XM-8 Equipping Brigades for Tests

[Midav]

WEAPONS OF THE WORLD: XM-8 Equipping Brigades for Tests



January 14, 2004: Later this year, the U.S. Army will arm two brigades with a prototype of the new XM8 5.56mm assault rifle. This will allow for intensive field use of the rifle to work out any deficiencies in the design.

The XM-8 is based on the very successful Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle. It was this rifle that was modified to serve as the 5.56mm portion of the XM29 OICW weapon (which has a 20mm computer controlled weapon on top). The XM29 proved to be too heavy and bulky during field tests, but users were very impressed with the Heckler-Koch portion of the weapon. Actually, the 20mm computer controlled portion of the weapon was liked as well, but to solve the weight problem, a separate 25mm weapon (the XM25) is being developed. At the time, it was suggested that the 5.56mm portion of the XM29 was a superb weapon and might make an excellent replacement for the four decade old M-16. So the decision was made to develop the Heckler-Koch 5.56mm weapon into a new American assault rifle.

Last Fall, 200 prototype XM8s were ordered and put through tests. The rifles were fired thousands of times, without being cleaned and in dusty and sandy terrain, and the weapons didn't jam. This was no surprise, as Heckler-Koch had developed an innovative mechanism for the G36 that keeps crud from building up and jamming the firing mechanism. While the major appeal of the XM8 is reliability, Heckler-Koch designs are also noted for their flexibility. The XM-8 is a modular weapon, taking three different barrels for different functions. Most XM-8s would look similar to the current M-4, with a shorter barrel than the M-16. There would be a longer barrel for sharpshooters and snipers (longer than the M-16 barrel) and a heavy barrel, of about the same length as the M-16, for the XM-8 when used as a light machine-gun. There would also be a "commando" version with an even shorter barrel and, with the butt stock folded, is only 20 inches long. This would be for use in tight spaces, and for vehicle crews. There has been a big demand for this sort of thing in Iraq, where vehicles get ambushed a lot and people in the vehicles want to get their rifles out and firing as quickly as possible.

For all but the commando version, the barrels can be changed by the unit armorer (with some special tools.) Instead of the different optical systems currently available for the M-4/M-16, the XM-8 would have one system combining a red dot reticule, a backup sight that requires no power, an infrared pointer, an infrared illuminator and a visible pointer. The multipurpose optical system will be popular with the troops, since they will only have to zero one optical system, but be able to use all of them.

There would also be parts available to quickly convert XM-8s to fire AK-47 ammo (some M-16s are already available with that modification.) Special Forces troops often use this type of weapon, when operating in areas with lots of AK-47 ammo. The XM-8 will not have the three round burst fire mode M-16s have had since the 1980s. The mechanism that allowed the three round burst has caused reliability problems, and most officers now agree that well trained troops can handle using full auto fire (and any problems with running out of ammo.) The G36 has other innovations that will probably show up in the XM-8, like the magazine with clear plastic on one side, so that the soldier can just look to see how many rounds he has left.

Equipping entire brigades with XM-8s as a large scale test shows great confidence in the weapon. But this should not be surprising, as the G36 that the XM-8 is based on has been around for years. The German army began using the G36 in 1995, and other European armies (and U.S. troops stationed in Europe) quickly noticed that it was an exceptional weapon. If the XM-8 does replace the M-16, it will probably be built in the United States by Heckler-Koch, and by one or more American firms under license.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTWEAP.HTM

If memory serves me correct, isn't H&K already building a factory in the US?

In any case, glad to hear this. Sounds like a good rifle!

[AFG]

Yes, HK is building/has already a factory here in the US. i dont see why we need to spend more on this thing, since the M16 and M4 are still not obsolete yet. Thats the first time i heard about the converter to use AK rounds, maybe it will convince army leaders that 7.62>5.56 :D (one can only hope).


another thing. anyone here about the 6.8 mm (i think) round?

[James]

Does it have iron sights?

[earl]

Yesalso to the ak-up iron sights...we have preliminary drawings finished for 3 X different systemsfor immediate integration and retro fitting...waiting on user decision as to which design to go wih--I have my preferences!!! By the way...I got the point across to the decision makers about the importance of a fixed iron (mechanical) sighting system in two ways:

1) By drawing a correlation to the iron sights being a reserve parachute that has to work 100% of the time.

2) And also by strating to refer to them as an "alternate sighting" system rather than a back-up ("alternate sights" vice "back-up sights").

I found--when first arriving at my new job--that the problem with those who are not educated enough to realize a difference between a constant(iron sights) and a nice to have (red dot sights) was that they were not saavy enough to realize that by calling the sights a "back-up" they were equating that phraseology to meaning that the sights only need to be reliable and effective only a certain percentage of the time. Frankly you can't blame them...THEY JUST DON'T KNOW. So what I did was simply change the vernacular/verbage and start calling the iron sights (and referring to them always as) an alternate sight. This forced those who didn't understand what the need was for an iron sight, to simply ask what is an alternate sight. This then effected a dialogue that allowed us to describe to them in detail why the constant of the iron sight (at least in the near future or until we perfect the "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range") is something that will be...sort of like the sun alway srising and setting, us always having to pay taxes and "everyone gotta die sometime Red"!!! It's amazing what you can acheive with a little patience, some conviction and a little "Jedi mind" trickery!!!"

For whatever it's worth, this is supposedly from someone working on the project. I was too lazy to track down the original source of this through the forum where I found it, and just have this text saved locally.

[Hullebullen]

If they are dropping the OICW, why re-arm? I thought it was the main reason for the adoption of the XM-8. The M4 is a derivative of an old design, true, but so are most "modern" service rifles, tried-and-true mechanisms with a little bit of high-tech plastic added. The one-gun-for-all-purposes never seem to work as well as those selling the guns claims.

[marktigger]

maybe because the M16 has reached the end of the line. I hope the UK govt start looking at it to replace SA80.

[Hullebullen]

But the majority of the M4's must be relatively newly produced. The original M4 was introduced somewhere in the late eighties, right (I'm not totally sure about this, though)? Some examples of the ksp.58 (FN-MAG) I used during my service where older than I am but they worked perfectly and that design is also around 40 years. The US recently adopted it, too. But I guess it take a while before the XM reach army in major numbers so...

[garyfanclub]

I think they should issue them in limited numbers to soldiers in Iraq, maybe like 1 or 2 per squad so they can see how it does in real combat.

[mustamato]

I am sure someone of the american soldiers will ask for, and demand a folding stock when it´s time to fill the evaluation papers. Especially those that really doesn´t use it anyway, such as the vehicle crews and so forth, isn´t it in the US so that in example Abrams crews are only armed with pistols? And in Iraq they (atleast in the beginning) had to use captured AKMS´s?

[Zach R.]

Take it to Iraq? The thing would frickin' melt! I dunno'. I just think the thing is ugly as a $0.01 whore. Besides, in basic you're trained on the M16. Wouldn't it be hard to make a transition from an old friend to an ugly duckling?

[Apogee]

Yes, HK is building/has already a factory here in the US.



Yeah, they have a production facility down by FT Benning. A guy who used to work here (among other places) is down there working for them now.

[papasmerf]

Take it to Iraq? The thing would frickin' melt! I dunno'. I just think the thing is ugly as a $0.01 whore. Besides, in basic you're trained on the M16. Wouldn't it be hard to make a transition from an old friend to an ugly duckling?


I don't care how the weapon looks like, ugly or not, if it's going to save lives, it is a good weapon. You guys got any pics?

[usa320]

I like the reports that it doesnt jam. I think by 2005 we should have ALL M-16 models retired, have ALL front line and SOF units equipped with XM-8's, and all rear line/supporting units equipped with M-4's.

[garyfanclub]

Take it slow usa, I'd like to see how this thing performs in a combat enviornment. I hate to see everyone get issued a rifle that we later find out sucks for anything other than shooting at the range.

[WARPIG]

Actually the timetables I have seen looks to have a Unit "Stand-Up" time of about 2006. If the logistics are planned right, following units will only take 1-2 years to achieve "Stand-Up" with the new equipment. Probably less. Unless it changes the TO&E of a unit... the re-equip and training for a system could take little more than a few qualifications, a couple field problems, and shazam!
The question I have is that the Land Warrior has a similar time table. Any one hear of how the LW system fits in?
I know that the 20mm HEAB round is a hard on program but the combo OICW is not looking good quite yet. Is a seperate GL being considered or is the OICW just not being projected very soon?

[Midav]

Take it to Iraq? The thing would frickin' melt! I dunno'. I just think the thing is ugly as a $0.01 whore. Besides, in basic you're trained on the M16. Wouldn't it be hard to make a transition from an old friend to an ugly duckling?


I don't care how the weapon looks like, ugly or not, if it's going to save lives, it is a good weapon. You guys got any pics?

I agree!

http://www.hk-usa.com/

There's the HK link...

[FallenAngel]

I like the reports that it doesnt jam. I think by 2005 we should have ALL M-16 models retired, have ALL front line and SOF units equipped with XM-8's, and all rear line/supporting units equipped with M-4's.

Since it's basically a G36 in a new shell, I wasn't expecting it to jam either ;) As for the M16s being gone- I highly doubt it. The USMC, USAF and USN have expressed nothing but a slight interest in the XM8 AFAIK- so for right now, this is just an Army thing. The USMC just recently (in the past year or two) adopted the M16A4 as it's new standard issue weapon and the USAF still uses M16A1s and CAR15s.

As for pics: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

As you can see, there are several versions planned. The standard issue carbine, the under-barrel grenade launcher (which, surprise, is based on the G36 grenade launcher.) a long barreled version (presumably for Designated Marksman duty) and a short PDW type version (helo and vehicle crews.) The LMG version is "possible" but I doubt probably. The German Army opted to o with the new MG43 (also HK) instead while the Spanish retained their "Ameli" LMG (basically a 5.56mm version of the MG3). So, I would think the US would keep the M249. Note though that the rifles being field tested are black, not brown ;)

[Operation Ivy]

Does it have iron sights?

Yup ( at least i think thats a ironsite) :D

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/xm8!.jpg

[WARPIG]

H&K is awsome. I really thought that FN would get the OICW contract thought. I guess the timetable played a big part. The reliability test results really made an impact. With the HK G36 having such a good showing the XM8 was bound to get a good start.
The F2000 was a good competitor but I doubt it will make any showing. It is currently on the market and looks much less gangely than the HK version. They already produce the M249, M240, and even the M2 series for the US Armed forces. They also are seeing a lot of success with the P90 and Five Seven. Both use an armor defeating round close to the 5.56 that we use already.
Still.. HK was bound to get noticed. Their products have been pretty damn solid in the past.

[wholagun]

I dunno I kinda like the design in black, not so much in brown but in black it looks good. One question why not just get rid of the bridge from the sight to the end of the barrel. Is there any real purpose for this (bridge, handel) to be there?

[HooyahCQB]

The new plant is being built in Columbus, Georgia

[Midav]

I agree. It does look better in black heh

Built on the ruins of Mauser, HK is continuing the tradition of its predecessor.

What's ironic is that the M1903 was based on Mauser's model 98 (if memory serves me correct on the designation).

...

[Midav]

Just looked it up.


Mauser 98:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl02-e.htm

M1903:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl07-e.htm[/url]

[earl]

Does it have iron sights?

Yup ( at least i think thats a ironsite) :D

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/xm8!.jpg

I think this is a quadrant sight for the grenade launcher, but I'm not certain. I expect the rifle's iron sights will have to be over the barrel somehow, maybe through the handrail, under the optic.

[MARINO]

German Army opted to o with the new MG43 (also HK) instead while the Spanish retained their "Ameli" LMG (basically a 5.56mm version of the MG3). So, I would think the US would keep the M249. Note though that the rifles being field tested are black, not brown ;)

Spain will probably replace AMELI by MINIMI or MG-43 because AMELI hadn't give the result that spanish amy hoped. :(

[marktigger]

still haven't goten a good answer as to why the UK bought para minimi? MG43 would have been nice.

[MVSpartan117]

Beside I hate that little stock, my real complaint is that they did not put a pictanny rail system on it! What would drive the to not do that?

[VorpalDoom]

Not much of a fan of the xm8, it looks slick, but that's about it. The M4RIS looks far more compact, and is a lot less bulky.

As for 7.62mm weapons replacing m16s? yea, but not ak47 rounds... try 7.62x51mm, and NOT 7.62x39mm.

it'll be interesting to hear about this test.

[DPGLAW]

How does the leathality of 20MM airburst round compare to the 40MM grenade currently used in the M203? Obviously 40MM is larger than 20MM, that I realize, however I do not think that the Military would convert to using the 20MM if there was a great loss of killing power. I understand the aiming and intelligence of the new round and weapons system is far superior, but how do they compare in terms of lethality?

I mean the aiming and airbursting feature provide great advantages such as hitting targets which are barricaded behind objects, but do they do the same or similar damage? Wouldn't it be possible for the Army to develop a 40MM with the same features in terms of percise aimind ability or would it be too large and cumbersome for the infantryman to carry??

Well I guess that way more than one question but it would be appreciated if someone could shed some light on that for me...thanks


Also, what happened to the OCIW, was the development of that weapons system scrapped??

**Edited for typos**

[usa320]

THE OICW is an XM-8 mated to an XM-29 grenade system.

Also, i think the XM-8 doesnt look to bad at all, i also like the fact that it doesnt jam as much as an M-4 or M-16. In the end i think the M-4 will still be the preffered weapon by SF because of its compactness and moddability.

[VorpalDoom]

A 40mm HE round vs a 20mm he round is kinda bland. But the reason the 20mm will dominate the 40mm in most cases is the fact that it can be fire via the m29 system semi-automaticly. before having to reload.

so, say, the 40mm has a "power" of 10. and the 20mm has a power of 4.
4 times 6 = 24.

So the M29 delivery system clearly emits more power through more rounds fired.

Accuracy and such make the 20mm air burst supirior, though the 40mm will still have its advantages, via being more destructive, and a lighter unit.

Origionaly the M29 was supposed to be able to mount on almost all new hk weapons, the belive it or not, the XM8 wasn't part of the origional m29 rifle system, and the m29 is being redesigned to fit the xm8, which i doubt it will be fitted for. The m29 system will defenetly need to be mounted on a smaller rifle. It will be one of those "specialty" wepaons, and probobly be givin to everyone that uses a 40mm grenade launcher. Meanwhile I see the hk's 40mm grenade launcher mounted under the m8. meh, i'll stick with my m4 thank you.

a couple other problems with the m8.
Magazines are larger, not as in carrying more ammo, but the case for the bullets themselves is larger, and easier to snag onto things, mostly because they are built to snap 3 magazines together.
apparently holding the actual grip infront of the magazine is actually somewhat uncomfortable, hence the reason you will see more and more soldiers holding it by the mag, and hopefully, soon, we'll be seeing forgrips, and the xm8 being covered in RIS strips.
also, the g36 style **** is too slow in my opinion, and i belive final versions of the xm8 will change a lot of that.
At least add:
M29 compatability
RIS
Replacement of the top sight and handle with RIS
Magaines that fit current AR15 series magazines, and not HK style
Folting/retracting buttstock, one or the other.
m16 style ****

Then, if that gets done, then i think we have a winner for a new rifle.

[DPGLAW]

Thanks VorpalDoom....you answered all my questions, I hadn't factored in the semi-auto, magazine feature...

[soma]

It may be functional, but it just doesn't look 'tough' :P

[SOG]

god, my kingdom for a day in HK's cad design program!

[Midav]

The Army last week decided to reorganize the program developing a successor to the M-4 and M-16 rifles, which will slow fielding of the kinetic energy carbine but speed development of the automatic weapons attachment, according to a service official.
The decision comes on the heels of an Army request to Congress for an additional $26 million to purchase 7,000 weapons for two combat brigade teams by September 2005 as part of the service‘s list of unfunded requirements.

"This has everything to do with getting a product to the field in FY-05," said Col. Michael Smith, the Army‘s project manager for soldier weapons. "This is production money they‘re asking for."

If Congress disregards the Army‘s request, the program office could still field the weapon in FY-05, but it‘s likely the quantity would be smaller, he said.

After an Army review this week, officials decided the XM-8 carbine program should head to a "milestone C" review in February 2005. Initially, officials planned to make a full-rate production decision in September 2004.

The Army wants to field the entire family of XM-8 rifles and not just the first three variants -- the compact, the carbine and the sharpshooter. The new schedule accounts for the automatic rifle, which had not been scheduled for fielding until FY-06.

Testing was originally planned for spring 2005; now, Smith said he expects to see a prototype of the automatic this summer or early fall and testing to begin this fall.

Fielding the XM-8 as a family will enable squads to reconfigure their weapons all at once and eliminate existing inconsistencies that are found in some infantry units, Smith said. Army units currently need three different weapons and manuals.

"In other words, except for the barrels and the hand guards, the inner workings of those various weapons -- the XM-8 carbine, sharpshooter and the automatic rifle -- are the same," Smith said. "So you reduce the logistics burden and give [the soldiers] the ability to switch parts around."

At this point, the weapons must complete testing. The XM-8 recently underwent cold weather tests in Alaska. Resulting changes are due to appear in a modified rifle this May.

The modifications include ergonomic alterations, such as changing button positions on the sight, which will make the weapon more user friendly, as well as performance enhancements, such as extending the life of the battery to 400 hours from 200.

While the weapon performed well in cold weather, Smith said he confirmed a problem with the hand guard that appeared in technical testing. During sustained firing, the hand guard could melt, a problem common in small arms development, Smith said.

"If you put enough rounds through a weapon, your barrel will go hot. There‘s no question about it. It will get very, very hot," he said.

The XM-8‘s hand guard suffered for a few reasons. The XM-8 only transfers heat to the barrel and doesn‘t transfer any to the receivers. The hand guard is made from a heat-resistant material. The current rifle systems transfer heat to the barrel as well as the receivers, and it contains heat shielding.

Similar heat shielding would be a last option for the XM-8, because the technology adds weight, a prospect Smith said he is trying avoid. According to a comparison chart published by contractor Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc., the XM-8 carbine weighs 6.4 pounds but is trying to slim down to 5.7 pounds. The same chart indicates that the M-4 weighs 8.85 pounds.

In crafting a new hand guard that will appear on the version released in May, developers will use a different lightweight heat resistant material and change the design. It will be shorter, wider and contain holes to release hot air, Smith said.

Another round of tests to monitor the new fixes will follow, along with a late-summer hot weather test in Yuma, AZ.

At the same time, Training and Doctrine Command is reviewing and updating the project‘s requirements and developing a set of tactics, techniques and procedures for the XM-8 family of weapons.

During the summer of 2005, a team of officials from program executive office soldier weapons, sustainment specialists from Rock Island, IL, and officers from TRADOC will replace a unit‘s weapons, magazines, manuals and accessories with the XM-8 and begin training the soldiers. The process should wrap up in September 2005, Smith said.

Although many divisions are calling to see whether they will be picked to receive the weapons first, Smith said the decision has not been made. The only hint is that the test would be conducted on a brigade combat team with a Stryker brigade as one possibility, he said.


https://peosoldier.army.mil/news.asp?article=144

[Durandal]

Say what!?

Why are they equiping a Stryker Brigade...an experiment with the XM-8...an experiment.

That makes no sense.

I bet good ol' Col. Smith is getting a PHAT position in H&K when this is all over.

[Midav]

Say what!?

Why are they equiping a Stryker Brigade...an experiment with the XM-8...an experiment.

That makes no sense.

I bet good ol' Col. Smith is getting a PHAT position in H&K when this is all over.

The Stryker brigade has been going through testing for several years now. Also, been deployed to Iraq for a few months.

By next years time they ought to have the kinks removed.

In any case, glad the military is going along with the M8 ;)

Off to work....

[crazyman]

they are probably not refering to the stryker brigade from 2d ID, they'll be deployed for the rest of 2004. rather i would guess they are refering to the 2nd stryker BCT that the army has been working on. dont ask me what div its out of, i havent the foggiest. one of the heavy units

[tuckerhat]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=134&t=143187

bottom pic on first page... is that xm-8?

[Durandal]

The Stryker brigade has been going through testing for several years now. Also, been deployed to Iraq for a few months.

Hmmm...its not even equiped with all the various Stryker based platforms yet.

No. If you are going to field test an experimental firearms do it was a unit NOT being experimented with in the first place. A normal infantry or mech brigade for example.

The Army is so political that if one experiment screws up then the other gets a black mark by association.

If I am running a science experiment I run two independent experiments not two on the same subject. One could interfere with the results of the other.

How f*cking idiotic and illogical.

[Durandal]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=134&t=143187

bottom pic on first page... is that xm-8?

Yes, the "standard" issue variant...

[Ratamacue]

I think that might be the Commando version, not the standard.

[Durandal]

I think that might be the Commando version, not the standard.

Nope, unless they made a radical change some time, the "commando" version has no stock. :|

The XM-8 is NOT a RIFLE. It is a carbine, unless you mod it out in the following variants:

Sniper Rifle
SAR (I choke on this one)
Commando Machine Pistol...

This may of course have changed since the weapon system is always in a state of flux...but I have not seen a listed change of "variants"

People have ALWAYS bitched about the barrel length(at least those that don't buy the whole program hook line and sinker).

Yeah baby...a standard issue 12.5 inch barrel! *woot*

Now everyone can look like the carry futuristic M4s!

[Gringo]

I think that might be the Commando version, not the standard.

It's Commando for sure.

Commando Versions
http://www.gun-world.net/USA/xm8/fs-c2.jpg
http://www.gun-world.net/USA/xm8/fs-c1.jpg
http://www.gun-world.net/USA/xm8/foldstock.jpg
Carbine 'Standard' version
http://www.gun-world.net/USA/xm8/xm8_still-life.jpg

Chris Neidrich (RIP)
http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/MSTN/CN/Chris_XM8.jpg

[Dennis G]

XM8 SYSTEM DATA SHEET (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8_sheet111703.pdf)

HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON OF XM8 v. M4 SYSTEMS (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf) <-- I would like to see some of you comments to this .pdf

ARMY TIMES ARTICLE ON XM8 TESTING PROGRESS (http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8armytimes.html)

HK UNITED STATES FACTORY ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/HK-M%20factory%20announcement.pdf)

[Ratamacue]

Look Durandal, I told you! :P

[rob]

XM8 SYSTEM DATA SHEET (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8_sheet111703.pdf)

HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON OF XM8 v. M4 SYSTEMS (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf) <-- I would like to see some of you comments to this .pdf

ARMY TIMES ARTICLE ON XM8 TESTING PROGRESS (http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8armytimes.html)

HK UNITED STATES FACTORY ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/HK-M%20factory%20announcement.pdf)

what about it, it is a fatory comparison which is extrememly biased and most of it bs designed to make th xm8 look better. it is even out dated(the weapon to my understanding has been made heavier) and many of the numbers are tragets not what thexm8 actually is.

[Fintin]

my question is....what ever happend to the land warrior system....the xm8 can rot in my ass and die

[rob]

my question is....what ever happend to the land warrior system....the xm8 can rot in my ass and die

its still alive and it designed to work with botht eh m4 and xm8 so there wont be set backs because of what weapon is chosen.

[Ratamacue]

my question is....what ever happend to the land warrior system....the xm8 can rot in my ass and die

https://peosoldier.army.mil/photos/LW_DCU_XM8_1low.jpg
https://peosoldier.army.mil/photos/LW_DCU_XM8_2low.jpg

[rob]

about the xm8, i am not its biggest fan. the first thing i would d is redesign the for grip, and incorparate some irons. but if i had all say i would kill the poject altogether.

then modify the m4 to have a gas piston, similar to what hk did, but i am not entirely happy with the design. and then invest money in projects which actually have a benefit over the m4, like the soemthing similar to the ak108 and an94. i have to hand it to the russians they are creative when it comes to small arms. and then issue those weapons to front line trroops and keep the m4 in the support sections.

[Operation Ivy]

Im hoping that the standard 12.5 in barrell will be as good as the M16's 16in barrell

[rob]

Im hoping that the standard 12.5 in barrell will be as good as the M16's 16in barrell

the m16 has a 20ich berral and hwo would a 12.5 inch berral be able to matcha longer berral?

[Midav]

The Stryker brigade has been going through testing for several years now. Also, been deployed to Iraq for a few months.

Hmmm...its not even equiped with all the various Stryker based platforms yet.

No. If you are going to field test an experimental firearms do it was a unit NOT being experimented with in the first place. A normal infantry or mech brigade for example.

The Army is so political that if one experiment screws up then the other gets a black mark by association.

If I am running a science experiment I run two independent experiments not two on the same subject. One could interfere with the results of the other.

How f*cking idiotic and illogical.

If it were a radical new hand held laser weapon that would be mor ethan a handful, I would agree with you.

However, it is not so.

What better place to test it, than in, well, a unit doing experiments?

[Midav]

Btw:

Edit: Image deleted.

Looks like the M8 is already being "tested" in Iraq. See how it does. :D

I borrowed this from Remov's thread:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17199&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Alphabet76]

Please check some 10-15 posts back (yes, this thread). Judging by post times someone
was faster then REMOV this time.

[Midav]

I saw the picture and at the time had no idea where it was taken.

Remov explained where it was taken and I trust his info, as he is a reliable poster.

[Fintin]

i still **** in the general direction of this thing....they want a new gun...then build a new gun...dont give them the exact same thing with a few improvements and less versitility (not as many attatchment points) and expect me to pay fecking taxes for this ****...why the hell cant i vote on this...put it on the ballot in november....ill mark that box with a terd

[Midav]

What was your impression of the XM8 when you used it, Fintin?

[Fintin]

What was your impression of the XM8 when you used it, Fintin?

my impression is i dont like my tax money going to pointless things like this...we have guns...they work....they are better then the people we dont likes guns...thats my fecking use

[Midav]

What was your impression of the XM8 when you used it, Fintin?

my impression is i dont like my tax money going to pointless things like this...we have guns...they work....they are better then the people we dont likes guns...thats my fecking use

But what was your impression of firing it?

How did the sand tests compare to the M16/M4 sand tests?

Ammo cookoff?

And the like?

I wouldn't say the money is being waisted for procuring something that is better than what we have now.

If you have followed me, and I realize we all have an "I have a friend/family in Afghanistan/Iraq story" then I must honestly say if it's true what is being done to the XM8 in tests, then it outpaces the M16/M4 in reliability by a long shot.

It's a shame when you have friends and family telling you about their weapons jamming, especially in a combat zone.

And I will repeat what I said before.... Granted, it is nothing like Vietnam, however, having been a military brat for 20 years and having heard of stories of the M16 jamming, and now hearing the same stories of family and friends currently fighting, yes, it is high time to get a new weapon in place.

That is not wasted money.

Perhaps some have a problem of its origin. Big deal.

[Midav]

Some things I find funny in the assessment report:

The US Army executed OIF with three variants of the M16 series of assault weapons: the M16A2, the M16A4, and the M4 Carbine (hereafter referred to as M16 series). The latter two were configured as Modular Weapon Systems in units so equipped. A fourth version, the M4A1, was used by Special Operations Forces but was not encountered by the assessment team.

The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the weapon after pulling it out of the dirt (“like you can do with the AK” was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability. This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.

(I realize a weapon should be cleaned as often as possible, yet what I personally hear, people are constantly cleaning their M16's/M4's for reliability issues.

Is on mainetnance is nice, hence why some of the structures on the Xm8 are similar to that of the M16. But, if you constantly have to do it, eventually you'll be caught with your pants down.)

Most soldiers considered The M16 series to be very accurate regardless of the version used or the sighting system employed. One sniper team spotter employed his M16A4 (equipped with a high powered scope) against targets at 600 and 800 meters with first round hits in each case.

Those units equipped with the Rail Adapter System (RAS) were very happy with its modularity and flexibility of employment. Most units allowed soldiers to place accessories on the Modular Weapon System where they best suited the individual. Some units prescribed weapon configuration in their standard operating procedures. Many soldiers stated that the RAS should be an integral part of the weapon rather than an adapter kit.

In the discussion with field units there were no quality issues with ammunition from the production facility. Consensus of the troops is that this weapon/ammunition is effective for its intended purposes. Ammunition was correctly marked and packaged and there were no incidents of defective materials, damaged or dented rounds etc.

Second:

Discussion: The majority of the issues experienced with the M16 series rifles in theatre were attributable to the magazines. Most problems reported occurred from loading the M16 series magazine with 30 rounds. One problem was that the magazine is difficult to seat in the weapon with the bolt closed and the magazine tends to spread apart at the top, increasing the difficulty with insertion. Most soldiers relieved these problems by loading less than 30 rounds. One soldier recommended 25 rounds to ease the math associated with ammunition status. No one complained about the reduced capacity.

(The magazine issue has been there since Vietnam. They haven't been able to resolve it after nearly 40 years?)

Recommendations: In the short term, advise the AOR to fill magazines with a maximum of 28 rounds and provide units with magazines issued with RFI. In the long term, the quality and the design of the M16 series magazine must undergo review. Combat Developers should consider whether 30 rounds per magazine are operationally required.

http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

Please. I am not saying the M16 is a terrible weapon. It is not.

However if I see something that is better and much more reliable, yes, I will want that weapon.

That's not a waste of money.

[rob]

the problem youhighlighted was with the magazines. not really the weapons, so they could just by new mags, which would fix the even much more trouble some m9. the m16 had a very good after action report, the m9 and m249 had worse reports but nothing is being done to replace them. this program is fixing non of the out standing problems and ignoring the problems that do exist. so yes i would go as far to call it a complete waste of money. money which could be better spent on replacing the m249 and buying new mags all around. then there would be fewer problems around the board.

[Midav]

Yet as I stated, that "problem" has been around since the M-16 was around.

Why hasn't it been fixed in nearly 40 years?

Also, the continuous maintenance of the weapon can also be hindering.

The article:


While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.


Many times that just wasn't/isn't once a day, but rather, several times a day.

In a true all out war, is time really a convenience to set down and clean your weapon whenever you need it?

in this case: Suddenly you're stuck in a massive sandstorm and your weapon jams up on you every few seconds.

That doesn't build up confidence.

[Midav]

Fixing to head off to bed.

I just want to say that the M-16 is a good weapon. It serves its purpose well and have heard many stories of it..... you'd think so being a military brat plus being the kid of a Vietnam vet heh...

However, not just from me, but hearing numerous stories from many different individuals, it's probably just time for a new weapon to enter the US military service.

If foreign or not, what does it matter? It's being built in the US and reliability wise, it surpasses the M16.

If it makes one feel better, the G36/M8 has many similar internal functions to the AR-18, which imo should have taken the place of the M-16 years ago.

Good night.

[Fintin]

midav......i think you got a hardon for this weapon...did you spoon with your rifle last night....all the problems with the m16 family are fixable...without having to totaly overhall the inventory...i havent fired eather weapon...im just going for the lesser of two evils...evils beeing costs

[Durandal]

Look Durandal, I told you! :P

Nope, you are correct. I was wrong. I never saw an image of the gun with the stock clipped on on.

[Durandal]

I could care less about "reports" I want to see random interviews with soldiers and officers that are not affiliated with the program at all, who like the gun enough justify its cost.

They cooked the books on the AR15/M16 trials in the '60s and I am certainly old enough to remember how great THIS platform was touted to be:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m247-1.gif

No one should EVER trust military R&D and procurement. It is driven by politics and greed. To simply take "published" data and use it as your source is folly. Especially when it comes from the DoD and H&K, the two groups that benefit from it being adopted.

[Midav]

midav......i think you got a hardon for this weapon...did you spoon with your rifle last night....all the problems with the m16 family are fixable...without having to totaly overhall the inventory...i havent fired eather weapon...im just going for the lesser of two evils...evils beeing costs

No more than your hardon for the M-16. I already posted a reply to everything you said. You just have to read it.

As for cost, I posted on that as well. In the end, it's the soldier that's going to use this weapon. If it performs better than what we have now, I repeat again, it's not a waste of money.

[Fintin]

im just going to let D eat you alive now...i said my piece....i dont have a hardon for the m16....just a general enjoyment of money in my pocket....

[Midav]

As they say in Germany, Ja-Ja. ;)

Oh, you get to keep the money in your pocket, so that's a non issue.

[Fintin]

As they say in Germany, Ja-Ja. ;)

Oh, you get to keep the money in your pocket, so that's a non issue.

no i dont get to keep the money in my pocket....cause i have to pay for a gun that isnt needed

not only a new gun..but new training prgarams for new recurtes


retraining of current personell


training for mantainence personel


see....here is my idea....look at the b52.....its been flying for some 50 years and is expected to go another 50....the m16 has gone for about 40...longer then most any other rifle sept the ak47.....it has had improvements along the way.,..all thats NEEDED....is a another round of improvements....not a whole new system that brings in its own whole new set of promblems.....if we keep the m16....we save money....we eliminate a learning curve....look back at vietnam when the m16 was introduced....the death rates were high at first on our end ....why....because the rifle was new....once we got past the learning curve the rate dropped....im just looking at the basic needs...and the cheepest way to fix them from what i can see....i love my country and support the armed forces....but i hate their spending habbits....

[Midav]

So, you are telling me that you will not have any money left for you, because you are financing this weapon?

As to not being needed, already posted on that...

[Fintin]

So, you are telling me that you will not have any money left for you, because you are financing this weapon?

As to not being needed, already posted on that...


im saying i would have more money..thus helping the economy thus helping the countery over all....you posted **** about need....you posted want...WANT and NEED are totaly differnt.....there is a need for improvements...a WANT for a new gun....

[Midav]

We're not talking B-52's here. Also, if you want to go that route, then why buy over priced B-2's?

I realize this thread is going nowhere in a hurry, so I have a solution.....

Let's find out those people that have fired both the M-16 and the XM8 and see what their overall opinion is.

We haven't fired it and we are not the ones that will use it, but rather, the soldiers.

If they like the M-16 better, my apologies to you and everyone else that think the M-16 is the better weapon.

If they like the XM8 better, you can apologize..... or don't.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep over a debate I had on an internet board heh

[Midav]

So, you are telling me that you will not have any money left for you, because you are financing this weapon?

As to not being needed, already posted on that...


im saying i would have more money..thus helping the economy thus helping the countery over all....you posted **** about need....you posted want...WANT and NEED are totaly differnt.....there is a need for improvements...a WANT for a new gun....

As compared to the **** you're posting?

At least I wipe my ass rofl

Now read above.

[Fintin]

If they like the M-16 better, my apologies to you and everyone else that think the M-16 is the better weapon.

the xm8 might be an improved weapon...but those same improvments can be transfered to the m16 and its varients (m4)...just look at the hkm4....same performance as the xm8 while only modifying the existing weapon....

[Midav]

I will repeat what i said:

We're not talking B-52's here. Also, if you want to go that route, then why buy over priced B-2's?

I realize this thread is going nowhere in a hurry, so I have a solution.....

Let's find out those people that have fired both the M-16 and the XM8 and see what their overall opinion is.

We haven't fired it and we are not the ones that will use it, but rather, the soldiers.

If they like the M-16 better, my apologies to you and everyone else that think the M-16 is the better weapon.

If they like the XM8 better, you can apologize..... or don't.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep over a debate I had on an internet board heh

On note, why hasn't the magazine issue been fixed in some 40 years?

Why haven't they fixed the reliability issues on the M-16 yet? Why does it continuesly need to be cleaned in both those environments?

Time is not always a leisure.

There is a need to get this weapon replaced. If not Vietnam where many a soldier died holding a jammed M-16, then the 507th in Iraq is a modern day example.

[Lt_Crooks]

ok..Fintin has the greatest point ever . The DoD is in how many BILLIONS of dollars in debt? And if we need to be spending money we NEED to spend it on BETTER training NOT weapons. The M16 is a great weapon period. It has many years ahead of it. Am i the only one who thinks the XM8 just jumped out of a laser tag game! They need to make improvements on the M16 only. This jamming thing is not as common as many of you think it is. I think that the final decision makers , (if or not do adopt the XM8) should be the men and women in infantry and MPs and other combat MOS. From my view here doesnt the XM8 look more bulky than the M4? :slap: ...........also the guns jamming in Vietnam were due to the cheap ammunition used in them

[Midav]

It is not what we think.

Some of us actually worked and lived around the military. I wish people would actually read before they comment. I have friends and family that may be using the M-16/M4 right now as we speak. I hope to God they make it back home ok.

Now, for the upteenth time no one is saying the M-16 is a terrible weapon.
However, it still has jamming issues and it still has clip issues.
The two dominating problems that have not gone away much since the M-16 entered service.

Even if the M-16 gets revamped to fix these old problems, it's still going to cost money.
Why not procure a new system that does not have these problems to begin with?

Imo and forced on no one, that is why the AK-47 is a better weapon.
Again, that is my opinion.

You can take that sucker and throw it into dirt, not have to worry about cleaning it on a daily basis or worry about the thing gumming up on you. Sure, at longer ranges, the AK is not as accurate, yet how does that matter if most engagements take place under 300m anyway?

[Fintin]

ok..Fintin has the greatest point ever . The DoD is in how many BILLIONS of dollars in debt? And if we need to be spending money we NEED to spend it on BETTER training NOT weapons. The M16 is a great weapon period. It has many years ahead of it. Am i the only one who thinks the XM8 just jumped out of a laser tag game! They need to make improvements on the M16 only. This jamming thing is not as common as many of you think it is. I think that the final decision makers , (if or not do adopt the XM8) should be the men and women in infantry and MPs and other combat MOS. From my view here doesnt the XM8 look more bulky than the M4? :slap: ...........also the guns jamming in Vietnam were due to the cheap ammunition used in them


thats why they gave me the job of forum toe stepper

[SOG]

If they are dropping the OICW, why re-arm? I thought it was the main reason for the adoption of the XM-8. The M4 is a derivative of an old design, true, but so are most "modern" service rifles, tried-and-true mechanisms with a little bit of high-tech plastic added. The one-gun-for-all-purposes never seem to work as well as those selling the guns claims.

so the brass pushing the dead oicw may produce something to show for millions in failed research for the current time and still go out with the glory, "they brought something new in".

[Midav]

They're actually fixing to field two seperate weapons from the XM29.

[Durandal]

Some of us actually worked and lived around the military. I wish people would actually read before they comment. I have friends and family that may be using the M-16/M4 right now as we speak. I hope to God they make it back home ok.

Well thank you for making that so clear to us. I think its safe to say that we all have either "worked" and "lived" around or know someone in the military that in the past FORTY years has had their life on the line and used some variant of the AR15. This makes you no less "special" nor does it make you in some way an authority.


However, it still has jamming issues and it still has clip issues.
The two dominating problems that have not gone away much since the M-16 entered service.

Any firearms has these problems hell, there are a few subcompact pistols that jam if you do not hold them with a firm grip. An AK will jam if it gets dirty, a G36 will jam if dirty...


Even if the M-16 gets revamped to fix these old problems, it's still going to cost money.

Far less than a completely new system.


Why not procure a new system that does not have these problems to begin with?

Because there is no system that will EVER be fail proof, at least with current technology. Caseless designs were supposed to correct so fo these issues, but so long as you have a weapon that does not have a sealed environment, you will ALWAYS have these problems.



Imo and forced on no one, that is why the AK-47 is a better weapon.
Again, that is my opinion.

Again, the AK will jam if dirty. This is a myth that this rifle somehow magically works if not kept clean.


Sure, at longer ranges, the AK is not as accurate, yet how does that matter if most engagements take place under 300m anyway?

Actually, most engagement happen at 100 meters or less. This is being nitpicky, os I appologixe. I just wanted to get that stated though. However, if the complaints about the M4 are to be taken seriously when comes to range (something I never understood since it is a CQB weapon) then, well, a carbine is not what they are asking for...nor is a match grade DMR variant of the XM8, but a heavier caliber rifle.

Ultimately, I agrre with Fintin. More money should be spent on training and more troops, rather than finding some sort of magical wepaon to give troops a magical edge.

I have always supported spending money on our troops to get them the best equipment, which sometimes not not happen. I do not believe in half measures though, and the XM-8 is just that.

With that said...

No one here that I know of has fired the weapon. Nor has anyone been able to backup that statistical and test data we see on other websites. It is a prooven fact that A) Some R&D and procurement and project officers are bought by the defence industry C) Senators are also bought in similar ways C) Numbers get fudged on programs to meet requirements and D) The only sources of information are the people managing the project on the government side and the manufacturer's press releases (all of which can easily be tainted with...well...BS).

So, rather than telling us to not get down onthe XM=8 maybe it is wise that we are skeptical. Afterall, history supports us, not you.

I will gladly eat those words should ALL our troops love the weapon, but right now I find the who thing appalling.

[Midav]

*sigh* This is getting old.

Either I sound like a broken record, or people just don't want to pay attention.

I'll get to the point: You are already biased against the XM8 as is, Durandal and there is no point in going on.

Do you agree with the suggestion I made? The one about having people that actually fired both weapons post here and assess which is the better weapon?

Neutral people of course.

Answer quick, because I'm fixing to leave in a couple min.....

[Midav]

If the two main flaws of the M-16.. magazines and constant cleaning, especially in the desert environment, haven't been foxed in some 40 years, who says they will be fixed now?

Here's a German company, that simply put, made a better, more reliable weapon.

Also, never said the AK was indestructable and would never ever jam.

However, reliability wise, it puts the M-16 to shame.

Cya all.

[rob]

*sigh* This is getting old.

Either I sound like a broken record, or people just don't want to pay attention.

I'll get to the point: You are already biased against the XM8 as is, Durandal and there is no point in going on.

Do you agree with the suggestion I made? The one about having people that actually fired both weapons post here and assess which is the better weapon?

Neutral people of course.

Answer quick, because I'm fixing to leave in a couple min.....

well i have meat people that have handeled both weapons, and they said the xm8 felt like a cheap flimsy piece of ****. and those that where at the shot show shoot said that hk either lied about it being 100% reliable or there where some freak accidents at that shoot.

the only one witha bias seems to be you. history has shown that you should be cautious. with teh indroduction of the m1, the m14, and the m16. nearily all the weapons in history that where ever introduced have had problems. even the hk wonder gun. why go down that road again when we have a system which does the exact(read again EXACT) same thing when the there are parts on the market already that will modify it to exceed the xm8 in all areas, all at a much cheaper price.

the xm8 makes no sense, maybe you should read the same report which you posted. it states that the biggest problems where with the m249 and the m9. why not replace them. and the cleaning issue. you have to clean any(as in ak) weapon in that enviroment. even the m2's jammed in iraq. sand does that to a weapon.

me id just add a gas piston to the m4, and add some sand cuts to the carrier liek the brits did with the fal. the furthest i would go is the lmt mrp or the qcb upper. both platfoms would match the xm8 for reliability, and with the new uppers the berral could be changed easier, not tools in the case of the qcb(and this one uses normal m16 berrals too) and a simple hex wrench with the mrp, a feature which i dont see the use of but hk seems to be bragging about, and if the army likes the sight, it could very easily be modified to fit the m4. now we have two systems on par with eachother, but the other one would be much cheaper to inroduce and leave money to solve some of the real problems, such as the m9 mags or the worn out m249s. you can not tell me that the xm8 is not a poltically driven animal and a huge waste of time and money.

[Fintin]

If the two main flaws of the M-16.. magazines and constant cleaning, especially in the desert environment, haven't been foxed in some 40 years, who says they will be fixed now?

Here's a German company, that simply put, made a better, more reliable weapon.

Also, never said the AK was indestructable and would never ever jam.

However, reliability wise, it puts the M-16 to shame.

Cya all.


you smell like gun oil...you take that why a firearm is better then woman thing way too seriously

[SOG]

If the two main flaws of the M-16.. magazines and constant cleaning, especially in the desert environment, haven't been foxed in some 40 years, who says they will be fixed now?

Here's a German company, that simply put, made a better, more reliable weapon.

Also, never said the AK was indestructable and would never ever jam.

However, reliability wise, it puts the M-16 to shame.

Cya all.

the m16 magazine fix is as simple as leaving a few bullets off the top as said by US soldiers themselves. looking into a fix for this can be done in the future but this is a simple effective remedy. they recomended 25-28 bullets instead of 30. no soldiers complained about the reduced magazine.

as for the m16's reliabilty in the desert reported by troops in iraq:
The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the weapon after pulling it out of the dirt (“like you can do with the AK” was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability. This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.

so a little more reliabilty couldnt hurt, but US troops like thier weapon and state so. its as simple as that. yes the xm8 is a better weapon, but is better reliabilty over what US troops consider themselves to be near perfect as is, is it worth how many millions for entire armed forces? if the troops are happy.....

again, oicw, a failed project for now, and the brass behind it is trying its best to salvage something so they will not be looked down upon as failed and that they "put something new into service". granted it is better, but totally uneeded according to mass surveys of our own troops nit picking thier weapons apart in hostile terrain.

source
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=322645

[crazyman]

so which two BCT's are being equipped with this piece of work?

and by the way, happy bday u.s. army...229 years

[MaDuce]

Ahh the good enough gun. We hire them to make a OCIW but they can't deliver so they deliver this paint ball gun. Does it suck...I don't know havent used one or seen one used. It probably is better then the M-16 but like PC's you dont replacem every time somen better comes out. Who knows only time will tell.

[ZoneOne]

Well from what i've read and the thing's i've seen about it

It seems like a great gun - I hope to get my hands on it one day -- but thats doubtful


But here's my only point -- IF we are upgrading and getting rid of one weapon and replacing it with another

Why not change the caliber, because there has been a lot of talk about changing the M-16 caliber. 223 doesnt have the stopping power that we need

I think the XM-8 would be a great upgrade, but its kinda stupid in my opinion to just make a prettier gun, instead of a more powerful one.

[Midav]

To some of the above...

Something else I would like to point out, as to why the US military should adopt the XM8:

It's lighter, hence more ammo can be carried.
It has so far proven to be more reliable than the M4
If true, a per unit cost is cheaper than an M4.
Longer barrel life.
Several picatinny attachement points at no additional weight.
Better on target handling on auto.

If all true, then that makes it a pretty damn good rifle.

[Operation Ivy]

If all true, then that makes it a pretty damn good rifle

I wouldnt call if a rifle,more of a carbine :D

[SOG]

still ironing out some xm8 probs, its sounding better:

It, too, has some problems, namely the ambidextrous reciprocating cocking handle located on top of the receiver, which should be moved to the left-hand side of the receiver [A top-mounted reciprocating handle negates the ability to use a true 1913 Picatinny rail (top) for optical gunsights and scopes]. They might want to also consider making it (the cocking handle) non-reciprocating. Basically, the HK XM8 is an HK G36K/G36C with a face-lift, a G36 gone "Star Trek", if you will. Same insides, just a new outer cover.

That said, from all the reports I've read so far, the HK XM8 is very controllable (surprisingly controllable, actually) on full-auto, and should prove to be much more reliable under adverse combat conditions than the M16 rifle/M4 carbine (less stoppages and jams), requiring much less maintenance in the field, since we've already seen this with the HK G36 weapon system. However, we've also gotten reports that the forend of the XM8 gets extremely hot, and that some handguards have melted on it during some of the testing. DefRev doesn't know the specifics of that/those incident(s), nor are we sure that they're true. We'll look into it.
http://www.defensereview.com/

and:

At this point, the weapons must complete testing. The XM-8 recently underwent cold weather tests in Alaska. Resulting changes are due to appear in a modified rifle this May.

The modifications include ergonomic alterations, such as changing button positions on the sight, which will make the weapon more user friendly, as well as performance enhancements, such as extending the life of the battery to 400 hours from 200.

While the weapon performed well in cold weather, Smith said he confirmed a problem with the hand guard that appeared in technical testing. During sustained firing, the hand guard could melt, a problem common in small arms development, Smith said.

"If you put enough rounds through a weapon, your barrel will go hot. There‘s no question about it. It will get very, very hot," he said.

The XM-8‘s hand guard suffered for a few reasons. The XM-8 only transfers heat to the barrel and doesn‘t transfer any to the receivers. The hand guard is made from a heat-resistant material. The current rifle systems transfer heat to the barrel as well as the receivers, and it contains heat shielding.

Similar heat shielding would be a last option for the XM-8, because the technology adds weight, a prospect Smith said he is trying avoid. According to a comparison chart published by contractor Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc., the XM-8 carbine weighs 6.4 pounds but is trying to slim down to 5.7 pounds. The same chart indicates that the M-4 weighs 8.85 pounds.

In crafting a new hand guard that will appear on the version released in May, developers will use a different lightweight heat resistant material and change the design. It will be shorter, wider and contain holes to release hot air, Smith said.

Another round of tests to monitor the new fixes will follow, along with a late-summer hot weather test in Yuma, AZ.

https://peosoldier.army.mil/news.asp?article=144

[rob]

To some of the above...

Something else I would like to point out, as to why the US military should adopt the XM8:

It's lighter, hence more ammo can be carried. it target wieght has never been reached, and it is only gettig heavier due to durability issues, so that remains to be seen
It has so far proven to be more reliable than the M4 no complaints of reliability from the m4 so it is a non issue.
If true, a per unit cost is cheaper than an M4. this is true only if you buy the weapon with out the red dot sight, and frankly with not alternative sighting options, it makes doing so not an option
Longer barrel life.a cold hammer forged berral could be added onto m4s, or just replace current berrals with them as they where out, cheaper all the way around with teh same result.
Several picatinny attachement points at no additional weight. considering those attachment point need to be added on because the hk designers felt they could do better then the picatinny points, it does add weight. and using the attachmet points currently on the rifle will cost us even more millions because nothing we currantly have in service will mount on them.
Better on target handling on auto.well i can not say, but at the cost of meer millions, i think we can do without.

If all true, then that makes it a pretty damn good rifle.

the xm8 will introduce its own set of new problems, some of them even eing solved by the m16 but hk emplyies not putting in the effort to fix what history has already shown not to work, like the open flash hidder, vegitation would tangle with it and that is the reason it was taken off the m16 on the a1 model, but hk seems to jsut ignore what soldiers and companies like colt have learned in the past.[/b]

[Midav]

It's target weight is not reached at 5.7 lbs, yet at 6.4 it is still lighter than an M4.

There have been problems of the M4 jamming. Of course a government web site will say it's a non issue by saying "continuous cleaning".

What is contonious? 1 times a day? 2? 3?

Sometimes time is not of the essence.

The base weapon is cheaper than an M4. Of course if you buy the extra gadgets it gets more expensive. Any weapon does. Yet, the base price is still cheaper.

Could'a Should'a Would'a.. why haven't the items then been added to the M4?

The picatinny points are already included in the base shape of the weapon.

Check the HK site....

Auto is always an option to have. Lay several rounds in a more accurate fashion is something I wouldn't say "we can do without".

In all, it is a better weapon.

[Midav]

One thing I would like to add, the naysayers are probably people that are either attached to the M-16, which is cool, or, are against it because it is a foreign weapon.

Perhaps because I actually am a dual citizen, (yup, have both a US and German passport) that it really doesn't matter to me that the US military may adopt a foreign weapon.

Big deal. The M9, M240, M249, Fuchs, Durandal, Popeye etc etc etc are all foreign systems...

That's the impression I have had, not to meantion, heard, from several friends about the US adopting the XM8. They don't like it because it is foreign made.

It's not a big deal and wish some friends would get over their buy America attitude. Hell, the damn thing will be built in Georgia lol

I may be a dual citizen, but I am most proud of me being American. Yet, if I see a system out there that is better for our troops, buy it.

[rob]

i dont care that it is foreign designed(xm8 and all gi things are built within theus by foriegn companies), hell i liek a lot of foreign things. my favorite hand gun is foreign, so is my favorite car. i like all the systems you mentioned and wouldnt replace them with anything except maybe an mg4 for the m249 and a p226 or usp for the m9, but non of those are domestic systems either.

so quit trying to play that card. i would just like to people to get over their bias that the m4 and m16 are bad weapons that need replacing, neither of which is true, espcially the need to replace them 1. without holding trials, 2. without investing better options.

the marines seem to agree, they looked at the xm8 said ha, and signed a contract for brand new m16a4 all the way through 2009.

[American Patriot]

It's too bad there are no companies like H&K in the states (impossible with the current anti-gun laws) that could create a new rifle for the Army.

[Midav]

i dont care that it is foreign designed(xm8 and all gi things are built within theus by foriegn companies), hell i liek a lot of foreign things. my favorite hand gun is foreign, so is my favorite car. i like all the systems you mentioned and wouldnt replace them with anything except maybe an mg4 for the m249 and a p226 or usp for the m9, but non of those are domestic systems either.

so quit trying to play that card. i would just like to people to get over their bias that the m4 and m16 are bad weapons that need replacing, neither of which is true, espcially the need to replace them 1. without holding trials, 2. without investing better options.

the marines seem to agree, they looked at the xm8 said ha, and signed a contract for brand new m16a4 all the way through 2009.

I'm going to play that card because I've seen it and hear it. You think I dedicate my posts personally to you? Thank you for showing the devotion for my posts, but there are more people that I post to than just to you.

Getting old sounding like a broken record saying the M16/M4 aren't terible weapons, but that there is something better out there to replace them with.

Good for the Marines, btw. They seem to stick with older equipment for longer periods of time, anyway, if you look at their more recent history in general.

[rob]

and those same marines are able to do more with older equitment because they spend less money on buying fancy new things and more on training. ;)

i am not trying to argue that the m16 is a good gun, i know that you understand that, nor am i argueing that th xm8 is a worse gun then the m16, which it isnt, i am just trying to say, but the fact remains, this is not disputed but a fact, that parts currently exist and are avaliable to civilians non the less, that will modify the m4 to surpass the xm8 on nearily all grounds except for maybe weight. that is all im trying to say.

the ar15 has had its time, i understand, andi suport the scar rifle program to replace it, because they are being smart about it, something which the army doesnt seem to be when the xm8 comes to mind.

hk was handed money to make the oicw, no where was the xm8 mentioned. they failed at that, so they took their g36 modified it with 10 minutes work and said here you go because they needed to show something for the money they where given, if i was running the country i would've just laughed and asked for the money they where given back if they wished to continue to be able to sell products on the american market. but like many people say, "it a good thing that hes not incharge"

every day that goes by it seems like the xm8 is more likely to become the m8. a few months ago i would have told you it had no chance, now i think it has a good chance, with the army at least, socom is holding an open trial, in which the xm8 is competing in modified form as it did not fit requirments completely and it is a joint project between hk and another company. but i predict that the marines will go the way of socom(if they do adopt somethng other then the xm8 or a modified xm8) not the army when it comes time for them to change over.

for now lets agree to disagree.

cheers

rob

[J-10]

XM-8 is good, but caliber 5.56mm is low power, try 5.8mm :D

http://www.militech.sownet.gliwice.pl/bullpup/weapon/qbz-95-97/_58mmDBP87.jpg

[Midav]

Now it's my turn with my opinion.. (hehe)

Dunno about that, rob.

Good example is when the Marines started to quickly swap out their M60A3's for M1A1's during the gulf war and there are other examples such as trading in M14's for M16's and that was really hated by both the Army and Marines at the time, because they thought the M14 was a good enough weapon and didn't need replacing.... ;)

Also, ATK was in charge of the (then) 20mm cannon while HK was in charge of the rifle part. HK held their part, ATK wsn't able to bring the weight down.....

Anyhow, this is getting off topic and I agree that we should agree to disagree :)