XM8 Again

[Jeff White]

Blain said;

I mean they better at LEAST change the caliber from .223....

The caliber never was .223.

Badger Arms;
So it's state of the art. What does it do different or better then the weapons we already have? Face it, you're talking about change for the sake of change. As I said in my earlier post, that's fine for an individual. It can have great and unforeseen consequences when you change the army for the sake of change.

HK brags that it has gone 24K rounds without cleaning. Do you think that the army is going to tell soldiers not to clean their weapons? No, they tried that once when they rushed the M16 into service in Vietnam without cleaning kits. Let the 24K rounds between cleaning thing get started among the troops and you'll have problems of the magnitude you had in the mid '60s with the XM16E1.

You're right we have invested in the M16 series twice over maybe more then that. And our 40 year investment has given us a small arms system that meets all of our needs. The M4 and M16 A2 and A4 will meet the needs of the service with as big a commonality of parts that the XM8 proponents are claiming the XM8 gives us.

We already have institutional knowledge of the system. We have a logistics system in place to support it. We have millions of MILES transmitters that may or may not work with the XM8.

I'm sure it's a fine weapon, but I don't think it would be a prudent way to spend our defense dollars.

Have you seen this thread in the Infantry School forum on the XM8?
http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Let's say we want a million of the guns. What is the cost, really? Well, let's say that it costs about $2,000 for each gun when you include accessories, spares, training aids, racks, tooling, and armory support changes. What we end up with is $2 billion for a million of the things and the infrastructure. Training? Well, we already spend the money on training so it's just different training.

Jeff:

It seems you misinterpret the point of the argument when they say the gun will go tens of thousands of rounds without cleaning. The point is, if you are Jessical Lynch's buddy and you actually have the chance to fire a weapon, you might want that weapon to go off. If it can go that long without cleaning, you might think it would be more likely to get through a magazine without jamming. It's not that they don't want the troops to clean their weapons, just that their lives won't depend on whether or not the enemy has let them clean them!

Two billion dollars is a drop in the bucket in the overall federal budget. It compares to me forking out twenty bucks for a nice meal at a nice eat-in joint. Let's see, that's ten F/A-22 Raptors.

 

[Jeff White]

It seems you misinterpret the point of the argument when they say the gun will go tens of thousands of rounds without cleaning. The point is, if you are Jessical Lynch's buddy and you actually have the chance to fire a weapon, you might want that weapon to go off. If it can go that long without cleaning, you might think it would be more likely to get through a magazine without jamming.

So because the NCOs in one CSS unit in the Army are unable to enforce the standards you think we need to spend 2 billion dollars to fix the problem? Can you guarantee the XM8 would have functioned? No, because we don't know what the conditions were. But based on the fact that the AARs from that ill fated action say that all of the small arms in the 507th malfunctioned. Should we replace all of them?

Can you show me some documented M16/M4 failures from the combat arms units?

Put enough talcum powder sand into any weapon including an XM8 and it will malfunction. If I were in that firefight, my weapon would have worked because it would have been clean and wrapped in something to keep all that fine sand out of it.

I think your cost per weapon estimate is low. I think we'll be close to $2000 for the basic weapon and maybe twice that amount for all the add ons, at least for the first couple contracts. 2 billion may only be 10 unneeded F22s, but that's big money to Army aquisition. What would you cancel to pay for the new rifles? The A3 Bradley upgrade? Digital communications throughout the rest of the Army? AFATADS fire control system throughout the artillery community? Intercepter body armor and the TC2000 MICH helmet throughout the force? Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend the 2 billion on some of these programs and not fix rifles that aren't broken?

It's not that the XM8 isn't a good rifle. It probably is, but the Army has more pressing needs.

Jeff

 

[Destructo6]

Just how long have we been building autos operated by gas pistons and operating rods?

While true, an Aston Martin DB7 is quite an advance over a Ford Model A.

 

[Badger Arms]

Just how long have we been building autos operated by gas pistons and operating rods?

Didn't catch that statement earlier, Jeff. Why do we build cars the way we do? We build cars with, get this, gas pistons which have gas rings and exhaust not into the crankcase but through a separate exhaust away from the operating mechanism. Cars are NOT built with gas rods that carry and cool gasses from the cylinder off to operate the crankshaft venting their excess gasses somewhere into the inner workings of the car.

It's not that the XM8 isn't a good rifle. It probably is, but the Army has more pressing needs.

You fell into two fallacy's here. The first is the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" one that I even warned you about earlier. The second is one we keep hearing from Congress. That in order to pay for one thing, they have to cut another. Well, let's see, why not cut funding to unnecessary organizations like HHS and the Judicial branch! Truth is, we don't have to cut the budget from the Army and never have had to. They give 50,000 to kids to join, why not give them 42,000 and buy them all a proper gun?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quick question - where are the rails? Everything in NATO attaches via rails these days including pretty much all of our current night vision, vertical grips, etc.

Are we going to replace all of that as well in order to reap the benefits of a 30rd 5.56mm assault rifle (I mean the NEW 5.56mm assault rifle)?

 

[Zak Smith]

Is the XM8 modular enough?

So many of the rifles I see pictures of from Iraq have al sorts of "stuff" hanging off them, from the rails on the float tube. Optics mounting like you see on the SPR does not seem possible with the upper receiver configuration (and charging handle) on the XM8.

 

[Bart Noir]

Agree, the AK-47 release is less ergonomic. But the actual photo of the XM-8 has an M-16 magazine and no sign of the AK style mag release. After all, how can you use M-16 mags in a gun that has the AK release. Only the models shown have the AK release, and they appear to have the G36 magazine. And nobody has commented on that nice pinky color.

Bart Noir
If it's pink will they lick it clean?

 

[Rupestris]

at least they got rid of that hogs foot grip. It fits the pink one though

 

[Destructo6]

After all, how can you use M-16 mags in a gun that has the AK release.

The HK G3/MP5/HK33 have an M16-like push-button and an AK-like paddle. The paddle operates the push-button. IMO, something like that would be a great improvement.

 

[CleverNickname]

After all, the weapons that would become surplus aren't really fully automatic. They just have a little three round burst.

Legally, 3rd burst is the same as fully-auto.

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms,
IIRC your military background is Air Force. The Army has never had the funding the Air Force gets. And it never will. I hate to tell you this, but I think you're living in dreamland if you really believe that congress will cut social programs to buy us a cool new HK rifle. It won't happen and I think you know that it won't happen. Even the Bush administraion is proposing more, not less doemstic spending.


I don't see how if it ain't broke, don't fix it is a fallacy. To me change for the sake of change is the fallacy. You have yet to tell me one thing the XM8 gives us that we don't already have.

To make a significant investment in a new rifle now, almost guarantees that we will have a hard time getting congress to buy us a new one when the big breakthrough occurs.

Haven't you wondered about the timing of the XM8? Is it a coincidence that all of a sudden the XM8 existed as soon as the XM29 OICW was shelved? Could it be because HK has been unsuccessful selling the G36 to any Army but the German army? The whole XM8 idea is nothing more then HK attempting to make up for the loss of the contract for the kinetic energy portion of the XM29.

BTW, our soldiers have had a proper weapon for the past 40 years. Is that the bias you say you don't have against the M16 showing through

Jeff

 

[Destructo6]

Haven't you wondered about the timing of the XM8? Is it a coincidence that all of a sudden the XM8 existed as soon as the XM29 OICW was shelved? Could it be because HK has been unsuccessful selling the G36 to any Army but the German army?

Spain and Portugal also use the G36. Perhaps the UK will follow suite as they look for something to replace the L85.

No coincidence. My understanding is that the XM8 will be adopted so that there would be parts compatibility between the standard issue rifle and the XM29, since the lower part is actually a modified G36. It's not that HK is pushing it becuse of lost revenue. And I hadn't heard that the XM29 had been yanked entirely.

 

[Jeff White]

Destructo6,
The XM29 is dead. It's back to the drawing board for the program. I have that direct from a source in the small arms branch of Directorate of Combat Developments at the Infantry School. No one ever heard of the XM8 until after the XM29 was killed.

The Brits are sticking with the L85A2. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I'm only concerned that our army makes the right decision. There may have been a case for the XM8 to complement the XM29 but it was a weak one at best. With the XM29 a dead issue, there is no need to consider the XM8. We have a couple million in SEP (Soldier Enhancement Program) Funds already programmed in the 2004 budget that just passed to further enhance the M16/M4 system. We already field the rifle/carbine that is the standard for the rest of the world. The XM8 is a step backwards. Spain and Portugal aren't exactly world powers. Guatemala bought the Galil several years ago, but that didn't make it the premier military rifle in the world.

Rumor has it that the Royal Australian Army has signed a contract with Bushmaster for 30,000 M4 type (they can't be M4s because Colts has patented some of the M4 features) carbines. Diamaco is selling C7 and C8 rifles all over the world.

No XM8 proponent has yet told me exactly what we gain by adopting it. Convince me that it is better then what we have. The fact that the M16 design is still outselling the G36 speaks for itself...

Jeff

 

[Number 6]

Military and public financing are immensely complex issues. It is not only the cost and the need for a particular weapon system that drive the development of some weapon systems. When I did my undergraduate work in more than one of my classes we spent a considerable amount of time discussing military financing. A lot of the time the military is given funding that they do not need or want. Take for instance the Sea Wolf submarine. What possible use is this in a world where only one nation can feasibly field a modern fleet of submarines? Essentially there is no use for this submarine other than providing jobs for those who build them. The reason for this is partly because of the political nature of the federal budget. Congressmen Democrat and republican alike fight for funding on projects that benefit their constituency. Also there are times when funding is given due to those who are developing the project since those developers have political sway. There are also times when projects are funded only so that those in power can say they support defense. I am not that aware of the development of the XM8 but it very well might be the case that such political motivations are driving its development. In some economic circles these military projects are seen as a form of subsidy. Just something to keep in mind when considering the financing of military projects.

Secondly the way it looks to me is what we are seeing are prototypes and are not the final product. There are many refinements in looks, ergonomics, and functionality that could be made if it’s approved for fielding. Remember how funky the G11 or the CAWS look or how about the Steyr ACR?

 

[gun-fucious]

with their new blue camo uniforms and XM-8s
the airforce is ready for Starship Troopers!

heres the proposed XM-8 family:

 

[natedog]

"THe army is considering a wide array of colors..."

The XM8 is like, totally FABulous!

 

[Lancel]

CleverNickname

Legally, 3rd burst is the same as fully-auto.

I was joking but thanks for clarifying for those who don't know.

However if the XM-8 does get approved, it would be nice if all those surplus M-16's and M-4's were disposed of in non-destructive manner.

Maybe we could convince congress that it's cost effective to de-mil only the burst mechanism or perhaps at least to sell the uppers through CMP or DRMO.

Larry

 

[Jeff White]

Number 6,
You are absolutely correct in how procurement works. HK knows it too, hence the Columbus GA plant well in advance of any contract. The Army neither wants or needs the XM8. But throw some medium paying jobs in an economically depressed area and you're sure to get local politicians and the Georgia congressional delegation behind you. That's exactly what's going on here. the needs of the soldier don't figure into it at all.

Jeff

 

[PeteyPete]

I'm surprised they aren't going w/ some bullpup design..that seems to be the way many militaries are going today.

 

[Badger Arms]

No XM8 proponent has yet told me exactly what we gain by adopting it.

We gain a more reliable weapon that requires less maintenance. It's potentially less expensive (but we don't get a price tag without an invitation to bid!) and soldiers that have handled it LIKE IT. It also lacks the M-16's four major weaknesses: the buffer system which telescopes far to the rear of the operating mechanism, the gas system which deposits carbon all over the working parts of the gun, the close fit of the bolt in the receiver, and the expensive aluminum receiver.

Nobody who is a proponent of the M-16 can tell me what we'd lose if we went with the XM-8. Don't feed me the money line, you know we're already in the process of replacing the M-16 for a second time... third time in some cases. The fact is we already replace the M-16 and any weapon system not designed by John Browning periodically. The Garands wore out, the M-14's would have worn out, the M-16 and M-16A1's wore out, and now the M-16A2's are wearing out. The question is, since we're footing the bill anyways, do we really want the M-16A451E15 or can we buy something that will potentially work better?

Let's back up a little. What's wrong with buying, say 200 of them and sending them to Aberdeen. Then we'll let the Army abuse team beat the living crap out of them side-by-side with the M-4, the M-16A3, and anybody else who wants their guns tested for free. Wait... we're already doing that! Cool. Let the best weapon win.

 

[Jeff White]

It also lacks the M-16's four major weaknesses: the buffer system which telescopes far to the rear of the operating mechanism, the gas system which deposits carbon all over the working parts of the gun, the close fit of the bolt in the receiver, and the expensive aluminum receiver.

This is all a matter of perception. Funny how those four major weaknesses haven't stopped those soldiers who can have any weapon they choose (the Special Operations Forces of the world) from choosing the M16/M4 over everything else out there. Of course what would those highly trained operators know?

Nobody who is a proponent of the M-16 can tell me what we'd lose if we went with the XM-8.

What about the 40 years of institutional knowledge we have with the M16. I suppose HK is going to provide that as an add on to the contract . No new weapon (or any other piece of equipment for that matter) is fielded without a lot of growing pains. How many changes were made to the M1? The M14 was never perfected. The M16 had it's growing pains. But the M16 is now at the height of it's development. The XM8 is just starting out on that road and it doesn't give us anything we don't already have. So why go there? Why trade a proven system for one that is unproven, but even if it is all they say it is, does the exact same job with the exact same cartridge? What have we gained. You haven't proven to me that the M16 in it's current form is unreliable. I have just a little bit of experience with them after nearly 29 years in the Army. 22 of that in the Infantry.

Don't feed me the money line, you know we're already in the process of replacing the M-16 for a second time...

I wasn't aware of that. We may have upgraded the M16, more then once but we hardly wore them out. Small arms are gaged semi-annually in the regular army and bi-annually in the reserve components and before any overseas deployment. There are 10s of thousands of M16A1s ion the inventory that are still serviceable and that I'd carry into battle any time. You don't really think we just wear them out and throw them away do you?

The fact that we are fielding the M16A4 in some units while others still have the M16A1 should be a reason right there to stop this XM8 nonsense. We'll end up with as many service weapons in the system as we used to have handguns. You'll have units with the XM8, units with different versions of the M16 to include A1s that require the stocking of M193 and M196 ammunition. What a logistal nightmare. The army isn't a big special forces unit that can use the arms room concept at company level in line units. The logistic system has to be able to support the equipment we have. Adding another rifle that doesn't give us any more capability then we already have into the mix is just stupid. What it does, is it guarantees that some units will be non-deployable because we won't have upgraded them yet.

I'm sorry, but HK claims of increased reliability don't impress me. The weapons we have are plenty reliable. Give me a new rifle that does more then the current one and I'll beg congress to fund it. I have already written my representatives asking them to kill funding of this program. I have a meeting with my congressman scheduled during the holiday recess to discuss this very issue.

I have to feed you the money line, because that's what it's all about. Selection of military small arms isn't in the relm of hobbyists, it's serious business. As a taxpayer you should understand that. Perhaps you like the XM8 so much you'd be willing to raise your taxes a percent or two to pay for it? Me, I pay too much in taxes now, and I like to see value for my money whenever possible.

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Jeff, we'll just have to disagree on this and I'll say Uncle. You seem to save a hatred for H&K that I cannot overcome and perhaps I have a hatred for the M-16 design that cannot be overcome. I don't think that we've had 40 years of consatant improvement, we've had 40 years of bandaids to an essentially flawed design. Design hard enough and you'd surely be able to make a brick into a serviceable rifle, but that doesn't mean a brick should be a rifle. Case-in-point is the simple fact that Stoner himself questioned why no further development was given to his round and rifle. He wasn't selling a refined weapon, he was selling a design. He'd wholeheartedly expected the Army to spend a few years developing it as they had with the Garand and SHOULD HAVE DONE with the outstanding M-14.

 

[Deadman]

Rumor has it that the Royal Australian Army has signed a contract with Bushmaster for 30,000 M4 type (they can't be M4s because Colts has patented some of the M4 features) carbines.

As an Australian Army Reservist, I'd like to ask you to please elaborate on that statement.

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms,
We can agree to disagree. I don't hate the HK, just don't see where it's an imrovement over what we have. I do have a lot of personal experience with the M16 though. I have no problems with taking it into harms way.

Don't even get me started on the M14 , Dr. Carten and some luddites in the Ordnance Dept. took the free world down a 20 year dead end road with the M14. We can debate small arms procurement all day and no one will change the other's mind.

Deadman, I heard about the Bushmaster deal here:
http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=6396097073

Jeff