XM8 - Sources Sought notice??

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sinister

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

[bk1133]

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]

Originally Posted by bk1133

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

[bk1133]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sandytroop

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]

Originally Posted by sandytroop

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sinister

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]

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

[bk1133]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BearFlag

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by BearFlag

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