Father Fletch
SOC-12
It appears that our boys and girls in green are slated to get a new toy.
Here is the press page and here is the pretty PDF file about the rifle
Here is the press page and here is the pretty PDF file about the rifle
TL 8 Assault Rifle System
- Thread starter Father Fletch
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
This is from the first link;
Do you think the caliber conversion may be a reference to the new 6.8mm round?
Father Fletch
SOC-12
mmmmm....could be! 
According to Doctor Gary Roberts (the wound ballistics guru on the 6.8x43 team) the XM8 can be easily converted. I have seen hints that HK might want to make a 7.62x51 NATO version, but that would require masive re-enginering.
Points of interest
very reliable
excellent magazines
Possible durability issues
German sight not so good
Points of interest
very reliable
excellent magazines
Possible durability issues
German sight not so good
Father Fletch
SOC-12
I too worry about a battery powered sight. I realize that most soldiers are close enough to their supply and armory chain to take care of pesky issues like batteries, but personally I would prefer something using either tritium or no power for a low power optic.
Otherwise looks promising
Otherwise looks promising
Hopefully, the Army will spend its money on more promising technology than on what is really just another assault rifle that offers only marginal improvements over existing weapons. What a waste of the tax payers' money.
Though, from a Traveller perspective, the XM-8 does have a certain 'coolness' factor.
Hopefully, the Army will spend its money on more promising technology than on what is really just another assault rifle that offers only marginal improvements over existing weapons. What a waste of the tax payers' money.
Though, from a Traveller perspective, the XM-8 does have a certain 'coolness' factor. </font>[/QUOTE]Stoner tried to convince the US Army of the advantages of an integrated weapons system for small arms.
The XM-8 does have some tangible advantages over the M16 right off: handedness. I shoot lefty, even tho I'm a right hander. For me to hit an M16 selector switch (My issue weapon had only one, on left side of weapon) meant taking a hand off the weapon to do it.
Also, an integrated system of small arms makes replacement parts MUCH EASIER logistically. (Why the army DIDN'T like the Stoner Weapons System, I'll never understand.)
Originally posted by Aramis:
Hopefully, the Army will spend its money on more promising technology than on what is really just another assault rifle that offers only marginal improvements over existing weapons. What a waste of the tax payers' money.
The XM8 started as the "kinetic energy" component of the XM29 (used to be OICW). It was separated out into the "Lightweight Rifle", really a 5.56x45mm personal defence weapon. Since then saving a kilo vs the M4/M16 and having all those variants has caught the Army's imagination.
But the XM29, or at least the siplified XM25, are still under development for ~2008. And fire-and-forget guided small arms should show up beween 2010-2015.
Also, an integrated system of small arms makes replacement parts MUCH EASIER logistically. (Why the army DIDN'T like the Stoner Weapons System, I'll never understand.)
Small arms repair parts are not really puting a strain on logistics. Well, the Army was just absorbing the M16A1 and was looking for a quantum leap (the SPIW project) for their next weapon.
Besides the Stoner system had some not-very-well-publicized problems. These weren't important when used by elite troops like the SEALs, but would have ben a disaster with draftees.
Hopefully, the Army will spend its money on more promising technology than on what is really just another assault rifle that offers only marginal improvements over existing weapons. What a waste of the tax payers' money.
The XM8 started as the "kinetic energy" component of the XM29 (used to be OICW). It was separated out into the "Lightweight Rifle", really a 5.56x45mm personal defence weapon. Since then saving a kilo vs the M4/M16 and having all those variants has caught the Army's imagination.
But the XM29, or at least the siplified XM25, are still under development for ~2008. And fire-and-forget guided small arms should show up beween 2010-2015.
Also, an integrated system of small arms makes replacement parts MUCH EASIER logistically. (Why the army DIDN'T like the Stoner Weapons System, I'll never understand.)
Small arms repair parts are not really puting a strain on logistics. Well, the Army was just absorbing the M16A1 and was looking for a quantum leap (the SPIW project) for their next weapon.
Besides the Stoner system had some not-very-well-publicized problems. These weren't important when used by elite troops like the SEALs, but would have ben a disaster with draftees.
No, but they are 'just one more thing'. Reducing part counts (across the breadth of the weaopns array), where feasible, is probably not a bad idea. Provided of course it can be done while meeting mission requirements.
My understanding was even SEALs had problems with the weapons. Now, one could argue that the weapons might have been made more robust given a bit longer time to develop and mature (even the M16 wasn't as good as it is now when first issued).
But that wasn't to be.
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
I'm also a lefty, and never had a problem with the fire-selector on the M16A1. I could reach around with my left thumb and flip it, or use my trigger finger on it.
As for logistics and parts, the M16 family can be altered quickly and easily by swapping out upper and lower receiver groups. Beyond that much of the utility is a myth - LMG to assault rifle parts commonality is way down the list after getting a LMG that works right and doesn't break down.
Frankly this push for the XM-8 sounds suspicously like someone's attempt to salvage something from the dropping of the OICW (along with their career, most likely).
I'm also a lefty, and never had a problem with the fire-selector on the M16A1. I could reach around with my left thumb and flip it, or use my trigger finger on it.
</font>[/QUOTE]I couldn't do it withoout removing my left hand from the pistol grip... Not completely, but definitely out of firing position. For me, to hit the selector with the left hand, easier to use the trigger finger; differences in limberness, I suspect. It's not a major issue, but it is an issue. Had an M16A1 (which had been converted from a AR15) during basic. Oh, and the brass deflector.. that was a NON-Happy thing...
Having seen the nature of the navy and air force supply chains, during cadet time, I'd rather see integrated weapons systems, and cross-team ammo interchangeability. The M16, like most .223/5.56 rounds has excess pressure which is lost due to the shortness of the barrel. Two ways to recapture some of that: lengthen the barrel, or redesign it for less drag, which also means faster bullets, and more effective muzzle energy.
Also, the XM is supposedly about 1kg lighter, with same basic load, than an M16, in the assault rifle. I would assume a better recoil system, less climb, better engineered barrel and rifling (for less drag for same or better spin) and better ejection trajectory for the brass...
If they do adopt it, it will hopefully include a number of these features...
The sights being electric, well, that's not THAT bad a thing... hopefuly it's got a "Non-powered" sighting mode, too.
The M16 is a reliable, and in still air AND good repair, incredibly accurate rifle. I still would rather have an AK47 or SKS, tho, for my personal needs. Moose don't tend to take notice of .223.
Then again, that's sniping type shooting, isn't it... and the XM 8 wil have many of the same problems and benefits for the same round.Also, it will hopefully be able to handle more chamber pressure... for a higher energy cartridge to increase it's ME, and hence penetration.
And penetration is becoming an issue; many militaries are now issuing ballistic armor, at least to deployed troops. At the time of the M16 being developed, they hadn't yet become common, and the forseen foes didn't use them, and the US was just beginning to use body armor in the field. It saved a lot of lives in the 'nam. (In one case, because he was sitting on the flak vest, rather than wearing it, but I digress...)
Marginal gains in penetration are still gains.
Now, the other thing is that it's probably NOT a rehash of the old program, but a parallel evolution... The theme has never dropped away. It may even be that the top army brass wanted the OICW, but the politicians said "No" due to pork barrel politics. And the House and Senate Appropriations comittees are NOT filled by career military.
Originally posted by Aramis:
Having seen the nature of the navy and air force supply chains, during cadet time, I'd rather see integrated weapons systems, and cross-team ammo interchangeability.
I hav never heard an Army or Marine "trigger puller" complain about spare parts. I think the difference is the weapons cost for a rifle company is about $250,000, so spare parts are negligible compared to USAF or USN costs.
The M16, like most .223/5.56 rounds has excess pressure which is lost due to the shortness of the barrel.
Not quite sure what you man by "excess pressure." .223 and the old 30-06 are both loaded to 52,00o psi.
Two ways to recapture some of that: lengthen the barrel, or redesign it for less drag, which also means faster bullets, and more effective muzzle energy.
Low drag rifling, like the HK pattern, is only good for about 30 m/s muzzle velocity. The standard "carbine" version of the XM8 eill hsve s 12.5" barrel, optimised for room-to-room fighting or un-assing a M2 or "Striker".
Also, the XM is supposedly about 1kg lighter, with same basic load, than an M16, in the assault rifle. I would assume a better recoil system, less climb, better engineered barrel and rifling (for less drag for same or better spin) and better ejection trajectory for the brass...
The only "recoil system" I am aware of on an assault rifle is a muzzle brake like the AK-74.
The XM8 has a "birdcage" flash suppressor like the M16A2. But from the video I have seen it is very controlable. I never had a problem with M16A1 or A2 ejection, so I can't judge.
The sights being electric, well, that's not THAT bad a thing... hopefuly it's got a "Non-powered" sighting mode, too.
I "heard" one of the HKUSA techreps on the "Lightfighter" board, and they have convinced the Army to include better "iron" sights.
The M16 is a reliable, and in still air AND good repair, incredibly accurate rifle. I still would rather have an AK47 or SKS, tho, for my personal needs. Moose don't tend to take notice of .223.
I doubt a moose would notice a 7.62x39 either. IIRC it has about 2/3 the muzzle enerny of a 30-30.
Also, it will hopefully be able to handle more chamber pressure... for a higher energy cartridge to increase it's ME, and hence penetration.
Sorry, it is designed to handle milspec 5.56x45. It can also handle the 6.8x43 round, same pressure, bigger case.
And penetration is becoming an issue; many militaries are now issuing ballistic armor, at least to deployed troops.
"Soft" armor like Kevlar or Spectra, can be penetrated by any assault rifle at 2-300 yards. Hard armor like the ceramic plates in an "Interceptor" vesyt will stop 30-06 armor piercing rounds at the muzzle, also 7.62x54R. Tungsten M953 (7.62x51 NATO AP) will pentrate at under 100m, but it will take a small redesign to defeat even that. Defeating Level IV armor will require a new approach, like APDS or HEAP.
Now, the other thing is that it's probably NOT a rehash of the old program, but a parallel evolution...
The XM29 has been divided into the XM8 and XM25. The XM8 came first, essentially as a lightweight personal defence weapon for personel who didn't need the OICW.
The XM8 is the German G36 repackaged with a telescoping stock.
The XM29's weight problems are addressed by the XM25. The XM25 is a 25mm only weapon, with all the electronics of the OICW but no 5.56mm component. Pork has nothing to do with it ... yet
Having seen the nature of the navy and air force supply chains, during cadet time, I'd rather see integrated weapons systems, and cross-team ammo interchangeability.
I hav never heard an Army or Marine "trigger puller" complain about spare parts. I think the difference is the weapons cost for a rifle company is about $250,000, so spare parts are negligible compared to USAF or USN costs.
The M16, like most .223/5.56 rounds has excess pressure which is lost due to the shortness of the barrel.
Not quite sure what you man by "excess pressure." .223 and the old 30-06 are both loaded to 52,00o psi.
Two ways to recapture some of that: lengthen the barrel, or redesign it for less drag, which also means faster bullets, and more effective muzzle energy.
Low drag rifling, like the HK pattern, is only good for about 30 m/s muzzle velocity. The standard "carbine" version of the XM8 eill hsve s 12.5" barrel, optimised for room-to-room fighting or un-assing a M2 or "Striker".
Also, the XM is supposedly about 1kg lighter, with same basic load, than an M16, in the assault rifle. I would assume a better recoil system, less climb, better engineered barrel and rifling (for less drag for same or better spin) and better ejection trajectory for the brass...
The only "recoil system" I am aware of on an assault rifle is a muzzle brake like the AK-74.
The XM8 has a "birdcage" flash suppressor like the M16A2. But from the video I have seen it is very controlable. I never had a problem with M16A1 or A2 ejection, so I can't judge.
The sights being electric, well, that's not THAT bad a thing... hopefuly it's got a "Non-powered" sighting mode, too.
I "heard" one of the HKUSA techreps on the "Lightfighter" board, and they have convinced the Army to include better "iron" sights.
The M16 is a reliable, and in still air AND good repair, incredibly accurate rifle. I still would rather have an AK47 or SKS, tho, for my personal needs. Moose don't tend to take notice of .223.
I doubt a moose would notice a 7.62x39 either. IIRC it has about 2/3 the muzzle enerny of a 30-30.
Also, it will hopefully be able to handle more chamber pressure... for a higher energy cartridge to increase it's ME, and hence penetration.
Sorry, it is designed to handle milspec 5.56x45. It can also handle the 6.8x43 round, same pressure, bigger case.
And penetration is becoming an issue; many militaries are now issuing ballistic armor, at least to deployed troops.
"Soft" armor like Kevlar or Spectra, can be penetrated by any assault rifle at 2-300 yards. Hard armor like the ceramic plates in an "Interceptor" vesyt will stop 30-06 armor piercing rounds at the muzzle, also 7.62x54R. Tungsten M953 (7.62x51 NATO AP) will pentrate at under 100m, but it will take a small redesign to defeat even that. Defeating Level IV armor will require a new approach, like APDS or HEAP.
Now, the other thing is that it's probably NOT a rehash of the old program, but a parallel evolution...
The XM29 has been divided into the XM8 and XM25. The XM8 came first, essentially as a lightweight personal defence weapon for personel who didn't need the OICW.
The XM8 is the German G36 repackaged with a telescoping stock.
The XM29's weight problems are addressed by the XM25. The XM25 is a 25mm only weapon, with all the electronics of the OICW but no 5.56mm component. Pork has nothing to do with it ... yet
(there is no smiley capable of expressing my joy.) </font>[/QUOTE]Reading the HK reports, it is nice to see the people at HK show some honesty. They note the XM-8 has not been thoroughly field tested. I wiuldn't count on any rifle that hasn't been thoroughly soldier tested.
Say what you will about the M-16, it at least has been used in extended combat, like the AK and unlike all the new wonder rifles.
Weapons may look very good when they are handled and tested by the people who designed them. It's quite another matter when they are really used by soldiers.
The FN-FAL has a very good reputation for reliablity, and yet in combat it has proved to be less than perfectly reliable. The Israeli army found them to have problem handling sandy environments - particularly compared with the AK. For the most parts, the Israeli army's experience with the M-16 family has been relatively positive.
The fact of the matter is the conventional rifle has pretty much reached its peak of developement. Neither a new rifle or a new cartridge is going to appreciably change the effectivness of the infantry rifle.
If the US does select the XM-8 to replace the M-16, it will have little or no impact in the grand scheme of things. If it does prove to be more reliable in combat (and not just in 'lab' tests) and raises the confidence of the soldier, then I suppose it will be money reasonably well spent. But IMHO, the future lays elsewhere.
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
Properly loaded it's about the same - a little worse for heavy bullets.
