XM8 budget - is this the end?

[Gordy 0]

Quote:

Army's H&K weapons bid axed

Rep. Bishop says $25.9 million funding request should still happen

BY CHRISTOPHER BOYCE

Staff Writer

About $26 million for a German gun manufacturer to begin making the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus was pulled from a Department of Defense appropriations bill before Congress approved the 2005 spending plan late Thursday.

Jennifer Hoelzer, director of communications for U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, said the money was part of the $417.5 billion appropriations bill. Bishop, D-Ga., said $25.9 million was sought for gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch to begin production of the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus.

"It's still safe and expected to happen," Bishop said referring to the funding.

The company, based in Sterling, Va., is building a 150,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Muscogee Technology Park off Macon Road. Heckler & Koch is still waiting to land a contract with the U.S. military that could amount to $1 billion over 10 to 15 years. The company continues to test the XM8 assault rifle that could replace the M16 rifle.

Bishop said the money was shifted at the "zero hour" because money was needed for current operations in Iraq.

Bishop expects the money to be appropriated in a lame duck session or by the end of this year.

Support for the XM8 was led by the Columbus congressional delegation and would have funded acquisition of the rifle so that Heckler & Koch could begin production. Bishop said they gave their support contingent upon the XM8 passing the military's tests.

An additional $1 million was given to Heckler & Koch to produce small-arms polymer-cased ammunition, Bishop said.

Since Heckler & Koch's October groundbreaking on their Columbus manufacturing plant, anticipation has centered on the company's production of the XM8.

Also from the bill, Fort Benning received $2 million for construction of the Sunshine Road ammunition route, Hoelzer said.

Additionally, an Americus, Ga.-based Lockheed-Martin facility received $58.67 million for the construction of wind-corrected munitions dispensers.

The bill was one of 13 appropriations bills that assigns funding for government agencies, Hoelzer said.

The $10 billion Military Construction Appropriations spending bill was also approved by the House Thursday night, Bishop said. The bill contained $282.7 million for Georgia with $82.9 million for Fort Benning. The bill passed by a vote of 420-1 and will now move to the Senate.

[stgn 39]

Thanks Gordy you just know how to make me happy.

Down whit XMshit8, improved M4 all the way:

STGN

[Heatseeker 0]

Down whit XMshit8, improved M4 all the way:

So you have tested and used both guns to reach that conclusion Or you mean improved (reliable) Heckler&Koch M4 How about the guys whose lives may depend on these weapons? There opinions on this would be interesting.

[hellfish6 7]

Everyone I've talked to who is in the industry or still in the service is really looking forward to them. I'd be more than happy to test one out someday...

[Mister Frag 0]

An additional $1 million was given to Heckler & Koch to produce small-arms polymer-cased ammunition, Bishop said.

To me, this is far more intriguing than some short-term money shuffling...

[stgn 39]

Down whit XMshit8, improved M4 all the way:

So you have tested and used both guns to reach that conclusion  Or you mean improved (reliable) Heckler&Koch M4 How about the guys whose lives may depend on these weapons? There opinions on this would be interesting.

well I have to sleep so I make this quick.

The M4 is relaible could be better but it is relaible.

I just read that G36 ha problems whit heat somthing about melting and barrel going all over the place Xm8 is a G36 and will have the same problem.

M4 is lighter, smaler, cheaper(you get a complet gun).

G36 can not acept M16 mags whit out modification I think its the same whit XM8.

M4 has more firepower higher muzzel speed, longer barrel, same lenth as XM8.

The briliant Gas system of the M16 does so that the gun punches minmal

Quote[/b] ]The advantage of the Stoner gas system is that it has fewer moving parts and less reciprocating mass than a piston-based gas system. This translates into better accuracy and reduced felt recoil.

and improved M4 could have a Heavyer Bolt which would iliminate the gas system probs.

Also making a improved M4 could mean simply making a sight system like the XM8 to the M4 then you spendings would be minimal compared to introducing a brand new rifle.

Read the threat to understand my reasons.

http://forums.military.com/1....1942686

STGN

[drewb99 0]

Or, possibly, you could design the XM8 to deviate from the standard G36 design and accept regular Stantags. I, for one, am looking foreward to the XM8.

[red oct 2]

what else is new, bushy has been giving the axe to all kinds of military projects to fund his little war. no doubt the F22 will probaly be next.

[The Frenchman 0]

*Cries*

This is one of the few new military projects that I like.

[blackdog~ 0]

It's just a production contract guys, it's not a development contract. Production means they will start MANUFACTURING them after contract is accepted. But their factory isn't even done yet. If they cut the development contract, then that would be a little bit more discerning as that would mean the gun might go nowhere like the Commanche did.

This will give them time to work out any additional kinks and flaws in the weapons' design before mass amounts are made.

I'm looking forward to this gun to replace the M16 and M4.

[Mister Frag 0]

A couple of corrections:

1. The XM8 currently weighs 6.4lbs (target is 5.7lbs) vs. a comparably equipped M4 at 8.85lbs.

2. The magazine well dimensions of the XM8 are designed to accept standard M16/M4 aluminum magazines.

3. The M4 is only about 0.5" shorter than the XM8 in both extended and collapsed stock configurations.

4. The XM8 is significantly cheaper than the M4. The carbines themselves without any optics or accessories are <$600 and >$900, respectively. Tricked out, the prices go up to ~$1800 and ~$2500, respectively.

5. Barrel lengths for the XM8 will be 9", 10", 12.5", 14.5", and 20" depending on intended use.

6. Firepower is based largely on the ammunition, barrel length, and rate of fire. Assuming the XM8 will be chambered in 5.56mm and not 6.8SPC, that leaves barrel length and ROF. With a barrel that is less than 14.5" and existing ammo, the M4 will clearly have an advantage over the XM8. In fact, barrel lengths less than 14.5" will be problematic for M855/SS109 ammunition at anything but very short distances. However, the ROF of the XM8 is still superior, and if it is outfitted with a barrel of equal or greater length as the M4, the muzzle velocity and energy disadvantage disappears.

The XM8 has some other clear advantages over the M4, mostly in terms of operational reliability and design. Feel free to view a PDF with a comparison of the two rifles here.

[red oct 2]

personaly, after thinking about it, i think the only real change that the US military should make in their rifles is just switch them from 5.56mm to 7.62mm simply because its the most common round used in the world. if a GI is low on ammo, he could just pick up some magazines from some dead enemies saving some cash on the tax payer. even make the weapon capable of using AK mags w/out having to make any kind of modifications.

[Mister Frag 0]

That's been done on a limited basis already.

U.S. Special Forces troops in Afghanistan have been using two types of rifles that use 7.62x39 ammunition in order to avoid having to carry lots of heavy 5.56mm ammo.

The first rifles used a upper receiver chambered in 7.62x39 mated to a standard M4 lower receiver. This was known as the SPR V1, or Special Purpose Receiver. The downside of this solution was that while it allowed the use of enemy ammunition, the magazines themselves were not interchangeable (JAM anyone?).

This problem was fixed with the SPR V2, which now stands for Special Purpose Rifle. It features a new lower receiver with an enlarged magazine well that accepts standard AK-47 magazines. Ergonomically and operationally, the SPR V2 is nearly identical to the M4 rifle that the operators are already instinctively familiar with.

That being said, if the US military wanted to switch ammunition to address the shortcomings of the 5.56mm, I wish they would adopt the 6.8mm SPC and not the 7.62x39. Even the Russian Federation doesn't want to use the latter anymore...

[Madus_Maximus 0]

7.62 is a heavy round only used in heavy weapons, like machine guns (M240, M60 etc) and long range/high power rifles (erm... snipers lol). Anyway it's too heavy to carry in large ammounts as a regular rifleman would have to like they do the 5.56 now. They should use 6.8, and the XM-8 will have the ability to take this calibre with a simple field modification that takes a few minutes.

Also, I don't see the point of devloping a new weapon that fires 7.62 x 39mm R... why not use use an AK-47 instead? Cheaper, and more reliable than most NATO weapons haha, if all else fails club them with it.

[Mister Frag 0]

I think you are confusing 7.62x39 and 7.62x51, and possibly 7.62x54.

The 7.62x39 is indeed an intermediate cartridge used in assault rifles such as the AK-47. The 7.62x51 is used by machine guns as well as battle rifles (M14, H&K G3/91, FN FAL, M1 Garand). The 7.62x54 is used in the Dragunov and some light machine guns such as the PK.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I just read that G36 ha problems whit heat somthing about melting and barrel going all over the place

Never experienced such, nor heard of it.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I think you are confusing 7.62x39 and 7.62x51, and possibly 7.62x54.

The 7.62x39 is indeed an intermediate cartridge used in assault rifles such as the AK-47. The 7.62x51 is used by machine guns as well as battle rifles (M14, H&K G3/91, FN FAL, M1 Garand). The 7.62x54 is used in the Dragunov and some light machine guns such as the PK.

You're right except for the garand, which used .30-06 (7.62x63 mm) There were some later attempts to convert it to 7.62x51, but they were unsuccessfull.

[stgn 39]

A couple of corrections:

1. The XM8 currently weighs 6.4lbs (target is 5.7lbs) vs. a comparably equipped M4 at 8.85lbs.

2. The magazine well dimensions of the XM8 are designed to accept standard M16/M4 aluminum magazines.

3. The M4 is only about 0.5" shorter than the XM8 in both extended and collapsed stock configurations.

4. The XM8 is significantly cheaper than the M4. The carbines themselves without any optics or accessories are <$600 and >$900, respectively. Tricked out, the prices go up to ~$1800 and ~$2500, respectively.

5. Barrel lengths for the XM8 will be 9", 10", 12.5", 14.5", and 20" depending on intended use.

6. Firepower is based largely on the ammunition, barrel length, and rate of fire. Assuming the XM8 will be chambered in 5.56mm and not 6.8SPC, that leaves barrel length and ROF. With a barrel that is less than 14.5" and existing ammo, the M4 will clearly have an advantage over the XM8. In fact, barrel lengths less than 14.5" will be problematic for M855/SS109 ammunition at anything but very short distances. However, the ROF of the XM8 is still superior, and if it is outfitted with a barrel of equal or greater length as the M4, the muzzle velocity and energy disadvantage disappears.

The XM8 has some other clear advantages over the M4, mostly in terms of operational reliability and design. Feel free to view a PDF with a comparison of the two rifles here.

1. your right but I have never seen a soldier mount all those things and the standard M4 loadout(paq-2 and Aimpoint) is lighter than a XM8 and it kills just as good well even better.

3. year but you forget that the Xm8 has a short barrel and to be a battle rifle you have to a barrel lenth which will result in a longer rifle and a slightly heavyer gun.

4. Yes and no it cost 1800 for a XM8 to work but only 900 for a M4.

5. So? thats all cool enough but it will surly cost ekstra if every soldier should have 6 barrels and forgribs and how will you lknow what you need noone would be carrying all the barrels and start changing then during a battle so what need is there for a barrel change? none realy.

6. Again you need a longer barrel = longer gun. And acording to HK the Xm8 in all versions have a low muzzel fps compared to the M16 family ex. M16A4(20'):3110fps, XM8(20'):2900fps, M4A1(14,5'): 2900, XM8(14,5'): unkown HK did not in clude Muzze fps when the added 14,5 barrel to the dockuments cause it washent there in the first place.

How is the ROF(rate of fire) of the XM8 superior its the same basicaly.

To the dockument erm ho made this: HK don't you think there is a slight conflight of interest?

Example the CMAG here its says it is not relaible in a M4 and that is correct but it has nothing to do whit the M4 fact is that the mag sucks and is dangerous to use cause it falls apart, rangers tested the mag 3 times and it failed everytime.

Soldiers have even died cause of a mag brakedown. It would be surprising if the mag works much better in a XM8.

STGN

[stgn 39]

Quote[/b] ]I just read that G36 ha problems whit heat somthing about melting and barrel going all over the place

Never experienced such, nor heard of it.  

Well I just read it and I hope its no true but heres the Quote:

Quote[/b] ]The XM8 is internally almost identical to Germany's G36.

Recently, problems have been found with the G36: its barrel becomes loose after full-auto fire. (When I say loose, I mean wobbling up, down, and left and right.) This is because the G36's upper receiver (the structure that holds all of the rifle's essential operating parts together and in alignment- the bolt carrier, bolt, and barrel extension) is made out of plastic. Apparently, the plastic used cannot hold up to the heat generated by anything more than very limited full auto firing.

H&K will either have to find a way to make the plastic more resistant to heat, or will have to use a different material as an upper receiver.

Incidentally, this melting problem would also be present with the XM8.

Herse the site:

http://forums.military.com/1....686&p=2

STGN

[Drill Sergeant 0]

About the G36, that is on the LMG in sustaind fire from a beta c mag isnt it? Also that has been corrected with the

perferated metal hood and RIS no? I have a picture of it

some where on cd. Also the loaded weight of a Xm8 is less then a m4. I have held a M4 before and to say the least I

was un-impressed, shure you can kill with it, but it's not exactly a perfect gun. Not that the Xm8 is either.

Pound for pound I'd rather be out luging a M1a or G3

then a M4 or XM8. I really don't care if you want to

use a .22 bolt action riffle, aslong as you are effictive.

[Mister Frag 0]

1. The point is that while you will rarely if ever see someone mount all that stuff on an M4, the XM8 can give you all of that in a very compact package. It would require the use of NVGs, but the integral sight will be compatible.

3. I fully agree about the barrel length, in fact I think for all but CQB applications, a 16" should be used with 5.56mm ammo, regardless of whether we are talking about the XM8 or the M4. However, I don't see how adding two inches of barrel length is going to bring up the weight by a couple of pounds to surpass that of the M4.

4. I'm not sure why you think a <$600 rifle won't work and be just as effective as a basic M4.

5. Nobody said that every soldier would be issued multiple barrels to install.

6. Yes, I would advocate a 16" barrel as a minimum, not just 14.5", for satisfactory performance with M855/SS109 ammunition. That would necessitate lengthening the weapon, but would be worth it.

Yes, H&K presented these facts about the XM8 and M4, but with the exception of the projected weapon price of the XM8, they are easily verified.

Regarding the Beta C-Mag, I'm not sure where H&K came up with the notion of reliability problems in the M4, or where you heard that they fall apart -- I hope you aren't talking about Airsoft. I own a Beta C-Mag, and it has been flawless. In fact, the spring system is more dependable than that of standard USGI aluminum magazines, and there has never been a need for a redesigned follower to prevent follower canting and feeding problems.

The only possible problem I see with the Beta C-Mag is that it is quite a bit of weight and bulk to have hang off the weapon, but as far as feeding, falling apart and general reliability are concerned, mine has not given me any problems.

Edit: Added Beta-C picture. Sorry about the flash photography, it's 1AM here. Oh, and sorry about the purple futon in my office, too!

[Drill Sergeant 0]

I'm referring to the g36's fore grip melting when being used in

the LMG role with a beta C mag. Which has been corrected

in one of two ways, a steel internal shroud, and or the Metal

fore grip with RIS. The comment regarding that had nothing

to do with the M4 or directly the reliability of a Cmag.

Airsoft on one hand sucks because for the price of one

airsoft riffle I was able to buy a g3.

[Mister Frag 0]

Drill Sergeant, all my comments were directed at STGN's post, I just didn't want to quote the whole thing again.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

ahh ok Sorry

[4 IN 1 0]

did anyone knows that XM8 is already testing the block 2 ?

and for those who rampaging about the cal.: they will have a 7.62mm version, possiblily start testing on 2005~6

p.s.i always heard that marines have special interest on M16, now it seems it is true

p.p.s:STGN you start sounds like those chiness kids(which makes a lots other chiness pissoff in china) who shouting "AK forever"