[munk]

That's pretty much it. The new American Rifleman issue features both the proposed new cartridge and that HK and another investment group were developing the XM8, the prototype platform of our military modular rifle.

I do not intend this question to become an argument about Germany or Europe. But I'm confused. Who asked H&K to do this? The United States is the nation of John Browning. Ruger is ahead of the world in investment casting. We have people in the US and manufacturers presumably interested and qualified. What does HK have to do with this?

Britain builds its own equipment, as does Germany. Why is the US doing this?
I realize HK is a leader amongst small arms- but then, we have Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Marlin and Savage.



munk

[boofus]

Same reason Fabrique Nationale builds the M16s and M4s we use now? :p

[Dionysusigma]

Their guns are prettier. :p

They design it, we buy the design and build it ourselves. Or we buy the design and have it built in Taiwan. Keep in mind that the Celeron (?) was invented by the Israelis.

Also remember, tho, that the FAL was originally Belgian. Were they the only ones to use it? What about the Enfield? Mosin-Nagant? AK?

[Lone_Gunman]

Free trade.

[Standing Wolf]

Ruger is ahead of the world in investment casting.

Maybe so, but are our troops going to want to read that acre of legal vomitus on the barrel?

[ny32182]

The government puts out a contract, and companies bid on it.

That bidding is obviously not restricted to US companies... there you go.

[OH25shooter]

You got it right. Government stuff of any kind goes to the low bidder. :fire:

[itgoesboom]

I realize HK is a leader amongst small arms- but then, we have Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Marlin and Savage.

BINGO!! We have a winner.

Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Marlin and Savage all make nice rifles, but none of them really have much experience making battle/assault rifles.

Compare that to HK. They had the G3, the HK33, HK53, G36, plus the submachine guns consisting of the MP-5 series and UMP series, not to mention the PSG-1, and don't forget the HK21E, HK23E and MG43 (the machineguns).

No doubt being the low bidder is important, but there is a reason why they can do it for less, they already have the manufactoring capability for the numbers needed, and have proven that they can succeed.

I.G.B.

[boofus]

Winchester built M1 Garands and Carbines during WW2

More likely is they don't submit proposals to the DoD when they say a new standard rifle is in the works. Even the few rifles in use that are American made, they are variations of popular hunting guns like the Remington M24 Army sniper rifle and M40A1 for the Marines.

Maybe the big American companies just don't have it in them to make a black evil looking rifle any more?

[Warbow]

Same reason Fabrique Nationale builds the M16s and M4s we use now?

Colt builds some of the M16s and all of the M4s. :)

[KaceCoyote]

Monkeys can build a rifle, but that doesnt make them John Browning.


H&K, FN and Kalashnikov each have designed a wider variety of military smallarms than any American firm.

[Glock Glockler]

Why would the US govt give US businesses a chance when they can get them done by foreign companies, expecially China?

The answer is the same reason why the US govt subsidizes the Chinese steel and Air travel industries at the expense of the US taxpayer, as well as why we gave the finger to Poland, an ally of ours who was going to produce AKs for Iraq and we instead gave the contract to China.

[J Miller]

The government puts out a contract, and companies bid on it.
That bidding is obviously not restricted to US companies... there you go.

It should be.

It's high time we quit supporting foreign industries at the cost of our own. If this isn't stopped we will be totally at the mercy of our enemys. I really don't consider European countries as really trustworthy friends.


Joe

[Dave R]

Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Marlin and Savage all make nice rifles, but none of them really have much experience making battle/assault rifles.

There ya go. John Moses Browning is dead, and none of the US firearms companies has much of a design team any more. Where are the new, original designs from US firearms companies? The only one that comes close to new designs any more is Kel-Tec, fer crying out loud.

We don't have any innovators in our firearms industry.

[Nightfall]

Why is the new US battle rifle being designed by Germany?
I haven't quite reached that point yet. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a 5.56mm carbine with a 12.5" barrel that weighs 7.5 lbs being better than a 5.56mm M4 w/ a 14.5" barrel that weighs 5.9 lbs with something like the Leitner-Wise gas piston. Granted it has the fancy optic, but I fail to see why we couldn't stick it on a 1913 rail and call it a day. :banghead:

I've never been all that smart though. I guess it's the wider range of colors and ambi controls that make it all worth while. :confused:

[scout26]

I realize HK is a leader amongst small arms- but then, we have Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Marlin and Savage.

John Moses Browning is dead, and none of the US firearms companies has much of a design team any more.

No, because they have to pay for the legal teams to defend them from the baseless lawsuits filed by the blue cities and states........

[jefnvk]

Not to steal Winchester's thunder, but they didn't design the M1. Only built some.

Also remember, that any company that builds the rifle has to have a US plant.

Also remember, it seems that the XM8 is out of the running (as of now), as it can't fit the LMG category.

That being said, only Colt (who didn't even design the M16, just bought the rights) seems to have any EBR experience on American shores.

Couple that, with I'd rather have the troops having the BEST equipment, not the stuff being made in some congresscritter's district (unless it is the best stuff). If the foreign stuff is the best, contract to them, require them to build a US plant and hire US employees.

Or maybe we should bring back Springfield Armory. That is my pick.

[steveno]

probably couldn't afford to wait for Colt to do it

[ny32182]

Robinson Armament and the XCR is new, innovative, and has a lot of potential.

I just doubt that the company is big enough to handle the logistics of major production for the US government on any level.

[lunaslide]

We don't have any innovators in our firearms industry.

Not true:
http://www.robarm.com/xcrtm_modular_weapon_system.htm

What's very illuminating is why they were rejected for the SCAR program at the last minute.

http://www.robarm.com/xcrtm_modular_weapon_system_reje.htm

Chris Byrne has some good thoughts (http://http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/getting-down-to-specifics.html) about the next US battle rifle. He explains the reason FN was chosen for the SCAR and a possible reason the XCR was kept out:

More important than any of that however, is that from all testing reports it is the better weapon, but Robinson is a small manufacturer and they couldn't offer the same purchasing perks as FN. FN has the advatage of being the current primary military rifle contractor, and they could both offer better terms on the new rifle, and penalize us on existing contracts for the M16, which apparently they did.

According to some reports FN has held up some M16 and M249 rebuild contract fulfilment while their products were under evaluation, and back channel threatened other slowdowns if their products werent selected. I wont link them here because, firstly I don't know how trustworthy the reports are (though I trust the sources), and second, because the people who've said this could get in trouble.

This can happen with American companies too, but at least we would be able to do something about it. We should be turning to American companies for our weapons platforms.

[armoredman]

Firearm designers and manufacturers have to eat, too. They can spend millions developing the rifle, all its attendant hardware, etc, and then be turned down. When on shaky ground, like an unknown US legal battleground, it might be wiser to rein in, and save a few $ for the blood sucking, er, lawyers.
Now to mention, after they go through the whole schmear, they get a one shot whiz bang contract, and no civilian sales, unless they redesign for a semi-auto only, and then hope Congress doesn't jack them there, too!

[PromptCritical]

Here's my take on it.

There will never be an American designer like John Browning or Eugene Stoner again because regulations have destroyed the ability of the inventor to design and build a military rifle at home. Think about it, If you dreamed up a whiz bang design for a new battle rifle, the most you could do is file a patent on the design, and hope to God you could get in contact with a manufacturer. If you built it yourself they would say "Wow! That's fantastic! We'd buy a million as soon as you get out of prison, except you'll be a felon."

[The Rabbi]

A lot of good thoughts on this topic.

Maybe the companies are smarter than we think and they actually dont want the contract. Colt sucked gov't teat for years with the M-16. I dont see where it did that much for the company. Remington supplied a lot of Garands and by the end of the war they were nearly bankrupt. Gov't contracts are not where the money is, private citizens like us and law enforcement is. If I owned an arms company supplying mass quantities of low-priced weapons at razor thin margins would be the last thing I'd want to be doing.
Isnt HK building a plant in GA or somewhere to manufacture?
Also I think someone on this board was a designer for FN so maybe he'll chime in.

[Lennyjoe]

Government stuff of any kind goes to the low bidder
Trust me, I know this first hand.

Like when I have to deploy and get on a commercial jet (crate) that is taking us on the other side of the world. Lowest bidder isnt exactly top of the line maintenance. Know what I mean?

[trapperjohn]

There will never be an American designer like John Browning or Eugene Stoner again because regulations have destroyed the ability of the inventor to design and build a military rifle at home

and just how many american rifles do you think were designed at home? The grand was developed over about a decade, and JMB was paid by gun manufacturers to design weapons.

part of it is our society. Look at what most college students major in, light fluffy stuff like "parks and recreation". Go to any university and look at the list of graduate students, it is usually 80-90% indian or asian.

[Gewehr98]

Why is the new US battle rifle being designed by Germany?
I mean, you did say "battle rifle", right? :scrutiny:

[bradvanhorn]

About a year or so ago, and just by chance, I was talking with one of the few Marine Corps armorers who had an opportunity to work with and fire the XM8 in testing. For what it's worth, he said the XM8 was clearly superior to the M16/M4. I don't remember everything we discussed, but he basically said the XM8 was significantly better in almost every aspect.




I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a 5.56mm carbine with a 12.5" barrel that weighs 7.5 lbs being better than a 5.56mm M4 w/ a 14.5" barrel that weighs 5.9 lbs...
I believe there is much more to the XM8 than this. For example, using the base weapon, you can quickly swap barrels and accessories and you now have a 20" barrel DMR (or an even shorter barreled SMG configuration, etc.) Also, the XM8 is essentially self-cleaning (no more carbon build up), and key components (such as the barrel) were lasting 2 - 3 times longer than comparable pieces on the M16/M4.




Also remember, that any company that builds the rifle has to have a US plant.
I recall seeing a report somewhere that Boeing (weird choice there...) had begun negotiations to license and convert one of its plants to produce the XM8 here in the U.S.




Also remember, it seems that the XM8 is out of the running (as of now), as it can't fit the LMG category.
I'll have to find the reference material, but as I recall, the modular design of the XM8 did provide a capability for LMG with the appropriate barrel/feed setup.

[munk]

One day I asked my good friend the Engineer and physicist about gun design. He said the revolution was over- the industrial one- and that most of the designs have been developed.

The Soviets have a new battlerifle with arguably a real breakthough. But we mostly apply engineering to new materials and technology.

I'm trying to say that America has enough brains to design a rifle. It is not for want of the next miracle. The patents in the industrial revolution were dominated by the Americans. Recently we had a Garand, an AR, and now we can make the new modular unit.

Something is very wrong.


munk

[bradvanhorn]

I'm trying to say that America has enough brains to design a rifle. It is not for want of the next miracle. The patents in the industrial revolution were dominated by the Americans. Recently we had a Garand, an AR, and now we can make the new modular unit.
Yeah, I think you've got a good point...

[GaryP]

COLT is hiding in the weeds waiting to pounce on the next big Military contract and under General Keys' Direction will produce a quality product in the good ole USA! :D

GO COLT!



:evil:

[armoredman]

From your lips, to the Good Lord's ears....I hope you are right....

[Joejojoba111]

One problem with business is 'barriers to entry'. Existing businesses put them up, to sensibly keep future competition out.

Now a problem with a small guy who inventes an ingenious new mechanism for a rifle is that he will have to patent it. In every country of the world. And even then no-one is going to respect his patent, they're going to look at his patent, see the schematics, and copy them. If he doesn't like it he can try to take them to court, and if he somehow wins they'll do it again a month later. And good luck trying to collect any compensation, the court can decide they owe, but good luck collecting the cash. And it can happen in your home country too, you are so small as to be insignificant, any invention you come up with will be taken, and you will have to find some way to fight in court.

In economics they teach that is a free market there is little innovation because the only profit you can make is in the time it takes for others to catch up. So we had patents to cure that problem, but now the situation in businesses is closer to oligopoly, and that system is also poor for innovation, especially when you can bully small inventors.

[Onmilo]

Should the German designed XM-8 become the M8 Main Battle Rifle, the weapon system will be built right here in the good old USA by American workers.

American design teams have modified and adapted the excellent Heckler and Koch G36 rifle to suit American service users.
It is a modular design that can be adapted to meet a wide variety of tasks from building clearing, to assault and guard duties, to squad automatic applications.
The weapon may or may not be ordered in the new 6X48 cartridge but time will tell on this decision depending on positive or negative feedback from Special Operation units now using this cartridge.

As to the claims of orders placed due to a low bid, the fact is this weapon system will cost $2000 to $4000 or more per system depending on options ordered.
It is most assuredly not low bid.

Low bid would be buying the Singapore made SAR-80 weapon system at about $400.oo per weapon.

[jefnvk]

I wont link them here because, firstly I don't know how trustworthy the reports are (though I trust the sources), and second, because the people who've said this could get in trouble.

Sorry, but that don't get much of a response from me. Unless sources can be named, I can't trust that. Seems that if FN were blackmailing the gov't, they'd just give the contract to Colt.

Remington supplied a lot of Garands

Nope, they didn't. 0 to be exact. Maybe the 03A3 you are thinking of, or Winchester making the Garand?

I'll have to find the reference material, but as I recall, the modular design of the XM8 did provide a capability for LMG with the appropriate barrel/feed setup.

Quite possible that it was a different config then, that it wasn't set up for. I'll try and dig up the article that I read it in.

I believe there is much more to the XM8 than this. For example, using the base weapon, you can quickly swap barrels and accessories and you now have a 20" barrel DMR (or an even shorter barreled SMG configuration, etc.) Also, the XM8 is essentially self-cleaning (no more carbon build up)

I dunno, but I think the two pins on the M16/M4 make it pretty modular. And wasn't the M16 billed as being 'self-cleaning' when it came out, leading to deadly results :uhoh: :scrutiny: (hides a .223 cleaning kit in his pocket as he is issued his self cleaning rifle ;) )

[PMDW]

I'll have to find the reference material, but as I recall, the modular design of the XM8 did provide a capability for LMG with the appropriate barrel/feed setup.

HK's idea of an LMG is a 20" barrel and a C-Mag. Unfortunately for them, the U.S. Govt. likes beltfeds. HK never desgined a (that they've announced) beltfed XM8 or G36.

[Zrex]

Because Congress killed the U.S. military gun industry in 1986.

[Pointman]

American companies are busy fending off ridiculous lawsuits, who has time to design a new rifle? :fire: :cuss:

[Plumber576]

I think we have to remember that Americans will build the XM8...ground is being cleared in georiga and the American HK plant is on its way to being built.

[PMDW]

I think we have to remember that Americans will build the XM8...ground is being cleared in georiga and the American HK plant is on its way to being built.

As far as I know, work has ceased on the HK plant. It's a mudhole. I think they want a contract before they commit to a multi-million dollar factory..

[Rebar]

Why reinvent the wheel? We have the Garand, FAL, AK, etc. designs, well proven, battle tested, rock solid, royalty-free.

Or make a 16" barrel gas-piston upper that'll fit on all our M16 lowers, for those who need a smaller weapon, make a folding stock lower. Simple and cheap.

[mnrivrat]

Free trade.

Contracts to the highest briber ( or lowest bidder ? ) I forget which.

:rolleyes:

[kudu]

Here's my take on it.

There will never be an American designer like John Browning or Eugene Stoner again because regulations have destroyed the ability of the inventor to design and build a military rifle at home. Think about it, If you dreamed up a whiz bang design for a new battle rifle, the most you could do is file a patent on the design, and hope to God you could get in contact with a manufacturer. If you built it yourself they would say "Wow! That's fantastic! We'd buy a million as soon as you get out of prison, except you'll be a felon."

Exactly the case, all the great designers didn't have to wade through years of red tape to build and market their designs.

[Double Naught Spy]

munk, you have confused issues. There is a difference between design and production. Where a tool is designed is pretty much meaningless. If there was to be a concern, it would be with where production occurs. You don't want too much of your supply to have to come from foreign lands. That is part of the reason Beretta is here in the US and supplies pistols to the US military.

[HankB]

Because the last time we tried it ourselves we got the M16?

Winchester built M1 Garands and Carbines during WW2 Winchester Garands are generally regarded as being inferior in workmanship to others. Adequate, yes, milspec, yes, but nonetheless not up to the standards of the government's own Springfield Armory.

Remington supplied a lot of Garands and by the end of the war they were nearly bankrupt. I thought the M1 Garand was only manufactured by Springfield Armory (SA), Winchester (WIN), International Harvester (IHC), and HRA (Harrington & Richardson) . . . where did Remington come in? :confused:

[richyoung]

In economics they teach that is a free market there is little innovation because the only profit you can make is in the time it takes for others to catch up.


Keynsian? :confused: Or some other flavor of Socialism/Communism? Certainly they have a good point - just look at how few innovations the American economy has developed in 200 years - interchangable parts, assembly line, metallic firearm cartridges, first practical revolver, lever-action rifle, first practical semi-auto battle rifle, electric power, telegraph, telephone, steam ship, ironclad warship with transversable gun turret, airplane, pneumatic brakes, automatic transmission, motion picture, sound recording, first practical computer, personal computers, vaccume tube, transistor, electric guitar, moon rocket, space shuttle, first attempted attack by submarine, first successful attack by submarine, first practical submarine, first nuclear submarine, cotton gin, stealth aircraft, machine gun, fission bomb, fusion bomb, nuclear power, synthetic fibers, plastics, any number of agricultural devices, jeans, 8 track tape, helicopter, tilt-wing, the internet, frozen foods, microwave oven, engine supercharger, hydroplane, elevator, polio vaccine....

Lucky for us, we have "worker's paradises" like Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union to invent all the things our flawed capitalist economy is incapable of developing for us.... :neener:

[mrhuckins]

M16's suck anyway. We couldn't do much worse.

[Master Blaster]

I believe there is much more to the XM8 than this. For example, using the base weapon, you can quickly swap barrels and accessories and you now have a 20" barrel DMR (or an even shorter barreled SMG configuration, etc.) Also, the XM8 is essentially self-cleaning (no more carbon build up), and key components (such as the barrel) were lasting 2 - 3 times longer than comparable pieces on the M16/M4.


Funny I can take the 16" M4 type top end off my AR-15 lower, and put on my 20" bull barreled 16x scope mounted varmint upper on in about 20 seconds and its already zeroed, by pushing out the two assembly pins with my finger, or the tip of a bullet. I can also swap out the iron sights on my M4, for a reddot thats already zeroed in about 25 seconds using a quarter as a tool.

CAn the XM-8 match that??? I'd be happy to race any XM-8 armorer for rifles to see who can do it faster, Any Takers?????????

As far as it being self cleaning and the barrel lasting way longer, Horse poop to that.

[RevDisk]

CAn the XM-8 match that??? I'd be happy to race any XM-8 armorer for rifles to see who can do it faster, Any Takers?????????

Can you dump your AR-15 in a pit filled with muddy water, stomp on it a few times, pull it out, pour a single canteen down the barrel, and then safely fire the weapon?

You can do that with your AR-15, I wouldn't. I've seen it done with G36's before.


As far as it being self cleaning and the barrel lasting way longer, Horse poop to that.

The weapon is not 'self-cleaning'. It however does not vent carbon directly into the receiver. This cuts down on problems greatly.

Barrel does laster longer. Seen an G36 eat through circa 15,000 rds (no cleaning) with no decrease in accuracy, nor a single jam. The books I've seen on the M16 say the barrel should be changed out after 8,000 rounds.

[ny32182]

Designing a new rifle these days can't be rocket science. If we can build an F22, we can build a damn rifle. Which is more complicated, do you suppose?

Who cares where it is designed anyway? In the US, Robarm seems to be the only one willing to step up to the plate with a new "better" rifle, and they got shot down by the government.

Another thing to consider is that whatever is submitted, unless there is some sort of major technology leap, isn't going to be much, if at all, better than the M16 family. If you look at the times in the past when the service rifle has been switched, it has been a major upgrade each time: Bolt action to semi-auto with the Garand; external box mag with the M14, smaller cartridge/higher capacity/rate of fire with the M16. What big improvment can be offered by anyone this time around? Nothing, really. It seems the goverment isn't willing (and I don't blame them) to pay the HUGE amount of money it would take for a wholesale switch over to a new standard rifle, for only a minor, debatable improvement.

Also, I don't get the obsession with having an automatic rifle version of these service rifle contenders. When has that ever happened in the past? The M60 and 249 are there own independant platforms. Has this presented some sort of problem? I don't see how you could do the major modifications, whatever those might be, to an XM-8 to make it fire from open bolt, and not call it a different platform.

[GEM]

Design brains are distributed across the world.

Look at the popular pistols.

Bad:
Colt's 2000 - flop
SW Sigma - flop

1911 patterns - old and didn't Browning have to go to Europe with some guns!
Ruger handguns - big clunky guns - not design masterpieces.
SW 3rd generation - moderately successful

Then we have:

Berettas, Glocks, Sig, HK, FN, Browning guns - where is there more innovation?

SW - innovation in the revolver world and making money. If Sig came up with Sc snubbies, they would have that business.

You just have to have a good product.

[chevrofreak]

Look at the POS that we got stuck with the last time the military adopted a US designed weapon :p

Seriously though, the Robinson Armament XCR would be my weapon of choice if I were in the poop.

[The Rabbi]

Is anyone else scratching his head over that last post??

Beretta--designed probably in the 1920s
FN--Who designed the Hi Power again?? What year was that??
SIG--designed in the 1940s or so.
Walther PPK--blow-back design from the 1920s if not earlier.

Pistols are basically the same variations they have been for 50+ years. They can fool with grip safeties, manual safeties of all kinds, extractors, barrels but all in all there is only so much to do there. They can innovate in material and in manufacturing process but little in the basic action.
We have seen tremendous innovation in cartridge design and bullet design though, and that is where the design improvements seem to have come from.

[LiquidTension]

Somebody needs to hurry up and design some portable energy weapons :evil: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, perhaps?

[Master Blaster]

Can you dump your AR-15 in a pit filled with muddy water, stomp on it a few times, pull it out, pour a single canteen down the barrel, and then safely fire the weapon?
You can do that with your AR-15, I wouldn't. I've seen it done with G36's before.


Bring your G-36 around, and I'll watch while you try it.

The g-36 and Xm-8 have been fielded in the millions for 30 years proving their reliability by which army exactly?????? :)

[MechAg94]

I downloaded a video a while back showing the original 1950's 30 caliber Armalite being dunked in mud. Did a cold test as well. I think it was from Armalite's web site.

[PMDW]

nevermind

[jefnvk]

1911 patterns - old and didn't Browning have to go to Europe with some guns!

Never quite got this obsession with having to replace something because it's design is old :confused:

But anyway, the 1911 (the pistol we oughta be using right now) was designed by Browning for the US Army, and Colt produced it. The design he took to FN, IIRC, was the A5.

Also, I don't get the obsession with having an automatic rifle version of these service rifle contenders. When has that ever happened in the past? The M60 and 249 are there own independant platforms.

+1. I can see standardization, to a point. Sniper/rifleman/smg role, OK, that can probably be built on the same platorm. But why do we need to require it to be a machine gun as well?

Also, can anyone tell me exactly why the M16 is being replaced? At first, I thought we were going to a new caliber, but that looks out of the question. Swapable to differnt roles? Two pins on an AR, I can go from SMG, to rifleman, to sniper, and back. Not being able to be dunked in a slurry of mud and then fire safely? I don't think most guns would.

[Jeff White]

That means overtaken by events. I haven't got my American Rifleman in the mail yet, but given the lead time that goes into producing a magazine, I would bet the article and the information in it is several months old.

The Army recently issued a request for designs for a new prototype small arms system. Not quite back to square one, but pretty close.

The proposal called for a 5.56x45 weapons sytem. We're several years away from seeing a replacement for our current weapons systems.

Jeff

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Barrel does laster longer. Seen an G36 eat through circa 15,000 rds (no cleaning) with no decrease in accuracy, nor a single jam. The books I've seen on the M16 say the barrel should be changed out after 8,000 rounds.

Barrel life has nothing to do with the weapon system and everything to do with the technology used to make the barrel. If you make a G36 barrel the same way you make an M16 barrel, it will last as long as an M16 barrel. If you make an M16 barrel the same way you make a G36 barrel, it will last for 15,000 rounds as well.

The XM8 certainly has a lobbying edge in the competition; but this is a long way from a done deal and there is still some significant innovation and improvement being applied to the AR system.

[Bobarino]

barrels: the XM8 uses piloygonal rifling which is supposed to decrease wear, be easier to clean, form a better gas seal behind the bullet and slightly increase velocities over standard land and groove rifling. HK claims 20,000 rounds between cleaning and 20,000 round service life for the barrel which means you never have to clean a barrel! right? after 20k rounds, just replace it.

U.S. factory: http://hkpro.websolv.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=243837&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

here's a thread on HKPRO.com about it with pictures of the sight currently. (4-18-05) construction is still going on but it appears to be slow going. perhaps when the weather/ground dry out a bit they can make some better progress.

contract: who knows? what i do know is that even if HK doesn't get the XM8 contract, they'll have a U.S. factory that needs to pay for itself. part of me (but not a very big part) wants them to lose the contract so they will have to use that plant to build guns for us civvies to pay for their big new shiny plant. slap a semi-auto trigger pack and a 16" barrel in that XM8 and flood the market. ah one can hope right?

Bobby

[Warbow]

Can you dump your AR-15 in a pit filled with muddy water, stomp on it a few times, pull it out, pour a single canteen down the barrel, and then safely fire the weapon?

You can do that with your AR-15, I wouldn't. I've seen it done with G36's before.

Although it's quite cheesy, there is a video like that which made the rounds a month or two ago. The owner of the company took one of his production LEO M4A1 style rifles (full auto) and put a little over 1,000 rounds thru it in under 15 minutes. He cooled it off every couple hundred rounds by tossing the entire rifle into a nasty puddle of very muddy/sandy water (completely submerged) and let it sit for around 15-20 seconds. After each "bath" he just let the water drain, no fresh water was poured down the barrel, then kept firing.

There was a total of one malfunction which was claimed to be caused by the Beta C-Mag in the rifle at the time. Even though the rate of fire was getting quite sluggish near the end due to all of the sand in the action, it still worked.

[jefnvk]

what i do know is that even if HK doesn't get the XM8 contract, they'll have a U.S. factory that needs to pay for itself. part of me (but not a very big part) wants them to lose the contract so they will have to use that plant to build guns for us civvies to pay for their big new shiny plant.

Just think about the semi MP5's and UMP's :D

[PMDW]

Quote:
what i do know is that even if HK doesn't get the XM8 contract, they'll have a U.S. factory that needs to pay for itself. part of me (but not a very big part) wants them to lose the contract so they will have to use that plant to build guns for us civvies to pay for their big new shiny plant.


Just think about the semi MP5's and UMP's

Hah!

It'll never happen.

[MoeMentum]

Because Daisy and Crossman said no.

[jefnvk]

Hah!

It'll never happen.

I know of many that said the same thing about the P90.

[owen]

Most American gun companies are small. The cost to develop a new assault rifle is 10 - 30 million dollars. In an industry where the big boys only make profits in the 2 to 5 million dollar range, that's a nice big chink of money.

HK was owned by British Aerospace when they developed the G36.

HK was was privately held when they developed the G11. The resulting bankruptcy caused them to be bought by BAE.

FN is owned by the the Waloon region of Belgium, and is viewed as a jobs program in a welfare state by that government.

No American gun company has the financial wherewithal to develop an assault rifle with a technical data package that will survive examination by Picatinny Arsenal.

FN Manufacturing has about 15 employees that do nothing but government paperwork, plus 5 government employees that walk around doing nothing but audits. The paperwork package for the M240B bipod is about 250 pages, and needs to be generated for every delivery. Those packages are then added to all the other packages for that month's shipment to the government.

You should see the specs for interchangability. Yikes.

If you were a CEO, would you risk your company's existence by developing a weapon for the government without a solicitation? Are you willing to have government auditors living in your building day in and day out? Are you prepared to do all this, knowing that you only have a few years before the government starts going out for competitive bids? You realize that once the government goes to competitive bids, your design becomes public domain?

[Feanaro]

I know of many that said the same thing about the P90.

Not to hijack the thread but unless something changes, I really doubt HK will be coming out with civvy MP5/HK9X firearms. The HK94 went over like the proverbial lead fart with 15,600 or so units being imported. With a few people already making MP5 clones, HK might not be able to market it. They may not even have the tooling anymore. They could very well have sold it when they killed the MP5. It's hard enough to compete with the ARs, M14, and FALs out there. But they have other people making their own rifles. ;)

Besides, HK doesn't even have a factory yet. When they actually build something other than an office, I'll get my hopes up a liddle bit.

Edit: might as well stay partly on topic. Not many companies in the U.S., that I can think of anyways, have a deal of recent experiance designing assault rifles. Colt might make M-4s but when was the last time they came up with a decent design? Sure, they build great products but the last few things they designed got pummeled. Most of our manufacturers come up with redesigns of sporting rifles and shotguns. There are exceptions of course, like the XCR. But HK has them beat in experiance, manufacturing capacity, and capitol.

[swingset]

Since when did we ever use exclusively American designs, anyway?

From our founding we have been using European arms in this country.

From the Brown Bess to the 1861 Enfield to the Krag, to the P17 Enfield, on and on. And, unlike today, some of those arms were manufactured overseas.

[c_yeager]

You can blame American gun control for this. The fact is that it is simply economincly unfeasable for an American company to design a military-capable weapon. In the past there was always the prospect of civilian sales to fall back on in case the weapon wasnt immediatly adopted by the military. Today, there is a DAILY risk that any newly designed weapon would become outright banned from civilian sale. Unlike many foreign weapons manufactures, American companies depend on civilian sales for their survival in place of military contracts. It is MUCH safer for Remington/Winchester etc. to continue making their money on shotguns and poitically correct hunting rifles/cowboy/target guns. Why would any large company take the risk of eating all of their R&D costs due to the very likely possibility of being legislated out of business.

This is EXACTLY the reason that Ruger such a pain when it comes to getting hi-capacity magazines for their Mini-14. They know that it only takes one well publicised incident in which someone with a 25rnd magazine attached to their rifle kills a bunch of people to get themselves on the banned list. The risk of getting the Mini-14 banned is simply far greater than the profit that could be made by selling the magazines. And this is the case when it comes to ALL of our domestic arms manufactures. The risk/reward ratio is just too great to be worth taking for a large company.

[cracked butt]

Who says American gun manufacturers aren't innovative?

Remington, winchester, Ruger, and savage have figured out that if they put cheap flimsy plastic stocks on rifles, they can market them as 'all weather' and charge the same as if they were stocked with an expensive walnut one.

Remington and winchester have come out with a whole slew of new cartridges in a battle to claim that their own cartridge is 1/16" shorter and 40 fps faster than their competitors similarly named cartridge.

Remington has came out with their 597 and 710 rifles over the last few years.

Ruger has 'upgraded' the MkII pistol to a MKIII by putting a magazine disconnect safety in it. Ruger has also upgraded their Mini-14 by doing something to it that noone has figured out yet and raised the price.

All of the American manufacturers have figured out how to install an integral safety lock in their firearms.

S&W has made innovative deals with the government to keep themselves from getting sued out of existance.

Who says American manufacturers aren't up to the task of designing and building America's next sturmgewehr?

[jefnvk]

In the past there was always the prospect of civilian sales to fall back on in case the weapon wasnt immediatly adopted by the military.

Case in point: The Thompson SMG.

[Kestrel]

Ruger can't get the contract, because they can't print an entire manual on a barrel only 12.5" long...

Ruger can't get the contract, because the government rejected their 5-round magazine limitation...

Ruger can't get the contract, because they didn't want to build something light enough to be carried all day...

Ruger can't get the contract, because they can't get the rifle's trigger pull below 15 pounds...

Winchester can't get the contract, because they shortened and fattened the cartridge so much, the magazine had to be 3" wide and 1.5" deep front-rear...

Remington can't get the contract, because each time a tester called the service center, they were given a different answer or told that Remington does not have that model - the model they are holding in their hands...

Remington can't get the contract, because the testers couldn't see around the bulge of the integral safety on the rifle...

Colt can't get the contract, because their union employees were always on strike or asleep or on break each time there was an RFP meeting...

Colt can't get the contract, because they keep changing their mind as to whether or not they are actually manufacturing something...

;)

[corncob]

Thanks, Owen, for the reality check.

I agree, it is a cost-of-doing-business/risk-vs.-reward problem. Personally, I'll be shocked if the M-16 ever gets replaced. In government terms, holdong these periodic design contests or whatever costs approximately nothing. And it keeps those who do it employed. The nature of the bureaucratic beast is only to continue existing--no more. It is a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that these little exercises indicate a likelihood of future action on the part of the government.

I gotta say, though, that thinking of Robinson out there throwing down with the biggest of the euro-socialist quasi-government behemoths with little or no chance of reward warms my little cynical individualist heart. That guy is awesome. I swear if I could shoot right-handed I'd buy something from him on principle.

[ny32182]

I already own a VEPR K (well worth the money) and if the XCR lives up to the hype of what they say it can do, a 16" fully ambi-controlled 5.56 model will be sitting in my safe next year.

EDIT: and I'm a lefty.

[another48hrs]

...as well as why we gave the finger to Poland, an ally of ours who was going to produce AKs for Iraq and we instead gave the contract to China.

Yeah Poland didn't get the contract, but it was the Bulgarians who got the contract.

[TheHomelandSoldier]

I think they should just change the caliber, not the AR platform. The AR's only true weakness is it's cartridge. An AR in .308 is too heavy, so why not go with the 6.8 Rem SPC, or 6.5 Grendel? Because of all the surplus ammo out there. Solution: Sell off the surplus 5.56 ammo in the civilian market to all the people with AR15's, and adopt the new cartride. I think the AR15 platform is the best so far as balance, design, modularity, etc. go. Just change the stupid cartridge. It drives me nuts that they will go through hundreds of millions of dollars to change rifle platforms, when all they have to do is change the cartridge, bbl, bolt, and mags.

-THS

[Clean97GTI]

Just an FYI, Winchester is owned by the Herstal group...of Belgium.

They are not an American company anymore.
I don't understand why the US military doesn't just ask for an update of the AK pattern rifle. The damn things works well, yet has never been considered.

If you can't beat em, join em. I think an AK with Glock stamped on it woudl be cool...if it wouldn't explode. ;)

[ny32182]

When has the AK ever beaten the AR? People with ARs always tend to kill large volumes of people with AKs. Its just a personal preference.

Sure, there are other (newer) platforms and cartridges out there other than the AR and 5.56.

None of them are nearly as battle proven as the AR, and never will be.

Whatever "huge" advantage people like to attribute to the other platforms is minor or non-existant.

I'm not saying that there will never be anything out there that will be better than the AR. It just won't be good enough, or a big enough improvement to justify a massive cost, massive wholesale switch to a new platform. There is nothing on the horizon right now that would justify a switch. IMHO.

[Clean97GTI]

People with AR's tend to be trained a lot better than those with AK's...at least as far as this country's military is concerned. How do you think the USA would have compared to the now-defunct USSR? I'll betcha the AR wouldn't have made as much difference.
A standard AK won't touch an AR's accuracy, however, the AK has proven itself in the nastiest environments possible. It takes abuse that has choked many an AR. Oh, the AK is cheaper in every single way shape and form. I can buy an excellent domestic AK for $650 with a milled reciever. $475 with a stamped. The military would get them for even less. Oh yeah, no royalties on that one either. There are already variants chambered in 5.56 and the action can take a variety of larger cartridges. If you want, use the RPK action which tolerates even larger cartridges.

Something cool about a rifle that can be cleaned in diesel fuel and lubed with old motor oil...and work flawlessly.

[jefnvk]

So is that the reason why it is being replaced, is it is unreliable? I thought those problems had been taken care of?

I guess, maybe we should know why a new rifle is being looked at. Is it unreliable? Obviously, it can't be the caliber, as first assumed, because they still want .223. Is it because this new weapon will be able to server muiltiple roles? What is it?

[The Rabbi]

People with AR's tend to be trained a lot better than those with AK's...at least as far as this country's military is concerned. How do you think the USA would have compared to the now-defunct USSR? I'll betcha the AR wouldn't have made as much difference.

The dreaded "AK vs AR" debate rears its ugly head :eek:

[Commissar Gribb]

+1. I can see standardization, to a point. Sniper/rifleman/smg role, OK, that can probably be built on the same platorm. But why do we need to require it to be a machine gun as well?

what people are missing here is that it's not standardization to single weapon- it's standardization to a single SYSTEM.

the XM8 system's strongest point is it's interchangeable components between sniper, SMG, rifle, LMG varients- much the way that the kalashnikov system (AKM, AKSU, RPK and to a lesser extent, the SVD) featured shared components or operating features.

And Unless I'm mistaken, the M16 has or is being used as a light machine gun by some countries.