XM8 Highest Mark in Army Test

[AwaySooner]

M4 does poorly in Army's own test
When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense's vaunted M4 carbine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24229346/from/ET/

[NonConformist]

Yep, 'but the militar is commited to getting the best weapons in soldiers hand' then he said 'We have no pland to replace the M4'

:mad:

[bigdog2003_99]

gotta love politics... i love how contradictary their statement is...

[Captain America]

Don't read the XM8 it's last rites just yet.
I have a feeling?

[Arnie100]

Don't be surprised if Congress'll tell the Army get this weapon or no funds for M-4!

[Exact69]

I'm gonna puke at this now watch them re-up the M-4 for another 30 years.
Another 30 years of sand ruining the rifles and risking our troops saftey whoo hoo. :13:

[Huntersdad]

Thats sobering.

[NonConformist]

Heres a chart profiling the test results-

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i205/NonC/dust_test_graph.jpg

[Germanic]

While I fully realize it will likely never happen, I'd like to have a civilian version of the XM8.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG/800px-XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG

[MajorHK]

While I fully realize it will likely never happen, I'd like to have a civilian version of the XM8.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG/800px-XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG

Me too! I'd drop major coin on this...

Maj

[NonConformist]

While I fully realize it will likely never happen, I'd like to have a civilian version of the XM8.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG/800px-XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG

Its an awesome looking gun

[SweedishMurdrMachine]

Can somebody say "will trade left testical for XM8"??

[Raufoss]

Colt executives can't account for the M4's poor showing. And they hinted that the M4s sent from Colt's plant in Hartford may have been mishandled after being delivered to the lab.

"There's no way they left the factory like that," says Phillip Hinckley, Colt's executive director of quality and engineering. "It does leave a major question mark in your head."

[eric10mm]

But can you butt-stroke a BG with the XM8? ;)

[dtheman]

I'm pretty sure the Army checked out all of the gun used in the test before hand to assure that none of the weapons were damaged or mishandled. The Army wants to stick with the Colt, why on gods green earth would they put nothing but top of the line new Colts in the test.

[themessenger]

I'm pretty sure the Army checked out all of the gun used in the test before hand to assure that none of the weapons were damaged or mishandled. The Army wants to stick with the Colt, why on gods green earth would they put nothing but top of the line new Colts in the test.

"the Army" didn't check them out, just some armourers or grunts on the firing line. Similar thing happened way back during Stoner trials in cold weather testing. The rifles wouldn't fire more than a couple rounds without stopping. Stoner himself went up there and said there were all kinds of incorrect parts here and there.

Bottom line, its hard to guarantee that the rifles are in perfect order with so many people handling them. Especially when its apparently common knowledge throughout the guys in the field that the M4 sucks.

[G3Kurz]

Colt executives can't account for the M4's poor showing. And they hinted that the M4s sent from Colt's plant in Hartford may have been mishandled after being delivered to the lab.

"There's no way they left the factory like that," says Phillip Hinckley, Colt's executive director of quality and engineering. "It does leave a major question mark in your head."

Yes, and it has also been said that the SCAR-L's and HK416's may have been hand-selected by the vendors (you think?!) and that that accounts for their better performance compared to the M4. Problem is the very best performer was the XM8 and like the M4's those came right from US Army stocks! Whoops! That dog don't hunt! Oh, and this is the 3rd Army/APG conducted test since 2006 where the M4 performed like this.

Anyone ever see the made-for-TV movie from the 60's, 70's called "The Challenge"? Starred Darin McGavin (sp) as an American who was placed on a deserted island with one Chinaman to fight to the death, winner take all, instead of another world war between the two countries. Don't remember what they were fighting about. Anyone have it I would pay to get a copy. Anyway. These two combatants get the very best their country can provide to win.

One wonders if these Army folks quoted in the Army Times and AP articles defending the M4's performance in these dust tests and in combat were placed on that same island in that same situation and in front of them stood a table of these four rifles (M4, SCRA-L, HK416 and XM8). They could only pick one to fight to the death with, to defend their life and the lives of all their countrymen.

Knowing what they know now, but refuse to admit from their own tests (3 since 2006) which rifle do you think they would pick?

G3Kurz

[GZire]

Yes, and it has also been said that the SCAR-L's and HK416's may have been hand-selected by the vendors (you think?!) and that that accounts for their better performance compared to the M4. Problem is the very best performer was the XM8 and like the M4's those came right from US Army stocks! Whoops! That dog don't hunt! Oh, and this is the 3rd Army/APG conducted test since 2006 where the M4 performed like this..........................

I would tend to agree that the firearms were cherry picked for the test.........all of them including the M4's.

[NonConformist]

I would tend to agree that the firearms were cherry picked for the test.........all of them including the M4's.


+1 and Colts best still fared poorly

They need the M5 if they must stick w/ Colt, or 416 for the easist route though Id prefer to see the XM8

[Cadillac Johnson]

They're not going to spend millions to switch from a high quality 5.56 to a very slightly higher quality 5.56.

It's going to be a while before the military switches to something other than the M4.

Until a completely new system, in a more effective caliber is built they're not going to change.

I would prefer to see a piston upper in the 6.8spc retrofitted to the AR's currently in service than a completely new rifle in 5.56. That would be a MUCH cheaper option and would improve reliability in desert conditions, along with being more effective. Not to mention you wouldn't need to re-train everyone on a new system.

[TheCzechBoss]

i`d like to have a civie xm8

[jimmybuffett]

They're not going to spend millions to switch from a high quality 5.56 to a very slightly higher quality 5.56.

I don't think anybody is saying that they should scrap M4's currently in service and replace them with a new rifle, I think the point is just to say that whenever it comes time to order new/replacement rifles, that the new rifles be one of the ones in the test, and not the M4.

Realistically speaking, they'll already be spending millions to replace old M4's with new M4's. If they cared about quality, they'd be spending those millions on new 416's or XM8's instead.

In the technology industry we call this End Of Life for a product. You don't scrap what's out there if it's working, but you don't buy any more of them either. As the existing parts break you replace them with newer/better parts, and after a while you don't have any of the old parts anymore.

[dtheman]

I think they are trying to hold out as long as possible until they can get closer to finishing the caseless ammo/ gun project they have going on.


http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1000

[NonConformist]

I think they are trying to hold out as long as possible until they can get closer to finishing the caseless ammo/ gun project they have going on.


http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1000


Now that could be a possibility...

[Cadillac Johnson]

Realistically speaking, they'll already be spending millions to replace old M4's with new M4's. If they cared about quality, they'd be spending those millions on new 416's or XM8's instead.

Like I said, they're not going to replace a 5.56 with a slightly better 5.56. The new rifles that do eventually replace the M4's wont be in 5.56.

Switching to the 416 would be a huge waste of money. Just add a piston system to the M4 and you basically have the same thing at a fraction of the cost.


In the technology industry we call this End Of Life for a product. You don't scrap what's out there if it's working, but you don't buy any more of them either. As the existing parts break you replace them with newer/better parts, and after a while you don't have any of the old parts anymore.

I assume by 'parts' you're referring to rifles? meaning; "As the existin 'rifles' break you replace them with newer/better 'rifles'?"

While that would be ideal, it doesn't work in huge numbers. If you update rifles as they fail you'll have different platforms all over the place. Which means you would need parts for different platforms, and you would need to train everyone on the new updated platform.

Then, what about when something comes along that's better than the replacement? You could have soldiers in the same platoon with 3 or 4 different rifles.

It makes more sense to change over to something new in one big 'swoop'.

As I said, I would prefer they just update the M4 as upgrades become available. Instead of changing the entire rifle, change out parts of it. Adding a piston system to already functioning M4's would increase reliability and would be MUCH easier than swapping the entire rifle. That would at least improve the rifle until a long term replacement is found.

[93naildriver]

Wow, that's sex with a trigger. I've never understood army politics...does anyone? It never seems like they want to put the best weapons in our boys hands, just makes you want to go slap a politician.

[mikecleonard]

While the M4 lost the test, and the stats look troubling, you gotta realize that the M4 is not a crap rifle.

I have had two of my closest friends go to Iraq and back...one Ranger, and one Recon marine. Both of them really liked the M4, never had any major issue with it during fire fights, and didn't know anyone else over there that had any life threatening issues either.

Does that mean it's the best rifle available? No...but don't freak out and let these stats make you think that our guys are going into battle with a broken weapon.


That being said, I also think it would be nice to move to something else. The M4 has had a great run, but I think we should start looking to more effective systems.

[Cadillac Johnson]

Is it just me or does the XM8 look like a goldfish?

[Cyclonefan]

Is it just me or does the XM8 look like a goldfish?

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Goldfish!

[dtheman]

I talked to a Marine last night who just came back from Iraq, his opinion was that the marines get all the sh** weapons left over. I asked him if he knew anything about piston operated rifles, never heard of them. After explaining it to him he kind of had the dazed "wtf" look going on. Troops probably say they like the M4 simply because they haven't been educated to other better weapons.

[jimmybuffett]

While that would be ideal, it doesn't work in huge numbers. If you update rifles as they fail you'll have different platforms all over the place. Which means you would need parts for different platforms, and you would need to train everyone on the new updated platform.

Then, what about when something comes along that's better than the replacement? You could have soldiers in the same platoon with 3 or 4 different rifles.

It makes more sense to change over to something new in one big 'swoop'.

As I said, I would prefer they just update the M4 as upgrades become available. Instead of changing the entire rifle, change out parts of it. Adding a piston system to already functioning M4's would increase reliability and would be MUCH easier than swapping the entire rifle. That would at least improve the rifle until a long term replacement is found.

The 416 upper was designed as a drop-in replacement for the M4/M16 upper. The charging handle and forward assist are in the same place and function exactly the same as on the M4/M16. You keep the M4/M16 lower and mags, so there isn't an issue of extensive training to use the new "platform". The only legitimate argument that you *could* make is that the internal parts would be different, so that disassembly/reassembly and cleaning would be a slightly different process, but big freaking deal? You aren't going to be swapping parts in a firefight anyway.

Changing the internals of the M4 runs into the same issue that you fault the 416 upgrade with: you have different guys running around with different rifles, or, as different as a regular M4 is from a 416. If the piston-operated M4 is a close cousin to the 416, what's the difference? The M4 change wins on cost though, it probably doesn't cost $1500 a pop to swap the internals.

I am skeptical that there is some "big new idea" coming any time soon that will facilitate replacing the military's entire stock of weapons. The OICW (http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm) is exceedingly expensive both on a per-rifle cost ($10-12K) and on a per-shot cost ($25-30), and will more likely end up being a one-per-squad specialty weapon than a general issue weapon. Caseless ammunition has a ton of technical hurdles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition#Disadvantages) to overcome before becoming viable.

I would be willing to bet money that our standard battle rifle in 20 years will still be based on the 5.56mm round, and if that is the case, we will have gradually replaced practically every rifle in the current inventory with new (replacement) rifles by then. We're posting all of this on an H&K-themed website so I'm sure most here would like to see that done with 416 uppers rather than more M4's. If it is truly the piston operating system that gives the competition 25% of the failure rate of the M4, and Colt is willing to upgrade all of the existing M4's to a more reliable design for less money, then that's fine too.

[G3Kurz]

The OICW, now called XM25 without the 5.56mm component, is no closer to fielding then it was 10+ years and $177M dollars ago. It still weighs too much, is too bulky and is not supported by the end users. It was developed based upon unobtainable goals that cannot be meet with current or emerging materials or power technology and should have been dropped when that was realized 5+ years back. And ironically in the end it still must be accurately aimed at the target like your basic rifle anyway for accurate ranging to insure the air bursting 25mm grenade detonates close enough to the target to have effect. And it has no close in protection element.

Problem is when we say we will wait until something "better" comes along we actually miss out on many important incremenal improvements that truly benefit the user, such as increased reliability, modularity, saftey, system service life, lighter weight, better accessory mounting, conbined function sights, etc., just a few of the features offered in the modern off-the-shelf weapons of today (HK416, XM8, MK48, MK46, HK417, GMG, Five Seven, the long list goes on) that the US passes by while the seach for the holy grail. It does not exist folks! Never did, likely never will. The last great "leap ahead" in shoulder fired weapons was the first "hand cannon" from the 15th century. The last US incremental advance was when the US first fielded their very first true assault rifle, the AR-15 in the early 1960's. We will know how superior these current modern weapons are if and when the Army gets around to actually testing one of them. Other than the Congressionally forced Extreme Dust test they have not conducted a full up comprehensive test. They resist doing so because it does not suporttheir current pet contracts, vendors and endless wasteful programs. Their last priority should be their first. The end user.

[AC434]

<<Anyone ever see the made-for-TV movie from the 60's, 70's called "The Challenge"? Starred Darin McGavin (sp) as an American who was placed on a deserted island with one Chinaman to fight to the death, winner take all, instead of another world war between the two countries. Don't remember what they were fighting about. Anyone have it I would pay to get a copy. Anyway. These two combatants get the very best their country can provide to win.>>

I remember always seeing that movie when it was on the ABC movie of the week. "Gallowry" was armed with a side by side M76, with one magazine with 9mm and the other magazine with buckshot. I also seem to remember that he liked the weapon because it was mean looking. I've been hoping that movie would come out on DVD.

As for the big green machine's choice of weapons, I'm beginning to believe that they are really waiting for phasers. As for my beloved Marine Corp, with no money, they'll make do with whatever they have for the next 20 years. I'll be teaching my kids, "holding and squeezing," on the 500 meter firing line and I'll probably notice it's the exact weapon I qualified on....

[Cadillac Johnson]

The 416 upper was designed as a drop-in replacement for the M4/M16 upper. The charging handle and forward assist are in the same place and function exactly the same as on the M4/M16. You keep the M4/M16 lower and mags, so there isn't an issue of extensive training to use the new "platform". The only legitimate argument that you *could* make is that the internal parts would be different, so that disassembly/reassembly and cleaning would be a slightly different process, but big freaking deal? You aren't going to be swapping parts in a firefight anyway.

Changing the internals of the M4 runs into the same issue that you fault the 416 upgrade with: you have different guys running around with different rifles, or, as different as a regular M4 is from a 416. If the piston-operated M4 is a close cousin to the 416, what's the difference? The M4 change wins on cost though, it probably doesn't cost $1500 a pop to swap the internals.



The issue with soldiers having multiple platforms in the same unit was regarding the XM8, not the 416.

As for just changing to the 416 upper, again, why not just add a drop in piston kit to the M4 and accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost?

You dont need a whole new upper if the only difference is a piston. IF they are going to change the entire upper assembly, a more effective caliber makes more sense IMO. I would MUCH rather see a gas piston, 6.8 upper instead of a gas piston 5.56 416 upper OR a completely new rifle in 5.56 for that matter.

The 6.8spc was developed specifically because the 5.56 wasn't effective enough right? Why not use it? Why not make the AR more reliable in the environments we're going to be using them in?

A gas piston 6.8spc upper would make for a more reliable, more effective weapon without having to learn a new system. By adding a piston you also reduce recoil roughly 40% which would offset the increased recoil of the 6.8. That seems like the ideal solution to me, instead of another 5.56, regardless of whether it's just an upgrade or a completely new system.

[G3Kurz]

That's the one AC434! Only one other person I know recalls that movie. Great memory!
G3Kurz

[madmardigan]

Does anyone know how often the M4 was lubed when this test was done?

[G3Kurz]

Does anyone know how often the M4 was lubed when this test was done?

HOW THEY WERE TESTED
The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.
Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.
The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.
Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.
The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.
Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.
This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.
The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.
Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.
in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

[Va_Dinger]

Yes, and it has also been said that the SCAR-L's and HK416's may have been hand-selected by the vendors (you think?!) and that that accounts for their better performance compared to the M4. Problem is the very best performer was the XM8 and like the M4's those came right from US Army stocks! Whoops! That dog don't hunt! Oh, and this is the 3rd Army/APG conducted test since 2006 where the M4 performed like this.

Anyone ever see the made-for-TV movie from the 60's, 70's called "The Challenge"? Starred Darin McGavin (sp) as an American who was placed on a deserted island with one Chinaman to fight to the death, winner take all, instead of another world war between the two countries. Don't remember what they were fighting about. Anyone have it I would pay to get a copy. Anyway. These two combatants get the very best their country can provide to win.

One wonders if these Army folks quoted in the Army Times and AP articles defending the M4's performance in these dust tests and in combat were placed on that same island in that same situation and in front of them stood a table of these four rifles (M4, SCRA-L, HK416 and XM8). They could only pick one to fight to the death with, to defend their life and the lives of all their countrymen.

Knowing what they know now, but refuse to admit from their own tests (3 since 2006) which rifle do you think they would pick?

G3Kurz

I thought it had already been pointed out that the 416's used in the testing did NOT get cherry picked? They came right out of an U.S. Army armory, I would assume the AWG's.

[heff31]

The M4 and the 416 were the only production guns (from an assembly line) in the test. The SCAR and XM8 were still "hand made." And yes, the XM8 won; however, one has to look at the numbers to get the real picture. There was one troublesome 416 that had @90% of the total failures for the 416 samples in the test. If you throw out this one gun (an off the assembly line gun) the 416 would have won. Combine this with proven battlefield testing and ergonomics the same as the M4 (so no need for a totally new training program) I would declare the 416 the winner. Either way.......HK won.

Heff

[DAUG]

I would agree that the HK416 won, and if you really want an objective summary on the outcome of the test, then check out the latest (Fall 2008) article, "Sandbox Shootout" in Combat Tactics magazine publsihed by Guns&Ammo.

A very good read indeed!

[D.E. Watters]

I thought it had already been pointed out that the 416's used in the testing did NOT get cherry picked? They came right out of an U.S. Army armory, I would assume the AWG's.

FWIW: On August 3, 2007, TACOM-Rock Island awarded a $24,746.20 purchase order to HK Defense for 13 HK416 with 14.5" barrels, 52 thirty round magazines, and spare parts. These were to be shipped directly to the Aberdeen Test Center.

W52H09-07-P-0608

[Mr.Ed]

Guys,

Take it from someone who has shot the XM8 in all variants (the avatar is the proposed standard issue XM8) to include the standard issue, sniper, and carbine variants, they are indeed an excellent weapon.

But Cadillac Johnson has it right, "They're not going to spend millions to switch from a high quality 5.56 to a very slightly higher quality 5.56. It's going to be a while before the military switches to something other than the M4. Until a completely new system, in a more effective caliber is built they're not going to change".

What killed the initial thrust to field the XM8 wasn't its capability when compared to the M4, but its lack of significant change when compared to an M4. Now, I know I'm setting myself up for some serious flames for the last statement but those aren't my words but the words of an evaluation team of "just returned from the AO" warriors. Now, maybe they carried their M4's so much that they loved their weapon and couldn't see beyond the weapon that saved their lives. Maybe they we're looking for a huge leap in capability. Or, maybe they want a weapon that's so radically different that, in a kinetic kill function, won't exist prior to fielding the star trek Phaser.

Oh, and don't forget the "buy American" laws. Congress has a way of getting involved in every major DoD acquisition.

I believe in the XM8 for many of its great attributes. Simple things, like the horizontally stackable magazines (I always hated duck tape), the piston action, the integrated sights (end product capability for the standard and sniper variants), and the plan to integrate the numerous capabilities now screwed, taped, and pinned on the M4's and M16's.

I would like to see H&K field a civilian variant. If enough of us had one maybe, just maybe, they may find their way into the hands of our brave men and women in uniform fighting for our nations rights and liberties. A community of which I once counted myself amongst their numbers.

Let's continue to monitor the testing and challenges the XM8 will face. The best thing any of us can do, when the time is right, is to alert our congressmen and congresswomen of the superior quality of the H&K line of products and how, we believe, they would go a long way to ending the situation face by Jessica Lynch and her fellow soldiers when their weapons jammed and failed.

To all, good luck and god's speed in your daily lives.

Mr. Ed (aka, Chief)

[variablebinary]

I was reading in some gun rag that the 416 actually had a defective carbine in the test and still came ahead of the M4.

In fact, had that defective 416 had not been part of the test it would have come out ahead of the XM8