HK XM-8 6.8 SPC: M-16A2 and 5.56x45 Successor?

[Sandmann]

Does anyone know what the status of DoD's small arms competition for the M-16's successor currently is?

The last I had heard, DoD was going to allow other small arms companies to recompete for the position that the HK XM-8 supposedly won in 2004 or 2005. The second round of competitions were supposedly due to protests by other small arms companies (ie Colt Mfg.) crying foul of unfair bias for HK by DoD.

Is HK's M416 gas tappet, modular M-16 rifle system a cost effective alternative or stop gap for DoD to the XM-8 project until it can be perfected?

If the HK XM-8 is adopted by DoD, will it be chambered in a more powerful caliber such as the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43), the 6.5 Grendel, or the 6.5 Standard Combat Cartridge (SCC) (a 6.5x45, a standard 5.56x45 case necked up to a 6.5 mm 120 grain projectile)? All of these would be better alternatives than the 5.56x45 which is really nothing more than a round designed to kill ground hogs.

Any information on this subject would be greatly appreciated along with homegrown alternatives, such as projects such as the Robinson Arms XCR, modular weapons system: multi-caliber, multi-barrel length rifle.

I believe our Soldeirs, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deserve the very best equipment and firearms that our country can produce and it disturbs me how more and more of our firearms industry is being outsourced to other countries instead of being developed in the US. The Robinson XCR is an excellent alternative to the M-16 small arms family that didn't even get a first look due to backdoor deals and Beltway politics within the procurement channels of the Pentagon.

Let me know what you hear.

 

[pauli]

i hear this thread is going to be very entertaining.

 

[.45Guy]

Why is there any rush to replace the 16 series? Its not as if there is some quantum leap in technology out there, Ie 03-a3 to M1 garand. And another point of contention, having witnessed first hand two insurgents on the receiving end of 5.56 IMHO it works pretty darn well on two legged whistle pigs as well.

 

[Sandmann]

The M-16 family has served the US armed forces admirably for over 40 years just as the Springfield M1903/A3 served its generation of warfighters during its tenure. It revolutionized the world of small arms when Eugene Stoner invented the basic platform design with the AR-10 in 7.62x51. By utilizing space age plastics and materials in its construction, and eventually the controversial concept of utilizing an extremely small caliber (55 grain 5.56 mm/.223) high velocity round (3,200 fps). But with DoD's switch to the M855 (Belgian SS109 62 grain green tip penetrator travelling at 2,800 fps) and the 14.5 inch barrel M-4 Carbine to its SOF/Airborne community, the M-16 and the 5.56x45 in their current rendition are beginning to show their age.

There are numerous accounts of US forces shooting bad guys 1-3 times, turning their backs to engage other targets, and again having to deal with the same terrorists again, sometimes in having to resort to hand to hand in order to kill them. With the 14.5 inch tube on the M-4 the M855 62 grain green tip's terminal ballistics are good only out to 150 yards, MAXIMUM. The SOF community seems to appreciate the M-4's modularity and light weight, but are not pleased with its lackluster ballistic performance against BIG and RUGGED mountain men mujahadeen. Rules of engagement are now 2 to the body 1 to the head for ONE target. With a 30 round magazine of 62 grain green tips in an M-4, this drops your combat load to only 10-15 targets per magazine, not 30. In some ways we would be better off going back to the 7.62x51 NATO in a platform like the FN-FAL. Hence why the SEALS and US Marines are pulling out their mothballed M-14s and turning them into EBRs. Other units with more liberal "procurement procedures" are purchasing DSArms FN-FALs in 7.62x51 until the SCAR Heavy comes on line. The 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 6.5 Standard Combat Cartridge (SCC) offer superior terminal ballistic performance equal to the 7.62x51 NATO out to 600 meters from a cartride the same length as an 5.56x45 M855. In fact the 6.5 Grendel claims to have superior performance out to 1,000 yards. These would provide the US fighter with 20-25 One Shot Kills as opposed to the 10-15 2-3 shot "kills" needed by the M4/M855 combination.

One thing the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marines appreciate about the M4 is its modularity and all of the attachments and gadgets such as railsystems, lights, IR LASERs, M203 etc. that they can put on the M-4 platform. This flexiblity in mission profile can quickly weigh down the little carbine and make its weight balloon up from 7.5 lbs to the same or greater weight of an M1 Garand.

The XM8 rifle/carbine allegedly addresses all of these deficiencies in the M4/M855 team. The XM8 is a rifle system based on HK's G36, and is a light weight carbine, weighing 6.2 pounds, with a projected weight reduction of the final rifle to weigh only 5.5 pounds. The XM8 features a short piston stroke, gas operated action, with rotating bolt locking. Barrels are quick detachable, and planned to be available in several sizes, ranging from (9.5 inch) for Compact/PDW version,(12.5 inch) in Basic version, and two (20in) barrels, one for Sharpshooter/Sniper version, and heavier one (along with bipod) for Squad Automatic Rifle role. The entire construction is modular and built around the polymer receiver with bolt group; Magazine housings could be easily swapped for compatibility with various types of magazines; various buttstocks could be installed in a second for various roles (standard buttstock is a telescoped 5 position adjustable one). Top of the receiver is fitted with proprietary sight rail, which can accept illuminated red-dot (collimator) sight, or any other type of sighting equipment. Detachable forend will be available in various sizes, and could be replaced with XM320 40mm grenade launcher (the improved HK AG36). The MAJOR PROBLEM with this concept is in the caliber choice and barrel length (12.5 inch). This is 2 inches SHORTER than the M4, which would give it inferior terminal ballistics. The 6.8 SPC, the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.5 SCC would all perform admirably in the handy XM8 carbine and 12.5 inch barrel, with superior ballistics out to 600 meters, not 150 meters. These calibers firing out of a 12.5 inch tube would also outperform the venerable 7.62x39 Russian firing out of a 16 inch AK barrel.

The XM8 weighing a lean 5.5 pounds, with all of the same equipment as a 10-11 pound M-4, and firing a new round in the 6.5 to 6.8 mm range and providing an increase in "KILL POTENTIAL per MAGAZINE of as much as by as much as 75-100%, would provide the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines with a superior alternative to the M4/M855 combinatio that they currently are using.

A homegrown alternative to the XM8 could be to take the technologies of carbon fiber from the Bushmaster Carbon 15 rifles, the quick change caliber and barrel technologies of the Robinson Arms XCR, the gas rod system of the HK M416, and the 6.5 SCC, 6.5 Grendel, or 6.8 SPC as its caliber foundation, and you would have a light weight, modular, and affordable alternative to the XM8.

 

[Donald R Doyle]

here we go

I am the editor for the Virginia Citizen's Militia newsletter. Last issue we did a story on the rifle test trails at Ft. Benning. There were several interesting entries however, the trials were suspended for six months to allow some of the other competitors (other than H&K that is) more time. I think it was mainly for H&K to iron out all the bugs in their XM-8. The most interesting question to me is the military going to switch to the 6.8mm round? The entry from Steyr shoots steel darts called "Flecettes" but with Steyr selling 800 of their advanced sniper rifles to Iran I'm sure the U.S. State Dept. probably told the Army to forget about Steyr.

 

[chopinbloc]

BIG and RUGGED mountain men mujahadeen.

you have GOT to be kidding, right? was that sarcasm?

anyway, the 5.56mm and the m16 are certainly adequate. no cartridge or weapon system are perfect. a medic who did a tour in vietnam told me a story of a vc who came in on one of their dustoffs. the kid had been hit multiple times in the torso with 7.62 NATO from an m60. after waiting 7 hours for surgery they operated and the kid survived. oh, yeah, the reason he was on the dustoff was that he had charged the helicopter, sustaining multiple injuries from the doorgunner, closed the intervening distance, killed the doorgunner with his ak and collapsed onto the helicopter. you can never predict what a cartridge will do once it enters tissue.

the xm8 looks to be a good system but i do not want a repeat of the m16 debacle. the army should take its time and that's what it appears that it's doing. the 6.8spc looks like a good cartridge too, though i think it's unlikely it will replace the 5.56. you do know what spc stands for right? special purpose cartridge. it is intended for those who are likely to have to take shots at 400 meters. see, if i take a shot at 300 meters using an m16a2 and m855 ammo, you are correct that the bullet is unlikely to fragment enought to cause alot of tissue damage. however, the enemy is likely to die from that wound anyway. he will also be largely combat ineffective seeing as how haji can't hit the broadside of a barn from inside, let alone a human target at 300 meters.

oh, yeah, big and rugged guys, huh?
ll ll ll
V V V

 

[rbernie]

The XM8 weighing a lean 5.5 pounds, with all of the same equipment as a 10-11 pound M-4

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! That's just too funny.....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The XM8 weighing a lean 5.5 pounds, with all of the same equipment as a 10-11 pound M-4

Just because the H&K promo material claims it doesn't make it so...

6.8mm was DOA and the killer was a guy named STANAG.

 

[Fingolfin]

I think a good compromise to consider would be simply replacing existing M16 upper assemblies with ones chambered in 6.8 SPC and using gas pistol action. Assuming this of course is possible.

 

[Jim Watson]

Possible, si.
Affordable, no.
Miilitary budget is short enough that they have better things to spend their money on than a somewhat better infantry rifle.
What I do see, in view of the two-tier Army we have now, with a relatively few fighters and a lot of support, is a combat rifle for the few, and keep the M16s for cook, clerks, and technicians.

 

[No_Brakes23]

 

[MechAg94]

Aren't the REMF's the ones with all the reliability problems?

Personally, the HK hunk of plastic bothers me. It looks anything but adaptable. If they are going to find a new rifle, I would certainly hope they give all the companies as much time as they need to develop rifles for competition. Give everyone a chance to develop solutions to whatever problems the army is trying to solve. I would hate for companies to get disqualified due to the army getting in a hurry or due to an overly bureacratic evaluation process.

It would also be nice if one of our congressmen could add a mandate that any company building our service rifles be required to build a civilian version for the general public. You would think that would be a no-brainer.

 

[triage1998]

were is my popcorn?

 

[JShirley]

Sandmann,

Welcome to THR. Are your posts quoting something, or are you giving us original thoughts from you, composed for us?

Also- forgive me- but some of what you seem to be giving us is pretty basic information. Thanks! But, who are you? What are your creds? Why would you assume that we don't know basic information about the capabilities and history of the M-16?

Further, why should we listen attentively when you seem to be mixing opinion, fable, and quantifiable fact in equal measure? Here's an example of a non-fact:

Rules of engagement are now 2 to the body 1 to the head for ONE target.

Not at all true. ROE specifies under what conditions one can engage the enemy. What you describe may be SOP (standard operating procedure) for some unit or units, though I haven't heard this previously.

Now, if you like, feel free to search XM-8, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x39mm, 6.8x43mm, 6.8 SPC and 6.8mm on this website and post anything not already well-covered. We'd surely appreciate it.

John

 

[Sandmann]

John,

Thanks for the reply. I'm new to THR and am very impressed with your information and contributors, so I apologize if my thread inputs are redundant to past thread postings. I was not certain what the level of firearms education all of your readers had, so I tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Forgive me if I'm rehashing redundant information your readers have already posted. I was not presuming that the contributors, especially the moderator, did not have the fundamental knowledge I was relaying.

All of my postings are my original thoughts. All of the statements I make are researched as thoroughly as possible. Anecdotes, such as the ROE of some SOF units are from professional interaction. The people who told me this information were all Army SF. One was an Army SF MAJ, another an Army SF WO, the other was an Army SFC. All liked the M4, but DID NOT like the M855 as a fight stopper. The Army SF MAJ, who when serving in Afghanistan was an Army CPT leading an ODA. He stated that past failures of the M4/M855 to take down Afghani fighters dictated that the ROE change to the 2+1 to ensure kills. This still did not totally fix the problem.

Descriptions of the enemy our forces are dealing with in GWOT that I have posted on this thread, such as the "BIG and RUGGED mountain men mujahadeen" are based on Army SOF descriptions of Pashtuns they have worked with in Afghanistan. An Army SOF MAJ in an ODA described one Pashtun warrior as being about 6'4" and about 235 lbs. A little different from the pics posted on this thread. I'm certain not all of the enemy personnel we are fighting are this big, but they are rugged. They are used to a hard life, and are capable of taking a lot of punishment. These people are formidable fighters, but are not indestructible, and do eventually die from their wounds. But many times, they are able to continue to fight on because the M4/M855 combo didn't have enough power to stop them dead in their tracks. That's the point I was really trying to get accross to your readers, along with what the status is to fixing this "challenge" for our warfighters.

"Why should we listen attentively when you seem to be mixing opinion, fable, and quantifiable fact in equal measure?" You shouldn't. If I am wrong about something, please let me know. But again, the anecdote about the ROE in AF came from operators who had been there and done that, and had come back to give lessons learned.

As far as my credentials go, I entered the Marine Corps in 1986 and got out in 1994. I was fortunate enough to be selected to attend the 2nd MARDIV Scout Sniper School at Camp Lejeune, NC in 1991. I am currently in the Navy Reserve as an intel officer and my full time civilian job is in the IC supporting the warfighter in the field. Please feel free to contact me via email.

Thanks for the hospitality, and I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers.

 

[JShirley]

Well, come on in, the water's warm.

We have a perpetual difference of opinion about the basic M-16/AR-15 on these boards. (Perhaps "differences" would be most accurate.) The lines are drawn somewhat like this:
1) Direct gas impingement systems are the devil. They are unreliable, lead to an accumulation of debris in the chamber, and are inexcusable in a battlefield system fielded by the most advanced country in the world;
2) The M-16/AR-15 family has continuously evolved for over 30 years. It is reliable, effective, and easily modified for mission, and the 5.56x45mm cartridge is disproportionately effective. It is the standard for the near future;
3) The 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington is a varmint round. The US soldier/citizen needs a real round designed to deliver large amounts of energy into tough targets.


Toss into that basic mix the rabid HK supporters and US firearms apologists, and you've got a real brouhaha.

Anyway, here's my perspective: if the US can find a round that will be able to replace multiple rounds (5.56, 7.62), easing logistics burden, while potentially delivering more efficacy to the average soldier while not substantially increasing his combat load, great. I believe the 6.5x39mm, appropriately loaded, can do just that. That's my personal opinion. I also am not overfond of the AR15/M16 platform, though I have more experience with the M4 than any other weapon, and cannot argue its ergonomics.

How effective the 5.56 is on personnel is another matter for debate. While at Fort Lewis on ammo details, I saw the Rangers' ammo reserves...including thousands of rounds of 77-grain Black Hills ammo. From all reports- including, I believe, the one you may have seen showing the SPC ammo testing- MK 262 is quite effective against personnel. Testing does appear to show reduced effectiveness from the M855/M4 combo past 50 meters.

You may be right about SOP, but *Rules of Engagement* are dictated by command, and include a legal component.

The military needs good intel, and I thank you for your service. I should know tomorrow whether the Army is going to let me commission, or will reactivate me before then.

Regards,

John

 

[atomchaser]

Not sure about Afghanistan, but I know many of the Iraqi AIF types are often juiced up on various stimulants when they are up to their shenanigans. This might certainly add to the perception that they are tough critters.

 

[Johnny Guest]

Thanks for the explanation.

Mr. S. - -
We appreciate your willingness to share your insights with us. In light of your - -

I am currently in the Navy Reserve as an intel officer and my full time civilian job is in the IC supporting the warfighter in the field. Please feel free to contact me via email.

- - Is it significant that you have your e-mail blocked?


Johnny

 

[pauli]

hmm. what effect would the 6.8/6.5 rounds have on the m249? i presume it would be even easier to rechamber these than it would be for the m16/m4, but... might as well ask.

 

[Jeff White]

Sandman,
I guess your contacts in Army SOF are somehow unaware of MK262 and MK262 MOD 0 .

Whatever new rifle is selected or maybe no new rifle will be selected, it will be in 5.56x45 and tested using M855. There are no requirements for other ammunition. The 6.8 SPC is dead along with the XM8.

Everyone in the internet and mainstream firearms publications community is up in arms over anecdotal reports of our rounds failing to stop the enemy. The truth of the matter is, that human beings are very hard to stop. A couple of hours in the military history section of the local library will produce enogh anecdotal evidence to condemn every firearm/caliber combination this nation (or any nation) has ever issued. That's right, everything from the .75 cal Brown Bess to the latest MK262 77 grain OTM bullet currently in use by SOCOM has failed to stop in combat. And yes a failure to stop your enemy is a very scary situation, but it is part of the war and always has been.

Before you jump in and scream that we are somehow mistreating our soldiers by sending them into battle with inadequate arms, you need to aks this question:

Why is it, that when an American soldier or Marine takes multiple hits from the enemy and still manages to function long enough to complete his mission, it's heroism worthy of the MOH or at least a Silver Star, but when one of our enemies has the audacity not to fall instantly dead from a periphial hit from one of our weapons, there is something wrong with our weapons or ammunition?

The problem that you've noted has been dealt with by unit SOPs calling for anchoring shots to be put in the head of downed enemy soldiers while crossing the objective for at least a couple generations now. While not something that is widely talked about, the SOPs are there. Perfectly legal under the Law of Land Warfare as long as the enemy is not trying to surrender and you haven't reached the limit of advance and come back to consolidate and reorganize on the objective.

My personal take on all this testing is that we will spend a few million here and there and come to the conclusion that none of the test weapons gives us a significant enough advantage over our current issue weapons to justify the cost of replacing them.

I think that we've reached the limit of what we can do with the current state of firearms technology. Until the next big breakthrough (something as radical as the difference between black powder and smokeless powder) we're just spinning our wheels.

And I have a question for the HKophobes:

Why is it that Colt is the evil tool of the antigunners because they milled the bottom of the rear of the bolt carrier on the AR15 so it wouldn't trip the autosear and put larger trigger and hammer pins in the AR so that it would be harder to install M16 parts in an AR lower; yet HK refuses to sell anything in it's evil balck rifle line to the American civilan shooter, even to the point that the HK416 upper (before the new BATF ruling on importing barrels made it's import illegal) was unavailable to anyone but the military and federal law enforcement, but there is not a problem with that?

Jeff

 

[Sandmann]

Jeff,

Its not that my buddies in the SOF community are "unaware" of the MK262 and MK262 MOD 0, its that they can't always get it, and have to rely on the M855. Logistics isn't always going to be capable to getting you what you always need. So they give you what is available. I only know of the USMC as a service that is issuing the 77 grain 5.56 to their Marines in theater.

Why do you think the 6.8 SPC was created? Because the 5.56 is loved by operators? No. Because they were looking for a superior round that can take the fight out of Mohammed and send him to the 72 virgins ASAP, before he can kill or injure you or your buddies before the M855 does its job on him.

You quoted:
"Why is it, that when an American soldier or Marine takes multiple hits from the enemy and still manages to function long enough to complete his mission, it's heroism worthy of the MOH or at least a Silver Star, but when one of our enemies has the audacity not to fall instantly dead from a periphial hit from one of our weapons, there is something wrong with our weapons or ammunition?"

The US operator should be rewarded for his heroism under extrem conditions as you described and awarded the appropriate personal medal(s) for their actions. The problem is that when "one of our enemies has the audacity not to fall instantly from a peripheral hit from one our weapons", that enemy then has a chance to kill, injure, or maim one of our operators. And with the military being a TOTALLY RISK AVERSE/ZERO TOLERANCE military, and with the media looking for another spectacular story, the military fighting man needs as much help as he can to ensure his success. That means, when he takes aim and fires his weapon at an enemy, that the enemy stays down and dies for his cause; NOT contine to fight and kill more US operators.

 

[Tony Williams]

To answer the original question:

The procurement of XM8 was stopped in May, the excuse given being that the Army had decided it wanted a belt-fed SAW version to replace the M249 instead of the Automatic Rifle variant of the XM8. A competition was set up for the new 'family' of weapons, with a short return date. Then in July the competition was suspended in order to consider the needs of the other services (presumably mainly the Marines). So at the moment, nothing much is happening except (I assume) that the other forces are being asked to comment on the proposed spec. The idea is that the competition will kick off at some undetermined time in the future (or maybe not...) and versions of the XM8 are then likely to be in there, presumably along with weapons based on FN's SCAR and possibly the HK 416 - and Colt, of course. It would be nice to see the FN F2000 in the hunt as well, but the US Army has this thing about bullpups.

There is immense resistance to changing from the 5.56mm calibre, and no provision for this in the proposals so far. A pity IMO, as the 6.8mm Rem has proved itself appreciably more effective in various tests (and according to some reports in Iraq as well), while the 6.5mm Grendel has the potential to replace the 7.62x51 as well, which would mean some real long-term savings in equipment. One thing is clear - if this competition ever gets underway and results in big new orders for 5.56mm weapons, you can forget about any other calibres for the foreseeable future.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jeff White]

Sandman,
I retired just short of 29 years service in the Army, all of it in combat arms, 21 years in the Infantry and almost 8 in Field Artillery. I know a little about how the logistics system works.

I am also quite familiar with why some guys in 5th Group set out to develop the 6.8 SPC. I knew about 6.8 SPC before most people in the shooting community. It's a little disingenuous to post things like:

Why do you think the 6.8 SPC was created? Because the 5.56 is loved by operators? No. Because they were looking for a superior round that can take the fight out of Mohammed and send him to the 72 virgins ASAP, before he can kill or injure you or your buddies before the M855 does its job on him.

Macho posturing about sending Mohammed to meet his 72 virgins adds nothing to the debate. Neither does throwing the term operator around. Who is an operator? The term originated to describe members of the orginal unit the Army never admitted existed but had some movies made about it with Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin in them. So what ammunition do the operators prefer? Do you know? Do you have a need to know? Or are you insinuating that all of SOCOM mistrusts M855? If that's the case, why did the SCAR-L proposals all specify M855? Surely the units in the Army that can have anything they want, would have specified that SCAR-L be a 6.8 SPC weapon if they wanted to. The fact is they couldn't sell the big Army on 6.8 SPC and SOCOM decided they didn't want to go it alone. I think the 6.8 SPC is a great round. But it's not up to the members of any online forum to decide. The decision has been made and the 6.8 SPC is dead. Not that any of this is a new idea. Stanley Crist published an article in Infantry Magazine probably 10 years ago advocating going to a 6mm caliber for both rifles and light machine guns. Like it or not we are institutionall wedded to 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 for the foreseeable future.

The problem is that when "one of our enemies has the audacity not to fall instantly from a peripheral hit from one our weapons", that enemy then has a chance to kill, injure, or maim one of our operators. And with the military being a TOTALLY RISK AVERSE/ZERO TOLERANCE military, and with the media looking for another spectacular story, the military fighting man needs as much help as he can to ensure his success. That means, when he takes aim and fires his weapon at an enemy, that the enemy stays down and dies for his cause; NOT contine to fight and kill more US operators.

If our military was such a risk adverse/zero tolerance outfit, why have none of the studies done by the Infantry School's Directorate of Combat Developments or the Center for Army Lessons Learned at the Command and General Staff College that have been done in Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of the GWOT found a systematic problem with stopping power? The fact is, there isn't any. Is MK262 better then M855? Yes. Is M855 such a poor performer in combat that it needs to be replaced? No. If it was, we would have done so by now.

Personally I like the 6.8 SPC. The facts are that it's not replacing anything and will probably not be much of a commercial success.

Jeff

 

[chopinbloc]

yup, the 6.8 seems to be a great cartridge but it's not worth the massive monetary outlay that would be required to replaced the 5.56 which has been proven capable. when we do get a new weapon platform i'd like to see a new cartridge as well i'd also like to see about a decade of testing combined with limited fielding of the weapon to ensure that all the bugs are completely gone. see, the m16 series of weapons is very capable as is the m855 ammunition. the m4 was designed to be a close quarters weapon. if i had the power to make the decisions, i would issue m193 with m4s to increase muzzle velocity and practical range. this solution requires no new testing or production contracts as m193 is still being used for training and qualification in conus. the fact is that if you want to put something down at greater than 150 meters (the practical limit for the m4) you should use the m16a2. if you anticipate the likelihood of distant targets, you should consider one of the designated marksman rifle/ammo combinations. better yet, call for fire there just isn't any real problem with the current weapon systems that could be substantially alleviated by the newest, coolest, european, hi-tech weapon system. yes, we could gain a small improvement by changing some things but would it be worth it to spend the money on that instead of body armor? remember that most of our HMMWVs still have no armor package.

oh, and about those big, burly mountain men. those pictures were not atypical. a "6'4" and about 235 lbs" afghan is atypical. that basketball player, yao is a big dude too but chinese people aren't exactly known for their massive stature. here are a couple more photos of typical afghans.

 

[pauli]

modern afghani are about the same size as the men who fought the civil war - or ww1, for that matter.