Compromise for XM8 Opponents?

[JWH]

Gentlemen, I have been lurking and following the XM8 debate. I admit I've been trying to restrain myself from having the "let's just get it because it's new and cool" syndrome. Actually, what I'd really like is a bullpup with a rotary magazine on the top buttstock that ejects straight down, but that's a whole other animal. I'd like to bring some peace between the M16 and XM8 camps. "The farmer and the cowboy should be friends."

My question to the Keep the M16 Until a Quantum Leap in Small Arms Is Achieved crowd: Do you have a number of years in mind, or is it entirely dependent on whenever the technology happens to appear? Will you call for a state-of-the-art rifle in a set period of 10, 20, or 50 years? A weapon is a system, but what is the first main technology that you're waiting for? The replacement of the metallic cartridge as we know it with something caseless, or an energy weapon like a laser?

This is how Badger Arms summarizes the XM-8's improvements over the M16 series:

The XM8 will be easier to clean than the M4
The XM8 will have a greater MTBF than the M4
The XM8 is lighter than the M4
The XM8 allows a greater degree of modularity than the M4
The XM8 operating system is significantly more compact than the M4
The XM8 receiver allows significantly more clearance than the M4
The XM8 is less complicated than the M4
The XM8 offers a greater degree of ambidexterity than the M4
The XM8 increases field-serviceability over the M4
The XM8 will adapt to a Grenade Launcher due to lack of a buffer assembly and light weight than the M4

To this I would add: It can be molded in colors of choice. Did you see the pink one? (Fun with Photoshop!) Anyway, I see many synthetic stocks these days with the camouflage molded in, and I see many M16s spray-painted desert brown. I know the M16's black "goes with everything," but this color customization flexibility is a plus for the XM8.

Now, even if these benefits live up to their advertising hype, many of you would still act like a dog sniffing at some celery. But let me throw you a nice, juicy steak and see if you're interested. The following are the evolutionary advances I'd like to see fielded in our small arms within the next ten years:

1. New cartridge. I favor the .26 Grendel of Alexander Arms, which is a reliability- and velocity-improved 6.5 PPC launching a 123gr HPBT @ 2600fps in a 24" bbl. However, I'd be almost as thrilled with the 6.8 x 43 SPC. Would you, could you, with a new cartridge?

2. Recoil mitigation. The Russians have been really working on this. I'd like to see some genius adapt the Ultimax 100 LMG system, which is almost recoil-free in 5.56 in full auto, to a closed-bolt system for an assault rifle.

I'd consider these two improvements alone as defining a revolutionary step forward. As a bonus, I'd add:

3. Integrated sighting. Someone here (was it Jeff White?) argues to put development money into a next-generation sighting system instead of the XM8. Could we develop a helmet-mounted, integrated night-vision and heat sensing unit, and keep the scope simpler? A recent report on the effectiveness of our equipment in Iraq noted that most troops were thrilled with the 4 x 32 ACOG. Perhaps simply add laser sighting and ranging capability to the ACOG so those are combined in one unit. But I'm somewhat hesitant here because of Murphy's Law and electronic complexity, and I certainly wouldn't cancel an XM8 with both the .26 Grendel and ultra-low recoil over it.

If the XM8 or whatever were to be postponed until it could include the three evolutionary advances I suggest, would this help loosen your grips on the M16? If not, what, exactly, would do it for you?

John

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question to the Keep the M16 Until a Quantum Leap in Small Arms Is Achieved crowd: Do you have a number of years in mind, or is it entirely dependent on whenever the technology happens to appear?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me ask a question in response; how will you get a quantum improvement without new technology?

Let me ask a second question; what will you do if we adopt a new rifle and it is LESS reliable than the M16? After all, you're asking the men and women in uniform to bet their lives that the XM8 will be better.

And finally, note that every argument is based on design matters -- no one has articulated a TACTICAL advantage. Tell us how the claims for the XM8 add up to a tactical leap forward.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

SHow me a weapon system that alows soldiers with current levels of training to hit enemy combatants at 500 yards that weighs as much or less than a current m4 or m-16 and i'll stop kvetching.

 

[Badger Arms]

what will you do if we adopt a new rifle and it is LESS reliable than the M16? After all, you're asking the men and women in uniform to bet their lives that the XM8 will be better.

Heck, the majority of small arms on the world market are more reliable than the M16. If the M16 were as reliable as the AK, we wouldn't need the XM8. The facts are, it is not as reliable. We hear all the anectodal arguments, where are the statistics that show the M16 to be equally reliable under field conditions to the G36, AK74, Sig 55x series, etc.? I wish I had them. I doubt they exist.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We don't have statistics on the AK 47 and variants either -- and a lot of people BELIEVE they are more reliable based solely on anecdotal evidence, much of it made up or exaggerated.

 

[cheygriz]

My old pappy was a wise old owl! And my old pappy always said: "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

The M-16 aint broke. There is no impirical evidence to indicate that it is.

The 5.56X45MM cartridge is probably the finest assault rifle/ LMG cartridge in the world. If it isn't, it only trails the 5.45X39MM by an indistinuishable amount.

We have a winner here. Why screw around with a good thing?

 

[Jeff White]

The big thing a new weapon has to provide is a tactical advantage. If you look at the history of military small arms, no nation ever really adopted a weapon because it was a little technologically more advanced then it's predecssor. The key to getting it adopted was the technological advancement giving a tacticaladvantage. Rifles were more technically advanced then muskets, but for years muskets ruled the battlefield. Why, because the rifles had too slow a rate of fire. While they could range the army that was armed with muskets, they couldn't range them by enough to compensate for the much slower rate of fire. Even though troops armed with rifles could cause enemy casualties at twice the distance those armed with muskets could, by the time they reloaded, the musket armed troops were in effective range and putting out almost 4 times the volume of fire.

By the time of the Civil War, the percussion cap had replaced the flintlock and we had rifled muskets. There were breechloaders and repeaters available and some units purchased them. the problem was, the technology required to produce reliable metallic cased ammunition was in it's infancy and there was no way the requirements of the army could be met. So for the most part we fought the Civil War with single shot muzzle loaders when there were more technologically advanced weapons available. We didn't adopt a rfile that fired metallic cased ammunition until the technology was able to produce it in sufficient quanity to support the army. We stayed with the Trapdoor Springfield until we adopted the Krag which was a magazine fed repeater that fired a smokeless powder cartridge. This gave us a higher rate of fire and the smokeless powder didn't give the position away.

The next big change was to the 1903 Springfield. It was a Mauser design that loaded from a stripper clip. This gave a better rate of sustained fire and the .30 caliber cartridge allowed us to engage the enemy at a longer distance.

We next changed to the M1 Garand which was a semi auto. Again we had a much higher rate of fire, which was a tactical improvement. We stumbled with the M14, tried to make an assault rifle with a full power cartridge, which proved to be a failure. By now full auto fire was a requirement. We adopted the M16 which gave us full auto fire in a controllable package and also lightend the load so we could carry a much larger amount of ammunition and other equipment.

Now you get to the crux of our resistance to the XM8. No one, not Badger, not Spark, no XM8 proponent can tell us what tactical advantage we gain by changing. It does the same thing we are already doing with the M16. It doesn't shoot farther, it doesn't shoot faster and it's most likely less lethal with M855 ammunition because of the shorter barrel length.

Give me a new rifle that has a round that is as lethal as M855 is at 100 meters all the way out to 300 meters in a package that is as light, reliable and ergonomic as the M16 we have now, and I'll scrap it in a minute. The XM8 isn't that.

The XM8 offers no tactical advantage and it's unproven. It may be the best rfile of it's type made, but if we already have one that works just as good why spend the money?

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you get to the crux of our resistance to the XM8. No one, not Badger, not Spark, no XM8 proponent can tell us what tactical advantage we gain by changing. It does the same thing we are already doing with the M16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let that be the final word.

 

[Spark]

Um, no Jeff. You just keep ignoring all of the advantages. Tactical advantages include:

MODULARITY & MISSION FLEXIBILITY. Low cost chassis that can be changed for the environment (multiple colors DUR). Spiral upgrade capability (new ammo, new features, etc) features can be added as they come out, without major machine work on the existing chassis. Lighter weight. Less prone to failure. More fault tolerant. Easier to adapt to the situation at hand (see previous posts). Uses modern machining & materials. Incorporates lessons learned from the M16 & other small arms history. Comes standard with optics. The list goes on and on and on... and they come out of the box this way.

The HMMWV didn't really go tremendously faster than the Willy's Jeep. Sure, it doesn't roll over as easily, but look at how much more expensive it is. It's not a jet car, where's the huge breakthrough!?!?! Why did we switch?

Saying the advantages don't exist doesn't make them go away. It's major tactical advantage? It presents a new base system that will allow for easier future upgrades. It gives us a system that we can actually change every aspect at will, instead of being locked into a single cartridge for the next 40 years. THAT is the tactical advantage - total flexibility. We have a force that's being asked to wear many more hats, and have a system on hand that is built around the ammo. In 40 years, look at all the changes we've come up with for ammo - and look at what we are stuck with in our main armed services rifle. If the M16 had modular magwell capability, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, but then, it wasn't designed with the intent of becoming the one size fits all rifle of the US Armed Services, was it?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

MODULARITY & MISSION FLEXIBILITY. Low cost chassis that can be changed for the environment (multiple colors DUR).

A 2 dollar can of krylon does four rifles.

 

[Jeff White]

Spark,

Those aren't tactical advantages. Tell me how that helps you kill the enemy?

Those are design features....A tactical advantage is an increase in range, rate of fire, accuracy or lethality...The XM8 with it's 12.5 inch barrel is less lethal with M855 ammunition. To me that is a step backwards...

Jeff

 

[Spark]

Same rifle, 20" barrel? That tactical enough for you? Tactics win the battle, Jeff? Strategy wins the war. If you think tactically only, you will lose strategicly. Any smart development program these days incorporates future upgrades. The M16 doesn't. XM8: Same rifle, multiple variants, all of which are easy to do. Oh wait, we don't want simplicity do we? Can't have improvements & simplicity when we can tie everything down and cost more money & specialized training.

Each rifle comes with integrated optics. Increase in accuracy, per your definition. Sorry, I guess you just found your tactical breakthrough. Each rifle can change calibers with minor mods - same system can shoot 7.62, 5.56, 7.65x45 small modifications. That enough of a lethality upgrade for you? Heck, if we come up with the next wonderammo, maybe we can switch to it without having to buy new uppers, lowers, gas systems, trigger groups, stocks and all. Just switch out the bolt, barrel, mags & magwell. Logistics have nothing to do with combat now do they though? Doing it faster, better, and cheaper isn't a worthy goal.

Heck, troops won't even have to retrain on new rifles, just pop in the new parts and continue the mission. Can't have training stability though, that would be bad.

 

[Jeff White]

Same rifle, 20" barrel? That tactical enough for you? Tactics win the battle, Jeff?

No, what does it do that kills the enemy better then the M16? Does it give the squad better stand off range? How about a better rate of fire? IS M855 at it's optimum velocity for best terminal effects at 300 meters from it? No, it's none of those things and you know it It has no tactical advantage over the M16. This is overlooking the fact that HK is selling the XM8 with a 12.5 inch barrel so it can compete with the M4. The M4 will always be superior to the XM8 based on barrel length alone. The 12.5' barrel on the XM8 that would replace the M4 in our light units, (you remember them, the guys that rely on their rifles more then anyone else....) will cut the range at which M855 has it's optimum terminal effects well below 100 meters. Is this acceptable for you? It's not for me.

Strategy wins the war. If you think tactically only, you will lose strategicly.

Strategy for the rifle is to dominate the battlefield from point blank range to 300 meters. The XM8 doesn't do that any better then the M16.

Any smart development program these days incorporates future upgrades. The M16 doesn't. Same rifle, multiple variants, all of which are easy to do. Oh wait, we don't want simplicity do we?

That's great, give it to me in a weapon that gives me an immediate increase in tactical capability and I'll take it today. The XM8 isn't it....neither would the Sig 550 or any other 5.56mm gas operated rifle or carbine. they all will do the same job, essentially the same way.

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Would one of the XM8ers please answer this question. Why don't they make 1979 Honda Accords anymore? I'll answer. It's because the technology for manufacturing the vehicles has progressed. While I have infinite love and admiration for the '79 Accord, it's a deathtrap compared to modern vehicles with crumple zones, air bags, modern tires, etc. Technology has advanced. Sure, the '79 Accord could accelerate well enough and got great gas mileage. It handled well... I think better than many modern cars which tend to have a 'mushy' feel to them. Would I spend $20,000 for a '79 Accord today? HECK no. I want a car that is more reliable, safer, etc. Problem is, it takes the same gas, carries roughly the same load, and serves the SAME EXACT PURPOSE. Why upgrade? There could be, GASP, a RECALL. My new Altima (yeah, I really do drive an Altima) could turn out to be a lemon... that's just a risk I'm willing to take. I'll sorely miss the 71 Squareback, the 79 Accord, and the 92 Sentra, but the cars wore out ANYHOW and since I had to replace them, why not go with a new model?

 

[Spark]

But Andrew, why buy a new car when you can continue to make your 79 accord better with "product improvements"?!?!?!? Sure, your car will never have a bigger engine, but hey, if we constinantly remachine it, it will almost do the same job as these new rifles! BTW, do you mind having the exhaust vented directly into the driving compartment?

 

[Gabe]

Hmmm. . . works for NASCAR.

 

[Spark]

Too bad the rest of the world does Formula 1

 

[G21NE]

How is the M16/M4 platform not modular enough? Change out handguards and you have all kinds of rails to mount lights, optics, etc.

Sure, change the tooling or whatever for flat top recievers, all the other parts are the same...again, lots of options for lights/optics.

 

[JWH]

I'm still interested in this question: If the XM8 was rigorously tested and was shown to live up to its hype and was as ergonomic as the M16, as reliable as the AK, and pioneered a new level of modularity, AND if it was chambered in the .26 Grendel or 6.8 SPC (or YOUR favorite, perfect, optimum assault-rifle cartridge!) AND if an ultra-low recoil system was developed, AND if it had integrated optics with laser rangefinding, etc.---stops to catch a breath---would you, could you, then accept it?

Tactics is beating your man. Tactics is your squad beating their squad. Tactics is your platoon beating their platoon, isn't it? Other than our wits and our spirit, can our technology give us a tactical edge? If my rifle is easier to use than theirs and more quickly reloads and aims, doesn't jam as much as theirs, has a .26 caliber cartridge lethal from 0 to 1000 yards while theirs can't pierce a standard masonry block, allows multiple shots on fleeting targets because of ultra-low recoil, has a built-in 4-power scope with laser range-finding and a laser spot---stops to catch a breath---aren't those enough tactical advantages to satisfy you?

If you demand any more tactical advantages than those, I think you're into the realm of grenades and mortars and rockets and machine guns and are being unfair to any shoulder-fired small arm---even a laser beam weapon.

Jeff White makes a good point when he recites the history of small arms adoption in the U.S. and shows us how each technological breakthrough gave us a tactical advantage. It's a solid argument, but this is my rebuttal: Just because it was done that way in the past, doesn't mean we NEED to do the same in the future. It doesn't necessarily mean it was the RIGHT thing to have done. I feel no loyalty to the historical precedence of weapons procurement in the U.S., because I feel we were scr**ed when they forced the M1 Garand to take .30-06 instead of the .276 Pedersen, when they forced NATO to take the 7.62 NATO instead of the .280 British, when they rushed the M16 into battle with propellant too hot to let the brass extract properly---somebody stop me, but you get the picture! ;-)

I have to say I am convinced by the 1960s car vs. the 2004 car analogy. Or the jeep vs. HUMMV analogy. All use the same gas. All serve basically the same purpose. All only give evolutionary, not revolutionary, improvements. But if you're going to replace worn vehicles anyway, why not replace with an improved model?

I don't care if it's the XM8 for its own sake. I don't think Spark or Badger Arms do. I trust that all of us, on both sides of the debate, want the best for our troops. None of us wants anymore Marines crumpled dead over their M16s with a cleaning rod stuck out the barrel. We didn't want it then, we don't want it now with an XM8 or whatever.

If the XM8 tests poorly, and it's just another military-industrial-political-complex money-grubbing scheme being foisted on us at the expense of dead Marines, then we all say let it rot. But if a state-of-the-art system could truly give the TACTICAL advantages outlined above, will you say OK?

John

 

[Badger Arms]

I don't think Spark or Badger Arms do. I trust that all of us, on both sides of the debate, want the best for our troops.

True, so true. I'm easy.

Not inflexible here.

 

[Badger Arms]

Whoops, lost the other picture:

 

[JWH]

I was researching the M68 Aimpoint sight and came across this statement in some training PowerPoint that is relevant to our discussion: "M-240B Replaces aging and unreliable M60 with state-of-the-art, interoperable machine gun." [1] Apparently, we do have precedence for making an evolutionary, non-quantum, non-tactics-revolutionizing upgrade in a U.S. weapons system. FWIW.

John

[1] www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/garza.ppt

 

[KW]

I think the biggest flaw of the XM8 is the length - losing 2" of barrel to keep the same overall length and shed 1lb is not progress. Our current system can be painted different colors, can carry any optic or accesory on rails, can carry a grenade launcher. The new XM8 is length for length less lethal then the M-16/M-4 system. Given that we just went to the trouble of developing a heavy 5.56mm round to boost the effective fragmentation range for the M-4, choping 2" off the barrel is just the wrong way to go.

That being said, if you can come up with a new, more effective cartridge that isn't as velocity dependent and will perform just as well out of the shorter XM8 barrels as it does out of the M-16/M-4 then go for it.

I'm not an XM8 hater. I appreciate the advantages of greater modularity, less weight, integrated optics, greater reliability etc. But the most important thing for the rifle to do is kill the enemy, and if the new one isn't as good as the old one then it's a mistake.

 

[ShaiVong]

Given that we just went to the trouble of developing a heavy 5.56mm round to boost the effective fragmentation range for the M-4, choping 2" off the barrel is just the wrong way to go.

I agree. Why don't we just go HP anyway? Hague be damned.

I'm not seeing the greater modularity here. AR15's already have flat top receivers with freefloating handguards all covered in mounting points... How much more modular do you need? Slap a telescoping stock on there for LOP adjustments, and a standard 16-20" barrel. Let the delta boys have their 14" barrels for close in work... And let them use HP, or serrated HP rounds.

If you need a designated marksman, why not give them an AR10? How is that worse then an XM in 7.62 with a 20" barrel or greater?

What is so great about integrated optics anyway? I would really rather have discrete optics myself. If my EOTech is busted then I can cowitness my irons through it, or just rip it off and cast it aside in 3 seconds, and replace it when I get the chance. What If I don't want an EOTech? What if my mission calls for 4x or 10x scope? Or a NV scope?

I would rather have the current system where you can change out optics in five seonds with a quarter than something welded to the gun, if only because its easier to replace if it breaks.

I don't really dislike the XM8, nor do I think it would be a horrible catastrophie if it was adopted, but I'm with Jeff and Andrew on this one.. It's not a car, and its not that impressive; why go through the cost and confusion?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that we just went to the trouble of developing a heavy 5.56mm round to boost the effective fragmentation range for the M-4, choping 2" off the barrel is just the wrong way to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The M4 has a 5.56 fragmentation round?