Competition for M16/M4 replacement opens

[Balschoiw 0]

Yes, I´d also liked to know

Edit:

STGN, check your sig on "recoil" and "shooting"

[Heatseeker 0]

how would u kno the handling is better?  

Ergonomics? It looks smooth and easy to hold/grab, especialy against the shoulder, i mean compared to an old G3 it must be like handling a toy, it looks like a good rifle to handle in close combat situations or fast reaction and aiming/shooting wich this model problably is, i have yet to see other variants of this 2nd generation XM8 but this one looks alright to me imo .

[MontyVCB 0]

yea, but u can't say the handling tis better buy just looking at it, u would need to hold and fire the weapon to be sure

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

So XM-8 is basically a G36! Not nice to know that friendly fire is soon coming from rifles made in Germany! That was is the boomerang effect of selling arms!

[red oct 2]

dont get your hopes up Albert. as they said, the army isn't really too happy w/ the M8, and it won't be made in Germany it will be contracted to either a HK company in the U.S. or to another private company like w/ the army's M9. if anything most likely i'd bet your countries weapons are made here

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

BGT (Überlingen), Comet (Bremerhaven), Dynamit Nobel (Troisdorf), EADS-TDW (Schrobenhausen), Heckler & Koch (Oberndorf), Junghans (Schramberg), Mauser (Oberndorf), Rheinmetall (Düsseldorf), UMAREX (Ansberg) und Zeiss (Oberkochen).

Those are the companies that produce military weapons for germany in germany!

The good thing about this is, if HK is getting the US contract then it will soon become the worlds largest producer of military rifles and this would mean additional economy of scale and capital for future german projects.

[red oct 2]

if HK does get a contract i'd hope they choose the G11 over the XM8. just looks cooler. although honestly i kinda wish the army would stop getting all these damn pea shooters and get something big and messy. duno why Barrett hasn't decided to be involved, they have a weapon that they can submit:

Barrett M468

[DracoPaladore 0]

I think the idea is:

Big and messy guns leave big and messy problems if you miss.

[red oct 2]

yeah i know. i was just cloud talking. but serriously i think they should go w/ the Barrett M468

[Heatseeker 0]

yeah i know. i was just cloud talking. but serriously i think they should go w/ the Barrett M468

Thats not an assault rifle, i believe it is a advanced marksman one, its semi auto, heavy and problably very expensive.

They need something long lasting, reliable, upgradeable , easy to maintain, modable, simple and functional, acurate...and not so expensive, the manufacturer that gets the contract will build and sell amazing numbers of these and the profit will come from the large quantities delivered over the years instead of single unit cost.

I dont think Barrett could handle the production of such a large quantity of weapons, they also need a manufacturer that can guaranty quantity and quality. H&K will come up with something they like .

[stgn 39]

The M468 has no chance simply because the 6.8SPC round is prity much dead the US Army has decited to go with 5.56mm. And its prity much a M4 in 6.8mm so its doubt full if it would pass the relaiablility test.

Conserning the XM8 vs AR15 debat:

Fair enough I don't agree with all the people on HK's bandvagon, besides most of the people looking here has no intrest in a pointless debat with the surtan result=

Me, AR15 is best

HK's bandvagon, enything HK is best

And we have had this debat befor and besides the fact that the AR15 resently seen revoluting improvments to the design of the gas system and the XM8 has gained wight, nothing much has realy changed so to show you why the XM8 is in trouble here you are:

How likely the weapon is to kill, M4A1/M16A4 vs XM8 versions

Note that the higher speed of the 5.56 the more deadly it is(fragtments more).

Besides this is very relating to this topic:

10--Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One, Family of Weapons

--------------------------------

General Information

Document Type: Presolicitation Notice

Solicitation Number: W15QKN-05-R-0449

Contracting Office Address

US Army ARDEC, AMSTA-AR-PC, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07806-5000

Description

The U.S. Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, on behalf of the Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM-SW), has a requirement for a non developmental family of weapons that are capable of firing U.S. standard M855 and M856 ammunition. The family consists of a Carbine, Special Compact (SC), Designated Marksman (DM), and Light Machine Gun (LMG) weapon systems. This endeavor will be conducted in three phases consisting of a System Design and Development (SDD) Phase, a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Phase and a Full Rate Production (FRP) Phase. The Carbine, SC and DM weapon systems shall share at least 80% parts commonality and shall share at least 50% commonality with the LMG. Each weapon system shall be equipped with a Multi Purpose Sighting System (MPSS) enabling the warfighter to rapidly and effectively engage stationary and moving targets both with reflexive fire at close ranges, and with precision fire out to the maximum effective range of the variant (Carbine-500m, SC-150m, DM-600m, LMG- 600m). All OICW Increment I weapon systems shall incorporate a resident limited visibility fire control with infrared aim light, illuminator and visible red laser pointer. The infrared aiming light and illuminator shall be greater than, or equal to the capability of the AN/PEQ-2A. A properly zeroed OICW Increment I Carbine (zeroed to 300 meters), SC (zeroed to 150 meters), DM (zeroed to 300 and 500 meters), or LMG (zeroed to 300 meters) shall enable a warfighter firing from varying fighting positions, both supported and unsupported to engage E-type silhouettes under conditions that include target exposure times from 3 to 8 seconds and targets moving 2 to 4 meters per second to the following metrics: Carbine (moving targets to 300m) with a Probability of Hit greater than .60 at 150m; SC (moving and stationary targets) with a Probability of Hit greater than .40 at 100m; DM (stationary targets, zeroed to 500m) with a Probability of Hit greater than .50 at 500m; LMG (Hit on first 6-round burst against a single E-type silhouette in an 8 target array, zeroed to 300m) with a Probability of Hit greater than .04 at 600m. The OICW Increment I Carbine, SC and DM shall demonstrate 18,000 Mean Rounds Between Essential Function Failure (MRBEFF) for Class III malfunctions (i.e., for non-operator correctable malfunctions which cause the loss of essential OICW Increment I functionality) and 2,300 MRBEFF for Class I and II malfunctions combined (Class I malfunctions are operator clearable within 10 seconds, whereas Class II malfunctions require more than 10 seconds but less than 10 minutes to clear but can be corrected by the operator with available equipment). The OICW Increment I LMG shall demonstrate 18,000 MRBEFF for Class III malfunctions and 1,900 MRBEFF for Class I and II malfunctions combined The OICW Increment I Carbine, SC, DM weapon systems shall have a sustained rate of fire greater than or equal to 45 rounds per minute without degrading reliability. The OICW Increment I LMG weapon system?s sustained rate of fire shall be at a minimum of 72 rounds per minute for ten minutes without degrading reliability and accuracy. All OICW Increment I weapon systems shall have a minimum barrel life of 15,000 rounds. All Proposals will include written submissions and test (bid) samples, both of will be 60 days after Solicitation release. A pre-solicitation or a pre- proposal conference will be conducted at a later date (to be determined). The offeror shall submit four (4) of each variant for a total of sixteen (16) complete weapon systems, along with sufficient spare parts, to the Government for bid sample testing no later than the closing date of the solicitation. Should an offeror?s bid samples pass through the initial and subsequent go/no go screening criteria, the samples will be evaluated with live fire to demonstrate the weapon systems? ability to meet the system requirements. The winning offeror will be awarded a contract for test quantities to proceed to a Milestone C decision, if required. After satisfying the requirements for a Milestone C decision, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantities (up to 4,900 weapon systems) shall be produced. Subsequent to the production of LRIP quantities, the Government may award multiple Full Rate Production (FRP) options to the winning offeror (up to 134,500 total weapon systems if the total number of options are exercised). The OICW Increment I family of weapons is intended to replace current weapon systems to include the M4, M16, M249 and selected M9 pistols for the active army. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to be posted on the TACOM-ARDEC Acquisition Center website located at: http://procnet.pica.army.mil is planned for release on or about 23 March 2005. Proposals, along with sixteen (16) bid samples, are required to be delivered within sixty (60) days from the date the RFP is released.

The problem here for both is that the weapon system has to include a MG with a 50% parts compability and since both XM8 and AR15 is a rifle system this aint gonna happen cause they both has to be mag feed which is not preferable for a MG. I have heard that XM8 failed the MG test and AR15 is not known to be the geratest MG.

STGN

[Necromancer- 0]

if HK does get a contract i'd hope they choose the G11 over the XM8. just looks cooler.

The G11's 4.5mm bullets don't seem to have much stopping power.

I'd prefer to use 6.8mm SPC.

[Gordy 0]

What's so cool about brick-shaped rifle. Imagine yourself running with a piece of curb in your arms.

I'd rather throw bricks at the enemy than use this hideous monstrosity.

[ran 0]

What's so cool about brick-shaped rifle. Imagine yourself running with a piece of curb in your arms.

I'd rather throw bricks at the enemy than use this hideous monstrosity.

as long as it works ... you could give a skilled man the last of the WWII vintage self-loading rifle and he could do anything with it.

What the hell is up with this dick wagging contest ? It's a rifle, it shoots bullets.

(says the man who's been disgusted by the "facelift" of his once beloved gun)

[Bordoy 0]

What's so cool about brick-shaped rifle. Imagine yourself running with a piece of curb in your arms.

I'd rather throw bricks at the enemy than use this hideous monstrosity.

I agree.

Have to use a gun which looks like the M-16. Such as the Colt project.

AAI looks good from that link on the other page. Other's are too big.

AR-15 looks good as well.

Who cares if it's reliable or not, or has the stoping power

But seroiusly, i hate futuristic looking guns, starship trooper style.

[llauma 0]

I am quite sure that the M16 and G36 looked futuristic when they were first shown.. No matter which new model they pick it will be a big improvement.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Quote[/b] ]the G11 proved itself as a very accurate, comfortable to handle and fire, and reliable weapon

Hey, it's nealy a feet shorter than M16 but has 3 cm longer barrel... Muzzle velocity is pretty much the same, and in 3-shot bursts the bullets are flying before you even feel the recoil.

And G11 is 50% more accurate than G3, though I dunno how accurate G3 is compared to M16/M4...

[Ares1978 0]

50% more accurate? What the hell does that mean?

[Bordoy 0]

50% more accurate? What the hell does that mean?

Yep, that actually makes no sense at all.

Percentages cannot be used in this scenario.

[Necromancer- 0]

This is a funny link about the M16...

[Ares1978 0]

This is a funny link about the M16...  

"Not only can the AR jam so easily, but it doesn’t even make a good club."

Like I've always said, the US should have copied the AK in the 1950's.

[Necromancer- 0]

What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

[miles teg 1]

Three Words- Defense Industry Lobbiests

...well that and lots of corruption in the Pentagon.

The Generals that approve of and support these nice huge weapons contracts will have a nice juicy retirement lined up earning large amounts of money as a "consultant" for the companies they helped out.

That's just the way the defense industry works in America.

I must say however that the M16 rifles do make good clubs. While they are lightweight, the butt of the rifle is heavy enough to bash open someone's skull. Its a hell of a lot better hand to hand weapon (with a bayonet) then a bullpup rifle.

But with that said, I agree that the HK G-36 would be a logical replacement. The funny thing is that I believe the XM-8 is based upon the G-36 design. I guess the Army just wanted something that looked different and with a few other bells and whistles.

Still overall I think the M4A1 is a fine weapon. All that is needed is something as versatile as the M4A1, but with better reliability (like the G-36) without sacrificing accuracy. That and a 7.62X51mm Designated Marksman rifle like the SR-25 (one per squad) is all an infantry squad needs along with a squad automatic weapon (SAW) and a grenade launcher.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

i think you could leave the SA80 out. i heard from a lot of people (most of them being British) the SA80 is utter crap, its heavy, and expensive. and there are a lot better choices out today to choose from than that weapon.

Quote[/b] ]The British Army's issue service rifle.

A poorly researched, badly designed and sloppily constructed weapon, of a layout that generations of designers have been trying to foist on the Army since 1911.

The only outstanding point of the weapon is that it is the most expensive battle rifle available.

It has been kept on purely for political reasons, rather than because it is a good weapon. But in the halls of Westminster political careers deemed to be worth more than brave men's lives.

While the premise of a shorter rifle is laudable, the fact is that this particular 'design' can only be shot from the right shoulder forcing soldiers to shoot from positions without cover thereby putting their lives at greater risk, and negates the British Forces previously unchallenged position as leaders in Urban Operations, (FIBUA/OBUA/MOUT.)

It has previously and erroneously been defined and described as "a good overall weapon" and "undoutably the best weapon series in the world today.... stoppages are all attributed to the rounds.... old magazines would rarely jam with 30 rounds. Do not rate this weapon on what the media says, you have to be like me, live with it and use it regularly to know it." It would be interesting to find out what these gentlemen are comparing the SA80 to.

I too have lived day in and day out with the SA80, but I've also been issued and had many years experience with a large number of other weapons and know their fortés and foibles, and can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject.

A set of underwater soot-juggling gloves ? That's about as useful as an SA80

[Heatseeker 0]

And if the flaws of the M16 are so widely known why not redesign the rifle and fix its problems, shouldnt be harder than designing a rifle from scratch and put it thru severe tests , uh .