I didn't know you could mount an optic on a turd.  You learn something new everyday.

Caseless ammo was a great idea, but HK had numerous problems with consistent detonation and water resistance. When Ares Corporation worked with caseless on the FARC, they had problems with all the cases detonating in the magazine. Not a good thing...

The cartridge I thought was a unique design was the Benelli/Fiocchi caseless round. That design used the projectile as the case and propellant was inside of the case. It was similar to the Gyrojet, minus the rocket propellant and function. The Benelli/Fiocchi was only made in 9mm, for subgun use. It would be interesting if they made a rifle cartridge.

ls

Here's a photo I found.

[img]http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/xm8draw.jpg[/img]

BTW, what is everyone's opinion of the G36. Personally, I think it's okay, but a little too futuristic. Hell, I'd rather go into battle with an M1 Garand!

Someone said the G36 had terrible ergonomics, what did you mean?

Man, who needs all that plastic! Dammit, I'll take my blued steel and solid wood stocked AR-15 any day of the week. And I mean, who needs futuristic, right? We're always going to be stuck to this very moment, so we don't need any of that.

And [b]WOW[/b], where did you get those blueprints from? I mean, it looks just like the real thing. Those newspaper artists must know EXACTLY how things are turning out to draw pictures like those.

Man, the government sure wastes huge amounts of money.

ATK got the [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm]entirety of $5 million dollars[/url] for this. Imagine ALL the military could do with $5 million. They could like invade the world for that much. I mean, especially considering how little the military gets.. like.. fifteen dollars per year. They have bake sales by my house.

Ok guys, this is getting silly.

The only reason to adopt a new weapons system is because it is demonstrably better than the old system. If this new thing (fugly as it is) is:

1. Cleaner to operate
2. Requires less TLC in sandy and muddy environs
3. Lighter
4. More durable
5. More reliable

Then we should adopt it.

If, however, it does not do better than the M-16 system, we should skip it.

It seems to me that with things like the RROC and so forth in development that the AR is coming very close to having its one major problem solved, namely the ammount of TLC needed since the rifle runs so dirty.

I know the weapon is about 40 now, but the 1911 is older than that and many elite units use it because it is still an excellent weapon for its assigned task.

The AR is a good weapon and if they can change the gas system and make the weapon better and better able to function in crud, then I think that weapons like the G36 will be superfluous.

There is no weapons system in the world with as many options as the AR system. If there is something out there much better than our current system I would buy it in a heartbeat, but there just isn't. This new gun looks like a G36 which has some serious issues in itself.

The SBR is bad enough on a current AR design. If one of the goals of this weapon is CQB ability, mounting the only friggin sight on the weapon even HIGHER makes this more problematic than ever.

I am open to new ideas, but this thing strikes me as a "Lets do something" idea rather than "This is a genuine improvement and we should adopt it" idea. The first is action for the sake of being in motion. The second is action for the sake of fufilling an objective.

Big difference.

The weapons look like something out of "Starship Troopers"...I wonder if the uniforms will be "improved" upon.

"Welcome to the Roughnecks"
"Rico's Roughnecks...HUURRRRAAAH!!!"

No it isn't really. The G36's improvements are theoretical mostly, you would have to be statitician and canvass the whole Army to notice a couple thousand round MTBF differance.

As long as it shoots the 5.56mm cartridge this rifle cannot be any better than the M16 family. Period. Any other difference would be noticable only to accountants who would see lower fleet operating costs-which would be offset by the large cost of replacing the whole fleet.


Correct



I dont think that that is really a problem. Unless you are using it to try and imitate a SAW. Full auto from such a light weapon, unsupported is largely a waste, though there are some situations where it is certainly nice to have.


I am glad someone brought up the M1911. This XM8 project is the same kind of boondoggle that stuck us with the M9. A less effective, more expensive, more complex and more fragile weapon purchased largely for internal NATO politics and because people could not fathom that a 80 year old weapon might stil be state of the art. The M9, at best, performs no better than the 1911. It would have been far cheeper just to have ordered new production 1911s to replace the worn out guns in the fleet than change the whole system.


It is a G36, and in my opinion the second of the above two paragraphs outweighs the first. Optics and electronics technology, not ballistics or mechanics, is the area of weapons technology that is the most rapidly expanding. If the G36's sight system is state of the art now, it will be obsolete in three years. To update a flattop M16 you fip a lever and put on a new sight and sight in.

Also, the M16 I don't think will make it past its 60th birthday. Maybe to its 50th. Why? The CARTRIDGE will have to be changed before then. No 5.56 INCLUDING M995 AP can handle Level IV boron carbide ceramic plates. The US is not going to retain a monopoly on their production for ever. Russia and France already can make them, China and India probably before too long. Once that happens they will be on the 3rd World arms market, and will will start encountering them in the hands of our enemies in the field.

If the Army really wants to design a M16 replacement they should be considering THIS fact. Not some perceved age or reliability issue as the reason for making a change. If the XM8 were adopted even as early as 2005 it would probably have a service carrer as short as the Krag and M14 just because of the armor penetration issue and the need to eventually replace the 5.56mm cartridge to solve it.



I quite agree. Just like the M9/M1911 situation two decades ago.

I wud liek 2 submit 4 ur considerashun teh following poynts about why teh XM* si teh sux adn why we shud B usign teh M16 [B]FOREVAR[/b]

1) It ain't better, there ain't nothing to it and that's that! Nobody needs easier cleaning, better reliability, lighter recoil, and lighter weight!

2) The XM8 is like, totally crap because the M9 was bad, too.

3) It looks like a spaceship gun! I mean, this is the single most important consideration, and they botched it up. It doesn't even play sounds like "DZZZING!" What were they thinking!?!??!

4) It's not like they can put a Picatinny rail on it for optics, either. That would violate the very basic universal law that only the M16 can have the Picatinny rail. And the above drawing does NOT depict it anything like.. a picatinny rail.

5) Gad dagnit, I don't wannit, ya can't make me, nosir! It's poopy, I tell ya! And the damn Krauts made it! Why, back at belleau wood...

I hope they don't replace the M16 for something that is just a marginal improvement.  It takes time, usually years, to get the bugs out of any new system, resulting in dead young men if we are trying out new toys in the middle of a war.  Every new US Army rifle has either had to be reworked extensively (M1903, M1, M16) or was obsolete before it was introduced (M1896, M14).

This situation is likely to be much worse than the M9.  At least that was a product that already had years of production and combat experience.  It had been around in one form or another since the 50s.

I think ArmdLbrl's comments regarding body armor are right on target.  Small arms are going to need better penetration in the near future.

We can get better penetration even with 5.56. Discarding sabots with either tungstin or depleted uranium penetrators. The trick, and what is going to take time to develop, is getting penetration PLUS good wounding potential. A 5.56 tungstin APDS would leave a wound not much different than stabbing someone with a .224in diameter icepick after penetrating the plate.

Its going to require going back to a larger cartridge. At least to something as long as 7.62 NATO. Maybe longer. And if you want to use APDS, and that is the best solution from the ballistics standpoint, a bore of .270-.300 inch would be needed to carry a decent sized penetrator that could provide effective wounding after passing through armor or if you faced a unarmored target.

Generally speaking, the magazine on the M16 is the source of MANY of it's problems.  That's one of the biggest weak points.

Of course, fixing that would require a receiver redesign.

Further, adopting a G36-magazine fed weapon would allow for longer, heavier rounds to be used with a higher velocity.  This would be attainable because the bullet can be seated to a longer length allowing more powder.  The longer, heavier, faster (than in an M16) round would provide better incapacitation at longer ranges.

As an example, the SG55x series of rifles can handle rounds with a 2.4" (or so) total length, whereas the AR rifles can only handle 2.25". The G36 magazine is similar in dimensions to the Sig mags.

Of course, none of this matters if the thing doesn't work.

Frankly, I see that many of you are simply afraid of change and are too stuck on the looks of a weapon.  I don't care how it looks, as long as it works.

Explain how the ergonomics of the G36 are bad.

I hear that if a gun has logically placed controls, keeps your joints in a comfortable positions with low stress, and has a design to reduce recoil, it has poor ergonomics.

Vapor Trail told me himself.

I dont think this rifle will solve any problems. I think it would just cuase more problems. One thing I think is a waste of time is the barrel. On the standard rifle it looks like it about 10 inches long. Thats not going to help the range in which the bullet will fragment. Also I dont think there will much of  use for the sharpshooter model since the barrel only looks about 20 inch no longer than the current M-16. I dont think soldiers are complaining about thier current M-16's, M4 and M14 used for the longer ranges. If it aint broke dont fix it. Just becuase the system is 40 years old does not mean it needs to be replaced.

There may be something to this ergos issue.  I was in a meeting with some SOF folks at MacDill a few weeks ago.  During a break, one guy who seemed reasonably saavy from PM Special Projects was overheard saying, "We're looking to buy the rights to the ergos from Colt.  We want to put it in a weapon with HK internals (NFI)." Closely followed by a glaring look by a certain PM-SP O-4 to that young 18D.

Well, let's see: (1) HK has an improved M-16 magazine. (2) HK is working on an op-rod upper for the M-16 family (perhaps as a back up position in case XM08 fails???).  (3) Now this conversation. Several tight-lipped HK folks in attendance, BTW.

Verrry interesstink!

Fixed IMHO with the Steel HK mags.

How could controls be any better placed than on a AR? Even a lefty can buy and install Ambi controls.

The next person to mention looks must be slapped. Looks in combat don't matter worth a damn. It's functionality.

The M-16 is serving perfectly right now. It is easy to use, very reliable, accurate, and easy so customize.

This G36 system may be reliable, but it has too many protrusions and things sticking out of it in one way or another. Mounting a grenade launcher for a support role is damn near impossible, and mounting other sighting systems is difficult. If an optical sight goes down ( has happened in the past due to reliability issues and battle damage ), iron sights are needed. This was a major concern with that OCIW project.

THe AR is different. Grenade launchers can be mounted easily. It is domestically produced, so there is no shortage of parts. Accessories are easy as hell to come by, and easy as hell to mount, with a plethora of mounts and optics. It is reliable, and extremely accurate for a combat rifle. It can be easily, and cheaply chambered for another cartridge ( which will cost TONS less than a whole new rifle. Politicians love cost cuts ). The weapon is comforatable to use, and most importantly, the troops like this BATTLE PROVEN rifle.

I personally think that the M-16A2/A4/M-16A2 Carbine is the ideal weapon for this nation's Army, and this XM-8 shit is a load of smelly, stinky bullcrap that sucks a mountainus heap of donkey cock.

Enough said.

Looks to me like some of these weapons designers play HALO and have decided to copy Master Chief's assault weapon!

There are many, many considerations.  The weighting of each one is subjective and everyone will have a different opinion, so don't take my placement as an issue.

1.  Politics.  The M9 is an example.  Beretta won the contract in return for Italy's decision to buy a whole bunch of helicopters from Bell.  We switched to 9mm for uniformity with NATO.  Without getting into the issue of which caliber was better, it meant one nation switching to 9mm vs. all the other countries in NATO switching to .45.

In this case, there may be political reasons to use an HK design.  As far as ownership of the company, I don't know who owns HK any longer.  Are they German, or were they bought by the Brits?  Who knows who will own HK in 2008.

The Enfield SA80 is a pretty crappy rifle, even with the improvements to the A2 version.  You here lots of advice and/or rumors that Britain will scrap it and go with the G36.  If the 3 major members of NATO went with a G36 or G36 derivative, it would provide greater uniformity in NATO, and probably reduced cost due to numbers.

2.  Cost to produce.  I don't know the answer to this one, but a rifle made of stampings & plastic with just a few forged pieces is probably cheaper to mfg than the M16.  Don't forget, in many ways the G36 is an updated AR18, which was developed as a lower cost alternative to the M16/AR15.

Firearms have a finite lifespan.  The more you use them, the faster they wear out.  We're using them.  I don't know the average age of our rifles in service or when most of them can be expected to need replacement.  But if we see a lifespan issue coming up, it could make sense to replace with a new system that is cheaper to produce.

Lets not forget development costs.  In this case, HK has already spent the money on the initial research.  All we're talking about is refinements.

3.  Modularity/flexibility.  Truly, the M16 system is one of the most modular, flexible and adaptable firearms that has ever been made.  I don't think this means that another rifle could not be made with just as much modularity.  You can get RAS handguards for the G36.  It is a flat top with a removable iron sight/optics options.  Just because we think the current optics/irons suck, doesn't mean that ones we like wouldn't make it on the platform.  If Uncle Sam wanted 100,000 ACOG type sights with a base engineered to fit the G36 directly (no ARMS19 interface), do you think Trijicon would say no, we can't do it?

The XM8 already shows evidence of learning from the M16.  The stock is both collapsible, to adjust for body armor, etc; and folding, for storage.  If it is well engineered, that is an improvement over both the M4 stock and the original G36.  Long length of pull on the G36 is one of the poor ergonomic issues.

4.  Caliber considerations.  Without beating a dead horse, I think most of us can agree that the current 5.56mm loads can stand a lot of improvements.  Improvements that will probably result in a cartridge that will no longer fit within the current upper & lower receiver dimensions.  If we do end up switching to a different caliber, it may necessitate a change in rifles.

I like my M4.  I think it is superior to the G36.  That doesn't mean that I don't think the G36 can never be improved to the point that it is better than my M4.  It could.  Time will tell.

Why go through all that trouble and expense Dorsai to produce a weapon that doesn't do anything better than what it replaces?

Would a flattop G36 really be any better than a flattop M4/M16.

By the time we got it properly outfitted and debugged we would probably have to replace the 5.56mm cartridge as I posted above. I doubt that the needed performance to defeat Level IV armor can come from a cartridge that would fit in a .223 size magazine. Or receiver. Its going to be fatter and/or longer.

I think that we are at the most 15 years away, if we are lucky, from encountering BGs even in third world countries wearing body armor that can stop 5.56mm. That is all the longer I think that cartridge has left to run. Why not just let the AR serve out the time and spend the money on a real replacement that can handle the real tasks that will be faced with in the future.

Such as the M-14....[:D]

I think the next M16 phase will be the use of Polycarbonates and Carbon Fiber to lighten the rifle and add electronic sighting devices etc....

Then how does that make it poor. It seems to me that would be good.

What is a gun with great ergonomics like?

No, definently not the M14. Its ergonomiclally unsound, has no place for optics or lasers, and its open action collects garbage. Even when new, the FAL was a better rifle.

And 7.62x51 might not be enough cartridge. Class IV plates stop AP ammo from a .30/06. Any new cartridge would have to outperform the M2 .30/06 round and yet still be as compact and controllable as possible.

Something like .300WSM firing a saboted tungstin projectile of around 120gr or so.

Dear sir:

Please read through [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm]this page[/url] very carefully.

Thanks,
Management

Okay, SIR, now that I've recieved a lesson perhaps we can discuss how the G36 is more reliable than the M16. I hear it can take more fouling and can be exposed to more elements and still perform outstandingly. How does the M16 compare to that?

If the G36/XM8 can function with water in the barrel and chamber, then it would have one over the M16/M4.  However, I doubt it.

As far as sand.  Couldn't the bolt.carrier of an M16/M4 be treated with Black-T to solve the dry lube problem?  

Just some ideas.  The G36 may become the basis for a super weapons system sometime down the line, but as another 5.56mm weapon, it would be a waste of time and resources to make the G36 do what the M16 can already do.  I say stick with the M16 until technological advancements deem it necessary to replace the caliber we are currently fielding.

ArmdLiberl,
I didn't say the G36/XM8 is superior to the M4, I just said that it could be, emphasis on the word could.

In brief, it could be superior if it was cheaper to manufacture, either through design or greater volume of mfg; the design allowed the introduction of a replacement cartridge superior to 5.56mm; it was made with the modularity and adaptibility of the M4; and finally, if it's reliability and ergonomics surpassed the M4.  Its not there yet.

Armor piercing ability, in my opinion, will not be a major concern for many years, unless we see another major power as a potential/probable threat.

3rd world countries will not equip their troops with armor capable of stopping 5.56mm or 7.62mm.  Armor is expensive...to purchase, to replace, and to improve.  We do it because our troops are well trained and we place a higher value on life.  Therefore, we feel it is worth the extra expense to provide increased survivability.  3rd world countries have more fodder than money.  They have, and will continue to make the cost benefit analysis that they can always draft some other poor shmoe and hand him an AKM for less money than it costs to train, equip and armor GI Joe.

If you look at modern armies, who provides armor to their soldiers?  Western nations only, and no one does it to the extent of the US.

What ever rifle replaces the AR it needs to be US made, by a US company. After how Germany showed there true colors in the Gulf, the US gov needs to dump all HK's. Support thos ethat support US.

And 15 years ago we didn't either.
Things change, technology advances. When a Level III or IV vest no longer costs any more than a RPG-7 or a AK, then how can you say that they WON'T. This stuff is only going to become cheeper as time passes, just like radios and night vision.

Sooner or later technology spreads.

Who says we can't have one....just cut the whiskers off a catfish, skewer it over your M-4 barrel and...voila'--- you now own an XM8.

Wonder if Bushmaster will dump the snake for a "Finding Nemo" logo?

The only crazier idea then the XM8 is that POS that they want to replace the M2 with. Stupid thing looks like a video camera.

Land Warrior system? If thats what your talking about then I don't agree. Feedback from soldiers chosen to test the system have been suprised. It greatly reduces the odds of being shot because you can look around corners, over barriers without risking your own neck. Although it looks like its heavy as poo it seems simple to use and I'd want one.

The OICW comes w/ an inch-thick user manual & weighs at least 18 lbs., unloaded, in its current config. The sighting system is supposed to be able to identify & paint thereats, but only has any real benefit for the grenade launcher component. The grenade targeting-linked ignition timing is definitely neat, but I'd be interested in hearing what the effective kill radius of the 20mm grenades is. The under-slung G-36 w/ its 10" bbl. has been said to be intended for engaging targets that are too close-in for grenades. For what is essentially a "backup", that's a fair amount of extra weight to have to lug around. A good .45 cal pistol is smaller & much lighter.

The combination of a medium-to-long range weapon (grenade launcher) w/ a CQC subgun is an interesting concept for a [u]battlefield[/u] weapon.

That is the AN/PAS-13 thermal imager that does that and it is already in service, without the rest of landwarrior. Its been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. It has a NTSC standard video output jack that any kind of monitor can plug into, besides its built in eyepiece monitor. None of the monicle type helmet mounted monitors were adopted with it because they weren't "soldier proof". But SF types may have them anyways.

Only problem with PAS-13 is that its the size and weight of the old AN/PVS-1/2 Starlight Scopes of 40 years ago. And is a battery hog. The technology can only get smaller from here however. The GIs still rave about them, especially when fitted to GPMGs, M2's and Mk19s.

The only thing I see as a threat to the m16 is the new OICW renamed the XM something.

It has 6 shots semiauto 20mm High explosive rounds that can be set for delayed fuse to penitrate then explode, airburst at the distance of the target, detonate at a preset distance, or detonate on impact. It also has the same basic selective fire m16 under the 20mm cannon.

They won't replace M16 MWS without something way better all arround.

Everyone has probably already seen it, but you can look at it here. [url]http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm[/url]

Not the OICW. Its the XM312. The article is on the same page of the same issue of Army Times as the article about the XM8. Supposedly, it will shoot a 25mm air burst round with an internal chip that will communicate with a computer in the weapon. It uses a laser range finder on the target, then fires the round which bursts at that range. Rounds are estimated to cost $22 a piece. They claim it can also have the barrel and other components changed to fire the .50 BMG. Sounds a little complicated to me. The army's got their little itch to change everything right now, but replacing a weapon thats done its job and done it well longer than anything else in the armory, seems like a waste of money.