New military rifle, What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeepmor

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
2,826
Location
Stumptown
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

xm8.bmp
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Dead project, done, kaput. It's not replacing the M16/M4 any time soon.

Fixing a non-existent problem.
 
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
 
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?
 
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top