|
The Demise of the XM8
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: Quote:
Is this the start of another Congressional battle? Really don't see how seeing it's H&K. Thoughts?? |
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 |
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. |
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:) |
Quote:
|
XM8
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:
|
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? |
ammo
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...
|
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
TR |
New BullPup From Kel-Tec
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/downlo...T_2007_web.pdf SHORT MOVIE CLIP http://www.kel-tec.com/videos/rfbteaser.wmv |
Conventional side of firearms trainging
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38. |
Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®