Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/27/2004 5:06:10 AM EST
Sunday night on "Mail Call" they had a fella from the U.S. Army giving Gunny the low-down on the XM-8 HK's new baby. Overall it looks pretty neat and I'm a big fan of "plastic guns". However, this guy from the Army had the biggest selling point of the show resting on the ergonomics of the gun and how simple it was to swap out, what we all know as uppers, in 10 MINUTES. 10 MINUTES was good? I can push MY two pins and install my SBR upper in less than 30 SECONDS!
I realize this weapons platform is very dynamic and functional, but I really don't see how the most versatile weapon ever wielded (AR-15/M-16) can be "fased out" by a weapon that would seem like a pain in the ass to swap out uppers much less change to a different caliber! I think its safe to say that an AR-15/M-16 can accept MOST commercially produced calibers today, with obvious exceptions.
Let me know what you folks think about all that if you saw it or not...
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:10:08 AM EST
I recorded on my DVR so I can't w3ait to get home to watch after work
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:32:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By JimmyThompson:
Sunday night on "Mail Call" they had a fella from the U.S. Army giving Gunny the low-down on the XM-8 HK's new baby. Overall it looks pretty neat and I'm a big fan of "plastic guns". However, this guy from the Army had the biggest selling point of the show resting on the ergonomics of the gun and how simple it was to swap out, what we all know as uppers, in 10 MINUTES. 10 MINUTES was good? I can push MY two pins and install my SBR upper in less than 30 SECONDS!
I realize this weapons platform is very dynamic and functional, but I really don't see how the most versatile weapon ever wielded (AR-15/M-16) can be "fased out" by a weapon that would seem like a pain in the ass to swap out uppers much less change to a different caliber! I think its safe to say that an AR-15/M-16 can accept MOST commercially produced calibers today, with obvious exceptions.
Let me know what you folks think about all that if you saw it or not...



I caught it. I like how he made it seem like the 100 round Beta-C's were only available for the HK weapon. If someone would have been standing there with an M16 it would have made that HK look useless. The only thing I like is the clear mags but that comes at a cost of more bulky mags.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:35:00 AM EST
The XM-8 barrels are changed out in only a few minutes (not the entire upper). This concept is new to AR's. Would be an interesting capability, but may not make a lot of sense if significant sight corrections have to be made between various barrels, or if POI shifts much from one barrel swap to the next.

However, for a troop on the ground, it could increase capability (long range shooting to building clearing) while adding a relatively small amount to the soldier's load (a barrel and maybe a sight). An important thing thing in an era where a typical soldiers load is over 80# and often more...

Lots of plusses with the "modular" configuration scheme for sights, barrels, launchers, etc., but (without having handled one) would have to say that not a lot of really "new stuff" is readily apparent...
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:42:01 AM EST
As luck would have it, I couldn't sleep last night and I caught the whole episode of Mail Call.

While not thrilled with the looks of the XM-8, I do find it intriguing. There's been quite a lot of XM-8 and HK bashing on these boards - some with merit (I think) and others just popping off cause it's not an AR.

One thing's for sure, I'm all about less cleaning and the piston vs. gas blowback concept gets my attention.

I'll be interesting to see which direction the military takes...
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:48:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ber92fm:
The XM-8 barrels are changed out in only a few minutes (not the entire upper). This concept is new to AR's. Would be an interesting capability, but may not make a lot of sense if significant sight corrections have to be made between various barrels, or if POI shifts much from one barrel swap to the next.



I have heard otherwise.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:51:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 9:52:25 AM EST by uglygun]
I loved the shill selling the XM8.

Reminded me of a dorky door to door salesman only wearing woodland bdus.

It's like if he smiled hard enough while touting the virtues of the rifle, HK would give him a cookie when he got back to base.

That or he was thinking to himself, "MUST SMILE HARDER, THE GUNNY ISN'T BUYING IT"
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:57:31 AM EST
Can someone convert that part of the show into a video clip to be downloaded? I would like to see what they said about it on Mail Call.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:17:00 AM EST
Did you catch the soldier that was firing wearing the new Army uniform?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:31:56 AM EST
The army offcicer on mail call was here at Benning last week for the infantry conference. As far as mail call--He was on a TV show putting forward a project he is working on. That is why he was all smiles. Before last week I was somewhat leary of the XM-8. After seeing, handling and watching it test fired I am not completely sold on the idea but have taken a wait and see attitude. Let ma say that I am a big fan of the M-4. Both the one issued and my POWs (privately owned waepons). I know they work. I know from exepreince thay are reliable. I also saw how close the plastic and metal parts fit together on the XM-8. Everyone who has shot an AR or M-4 in a dusty environment knows how quickly debris enters the receiver through gaps and up the groves on the magazines. The tight fit of the XM-8 and flat mags prevent this. I also like like the concept of having the PEQ-2 and M68 combined on the XM-8. I am concerened about the back up sights on the XM-8. I think all rifles need robust iron sights. The flip up ones on the XM-8 seemed like they were a litle too flimsy. I trust the Small Arms Branch of PEO Soldier will thoroughly test the XM-8 by the time a decision is made whether or not to adopt the system. If this is not a major improvement over the M-4 I trust that the Army will stick with what we've got. And if this is a major improvement I will gladly welcom use it.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:38:11 AM EST
This thing is years away from being adopted. When HK finally tries to push it through, there's going to be a whole bunch of competition...

Chances are our kids will still be using M16s.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:41:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By MARNESAPPER:
I trust the Small Arms Branch of PEO Soldier will thoroughly test the XM-8 by the time a decision is made whether or not to adopt the system.



Man it took me less than a year to see that the Military RARELY does what's right. This was from the INSIDE.


Tell ya what, it's an improvement on the AR-Platform of minimal margins. If it is chambered to 6.8SPC, then we've got a winner, but the major faults in the AR platform is not really addressed here in a wise fashion.

I simply think this is nothing more than a way for HK to get back at Colt for the M-4 Lawsuit debacle.

-U-
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:49:57 AM EST
It's being tested by the 10th Mountain Division as we type.HKmanufacturing will commence soon after. It's just a matter of when not if. Owning 2 AR15 and an SL8, the gases
don't get blown back into the action like the AR's and is a superior system of operation.
Being very anal about all my hardware and ex-mil, I clean all weapons completely after firing and the AR
get the mil treatment. I can spend a good hour cleaning a AR and about 30 minutes to clean the SL8.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:54:28 AM EST
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the XM8 get CUT from this years defence budget? I don't put much stock in HK's PR program. They seem to be pushing the XM8 to the non-gun media very hard and making alot of "Not So True" statements.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:58:49 AM EST
Looking from the inside-- generally the Army does what is right.

from another poster-- Man it took me less than a year to see that the Military RARELY does what's right.This was from the INSIDE.--


I am still on the inside and trust my service to do what is right. I am sorry you don't have faith in the Army. Did you get out after that year?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 10:59:16 AM EST
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/23/mn/mn01a.html
Testing will run through December.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:23:36 AM EST
Take it ALL with a very large grain of salt. This is a TV program made for mass viewing. Its segments are taped about a year before they air in many cases. Consider the source. This is the same national television that brought us 60Minutes and Dan Rather. Ermey can be amusing, but he's just a TV shill for his network, just as the Army officer is a shill for H&K. A professional PR man with a college degree to make him an officer. A trained monkey whose real talent lies in the ability to sell a product. If he's a good boy on this one, maybe next time they'll let him suck the next Presidents cock as he squires him around on his visit to Benning!

But WTF do you expect from a TV show hosted by someone called "Gunny" who's never been a Gunny in the first place?

I suspected that SOMEONE would find a way to bash Colt on this thread .
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:55:19 AM EST
Who bashed Colt? doooo!
And Ermey was in the Marines for 11 years and made it to the rank of Staff Sgt. including tours in Vietnam.
hinking.gif

The only thing we should be taking with a grain of salt is ...well I think everyone knows
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:03:21 PM EST
I too saw the program. And yes the LTC was making an obvious pitch by using the word "just" how many times when referring to the XM-8? Obviously the LTC was attempting to make the XM-8 operation seem simpler than the M-16. The M-16 / M4 is simple enough. I had a guy in my squad in basic that couldn't even spell his own last name (Ingram = Inram), but the Army taught that dipshit to shoot the M-16).
Personally I don't see enough flaws in the modern M-4 to change to another weapon. The largest flaw with the M-4 is the size of the projectile. So the reasoning escapes me that Uncle Sam is spending BIG $'s in R&D on a weapon that uses the same projectile limitations.
Now if the XM-8 shot a larger projectile, overcoming the 5.56's limitations, then I could see the logic. To change weapons just for the sake of change, is not an improvement.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:48:11 PM EST
XM8 advantage is a pushrod system with gases expelling away from the action.
AR15 advantage is light weight (for its time when introduced) because it did away without piston, pushrods and the like. Just a simple gas tube, thats it.

Now the XM8 is a lighter platform (if only by a slim margin) and works with a pushrod system (inherently more reliable). So I would guess that technically it is an improvement but will it change the battlefield outcomes? I don't think so because the enemy is not getting better weapons so we are still winning.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:59:55 PM EST

AR15 advantage is light weight (for its time when introduced) because it did away without piston, pushrods and the like. Just a simple gas tube, thats it.


Don't forget accuracy. I'd like to see how accurate an XM8 really is.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:30:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By uglygun:
I loved the shill selling the XM8.

Reminded me of a dorky door to door salesman only wearing woodland bdus.

It's like if he smiled hard enough while touting the virtues of the rifle, HK would give him a cookie when he got back to base.

That or he was thinking to himself, "MUST SMILE HARDER, THE GUNNY ISN'T BUYING IT"


I loved it when he told the gunny he was right on target with the first round.
The gunny has made that shot a million times on that show, and done it with everything from wheel locks to AKs. It didn't have anything to do with the XM8, but the used car salesman was impressed.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:33:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoComp:
Who bashed Colt? doooo!
And Ermey was in the Marines for 11 years and made it to the rank of Staff Sgt. including tours in Vietnam.


The only thing we should be taking with a grain of salt is ...well I think everyone knows


The marines did officially promote him to gunny...
In the same manner that universities offer doctorates.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:36:05 PM EST
Well my SL8-1 is more accurate than my Colt Ar15, both with 20" barrels.
I suspect part of this is due to the heavy contour of the Sl8 barrel and the fact
that it is free-floating. The profile on the AR is of the standard taper config
under the handguards and not heavy bbl.
Of course the XM8 will have a barrel contour more similar to the M4 to save weight.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:43:52 PM EST
Am I to understand things correctly, that you guys' major gripe with the XM-8 is that it is pretty much the same thing as an AR, and the DoD is just dumping money down a chute unncescessarily? Or do you guys have a genuine beef with the gun itself?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:57:27 PM EST
I stopped paying too much attention when the snake-oil salesman started talking about how hard it was to figure out how to use the irons and how adding a red dot made it much simpler to train on. I mean weren't peep / ghost ring sights developed to be natural in use? Don't get me wrong I'd want a red dot if they gave me one, but it don't make the rifle simpler to use. On top of that you damn well better be training guys to use the irons too.

Also I noticed (it looked like) they are using 5.56mm in a shorter barrel than the M4 in one config? I mean WTF? M855 is already at like 80 or 90 yards fragmenting range in 14.5". Our guys going to be shooting with the muzzel in contact with the enemy if they keep chopping the barrels. I guess it could be interesting for entry where distances are in tens of feet though.

It's an ugly thing too. And what was the crap about those awful unreliable mags? I've yet to have a USGI 30 fail me at all.

I just don't see the big hoopla? I mean where's the real advantage over what you can do on the AR platform. Like others here have said, why change 'just cause'.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:59:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
Am I to understand things correctly, that you guys' major gripe with the XM-8 is that it is pretty much the same thing as an AR, and the DoD is just dumping money down a chute unncescessarily? Or do you guys have a genuine beef with the gun itself?


Isn't that enough?
My biggest technical bitch is that the commando bbl is 10" and severely restricts the effective range of the rifle.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:01:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
Am I to understand things correctly, that you guys' major gripe with the XM-8 is that it is pretty much the same thing as an AR, and the DoD is just dumping money down a chute unncescessarily? Or do you guys have a genuine beef with the gun itself?



Actually it has some advantages in the cleaning and maint dept. But that's really all I saw. All the rest looked like marketing BS to me. If the guys in the field can get better servicce from them with less cleaning that might be good enough reason.

It's just the guy pimping it on the show was spewing a lot of BS.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:03:05 PM EST
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/9735095.htm

Has anyone shot an SL8/g36 and felt the smoothness of the action compared to an AR!?
I mean really, how many of are actually comparing the two side-by-side.


nuf said!
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:03:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Stryfe:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
Am I to understand things correctly, that you guys' major gripe with the XM-8 is that it is pretty much the same thing as an AR, and the DoD is just dumping money down a chute unncescessarily? Or do you guys have a genuine beef with the gun itself?


Isn't that enough?
My biggest technical bitch is that the commando bbl is 10" and severely restricts the effective range of the rifle.



Restricts? Shit, unless they are moving to other bullets, it's coming out of the muzzle under reliable fragmentation velocity isn't it?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:06:57 PM EST
XM8

All I wanna know is when can I pick up my copy?? How much will it set me back?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:07:07 PM EST
Whoo boy! Was that major (or light coronel; I couldn't tell) spouting the company line or what?

His glee at expalining the inexplicable was positively breath-taking. Apparently, the plastic wonder squeezes more performance out of the same cartridge than the current platform. And that Beta C mag; now there's a real improvement over the current weapon. And that electronic red-dot sight (as yet untested in battle): what a concept! Are those Nazis all over this combat stuff, or what?

Personally, I think spending 4.765 bazillion dollars that could just as well be spent on training ammo, and the niggling little problems to the supply corps and the amorers from re-equipping an entire fucking defense establishment are a small price to pay to have a rifle that appears to be right out of Buck Rogers (or Starship Troopers to you youngsters).

SD

P.S. This deal is so rotten and filthy the Liberians wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:16:10 PM EST

His glee at expalining the inexplicable was positively breath-taking. Apparently, the plastic wonder squeezes more performance out of the same cartridge than the current platform. And that Beta C mag; now there's a real improvement over the current weapon. And that electronic red-dot sight (as yet untested in battle): what a concept! Are those Nazis all over this combat stuff, or what?

Personally, I think spending 4.765 bazillion dollars that could just as well be spent on training ammo, and the niggling little problems to the supply corps and the amorers from re-equipping an entire fucking defense establishment are a small price to pay to have a rifle that appears to be right out of Buck Rogers (or Starship Troopers to you youngsters).



hat
So riddle me this batboy, If you have 150000 grunts in the field
and they can clean their weapon in half the time, how long would it take until the rifle pays for itself? Not very long.
Not to mention that it won't have to be cleaned half as much to maintain functionality. And yes, polygonal rifling, if they are made with it, will squeeze more performance out of the same bullet and it will maintain more energy. All proven designs and technology. And if they make it in 6.8SPC all the more better.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:42:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 2:43:25 PM EST by Stryfe]
My take on the XM8 as a taxpayer.
I'm willing to pay to make sure our military has the best available equipment.
If I thought the XM8 was it, I'd support it. I like the AR platform regardless of what the military does. My appreciation of the AR is not based on it's current military service. In fact, my next purchases will likely be "retired" platforms such as the M14 and FAL.
M16s aren't being surplussed. The only benefit I see as a consumer is the availability of low cost ammo. This would continue with the XM8 as it uses the same cartridge, at least for now.
The reason I don't like the XM8 is that it is not a significant leap forward from the weapon we have in place now. I think the funding necessary to implement the XM8 could be better used elsewhere.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:04:06 PM EST
I talked to a soldier that was in Iraq and he said they put thousands of rounds through the XM8 without it ever jamming. They make it sound nice and everything, but id rather have an AR (still want one tho :) )
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:31:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By OD:
I talked to a soldier that was in Iraq and he said they put thousands of rounds through the XM8 without it ever jamming. They make it sound nice and everything, but id rather have an AR (still want one tho :) )



I've put over a thousand rounds through an M16A1 - full auto - in one afternoon and never had a jam either.

The issue here is the slick marketing BS comoing from H&K and the project manager guys.

They claim it is lighter, yet it would not be if they were comparing equal length barrels.

They talk about higher cap mags as if you can't use them in an M16 - they talk about configuration changes as if you can't swap uppers on M16s. Also, the G36 is infamous for melting handguards. Have they fixed this problem with the XM8?

They talk about a superior sighing system - when any such system could easily be adapted to add to a current rifle.

I do prefer the XM8 operating system - but just don't like BS marketing. I want to see honest reporting and testing.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 4:09:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 4:10:18 PM EST by mikepenn33]

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By OD:
I talked to a soldier that was in Iraq and he said they put thousands of rounds through the XM8 without it ever jamming. They make it sound nice and everything, but id rather have an AR (still want one tho :) )



I've put over a thousand rounds through an M16A1 - full auto - in one afternoon and never had a jam either.

The Soldier is in Iraq (lots of sand) you're in Florida.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 4:35:31 PM EST
yes i did thank you did you because it was pretty good and it was interesting as well as informative as the m-16's days are numbered as it is becoming obsolete and it is made in the united states of america and this is bad because our troops need foreign made arms to arm ourselves with

it was a good show though
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 4:51:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By mikepenn33:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By OD:
I talked to a soldier that was in Iraq and he said they put thousands of rounds through the XM8 without it ever jamming. They make it sound nice and everything, but id rather have an AR (still want one tho :) )



I've put over a thousand rounds through an M16A1 - full auto - in one afternoon and never had a jam either.

The Soldier is in Iraq (lots of sand) you're in Florida.



How do you know there was lots of sand?

Sand has nothing to do with it - the implication is that carbon build up is the death knell for M16s. It is not.

BTW, I have only been in Florida for less than a year. There is sand here, BTW - heck, all we have is sand. I miss real dirt.

I've also been through several Arabian sand storms. I saw nothing in the article to suggest sand was blowing in any way that would have effected any weapon.

By all accounts, the XM8 does a better job of keeping sand out from the inside, but that has nothing to do with the situation as presented.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 4:53:50 PM EST
When is the last time you saw a U.S. company make something new?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:00:45 PM EST
We have yet to see if polymer technology will extend the M16s life.Bushmaster submitted some carbon#4 models to the military.The one advantage of a M16 polymer design would be parts assemblies that the military has by the thosands still being of use where XM8 is not cost effective..lets wait and see.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:01:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By mikepenn33:
When is the last time you saw a U.S. company make something new?


With respect to what?
If you are implying that H&K is inovative, and US companies aren't.
Well I'll be the first to agree Colt isn't exactly aggressive, but the neither is the XM8 a significant advancement.
H&K has an incentive to try to break into the market, but I don't think we should reward them for their initiative.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:02:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By MARNESAPPER:
Looking from the inside-- generally the Army does what is right.

from another poster-- Man it took me less than a year to see that the Military RARELY does what's right.This was from the INSIDE.--


I am still on the inside and trust my service to do what is right. I am sorry you don't have faith in the Army. Did you get out after that year?



No, I stayed in and finished my commitment.

My time was spent during the Clinton Administration. It was a different Army then than it is now.

The above statement was meant tounge-in-cheek.

-U-
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:19:00 PM EST
I'm not saying that the XM-8 is god's gift to the military. I don't care if the next rifle is made on the moon. The only thing that matters is it better for the troops. No one here can answer that question yet.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:38:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST:
yes i did thank you did you because it was pretty good and it was interesting as well as informative as the m-16's days are numbered as it is becoming obsolete and it is made in the united states of america and this is bad because our troops need foreign made arms to arm ourselves with

it was a good show though



You will find the punctuation keys just to the right of the key marked with an "M".
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:41:01 PM EST
I think the pushrod system is the only advantage over the AR/M15. The short barrel is obviously a problem, saying that it doesn't have enought punch to would the enemy. If the XM8 was in 6.8 SPC it might be another story. I think this point can the made that the M14 is being used alot in Afganistan and Iraq, I mean the military complains that the 5. 56 doesn't have enough punch to kill, but yet they want to shorten the barrel length once again. The XM8 may have its advantages, but I think the military should stick to the M16/M4
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:50:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
I want to see honest reporting and testing.



Ever seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars" ?
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:52:12 PM EST
I agree....Who cares where the hell it is made? Where was the Beretta made when it won a US contract.
Why did it win out over the Sig? Seems now the US military and LE communities
are getting serious about their armament, now that the threats are more real
and engaged with every day. The Homeland Security Dept, FBI are no procuring SIGS/
HK's enmasse.

More importantly, WTF is Colt doing to better their products so our military
and LE communities have the best equipment? Most of the improvements
have come from suggestions/pressure from these orgs, lessons learned from the orgs
and more often than not, third party vendors trying to meet those demands.
Colt has been stagnant for a long time and they'd rather spend their $$ on litigation
about the M4 trademark, than R&D and continuous improvement programs for thier products.
What a joke.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:54:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 5:56:02 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
Am I to understand things correctly, that you guys' major gripe with the XM-8 is that it is pretty much the same thing as an AR, and the DoD is just dumping money down a chute unncescessarily? Or do you guys have a genuine beef with the gun itself?



Major Gripes with the XM-8 (in no perticular order):

1) Gas-piston system. Technically & practically inferior to the Stoner gas system EXCEPT in the area of inspection-grade cleaning time. Since we all KNOW that the Army/USMC will not change their cleaning standards (white glove test) in this area, this 'advantage' is moot.

'Reliability' is a moot point, as if a M16 can shoote 3 or 4 combat loads of ammo without jamming from lack of cleaning (and it can) we are talking severely diminished returns (at that point, jams from lack of cleaning are an operator headspace issue, not a failure of the system)...

2) Polymer + Steeel + Sand = sandpaper. The design will WEAR OUT much faster in an Iraq-like environment than an all-metal gun.

3) 'Back up' sights suck compared to M16 carry-handle sights

4) No rails, optic is 100% proprietary and attaches to 100% proprietary optic mount

5) Less accurate than the M16 (see (1) as main reason)... 'Designated Marskman' variant (SPR replacement) with TWENTY-FOUR inch barrel is less accurate at 100 yards than EIGHTEEN INCH bbl SPR is at 300 yards[/b[.

6) Reciever & handguards melt under sustained full-auto fire, yet HK is pitching the gun as a M249 replaceement. Said plan calls for using the allready-rejected Beta-C mag in place of a proper belt-feed mechanisim...

7) 'Hammer Forged' barrel process produces the most metalurgical stress of any method of barrel production. Another contribution to the accuracy decline...

Basically, the XM-8 does several things WORSE than the M-16, and basically nothing usefull BETTER...

Ah well, at least the Beretta works well enough...
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:55:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
I want to see honest reporting and testing.



Ever seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars" ?



Yes.

Your point?

I love how people use that movie as an example of how procurement is done. Similarly, people use "Good Morning Vietnam" to talk about military journalism / censorship.

I don't trust Hollywood to teach me how to use guns, I sure as heck don't trust Hollywood to have any "based on a true story" movie even close to reality.

Link Posted: 9/27/2004 5:58:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoComp:
I agree....Who cares where the hell it is made? Where was the Beretta made when it won a US contract.
Why did it win out over the Sig? Seems now the US military and LE communities
are getting serious about their armament, now that the threats are more real
and engaged with every day. The Homeland Security Dept, FBI are no procuring SIGS/
HK's enmasse.

More importantly, WTF is Colt doing to better their products so our military
and LE communities have the best equipment? Most of the improvements
have come from suggestions/pressure from these orgs, lessons learned from the orgs
and more often than not, third party vendors trying to meet those demands.
Colt has been stagnant for a long time and they'd rather spend their $$ on litigation
about the M4 trademark, than R&D and continuous improvement programs for thier products.
What a joke.



Right now, the best contender to beat the XM-8 (aside from the current FN M16A4) would be a Bushmaster carbon-fiber AR... If they want a minimal-metal gun, it can still be had with the proper gas system & standard optic-mounting rails...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top