Xm - 8

[NousDefionsDoc]

Expert Opinion (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=59&rnd=871.9799381710294)

[The Reaper]

Hack is full of BS again.

The weapon is only about 50% developed, the optic only a little further along.

H&K has refused to give samples to the AMU for a shoot off against the M-16 and M-4.

The version the Army intends to replace the 20" M-16 and 14.5" M-4 with is a by-product of the horrible OICW, and only has a 12" barrel, which further reduces the effective range of the weapon to less than 100 meters.

Remember the horror stories of the M-4 with M-855 ammo not dropping BGs? Be prepared for it to get worse.

Think of it as a possibly more reliable 10.5" mini-carbine. Not exactly an infantryman's dream weapon for anything more than CQB, and maybe not even then.

Thanks, Hack, I'll keep my M-4 till they come up with a better plan.

TR

[Ghostrider]

I was curious to see all of your responses to that article.....I wonder when the last time Hack actually fired an issue weapon?

[NousDefionsDoc]

What amazes me more than anything are the comments about the 5.56 and the Car 15. How many BGs have to be KIAd before people will admit it works?

I was looking at the product literature for the XM8 - once again "One rifle - various configurations" That doesn't work, IMO. We need rifles, carbines, pistols, SAWs, SWS, all in the inventory. Mission oriented. The best rifle maker is not always going to make the best carbine, etc.

This multiple use thing is where we get in trouble. Remember the Gamma Goat? Wonder why the deuce and a half is still around? One function, move two and a half tons of shit from point A to point B. That's all it does.

It will be 30 years before we can pick up a 6.8 or 6.9 or whatever cartridge off the enemy KIA on the battlefield. SF guys will once again be training little people with weapons other than what they find downrange.

SOG probably killed more people with CAR 15s in Vietnam, People's Republic of, than the plague and clap put together in the history of mankind.

Solution to a problem that doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

[Max_Tab]

Was talking to someone from USASOC R&D and he said the xm-8 is shit, as is the new 6.8. To everyone getting ready to deploy he said you need to try and get 77 grain 5.56 for your M-4's. It has very s imilar balistics to the 6.8. It is the optimal bullet for killing with the M-4.

Just putting that out in case people didn't know. We had a shitload of 77 gr out at our firebase's but everyone thought it was for the sniper gun's, and no one used it. Next time I go that's going to be my basic load. With some green tip mag's in case I find myself needing the penetration.

[The Reaper]

1. The "Green Tip" M855 will not outpenetrate the "77 gr." Mk 262, Mod O in most targets. The LeMas is even better, but AFAIK, is not yet approved for military use.

2. NDD is right, this rifle is a solution to a non-existent problem. Why do we have this solution? Something had to be salvaged from the hundreds of millions spent on the POS OICW, H&K was already prepared to make the rifle portion of the OICW, and they agreed to build an H&K plant in the Colombus, GA area, creating jobs and Congressional support while killing the NIH argument.

3. I doubt that Hack, "the grunt's friend", has any significant trigger time on a current production M16 or M-4. The M-8 may have a better MTBF, but that has not yet been proven. The shorter barrel length makes it significantly less lethal than the M-4, and a lot less lethal than the M-16.

HTH.

TR

[DanUCSB]

Okay, let me broaden this up a bit. What do you think is the solution? For an Army-wide rifle?

There's lots of competing interests. I know a lot of infantrymen who say, "Look, give me back a battle rifle. I'll trade a couple pounds for the knockdown of .308 (or .30-06, even) out past a couple hundred meters." And on the flipside, plenty of support folks who bitch about the weight of an M4 with all the doodads (and, not intended as an insult to the majority of our fine support troops, but some bad-apple types who never use/clean their shit, and end up paying for it like the 507th). Do you give the shooters' (SF/infantry) opinions more weight than anyone else in the discussion? I would certianly hope so. But what about the ten support troops out there, bitching about how heavy their rifle weighs, for every one guy out on the line?

And how do you include the expected face of warfare to come? Ie, rather than the chasing the Reds out of the Fulda Gap, chasing little groups of terrorists around the deserts and jungles (I can see in our future a lot more work in the Philippines and Indonesia) of the world? Do you compensate by taking a short-barrelled CQB-type like an M4 or this XM-8 for the cities we're likely to keep fighting in? Or do you need something with a long arm, as evidenced in our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I have a couple opinions here, but I'll let them sit for a minute. Wanted to broaden the discussion a bit beyond the 6.8mm, which a lot of people have made some good points about (especially Reaper) in another thread. Basically, how do you prioritize the very different, and often conflicting, interests of a diverse Army in choosing a new rifle?

--Dan

[NousDefionsDoc]

That's what I'm saying Dan, there isn't an "Army-wide" weapon anymore. Do the guys in the Philippine jungles need the same weapon as the guys in Northern Iraq as the guys and gals riding shotgun on convoys?

These kids can score 10 gazillion in Playstation the first ten minutes they pick it up. BRM is basically the same no matter the weapon, its the manipulation of the weapon itself that's different. They are getting different classes in basic training regarding TTPs, why not weapons? I shot a grand total of 50 rounds out of an un-zeroed M16 A1 in basic. They let me have a 10 round "familiarization fire" then I qualified with 38 out of 40 - expert (I started laughing and missed the last two), so I was finished. Longrange taught me how to be a marksman in two weeks prior to Just Cause. Was I as good as he is? No way in hell. But I was proficient.

Give them BRM with an M16, then unit-specific training when they get to their unit as part of their train up. If they're going to 'Stan - M14s or some 7.82 variant for example. PI or convoy escort - M4, etc. Whatever the unit and mission dictate. It can't be that much more expensive than dick dancing around with HK et al. especially if we stay within two or three standard calibers. How many more times are we going to reinvent the pistol wheel? We've spent millions of dollars to find out what we've known since 1911 and since 1960whateveryeartheplasticguncameout.

Its ridiculous IMO. If you hit them with almost anything, they will fall down. the trick is hitting them. There are people that hunt bear and elk with bows and arrows. BRM and unit training. One size don't fit all.

Unit training, unit training, unit training.

[DanUCSB]

FWIW, that's pretty close to what I think. But there are some problems with it.

I hope no one will find it too presumptuous for me to dub your idea the SF model. That is, lots of training, then take what is best suited to where you're going. Sounds simple enough; logical, too. The trick is in the practicalities.

First off, the idea goes directly against the trends we've seen in both the Army and government. I think it's pretty clear in both the ill-conceived OICW and the new 'multi-use' XM-8 that the powers that be want a single 'wonder-weapon' that can do everything... shoot long-range, penetrate, and be small enough for close-quarters (be it in an Afghan cave, or the cab of a 5-ton). Not only for ease of training (which is where the dollars tend to get cut first, because a Congressman can brag and point to a new factory in his home town, but can't get any tangible political benefit from more money flowing to Ft. Benning), but also ammunition issues (including interusability with NATO), and the inertia of history (the legacy of having one 'battle rifle' at a time).

The second is in the training. I think a multi-rifle force would be a difficult sell to anyone not-SF. Just in my own experience, with kids coming out of OSUT not knowing how to zero an M16, not knowing what 'center mass' means, in other words, not trained--this gives me doubts. And that's with one rifle--I once had to refrain from laughing in the face of one of my new Joes when he said, "I don't know how to fire the 240.. I was on KP that day." If this rumor is true about people in Basic/AIT getting more weapons training, good... but from my experience, we had a hard enough time just getting people trained up on the M4, SAW, and 240. Not to mention the all-too-infrequent luxury of M9, M2, and Mk19. You can throw more rifles into the mix... but if you do, you NEED to give a lot more training money/range time/ammo allotments to the units so that more than one person per platoon knows what the hell they're shooting. And that--seeing the politically 'unsexy' nature of training over whizbang gizmos--I don't see happening.

All that being said (and yes, I am cynical... I don't doubt the ability or intelligence of our troops, only the wherewithal of the politicians holding the purse-strings), I think the solution lies in the middle-ground. Add one new weapon to the inventory (or, not even add... just buy more of). That weapon being some variety of M14-style longgun, something that fits the bill somewhere between an M16 and an M24, for deployments where there's a need for something that can reach out and punch a bit further than our 5.56. But rather than give them to only a couple people in the company (like the 101st is doing now), give them to everyone as their primary rifle. When deploying to someplace where that's unnecessary, a place like Mogadishu, for instance, keep the M4. That way, we can have a level of mission-tailoring that will help the boys, without too much of the red-tape and hassle that goes with a whole suite of new weapons... and on top, we don't need any more R&D sinkholes like the OICW: everything's already tested and in the system.

--Dan

[brownapple]

Dan,

How much time have you got supervising average troops carrying M14s?

[DanUCSB]

Greenhat--

None. That's part of the problem: every solution that's been come up with, comes with its own suite of new problems. As such, I'd bet that average troops going from M4 to M14 (or similar variant) will come up with a bunch of new gripes and bitches, including too much recoil, too much weight... one of the flaws I can see with my/NDD's tentative solution is that, with 'average' troops, or even normal infantry, the problems will be enough to offset the advantage we'd actually get out of the rifle system.

As such, I have my opinions on matters. But for solid solutions? I don't know. Hence, the looking for opinions. :)

--Dan

[brownapple]

My opinion is that there is not a major problem with the weapons that are available and carried currently. There is a problem with training and trigger time. Not saying there aren't some problems, but they are generally solvable with either relatively straightforward fixes (adopting the HK M4 upper for example and continued improvement of 5.56mm) or with training time.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you find "The Modern Warrior's Combat Load" study done by the 504th Parachute Infantry in Afghanistan. Any solution MUST take into account weight, especially ammunition weight. Going back to 7.62mm or to any other significantly heavier round is just not a viable alternative.

[DanUCSB]

That's where I'm conflicted, really. I have read the study--and to me, it highlights the need for training. I'd rather carry the weight of one 7.62 round that hits target area, rather than five 5.56 rounds that don't, y'know?

To be honest, I haven't made up my mind yet. Reading all the PR flak for the XM-8, it sounded great... all the good bits of an M4, but lighter (except for that giant goofy handle). But digging a little deeper, I have my doubts.

Like I said, I'm still in the air on it. I like NDD's solution, but I'm afraid it would require more training than our leadership is currently willing to give our troops. :(

--Dan

[ktek01]

Hack is a jackass.

I would go with the HK M4, and have them build a 20" M16 version too. Get rid of the M855, and build another ammo factory. Have everyone doing more live fires, an 11B in a training or field cycle should be putting at least 5k rounds per month downrange, and build up the AMU so they can spend more time with each unit.

[brownapple]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
That's where I'm conflicted, really. I have read the study--and to me, it highlights the need for training. I'd rather carry the weight of one 7.62 round that hits target area, rather than five 5.56 rounds that don't, y'know?


There have been failures to stop from the 7.62mm NATO round, the old .30-06, and even the .50 BMG. Even with highly trained troops, a large portion of the ammunition expended in certain tactical situations is not into targets (suppressive fire or other uses). Reducing the number of rounds that can be carried is not a viable solution in my opinion. It is definitely not a viable option on an Army wide basis (read Citizen Soldiers by Ambrose - the number of situations where soldiers ran low or out of ammunition is striking).

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Greenhat
There have been failures to stop from the 7.62mm NATO round, the old .30-06, and even the .50 BMG.

Not really what I'm getting at. Knockdown is always a factor, but I'm with NDD on this point: yeah, there's a difference, but the first, second, and third factor is shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement, and then and only then knockdown. It doesn't matter how powerful the rifle you're shooting if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

I'm just advocating the point expressed to me by several friends coming back from OIF... that being, the desire for a rifle that can (accurately) cover more ground, and penetrate a bit more. I'm not a party to the Hackworth-type group bitching about the 5.56 as a 'mouse gun'... it's more than sufficient to put someone down, and keep him there. What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4. :(

--Dan

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Not really what I'm getting at. Knockdown is always a factor, but I'm with NDD on this point: yeah, there's a difference, but the first, second, and third factor is shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement, and then and only then knockdown. It doesn't matter how powerful the rifle you're shooting if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

I'm just advocating the point expressed to me by several friends coming back from OIF... that being, the desire for a rifle that can (accurately) cover more ground, and penetrate a bit more. I'm not a party to the Hackworth-type group bitching about the 5.56 as a 'mouse gun'... it's more than sufficient to put someone down, and keep him there. What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4. :(

--Dan

It isn't the M-4, it is the short barrel and the ammo. The M855 is guilty of poor accuracy, and the short barrel reduces velocity and therefore the lethality of the ammo at anything beyond point blank ranges. We currently have a 3-5 moa load with the primary wounding function limited to no more than 150m. or so.

They don't like the ability to put the bullet where they want it with the current rifle and ammo, wait till they get a 12" barrel and the new lead-free "green" ammo. Welcome to a sub-100 m. killing weapon and 6 moa ammo.

The right direction is limiting the number of soldiers with M-4s and carbines, and going to the 77gr. Mk 262, Mod 2 ammo while looking for a better ammo solution. Look at the success of the SPR with that ammo.

FYI, the 7.62x51 M80 Ball is no more effective than the 5.56x45 on average, and is less so when the 5.56 fragments.

Too many people offer opinions without data to support their conclusions. Be wary of who you listen to. HTH.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Even with highly trained troops, a large portion of the ammunition expended in certain tactical situations is not into targets (suppressive fire or other uses). Reducing the number of rounds that can be carried is not a viable solution in my opinion. It is definitely not a viable option on an Army wide basis (read Citizen Soldiers by Ambrose - the number of situations where soldiers ran low or out of ammunition is striking).


Mmmm. Why do WWII and Jeff Cooper keep coming into my mind? Whoops! The Art of the Rifle just fell off the bookshelf. You could have a point, tactics may be the problem.

Every man is a combination Squad Machinegunner/Squad Marksman. Neither of which they do very well.

I guess I'm a dinosaurio. I still think supressive fire should be laid down by the SAW (term generic) while the fire team uses bounding overwatch to engage at carbine and grenade distances as the marksman engage specific targets to eliminate key personnel.

alas, my time has come and gone.:boohoo

[Bill Harsey]

That's why these gun makers often fail at knifemaking. From this discussion it seems like they are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of further refining what they already have. I'm big on all possible refinements of solid existing product design before it gets thrown away to work on "glamorous" projects.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4. :(

--Dan

That is why I would like to see the HK with a 20" barrel, and M193(?, CRS) ammo. IMHO the biggest problem is training, or rather the lack of training, and using M855 in a weapon it wasn't designed for. IIRC M855 was developed for the M249, and does not appear to work well with the short barrel M4. The only reason I can think of why they switched was to simplify the supply chain, with no consideration for performance. The M4 is a fine weapon when used for the application it was designed for and with ammo designed for it. The M16 is also a fine weapon, and is what I think most soldiers should be carrying, with the 20" barrel and the proper ammo. I would like to see an HK version as the new issue rifle. Hack is still an idiot, most of what he claims the XM8 can do that makes it so much better can also be done with the M16/M4 especially with the picatinny rail system. To sum up, M16/M4 with HK's gas piston system, weapons matched to the ammo, and increased live fire training, and when you have a system that works buy new weapons when they wear out instead of lookng for something new, that would get us where we need to be IMO.

[DanUCSB]

I'll hold out hope for the XM-8 if we can get a long barrel put on it, and some decent ammo to put through it. I know, I know, why not just fix what we have and save whatever huge amount of money we're spending on XM; I agree. But I have a distinct feeling it's inevitable now; like an earlier poster said, the politicos want to get something out of the whole OICW debacle.

At least the XM-8 is a good start in making new items lighter, rather than heavier (although, it's probably because it's a snubbie). :D

--Dan

[Smokin Joe]

Dan-

You said in a earlier post that guys are coming out of OSUT not knowing certain (IMO) key elements

1. Not knowing how to zero an M16/M4
2. Never shooting or not nowing how to shoot the M240 (b/c they were doing kp or whatever else that day)

To you all-

What the hell are they teaching in OSUT. I know there are a ton of elements to be taught to an individual who is in OSUT but I think if you are in the infantry or some other combat MOS you should be able to effective manipulate, fire, zero, and clean every weapon you or your mos may need to use. Including the AK-47, as it is the perfered weapon of the enemy.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't these skills paramount to your very survival?

I thought I read some where on here that the army is now going to be doing some new wize bang HSLD "intense" "acclerated" training as a trial for some infantry OSUT. That includes the teaching of head space and timings for the 50, more shooting of the 240 and 249. Or something to that effect.

I don't want to talk smack about your Gentlemen's house but seriously how or what are recruits being taught in OSUT? Maybe less time should be concentrated on cleaning and mopping the barracks and more time on the range?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

[NousDefionsDoc]

Sensitivity classes

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Sensitivity classes

You gotta be shit'en me

[DanUCSB]

The line that I got over and over again from new privates coming out of infantry OSUT was that, the attitude from Benning was "We'll train you to be a soldier here, and you learn to be an infantryman when you get to your unit." Which was terrible, because it set in a permanent disconnect: all the privates came out, looking to learn their actual job at the unit, and at the unit, all of us were expecting to get new guys that knew how to do their jobs.

I remember when I was in OSUT (this is 1997... I'm young :)), we got one day of land-nav, one day of battle drills (all of them), and one day of squad tactics... except, the cadre on that day decided it was too cold, and so led us into the woods and sat us all down and just bullshitted with us all day.

I'm not sure of the solution. You can leave everything as it is but make OSUT longer to fit additional training; you can cut out 'extraneous' or obsolete training in order to add more combat/weapons training; add more FTXes, and do more on them (I remember scratching out a hasty and sitting in it for about five days on our only FTX).

How about this. If you (question open for everyone) could remake OSUT to your own plan, how would you do it? Would you modify what we already have? Scrap it and start with a whole new paradigm?

--Dan

[DanUCSB]

Wouldn't shit you, Joe, you're my favorite turd. :D (too easy)

But yeah, partially. The trend in the last decade or so has been to adding sensitivity/values/morals/awareness classes, at the expense of trigger time.

--Dan, insensitive

[NousDefionsDoc]

The solution is to send 7 Green Hats to work as Drill Sergeants at Ft. Benning.:munchin

[DanUCSB]

Would that be considered 'Host Nation military assistance'? ;)

--Dan

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Wouldn't shit you, Joe, you're my favorite turd. :D (too easy)

--Dan, insensitive

Have you been hanging out with my dad your what (thats one of his favorite sayings)

Sensitivity training....and I thought infrantry OSUT was designed to take Joe civilian and give him the tools necessary to survive and win in combat right out of the blocks?

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The solution is to send 7 Green Hats to work as Drill Sergeants at Ft. Benning.:munchin

Why only 7?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't know, its not my program. Probably an A Team less the TL, WO, 1 Medic, 1 Engineer and 1 Commo Puke. No team is ever full for long anyway.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't know, its not my program. Probably an A Team less the TL, WO, 1 Medic, 1 Engineer and 1 Commo Puke. No team is ever full for long anyway.

Oh I thought you had some grand skem conjured up in the 2 mins it took you to post the 7 Green Hats answer.

Dan to answer your questions it sounds like infantry OSUT needs an enema

[DanUCSB]

Feel minorly guilty for hijacking the XM-8 thread over to an OSUT thread. Maybe we'd do better with an exclusive thread over out Weapons Discussion.

--Dan

[brownapple]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
I'll hold out hope for the XM-8 if we can get a long barrel put on it, and some decent ammo to put through it. I know, I know, why not just fix what we have and save whatever huge amount of money we're spending on XM; I agree. But I have a distinct feeling it's inevitable now; like an earlier poster said, the politicos want to get something out of the whole OICW debacle.

At least the XM-8 is a good start in making new items lighter, rather than heavier (although, it's probably because it's a snubbie). :D

--Dan

The Ordnance people want to get something out of the OICW debacle. Fortunately, the proponent agency for small arms is the Infantry Board. I doubt the XM-8 is going to make it to widespread adoption.

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Greenhat
I doubt the XM-8 is going to make it to widespread adoption.

Why, GH? Everything I've seen has been positive so far (of course it has, as most sources tend to have a commercial interest). What do you think will shoot it down... just similarity to what we have already that doesn't justify the expense?

--Dan

[NousDefionsDoc]

Gh,
Do you have any kind of idea what the OICW debacle has cost the US taxpayer? Just curious.

[brownapple]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Why, GH? Everything I've seen has been positive so far (of course it has, as most sources tend to have a commercial interest). What do you think will shoot it down... just similarity to what we have already that doesn't justify the expense?

--Dan

Because the Infantry Board is going to look at issues that Ordnance is currently avoiding...like that barrel length...

And because the Infantry Board only recently (within the last couple of years) approved the widespread issue of M4s and M16A4s to reequip all Infantry units. So they are going to look at the HK and say "what advantage does this weapon provide the Infantryman? Is it worth the cost?"

I think the answer will be no.

NDD, I don't know off hand. I'll see if I can find out. It'll be in the billions, and some of the costs (testing process/procedures) may be hidden.