Xm - 8

[NousDefionsDoc]

Expert Opinion

[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

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

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.

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).