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
Old Grunt    UPDATE   11/18/2005 8:49:54 AM
I apologize for the late update, a lost password prevented me from posting. Current status of the Army's search for a new family of small arms is on hold. It was decided, against much protest by the USMC, by DOD that the new family of small arms must be joint. The SSD was rescinded pending submision of KPP's by the Departments of the Air Force and the Navy. The basis of the SSD will be for a "...non-developmental family of small arms capable of firing the current issue M855 and M856 rounds of ammunition with an accuracy and reliability of not less than the currently fielded systems." It will also require a stand-alone light machinegun to replace the M249, also firing the current 5.56mm ammunition. March is the tentative date for release of the new SSD.
 
Quote    Reply

Happy Tactics    RE:Why XM8?   12/11/2005 3:39:28 AM
As to the notion that it is a waste to replace all service rifles when they can be improved with modification- This is true. But the M4s and M16s in service will eventualy wear out and could simply be phased out gradualy. One advantage of the XM8 over the M16 or G3 is that it was designed to be highly modualar, making it very easy to configure. What I wanna know is: can it be chambered for 7.62?
 
Quote    Reply

Happy Tactics    RE: Also.   12/11/2005 5:09:50 AM
Aren't SCARS also being considered?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Why XM8?   12/11/2005 11:48:53 AM
>>One advantage of the XM8 over the M16 or G3 is that it was designed to be highly modualar, making it very easy to configure.<< How can it be *more* modular than the M16/M4 family? It does not bring any modularity to the table that one cannot get out an AR-15 type platform already, if one were so inclined (i.e. autorifle versions of the M16 have been experimented with, and dropped because they don't do the job as well as the SAW . . . kind of like the autorifle version of the G36 in German service . . .), and for all its touted modularity, I can change out upper receivers on an M4 quicker than I can change barrels and other features on an XM8. >>What I wanna know is: can it be chambered for 7.62?<< I doubt it (assuming you mean 7.62x51mm -- 7.62x39mm AK ammo would probably work, though I suspect with the same feel problems you have with most AR-15 platforms using such), at least not in a version compatible with switch back to 5.56mm and other calibers. The pistol grip, trigger assmemly, and magazine well are all part of the lower receiver so far as I can tell from pictures, meaning that anything with greater overall length than 5.56x45mm is not going to work through the mag welll (kind of like the SCAR, which is why there are SCAR-L and SCAR-H variants, meaning different lower receivers as well as other components).
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE: Also.   12/11/2005 11:55:04 AM
>>Aren't SCARS also being considered? << Supposedly, now that the contract has been opened up for general submissions. I'm not sure it will be a winner, though, as SCAR was designed with SOCOM peculiar requirements that the Big Army may not need (or, more importantly, want to pay for). On the other hand, the idea that the cool kids are already using it may make it very appealing . . .
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE: Also.   12/11/2005 8:17:29 PM
With the fact that the current operations have drawn down ammunition stocks to their lowest points in several years, and that countless frontline small arms are just wearing out from excessive use and need replacing, now would defintiely be the most cost-effective time to decide, as we seek replacement weapons, "is the 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers the best choice for us to continue using?" Economically, no one wants to cough up the additional money, even though now the price to retool would be at an all-time low. Tactically, there are just as many pros as cons to consider the "why" of a new caliber, just as much as there are advocates that we need a new weapon design overall to begin with.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE: Also.   12/12/2005 8:46:28 PM
>>Economically, no one wants to cough up the additional money, even though now the price to retool would be at an all-time low. Tactically, there are just as many pros as cons to consider the "why" of a new caliber, just as much as there are advocates that we need a new weapon design overall to begin with.<< SOCOM gave every indication a year ago of heading towards swapping 5.56mm for 6.8mm SPC, but dropped the idea to focus money on getting SCAR in service. I suppose it may still make an appearance as an improvement to SCAR-L once it gets in service at some point in the future.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



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