View Full Version : The Demise of the XM8
Snaquebite
06-07-2007, 16:56
Special report: Too late, XM8
Doomed carbine was victim of Army infighting
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 1, 2007 16:27:14 EDT
EXCERPT: “The whole purpose of the user assessment that the Battle Lab ran was to try to give it an objective look,” Stone said. “We and a lot of people said, ‘ok, there is some goodness here, but maybe there is not enough goodness to spend a whole lot of money on it.’ … The XM8 really didn’t offer us a significant leap in capability.”
But acquisition experts argue that the failure of PEO Soldier and the Infantry Center to agree on a united direction for the XM8 program cost the Army this chance to arm soldiers with a potentially better weapon.
“There was not a common vision between the two,” said Col. Robert Carpenter, an acquisitions officer who formerly worked PM Soldier Weapons. “We have a broken process. When you don’t have a requirement and acquisition process with a shared vision, you are not going to get anything, and you are going to waste a lot of money.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/army_xm8_rifle_070531/
Is this the start of another Congressional battle? Really don't see how seeing it's H&K.
Thoughts??
The Reaper
06-07-2007, 17:10
The weapon was a piece of crap that was the leftovers from the OICW program, an even bigger waste. You take the savings from not buying the craptastic XM-8, replace every M-4 that has reached the end of its service life, or buy HK 416 uppers, add a good optic, and spend the change on new mags and training ammo, and you will see much better results.
In an era of reduced lethality complaints, the XM-8, as it was planned to be issued, had an even shorter barrel, less velocity, and less lethality than the M-4 it was supposed to replace. Great for stylin' and profilin', not so great for stopping bad guys.
Whoever drove a stake in that program deserves a medal.
TR
Snaquebite
06-07-2007, 17:16
TR,
I agree, but this is the 2nd or 3rd article I've seen recently regarding this. Will search out the other two. Almost appears someone is drumming up doubt and pointing fingers at the system.
Peregrino
06-07-2007, 17:55
The Army's small arms communities are stuck on holding out for a quantum leap vs. an incremental improvement that can be implemented immediately. There are no appropriate words to express my disgust for that mindset (not in a family friendly forum anyway). A simple life cycle replacement of M-4 uppers with the 416 (or similar technology) would be cost effective, could be started tomorrow, and would address the majority of the complaints with the current system. Implementing TR's suggestions for improved magazines and more training with the savings realized from not developing a "star wars" solution would take it the next step. Changing the MOE/MOP for the ammo and fielding a better bullet (terminal ballistics in terrorists), even if it's still 5.56 would solve the rest. (Anybody for the 75 gr Hornady TAP round? :munchin) It doesn't take much to stay well ahead of the opponent, nor does it have to cost the GDP of the average 3rd world country.
OK - I'll put my soapbox back in the corner; we've discussed this or similar subjects ad nauseum. (I've lost count of the rice bowls we've pulverized since this board started. :rolleyes:)
NousDefionsDoc
06-07-2007, 18:08
Whoever drove a stake in that program deserves a medal.
Classic!:cool:
82ndtrooper
06-07-2007, 20:29
It's been my understanding tha the XM8 was nothing more than the current H&K G36 with some "Outer space" furniture. But what the hell do I know ?:rolleyes:
x SF med
06-08-2007, 08:44
As a FOG, I've wondered for years why the Army doesn't go to a proven bullpup design to preserve barrel length and velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the bullpup design, due to mag placement and shoulder/cheeck weld issues, but most are lighter or the same weight as the current battle rifles. There are a few proven ones out there, in both 7.62 and 5.56 NATO, just my .02.
TR, et al, please do not stomp on me too hard for this comment, ok?
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are not fighting a uniformed enemy. Geneva Conventions should not apply, although the US allows tries to keep that higherground and be the good guys. So why not implement some type of varmint/fragmenting type ammom or hollow points? I have already seen some orange ballistics tips over here, although I'm not sure where they came from. Sure it would be be expensive, but so would fielding new rifles. The energy transfer and wound channels delivered by a varmint round to a person would be great, or terrible, depending on which side of the two way range you find yourself...
The Reaper
06-08-2007, 10:24
As a FOG, I've wondered for years why the Army doesn't go to a proven bullpup design to preserve barrel length and velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the bullpup design, due to mag placement and shoulder/cheeck weld issues, but most are lighter or the same weight as the current battle rifles. There are a few proven ones out there, in both 7.62 and 5.56 NATO, just my .02.
TR, et al, please do not stomp on me too hard for this comment, ok?
I am not a weapons designer, but since you invoked my name, let me give you a few thoughts.
1. None of the bullpups I am familiar with are as reliable as their conventional configured counterparts. Ask the Brits what they think of their L85 rifle, only after HK bought the company has it become even marginally reliable. I have not seen too many Israeli units using the Tavor either. Most countries using the Steyr AUG have changed to another weapon. Maybe the French like the FAMAS, but I am not sure that French weapons design is a good authoritative source. Who has a bullpup design that liked it and that worked better than a conventionally configured weapon?
2. Must of the bullpups I have used have terrible ergonomics. With the controls well-forward of the operating components, they tend to be poorly laid out and with a bad feel. I have never seen a bullpup with a decent trigger, for example.
3. As with the body armor or any other military system, there are two schools of thought on weapons design. One prefers an incremental, evolutionary approach that makes regular methodical improvements and the other school looks for vast, revolutionary improvements at long intervals and great expense. Regardless, any change made needs to be a well-thought out improvement in at least one area over the current system, while maintaining all of the other positive attributes, such as weight, size, accuracy, reliability, durability, ergonomics, lethality, etc. Both systems have their merits, but I tend to think that I would prefer a Product Improved M-4 combat rifle, with the latest optics, an improved closed gas system, better accuracy, more lethal ammunition, improved magazines, etc. Most of these improvements are available right now. IMHO, the size, weight, and ergonomics of the M-4/M-16 family of weapons are hard to beat. The OICW was a huge waste of resources for a very dubious improvement (huge power supply requirements, a defective primary smart grenade launcher, only very close range rifle capability) and the residue XM-8 program attempting to recover part of that expenditure was a questionable improvement at significant expense.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
x SF med
06-08-2007, 11:10
TR,
I agree with your assessment of the bullpup design and ergonomics, I actually like the feel and design of the M16/M4 style of weapon - my belief is that with the shortening of barrels to carbine and less, accuracy is removed for shots over 150-200m (I know that average current engagement distances are something below this range due to the high levels of MOUT). But then again, I believe that optics should be added/trained AFTER complete proficiency with iron sights out to and including 300m targets, I'm a dinosaur in that respect.
Not being a weapons designer, just an end user, I do think there are viable upgrades to the current US combat rifle systems that will increase efficiency and accuracy - closed gas systems, better optics, etc.
I guess my big question is - How do we get there from here? It will be even tougher with the Navy in most of the high level leadership positions.
Just venting, I guess.
The Reaper
06-08-2007, 11:16
TR,
I agree with your assessment of the bullpup design and ergonomics, I actually like the feel and design of the M16/M4 style of weapon - my belief is that with the shortening of barrels to carbine and less, accuracy is removed for shots over 150-200m (I know that average current engagement distances are something below this range due to the high levels of MOUT). But then again, I believe that optics should be added/trained AFTER complete proficiency with iron sights out to and including 300m targets, I'm a dinosaur in that respect.
Not being a weapons designer, just an end user, I do think there are viable upgrades to the current US combat rifle systems that will increase efficiency and accuracy - closed gas systems, better optics, etc.
I guess my big question is - How do we get there from here? It will be even tougher with the Navy in most of the high level leadership positions.
Just venting, I guess.
The M-4 provides adequate combat accuracy at all ranges. The length of the barrel is not a factor. You can shoot matches with 10" barrels, if you wanted. The shorter barrel does two things. It shortens the sight radius, which is only significant for iron sights, and it reduces the muzzle velocity significantly, making range estimation (and lethality) much more critical.
The real problem is the accuracy of the M855/M856 ammunition. The majority of the "poor accuracy" complaints I have seen have been from people who did not know how to shoot.
TR
x SF med
06-08-2007, 12:28
The real problem is the accuracy of the M855/M856 ammunition. The majority of the "poor accuracy" complaints I have seen have been from people who did not know how to shoot.
TR
Ammunition is a manufacturing/logistics issue.
Training is an issue for most of 'big Army', which is a sad state of affairs, a soldier must be proficient with all the tools needed for combat, at all times.
The Reaper
06-08-2007, 12:43
Ammunition is a manufacturing/logistics issue.
Training is an issue for most of 'big Army', which is a sad state of affairs, a soldier must be proficient with all the tools needed for combat, at all times.
Do you want to discuss the time and resources allowed (or not allowed) for soldiers' marksmanship training?
TR
Looks interesting the only down fall I think would be that you have to remove the mag to clear any type of jam. it uses the very reliable FN-FAL magazines.
WEBSITE
http://www.kel-tec.com/news.html
PDF FILE
http://www.kel-tec.com/images/downloads/RFB_Flyer_SHOT_2007_web.pdf
SHORT MOVIE CLIP
http://www.kel-tec.com/videos/rfbteaser.wmv
82ndtrooper
06-15-2007, 18:16
Do you want to discuss the time and resources allowed (or not allowed) for soldiers' marksmanship training?
TR
I'd be interested in your thoughts. However I believe I may be able to guess the reasons for and against conventional troops actually live firing besides being put on detail to drag chutes at the riggers shop because nothing else was on the training docket for the day.
6 years with the 82nd Airborne and believe I only lived fired the M16, the M203 and M60 3 or 4 times in six years of AD service. :eek:
Most day's in garrison were spent cleaning a conex or getting haircuts at the SGM's request. I honestly dont think they trusted with live fire and or the budget that was in place at the time.
Just my .02
Before my current deployment to Iraq, had a trip to Louisiana for training, which I missed because of surgery. Then as far as range time, had one reflexive fire range, and a zero range. In Kuwait, we verified our zero and did a couple live fire runs through a shoot house. So, after about 100 total rounds in a four month build up, all the rest of them were fired in Tikrit. About 3 months into our deployment "the man" decided ranges would be a great idea and started letting us do them regularly. Now they talk about how scarred they are that we carry M203 HEs and M67s since we aren't properly trained on them. The insurgents are safe in their firing positions behind their thick brick walls since the AT4s we have just sit at the ammo point since we, again, "aren't properly trained" to use them.
Before my current deployment to Iraq, had a trip to Louisiana for training, which I missed because of surgery. Then as far as range time, had one reflexive fire range, and a zero range. In Kuwait, we verified our zero and did a couple live fire runs through a shoot house. So, after about 100 total rounds in a four month build up, all the rest of them were fired in Tikrit. About 3 months into our deployment "the man" decided ranges would be a great idea and started letting us do them regularly. Now they talk about how scarred they are that we carry M203 HEs and M67s since we aren't properly trained on them. The insurgents are safe in their firing positions behind their thick brick walls since the AT4s we have just sit at the ammo point since we, again, "aren't properly trained" to use them.
It's gotta be Army wide. My time with 3ID was the same. Hell, when I went to Iraq the first time I was my team's M2 gunner. First time I ever fired her was during an ambush.
The second time around I suppose the higher ups listened to our gripes about not shooting enough on our "off" time. So we ended up going to ranges once a month. However, the training and ranges were crap. It was more of a nuisance then good training. Heck, they never let us zero our Aimpoints or Acogs until we got in country.
As far as the explosives, I feel your pain. In 2003 as soon as we switched from an invasion force to SASO operations they took our AT4s and grenades. We had AT4s in 2005, but we weren't allowed to ride around with them because someone, somewhere, was afraid of a ND from all the bumping around.
I would hear the same thing when I would ask about not being allowed to use the tools available to us. It was always, "You don't have the proper training". Well, why don't you find time to get us the training? OR have a little faith in some of our abilities.
I don't blame my chain of command though. I know the orders come from way above. It never helps anthing when your division is leading in NDs for the entire theatre...
The Reaper
06-16-2007, 07:35
It never helps anthing when your division is leading in NDs for the entire theatre...
Why do you think that was? Seriously.
TR
Why do you think that was? Seriously.
TR
I believe it was due to lack of training or poor training. I would also venture to say that some were products of complacency. A lot of these NDs were at clearing barrels. (i.e. people pulling the trigger before dropping the mag and pulling the slide back.) Only a few resulted in injury and one in death.
I believe that if you give people the proper training (the occasional idiot aside) and enough of it, you wouldn't have these problems.
But I could be wrong...
jwt5
As far as the explosives, I feel your pain. In 2003 as soon as we switched from an invasion force to SASO operations they took our AT4s and grenades. We had AT4s in 2005, but we weren't allowed to ride around with them because someone, somewhere, was afraid of a ND from all the bumping around.
-------------
As I recall, a Soldier from the 501st Transportation Company was receiving fire from a building, and returned fire at said building with an AT4. Needless to say the use of the AT4 under the 18th Airborne Corps was somewhat restricted after that, but the Mk19 remained in heavy use.
As I recall, a Soldier from the 501st Transportation Company was receiving fire from a building, and returned fire at said building with an AT4. Needless to say the use of the AT4 under the 18th Airborne Corps was somewhat restricted after that, but the Mk19 remained in heavy use.
I remember hearing that also. Just like in 2005 when the LT had a ND on his Bradley with a TOW missle. :eek: Needless to say, our Bradleys didn't have them for the rest of the deployment.
Yes the MK19 was still in use a lot because that's all we had, well, with the exception of my personal favorite, the M2. Nowadays though you don't see many Mk.19s or even M2s around Iraq. Most people beebop around with M240s. Which is a shame, just seeing that M2 made most people p*** themselves..
All the companies in my battalion, with the exception of us (thanks Top!) traded their M2s for M240s back in 2004. They said is was due to ease of use. Of course come convoy time who were they calling? :rolleyes:
Why do you think that was? Seriously.
TR
The op tempo for 7th SFG in 1989 was very high. Weapons training was at the bottom of the list. Ammo hard to find on Bragg. This showed during Just Cause. Most AD'S were the result of people carrying different Weapons that they weren't trained on. Hate to say it but it was also about appearance. Our TS forbid us to carry anything but our issued weapons. Smart man, only Team to go AD free.
Most people learned what open bolt meant after the loud Bang. But in general it comes down to poor weapons handling skills. Lack of training.
Today the focus has completely changed. Right before a new Ammo delivery for a new class. We would advertise free Ammo to shoot, Range available. No coordination, just show up and take the keys.
It was hard to find Teams who wanted to take advantage of this. Not because they didn't want to train. CQB/CMMS training is common now. Ammo is easy to get. Ten years ago we would of had to fight them off.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. However I believe I may be able to guess the reasons for and against conventional troops actually live firing besides being put on detail to drag chutes at the riggers shop because nothing else was on the training docket for the day.
6 years with the 82nd Airborne and believe I only lived fired the M16, the M203 and M60 3 or 4 times in six years of AD service. :eek:
Most day's in garrison were spent cleaning a conex or getting haircuts at the SGM's request. I honestly dont think they trusted with live fire and or the budget that was in place at the time.
Just my .02
Were you an 11B? I was only there two years in purgatory. But we shot more often then I was lead to believe before being sent there. The quality of training could of been better, looking back.
I drive thru Bragg using a road lined with Ranges. These days those Ranges are occupied constantly.
Know how you can tell if a Unit is training. I look at their Ranges. If there is grass growing on the Berms. They ain't training. Very little grass growing on the Berms along Plank Road these days. Has to be driving Range Control nuts:D
When Brass from the regular Army would visit Range 37. It was obvious they were disappointed with the appearance of our flat Ranges. All the Ranges and Berms are dirt, no pretty grass growing there. Grass growing on a Range is just wrong.
Gene Econ
06-16-2007, 18:26
Before my current deployment to Iraq, had a trip to Louisiana for training, which I missed because of surgery. Then as far as range time, had one reflexive fire range, and a zero range. In Kuwait, we verified our zero and did a couple live fire runs through a shoot house. So, after about 100 total rounds in a four month build up, all the rest of them were fired in Tikrit. About 3 months into our deployment "the man" decided ranges would be a great idea and started letting us do them regularly. Now they talk about how scarred they are that we carry M203 HEs and M67s since we aren't properly trained on them. The insurgents are safe in their firing positions behind their thick brick walls since the AT4s we have just sit at the ammo point since we, again, "aren't properly trained" to use them.
So, what Guard unit are you a member of? MOS?
Gene
longrange1947
06-16-2007, 20:25
.................Our TS forbid us to carry anything but our issued weapons. Smart man, only Team to go AD free..............
uh uh, be careful now. 761 never AD'ed and mine were just out of Tng Grp by less then a year. I did train them alot and put them on the range alot in Panama during the summer 'SET'. :lifter
All the companies in my battalion, with the exception of us (thanks Top!) traded their M2s for M240s back in 2004. They said is was due to ease of use. Of course come convoy time who were they calling? :rolleyes:
I liked having the M2 in the front Hummv and the M240 in the rear Hummv mainly the M2 up front covered forward so it could blast other cars if needed and the M240 in the rear could cover roof tops at close range much easyer then the 50.cal could, But the main reason of having a M240 along instead of a 2ed M2 or a MK19 is you can dismount with it. we also took the rear turtle shell off our uparmor's and put a rear facing M249 with a dude in a armored seat in the back of each hummv.
A M240 with a zero'd PEQ-2 laser on it is way better for night ops in my opinion.
I was also looking into having a mount made that would hold a M240 and have a off set barret M107 so I could switch between the Two weapon systems. then I wouldent need to mess with having the
M2 at all.
We also rolled with M79 grenade launchers up in the turret.
My .02 cents
I liked having the M2 in the front Hummv and the M240 in the rear Hummv mainly the M2 up front covered forward so it could blast other cars if needed and the M240 in the rear could cover roof tops at close range much easyer then the 50.cal could, we also took the rear turtle shell off our uparmor's and put a rear facing M249 with a dude in a armored seat in the back of each hummv.
A M240 with a zero'd PEQ-2 laser on it is way better for night ops in my opinion.
I was also looking into having a mount made that would hold a M240 and have a off set barret M107 so I could switch between the Two weapon systems. then I wouldent need to mess with having the
M2 at all.
We also rolled with M79 grenade launchers up in the turret.
My .02 cents
I love'd my M2. Every team in my platoon had an M2 on their truck. In 2003 we rolled out once with the scout section of TF2-69. 20 or so humvees with nothing but M2s and Mk.19s. What a sexy sight. As far as taking off the rear hatch of our turtle shells, we did the same, of course our M249 gunner wasn't happy about it :D
I must say I had some weapon envy when we were beboping around Iraq in 2005 and some teams from 5th group, I believe, were rocking that new mini-gun. Also the SEALs that were on my battalion's FOB had two trucks with a mount for dual M240s :eek: Some of the SOF teams fire power is an awesome sight to see, that's for sure!