Compromise for XM8 Opponents?

[fix]

I tried to bow out, but you didn't let me.

Last post...

When?

When a weapons system comes along that delivers a true tactical advantage to the gunfighters. The gunfighters must be in general agreement (not necessarily unanimous consent) that it delivers said advantage.

...or

When our tactics evolve to the point where the current weapons system is no longer suitable...which coincidentally would probably make the XM8 unsuitable as well.

...or

Some strange logistical concern that we haven't forseen.

None of these scenarios is on the horizon at present. I suspect a change in tactics will come before any significant advances in hardware, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

 

[Jeff White]

You did hear wrong...

Badger said;

From what I heard, the Army asked for the OICW and when that didn't pan out, they asked for the XM8. Are you saying the Army was forced by HK to purchase the 200 test rifles?

The Army asked for the OICW. They have been playing with a similar design since the 50s...I know it's a different program then the SPIW, different money different specs, but it's trying to accomplish the same thing the SPIW wanted to.

The Army did not ask for the XM8. The XM8 was a collaboration between HK and an Army officer who worked in the OICW program. Since there is always R&D money floating around, the XM8 was granted a test. We test all kinds of things. The Army did not draw up any specifications or requirements for the Xm8. It's a non-developmental program. Badger, I know you have some of the Collector Grade Publications. So I'm sure you are familiar with all of the dead end roads and programs that are done, just so they can learn about what's possible and what's not with current technology so that maybe they can add something to the next program to come along.

Remember the Advanced Combat Rifle Program in the early 90s? The Army solicited prototypes from several manufacturers. Army Times covered the program with a cover story just like they did the XM8. Some of the rifles made the same improvements over the M16 as the XM8 does. But at the end of the day it was decided that none of them offered a big enough improvement over what we already had to justify the cost of changing over. That my friend, will be the XM8s fate. No new system is fielded without a lot of problems. The XM8 will be no different. The M1 wasn't very old and they ended up redesigning the gas system. The M14 wasn't around long enough to become a fully fielded rifle. It never got a chance to evolve into what it could have been. Look at what we started with in 1962 and what we went through until we got the M16A1 in 66. 30 hand built prototypes will give us an idea of what the rifle is capable of. 200 in the hands of the soldiers will just scratch the surface of potential problems. It's a long, expensive process for what is going to amount to a negligable increase in capability. If HK was smart, they'd be designing a rifle with an integrated sight unit that would give us point and click marksmanship. I predict that that's where the next breakthrough that lands us a new rifle will be. Believe it or not, the Army would like a rifle that anyone could pick up and max the record fire course with, after a couple hours training. The guy that builds a rifle that is as light and reliable as we have now, and has an integrated sight that tells the soldier when he should press the trigger, cause he'll hit the target (maybe a dot that changes color) will have the Army beating down the door. Because that will free up a lot of training time for collective training.

Jeff

 

[JWH]

Until then how about a truce on this subject until the test data is released and we actually can compare things?

Jeff, buddy! I was just taking your advice when you broke your vow of silence and piped in again. That's OK, I understand. It's an emotional issue! ;-)

Let them test the XM8 and see how it does. I have no personal stake in it. I do have what I think is a personal stake in the U.S. military having the best rifle available. I want our guys to have an edge over everybody else in every way! Anyway, testing will determine the XM8s merits, as it will any new cartridge (which is what I'm holding out for).

When is XM8 field testing supposed to be over? Wasn't it something like May 2004? Until then I'll PROBABLY . . . well MAYBE, hold my peace on the subject.

Over and out!

John

 

[Spark]

If HK was smart, they'd be designing a rifle with an integrated sight unit that would give us point and click marksmanship.

Then you guys would be complaining about battery powered rifles and how the M16 was better because it doesn't rely on a power source.

No matter what someone comes up with, there will always be complaints from some people. It could have mystical Star Trek ray gun powers and people would bitch because it doesn't have 40 years of battlefield experience or the prototypes are hand built. A strawman argument is a strawman argument, and there's always a way to shoot something down, no matter who good it is.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I can't speak for other people, but I for one would probably the first to jump on the (whatever weapon that might replace the m-16) bandwagon if it was actually demonstrably better in areas that mean something to the soldier in the field, instead of things that hobbyist bench shooters care about.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you guys would be complaining about battery powered rifles and how the M16 was better because it doesn't rely on a power source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the old, "They didn't do it, but *I* think they'd do it, so that proves they're bad," ploy.

 

[Spark]

Oh for the love of pete, Vern. Do a search for "Land Warrior", OICW or any future soldier thread. In each one you'll read about how batteries suck for weapons and nothing mission critical should have them, and anything without batteries is better. You think I am making this up?

 

[Jeff White]

Jeff, buddy! I was just taking your advice when you broke your vow of silence and piped in again. That's OK, I understand. It's an emotional issue! ;-)

No John I can back to keep peace in Badger's house

Badger Arms said in response to my request for a truce;

Yes, but then what will I do with all of my spare time? You can only clean your guns so many times. The wife complains about the smell of EEZOX and Break Free in the air!

I know the nights are long in Alaska, I've been there (with an M16A1 that worked fine in the sub zero temperatures in the interior during BRIMFROST 83, thank you very much ) I'd hate to think my bowing out would cause tension on the home front .

I want our guys to have an edge over everybody else in every way! Anyway, testing will determine the XM8s merits, as it will any new cartridge (which is what I'm holding out for).

I just heard from a friend who is in a position to know, that we're not going to go with 6.8x43 and that SOCOM probably won't go it alone because of the cost.

When is XM8 field testing supposed to be over? Wasn't it something like May 2004? Until then I'll PROBABLY . . . well MAYBE, hold my peace on the subject.

They are going to play with the 30 prototypes they have until May. Then they may or may not go further. The next step is usually procurement of 100 to 200 rifles and outfitting a platoon with them and running it head to head with a platoon equipped with current equipment. I doubt the XM8 will make it that far. Not because it might not be a good rifle, but because the Army really isn't that interested in it.

Fix posted the dirty little secret about the XM8. Somebody who worked on the XM29 project on the military side retired when the XM29 was killed, went to work for HK and used some contacts in the procurement and test bureuocracy to get the XM8 a test. When all this started last summer, there was no XM8. It was a gleam in the eye of a couple people at HK. They took plastic mockups around to the trade shows. the first real XM8s were handbuilt in Oberndorf in mid October. All of the hype on HK USA's website, all of the hype in Army Times and the other trade publications is just that, hype. It's HK's engineers best guess at what the rifle is capable of.

Spark said;

Then you guys would be complaining about battery powered rifles and how the M16 was better because it doesn't rely on a power source.

We already rely on a power source. The M68 CCO, the AN/PVS-14, AN/PVS-17, AN/PAQ-4 and AN/PEQ-2 all use batteries. The only non powered sighting systems used with the M16/M4 are the iron sights and the Trijicons. Batteries are a fact of life in the modern military.

A strawman argument is a strawman argument, and there's always a way to shoot something down, no matter who good it is.

You know what, if the M16/M4 was at the end of it's service life, if all of the ones in the inventory were so worn out, that we were buying new lower receivers to repair them, like we were with the M60, I would have no problem with looking at the XM8, the SIG550 or any other off the shelve weapon, because we would need rifles right now. But we don't. The M16A2s and A4s that are coming out of Columbia, SC are replacing serviceable M16A1s in the reserve components. Why are we replacing them if they are still serviceable? So we can retire the M193 and M196 rounds, and stop painting the tips of M855 and M856 green and orange so we can tell them apart in the field. Think about it, in a couple years our entire army will have three 5.56 rounds to worry about, M855, M856 and M995? which is the tungsten core AP round that only comes linked for the M249.

You can afford to buy a new rifle, a new car, a new whatever anytime you want, you only buy one at a time. the Army is a different proposition. They have to buy in lage quantities. Durable items like trucks and rifles have a lifespan figured into the cost of procurement. As a taxpayer, do you want to scrap all the relatively new rifles we have for a new one that doesn't offer any large increase in capability? The DOD doesn't call up the mint and say, "Print up a bunch more hundred dollar bills, I wannacoolgun..." The government creates no wealth. Every penny the government spends comes from the hard work of people in the private sector. Are we doing the people who have to pay for everything any favors by asking them to buy us this coolgun?

Jeff

 

[Spark]

Batteries are a fact of life in the modern military.

Don't have to tell me. Tell the innovation haters.

[New rifle buying]

Hey, using your logic, and since you say the M16 is so modular, why aren't these rifles all being sent to 3 shop and having the barrels only replaced? Hell, if we did have a modular rifle, we'd only need to replace the barrels (at the unit level), and we wouldn't have to be buying all the new ones to replace them, which by your words, haven't reached the end of their service life. You're making my argument for me.

Oh well. Government has always been great at throwing good money after bad.

It's not worth arguing about it anymore. All of these component purchases, new rifle purchases, "product improvements" still wind up costing more than a new system because you have to buy 2 rifles to do the job the first one should have. But, according to you, this is saving money.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Whoa there Badger Arms...come down out of the tree.

We're just having some friendly discourse. Lighten up a little...

I appreciate and respect the honesty you have shown with respect to your own experience with the M16/AR15. I can readily continue debate with someone who is honest. I will also refrain from delivering any ad hominum attacks against a Military Brother.

If it makes you feel better, the M96 idea has been seriously pursued by Army SF. Guess what caliber? 7.62 x 39mm, using AK mags. It only makes sense when you're going to wind up in areas overflowing with that caliber. Of course, Crane Industries wants to sell their pet version to SOF. Eventually (in the next year or so) we'll wind up with what we want. I actually like the Expeditionary Rifle (of course I used to gripe that we needed the Stoner 63 system for all the same reasons that you are a fan of the HK). My opinion has since matured and changed.

The SIG? I've seen a few carried by some spooky types and it has a good reputation but is really just another M4 vs HK discussion. No real gains which would justify rearming the whole force.

Tell me again why we need to replace all of our M16s RIGHT NOW? Contrary to what you may think, the majority of our weapons are not worn out or even that old. There is a finite performance envelope for current rifle/cartridge performance...the concept has been pushed about as far as current technology will allow. Every change or modification is just an incremental tweak at this point. Show me a fire and forget rifle projectile that hunts you down and kills you (after chasing you thru right angle turns) and I'm all ears. Show me a man-portable version of MetalStorm technology. Somebody develop a revolutionary light weight power source for a soldier carried Directed Energy Weapon and you have my attention. I just don't see the need to move from the nice house I built into a nearly identical new design two doors down. I've got other places to invest my money.

I am not a fossilized Luddite. To the contrary, I LOVE new technology and widgets, especially when they really do something positive for me. I too grew up with and love the 1911, but I wouldn't support re-issue of the old warhorse for the general military population. Once upon a time, I too ageed with COL Cooper that the DA/SA autoloader was a solution in search of a problem. Today I am a big fan of decocker-equipped pistols. I can't understand how Army Ordnance could have dictated the continued use of the basic Springfield musket design well into the magazine-fed metallic cartridge era (placing ego, politics, and money ahead of performance and soldier survival). I'm a big fan of history as it allows us to learn from the past.

I don't lament the passing of the 8-track tape nor will I cry at the funeral service for the CD. On the other hand, some designs withstand the tests of time. I still like seeing an A-10 over my head instead of an F-16. I am continually amazed at the performance of C-130s and CH-47s designed around the time I was born. I own and trust a 1911A1 built before I was born.

I believe that human destiny lays in space. I believe that significant developments in artificial intelligence, nano-technolgy, cold fusion, bioengineering, genetic modification, faster-than-light travel, and cures for aging or disease are just around the bend. I also believe that the tool using animal will continue to place some of his best efforts into figuring out more efficient ways to kill off the competition.

(Bear with me...I'm almost back on topic)

For that reason, as one of Uncle Sugar's designated Foreign Policy Extension Technicians, I have a vested interest in my equipment...all of it. Weapons, boots, cold weather gear, compass, ruck, optics, radios, GPS, ammunition, socks, skis, parachutes, knives, even my field toothbrush...they all get ruthlessly examined concerning past performance and judged for future efficiency. What works I use. What fails I lose. Configuration of gear and weapons is a continuosly evolving process best implemented with deliberation and forethought. When you change the nation's rifle, the bet is your life. As Bill Jordan said, "No Second Place Winner".

I wouldn't dare tell you how to fix an aircraft; thus I'm amazed that you are so opinionated about the tools of my trade...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW: If Hillary ever gets elected, we'll see the XM8 issued to the remaining 4 divisions of our Army

 

[Spark]

Tell me again why we need to replace all of our M16s RIGHT NOW?

I don't think anyone is saying this has to be rushed into production tomorrow. As a matter of fact, I'll wager that every XM8 proponent wants a full, unbiased, head to head testing followed by trial deployment and gradual migration. Not one of us is saying "throw away the M16 today for this rifle that hasn't been produced in mass quantity". Of course, with modern production techniques there's no reason a properly CAD'd design can't be churned out in mass quantities once the specs & molds are done right. I just prefer it get done right the first time.

What we are saying is that it is time for a new platform that fixes many of the inherent problems with the M16 series. One that has more modularity, greater mission flexibility, and is not tied down to a single caliber. One that has better ergonimics, weighs less, costs less, and is engineered better. One that incorporates 40 years of lessons learned and has built in what we have to currently purchase from multiple vendors. A platform that can be upgraded over and over and over again, and super-maintained by the end user.

No more, no less.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Spark:

For the love of pete, did any of US write those comments?

 

[Spark]

Vern - it's the next logical step and displays the same line of thinking. Not a far stretch bro. I mean, some people are saying the gas system in the M16 is just fine; obviously there's something wrong with them

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That would be YOUR logic, not ours. You attribute, in a friendly discussion, attitudes and actions that no one here has displayed.

 

[Spark]

Let's see, Vern, if these arguments sounds familiar "It's new, if it ain't broke don't fix it, our current rifle is fine, the new one isn't battle proven, the prototypes are hand assembled, it doesn't do enough new stuff, blah blah blah blah blah." Don't quibble about logical conclusions & anticipated responses to a friggin HYPOTHETICAL argument involving HYPOTHETICAL systems.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Do you have a vested interest in the Xm8 being adopted, spark?

You seem a tad emotionally invested in a discussion about a weapon that only exists in the form of 30 prototypes.

A step back may be in order.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The issue is simply this -- there is a risk in fielding a new weapons system. The fact that we are in a shooting war exacerbates that risk -- and many of us here have personal experience in that field.

The XM8 offers no greater tactical capabilities than the M16. And therefore the risk is not justified.

 

[Spark]

Andrew - I'd suggest you look 5 posts above yours. Read. Comprehend. Post. I could give a crap what we adopt as long as it represents 1. the best equipment possible for our soldiers, 2. gives us a cost savings in the long run and 3. ELIMINATES KNOWN PROBLEMS from the predecessor system.

Vern - Please see my arguments about the HMMWV and the Jeep re tactical abilities. Load bearing vests are another great argument about "tactical utility". So are the PASGT vests, Ranger body armor, and the new Interceptor vests. What else is there, oh yeah, the Comp M, night vision goggles, etc etc etc. We spend tons of money on things that offer a "little bit" more of an edge.

Furthermore, from a tactics standpoint it presents an evolutionary refinement in the battle rifle concept (like the M96 and Stoner 63 before it), by presenting a system that is modular, upgradable, & more cost efficient. Blah blah blah blah blah.

From a logistical stand point, if two systems offer the same abilities, for the same price, but one offers a modular upgrade path and a long term costs savings, which one should we pursue? Keep in mind that no matter what, we're still going to have to purchase new rifles for a variety of sundry reasons and no one is saying that we should just throw all those juicy M4's into the trash when some would be very much appreciated in my house (or sold to foriegn military, or police depts or whatever). Good logistics included migration paths & schedules, & like it or not, Logistics is just as much a part of war as tactics.

 

[Jeff White]

Spark,
Your analogies are just a little off.

Please see my arguments about the HMMWV and the Jeep re tactical abilities.

I loved the M151 jeep. But the DOT requires them to be cut up before they are sold to the general public because they roll over so easily. They were gasoline powered. The Army is very close to being able to use JP8 for everything that burns fuel. Talk about logistics planning. The HMMWV helped make that possible. The HMMWV replaced both the M151 series 1/4 ton truck (the jeep) and the M880 series 1 1/4 ton truck (the Dodge pickups that never were tactical vehicles) and possibly the worst truck the Army ever fielded, the Gamma Goat. If you can't accept that replacing all those different vehicles in all their different versions with one vehicle with a high number of parts throughout a significant improvement, both in capabilities and the ability to support the fleet, then it takes a lot to impress you and I'm surprised you aren't on my side in this debate.

So are the PASGT vests, Ranger body armor, and the new Interceptor vests.

There is a major difference in capability here. The PAGST vest shouldn't even be lumped in with the other two. Yes, they are all body armor, but the RBA and IBA both can actually stop bullets. It's simply folly for you to suggest that our troops have equal protection of just a small increase in protection between the trhee systems. RBA was the first system designed for ground troops that was designed to stop bullets, not just low velocity fragments. It is a 1000% improvement over the PAGST. The IBA gives equal if not better protection then the RBA and it's light enough to conduct sustained operations in. Another quantum leap in capability.

the Comp M, night vision goggles,

So the Comp M (M68 CCO in Armyspeak) doesn't give us added capability. The scores on the range don't bear that out. Tomorrow I'll dig out some reports and give you exact stats on how much better our soldiers shoot with the M68 then with irons. Are you suggesting that a device that greatly increases our ability to actually hit what we aim at is a minor improvement? And our night vision capability doesn't give as much of an advantage over our enemy? Come on my friend, think about what you're saying here.

From a logistical stand point, if two systems offer the same abilities, for the same price, but one offers a modular upgrade path and a long term costs savings, which one should we pursue?

First of all, if you think HK is going to bring the XM8 in at the projected cost in their brochure, I've got some oceanfront property here in Southern Illinois I'll make you a heck of a deal on. The XM8 will cost more then the M16 and you know it. Who do you think is paying for this testing? The Army is. HK doesn't have any money tied up in it. In fact HK is making money off of these tests. We have stocks of spares for the M16 series that will work in any of the versions fielded. If we buy the XM8 we will have to buy a complete stock of spare parts. Unless this vaunted modularity you talk about allows them to use M16 repair parts. The parts we have in stock were paid for budgets ago. It's not new money. We haven't used the XM8 yet. So we don't even know what spare parts to buy. We can only guess at what PLL stockage should be. So undoubtedly we'll initially buy spares we won't use, and discover we're breaking something no one ever thought we'd break. I can take a rifle company into extended combat with the current weapons today, and I know what to tell my armorer to pack. The list of things to carry I picked up in 29 years, was begun by those going before me. Now you give anyone a company equipped with XM8s and they won't have the slightest idea what they need. No one, not even HK knows this. No one possibly can know this. there are only 30 of these weapons in the entire world. There is no way you can say it's cheaper. No one can.

Keep in mind that no matter what, we're still going to have to purchase new rifles for a variety of sundry reasons

Why are we going to have to buy new rifles for sundry reasons? Do you have any idea how many we've produced? How many are in war reserve? How many conversion kits for the A1s to A2s and A4s we have? M16 production is going to shut down because we've built enough of them to meet all of our requirements.

Then there is this....

3. ELIMINATES KNOWN PROBLEMS from the predecessor system.

Are any units unable to complete their mission because of these known problems? No there are no units that are unable to perform their mission because of the known problems with the M16. So the problems must no longer be probelms because we seem to be doing pretty well. You might even say that the problems are really tied to someone's personal preferances in what makes a good assault rifle. You guys harp on the gas system, yet lo and behold they still run. You harp on the reliability yet very few people who have extensive experience using them complain about it. Why do you think that is. Yes the magazines are crap. But HK is building a nice magazine that is made out of steel and isn't prone to the bending and denting of the feed lips. Ever wonder what reliabilty would be from an M6 that only used the good HK mags?

What about known problems with the XM8? Well just because we don't know of any (because no one has any experience with them) doesn't mean there won't be any. And you know what, it's not a good idea to find out what they are, while the bad guys are shooting back.

Spark my friend, you are asking me to give my 20 year old son Mark (an Infantryman like his father was) an unproven rifle to take into battle. I am not willing to do that. I am unwilling to see any young soldier die because someone thinks that the XM8 is a good idea. I entered the Army in 1974. I knew and served with people who went through the fiasco that was the M16s fielding. Guys like you and Badger who have such a poor opinion of the M16 might not feel that way if we had been able to work the bugs out of it before we sent it to war. Think of all the little things that tripped the M16 up, the inability to produce IMR powder in sufficient quantity to support the troops and the switch to ball powder that was the cause of so many problems. Are you 100% positive that some little thing like that won't have the same unintendended consequence with the XM8? I might be willing to take the chance if the rifle gave us any thing that was more capability then what we have now. But it doesn't. It has the same effective range, shoots the same M855 ammunition. The weight difference is negligable. And it has that damnable 12.5" barrel on the carbine version. And the fact that you can fit it with a 20 inch doesn't matter. You see our shooters need the shorter weapon to do the type of CQB work they are doing. So the trade off is 40 meters of range at which the M855 round is at a high enough velocity for best terminal effects or a carbine compact enough to make the job easier. You willing to make that trade?

Jeff

 

[Spark]

Jeff, reread your entire post. Reread my past posts. Stop going M16 LALALALALALA and bother to read and comprehend what I am saying.

I challenge you to find where I said, "Drop everything, sell every M16 and put the XM8 in service tomorrow, untested." Take 5 minutes, 1 hour, 2 days and search where for where I said something even remotely along those lines.

Jeff, I spent 4 years in the regular army myself, and I too have direct experience with the M16 in the field. I was issued no less than 6 different ones during my time (91-94), including an overstamped A1, a milled out remanufactured A2, 2 M203s, and 2 standard A2s. At Bragg, we had to qualify every month - and each time at the range, there were always problems. Every qualification range at Korea we saw alibi shooters. Every live fire ex, squad ARTEP, Sapper Leader course, etc, there was always at least one guy who had a misc. malfunction. Such is life. I don't claim to be an 18B, or an 11B, or have spent 30 years as a 45B, but I *did* see the problems with my own two eyes. I spent the countless hours cleaning after the field. I've seen M16's broken in half after bad PLF's. I've seen bent barrels. I've seen stocks that didn't fit the shooters. While I appreciate that the M16 is the best option we have right now, that doesn't mean I don't think we should drop it should a more reliable platform comes along.

The point with my Jeep vs. HMMWV seemed to fly directly over your head. Instead of having M16A2's & M4's & M203's & M21's & M24s & whatever, you can have one system that can do it all with minor mods, all done by the end user, instead of sending it to the 3 shop. Hence, my support for a program that reduces the logistical tail - whether it's the XM8 or whatever else. Hell, if we have computers that can recognize USB devices from scanners to cameras to joysticks, why is it too much to ask for a rifle that accepts quick change barrels and magwells and stocks and triggergroups? Are you that silly that if one fell out of the sky tomorrow, and it was found after testing to be just as reliable as the M16, you wouldn't accept it as a viable alternative?

You keep harping "It's too much money" yet, you ignore the fact that countless dollars are dropped down the drain for gear that isn't as important as a rifle. You couldn't care less and the dichotomy is amazing. Instead, you feel this money is well spent, but any money spent towards a more efficient rifle platform is wasted? :banghead:

Your "quantum leaps" started life as "untested & unproven" items without "40 years of experience" before they got fielded. Do you HONESTLY think I would advocate your son be given a rifle that didn't get the same level of testing? I was right when I predicted someone would use "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN" as an appeal to emotion after all it would seem.

You can pull as many Red Herrings out of your hat as you feel, but they all fail the same arguments you defended such as the HMMWV vs Jeep. You think we didn't have POL spares for it? Or the M60 tank? Or the UH-1H? Yet, somehow the money spent on that is less valuable than the money spent on the M16? Yet we switched over because we found a better system.

For the umpteenth time, I am not saying "Hand over our soldiers lives to an unproven piece of crap, rushed into production without testing, just because HK is building a factory in GA" Get that through your head. I am saying that the time has come to bring forward a better rifle and our soldiers deserve better than what we have. Don't you care about your son? Wouldn't you want him to have a better rifle if one was available? It's for the CHILDREN

Hell, you are ignoring your own damn direct experience, and are too blind to see it. Are you that hidebound that you can't accept that maybe, just maybe, something better could be built? Heck, you wax about the development problems of the M16, yet you are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt (let alone the time & money) to a successor program? I think there's a name for that somewhere...

 

[Nightcrawler]

I don't understand.

All of the AR-15 guys like carbines. Barely anybody buys 20" ARs anymore, it seems.

Everyone here seems to say the M4 is better than the M16 'cause it's shorter.

So now the barrel is TOO short? You're complaining that the barrel isn't long enough? A 5.56mm rifle should have a barrel at least 18" long, in my opinion, given that it's a velocity dependent cartridge.

So now 14.5" is the perfect ideal barrel length?

If "fragmentation" range is decreased, so what? Doesn't everybody go on and on about how modern wars are short ranged only, and that we have artillery and air support for targets more than a couple hundred meters away?

And about that fragmentation; you guys that like to shoot your AR-15s at 400+ yards aren't going to get fragmentation, either, but you don't say that the AR-15 is ineffective beyond what, 150 meters?

Just asking for a little consistency here, my friends. I mean, you want longer effective range, better standoff distance? Higher lethality at range? What do you want to do, re-equip our army with ACOG'd 7.62x51mm rifles? I mean, you guys kind of sound like the M14 guys arguing against the adoption of the M16.

As for the XM-8...YES, the barrel length is too short. Much too short. The "sharpshooter" version is a complete joke; a DMR should be in 7.62x51mm, not 5.56. That light machine gun variant is an even bigger joke; it's HK's stupid MG36, complete with non-heavy, non-quick change barrel and beta-C mag, firing from a closed bolt. The SAW is a much better LMG.

Remember, there are many differences between a civvie AR-15 and a military M16. Military guns don't have the free-float barrels (the front sling swivel hangs off of the barrel under the front sight tower), match triggers, or any of that. An AR-15 is not an M16, and vice-versa. (I say this to the folks that jumped on a guy for wanting an M14 rifle, instead of specifying "M1A"). But that's beyond the point and I just like to rag on the AR guys.

Anyway, unless the M8 rifle will be adopted in that new 6.8mm cartridge, I don't really see the point in adopting it. It's probably less maintenance intensive than the M16, but it doesn't do anything that the M16 doesn't, really and truly, I guess.

As for M16 reliability. I've heard just as many combat vets loving the rifle as hating it, and I've heard compelling arguments both ways. Which vets am I supposed to believe? I can only go on my experiences; in my experience, the M16 requires frequent cleaning. Before I get flamed for this observation, remember that how YOUR post-ban Bushmaster AR-15 clone performs has little to do with how my General Motors made, 25 year old M16A1 does. Please. The M16 isn't a bad rifle, but it's not an especially good one, either. If the design was truly superior, other designs would be copying the direct-gas-impengement, but none have. But, after some 40 years of dickering, we seem to have gotten it working well enough, well enough that a total changeover might not be worth the effort.

One note on the M8; I do not believe it can be converted to 7.62x51mm. I don't think the receiver is long enough. The G36 on which it's based isn't available in a 7.62x51mm variant, to the very best of my knowledge.

 

[JWH]

Was reading up on the G36 and came across a link to an article by Charlie Cutshaw. He says, "Although there is no official acknowledgment by Heckler & Koch, it is clear that the G36 has roots in the ArmaLite AR-18. The AR-18 operating system is superior to that of the M16 (AR-15) because it eliminates gas and powder fouling being blown back into the receiver, a problem which has plagued the M16 since its introduction." [1]

I don't know if you consider Cutshaw an authority or not, but his opinion of the M16 echoes that of some other posters in this thread.

John

[1] Cutshaw, Charlie. "Bundeswehr Battle Rifle: G36 Truly A Soldier's Rifle." Soldier of Fortune, August 1998. Posted on Web at: http://home.c2i.net/johnhe/g36_sof.html.










By