Army planning on a new rifle

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
What's the difference between the XM8 and the OICW?

edit
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm for those that don't know about the OICW

Those look big, bulky, and ugly. They also apparently failed.

As I recall, the XM-8 is the lower half of the OICW. The 25mm grenade launcher part was separated when they realized the weight was an issue, but it is still in the plans for the Army. They want to do more R&D on the launcher and will likely issue it as a separate weapon initially. There's a new 25mm sniper rifle that was developed by Barrett which may also be able to fire the 25mm grenades. Read an article either earlier this year or last year on the OICW. Bottomline is they wanted a new weapon to replace the -16 variants as soon as possible and didn't want to wait for the entire OICW.

As for the ammunition/calibre, the Army has been testing the 6.8mm round mentioned above with special operations folks in Afghanistan, who apparently like it. However, since it's a higher powered round, that requires more training to use properly so it probably won't be the round for the masses. I would expect that the XM-8 can be rechambered for the 6.8mm as a result, but never underestimate the incompetence of the procurement people.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
So it's essentially a re-skinned Heckler-Koch HK G36 assault rifle ?

No, I don't believe it uses caseless ammo - also, it doesn't have that rotating chamber.

You are thinking of the HK G11.

The XM8 is nearly identical in actual function to the G36.

 

[glenn1]

Same old 5.56. Thats the low down. All it is is a hopped up G36. Why not USE the G36?! This is just another combat rifle on the 5.56 platform. We dont need ANOTHER 5.56 chambered rifle, we need a NEW rifle with a NEW caliber and a NEW design that gets the job DONE!

I don't know why the good old .270 Winchester never gets considered. It would be a good replacement for both 5.56 and 7.62, and the Army can stop wasting it's money with this 6.8 SPC bullsh!t.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

There is no such thing a "Armor Piercing Ball" ammo. Its one or the other.

Uhhhhh.....

IN my hands are 6 bandoilers full of 1946 vintage lake city .30-06 armor piercing ball ammo with the black tip. All ww2 vintage .30-06 ammo was referred to as .30 ball. Its a different system than what was used to name 5.56.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

There is no such thing a "Armor Piercing Ball" ammo. Its one or the other.

Uhhhhh.....

IN my hands are 6 bandoilers full of 1946 vintage lake city .30-06 armor piercing ball ammo with the black tip. All ww2 vintage .30-06 ammo was referred to as .30 ball. Its a different system than what was used to name 5.56.

"Ball" is a general term that refers to lead core ammo.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Same old 5.56. Thats the low down. All it is is a hopped up G36. Why not USE the G36?! This is just another combat rifle on the 5.56 platform. We dont need ANOTHER 5.56 chambered rifle, we need a NEW rifle with a NEW caliber and a NEW design that gets the job DONE!

I don't know why the good old .270 Winchester never gets considered. It would be a good replacement for both 5.56 and 7.62, and the Army can stop wasting it's money with this 6.8 SPC bullsh!t.

I was actually just thinking that about 6 posts up. Just give em synthetic stocked browning BAR mk II's with box magazines and call it a day. Reliable as hell, proven in the field, accurate,heavy hitting, some of the best 7mm non magnum ballistics there are. Many more awesome facts about it. Its chuck hawks favorite calibre. Mine too, its in my BAR safari mark II.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

There is no such thing a "Armor Piercing Ball" ammo. Its one or the other.

Uhhhhh.....

IN my hands are 6 bandoilers full of 1946 vintage lake city .30-06 armor piercing ball ammo with the black tip. All ww2 vintage .30-06 ammo was referred to as .30 ball. Its a different system than what was used to name 5.56.

"Ball" is a general term that refers to lead core ammo.

Like I said, all ww2 vintage ammo in 30-06 was not called 30-06. It was called .30 ball. The ap's used a steel core, when I said ap and ball together I was naming the caliber.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

There is no such thing a "Armor Piercing Ball" ammo. Its one or the other.

Uhhhhh.....

IN my hands are 6 bandoilers full of 1946 vintage lake city .30-06 armor piercing ball ammo with the black tip. All ww2 vintage .30-06 ammo was referred to as .30 ball. Its a different system than what was used to name 5.56.

"Ball" is a general term that refers to lead core ammo.

Like I said, all ww2 vintage ammo in 30-06 was not called 30-06. It was called .30 ball. The ap's used a steel core, when I said ap and ball together I was naming the caliber.

I know it was called .30 rifle ammo, not 30-06.

Saying it is " AP Ball" is a contradiction.

 

[Brutuskend]

When I fired the M14 in boot camp (1971) the rounds were called "Ball"rounds.

When I fired the M16 (1972) I was told that the killing power of the M16 derived from the fact the round was weighted on one side causing the bullet to tumble end over end after hitting it's "target". You could his someone in the thigh and the round could follow the bone all the way up and exit out the shoulder, ripping the hell out of everything along the way.

Have they changed the projectile since the early 70's?

 

[glenn1]

When I fired the M14 in boot camp (1971) the rounds were called "Ball"rounds.

When I fired the M16 (1972) I was told that the killing power of the M16 derived from the fact the round was weighted on one side causing the bullet to tumble end over end after hitting it's "target". You could his someone in the thigh and the round could follow the bone all the way up and exit out the shoulder, ripping the hell out of everything along the way.

Have they changed the projectile since the early 70's?

They told you that so you wouldn't be scared sh!tless knowing you were carrying a rifle chambering such a pussy round. Kinda like how the DI's used to tell you how the Russians had chemical weapons that would "eat through tank armor in seconds" the day you went to the gas chamber and gave you that biggie-sized portion of CS when you removed your mask.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am hoping this will fire rounds that will automatically target politicians who put our soldiers in stupidly thought out confrontations.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
When I fired the M14 in boot camp (1971) the rounds were called "Ball"rounds.

When I fired the M16 (1972) I was told that the killing power of the M16 derived from the fact the round was weighted on one side causing the bullet to tumble end over end after hitting it's "target". You could his someone in the thigh and the round could follow the bone all the way up and exit out the shoulder, ripping the hell out of everything along the way.

Have they changed the projectile since the early 70's?

Technically, yes there were reports (I dont know if they were ever confirmed) of VC getting hit in the leg and the bullet exited vertically out their torso or head. Thinking about it.... that is a LONG way for a light bullet to travel through flesh. However, keep in mind that they also initially told servicemen that the M-16 was "self-cleaning". What they really meant to say is "We bought this piece of sh!t because some asshats on a committee, most of whom have never heard a shot fired in anger, thought it'd be better than the M14, then decided to not chrome-plate the chamber against the advice of it's designer, and didnt order cleaning kits for a rifle that simply cannot function reliably when dirty. Happy jamming."

The only ordnance screw-up worse than the initial fielding of the M-16 that I can think of at this moment is the Mark 14 torpedo as fielded at the start of WWII.

As a side note, if you were to weight a bullet like that, it would be very, very inaccurate. And yes, they have changed the projectile since the early 70s. And if you want to see something entertaining, fire the new cartridges (M855, or better yet M856 tracers) through the old gun barrels with the 1 in 12" twist. Hilarity ensues. I think it would be even better with the original 1 in 14" twist rate they initially fielded it with (until testing in Alaska showed that in cold air 1 in 14" didnt stabilize the bullet correctly).

 

[Brutuskend]

Actually the reason the M16 jammed so badly was that the Military wanted more "punch" and they changed the powder from "stick" to "ball". The ball powder DID give the round a bit more muzzle velocity, but in return it burned dirty and resulted in jamming the rifle. As I recall, there were also issues with the lube being used early on.

Also, they had learned during WWII that the rifles preformed better if the chrome plated the inside of the barrel. For whatever reason, they decided NOT to do this with the early M16's (cost IIRC, was the determining factor).

EDIT: I ment chamber, not barrel.

Plus I see you beat me to a few points and I failed to read them.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Mookow

The only ordnance screw-up worse than the initial fielding of the M-16 that I can think of at this moment is the Mark 14 torpedo as fielded at the start of WWII.

LOL, those were great. A detonator so fragile that the impact of the torpedo on the target breaks it and they ran at the wrong depths to boot. Took them long enough to fix as well.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

There is no such thing a "Armor Piercing Ball" ammo. Its one or the other.

Uhhhhh.....

IN my hands are 6 bandoilers full of 1946 vintage lake city .30-06 armor piercing ball ammo with the black tip. All ww2 vintage .30-06 ammo was referred to as .30 ball. Its a different system than what was used to name 5.56.

"Ball" is a general term that refers to lead core ammo.

Like I said, all ww2 vintage ammo in 30-06 was not called 30-06. It was called .30 ball. The ap's used a steel core, when I said ap and ball together I was naming the caliber.

The term "ball ammunition" is used to describe lead or lead cored rounds. AP rounds are those that have a steel penetrator core. Some rounds have a steel penetrator core followed by a lead boattail. Never have I heard of AP ball, though I could see it being used to describe an AP round. It would be redundant, though, not to mention confusing.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: Munchies


Like I said, all ww2 vintage ammo in 30-06 was not called 30-06. It was called .30 ball. The ap's used a steel core, when I said ap and ball together I was naming the caliber.

The term "ball ammunition" is used to describe lead or lead cored rounds. AP rounds are those that have a steel penetrator core. Some rounds have a steel penetrator core followed by a lead boattail. Never have I heard of AP ball, though I could see it being used to describe an AP round. It would be redundant, though, not to mention confusing.

Naming it as .30 AP Ball, is not too confusing. I still dont know if this vintage AP steelies I have are safe to shoot, I had a chart that showed what dates the Lake city ammo was corrosive, and what is not but I lost it.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: Munchies


Like I said, all ww2 vintage ammo in 30-06 was not called 30-06. It was called .30 ball. The ap's used a steel core, when I said ap and ball together I was naming the caliber.

The term "ball ammunition" is used to describe lead or lead cored rounds. AP rounds are those that have a steel penetrator core. Some rounds have a steel penetrator core followed by a lead boattail. Never have I heard of AP ball, though I could see it being used to describe an AP round. It would be redundant, though, not to mention confusing.

Naming it as .30 AP Ball, is not too confusing.

It makes it sound like it is an armor piercing lead round.

 

[SilentZero]

Yeah been hearing about it for awhile now. Nice weapon and can't go wrong with HK.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Mookow

The only ordnance screw-up worse than the initial fielding of the M-16 that I can think of at this moment is the Mark 14 torpedo as fielded at the start of WWII.

LOL, those were great. A detonator so fragile that the impact of the torpedo on the target breaks it and they ran at the wrong depths to boot. Took them long enough to fix as well.

You are forgetting about the POS known as the magnetic detonator, and the insistence of certain REMF admirals that they be used. At least when the Germans had issues similar to this, they court-martialed the asshats responsible.

 

[Horus]

ARRRGHHH...By "hitting power" I mean the projectile has more velocity. 5.56 has an AMAZING amount of penetration. THAT'S why it's used! I've seen 5.56NATO rounds blow through a 1/8" steel plate, THEN through a combat kevlar helmet! If the cops at the Hollywood Bank shootout had used AR15's, 2 or 3 rounds would have put a guy down.

And a good soldier always puts 3 into an enemy. Most of the time a single round isn't gonna put someone down, unless it's really, REALLY big. 7.62 won't put someone down for good with a single hit.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Horus
ARRRGHHH...By "hitting power" I mean the projectile has more velocity. 5.56 has an AMAZING amount of penetration. THAT'S why it's used! I've seen 5.56NATO rounds blow through a 1/8" steel plate, THEN through a combat kevlar helmet!

Using that definition of hitting power, a 5.7x28mm has more hitting power than a 45ACP. Penetration and hitting power are two totally different concepts. A 45 ACP has a lot of hitting power, but doesnt penetrate armor worth jack. A 5.7x28mm has great penetrating ability, but not much in the way of hitting power. Besides, steel cored 7.62NATO penetrates pretty well.

If the cops at the Hollywood Bank shootout had used AR15's, 2 or 3 rounds would have put a guy down.

Depends on the ammo the cops were to use, 5.56mm might have done the job, and it might have done nothing. Also depends on the body armor that the bank robbers were wearing. It had to have been at least Level III, in not IV.

And a good soldier always puts 3 into an enemy. Most of the time a single round isn't gonna put someone down, unless it's really, REALLY big. 7.62 won't put someone down for good with a single hit.

In your average firefight, people dont stand up and give you a couple seconds to take a shot at their motionless, fully exposed torso. I have never heard a Vietnam veteran complain about the performance of the 7.62 NATO, except that both the M14 and M60 were rather heavy to be lugging around the countryside, which isnt a complaint against the round so much as the platform. Contrast that with all the complaints regarding the 5.56mm. And Vietnam was basically the ideal situation to be using the 5.56mm.

I'd be happy to see a 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC round be adopted. And if you still want to see fragmentation, put a nice, deep cannelure over a thin jacket. Practically anything would be a vast improvement over the 5.56x45mm.

 

[Beattie]

That thing looks like it's made of plastic. I dont know how I would feel going into combat with a plastic gun.

Any armed forces people here have experience with this weapon?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Beattie
That thing looks like it's made of plastic. I dont know how I would feel going into combat with a plastic gun.

Any armed forces people here have experience with this weapon?

Have you looked at the M16 and M4? Of course, if you make the plastic black it looks better. But then Diane Feinstein will want to ban it.

Actually, I'm not sure if the XM8's stock is made of the same material as the M16/M4. That is an interesting question.

 

[dudeguy]

it looks bulky

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Howard
If only they could adapt this technology to small arms: http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200311/itf_inventions.html#article-10

And it would be too expensive to adapt the carbon fiber-wrapped steel barrels for a standard-issue...

Naw, if only they could adapt this to small arms