Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/5/2003 7:41:21 PM EDT
From the latest ARMY TIMES.

I neither care for or against the XM8, I started this by just wanting to share the latest I had.

For what its worth

Link Posted: 11/5/2003 7:58:42 PM EDT
Hmmmm...
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 8:26:44 PM EDT
OK, I know this a concept prototype and all, but what's with the colors? First light gray plastic now mustard yellow? They need to fire their marketing anlyst and hire an ex-soldier.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 8:34:27 PM EDT
Maybe it is so people can come by and collect them easier after every one throws them away.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 8:46:48 PM EDT
Waste of (my) taxpayer's money. I hope it dies a quick painful death. I wonder whos palm is being greased on capital hill? ls
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 9:07:59 PM EDT
Considering the reported problems & breakages of the plastic G36 (upon which this proto is based), I wouldn't hold my breath. IMO, H&K is pushing ahead of what current materials can reliably deliver. Maybe in a few years, plastics will be able to deliver on the stronger, lighter, & cheaper theme. That flimsy buttstock doesn't look like it'd take a drop or fall. Irons are the most reliable sight system, & a weapon w/o them is a liability. I bet SF's would demand irons, assuming they even adopt it. The gas system is definitely a move in the right direction.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 9:57:32 PM EDT
All that and they still use a stupid AK-47 type of mag release...stupid europeans.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:08:20 PM EDT
Ive got a better idea
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:12:26 PM EDT
Why, indeed you do....and a very, very good idea, too!
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:22:50 PM EDT
Can't they just make the M4 design and substitute the xm8's mechanical rod ejection system? The gas less system seems to be the only upgrade over the M4. When I look at the xm8 it doesn't seem too modualar either. It doesn't look like you can change the handguard, pistol grip or optics. Iv'e also checked out one in the store and it was heavy at 8.5lbs and didn't feel like it was properly balanced. If they are going to come out with a whole new rifle that is supposed to be the latest and greatest why use the xm8 with such limited advantages if any.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:30:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/5/2003 11:29:30 PM EDT by wyv3rn]
Originally Posted By whywork40: Iv'e also checked out one in the store and it was heavy at 8.5lbs and didn't feel like it was properly balanced.
View Quote
Whoa, what have you been smoking and where can I get some? I want to go to magic XM8 fairy land and play too.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:52:43 PM EDT
It's A G36 in A new box. Can't wait till they really test it at aberdeen ant the damn thing melts.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 4:26:37 AM EDT
I think the advantages of the XM8 over the M4 are small- Too small to justify the cost of replacing all the M4s out there BUT...since the government continues to purchase M4s at a rate of approx. 1,000 per month, why not consider making those new purchases XM8s instead of the M4? As long as you fielded units with everyone using the same weapon, compatability/interchangability wouldn't be a problem
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 7:32:56 AM EDT
I wouldn't hold my breath. How many M16 "replacements" have we heard about over the past 20 years? Every one went down the tubes.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 10:12:38 AM EDT
This one-caliber-does-all bullschit just does NOT work and I don't care what 'wrapper' it comes in. 5sub
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 10:21:12 AM EDT
Where does the 6.8x43mm SPC rifle fit into all this? Isn't the 6.8mm designed to be a more lethal alternative to the 5.56mm, while saving money by allowing present M4/M16 variants to be retrofitted?
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 10:26:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/6/2003 10:27:10 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By CJan_NH: Where does the 6.8x43mm SPC rifle fit into all this? Isn't the 6.8mm designed to be a more lethal alternative to the 5.56mm, while saving money by allowing present M4/M16 variants to be retrofitted?
View Quote
CJ, I don't believe the 6.8 will happen but that's just my opinion. We already have a caliber for those who need longer range - namely the .308. Also, there's some concern about using the 6.8 on frames designed for the 5.56. How will these frames hold up under the added stress - long term ?? Edited to add: I don't believe the 6.8mm will happen in 'quantity'.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 11:13:04 AM EDT
All I see is a different stock. How does the XM8 differ from a G36?
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 11:47:24 AM EDT
Ugh, this thread has some terrible information. Observers, I'd ignore it if I were you. There is much more credible information and opinions, backed up by fact in the other XM8 and 6.8x43mm threads, just do a little searching/browsing. Sorry posters, this is not meant to be an offense on you, I just feel compelled/obligated to not allow other unsuspecting readers minds to be sabotaged.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 3:14:20 PM EDT
This thread kinda remindes me of the SAWSALES thread that kept showing up. Can you say: I n s e c u r i t y. LOL
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 4:45:35 PM EDT
Food for thought. The US military have spent 5,000 times the amount of money for devices such NV, thurmal, lasers, etc. etc. etc. than they have spent on M16/M4, and they won't fit this abortion no. 8! Does anyone want to bet that all that equipment that mostly can't even be altered to be used used on the XM8 is going to be dithched because of the XM8?? There is no place to attach anything that we currently field, and that has already cost the tax payers billons of dollars. Those officers prob. came out of the motor pool, artillery or space. The entire thing is a bad joke and terrible waste of money, plus being sent out of the country to rub salt into the taxpayers wounds. Jack
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 6:00:14 AM EDT
God....That thing is horrid. It looks like an 8 year old drew it. And that Kill-me-please yellow color is just faboo. Hey army. Send ME 30 of em. I guaran-dang-tee ya that me and a few buddies can find out how good a weapon it is. Send 30 of em to Blackwater for students to use. They will beat them even harder than I could. This thing has been a CF from the getgo. First it was the OICW, then that didn't work, so now lets make a new rifle so it looks like we haven't wasted a bunch of time and money. Beautiful. I really hope it is reliable and an improvement. But just from looking at the thing you can just tell that its going to suck.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 6:32:52 AM EDT
Most of my feelings have already been addressed about this subject. But I will add. ?A [b]12.5 inch barrel[/b] for the standard model??[V]
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 7:38:36 AM EDT
Exactly. As if the 5.56 did not have enough shortcomings, we need to further limit it's range and accuracy by hacking off another 2 inches of barrel length. Not smart in my opinion.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 8:46:43 AM EDT
I wonder if the internet were available in the 1950s if this thread would have been about the M16. Or in the 1980s about the Beretta M9. Or in the 1930s about a non-bolt rifle. Or in the 1890s about the Krag. Or in the 1860s about the Henry, or 1870s about smokeless powder. Or 40 years from now what will our kids and grandkids be saying about the M2040 NONLETHAL Shoulder Fired Air Cooled Solar Powered Environment Friendly Sonar Tracked Five Round Pulse Cannon.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 10:36:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2003 10:39:28 AM EDT by Ridge]
Originally Posted By bcw107: Or 40 years from now what will our kids and grandkids be saying about the M2040 NONLETHAL Shoulder Fired Air Cooled Solar Powered Environment Friendly Sonar Tracked Five Round Pulse Cannon.
View Quote
If this is the direction it's going than I'm really going to be [pissed]! This has been covered previously, but the reason these discussions are different than the ones previously mentioned is that the XM8 does not present any [b]substantial improvements[/b] over the M16 to justify the cost. The only improvement I see might be the op rod system, but will this sacrifice accuracy. AND the M16 could probably be modified with a similar system at a much lower cost and all of the m16 accessories could still be used. Prove to me that the XM8 is a substantial improvement over the M16 and I will embrace it with open arms. I'm not a traditionalist and have no problem with technology if it really is an improvement. Edited to add: [b]A 12.5 inch barrel as standard issue![stick][/b]
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 1:30:03 PM EDT
I don't know what to think of HK these days. They built up their reputation with the MP5, G3, PSG1, MK23, and USP. But lately, everythign I see coming out from them I would be afraid to use in combat (aka PDW, UMP, G36C). And now the XM8. This prototype has no modularity for trijicons, night vision scopes, or leupolds. Is this a joke? And then it will have 300 fps less than the M16, causing it to fragment only at about 50 yards, as opposed to about 150 yards! Wasn't there enough complaining about the M16's range already? And now that they have the 6.8x43mm, proven superior to the 5.56x45mm for combat purposes, you would think that any replacement would incorporate this round...especially if it's going to be shortening the barrel, making a larger caliber more important. This thing doesn't even use the roller locking system that HK is famous for. We're not as 3rd world country, we are THE superpower, and we ought to be outfitting our troops with the best technology available, not trying to save a few hundred bucks on their rifle.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 4:04:03 PM EDT
As I stated earlier, separate from the question of the need for XM8 and the politics driving the program, the XM8 prototypes are functioning very well—they are accurately shooting thousands of rounds without malfunctions; ergonomics are coming along and are nearly comparable to an M4 at this point. The basic AR18/G36 internals used in the XM8 run very well—clean and reliable. HK has a good team working on the XM8, although, as I have mentioned before, XM8 needs some further improvements: -- Ditch the useless carrying handle. -- Abandon the PCAPS accessory interface and stick with the standard 1913 interface. While the ITI integrated optic is shaping up to be a good system, I believe going with the PCAPS mounting system is a mistake. The standard 1913 rail interface is a proven system that is working very well; if PCAPS is used on the XM8, 1913 adaptor rails will still be needed in order to use the billions of dollars worth of optics and accessories that tax-payers have already purchased and that are available to many units. It is far more cost-effective to use the more versatile standard 1913 interface for a flat-top full-length 12 o’clock rail and for accessory rails at 3, 6, and 9 o’clock -- this will allow the ITI integrated optic to be easily removed/replaced by users that want different options. -- The XM8 needs to have a flip-up front and rear BUIS; the proposed etched reticle is not an acceptable back-up sight system. -- XM8 needs to stay with the M4/M16 style selector instead of the less ergonomic HK type. -- The XM8 charging handle and plastic furniture needs to more durable than on the G36. -- The suppressors for the XM8 need to be integrated into the design from the beginning, rather than trying to add them on later. -- A 12.5” barrel and M855 is not a wise combination. On the other hand, XM8 is an ideal platform for the 6.8 mm. The XM8 is turning out to be a good shooting carbine, most of the problem areas of the XM8 are NOT the fault of HK, but stem from bad decisions by the XM8 project leadership and managers at the Infantry Center, Aberdeen, and Picatinny.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 6:14:38 PM EDT
Excuse me on this one DOC, but THE XM8 is a dead man walking!!! Jack
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 6:40:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2003 6:44:11 PM EDT by SuperChicken]
What makes the G36 so much better than the AR18 system? Hell, why didn't they just sit down with some engineerings and come up with some gas piston uppers for the AR?
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 7:23:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2003 7:30:34 PM EDT by AKM]
DocGKR, I could not agree with you more (Except the Mag release also needs to be relocated to the same position as the AR15/M16). You wouldn’t happen to be an actual Engineer would you? What cracks me up the most about these threads, is if you time lined this to the early 1960's and it was the M16 possibly replacing the M14, the response would be almost exactly the same word for word! Aren’t you boys happy the Tech Branch didn’t listen to the arm chair experts/(Internet experts of today) back then??? LOL I'm sure the XM8 (or what ever it's called in the end) will have the same growing pains the AR15/M16 did in it's time, but that’s to be expected!
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 7:47:09 PM EDT
The BIG differance between the M16 and the XM8 in why it is being pushed. The enemy at the time had AK 47's and the M14 was a heavy 1936 roots (GARAND) semi only wood stock weapon. The M14 did not hold up in Nam type climate at all, except for sniper work with al the TLC that snipers gave them. The AK is an assalt weapon, and a rifle is nmot as fast as an assault weapon, espec. in the close in confines of a jungle war. What is pushing the XM8 is carriers who signed onto a program and that has a lot of bid bucks already waste, and m,ore to come to try and salvage a no go from the start, prev. called the OICW. Oink oink as called by end uses and some other less flatering names. The color of anything means nothing, a paint job fixes that. The ergonomic's and human engineering factors are terrible compaired to the M16/M4, don't let anyone BS about this XM8 abortion with corprate propaganda money! Jack's
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 12:33:00 AM EDT
3rdtk, Please don’t misunderstand me--as my first sentence attempted to clarify, my comments on the XM8 performance are entirely separate from the abhorrent politics driving the XM8 and even more odious XM29 programs. Does the U.S. need a new 12.5” barrel 5.56 mm carbine to replace our current M4/M16’s? NO!!!! XM8 does not offer a quantum leap forward over the M4/M16, especially in light of new enhancements available for the M4 that allow it to run every bit as reliably as the XM8 or G36. Rather than selfishly push forward with the XM8, the upgraded M4 option needs to be seriously investigated, as it is likely to prove more cost effective then XM8, yet offer just as good performance. Likewise, if the US is going to go after improved carbines, the substantially superior combat performance of 6.8 mm compared to 5.56 mm cannot be disregarded. As you stated, OICW and its offspring are all about ego, pork, and career enhancement, and sadly not necessarily about providing the soldier with the best weapon available. Nonetheless, I have been pleasantly surprised that the XM8’s are shooting much better than I expected—arm chair critics might not be aware of this fact and would perhaps want to factor this information into their thoughts prior to voicing inaccurate blanket condemnations of the XM8’s performance.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 3:09:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2003 3:10:35 AM EDT by LocknLoaded]
[b]This thing doesn't even use the roller locking system that HK is famous for. We're not as 3rd world country, we are THE superpower, and we ought to be outfitting our troops with the best technology available, not trying to save a few hundred bucks on their rifle.[/b] Don't you guys have a clue the terroist had taken over. they conned us into dumping the m16 and sell us the XM8 so we can be taken over easy. how can we fight back? there smarter than we think.
Top Top