XM8 Again
- Thread starter Spieler
- Start date
- Status
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I guess i should go file suit on behalf of knights against bushmaster and ARMS (makers of two of the blistering array of rail systems for the AR) , then.
I take it you've never seen a weapon hit or broken in the field then? You can't see the advantage of being able to replace parts in the field, without tools? Soldiers don't have to be issued spares of everything but the S4 for the company or battalion can easily keep a few magwell's, stocks, etc on hand - just like they keep spare weapons on hand in the combat zone. Take a round through the lower during combat? Do a battlefield pickup off one of your buddies or somesuch.
Next?
You don't see the SIRS system as part of the M4 official issue, do you? Though it does have the same function, it's not issued because Knight's has the contract. There goes your "wide range of alternatives in suppliers" reason for that - if you can't get exactly the same item from other suppliers, it makes that same item just a proprietary as the XM8 parts people are complaining about.
If the soldiers aren't going to be issued the parts then where is the difference between this new system and the old system?
I just can't see any real benefit from spending the money when there are so many other things that money needs to go towards.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I don't know, but it is readily available if folks want to shell out the cash for it, and as unit purchase items. The army isgoing to an all m16a4/m4a1 force, so the presence or absense of thes rail adaptors is moot, since everyone who'll need them will have them.
why not battlefield pickup someone's whole gun? it takes even fewer tools to do that.
the m-16 is far more amendable by its design to modification then the g36, due to the upper reciever being a separate piece than the buttstock and firecontrol unit. this means we can keep it in inventory with a reasonably small expendeture in cost and training time untill the next big thing comes along. the g36 is not the next big thing. heck, with the design of the m-16, i wouldn't be surprised it it were modified to take advantage of the next big thing in small arms development.
mrming
Member
First, I had the impression that what you desired was a wee bit more complex. The units deployed in military vechiles are significantly more complex than 'what Bushnell and Nikon sells to hunters'. Some with multiple redudnancys, balistic computers, hold over estimation based on target velocity etc.
Really bad logic here. APC's, traditional heavy armor, and aircraft all have significantly easier ways to be identified. Uniform profiles, massive heat signatures, noise, radar profiles, etc. Why bother trying to find their laser designator when a simple thermal sight will reviel them? Vechiles also have this wonderful thing called horsepower, in which all engines are typically rated. Oddly, people don't generate much of it, so we can't just lift and reprogram the electronisc from a vechile. Is it feasible to expect to take a multipound unit including a balistics computer, reduce it to a few ounces, attach it to a rifle and expect it to work well?
People are hard to spot eletronicly. Small body heat which can be masked, no set optical/radar/etc profile. Equip everyone with a flashlight (laser, in this case) on their rifles, don't spend the training time on traditional iron marksmenship (why should we? They've got a fancy set of optics now! Or are you saying we'll train in both, so the solider now has an additional skillset they have to stay up to speed with?) What, make it pulsed so you only send out a signal when aiming? But then you don't have the data to figure out inertia to lead. Do you really want to wait that half second for the computer to come up with a target leading solution, or just pull the trigger and walk the fire into them? How is this sighting technology going to be a signficant improvement?
Of what benifit is this in a urban enviroment? At under a hundred yards? 200? Even if a method to indentify humans based on a limited sensor (laser, whatever) is devised, people don't have the intertia of a vechile. Duck, jump, dodge, side step all are possible and non-predictable events. It'll be possible to fool the leading retiticle, and it'll take a large fraction of a second to generate.
Ok, say we drop the leading functionality. Lets just do a hold over. line up on target, send out one pulse to get range.. imbed sensors to pickup on humidity, air pressure, wind speed, munitions type and generate a hold-over reticle. That could be useful, but only at range. If someone wants to try it out, we don't need a new rifle for it... just pull the carry handle off a A4 and attach. Now it doesn't give away your position, or require a new weapon.. but I doubt we are talking about anything revolutionary, as it'd have to be tuned to each individual rifle and munition combination, and it won't be capable of reading wind anywhere except at the point of the sight.. Traditional marksmenship should be able to win out.
When is the last time we fought against a foe who valued their infantry? Were the bulk of the army wasn't forced conscripts, or even had a home grown electronics industry of their own? I'm not worried about the brush wars, the police actions, or the occasional dictator with cold war left overs. I'm worried about the guy who shows up capable of defeating the electronic gizmo's leaving the USGI with a compass, iron sights and his feet. God forbid any consideration be given to the day that someone brings a working EMP bomb to the party.
Badger Arms
Member
Okay, maybe I should be more specific. Knights patented their rail system which involves a removeable lower portion so that the M-203 grenade launcher can be attached to the barrel. Since special forces want that option, they can only get it from Knights.
Wait a second, your logic eludes me. The Mag well, trigger group, buttstock, sighting system, handguards, and barrel are all user replaceable in the field on the G-36. You are saying that an M-16 which lacks user interchangeable trigger groups, mag wells, barrels, and buttstock is more interchageable? You're using Sarah Brady math to come up with that one. No, the G36/XM8 does NOT have a two-piece receiver, but what advantage is there in that? That's the point of modularity. The receiver on a G36 serves essentially the same purpose as that of the Upper receiver on an M-16. With the German gun, you get the modularity of being able to attach a separate buttstock, trigger group, and mag well.
Let's say the Army is disappointed in their magazines becasue the Aluminum ones are flimsy and cause jams because of some weird half-curved, half-straight idea. Well, all they'd have to do is change out the mag wells and there they have it, they can now fit a fully-curved 30-rounder to each gun out there. We went through this VERY early in the development of the AR-15 but because it (and pretty much everything at that time) wasn't modular, no dice. So we were stuck with the fully curved magazine and compromise green followers to band-aid a design flaw. Sure, the brick flies most of the time... wait, I said that before!
Looking at my cell phone with Built-in GPS that came free with a 1-year contract... I'd have to say YES, it's possible in a few years. The problem is, we won't be able to use the darned thing because the M-16 won't adapt to it. Part of the philosophy of the XM-8 is that it's lighter and has the potential to shed even more weight as the system matures. That will allow it to integrate with the automatic grenade launcher that IS THE NEXT BIG THING when it, too, sees results from its diet and exercise program. Andrew, Jeff, that's also the reason why we get an anemic 12" barrel. When it comes time to attach the XM-8 to a grenade launcher, I don't want that long of a barrel on what becomes a secondary system to the primary weapon. I'll also want the other guys in the squad to be using 20" barreled rifles of the same design to support me.
The next best thing is asking for a new weapon. Either you don't think the "grandson of OICW" is the next best thing, or you are too prejudiced to accept that anything short of a Phaser will be good enough to replace the M-16. Being conservative is just fine, but there comes a point when we must move on to newer technology, newer ideas, and newer concepts that have the potential to get us to the next step. Had the grenade laucher and sight on the XM-29 had passed the test, would we be having this argument? Well, it didn't but it's descendants will someday. Either jump on the bandwagon or get out of the way.
Kaylee
Member
Hunh? That's rather a false dichotomy, don't you think?
I don't think there's anyone here saying that the M16 is perfect, or that it shouldn't be replaced in the not-too-distant future.
Don't mean the XM-8 is the way to go though.
-K
Ok there it is again. Why is it important to be able to change the mag well, trigger group and buttstock in the field unless you are sending the soldiers out with a parts kit?
I can change out the sighting system on my A3 upper in the field already.
You can change the handguards for the current system in the field as well.
At least when you change the upper on an AR you don't have to rezero it.
Badger Arms
Member
I wasn't attempting to make a case that this modularity was good or bad, only the fact that the XM-8 is more flexible in that regard than is the M-16. How often do upper receivers get swapped out on the M-16 system anyhow? Modularity means that units can configure their weapons easily based on the expected mission. House clearing might call for short barrels, laser designators, etc. Desert fighting might call for longer barrels with scopes. Again, I'm observing here, not passing judgement. My main reason for wanting the M-8 to become a reality lies with reliability and adaptability in the future, not in whether or not the grunts can or cannot change out their trigger groups in a foxhole.
About as often as I suspect the barrel would be changed on the XM-8.
But as already brought up the M-16 series has proven to be a reliable weapon system.
As far as adaptability in the future goes....No one knows what the future is going to hold in order to claim the XM-8 will even be able to be adapted to it. Why not want until that new thing is here and issue it then?
mattd
Member
The only 2 optics I ever see the American Army using on the m4 or m-16 is the Acog scope and the Aimpoint, the Aimpoint mount isn't permanent I don't know of the Acog, but I'm sure those companys will have no problems making a new mount for it to fit on the XM8.
Or just use the 1913 rail and be done with it.
Or just use the 1913 rail and be done with it.
Destructo6
Member
Some have come really close.
What are you getting at here? What on the G36/XM8 would you change that would require re-zero? Can you change the magwell at all on the AR? You seem to conclude that in order to take advantage of modularity in the field, each soldier would need to be equipped with every spare part (ie another rifle). A battallion armorer could carry spare trigger groups, buttstocks, magwells, and strip pins which could quickly replace damaged bits, in the field. Wheras with the AR, in order to replace the same parts, he'd have a fair bit of wrenching to do, or carry entire pre-assembled lowers around.
mrming
Member
Badger, IF we are talking just a aimpoint with some sort of zoom ability that can figure hold over, sure, its doable now.
If we are talking like White was sounding, a aiming device that gives drift on moving targets ala modern armour targeting systems your out of your mind.
I have to agree overall, modular so you don't have to reinvest in a new platform to upgrade the component technologies sounds good. Presuming there isn't something better behind the curtain that does it, too. So the question is.. how long is long enough to wait for the curtain to be pulled back?
mrming said,
Ever hear of a program called Land Warrior? We're not there yet, but we're getting there. The processing capability to figure trajectory of a bullet going out to 300 meters is much less then computing the trajectory of a 120mm SABOT roind out to 3000 meters from a platform that's moving 25 mph. The sight I envision is well within our current technology.
Ever looked through the ISU of an M2 Bradley? Yes, you can mask body heat with something as simple as a sheet of acetate. But once you move all bets are off.
We already do. Ever hear of AN/PAC-4Cs, AN/PEQ-2s and 5? Most troops have the M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M in civilian terms). I don't think we'll ever stop spending training time on traditional iron sight marksmanship, because you still have to have a foundation in the basics. But better aiming devices are where we're going. Barring a breakthrough in ammunition technology, it's where all the near term improvements are coming from. The XM8 all the HundKphobes are promoting has very rudimentary iron sights and a proprietary sight that is totally unacceptable for military use. Even the German soldiers who have it on their G36s complain about it.
That is exactly what we are doing now. One of the missions of the small arms master marksmen programs in the light divisions is to provide subject matter experts in use of all the new aiming devices we already have in the system. Units routinely qualify with both iron sights and their M68 CCOs. As a matter of fact they even qual with both in Infantry OSUT now.
We already do this with the infrared laser aiming lights in the system. A half second to wait for a processor to work is not bad at all. How long do you think the engagement sequence is now with iron sights? Soldier aquires the target, IDs it as hostile, estimates range, aims, lining up both front and rear sights, presses trigger. Probably takes anywhere from a second and a half to 3 seconds depending on the skill of the shooter.
Range estimation is the phase where the most errors occur. If we ranged the target as well as illuminated it with our laser, we could eliminate this error. Imagine a combat sight that was slaved to to the laser aimer we use to engage in the dark. Soldier sees the target through either his AN/PVS14 at night or his day combat optic. Illuminates it with the laser. The laser gives the CPU the range and the CPU computes the right angle to hold the weapon to make the hit, turning the reticule red/green (color really doesn't matter). The reticule could be in his day sight mounted on the weapon or in the eyepiece of his helmet mounted NOD. This is a significant improvement over what we have. The technology exists to make this a reality now.
It's still going to be faster in a urban environment. Put the entire thing into a thermal sight and you've taken a lot of concealment from the enemy. We haven't quite gotten to where thermal rifle sights are small and light enough to be practical yet, but we will. Look at the difference between the AN/PVS2 of Vietnam days and the current AN/PVS14.
We don't need humidty, air pressure or wind speed to engage at 300 meters and closer. All we need is the range to the target. There are online ballistic computers that will figure out the holdover needed for the ammunition we use. Like I said earlier, we're shooting from point blank range out to no more then about 500 meters if we stay with 5.56x45 ammo. And that you for making my point. We don't need a new rifle to do this. In fact adoption of the XM8 will undoubtedly suck up the funding we need to develop the sight unit. So we get less capability for more money
.
No we're not talking about anything revolutionary. You wouldn't need to program the system for each individual rifle/ammunition combo. With the current 4MOA standard for mechanical accuracy (most rack grade M16s shoot 2MOA or better) a software package that covered M855 out of both a 20" and 14.5" barrel will be sufficient for what we want to do. Traditional marksmanship isn't winning out. Range scores show that soldiers equipped with the current optical systems prove their value.
This is always a consideration. Which is why we still need backup iron sights. and the training to use them. Warfare in the electronic spectrum is something we have to deal with. Should we not pursue anything in these areas? We seem to have neutralized the Russian made GPS jammers the Iraqis fielded during the recent war. I think it's folly not to pursue these advances because there may be countermeasures used against them. There are always countermeasures. That's what it's all about. The trick is to train soldiers well enough that they can function without all the HSLD stuff.
Badger Arms said;
Again not true. The A.R.M.S. SIR will accept the M203. It even has an NSN. It's been in the hands of our troops for a long time. Again I ask, what is the difference between Kinights and HK when it comes to proprietary parts, except that Knights is an American company and HK is a German company?
So is this capability worth the cost? You answered your own question. We already issue reliable magazines. In fact your buddies at Oberndorf already make them ...Of course 13 thousand of them that were sold to one of our elite units had to be sent back due to serious quality control problems. ...ohhh I thought if it came from Oberndorf it was infallible, you mean they do make mistakes like any other manufacturer?
And you know this how? Have you seen what's being done to replace the XM29? No you haven't. No one here has. I do know that they are currently looking at a stand alone grenade launcher and developing munitions for it the grenadiier can use up close, eliminating the need for a dual weapon.
Badger, repeat after me....The XM29 is dead... Now once again, The XM29 is dead...again...The XM29 is dead. Ok now that we've established that FACT we can continue the discussion. No one knows what the follow on to the XM29 will look like. I do know for a fact that they are looking at a STAND ALONE system. Given that they are starting over with the entire program...what guarantee can you give me that the XM29 will be compatible with the new grenade launcher? Every penny we spend on the XM29 will be a penny that isn't available to develop the new grenade launcher. The XM8 didn't exist till the XM29 was killed. There is no need for it now.
The reason we had to have the anemic 12.5" barrel was because of the XM29. Guess what, The XM29 is dead. The 12.5" barrel was one of the big reasons rank and file grunts didn't want the XM29. You limit the grenadiers range with his rifle to under 100 meters where the M855 round is at it's best. In fact according to HK own brochure on the XM8, it leaves the barrel at 45 fps above the minimum threshold for fragmentation. I don't have a ballistic calculator, but I would imagine that it will drop below 2500 fps (which is the minimum velocity for fragmentation, it's only reliable above 2700 fps which the 12.5" barrel NEVER gives us) between 50 and 70 meters from the muzzle. I don't know how much personal experience you have with grenade launchers, but you can't use them though any kind of foilage because of the speed the grenade flies. So we either develop a a close in grenade or give the grenadier a usable rifle. While we're on muzzle velocity, the piston/op rod system that you're so in love with allows a muzzle velocity 2850 fps with the 20" barrel vs. 3100 fps with the 20" M16A2/A4. So we have less range where M855 is at it's optimum velocity with both versions of the XM8. I don't see how this is a good thing. Why would we deliberatly give our soldier a weapon that had less effective terminal effects?
Even if the other members of the squad had 20" XM8s, they wouldn't have as effective weapons as we do now. I'd be interested to know why you want my son who's in B-1-29th Infantry right now to carry a less effective rifle into combat?
Have you seen the reports on why the XM29 was scrapped? Are you sure that the XM8 part passed with flying colors? I'm not.
Far from jumping on the bandwagon, I am doing everything I can to derail the XM8 train before we are saddled with an expensive, unproven rifle that does nothing better then the ones we have and many things worse....
Jeff
Ever hear of a program called Land Warrior? We're not there yet, but we're getting there. The processing capability to figure trajectory of a bullet going out to 300 meters is much less then computing the trajectory of a 120mm SABOT roind out to 3000 meters from a platform that's moving 25 mph. The sight I envision is well within our current technology.
Ever looked through the ISU of an M2 Bradley? Yes, you can mask body heat with something as simple as a sheet of acetate. But once you move all bets are off.
We already do. Ever hear of AN/PAC-4Cs, AN/PEQ-2s and 5? Most troops have the M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M in civilian terms). I don't think we'll ever stop spending training time on traditional iron sight marksmanship, because you still have to have a foundation in the basics. But better aiming devices are where we're going. Barring a breakthrough in ammunition technology, it's where all the near term improvements are coming from. The XM8 all the HundKphobes are promoting has very rudimentary iron sights and a proprietary sight that is totally unacceptable for military use. Even the German soldiers who have it on their G36s complain about it.
That is exactly what we are doing now. One of the missions of the small arms master marksmen programs in the light divisions is to provide subject matter experts in use of all the new aiming devices we already have in the system. Units routinely qualify with both iron sights and their M68 CCOs. As a matter of fact they even qual with both in Infantry OSUT now.
We already do this with the infrared laser aiming lights in the system. A half second to wait for a processor to work is not bad at all. How long do you think the engagement sequence is now with iron sights? Soldier aquires the target, IDs it as hostile, estimates range, aims, lining up both front and rear sights, presses trigger. Probably takes anywhere from a second and a half to 3 seconds depending on the skill of the shooter.
Range estimation is the phase where the most errors occur. If we ranged the target as well as illuminated it with our laser, we could eliminate this error. Imagine a combat sight that was slaved to to the laser aimer we use to engage in the dark. Soldier sees the target through either his AN/PVS14 at night or his day combat optic. Illuminates it with the laser. The laser gives the CPU the range and the CPU computes the right angle to hold the weapon to make the hit, turning the reticule red/green (color really doesn't matter). The reticule could be in his day sight mounted on the weapon or in the eyepiece of his helmet mounted NOD. This is a significant improvement over what we have. The technology exists to make this a reality now.
It's still going to be faster in a urban environment. Put the entire thing into a thermal sight and you've taken a lot of concealment from the enemy. We haven't quite gotten to where thermal rifle sights are small and light enough to be practical yet, but we will. Look at the difference between the AN/PVS2 of Vietnam days and the current AN/PVS14.
We don't need humidty, air pressure or wind speed to engage at 300 meters and closer. All we need is the range to the target. There are online ballistic computers that will figure out the holdover needed for the ammunition we use. Like I said earlier, we're shooting from point blank range out to no more then about 500 meters if we stay with 5.56x45 ammo. And that you for making my point. We don't need a new rifle to do this. In fact adoption of the XM8 will undoubtedly suck up the funding we need to develop the sight unit. So we get less capability for more money
.No we're not talking about anything revolutionary. You wouldn't need to program the system for each individual rifle/ammunition combo. With the current 4MOA standard for mechanical accuracy (most rack grade M16s shoot 2MOA or better) a software package that covered M855 out of both a 20" and 14.5" barrel will be sufficient for what we want to do. Traditional marksmanship isn't winning out. Range scores show that soldiers equipped with the current optical systems prove their value.
This is always a consideration. Which is why we still need backup iron sights. and the training to use them. Warfare in the electronic spectrum is something we have to deal with. Should we not pursue anything in these areas? We seem to have neutralized the Russian made GPS jammers the Iraqis fielded during the recent war. I think it's folly not to pursue these advances because there may be countermeasures used against them. There are always countermeasures. That's what it's all about. The trick is to train soldiers well enough that they can function without all the HSLD stuff.
Badger Arms said;
Again not true. The A.R.M.S. SIR will accept the M203. It even has an NSN. It's been in the hands of our troops for a long time. Again I ask, what is the difference between Kinights and HK when it comes to proprietary parts, except that Knights is an American company and HK is a German company?
So is this capability worth the cost? You answered your own question. We already issue reliable magazines. In fact your buddies at Oberndorf already make them ...Of course 13 thousand of them that were sold to one of our elite units had to be sent back due to serious quality control problems. ...ohhh I thought if it came from Oberndorf it was infallible, you mean they do make mistakes like any other manufacturer?
And you know this how? Have you seen what's being done to replace the XM29? No you haven't. No one here has. I do know that they are currently looking at a stand alone grenade launcher and developing munitions for it the grenadiier can use up close, eliminating the need for a dual weapon.
Badger, repeat after me....The XM29 is dead... Now once again, The XM29 is dead...again...The XM29 is dead. Ok now that we've established that FACT we can continue the discussion. No one knows what the follow on to the XM29 will look like. I do know for a fact that they are looking at a STAND ALONE system. Given that they are starting over with the entire program...what guarantee can you give me that the XM29 will be compatible with the new grenade launcher? Every penny we spend on the XM29 will be a penny that isn't available to develop the new grenade launcher. The XM8 didn't exist till the XM29 was killed. There is no need for it now.
The reason we had to have the anemic 12.5" barrel was because of the XM29. Guess what, The XM29 is dead. The 12.5" barrel was one of the big reasons rank and file grunts didn't want the XM29. You limit the grenadiers range with his rifle to under 100 meters where the M855 round is at it's best. In fact according to HK own brochure on the XM8, it leaves the barrel at 45 fps above the minimum threshold for fragmentation. I don't have a ballistic calculator, but I would imagine that it will drop below 2500 fps (which is the minimum velocity for fragmentation, it's only reliable above 2700 fps which the 12.5" barrel NEVER gives us) between 50 and 70 meters from the muzzle. I don't know how much personal experience you have with grenade launchers, but you can't use them though any kind of foilage because of the speed the grenade flies. So we either develop a a close in grenade or give the grenadier a usable rifle. While we're on muzzle velocity, the piston/op rod system that you're so in love with allows a muzzle velocity 2850 fps with the 20" barrel vs. 3100 fps with the 20" M16A2/A4. So we have less range where M855 is at it's optimum velocity with both versions of the XM8. I don't see how this is a good thing. Why would we deliberatly give our soldier a weapon that had less effective terminal effects?
Even if the other members of the squad had 20" XM8s, they wouldn't have as effective weapons as we do now. I'd be interested to know why you want my son who's in B-1-29th Infantry right now to carry a less effective rifle into combat?
Have you seen the reports on why the XM29 was scrapped? Are you sure that the XM8 part passed with flying colors? I'm not.
Far from jumping on the bandwagon, I am doing everything I can to derail the XM8 train before we are saddled with an expensive, unproven rifle that does nothing better then the ones we have and many things worse....
Jeff
Notwithstanding that this is a really entertaining thread with lots of cogent arguments for opposing opinions...
(Climbs into Nomex coveralls, tightens MICH chin strap...)
Some of the arguments here remind me of virgins talking about sex.
You can argue till the cows come home about advantages to this and that and only betray the fact that you don't really understand how things actually work in a battlefield environment. I see a lot of armchair opinion on what Joe should be forced to carry. To be honest, if you handed the average E-3 11B a sexy G-36 he would think he had won the lottery. The trouble is that the average E-3 is an apprentice when it comes to weapons. In the military we rely on more experienced hands to operate the B.S. detector. With all due modesty, I'm calling B.S. on the G36/XM8. The weapon is not ready to go to war with our troops. The M4/M16 is. If you think otherwise you probably haven't used either for extended firing under field conditions...or in combat. A day at the range doesn't count.
I want a COMPLETELY NEW RIFLE & CALIBER combination that delivers a quantum leap in LETHALITY, RELIABILITY, ERGONOMICS, and INCREASED DAY/NIGHT HIT POTENTIAL against human beings I intend to kill.
When someone shows me one I will drop the Stoner AR design like a cheap cigar.
How is an XM8/G36 BETTER than what I currently carry (or even as good)? Generating constituency jobs in Georgia doesn't count. Reconfiguring rifles in the field (with parts Joe will never have access to) is a specious argument in the infantry world. Most units don't even own spare barrels for their SAWs. It's taken over 10 years just to get our kids equipped with rails, optics, tactical lights, BUIS, PAC-4Cs, PAS-13s, PVS-14s, etc.
What I have not seen in 6 pages of this thread is even ONE good reason for pissing money away on the XM8 (unless, as previously posted, each rifle comes with a BMW as a carrying case).
(Climbs into Nomex coveralls, tightens MICH chin strap...)
Some of the arguments here remind me of virgins talking about sex.
You can argue till the cows come home about advantages to this and that and only betray the fact that you don't really understand how things actually work in a battlefield environment. I see a lot of armchair opinion on what Joe should be forced to carry. To be honest, if you handed the average E-3 11B a sexy G-36 he would think he had won the lottery. The trouble is that the average E-3 is an apprentice when it comes to weapons. In the military we rely on more experienced hands to operate the B.S. detector. With all due modesty, I'm calling B.S. on the G36/XM8. The weapon is not ready to go to war with our troops. The M4/M16 is. If you think otherwise you probably haven't used either for extended firing under field conditions...or in combat. A day at the range doesn't count.
I want a COMPLETELY NEW RIFLE & CALIBER combination that delivers a quantum leap in LETHALITY, RELIABILITY, ERGONOMICS, and INCREASED DAY/NIGHT HIT POTENTIAL against human beings I intend to kill.
When someone shows me one I will drop the Stoner AR design like a cheap cigar.
How is an XM8/G36 BETTER than what I currently carry (or even as good)? Generating constituency jobs in Georgia doesn't count. Reconfiguring rifles in the field (with parts Joe will never have access to) is a specious argument in the infantry world. Most units don't even own spare barrels for their SAWs. It's taken over 10 years just to get our kids equipped with rails, optics, tactical lights, BUIS, PAC-4Cs, PAS-13s, PVS-14s, etc.
What I have not seen in 6 pages of this thread is even ONE good reason for pissing money away on the XM8 (unless, as previously posted, each rifle comes with a BMW as a carrying case
).Destructo6
Member
Uh, you don't have to sight in a M16 after you change the barrel? Or are you saying you can swap entire uppers without sighting in? If so, a complete upper is a lot of money and equipment laying around doing nothing.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
it's also self contained, and can be put on any other m-16. It can be in any caliber you want, and only requires the use of two pushpins to install.
My original comments were to the XM-8 and not the M-16. They were directed at all the talk of how easy it is to switch an XM-8 barrel and how that was an improvement over the M-16. My comment was that switching from a 12.5" barrel to a 20" barrel on an XM-8 would require a little more than just clicking this or that into place it would need to be zeroed again.
A complete upper might be a lot of money and equipment laying around doing nothing, but for all we know a barrel for the XM-8 might not be cheap either. Of course the extra XM-8 barrel will of course be laying around, doing nothing, when not in use as well.
Chindo18Z,
We professionals aren't supposed to have opinions...they get in the way of development.
According to mrming;
I don't know about you, but I only qualify on numbers 2 and 3 And my finance consisted of recommending how to spend training dollars to the commander.
All....There is one thing you have to understand. Chindo18Z is correct in that modularity won't mean anything below division level in a conventional unit. Spark, you should know this too. A rifle company doesn't have the organic lift to haul 150 transit cases full of the modular XM8 parts. Does anyone have any idea what an XM8 with a transit case with all it's neat little components might cost? I don't, but given the cost of other HK weapons and military weapons in general you are probably looking at $6000-$8000 per system.
Zeroing isn't even that much of an issue. We currently have laser boresighters that we use with offset targets to field zero all of our current fire control components. Zeroing the M68 CCO with the laser is even one of the tasks tested on the EIB (Expert Infantryman Badge) test this year.
The XM8 is change for the sake of change. I have repeatedly stated I would drop the M16/M4 as soon as something that gave me greater capability comes along...For all the reasons I've stated here, the XM8 doesn't. And yes, I too own an HK. I have a USP45 that I think is probably the best .45 ACP double stack made. But that's not relavant to this debate. I carried an M16 for almost 29 years in the Army. 22 of that in the Infantry in every position up to platoon sergeant. I still depend on a Colt R6920 LE Carbine as a patrol rifle. It may not be perfect, but it's proven and it works. The G36/XM8 isn't. That's the bottom line.
Jeff
We professionals aren't supposed to have opinions...they get in the way of development.
According to mrming;
I don't know about you, but I only qualify on numbers 2 and 3
And my finance consisted of recommending how to spend training dollars to the commander. All....There is one thing you have to understand. Chindo18Z is correct in that modularity won't mean anything below division level in a conventional unit. Spark, you should know this too. A rifle company doesn't have the organic lift to haul 150 transit cases full of the modular XM8 parts. Does anyone have any idea what an XM8 with a transit case with all it's neat little components might cost? I don't, but given the cost of other HK weapons and military weapons in general you are probably looking at $6000-$8000 per system.
Zeroing isn't even that much of an issue. We currently have laser boresighters that we use with offset targets to field zero all of our current fire control components. Zeroing the M68 CCO with the laser is even one of the tasks tested on the EIB (Expert Infantryman Badge) test this year.
The XM8 is change for the sake of change. I have repeatedly stated I would drop the M16/M4 as soon as something that gave me greater capability comes along...For all the reasons I've stated here, the XM8 doesn't. And yes, I too own an HK. I have a USP45 that I think is probably the best .45 ACP double stack made. But that's not relavant to this debate. I carried an M16 for almost 29 years in the Army. 22 of that in the Infantry in every position up to platoon sergeant. I still depend on a Colt R6920 LE Carbine as a patrol rifle. It may not be perfect, but it's proven and it works. The G36/XM8 isn't. That's the bottom line.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
ROFLMAO
Okay, Jeff. The XM-29 is dead but I don't recall ever saying it wasn't. In fact, it's dead, but the individual components are to be developed separately:
Army Times says:
So while the XM-29 is dead (my opinion and yours despite what the Army says) as a system, the XM-8 portion lives on and, being easiest and quickest to develop, will be fielded first. The Grenade launcher will have to be developed separately along with the sighting/fire control module. Once they are developed and fielded, they go on a diet until all parts are light enough to integrate. Now, I ain't saying that it's going to happen, but that's the plan.
So, what configuration can you imagine where the M-16 would integrate with the repeating grenade launcher?
MRMING said:
Well, I am out of my mind, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I believe that a proper sight will posess the following capabilities at least or something near them:
1) Day, night, and possibly infrared capability-- maybe 20 years out for latter.
2) Laser rangefinder with auto-compensation for bullet drop and grenade drop.
3) Programmer for air-burst grenade fuses.
4) Camera for helmet mounted display to look around corners and relay info through land warrior system.
5) Laser units for marking in visible, infrared, and for designating targets for air-strike or other smart munitions... mortars, howitzer shells, MLRS, etc.
6) GPS integration to give exact coordinates of target.
7) Weight of around a pound.
8) Battery life of around 12 hours in regular use.
Not only do I belive this sight is possible, but it is probably possible with currently available technology with the exception of perhaps the battery life and infrared. Call me crazy. A tracking computer is also possible, but I don't think it's likely. Shooting at walking or running targets at typical ranges, the human mind does about as good a job at leading as a computer would for ALOT less money.
When I was a kid, I remember watching the TOW missile sight that was being developed then for the Army track vehicles in the San Fernando Valley. It would track them and follow them predictively through trees and buildings and under bridges picking them up on the other side. This was around 1980 or so... don't recall the exact date. It's no stretch of the capabilitys of micro-electronics and computers to produce a device which would reliably track and lead a target. Soldiers of tomorrow will use their X-Box skills to integrate smoothly with these systems.
Badger,
Army Times is not an official publication. It's owned by the same people who publish USA Today. The information in Army Times is NOT official information. Just because the article said the two parts of the technology are being developed separately doesn't make it so. As I've stated before, Directorate of Combat Developments is looking at a stand alone grenade launcher. There are several programs looking at all kinds of things. No one knows what we're going to end up with. The XM8 and XM320 are simply an attempt by HK to take advantage of this situation. Neither system or the combination thereof offers us anything more then we have.
I think that we will see a new grenade launcher that is a stand alone weapon, using new ammunition that will allow grenadiers to engage close in targets.
Jeff
Army Times is not an official publication. It's owned by the same people who publish USA Today. The information in Army Times is NOT official information. Just because the article said the two parts of the technology are being developed separately doesn't make it so. As I've stated before, Directorate of Combat Developments is looking at a stand alone grenade launcher. There are several programs looking at all kinds of things. No one knows what we're going to end up with. The XM8 and XM320 are simply an attempt by HK to take advantage of this situation. Neither system or the combination thereof offers us anything more then we have.
I think that we will see a new grenade launcher that is a stand alone weapon, using new ammunition that will allow grenadiers to engage close in targets.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
What's your source on that one? That seems like a more logical course, but I'd want to read it for myself. Everything I hear says different.
Badger Arms
Member
- Status
