Another thing that bothers be is that they haven't taken full advantage of the gas piston design.

One big advantage to that gas system is that the stock does not need to be in-line with the barrel. This allows one to mount optics closer to the barrel for a better line-of-sight and compactness. But for some reason they have that goofy sight sitting 4-5 inches above the barrel ON TOP of the carry handle [pissed].

In the 19the century the Army adopted the Krag, in the 20th century it adopted the M14, in the 21st century it adopted ...

Some things never change.

Hey!!!! I think I've still got one of those in my Attic from when I was a 8 or 9 :)

[img]http://freesites.pshift.net/~vtdefender/images/starlytepro.gif[/img]

[shock]

[
Peter Simon, VP
Heckler & Koch
21480 Pacific Blvd.
Sterling, VA  20166-8903

Subject: HK's large civilian market in the US


Dear Mr. Simon:

I have recently learned that Heckler & Koch are building a new factory in the United States.  Congratulations.  I wanted to take this opportunity to thank your corporation for the way you have in the past supported the legitimate civilian market in the US.  HK has had a history of providing fine shooting tools to Americans, even when it seemed that some desired it not to be so.  For example, Heckler & Koch introduced the SL8-1 and USC rifles, even though it seemed likely that their importation would be quickly banned.  Further, I want to stress that HK may have one of the most impressive followings of all major manufacturers of small arms.  Witness not only the number of sites on the Internet dedicated to fine Heckler & Koch firearms, but the number of replica and built-from-parts guns on the market.  Original HK firearms like the HK9x series command premium prices.

With the building of this new plant in the United States, I trust that import restrictions will not be so much of a wall to Heckler & Koch.  I strongly encourage you to consider once again making your fine rifles—legendary for their construction and reliability, as well as their aesthetics—available on the American market.  On a more personal note, the HK94 is in my opinion one of the finest 9mm rifles ever made.  As I was too young to purchase one when they were being manufactured and imported, I look forward very much to that day that I can buy a domestically produced HK94 of my own.

With best regards,



James Blachly[/quote]

Your reply would probably be something like this,
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your supporting letter regarding HK products. While it has long been HK's intent to bring the best designed firearms known to man to the U.S. for the civilian market, your government does not allow the import of our firearms due to the AWB of 1994. As you're probably aware, your government doesn't want you to have our weapons, so as to keep crime obsolete in your country. How's that been going anyway? Furthermore, we have no interest in manufacturing any HK firearms in your country, since it wouldn't be in our financial best interest. We at HK, will just continue to make the finest firearms we can, and sell them to law enforcement and military only. If you'd like a fake copy, try the guy in Arizona that manufactures semi-working rifles. We hope this properly addresses your inquiry,
Sincerely,
HK

If the XM-8 ever makes it to Perry, I will personally burn the thing at the stake.

I notice the maintained the 1/7 twist.

Why wouldnt they?  Its needed to stabilize the very long tracer round currently used.

It's also [i]slightly[/i] more accurate with M855 than 1/9.

Source [i]The Black Rifle[/i]

I posted this on hkpro and was asked to post it here too.


Looks dont make a weapon. The G3 looked pretty space-age when it was first built in the 50's. So did guns like the mg42 and even the 1911 was, at one point, a futuristic looking weapon compared to past designs. The steyr aug looks like nothing else before it. The F2000, p90, and even the g36 all have a more modernized and sleek look to them than past guns. Looks are just the outer shell of a weapon, and they reflect the styling of things from the time period they are created in.

The internals of the xm8 are obviously not far from those found in the g36. Just looking at the gun you can easily see how its pretty much just a g36 with a new outer body.

The dual optics on the g36 leave something to be desired, especially the reddot sight, and the xm8's optic is an improvement from what i've seen and heard about its capabilities. I am sure they will incorporate backup iron sights into the design, as even the g36 has a set of extremely crude sights molded into the carryhandle for emergencies. Chances are very high the designers of the xm8 will look at this feature on the g36 and improve it, possibly adding flipup iron sights like those so commonly found on the ar15 family.

The magazine of the gun is a better design. I dont care what you say, ar15 magazines are horrible. The only mags I can think of that are worse are mini14 mags. Ar mags are useless and underengineered to the point of being fragile. Theyre designed to be disposable, and modern tactics often require they be reused after a fight. This is why we have dump pouches and magpuls, designed to aid in quick reloads while retaining spent mags. The ar15 mags are not up to this task. People that use them at the range do not abuse them like the military does, and even then it is not uncommon to find a group of mags that for some reason just wont work in a specific rifle. The only reason we accept them is we know of nothing better. They are common on the civilian market and most people have alot of them. They dont cost much compared to more expensive and rarer steyr aug or sg550 mags, so we dont see alot of guns that use these mags. The ones that do cost alot of money, so the cost is more justifiable. I think alot of people badmouthing the g36 mag switch have either never even seen or held one in real life, or are too reluctant to give up their cheap, thin-walled, easily-crackable "i have to get higher powered springs and new followers just to make them work halfway decent" ar15 mags. Anyone who has held both ar15 mags and g36 mags cannot argue the superior construction of the g36 mags. They may be wider, so what? The germans switched to new pouches for their g36 mags, replacing their old g3 ones, we can do the same thing. It'll cost a bit, but we will have a decent mag for once. The g36 mag isnt much wider than an ar15 mag if you remove the connector tabs. The tabs are a nice idea, copied from the sg550 mags, but they do lose their ability to hold after you connect and unconnect them over and over for awhile. The added weight of a second mag also makes them less practical for combat, along with the extra mag being exposed to dirt and debris of the environment and not being inside the mag pouch on the users vest where it is covered up. Its not really a needed feature, and I dont see many german soldiers in afghanistan clipping their mags together either. Most seem to be using just one, even the ksk guys. I see this as a more useful feature for a swat team than I do a soldier in the army. Although even then the added firepower is rarely ever needed as usually very few rounds are fired during a raid. By the way, someone quoted earlier that switching mags would generate a problem with nato using them. what nato countries currently use the ar15 mags? Germany uses g36 mags, im sure theyd like to see us switch and make their mags more common. Spain uses them too. Norway uses mostly g3 mags, with a few g36's and m4's in special areas. France uses the famas, which uses its own mags. The uk does use ar15 mags in the sa80, but they use their own proprietary ones which were rebuilt by hk. They dont use the standard nato stanag design. Sweden uses the ak5, which also uses a modified variant of the mag, not standard. The only countries I can really think of that use nato stanag mags in their issue rifles are Denmark in their c7's and Israel in their m16a2's and m4's. Im sure Israel wouldnt mind us dumping our surplus mags off on them, and Denmark can have some too. So where are all these countries that are going to be completely pissed off about us switching to the g36 mags? It seems more of the bigger countries would favor it as they already use the g36. The ones with specops groups that use ar style weapons can give those troops anything they want, so if they want to keep their m4's its not a problem.

The bolt release is identical to a g36, with the addition of an extended lever on the hold button which can be pushed down to release the bolt. The index finger of the firer's shooting hand can manipulate this button as it is just forward of the trigger. This means not only can a user release the bolt with just the firing hand, he cannot press the trigger accidently aswell as he must use the trigger finger to release the bolt. It also means the release is ambidextrous, unlike the ar15 family (without upgrading to a aftermarket ambidextrous bolt release that is still slower to operate than the xm8's).

The mag release is like a g36 with a nice addition. Yes, the g36 does use an ak style mag release. Yes, this is an old design for retaining mags. Yes, the ar15 style of having a button on the side is a newer design. Newer does not mean better. You cannot argue that ak mags are not securely locked in place when seated. On the g36 you do not have to rock the mag in from the front to the back, so it does not require that awkward motion to swap mags. Its a straight in-out motion like the ar15. The mags DO NOT wobble. They are held in tight and secure, with a positive "click" when the mag is seated. There is no questioning weither a mag is fully seated or not, and an additional slap and tug of the mag are not required to make sure if the mag is seated, unlike the ar15 family. The mags also drop free when the release is pressed, as the ar15 family does. The best thing about the xm8 mag release, which is a vast improvement over the g36 release is the addition of an extended lever which allows the release to be manipulated by the trigger finger on either side of the trigger guard. This means you can release the mag with your trigger finger as you can on the ar15 family. The release requires a downward motion, so it is less likely to be accidently pressed during a stressful situation as can occasionally happen on the ar15 family (the trigger finger sits extremely close to the release when the finger is off the trigger, unlike the xm8). Anyone who has seen the redstar arms extended mag releases for ak's knows how this works. Its a simple design that is completely ambidextrous and is proven to work.

The mag and bolt release designs basically mean you can perform every single function of the weapon aside from loading a new magazine into the magwell using the firing hand alone. And it doesnt matter if your right or left handed! This will simplify training, give southpaws the ability to reload quickly as right handed people can, and the only thing required of the supporting hand is to insert a new mag into the gun (or also to pull the existing one out if it is to be retained) and to perform the initial charging of the bolt handle (which is also completely ambidextrous, unlike the ar15). This also means that when switching shoulders to fire the weapon all the controls are in the same easy to reach location as a soldier is used to.

As for the barrel length, first of all, hk is making a 20" barreled version. You can see pictures of it here: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm (second pic, third gun down). The gun shown with the shorter barrel is the CARBINE LENGTH VERSION. It is the equivalent of the G36K or M4. it is NOT the standard rifle version. There WILL be a 20" barrel version. There is also an even longer version designed for sharpshooter variants, so the barrel length issue is not a concern. Now close your eyes, take a deep breath and repeat "the barrel length is not an issue" over and over out loud about 10-20 times. Now open your eyes. Much better. The new 77gr rounds work fine out of shorter barreled rifles anyways, and are most likely going to eventually replace the current rounds being used. So even the carbine length versions are not much of a problem. Best thing of all is, without that direct impingement gas system, the xm8 can actually function reliably with a shorter barrel, without having to add a bunch of aftermarket stuff and tweaking the gun to get it to perform. I know this "short barreled rifle working reliably" stuff is really going to be hard for the ar15 guys to accept, but theyll just have to keep an open mind to the idea. The xm8 also has a 1 in 7 barrel twist, which will work perfectly with the 62gr and the newer 75 and 77 gr rounds, so its already setup for the current ammo and the newer stuff thats just around the corner.

I dont see why people fail to see how much of an improvement the xm8 is over the m16a2. its lighter, it doesnt require a ris to mount accessories, its already setup for it from the start. Just bolt the rails where you need them. The buttstock gives a better cheek weld than the sloppy m4 stock. The optics, while new, seem to have alot of improvements over the g36 dual optic setup, and will most likely have backup iron sights built in, to satisfy those "what if" situations. The mags do not rust. They do not crack when dropped. They allow the user to see how many rounds are in a mag quickly and easily. They seat solidly in the rifle, and do not wobble around like ar15 mags. The follower works fine, it doesnt wobble. The quick attach points could be done away with, ill admit that, but thats a minor thing. The mag also drops free when the release is activated, like an ar15 mag. The mag release can be operated by the firing hand, by the trigger finger, and is completely ambidextrous, requiring no additional training for lefties, unlike the m16 family. The bolt release is also ambidextrous, activated by the trigger finger, and requires no additional training. The charging handle does not require a user to unshoulder the weapon to manipulate. He can retain his sight picture and cheekweld as he chambers a round, unlike the m16 family. The barrel is free-floating, like a g36, and unlike the m16 family. It has a 1 in 7 twist like current m4's, which will accomodate the newer rounds. It is available with a 20" barrel, and the gas system allows the gun to retain its reliability with shorter barrel lengths, unlike the m16. Sure it looks sleek and modern, but get over it. Not every gun can look like an m16 or ak47. We have to come up with new designs, and new usually means more modern and futuristic. It is less likely to snag on branches and trees, and even with rails and accessories attached will still remain much easier for a soldier to manage than the average tricked out robo-m4. Its easier to train soldiers with due to it being completely ambidextrous, does not get nearly as dirty as an m16, resulting in far fewer malfunctions and being less sensitive to infrequent cleaning. Its accurate, easy to control on full auto, more ergonomic than what we currently have, and is built with customizeability in mind for the high speed guys.


Whats not to like?

The views seem to have more to do with playground mentality (you know, my dad can beat up your dad, my bike’s better then your bike) then they do with logic and/or wanting to progress.

I don't get this whole thread.  No matter how many times it's rehashed, and the arguments go back and forth, and the snow piles deep, and the pontifications abound, I still scratch my head in wonderment.

[size=5][b]YOU AND I, JOE AVERAGE CITIZEN, [u]WILL NEVER, NEVER, EVER IN A MILLION YEARS[/u] BE ABLE TO LEGALLY OWN A XM-8, OR WHATEVER THE PENTAGON CHOOSES FOR THE NEXT INFANTRY RIFLE.

THE AR-15 IS THE LAST MILITARY RIFLE EVER DESIGNED THAT YOU & I CAN OWN AS A CIVIE.

TAKE ONE LAST LOOK AT THE XM-8, AND WIPE THE DROOL (OR WHATEVER) OFF YOUR SCREEN AND KEYBOARD.

GET OVER IT.[/b][/size=5]

sneh, mine's better

THANK YOU CARBINE_MAN!

Truth spoken in big black letters.

fine...   they want a new rifle that is ok w/ me.  

BUT CAN THEY PLEASE GET RID OF THAT FUCKING DORKY NIKE CARRY HANDLE AND JUST STICK A RAIL ON THERE????  

I've read that they are also working on an updated 5.56mm round for this weapon that uses a polymer case instead of conventional brass, at least partly (leave the casehead brass, the rest polymer like a shotgun shell?).  It should reduce ammo weight, but how can a polymer casing contain the high pressure of the 5.56mm round?

Maybe with a new stateside H&K factory, the price of Mark 23's will come down.  I'd sure like to own one of those bad boys without having to shell out $1700!

Come on guys stop posting... Carbine man said to get over it! [rolleyes]  Geez, we can dream (or in this case nightmare) about it can't we. [>(].

Don't worry I'm sure soon(available in the inevitable 3-4 weeks) we'll be able to get a Speshul Weppons XM8 that's just as good as the real thing [BD]

Well on the front rail of course, with the flashlight, laser, coffee maker, bipod and searchlight.

... Not necessarily, someday I may pick one up off a dead enemy of the US Constitution

Yeah, it's great until you need a bayonete. Way to put a third world mag release on the new space gun of the future. That should make mag changes nice and challenging. The short barrel should pretty much take any chance of the .223 round from fragmenting away. This gun sucks except for the new gas system. I'd rather have an AR15. Hopefully we can buy G36 rifles soon.

Guess you haven't been paying attention to the discussion at all. There will be multiple barrel lengths available, including 20" and above. Do your research before bashing.

sorry, i know this is a little off topic, but while we are talking about m-16 replacements; what happened to the OIC?  i thought that was supposed to be a new prototype infantry rifle, or is it just for socom?  and also, does anyone know who is manufacturing the OIC?
I saw a thing about it on the history channel and it was talking about the "smart" bullet system that it uses...i thought that was pretty damn impressive.  

Hey, it'll ease the banter for a bit.

As far as I know, HK is the primary manufacturer of the OIC.  The XM8 is actually the same thing with the 20mm grenade launcher removed; as you probably learned from the show, the OIC is designed to be seperated into smaller, still functioning units.

Here's a current read on what's going on:
http://usmcweapons.com/articles/OICW/OICWNF.html

Colt's back in American hands, has been for awhile now.

Someone said it best when they said that you guys sound like everyone who bashed the M-16 when it first came out, looking like a toy gun...Who cares what it looks like?  If it kills the enemy and is easy for the soldier to learn and use, thats what it is supposed to do.  I doubt we will ever see a civie version anyway.  Some of you AR guys are brain washed into thinking you have this uber rifle that is perfect in every way.  
    Well....I have an SAR-1 (Romanian AKM for those not of the dark side).  My mags are cheaper.  My ammo is cheaper.  My ammo is MUCH more lethal. I can hit you at 300 yds with it.  I never clean it.  It never jams.  It never will.  And with the money I saved over ANY AR-15 on the market, I can buy ANOTHER one just like it.  BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Pro AK rant over.  Military guns need to be soldier proof.  It needs a piston system.  The AR doesn't do it now, didn't do it then, and won't do it tomorrow. Its a great civie gun.  Its not a great military gun.  Thats just all there is to it.  Anything that makes our soldiers more effective and safer in their duties is a good thing.  I do wish it looked more like a G36 though.....

Oh well, I will continue to enjoy my CETME and SAR-1, you guys can argue all you want.

HMMMM I think I had one of them rust buckets too!    [grenade]

wow at SAR 1 that can actually hit something at 300 yards ? id like to see that :P

This is definately an area of concern. While different barrel lengths will be available the carbine version with the 12.5 inch barrel is the one that HK is touting will be the replacement for the M4, which will be the standard issue weapon. This is definately a problem for fragmentation.

I don't see how the availability of longer barrels solves the problem. If the standard issue barrel is 12.5 inches.

Is every soldier going to have a 20 inch barrel in their back pocket that they can quickly swap out for the long shots (over 15-20 meters)????

I still think that a M16 like lower in synthetic materiel (Fiberglass charged Carbon or other?) is a good trade off. It will reduce weight and permit inetresting designs at a reasonible cost. Unless one judges the M16 firing system to be too poor, it can make a great second generation system with some improvements (new bolt style etc...).

That's almost exactly what I was getting at in this thread with my concept rifle. [:)][url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=175773[/url].

A piston gas system would be pretty easy to incorporate in to the AR system too. And apparently has.

edited to add: the XM8 currently wieghts 6.4 lbs with 12.5 inch barrel and no rails. That weight is easily achievable with the Ar15/m16. Heck, I've got one that wieghs 5.5 lbs.

Ridge
I think you are correct. Weight is a serious issue so Polymer would work very well permitting the addition of extra sighting devices etc... Molding the lower will also give tremendous economies of scale. The gas piston approach is OK. Do you recall the Rhino system on ARs years ago?

Well, reading over the specs it looks like a promising weapon.  Obviously the new gas system is an improvement.  The new design mags will be a good thing.  Zero drain time will be nice for SEALs.  The biggest improvement I see though, is that the basic weapon is $300 dollars cheaper.  If the pentagon spent those $300 on practice ammo for the guys using the guns we'd probably see the biggest increase in combat capability that been had in a while.

There are some downsides that I see.  The most important of these is that they shortened the barrel of the standard carbine by 2" to achieve their weight goals, and keep the same overall length!  This is a big deal, as you've just dramatically reduced the fragmentation envelope in exchange for 1.5 lbs!  That's not a good trade IMO.  Also the AK style mag release is a step backwards - it would have been nice if they had kept the AR's ergonomics and just made the ambidextrous safety standard.

There is an advantage to the XM8 for civilians - if the military adopts it with it's new accesory and optics systems hopefully there will be a bunch of surplus Aimpoints, ACOGs, and NV setups for sale cheap.

FlyingAttackPorcupin,
I've never seen such an imaginative and strained concoction of biased fictional ranting accumulated onto a two page diatribe like yours before this!  Is all that you have to do is sit at your computer all day?  Must be nice.  Regarding some of the things you have commented upon:

1.]  I have put tens of thousands rounds over the years through used surplus AR15 mags and never had any trouble with followers or springs.  By the way, AR 15 magazines are in fact used in several weapons of various type and country of manufacture, both in and out of NATO.    Consult Jane’s.  
2.]  Mags "wobble"--Not really, not mine.  I like the amount of play.  By the way, how do you ‘crack’ an aluminum or Orlite mag?  How do they ‘rust’ as you say?  Aren’t the XM8 mags a clear see-through plastic, if I understood you correctly?  Now if we use our imagination…
3.]  Speaking of imagination, the question is: Are you sure that under a stressful situation that someone might not confuse the bolt release on the XM8 with the mag release, given their proximity [via your description]??  Hmmm???   Maybe the solution for the XM8 would be to place the bolt-release where it could not and would not be confused with the mag-drop, maybe, say,  accessible to just the thumb or palm of the mag loading hand on the other side of the receiver?  Hmmm???
4.]  As for rails, I think that your point is a non-issue.  In the AR15 weapons systems, as in the XM8, it’s just a case of "bolt the rails where you need them."
5.]  "I dont (sic) see why people fail to see how much of an improvement the xm8 (sic) is over the m16a2 (sic). its lighter,…"   Well, because upon careful analysis, it is in point of fact not an improvement.  As for a lighter weight, if that was really an issue, that could be easily corrected in the AR 15 system of weapons [in fact, has been done].
6.]  I see your point about the charging handle, and feel that it would have been OK to leave the AR 15 with the original AR 10 type charging handle.  The ambidextrous upgrades to the AR 15 would indeed make it more user-friendly to lefties.
7.]  There are those who degrade the direct impingement gas system of the AR 15.  I think that it was the Rhino Corporation Gas System that had a clever in-expensive short-stroke gas piston that did away with this fouling.  If memory [from articles by Dan Shea in Machine Gun News  several years back] serves me correctly, it was kind of hard on the gas key of the AR 15 bolt carrier. Otherwise, it worked superbly.
Then too, there was the Morris [Norris?] Tube and Key system which lengthened the carrier key.  Kept the fouling out altogether.  I guess the reason none of these things has caught on, is that, well, maybe fouling is not such a big problem with a maintained AR 15 rifle.
       Anyhow, Heckle & Kocaine have tried to foist their newest "innovations" [bull-pups, caseless ammo nonsense, and so forth] on us before, and these things have failed the test. This will probably go the same route.

PS, did the invertebrates over at HKPro put you up to this nonsense, or what?

Oh, and one last thing:  When you were extolling the virtues of the XM8 over the G36 [not a difficult thing to do], you repeatedly and continuously referenced phrases such as, "like the AR15," or "just as the AR15,"  "as in the AR15," and so forth, in a thoroughgoing failed attempt to posit the plausibility of the XM8’s supremacy over the AR15/M16.  I rest my case!

Wrong,

The M14/M16 argument cannot be applied here.  The M16 was the next advance in firearms technology over the M14.  The XM8 is not more advanced than the M16.
 


5.56 NATO is the most combat effective round today.  It can go out a touch somebody at 450+ yards.  7.62X39 balistics suck.

The AR15 is superior to the AK.  The AK has shitty ergonomics.  Example: lever mag release, safety lever placement, no bolt hold open.  The AK takes 3 time longer to reload than the AR15.


IMHO, the AK is one of the most overrated firearms of all time.

You obviously have no education on terminal ballistics.  The 7.62x39 is far LESS lethal on soft tissue at close range than 5.56mm ammo if we are comparing ball to ball.

The SOPMOD 2 Bloc upgrades will continue to make fouling and dust even less of an issue than it already is for the M16/M4.  An AK is not a great military rifle.  Its a great rifle for 3rd world illiterates and revelutionaries.  The M16 series is a professional's weapon.  Its just a shame many of our soldiers are not very professional.

I thought the ARMY would only upgrade from the M16 if the new rifle proved to increase hit probability by 100%.
The M16A1 isn still all over the world shooting at people, if those are still working the M16A2/4 should be too.

The point is this, small arms dont even account for a third of battlefield fatalities.   That money would be better spent other places.  Maybe buying temporary cooperation from an Afghani warlord/Herion distributer or that money could help with the bill for tens of millions of dollars spent importing oil to Iraq.  

yes, but for 1/3 of the casualties small arms are the best bang for the buck (pun intended).  compared to the cost of an artillery shell or sabot round for a tank.

10 t-hawk missles???  or new rifles for every infantry division in the army.  

I always wonder why the quick change barrel on the XM8 is pointed to as such a benefit to the individual warfighter...  I can't see the military issuing spare barrels to the grunts.  I don't even know that very many of the SpecOps or Recon guys would want to do that.

The 12.5" barrel will be standard issue if the current program is bought as is.  20" barrels almost certainly won't be available to just anybody that wants them.  According to the H&K literature (which is stunningly biased, but I can hardly blame them, as they [i]are[/i] trying to sell their product), the 20" barrels will only be generally available on the XM8's equivilent of the SAW and the 'marksman' variant of the thing.

I don't think the XM8 is a bad weapon at all, let me just make that clear here and now.  I just don't think that it is sufficiently different in terms of capability to the current M16A4 and M4A1 to be viable as a replacement for the "Black Rifle".

drew5337,
You are right, the ammo [7.62X39] is cheaper by 2 cents per round.  Whoopee doo!  The mags are cheaper, so what?  They are indeed more stout, but they are also bigger, heavier, and bulkier.
drew5337, I had an AKM once upon a time about 10 years ago.  It was the only rifle I got rid of because I did not like it.  Actually, I liked the way it looked.  But, we all know how looks can be deceiving.  It was heavy and bulky for a rifle of its dimensions!  The accuracy of an AK does not even come close to an AR!!   Not even close!!  You MIGHT be able to hit someone 300 yards out, if the bullet ‘strays’ TO the target [450 pound fat man, no cover, standing still, broad daylight].    Son, that is pathetic.  Accuracy is the name of the game in this business.
The AK did provide the foundation for attempts to transform the thing into something better.  Just about everyone would agree that the Israelis perfected the system in the Galil.  The Galil represents the epitome and zenith of Kalishnikov development.   Well, now, guess what the Israelis issue now as primary, not secondary weapon of choice [M4]?
By the way, you do indeed have to maintain an AK, or it will become sluggish, and even stop if you don’t.  Do not tell me otherwise, because I know from personal experience!!  The thing would just stop.   I have found the SKS to be far more reliable under extreme fouling conditions, and for what you save on an SKS you can buy two of them for what you pay for an AK [your argument].  The SKS is in fact what the AK would like to claim to be.
People exaggerate the need for maintenance regarding the M16.  But every rifle must be maintained.  Every gas operated rifle type I have must be maintained.  That includes the FAL,  HK91/G3,  SVT 40, SKS, .30 Carbine, et al.  Oddly enough, the only ones I have not had to remove the bolts or Op rods to keep reliable have been the M1 Garand/M1A/M14 types.  They just keep going, and going, and going. The M16/AR15 is one of the easiest to clean.  
******************************
Back to the XM8, if they can get them to run 15,000 rounds like that one prototype did, then that’s great.  Then maybe they should replace the M4, or, even more cost effective as others have suggested, go with an improved Rhino or Morris type modification.
Regarding that Army Times article where the guy said that he was impressed that the XM8 put 400 rounds through it without malfunctioning.  Hey!  I can do that with my Bushmaster/Sendra M16!  So what’s the big deal!?
As a solder, would you really want to be limited to optical sights on the XM8?
THE REAL REASON THEY MAY ADOPT THE XM8 is that the army has already decided it wants a new toy, and the XM8 is the primary excuse [fr. Army Times]:
"While the M16 family, which includes the M4, 'has been a very good weapon,' Stone pointed out that it’s already 40 years old.  'While we are maintaining and improving the M4, we have to look ahead,' he said. ‘For us to do nothing and say ‘'"Gee, the M4 is doing great,"' that would be irresponsible.’" --Well, that sure is a good reason to throw it out, isn't it?!!? The supposed fouling problems of the M16 are solved by the inexpensive Rhino M16 Gas Piston System or the even less expensive Morris Tube and Gas Key System.
"...There’s also a sharpshooter model equipped with a longer barrel for increased range.
The need for sharpshooter weapons at the squad level became evident in Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division requested M1As, a version of the old 7.62mm M14, for its long-range capability."
--Oh , didn't that have something to do with the M14 being a .30 caliber [full-powered cartridge] Battle Rifle, rather than a mere Assault [.223] Rifle. Do those morons think by merely adding a longer barrel to an Assault Rifle they will achieve the ballistics, accuracy, and performance of the Legendary [.308] M14 Battle Rifle?!
Certain Army developers and congressional political hacks have determined to replace the M16 JUST because they want something 'new' and 'stylish' looking. How would you like a rifle with just a 12.5" barrel for open field battle? How much you wanna bet some morons in the DoD are going to force the same on the USMC!? Remember, the Marines wanted to keep the illustrious .45 M1911A1 pistol, but were forced to adopt the puny 9mm M9 pistol even after the M9 was proven to be a total failure in the First Gulf War!!

I bought one of these modern "modular" rifles that enable you switch barrels and calibers last year. My experience has not been a good one. Without going into the details, I have learned that:

[b]- A rifle that is built to stay in one piece is more likely to stay in one piece;

- Something that is built to come apart will, and not only when you want it to;

- Just because you can take a rifle apart does not mean it is going to go back together.[/b]

Before I jump in here, let me say, this thread feels like a free fire zone, incoming from all angles, outgoing from all angles and hard to discriminate friend from foe.  Having said that, I realized reading many of the posts, not all, that the military had specified a "back up" rifle caliber munition for the OICW, to which this XM8 is supposed to be a forunner, didn't they?  
[b]DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME[/b], I'm not agreeing that the Mil. should make obsolete the rifleman, and/or his effectiveness against point targets, but I believe THEY want the grenade launcher and its air burst, detonate behind/over cover, laser etc... round to be the focus of the new weapon system?  Is that not correct?
That may well explain their willingness to undermine the capabilities of the 5.56 cartridge.

I agree with this part of your post.


The XM-8 you see is CERTAINLY, without a doubt, NOT in it's final form.  It is simply a tester to see if the technology works.

There have been quite a few modifications that are being taken under consideration.  Of course, not all of them can be crammed onto a single rifle. But there will be improvements.

Whether or not it's better than the M-16 will remain to be seen.

Some of you guys apparantly know so much that you should quit all your jobs to become weapons designers.  Your qualifications being that you have an opinion and an AR.  I'm sure the US Military will be better off with you instead of using companies that are experienced in this sort of thing. [rolleyes]

I dare say, some companies have even started with an opinion and an AR.


Lots of people or companies with the know-how and qualifications could design something better than the XM8 in it's current configuration. Hell, even HK, the makers of the XM8, makes a better design.


The problem is not qualifications. [b]It's politics, right?[/b]

I know how to kill A AK in one fell swoop.
Just put A good dent in the exposed gas tube.
That is easy to do...just drop it the right way.
So much for the awesome gas piston theory.
Seriously people every gun has problems expecially new ones.
Lets just wait and see.

Brouhaha, you said, "Your qualifications being that you have an opinion and an AR..."   Well now, if it wasn't for opinions, this board wouldn't be here, would it?  Anyhow, it is all irrelevant and moot.  The Army has decided it wants something new.  Unless the XM8 falls apart at Aberdeen, it is the go signal.  Eventually, semi-auto and/or bastardized versions will enter the market.  Dealer samples will be out there at Knob Creek and elsewhere.  After the military contract is fulfilled, long-snouted civilian versions will be sold to the public, at exorbitant and ridiculous prices.  Money is to be made.

It might not fall apart at Aberdeen, but it will sure melt!

Plastic is a good thing. Too much plastic is not a good thing.

Listen to 266-23. Those are words of wisdom.

Since you've already been corrected by another member about this I'll be short. The option of a longer barell will not help the number of soldiers issued the short barrels. Would you like to be in the field with a weapon that wasn't as effective as it should be? I certainly wouldn't. Trust me I have researched the topic. I've also spent a lot of time in the field with the AR design and have come to trust it. You certainly haven't justified the short barrel to me. Maybe you could explain your extensive knowledge of this fire arm a little better so I see the light. [;)]

"buku"? It's 'beaucoup', (French) meaning (loosely) 'many'. A girl I worked with was from Alabama, and she had some interesting words. How abot 'beaucoodles'? A combination of 'beaucoup' and 'oodles'. This is how words are born, but I hope that one dies young. That new gun ain't gonna make it. You will see that the next infantry 'rifle' will be in 6.8 x 43 or 45 (.270) and will have an AR lower with an upper having a gas piston working the bolt carrier. This will essentially consist of putting new uppers on the existing lowers. Everybody is really fed up with the .22 caliber mouse gun and the 'carbon-injection system', but they will not go all the way to .30 caliber. Look for at least a 120gr bullet at 2800fps and a 25rd mag capacity. This will be intended as an interim solution, but will catch on fast. Source? My crystal ball. Hide and watch.

This thread isnt out of hand.....yet. Lets keep it that way, OK?. Personally, I'd like to see this discussion continue.