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 / 4
Posted: 9/28/2004 3:03:46 PM EST
I can't tell you how upset I am over the army tossing the M-16 for the XM-8, which would you rather have??
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:40:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 3:42:23 PM EST by Tex78]
This is assuming that the M16A2 is as generally issued (w/o M68) Vs. XM8 as proposed to be issued w/ proprietary dot:

As a SPECOPS type or civilian shooter who likes REAL modularity? No doubt, ---M16!

As a grunt who has lots of other chores to do besides fondling my rifle all day? ---XM8.

That is saying of course that the rifles are cofigured as they are usually issued, and the reliability really does turn out to be as advertised.

Tex78

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:42:17 PM EST
16
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:02:34 PM EST
M16 tried tested and true for the last 40 years.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:08:02 PM EST
I've never seen the XM8 except on tv. My understanding is it uses a gas piston much like the M1/M14. I can tell ya this makes for a lot more rounds before foulling. .02
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:13:55 PM EST
The M16 canb also go alot of rounds before fouling becomes a factor more rounds than a soldier will ever have to fire or be able to carry at one time in a fire fight.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:18:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:20:23 PM EST by Master_Blaster]
XM8, 'cause of that warm, soft feeling it gives ya in your hands after a couple of mag dumps.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:19:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:35:11 PM EST
M16 - because no matter how many rounds an XM8 may be able to digest, it's still a paperweight if the optic goes down. :)
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:36:08 PM EST
OH LOOK !

Those Germans are trying to make you believe their rifle is pathetic... I mean patriotic and American.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:46:37 PM EST
I'll take both!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:54:07 PM EST
M16, hands down. However the XM8 would probably make for a good room clearing/home defense gun if it ever was semi-auto only and for sale her in the US.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:55:54 PM EST
What is the magnification and recticle of the XM8? Any photos?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:58:24 PM EST
I have handled the XM8 and was not impressed.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:03:53 PM EST
M16-- because they wont melt under heavy fire. Pastic cant take the heat alloys can. 2cents
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:05:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:09:52 PM EST by rad2112]

Originally Posted By Mulliga:
M16 - because no matter how many rounds an XM8 may be able to digest, it's still a paperweight if the optic goes down. :)



Not true... It has flip-up back-up iron sights built in that can co-witness the dot.
They just had it on "Mail Call".

For me, the ONLY selling point of the XM8 is the gas piston rod instead of the gas tube of the AR.
Since I don't fire thousands of rounds per sitting, the AR is my rifle of choice.

BTW: Isn't someone working on a gas piston for ARs?

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:06:01 PM EST
Your joking right? The M-16 A4 all the way. The Marines have no plans to switch right now. I hope this green turd of a rifle doesn't get shoved down the Corps' throat.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:09:18 PM EST
M-16, besides the hk looks like a fish to me.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:09:35 PM EST
Are the optics basically just an Aimpoint?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:11:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:13:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 12:33:44 PM EST by M11293]
I think the XM8 looks kinda queer to me...



Reminds me of the rifle on Halo for X-Box. At least the one on Halo had a cool digital screen that told the number of rounds left in the mag. It was a bull-pup too.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:15:15 PM EST
Saw this on MailCall a few days ago and from what they showed it has: a built in red dot sight (not sure about scoped models - they didnt say) and it does have back up iron sights. You cant see them, because they are recessed into the handguard, but I dont know where the backup rear aperature is.

Funny thing was, they had an Army Officer talking about all the benefits of the XM8. Some of which, I think are seriously flawed reasons for adopting a new weapon. He said you didnt have to train Marines how to shoot, just place the red dot on target and fire (Marksmanship should ALWAYS be taught -its what sets us apart from the rest) It can go thousands of rounds without the need for cleaning (guns should always be maintained/inspected whenever possible), theres a Rifle, Carbine, & Compact version which only differ in length, you train a Soldier on one, you trained them on all (duh, the M16, M4 & XM177 are all the same guns too)

Those where about the only reasons presented for a new weapon. They also demonstrated full auto fire as being "more controlable" than an M16, but from what I could tell, it seemed to kick a little more because it has such little mass and an op-rod which increases the inertia of rounds firing.

If you ask me, its all about modernizing appearances. I've always felt that the M16 should be a mainstay until something truely revolutionary comes along. The XM8 is not that thing. Its just another futuristic looking dinosaur, like all H&K's. Nothing new or innovative. Infact, the only project they ever had which was they trashed. Anybody remember the G11? Thats unique and interesting new technology.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:21:00 PM EST
I think I'm hearing all the same type of comments as when the service switched from 1903's to M1's - and certainly from M14's to the AR15. The AR15 was argueably a POS at the time. Now everyone love's them. Except when they freaking jam at the worst times (granted, almost always a mag failure). Hopefully the replacement, be it a XM8 or something else, does the soldier right...

Flame suit on...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:27:09 PM EST
I don't like the XM-8. I mean i never handled one but it doesn't look like a very durable gun, it's made of plastic. I don't lkie the design either. M16 All the way
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:29:18 PM EST
XM-8 = Fisher Price my first rifle

Does it come in red, yellow and blue?

Almost as ugly as that shit the Brits carry.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:34:06 PM EST
Which would I rather have? Whatever is issued to me of course... Seriously though, it is the soldier, not the equipment BUT... If I had my way, I would still want my rifle But that is just me.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:34:07 PM EST
Glocks are made of plastic. They seem to be very durable.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:35:05 PM EST
Why switch? Weird thing is, follow this, the xm8 is a cousin to the g36, which uses a ar-180 type system (correct me). So in a weird way, the xm8 is a offshoot of yet another stoner design!
What about the new hk m4gery?
Screw the xm8
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:39:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 6:27:30 PM EST by RAMBOSKY]
Hell, my granddaughter has one of those! It shoots water and she used it on me this summer in our pool.

I know, it's the Mattel Toy II.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:40:37 PM EST
I'll take the XM-8 only because I have a few M4's, civilian versions of course.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:42:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:47:07 PM EST by N3rday]
AR, for several reasons:

1. I'm tired of people dissing the direct gas impingement system (Ooh, it lets all those evil gasses drain into the receiver!).
2. No picatinny rails, so we get to chunk all those aimpoints, Eotechs and ACOGs we've invested in.
3. Barrel length practically eliminates any hope of fragmentation at a decent range (ballistics on a 12.5" XM8 are about equivalent to an 11.5" AR). This is pretty ironic since everyone seems to bitch about the 5.56's stopping power, yet the same folks want to adopt a short-barreled pansy-carbine for our main infantry rifle
4. New mags, maybe.
5. Refamiliarization is a pain in the ass.
6. No civilian version, which means no cool aftermarket gear except what H&K thinks up.
7. It isn't battle proven. At all.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:42:49 PM EST
Definitely both...a couple of both. Can never have too many gunz!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:58:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 6:00:22 PM EST by rad2112]
I think we should have implemented the M41-A Pulse Rifle...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:02:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:04:42 PM EST
BOTH!

if not, i'll take the xm-8 cause i dont got one ( acici version of the 16 is cool w/ me)
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:09:31 PM EST
Well if the XM8 is purchased by the army then I'll take the M8 as it will be called. If its not then ive got my AR-180B. If HK would build the G-36 in the USA then ill take the G-36 over the AR-180B.

Face it guys the M-16 IS 40 Years old, older if you count the original design year of mid 50's. Lets see 40 year old stuff. Thats the Mid 60's. Its DIRTY I HATE Cleaning that damn bolt bolt carrier. God Bless Eugene Stoner but things have CHANGED big time. I have freinds who are tried and true AR and even AK belivers. All gave up on the AR series after trying the G-36. One has even sold all the AR Stuff he has, EVERYTHING and Purchased a G-36 (He's LEO). The XM8 is just a different look and small change in placement of operating controls over the G-36.

IF the Army Wants the M8 then so be it. IF not then they have STILL got a DAMN GOOD Rifle. Just well aged and needs a good cleaning sometimes.

OH and the Paperweight does have flip up backup irons Just like some AR-15s M-16s Thank you have a nice day.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:10:14 PM EST
Well if the XM8 is purchased by the army then I'll take the M8 as it will be called. If its not then ive got my AR-180B. If HK would build the G-36 in the USA then ill take the G-36 over the AR-180B.

Face it guys the M-16 IS 40 Years old, older if you count the original design year of mid 50's. Lets see 40 year old stuff. Thats the Mid 60's. Its DIRTY I HATE Cleaning that damn bolt bolt carrier. God Bless Eugene Stoner but things have CHANGED big time. I have freinds who are tried and true AR and even AK belivers. All gave up on the AR series after trying the G-36. One has even sold all the AR Stuff he has, EVERYTHING and Purchased a G-36 (He's LEO). The XM8 is just a different look and small change in placement of operating controls over the G-36.

IF the Army Wants the M8 then so be it. IF not then they have STILL got a DAMN GOOD Rifle. Just well aged and needs a good cleaning sometimes.

OH and the Paperweight does have flip up backup irons Just like some AR-15s M-16s Thank you have a nice day.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:23:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 6:24:30 PM EST by Sharkman629]
I don't think any of us should draw conclusions on which is better until one of us has actually fired an XM-8. It does have back-up irons and I would bet that the plastic used is of better grade than anything we have seen to date. I love the M-16 and M-4 family, but until we actually get some first hand experience with the XM-8, we're out of line knocking it. I can recall people saying the M-16 was a plastic POS, they were wrong. I remember people saying tha A-10 was ugly and too slow, they were wrong. Guys everyone is entitled to his opinion, but until one of us gets a chance to shoot it, our thoughts are exactly that. Opinons.

Flame Suit ON!


Edited to fix board code.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:27:14 PM EST
I would need to have some time with the XM8 to give you my answer. I would think anyone should before they choose.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:47:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
I can't tell you how upset I am over the army tossing the M-16 for the XM-8, which would you rather have??



M16A4 with ACOG, as issued by the USMC.

If you're going to put an optic on a 5.56mm rifle, you might as well use one that can reach out to maximum point-target range, not a CQB-only item like a red-dot...

The iron sights (which you eventually WILL have to use, no matter what optic you have) on the XM8 are extremely primative, without rear adjustable windage & elevation...

Plus, the M16's unique gas system provides for extreme accuracy and avoids accuracy degradation as the rifle gets dirty, something that is a problem with floating-piston style weapons like the XM8.

And considering that the 'SPR-class' XM-8 variant shoots a larger group at 100yds than the SPR does at 300, that's no 'small' accuracy variance...

There's not one redeeming feature I can think of with the XM-8... I'd rather spend the extra time cleaning the AR than take the flaws of the gas-piston system...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:54:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:03:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garryowen:

Do you guys know how fucked this whole deal is?



... Bro, that's why we need people like you to talk with those making these asinine decisions. Would I rather have an XM-8 over an M-16? Why yes, I'm a civilian. I'm familiar with M16s "everyone has one". But there aren't a lot of X-M8's floating around.

... I'm serious man, you pitched a stronger case in a few short sentences here than any lobby could convey to the Joints Chiefs that makes these decisions. Get busy man!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:07:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 7:08:27 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Matt77:
Why switch? Weird thing is, follow this, the xm8 is a cousin to the g36, which uses a ar-180 type system (correct me). So in a weird way, the xm8 is a offshoot of yet another stoner design!
What about the new hk m4gery?
Screw the xm8



The AR-18, remember, was the 'cheap export gun', for those who didn't want to pay for the AR-15 series...

The gas system of either is well behind the M16 in terms of accuracy & consistency...

Who cares if it takes 2-3 more minutes to do a field-cleaning? I certainly don't...

Inspection/detail clean time is irrelevant in determining which is the better weapon, since eyou don't 'white-glove clean' anything under operating conditions...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:10:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garryowen:

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:
I don't think any of us should draw conclusions on which is better until one of us has actually fired an XM-8. It does have back-up irons and I would bet that the plastic used is of better grade than anything we have seen to date. I love the M-16 and M-4 family, but until we actually get some first hand experience with the XM-8, we're out of line knocking it. I can recall people saying the M-16 was a plastic POS, they were wrong. I remember people saying tha A-10 was ugly and too slow, they were wrong. Guys everyone is entitled to his opinion, but until one of us gets a chance to shoot it, our thoughts are exactly that. Opinons.

Flame Suit ON!


Edited to fix board code.



I've shot the XM8 and I shoit thousands of rounds threw a G36...and I can say this...it's a shit box...I'll keep my CAV-16 (or M4 if you will).

Do you guys know how fucked this whole deal is? Every swinging dick in the DoD has a gun attached to them. So here is a gun that uses a different manual of arms then we have been teaching our troops for the past 20+ years, uses different magazines, has no parts in common with what’s in the logistical system now, can’t use any of the accessories (you know all the EOtech, Aimpoints, ACOG’s etc.) and will cost 4x as much as the M4’s we buy now… Oh and you can’t forget the fatass G36 mags will not work with ANY of our current gear…

Did you know the AMU guys (Army Marksmanship Unit) think it’s a dog turd too? They can build SPR’s (in 6.8mm) for less then the basic XM8 costs and mentioned that the XM8 boys declined to put their “Marksman” version up against any of there SPRs (wonder why?)… grab a XM8/G36 off the line, put it in a mechanical rest and shoot me a group at 100m…I’ll do the same with a POS ASA AR-15…bet it out shoots the XM8..

This rifel is NOT what we need...



EX-ACTLY...

And BTW, that XM8 vs SPR test WAS done...

300yd SPR groups beat 100yd 'Marksman' XM-8 groups...

Hmm...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:22:18 PM EST

OH and the Paperweight does have flip up backup irons Just like some AR-15s M-16s Thank you have a nice day.


The M16 family is BUILT around iron sights, whereas the XM8 has irons as an afterthought. The flattops do have BUIS, but flattops aren't general issue.

I don't understand how people can praise the "enhanced reliability" of the XM8 while neglecting to mention that you're likely get mud and grit all over your pretty little scope, and that the flip-up sights are a poor compromise in battle.

I don't have anything against the XM8 per se, but they seriously need to rethink the sights.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:55:29 PM EST
I don't want an XM-8 but I'd sure take a G36.

Digital
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:59:34 PM EST
they way I look at it, if it ain't broke don't fix it. BUT if the soldiers say they want more stopping power, yada yada. then move to a diff caliber. Barrel and bolt change, and maybe magazine follower/spring and wham new rifle.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:02:47 PM EST
Far more interested in what will come out of the SCAR trials. Nothing that will melt or crack, for sure.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:06:52 PM EST
Is the ARMY planning to buy these things set-up to take only G36 mags, or G36 type mags. That's what they showed on Mail Call. Talk about a major cost to replace the M-16. All the M-16 mags and most of the mag pouches and LBVs would have to go.

Semi-auto pistols work when made of polymer, but I'm not sure about an assault rifle.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:13:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Suburban:
Is the ARMY planning to buy these things set-up to take only G36 mags, or G36 type mags. That's what they showed on Mail Call. Talk about a major cost to replace the M-16. All the M-16 mags and most of the mag pouches and LBVs would have to go.

Semi-auto pistols work when made of polymer, but I'm not sure about an assault rifle.



The XM8 mag release is incompatible with AR mags...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:48:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 8:50:08 PM EST by Sharkman629]

I've shot the XM8 and I shoit thousands of rounds threw a G36...and I can say this...it's a shit box...I'll keep my CAV-16 (or M4 if you will).

Do you guys know how fucked this whole deal is? Every swinging dick in the DoD has a gun attached to them. So here is a gun that uses a different manual of arms then we have been teaching our troops for the past 20+ years, uses different magazines, has no parts in common with what’s in the logistical system now, can’t use any of the accessories (you know all the EOtech, Aimpoints, ACOG’s etc.) and will cost 4x as much as the M4’s we buy now… Oh and you can’t forget the fatass G36 mags will not work with ANY of our current gear…

Did you know the AMU guys (Army Marksmanship Unit) think it’s a dog turd too? They can build SPR’s (in 6.8mm) for less then the basic XM8 costs and mentioned that the XM8 boys declined to put their “Marksman” version up against any of there SPRs (wonder why?)… grab a XM8/G36 off the line, put it in a mechanical rest and shoot me a group at 100m…I’ll do the same with a POS ASA AR-15…bet it out shoots the XM8..

This rifel is NOT what we need...



DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ME CALLING YOU A LIAR! I do not know you or anything about you. But given this weapon's limited availability, let me ask one question. If you have shot this weapon system, can you prove it somehow? A picture will do just fine. I am not calling you a liar and don't you dare take it that way! I am just seeking a corroboration of your opinion. Again, please do not take offense. I'm sure you can understand the validity of my inquiry. Thank you.

Edited to add:
I am concerned with the XM-8 and not the G36 or G36K, they are totally different weapon systems.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top