Armory Sponsor
Posted: 5/18/2008 12:44:39 AM EDT
|
In the recent issue of SAR, there is an excellent article about the M4 and its op-rod competition. These rifles would include the SCAR, 416 and XM8. In the latest harsh environment dust-tests, the XM8 had the highest MRBF out of the competition. Not only that, but it seemed to be finsihing at the top of the heap in this round of testing, or at least it was the basis for much comparison. The XM8 situation is really confusing to me. It didn't pass tests and sucked, yet is blowing away its competitors? Other than the DoD's usual H&K hatred, whats going on here? I heard the reports of melted trunions*ala G36* in early XM8's, but has that been corrected in the tested "spiral 3 prototypes"? I would hope so, as it doesn't matter how relible the weapon is if it experiences melting/zero shift when it gets hot. Also, does anyone know approximatly how many XM8's were made? I see them in movies/TV constantly. Now that General Dynamics essentially owns the weapon, it seems like it would be incredibly easy to make a civilian/LE variant. Whatever the XM8 is or isn't, it would seem to be a guaranteed success. Op-rod rifles are increidbly popular right now, and if people will spend 1600.00 on an SL8 or 4k on a G36 clone, they would probably pay 2k for a factory XM8. Not to rehash the same old XM8 shit or start a DI vs op-rod argument, I am more looking for actual specific information on the XM8. As far as I am concerned, and the scientists doing the testing, the DI/piston argument is settled.  Were we mislead about this gun or was it considerably improved? |
|
On 31 October 2005, the XM8 program was formally suspended, "pending further US Army reevaluations of its priorities for small caliber weapons, and to incorporate emerging requirements identified during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Government will also incorporate studies looking into current capability gaps during said reevaluation." -according to global security |
|
I got to handle one of the latter XM8's, talked to some HK reps, and knew one of the Marines who helped test the early ones. Problems with the early ones. All the stocks broke No iron sights Built in optic wasn't that good non-standard accessories mount The later model I handled had built in flip up irons(not very impressive, but better then nothing) And they made a railed fore end and top rail available. Anther thing was it used their own mag design. That can be good because they can improve the mag over the STNAG mag, but also bad since we would have to replace all the mags in the system. What I believe it came down to is we gave HK lots of money to make this, then they gave us a second rate product. Finally by the time the kinks were starting to be worked out, the US Govt/DOD said Fuck the XM8. Personally, I think the XM8(with further improvement) would be a nice gun, but it did not provide enough of an improvement to warrant military adoption. If HK was smart, they should have made a civilian version, those I think would have sold well, and having the gun in production, and having Americans field testing it, could have help speed the improvement/upgrade process. Somewhere I got a flier showing one of the last XM8 adds showing all the configurations and adapters and so forth. It seems like a good idea. The gun is much lighter then the SCAR-L, but I would rather have a SCAR-L. |
|
I'm sorry, but that SAR article was a piece of trash, and I'm frankly both shocked and disappointed that SAR printed something that blatantly political and fanboyish. From the subtitle "Information that Shook Up the Small Arms Community" to the twelve fucking pages spent ragging on the M4, the whole article sucked. It was never explained as to why the author felt it necessary to replace the term "piston-operating system" with "op-rod carbine". I find it extremely hard to believe that "even after more than 2 years of hard training and combat use, not a single part was replaced in any HK416" (p 83). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I find it damned hard to believe that not a single part on any of numerous rifles ever broke. Parts fail and guns break, and stamping HK on the side of a piece of aluminum does not increase the tensile strength of an alloy. Including photos of M16s having problems in Vietnam, along with a product display for the SCAR, is subtle (and skillful) biased reporting. Most damning, the article spends pages playing up the SCAR/416/XM8 over the M4, and then completely omits full details of the 2007 Army testing. It most certainly wasn't for lack of space, considering that the article took up a full dozen pages. While they mention that the M4 used issue GI aluminum mags, they neglect to report any number concerning the rate of magazine-related failures in the test. In contrast, Army Times reports that 239 out of 882 stoppages for the M4 were due to the magazine. Honestly, I'm neither for nor against the M4, What I am against is idiotic fanboyism coupled with political maneuvering working to subvert the ideal of a fair evaluation/procurement process (a futile hope, I know). |
|
The guy clearly didn't like the M4, which shouldn't be a suprise to anyone as there are plenty of legitimate reasons not to. There was some bias, no doubt, but I was more concerned with the numbers, which are accurate and verifiable. As far as weather or not the AWG replaced parts on thier 416's, I don't know...That quote came from them, not the author. You would have to question them about it...That being said, I'm not really that suprised by that. You don't know how many round they were firing, relative to the weapons service life. I forget what it is, but thought it was something like 20,000 rounds. A small unit, who only had a limited number of carbines, may not exceede that number. Just because a weapon is deployed in combat doesn't mean that it will ever be fired. Its not really fair to blame M4 failures on just the magazine. The design of the magwell precludes it from using a truly optimal 30 round magazine. The gun/caliber was designed for straight 20 round magazines, yet another blunder in the original design. The USGI 30 was just one 30+ round magazine adapted for the M16 during Vietnam. Sure, Pmags and Lancers are great, however other magazines provided this level of reliability years ago, though not durability. The USGI 30 isn't a terrible magazine, but its hardly the best. Using a optimized magazine, that corresponds directly to a weapons specific design as a much better option than fabricating something at China Lake in a hurried time of war....and then sticking with it for 30+ years. I didn't mean to detract from the 416 in my OP. I wasn't at all suprised to hear the 416 was working, and working very well. It also was no suprise that the SCAR was working properly eiether. What did catch my attention was the much maligned XM8's exceptional performance. IIRC, early XM8's were essentially G36's with improved modularity with minimal functional changes. Which would leave you with a weak trunion and European weirdness. Does anyone know what if anything was changed with the "Spiral 3 prototypes"? The issues with the G36 are well known and probably very easy to correct during a development cycle. General Dynamics owns the rifle now, but who is making it and where? Is HK still making them, if so in AL or Germany? I still wonder how many exist, as they pop up in TV/movies all the time. As they appear to be functional weapons, I wonder how/where prophouses are getting them. Where they made the US, it would be exceedingly easy to offer a semi-automatic only version. It would also be in thier best interest, not only would they get revenue from civilian/LE sales but it would further develop the product and its reputation. Were it more visable, more known, maybe some heavy-handed and ignorant Secretary-type would make a brash decision to adopt it service wide. I would buy the fuck out of an XM8. Seriously, who is making them and who can we bother about this? |
No, they're not, they are inherent in the design of the weapon. The plastic receiver just isn't up to military service standards. No amount of tweaking the design is going to change that. The XM8 experiment is dead and needs to stay that way. The reason the SCAR even exists is because SOCOM knew that real fighters that depend on their small arms needed something improved over the M4, and were in horror that instead they might be stuck with the XM8. The G36's time as a military arm is ending... even the Germans are looking for a replacement. The AR18-based operating system inside the rifle is reliable however, as is demonstrated in this test. Realize that the test results are for one particular situation under specific test conditions and in no way are definitive in determining whether a firearm is better than another overall. The article was harsh on the M4 but frankly it's past time someone was. That doesn't mean that it has to be thrown out and another type of rifle adopted, but rather an indictment against the Army's obsession against incremental change & improvement in small arms. Revise some of the parts designs, materials, and specs and you could have a much improved M4-based carbine in the field. Unfortunately, rather than fix the problems with the M4 (at little cost) the Army would rather spend millions on pie-in-the-sky concepts that will never actually work.
Hk =/= value pricing |
+1 Looking at History at what it took to get the Army to drop the M14 for the M16, I think it will take an act of Congress to get the Army to go with any new rifle. |
|
It's like how the Airforce orders up a ton of F-22s and F-35, but didn't request more C-17s and C-130s in its budget request this year. I'm not saying we don't need F-22s and F-35s, BUT sometimes other things that are just as badly needed get pushed to the back burner. M16 is an older design than most the men and women that use it now. It's a fine system but it's 2008 and we have been smart enough to make progress now. The problem is the Army didn't have an open competition for the XM8 and that was just dumb. You set the specs you want and invite everyone and their cousin to submit a rifle that they think fits it best just like SOCOM did with the SCAR competition. It really wouldn't be rocket science and I believe they could keep the per unit cost pretty low and perhaps very close to being on par with the Colt. Problem for DOD comes in the actual switch and logistical nightmare that would come with it. If you didn't make a switch overnight you'd have two primary rifles with different parts for each to have to contend with. The short term troubles though I believe are vastly outweighted by the long term benefits of a modular gas piston system. In the long term DOD would probably save a lot money. However we all know by now with the different kit for each service that DOD doesn't exactly care about streamlining expenses. |
|
I mentioned that the G36's issues were well known. The two biggest gripes with the G36 usually boil down to the polymer and optics. Both of these are incredibly simple to improve...A G36K with the pic/sight rail has already rectified one of the issues. The G36 was designed in the late 80's/early 90's and started production in 1995. Better polymers now exist which will make for a more robust weapon. One thing that should never be polymer though is the barrel/receiver interface. Adding a steel trunion would fix the melting/zero shift issues and would be a relatively simple issue to correct during a development process. I am not a G36 fan and its popularity in the US has waned. HK has all but stopped actively marketing this gun in favor of the 416. I was most disapointed with my G36 expereinces. That being said, the core is excellent. The AR-18 derived operating system is exceedingly reliable and has proven to be so on numerous different weapons, including those designed in Asia. It even works well in the L85A2, though recent reports about this weapon during the GWOT haven't been very good. The workmanship of L85's made by the UK government is tantamount to Vulcan. No operating system would correct these deficeincies. HK made many improvements, but there is only so much you can polish a turd. Again, the two biggest issues with the G36 would be very easy to correct. It seems to me you have a blind-bias without any personal experience. The G36 isn't perfect, but it continues to be used the world over. Our federal goverment/military has bought several thousand*probably 3-5k or less total*, not to mention the numerous purchased by the UK government, the Germans and the Spainish-who recently adopted it. It the C and K model are both a staple in the international special operations community from Greece to Croatia. The weapon isn't perfect, no weapon is, but it has proven to be an excellent 5.56 infantry weapon. The Germans are doing all kinds of stuff with thier small arms, per the usual. Still, they have been happy with the G36 and no matter what they do, it will be in thier inventories for years and years to come. Its already in its A1 and A2 variants, and its very unlikely they would abandon it for anything short of a G11. They had always looked at thier HK33 and G36 models as interim solutions. I am hardly an HK or G36 fan, though I do respect thier strong points. With all the 5.56 weapons on the market, G36 users have plenty of choice. The fact that many goverments*including our own* have adopted it and continue to use it prooves that its a reliable/effective weapon. Whatever peculiarities exist would certainly be blunted or corrected during a multi-million dollar development/production program. While the XM8 has apparently performed excellently in these latest tests, I don't see it ever being adopted service-wide. I wouldn't personally support any "replacement" weapon. IMO, purchasing 416 or possibly even Colt op-rod uppers is the best solution. It will be much more cost effective and thus a more tolerable solution. Many components will be shared, including magazines and training would be nearly identical. Figuring out how to train soldiers on a new rifle would cost millions all by it self... A G36 can be had for around 1400.00, depending on the model. HK also has domestic G36 production capacity, which means they could offer a civilian G36 this fall if they were so inclined. My biggest question is who is making the XM8? HK doesn't own the rights any more, so is General Dynamics making it or is HK acting as a sub-contractor? Any guessses? The XM8 is being made in the U.S. which means it would be incredibly easy to offer them for civilian sale. |
You think the G36's barrel trunnion is plastic?  It's steel. The trunnion is not the problem, it's the fact it's housed in a plastic upper receiver. And no, there still is not a plastic that will hold up to military firing conditions regularly. HK's plastic isn't as shitty as you think it is either though. The XM8 is outdated. It was outdated 27 million dollars ago when HK received funds to build something revolutionary and failed to do so. They negatively surpassed their requirements in almost every aspect, and in the end they had a G36 with a telescoping stock, a heavy rail system, and one extra receiver vent and some cheap little heat shields that failed at solving their over heating problems. The loose tolerances saved the XM8, not the hype. I called the test in advance based off of the rifles that had the most internal receiver clearance, and was not surprised when I was 100% spot on correct. Magazines also played an important role, but all of these facts are often over looked due to people's bias for their own brand choice. Let's look at the XM8's down sides. -No rails for most of the program, even though rails were popular even at the start. -In the end the barrel was not free floated. -The optic was cumbersome. -Even though being made of mostly polymer, it carried an obese weight rating. -When the Army finally forced HK to use M1913 rails, HK's new rail system added over a pound to the rifle's weight. -The magazines weren't STANAG spec, and were made of a plastic that required special treatment. (Cleaners and storage.) -Half of the relevant things on the XM8 became useless when the OICW was dumped. -Iron sights were not standard. -It has breakage problems due to the amateur stock design. -It suffered from the G36's heat issues. |
For general info since you mentioned it, a recent SAR magazine article identified the sloppy magwell contruction/manufacturing technique as the major cause of functional problems with the L85.
I think there may well be some very interesting news from Germany at some point, if the RUMINT I heard at SHOT is correct. Very, very interesting, and with epic quantities of irony if it comes to pass. The Norwegians have already dumped the G36, the Brits tested it and refused. I seem to remember reading that the Spanish or someone replaced their G36s for personnel deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan...
The XM8 isn't being made anywhere. Kaput. |
|
Its not a "variant" per-say, as that implies that its a desendant of the HK G36. However, it was clearly inspired by the G36....There is alot of similarity, though they claim that its vastly superior. IIRC, it has a higer MRBF than the G36, but who knows. I didn't mention this as Mexico is hardly a first-world military. The Mexican military spends more time in the "export" business than fighting battles. With the exception of the Mondragon, Mexico doesn't really have a bright history of small arms development. The FX-03 seems to be an improvement, but I don't know if the development of an indegenous system was as cost effective as procurement or licensed production of the G36. Its very similar to the G36, so at best, it could only be slightly better overall IMO. From what I have seen/read, it would fall somewhere between a G36E/K and an XM8. Not the best company.... The G36 is a popular rifle the world over, especially amongst special operations forces. You could argue that the G36 is a lesser evil, especially in the carbine, sub-carbine range. For military use, the rest of the world seems to agree that the Colt Commando or even M4 isn't ideal for CQB work, especially when using a suppressor. That pretty much leaves you with two other choices, the G36 and Sig 551/552. The G36 is cheaper, lighter and easier for end users to configure than the Sig. So long as you don't do successive Cmag dumps, reliability should be similar. Alot of units that use the G36 are also more like American SWAT teams than Navy SEAL's, in that they perform state functions in military guise. Considering that most SWAT teams hardly fire a shot, let alone sustained full-auto bursts, the G36 would be quite adequate in terms of reliability. Before the 416, our own government procured several C and K model G36's, for the expressed purpose of Mk18 replacement/suplements. For room clearing with a suppreseed sub-carbine, a G36 C or K would be a better choice, as would the similarly procured Sig 552's. Though, a 416 trums both IMO...The addition of an upper receiver makes way more sense than adopting a specialized weapon system. Its entirely improbable/unlikely, but you could carry a CQB 416 upper for use clearing buildings. Snap your optics off your M4, affix upper and carry on. Its not the likelyest of scenarios, but not impossible eiether. Makes more sense than slinging an aux. CQB weapon which shares nothing other than caliber with your primary. That would be an impossibility IMO. In any event, the XM8 has to be made somewhere. It has gone through several different incremental changes. Some production capacity existed somewhere, as several thousand were poised for delivery/order. The latest generation XM8 prototypes look nothing like a "conventional XM8". They look like a G36 with a KAC RIS, with a Sig 552 stock and the lines of Calico. Where are those being made? Are these the spiral 3 prototypes? I would be quite interested to see one of these "spiral 3" prototypes. Some production capacity has to exist, as these guns have been modified with 1913 interfaces, fluted barrels and more. I could have sworn that XM8's were made in the US at some point... |
|
I too read the SAR article and thought that it was a piece of crap. Actually, the fact that Jim Shatz is a paid employee of HK explains a lot about the article. The army gave HK over 40M in development money and got basically nothing in return. I am really tired of PEO soldier weapons dumping money into projects that go nowhere—caseless ammo, OICW, the list goes on and on. Not only is the SCAR the weapon to be used by SOCOM, but when the army finally replaces the M4/M16 guess what they are going to choose? You guessed it. SF units used the aimpoint, ACOG and rail system way before the avg grunt did. And I don’t know about the piece price, but the SCAR should be cheaper than the M4—extruded Aluminum receiver, less machining operations, use of plastics. Any weapons system that the army adopts is going to have to be backwards compatible with the boatload of optics, buis, lasers, mags, and other assorted equipment that the govt bought during this war. I’ve used the M16A1/A2 and I used the M4 during my last tour of Iraq and it works well. Is it perfect? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but nothing made by man ever is. |
|
I think the key here is to look at cost/benefits of the systems. They clearly weren't there with the XM-8. Add to that the proprietary magazines and optics mounting system HK handed the Army a weapon that wasn't a signifcant improvement over the M-4 in most areas and would have been signifcantly more expensive. Unfortunetly it comes down to performance per dollar. Interestingly enough, this is the same conclusion reach by the ACR program a decade earlier which had significantly larger goals then the XM-8 program. If we are going to run a small arms replacement program, lets run one that will actually push the state of the art for small arms technology, that means a new system soup to nuts. An AR-18 action with polymer furniture isn't the way forward, looking at the ACR canidates again perhaps is. |
The XM8 is G36 with new stock. That's where all the money went. Like many have posted, military rifles should not use plastic for receivers. You give a rifle to a 17 years old kid, it is going to get abused it in the field. The rifle that is replacing the G3 in the Mexican military is a G36 clone called FX-05. The main reason for this is continuity. The Mexican military are equipped with HK small arms hence it wasn't a brainier to adopted the G36. If they waited a couple of more years they would have taken the 416 instead of G36. BTW FX-05 is produce in Mexico by Mexican not HK. |
|
Clearly, the XM8 has no prayer in replacing anything. Best case scenario would be some type of limited procurement, like the Sig 552 or first SR25's. Even then, whats the point? I was just suprised that this gun had such a bad reputation but is performing very well in limited testing... The SCAR will never replace the M16 series. IMO, that would be an outrageous waste of capital, along the lines of the F/22 and F/35. Adding a new weapon to the arsenal would be a huge cost, and the DoD hasn't ever been on the cutting-edge of small arms. As Jim Sullivan has said, the US is only a super-power by land and by sea. When it comes to small arms, we are woefully behind. That SAR artical also pointed out the millions+ that have been spent on small arms programs, where nothing ever came to fruiton. We have no OICW, no stand alone 20mm difilade weapon or no M2 replacement. When it comes to small arms/infantry weapons, there are countries way further ahead than the US. To think that is suddenly going to change is very unlikely. We learn, make changes and then shelve it. We knew in Vietnam and even WW2 how valuable semi-auto DMR's are at the squad level. We allowed the M21 to be replaced by bolt-guns? We have corrected this to an extent, but its just one example of a broken small arms system. The US had a chance to replace the M16 several times, but ultimatly chose not to. During the mid 60's, the US military was using Harrington and Richardson HK33's in SE Asia. An established 5.56 rifle, even though the caliber was "new", it would have given the AR15/M16/M16A1 a serious run for the money. The XM22 would have also been serious competition for the M16, were it allowed to be further developed. The XM22 would have been everything the military wants now in small arms, a system-but it would have been availible in the 60's. We also had a chance during NATO STANAG trials to replace the M16E2PIP before it was adopted/standarized. All of the 5.56 systems enaged in this trial, save the Sig 550 and HK G36 to name a few. Galils, Berettas, FNC's and the HK41 were all entered. The SCAR is so great, leaps and bounds better than the M16, but the FNC wasn't/isn't, even though the SCAR is a modified FNC? The M16 won't be replaced any time soon. Best case scenario, an upper receiver module will be required, and probably just for carbines. M16A2/A4 rifles don't have some of the same challenges as M4's, and thus don't warrant replacement IMO. We have aquired an immense amount of M16's/M4's, so we are more or less stuck with them. That being said, aquring upper conversions would be a step in the right direction. However, they won't be 416 uppers, I can promise you. They will be a Colt product...HK hasn't ever successfully prosectuted a large DoD contract and that isn't going to change. Part of the initial uproar about the XM8 was because of their involvement. H&K is one of the premier weapons developers on the planet, yet they have been edged out of nearly every contract they have vied for. Whats up with that? FN and Colt are power-houses in the defense industry, they aren't going to let some outsider sneak a huge contract away from them. Colt has been outstanding at bilking the government and winning contracts on false pretenses since the Civil War. Don't underestimate thier sneakiness... Ideally, we would acknowledge that better 5.56 infantry weapons might exist. Or, we could simply admit our supply is 40+ years old. Then, you would have a contest between all applicable 5.56 rifles/carbines/SAW's. Then, let the fur fly and pick the winner, no matter whose roll mark the winner has. Most will agree that this is incredibly unlikely... The best we can hope for is Colt 1050 or M5 uppers and hopefully a next generation magazine. A replacement rifle is unrealistic... |
|
There is none. Even terrorists and commie went with AR. Here the thing, reliability isn't the only important part of a rifle. Durability, accuracy, compactness, maintenance, etc. must be considered. One failure in 10k is good enough because your barrel rifling will be long gone. Second you won't be carrying that amount of ammo. The XM8 and G36 like some have posted is a AR-18 with different stock. Get the Masada is a better version of the G36, cost half as less, and you don't have to pay $300 for a barrel change tool that took HK $3 to make. I don't like plastic receiver for rifles. Pistol I can deal with but combat rifle no way. Combat rifles has to be durable enough to withstands the constant abuse in the battlefield. The Marine wasn't hit. He was suppressed by enemy fire, never got a shot off, and didn't have time to put his body armor on when their temporary firebase was attacked by the Taliban. The rifle got pelted with rocks fragments, dropped, and it look like he fell on top of it. I don't think a plastic rifle will fair better.
|
Those are the last people who need to be involved. |
Armory Sponsor