The XM8, why??

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

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

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

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT