This topic is much more entertaining than the old standbys (.45 vs. 9mm, .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W, M14 vs. M16, M16 vs. AK47, Ford vs. Chevy, etc.). Oh well, once more into the fray…
//JHW says:
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//
Based upon what? HK’s website claims? I’ve cleaned both. Under fire (and behind cover) I could shotgun either rifle, run a patch, hit the grit with a shaving brush, re-lube, and make combat ready in 2 minutes. Anything quicker falls into the realm of a malfunction drill and is not relevant. At my leisure, I can clean either satisfactorily in about equal amounts of time (30-60 minutes). Someone please explain to this dumb Ranger how accruing imaginary cleaning time benefits the soldier? Anyone with infantry experience knows that he who finishes his rifle early… just gets handed crew served weapons parts and continues his endeavors.
//The XM8 will have a greater MTBF than the M4//
Once again…according to whom? HK? Not enough XM8s have been manufactured nor tested over the long haul for anyone to make that claim except the very folks trying to sell you that rifle. Is the XM8/G36 more mechanically reliable? I don't believe so. Time and testing would tell. I've fired the G36 side-by-side against the M4A1 and listened closely to the gripes & bitches that KSK (German Special Forces) and Gebirgsjaegers (Mountain Troops) have about their weapon. It's not that the G36 is a bad rifle; it is good weapon and a significant improvement over the G-3. It's that the Germans haven't actually fought anyone in over 50 years and their weapon does not yet reflect the M16's hard won design improvements. These improvements will eventually occur as a result of user feedback from places like Afghanistan & Albania. I don't feel like using the US Military as the R&D platform for the Germans until more significant user experience is gained. I don't see the XM8/G36 as being any more immune to fine sand than the M4. Hell, I've seen jammed AKs under like conditions. G36 high-reliability magazines aren’t. Failures abound with the Bundeswehr’s magazines. With regards to that stupid plastic-to-plastic tacticool locking magazine feature…figure the odds on durability. Oh yeah… the high reliability HK 100 rd magazine is the Beta-C Mag (universally despised by people whose lives depend on their gear). We don’t use ‘em in M4s either. Today, I would not hesitate to choose an M4 over an equivalently configured G36. I KNOW THAT IT WORKS. In forest, jungle, saltwater surf-zone, subzero cold, desert. Been there, done that.
//The XM8 operating system is significantly more compact than the M4//
How is this a significant advantage? Both weapons utilize a buttstock. The M16 just uses otherwise empty space for recoil management. It also allows you to factory adjust recoil resistance for product improved ammunition or barrel length changes by changing buffer/spring weight and length (something you can’t do with the XM8). Please don’t amuse me by claiming that the XM8 can be packed into a smaller briefcase or that it would become the buttstockless weapon of choice for ejected fighter pilots…
//The XM8 is lighter than the M4//
The HK XM8 website gives a weight of 6.4 lbs (apparently loaded) in the “carbine†format. They don’t say which carbine format (9†or 12.5â€). They show the SOPMOD M-4 at 8.85 lbs (which I have reason to doubt and will check at work). However…like a lot of the comparison verbiage, they have “cooked the booksâ€. For instance, they show the M-4 mounted with both the PEQ2 AND PAQ-4. In fact the current weapon would be mounted with just the AN/PAQ-4C (which combines the functions of both previous devices). This “oversight†brings the weight comparison down by about a pound. So we are left with two rifles differing in weight by approximately 1.5 lbs. While every little bit counts, I don’t think I’ll begrudge the extra M4 weight versus the XM8’s loss of performance (crappy optics, badly positioned and designed emergency sight, and loss of lethality, muzzle velocity, and accuracy). I’d love to weigh the XM8 with the 12.5†barrel. But I digress. Yes, the XM8 is lighter.
//The XM8 allows a greater degree of modularity than the M4//
CONFIGURATION QUICK-CHANGE? Except for a consideration having nothing to do with the XM8 (or any other small arm for that matter). Current military regulations limit the POL (small arms parts) allowable at Company/Battalion level arms rooms due to the problem uncovered by a TV network expose back in the 80's. If you recall, 60 Minutes or 48 Hours uncovered the absolute lack of accountability in Reserve/Guard arms rooms, which allowed gun shows to be flooded with stolen small arms parts. The military promptly decreed that units would no longer be able to keep these parts stockpiled for repairs and configuration changes. If you wanted to (for instance) change your XM8 barrel length, your armorer would still be required to send the weapon up the maintenance support chain to your local Three Shop. Unless you want to issue each and every weapon as a complete modular kit and drive the price thru the ceiling. Not a bad idea, just horrendously expensive and EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Welcome to the REAL military world…it’s about the $MONEY$. Reconfiguring rifles in the field (with parts Joe will never have access to) is a specious argument in the infantry world. Most units don't even own spare barrels for their SAWs. It's taken over 10 years just to get our kids equipped with rails, optics, tactical lights, BUIS, PAQ-4Cs, PAS-13s, PVS-14s, etc.
CALIBER CHANGE: Admittedly, HK was thinking ahead of the power curve when they built in the modular magazine well. You would still have to replace the barrels, upper receiver, bolt group, magazines, and cleaning equipment. That leaves the magazine well, buttstock, trigger housing group, and optics as OME.
BARREL LENGTHS: Another attempt to bamboozle the customer. The designated marksman barrel is just a 20†tube slapped into the weapon. No match hardware or trigger. No free-float barrel. No particular accuracy. You still have to re-zero iron sights and optics every time you change a barrel. Bipod mounted squad AR version is just another attempt at the M14E2 or RPK idea. No ability to lay down accurate long-range fire or to sustain (no quick change barrel). Various armies have been down this road before. Doesn’t work. The short barrels are too short for the SS109/M855. This could be fixed by tweaking the bullet and/or barrel twist. The SPR was slaying people at 500-600 meters in Afghanistan. The G36 was not. The Designated Marksman XM8 won’t either.
//The XM8 receiver allows significantly more clearance than the M4// Honestly…I have no idea what this refers to.
//The XM8 is less complicated than the M4//
How so? Mechanically? Operator Interface? Ease of manufacture? If you are referring to user friendliness you would do well to consider that all modern assault rifles are designed so that illiterate peasants can figure out how to use them in an afternoon. They both use Stoner designed operating systems.
//The XM8 offers a greater degree of ambidexterity than the M4//
OKAY!! You win!
//The XM8 increases field-serviceability over the M4//
Wie bitte? Refer to comments on cleaning, modularity & complexity.
//The XM8 will adapt to a Grenade Launcher due to lack of a buffer assembly and lighter weight than the M4//
In point of fact, the XM8 WON’T (which is why HK is trying to sell the Kinetic PEZ Dispenser as a separate item). The OICW was a FAILURE. With the POS airburst monstrosity strapped to the ever-so-light G36, the total weight to be carried approached that of the BAR. The M4 already has a proven launcher (M203) that will do yeoman duty until we get a smaller and better grenade round. BTW, both rifles are configured to take NATO STANAG rifle grenades but we Yankee Cowboys don’t use ‘em. I guess it’s a cultural thing?
//To this I would add: It can be molded in colors of choice …… but this color customization flexibility is a plus for the XM8.//
First off, any plastic furniture for any weapon can be made any color you want. The original AR-15 was offered with a green stock. The silly procurement REMFs didn’t like it. What makes you think they would now? The military procurement wonks love things in stupid colors not found in nature (black boots, black fleece, black rifles, black pistols, black uniform belts, black socks, black berets, black assault holsters, etc.) Do you notice a trend? It makes their job easier and cuts costs. Amen on the $2.00 can of flat krylon. That is exactly what many of us have been using on all weapons for years. It works great. DOD is not going to spend money on multiple colored stock sets for the whole damn military (just the tip of the spear guys) and subdued weapons don’t look nearly as spiffy on parade at right-shoulder-arms.
JHW then discusses:
//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?//
Already being done w/ the existing M4 platform. And the reason for a completely new (unproven) rifle to go with this new cartridge would be? The simplest and most cost effective route is to make the existing 5.56 more lethal. The next costliest move is to re-caliber the existing platform. The most expensive choice is to introduce a new weapon and caliber. I’d love to see a new caliber but would be satisfied with a more devastating 5.56 bullet.
//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.//
The Ultimax is a very light LMG, which still weighs 4.9 kg (just under 11 lbs unloaded). Add a 100 rd drum for another 5 lbs and you are talking BAR carry weight) w/ bipod. Mitigation of 5.56 recoil out of a handheld assault rifle is a solution in search of a problem. I have fired both the M16 and M4 with the buttstock placed against both my nose and groin. This is an old confidence building basic training trick to reinforce the fact that trainees should have no reason to fear recoil. For god’s sake, the M16’s recoil is only slightly more than a BB rifle. The G36 recoils exactly the same. A trained rifleman CAN knock down targets on full auto but can do so more quickly and accurately using semi-auto (at all ranges). Full auto is for when you wish you were carrying an LMG [break contact drills, ambush of linear target like a loaded troop truck, or trying to establish psychological fire superiority (area suppression)]. Full auto fire w/ assault rifles is for amateurs. Of course a weapon with zero recoil would be nice. Unfortunately for both the M16 and the XM8, it’s not in the cards.
//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.//
ACOG: Yes, the ACOG is nice for long shots. It is a telescope and provides magnification. Folks always love magnification. It makes long shots easier. But it sucks as a close (50-150) range engagement optic. It blows as a CQB optic. Its rudimentary high-mounted iron “sight†also blows for just about any range. The reticle pattern is extremely difficult to pick up when taking quick shots and under very bright or dim light.
Integrated Passive Night Vision / Thermal Imager (Helmet Mounted): Yes, this too shall come. Target acquisition optics get mo’ better and smaller with each passing year. This trend (like computers) will continue regardless of which bullet launcher we carry. The current goal is a weapon mountable unit providing 1 x power red dot capability, passive night vision, and a tritium self illuminating aiming point. I believe this is already fielded as the AN/PVS-22. Eventually, thermal imaging will get portable enough to integrate into a combination weapon optic. For now, the thermal sight and the IR laser designator/illuminator remain separate items. Once you integrate day/night red dot capability into your passive night vision weapon sight, the IR laser is no longer needed. The incorporation of the IR laser/illuminator into the XM8 sight is an example of a technology that will shortly become obsolete. The G36/XM8 integrated unit is a nice idea but is based upon US military experience and requirements. The Germans didn’t invent it…just copied it. We have already fielded or are in final development of similar or better items for the M4.
Laser range finder: You don’t need a laser range finder to tell you that Hadji is shooting at you from 100m away. A laser range finder is designed to dial-in long sniper shots (for which the shooter must still be a competent marksman and have knowledge of windage, holdover, and reticle placement). It is also for the (currently) non-functioning airburst grenade/optical sight/computer chip interface of the OICW. If it is ever made to function properly, it will be mountable on damn near any modern rifle (not just the XM8).
//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?//
I want a COMPLETELY NEW RIFLE & CALIBER combination that delivers a QUANTUM leap in LETHALITY, RELIABILITY, ERGONOMICS, and INCREASED DAY/NIGHT HIT POTENTIAL against human beings I intend to kill (at ranges from 0 – 500 meters).
When someone shows me one I will drop the Stoner AR design like a cheap cigar.
Regarding the G36/XM8: Crappy iron sights. Fragile day optic (leaks, condensation, and fogging). Non-captive takedown pins (try and find one in the dark, in the snow, in the mud...Yeah, I have used the cute little pin storage holes). Accuracy is good but no better than M4. M4 is a WAY better CQB weapon. G36 Balance is overly front end heavy (like the G3). If issued the G36/XM8, am I able to hit any better at any useful ranges? No. Does the weapon provide better mechanical accuracy? Definitely Not. Is the weapon easier to carry? No. Is it an ergonomic improvement over the M16/M4 series? No. Ambidextrous features do not trump overall inferior ergonomics compared to the M16. Does it offer better ballistics out of the 5.56? No. Does it provide increased lethality? No. Does it have 40+ Years of R&D to work out the bugs that ALL new weapons have? Sorry...check back with HK in 40 years. Is it more durable? HK would have you believe so. The last time I listened to the exact same argument (when the M9 was introduced) I got to watch the majority of my unit’s issued weapons self- destruct long before they reached their advertised “shelf lifeâ€.
The XM8 fans are arguing Granny Smith vs. Red Delicious …4†S&W L frame vs. Ruger GP100…Dodge Viper vs. Porsche. The XM8 offers nothing new that the M4A1 doesn't already do. It has crappy features that are not yet fixed and offers no significant IMPROVEMENTS over what we already have. I smell another L-85/SA-80. Ask the British about their experience.
.
