XM8

[M1911A2 guy]

If i had to bet I would say that some US manufacurers (maybe Colt with its "M5") will knock-off H&Ks ideas, offer a cheapish and crappy alternative and the US Armed Forces will buy this ###### because it's American... same procedure as always 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Somehow this statement doesn't hold water. I honestly doubt our armed forces are going to choose a weapon because its "American *beep*". If they choose it, its because its good. You also have to remember that the M16A4 has been holding off "possible replacements" since its introduction in '94, and the USMC isn't going to be buying into another assault rifle immediately like the Army. Anyways, I don't see the original OICW getting adopted, its huge. I know that H&K was developing a smaller OICW, the XM29 I think, might be wrong though, too many XMs right now . Same launcher on a smaller gun. Anyways, the only flaw in the AR15 design is the direct gas-to-bolt mechanism(which is why the gun gets so dirty), which was fixed in the LR300 and H&K M4s. Other than that, there isn't anything wrong with the gun. Its is very, very accurate, reliable, tested. Its been proving itself for the last 40 years. And to be honest, I see the M16 in service for at least another ten years. But, who knows. A lot of great guns on this planet, and I think the M16A3/4 is one of the better rifles. I don't believe there is a best, but it is one of the better rifles. But I think either the M16A4 will stay, or the M5 will be adopted from Colt and manufactured by FN. Same situation as the A4, just a different gun.

[badkarma1354]

When picking a rifle for military you do have to consider the end user. The reason I like HK so much is because the guns are so reliable and just feel good in my hands. I agree the m16 and such are good rifles. But, they are dirty guns that requires cleaning often. Most soldiers just don't have the time to baby their guns and oil it and clean it and reassemble it. That is why it should be replaced. I do agree that it probably won't be replaced for a while for monetary reasons, as well as because the cartridge needs to be looked at.

[Tunershark]

i actually think the Xm8 is a great looking weapon, just hope its good combat wise

 

 

 

 

[M1911A2 guy]

When picking a rifle for military you do have to consider the end user.  The reason I like HK so much is because the guns are so reliable and just feel good in my hands.  I agree the m16 and such are good rifles.  But, they are dirty guns that requires cleaning often.  Most soldiers just don't have the time to baby their guns and oil it and clean it and reassemble it.  That is why it should be replaced.  I do agree that it probably won't be replaced for a while for monetary reasons, as well as because the cartridge needs to be looked at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But, there is also an upside to having to get to know your weapon. The XM8 claims 15,000 rounds before cleaning is necessary. Say a soldier has the gun(M8) as a combat weapon for a tour and a half in Iraq(hypothetically speaking). One day his squad gets ambushed by insurgents, but guess what? He hasn't been inside the gun for over a tour, and has no idea whats wrong with the gun. About a minute into *fruitcage* with the jammed rifle, a small metallic object moving at over 1,500FPS enters his torso, puncturing a lung

and removing a vertebrae from his spine. Or, you have the coalition soldier who cleans his M16A4 after every patrol and mission, who doesn't have to worry about his gun jamming because he cleaned it last night. He aims the M16 at an insurgent who thinks he is safe behind a wall. The soldier pulls the trigger on his rifle, delivering a small metallic object traveling at over 1,500FPS into the insurgent's torso, puncturing a lung and removing a vertebrae from the insurgent's spine. Just because you have to clean a rifle doesn't make it obsolete. In my opinion, it makes the user a more effective soldier. It makes the user a person who is prepared for that one jam. I guess thats my rant for right now.

[Shoot&Loot]

1500 fps = stopped by body armor.

 

The SCAR sucks, its heavier than the m4 and has the same capabilities. The G36 is better than the XM8. But the US doesn't need any of them, what we need is an updated AR in 6.8 and M14 sopmods. If SOCOM ever adopts the SCAR the Seals will just deposit them in the same place they put all there MK23s never to be seen again.

[M1911A2 guy]

1500 fps = stopped by body armor.

 

 

Notice how I said over 1500FPS. Saying over was better than pulling a number out of my *albatross*, wasn't it? Besides, how many insurgents are running around with body armor? I'm sure its present, but definitely not a commodity the majority of them have.

[Tripod]

But, there is also an upside to having to get to know your weapon. The XM8 claims 15,000 rounds before cleaning is necessary. Say a soldier has the gun(M8) as a combat weapon for a tour and a half in Iraq(hypothetically speaking). One day his squad gets ambushed by insurgents, but guess what? He hasn't been inside the gun for over a tour, and has no idea whats wrong with the gun. About a minute into *fruitcage* with the jammed rifle, a small metallic object moving at over 1,500FPS enters his torso, puncturing a lung 

and removing a vertebrae from his spine. Or, you have the coalition soldier who cleans his M16A4 after every patrol and mission, who doesn't have to worry about his gun jamming because he cleaned it last night. He aims the M16 at an insurgent who thinks he is safe behind a wall. The soldier pulls the trigger on his rifle, delivering a small metallic object traveling at over 1,500FPS into the insurgent's torso, puncturing a lung and removing a vertebrae from the insurgent's spine. Just because you have to clean a rifle doesn't make it obsolete. In my opinion, it makes the user a more effective soldier. It makes the user a person who is prepared for that one jam. I guess thats my rant for right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The funny thing is that with EVERY rifle they claim some extraordinary BS about not ever having to clean it. They said it about the M16, M1 Garand, M14, G36, or any other rifle produced for militaries. And guess what, it's all just BS. I'm pretty sure they learned in Vietnam that all rifles have to be cleaned, and cleaned often. The tests rifles are put through different conditions than what they face in places like Iraq. Soldiers will always clean rifles as much (or very close to as much) as they do now no matter how clean the gun can stay on its own.

 

And for the love of God, you know the rules. Talking about bullet impacts and ballistics is AGAINST them.

[Agent Hunk]

A couple of things.

 

1. If we only want American guns why are we using an Italian pistol?

 

2. Aren't the M92F and the M9 the same exact thing?

 

3. Have any of you AR haters ever fired or know someone that has fired an AR? Or are you just going off of stuff you read?

 

4. If the AR is such a bad rifle why does Canada use it(or a clone of it) and I beleive it also saw use in Britian.

 

And with adopting the XM8s we would need to adopt new combat gear as due to the inconvient magazine sizes.

 

And I do know someone who used the M16 in the USMC and he(ex- USMC Corp.) has nothing bad to say about it.

 

And finally, cleaning your weapon is not that hard. This isnt old warefare where soldiers sit in trenches for months on end. And the more you clean it the more you familiarize yourself with the weapon.

[badkarma1354]

I never said it wasn't a good practice to not clean your weapon. But when circumstances don't allow you to clean it, it needs to be able to function. My colt .45 will function if I go with out cleaning it for a while, but I still clean it on a regular basis. That is because I am lucky enough to be in a place were you can disassemble your gun completely and not worry aout being defenseless

[M1911A2 guy]

And for the love of God, you know the rules.  Talking about bullet impacts and ballistics is AGAINST them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry Tripod........... I can't NOT break that rule!

Honestly though, that one always seems to escape me.

 

Badkarma: My post wasn't directed at you. But, in all honesty and being completely unbiased about the situation(whcih I seem to be the only non-biased person towards the AR15 design in the subject) the XM8's selling point IS its ability to remain unmaintained for long periods of use. That doesn't make it a bad gun. That doesn't mean the gun is designed for the sake of reliability only, but it isn't some super weapon. Its like the German AK47. It will work, and there are many variations of it. Thats about it. Do I like the gun? Hell yes. Its cool, new, and an H&K product. Do I think the gun is going to replace the AR15? Not right now, and definitely not for the USMC. So, yeah.

[Tripod]

A couple of things.

 

1. If we only want American guns why are we using an Italian pistol?

 

2. Aren't the M92F and the M9 the same exact thing?

 

3. Have any of you AR haters ever fired or know someone that has fired an AR? Or are you just going off of stuff you read?

 

4. If the AR is such a bad rifle why does Canada use it(or a clone of it) and I beleive it also saw use in Britian.

 

And with adopting the XM8s we would need to adopt new combat gear as due to the inconvient magazine sizes.

 

And I do know someone who used the M16 in the USMC and he(ex- USMC Corp.) has nothing bad to say about it.

 

And finally, cleaning your weapon is not that hard. This isnt old warefare where soldiers sit in trenches for months on end. And the more you clean it the more you familiarize yourself with the weapon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) I think all weapons used by the American military are manufactured in America. Where the weapons were designed is a different story.

 

2) I think the main difference is one is civi and one is military.

 

3) I'm not really an armalite hater, but I think they're a tad over rated. There's one sitting in the closet directly above me .

 

4) The AR isn't really a bad gun. There's just better. After a certain amount of time, things need to be replaced. Take computers for example. You can have the best computer you could buy, but in a year or two, you can get better. After 10 years, you'll NEED a better one to keep up with technology.

[expvideo]

Main difference between the 92f and the M9...

 

The 92f isn't a piece of *beep*

 

Aaron

 

[enzo100]

Well the XM8 offers a few improvements over the G36, like the optics, the PCAPs (Picatinny Combat Attachment Points), Enhanced magzaine catch and bolt catch, improved stock etc. but I'm pretty sure the main reason is the US want something unique. I don't think they will adopt the XM8, because it's not American (and it's ways to good for being the US stadard issue assault rifle) but I'm sure it's the best gun-design in the current competition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This man knows what hes talking about. +1 for you. I agree. I do not think they will adopt the XM8, wether you like the looks or not. Its the function that matters and this gun functions incredibly well.

[unimatrix001]

Somehow this statement doesn't hold water. I honestly doubt our armed forces are going to choose a weapon because its "American *beep*". If they choose it, its because its good.

 

I don't think so. If you keep an eye on the behavior of the current US government and the decision makers in the US authoritys you will notice that the decision-making is heavily influenced by nationalism. The US procurement policy was always influenced by patriotism but since the last 5 years the things there become from bad to worse for foreign competitors.

 

Anyways, I don't see the original OICW getting adopted, its huge. I know that H&K was developing a smaller OICW, the XM29

 

The XM29 is the OICW, the project was split into the XM8 (rifle component) and the XM25 (grenade component) till technology is advanced enough to offer a smaller and lighter OICW.

 

I think, might be wrong though, too many XMs right now .

 

Indeed, the US weapon development programs are a complete chaos at the moment.

 

Anyways, the only flaw in the AR15 design is the direct gas-to-bolt mechanism(which is why the gun gets so dirty), which was fixed in the LR300 and H&K M4s.

 

Well it's the main flaw, but not the only one.

 

 

Other than that, there isn't anything wrong with the gun. Its is very, very accurate, reliable, tested.

 

It's accurate - yes. The barrel is nearly free floating, but that's (beside it's modularity) the only advantage the AR15 really provides. Reliability isn't it's streghts, there are a lot of minor and major flaws in the design. It starts with the mags and ends with the buffer tube design (yes I know, not with the LR300 and the HK416 )

 

 

And to be honest, I see the M16 in service for at least another ten years. But, who knows. A lot of great guns on this planet, and I think the M16A3/4 is one of the better rifles.

 

Agree with that, but it's one of the worst among the better designs

 

 

 

 

The SCAR sucks, its heavier than the m4 and has the same capabilities. The G36 is better than the XM8.

 

I also don't like the SCAR to much, but that's only a hypothetical discussion, nobody here has ever fired it, so we can't judge about it's performance.

 

 

But the US doesn't need any of them, what we need is an updated AR in 6.8 and M14 sopmods.

 

It's funny to see this argument over and over again. Against the common propaganda, a bigger calibre isn't the solution for all problems. It's also very interesting that the only nation in the world which seem to have problems with the smaller rounds is the USA. I've never heard a European soldier/LE officer complaining about 9mm or 5.56mm rounds.

 

Also it's a bit strange to replace the replacement for the M14 with another M14...

[unimatrix001]

Sorry for double post, but it's not possible to get all the quotes in one post

 

The funny thing is that with EVERY rifle they claim some extraordinary BS about not ever having to clean it.  They said it about the M16, M1 Garand, M14, G36, or any other rifle produced for militaries.  And guess what, it's all just BS.  I'm pretty sure they learned in Vietnam that all rifles have to be cleaned, and cleaned often.  The tests rifles are put through different conditions than what they face in places like Iraq.  Soldiers will always clean rifles as much (or very close to as much) as they do now no matter how clean the gun can stay on its own.

 

Agree . But it's simply a fact that the G36 doesn't need as much cleaning as an AR15.

 

 

1. If we only want American guns why are we using an Italian pistol?

 

Made in the USA

 

2. Aren't the M92F and the M9 the same exact thing?

 

The M92F is a quality gun, maybe not the best, but it's good. The M9 is a low-cost "knock-off" made for the US military. Low costs and quality are not really compatible demands.

 

 

3. Have any of you AR haters ever fired or know someone that has fired an AR? Or are you just going off of stuff you read?

 

I've fired various AR15s, like Bushmaster, DPMS, or the European Sabre Defense and Oberland Arms variants. The last one's are the most expensive (about 2000 Euro per unit) and best AR15s I know, but they're still inferior to a SIG, H&K or Steyr rifle.

 

4. If the AR is such a bad rifle why does Canada use it(or a clone of it) and I beleive it also saw use in Britian.

 

Remember the British standard issue rifle... even the AR15 is better than the SA80

 

And with adopting the XM8s we would need to adopt new combat gear as due to the inconvient magazine sizes.

 

The US adopt new gear ALL THE TIME over the last decade, so this isn't really an argument.

 

And I do know someone who used the M16 in the USMC and he(ex- USMC Corp.) has nothing bad to say about it.

 

I'd like to quote a guy from HKPro Boards about this topic, I really agree with every word he said:

 

"I have attended too much training where I hear guys on lunch or at the end of the day say things like "My gun (AR/m4) ran perfect all day - no malfunctions." In many cases, these are the VERY SAME GUYS I saw down the line earlier that day doing the "tap,rack,bang" to clear a malfunction. When I call them on this, the reply is "Oh, well... that was a bad mag so it doesnt count" or "I had a bad round, it wasnt the guns fault."

This is not golf, folks, quit giving the stoner system "mulligans" for "bad mags", "bad rounds", and what ever other excuses you can come up with. A malfunction is a malfunction - PERIOD, no exceptions. If you are not in the fight because you are fiddling with your weapon - you are not in the fight - it doesn't matter what the reason is.

The stoner system CAN be reliable, and, SOMETIMES it is for very long stretches. Other times, the guns seem to have one issue after the next. If this wasn't the truth, there would be no piston driven uppers being tested right now, and the initial SCAR trials would never have taken place. Consistent reliability is what the stoner system badly needs and I hope the HK416 (or one of the others) ends up providing it."

 

To make a long story short: If the AR15 would be just 50% as good as a lot of Americans claim it to be, all weapon trial programs and all other assualt rifles made in the last 40 years would be redundant.

 

 

Main difference between the 92f and the M9...

 

The 92f isn't a piece of *beep*

 

Quoted for truth

[expvideo]

thanks Unimatrix!

 

Aaron

 

[DrewLawson]

Its like the German AK47.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[rant]The GERMAN!?!?! AK47? Pardon me for shouting but the 47 is a RUSSIAN weapon.

True the Germans made the STG 44 but a dude named Kalasnikov designed the AK and Kalasnikov doesn't sound German to me[/rant]

[Machineabuse]

Heh, haing used both in service I'd gladly take an AR-15 over an AUG anyday.

[Trigger Happy10]

Everything unimatrix01 said is the truth. If the goverment would just use a better weapon testing system... Basically the system is if it fires and is made in the usa it goes.

 

[Sledge]

[rant]The GERMAN!?!?! AK47? Pardon me for shouting but the 47 is a RUSSIAN weapon.

True the Germans made the STG 44 but a dude named Kalasnikov designed the AK and Kalasnikov doesn't sound German to me[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now go and apologise. CLEARLY, what he meant is that the gun is similar to an AK47, in that it is fantastically reliable, and that it is German. Hence, it's the German AK47.

 

[Agent Hunk]

The US isnt even the top country that needs a new rifle and French and British are.

 

SA80s and the FAMASes preform worse then the AR weapons. (Note I have never shot either of the two guns as I dont have access to military rifles, and am basing this off of waht I have read on a website and out of a book)

 

I personally beleive we should adopt the XM8 and that HK should design every country's service rifle. However in times of war where allies may become enemies its better to have a less quality rifle made in your own country then not getting any rifles at all.

[Sledge]

The US isnt even the top country that needs a new rifle and French and British are.

 

SA80s and the FAMASes preform worse then the AR weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GET DOWN!!! FLAMING INCOMING!!!

 

[M1911A2 guy]

[rant]The GERMAN!?!?! AK47? Pardon me for shouting but the 47 is a RUSSIAN weapon.

True the Germans made the STG 44 but a dude named Kalasnikov designed the AK and Kalasnikov doesn't sound German to me[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

{Rant!!!11!]

 

The AK47 is probably the most reliable assault rifle in the world. It was also designed as a platform for many other weapons variations, ranging from carbines to LMGs. The XM8 is an extremely reliable assault rifle, that was designed to be a platform for many other weapons systems. Don't be stupid man. It was a comparison, and observation good man. I wasn't trying to state any facts, but both guns were designed for long use and for being modular. (endRantloL!!!1111r]

 

Uni: Thanks for clearing up the XM29 thing. I just remeber a few years back H&K trying to save the project by making the OICW smaller. Although I can agree that the M16 isn't the most reliable gun on the planet, field testing of the M16A3/4 back in 1996 before it was adopted(by the USMC) yielded results of at least 800 round reliability on all test rifles. To me, thats reliable. One of the advancements with the M16A3/4, besides the new upper reciever of course, was the magazine catch made beefier, new magazines were ordered( Used mags from 1985 just weren't cuttin' it anymore) that are still replacing older to mags to this day. To be brutally honest, the only complaints I hear about the AR15 come from guys in 'Nam(Which was just one bad decision by the Army after another regarding the M16/A1, wasn't even the gun's fault) or people in the Army with M4/A1s. They are asking for a super reliable rifle because the Army can't get its' *beep* together and teach the recruits how to properly clean a *fruitcage* gun.

[expvideo]

GET DOWN!!! FLAMING INCOMING!!!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Flame1 to Sledge, Flame1 to Sledge. We're making our final approach. Over.

 

[Kukailimoku]

The reason for the change of designation was that Colt sued H&K for using the term "M4" for their AR variant. Colt fears H&K, they know that H&K made the better job, so they trie everything to put a spoke in H&K's wheels. Colt will be bankrupt if the US army abandons the M4 and replace it by another system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

....

 

You mean Fabrique Nationale will?