XM8 Dropped?
Joker
Active member
I don´t know what unit now still wears PASGT but at the start of the war some guy´s don´t have IBA or the SAPI plattes for it. I read that a lot of people bought themselfes additional body armor befor or that parents bought it and send it to their son´s. But i think now we are going
fftopic: .Joker
FO Seaman
Active member
Joker said:I don´t know what unit now still wears PASGT but at the start of the war some guy´s don´t have IBA or the SAPI plattes for it. I read that a lot of people bought themselfes additional body armor befor or that parents bought it and send it to their son´s. But i think now we are going
Joker
I doubt people brought armor or parents sent it. The PASGT-V has the ISAPO with SAPI plates. Yes I agree we are getting off topic.
Dean
Active member
The M-16A1, A2, A3, the M-4 and M-4A1 all have the same (perceived) weakness, and that is the fact that gas from the cartridge is vented directly back into the action behind the bolt. Everyone in this forum should know that the clearances between these two parts is vital, as it dictates whether or not the bolt will close, as well as the timing of the bolt opening. If the bolt retracts, opening the chamber too early, there are three different failures that can occur.
This type of action was actually invented by Ljungman and fielded in a rifle in 1942. The rifle did work decently, but it was never adopted in large numbers, except in Egypt, IIRC. Every other design sidesteps this problem by using a piston or a blowback design. The blowback design does allow fouling on the surface of the bolt or breechblock, but the piston design does not. As a result, rifles with piston designs do require less cleaning than the M-16 series. Joker is correct in that regard.
I have never been a fan of the M-16, not because of the calibre, but rather due to the long procurement and improvement cycles that this mediocre design has been forced into. When the US decided to adopt the M-14, they tested it against the FN-FAL. The M-14 lost the first trial and was sent back for a re-design. Same thing happened a second time. Then a third. Finally, on the 4th try, the much improved M-14 barely beat (the unmodified) FN-FAL and went on to equip the US Armed Forces for a very short period of time. The M-16's evolution was even more torturous. The original M-16 was awful, incredibly sensitive to the ammunition used, and issued without cleaning kits. Even after the kits were issued, many soldiers ended up using the cleaning rods to remove spent casings that were jammed in the chamber... in the middle of firefights. As well, the rifling in the barrel was wrong, and the rounds were tumbling almost immediately after they left the muzzle. This lowered both the accuracy and the lethality of the weapon. The rifle then went through many improvement cycles, during which the buffer was changed, the barrel was modified three times, the flash hider was changed, and the bolt forward assist was added. Bolt forward assist.... how many other rifles have a bolt forward assist? AFAIK, none. This mod was made necessary by the fact that the M-16 fouls far more than any other rifle. After all the mods were completed, the weight of the rifle went from 7.5 pounds loaded to 8.5 pounds loaded, and during all of this foolishness, many US soldiers died because their M-16 rifles malfunctioned.
In spite of it's checkered past, the M-16 has become a good rifle. But it seems that the debate in this thread has become polarized between those who believe that the M-16 should not be replaced due to the fact that "there's nothing better out there", and others who think it should be replaced. Twenty years ago it might have been true that there were none better, but no longer. FN, IMI and Steyer all have rifle designs that compare very favourably with the M-16, and HK has 3. In fact, HK even designed a new upper receiver that gives the M-16 a short stroke piston, making it, IMO a far superior weapon.
As for the crowd that says that HK and other "plastic" rifles will melt with sustained fire, don't believe everything you hear. Today's rifles and pistols are made with polymers that are incredibly heat resistant. In addition, they have another sterling quality. Metal handguards become hot as radiant heat transfers from the barrel to the interior of the handguard. In sustained fire situations, some handguards do get difficult to hold. Polymer handguards are actually an improvement in this regard as heat passes through them far more slowly, allowing the soldier to continue to effectively hold and use his weapon. I think that the barrel would melt long before the polymer handguard melts, and by that time, a metal handguard would be impossible to hold.
Here is a bit more food for thought:
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/hk416.html
Just because many of us have used the M-16 does not make it the best. Likewise, just because it was developed in the US does not make it better or worse than others that were built elsewhere. Ironically, many believe that the best M-16s are now made in Canada. Colt seems to think so, as they bought the company that makes them! (Diemaco) I hope that the US Army does indeed hold open trials for a new assault rifle to replace the M-4, and then we will all find out which is the best. Just don't be surprised when the M-4 loses.
Dean.
This type of action was actually invented by Ljungman and fielded in a rifle in 1942. The rifle did work decently, but it was never adopted in large numbers, except in Egypt, IIRC. Every other design sidesteps this problem by using a piston or a blowback design. The blowback design does allow fouling on the surface of the bolt or breechblock, but the piston design does not. As a result, rifles with piston designs do require less cleaning than the M-16 series. Joker is correct in that regard.
I have never been a fan of the M-16, not because of the calibre, but rather due to the long procurement and improvement cycles that this mediocre design has been forced into. When the US decided to adopt the M-14, they tested it against the FN-FAL. The M-14 lost the first trial and was sent back for a re-design. Same thing happened a second time. Then a third. Finally, on the 4th try, the much improved M-14 barely beat (the unmodified) FN-FAL and went on to equip the US Armed Forces for a very short period of time. The M-16's evolution was even more torturous. The original M-16 was awful, incredibly sensitive to the ammunition used, and issued without cleaning kits. Even after the kits were issued, many soldiers ended up using the cleaning rods to remove spent casings that were jammed in the chamber... in the middle of firefights. As well, the rifling in the barrel was wrong, and the rounds were tumbling almost immediately after they left the muzzle. This lowered both the accuracy and the lethality of the weapon. The rifle then went through many improvement cycles, during which the buffer was changed, the barrel was modified three times, the flash hider was changed, and the bolt forward assist was added. Bolt forward assist.... how many other rifles have a bolt forward assist? AFAIK, none. This mod was made necessary by the fact that the M-16 fouls far more than any other rifle. After all the mods were completed, the weight of the rifle went from 7.5 pounds loaded to 8.5 pounds loaded, and during all of this foolishness, many US soldiers died because their M-16 rifles malfunctioned.
In spite of it's checkered past, the M-16 has become a good rifle. But it seems that the debate in this thread has become polarized between those who believe that the M-16 should not be replaced due to the fact that "there's nothing better out there", and others who think it should be replaced. Twenty years ago it might have been true that there were none better, but no longer. FN, IMI and Steyer all have rifle designs that compare very favourably with the M-16, and HK has 3. In fact, HK even designed a new upper receiver that gives the M-16 a short stroke piston, making it, IMO a far superior weapon.
As for the crowd that says that HK and other "plastic" rifles will melt with sustained fire, don't believe everything you hear. Today's rifles and pistols are made with polymers that are incredibly heat resistant. In addition, they have another sterling quality. Metal handguards become hot as radiant heat transfers from the barrel to the interior of the handguard. In sustained fire situations, some handguards do get difficult to hold. Polymer handguards are actually an improvement in this regard as heat passes through them far more slowly, allowing the soldier to continue to effectively hold and use his weapon. I think that the barrel would melt long before the polymer handguard melts, and by that time, a metal handguard would be impossible to hold.
Here is a bit more food for thought:
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/hk416.html
Just because many of us have used the M-16 does not make it the best. Likewise, just because it was developed in the US does not make it better or worse than others that were built elsewhere. Ironically, many believe that the best M-16s are now made in Canada. Colt seems to think so, as they bought the company that makes them! (Diemaco) I hope that the US Army does indeed hold open trials for a new assault rifle to replace the M-4, and then we will all find out which is the best. Just don't be surprised when the M-4 loses.
Dean.
Last edited:
Joker
Active member
THATS WHAT I´M TALKING ABOUT
Thank you Dean that you agree with me!!!
It´s often very difficult for me especially all the technical and military stuff to put it into words because it´s 11 years ago that i had english in school and it was not about all these special stuff.
Greetz JOKER
P.S.
Or like § 15 in Murphys Law of Combat:
"Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder"
Ohhhh and @ Cadet Seaman:
Like i said!!!
Thank you Dean that you agree with me!!!
It´s often very difficult for me especially all the technical and military stuff to put it into words because it´s 11 years ago that i had english in school and it was not about all these special stuff.
Greetz JOKER
P.S.
But think about what happend with the M-14, it´s also possible that not the better weapon wins because they compare apples with oranges (improved M-14 with standart FN FAL).
Or like § 15 in Murphys Law of Combat:
"Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder"
Ohhhh and @ Cadet Seaman:
But what if there were not enough of these additional ISAPO overvests?? I can only say what i have read with my own eyes, if all these people don´t tell the truth theres nothing i can do.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Why do they always want to make it all plastic and crud? The thing that your R&D folks have yet to wake up to is one very big thing: The AK47 (very simple design) works phenominally well in terms of taking a huge beating and still continuing to work. Its a bloody inaccurate piece of crap too, but at least try to pick up some of the GOOD characteristics of the AK. You don't have to make it an inaccurate piece of crap, nor do you have to copy straight across for caliber, etc. But WTF is the deal with making an assault rifle out of plastic when other materials have been proven to be more durable?
Dean
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
GoT, believe it or not, polymers are, pound for pound, far more durable than steel. Kevlar is a polymer, and it has replaced steel in flak jackets so effectively that nobody makes steel plated ones anymore. (And if someone did, nobody would wear them!) The same thing is happening in the field of assault rifles, and frankly, it's about time. Wood handguards have been around since the rifle was invented, and wood was the material of choice for the M-14, the FN-FAL and the AK series butts and handguards. Metal handguards were used in the very first assault rifle, the StG-44, as well in other weapons. It has seemed to me that the Europeans have more often used steel (Austrian FN-FAL, British SLR, (was actually in plastic) German G-3) while in North America, we used wood (M-14, FN-C1, FN-C2) until the M-16 came out.
Wood has some great qualities, it's cheap, durable and it insulates far better than metal, and I have NEVER seen or even heard of a wood handguard that started burning in a firefight. To melt a polymer handguard would require even more heat than is needed to light wood on fire.
Keep something else in mind. For countries with cold climates, metal is not an option. There is nothing like losing the skin of your fingers when you pick up your rifle at -30. I've picked mine up at that temperature, and I was always sure to do so using the handguard and pistol grip. I still have all my skin.
In an assault rifle, the only parts being made out of polymers are the handguard, butt, pistol grip and magazine. None of these parts are subject to premature wear, and polymers are better than steel for all of them. In addition, many pistol manufacturers, including HK and Glock make their slides out of polymers, and AFAIK, there have been no reports of mass failures due to inferior materials. In fact, the US government just bought 65,000 HK USP polymer slide pistols. It really can't be all that bad!
Dean.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Case in point, Vietnam. The NVA smuggled a lot of AK-47's and the VC buried them on various occasions. The box of AK's gets loaded with mud. Dig em up, knock the mud out, fire it: no problem. M16 is a little pickier. That's the point. Polymer or not, wood or not, steel or not, whatever. But something that takes a better beating w/o sacrificing accuracy.
Joker
Active member
Only at a early test version of the G3 was a metal handguard. The first offically issued G3´s had a wooden handguard and buttstock. The pistol grip was from the beginning made of plastic.With the G3 A3 came the plastic ventilated handguard and the hardplastic buttstock(same version i was issued in bootcamp 1999).
Like Dean said, plasics or more precisely polymers are more durable than wood. A thin-walled wooden handguard will break more easielly than a polymere handguard!!! And always think about the weight that you have to carry.
You have to tell that the guy´s that say nothing can beat the AR-15 system!!!!
Greetz JOKER
Last edited:
Dean
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Now, I'm confused. What is the point? Before you posted saying that assault rifles should not be made out of "plastic and crud", and now you're saying that the all-metal M-16 is "a bit fussier", which really is a huge understatement, and we all know it. In the quote above, you admit that the wood equipped AK did better than the all-metal M-16. But wood is not the best material for a rifle, as I have seen MANY broken wooden FN-C1 handguards. You can't have it both ways.
Dean.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Well, the XM8 is a project where they are trying to come up with a replacement/improvement over the M16. The M16 is an absolute ***** about needing to be cleaned and not so great at dealing with being beaten up and still working. I never said that wood was the best choice. Steel? Maybe. Plastic? I at least wonder if too much plastic can lead to trouble. No mostly polymer Assault Rifle that I'm aware can boast the same kind of durability as the AK47. But fine, I don't care whether its polymers or steel or wood or whatever. Why can't we develop something with comparable, or even better durability?? <-- That is the point.
FYI, given the choice of M16 and AK47, I'm definitely going M16. I prefer to be able to hit my target at a reasonable distance.
FYI, given the choice of M16 and AK47, I'm definitely going M16. I prefer to be able to hit my target at a reasonable distance.
Dean
Active member
Very few rifles can boast the same reliability as the AK, but many of the newer ones do. If a head to head competition were to be held today, there are at least three rifle that would probably beat the AK for reliability and accuracy. They are the Israeli Galil, which is a variant of the AK design, the Steyr AUG, and the HK-36. I would imagine that there are others, notably the HK-416, the Israeli Tavor, the FN Herstal F-2000 and the FN SCAR that would approach or surpass the AK in either category.
Don't forget that the AK is not without its problems. The safety catch is very loud and its ergonomics are lousy, the wood furniture can break easily enough, and accuracy beyond 250 metres leaves a lot to be desired. Every western design has overcome all of these problems, and they are all getting better in terms of reliability... even the M-16. In the end, budgets permitting, the US will probably get a better (more reliable) rifle that the AK-47... 55 years later.
Dean.
Don't forget that the AK is not without its problems. The safety catch is very loud and its ergonomics are lousy, the wood furniture can break easily enough, and accuracy beyond 250 metres leaves a lot to be desired. Every western design has overcome all of these problems, and they are all getting better in terms of reliability... even the M-16. In the end, budgets permitting, the US will probably get a better (more reliable) rifle that the AK-47... 55 years later.
Dean.
Dean
Active member
Sorry, I should have said frame:
From the HK website:
All USPs use a fiber-reinforced polymer frame stiffened by stainless steel inserts at areas subject to stress and friction. HK pioneered this use of polymer materials in the production of handguns more than 30 years ago with the development of the VP70Z and P9S pistols.
From the Glock website: The frame on a GLOCK handgun is made out of a synthetic that is actually stronger than steel, yet 86% lighter. It's virtually indestructible. A GLOCK pistol can withstand temperatures ranging from -40°C (-40 F) to +70°C (+158 F) and still come out firing.
Dean.
From the HK website:
All USPs use a fiber-reinforced polymer frame stiffened by stainless steel inserts at areas subject to stress and friction. HK pioneered this use of polymer materials in the production of handguns more than 30 years ago with the development of the VP70Z and P9S pistols.
From the Glock website: The frame on a GLOCK handgun is made out of a synthetic that is actually stronger than steel, yet 86% lighter. It's virtually indestructible. A GLOCK pistol can withstand temperatures ranging from -40°C (-40 F) to +70°C (+158 F) and still come out firing.
Dean.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Definitely not saying that the AK is the end all beat all. I know it has its problems. But its record for durability and reliability is excellent. If their going to push a project to replace the M16, I figure that it should be a high priority to get an assault rifle with that level of reliablity without sacrificing accuracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M16 and XM8 do not fit that bill.Dean said:
Last edited:
Dean
Active member
I would think that the US Army has reliability and accuracy as numbers one and two on their priority list, although cost is probably number one, followed by reliability, accuracy, durability and ease of use. Personally, I think that the US would be better served by converting all the M-16s to HK-416s in the short term, then taking the time to evaluate the 5.56 round and it's possible replacements. I also believe that the full-power 7.62 round in a rifle is overkill, it's nice to have, but the price in weight and recoil is too high. There are a lot of different calibres out there, and I am quite sure that there is one that would better suit the western armies than 5.56. However, I must admit that I do not know the ballistics or energies of the other cartridges. 6.5mm or 6.3mm does sound good, but it will definitely have a weight penalty.
As well, all of the NATO armies must definitely take the time to properly evaluate all choices before bowing to the decision of one country. (Remember that in the cases of both the 7.62 and 5.56 cartridges, it was the US that forced NATO to adopt them. Other, IMO better cartridges from 4.85mm up to 6.5mm were in consideration by other countries.)
The SS-109 round was called into question by someone. (5.56x45, IIRC) I had to laugh when I read that, as the SS-109 was developed in Belgium to address a problem that everyone else immediately noticed with the 5.56 round... it had no penetration. So the Belgians (at FN Herstel, I think) put their collective heads together, and put a steel sliver into the head of the bullet. This gave the desired penetration of helmets and flak jackets at the cost of energy transfer. In other words, that is why you can sometimes pump two or three rounds into an enemy, and he'll jump up and fire right back; your rounds went right through him. The US quickly saw the advantages of the new bullet and adopted it, which led to the tumbling problem as the rifling of the M-16 was not compatible with the new heavier bullet.
All of these teething problems cost lives and could have been avoided if the US had better considered all aspects of the M-16 and it's ammo rather than rushing it out into the field. The temporary adoption of the HK-416 would allow them to avoid making the same mistakes again.
As well, all of the NATO armies must definitely take the time to properly evaluate all choices before bowing to the decision of one country. (Remember that in the cases of both the 7.62 and 5.56 cartridges, it was the US that forced NATO to adopt them. Other, IMO better cartridges from 4.85mm up to 6.5mm were in consideration by other countries.)
The SS-109 round was called into question by someone. (5.56x45, IIRC) I had to laugh when I read that, as the SS-109 was developed in Belgium to address a problem that everyone else immediately noticed with the 5.56 round... it had no penetration. So the Belgians (at FN Herstel, I think) put their collective heads together, and put a steel sliver into the head of the bullet. This gave the desired penetration of helmets and flak jackets at the cost of energy transfer. In other words, that is why you can sometimes pump two or three rounds into an enemy, and he'll jump up and fire right back; your rounds went right through him. The US quickly saw the advantages of the new bullet and adopted it, which led to the tumbling problem as the rifling of the M-16 was not compatible with the new heavier bullet.
All of these teething problems cost lives and could have been avoided if the US had better considered all aspects of the M-16 and it's ammo rather than rushing it out into the field. The temporary adoption of the HK-416 would allow them to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Last edited:
godofthunder9010
Active member
Yeah, the bit about reliability/durability being #1 and then accuracy being #2 ... With the M16, I know they had something better than they thought they had at first, but I blows my mind that something hasn't been done to come up with something better in ... 40 years or so?
I agree with everyone who's said that the H&K rebuild of the M16, the HK416, would be a good choice (if you really can't bring yourself to go bullpup). H&K did a good job on the SA80 family, I'm guessing their efforts with the M16/M4 family are probably good as well.
The barrel on this version is quite short but H&K offer a range of different lengths.
The barrel on this version is quite short but H&K offer a range of different lengths.