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

orwoody RE:UPDATE 1/7/2005 5:09:10 PM

Our club will have its first real thousand yard match this Sunday and I will try to throw a few rounds of 6.5 Grendel downrange to see how it goes. They won't be special loaded (meaning hot) for long range, but will use a ballistically suitable bullet for it. I just want to see if they are still super-sonic at the targets. My impression is that the Grendel may be a bit better at extremely long range than the 6.8 will turn out to be. Only time will tell, but whatever happens, I hope that the military picks the best toy for our folks in the field. ORWoody

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:UPDATE 3/18/2005 1:58:48 PM

The LMG version of the XM-8 has been dropped from consideration. There should be head-to-head testing of all applicants in May. There are currently three contenders besides HK. Unfortunatly, who they are is not yet approved for release. It seems that we are going to stay with the 5.56mm for at least one more generation of small arms.

Quote Reply

doggtag UPDATE: Army reconsidering 5.56 capabilities? 3/18/2005 6:40:53 PM

I thought about putting this in another thread entirely, but since it relates, partially, to the XM-8, I figured throw it down on here. The 21 March 2005 issue of Army Times newspaper (this is legit stuff from military people, not "I heard from a friend who saw it somewhere but can't remember...) has the cover story, "All New Weapons: the Army moves to replace the M16, M4, M249, M9. Plus: XM8 testing halted- for now." The full article is available over at their site: link (be sure to look for the 21 March issue- it currently is highlighted on the left side) On the M9 pistol (9mm), the Army is realizing that troops are not keen on its lackluster performance, and is evaluating various cartridges in 9mm, .40, and .45 to find the most favorable/ideal round, as well as hearing troop suggestions on an improved pistol to fire it (some things being considered are double-action only, eliminating a deing device, and safeties and deing devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide, for better one-handed operation. One the M16, M4, and SAW replacement, they have drawn up these suggestions: 1) 500m for the carbine. 2) 150m for the special compact. 3) 600m for the designated marksman. 4) 600m + for the LMG. The question here being, how do they expect to reach, effectively, 500m with 5.56mm from a "carbine barrel"? Or are they finally realizing something more may finally be needed (or will a bullpup-style weapon in 5.56 with a longer barrel be chosen?) As for the special compact: we can easily hit 150m now, but are we maximizing the capabilities of the current round at those ranges (CQB-150m) ? On the marksman model, the 600m range perfectly sets this weapon up for the Remington 6.8mm SPC, or better yet, the 6.5mm Grendel. For the LMG, the Army is facing up that the SAWs in service are getting old, reaching their wear limits, and are taking considerably too much time to be rebuilt/reconditioned/replaced for field duty. And another complaint is that, for an LMG, it still weighs more than 20 pounds with 200 rounds. The XM8, on which $29 million has been spent, is on hold pending the outcome of a new small arms competition. Interesting...

Quote Reply

Tiber1 RE:UPDATE: Army reconsidering 5.56 capabilities? 3/19/2005 1:10:55 AM

As someone who humped alot of miles with a SAW, I hope they keep it or something similar, though I wouldn't mind them loosing a bit of weight with use of plastics in some more spots. The Mk.46 mod.0 is a pretty good improvement I'd guess, but it should have a longer barrel for regular use. I've always hated LMG versions of assault rifes. I've never really gotten them. Sure, you get a couple extra inches of barrel, but you are stuck with the same 30 rnd mags. I'd rather use those extra inches for a designated marksmen, over a LMG version of the same weapon, but even then it's a waste of a weapon. I'd rather see a bigger round in any kind of marksmen weapon. IMHO, I'd say kick the SAW replacement up to 6mm and give every platoon a designated marksmen team with a 6mm or 7.62mm semi-auto weapon. As for their ranges listed, how the hell are they going to accurately hit 500m with a bloody 318mm Barrel? I'd much rather see a bullpup with a 500-525mm barrel that a XM8 with a 318mm barrel. I've owned a pistol with longer barrel then that. Just comparing the base FN2000 vs the base XM8 you get a 82mm longer barrel in a 144mm smaller package. Sure bullpups can have some issues, but I like their compact size with a longer barrel.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt XM8: Stryker Redux? 3/30/2005 4:56:27 PM

Why are we holding trials for a new family of small arms instead of snapping up the "Holy Grail" M-8? Here's what the people who are responsible for testing the XM8 had to say before the OIC was "reassigned": INFORMATION PAPER SFAE-SDR-SW 18 October 2004 SUBJECT: Objective Individual Combat Weapon program 1. Purpose: To clarify non-concurrence of the proposed fielding of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) (Increment I). 2. Facts. a. The OICW does not demonstrate a leap forward in capability over the current system. The majority of the capability gaps addressed are soldier training and ammunition issues and not a weapon system failure. To date, no cost estimate for development, procurement, or fielding has been put forth, nor has an analysis of alternatives been conducted. b. The OICW is purported to close capability gaps in three general tasks: Locate to engage a target with an individual weapon, engage a target with an individual weapon, and conduct breach with an individual weapon. The first two are clearly a function of training and the last is a least desired course of action. c. Several gaps, including maintaining zero repeatability, close range time to engagement, and the ability to engage fleeing and fleeting targets as well as targets at extended ranges, should be corrected through soldier training and ammunition modification. d. The targeted lethality gap is the effect of hits on close quarter and extended range targets, and defeat of body armor that may be fielded by a current or future enemy. Along with engagement of fleeting targets, both of these are a function of ammunition. Caliber, construction, weight, and velocity changes will close this gap. e. For each of the proposed variants of the OICW, a weapon of comparable size and capability already exists. If fully automatic fire capability were reengineered into the M16 family of weapons then the M16A3 would be comparable to the Light Machine Gun variant as well. f. The Multipurpose Sighting System should be engineered to be compatible with the current M16/M4 family of weapons, increasing ease of use, versatility, inherent accuracy, and overall effectiveness. The weight savings and ergonomic improvements would make the current weapon system as effective as the proposed systems. ########## 880-8710 APPROVED BY: ___________________ I suspect this has more bearing on why we are looking at alternatives than simply "Buy American".

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 Bullpup?? 3/31/2005 12:12:32 PM

I hope the participants in this discussion will forgive my ignorance but I'm not convinced I understand what a "bullpup" design is. I went and did some quick research and, if I have this correct, a bullpup design moves the magazine, bolt, extraction and such stuff toward the "back" of the weapon. The advantages of this, as far as I can tell, are that it allows for a more compact design and, where appropriate, more barrel inches per weapon length which, I presume, allows for higher muzzle velocity (more lethality in the projectile, improved range) and greater accuracy throughout the effective range (obviously the caliber and other characteristics of the ammunition matter here). The biggest disadvantage seems to be that it leaves the ejection port right near the operator's face which has a couple nasty little side effects: sucking in cordite fumes and making the weapon unable to be fired from either shoulder. I suspect there may be some "balance" advantage or disadvantage. For example, with more weight concentrated at the back of the weapon does that make the weapon more difficult to return to aiming point or more likely to "fly away" on burst of full-auto? Just askin'.

Quote Reply

violentnuke RE:Bullpup?? 4/1/2005 2:47:29 PM

Bullpup is really for display cool looks. From left hand, as you said, you can't shoot readily, and so your compactness for room entry abilities get defeated by the fact that if you enter a room from the right side of the door, your body is exposed. Also the magazines cannot be changed while holding the rifle. So sighting is always messed up. The Belgians solved the problem by spitting the cases forward in their new OIWC concept. The Chinese have a shotgun which spits cases down. THat's great to avoid cases flying around and unconcealing position.Still, magazine change is not easy. As for the XM8, it is not a rifle, I believe, but a weapon's system.

Quote Reply

violentnuke RE:UPDATE: Army reconsidering 5.56 capabilities? 4/1/2005 2:53:20 PM

It only is a question of balistics. There are very good metal blended rounds which make the 5.56 a sort of smart weapon at all distances and against all forms of hardness of target. I personaly think they can keep the 5.56 for the distances they have there. Now, if they wanted a more versatile round which could be futher extended, then of course they would have to use 308 or 6.8mm. You can only do so much with a small round like that... unless using depleted uranium, the 5.56 feels like a toy gun in front of armored vehicles. The Garand in 30.06 was a killer against armor. IF anything, they should come back to it! Ah!

Quote Reply

doggtag blended metal bullets: violate Land Warfare Laws? 4/1/2005 5:36:05 PM

This one is up in debate now in political arenas: does the use of blended metal ammunition violate Land Warfare Rul;es on causing unneccesary suffering? (of course, if the bullet kills you outright, you didn't really suffer...) Some suggest performances are promising, while others suggest it is all false advertising and marketing schemes to buy their product. As far as "regular" bullets and their performances, actually the Grendell 6.5mm was show to be very similar in capabilities to the current 7.62mm NATO (with suggestions that an AP variant would surpass it.) Remington 6.8 is looking to be the more favorable, though, as minimal modification to current weapons is needed as compared to ammunition like the Grendell. I suggest doing a few more web searches on these rounds to broaden your perspective. Notably, search for "Blackwater Shoot-out", and read what the people who fired the weapons in those calibers have to say about them.

Quote Reply

S.C.P DID I MISS SOMETHING ??? 4/4/2005 12:24:51 PM

Is the US replacing the M16 ? Please tell me whats going on ?

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:G36/7 If only 4/5/2005 1:37:09 PM

link It would be nice if you could change out the G36 to provide parts commonality with the 'proposed' G36/7. The lighter basic ambidextrous mechanism, thermal shielding and bullpup folding option all with a choice of calibre and barrel length. If you had to update (which you don't) there should be some clear gains in doing so.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:G36/7 If only 4/5/2005 8:46:52 PM

As far as I know the G36 in 7.62mm is a computer game myth.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt Computer Game Myth 4/6/2005 8:17:45 AM

I notice that happens a lot on this site regardless of which board or thread is being posted to.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt UPDATE 4/7/2005 12:16:55 PM

Rumor has it that HK has entered it's model 416 into the competition. I don't know which variant.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt UPDATE 6/14/2005 11:40:07 AM

Here's the latest. Colt has sued on the basis that the bidding process was unfailrly slanted toward HK. All activity has ceased on the XM8. A new Seeking Sources Document is being drafted and the bidding is scheduled for mid November. The basics of the SSD is that the weapon be a non-developmental shoulder fired small arm that is at least as capable and reliable as the current generation of small arms. There does not seem to be a caliber restriction.

Quote Reply

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

	News As History - November 21, 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