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