Army's H&K weapons(XM8 assault rifle) bid axed

[J-10]

Posted on Fri, Jul. 23, 2004
Army's H&K weapons bid axed
Rep. Bishop says $25.9 million funding request should still happen
BY CHRISTOPHER BOYCE
Staff Writer

About $26 million for a German gun manufacturer to begin making the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus was pulled from a Department of Defense appropriations bill before Congress approved the 2005 spending plan late Thursday.

Jennifer Hoelzer, director of communications for U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, said the money was part of the $417.5 billion appropriations bill. Bishop, D-Ga., said $25.9 million was sought for gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch to begin production of the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus.

"It's still safe and expected to happen," Bishop said referring to the funding.

The company, based in Sterling, Va., is building a 150,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Muscogee Technology Park off Macon Road. Heckler & Koch is still waiting to land a contract with the U.S. military that could amount to $1 billion over 10 to 15 years. The company continues to test the XM8 assault rifle that could replace the M16 rifle.

Bishop said the money was shifted at the "zero hour" because money was needed for current operations in Iraq.

Bishop expects the money to be appropriated in a lame duck session or by the end of this year.

Support for the XM8 was led by the Columbus congressional delegation and would have funded acquisition of the rifle so that Heckler & Koch could begin production. Bishop said they gave their support contingent upon the XM8 passing the military's tests.

An additional $1 million was given to Heckler & Koch to produce small-arms polymer-cased ammunition, Bishop said.

Since Heckler & Koch's October groundbreaking on their Columbus manufacturing plant, anticipation has centered on the company's production of the XM8.

Also from the bill, Fort Benning received $2 million for construction of the Sunshine Road ammunition route, Hoelzer said.

Additionally, an Americus, Ga.-based Lockheed-Martin facility received $58.67 million for the construction of wind-corrected munitions dispensers.

The bill was one of 13 appropriations bills that assigns funding for government agencies, Hoelzer said.

The $10 billion Military Construction Appropriations spending bill was also approved by the House Thursday night, Bishop said. The bill contained $282.7 million for Georgia with $82.9 million for Fort Benning. The bill passed by a vote of 420-1 and will now move to the Senate.
Ledger-Enquirer (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/9221316.htm)

[Durandal]

Let's hope this continues...and it gets axed.

[obd]

what I dont understand is why the US militaty isnt spearheading, as it did with the 5.56 cartridge, the new 6.8 SPC..........Why build a new gun for millions of dollars that really doesnt actually improve on the current design all that mutch??? It may cause alot of bitching among NATO to switch calibers, but the US has the power to make it happen just like they did with the 5.56 back in the day...........

Maybe I am wrong on this big time.....but it seems to me that if we are going to be buying billions worth of armaments from HK, then we damn well better get a significant increase in capability from the new weapon......

Granted, the "XM-8" has proven popular with troops who have used it.....but from all the reports I have manged to find, it doesnt really represent a HUGE increase in capability over an existing brand new M-16a2..........Sure it might beat the M-16 by a little bit in most categories.....but it will still be limited by the cartridge it fires....the 5.56......

THE ONE THING I give high marks to is the XM-9 apparent reliability BUT it seems it will not come with worthwhile iron sights.....NOT GOOD in my opinion.......Just ask British troops who love the SUSAT but just wish they had a decent pair of iron sights to go along with it!!!!!!!

And troops will still be dissappointed with it because of that........

I'd rather see the US Army investing in a new calibre.....seems that is where the payoff will be...not in some new fancy gun firing the same obsolete bullet........US Special Ops are already looking to new cartridges....that should be a warning bell that, given the budget and ability, troops DO NOT prefer the 5.56....and instead look for alternates.....In other words: Its time the 5.56 was abandoned and a new more capable bullet for the 21st century was developed.....and it looks for now like its gonna be 6.8mm SPC.

A rifle is only as good as the bullet it fires....too often this seems to be beyond people.....

[Durandal]

A rifle is only as good as the bullet it fires....too often this seems to be beyond people.....

I agree with everything you said except this...they are all parts that make a good weapon system.

[Mark Sman]

Yeah, it seems like a cartridge switch should be considered. The 5.56 was develped a long time ago. We must be able to do better. Either caseless, or a rifle that easily converts calibers like the old M-3 greasegun did.

I would suggest .300 WSM, but nobody likes my idea.

[Durandal]

Yeah, it seems like a cartridge switch should be considered. The 5.56 was develped a long time ago. We must be able to do better. Either caseless, or a rifle that easily converts calibers like the old M-3 greasegun did.

I would suggest .300 WSM, but nobody likes my idea.

Ummm the AR15/M16Ax/M4AX can handle different cartridges...

As has been stated by myself and several others...

Just by swapping the upper you can shoot (and a mag well adapter for the pistol rounds):

.308
9mm
.45
.50Beowulf
.223
7.62x39
etc..

Edit: and of course...6.8mm

[ShadowNeo]

Just ask British troops who love the SUSAT but just wish they had a decent pair of iron sights to go along with it!!!!!!!

I don't do too bad on the range with the iron sights.

[Mark Sman]

Ummm the AR15/M16Ax/M4AX can handle different cartridges...

Yeah, I know. But I'm not opposed to shopping for a new design either.
Also you have to switch more than the upper to make a standard mag well from an AR fit .308, or .300 WSM p-)

Noone may like my idea, bit I'm persistent. Now, AR-10 on the other hand . . .

[obd]

ShadowNeo, Im sure you are an excellent shot, but wouldnt you prefer a better set of iron sights on your Sa-80?? Anybody that shoots with iron sights knows that distance between rear aperture and front sight is important.....As a general rule (although this does not ALWAYS apply), the longer the distance between front and rear sights (assuming all other things are of equal quality), the better the rifle will shoot.......(in other words if you take the same rifle with the same exact sights and simply shorten the sight radius, it will generally shoot wider groups at range)

This is one of the complaints about the M4 carbine.....In addition to its shorter barrel, its shorter sight radius makes it more difficult to shoot well than a full length M-16a2....Despite hundreds of people saying that the M4 has the ability to shoot just as well as the M-16a2 under 250 yards, this is simply not true....While the M4 can shoot very nearly as well as the M16a2 at ranges under 250 yards it still cant match the groups of the m16a2....the "MoA"....Several civilian compaines have responded to this by making M-4's with the same barrel length as a standard issue M4 but with the sight radius of the m16a2....and they universally shoot better groups than the shorter radius weapons when firing the same ammunition......

So whats my point you may ask?? Well, the Sa-80's iron sights have a short radius when compaired to other rifles........In fact I believe they are similar to the Ak-47 and the French FAMAS, though of course not exactly same.......

I have heard several Brits who have shot the SA-80 complain about its poor iron sights.......Im sure you can shoot well with them ShadowNeo, but just imagine what you would shoot if it had better iron sights........

[obd]

And my real point hehe, was to say that the XM-8 lacks annything other than "emergency" iron sights which are basically useless beyond a hundred yards.......probably less...

I would argue for a set up like the current US Spec ops are using = Trijicon ACOG (best optical sight for general use in existance at the moment), combined with high quality flip up iron sights should the Trijicon become broken...........(I wonder if the optical sight on the XM-8 is quick detach or if a gunsmith must take it off....that would be important)

I would like to see figures, maybe they are "secret" of the mean rates of failure in the field of the Aimpoint, HOLO, Trijicon reflex etc....optics being used in combat in A-stan and Iraq..........

If they almost never fail or become broken in the ruff and tumble world of combat, than I suppose my point means nothing.....but still it would be nice to have good iron sights as back up....if not for anything other than peace of mind......

I dont think it would be a compromise of any kind (accept maybe for increased cost of manufacture) to add in excellent flip up iron sights with proper sight radius and such into the XM-8 design in addition to its excellent optic....I mean, can somebody here tell me why that wouldnt be a good idea?????

I also dont understand why the XM-8 was designed with reciprocating cocking handle.....That is the ONE thing I hate about the G-36......not that I couldnt get used to it, but I dont want to have to get used to it should I buy the SL version hehehe.....just too damn annoying for me...but thats just me...maybe all of you guys couldnt give a damn about it.....just my personal preference (which is important heheh)

[obd]

One other thing I heard, maybe this is just a rumor though, is that they redesigned the XM-8 NOT to have a free floating barrel......

I remmember reading about it a long time ago as having the same free floating barrel as the G-36 (which it is loosely based on) but the most recent reports about it say that "no, it does not have a free floating barrel"....

Now why in the hell would they go through the trouble to take that feature out?? A free floating barrel is vital to accurate shooting and even improves reliability in heavy combat....Example: Special Ops personal have been able in combat to actually fire so many rounds through thier M-4s that the barrels actually bent!!!! No ****... With the IR pointers and such placed on the handguard, in addition to the operators hand pressure during combat firing, the barrels on the M4's have bent and made them weapon useless..........

A free floating barrel would eliminate this happening, at least for a good more number of rounds.........I mean, with a free floating barrel, you would have to fire so many hundreds of rounds that the barrel became white hot.........

Why would they take this feature out?? I think a free float barrel for the standard infantry assault weapons is something US troops have been waiying for since the Korean War.......I know I'd like that feature on my rifle........

The curent m-16a2 is described by the Army as having a "semi-free floating barrel" which is of course a load of bull****.....Thats only because the handguard comes into contact with the barrel at only two points.....but it still means the barrel is subjected to pressures and can be easily bent after sustained firing.......which effects accuracy and reliability....

[Sayeret]

I think that the 6.8mm round is probably a better bullet overall then the 5.56mm but even the 5.56mm bullet performed pretty well in Iraq, here is some information on it but can't find the link at the moment.

Does anyone have that link that talks about the performance of various weapons the Americans used in the second Gulf War?

[MEGR]

What do the Israelis think of the 5.56? They've been using that for decades.

[Deuterium]

And my real point hehe, was to say that the XM-8 lacks annything other than "emergency" iron sights which are basically useless beyond a hundred yards.......probably less...

I would argue for a set up like the current US Spec ops are using = Trijicon ACOG (best optical sight for general use in existance at the moment), combined with high quality flip up iron sights should the Trijicon become broken...........(I wonder if the optical sight on the XM-8 is quick detach or if a gunsmith must take it off....that would be important)

I would like to see figures, maybe they are "secret" of the mean rates of failure in the field of the Aimpoint, HOLO, Trijicon reflex etc....optics being used in combat in A-stan and Iraq..........

If they almost never fail or become broken in the ruff and tumble world of combat, than I suppose my point means nothing.....but still it would be nice to have good iron sights as back up....if not for anything other than peace of mind......

I dont think it would be a compromise of any kind (accept maybe for increased cost of manufacture) to add in excellent flip up iron sights with proper sight radius and such into the XM-8 design in addition to its excellent optic....I mean, can somebody here tell me why that wouldnt be a good idea?????

I also dont understand why the XM-8 was designed with reciprocating cocking handle.....That is the ONE thing I hate about the G-36......not that I couldnt get used to it, but I dont want to have to get used to it should I buy the SL version hehehe.....just too damn annoying for me...but thats just me...maybe all of you guys couldnt give a damn about it.....just my personal preference (which is important heheh)

Just for clarity the ACOG also comes with iron sights. I must agree with caliber discussion though.

[ibstolidude]

I would like to see figures, maybe they are "secret" of the mean rates of failure in the field of the Aimpoint, HOLO, Trijicon reflex etc....optics being used in combat in A-stan and Iraq..........

If they almost never fail or become broken in the ruff and tumble world of combat, than I suppose my point means nothing.....but still it would be nice to have good iron sights as back up....if not for anything other than peace of mind......
- I love my EOTech and continue to use it - it nor my past use of M68 ever resulted in a failure - although I also maintain BUIS for just that reason.

[Seraphim]

Yeah, it seems like a cartridge switch should be considered. The 5.56 was develped a long time ago. We must be able to do better. Either caseless, or a rifle that easily converts calibers like the old M-3 greasegun did.

I would suggest .300 WSM, but nobody likes my idea.

Ummm the AR15/M16Ax/M4AX can handle different cartridges...

As has been stated by myself and several others...

Just by swapping the upper you can shoot (and a mag well adapter for the pistol rounds):

.308
9mm
.45
.50Beowulf
.223
7.62x39
etc..

Edit: and of course...6.8mm

What about the 6.5 Grendel

[Durandal]

What about the 6.5 Grendel

Of course...courtesy of Alexander Arms...also the .21 Ghengis...

(Those were included in the etc. portion of the list...meaning: "there are others in addition to those I listed.