Dave, not a damned clue. Please do keep us updated, as this is getting more and more interesting.

-Cap'n

I thinbk I need to get married so somebody can put a cap on my gun spending.  Coldblue, you are cold, my friend, I got to get me one of those 16 inch mid length URX.  

600yard indoor range sounds great, that would be a lot better then shooting into that dirt mount you guys do right now. [;)]

What rifle will replace it?

from above:  "what rifle will replace it"

..XM8!

Booooooo! Hisssss!

That is not set in stone of course!

I think the real issue with this totally subjective XM-8 Army (political ?)decision,i.e., no open solicitation of requirement & subsequent competition) is that unfortuately, there is a precedent of having a new weapon being successfully jammed down the user's throat.  I mean the Army small arms/ordnance corps, etc.,was pretty well on record favoring the M14 over the M16 at the time.  In fact, they were pretty much dead set against the M16, but they lost the political battle.
My fear for a lack of competition also has a precedent, because its not like Mr. Stoner had not moved "beyond the gas tube" by the late 60's, I mean he had the Stoner 63 System at the time, the Marine Corps was in love with it, and even using it in infantry company size units in Viet Nam BEFORE the decision was made by the Army to adopt the M16.
My bottom line here is that the XM-8 is yet another rifle (like the M16) that WAS NOT developed from a validated user requirement process, but is (at best) the "best effort" of a few well meaning & talented engineers of what "they thought" the user needed as "an afterthought point-blank weapon" to jam up under a multishot grenade launcher primary weapon that was only successful in squandering the Army's small ams budget for the last 15+ years seeking so-called "leap ahead" technology instead of paying attention to what was broke.

VERY Interesting read...

ditto on the preban uppers.

Dave - will be talking about some preban guns to CAN...

Update:
This week Crane opened negociations with KAC and others from both the new SOPMOD Block 2 Rail System element of the MDNS Solicitation and 14.5" Barrel Model Sound Suppressor from the Family of Muzzle Brake Suppressor programs.
Among other requests, they asked for the originally proposed prices to be extended past their original expiration dates.  
This was necessary to give the government several more months of time to deal with the one or two "toad in the road" professional protesters who are using legal loopholes to prevent the needed best and finest new equipment from reaching our troops currently engaged in combat.
And to support my opinion about the current need being real and immediate, we (KAC) have received some sizeable orders for both the current M4 RIS rail forend system and our M4 QD Sound Suppressor in the last 10 days.  So why would they be buying more of the "old stuff" on the eve of selecting and awarding contracts for the "needed best and finest new equipment?"   Because there is a real "imediate need" that these "spoilers" are preventing from being fulfilled in the most timely way possible.
Thanks Bob, Art, Angelo, & Dick (BAAD)

Thanks again for the insight Coldblue.  Interesting thread for sure!

Negotiations are officially closed on the RIS II.  We wait.  The protester waits.  My personal belief is that any of the proposed RIS II candidates(that comply with the solicitation spec) will substantially enhance the SOPMOD kit.  Win, lose or draw for us, I hope the men who risk all for our country will not have to wait long.

southern

Roger that.
My understanding is that Crane has taken all the "proposals of interest" to the point of immediate "contract award", so when the GAO decisions the ARMS protest, contracts can be immediately awarded.
This will most likely be for the "10 each" engineering and "10 each" operational test samples, because as it is now, Crane has only one sample from each vendor (that we were required to leave behind following our briefing there several months ago.
And now that we have seen what LTM apparently offered them (i.e., their "easy change barrel" and one-piece monolithic upper receiver component) this whole competition has gone up "a whole bunch of notches."

The apparent LMT offering certainly broke the most new ground.  We explored a similiar concept about two years ago but felt like the machine times involved would be cost prohibitive.  I guess the folks at Crane will determine whether the monolithic concept is "leading edge" or "bleeding edge" technology in the testing phase.

southern

What is a URX?? What does it do? Why is everyone so hot and heavy over it?

And...

Is it cooler than my MPA-30 MAC clone on layaway?

When we (KAC) started working on the "monlithic UR" that USSOCOM (via Crane) said they wanted (about 3 years ago), we immediately looked at, and built some concepts similar to LMT's.  However, as we looked at the life-cycle cost to the user over a 5 to 10 year period, we felt that not being able to share supply system commonality/interoperability with the more expensive components such as UR's, barrels, gas tubes, Armorer Training, TM's, etc., we developed the URX as a more cost effective solution.
URX (actually URX 4X4) stands for Upper Receiver Extending 4-Rail FF Barrel Forend.
With this design, you use the common UR, barrel, gas tube, etc., but the URX screws onto the UR as does the current barrel nut.  So when the barrel is then inserted and the actual barrel nut installed, this action locks the 4x4 forend rail in alignment with the UR.
Another feature of the URX is that the lower rail is removeable to allow the user to clean around the barrel.
This design makes it impossible for the Operator to remove the upper 3 rail portion of the URX forend.  This eliminates wear & tear on the "retunr to zero" interface surfaces which is may happen over time with RIS and RAS securing designs if the users too frequently remove the uppers for cleaning.  I have seen RAS's in Ranger units that have had their rear clamps actually removed by a former Operator to make field stripping/cleaning around the barrel easier.  However, the current user didn't know anything was missing.  All he knew was that the RAS was not as secure as he wanted it to be.  So URX eliminates this possiblity while allowing access for cleaning, attaching a grenade launcher as close to the host weapons barrel, etc.
Although I like LMT's design, I know that Military Armorers would rather have a footlocker full of complete UR's with various barrel lengths than bunches of separte barrels, gas tubes, small parts, tools, workbenches, etc.
I saw an Army Diesel Mechanic interviewed on a morning talk show a couple weeks ago.  The interviewer was impressed that this pretty female Soldier was indeed a Diesel Mechanic, and asked her how many vehicles she had repaired since deploying to Kuwait and onto Bagdad.  Her answer was "none." In fact she said she had not seen her tool box since Fort Bragg.  So then he asked her, "well just what have you been doing."  Her answer, "I am the .50 Gunner on out 5-Ton" (truck).
So you see that in actual combat, many Combat Service Support Personnel who follow in trace of the lead elements in what the Army calls the "Trains", end up primarily employed in secondary roles like Gunners, Drivers, etc.  Then when the advance stops, then they may set up shop, but only after securing a site, developing a defensive plan, standing guard duty or "hole watch".
SO an UR module that only requires the Operator to push on two pins to switch from one barrel length to another seems to be the more practical and fail-safe way to field and forward deploy such a "multi-barrel" concept.

Dave,

Never thought of it that way (CSS).

Always glad for your perspective
thanks for sharing it.


-Kevin

Great posts Coldblue!

The only thing I see as being added parts concerning LMT's design is the torx screws, which could be lost.  Everything else seems to be compartmentalized ie. can't be lost any more than any other upper reciever component.

Granted since the upper and forend are all in one this does make interoperability with current uppers a problem.  But not lowers.

I like the LMT design and I do want a URX as well.......please help make that a reality for us folks[:D]

Horik