The cancellation of the U.S XM8 assault rifle integration

Hey guys, just a little thread on your thoughts about the cancelled U.S plans to introduce the XM8 assault rifle into thier arsenal.

From the comments I read it seems as though this gun was expensive and didn't do what the makers said it would. It was defective...and the foregrip or parts near the tip of the barrel would melt during longer bursts of fire....

reply to post by Sandman25


First of all, in the near future, try to make your posts count. One line of text simply isn't enough to get the juices of discussion flowing.

We WANT to hear your thoughts as well as answer your questions.

Now to answer your question:

1. The XM8 never made it to military production. It's not that it was cancelled it was simply outright rejected.

2. The XM8 was manufactured by the German company Heckler & Koch who apparently spent more time on the look of the rifle rather than the functionality. As a previous poster mentioned, some of the plastic parts would melt as a result of prolonged fire. The gas system was a short stroke piston system which for all intents and purposes should have worked properly...It didn't. The system would get so hot that the plastic around the gas block would simply melt off. They didn't even bother to use glass filled nylon polymer which would have likely mitigated the problem. They didn't. It was simply unshielded plastic.

3. The rifle was so expensive that the military simply couldn't afford it en masse. Where the typical M4 would cost roughly 1200 dollars, an XM8 battle rifle would cost 2200. Almost double the price for a 5.56mm platform is simply stupid.

I hope that answers your question. For further instruction on the rules of this forum please refer to this link:
FSME-The Weapons and Tactics Forum: What it is and what it is NOT

reply to post by projectvxn


Hey, you seem pretty up to speed with the whole incident. I used to serve with the Australian defence force, i assume your U.S military but i could be wrong so please forgive me if i am, however if you are U.S military, is it true that the Rangers have incorporated the FN SCAR?

reply to post by Subsistence


The FN Scar seems to be getting phased in to the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Personally I'm not a fan of it, it's just another expensive 5.56mm NATO platform that offers very little in terms of better functionality.

I'll let you know what I think if I make it through Ranger school.

reply to post by projectvxn


Wow, good luck mate, In my time with the Aussie Defence force i was a rifleman for two years and then i thought id try my hand at the SAS, i served with the Special Air Service for four years before leaving the army, and i'd have to say, when i was with the SAS i traded my F88 austeyr for the M4A1 and you bloke in the U.S chose the right rifle i'll give you that.

Good to chat with another serviceman like myself

reply to post by Subsistence


I prefer a 20 inch HBAR M16 with iron sights as opposed to an M4. But that is merely an argument of weight and overall length and not really about performance.

H&K has a good reputation but this rifle was not their best effort and is not the equal of existing M16 rifles. In my opinion, the US should move to a 6.5mm cartridge for its next rifle. Upgrading existing rifles to the 6.5mm MPC [necked up 5.56] requires minimal logistics and costs; rebarreling and maybe bolt mod for increased bullet weights.

One thing is absolutely certain: the US military doesn't need another M-16. That was the single worst combat weapon ever nightmared into existence. The next infantry rifle should be, first and foremost, reliable as well as deadly. It should also be durable.

This is why the venerable AK-47 is still around because it is all of that.

The more gadgets you attach to a weapon, the more potentially problematic at a critical moment.

Perhaps a straight copy of the StG43 would have been better, German troops loved it, I have a De-act and a copy of its predesesor, the MkB42H, both easy to field strip, not too heavy, nice to handle.

reply to post by redoubt


Yes, but a weapon that goes bang every time even if you run over it with a tank isn't exactly reliable if it can't hit a damn thing at range.

The 7.62x39 is an excellent round with great ballistics and long range capability, and yet the AK platform can't utilize the round to it's full potential. What ever comes next should, in my opinion, be slightly bigger than the 5.56mm and slightly smaller than the 7.62mm for various considerations.

1. You can carry a hell of a lot of 5.56mm rounds but you can't carry a lot of 7.62mm rounds without weighing down your loadout.

2. The shear force of the 7.62mm round by far exceeds the capabilities of the 5.56mm and yet the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56mm round at distance is superior to that of the 7.62

3. I believe an in between round that combines the best characteristics of both rounds is what is called for here. However, since NATO is heavily invested in the 5.56mm platform the chances of getting a 6.5mm platform into service for the military is slim.

My vote is obviously for the 6.5mm round and platform. But I'm guessing the egg heads at the pentagon probably think they know better.

reply to post by projectvxn


The weight difference between a 5.56 and a 6.5 MPC is less than a pound more for every 100 rounds carried with a 120 or 124 grain bullet. The magazine capacity is the same because the case is a necked up 5.56 and seating the bullets to the OAL of the 5.56 allows use of existing magazines.
If a 6.5mm is really desirable, this is a no-brainer mod. The Grendel requires extensive mods for little gain over the MPC. It is my impression that the current thinking is that the 72, 75, and 77 grain 5.56 bullets are an easier fix. Meanwhile, the XM8 cancellation has saved lives and money. Trading a rifle that works for one that doesn't and that costs twice as much is a losing game.

reply to post by pteridine


Sure it's a no-brainer to guys like you and I.

But reality has to contend with bureaucracy.

reply to post by projectvxn


The modern snuffie humps a ruck that would have killed me to carry more than a few miles so additional weight is important. I whined about carring a PRC-6 [yep, when you hit the ground the PRC would kind of lag and then sort of pound you down by your lower spine. Good news, it would deflect fragments and occasionally work].

The 6.5 is the way to go but with all the cuts in budgets it is not being considered. The thing is, all they have to do it build uppers to go with the M-16 lowers. It's the initial cost of Ammo in that caliber that is the kicker. Until they can get decent rates on bulk from manufacturers and some good lobbying on the hill we are stuck with the M-4/M-16 platform in .223/5.56!
A model of the SCAR 17 is also being played with in a few SEAL teams from what I can gather and they like it. At 2200.00+ a copy it's a bit of a stretch to consider in large numbers! It's also nearly as heavy as the M-14 they have brought back for special services.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


From what i understand some of the high end JSOC community are using HK 416 rifles. A piston gas system 5.56mm rifle. They took the piston system from the G36 and built an M4 around it.

I hear it's a great rifle but i haven't had the chance to range test it yet.

You are correct. The HK 416 is currenty pretty popular with a lot of Seal team members.

Aside from being a little clunky looking, the XM8 did look kinda cool.

When you see something that looks cool, you want it to be as technologically appealing. After the disappointment with falling for looks before specs with the XM8, I was more excited to see when the SCAR and Magpul Masada (which later was known as the ACR) were introduced as possible contenders for a future US military rifle. I love a lot of the features on both. I think if you could have a hybrid between the two, it would be the perfect modern battle rifle. More so if it were in 6.8.

I have always thought the entire force should go to a new standard of either 6.8 or 6.5, but I think the 6.8 has better performance.

reply to post by Wolf321


I actually think the ACR is a wonderful idea.

I've had the pleasure of range testing both the Bushmaster(LEO/Civilian) and Remington(LEO/Military) models. Buth versions are very good.

It's not combat proven, however, and they are still very expensive.

reply to post by projectvxn


I think I am a little more partial to the ACR than the SCAR. I heard that Remington just released an updated version of the Mil/LEO model. They said they made it 1.5 lbs lighter and made the grip so it can be changed out. Those were both two issues I had with it initially. I also would like to have seen the selector switch modified so as not to interfere when holding the rifle, and I would like to see the sights improved a little, both in style and size.

Other than that, make it in 6.8 and preferably under 1500 and I would be drooling to get one.