The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 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
ShooterSix    RE:the xm8 why....check out the videos   9/15/2004 4:44:46 PM
Those of you wanting to learn more about the XM8 may want to check out these videos: link scroll down to the bottom for the XM8
 
Quote    Reply

mattw    RE:Pork ol boy, Pork!   9/16/2004 6:20:06 AM
Can't you hear the either uninformed or simply greedy congressperson now? "Why would we ship away good American jobs in order to buy a gun from the Germans?" I am aware of the probable licensing situation with H&K to build the XM8 here in the U.S.. Somewhere, somebody important must have thouroughly believed that we can always do better than anyone else. Good question!
 
Quote    Reply

thenenea    Some info   9/17/2004 7:51:10 AM
Check this page for info on the XM8 link It is pretty accurate info and the guy who owns the site showed no bias on the past about the country who built a specific weapon. He's also a professional armorer so he knows what to look for when reviewing a weapon. I've also seen the initial release specs from HK-USA but right now their military/LE part of the site is down. It seems like the XM8 internal parts are a refinement of the G36 with some improvements in the finish of the barrel and in the gas system. The gas system in particular has been tuned up so practically it will be easier to handle misfire and cartridge explosion situations. Further more, based on the US specs the weapon no longer features the dual 1x/3.5x site featured on the Bundeswher's model. The plastic covering of the weapon was apparently requested to make it less sensible to mishandling by operators. Also, building the weapon in the US results in much lower costs and offers more jobs in the US. All and all the weapon is clearly superior to the M16 family and a little better than the G36. It is also cheaper. So why not?
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Some info   9/17/2004 8:15:36 AM
I think relevant things considered, the M-8 is better than the M-16 family. All except for one important area. Just like we saw with the widespread issue of carbines to riflemen, we're about to see matters get worse. The M-8 gives up a couple of inches of barrel length to even the M-4. Not to mention close to 8 inches from the M-16A1/A2s. This further reduction in terminal performance is where my reservations about the M-8 as a whole stem from. The counter argument is that they can easily be fitted with 20" barrels if the need arises. I think Afghanistan and Iraq have show that need arose a couple of years ago, but the 12.5" barrel is still standard. As far as it not being a domestic design, who cares? The 240 isn't ..... but its head and shoulders above the 60. The 249 isn't ... but find me one fire team willing to give theirs up. If the Germans know one thing ... it's how to make beer. Followed very closely by firearms and cars. I do find the caliber debate interesting. I still think simply necking up the 5.56NATO case to 6mm would counter both sides of the debate. Firing a 90-115gr projectile at reasonable velocity, it fulfills the desire for more mass and doesn't rely on the shock produced from velocity alone (that isn't going to come out of a 12.5" barrel). Having the same parent case as the 5.56, capacity and volume of fire are not compromised. existing weapons such as the M-16s and M-249s already in inventory would require only rebarreling to change over. Everything else from the bolts to the mags would be common between the two. And about the M-9s adoption ... Colt's entry flat sucked (not surprising since they haven't made a decent weapon since the series 70 Govt. models). Their entry wound up in commercial form as the American 2000. A dismal failure by any measure. Smith & Wesson did enter a version of the 5904 that was good, but just couldn't match either the Berretta or the Sig in terms of mean rounds between failures or durability. They accepted the two best, and then decided based on cost. I'd rather travel that road ... than have an inferior weapon based on tradition.
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:. 243 light   9/17/2004 7:47:55 PM
You are correct. A .223 necked up to take a .243/6mm bullet would be the best way to go. You lose nothing in magazine capacity. Simply rebarrel the weapon and you own anything that can be seen out to 500 yards or so. A 90-100 grain bullet moving at about 27-2900 fps will easily take out anything but the largest north american game. The competion for the squad automatic weapon contest all used 6mm rounds.....
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE: XM 8 sidearms   9/17/2004 7:57:27 PM
If the Glock would have been more well known or more widely distributed when they adopted the Beretta, the Glock would be our standard sidearm. It is superior in every way to the Beretta, reliability, durability. It is almost more simple to use then a revolver. We made a BIG mistake not including glock in the testing.....
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:the xm8 why??   9/19/2004 3:30:10 PM
No doubt the Glock 17 would have given them all a very good run for thier money. We probably would be better served with the simplicity of the Glock over the conventional DA/SA and deco cking safety M-9 we got in the hands of the less than highly skilled average G.I. I'm not sure on my Glock history, wasn't it just a few years too late? Mid to late 80's instead of the early 80's trial period?
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:the xm8 why??   9/19/2004 4:37:12 PM
The Austrian Army adopted it in 1983 ao it must have been fully developed by then, at least for military use. Perhaps Glock were concentrating on military sales back then rather than for police/civilians.
 
Quote    Reply

DocBeav    RE:The XM8, why??   9/29/2004 11:14:42 AM
XM8 why? Haven't fired it yet but from all the reports I'm seeing and hearing it's gonn be our latest toy. Much more versatile(did I spell it right)than the M4, which is a good weapon for sure, lightweight, rugged ect....found alot of good websites with info and pictures. Bottom line is that all reports are that the evaluators LOVE the XM8 and it may be in production as early as this next year. Hope the TEAMS get em soon! DocBeav USN ST-8
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    XM8, why??   9/29/2004 6:33:09 PM
I saw a mock up of this weapon yesterday. (I'm at a military conf) The H&K rep basically considered is it to be a modified G-36 with some requirements made by US Army that they disagree with (eg trigger mechanism). His view is that armourers and and specforces elements will be happily cutting off the trigger mechanism which was the "generals modification request) Sorry, I can't remember the name of the US General they were unimpressed with. On another note, I did get to see their new specwarrie pmg which fires a full AP 1.66 round. Very very nice and weighs in at 1.6kilos. It's better balanced than an uzi and will also be rreleased as a handgun. 1.66 interestingly enough is the preferred round that rabbit shooters use in australia when they build their custom guns. H&K were saying that the round is just as lethal (and more so apparently than the 5.56)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Brain-phart on round size - why??   9/29/2004 11:41:09 PM
correction on my clumsy typing. not 1.66mm round, it's a 4.6mm round. my apols to the lilliputan snipers who i might have got excited inadvertantly
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Brain-phart on round size - why??   9/30/2004 4:38:45 PM
Given the H&K developed a highly efficient 4.7 round for the ill fated G11, do you know how closely related the two rounds are in terms of performance?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Brain-phart on round size - why?? - Heorot   9/30/2004 7:13:49 PM
Don't know to be honest, and I never even thought to ask the question. I have some penetration data which I could post later on if anyone is interested, but that will be determined by next net access I'm in. Love the MP7 though, light, easy to lift, swing and conceal if necessary. It will be interesting to see how the hand gun version of it shapes up.
 
Quote    Reply

AstroDarkMatter    RE:The XM8, why??   10/1/2004 2:41:29 AM
here.... have you seen the recent 2004 shootout at black water usa? check our thier videos, you can see that the disassebly is that of 30 seconds for the entire thing. AKA the gun is 4x easyier and faster than the m16 and m4 plus the g36. it have a different built in terms of ease, and also cleaning is made much simpler
 
Quote    Reply

mudshark    RE:The XM8, why??   10/9/2004 12:07:57 PM
link thanks astro.
 
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