M-16 production to end?

[Spark]

Hear hear. I too own an AR as my primary rifle, and feel that of the currently available carbines, it's the best choice. That does not blind me to it's flaws, however, nor does it absolve it of it's myriad difficulties.

It's like some of you are bound and determined to sing "AR UBER ALLES" about this. You won't even conceed the problems we know it has, much less admit that other systems solve them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every new weapon fielded has problems. There is no test that will find all the shortcomings of a new weapon -- they always show up AFTER fielding.

Do you seriously claim there will be NO undiscovered shortcomings in the XM8? Will they miraculously be blessed as no previous weapon has been, with perfect functioning and functionality?

Risk is associated with unknowns -- and every new weapon system has its share of unknowns.

Since the XM8 offers no additional capability to compensate for those risks, adopting it is simply not a wise idea.

 

[alan]

I'm not terribly familiar with the AR-15/M-16 rifle, and I certainly would not compare myself to Gene Stoner, my design background related to HVAC and Piping Systems, mostly Piping, rather than firearms or machine design, however I've been curious as to a couple of the M-16's design features, things that seem like trouble producers.

One is the gas tube, that runs to the bolt carrier, from the gas port or gas block on the barrel. Seems like this piece of "plumbing" would be prone to plugging and or other forms of upset, from "rough and tumble" military use.There are and have been any number of selective fire and or semi-automatic rifles that utilized an external operating rod (M-1 and M-14 rifles), and or a gas piston or operating rod design, like the AK-47, SKS, G-36 and I believe the FAL rifles, that worked quite well.

The other is the fact that firing residue is dumped into the receiver/action, where is gets everything dirty as hell, I've been told, and can cause other problems, sort of like "sand in the gears".

Supposedly, the M-16's selection was politically based, but given what was involved, the lives of troops, one would have thought that "politics" would have taken second place. Seemingly it didn't, though it could well be that I'm way off base re the foregoing.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The fundamental problem with the M16 is that it was, as you said, a poltical decision. It entered service during a shooting war, and troops in the field suddenly found themselves carrying weapons they hadn't trained on. And such training as they got was given by officers and NCOs who had no experience with the weapon.

That should tell us right away that the decision to change small arms in the middle of a shooting war is a bad idea. We don't want to repeat the M16 fiasco.

In the 40 years that have passed since then, we have had a lot of experience with this rifle, and have steadily product-improved it. The current version is a combat-proven rifle, being used by troops who were thoroughly trained on it, by officers and NCOs who cut their teeth on it.

It is maintained by armorers who know the weapon inside-out, based on years of experience.

That's why if we are to adopt a new weapon, it should be a NEW weapon, one that gives us significant increases in combat capability, not just one that someone THINKS might do the same mission as the M16, but maybe, perhaps, if we're lucky, do it a bit better.

 

[Slater]

If memory serves, the reason the Advanced Combat Rifle program went nowhere is that it didn't offer enough of an improvement over the M16 to justify the cost of adopting a whole new rifle. They were looking for a 100% improvement in effectiveness over normal combat ranges, and never met that target.

 

[Jeff White]

alan,
In actual service the gas tube is not a problem. The only time it gets plugged is when someone tries to clean it and plugs it with a Q-tip or patch. Cleaning the gas tube is not necessary. The temperature and pressure of the gas makes it essentially self cleaning. The handguards do a good job of protecting it from getting bent. It's a pretty sturdy piece of steel to start with.

You are correct in that it does blow carbon into the upper receiver. But this is not the problem that it's detractors lead us to believe. The M16 does not require cleaning several times a day in combat. In bad environments, i.e. the desert, it doesn't require any more care then any other small arm in use.

Selection of all our military equipment is politically based. It's the way the system works.

The real argument against the XM8 is that it is nothing more then corporate welfare for HK. The cost of completely re-equipping the armed forces with a new rifle is staggering. Besides the cost of the rifles, there are training costs, new tools and spares to buy, new web equipment, new magazines, new manuals. It will have additional costs that we have yet to discover. Fielding each new piece of equipment does. We won't know what problems it really has until it gets in the hands of the troops. It will have some, no designer can think of every conceivable way a GI can break something . So the question is, do we spend all that money for a miniscule improvement over what we have, or do we wait and make that kind of investment when there is a major breakthrough in small arms design?

Badger likes to use the example of buying a new model car. A private citizen is free to spend his wealth on a new car because it catches his eye. Taxpayers should demand more from their government. If it ain't broke; don't fix it applies here.

Jeff

 

[Tallyman]

M-16 ????????

I consider the .223 a good prairie dog caliber, but for serious combat I want an M-1 Garand, an M-14 or an AK-47 for the close in stuff - any or all supplemented with an M1911 Colt 45ACP. And I'm not answering any stupid rebuttals from candy asses who think "spraying" bullets is the way to win a war. That's why the Army changed your M-16 full auto fire into short bursts!! 1 bullet - 1 or 2 enemy soldiers; 1 bomb - a whole bunch of enemy soldiers and equipment. You've got to know where to hit 'em!! USAF Retired. . (1977)

 

[Spark]

The real argument against the XM8 is that it is nothing more then corporate welfare for HK. The cost of completely re-equipping the armed forces with a new rifle is staggering. Besides the cost of the rifles, there are training costs, new tools and spares to buy, new web equipment, new magazines, new manuals. It will have additional costs that we have yet to discover. Fielding each new piece of equipment does. We won't know what problems it really has until it gets in the hands of the troops. It will have some, no designer can think of every conceivable way a GI can break something . So the question is, do we spend all that money for a miniscule improvement over what we have, or do we wait and make that kind of investment when there is a major breakthrough in small arms design?

Well, I'll bet you are really pissed that Land Warrior dropped all that money right down the toilet since that system is pretty much dead. All those developement dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, in your world. Heck, Aberdeen & Sandia & Redstone & Indianhead just have big pits where all they do is toss in $100 bills and set them on fire.

Jeff - money is going to be spent no matter what we want. The question remains, does it get spent in a good way or a bad way? Your "miniscule" improvement isn't the same as my "miniscule" improvement. This thing piles on the improvements, and fixes a whole boat load of problems. Even better, it looks like future improvements will actually cost less than now, because (you guessed it), only the affected system needs to be replaced instead of the entire assembly.

Furthermore, though there will be "hidden costs" the nice thing about modularity is that you can engineer in a migration path that will save as many of them as possible. Different magazines? Use a M16 magwell module - saves web gear costs & magazine costs. Replace on a unit level, so everyone has the same gear at the same time. Parrallel example would be when my unit went from the old rucksack harness to the (then new) Harness, Single Point Release for airborne operations. Everyone lined up, turned in their old harnesses, and got issued the new ones, and was given a block of instruction on how to properly use them.

This stuff happens all the time - it's a matter of military life. The rifle is just a tool, and is not expected to last forever. If so, why are we even using A2-4 variants? According to you, THEY DON'T REPRESENT A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN DEVELOPEMENT. Everyone should still have the XM177's without the forward assist and thin barrels, right?

Badger likes to use the example of buying a new model car. A private citizen is free to spend his wealth on a new car because it catches his eye. Taxpayers should demand more from their government. If it ain't broke; don't fix it applies here.

Wow. Just wow. Thinking like that would have us still carrying M1 Garands & flying UH-1H's. Hey, no need for an Apache Longbow, the standard will work just dandy. No need for IVIS, we've got radios and IVIS will cost too much!!!! No need for Interceptors, Ranger Body Armor works just dandy and the rest of the guys can use their PASGT vests. No need to develop the MICH, everyone should just go back to steel pots.

Simple question Jeff - is it less expensive to change out a barrel, or a complete upper reciever? At what point does your ROI (return on investment) go upside down when you have to continually modify the same chassis over and over and over again?

Heck, we see it right now in custom firearms - for the price that you'll pay for each individual part, you can get a complete system for much less. Carry packages are much less than sending your firearm out for 10 different treatments.

Given the caliber of some of these arguments I'm seeing, I fully expect some of you to start saying "We must keep the M16 for the CHILDREN!" or somesuch. Y'all should stop with the red herrings.

 

[Jeff White]

Spark,

Well, I'll bet you are really pissed that Land Warrior dropped all that money right down the toilet since that system is pretty much dead. All those developement dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, in your world. Heck, Aberdeen & Sandia & Redstone & Indianhead just have big pits where all they do is toss in $100 bills and set them on fire.

Now you know as well as I do that we will always spend money on R&D. Which one of these labs produced the XM8? None of them did. No one ever heard of the XM8 until the XM29 OICW was cancelled. Then someone in HK marketing got the bright idea to take the kinetic eneregy (oh I hate that term, it's a darn rifle) component of the XM29, put a stock and the G36 optic (that most users hate BTW) on it and try to sell it to the Army. Nothing wrong with that. It's what the stockholders would expect. Just good business. What we're debating here is if it's the right decision for the Army to make.

Your "miniscule" improvement isn't the same as my "miniscule" improvement. This thing piles on the improvements, and fixes a whole boat load of problems.

What problems does it fix? Reliability? Come on do you think that NCOs are going to let soldiers fire 15K rounds between cleanings? No, you know as well as I do that that is just BS. Soldiers will still clean the M8 (if it becomes that) every day and you know it. The idea that any soldier would be engaged in such heavy combat that he could fire either an M16 or XM8 enough to dirty it so it malfunctions is just crazy. Name one improvement that doesn't revolve around your personal preferance for a gas piston operating system? I brought out in the other thread how HK's marketing people had to cheat to make the XM8 look so superior to the M4. If it was truly such an improvement, they could have put it up head to head with the M4, without lying or stacking the deck against the M4 by scomparing it with two different IR laser systems. The problem with your argument of a boatload of improvements is that they reflect your personal opinion of what an improvement is, not anything that is quantifyable.

Even better, it looks like future improvements will actually cost less than now, because (you guessed it), only the affected system needs to be replaced instead of the entire assembly.

What improvement have we made in the last 40 years to the M16 that required replacement of the entire system? Right now they are just going to town converting old M16A1s to A2s and A4s. The last improvement we made to the M4 was the replacement of the extractor spring. Not exactly a big assembly.

This stuff happens all the time - it's a matter of military life. The rifle is just a tool, and is not expected to last forever. If so, why are we even using A2-4 variants? According to you, THEY DON'T REPRESENT A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN DEVELOPEMENT. Everyone should still have the XM177's without the forward assist and thin barrels, right?

The A2 and A4 varients are product improved versions of the original. As I posted above, the Army is currently making A2s and A4s out of A1s. I will find out the difference in price for between the conversion kit and the complete rifle if you'd like. But I assure you it's significantly less then the cost of buying a totally new rifle like the XM8.

Wow. Just wow. Thinking like that would have us still carrying M1 Garands & flying UH-1H's. Hey, no need for an Apache Longbow, the standard will work just dandy. No need for IVIS, we've got radios and IVIS will cost too much!!!! No need for Interceptors, Ranger Body Armor works just dandy and the rest of the guys can use their PASGT vests. No need to develop the MICH, everyone should just go back to steel pots.

This is just about one of the worst examples I've seen. The M1 Garand no longer supports our tactics. The entire system is much heavier and with the same ammunition load you have with current weapons is unable to be carried by an Infantryman. Every example you give is a substantial improvement in capability. You have yet to give me one thing I can do tactically with an XM8 then I can with an M16 or M4. Can I shoot farther? No. Can I shoot more accurately? No. Will my enemy be easier to stop if I shoot him with an XM8? Not only no, but in fact I lose lethality from M855 because of the shorter barrel which gives me less of the muzzle velocity the round depends on for terminal effects . Will I be able to carry substantially more load of mission equipment because of the weight difference? No, it's lighter, but not so much lighter that you can really add to the load I carry.

Simple question Jeff - is it less expensive to change out a barrel, or a complete upper reciever? At what point does your ROI (return on investment) go upside down when you have to continually modify the same chassis over and over and over again?

And why would I be changing out barrels or upper receivers? If I burn out or bend the barrel on my M16, I will send it back to maintenance and they will change it. If I had an XM8 and burned out or bent the barrel, I would send it back to maintenance and they would change it. The modularity that you and HK are so proud of will mean nothing to the Army and you know it as well as I do. Some guy sitting in a chair at TRADOC is going to decide that a certain type of unit needs so many rifles, so many pistols, so many grenade launchers, carbines etc. And that is exactly what the Army will buy. The modularity is nice for the hobbyist but it means nothing to the Army. Your concept of the supply sergeant showing up at the AA with a duce and half full of extra barrels so the troops can put on their CQB barrels before they go into the village to clean out the bad guys is BS and you know it. The soldiers will fight with whatever combination of weapons TRADOC decides they need and whatever they can supplement it with by picking up things on the battlefield and trading.

Given the caliber of some of these arguments I'm seeing, I fully expect some of you to start saying "We must keep the M16 for the CHILDREN!" or somesuch. Y'all should stop with the red herrings.

Ok I'll say it, we have to keep the M16 for the children; so that our nation has the money to buy them the next generation of weapons that actually represents a true breakthrough and gives them a quantifyable increase in combat capability .

Jeff

 

[Spark]

Now you know as well as I do that we will always spend money on R&D. Which one of these labs produced the XM8? None of them did.

Not true. The XM8 was produced in conjunction with the labs based on feedback & product evaluation. Do you think that the contractors just go "Gee whiz, we spent all this money and don't have a product to show for it, let's go home"?

Furthermore, you seem to think that the SCAR & other specifications were created out of pixie dust & fairy dreams. If the M16 is so perfect, why doesn't the SCAR specification written to match it? Oh wait, because THERE ARE KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH THE M16 AND THEY WANT A BETTER PLATFORM THAT FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS.

What problems does it fix? Reliability?

For the love of pete. Let's see, Reliability. Multi Mission flexability. Squad / Platoon / Company level reorganization. Future upgrade paths due to emerging technology / doctrine.

Hell, let's just stick with reliability for right now; Jeff, is a properly curved bannana mag more or less reliable than the modified bannana 30 round mag we are currently using? Is it better or worse to have a seperate forward assist mechanism (since more parts is always better, right? )? Is the gas system more or less reliable when using different barrel lengths, suppressors, or in harsh environments than the piston system?

I guess I'll just have make these simple yes or no, better or worse questions for you then, Jeff, since you seem to be dodging the issues.

BETTER OR WORSE - Being able to swap out a single sub assembly at user level, rather than having to send the entire main assembly to depot?

BETTER OR WORSE - Being able to upgrade your weapons platform in all aspects, instead of being stuck with major assemblies that require depot level maintenance?

BETTER OR WORSE - Having a system that is designed with upgrades in mind with 40 years of lessons learned, instead of a system designed 40 years ago with "make-do" upgrades?

BETTER OR WORSE - True ambidextrous operation out of issued systems; or lefty's make do, hope you don't have to fire behind cover with the left hand, figure out a work around operation?

BETTER OR WORSE - Having a system that doesn't care what length barrel you slap on it, what accessories you put on it, and can perform any role in the squad just by switching a part or two at squad level; or a system that you can't even swap grenade launchers off of without an armorer?

If it was truly such an improvement, they could have put it up head to head with the M4, without lying or stacking the deck against the M4 by scomparing it with two different IR laser systems.

Oh horsepucky. You are taking a 2 page PDF file and pretending that it's an in depth feasability study & range report. Dude, this is nothing more than a dog & pony, Powerpoint Ranger, glossy flyer designed for bullet point presentation - not a friggin FM.

I'm pretty sure that there either is now, or will be, one hell of a hefty comparison report just on the specifications alone. If you aren't happy about the unavailability on HK's website, where are the ones on FN's & Colt's sites?

Your ignoring of the facts doesn't change that they are there.

What improvement have we made in the last 40 years to the M16 that required replacement of the entire system?

Let's see. First there was the M16. Then the A1 (requiring a new entire upper). Then the A2 (entire system). Then there was the A4 (upper again). Then there was the M4 (entire system). This doesn't include any of the esoteric varients. Nor does it include remachining of recievers to attempt to upgrade systems and save costs - I was issued a few M16's that had been remachined to meet the new requirements. How much did that cost?

Furthermore, it's ok to spend money on product improvements, but it's not ok to bring for a better product? You need to relook at your arguments. Again, at what point does it cost you more money to keep fielding "product improvements" instead of fielding something that gives you the flexibility you need, or fixes the problems already there? Hey, for that matter, didn't you say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" If the system is so perfect, why all the repeated "product improvements"?

The modularity that you and HK are so proud of will mean nothing to the Army and you know it as well as I do.

Again, horsecrap. Let's see if you remember any of these terms:

Designated Marksman. Grenadier. Rifleman. Squad Leader. Breacher. Crewman. Each of those positions could require a different weapon setup. The DM would have a longer barrel and improved optics. The Grenadier would have a grenade launcher. The Squad leader could have improved optics / designation equipment. Breachers could have masterkeys. Crewmen could have no stocks, short barrels, etc.

Each of these variants would require depot level armorers to make the changes with the M16 system. What really happens though is that the rifles are just handed over to the new person and are hopefully zero'ed before combat operations. You know this, and I know this. With the XM8, you can switch to whatever configuration you want, keeping the same rifle (and serial number control), no muss, no fuss. Joe Snuffy PCS's / ETS's / breaks a leg / gets promoted / etc? No problem, just swap components and continue the mission.

If changes are made to training & doctrine it's easy to make those changes at the squad level. So what you don't have is GI's being issued A2 rifles and not being able to get a sight picture thanks to their body armor. You don't have your 203 gunner get incapacitated and you lose your indirect fire capability - or your grenadier isn't hampered by breech size and can actually use the wide variety of munitions available for side opening launchers. You can have a squad detailed for convoy duty and not have to worry about being able manuever their weapons in vehicles. You can have a replacement come in from the division sniper school and outfit him with a DMR with no fuss.

But I guess real world examples don't matter, do they Jeff?

 

[Jeff White]

Spark,

Not true. The XM8 was produced in conjunction with the labs based on feedback & product evaluation.

Which lab worked on the XM8? No military lab worked on it. It is strictly an HK product. An online friend of mine helped assemble the last 30 of them in Oberndorf awhile back. He works for HK since his retiement from the Army. In fact that's his picture on one of the brochures. the guys over at lightfighter.net recognized his RACK and he owned up to it. The XM8 is all HK.

Furthermore, you seem to think that the SCAR & other specifications were created out of pixie dust & fairy dreams. If the M16 is so perfect, why doesn't the SCAR specification written to match it? Oh wait, because THERE ARE KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH THE M16 AND THEY WANT A BETTER PLATFORM THAT FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS.

SCAR is as SOCOM project. There is no one in the big Army looking at it. It may provide some things the big Army will use. But when you look at other SOCOM weapons projects, (MK46 and M48, SPR) they aren't making it into the big Army. And they may never make it. You are talking to totally different funding sources. The projects are also managed differently and and are under different rules for approval and purchase.

Hell, let's just stick with reliability for right now; Jeff, is a properly curved bannana mag more or less reliable than the modified bannana 30 round mag we are currently using? Is it better or worse to have a seperate forward assist mechanism (since more parts is always better, right? :rolleyes? Is the gas system more or less reliable when using different barrel lengths, suppressors, or in harsh environments than the piston system?

Is anyone dying because of these problems with the M16/M4? Are units unable to accomplish their missions? How many after action reports have you seen that said things like "During Operation BLUE SKY the M16 once again proved it's inadequacy as a rifle. The modified bannana 30 round magazine wasn't as reliable as a properly curved one and the seperate forward assist has too many parts then the rifle should have." ? You haven't seen any. Those things aren't important to the commander. They are important to the hobbyists who like to argue such things. All the commander cares about is if his rifles go bang when he wants them to, they aren't constantly breaking and they put the enemy down when they are hit. The current rifles are doing just fine all those areas.

I guess I'll just have make these simple yes or no, better or worse questions for you then, Jeff, since you seem to be dodging the issues.

I'm dodging the issues? My friend your rebuttal to what I just posted asking about what increase of capabilities the XM8 gave me didn't make it through on this end. Could you post it again?

BETTER OR WORSE - Being able to swap out a single sub assembly at user level, rather than having to send the entire main assembly to depot?

What does the MAC in TM 9-1005-319-23&P say? You can do everything but refinish the weapon at 2d and 3d echelon maintenance. Give a second echelon 45B the parts and he can build one from scratch. They aren't that hard to work with. I'd bet we've got a couple hundred members on this board who've built their own AR15 with not much more then the tools in their workshop. The only reason a company armorer couldn't do that is the Army won't give him access to the parts.

BETTER OR WORSE - Being able to upgrade your weapons platform in all aspects, instead of being stuck with major assemblies that require depot level maintenance?

Again look at the MAC in the TM. I wonder how many THR member have put a different upper on their AR without sending it to Colt or Bushmaster for that kind of work.

BETTER OR WORSE - Having a system that is designed with upgrades in mind with 40 years of lessons learned, instead of a system designed 40 years ago with "make-do" upgrades?

We alrady have a system with 40 years of experience. The XM8 has what, 90 days of experience? The XM8 hasn't existed as a rifle for 6 months and you're telling me it's got 40 years of experience. The G36 it came from doesn't have 10 years of experience. The G36 has never been sent to war for any duration by any army. I doubt if the design has had 10K rounds put through it in combat. I also take offense at the make do upgrades. The M4 and M5 RAS were designed to permit the use of accessories that didn't exist and where not even contemplated when the M16 was designed. The XM8 is somehow superior because it is fortunate enough to be born when we knew we needed to put accessories on our rifles to increase our low-light capablilities?

BETTER OR WORSE - True ambidextrous operation out of issued systems; or lefty's make do, hope you don't have to fire behind cover with the left hand, figure out a work around operation?

I'll give you that one, but add a Norgon ambi catch and one of a couple aftermarket selector switches and you have the same capability. These two improvements would be substantially cheaper then buying XM8s. If, and it's a big if the Army decided they really needed them. I don't recall seeing the lack of these accessories brought up in any AARs either.

BETTER OR WORSE - Having a system that doesn't care what length barrel you slap on it, what accessories you put on it, and can perform any role in the squad just by switching a part or two at squad level; or a system that you can't even swap grenade launchers off of without an armorer?

Already have it. There is a QD kit for the M203 that works with both the M4 and M5 RAS. The grenadier goes down, take the 203 off his rifle and mount on the RAS of his replacements. The M249 is still the SAW and there is no talk of the XM8 replacing it. So the only role you need to change in the squad is who carries the grenade launcher. That little problem as you refer to it was solved before anyone ever heard of the XM8.

I'm pretty sure that there either is now, or will be, one hell of a hefty comparison report just on the specifications alone. If you aren't happy about the unavailability on HK's website, where are the ones on FN's & Colt's sites?

There will be a rather hefty report in about 18 months when they finish testing the XM8. When it's finished, I'll bet you a case of whatever beverage you prefer that the Army agrees with me. As for Colt and FN not having a comparison on their website, they don't need to..They are the proven system. They don't have to sell their product, it's already in the system. BTW your answer as to why HK felt they had to lie and stack the deck to make the XM8 look so much better then the M4 MWS didn't make it into your last post either .

Furthermore, it's ok to spend money on product improvements, but it's not ok to bring for a better product? You need to relook at your arguments. Again, at what point does it cost you more money to keep fielding "product improvements" instead of fielding something that gives you the flexibility you need, or fixes the problems already there? Hey, for that matter, didn't you say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" If the system is so perfect, why all the repeated "product improvements"?

You stop spending money to improve what you have; A. When you can't improve it anymore. B. When it would be cheaper to buy a totally new system then continue to improve the old one. The M16 hasn't yet reached that point and the XM8 is not cheaper then improving the M16 until the big breakthrough (whatever that will be) comes along.

I never said the system was perfect. Nothing not even your precious unproven XM8 is perfect. Once again we are back to the value judgement of is it worth it to spend the money to buy and field the XM8 when we already have a perfectly acceptble 5.56mm assault rifle that is the standard that the rest of the world measures theirs against? I say no, you say yes. It's not a big deal. Like I said, I'll bet the Army sides with me.

Designated Marksman. Grenadier. Rifleman. Squad Leader. Breacher. Crewman. Each of those positions could require a different weapon setup. The DM would have a longer barrel and improved optics. The Grenadier would have a grenade launcher. The Squad leader could have improved optics / designation equipment. Breachers could have masterkeys. Crewmen could have no stocks, short barrels, etc.

There are only a couple informal DM programs in the Army. Some are using M14s with various sights, some are using M16s. FM 3.22-9 (replaced FM 23-9) which is official doctrine for employment of the rifle in the Army doesn't even call for the DM to have optics. The Marines have an official DM program and it uses a heavily modified M14. We have been giving squad leaders ACOGs and other optics for a long time. Don't send rifles back to depot for that either. Again look at the MAC in TM 9-1005-319-23&P for the details. Tank crews are armed with pistols and two M4s per tank. It's been that way since WWII and I don't see it changing.

What really happens though is that the rifles are just handed over to the new person and are hopefully zero'ed before combat operations. You know this, and I know this. With the XM8, you can switch to whatever configuration you want, keeping the same rifle (and serial number control), no muss, no fuss. Joe Snuffy PCS's / ETS's / breaks a leg / gets promoted / etc? No problem, just swap components and continue the mission.

The laser boresighters in the units have made zeroing not the problem it used to be. And you don't really believe you can change the barrel in an XM8 and not have to rezero, do you? You know as well as I do that anything you do to a weapon can and most likely will affect the zero.

If changes are made to training & doctrine it's easy to make those changes at the squad level. So what you don't have is GI's being issued A2 rifles and not being able to get a sight picture thanks to their body armor. You don't have your 203 gunner get incapacitated and you lose your indirect fire capability - or your grenadier isn't hampered by breech size and can actually use the wide variety of munitions available for side opening launchers. You can have a squad detailed for convoy duty and not have to worry about being able manuever their weapons in vehicles. You can have a replacement come in from the division sniper school and outfit him with a DMR with no fuss.

So now we have to change doctrine to make use of all the XM8s features? I will give you that the A2 stock is too long. So to fix that I'm supposed to spend $2500 on an XM8 when I can buy an $80 collapsible stock or a shorter fixed stock and have the armorer change it. Yeah that's good and frugal with my tax dollars. As noted above, I can already clip my M203 onto any carbine or rifle equipped with a RAS. And how did the XM320 figure into this? I thought we were talking about the XM8. What rounds are out there that we can't use in the M203 anyway? What greater capability do they give us? You don't know, because they are don't exist yet. There are a lot of riot control rounds that we can't use in the M203 because they are too long. If HK wants to sell us a side opening grenade launcher, (and I don't really think it's a bad idea) then they should make the XM320 so that it attaches to M1913 Picatinney rail, just like the new and the modified M203 does.

But I guess real world examples don't matter, do they Jeff?

What real world examples? All I've seen are some theories about what we can do with an unproven rifle. There are no real world examples of the XM8 in combat. There are very few real world examples of the G36 in combat. The M16 however is proven in combat in every environment to be found on this planet. Not only in the hands of the US military, but countless militaries around the world. As I write this, I can look up and see an 8x10 picture of a squad in 6th Battalon, 110th Brigade of the Honduran Army who I assisted training in Ojo De Agua, Honduras in July of 1990. These guys are armed with the oldest most beat to heck M16A1s I have ever seen in service. The finish is mostly gone on them, dust covers are missing or flapping in the breese because the springs are broken. Stocks are cracked and held together by 100 mph tape. One guy even had one of the old Colt SAW varients that they couldn't sell to anyone. You can still see the big donut around the heavy barrel that the M60 type bipod attached to. You know what though, these weapons always worked. Those tough little soldiers never complained that their M16s had direct impingment gas systems or used a modified banana type 30 round magazine. They took them into combat (quite a few little clashes on the border there in the mountains in those days) against the best Polish and Societ AKs the Sandanista Army could field and never wished they could trade weapons. That my friend is the kind of record that you are competing against.

Jeff

 

[Spark]

The XM8 is all HK.

And nobody in the Army is doing field testing. No one is giving feedback. No one is testing specifications. HK-USA says you are wrong - "30 XM8's in various configurations were received by the US Army at Aberdeen Proving Grounds on Thursday, October 30. The weapons were delivered ahead of schedule and testing is underway now." http://www.hk-usa.com

Sure Jeff, the Army is just going to take HK's word on the system and start issuing them en masse. We're just going to bail out HK, give them corporate welfare, when we could give the same specs to a US company. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And since it started out as the KE element (mega for technobabble) for the OICW, HK probably didn't transfer any of the elements from that platform over to the XM8, they rebuilt the entire system from scratch.

SCAR is as SOCOM project....The projects are also managed differently and and are under different rules for approval and purchase.

And the M-16 started off being used to guard air bases. Oh wait.... good ideas never transfer over to general use, do they?

Is anyone dying because of these problems with the M16/M4?

Paging Jessica Lynch. What did that fella who got a Silver Star (and no publicity) wind up doing? Oh yeah, CHAMBERING EACH ROUND due to JAMMING PROBLEMS in the harsh environment. Nobody's dying though. No jams ever. I mean, I've never ever seen problems on the qualification range either. Must have been imagining things.

I'm dodging the issues? My friend your rebuttal to what I just posted asking about what increase of capabilities the XM8 gave me didn't make it through on this end .

How many times do I have to cut and past the stuff about upgrading, modularity, etc? Suck it up, you don't want to address them because you are to busy going "M16 IS THE BEST LALALALA"

It is funny though that when pressed, you give the following answers -

You can do everything but refinish the weapon at 2d and 3d echelon maintenance.

Wow, 2d and 3 shop maintenance. That sure is the same as USER LEVEL in my original question. I mean, I can't remember the last time we had a full 3rd shop kit out in the field with us... I guess this means the XM8 is better since it reduces previously 3 shop tasks to user level. Next?

I wonder how many THR member have put a different upper on their AR without sending it to Colt or Bushmaster for that kind of work.

Ah yes, the same old pie in the sky "If anyone on THR can do it, then Joe Snuffy can do it" argument. Sure. And you didn't see a single trooper lose his springs / pins when disassembling his lower for an upcoming IG inspection either? Yeah, THR is a regular squad, you could switch any of us out for your typical 11B & vice versa. You dodged the question again - is it easier to have user level replaceable parts, or major assemblies only able to be worked on at depot level? Since you dodged the issue here, you must be admitting that the XM8 specification is indeed better.

The XM8 hasn't existed as a rifle for 6 months and you're telling me it's got 40 years of experience.

Oh this is too much. I suppose you are going to tell me that everything learned by Detriot is relearned when they release a new car too? 40 years of lessons LEARNED Jeff, not EXPERIENCE. Like "Hey, this roller lock works, let's incorporate it. This gas system is pretty finicky and isn't easy to change out without SWITCHING THE ENTIRE UPPER. Let's build something that doesn't have that drawback." You know, LESSONS LEARNED. Since you are dodging the issue again, we'll agree you admit defeat on this issue.

If, and it's a big if the Army decided they really needed them. I don't recall seeing the lack of these accessories brought up in any AARs either.

But you will agree that if we adopt a new system, it would be a LESSON LEARNED to incorporate these features from the start, right? That by including them in a "product improvement" it's the same as saying "this should have been there to begin with"? See below -

[M203 / modularity]The grenadier goes down, take the 203 off his rifle and mount on the RAS of his replacements.

Yeah, and for how many of the 40 years of service of the M16 was this available? How much is fielding this kit going to cost? ROI? And that's just one aspect - it doesn't address the different barrels, suppressors, accessories? How many of the reserve units in Iraq have the QD 203 kit BTW? Heck, let's ask Nightcrawler, he's currently a THR member and is in the reserves, let's see if he's been issued all the latest & greatest gear?

Jeff, like it or not, the XM8 is coming into being. HK isn't building a plant in Georgia just so they can sell civilian versions.

They don't have to sell their product, it's already in the system. BTW your answer as to why HK felt they had to lie and stack the deck to make the XM8 look so much better then the M4 MWS didn't make it into your last post either

Reread the above post then. Search for Powerpoint Ranger. You are comparing a PDF flyer with in depth field testing. That is YOUR problem, not HK's.

[When to upgrade?]When it would be cheaper to buy a totally new system then continue to improve the old one.... I never said the system was perfect. Nothing not even your precious unproven XM8 is perfect. Once again we are back to the value judgement of is it worth it to spend the money to buy and field the XM8 when we already have a perfectly acceptble 5.56mm assault rifle that is the standard that the rest of the world measures theirs against? I say no, you say yes. It's not a big deal. Like I said, I'll bet the Army sides with me.

Wow, we have a winner. Maybe the bean counters came up with this figure already? Maybe they have looked at the costs of M4 RIS systems, M203 QD kits, SOPMOD kits, Suppressor kits, ACOGs, remachined lowers & uppers, A4 uppers, collapsing stocks, etc etc etc, and looked at the projected costs for a similar system THAT CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE CALIBERS and has all the bells & whistles built in? Nah, that can't be it.

BTW, I never said the XM8 is perfect. I just said that out of the box it fixes a bunch of problems that the M16 still has after 40 years of "product improvements". The difference between you and me is that I'm not saying "what we have is good enough, we need plasma weapons (or somesuch) before we ever upgrade again". I'm satisfied with a new platform that can be user upgraded to the same level as the G36 / XM8. BTW, rumor mill has it that HK is developing a G36 upper for the M16. Couple that with a new lower that fixes the existing modularity / ammunition upgrade issues, and NOW you have a future thinking system.

Furthermore, if the XM8 is not adopted, I will bet you a case of whatever that the next rifle fielded will be, it will have as part of it's specs the same (or better) feature set as the XM8.

There are only a couple informal DM programs in the Army.

Yeah, when you have a rifle that doesn't lend itself to modularity, it precludes that sort of flexibility. Stryker is fielding DM's IIRC, and the Marines are certainly working on getting more optics. You won't disagree that it's a good idea though, right? You won't disagree that more options are better, right?

And you don't really believe you can change the barrel in an XM8 and not have to rezero, do you? You know as well as I do that anything you do to a weapon can and most likely will affect the zero.

I dunno - that's the impression I'm getting from the HK PDF file. Everything is boresighted & zero'd at the factory, and retains zero when being attached / detached. Doesn't make any sense for it not to keep the same specs when barrels are switched out. Again, this is a "friggin magic" aspect that's above my paygrade - I will reserve comment until it actually lives up to the promises. If the system is machined right though, there's no reason for it not to work out this way; it had to happen eventually. CNC machining has tolerance capabilities of .00001 now. Again, above my paygrade.

I will give you that the A2 stock is too long. So to fix that I'm supposed to spend $2500 on an XM8 when I can buy an $80 collapsible stock or a shorter fixed stock and have the armorer change it. Yeah that's good and frugal with my tax dollars. As noted above, I can already clip my M203 onto any carbine or rifle equipped with a RAS. And how did the XM320 figure into this? I thought we were talking about the XM8. What rounds are out there that we can't use in the M203 anyway? What greater capability do they give us? You don't know, because they are don't exist yet. There are a lot of riot control rounds that we can't use in the M203 because they are too long. If HK wants to sell us a side opening grenade launcher, (and I don't really think it's a bad idea) then they should make the XM320 so that it attaches to M1913 Picatinney rail, just like the new and the modified M203 does.

Yeah, and how much are all those kits going to cost? How much for all the stocks? How many more peacekeeping missions are our troops going to get sent on - since less lethal isn't going away now that it's available? What future capabilities can we have if we don't have to worry about that short breech? Nice thing about LESSONS LEARNED - it teaches you how NOT to do things. BTW, that $2500 figure is for the M4 with all the doodads; XM8 is projected at $1800. Furthermore it looks like the HK launcher is already 1913 capable and has the additional ability to be used as a standalone unit. Forward thinking Jeff - it's not good enough to just look at the present; we have to look to the future capabilities as well. It means that when you realize there's a problem with the A2 stock, you can switch it out with no fuss. Or you come out with a new optics system, you can pop it right on. M1913 was a significant breakthrough - who know's what's next?

[Hondo M16's]That my friend is the kind of record that you are competing against.

I'm not competing against crap - I'm just waiting for M4's to hit the CMP. And I seem to remember the M16 not doing too well when it was initially fielded, did it? It took 40 years for it to get to what we have now, the M4, and it still isn't perfect because we have constant "product improvements" coming out. 40 years and we still can't switch from 5.56mm (not because of lack of better rounds, but because the magwells can't take it). Your same arguments were all applied to the M16 and look what we have now. We shouldn't have to wait another 40 years with the same system and ignore all the capability improvements we've had since 1960.

Like it or not, the XM8 (or something like it) is coming. And unlike the M16, it does provide for future upgrades & caliber conversions. Heck, how much money would we have saved if we had a system in place that could be adapted for battlefield pickups, instead of having to puchase Knight's Armaments SPR's at a few grand a pop?

Tell you what - you develop a M4 that out of the box fixes the ambi issues, allows for ammo switchover, can switch out trigger groups, has quick change barrels & stocks that don't require a buffer tube, incorporates an optic sight with IR laser & illuminator and is under $1800 and I'll sing it's praises too. That said, it won't be an M16 anymore, will it?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

And unlike the M16, it does provide for future upgrades & caliber conversions.

That's a baldfaced lie and you know it. The m-16 can be made to work with any round that'll fit in the magazine well.

 

[Spark]

That's a baldfaced lie and you know it. The m-16 can be made to work with any round that'll fit in the magazine well.

Re read what you just wrote and think on it. You don't make the ammo fit the magazine well, you make the magazine well fit the ammo. That's called modularity. You don't design a car around the tires, or a multipurpose, multimission rifle system around a single caliber.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

right now i can order an m-16 in 9mm, .40 S&W, 10mm,.45ACP,.50AE,.458 Socom, .500 beowulf,.22lr,.223,the various whisper cartridges,.6.5 grendel,6.8 SPC.


The G36 can be ordered in any caliber as long as it's .223.

 

[Spark]

Wow, pistol caliber carbine conversions and bastard rounds designed to use the same magazines as the AR. Bravo, you sure showed me. I mean, having an AR that could take ANY caliber sure wouldn't be better than having a one size fits some magwell that can't be changed out ever. Sorry, Andrew, but you just made my point for me.

You cannot take an AR lower, and with minor mods, have it feeding anything from .22lr to .300 Win Mag to 7.62 NATO to .30-06. Your line of thinking is like buying a car, welding the seat in place, and putting books on the seat if you are too small for the "default" setting - or reaching around the driver seat if you are too big for the default setting.

The XM8 has caliber conversion as one of it's principle feature sets. You don't buy your car around the tires, right? You don't buy a house because of your fridge. The US has done something pretty smart - they've decided not to let ammo dictate what their next platform will be; instead, they want the platform to handle just about anything, so they aren't tied down to a cartridge for 40 years.

Like I said, if the AR had the magwell as a seperate assembly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It also wouldn't be an AR, but that's a semantics argument.

 

[Badger Arms]

In the development history of the AR-15 / M16 weapon system, it was originally deisgned to feed from a straight 20 or 25rd magazine. When it was decided to develop a fully curved magazine, the limitations of the design were blindingly clear. Stoner had made the mag well tight for a straight magazine. He'd never thought of a curved magazine. All that was (and is) required to fit a fully curved magazine to the AR-15 is milling about .200" from the front of the mag well at an angle so that the top opening still has the same dimensions.

This was suggested and rejected out of hand as being too expensive. Were the M8 to have had the same history, we could have just swapped out the mag wells, and there ya go!

The M16 is severely limited by its magazine well. The 6.5 (6.8?) Grendal is the largest round that can reasonably fit double-stack into the magazine well. That's with a steel sheet-metal magazine too. Looking at the mags, the VERY-SHORT feed lips appear to be dangerous and prone to bending and failure. Don't know, don't ever plan to find out myself, but that's just an observation.

If you wnat to design a PROPER new round with a PROPER shape and a PROPER magazine, you start from scratch. You don't pound it to fit the limitations of a 1950's design.

The other major caliber limitation is in the bolt of the AR15. The maximum practical case head diameter is about .440" or the same as a 220 Russian on which it seems many of these wildcats are made. This is convenient as you can't jam cartridges any larger than this in the magazine anyhow. Now that's what I call modular and upgradeable. [sarcasm dripping]

 

[cordex]

While I agree that the M16 is a limited platform, I'm not sure I see why the XM8 is a sufficient improvement to justify the expense.

Your line of thinking is like buying a car, welding the seat in place, and putting books on the seat if you are too small for the "default" setting - or reaching around the driver seat if you are too big for the default setting.

Actually, his line of thinking is to design a car seat adjustable within some pre-defined specifications, and have any adjustments beyond that require rather expensive and exotic modifications to the car. Which is how things are right now.

Look, I like the idea of an adjustable mag well for a gee-whiz, neat-o rifle, but we're talking about buying these in 5,56.45mm ... not .300 Weatherby. If we decided to adopt a cartridge that the M16 was incapable of digesting, then maybe replacing the M16 with the XM8 or similar weapon would make sense. Otherwise, it is just isn't enough of a change to warrant the massive expense of changing the GI rifle.

 

[Andrew]

I don't know if anyone has seen this. but by the photos on HKs website it looks like the magwell on the XM8s that are being tested for use by the US Militray are Fixed.
So by that it comes down to the samething as with the M16 line. only the round that can fit in the 5.56mm magazine can be used in the Rifle.