is the united states army going to change the aging m16rifle to xm8 rifle?

Answer 1

The project was discontinued as it could not outperform the current M16 family of rifles. It was just a bad idea to begin with.

Answer 2

No, while it performed flawlessly in all the torture tests the Army devised, it has been killed off due to politics.



Colt makes 80% of their income from the US Army building the M4 - Fabrique National of Herstal, Belgium builds virtually all of our M16s now. They already build all of our machine guns, including the M2 .50 cal.

Colt's CEO is a retired three-star general with political pull. That is why we are stuck with the thing.

They are not about to let their sacred cow be put to slaughter. Even the Marine Corps and Navy got involved, claiming they should have had input on the Army's decision.

Right, like the Marines come to us when they want their own uniforms and body armor and they Navy asks us for permission to buy MP5s and M60E3s for the SEALs? Since everyone is doing their own thing now, none of their BUSINESS.

One claim against the M8 was it would require troops to learn a new method of operation. Lie: training is what we do.

In 2004 when I transfered to the 101st Airborne, we were told we were getting the M8 - and our weekends were effectively gone as we would be coming in to shoot the rifle in the morning and fill out "Report Cards" on the weapon's quirks and performance. I was excited. It was also possible we would get a few in the new 6.8x43mm SPC cartridge, the round Special Forces use and have insisted the rest of the Army gets due to its "dramatic improvement in terminal performance against enemy personnel" as I had read.

It kills better, so why don't we have it?

The M8 system is an Americanized version of the Heckler&Koch G36, with some additional improvements.

When I was shown the G36K, it took all of a minute to be briefed on the controls and I had NO problems firing after that. Superb design, excellent ergonomics, more accurate than an M4 - which I will concede is accurate.

But Colt filed an injuction against the Army, claiming there was no warning or allowance for them to design something better - the fact they've had near FIFTY years to design a "better" system yet haven't tells me as a Soldier quite a lot: they don't CARE, they just want the money. They do not want to EARN it.

My thought: If only they could be charged with War Profiteering, which is treason.

There is a new program possibly being opened to have a contest for the next Infantry rifle now, like in the mid-eighties - which amounted to nothing - I am not holding my breath. Even if they go through with it, it will likely be another ten to twenty years before we are rid of this Albatross.

We will not even see the H&K416, which is a superior system to the M4, on the claim is it is too expensive - another lie: all that has to be done is mount a 416 upper receiver to an M16/M4 lower receiver. It already comes with M1913 mounting rails and iron sights.

Just adding the Rail Adaptor System and Back-up Iron Sights on a stock M4 drives it from $400 to $1200, the cost of an entire 416 at present, not under mass order, and not just the upper receiver. Adding the optical sights and infrared aiming lasers and it can go as high as $2500 per. Yet it is STILL cheap - don't mean cost.

It took the Germans to fix the damn thing and we won't TAKE it?

As a former Soldier, my response is: "WTF, over?!"

Answer 3

the M16 is still effective today but majorly used in training. Most soldiers today carry the M4 like I do. The project was scratched but that does not mean it could not come back up in the future.

Answer 4

I hope not, that thing looks like a prop in a bad sci-fi movie.

Answer 5

Who knows, maybe, as long as it has a bayonet lug.

Answer 6

nope... the program was terminated due to lack of time,funding, and lack of time for funding

Answer 7

no the project has been scraped