after, '03 sniper variants were used through the Korean war.


5th Marine Sniper in Punchbowl - M1903A1/Unertl, Korea, 1951

Not bad for "borrowed" or "bought" technology!
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 5:47:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 5:57:46 AM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By Karaya1:
Instead, we bought the rights and made our own



Technically, we made the 1903 then bought the rights. IIRC we didn't pay any royalties until after the end of WW1.

_DR,

Those very early rifles weren't M16s.



Well, yes you are correct. they were not designated the M16 at that point. My mistake. Weren't the first models designated AR15, and were a scaled down version of Eugene Stoner's AR10? Regardless they were the predecessor to the M16, were they not?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:33:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:43:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:21:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:23:14 AM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By _DR:
Well, yes you are correct.



Thank you.



The tales of the gun series was back on the history channel again last night - good show - they were showing the original designs by Eugene Stoner and the history of the AR15/M16, they had the original bakelite model, an A1, an A2 and something I didn't recognize on the table plus scores of weapons on racks behind the historian. I wish I could find more information on that original bakelite equipped variant. I wonder if "The black Rifle" book goes into any detail on this. Damn, I just need to pony up the money and get that book.....can't find any really good historical references on the earliest models with good pics on the web.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:37:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:38:09 AM EST by Lockedon]

Originally Posted By bigcountry:
Could someone please explain to me why our government has spent so much money on this Fussed Over Rebuildt For.. er, G-36, and not just get the real thing and spend ALL that money on ammo and kevlar? Oh yeah, if this new gun becomes official, what's the word on a civillian version? Perhaps a SL8-2?





You apperantly don't know the Holy H&K's position on us non-worthy civilians...
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:06:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 9:10:06 AM EST by imposter]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By Karaya1:
Instead, we bought the rights and made our own



Technically, we made the 1903 then bought the rights. IIRC we didn't pay any royalties until after the end of WW1.


It is correct that we did not originally pay royalties. But after Mauserwerke made the claim, we paid royalties until WWI. We obviously did not make royalty payments during the war. After the war, we reached a settlement and quit paying.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:50:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 9:51:32 AM EST by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:19:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 12:52:08 PM EST by _DR]
Well call me crazy, but I don't think it's fair to compare a standard battle rifle prototype to the SPR. The SPR is a very tweaked specialized piece of equipment as you know. Also to say that the G36 or XM8 with a 20" barrel and a good shooter groups 10 MOA is bs. The G36 action in my SL8 grouped 1.5 moa with my bad shooting. Army Field trials show accuracy to be within army norms fot the first gen XM8, that has been stated in several reports. They have now moved on to second generation. as Stickman reported.

You have just proven my point. Some Die hard AR15/M16 fans CANNOT be unbiased when it comes an HK product. so be it, everyone will make up their own minds, but DoD doesn't give a lick what we think anyway.

This thread has been nothing but wasted keystrokes for me.


edited for profanity and tact.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:35:22 AM EST

I heard The Army Marksmanship Unit thinks its a piece of shit. The AMU's SPRs grouped better at 300 yards than the XM8 did at 100, and HK refused to go toe to toe on the 600 yard line.


Doesn't sound right. HK doesn't have anything to do with how the Army tests the XM8, or what it is tested against.

I would be interested in knowing if there is any truth to the above, and if there is, if it was an early barrel.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:53:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 1:10:05 PM EST by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:11:17 PM EST
why not?hatchoose the best ( we know the m-16 will trump hk)
besides I think a change in caliber is also in order

and why can't producers/inventers in the USA design and build our own origional rifle if we got ot replace the m-16? du-hu, we are the US of A, i'm sure we can design our own firarms
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:42:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 12:43:35 PM EST by USCGflyer]
Not meant for anything other than info:

From the Army Times

XM8 update: Your fix is in
Thanks to soldier feedback, the Army’s expected next rifle will be lighter, fire faster and sight better

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


The Army is about to enter the final round of testing on what is well on its way to becoming your next weapon. The second-generation XM8s sport more than a dozen soldier-inspired refinements that weapons experts hope will help them convince Army leaders to adopt the new family of weapons in early 2005.
Until then, the new prototypes — 17 carbines, 15 compacts and 14 designated marksman versions — are slated for more soldier evaluation through the fall and winter.

The Army developed the XM8 in late 2003 as part of a longer-range effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the XM29, developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler and Koch.

The XM29 fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition. But it is still too heavy and unwieldy to meet Army requirements.

The Army decided to perfect each of XM29’s components separately, so soldiers can take advantage of new technology sooner. The parts would be brought back together when lighter materials become available. The XM8 is one of those components.

The weapon was tested in lab conditions, and by soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized).

“Every time we take it to the field Army, they tell us to leave it with them,” Brig. Gen. James Moran, head of Project Executive Office Soldier, said at a June 14 Pentagon briefing.

Soldiers reacted positively, but they also had plenty of ideas for making the XM8 more effective on the battlefield.

The new prototypes — standard carbine, compact carbine and designated marksman models — include changes that make the XM8 more reliable, easier to operate and lighter to carry, said Col. Michael Smith, head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

“We did not try to build the perfect weapon the first time,” Smith said. “We did make a lot of changes. Soldiers definitely affected the design of the second generation.”

One of the more challenging changes involved redesigning backup iron sights.

The XM8 relies on special optics for its primary aiming system. There’s a short-range version with a red aiming dot and a long-range version for use by marksmen. But soldiers always want the traditional front and rear iron sights, since anything electronic can fail, Smith said.

The backup sights fold down into the hand guard and carrying handle when not in use.

“I’m very happy with the way it turned out; it’s put out of the way until you need it,” Smith said. The original design was trashed, he said, because it called for the backup sight to be built into the optic.

“What if it is smashed? That’s why [soldiers] wanted it to be separate.”

Both optics have also been improved on the prototypes.

The battery life for each has increased from 110 hours to 400. And the new designs feature a lever-style clamping mechanism for attaching the optics to the weapon instead of the screws that soldiers tended to strip during testing.

Both the short-range and long-range optics have a built-in infrared pointer and illuminator similar to the PEQ2 attachment soldiers currently use on the M4 carbine. Plus, there’s more range on the pointer and illuminator — designers upped it from 600 meters to 800 on both optics. Soldiers can focus the pointer and illuminator on the long range or 4x optic while the same infrared features on the short-range or unity optic remain fixed.

Better aim

Developers said the full-auto capability should be more reliable now that they have increased the rate of fire by 25 to 50 rounds per minute. The change makes the XM8 capable of firing 850 rpm.

“We did the change to give us better a capability in nasty environments like the desert,” Smith said, explaining that the higher rate should help push more sand and grit out of the chamber when firing. “You get a little more force blowing that stuff out of there.”

The Army changed from full-auto to three-round burst on the M16A2 in the 1980s when the service decided most soldiers did not fire effectively in the full-auto mode.

But weapons experts now say a soldier using three-round bursts is no more effective than one well-trained in the use of fully automatic fire.

Unlike the first generation, the designated marksman and automatic rifle models are now the same weapon, except the automatic rifle will be fielded with a special 100-round, drum magazine. The designated marksman variant will use the 30-round magazine used on the standard carbine.

The high-capacity magazine, which can be used in all the XM8 models, is intended to give commanders the option to beef up a squad’s volume of fire beyond the current M249 squad automatic weapon, which is belt-fed and equipped with quick-changing barrels.

“We are not proposing that we replace the M249 in the light machine gun role,” Smith said. The XM8 squad auto rifle’s barrel can be changed but the process takes too long to perform in the middle of a firefight, he said.

“It’s not designed to give you that continuous high rate of fire the machine gun will give you,” Smith said.

Lighter load

The second generation XM8s include several ergonomic improvements, such as new ridges or knurls added to the cocking lever for a better grip. They also are about 15 percent lighter than the first prototypes, Smith said. That’s about a pound less on the carbine model which now weighs in at 7.14 pounds with optic and loaded 30-round magazine. An M4 carbine with its standard attachments and a 30-round magazine weighs about 8.5 pounds, he said.

The prototypes are black, but Smith said the final production models would most likely be a solid earth-tone since the Army’s recently approved Army Combat Uniform has no black in the new digital pattern. Camouflage tests have shown that black is too easily detected during movement, Smith said.

The Army’s senior leadership is scheduled to make a decision on replacing the M16 with the XM8 in February, Smith said.

There were plans to possibly field the XM8 to two infantry brigades in 2005, but Congress chose not to provide the roughly $27 million needed for the purchase in the fiscal 2005 budget or in supplemental funding, Smith said.

The Army could still begin fielding in 2005, but the money would have to come from existing programs, Smith said.

Before those decisions are made, however, the second-generation XM8s are slated to go through desert testing in Arizona in September, tropic testing in Panama in October and arctic testing in Alaska in December. A limited user test, involving an undisclosed, active infantry division is also scheduled for October, Smith said.

“As always, we are testing the changes to verify them,” Smith said. “We want the very best for our soldiers. They deserve it.”



Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:54:33 PM EST
sorry if I came off as rude on my last post; this is only a discussion and sometimes I get into it a bit too much. I appreciate everyones opinion here, regardless of point of view.

proceed.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:23:05 PM EST
I believe that like all rifles before this one the M16 will see the end of its common use and popularity just as the 1903 and M1 and M14's before it.

While no time soon--or maybe soon- who knows, but overall change is good.

Just look at how awesome today's M16A4 is compared to first issues, or how much better today's M4 is than the original SP1.

Let 'em test- let 'em try new stuff, as technology changes everywhere and if they can build a better mousetrap killing machine, let's see it.

in the mean time..... enjoy what we got.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 5:51:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 5:52:41 PM EST by bigcountry]
Are you insinuating that the makers of the vaunted 3-ARs-for-the-price-of-one-SL8-1 are planning on leaving us out?hat Seriously, what's H&Ks plan on a civie XM-8? Truth, opinions, or outright lies are welcome!
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:10:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:27:15 PM EST
Top Top