User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:38:34 PM EDT
[#1]
That's from all you drunks tramping threw my shop with crab meat dripping off your chins |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:51:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Hey back off! I tried to ask for conformation of your claims the nicest way I could. If you took offense, that's your problem and I'm sorry. Anyone could understand the validity of my inquiry given this weapons limited availability. I even stated that I do not know you or anything about you. At the same time, you do not know me at all either. So you saying that I "don't know shit" was out of line. You may very well be more educated about these weapons sytems than I, but let's not attack one another. The very purpose of this board is discuss the issues that are relevant to our interests here. In case you forgot, I'm a taxpayer and a gun owner as well. And by the way, I've been on this board for 2 years now. Edited for typographical errors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:15:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Settle down Sally... Again, you don't know me so I'll cut you some slack, if you really got me angry, I would have you in tears right now with the wrath a fury my righteous indignation can summon forth. I do this for a living and know that the XM8/G36 while “slick” is not what our nation needs. There just isn’t any worthwhile advantage to the XM8 over the M4’s we have now. The money could be much better spent on better pay for our troops and better protective gear and training. When you crunch the numbers and look at the big picture, the justification just isn’t there… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:18:36 PM EDT
[#4]
XM8 so I can let everyone shoot it and we can give it some "testing" by firing lots of cheap wold ammo through it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:24:32 PM EDT
[#5]
You would have me in tears? This a real mature response. I never said one weapon system was better thatn the other. I did say however, that we should afford the XM-8 a fair and objective comparison to the M16/M4 systems. I even stated that the XM-8 was far from being perfect for our troops. Before you make an assumption about someone's intelligence and background, try to make a more concerted effort to rationalize your thoughts before you spout off by saying that I "don't know shit". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:41:40 PM EDT
[#6]
... Therein lies the problem, doubtful evaluators would take into consideration all the ancillary aspects of such a drastic and radical change-over as Garryowen pointed out a few pages back. ... Everything man, right down to LBV's, optics, mags and sans all the joints cross-functional interchangeability issues is at stake. ... "If it ain't broke" - Use the money where needed! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:42:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Shark, he has... You're talking to a guy who makes His company also has a machinegun manufacturer license, and thus he has legal access to 'post-86' machineguns, such as the G36. And being (a) in the firearms industry, and (b) a company with a significant number of ex-mil employees, it makes sense that he's had a chance to handle the XM-8 (which IS an americanized G36, btw)... Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that guys who design & manufacture rifles for a living (and do a good enough job of it as to get ArmaLite to private-label their signature product), and who has access to the guns we're talking about MIGHT be a credible source for comparison... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:55:04 PM EDT
[#8]
I agree 110% Look guys, I'm not trying to start a war here. All I asked was for a valid canoformation of his claims regarding the XM-8. He didn't have a picture of him with the XM-8, and I can understand why. He did, however, post some great pictures of an extensive G36 collection. For that, I will take his word since it is clearly obvious he is well informed on matters that most of us are not. Given his credentials that have been submitted to me by both you and him, I believe him. I acknowledge the fact that he knows great measures more than me regarding this subject. However, this does not give you the right to downplay another person by saying they "don't know shit" and that they could "put them in tears". All I am trying to say is that a great majority of posts here concerning the XM-8's performance and potential are not supported by hands-on experience with the weapon system. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 11:15:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Hell no to XM8!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 11:24:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Sharkman629,
You must have no joy in your life. 1. This is the internet 2. I am a sarcastic bastard (hence “Evil” Firearms Manufacturer) 3. Again you don’t know me, I am cutting you some slack… If I thought you were stupid, I would just say that I thought you were stupid. Lots of people “don’t know shit” about lots of things. I still “don’t know shit” about woman (see failed marriage #1) and you don’t know about the XM8. I can’t believe you took that talk about “righteous indignation” seriously…I mean, who really talks like that? Party on Wayne... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 11:37:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Not to mention the issue of interoperability with the numerous NATO and other allied forces who have adopted the M16 or use compatible systems. Adopt an entirely new system, and we're going to end up not just paying for re-equipping _our_ forces, we're going to end up spending money to supply our allies with gear in the new flavor. There are plenty of things we would be better off spending the money on. My current Guard unit will be mobilizing for deployment to Iraq in a few months. We are just now getting M4s, and still have no optics, no modern body armor, no modern commo gear, no vehicles let alone hardened vehicles... Sure, we'll get some of it at the Mobe station, and probably the rest of it when we land in Kuwait. Sure would be nice if we could have used some of the money pissed away on the XM8 to have supplied that gear in time for us to train on it before going to war. My former unit's being mobilized as well, and they're in even worse shape when it comes to equipment. There are plenty of things "broke" in the military currently. The M16/M4 is _not_ one of them. The XM8 has nothing to do with making soldiers safer adn more lethal. It's a big greasy barrel of pork for H&K and the Congressional delegation from Georgia. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 11:38:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Sorry we got off on the wrong foot here, man. I'm a sarcastic bastard as well. I don't want to have ill feelings and I do have a very joyful life. I'm happily married and am looking forward and very close to a career as an officer in the USAF. I'm sure you are cutting me a hell of a lot of slack. Again, I'm sorry as I often tend to get a little (read WAY TOO MUCH) defensive about dumb shit a lot in my life. Just ask my in-laws.  I'd much rather be a friend than a pain in anyone's ass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 2:08:57 AM EDT
[#13]
I don't know if this is even feasible or logistically possible, but maybe the Army should allow the SOLDIER to choose which weapon he wants to use in the field and this may end this debate. I'm all for making our soldiers safer and if it means switching to a new weapons platform then so be it. I see a lot post suggesting that the XM8 only offers a small improvement over the M16. I don't know about you, but if I could have any advantage where my life depended on it, I'd take it in a heart beat. Who cares if you look like a Storm Trooper or the weapon is made of plastic, as long as if functions as designed. There are hightemp plastics available. This weapon is still in the development stage and improvvements are bound to occur. If you guys really cared about our soldiers, maybe you should provide some input to the developers on how to improve the weapon instead of just bashing it .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:22:27 AM EDT
[#14]
I'll take the M4 thank you...
Maybe it's just me but does anyone else think the XM8 looks like it was designed by a bunch of Star Trek geeks?  ***No offense is meant to our Star Trek loving ARFCOM brothers.    |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:08:29 AM EDT
[#15]
Assuming you are saying which would I rather have personally and not in the hands of our soldiers... I'lltake an XM-8. I have two AR's, so I have no need for another. I could give a rats ass about burst/auto on a rifle, so outside of that feature and M16 and an AR are the same. Plus, I hate A2's because they're not flattops.
Yes, the XM-8 is probably a plastic POS that will take a long time to be accepted... I suspect it'll take less time to be accpted by soldiers than the M16 if they phase it in properly and on't just throw into their hands and say "now go kill some Technology has advanced ten fold since thn and a lot of the bugs can be worked out before something is even manufactured. That's my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:59:32 AM EDT
[#16]
I've had alot of "cool looking" guns: Aug, FNC, Galil, FAL, SPAS, HK94, etc.
Cool looking is only cool looking. After all was said and done, I only have the AR15 now. The XM8 only has the "cool looks"(and many don't even think it is cool looking). There's no other "real" benefit to that gun. The AR15/M16 has everything the XM8 has, and more. Piston action is not an improvement over direct gas impingement action. This whole XM8 thing is totally a "political" activity. AR15/M16 will win in the end, until there is a gun which makes the switch-over worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:35:15 AM EDT
[#17]
XM-8
Why? 'Cause it will be dropped as soon as they figure out what a mistake they made and it will be worth a bunch of money. Kinda like that Johnson auto rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:57:07 AM EDT
[#18]
Garry, You Don't Know Shit.
 By the way, who ever designed the XM8 has a phallic obsession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:13:01 AM EDT
[#19]
What happened the OICW ? Wasn't the XM8 supposed to be part of a systsm. Optimized Infatry Crewserve Weapon? The rifle will be at least as reliable or it wll not make it to the feild or at least widespread issue as its deployment is supposed to be gradual starting next year it will not be long before it sees combat.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:22:47 AM EDT
[#20]
Didn't OICW blow up or something while in testing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:49:32 AM EDT
[#21]
It is still on the HK site. 10,000 to 12,000 per rifle initially making 45,000 in first order. Sorry I got the C wrong C for Combat. Crewserve is a different weapon, it is supposed to replace the M2 and 20mm cannon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:53:26 AM EDT
[#22]
m16
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:42:35 AM EDT
[#23]
this is the obvious issue with the entire XM-8 bullshit being foisted upon us by some lobbyist somewhere it does nothing better than the M16/M4 existing rifle(s) , spend the money on more/better body armor & armored HMMV's |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 12:52:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Personally; I'll take the XM-8. I already have a few ARs.
As a soldier; I don't know. Cheers |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 1:32:01 PM EDT
[#25]
M16
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 2:41:16 PM EDT
[#26]
I'm not sure if someone's replied to this yet or not and I don't have time right now to read through all 5 pages. The XM8 has back-up irons. there is a flip up in the front. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 3:10:47 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm not sure if someone's replied to this yet or not and I don't have time right now to read through all 5 pages. The XM8 has back-up irons. there is a flip up in the front. Forget it Joe...there's propoganda and mis-information galore on this subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 3:13:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Well... I'd rather have a M-8. Carbine or LMG. One extreme or the other :)
I'm currently issued a M-16, and it gets FILTHY while firing. I don't want a XM-8, cause the X denotes that it's stil prototype. ;) And yes, the latest build has backup flip up iron sights. And looks awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 3:18:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Yeah, but this genious has it all figured out. I have experience with both, and the many people who do have stated the opposite of this claim. So I would like to know or cite sources as to why we should believe this claim, when our PERSONAL EXPERIENCES differ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 3:37:10 PM EDT
[#30]
BECAUSE HK IS EURO-TRASH AND THEY WANT TO RUIN THE GREAT ERGONOMICS OF THE M-4.  I'm in the military: F*CK THE M-8! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:22:06 PM EDT
[#31]
The optic is built into the gun, and cowitnesses with the rear sight. Put some shrapnel into that glass, and the gun is a paperweight. If that happens to your M-4 with an Aimpoint or Trijicon or even an EoTech, you can simple throw a lever in most cases and flip up that BUIS that can be selected based on personal preference. I will say that the ARMS 40 and some other BUIS systems are much better than what I have seen on videos of the XM-8. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:24:08 PM EDT
[#32]
These types of discussions are hilarious!
It's funny how the majority of folks who have ACTUALLY handled and SHOT the XM8 seem to speak kindly of it, yet the errornet crowd whom have NEVER handled, shot or by the sound of it even read the basic spec sheets seem to hate it? Hummm…………….LOL  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:33:19 PM EDT
[#33]
The optic is removed/interchanged via a throw lever. If you read the spec sheets or watched the videos you would have known this but hay, lets not let the facts get in the way! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:17:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Not true. If I recall right the only person on this board that has shot both said that the XM-8 was not what we needed (see Garryowen posts on page 4). All the other sources seem have some sort of tie to the XM-8 project. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:22:36 PM EDT
[#35]
I think you have it backwards. Not many here have actually handled one, but those who have such as Garryowen don't exactly speak kindly of it. And I don't have to even see a picture of one to know that a a 9" barrel shooting 5.56 NATO is a ridiculous idea. And I don't need to actually shoot one to be able to see that the "modularity" of the XM-8 is a joke compared to the versatility the M16 platform offers. In terms of accuracy, the M16 is totally superior. And in view of the fact that there are no appreciable advantages to the damn thing, and many disadvantages to it, I can easily see that the only net effect of switching would be to fatten the pockets at HK and their lobbyists (and who knows who else has greasy palms from this thing). I'm still waiting to see or hear of any overwhelming advantage it offers. Even a significant advantage. The significant disadvantages are numerous and obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:26:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Sorry, but the XM-8 looks cheesy. It looks like one of those Power Blaster 2000 water guns... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:33:54 PM EDT
[#37]
I've handled the XM8 ( did not shoot it though ), and I thought it's ergonomics and overall feel, well, sucked! The M4 feels and balances perfect for me, the XM8 did not. Plus, the Xm8 "felt" bigger in the mid section, I don't know, it just kind of had a clunky feel to me compared to my M4. I was less than impressed to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:39:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Wait a minute...
If the thing can be removed ( carry handle ), why have it there in the first place? It would serve to save weight, prevent troops from carrying it like a purse, and the optic coulse stay. I think if they put in a better stock, an aluminum reciever and a large/long picatinny rail on top, I think this thing could be VERY good. BUT, it still doesn't represent an increase in modularity - not by a long shot, nor an increase in accuracy or ROF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:50:51 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:54:42 PM EDT
[#40]
I've handled and shot both guns and I don't think the XM8 is enough of a improvment to justify the $20,000,000 we paid H&K to re-package the G36...actually I think someone should be in jail because of this....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:32:01 PM EDT
[#41]
XM8 If it was made in a 6.5 not a .223
Im an ar shooter and there is nothing better |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:19:00 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:07:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Here is a quick list of other guns with paddle mag release SIG 550, HK G3,33,MP5,UMP,G36,AK, Galil, Valmet, FN FAL, Ruger AC556 and so on. HK is NOT Euro Trash. HK is known through out the world for their outstanding firearms.HKis one of the greatest gun manufactures in the past 50 years. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:43:58 PM EDT
[#44]
HK shits on us "common" gun owners and doesn't plan to market jack shit to us.... and I HATE the paddle mag release on all of those weapons you mentioned.... The XM8 is not what we need... we have the M16/M4 platform where we want it right now... no need to switch. One more point- when we move from the M14 to the M16 it was based on the change in warfare to a jungle close range combat type of fighting... as much as I like the 14 the 16 is a better weapon for this job- THAT was the reason for the switch..... now tell me- what is the combat we're looking at right now and in the immediate future? there is a hell of a lot of medium range stuff in there- where you'll want that longer barrel. just my thoughts- what do I know though -Roth |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 9:44:08 PM EDT
[#45]
I would take the XM8, because I would never be able to get my hands on one in real life. In conbat I would choose the M-16, just because I am more familiar with its design and I trust it.
I wonder what manufacturing differences there is between the M-16 and XM8. If I was in the position to authorize these things for standard issue weapons, I wouldn't do it. It just seems impracticle to change now. As said before it doesn't offer anything that the M-16 doesn't and even has several set backs. Appearently they cost more to produce, (but maybe thats only temporary). I have read articles about soldiers who do not have any firearms and it makes me sick. I dont think we could effectivley make then transition to a different standard issue weapon now. The military needs to spend more money on the weapons they can make more available to the troops. Then agian I am damn sure not in a position to judge what the military should do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:09:05 PM EDT
[#46]
I've seen the 'back up' iron sights, as shown in photos... They;'re pathetic. Not quite 'AK Pathetic' but pathetic none the less... And you'd be back to fiddling with the front sight post to sight in, ala A1, again... So, due to the extremely POOR irons, once the optic goes down you ARE screwed.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:12:35 PM EDT
[#47]
I'll take the XM8 any day. Everyone's got M16's already :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:13:53 PM EDT
[#48]
1) The AR system is a far better weapon than all of those you listed... As Vito113 is quite fond of saying: If all those foreign guns are so great, then how come the majority of NATO special forces units carry M4s when their 'regular soldiers' use something else? 2) Just because lots of guns have a STUPID feature, doesn't make it good... Lots of pistols have decocker-safeies, that doesn't make it a good idea... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:19:25 PM EDT
[#49]
A logistical hell... Weapons issue is there for a reason, and there is a reason why they say 'No .45ACP, no personally-owned weapons, etc'... Unless you want to see soldiers reduced to butt-stroking the enemy because their 'selected' weapon broke and parts were not available, or because they're the only guy in the unit with a .41AE pistol, and run out of ammo... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 10:22:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Because most people who say that are sorely misguided, or are engaging in reflex-bashing... If they had a piston-op rifle & it kept jamming (generally because they don't take proper care of it) they'd be begging for their AR back... The fact of the matter is that the AR is perfectly reliable when maintained properly, which is the standard by which a military weapon should be judged... 'It gets dirty' is only a problem if the dirt causes a problem, which it doesn't. ARs can go for upwards of 6,000 rounds without cleaning... If a soldier goes that long w/o a basic cleaning, that's a soldier problem... And gas-pistons ystems are inferior accuracy wise, as the XM-8 plainly demonstrates... |
||
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
