The Demise of the XM8

[Snaquebite]

Special report: Too late, XM8

Doomed carbine was victim of Army infighting
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 1, 2007 16:27:14 EDT

EXCERPT:

“The whole purpose of the user assessment that the Battle Lab ran was to try to give it an objective look,” Stone said. “We and a lot of people said, ‘ok, there is some goodness here, but maybe there is not enough goodness to spend a whole lot of money on it.’ … The XM8 really didn’t offer us a significant leap in capability.”

But acquisition experts argue that the failure of PEO Soldier and the Infantry Center to agree on a united direction for the XM8 program cost the Army this chance to arm soldiers with a potentially better weapon.

“There was not a common vision between the two,” said Col. Robert Carpenter, an acquisitions officer who formerly worked PM Soldier Weapons. “We have a broken process. When you don’t have a requirement and acquisition process with a shared vision, you are not going to get anything, and you are going to waste a lot of money.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0..._rifle_070531/

Is this the start of another Congressional battle? Really don't see how seeing it's H&K.

Thoughts??

[The Reaper]

The weapon was a piece of crap that was the leftovers from the OICW program, an even bigger waste. You take the savings from not buying the craptastic XM-8, replace every M-4 that has reached the end of its service life, or buy HK 416 uppers, add a good optic, and spend the change on new mags and training ammo, and you will see much better results.

In an era of reduced lethality complaints, the XM-8, as it was planned to be issued, had an even shorter barrel, less velocity, and less lethality than the M-4 it was supposed to replace. Great for stylin' and profilin', not so great for stopping bad guys.

Whoever drove a stake in that program deserves a medal.

TR

[Snaquebite]

TR,

I agree, but this is the 2nd or 3rd article I've seen recently regarding this. Will search out the other two. Almost appears someone is drumming up doubt and pointing fingers at the system.

[Peregrino]

The Army's small arms communities are stuck on holding out for a quantum leap vs. an incremental improvement that can be implemented immediately. There are no appropriate words to express my disgust for that mindset (not in a family friendly forum anyway). A simple life cycle replacement of M-4 uppers with the 416 (or similar technology) would be cost effective, could be started tomorrow, and would address the majority of the complaints with the current system. Implementing TR's suggestions for improved magazines and more training with the savings realized from not developing a "star wars" solution would take it the next step. Changing the MOE/MOP for the ammo and fielding a better bullet (terminal ballistics in terrorists), even if it's still 5.56 would solve the rest. (Anybody for the 75 gr Hornady TAP round? ) It doesn't take much to stay well ahead of the opponent, nor does it have to cost the GDP of the average 3rd world country.

OK - I'll put my soapbox back in the corner; we've discussed this or similar subjects ad nauseum. (I've lost count of the rice bowls we've pulverized since this board started. )

[NousDefionsDoc]

Whoever drove a stake in that program deserves a medal.

Classic!

[82ndtrooper]

It's been my understanding tha the XM8 was nothing more than the current H&K G36 with some "Outer space" furniture. But what the hell do I know ?

[x SF med]

As a FOG, I've wondered for years why the Army doesn't go to a proven bullpup design to preserve barrel length and velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the bullpup design, due to mag placement and shoulder/cheeck weld issues, but most are lighter or the same weight as the current battle rifles. There are a few proven ones out there, in both 7.62 and 5.56 NATO, just my .02.


TR, et al, please do not stomp on me too hard for this comment, ok?