Talk:Heckler & Koch XM8

Reasons for failure?

Supposedly this weapons system was to become the new standard rifle of the US army, but I'm at a loss as to why it was eventually cancelled. The "obvious answers" might be that "American weapons companies like having their stranglehold on equipping such a nice customer as the US army" or that "H&K didn't bid low enough" (as said by the old army truism "remember, all of our equipment was made by the lowest bidder"), but I think there's more to the story than either of those.

H&K's bid to make this "modular weapons system" adaptable to four battle field roles (standard carbine for standard infantry use, compact carbine for PDW use, automatic rifle with bipod and hi-capacity magazine for SAW-type use, and finally a designated marksman variant with a longer barrel and better optics) certainly sounds like a "hostile takeover" strategy of the corporate kind--was it possibly too ambitious and too threatening to corporate interested to have all those weapon types supplant all those individual weapons being used (and paid for) by the US armed forces? Asking everyone to "hand over your M4s, your M249 SAWs, your FN P90s, and your M14s--we've got something better than those which will do all 4 jobs!" definitely could cause some stocks to fall.

Finally, if the XM8 really is just the G36 in a different exterior, why didn't they make a more ambitious and less conventional design, possibly in a bullpup formation? The SA80 (also designed by H&K) had its hiccups early on but appears to be a reliable weapon today, and with the experience gained from its development and deployment I don't see why a better version could be made for the XM8 project. The ambidexterity problem could even be solved with a little ingenuity, kind of like how the FN-F2000 is ambidextrous not because it ejects down like the FN P90 does, but because it dribbles rather than spits spent casings.

I would like to see more of this rifle in movies and games, possibly even with more use of its "transformational capabilities" as well. Seeing a film character rapidly change his XM8 compact carbine variant to a DMR variant could be nice.

Any answers from those in the know would be appreciated. Mazryonh 04:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

look like arming an army is more complected then it seems. Rex095

My take is it failed for a number of reasons. I am a bit of a fan of the XM8 but the biggest design flaw I see is that it lacks Picatinny rails. It only has the Picatinny Attachment Points for mounting of optics. The advantage to that is optics don't need to be zeroed quite as much, but in the real world that's useless because you can't put any existing optics on. Plus, no rails on the side or bottom, so no attachment of lasers (although I've heard the XM8 has an infrared laser built into the optic, feel free to correct me) and you can't attach the M203. While its reloading method is possibly the most ergonomic I've seen, it feeds from G36 mags, and the U.S. uses the STANAG magazine found in the M4/M16.

And yes, cost does have a huge effect to it. I've never seen the cost per unit for the XM8, but I can imagine that it can be pretty expensive. Also, the M16 platform has been in use for so long and it's been drilled so far into the heads of some people that they have trouble letting go of it or accepting that any other design completely different from it might work. Sorry, that was just personal opinion.

One last big malfunction it had is that the reciever melted during extended automatic fire. The sad part is that if HK had put more money into that I'm sure they could've solved it.

I think the biggest thing is just the fact that the U.S. military just doesn't like to change anything and they find no new need for a new rifle. Colt themselves said it took them over a decade to get an extractor spring changed on the M4. The M16/M4 is probably here to stay for a very very long time. Mandaloin 09:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The production cost for an XM8 is about 400$... The cost for an M4 is 600$ and that of an M16 is 800-900$

WHOA WHOA WHOA! That is NOT true, The company HAS to sell something to make money on, it costs I would estimate $200-$400 dollars for both the M16 and M4, the Military buys them at a cheaper price than the price we see on the shelves at the gunstore. The way HK does business I'm sure the XM8 would have sold for more to the military.--FIVETWOSEVEN 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Weight and the LMG version were the official reasons for its cancelation. The receiver melting occurred when they were trying to reduce the weight of the weapon to around 4 lbs. Current test/prototype models have increased the weight and the problem has supposedly gone. The LMG aspect also caused issue as there was no easy way to swap barrels if the barrel overheated (though barrels overheating in and of itself was never an issue). Also it failed to improve over the M4/M16 100% in all aspects of weapons performance, which was a mandate put out by the government. One last thing was while most versions of the XM8 used the proprietary mounting system (the circles on the side of the gun), their were some concept models late in testing with traditional rails.

There is a better modular weapons system coming out anyway the Remington ACR.

It failed because, simply put, testing proved it wasn't what the Army wanted. New weapon systems aren't funded and fielded simply because they run a little cleaner. It would be a massive waste of money when you add up the costs (the new weapons themselves, new spare parts, new magazines, retraining of troops to know how it ticks... we're talking in the hundreds of billions of dollars here) and compare that to the negligible advantage it provides (it's got a piston and... wait, what else?). And switching to completely new weapon systems in the middle of two wars poses the real possibility of logistical complications (i.e., getting M16 magazines and spare M4 barrels when your entire unit has XM8s) rendering combat units utterly defenseless in hostile territory. It may look all space-age like a laser gun, but the DoD simply does not want or need it when the M4 does the job just as efficiently. Until some country decides to adopt it, it's going to remain dead. If the big green Army wanted a gas piston so bad, M4s and M16s are easily converted with new upper receivers without the need for retraining. And not to mention the SCAR will eventually filter down into regular combat units as time goes on. I'm not saying there aren't better small arms out there, but the XM8 doesn't provide much of an advantage of the current issue M16/M4. And like is pointed out in the post above mine, the Remington ACR takes everything the XM8 is and throws the full modularity of the M4 into it. And please, people, sign your posts. Spartan198 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I could see the XM8 still being useful to small teams n' such, being able to swap out parts and magazines with your squadmates in the field no matter what role they play because they have the same base weapon as you could be a big advantage. But the ACR could probably do the same thing and it's supposedly better, but my point still stands. Good for small teams, bad for an entire military. I expect that we won't phase out the M4 or M16 until the next revolutionary change to the gun world. That's One Angry Duck 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the 416 is coming close to doing that, wouldn't you agree? --67.86.148.125 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's an AR-15 with a gas piston. I believe that specific "revolutionary" development has been done before quite a few times, starting in about 1969. To be exact, it's a gas system stolen wholesale from the AR-18. Vangelis 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the 416 as a next revolutionary step in firearm design, I was trying to state that the HK416 is coming close to replacing the M16 family, at least some branches of the US military.

The same can be said of the of the SCAR. It's already being used by the Rangers and Border Patrol. Excalibur01 16:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. But that's the only way I could think of the XM8 being of any use to our military, but if the SCAR already has that role then it's pretty much worthless to us. That's One Angry Duck 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the HK 416 is that much better, I don't understand why it scored lower than the XM8 in the "extreme dust environment" test. Still, the XM8 system had a lot of potential that could have been harnessed in its extra reliability and modularity. Changing the internals to accept STANAG magazines, and to be more heat resistant as well as using standard rail systems could be done relatively easily. I'm surprised that more "Private Military Contractors" or SF operators haven't picked up on this gun given its modularity and thus its ability to be reconfigured easily between the demands of different missions. Even if this gun disappears into history like the OICW did, it'd be nice to see it in more games and movies. It's a nice break from AKs and AR-15s. --Mazryonh 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The HK 416 scored lower because AR-15s weren't designed to take a piston; that's what the AR-18 was for. The main reason why the XM8 failed was because aside from reliability (which is still a debatable point, given that the US has been running DI M16s/M4s for decades without mass failure), the XM8 only really met par with M16/M4 effectiveness. When it comes down to it, you're still firing a 5.56mm NATO round out of a carbine, and that isn't worth phasing out so many M16/M4s that do the exact same thing. What I'd have liked to have seen from the "dust environment" test would be an HK G36A1 in the mix; for all we know, the XM8 was just an "updated" G36 that HK tried to sell to the US. The XM8 inherited its proprietary magazines and ambidextrous cocking handle from it, and who knows what else.

They've entered the XM8 into the Individual Carbine competition, and my guess is that it'll fail there too.

72.189.150.127AUA

I think there were heating issues with the XM8 during testings and they never resolved the problem. Also I've seen pics of the XM8 being fielded in Iraq but I don't think these guys were US military. They weren't dressed in any familiar uniforms. Maybe they were contractors. Excalibur01 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently discovered an article from the Army Times website that blames the Army bureaucracy for the demise of the XM8. The pressure to open up the bids to competition probably came in part because FN didn't want their lucrative M249 contracts with the army to be superseded by the LMG form of the XM8, though I'm sure Colt was pretty ticked that H&K might be elbowing into its commercial territory too. Can anyone tell me just how (un)true this article is? --Mazryonh 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Army Times isn't owned or affiliated with the actual US Army, so I'd take what they claim with a grain of sand. It's doubtful we'll ever know the concretely true reason for its failure, but it's a fact that the XM8 and M4 are pretty much on par in terms of effectiveness and that isn't going to justify buying a million new carbines that do the M4's job no better than the M4 already does. Besides, try attaching a vertical forgrip, ACOG, PEQ-15, and Surefire light to an XM8. You can't, because none of those mods (mods which won't be going away anytime soon) are backwards compatible with PCAP and the gun's existing RDS is permanently attached. As a result, you have to buy from HK, in addition to the carbines themselves, all new accessories amounting to even more millions of dollars. People claim Colt has a stranglehold on the US military, adopting the XM8 would have been HK wrapping a noose around the US military's neck and putting their hand on the lever which opens the trapdoor beneath its feet. Spartan198 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the US Army collaborating so much with H&K really such a bad thing? Didn't the British government collaborate with them a lot way back in the 80s when the time came to refit their SA80 rifles? They also bought a controlling share during those days, too, so the British government called the shots then, not H&K. Nothing bad happened there with that close collaboration then. What problems do you foresee with a similar collaboration between the USA and H&K?

I also remember two of the major "user feedback" points of the M4 Carbine were that they wanted a lighter and more reliable weapon. The XM8 delivered on both. The accessory problems you mentioned would not have been difficult to overcome. The PCAP system was supposedly developed because it kept the "zero" of accessories more securely (not really an issue with foregrips, but definitely an issue with laser pointers, grenade launchers, and scopes/non-iron sights), but the earlier XM8 prototypes did have conventional rail systems which could be reverted to if necessary. Subcontracting another company to build PCAP-compatible accessories could be another option. Further, changing the chambering to 6.8x43mm or the like shouldn't be too much of a problem (if it's done before mass production is approved) if a caliber change is deemed to be necessary. --Mazryonh 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how changing the caliber to 6.8 would be any improvement either when you consider that a number of piston ARs in that caliber are readily available already. In addition, FN has a forthcoming 6.8mm caliber conversion for the SCAR system and the ACR is easily converted to 6.8mm at the user level. All three platforms are pretty much on par with the XM8 in terms of effectiveness and are compatible with currently fielded accessories (why buy millions of new accessories when the currently fielded ones work just fine?). The weight decrease is negligible at best with the current weight of the carbine variant at 6.4 lbs [1] compared to 6.9 lbs for most loaded AR-type carbines. True, the ACR and SCAR-L are a bit heavier at around 7 lbs or so each, but both offer much more adaptability OTS than the XM8. Spartan198 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem as well with the XM8 is that the US Marine Corp has a serious problem about changing their rifles. If the XM8 was adopted by the Army, it would have taken a while before the Marines would abandon their M16s and M4s. They always seem to be the last guys to change their current weapons for the new thing. Also the SCAR's been having problems as well getting adopted Excalibur01 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Marines don't have the budget to blow on weapons programs left and right like the Army does, though. When the Corps adopts a new piece of kit, they need to get as much use out of it as possible because they don't have the cash to replace it right away should it fail. Think of how many combined billions of dollars the US Army sank into the Advanced Combat Rifle, XM29, XM8, XM307, and XM312 programs only for none to be adopted, then consider that now they're (A) set on upgrading all their M4s and (B) simultaneously running a competition for a completely new carbine to supersede the M4. Add to that the LSAT program and the XM25 airburst grenade launcher (the only so-far salvageable part of the OICW program). And that's just in the small arms category alone. Running development programs all willy-nilly like that would bankrupt the USMC. But I wouldn't say the Marines are always last to adopt the new stuff. The M16A2 and A4 were born within the USMC, after all. Spartan198 07:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully no more seeing these in movies

I really hope a lot of action movies and even games of the future to come would stop using the XM8 to be the image of "the rifle of the future" look. Even I made the naive mistake once and thought this rifle was cool, I hope that new comers into the world of firearms will wise up quick and see just because it looks kinda cool and spacy...doesn't mean it's NOT a complete piece of crap. Excalibur01 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the XM8 a piece of crap? Nobody seems to think there's an middleground with the XM8. Either you love it or you think it's a disgrace not worthy to even be thought of. Why do you hate it so much?

Probably just another M16/4-Series Fanboy whose jaw would drop to the ground in awe, when the XM8 blows the M4 to pieces in reliability-tests.

Till the XM8 starts melting.--FIVETWOSEVEN 01:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

why is there a wierd cartoonish/not-real picture of the XM8 on some pages.itlooks like it has been digitally made ona computer smish34

Probably because a "weird cartoonish/not-real" picture is easier to make than a picture of one of the couple hundred prototypes in existence is to get. Spartan198 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe those pictures are from the official Army press releases. [2] --funkychinaman 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the XM8 will still apear in film, and game based couple years in to the future.

That's because when designers look to a "future" gun, instead of being original and making one up, they pick a gun that is not on any production scale at all. They might as well have the G11 star in games and future war movies again because it was so future like when that thing came out Excalibur01 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor and look at the Ghost Recon: Future Soldier talk page. Those monstrosities are what results when game designers try to be original and make a gun up. Spartan198 17:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

XM8 might be better if it wasn't all fucking plastic,pardon my language. In fact,a lot of weapons would be better,but wouldn't be used in mass production if you know,more steel work would be involved. Of coures,there are holes in the design for steel worked weapons as well as there are synthetic weapons and weapon parts. But this is an opinion from someone who thought there was no difference between clip and magazine,which there are several.--50.42.75.36 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for one thing they are not the same thing. Anyway, the fact that the XM8 is made of "plastic" as you call it isn't the problem. Many successful rifles are made of "plastic". The AUG, the G36, the F2000, the Tavor, the QBZ series. There is nothing wrong with the polymer material. It can be as strong as steel and make the weapon lighter and that is what the infantry needs. Lighter weapon means lighter the load and more ammo they can carry into battle without the fatigue. Excalibur01 05:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well,not to be Randy P. Goatboy,but why the heck did SCAR succeed the XM8? Was it more...adaptable? With the SCAR-H,SCAR-L,the subtypes of those...was that the reason it won? So to speak?--Pump_Shotty_Justice