According to this article, perhaps as early as '05 by the XM-8 a upgraded HK G-36: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php
Army Times article: M4/M16 replacement
- Thread starter SKN
- Start date
- Status
Schuey2002
Member
Interesting little tid-bit..
As far as that '05 service date. Someone may want to tell the boys in Oberndorf that time's a wastin'. They need to build a plant here in the U.S. and they haven't even announced a site for the plant yet.
Tick.. tick.. tick..
( IMHO, the DOD would save a boatload of money if they just adopted the G36 family of guns.. All they'd need to do is slap better optics on it, as well as a magwell that used M16 mags ..
)Destructo6
Member
Did not know that. Of course, it would require a HK plant in the US...possibly within that two year time period.
And goodbye to burst.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Looks like it uses a magazine release like the M14/AK does. I don't think that's a plus. Anyone know how the action works?
Army Times is a commercial publication..........i
......it's owned by the same people who own USA Today. You need to take everything you read there with a grain of salt. The quality of their information and slant has changed since they changed ownership.
The XM8 is a pipe dream. I have heard from sources at Ft. Benning that the Project Manager may even be skewing things in order to secure post retirement employment with a certain German arms manufacturer.
Back in the early 90s the big rage was the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) according to Army Times it too was just over the horizon. What happened with it, nothing....the project died. Just like the XM8 is about to.
You'll see the M16 in service for the forseeable future. Can anyone who read the article tell me what part of the XM8 gives us more capability then we have with the M16 family? This will be the end of the program. Just like the ACR, we would have to make a large monetary investment basically just for the sake of change. XM8 is the same caliber, it's unproven and doesn't do anything that the M16 isn't already doing. The same thing happened to the ACR.
Jeff
......it's owned by the same people who own USA Today. You need to take everything you read there with a grain of salt. The quality of their information and slant has changed since they changed ownership.
The XM8 is a pipe dream. I have heard from sources at Ft. Benning that the Project Manager may even be skewing things in order to secure post retirement employment with a certain German arms manufacturer.
Back in the early 90s the big rage was the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) according to Army Times it too was just over the horizon. What happened with it, nothing....the project died. Just like the XM8 is about to.
You'll see the M16 in service for the forseeable future. Can anyone who read the article tell me what part of the XM8 gives us more capability then we have with the M16 family? This will be the end of the program. Just like the ACR, we would have to make a large monetary investment basically just for the sake of change. XM8 is the same caliber, it's unproven and doesn't do anything that the M16 isn't already doing. The same thing happened to the ACR.
Jeff
Dave Markowitz
Member
I'll believe it when I see it.
OTH, I thought the tidbit about elements of the 82nd ABN requesting "M1As" was interesting. Wonder if it's true? I do remember seeing pics of troopers with M14s in Afghanistan. Maybe they were M1As procured for use there?
OTH, I thought the tidbit about elements of the 82nd ABN requesting "M1As" was interesting. Wonder if it's true? I do remember seeing pics of troopers with M14s in Afghanistan. Maybe they were M1As procured for use there?
Schuey2002
Member
That sucks!
One of the best features of the G36 is its ability to fire a 2 rd. burst. With the mass (and weight) of the bolt carrier, it actually makes the gun feel smoother (when shooting) with that double-tap feature. You don't get that *chunk-chunk* feeling (of the bolt carrier reciprocating) when your firing single round strings..
Fed168
Member
Did I read the part about the gun weighing 14 pounds correctly? I think they forgot to add in the other 60 pounds of equipment per soldier.
The M16 family is 40 years old. But within that 40 years hasn't the rifle been upgraded and such to make it modern (for lack of a better term)?
The M16 family is 40 years old. But within that 40 years hasn't the rifle been upgraded and such to make it modern (for lack of a better term)?
Schuey2002
Member
I doubt that this gun will weigh 14 pounds... I'm willing to bet that the XM8 Baseline model for example, will weigh approx. what a G36K weighs; which is just over 6.5 lbs. (w/o a magazine) ..
Badger Arms
Member
Where's the bolt release? Watching videos of experienced riflemen trying to release the bolt on this gun is just plain painful. They need a bolt release before I'll say it's a good way to go.
Schuey2002
Member
I would assume that it's in the same location as the "bolt catch" on the H&K G36/SL8; just forward of the trigger guard..
Nightcrawler
Member
So it can be converted to fire 7.62x39mm, huh? That's interesting. I mean, boy, I'll it'd need would be a new magazine, new magazine well, new bolt, bolt carrier, and barrel.
Special Forces would be better off just acquiring some 7.62x39mm weapons, instead of bothering to convert a 5.56mm one.
So they're going to replace SAWs with an "Americanized" MG36? Oh goody. Yes, it's lighter, but how can a closed bolt weapon handle sustained automatic fire? Oh, and a 100-round Beta-C mag is MUCH bulkier than the 100-round "assault pouches" of belted ammo the SAWs can use. I'll bet they make the bipod out of plastic, too. You watch.
Because everybody knows that an 18" barreled 5.56mm carbine has the same range and power as an M14. That's why the 82nd Airborne requested the M14s over, say, a scoped M16, which is a 20" 5.56mm weapon. Oh, wait, that doesn't make any sense...the Pentagon must be involved...
Sharpshooter's rifle: Good idea.
Making said rifle an 18" 5.56mm carbine: Horrible idea.
So, it can't fire semiauto?
I hope they can make all of this work without wasting too much taxpayer money. But, I agree, this is a heck of a lot of wishful thinking on the Army's part.
Except, the only really stupid thing, I think, is making the "sharpshooter's rifle" a 5.56mm. Having your sharpshooter's rifle fire an intermediate cartridge completely defeats the purpose. "Oh, but it has a special longer barrel..." THAT'S TWO INCHES SHORTER THAN A STANDARD M16 BARREL! If they scaled this up to .308 with a 20" tube and a better stock, and added a decent scope...THEN you'd have a sharpshooter's rifle!
Special Forces would be better off just acquiring some 7.62x39mm weapons, instead of bothering to convert a 5.56mm one.
So they're going to replace SAWs with an "Americanized" MG36? Oh goody. Yes, it's lighter, but how can a closed bolt weapon handle sustained automatic fire? Oh, and a 100-round Beta-C mag is MUCH bulkier than the 100-round "assault pouches" of belted ammo the SAWs can use. I'll bet they make the bipod out of plastic, too. You watch.
Because everybody knows that an 18" barreled 5.56mm carbine has the same range and power as an M14. That's why the 82nd Airborne requested the M14s over, say, a scoped M16, which is a 20" 5.56mm weapon. Oh, wait, that doesn't make any sense...the Pentagon must be involved...
Sharpshooter's rifle: Good idea.
Making said rifle an 18" 5.56mm carbine: Horrible idea.
So, it can't fire semiauto?
I hope they can make all of this work without wasting too much taxpayer money. But, I agree, this is a heck of a lot of wishful thinking on the Army's part.
Except, the only really stupid thing, I think, is making the "sharpshooter's rifle" a 5.56mm. Having your sharpshooter's rifle fire an intermediate cartridge completely defeats the purpose. "Oh, but it has a special longer barrel..." THAT'S TWO INCHES SHORTER THAN A STANDARD M16 BARREL! If they scaled this up to .308 with a 20" tube and a better stock, and added a decent scope...THEN you'd have a sharpshooter's rifle!
Destructo6
Member
Wouldn't they have to put lead weights in it to get the XM8/G36 up to 14lbs?
I'm certain they'll use the standard HK SEF fire control arangement. I really don't see why they wouldn't use the the exact same trigger group as that on the G36, thereby taking advantage of the groups already in existance.
Looks like they're using standard G36 mags in those images there.
I'm certain they'll use the standard HK SEF fire control arangement. I really don't see why they wouldn't use the the exact same trigger group as that on the G36, thereby taking advantage of the groups already in existance.
Looks like they're using standard G36 mags in those images there.
Kaylee
Member
First, according to the article, the 14 pound weight limit they couldn't make was for the OICW as a whole, not just the XM8 unit.
Interesting progression there. From the article, it sounds like first we wanted a spiffy new granade launcher. Then we wanted an add-on carbine so the grenadier had something marginally effective to back himself up with.. then we took that carbine and spiffied it up some and tried turning it into the line issue rifle... and shelved the original idea, the grenade launcher, until we decided it could be done properly.
Jeez.. sounds like some of the dot.com projects gone bad I've been involved with.
The other odd thing.. given that the internals of the G36 are pretty much direct descendants of AR18s as I've been told.... it does seem kinda like Armalite's Revenge, 40 years later. Makes we wonder what would have happened if we'd held out for those in the first place.
Perfecting a part at a time is a good idea I suppose.. but least from the designs though, it looks like they forgot it was supposed to sling under the OICW. How... odd. And who's idea was removing a stock ENTIRELY from the "Commando" model?
All that said.. I like the collapsing stock with a solid cheekpiece -- good thinking there. Even if it does owe its origins to the M41A.
Finally.. I AM kinda concerned at the "one rifle for everything" idea, making both SAW and sniper versions from the same basic action. That kinda thinking didn't work with the M14, and I don't see it working here, given the inherently different requirements -- rapid fire/heat issues vs. everything tightened down/accuracy issues.
Interesting progression there. From the article, it sounds like first we wanted a spiffy new granade launcher. Then we wanted an add-on carbine so the grenadier had something marginally effective to back himself up with.. then we took that carbine and spiffied it up some and tried turning it into the line issue rifle... and shelved the original idea, the grenade launcher, until we decided it could be done properly.
Jeez.. sounds like some of the dot.com projects gone bad I've been involved with.
The other odd thing.. given that the internals of the G36 are pretty much direct descendants of AR18s as I've been told.... it does seem kinda like Armalite's Revenge, 40 years later. Makes we wonder what would have happened if we'd held out for those in the first place.
Your tax dollars at work folks.
Perfecting a part at a time is a good idea I suppose.. but least from the designs though, it looks like they forgot it was supposed to sling under the OICW. How... odd. And who's idea was removing a stock ENTIRELY from the "Commando" model?
All that said.. I like the collapsing stock with a solid cheekpiece -- good thinking there. Even if it does owe its origins to the M41A.
Finally.. I AM kinda concerned at the "one rifle for everything" idea, making both SAW and sniper versions from the same basic action. That kinda thinking didn't work with the M14, and I don't see it working here, given the inherently different requirements -- rapid fire/heat issues vs. everything tightened down/accuracy issues.
Why we can't just adopt the G36...
http://home.c2i.net/johnhe/g36c_l_600.jpg
http://home.c2i.net/johnhe/g36c_l_600.jpg
- Status
