The XM8, why??

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

wagner95696 RE:the xm8 why?? 4/28/2004 1:24:58 AM

I am hesitant about carbon fiber because of past, non-gun related, experiences with it. What, exactly, is meant by "stronger"; greater tensile strength; stiffer; greater shear strength; greater impact resistance?. I want to seen someone give a carbob receiver a good hard rap against a sharp edge of a large rock or boulder. My own experience is that carbon is strong as long as it is intact and undamaged but susceptible to impact and notch weakness when damaged.

Quote Reply

RE:the xm8 why?? 4/28/2004 8:34:41 PM

Government waste? I'll say it one more time, the M-8 is cheaper, per unit, than the M16 similarly equipped. Teack on the costs of "upgrades" for the 16 and the financial disparity only grows. Is it (the XM-8) a revolutionary new design? No, but assault rifle technology has largely plateued (Sp?). The future is in the catridge, not the rifle (new propellants, bullets, etc). DEWs and EMGs, of course, are not a viable alternative - the power requirements make man portable versions of these systems a sci fi dream for the relative future..

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:the xm8 why?? 4/28/2004 9:01:02 PM

>>Government waste? I'll say it one more time, the M-8 is cheaper, per unit, than the M16 similarly equipped.<< Does not compute. The G36K I fired had been purchased for law enforcement use at a cost of about (if memory serves correctly) $8-900 more than an M4A1. That was for a baseline weapon, no optics. Optics add equally to price. I recognize that the military version HK is pushing has optics built in, but I still don't see the savings. Especially when you factor in buying all new spares, tools, etc. for the new rifle.

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:the xm8 why?? 5/5/2004 12:17:51 PM

link can this thing take harder knocks than the g36.is that what its about?

Quote Reply

mudshark RE:the xm8 why?? 5/5/2004 12:17:55 PM

link can this thing take harder knocks than the g36.is that what its about?

Quote Reply

andyf RE:the xm8 ,,hmmmm 5/17/2004 10:31:33 AM

now if we just put a 4 column magazine system in place, an ammo counter on the side , and a pump action grenade launcher underneath,,,, can we call it the M41-a instead?

Quote Reply

Dracnor white collar not leather neck 6/13/2004 9:00:52 PM

you could go on all day about how they are different or how they are alike but the one thing you havent thought of is that H&K is a buisness the xm8 is different in very small ways comapired to the g36, but in those ways you have a gun that is more "american", you have the stock for example that in some respect looks like the m4s teloscopic stock, less large parts to deal with because no offence but alot of us americans dont like to deal with a 50 piece jig-saw of an assault rifle, and the fact that it is different from the rest of the world there are alot of good reasons why they made it rather than just building more g36s but the difference in combat is not what makes them spend more money to make a new toy, it is the plan to get even more money from selling the new toy, it is a g36 that has small changes but mainly just red, white, and blue stickers on it think about this, if you are the guy who makes the choice of what gun america gets would you rather give H&K more money for the g36 or the xm8?

Quote Reply

Dracnor RE:white collar not leather neck 6/13/2004 9:06:58 PM

just to let everyone know, i am not saying that H&K doing it for money is bad, i actualy think it is good because i feel that the xm8 in the little ways it is different is better than the g36 i am only saying that the money is the main reason behind it, money can be a good reason (in this case), or a bad reason (enron) to do things and create new and interesting ideas

Quote Reply

Scorpene Sorry, you have to keep scratching 7/10/2004 11:26:31 AM

The G-36 is, by most estimates, a pretty good 5.56 rifle, except for the inferior ballistics in it's standard 16-inch barrel. The M-16 was and is a fine 5.56 rifle, capable of doing anything a 5.56 rifle should be able to do. A host of detractors will say it has this problem and that-- I have always believed the handguards could have used more material, but that would have been easy enough to fix. Fact is, the M-16 was working fine and the G-guns are great toys, but will do the same job presumably as well. Lotsa money and ado for no real gains.

Quote Reply

Curtagrinder RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 7/10/2004 6:45:21 PM

The M-16 is a creditable platform, except- Direct gas system. This has been debated and debated. In short it probably does not impede it being a good rifle (and good it is), but it does require much more cleaning effort compared to other weapons (except perhaps SA80). This means that serious combat types have to spend a lot more of their time cleaning their piece than a compatriot with a G-36, Sig550 or even AK variant. It also means that Non Combat types simply wont clean it, or know how to do so properly even if they wanted to. Remember Jessica Lynch, who became a hero because her unit got lost and none of their weapons would work? Age- In 1999, I was issued an M16A1 that dated back to just after Vietnam. It usually worked. It sometimes didn?t. But it was definitely old. The magazines were even worse. Weak springs, bent lips, dented bodies. And working ones were getting scarce. A good friend of mine arrived in Iraq in May. He was issued ONE M-16 magazine. ONE. That?s all they had. Never mind the fact that he?s riding convoys around just north of Baghdad, he?s got thirty rounds before fix bayonets. If he even has one of those. Our SAW?s by the way are in even worse shape. Simply put, they?re wearing out and need replacing. So, I favor replacing M-16/M-4 because, as a weapon system, they are just worn out. One solution would be to just replace them all with new M-16?s and M-4?s, saving training effort as well as making use of existing stocks of spare parts. There is even an upper for the M-4 that has a gas piston instead of direct gas (problem is the best one is made by HK who are more keen on selling M8) My fear if we took this route is that the army would skimp (and they would), trying to retain as much old stuff as possible. So we continue to have weak mags, and other worn out parts in the system. As a more complete solution, M8 is interesting, and very advanced. My thoughts on it are: - Its not compatible with any of our current accessories, like all the rail mounted toys our troops now have. Instead, everything attaches onto proprietary HK mountings. HK makes most of the stuff compatible with this. Its good, but at a cost. - Secondly, if we change rifles, we might as well change calibers too (this goes for the SAW, which was originally conceived as a 6mm or more weapon). -3rd, its not a bulpup. Here comes another argument, but I like bulpups. I think they?re comfortable and very well balanced The British love the configuration, the French like theirs and the Belgians, South Africans and Israelis are all making good bulpups (As far as I know, only the Israelis have adopted their new one.). The American establishment is opposed to them for several reasons, all minor. Ideally, I?d like to see either the M8 system either with longer barrels in .223, with their automatic rifle replacing the SAW (a slight step down), or with the planned shorter barrels in 6.8mm. Better yet, I?d sooner se the FN200/SAW combination (with new SAWs) in either .223 or preferably 6.8mm

Quote Reply

Scorpene RE: Curtagrinder 7/10/2004 7:32:35 PM

The direct gas system on the M-16, I think, is not as bad as people think. I have gotten M-16s very dirty and lugged them around under the worst conditions with no problems. Once upon a time I had an M-16A1 and an M-16A2, and the A1 shot rings around the A2. The A2 was jam, jam, jam city. As far as magazines go, someone needs to give our guys some of the Thermold 30 rounders the Canadians use. I love 'em. Those aluminum mags aren't nearly as good. You can pick up a US Shotgun News and get the things for under thirty bucks. It's a shame we have to issue brand new of everything to fix simple maintenance issues, if that's the problem. But I guess I'm not surprised.

Quote Reply

Crosshair Has anyone considered the AN-94??? 7/12/2004 9:59:27 PM

With a burst mode that fires 2 bullets before the recoil reaches the shooter. The use of polymers in the construction reduses the weight. The XM-8 is a relic compared to the AN-94. Shure The XM-8 can mounts optics easier, but an AN-94 could come with an integrated mounting platform with very little work. I am surprised that the XM-8 is still being considered as a replacement for the M-16. Here is a link, link The author mentions some problems with the AN-94, most if not all could be resolved by further development.

Quote Reply

Scorpene RE:Has anyone considered the AN-94??? 7/13/2004 10:48:36 AM

The AN-94 is a heavy rifle considering it's ammunition and it's capacity. Some evaluators also point to other handling characteristics that they feel are undesirable. I have heard from a very well placed source that the machining operations required to produce the '94 are complex and would probably for that reason alone yield a higher unit cost than many other competitors. The 5.45mm round, while I feel it can do the job of an assault rifle cartridge, won't be a viable contender for replacing the 5.56 because rightly or wrongly, part of the move to replace the M-16 is being taken due to the belief that the existing round isn't heavy enough. Given the politics of the West and it's arms producing consortiums, Hades is more likely to freeze and the Heavenly host adapt the G-36 in place of their infinitely sharp swords before a Western power will consider a Russian built 5.45mm rifle for anything other than a toy for their OPFOR people to play with. It's a shame for the Russians, but that's the way it is.

Quote Reply

WinsettZ RE:Has anyone considered the AN-94??? 7/13/2004 3:53:12 PM

XM-8: no Picatinny rails? So the army has to junk all of its accessories for the National Guard/Reserves? Also, XM-8s have unusually short barrels: won't this impede killing power? The 5.56 supposedly works best on impact with velocity of 2900 fps or something like that. Will XM-8s use the same magazines as M-16s? Some commments on the XM-8 vs. G-36 G-36 has a large (reflex?) scope thingy on top of the weapon. The XM-8's optical device could probably be manufactured as a seperate component, and if designed to be put on a P-rail, it could put a lot of other companies out of business. The P-rail was supposed to be a sort of standard: why change it and screw things up? That and XM-8s might have barrels way too short for their own health. New upper receiver and carbon fiber: In the cold, polymer sticks to people. Wouldn't carbon fiber do the same? The upper receiver thing might be more efficient. After all, having a standardised optic device isn't necessarily exclusive to the XM8 (nobody has made a multipurpose device other then H&K, but they will in the future.)

Quote Reply

Crosshair RE:Has anyone considered the AN-94??? 7/13/2004 4:35:21 PM

I see the disadvnatages of the current AN-94, Scorpene has said they would be expenceive, but we shoot tomohawk missles like they where firecrackers, we have JDAMS at $25,000 a pop. We have a figter pilot with a multi milliondolar plane wraped around them. I realise the politics of such a weapon. But I am ashamed to be an american when we are not at least developing a version of our own. Shure the 5.45 is not the best round, we just adapt it to something a little bigger, like the 6.8mm round. The design is sound, just some minor bugs need to be worked out.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - November 8, 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