The plastic, no-account M-16 rabbit shooter that our Army warriors have painfully. .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't need no stinkin' HK.

Col. Hackworth has essentially outlived his usefullness with this literary classic.

I've got the fix. I wonder how receptive the Army would be to my .45-70 AK-47 prototype? If the 5.56 ain't cutting it, and the 6.8SPC is good, then the .45-70 is gooder, right?

Think about it. A manstopper round, no more Skinny Somalian Surprise. Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Iraqi Insurgent, meet Mr. 405gr chunk o' lead!

And I've learned from George Custer's mistakes. Versatility is built in. The gas port is large enough, as is the gas piston, to reliably function the rifle with blackpowder loads or even Cordite loads.

I could put a Galil-style ambi safety in it for all the Andrew Wyatt types currently in the employ of the DoD. And a picatinny rail for all the battery-powered wind speed indicators, cesium clocks, GPS receivers, phasers, and lasers that are gonna wind up being tacked on. They'll help with the recoil problem I haven't solved yet.

I'd be more than willing to send the prototype to Yuma for extensive live fire testing.

(Or at least give me one of those small, disadvantaged business grants to amortize the cost of Rifle #1, it's real close to being finished, and I could make it a tactical color and all...)

I'd even sign a non-competition clause with HK. Honest.

:evil:
 
It's trite but true -- we invariably seem to fight the last war. In Vietnam we realized at the beginning that Garands were outclassed by SKS's and later AK47's. The M14 was an update of the Garand which was fine for accuratte distance shooting but terrible for close-up full-auto use. So it was quickly dumped in favor of the M16.

The M16 and the M4 are excellent weapons -- for anything within 150 yards. In Vietnam many of the engagements were at fifty yards or less -- and the M16 in such a situation is a fine gun. But the twist rates and ammo were changed. One thing which made the M16 effective was that the bullet tumbled when it hit flesh, creating a large wound channel. From what I've been told, currently-issued ammo no longer does this, but is more likely to drill a neat small through-and-through hole. That also gives it more accuracy at a distance, but even less killing power from 300 yards on out.

The desert of Iraq and the mountains of Afganistan are NOT the same sort of battlefields as the jungles of Viet Nam. Again, from what I've been told, 300 yard shots in Afganistan aren't that unusual. Moreover, there have been repeated reports that the soldiers of today are far better marksmen on the average than my generation was (early 1960's). So they are much more aware of making hits which don't down their targets.

I just wonder why we expect ANY rifle to be a "one-size-fits-all." We don't issue the same clothing for the Artic, the desert, or the mountains. There are some missions for which the current weapon is probably ideal; there are others where something like the .308 M14 is far better. And there should certainly be a designable intermediate caliber used in a 2004 launching platform which, under the right conditions, will vastly surpass both of the older designs.

So, for those championing the 6.5 or other new intermediate calibers: you're right. For those defending the current weapons -- you're right, too. And for the old farts like me who happen to love the Garand and its younger son, the M14 -- we're right, too. Under the right circumstances each one of those will probably outperform the others. Why not have a variety of weapons/calibers to fit the situation?

(And I've been told that the AR/M16 design readily lends itself to different calibers. Would it be possible to make a rifle with quick-change barrels which could accomodate a range of calibers, along with a magazine/chamber which could handle them all? I don't know -- it will take far wiser men and brilliant weapons designers to answer that one)
 
A slightly heavier, slightly larger diameter round with the right ballistics would be able to replace several weapons systems with just two. It would be able to penetrate as well as the 7.62x51, and have just a little more recoil and weight than the 5.56x45.

Since it's time to replace the M-16 family anyway, it makes sense to replace the cartridge at the same time. "But we have X amount of ammo in inventory!" is why we didn't replace the .30-06 before WW II. If we had, there probably never would have been a 7.62x51mm in military use...

John
 
In Iraq alone, 46 million 5.56 mm rounds, 30 million 6.62 mm and 60 million .50 caliber rounds were used, according to Army records.


Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1202

There was an article that came out after that. I couldn't find it. It seems like it was a Drudgereport or Yahoo news article stating that we were burning through something like 4 million rounds a day. (Need help here, can anybody back me on this number?) And that stockpiles were being depleted faster than they could replenish them. Whatever the number was it is immense. I don't think we have this issue anymore. Crazy.
 
I bet this will be the first military rifle that there will never be a civilian version of. I doubt that we could ever be trusted with such a powerful gun. It is best to let the government have these nasty guns so they can take care of all our fighting for us.

It is an end of an era my friends! The military will have more and more powerful and advanced weapons and we as the people will have less and less. The 2nd admendment will cease to be. It will happen, I just hope it happens slowly.:(
 
Is there any REAL plan to make an xm8 in any caliber other than 5.56?
Click to expand...

So far, NO.

I swear people like HACKworth are the same people that lamented the inclusion of RIFELING on their good ole' reliable muskets.

He states in his opening paragraph that plastic=bad and 5.56=bad.

Then he goes on to state how great the xm8 will be. A rifle that contains FAR MORE plastic than the M16 and fires the same round.
 
Say what you will about the XM8, but I'm shocked by the disrespectful way people treat Colonel Hackworth. I certainly have never done anything in my life to compare with what he has done. I'm sure some of you folks may have exhibited some acts of bravery, but chances are most of us have never done anything more dangerous than commute to work, and for us to denegrate this man is astounding. No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket: we have no respect for anything but our own opinions. If there is anyone who deserves our respect, it is Colonel Hackworth.

We spend a lot of time talking about the bad guys in this forum, but maybe we should take a look in the mirror sometimes. I'm not a Christian, but I do like that thing Jesus said about not picking the mote from our neighbors eye when we should be plucking the boulder from our own.
 
The Comparison between the XM8 and the M4 Carbine is interesting.

The XM8 Carbine has a Barrel Length of: 12 INCHES
The M4 Carbine has a Barrel Length of: 14.5 INCHES
The Compact Carbine Version of the XM8 has a Barrel Length of 9 INCHES

Well now...given the fact that this rifle is to be chambered in 5.56 NATO, from a Ballistics standpoint this seriously degrades the lethality of the rifle.
 
Lobotomy Boy,

I'm sure some of you folks may have exhibited some acts of bravery, but chances are most of us have never done anything more dangerous than commute to work, and for us to denegrate this man is astounding. No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket: we have no respect for anything but our own opinions. If there is anyone who deserves our respect, it is Colonel Hackworth.
Click to expand...

I have all kinds of respect for the man, but very little for some of his rantings.

If a man who'd won the Blue Max fifty-eleven times said the sun would rise in the West tomorrow and that the sky would be green when it did, would you nod and smile and agree, or would you think that the old coot had finally flipped? :scrutiny:
 
I could put a Galil-style ambi safety in it for all the Andrew Wyatt types currently in the employ of the DoD.
Click to expand...

G98: there must be an awful large number of very intelligent lefthanded white males in the DOD who don't see any reaon to have to deal with a safety that requires that one remove his hand from a full firing grip to actuate, then.

An sks safety would be more to my liking, anyway. it's simpler and can be made ambi real easy.
 
Okay, for once my sarcasm mode is completely off. I am totally ignorant and naive about this issue.

Wasn't Hackworth's point simply to applaud the development of a new and more reliable and versatile rifle platform? And to encourage the army to consider a 6.8 mm cartridge (which honestly has some gut-level appeal to me, but I'll admit I'm basically clueless)?

Why is Hackworth's commentary being met with so much derision? It seems pretty reasonable on the surface, but I've got the feeling I'm missing something here. I'm really not trolling or baiting anyone, I just don't understand what's going on behind the scenes.
 
Why is Hackworth's commentary being met with so much derision?
Click to expand...

When one opens one's diatribe by stating that one hates a certain gun for its small caliber and inclusion of some plastic parts, one shouldn't then praise its replacement with a different small caliber gun that uses even more plastic parts. It makes one look all wet. ;)
 
A slightly heavier, slightly larger diameter round with the right ballistics would be able to replace several weapons systems with just two. It would be able to penetrate as well as the 7.62x51, and have just a little more recoil and weight than the 5.56x45.

Since it's time to replace the M-16 family anyway, it makes sense to replace the cartridge at the same time
Click to expand...

Entirely agree. IMO the case for replacing the M16 family with the XM8 is rather weak; yes, it's a better gun by all accounts, but would it make much difference to a soldier's effectiveness? The XM8 in 6.8x43 would be a different matter - definitely worth having (although I'd prefer an FN F2000 in the same calibre :) )

The 6.8mm cartridge develops about double the recoil of the 5.56mm but about half that of the 7.62x51; it's just about on the limit for controllable full-auto fire. It has exactly the same trajectory as the 7.62x51 out to 500m, and hits only 10cm lower at 600m. It delivers about 80% of the performance of the 7.62x51, which IMO means that it could replace that cartridge as well as the 5.56mm. If you want to reach significantly further, you'd be better off with a much more powerful round like the .338 Lapua.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
Tamara, I wasn't even discussing whether or not I agreed with Hackworth's opinion. I was referring to the disrespectful way in which many people on the forum were attacking him for expressing his opinion. It was disgraceful and made me embarrassed to be a member of the firearms community. I have no more problem with people expressing contrary opinions than I do to Hackworth expressing his opinion, but the man has earned the right to be treated respectfully. I wonder how many of the foaming, frothy mouthed people launching disrespectful ad hominem attacks on Colonel Hackworth have earned that level of respect?

I agree with Tony that the most important change would be an increase in caliber to the 6.8x43 round. One rabid 5.56 supporter earlier suggested that anyone who didn't like his beloved round stand downrange of one.

I'll take him up on it, provided I get to shoot back with a rifle of similar quality chambered for the 6.8 round. This logistical savant needs to remember that soldiers differ from hunters in one important aspect: their quarry shoots back.
 
I saw Hackworth at the SHOT Show at the HK booth. He certainly had a lot of attention there, and I have to admit I was wondering what he was "up to."
 
I agree that Hackworth is owed the respect due a military hero. I would also add that being a military hero doesn't mean that a person is admirable across the board or that he is automatically right about all things military.
I've had the privilege of knowing a number of decorated combat veterans. I respected what all of them did in combat. That did not prevent me from recognizing that some of them were nothing but drunks, that a few of them were part of the "tinfoil hat" crowd, and that some of them were world-class blowhards.
I respect Hackworth's military heroism, that doesn't change that he was "all wet" in the article.
 
Last edited:
I have to second what Lobotomy Boy has said. He has received some scathing remarks in this post. It's just not right to come out and bash a guy for his opinion. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against just coming out and and saying; "Hackworth, you are totally whack!!", that is if that was my opinion of the fellow. Especially if people are willing to then proceed and explain why they think the guy is off his rocker.

Frankly I don't have much of an opinion on this, because I don't care. I'll never own one of these. I'll never be in the army.

Okay, I understand too that there is a lot of history with this fellow, so perhaps the emotions run high and push some here to get a little too involved in bashing the fellow. But seriously folks there is a certain way to express your view the guy is a fruitcake (If he is), and jumping into a pile-on is more of a pack mentality tactic. It's what barbarians do.

I'd rather people just said "Hackworth, you are totally out of it and going senile". That is their opinion. And it's an honest way to express it.
 
The man had a little taste of glory. He needs articles like the above to have people defend him. He needs the feeling people still take him seriously. Insecurity is a terrible thing.
 
Say what you will about the XM8, but I'm shocked by the disrespectful way people treat Colonel Hackworth. I certainly have never done anything in my life to compare with what he has done. I'm sure some of you folks may have exhibited some acts of bravery, but chances are most of us have never done anything more dangerous than commute to work, and for us to denegrate this man is astounding. No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket: we have no respect for anything but our own opinions. If there is anyone who deserves our respect, it is Colonel Hackworth.
Click to expand...
I have contributed to Hackworth's SFTT.org website and purchased a number of his books. But his writings have opened him to criticism from just about anyone associated with the Army. He is by no means exemplary.

First, Hackworth claims the title of America's Most Decorated Soldier when the Army makes no such distinction. The Army quite reasonably points out that you cannot equate awards for battlefield heroism with each other or with administrative awards. But Hackworth claims this title and in this regard is as self-serving as someone criticized in his books - SLA Marshall. Glory hogs are welcome elsewhere.

Second, Hackworth routinely refers to Army staff officers as "Perfumed Princes." This includes many officers who served with him, had equally successful combat commands, and chose to stay in the Army and help implement their vision rather than fly off to run a bar in Australia and write books. I know some of these men so categorized, and they would rip his arms out on the way to the latrine - but they cannot respond. And he knows this.

Finally, Hackworth has for years criticized just about every detail of Army doctrine, equipment, and training. He has compared the Army at every turn in a most unfavorable light with the Marine Corps, while ignoring the many positive changes, the changing nature of the Threats, and new technology.

Then, when the Army has the audacity to charge through the desert to occupy Baghdad five days before the Marines got there, he writes a congratulatory piece about the 3rd Infantry Division, noting this about the same poorly trained, undisciplined sad-sack dogfaces and their officers he's been criticizing for 30 years:

For sure I also didn't fully figure on the amazing boldness, fighting spirit and hard-hitting professionalism of the 3rd. The media have covered the 3rd Infantry Division's brilliant maneuver in spectacular detail. Like many Americans, I've tuned in to these TV snapshots almost 19 hours a day, long enough to note with surprise that even at times when water wasn't plentiful, these warriors were shaved, their gear soldierly perfect and their tactical deployments parade-ground precise. There are no disheveled Rambos in the all-volunteer Army's “Rock of the Marne.â€
Click to expand...
So, does Colonel Hackworth deserve credit for his battlefield achievements? Of course. But neither is he immune from criticism, nor an example for others to live by. Personally, I think he should add another layer of tinfoil to his helmet.
 
Yeah, well then, people should quit attacking him like a pack of bloody dogs. If you don't want him posting articles like that then simply ignore him.

And if you are worried about the "unwashed masses", you think might read his article and take it to heart. Simply posting a "Hack you're all wet, and this is why" is generally quite sufficient. Look the pharisees decided the Lord Jesus Christ had to die, this was their conclusion. After that they just needed to find a charge that they could make stick. That was murder. I feel like this is some sort of uncalled for witchhunt. (Okay, maybe the aleged witch shouldn't have posted his diatribe on a spell in the town square. But I hope you get my drift.) <Sigh, shakes head>

I'm done with this thread. Look if you want to beat on him like a bunch of thugs just go start a "Hack is a hack" thread under general or something. This started off as a thesis in a rifle, and now it's a Let's bash Hack thread. I hope a Mod will at least move this out of the Rifles Section. Frankly I don't like to defend him, just because I don't agree with some of the content in his initial post, and believe he is jumping to conclusion illogically. But I'm saying cut it out, simply out of principal. People could at least maintain the most base form of civility.
 
Hi VG,

Okay, I think that's the first decent criticism of the guy I have seen. Factual, concise. With a little cynicism mixed in (another layer to his tinfoil hat). Thanks for the info...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
HK XM-8 6.8 SPC: M-16A2 and 5.56x45 Successor?
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Kurush
K
R
  • Locked
M-4's Jamming in the 'Stan
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
160
Views
8K
Oohrah
O
V
  • Locked
Army Reorganizes Plan To Field New Family Of Infantry Weapons
Replies
12
Views
2K
WonderNine
W
M
  • Locked
M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
ShaiVong
S
B
  • Locked
17 Soldier driven changes to XM-8 outlined in "Army Times"
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
SunBear
S
Back
Top