The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 6, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The XM8, why??
mudshark    4/2/2004 11:02:10 AM
America is spending lots of cash on the XM8 which is essentially a G36 as far as I can see. Why didn?t they go with the G36?

Reliability and longevity are probably the main justifications for a new rifle.

But the G36 has all that, so if some clever chap can enlighten me I will stop scratching my head like a confused chimp.
 
Quote    Reply

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
Clausewitz    RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching   7/21/2004 5:43:04 AM
Well, I don't want to argue. But bullpubs are definetley not well balanced. Just think about the laws of physics. All the weight is in the back. So the recoil will be a problem for you. And by the way. The personal brit sources I know (friends of a german officer who is a friend of mine) really hate their bullpub gun. They are begging for the G 36, which is considered to replace the currentley uses bullpup design.
 
Quote    Reply

Steve    RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching   7/21/2004 12:46:08 PM
I have fired the L85 and AUG. The balance may or may not be inferior, the most important factor being what you have trained with and are accustomed to. The majority of my experience is with a C7, an M16A2/3 derivative. Although an excellent rifle and what I would pick for war tomorrow, there is no doubt that the bullpups where much easier to maneuver in confined spaces such as FIBUA or tight bush. I question the intelligence of substantially shortening the barrels on rifles to make them more maneuverable, especially with a cartridge that depends on velocity for its lethality. As far as recoil goes, no 5.56 rifle has an overly harsh one. If you want to reduce the recoil problem with the L85, increase the eye relief of the SUSAT, currently every round comes close to causing a black eye. I don?t doubt that brit officers have wished for the G36, but I believe that has more to do with the L85 than bullpup.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:the xm8 why??   7/23/2004 2:59:00 AM
The SA80 wasn't the first time the British tried the bullpup design. Just after WW2 the EM 2 rifle was developed. It was a .280 caliber bullpup rifle and was seen as very effective. Word has it though that it was not adopted because the US was not interested since it had huge stocks of .30 caliber ammo and had tremendous capacity to produce all the .30 it could ever want. Funny though that not long after they went to .308 and then to .223 and are now looking at going back to something like the .280 again. The SA 80 wasn't popular because it was designed by a committee well away from the field. As a result it had a lot of reliability problems, like the M-16 did. But where most of the M-16's problems were due to the powder in the shells, the SA 80's problems were in the gun itself. A few upgrades have been done so it is a bit better of a rifle these days.
 
Quote    Reply

ripsaw    RE:Naming conventions   8/29/2004 10:30:07 PM
at the start of ww2 all the front line infantry weapons were designated m1, the carbine, the garand and one version of the thompson. with the m-16, it was a continuation of the rifle line, just after the m-14. the xm-8 is considered a carbine for whatever reason so it follows the m-4 in sequential order
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Naming conventions   8/30/2004 12:29:02 PM
I have only ever used bullpup rifles, and in my opinion they are great, my experience being with the L85A1. The SA-80 itself is not a great weapon, and comes across a tad as a toys r'us gun, but its design principles are sound. The SA-80 is basically a bullpup version of the AR18, and this is a very capable rotating bolt, short gas-stroke system (used in G36); being a bullpup gives the biggest advantage of barrel length. Most modern (conventional) assault rifles have a barrel length in the 460mm region. Most modern bullpup assault rifles on the other hand have a barrel length in the 508mm region (the same as the M16). The weapon with the longest barrel to my knowledge, is the Chinese Type 95, with a 520mm barrel, the SA-80's being 518mm's Remember, long barrels mean greater velocity, greater accuracy, better ballistics and in turn greater penetration. The barrel is probably the most important part of a firearm, and it is quite shocking how modern conventional design rifles lack the length to take full advantage of their round. I heard someone comment on bullpup rifles being poorly balanced? This is not the case, it just takes a different method of shooting. With a conventional rifle, the weight is balanced between both hands. With a bullpup, the weight is balanced over the pistol grip, and so you can control the weapon with the shooting hand alone; your left hand simply pulling the rifle lightly into your shoulder. This is why in many photos of soldier shooting the SA-80, you will see their left hand not under the hand guard, but right at the front of it, with their archery fingers around the barrel (but not touching it), as it is most comftable for pulling the rifle back. As a side note, the SA-80 has a small weight in the handguard to balance the weapon; the same balance could be achieved (with the penalty of an increased length), by increaseing the barrel length to say, 530mm's. I have been reading the forum for a while, but this is my first post, so hello all. :D
 
Quote    Reply

TrueNorth    RE:the xm8 why??   8/30/2004 2:08:15 PM
The preference for the new XM8 over the established G36 probably has a fair dose of politics to it. Although there?s no law saying US forces have to be equipped with domestically designed and manufactured weapons, in practice there?s pressure from industry, lobbyists, and politicians to do just that (remember there are armaments factories in nearly every congressional district). America rarely imports weapons, and when they do ? like the Harrier or the Roland AA missile ? they usually tweek and modify them and get a license to build them stateside so they can call them there own. It?s equal measures of national pride and constituent politics, and it?s what?s going on with the XM8. I think mudshark is right in querying why they didn?t just get the G36 to begin with. All told it would have been more practical, but having GIs with German rifles just wouldn?t have looked right. Remember it took them long enough to get over the look of the current helmets!
 
Quote    Reply

stedler    RE:the xm8 why??   8/30/2004 3:56:40 PM
The xm8 is a modular weapons system. and is part of the army's effort to develope the xm29, which is still to heavy to be practicle. Instead the army has chosen to develope each component seperate as technology allows. As a direct development of the separable OICW (XM29) KE or Kinetic Energy module, the M8 Carbine will share a high degree of common parts and training and maintenance procedures to lessen the required support for the ?family? of XM8 weapons. Being developed are four XM8 variants, which include a baseline carbine, a sharpshooter variant, an automatic rifle variant, and the ultra-compact carbine variant. A unique feature of the XM8 modular weapon system is the ability to easily and quickly reconfigure the weapon from one variant to the other to meet changing mission requirements, to include caliber conversion. This modularity includes the exchange of interchangeable assembly groups such as the barrel, handguard, lower receiver, buttstock modules and sighting system with removable carrying handle. In addition and in parallel, the new XM320 quick detachable single-shot 40mm grenade launcher with side-opening breech and LSS lightweight 12 gauge shotgun module can be easily added to the XM8 by the user in the field without tools. The unique buttstock system allows the operator exchange buttstocks without tools from the standard collapsible multi-position version, to an optional buttcap for maximum portability or an optional folding or sniper buttstock with adjustable cheekpiece for special applications. Though the weapon is loosely a g36 and is being developed by hecklar-koch usa. Can fire 15000 rounds before cleaning even under the worst conditions and is extremely reliable.
 
Quote    Reply

Sigman    RE:the xm8 why??   8/31/2004 1:54:42 AM
Is anyone disgusted with the styling of the xm8? It's obviously poor American design. Don't get me wrong, America is great for many things but style is not one of them. Take a look at their cars for instance. Also, has anyone thought about the inherent sturdiness of a combat rifle? How can someone use the xm8 or an m4 as a close in blunt weapon when it's got so many plastic parts like the stock? Wouldn't it be practical to have a sturdy folding stock rather than a plastic collapsable stock? Ammo doesn't last forever and in an emergency, your rifle may be your last resort. Or in terms of special operations, one may need to react quickly and quietly and use the stock to knock someone down. My point with all of this is we are moving away from practicality. Take for instance the successful AK-47 rifles. Simple and sturdy and was able to stand up to the strongest of nations. Now it's not the best rifle, but the concept is very practical. The trend lately has been with super light weapons with fancy holes to adapt shiny optics. When it comes down to it, it's just a gun vs. another gun. It doesn't take much for an enemy using stealth and concealment tactics to ambush a soldier with half a century old weapons. A good example is the Viet Cong and Israel.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:the xm8 why??   8/31/2004 3:07:47 AM
Anyone know why caseless ammo hasn't been developed to a workable point yet? Is it a problem of cook off?
 
Quote    Reply

chinese boy    RE:the xm8 why??   8/31/2004 5:31:23 PM
'cause americans are militarists, that's why!
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:american militarist   8/31/2004 7:01:08 PM
Hey, Chinese boy, it this a case of pot calling kettle black? or does it have anything to do with rifles? Every country has a national preference: Not one, single: Multi Nation MBT project has got of the ground: Not one Major, tank building country has bought tanks from another another, And no military buys its primary infantry weapon directly from another. Why should the US be any different? Its not like the EU have a great track record in multi national defence projects.
 
Quote    Reply

jmcmtank    RE:caseless   9/1/2004 5:40:03 PM
I believe the resin which holds the propellant together breaks down very quickly creating an as yet insurmountable storage problem.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:the xm8 why?? I will tell you why   9/2/2004 12:07:44 PM
Because it is new and sexy looking, the selling point behind the Stryker. It will not perform it function that much better than the weapon it replaces of similar caliber (which looks like it will be 5.56mm) to justifies the cost. The Army would be better served in taking that money and using it toward more weapons training. In the end the success of most weapons systmes is more dependent on the training of those using it than the fancy bells and whistles you attach.
 
Quote    Reply

Landos    RE:the xm8 why??   9/6/2004 8:52:30 AM
US has in modern history tried to equip it's troops with domestically designed weapons. I think the last rifle the US procured from overseas was the Krag-Jorgensen at the turn of the last century. And many of those may have been manufactured in the US under license. Buying US designed goods-even if they are produced in low labor cost nations under license-is sound policy in my opinion. We should rely on no other nation for our defence needs and Germany has been on the opposite side of our policies too many times recently. As in Iraq. One major deviation from the "buy at home" policy was the procurement of the Italian 9 mm Beretta pistol as the side-arm of the US Army. In my opinion, choosing that model over a similar proposal by Colt was a mistake. Colt has a long history of producing sidearms for the US armed forces, leading back to the Civil War.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:the xm8 why?? - Landos.   9/6/2004 3:14:11 PM
?I think the last rifle the US procured from overseas was the Krag-Jorgensen at the turn of the last century.? Not strictly true. When the US entered WW1 (late as usual) there was a shortage of Springfields. At the time Winchester and Remington were making the British P17. It was quickly redesigned to take the rimless .30 Springfield cartridge and put into US service as the M1917 (Enfield).
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy