New US service rifle!!??

Status
Not open for further replies.

reagansquad

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
386
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/23/mn/mn01a.html

Army zeroing in on new rifle

By Tony Adams
Knight Ridder News Service


COLUMBUS, Ga. — The U.S. Army's pursuit of a weapon to replace the aging M-16 rifle is still on track despite a failed congressional attempt to pump nearly $26 million into the federal budget to manufacture the weapon in 2005.


Riflemen with the I Marine Expeditionary Force shoot M-16 rifles during live-fire exercises in the Kuwaiti desert. The Army is testing a new prototype rifle, below, to replace the M-16, but the cost of manufacturing the XM8 assault rifle is not yet in the budget.
Advertiser library photo

Military and legislative officials said development and testing of the new XM8 assault rifle will run through December. It is the second round of tests for the highly anticipated rifle, with evaluations taking place in the hot, gritty desert near Yuma, Ariz., the tropical jungles of Panama, and the arctic climate of Alaska, said Col. Mike Smith, who oversees the XM8 testing program at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

"After this round of testing, we will present our findings and our ability to meet the requirements, which are developed at Fort Benning, to the Army leadership, which should be in the late February time frame," Smith said.

"Then they'll make a decision on how to go forward on the program, and how fast to go forward on the program."

German gunmaker Heckler & Koch, which has a U.S. site in Sterling, Va., is working with the military on the prototype rifle. It would be mass-produced by H&K at a 150,000-square-foot plant the company plans to build in Columbus, Ga.

H&K spokeswoman Jimmi Clifton said initial work could mean about 200 jobs, although more could be added as production ramps up. The company has said a contract with the government could be very lucrative, perhaps worth up to $1 billion over 10 years.

Clifton said the company remains in a testing mode and is hoping to begin plant construction soon and have at least part of the facility up and running by early 2005. But it's unlikely the entire factory will be built until H&K receives some signal that federal funding for mass production of the XM8 is forthcoming, she said.

"There's no way I can put a time on that," Clifton said of a production contract. "It could be tomorrow. It could be a year away."

It appeared funding was on the way in July when U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey's office said $25.9 million had been tucked into a $417.5 billion House appropriations bill for the XM8.

The Georgia Republican, whose district includes a portion of Columbus, backed off that assertion after learning the money had been squeezed out of the budget to make room for additional funding for the war on terrorism.

The next chance for the XM8 program to receive money for manufacturing and procurement will be when Congress reconvenes Sept. 7, said Brian Robinson, communications director for Gingrey.


U.S. Army photo
"We're going to do everything we can to get this into the next supplemental budget," Robinson said.

"We understand what happened and we want to fix it as soon as we can."

Should funding come through this year, Smith said the XM8 could be in soldiers' hands as soon as summer 2005. If not, the weapon would be in the 2006 budget and make its way into the ranks by that spring.

The $26 million in funding that was shot down by Congress would have outfitted about two combat brigades, or about 8,000 soldiers, Smith said.

Although Army leadership could decide in February to put a final approved version of the XM8 assault rifle out for competitive bidding, Smith said that's unlikely.

"I can't make promises for senior Army leadership," he said. "But assuming H&K is successful testing against the requirements, it would be unusual" to take the production contract away from the company.

The weapon is getting high marks from troops during evaluations, said Smith.

Observations include:

• It's more versatile than the old M-16 rifle it will replace and should fire thousands of rounds before jamming, rather than the few hundred shots before the M-16 typically jams.

• It's much easier to clean and maintain.

• Training time is reduced since it's a single weapon that can be modified to fire short distances, long distances, launch grenades, etc.

• It should last longer, with barrels able to fire 15,000 rounds before being replaced rather than the 6,000 to 9,000 rounds it takes to wear out an M-16 barrel. Developers are trying to push the XM8 barrels to 20,000 rounds before replacement.

The XM8 will cost more to make initially, but should settle into a full-rate production cost of $600 to $700 a copy. That compares to $500 for the M-16 and $950 for the M4 carbine.
 
...Now I don't know much about contemporary demands on military rifles, but the fact that the thing has no iron sights strikes me as a possible hazzard.
 
XM8_Rifle_2.jpg
 
I think the newest version has BUIS. I'd really like a civilain semi-auto only XM-8, but if the rifle does become the M-8, I doubt HK would go for the civilian market, and would focus on their military contracts first.
 
It looks like a Laser Tag rifle. But then, I guess the M-16 was originally teased for looking like a "plastic toy."
 
Interesting story. The wife and I took time off from the congressional campaign to go to Rhode Island. Our son-in-law (who works for NASA) was presenting a paper, and chairing a session at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. We stayed at a bed-and-breakfast near the convention center.

Staying at the same place was a conference attendee from Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I asked him what he did, and he said, "Missiles, artillery, explosives -- anything that goes boom."

I asked about the XM8 -- he said, "they've been around and around with that thing -- they've got to adopt it, or be accused of wasting money."

Interesting reason for adopting a new weapon.:(
 
If HK gets the contract, I guess that will put Colt out of business.
 
If HK gets the contract, I guess that will put Colt out of business.

Hasn't FN been the main suppluer of rifles to the military for a couple decades now?

I very much doubt Colt is going anywhere any time soon.

I personally don't like the XM8, and think that HK is the great satan. But that is my opinion.
 
FN is the current supplier of M16A2s and A4s, the M249 and M240G machine guns. I think Colt still makes the M4s.
 
My 2 cents....

We have always made the rifle what we adopt, and whatever cartridge we throw in it is whay we use, and I think that is a bit backwards.

The M16/M4 do the job well enough that we have reached the point that we should not be looking at a new rifle platform. Since it is the cartridge/bullet that does the work, we should first determine what cartridge(s) we should be using.

If/when we can come up with a laboratory method of testing that can at least somewhat accurately predict bullet performance on a human target, with/without body armor, we should then determine if a .223, .308 or something between, such as a 6.8, 6.5, etc, is the way to go.

Then once we know our cartridge need, we go from there.

Right now, I see an XM-8 in .223 not taking us much further into the future.
 
Quote:
---------------------------------------------------
We have always made the rifle what we adopt, and whatever cartridge we throw in it is whay we use, and I think that is a bit backwards.
----------------------------------------------------

Actually, the .30-40 and the .30-03 were designed before the rifles to fire them were selected/designed (the .30-06, of course, is a modified .30-03).

The cartridge that became the 7.62X51 NATO was adopted before the M14 was developed -- there were several candidate rifles tested that used that round.

The same is true of the .45 ACP, and the cartridge now known as the 5.56X45 NATO preceded the AR-15.

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------
The M16/M4 do the job well enough that we have reached the point that we should not be looking at a new rifle platform. Since it is the cartridge/bullet that does the work, we should first determine what cartridge(s) we should be using.
---------------------------------------------------

The XM8 simply offers no significant tactical capability over the M16. The fact that it looks sexy is not adequate justification for adopting it.
 
The more complicated you make something the more a GI is gonna break it or not use it to it's potential. That's why a Chemlight is perfect for a Joe Blow Troopie, no moving parts and he has to break it to get it to work.

Why not design a better round on an M-16 platform? 6.8 on the same frame and design would reduce training time to near zero and still be more effective. I kind of agree with Molonlabe, if it looks "spacey" then we need it type of attitude has got to stop. the atricle says we need to replace the "aging" M-16, When have they replaced the old worn out M-16's with new ones. Just cause it's old doesn't mean that the design is bad or flawed. An updated and larger caliber M-16 would be my first choice.

rant concluded

Fmr SSgt US Army and firearms instructor
 
Can somebody post a picture of the new flattop version?

If the XM8 is more versatile than the M16, why are there no provisions for rails and aftermarket optics? Also, that folding rear sight in Harry Tuttle's picture doesn't inspire much confidence.
 
Just a random thought, but does anyone know whether or not they took a look at the operating principle used in the AN-94 to incorporate into a new service rifle?

From what I've been able to gather, it offers an approximately 150% increase in hit probability at combat ranges, is extremely rugged and reliable in operation and is as least as easy (if not easier) to clean and maintain as the M16.

I'm just guessing, but I'll bet that we could get the patent rights or license the design for a bunch less than it's costing to develop this one. If the Russians can't afford to build and issue them to their troops at this time, perhaps we could sort of short circuit their doing so by buying it out from under them.
 
this was on the cover of one of the newer popular mechanics. they actually have a whole section on present and future military weapons.
 
There are still ways to increase the lethality of the 5.56 and as for the XM8, they need to lose that "carrying handle". The Army won't let the soldiers use it anyway. Catches on everything and is just in the way. Happy trails.
 
God save us and our troops from Rumsfield's obsession with technology.

Just to take the opposing point of view....

I'm sure someone said something similar about:
-percussion caps
-repeaters
-the Garand and other semi-autos.

I'm not a fan of a 10" barrel for .223, but the ranged 20mm airburst seems like a great tactical advantage for our guys. And the other 20mm ammo (AP, etc.) gives a small squad a lot of versatility.
 
"• It's more versatile than the old M-16 rifle it will replace and should fire thousands of rounds before jamming, rather than the few hundred shots before the M-16 typically jams.'

I imagine I've handled several dozen atypical ones, then, including M16s, M16A1s, M16A2s, M203s, AR15s, CAV15s, OA15s, etc. Only three jams I've ever had were a bad mag, a torn rim and a sudden drop to -30 that gelled the oil. If it's really a concern, you can switch to a piston mechanism instead of direct gas.

"• It's much easier to clean and maintain."

So's the AK, but I don't want the POS.

"• Training time is reduced since it's a single weapon that can be modified to fire short distances, long distances, launch grenades, etc."

Sort of like the M16, M4, commando, M203 and 24" sniper AR?

"• It should last longer, with barrels able to fire 15,000 rounds before being replaced rather than the 6,000 to 9,000 rounds it takes to wear out an M-16 barrel. Developers are trying to push the XM8 barrels to 20,000 rounds before replacement."

Replacement barrels are just as available for the M16. A new receiver is not needed to accomplish this. Likewise, if they went back to a barrel that rifled rather than threaded, so to speak, life would extend.

"The XM8 will cost more to make initially, but should settle into a full-rate production cost of $600 to $700 a copy. That compares to $500 for the M-16 and $950 for the M4 carbine."

So it will cost slightly more and do pretty much the same thing. Brilliant. And where do the rails mount?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top