Xm8
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What went wrong?
>>29778230
M4 was better in a lot of ways
Infantry fights on land where there aren't any fish.
>>29778230
There was nothing it did that the M16 and M4 didn't already do but better, without having to buy new rifles.
It's flaws is that it's really just a G36 but not as good. It was above the weight requirements, so they tried to lighten it, but then it couldn't handle sustained or rapid fire anymore, the plastic showing signs of warping and melting.
It also featured proprietary accessory mounts back when rails were becoming standard.
With some alterations, it could be ok, but at the end of the day, the AR-15 is just better, and they already have those.
>inb4 those rigged tests where they had a retard who didn't comprehend a burst-cam, ticking down every instance of him fumbling as a "malfunction" for the M16A2
>>29778230
it's just a g36 in a different polymer
>>29778318
I think it's safe to say that the proprietary EVERYTHING for it was the nail on the coffin. They even tried to make the mag's proprietary
>>29778230
not as good as others
its pretty cool lookin though. ID buy one
Lies and misinformation, once it got to working shape IE being lighter than the m4 without melting and being more reliable the army had all ready turned down a bunch of weapons better than the m4.
>>29778270
arfag detected
>>29778635
say that to my face motherfucker
or better yet
say that to the evidence
It was not a proper AR18.
>>29778845
I've never understood why people have such a boner for the AR-18, what makes it so special?
>>29778955
It's trash for countries that were too incompetent to manufacture the AR15.
The only people who like it now are hipsters who want something snowflake but will never actually have the funds to acquire one and see how horrible it is. It even takes a snowflake magazine. It's basically the NATOboo's equivalent of the slavshit VZ58 only the AR-18 is worse than its contemporaries while the VZ is vastly superior.
Literally every eurotrash gun is based on it now and every one is superior to the AR-18.
>>29778305
Underrated post.
>>29778534
The chips come down to both the XM8 and AR-15 being select-fire 5.56mm rifles, and there not being a point to switch from one to the other, only needless expense (the AR-15 being arguably better anyway).
The M16 and M4 will likely remain in service for decades to come, because it's "good enough", and at most we'll see new A# models of them, and plausibly, rechambering the carbines to .300BLK seems like something that might be explored on a larger scale in the near future.
>>29778635
You sure told him.
>>29778845
The AR-18 is nice, but the AR-15 is simply a way better weapon.
>>29778955
It's very simple to make, it's near AK tier in build (except lighter and more graceful).
Conceptually, it's an alright rifle, and the sale's pitch at the time was based on Armalite trying to play at the problems the AR-15 had (which were caused by dumbfuckery in the Army Brass, not for any fault in the design itself), and going "Well gee, we might have the solution to your problems".
It was a secondary choice by Eugene Stoner, his opinion being that it wasn't as good as the AR-15, but Armalite had already sold off the rights to it to Colt, so the idea was now to try to maybe sell it to the US Armed Forces (fat chance), or to third world countries who needed modern .223 combat rifles, but who didn't necessarily have all the economy or logistics to produce a design like the AR-15 (which Colt actually charged a good premium for, I guess they knew what they had), the thought was good, but this didn't work out, the AR-18 instead played second fiddle to Colt's AR-15 on the civilian market for a while (and it was an attractive lower cost option at the time, because as stated, Colt put a high pricetag on theirs).
It was never a monumental success on it's own, however, and the design would eventually be copied in more recent decades, and done in arguably better ways. It's remembered mostly for it's history, and being cool.
>>29779080
>but will never actually have the funds to acquire one and see how horrible it is
Depends on which make you're looking at, the Sterling ones were pretty shoddy.
>It even takes a snowflake magazine
Sort of. The magazine pattern is the same as with the AR-15, you can even use AR-15 mags in an AR-18, and vice versa, if they've been cut for the other magazine catch.
There's the later 180B model, featuring a plastic lower with an AR-15 friendly magwell, though the build quality on those was a bit spotty. I heard some company made a proper metal lower as an aftermarket part, and that this worked better.
>Vz.58
Uh, yeah, actually, it does have a similar sort of alt-following, it's a bit unusual, it's highly overrated by it's fanboys.
Personally, I just think it's really cool and nifty, and I dig the industrial look, but I'll fully acknowledge that it's not as good a rifle as an AR-15
>>29778230
90s "modularity" aka swapping official manufacturer parts instead of having railz and slappinh whatever want on.
>>29778534
What is a G3K doing there?
>>29778230
Nothing wrong with the weapon. It's just that the program went the same way as almost every post-WWII small arms program of the US (*): if the improvement isn't deemed big enough, no procurement decision will follow. Thus billions of dollars have been spent over decades in pointless tests with no improvement for the rifleman. The rationale seems to be that the Army rather spends the grunts' blood instead of money for small albeit measureable improvements.
(*): even the AR-15 had to be shoved down the throat of the M-14 loving Army by McNamara
>>29778318
>>29778230
-no rails
-bulky
-same problems as G36
-no iron sights
>>29778955
IRA (even though they used AR-15s and G3s more)
>>29779183
>the sale's pitch at the time was based on Armalite trying to play at the problems the AR-15 had (which were caused by dumbfuckery in the Army Brass, not for any fault in the design itself)
Confirmed for not knowing shit. While it's true that none of the design flaws were so detrimental as the Army's decision to use ball powder as opposed to IMR powder for which the AR-15 was designed, the design itself did indeed have flaws. Some of them even pretty basic stuff like the lack of chrome lining.
>>29779805
The m14 needed to be replaced, badly
>>29780032
And yet the Army didn't want the AR-15. It was McNamara who pushed through with it. Which caused the Army top brass to try to sabotage it by using the wrong powder. A despicable affair. How many GIs needlessly died over this we will never know.
>>29779921
They did change that later, but too late to matter.
>>29778534
>Gangster grip
Fuck right the hell off.
>>29780665
Nope, the revamped exterior design came later because the early models "looked too much like a German G36"
Absolutely everything.
>>29778230
They couldn't set the hook.
>>29780117
>And yet the Army didn't want the AR-15.
The Army Ordance Board didn't want it.
The average GI was probably thrilled about a much lighter rifle that's much easier to shoot. The M1 Carbine was desireable for the same reason "I'm sick of lugging all this shit around, this lightweight carbine is much more pleasant"
As for how many perished thanks to the sabotage, probably not as many as you'd think, the early iterations saw only brief use, and the ammo problem was discovered relatively fast, so that was only early on (though the bad ammo was by far the worst aspect), the second issue (and this was really the most pressing during the bad ammo), was the lack of cleaning, with the introduction of the A1 model, the bad ammo was phased out, a cleaning kit and instructions on how to use it was included, the chamber and bore was chromed to resist fouling and for more reliable ejection (it also prevented the cartridge from sticking after long periods of being chambered, due to "swelling"), but bad magazines remained for a while.
Stories about the M16 failing in combat are probably exaggerated, just like stories about GI's picking up AKs for use on the battlefield, that shit probably didn't happen all that much.
>>29779997
>the design itself did indeed have flaws. Some of them even pretty basic stuff like the lack of chrome lining.
That (and more) was part of the original Stoner designs, but a lot of it was stripped (and then gradually readded) by McNamarra as they figured they could save on cost.
While this was detrimental in a way, the ammo, magazines, and complete lack of cleaning was the problems, mechanically, the rifle was still pretty good.
>>29778230
It's a fish bruv
>>29780032
No, not really. It's a great DM rifle, accurate and reliable.
Do me a favor and don't link that one article that has several fallacies about the M14 being shit.
>>29782445
>the bad ammo was phased out
It was never phased out. The Army uses ball powder to this day. The issue was fixed with a quirky workaround:
>"I wish I could say that Stoner or Fremont or myself saved the day, but Colt’s Chief Product Engineer, Foster Sturtevant, solved the problems with a heavier buffer assembly having a plurality of inertial masses acting in delayed sequence to oppose bolt rebound. It slowed the cycle back down, reduced the bolt carrier bounce that caused light strike misfires and gave the cartridge time to loosen up in the chamber so it extracted better. Furthermore, it was a simple change allowing riflemen to just change buffers in the field. Another simple fix by Colt designer Bob Roy was to add a rubber plug inside the extractor spring to increase spring force. These cures got the Army off the hook and allowed them to keep using Ball powder ammo."
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2772
>Stories about the M16 failing in combat are probably exaggerated
Not really. There was a Congressional investigation because of the problems.
>>29782543
>That (and more) was part of the original Stoner designs
Nah, man it wasn't:
>"Unlike the AR-10, which had only marginal room for its extractor spring, the relatively larger bolt of the AR-15 had adequate spring room to operate reliably with our ammo. Although we made a modified bolt with even more room, it proved unnecessary during extensive test firing so we went into production with the apparently adequate and simpler design. That became a bad choice later.
We made three other bad choices - the cartridge rim should have been thicker and/or stronger, the buffer should have been heavier, and the chamber of the barrel should have been chrome plated. Omitting the chamber chrome plating was outright stupid ..."
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2772
>>29778845
Good because the AR-18 was actually really shitty for a military rifle. It suffered from a number of malfunctions in both US and UK evaluation testing.
It had some good things though, so people took the basic concept and developed it further. The original is highly overrated
we will be using the m16 until 2030 at least.
at most by then we will be using m16a6.
>>29778230
>Overall length longer than the M4
>Barrel length shorter than the M4
>>29782897
>The Army uses ball powder to this day
It's not, however, from surplus stores of 30-06 powder shoehorned into 5.56.
>>29782897
Years ago I took a handloading course from the guy who runs Nosler's ballistics lab, and this topic came up. He said the particular powder they used in that first run of ammo was cheap shit with a chintzy coating that went to hell in the tropical heat. Modern ball powders run nice and clean. The latter I can attest to as a handloader.
>>29784063
You mean M4A1++
Even the Muhreens are switching to the M4
>Every Marine a Carbineperson
>>29784090
>What is an adjustable stock?
>>29784377
You mean M4A1++
Cased Telescoped model.
>>29782445
My dad did a Nam tour , they didn't have to pick up AKs off the battlefield. You could buy one off the street for 300 dollars which conveniently enough was easy to get with your first check in country. He stored it in the same locker he had the M-16.
>>29784408
I think the introduction of cased telescoped ammo will finally force the US off the M4. What we're waiting for is a revolution in ammo tech to justify buying a new rifle
>>29784646
Even then, since it isn't that different there would have to be some kind of revolutionary weapon design to shift away from the highly accurate AR-15 design.
Because being slightly better doesn't justify the billions of dollars required to completely re-arm all of our soldiers.
>>29786131
There's no reason to go with a DI gun going forwards into the future once we start to move away from 5.56
>>29786489
Other than superior accuracy, lighter weight than pistons, and great ergonomics?
>>29786566
>superior accuracy
Disproven by the HK417 BTFO'ing KAC SR-25's in the latest Army trials.
>lighter weight than pistons
The stoner gas system is a piston.
>and great ergonomics?
Ergonomics have nothing to do with the weapons internal method of operation.
>>29784646
They would just modify the AR15 to accept telescoped ammo.
It would have to be a revolution that finds fault with the core design of the AR. I predict that this will be the advent of full-face helmets (especially on powered armor) that will conflict with the buffer tube. One way to emulate a cheekweld with a full face helmet is to put a cushion on the stock and squish the helmet into it; unfortunately for the AR15 the buffer tube is in the way and doing this will raise the height of the sights to an unreasonable level. Designs without an extended bugger tube can get away with a low-mounted stock.
>>29786597
>The stoner gas system is a piston.
Yes, but doesn't require a big, front-heavy setup like short/long stroke pistons that imbalance the rifle and its recoil.
>Ergonomics have nothing to do with the weapons internal method of operation.
It does make using it and upgrading easier.
>>29786608
Or just put 45 degree optic mounts on.
>>29784436
And my dad was in nam and preferred euro trash fn rifles over his gun. And to this day he won't talk to me for dating an Asian woman because he thinks they are all scum since he had to fight them.
>what's your point, preferences are preferences, not facts
>>29778230
it's fucking stupid
>>29784128
While it's true that the ball powder didn't burn as clean as the IMR powder that the AR-15 was designed for, the extra fouling was not the big issue. The real problem was that the ball powder has a higher pressure at the gas port. This led to an increased cyclic rate, which caused the light strike misfires by carrier bounce and the failures to extract, because the cartridge didn't have enough time to relax.
>>29784377
>Carbineperson
kek
>>29786608
fucking this
at this point, the AR is just like the hydraulic/spring shock absorber
an utterly obsolete piece of tech, that was just marginally adequate even upon its introduction
however
so much engineering time has been poured into it that it now works very well and variants exist for all sorts of applications
parts and training commonality all along the chain (from production to actual use and maintenance) also create huge economies of scale which ensure that any contender has a very very hard time
the next system has to be not only better, but as cheap as to justify the enormous costs of the switch-over
>>29778230
-Reskin of G36 but with slightly higher damage, lower ROF and lower base speed,4 shot kill in front/3 shot in the back
Big issue is price.
>>29786156
That's a stupid argument that held back small arms progress for half a centuy now. And I'm not even talking about the cynicism of paying with our grunts' blood in order to save money.
Billions are being spend anyway just for refurbishment and replacement of worn out weapon parts, not to mention the billions spent on countless small arms programs that never led to adopting anything new, be it SPIW, ACR, OICW and many others. All those billions could've just as well been spent on introducing weapons that are a little bit better than their replacements to help the warfighter and actually achieve progress.
>>29786608
>extended bugger tube
kek
>>29786700
>big, front-heavy setup like short/long stroke pistons
Whether you use a gas tube or a gas piston, the weight is there.
>that imbalance the rifle and its recoil.
It's clear you've never shot a G36 or its derivatives. Piston AR shoehorning doesn't compare.
>>29782714
The M24 was accurate.
Trying to make a regular M14 into a DMR is a nightmare.
>>29782897
>It was never phased out.
Yes it was. The new powder is still ball powder, but actually in spec for a 5.56mm rifle
>Not really. There was a Congressional investigation because of the problems.
I never said it didn't have problems, or that it wasn't important to solve, but the amount of times you hear about it is absurd, based on media and hearsay, you'd think near every GI would have catastrophic malfunctions with their rifles and a third would arm themselves with enemy AKs (and another third with the M14), and it really wasn't on that kind of scale. The big problems were fixed long before the halfway point of the war, yet you'll still hear the factoid about how it was so common to grab AKs.
>>29784010
>The original is highly overrated
True, but it looks really badass
>>29784436
I'm willing to bet you that the majority of GIs who picked up or bought AKs did so because they wanted to take it home (and many did), using the enemy's rifle in combat is a good way to draw friendly fire, in the worst of cases from your artillery.
Also the Vietcong were notoriously ill equipped, if you loot a dead one, you can at best hope for one loaded magazine in the gun, and if that.
>>29787623
>This led to an increased cyclic rate, which caused the light strike misfires by carrier bounce and the failures to extract, because the cartridge didn't have enough time to relax.
As well as accelerated wear.
>>29788568
>I'm willing to bet you that the majority of GIs who picked up or bought AKs did so because they wanted to take it home (and many did)
No , it was illegal to bring back AKs from Vietnam. It's a fully automatic weapon. I did read about people bringing back SKSs due to it being semi. My dad stripped it down his AK and tossed the parts in a river before leaving.
It's true it wasn't very common for everyone to walk around with AKs but they were easy to get and a lot of US military personal had them so it was more common than the poster I responded to thinks. Same with the M-14. Even late in the war people were still getting M-14s in Vietnam somehow even after they were largely replaced. The M-16 deserved or not had a bad reputation back then.
>>29788674
>No , it was illegal to bring back AKs from Vietnam. It's a fully automatic weapon.
You could still register new automatic weapons until 1986, I was under the impression that there were legal channels to do this with war bringbacks at the time, after all, how else would you bring back an MG34 or MP40 from WW2? The NFA was in place by 1934 but as long as you registered the weapon you could bring it home. Also there was an amnesty in the 70s IIRC where you could have illegal machineguns turned legal, and I'm willing to bet many AKs which were illegally brought back became legally registered due to that.
>>29788895
>>29788895
He's just a fool. There were methods circa the 1968 amnesty. Many Chinese guns and even some NORK aks came into the country this way. No one gave a shit about NFA back then. The world was a completely different place. Checking luggage because of muh terrorism didn't even exist at 1/100th the scale today.
Some manufacturers, IE fleming and others, "built" more meaning they stamped their shit on bringbacks and registered them. Even more had a single torch cut and were rewelded. "Parts kits" were much different, and a hell of a lot more lenient on enforcement back then too.
>>29788674
>>29788895
There's a transferable vietnam bring back ak47 on the RIA catalog for the upcoming auction.
>>29787774
You're saying this as if any of the AR-18 clones that have paraded past have been better enough in any way to justify the change.
>>29788568
>Yes it was. The new powder is still ball powder, but actually in spec for a 5.56mm rifle
Dude, the M855 rounds are loaded with the same powder as the old M193 rounds: WC-844 (*). It was only with the recent introduction of the M855A1 round that the powder was changed to SMP-842. And that was just for reducing the muzzle flash, nothing more.
(*) Technically, not all M193 rounds were loaded with WC-844. The very first M193 lots were loaded with WC-846. But the change from WC-846 to WC-844 was just a reduction of the calcium carbonate content. While this did reduce the fouling, I already said in another post that the bigger problem was the increased cyclic rate due to the higher gas port pressure. And there the change from WC-846 to WC-844 does nothing. The fix came by changing the weapon rather than changing the powder back to what the weapon was designed for.
>I never said it didn't have problems, or that it wasn't important to solve, but the amount of times you hear about it is absurd, based on media and hearsay, you'd think near every GI would have catastrophic malfunctions with their rifles and a third would arm themselves with enemy AKs (and another third with the M14), and it really wasn't on that kind of scale.
Speaking of media reports: one of the peculiar curiosities of the whole affair is that the Army only moved to act after the media reported on the issues. And as the Ichord report states this was several months after the Army knew of it.
>>29789126
So you're saying they kept using the .30-06 powder that was determined to be running the action too fast?
>>29789126
>the Army only moved to act after the media reported on the issues
That sounds like typical gov't shenanigans.
>>29789079
The XM8 certainly was one of those that were. But as back in Nam bias and prejudices in the Army prevent change for the better ("Looks too much like a German G36").
>>29789143
Yes. They kept the powder. The cyclic rate was reduced by introducing a heavier buffer. Read the interview of Jim Sullivan above.
>>29786566
I don't hate the ar15 but none of those are exclusive or necessarily inherent to di
>>29789079
>ar18 clones
Nigger what
>>29789391
>F2000
>ACR
>AUG
>SCAR
>G36 (the MP7 is like a baby sized one too)
>M17S
>SA80
All based on the AR-18, pretty much the same bolt, bolt-carrier and short-stroke gas-piston. Not to the degree that they're interchangeable, but the action is copied from the AR-18, and arguably done better in most cases.
G36 is an AR-18 with a plastic body, as is the ACR, the AUG is a bullpup AR-18, the F2000 is an AR-18 as a boat, the SCAR is an AR-18 made of extruded aluminum and in generally very high standards, the SA80 is a piece of shit and the M17S was premature.
>>29789610
Can't really argue with that, but also irrelavant.
I think small arms in mid to late 21th century will be pretty much the same internal with some external twitch to it.
>>29789638
Yeah, the thing is, they pretty much managed to nail it with the AR15.
Nearly perfect ergonomics.
Simple, streamlined, and easy to modify.
The buffer tube design results in cleaner, straighter, softer recoil than other 5.56 rifles.
Nothing. It just wasn't worth it.
>>29789610
O shit, I see what you meant. I thought you were trying to compare the ar18 concept, a cheap stamped piston select fire rifle in 5.56 meant for export to countries without the capability to manufacture more refined rifles, to things like the g36 and f2000
>>29789610
Can someone explain why so many of these recent designs have opted for Stoner's short piston rather than his gas piston with buffer tube?
Only two realistic reasons I have ever heard were folding stock and moving heat away from the bolt forward to the gas port, but I don't understand why either of these are _that_ beneficial.
>>29788993
I was talking about my dad who did his tour in 1970 not 1968 and breaking the rules doesn't make it legal which was why he tossed his in the river.
>>29789693
It's a solid design. But it's not the end all be all. It's more than half a century old. There's better stuff out there, even though die hard AR-15 fanboys will deny it and the Army will block any improvement with arbitrary bullshit pseudo reasoning.
>>29790267
Define "better stuff."
>>29789990
Additional reasons:
- gases being kept out of the bolt carrier not only means less heat but also less carbon fouling in the heart of the system => less wear & more reliable
- far easier to adapt to shorter barreled rifles and use with suppressors
- over the beach capability
I've also heard they're more reliable in arctic conditions, but I don't have enough knowledge in that area to confirm.
>>29790267
Someone mentioned Stoner's gas piston came out in 57, a good 10 years before the major adoption of color television. Crazy to think his design (helped along by many other engineers) has weathered 60 years that well.
>>29790367
>gases being kept out of the bolt carrier not only means less heat but also less carbon fouling in the heart of the system => less wear & more reliable
Has never been a real problem in AR15 designs that actually follow proper spec.
>>29790328
E. g. weapons that have more mean rounds between stoppage, greater inherent safety, less total cost of ownership by longer lasting parts (cold hammer forged barrels anyone?).
That kind of stuff. You know, when you just look at the development of the technology on the market as opposed to the Army approach of requiring unobtainium by writing stupid outlandish stuff into RFPs and technology goals while at the same time ignoring those existing improvements because of a "lack of requirement".
>>29790368
It's because of a broken procurement system.
>>29790328
Different anon, but the military certainly seems mildly enamored with the FN SCAR and more so with the HK416/417 lately. Besides issuing both rifles in limited numbers, the 416 is being rolling out as ~6500 of the IAR to the marines and the G28 version of the 417 just won the Army sniper contract away from KAC.
Granted, that's probably not solely due to the change in action design.
>>29790423
We were talking about a direct comparison to the piston system that are so popular anywhere else but the US.
If you just follow Army thinking and observe that you need to change this and that part after so and so many rounds then, yes, nothing's wrong with the AR-15. It's working as specified. But that misses the point.
>>29790436
When the test protocols are followed by people who aren't idiots about the burst cog the M4 has the same fail rate as piston guns.
So, raise overall cost by making the barrels more expensive?
There's been yet for anything to be so much better than the AR15 that it's been worth it to bother with the costs of total changeover.
>>29778318
>It also featured proprietary accessory mounts back when rails were becoming standard.
The first XM8 prototype was a G36 covered in rails.
>>29790481
> Started out arguing there was no 'better stuff' than the AR-15
> Now we are arguing there is no 'better stuff' for the same amount of money as the AR-15
This is going to be a much harder argument for either side. What is the limit of increased parts wear per dollar or increased operation time without repairs per dollar both sides will accept?
>>29790481
>When the test protocols are followed by people who aren't idiots about the burst cog the M4 has the same fail rate as piston guns.
Comparisons have repeatedly shown the piston system to be more reliable. Now I'm not talking about AR piston conversions but solidly designed rifles like some of those listed above.
>So, raise overall cost by making the barrels more expensive?
Cold hammer forged barrels may increase the initual unit cost at the time of purchase but they reduce the lifecycle cost because they last so much longer. So in the long term they actually save money. Nobody throws away the whole rifle when the barrel is worn out. You replace it. And the lower replacement rate more than compensates for their higher price.
>>29790645
>Comparisons have repeatedly shown the piston system to be more reliable. Now I'm not talking about AR piston conversions but solidly designed rifles like some of those listed above.
Which ones, the dust tests that had a flawed method for marking failures by techs counting not holding the trigger through the entire burst as two "failures"?
>Cold hammer forged barrels may increase the initual unit cost at the time of purchase but they reduce the lifecycle cost because they last so much longer. So in the long term they actually save money. Nobody throws away the whole rifle when the barrel is worn out. You replace it. And the lower replacement rate more than compensates for their higher price.
By what, 2, 3 thousand rounds? Because M16/M4s are already rated for 10,000 between barrel changes.
>>29790367
Ironically, I've been finding that most short stroke designs like the ones you listed are very picky, especially with underpowered and dirty ammo.
It may reduce fouling elsewhere in the gun, but the piston itself gets ridiculously gummed up and short strokes. I also assume the gas also gets vented out too early whenever it happens.
>>29790676
There were several dust tests and the last one does indeed appear to be flawed. But even the earlier ones showed the comparison weapons to be more reliable.
>By what, 2, 3 thousand rounds? Because M16/M4s are already rated for 10,000 between barrel changes.
HK416s have shown barrel life in excess of 24k rounds, Scars and XM8s in excess of 30k rounds.
>>29790942
Like the one just prior that was performed properly, or directly after by another group with the same protocol, that showed all of the sample weapons having nearly identical fail rates?
>HK416s have shown barrel life in excess of 24k rounds, Scars and XM8s in excess of 30k rounds.
>XM8s
I find this questionable, since XM8s had thin-profile barrels to meet weight requirements.
>>29790700
anecdotal evidence is nice but meaningless
>>29790969
What are you referring to as "directly after by another group"? Got a link?
>I find this questionable, since XM8s had thin-profile barrels to meet weight requirements.
You don't believe it because it can't be? Or it's bad because the technique wasn't invented in the US? CHF barrels are the longest lasting of all the different manufacturing techniques. If you wanna learn more about them I recommend reading this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060408182215/http://technology.calumet.purdue.edu/met/higley/Precision%20Shooting%20Magazine%20-%20November-%202005%20%28Vol_%2053%20-%20No_%207%29.htm
>>29791502
See: >>29778834
>>29791550
and?
>>29791831
>GIB PROOFS
>NOT REAL PROOFS GIB PROOFS
>>29791866
I don't even know what your claim is regarding that picture.
>>29791973
>I didn't read the linked image
>>29792098
Well, you don't seem to have.
But anyway, when you spoke of tests after and by another group, I thought you may be talking about the 2013 test, the results of which weren't disclosed. That's why I asked for a link.
But at least the test report got media coverage and it was leaked that "reliability was measured against the M4 as the baseline. Gun “C” scored 25 percent more reliable than the M4A1 and better than all others"
And this was a test in which all competitors complained that they only got 10k rounds of the new M855A1, a round that was designed for use in the M4. And yet despite the ridiculously low testing opportunity the M4 still got beaten by another weapon. Alas, the program was cancelled, because according to the Army no competitor met the requirements. But as one critic put it:
>“It was misleading for the Army to say none of the weapons passed the test,” said a U.S. official critical of how the Army buys small arms. “It was true, but it was extremely misleading. They set the requirements for the mean round between failure at around 3,000 rounds. That’s extremely high.”
>He added: “You had one weapon beat the pants off your incumbent, and the result of this was not to do more testing. You had the opportunity to keep working and pursuing a better weapon, and you chose not to.”
The requirements were so hilariously unrealistic that e.g. Armalite chose to not even bid to compete because, according to them, the requirements were such that it was predetermined that no one wins. So once again the Army chose to foregoe a tangible improvement because of unobtainium requirements and instead keeps the inferior weapon. And the grunts pay in blood for this.
>>29792596
>Army expects it to be worth it before completely replacing over half a million rifles at once
>Not having high requirements
>>29793005
>spends tens of billions on useless shit like helicopters or strykers or MRAP's that have now been scrapped
>nuh uh we totally can't double the lethality of infantry by buying them new weaponry
>>29793025
>Implying any of the weapons put forth are even a .1% improvement
>>29778230
At this point, the army is holding these trials just to say they're "trying" to find a replacement.
In reality, the M4 is "good enough" and they already have a ample logistics supply to it.
For them to switch, they'll need a rifle that outperforms the AR in everything and still be cheaper to produce. Which is unlikely to happen.
>>29793005
Okay, after the third greentext I'm convinced you just try to dodge a serious discussion.
>>29793093
>>29793025
>implying they'd have any real effect on the outcome of the battle
>still spending hundreds of millions on retarded shit like microwave heat guns and fucking F35's but too cheap to make an improved infantry rifle
pretty bizzare
>>29779951
XMB8
>>29793282
How much are you really going to improve over the M4 without a huge tech leap forward?
