5 replies to this topic

[amazin]

i know it was part of OICW, which lost funding (i think)

but i dont see why it was cancelled, it seemed like an effective, reliable (more so than the SCAR), and versatile, and cost-effective assault rifle to me

why was it cancelled

[CommanderJB]

Because the U.S. military decided to cancel it, and because Congress didn't want to approve more military dollars when the current ones seemed to work just fine. For more info, as this isn't really my area of specialisation, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Quote

The first 30 XM8 prototypes were delivered by November 2003 for preliminary testing. Later, at least 200 developmental prototypes were procured. Among the complaints during testing was that the battery life was too low for the weapon's powered sight system and some ergonomics issues. Two other key issues were reducing the weapon's weight and increasing the heat resistance of the hand guard, which would start to melt after firing too many rounds. The main testing was largely completed, and the Army pushed for funding for a large field test. However, in 2004 Congress denied $26 million funding for 7,000 rifles to do a wide scale test fielding of the XM8 in 2005. At the time the rifle still had developmental goals that were incomplete, primarily associated with the weapon's weight; the battery life had been extended, and a more heat-resistant plastic hand-guard added. The earliest product brochure lists the target weight for the carbine variant at 5.7 lb (2.6 kg) with the then current prototype at 6.2 lb (2.8 kg). The weight of the carbine prototype had since grown to 7.5 lb (3.4 kg) according to a brochure released by HK and General Dynamics in January 2005.

Army leaders test fire the XM8 at Fort Benning, Georgia in 2004During the same period, the Army came under pressure from other arms makers to open up the XM8 to competition. The main argument was that the weapon that was being adopted was a substantially different system than for the original competition that ATK and H&K had actually won (see XM29). Other issues were that the Army has a legislated obligation to prefer U.S.-based manufacturers, and that a previous agreement with Colt Defense required the Army to involve Colt in certain small-arms programs. The XM8 program was put on hold by the Army in 2004. The exact reason why this happened is a matter of debate; some combination of the aforementioned technical issues, funding restrictions, and outside pressure being involved.

In 2005, the Army issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the OICW Increment One family of weapons. This RFP gave manufacturers six months to develop and deliver prototype weapons with requirements very similar to the XM8 capabilities, but with the addition of a squad automatic weapon (SAW) configuration. Currently, no XM8 prototypes have been shown that actually match the capabilities of the M249 (e.g. fast barrel replacement, high sustained rate of fire, belt feed). The OICW Increment One requirement for the SAW includes fast barrel replacement and high sustained rate of fire, but leaves the ammunition feed choice up to the manufacturer.

Funding for the XM320 grenade launcher, which is a single-shot under-barrel grenade launcher similar to the M203 that was originally intended for the XM8, was approved. The launcher is actually heavier than the M203, but does offer some advantages. The XM320 was designed for use with the existing inventory of M16s and M4s and is also compatible with the XM8. It can also be used as a stand-alone weapon.

As of July 19, 2005, the OICW Increment One RFP was put on an eight-week hold, with an indication given that the program was being restructured as a joint procurement program including the Army and unnamed other branches. On October 31, 2005, the OICW Increment One RFP was canceled until further notice.

In an article in Jane's Defence Weekly, April 26 2006 (Vol 43, page 30) we learn that "The US Army has again delayed the procurement of its future infantry weapons, this time for more than five years, and is working to field two interim guns in the meantime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8

Basically its advantages didn't really seem good enough, and like all these guns it kept on getting heavier and heavier despite its reliability. I think they're looking for too much from one rifle to be honest.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, they were looking for a miracle rifle, a gun lighter than any other (the stock, hand guards, almost everything was polymer), as reliable as the rest of the H&K weapons, and as accurate as hell.

I still do think that the US Military forces should replace their M16/M4s, the SCAR has already taken the place of them in teh spec ops, and the HK416 has taken over in SOCOM (which is a little different than the rest of them IIRC), they could easily switch to the HK416, which is basically a more reliable M16/M4.

[Houdini]

Isn't there a m16 mark 2 coming out, which means there is no point in having the oicw programme?

[Jok3r]

Erm... no, I don't think so. Why would they continue to use a 40 year old rifle... BTW, EPIC necro is epic.

[E.V.E.]

Houdini, please refrain from posting in old Threads.
You already necro'd one, this is the second time.

Consider this a Verbal Warning.

- E.V.E.

Thread Closed