Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: XM17/XM18 testing issues

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,081
    Feedback Score
    0

    XM17/XM18 testing issues

    This is extracted from the DOT&E 2017 report:

    Both the XM17 and XM18 pistols experienced double-ejections where an unspent ball round was ejected along with a spent round. Due to the increased frequency of occurrence during Product Verification Test (PVT), the Army stood up a root cause analysis team to identify the cause of the double ejections in parallel with continued PVT. As of this report, this analysis is still ongoing.

    Presumably this issue has since been resolved. Mechanically, what could cause such an occurrence?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,587
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I would think it's magazine issue.

    Maybe the top round in the magazine is allowed to nose way up (to help with feeding into chamber) and the extracted case is somehow getting under the projectile rotating it up and out.

    Or, maybe just crappy lips or spring tension on the top round let it fly under recoil.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Herndon,VA
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    This was an ammo issue caught in the testing. The ammo provided was not always extracting and a live round would strip off the mag and double feed behind the spent shell. When you clear the malfunction a live round would come out with the spent casing. We saw this occasionally when using Federal 90grain frangible ammo. It just did always fully cycle the slide. Sig also made the extract spring pin longer to increase extractor tension. Testing you mentioned was in the summer/fall of 2016 and the report is from early 2017. David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,081
    Feedback Score
    0
    Looks like that answers the question. Never heard of this happening with civilian or LE 320's, but maybe it just wasn't publicized.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Herndon,VA
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Military.com did a report on it in the beginning of 2018 but I've never been able to find the original USG report they reference. David

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    903
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dwhitehorne View Post
    Military.com did a report on it in the beginning of 2018 but I've never been able to find the original USG report they reference. David
    Did you check Soldier Systems? They have been the authorative source for all things XM17/18.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02...eport-implies/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,319
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HardToHandle View Post
    Did you check Soldier Systems? They have been the authorative source for all things XM17/18.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02...eport-implies/
    Soldier Systems seems to be apologizing for the gun. Was the problematic ammo a testing requirement of the MHS program (sounds like it) and is it realistic to assume that JHP is going to be the standard for all deployments? Those MRBS numbers aren't acceptable, no matter the spin, especially since it doesn't sound like the military has an intention of changing it out. FYI, I don't care which gun the military picked, Sig or Glock, I just want them to have something that is actually reliable.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,853
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance435 View Post
    I don't care which gun the military picked, Sig or Glock, I just want them to have something that is actually reliable.
    I just wonder why they felt the need to set the criteria such that a new pistol had to be designed. There's no shortage of reliable modern designs. How about picking something that's proven? If they felt the need to set such criteria, it would have been a smarter move for them to tell everyone that they'll see how the submitted designs prove out of the next 3 to 5 years on the civilian & law enforcement markets and will make a selection at that time.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Herndon,VA
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    If I recall correctly most submissions were newer designs. Like Smith and Wesson and McDonald Douglas teaming up. Even the reported Glock submission was some type of Gen5 hybrid that we have never seen before. That could have been a brass to the face flop during testing. Who knows.

    For such a large contract companies come out of the woodwork to try for it. I think CZ even had a P09 variation to submit. Rarely do DOD contracts do commercial off the shelf selections. Look at all the money spent to design and research a rifle mag a few years ago when everyone thought why not just get Pmags. David

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Found a home.
    Posts
    1,149
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Given that most new small arms have teething issues going back to the original M1 Garand, do the current issues with the XM17-18 hurt it's reputation irreparably or does it recover? Any opinions on this?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •