M-16 production to end?

Kinsman · Dec 30, 2003

The XM8 will provide lethality performance comparable to the currently fielded M4 carbine rifle, while weighing 20 percent less than the M4 because of advanced technologies developed for the XM29 program.

The XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle will reduce the 21st century soldier's load and increase his mobility.

Jeff White · Dec 30, 2003

fix · Dec 30, 2003

Weapons are fielded based on their ability to perform under the requirements of current doctrine. Based on our current tactics, there is no better platform than the AR...period. Until there is a major shift in tactics, there will most likely be no major changes to the basic platform. Barring a major technological development that renders old fashioned bullet launchers obsolete entirely, we will not see a change in weaponry until there is a change in doctrine. Much like doctrine will dictate the platform, logistics will have a heavy influence on the ammunition. The M16 family and the 5.56 NATO round are here to stay...for a loooooong time. It is not just wild cooincidence that it is already the longest serving weapon in US history. The XM8 is interesting, but I see no real advantages over the current system. The M4 and it's ilk will eventually filter down through the ranks, much to the dismay of drill and marksmanship teams (who, unfortunately, had way too much input when it came to the A2 design).

Slater · Dec 30, 2003

If the XM8 offers no advantages in overall effectiveness, but is easier to clean and maybe more resistant to dirt/fouling, would that alone be a reason to adopt it?

Duke of Lawnchair · Dec 30, 2003

Slater,

That could be a good enough reason to adopt it, and probably should be a good enough reason. However, the XM8 is probably some brass's pet project before retirement (I admit I don't know enough about the program to think otherwise). Anyone familiar with NMCI would vouch for that.

Jim

Andrew Wyatt · Dec 30, 2003

The XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle will reduce the 21st century soldier's load and increase his mobility.

It'll reduce a soldier's load by a whopping pound and a half.

fix · Dec 30, 2003

If the XM8 offers no advantages in overall effectiveness, but is easier to clean and maybe more resistant to dirt/fouling, would that alone be a reason to adopt it?

Easier to clean? No. The M16 is pretty easy to clean in the field in my experience.

Resistant to dirt/fouling? Maybe, but it would have to be an order of magnitude better (think AK) without sacrificing anything else to achieve it.

Kaylee · Dec 30, 2003

The XM8 will provide lethality performance comparable to the currently fielded M4 carbine rifle, while weighing 20 percent less than the M4 because of advanced technologies developed for the XM29 program.

The XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle will reduce the 21st century soldier's load and increase his mobility.

Wow.. that's right up there with 5.56 "KE" rounds for marketing speak.

Cool.

Tell ya what, swap in a lightweight 20" tube (and/or upchamber it to 6.8), change out the flash gordon carry handle and integrated optic for a G36-ish iron sight/top rail that can accept new optics as they come along, and swap out the magwell for one that can take standard NATO mags (the steel HK ones are fine, just not the G36 plastic ones that are half again as bulky as they should be) -- and I'll agree with you that the XM8 is at the very least not a step backwards.

Now I WILL credit the G36/XM8 platform that all of those are relatively minor, easy to make changes.

-K

Vern Humphrey · Dec 30, 2003

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the money for the XM8 program would be better spent getting body armor to our troops, or optics for every soldier, or whatever,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote 2:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This same logic suggests that we should have bought more trapdoor Springfields instead of rearming with the Krag.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The move to the Krag was a quantum move -- going from a black powder single shot to a smokeless powder repeater. There is no similar quantum leap on the horizon.

A new weapon will fire either the same cartridge, or one so similar that an M16 with a new upper will function fine.

What we will get is a new rifle, with all the inherent bugs and surprises new equipment has, and no increase in capability.

Balog · Dec 30, 2003

fix wrote:

Based on our current tactics, there is no better platform than the AR...period.

Our tactics depend heavily on cleaning your weapon seven times a day, eh?

fix · Dec 30, 2003

You'll find out soon enough.

Cosmoline · Dec 30, 2003

I must admit I've always hated that rifle. It represents the worst of post-war America. Overengineered, too complicated, and too expensive. A rifle designed by pinstriped airplane engineers for a bunch of idiot bean counters. It's so badly designed it must be cleaned several times a day or malfunction. That's per se defective, but hey it's American so we have to keep buying it.

I've always felt more comfortable with the rifle designed by a veteran recovering from war wounds. Sadly we aren't going to be adopting a version of it.

fix · Dec 30, 2003

Did I misunderstand you?

I've always felt more comfortable with the rifle designed by a veteran recovering from war wounds.

Perhaps we should have Jessica Lynch whip up something. It would never have to be cleaned, the "box hole" wouldn't jam, and the "bullet shots" wouldn't be so loud.

Gene Stoner was a Marine Veteran of WWII and a Purple Heart recipient.

Either way...gotcha.

Badger Arms · Dec 30, 2003

Ahhhh, I love these threads:

Weapons are fielded based on their ability to perform under the requirements of current doctrine. Based on our current tactics, there is no better platform than the AR...period.

On the contrary, weapons and their limitations DICTATE current doctrine and always have. Our current reliance on wonderweapons such as JDAM and cruise missiles might very well result from the precieved deficiencies of the 5.56 to operate beyond 300 meters. Nothing to do with the XM8 here, just an observation.

The move to the Krag was a quantum move -- going from a black powder single shot to a smokeless powder repeater. There is no similar quantum leap on the horizon.

Vern, you seem to suggest here that we MUST keep the M16 until such time as a quantom leap on the order of the switch from black powder to smokeless arrives? I respectfully disagree with this premise. There is no measurable factor at work here. Let's say that we keep the SS109 ammo and focus on the gun. From what has been reported here and in the dozen other threads of a similar nature, the 5.56 round is the problem, not the gun. Given that, NO GUN IN 5.56 will EVER CUT THE MUSTARD! Logic follows that we must switch calibers. If we switch calibers, which rifle do you think is better able to handle the new caliber? Right now, new calibers are being developed to adapt to the M16! We'd be switching calibers, why not switch guns at the same time?

Resistant to dirt/fouling? Maybe, but it would have to be an order of magnitude better (think AK) without sacrificing anything else to achieve it.

It is nearly that. You cannot reach the level of reliability of the AK without sacraficing accuracy. You also cannot reach that level with the nearly straight-walled .223. If you have sand, dust, or other fouling on the case of the 5.56, all bets are off. The 7.62x39's case taper allows it to just squish that matter onto the case and extract it when the round fires. With the AR, you have to wedge the case in with the Jam-Maker (forward assist, whatever) and then hope it extracts.

fix · Dec 30, 2003

From what has been reported here and in the dozen other threads of a similar nature, the 5.56 round is the problem, not the gun.

The only thing we can deduce from these threads is that arm chair commandos are alive and well. Is the 5.56 less effective than the 7.62? Well, duh. The 7.62 is less effective than the .50 BMG. That doesn't render the 5.56 ineffective. The current issue ammo has more velocity and energy at 300 yds than a .357 Magnum does at the muzzle. I have yet to hear anyone call the .357 ineffective. And to suggest that we wouldn't need cruise missiles if our rifles could reach beyond 300 yds is just plain silly.

Edited to clarify: I personally think we need a more effective round and there is definitely something forthcoming, albeit for fairly restricted deployment. However, I do not believe that the 5.56 is so ineffective as to make this a top priority across the board.

Badger Arms · Dec 30, 2003

A rifle designed by pinstriped airplane engineers for a bunch of idiot bean counters.

In defense of Gene Stoner and the Aircraft Engineers at Armalite, this was only their Second attempt at a Battle rifle. The first was the AR-10. Their future endeavors were much more reliable, cheaper, and more practical. As I've said before, even Stoner said the 5.56x45 was underdeveloped. He'd said he wasn't a ballistics engineer and expected Army Ordnanace to tweak and redesign what was merely a wildcat into a proper military round. It was Robert McNamarra who essentially SCREWED the military with an undeveloped rifle.

Armalite went on to develop the AR-16 and it's little brother, the AR-18 which is the grandfather of the G36/XM8 family. Stoner went on to develop larger ordnance and a little jewel, the Stoner 63. The 63 was field tested in Vietnam by the Marines and eventually recommended for adoption by the Corps as superior to the M14 or M16. Too little, too late as Bob McNamarra's anal-retentive nerds said that all the services had to wear the same boots, shoot the same guns, and fly the same airplanes.

All three weapons are produced today. The AR-18 survives as, gasp, the British L85. Also the G36 with its bolt/gas system and the AR-180 from the current incarnation of Armalite. The Stoner 63 is the Robinson Armament 96. Of course, the AR-15 was the most numerous of the three Armalite/Gene Stoner weapons.

Vern Humphrey · Dec 30, 2003

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vern, you seem to suggest here that we MUST keep the M16 until such time as a quantom leap on the order of the switch from black powder to smokeless arrives? I respectfully disagree with this premise. There is no measurable factor at work here. Let's say that we keep the SS109 ammo and focus on the gun. From what has been reported here and in the dozen other threads of a similar nature, the 5.56 round is the problem, not the gun. Given that, NO GUN IN 5.56 will EVER CUT THE MUSTARD! Logic follows that we must switch calibers. If we switch calibers, which rifle do you think is better able to handle the new caliber? Right now, new calibers are being developed to adapt to the M16! We'd be switching calibers, why not switch guns at the same time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We keep the M16 because we KNOW the M16. We have fought several wars with it and know how it performs under a wide variety of conditions and how to keep it working. And we have vastly product-improved it, based on combat experience.

How would a new gun, with no track record, no vast experience in a variety of combat environments, match that?

What we'd get would be a weapon with all the unexpected glitches that turned up in the M16 when it was first fielded. I've been there and done that, and don't want to repeat the experience.

Cosmoline · Dec 30, 2003

Well perhaps more fault lies with the bean counters than the engineers. It would not be the first time Bob MacNamarra inadvertantly worked for the other side. Either way the end result was a plastic POS. The fact that it continued to serve more-or-less well owes more to our excellent troops than any good design. Jet aircraft engineering is about making things as perfect as possible, since even slight imperfection may mean instant death. Tight tolerances, light material, and state-of-the-art technology. But like the Russian proverb says, the best is the enemy of good enough. Firearm engineering is about using imperfections to their full advantage. The AK-47 does this.

But yes, if Jessica Lynch came up with anything as good as the AK-47 I'd hope we would use it.

Badger Arms · Dec 30, 2003

Vern:

I understand your apprehension at a new design. Your analogy is a bit off though. The AR-15 was a revolutionary design of untested concepts and advanced materials. In fact, many of those concepts were later proven to be as ineffective as the Blish Lock of Tommy-Gun fame. Some were downright dangerous. The Stocks were fragile, buffer completely useless, gas system sensative, chambering dubious, and magazines prone to jamming and damage. We've solved only the buffer and stock problems. We band-aided the gas system problem with strict guidelines about what powder to use. We 'fixed' the untapered case problem with a chrome chamber? The gun still has tight tolerances and minimal clearance. It still requires constant fastidious maintenance, and a clean diet to run well.

Enter the XM8. Wait, no, backup about 40 years to the AR-18. The bolt and gas system of the AR-18 were meant as an answer to the AR-15's lack of reliability. They got it right then, and many guns have been fielded and worked since then. Somali's even used their Australian built Armalites against us in Mogadishu alongside AK's. What's unproven about that? The G36 has already been adopted by at least two (don't keep count) European countries and has been in production for nearly a decade. It utilizes no new technologies and doesn't rely on mouse-milk to run. Reports from the field spurred design changes in the bolt release and heat shields for the handguards... that's about it.

The XM8 is more refined than ANY M16 carried in SouthEast Asia EVER was.

I'll tell you what, put an AR-18 gas system on an M16 and call it even!

Vern Humphrey · Dec 30, 2003

A single incident of use by Somalis proves nothing. As for Europeans, what wars have they fought, and how extensively?

Probably the most combat-experienced are the British -- and look at the rifle THEY have! :what:

We have a good rifle now, we know all its quirks, we have tons of spare parts in the supply system, plenty of accessories, lots of well-trained armorers and all our troops are trained on it.

What will this new rifle give us to replace all that? HOW will it be better? How can that be quantified?

Badger Arms · Dec 30, 2003

It seems you are unable to be convinced. Should we wait until another gun is bought in American Army quantites and fielded under battle conditions over the course of 40 years prior to us replacing our M16? That would mean that our M16's would have been replaced two or three times over with more M16's and then we'd have 80 years of service. Would your argument then be that we had to have a rifle with 80 years of flawless service first?

There is a defect in this logic. One cannot say that since we know what the flaws are in a weapon system, we should not replace that system for fear that the new system might have flaws we DON'T know about.

As an Aircraft mechanic, I used to dread working on newer aircraft. The engineers were always throwing modifications and TCTO's at us to tweak new airframes and overcome revealed dificiencies. It's true of all new systems, you are going to have bugs to work out. Problem is, you dismissed my counter-argument that the G36 has been fielded in large quantites. You dismissed it out of hand by saying: "As for Europeans, what wars have they fought, and how extensively?" You must admit that there is NO RIFLE that will satisfy this logic without having been fielded by the United states and we cannot field because we haven't fielded it. Catch 22 indeed.

There are quantifyable results to be obtained. Let the XM8 compete with the M4 and the M16A4 head-to-head under simulated battle conditions as well as destructive tests. A statistically significant increase in reliability is all that is required.

Is there anybody that will argue the following statements or can these positions be considered true:

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

N3rday · Dec 30, 2003

Now, I know we would have to sacrifice some accuracy to make the gun more reliable, but how much accuracy do we REALLY need? If we loosened the gun a bit and made it more reliable, do you think anyone would complain that is it 'too innaccurate'?

Its accurate enough if we can slap a scope on that sucka and snipe with it. In reference to handguns, 'combat acurrate' is a fairly loose term. I don't think we need all this extra accuracy, and no one would notice if we sacrificed some.

On paper, the XM-8 looks great. I don't know how it will perform, specifically because I haven't done enough research on it. But if our troops complain about reliability, then give them some!

fix · Dec 30, 2003

I'll go point by point

The XM8 will be easier to clean than the M4 -- Many argue this point while at the same time complaining that the M4 requires too much cleaning. #1 the M4 is not particularly difficult to clean. By clean, I mean for function, not inspection. #2, If the XM8 is such an improvement, why the focus on ease of cleaning?

The XM8 will have a greater MTBF than the M4 -- Replace 'will' with 'may' and I might believe you. Otherwise, you're just parroting HK marketspeak.

The XM8 is lighter than the M4 -- You say this as if the M4 weighs 20 lbs. The difference in weight is nominal.

The XM8 allows a greater degree of modularity than the M4 -- How so or rather, how much more modular do we need to get?

The XM8 operating system is significantly more compact than the M4 -- Agreed.

The XM8 receiver allows significantly more clearance than the M4 -- Clarify please.

The XM8 is less complicated than the M4 -- Debatable, on the grounds of prior training and muscle memory, but I'll concede your point.

The XM8 offers a greater degree of ambidexterity than the M4 -- Agree.

The XM8 increases field-serviceability over the M4 -- Clarify

The XM8 will adapt to a Grenade Launcher due to lack of a buffer assembly and light weight than the M4 --

So far, you've convinced me that it will be a super clean compact rifle that's good for left handed shooters. As I said before, the M4 is not that hard to clean. The M4 is quite compact. I daresay, compact enough. Being a lefty who has never had any real problems with the current rifles, I'd have to toss that one out too.

twoblink · Dec 30, 2003

I'm waiting for the 200 round .22LR magazine, in a full auto..

Run around with about 5000 rounds on ya of .22LR. That's the way to do it.. Why move to larger calibers when you can move to smaller calibers? (I'm just kidding!)

One thing Badger you failed to mention is; the XM8 looks more futuristic

and it's German..

fix · Dec 30, 2003

But if our troops complain about reliability, then give them some!

Anecdotal stories circulated about the errornet are not official after action reports. Official after action reports occasionally reflect issues with the rifles(and everything else out there), but not to the degree that errornet discussions would have you believe. There is NOT a great conspiracy to arm our troops with inferior rifles!

M-16 production to end?

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads