M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
- Thread starter mdsteele
- Start date
- Status
BevrFevr
Member
what's a 6.8 look like?
any pics?
-bevr
any pics?
-bevr
BTW, dunno if anybody noticed, but HK put up some XM8 material on their new webpage, including a head-to-head of the M4 vs the XM8 and some videos:
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
cookhj
Member
not bad....too space-aged looking for me though. i would be afraid that white armor clad stormtroopers would be after me if i carried one of those.
starfuryzeta
Member
Looks vaguely familiar, almost like a M41A Pulse Rifle.
Stock looks interesting. Doesn't mention the ability to use existing mags.
And this is better than the G36 how?
Stock looks interesting. Doesn't mention the ability to use existing mags.
And this is better than the G36 how?
cookhj
Member
actually, now that i think about it and look at it again. it's fugly. you're right starfuryzeta, what the hell is the difference between that and the G-36 besides the fact that the G-36 is a much better looking rifle. i don't see why we can't go with a G-36 or SiG550/551 design but a different caliber like the 6.8x43mm.
The stock is what has me concerned. If it is solid polymer it would probably be OK.
If it is hollow it will be a nightmare.
You never know when you might need to whack someone over the head with your rifle butt. Breaking the damn thing off is just one more thing to have to worry about.
Also, where are the iron sights?
Surely they aren't going to solely rely on battery powered sights...
If it is hollow it will be a nightmare.
You never know when you might need to whack someone over the head with your rifle butt. Breaking the damn thing off is just one more thing to have to worry about.
Also, where are the iron sights?
Surely they aren't going to solely rely on battery powered sights...
Cosmoline
Member
That 6.8 looks excellent! Truly the best of all worlds. I wonder what the max OAL is. Anyone know? What about twist rates? If possible it would be great to be able to increase the bullet weight to 150 or 160 for AP roles. You can get extremely high SD ratings with that diameter.
natedog
Member
Nobody sees a problem with a 12.5" barrel standard? You're getting what, like 2700 FPS at the muzzle? Thats barely in the fragmentation range for 5.56mm...not good.
Kaylee
Member
re HK's "compare me" page with the M4: 
I note among safety issues of the M4 "barrel will rupture with barrel obstruction" .... something missing from the XM-8 issues. Nice to know that I only need to worry about obstructed .223 barrels in the M4.
Oh, there's lot's more like that to.. did you know, for instance, that the only modular element on the M4 was the accessories?
God help the politician reading that without a bit of background knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for phasing out the M16 platform soon. But that ad copy is just wretched.
-K
I note among safety issues of the M4 "barrel will rupture with barrel obstruction" .... something missing from the XM-8 issues. Nice to know that I only need to worry about obstructed .223 barrels in the M4.
Oh, there's lot's more like that to.. did you know, for instance, that the only modular element on the M4 was the accessories?
God help the politician reading that without a bit of background knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for phasing out the M16 platform soon. But that ad copy is just wretched.
-K
The Comparison Page is full of lies....
You have to wonder just how confident they are with this system. They have to lie about it's competition to make their weapon look good in comparison. Thanks for the link. My congressman will love this.
Jeff
You have to wonder just how confident they are with this system. They have to lie about it's competition to make their weapon look good in comparison. Thanks for the link. My congressman will love this.
Jeff
And what else, pray tell, would you call "user level modular" on the M16 system? That is, interchangeable without tools, without replaceing the entire main assembly?
Modular is changing a barrel, not an entire upper. Modular is changing stocks, not lowers. Etc etc etc.
There were a couple spots where you could take issue on the head-to-head page, but the far majority was bare bones truth.
Tamara
Senior Member
If it's done without tools, what difference does it make if there's a cheap (and very amortized) aluminum forging attached to the back end of the quick-change barrel or not? It ain't like G.I. Joe is gonna carry a golf bag of barrels in the field with him. "Hey, sarge, that Tango looks to be about 600 yards off. Should I stay with the 14.5" barrel or switch to the 20" tube?"
Andrew Wyatt
Member
You also don't have to rezero the thing every time you change uppers like you do when changing barrels. I dislike repeating myself in these g36 vs m4 threads.
AUTIGER04
member
H&K USA.
Remember they just built a new factory in Columbus GA.
Remember they just built a new factory in Columbus GA.
Hahahahahaha, funny illustration. Hang on a sec, I have to stop laughing. Almost done. There. Great thing, that ridiculous comparison / absurd situation thing. Almost like how the anti's say "Whaddaya need that assault rifle for? To mow down people in the mall?" Following your logic, Tamara, would are troops be better off hauling around multiple barrels, or MULTIPLE UPPERS. Take your time.
Logistics wise, let's see, maybe you can list all the parts required in replacing the entire upper on a M16, versus the single part (barrel) in the XM8? How many pieces would that be again? How many inventory model numbers would that be? How many REDUNDANT pieces would that be? And hey, if any one of those pieces fails, like, say, the gas tube, or the front sight block, or anything else is broken, then is the rest of the assembly usable without replacement?
Your argument is like saying, "Hey, it's better to change the transmission and drive train every time we want to put on snow tires"
Andrew, FYI, it's SOP to rezero your rifle anytime you make any major changes to it. Changing your handguards system from the standard to the RIS on the M4 will throw off your zero. Adding an M203 will throw off your zero. Swapping an upper certainly requires rezeroing - especially considering that since they aren't serial numbered, there is no way to ensure that everyone get's the same one back. Each rifle has to be zero'ed for each shooter, remember? Nice try though, please try again. I get tired of explaining the obvious to people who should know better. Putting on and taking off the electronic sights will disrupt zero. Need I continue?
Furthermore, and I quote from hk-usa.com
Now, given the above statement, and the fact that this weapon is designed to quick change barrels, do you think that they possibly, maybe, might have considered that barrel swap outs should have close to the same zero? Maybe, possibly, who knows, they might actually have considered this aspect? I mean, hey, swapping a barrel is a major deal. They might want to make sure the lockup is pretty precise and all.
Tamara
Senior Member
The correct answer, obviously, is "C) Neither," which was the point of my post.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
*shrug* I doubt the xm8 can go from a 20 inch barrelled, Acog sighted gun to a 14.5 inch barrelled aimpoint sighted gun as fast as the AR can, since it requires tools to remove the (untested) gee whizbang optic ,which is probably a two minute job. then you have install a mount that's compatable with something other than HK products. that's probably a 2 to five minute job. then you have to install the scope. that's a 3 minute job, if you've done it before.
THEN you can go rezero it, cause you have to.
With the ar-15, you pop the pushpins, replace the upper and you're good to go, since you made sure it worked before and you zeroed the scope and whatnot. then you can go rezero if you want to, but it'll be zeroed.
The only people who would have multiple uppers are the special operations guys. They know who belongs to what.
The XM8 money is better spent on getting 6.8mm uppers in the hands of every rifleman.
You might want to tone down your condesension. It's unbecoming.
THEN you can go rezero it, cause you have to.
With the ar-15, you pop the pushpins, replace the upper and you're good to go, since you made sure it worked before and you zeroed the scope and whatnot. then you can go rezero if you want to, but it'll be zeroed.
The only people who would have multiple uppers are the special operations guys. They know who belongs to what.
The XM8 money is better spent on getting 6.8mm uppers in the hands of every rifleman.
You might want to tone down your condesension. It's unbecoming.
HK has been reduced to lies and misinformation to market the XM8
I printed out the XM8 - US M4 System Comparison from the HK USA Website. The lies and misinformation concerning the XM8's competition, the M4 MWS are astounding. I'm going to post a head to head comparison with facts about the M4 MWS. My facts come from FM 3-22.9 and TM 9-1005-319-23&p current to change 7.
HK starts by by stacking the deck in their favor by comparing the XM with the M4 MWS including redundant accessories. The XM8 example shows it including integrated sight with IR laser and illuminator, red dot reflex sight and integrated mount. The M4 MWS is equipped with rail attachment system, AN/PEQ-2, AN/PAQ-4, M68 CCO, mounts and BUS.
I know that HK knows that you get both an IR laser aimer and illuminator with the AN/PEQ-2. You don't need the AN/PAQ-4 to get both functions. Soldiers are not issued both, they get one or the other. However if you compare the two weapons side by side, the inclusion of both systems with the M4 MWS makes the HK look much better in the cost and weight areas.
Then we get down to system cost. They show the XM8 at $600 for the basic carbine. Of course this is an estimate, as no production carbines exist and HK hasn't fixed the price yet. Wonder if they'd commit to deliver them for that today? They show the cost of the basic M4 carbine at $900, which is closer to the commerical cost of a Colt M4 to a civilian LE agency, although I've seen them advertised at about $845 agency price. Current contract price to the Army was right at $700 the last time I looked it up on FEDLOG.
Of course if you add HKs untested (the German soldiers are very unhappy with the one on the G36) integrated sight you get the cost up to $1800. This is vs. $2539 for the M4 as listed, although I've mentioned you don't issue the M4 with both the PEQ-2 and PAQ-4, it's one or the other, which would make the M4 cheaper then the XM8 with integrated sight.
Next we get into barrel exchange. The M4 barrel does in fact have fixed headspace.
Component service life: There is no requirement to replace the barrels at 8000 rounds in any of the M16 variants. The Army does not track rounds fired through any small arms except for sniper weapons systems. Weapons are gaged at regular intervals and parts are replaced as they wear out. The 8k figure is something HK made up, it's definately not anything the Army specified. Of course HKs figures are guess work since no production XM8s exist and are inservice anywhere. No actual data has been determined.
They also lie about the M68 CCO not returning to zero. All you have to do is put the Rail Grabber mount back in the same numbered slot on the upper receiver.
They say the charging handle isn't operable in the shoulder firing postion. I wonder if Pat Rogers knows that, or Jim Crews or any other trainer on the M4 system? Funny thing but I charge mine with the weapon mounted all the time.
Oh and I love this one...the Beta C-mag doesn't work with the M4..duhh that POS mag doesn't work with anything. My frriend who is working at HK said they totally re-engineered it for the XM8. I wonder how their optional high reliablity 100-round dual drum magazines would work in the M4? How is it a failure of the weapon if a junk magazine doesn't work in it? Next they'll say that there is something wrong because USA brand steel mags don't work either...
BTW HK the standard USGI BFA is designed to break away and prevent the weapon from injuring the shooter. Another non issue.
So if the XM8 is such an advance over what we have, why does HK have to lie and manipulate the facts to make it look so much better?
Could it be that it's not a big advance, they know it's not and this is all hype to rip off the American taxpayer?
Jeff
I printed out the XM8 - US M4 System Comparison from the HK USA Website. The lies and misinformation concerning the XM8's competition, the M4 MWS are astounding. I'm going to post a head to head comparison with facts about the M4 MWS. My facts come from FM 3-22.9 and TM 9-1005-319-23&p current to change 7.
HK starts by by stacking the deck in their favor by comparing the XM with the M4 MWS including redundant accessories. The XM8 example shows it including integrated sight with IR laser and illuminator, red dot reflex sight and integrated mount. The M4 MWS is equipped with rail attachment system, AN/PEQ-2, AN/PAQ-4, M68 CCO, mounts and BUS.
I know that HK knows that you get both an IR laser aimer and illuminator with the AN/PEQ-2. You don't need the AN/PAQ-4 to get both functions. Soldiers are not issued both, they get one or the other. However if you compare the two weapons side by side, the inclusion of both systems with the M4 MWS makes the HK look much better in the cost and weight areas.
Then we get down to system cost. They show the XM8 at $600 for the basic carbine. Of course this is an estimate, as no production carbines exist and HK hasn't fixed the price yet. Wonder if they'd commit to deliver them for that today? They show the cost of the basic M4 carbine at $900, which is closer to the commerical cost of a Colt M4 to a civilian LE agency, although I've seen them advertised at about $845 agency price. Current contract price to the Army was right at $700 the last time I looked it up on FEDLOG.
Of course if you add HKs untested (the German soldiers are very unhappy with the one on the G36) integrated sight you get the cost up to $1800. This is vs. $2539 for the M4 as listed, although I've mentioned you don't issue the M4 with both the PEQ-2 and PAQ-4, it's one or the other, which would make the M4 cheaper then the XM8 with integrated sight.
Next we get into barrel exchange. The M4 barrel does in fact have fixed headspace.
Component service life: There is no requirement to replace the barrels at 8000 rounds in any of the M16 variants. The Army does not track rounds fired through any small arms except for sniper weapons systems. Weapons are gaged at regular intervals and parts are replaced as they wear out. The 8k figure is something HK made up, it's definately not anything the Army specified. Of course HKs figures are guess work since no production XM8s exist and are inservice anywhere. No actual data has been determined.
They also lie about the M68 CCO not returning to zero. All you have to do is put the Rail Grabber mount back in the same numbered slot on the upper receiver.
They say the charging handle isn't operable in the shoulder firing postion. I wonder if Pat Rogers knows that, or Jim Crews or any other trainer on the M4 system? Funny thing but I charge mine with the weapon mounted all the time.
Oh and I love this one...the Beta C-mag doesn't work with the M4..duhh that POS mag doesn't work with anything. My frriend who is working at HK said they totally re-engineered it for the XM8. I wonder how their optional high reliablity 100-round dual drum magazines would work in the M4? How is it a failure of the weapon if a junk magazine doesn't work in it? Next they'll say that there is something wrong because USA brand steel mags don't work either...
BTW HK the standard USGI BFA is designed to break away and prevent the weapon from injuring the shooter. Another non issue.
So if the XM8 is such an advance over what we have, why does HK have to lie and manipulate the facts to make it look so much better?
Could it be that it's not a big advance, they know it's not and this is all hype to rip off the American taxpayer?
Jeff
Oh, so you found the one instance where a seperate upper actually comes in handy. Wow. Amazing.
Of course, that predicates that you are actually going to keep that ACOG married to the upper (not likely) since you are going to have to have a protected carrying system for it. Boy, that's some modularity - see my snow tires / transmission example above and please try again. Now, more likely is they will have to change one, or the other. Your red-herring about mounts is just that, because if that system is designated for use with the XM8 (and only the XM8), then the adaptor is going to be married to it until such time that a standard mounting is in field.
Furthermore, you have (again) ignored the myriad other advantages that modularity has. But what the hell, you'd rather waste money on 500 possible permutations of uppers, each married to a different sighting system, than admit a quick change modular system is better. Pray tell, where would all these uppers be stored btw? How many complete uppers would you need? How much space would that take up? Since you've been dismissing the XM8 on price, How much money would all those spare uppers cost and what is that cost savings? Quite a modular system there.
Jeff's comments are another matter. Interesting how he ignores what he can't refute. Personally, I feel the most important error you make, Jeff, is on the charging handle operation - they refer to not having to remove the hand from the firing grip to operate the charging handle. Not the best English I've seen, but it's understandable. I can't comment on the pricing and such because I'm ignorant of exact US prices.
With regards to service life specifications, I'd expect they got their figures from actual testing, which might not show up in the TM's / FM's and might be available from the proving grounds / trials & such. Again, I'm ignorant on that aspect. What I can tell you is that they probably reached their 20,000 round figure on barrels as a preset specification (ie "We need to design this to meet a minimum service life of x rounds"). But it's so much more fun to pick nits, right?
Andrew Wyatt
Member
Fun fact: g36 magazines take up as much space as 20 round m-14 magazines. that RACK the guy with the XM8 is showing off (which normally holds 12 m-16 magazines) only holds 8 g36 magazines.
this means that the ETLBV(the load bearing vest that most of the force without molle uses) can only carry 2! G36 magazines.
Dude, seriously. The attitude's getting old.
In any event, keeping the ACOG on the longer barrel upper makes way more sense than using the aimpoint on everything from the 7 inch or whatever barrel to the 20 inch barrel gun. Modularity is all about tailoring the weapon to the mission.
this means that the ETLBV(the load bearing vest that most of the force without molle uses) can only carry 2! G36 magazines.
Dude, seriously. The attitude's getting old.
In any event, keeping the ACOG on the longer barrel upper makes way more sense than using the aimpoint on everything from the 7 inch or whatever barrel to the 20 inch barrel gun. Modularity is all about tailoring the weapon to the mission.
- Status
