"XM-8 Melts During Tests"

[RepublicanMan]

If you choose to believe what you read on the internet 100% then more power to you.....I used both the pig and the SAW and I know which was more reliable and effective in my case.......maybe all of those guys had different experiences.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I've seen a lot more problems with M60s than SAWs. I haven't been around much, though. Seems to me that the SAW doesn't need the gas system to be wired together, though. M240's better in any case.

Easy ways to jam a SAW, though.

-Load the belt upside down (seen this done).
-Use the 200 round plastic box; sometimes the belt hangs up or breaks
-Use M16 magazines; the weapon is UTTERLY UNRELIABLE like this, from my observations

 

[George Hill]

I carried a Hog and a SAW... given the choice between the two... I'd take the Hog. The Hogs we had were pretty much done... we had one that was so bad we decided to kill it... so we kept firing and firing (clearing jams after 4 or 5 rounds) and tried to over heat the thing to the point it would destruct.
Didn't work... warped a barrel and ran out of ammo... still had the gun though.
Funny thing is - it worked a lot better after that. I guess they are just a lot more rugged.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

The M60 and the SAW are in different classes (Light MG vs. Medium MG) so it's not really a good comparison. I've never had the pleasure of lugging an M60, but I've had plenty of time with SAWs and I've never had any major problems. I've even found a few that like M16 mags (although they are the exception to the rule).

Now, about that M60 versus M240 argument...

 

[Nightcrawler]

Downsides to the SAW:

-Near-useless magazine well. Good idea, I guess, poor execution. Chop it off and save a pound of weight.
-5.56mm chambering...a heavier caliber would be nice in a machine gun.
-Barrel is awfully short; something like 16".
-Tool needed to adjust front sight for elevation (I think so, at least; last time I fired they had us using the rear battle sight for zero!!)
-Plastic ammo boxes are clunky, loud, and fragile. (Not a weapon defeciency though.)
-For some reason it can't use the same blank adapters as the M16A2.
-I'm left handed. When firing prone, with the support hand holding the handguards like a rifle, it manages to spit brass down my right sleeve.
-You have to tape the sling clips otherwise they always manage to come undone when you're standing in the chow line. Muzzle in the dirt anyone?

Oh...and what's with the hole in front of the pistol grip? Doesn't it look like there ought to be a pin through there or something?

Upsides:

-Carry handle attached to the barrel for quick-change;
-Bipod is NOT attached to the barrel (*ahem* M60E1 *ahem*)
-Good sights (though I've seen the apreture sheared off twice...wasn't responsible either time)
-Fairly easy to take apart/clean (I'm not going to mention the time I nearly turned my weapon in without putting the buffer spring back in...armorer said it wasn't clean enough and sent me back...oopsie... )
-Light for a machine gun

Note that FN HAS made a 7.62mm version of the SAW. It's a little heavier, and most certainly won't hold up to the sustained fired that the M240 will, but I'd really like to carry THAT instead.

 

[Grendelizer]

Multipurpose Cartridge

OK, I have to jump in here since we've long ago left the topic of the melting XM-8 and you're onto a topic that's near and dear to me. Here are some quotes:

Mulliga wrote: "If you ask me, they should develop small arms based on engagement distances.
Room clearing or <50 yards - assault carbine/semiauto shotgun
<200 yards - assault rifle
200-400 yards - MBR-type dealie
400-1000 yards - Bolt-action in 7.62
1000+ yards - .50 BMG
Asking one weapon to do all this stuff is stupid."

JShirley wrote: "I will definitely agree about the platforms, but I do believe we can find one cartridge that will replace both 5.56 and 7.62, leaving just something in the 6-6.5mm range, and the 12.7mm."

And, finally, Nightcrawler wrote: "One cartridge would be fine if it was close in power to 7.62x51 while weighing less."

I'm convinced there exists a multipurpose cartridge and it's the 6.5 Grendel. It's basically a 6.5 x 39 improved PPC firing a 123-grain slug (twice as heavy as the 5.56 and yet it has better ballistics), and it can fire a 144-grain slug with better ballistics than the standard 147-grain 7.62. Refer to http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf I haven't seen penetration data yet, but Bill Alexander might bring it to Blackwater this year for some demos. It'd be interesting to see the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC go head-to-head.

Whatever the 5.56 and 6.8 and 7.62 can do at 25 yards, the 6.5 Grendel can do. Whatever the 5.56 and 6.8 and 7.62 can do at 100 yards, the 6.5 Grendel can do. Whatever the 5.56 and 6.8 and 7.62 can do at 500 yards, the 6.5 Grendel can do (and with its higher sectional density, it's potential for penetration is better, depending on bullet construction).
Whatever the 5.56 and 6.8 and 7.62 can do at beyond 500 yards, the 6.5 Grendel can do better. So you've got one cartridge going point-blank to 1000 yards for assault rifles, light machine guns, and light sniper rigs. Just keep the .50-cal. for really wrecking stuff!

Let me try to get back to the XM-8. I think it would be my dream weapon if chambered in the 6.5 Grendel and if the receiver was all metal (I'll put up with the extra, non-melted weight ;-)).

John

 

[Gewehr98]

Well, thanks for the shameless plug, Grendelizer!

Not that you have a vested interest in seeing the 6.5 Grendel promoted or adopted by the DoD or anything.

But calling it the One True Sword is a bit much, especially when one's talking about bettering the 7.62mm NATO round out to 1000 yards. You chose the 147gr FMJ 7.62mm round as the benchmark. That's really nice, but I noticed you didn't compare it to the 175gr M118 round as used by dedicated snipers and DMR operators, using the M14, M21, M24, and M40 systems. Any reason why?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's steer the thread back to the XM8 and open another thread to discuss 6.5, Pig vs. SAW and the other issues.

 

[Grendelizer]

Mr. Bartholomew Roberts: Point taken, sir, about steering the thread back to the XM-8. However, if I could just respond to Gewehr98, since it's as if he challenged me by saying my dog is ugly.

I don't have a vested interest, yet, in the 6.5 Grendel. Just because I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and just because my tormented soul will never rest easy until every AR shooter in America has one, doesn't mean I can't be objective! ;-) Anyway, perhaps you think I'm Alexander Arms, who invented it and does have a vested interest in the DoD adopting it? Well, I ain't them, I'm an unrelated third party and at this point I'm "promoting" the cartridge out of a sense of patriotism and entirely out of my own pocket.

Regarding the M118LR, if you check the ballistics chart referenced previously, both the 123- and 144-grain 6.5 Grendel loadings outdo the 7.62 175gr M118 in most categories, and that in an AR form factor! The chart is from Arne Brennan, who had a hand in developing the cartridge, and though he does have a vested interest in it, I don't believe he fudged the data.

Everything's on the table here, you can make up your own mind, I'm not any smarter than anyone else. You can study the physics and ballistics for yourself, just like I have. If someone has a better cartridge at this point in history for a unified military cartridge, I'm all for it. Don't keep everything in secret shadows, let's see it! To everything there is a season, and this is the 6.5 Grendel's season. When something seriously better comes along, it'll get my vote.

Anyway, what's this thing about the "One True Sword"? Ya lost me there. . . .

OK, I've said my peace. In deference to the moderator, I'll return the thread to the XM-8.

John

 

[Cosmoline]

Let me get this straight.

If you leave the sight "ON", your firearm has NO SIGHTS after a few hundred hours?

That's brilliant. Now our rifles not only need ammo, they need a constant supply of batteries!

I'd dearly love to get my hands on one of these for some torture testing, Cosmo style. It needs to be beaten sight-first against a brick wall several times, be run over by a 2 1/2 ton truck, and be beaten with a Swedish axe. Then if it still functions it's a keeper. Otherwise ditch the thing.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Gadzooks!

Even the greatest battlefield implement ever devised had teething problems before/after issue! And the USMC resisted, wanted to hold on to the M1903 rather than switch to the M1 Garand. At least until Guadalcanal...

 

[MLC]

XM8 sight

I believe the reticle is etched so the sight will function without illumination.

 

[JShirley]

If you leave the sight "ON", your firearm has NO SIGHTS after a few hundred hours

Golly...no sights after a few hundred hours, if you don't change your batteries. Doesn't sound so terrible, after all.

John

 

[Mulliga]

Even the greatest battlefield implement ever devised had teething problems before/after issue! And the USMC resisted, wanted to hold on to the M1903 rather than switch to the M1 Garand.

I'd argue that even if the U.S. had stuck with the M1903 instead of the Garand, there wouldn't have been much difference in the war. The Germans sure didn't seem handicapped by the bolt-action...

 

[otomik]

The Germans sure didn't seem handicapped by the bolt-action...

um, yeah they were. they used machine guns more than any other military at the time, and they used them to good effect. their rapid assault tactics would have worked better if everyone could establish a base of fire to pin down the enemy better in order to manuever. the problem is that they couldn't make up their mind about which automatic rifle to adopt. G41? FG42? G43? StG44? sometimes i think the only reason they had so many k98s and lugers was because it was revenge for the first world war.

i kind of like the 6mm Optimum, very nice BC
http://www.g2mil.com/6mm_optimum_cartridge.htm
if the new cartridge is going to be 6-6.8mm then i favor a long thin 6mm bullet so maybe we can retain that tumbling effect.

 

[Mulliga]

You're right about the reliance on the machine gun, but the average grunt in the German army was issued a Mauser, right? Just like the average Russian conscript got a Mosin, and the average Japanese soldier got an Arisaka, etc. The M1903 is comparable to all these weapons.

I just think that If the Garand never got perfected in time, we would have done the same in WWII.

 

[c_yeager]

If you leave the sight "ON", your firearm has NO SIGHTS after a few hundred hours?

The answer to this "question" is NO. The aimpoint sight issued to the military right now has a battery life between 1,000 and 10,000 hours. And that is with decade old technology.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

the HK sight is not an aimpoint.

 

[thefitzvh]

Of course it isn't.

He's saying that if a company can design a sight 10 years ago with battery life that good, there's no problem doing it today

James

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

but HK is apparently having a problem with it, at least according to the article.

 

[shoobe01]

The answer to this "question" is NO. The aimpoint sight issued to the military right now has a battery life between 1,000 and 10,000 hours. And that is with decade old technology.

Gosh, I can't help but notice that an Aimpoint Comp ML left on is all but dead (useless-dim even at dusk) after about 3 weeks. That's somewhere under 500 hours. A co-witnessed sight leaves you some options, but the current trend to optics-only doesn't seem to leave you anywhere.

I have to wonder, if we are building the sight into the weapon why not a lot more battery, stored in the stock or something? How about a solar cell on top of the handguard (with a killflash to keep from glaring)? How about a kinetic recharger built into the buffer? If we are going to get all these electronics on the guns, we need to start really thinking of them as an integral component. A SOPMOD will /easily/ have 3 batteries (Aimpoint, PVS-14, PEQ-4) in 3 separate compartments. This is lame.



I'm also gonna have to agree with Mulliga that going to war with '03 springfields (or hell, Krags for that matter) would not have led to our demise.