XM8 Dead in the water? SCAR, WHAT'S IT'S STATUS? M16 is still tops!

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - XM8 Dead in the water? SCAR, WHAT'S IT'S STATUS? M16 is still tops! (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 12/8/2005 5:08:38 AM EDT

So, Is the over rated "G36" I mean XM8 dead? What's the programs status? What was the result of the SCAR tests, Was the FN chosen? The Robinson entry looked great, too bad it wasn't given a chance. The military should just get it's head out of it's ass and take the M468 Barrett! Thanks.

Posted: 12/8/2005 6:40:32 AM EDT

[#1]

Something tells me they're out of XBOX 360's in Ohio.

Posted: 12/8/2005 6:42:07 AM EDT

[#2]

Yeah no kidding, is the XBOX broken or something?

- rem

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:12:27 AM EDT

[#3]

oh, hello there little trolls said the ogre.... well I don't have an Xbox and don't intend on buying any chinese made crap. I hear the damn thing doesn't even work. Nothing wrong with my question, By the way, I notice both of you unlike me are not dues paying members, lets see, use the sight and make negative comments but to cheap to pay for a membership to help support the site, yeah, your very mature.

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:19:07 AM EDT

[#4]

From what I've read the XM8 had been dead for almost a year, and the SCAR has been offically selected.

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:33:29 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
From what I've read the XM8 had been dead for almost a year, and the SCAR has been offically selected.

This is accurate.

I was just reading a Military magainze article about the XM8. Does anyone want to guess on how much the ARMY spent on testing the XM8????

C4

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:38:02 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Does anyone want to guess on how much the ARMY spent on testing the XM8????

C4

OO OO!! PICK ME! PICK ME!

Dr. Evil "One millllllllion dollars"

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:40:35 AM EDT

[#7]

Hello and welcome to last year

Yes the XM8 is cancelled, the FN ARM has been selected for the SCAR program and given the designation Mk16 (5.56mm version) and Mk17 (7.62x51 version).

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=414847

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=77451

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=188785

XM8 cancellation thread:
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=405276

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:46:02 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
oh, hello there little trolls said the ogre.... well I don't have an Xbox and don't intend on buying any chinese made crap. I hear the damn thing doesn't even work. Nothing wrong with my question, By the way, I notice both of you unlike me are not dues paying members, lets see, use the sight and make negative comments but to cheap to pay for a membership to help support the site, yeah, your very mature.

Nevermind.

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:57:34 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone want to guess on how much the ARMY spent on testing the XM8????

C4

OO OO!! PICK ME! PICK ME!

Dr. Evil "One millllllllion dollars"

Add 28 Mil. to that number and you go it!

C4

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:01:13 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone want to guess on how much the ARMY spent on testing the XM8????

C4

OO OO!! PICK ME! PICK ME!

Dr. Evil "One millllllllion dollars"

Add 28 Mil. to that number and you go it!

C4

For a POS G36 made to look more like a Flounder.....out-fucking-standing.

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:08:28 AM EDT

[#11]

I wonder how many rounds of 77gr. 5.56 you could buy with $29 million?

G

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:21:35 AM EDT

[#12]

58 million.

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:24:12 AM EDT

[#13]

Does anyone have a pick of the SCAR Rifle? When is it supposed to be fielded?

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:30:29 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Does anyone have a pick of the SCAR Rifle? When is it supposed to be fielded?

Look at the links I posted.

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:33:39 AM EDT

[#15]

How did the XM8 fail the tests?

Posted: 12/8/2005 9:57:54 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
How did the XM8 fail the tests?

It Melted

Posted: 12/8/2005 10:34:35 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
How did the XM8 fail the tests?

It Melted

Thank you.

Posted: 12/8/2005 11:02:26 AM EDT

[#18]

The ARMY gave up on the HK designed XM8 for a number of problems, and melting attachment points did happen to be one of them. The ARMY turned around and sold the design to General Dynamics, who has reportedly made progress with the grenade launching device, but not the rifle it's self. The optic is said to be the most beneficial thing to come of the whole OICW program, but at a very large cost.

The SCAR seems to be picking up more and more, as it's rumored that SOCOM is talking up the FN ARM rifle to the ARMY. SOCOM has chosen the ARM/SCAR rifle, but there's no telling where it's going in the future, as of yet.

The M16 still has quite a bit of life left as a service rifle even with many other systems nipping at it's heels. I think the features of the FN ARM rifle series look very promising in the development of small arms though. The modularity dwarfs any other current offering, and reliability is said to be that of a quality AK. If the FN ARM takes the route SOCOM wants, the M14, SR25, M16, M4, CQB, and all other specialty versions of the M16 series will be replaced by one simple modular system.

Interesting stuff, but the jury isn't completely out yet. That's all the stuff I have read rolled into one summary, but I'd expect there could easily be alot more, or alot less. There is a board member who is heavily related with the FN ARM rifle testing and development, and maybe he will drop in.

As a hold over, here's a picture of the FN ARM(H).

Posted: 12/8/2005 11:27:08 AM EDT

[#19]

the FN is still a little on the heavy side.

Posted: 12/8/2005 11:52:32 AM EDT

[#20]

It is heavier, but consider how much a M4 similarly equipped weighs. I'd be willing to bet there's alot of weight in that stock and the one piece aluminum upper. Add on a rail system, flip up iron sights, and an upgraded stock to the M4, and it's probably very similar, if not more than the ARM.

Posted: 12/8/2005 12:02:31 PM EDT

[#21]

*not to hijack thread but* Is it true that the SCAR is going to be produced in a civilian version?

Posted: 12/8/2005 12:13:47 PM EDT

[#22]

M4: Weight: 2.52 kg without magazine;

SCAR L (5.56): 3.5 kg empty
SCAR H (7.62): 3.86 kg empty

This is according to World Guns

Posted: 12/8/2005 12:15:19 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Something tells me they're out of XBOX 360's in Ohio.

Posted: 12/8/2005 1:28:51 PM EDT

[#24]

Rumor is they will offer a civilian version in 2007.

Posted: 12/8/2005 1:35:18 PM EDT

[#25]

FNH USA does publicly admit that the ARM rifles are planned for civilian production. They hope to start by early 2007, but that could change at any time based on it's contract status.

Posted: 12/8/2005 1:56:46 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
The ARMY gave up on the HK designed XM8 for a number of problems, and melting attachment points did happen to be one of them. The ARMY turned around and sold the design to General Dynamics, who has reportedly made progress with the grenade launching device, but not the rifle it's self. The optic is said to be the most beneficial thing to come of the whole OICW program, but at a very large cost.

The SCAR seems to be picking up more and more, as it's rumored that SOCOM is talking up the FN ARM rifle to the ARMY. SOCOM has chosen the ARM/SCAR rifle, but there's no telling where it's going in the future, as of yet.

The M16 still has quite a bit of life left as a service rifle even with many other systems nipping at it's heels. I think the features of the FN ARM rifle series look very promising in the development of small arms though. The modularity dwarfs any other current offering, and reliability is said to be that of a quality AK. If the FN ARM takes the route SOCOM wants, the M14, SR25, M16, M4, CQB, and all other specialty versions of the M16 series will be replaced by one simple modular system.

Interesting stuff, but the jury isn't completely out yet. That's all the stuff I have read rolled into one summary, but I'd expect there could easily be alot more, or alot less. There is a board member who is heavily related with the FN ARM rifle testing and development, and maybe he will drop in.

As a hold over, here's a picture of the FN ARM(H).

img156.echo.cx/img156/9400/scar056fs.jpg

That mag looks bigger than typical 5.56 mag. Is that 7.62?

Posted: 12/8/2005 2:08:33 PM EDT

[#27]

Yes, that would be the ARM(H) in 7.62x51 NATO.

Posted: 12/8/2005 2:35:43 PM EDT

[#28]

.

Posted: 12/8/2005 8:14:12 PM EDT

[#29]

As I remember it.... it had several problems, but it was really canceled due to Non-Compete.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

An early 2003 strategy change at the Program Executive Office, Soldier sped up the development of a potential replacement of the Army's assault weapons. They moved from an "evolutionary approach" to "spiral development." Under the evolution strategy, developers planned to build a complete system, then improve on it. The first built would be about an 80 percent solution. The second about 90 percent and the third would be 100 percent. That approach would take too long to get new technology in the soldiers' hands. Under the spiral approach, the team broke the system into subsystems. This allows the parts to mature individually before being integrated into a single system.

With the first 30 prototypes delivered as of November 2003, XM8 prototypes entered testing. From December 2003 through late May 2004, soldiers got a chance to fire the prototypes in desert, tropical and arctic environments. A limited-user test then was conducted, possibly at Fort Campbell, Ky., where soldiers test the prototypes for about three weeks while training in offensive and defensive scenarios. Problems identified in testing were low battery life for the weapon's powered sight system, and some ergonomics issues. Two other key issues were reducing the weapon's weight and increasing the heat resistance of the hand guard.

The Army ordered 200 XM8's for the Army Test and Evaluation Command to test during the last quarter of 2004. Improvements will be made based on soldier and test feedback before the final three-months of operational tests, which began in fall 2004. The final decision will be up to the Army's senior leadership, but in early 2004 weapons officials said they were confident the XM8 weapon system will be adopted. If all went well, the XM8 would be ready for fielding by late summer 2005.

In 2004 Congress denied $26 million dollars funding for 7,000 rifles for a test fielding of the XM8 in 2005. The battery life had been extended, and a more heat-resistant plastic hand-guard added. But the rifle still had goals that were unmet, primarily associated with the weapon's weight. The earliest product brochure lists the target weight for the carbine variant at 5.7 lb (2.6 kg) with the then current prototype at 6.2 lb (2.8 kg). The weight of the carbine prototype has since grown to 7.5 lb (3.4 kg) according to a brochure released by HK and General Dynamics in January 2005.

During 2004 the Army came under pressure from other arms makers to open up the XM8 to competition. Their main arguments was that the weapon being adopted was substantially different from the original XM29 competition that ATK and H&K had actually won. In addition, the the Army has a legislative obligation to give preference to US-based manufacturers, and also had an agreement with Colt Defense that required the Army to involve Colt in certain small-arms programs.

Following complains about the non-competitive procurement of the XM8 system from Heckler-Koch USA, in November 2004 the Army re-opened the bidding for the 5.56mm Modular Weapon System Family contract to other companies. In July 2005 the Army suspended the OICW Increment 1 program to review the requirements for the effort to replace the current M16 rifle and M4 carbine. The requirements will be rescoped as a Joint Services effort.

On July 19, 2005 the Army announced it had temporarily suspended the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the acquisition of a new family of small weapons - Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment 1 (OICW-1) - in order to incorporate joint requirements. The Army’s proposal has received interest from the other military services, and is further supported by several internal reviews reinforcing the increase in the potential for joint use.

Congressional notification has been made and the suspension of the program allowed joint requirements to be viewed and incorporated through the Joint Capability and Integration and Development System process, which began immediately. Original solicitation started May 11, 2005, and is temporarily suspended effective July 19, 2005, until the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) convenes, which was scheduled for early September. Upon the JROC’s completion, the committee will issue a memorandum, which incorporates any new joint OICW-1 requirements. The RFP will be amended accordingly, and issued with a revised effective date for receipt of proposals.

On 31 October 2005, the XM8 program was formally suspended, "pending further US Army reevaluations of its priorities for small caliber weapons, and to incorporate emerging requirements identified during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Government will also incorporate studies looking into current capability gaps during said reevaluation."

Hardwarz

Posted: 12/9/2005 3:54:21 AM EDT

[#30]

Just so that I get this straight. Is the Army considering the Tavor, or are they just looking at it, or are they not looking at it anymore?

Posted: 12/9/2005 4:08:43 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The ARMY gave up on the HK designed XM8 for a number of problems, and melting attachment points did happen to be one of them. The ARMY turned around and sold the design to General Dynamics, who has reportedly made progress with the grenade launching device, but not the rifle it's self. The optic is said to be the most beneficial thing to come of the whole OICW program, but at a very large cost.

The SCAR seems to be picking up more and more, as it's rumored that SOCOM is talking up the FN ARM rifle to the ARMY. SOCOM has chosen the ARM/SCAR rifle, but there's no telling where it's going in the future, as of yet.

The M16 still has quite a bit of life left as a service rifle even with many other systems nipping at it's heels. I think the features of the FN ARM rifle series look very promising in the development of small arms though. The modularity dwarfs any other current offering, and reliability is said to be that of a quality AK. If the FN ARM takes the route SOCOM wants, the M14, SR25, M16, M4, CQB, and all other specialty versions of the M16 series will be replaced by one simple modular system.

Interesting stuff, but the jury isn't completely out yet. That's all the stuff I have read rolled into one summary, but I'd expect there could easily be alot more, or alot less. There is a board member who is heavily related with the FN ARM rifle testing and development, and maybe he will drop in.

As a hold over, here's a picture of the FN ARM(H).

img156.echo.cx/img156/9400/scar056fs.jpg

That mag looks bigger than typical 5.56 mag. Is that 7.62?

will the 556 use AR mags?

Posted: 12/9/2005 5:05:30 AM EDT

[#32]

FN F2000

FN P90
FN F2000
and now the FN ARM

Wow, FN is going to make a lot of money from civilian sales!

Posted: 12/9/2005 6:01:55 AM EDT

[#33]

I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

Posted: 12/9/2005 9:21:18 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
will the 556 use AR mags?

Yep, and the ARM(H) uses a modified FAL mag.

Posted: 1/11/2006 1:28:29 PM EDT

[#35]

.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:10:25 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

If it's less than $2K, I'm all over it.

When it does come out, I suspect the value of any Robarm XCR will plummet faster than a basejumper with a tangled chute.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:17:23 PM EDT

[#37]

SOCOM wants ARMY to buy SCAR so SOCOM doesn't have to pay for it. Nothing is set in stone yet and the Army Navy and AF are moving in different directions. HK is well placed with 416/417 which may be a better logistical answer. Other manufacturers are in the mix. Expect no major decisions for 18 months.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:39:32 PM EDT

[#38]

Myself as well...........that and an FN 2000

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

If it's less than $2K, I'm all over it.

When it does come out, I suspect the value of any Robarm XCR will plummet faster than a basejumper with a tangled chute.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:45:30 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Myself as well...........that and an FN 2000

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

If it's less than $2K, I'm all over it.

When it does come out, I suspect the value of any Robarm XCR will plummet faster than a basejumper with a tangled chute.

I'm probably gonna have to pick up AT LEAST an FN PS90 if that $20 a box of 50 5.7mm comes out from Midway USA soon. Maybe an F2000. What I'm REALLY looking forward to is the SIG550.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:51:07 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
By the way, I notice both of you unlike me are not dues paying members, lets see, use the sight and make negative comments but to cheap to pay for a membership to help support the site, yeah, your very mature.

It takes more than an outlay of cash to gain credibility here....

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:55:19 PM EDT

[#41]

Hey, my XBOX 360 works just fine!

I like the SCAR, and I still love the AR-15/M16 platform. I just want both in 6.8.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:56:28 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

If it's less than $2K, I'm all over it.

When it does come out, I suspect the value of any Robarm XCR will plummet faster than a basejumper with a tangled chute.

9 page Tacked thread in Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, and Barrels section

The SCAR makes use of the most modern manufacturing techniques, keeping its cost on a par with the M4A1, despite its dramatic improvements in just about every way.

The common mantra I keep hearing about it is that it will cost what a Colt M4 cost.

To the civilian, that usually means $1300 and less and for once, I'm getting excited about something new.

WIZZO

Posted: 1/11/2006 3:38:37 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If the FN ARM takes the route SOCOM wants, the M14, SR25, M16, M4, CQB, and all other specialty versions of the M16 series will be replaced by one simple modular system.

Hmmmmmmm?

SCAR.com?

Posted: 1/11/2006 3:46:47 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder how much that .civ clone will be.

If it's less than $2K, I'm all over it.

When it does come out, I suspect the value of any Robarm XCR will plummet faster than a basejumper with a tangled chute.

9 page Tacked thread in Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, and Barrels section

The SCAR makes use of the most modern manufacturing techniques, keeping its cost on a par with the M4A1, despite its dramatic improvements in just about every way.

The common mantra I keep hearing about it is that it will cost what a Colt M4 cost.

To the civilian, that usually means $1300 and less and for once, I'm getting excited about something new.

WIZZO

My main concern about civilian pricing is the success of the PS90 & FS2000....

The PS90 is going anywhere from 1399-1799 (respectively) and the FS2000 will be going for an average of 2-300 more retail.
So you are looking at around 1699+ on an FS2000 which is made of plastic, etc..

The PS90 has been a slam dunk for FN and when the FS200 starts to ship it will have just as much, if not more, success than the PS90.... I am just concerned that this could effect FN's pricing policy for the civilian sector.

I am hoping that the ARM-L will fall into the same price region as the FS200 but I am just not so sure...

I think that FN will do us right when they start civilian pricing.... I just hope that they don't break the 2G mark because that would make it a very unpopular gun no matter how many integrated rails it has

Anyway, I too await the announcment at SHOT, so let's all pray and cross our fingers

Posted: 1/11/2006 3:52:35 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
SOCOM wants ARMY to buy SCAR so SOCOM doesn't have to pay for it. Nothing is set in stone yet and the Army Navy and AF are moving in different directions. HK is well placed with 416/417 which may be a better logistical answer. Other manufacturers are in the mix. Expect no major decisions for 18 months.

Sounds about right... we are doing serious lessons learned evaluations and a lot of people are discovering that what we *thought* we wanted a few years ago, is not what we *need* now.

Expect to see some new ideas down the road, GD is shaping up to be a jugernaut, with the purchase of XM-8 and Colt (and others) they may have something in the works that will be a surprise?

Posted: 1/11/2006 4:06:20 PM EDT

[#46]

Maybe for conventional units. Little birdie told me that Group already has fielded them. I don't know if it's to test them out or for missions. It would not surprise me if SOCOM does have them. All this info is hersey, since I didn't see any operators with them, nor did I go to Group and ask if I could tour their arms room.

Posted: 1/11/2006 4:11:06 PM EDT

[#47]

Honestly, the M16 design now has gas piston uppers, interchangeable MRP barrel systems, and even seeing an interchangeable magwell design- then I bet we'll see the M16 a while longer. You are talking about some major production and tooling costs to switch to a new system when there is already an excellent system in place that only needs a bit more tweeking.

Posted: 1/11/2006 4:44:22 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If the FN ARM takes the route SOCOM wants, the M14, SR25, M16, M4, CQB, and all other specialty versions of the M16 series will be replaced by one simple modular system.

Hmmmmmmm?

SCAR.com?

No No No it would be SCARFCOM

Posted: 1/11/2006 4:50:52 PM EDT

[#49]

I don't know, the ARM seems to be a complete solution while retaining modularity. The AR-15 is supremely modular, but perhaps that will count against it. Anyone who owns their own AR-15 and is in the military probably has a few tweaks they would like to apply to their service weapon. The military can't accomodate them all. I am interested in the ARM to see what it can bring to the table. A fully ambidextrous integrated solution would be quite nice for a change. You wouldn't have people griping that their particular favorite brand of accessory was not chosen.

Another way to look at it is this. 16/32 bit windows platforms were working fine for home users, MS patched them and released new versions for years. Eventually though, the whole system had to be scrapped because there were too many add-ons and plug-in modules. Win2k's kernel was a totally new way of running a home computer and it integrated everything offered by the 16/32 bit windows while discarding the duct tape holding the old software together. Electronics move fast, perhaps we are just seeing the natural order of things except played out over the decades in a slower branch of technology.

Summed up in a sentance, I am skeptical, but very interested.

Posted: 1/11/2006 5:00:48 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Honestly, the M16 design now has gas piston uppers, interchangeable MRP barrel systems, and even seeing an interchangeable magwell design- then I bet we'll see the M16 a while longer. You are talking about some major production and tooling costs to switch to a new system when there is already an excellent system in place that only needs a bit more tweeking.

The cost for a modular lower, monolithic upper with a quick change barrel feature, plus a piston operated gas system conversion would be astronomical.

Also remember the government doesn't want to buy mixed parts and ship them all over the country just so they can mold all of those products into one firearm. Until someone comes out with a rifle that has all of that stuff in one package, chances are they will never see any large scale contracts.

As I have heard it said, SOCOM was not looking for a band aid. While all of that stuff is just freaking sweet, it makes no sense to outsource to multiple different companies to make one rifle that only has the outward appearance of what it used to be. Fixing the M16 to that point is essentially a whole new weapon system.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - XM8 Dead in the water? SCAR, WHAT'S IT'S STATUS? M16 is still tops! (Page 1 of 2)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us