Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WAVE OF THE FUTURE: The XM-8 Battle Rifle (What the Germans want to replace the M-16 with.)
Military.Com ^

Posted on 06/04/2004 5:29:10 AM PDT by Happy2BMe

WAVE OF THE FUTURE: The XM-8 Battle Rifle
 

Question: Can you build an all-purpose battle rifle that can change colors, barrels, and weapons packages on the fly, comes equipped with a grenade launcher and shotgun that can take out Sigourney Weaver's aliens, and jams far less frequently than the M-16? Answer: The new XM-8 rifle by Heckler and Koch.


Heckler & Koch XM-8 Rifle
Photo by Heckler & Koch, USA

For almost 40 years, the M-16 5.56mm combat rifle, in all its incarnations, has served as the United States military's primary battle rifle. To give you an idea of how long a time that is, the only other long gun with a similar tenure is the .58 caliber Brown Bess musket -- which entered service with the Continental Army in 1776.

The German weapons manufacturer Heckler & Koch believes it's high time for a change; specifically, it would like to see the United States retire the M-16 and replace it with a slick, new, high-speed battle rifle dubbed the XM-8. And boy, what a rifle it is …

Army of One

The XM-8 weapon system -- for that's what it really is, a family of related weapons -- packs quite an arsenal in its portable shape (6.4 pounds, lighter than the current M-4 at 8.85 pounds). It takes its cue from the M-29 Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), a $10,000 prototypical technology test bed from the late 1990s. The OICW was a combination of "kinetic energy" projector (a battle rifle that fired the Remington .223) and a semi-autonomous, air-bursting 20mm grenade launcher. The XM-8 is the "kinetic energy" portion of the OICW, plus a receiver to which all other components can be attached or removed.

Complementing the XM-8 are two attachable weapon systems, the XM320 40mm single shot grenade launcher and the LSS 12-gauge shotgun. The XM320 incorporates a swing out barrel design with integrated sight, and is capable of firing all currently manufactured 40mm grenades, while the LSS is capable of firing both lethal and non-lethal shotgun shells, as well as specially-designed breaching shells. Both weapons are mounted forward of the magazine, underneath the barrel, and can be installed by the operator in minutes without tools.

The XM-8 is a model of efficiency in use: its operation controls are ambidextrous, it has three firing modes (single round, three-round burst, and fully automatic), and can handle a variety of magazines, including a 30 round semi-opaque (to allow the shooter to see how many rounds are left in the magazine) hard plastic magazine, which can be rapidly reloaded in close combat situations, and a 100-round drum (for sustained fire), as well as 10-round weapon qualification magazines and M-16 style metal magazines.

Flexible on the Fly

Whether the user is a sniper or part of an attack team, the XM-8 can accommodate all uses. It uses four different interchangeable barrels (a 9" compact, a 12.5" assault, a 20" match grade sharpshooter, or a 20" heavy barrel for sustained high ROF applications), each of which can be swapped out at the unit level in less than 2 minutes. The weapon can also be equipped with a 5-position collapsible stock, a flat butt plate (for an extremely small weapon profile), an adjustable sniper stock, or a folding stock.

Attention has also been paid to look and feel with the XM-8. Forward handguards incorporate non-slip materials to improve weapon handling and retention. The XM-8's non-metallic components are manufactured from fiber reinforced plastic polymers which can be molded in numerous colors, and can be removed or replaced by the operator without specialized tools. In other words, whether you're in the jungle or on the sand, the weapon's "skin" can be changed to blend with its surroundings.

The XM-8 doesn't skimp on optics, either. Its optics/sight package is an "all-in-one" combination: an infrared laser target designator, IR target illuminator and 1x close combat red-dot sight. In addition to incorporating the three sights into one system, the sight is zeroed at the factory and can be removed and reinstalled by the operator without specialized tools, or the loss of zero. Contrast this with the M-16/M-4 series: While advances have been made in their combat optics to improve rifle accuracy, these advances have brought additional issues (increased weight, cost, the need to continuously re-zero the devices when removed).
How useful are the XM-8's interchangeable parts? Here's a quick look at some of the M-16's problems in this regard:

  • A half dozen incarnations of the M-16/M-4 are currently in service, and none of them have parts that are 100% interchangeable with a different series weapon.
  • For the M-16, mounting optics requires the use of weapon specific (read: non-interchangeable) adapters.
  • The M-16A1 (still in widespread service with the National Guard and Reserves) was designed to fire the M198 5.56mm Ball cartridge, while the M16A2 and later rifles (used by Active Duty formations) was designed to fire the heavier M855 cartridge. While both rifles can chamber and fire both types of bullet, the M885 bullet weighs more, and is less accurate when fired from the M16A1.
On the other hand, the XM-8 has:
  • One common component receiver, with the remaining parts (barrel, optics, stock, hand guards, auxiliary weapons) attached as needed.
  • Combining three optic units into one not only reduces weapon weight, but also simplifies equipment issue, maintenance and accountability.
  • One common bullet type (5.56mm cartridge) for all models.
This is not to say that soldiers are going to enter battle toting a golf bag of rifle barrels and accessories, but rather, replacement parts can be replaced or exchanged at the unit level without worrying about system compatibility. At the end of the day, does any of this make the XM-8 more lethal than the M-16? No, as both fire the same 5.56mm cartridge … but the XM-8 completely outclasses the M-16 is in reliability, ease of maintenance, and reduced logistical requirements.

Pushing Lead

Of course, all the fancy weapons and attachments on a rifle don't mean much if it jams on the operator. One of the M-16's major flaws is jamming, due to its gas operating system, where propellant gasses are used to cycle the rifle's bolt and fire bullets. In the M-16, these gasses are vented directly back to the rifle chamber itself. This means that every time the weapon is fired, propellant gasses, gunpowder residue, and other particles are deposited directly on the bolt face (this process is called "fouling"). Eventually, the bolt becomes too dirty to fully lock into place, rendering the weapon unreliable.

While no gas-operating weapon (including the XM-8) is immune to the effects of fouling, the XM-8's system presents a clear advantage over the M-16: The receiver utilizes a six-lug rotating bolt that fully supports the cartridge case and is driven by a "pusher" type gas piston. This piston is unaffected by barrel changes, and is even capable of operating if the weapon's barrel is full of water. Most importantly, it eliminates fouling of the bolt face, which dramatically improves the weapon's overall reliability in a sustained firing situation. In short, soldiers using the XM-8 in combat should have one less thing to worry about, and that one thing can mean the difference between life and death.

Goodbye to the Past

If you add up all the M-16's flaws -- its poorly designed gas operating system, its need for constant maintenance and cleaning, its lack of interchangeable parts - it becomes clear that the XM-8 is superior to the M-16/M-4 family in all respects. It is lighter, cheaper, more reliable, and easier to maintain than the current rifle. In short, it surpasses all of the M-16's strengths while eliminating all of its weaknesses, thus earning a spot on our Military Gear Hot List.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; gunporn; m16; xm8
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last
To: MassExodus

That was my reaction when I first watched it.


41 posted on 06/04/2004 6:08:00 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
There are only so many manufacturers in the world capable of designing and producing military small arms in army-sized quantities. What American companies competed with HK on this contract and lost?

HK is a German company, but the weapons will be made in Georgia. The Germans outsourced to America.

42 posted on 06/04/2004 6:08:29 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (I've lost turret power; I have my nods and my .50. Hooah. I will stay until relieved. White 2 out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

Similar to my "Johnny-7 OMA" of many years ago.


43 posted on 06/04/2004 6:15:13 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

I want one. I would want it more if it wasn't shaped like a fish.


44 posted on 06/04/2004 6:15:35 AM PDT by BadAndy (Specializing in unnecessarily harsh comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Friend

I'll give you the FAMAS to avoid arguing. I fired a semi-auto one and the only thing I didn't like was the short sight radius. Like an AK, it's hard to hit with because of that.

I claim igorance on the AAT-52 and FR-F2 until I can get some reference material. If they're closely derived from a Browning or Mauser action then I say it's not a french design. In the case of the FR-F2 I would ask what quantities they are produced in. It's a lot easier to keep quality up on small quantities.

From the pictures I saw of the MAT-49 I thought it would be pretty fun to shoot, given the magwell/grip arrangement and general layout like an MP-40. In reality it had an inconsistant rate of fire with good ammo, tended to jam at the beginning and end of the magazine and didn't appear to be very well made. The MP40, UZI, M1A1 Thompson and even the Sten generally shoot to the point of aim with proper spec ammo. Either the French regulated their sights for some crazy stuff or crazy distances or they just didn't bother because none of us who were shooting that thing could hit anything except by walking rounds (when it ran) onto the various cans and other berm flotsam. You wouldn't expect an open bolt submachinegun to have a decent trigger pull, after all, what would be the point? You would expect it to not require the finger strength of an orangutang and in the case of the MAT-49 I fired you would be disappointed. One gun does not represent them all but I've read where others have encountered this.


45 posted on 06/04/2004 6:16:09 AM PDT by nerdwithamachinegun (All generalizations are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

WOW!!!!


46 posted on 06/04/2004 6:17:08 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
How come you didn't post the stuff about the stryker and the molle equipment?
47 posted on 06/04/2004 6:17:53 AM PDT by dts32041 (What is the exit strategy for Europe and Japan ? - I don't think there was one, we are still there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
12 Pdr. Napoleon Model 1857

12 - Pounder Field Howitzer Model 1841

The Napoleon is not a true howitzer. It lacks a chamber.

The French made good guns. Napoleon was a gunner.

48 posted on 06/04/2004 6:20:26 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (I've lost turret power; I have my nods and my .50. Hooah. I will stay until relieved. White 2 out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
That was my reaction when I first watched it.

Should have seen the reaction one of the screaming libs in the office here in Boston.

Played the clip for him, thought his head would explode.

He's off raving about it just now.

*snark

49 posted on 06/04/2004 6:20:35 AM PDT by MassExodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: Happy2BMe
The French 75, much like the john browning designs, became the standard all other artilley was judge by.
51 posted on 06/04/2004 6:23:43 AM PDT by dts32041 (What is the exit strategy for Europe and Japan ? - I don't think there was one, we are still there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithamachinegun
Could well be that way, for I never fired a MAT-49. It once was the standard SMG in the French Army and police, but now the H&K models are more common in police duty, and the "Bugle" (the French nickname for the FA-MAS) has totally replaced the SMG and semi-automatic rifles.

The AAT-52 is a good general-purpose MG, but has the draw back of jamming easily if the cartridge bands are not greased - something every soldier usually learns quickly enough not to be too much of a problem. Only problem I see there is it used a 7.5mm caliber that's no longer the standard for French forces.

As for the FR-F2, it really seems to be a good sniper rifle - I can't say whether its designs has been inspired by another weapon, but I suppose it must be the case since most weapons are enhanced ripoffs of some older model, like the M-60 and the MG-42.
52 posted on 06/04/2004 6:25:09 AM PDT by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Light 12-pounder, M1857 -- Familiarly known as the "Napoleon". It was also referred to as a "gun-howitzer", because it was capable of firing at a relatively high angle, like a howitzer, but this term is not strictly apt because it has no chamber.
53 posted on 06/04/2004 6:26:12 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (I've lost turret power; I have my nods and my .50. Hooah. I will stay until relieved. White 2 out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
I agree "it looks like a well desiigned weapon". Looks can be deceiving in the engineering world. I have beeen exposed to many do it all solutions over the years. Most fail in one or more modes.

I believe an M-4 will do most of these tasks today with a proven basic platform that is familiar to the troops.

Changing over to Steiner's M-16 forty years ago was a monumental cluster; that cost many American soldiers their lives. I for one do not want to see that mess happen again.

FWIW H&K is a very competent company and I hold nothing against them.

I also find it interesting that the article notes the prototype was based upon Remington .223, for all of you couch soldiers a .223 IS NOT the same thing as a 5.56mm. They are interchangable in function BUT have different SPECS!

Just dance with them that brung ya.

54 posted on 06/04/2004 6:26:50 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Works for me.


55 posted on 06/04/2004 6:27:26 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Kill, 'em all, now. Then they cannot kill our sons and daughters tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

It's swell that the minimum waged parts assemblers in Georgia will be spending some of the $$ in Walmart, but the real Ching Ching goes back to Beer and Bratwurst Land.


56 posted on 06/04/2004 6:31:47 AM PDT by WideGlide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MassExodus

>>The company rep barely flinched while one handedly hosing down the range with 100 rounds.<<

Bring the females up to the front line! We've got a weapon they can handle. Oh What advances we are making in this new world. Just remarkable, aren't we?

Annie Oakley


57 posted on 06/04/2004 6:35:19 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
This is interesting (to me) :

Whether the user is a sniper or part of an attack team, the XM-8 can accommodate all uses. It uses four different interchangeable barrels (a 9" compact, a 12.5" assault, a 20" match grade sharpshooter, or a 20" heavy barrel for sustained high ROF applications), each of which can be swapped out at the unit level in less than 2 minutes.

...In addition to incorporating the three sights into one system, the sight is zeroed at the factory and can be removed and reinstalled by the operator without specialized tools, or the loss of zero.

Can they really maintain accuracy on such a modular weapon?

There's no reason why we can't have this kind of accuracy/reliability in today's weapons, however sometimes in the acquisition process, weapons/weapons systems start to grow or become "do-it-all" systems, and become a jack of all trades and master of none.

58 posted on 06/04/2004 6:36:34 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

[ANECDOTAL "PROOF"]
I talked with a couple of Aussie protective services dudes at lunch one day while I was in Baghdad at the CPA palace a few months ago. I asked them about a supposed email from an Aussie infantry guy complaing about the AUG. The complaints were about mags weakening in the extreme heat, frequency of accidental (negligent?) discharges due to the exposed trigger, difficulty clearing malfunctions and dirt sensitivity. In their opinion the email was probably genuine. It got batted around on AR15.com about a year or so ago.

Their only substantial complaint was that the mags wear out more quickly in the heat and malfunction when extremely hot. The accidental discharges are a problem but they chalked it up to human error. According to them, if an AUG is exposed to constant desert temperatures and sun they do tend to jam due to the magazine getting too hot and slightly weakening. They also said that the AUG, without the heavy barrel, tends to walk around a lot on auto. I have experienced that myself with an AUG.

[/ANECDOTAL "PROOF"]

The point I was trying to make about the AUG is that, like most europlastic firearms, it doesn't live up to the hype. It's just another pea shooter with it's own problems and isn't really and better or much worse than an M16, AK or other mass produced infantry weapons. Like the M16, the AUG's weakness is it's magazines. I'll bet that G36/XM8 mags will have similar problems in desert environments.


59 posted on 06/04/2004 6:37:03 AM PDT by nerdwithamachinegun (All generalizations are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
If you add up all the M-16's flaws -- its poorly designed gas operating system, its need for constant maintenance and cleaning, its lack of interchangeable parts - it becomes clear that the XM-8 is superior to the M-16/M-4 family in all respects.

Actually, the AR-18, designed by Stoner 30 years ago, shows every one of these same advantages over the M-16, plus it uses M-16 magazines

Another 30 year old Stoner design - the Stoner System - also offers all of the advantages above, as well as supporting an entire family of small arms.

I agree with the poster that mentioned the down side of a 9 inch barrel and a 223 class round - why not just pass out 45 pistols? They'd be more lethal...

Just my uninformed 2 cents, but if the US were to introduce a new upgraded round, they aught to use the .243 - it's just a necked down .308, so there are already numerous high quality firearms (rifles and machine guns) that can be easily adapted to it - m-60, ar-10, etc. Plus, it's a low recoil round (compared to 308) that has some of the flattest trajectories and lowest winddrift numbers around, making it an easy round to build very accurate, easy to use, easy to train on firearms around.

60 posted on 06/04/2004 6:37:48 AM PDT by jscd3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson