The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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: Turks Adopt Rejected U.S. Army Rifle
SYSOP    11/5/2008 5:42:53 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

cwDeici       11/6/2008 4:20:43 AM

The XM8 is a developmental U.S. military designation and project name for a lightweight assault rifle system that was under development by the United States Army from the late 1990s to early 2000s. The Army worked with the small arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K) to develop the system to its requirements in the aftermath of the OICW contract, for which H&K had been a subcontractor to ATK. Although there were high hopes that the XM8 would become the Army's new standard infantry rifle, the project was put on hold in mid 2005, and was formally cancelled on October 31, 2005.

General Dynamics was involved in latter stages and H&K had plans to produce the rifle at a plant in Georgia. H&K was British owned at the start of the project, but was later bought back by a group of German investors. Engineering work was done at facilities in the United States and Germany.

Overview
The US Army's purpose in contracting for this prototype weapon was to provide replacement options for the venerable M16 rifle after the XM29 program ran into problems. The Army's goal was a weapon that was cheaper, lighter, and more effective than the M16 and M4 Carbine series of weapons. The XM8 was not just one weapon, but a system which could be reconfigured with appropriate parts to be any one of several variants from a short-barreled personal defense weapon to a bipod-equipped support weapon. It also included an integrated optical sight and IR laser aiming module/illuminator.

The XM8 was based on the kinetic energy module of Alliant Techsystems's XM29 OICW project, of which the weapon mechanisms were the responsibility of H&K. Following the indefinite delay of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon program, the U.S. Army requested that the contractors design stand-alone weapons from the XM29's kinetic energy and high explosive modules.

The first 30 XM8 prototypes were delivered by November 2003 for preliminary testing. Later, at least 200 developmental prototypes were procured. Among the complaints during testing were too low a battery life for the weapon's powered sight system and some ergonomics issues. Two other key issues were reducing the weapon's weight and increasing the heat resistance of the hand guard, which would start to melt after firing too many rounds. The main testing was largely completed, and the Army pushed for funding for a large field test. However, in 2004 Congress denied $26 million funding for 7,000 rifles to do a wide scale test fielding of the XM8 in 2005. At the time the rifle still had developmental goals that were incomplete, primarily associated with the weapon's weight; the battery life had been extended, and a more heat-resistant plastic hand-guard added. The earliest product brochure lists the target weight for the carbine variant at 5.7 lb (2.6 kg) with the then current prototype at 6.2 lb (2.8 kg). The weight of the carbine prototype had since grown to 7.5 lb (3.4 kg) according to a brochure released by HK and General Dynamics in January 2005.

During the same period, the Army came under pressure from other arms makers to open up the XM8 to competition. The main argument was that the weapon that was being adopted was a substantially different system than for the original competition that ATK and H&K had actually won (see XM29). Other issues were that the Army has a legislated obligation to prefer U.S.-based manufacturers, and that a previous agreement with Colt Defense required the Army to involve Colt in certain small-arms programs. The XM8 program was put on hold by the Army in 2004. The exact reason why this happened is a matter of debate; some combination of the aforementioned technical issues, funding restrictions, and outside pressure being involved.

In 2005, the Army issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the OICW Increment One family of weapons. This RFP gave manufacturers six months to develop and deliver prototype weapons with requirements very similar to the XM8 capabilities, but with the addition of a squad automatic weapon (SAW) configuration. Currently, no XM8 prototypes have been shown that actually match the capabilities of the M249 (e.g. fast barrel replacement, high sustained rate of fire, belt feed). The OICW Increment One requirement for the SAW includes fast barrel replacement and high sustained rate of fire, but leaves the ammunition feed choice up to the manufacturer.

Funding for the XM320 grenade launcher, which is a single-shot under-barrel grenade launcher similar to the M203 that was originally intended for the XM8, was approved. The launcher is actually heavier than the M203, but does offer some advantages. The XM320 was designed for use with the existing inventory of M16s and M4s and is also compatible with the XM8. It can also be used as a stand-alone weapon.

As of July 19, 2005, the OICW Increment One RFP was put on an eight-week hold, with an indication given that the program was being restructured as a joint procurement program including the Army and unnamed other branches. On October 31, 2005, the OICW Increment One RFP was canceled until further notice.

In an article in Jane's Defence Weekly, April 26 2006 (Vol 43, page 30) we learn that "The US Army has again delayed the procurement of its future infantry weapons, this time for more than five years, and is working to field two interim guns in the meantime."

[edit] Technical characteristics and variants

[edit] Variants
For much of its life, four different models were proposed: a compact PDW (personal defense weapon) with a 9.5 inch (241 mm) barrel, a carbine with a 12.5 inch (318 mm) barrel, and sniper and automatic rifle variants with 20 inch (508 mm) barrels. In addition, accessories such as optical sights, a grenade launcher, and a bipod were integrated using a new system which allows for precision attachment (so that, for example, scopes do not have to be readjusted each time they are attached). Like the M4 and M16, the XM8 was chambered for the standard 5.56 mm NATO round and was normally equipped with a 30-round plastic box magazine. However, this magazine was not compatible with M4 and M16's metal STANAG magazine. A 100-round dual drum Beta C-Mag style magazine would have been used, as well.

One of the XM8's unique features was its modularity. In addition to attachments mentioned above, this modularity allowed for quick repairs, barrel length changes, and even caliber changes in the field. Along with its basic components, the XM8 would have complemented the XM29, with such features as identical accessory mounts.

The number and type of variants in the family varied over its lifetime, this overview with three main versions is based from a press release in the early 2000s.

XM8 Carbine with XM320 grenade launcher
XM8 Compact Carbine: 9 in (229 mm) barrel, PDW configuration, folding stock or buttcap.
Automatic Rifle / Designated Marksmen: heavy 20 in (508 mm) barrel, integrated folding bipod, 4X sight, 30/100 round magazine

An XM8 compact carbine variant with buttcap attached, as being fired by a US Army weapons tester.
[edit] Characteristics and Features

[edit] Materials and Weight
The materials used to build the XM8 are almost entirely composites — with the notable exception of the cold hammer forged steel barrel. Preliminary tests in desert and Arctic conditions have shown XM8 to be a rugged weapon, though some complaints arose. It is reported to be capable of firing 15,000 rounds without cleaning or lubrication and up to 20,000 rounds before barrel replacement. The M16A2 needs to be cleaned often, and has a barrel life of approximately 7,000?8,000 rounds.

Much of the cost and weight savings, not all of which have actually been achieved in the current prototypes, are from the weapon's electronic sight. The sight is much more than a 1.5x red dot scope, including IR lasers and pointers as well. The baseline XM8 carbine (with its integrated sight), for example, can be compared to a M4 carbine with a host of previous-generation electronic add-ons like the AN/PEQ-2, M68 CCO, ACOG, and/or BUIS. Without the advantage of the next-generation combined electronics sight, the XM8 would be both heavier and more expensive than the firearms it is intended to replace. The XM320 grenade launcher intended to be used with the current M4/M16 firearms as well as the XM8 family, is heavier than the M203, but does include feature enhancements.

[edit] PCAP and MIL-STD-1913
XM8 abandons the standard MIL-STD-1913, for attachment of weapon accessories, in favor of a new standard referred to as PCAP (Picatinny Combat Attachment Points), small oval holes on the forward grip. (A variant was designed with MIL-STD-1913 rails — XM8 R — and some early XM8 prototypes had rails.) PCAP is not backwards compatible with currently fielded attachments that use MIL-STD-1913 rails without using an adapter. The benefit of PCAP, however, is the precision of the accessory's connection with the body of the weapon; accessories utilizing MIL-STD-1913 rails often need adjustment if they are removed and reattached. Additionally, most standard accessory functionality is built-in to the XM8. Where functionality was missing, it was anticipated that accessories would be redesigned to utilize PCAP. In the new OICW Increment One competition, the Army has left the choice of attachment technology up to the manufacturer, with requirements built into the RFP as to the ability of sights to maintain their zero.

[edit] Other

An Army soldier test fires the DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) variant in 2004. Note the fluted barrel and double magazine.The M4 carbine barrel is 14.5 inches (368 mm) and the XM8 barrel is 12.5 inches (318 mm) but the rifles have the same overall length. Although a shorter barrel generally results in lower muzzle velocity, H&K claims octagonal rifling will offset the effect of the shorter barrel. Ballistic results to confirm this have not been released to the public.

An electronic bullet counter is proposed for the XM8. The system, which is likely to be fielded on existing weapons as well, tracks the number of rounds fired and the date and time of each fire. The data can then be accessed wirelessly by a device like a PDA. The tracking will greatly improve the ability to keep tabs on weapon wear and tear, and make it easier to identify weapons that are in need of overhaul or new components. The battery life, according to a presentation on the system, is a few years, thanks to an ultra-low power circuit and a comparatively large battery (the tracker is intended to be located in the hand-grip). Another benefit would be to able to cut down on, or at least be aware of, unauthorized weapons use and to corroborate field reports. For example, if a squad reported engaging targets, simply by checking the counters, the exact times and rounds fired by each member could be identified. The soldiers that used too much ammo or didn't fire at all could be quickly identified.

For much of its life, the XM8 was going to be adopted essentially as described above; it was an off-shoot of the OICW program. However, as of 2005, it will face competition in the OICW Increment One program. All the effects that this will have on the specifications and variants is unclear. At the end of 2005 the OICW 1 program was also cancelled.

Other featurers include total ambidextrious controls, three different "skins", and an integrated red dot/3x optical zoom scope (which was later changed to a red dot/1x sight). However, in its "sharpshooter" (designated marksman) configuration, the mounted sight is a 3.5x magnification.

Other Selected specifications:

Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO

Action: Gas-operated, rotating bolt

Overall length: 838 mm in basic configuration, butt extended

Barrel length: 318 mm in basic configuration; also 229 mm in Compact and 508 mm in Sharpshooter and SAW versions

Rate of fire: ~ 750 rounds per minute

Magazine capacity: 30 rounds or 100-rounds double drum in Automatic Rifle/SAW role

[edit] Adoption status

A prototype XM8 carbine - lacking PCAP device on the side rails. Also has the open 'duckbill' rather than 'birdcage' style flash suppressorAccording to a Jane's Defense news article in 2005:

In budget documents released at the beginning of this year, the army set aside US$32.5 million to buy 10,400 XM8 carbines in Fiscal Year 2006. That procurement is now on hold pending the competition.

The competition is Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) Increment One, which is similar to the previous goals of the XM8: a family of weapons with high parts commonality that can be configured for various functions.

The text of the request for proposals from the Army reads:

Non-Developmental multi- configurable 5.56 mm modular weapon system. The system shall consist of four variants to include: Special Compact (SC), Carbine, Designated Marksman (DM), and Light Machine Gun (LMG) (or Auto Rifle). All variants need to function in both semi-automatic and automatic firing modes, with the LMG primary firing mode being full auto. The SC variant will provide Soldiers an enhanced close quarter battle capability providing effective lethality through 150 m. The Carbine is slated to be the standard issue individual combat weapon with an effective range through 500 m. The DM variant will provide accurate fire at longer ranges as well as offering an automatic rifle capability. The LMG variant will offer the role of suppressive fire through 600 m.

Had this program not been cancelled, the XM8 system may have faced competition from weapons such as from the FN SCAR, Robinson Arms XCR, H&K 416, or Steyr AUG, all of which can be re-configured to various roles. The U.S military's XM8 program was cancelled in fall 2005 after being suspended earlier in the year. Independent work by H&K on the XM8 has continued. It was altered and entered as a candidate for the SCAR competition but was unsuccessful.

Despite reports to the contrary, the XM8 is not dead. In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors will be involved. Each weapon will fire 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff is for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/6/2008 4:25:06 AM
In the Fall of 2007 the XM8 was compared to other firearms in a 'dust test.' The competition was based on two previous tests that were conducted in Summer 2006 and Summer 2007 before the latest test in the Fall of 2007. In the Summer 2007 test, M16 rifles and M4 carbines recorded a total of 307 stoppages. In the Fall 2007 test, the XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR had 226 stoppages and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was not statistically significant when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine. However, the discrepancy of 575 stoppages between the Summer and Fall 2007 tests of the M4 had Army officials looking into possible causes for the change such as different officials, seasons, and inadequate sample pool size but have stated that the conditions of the test were ostensibly the same. The Army countered the controversy surrounding the M4 by stating, in essence, that troops are generally satisfied with the M4.
 ---
 
I'd go with the XM-8 off the bat with some care, but the HK416 is tried and true so I'd trade it in for the M-16 without any such worries. 
 
Quote    Reply

mough       11/6/2008 1:58:25 PM
"SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments, and now Turkey)."
 
That's wrong, Norway uses it as the standard issue rifle for their enitre military, it's also used by SF/SOF's in the UK/France/Holland/Italy/Indonesia/Malaysia/Poland so far.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/6/2008 3:15:27 PM
One of the biggest cracks (no pun intended) in the XM-8's eggshell was that people suggested its poorly-chosen plastic-and-composite construction melted/distorted under the heat of intense usage.
 
Thing here is, when the AR-15/M-16 first came into being (early model adopted into US military service), its buttstock and handguards were made of some pathetic plastc material themselves, and after numerous complaints of fragility, cracking, and a general unreliability, the material was replaced.
 
Why should we believe the XM-8's composite/plastic construction issues couldn't have been fixed, either?
Every prototype has its problems, even into the early production runs of a given system.
Notice the M16 itself went thru no less than 5 different service iterations (base M16, A1, A2, A3, A4), only to evolve into the M4 carbine,...which itself has been further poked and prodded beyond just the base M4 model.
 
So what then is the beef over a new design, other than the "we're in the middle of two wars, it'll cost too much to change over" arguments.
 
Notice we have no issues procuring new combat jets, new helicopters, new transport aircraft, new AFVs, new artillery, new bombs and missiles, new ships, new MREs, new clothing and battle rattle (gear), new commo gear and all sorts of handheld electronic goodies and gizmos.
But the actually infantry small arms?
"Adequate enough" is our answer, and any problems in the field then are obviously because of troop stupidity and incompetence ("clean it!" is always the excuse we hear).
 
It's all politics. Always will be.
 
Quote    Reply

OkinawaGuy       11/6/2008 4:32:43 PM
I was rather hoping Gates would overrule the Army on the M16/M4, but that doesn't appear to be likely.  I can't understand the intransgience of the Army, and the military in general, on the issue of the M16/M4.  There is no other sacred cow that has this much importance (nearly all enlisted at least train to use it) and has stayed in service this long while suitable replacements exist.  The Army added the Stryker during wartime, introduced multiple UAV variants, added a myriad MRAP variants, and continually changed the configuration of Uparmored HMMWVs.  Follow the model they used with Styrker -- equip an entire brigade with the new weapon and deploy en masse with all the necessary supporting items needed for the new gear.  I suppose they'll move away from the M16/M4 about the time they move away from the M9.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 3:46:59 AM

One of the biggest cracks (no pun intended) in the XM-8's eggshell was that people suggested its poorly-chosen plastic-and-composite construction melted/distorted under the heat of intense usage.

 

Thing here is, when the AR-15/M-16 first came into being (early model adopted into US military service), its buttstock and handguards were made of some pathetic plastc material themselves, and after numerous complaints of fragility, cracking, and a general unreliability, the material was replaced.

 

Why should we believe the XM-8's composite/plastic construction issues couldn't have been fixed, either?

Every prototype has its problems, even into the early production runs of a given system.

Notice the M16 itself went thru no less than 5 different service iterations (base M16, A1, A2, A3, A4), only to evolve into the M4 carbine,...which itself has been further poked and prodded beyond just the base M4 model.

 

So what then is the beef over a new design, other than the "we're in the middle of two wars, it'll cost too much to change over" arguments.

 

Notice we have no issues procuring new combat jets, new helicopters, new transport aircraft, new AFVs, new artillery, new bombs and missiles, new ships, new MREs, new clothing and battle rattle (gear), new commo gear and all sorts of handheld electronic goodies and gizmos.

But the actually infantry small arms?

"Adequate enough" is our answer, and any problems in the field then are obviously because of troop stupidity and incompetence ("clean it!" is always the excuse we hear).

 

It's all politics. Always will be.


The reader contributed article I lifted from guns and rifles seems to confirm this. A few paragraphs in it is clearly stated that the handguard was replaced with a more heat resistant one. The relevant piece of the article read the same several months ago when I came across it my first time.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 3:57:28 AM
Its especially sad what you mention, that the troops get all sorts of new equipment and treated with a bipolar attitude by the media (as in nothing is good enough for them until the bill comes in), but are still blamed if their guns jam. Sure, stoppages can be mostly eliminated, but a well-maintained M16 still has a significantly above the average rate of stoppages.
Not that I think life is sacred in the humanist sense, but its a shame every time a life is lost due to a lack of initiative or political/economical maneuvers. 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 4:02:19 AM
And our political opponents will continue to hammer on lives lost.
Even back in the Vietnam war the M16 was getting flack. Now thirty years later it has seen significant modifications and improvements, but significant changes can not be made without deviating from at least some of the base design. Seeing as how the HK416 is basically the M16 with an improved firing mechanism my astonishment just keeps on rising that it has not been replaced. It really must have been treated like a 'sacred cow' as you mention.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 4:07:53 AM
Not that I know the competitive issues of the Vietnam war. ...
Anyway, why was the AK more reliable back then? I hesitate to make any judgment, but the M16 was probably still the better gun. Or was it? There were a myriad factors of war, but it is one won by the side using the AK. What changes has the M16 gone through? For how long, if ever, was it on top of the line or following the main stream of progressive development?

I'm not asking for you to answer these questions, though it'd be nice - I think I'll look for them myself. But I have been convinced that the M16 these days is a reasonable gun if treated well, but very, very old.
 
I don't know about the M4, its more reliable and practical to my knowledge, but it suffers from some of the same issues.
 
(Well, that's enough posting for me. Sorry for taking up 4 posts. :))
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 4:10:29 AM
'Gas system' was replaced for the HK416 not 'firing mechanism', my bad.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/7/2008 4:16:36 AM
Of course the AK is even older and has poor aim and is way too heavy. In no way am I suggesting it is a better gun today (though some of its children or relatives could take a bat). People on some forums will suggest this, of course they are ignorant.
 
Perhaps it is that the M16 has weathered so many complaints (some of them unreasonable) over the decades that the brass has grown accustomed to ignoring it?

 
Quote    Reply

maruben    Venerable   11/7/2008 2:56:24 PM
The US Army's purpose in contracting for this prototype weapon was to provide replacement options for the venerable M16 rifle after the XM29 program ran into problems.
 
Really?... No.  Good, and I truly like it, but is not venerable.
 
Dictionary Definition for Venerable
 
Main Entry:
ven·er·a·ble 
          Listen to the pronunciation of venerable
Pronunciation:
\&s12;ve-n&O01;r(-&O01;)-b&O01;l, &s12;ven-r&O01;-b&O01;l\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century
1: deserving to be venerated —used as a title for an Anglican archdeacon or for a Roman Catholic who has been accorded the lowest of three degrees of recognition for sanctity
2: made sacred especially by religious or historical association
3 a: calling forth respect through age, character, and attainments <a venerable jazz musician> ; broadly : conveying an impression of aged goodness and benevolence <encouraged by the venerable doctor's head-nodding> b: impressive by reason of age <under venerable pines>
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/8/2008 6:35:58 AM
Could it be that brass keep M-16/M-4 because they are waiting for some groundbreaking innovation, something like fully battlefield ready rifle firing caseless ammo, or something else ? Something that would make all other rifles obsoleted ?
 
DG


 
Quote    Reply

Wanderer       11/9/2008 7:11:58 PM

Could it be that brass keep M-16/M-4 because they are waiting for some groundbreaking innovation, something like fully battlefield ready rifle firing caseless ammo, or something else ? Something that would make all other rifles obsoleted ?

No mostly it's because the AR-15 and its variants spawned their own industry and there's so much money tied up in it that would get lost everyone is afraid to move on.  The defense industry is afraid of losing the profit without the assurance of a similar success in the future, the Brass is concerned at the potential hit the defense industry (and their own stock options) would take and the politicians are just sitting back taking contributions as normal.
 
Quote    Reply



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