The pictures below originally appear in the July 21, 2003 issue of ARMY TIMES.
There is a much larger story to go w/ it.  If interested I'll post a summary of the text.  Thank you to , Gunzilla and SMGLee for help posting the pics.  Enjoy.

BTW there's a new .50 Cal. also pic'd the XM312.
Can post in the future on that.  S2 Out.

The XM8 is wishful thinking on the part of HK.  The M4 and M16 will be around for some time yet.  

As for the light-weigh polymer ammo that's supposed to go with it, there are so many problems with that in terms of design and manufacturing that it's very unlikely it will be adopted.  It's considerably more expensive than regular ammo and will always be so due to the complex nature of production.  

Just my 02c.  

[img]http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/xm8.jpg[/img]

Here you go.. Looks bitchen.  pretty much another evolution of the G36 system.

I don't know about the logistics and/or possibility of it becoming a reality.  Just offering some "news" take it for what it's worth.  But, the magazine in the pic. does not appear as if the Army's pursuing the G8's caseless ammo. just yet.

SMGLee, Gunzilla thanks a Ton.  Glad it's not a repeat post.

[size=6]FUGLY MOTHER[/size=6]

Under all the bulky space-gun plastic, this is still just a bullet firing weapon, with no new capabilities to speak of. (not to mention the G-36 has horrible ergonomics)

It looks more like a prop from a low budget sci-fi flick.

I cant beleive the army is pursuing this system.

Sorry for the rant

SULACO2,

Please post the text. I would like to see it.

Looks like a helicopter with a pistol grip.

CWO

The XM-08 is largely being pushged by a Colonel (P) at fort Benning.  He's already killed or is trying to kill a number of product improvements to the M-16 family --all this acording to folks I know there at DCD and other foks I know at MP Small Arms, at Picatinny Arsenal. If you had a chance to button hole the guy (like another friend of mine did) at the PMSA Symposium in May, his agenda would have been patently clear.  

Is he prepare to retire??  must be trying to lining up a job opportunity at HK..  [:)]

[img]http://www.toyadz.com/toyadz/mattel/m16marauder.jpg[/img]

Looks like a helicopter with a pistol grip.

CWO
_____________________________________________

Nah.. More like a submarine.


Spooge Out!

Mach6-
Would that be LtC.Col. Matthew Clark, Product Manager for Product Manager Individual Weapons or Col. Micheal J. Smith Project Manager PM Soldier Weapons?

Jim Stone deputy for the Infantry Center's Directorate for Combat Development states the M4/M16 "has been a very good weapon", but sated it was already 40 yrs. old.  He states  "while we are maintaining and improving the M4, we have to look ahead."  "For us to do nothing and say "gee the M4 is doing great" would be irresponsible".

OK, I didn't misquote, however I also did a poor job, technically, of paraphrasing those interviewed.  So, because my High School, or College level, journalism skills are sorely lacking I'm going to give it to youy all short form and will try to hit the highlights.

Grenade Launcher
 40mm GL is currently projected acc. to this article.
Burst Option
No Burst option, yet, but is desired and will supposedly be easier to install, un-install.  (SOPMOD)
Optic
1 Optic w/ all the bells and whistles.  Their take is the M4 needs too many add ons.  They want one sight that "0's" all of the devices at the same time.  IR Ptr., IR illumunator.  Vis. Ptr., Red Dot, BU Site (non-batt. powered).

Modular family, for all roles.
"Markman model" reportedlty inspired by the 82nds need for heavier hitter in A'stan.  Article me ntions their requests fr M1a/M14's.

A caliber option to allow SpecOps to use the 7.62x39mm catridge.No mention if the receiver would accept AK, mags or if there'd be a second mag system that would require the operator to load manually.


They don't expect the 40mm, to  last long even thouh designed/redesigned for the XM8, because of the push to 25mm.

Whole idea was to field "interim" systems, available now that could add up to the XM29 system.  Not happy w/ the lengthy delay, they wanted to slowly phase the new tech in.

Now...for my thoughts.  Guys don't kill the messenger.  I'm posting this for discussion, not because I'm a fan of the idea.  Sure I love improvement, but is this the answer?  I'm not taking a psoition or waving a flag just yet.  I have objections.  If there are questions please ask I'll see if I can find the answers in the article, I know I've missed stuff.
 Again, I'm not losing sleep dreaming of "all the possibilties" (not that foolish) nor am I saying "that won't work"(not that arrogant), nay-sayers doubted the M16 family, some still do.  There is room for improvement.  Let's see what comes of new ideas.
S2

------------
SGMLee -- No, the (P) means promotable.  He'll pick up a star (or two), most likely take a position at ARDEC or ARL, serve the obligatory three years --then go to work for H&K (or SAIC, if he's smart).

SULACO2 --No, not those two guys -- but you're very close.  You've got the right chain-of-command. Remember, those guys know what side their bread is buttered on. If they want a Brigade or O-6, they must tow party line.  The guy in questions was overheard saying, "Troops don't know what they want....we can't make it (M-4) any better." that's about all I had better say on the subject.  Now go out and connect the dots. It will be fun button-holing this guy again at the Infantry Conference in September, though!  

It appears to have a G36 style gas piston and G36 or SG550 mags.

Is there a working prototype?

"Army weapons developers plan to have a protoype by the end of the summer and to begin testing in the fall"  sorry operating system/design not specifically mentioned, but your right that's what it looks like.  Logical they'd go that way too($$$).

It doesn't appear to have iron sights. Where does the bayonete go? Why is the optic set so high? Not sure this is much of an improvement.It looks like it has an AK style mag release(groan). Why such a long carry handle that takes up so much space on the rifle? This thing looks like a real POS.
It'll pry go real nice with the new beret's.

Article does not mention "iron sights", just BU sights that do not require batteries, so it may be fiber optic etc.

The sight is too high for my tastes, again, it would appear. And that looks like "handle, carrying, luggage type 1 unit" to me, useless, again.

Bayonets, while the addition is probably a simple one, the Army could possibly be moving away from them.  Some debate over their usefulness on modern battlefield.  They could have taken a position against their use, or it could be a bug to be worked out later.  But not mentioned.

XM-08 -- It serves the following purposes:
1) Get certain individuals promoted to O-7 & O-6 and Legions of Merit along the way.
2) Creates a whole new fielding plan and supporting bureaucracy.
3) Secures post-retirement positions.

Otherwise -- please explain how the complete changeover to another 5.56mm weapon, justifies the complete negation of the country's investment infrastructure in the M-16 family of weapons -- especially when viable product improvements are proving themselves imperically!  Needless to say, this issue is already getting attention on Capitol Hill.  Oh, no! "Captain, I need TDY orders for Washington, ASAP.  Let's revise that PPT briefing -- I've got some ideas!"

It looks very furturistic and cool (looks like it came straight out of the starship troopers movie), but it is foreign made. Nearly all of our current weapons are foreign designs. I have even heard that some of our M-16s are made by FN. I really dislike that our military is using so many foreign designs. We have the biggest firearms industry in the world over here in the USA. Lets start putting government dollars in domestic firearms companies instead of sending it over seas to the europeans. If we sould do anything to our current service rifle, I think we should rechamber it to fire the 6mm/.243 round from the same case. That way we can increase the bullet weight, and put to rest the claims of overpenetration/small wounds that the current chamber is criticized of.

Enough already... hurry up & develop ray guns!!!

...and while they are at it, I'm still waiting for my flying car & personal jet pack!!!

[url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/fwframeset.html[/url]

The link is to the manufacuers page. This is the prototype for that weapon. The above pics are concepts of what they eventualy what it to be.  Its still prety cool in the stage it's currently at though.

Amen, can't said it any better.  excellent information, Thanks for giving some info on the project.

This is a conceptual drawing of the new XM8, which basically is a advanced G36, you are correct on the G36 gas system and that is not a SIG 550 magazine, it is a G36 magazine.  






Gun_Addict, I think you might be incorrect in your observation, the gun is not the OICW, the OICW is whole another project, the XM8 is the rifle some military personel wanting to replace the entire M16 system.  of course there is the SCAR project also, so keep you finger on the webm more to come in the near future.

By the way, I think th eOICW is a POS with way too much technology for the individual infantry.  definitely more stuff for the famous Mr. Murphy to put his magic finger on during a fire fight.

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

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

heres some more

SMG,  I am right. The oicw is just a concept gun. xm 08 is supposed to be the impoved version. oicw was too heavy and complicated so they were going to simplify it.  They are just having truble recucing the weight.  I saw this on the history chanel on a program called future weapons. They showed what is now the xm 08 and said that it was what they hoped to refine the oicw into.
According to the other posts it looks like the decided to make a light weight version to function a long side the oicw.

Dang, it comes with a Magpul MSS already installed!

Actually, its the other way around. The OICW is already a working prototype, the XM8, is a precursor to the XM29.  From the article:
"The Infantey Center at Ft. Benning GA, wanted the weapon to weigh 14 pounds and be ready by 2008.  But, the 18 pound weapon is still too heavy and bulky to meet those requirements.
 But instead of scrapping the XM29, the Army decided on a new strateg-perfect each of the XM29's components separately so soldiers can take advantage of neww technology sooner.  The parts then could be brought back together when lighter materials become available."
Army Times, July 21, 2003 "Your Next Rifle" p.14.

The government has an unsatiable appetite to spend, spend, spend.  I do not see other armies as a problem.  Our strenght comes in other weapon systems.  The M16 is a fine system.  I think we should keep the M14's that the government wants to scrap in our arsenals for when the need arises.  

Ok, I resist the urge to scream [newbie] but THE M16 was designed by EUGENE STONER AN AMERICAN!!!

"chamber to fire 6mm/.243"

Have you looked at the 75/77 grain gelatin tests over in the ammo forum?  It is tacked.  I think that you will find that it is a much better round than M193 or M855.  The 100 grain round is interesting for CQB but has too much drop for the point and kill to 300 yards M16/AR15 laser beam trajectory that everyone has come to know and love.

Over penetration/small wounds that the current chamber?ing? is criticized of?

No the problem is that the SS109 doesn't yaw fast enough further out and it is a cored bullet and the balance isn't the same, so sometimes it doesn't yaw very fast at all.  And these problems at mostly related to the M4 with its velocity/short barrel issues.  Not many complaints from guys with 20s.

Judging from the pic submitted by SMGLee and reading other posts.

It does [b]NOTHING[/b] that the M-16 can't already do with the current variations available. The M-16 [i]is[/i] a modular weapons system. There could even be a belt fed if the Shrike would hurry up. If the gas system is the problem then just replace the upper reciever.

What is the military's obsession with solving a problem that doesn't exist?

I agree and there are plenty of Piston based upper receiver options which combined with an adjustable gas system would make the AR-15 nearly as crud resistant as the AK-47 and FAL.

Oh well, I guess we need to start a new website... XM8.com ... and say bye to this place <>

Think you'll be allowed to own one? There won't be any "civilian" models of the next-gen rifle - count on it. Attrition is the preferred political tactic. This time next year, we'll be hearing the shrieks of the "sensible" gun law advocates as the election season draws to a crescendo. Butthole stocks could well become NFA items in the 'new order'.

Watch out for your butthole.

-------------
Totally agree.  Heck, just look at an even simpler and more reliable system -- the gas trap design by Arms Tech LTD that goes on their Recon Rifle and COMPAK-16.  Tested by USMC and they absolutely could not get this weapon to jam.  Folks I know at MARCORSYSCOM just raved about the little piece. So did HRT. The idea behind the weapon is that you keep your M-whatever lower and just use the AT LTD top end or barrel/gas assembly.  Terrific tack driver and very low cyclic rate.  Simple as a box of rocks.
What will really be ssscwheet is when they get their gas trap system chambered around the 6.8x43!  

Looks like an AK style magazine release.

mach6 is right on about the XM8.  Once again politics may get in the way of getting the guys in the field the best equipment possible; of course, something has to be fielded out of the whole XM29/XM25/XM8 fiasco, no matter how bad, otherwise people would wake up and realize that all those tens of millions of tax payer dollars were flushed down the toilet...

That was my first AR

DocGKR, yeah I'm afraid you're on the money, too.  Looks like XM8 just might be a fait accompli at this point, given the $5M ATK was awarded sole-source last fall for advance work on the system, together with their partners Omega and Brashear.  This whole thng just might take on a life of itself with so much $$$ and politiucal momentum that it would be impossible to stop.

What will probably happen is this.

The Government and Army will probably realize that the XM8 is still to futuristic and consider that 100s of millions of dollars they are already invested into the M4 M16 system. So they probably take the improvement gained by the OICW and the XM8 program and upgrade the M4/M16 with needed improvements. The HK M4 will have those improvement, such as a gas piston system and newly developed grenade launching system. Just watch, HK will have some new and improved toys by the end of the year.

ls

MAch6, is this gas trap system you spoke of available to the AR15 owning public?

So what exactly is the current state of affairs vis-a-vis (I always wanted to say that) the OICW ? I though that was a done deal. Sure seems strange to spend so much money and get so little in return (this newfangled XM-whatever it's called). Is this supposed to completely replace the M16 ? What's the deal ?

Looks like a SuperSoaker with an Aimpoint on it.

I'm skeptical about new systems wrapped in jet-age plastic. Something won't be right.

Then what? Duct tape, sheet metal screw, cable tie or radiator clamp what is needed on to slippery curved surfaces.

Thanks for posting the article. My blood pressure was getting low.

Pete

I think it is kind of ironic that a website full of "Black Rifle" fans would criticize a new weapon system cantidate for being "ugly" and "space aged".  If the posts weren't date stamped - I would have thought they were they same Stone Wallers Mr. Stoner was running into a few decades ago.

What we are looking at is an artist's picture.  Sometimes that picture is a far cry from what is actually manufactured.  Anyone can draw an ***hole - but how many people can make it work?

As for the cost issues.  Yes, the system shown in the pictures can be made with improvements to the AR15 platform.  But is it in our best interest to limit our future weapon system to the existing receiver?  It is a very good system - but can something different be better?

As for the plastic.  Throughout history - one of the key motivations to changing weapons is to make them easier or cheaper to manufacture.  The current and very near future of plastics is very durable.  Like it or not - it IS the way of our future.  I only hope they test them well enough - BEFORE they issue them and issue them the way they were designed.

Finally I have noticed that most Military contracts specify a majority of the weapons MUST me manufactured in the US.  It is not very hard for any of the large foreign gun makers to add a US factory to their list of sources.

This just looks like another spendex for the army. It would seem that they would rather throw money at a new weapon system then invest in in developing soldier skills and training.

I don't know the current state of Army basic rifle marksmanship training but when I did my time in the line it was abysmal, having said this I realize that in modern Army doctrine the individual rifleman is just a small part of the combined arms team but it seems the lowly 11B or 0311 always gets the short end of the deal.

Instead of jumping on a new weapon system I propose the good folks at Ft. Benning's school for wayward boys revamp the rifle training program and get serious about it.

I agree 100%.  I am not surprised by the fact that so many people are resistanst to change.  I am surprised that we are so resistant, noone else sees a parallel to our own beloved "Mattel" toy.
Maybe this system is not "THE" answer, but does it contain some answers, or an answer?  Wow, so much resistance to any new idea in a forum that really should be foward thinking, and not closed minded to new weapon designs.  Should training be better of course but that's been said forever, even back when you thought your training was good, someone remembered "back" when their training was "better".  And should training improve,  wouldn't it be to our advantage to have a superior weapon system also.
So if issuing a 30 round magazine, instead of the M14's 20 rounder, or better yet the M1's 8 round clip, is "foolish" or the easy way out, why don't we all turn our 30's in and go back to learning how to hit our 8 or 20 targets by going to the range everyday?  Give me a break.  Go ahead go to the range everyday.  But go w/ the most modern rifle available, and when you become so proficient, use a 30, and instead of hitting 8 enemies, hit 30.  "Because the Army only whent to 30 round M16s because training was so poor, they wanted to make up for it right?"  Come on guys think.  I'm sorry if this isn't the answer to all of the Army's small arms woes, but the foward thinking and experimentation may hold some answers and some improvements.  How can that be a bad thing?

Well,

My sole beef w/ it is that it probably won't be available for civilian consumption unless current trends are reversed.

------------
There are two variants of this design currently in production, unfortunately both of which have bbl lengths under the 16.25" required for a Title I firearm.  The COMPAK-16 uses a 9.5" bbl and the longer 14.0" bbl version, the Recon Rifle (aka R2) was built at the request of some folks at MARCORSYSCOM.  A Reserve Component with a measure of procurement flexibility is looking at some of the COMPAK-16s for flight crews, so I doubt any of those will ever be available. If the R2 can be made in a 16.25" version (which wouldn't be hard, actually), that would be an easy weapon to sell in today's market.  

When I was a kid, squirt guns looked like firearms. Now the firearms look like squirtguns.

M-16= Mattel
xm8= Hasbro, where I got the supersoaker images [url]http://www.hasbro.com/supersoaker/[/url]

[img]http://personalpages.tds.net/~segmentab/xm8Soakers.jpg[/img]

[LOLabove][LOLabove][LOLabove]
[ROFL][ROFL][ROFL]

I wish they would pursue the G11 concept. All that brass is heavy, and caseless ammo would bring us into the 21st century and allow a larger combat load of ammo.

The M16 was very inovative and still is. It was also very simple to maintain and had great human engineering features with a lot of end user imput. This new thing has big money pushing it, it is a maintience nightmare and terrible human engineering. IT WILL NOT BE ADOPTED!!! There have been several attempts to replace the M16 family in the past, but in trials they never came close to beating it!
Are there improvments that can be done, of course. The bolt lugs can be tappered for better feeding and extraction, etc. etc. etc.. I also predict that the new M16 family will have a heavier bullet such as the 6.8.
Good shootin, Jack