Badger Arms, yeah, sorry about the screen-name confusion. I've got a computer both at work and at home and they make you sign up differently on both, and I originally signed up as JWH, but then became hyped on the 6.5 Grendel and called myself Grendelizer. I'll try to keep it all straight!
Good point about use of modern polymers in weapons such as the Glock (I've got a G32 ;-). Can we assume anything that'll melt the XM8 will melt the handguards on an M16?
My main point is that I do NOT have a knee-jerk reaction against the XM8. I'm hoping we get something new with the reliability of the AK and the accuracy, ergonomics, and modularity of the AR. If I have a knee-jerk reaction against anything, it's against the direct-gas system of the M16. However, I have to admit that people I respect have tried hard to convince me that reliability is no longer an issue with the M16. I know I should believe them, but I foolishly remain skeptical. (And nobody seems to have or know of the results of rigorous, scientific reliability testing on the M16. I suggested something as simple as taking 10, or 100!, samples right from the factory, prepping them, and shooting a semi-trailer load of ammo through them to get an average for MTBF. Then low-crawl and roll with them through mud or sand and test again!)
My second main point is that even though I "believe" the XM8 to be an advancement, I owe it to myself to keep my enthusiasm in check and soberly accept the results of fair testing. If it truly ain't better, I must, in intellectual honesty, let it go.
So I'm hoping someone has the inside story on how it's really doing in testing, that's all. The link to AR15.com and an actual tester's report was great. That's what I'm looking for. The guy says he fired 400+ rounds with no jams. Good, but not scientifically conclusive, of course. Ultimately, will the government release the results of its testing, or can we get a "leak" from an insider?
John