Boy this is getting old.
(with regards to the Shrike vaporware upper)USSOCOM has some on order, IIRC.
Whoopdeedoo. IIRC, we had Crusaders & Metalstorms on order too. When it's issued, then we'll talk.
You do realize that the current sopmod M4 grenade launcher is rail mounted, don't you? You can do this now.
You do realize that the SOPMOD kit is way more expensive than the $2500 price tag listed in the XM8 head to head comparison, and isn't slated for general issue, don't you? You can NOT do this now in line units. The purpose of the XM8 is, tada, to incorporate a new rifle system where this sort of modularity is integrated on all rifles, not just the SF ones. Wow, explain to me again how the current M16 represents a cost savings?
you can do everything you mention with the current m-16 family, with the exception of removing buttstock and putting on a reciever cap, which is stupid and unnecessary, anyway.
Um, no, you can't. You cannot switch the barrels without switching entire uppers. You can't pop out buttstocks. You can't do anything other than switch out entire assemblies (and all the component parts therein), essentially requiring 3+ additional weapons laying about if you want to achieve the same level of "modularity"; and even then, the M16 still doesn't match up in features.
Now, back to Jeff -
Oh, but you can charge the weapon with your non firing hand. [snippage of extra text]
Re read, Jeff. Shoulder
firing position. Last time I checked, a good stock weld precludes you operating the charging handle
because your face gets in the way Sorry, advantage HK. Furthermore, the charging handle is the forward assist (yay, slimmer package hopefully!, no FA hitting us lefty's in the noggin!)
I don't believe I said I would refute everything on the comparison. I was just pointing out how HK fabricated information and manipulated the data (i.e. figuing both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 with the M4) to make the XM8 look better then it is. I wonder why they felt the need to do that?
Got me. Maybe they were looking for selling points. IIRC, the PAQ-4 is IR only, and the PEQ-2 is dual beam with illuminator and pointer and some other doodads. Again, I don't know why both were included, or if both were actually included in the final price (I don't claim to know all the answers). Heck, for all I know, they priced low - I don't have access to the Govt pricing data.
The fact is, they have no idea what the service life of an XM8 is, because no production versions exist. The Army also has no idea what the service life of an M16 series is because they don't keep those kinds of records. Any data figured on parts needing replaced at a set number of rounds is based on torture testing which may or may not reflect the actual service life of a weapon or part.
Oh hogwash. Engineers are perfectly capable of designing for a service life, especially when they have the scientific data available on ammunition, mechanical wear & everything else. Mechanical engineers specifically design service lives into components. Hell, your *tires* are good for 30/60/90,000 miles and you change your oil every 3000, do you honestly think that they wouldn't be able to figure out how many rounds they can send through a barrel before it wears out. Yes, there are wear guages, erosion testers, & headspacing doodads, but all in all, something that last longer is typically better, right?
Furthermore, we have service life based components already in other aspects of the military, whether fuses, radar sets, or even war stock ammo & tank barrels. Let's use some common sense. Torture testing & proving trials exist for several reasons, including to see if the items live up to the manufacturer claims. Wait, what was I saying again? I seem to have drifted off.
Muzzle Velocity M855: XM8 20" barrel 2850 M16A4 20" barrel 3100
XM8 12.5" barrel 2545 M4 14.5" barrel 2970
I plead ignorance - all I know about muzzle velocity is that more is better. I couldn't even begin to tell you why two barrels the same length don't get the same velocity. Hopefully someone else can explain that.
As for all the bandwidth we are eating up talking modularity, you know as well as I do that the Army will not buy a complete system for every soldier. They will take each version and designate who gets what in a Modified Table of Allowances and Equipment. (MTOE) So while it sounds good to the hobbyists who post here, it's pretty much a non issue for the soldiers. Modularity will be important to SOF and no one else in the military community. The big army will still have so many rifles, so many SAWs and so many grenade launchers per squad.
I won't argue with you there. That said, however, when all you have to do is stock a barrel, instead of an upper, I easily can see combined arms units, Stryker brigades, etc, stocking a variety of barrels & parts simply for the flexibility it offers. Again, this goest back to tankers needing short barrels for their vehicles, designated marksmen needing longer barrels / optics, etc. While there isn't a need for every soldier to have the complete gamut in their wall locker (or ruck), there's no reason for the arms room not to have a few cases of parts to change over a platoon's worth of weapons from one configuration to another. Nice thing about flexibility - it gives you more options (and more ways to screw up). I'm sure some abortion will be made of the TOE with regards to the next rifle system until they figure out what is needed, and what isn't. Furthermore, instead of the current abortion where you have to physically change weapons to swap out GL's, or have a designated marksman, or some such, it will be much easier to reorganize the squad.
Hey, me personally, I think every soldier should be issued their rifle in basic, and keep it with them through their term of service. But I'm crazy like that.
