The XM8, why??

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

RE:the xm8 why?? 4/2/2004 1:36:44 PM

"Spending lots of cash?" The unit is dirt cheap - cheaper than a similarly equipped M16..

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 12:12:52 AM

yes i know the xm8 is as cheap as chips but so is the g36 why the re`design it seem`s purely cosmetic?

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 6:32:46 AM

Because the G36 was designed to a German operational requirement. The United States Army has different operational requirments.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 6:50:19 AM

One notable difference is the American preference for a variable position, telescoping, rather than folding, stock. The guts are basically similar, I think, and then the XM8 has that plastic carrier/molding which is just cosmetic. Are the basic optics different? Seems like I've read that somewhere.

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 8:23:43 AM

Thanks for the help chaps but still no definitive answer I have seen video footage of the xm8 kicking off and it looks a little cumbersome Maybe it?s got to do with national identity This was a suggestion why the brits went with the sa80 instead of going for the tried and tested m16 Still scratching my head

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 11:43:38 AM

"Maybe it?s got to do with national identity" Well maybe, but it may also be the fact that the SA80 was first developed in the early 70's. At that time the M16 was widely seen as a piece of unfreliable junk whose shortcomings were the cause of many deaths in Vietnam. There was a stong movement in America at the time to get the M16 scrapped. By the time the M16 became a reliable weapon, the money had already been spent in developing the SA80. The Army didn't really want the SA80 but the politicians did. As usual, the politicians won the arguments. Who pays the piper calls the tune!

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:the xm8 why?? 4/3/2004 1:31:29 PM

I didn?t know that the conception of the sa 80 started that early I read somewhere that the politicians where afraid that Briton would be seen more and more as Americas loyal dog if it adopted the m16?..or something along those lines It all seems a implausible to me but hell who knows what goes on in theses people?s minds It looks like the g36 is making a bid to become one of cheapest lightest most reliable assault rifle ever seen. I think im right in saying that even china has got a few So we can expect copies flying out all over the world ?.. Maybe Good by ak`s and m16`s the enemy will have the same gun as you Im clutching at straws here .almost certainly off target But the xm8 g36 thing is bugging the hell out of me

Quote Reply

Vossiewulf Naming conventions 4/3/2004 9:41:41 PM

Where do the designations for our infantry weapons come from? We're replacing (one assumes) the M-16 from 30 years ago with something called the M-8, while a variation of the M-16 is the M-4. Meanwhile the OICW is called the XM-25, but there's already a sniper rifle that's designated M-25. Is there a dartboard someplace in the Pentagon that someone throws at to generate new systems designations?

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:Naming conventions 4/4/2004 3:53:13 AM

Ok here?s an idea on the naming of weapons Given that McDonalds is synonymous with American culture and that the military is trying different ways of recruiting. Let?s do some mutual advertising The m16 becomes the quarter pounder M249 ?. The big mac Chicken nuggets grenades M16 203 quarter pounder with fries Strawberry milk shake air support? etc..etc? I will leave you lot run with the idea The recruit is already familiar with the designations and feels comfortable McDonald?s then sacks Ronald and employs g.i joe. I hate clowns!!!!!! Mad maybe? Radical?? Definitely They said I was mad when I suggested lining helmets with immac hair remover to save time and money on hair cuts but it would have worked damn it!!

Quote Reply

TriggaFingaz Naming conventions for M4 4/4/2004 5:38:57 AM

The M4 Carbine is so called becoz it is a continuation of the .30 cal M1 Carbine, fully auto M2 Carbine, and IR scope equipped M3 Carbine. The M1, M2 and M3 are all the same apart from the selective capability or night gear, the M4 is of course not related to them.

Quote Reply

oldtiredguy RE:the xm8 why?? 4/24/2004 6:25:05 PM

because the wiz kids want a new bank-bang, the xm-29 is an expensive joke, and the xm-8 (a subsystem of the land warrior system) looks cool.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:the xm8 why?? Because it will be the soldiers/marines dream! 4/25/2004 10:37:13 AM

The M 8 will have less weight and slightly different optics and ballistics. Basic mechanics derived from the Armalite 18 (and the M 16). The M 8 will be the the slightly more we will call it the soldiers/marines dream. Maybe the last rifle of old fashioned design. Afterwards we will see direct energy weapons or electromagnetic rifles.

Quote Reply

oldtiredguy RE:the xm8 why?? Because it will be the soldiers/marines dream! 4/25/2004 12:02:34 PM

i have always liked a well balanced 8 lb. rifle. lighter, all else being equal, would be better. the xm-8 will be an excellent shooter, if any early bugs are quickly ironed out; properly selected optics are a plus, but is the xm-8 really an advance? overall combat performance is the issue here.

Quote Reply

towgunner1960 RE:the xm8 why?? 4/25/2004 1:37:56 PM

Another case of government waste. If you compare the xm-8 to the basic m-16, then of course the xm-8 is the better weapon even if we stay with 5.56mm. But in my opinion the government is going about it the wrong way. I think it is a tremendous waste of tax-payer money to switch over to this new rifle when the minor faults with the m-16 can easily be corrected. The same company that came out with the g-36/xm-8, also makes an upper receiver that will bolt directly to an m-16 lower. It's called the H&K M-4. As anyone who knows anything about the m-16 can tell you the main cause of malfunctions are that gases are blown directly into the receiver, which jams up the works with crud and is the main cause of malfunctions. H&ks new receiver uses a gas piston design that sets on top of the barrel, therefore you don't have gases going directly into the receiver. It is as reliable as the xm-8 and the main cause of jams are eliminated. This would make the m-16 as reliable as anything else in the world. So you can outfit the millions of m-16s we have in inventory for less than half the cost of a totally new rifle. You also don't have to retrain the thousands of armorers on a totally new system and retrain millions of troops on this new rifle. Another option to improve the system if they just have to change the rifle is to make the lower and new h&k upper out of carbon fiber. For those of you who haven't seen a carbon 15 rifle, you need to check this thing out. It weighs aprox. 3.9 pounds unloaded! Plus carbon fiber is stonger than steel or aluminum and is self lubricating to boot. Go to Bushmasters web site for further. The money we would save on this more common sense approach could be used to upgrade to 6.8mm instead of having to pay for a totally new rifle and upgrade to 6.8mm. For further on Hk's new upper and the xm-8 check out this months soldier of fortune magazine. We are in the middle of a shooting war and the money saved can definetly be used for other more important things our troops need.......

Quote Reply

oldtiredguy RE:the xm8 why?? 4/25/2004 8:46:06 PM

sounds right to me, towgunner.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - July 4, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us