XM-8: New U.S. Service Rifle?

Modern Firearms and Ammunition website ^ | unknown | Unknown

[Long Cut]

Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: no data
Barrel length: no data
Weight: 2.67 kg empty
Rate of fire: no data
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds (STANAG)

The development of the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle was initiated by US Army in the 2002, when contract was issued to the Alliant Techsystems Co of USA to study possibilities of development of kinetic energy part of the XM29 OICW weapon into separate lightweight assault rifle, which could, in the case of success, replace the aging M16A2 rifles and M4A1 carbines in US military service. According to the present plans, the XM8 should enter full production circa 2005, if not earlier, several years before the XM-29 OICW. The XM8 (M8 after its official adoption) should become a standard next generation US forces assault rifle. It will fire all standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition, and, to further decrease the load on the future infantrymen, a new type of 5.56mm ammunition is now being developed. This new ammunition will have composite cases, with brass bases and polymer walls, which will reduce weight of the complete ammunition, while maintaining compatibility with all 5.56mm NATO weapons. Along with 20% weight reduction in the XM8 (compared to the current issue M4A1 carbine), this will be a welcome move for any infantryman, already overloaded by protective, communications and other battle equipment.

The XM8 will be quite similar to the "KE" (kinetic energy) part of the XM-29 OICW system, being different mostly in having a telescoped plastic buttstock of adjustable length, and a detachable carrying handle with the Picatinny rail.

Technical description. The XM8 is a derivative of the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle, and thus it is almost similar to that rifle in design and functioning. The key differences are the NATO-standard magazine housing that will accept M16-type magazines, the set of Picatinny rails on the forend, telescoped buttstock of adjustable length and a different scope, mounted on the Picatinny rail, built into the detachable carrying handle.

[Travis McGee]

Whoops! Thanks for the current M-14 info.

[Shooter 2.5]

I have no idea why the AK's jammed. I have seen so many newbies bring out their new stuff straight from the gunshow that I don't ask about jams the way I should. Heck, I can't get a straight answer when I ask an owner about the accuracy of their Mini's.

There is one guy that we know who is legendary for his ability of keeping his M-16 running with C-mags. He said just buy Colt parts.

[Shooter 2.5]

I have no idea how they can seal out the talcum powder sand. I think the weakness of the M-16 series from what I've seen is the tighter chamber and the extractor. If sand gets into either of these areas, it's all over.

The only solution I can think of is to tell the troops to stop soaking the rifles in oil during desert operations.

Anyone can tell me I'm wrong if they choose to.

[Long Cut]

Thank you for the well-considered and informative answers.

Now let's hope the designers of the new rifle also think about this. Here's to hoping they actually talk to those whose boots get dirty from time to time about what THEY think they'll need.

[Long Cut]

"The only solution I can think of is to tell the troops to stop soaking the rifles in oil during desert operations."

Do they really do this? I was under the impression that there were some good dry-type lubricants in use.

If this is true, it is damn near unforgivable.

[Shooter 2.5]

There were comments that the troops were using an excessive amount of the old CLP. That's when they bothered to clean the rifles. I don't know if it's really true.

It's really a shame. Without that ambush, the Iraqi war would have been flawless.

[Long Cut]

Here's another article on this project.

Seems they're shooting for a 2006 introduction. The report also discusses some of the reliability tests performed. One such mentioned 10,000 rounds fired nonstop with no cleaning, from a half-dozen weapons each. Only one mechanical failure resulted.

The modular features of the gun are also discussed...barrels, for example, are of the quick-change variety, enabling shorter or longer as the mission requires.

[Shooter 2.5]

My son had four more years to go in the Marines. I think he may be out by the time he sees one of these.

[Travis McGee]

Sounds great in the reliability dept. I totally agree with their dividing the OICW project into two parts, and developing them separately.

[Long Cut]

I agree...I have the feeling that the OICW may turn out to be a boondoggle. For one thing, it's too heavy by about 15 pounds. For another, the unit costs about 20 grand a piece. And the fact that it is virtually useless if the electronics break down or the batteries run out are great mitigating factors in its introduction.

If it does go away, we'll still need a new rifle, and this one will be available.

[Long Cut]

I just learned in a story on awbansunset.com that, henceforth, CETME and G-3 rifles for sale in the U.S. can NO LONGER feature the muzzle brake. Apparently, those in the BATFE aviary have decided that this device can be used as a grenade launcher, because it is 22 mm in diameter, and this is the size of European rifle grenade launchers. They decided this without any testing of the unit to see if it would actually work.

I was wondering why the CETMEs and G-3s I was looking at online suddenly lost their brakes. They now look like MP-5s on steroids. Note: this does NOT affect rifles which are not semi-auto.

This nonsense is truly out of hand.

[Long Cut]

Link to the story at # 391 HERE. Witness the idiocy.

[archy]

I just learned in a story on awbansunset.com ... This nonsense is truly out of hand.

330 days to go.

-archy-/-

[Travis McGee]

I always believed the "two at once" introduction of the OICW was a huge mistake. Before there was an M-16/203, there wes an M-79 grenade launcher.

That's how we should approach the OICW. Build and field a "stand alone" 20mm range finding air bursting weapon. Put one in every platoon, then squad. After it's thoroughly debugged and proven, THEN possibly put a lighter version under a 5.56. Only then.

[The Coopster]

Yes, they are all fine weapons.

But, under 6 lbs, compared to, what, 10 lbs? Time to evolve.

I'll take the lighter weapon. I've already got 50 lbs of gear hanging from my body; why would I want to make it worse by carrying one of those dinosaurs?

[archy]

I always believed the "two at once" introduction of the OICW was a huge mistake. Before there was an M-16/203, there wes an M-79 grenade launcher.

That's how we should approach the OICW. Build and field a "stand alone" 20mm range finding air bursting weapon. Put one in every platoon, then squad. After it's thoroughly debugged and proven, THEN possibly put a lighter version under a 5.56. Only then.

First, build a working, semi-auto [full?] 20mm/25mm weapon that works, Kalishnikov-reliable and accurate, and then set about reducing the weight to tolerable levels and goals.

Now where might we find something like that....

[GirlyGirl2003]

Ill take ten, please.

[archy]

I'll take the lighter weapon. I've already got 50 lbs of gear hanging from my body; why would I want to make it worse by carrying one of those dinosaurs?

[archy]

Ill take ten, please.

One for every registered voter/citizen in the country, please.

-archy--

[Long Cut]

Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that, ban or no ban, civilians will have a LOOOOONG wait before they see one in their local gun shop, even a semi.

However, the HK G-36 might appear after a sunset occurs. After that, it could be made to look right with some accessories.