GrimeyAK Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 The M4 is scheduled to go up for dust-chamber testing against HK's 416, XM8, and FN's SCAR. If the contenders do better than the M4 in the test, the Army may have to reconsider buying all those new M4s. Army Times article There's also a link to some demonstration videos of the M4's competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) If you ask me, I think they're gonna go with the cheapest solution, even if that means keeping the M4. I don't know why Colt can't just copy off of H&K and I think another company that uses that style upper is Olympic Arms. Just make an upper similar to that and bam ur good. I guess it's true what they say though. You can never have too much lubricant hahaha. Edited July 21, 2007 by mwgfghost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militiaman Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 I hope they pick better technology over the M-4 like the HK-416. HK-416 has a longer life and is more reliable than the M-4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 I think both the 416 and SCAR are more reliable than the M4. I'm not so sure about the XM8, but I think it will perform better than the M4 in at least the dust test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Yeah I'm not sure how the XM8 will perform but either way, I really don't think the Army's gonna be replacing the M4 because of this dust test but who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistle Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 hmmm seems like they are going to be needing a new rifle then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Yeah I don't know how the M8 handles dust and all but I do think the Army needs a new rifle. Unfortunately, I did heard they're order around 100,000 more M4s so that makes me doubt that this dust test is gonna be the decider of the new weapon. But like I stated in my earlier post...who knows? Maybe they'll cancel that order and go with the M8 or HK416. I really don't see why they'd switch to the SCAR unless they used it's model name. Cause I think SCAR stands for Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle. I think if anything, they'd go with the 416 or the M8. Maybe it's time for Colt to come out with their M5 which is supposed to have a gas piston upper like the 416. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 I think the 416 still has the edge over the M5 because it's already proven to be an excellent weapon. To my knowledge, the M5 doesn't really have anything to show to prove itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Yeah and even if they started the project before the 416, fact of the matter is HK got theirs out to the public first and I've even heard that a whole SF battalion ordered the 416 uppers for their M4s. And I haven't even heard of any tests fone with the M5. The only real features I've heard of the XM8 is that it's light. I haven't heard how it handles in dust or dirt. I guess we'll see with the dust test later on in the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 One thing I read about the XM8, though I can't remember where, deals with its mounting system. Apparently, when the XM8 optics are attached to the mounting point, they should already be zeroed. That eliminates having to fiddle with zeroing the attached modifications. I do think that they should still add picatinny rails since most soldiers have attachments that use them. Even if they want to start the XM8 project again, they've still got a long way to go. If I remember correctly, they wanted it to modular so it could fit different roles: Carbine, DMR, SAW, etc. but they hadn't reached that goal yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Man that would be awesome not having to mess around with the optics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 I saw that post where you said you e-mailed a gun shop and they said they may have civilian SCARs by the end of the year. I wonder if FN will release both the L and H versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwgfghost Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 That would be sweet. If we're allowed to have semi-automatic 7.62 target(sniper) rifles then I don't see why we can't have semi-automatic 7.62 assault rifles. I'm sure the firing rate would be a little higher but still. And since I'm a very slim person, I'd probably just go with a SCAR-L. I'm 6'2" and only weigh 117. Tryin to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Funny then that FN is competing against itself- they already make M4/M16 lowers for us. There are a few floating around here. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the 100,000 M4's purchased. I still tote an M16A2- don't get me wrong about my nothern neighbors, but the Canadians here are carrying newer uppers with mountings for optics, and I'm stuck with the musket. The US Army needs to come off SOMETHING for the vast majority of it's personnel, that being the ones who are NOT 'combat arms' folks. At least up me to an A3 or A4 so I can get a sight on this piece of crap. But yeah, I saw that article in a SPAM mail from military.com. I read those once in a while, and this was one of those once's. I didn't get the feeling the Army was taking it very seriously. It's more like the old, "Yeah we'll go through with your stupid little test, ######..." But if they DO get around to repacing the M16/M4, that'd be nice. Won't change my life at all before I retire, but oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Medic+~SPARTA~ Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 No matter what they buy it better be American made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairus Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd Ranger Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Only weapons forged in the fires of Mount Rushmore can slay the terrorist hordes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairus Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 ... Sure... Maybe the army refused XM8 'cause it wasn't American. Actually that would be the stupidest reason I could think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted August 26, 2007 Author Share Posted August 26, 2007 American made...if HK wanted to, they could open up a factory here in the US. Then the civilians could get versions of their guns much more easily as well. Now, if you meant a US designed weapon, that's totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowFella Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Eh? Ever heared of HK USA? HK Trussville Law Enforcement & Civilian sales HECKLER & KOCH 7661 Commerce Lane Trussville, AL 35173 USA Phone (205) 655-8299 Fax (205) 655-7078 I've got on good athourity that they have gear for sale there or in manufacture there that HK Europe reps won't even admit excists, like the new HK45 handgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 But that doesn't include Military does it? I was talking about primarily for making Military weapons. If I remember right from browsing the hkpro forums, there isn't one here...or maybe it's just been a while and I don't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommandoCrazy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 ... Sure... Maybe the army refused XM8 'cause it wasn't American. Actually that would be the stupidest reason I could think of. I doubt that's the reason. Just look at where some of your weapons are from: M249 - FNH, Belgium M240 - FNH, Belgium M136 - FFV, Sweden BUT, all of those 3 examples are made in the US of A. Same would apply to the XM8 or the HK416. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabellum Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 ... Sure... Maybe the army refused XM8 'cause it wasn't American. Actually that would be the stupidest reason I could think of. I doubt that's the reason. Just look at where some of your weapons are from: M249 - FNH, Belgium M240 - FNH, Belgium M136 - FFV, Sweden BUT, all of those 3 examples are made in the US of A. Same would apply to the XM8 or the HK416. CC FNH is also owned by an American company, if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 ... Sure... Maybe the army refused XM8 'cause it wasn't American. Actually that would be the stupidest reason I could think of. If I recall all the hype correctly back in the OICW days (which is where we got the XM8 from, eventually), that WAS more or less the reason that OICW went on hold and eventually cancelled, taking the XM8 with it. A little piece of US federal lagislation that requires first consideration for any new military hardware contracts goes to American companies. Now military hardware folks are the absolute ARTISTS when it comes to splitting the hairs of whether or not owning a factory in upper West Bratislava makes you an upper West Bratislavan company, etc. And yeah, H&K and FNH have factories and executives and all in N. America. Think of them like car manufacturers if you like. It's all the same name now, but Nissan USED to be DATSUN in the USA, and I think all of N. America. A totally different company on the books, but a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parent company, Nissan. Same applies to these gun makers, as their little way of making sure they get a fair shake against Colt, Remington, and all. Again, I give a damn. I just want a decent firearm. I'm in the Army of the last standing superpower, SUPPOSEDLY the best-equipped and best-trained Army on the planet. And I see soldiers from a few different countries around here carrying better rifles in better repair and getting more time on the range. If buying a bunch of new rifles for the force at large means that a fobbit like me finally gets something trickled-down to him that's a little more sensible to tote around a WAR, then I'm all for it. Right now, there's some Albanian goat herder out there tending his flock with a better rifle than I carry, and THAT is pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krise madsen Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 The usual intenational free trade rules do not apply to the military arms trade. It's generally not possible to prevent someone from selling dishwashers or baseball caps to a specific country. However, if the product is anti-ship missiles or weapons-grade Plutonium, other rules apply and rightly so. This also makes the international arms trade one of the last bastions of nation-to-nation bartering as in the pre-globalisation days: If Country A buys military hardware from Country B, then Country B must buy goods (military or otherwise) from Country A. An example: Denmark buys 10 F-16 fighter aircraft from the US for a total value of, say, $300 million. Some parts are made by Danish firms and part of the final assembly takes place in Denmark. This is valued at, say, $50 million. This means that the US must buy goods, military or civilian, worth $250 million from Denmark. Of course, nations are free to haggle or compensate in other ways. The key issue here is jobs. Employment is good for the economy, and particularly good for keeping the population happy and/or making them vote for you in the next elections. So, for practical reasons, if the US were to buy the FN SCAR or XM8 or any other foreign weapons system in any quantity, it would almost certainly be manufactured in the US. Not only would the selling country (i.e. Belgium or Germany) have to buy fewer US goods, but the more direct manner in which it ensures US jobs makes it more "sellable" to the public and the politicians. Respectfully krise madsen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.