Why Hasn't The Military Upgraded Its Soldiers' Weapons?

[rayzoredge 2]

I'm wondering why the XM8 project wasn't continued.The XM8, if further developed, would have replaced most of the military's need for multiple weapons systems by utilizing its modularity to customize the weapon for the user with its ability for attachments and hot-swap capability of barrels and other parts. Some of the weapons that it could have replaced were, if found effective, the M249 SAW, the M203, and the M16 and M4. The XM8 is able to function as a fully-automatic weapon, a sub-machine personal defense weapon, a sniper rifle, or a normal carbine. It seems strange to me how this wasn't enough of a priority for the government to keep funding the XM8 project, since we are trying to go for a more modular approach to our weapons and equipment... or that's what I thought we were going for. I think that it would have at least been a good replacement for the M16, if not the M4. Included advantages over our current weapons includes added durability and life to the barrel (15, 000 rounds WITHOUT cleaning or lubrication and a 20, 000 round lifetime, as opposed to the 7, 000-8, 000 round lifetime of the M16 and M4, which require constant cleaning to perform well) and how each variant (with exception of the PDW variant) comes with the optics preinstalled.Sure, there were some cons to the XM8 system, but as the army is approaching modularity, why not? I'm not sure how successful this weapons system would have been realistically, but theoretically I don't see why it was discontinued. Or should I say, why the government decided to disallocate funding to the project.

[megabytemb 0]

probly because it means that they have more chance of killing them selves rather then the other person lol also that it could fall apart if not assembled proply

[FolkRockFan 0]

The U.S. military discontinues projects for all sorts of reasons. I can't really say why this particular project was dropped, though. There could have been too many problems with the setup. It could be impractical in some way that's not obvious to you and me. (I've never been in combat, so what appears to be a great, fantastic weapon to me might actually be a nightmare for a soldier or a Marine to handle in the field. I don't know.)But rest assured that the U.S. military is still developing, researching, testing and conceiving all sorts of kick-butt technology. They recently did some really sweet things with camouflage, and they're still testing and developing really nice weapons.

[reconraiders 0]

I'll be fine with an HK416. Hell the Colt or LMT M4s work fine for me.

[husker 0]

You make some good points. However, I believe that if we start giving our soldiers better weapons, many other countries will get on us like always about being "bullies".Hey, why cant we be bullies if we have the power?So I guess im kind of on the fence.

[Saint_Michael 3]

If I remember correctly I was paying attention to this new weapon until I got out in the military, the problem if I remember correct they had problems with the hand guards, problems with sustain a goo rate fire, over heating, and the fact congress wouldn't drop $26 Million dollars for this. Of course they don't mind dropping a few billion on a war that isn't even about terrorism anymore.I think they should have kept this project going, because M16A2's are not really cutting it any more.

[rayzoredge 2]

I think our government is kind of screwed up when it comes to priorities. Not to mention that the budget allocation for military funding keeps getting cut.I did some prior research on the XM8, and although I haven't fired the weapon myself, the cons seemed to have been rather insignificant in comparison to the single pro of replacing the M16/M4 as the service member's current firearm. As I've mentioned above, the advantages are rather significant.Sure, the M16 and M4 are still serviceable and by a long shot still decent compared to what we could be firing, but isn't it time for a change?(Of course, we - as in the Army - blow millions of dollars into researching a *BLEEP* camouflage pattern AND THEN actually use it. It doesn't even blend in with anything! What camouflage pattern am I talking about? The ACU. )

[reconraiders 0]

(Of course, we - as in the Army - blow millions of dollars into researching a *BLEEP* camouflage pattern AND THEN actually use it. It doesn't even blend in with anything! What camouflage pattern am I talking about? The ACU. )

Don't be so sure of yourself now...

 

 

[rayzoredge 2]

Don't be so sure of yourself now...

 

 

That was priceless. I'll shut up now.

[ishan1990 0]

haha, I didnt even notice the soldier the first few times. Only the boots and the face gave him away. Now all we need to do is get more sofas on the battlefield

[csp4.0 1]

'hot swappable' things always have a tendency to fail, so thats why they can be hot swapped. The next goal should not be to make hot swappable weapons, but instead they should be made as an all purpose weapon.Like a light SAW type machine gun, with heavy calibre armour piercing bullets, a laser pointer and a scope.The P90 should be good at this because of its shape, it'll be easier to upgrade since you can always make it longer and wider.

[sheepdog 10]

You make some good points. However, I believe that if we start giving our soldiers better weapons, many other countries will get on us like always about being "bullies".
Hey, why cant we be bullies if we have the power?

So I guess im kind of on the fence.

Well, you just hop right down off that fence and come stand here with me!
What is the point of going to war if we don't go to win? Who cares if other countries think we are bullies? If there is a reason to have a war, then go in with all you have and get the job done.

[chaosdesign 0]

If I remember correctly I was paying attention to this new weapon until I got out in the military, the problem if I remember correct they had problems with the hand guards, problems with sustain a goo rate fire, over heating, and the fact congress wouldn't drop $26 Million dollars for this. Of course they don't mind dropping a few billion on a war that isn't even about terrorism anymore.
I think they should have kept this project going, because M16A2's are not really cutting it any more.

I think you are right

I'm from NZ, so kinda removed from the us (just a little), but I think the main reason was $$$$$, to much cost to put it into mass production, not to mention all the logistic problems, and the amount of added gear that the troupes would have to carry round.

The other thing, is if you wanted a side arm as well as a rifle, you would have to ask the enemy to stop shooting while you reconfigure your firearm. (can just see a cartoon for that last comment)

It take loads of ca$h to develop these new weapons, and why get them if the current armory works

[FLaKes 0]

probly because it means that they have more chance of killing them selves rather then the other person lol also that it could fall apart if not assembled proply

Lol..... LMAO.....

I guess that happened because it is more expensive and if there is a problem with the weapon then he looses all of the weapons instead of just one. Its probably really complicated to build or something, there must have been a good reason for it unless its the same issue that they had with the body armor, I think it was called dragonskin, which was supposed to be better but some "tester" said it was bad and failed all the tests.