XM8

[Hissing_Sid]

As well they should be

*sings first two lines of national anthem and forgets the rest*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't take that the wrong way.

 

I was just using sarcasm to highlight the way that website was being slightly partisan while apportioning blame for the M9 slide failures.

[expvideo]

Of course it was partisan. it says 1911 in the damn address.

 

Aaron

 

EDIT: I don't mean to come down on you Sid, but in all fairness the "Porsche Club" website isn't going to have much good to say about ford pickups, are they?

[Krazy L]

hoorah. LOL theres one for the record books

[Hissing_Sid]

Of course it was partisan.  it says 1911 in the damn address.

 

Aaron

 

EDIT: I don't mean to come down on you Sid, but in all fairness the "Porsche Club" website isn't going to have much good to say about ford pickups, are they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Erm...

 

That's still what I'm on about.

 

Most of the cr@p spewed about the M9 is from sites which love traditional 1911s.

 

It seems that their first priority is to slag off the M9 cos, well, cos it's not a 1911. Their 2nd priority is to show that dirty foreign guns are inferior and that once the gun was made in the good-ole' US of A then it instantly got better.

 

That and the fact that a few slides launched into the face had taught the SEALs not to load it with super-duper ammo.

[Krazy L]

LOL super duper ammo as in standard ball and AP.

[expvideo]

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong Sid, because you aren't. I'm just pointing out that you accused a website with "1911" in the web address of being partisan. Well... Duh.

 

Aaron

[Smoker]

Thank you for the links. An interesting read.

 

It looks like while I never experienced any problems with mine from 1996 until 2002. There were some old problems with the slide back in the late 80s early 90s. Fixed by a manufacturing change in 1988. Looks like it took 3 or 4 years to replace all the old stock.

And some problems with the new magazine from a cheap manufacutrer. Currently being fixed.

 

Thanks, for the info always glad to learn something new.

 

I still don't see where they are currently ###### but you if believe I'm wrong so be it.

[Hissing_Sid]

LOL super duper ammo as in standard ball and AP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently not.

 

Apprently when the slides failed the guns were being fired with some kind of experimental charge.

 

That's Berettas story anyway.

 

If that wasn't the case then it seems a little bit odd that god-knows-how-many M9s in service in the army never had a problem and yet a bunch of M9s used by SEALs, at the same time, had this same fault.

 

To put it in perspective, if a bunch of guys signed up for this forum and all said that the CA M15 (or whatever) was junk because they all bought one and they all broke, what would your response be?

 

Is it more likely to be the gun or the people using it?

[Krazy L]

HA those experamental rounds were just frangabiles. turns out the gun powder was to strong and burned to fast. like putting green gas in a KWC python. it goes pop boom. just on a much larger scale.

[unimatrix001]

Um, I like history as much as the next guy but can't find where the U.S. forced anyone into this. This maybe because I live in the U.S..

If you would be kind enough to proved a source. I would really like to see this, because, I was under the impression that NATO decide to go to the 5.56mm before the U.S. Army bought any M16s. As a matter of fact the M16 was originally chambered in 7.62mm(atleast in testing).

 

 

Do you believe in wikipedia?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56mm_NATO

 

With the US military adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 as the M16 rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington was standardized as the 5.56x45 mm. However, the .223 Remington was not introduced as a commercial sporting cartridge until 1964.

 

During the 1970s, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to complement the 7.62 mm NATO. Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56 mm was successful, but not the 5.56 loading as used by the US at that time. Instead, the Belgian FN SS109 loading was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet at a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance.

 

The 5.56mm round was adopted in September 1963 as the M193 by the US Army, it was introduced with the US Armed forces a long time before NATO did anything with this round. The United Stated changed their ammunition arbitrary to 5.56mm without any consultation of NATO.

 

Also the M16 (AR15) was never chambered in 7.62mm, the AR10 was, but that was in 1955/57. The AR15, which was designed after the AR10, was designed in 5.56mm from the beginning of the project (late 1957) and has never been chambered in 7.62mm. Nowadays there are 7.62mm AR15s from Armalite, Knights Armament etc. but they've been developed a long time after the initial AR15 project.

[Catchv22]

He's right. America insisted that NATO adopt the 7.62mm and then switched to the 5.56mm round without consulting any other countries, which eventually forced them to adopt the 5.56 as well for the NATO standard. Unfortunately, the 5.56mm did beat out the British .280 round which is very similar to the 6.8mm that everyone wants now. Funny how things work out in the end...

 

However, I don't feel the US really cares about whether their weapons are foreign anymore, especially with the adoption of the Beretta and the fact that FN makes all the M16s in use by today's armed forces.

 

I also agree that the Berettas getting slagged off is more from the M1911 Fanboy club and the ignorant copycatters.

 

Personally, I don't see the need for the XM8 being adopted even though it's a superior rifle in every way. The costs just don't justify the small amount of gain you get. It's like spending 50 dollars to buy and import a TN tightbore for your MP5K.

[Smoker]

Do you believe in wikipedia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'll have to forgive my ignorance of this website. As I have never seen it before I have it bookmarked now.

This was a very interesting reading. And something I didn't know. Thank you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62mm_NATO

 

 

However, according to this source the AR-10 was designed well before the AR-15 and was chambered in 7.62. So, while I used incorrectly the M16 designation as it didn't become that until after acceptence. I was still correct about testing it in 7.62.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_%28rifle%29

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner

 

In essence the M16 is a scaled down rechambered AR-10.