AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/6/2004 7:17:59 PM EDT
|
What does everyone think of the XM8? http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html I'd like to shoot it to get an idea how it "feels". I'm surprised they didn't try to incorporate more of the stuff we have to buy as add-ons in the XM8, like a flashlight, laser... |
| Even if it makes it as a "limited" issue weapon and does one day become standard issue add ons wont matter to us comon folk because H&K probably wont offer it for civillian sales and with no great advatages over the M4 expect the M16/M4 to be around for a while.If they did not expect the M4 to continue I doubt H&K would be making versions of it as well as talk of a 1911.So much for H&K inovation. |
|
Quoted: I think it looks bulky and cheap. I just love the simplicity and modularity of what we have now. Having handled one @ the recent SHOT show, cheap is the key word here.... as in flimsy. The collapsible buttstock floated all over the place in any position. It was a real P.O.S. and should be considered an embarrassment to H&K. |
|
Quoted: What does everyone think of the XM8? http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html I'd like to shoot it to get an idea how it "feels". I'm surprised they didn't try to incorporate more of the stuff we have to buy as add-ons in the XM8, like a flashlight, laser... I think it makes NO improvements over the AR series, and is an unjustified waste of money... Past US rifle changes have involved a new caliber (and design optimizations for such) or a radically different action (eg bolt -> semi -> select)... Makes about as much sense as switching to the SA-80 or AR-18... It will still jam in Iraq-like conditions. It will still have to be religeously cleaned. And due to the gas-piston operating system other design factors, it will definately be less accurate than the current system... If there were one thing it could do that the AR can't I'd change my mind... The problem is, there isn't... Hopefully, this will be the next Commanche, and the US military will sever all contracts (eg OICW) with HK... There are better places to spend DoD money... If they want a new rifle, they should spend the cash developing something as revolutionary as the M16... P.S. As for the M14 -> M16 comparisons, there is one big difference. There was almost nothing new and innovative about the M14. It was essentially a M1 Garand adapted to .308, select fire, and detachable mags. The K98/Springfield 1903, Garand and the AR-15 were the 'revolutionary' designs of the modern era... |
|
Let me put it simply and then elaborate a little bit; the XM8 stinks. I love the way the Beta Corp. C-Mag was deemed unsuitable for military service, but the XM8 automatic rifle variant is going to use the thing. It's also wonderful how the weapon is roughly the same overall length as the M4 carbine, but has a barrel a full two inches shorter. That's right boys and girls, the XM8's baseline model--the one the majority of troopers would be issued--has a barrel barely more than a foot long. Expect maximum effective combat range of a hundred and fifty meters. It's also great the way modularity (in the form of rail mounting for the most part) is just hitting its stride and proving itself in combat--and H&K is actually [i]touting[/i] the XM8's [u]lack[/u] of rails as a [i]good[/i] thing. Amazing. Also simply stunning is the fact that the "fair" test between the XM8 and the M4 is patently [i]un[/i]fair, as the optic that the XM8 uses can, in fact, simply be [i]manufactured for use on an AR15-based design[/i]. Long story short, I think that if the Army adopts the XM8, it will be an enormous waste of money with virtually no increase in actual performance. |
AR Sponsor