It looks like a Johny 7 I had when I was a kid. No kidding.....it really does. There must be some old geezers here who notice the resemblance.

On a more somber note.....eventually we are going to equip our soldiers with so much hi-tech stuff that someone is going to walk up with a lo-tech AK-47 and kill them while they're fiddling with theit computer-actuated, laser-guided, modular whatchamacallit gizmo-instructed thingamajig.

Take the new modular pack system for example......I've got what in which pouch/pack'add-on individualized whatsit again? I understand the Alice pack is antiquated but..........piecesparts is better????

Sorry.....just had to rant.....lots of DOD folks just seem to fall in love with whiz kid.

"all we are saaaayyyyinnn, is give" [XM8] "a chance"  -John Lennon/Klinger04

but seriously, (on another topic) what is wrong w/bullpup?  (i have no experience w/bullpup designs, nor have I ever learned about them, so don't assume that I know anything about them; but what makes them so bad? seriously?)  from what I can reason, they're shorter overall w/your same length barrel. or you can put put on a longer barrel and keep it the same lemgth.  maybe magazine reloads suck?? what is it?? thanks

WHERE'S THE HOOD RELEASE?

Historically, it has always been difficult for military troops to accept a new weapon especially if the old weapon is still doing it's job effectively. Way back when the '03 was replaced and on up in time trough the Garand, M14, M16, etc; the troops usually had a hard time letting go of what they were familiar with, and what they used to survive combat. For the most part those changes were for the better although some may disagree with that statement. After checking out a few proposed M16 replacements, I just don't see these weapons being easily accepted by hard core infantry units like the Marines who specialize in breaking stuff that's not up to par. Maybe I'm old school but I'll take a M-16 over any of these new proposals.

I agree...I don't see the problem with bullpups....Perhaps the SA80 is just a piece of crap but there are far more reliable systems out there (i.e. styer aug, m17s)
Is the fact that they're not very ambidextrous the only thing wrong with them? Someone please enlighten me.

nothing is frim, don't go off the deep end on this.  it may or may not happen with the XM8 but a replacement for the M16 is under way and I am definitely interest in seeing what they come up with.  

Electronics, my brothers, electronics is the nam of the game these days.  I play with the landwarrior system at the show, it was truely amazong piece of kit when it finally field.  

Bullpups:

Slower to reload

Usually not ambi

Usually have crap triggers

Place your face in a bad spot if you have a case head seperation

Alright, here is what I see:

1. Purely a mock up.  My bet it is nothing more than modelling foam or abs plastic.

2. Stock, although homely, has some functional aspects, i.e. forward cheekrest (dark gray part) doesn't move, so you could get a consistent comfortable cheekweld. Maybe it can be modular to get a proper cheekweld for the individual?  

3. Upper portion of rifle, i.e. "hood" (looks like the front of a corvette!) carry handle and scope riser seem to have an awful lot of material for awful little purpose- purely for looks IMHO to make it look badass.  However, I guess that deada space in the sheel could house all sorts of electronic sensors, cameras, or even spare parts or a cleaning kit.  

4. Big carry handle!  Practically a shoulder strap!

5.  Coyote tan, wave of the future if they get the color right.

6.  No visible iron sights.  Will end up with them through development hopefully.

7.  Sights mounted awfully high IMHO.

8. 14" barrel, maybe less?  Um, can we say M4 in Afghansitan?  Maybe the barrel will go with a different twist and a much heavier bullet?

Anyone else want to add some input here?

Well, sure the reaction is a bit.. well, reactionary, but look at the situation.

After all, us blued steel/finely grained walnut AR-15 types are the traditionalists. Now they're introducing this plastic/parkerized crap. What we need is a man's gun!

Oh, and did I mention that this new crap is just a .22? Nuts, huh?

Your image server does not allow remote linking.  Let me help you out . . .

[img]http://members.cox.net/daphotoguy/gay.jpg[/img]

 The historical reluctance to change to something newer is true, but each of those changes marked significant increases in performance in each of the platforms.  The Garand is semi-auto, versus the '03s bolt.  The M14 further improves on that by a magazine fed design, and the M16 is lighter, shorter, less recoil, and uses a high-velocity small caliber round.  Each of these steps are quite large.  However, the XM8?  Small bit of improvement for a large chunk of change.  

Ghost

I dont know, I dont think it is as bad as you guys are making it out to be. As for the large carry handle, smooth lines would make it less likely to snag go webbing and clothing (I just know that my AR front sight tower has caught on my pants when slung muzzle down).

For those of you who think the XM8 looks like a variant of the G36, you're right.  It's based on the G36, which in turn is based on the AR18 (or AR-180B for semi-auto).  This system is being adopted because it's supposed to be far more reliable than the AR15.  Unlike the AR15, it doesn't throw carbon and powder into the action and is less susceptible to dust.  In short, it's a clean and more reliable design.  Also, the AR18/XM8 design doesn't need a stock, so the stock becomes optional.  This will be important later when they implement the XM29.

I don't know about the barrel length though.  It does seem short, but then again, most combat takes place at less than 200 yards anyway.

Keep in mind that is is a step towards the XM29 system.  They will take this little XM8 and put a 20mm semi-auto cannon over it (bullpup cannon) firing air burst explosives.  The XM8 is small and light so that combined with the cannon it will still be manageable.  This, in summary is why the XM8 looks like it does.

That is a sad excuse for a firearm. I like it in pink!

  DaPhotoGuy nailed it!  A gun for a kinder, gentler Army.


 EEEEEEEEEEyyyyyuck!!!  A friggin' toy.

[rolleyes]
The govt is always so slow.

[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid74/p263792d55ee003f2aeb34d8dc16728d4/fb62d0e4.jpg[/img]

I really dont think its [i]that[/i]  bad looking. Although the "XM-8" next to the ejection port needs to go.

The built-in optic looks good, i wonder if it is magnified or not. It also looks detachable.

What I'm wondering is if you can attach anything else to it. With the new night vision and infrared capabilities that should be at the top of the list.

I also wonder what the actual length of the bbl is. I've heard 10.5 in the past but wonder if that's true on this one.

Thats a good one.
Did you think that up or read your drivers license? LOL. Dont cry, I was going to say your wifes license.
GG

[LOLabove]

I'm glad people are so open minded about a rifle that's just a mock-up at this point.  

the XM-8 has a snowballs chance in hell on a forum strictly dedicated to the AR series. A lot of bias in my opinion

But that's ok cuz the US Government sure won't ask any of us before they adopt a new main battle rifle, even though we are surely paying for it!

They do make an airsoft version that uses a SPAS-12 airsoft gun and a airsoft thompson. If someone came out with a kit that would be one kick@$$ gun!

The XM8 was ACCTUALLY developed by Birdman Weapon Systems...this is their proposal for replacing the current sniper rifle
[img]http://www.birdman.org/images/jadedbig.jpg[/img]

I am curious if the guy on the far right near the muzzle, wearing the HK ID Tag, was the rep for the weapon....

Looks like a mock-up built around a G-36 action...

Dave

The XM29 will never make it.  It has a burst radius equal to its accuracy.  So you can ping a target and have the round detoante outside the lethal range of the airburst.  The airburst is not effective with a helment and flack vest either.  Its very weak.  The airburst has already malfunctioned and set off a round inside the barrel killing the user.  This thing is a giant hunk of shit.

Now on to the XM8.  Its nothing but a G36 with a different stock.  The optic is 4X and low quality.  It will use a KAC rail system.  It is only marginally cheaper, marginally more reliable and marginally lighter.  It is less accurate, has a crappier trigger, less modular and cant be free floated.  This is NOT an advancement.  This is just sliding on the scale of current technology.  Trading one thing for another with very little change in either.  Police SWAT units who have tried the G36 have selected the M4 instead as it is more ergonomic, more accurate and faster to reload.  This XM8 should not make it based on these reasons.  

If it was REAL TECHNOLOGIC ADVANCEMENT  like the AN-94 Abakan then I would be all for it.  This is in actuality a reversal of technology and a huge mistake.  Hell the Russians also have a quad stacked 60 round magazine they made for the AK74/AN94 and we have nothing similar.

Well, I can't comment on the 5.56mm version, but the 7.62mm variant is pretty good at dispatching Grunts. Putting down Jackals & Elites requires about 2 full (60 rd) mags to put down, unless you first hit 'em w/ an initial over-charge blast from a Covenant plasma pistol to disrupt their shields, then switch back & kill 'em w/ only ~30 rds. Hunters are impervious unless hit from behind, & even then a few buttstrikes will do.

YMMV.

Why waste money on developing a XM8 when the HK G36 & G36C exist? Is the XM8 better than the HK G36 & G36C?

The XM8 is a G36 with KAC RAS telescoping stock and accepts M16 mags.  Thats the only difference.  Its not really any development.  The guts are AR180 as has already been stated.  Its old technology, nothing new to develop.

GEE, I wonder why??? This thread is a crack-up!

I would like to hear the credentials of those bashing this projected rifle. What qualifies you to judge weapons design? The fact that you may own a AR-15? Whats your expertise in this field or your occupation? Waiter, burger flipper, Retail store clerk?

LOL

Looks like (br)asspile got himself a military contract [<]:)]

Jeez...cant they get the optics any higher? I mean come on!

SorryOciffer

the pic looks like it was taken at the Benning infantry conference. lots of good things to see.

It was actually taken at the Marine Corps expo in Quantico according to SMGLee.

To keep this still an AR15 topic here is another picture from SMGLee taken from the same place at the HK booth.

Enjoy. Great Pics SMGLee
[img]http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/MDM/AG36.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/MDM/G36k1.jpg[/img]

i firmly believe we have to shed this desire to have a weapon designed to kill serve a cosmetic perpose as well... i don't care if the army gives me the nastiest weapon possible... if it works and kills that the one i will use...

The major problem is they tried to make it look artsy fartsy.

And in doing so it looks like crap.

If it looked ugly for a reason I wouldn't have a problem with it.

At least the G36 gas a removable carry handle and handguard for adding mods.

This has nothing but a neat racing stripe.

This has nothing to do with looks.  Given a blank slate the M4 is better than the G36.  The XM8 is inferior.  10 MOA accurate.  No ability to swap stocks or grips.  No free floating barrel.  Poor ergonomics.  Fragile plastic body (SL8s develop cracks in the stock area) the list goes on and on.  Its a bit more reliable in the sand though... [rolleyes]

Does that pink XM8 have a built in Tampax dispenser?  Hmm... more women in combat.

[LOLabove]

ok....  2 things

1) how much does it weigh?  The way I see it is is not a radical departure from anythign we have already.  If it is gonna have the same range, same ammo, and even use the same magazines...  THEN IT ISN"T A NEW WEAPON!!  basially be the same fookin' rifle with the same charateristics but we're gonna spend a bnch of $$ on it...  well, it better save joe some sore muscles!  or do somethign different!

and 2)...  WHO IS THE FUCK-WAD IN THE PENTAGON WHO KEEPS PUTTING A "CARRYING HANDLE" on all the damn guns?  It will take them until 2029 to make a flat top version and get the damn sights down to the level of the bore axis....  

looks cute in pink.  maybe Cav Arms is already tooling up.

Actually, I was going to put that type of dispenser in the picture, but since I am new to the board, I thought it might offend.

Gonna have to agree with GackMan on this.   That has got to be the ugliest rifle I've ever seen!!!   Sure it has some characteristics of the HKG36 but honestly I'd much rather have the G36 than that piece of crap GI JOE toy rifle!   this is a serious waste of our military budget.   [>:/]

when it is all done...  they'll come to this:  

[img]http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/MDM/G36k2.jpg[/img]

the asnwer is right there in front of them.

This can no where near be compared to the M16 v. M14 debate that took place when the M16 was adopted.  The M16 [b]was[/b] a technological advancement over the M14.  Whats the big advantage the XM8 has over the M16/M4 family?  Its firing the same cartridge, when its already been established that theres a perceived need for improvements in that aspect.  The whole reliability issue is debatable at best.  Im not  going to be the first bone head to claim that the XM8 OR the G36 is a more reliable design considering neither has the track record of the M16.  If the M16/M4 rifle was still unreliable, you wouldnt have the British and Australian SAS adopting over thier own nation's service rifles.  

I can hear Sarah Brady already:

(quote)It is a designer gun.  It will be the weapon of choice for those involved in the trafficing of "Designer Drugs". (End quote)

I would almost be willing to let the libs have this one.  Luckily, for whoever Spilt the Hoppes #9 on their copy of YM MAGAZINE and invented this in their hyped up trance afterward, I don't compromise.

As far as the qualities that could allow it's adoption I think the following may have the higher-ups' attention:

It can be mass produced and the factories will have minimal noise pollution.  A couple grunts followed by a meaty "Plop" and another gets added to the rack.

It probably doesn't "kick" cause it sucks.

It's soooo cute!

But on a serious note, it would be really hard hitting the enemy as they roll around laughing their heads off and pointing at what Troy poperly calls the

Sly

The shape of the xm-8 is necessary so the designers arse didn't slap shut after shieting that turd.  
Sorry I just can't quite get past the looks of that thing functional or not.  I dont care for the P90 either but there you are that thing looks like a French curve with a barrel sticking out of it.  I'll have to show my kids and see if it sparks their interest.  Actually i like the other HK's alot, looks wise.  I doubt I'll ever have occasion to rely on that weapon for my life.  But I hope it works out for anyone who does.

"My first assault rifle"
I found that phrase above pretty Fin funny.
Posted on the TEAMXBOX forums.

The AR weapons system's greatest feature is its great controls and fast reloads. The G36/xm8 really have very poor controls and would be a great step backwards.

If it had the same controls as the AR it may be worth a look but basically reloading would take much longer than the AR.

also did anyone notice a metal lever just below the trigger guard and parallel to it? No not the mag release lever but the one behind it, maybe it is a secondary safety.

Gee, that xm-8 looks friendly to me.

Since this POS really doesn't do anything the M16 does remarkably better I'm glad the concensus here seems to be against it. It is basically an HK over engineered AR-18 housed in a space age looking polymer skin. That's not cutting edge in my book. The AR-18 suffered from numerous problems throughout it's history. I guess this is just the latest interation of it.

For those out there who think this is going to be the ultimate do-all weapon system of the future please bear the following in mind. I posted this a few days ago in another M16 gone by such and such a date thread. It's applicable to this discussion so I'll repeat it hear.

If you were to take everything that Govt' contractors put in their sales literature plus what the Govt' high-speed techno types put in their power point presentations as gospel, then we would have been carrying a G-36, XM-8 or whatever else for the last 3-5 years already.

Just because it's in R&D or being shown at some arms show, or even being field tested for that matter doesn't necessarily make it so. Take all this stuff with a grain of salt Guys. Not that I'm anti-techology or hiding my head in the sand mind you. But, there is a big difference between prototypes and what is finally put into production. How many versions of this HK abortion have we seen in the last few years that have been touted as the M-16's replacement ..........Puh-Leeze.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Do you honestly think that the Army and Marine Corps would be buying brand new M-16A4's to use as interim weapons for what,........ 4 whole freaking years when they could continue to get by with M-16A2's for that time period. Hell, even the National Guard, as tight as they are with a dollar have started to field the A4 to Infantry units.

By taking the benifits of the modular concept as originally applied to the M-4 with the SOPMOD package, along with all the highspeed gadets that heretofor were only available to the Spec Ops types and applying it to the Infantry rifle. I.E., a flat top upper and available rail system to mount conventional optics, dot sights, night vision, lasers, IR, etc, etc. They have now given the average grunt a weapon system that can be tailored for specific mission needs to improve their combat effectivness. That tells me that the powers that be have decided to spend their ever decreasing defense dollars on the next evolution of the M-16 series.

Oh, and to answer AKM's question regarding everyone's "credentials" here's mine for what it's worth.

Am I an engineer, weapons designer or directly involved in manufacturing or procurement..... NO. But, my opinions are based off of close to 20 years of inspecting, repairing, firing and carrying the small arms and other weapons systems in use by our military within that time frame, so here's a brief Bio:
1. 4 years active Marine Corps 2111(Small Arms Repairman) working in the Direct and General Support repair shop from Camp LeJuene and abroad.
2. 14 years in Army Reserves starting as a 45B (Small Arms Repairman). Currently a CW3 913A (Armament Repair Technician)Warrant Officer, with time spent overseas on real world deployments.
3. 14 years as a full-time civilian military technician, Direct Support Level Small Arms Repairman concurrently with #2 above.
4. In my time off I work part time for a CLS II manufacturer in my area and have had the opportunity to repair, refinish, rebuild or manufacture most of the small arms either previously or presently in use by the U.S. and most of the foreign stuff to boot.

Basically, I work on this stuff everyday and have seen what does and doesn't work in the field, regardless of how great some engineer says it is..... M85 anyone? And there are numerous members of this board that are more learned or have better "credentials" than myself.

Sorry for the long winded post(Soap Box mode off).    

WpnsMan