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.

[LenS]

Using the CPI from 1966 to 2003, 90 USD is the same as 511 USD's today. So the real price increase is only 89 USD. For an item purchased by the US govt., that's a remarkably low increase.

[Criminal Number 18F]

The M16 use to have full auto and then they took that away so they could make more money developing another squad automatic weapon. Jive arguments that the troops fired too many bullets were used. ( Fire discipline is a taught skill, not one to be limited by technological limiters.)

Yes, yes, yes. The M4 the poor bloody infantry gets has the retarded 3-shot (or sometimes 2-shot or 1-shot, sorry bout that) burst mechanism that was thrown into the M16A2 as a way to eliminate the need to "waste" ammunition in training soldiers in fire control. In specific situations full auto is useful -- at close ranges, and in achieving instantaneous fire superiority as in a meeting engagement or counterambush. So SOF got the M4A1 which along with a couple of other tweaks has the auto-fire mechanism of original M16/M16A1 vintage.

Now that the Army has decided that other troops deserve rifle training too, this abortive burst gadget seems destined for the scrap heap. Ordnance and Quartermaster guys may try to resuscitate it, but in this iteration of the Army the combat soldiers are driving the train. (That will be good news for the Marines, who often get stuck with whatever the Army cooks up, for good or for ill. Marines are great troops, they deserve the best, too, not hand-me-downs).

Some HKs used to offer burst as a fourth choice on the dial (the others being safe, semi, and auto).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

The Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk 1 is a nice rifle as well.

Yep. Fastest bolt action ever made. Just keep your sights on target and snik-snik you're ready to shoot again. It's ugly as hell, but maybe that's just character...

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[BSunday]

Republican: "Cool! Where can I get one ? "

Democrat: "That looks so menacing"

[in the Arena]

Did you notice the disparity of cost between the M16 and M4 ? What would warrant a 50% increase beside bureaucracy ?

[Criminal Number 18F]

What's wrong with bull-pup rifles that some design work couldn't cure?

Ask H&K -- or the British Army. H&K burned through at least two gargantuan contracts to fix the British L85 bullpups and the upshot of the whole thing is that -- they still stink. SAS carries M4A1s, mostly, and won't touch the L85 with a bargepole. The rest of HMs Army has no choice but totes the L85 around. Bullpups are a good idea that are yet to have a good implementation.

The French FAMAS is almost as bad, but then again, it was designed only to be dropped or stacked...

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[BushMeister]

The M-16 was adopted for two main reasons:

1- A soldier can carry about twice as many rounds of .223 for about half the weight of the same amount of .308 rounds.

2- .223 rifles are far more controllable in full-auto mode than .308 or .30-06 rifles

The .223 round, as others have pointed out, needs to be deployed under rather limited optimal conditions in order to achieve its maximum lethality. That means shot out of a 20" barrel and hitting an enemy within 150 yards or so. If the barrel is any shorter, and/or the enemy any farther away, our soldiers are giving up terminal ballistics performance that might get them killed.

I think 40 years with a sub-standard round is long enough. the XM8 might be an improvement over the M-16 in some regards, but it's perpetuating the use of a lousy batle round.

Either crash test and develop the 6.8 X 43mm round (which has as much energy at 200 yards as the M-16 round has at the muzzle, and will fragment at velocities down to 2100 FPS versus a necessary 2600-2700 FPS for the M-16 round) or issue M-16s (or XM8s) with 1/7 twist and 75-77 grain bullets that display better fragmentation than the 62 grain bullets the US uses.

[Tailback]

The problem I see is that without addressing the real issue, the military only gets a limited benefit from a huge expense. The problem now with the AR15/M16/M4 is that with the new optics the limitations of the round are evident. Adopting the 6.8 SPC helps, but is it worth it to adopt that round when there are better rounds out there? The 6.8 is an improvement on the 5.56 but it is still a compromise because of the requirement to have the same OAL as the 5.56. I read comments of people involved with developing the 6.8 and repeatedly they write that the 6.8 is great for 0-500 meters and anything beyond that is better engaged with sniper weapons or heavy machineguns. To me that's a wrong answer! With the new optics available and the right training, there's no reason for a infantryman to not be able to at least give suppressing fire on targets 600-800 meters away. Since the Army may be going to the huge expense of adopting the XM8, why not allow it to accept longer cartridges like the .260 Rem (6.5 X 08)?

[Criminal Number 18F]

What would warrant a 50% increase [from M16 to M4]?

1. removable carrying handle to adapt to optical sights.
2. complex and expensive picatinny rails/handguard system developed by Knight's Armament Corp.
3. 4-position sliding stock costs more to make than factory stock.
4. Lower production volumes, smaller contracts, adds up to higher unit costs.
5. M16 design last changed in the 1980s, some of the M4/M4A1 changes require new tooling. Someone has to pay for it (us taxpayers, ultimately).
6. M16s being bought are being bought on contracts a few years old -- even at a low 3%, inflation adds up.

The M16A4 which incorporates most of the non-shortening changes in the M4 (i.e. removable handle, KAC/picatinny RAILs system) will probably be just as expensive when contracts are let, or damn close.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Army Air Corps]

Indeed! I bought mine after I purchased a Gewehr M1898. The G98 has little recoil, but the LE No.4 Mk.1 kicks like a bloody mule; cuaght me off guard the first time that I fired it.

[BushMeister]

For 15 pages of discussion on the 6.8 x 43mm round/rifle (including comments by some people involved with the development of same) and comparison with other rounds, go here:

6.8x43mm

[supercat]

Some HKs used to offer burst as a fourth choice on the dial (the others being safe, semi, and auto).

One thing I've wondered about: would it be practical or advisable to design a rifle with a trigger that worked like an electric typewriter's "X" key [push lightly for one strike, mash for automatic?] I would think that in a surprise situation, it would be difficult to flip a selector lever in the heat of the moment, while applying an extra 5 pounds or so on the trigger would be easy if not automatic.

[in the Arena]

That will be good news for the Marines, who often get stuck with whatever the Army cooks up, for good or for ill. Marines are great troops, they deserve the best, too, not hand-me-downs

The M16A2 is a Marine Corps development. The A2 sights, longer butt stock and heavier barrel while great for match shooting really don't lend themselves to instincitive combat shooting...but they are better than this short barrled plastic carbine.

From the article they reference fighting from vehicles and how hard it is with an M16/M4. I think they are mixing apples and oranges with their arguments. If they are mounted troops, arm them with the appropriate weapons. But if these are infantry troops being transported then arm the damn vehicle with a heavy weapon(s), put the troops on a gun truck .

The advantage of the shorter profile of this weapon is lost once the troops dismount and take to the field. This is not an infantry rifle. Where's the bayonet lug ? Did the military remove the requirement to mount a bayonet ?

[Tailback]

Yes I've seen all that. I can boil the 15 pages down for you in the following sentence.

The 6.8 SPC cartridge is the best COMPROMISE the Army could come up with being limited by the overall length requirement to not exceed that of the 5.56 NATO.

My opinion is that if the Army is going to buy a new rifle and a new main round why not go for the best SOLUTION instead of the best COMPROMISE?

[Army Air Corps]

"My opinion is that if the Army is going to buy a new rifle and a new main round why not go for the best SOLUTION instead of the best COMPROMISE?"

Because bureaucrats can only think in terms of compromise.

[Tailback]

Touche LOL!

I love your tagline.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Since the Army may be going to the huge expense of adopting the XM8, why not allow it to accept longer cartridges like the .260 Rem (6.5 X 08)?

That defeats the whole purpose of the intermediate cartridge: to give the infantryman more firepower and more mobility. A 6.5 x 51mm cartridge would probably require a nine pound weapon to avoid soldier fatigue in combat.

What people are telling you about using sniper or crew-served weapons beyond 600m is straight doctrine. Remember, a combat unit is not individual riflemen on the range. The power of the unit resides principally in its MGs and mortars. The riflemen keep these vital power-projectors from being flanked. There is a range at which your prime weapons are your crew served weapons; and there are special purpose weapons available for the rare situation where you need to bring aimed fire on individuals at 600+ meters. You should see what happens when you put scopes on the SAWs and M240s (which we have done). It's a beautiful thing, unless you're an enemy.

You can suppress at 600-800m with the M4/M16 as it is. The accuracy of the weapon is seriously degraded at 800m but it is definitely accurate enough to get the enemy to put his head down. But with a 6.5x51mm weapon, like a 7.62x51mm one, you can't carry enough ammo to go around wildly suppressing stuff.

Afghan or Iraq are a bit rare in that you do get long range shots. In Vietnam a typical sniper shot was 150m. Most firefights took place at under 20m! In Europe in training, I very seldom could see 100m straight, let alone have hopes of engaging a target there. Infantrymen are not meant to go fighting in the wide open spaces -- that's why those dudes in the rolling foxholes still have a place in the Army today. (It's also why we like to have an Apache overhead when we are out in the open like that).

Many people focus on the rifle as if it existed by itself, in a vacuum. No, it is part of the system that is a soldier. In turn, he is part of the system that is the unit. While I don't doubt that, say, the .270 Win would be better for shooting THAT guy THERE dead RIGHT NOW, it would be a grievously bad decision for the system that is an SF team, an infantry company, or an entire Army. (Weight of ammunition not only impacts your soldier but your whole logistics train. You might wind up needing double the air sorties to transport ammo. Is it worth it? I dunno -- that's why we send smart guys to general staff colleges, to answer questions like that. But it has to be considered by people who can make informed comparisons, which doesn't include me).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[BushMeister]

Well, you raise a fair question. Is the benefit of having the rounds fit into existing M-16 magazines (with some modifications) and the ability to put new 6.8 X 43mm uppers on existing M-16 lowers worth the compromise when it comes to the ballistics of the round? And how much better would an "oversized round" be? If we keep making the round heavier and give it more muzzle energy, we might be violating current beliefs as to the type of main round the basic rifle will fire.

I think the military "authorities" are wary of starting from scratch, as they envision unforeseen development problems. The fact that the 6.8 can be tested and used with relatively small modifications seems to be decisive.

[in the Arena]

I guess it's semantics, but the article referenced the M4 not the SOPMOD M4A1. The original M4 was a select fire COLT Colt Model 720 without all the Naval Warfare Center add ons.

In my engineering mind I was visualizing a comparison of the A2 and the M4...I guess 'M4' has become synonymous with the full up M4A1, and with that I can see the difference, in fact, the difference between an A2 and and M4A1 would be much greater than $300.