Army sets sights on XM8, a lighter, more-reliable rifle

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 3/21/2004 | Wayne Woolley

[Incorrigible]

The replacement, called the XM8, is under development at Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County and is being tested at Fort Benning, Ga.

Developers say the rifle with the futuristic-looking curves is a marked improvement over the M-16 because it is shorter, lighter, easier to clean and unlikely to jam in a firefight -- an M-16 shortcoming illustrated in the ambush that wounded former POW Jessica Lynch and killed 11 of her comrades in Iraq.

[kildak]

The dentist's name is Dr. Gary K. Roberts.

[kildak]

You'll find Dr. Roberts posts at www.tacticalforums.com quite a bit. I believe his screen name is DocGKR.

[crz]

I dunno if you are directing this at me..but I have taken that action and had it right in the mud and dirt and it always fires. I have also gone and left it overnight without cleaning it after having it in the grime and it fired without fail. On purpose I left it like that for a few days to see if I could get it to malfunction and it didnt. I suppose if one left it for weeks one could get the garand action to fail..but thats a little extreme. Now to be sure, the one I own is stainless so it isnt suseptable to rust..but still. The only grind I have aginst the mini 14 is poor grouping. But what the heck..2-3 inch groups at 100 yards is good enough when your clicking off so many rounds. It aint no 06 remember. I bought it to have fun with.

I wish A person could have got about a thousand of those to our troups in Iraq while the big show was on. I bet they would have started fighting to have one. I know for a fact that these little buggers would have out performed the tinker toys they used as far as reliability.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Less than two hours ago, I put 17 rounds through my P7M8 -- rapid fire at 15 meters -- and all in a 2.5" circle.

---

I'll bet it got a little toasty!

Do you know the trick for silent de-cock? (Stick your pinky up behing the trigger gurad above the lever, and release slowly.)

[Jack Black]

I don't see that what Nato uses in anyway impacts the cost to me, the U.S. Taxpayer. As outlined elsewhere in this thread we paid some large amount of money to the Germans to design this rifle for us. (It might have been cheaper to hire Russians and resulted in an even MORE durable rifle. Compare a Mosin Nagant and a Mauser for instance, or a G-3 and and and AK-47.) Anyway, most of NATO won't help us when we need 'em anyway.

I say lets arm the "worlds policemen" with a decent rifle/catridge combination and screw the French and Germans. The Brits are our most reliable allie so partnering with them would be fine. Their current rifle is a total disaster, the weird bullpup thing. So they need a new one too. Other than that, who cares.

[Jack Black]

The 5.45 has some advantages over the 5.56. The 5.56 relies on velocity, in large part, to achieve effectiveness. That's one problem with the short tubes we use to dispense it. The 5.45 on the other hand uses a special bullet design with an airpocket that causes it to destabilize on contact and tumble. The Muj called it the poison bullet because it caused so much damage. It may be a more effect poodle round than our own 5.56.

Personally I still prefer both the .308 and the rifles chambered for it, especially the FAL which is awesome. The M-14 is no slouch and the Garand in .308 is excellent also. The AR-10 is better than the M-16 because the big round and larger bore minimize the propellant build up issue. Aramalite has done a good job working on the AR-10, now DPMS and Bushmaster are building them too. The AR is cool because it is great for mounting scopes, one of the shortcomings of many older designs, including the beloved FN-FAL. Personally were I the Czar of Army Procurement I would pick one of these designs. Why start in now with a brand new one, sure to have teething problems.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Also, at one time there was an article posted here re:the dismal results of M4A1 carbine in Afghanistan. It didn't reach out to 500 meters-ACOG or not. In fact story said Taliturds were mocking the US troops as they new they couldn't be hit.

Right. That "Story" was written by one of the dentist's butt boys from one of those gun-nut websites. There are a number of details in it that show that it was not written by anybody in Afghanistan, or in special ops (or, probably, in the military. Maybe in MI, QM or some other paramilitary activity). The after-action report from Operation Anaconda documented 500m kills with the M4, "a range it is not even designed for." I'll believe an official AAR before I believe stuff written by 400 lb. wannabees that hang around gun-nut sites and talk about how bad they be.

I have access to all the official AARs and lessons learned and have never heard of TB "mocking" our guys... and the thing about them being out of range proves that it was written by some gun goon, and not an actual soldier. Because only some drooling wannabe would not realise that there are plenty of things that can reach out and touch the guy you can't hit with your rifle: sniper rifles, machine guns, mortars, helicopter gunships, and jets to name a few. Most SF teams have at least one guy that can drop a first- or second-round 60mm mortar shell on a guy in the open, direct lay, at 500-1500m ranges. That tends to diminish any taunting the guy plans.

Then, an issue M14 is not accurate to 500m. Not even close. In fact, it's usually less accurate than an issue M16-series weapon. And a National Match M14 is not reliable in field conditions. The various imitation M14s sold to civilians are mostly REAL junk with cheap Chinese cast receivers that won't hold up to regular shooting (the issue military weapons have forged receivers, but these receivers were never released to the civilian market. The early Springfield Armory (Geneseo) M-1As had forged receivers, but later ones didn't -- and the very earliest ones didn't either. Caveat emptor.

The only reason that the US adopted the M14 is that we had to justify the national armory that developed it. No foreign nation adopted it except Taiwan, which did -- briefly -- for political reasons only. I have a friend who carried one because he could hit at long range with it, and he thought it looked cool, and he had the option. I had the option too, and carried an M4A1 and was quite happy with it.

For an issue weapon it was a bad choice even in the fifties, with little improvement over the Garand it replaced. At the same time we made the even worse choice of the M60, which piece of dung we are only finally disposing of (the only ones I saw still in use were chopper door guns).

Finally, don't mistake the custom-smithed weapons that some special operations units use for issue weapons. Apples and oranges. And don't mistake any movie for reality.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

A lot of people are critical of the 5.56 round, claiming it is no match for our enemies 7.62 AK round.

Yeah. That's just ignorant. I'd rather get shot with the 7.62 x 39 if I have to get shot.

When they get around to replacing these antiques with the newer AK 74 they will be firing the 5.45 mm round.

Yeah, but with at least 35 or 40 million 7.62mm AKs out there, and maybe a max of 4 million 5.45mm AK-74 series produced, it won't happen soon. for example, the Russians used AK-74s throughout their combat in Afghanistan, but it is very rare to see 5.45mm weapons there. The one guy whose troops have them, that I know about, is VP Khalili, and his weapons were provided by the Coalition in 2001. Everybody else has 7.62mm AK/AKM and 7.62mm PKM for machine guns. There is older stuff around but no one uses it. I wish I could post my pictures to this thread. There was even a rifle I couldn't ID (one of the other guys did, it was a Canadian Ross Rifle from 100 years ago).

I don't think that the 5.45 offers a very large improvement over the 7.62. It is almost as heavy, it is just as bulky, they haven't really improved the weapon (big deal, a better muzzle brake) and the range and accuracy are about the same. It does have a devastating effect if it hits bone squarely, because of the higher velocity. A 7.62mmx39 will usually punch through and a 5.45 creates a primary, secondary and tertiary fracture zone - bone evulsed (gone), bone shattered, bone cracked but in place. But soft tissue wounds are really about the same.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Long Cut]

NATO: North Atlantic TREATY Organization. As in, created when we signed a treaty, thus making it and its rules "the law of the land". Thus, when it comes to such things as cartriges, we HAVE to all use a NATO-Standard round.

Bottom line is, if WE want to adopt a new one, we have to at least try to get NATO to do so as well. It's "The Law".

[Criminal Number 18F]

No, his name is Dr. Gary Roberts, LtCmdr USNR,

Who initially came on the scene claiming to be a SEAL... and by the way, he's been promoted to Commander now... in the dental corps, or limited duty officer, or whatever the swabbies call it.

he is a maxillofacial surgeon

Ah, is he an MD, or is he a DDS? He's a freaking dentist. When he has to be honest about it, as in his peer-reviewed publications, he signs himself Gary K. Roberts, DDS, and when he doesn't he has been just as dishonest about that as he was about his SEAL shtick. Check him out; he holds a dental licence, not a medical licence. I'm not a SEAL but I don't claim to be. I'm not a dentist, either (it's a trade I respect, that requires intelligence and hard preparation). What I claim to be, I am. The dentist ought to try that sometime, but it would probably crush him.

and is also a trained forensic ballistic expert

Trained by whom? I think you will find he's an autodidact ("self-taught.").

...for NavSpecwar

To which he occasionally has been assigned (for annual training) as a dental officer, not as an operator, ever, and not as a ballistics expert, as far as I know...

and the FBI.

I can't comment on that. I have no insight to what happens in the J. Edgar Hoover building.

He is not a fraud

Then why doesn't he admit he's a dentist with a hobby of wound ballistics, and stop all the outrageous lies to promote himself? If his data are good they can stand on their own and don't need false claims to promote them. I've read some of his stuff (for example in the IWBA journal whiile Fackler was publishing it) and he is at least willing to use the scientific method, although I have doubts about some of his modeling techniques. Fackler published some of his stuff, and Fackler is picky.

and the CN18F poster needs to read more and blather less.

I've read quite enough of Roberts's stuff, him and his various flunkies. If he were to moderate his claims of who he is, down to where his legitimate achievements stand, my respect for him would grow tenfold. He could also (if belatedly) go get the honours he has falsely claimed. There was a guy in my group who resigned a commission as a medical officer to go and participate in the war (he died, but it seemed like a good idea at the time). That option was open to Roberts... he didn't take it. You can ask him why he didn't find a way to apply all this expertise. No doubt there were root canals calling him.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

We still come back to: 7.62x51 is a powerful round, which adds up to more weight. Weapons climb in weight as the years go by and they get improved. The original M16 weighed 6.7 lb. The M16A4 comes in at something like 9 1/2. Some of the stuff added is good (RAILS) and some not so good (if the heavy barrel was for accuracy or heat rejection I'd be all for it, but the stated reason it went in the M16A2 was: GIs were bending barrels breaking the bands on MRE cases. Jaysus! That's an NCO-level training issue, not a reason to redesign a flipping firearm!

The only weapon we still have that shoots the .308 is the M240, which is one of the best weapons we have ever issued. Partly because it wasn't invented here, but in a way it was: because what FN's Dieudonne Saive did was: invert the locking mechanism of a BAR so it could feed from the top, and attach a feed tray copied from the German MG42. The gas system of the MAG (which is the M240G) is the simplified version from the late FN BARs, which BAR fiends (I'm not one) say was the best of the breed. No cups and cones... man I hated cups and cones.

True there are some M14s issued as special purpose rifles, especially in the Stryker brigades (very well-led, forward-thinking, flexible outfits, whatever you think of the vehicle). SF still has the M24 and won't be giving it up anytime soon. But the only .308 out there in quantity is the general purpose machine gun. The cartridge is almost ideally situated for that weapon, also. With the M240G you can bring effective fire out to great distances: the book says 800m on the tripod and 1100 on the tripod with T&E but our guys have taken shots at longer distances. The M240G has a mounting rail for optics which the US Army is taking more and more advantage of every day. The iron sight is probably some day not going to be included in the weapon. My M4A1 fell maybe 30 feet to a hard impact on stone, but the ACOG was undamaged and held zero (the PEQ-2 was a writeoff though). You couldn't have done that with the scopes of 1965 which is why nobody in Vietnam had these (the Son Tay raiders had Aimpoints though -- first combat use of that sight). Which, RAILS and optics, brings me to:

The AR is cool because it is great for mounting scopes, one of the shortcomings of many older designs, including the beloved FN-FAL.

I've seen FALs rejiggered with RAILS and they looked factory and good to hook. Those particular ones had short barrels (16") which I think is a bad tradeoff in the FAL or any 7.62x51. We have tried a few different arrangements of sights on the M4A1 and are really looking forward to the next generation which will be more compact.

As a civilian you can buy anything you like (as can the troops when they are off duty, and many do). You probably can't get (and haven't much use for) an IR laser pointer, but we found it possible to rig up weapons with both ACOGs and holographic sights, or PVS-14s and holo sights, giving you one shooter for Hadjis near and far. You want to keep the stuff as close to the centreline of the weapon as possible. M16s get topheavy and muzzle heavy; because the FAL is heavier it might bear up better under all the junk.

I haven't tried any of the new AR-10s. I tried the old Artillerie Inrichtingen one and apart from the novelty it really sucked (unreliable). But it did deliver the superior M16 ergonomics in a 7.62, and as far as reliability goes, nothing is reliable when Africans have owned it for thirty years. In most third world countries, everything is either new (<3 years) or beat to tatters and cannibalised. Preventive maintenance remains a concept anchored in the Anglosphere and Europe for some reason.

Mechanically, by the way, the XM8 seems to be an old design. Inside, it looks a lot like an AR-18.

Right now it looks like both things are going to happen: the M8 for general issue and a smaller issue of 6.8mm weapons, which might become the new standard, If that happens NATO won't be a problem, about half the nations are due for new weapons anyway, and the big three (GB, FR, D) include one who is looking for any excuse to ditch their weapon (GB), one who's on the fringes of NATO anyway (FR), and one whose service weapon is easily converted to the 6.8.

There are a lot of compromises in these designs, both of them, but the factor the Chief of Staff is least willing to compromise on is speed of deployment. These might not be the best he can theoretically field, but they are the best he can practically field in the next two years. This guy will never turn down "better tomorrow" for "best some time in the future when we get to it."

I was a skeptic of the 6.8 at first but the guys that developed it have won me over. Most of them are experienced people shooters, not target shooters (or bull shooters). The reason it is meeting resistance now is that it was developed very, very fast in a SOCOM/industrial partnership, and the usual suspects in the OD and QM branches were cut out of the development cycle. This is not because they are bad people necessarily, but only in the interests of speed. But now lots of feathers are ruffled. That's why we'll likely see the M8 iin 5.56 first. Only the barrels will need to be changed to change over, I believe, and a company or battalion armorer can do it without special tools. This is less expensive than it looks, because the US Army is going to be firing a LOT more ammunition in training. Especially the support units which used to fire max 40 rounds per soldier per year. The Stryker brigades' combat support and service support outfits did lots of range fire AND live-fire fire-and maneuver and immediate action drills before deploying. Anyone who shoots has known all along what it took overhauled brass to teach the army: shoot more, shoot better, live, and win.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[R. Scott]

My personal preference was the M-14. It could reach out and touch someone easily at 500 yards.
Of course, we were firing at targets in the 100-500 yard range, and being on boats we didn’t have to hump our ammo.

[Killing Time]

Ah yes the SA80 - a classic design by committee procurement fiasco.

However, I seem to remember a couple of reports to the effect that the re-vamped L85 performed creditably in Iraq.

[archy]

And a National Match M14 is not reliable in field conditions. The various imitation M14s sold to civilians are mostly REAL junk with cheap Chinese cast receivers that won't hold up to regular shooting (the issue military weapons have forged receivers, but these receivers were never released to the civilian market. The early Springfield Armory (Geneseo) M-1As had forged receivers, but later ones didn't -- and the very earliest ones didn't either. Caveat emptor.

I went through basic with the M14, carried one frequently, not always, during border tours in Germany in 1967, at a time while I was also giving the NATO weapons familiarization courses to 7th Army NCO Academy students at Bad Toelz...which freed up a *real* Q-school trained SF trooper for something more worthy. I generally preferred an M14 for accuracy work, [best sights and a scope mount] the L1A1 FAL for a barebones grunt rifle, and the German G3 if 7.62 full-auto or a compact para buttstock was required. Later, during my visit to the spas and health resorts of Southeast Asia, I pretty soon wound up detailed as a *have gun[s] will travel* sniper, covering for units who had their guys off to the 9th Infantry's sniper school at at Bear Cat. I had 4 M14s to pick from, including a pair of XM21A1's with Redfield autoranging scopes, and the one I preferred, with a Starlight scope reworked to mount a 2-7 Redfield that a pal brought back from his R&R in Japan; he didn't like it- I did. I eventually turned up a couple of other rifles too, including an Australian L1A1 FAL and an L42 Enfield boltgun. They worked too.

The worst thing about a NM tuned M14 was that if you disassembled it for cleaning, you lost the snug fit of the glass-bedded stock fit to the receiver and trigger group. Neither was wet weather moisture good for the ones with the wood stocks. And if fired full-auto, unless REALLY well lubricated [grease, not oil, dri-slide or LSA] the bolt roller would crack and split, also if it developed the slightest rust on the roller. Sights broke a lot, front sling swivel rivets tore out of the stocks, and safety springs snapped sometimes, requiring a wind of green tape to keep 'em from flopping back to the safe position. Sometimes firing pins rusted in the bolt channel but I took better care of my rifle than that, and eventually chrome-plated firing pins were issued.

The M14/M21 is a good rifle, though it's not perfect- nothing is. It's a much better sniper's rifle or *designated marksman's rifle* than a grunt-issue piece, though keeping Marines from stealing your M14 was always a problem, one reason I liked the L1A1 SLR I eventually picked up from the Aussies working about as far south of saigon as we were north. It liked their ammunition better than either our M80 ball or M118 National Match rounds.

I qualified as expert every time I fired with it except for once when we fired for record with gas masks on. Two weeks later, we got a chance to fire again for score and most everyone improved their score considerably. After I got back to the states in 1970, I got to both work as armorer support of the 5th Army matches at Ft Riley as well as compete in that match. By May I was out of the Army, but I still got to and shot at Camp Perry that year, the 4th time I'd shot at Perry.

As for an issue M14 being capable of COM hits on human-sized targets at 500m, that was a standard distance for the far targets on the pop-up range back then. I could do it almost every time, certainly getting a hit more often than not. With a scope and a good supported rest, it's even easier. And the 600-yard NM stage with a issue rifle isn't terribly difficult either if you've got match ammo; it's keeping your shots in the Xs on the 200 and 300 yard targets that's the trick. On the 600-yard NM target, the ten ring is 12 inches in diameter. It's reasonably easy meat for a Garand. A thousand yards is LOTS harder.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Where's the bayonet lug? Chesty Puller would never approve.

[donozark]

If a soldier cannot shoot an M-14 accurately to 400 meters-then perhaps he should find another avocation. 500 meters? No problem that I can see, for me. And not talking NM.

Article I referenced was not from some "400 pound wannabee" off the gun boards. It was over two years ago. Was it accurate? I wasn't there. The incident was finally resolved by mortars. Works for me.

I cited the book Black Hawk Down. Not the movie. From p.208..."They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition and carried a Vietnam era M-14. "...His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet..."

Civilian versions? Not talking Chinese knockoffs. I have had no problems with SA weapons.

Few nations adopted M-14. True. It was in our inventory briefly. Most choose FN-FAL. 91 nations IIRC. Taiwan etal may have been for "political purposes." But same can be said of M-16. Israel comes to mind. Britain may change as well, due to the accursed SA-80. "Recalled" more times than a Ford Pinto.

A couple articles I did find here on FR attest to some problems with the M-4 version of M-16. "Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle." And "Troops who fought in Afghanistan list benefits, troubles of weapons." Aug.4,2002

I'll dismiss your last para off-hand. Hardly need to have the differences between custom weapons and issued weapons explained to me. And as stated, my info came from book-not the movie. And the book was based on interviews of the actual participants.

I carried an M-14 all over Ft.Polk in the 60s. Later Germany. Then I was issued an M-16A1 enroute to VN. Did I prefer the M-14 to the M-16A1? Yes. Do I prefer the M-14 to my Colt MT6700? Toss-up. This Colt is by far the best of the "AR series" that has ever graced my gun safe. A far cry from the M-16A1 I was issued in VN...over two hundred improvements. Accurate as hell.Both work for me.

I am an "old fashioned" kind of guy. Just to many bells and whistles on M-4 for me. But it's whatever one is comfortible with.

[donozark]

Forgot this source:Stars and Stripes July13,2003-Army,Marines rate weapon success.

"The most significant negative comment was reference to the M-4's range. The Army report stated. In the desert there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that maybe 500 meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range."

[donozark]

Was quite amused several weeks ago to see all the M-14s currently in use in Haiti (of all places)! HA! Must have been left-overs from Papa Doc. Wonder what the barrels look like?

[archy]

Was quite amused several weeks ago to see all the M-14s currently in use in Haiti (of all places)! HA! Must have been left-overs from Papa Doc. Wonder what the barrels look like?

Other than the match rifle barrels, M14 barrels are chrome-lined, and all U.S. M80 ball is non-corrosive [though some foreign and tracer ammo is not] There's no reason to think otherwise that with minimal maintenance, the M14s are in servicable or at least easily refurbished condition.

Many of those in the former Haitian army were trained by US Special Forces, some in Central America, and have a pretty good idea of what they're doing; those seem to be the ones getting M14s and the few Galils seen. The lesser grunts get the older Garands- several of which looked like they were in VERY decent shape, others a bit more tired- or the various M16 copies from Singapore/Korea/Taiwan or German MP5 submachineguns. Likewise a few G3s or Spanish CETME rifles in 7,62 were also seen, probably from the neighboring Dominican Republic, and a lot of cops/ ex-cops carrying Mossberg 500P pump shotguns.

Don't count on those old Garands and M14s being quite done with yet. I just hope it's not American Marines they're fired at.

Wed Mar 17, 5:17 PM ET

Haitian police inspect guns that were handed over by supporters of ousted President Jean Bertrand Aristide in the Cite Soleil district of Port-au-Prince, Haiti on Wednesday March 17, 2004. Four gangs of Aristide supporters handed over their guns to Haitian police and French peacekeepers.

(AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)

[donozark]

Salt-water may have had some effect. One of the M-14s I saw had no sights at all on it. Seemed like a "left over." But of course, would still be effective if fired at close range. Even the weapon wrapped in duct-tape in the pic may be deadly close-up.

Just hope they can end this thing before long. But with Haiti's history? Wishful thinking...