The XM8, why??

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

Gunther RE:UPDATE 11/19/2004 12:30:23 AM

Is the XM8 program teetering? With defense spending tight, there must some considerable pressure on this program in the pentagon. To spend Billions in an unproven weapon that doesn't offer any major impairments over the M-16 family. There a unsubstantiated rumors that the XM8 hasn't done well in the Army trials. The marines don't want it, they're happy with the A4s. It will be interesting to see if the XM8 survives 2005. Personally I think if they feel the need to adopt a new rifle, I'd suggest the superb Barrett M468.

Quote Reply

Crosshair RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/19/2004 3:05:54 AM

Yea, it's sad when I can outgun one of our troops with my SKS and four 10 round stripper clips of 7.62x39..

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 1:33:10 PM

We haven't done any testing yet. As for the Marine Corps, like it or not, if DOD says they adopt a new rifle they adopt a new rifle. Yes, there is considerable pressure from a few influential individuals within the Army (outside the Pentagon) to adopt this particular small arms system. Reminds me of the whole Stryker thing. I agree with you that the Barret M468/LE is a superb weapon and I would not mind carrying one into battle. As for the SKS, after haveing been on both the firing and receiving ends numerous times for extended periods I would place it somewhere between OK bayonet platform and poorly designed club.

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 7:59:24 PM

Ive read a little on that new weapon and it seems too complicated and complex to be the standard infantry rifle.The thing must need batteries and probably is delicate ie....keeping it out of water and stuff.They want too much in a little package and its cost is way too much per unit.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 8:57:46 PM

dudley wrote: "Ive read a little on that new weapon and it seems too complicated and complex to be the standard infantry rifle.The thing must need batteries and probably is delicate ie....keeping it out of water and stuff.They want too much in a little package and its cost is way too much per unit" Take a look at what the guys are hanging off their M-4s and M-16s these days. Illuminator, laser, optic - all with batteries. The XM-8 at least consolidates them into an integrated package. Take a look at this. link

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 8:58:39 PM

oops, here's page 1. link

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 9:12:50 PM

cool smitty thanks.....im still leary though the pentagon has a lousy record on small arms.I just hope the people pushing this arent just ex military working for the manufacturer.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/24/2004 9:00:16 AM

The one feature of the "XM8" that is actually a leap forward in technology is the Multipurpose Sighting System (MPSS). It consolidates an IR designator, IR illuminator, range finder, and visible, collimated "red dot" aiming point (similar to the M68 CCO) into a single, surprisingly small, unit that operates on a common power source (only one type of battery needed). Personally I think that it could, and should, be reverse engineered to work with the M16 family of small arms. The M468LE fitted with the MPSS would be pretty close to the ideal battle rifle (in my humble yet accurate opinion). "I just hope the people pushing this arent just ex military working for the manufacturer" Far worse I'm afraid; current military with a legacy complex and a post retirement agenda.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:UPDATE 12/23/2004 12:17:17 PM

>>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 << I'm hoping someone will submit the M4A1 SOPMOD carbine. Maybe even add in the SPR for designated marksman work. I've not seen much justification for the XM8 except that it would be the same system as used on the XM29 OICW . . . which isn't going to be fielded any time soon.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:UPDATE 12/23/2004 12:20:17 PM

>>It will be interesting to see if the XM8 survives 2005. Personally I think if they feel the need to adopt a new rifle, I'd suggest the superb Barrett M468 << I've also heard (but not been able to confirm) that the 6.8mm round is on the ropes, even for SOCOM. I'm *hoping* that is not the case . . .

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:UPDATE 1/1/2005 1:40:16 AM

Happy New Year to all. To keep this argument going, over at Military.com, there has recently been a few posts on the XM8 and M468. link link As it seems the M468 really needs to be nothing more than a new-build upper installed on the M16/AR15 lower receiver (a growing market: new build uppers in calibers clean up to .500), and the rather promising ballistics capabilities of the 6.8 over the 5.56... Does anyone here want to suggest that the Pentagon show a tad more consideration for the troops by footing the bill for some trials weapons to be sent to the field, and ask what the troops actually think of its performance? (After all, the Pentagon brass and politicians aren't the ones whose lives are immediately on the line with the weapons they choose to procure.) Seeing as the 6.8 is clearly superior (energy/range), and the only real bad part of it being the $$million$$ re-tooling effort needed to convert from 5.56, why not offer up a coversion package (upper receivers, breech/barrel, etc) for the M16/M4 family, the M8 if we must get it, and the SAW (and why not offer upgrades for other NATO arms)? It certainly would benefit the troops if they could "dispose" of threat combatants (wounding is falling out of favor lately, hard kills being more preferred) with a few less rounds, and even gain another hundred meters or so in effective (AND terminal) range, it certainly would be in the troops' best interest to acquire this new caliber, just as much as they need improved vehicle protection (and if you really want to use up all the 5.56 on stock, replace vehicle-mounted 7.62s with 5.56 miniguns: what the 5.56 lacks in individual performance, it can make up for in numbers (a sawrm of bees can kill a man as effectively as a tiger.) Perhaps "recycling" much of the 5.56 would work? What are the possibilities that the same propellant type works (although in a slightly larger "dose") in the 6.8 cases? And there is also the brass casings themselves, which historically have been re-used/recycled quite often. Does anyone here have any links from anywhere with someone suggesting the 6.8 is actually less desireable/effective (other than the retooling needed) than the 5.56? .

Quote Reply

Bigbro RE:UPDATE-doggtag 1/1/2005 2:54:39 PM

Hi, haven't heard from you in a while. As to pulling the bullets and recycling the componates from 5.56 to 6.8 possible but not a good idea. First off powder used in 5.56 has a different burning rate than that of the 6.8mm and will not give the velocity or pressure curves needed int he 6.8mm. cases are of different head diameter so no go. At the rate that the military is going through ammo just burn it up in training or combat. I think that just building another plant to start producing 6.8mm would be the way to go. We are under capacity for ammo production any way. I think that the 6.8mm is a big improvement in terminal preformace but I think that the 7.62 x 51 M118 is probably much more effective than the 6.8mm. From what little I have been able to learn the xm-8, 468, and FN SCAR have all be field tested to some degree and all have been very well recieved. The large numbers of M-14's being issued is in effect an admission that more terminal effectiveness is needed than what the 5.56mm is providing. The is an m-16 upper from FN that uses a short stroke gas system that in my mind would be an improvement. This should reduce the heat on the reciever ring during full auto fire and reduce gas fouling. The question is how bad are the lowers getting beat up? Just having to push out pins several times a day for cleaning the weapon can make things loose. I don't have any data on that so that is something that I would like to hear from folks about. My guess as to what is going to happen is that you will be seeing more 7.62 x 51 rifles issued. perhaps a M-14 with a 18" barrle and some other modifications. FN SCAR in 7.62 comes to mind also. FAL Para might be interesting.

Quote Reply

doggtag UPDATE-Bigbro 1/1/2005 9:47:50 PM

I've been away at a new milittary training school, Bigbro. And they don't much permit a lot of on-line chat programs and certain news groups and forums. But I have been home on leave for the past week, so I've been trolling around here looking for what perksd my interest. As far as this debate continuing, I still like FN's approach with their novel P90 PDW: not every soldier in an Army will be best-served by the "standard" infantry weapon, so a shorter-ranged, more compact weapon can be equipped for tank crews, aviation personnel, rear-echelon (if such a place still exists) and medical personnel, etc. And I still think that bull-pup style weapons need to replace the more "familiar" standard lay-out weapons (which most often are not the most ideal weapons for vehicle crews.) All in all, there are several assault rifle designs far more capable (MOA placement, range, maintainability, reliability) than the M16/M4 series, and several bullet calibers more effective than the 5.56. Procuring a new weapon that continues to utilize the same underpowered 5.56 round isn't really offering a solution to the problem. Perhaps the ideal solution is to build a weapon system that uses a common lower receiver, and a set of uppers in different calibers for different roles be developed to suit the differing roles of "standard" infantry work, CQB, AFV crew PDWs, etc. Theoretically, just as is being done with the AR15/M16 lower now, a suppressed, subsonic weapon could use the same lower group as a standard (or higher powered, long-range sniping weapon) assault rifle. American hunters have for decades used carbine rifles that fire heavy pistol and handgun ammo: perhaps an ideal CQB rifle would have an upper that fires something like 454 Casull or 500 S&W ammo? And if keeping various caliber upper receivers in stock seems logistically frightening, then just look at the other idea: we currently use several different weapons that have very little parts commonality (M40, M16/M4, MP5, HKs, etc...) I know that American gunsmiths are up to the task of developing the best combat rifle system ever fielded. The question is: are our politicians going to remain too unmoved to the frontline soldier's plight (at the expense of "campaign contributions") to equip him/her with it? .

Quote Reply

ambush RE:UPDATE-Bigbro 1/2/2005 12:05:06 AM

From what I have read the Army is going to stick with the 5.56mm for the XM-8. The Marine Corps has given up on the M-4 for line troops and settled on the M-16A4 So basically you have the Army looking at spending a lot of money on a weapon, when all is said and done offers no real advantage over what it already has. But like the Stryker it is new and sexy looking so why not? One can only hope that proposed cuts in defense spending will kill this idea. As I have posted before the Assault rifle is a compromise weapon between a battle rifle (M-14, FN-FAL) and a submachine gun. This means it a jack of all trades and master of none. You can play with caliber and cartridge size all you want but if you want battle rifle's knockdown power and range then you have to go to a battle rifle size weapon/caliber. If you want the control and size of a submachine then you end up with a submachine gun. When you choose an assault weapon you are accepting a compromise. This is a necessary compromise if you expect your forces to be fighting under a variety of conditions since you cannot equip them a with a weapon ideal to match every condition they may encounter. And alternative is to have specialized units equip for urban warfare or open (battle rifle ranges). Since budget realities normally prevent this you are back at the compromise. I say this as a fan of the battle rifle. I cut my teeth on the M-14 but I think finally the M-16 has evolved into a fine weapon. You can play with the 6.8 and it may be better than the 5.56mm but it will still come up short compared to the 7.62 NATO or the old 30-06 used in the M-1 so you will still have the same complaints about knock down power and range. You keep asking more from your assault rifle and soon it will either become a battle rifle or submachine gun. The answer may not be a sexy new toy but more emphasis on marksmanship and shot placement.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:UPDATE 1/4/2005 10:29:17 AM

Hey, be nice to the Pentagon guys! Not all of them are out of touch. Most involved with the XM8 program believe it to be an inappropriate use of funds. It offers no significant leap-forward technology other than the MSS. Yes, the program director has decided to go with a 5.56mm weapon which makes no sense except that is what HK has offered. The voices of dessent are being ignored on this program in much the same way they were ignored on the Stryker. Interestingly enough, General Dynamics has annouced that they will be teaming with HK on the production of the M8. HK is also building a multi-million dollar production facility in Columbus, Georgia to manufacture them. That's a pretty bold move for a company to make on an item for which the procurement decision has yet to be made. The unofficial word here is that the project manager is set to retire soon and has his sights set on a position with HK. He has also reportedly said that the Army will get a new family of small arms and it will be on his watch. Once again the needs of the soldier are secondary to the aspirations of a politically connected individual. It has been pointed out that all the alledged capability gaps of the M16 family of weapons can be closed by an upgrade of ammunition and training, these observations have been ignored by the procurement guys that are driving this train. It has also been determined that retooling to produce ammunition in other than 5.56mm would be no more costly than procuring the XM8. As for testing, the same handpicked group of guys have been doing all of the "testing" on the XM8. It hasn't been in the hands of any soldiers yet except for the propaganda event at Ft. Benning last year.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us