XM8 Again

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms asked?

One question, though. How would you feel if the XM-8 passed the upcoming trials with flying colors and is found to be superior? What quantifiable level of improvement do you want to see? How much cheaper, more reliable, more accurate, more controllable, etc. would this weapon need to be before Heckler & Kochophobes will accept it?

All it has to be is different. It has to give us a capability we don't currently have. It doesn't and that's the fact of the matter. The XM8 does not give us one meter more effective range. In fact the 12.5 inch barrel will actually cut into the effective range of both M855 and MK262 Mod 1 ammunition. It employs an open flash hider that anyone who has been around the military knows will have to be modified. We had to modify the one on the M1D and on the M16. State of the art, but the designers hadn't learned from history that foilage gets caught in open flash hiders?? One of the test XM8s has gone 24K rounds without a malfunction. Several years ago Shooting Times of all people fired a Colt AR15 more then 10K rounds without cleaning or a malfunction. You and I both know that no military weapon in the American army is going to see near that level of abuse. Torture testing aside, practical reliability between the two weapons is about the same.

The XM-8 is state-of-the-art in terms of design, manufacturing, and ergonomics. If you don't think it's an improvement, I'm convinced you can't be pleased.

I have never seen an XM8 and neither have you. We're both making judgements based on the information that is available in the press. I am convinced that the flapper magazine release is less ergonomic then the pushbutton on the M16. I do know that there are many police departments that purchased the G36 which is the XM8's father, and are less then happy with it. The G36 also failed in some head to head competitions for contracts with a couple major federal law enforcement agencies.

The M-16 is a VERY accurate weapon that relies on an engineering marvel (the fact that they get the thing to work most of the time is a testament to the stubornness of the US Army and Marines). It is also VERY finicky as to what ammo you feed it, what powder you use, and requires a chrome chamber and constant meticulous maintenance to operate reliably. Every darned discussion we get into about the M-16 deteriorates into some proponent of the gun saying that it's been 100% reliable in their 10,000 years of experience with the weapon.*

I take it your major problem with the M16 is the direct impingment gas system. So you are a member of the if it doesn't have a gas piston and operating rod it only works by black magic school of firearms engineering. The fact that it works most of the time is do to it being a good reliable design. The fact that there is no gas piston, operating rod and other large moving parts also contributes to it's accuracy. It's not finicky about what ammo you feed it. In most cases it even works with that Wolf stuff. I guess you can say all automatic firearms are finicky about ammunition because all of them are designed to work with ammunition loaded to certain pressure ranges. I don't see how that's a fault of the design. Load an XM8 up with ammunition that doesn't meet the design parameters for pressure and see how well it works. Try it with an M14, FAL or M1 or an AKM for that matter.

The M16 is not the first service rifle we ever had that needed a chrome chamber. Does the XM8 have a chrome chamber and bore?

The M16 does not, I repeat does not require constant meticulus maintenance. It requires no more maintenance then we've asked our soldiers to do on any weapon we've ever issued. Send me a PM. I'm going to copy a video I have of a WWII training film on how much meticulus maintenance the legendary dive into the foxhole, pop up with my barrel plugged and action jammed with mud and stay in the fight M1 required.

I've seen plenty of M16 malfunctions. I've also seen just about every other weapon from AKMs to FALs and M14s malfunction. Most of them are either attempting to operate the weapon when it's plugged up with dirt and dust and mud or operator induced. You can't make a fool proof weapon. Believe me the GI will figure out a way to break the XM8.

Some bullheadedness out there seems to supporr the worship Gene Stoner and his 'IWANNACOOLGUN' creation and call us realists heretics for suggesting that the Emperor wears no clothes. How dare we!

As a realist how much actual experience do you have with the M16 or any other military small arm? What did you do in the Air Force, PJ? CTT? Did you spend weeks in the mud with the M16 as your constant companion? Or did you get one out of the armory a couple times a year and qualify with it? The reason I ask is that in my experience most of the heretics out there are basing thier opinions on things they've read, anecdotal stories they've heard from people and very limited actual experience. In fact I know some heretics who have made real value judments on the M16s performance with blanks, because that's what most of their actual experience with the weapon consists of.

I'm sure I'll start repeating myself so I'll just rest my case at this. I wouldn't have kept debating if I didn't have a religious belief that this is the right gun and the right time. Nuff said.

And I am as opposed to the XM8 as you are for it. I don't feel it's the right weapon at the right time. It is fun debating though. I'm serious PM me your address and I'll make a copy of the M1 tape for you.

Jeff

 

[Destructo6]

No Jeff, I believe the, slightly improved over the M1, M14 is the reason why we now use the M16. Had we adopted a FAL derrivative, who knows: maybe the AR design would be a curiosity like the Johnson rifle.

As for money, the core design has already been developed: the G36. If you'd read, the two complaints brought up about the G36 are a fragile stock and fogging optics. Since the carry handle can be replaced with a rail, which already exists, ACOGs, which we already own, could be mounted on them instead. The fragile stock is another matter since it appears that the Army wants a telescopic version for some reason (similarity with AR?). I'm aware of no information about it's durability. A solid G36 stock would, IMO, be a better idea.

BTW, didn't the aluminium telescopic AR stocks have a problem with cracking/shattering when dropped, hence the switch to plastic?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

*shrug* you can't change buttstocks and PGs on an XM8. you can on the ar-15.

the only maker of parts for the XM8 is HK.

the XM8 will cost lots of money to field, and will cost more money to improve, and still won't be where the ar-15 is at, because it's not open source.

 

[Badger Arms]

*shrug* you can't change buttstocks and PGs on an XM8. you can on the ar-15.

True only of the artists conceptions and mockups. Of course, it's a model, silly. I don't think there is anything preventing one from changing the buttstock on the XM8. We need a TELESCOPING buttstock because the guy might be handled by a 6'3' ape-armed monster like myself wearing a T-Shirt one day, and a body-armor clad pipsqueak wearing a winter coat the next day.

the only maker of parts for the XM8 is HK.

Let's rewrite that. "The only maker of parts for the AR-15 is Colt!" Well, of course, if they developed and patented the gun, they will be making parts for it. Strange you should say that about H&K, however, because they are and always have been the world leader in license-production of their guns. Virtually any piddly country that asked for and paid for the tooling and engineering support got it. They're building a plant in the US and the Army will force them to bid the rifle out anyhow just like they did with the AR-15.

the XM8 will cost lots of money to field, and will cost more money to improve, and still won't be where the ar-15 is at, because it's not open source.

Who says it will cost anythign more than the M-4? I, for one, haven't heard any numbers. Besides, the manufacturing techniques are cheaper. Colt owned all of the initial patents for the M-16A1 and everybody in Washington DC bitched and moaned to no end that the gun was costing too much, blah, blah, blah. When they FORCED Colt to release its technical package to, what was it, Hydromatic, H&R, something like that, the other company couldn't build it as cheap as Colt. If you bid for, say 400,000 rifles, you can really drop the price knowing that there doesn't need to be a follow-on contract, you can buy in bulk, set long-term production schedules, and really go to town on production.

Not open source? We're not talking copywrites here, we're talking patents. The patents have expired on all but a few of the XM8's features. The Miller/Armalite patent for the bolt system, gas rod system, etc. The H&K patents for the trigger group, the Johnson/Stoner patents for the bolt, etc. The patents for the Gas system and for the bolt handle are the only that are still active that I'm aware of. Gas systerm is 5,824,934 and cocking lever is 5,214,233 I think. Those were developed for the G36 and will expire within about 10 years IIRC.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

The XM8 buttstock is part of the reciever.


bushmaster, dpms, armalite, colt, RRA, wilson, crane, olympic, vltor, and lots of others make parts for the ar series, of wildly different configurations.

The only parts available for the g36/XM8 are the ones HK designed.

The rifles in the inventory effectively cost nothing, and a g36 for darn sure costs more than an m4 upper.

 

[Badger Arms]

Confused? So, the buttstock is considered everything to the rear of the pistol grip? Even the mockup has a telescoping buttstock. How many XM-8's have you handled? I didn't know there were published pictures of a real prototype!

You list a lot of companies that make parts for the AR-15 series, however how many made those parts in 1965?

The rifles in the inventory do not cost nothing. They are constantly repaired and maintained and will be replaced on an continuing basis. We are already purchasing M-4's at a fairly steady rate.

Andrew: Where is your limit? When do you propose replacing the M-16? What level of improvement and in what areas do you want to see before we make the decision to replace it? Don't worry, I'm not putting you on the spot, nobody else will answer my question either.

I'll answer my own question. For most XM8 nay-sayers, there is NO level of improvement because the M-16 is the perfect gun. They'll refuse and refute any argument because they don't have the capacity to believe that the weapon they loved MIGHT not be 'all that'. I'm worried, because this is the same mentality which kept us from adopting the M-16 in the first place and could keep us from adopting ANYTHING because what we've got works just fine, sometimes, thank you very much.

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms said:

Andrew: Where is your limit? When do you propose replacing the M-16? What level of improvement and in what areas do you want to see before we make the decision to replace it? Don't worry, I'm not putting you on the spot, nobody else will answer my question either.

I'm not Andrew, but I'll answer. Give me increased lethality at longer range. Give me an all weather day/night sighting system.

The XM8 is neither of these things nor will it ever be. The XM8 is the same as the weapon we have. It fires the same ammunition, the 12.5 inch barrel version will give us less range for maximum lethality with M855 then we have with the M4.

We seem to be at an impass here. You are not able to tell us one advantage to the XM8. It's a newer design...big deal. It's not an improvement on what we have. I don't see how you think it is fiscally responsible to spend scarce tax dollars on a new rifle that does nothing different the one we have.

I have told you and Andrew has told you that we'd be happy to support it if it gave us any more capability then we have. But it doesn't. It's still a 5.56x45mm assault rifle. It does the same thing the ones we already have do. It's not a step up. It's change for the sake of change.

They'll refuse and refute any argument because they don't have the capacity to believe that the weapon they loved MIGHT not be 'all that'. I'm worried, because this is the same mentality which kept us from adopting the M-16 in the first place and could keep us from adopting ANYTHING because what we've got works just fine, sometimes, thank you very much.

First of all, the M14 wasn't popular with the troops. Most of the Army still had the M1 when the M16 made it's debut. The ordnance department never did succeed in building enough M14s to equip the force. The M16 was very popular with the troops until the Army rushed it to Vietnam in large quantities without cleaning kits and patches, then lied to the troops to cover for the loggies by telling them it was self cleaning. Prior to that everyone who handled the M16 wanted one. It was the commanders in the field clamoring to get the lightweight, fast firing M16 into the hands of their troops in Vietnam that got it adopted. No one was saying the M14 worked just fine, thank you...everyone knew that the M14 was a failure. The M16 on the other hand does work just fine. Show it the same about of care you would expect a soldier to give to any weapon and it works just fine.

Give me a new rifle that has it's maximum lethality out to 300 meters, weighs 7 pounds or less, is controllable in full auto and has an intergrated sight unit that doesn't require the soldier to carry 10 pounds of batteries and coolant bottles that ranges the target and gives the soldier a signal (lighted reticule etc.) when he's on target for a first round hit and I'll be singing it's praises everywhere. No matter who makes it. But as I said before, the XM8 does none of those things. It's simply a different manufacturer's model of the same rifle. HK vs. Colt = Ford vs. Chevy. We can have this argument forever. I personally don't want to see my tax dollars spent on change for sake of change. My congressman, John Shimkus sits on the comitteee and is a West Point and Ranger School graduate. Still a LTC in the USAR. I'm quite certain I can sell him on killing the XM8.

Destructo6 said;

No Jeff, I believe the, slightly improved over the M1, M14 is the reason why we now use the M16. Had we adopted a FAL derrivative, who knows: maybe the AR design would be a curiosity like the Johnson rifle.

You may be right. The M14 was an abomination. It's main selling point over the FAL, that it was able to be produced on the existing M1 machinery was an out and out lie. But it didn't happen that way. Dr. Carten pushed the M14 and the 7.62x51 mm cartridge down everyone's throat. Only the Eastern Block learned the lessons of WWII that maneuver warfare demanded a rifle chambered in a mid range cartridge which is capable of both semi-automatic and full automatic fire. I somehow doubt there was a big 7.62x54 vs. 7.62.39 debate in the old Soviet Union.

I think the M16 may have replaced the FAL in it's present form of a 7.62x51 caliber weapon. It is no more controllable in full atuomatic then the M14 is. If we had adopted the FAL in the mid range caliber it was designed for we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Jeff

 

[mattd]

http://dboy.cpgl.net/USA/oicw/xm8.htm

 

[Badger Arms]

Switching back to the old 55 gr ammo gives you increased lethality. Why not just put a 20.5" barrel on the M-16... hmmm, that's more velocity hence more lethality!

I don't think that more lethality is going to be had from ANY .223 weapon enough to justify a switch solely on that metric. Give me a grenade launcher that can detonate grenades beside and behind the enemy in the air and I'd be happy. Hmmmm, but then you can't mount it to the Stoner weapon because that weapon has a buffer system which telescopes into the stock. Hence, you must have the XM8 or another weapon which lacks that buffer system in order to field a weapon with both the grenade launcher and the kinetic weapon in the same platform. You ain't gonna get to keep the M16 if you want your cool grenade launcher that WILL give us the increase in lethality and effectiveness!

It isn't change for the sake of change, it's change for the sake of progression. It isn't Ford vs. Chevy, it's a Ford Festiva vs. a BMW! Hehehe, now I like that analogy!

BTW, did you get my email?

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms,
Yep got your e-mail. I haven't looked through all the attachments yet.

Switching back to the old 55 gr ammo gives you increased lethality. Why not just put a 20.5" barrel on the M-16... hmmm, that's more velocity hence more lethality!

Have you seen the data on the MK 262 mod 0 and Mod 1? Let me know if you want to see it. The new 6.8x43 also shows a lot of promise. I can't release any of that data yet, but I think you'll be impressed. We already have a 20" M16 in the system. The M4 was never meant to replace all the M16s in the system. The Marines just adopted the M16A4 as standard and it's replacing the M16A2 in most Army Infantry units that don't have the M4.

Give me a grenade launcher that can detonate grenades beside and behind the enemy in the air and I'd be happy. Hmmmm, but then you can't mount it to the Stoner weapon because that weapon has a buffer system which telescopes into the stock. Hence, you must have the XM8 or another weapon which lacks that buffer system in order to field a weapon with both the grenade launcher and the kinetic weapon in the same platform. You ain't gonna get to keep the M16 if you want your cool grenade launcher that WILL give us the increase in lethality and effectiveness!

I like the grenade launcher idea. Maybe another 10 years and it'll be workable, buy which timew your XM8 will need to be replaced or modified to accept whatever the grenade launcher ends up looking like. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but Directorate of Combat Developments is looking at a stand alone grenade launcher. Near term it may be a 40mm, the HK grenade launcher is figuring prominately in this, with a carbine (M4) issued along with it. Long term they are looking at a smaller caliber grenade launcher (one that would allow the grenadier to carry a realistic load of ammunition) and developing close in grenades that negate the need for a dual weapon like the XM29 or M16/M203.

So a buffer system behind the receiver is immaterial. I'd bet a case of ammo that we go totally away from the dual rifle/grenade launcher combo.

It isn't change for the sake of change, it's change for the sake of progression. It isn't Ford vs. Chevy, it's a Ford Festiva vs. a BMW! Hehehe, now I like that analogy!

Well how come nobody is buying the BMW then? Are the FBI and DEA and Customs Dept. (all agencies that chose the M4 over the G36 after extensive testing) all a bunch of bumpkins who aren't sophistcated enough to appreciate a BMW?

BTW, have you seen this:
http://www.eps.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL-KB/H92222-04-R-0001A/listing.html

Doesn't look like USSOCOM is ready to buy the XM8 off the shelf either.

Jeff

 

[CaesarI]

If they switch to the XM8 they'll do it because they anticipate future desert wars where the M-16 series isn't performing well. I'd like to see them switch to the new 6.8mm cartridge too, but I don't think this is likely across the board. On the other hand... given our new propensity to "go it alone" having allies still on 5.56X45mm wouldn't be such a big deal.

-Morgan

 

[Daedalus]

I think before they adopt it as the new military rifle of choice they had better give the stockholders (taxpayers) a sample of each to decide for themselves.
In all seriousness, I kind of like the look of it but I would not want my friends to catch me shooting it. "Oh this? I was...uh holding this for my girlfriend while she shoots my FAL...yeah I need my FAL back right now sweetie."

 

[Spark]

I think you guys are missing a couple points.

1. Regarding money spent / not spent / not needing to be spent. We piss away more money on vehicle systems that go nowhere than we'll ever spend on an infantry weapons system. How much money has been pissed away on the variants of the F22 before it was finalized? On the Crusader? On submarines? A piddly amount of money spent on improving the weapons systems of the guys who actually have to take and hold ground is money well spent comparatively.

2. IIRC XM8 is being designed primarily as a modular weapons system, something the M16 family is NOT. Yes, the uppers can be switched out, but the lower receiver / trigger group / buttstock are not "plug and play". The idea is to make things so simple that any GI can rapidly switch out parts - or a unit can take delivery of the latest upgrade.

What does this mean? Everything should be user replacable; EVERYTHING. Buttstock. Trigger group. Mag well. Barrel assembly. Optics / Sights. Grenade launcher. Replacement of any major group should require nothing more than a cartridge or punch / rod / pen.

When a new breakthrough comes through in cartridge capability, you just replace the magwell and / or barrel. New sighting system comes online? Swap out the rail / whatever. SF wants to do battlefield pickups of AK mags when clearing caves? Send in the Mod 5 SOPMOD kit barrels & magwells.

"Oh," you say "but the M16 already does that!" Wrong. It does that after a fashion[/]. Everything so far is an adaption or improvement to a system that is already fundamentally flawed. Instead of trying to put lipstick on a pig, the idea should be to eliminate the major flaws (gas system, mag well, trigger group), and, as stated above, make future upgrades easy to implement.

Let's look at the A1 to A2 transition - instead of forcing all of the rifles to go to depot level maintenance for eithe lower reciever replacement or remachining (yes, some had to be milled out in order to get enough made), you just ship a batch of new trigger groups to the units. The unit armorer makes the change in an afternoon, no complicated swapouts. So, if there is another major doctrine change that finds that everyone should only have semi-auto instead of 3 round burst; or full auto instead of 3 round; or single, two-round and full auto, whatever - it's plug and play.

New buttstock comes into the supply chain that can hold batteries & such? Or is made of a new, stronger polymer? Same situation.

Sometimes you have to start over to move forward.

 

[Jeff White]

Spark said;

"Oh," you say "but the M16 already does that!" Wrong. It does that after a fashion. Everything so far is an adaption or improvement to a system that is already fundamentally flawed. Instead of trying to put lipstick on a pig, the idea should be to eliminate the major flaws (gas system, mag well, trigger group), and, as stated above, make future upgrades easy to implement.

Another member of the He-Man M16 haters out of the closet If you really believe that the system is funamentally flawed then you naturally want to replace it with anything, even the High Pointe Carbine....The fact of the matter is, the M16 is the choice of the free world. Not bad for a fundamentally flawed design. Seriously we can never make any headway if people honestly believe that the M16 is a 40 year mistake. The facts prove otherwise.

1. Regarding money spent / not spent / not needing to be spent. We piss away more money on vehicle systems that go nowhere than we'll ever spend on an infantry weapons system. How much money has been pissed away on the variants of the F22 before it was finalized? On the Crusader? On submarines? A piddly amount of money spent on improving the weapons systems of the guys who actually have to take and hold ground is money well spent comparatively.

I won't disagree with you. But the big Army will. Rifles are a big deal to those of us on this board, but they don't figure very big in the whole picture. Which is exactly why buying the XM8 now will leave us hard pressed to buy the big breakthrough when it comes. Digitalization is the big fish in the pond now. Which is another reason why I don't feel the XM8 will be adopted.

While your idea of a totally modular weapon system is great, the army would never buy something like that. No way are they going to let PFC Snuffy in a leg line unit configure his rifle any way he wants.

Jeff

 

[Spark]

Oh horse pucky. Do you *honestly* believe that if the geniuses at MIT (or some guy working in his garage) comes out with a working man portable plasma weapon (or something else), do you *truly* believe that the government won't fork over money hand over fist to get it built in a timely manner? Truly? If there is a breakthrough, it will be fielded so fast it will make your head spin. Breakthroughs are like that.

Look, the Model T was the *standard* for many many years. It was the best thing out there. It's what everyone bought and used. That doesn't mean that there weren't better cars waiting to be built using the same gasoline to power them.

The 14.4K modem was the standard for many many years. It was the best thing out there. Blah blah blah.

Broadcast airwaves were the standard for many many years. People bought Rabbit ears or better antennas. Now we've got DSS & XM Radio.

Like it or not, the M16 system is flawed in very basic ways: Gas system. Magazine well. Butt stock. You can side step the issue, but changing any of them is not easy - and fundamentally would change the entire system itself. The money spent to fix each part winds up costing us more than starting over.

Starting over to make a truly modular, upgradable weapons system that can initially use the same NATO standard ammo and magazines (until the next wonder ammo comes through) makes sense. It gives us a new foundation upon which to build the bedrock of our weapons family. The benefits FAR outweigh the short term. It's less expensive than to continually try to shoehorn parts & remachine receivers. It's less expensive than to buy new barrels, and detachable geegaws & all the rest of the crap the service rifles have been put through.

Put it another way. Would you buy a house that dumped the sewage into your kitchen when you flushed the toilet? Or would you prefer one that dumped the sewage where it belonged, and used the action of that sewage to help keep your kitchen running?

Would you buy a house that forced you to rip out the basement in order to allow larger or shorter people to enter and exit? Or would you want a house that could fit anyone, and could be tailored for any of them with a minimum of fuss?

Would you prefer to be fix or modify your house yourself in 5 minutes, or have to send it to contractors for a few weeks?

Would you continue to reinvest in this house after 40 years when a better house will be available?

If there is a choice between living in this house and sleeping in the worst Motel 6 out there, yeah, there isn't a choice.

Yes, the M16 system is the best thing we have, right now - I don't disagree. But don't be so hidebound waiting for the next big thing that you can't see what *is* the next big thing. People said the Glock sucked at first too. "Oh, it's a 9mm, we already have those. Oh it's made of plastic, ewww. Oh, it doesn't have a safety." Now look at it.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Starting over to make a truly modular, upgradable weapons system that can initially use the same NATO standard ammo and magazines (until the next wonder ammo comes through) makes sense. It gives us a new foundation upon which to build the bedrock of our weapons family. The benefits FAR outweigh the short term. It's less expensive than to continually try to shoehorn parts & remachine receivers. It's less expensive than to buy new barrels, and detachable geegaws & all the rest of the crap the service rifles have been put through.

I'm going to have to call you on that one. The m-16 is modular, and ther a re a far wider array of acessories available for it than the XM8. one of the benefits of the ar-15 is it CAN be remachined. plastic guns cannot.

Show me a verifiable increase in lethality, range, or shootability over an m-16 configured similarly and i'll pay for the system myself.

 

[Badger Arms]

Show me a verifiable increase in lethality, range, or shootability over an m-16 configured similarly and i'll pay for the system myself.

Wow, thanks. That's the answer. You overlooked the fact that there is no way to do that without changing ammo. That's a different argument. Why argue against the weapon when you should criticize the ammo? You can argue that a bullpup configured with a 22" Barrel would do the job, gut bullpups have their own problems. I still want to handle an XM-8 myself.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

So you're saying that the XM8 doesn't show an increase in lethality, shootability or range over the m-16?

 

[Badger Arms]

Actually, No, I didn't say that although I can see how you could construct that by means of exclusion from my poorly worded reply.

First, define shootability. Next, explain how we can quantify it. Finally, let me shoot both. I like the ergonomics of the G36 and that has outstanding shootability by my definition. I've also got extensive experience with the AR-15... but not quite enough with the M-16 on full-auto to compare.

 

[Jeff White]

Spark said;

Like it or not, the M16 system is flawed in very basic ways: Gas system. Magazine well. Butt stock. You can side step the issue, but changing any of them is not easy - and fundamentally would change the entire system itself. The money spent to fix each part winds up costing us more than starting over.

Like it or not your bias is showing through again. How are these areas flawed? It's a pretty subjective judgement. The gas system works fine and is a big contributor to the rifle's inherent accuracy. The A2 buttstock is too long. the original wasn't and the M4 stock is adjustable. There are plenty of aftermarket stocks that give us storage in the stock. The Canucks issue different length stocks sized to fit the soldier on the C7. The collapsible stock has become the standard. Look at the USSOCM specs in the link I posted.

But don't be so hidebound waiting for the next big thing that you can't see what *is* the next big thing. People said the Glock sucked at first too. "Oh, it's a 9mm, we already have those. Oh it's made of plastic, ewww. Oh, it doesn't have a safety." Now look at it.

You want a plastic lower, go buy a Cav Arms...it's in production. Beat the XM8 by a few years. The XM8 is another 5.56mm assault rifle. It does the same thing we are already doing with the M16. With the XM8 we get a rifle with the same range, the same modularity and ability to accept the SOPMOD accessories (we think, no one has proven that yet), and a big bill to develop and refine it into a weapon that we will surely replace before the end of it's service life. No I can't see any advantage. All I see is my tax dollars getting pissed away and the possiblity the soldier will have to do without something he really needs. The big break will be a rifle that has optimum lethality out to 300 meters, weighs under 7 pounds loaded, can accept the SOPMOD accessories and has an integrated sight unit that will make all of our shooters into effective marksmen. The XM8 isn't it.

Jeff

 

[Chindo18Z]

This is a reply I posted in the old TFL about 3 years ago when we were having an almost identical discussion. Interesting to note that Badgerarms was cheerleading for the G36 even back then :

"There is an epidemic of Tuetonic Madness loose in this post. Germany produces some nice firearms (I own an HK USPC 40). However, they are not the be-all end-all in combat weapons design. To wit:
The G-3 (and all its variants) is an OK battle rifle. It never set the world on fire except by virtue of discounted pricing to a lot of third world customers. Accuracy is so-so. Sights are merely adequate. Trigger sux. Selector ergonomics blow. My M21 shot rings around any HK G3 made when I attended the Bundeswehr Sniper Instructor Course. Ditto for the stock M14. Effective full-auto? In 7.62? Pullleeeze....The folding stock is great for Panzer Grenadier Dismounts but causes accuracy to suffer.
G36? Crappy iron sights. Fragile day optic (leaks, condensation, and fogging). Non-captive take-down pins (try and find one in the dark, in the snow, in the mud...Yeah, I have used the cute little pin storage holes).
Accuracy is good but no better than M4. M4 is a way better CQB weapon. Balance is overly front end heavy (like the G3). Bundeswehr was having some serious problems with magazine reliability and forbade their troops to fire the weapon for some months after issue. BTW, did I mention the preset factory optic zero, which, if changed by the shooter, voided the warranty and broke the gas seal on the scope. Day optic subject to fogging and freezing-up in cold or wet weather. Herr Feldwebel, Ich kann nicht meinen treffpunkt gesehen...
Now the US Army wants to buy a G36/20mm WunderGranatenWerfer combo that is as big as a SAW and weighs about as much as a BAR...Oh Boy! The weapon relies on electronics to fuze the round for detonation at appropriate ranges. A test weapon decided to arm a 20mm at muzzle distance (airburst) and damn near killed the firer and two others (including a German SGM involved in the OCIW project). To be fair, the round caused crippling wounds for all three (but wasn't actually lethal).
I can hardly wait...Make mine Colt M4, followed by the AK74 (as most recently tweaked by the Russians to accept modern combat accessories). I wouldn't feel badly armed with the G36, but it is not all it's cracked up to be (unless a new BMW is included as a carrying case!)." - End TFL Quote

I'm with Jeff white on this one...what advantages do I reap on the day that I am handed my new G36/XM8 (other than my choice of hot pink furniture to match the pink Kel-Tec P32 I don't own)? I ask this as a professional user. Am I able to hit any better at any useful ranges? No. Does the weapon provide better mechanical accuracy? Definitely Not. Is the weapon easier to carry? No. Is it an ergonomic improvement over the M16/M4 series? No. Does it offer better ballistics out of the 5.56? No. Does it provide increased lethality? No. Does it have 40+ Years of R&D to work out the bugs that ALL new weapons have? Sorry...check back with HK in 40 years.

Is ithe XM8/G36 t more mechanically reliable? I don't believe so. Time and testing would tell. Refer to the 40 year comments. I've fired the G36 side-by-side against the M4A1 and listended closely to the gripes & bitches that KSK (German Special Forces) and Gebirgsjaegers (Mountain Troops) have about their new weapon. It's not that the G36 is a bad rifle; it is good weapon and a significant improvement over the G-3. It's that the Germans haven't actually fought anyone in over 50 years and their weapon does not yet reflect the M16's hard won design improvements. These improvements will eventually occur as a result of user feedback from places like Afghanistan & Albania. I don't feel like using the US Military as the R&D platform for the current G36/XM8 until more significant user experience is gained. I don't see the XM8/G36 as being any more immune to fine sand than the M4. Hell, I've seen jammed AKs under like conditions. Today, I would not hesitate to choose an M4 over an equivalently configured G36.

Modularity / Configuration Quick-change? Spark is actually on to something here except for a consideration having nothing to do with the XM8 (or any other small arm for that matter). Current military regulations limit the POL (small arms parts) allowed to be held at Company/Battalion level arms rooms due to the problem uncovered by a TV network expose back in the 80's. If you recall, 60 Minutes or 48 Hours uncovered the absolute lack of accountability in Reserve/Guard arms rooms which allowed gun shows to be flooded with stolen small arms parts. The military promptly decreed that units would no longer be able to keep these parts stockpiled for repairs and configuration changes. If you wanted to (for instance) change your XM8 barrel length, your armorer would still be required to send the weapon up the maintenance support chain to your local Three Shop. Unless you want to issue each and every weapon as a complete modular kit and drive the price thru the ceiling. Not a bad idea; just horrendously expensive.

I like all-steel & wood-stocked craftmanship. I love the Garand. I love the M14. I would never consider equipping a modern military with either. The AK is a superb weapon. Wouldn't issue that one out either (except to the indig force or to SR/DA teams gone deep). Someday I expect to fondly caress my AR and remember when it was the ticket. Then I will place it back in the safe (maybe along side an HK rifle) and check out the real deal on The History of the Gun (Directed Energy Rifles) on the History Channel.

When lightweight airburst grenade launcher technology catches up, it will be mountable to whatever configuration rifle is currently dominant in military circles. Simple economics will ensure this.

The XM8 offers nothing new to hang my hat on that the M4A1 doesn't already do. It has crappy features that are not yet fixed and offers no significant IMPROVEMENTS over what we already have.

Don't try to sell me a better rotary dial phone...at twice the price.

 

[Kaylee]

I tend to agree the XM8 is a dead end. As already said, the G36 is a good gun... but not worth the changeover cost.

Now, what would REALLY rock is if the DoD looks at making whatever wins the SCAR process general issue. THERE is some innovation.

-K

 

[.45FMJoe]

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.

+1 for The M1/M14 platform. True, I was not around during the time (I'm only 22) But I like my new Springfield Garand over my Bushmaster M4. I'm saving a couple of beans for a new Springfield M1A.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Kaylee,

What, pray tell, is the SCAR process?

 

[Kaylee]

What, pray tell, is the SCAR process?

Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle

What few details of submissions in process I know, I can't talk about.
But (barring politics) whichever rifle wins this will blow the G36/XM8 out of the water.

-K