http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040729/news_1n29rifle.html

Observations include:

It is more versatile than the M-16 rifle and should fire thousands of rounds before jamming, rather than a few hundred shots before the M-16 typically jams.

It is much easier to clean and maintain. And training time is reduced since it is a single weapon that can be modified to fire short distances, long distances, launch grenades, etc.

It should last longer, with barrels able to fire 15,000 rounds before being replaced rather than the 6,000 to 9,000 rounds it takes to wear out an M-16 barrel.

The XM8 will cost more to make initially, but should settle into a full-rate production cost of $600 to $700 a copy. That compares to $500 for the M-16 and $950 for the M-4 carbine.

Quoted: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040729/news_1n29rifle.html Observations include: It is more versatile than the M-16 rifle and should fire thousands of rounds before jamming, rather than a few hundred shots before the M-16 typically jams. It is much easier to clean and maintain. And training time is reduced since it is a single weapon that can be modified to fire short distances, long distances, launch grenades, etc. It should last longer, with barrels able to fire 15,000 rounds before being replaced rather than the 6,000 to 9,000 rounds it takes to wear out an M-16 barrel. The XM8 will cost more to make initially, but should settle into a full-rate production cost of $600 to $700 a copy. That compares to $500 for the M-16 and $950 for the M-4 carbine.

This is more full of shit than a Porta Potty at the State Fair.

Don't be mad at me I didnt write it! Just wanted to see what the response would be.  LMAO at the slap...

Standard H&K propaganda.

Quoted: Don't be mad at me I didnt write it! Just wanted to see what the response would be.  LMAO at the slap...

I know.

Quoted: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040729/news_1n29rifle.html Observations include: It is more versatile than the M-16 rifle and should fire thousands of rounds before jamming, rather than a few hundred shots before the M-16 typically jams. It is much easier to clean and maintain. And training time is reduced since it is a single weapon that can be modified to fire short distances, long distances, launch grenades, etc. It should last longer, with barrels able to fire 15,000 rounds before being replaced rather than the 6,000 to 9,000 rounds it takes to wear out an M-16 barrel. The XM8 will cost more to make initially, but should settle into a full-rate production cost of $600 to $700 a copy. That compares to $500 for the M-16 and $950 for the M-4 carbine.

Standard bullshit

$700 with the optics suite they are selling is a pipe dream... Think $2000-2200 per, with optics...

That first two statements are comical... We have members here who have fired 10,000 rounds full-auto thru an M16, without cleaning, and without having to buy a new barrel.

And the XM-8 is NOT more versitile. Any conversion you can do with the XM-8 can be done, and HAS BEEN DONE with the M16 - see M4s and M16A2s with M16A1 lowers...

Finally, this author has no clue on military training procedures or firearms employment. Being trained on the XM-8 'variants' is no different from being trained on the M16 and M4. And 'cleaning time' in the military is a function of how much time they want you to spend cleaning, not how much cleaning you need to do (it's a 'training exercise' more than anything else)'

more heckler an krap lies

Quoted: Don't be mad at me I didnt write it! Just wanted to see what the response would be.

Yeah, thats called TROLLING

Quoted: Quoted: Don't be mad at me I didnt write it! Just wanted to see what the response would be. Yeah, thats called TROLLING

+1

Off with his head account!

XM8=load of crap. I've read a few articles that state a 12" barrel for standard infantry. The M4 uses a 14.5", and the SpecOps crowd is complaining about a lack of lethality at decent ranges. Why would a 12" help that any? I realize that 300m+ shots are best left to a bigger gun, but that's not always available. Hacking it down to 12" for standard, and I think 8" for Spec Ops would royally screw our troops. I say they're wasting out money by even considering the dang thing.

Quoted: Don't be mad at me I didnt write it! Just wanted to see what the response would be.  LMAO at the slap...

Sperry, you are going to find there are many H&K haters on this board, and many who refuse to admit there is even a small chance the XM8 might be a decent rifle because it is based on the G36.

It's an endless fight here that nobody ever wins. I say give it a chance to see what it will do, but I am in the minority here.

Quoted: Sperry, you are going to find there are many H&K haters on this board, and many who refuse to admit there is even a small chance the XM8 might be a decent rifle because it is based on the G36. It's an endless fight here that nobody ever wins. I say give it a chance to see what it will do, but I am in the minority here.

Out of all the sites I visit, this one by far displays the worst playground type hatred toward the XM8 and H&K products in general!

Childish/uninformed behavior such as this speaks volumes!

Out of all the sites I visit, this one by far displays the worst playground type hatred toward the XM8 and H&K products in general! Childish/uninformed behavior such as this speaks volumes!

There are quite a few guys on here that carry rifles at work...

Why so many Trolls lately?

Quoted: ...even a small chance the XM8 might be a decent rifle because it is based on the G36.

The more and more I read about the XM8 it seems to be less "based" on the G36 as it IS a G26 in a different shell.  The word "based" seems a little light when reffering to the similarities.  I mean....even the charging handle is the same.  

Quoted: Out of all the sites I visit, this one by far displays the worst playground type hatred toward the XM8 and H&K products in general! Childish/uninformed behavior such as this speaks volumes! There are quite a few guys on here that carry rifles at work...

And those that do carry H&K products would not spout such nonsense about H&K's quality or Performance!

If the folks here want to acknowledged it or not, H&K has been on the forefront of Weapons technology/design for quit some time!

Their overall quality/performance can pass muster with the best.

What bothers me the most about this site is that the majority of the folks here (who ARE NOT Military or LEO) feel if a firearms manufacturer isn’t kissing their ass then said manufacture must "not be on their side" WTF

Grow up children

Sperry,
Sorry for some of the seemingly crass responses which you have elicited.  Some folks might be taking the flagitious remarks over at HKPro regarding the M16 system a little too seriously.
First off, my M16 has never jammed.  But, of course, I clean it.
Believe it or not, the XM8 uses an AR15/M16 bolt.  The argument is that the lugs in the system will not be fouled because the XM8 doesn’t "fart on itself" via the direct impingement gas system of the current M16 platforms.
I guess that Stoner had devised this method to keep the original rifle light-weight.  Gas pistons add weight.  But the military, in its infinite wisdom decided to make the rifle heavier as witnessed in the A2.  I like the A1 barrels better myself.  Much handier.  
So, at this point, it probably wouldn’t hurt to switch the gas systems on the M16 system, if,  and this is important, if it can be shown to be such a wonderful advancement.  All I know is that years ago I had an AK.  I didn’t clean it.  It got gritty.  Then it got sluggish.  And then it got unreliable.  I had to clean it.  
I saw the H&K video on cleaning and maintaining the XM8.  To be honest, it looked more complicated to clean the XM8 than the M16!!  WAIT a minute here!  I thought that you weren’t supposed to have to clean the XM8?!?  
About hammer forged barrels:  Hey, the M16 can use the same thing.
Also, do you really think that anyone is going to carry around a package of barrels for multiple distances?!?  
The M16 can also use the exact same optic which the XM8 uses.  
ALL of the so-called advantages and H&K selling points [optic/range finder, barrels, piston or hybrid gas system] can be easily placed on the M16 system.
As for costs, there is no significant savings.  There IS the ENORMOUS cost of replacing an entire weapon system/platform!!
The XM* will probably be adopted for one main reason:  The recently retired Army officer I talked to [a month and a half ago] said that he and they all want a new rifle because they have been using the same type now for nearly 40 years.
Isn’t that grand?
By the way, he also said, as an example that they replaced the M1911 because the M9 was "much more lethal"  and "vastly more accurate than the .45"  He also said that the M14 was inaccurate,  and "unreliable."
Yep, they want a new toy.  And, by golly, they’re going to get it no matter what.
I just hope that this thing is as good as an M16 and that it will not be the disastrous debacle that it could be shaping out to be!
266

Why doesnt colt or FN, whoever makes the US M4 and A4's, want to protect their contract with the millitary? I havent seen them do anything to try and combat all of HK's claims of the XM8.

+1
I'm spent on this damn topic.

THIS is the AR-15 FOURM
no the hk (xm-8) froum

besides, who gives a hoot to hell?????

hk wont be selling ME (or you) a xm-8 when/if it comes out

tried and true:SAW, m-60, m-16, m-14
if it aint broke, dont fix it

Quoted: Sperry, Sorry for some of the seemingly crass responses which you have elicited.  Some folks might be taking the flagitious remarks over at HKPro regarding the M16 system a little too seriously. First off, my M16 has never jammed.  But, of course, I clean it. Believe it or not, the XM8 uses an AR15/M16 bolt.  The argument is that the lugs in the system will not be fouled because the XM8 doesn’t "fart on itself" via the direct impingement gas system of the current M16 platforms. I guess that Stoner had devised this method to keep the original rifle light-weight.  Gas pistons add weight.  But the military, in its infinite wisdom decided to make the rifle heavier as witnessed in the A2.  I like the A1 barrels better myself.  Much handier.   So, at this point, it probably wouldn’t hurt to switch the gas systems on the M16 system, if,  and this is important, if it can be shown to be such a wonderful advancement.  All I know is that years ago I had an AK.  I didn’t clean it.  It got gritty.  Then it got sluggish.  And then it got unreliable.  I had to clean it.   I saw the H&K video on cleaning and maintaining the XM8.  To be honest, it looked more complicated to clean the XM8 than the M16!!  WAIT a minute here!  I thought that you weren’t supposed to have to clean the XM8?!?   About hammer forged barrels:  Hey, the M16 can use the same thing. Also, do you really think that anyone is going to carry around a package of barrels for multiple distances?!?   The M16 can also use the exact same optic which the XM8 uses.   ALL of the so-called advantages and H&K selling points [optic/range finder, barrels, piston or hybrid gas system] can be easily placed on the M16 system. As for costs, there is no significant savings.  There IS the ENORMOUS cost of replacing an entire weapon system/platform!! The XM* will probably be adopted for one main reason:  The recently retired Army officer I talked to [a month and a half ago] said that he and they all want a new rifle because they have been using the same type now for nearly 40 years. Isn’t that grand? By the way, he also said, as an example that they replaced the M1911 because the M9 was "much more lethal"  and "vastly more accurate than the .45"  He also said that the M14 was inaccurate,  and "unreliable." Yep, they want a new toy.  And, by golly, they’re going to get it no matter what. I just hope that this thing is as good as an M16 and that it will not be the disastrous debacle that it could be shaping out to be! 266

Some very good points made. In the end, I would like to see what the 10th Mountain and the others who are trying the XM8 under combat conditions have to say. Round one in the sandbox with the grunts is always the big test. Then round two to see if they can fix all the problems that became evident.  Whether the Army just wants a new battle rifle or not, I think the XM8 deserves a chance to either prove itself or fail.

Jesus!! Are we still talking about the XM8!!!  

Quoted: Quoted: Out of all the sites I visit, this one by far displays the worst playground type hatred toward the XM8 and H&K products in general! Childish/uninformed behavior such as this speaks volumes! There are quite a few guys on here that carry rifles at work... And those that do carry H&K products would not spout such nonsense about H&K's quality or Performance! If the folks here want to acknowledged it or not, H&K has been on the forefront of Weapons technology/design for quit some time! Their overall quality/performance can pass muster with the best. What bothers me the most about this site is that the majority of the folks here (who ARE NOT Military or LEO) feel if a firearms manufacturer isn’t kissing their ass then said manufacture must "not be on their side" WTF Grow up children

I've never read one post saying that the XM-8 was low quality. The folks who are against it (including me) dislike the fact that it offers no advantage over the AR platform, and has many disadvantages that are obvious and demonstratable.  It's a high quality fix to a non-problem that amounts to a huge waste of military funds that could be better spent elsewhere. I like HK products in general, but the XM-8 is a loser for the US.

Ummm, let's see.

No advantages over the M16.
Many disadvantages.
Higher cost.
Dumb corrupt politicians making the decision, based on money changing hands.

Yup, it all adds up to a new rifle for the US military.

It is so "politically correct" that it is unbelieveable.
A new rifle being considered, because it might be easier to clean.
(Never mind that a soldier is constantly cleaning his rifle over and over again, even if it is perfectly clean to start with, courtesy of his CO)
The more likely reason is that it has the "storm trooper" look, that is so popular with the politicos today. It has the "shock and awe" factor. Scare them to death with the "Darth Vader" look.

Quoted: I've never read one post saying that the XM-8 was low quality. The folks who are against it (including me) dislike the fact that it offers no advantage over the AR platform, and has many disadvantages that are obvious and demonstratable.  It's a high quality fix to a non-problem that amounts to a huge waste of military funds that could be better spent elsewhere. I like HK products in general, but the XM-8 is a loser for the US.

I'm not trying to start a flame war nor am I trolling, but - our weapons reportedly had function issues in Iraq (and not just the M16).  Since I only served in the States and Korea I can not relate to any special requirements the desert places on the rifle.  You can blame operators for not cleaning or maintaining weapons, but it happened too many times for me to be comfortable with that answer especially when the troops KNOW their ass depends on that weapon.  If the XM8 can address the failures then in my mind it IS an improvement.  If it can not, we don't need it.  
_________________________________________________________________

Eagles may fly, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines!

Did you ever notice that if you say XM8 as a word, "exemate", its very much like excrement?

That is only a little unfair.  I've posted this in other forums and it is line with earlier posts here.  The XM-8 seems to be a good rifle with a lot of good features.  But, it doesn't do anything enough better than the M4/M16 to justify the cost.  Most importantly, it fires the same round, but with a 12" barrel.  That means a shorter effective range than the 14.5" M4.  If I can build an M4 (i.e., the closest a civilian can get to it) for under $750, you know Uncle is buying it for less.  Any optic that can be put on the XM-8 can also go on the M4.

However, with regards to the optic, how many of you have actually looked through it, or are you just listening to HK's hype?  I have looked through it and I'm not impressed.  Very small field of view and a small reticle.  The red dot sits above the magnified optic and it doesn't present easily to the eye.  I have a simple test for a rifle.  I close my eyes and snap the rifle to my shoulder and get my cheek weld.  Then I open my shooting eye.  If I'm looking through the sights then the ergonomics are correct (for that at least).  I don't have to hunt for the sights.  Do that with an XM-8 and you're looking through the magnified optic.  Ask yourself this.  In which environment are you going to need to get an instant sight acquisition and a snap shot?  The guy at 100m, or in a CQB environment?  When you snap the rifle to your shoulder, as in CQB, you should be looking through the most optimal sight, the red dot.  You shouldn't have to lift your head, destroy your cheekweld and hunt for the dot.

I'd like to see the results of 5 shooters with XM-8s v. 5 with M4s and TA31s at popups from 5m to 400m.  I'm betting the M4/TA31 shooters beat the XM-8s.

Quoted: I'm not trying to start a flame war nor am I trolling, but - our weapons reportedly had function issues in Iraq (and not just the M16).  Since I only served in the States and Korea I can not relate to any special requirements the desert places on the rifle.  You can blame operators for not cleaning or maintaining weapons, but it happened too many times for me to be comfortable with that answer especially when the troops KNOW their ass depends on that weapon.  If the XM8 can address the failures then in my mind it IS an improvement.  If it can not, we don't need it.

If it's an attempt at improving reliability, why not  just switch to a more reliable upper (gas piston, for example, if they are in fact more reliable). Most of the complaints I've heard about the M16 have more to do with lethality at ranges beyond 200 yards. The XM-8 with its shorter barrel is a huge step backwards in that regard. And the XM-8 has no common parts with the M16, not even mags. The logistical nightmare that creates should be obvious.

I laugh at all the HK groupies claims of a hammer forged barrel's superiority.

Utter marketing bullshit.  HF is the CHEAPEST and FASTEST way to make a barrel.  Nothing more.  On top of that, HF barrels HAVE to be stress relieved.  If they aren't, the POI changes wildly as the barrel heats up and cools down due to all the internal stresses left in the barrel.  Even after stress relief, some HF barrels exhibit undesirab;e POI shifts, though not as dramatic.

Cold hammer foging is a process VERY different than hot drop or hammer forging & machining.

The best barrels are gun drilled and broached or single point cut.  Period, end of story.

Quoted: I laugh at all the HK groupies claims of a hammer forged barrel's superiority. Utter marketing bullshit.  HF is the CHEAPEST and FASTEST way to make a barrel.  Nothing more.  On top of that, HF barrels HAVE to be stress relieved.  If they aren't, the POI changes wildly as the barrel heats up and cools down due to all the internal stresses left in the barrel.  Even after stress relief, some HF barrels exhibit undesirab;e POI shifts, though not as dramatic. Cold hammer foging is a process VERY different than hot drop or hammer forging & machining. The best barrels are gun drilled and broached or single point cut.  Period, end of story.

How about some hard references to back up this theory of yours.

First time I've heard the  "Cold hammer forged"  method of forging is crap. Every Industry article I have read says it makes a stronger barrel. Where's your proof. Surely you don't expect us to take your word just because you say it is so?

I know for sure that it will make it more brittle, but it will be stronger as far as bore obstructions/KBs go.

I am split on this issue, but I'd still rather go with the drilled/broach cut bores.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the hammer forging "process". The reason these barrels tend not to be as accurate as some other methods of manufacture have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PROCESS". As the hammer forge process lends itself well to fast and cheap manufacturing, it is the quality control that gives hammer forged barrels a bad rap.

A hammer forged barrel is only as accurate as the mandrel upon which it is forged and the process by which the barrel is stress relieved. As the only barrel makers who use this process tend to be very large manufactures (because the equipment is EXPENSIVE), the same large companies "tend" to be more concerned with volume and speed rather than utmost quality. Thusly, mandrels (the expensive and important part upon which the the bore and rifling is "formed") tends to get used and abused way beyond what a small maker would allow to keep great accuracy. Unfortunately, the same smaller makers who could make extremely accurate barrels using this method, tend not to be able to afford the equipment and go with other proccesses of manufacture. Plus since "cutting or broaching" methods of creating rifling have been around a long time and the methodology for extremely accurate barrels is well known.

A hammer forged barrel is much "tougher" than any other barrel made by other processes for a given amount of metal, and the rifling/bore will last longer. The reason is that as each "hammer" blow imparts a smal bit of work hardening into the barrel. Over the course of a few hundred thousand impacts, that creates layers of work hardend steel layered with softer steel throughout the barrel.  Much like the way a Japanese sword is puposely made with layered hard and softer steel.

Beside the toughening harder/softer layers, this process essentially tempers the metal throughout to a higher overall metal hardness than does other forms of barrel making. The hardness and toughness keeps the rifling intact long after other methods start to lose accuracy from wear. A normal rifle barrel's bore and rifling is "cut" is some way. Too hard of metal in the barrel and the it becomes too hard to cut and/or broach. The main difference in toughness/hardness of the bore/rifling is that a "cut" rifle barrel cannot be heat treated after the bore/rifling is made/cut. Heat treating it after the bore and rifling are in place would warp the barrel. The hammer forged barrel is essentially heat treated as the metal is formed around the mandrel. Other processes "cut" into softer metal versus the way hammer forging creates harder metal as it is made.

A hammer forged barrel is not the only type of manufacturing process that requires a good stress relief. Broach cut rifles (which is how the majority of rifle barrels are made) also require a good stress relief. The process of shoving an oversize mandrel through a barrel, seriously affects the radial stresses in a barrel.

Quoted: There is nothing inherently wrong with the hammer forging "process". The reason these barrels tend not to be as accurate as some other methods of manufacture have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PROCESS". As the hammer forge process lends itself well to fast and cheap manufacturing, it is the quality control that gives hammer forged barrels a bad rap. A hammer forged barrel is only as accurate as the mandrel upon which it is forged and the process by which the barrel is stress relieved. As the only barrel makers who use this process tend to be very large manufactures (because the equipment is EXPENSIVE), the same large companies "tend" to be more concerned with volume and speed rather than utmost quality. Thusly, mandrels (the expensive and important part upon which the the bore and rifling is "formed") tends to get used and abused way beyond what a small maker would allow to keep great accuracy. Unfortunately, the same smaller makers who could make extremely accurate barrels using this method, tend not to be able to afford the equipment and go with other proccesses of manufacture. Plus since "cutting or broaching" methods of creating rifling have been around a long time and the methodology for extremely accurate barrels is well known. A hammer forged barrel is much "tougher" than any other barrel made by other processes for a given amount of metal, and the rifling/bore will last longer. The reason is that as each "hammer" blow imparts a smal bit of work hardening into the barrel. Over the course of a few hundred thousand impacts, that creates layers of work hardend steel layered with softer steel throughout the barrel.  Much like the way a Japanese sword is puposely made with layered hard and softer steel. Beside the toughening harder/softer layers, this process essentially tempers the metal throughout to a higher overall metal hardness than does other forms of barrel making. The hardness and toughness keeps the rifling intact long after other methods start to lose accuracy from wear. A normal rifle barrel's bore and rifling is "cut" is some way. Too hard of metal in the barrel and the it becomes too hard to cut and/or broach. The main difference in toughness/hardness of the bore/rifling is that a "cut" rifle barrel cannot be heat treated after the bore/rifling is made/cut. Heat treating it after the bore and rifling are in place would warp the barrel. The hammer forged barrel is essentially heat treated as the metal is formed around the mandrel. Other processes "cut" into softer metal versus the way hammer forging creates harder metal as it is made. A hammer forged barrel is not the only type of manufacturing process that requires a good stress relief. Broach cut rifles (which is how the majority of rifle barrels are made) also require a good stress relief. The process of shoving an oversize mandrel through a barrel, seriously affects the radial stresses in a barrel.

Thanks. Now that is something I can sink my teeth into.

So, in you opinion, Xer0, is it likely that H&K makes a quality Cold Hammer Forged barrel?

HK

All the Way!!!

The XM8 in all variations has a pronounced muzzle heavy feel with its point of balance well forward of that of the M4.  From a personal perspective, I find the M4 a much better handling weapon and capable of greater accuracy.  

There is no performance increase with the XM8 over the M4.  If Colt had been given a fraction of the funding H&K have been given so far, and the freedom to look at the M4 (Rock Island governs what they can do with it), they could produce something far better than the XM8.  About the only way to improve the M4 is to add a light-weight piston system and some improved fire controls on the lower.  
HFG

When you say a different FCG, does that mean the military is looking back to the A1 type groups? If so, good. I've heard that the trigger pull in semi is much better than with the A2, and I know that any trained soldier can easily fire off a 3-4 round burst on auto.

How is all that SCAR stuff going?

Quoted: THIS is the AR-15 FOURM no the hk (xm-8) froum besides, who gives a hoot to hell????? hk wont be selling ME (or you) a xm-8 when/if it comes out tried and true:SAW, m-60, m-16, m-14 if it aint broke, dont fix it

+1

One reason I don't give 1/2 crap about the UMP, G36, or the XM8 is that they are no civilian models available. HK can take their overpriced sh*t and shove it up their a$$. The only HK product I'd want to use would be a USP-45 Tactical (.45 ACP) but that's only if I don't go with a Kimber or Glock first.

The ability to fire "smart projectiles" could be attached to existing M16 based rifles.  It could be something like a grenade launcher or a shotgun attachment.
 By attaching the system to rifles already in existing inventory, the logistic problems of ammo, magazines and parts are limited to the attached system.  The capabilities of the original rifle are retained.

 I think the XM8 is a test platform.  I guess it has yet to be shelved in favor of a product that is more attractive.  Testing the helmet-cameras, the special projectiles, and other items featured on television shows has to be conducted with some type of platform.  Perhaps lessons can be gleaned from existing equipment and incorporated into future specifications.  Something useful might come out of the testing.

 I have an H&K USP .45ACP pistol.  I like the ergonomic controls.  I like how easy it is to clean.  It seems to have fewer parts than a M1911 style pistol.  It uses magazines that hold more than 7 cartridges.  I like the USP family of pistols.

 I can't comment on other H&K products that I'm not familiar with.

 The M16 and variations based upon it have fared well over the years and are already in inventory.  I like my Bushmaster.  The M2 .50BMG still serves well too.

 So, I'm not in favor of spending money to replace the existing inventory of military weapons with anything that isn't lighter, stronger, faster, simpler, more 'grunt proof', and integrates nicely with the logistics system.

 I'm a taxpayer, not a politician.  Perhaps I should write the politicians elected to serve me.

~Craig

Quoted: If you want a hammer forged barrel in an M-16, that is what Diemco does for their Canadian made M-16's.

Can I order a barrel from Canada without a hassle from customs?

_Dr, I don't know how accurate HK barrels are as I've never owned an HK product. I would kinda doubt that they are anywhere near the quality of upper end match barrel makers (as a whole) as HK seems to push "tactical" and tactical tends to mean military. Combat accuracy doesn't "generally" mean match accuracy, but HK seems to be fine for what their rifles tend to be made for.

Plus they are a a large manufacturer, and beancounters rule at all large manufacturers, not perfectionists. They probably "do" have their upper end target/mtach quality stuff (1st barrel off a new mandrel), but the normal buyer probably doesn't see it unless they are lucky.

I sure though that the barrels/rifles are very tough as I have never heard of HK having crappy products.

Well, after talking to a RIA rep. a few weeks back and from the others I have talked to it looks as though the M16 series will go the way of the Do-do, it's just gonna happen (I don't really like the XM-8 much). The Army spent enough money on the parent system (OICW) to buy about 50 Abrams tanks (if not more, I cannot remember how much one is now but I am guessing well over 2 million a piece). The OICW will probably happen also, it may be different in the end but the 2ndary weapon also known as the XM-8 now is the only surviving bit and I would be willing to bet that the future of the XM-8 is bright in the eyes of the army engineers so it is probably bright for the XM-8. Because once the XM-8 is adopted you have to get a follow on grenade launcher: because I doubt the M-203 will mount well on the XM-8 so of course you will have to spend hundreds of more millions to get a grenade launcher. I'd like to see the M-203 go bye-bye for sure. But I'd like to see a 40mm replacement no something smaller.
You also have to remember the Army does not care what it's current soldiers think, it cares what the kid off the block thinks because it has already got you and if you are coming in to basic and train on the XM-8 guess what you'll probably like the XM-8 more than "that old antiquated M-16". Sooner or later things change whether we like it or not. People like what they know because it may be all they know.  

Also the M-4/M16 costs a little more because the basic price that has been quoted does not include the handguard rail system that is supposed to be coming in for all (about 300.00 ea.) Then either the M68 CQB optic(I cannot remember how much each of those are but I'd guess about 300-400) or the ACOG (700.00 or so unit.), back up iron sight (100.00 or so) or the silly little vertical post handgrip (60.00 per unit). So in the end which do you pay more for?

Didn't they say the same thing about the M16 when it first came out that you don't have to clean it!  And it was such an improvement over the older rifle!  Heck, I've got my M4A1 with EOtech and a ARMS SIR here in Iraq along with a M9 wonder weapon.  What do I carry right now?  A 1966 dated NM M14 and a 1942 dated M1911A1  (actually just got the .45 today but last rotation carried the 1911 every day)!  Went out on convoy the last few days and my primary weapon was a WWII era M2 HB with a TRW M79 up along side it.

The Army needs to readdress leathality in its cartrigdes and weapons performance before it adopts anything.  

CD

Quoted: There is nothing inherently wrong with the hammer forging "process". The reason these barrels tend not to be as accurate as some other methods of manufacture have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PROCESS". As the hammer forge process lends itself well to fast and cheap manufacturing, it is the quality control that gives hammer forged barrels a bad rap. A hammer forged barrel is only as accurate as the mandrel upon which it is forged and the process by which the barrel is stress relieved. As the only barrel makers who use this process tend to be very large manufactures (because the equipment is EXPENSIVE), the same large companies "tend" to be more concerned with volume and speed rather than utmost quality. Thusly, mandrels (the expensive and important part upon which the the bore and rifling is "formed") tends to get used and abused way beyond what a small maker would allow to keep great accuracy. Unfortunately, the same smaller makers who could make extremely accurate barrels using this method, tend not to be able to afford the equipment and go with other proccesses of manufacture. Plus since "cutting or broaching" methods of creating rifling have been around a long time and the methodology for extremely accurate barrels is well known. A hammer forged barrel is much "tougher" than any other barrel made by other processes for a given amount of metal, and the rifling/bore will last longer. The reason is that as each "hammer" blow imparts a smal bit of work hardening into the barrel. Over the course of a few hundred thousand impacts, that creates layers of work hardend steel layered with softer steel throughout the barrel.  Much like the way a Japanese sword is puposely made with layered hard and softer steel. Beside the toughening harder/softer layers, this process essentially tempers the metal throughout to a higher overall metal hardness than does other forms of barrel making. The hardness and toughness keeps the rifling intact long after other methods start to lose accuracy from wear. A normal rifle barrel's bore and rifling is "cut" is some way. Too hard of metal in the barrel and the it becomes too hard to cut and/or broach. The main difference in toughness/hardness of the bore/rifling is that a "cut" rifle barrel cannot be heat treated after the bore/rifling is made/cut. Heat treating it after the bore and rifling are in place would warp the barrel. The hammer forged barrel is essentially heat treated as the metal is formed around the mandrel. Other processes "cut" into softer metal versus the way hammer forging creates harder metal as it is made. A hammer forged barrel is not the only type of manufacturing process that requires a good stress relief. Broach cut rifles (which is how the majority of rifle barrels are made) also require a good stress relief. The process of shoving an oversize mandrel through a barrel, seriously affects the radial stresses in a barrel.

I guess that since hammer forged barrels are not as accurate as
others is why Steyr uses them on their bolt guns, some of the most
accurate rifles in the world.

As do some other precision bolt gun manufacturers.

Scott

Quoted: If the folks here want to acknowledged it or not, H&K has been on the forefront of Weapons technology/design for quit some time! Their overall quality/performance can pass muster with the best.

And what forefront of technology would that be ?

Copying the short stroke piston design of the M-1 carbine, or
copying the Rhino gas piston system of the AR-15 from the 1980s .

If the H&K system is so advanced, why don't they have a last round bolt hold open ?
Or a saftey that you can actually reach ?
Or a mag catch that you can operate while your hand is on the pistol grip ?

H&K is a good weapons system, yes.
But not a great one however.

Regards,

Scott

I'll add my dump to this already steaming pile.

Maybe I'm the only one who still thinks this way, but...
Why in Hell would we consider equipping the entire United States military
with a weapons system NOT MADE IN THE USA? heckdevelopment dollars overseas?

Quoted: Maybe I'm the only one who still thinks this way, but... Why in Hell would we consider equipping the entire United States military with a weapons system NOT MADE IN THE USA?

It will be made in the USA, but by a German company, so the profits will go to them. I agreewith you, but my main arguement against the XM-8 is that it is a HUGE waste of money since it isn't an improvement.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I'm the only one who still thinks this way, but... Why in Hell would we consider equipping the entire United States military with a weapons system NOT MADE IN THE USA? It will be made in the USA, but by a German company, so the profits will go to them. I agreewith you, but my main arguement against the XM-8 is that it is a HUGE waste of money since it isn't an improvement.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Quoted: So, in you opinion, Xer0, is it likely that H&K makes a quality Cold Hammer Forged barrel?

I'm not Xer0, but I'd say the likelihood is "Very High".  Compared to the other military barrels (say Colt), HK should be as good, perhaps a bit better on the average.   You'd have to air gauge or do some other quality test (or just shoot them) to be sure, though.   HK's hammer forging technology should be the best in the world.  

The G36 barrels aren't match barrels, though, just like Colt's.   I believe they're chrome lined, which automatically means that the barrel won't deliver absolute-best quality accuracy.  Still, (again like Colt), the barrels should shoot MOA, and you won't get any better accuracy unless you go with VERY high quality custom made barrels (Obermeyer, Krieger, etc.)