Farewell to the XM25?

[Slater]

looks like we can add another one to the Army's list of expensive dead-end programs:

"Because H&K didn’t or couldn’t deliver the product to ATK, the U.S. Government canceled the procurement program completely about a month ago, with the news just surfacing now. Negotiations ensued between the government and ATK but these apparently could not yield an acceptable replacement in time or to satisfy operational requirements."

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/11/u-s-army-buries-xm25-program/

[davidjinks]

Basically because the XM25 sucks.

Good call. More money and R&D/T&E for more beneficial projects for the warfighter.

[TMS951]

Color me not surprised. It was going to cost how much a round again?

[platoonDaddy]

Color me not surprised. It was going to cost how much a round again?

Don't recall the price per round, but do recall 51lbs weapon load-out.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Color me not surprised. It was going to cost how much a round again?

With some of these weapon systems - wouldn't it be cheaper just to offer the bad guys a bribe? Basically "OK, here's the deal: we can blow you up but it costs us $300,000 to do so. How about I give you $100,000 cash and you agree to surrender and we'll give you a 7-11 in Baton Rouge?"

[BoringGuy45]

I have to wonder if we could cut the military budget in half and maintain the same effectiveness if they just stopped with all these harebrained R&D contracts. That's been our history though: Throw money at stupid ideas, and ignore obvious good ideas until the enemy kicks our asses with the technology we ignored.

[Averageman]

The way the Military contracts weapons systems and vehicle systems is beyond ridiculous.
They take a good basic idea and then hang enough crap off of it that no one can carry the weapons system and no one can work on a vehicle. The longer a bunch of out of touch 0-5's and above sit in a room with engineers the stupider the results will be.
In this case the results became stupid to the point of impossible. That's one crap load of "Oh, I have a great Idea." coming from people who don't have a clue.

The results would be logical if the money invested in R&D was a 50/50 split.
The results would be logical if the people with "A great idea" actually had to do the tasks they are requiring the maintainers and crew to do.
The results would be obvious if they had to carry the shit.
The results would be obvious if they had to carry the shit and then take it to the range and shoot it.

[SteyrAUG]

HK has a lot of innovative ideas, some of them resulting in amazing weapons, but not every creative idea is going to result in a viable military weapon. This is where Browning was truly a genius, not only could he imagine new firearm designs but he could also figure out where his ideas might fall short.

[sniperfrog]

This reminds me of the Hk Socom mk23 boat anchor/pistol. That was a huge waste of money. I believe each pistol cost the Gov around $1200. No one wanted to carry it. NSW ended up stuffing them in the back of the armory and went back to Sigs.

I talked to one of the Crane engineers that was responsible for that. He kept saying how awesome it was. I tried explaining why it wasn't awesome from a user standpoint and he just didn't get it.

[SteyrAUG]

This reminds me of the Hk Socom mk23 boat anchor/pistol. That was a huge waste of money. I believe each pistol cost the Gov around $1200. No one wanted to carry it. NSW ended up stuffing them in the back of the armory and went back to Sigs.

I talked to one of the Crane engineers that was responsible for that. He kept saying how awesome it was. I tried explaining why it wasn't awesome from a user standpoint and he just didn't get it.

Actually it created the modern combat firearm. Glock didn't invent the accessory rail, HK did. Absolutely it would have been better if it was refined to the HK Tactical, but just like you needed to have a Borschardt before you can have a Luger, you needed to have a Mk23 before you could have a HK Tactical or a Glock or SIG with a rail.

[davidjinks]

It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with the ****ing system is pathetic.

They spew money, costs, R&D blah blah blah...the weapon sucked and the munitions sucked.

Hearing it directly from the end user is a REAL eye opener especially when those dudes say how bad they suck.


Color me not surprised. It was going to cost how much a round again?

[turnburglar]

LOL, I thought the XM25 was dead before I ever enlisted....

[BoringGuy45]

HK has a lot of innovative ideas, some of them resulting in amazing weapons, but not every creative idea is going to result in a viable military weapon. This is where Browning was truly a genius, not only could he imagine new firearm designs but he could also figure out where his ideas might fall short.

Ironically, his genius was also (for lack of a better phrase) the biggest weakness of his designs. Browning was ahead of his time, and most of his designs were proof of concept. Thus, his designs are often a lot more complicated than later weapons (think field stripping a 1911 vs a Glock). And because they worked so well in the proof of concept stage, very little was done to evolve them and make them less complicated (until much later, at least).

[jpmuscle]

Ironically, his genius was also (for lack of a better phrase) the biggest weakness of his designs. Browning was ahead of his time, and most of his designs were proof of concept. Thus, his designs are often a lot more complicated than later weapons (think field stripping a 1911 vs a Glock). And because they worked so well in the proof of concept stage, very little was done to evolve them and make them less complicated (until much later, at least).
Right, but how much of that evolved simplicity was the result of manufacturing advancements? I'd guess a lot no?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JC5188]

Right, but how much of that evolved simplicity was the result of manufacturing advancements? I'd guess a lot no?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

That and materials advancement and suitability. Absolutely correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABNAK]

Reading the title I thought it was about the XM25 of the 1980's fame, i.e. an accurized M-14 to replace the aging M21's.

http://www.snipercentral.com/u-s-m25-xm25-sniper-weapon-system/

[HardToHandle]

I have to wonder if we could cut the military budget in half and maintain the same effectiveness if they just stopped with all these harebrained R&D contracts. That's been our history though: Throw money at stupid ideas, and ignore obvious good ideas until the enemy kicks our asses with the technology we ignored.

Seriously? Do people really believe this?

Canadian John Garand built the prototype M-1 rifle in 1927, give or take, in an US Army R&D lab. The same gun got adopted about a decade later and was basically a sh!tshow when initially issued. Three years of further investment ended up with a fine weapon system in the hands of the US Army just in time for World War II. It also made the infantry squad able to manuever and deploy fire in a way no other military could.

The US Marine Corps went to war with a gun that was adopted when Teddy Roosevelt was president, two generations earlier. Marines died because of antiquated small arms when they met the Japanese.

The Manhattan Project was the biggest, most costly R&D effort in human history. Stealth research was wasteful too. So were sub launched ballistic missiles. R&D is wasteful, it just is better than any other solution.