Reply With QuoteDurandal: Do you honestly belive that us servicemen in iraq need rifles instead of carbines? plz explain.. And the policy of only buying us products is just damn silly.
Too true Durandal, the problem is we have been doing this since the 50's with weapons programs which are supposed to be the next greatest thing since sliced bread.
We've had the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon), the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle), the SBR (Serial Bullet Rifle), the FSR (Future Service Rifle), the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) programs and so forth with predictible results... a lot of money is spent and nothing comes of it save a lot of money was spent on a weapon never seen again... it just becomes a footnote in a firearms book somewhere.
Until Later
TR
Durandal: Do you honestly belive that us servicemen in iraq need rifles instead of carbines? plz explain.. And the policy of only buying us products is just damn silly.
ah, we hardly buy only us products...beretta is italian, FN is belgian, and HK is german. these guys supply the majority of our small arms....even if they have factories here the money is still going to them...in particular berette builds the M9, FN builds the M249, M240, M2HB's, and some of our M16's. HK builds MP5's that we use in small numbers, and the XM8
as for carbines vs rifles...we need both. line guys need the range of a rifle, and people like vehicle crewers and other such jobs need the compactness of a carbine
Hmm interseting, but i dont agree with you on the rifle vs carbine issue..
and hows that navy? not trying to be an ass or anything...just love a decent debate every now and again
Line infantry need rifles, not carbines. Better to have too much range than too little. All this CQB consideration isn't that big a deal, you can get used to using a long rifle in the average spaces of a house. If the US army was so bothered about the length versus range of a rifle, wouldn't have bullpups have been considered?Originally Posted by Navy
Anyway, it's sods law that as soon as you re-equip a unit with carbines for CQB work that they seem to be doing so much of that the next battle you fight will be a conventional battle from trenches over distances of 500m..
or another war in a mountainous area like afghanistan, right. supposedly the 6.8 mm round is less barrel length sensitive then the 5.56 is, so that could be a solution...but if ive gotta make a choice, i'd rather see rifles in the hands of our guys. fortunatly im just gonna be an FSO, so its the M4 for me
Its like this...Durandal: Do you honestly belive that us servicemen in iraq need rifles instead of carbines? plz explain.. And the policy of only buying us products is just damn silly.
A carbine is a CQB weapon. It is not designed for 300 yard engagements. Admitedly, you COULD possibly engage a target with a short barrel at 300 yards, but not with the current level of traiining our guys have. Hell, run an average soldier around a block in light gear and then have him drop a steel plate at a 100 yards is next to impossible. Supposedly, people have been bitching about the M4 because of range issues. Depending on the mod, you are talking between a 11" and 14" barrel usually.
Now we have a STANDARD issue XM8 that has a 12.5 inch barrel? Come on now.
Now, agrreably, we no longer teach our basic line solders to be marksmen nor does our society trun out Johnny sharpshooter who has been plinking awy for years in large numbers, BUT you want a rifle for line troops. Period. Troops that come under fire from a building across the river want a weapon that can perform at those ranges and a 12.5" barrel is a hinderance. Sure, its great for compact spaces, especially vehicles, but just get a folding stock and a longer barrel. The M16A4 is a fantastic weapon and fills this role quite nicely. Plus, if you want to go to a 6.8mm round all you have to do is swap a bolt carrier, barrel, and upper receiver, not the entire gun. Which cuts costs greatly, using what is for all iintents and purposes, off the shelf technology.
What do we gain from the XM8...assuming it is 5.56mm? A soldier does not have to clean it as much? Oh no...cry me a goddamn river. In return taxpayers shell out a couple hundred million dollars?
Tell ya what DoD...spend that money on making our soldiers marksmen rather than just qualifying...it'll cost the smae but with a MUCH better return.
As far as using an American manufacturer goes...it does matter. This nation, quite literally, has been built on an arms industry, from the post-Revolutionary War period to this very day. We have EXCELLENT manufacturers in this nation that have produced and continue to produce high quality arms. Yes, H&K is an excellent firearms manufacturer with a history of quality. I and and my friends own several H&K products. However, as a taxpayer, if the government wants to spend my tax dollars on this retarded project, then Americans BETEER damn we be getting the money, rather than Deiter and Hans.
And to be completely honest, as soldier I woudl MUCH rather have an American company with a fine history of producing military weapons such as Browning, Springfield, or Colt.
If you cannot understand that well...sorry, we will then agree to disagree.
You've made some good points, but theres some things i cant agree with:
If he cant, then you've got bigger problems than selecting a new weapon system.Hell, run an average soldier around a block in light gear and then have him drop a steel plate at a 100 yards is next to impossible.
You're forgetting the ease of logistics, with everyone bar the M240 gunners using the same weapon systems, same parts, mags, etc etc. It wont make up the cost, maybe over time it will. Something to be considered at least.What do we gain from the XM8...assuming it is 5.56mm?
As for the manufacturing thing : They're american jobs, so some of the money will be staying in the US. Personally i think HK would have higher quality standards than other companies out there though. Theres a good reason why M16's are now made by FN.
The U.S. Army has done plenty fo studies on this. The heart rate is simply to high to take an aimed shot. That is one of the reasons why you saw the Army try the Advanced Combat Rifle designs back in the 80's.If he cant, then you've got bigger problems than selecting a new weapon system.
Again so what. We already HAVE a 5.56mm system in place. Again, NOTHING gained AT ALL. You are changing from one 5.56 system to another. All you are doing is spending money. Knowing what we all know right now, what do we gain out the XM8 project? Nothing to justify the cost. This weapon system is not going to "save lives". That is hype.You're forgetting the ease of logistics, with everyone bar the M240 gunners using the same weapon systems, same parts, mags, etc etc. It wont make up the cost, maybe over time it will. Something to be considered at least.
I could care less if the jobs are in America. The people employed by H&K IN America make a mere percentage of the value of the contract. I want an American company making money off of this, not a German one. H&K's standards are no more than Springfield's, Foulton's, Kimber's, or Browning's. To suggest otherwise is silly.As for the manufacturing thing : They're american jobs, so some of the money will be staying in the US. Personally i think HK would have higher quality standards than other companies out there though. Theres a good reason why M16's are now made by FN.
what he means by logistics, is that replacing the M4, M16, M249, and M203, and the various stopgap DMR rifles we've been using with this M8 system will drastically reduce the entire maintenance process. it will be much easier for amorers and the like to keep weapons in the field, and at far less a cost to the taxpayers. over the long run, the new system will most likely cost less to field then what we're doing now. obviously the initial costs will be there, but as time progresses, you'll see the difference
but by the time progresses something worthwhile to adopt most likely will present itself, and we will have a switch yet again, making the m8 a expensive pointless mistake.
how long would it take to gain back the costs for adopting the m8, 10 years? 15? and add the burden of the initial cost now, at time of war, when money is short?
it doesnt make sense, while the xm8 looks like a great weapon(little dispute there) the whole this seems pointless.
if it was bullpup i wouldnt agree with it but atleast i could see the point.
they should put the xm8 on hold, and put out actual requirement for other companies to meet, and hold a competition, inviting other american firms. it would make more sense then what they are currently doing.
So what you are telling me is that our DMRs should be 5.56 or 6.8!? That our SAWs should be a heavy barrel version of the XM8!? You are simply replacing a M203 with ANOTHER strap on 40mm GL!?
All this as an interim between the OICW adoption!?
Nope, this is nothing but some officers getting a promise to get a cushy liason career when the post out. You get us this contract and we will get you a 400K a year salaried position in our company or in subsidiary.
That is the way it works and if for one moment you think thats BS, well, history has proven you wrong. Both senators that are approving this abortion and the officers that are claiming it needs to be done NOW are to blame. They have those that follow it in a sky is falling mentality. "If we don't it will cost us more and more lives will be on the line"...BS.
The worst is that people are complaining less because they believe the propoganda.
I am all about smart spending and reducing logistic footprints of units by common equipment, but this is a rush job beiing done by a group of people that were hoping to see the OICW in place. Now its obvious to them that they will not see it before retirement and thus the meal ticket is in jepardy. Something has to replace it...thus, the XM8.
You are kidding yourself if you do not think this is the case.
the only help in logistics i can see is the m249 being replaced by the xm8, but that would be a big mistake, adopting a weapon to fill a role that does not have a quick change berral, does not feed from belts, and whoes close cousin(g36) has shown problems with melting when fired as a weapon it that role would be expected to be use is stupid and idiotic.
if that is what they are trying to do, why not just adopt a modified m16 in that role, atleast it wont melt, and it would save money on training and replacing the a mojority of th estandard rifles as well. the reason they have not done this is it wont work just as it wont work with the xm8.
this entire program smells of BS.
- yeah they under bid the original Colt manuf.Theres a good reason why M16's are now made by FN.
Posting Permissions
