Looks like the Soldiers are getting a GOOD rifle

[Florida_Geek]

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=59&rnd=381.0728498213387


Maybe This Time We’ll Get It Right

By David H. Hackworth

The plastic, no-account M-16 rabbit shooter that our Army warriors have painfully packed since early in the Vietnam War might at long last be on its way out.

I can only say “good riddance” to a bad rifle that’s been outmatched by the Soviet AK-47 since Ho Chi Minh became Enemy No. 1. I condemned it in my first after-action report while I was with the 1/101st Airborne in Vietnam in 1965, but – in spite of many such complaints across the decades from trigger-pullers wading through the world’s killing fields – that lousy sucker has remained in service longer than any other rifle in U.S. history. A shameful testimony to the power of generations of military-industrial-congressional-complex porkers.

<cut>

Should the XM-8 get green-lighted, Germany's Heckler & Koch plans to build a factory to produce it in Columbus, Ga. Unlike so many companies exporting jobs overseas these days, H&K touts this as its “Buy American” project.

<<<cut>>

And last, but far from least, it shoots faster then the Terminator – it can fire more than 15,000 rounds without lubrication or cleaning, and tests show that it works as smoothly as a sewing machine in desert environments, which should make the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan a whole lot happier

These days there’s a lot of flag-waving going down about supporting the troops. But the best way to take care of our grunts is by making sure they can outgun their opponents. And no way is that happening when we allow greedy or uncaring pork contractors, no-time-in-the-trenches engineers and folks in Congress and at the highest level of our armed forces to stick them with a worthless, Mattel-like excuse for a rifle.

<<<end of Cut and Paste>>>

And it is CHEAPER than the M-16.... Basic cost < 600 vs 900 for M-16

[Renew Deal]

1. I am all for it

If hackworth is right. I want these guy to have the best wepons if they are going to be sent out. I have read reports of M-16's jamming in Gulf War 1 and 2. This thing looks like a paintball gun.

[papau]

2. I saw that - it only took 40 years to break through the business control

of government for someone to notice that the damn thing likes to jam.

Amazing.

[Renew Deal]

3. It comes in black

[papau]

5. I like the look - no rat is safe at the dump!

That is about all I shot these days - if that!

[7th_Sephiroth]

4. H&K makes a damn good firearm

They Make the PSG-1 too

[Pert_UK]

7. And the MP-5K, as used by the British SAS....

not bad.

[Superfly]

27. MP-5 is 9mm..

a pistol cartridge. The XM-8 is 5.56 NATO, an intermediate caliber rifle round.

[jmowreader]

11. Also the G-3

The G-3 (G is short for Gewehr, the German word for rifle) is one of the two contenders for "best rifle to have when someone's shooting at you." The other being the AK-47.

I've liked H&K arms for a very long time. If they can only get H&K to do a replacement for the piece-of-shit M9 pistol* they'll be set for life.

* Yes, the M9 is a piece of shit. The gun it's based on, the Beretta Model 94, is excellent. But to get the M9 down to the weight the Army demanded, they had to shave so much metal off the frame it cracks easily. The Beretta 94 you can buy at any gun shop will not do that.

[happyslug]

21. Two comments

The G-3 has been well received, but several people have questioned its system of operation (It uses a "fluted" chamber to ease extraction of the brass. Such Fluted Chambers is generally a sign of a weak extraction system).

Now I NOT heard of any problems with the G-3 series of Weapons except that it was only adopted by the West German Army when the Germans could not reach an agreement with FN to produce the FN FAL for the German Army (The FAL was adopted by Britain, Canada and most of NATO, even the US Army indicated in he mid 1950s it preferred the FN FAL over the Domestically produced M14. The FN FAL was NOT adopted do to US domestic political pressure that demanded the US use a US Designed gun).

As to the derivatives of the G-3 (Including the MP5 Submachine gun) I have also NOT heard of any problems (and they also use the same fluted chamber system), but the MP5 etc weapons tend to be used by Special Forces or other elite units that are given time to do proper maintenance of such weapons. Thus the weapons good reputation may be do to good unit discipline that makes sure the weapons are properly cleaned and maintained than the inherent reliability of the MP5 weapons system.

HK seems to have acknowledge the problem of the fluted barrels for HK's more recent designs have used a rotating bolt (As used in both the the M16 and AK47 system) and abandoned the Fluted barrel of the G-3 system. The reason for this may be the result of going to the 5.56mm round, a round that may not have enough power to operate the G-3 type action. Remember the 5.56 mm is a lot less powerful than the 7.62 NATO round of the G-3 As to the 9mm MP5, it is chambered for the 9mm round. While the 9mm used in the MP5 is a much weaker round than either the 7.62 NATO or 5.56 rounds it exits the barrel at much slower speed than either. Given this much slower speed and the fact the action only has to go back the length of the 9mm Round NOT a 5.56 mm Round, it is possible that the G-3 System could work with the 7.62 NATO Round and the 9mm Round But NOT the 5.56 Round do to the weakest of the extraction system. Just a comment on the operation system of the G-3 and the reason its operation system was abandon by HK with its G-36 and XM8 designs.

You also mention the M9 Pistol, the problem I heard about them was some Navy Seals decided to run 9mm++ ammunition through their M9s. 9mm++ ammunition is to be used in SUBMACHINE GUNS ONLY (and only some sub machine guns). 9mm++ is to powerful for ANY 9mm weapon, and it was the excessive use of 9mm++ ammunition that caused the M9 failures NOT any changes the US Ordered when it Adopted the M9.

[Florida_Geek]

6. Check out the Sand and Water Demo

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_dust.php

[FeebMaster]

8. I see they're building a plant here in the US

to build them. Kind of like the M9 deal.

The real shame is that machine gun design is effectively dead here in the states. Buying your weapons from foreign companies probably isn't the smartest thing to be doing when you're trying to build an empire. Then again, no one ever said empire builders were smart.

[Young Socialist]

12. we've got raygun to thank for that one, he took

away the civilian market for machine guns and stifled new ideas. once again the repugs are not the friend of the gun owner.

[happyslug]

9. Sounds like an AR-18 with more plastic

After the US adopted the M16 (Armaite AR15) Eugene Stoner, Designer of the M16/AR15 made modification to his design to reflect complaints and combat experience, the final design was the AR18.

The AR-18 had a folding stock (the Buffer assembly was no longer needed do to redesign of the bolt) AND Stoner changed the gas system on the rifle from the direct air system of the M16 to the the mechanical leakage system as in the AK47. This permitted a rifle capable of operating better than the M16 but at a cheaper costs (The AR18 has been called a cross between the M16 and the AK47 for it had elements of BOTH system, the gas system of the AK, the magazine system of the M16 and the rotating bolt common to both system).

So what is "great" about the XM8? IT came out of the research for a 20mm grenade launcher (The US Army has been working on replacing conventional rifle rounds with a round that explodes since the 1950s, the first set of research failed but out of it came the 40mm Grenade and Launcher of the Vietnam Era, the present set seems to have failed also but the XM8 was part of the program to develop the 20 Grenade launcher. I last heard the program had ended because of excessive costs per round and weapon, but it looks like the Army is trying to salvage something out of its research dollars).

My problem is this that much of an improvement over the M16? The 20 % weight "Savings" sounds funny, given that when the US adopted the M16A2
the weight of the weapon WAS INCREASED to improve its handling characteristics (the M16 and M16A1 had been viewed as to light up front and to improve the M16's balance the Barrel of the M16A2 was increased so that the weapon had less of a "neutral" feel to it.) My point here is the weight savings may be the result of the recent weight gain when the M16A2 replaced the M16A1 as opposed to a "real" weight savings.

It looks like it might be a good rifle, but I would like to have more information than what I have hard. The interchangeability of parts sounds great, but in the field how often do you change weapons? Not often, most people stay with the weapon they went into combat with. The interchangeability might enhance unit training, but not the true usability of any one weapon.

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html

Comparison of XM8 and M4 carbine. Please note XM8 has a 12.5 inch barrel to shot a round (5.56) designed in the 1950s to be fired out of a 20 inch barrel.
http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf

Here are some pictures with the 12.5 inch and 20 inch barrels and a reference to the XM-29 Project.
http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

Please note guns.ru make the same observation I do, but more indirectly, guns.ru says the XM8 is a highly modified form of the HK 36 developed for the German Army and if you go to the guns.ru site for the G-36 it points it that the G-36 uses a modfied AR18 gas system.

[happyslug]

15. Just remembered

I once read a report that the US Army was ready to adopt the AR-18 in 1967, but the plan was nixed do to the commitment to the M16/AR15 rifle (and that the AR15/M16 was by than owned by Colt Firearms, while the AR-18 was owned by Armalite and Colt had the better lobbyist in the Pentagon).

Looks like after 40 years the AR18 is going to be adopted.....

[Tactical Progressive]

10. Sure looks way cooler

Like it's already up to date for shooting giant insects that might choose to invade Earth.

[demsrule4life]

13. I always thought Hackworth was a bit of an idiot

"The plastic, no-account M-16 rabbit shooter that our Army warriors have painfully packed since early in the Vietnam War might at long last be on its way out."


So what is the M-16 going to be replaced with? A plastic, no-account rifle that still shoots the same rabbit shooting bullet. (I prefer Poodle shooter myself)

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

14. The new rifle

does shoot the same bullet, and in a shorter barrel (for most versions). The 5.56x45 is incredibly velocity dependant. Shorter barrel = lower velocities. It sure seems like a step back to me.

[Columbia]

16. I had a water gun that looked like this once...

[sithknight]

17. at a loss

"that lousy sucker has remained in service longer than any other rifle in U.S. history. A shameful testimony to the power of generations of military-industrial-congressional-complex porkers."

So we're finally gonna drop the M16? That's great, and I agree with your assesment of the military industrial complex's role in this. But why in the Hell do we still have troops out in the field without body armor? That's military pork I can support without ambiguity.

[Columbia]

18. To be fair

The troops do have body armor, it's just that a small percentage of them have the older versions. Still a shame though. When I was in Iraq, we occasionally had to rotate the new flak jackets with the SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) plate around to those going out on missions.

[Low Drag]

19. Test in Iraq then

I'd like to see it tested in Iraq before the tax payer drops big bucks on this unit.

I find it hard to believe it does not require cleaning! That's what they said about the M16 when it was introduced.

This unit also has that 20mm grenade launcher and all the fancy stuff that runs on batteries. I don't like betting my life on batteries.

[happyslug]

20. No the 20mm and the Batteries are the XM29 NOT the XM8

The XM29 I have heard has run into some serious technical difficulties (The Ammo is to expensive, the weapon is to expensive, AND neither is near the reliability of conventional Weapons like the Ak-47, the M16 or even the XM8).

Yes, the XM8 is PART of the SYSTEM that includes the proposed 20mm Grenade launcher, but it is the part to be like the M16.

The "System" being proposed is to have a series of weapons that operate the same way, including shotting, cleaning and loading. This is believe will reduce training costs (If you are trained to operate the XM8 you can also operate the other weapons in the system including the XM29 20mm Grenade launcher).

Thus while the XM29 will depend on Batteries, the XM8, and its SAW and Sniper Versions do NOT.

.

[happyslug]

22. Longest serving American Rifle?

Only do to historical Accident

Lets me explain why, first list of US Weapons and time used:

Model 1792 Musket Adopted 1792 Replaced by Model 1842 Musket in 1842

Model 1804 Rifle Adopted 1804, Replaced by Model 1842 Rifle in 1842

The 1842 was just a switch to the Percussion system from the Flintlock system, all other aspects of the weapons stayed the same including their caliber, .69 for Muskets and ,54 for Rifles.

Model 1854 Rifled Musket in .58 Caliber Replaced by 1866 Springfield.

The Rifle Musket was the result of the Adoption of the "Minie ball" round in 1854. This round permitted the use of smaller than caliber bullets in Rifled weapons. Prior to the Minie Ball if you wanted the accuracy of a Rifle, you had to force the bullet down the barrel so that when you fired the bullet would engage the rifling. This slowed reloading down to about one round every 1-2 minutes while smooth bore muskets could shoot six rounds per minute. With the Minie Ball, A Rifle could now fire as fast as a Smooth bore Musket thus Rifles replaced all the Smooth bore muskets

Now the 1854 had some variations, the Model 1859 which had a "Mayard" type cap system, a system where the Soldier no longer had to load a "Cap" to fire his weapon. A good System but expensive and replaced in the Model 1862 with the Same system as the 1854. A further change occurred in the Model 1864 where Brass was replaced by iron furniture to cut costs. Basically all of these "Model" were minor variation of the 1854 and I am treating them as such in this paper.

Model 1866 Adopted in 1866 (in 50-70 Springfield Round) replaced in 1873.

Model 1873 Springfield Adopted in 1873 (in 45-70) replaced in 1892.

Model 1892 Krag Adopted in 1892 Replaced in 1903.

Model 1903 Springfield Adopted in 1903 replaced in 1936 by the M1

The M1 Adopted in 1936 and replaced in 1957

The M14 Adopted in 1957 and replaced in 1964 (Through stayed a Substitute Standard till at least 1975 and was issued to each Infantry Squad in the 82 Airborne during the recent Iraqi War)

The M16 system Adopted in 1964 (1959 by the US Air Force)

Thus the Length of Service is as follows:
Model 1792 Musket - 50 years
Model 1804 Rifle - 38 years
Model 1842 Musket - 12 years
Model 1842 Rifle - 12 years
Model 1854 Rifle Musket - 12 years
Model 1866 Rifle - 7 Years
Model 1873 Rifle - 19 years
Model 1892 Rifle - 11 years
Model 1903 Rifle - 33 years
Model M1 Rifle - 21 years
Model M14 Rifle - 7 years
Model M16 Rifle - 40 years

Thus while the M16 has lasted a longer period than the 1903 Springfield and the 1804 Harper's Ferry rifles, it has 10 more years to go before equaling the 1792 Musket (and the M1792 Musket was a direct Copy of the French Model 1777 Musket adopted during the American revolution. The Model 1777 was basically the same as the M1763 which was the first French musket to use an iron ramrod, a device that double firepower form three rounds a minute to six round a minute. Thus the same basic weapon was used by the US from 1777 till 1842 of a total of 65 years and can be traced back another 14 years).

Thus the M16 is the LONGEST serving Rifle, it is still the Second Longest serving basic Infantry weapon (second to the Model 1792/1777 Musket).

Another comment. As you can see the M14 was and is still is use in the US Army. Model 1873 Muskets were still in use in the US Army in 1917 when the US entered WWI (They is a report that one National Guard unit still had 1873 Muskets in 1941). During the Civil War not only were Model 1854 Rifles issued so were Model 1842 Muskets, 1842 Rifles, 1804 Rifles and 1792 Muskets (and while as many foreign Weapons). During Vietnam not only were M16 and M14 is use so were M1 rifles and even M1903 Springfield's (through only officially as a Sniper rifle). Jane's were still saying the 1903 Springfield was still in the US Inventory as late as 1975.

Just because a weapon has been "replaced" does not mean it is not still in use. With the end of the Cold War many WWII rifles were released from Various Countries War Stocks and sold in the world markets. These had been held in reserved just in case they may be needed, with the end of the Cold War many countries sold off their WWII Rifles (but kept their post WWII Rifles). I give this as an example of the fact that Length of Service is MORE than just the time between a Weapon's Adoption and the Adoption of its Replacement.

One last comment, basically from about 1675 with the adoption of the Bayonet and the Flintlock ignition system and 1842 and the adoption of the Percussion cap, firearms stayed roughly the same. There were some changes do to change of tactics and some minor improvements in the weapons (for example the replacement of the wooden ramrod with the iron ramrod in the 1760s), but no major improvements till 1842.

Starting in 1842 you had a rapid series of improvements till 1888 (When the French Adopted the First Smokeless power rifle). The pace of any real improvements than stopped. It has been said the AK-47 could have been made in 1888, you had everything you needed to build it (except the design and the willingness to accept the tactics used with the AK-47).

The improvements since 1888 have been more is the way of modification of the basic design AND change of Tactics reflective of the changes in weapons from 1842 till 1888 than to anything really new in Rifle design. Every Army that existed in 1888 would have rejected the design of the AK47, M16, M1, M14 FN FAL G-3 and even the XM8 do to a lack of range and reliability. The Bolt Action Rifle of 1890s had greater range AND were more reliable than the AK47, M16, M1, M14, Fn FAL, G-3 and XM8. It took the hard lessons of WWI, WWII the the Cold War for everyone to accept that range and reliability were less important than fire power. The AK47, M16, M1, M14, Fn FAL, G-3 and XM8 rifles are weapons designed that emphasis Fire power over Range and Reliability and it was this change in what was needed in a combat Rifle that saw the movement from the Bolt Action Rifles of 1900 to the Assault Rifles of the year 2000. Thus the changes in the combat rifles from 1900 till today reflect a change in what was deemed needed in a Combat Weapon more than any new technology or design.

Thus we are again in a period like 1675 to 1842, a technological plateau and have been in it since 1888 except for the changes reflective of the change of tactics from one emphasizing range to one emphasizing firepower. If they ever perfect (and keep the cost down) in the XM29 project we may enter a new era of military combat technology but I do not see such a future. The Cost of todays bullets are dirt cheap and the proposed 20mm grenade are expensive, to expensive to be anything more than a company level weapon. As such should be viewed like the Mortar and Machine Gun than the Rifle, i.e. a weapon that changes the battlefield environment BUT leaves the poor old infantrymen in the same situation he is today.

[OpSomBlood]

23. Correct me if I'm wrong...

But haven't the jamming problems discovered with the M-16/M4 in desert conditions been correlated with overlubrication? Guys tend to drench their rifle in CLP and the fine sand grit ends up clogging everything up. You're only supposed to use a few drops of that stuff.

I still think that the AR-15/M-16 is one of the most incredible designs in firearms history. I wouldn't complain about an H&K design making it's way into our arsenal, but I wouldn't dismiss the M-16 as worthless, either.

I so wish I could own an MP5. It's supposed to be a dream come true to shoot.

[happyslug]

26. The jamming was the result of the Rapid Movement of Forces than Bad lubes.

I have made this reply before, ANY RIFLE WILL JAM IF ENOUGH DIRT GETS INTO ITS MECHANISM. The Speed of the advance of the US Forces in Iraq threw up a LOT OF SAND AND DIRT. This sand and dirt entered the weapon and jammed them. The only way to prevent this is to keep the weapon clean, but that is hard to do if you are on the move 18 hours a day.

Most of the reports, I have heard, of Guns Jamming, has been from support units, whose main purpose is to supply the combat units. These units tend to have the most dust in their face (Turned up not only by their own vehicles but the Combat Vehicles they are supporting). Officers wanting to push their personal to the limit forced marched these personal onward even through some of the worse dust storms of the Season.

For example Jessica Lynch's unit had been driving all day, made a wrong turn and ended up in an area of Iraq still in control by the Iraqi Army. The Iraqis engaged the convoy, and the convoy tried to defend themselves, but they weapons jammed (Including their 50 Caliber machine Gun). I can not see any of these being caused by to much lubrication, but instead by to much sand.

To give you an example, during WWII it was customary for the British forces in the North African Campaign NOT to Lubricate their Machine guns till their engaged the enemy. This was to keep the sand out of the Weapon, and I am taking of a British Vickers Machine Gun which operates on a Long Recoil system much like the 50 Caliber Browning. As to Infantry weapons the British during WWII used their "No 4" Rifle, which was a bolt action rifle, bolt actions rifles are more reliable than ANY automatic or semi-automatic rifles.

Basically if you are going to go through a desert area you have to be prepared to encounter sand. As you move through sand, you have to clean your weapons even if that means STOPPING THE MOVEMENT.

The problem was the Officers in Charge did not want to STOP THE MOVEMENT. They wanted to move onward. Thus the sand built up in the weapons and jammed when the weapons were needed.

One last comment, Jessica Lynch's situation is a good example to show maybe going to 100% automatic weapons is a mistake, maybe the supply people would be better off with a bolt action rifle given the Bolt's greater reliability in dirty and dusty situation.

Now Combat units will take the time to clean their weapons, but do support and supply units really have the time? Just an idea to think about. Please note, given other consideration, people are happier if their have an automatic weapon, the ease to train with an automatic weapon, the ease on supply if everyone has the same weapon. The idea of giving bolt action weapons to supply people is an idea that should be shot down, but at least know WHY you are shotting it down AND what you are accepting when you do shoot it down (A demand that supply people are given time to clean their weapons AND trained on cleaning their weapons even if this means Combat Operations are curtailed.)

[Endangered Specie]

28. I agree with that... we should still be issuing some bolt action rifles...

or at least have them as backup.

If you want a reliable weapon that will pratically never jam up, you gotta go old fashioned.

[Wubbman]

24. Hope its easier to clean

I just spent three hours today on an M16 that still wasn't completely clean when I turned it in (they had to accept it b/c of time). Hopefully if this one is adopted it uses a different operating system that results in less shit accumulating in the action.

[happyslug]

25. Didn't you take it into the Shower?

That is what my old unit use to do (When they didn't use the Cook's immersion heaters and boil the M16s). Hot water (and preferably boiling hot water) was the only way to get carbon off the weapon and to make sure the internal workings were clean (This was compounded by the use of WD-40 in Vietnam, WD-40 evaporates and leaves a protective coating that prevents rust, but once evaporated provided NO lubrication. WD-40 left the M16 looking "clean" and that is what inspectors want to see.).

Please Note when I use the term "Inspectors" I do not mean the person who you turn your M16 into for "Inspection" but the various Inspectors sent out by the Army (generally by the Adjutant General Office) to inspect the equipment of various army units. These inspectors are the problem for they are looking for "cleanness" and "completeness" not if the equipment is fully functional. Such inspectors count the M16, see if they are clean, see if the unit armorer has the bolts to each M16, but do not go into whether any of the M16s are usable. This has been a problem since the adoption of the M16 (and one of the Reason the Army did not consider the the M16' parent, the AR10 in its Rifle competition of the early 1950s). The Army could NOT see how you could Clean such a weapon as clean as you could the M1 or M14 (Eugene Stoner said you did not have to, and our experience during WWII showed that such level of Cleanness was NOT needed to keep the weapon functional). When the M16 was adopted in 1964, it was adopted by the Department of Defense based on Reports of its effectiveness in Vietnam (The M16 had been used by South Vietnamese units as early as 1959, the same year it was adopted by the US Air Force). Given how the M16 was adopted no modification was ever made to the M16 to make it easier to clean. The US Army inspection system was NOT geared to tolerate such a "dirty" weapon as the M16 and this conflict between the design of the M16 and the US Army's Inspection system was known in the 1960s to be a problem and is the problem to this day.

Thus the problem with M16 being difficult to clean is only a problem if you define "clean" as the removal of ALL DIRT AND CARBON. Eugene Stoner designed the system to operate with some dirt and carbon build up, way more Dirt and Carbon than is tolerated for "inspections".

I did run across one booklet printed by the US Army in the mid 1960s (I wish I had it now) that said to through away the white gloves when inspecting an M16. The M16 was NOT designed to be THAT CLEAN even right from the Factory.

The problem with "cleaning" the M16 has been that once any unit started to clean their M16s and removed ALL DIRT AND CARBON, the inspectors expected All Units to do the same. This expectation became the "norm" even through everyone knew the only way to do so is to boil those M16s (The M16 can take the boiling, it is design to take much higher level of heat when it shoots large amount of Ammunition, but I still have some concern about the affect of such "cleaning" on the operation of the M16).

My recommendation is to clean it the best you can, follow whatever your unit want to do to clean the M16 and accept the fact you will NEVER clean the M16 to the level expected. Do NOT try to convince your superiors of fact the M16 is NOT to be that clean, they know that but there are people above them who wants those M16 that clean. It is NOT a fight wroth fighting, people have been doing so for 40 years and failing. Just clean it the best you can, turn it in, and hope for the best.