Why is the new US battle rifle being designed by Germany?
- Thread starter munk
- Start date
- Status
bradvanhorn
Member
About a year or so ago, and just by chance, I was talking with one of the few Marine Corps armorers who had an opportunity to work with and fire the XM8 in testing. For what it's worth, he said the XM8 was clearly superior to the M16/M4. I don't remember everything we discussed, but he basically said the XM8 was significantly better in almost every aspect.
I believe there is much more to the XM8 than this. For example, using the base weapon, you can quickly swap barrels and accessories and you now have a 20" barrel DMR (or an even shorter barreled SMG configuration, etc.) Also, the XM8 is essentially self-cleaning (no more carbon build up), and key components (such as the barrel) were lasting 2 - 3 times longer than comparable pieces on the M16/M4.
I recall seeing a report somewhere that Boeing (weird choice there...) had begun negotiations to license and convert one of its plants to produce the XM8 here in the U.S.
I'll have to find the reference material, but as I recall, the modular design of the XM8 did provide a capability for LMG with the appropriate barrel/feed setup.
One day I asked my good friend the Engineer and physicist about gun design. He said the revolution was over- the industrial one- and that most of the designs have been developed.
The Soviets have a new battlerifle with arguably a real breakthough. But we mostly apply engineering to new materials and technology.
I'm trying to say that America has enough brains to design a rifle. It is not for want of the next miracle. The patents in the industrial revolution were dominated by the Americans. Recently we had a Garand, an AR, and now we can make the new modular unit.
Something is very wrong.
munk
The Soviets have a new battlerifle with arguably a real breakthough. But we mostly apply engineering to new materials and technology.
I'm trying to say that America has enough brains to design a rifle. It is not for want of the next miracle. The patents in the industrial revolution were dominated by the Americans. Recently we had a Garand, an AR, and now we can make the new modular unit.
Something is very wrong.
munk
bradvanhorn
Member
Yeah, I think you've got a good point...
armoredman
Member
From your lips, to the Good Lord's ears....I hope you are right....
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
One problem with business is 'barriers to entry'. Existing businesses put them up, to sensibly keep future competition out.
Now a problem with a small guy who inventes an ingenious new mechanism for a rifle is that he will have to patent it. In every country of the world. And even then no-one is going to respect his patent, they're going to look at his patent, see the schematics, and copy them. If he doesn't like it he can try to take them to court, and if he somehow wins they'll do it again a month later. And good luck trying to collect any compensation, the court can decide they owe, but good luck collecting the cash. And it can happen in your home country too, you are so small as to be insignificant, any invention you come up with will be taken, and you will have to find some way to fight in court.
In economics they teach that is a free market there is little innovation because the only profit you can make is in the time it takes for others to catch up. So we had patents to cure that problem, but now the situation in businesses is closer to oligopoly, and that system is also poor for innovation, especially when you can bully small inventors.
Now a problem with a small guy who inventes an ingenious new mechanism for a rifle is that he will have to patent it. In every country of the world. And even then no-one is going to respect his patent, they're going to look at his patent, see the schematics, and copy them. If he doesn't like it he can try to take them to court, and if he somehow wins they'll do it again a month later. And good luck trying to collect any compensation, the court can decide they owe, but good luck collecting the cash. And it can happen in your home country too, you are so small as to be insignificant, any invention you come up with will be taken, and you will have to find some way to fight in court.
In economics they teach that is a free market there is little innovation because the only profit you can make is in the time it takes for others to catch up. So we had patents to cure that problem, but now the situation in businesses is closer to oligopoly, and that system is also poor for innovation, especially when you can bully small inventors.
Should the German designed XM-8 become the M8 Main Battle Rifle, the weapon system will be built right here in the good old USA by American workers.
American design teams have modified and adapted the excellent Heckler and Koch G36 rifle to suit American service users.
It is a modular design that can be adapted to meet a wide variety of tasks from building clearing, to assault and guard duties, to squad automatic applications.
The weapon may or may not be ordered in the new 6X48 cartridge but time will tell on this decision depending on positive or negative feedback from Special Operation units now using this cartridge.
As to the claims of orders placed due to a low bid, the fact is this weapon system will cost $2000 to $4000 or more per system depending on options ordered.
It is most assuredly not low bid.
Low bid would be buying the Singapore made SAR-80 weapon system at about $400.oo per weapon.
American design teams have modified and adapted the excellent Heckler and Koch G36 rifle to suit American service users.
It is a modular design that can be adapted to meet a wide variety of tasks from building clearing, to assault and guard duties, to squad automatic applications.
The weapon may or may not be ordered in the new 6X48 cartridge but time will tell on this decision depending on positive or negative feedback from Special Operation units now using this cartridge.
As to the claims of orders placed due to a low bid, the fact is this weapon system will cost $2000 to $4000 or more per system depending on options ordered.
It is most assuredly not low bid.
Low bid would be buying the Singapore made SAR-80 weapon system at about $400.oo per weapon.
jefnvk
Member
Sorry, but that don't get much of a response from me. Unless sources can be named, I can't trust that. Seems that if FN were blackmailing the gov't, they'd just give the contract to Colt.
Nope, they didn't. 0 to be exact. Maybe the 03A3 you are thinking of, or Winchester making the Garand?
Quite possible that it was a different config then, that it wasn't set up for. I'll try and dig up the article that I read it in.
I dunno, but I think the two pins on the M16/M4 make it pretty modular. And wasn't the M16 billed as being 'self-cleaning' when it came out, leading to deadly results
(hides a .223 cleaning kit in his pocket as he is issued his self cleaning rifle 
)
Last edited:
Plumber576
Member
I think we have to remember that Americans will build the XM8...ground is being cleared in georiga and the American HK plant is on its way to being built.
Why reinvent the wheel? We have the Garand, FAL, AK, etc. designs, well proven, battle tested, rock solid, royalty-free.
Or make a 16" barrel gas-piston upper that'll fit on all our M16 lowers, for those who need a smaller weapon, make a folding stock lower. Simple and cheap.
Or make a 16" barrel gas-piston upper that'll fit on all our M16 lowers, for those who need a smaller weapon, make a folding stock lower. Simple and cheap.
Exactly the case, all the great designers didn't have to wade through years of red tape to build and market their designs.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
munk, you have confused issues. There is a difference between design and production. Where a tool is designed is pretty much meaningless. If there was to be a concern, it would be with where production occurs. You don't want too much of your supply to have to come from foreign lands. That is part of the reason Beretta is here in the US and supplies pistols to the US military.
HankB
Member
Because the last time we tried it ourselves we got the M16?
Winchester Garands are generally regarded as being inferior in workmanship to others. Adequate, yes, milspec, yes, but nonetheless not up to the standards of the government's own Springfield Armory.
I thought the M1 Garand was only manufactured by Springfield Armory (SA), Winchester (WIN), International Harvester (IHC), and HRA (Harrington & Richardson) . . . where did Remington come in?The Rabbi said:
richyoung
Member
Keynsian?
Or some other flavor of Socialism/Communism? Certainly they have a good point - just look at how few innovations the American economy has developed in 200 years - interchangable parts, assembly line, metallic firearm cartridges, first practical revolver, lever-action rifle, first practical semi-auto battle rifle, electric power, telegraph, telephone, steam ship, ironclad warship with transversable gun turret, airplane, pneumatic brakes, automatic transmission, motion picture, sound recording, first practical computer, personal computers, vaccume tube, transistor, electric guitar, moon rocket, space shuttle, first attempted attack by submarine, first successful attack by submarine, first practical submarine, first nuclear submarine, cotton gin, stealth aircraft, machine gun, fission bomb, fusion bomb, nuclear power, synthetic fibers, plastics, any number of agricultural devices, jeans, 8 track tape, helicopter, tilt-wing, the internet, frozen foods, microwave oven, engine supercharger, hydroplane, elevator, polio vaccine....Lucky for us, we have "worker's paradises" like Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union to invent all the things our flawed capitalist economy is incapable of developing for us....
M
mrhuckins
Guest
M16's suck anyway. We couldn't do much worse.
Master Blaster
Member
Funny I can take the 16" M4 type top end off my AR-15 lower, and put on my 20" bull barreled 16x scope mounted varmint upper on in about 20 seconds and its already zeroed, by pushing out the two assembly pins with my finger, or the tip of a bullet. I can also swap out the iron sights on my M4, for a reddot thats already zeroed in about 25 seconds using a quarter as a tool.
CAn the XM-8 match that??? I'd be happy to race any XM-8 armorer for rifles to see who can do it faster, Any Takers?????????
As far as it being self cleaning and the barrel lasting way longer, Horse poop to that.
RevDisk
Member
Can you dump your AR-15 in a pit filled with muddy water, stomp on it a few times, pull it out, pour a single canteen down the barrel, and then safely fire the weapon?
You can do that with your AR-15, I wouldn't. I've seen it done with G36's before.
The weapon is not 'self-cleaning'. It however does not vent carbon directly into the receiver. This cuts down on problems greatly.
Barrel does laster longer. Seen an G36 eat through circa 15,000 rds (no cleaning) with no decrease in accuracy, nor a single jam. The books I've seen on the M16 say the barrel should be changed out after 8,000 rounds.
ny32182
Member
Designing a new rifle these days can't be rocket science. If we can build an F22, we can build a damn rifle. Which is more complicated, do you suppose?
Who cares where it is designed anyway? In the US, Robarm seems to be the only one willing to step up to the plate with a new "better" rifle, and they got shot down by the government.
Another thing to consider is that whatever is submitted, unless there is some sort of major technology leap, isn't going to be much, if at all, better than the M16 family. If you look at the times in the past when the service rifle has been switched, it has been a major upgrade each time: Bolt action to semi-auto with the Garand; external box mag with the M14, smaller cartridge/higher capacity/rate of fire with the M16. What big improvment can be offered by anyone this time around? Nothing, really. It seems the goverment isn't willing (and I don't blame them) to pay the HUGE amount of money it would take for a wholesale switch over to a new standard rifle, for only a minor, debatable improvement.
Also, I don't get the obsession with having an automatic rifle version of these service rifle contenders. When has that ever happened in the past? The M60 and 249 are there own independant platforms. Has this presented some sort of problem? I don't see how you could do the major modifications, whatever those might be, to an XM-8 to make it fire from open bolt, and not call it a different platform.
Who cares where it is designed anyway? In the US, Robarm seems to be the only one willing to step up to the plate with a new "better" rifle, and they got shot down by the government.
Another thing to consider is that whatever is submitted, unless there is some sort of major technology leap, isn't going to be much, if at all, better than the M16 family. If you look at the times in the past when the service rifle has been switched, it has been a major upgrade each time: Bolt action to semi-auto with the Garand; external box mag with the M14, smaller cartridge/higher capacity/rate of fire with the M16. What big improvment can be offered by anyone this time around? Nothing, really. It seems the goverment isn't willing (and I don't blame them) to pay the HUGE amount of money it would take for a wholesale switch over to a new standard rifle, for only a minor, debatable improvement.
Also, I don't get the obsession with having an automatic rifle version of these service rifle contenders. When has that ever happened in the past? The M60 and 249 are there own independant platforms. Has this presented some sort of problem? I don't see how you could do the major modifications, whatever those might be, to an XM-8 to make it fire from open bolt, and not call it a different platform.
Design brains are distributed across the world.
Look at the popular pistols.
Bad:
Colt's 2000 - flop
SW Sigma - flop
1911 patterns - old and didn't Browning have to go to Europe with some guns!
Ruger handguns - big clunky guns - not design masterpieces.
SW 3rd generation - moderately successful
Then we have:
Berettas, Glocks, Sig, HK, FN, Browning guns - where is there more innovation?
SW - innovation in the revolver world and making money. If Sig came up with Sc snubbies, they would have that business.
You just have to have a good product.
Look at the popular pistols.
Bad:
Colt's 2000 - flop
SW Sigma - flop
1911 patterns - old and didn't Browning have to go to Europe with some guns!
Ruger handguns - big clunky guns - not design masterpieces.
SW 3rd generation - moderately successful
Then we have:
Berettas, Glocks, Sig, HK, FN, Browning guns - where is there more innovation?
SW - innovation in the revolver world and making money. If Sig came up with Sc snubbies, they would have that business.
You just have to have a good product.
- Status
