OICW out, XM8 and OCSW in
- Thread starter benEzra
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yes, I think the XM8 is more of an attempt to justify the failed XM29 program and budget than anything; but by all accounts we could see a very solid rifle out of it.
Whether it is solid enough to justify the cost compared to a product-improved AR platform seems to be the question.
Badger Arms
Member
Here we go again. As was said in an earlier thread, anything new is going to have a band of 'Nay-sayers' lambasting it based on the 'It was good enough for my father' mentality. Progress is not a dirty word.
No, but the XM8 has some serious problems to contend with. For example, a barrel that's a wee bit short; an actual cost higher than an M4s; lack of a telescoping stock that makes it adjustable for individuals (a return to the not so good days of the one size doesn't fit all M16A2 stock); and dedicated optics that aren't that great. But hey, it's new so it must be progress and better, no?
Badger Arms
Member
Much to the contrary, half of all of the previous weapons in Army history were adopted that way. Look at the M1903 (Which was made in smaller numbers than its competition, the M1917 Enfield); the selection process for the 1903 was unilateral with no real alternatives. The outcome of the M1911 trials was almost a foregone conclusion with a circus of a trials period. Of course, that was JMB. Where was the competition for the BAR? The M-14 was ramrodded down our throats with another dog-and-pony parade of 'competitors' when the real winner had been decided before the 'competition.' Even the beloved (and excellent I might add) M-1 Garand had only token competition from the Pederson and Johnson rifles. The Ordnance department has always had their 'babies' and they have ALMOST always won. The M-16 is the most notable exception.
Myself and other XM8 fans welcome an open competition. Let's test the M16 against the Sig 55x series, AK-74, AUG, Tavor, FAMAS, XM8, FN2000, and anybody else that wants in. Set the standards, pick the winner, and go on with life. Just stop ramming the M-16 down our throats, Mr. McNamarra!
Badger Arms
Member
Did I miss something? The XM8 has a telescoping stock, the short barrel is only one model, the cost is LOWER than the M-4 when comparably equipped, the optics have most likely NOT been examined by anybody who is on this board... Not sure you're thinking of the same gun even.
Bobarino
member
if the optics are going to be the same as the dual sight setup available for the SL8, then i think they're pretty nifty. i got a chance to fondle one at a local gun shop and the sighting was pretty innovative. it consists of a 1x red dot scope mounted on top of a separate 3x crosshair scope with mil-crosses. the red dot scope has a window on the top of it that can be opened to be able to use ambient light to illuminate the red dot to extend battery life. each are sighted in independantly from one another. different barrel lengths will indeed be available as is the multi position telescoping stock. i REALLY REALLY REALLY hope they make a civilian version. especially if the AWB goes away.
Bobby
Bobby
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Where exactly did you perceive nay-saying? I don't believe that indicating that the XM8 is basically an attempt to justify the expense of the failed XM29 program equates to naysaying, especially considering that I remarked that it looks to be a pretty solid rifle in the very next sentence.
I rather doubt that. H&K claims a cost of <$600 for the basic XM8 and compares this to a claimed cost of $900 for a basic M-4. I don't pay $900 for an M4, so I seriously doubt Uncle Sam does. I bet if you give me an order for several hundred thousand product improved M4s, I can come back with a cost of less than $600 per unit as well.
H&K also claims that the XM8 with integrated sight (red dot, IR laser & illuminator, mount) costs $1,800. As a civilian, I located a IRLI-400 IR laser/illuminator for $385. I can purchase an Aimpoint Comp M2 red dot for $340 and a mount for anywhere from $30 to $129 depending on how fancy I like it... let's go with the QD throw levers and cantilever spacer at $129. that leaves me with $916 to buy one of those high-priced $900 M4s that H&K is talking about... though I bet I can find one cheaper (note that H&K claims a comparitively equipped M4 costs $2,539.)
http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison.pdf
Well not by me to be sure; but you'd be surprised who hangs out on these boards. I can tell you one thing though - an integral optic is always going to suck compared to a detachable optic because even if it is the bee's knees when the rifle is first introduced, it will soon be outdated with our rapidly developing technology.
Don't get me wrong, if even half of what I have read about the XM8 pans out, it will certainly be a good rifle that I would be interested in buying if it were ever made available to us mere proles... but I think that this is a product that H&K has seriously over-hyped in its literature and I remain concerned that it doesn't offer a significant advantage over the AR system that justifies its cost.
Badger Arms
Member
Well, bottom line is that I'm biased. 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. Thank God they killed the G11 and OICW. The G36 was their fallback plan... "Let's take everything that WORKS, tweak it a little, make it simple and guaranteed to work all the time, and put all that in one package." They did this so elegantly, that I cannot find any SERIOUS faults.
The optics... I'll give you that. Just put a weaver rail up there and call it good... let the user choose the optics. It does need permanent backup iron sights, even if this is only the ELCAN style of molded in sights on the top of the scope.
When I actually got to put a few hundred rounds down-range with a (sight equiped) G36, that was it. This is an outstanding weapon. There are probably a few guns on the market that will compete with it in some areas, but the blue ribbon goes to the G36.
Those deficiencies that I noticed are fixed on the XM8. In fact, the integrated optic is not integrated. It is removeable. In fact, it's quick detatchable.
The optics... I'll give you that. Just put a weaver rail up there and call it good... let the user choose the optics. It does need permanent backup iron sights, even if this is only the ELCAN style of molded in sights on the top of the scope.
When I actually got to put a few hundred rounds down-range with a (sight equiped) G36, that was it. This is an outstanding weapon. There are probably a few guns on the market that will compete with it in some areas, but the blue ribbon goes to the G36.
Those deficiencies that I noticed are fixed on the XM8. In fact, the integrated optic is not integrated. It is removeable. In fact, it's quick detatchable.
The sight incorporates what would be three separate gadgets into one compact, lightweight unit that doesn't have to come with the gun.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was not commenting on your post and in fact hadn't read your post before I posted mine. I was merely preempting what I knew was going to be criticism of H&K and a litany of XM8er rhetoric. I apologize if you felt this was directed at you.
LynnMassGuy
Member
"I don't pay $900 for an M4, so I seriously doubt Uncle Sam does."
Why not, they used to buy $50.00 hammers.
Why not, they used to buy $50.00 hammers.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
JSYK, the HK listed price for the M4 included some redundent systems (two laser designators)
LynnMassGuy:
Jaywalker
I guess we all have to be offended by something - this offends me. As an ex-USAF contracting officer, I have to say we DID NOT pay $50 for a hammer, and I have no idea where you got that idea. I demand an apology. It was $900.00...
Jaywalker
Tamara
Senior Member
Well, that about sums it up, there. (The G36 predates the OICW, BTW...
)...and, yes, "progress" is not a dirty word, I just want to see proof of progress, as opposed to change for change's sake. "New" or "different" does not automatically equate to "better".
Granted, I only have a smidgen of experience with various .223 service-type rifles, so I'll cheerfully defer to end-users as to what they'd prefer. (Myself? The AR70, DR200 and .223 FAL have all been sold, and work is commencing on a shorty AR for an "Indoors Rifle". If I have to go outdoors with it, I'll stick with my HK91, as I'm used to it and derive all manner of illusory comfort from its chambering.
)artherd
member
I do have to ask, what problem will this new rifle really solve?
The M14 carried more rounds and was lighter than the M1.
The M14 was much lighter, and carried MUCH more ammo than the M14.
What will this new gun, also in .223, provide as the value-add?
If it's more reliable, great. Honestly, that could be enough for me, especially if my life were dependant on the thing. However, the current M4 era AR-15/M16 series is pretty solid from what I can garner. Still, there is no such thing as too much reliability.
But other than the above, the only other results I see are maybe saving a few bucks (and maybe not, depending on who you ask.)
I'm all for change, but what are we really changing to here?
The M14 carried more rounds and was lighter than the M1.
The M14 was much lighter, and carried MUCH more ammo than the M14.
What will this new gun, also in .223, provide as the value-add?
If it's more reliable, great. Honestly, that could be enough for me, especially if my life were dependant on the thing. However, the current M4 era AR-15/M16 series is pretty solid from what I can garner. Still, there is no such thing as too much reliability.
But other than the above, the only other results I see are maybe saving a few bucks (and maybe not, depending on who you ask.)
I'm all for change, but what are we really changing to here?
Nightcrawler
Member
You call 12" a WEE BIT short? That's eight inches less than what's about optimal for a 5.56mm rifle. The problem is this is going to be the STANDARD version.
So, great, you have a rifle that you can manuver around in your upstairs hallway with. But when you walk outside (where contrary to what the gunrags might say, most of the world's combat takes place) and you have a rifle with a significantly reduced effective range. This would be better if it were going to be supplemented by a DMR...but it is. A 5.56mm DMR with a 20" barrel, which is as close to completely butchering the designated marksman's rifle concept as you can get.
And then there's the "light machine gun". It's the 20" version with a Beta-C mag and a bipod. No quick change barrel, I don't even know if it has a heavy barrel. BIG STEP DOWN from the SAW, which currently fills our automatic rifle role.
artherd
member
Somehow I still think a DM should be using a 7.62x51. Probally a PSG-1 (or M14 in a pinch <ducks> )
What about this for an intermediate LMG? It's doubtful it could sustain close to the thermally-limited rate of fire of a SAW, but it's over 10 lbs lighter and will take M16 mags when your belt runs out.
http://www.montysminiguns.com/shrikepage.htm
Again, I really have to pose the question, what is wrong with our current short and long .223s ? (what's really wrong, not what did you read in a magazine.)
.223 Ballistics do drop off pretty fast once you go below 14.5" (80-150meter maximum terminal range with 14.5" barrel. Which is pretty good really, esp with a DM in every 5 man crew.) I wonder if the new rifle will have any tricks to erk more barrel effecncy? Is this even possible with current ammo? Will we see new 5.56mm ammo loaded more like a pistol round to much higher pressures with shorter burn time for the ~10" barrels?
I definately am watching a trend from leauges of infantrymen, to an almost all-special-ops type of military. So let's give them the manuverable tactical weapons they need, while having enough power for limited outdoor action, and train all 6 guys on the DM rifle out to 1,000yds. too. From an ignorant outsider(that's me)'s prospective, this shift to a more special-ops type of general force seems to be a very good thing.
) What about this for an intermediate LMG? It's doubtful it could sustain close to the thermally-limited rate of fire of a SAW, but it's over 10 lbs lighter and will take M16 mags when your belt runs out.
http://www.montysminiguns.com/shrikepage.htm
Again, I really have to pose the question, what is wrong with our current short and long .223s ? (what's really wrong, not what did you read in a magazine.)
.223 Ballistics do drop off pretty fast once you go below 14.5" (80-150meter maximum terminal range with 14.5" barrel. Which is pretty good really, esp with a DM in every 5 man crew.) I wonder if the new rifle will have any tricks to erk more barrel effecncy? Is this even possible with current ammo? Will we see new 5.56mm ammo loaded more like a pistol round to much higher pressures with shorter burn time for the ~10" barrels?
I definately am watching a trend from leauges of infantrymen, to an almost all-special-ops type of military. So let's give them the manuverable tactical weapons they need, while having enough power for limited outdoor action, and train all 6 guys on the DM rifle out to 1,000yds. too. From an ignorant outsider(that's me)'s prospective, this shift to a more special-ops type of general force seems to be a very good thing.
We like rifles, so we're concerned about any system's individual capability - "will this one rifle do this?" The military doesn't think like that. They/(we) think like, "what will a batallion of people armed with this combination of things be able to accomplish in a combined arms universe?" These aren't just theoretical differences, either. They don't expect, for instance, M-16s to engage at 300 yards+ in open country - that's the SAW's role, or artillery, or mortars, or some other crew-served system. As long as it doesn't hurt infantry's primary role, the Department's willing to give infantry some limited capability in extended range engagements.
The key here is the role. Enemy found in the open has no realistic survival chance against air and artillery. The enemy understands that very well, and can be expected to embed itself more and more in urban environments. We can't bomb or shell apartment buildings, so the grunt once again gets the sticky end of the lollipop, and will have to go in after them.
Shorter rifles are more useful in urban combat. It seems very clear to me that DoD is signalling, with its choice of new rifle and cartridge, a change in its perception of the needs of infantry in the future. If the new rifle has even less extended range capability, then "so what?" Those weren't the rifleman's primary targets anyway. Shorter barrels will keep more of them alive in the future in the battlefields in which we expect we expect our infantry will actually have to fight - the cities.
Jaywalker
The key here is the role. Enemy found in the open has no realistic survival chance against air and artillery. The enemy understands that very well, and can be expected to embed itself more and more in urban environments. We can't bomb or shell apartment buildings, so the grunt once again gets the sticky end of the lollipop, and will have to go in after them.
Shorter rifles are more useful in urban combat. It seems very clear to me that DoD is signalling, with its choice of new rifle and cartridge, a change in its perception of the needs of infantry in the future. If the new rifle has even less extended range capability, then "so what?" Those weren't the rifleman's primary targets anyway. Shorter barrels will keep more of them alive in the future in the battlefields in which we expect we expect our infantry will actually have to fight - the cities.
Jaywalker
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well first, I don't buy Colt; but for the record an individual can buy a brand new Colt LE6920 (16" M4 basically) for $945.57. Without the Federal Excise Tax (which I am fairly certain Uncle Sam is exempt from), that price is $851.87. Now that price is for a single rifle. Like anything else, economies of scale (buying a lot of rifles) will reduce that price.
Second, the H&K specifically lists the $900 price for the carbine only - no rails, RIS or other toys. RIS is listed under the cost of accesories in the H&K pamphlet. Also, it is worth noting that the $1,800 integrated sight package and rifle H&K touts completely lacks any rail system to add modular accessories at the moment. Add a $300 RIS/RAS system to it and the cost goes up to a comparitive $2,100 (I believe H&K lists the M4 w/ accesories at around $2,300 and that is with two redundant IR laser/illuminator systems included in the cost.)
AZTOY
Member
Have thay tested the XM8 in a sand box let!!!
I don't get the whole "we can't adopt anything new because it might cost a lot of money per unit" argument. Should the government be concerned about costs? Yes. Should it prevent them from adopting a new, better rifle design? (Putting aside arguments over whether it's better or not).
Congress just approved $38 billion, dollars for Irag. We're spending how many hundreds of millions for each of the new Raptor jets? We just commissioned a new nuclear aircraft carrier in the Ronald Reagan which cost how many billion dollars? Now obviously, these expenditures serve their purposes, but do give perspective to costs associated with adopting a new rifle.
Compare those costs to what would it cost to replace all the M16s and M4s out there. Maybe $100 million? Maybe? And that's a generous estimate even with accessories.
I just don't see cost as a limiting factor in the government adopting a new rifle.
Congress just approved $38 billion, dollars for Irag. We're spending how many hundreds of millions for each of the new Raptor jets? We just commissioned a new nuclear aircraft carrier in the Ronald Reagan which cost how many billion dollars? Now obviously, these expenditures serve their purposes, but do give perspective to costs associated with adopting a new rifle.
Compare those costs to what would it cost to replace all the M16s and M4s out there. Maybe $100 million? Maybe? And that's a generous estimate even with accessories.
I just don't see cost as a limiting factor in the government adopting a new rifle.
Joe Demko
Member
As Jeff White could explain better than I can, there isn't just a big generalized bottomless pot o' money (tm) that the military can dip into and spend from in any way they choose. They have a budget same as you and me. Just enormously larger.
Nightcrawler
Member
Next time you're in a big city, look around and see how many directions you can look in where you can see stuff that's more than 100 yards away. It happens a lot, and for these situations, a 16" barrel would be much preferable to a 12" one. And best of all, it wouldn't be much of a tradeoff.
Because I don't think four more inches of barrel would matter much. Once you get the length of the weapon to less than 40", an inch or two doesn't matter much, unless you expect to be fighting in the crawlspace under a house, in which case a pistol would be a better choice. An extra 4" of barrel would give the weapon a significant boost in ballistics. And it's not like a regular 20" M16 handles like an old Commission Mauser with a 30" barrel.
Besides, your SAW gunners and such are expected to go into the buildings too, even with their longer/heavier weapons. You don't leave half your squad outside when doing a raid into a building. They have shorty SAWs that are available, but if you cut the barrel length of the SAW down you've just sacrificed its range capabilities, which are important in a machine gun.
And you're right, badguys don't live long out in the open. But that has more to do with our choice of enemies than it does the nature of warfare itself. We have air superiority because countries like Iraq don't have Su-27s and MiG-29s AND (just as important) skilled pilots to fly them. Things would be very different for us if we didn't always have air superiority.
Our artillery is effective because the Taliban doesn't have any. It'd be a lot less effective if it had to move every time it fired lest it be destroyed by accurate counter-battery fire. The Russians cooked up some darn good artillery systems of their own.
But that's neither here nor there. I don't believe that once you get within city limits you have to suddenly change over the weapons you use. Nor do I believe that a 16" barreled carbine would be too long for indoor combat. As such, I believe the XM8 should be both given a 16" barrel and rechambered for the new 6.8mm. The SAW should be rechambered for 6.8mm as well, and issue some of the new 7.62x51mm SAWs as well. (Lighter than an M240, at the theoretical expense of sustained fire capaiblity).
Finally, a decent Designated Marksman's Rifle needs to be fielded. It should be chambered in 7.62x51, be semiautomatic, have an integral bipod, both good optics and good iron sights, and be reliable. It doesn't have to be a "sniper rifle"; something like a Dragunov would work. Besides, if you squeeze too much accuracy out of a self loading rifle you sacrifice reliability in the field. The PSG-1 is too long and heavy for this role, I believe. The DMR shouldn't weigh more than 10 pounds empty, and needn't be any longer than 40-43". (That gives you 20-21" of barrel, plenty for 7.62mm).
In my opinion, of course.
BUT, if you really do feel that close quarters handling is the most important thing in a modern infantry weapon (can't really be considered a proper rifle anymore, I don't think), or if light weight and high capacity is more important, then please read my Proposal. Devil's Advocacy, to be sure, but I think I do make some good points.
- Status
