XM8 Again

[Badger Arms]

Forgot to add this one. Nothing really new except it shows the XM-26 shotgun everybody was talking about in a separate thread. Ohhh, ohhh, and it also shows that the lower receiver configuration is different than the G36 somewhat negating all of the arguments saying the M-16 was the cat's meow in that regard.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

hmm. that xm25 looks actually useful.

the XM8 shown doesn't appear to have any provision for anything but the sight shown on it.

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms asked;

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.

CPT Dave LaFontaine who works in the Small Arms Division at the Directorate of Combat Develpments at the US Army Infantry School said it in this thread on the Infantry School's official forum.
http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=455

DCD will be heavily involved in all future small arms projects. He started the thread specifically to get feedback from the field on a stand alone grenade launcher.

Who's telling you something different?

Jeff

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

just an FYI, the 100 round drum they show as part of the "system" (beta C mag) has gotten some people killed over in iraq due to functioning problems.

 

[Badger Arms]

While I've got the utmost respect for the Captain and what he said, he did NOT say that they had S#%$canned the XM-29 concept. Far from it, he elicited and got feedback as to whether or not soldiers want the kinetic backup to their primary weapon. Seems like he got mixed results. I don't have any problem with what I've said about the Grenade launcher being developed separately, that's what the Army said it was going to do. You proved my point, as the good Captain seems to be putting feelers out for support on the proposed path of integrating the weapons.

Again, how do you integrate the M-16 to an automatic grenade launcher. I'm open to ideas.

 

[tac17]

Again, how do you integrate the M-16 to an automatic grenade launcher. I'm open to ideas.

How were they planning on putting it on the XM8?

 

[Badger Arms]

Under the barrel, in front of the trigger just like on the XM-29. Can't do that with an M-16 due to the buffer system.

 

[tac17]

Under the barrel, in front of the trigger just like on the XM-29. Can't do that with an M-16 due to the buffer system.

I assume the magazine was going to be part of the stock like on the XM-29 correct?

I can think of a couple of ways to do it on the M-16 but they would all make the it rather muzzle heavy and I doubt that would be allowed.

 

[mattd]

just an FYI, the 100 round drum they show as part of the "system" (beta C mag) has gotten some people killed over in iraq due to functioning problems.

Was it on the m-16 when it happened? Or where can I read about it at?

 

[Jeff White]

Badger Arms said;

While I've got the utmost respect for the Captain and what he said, he did NOT say that they had S#%$canned the XM-29 concept.

If you go back and read the OICW thread in the Future Small Arms Concepts Forum you will see that the XM29 is dead. In fact the information there predated what the press had by a couple months. The XM29 is a dead program. They are totally back to square one and all of your wishful thinking won't change that. They are not maturing the technology and waiting for things to get lighter. The XM29 is dead. If they were doing as you suggested there would be no reason for HK to try to sell the XM8 to the Army. They could continue to suck up R&D money until they got the thing to work. DEAD MEANS DEAD :banghead: The program has been killed. What the staff at the Infantry School forum posts is Official US Army Information it's not from the PR dept of any manufacturer. If CPT LaFontaine, MAJ Brewster or any other staff member posts it there, it's official unless otherwise noted by a disclaimer saying it's not. Moderating the official forum is in their duty description, it's not a hobby like THR, HK Pro or any other forum.

I'd still like to know where you are hearing that it's not. Are you so in denial about the demise of the program?

Jeff

 

[Badger Arms]

Actually, you just confirmed what I had been told, that it ain't dead. The bean counters might have killed it, but the PR people still haven't put out a press release. I'd assume that the contract has expired? The contractor must have gotten notice or did the contract naturally expire? There are several components from the XM-29. Let's see, the kinetic portion is still alive; the grenades themself are probably going to be enlarged and/or redesigned but the technology will not just fade away; the sight and fire control computer were fleeting anyhow, but the software will live on; the grenade launcher itself was never singled out, so it might also just be redesigned. The only reason I know that the XM-29 is dead is because the XM8 exists and has been contracted.

Look, I know you've heard it from lots of people, but I haven't seen the fat lady yet. Your sources have titles, true, but they aren't sepaking in an official capacity. Those that ARE in an official capacity have said that the components will be developed separately. I'm sorry that I'm not an ordnance insider (apparently all of them read that infantry forum with Hardin). I don't have the inside line on anything. I have to take things on face value when I read about them just like you.

They are not maturing the technology and waiting for things to get lighter. The XM29 is dead. If they were doing as you suggested there would be no reason for HK to try to sell the XM8 to the Army.

You keep suggesting I implied the XM-29 alive and kicking. No, I never said or implied that. The automatic grenade launcher half of the system is not dead, but the integrated, eggs-in-basket approach to the XM-29's CONCEPT is still alive. You argue that if the Army said that they were going to develop the system separately, then there would be no reason to... and here's where you lose me... no reason to develop the kinetic portion of the weapon -- the XM8? How is it possible to develop one module of a weapon and not be developing one module of a weapon? Just because the grenade launcher, grenades, sight, and fire control computers aren't being tested, doesn't mean that they won't.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

beta mag reliability problems can be found at :http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=238