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/DA...SynopsisR.html

Does this mean that they are looking for competative bids or a new weapon system? Or does it mean nothing?

Air.177 · 11-11-2004, 09:19

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air.177

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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?

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.

Air.177 · 11-11-2004, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

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

Air.177 · 11-11-2004, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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...!

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.