User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/28/2004 10:13:12 PM EDT
[#1]
M16, a 12.5" barrel 5.56 as a main battle rifle does not sit easy with me........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2004 11:17:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Actually they are not. They are probably 95% the same internals with a different exterior. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2004 11:26:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Do you have any experience with this weapon system to back up that assessment? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2004 11:49:40 PM EDT
[#4]
What does experience with the weapon have to do with knowing that the internals are almost identical? I've read numerous reputable articles all over the internet and every one of them says that the internals are almost exactly the same as the G36's. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. I distinctly remember an article about the old OICW and at that point the XM8 really was a copy of the G36, only in a slightly redesigned shell to fit under the OICW and to accept an M16 magazine and pistol grip. It has came a little ways, but not much. It is still largely the same. Take a look at photos of the G36's internal parts (bolt, bolt carrier, op-rod, etc) and do the same for the XM8. You can read more about it here: world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 12:16:35 AM EDT
[#5]
In this case, experience has everything to do with an objective comparison of the XM-8 vs. the M16/M4 family of weapons. Yes it is very similar to the G36, but it also differs. The most important difference is in the type of plastic used. My point is that I get a little tired of some people knocking a new system when they know next to nothing about it. All of their opinons are based on heresay or theoretical "knowledge". Look, I love the M16/M4 family and I'm proud of the way it has served and still is serving us. All I am saying is let's not knock a potential weapons system based on its looks like or what we think is the best material that it should be made of. If the naysayers had their way, our Armed Services would still be carrying '03 Springfields. So what if it is almost identical to the G36? If Heckler and Koch can produce submachine guns good enough to basically monopolize our Armed Force's inventory, I would think that they are competent enough to produce a quality assault rifle. The M16/M4 family is far from perfect and there is room for improvement. Also far from perfect is the XM-8 and every other weapons system in any military. This may chap some asses around here, but striving for progress and perfection is NOT a step backward. What is a step backward is jumping to conclusions. Whether it be to procure or eliminate the XM-8. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS. WHAT EVER GIVES OUR TROOPS A FURTHER ADVANTAGE OVER OUR ENEMIES IS A GOOD THING! THIS MAY VERY WELL INCLUDE ELIMINATING THE XM-8 FROM CONSIDERATION! ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO CONDUCT AN OBJECTIVE COMPARISON! OUR BELOVED M16'S AND M4'S WOULD HAVE GONE NOWHERE WITHOUT THIS SAME OPPORTUNITY! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 12:53:33 AM EDT
[#6]
So if I was still in the Army and had the choice of the XM-8 or the M-16 I would take the M-16.
For several reasons: Its modular design allows me to configure the rifle as needed for what is best for the mission. I would not want a 20" barreled rifle if I was clearing buildings somewhere. But I wouldn't want a 12.5" barreled rifle if my mission was in the middle of the desert either. The XM-8 doesn't allow for different configurations. You get one and one only. And if I only had one choice it would be a 20" barrel. I could deal with the problems of a long barrel in an urban enviornment but wouldn't even want to have to deal with accuracy problems of a 12.5" barrel at longer ranges. Just not something I would be willing to bet my life on. Actually that about covers why the M-16 should stay in service over the XM-8. Yes the M-16 is an old weapon but hardly outdated. I can't see where the XM-8 is an improvement over the M-16 in any respect. At least on paper anyway. Can anyone of you that is supporting the XM-8 over the M-16 for our boys in uniform give any reasons why it should be implemented? Just because something is of a newer design doesn't mean its better than something thats older. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 1:01:31 AM EDT
[#7]
Yeah, I wonder why the HKM4 is not in the running... At least it is compatible with most of the typical M-16 parts.
One thing that is really stupid about the M-8 is the fact that the barrel is so extremely short. Shorter than an M4... but why? With the 5.56?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 4:23:26 AM EDT
[#8]
Can't say which one I'd rather have since I've never shot the XM8 nor have I been in battle. However I think some of you are slamming the XM8 a bit hard. First off, I really don't think the M16/M4 is going anywhere for a while. They've finally gotten the bugs worked out and as someone stated, the Corps loves 'em.
The standard issue M16 has 20" barrel and no equipment rails. To convert the rifle into something else is a armorer's job whereas the XM8 can be swapped in the field. Sure, there are no mounting rails on it now, but were there on the M16 when it was introduced? Nope. When the inevitable rail systems DO appear, you'll be able to install them on existing rifles with a minimum of work. I believe this is the capability that the services are going for. The sharpshooter variant of the XM8 has a 20" barrel and I'd imagine that if there were issues with the 12.5" barrel, the troops would switch them over. From what I've been able to learn in studying this issue a bit, it looks to me like the Army is looking at this weapon to address changes in tactics vs. problems with the existing systems. MOUT ops are becoming the norm vs. jungles and wide open battlefields. Seems as if the ease of reconfiguring the weapon to the situation could be the main drive. Not saying it's right or that this justifies the extensive logistical changes that this move would entail, but that could be what they're thinking. Not an expert, just my opinion. I've been told that the HKM4 won't be going into production due to Colt screaming about patent infringements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:11:26 AM EDT
[#10]
I'll take the M16 or M4 over the XM-8.
I've shot all three in FA....The compact XM-8 has great pointability, but I couldn't live with the numerous malfunctions, durability, & the many other problems this developmental weapon has. Hotgun |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:23:01 AM EDT
[#11]
The M16 family is the most versatile small arms platform in the world, and one of the two that is most proven in battle. The other being the AK family.
This HK toy gun lacks the versatility. It's ass ugly. No easily installed picatinny rail option. SAME caliber. No ballistic improvement. Advantages: NONE that I can see. Disadvantages: More than I've listed so far. M16 family all the way. You don't get rid of what works best. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:43:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Never shot the XM-8 but it's the most butt-ugly rifle that I've ever seen.
I'll stick with a 20" A2. Semper Fi! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 7:29:30 AM EDT
[#13]
Its no brainer.. of course XM-8, because i know there must be someone out there who's willing to pay for that ugliest looking weapon ever invented to be in his collection, no matter how high my price is!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 7:36:43 AM EDT
[#14]
I wasn't making a comparison to the M16. I was correcting your infactual statement saying that the G36 and XM8 are completely different weapons systems so there is no comparison to be made between the two. That is not true. They are virtually the same gun. If you want to think that changing the exterior of the weapon makes it a completely different weapon system, then that's your perogative. The fact of the matter remains however, that their internal mechanisms are nearly identical. Given the choice of one or the other, I'd take the M4. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 7:49:34 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:04:26 AM EDT
[#16]
I'd take the M16. The XM8 looks like something that came out of an Arnold movie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:10:49 AM EDT
[#17]
You mean the feeling of the plastic melting? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:13:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Aren't they toting M-9s as we speak (despite the desire to return to m1911s)? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:24:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Neither. I prefer my M1 Garand.
I heard your collective groans. Oh! Alright I'll enter the 21st century. Give me the M16 preferrably in 6.8 SPR. The M 16 is a fine weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:25:53 AM EDT
[#20]
M4
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:33:36 AM EDT
[#21]
M-16/M-4,
I fondled the XM-8 last April at KCR and wasn't impressed. At that time, the guy admitted to me that the sight wasn't waterproof or drop proof and when I asked him how they were getting muzzle velocities greater than an M-4 while using a 2" shorter barrel he claimed that it was basically a "squeeze bore" concept??? This was from one of the HK guys and I don't know what they've changed since then but I didn't like it at all. All you would need to do is integrate a PEQ-2 and an Aimpoint and you could have exactly what they have as far as optics go. One thing I did kind of like was the XM320 grenade launcher they had on it. It had some nice features like having the sights attached to the GL receiver instead of the parent weapon and the side loading breech to load longer 40mm rds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:40:14 AM EDT
[#22]
They have pop up BUIS. M8. Gotta have one. In fact, my only gun collection objective is to own every US service rifle from the first issue of the 20th Century to the latest I can get. So far I have an AR and an M1. Need M1903, M1917, and M14. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:43:34 AM EDT
[#23]
I'll take the 16 anyday. The XM8 is nothing more than an example of fixing something that isn't broken. Besides, other than the gas system, I see every other "feature" of the XM8 as inferior to the M16. And about that gas system - you know, the one that can go 6k rounds without cleaning - wasn't that the same BS they told the very first troops to be issued the M16? And weren't the earliest M16 users issued the rifles with no training? It's almost as if MacNamara were lobbying for the XM8! There are no benefits to changing to the XM8 to anyone other than the manufacturer, and whoever is getting their palms greased by the manufacturer.
Keep that plastic POS in Germany. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:28:05 AM EDT
[#24]
If there was a M14.com 40 years ago and the question was asked "Which do you like the M14 or the M16?" All of you M16 fans would be saying the same trash about the XM8 in regards of the M16. It's ugly..where is the wood stock?, it is too light, it is plastic, it fires a 5.56 not a 7.62. Well the M16 went on to be a great rifle despite all of the naysayers back then.
Now the naysayers are trashing the XM8 for pretty much the same reasons the M16 was trashed years ago. I think these naysayers are resistant to change, and that is their problem with the XM8. Face it the M16 is on the way out and a new rifle will take its place. This will happen over a period of time, it could be HKs XM8 or M8 or it could be another company's. Hk has a great reputation for making top notch firearms. Whatever rifle the military adopts I am sure that it will be a good one, and will be a great rifle for the next 20 plus years. And I am sure that there will be a XM8.com 20 years from now and there will talk of how can the military get rid of the XM8 for a new weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:43:22 AM EDT
[#25]
Why the paddle mag release??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:14:15 AM EDT
[#26]
M4, no question!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 12:23:19 PM EDT
[#27]
COLT M16A4
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 12:50:19 PM EDT
[#28]
The XM-8 is a G-36 in a different wrapper thats american made. Thats about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 12:55:18 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 1:04:13 PM EDT
[#30]
M16
Also if not been said already, let me add that the velocity that G36/XM8 generates equals to (M16/M4 system - one inch). So 12.5" G36K/XM8 generates the same vel. as M4 COMMANDO with 11.5" barrel. So above all, XM8 is losing sooo much in ballistics arena (its not that there is no improvement; this is a PERFORMANCE DECREASE) compared to M16/M4 system. Those units issed M16 will be losing even more performance if they switch from M16 to XM8 standard. Standard XM8; 12.5" = 11.5" in M16/M4 system = ~10 yd reliable frag range for M855  Standard M4; 14.5" = ~65 yd reliable frag range for M855  Standard M16; 20" = ~120 yd reliable frag range for M855  (using 2700 fps cut-off) If Army issues a better round (like Mk262) to compensate XM8's shorter barrel length, that means it will perform EVEN BETTER in M16 system. Say if Mk262 increases XM8's frag range to 50~60 yd, M4 would be at ~150 yd and M16 will be 210+ yds. (of course "marksman" version of XM8 would do better than this but it won't be standard issue I think?) And as people stated already, it seems M16's accuracy just beats hell out of XM8 system... IIRC everytime U.S changed its main combat rifle there was also a change in the caliber. This time there isn't...way change the system then? (with a DEGRADE in performance?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 1:25:09 PM EDT
[#31]
I agree, but there is one exception to your last statement.
The 1903 Springfield and M-1 Garand were both eventually chambered in .30-06, but the Garand was a huge increase in firepower. The HK ain't an increase in anything but extra reliability that evidently is not needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 4:48:41 PM EDT
[#32]
XM8 pros-
Theoretically more reliable Less cleaning involved, since no gas bleeds into receiver Proven G36 design (internals) Lighter than current M4 (Or is advertised as such, can't confirm) Is more ambidextrous than current system (Can't remember where I heard this, someone correct me if I'm wrong) XM8 cons- Short barrel provides for a mere 10 yards of frag range, compared to the M4's 65 yards and the M16's 120 yards. No picatinny rail, so all those ACOGs, EOtechs and Aimpoints we bought have to be chunked. No civilian version, which means no aftermarket add-ons and mods. Modularity goes down the tube. Inherently less accurate than M16 (What was that, XM8 grouped the same at 100 yards that an SPR did at 300?) Cannot be free-floated. Built-in optic not tested and proven (and many agree that troops should be primarily trained on irons) Melting handguards, which can be fixed Army would need to buy new magazines I'm sure I've missed some from the 'cons' column. One of those I really want to expand on is the stuff we CAN'T notice. Some system flaws have to be discovered by real life troop testing in foreign environments. We can't just test it and say "Ok, looks good". Some issues only appear in the field. Honestly, I don't like the idea of a rack rifle. In other words, I don't like the fact that one can't free float it and add a scope to make it an SPR, or add a vertical foregrip and a reflex sight for CQB work. It's just one gun that comes in one flavor, and frankly, my friends, that flavor is Ugly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:01:04 PM EDT
[#33]
... Except for Shawn's assessment about the military's position, the question asks:
... You numb skulls are overlooking the obvious: With enough money, anyone here could buy an M-16. None of us civilians can own an XM-8. I'd most certainly pick up the XM-8 if the two were side-by-side on a table for the offering. ... Old dogs |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:02:04 PM EDT
[#34]
M-16  XM-8 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:06:45 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:11:45 PM EDT
[#36]
I simply meant that we KNOW more about the G36 because it has been around longer than it's derivative, the XM8. I wasn't suggesting it was BATTLE-proven, but it is in use by other military forces and I haven't heard anyone bitch about it's reliability. Of course there's a whole lot that we simply can't tell without firing and dissasembling one, but at least we have a basic idea of how it operates.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:32:38 PM EDT
[#37]
I plan on putting together 3 more varients of ar15s. But I will definately buy an xm-8
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:36:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Apparently not. There are no plans to offer the XM-8 in a civilian legal version. Another reason to tell HK to get fucked with their new white elephant. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:46:01 PM EDT
[#39]
WARS FOUGHT IN with G36: Spanish: Afghanistan, Iraq Portugese: Iraq Germans: Kosovo, Afghanistan |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:53:26 PM EDT
[#40]
I would say M16 due to just being comfortable with it and understanding the ergonomics of it.
Who knows, by the time the test is all doen at HK, it might be XM"x"(x= whatever final revision might end up)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 6:07:06 PM EDT
[#41]
The XM8 is being battle tested there are XM8s in Iraq as we speak. Plus the rifle will come in 4 barrel lengths, so if you guys are upset with the 12.5 barrel there are 3 other lengths to choose from. There will be picatinny rails. The G36 as the top mount and the side mounts so it is not a stretch for the XM8 to have them. Plus and I can not stress this enough for you guys this is The XM8 not the M8 this is not the final product. The XM8 in Army times looks different then the XM8 on Mail Call the other night. Just look at the History Channel's story of the M16...look at what the first AR15 looked like..they looked like crap. But it was the starting point for the M16 to evolve into the wonderful rifle that it is today. The XM8 is light years ahead of the early prototype M16s. And when it becomes the M8 it well be a even better weapon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 6:30:32 PM EDT
[#42]
I don't know if you've been keeping up on current events, but I wouldn't say that those other countries fought in a "war" with their G36s. It's true, they were involved, but the US was the major backbone of all of those operations and a majority of the fighting involved US soldiers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 6:36:37 PM EDT
[#43]
In my opinion, any time troops enage enemy combatants with their weapons, they are "fighting" in a war, regardless of how big a part they play. Spanish troops have died in Iraq fighting insurgents. German peacekeepers in Kosovo have "lit up" quite few serb insurgents, and their weapons proved quite effective indeed.
You may have your own definition of "fighting" but expending large of amounts of ammunition and killing enemy combatants meets my definition of "fighting". Not every country can affort stealth bombers and they may not have M1 tanks on the ground, but to say they are not "fighting" is really belittleing their contribution IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 6:59:02 PM EDT
[#44]
M-16A4s and M-4s
The XM-8 doesn't offer anything "revoultionary" to justify the change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 7:21:41 PM EDT
[#45]
You might be referring to this: www.kurtskustomfirearms.citymax.com/page/page/967766.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:01:57 PM EDT
[#46]
People have fought wars with sharp sticks too... Do you know what the Special Forces of those countries use? They have M4's and the Germans who do use a G36 varient, use the knights rail with BUIS and a EoTech (because the issue sight is a POS)..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:41:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Have to to admit though the G36C is pretty cool.... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 8:56:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Sharkman, Garryowen is a Class 2 Manufacturer/SOT (CavArms)... So the 'rarities' of the civillian NFA market are a bit different for him (well, for his company, more accurately)... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:27:28 PM EDT
[#49]
_Dr, do you know that that is the cheapest version they make and it sells to PD's (with out excise tax) for $1100.00! That front sight blade is about 1/8 inch thich (or mnore) and is wider then your target at 100yards.... Don't get me wrong it's a fun gun to goof off with and if anyone is in favor of plastic guns, brother it's me! How do I know these things about the g36 you might ask?    Sharkman629... you must be new here, so I'll cut you some slack, but you don't know shit...the xm8 and the G36 are virtually the same gun. Sorry I don't have any of the XM8 pic's, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I have 14 years of experience with weapons systems (10 of which were in the Arms industry). I have been privy to reports and field test result for things that would shock you. I have no "Professional" gain or loss if the G36/XM8 get's through or not (I can have molds cut and parts ready for any gun in 6-8 weeks). BUT I have a HUGE interest in this as a US Taxpayer and also as a veteran. This is just a bad idea both fiscally as well as what is good for our troops. Believe me or not, I don’t care  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2004 9:33:47 PM EDT
[#50]
... Dude, I gotta a good line on a carpet cleaner 
|
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
