[mdsteele]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites).




U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 — the latest incarnation of the 5.56 mm firearm — is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of conducting patrols since the end of major fighting on May 1.


The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during a firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death.


"It's a little too big for getting in and out of vehicles," said Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, which controls Baghdad. "I can tell you that as a result of this experience, the Army will look very carefully at how it performed."


Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.


The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.


"Then it was adopted by the Special Forces and Rangers, mainly because of its shorter length," said Col. Kurt Fuller, a battalion commander in Iraq and an authority on firearms.


Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best.


Still, experience has shown the carbines also have deficiencies. The cut-down barrel results in lower bullet velocities, decreasing its range. It also tends to rapidly overheat and the firing system, which works under greater pressures created by the gases of detonating ammunition, puts more stress on moving parts, hurting its reliability.


Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.


There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4.


"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.


The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy.


Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.

[JShirley]

"Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops."

...but...it's just a shorter M16! This has to be one of the most poorly researched articles I've read.

[JimJD]

So what do all of you think about this article?
Most of us here have heard of the OICW project. Will the "Future Rifle" be here sooner than later?
One of the versions that most of us have seen on TV, etc. seems like a step backwards to me. Opinions?
Here's a link to the article:
M-16 nearing the end of it's service? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16&printer=1)

[Jeff White]

The author fails to mention that many of the M16A2s are being replaced by M16A4s which also have 20" barrels :what: .

I think that SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer, knows less about military small arms then I do about microsurgery....

Oh yeah..the AK74 has knockdown power now....

I think the writer spent some time hanging with some troopies and took notes on all the military small arms urban legends he heard. Somebody needs to tell whoever he was embedded with that they are slacking off. they left out the one about how the M16 bullet tumbles in flight :uhoh:.

My question is, are there editors at the Associated Press?

Jeff

[WonderNine]

I think short barrels will be the final nail in the coffin for .223's effectiveness.

Unless they army is smart enough to adopt a bullpup design with a 20" barrel and an AK style gas system.

[JimJD]

Whoops!
I meant to post this in Rifle.
Sorry!
Thanks for the move :D

[yayarx7]

This article is ridiculous. The USMC just adopted the M16A4. There is just no way to justify a change from the m16 system.

[Badger Arms]

Jeff, you know better. The editors of the AP are more ignorant than the writer himself! Now, all they have to do is pick any of the dozens of writers for popular gun rags like Guns & Ammo or Shooting Times and say, "Hey, write us a story on gun stuff in the Army." They'd get a well-written, well-researched masterpiece compared to this bird-dropping collector. What crap. Doesn't he know the XM-29 is DEAD... just in case anybody didn't know. It's Dead, the XM29 is dead. IT's DEAD. One more time for the AP this time... THE XM29 IS DEAD. sorry, Jeff, I couldn't resist.:evil:

[ctdonath]

The OICW is a siamese fraternal twin. Both weapons are (with a little modification) fine for their own applications. Unfortunately, for a given application you've got this entirely unsuitable growth attached (the other weapon).

The grenade launcher part is for long range, and has a useless bulky 11" .223 pistol permanently attached. Fire the .223 at long range and you'll likely miss.

The rifle is for short range, and has a useless bulky grenade launcher attached. Fire a 20mm grenade at close range and you'll kill yourself.

Arm everyone with something compact and suitable for CQB, and have 1-2 people lug the cannon separately.

OICW won't replace the M4. Maybe the FN2000 (in varying configuration depending on user), but not that bulky POS OICW.

[JimJD]

I just tried to delete the thread I made on this... Sorry.

One of the OICW rifles has the .223/5.56 besides that huge round attched to it(20mm?), That does'nt seem to be the answer too.
How about a FN P90 for tanker crews and such? Yeah, it's a smaller round, but a much smaller weapon too. Is the data on the 5.7 MM true?

I too, remember reading that the USMC adopted the M16A4.
Add to that the other "info" in this piece...What the!?
Who wrote this "report"?
But... do any of you think our people could benefit form a larger caliber round? Bring the .308 back in huge numbers maybe?

[Jeff White]

Badger...If he'd have read the XM8 thread he'd have known that :D

Then there is this gem;

The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.

M4 confused with M4A1. I wonder where he heard about the original fielding plan, which was scrapped in about 1988? Of course no one knew the term personal defense weapon back then.

On second thought he must have done fact verification in the mainstream gunrags...Must have missed all those Chuck Taylor articles where he swore we were changing twist rate to 1/9?

Jeff

[BevrFevr]

I think replacing the m16 may have some merit. No weapon design lasts forever except maybe a ma duece and the ak.

The m16 weapons system has been plauged by problems real and imaginary since day one. It is a sophisticated instrument. IMHO simple is better. I'm not advocating going back to bolt actions.

I believe that a new system can be developed that is better. One that is simple and rugged like an ak and retains the wiz bang gadget factor of the m16.

If you are poking fun at the 5.45 IMHO it is better designed than the 5.56 for ball ammo. But I like the .243 over both.

Regardless, I bet he is right. I think the bad press that the 16 has ahd during this war will break the camels back.

my 2 scents -bevr

[DMK]

Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best. That's funny. About 6 months ago I was reading articles about how the M-16 didn't have enough range in Afganistan and Iraq. I thought the M-14 was making a comeback and optics were now standard equipment on the M-16? :rolleyes:

[JShirley]

Yup. On an ammo detail, I came across pallets of 5.56mm 77-grain Black Hills ammo, designed specifically for long range use.

As far as optics- M4's getting them, too. All the arms we had in our groovy new IBCT Battalion had optics attached- most of them M68 Aimpoint red dots.

[bad_dad_brad]

How about a .243 using an improved AK mechanism? Now that would be a rifle!

[ctdonath]

So someone thinks the answer to the M16 being too big is to replace it with something bigger, bulkier, less accurate at long range, awkward to move, and lethal to the user at close range? Right.

How about, say, the FN2000:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ARFN2000.jpg

Features functionality equivalent to the M16, smaller, flexible, and makes a grenade launcher unobtrusive and optional instead of overwhelming and unremovable?

[natedog]

I think the FN2000 (hopefully the XMFN2000 and further the FN2000 someday :p ) would be a better replacement than the XM-8.

[TheOtherOne]

Too bad the shorter barrels (not to mention FA) on all these replacement options violate NFA '34. I guess I'll let it slide if they give me a $200 tax rebate for every rifle each time one is issued to a soldier.

[WonderNine]

How about a .243 using an improved AK mechanism? Now that would be a rifle!

The problem being the .243 case is the same diameter as the .308.

So now you've got a little lighter ammo than ..308, but it's just as big....

[JShirley]

Well...if by ".243", one meant 6mm PPC, I do agree it would be an improvement!

[goon]

I don't really see the point of replacing the M-16 with a shorter M-16, or with an M-16 of the same size, or with a 17 pound behemoth.
If they want something effective up close but smaller, they are going to have to either go to a larger bullet or a bullpup.
Go to a larger bullet and you need more powder to get the range.
Which leads us back to the 7.62x51.

I think that they could solve the M-16's reliability troubles with a different upper that would just snap right on to existing guns. Something with an AK style gas piston.
Instant upgrade.
Then you come up with something like a single shot 20mm shotgun that mounts under it.
It could swing to either side for loading.
Add optics with a PSO style rangefinder for slinging in those smart 20mm airbursts and you are set.

Not too much weight, not too much cost, you still get to use current ammo, and you get something that would eliminate the M-16's worst deficiency.
What's not to love?

[cookhj]

or maybe we could help the russian economy and get AN-94's! :neener:

[Moparmike]

They're saying that the M-16 is too long?:scrutiny: I dont suppose they realize that the Germans were using rifles that were taller than some of their troops (especially with the bayo on it) 60 and 80 years ago, do they? And they weren't being transported in 8' wide Humvees, they were instead in VW Things and old Benz trucks!

I swear, some people have nary a friggin clue about history. 40" too long. Jeeze.:rolleyes:

[buttrap]

Ah big crock of ahh dodo..

[Zedicus]

call me nuts, but I think the US gov't should pay notice to the AR in the game "Unreal II" much of the design is quite possible with today's technology and the design would make for a very versitile weapon.

EG: A gun that Uses Caseless Bullets that can be fired in Simi-auto, Full-Auto or a 5 bullet Bundle (much like a grinade).

i'm certan that with enough research something would be more than just a possibillity.

just my $0.02.....

[ctdonath]

The problem with caseless ammo is heat removal. Ejecting the case means ejecting most of the heat very efficiently; without a case to carry most of the heat away you still have the same amount of heat to dissapate.

[JShirley]

There is no reason to go back to the 7.62x51mm. Smaller, lighter rounds with similar penetration and range can be found.

Caseless ammo is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Friend Bud Helms was present when a caseless auto cannon being eval'd went BOOM.

[ShaiVong]

Bah; They need to scrap those M16's and put Glocks with 14" barrels in service!


:neener:

[BevrFevr]

I don't know what you do for a living but you may have missed your calling. That is truely an idea of merit. A piston that you could clean off with an old nail, sharp rock, whatever you find in the field. That is sweet!

I would argue however that the real lameness of the m16 weapons system is the complicated bolt and lower reciever. One thing great about an AK type design is that if you have to shorten it you can remove the entire stock and pistol grip and still fire the thing if you have to.

It screams being able to be used as 1) a bullpup 2) a short light infantry weapon(std config). and 3) a light mg ala RPK. All stone cold realible above all others.

You can't do that with a m14 or an m16 or a garand. The only problem with the AK design is John Browning wasn't alive to show Kalishnikov how to do it better.

All the ak design needs is a better sighting system and more accuracy.

I also like the fal design if it were designed around an intermediate cartridge with less recoil like the .243 instead of being retrofitted like a DSA.
But it is no ak47/74.

-bevr

[Sven]

M14s?

[BevrFevr]

Firing them full auto "as a light mg", from what I understand is not much fun. It is the full power cartridge that keeps them out of that group.

-bevr

[Kaylee]

naaah.. day of the M14 as a line rifle is done. It's a fine rifle... just not the best mechanical solution the the problem.

As to the bullpups, the US doesn't seem big on the ergonomics of 'em.. specs for the new SCAR thingie specifically say "no bullpups" .. well, in technical-ese anyhow.

As to the article.. well... it's less misleading that most articles mentioning firearms I read in the media these days. :)


-K

[goon]

BevrFevr- I would think that improving the sights on the AK would improve the accuracy quite a bit. Add in that it would be using good quality US made ammo and I think you would have a pretty good shooter.
Take a look at the VEPR.
Good rifle, but poorly balanced.
I think that if you stepped the .308 version down to maybe a .300 Savage casing using about a 6.5mm bullet, you might have a pretty good compromise.
If I were in charge, it would be my 6.5mm Savage AK that would be issued, and it would be issued as a semi-auto when in infantry rifle configuration.
I suppose that a .243 might be a good place to start as well, I just like to be difficult.
I would actually take the time to train my imaginary army to shoot, rather than sending them to the range once every six months and hoping they could nail 23 out of 40.

I can't argue that the AK system is better than the AR for reliability.
I was just looking at a way to make what we have better.
The buffer in the stock does hamper the changeability a little, but the collapsible stock has helped with that and it allows the user to make the rifle fit him.
I can see your point on the complex lower as being a problem, but all the troubles I have ever seen with the M-16 were the result of the direct impingement, even more so the tight tolerances.
Tight tolerances are what make the M-16 shoot like it does, but it also means that it can't deal with as much crud as the AK can.
I will say that the half worn out M-16s that I used worked every time, with the exception of blanks and the bad extractor spring that I had in BCT.
Other than that, they always went off.
So if we loosened the tolerances up on the M-16, that would probably help too.
But if we are going to make improvements, why not incorporate everything that we can to make the gun even more reliable?

All this stuff makes my brain hurt.
:what:

[EchoSixMike]

I have the solution!!

1. First, take all the O5 and higher officers involved in fielding the XM8, XM29 program...and fire them. That saves money.

2. Use the XM8, OICW, XM29, etc etc for testing not fielding. In ten to twenty years, when all the electronics are reliable and functional, you can consider fielding it. Until them, keep something that usually works.

3. Take all the money we have saved and also the money wasted on EO, sexual harrassment training and other silly crap and spend it on small arms ammo, so that Joe can shoot. There is nothing new or exciting about small arms marksmanship, it just takes work, that's all. It's not hardware, it's software. Sorry, you can't buy skill. S/F....Ken M

[Jeff White]

EchoSixMike said;

1. First, take all the O5 and higher officers involved in fielding the XM8, XM29 program...and fire them. That saves money.

They'd just go to work for HK....:what: Opps did I say that in public...naughty me :evil:

Jeff

[Amish]

The US should switch to the Daewoo K2. It's reliable, accurate, has a 18" barrel, folding stock, uses standard mags, ergonomics is similar to the M16, and heck with the right accessories it could look real evil. That's why I have two Daewoo DR200's and only one AR15.

[BevrFevr]

I just couldn't bring myself to say that. er still can't. Let's say something like the daewoo. :)

-bevr

[Dr.Rob]

Funny thing.

M-16 = Produced by FN (who out bid Colt, nearly causing demise of comapny)

M-4 = produced by Colt and now the standard rifle in Spec Ops/ rapid deployment forces never went through procurment proceedings. Ramrodded by Rep. Charles Schumer and The then owner of Colt.. an Iraqi if I recall.

I like Colt, and the troops like the rifle.. but this sounds like pork barrel politics to me. Is it possible buying the Colt M4 will deliver hard currency to the Iraqis?

(like not as most companies are multinationals.. but enough smoking guns to start another conspiracy debate.)

And after reading Black Hawk Down the M-4 didn't do very well at 100+ yards, with the new green tip ammo.

[Master Blaster]

I'm very impresed by my two outings with the Saiga .308

put a dot sight, shorter stock, and a pistol grip on the .308 siaga with a 16" barrel and you gave a powerful compact weapon, that uses nato 7.62x51 ammo, is light weight, and reliable. Its the improved AK design as well.
Easy to strip and clean, excellent accuracy moderate recoil.

Need more range, same gun with a 22" barrel and a 10x scope.

Why cant we make a rifle like this for our troops with 20 and 30 round magazines???

I think that the design is in the public domain as well.

Heck IZH could build a factory here in the US.




:D

[Al Thompson]

Actually, someone did a web page that went through BHD and got comments. They were overwhelmingly favorable. Just the one Delta guy hated the 5.56.

[Cosmoline]

I think they should adopt the OICWS only drop the carbine aspect. A shoulder-fired repeating 20mm cannon is as much power as any human can dish out without grabbing a tank or howitzer. If it can really detonate over the head or at the side of foes under cover, it would be the only small arm our troops would need. Forget spray and pray--we need to aim and anihilate.

[BevrFevr]

I'd hate to have to clear your average iraqi apt. with a 20mm. Of course maybe hate is too strong a word, lets say I would worry more about my own safety and my buds. ;)

-bevr

[JShirley]

What about at 5 feet?

I don't want detonation of ANYTHING at five feet from me! OICW is just not a useable technology at present.

(edit- I see BF and I agree on the PBR aspect!)

[Kaylee]

Cosmoline... as long as you're engaging outside the blast radius anyhow. :)


perhaps a P90 or som'n as backup for the grenadier?

[MrAcheson]

Sorry but in a world where military body armor is becoming common, fragmentary weapons are worth less and less. Body armor is great at soaking up fragments from say the OICW. Aimed rifle fire is a different matter.

[fix]

Well duh. Due to modern tactics and the evolution of today's battlefield, most contact is under 300 yds. The shorter barreled rifles are an ideal compromise. It's good from 0-300 yds. Anything beyond 300 yds can be handled by designated personnel who carry weapons with a greater effective range or arty/air/mortars.

[Kaylee]

MrA -- good point.

Which I guess gets us into the whole geopolical thing.. are we as a nation more likely to engage in the coming forty years (arbritrary number based on the M16's service life)... 1st world armies with body armor, or continue to whack up on folks from the tennis-shoes-and-commie-donated-AK school?

Alternately, is body armor capable of withstanding 20mm airbursts likely to become cheap enough to field that places like Iraq, Korea, you name it -- will start issuing it?

-K

[45R]

Over a Million M16s now available for CPM purchase.... :)

Prices for M14 and Garands drop to 100 bucks a rifle. :)

[Black Snowman]

I think a big issues is that the procurement people are expecting one weapon to do everything. It may seem like a good idea to bean counters but multiple specialists seems like a better option to me.
CQB assualts, large battles, marksmen, and suppression fire roles all require vastly differant tool requirments.

I'll jump on the: "Training training training, oh, and some guns of some kind." solution bandwagon.

As a general purpose battle rifle has anyone though of looking at the WSSM cartrige concept as options? .223, .243, 270 could all be options for a caliber. Larger rounds but still lightweight. Quite volume efficient for their power.

[BevrFevr]

I'd be agin any shorties and stick to full length brass. A 243 is a necked down 308. We already have alot of infrastructure set up for .308 so we could use that. I suggest .243 for it's milder recoil than the .308, 7.62, whatever and more umph than a .223.

I may be convinced other wise after shooting a stubby as I have not yet.
Just talking out my arse as usual.

-bevr

[JShirley]

Problem is the thickness of the round (interferes with double-stack high cap mags). The 6.8x43mm should solve many problems- now, they just need a good platform! :neener:

[BevrFevr]

any pics?

-bevr

[telewinz]

Tighten-up the specs a little on the AK, attach a short scope and we will have a reliable rifle like the Russians have had for 50 years.

Over a Million M16s now available for CPM purchase....

Orders are slow in coming, free shipping and ammo offered, buy two and get a free bayonet.:D

[Nightfall]

any pics?
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=626525

[Nightfall]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=626536

[Nightfall]

BTW, dunno if anybody noticed, but HK put up some XM8 material on their new webpage, including a head-to-head of the M4 vs the XM8 and some videos:

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8_still-lifepopup.jpg
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8apgsold1popup.jpg
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8soldierpopup.jpg

[cookhj]

not bad....too space-aged looking for me though. i would be afraid that white armor clad stormtroopers would be after me if i carried one of those.

[starfuryzeta]

Looks vaguely familiar, almost like a M41A Pulse Rifle.

Stock looks interesting. Doesn't mention the ability to use existing mags.

And this is better than the G36 how?

[cookhj]

actually, now that i think about it and look at it again. it's fugly. you're right starfuryzeta, what the hell is the difference between that and the G-36 besides the fact that the G-36 is a much better looking rifle. i don't see why we can't go with a G-36 or SiG550/551 design but a different caliber like the 6.8x43mm.

[goon]

The stock is what has me concerned. If it is solid polymer it would probably be OK.
If it is hollow it will be a nightmare.
You never know when you might need to whack someone over the head with your rifle butt. Breaking the damn thing off is just one more thing to have to worry about.
Also, where are the iron sights?
Surely they aren't going to solely rely on battery powered sights...

[Cosmoline]

That 6.8 looks excellent! Truly the best of all worlds. I wonder what the max OAL is. Anyone know? What about twist rates? If possible it would be great to be able to increase the bullet weight to 150 or 160 for AP roles. You can get extremely high SD ratings with that diameter.

[Bainx]

....the military has always been extremely slow in making a needed change.:o

[natedog]

Nobody sees a problem with a 12.5" barrel standard? You're getting what, like 2700 FPS at the muzzle? Thats barely in the fragmentation range for 5.56mm...not good.

[Kaylee]

re HK's "compare me" page with the M4: :barf:

I note among safety issues of the M4 "barrel will rupture with barrel obstruction" .... something missing from the XM-8 issues. Nice to know that I only need to worry about obstructed .223 barrels in the M4. :rolleyes:
Oh, there's lot's more like that to.. did you know, for instance, that the only modular element on the M4 was the accessories?

God help the politician reading that without a bit of background knowledge.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for phasing out the M16 platform soon. But that ad copy is just wretched.

-K

[Jeff White]

You have to wonder just how confident they are with this system. They have to lie about it's competition to make their weapon look good in comparison. Thanks for the link. My congressman will love this.

Jeff

[Spark]

Oh, there's lot's more like that to.. did you know, for instance, that the only modular element on the M4 was the accessories?

And what else, pray tell, would you call "user level modular" on the M16 system? That is, interchangeable without tools, without replaceing the entire main assembly?

Modular is changing a barrel, not an entire upper. Modular is changing stocks, not lowers. Etc etc etc.

There were a couple spots where you could take issue on the head-to-head page, but the far majority was bare bones truth.

[Tamara]

Modular is changing a barrel, not an entire upper.

If it's done without tools, what difference does it make if there's a cheap (and very amortized) aluminum forging attached to the back end of the quick-change barrel or not? It ain't like G.I. Joe is gonna carry a golf bag of barrels in the field with him. "Hey, sarge, that Tango looks to be about 600 yards off. Should I stay with the 14.5" barrel or switch to the 20" tube?" :scrutiny:

:D

[Andrew Wyatt]

You also don't have to rezero the thing every time you change uppers like you do when changing barrels. I dislike repeating myself in these g36 vs m4 threads.

[AUTIGER04]

Remember they just built a new factory in Columbus GA.;)

[Spark]

If it's done without tools, what difference does it make if there's a cheap (and very amortized) aluminum forging attached to the back end of the quick-change barrel or not? It ain't like G.I. Joe is gonna carry a golf bag of barrels in the field with him. "Hey, sarge, that Tango looks to be about 600 yards off. Should I stay with the 14.5" barrel or switch to the 20" tube?"

Hahahahahaha, funny illustration. Hang on a sec, I have to stop laughing. Almost done. There. Great thing, that ridiculous comparison / absurd situation thing. Almost like how the anti's say "Whaddaya need that assault rifle for? To mow down people in the mall?" Following your logic, Tamara, would are troops be better off hauling around multiple barrels, or MULTIPLE UPPERS. Take your time.

Logistics wise, let's see, maybe you can list all the parts required in replacing the entire upper on a M16, versus the single part (barrel) in the XM8? How many pieces would that be again? How many inventory model numbers would that be? How many REDUNDANT pieces would that be? And hey, if any one of those pieces fails, like, say, the gas tube, or the front sight block, or anything else is broken, then is the rest of the assembly usable without replacement?

Your argument is like saying, "Hey, it's better to change the transmission and drive train every time we want to put on snow tires"

You also don't have to rezero the thing every time you change uppers like you do when changing barrels. I dislike repeating myself in these g36 vs m4 threads.

Andrew, FYI, it's SOP to rezero your rifle anytime you make any major changes to it. Changing your handguards system from the standard to the RIS on the M4 will throw off your zero. Adding an M203 will throw off your zero. Swapping an upper certainly requires rezeroing - especially considering that since they aren't serial numbered, there is no way to ensure that everyone get's the same one back. Each rifle has to be zero'ed for each shooter, remember? Nice try though, please try again. I get tired of explaining the obvious to people who should know better. Putting on and taking off the electronic sights will disrupt zero. Need I continue?

Furthermore, and I quote from hk-usa.com The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even after
the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered and does not require constant rezeroing in the field like current rail-mounted targeting devices.

Now, given the above statement, and the fact that this weapon is designed to quick change barrels, do you think that they possibly, maybe, might have considered that barrel swap outs should have close to the same zero? Maybe, possibly, who knows, they might actually have considered this aspect? I mean, hey, swapping a barrel is a major deal. They might want to make sure the lockup is pretty precise and all. :rolleyes:

[Tamara]

Following your logic, Tamara, would are troops be better off hauling around multiple barrels, or MULTIPLE UPPERS. Take your time.

The correct answer, obviously, is "C) Neither," which was the point of my post. :scrutiny:

[Andrew Wyatt]

*shrug* I doubt the xm8 can go from a 20 inch barrelled, Acog sighted gun to a 14.5 inch barrelled aimpoint sighted gun as fast as the AR can, since it requires tools to remove the (untested) gee whizbang optic ,which is probably a two minute job. then you have install a mount that's compatable with something other than HK products. that's probably a 2 to five minute job. then you have to install the scope. that's a 3 minute job, if you've done it before.

THEN you can go rezero it, cause you have to.

With the ar-15, you pop the pushpins, replace the upper and you're good to go, since you made sure it worked before and you zeroed the scope and whatnot. then you can go rezero if you want to, but it'll be zeroed.
The only people who would have multiple uppers are the special operations guys. They know who belongs to what.

The XM8 money is better spent on getting 6.8mm uppers in the hands of every rifleman.

You might want to tone down your condesension. It's unbecoming.

[Jeff White]

I printed out the XM8 - US M4 System Comparison from the HK USA Website. The lies and misinformation concerning the XM8's competition, the M4 MWS are astounding. I'm going to post a head to head comparison with facts about the M4 MWS. My facts come from FM 3-22.9 and TM 9-1005-319-23&p current to change 7.

HK starts by by stacking the deck in their favor by comparing the XM with the M4 MWS including redundant accessories. The XM8 example shows it including integrated sight with IR laser and illuminator, red dot reflex sight and integrated mount. The M4 MWS is equipped with rail attachment system, AN/PEQ-2, AN/PAQ-4, M68 CCO, mounts and BUS.

I know that HK knows that you get both an IR laser aimer and illuminator with the AN/PEQ-2. You don't need the AN/PAQ-4 to get both functions. Soldiers are not issued both, they get one or the other. However if you compare the two weapons side by side, the inclusion of both systems with the M4 MWS makes the HK look much better in the cost and weight areas.

Then we get down to system cost. They show the XM8 at $600 for the basic carbine. Of course this is an estimate, as no production carbines exist and HK hasn't fixed the price yet. Wonder if they'd commit to deliver them for that today? They show the cost of the basic M4 carbine at $900, which is closer to the commerical cost of a Colt M4 to a civilian LE agency, although I've seen them advertised at about $845 agency price. Current contract price to the Army was right at $700 the last time I looked it up on FEDLOG.

Of course if you add HKs untested (the German soldiers are very unhappy with the one on the G36) integrated sight you get the cost up to $1800. This is vs. $2539 for the M4 as listed, although I've mentioned you don't issue the M4 with both the PEQ-2 and PAQ-4, it's one or the other, which would make the M4 cheaper then the XM8 with integrated sight.

Next we get into barrel exchange. The M4 barrel does in fact have fixed headspace.

Component service life: There is no requirement to replace the barrels at 8000 rounds in any of the M16 variants. The Army does not track rounds fired through any small arms except for sniper weapons systems. Weapons are gaged at regular intervals and parts are replaced as they wear out. The 8k figure is something HK made up, it's definately not anything the Army specified. Of course HKs figures are guess work since no production XM8s exist and are inservice anywhere. No actual data has been determined.

They also lie about the M68 CCO not returning to zero. All you have to do is put the Rail Grabber mount back in the same numbered slot on the upper receiver.

They say the charging handle isn't operable in the shoulder firing postion. I wonder if Pat Rogers knows that, or Jim Crews or any other trainer on the M4 system? Funny thing but I charge mine with the weapon mounted all the time.

Oh and I love this one...the Beta C-mag doesn't work with the M4..duhh that POS mag doesn't work with anything. My frriend who is working at HK said they totally re-engineered it for the XM8. I wonder how their optional high reliablity 100-round dual drum magazines would work in the M4? How is it a failure of the weapon if a junk magazine doesn't work in it? Next they'll say that there is something wrong because USA brand steel mags don't work either... :what:

BTW HK the standard USGI BFA is designed to break away and prevent the weapon from injuring the shooter. Another non issue.

So if the XM8 is such an advance over what we have, why does HK have to lie and manipulate the facts to make it look so much better?

Could it be that it's not a big advance, they know it's not and this is all hype to rip off the American taxpayer?

Jeff

[Spark]

*shrug* I doubt the xm8 can go from a 20 inch barrelled, Acog sighted gun to a 14.5 inch barrelled aimpoint sighted gun as fast as the AR can, since it requires tools to remove the (untested) gee whizbang optic ,which is probably a two minute job. then you have install a mount that's compatable with something other than HK products. that's probably a 2 to five minute job. then you have to install the scope. that's a 3 minute job, if you've done it before.

Oh, so you found the one instance where a seperate upper actually comes in handy. Wow. Amazing. :rolleyes: Of course, that predicates that you are actually going to keep that ACOG married to the upper (not likely) since you are going to have to have a protected carrying system for it. Boy, that's some modularity - see my snow tires / transmission example above and please try again.

Now, more likely is they will have to change one, or the other. Your red-herring about mounts is just that, because if that system is designated for use with the XM8 (and only the XM8), then the adaptor is going to be married to it until such time that a standard mounting is in field.

Furthermore, you have (again) ignored the myriad other advantages that modularity has. But what the hell, you'd rather waste money on 500 possible permutations of uppers, each married to a different sighting system, than admit a quick change modular system is better. Pray tell, where would all these uppers be stored btw? How many complete uppers would you need? How much space would that take up? Since you've been dismissing the XM8 on price, How much money would all those spare uppers cost and what is that cost savings? Quite a modular system there.

Jeff's comments are another matter. Interesting how he ignores what he can't refute. Personally, I feel the most important error you make, Jeff, is on the charging handle operation - they refer to not having to remove the hand from the firing grip to operate the charging handle. Not the best English I've seen, but it's understandable. I can't comment on the pricing and such because I'm ignorant of exact US prices.

With regards to service life specifications, I'd expect they got their figures from actual testing, which might not show up in the TM's / FM's and might be available from the proving grounds / trials & such. Again, I'm ignorant on that aspect. What I can tell you is that they probably reached their 20,000 round figure on barrels as a preset specification (ie "We need to design this to meet a minimum service life of x rounds"). But it's so much more fun to pick nits, right?

[Andrew Wyatt]

Fun fact: g36 magazines take up as much space as 20 round m-14 magazines. that RACK the guy with the XM8 is showing off (which normally holds 12 m-16 magazines) only holds 8 g36 magazines.

this means that the ETLBV(the load bearing vest that most of the force without molle uses) can only carry 2! G36 magazines.


Oh, so you found the one instance where a seperate upper actually comes in handy. Wow. Amazing. Of course, that predicates that you are actually going to keep that ACOG married to the upper (not likely) since you are going to have to have a protected carrying system for it.


Dude, seriously. The attitude's getting old.

In any event, keeping the ACOG on the longer barrel upper makes way more sense than using the aimpoint on everything from the 7 inch or whatever barrel to the 20 inch barrel gun. Modularity is all about tailoring the weapon to the mission.

[Spark]

Fun fact: g36 magazines take up as much space as 20 round m-14 magazines. that RACK the guy with the XM8 is showing off (which normally holds 12 m-16 magazines) only holds 8 g36 magazines.

this means that the ETLBV(the load bearing vest that most of the force without molle uses) can only carry 2! G36 magazines.

Fun fact: the magwells on the XM8 are modular. Hello M16 magazine adaptor! Then, when it comes time, the magazines can migrate over.

Next issue?

In any event, keeping the ACOG on the longer barrel upper makes way more sense than using the aimpoint on everything from the 7 inch or whatever barrel to the 20 inch barrel gun. Modularity is all about tailoring the weapon to the mission. I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that yes, while it does make sense to keep it there, it makes more sense to be able to reconfigure the barrels at a user / unit level, just like you can reconfigure the accessory optics. Modularity is about tailoring the weapon to the mission, not having essentially a different weapon for each. There is a big difference between a new upper assembly and a new barrel assembly.

[Andrew Wyatt]

My whole point about that is it limits your flexability. you can't put a shrike on an xm8, or a .50 BMG upper.

Also, the only people who are going to change barrel lengths often (and then not that much) are the delta/specops guys. That's a pretty small portion of the total army, and they're better served by not having to rezero the aimpoint on their short range upper ot their acog on their longer range upper every time they change uppers.

[Spark]

My whole point about that is it limits your flexability. you can't put a shrike on an xm8, or a .50 BMG upper.

Why would they do that to begin with? Those are both solutions looking for a problem. The Military has no need to purchase shrike uppers, because the SAW serves that role already. .50BMG uppers are just as useless, because why would they get a half-assed single shot upper, when M82's are already in the system? Heck, if you want a single shot .50, there are plenty to choose from. That's a pretty limited scope application there.

Also, the only people who are going to change barrel lengths often (and then not that much) are the delta/specops guys. That's a pretty small portion of the total army, and they're better served by not having to rezero the aimpoint on their short range upper ot their acog on their longer range upper every time they change uppers. Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. Convoy duty? Pop in the 12.5 barrel. Designated marksman rotates in? 20". SGT Snuffy get's promoted? Just pop off the GL and give to the next guy, instead of having to switch entire weapons. Granted, I don't see a need for every company to stock the full range - that's redundant to an absurd degree.

Furthermore, in combined units, there is an incentive for the variety available. SPC Blow goes from the line (with a 14.5" barrel) to being the CO's driver. Off comes the stock, in pops the 9" barrel. Or, the entire unit gets tasked for MOUT one week, and dismounted patrolling the next. Or, the CO, XO and 1SG completely disregard the lesson's learned about guys with unusual gear and feel like they want to go Commando. Or you've got an armored unit with guys in Humvee's and M1's and Bradleys and need all sorts variety. Modularity is about tailoring the weapon for the mission, right?

[Andrew Wyatt]

The Military has no need to purchase shrike uppers

USSOCOM has some on order, IIRC.

Just pop off the GL and give to the next guy, instead of having to switch entire weapons.
You do realize that the current sopmod M4 grenade launcher is rail mounted, don't you? You can do this now.

you can do everything you mention with the current m-16 family, with the exception of removing buttstock and putting on a reciever cap, which is stupid and unnecessary, anyway.

[Jeff White]

Spark said;
Personally, I feel the most important error you make, Jeff, is on the charging handle operation - they refer to not having to remove the hand from the firing grip to operate the charging handle.

Oh, but you can charge the weapon with your non firing hand. I do it and I teach it. In fact it's taught in every carbine course I know of. Spark, do you have an AR15 or M16? Get the weapon. Make certain that it is clear and point in a safe direction. Now Take whatever offhand stance you are comfortable with. With the index finger of your firing hand straight against the lower receiver and the pistol grip in hand, move your non-firing hand from the handguard, bring it up to the charging handle. Here you have a choice, you can either hook the latch with the index finger of your non-firing hand, pull the charging handle to the rear and release, or you can catch the latch with the knife edge of your non-firing hand and pull it back and release. There the weapon is charged with the non-firng hand while holding it on target. :cool:

Interesting how he ignores what he can't refute.

I don't believe I said I would refute everything on the comparison. I was just pointing out how HK fabricated information and manipulated the data (i.e. figuing both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 with the M4) to make the XM8 look better then it is. I wonder why they felt the need to do that?

With regards to service life specifications, I'd expect they got their figures from actual testing, which might not show up in the TM's / FM's and might be available from the proving grounds / trials & such. Again, I'm ignorant on that aspect. What I can tell you is that they probably reached their 20,000 round figure on barrels as a preset specification (ie "We need to design this to meet a minimum service life of x rounds"). But it's so much more fun to pick nits, right?

The fact is, they have no idea what the service life of an XM8 is, because no production versions exist. The Army also has no idea what the service life of an M16 series is because they don't keep those kinds of records. Any data figured on parts needing replaced at a set number of rounds is based on torture testing which may or may not reflect the actual service life of a weapon or part.

I hardly see how pointing out these things is picking nits. If the XM8 was God's gift to the Infantry, they wouldn't have to lie and manipulate data in a head to head comparison of the weapon they want to replace.

Of course HK doesn't list those things they can't refute head to head either:

Muzzle Velocity M855: XM8 20" barrel 2850 M16A4 20" barrel 3100
XM8 12.5" barrel 2545 M4 14.5" barrel 2970

This is a pretty critical area because were talking lethality here. The XM8 cuts the range that our issue ammunition is at it's maximum effectiveness. To me this is one of the biggest downfalls to the system. Wonder how come HK lists muzzle velocity in the specs, but not head to head?

As for all the bandwidth we are eating up talking modularity, you know as well as I do that the Army will not buy a complete system for every soldier. They will take each version and designate who gets what in a Modified Table of Allowances and Equipment. (MTOE) So while it sounds good to the hobbyists who post here, it's pretty much a non issue for the soldiers. Modularity will be important to SOF and no one else in the military community. The big army will still have so many rifles, so many SAWs and so many grenade launchers per squad.

Jeff

[Destructo6]

you can't put a shrike on an xm8, or a .50 BMG upper.
You can't put a Shrike on an AR-15 either. Good thing they're a LLC, they'll probably need it.

[Spark]

Boy this is getting old.

(with regards to the Shrike vaporware upper)USSOCOM has some on order, IIRC. Whoopdeedoo. IIRC, we had Crusaders & Metalstorms on order too. When it's issued, then we'll talk.

You do realize that the current sopmod M4 grenade launcher is rail mounted, don't you? You can do this now.

You do realize that the SOPMOD kit is way more expensive than the $2500 price tag listed in the XM8 head to head comparison, and isn't slated for general issue, don't you? You can NOT do this now in line units. The purpose of the XM8 is, tada, to incorporate a new rifle system where this sort of modularity is integrated on all rifles, not just the SF ones. Wow, explain to me again how the current M16 represents a cost savings?
you can do everything you mention with the current m-16 family, with the exception of removing buttstock and putting on a reciever cap, which is stupid and unnecessary, anyway.
Um, no, you can't. You cannot switch the barrels without switching entire uppers. You can't pop out buttstocks. You can't do anything other than switch out entire assemblies (and all the component parts therein), essentially requiring 3+ additional weapons laying about if you want to achieve the same level of "modularity"; and even then, the M16 still doesn't match up in features.

Now, back to Jeff - Oh, but you can charge the weapon with your non firing hand. [snippage of extra text] Re read, Jeff. Shoulder firing position. Last time I checked, a good stock weld precludes you operating the charging handle because your face gets in the way Sorry, advantage HK. Furthermore, the charging handle is the forward assist (yay, slimmer package hopefully!, no FA hitting us lefty's in the noggin!)

I don't believe I said I would refute everything on the comparison. I was just pointing out how HK fabricated information and manipulated the data (i.e. figuing both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 with the M4) to make the XM8 look better then it is. I wonder why they felt the need to do that?
Got me. Maybe they were looking for selling points. IIRC, the PAQ-4 is IR only, and the PEQ-2 is dual beam with illuminator and pointer and some other doodads. Again, I don't know why both were included, or if both were actually included in the final price (I don't claim to know all the answers). Heck, for all I know, they priced low - I don't have access to the Govt pricing data.
The fact is, they have no idea what the service life of an XM8 is, because no production versions exist. The Army also has no idea what the service life of an M16 series is because they don't keep those kinds of records. Any data figured on parts needing replaced at a set number of rounds is based on torture testing which may or may not reflect the actual service life of a weapon or part.
Oh hogwash. Engineers are perfectly capable of designing for a service life, especially when they have the scientific data available on ammunition, mechanical wear & everything else. Mechanical engineers specifically design service lives into components. Hell, your *tires* are good for 30/60/90,000 miles and you change your oil every 3000, do you honestly think that they wouldn't be able to figure out how many rounds they can send through a barrel before it wears out. Yes, there are wear guages, erosion testers, & headspacing doodads, but all in all, something that last longer is typically better, right?

Furthermore, we have service life based components already in other aspects of the military, whether fuses, radar sets, or even war stock ammo & tank barrels. Let's use some common sense. Torture testing & proving trials exist for several reasons, including to see if the items live up to the manufacturer claims. Wait, what was I saying again? I seem to have drifted off.
Muzzle Velocity M855: XM8 20" barrel 2850 M16A4 20" barrel 3100
XM8 12.5" barrel 2545 M4 14.5" barrel 2970 I plead ignorance - all I know about muzzle velocity is that more is better. I couldn't even begin to tell you why two barrels the same length don't get the same velocity. Hopefully someone else can explain that.
As for all the bandwidth we are eating up talking modularity, you know as well as I do that the Army will not buy a complete system for every soldier. They will take each version and designate who gets what in a Modified Table of Allowances and Equipment. (MTOE) So while it sounds good to the hobbyists who post here, it's pretty much a non issue for the soldiers. Modularity will be important to SOF and no one else in the military community. The big army will still have so many rifles, so many SAWs and so many grenade launchers per squad.
I won't argue with you there. That said, however, when all you have to do is stock a barrel, instead of an upper, I easily can see combined arms units, Stryker brigades, etc, stocking a variety of barrels & parts simply for the flexibility it offers. Again, this goest back to tankers needing short barrels for their vehicles, designated marksmen needing longer barrels / optics, etc. While there isn't a need for every soldier to have the complete gamut in their wall locker (or ruck), there's no reason for the arms room not to have a few cases of parts to change over a platoon's worth of weapons from one configuration to another. Nice thing about flexibility - it gives you more options (and more ways to screw up). I'm sure some abortion will be made of the TOE with regards to the next rifle system until they figure out what is needed, and what isn't. Furthermore, instead of the current abortion where you have to physically change weapons to swap out GL's, or have a designated marksman, or some such, it will be much easier to reorganize the squad.

Hey, me personally, I think every soldier should be issued their rifle in basic, and keep it with them through their term of service. But I'm crazy like that.

[BluesBear]

Well if you're gonna bring up logic....
Your argument is like saying, "Hey, it's better to change the transmission and drive train every time we want to put on snow tires" Good deflection but not logic.

People who often need snowtires tend to keep them mounted on their own rims. That makes them much easier and faster to attach to the drive train.

[Spark]

Yeah, but snowtires are modular - or at least the wheel assembly is. Ripping off the axels & transmission isn't. Keeping another lower half of a car laying about isn't exactly the best solution when all you want is to change out your tires.

[BevrFevr]

thanks for the pics of the 6.8

MMMEEEE LLLIIIIIIKKKKKEEEE!

-BEVR

[Joe Demko]

Last time I checked, a good stock weld precludes you operating the charging handle because your face gets in the way

Negative. I just hauled both of my AR's out to check this, one with a cheekpiece and one without. From the firing position it is easy to work the charging handle with the non-firing hand just as Jeff White described.

[George Hill]

6.8MM cartridge = Good.
XM8 = Good.

I say let's get both of these into service pronto. The XM-8 is just a refinished G-36 and that has proven to be a great rifle. It's like putting new plastic on a Chevy truck and calling it a Cadillac.

While both are ugly - they both work.

Roll it!

The guys in the Dust Bowl over there need them!

[ctdonath]

Last time I checked, a good stock weld precludes you operating the charging handle because your face gets in the way I just hauled both of my AR's out to check this, one with a cheekpiece and one without. From the firing position it is easy to work the charging handle with the non-firing hand just as Jeff White described....Boy this is getting old.

Gee...I wonder why...:rolleyes:

[Spark]

Maybe you were taught different - but in the Army, I was taught to put the tip of my nose on the charging handle for a proper sight picture. Last time I checked, going through your nose, into your cheekbone, is less distance than it requires to pull the charging handle back. Just me, however, maybe you guys are Toucan Sam & company.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-22.9/c04.htm is one of the manuals.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-22.9/image1624.jpg is the image in question.

If you can charge your M16 while in this firing position, I'm amazed. I am talking about with a good stock weld, looking through the sights, not "hey, I'm looking over the sights, pointing in the general direction". Keyrist.

This is basic rifle marksmanship. Not Rocket Science. Hell, look at this picture - http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-22.9/image1612.jpg

Wowee. Now, I'm not up to speed on the latest concepts coming out of Gunsite, ThunderRanch, or the Mall Ninja Academy of Tactical Riflery. But what the hell, I guess that if your head is further back from the sight apetures than that, and you can charge your rifle, and you can actually hit your targets, who am I to argue with success. What the hell. I guess there's no need for a charging handle that doesn't require you to break your sight picture isn't needed. Hell, one that's completely ambidextrous is a waste of funding & resources. One that actually works as a forward assist couldn't possibly be of benefit. :rolleyes:

[Onslaught]

Why did I even click on this thread again?
:banghead:

[Badger Arms]

Last time I checked, you were supposed to take cover while reloading. There is no way in Hades that I'm gonna keep my head up there for the three seconds it takes to reload!

[Andrew Wyatt]

In the several years i had an AR, i never used the charging handle after a reload.

[ShaiVong]

Why did I even click on this thread again?

Ditto :rolleyes: