Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/18/2003 5:04:10 AM EDT
I just return from Modern day Marines in Quantico. The XM8 are represented by the Pictatinny arsenal and also HK at the show. there is a mock up of the gun on display and it is the same exact gun seen on the Army times article. I had a chance to speak to a rep from Picatinny arsenal and he stated strongly this project will be the next big Army gun. and this will replace the M16 which is about four decades old. the date projected will be sometimes in 2007 with the land warrior system adoption coming on line in 2005 and the XM8 will be fully adaptable to the Landwarrior system when it is deployed. looks like a strong possibility of this system bveing the next weapon carried by our forces.

I also had the chance to play with the Landwarrior system, let's just say I would love to have the system on my M4.

I will give a full report and pictures of my trip next week when I get back to California. meanwhile i am in Mooresville NC for the rest of this week looking for the hurricane to arrive.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:08:19 AM EDT
Ok Chen, I want to know! WTF is your job????? You have access to all these cool meetings, and shows. All the guns you have I want! Tell me, Tell me pleeeeeese.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:09:57 AM EDT
The XM8 huh?[rolleyes] Thanks for the report though, it's always good to see what coming up. I look forward to your pics and trip report! [:D]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:12:24 AM EDT
I am a lowly civilian. I just have a lot of great friends in the small arms industry that get me into these shows.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:16:19 AM EDT
Evil Man. [devil] Can I come too..... [banana] Yes, you can have my beer. [bow] J/K... You do post good stuff though. Keep it coming!
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 8:12:34 AM EDT
Thank God my term of enlistment ends in 2007. It took me 10 years to get used to Glock's tactical tupperware. I don't think I want to get used to a rubbermade rifle.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 9:27:09 AM EDT
Dont bet your drawers on the XM8 going anywhere. Its a concept proposal. Even at this point. PA is slated for restructure soon. The brass is still slugging it out for Land Warrior and its not making the grade either. Defense dollars are going to be real tight next physical year. The budget going into effect next month has already been cut for both programs. But I am as jealous as the next guy about you getting to "taste the candy" uncle sugar has.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 9:43:55 AM EDT
The word on the street is there is a big chance the congress will approve the project. PM team have high hopes on this. Of course I am a big fan of the M16 system and don't see why they need to improve the system. but the word is strong as the XM8 will be the replacement to the M16. and that came as a shock to me as well.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 9:57:11 AM EDT
What was the barrel length on the XM8 mock up you saw?
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 10:11:22 AM EDT
I don't think I want to get used to a rubbermade rifle.
View Quote
Damn, four years until it could be adopted, and we alread y have a winner for the nickname! [:P]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 11:09:49 AM EDT
Any links to info on the XM8? Love the nickname Green0, that's perfect! [:)]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 11:58:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2003 2:15:22 PM EDT by SMGLee]
Originally Posted By DevL: What was the barrel length on the XM8 mock up you saw?
View Quote
I saw the carbine version and the short buttless K model. The carbine has a 14 inch barrel I believe. I don't have the paper work with me to double check. I will look into it tonight when I return to my hotel. Edit to add: The mock up XM8 has the 12.5 inch barrel. and the compact carbine has the 9 inch barrel.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 4:57:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SMGLee: The mock up XM8 has the 12.5 inch barrel. and the compact carbine has the 9 inch barrel.
View Quote
And people are bitching (rightly so) about the ballistics of the M4's 14.5" barrel. Excuse my ignorance of the XM8, but does it chamber 556? If so, it will be a joke. We'll have a bunch of deaf GI's and slightly wounded tangos...
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:03:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Originally Posted By SMGLee: The mock up XM8 has the 12.5 inch barrel. and the compact carbine has the 9 inch barrel.
View Quote
And people are bitching (rightly so) about the ballistics of the M4's 14.5" barrel. Excuse my ignorance of the XM8, but does it chamber 556? If so, it will be a joke. We'll have a bunch of deaf GI's and slightly wounded tangos...
View Quote
Roger that. And what is the big difference between the G36 and the XM8 besides the built in picatiny rails and a more streamlined look?
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 8:10:24 PM EDT
Lee, you live a charmed life. There are a lot of people on these forums that would give their left nut to be in your shoes. [;)] Keep us updated and stay safe in the storm up there!
Link Posted: 9/19/2003 10:08:02 AM EDT
"I saw the carbine version and the short buttless K model. The carbine has a 14 inch barrel I believe. I don't have the paper work with me to double check. I will look into it tonight when I return to my hotel. Edit to add: The mock up XM8 has the 12.5 inch barrel. and the compact carbine has the 9 inch barrel." I wonder if they have produced a round that actually develops high velocity out of the 12.5inch barrel. I know it's possible but somehow I think this is obviously important enough for someone to overlook. If they added a collapsible stock and developed 20inch velocity out of the 12.5inch barrel it would be quite a rifle (and yes we would have a lot of deaf GI's). Unless they started fielding sound suppresors to line infantrymen. It's funny how just when we begin to see the potential for the M-16 to be the rifle of the future (IE ergonomic upgrades,RROC gas system, KAC URX, dedicated sound suppressors like the M4 QD, sighting systems galore) the brass wants to replace it with a cookycutter system like the XM-8 which really looks a lot like a G-36 to me. Generals don't like seeing an army of soldiers with basically customized weapons tuned for each soldier's specific mission and ergonomic preferences. (they would rather everyone look the same with weapons like the XM-8)
Link Posted: 9/19/2003 10:25:06 AM EDT
Green0, RROC is not a good system, everyone in the military I spoke to had nothing good to say about it. The XM8 will have a collapsible stock which are length adjustable. HK had a folder with adjustable length but that was shot down by the higher ups in favor of just the collapsible version. The XM8 is pretty modular to each soldier's individual need, not as modular as the M4 but it will do for the big army.
Link Posted: 9/23/2003 11:06:51 PM EDT
The XM8 isn't likely to be more than a historical footnote in the history books. Picatinny's trying to justify their budget and distract from the problems with the OICW program. The XM8 doesn't do anything that the M16-series can't do already. It only exists at all because the Army is trying to salvage the OICW monstrosity by breaking it down into separate components (carbine, grenade launcher and fire control computer) in the hope that by working on each portion independently they'll be able to get the weight down to the point that when the components are put back together they'll have an OICW light enough to be usable in the field. Congress isn't likely to approve pouring money down the XM8 rathole while our forces are desperately short of more critical small arms items like CCOs and ACOGs for troops in the field right now. And with all of the problems being reported with terminal effectiveness failings of the 5.56mm out of the 14.5" M4 barrel, to even consider a shorter barrel is madness. There are simpler and cheaper solutions to the identified problems with the M16-series, the M4 in particular: an improved 5.56mm cartridge, more CCOs and ACOGs (not just for infantry), a better back-up iron sight, and fitting telescoping (M4-type) stocks on M16A4s to make them easier to use for smaller soldiers and when wearing body armor.
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 5:37:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2003 5:42:21 AM EDT by mach6]
If you want to really track how this XM-8 debacle will or will not fare, I suggest you keep your eyes on Crane-NSWC's pending Broad Area Announcement (BAA) for SCAR-L's (3X "S" models and one "CQC" model) to be submitted in December. Industry will be asked to submit candidate systems within six months -- that's the current plan. Industry was also just asked to comment on nine specific -- and incredibly poorly worded questions regarding this funding requirements for this program and the ability/feasibility of industry to meet prototype program objectives. What does this have to do with XM-8, you ask? Well, do a little leg work yourself and look up the SCAR-L requirements. Anyone notice how much they appear to be written exactly for the G-36, er XM-8? Again, I would suggest that anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility, should contact their member of Congress and demand that this wasteful program be terminated immediately and that programmed funds be redirected to meet current fielding needs, to include cost-effective product improvements such as the many great ideas being submitted under the Army's Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP).
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 7:58:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2003 7:59:45 AM EDT by wyrm_142]
Linkage to the SCAR paper post: [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=169546&w=searchPop]SCAR paper out[/url] and to the referenced Crane statement of requirements (yes it is in the above mentioned post, but hey, why make ppl work if I'm re-reading it for the um-nth time?): [url=http://www.crane.navy.mil/supply/03r4822/03R4822_SPEC.pdf] SCAR Performance Spec - DRAFT [/url] Mach6 - I'll have to disagree with you about the XM-8 fitting the bill for the SCAR (it does, but I don't read it as the only choice). First the SCAR is a USSOCOM requirment, not one of the Army. So shifting funds from SOCOM to the Army isn't like a deposit slip (and SOCOM has other things they would spend the $$$ before giving it to a service). Oh, and SCAR is SOPMOD compatible. Alot of the requirments can be met with a souped up version of the M-16. However, there is a requirment (3.2.1.6 - Surface finish). That the M-16 doesn't really meet all too well: "All external and visible SCAR surfaces shall be of a dull, natural occurring color and have a non-reflective coating/finish (T). The SCAR shall be in a color to support various camouflage combinations with minimum infrared/radar signatures (O). The use of black as a base color is discouraged." Here is part of the requirment that I do see the XM-6 meeting (among others...). Our lovely metal AR's are big 'ol radar reflectors (look at all the right angles with a RAS). A plastic / composite body could greatly reduce the radar signature. As for IR - we all know how hot a barrel can get, and unless you are going to create something with Space Shuttle tiles in the handguards - the IR bit is a strech (perhaps that is why it's an Objective requirment). Bottom line - we all read things slightly different. Are any of us ever going to be able to own a SCAR (or XM-8) - NO. My hope is I cross-train it into AFSOC and get issued all the great toys (maybe that would stop me from buying them - and then I would shoot more than once every 2 years). cheers, wyrm
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 9:51:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2003 8:58:58 PM EDT by Green0]
"Here is part of the requirment that I do see the XM-6 meeting (among others...). Our lovely metal AR's are big 'ol radar reflectors (look at all the right angles with a RAS). A plastic / composite body could greatly reduce the radar signature. As for IR - we all know how hot a barrel can get, and unless you are going to create something with Space Shuttle tiles in the handguards - the IR bit is a strech (perhaps that is why it's an Objective requirment)." Space shuttle tiles on the barrel can't help it cool off. (maybe they will incorporate a bottle of liquid nitrogen to cool the barrel? : ) ) Here's my accessment.... That HK product doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. HK is just doing some major wishful thinking. That rifle would be nearly obsolete right now let alone in 2009. All it is is a G36 with a collapsible stock. That rifle would force us to use an inferior sighting device (as it is built in) not to mention that it would really limit the rifle's user-compatibility and ergonomics. (where do you mount a night vision optic on that?) What about a backup sight in case of battery failure?[b]sorry did some research found out batteries are not part of that sight (and although many think it inferior to an aimoint nothing short of broken or obscured(dirty) glass should be able to render it inoperational)[/b] Also that hump on the cheekpiece is shaped perfectly to artificially magnify recoil and transmit it to the zygomatic arch of the shooter's face. don't believe me (ever shoot a high-point carbine or a FAL? that is a poor stock design period. The cheekpiece should have a zero slope or a downward slope toward the reciever so the users face can move slightly in recoil. [b]I don't know what happened to the RROC it sounded great to me:[/b] less parts to clean and lubricate (chamber/ gas piston/ gas cylinder [instead of the current B/BC/upper reciever/chamber/buffer tube]) the barrel heat sink allowed 500rd full auto tests with minimal overheating the buffer system eliminated most of the recoil something like 7000+ MRBF. [b]What went wrong? [/b]It did require a wrench to takedown but that doesn't seem horrible. (esspecially when you can lose the wrench today and fire 7000 rds before you need to look for it.)
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 10:05:04 AM EDT
What went wrong? It did require a wrench to takedown but that doesn't seem horrible. (esspecially when you can lose the wrench today and fire 7000 rds before you need to look for it.) Hahaha,.....now thats funny shit!!!
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 7:02:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2003 7:10:05 PM EDT by Colt-653]
Everyone seems to be so worried about the XM8 project. If and that's a big [red]IF [/red]it gets adopted it will use 5.56 ammo and M16 magazines. I think a lot of people are worried that the M16 will become obsolete and they won't be able to resupply if TSHTF or TEOTWAWKI. Come on there are USANG and USAF units still using M16 and M16A1's. The DOD doesn't have enough small arms to equip the troops as it is.Colt and FN each just got new orders for M4' and M16A4's. CAPCO and others are pumping out A2 and A4 PIP kits as fast as they can. Look for the major players to develop a new upper and parts for the M16 series. Just like they did back in the late 70's with the M16A1E1 project that became the M16A2. The XM8 is far from a done deal.
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 9:05:41 PM EDT
Look for the major players to develop a new upper and parts for the M16 series. Wise words right there (the M4 with an upper change can do most of what they are wanting). I heard someone commenting about the M4 being ergonomically flawed (all I could think is "Ergo grip and E stock" why not just change these two (cheap when mass-produced) parts. If they need that reduced radar signature they could switch to polymer Ar-15 parts and RAS's (maybe RAM coated barrels and small parts too). I really don't see why we would need to reduce the radar signature of a foot soldier's weapon though (we might (key word being might) someday field some kind of anti-personell seeking missile but I doubt anyone else will have the money to soon follow.)
Top Top