06-07-2007, 16:56
|
#1
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,374
|
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:
“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/2007/0..._rifle_070531/
Is this the start of another Congressional battle? Really don't see how seeing it's H&K.
Thoughts??
__________________
D-3129 Life
"If one day you decide to know yourself...you'll have to choose the warrior path...You'll reach the darkness of your spirit.... Then, if you overcome your fears....You will know who you are."
"De Oppresso Liber"
Last edited by Snaquebite; 06-07-2007 at 17:09.
|
|
Snaquebite is offline
|
|
|
06-07-2007, 17:10
|
#2
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,804
|
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
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
06-07-2007, 17:16
|
#3
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,374
|
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.
__________________
D-3129 Life
"If one day you decide to know yourself...you'll have to choose the warrior path...You'll reach the darkness of your spirit.... Then, if you overcome your fears....You will know who you are."
"De Oppresso Liber"
|
|
Snaquebite is offline
|
|
|
06-07-2007, 17:55
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 4,701
|
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?  ) 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.  )
|
|
Peregrino is offline
|
|
|
06-07-2007, 18:08
|
#5
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
Quote:
|
Whoever drove a stake in that program deserves a medal.
|
Classic! 
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
06-07-2007, 20:29
|
#6
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,189
|
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 ?
|
|
82ndtrooper is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 08:44
|
#7
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In transit somewhere
Posts: 4,044
|
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 the business of war, there is no invariable stategic advantage (shih) which can be relied upon at all times.
Sun-Tzu, "The Art of Warfare"
Hearing, I forget. Seeing, I remember. Writing (doing), I understand. Chinese Proverb
Too many people are looking for a magic bullet. As always, shot placement is the key. ~TR
|
|
x SF med is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 09:02
|
#8
|
|
SF Candidate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the moon dust.
Posts: 35
|
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...
|
|
KSC is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 10:24
|
#9
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,804
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x SF med
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
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 11:10
|
#10
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In transit somewhere
Posts: 4,044
|
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.
__________________
In the business of war, there is no invariable stategic advantage (shih) which can be relied upon at all times.
Sun-Tzu, "The Art of Warfare"
Hearing, I forget. Seeing, I remember. Writing (doing), I understand. Chinese Proverb
Too many people are looking for a magic bullet. As always, shot placement is the key. ~TR
|
|
x SF med is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 11:16
|
#11
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,804
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x SF med
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
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 12:28
|
#12
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In transit somewhere
Posts: 4,044
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
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.
__________________
In the business of war, there is no invariable stategic advantage (shih) which can be relied upon at all times.
Sun-Tzu, "The Art of Warfare"
Hearing, I forget. Seeing, I remember. Writing (doing), I understand. Chinese Proverb
Too many people are looking for a magic bullet. As always, shot placement is the key. ~TR
|
|
x SF med is offline
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 12:43
|
#13
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,804
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x SF med
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
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
06-15-2007, 18:16
|
#15
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,189
|
Conventional side of firearms trainging
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
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. 
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
|
|
82ndtrooper is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
