Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:38:49 PM EST
Here is an article on the XM-8 program.

Service requests $26 million for fielding
ARMY REORGANIZES PLAN TO FIELD NEW FAMILY OF INFANTRY WEAPONS
Published By: Inside the Army on 4/12/2004
Author: Jen DiMascio

The Army last week decided to reorganize the program developing a successor to the M-4 and M-16 rifles, which will slow fielding of the kinetic energy carbine but speed development of the automatic weapons attachment, according to a service official.

The decision comes on the heels of an Army request to Congress for an additional $26 million to purchase 7,000 weapons for two combat brigade teams by September 2005 as part of the service‘s list of unfunded requirements.

"This has everything to do with getting a product to the field in FY-05," said Col. Michael Smith, the Army‘s project manager for soldier weapons. "This is production money they‘re asking for."

If Congress disregards the Army‘s request, the program office could still field the weapon in FY-05, but it‘s likely the quantity would be smaller, he said.

After an Army review this week, officials decided the XM-8 carbine program should head to a "milestone C" review in February 2005. Initially, officials planned to make a full-rate production decision in September 2004.

The Army wants to field the entire family of XM-8 rifles and not just the first three variants -- the compact, the carbine and the sharpshooter. The new schedule accounts for the automatic rifle, which had not been scheduled for fielding until FY-06.

Testing was originally planned for spring 2005; now, Smith said he expects to see a prototype of the automatic this summer or early fall and testing to begin this fall.

Fielding the XM-8 as a family will enable squads to reconfigure their weapons all at once and eliminate existing inconsistencies that are found in some infantry units, Smith said. Army units currently need three different weapons and manuals.

"In other words, except for the barrels and the hand guards, the inner workings of those various weapons -- the XM-8 carbine, sharpshooter and the automatic rifle -- are the same," Smith said. "So you reduce the logistics burden and give [the soldiers] the ability to switch parts around."

At this point, the weapons must complete testing. The XM-8 recently underwent cold weather tests in Alaska. Resulting changes are due to appear in a modified rifle this May.

The modifications include ergonomic alterations, such as changing button positions on the sight, which will make the weapon more user friendly, as well as performance enhancements, such as extending the life of the battery to 400 hours from 200.

While the weapon performed well in cold weather, Smith said he confirmed a problem with the hand guard that appeared in technical testing. During sustained firing, the hand guard could melt, a problem common in small arms development, Smith said.

"If you put enough rounds through a weapon, your barrel will go hot. There‘s no question about it. It will get very, very hot," he said.

The XM-8‘s hand guard suffered for a few reasons. The XM-8 only transfers heat to the barrel and doesn‘t transfer any to the receivers. The hand guard is made from a heat-resistant material. The current rifle systems transfer heat to the barrel as well as the receivers, and it contains heat shielding.

Similar heat shielding would be a last option for the XM-8, because the technology adds weight, a prospect Smith said he is trying avoid. According to a comparison chart published by contractor Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc., the XM-8 carbine weighs 6.4 pounds but is trying to slim down to 5.7 pounds. The same chart indicates that the M-4 weighs 8.85 pounds.

In crafting a new hand guard that will appear on the version released in May, developers will use a different lightweight heat resistant material and change the design. It will be shorter, wider and contain holes to release hot air, Smith said.

Another round of tests to monitor the new fixes will follow, along with a late-summer hot weather test in Yuma, AZ.

At the same time, Training and Doctrine Command is reviewing and updating the project‘s requirements and developing a set of tactics, techniques and procedures for the XM-8 family of weapons.

During the summer of 2005, a team of officials from program executive office soldier weapons, sustainment specialists from Rock Island, IL, and officers from TRADOC will replace a unit‘s weapons, magazines, manuals and accessories with the XM-8 and begin training the soldiers. The process should wrap up in September 2005, Smith said.

Although many divisions are calling to see whether they will be picked to receive the weapons first, Smith said the decision has not been made. The only hint is that the test would be conducted on a brigade combat team with a Stryker brigade as one possibility, he said.

Copyright Inside the Army. Reprinted from www.InsideDefense.com

Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:44:44 PM EST
In other words, except for the barrels and the hand guards, the inner workings of those various weapons -- the XM-8 carbine, sharpshooter and the automatic rifle -- are the same," Smith said. "So you reduce the logistics burden and give [the soldiers] the ability to switch parts around."

Gee isn't that the same with the M-16. Same lower, different length barrel for the occasion
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 7:04:52 PM EST
Yes it is the same with the M-16 however with the XM8 any grunt can do it you don't need the armorer meaning that in theory parts can be changed out in the field. The M-16 family lacks a quick barrel change which I think the XM8 has.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 7:15:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:01:08 PM EST
dear god no......
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:13:05 PM EST
[Troyquote]Originally Posted By Troy:
That's the theory: here's the reality. If you change your barrel, your old zero, which stayed with the host weapon, is now off. With an AR, you can pre-zero your upper, and when you switch out uppers, they "bring their zero with them." Now, considering this, which is faster? Changing a barrel, then going to the range to rezero, or changing the upper?

The truth is that many people making these decisions are unaware of issues like this, and they are believing the HK marketing. The US is trying to get on Germany's good side, and buying HK weapons is a good way to do that, they imagine. If you believe that weapons are chosen on their merits instead of politics, you know little about military procurement.
-

Tripple DITTO!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:48:03 PM EST
TROY is so right, Thats how we got the M16 shoved down our throat by McNamara and his bean counters in the early sixties.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:09:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:59:57 PM EST
I agree with Troy.

***rant on ***
If the militery is concerned with weight then why not us a plastic lower like Cav-Arms?
I haven't seen or heard of a plastic lower on a M-16 melting during use.
Nor have I ever seen or heard of a M-16 melting during use.

The XM8 has problems with melting plastic! The receiver is PLASTIC. They are the same weapon system as the G36 with new plastic overlay. (The G36 hasn't really taken off with LEO so why would the military think this type of a weapon system would work for their needs).

This is a serious issue and not one to be overlooked by our military officals. They owe this to our service men and women that defend our country.

I don't think the USA military should consider any weapon system that melts when used during testing.
The US military should be looking and testing weapon systems that don't have this issue.
***rant off***
Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:12:11 AM EST
Is it going to have the problems with the receiver breaking, like the G-36?????? Funny how that never came up until many militaries had adopted them......

I don't see much difference and no advantage to the M-4/16 family. But I was issued an M-16A1 or A2 for 8+ years and generally loved them. And I have owned AR's since 1983, and do love them....
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:28:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By POF-USA:
I don't think the USA military should consider any weapon system that melts when used during testing.



Nor should we consider a weapons system for standard issue THAT IS MADE BY ANOTHER COUNTRY!? Has anyone brought this up yet? HELLO!? What would have happened if our weapons prior to WWII were made by a german company?

I wholeheartedly believe that germany will rise again as a "european union" leader. Although some of you may not....but what if?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:42:28 AM EST

Nor should we consider a weapons system for standard issue THAT IS MADE BY ANOTHER COUNTRY!? Has anyone brought this up yet? HELLO!? What would have happened if our weapons prior to WWII were made by a german company?



Hmm... The '03 was a Mauser action built here, so I guess we'd.... build them here?

G23c
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:50:36 AM EST
Let's see, XM8--- Secure XM8 receiver on special vise, remove the piston and rod, pop off the gas block by removing the roll pin that secure it in the barrel, take a special tool and slide that down the barrel and torque off the barrel nut that is half hidden in the receiver. replace the barrel and repeat the process. this don't sound like a soldier's job in the field.

LMT MRP---- torque off the two torque screw which is set at about 90lbs/inch. the barrel slide off and install new barrel and retighten the torque screw with a T30 wrench. I shot the MRP with the 10.5 inch barrel and the 16 inch barrel on the same rifle length receiver. the receiver has a EOTech on it and the gun kept zero as the day goes on with different barrel. with a return zero mount, you can have different optic on the same receiver with different barrel.

of course you said the XM8 is piston driven, well, just wait and you will see what LMT will be offereing.

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:55:39 AM EST
AT first I was sold on the XM-8 simply because it was something new and somewhat cool looking. Guilty as charged.

The more I have read about it the stupider it seems to waste the money.

Reasons:

Just like joes don't hump around an extra M16/M4 upper for different purposes, I don't see it beng done with XM-8 either. Lighter or not, it's more clutter in a pack, more shit to rattle around, and less room for important shit. The odds of needing to switch a barrel out to get a little more reach is highly unlikely. Joes have enough intel prior to moving out that they generally know what to carry/pack. The only way a joe is going to hump a pack full of interchangable parts is if their commanders force them to. If they do that the lesson will be learned the hard way just how stupid it is to weigh their troops down with useless parts instead of more ammo.

Same rounds as M16? A huge reason why the XM-8 is a politician's toy and not a .mil weapon system.

With all the aftermarket add-ons for the M16/M4, it seems ridiculous to build a whole new system when the configuration options are limitless. Just more evidence that someone who knows nothing about guns is making decisions about guns. Might as well just put Diane Feinstein in charge of the whole OICW/Future Land Warrior project... the results will be equally useless.

If they are so concerned about lethality there are simple changes that can be made to current ammo production... Take the Soviet used 5.45x39mm. From what I have read about this round (Guns Combat Annual 2003: "Failure of the 5.56"), it would greatly increase lethality, not because of its size but because of the "hollow cavity in the nose of the projectile which rapidly induces yaw upon impact". But because politicians are such pussies we have to have a round that kills, but doesn't kill the shit out of something. Makes absolutely zero fucking sense. Killing and killing "humanely" both boil down to putting the bad guy in the ground with as few hits on target as possible.

When are we going to build something comepletely revolutionary like a man portable coil or EM Gun. People at MIT are working on these things for projects all the time.

Overall I'm getting sick of hearing about this thing whene there are clearly less expensive alternatives that would greatly enhance the platform the US is currenly using and familiar with.

Until I have the chance to shoot one I could give a rats ass about it.

Anywho... my $0.02 after tax, tags, tip, s&h...
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:03:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 8:07:51 AM EST by 00_buckshot]

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:

Originally Posted By POF-USA:
I don't think the USA military should consider any weapon system that melts when used during testing.



Nor should we consider a weapons system for standard issue THAT IS MADE BY ANOTHER COUNTRY!? Has anyone brought this up yet? HELLO!? What would have happened if our weapons prior to WWII were made by a german company?

I wholeheartedly believe that germany will rise again as a "european union" leader. Although some of you may not....but what if?



I thought one of the requirements for the XM-8 was for HK to build a plant in the US and all the rifles would be built on our soil. I believe this is similiar to what Beretta did when they were given the contracts for the M9.

Edited to Add: The only reason that I'm remotely interested in seeing the XM-8 succeed is so Colt can be given the big fuck you. What the hell would they do without their military contracts? They'd have to somehow try and rebuild all those burned down bridges if they wanted to survive.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:06:34 AM EST
Sounds like a 6.8SPC MRP would be ideal to me, but hey, what do I know.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:06:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 8:08:14 AM EST by LARRYG36]


((((((((((((I stongly agree with Frank (POF) , If theres any melting problems with the XM8's receiver, Like what happened to my 36k, the hole XM8 program should be canceled ON THE SPOT, AND ALL FUNDING PUT INTO THE M16 P.I.P. PROGRAM. ))))))))))))))

BO­OM_STICK

Dude where have you been????
The only Small Arm made by a US owned campany is the M4 (Colt)

FN makes : M16A2, M16A4, M249, M240, MK48, M2HB

BERETTA : M9 pistol

HK: MP5, MP5SD

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:17:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:17:03 AM EST by Boom_Stick]

Originally Posted By LARRYG36:
BOOM_STICK

Dude where have you been????
The only Small Arm made by a US owned campany is the M4 (Colt)

FN makes : M16A2, M16A4, M249, M240, MK48, M2HB

BERETTA : M9 pistol

HK: MP5, MP5SD



I'm waving a red flag cause it seems like they want to replace the whole inventory of our main battle rifle with this plastic thing. Our current small arms being made by foreign companies is a slippery slope already.

The fact that FN makes our M16's is half good because we can pick up production almost immediately if needed to. However, the xm8 wont be cause it's new and only a german company will have the tooling/machinery/molds to make parts and whole units. Them being on our soil makes it better cause we can take over the plant if necessary but in the mean time weapons contract money will go to GERMANY and not a US company. I just don’t like it. We need to keep the M16 or get an AMERICAN company to R&D a new weapons platform.

I NEVER liked our weapons being made by foreign companies, buying the xm8 is another move towards complete dependece on a world that hates us.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:41:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
I believe this is similiar to what Beretta did when they were given the contracts for the M9.



*on a note of irony, Beretta's US plant is in MD, but MD's stupid ass new handgun law prohibits sales of Beretta handguns until they have the intergal locking mechanism.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:28:48 AM EST
2007 U.S. ARMY

M9 Pistol design from Italy

SAW & MAG design from Belguim

M8 design from Germany

Blue Berets …. I mean Black Berets = just another Eurotrash Army.

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:30:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
I believe this is similiar to what Beretta did when they were given the contracts for the M9.



*on a note of irony, Beretta's US plant is in MD, but MD's stupid ass new handgun law prohibits sales of Beretta handguns until they have the intergal locking mechanism.



What integral locking mechanism? Do you mean a magazine disconnect?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:31:03 AM EST
We paid royalties to Mauser for the 1903 until 1917.

8.85 pounds for an M4? Those guys at HK have been playing with the scales.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:38:27 AM EST
Sadly, even if we were to have an American company develop our next generation of small arms, we would still never have the creative genious on the level of John M. Browning, Eugene Stoner, John C. Garand and the like. Why? Simply because back in their days, fiddling with a machine gun in your garage would make people go "hmm, why haven't I thought of that before?" while nowadays, it'll land you 10+ years in Club Fed. People as a race and as a species are much more inclined to excel if it is their hobby rather than a job. That's why the centerpieces of our modern armament (for most countries as well) is based on designs that are developed by individual inventors and craftsmen in their own time, in their homes, without the need (or hassle) of government aid and "objectives". Their genious is reflected, undiluted, in the weapons they fashion. Look at the 1911, the AR, the AK. They are all designs that have been around for a while. Unless something is done about the fact that applying creative genuious to a firearm will probably land you in jail, the future of small arms will probably still look like the present. Luckily, most other "civilized" countries mirror the US's prohibition of making machine guns, so we are probably not that far behind other countries' small arms (except 3rd world dungholes, but then they are also using 50 year old designs)
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:41:09 AM EST
I agree with Ghost-shooter.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:46:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:49:31 AM EST
Speaking of Black Berets...........wasn't there something about China making the Black Beret for the Army a while back? We sent them back in protest because they were holding our "spy plane" that they accidentally ran into with their fighters.

I got some gear from Blackhawk that was made in Vietnam. Oh well, we went over there to help a while back............ I might as well help them again now.

At least we don't have any French companies making any Military equipment for us, or do we?

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:01:36 AM EST
There are some very talented designers out there at the moment and you are going to see lots of innovations shortly from various companies.

The US excels with the best small arms engineers in the world.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:26:55 AM EST



I thought one of the requirements for the XM-8 was for HK to build a plant in the US and all the rifles would be built on our soil. I believe this is similiar to what Beretta did when they were given the contracts for the M9.

Edited to Add: The only reason that I'm remotely interested in seeing the XM-8 succeed is so Colt can be given the big fuck you. What the hell would they do without their military contracts? They'd have to somehow try and rebuild all those burned down bridges if they wanted to survive.

I could be wrong about this but I always believed that when you intered a contract with the US Goverment on weapons systems that if a time in a crunch, they could give the job to other company's to produce also. If HK couldn't keep up with demands. If so then COLT could very well make the XM8, and HK couldn't do a thing about it. Thats what I was always lead to believe. Take the M16, Jeep, ect... I know times has change and that also may have changed. WarDawg
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:32:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By SMGLee:
of course you said the XM8 is piston driven, well, just wait and you will see what LMT will be offereing.


Bad Chen. Bad, bad Chen.

Do not tease me like that.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:59:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By mattld:

Originally Posted By SMGLee:
of course you said the XM8 is piston driven, well, just wait and you will see what LMT will be offereing.


Bad Chen. Bad, bad Chen.

Do not tease me like that.



Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:11:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:


What integral locking mechanism? Do you mean a magazine disconnect?



No he means a LOCKING SYSTEM like the key locks on Taurus's handguns or a built in combination lock.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:18:39 AM EST
Scrap the XM-8, keep fielding the M-16A4. Done deal.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:19:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ghost-Shooter:
Sadly, even if we were to have an American company develop our next generation of small arms, we would still never have the creative genious on the level of John M. Browning, Eugene Stoner, John C. Garand and the like. Why? Simply because back in their days, fiddling with a machine gun in your garage would make people go "hmm, why haven't I thought of that before?" while nowadays, it'll land you 10+ years in Club Fed. People as a race and as a species are much more inclined to excel if it is their hobby rather than a job. That's why the centerpieces of our modern armament (for most countries as well) is based on designs that are developed by individual inventors and craftsmen in their own time, in their homes, without the need (or hassle) of government aid and "objectives". Their genious is reflected, undiluted, in the weapons they fashion. Look at the 1911, the AR, the AK. They are all designs that have been around for a while. Unless something is done about the fact that applying creative genuious to a firearm will probably land you in jail, the future of small arms will probably still look like the present. Luckily, most other "civilized" countries mirror the US's prohibition of making machine guns, so we are probably not that far behind other countries' small arms (except 3rd world dungholes, but then they are also using 50 year old designs)




Even though slightly off the main topic, this is an excellent post. One that may deserve it's own thread. I have had similar thoughts/views but was just to lazy to write them and post. Thank you Ghost-Shooter.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:28:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 11:28:53 AM EST by HipFiredGun]

Look at the 1911, the AR, the AK. They are all designs that have been around for a while.


Take your point but none of those weapons were designed by individuals in their home or garage, they were designed by individuals working for either large companies or government arsenals.

The point is that talented designers do exist but by and large they are in smaller companies; larger companies by their very nature, are less inclined to launch pioneering new products. The world has changed too and firearms which were once the tools of survival for most of the population, are now used more for sporting purposes. Military excepted.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:34:23 AM EST
IT's no secrete that LMT will be offering a PISTON version of their upper soon.


HK will start shipping their PISTON uppers in NOV. 04
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:42:15 AM EST
now look guys i know we are all ar/m16 fans in here but dont blame the powers that be for trying to field a new weapons system. all they have been hearing and seeing since vietnam was that the ar/m16 is unreliable. even after all the mods and changes it is still a very poor performer when the conditions go south. i was at the range today and just by chance was talking to a vietnam vet about my varminter. he said when they took his m14 and gave him the m16 he was so exited about it because it was so light and compact. he said he was tired of lugging around the m14. but after the first firefight he got into w/it he said he would have given his left nut to get his m14 back. now when i was at ft. jackson talking to soldiers returning from the first gulf war being a gun nut i would ask how did the m16 do? i got the same response from everyone.they said it was a p.o.s. and even when the ran them dry (no lube)to keep dust and sand out they still jammed like crazy. they said they scooped up every ak they could find. they bottom line is i care about our soldiers safety having been one myself. and if we can come up with a weapon that is reliable and they can count on it not to fail at a critical moment i dont care if daisy is making the damn thing!thanx Bently
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:51:57 AM EST
GREAT POST bently!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:59:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
What integral locking mechanism? Do you mean a magazine disconnect?



Magazine disconnect?

I don't think so...

In MD all new handguns coming into the state after Jan 03 (pretty sure that's the right date) are required to have an internal lock. No removable trigger lock... that apparently wasn't good enough. There is actually a lock build into, in most cases, the grips that when you lock it (with a key) it disengages or locks the trigger. I wish the search was working... I know a few threads are out there on this but it's been at various times. I heard somethign about the possibility of MD accepting a magazine type lock as an acceptable substitute... probably because gun dealer business have taken a beating from this and therefore MD isn't receiving as much taxes from the purchases.

M4_aiming_at_U can probably tell it better than I can.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=29&t=179247

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=29&t=178559
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 12:17:32 PM EST
Ok,I didn't read the whole thread but a M4 doeasnt weigh anything close to 9 f***ing poundshey!!!!!!Oh,and Carbine Man,I think you have a good point.If HKwants to have someone use that plastic POS,give it to their own country first!!!!!I don't know if anyone is with me on this,if we're doing this to get on germanys good side....screw the people who wanna do that.Do it another way.Sorry for the rant.

Thanks,Tyler
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 1:10:38 PM EST
thanx larryg36, i just feel that if we can put a man on the moon, build 200mph race cars, and have phones the size of chiclets,why cant we build a reliable combat weapon with an acceptable degree of accuracy. a combat rifle doesnt need to shoot 1moa out to 500yrds. but with todays technology im sure its possible. they should take a few experianced soldiers a couple of machinist, two or three m.i.t. grads 3 nasa engineers and last but not least a couple of guys from ar15.com and lock them in a warehouse with computers and every know material we have throw in a couple of months supply of mres and tell them not to come out till we have a reliable accurate and user friendly weapon. and will call the finished product the GUMBO16! whatcha think?Bently
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 1:18:57 PM EST
The weight issue refers to a fully loaded M4 with ALL accessories vs the XM8 in the raw. As Colt do not make most of the accessories hung off the M4 it's a little unfair to compare the two.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 1:52:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:


8.85 pounds for an M4? Those guys at HK have been playing with the scales.




Thats what Im thinking!!!.....my hbar weighs less that that!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 1:59:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 2:00:09 PM EST by deltaopwong]
All I want is a LMT MRP 'gas-driven' upper with a 5.56 AND a 6.8SPC barrel. LMT YOU HEAR ME!?! AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH­!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 2:45:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By FredM:

Originally Posted By imposter:


8.85 pounds for an M4? Those guys at HK have been playing with the scales.




Thats what Im thinking!!!.....my hbar weighs less that that!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I guess you guys aren’t paying much attention to the pics on this site.

I would wager that the majority of the carbines pictured here (with all the gadgetries applied) weigh in at around 9lbs to 10lbs. The Military load of accessories is about the same.

If I remember right the M16 had its fair share of teething problems at first, now aren’t we all glad it wasn’t scrapped in its infancy? LOL
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 2:57:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 5:15:44 PM EST by JHaines]
I had only given the XM-8 a cursory look before this post. I went to HK's website and took a look at the following PDF:
XM8 vs. M4

How much of this is marketing speak, and how much of it has been proven true after testing ?

The part about the carbon being expelled from the weapon instead of fowling the interior seems like a big bonus....(I grew to loathe the countless hours we spent cleaning our M16A2's in the Marine Corps)....How does that work ?

What about the "full of water but still functions" thing ? Any thoughts ?

The short barrel also worries me a bit.....12.5" or 9.5" ? Is that just two carbine variants ?

I love my RRA Entry Tactical....and I'll soon have a pre-ban to add to my collection. I'd hate to see them replaced by a "piece of plastic", but I think I'll wait to pass judgement on the XM-8 until I've heard what the troops say about it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 3:08:01 PM EST


If I remember right the M16 had its fair share of teething problems at first, now aren’t we all glad it wasn’t scrapped in its infancy? LOL


well said AKM! who knows what we'd be carrying if everyone just ditched the m16 when it had its problems. lucky for us they worked it out. i love my ar talivarmint model i just know its limitations. all weapons have them.Bently
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 3:57:03 PM EST
Basically, everything about the M-16A2/A4 is superior to every known military service rifle IMHO- EXCEPT for a few things. I'll touch up on the major ones.

Gas system - It works, and it works well, does NOT have to be cleaned. Vents some crud into the reciever. The solution is to make an extended carrier key that fits into the gas tube ( integral part of bolt carrier to prevent shearing ). Make the gas port in the barrel smaller to prevent overpressurizing of the gas tube. Presto - cheap, simple, as reliable as an M-14.

Chambering - It works as 3+ wars have showed us. It is velocity dependent, so rechamber the damn thing. New barrels/bolts already exist, new magazines already exist. Chamber it for the 6.8X43 - the performance of the round in combat has been reported to be outstanding. Shorten the barrel a tad for more compactness.

Sights - Optics ARE the wave of the future. Field a Trijicon ACOG with a cam for the 6.8 round, and put it on top of the existing rail. Have iron sights for a backup.

This can be done with MUCH LESS money than by making a whole new rifle. It takes a trusted weapon system and makes it better for the troops, even maintaining training regimens. You can't ask more than that. And it won't melt on the range.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 3:59:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 5:11:47 PM EST
So what are you guys saying here? That mankind has hit the limit of its firearm technology? Isn't there any better systems in work than the one on the M16? It looks like only modifications are recommended, but no revolutionary design is being tested. Maybe we should start building laser rifles!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 5:15:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By eaglebite:
Maybe we should start building laser rifles!



I look every so often at the progress people at MIT and places like that are making on rail, em, gauss, and coil gun technology. I think that has some serious potential... but a high output, low sized power source is going to have to be invented in order to make one that could be used a service weapon.

Have you seen the Tactical to Practical on non- less-than lethal weapon systems. Pretty interesting. I suspect some of those could be amped up a bit to permanently mess someone up... but they have to tune them down for them to be considered LTL.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 6:40:52 PM EST
Ill take my laser rifle in the 40 watt range thanks
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top