More XM8 in the Army Times

New and improved firepower

Lots of good stuff, including LMG/SAW discussion. I’ll write more tomorrow.

Comments

  1. The only thing I wish I had seen in the requirements for the competition is for compatibility with rifle grenades (esp. w/Refaim’s Smart-Rifle Grenades). XM8 had this (though maybe not with smart-grenades).

  2. Other specific requirements are that each of the models include a common multipurpose sighting system that enables the soldier to rapidly and effectively hit stationary and moving targets at both close range and the maximum effective range of the model: ~ 500 meters for the carbine.’ 500 meters from a 5.56mm weapon with 12.5 inch barrel??? Good Luck with that.

  3. Raraavis, I dunno about the other contenders, but the XM-8 used polygonal rifling which captures gas energy better than standard rifling, so it may very well be possible to do ‘business’ out to 500 meters with a 12.5′ barel. Another possible enhancer are progressive twist barrels, while this also increases the gas0energy efficiency of the barrel this apparantly requires modified bullets.

  4. 500m target range is for the sniper/saw(?) weapon, 300m is expected for the carbine and 150m for the compact carbine

  5. Back in August 2004 the annual shoot out at BlackRock got started. A new weapon system was asked to bring their equipment. The Company was ZM Weapons. The weapon was the new LR-300. The LR-300 impressed the fire arms experts in attendance. Quotes like this: ‘Where have these guys been? This is the most adaptable M4/M16 system and subsystems I have seen,’ an evaluator wrote. ‘Who’d they [tick] off?’ were received from the experts. The experts were highly impressed with the gun. Then some interesting things started to happen. Certain military interest media started to talk about the problems with the XM Weapons system. All this seems to have started after the LR 300 rifle was shot back in August at the shoot out at BlackRock. What I think is that the XM-8 was walking along through the procurement process quite nicely when 2 things happened. The LR-300 impressed a lot of people and we need to replace our light machine guns. That is cause the to be opened up to competition.

  6. Back in August 2004 the annual shoot out at BlackRock got started. A new weapon system was asked to bring their equipment. The Company was ZM Weapons. The weapon was the new LR-300. The LR-300 impressed the fire arms experts in attendance. Quotes like this: ‘Where have these guys been? This is the most adaptable M4/M16 system and subsystems I have seen,’ an evaluator wrote. ‘Who’d they [tick] off?’ were received from the experts. The experts were highly impressed with the gun. Then some interesting things started to happen. Certain military interest media started to talk about the problems with the XM Weapons system. All this seems to have started after the LR 300 rifle was shot back in August at the shoot out at BlackRock. What I think is that the XM-8 was walking along through the procurement process quite nicely when 2 things happened. The LR-300 impressed a lot of people and we need to replace our light machine guns. That is To cause the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) to be opened up to competition. Bibliography November 11, 2004 XM8 in trouble? http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001707.html W15QKN-05-R-0449 FedBizOpps notice Date: 2005-03-04 Description: http://procnet.pica.army.mil/FBO/RFP/W15QKN-05-R-0449/W15QKN-05-R-0449.htm Z-W Weapons http://www.zmweapons.com/index.htm AFJ http://armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/analysis8.html rtsp://rm001.gmti.com:80/~atpco/realserver/04bw_z-mweapons.rm AFJ Editor John Roos discusses the Shoot-out 2.59 Mi rtsp://rm001.gmti.com:80/~atpco/realserver/04bw_introduction.rm

  7. Colin – ‘500m target range is for the sniper/saw(?) weapon, 300m is expected for the carbine and 150m for the compact carbine’ I agree those are reasonable requirements. I am guessing the Army Times article made an error when it printed the following. ~ 500 meters for the carbine. ~ 150 meters for the special compact. ~ 600 meters for the designated marksman. ~ 600 meters and beyond for the light machine gun.

  8. From Army Times. – ‘that didn’t deter major small-arms companies such as Colt, FN Herstal USA Inc. and Steyr-Mannlicher from saying they were ready to compete when the Army polled the weapons-making community last November in what’s known as a ‘sources sought’ document -to see which other companies were willing to contend with XM8, Smith said.’ We may have a real competition after all.

  9. 500 Meters for the Carbine: Not a miss-quote, just wishful thinking. The Marine Corps still uses the 500-yard line to qualify – one reason the Corps has no interest in the XM-8 carbine. The Army is not going to admit that they cannot shoot as well with their new rifle as the average Marine with an M-16A2. The fancy barrel thing is great but at 12.5 inches there is going to be a lot of unburned powder – in other words, you are giving up a lot of velocity. It is also so short, there may not be adequate sight radius (space between front and rear sights) to shoot accurately at that distance with iron sights. Does Kevin work for ZM Weapons or just like their sales literature?

  10. The Lr-300 Tactical Rifle Guns Magazine, March, 2001 by Cameron Hopkins new Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. Get started now. (It’s free.) THIS VERSATILE, COMPACT DEFENSIVE CARBINE FROM ZM WEAPONS IS ONE OF THE MOST RUGGED VERSIONS OF THE M4 RIFLE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. Recognizing the need for a compact, adaptable weapon, the U.S. military recently adopted the M4 version of the M16A2-assault rifle. The M4 differs from a standard M16A2 in several respects, the most significant of which is the use of a flat-top receiver and a special forend featuring Picatinney rails for mounting various targeting modules. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_47/ai_70650325

  11. I have been reading over this subject, and I would like to offer my opinion, for what it’s worth. I am a brand new ARNG soldier, and when I went for training a month ago on the M-16 I felt somewhat dissatisfied. Being a full blooded Vermonter, I grew up around lever-action .45-70s and big heavy semi-auto .30-06s; then I go to the range and they hand me this thing that feels like a BB gun and shoots like a .22? I would be scared to hunt animals game animals with it, nevermind the most dangerous creature on earth. Given what I’ve read here, I personally would like to see the the M-16 redesigned with a gas piston rather than a gas tube and rechambered for .30-06, which when properly loaded is extremely powerful. Sure, it would lower the rate of fire and increase fatigue, but when a Taliban gets hit in the arm with a .30-06 and it falls off, I don’t think he’ll be shooting back. Also, I would like to know if the Barnes Triple-Shock X-Bullet is prohibited by the geneva convention, as almost any cartridge loaded with these becomes very lethal very fast.

  12. Private Stewart – Welcome to the National Guard! The .308 / NATO 7.62mm cartridge is essentially a .30-06 shortened a little after WWII because modern powder is more efficient. I’ve heard people argue the ballistics are different, but not by much. If you get a chance, try an M-14 or similar 7.62 battle rifle such as the FNL or H&K-91. They are a big step up in power and accuracy – also a big step up in weight over the M-16. Personally, I would prefer to carry the extra pounds to have one of these rifles when the shooting starts. Pretty much any small arms bullet not full-metal jacketed is prohibited. In the heat of a battle, severely wounding an enemy is as good or better than killing him anyhow -assuming you hurt him enough not to continue fighting. Hopefully a couple of his buddies will also stop fighting to help him.

  13. Unfortunately I cannot read this article because I don’t subscribe to the Army Times. $55 seems a little steep.

  14. On Sunday at drill I had the opportunity to speak to a seargent who has been an international shooting competitor for the army for over 25 years. When I asked him about the XM8, He said he handled one and thought it was okay; but he also thought that there was no point in switching to a new weapon if it still shoots the same caliber, seeing as we have a perfectly good weapon already. All of our soldiers are well traind on the M-16 and they keep them well maintained, so there’s no reason to change weapons if we don’t change calibers, especially if the new weapon only offers an optical sight and exchangable barrels as new Standard features. (besides the gas piston)

  15. PV2 Stewart, Everyone has an opinion on the M-16. I think its lack of reliability and age make it worth replacing. My unit had real bad experiences with them in the first Gulf War. (I’ve heard that using Miltec lubricant instead of CLP helps somewhat. CLP is a real sand magnet.) At this point the M-16 has been around longer than the 1903/06 Springfield was when it was replaced by the M-1 at the beginning of WW2. The fact is, every other modern military has smoothly and quietly updated their standard issue rifle at least once since the M-16 came along. The Army is making way too big a deal out of this and spending gobs of money for the hell of it – just like the development of the Stryker. My problem with the XM-8 is that they are trying to replace a rifle with a carbine. Very Dumb. The debate over calibers has clouded up the whole issue. The time is right to re-evaluate the 5.56 and consider something with more punch given the advances in modern body armor. The Army seems determined to put off that decision. Why pay to change weapons and calibers at once when you can pay twice as much to replace them individualy over the next few years? It’s only taxpayer money.