M-16 production to end?

[Cosmoline]

Tell you what. If I were commander-in-chief, I would personally ensure that the following took place:

Put 10,000 rounds through each without cleaning. Count misfires.

Beat the holy crap out of each one by bashing it as hard as possible against trees, concrete posts, etc. Record results.

Allow each one to rust for several weeks, then fire without cleaning. Record misfires and any injuries.

Finally, give each contender including the M-16A2 and the M-4 to me for some quality time at the compound.

2MOA would be the most accuracy I'd expect.

Then of course I'd switch from 5.56 Ball to 6.5mm Grendel with Barnes X bullets.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Badger Arms: My point is that the adoption of ANY new weapon is always fraught with risk. When you accept that risk IN COMBAT, you must have a justified reason for it, and "I think this new rifle will be a bit better" isn't adequate justification.

Now, if you could say "This new rifle will offer us a quantum improvement, with capabilities we never had before," the risk would be justified. But that's not the case here.

We only THINK this new rifle will be better -- and the most anyone can say is that if ALL the good points pan out in combat, and NO unexpected bad points come to light, the improvement will be marginal.

 

[Spark]

Ow wow. This is some of the most convoluted, twisted logic I've ever seen.

Hell, if we came out with man portable plasma weapons tomorrow, your logic would throw them out because it isn't BATTLE PROVEN HURR HURR.

There is a laundry list of reasons to switch. Not many not to.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

SHow me an xm8 that makes the army more effective than the equivalent amount of money spent on strella suppression kits, body armor and training would, and I'll retract everything bad i've ever said about HK and become an XM8 zombie.

 

[Fatelvis]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the "XM8"? What caliber does it fire?

 

[LeonCarr]

Have you ever noticed that of all the people that say that the .223/5.56 is an ineffective round, not a single one of them will volunteer to get shot with one? I still like the AR-15/M16 better than the XM8, regardless of what the perceived advantages are. I think people talk trash just because a weapon system gets OLD.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Spark -- that's not my position. My position is that there is no rifle available today that offers enough in increased capability to offset the risk factor.

And note that no one has even tried to tell us anything about increased capability of this new wonder rifle -- no one.

 

[Cosmoline]

I won't volunteer to get shot with a .25 ACP or a .38 S&W, either. But that doesn't mean either is ideal for the modern military.

 

[Badger Arms]

Vern: You seem to ask for the imposible here:

And note that no one has even tried to tell us anything about increased capability of this new wonder rifle -- no one.

You don't get increased ballistic capability without a new round or a longer barrel, period. Fine, put a 21" barrel and we have increased capability. Happy? What would you consider to be increased capability? Spell it out! I spelled out ten areas where the XM8 would beat the M4, give me your criteria for a new service weapon or would you deny that any weapon that shoots the SS109 will do the trick for you? Be realistic, what are your criteria?

When the ACR trials were going on, they were looking for double the hit probability at combat ranges. We can still reach that goal, but is that what we really need? The G11 could accomplish that, but it's clockwork breaching mechanism was an engineering nightmare. Consider a cross between the rugged reliability of the AK, the cartridge we are stuck with in the 5.56x45, and the cheap utilitarian aspects of the Glock.

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

There is more room inside the receiver of the XM8 for foreign matter to build up instead of impeding the operation of the weapon.

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

Case in point... I was able to disassemble into components the G36C that I had the opportunity to examine. This included magazine well, trigger group, handguard, gas system, and completely disassembling the bolt assembly. This is with zero training, in zero degree weather, and with gloved hands. With the proper tool, I could have removed and replaced the barrel as well. The M16 does NOT offer this level of maintainability. If for no other reason, the field-replacement of the barrel would greatly increase the versatility of the system.

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

Well, the buffer on the M4 telescopes behind the operating mechanism meaning that you cannot use the M4 as a kinetic module to a grenade launcher in the same way as you can mount a single grenade launcher to the bottom of the M4. This has a great deal to do with the fielding of the XM8. It is the stated (yet to be seen) position of the Army that an air-burst, shoulder fired, semi-automatic grenade launcher will be developed as a stand-alone weapon as will the XM8. When both systems and their sighting unit have been perfected, the units will be brought together in one system. Don't laugh, I doubt it too. I'd love to have the grenade launcher though.

 

[N3rday]

Now, no one would volunteer to be shot with a 5.56 BUT if I could choose one rifle round to be hit with (excluding .22lr) it would be 5.56

Its not a bad cartridge, but its problem lies in number: 5.56 versus something more in the 6mm-8mm range. It is accurate, and does have low recoil, but we really should only need one or two shots per target anyway...

 

[Tamara]

Let's see... we have two prominent sides in this debate:

One (we'll call it the "G36 0wn3s u!" crowd) is represented by a medical recruiter, a high school student, and an ESL teacher.

The other (we'll call it the "What's so great about this new poodle-shooter, anyway?" crowd) is represented by a SWAT officer/nee retired infantry NCO, a gunsmith, and a ranked three-gun competitor.

Hmmmm... which side to agree with? I'm torn...

 

[Badger Arms]

C'mon Tamara, attack the argument, not the person.

 

[Spark]

Fortunately, ignorance doesn't respect credentials. When in doubt, though, it never hurts to ignore the facts and attack your opponent.

Hey, but what the hell, thank god there's a bunch of experts online who know better than anyone in the development programs, especially when it comes to small arms. I mean, it's not like the US military has an ordnance branch, school for lessons learned, and 40 years of history (and all sorts of 21st century machining / engineering technology, materials & experience) to draw upon for any new designs that may come down the pipe - or the smarts to incorporate any of those lessons learned into specifications for replacements. Those idiots couldn't possibly know better than a

a SWAT officer/nee retired infantry NCO, a gunsmith, and a ranked three-gun competitor.

Heck, I'll bet in the entire armed services, we can't put forth a single squad of guys that have the above "qualifications". Sheetfire, we should just get every major policy decision straight from this here forum.

So, what exactly are the major flaws with the G36 again? And please compare them to the major flaws with the respective M16 / AR systems? Weigh one against the other and see which one really comes up short.

 

[Tamara]

Badger Arms,

What I'm attacking is the basis for the argument.

One side says "Every SWAT officer I've talked to that's been issued one of these things has been less than totally impressed." or "The fam-fires I've had left me cold" or "They were better than I thought they'd be, but... eh..."

The other says things like (and I've been trying to be gentle thus far by not ref'ing comment like this) "I was biased not by the literature but by the nature of being a student of the gun. This is one of those things that I could just FEEL when I started reading about the G36." (emphasis mine)

What you feel when reading about them and what the rest of us feel when working on them or being issued them may, in fact, be two different things.

 

[Tamara]

Spark,

Fortunately, ignorance doesn't respect credentials. When in doubt, though, it never hurts to ignore the facts and attack your opponent.

Apparently face-to-face friendship doesn't cut the mustard when a full-on frenzy of Iwannacoolgunvirus hits, either. "rolleyes" back atcha.

I have yet to have explained to me just what makes the G36 so friggin' superior to the M16, either.

Yeah, it corrects some of the design flaws of the AR, yet at the same time it manages to introduce several new ones of its own. F'rinstance, whose bright idea was it to replace the AR's gimpy, awkward charging handle with... er.. a different gimpy, awkward charging handle?

You show me a better mousetrap, and I'll beat a path to its maker's door. On the other hand, if the mousetrap you show me is, overall, no better, just different, then here's the machete, bro, any path-beating is up to you.

 

[Spark]

Well, I guess face to face friendship doesn't cover looking at the facts either, Tamara. Sorry but let's do some critical thinking, k?

Looking at your post, correcting many many many many of the design flaws isn't a "good enough" reason to switch systems?

I mean, hell, let's see, what are the advantages:

G36/ XM8 - True modularity allowing for spiral upgrades. That's Ingrish for "you can remove the part you need to and swap it out for something better without major tools". Most assemblies replacable by the operator.

M16 - You can sorta switch stuff by swapping uppers / lowers, necessitating multiple entire assemblies instead of loose component parts. Anything more than that requires depot level maintenance.

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8

G36/XM8 - True ambidextrous operation out of the box. Selector switch, mag release, charging handle, etc all are mirrored.

M16 - Charging handle is ambi. Mag release & selector are available as add-ons, do not come standard.

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8

G36/XM8 - operations system doesn't direct fouling into the mechanism. IE, it don't crap where it eats. Headspacing not a problem. Suppressor doesn't affect function.

M16 - ummmmmm, should I even bother?

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8

G36/XM8 - can take current 5.56 ammo & magazines. Changing to 6.8mm or .300 Whisper (oops, maybe I shouldn't mention that) isn't a problem thanks to design.

M16 - pretty much stuck with 5.56 & 6.8 because the system is constrained by the magwell / magazines.

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8

G36/XM8 - Integrated optics make everyone a designated marksman and can be seamlessy upgraded. Option exists though to just put iron sights on for base models. (My vote)

M16 - Iron sights are the base model. Optics require, you guessed it, different uppers, or all sorts of third party workarounds. Upgraded ammo renders built in iron sight units USELESS at long ranges.

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8 though in my opinion it's more of a draw.

G36/XM8 - Stock can be changed to whatever you want in the field (XM8) or folds completely (G36) Stock breakage has occured with G36 stocks however IIRC.

M16 - Buffer tube requires minimum stock length. Stock not user replacable.

ADVANTAGE: G36/XM8

There's more and more and more, but the most important thing is that this provides a BASE for now and future operations. The M16 is pretty much a dead end, we've done just about everything we can to it; continuing to make changes to it in the long run will wind up costing MORE than switching out the entire system because of the nature of the beast. The XM8 was designed to be upgradeable in every aspect, the M16 wasn't.

There comes a point where you can continue to throw money away trying to fix your old system, or spend money on a new one and save yourself the cost of more "fixes" that should have been organic in the first place.

The G36 has been in use for 10 years or so, right? Let's give the designers some credit - they probably said something like "Hey, the M16 is the most popular system out there, how can we make a better mousetrap?" and worked from there. Not, "Hey, let's just come out with a new rifle for the heck of it - someone will buy it because it's just HK!!!!!1!1LORFL"

 

[Badger Arms]

You show me a better mousetrap, and I'll beat a path to its maker's door.

And therein lies the problem. Given your argument, it's not better enough, eh?

What you feel when reading about them and what the rest of us feel when working on them or being issued them may, in fact, be two different things.

Are you implying that it's only by issuing the XM8 as the M8 that we can truly KNOW the gun and therefore the Catch 22 agian that we must adopt it before you'll agree that it might be good enough to adopt. Your logic ends there. BTW, I HAVE been issued the M16 and I have got to handle both the M16 and G36 side by side. So only if I'm issued the G36 am I qualified to comment upon it? However I cannot be issued it because until I'm issued the G36, you won't concede that it's issueable?

And were I to be issued the weapon, would it then be a matter of, "Well, you haven't seen any combat with the gun!" The next step is, "Well, you only saw combat in Arctic, Desert, and Temperate reigions so it might not be good in the Jungle!"

Every time I hear this, "IWANNACOOLGUN" defense, it reminds me that those who defend the M16 as an implement of war are the ones who 'Wanted the cool gun' and got it. This is a classic ad hominem defense and hypocritical at best when used to espouse the virtues of the M16.

 

[Badger Arms]

The other says things like (and I've been trying to be gentle thus far by not ref'ing comment like this) "I was biased not by the literature but by the nature of being a student of the gun. This is one of those things that I could just FEEL when I started reading about the G36." (emphasis mine)

How is this not being gentle? What does this paragraph mean? Imagine for a minute you'd done some thinking and research and come to the conclusion that a 'proper' weapon should consist of the best attributes of current and past weapons. So you decide what the best gas system is, what the best bolt locking system, ejector, extractor, receiver material, features, etc. are going to be. When you read about that particular weapon, it will make you a believer! I've never hidden the fact that I've got a deep respect for the G36. This from a guy who had to sell my HK91 because I hated so many things about it. This from a man who despises the G11 and thinks there are a half-dozen better weapons than the MP5 on the market. I've liked three HK Weapons in my time. They are the G36, the P7, and the UMP. I like the gun for what it is... it's a compilation of the best that modern gunmaking technology can muster rolled into one neat ALMOST refined package.

Flaws: I'll admit there are a few as I've said in the past. It needs iron sights and a better optic.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Badger Arms:

You cite increased ballistic capablity -- and then correctly cite that as a function of the cartridge, or barrel length. We can get longer barrels and more effective cartridges with the M16.

You talk about design issues -- which aren't capability, but only engineering theory, because no one has demonstrated that these engineering matters have an effect in the field.

Once again, I point out that there is a risk involved in adopting a new weapon -- and in this case, the risk is not balanced by any increased combat capability.

What will you do if this new weapon turns out to be LESS reliable than the current M16?

 

[fix]

Some things I see coming from the XM8 proponents

Assumptions:

1) The M16 is despised by all troops.
2) All troops are special operations qualified and need fancy doo dads.

Reality:

1) No
2) No

Someone said it earlier and it bears repeating. The best is the enemy of good enough.

 

[Badger Arms]

Fix:

Nobody ever said that. Neither did anybody say that troops are all morons. Neither was said or implied. The Army wants 'Land Warrior' and modularity to give it flexibility in missions. With all due respct to those who think a 20% weight reduction is not significant, wait till your gun gets loaded down with all the gadgets Uncle Sam wants for the Land warrior.

If the soldier is not a 'front line' combatant, then wouldn't having a lighter, more compact, and more reliable weapon that is easier to maintain be a plus.

Here's the litmus test. TEST THE WEAPON. What will the test results show? I'm pretty sure, but I'll eat crow if not.

 

[Badger Arms]

Once again, I point out that there is a risk involved in adopting a new weapon -- and in this case, the risk is not balanced by any increased combat capability.

Where is the risk, really? Are you seriously telling me that with everything you know about the XM8 that you believe it will suddenly turn course and start falling apart? Will they miraculously sprout a gas tube and foul up the receiver? Will quality control at HK suddenly take a nose-dive and leave us with junk guns that won't fire two rounds in a row without an immediate action drill? What's the worse thing that could happen? What capability will we have LOST? What grunt is going to lose their life that wouldn't have died if they carried the M16?

Rifles aren't computers. Don't expect a doubling in capabilities ever year. However you can expect a significant increase in manufacturing technology.

 

[Slater]

With all the debate (and there are many good points both for and against) about the wisdom of adopting the XM8, I'd wager that it will be adopted. If, indeed, that decision hasn't already been made.

 

[Joe Demko]

Where is the risk, really? Are you seriously telling me that with everything you know about the XM8 that you believe it will suddenly turn course and start falling apart?

One might have said the same thing about the AR-18. Then the UK started using their bullpup variant of it. Care to hump one of those into battle? Then, too, the Steyr AUG was once the be-and-end-all of cool new guns. Of course, the Australians haven't been as thrilled with it as they anticipated. Your faith in the XM8 approaches a religious attitude. There is no point in debating religion with a true believer.

Edited to add: Your much beloved H&K corporation had a hand on "fixing" the above mentioned UK weapon. Fine job they did, huh?

 

[Badger Arms]

Golgo:

You presuppose that I am in love with HK. In fact, I am not and probably never will be. Quality control, however, has always been their strong point. Where did I ever imply that I thought we should adopt the Steyr Aug? Where did I ever say that the L85 was a good weapon? BTW, I'd hump a Stoner 63 over any hill before I would just about any other weapon and you can quote me on that one.

There is no point in debating religion with a true believer.

Ahhh, but turn this insight back on yourself. Do you really dislike the XM8, HK, G36, or anything else or is it a certain religious love for the M16 that drives your arguments?

Want to hear it again? I LOVE the G36! I'm not opposed to the M16. It was and is a great weapon. It's lightweight, accurate, ergonomic. It's a might bit better than an M14 in an ambush. I can hit point targets quicker with it than my Garand. Problem is, the AR-18 (had it been developed HALF as much as the M16) was a better design. The Stoner 63 was better. The Sig 550 series is better. The FNC is better. The Taiwan Type 65 was better. The Daewoo K100 is better. Sure, my opinion on all of those but you'll have to admit, there is no magic pixie duest that endows the M16. If you want to boil the argument down to the ammo... SURE, they all fire the 5.56x45. That doesn't make them equal though.