New military rifle, What do you think?


PDA






jeepmor
July 5, 2006, 06:39 AM
What do you think? Here's a link and an image.

One with grenade launcher please. My wife loves grenade launchers. Mmm, farm girls.

Stuck in the city.

jeepmor


http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_062105_Quigley,00.html

http://home.comcast.net/~miller3849/xm8.bmp

If you enjoyed reading about "New military rifle, What do you think?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
July 5, 2006, 06:43 AM
Looks like Callico, meets M16

jrfoxx
July 5, 2006, 06:51 AM
"Away team, set phasers on stun..." :) Actually, I think they look kinda cool and sound like a pretty well designed, versatile system. Personally not a big fan of 5.56, and would have liked to see something bigger, but it wasnt designed for me, and plenty of people DO like 5.56, so....
Really like the 40mm and 12ga attachments though.

Destructo6
July 5, 2006, 06:55 AM
HK's XM8 project was put on the back burner some time ago, then apparently died. The XM8 was, basically, a re-skinned HK G36.

Kaylee
July 5, 2006, 07:19 AM
Yeah, try a search in the archives for XM-8. It was a real hot topic here a couple years ago.

Seemed to break down into two camps, the "anything's better than the M16" crowd and the "enh... select-fire .223.. what am I gaining, really?" camp. Personally, I'm of the latter opinion, though at least most of the initial problems with the system were addressed.

-K

OldSchooler
July 5, 2006, 07:22 AM
fun to look at, would make a nice Hollywood prop. DO it up in a quarter bore, with equal velocity of the .22LR NATO we now use and you might have something. Do that, and I'd buy it for a dollar.

AJ Dual
July 5, 2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah, Oldschooler, that's the camp I'm in.

Keep the AR, or something new, but with a gas piston, and chamber it somewhere in the 6-7mm "sweet spot", say with 6.5 Grendel, or the 6.8 SPC, and call it a day.

To keep the weight down, they need to work on the weight of all the optics, lights, and lasers, IMO.

mp510
July 5, 2006, 10:03 PM
I never noticed any iron sights or provision fro iron sights with the xm-8 system. I'll admit that many soldiers prefer optics, and they probably seriously help them in the completion of the mission, but haveing iron sights, even if just a back up is, IMHO a necesity. On electronic sighting units, batteries die and gizmos break.

RNB65
July 5, 2006, 10:08 PM
I think it looks suspiciously like the rifle project that the Army cancelled last fall.

rangerruck
July 5, 2006, 11:31 PM
id rather have the MGI hydra.5 dif bbls, two dif mag wells , fires 22, 22 mag 223, 6.5, 6.8 , 762.39, 50 beowulf with only the 7.62 requiring a diff type magazine.

MSGT9410
July 5, 2006, 11:33 PM
Don't forget the "I don't want our military using a weapon that melts on my dashboard" camp

1911_CQB
July 6, 2006, 12:13 AM
I hate the XM-8. It doesnt do anything my m-4 doesnt do. And if I ever have to hit somebody with my weapon, i want it to be metal not plastic. Id ust ask for ammunition that expands or fragments...(TAP, VMAX..) ball works, just could be better.

Diomed
July 6, 2006, 12:36 AM
Id ust ask for ammunition that expands or fragments...(TAP, VMAX..) ball works, just could be better.

If you're in the service, you'll need to talk to the Czar about that pesky Hague convention. ;)

MSGT9410
July 6, 2006, 01:24 AM
Meh, conventions.

Kill your enemy, but not too much

1911_CQB
July 6, 2006, 01:28 AM
I am , stupid LOAC...give me my TAP!:evil:

Outlaws
July 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
I never noticed any iron sights or provision fro iron sights with the xm-8 system. I'll admit that many soldiers prefer optics, and they probably seriously help them in the completion of the mission, but haveing iron sights, even if just a back up is, IMHO a necesity. On electronic sighting units, batteries die and gizmos break.

It has/had them. I saw it on Mail Call. They fold down so you can flip them up if needed.

But for the record, its an ugly weapon.

Limeyfellow
July 6, 2006, 01:37 AM
The XM8 has no iron sights though you can remove the scope on it and change it for operational purposes its one thing that has caused a bit of grumbling, though you might be able to adapt something for it. It looks like its never going to see service though and one of those rifles that fall on the sidelines after nearly being picked up like the Pederson and so on.

It just doesn't have much of an advantage over the M16 and M4 to be worth the extra cost. They took the G36 that works fine and changed it to make it more expensive to buy and not work as well from all the reports.

MSGT9410
July 6, 2006, 01:41 AM
I thought it had a set of flip-up sights?

swingset
July 6, 2006, 01:52 AM
Dead project, done, kaput. It's not replacing the M16/M4 any time soon.

Fixing a non-existent problem.

akodo
July 6, 2006, 01:56 AM
My problem with the XM8 program. It is redundant. Sure, a modular system is kinda handy, but really only useful when you have a lot of those options in play. Thing is we would use one variant for 95% of the time, so modular really isn't that big of an issue, especially compared to the cost of rolling this thing out.

i also don't like the breakdown of barrel lengths. The M-4 suffers from low velocity rounds not performing well as manstoppers, so I don't know why we'd want to issue basic infantrymen with equally short rifles, and epecially the supershort one, talk about being a noisey handful!

Seems to me they should break it down

24" -sharpshooter
20-18" - standard infantry
14" - truckdriver/REMF, airmoblie and bradly fighting vehicle troops
8" -close quarters roomclearing

toivo
July 6, 2006, 02:19 AM
That thing is really ugly.

I feel old.

MTMilitiaman
July 6, 2006, 02:44 AM
What is with people and their unhealthy fascination with absurdedly short barrel lengths on poodle shooters?

Seems like if we're going to be shooting a small bullet, it mine as well have some velocity behind it. The M4 is rumored to have a short enough effective range with current service ammunition. Shortening the barrel even more is rather obnoxious, IMO.

Anyways, the XM8 is yesterday's news. I am kinda rooting for the SCAR, though, personally. Yes, I know it is supposed to be only for the special purpose guys, but a guy can dream, can't he?

Selfdfenz
July 6, 2006, 04:22 AM
What is with people and their unhealthy fascination with absurdedly short barrel lengths on poodle shooters?

I can't answer that question.....but I think the people that make hearing aids and tiny batteries are behind it.

S-

Lew
July 6, 2006, 04:45 AM
I'd buy it for a dollar.Umm...did you just allude to Robocop?? I hope so :D

johnsonrlp
July 6, 2006, 05:13 AM
NOPE! your tax dollars at work again. I'm afraid this one's gone the way of the stealth helicopter and several others. On the plus side USASOC is getting H&K uppers. Gas pistons Yeeah!

Coronach
July 6, 2006, 06:07 AM
It's not a new rifle for any military, at this point. It is dead.

I'm in the "why are we making a shorter barrelled 5.56 NATO rifle???" crowd on this one. Let's take a round that is already questionable*as far as terminal effectiveness is concerned, and which relies upon velocity for its destructive power, and make it slower. Right!

Mike

*right or wrong, there is still a debate about it. Count me in the "it works, but let's not go any further down the scale, mmmkay?" crowd.

Number 6
July 6, 2006, 06:21 AM
I thought it had a set of flip-up sights?

The latter iterations of the project did, but one of the complaints from the soldiers was that they felt tacked on, and were not very well done.

I agree with Coronach and akodo on the barrel length of the standard issue version. I believe that the 5.56 round is a sufficient cartridge, but I think cutting the barrel down on the standard issue version to 12.5 inches might not be the best decision.

The rights to the XM8 were bought by I believe General Dynamics, so we might see this rifle submitted again for the Army's trials.

johnsonrlp
July 6, 2006, 03:08 PM
I'm in the "why are we making a shorter barrelled 5.56 NATO rifle???" crowd on this one.

Well, ... ... It's better than an M9 (or an MP5 for that matter). And God knows you can't expect officers and senior enlisted to drag around those huge, heavy M4's:rolleyes:

jeepmor
July 12, 2006, 01:58 AM
I was not aware it was already dead in the water. I guess some small arms company drove away with a truck load of tax dollars on that one.

Yes, I don't think the 223 is an adequate combat sized round either, a 30 caliber would be more like it. No wonder it died.

And yes, it's pretty ugly...unless of course, you are beaming down from the sky, then it fits the expected look.

jeepmor

mrmeval
July 12, 2006, 03:31 AM
The M16 flatop can do all that can do. I can even whip up some space plastic and slap it on. They took the stupid carry handle off the M16, why bother with it again. :neener:
For the forseeable future we will have the 5.56 round and the M16 and variants. :p

Kaylee
July 12, 2006, 07:59 AM
IIRC, the XM8 was built/designed by HK, but the whole project was pretty much led by government boys trying to pull something useful out of the mess that was the OICW project

Contrariwise, at the same time the SCAR project just asked for submissions from private companies to meet a list of requirements drawn up by the powers that be.

I find it no great surprise that the latter actually produced a practical weapon, while the former resulted in an honestly pretty lame repackaging of off-the-shelf technology in a new super-soaker plastic shell.

-K

(PS.. that whole NFA retarding military tech argument? If there's a case in point, well there ya go right there)

USSR
July 12, 2006, 08:19 AM
I'm in the "why are we making a shorter barrelled 5.56 NATO rifle???" crowd on this one. Let's take a round that is already questionable*as far as terminal effectiveness is concerned, and which relies upon velocity for its destructive power, and make it slower. Right!

I'm with Mike on this one.

Don

If you enjoyed reading about "New military rifle, What do you think?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!