# XM8 and Canada



## canuck#1 (14 Dec 2004)

I was just wondering if the Army is thinking about adopting the XM8 in the years to come or stick with the c7 


http://www.hksystems.com.au/pages/XM8.htm


----------



## scm77 (14 Dec 2004)

Why would they adopt the XM8 in two years when they are upgrading the C7's right now?


----------



## M16 (14 Dec 2004)

The U.S. army is gonna switch to the xm8 sometime in 2005. Never heard anything about the CF and the xm8 yet.


----------



## canuck#1 (14 Dec 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> Why would they adopt the XM8 in two years when they are upgrading the C7's right now?



what r they doing to the c7?


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Dec 2004)

Changing the colour and adding a collapsable butt.

You know what they say...if it's not broken, break it....if it's broken, paint it and call it an overhaul.


----------



## D-n-A (14 Dec 2004)

canuck#1 said:
			
		

> what r they doing to the c7?



http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm


----------



## CBH99 (14 Dec 2004)

They're upgrading the C7A1 to C7A2 standard.

AS FAR AS I KNOW   (Correct me if I'm wrong guys) - 

-   They are keeping the Elcan scope

-   They are making other kinds of scopes more available for deployment (Noticed some of the guys in A-Stan have ACOG on their mounts).

-   The butt is going to be adjustable, like on the M4/C8.

-   The barrel will be kept the same length, but the furniture will be painted green/brown instead of black.

-   The pistol grip will also be painted depending on the environment.   (Mostly green though I think).

-   More attachments, such as SureFire TAC lights and IR LAI gear on the rails.


I could have missed something, but thats the gist of it.


----------



## M16 (14 Dec 2004)

If the CF upgrading all the C7a1s now that would mean they woudn't be getting the XM8 within the next two years.


----------



## KevinB (14 Dec 2004)

Dont hold your breath on the XM-8 boondoggle.
 It came out of the OICW project - as an attempt to find something out of that multimillion dollar waste of resources and time.

It despite many official sounding announcements has not been adopted nor even approved for unit level testing.

The CF is not looking for another SARP for 10-15 years -
the C7A2 is moving ahead - reg force 031's will get the C8SFW upper in addition.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2004)

The XM-8 is a clever way for HK to sell more of the G-36 rifles (look very closely and you will see the family resemblance)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Dec 2004)

M16 you are making an assumption that the CF is going to get the XM8 or is even considering it.


----------



## Kratak (15 Dec 2004)

What is a C8SFW? I know what a C8 is but what does the SFW stand for?


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2004)

SFW - Special Forces Weapon 
 16" heavy bbl (as opposed to 14.5" pencil bbl on the C8 and C8A1)

The 1.5" bbl increase does tremendous things to the velocity (same gain from 14.5 to 16" as the gain from 16" to 20" of the C7...)


----------



## Kratak (15 Dec 2004)

ok, thanks for the info


----------



## foerestedwarrior (15 Dec 2004)

The one big thing, is that when all the C7A1's go in fo this upgrade, all the springs are removed and replaced, and any worn parts, are replaced as well, so it is very close to a new weapon.


----------



## MG34 (16 Dec 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> The one big thing, is that when all the C7A1's go in fo this upgrade, all the springs are removed and replaced, and any worn parts, are replaced as well, so it is very close to a new weapon.



Umm no they aren't,our so called brand new C7A2 rifle's are the same worn out rifles that some unit turned in when they got their new rifles.The only changes are cosmetic in nature,same shot out barrels,worn finish,and busted/worn springs.Mine came with a broken ejection port spring. This project is a fiasco of the highest order,instead of actually listening to the end user they gave us a rifle designed to meet the lowest possible price.


----------



## nismo0 (16 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Changing the colour and adding a collapsable butt.
> 
> You know what they say...if it's not broken, break it....if it's broken, paint it and call it an overhaul.



LOL HOLLY SHIT that's tooooooooooooo funny.................God I love the army.


----------



## nismo0 (16 Dec 2004)

But seriously, the new XM8 costs less than a M16/C7 and we want to sink money on upgrades? Maybe next we can upgread our Leos, and then the SeaKings.....and so on....


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Umm no they aren't,our so called brand new C7A2 rifle's are the same worn out rifles that some unit turned in when they got their new rifles.The only changes are cosmetic in nature,same shot out barrels,worn finish,and busted/worn springs.Mine came with a broken ejection port spring. This project is a fiasco of the highest order,instead of actually listening to the end user they gave us a rifle designed to meet the lowest possible price.



AND this folks is unfortunately TRUE.
 The did not even inspect some barrels... Either shot out or the muzzle crown was ruined.


nismo0 - the XM-8 is not cheaper - maybe per unit but we already have a hundred k of the C7/C8 - why buy a new unproved (infact the systems borther the g36 sucks...) system.  Plus add in spare parts, mags are not interchangeable - cost of changing manuals etc...

Beleive me if I thought the XM-8 was a better system I woudl be banging the wall for change - in the C8SFW we have a good system that with a little work (read$) can be upgraded into the best deployed system available on the planet.


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> AND this folks is unfortunately TRUE.
> The did not even inspect some barrels... Either shot out or the muzzle crown was ruined.
> 
> 
> ...



    They'd be cheaper in the long run.  The barrels can handle a higher rate of fire for longer periods, and have a much longer life-span, which means you don't have to get new ones as often.  The cycle of operation is improved so that MUCH less carbon and dirt enters the mechanism, meaning less cleaning time and materials, and also less wear on the weapon.  Yeah it'd be more expensive in the short term, but it'd save a lot of cash in the long run.

    I don't think the XM-8 should be bought the way it is though.  The integrated optics are a bad idea, even if it does same you from having to re-zero your weapon every few weeks.  I don't like the fact that it doesn't work with the m-203, or any other devices which can be attached to the C7.  With the right modifications though, I think it'd be a heck of a lot better than the C7.  Especially if they went with the carbine version as standard issue for infantry.  The reduced weight and shorter length would be a huge help for FIBUA.


----------



## McAllister (17 Dec 2004)

Here's a good little sales brochure fo the upgrade:  http://nic.wolfeden.ca/c7a2rifle.pdf

I like the TRIAD rail system under the front sight. Nice place for a harris bipod or a surefire light.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

48th,

Sorry I call BS on some of that - barrels - longer life - not likely Deimaco is cold hammer forging them already - unless HK's cold hammer forges (which are the SAME make as Diemaco's) is using some space alien alloys...

I have seen G36 that are cracked and worthless I spoke with more than one Norwegian SF soldier in Afghan - they are junking the G36 for the C8SFW - in fact they are usign the G3K currently until they can get the C8's...   The XM-8 is just a tarted up G36.   The gas system is nothing wonderful - I saw the XM-8R(M1913 rail variant) and was incredbily underwhelmed.
 Stock SUCKS
 Body - more plastic than a G36....

I would not buy it at all.


Even the German SF guys where using M4's and SFW's in Afghan...
  That was pretty telling to me.



McAllister - the front sling swivel has to be "removed" (ahem) to make use of the M1913 rail on the bottom of the TRIAD-I and they suck BTW


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

You could be right.  The XM8 boasts a 20,000 round minimum barrel life, however, I haven't been able to find any statistics on the C7 barrel life to compare.  I know that the C7 has a longer barrel life than the original M16, as does the XM8, but I'm not sure exactly how they compare to eachother.  The XM8 DOES use special alloys but once again I'm not sure which.  From the reviews and releases I've read, the strength of the barrel has been improved to the extent that it's possible (although not advisable) to fire it with the barrel clogged.  I know you can't do that with the C7, so I assume that a stronger barrel also translates to a longer life span, but that's just an uneducated guess.

Keep in mind that the XM8 may be based on the G36 but it's no more a G36 than a C7 is an AR15.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

48th,

I consider the AR15 to be close enough to the C7 that I would not want anything that close to the G36...

Secondly I know a few people in the XM-8 test arena and the "Modular Weapons System" solicitation came up from several flaws in the XM-8 - I think that the SuperFNC SCAR-L is a better thought up system that still uses off the shelf optics and accessories.

The other problem with the XM-8 is that its 12" bbl version has worse terminal performance (velocity) than the 14.5" M4 bbl - 30M to bullet fragementation versus 45M for the M4 and 95M for the SFW (16")
 And the 12" XM-8 is the same lenght as the M4A1.

IF the XM-8 were to be viable as an infantry weapon then the C77/M855/SS109 round has to be replaced - either with the Mk262 Mod1 77gr BTHP OR (another unproven system) the 6.8x43 SPC round.


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

I'll take your word for it, I've never handled a G36 or an XM8.  The demos of the XM8 I've seen are pretty impressive, but without actually using one I can't really form an accurate opinion.

I've seen pictures of the SuperFNC.  Looks strange, and I've never seen any stats on it.

I deffinitely agree with the barrel length problem on the carbine variant.  Not so much of a problem against unarmored insurgents in a FIBUA environment, but if you want to be able to handle different types of targets and environments you should be aiming for at least a 14.5" barrel.  I also agree with the ammo issue.  Actually when the C7A2 first came up here I remember saying something like "god forbid they do something USEFULL" and posting a link to the Barrett upper receiver conversion for the M16.  That's another system I wouldn't mind seing, however, switching to 6.8mm would probably be even more costly than buying 5.56mm XM8's, as well as making our rifles incompatible with the NATO standard.


----------



## McAllister (17 Dec 2004)

> the front sling swivel has to be "removed" (ahem) to make use of the M1913 rail on the bottom of the TRIAD-I and they suck BTW


 Brutal. Did not know that. How is the sling attached on the A2? I don't want to have to trust some kind of 'makeshift' sling swivel.

Hey, speaking of the m468 upper reciever conversion, does that Selective Integrated Rail make the barrel somewhat more free floating than a c7 barrel? I also like those pop-up SOPMOD iron sights. The conversion kit is listed at $1,494 US. How much for a C7A2 kit?   ...I know, I know, we'll never buy this fun Barrett stuff.... A man can dream... :'(


----------



## brihard (25 Dec 2004)

Anyone else hate the red thingie they've put in the lower receiver behind the tigger mech to reduce receiver jiggle in the C7? At some point over the summer a few of my unit's rifles (A1s) magically got them, and I've found field strips to be a pain in the rear with them. Used to be I could pop the rear takedown pin with my fingers, but because the red thing causes friction on the pin, I need a pen ora knife blade to do it now... Looks like another RMF upgrade...


----------



## MJP (25 Dec 2004)

Nope I like it actually.  It is designed to reduce the play between the lower and upper reciever, hence the need for a tool to open up the weapon.  It actually gets easier as it gets work in, but still holds the upper and lower reciever nice and tight.


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2004)

MJP said:
			
		

> Nope I like it actually.   It is designed to reduce the play between the lower and upper reciever, hence the need for a tool to open up the weapon.   It actually gets easier as it gets work in, but still holds the upper and lower reciever nice and tight.



Mike just likes it so no one opens his weapon up and sees he did not clean it for three months in Afghan...


 ;D

j/k


It is both a blessing and a curse - some guns that were very worn would flop open - the tension while doing zero for accuracy (the sight is on the same plane as the barrel (unlike the C1A1 where we had the rear sight on the lower and the front sight on the upper...)  It does seem to improve solider confidence - which improves the shooter psychologically.


McAllister - the SIR (#58 in this case) does not touch the barrel at ALL - so the upper is freefloated from the barrel nut forward - thus any weight transfered to the forestock or any accessory you add or subtract will not alter your zero.  (look ay my webpage for a bit more detail...)
 6.8 came and went - the 77gr Mk262 has done much of what was found wanting in the M855/C77 round in the same platform (6.8 has teething issues and more...)


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2004)

FWIW HKD sold the XM-8 to General Dynamics - Land.

GD-L is the father of the LandWarrior system  : - Those who have played the game at Benning know what I mean that I think XM-8 is now an even more unviable option for the next few (10 or so) years.

The US MWS (modual weapon system) solicitation will be the one to watch.
 M4A1 PIP
 SCAR-L
 XM-8

The three basic options - and many subgroups of the M4 PIP system....


----------



## Kal (26 Dec 2004)

Speaking of future weapon systems, when is the army going to issue the rifle from Starship Troopers?  You know the one that looks like the OICW and shoots .50 cal. rounds with nickel plated cases and black moly coated bullets?  Hey, and maybe those 'nuke warehead missle launchers to replace the Carl G.......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

More SCAR pics:

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/scar.jpg


----------



## McAllister (30 Dec 2004)

New weapon system?   http://aliens.humlak.cz/aliens/Aliens_papirove_modely/papercraft/m41.html     :skull: Is that an old thompson under all that junk?      :threat:


----------

