Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/23/2004 10:17:13 AM EDT
Just got this AWESOME US ARMY XM8 pic this morning,Its going through US ARMY DURABILITY TESTING as we speak. More to follow.  
|
No, it's because he just fired, note the spent shell casing....oh, and it's damn ugly.  All kidding aside, if it's reliable, accurate, and doesn't crap it's own pants after ever shot, then asthetics be damned, let's roll. An argument can be made that, if supporting echelons, like Kelly Lynch & Co. had an XM-8 type weapon that requires less upkeep and has a cleaner operation and action than the M-16, they may have fought back and out of the ambush. That's NOT IN ANY WAY A KNOCK ON THE M-16. It's just a fact of life that troops in combat arms, especially the Infantry, will be more dilligent in weapon prep and upkeep than non-combat arms. A leaner force that stresses high mobility and lethality MUST have following echelons that are able to defend themselves. Fact and history shows that in the Army a Diesel Mechanic is a mechanic first and a Rifleman second. Adopting a USMC line of thinking that "eveyone a Rifleman first", if implemented by the Army would require a costly and time consuming shift in TRADOC. So the short term solution is to provide troops a rifle that is "idiot proof." Mind you, the term is meant respectfully. It means a weapon system that focuses more on killing and less on cleaning. It's a better direction than that abomination of a device, the OICW. Sure, that's what troops need, more complexity to contend with while under fire. Anyway, I think if they can graft a G36 type upper onto an AR lower, then we keep that familar M-16 feel, but better reliability. My 2 cents!  Oh, and I think it looks just fine. Hep |
Armory Sponsor