Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 1:41:04 PM EDT
I know most people on arfcom are staunch advocates of keeping the AR15 around. I am too I guess. I'd like to hear what some of you HK guys think. Sorry to bring up one of the most trite questions but I'd like to hear what HK enthusiasts think.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:08:11 PM EDT
HK makes sweet guns, but in all honesty.... the FN SCAR-L should replace or at least phase out the aging M16 system.
While the M4 system is still kicking ass, I would stress "phasing" out the M16s. The M4 will have a home in the US armed
forces for a long time to come, no doubt about it.

H&K doesn't have the needed facilities and resources available that FN has.

Plus I had much rather FN get the contract because they have more than proven themselves with the M16's & light / heavy MGs that they have made for this country.

SCAR all the way !!!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:57:51 PM EDT
Well, I'm an infantryman in the US Army. I was really looking forward to the XM8... but I really don't think it is neccessary.

All the M4 needs in my opinion is a gas piston upper and a mag release on the left side for the lefties.

The SCAR looks good. I think the Robarms XCR would be a good candidate as well.

The new rifle just has to be LIGHT. We hang so much shit off our M4's that they get heavy fast. An M4 with a 203, ACOG, and PEQ2 is a pain in the ass for MOUT. Thats why I really liked the XM8... lightweight plastic, and a conpact site that has all the lasers and shit that we need.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:15:43 PM EDT
I'm not crazy about aluminum guns, much less mostly plastic ones.

I'd like to see our military go to some more powerfull cartridges all around.

6.8spc might fill the bill if 7.62 isn't gonna come back big.

For subguns and pistols, I'd like to see the 45ACP dominate again, or maybe 10mm.

The military shouldn't be making accomodations for effiminates. If you can lug the gear, go work in the office.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:25:24 PM EDT
Well, as a HK fan I would like to see HK win the contract because I do think they build great weapons. However, FN builds some fine weapons too.

So I would like our military to be armed with the very best weapons on the market. I do not care if they are made by HK, SIG, FN, or Colt. I want our troops to have the best. I do not care if our weapons are made in Germany,Belgium or the United States. Our troops deserve the best and I can care less where it is made.

What I really dislike, about afcom and other internet gun forums is how people that have never seen a XM8 will instantly trash it.

The common sayings are "it looks like fish" "Fuck HK" "fuck the Germans" Euro tupperware trash" "its plastic" "it is a G36 with a carrying handle" "it is a AR18 in plastic" "it will melt" "the army is giving in to HKs marketing" "the OCIW failed so we are stuck with the XM8" "the HK SL8 sucks so the XM8 will too"

The same is said about the HK G36, HK Mark 23, HK 416, FN2000, P90 and any other modern military weapon.

Yet, at the same time the very same people took one glance at the FN SCAR rifle and had nothing but praise. "it screams of ergonomics" "it is so modular" blah blah blah.

These people can not comment on the XM8 or SCAR. Only the people who have shot and evaluated both rifles....and the other rifles in the trials can pass judgement in my book. I think the SCAR looks ugly, and not ergonomic. But I have not seen a XM8 or a SCAR so my opinion like many XM8 haters would be nothing but internet BS.

So I say if our troops like the XM8, then we should buy the XM8. SOCOM picked the SCAR and bought several thousand units, and if the troops like the SCAR over the XM8 then they should pick the SCAR.

We need the best tool for the job simple as that.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:36:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 3:40:49 PM EDT by bones21]
It's not as simple as that !

It doesn't matter if the troops like it or not... the gun that wins the bid is what does matter.

I'm sure all the troops in the sandbox want better armored vehicles, laser guns, and a dollar for every grain of sand they can count.. but things don't work that way.

Politics play a lot in this... so does reality.

In reality the US doesn't want the M16 replacement to be made in Germany ( for many reasons ) or any other foreign country, plain and simple... and I totally agree with them.

If HK wants more "pull" when it comes to military / gov contracts... then they are going to have to build a plant here in the US and stop pussyfooting around !

ETA : The military and other forces have to take into consideration interchangability, life span of the weapon, durability, parts availability, modularity, etc etc..... If H & K really wanted this contract then they would have built a plant here several years ago. With H & Ks current reputation, if I were the one that signed the deal... it wouldn't be with them. Not because of plastics or Germany.. but because they are not up to the challenge of supplying the needed goods. It would take them too long to ramp up a plant and production to get the present contract that is up for bid. Now that is reality.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:17:24 PM EDT
Bones I hear ya. Politics is involved in any government contract.

And I am aware that it is a little naive to say that the troops themselves grant contracts and set budgets. But I am tired of the XM8 haters speaking of HK like Hesse or Vulcan Arms.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 5:20:27 PM EDT
I voted for the SCAR, but there really should be the SIG 55X series up there.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 6:45:00 PM EDT
UZI, the only real reason people.... mainly civilians.... hate HK is because they don't make guns for us anymore

I don't buy HK anymore.... they are not worth my money.

Glock, Sig & FN will get my US dollars....

As for US military HK haters... I didn't know that there was a great number of them

I cannot imagine that Mil / LEO guys hate or slam HK guns....

They are very nice guns... although their replacement parts are very expensive..

The only thing I can think of that Gov. peep could hate about HKs would be their extensive use of polymers instead of steel or aluminum.

I like polymers and steel... so I don't have a dog in this race, but I do think that HK is a little liberal when it comes to plastics, JMO.
With proper "metal" heat shielding / shouds, etc... their polymers should be just fine. But I think that with heavy mag dumps you would probably notice a difference between the two. That is also just a civilian opinion though

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:28:35 AM EDT
I've never shot the XM8, but I will say that the XM8 design was very interesting. With parts interchangeability I think it would have been a fine infantry weapon. For special forces and the new "urban combat" environments in the middle east, I'm not sure the XM8 is really the best route. I like the SCAR actually, but the 7.62 version seems like it would kick like a beast and in close quarters, everyone would probably go deaf.

HKCAPTN mentioned that while he was over there, the MP5 ran into issues with the sand. I wonder how the UMPs would fare being a direct blowback system.

I love my 55X, and though I've never shot the 552, I would be the first to be on board with that one.

I can understand the "hanging equipment" off the rifle, it does seem it's alot of stuff and the weight while maybe not bothersome for a short time, would probably get tiresome after 4-5 hours of walking/running around a city looking for bad guys.

Not being in the military, I echo the sentiment that the troops should have the best, regardless of who makes it, what it looks like, or where it's made.

M
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:26:00 AM EDT
G41: High quality HK sweetness, no need to spend millions on design problems, forward assist/dust cover/last-round bolt hold open device that make it similar to the AR, and it can take M16 mags, so you'd save money there, too. Only problem is the money it costs to produce these things.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:45:37 AM EDT
Dumb question - did SIG not enter any designs into the "competition" ??

I'd think that the 550-series of rifles are everything we're looking for - they've got the quality/workmanship of SIG, the reliability of an AK action, they're chambered in the right caliber...

You've got a SIG 550-series sniper, rifle, carbine, shorty, it's all there, in the same platform...
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:26:59 PM EDT
I wonder if the interchangeability is going to be an issue especially on part management in the field. I also like the concept, too, but it may have realistic drawbacks.

It is about time to change the philosophy of M4/M16 system as the world affair is changing. I'd like to try the new H&K.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:26:50 PM EDT
The XM8 is already an obsolete design and will probably not see any further R&D, not for the U.S. military anyway. The HK416 seems to have covered most of the AR15's design faults (mainly the gas system which IS the Achilles heel for the gun) and seems to be at least the most viable replacement for the AR15 for now.

The AR15's design has peaked long ago in my opinion, and has nothing to look forward to but band-aid fixes and add-on's to squeeze as much life out of it as possible. Not a popular view for the AR15 fans, but still the truth.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:38:39 AM EDT
Politics is as always, the final arbitur in matters of acquisition. This is not to be taken as a defense of the XM-8 project. My personal preferences are for the SCAR (if the unit cost can be kept reasonable) or a product-improved M16-based system.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:42:38 AM EDT
HK 416
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 4:56:44 PM EDT
I tried out the new HK at our range near Khandahar, AFG. We had a German SpecOps detachment with us. Its a nice weapon, but I do not like it as well as the M4 system. I never could quite figure out why the German military went to this new system. I still think the HK delayed blowback system is the most reliable and robust around. I would prefer to see an HK 33 type weapon with some improvements (sights, safety, etc).
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:27:25 AM EDT
SCAR would be the next step
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:25:26 PM EDT
My ONLY problem with the AR is the Direct Gas OS, I think a piston OS is better and BOTH the SCAR and XM-8 fix this problem IMO.

I think the HK416 will pick up also
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 7:53:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 7:56:55 AM EDT by Bilouxi]
I'd say absolutely yes. The XM-8 has a slew of improvements over the M-16/M-4 family, is geared toward the basic infantry role (much like the rifles it will replace), and supposedly is a very affordable option. As for the SCAR, it really does not strike me as an appropriate standard infantry rifle, but as a great special forces weapon. From what I can tell, most of its features are geared toward it being a simple, durable rifle that may use non-NATO ammunition.

As a historical point, remember how "warmly" the M-16 was recieved when it replaced the M-14? How many today would say we should have just kept using the M-14 instead of that fragile little plastic M-16?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 8:57:42 AM EDT
kinda like the stlye of robarm's XCR....

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 1:20:16 PM EDT
I like the XCR also I hope RoBarm can get a move on with it, or it will be another Unicorn like the Shrike
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 1:34:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
What I really dislike, about afcom and other internet gun forums is how people that have never seen a XM8 will instantly trash it.

The common sayings are "it looks like fish" "Fuck HK" "fuck the Germans" Euro tupperware trash" "its plastic" "it is a G36 with a carrying handle" "it is a AR18 in plastic" "it will melt" "the army is giving in to HKs marketing" "the OCIW failed so we are stuck with the XM8" "the HK SL8 sucks so the XM8 will too"


The fact is the XM-8 doesn't do anything the M16 doesn't already do.
And to top it off, the carbine version uses a shorter bbl than the M4, and one of the main complaints about the M4 is lack of terminal performance due to velocity loss.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 2:20:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 2:37:08 PM EDT by Dave_A]
1) XCR: Govt won't buy it, period... Fairchild-Armalite is the last 'minor' company to sell a weapons system to the .gov, everything else since has been FN, HK, Beretta, Colt, Bushmaster, etc... See a pattern? Besides, it's a westernized AK (3-lug bolt, etc) with a bunch of extra/useless features... Bad Idea!

2) XM-8: Presently de-funded. 100% HK marketing hype combined with political schmoozing to get a HK factory built... First, due to the outright deceptive initial pitch (According to HK, the M4 could not be fired when wet, change barreled-uppers to meet different mission needs, mount an integrated optic, be used with a Beta-C mag to create an RPK-style light auto-rifle, and such. Reliability claims were also overstated, and never cast in terms of combat-loads of ammo (eg who cares if the M4 fires 4,000 rounds before jamming and the M8 would fire 7k? That's over 30x the ammo a soldier would have on hand!), HK deserves to loose this. Second, they are VERY unfriendly to civillians, which makes for a VERY closed product with a limited future life. MANY of the things currently available for the M16 platform are the result of interaction between the civillian and military sectors - this won't happen with the XM8. Further, HK is a very very very proprietary company - everything they do is 'HK Special', requiring you to either (A) buy more HK shit, or (b) use adaptors or modifications in order to use 'universal' products, driving the cost of accessories up. The idea of buying the weapon to get a laser/IR-laser/red-dot combo is a perfect example of this stupidity - why not just let a contract for such an optic for 1913-rail-mount?

3) SCAR: New product, FN is similarly civvie-unfriendly (WTF with the euro gunmakers, eh? They buiild here but think like they're back home). IIRC this is a more conventional design, probably less accurate than the M16 platform (gas piston, what do you expect?) for some theoretically useful but practically meaningless gain in reliability... I don't mind FN building M16s (or even 'improving') the platform, and the MAG-58 (eg M240) is a great GPMG, but I don't trust any euro company to allow the 'openness' we've seen with the M16/AR platform - something that has been key to it's longevity in service...

Personally, I'd like to see a real-world test of the following (assuming both the SCAR and XM8 are considered 'combat ready'):

Have an active duty infantry unit use the following setups (maybe take a 4-platoon company and give each PLT a different weapons system for the purposes of said test):

1) New (100% brand spanking new, unfired) M4s with all current upgrades

2) XM8s, minus HK proprietary optic (using same optics package as the M4s and SCAR)

3) SCAR

4) Control - plain-old M4s

Have them use said weapons for training and combat over a few months, see how the performance compares...

While the idea of using troops to test/experament with weapons may strike you wrong, I think it's alot more accruate than the BS show-off tests that manufacturers use to 'demonstrate' the abilities of their weapons...

As for what would be my pick?
I say keep the M4 platform (especially the gas & recoil system (direct gas with stock-enclosed inline recoil buffer), but investigate re-design around required improvements (better grenade launcher, polymer or cerbon-fiber reciever if dependable enough, standardized all-in-one optic)... Some variant of the ZM system would be a better option than going back to 50 year old piston-drive technology. See where this is going...

Also remember the principle of relativity WRT firearms:

The badguy's gun NEVER jams - after all, you're still taking fire...
His rounds are magically deadly, but when you shoot his guys they manage to run away...

HOWEVER

You remember every single time your weapon jams under fire...
You remember everybody on your side who takes a hit from an enemy weapon & goes down more than you remember the guys who don't...

This is why you get so many AK beats M4 guys (Some of whom also think the RPK is 'equivalent' to the M240B (based on conversations I've had with folks in OCS!!!, although I can see the whole RPK/RPD/PKM thing easily being simplified to 'Machinegun shooting at me!' in real life) on our side, and you get the Iraqis asking for us to give them M4s to replace their (new) AKs.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:03:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 6:04:40 AM EDT by Bilouxi]
In all fairness, there are a lot of developmental projects defunded right now as we're spending the money on more bullets, bombs, and body armor. Furthermore, apart from the guys who have actually done the testing I don't think any of us can really make an adequate comparison of the two rifles (and from what I have seen those guys supposedly loved it). That being said, our opinions on it are pretty much all we can give and either of us could be right.

I think the changeover from M-16 to *any* rifle will be met with the same resistance and problems we saw in past transitions. Everybody will hate it to begin with (the round isn't big enough, it's plastic, the round doesn't travel fast enough, it jams in combat, it's got a shorter/lighter barrel, etc).
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 12:57:07 PM EDT

The M16/M4 is the most tested, most reliable, most developed 5.56 platform in the world.

I don't see any replacement being possible for decades unless a new caliber changes things.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 6:41:26 AM EDT
With our current deployments overseas. And the buget as it is I dont think the M-16/M-4 will be replaced anytime soon. The guys on cap. Hill are going to fund things like F-22 raptors more B-2 bombers etc. Way before the do someing to upgrade the small arms of our forces. (Big projects=Big pork).
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 11:39:49 PM EDT
Hell yes the XM8 should replace the Colt M16...dumbass question.

The more interesting question is should it be the XM8 or HK416...?
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 11:40:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
The M16/M4 is the most tested, most reliable, most developed 5.56 platform in the world.

I don't see any replacement being possible for decades unless a new caliber changes things.



It is a fine system...but it has some major drawbacks. One that should have been fixed at the beginning.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 5:41:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
The M16/M4 is the most tested, most reliable, most developed 5.56 platform in the world.

I don't see any replacement being possible for decades unless a new caliber changes things.



It is a fine system...but it has some major drawbacks. One that should have been fixed at the beginning.



Yep. Don't see much point to changing the M4 to another 5.56 weapon with borderline terminal ballistics. An ambidextrous bullpup, like a F2000 with std 1913 rail mounts to get the necessary barrel sounds more logical if changing caliber won't be done.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:29:14 PM EDT
Another point no one has brought up yet is the age of the people looking at the weapons. I'm a GM in the US Navy and thinking back to A-school, the people that taught us small arms maitinance, were probably between 45 and 60 years old. They really knew thier stuff well, but the fact of the matter is, the military and civilians in the positions to accept a new weapon, are probably also the people that fought wars many years ago and have grown too attached to the M16 platform despite what is currently available. I know the M16 had it's issues long ago, but this is one of those "hard to teach an old dog new tricks" thing.

Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:49:27 PM EDT
Another point no one has brought up yet is that change for the sake of change is foolish, and in this case, expensive too.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 12:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Another point no one has brought up yet is that change for the sake of change is foolish, and in this case, expensive too.



It's not really change for the sake of change...thats just about one of the most ignorant statements I've heard about the XM8 is quite a while

Link Posted: 10/1/2005 2:17:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2005 2:35:30 AM EDT by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Another point no one has brought up yet is that change for the sake of change is foolish, and in this case, expensive too.



It's not really change for the sake of change...thats just about one of the most ignorant statements I've heard about the XM8 is quite a while



Name one thing the XM-8 does that is different than the M16.

There isn't. Anyone who's pushing the XM-8 and doesn't stand to make any money from the change should be real careful about throwing stones in their glass house when making comments about ignorance.

The XM-8 fires the same cartridge as the current M16 family.
The biggest failing of the M4 of late is it's effectiveness at extended ranges. The carbine varient of the XM8 has a shorter bbl and will therefore be less effective than the M4 at those ranges.

Does the rifle version do anything the M16 doesn't? It has, what, and adjustable stock? How hard is it to replace the fixed stock on an M16? Not very, eh? How much cheaper is a new stock than a new rifle? Seein' the light yet?

It's got a gas piston. Yah don't think the folks at Armalite knew about gas pistons? Gas pistons were in use before the AR15 was designed. They chose not use it for a reason. They didn't have gas pistons in the 80's when the weapon was redesigned?
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 2:28:51 AM EDT
Is there a chance the (X)M8 is already in service? (sigh)

Stryker crew. All fitted with the (X) M8



Link Posted: 10/1/2005 3:13:58 AM EDT
I see no point to changing to the XM8 or any other 5.56 platform. Realistically I think the 6.5 or 6.8 should be the starting point and wrap a new weapon around that. Ideally a cartridge designed to use existing magazines and have the current M16/M4 platform modified to phase in the cartridge. After the cartridge is integrated and the 5.56 replaced then the new weapon would be introduced. This approach would cause the least logisitical problems with ammo.

For now, we have to stick to what we have. There's a war going on and it's not the time to be dicking around with small arms issued to our troops. Imagine the difficulties in making sure armorers have the right spare parts and that soldiers are properly maintaining and running their rifles when you have multiple platforms introduced on the fly.

Adopting a new general issue small arm is something you do in a time of relative stability.

Of course I'm not a politican or the guy in charge of ...... anything
Top Top