XM8 Again

[Spark]

from Andrew Wyatt

I'm going to have to call you on that one. The m-16 is modular, and ther a re a far wider array of acessories available for it than the XM8. one of the benefits of the ar-15 is it CAN be remachined. plastic guns cannot.

BUZZZZZZZZZZ. Wrong answer. You've mixed a variety of issues trying to prove the M16's modularity.

1. The M16 is depot-level modular, but not user level. The end user cannot, without tools, change out anything but the upper receiver. The XM8 (or whatever our next weapon system may be) is being designed to be enterly user changeable. That means you can change the barrel assembly without having to change the upper. You can change the magwell without having to change the trigger group. You can change the buttstock (if broken), in the field, in the middle of Afghanistan, without problems. THAT is the core of a modular weapon system, not "oh, we're changing over from three round to full auto - everyone send their weapons to the depot. Hey, let's switch stocks - oh wait, we can quite collapse the stock any further because of the buffer tube! Gee, 1SG, have the the troops assemble by squad and switch them out here in the firebase."

2. "The AR-15 has more accessories" - means nothing. See the Model T argument - accessories are not the reason you keep a system in place when there are improvements. Furthermore, any true lethality enhacing accessories should be portable over to new platforms - grips, sights, grenade launchers. The fact that there are 40 different AR stocks doesn't mean a thing when the end user can't change them without tools.

3. "The AR-15 can be remachined" - again, wrong. Short of drilling new holes for new trigger groups, you can't add a rail into aluminum. You can't change out the magwell at all - not if you want keep the front mounting holes. Even if you do keep the front mounting holes in place, it still can't be easily switched out for the existing one.

Jeff White wrote

Like it or not your bias is showing through again. How are these areas flawed? It's a pretty subjective judgement. The gas system works fine and is a big contributor to the rifle's inherent accuracy. The A2 buttstock is too long. the original wasn't and the M4 stock is adjustable. There are plenty of aftermarket stocks that give us storage in the stock. The Canucks issue different length stocks sized to fit the soldier on the C7. The collapsible stock has become the standard. Look at the USSOCM specs in the link I posted.

My bias? I'm not the one saying that any new system is a waste of money, and the current one is perfect for everything. Pot, this is kettle.

As for having to explain the obvious about the gas system & such... Jeff - is fouling into the chamber area a good or bad thing? Using your logic, is that a requirement for accuracy or not? Looks like a red herring to me.

Can the barrel (and just the barrel) be switched out by the end user for different missions? Can the buttstock? Heck, how many positions does the collapsable stock have? 3 or 4. The new Crane stocks have a lot more, but even they aren't truly modular.

You want a plastic lower, go buy a Cav Arms...it's in production. Beat the XM8 by a few years. The XM8 is another 5.56mm assault rifle. It does the same thing we are already doing with the M16. With the XM8 we get a rifle with the same range, the same modularity and ability to accept the SOPMOD accessories (we think, no one has proven that yet), and a big bill to develop and refine it into a weapon that we will surely replace before the end of it's service life. No I can't see any advantage. All I see is my tax dollars getting pissed away and the possiblity the soldier will have to do without something he really needs. The big break will be a rifle that has optimum lethality out to 300 meters, weighs under 7 pounds loaded, can accept the SOPMOD accessories and has an integrated sight unit that will make all of our shooters into effective marksmen. The XM8 isn't it.

I never said the lower had to be plastic - you misinterpreted my example as such. Second, it doesn't do the "same thing" as the M16 because the M16 isn't user level modular other than upper & lower receiver assemblies.

Per your link - "The SCAR H shall possess the ability for caliber modularity (open architecture platform), while still designed around the baseline caliber of 7.62x51mm (alternate calibers are known to be 7.62x39mm). Future enhanced calibers will also be considered" - In other words, one size does not fit all.

The SCAR L has a 5.56mm specification - but you know what they say about specifications. Per the document "3.2.2.1 Modularity: The SCAR L shall be adaptable to three separate barrel lengths for varying mission requirements. The standard barrel shall have the length necessary to effectively address target engagements to 500 meters, the CQC barrel shall be effective engaging targets from point-blank to 200 meters. The Sniper Variant (SV) shall have a barrel length optimized for precision shooting to ranges of 800 meters and beyond. Barrel length change shall be accomplished either by upper receiver or barrel change at the unit level (T), by the operator (O), with tools as necessary. Barrel modularity shall be accomplished in such a way as to meet 5.56mm headspace requirements without operator adjustment or measurement. Barrel modularity shall be accomplished in such a way as to meet bore sight and zero requirements with minimal operator adjustment /measurement. The SCAR L barrel shall be mounted in such a way that accessory mounting causes no point of impact shift to the zeroed weapon (T). Barrel/module change shall be accomplished within 20 minutes (T), 5minutes (O)."

While the XM8 may note be what doctor ordered - the M16 certainly isn't. Sorry, Jeff - the nice thing about prototypes is that they are subject to change. It's a lot more difficult to shoehorn changes into existing systems already in service.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Why is the AR gas system necessary for good accuracy? There are plenty of piston designs that have excellent accuracy.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

*shrug* so what? you change PG's with nothing more complicated than a leatherman, and having the whole sight/barrel unit user changeable is a far better thing (cause it stays zeroed) than just changing the barrel.

"The AR-15 can be remachined" - again, wrong. Short of drilling new holes for new trigger groups, you can't add a rail into aluminum. You can't change out the magwell at all - not if you want keep the front mounting holes. Even if you do keep the front mounting holes in place, it still can't be easily switched out for the existing one.

As for the remachining thing, it'd be a relatively easy task to make a two piece lower for the AR. if you did that, you could make an ar-15 that could be converted quite quickly to .308. my whole point about aluminum is it's quite easily machineable. (which i can appreciate, being a machining student) as an aside, that quoted portion is somewhat incoherent; what were you trying to say?

 

[Spark]

*shrug* so what? you change PG's with nothing more complicated than a leatherman, and having the whole sight/barrel unit user changeable is a far better thing (cause it stays zeroed) than just changing the barrel.

So, because someone hasn't come up with a quick change barrel that means that no one ever will? There are some remarkably clever engineers out there - no reason to believe that no one will ever come out with a quick change barrel that will retain >=1 MOA zero (which is good enough for a combat rifle). Oh wait, I forgot - the gas system prevents exactly that. Not to mention having to completely redesigning the upper receiver *again*. How many redesigns does it take before it's cheaper to start over again?

As for the remachining thing, it'd be a relatively easy task to make a two piece lower for the AR. if you did that, you could make an ar-15 that could be converted quite quickly to .308. my whole point about aluminum is it's quite easily machineable. (which i can appreciate, being a machining student) as an aside, that quoted portion is somewhat incoherent; what were you trying to say?

Your logic is inconsistant: you can machine a two part lower? Not if you want to retain the front push pins. And since that's a major point on the system, changing the position on it would involve a complete system redesign, requiring, guess what, more money. Modular systems allow for this - and continued upgrades. So, if you get a new ammo standard, you don't have to change out the entire lower... or remachine at all. If a new stock comes online, it's a quick change. If a new sighting system comes in, you don't have to replace the entire upper - just the attaching system. New barrel? 5 minute switch by the user.

The entire argument for keeping the M16 is that it's in place in a recognizable configuration. You start switching the gas system, mag well, buffer placement, etc - it's no longer a M16. It's something else. And add up all the changes, and you've spent more money than on a redesign - and you have to keep spending more and more to achieve the same results of using a properly modular-designed system.

At what point do you say "Enough, we're spending too much money on upgrades / redesigns"? When the charging handle has to be redesigned because new body armor requires an even shorter stock, that coincidentally requires a new buffer system? When you have new ammo that completely screws up the ballistic charts and renders the conventional iron sights inaccurate? When each and every rifle has had to be remachined for new ammo? When each and every rifle has to be remachined to put picatinny rails on board, and a BUIS system has to be installed? When each and every rifle has to be remachined again for a new doctrine requiring two round bursts?

When is it cheaper to move on to a new system?

 

[mrming]

Just some random thoughts.


Remachining aluminum means you've got to reanodize. If you don't, and its a bearing surface your going to get alot of wear quickly.

Mr White clearly has strong feelings for the M16 series, and doesn't want tax money going to a successor system. M16 gas system may work, but its not a good solution. The system also lacks a modern level of interchangability. IE, its not like a 350 crate engine. I don't have the option of slapping a set of edlebrock headers on it, aftermarket 3" exhaust or even bigger injectors. My only choice is what to use for spark plugs (titanium or steel firing pin). Your stuck with a weapon with components that cannot be discretely seperated. You can't redesign the trigger group without having to do modifications to the bolt.. and probably have to retap the reciever to fit the new trigger group.


Thats were the next major advance probably is, at least in part. The ability for the armourer to take a stack of parts, and using the same reciever turn it into a P90, a M4, a FAL, or a ray gun. No more re-investment in totally new weapon systems , at least until the reciever are so outdated as to require replacement.. Even then, you probably won't have to throw out the entire system. Great, the mk iv trigger groups can't work anymore in the new receiver, but the mag well/stock/etc can.

This is what is probably meant by the term, 'modularity'. Hanging gadgets off a M16 isn't modularity. M16 modularity is limited to a very limited selection of buttstocks, and long vs short barreled uppers. Can't change it over to use 7.62x39 out of a ak47 mag. Would that ever be a useful feature? Better accuracy, one base weapon platform you train with, able to use ammo and mags from the enemy would probably be useful to some units.

Not every upgrade is about making a more effective way to kill people, sometimes it can be just a cheaper, or more convient way of doing things.


Electronics on a firearm is a bad idea. This coming from a computer science freak. We haven't fought against anyone who liked technology. We have yet to deal with anyone smart enough to jam GPS. Its probably not a great idea to go bouncing signals off of things to get range for use against infantry. Can we say, radar detector? Or broad spectrum RF noise transmissions in say... 5-10 watt range? Your next gen targeting system just became a USGI early warning system at worest, unuseable complexity at best. Same goes for transmitting your location to a base command. Lighting yourself up like a christmas tree with electronic signals is not going to be a improvement.


M16 was force-fed for better or worse. Don't tease yourself that it was a system that was ready for common line combat. No chrome lining, no supporting equipment, issues with the mag design, bad powder selection in the ammunition etc etc. It had questionable benifits (didn't cut through cover as well, but you could carry more ammo), wasn't as reliable in its initial stages. etc. Plenty of old soliders still swear by the M1/M14 systems. Hence why those who have carried the current system need to step aside until something is ready for for field testing.

I don't claim to know if the XM8 will be the next great thing. However, its time to earn some ire. This thread has ran on for 5 pages, and most of it looks like a flame war. People aren't recognizing each others points, are harping on the same issues and no one here can speak authoritatively on this topic.

Before anyone protests. Unless you have actively engaged in all of the following as your profession....

1. small arms design
2. military finance
3. front line infantry
4. member of a small arms selection committe

Then you haven't the experience to speak authoritatively on any of this. To those who claim to have done some of the above, then you lack the moderation the other jobs would provide. As a computer science person, only valid input I've got is that electronics + firearms are not a good combination right now.

To those who claim to have an inside track on the small arms selection, I do not believe you. I would be very surprised if government contract selection of this nature was not closely guarded.. this isn't france, afterall. If you do have a inside track, your probably violating a rather hefty NDA and I both do not want to know, and have no respect for your lack of professionalism.

Can't we just let this thread die? If we want to kick around future system ideas, lets do it someplace else and leave the small arms selection to the people who's job it actually is? I know its a novel concept that leaving professionals without politicians breathing on them might actually produce something worthwhile.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Your logic is inconsistant: you can machine a two part lower? Not if you want to retain the front push pins.

You put the front push pin section in the front section of the two piece lower.

there are oodles of aftermarket fire control units for the ar, from set triggers to safe/semi/burst ones. all are drop in, to my knowledge.

can any of you guys show me a g36 with a 7 inch barrel and collapsable stock? how about a g36 with a 24 inch heavy barrel and six way adjustable stock? what about one in .50?

 

[Destructo6]

~9" barrel, but another two could probably be chopped if needed. Oh yeah, no buffer 4" buffer tube to deal with:

There's no reason why a 24" heavy barrel can't be installed.

all are drop in, to my knowledge

"Drop-in" as in no machining necessary. That's not "drop-in" as in no disassembly required past standard field stripping to replace a trigger group. Two spring-loaded push pins and the entire gripframe and trigger pack come out as a unit (module):

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

That's the point i'm trying to make. you're limited in how much you can modify the g36, because the upper reciever is the gun. i don't see a .308 PIP kit for the g36 being feaseable, since the upper won't handle it, and you can't change it.


with the ar, they have all kinds of wierd and wonderful things like magazine fed .50 uppers, and beltfed mg-42 uppers.

also, why is the ability to change out trigger groups by the troops all that useful? it's not like the troops are going to be allowed to do that, anyway.

make the pishpins captured, and prove the gun and maybe i'll consider it.

 

[Spark]

XM8 != G36

 

[Jeff White]

mrming said,

Mr White clearly has strong feelings for the M16 series, and doesn't want tax money going to a successor system.

Sir, you have misread the several posts where I have stated that I have no problem with a successor system. I just don't feel that the XM8 is the right system.

M16 gas system may work, but its not a good solution.

And you learned this from your admitted extensive experience in electronics? What is posted about the M16 gas system has been nothing but peoples subjective personal preferences for a more conventional gas piston/operating rod system. The fact that the direct impingment gas system has worked well for 40 years doesn't figure into this.

My only choice is what to use for spark plugs (titanium or steel firing pin).

And just what do you mean by this? Titanium firing pins have been a known useless gimmick for years and definately aren't suitable for use on a military rifle because their lighter weight could cause them not to strike hard enough to reliably fire the weapon.

You can't redesign the trigger group without having to do modifications to the bolt.. and probably have to retap the reciever to fit the new trigger group.

I'm sure that the manufacturers of all the aftermarket triggers out there would be interested in knowing this. Imagine that, they have been doing this wrong for all these years.

Not every upgrade is about making a more effective way to kill people, sometimes it can be just a cheaper, or more convient way of doing things.

Since when is a more convenient way of doing something a reason to make a large capitol investment in a rifle that offers no other imporvements and some steps backward? Would you buy a new home because it had some features that made it more convient, yet it would end up costing you even more money (in development) before you reached the same level of sevice your old home provided? That's what you get with the XM8, a rifle that may or may not be more convenient but would do no more then our existing rifles do. How much are you willing to pay for convenience? And is that convenience worth the money considering you get no increase in capabilities?

This is what is probably meant by the term, 'modularity'. Hanging gadgets off a M16 isn't modularity. M16 modularity is limited to a very limited selection of buttstocks, and long vs short barreled uppers. Can't change it over to use 7.62x39 out of a ak47 mag. Would that ever be a useful feature? Better accuracy, one base weapon platform you train with, able to use ammo and mags from the enemy would probably be useful to some units.

Which is why USSOCOM is developing the SCAR. You notice it is a totally new weapon, not the G36 with sleek fiberglass furniture on it. I have nothing against developing an entirely new system that actually gives us improved capabilities over the weapons we currently have. I am dead set against buying the XM8 just because the XM29 failed and HK would like to sell the G36 to anyone.

Electronics on a firearm is a bad idea. This coming from a computer science freak. We haven't fought against anyone who liked technology. We have yet to deal with anyone smart enough to jam GPS. Its probably not a great idea to go bouncing signals off of things to get range for use against infantry. Can we say, radar detector? Or broad spectrum RF noise transmissions in say... 5-10 watt range? Your next gen targeting system just became a USGI early warning system at worest, unuseable complexity at best. Same goes for transmitting your location to a base command. Lighting yourself up like a christmas tree with electronic signals is not going to be a improvement.

So you were against the laser rangefinder on the XM29? Of course the laser rangefinders on the M1 Abrams, the M2 and M3 Bradleys, the AH64 Apaches, OH58D Kiowa Warriors and all the GLLDS and GLPS the artillery community uses have caused the enemy to attrit these systems in combat to the point we now shoot iron sights using kentucky windage? Of course we haven't even touched the ground surveillance radars, the personal role radios and the digital links between all levels of command in the 4th Infantry Division. Do you think that an American rifleman is a big enough threat that a foreign power will develop detection and countermeasures for a hand held laser rangefinder similar to what Bushnell and Nikon sells to hunters? You really think that that's a possibility considering all the other emissions we're blasting the battlefield with?

M16 was force-fed for better or worse. Don't tease yourself that it was a system that was ready for common line combat. No chrome lining, no supporting equipment, issues with the mag design, bad powder selection in the ammunition etc etc. It had questionable benifits (didn't cut through cover as well, but you could carry more ammo), wasn't as reliable in its initial stages. etc. Plenty of old soliders still swear by the M1/M14 systems. Hence why those who have carried the current system need to step aside until something is ready for for field testing.

The M14 was already a failure. The decision had already been made to work on SPIW and other projects and not place anymore development into the M14. The M16 was not force fed. The commanders on the ground who were using it in combat were screaming for them. The Army Ordnance Department made a fateful and wrong decision to load M193 and M196 ammunition will ball type powder instead of the extruded powder that the weapon was designed around. That decision, made against the recommendation of the manufacturer was the cause of 99% of the fielding problems of the M16. That is hardly a reflection of the design. I bet you put the manufacturer's recommended fuel and oil in your car.

I don't claim to know if the XM8 will be the next great thing. However, its time to earn some ire. This thread has ran on for 5 pages, and most of it looks like a flame war. People aren't recognizing each others points, are harping on the same issues and no one here can speak authoritatively on this topic.

Before anyone protests. Unless you have actively engaged in all of the following as your profession....

1. small arms design
2. military finance
3. front line infantry
4. member of a small arms selection committe

Flame war? Since when is polite discussion of an issue become a flame war? I don't think anyone participating here has taken anything personally. I have yet to see the first personal attack or insult.

I disagree that you need to have experience in any of these matters to participate in a discussion. I do have experience as a front line Infantryman. Spark was a Combat Engineer, does that mean he sould recuse himself..I hardly think so. I have worked on budgetary matters. Had to make hard choices in how units spent the money that Congress appropriated them. But that doesn't necessarily make my opinion any more valid then yours. Perhaps we should censor all the trade magazines, military professional journals and gun rags, because this same issue is being discussed there too, by all kinds of people.

To those who claim to have an inside track on the small arms selection, I do not believe you. I would be very surprised if government contract selection of this nature was not closely guarded.. this isn't france, afterall. If you do have a inside track, your probably violating a rather hefty NDA and I both do not want to know, and have no respect for your lack of professionalism.

I don't think anyone here claimed to have an inside track on firearms selection. I do know some people at Ft Benning, and I even have a friend who is working for HK on the XM8. I did say I was going to express my thoughts on the matter to my US Congressman. That is the right of any citizen. There are no violations of non-disclosure agreements in this thread.

Can't we just let this thread die? If we want to kick around future system ideas, lets do it someplace else and leave the small arms selection to the people who's job it actually is? I know its a novel concept that leaving professionals without politicians breathing on them might actually produce something worthwhile.

This is an internet discussion board. People are enjoying themselves discussing an issue that is important to them. So are you saying that my experience as an end user of the product is invalid here. We should step back and let the professionals (people with experience in all the areas you say we have to have to make these decisions) handle it. No my friend we aren't the old Soviet Union here. We don't procure things by design bureau. And how many people in the US Defense establishment have experience in all the areas you say are necessary to have a valid opinion on this issue? And more importantly; Why are you afraid of the input of Infantrymen? Why should users of the present system recuse themselves.

What a novel concept, let the guys who will take the new weapon into harms way have some input. You are afraid of that. Why?

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Jeff Said:

The fact that the direct impingment gas system has worked well for 40 years doesn't figure into this.

Well, the gas system HASN'T worked for 40 years. In fact, development problems with the gas system plagued the rifle for years and, to this day, very strict guidelines must be followed to make .223 ammo that will shoot reliably in our military's arsenal. This would not have been true had virtually ANY piston design of the time been utilized instead of the gas pipe. In fact, the AR-15 system is inherintly ammo sensative and always has and will be because of the FLAWED design of the tube. Rather than hot gases operating the mechanism, the gas that operates the AR-15 action has been allowed to move, cool, condense, and precipitate. all of that foreign matter gets clogged up and choked in the piston and cylinder (bolt and carrier) and must be constantly scraped off. This was SUCH a problem that for several years, ammo manufacturers refused to bid on the military contracts because the specifications were necessarily tight and impossible to meet. Tell me that a Stoner 63 or AR-18 would have been that ammo sensative!

Since when is a more convenient way of doing something a reason to make a large capitol investment in a rifle that offers no other imporvements and some steps backward?

What steps backwards? Demonstrate one item (okay, other than the flash suppressor being open in the front) that is a step backwards in the G36/XM-8? Gas system? Actually, the patent for the gas system was filed 16 April 1997. Try another one... where's the step backwards. Let's see, user-level modularity in barrel length, new gas system, modular magazine well, rugged telescoping stock, use of advanced materials, Johnson/Stoner Bolt system, Newly patented cocking handle with integrated forward assist... hmmmm, where's the beef? Is it the paddle magazine release? Are you entirely sure the XM-8 has a paddle release? My guess is that they will stick with the FLAWED magazine design of the M-16 which prevents a SUPERIOR fully curved feed system that prevents many types of misfeeds inherint in the current Fremont/Yang designed magazines.

Funny, Stoner himself complained that had the Army specified a requirement for a fully-curved magazine, it would have been a cinch to enlarge the magazine well SLIGHTLY. The Army could have done it by simply removing a bit of material from the front of the magazine well but that would have required.... Drum roll please... MODIFICATION OF THE RECEIVER which the Army was AND IS dead-set against. Thankfully, another band-aid sorta fixed the stoppage problems with the magazine thanks to some Korean ingenuity. Once again, band-aid a design flaw so it works most of the time. Wow, there's a theme here.

Again, Jeff or any other XM-8ers, please tell me what steps backwards the prototype has taken?

 

[Kaylee]

Tell me that a Stoner 63 or AR-18 would have been that ammo sensative!

Actually Badger, I think in a roundabout way you're making the other side's point here. It was early adoption of the AR-15 design and its subsequnt logistical commitment that kept us from going to the Stoner or AR-18, yes?

We jumped too soon.
We were thus committed to an adequate, even good -- but not excellent -- system for two generations.

If we go with the XM-8, we will again jump too soon.


There are **significantly** better designs coming down the pipeline, and they can be online and in mass production within the decade. If we commit to the XM-8 now, I fear we will again be fielding an adequate but lackluster weapon for another 40 years.

And no mrming, I don't claim to have an inside track on any selection process. I've just been lucky enough to see some early private contractor work and participate in some of the "what if" bull sessions. And that's with ONE contractor among many vying for the project -- I have no doubt that from what I've seen, the winner of that process, WHOEVER it is, will make the XM-8 look like a purtied up super soaker.

-K

note that nothing in this post violates my NDA.

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms said;

Well, the gas system HASN'T worked for 40 years. In fact, development problems with the gas system plagued the rifle for years and, to this day, very strict guidelines must be followed to make .223 ammo that will shoot reliably in our military's arsenal.

Again you are making a subjective judgement based on your personal preference for a piston/operating rod system. According to The Black Rifle the original prototypes were designed around the commercial Remington .222 cartridge. The Infantry Board increased penetration and trajectory requirements from 300-500 yards. this forced Armalite to modify the .222 Remington cartridge. I quote from the page 60 of The Black Rifle which in turn quotes from Gene Stoner's personal historical summary of the early development of the M16:

"The cartridge development for the .223 was started by myself in 1957 after a trip to Ft. Benning to get the desired military charactoristics. I calculated the needed bullet weight and muzzle velocity. I then designed the bullet and had it manufactured by by the Sierra Bullet Co. in Whittier, California. This bullet was a 55-grain boattail design with a jacket thickness of .018 inches. The powder finally selected was a standard commercial type.

The chamber pressures for this round in the standard .222 case were a little excessive. The obvious conclusion was to increase the case capacity and to use a different powder. I contracted Winchester and Remington about loading the necessary rounds for the test program...The Armalite rounds [were] loaded by Remington, with the bullets furnished..[and] were designated the ".222 Special". "

There were no problems with the direct impingment gas system with this ammunition. Again from The Black Rifle page 66 discussing the modifications Stoner made to the first 17 prototype AR15s after the March 1958 Infantry Board field test at Ft. Benning.

"In three clean starts through the sand-and-mud simulated combat trials at Kyle range, for example, whose ruggedness Stoner himself has already described, the AR15s had fired 3,578 semi-auto shots with an overall malfunction rate of 6.1 per 1,000 rounds. The handpicked Springfield Armory T44E4s had fired only 2,337 rounds, but turned in an overall malfunction rate of 16/1,000; nearly three times that of the developmental AR15s."

No reliabilty problems were noted during the Advanced Research Projects Agency Report of Task 13A, Test of Armalite Rifle, AR15 conducted in combat in South Vietnam during 1962. You can find this report on pages 101 through 107 in The Black Rifle.

It's true that there we problems meeting the design specifications of M193 ball ammunition, because you had to pick and choose the lot of IMR4473 to meet velocity and chamber specs. But you neglected to mention that the solution the Army chose, to allow the use of ball powder WC846 created a whole new set of problems that caused the M16 to finally stumble in combat. The final acceptance of WC846 instead of Remington's CR8136 (which Remington created to deal with the IMR4473 problems) is what cause the intial fielding to be a disaster. WC846 raised the cyclic rate sometimes above 900 rpm and greatly increased port pressure. Take any design and run it way above it's design specs and see what you get. Of course we continued to test the rifle with stockpiled ammunition loaded with IMR4473, so the problems with WC846 didn't manifest themselves until the rifle was fielded in quantity in combat. Once problems started appearing, we revisited the propellent issue and DuPont came up with EX8208 which solved the ball powder problems. It was approved and available in the supply system as of June 1966, well before the M16 was arriving in quantity. But the Army didn't withdraw stocks of M193/M196 ammunition loaded with WC846. So we fielded a rifle with ammunition we knew wouldn't work in it. How is this the fault of the design?

Tell me that a Stoner 63 or AR-18 would have been that ammo sensative!

Again speculation on your part. Was either the Stoner 63 or AR-18 tested with M193 loaded with WC846?

What steps backwards? Demonstrate one item (okay, other than the flash suppressor being open in the front) that is a step backwards in the G36/XM-8? Gas system? Actually, the patent for the gas system was filed 16 April 1997. Try another one... where's the step backwards. Let's see, user-level modularity in barrel length, new gas system, modular magazine well, rugged telescoping stock, use of advanced materials, Johnson/Stoner Bolt system, Newly patented cocking handle with integrated forward assist... hmmmm, where's the beef? Is it the paddle magazine release? Are you entirely sure the XM-8 has a paddle release? My guess is that they will stick with the FLAWED magazine design of the M-16 which prevents a SUPERIOR fully curved feed system that prevents many types of misfeeds inherint in the current Fremont/Yang designed magazines.

Ok you conceded the suppressor. I'm taking the following from HKs brochure on the XM8.

We lose lethality with the M855 round. HK shows muzzle velocity from the 20" barrel at 2850 fps and 2545 fps out of the 12.5" barrel. There is no 14.5" barrel like the M4. So we lose range that M855 has it's maximum lethality at in both versions.

Special integral flush mounted attachment points are located on the handguard and receiver to allow for the quick attachment of tageting devices. Unlike MIL STD 1913 rails the XM8 attachment points do not add additional weight, bulk and cost to the host weapon and will accept MIL STD 1913 adapters.

So this means we have to modify every AN/PEQ-4, AN/PEQ-2, AN/PEQ-5, M68 CCO and every other accsessory the Army owns that uses MIL STD 1913 mounts. Or buy adapters for them all. I dont know about you, but I seem to recall an Army supply system that's not real good at having the adapter you need when you need it. It adds more small parts to the entire system.

It only accepts the HK XM320 grenade launcher. That means we have to replace all the M203s in the inventory.

Sorry the XM8 is an expensive step backwards. It's less lethal, less ergonomic and more expensive by the time we buy adapters to make all the other systems we use with a rifle work.

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

So we fielded a rifle with ammunition we knew wouldn't work in it. How is this the fault of the design?

It's the fault of a design that only one type of powder would power the system reliably. The fact that so much of a fuss was made over the powder was not minor and the book you qoute (which I read too) details the hoops that engineers, chemists, and soldiers had to jump through to get a rifle that wasn't more dangerous to them than it was to the enemy. That is the fault of the rifle and the speculation you say I'm making is not, it is clearly stated in the book and a logical conclusion of simple engineering, fluid dynamics, and kinetics which make the gas-tube INHERINTLY sensative to ammo. Sure, modern propellants are available which diminish, but do not eliminate the problems the AR-15 will ALWAYS have due to its design.

Hate to use the Automobile analogy again, but the Mazda rotary engines are great engines. They have a few BIG flaws but are still workable engines. The major flaw is that they do not seal very well and must be rebuilt sooner than a more conventional engine. While I won't say this about my wife, Some people I'm sure have flawed wives. I just think you are afraid of divorcing Roseanne Barr until you can get somebody of the caliber of, say, Anna Kournikova to replace her. That's reasonable, but you can't pick apart any gun that doesn't measure up to your ideal because you love Roseanne.

Again speculation on your part. Was either the Stoner 63 or AR-18 tested with M193 loaded with WC846?

You don't need to worry, I doubt anybody would give me odds on this bet. Howsabout I just declare myself the winner. You know darned well that the later Stoners would digest virtually anything and beg for more. I don't have either gun, right now, so I can't help you. Tried to order the Aberdeen Stoner 63 tests (the same tests that you refer to in your previous post but with different rifle) but the interlibrary loan system won't let me get it. I'm afraid research from Alaska is a bit difficult.

 

[Jeff White]

Declare you the winner..for fanatically defending an inferior rifle?

Are you saying that gas piston weapons will function within any pressure curve? You know that you aren't. Many of them have adjustable gas regulators that permit them to function as the gas system dirties up.

Saying that it's the fault of the design that it doesn't function with chamber and port pressure outside of it's design perameters is the same as saying your BMW should run fine with 3 in 1 oil in the crank case.

Sure, modern propellants are available which diminish, but do not eliminate the problems the AR-15 will ALWAYS have due to its design.

Could you provide some documented examples of AR15/M16 failures that can be attributed to the AR15/M16 gas system. Don't they continue to function with about any .223/5.56x45 ammunition you can buy? Examples newer then about 1967 please. The fact is the AR15 does not have those problems now.

You failed to address the DECREASE in lethality with M855 ammunition the XM8 gives us and the necessity to purchase adapters to use out current family of accessories on it, or the fact that we have to buy HK's propietary 40mm grenade launcher to maintain the same capability that we have. It's becoming a little bit bigger of a deal then buying a new rifle. Buy HK's own admission we have to buy adapters for our accessories and new grenade launchers. Given all that if you can still say that buying a rifle that gives us shorter lethal range and requires us to spend millions on rail adapters and new grenade launchers just to stay even with where we are now, I can only conclude that you would replace the M16 with anything you could get past Congress....High Pointe Carbines maybe (just kidding, seriously I think your desire to get the G36 into the system is over riding common sense here.)

The facts of the matter are that small arms are expected to last 20 years or more. Adopting the XM8 will actually give us a less capable weapon in terms of the range in which M855 achieves it's greatest lethality at and in ergonomics with it's AK type magazine release. The fact that someone saw a dual mag release notwithstanding. Has anyone who thinks the dual mag release is a good idea ever handled a Galil? If so then you know that the force required to move the safety above the pistol grip takes so much force that it's actually easier to use the very unergonomic AK type safety. The XM8 dual type release will probably be the same, with the pushbutton probably requiing enough force to move the flapper type release.

So you are ready to give up everything we have to include all the SOPMOD accessories and the M203 for an all HK system that will surely be old technology in a few years when the big breakthrough occurs?

As I've proven with the XM8s own literature, it is a step backwords. Kill the thing and see what kind of neat weapon the SCAR trials produce...

Jeff

 

[Destructo6]

Saying that it's the fault of the design that it doesn't function with chamber and port pressure outside of it's design perameters is the same as saying your BMW should run fine with 3 in 1 oil in the crank case.

It is a design deficiency when it requires such tight parameters.

 

[max popenker]

or the fact that we have to buy HK's propietary 40mm grenade launcher to maintain the same capability that we have

the key reason behind the interest in the AG36 is that it have side-swinging barrel instead of the front-sliding; this allows the AG36/XM320 to load much longer ammunition, with FAE or less-lethal warheads, which simply will not fit into M203.

 

[Jeff White]

the key reason behind the interest in the AG36 is that it have side-swinging barrel instead of the front-sliding; this allows the AG36/XM320 to load much longer ammunition, with FAE or less-lethal warheads, which simply will not fit into M203.

I am aware of that. But it's still a 40mm system that greatly limits the load a soldier can carry. Think stand alone grenade launcher of 20-30mm firing a round that gives the grenadier a close in capability without having to depend on the additional weight of a rifle. Thats where we're going.

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

So you are ready to give up everything we have to include all the SOPMOD accessories and the M203 for an all HK system that will surely be old technology in a few years when the big breakthrough occurs?

Are you in Knight's pocket now? Do you have any idea how much Knight is getting paid for these proprietary items? People get paid when something gets bought. Frankly, I'm all for dumping payments to Knights and paying somebody for something that's a step-up. They've got the patent, they've convinced the Gov'mnt to buy them, and they're the sole source. Modular fleecing if you ask me.

 

[Jeff White]

Are you in Knight's pocket now? Do you have any idea how much Knight is getting paid for these proprietary items? People get paid when something gets bought. Frankly, I'm all for dumping payments to Knights and paying somebody for something that's a step-up. They've got the patent, they've convinced the Gov'mnt to buy them, and they're the sole source. Modular fleecing if you ask me.

Better to pay HK for their proprietary items???

Knights is not the sole source for MIL STD 1913 rail. I don't know where got that idea, but it's not true. MIL STD 1913 rail was developed at Picatinney Arsenal. It seems that everyone who makes accessories makes then for MIL STD 1913 rail. Last I checked Knight's didn't own SureFire or any of the other companies that produes our accessories for MIL STD 1913 rail. I'm sure A.R.M.S. and G.G.G. would be upset to know their products using MIL STD 1913 rail are infringing on Knight's patent .

The fact of the matter is you'd rather see your tax dollars paying H und K, currently owned by German firms for a proprietary system. Perhaps you'd like to see large amounts of your tax dollars benefitting a German company. After all they have proved such reliable allies in the past year or so.

The XM8 with it's proprietary rail system and it's propietary XM 320 grenade launcher is not a step up in anyone but a die hard HK fanatics dreams. It's simply replacing our tried and true systems with a system that gives us less lethality and is totally unproven.

In an earlier post you alluded to the gas system change that was made in the M1s service life. I just finished reading Bruce Canfield's excellent article in the current American Rifleman. I was unaware as to how many changes and modifications the M1 had during it's service life. So unless you can convince me that the XM8 is a system that is ready today I'm more convinced then ever that it is of the utmost folly to spend any tax dollars on developing another conventional 5.56x45mm assault rifle. If we can't do without a longer 40mm round, it surely would be cheaper to PIP the M203 to accept a longer round then it would be to buy a new grenade launcher.

As I told Max, the next grenade launcher will be a stand alone one that is in the 20-30mm range and allows the grenadier to carry a reasonable load of ammunition.

Every penny that we spend on the XM8 and XM230 is another penny we won't spend developing the next generation. In case you hadn't noticed, no one starts a project like this without military funding. Not anymore. the days of Armalite building a rifle to try to get in the game are over. The XM8 exists solely because HK has it left over from money we gave them on the XM29. They certainly wouldn't have come up with it on their own. They already have the G36 (which no one wants). I find it strange that no one wants to buy their designs. Royal Ordnance hired them to rework the L85, I understand that the Royal Austrailian Army considered hiring them to re-engineer their version of the AUG (L88?) but bought Bushmaster M4s instead.

You still haven't told me why the HK proprietary rails and buying adapters is better. Just muttered something about being on KACs payroll. What's up with that? Even if MIL STD 1913 rail wasn't developed at Picatinney Arsenal and in the public domain, what is the difference between one companies proprietary system of another ones? Especially since everything we've got mounts on MIL STD 1913 rail.

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Of course you know I didn't mean Weaver Rail cross-section as specified in Mil Std 1913.

http://www.quarterbore.com/library/pdf_files/mil-std-1913-n1.pdf

Clever that you should divert attention by pointing out a mil-spec for Weaver Rail! Knights owns the patent to the accessory rail mounting system that is the heart of this 'modularity' you claim for the newer AR-15 guns. Check out patent 5,826,363 which means that ONLY Knights can build the rail system for the M-4, M-16A3/4, etc. They own the Darned Patent... not to the rail profile but to the rail system.

And if truth be known, they also build a system with Mil-Std-1913 rails for the G-36. So if the modularity of the M-16 family is due solely to the Knights system, looks like that line of debate is a dead-end.

 

[tac17]

To Jeff or anyone else that might know. What were the problems with the G36's in the recent government tests?

It would seem like if the G36 was really the best thing since sliced bread it would have beaten out Colt, RRA, and SIG.

Another thought, why is so important to have the modularity of the XM-8? It's nifty and all but why exactly do you need to change out your magwell and do we really need the average GI to be able to do that?

 

[Spark]

The importance of modularity includes several factors: battle damage, upgrades, mission specific special equipment, etc.

 

[Glock Glockler]

If these SCAR guns are so nifty, when will we be seeing them, when are the SCAR trials?

 

[Destructo6]

Another advantage of the modularity is if they ever decide to ditch the M16 magazine. Today, there are magwells for the G36 and M16 mag. In the future, the military may develop a perfect 5.56NATO magazine and all that would be required to convert current versions is a different magazine well.