The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The XM8, why??
mudshark    4/2/2004 11:02:10 AM
America is spending lots of cash on the XM8 which is essentially a G36 as far as I can see. Why didn?t they go with the G36?

Reliability and longevity are probably the main justifications for a new rifle.

But the G36 has all that, so if some clever chap can enlighten me I will stop scratching my head like a confused chimp.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Yimmy    RE:The XM8, why??   10/10/2004 12:34:12 PM
Someone asked concerning if the 4.7x30mm centerfire round of the H&K P7 had any relation to the 4.7mm round of the H&K11. I would suggest that the two rounds have no relation, due to on the surface one being caseless, the other being centerfire, and due to the P7's round not being designed by H&K but by Royal Ordance UK.
 
Quote    Reply

ozigrunt    RE:The XM8, why??   10/18/2004 8:45:23 AM
What amazes me about the XM8 is that its gonna be 5.56. This is still controversial and I think there is a case to answer. Secondly, they are not going to a bullpup design despite half they probs been related to trying to have a hard hitting short wpn to fit into veh's etc. Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    RE:The XM8, why??   10/19/2004 3:08:25 PM
Isn't the G-36 / XM-8 just a plastic (and glass fiber) version of the AR-18 with a little AK-47 thrown in? I would be fine with that except that I actualley think that if you came up with a plastic version of the M-16 with a control rod instead of direct gas you'd be better off for an Automatic rifle because I think the buffer assembly of the M-16 has more potential to be modified to keep the fibration / recoil forces under control than the AR-18/ G-36/ XM-8. I have read articles of modified buffer assemblys on M-16 family of weapons that have no climb what so ever which I believe would be a very good thing in an squad automatic weapon.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 10:11:15 AM
There are certainly a lot of well informed individuals out there. Unfortunately most of your information is either incorrect or H&K propaganda. Here's the real deal. 1. The US is spending a lot of money on the XM8. Nope, the XM8 exists only in the minds of HK and their target audience. At last count there where 12 working copies of the weapon designated by H&K as the XM8( it's the OICW Increment I to the Army). H&K asked for and received permission to conduct testing of the weapon on a us military installation using soldiers. There has to date been no official testing of this weapon system by the US Military. 2. The XM8 is cheaper. Still more H&K propaganda. To date no cost analysis has been done regarding the development,procurement,or fielding of this or any new KE weapon system. Best estimates external to H&K put the cost of the base carbine unit 2%-3% higher than the M16(about what an M4 costs), however the estimated cost of purchase for the multi-configureable system is 300%-500% higher than the M16/M4 and that doesn't include the cost of specialized tools or spare parts. 3. The XM8 is lighter, more durable, more ergonomic, more lethal, more reliable, etc. Says who? All the attributes of the system are on paper only. The first draft Capability Development Document was reviewed only five days ago and there is some serious dispute about it's contents. What this means is that we haven't decided what the new weapon system must be capable of. One of the big disputes is that the majority of the capability gaps this weapon is supposed to close are related to training and ammunition, not the weapon platform. 4. The M8 will be in production sometime this year. Only according to H&K. An Analysis of Alternatives has not yet been coducted which must happen before any new system can be selected for production. Before an AOA can be done there has to be a project. Before you can have a project, you have to have a program. Before you can have a program you have to have an approved CDD, which brings us back to point 3. There has been a serious effort on the part of H&k to create a "bottom up" demand for their proposed weapon system with, in my opinion, the intent to bypass the normal evaluation/selection process of weapon procurement. I have even had a report from one of our units in Alaska that they had received copies of "the" operator's manual for the M8 from a "non DOD source" since they had been selected as the first unit to field the weapon. Bottom line is that the weapon referred to as the XM8 is just another 5.56mm rifle made by H&K that they hope to enter into the competition to replace our current family of small arms should we decide to do so. Having personally handled and fired this weapon I can tell you that apart from looking like the weapon used in the video game "HALO" (according to the H&K rep I talked to "That's not neccessarily a coincidence")it's performance is no better or worse than the M16/M4 family of weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 11:34:29 AM
If you want to see a gun which looks like it came straight from a PC game, search for the French PAPOP.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 11:38:25 AM
link Crap source, but the weapon is real.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    RE:XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 12:28:33 PM
Not as far as the Army is concerned. It's just another contender should we decide to replace the current small arms.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    RE:XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 2:13:18 PM
That is exactly what the concept of OICW increment II looks like.
 
Quote    Reply

ozigrunt    RE:XM8, The reality   10/20/2004 8:15:15 PM
That's excellent news Oldgrunt. As you can see from my post the whole supposed project had me perplexed. One feature I would like to see in a new personal wpn is a ?mag waiting? feature ? one mag in use and another fitted ready to slide into place (could be side by side or along body -preferable with the empty mag leaving the wpn ed ? no IA). I would rather have two 20 rnd mags rather then a 30 mag. As for the fashion of taping/clipping a mag upside down for ready use, this sux big time. One belly flop on contact and fill the mag with a clod of earth or damage the feed and that?s 30 rnds you won?t use this contact ? and a longer IA. On the same score, a mag that is sealed when in the basics would be an advantage (how many IA?s are damaged/dirty mags). If there is a need indentified maybe a properly constituted project will bring out feature like this. And a 6.5/6.8mm just like the Poms wanted in '56.
 
Quote    Reply

ozigrunt    What a prudish program   10/20/2004 8:36:51 PM
I wrote ****ed as in to **** a weapon, a technically correct description, and the program dropped the **** and left 'ed' out in the breeze like a shag on a rock.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:What a prudish program   10/21/2004 9:58:43 AM
Things are tricky here, ozigrunt. We've found subtle little tricks to skirt around the censor protocols/ bad words list: you might try the "star for a vowel" approach, such as, "leaving the weapon c*cked". It seems to work that way. Or do as some of the resident braniacs here: get a decent thesaurus, and try things like, "leaving the weapon charged", instead. .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:What a prudish program   10/23/2004 2:36:47 AM
basically the online censor has a tendency to coque up re the original subject matter, all of my input came from H&K, so I realised that it wasn't absolutely unimpeachable as a source.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    unimpeachable sources   10/23/2004 2:55:53 PM
I've done the same, gf0012 (quoting the source directly from the actual manufacturers of certain weapons.) But sometimes, if the manufacturer's info doesn't correspond to some of the more prideful "experts" and enthusiasts here, they'll consider the manufacturere's data to be "sugar coated" sales pitches and even exaggerations. But I always say: listen to the people who actually designed and built it to give you final say of any system (if you "butter up" the point-of-contact people from their websites, lots of dc's will even send you their product data sheets and info packets when you ask nicely.) .
 
Quote    Reply

AGC    RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching   10/25/2004 5:00:21 AM
"The M-16 is a creditable platform, except- Direct gas system. This has been debated and debated. In short it probably does not impede it being a good rifle (and good it is), but it does require much more cleaning effort compared to other weapons (except perhaps SA80). This means that serious combat types have to spend a lot more of their time cleaning their piece than a compatriot with a G-36, Sig550 or even AK variant. It also means that Non Combat types simply wont clean it, or know how to do so properly even if they wanted to. Remember Jessica Lynch, who became a hero because her unit got lost and none of their weapons would work?" The 507 Maintanence Co's problems were due to piss-poor leadership, not their M16s. They supposedly had problems with their M2HB .50 cals as well, a weapon that has never before been accused of poor reliability... The "unreliability issue is simply BS. I've put well over 2000 rounds through an M16 without cleaning it and had zero problems with reliability. Cleaning an M16-series rifle to combat-reliability standards---not "white glove" standards for an inspection---takes no more than 5 or 10 minutes. "Age- In 1999, I was issued an M16A1 that dated back to just after Vietnam. It usually worked. It sometimes didn?t. But it was definitely old. The magazines were even worse. Weak springs, bent lips, dented bodies. And working ones were getting scarce. A good friend of mine arrived in Iraq in May. He was issued ONE M-16 magazine. ONE. That?s all they had. Never mind the fact that he?s riding convoys around just north of Baghdad, he?s got thirty rounds before fix bayonets. If he even has one of those. Our SAW?s by the way are in even worse shape. Simply put, they?re wearing out and need replacing." Another leadership failure. Failure to ensure that weapons are being properly maintained---my unit was issued M16A1s until 1999 or 2000, but they worked because we wouldn't tolerate non-functional weapons. Worn out magazines are another sign of unit leaders who are unwilling to insist on---and pay for---properly maintained weapons systems. "So, I favor replacing M-16/M-4 because, as a weapon system, they are just worn out. One solution would be to just replace them all with new M-16?s and M-4?s, saving training effort as well as making use of existing stocks of spare parts. There is even an upper for the M-4 that has a gas piston instead of direct gas (problem is the best one is made by HK who are more keen on selling M8) My fear if we took this route is that the army would skimp (and they would), trying to retain as much old stuff as possible. So we continue to have weak mags, and other worn out parts in the system." This is just more of the "newer must be better" way of thinking. And it ignores history: new weapons systems almost always have bugs that need to be worked out. Do we want to do that in the middle of a shooting war---a low intensity war where rifles are some of the most important weapons systems---and do we want to go to all of the trouble and expense for no net gain in performance? The XM8 offers nothing in the way of improvement over the M16/M4. Same cartridge---though from a shorter barrel that will reduce its effectiveness considerably. Same magazine capacity. Poor optics and iron sights. An unproven track record. The only thing the XM8 is guaranteed to do is enrich H&K stockholders.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    UPDATE   11/18/2004 9:46:47 AM
The CDD has been approved and a "Seeking Sources" request has gone out for competitors for a new family of small arms. Unfortunately it specifies a non-developmental 5.56mm system.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy