AR Sponsor
Ok, I can understand (but don't agree with) them replacing the M16/M4's, and it's good that they're replacing the M9's, but the 249? Come on! I've read a lot of good stuff about the 249 and it's not that old of a platform. Good to hear that the XM-8 will have competition now. God, I detest the XM-8 |
|
The Army will hold an open competition among arms makers to select a replacement for its M-16 rifles and M-4 carbines. The March 4 pre-solicitation notice, posted on the Internet, means the Army’s XM-8 program will have to prove it can outperform the rest of the small-arms industry before soldiers carry it into battle. Army weapons experts have been working on the Heckler & Koch-made XM-8 prototype as an unopposed replacement since late 2003. It was part of a longer-range effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon or XM-29, developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch. The XM-29 fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition. But at 18 pounds, it’s still too heavy to meet requirements, so Army planners decided to perfect each of XM-29’s components separately, allowing soldiers to take advantage of new technology sooner. The XM-8 is one of those components. It features a compact model for close quarters, a standard carbine and a designated marksman/squad automatic rifle model with a longer, heavier barrel and bipod legs for stability. The March 4 “Pre-solicitation Notice for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment I family of weapons,” invites small-arms makers to try and meet an Army requirement for a “non developmental family of weapons that are capable of firing U.S. standard M855 and M856” 5.56mm ammunition. The family would consist of carbine, compact, designated marksman and light machinegun models. A formal Request for Proposal is slated to be issued “on or about” March 23, the notice states. The OICW Increment I is intended to replace current weapon systems, including the M-4, M-16, M-249 squad automatic weapon and selected M-9 pistols for the active Army, the notice states. Interested companies will be required to submit four of each type of the four different variants by late spring. Submissions will be put through a series of tests, including live-fire exercises, to see if they meet the requirement. The winning company will be awarded a low-rate initial production contract to produce up to 4,900 weapons systems and could receive a full-rate production contract to make more than 134,000 weapons systems, the notice states. I see nothing that says they WILL replace the M4/M-16/M-249, just looking to see what makers can come up with. Spark the mother of invention. So to say. |
Guts IIRC. Could be blood, been a while since I chanted the spirit of the bayonette. I also seem to remember a part about killing without mercy. BTW, when the Drill wasn't near, I said Chlorophyl makes the grass grow green. |
The M249 is old as dirt. The first one I played with was during in 1983. It was one of the first test ones. We still had jeeps and M60 tanks back then. The world was still analog. All three of the mentioned weapons are within a couple years of each other at most. So it's probable that technology has improved somewhat in the last 20 years. Also it's the wear and tear on the weapons systems that matters. If you drive a car 100,000 miles in five years, you'll need to replace it sooner than a car you drive 50,000 miles in five years. The M249's especially have alot of rounds through them, and are VERY worn out. When it comes time to buy a replacement car, you see what there is out there. The Army's doing the same thing. If you have to foot the bill for a new machinegun, then why not get a better design if there's one out there? Ross |
|
I know a lot of AR enthusiasts frown on the XM8 (or worse), but I actually think it has a lot of promise. Granted it would need some minor modification to make it a practical field service issue weapon, but so did the M16. It has variations from the 10.5" (I think) to the rifle version, and everything in between. Air-burst rounds, integrated optics, etc., etc. I like it, and hope the development continues. Like it or not, the M16/AR15 platform will be history one day. |
It's not that old (compared to the M2) but the 0311s that carry them have nothin' but problems with them, mostly due to wear and tear I suppose. The M-16 platform is the last thing they need to worry about IMO, a new SAW and new sidearm is much more needed |
The XM8 is going to have to be multi caliber if it wants to compete with the SCAR, XCR, COBB entries. I cant imagine the army will even consider a rifle that cant be converted to different calibers at this point |
As I recall from my service days, the bayonet was a last ditch weapon. If you have to fix bayonets, YOU'RE SCREWED, in other words, when you are out of ammo and still have enimeis to eliminate. And before you say someting snide and demeaning, I will say this, I am a combat vet from the firt Gulf war, I did time with the 1/7 CAV "GARY OWEN" I respect all who serve. |
Military Model XM109 Semi Automatic 4 Round 25MM Payload Rifle Providing Light Fighters with AP lethality out to 2000 meters, the Barrett XM109 25MM Payload rifle will allow soldiers to engage and quickly destroy enemy light armor. Like the M107 .50 caliber LRSR, the XM109 has accuracy, lethality and legendary Barrett reliability. The XM109 is destined to be a tremendous war fighting asset in the military arsenal. Full rifles or upper conversion units for the M107, including the bolt, upper receiver, and magazine, are available. |
.
now it's got opposition. isn't that what we've been clammoring for? i've got no beef with going with this plastic pos if it's the best solution. now we get to see. oh, and regarding bayo lugs- see F4 phantom with no gun |
| The Marines are already field testing the lietner wise piston conversion on their M4 carbines and if it proves sucessful there will be no need for XM8 or any other short stroke piston wonder rifle.As far as the M249 I know the Army wants the design simplified because as the weapon gets older and then rebuilt when it needs to be it gets all loose.I have seen pictires of soldiers holding theirs together with plastic zip ties because the take down pins easily fall out as the weapon gets worn.They want simplified assemblies with less intricate parts. |
Stop with the lietner wise gas piston already. You know how many gas pistons have come and gone through the years. None of have been used for anything other than taking some poor suckers money because he thought he was getting the next big thing. Colt had a gas piston M16 nearly 20 years ago, and the DOD didn’t care, didn’t want to hear about it, wanted nothing to do with it. A piston doesn’t get press, doesn’t rally the people, doesn’t scare terrorists, doesn’t make men want to enlist, and doesn’t cause enough of a stir to get funding. Don’t get me wrong. I love the M16/AR15 and I would very much like to see an M16A5 with a well made piston gas system, but I just don’t see it happening. It just isn’t sexy and doesn’t have the meat of say an XCR, or a SCAR or an XM8. The military wants PR and face time too, let’s not forget that...politics at work my friends. Lets not forget about the president and Republican Party, and how they will appear for passing through the funding for a new super rifle that puts to bed "old technology from the Vietnam era". Plays perfectly into, "We are patriots, we give our boys the best, we are strong on defense, and we are pro military" You just don’t get that with a rod and spring. Sorry |
You are probably right, Vb. But wouldn't that very motivation/agenda be the very thing that would kill any idea of pursuing that plan with a company with such a foreign-country-sounding name like Heckler & Koch? It would have more political success if it were...say....a 168 year old all-American company like Colt But then again, many times decisions are made by politicians whose home-states are home to factories that would manufacture such weapons (South Carolina, Alabama, Connecticut, etc) and represent jobs for their constituents. ahh......... lots of different angles here beyond what's a better weapon, huh? |
|
Just one point. There is, in my opinion, a lot of hype regarding the XM-8's multi caliber capability. Excuse me? I believe you can buy uppers for the AR/M16 in 5.56mm, 6.8mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.63x39mm, .499 LW, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowolf, 9mm, .30carbine, .45acp, .40 S&W, plus other wildcat and pistol calibers I may be unaware of. Not only that, that, conversion consists of popping two pins, replacing the upper (which gives you a whole new set of sights already dialed in) and for some of the calibers, a change in a couple of firecontrol parts and magwell adapter. Plus new magazines. XM-8 requires an armorer to replace the barrel and then it has to be re-zeroed. If you need an armorer to replace the barrel, is it that much different than a vise, action blocks and barrel wrench for changing an AR barrel? |
You're exactly right. A politician would sell out an American Company in a heartbeat if HK, FN, GIAT, Steyr, or SIG promised to open a plant in their district and employ a few thousand people. One thing is for sure, with this announcement, the M16's days are for sure numbered. We hold trials, guns get replaced. Smple as that. The question is what's next, who is going to make it, and more importantly, CAN WE BUY IT 
|
How fast did the M14 get yanked from the front lines? Not that long...We cant have two frontline weapons in the field for long. the lack of uniformity and dual training just confuses soldiers and complicates logistics. |
AR Sponsor