Anyone looked at the HK XM-8

[Commissar Gribb]

is that enough of an advantage to switch to it?

I think that's really the scrutiny all of the other weapon designs are being put to. I think it's safe to say that the army wants everything that the XM8 is (lighter, sharper and more robust) but when you compute costs of logistics (all new spare parts), the cost of phasing out the current weapon system in terms of disposition and the retraining of troops with a new weapon system that operates and takes apart differently... we start to see why the military is so reluctant.

 

[Tony Williams]

I agree with Coronach. The current M16 family has its problems (especially in dusty environments) but it's still one of the better rifles around. But since the US is apparently intending to replace ALL of its 5.56mm kit, including the rifle magazines (the XM8's were not compatible with the M16's, as I understand it) then this is a golden opportunity to review the calibre choice. This further delay should provide the time to give the 6.8x43 and 6.5x38 a real wringing-out to see how they compare with the 5.56mm Mk 262. I suspect, from what I've read, that the advantages of these new rounds would be greater than the advantages of moving to new weapons.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[RevDisk]

Anyways, i dont see why we dont just use a 6.8SPC G36.

That'd make too much sense. Of all the 5.56mm NATO assault rifles I fired, I liked the G36 the best. Chambered in a better caliber? Oh boy.

Wish HK would market more of its evil black weapons to the civilian market too.


Sigh, too bad it's likely to just remain a dream.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

the XM8's were not compatible with the M16's, as I understand it)

seriously an easy fix. I think if they wanted to use standard NATO mags they would have.

 

[TheDutchman]

RevDisk not to pick on you, but has another one here fired a G36 lately? If the Xm8 is a rehashed G36 no wonder it was dropped by the Army.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

"rehashed" is not the term I would use.

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

The XM8 is a derivative of the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle, and thus it is almost similar to that rifle in design and functioning.

read- redesigned using the basic functionality of the G36

according to this also- the XM8 is supposed to take nato mags.

 

[RevDisk]

RevDisk not to pick on you, but has another one here fired a G36 lately? If the Xm8 is a rehashed G36 no wonder it was dropped by the Army.

Not a fan of the G36? What didn't you like about it?

read- redesigned using the basic functionality of the G36

according to this also- the XM8 is supposed to take nato mags.

NATO mags? Uh, the various NATO countries uses all kinds of magazines. There's no standard in magazine, just caliber.

 

[Correia]

Rev, there is a NATO standard mag compatibility. Only some of the countrys stick to it though, others do not. Us, France (not the old FAMAS, but the new one), England, Italy (not the AR70, but the newer AR70/90) Belgium, are using the current standard. That was the early goal at least anyway. Spain used to be with the Cetme L, but not now. Germany was going to run with the G41 which used the standard, but went with the G36 instead. The FNC and the Bofors versions are both standard NATO also.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

thanks corriea!

for more info on the subject you can google up "stanag magazine"

that seemed to give me the info I needed.

 

[TheDutchman]

SpreadFireArms let me toy around with his G36k one day at the range, shot it single the flipped Da Switch and dump some mags on FA. I start with the sighting system with the integrated 4x scope, which work ok at long range shots, but up close is a different story. The whole gun is plastic and I say that in sarcasm but, really the whole thing is plastic. I hate the recoil of the rifle, slapped my face every time I shot it. I was spoiled by the M4a1 on FA that I shot before it. My two cents worth.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

SpreadFireArms let me toy around with his G36k one day at the range, shot it single the flipped Da Switch and dump some mags on FA. I start with the sighting system with the integrated 4x scope, which work ok at long range shots, but up close is a different story. The whole gun is plastic and I say that in sarcasm but, really the whole thing is plastic. I hate the recoil of the rifle, slapped my face every time I shot it. I was spoiled by the M4a1 on FA that I shot before it. My two cents worth.

sounds a lot like my impressions of a glock after having fired metal frame autos

 

[Raygun]

That wasn't the way I read it: I assumed that the XM8 family would need some more work (to replace the Automatic Rifle variant with an LMG in place of the M249) but after that would still be in the competition, presumably against members of the FN family.

I guess it wouldn't suprise me if that were the case. Still, I don't understand why an LMG variant should be a requisite of a rifle program. The XM8 is a rifle platform, as are the SCAR and XCR. If anyone expects them to act like LMGs and still be reasonably parts-compatible with the rest of the carbine/rifle line and be reliable as well, all are very likely to fail. Rifles are rifles. Machine guns are machine guns. Trying to cram the two into one platform seems like a very bad idea to me.

That said, I'd think the HK M416 along with the Ares Shrike upper would make the most sense from training and logistics points of view, so long as we're set on making one platform out of two fairly exclusive concepts.

Anyways, the SCAR and XCR look a bit clumbsy and old-fashioned to me compared to the XM8. Not that how things look should count for much. If the XM8 doesn't perform, it doesn't. But I get the feeling that there's a bias against plastic going on, among other things.

 

[artherd]

I forget, are the M-16, the M-4, and the M-249 broken?

Aren't they intact, three of the best infantry weapons ever fielded?

Let's spendc the $ on an ACOG for every soldier, a scoped SR-25 for 1 in 10, and a Barrett for every 1 in 200.

 

[RevDisk]

Rev, there is a NATO standard mag compatibility. Only some of the countrys stick to it though, others do not. Us, France (not the old FAMAS, but the new one), England, Italy (not the AR70, but the newer AR70/90) Belgium, are using the current standard. That was the early goal at least anyway. Spain used to be with the Cetme L, but not now. Germany was going to run with the G41 which used the standard, but went with the G36 instead. The FNC and the Bofors versions are both standard NATO also.

No kidding. Didn't know it was the NATO standard. We just said "M16 mag".

I did notice that the L85, FNC/AK5 and the AR70/90 used M16 mags. Didn't have a chance to put any rounds through the L85, I broke one and didn't want to actually fire it after that. Thing barely would rate as a functional paperweight, let alone a firearm. I'd never voluntarily want to shoot one.

Spain's using the G36E these days, yea.

Learn something new every day. Nifty

SpreadFireArms let me toy around with his G36k one day at the range, shot it single the flipped Da Switch and dump some mags on FA. I start with the sighting system with the integrated 4x scope, which work ok at long range shots, but up close is a different story. The whole gun is plastic and I say that in sarcasm but, really the whole thing is plastic. I hate the recoil of the rifle, slapped my face every time I shot it. I was spoiled by the M4a1 on FA that I shot before it. My two cents worth.

Did his G36K have the original red dot on it also, or just the G36E style integrated sight? The Germans told me the scope is for when the enemy's far away, red dot's for when they're close, and if the distance is shorter than that, you'd be clubbing them over the head rather than shooting them.

Yea, I agree the G36 on full auto isn't very efficient. The K model heats up way too fast for my liking. Coupled with the shortened barrel, I didn't care for the G36K myself. The G36 (as opposed to the G36E or G36K) is a great weapon on semi, but I wouldn't want to fire FA on it. Then again, I say the same thing about all assault rifles. Sure, if you put a couple tens of thousands of rounds downrange getting bursts down pat, it'll do ya just fine. But I really just prefer semi these days. Auto's good for fun and belt feds, of course.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose

 

[Tony Williams]

I forget, are the M-16, the M-4, and the M-249 broken?

The M249s were mostly bought 20+ years ago and are wearing out fast. Many of the M16s are also old and tired (except the M16A4 for the USMC, those are recent). I'm not sure about the M4s.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Commissar Gribb]

I guess it wouldn't suprise me if that were the case. Still, I don't understand why an LMG variant should be a requisite of a rifle program. The XM8 is a rifle platform, as are the SCAR and XCR. If anyone expects them to act like LMGs and still be reasonably parts-compatible with the rest of the carbine/rifle line and be reliable as well, all are very likely to fail. Rifles are rifles. Machine guns are machine guns. Trying to cram the two into one platform seems like a very bad idea to me.

I think the Idea was to make a system like Kalashnikov system.

where as an RPK has very similar parts to an AKM (save barrel, furniture etc) but the XM8 system would have complete interchangability rather than plain similiarity.

this is really a good idea when you look at it from a supply perspective. Say you come into a firefight and one of your rifles and one of your LMGs get messed up. Theoretically in field you could can parts off the rifle to fix the LMG and send the rifle up chain or the other way around.

I forget, are the M-16, the M-4, and the M-249 broken?

Aren't they intact, three of the best infantry weapons ever fielded?

Let's spendc the $ on an ACOG for every soldier, a scoped SR-25 for 1 in 10, and a Barrett for every 1 in 200.

I forgot- is the 1911 broken? Is the Garand broken? Is the Krag broken?

Are they great weapons? of course! But do we still use them?

(ok ok we still use the 1911 but you get what I mean)

 

[Raygun]

The M249s were mostly bought 20+ years ago and are wearing out fast. Many of the M16s are also old and tired (except the M16A4 for the USMC, those are recent). I'm not sure about the M4s.

According to Daniel Watters' "5.56x45mm Timeline", large contracts for M4/M4A1 production were awarded in 1994 (24,000 units), 1997 (15,925 units, ACALA), 2002 (26,064 units, TACOM) and 2004 (124,803 units, TACOM), but there have been a lot of smaller purchases made (200 here, 5,000 there) by various departments over that whole span of time. So some M4/M4A1s are pushing 11 years old while others are brand spanking new. All have been manufactured by Colt, AFAIK. Whether that 2004 TACOM order has been or will be completed, I don't know.

 

[Raygun]

I think the Idea was to make a system like Kalashnikov system.

where as an RPK has very similar parts to an AKM (save barrel, furniture etc) but the XM8 system would have complete interchangability rather than plain similiarity.

this is really a good idea when you look at it from a supply perspective. Say you come into a firefight and one of your rifles and one of your LMGs get messed up. Theoretically in field you could can parts off the rifle to fix the LMG and send the rifle up chain or the other way around.

Except that by our standards, the RPK would be considered an Automatic Rifle (which was already part of the XM8 plan), rather than a light machine gun. That I can understand. But having an honest-to-God machine gun (meaning that it includes a quick-change barrel and belt feed) as part of a rifle platform doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

Except that by our standards, the RPK would be considered an Automatic Rifle (which was already part of the XM8 plan), rather than a light machine gun. That I can understand. But having an honest-to-God machine gun (meaning that it includes a quick-change barrel and belt feed) as part of a rifle platform doesn't make much sense to me.

then there are no plans to make an "honest to god machine gun" with the XM8 system

just an automatic rifle with a slightly heavier receiver and barrel that holds more ammo

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

The M16 has an unequalled track record -- it may not be the theoritically best 5.56mm rifle, but it's the most proven one. And the most product-improved one.

To adopt a new rifle in 5.56mm doesn't make sense. As I said many times before, new rifles will ALWAYS have unsuspected flaws when they hit combat. We don't want to trade a known quantity for an unknown, and especially not in the middle of a war.

To be justified in adopting a new rifle, we need on that would be a quantum leap ahead of the M16 -- not just another 5.56mm.

 

[Tony Williams]

then there are no plans to make an "honest to god machine gun" with the XM8 system

They weren't going to, but they have already recognised that to meet the new specification they have some work to do to prepare a belt-fed LMG to meet the new specs. IIRC they estimate it will have 50% parts commonality with the rifle.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Vern Humphrey]

They weren't going to, but they have already recognised that to meet the new specification they have some work to do to prepare a belt-fed LMG to meet the new specs. IIRC they estimate it will have 50% parts commonality with the rifle.

When was the last time someone looked at the M1941 Johnson Light Machinegun? With a weight of 12 1/2 pounds in .30-06, and a quick change barrel, plus a combat-proven record (under the harshest conditions) it would seem to me we could re-engineer it to 7.62mm (shortening the receiver) and make it belt fed. That would be a REAL machinegun at a weight we could live with.

 

[pauli]

why do that, when we've already got the m240?

the m249 needs replacing, but the m240 is a beltfed 7.62x51 BAR. i've not heard a thing about problems with them.

 

[jefnvk]

AKA a pointless waste of governement time, effort, and money?

You say that like there is ever a good use of gov't time, effort and money

I don't see why there is such a big deal about having one gun do everything. you still have to have all the parts to swap it out. So you have one lower, and four or five uppers. That means, you have one gun. If something breaks in the lower, that means you have no gun. Whereas, if things wern't all rolled up into one pckage, you'd still have three or four guns left.

 

[ny32182]

My opinion is worth what you are paying for it, but like some others have said, I just don't think that there will ever be a 5.56mm built that is that much better than the modern M16 family... certainly not good enough to justify a widespread replacement.

If they want a new cartridge (6.8, etc), then buying uppers makes more sense than buying whole new rifles.

Likewise with the cartridge, I really doubt that 6.8 or anything else of similar OAL will ever be viewed as vastly superior to the best 5.56. If they want a more effective cartridge, it makes more sense to switch to MK262 mod1 as a general issue round, from what I've heard.

The new rifles are interesting, and I wouldn't mind buying them as a civilian, but as far as a widespread switch throughout the entire military... I don't see anything out there that would justify it, and I don't think the bean counters in the government will either.

Basically, we are more or less at the pinnacle of small arms design using current propulsion technology (burning powder). What is the next big advance? Who knows. But it won't involve gunpowder. There, I called it.