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

doggtag RE:What a prudish program 10/21/2004 9:58:43 AM

Things are tricky here, ozigrunt. We've found subtle little tricks to skirt around the censor protocols/ bad words list: you might try the "star for a vowel" approach, such as, "leaving the weapon c*cked". It seems to work that way. Or do as some of the resident braniacs here: get a decent thesaurus, and try things like, "leaving the weapon charged", instead. .

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:What a prudish program 10/23/2004 2:36:47 AM

basically the online censor has a tendency to coque up re the original subject matter, all of my input came from H&K, so I realised that it wasn't absolutely unimpeachable as a source.

Quote Reply

doggtag unimpeachable sources 10/23/2004 2:55:53 PM

I've done the same, gf0012 (quoting the source directly from the actual manufacturers of certain weapons.) But sometimes, if the manufacturer's info doesn't correspond to some of the more prideful "experts" and enthusiasts here, they'll consider the manufacturere's data to be "sugar coated" sales pitches and even exaggerations. But I always say: listen to the people who actually designed and built it to give you final say of any system (if you "butter up" the point-of-contact people from their websites, lots of dc's will even send you their product data sheets and info packets when you ask nicely.) .

Quote Reply

AGC RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 10/25/2004 5:00:21 AM

"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?" The 507 Maintanence Co's problems were due to piss-poor leadership, not their M16s. They supposedly had problems with their M2HB .50 cals as well, a weapon that has never before been accused of poor reliability... The "unreliability issue is simply BS. I've put well over 2000 rounds through an M16 without cleaning it and had zero problems with reliability. Cleaning an M16-series rifle to combat-reliability standards---not "white glove" standards for an inspection---takes no more than 5 or 10 minutes. "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." Another leadership failure. Failure to ensure that weapons are being properly maintained---my unit was issued M16A1s until 1999 or 2000, but they worked because we wouldn't tolerate non-functional weapons. Worn out magazines are another sign of unit leaders who are unwilling to insist on---and pay for---properly maintained weapons systems. "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." This is just more of the "newer must be better" way of thinking. And it ignores history: new weapons systems almost always have bugs that need to be worked out. Do we want to do that in the middle of a shooting war---a low intensity war where rifles are some of the most important weapons systems---and do we want to go to all of the trouble and expense for no net gain in performance? The XM8 offers nothing in the way of improvement over the M16/M4. Same cartridge---though from a shorter barrel that will reduce its effectiveness considerably. Same magazine capacity. Poor optics and iron sights. An unproven track record. The only thing the XM8 is guaranteed to do is enrich H&K stockholders.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt UPDATE 11/18/2004 9:46:47 AM

The CDD has been approved and a "Seeking Sources" request has gone out for competitors for a new family of small arms. Unfortunately it specifies a non-developmental 5.56mm system.

Quote Reply

Gunther RE:UPDATE 11/19/2004 12:30:23 AM

Is the XM8 program teetering? With defense spending tight, there must some considerable pressure on this program in the pentagon. To spend Billions in an unproven weapon that doesn't offer any major impairments over the M-16 family. There a unsubstantiated rumors that the XM8 hasn't done well in the Army trials. The marines don't want it, they're happy with the A4s. It will be interesting to see if the XM8 survives 2005. Personally I think if they feel the need to adopt a new rifle, I'd suggest the superb Barrett M468.

Quote Reply

Crosshair RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/19/2004 3:05:54 AM

Yea, it's sad when I can outgun one of our troops with my SKS and four 10 round stripper clips of 7.62x39..

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 1:33:10 PM

We haven't done any testing yet. As for the Marine Corps, like it or not, if DOD says they adopt a new rifle they adopt a new rifle. Yes, there is considerable pressure from a few influential individuals within the Army (outside the Pentagon) to adopt this particular small arms system. Reminds me of the whole Stryker thing. I agree with you that the Barret M468/LE is a superb weapon and I would not mind carrying one into battle. As for the SKS, after haveing been on both the firing and receiving ends numerous times for extended periods I would place it somewhere between OK bayonet platform and poorly designed club.

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 7:59:24 PM

Ive read a little on that new weapon and it seems too complicated and complex to be the standard infantry rifle.The thing must need batteries and probably is delicate ie....keeping it out of water and stuff.They want too much in a little package and its cost is way too much per unit.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:Sorry, you have to keep scratching 11/23/2004 8:57:46 PM

dudley wrote: "Ive read a little on that new weapon and it seems too complicated and complex to be the standard infantry rifle.The thing must need batteries and probably is delicate ie....keeping it out of water and stuff.They want too much in a little package and its cost is way too much per unit" Take a look at what the guys are hanging off their M-4s and M-16s these days. Illuminator, laser, optic - all with batteries. The XM-8 at least consolidates them into an integrated package. Take a look at this. link

Quote Reply

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