PDA

View Full Version : Some new information about XM8 and XM29/25



REMOV
07-19-2003, 02:49 PM
Source: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php

Your next rifle
’05 is target date for debut of replacement to the M16
By Matthew Cox (Times staff writer)

The Army has a new rifle in its sights, one that could start replacing the venerable M16 in just two years.
The staff at Project Manager Soldier Weapons is overseeing the final designs of the XM8 — a highly versatile 5.56mm assault rifle intended to give soldiers a lighter, more reliable alternative to the battle-tested M16A2 and M16A4 rifles and M4 carbine.

Army weapons developers plan to have a prototype by the end of the summer and to begin testing in the fall.

The XM8 is a new approach in the Army’s ongoing effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the XM29, that fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition.

The Army successfully tested a working prototype of XM29 in 1999 — known then as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon. But four years later, the $50 million program has yet to produce anything new.

The Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., wanted the weapon to weigh 14 pounds and be ready for soldiers by 2008. But the 18-pound weapon still is too heavy and bulky to meet those requirements.

But instead of scrapping the XM29, the Army decided on a new strategy — perfect each of XM29’s components separately so soldiers can take advantage of new technology sooner. The parts then could be brought back together when lighter materials become available.

The components include a carbine that can fire 5.56mm rounds; a launcher that fires air-burst ammunition; the air-burst ammunition itself; and the fire-control system.

“The way we were doing it was, we were building a full system and we were going to field that and then do a second system and make it better and lighter and field that and then make a third version and field that, and I didn’t see that as a path to success,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Clarke, product manager for Product Manager Individual Weapons, who took over the XM29 program in November.

“When I get each little system working the way I want, I am going to start putting them back together as a complete system.”

The new acquisition strategy includes developing a stand-alone air-burst weapon, known as the XM25, for possible fielding in four years.

But the XM8 has first priority. In October, the Army modified the existing contract with Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch Inc. to design the new lightweight assault rifle.

And Congress directed the Secretary of the Army’s office in its fiscal 2003 appropriations report last October to complete a cost-and-benefits analysis of the XM8 as possibly “worthy of fielding on an expedited basis.” That report was completed in early June and is on its way back to both the House and Senate appropriations committees.

Officials from the Infantry Center are intrigued by the new approach to XM29.

“It does appear very logical. The XM29 was always designed to be a [modular] weapon,” said Jim Stone, deputy for the Infantry Center’s Directorate for Combat Developments.

While the M16 family, which includes the M4, “has been a very good weapon,” Stone pointed out that it’s already 40 years old.

“While we are maintaining and improving the M4, we have to look ahead,” he said. “For us to do nothing and say ‘Gee, the M4 is doing great,’ that would be irresponsible.”

True family of weapons

The XM8, weapons experts maintain, is a true family of weapons with different barrel lengths designed to address all the needs of an infantry squad.

While exact measurements are not available, the baseline model is expected to be lighter than the M4 carbine and no larger in size.

There’s also a sharpshooter model equipped with a longer barrel for increased range.

The need for sharpshooter weapons at the squad level became evident in Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division requested M1As, a version of the old 7.62mm M14, for its long-range capability.

The squad auto-rifle version of the XM8 features a heavier barrel and high-capacity magazines.

All of the versions have a telescoping butt stock except for the commando variant, which is planned to have a shorter barrel for tight compartments such as inside armored vehicles and helicopter cockpits.

The XM8’s barrels — of varrying length — can be changed at the arms room to meet mission needs, Clarke said.

“We are trying to do the family of XM8, so I don’t have to buy four or five different weapons for the squad. I buy one weapon,” said Col. Michael J. Smith, project manager for PM Soldier Weapons.

The XM8 also is supposed to have a multipurpose optic that includes a red dot reticle, a backup sight that requires no power, an infrared pointer, an infrared illuminator and a visible pointer.

The existing M4 requires lots of add-ons to perform these tasks. Combining them reduces the weight of the weapon and the complexity to the soldier.

The multipurpose optic also will make training easier since there is only one optic to zero to the weapon instead of multiple devices. “You take the gun out of the box, you zero the optic and you’re done,” Clarke said.

For special-operations forces, the weapon can be converted to fire 7.62-by-39mm, the same round as the AK47.

No bursts, for now

Soldiers testing the first 200 XM8s this fall will not be able to fire a three-round burst like they can on M16s and M4s. The rifles will have only a safe and a full-automatic setting.
The Army switched from full-auto to three-round burst in the 1980s when the service decided most soldiers did not fire effectively in the full-auto mode.

But weapons experts now say a soldier using three-round bursts is no more effective than one well-trained in the use of full-automatic fire, Clarke said.

Without that option, Clarke said, designers could leave out the special governor to create the three-round burst, making a simpler design that also would be more reliable.

The XM8 accessories will include a 40mm grenade launcher to replace the aging M203.

The new launcher still is a single-shot, breech-loader, but it will swing out to the side to allow for specialized rounds that require longer shell casings.

But the 40mm option may not last too long. Under separate development in the plan for the XM29 is the XM25 — a stand-alone weapon that features 25mm air-burst technology.

The XM25, weapons experts maintain, would weigh less than 12 pounds with the fire-control system and would be chambered for a more powerful 25mm round.

The switch from 20mm to 25mm rounds means the new weapon will fire ammunition common to the XM307, a crew-served weapon that fires a long-range 25mm air-burst round.

If all goes well, it would be ready for testing in 2005.

While supportive of the idea, the Infantry Center does not want a return to a weapon similar to the Vietnam-era M79 grenade launcher, a single-shot weapon that left the grenadier with a limited capability to fight at close range, Stone said.

Like the XM29 prototype, the XM25 would feature a magazine that holds at least five rounds. In addition, there could be canister-style 25mm ammo, giving the weapon a sawed-off shotgun effect.

“We want to introduce a heck of a lot more capability than the M79,” Smith said. “I’ll give [them] a five-round magazine, a three-round magazine, a 10-round magazine … and give them the capability of different kinds of rounds and let them get into the close fight, not just the long-distance fight.”

Lethal air bursts

The Army began working with air-burst technology in 1994. It first was tested in the 1999 prototype for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon.

It relies on a laser range finder and a ballistic computer that calculates the range to a target with a push of a button and transfers the data to the electronic fuse built into the 20mm round.

When fired, the air-burst round has a range of 500 meters and is designed to explode directly above a target, raining shrapnel down on an enemy crouched behind cover.

Such a weapon, experts say, will give combat soldiers the ability to defeat enemy targets behind cover with greater precision than ever before.

“We do know that bursting ammo, especially when you can control the burst, is going to be an incredible increase to the lethality of a squad,” Stone said.

As it stands, the Army is a long way from taking advantage of that technology, because the XM29 program does not meet the Infantry Center’s 14-pound requirement.

“The technology is just not there,” said Clarke, explaining that the materials needed to lighten the weapon without losing effectiveness simply are not available. “We searched for lighter-weight materials. They don’t give you the same capability as homegrown steel does, and that is the bottom line.”

Since the internal parts of the XM8 and XM25 already exist, the challenge has been creating the exterior shell to appeal to American tastes.

“[Heckler & Koch], the Europeans, they love blocky style weapons. Americans are all about curves,” Clarke said, describing how they brought in engineers from Porsche and Audi to come up with more streamlined designs.

If the Army does adopt the XM8, as many as 900,000 could be fielded through 2021, Clark said. The XM25 would be fielded in far fewer numbers beginning in 2007, depending on the needs of the Infantry Center, the proponent for the Army’s small-arms requirements.

The Army still plans to field about 22,000 XM29s — enough for four per nine-man infantry squad — beginning in 2012.

“When it is all said and done, my contact with the Infantry Center is still to provide them with an XM29,” Clarke said.

“What I am doing is offering up mature technology capabilities. The proof will be in the pudding when we pop some systems out there and let people use them — that is the plan.”


Also look at this scan (hmm... over 1MB)
http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/xm8.jpg

digitalghost
07-19-2003, 02:54 PM
OH MY G*D THEY LOOK SO SEXY! This is a big plus for those of us whos joining the military in the future-- We'll have all the cool new toys-- I thought I would live in the age where I'd use M16-- But then they had M4s-- Thought I'd use M4s-- But now theyre having these babies

irishmike21
07-19-2003, 03:46 PM
hey the pictures shown of the weapon are not the same model as the one I have seen on the peo soldier website is that in fact the real model or is that just an educated guess on what it will look like, also when it shows the color possibilities why in the hell would they make the weapon orange/yellow that makes no sense to me lol wouldn't they make it a darker color like gray or black or even a dark green so it fits in with its surrounding at least a little why make it orange so you can easily be identified while your in the field trying to remain hidden just my opinion...

FallenAngel
07-19-2003, 03:48 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again

XM8 = Glorified G36.

Why are we wasting money? Why not just buy the G36 liscense from H&K?

USAF G
07-19-2003, 03:57 PM
Can I get mine in mustard yellow? Or does it have to be grey? :lol:

ScoutRanger
07-19-2003, 04:12 PM
http://peosoldier.army.mil/gallery/photos/XM8_low.jpg

See the weapon in action, move to the second and third photos;

http://peosoldier.army.mil/gallery/LW_XM29_XM8.html

Seraphim
07-19-2003, 04:20 PM
I think the color is more of a dark tan/light brown. But like it says the color will change. Anyone know how much lighter the xm8 is going to be to a m4 with sopmod.

Splinter26
07-19-2003, 04:41 PM
Now that's bad news, I'm a fan of M4 so seeing that weapon in danger of replacement is heart breaking man. Why don't they keep the M4 design, and just work on some new modifications and improvements.

FallenAngel
07-19-2003, 05:04 PM
Now that's bad news, I'm a fan of M4 so seeing that weapon in danger of replacement is heart breaking man. Why don't they keep the M4 design, and just work on some new modifications and improvements.

I think thats the point. They've been doing exactly that for 40+ years and "they" think it's time to go with something brand new. :D

Splinter26
07-19-2003, 05:15 PM
Hey, 40 years past, why not another 40 p-) And remember, it's not 100% that XM8 will replace m4 and m16, because if Army doesn't approve it due to XM8's weight or whatever, we'll get opportunity to use M4 for good god knows how many years! :D

Splinter26
07-19-2003, 05:18 PM
By the way, you know what I think they should work on improving? NVG's field of vision, it should be wider.


P.S.

XM8's design is ugly, who's with me on this one?

digitalghost
07-19-2003, 05:24 PM
You dont know what the problem with the M4 is?


The U.S. Army is placing its future success on the Objective Individual Combat Weapon or "OICW" which is a HK 5.56mm assault rifle with a gas piston system and a "smart" 20mm indirect-fire grenade launcher both aimed by a streamlined instead of the myriad strap-on electronics the M4 SOPMOD employs. We all know how the OICW is heavy and expensive, but lets first look at its intended function for validity. Enemies hiding behind frontal cover are immune to our kinetic energy direct fires regardless of whether they are 5.56mm or 7.62mm or something bigger until you reach the point where the projectile can penetrate and it may require a launcher that is no longer man-portable. Rather than blasting through, OICW seeks indirect fire "top-attack" by an electronic fuze to burst overhead. Good idea, but why does it have to be wed on top of a 5.56mm rifle of dubious necessity?

Again, the painful truth; the M16/M4 family has been plagued since their inception with a direct gas system that blows dirty carbon into the chamber area resulting in clogging and jams and constant cleaning. The HK 5.56mm assault rifle wed to OICW sneaks it into the Army system as a new purchase, a "fix" to the M16/M4 family in typical mandarin, let's-spend-a-lot-of-money-to-soak-up-more-bureaucratic-power fashion. Then once, the OICW is fielded, the Army could buy HK 5.56mm assault rifles without the smart 20mm grenade launchers and throw away their M16s/M4s and 4-decades of expertise and training.

I vehemently reject this course-of-action (COA) since we will still when all is said and done be stuck with a short-range jungle assault rifle albeit with an excellent smart grenade launcher. We are still not optimized for open terrain or urban combats.

Over in the marine camp, there is talk of adopting the M4 SOPMOD as their future rifle (Why if you are so dis-satisfied with 5.56mm range in Afghanistan operations? Just to look as sexy as Army lightfighers?) and to pull some M14 7.62mm MBRs out of war stocks to outfit a designated rifleman in each rifle squad. The French Army and others have had a 7.62mm MBR sharpshooter with a long-range optic in their rifle squads for at least 3 decades, maybe more, yet we act like this is somehow "revolutionary". What we are doing is simply catching up, what I propose is really "transformational", to use the latest sexy DoD buzzword.

The Solution is to adapt to optimize for BOTH closed or open terrains

First, separate the OICW into rifle and smart grenade launchers. Do not buy HK 5.56mm assault rifles with gas piston system to hide M16/M4 failings, instead use the saved money to retrofit gas piston systems to ALL M16/M4s, facing the problem HEAD-ON and solving it instead of covering DoD mandarin ass for failure over the years to improve the reliability of these otherwise superb weapons. For a proven way to do this, look at Allan Zitta's LR300 weapons:

Z-M Weapons, High Performance Systems
203 South Street
Bernardston, Massachusetts 01337
Tel: 413-648-9501 Fax: 413-648-0219
email: zm@zmweapons.com

Compact Assault Rifle - 5.56x45mm NATO - USA - 950 RPM - The LR300 M/L is a compact conversion of the M16/AR15 family. Allan Zitta has designed an entirely new upper receiver which uses an Armalite AR18 style gas piston and relocates the recoil spring over the barrel. The latter feature allows the elimination of the M16/AR15 buffer tube, and provides the base for a folding stock. The resulting product is more compact and reliable than the M4 Colt Commando. By placing the recoil springs on the front of the weapon, the M16/M4 can still use a telescoping stock for compactness, though with a full-length barrel for 800m range.

What the M4A2 and M16A4 should something look like:

http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300a.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300b.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300c.jpg


Will the Grenadier with stand-alone OICW 20mm GL mean a loss of 5.56mm firepower in the squad?

No, have him carry a M4 carbine.

Won't this be heavy?

It'll be exactly the same "heavy" as having the two weapons physically attached, except sans the bureaucratic hidden agenda, he will have a lighter weight, easier to employ grenade launcher and when he needs to shoot direct-fire, he will have a lighter weight 5.56mm assault rifle.

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/21stcenturyrifle.htm

As much as I like the M4 I'd like to see these new weapons out--- New gas system, interchangable barrels, short version, different colors, new small little smart grenade launcher.. it all sounds so new and hot and awesome-- And I bet the orange was supposed to be a desert tan type color-- In my opinion they should have them built either 1)Olive Drab Green in color or 2)Have interchangable outer shells in OD Green and Desert Tan

**If you cant see the photos copy the link in your browser or goto http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/21stcenturyrifle.htm

Splinter26
07-19-2003, 08:01 PM
If Army issues these weapons to their troops, will other US military branches do the same?

Andyman
07-19-2003, 08:23 PM
I think that the XM8 looks great, a really nice looking gun and how about its performance, I mean what makes it better than the guns that the U.S is using right now?

Seiyuuki
07-19-2003, 09:40 PM
Well guys and critics alike...give it a chance...after all, you know what they always said, "Don't knock it till you try it." :lol:

springwheat
07-19-2003, 09:49 PM
So now that Hasbro is designing small arms for the military, I assume all future armored vehicles will be "Tonka Tuff"?

Seiyuuki
07-19-2003, 11:08 PM
Which is more preferable...muzzle velocity or larger round?

digitalghost
07-19-2003, 11:26 PM
Muzzle Velocity as in the case of barrel length would get more range yes? Long barrels for long range and short ones for CQB what can I say?

Larger bullet means more "stopping" power but the disadvantage is that you carry less bullets; Its a question of quality or quantity--- In the 5.56 case, its quantity

Vance
07-19-2003, 11:55 PM
It looks like a Nerf gun. :|

irishmike21
07-20-2003, 01:41 AM
which model is the real one though the orange ones or the one that fallen angel had posted thats on that government site im confused?? theres too different models that both are supposedly what hte weapon is going to look like?

rob
07-20-2003, 02:11 AM
i think that in the end it will look very similar to a g36 with new mag well and stock and possibly forarm.

EliteWolf
07-20-2003, 03:16 AM
Now that's bad news, I'm a fan of M4 so seeing that weapon in danger of replacement is heart breaking man. Why don't they keep the M4 design, and just work on some new modifications and improvements.

dude i totally agree, im in love with the m4! when i first learned about the xm29 (OICW) i was appauled...i couldnt stand that bullpup, euro bulky design at all..but the XM8 is much better, much closer to the m4 which i like, with the collapsable stock, no longer a bullpup, much smaller body, and same length as the m4, i could learn to love it. but ill still never like it more than the m4, ill miss the m4 dearly.

martinexsquaddie
07-20-2003, 04:23 AM
hey if this contiues we will head back to the enfield 6mm round of 1940s vintage :roll:

irishmike21
07-20-2003, 07:56 AM
which model is the one being used though? is it the one that looks similar to the m4/m16 or the one that looks more like a rounded off g36.. Im confused

Splinter26
07-20-2003, 08:12 AM
I think a weapon should look like a weapon, not a toy, and this junk with new color is also pathetic, I bet next thing they'll come up with is a new rifle colored in yellow mixed with pink and some green flowers. I don't like XM8 at all, and why does it even has "XM8" sign on it? That's so Toys R Us thing, but my real opinion is this, if the weapon will help save lives of the troops by giving them huger advantage over the enemy, then go for it.

P.S.

Elite Wolf, I was never a fan of alien movies.

Splinter26
07-20-2003, 11:51 AM
Are you from 60's Tane? lol I know that line "M16 feels and looks like a BB gun to me", that was from the Sergeant Major in We Were Soldiers movie.

Piccolo
07-20-2003, 12:13 PM
I see alot of bitching here, from kids who have never touched this piece of equipment, much less seen it up close (Tane ;) ). Just try to be alittle open minded. This is a big reason of why the original M16 had so many problems. First, some Politicians tryed to put it in service (Changed ammo, no cleaning kits, etc), and second, a majority of the Generals of the time were very against it. Some went as far as to sabbotage testings. If you try to hang on to the past, it will just pull you down when the future arrives.

irishmike21
07-20-2003, 01:25 PM
remov where did you scan that picture of those weapon models because I can't find them on any internet search engines...

maw
07-20-2003, 01:50 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php

Seiyuuki
07-20-2003, 02:28 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php[/url]]For special-operations forces, the weapon can be converted to fire 7.62-by-39mm, the same round as the AK47.

Does that please almost everyone?

THEDUDE
07-20-2003, 02:46 PM
Only a full auto setting? WTF is with that?

FallenAngel
07-20-2003, 03:22 PM
yes, full auto :D The only reason why they replaced it with 3 round burst was because during Vietnam the conscripts would blast away at anything that moved with full auto. McNamera and his "wiz kids" saw this as a waste- enter the 3 round burst. Today's army is more disciplined and the need for the 3 round burst is moot.

Yes, being able to switch to the Russian round would be helpful, especially to SF soldiers. When you're deep behind enemy lines- resupply can be a bitch. Also, more than likely, you're surrounded by indiginous people carrying AKs and you're up to your knees in AK ammo. So yeah, for some units, switching would be a good thing.

maw
07-20-2003, 03:40 PM
sorry. i muffed that lat one. what i meant to say was:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php
consider the source. army times IS NOT an official DA publication, unless something's identified as official policy or information don't believe what you read.

with the exception of the "ingests where it defecates" and magazine reliability issues, i'm not sure that the m4 has any issues left to gripe about. having said that, almost every solution to every problem relating to the m4 is out there already, be it piston conversions like the rroc or even the z-m.

found elsewhere:
"the xm-08 serves the following purposes:
1) Get certain individuals promoted to O-7 & O-6 and Legions of Merit along the way
2) Creates a whole new fielding plan and supporting bureaucracy.
3) Secures post-retirement positions."

according to some guys at mp small arms at the picatinny arsenal a certain colonel (last name sounds like park ;) ) at fort benning is looking to build a post retirement career at hk, he's been pushing his agenda and it's become very apparent to all who have met with him.

from a german soldier:
"Just to let you know - the G36 ( in all its variants ) is far away from not being undisputed in the german army.

It is def. not " the best rifle" - we had
- broken stocks ( at minus 15°C )
- collapsing stocks during "full-auto"
- failture to extract with brass
stucking in the chamber
- cracking bodys ( after all the thing
is polymer with some sttel-inlays )

Nobody knows in the U.S. but the replacemnet of the G3 by the G36 was a political decission. Most of the airbornes that did the testing on the G36 prefered the Steyr AUG over the G36."

additionally:
"The top rail of the G36 is made of plastic that is usless for mounting anything and not even close to mil spec. The rear sight is a bad joke plus made in plastic to make it even worse!."

that about sums it up, ever wonder why ksk are using after-market aluminum rails?

"otherwise -- please explain how the complete changeover to another 5.56mm weapon, justifies the complete negation of the country's investment infrastructure in the m-16 family of weapons -- especially when viable product improvements are proving themselves imperically! needless to say, this issue is already getting attention on capitol hill."

let's not make more problems for ourselves. let's move towards the .280 and not waste our time and money on a solution looking for a problem.

rob
07-20-2003, 05:04 PM
it seems unlikely that ussocom will ever thouch this weapon. they recently released their own requirments for a weapon to replace the m4.

the biggest flaw i see with the g36 is the damn thing does not have any real iron sights. sure the export model has molded in iron sights but they are no where near suitable for a rifle. what makes me happy is that ussocom is requiring iron sights similar to those on the m4.

irishmike21
07-20-2003, 05:39 PM
didnt spec ops already show plans for a new weapon for its soldiers called a scar rifle that looks similar to the m4 but has all the needed improvements... isnt that scar rifle supposed to be standard issue special forces for the forseeable future?

rob
07-20-2003, 05:55 PM
i saw the requirments and it was called the scar so it may have already been shown. i though it was to be an entire new system of such.

do you have any more info or pictures about it.

irishmike21
07-20-2003, 08:19 PM
remov come back I need your knowledge lol

D.E. Watters
07-21-2003, 03:07 AM
I don't believe that any candidates for the SCAR-L and SCAR-H have been announced yet. However, I have speculated in another thread that ATK/HK may positioning the XM8 as a potential entry.

XASA
07-21-2003, 09:08 AM
Remov, thanks for sharing the Army Times article, and MAW's post on the G-36's bad points was also interesting. This is why I think this forum is such a great resource. Sure, we would have heard of the adoption of the XM-8 sooner or later but I prefer sooner.

Tane is on the money about how ironic it is that the replacement for the M-16/M-4 family is being labeled with some of the same comments heard back in the Sixties when the M-16 first appeared on the scene. I was in basic when the Ia Drang Valley battle occurred. At the time, only Airborne, Air Cav and Special Forces were issued the M-16. I wouldn't be issued a M-16 for another four years because I was assigned to Berlin Brigade, the last Army unit to field the M-14 (we wanted our bullets to penetrate walls, floors and ceilings). Those who liked the M-14 and thought it was everything a rifle should be, considered the M-16 a "Mattel toy gun," while others considered the lightweight selective fire weapon the perfect tool for the jungle war in Vietnam. Even before my time in the military, there were arguments over whether or not to adopt the M-14 or the FN FAL. I'm sure we'll be hearing similar arguments about adoption of the XM-8, which is a good thing since it will perhaps lead to our troops having the best weapon available.

My take is that the Germans, having attempted to standardized on the revolutionary G-11 and then the G-41, knew what they were doing when they designed the G-36 a/k/a XM-8 with different furniture. What I also find ironic is that the G-36 has its origins in the old AR-18, which was a marked improvement over the M-16 but lost out in becoming an issued weapon 35 years ago because the Army had already made a commitment to the M-16 and didn't want to introduced yet another standard firearm in less than ten years.

With its demise as a U.S. issued weapon on the horizon, the M-16 will go down in history as a revolutionary weapon that served the military well for more than 40 years -- longer than any other rifle. Rest assured, it will still be seeing action for many years to come in other countries.

irishmike21
07-21-2003, 02:05 PM
I have seen a powerpoint regarding the scar rifle it was sent to me by somebody on the is site I have lost the link but it shows what at least looks like an m4a1 with a view new optics mounted on the ris and a new site rail it could just have been an example of a weapon with the needed requirments however Not quite sure.

also nobody had confirmed for me which model of the xm8 is correct is it the orange ones or the black one posted on peo soldier.com and early on in this thread thanks alot guys if you could just post the pick of hte weapon in the correct form of what the it will look like it would help alot thanks again l8a

irishmike21
07-21-2003, 05:05 PM
which is the real model?? n e body??

rob
07-21-2003, 05:15 PM
the one shown in the real pictures being tested by soldiers. anyone know if that is a fireing example or just a mock up.

Piccolo
07-21-2003, 07:56 PM
All the rilfes shown, the XM29 and XM8 are mockup weapons. The XM29 has not yet reached that small of size. That model is the ideal size they wish to make it by the desired date of service.

Splinter26
07-21-2003, 09:38 PM
Piccolo what do you think that date will probably be? I'm guessing around 2015.

D.E. Watters
07-21-2003, 10:24 PM
Piccolo what do you think that date will probably be? I'm guessing around 2015.

For the XM29? I'm guessing that the OICW will never meet the existing weight objectives, unless something revolutionary occurs in the realm of material engineering. (Of course, this doesn't prevent them from changing the weight requirements.)

irishmike21
07-21-2003, 11:47 PM
altought they are mockup weapons that must be the model they are using so really its just about making a working model am i right? Like thats what the weapons going to look like right?

Piccolo
07-22-2003, 12:36 AM
Nothing is compleatly solid, especially in small arms. It's a ever changing, growing, field. I would imagen the design to change between now and the set field date.

irishmike21
07-23-2003, 09:29 PM
n e body else got n e thing interesting on this topic im interested