US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Point blank read the top post the XM8 just got a victory we know the XM8 got "Shelved" meaning that the project was put on indefinite hold.

as for the manufacture of any New US fighting arm there is a law that forbade of using arms not built here in the US it's kinda a smart choice be cause say We were building arms built in china and then we say go to war with them then we lose the producer of our arms. ( that way a hypothetical but you get the idea.

Masada was not part of the tests.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Point blank read the top post the XM8 just got a victory we know the XM8 got "Shelved" meaning that the project was put on indefinite hold.

Click to expand...

Indefinite hold means a virtual death knell for any project. Project is essentially dead, but someone does not want to formally cancel a project because it would upset a very important group.

Also, from what I have been told, the test was slightly flawed; the Hk-416 had one problem gun which skewed the results - if the "lemon" was discarded as an aberrant fluke - the Hk416 actually scored better than the XM-8 which "won".

Furthermore, any "extreme dust testing" will benefit piston guns as they run cooler than the direct impingement guns, therefore, reducing the amount of lubrication that is burned up. User of the M4 and M16's and their clones in Iraq and Afghanistan compensate by running their weapons a bit more wet than usual to compensate for the increased lubrication burn.

Pointblank said:

Also, from what I have been told, the test was slightly flawed; the Hk-416 had one problem gun which skewed the results - if the "lemon" was discarded as an aberrant fluke - the Hk416 actually scored better than the XM-8 which "won".

Click to expand...

XM-8's victory had nothing to do with some fluke look at the FN Scar's score it's almost identical. and that is because of one of the M16's and most Nato standard rifles lesser spoken of flaws the Magazine. even though both the HK416's and FN Scar packed "Improved" Steel Magazines the XM-*'s magazine had an edge it was not based on a "dog legged", week spring-ed magazine that can not properly hold it's official round cappsity

Furthermore, any "extreme dust testing" will benefit piston guns as they run cooler than the direct impingement guns, therefore, reducing the amount of lubrication that is burned up. User of the M4 and M16's and their clones in Iraq and Afghanistan compensate by running their weapons a bit more wet than usual to compensate for the increased lubrication burn.

Click to expand...

Civilian shooters can use wet lube, military fighter in the desert Shouldn't as sand likes to stick to wet lubes like "the good old fashion sugar cookies" (toss your self in water and then roll around in the sand) .

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Civilian shooters can use wet lube, military fighter in the desert Shouldn't as sand likes to stick to wet lubes like "the good old fashion sugar cookies" (toss your self in water and then roll around in the sand) .

Click to expand...

The way that some of them are getting around that is to just soak (and that's an understatement) the interior of the upper receiver with CLP. They know that they have enough CLP in there to keep washing away the sand when said CLP is running out of the mag well and all over their hands. Strange but true.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

XM-8's victory had nothing to do with some fluke look at the FN Scar's score it's almost identical. and that is because of one of the M16's and most Nato standard rifles lesser spoken of flaws the Magazine. even though both the HK416's and FN Scar packed "Improved" Steel Magazines the XM-*'s magazine had an edge it was not based on a "dog legged", week spring-ed magazine that can not properly hold it's official round cappsity

Click to expand...

The testing went like this:

Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test I = M4 vs M16A4 test in 2006
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test II = M4 test summer of 2007
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test III = M4 vs MK16 vs HK416 vs XM8 test November 2007

Carbines/rifles were subjected to 25 hours of constant, heavy dusting in laboratory conditions at Aberdeen Proving Ground. 10 of each weapon fired 6,000 rounds apiece, and were fired in 50 120-round cycles. Each was then wiped and re-lubricated at the 600 round mark. After 1,200 rounds were fired from each weapon, they were fully cleaned and re-lubricated. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt.

The testing showed that the M4 performs better when more lubricant was used. Furthermore, the US Army has identified that the magazines are an issue due to their age; Most of the current STANAG magazines in use are severely beaten up from years of use.

Therefore, instead of replacing whole stocks of rifles which can get expensive, the US Army has developed essentially a cheap work around: more lubricant, a new barrel, and new magazines.

cheep is right. the magazines are still based on the 1960's design which is weak walled and uses a weak spring, any one using one loads with 23-28 rounds and preys not to jam even with brand new ones, the barrels are older but not as big an issue the shortened gas system of the M4 is bad news it is known to cause jams due to the gas impingement system and as for lube thats fine as long as it's used properly but one should not have to flood a gun to make it work. factor in the aging inerts and the improper cheek weld the weight of the continually added accessories, and one wonders where this is going.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

cheep is right. the magazines are still based on the 1960's design which is weak walled and uses a weak spring, any one using one loads with 23-28 rounds and preys not to jam even with brand new ones, the barrels are older but not as big an issue the shortened gas system of the M4 is bad news it is known to cause jams due to the gas impingement system and as for lube thats fine as long as it's used properly but one should not have to flood a gun to make it work. factor in the aging inerts and the improper cheek weld the weight of the continually added accessories, and one wonders where this is going.

Click to expand...

I have one thing to say to you: YOUR OUT OF YOUR LANE!

The current magazine design is fine. They just need to be replaced regularly due to age and wear and tear. Unfortunately, they don't get replaced as often as they should be. Therefore, there is an increase in the amount of failures relating to the magazine because the magazines are old and are worn out. Magazines are supposed to be considered 'expendable'.

Steel magazines may be more durable, but they damage the weapon. The problem is that the magazine well of the M-16 and it's variants is alloy. Prolonged use of steel magazines in an alloy receiver will cause excessive wear. There is a reason why the current magazines are alloy, not steel.

alloy's are weak the HK416, and FN SCAR both use Steel Mags because of the inherent superiority. the Current 30 round mag's were built for maybe 30 uses use a spring that was nothing more then the 20 round spring cut taller and the body of the 20 rounder extended in an angular shape to try and adjust for the inherent curve and then dropped but they ended up with over 300 to 3000 uses , they were a half baked design to begin with and one by one are being replaced country by country with either steel or Polymer. The aluminum mags are light wight by bend and dent and crush so easily that they are pretty much designed to fail. a 30 round magazine in military hands should be durable enough to get to the mission intact not crushed because a Gi dropped on it and crushed it. it should feed functionally with a full load of 30 rounds and consistently. there age is not the issue the fact that the magazines now are the same ones ( construction and function wise) used in 1970 is. End o debate as there are other issues to be posted about and we have waisted time.

Wait, I thought in combat infantrymen just dropped a magazine once it was used. Are you saying they put the empty mags back? Or just in training?

Finn McCool said:

Wait, I thought in combat infantrymen just dropped a magazine once it was used. Are you saying they put the empty mags back? Or just in training?

Click to expand...

The magazines are supposed to be inspected once used, and from there, a determination will be made regarding the continued use of that magazine. If there is damage to the magazine, then the magazine gets tossed and a new one issued. That is how it works, supposedly...

The current magazines, according from the end users, is durable enough. It is often recommended that the magazines be cycled while in use to spread out wear and tear. Also, the magazines should be disassembled and cleaned every so often to ensure they operate in fine working order. Furthermore, third party additions, such as Magpul self-leveling followers are also very popular amongst troops. Such additions are often at the one prerogative of the individual soldiers, who may wish to adjust their kit to better suit themselves (such as adding Magpul Ranger Plates to ease speed reloading when wearing gloves).

TerraN_EmpirE said:

alloy's are weak the HK416, and FN SCAR both use Steel Mags because of the inherent superiority. the Current 30 round mag's were built for maybe 30 uses use a spring that was nothing more then the 20 round spring cut taller and the body of the 20 rounder extended in an angular shape to try and adjust for the inherent curve and then dropped but they ended up with over 300 to 3000 uses , they were a half baked design to begin with and one by one are being replaced country by country with either steel or Polymer. The aluminum mags are light wight by bend and dent and crush so easily that they are pretty much designed to fail. a 30 round magazine in military hands should be durable enough to get to the mission intact not crushed because a Gi dropped on it and crushed it. it should feed functionally with a full load of 30 rounds and consistently. there age is not the issue the fact that the magazines now are the same ones ( construction and function wise) used in 1970 is. End o debate as there are other issues to be posted about and we have waisted time.

Click to expand...

Of course these new HK and FN mags work better. They are factory fresh instead of what is in the current inventory. Some of the existing magazines in the inventory are extremely beaten up, but it is often the case that governments fail to ensure that the magazines were kept current and the government procured readily enough replacements to replace the damaged ones, but they don't. Therefore, damaged and non-serviceable magazines get circulated back into general use when they should be tossed out for brand new ones.

There is no point in spending vast amounts of money on a Rolls Royce when the current Toyota works fine, with some extra care and due dilligence.