The m16A2 / m16a4 is a weapon system that is out dated
positives good sight picture for large rear peep sight (faster target acquisition) good add on attachments pvs 14 night vision mount m68 red dot sight can be used with night vision mount for night scope (iron sights never need batteries) fore grip weaver rail system for sure fire touch sensitive light suppressor w/ sub sonic ammunition night vision infrared sight m203 compact (forget the laser rangefinder sight, too complicated gadget) old leaf sight for fast acquisition and on target adjustment
high velocity / light weight round / flat trajectory side by side mag holders for fast mag changes low recoil of weapon
negatives barrel way too long for vehicle / urban / covert operations (gets in the way) m4 barrel too long by 2-3 inches needs to be .... mp5 like compactness in a m4 configuration with short barrel of 10-12 inches the m16 weapon system is not a precision type shooting weapon to begin with. 550 meter point target shots are ridiculous and is a damn lie. Long range shots give your position away and are inaccurate fire that waste ammunition. 0-200 meter conflicts are the norm where a smaller barreled quicker action weapon excels in an urban or vehicular firing position. Any longer range past 300 meter and break out the SAW, m21, m25, m24 weapon systems and you are talking about fire superiority or long range precision shooting. High maintenance on weapons cleaning to prevent weapon jams Too many nooks and crannies on outside of weapon to hold dirt / mud
Proposed changes for overall problem solving
M4 weapon with short 10-12 inch barrel with collapsing stock
Weaver rail systems on modified fore grips
Outside of weapon is flat with no crevices and easy to wipe down / clean mud / dust.
Configuration would still hold bullet trajectory for 200 meters no problems Majority of incidents in Iraq are 100 meters and less skirmishes where fast target acquisition and weapon compactness are factor / not long range shooting. (the M16 / M4 are not long range precision weapon systems anyway)
Comfortable and stable shooting position for cheek to stock spot weld and compactness and light weight for CQB and vehicular shooting platforms.
Why do I advocate this? Because I use them inside of vehicles / I patrol with them and have used M4’s and although nice, they still need modified for CQB and firing from moving vehicles.
Here's another thought. We take the British L85A1, give copies to, say, Ruger, Winchester, Smith and Wesson, and say "Redesign this so it's 2 lbs lighter, absolutely reliable, has an ambidextrous safety/selector switch right above the pistol grip, and can be easily changed to eject either left or right (like the French Fa-mas)".
quote:Originally posted by alfa4_9: Here's another thought. We take the British L85A1, give copies to, say, Ruger, Winchester, Smith and Wesson, and say "Redesign this so it's 2 lbs lighter, absolutely reliable, has an ambidextrous safety/selector switch right above the pistol grip, and can be easily changed to eject either left or right (like the French Fa-mas)".
And after all thats done you'll have the XM8 on your hands.
Came upon this website discussing the development of British military cartridge and particularly a might have been, a 6.25mm. I think he makes a plausible argument for the caliber as a better choice then the 5.56mm.
It would have been interesting to see how things would have worked out if back in the '50's Nato had, perhaps, settled on the .30-06 for the GPMG caliber and something like the short .280 the Brits were working on as the assault rifle caliber. But politics being what they are...
What do you aim with when your batteries go dead? In Viet Nam we never could get enough batteries. The soldiers and Marines in Iraq beg for batteries in their care packages. Poke out the glass with your cleaning rod and look through the tube? Maybe our troops are going to go through another episode of "requires little or no maintenance" like the M-16. They won't even get a cleaning rod, I'm sure this will be taken care of at the "unit level" too. Don't believe the B.S. about not having to re-zero ("it's zeroed at the factory business is a joke") My M-16 never failed in VN, never jammed, I cleaned it every night. Who has time to look and count the number of cartriges in a magazine during a firefight?
The XM-8 surely sounds like a very versatile weapon. We will only know its flaws when it is deployed in the field during a tactical situation, and surely, there will be flaws that will require modifications.
My biggest concern is that it is a foreign manufactured product. How willing will a foreign manufacturer be to make modifications the US demands and how willing will they be to meet our delivery timetables, especially if we need to ramp up unexpectedly for an internationally unpopular war? Also, what happens if they decide to double the price once this becomes the standard US weapon?
I also wonder why no US manufacturer was able to come up with a weapon that meets our military needs. H&K makes a fine product. I own an H&K pistol and it is a well-designed and made weapon. But, I hate for the U.S. to be dependent on ANY foreign manufacturer for our basic military weapon. I sure would hate to see all those dollars and jobs going overseas.
Sounds like a fine weapon. I watched a video clip of it being fired. Not much recoil. H&K is actually building a brand new factory in Columbus Ga. for all new US military hardware. At least the factory and jobs will stay in the states.
Here's a link to the H&K site plus some links to some video clips about the new system.
That would be the Springfield '03. In reality a Mauser 98 with some modifications made by Ordnance so they could claim some credit for it. And before that there was the Norwegian Krag-Jorgensen,
I work for a major southern california law enforcement agency as a S.W.A.T operator.I have been directly involved in procurement,and T/E of tactical equipment, as well as all levels of repair. H&K makes an exceptional weapon(mp-5 family),however,my opinion of thier customer service and the availability of parts and major repair program are less than complimenarty. Additionally,and the cost associated with H&K is extreme! American made M-16/M-4's continue to improve in all aspects all most daily(sight systems/rate reducing buffer's etc). our government would be making a huge mistake to change what is only getting better with age!
I work for a major southern california law enforcement agency as a S.W.A.T operator.I have been directly involved in procurement,and T/E of tactical equipment, as well as all levels of repair. H&K makes an exceptional weapon(mp-5 family),however,my opinion of thier customer service and the availability of parts and major repair program are less than complimenarty. Additionally,the cost associated with H&K is extreme! American made M-16/M-4's continue to improve in all aspects all most daily(sight systems/rate reducing buffer's etc). our government would be making a huge mistake to change what is only getting better with age!
Me likes, Me likes alot, I remember when i was in they were testing a similar prototype, but im extremely pleased with it being an h&k, its about time we recognized the efforts of a superior small arms manufacturer.
Although the XM-8 does sound like a great weapon, and yes, it does have some better characteristics then the M-16, why should we be so quick to discount the M-16? I have never had a problem when I have fired the M-16. Yes, it will jam, but only if you don't take care of it. And what will happen if you don't take care of the XM-8? It will jam too. Only when it jams, it's going ot jam in a firefight when you don't think it'll jam because its so "great". Another thing I've noticed is whats going to happen to hand to hand combat? No matter how hard I have tried, the M-16 does not break. The XM-8 looks like a toy gun my little brother might play with. What would happen to combat training where you had to give the enemy a vertical butt stroke across his face? Can the XM-8 do that? If the XM-8 can withstand hand to hand combat the way the Marine Corps trains, and surpass all the qualities of the M-16, all while having absolutely none of the drawbacks of the M-16, then I say bring it on. I'll take two, that way I can gets me twice as much. If it can't, then what's all the fuss?
There are great weapon makers in America.Why do we buy foreign rifles when we have Remington,Winchester,Sturm Ruger and others right here ? It is stupid to rely on supplies from overseas.
A few of the comments have it right. Why would we depend on a forign Mfg. for main battle rifle. I also served in VN with the 4th ID and never had an issue with my M-16 that time we called mine a CAR-15. I had on many chances to switch to an AK which by all accounts is a fine battle weapon. On the other hand I remain baised. Any weapon including the .45 that brings you through a war kinda makes an impression on you that is hard to replace. To this day I have Civil version of a CAR-15 and several Colt .45. in commander length. As I said, makes a lasting impression. Is the XM product good, maybe. It took about 10 years to replace the M-1/M-14 and we still had issues. I'm not keen on all the switching, battle conditions are what they are. I like the idea of a complete weapon. If something went wrong I could alwaly pick up one from and wounded or KIA, I was never short of weapons in a battle area. That is my idea of switching parts. In summary the young man that suggested reducing the size of the M-4 barrel gets it. I think the XM is a fine product as a movie prop. Kind regards, Richard DeVos
The 5.56mm is not the best combat cal. on the market. Something a little bigger is needed. I had heard that a 6.8mm was being looked at for this mx-8. Change is good if it's better. If they are going to keep 5.56mm,then don't change.
