George Hill
Member
I'll take one in .300 Whisper, thanks.
XM8 Again
- Thread starter Spieler
- Start date
- Status
Schuey2002
Member
Put me down for one in .308 Winny..
My SL8 needs something else plastic to keep it company in my safe..
My SL8 needs something else plastic to keep it company in my safe..
Andrew Wyatt
Member
1. the reliability has yet to be proven in any combat zone.
2. the m-16 has already been paid for, and it's not less expensive than a PIP kit.
3. the buffer is not a discernable weakness and is in fact an asset, as there are no springs flying all over the place when the gun is dissassembled.
4. real dang fixable, and not much of a problem anyway.
5. a looser fitting bolt would cause functioning problems (I think) and allow cases to get stuck in odd places.
6. the reciever's already paid for.
Badger Arms
Member
Well, I'll have to put my statement in context. The buffer IS a liability only for the reason the Army WILL buy the XM-8. The Buffer prevents the rifle from mounting underneath a magazine-fed semi-automatic grenade launcher. That, my fellow gun nut, is the the only reason that the XM-8 will have a chance in the face of arguments put forth in this thread. Most of them are legitemate arguments... strange how the placement of the buffer in the stock might doom the M-16...
Remember, the whole reason for adoption of the XM-8 is not the replacement of the M-16. That's just a side benefit!
The stated reason for its adoption is to develop and improve the separate components of the XM-29 CONCEPT piece by piece. I'd imagine that a separate, stand-alone grenade launcher will be put out for bid and H&K will jump in with their own improved version of the XM-29 development grenade launcher. I seriously doubt they'll just mark time while the XM-8 is tested and procured.mattd
Member
Do soldiers deserve to die because they don't clean their weapon everyday? No doubt there will be lives saved if we had a better weapon.
To be a almost very good weapon it needs to have picatinny rails and a m-16 style mag release.
To be a almost very good weapon it needs to have picatinny rails and a m-16 style mag release.
Last edited:
max popenker
Member
honestly, i see no advantages in M16 (actually MP40
) style mag release, other than increasing chances of magazine losing when gun is bumped sideways against something...i grew up with AK-style mag release, and it is natural and quite positive. As far as i know, it is unwise to use M16 magazine as a support when shooting... with AK-47 you can use magazine as a support no problem; you can even use a magazine to hit enemy in hand-to-hand combat (crowd control, for example) and it still be able to fedd your gun. It's just a matter of what you used to... and i strongly believe that magazine unit is not a strongest point of a whole AR15/M16 family
Actually, I don't think you'll see another over/under weapon like the M16/M203 or it's ill fated would be successor, the XM29. They are currently looking at a stand alone grenade launcher. Development is moving towards munitions (probably not 40mm) that will give the grenadier a close in capability.
HK had nothing to do with the grenade launcher portion of the XM29. If we develop and field a stand alone grenade launcher, there will be no reason to mess with the XM8. The rifle we use won't be a component of anything. Another nail in the XM8's coffin lid. HK can head on back to Oberndorf (SP?) and dream of the days when they made a weapon that was a commercial success. Too bad 5.56mm carbines are replacing submachine guns...Oh well maybe someday they will produce a weapon they can get an army to adopt
Max, you can use the M16 magazine as a monopod. It works fine. It's an od wives tale about it causing malfunctions. As for using the magazine as a riot control weapon, we have much better things for that.
There is no way the flapper type mag release that's on an AK is as ergonomic as the pushbutton on an M16. It's one motion to insert/extract the magazine from an M16, you don't have to rock it like an AK. Speed and tac reloads are much easier to do with an M16.
HK had nothing to do with the grenade launcher portion of the XM29. If we develop and field a stand alone grenade launcher, there will be no reason to mess with the XM8. The rifle we use won't be a component of anything. Another nail in the XM8's coffin lid.
HK can head on back to Oberndorf (SP?) and dream of the days when they made a weapon that was a commercial success. Too bad 5.56mm carbines are replacing submachine guns...Oh well maybe someday they will produce a weapon they can get an army to adopt Max, you can use the M16 magazine as a monopod. It works fine. It's an od wives tale about it causing malfunctions. As for using the magazine as a riot control weapon, we have much better things for that.
There is no way the flapper type mag release that's on an AK is as ergonomic as the pushbutton on an M16. It's one motion to insert/extract the magazine from an M16, you don't have to rock it like an AK. Speed and tac reloads are much easier to do with an M16.
max popenker
Member
yeah? as far as i know, the H-K develops BOTH kinetic (5.56) and HE (GL) parts of XM29, so, the new 25mm XM25 will be just a scale-up of the HK's XM29 KE component plus separate stock. The ATK is responsible for fire controls, ammunition and overall integration. The new single-shot 40mm GL, which is planned to go along with XM8, the XM320, also is no more than a product improved HK AG36...
let's face it - US small arms industry lost this round. see how it will be in the future...
Max,
Funny how the only people who think the US firearms industry lost this round are people with a vested interest in it losing and some American hobbyists.
The US Army Infantry School, who will ultimately make the decision has already killed the XM29 and will kill the XM8 for the reasons we've discussed here. there is no love for wither of these weapons among real soldiers.
Jeff
Funny how the only people who think the US firearms industry lost this round are people with a vested interest in it losing and some American hobbyists.
The US Army Infantry School, who will ultimately make the decision has already killed the XM29 and will kill the XM8 for the reasons we've discussed here. there is no love for wither of these weapons among real soldiers.
Jeff
Destructo6
Member
FN Manufacturing?
The G36 can mount the AG36 grenade launcher, which can be removed and used separately. IIRC, the AG36 can be mounted on the M16 series.
I'd have to agree with Max regarding the magazine release. I find the paddle style to be quick and easy on the magazines. Again, the G3 style paddle and button would be great, since you could do it either way.
Badger Arms
Member
Of course you know I'm going to ask you to defend this statement. I have no doubt that you're a real soldier. Arthritis has grounded me, but I still know a good thing when I see it. You mean to tell me that my 13-year-old son woundn't like a weapon he can point at a target, adjust some little buttons, and then shoot beside and behind a barricaded enemy to kill him? Heck, I've known computer geeks that spend weeks trying to write code to allow their shoot-em-up games to cheat that way! We're not talking Rambo here, Dexter is more likely to join the Army and he's kicking butt in Iraq right now! (well, maybe I spent too long recruiting in Seattle)
Other evidence that the XM-8 is not a pipe dream: H&K is BUILDING a plant in Georgia. Well, GOOoooOOOOl, you think they'll put Georgians out of work? True, I'd love to personally put the death-nail in the M-16's coffin. Even you must know that the XM-8 probably has what it takes to do this.
It's interesting to follow the logic both here and on the thread you linked me to, Jeff. The logic is old and I've heard it before. It was the same logic that proponents of the M-14 (or something better) used to say they didn't want the XM-16. Well, I agree that the XM-16 could have matured into a fine weapon had it not been standardized in prototype form.
One final note while I'm up on this soapbox. Why did the guns in Kelly Flynn, uh, I mean Jessica Lynch's unit jam? Dust? What did the dust do? It got into the action of the gun I'd imagine. How? Well, maybe the ejectioni port cover was open, maybe between receiver halves, up through the trigger opening, through the gas tube hole, from the magazine well, who knows! How much room is there for that 'byproduct of combat' to move around inside the confines of an M-16 rifle? Not much. While I don't think that the AK is the best thing since sliced bread, I do think that clearance is an important thing in a combat arm.
I'll say it so you don't have to... This is IN SPITE of the fact that thousands of soldiers have had no problem whatsoever with the Black Rifle.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
badger: check out the lightfighter forums and the army infantry school forums. Neither one of those places have any love for the XM29. I've heard reports about the G36 not being all it's cracked up to be, as well. mostly stuff like the optics fogging and the busttstock cracking.
Destructo6
Member
The fogging can be addressed either by using impoved optics in the carry handle or replacing the carry handle with a rail and using SOPMOD optics.
The XM8 appears to use a completely different buttstock assembly. Perhaps they could duplicate the G36 version, but solid rather than skeletonized.
Anyway, these are minor problems that would and should be addressed during trials.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
problems the m-16 doesn't have.
TX65
Member
H&K is building a plant in Georgia for multiple reasons.
1. While we often hear politicians complain that companies are taking manufacturering jobs and moving them to Mexico and Asia. H&K is another example of a european company building a plant in the USA to achieve labor and benefit cost savings (how would you like to pay for employees getting 6-8 weeks paid time off). Other european companies that have taken this step include BMW and Mercedes.
2. Given some of the US firearms laws that have been passed, H&K has been at a disadvantage trying to sell products in US. Think of how many H&K products can no longer be sold in the US after the 1994 Crime Bill. It is ok for some US maker to make H&K clones, but not for the real manufacturer to import them. As such, H&K, building a US manufacturing plant, will be able to make and sell products that cannot be imported.
3. The USA is the largest single firearms market in the world. Yes, the military is largest single user of firearms, but us civilians buy large numbers of firearms for hunting and target shooting. H&K would be foolish not to better position themselves for this market.
4. Of course, then there is the opportunity presented by possible military contracts whether it be for USP handguns, the XM8 or whatever may come down the road.
1. While we often hear politicians complain that companies are taking manufacturering jobs and moving them to Mexico and Asia. H&K is another example of a european company building a plant in the USA to achieve labor and benefit cost savings (how would you like to pay for employees getting 6-8 weeks paid time off). Other european companies that have taken this step include BMW and Mercedes.
2. Given some of the US firearms laws that have been passed, H&K has been at a disadvantage trying to sell products in US. Think of how many H&K products can no longer be sold in the US after the 1994 Crime Bill. It is ok for some US maker to make H&K clones, but not for the real manufacturer to import them. As such, H&K, building a US manufacturing plant, will be able to make and sell products that cannot be imported.
3. The USA is the largest single firearms market in the world. Yes, the military is largest single user of firearms, but us civilians buy large numbers of firearms for hunting and target shooting. H&K would be foolish not to better position themselves for this market.
4. Of course, then there is the opportunity presented by possible military contracts whether it be for USP handguns, the XM8 or whatever may come down the road.
Badger Arms said,
The big difference is that the AR15 (wasn't XM16 till the XM16E1) was many things that the M14 wasn't. The AR15 gave us controllable selective fire, something that no so called main battle rifle is capable of. The AR15 gave us a lighter weapon that allowed our soldiers to carry more ammunition and other gear. The AR15 gave us a round that has better terminal effects on the enemy then M80 ball does. The better terminal effects were a fortunate accident, as no one knew much about wound ballistics then.
The XM8 gives us none of these. The XM8 gives us everything we already have in a different package. That's why those arguments are valid when we stack the XM8 up against the M16.
Well where did the dust get into the M249s, M60s and M2s that jammed from? The 507th Maintence Company experienced failure in all of their small arms. The thing is no weapon, be it an M16, AKM, Galil, G36, M2, M1911, M1 etc. will function when its packed full of dust. The army issues a nice plastic bag to keep weapons in in those conditions, plus there are plenty of field expediants out there. Take a look at the history books. You'll find pistures of our soldiers with their M1s wrapped up in North Africa in WWII.
Do you expect me to believe that the XM8 would have stood up to those same conditions and continued to function?
I'm saving the best for last
That's where we are going. But the technology is not there yet. Do you really think that if we buy the XM8 now, we'll have the money to re-equip the force when this new technology is perfected? Small arms are a 20 year or better program in todays military. One of the reasons the M16 replaced the M14 so easily is that the M14 was having severe production problems. The M14 is probably the only modern rifle we have ever fielded that we were not able to produce in sufficient quantity to equip the entire force with. Many units went right from the M1 to the M16A1.
That's why for the most part the professional soldiers are not supporting the XM8. I think you'd find a lot of support for it, if it gave us something we didn't already have with the M16, but it doesn't. Those of us who have been around a while and have witnessed our procurement system in action know that if we buy the XM8 in the near term that there won't be money to buy the XM whatever, when the big breakthrough finally occurs.
The bugs have been worked out of the M16 for a very long time. We have been in the product improvement phase for 20 years. Yet other XM8 proponents (destructo 6) admit some things about the XM8 with this:
Every penny we put into fixing these problems is another penny we don't have to develop the big breakthrough.
Jeff
The big difference is that the AR15 (wasn't XM16 till the XM16E1) was many things that the M14 wasn't. The AR15 gave us controllable selective fire, something that no so called main battle rifle is capable of. The AR15 gave us a lighter weapon that allowed our soldiers to carry more ammunition and other gear. The AR15 gave us a round that has better terminal effects on the enemy then M80 ball does. The better terminal effects were a fortunate accident, as no one knew much about wound ballistics then.
The XM8 gives us none of these. The XM8 gives us everything we already have in a different package. That's why those arguments are valid when we stack the XM8 up against the M16.
Well where did the dust get into the M249s, M60s and M2s that jammed from? The 507th Maintence Company experienced failure in all of their small arms. The thing is no weapon, be it an M16, AKM, Galil, G36, M2, M1911, M1 etc. will function when its packed full of dust. The army issues a nice plastic bag to keep weapons in in those conditions, plus there are plenty of field expediants out there. Take a look at the history books. You'll find pistures of our soldiers with their M1s wrapped up in North Africa in WWII.
Do you expect me to believe that the XM8 would have stood up to those same conditions and continued to function?
I'm saving the best for last
That's where we are going. But the technology is not there yet. Do you really think that if we buy the XM8 now, we'll have the money to re-equip the force when this new technology is perfected? Small arms are a 20 year or better program in todays military. One of the reasons the M16 replaced the M14 so easily is that the M14 was having severe production problems. The M14 is probably the only modern rifle we have ever fielded that we were not able to produce in sufficient quantity to equip the entire force with. Many units went right from the M1 to the M16A1.
That's why for the most part the professional soldiers are not supporting the XM8. I think you'd find a lot of support for it, if it gave us something we didn't already have with the M16, but it doesn't. Those of us who have been around a while and have witnessed our procurement system in action know that if we buy the XM8 in the near term that there won't be money to buy the XM whatever, when the big breakthrough finally occurs.
The bugs have been worked out of the M16 for a very long time. We have been in the product improvement phase for 20 years. Yet other XM8 proponents (destructo 6) admit some things about the XM8 with this:
Every penny we put into fixing these problems is another penny we don't have to develop the big breakthrough.
Jeff
natedog
Member
Doesn't anyone see a problem with a 5.56mm rifle and a 12" barrel?
Andrew Wyatt
Member
the HK polygonal barrel increases velocity enough that you can get 20 inch barrel velocity in a 12 inch barrel. really. The peters-stallish lockup helps too.
natedog
Member
Is this applicable with pistols as well? I mean, you normally get like 800fps out of a 1911, could you get like +1000 out of a USP?
Andrew Wyatt
Member
well, you'd only get 1000 FPS out of a 1911 if it was an HK. power of the logo and all.
Destructo6
Member
Actually, I wasn't admitting to anything. I was addressing problems brought up by Andrew Wayatt. Solutions to which, appear to already exist: little to no additional money needed.
And if no money is spent on the subsystems, how can the complete system succeed?
And if no money is spent on the subsystems, how can the complete system succeed?
That's akin to polishing a turd.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I'd appreciate it if you spelled my name properly next time.
The SWAT match has been won nearly every year by a person with an ar-15. Every year it's been in the mojave desert.
The thing i don't think people appreciate about HK weapons is they're not open source. There will be no XM8 improvements unless HK makes them.
The Ar-15, on the other hand, can be improved and produced by ANYBODY.
The SWAT match has been won nearly every year by a person with an ar-15. Every year it's been in the mojave desert.
The thing i don't think people appreciate about HK weapons is they're not open source. There will be no XM8 improvements unless HK makes them.
The Ar-15, on the other hand, can be improved and produced by ANYBODY.
Destructo6 said;
You don't really believe that we will solve those problems without spending money do you? I know HK is such a patriotic American company that they will bear the development costs out of pocket so the taxpayer gets a good deal
.
HK isn't spending any of their money on the XM8 now. Every penny we are spending on testing it is coming out of yours and my pockets. So I ask again, is it financially prudent to re-invent the wheel?
Eventually, technology will give us a weapon that does more then the one we have. Sooner or later we will get a system that is advanced enough that anyone can pick it up and be effective with it, with little or no training. Like it or not, that's where we're trying to go. When the breakthrough comes, I'd like to be ready to exploit it. We won't be if we squander scarce resources on the XM8.
I can't think of any other nation in the world where the selection of small arms for the military is as frought with emotion and controversy as it is in the U.S.
Our unique American culture seems to have most males convinced that they left the womb with the firearms design genius of John Browning and a natural ability to handle firearms.
I really do believe that there are people out there who would arm our military with High Pointe Carbines if it were up to them. Everyone thinks that their own personal favorite weapon is the best. In this debate we have those who hate the M16 and would do anything to replace it. Facts have little to do with their thoughts on the matter. In their mind, Stoner's little black rifle was the reason that the finest rifle ever to be carried by any soldier anywhere, the legendary M14 was relegated to the scrap heap. Then we have the Heckler und Koch devotees who believe in their heart of hearts that if it comes from Oberndorf, it automatically represents the zenith of modern small arms development. Never mind that HK has produced one commercially successful weapon, the MP5. The G3 was a moderate success, but it certainly wasn't as successful as it's contemporary competition, the FAL.
If you put aside the fact you'd rather see American soldiers and Marines carry Hi-Pointe Carbines into battle then the M16, or that you love to see H und K finally sell one of their designs to a major army, because they are so good and it's only been some sort of bias that has kept the free world from only using H und K weapons you'll have to agree that changing to the XM8 is the same as the guy who has a tried and true Remington 1100 in his safe, but he just really wants a nice Beretta to duck hunt with this year. The Remington 1100 has served him well, it may have been his father's duck hunting gun, but it's not a sexy new Beretta. This is fine for the hunter who has his finances in order and won't have to miss a mortgage payment to change. But it's not fine for our military. The military will miss mortgage payments by adopting the XM8. We will spend money that we should be spending on development of the next generation of rifles. All for a shiny new bauble that does exactly the same thing our current rifle does. All for change for the sake of changing.
Jeff
You don't really believe that we will solve those problems without spending money do you? I know HK is such a patriotic American company that they will bear the development costs out of pocket so the taxpayer gets a good deal
.HK isn't spending any of their money on the XM8 now. Every penny we are spending on testing it is coming out of yours and my pockets. So I ask again, is it financially prudent to re-invent the wheel?
Eventually, technology will give us a weapon that does more then the one we have. Sooner or later we will get a system that is advanced enough that anyone can pick it up and be effective with it, with little or no training. Like it or not, that's where we're trying to go. When the breakthrough comes, I'd like to be ready to exploit it. We won't be if we squander scarce resources on the XM8.
I can't think of any other nation in the world where the selection of small arms for the military is as frought with emotion and controversy as it is in the U.S.
Our unique American culture seems to have most males convinced that they left the womb with the firearms design genius of John Browning and a natural ability to handle firearms.
I really do believe that there are people out there who would arm our military with High Pointe Carbines if it were up to them. Everyone thinks that their own personal favorite weapon is the best. In this debate we have those who hate the M16 and would do anything to replace it. Facts have little to do with their thoughts on the matter. In their mind, Stoner's little black rifle was the reason that the finest rifle ever to be carried by any soldier anywhere, the legendary M14
was relegated to the scrap heap. Then we have the Heckler und Koch devotees who believe in their heart of hearts that if it comes from Oberndorf, it automatically represents the zenith of modern small arms development. Never mind that HK has produced one commercially successful weapon, the MP5. The G3 was a moderate success, but it certainly wasn't as successful as it's contemporary competition, the FAL. If you put aside the fact you'd rather see American soldiers and Marines carry Hi-Pointe Carbines into battle then the M16, or that you love to see H und K finally sell one of their designs to a major army, because they are so good and it's only been some sort of bias that has kept the free world from only using H und K weapons you'll have to agree that changing to the XM8 is the same as the guy who has a tried and true Remington 1100 in his safe, but he just really wants a nice Beretta to duck hunt with this year. The Remington 1100 has served him well, it may have been his father's duck hunting gun, but it's not a sexy new Beretta. This is fine for the hunter who has his finances in order and won't have to miss a mortgage payment to change. But it's not fine for our military. The military will miss mortgage payments by adopting the XM8. We will spend money that we should be spending on development of the next generation of rifles. All for a shiny new bauble that does exactly the same thing our current rifle does. All for change for the sake of changing.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
I'm frankly very happy that the subject of our service rifle brings about so much discussion, however the emotion seems to have clouded the facts here. Maybe I'm wrong, but:
The M-16 is a VERY accurate weapon that relies on an engineering marvel (the fact that they get the thing to work most of the time is a testament to the stubornness of the US Army and Marines). It is also VERY finicky as to what ammo you feed it, what powder you use, and requires a chrome chamber and constant meticulous maintenance to operate reliably. Every darned discussion we get into about the M-16 deteriorates into some proponent of the gun saying that it's been 100% reliable in their 10,000 years of experience with the weapon.*
* if it is kept super-clean, if you feed it only approved powders, if you keep the ejection port clean, if you ... etc. etc.
The polished turd analogy is correct. The Chauchaut (sp?) automatic rifle would have been an excellent weapon had we maintained them and kept them out of the mud and used the strictest ammunition specifications in the HISTORY OF SMALL ARMS to feed it. Sure, we can add chrome chambers and put a heavier buffer on, etc, and make the Reising work also. We've band-aided the HELL out of an intrinsically inferior design. Just replacing the Gas system was an improvement that Bob McNamarra was unwilling to accept because that put him and his "Twit Trust" two beans over their 5 billion bean count for that fiscal year. Hell, we replaced the gas system on the Garand REALLY quick when we found something that worked better. We did it again when we standardized the M-14. Sure worked then. To punish Army Ordnance for their nepotism and bad management, they jammed the AR-15 down our collective throats. Haha. And don't DARE try to improve it any because if it needed improvement, GOD WOULD HAVE IMPROVED IT before he gave it to us. Some bullheadedness out there seems to supporr the worship Gene Stoner and his 'IWANNACOOLGUN' creation and call us realists heretics for suggesting that the Emperor wears no clothes. How dare we!
No, I won't quote statistics and I haven't done a scientific survey of the fine, upstanding firearms experts the Army hires out of High School, however I can tell you from an engineering standpoint it's a polished turd. State of the Art for 1957, but obsolescent now. The XM-8 is state-of-the-art in terms of design, manufacturing, and ergonomics. If you don't think it's an improvement, I'm convinced you can't be pleased.
One question, though. How would you feel if the XM-8 passed the upcoming trials with flying colors and is found to be superior? What quantifiable level of improvement do you want to see? How much cheaper, more reliable, more accurate, more controllable, etc. would this weapon need to be before Heckler & Kochophobes will accept it?
Are we listening to the opinions of Yellow-Dog Democrats, or is there a chance we can lure you to the dark side? I'm sensing that this really isn't an argument of money. I'm not ignorant to the money issue, I just find it dubious that we'd buy 50 more Strykers and keep buying the M-4 Carbine. I'm not buying into this "Starving Children" debate trickery either. If the Army wants the XM-8, they'll get it and they AIN'T gonna skimp on school lunches to do it. Speaking as a bona-fide Zoomie, I can tell you I'd rather have the Grunts armed and equiped with the best that modern technology has to offer and that includes their rifles. I've got a deep, almost religious belief that the XM-8 is up to the task of becoming the M-8, politics and economics aside. I truly believe that its adoption is the right thing to do. It's a matter of faith at this point, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I'm sure I'll start repeating myself so I'll just rest my case at this. I wouldn't have kept debating if I didn't have a religious belief that this is the right gun and the right time. Nuff said.
The M-16 is a VERY accurate weapon that relies on an engineering marvel (the fact that they get the thing to work most of the time is a testament to the stubornness of the US Army and Marines). It is also VERY finicky as to what ammo you feed it, what powder you use, and requires a chrome chamber and constant meticulous maintenance to operate reliably. Every darned discussion we get into about the M-16 deteriorates into some proponent of the gun saying that it's been 100% reliable in their 10,000 years of experience with the weapon.*
* if it is kept super-clean, if you feed it only approved powders, if you keep the ejection port clean, if you ... etc. etc.
The polished turd analogy is correct. The Chauchaut (sp?) automatic rifle would have been an excellent weapon had we maintained them and kept them out of the mud and used the strictest ammunition specifications in the HISTORY OF SMALL ARMS to feed it. Sure, we can add chrome chambers and put a heavier buffer on, etc, and make the Reising work also. We've band-aided the HELL out of an intrinsically inferior design. Just replacing the Gas system was an improvement that Bob McNamarra was unwilling to accept because that put him and his "Twit Trust" two beans over their 5 billion bean count for that fiscal year. Hell, we replaced the gas system on the Garand REALLY quick when we found something that worked better. We did it again when we standardized the M-14. Sure worked then. To punish Army Ordnance for their nepotism and bad management, they jammed the AR-15 down our collective throats. Haha. And don't DARE try to improve it any because if it needed improvement, GOD WOULD HAVE IMPROVED IT before he gave it to us. Some bullheadedness out there seems to supporr the worship Gene Stoner and his 'IWANNACOOLGUN' creation and call us realists heretics for suggesting that the Emperor wears no clothes. How dare we!
No, I won't quote statistics and I haven't done a scientific survey of the fine, upstanding firearms experts the Army hires out of High School, however I can tell you from an engineering standpoint it's a polished turd. State of the Art for 1957, but obsolescent now. The XM-8 is state-of-the-art in terms of design, manufacturing, and ergonomics. If you don't think it's an improvement, I'm convinced you can't be pleased.
One question, though. How would you feel if the XM-8 passed the upcoming trials with flying colors and is found to be superior? What quantifiable level of improvement do you want to see? How much cheaper, more reliable, more accurate, more controllable, etc. would this weapon need to be before Heckler & Kochophobes will accept it?
Are we listening to the opinions of Yellow-Dog Democrats, or is there a chance we can lure you to the dark side? I'm sensing that this really isn't an argument of money. I'm not ignorant to the money issue, I just find it dubious that we'd buy 50 more Strykers and keep buying the M-4 Carbine. I'm not buying into this "Starving Children" debate trickery either. If the Army wants the XM-8, they'll get it and they AIN'T gonna skimp on school lunches to do it. Speaking as a bona-fide Zoomie, I can tell you I'd rather have the Grunts armed and equiped with the best that modern technology has to offer and that includes their rifles. I've got a deep, almost religious belief that the XM-8 is up to the task of becoming the M-8, politics and economics aside. I truly believe that its adoption is the right thing to do. It's a matter of faith at this point, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I'm sure I'll start repeating myself so I'll just rest my case at this. I wouldn't have kept debating if I didn't have a religious belief that this is the right gun and the right time. Nuff said.
- Status
