View Full Version : XM8 - Sources Sought notice??
Kyobanim
11-11-2004, 08:26
I saw this on another forum and did a little research and am now more confused than ever. This is what I read:
"US Army ARDEC, AMSTA-AR-PC, and Picatinny Arsenal (NJ) have just issued a Sources Sought Notice for a "Non-Developmental multi- configurable 5.56mm modular weapon system". It's possible that this notice is specifically designed to save/salvage the HK XM8 development program, in which the US Army TACOM-ARDEC and Picatinny Arsenal already have a significant time and money investment."
The original source of the info is defensereview.com. They said, "It's DefRev's, (Defense Review), understanding that the XM8 recently failed a US Army test (unconfirmed). It apparently suffered some kind of mechanical failure (unconfirmed), and the US Marine Corps (USMC), reportedly, doesn't want it (unconfirmed). So, it would seem that the XM8 development program is in serious trouble, at the moment. This is, as yet, unverified."
Here's a link to the Sources Sought Notice which is dated Nov 5, 04.
http://www2.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAE30/W15QKN%2D05%2DX%2D0427/SynopsisR.html
Does this mean that they are looking for competative bids or a new weapon system? Or does it mean nothing?
Hell if they are looking for a new weapons system, they will damn sure have to look offshore. Look at their domestic options: Kel-Tec SU-16, Robinson armament M96, or A billion and eight different AR family clones. IMHO the development of new weapons/components/suppressors has been severely retarded in this country due to legislation restricting tinkerers and inventors from taking their ideas to any higher level than conspiratorial thoughts.
Now someone can ask me how I really feel.
[/Hijack]
The Reaper
11-11-2004, 09:48
Hell if they are looking for a new weapons system, they will damn sure have to look offshore. Look at their domestic options: Kel-Tec SU-16, Robinson armament M96, or A billion and eight different AR family clones. IMHO the development of new weapons/components/suppressors has been severely retarded in this country due to legislation restricting tinkerers and inventors from taking their ideas to any higher level than conspiratorial thoughts.
Now someone can ask me how I really feel.
[/Hijack]
Exactly.
It will only get worse as we drive gun manufacturers out of business, and foreign nations subsidize their weapons industries.
If I were looking right now, I would strongly consider the H&K improved closed gas system upper, an improved bolt/extractor like the LMT dual spring design, and possibly a quick change 10"-20" barrel and fixed and collapsible stock options, all of which are currently available. I would dump all mags older than three years in favor of new mags with an expiration date, and consider steel H&K type mags for most users. I would switch all conventional ammo to the 77gr. Mk 262 round, and equip Spec Ops with the LeMas ammo.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
11-11-2004, 10:36
Exactly.
It will only get worse as we drive gun manufacturers out of business, and foreign nations subsidize their weapons industries.
If I were looking right now, I would strongly consider the H&K improved closed gas system upper, an improved bolt/extractor like the LMT dual spring design, and possibly a quick change 10"-20" barrel and fixed and collapsible stock options, all of which are currently available. I would dump all mags older than three years in favor of new mags with an expiration date, and consider steel H&K type mags for most users. I would switch all conventional ammo to the 77gr. Mk 262 round, and equip Spec Ops with the LeMas ammo.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Did I just read an endorsement of certain H&K products? :eek: :munchin
Achilles
11-11-2004, 10:56
Forgive my intrusion, but H&K removed everything on their website in relation to the HK M4. Was this due to the Colt lawsuit against Bushmaster and (I forget). Are they still making the M4 upper for military use? It sounds like a real improvement and it would be a shame if Colt's legal issues got in the way of Soldiers seeking weapon upgrades.
Forgive my intrusion, but H&K removed everything on their website in relation to the HK M4. Was this due to the Colt lawsuit against Bushmaster and (I forget). Are they still making the M4 upper for military use? It sounds like a real improvement and it would be a shame if Colt's legal issues got in the way of Soldiers seeking weapon upgrades.
If I am not mistaken (which is rare mind you) I believe that HK was named in that lawsuit as well as Bushmaster. If this is the case, then I could see HK removing all such items from their website until their marketing department could find a satisfactory substitute for M4.
As far as my views on the whole deal, this statement pretty much sums it up,"This is purely a matter of symantics, up with which we will not put."
I am waiting to see if HK releases their upper for sale to the unwashed heathen masses (or at least their LE dealers) as nearly everything I have heard about the system is complimentary.
Kyobanim
11-11-2004, 11:16
So, does the original post in the thread mean that they are looking for alternatives to the XM8?
The Reaper
11-11-2004, 11:31
So, does the original post in the thread mean that they are looking for alternatives to the XM8?
Not a procurement or contracting geek, but it looks to me like they are looking for a way to buy the H&Ks despite poor evaluations.
I argued with their reps about that system at last year's SHOT Show.
Yes, Air.177, that was an endorsement of a couple of their products.
TR
Yes, Air.177, that was an endorsement of a couple of their products.
TR
Cool, But it Was RL that asked about endorsements.
Sinister
11-13-2004, 16:10
I believe the XM8 failed Soldier battle Lab's testing. I was told by a guy who was not in the test chain of command (and conjecturing only) the report went up the chain of command. They did not like the test result and told them to re-test in March, thus having to put out a solicitation for weapons (again) so it gets another test.
brownapple
11-13-2004, 17:37
After the OICW, if the XM-8 proves to be a waste of time and money, someone is going to lose their job. Not surprised they want a retest. Hope it fails again.
FullGallop
11-25-2004, 23:51
Not a procurement or contracting geek, but it looks to me like they are looking for a way to buy the H&Ks despite poor evaluations.
I argued with their reps about that system at last year's SHOT Show.
Yes, Air.177, that was an endorsement of a couple of their products.
TR
IIRC, a couple Army Times issues back there was an article on this topic. Other companies were being asked to submit systems for eval with the XM8. I remember that I found it odd that the time between the article and the time the submissions were to be in was not very long. Sounds to me like another way for those involved to continue pushing the XM8 while appearing to have free and open competition.
The article also stated that FNUSA won the contract for the SCAR weapon system.
sandytroop
11-26-2004, 08:14
For you chaps interrested, the Army Times 22 Nov 04 ran an article on this matter. Apparently the test sequence isn't complete yet, as they report the system is "slated to go through tropical testing in early December and final operational tests in October 2005." Also "After recent tests, Army weapons developers found the XM8 easier to operate, lighter to carry and more reliable than the M-16 family." The main issue, it seems is found in this paragraph: "But before that can happen (the planned late 2005 adoption of this weapons system into the armory), other companies in the small arms industry must be given a chance to see if any of them can match the Army's requirements, along with those of the AirForce, Navy, and Marine Corps., according to a rule the Joint Chiefs of Staff created two years ago." I won't bore you by scribing the whole article. Apparently FNH USA, which just got the contract for the SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) is involved.
It looks, from the article, that the DOD is building a rifle by committee (like a camel is a horse designed by a committee, eh?) which is IMHO foolish; but also making sure they can get enough of them built to spec in a tme sensitive manner, which is smart.
The punch line acutally comes in the headline. Ignore it, the story reads as described, but pay attention to it and you have to wonder... :
"XM8 Small Arms Race? Army asks other arms makers if they can build a better weapon".
That tells me that the article isn't about some benign "cross checking" to make sure the thing can be madee right and fast; it's about looking for alternatives to the 8. "Better" in this context likely means "different." It should be a fascinating process for the ballistically minded among us to track...!
brownapple
11-26-2004, 08:35
Might note that the Army Times had an article about the adoption of the OICW a few months before the OICW was shelved. I prefer what I hear from the folks at the Infantry Board (who I'm not hearing anything from) and elsewhere to what I read in any media.
sandytroop
11-26-2004, 10:25
For sure, we always prefer the horse's mouth, and you are absolutely right. The AT article I mentioned was more of a "here's what they say" item. You know, when I read it the first time I thought it said they had to let American manufacturers in on this, and my first thought was "Really? And who might that be now?" You fellows are right, there really isn't a lot of interrest in the small arms industry to persue this project, the way the law has been manipulated against them. Also note the recent comment from the same AT (different story) that the "industrial base isn't large enough to get equipment to soldiers as quickly as possible." Perhaps the real issue isn't "information" warfare after all...? I suspect that in the long run, this will be a major issue. No matter what weapon they pick, there will certainly be a production / maintenance concern, given our culture's focus on "information" and the (misuided, IMO) belief that silicone is more valuable than steel or skill at the individual level.
The Reaper
11-26-2004, 18:14
I believe the XM8 failed Soldier battle Lab's testing. I was told by a guy who was not in the test chain of command (and conjecturing only) the report went up the chain of command. They did not like the test result and told them to re-test in March, thus having to put out a solicitation for weapons (again) so it gets another test.
IMHO, Sinister is the best source on this site to answer this question.
I would take his answers to the bank.
TR
I work for PM Soldier weapons at Picatinny. The XM-8 is a huge political hot potato. The guys who test it ,Love it. They just got back from Panama with it, I haven't spoken to the guys yet. One of the problems I can talk about is the lethality guys see no improvement in their arena. Its still a 5.56mm weapon.
It is very reliable, easy to maintain, and easy to use. May be not enough for the price.
The Reaper
11-29-2004, 08:29
I work for PM Soldier weapons at Picatinny. The XM-8 is a huge political hot potato. The guys who test it ,Love it. They just got back from Panama with it, I haven't spoken to the guys yet. One of the problems I can talk about is the lethality guys see no improvement in their arena. Its still a 5.56mm weapon.
It is very reliable, easy to maintain, and easy to use. May be not enough for the price.
Of course they love it, it is a nice, sexy new toy.
What does it do better then the M-4/M-16?
Wait till they start trying to put bad guys down with it in the 12.5" barrel config the Army is going for. It is WORSE than the M-4.
TR
Thats exactly what the lethality guys and operator's say. The barrel lenghts on each version are shorter than the current -16 family of weapons. So obviously the speed of the bullet decreases as does the lethality. (damn I'm starting to talk like the engineers I work with)
From what I understand, there has been very few problems with the M-4/16 with trained soldiers, other than the extractor spring on the M-4. Reservists have problems mainly due to lack of care and cleaning. Most problems seem to be with the mags. Of course you QP's would love to have a better bullet.
The arguments here are why spend money on a new toy when it isn't any better than the toy we have. One reason for the XM-8 is that the OICW was pretty big here a few years ago and this is kinda "the son of OICW".
sandytroop
11-29-2004, 11:09
You guys just watch. This thing will run it's course, and eventually some guy will come up with a "New Concept Rifle" capable of amazing feats of physics; a superb man-stopper at close and long range, accurate, reliable, easy to maintain, reasonable weight... and it will be a Scout length M-14. Hey, it was a fantastic weapon that never got the opportunity to prove itself before the propeller heads came up with the -16.
Shark Bait
11-29-2004, 11:14
You guys just watch. This thing will run it's course, and eventually some guy will come up with a "New Concept Rifle" capable of amazing feats of physics; a superb man-stopper at close and long range, accurate, reliable, easy to maintain, reasonable weight... and it will be a Scout length M-14. Hey, it was a fantastic weapon that never got the opportunity to prove itself before the propeller heads came up with the -16.
I'll vote for that one!
Smokin Joe
11-29-2004, 15:45
You guys just watch. This thing will run it's course, and eventually some guy will come up with a "New Concept Rifle" capable of amazing feats of physics; a superb man-stopper at close and long range, accurate, reliable, easy to maintain, reasonable weight... and it will be a Scout length M-14. Hey, it was a fantastic weapon that never got the opportunity to prove itself before the propeller heads came up with the -16.
I got to shoot Springfields SOCOM 14 at the Davidson's LEO Expo in Phx about 2 weeks ago. That thing will rattle your sinuses.
Sinister
11-29-2004, 17:57
BK1133, I don't think it's the extractor spring on the M4 that's the problem. I think the gas port is a might big.
The bolt and carrier are getting a mighty blast of gas from the gas tube and the whole bolt carrier assembly is getting a boot to the rear -- the centrifugal force of the bolt turning as it unlocks is causing the extractor to literally FLY off the rim, giving failure to eject malfunctions. The little black extractor rubber nub (sorry for nomenclature failure) helps keep the extractor snapped over the case rim.
If the gas port were to be drilled a couple of thousandths smaller or the entire gas system extended out two inches (like Armliate's and Rock River's mid-length gas system) your port pressure will be WAY lower.
Ambush Master
11-29-2004, 18:05
If the gas port were to be drilled a couple of thousandths smaller or the entire gas system extended out two inches (like Armliate's and Rock River's mid-length gas system) your port pressure will be WAY lower.
What about just lengthening the gas tube and make 1, 2, or 3 wraps around the barrel to give a bit of delay and to reduce the amount of pressure that the carrier assy is being subjected to ??? This would also cause the "Extraction" event to occur when the Chamber Pressure is radically less and thereby reduce the friction between the case and the chamber !!
Just my simple .02 worth .
Martin
The Reaper
11-29-2004, 19:11
The original AR-15 worked because of tuning for a certain barrel length (to include overall length of the barrel and length beyond the gas port for dwell time), gas port size, gas tube length, gas volume and pressure to a bolt carrier of certain weight, extractor tension, buffer spring coil and tension, buffer length and weight, ammunition type, and magazine type.
We change barrel lengths from 7.5" to 24", gas port position on the barrel from 1"-6" from the muzzle, gas port diameter, gas tube length from 6" to 16", buffers, buffer springs, etc. and expect it to function reliably with ammo from 40gr. - 100gr. fed from 5 to 120 round mags. When it doesn't, it is blamed on a poor design.
A closed gas system (like the H&K), the right ammo and new mags would fix 95% of all problems with the M-16 family. There also needs to be a strictly enforced service life after which weapons need to be replaced.
AM, what you are referring to is sold as the "Pigtail". There is also a larger diameter straight tube called a "Fatboy", IIRC.
TR
Sinister and The Reaper,
You are both correct, but try to tell any of that to an engineer! They all have their pet projects and the funding that goes along with it. (thank Al Gore and his re-inventing gov't) Barret was here with their mod, in both 5.56 and 6.8, a rep from your community is pushing it, it has a different gas system and seemed great though I never shot it.
The powers to be here settled on the spring. They were issuing new mags during the RFI (rapid fielding initiative), I don't think they are this fiscal year (05). As far as the ammo is concerned, its a whole different world. They have a legal department here just for ammo. They also have people from NATO and God knows who else who deal only small arms ammo. I'm way down the food chain, I'm a new equipt. trainer, former enlisted, and a contractor. They look at me like the hired help.
BearFlag
12-12-2004, 21:53
I think the XM-8 appears to be a fine weapon (identical to the G36 for all i can tell). But i agree the ballistics are on par or sub par to existing weapons (based solely on barrel length). If we want to have short barrels and have our cake and eat it we are going to have to have bullpups, larger cartridges, or a redesign in ammo.
I'd be all for a 6.8 round in an XM-8 with bullets in design similar to FN's bullets in the P90 (except 6.8 mm instead of 5.7), that is bullets designed to pierce armor but still impart sufficient softbody trauma. And Of course LeMas bullets would be even better.
Unfortunately I think many of the salesmen I have heard (on the videos, i have not talked to any in person) appear to be minimally educated in the science of why they work, which is a real buzzkill towards any adoptation by the brass.
The Reaper
12-12-2004, 22:12
I think the XM-8 appears to be a fine weapon (identical to the G36 for all i can tell). But i agree the ballistics are on par or sub par to existing weapons (based solely on barrel length). If we want to have short barrels and have our cake and eat it we are going to have to have bullpups, larger cartridges, or a redesign in ammo.
I'd be all for a 6.8 round in an XM-8 with bullets in design similar to FN's bullets in the P90 (except 6.8 mm instead of 5.7), that is bullets designed to pierce armor but still impart sufficient softbody trauma. And Of course LeMas bullets would be even better.
Unfortunately I think many of the salesmen I have heard (on the videos, i have not talked to any in person) appear to be minimally educated in the science of why they work, which is a real buzzkill towards any adoptation by the brass.
I don't think that the 5.7 imparts any significantly improved performance in tissue.
It is a dedicated penetrator, and not even a particularly good one.
TR
BearFlag
12-12-2004, 22:23
I don't think that the 5.7 imparts any significantly improved performance in tissue.
It is a dedicated penetrator, and not even a particularly good one.
TR
I agree, I was implying a round "like" the 4.7 but in 6.8, and of course with a rifle length barrel and not a SMG.
The current 5.7 by FN is less damaging than a 5.56, but what do you expect, 1/3 the kick, smaller bullet, lower velocities. A 6.8 bullet of the same design as the 5.7 but w/ more velocity(more powder, more barrel) should be an effective round, esp vs armored opponents (bullet does not fragment but tumbles after only 2 cm of penetration), keep in mind that a 5.7 bullet is like 20 grains or something, I am suggesting a much larger bullet.
The current 5.56 would be acceptable if you could squeeze a few hundred more FPS out of the short barrel, but I don't see that happening. The problem now is that the bullet doesn't have enough KE from short barreled rifles to cause fragmentation. the hague convention does not disqualify the use of hollow point or frangible ammunition for non-uniformed combatants, but i think what we'd like is a universal round that can penetrate armor (at least class 3) and still inflict massive soft tissue trauma.
For the velocity regime of these short barreled rifles a tumbly bullet might be a reasonable alternative to a frangible bullet esp when the bullets fail to fragment at low velocities?
Solution, Le Mas bullets.
The Reaper
12-18-2004, 01:03
I agree, I was implying a round "like" the 4.7 but in 6.8, and of course with a rifle length barrel and not a SMG.
The current 5.7 by FN is less damaging than a 5.56, but what do you expect, 1/3 the kick, smaller bullet, lower velocities. A 6.8 bullet of the same design as the 5.7 but w/ more velocity(more powder, more barrel) should be an effective round, esp vs armored opponents (bullet does not fragment but tumbles after only 2 cm of penetration), keep in mind that a 5.7 bullet is like 20 grains or something, I am suggesting a much larger bullet.
The current 5.56 would be acceptable if you could squeeze a few hundred more FPS out of the short barrel, but I don't see that happening. The problem now is that the bullet doesn't have enough KE from short barreled rifles to cause fragmentation. the hague convention does not disqualify the use of hollow point or frangible ammunition for non-uniformed combatants, but i think what we'd like is a universal round that can penetrate armor (at least class 3) and still inflict massive soft tissue trauma.
For the velocity regime of these short barreled rifles a tumbly bullet might be a reasonable alternative to a frangible bullet esp when the bullets fail to fragment at low velocities?
Solution, Le Mas bullets.
Roger, the LeMas will work well even from a 10.5" barrel, and can be optimized for the shorter barrels. It will also smoke armor better than dedicated AP rounds.
A "tumbly" bullet is either very long (=heavy, for its caliber), understabilized, or unstable and therefore inaccurate.
TR