22 Jan 2004
I’ve mentioned before that the biggest search engine draw to MO has been the XM8 assault rifle. Stryker searches bring in a lot, as well, but I’ve got an entire category devoted to the new combat vehicle and only one post about the new rifle.
Folks must be desperate for info on this baby. For a basic intro to the XM8, go to my previous post.
The XM8 (M8 if it’s adopted) assault rifle is a proposed replacement for the current M16 rifle and M4 carbine, the standard infantry weapons in today’s US military. The XM8 action is based upon the Hechler & Koch G36, a tried and true infantry weapon with a reputation for toughness and reliability. The XM29 OICW, which combined both an assault rifle and a smart grenade launcher, turned out to be too heavy, fragile, and expensive. The rifle part of the XM29 was adapted to become the XM8. The smart grenade launcher part of the XM29 is being developed separately as the XM25.
The XM8 is a modular weapon that can be adapted to different roles fairly easily. It can use any of four barrel sizes: 9″, 12.5″, 20″, and heavy 20″.
The 9″ barrel makes the weapon a submachinegun-like personal defense weapon (called the Compact Carbine) that would be ideal for vehicle crews. Also, I imagine that Special Forces types would find it useful for urban raiding missions and the like. With the buttcap (as pictured on the right, second from the top) it is less than 21″ long overall.
The 12.5″ barrel is the standard set-up, and with the adjustable buttstock, makes the Baseline Carbine variant. With the stock fully extended, it is 33″ long, the same as an M4 (which has a 14.5″ barrel). It weighs in at about 6.4 lbs, with a goal of being reduced to 5.7 lbs. The M4 with comparable accessories weighs nearly 9 lbs. The pic at right shows an XM320 side-loading detachable grenade launcher mounted.
There are two versions of the 20″ barrel. There’s a standard weight match-grade unit for sharpshooter work and a heavy-duty machinegun unit with a folding bipod for use as a sustained fire automatic rifle.
The XM8 seems to be an aberration in the military procurement sector. It is a model that seems to improve upon its inspiration in terms of cost and weight, while sacrificing none of the qualities that made the original so good. An XM8 Baseline Carbine, with its integrated sight, will cost around $1800. An M4 equipped similarly costs over $2500. That translates into a savings of $2.4 million to equip a 3,500 man brigade.
Cost notwithstanding, the biggest advantage of the XM8 over the M4/M16 is almost certainly the new weapon’s durability and resistance to jamming. The manufacturer claims that the XM8 can fire over 15,000 rounds without lubrication or cleaning, even in harsh conditions. While I seriously doubt that those numbers would translate into the field, it is indicative of the weapon’s reliability. The BARREL LIFE of an M4 is rated at 8,000 rounds.
The XM8 achieves this phenomenal reliability in part due to a unique gas-operated pusher-rod operated bolt. This system does not send carbon gasses into the receiver with every round like standard weapons, and therefore reduces greatly the amount of propellant that could potentially foul the action or attract material that could. Additionally, the seal between the bolt and the ejection port is much tighter than in current weapons, which will limit the amount of crud that can get in that way. Also, the weapon can be fired even if the action is flooded with water. No draining required.
While I doubt any squad leader would ever allow anyone to go an extended period of time without cleaning their weapon, regardless of manufacturer’s ratings, there is a fair amount of time savings still to be found. First of all, the XM8 can be field cleaned in 4 minutes. This compares to more than 10 or 12 minutes for an M4, which translates into a an extra bit of rest, patrol, or other duties for the XM8-equipped soldier. Weapons are cleaned at least twice daily, if not more, so this 5-8 minute savings is not insignificant when multiplied by three thousand soldiers in a typical brigade. Also, the integrated sight is zeroed-in at the factory and does not require continual re-zeroing in the field by the troops.
Dirty and jammed weapons seem to have contributed to the defeat of the maintenance group that included Jessica Lynch during the invasion of Iraq. Part of the problem seems to be that the Army-supplied cleaning lubricant isn’t effective, especially against the fine Iraq sand. But non-combat units probably don’t devote enough time to cleaning and maintaining their weapons. The XM8 could help alleviate that by reducing the time required to complete the task, which will increase the odds that the task is attempted, and by being more forgiving if/when the task is forgotten or ignored.
Another nifty feature is the ability to be quickly adapted to fire AK-47 ammunition. This would be especially useful in Iraq, since there’s more AK-47 ammo in Iraq than there is sand.
For a comprehensive comparison of the XM8 Lightweight Modular Weapons System (LMWS) Baseline Carbine to the current M4, check out this .pdf. Keep in mind that it was published by the manufacturier of the XM8.
For an 18 second video of a full-auto firing of the XM8, check this out. HK-USA also has what amounts to a product brochure for the XM8 here. It includes drawings of many of the interchangable components of the XM8 system.
The XM8 has recently finished heavy testing. The next step is going to be to equip two full brgades with the weapons. I’ve been unable to learn which brigades get to be the lucky ones to try a new standard weapon out for the purposes of working out all the bugs. Maybe they haven’t been determined yet. I’d suggest that, in addition to the the big tests, some individuals or small units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan get them. We must learn how these things really perform, and no amound of testing and simulation can teach as many lessons as a few minutes on a real live battlefield can.
For all the apparent good news surrounding the XM8, one basic issue remains the caliber of round our troops need to be firing at the bad guys. The XM8 will fire the NATO standard 5.56×45mm round, the same as the M4 and M16. There is a lot of grumbling among the troops that this round is insufficient, especially when fired from an M4’s shorter barrel. The standard XM8’s barrel is two inches shorter than the M4, so this issue will be even more pronounced.
This is a very controverisal subject, with feverent believers on both sides. Many who think that a larger round, like the 6.8mm or the good ol’ 7.62mm, is needed admit that the 5.56 might be sufficient if the type of ammunition was altered instead of the size. There have been many reports from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia that the current round just doesn’t cut it. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on the matter, but it certainly seems that something needs to be done.
Airborne Combat Engineer had a post back in November about the XM8 and the ammuntion debate. He notes that we’ve already got so much refinement and investment in the current M16 and M4 that it seems like a waste to start over with a new weapon. He asks why the current weapons can’t just be up-gunned with the new 6.8mm uppers that will soon be hitting the market. That’s a very good question, and one that I hope our military seriously considers.
Back in August I thought the same thing. But, if the XM8 performs in the field like it’s performed in the tests, we might be better off in the long run if we make the change. The cost, reliability, and adaptability of the new weapon may outweigh our experience with the current one.
UPDATE: A Sliding stock for XM8 compact carbine PDW has been added to the mix. Pictures and more.
January 22nd, 2004 at 12:05 pm
There does indeed seem to be a lot of internet interest in the XM-8 and the 6.8mm round. Looks like at least a short-term success in the civilian market for the 6.8mm cartridge and rifles chambered for it. It’s getting crowded in the 270 cal to 7mm cartridge range. I’m having a little trouble believing the ballistics specs for the 6.8 on the Barrett graphic, given the capacity of the cartridge, and look forward to more independent tests. If it’s due to a better powder, let’s load the 5.56mm with it (if it can take the pressure). Same skepticism with the reliability claims for the XM-8. What reliability claims were made for the M-16 before it was adopted? Aren’t current ARs very reliable? Let’s equip a unit in Afghanistan or Iraq with the XM-8 (once it passes the ‘lab’ tests back stateside) and compare results over some time period. If it’s really a quantum leap ahead in relability, perhaps the change is worth the cost. ACE
January 22nd, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Nice, thorough post.
January 22nd, 2004 at 1:11 pm
I don’t know what the original claims of M16 reliability were. That’s a great question. Obviously, there were a lot of issues in the early going in Vietnam. A quick google didn’t get me any answers. With the introduction of the M16 so long ago, I’m not optimistic that we’ll be able to find reliable info on it. I’ll keep looking though, and definitely post if I find anything.
January 22nd, 2004 at 6:28 pm
‘What reliability claims were made for the M-16 before it was adopted?’ I can answer that. It would appear that it was touted as perfectly reliable. There’s even a well known story about how they didn’t include cleaning kits with many M16’s because they said that it never needed to be cleaned at all! This meant that a vast number of rifles were marked as defective when they started to jam and had to be replaced entirely. I’m a pretty big guy (200 pounds), so I’ve never had any problem with shooting a large bore rifle. But many of my students are intimidated by the recoil of a .30-06 round. This is one of the main advantages of the .223, it’s something that everyone can learn how to use and use well. But, after saying that, I wouldn’t mind seeing the US go to something with a little more punch. I’ve always been concerned with the ineffectiveness of .223 over distance. There’s been plenty of claims to the contrary, but I’ve never had much luck shooting a standard M16 at anything over 300 yards. The 6.8mm seems to be a good idea to me, but I really don’t think the 7.62 is really that great a solution. So far as altering the ammo is concerned, expanding rounds are simply not gonna happen. Period. Is it a bad idea? You betchya! But that’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s gonna be unless something drastic happens. Good post, by the way. James
January 22nd, 2004 at 8:29 pm
As incredible as it seems, Mr. Rummel is spot on. As usual. http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000912.html Sheesh.
January 23rd, 2004 at 9:52 am
Well, it’s ugly. Looks like something out of the Starship Enterprise’s armory, but if it works, who cares? Here’s my problem with it. As you noted, a lot of people have a dislike the 5.56NATO chambering, and I’m one. The 5.56 was designed around a 55 grain bullet that was designed to tumble and fragment on impact for maximum wounding effect. It was designed to do this at a pretty good velocity – I believe something on the order of 2700fps. With a muzzle velocity out of a 20′ M16 in excess of 3200fps, that meant the round was effective (i.e., would perform as designed) out to 300+ meters. Then we went to carbines with 16′ barrels. And then switched to a steel-cored 62 grain bullet. Some carbines have even shorter barrels. The 62 grain bullet doesn’t fragment well to start with, and launching it out of a short barrel reduces the chance that it might even further. A .22 caliber in-and-out hole just isn’t that incapacitating. Here, the standard XM-8 barrel is only 12.5′, and you can bet they’re going to stick with the 62 grain SS109 bullet. My take: This is a 200 meter carbine – max. Realistically 150 is pushing it. And we need more range in places like the desert landscape of the Middle East. BTW – I own and love my AR-15 carbine, but I wouldn’t want it as a battle rifle. At least not with the standard NATO ammo.
January 23rd, 2004 at 12:22 pm
I’m another person who dislikes the 5.56 round in it’s current configuration. Training on the M-16 flat out sucked. When they made me a SAW gunner, my attitude improved about the round, but only because the rounds now had more powder in the case, and the gun had a longer barrel. My max range with the M-16 was 250 years. I could pick targets off at 400 yards with the SAW, and if they had targets farther out, I would have been able to hit them as well. If you’re going to use a shorter barrel, you need a heavier round. There’s no getting away from it. The 5.56 doesn’t cut it any more.
January 23rd, 2004 at 8:54 pm
Compared to the HK G36’s gas system, the AR15 is the aberration. Virtually all other gas-operated service rifles used a piston, or piston and operating rod. G36 looks a heck of a lot like an AR18 inside. The AR15 was sold as an improvement over these systems because it lacked these extra parts and the weight that came with them. The tradeoff was a design that ducted the gas back into not just the action, but the bolt carrier itself, where was located the surface against which the gas pressure would bear to cycle the action. The chum that came with the gas was a result of changing the propellant in the military round. An aftermarket gas system retrofit was offered for AR15 rifles in the early 80’s, which replaced the loooooong gas tube with a short tube and a tappet fitted to cover the tube—a more conventional piston-and-cylinder affair that would just barely protrude from the handguard. Never caught on. As for caliber, I’ve posted on that over at my place. Five-five-six is a varmint cartridge, it isn’t adequate for humans at 200 meters. I’d be really pleased with the 6.8mm. The Coast Guard is adopting a .499 cartridge and replacement AR upper receiver assembly, for boarding and foot patrol. Before the Army changes rifles or calibers, though, they need to answer the question: for what kind of fighting is this service rifle or carbine intended? Then choose the cartridge, then choose the platform to fire it.
January 23rd, 2004 at 10:51 pm
The book you need is ‘The Great Rifle Controversy’ by Dr Edward Ezell. I’d quote from it but my copy lies buried in one of my book boxes. Essentially he discusses the lessons learned from 2WW and relates them to the rifle-ammo developments following the war. Included are discussions of the M14 and M16 procurements, and subsequent service histories. The book was published in 1984. Cheers JMH
January 24th, 2004 at 12:20 am
Thanks. No luck at my library or on eBay, but I’ll keep an eye out for it.
January 25th, 2004 at 8:53 pm
I recently read an after-action report by the marines coming out of Iraq and when it came to the 5.56 there seemed to be little complaint. And in Iraq where there are vast stretches of open desert, the average firefight range was 50 yards, with 100 yard engagements being rare. Right now there isn’t really any need for a more powerful cartridge. When you’re shooting at unarmored targets (i.e. terrorist ‘rock’n'rollin’ an AK-47) the 5.56 is perfectly adequate. In the future, perhaps, if our enemies start acquiring fashionable kevlar, a revival of larger caliber weapons might become the order of the day.
January 27th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
Great informative post. Many thanks.
January 30th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
i personaly dont like the use of 5.56 rounds, i mean yea it not to REALY kill a target but to wound him. with that in mind and my experience in afganistan and iraq almost every opfor we took down, (even with a double tap sometimes)seemed to come back to life because the round went straight threw them. I know many american soldiers who would agree with me in this.
February 17th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
I personally think the 5.56 round is adequate in that you dont have to kill the target immediately when you shoot. The round is smaller therefore you can control your shots more easily. If the larger round was used we would lose accuracy and there would probably be not much noticable effect on te target.
February 23rd, 2004 at 3:12 am
i would like to know the range of the xm8 and how tough it is. the sa 80 had lots of good reports but we all know the problems with that weapon .one of the things the brits in the field did`nt like about the 5.56 rounds is the stopping power
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:26 pm
2500 for an m4 equipped like an xm8? http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/pcwa2×14m4my.asp + http://www.trijicon-inc.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=139 Is only 2120 at RETAIL prices man. I don’t trust a thing they say about the xm8 will all the crap going on in procurement. The STryker is a pile, the comanche was just canceled for god knows why. THe osrepy fiasco needs no introduction. We can’t even get the damn RUCKSACK and LBE correct and they expect us to believe the party line on the most basic and important tool in the military? I think this is another stage in the plan to undermine the us military. To jay commenting on 5.56: The ammo is NOT why the british complain about the SA80, it’s because bullpups suck(the sa80 goes even further by being a BAD example of a bullpup) and intergrated sights usually suck. Didn’t we settle the debate on 5.56 in Vietnam? Desert Storm? OIF? Please give me a break. THe main problem right now is the m203, not the 5.56 cartride. We need a dedicated GL that is clip fed. The EX-41 was a good idea they had going on at China Lake, dunno why that was canceled. Probably because it worked well. The standard rifleman doesn’t need to reach out and touch anymore than 300 meters with 500m being a good buffer zone to have effective max range at. Unless you imagine infantry platoons somewhere stranded without their companies mortars, there is just no point in trying to sacrifice other areas to punch up the maximum range. Another solution as said above to have a dedicated GL per squad that would have an soft range of about 800meters. This way the platoon mgs don’t get into dueling matches with enemy mgs and you have another powerful organic tool in the squad. We need to lose the ‘Sexy’ lightfighter doctrine and start equipping EVERY infantry unit with m113s and variants. We can GIVE them away to egypt and israel, yet our own guys ride around in thin skinned humvees and now the death trap stryker? It’s a sad time to be in the military. Any body with a few years in that has common sense could make the current force 5times as lethal for probably 1/2 the price. S/F
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:33 pm
—quote— Training on the M-16 flat out sucked. When they made me a SAW gunner, my attitude improved about the round, but only because the rounds now had more powder in the case, and the gun had a longer barrel. My max range with the M-16 was 250 years.
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:45 pm
Sh0t: I’m not arguing about the shortcomings of military procurement. They’ve proven over and over that they’re wrong at least as often as they’re right. That being said, what are the worst problems with the XM8? Everyone’s opinion seems to be that the 5.56 might not be good enough. I’m not talking about analysts, here. I’m talking about concerns raised by troops from Gulf War I, Somalia, Afghanistan, and OIF. SOF guys use up-gunned versions of M4s and M16s quite a bit. I certainly don’t have an answer, but to dismiss those concerns is dismissing the testimony of the people who count on that rifle to survive. When they talk I’m all ears. I agree with the need for a better grenade launcher. The XM8 can mount a side-loader GL, and the XM25 ’smart’ GL is in the works. The thin-skinned Humvees must be upgraded with armor. No doubt about that. But hold off on the ‘deathtrap Stryker’ talk until someone actually dies in a Stryker. They’ve been performing pretty well so far. No soldiers have been killed in a Stryker despite 4 hits by the RPG that was going to make mincemeat out them, and a few IED hits. Since the Stryker deployed in early December, one caught fire and burned after hitting an IED. No one was seriously injured. Also since that time, one M2 Bradley has been blown to smithereens with 3 US and 2 Iraqis dead. Is the Bradley also a ‘deathtrap’? I’m not convinced that either the XM8 *or* the Stryker is the answer. But they certainly seem to be legit options at this point.
February 25th, 2004 at 10:30 am
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/Military-LE/rifles-carbines/m4.html is a link for people to check out. It seems that H&K has ‘product improved’ The M4 to the same performance levels as the XM-8. Changes include a rod type operating system instead of direct gas impingement. It is listed in 5.56 but I’m sure they could make it in the new 6.8 cal. This would mean the improved performance of the 6.8 round and the improved reliability of the XM-8 with the added bonus of minimal troop training to use the product improved M4
February 25th, 2004 at 9:56 pm
For first hand comments/stories on the original introduction of the M16 and .223 ammo in Viet Nam check out Dick Culver’s Shooting Page at http://www.jouster.com I believe he commanded some of the first Marines that were issued the then new rifles and ammo. They are not happy stories.
February 28th, 2004 at 11:25 am
More (and more pics) on the XM8 here: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001052.html
March 1st, 2004 at 1:04 pm
that’s awsome
March 1st, 2004 at 1:04 pm
that’s awsome
March 3rd, 2004 at 8:42 am
Having just heard about this rifle while spending some time with some folks at Ft. Bliss, I’m wondering if anyone has given any thought to making a training version? I’m talking about a version which could fire .68 caliber paint marking pellets, as opposed to regular rounds. With such a weapon it’d be possible to reduce costs for much of today’s force-on-force tactical training. I’m not proposing this as a replacement for MILES, or Blue Tip rounds, rather as another option which our military has ignored for the most part. I welcome comments as well as advice on this topic as long as it’s constructive. Andy Van Der Plaats
March 5th, 2004 at 4:29 am
Although not getting to go to OIF, I have had some experience with the m16A2 and 5.56 rounds, and have never had any trouble hitting a target out to 500 yards, I understand it would be more difficult in a combat environment, but thats what the fundamentals are for. As far as effect on the opposing combatant, I can not attest to that. I figure if you shoot them in the head, their probably not going to be getting back up, whether the round goes all the way through or not. I wouldn’t mind a 7.62 round either, as long as it is atleast the same accuracy. As far as a need for a new GL, I believe we could use anything that could give our grunts more killing power, I vote we bring back carpet bombing with NAPALM! Oohrah, USMC.
March 11th, 2004 at 1:04 am
the MX8 soon will become into one of the greates machines gun. but only time will decide that
March 13th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
For all of you gun nuts out there… The best thing about the XM8 is the adjustable butt-stock and the safety on the right side instead of the left side of the weapon. Beyond that, the ability to attach a 40mm grenade launcher.
March 13th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Here’s a pic of a field stripped XM8: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001107.html
March 19th, 2004 at 12:25 am
From the videos I have seen on HK-USA, the brass ejection port isn’t very ‘leftie friendly’. The expended ammo seems to eject directly to the right shoulder when used by left handed people.With all the effort for making ambidextrous controls, why ignore possible injuries from this? Also, I couldn’t find any backup sights on the weapon. The G36 has rough ironsights which is great considering that a battery may deplete at any time (the LED probably just stays red when it is time to change it so I’m pretty sure that some will try to continue to fight, like one would risk with a car’s fuel indicator). The retaining pins seem very practical because there is no need for extra tools but it worries me. Since they only need to be pushed in to be removed, can they become loose because of constant snagging?
March 20th, 2004 at 11:40 pm
One of you guys were talking about reliabilaty issues with the m-16. I can answer this question easily. The same time the M-16 was adopted the US contractor that made the ammo for it changed the propellant without telling anyone. This is why there were some problems. Also many say the m-16 is almost just as reliable as the ak-47 only you have to clean it alot. As for this XM-8, I hate it. The barrel is to short and there isn’t even a bayonet lug.
March 20th, 2004 at 11:55 pm
Necessary cleaning is proportional to reliability. The less you are forced to clean it before inevitable misfire, the more reliable it is. Saying that an m-16 is almost as reliable as an AK despite constant cleaning is a contradiction.
March 21st, 2004 at 1:41 am
Your right the, the statement about cleaning and reliability was stupid. I apologize.
March 21st, 2004 at 10:50 am
Josh: I’d hesitate to call the statement ’stupid’, but it illustrates a good point. Early results indicate that the XM8 doesn’t need to be cleaned as often (good), when you do clean it it doesn’t take nearly as long (good), and when you don’t clean it it’s more likely to operate (very very good). I’d say that the XM8 might be approaching AK-47 reliability, but that’s based on claims made by the manufacturer and by Army officials who actively want to adopt it. Only time will tell. As for the powder affecting the M-16 reliability, you are totally correct. Everyone seems to know this, so why hasn’t anything been done about it? The XM8 action is designed to negate the downside of the current powder. Wouldn’t changing powder to negate its downside be another option? What would the losses of returning to the original or similar powder be? The expense? What about the expense of procuring all the new rifles and retraining the entire Army? I’m just asking. Any opinions?
March 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm
Josh: Also, the 20′ and 12.5′ barrels DO have a bayonet lug according to HK information. It doesn’t appear apparent in photos, though, so I don’t know for sure.
March 30th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
I dont have military background but this gun looks good so far. I have just done some looking at the MX-8, online, and so far it looks to be a good weapon. It is truly as muli-role as a rifle comes. I think the Full-Auto option is a good idea, Spray and pray. Another great thing is using a gas operated piston, instead of that open gas operation. The interchangeable barrels are a good idea. just hope the 20′ one is accurate at long ranges. 2 more things the Grenade launcher is side loaded, its about time. I would bet that is better then having to load the thing from the bottom. Last a short 12gauge can be mounted insted of a grenade launcher, that is realy awsome to have somthing that could do a lot of damage at short range if you just used up your clip. Anyhow we need to see this in action agreed but best way is to mix a unit half mx6 and half m4 or m16 so if the thing is crap in the field our guys are not out of luck in a bad way. Guess thats it for now.
April 1st, 2004 at 5:22 pm
Hey guys, whats happening. I’m probably wrong on a few points, as I have never been in the military, but here are just a few observations. First, check out this link on the XM8, it shows a guy firing 30 and 100 rounds fully auto with one hand behind his back. The other links show assembly/dissasembly, and firing with sand and water all over it. http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php Now that you’ve see the demo, how can you military guys not be jumping all over this? A fully modular assault rifle that is quickly field stripped and stable enough to fire 100 rounds with one hand. The thing was flooded with water and the guy fired off a full clip like it was a super soaker. The complaints about the ammunition size seem mundane, because both rifles use the same ammo. If anything the XM8 is the superior rifle because of its quick, user-field conversion to AK rounds. The Iraqi sand issue is a big one, even a civilian like myself remembers CNN telling us how the dust storms were jamming our boy’s guns. Granted I don’t beleive everything I read or see, it seems like a reasonable concern. All in all the XM8 seems to be a superior improvment on the 4 and 16. Looking at its weight, modular design, sustained rate of fire, barrell life, easy of breakdown and cleaning and cost…why hold on to something thats 40 years old. We live in the age of technology, might as well embrace it. Let me know if I’m wrong, again I’ve never been there so all I can go off is what I read and see.
April 1st, 2004 at 9:02 pm
The XM-8 is the weapon needed by our troppers on the line now and in the future. Don’t let the politicians sell them out to NATO ‘Allies’ with the 5.56 varmint round to be politically correct and to make sales to NATO easier with compatible ammo size. As a WWII vet I can tell you that stopping power in combat is life to the grunt on the line. The argument that the 5.56 and a plastic piece is easier to tote by modern troopers is an insult to our people on the line. I was 17 and weighed 129 lbs and handled an M1 .30 shoulder bruises and all with pride and lived to tell you about about it. Punching one hole in each of the bad guys and rotating home is the drill not ‘wounding’ them in a ‘Nation-Building ‘ futile effort for people who hate us. Contact your Congressman and Senator at Congress.com and President Bush and demand the best for our troops now and for the next 30 years in combat (who knows where). We can not afford to guess where the next theater of combat will be. Deserts now maybe Indonesia next year. The XM-8 with the 6.8 round is the tool they need to do the job and to come home.
April 2nd, 2004 at 12:20 am
I was trained on an M-14 in 1964 (USMC). I subsequently used my skills as a part-time sniper in Vietnam with the 3rd MarDiv up in the I CORPS. Most Marines remember those damned M-16 varmint rifles weren’t worth a hoot for stopping power. I had no high power rifle experience before I went into the Marines. They taught me how to shoot well and 750 yards was about my max distance with a 10 power scope on my glass bedded M-14 Rifle. The 6.8mm round sounds one hell of a lot better than that goofy .223 (M-16) round. With a shorter barrel, believe me, you will want a heavier bullet (heavier than 55 gr) for any kind of accuracy and stopping power. Don’t let anyone tell you differently!
April 2nd, 2004 at 5:16 pm
The XM8 does indeed have backup sights. If the battery is dead or the red-dot turned off, the optics have a traditional sight feature. Well, at least according to the HK guy showing off the XM8. I’ve seen the video of the XM8 firing after being dunked and after being buried in dust. Its simply amazing. Aren’t water and dust supposed to be bad for firearms? Here’s the link to the video: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_dust.php
April 3rd, 2004 at 11:37 pm
I would disagree with the earlier thread regarding bullpups sucking… They have some drawbacks such as they are a tad scary when you have your cheek right on top of the chamber and ejection port and they are hard to handle with a beta c-mag, but I have both a bushmaster m17s bullpup and a RRA Varmint 20′ and if my life were to depend on it, at this point I would grab the m17s. It is all about ease of handling. The RRA is more reliable, well built and accurate but I’d grab the m17s for the length, weight and balance. The ideal rifle in my opinion would be a bullpup with a free floated 20′ or so barrel, a hand guard that stayed cool, a piston operating system, a low pistol grip so a c-mag could fit it well and it should be light. Bullpups pack punch and accuracy. They look short and wimpy but trust me they aren’t.
April 9th, 2004 at 10:28 am
The XM8 asault rifle may be the ideal (?) weapon of the future being discussed at the moment. But the immediate answer to the elimination of the less than desirable 5.56mm round is the: SR-47! If I’m not mistaken I’ve seen them in the field in the hands of Special Forces. US special operations forces have received a small number of new assault rifles optimised for the type of cave-complex fighting experienced in Afghanistan. The weapons are based on the M-4/M-4A1 carbine variants of the M-16 assault rifle family, but fire the 7.62 x 39mm Soviet-designed cartridge and magazines used in the AK-47 assault rifle. Knight’s Armament Company of Vero Beach, Florida, delivered the first six rifles, called the SR-47 (Stoner Rifle-47), to the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) in January. The company received a contract for an initial six weapons in late October 2001. David Lutz, vice president of military marketing for Knight’s Armament Company, said: ‘For the last couple of years there was a requirement in USSOCOM for an addition to their [M-4 series carbine] SOPMOD [Special Operations Peculiar Modification] kit that they called a ‘Special Purpose Receiver’ (SPR). ‘Originally they called it the SPR V1 for ‘variant one’, and it was to be a drop-in 7.62 x 39mm receiver replacement.’ According to Lutz, government laboratory efforts to satisfy the SPR requirement were further complicated by ‘user input’ from the USSOCOM specifying that special forces did not want to use the ’straight box’ M-16 magazines but instead wanted to utilize ‘battlefield pick-up’ AK-47 magazines taken from opponents. ‘That was a dilemma because the AK-47 magazine won’t go well in a straight chute dimensional magazine – it just won’t happen,’ he said. He added: ‘But actually this program was kind of on a back-burner until US special operations guys were going into these complex of tunnels that were so deep, expansive and target-rich that they couldn’t take enough loaded M-16 magazines. So they wanted a weapon that had all the muscle memory of an M-4 – safety, grip, everything that’s familiar to the soldier or the SEAL – but capable of using battlefield pick-up magazines.’ Instead of a drop-in receiver addition to the SOPMOD kit, design changes mandated a completely new weapon with resulting change in terminology from Special-Purpose Receiver to Special-Purpose Rifle (SPR). ‘To enable the use of battlefield pick-up magazines, we had to make the upper and lower receiver 0.25in longer. You couldn’t take an M-4 receiver and even machine it out to take the AK-47 magazine because it was too short. That also meant that the bolt carrier had to be made longer and the firing pin had to be made longer. ‘So you started losing what some people would have liked to have in terms of optimal interchangeability of parts; that’s just part of the trade-off to fire the different cartridges,’ Lutz said. He highlighted the advantages of the 7.62mm size round for close-quarter battle (CQB) operations. Noting that many of the world’s counter-terrorist organizations have evolved from 9mm to 5.56mm ammunition over the last decade, he highlighted the larger 7.62mm ammunition for the ability to package heavier, slower bullets that could provide greater contributions in CQB scenarios. In addition to the extended upper and lower receivers, another challenging design effort in the SR-47 involved getting the M-4/M-16 magazine catch to externally function like the M-16 magazine but work with a curved AK-47 magazine. In practice, US soldiers use gravity to ‘drop’ their empty M-16 magazines. The SR-47 design requires the introduction of an internal magazine ejector to push the empty AK-47 magazine from the bottom of the weapon. Additional design features include the introduction of a free-floated match grade barrel. ‘This particular 7.62 x 39mm is probably the most accurate 7.62 x 39mm in the world because it’s got a really fine free-floated barrel,’ Lutz added. ‘And, of course, it has the rail system so all of the other SOPMOD accessories off the M-4s are compatible. ‘There’s also a possibility, although they haven’t let the contract yet, that there could be another variant that we’d call the SR-74. That could be used if our special operations guys go to a country that has the ‘newer’ 5.45mm former Soviet weapons. Then they would also have the same ability to pick up magazines.’ All six of the SR-47s were delivered with sound suppressors, which Lutz described as ‘essential’ in tunnel operations because of the weapon report. ‘We don’t know how the six did,’ he said. ”We don’t know if they are ever going to order one more. We don’t know if we’re going to get the second phase, which is to develop the 5.45mm version. But this is probably the hottest weapon that’s out there right now.’ Lutz concluded: ‘The SR-47 is a great gun because of the three technologies that it marries: the basic Stoner gun design; the AK-47 series cartridge and magazine; and the modular weapon concept.’
April 13th, 2004 at 11:43 am
Dear Sir, With reference to above we require 1 Nos of above said Rifle to be kept for exhibition towards presentation by the Chairman which will be directly imported by the Learning Institute a Govt organization of INDIA. They will make the payment in advance or LC in your name after getting a offer from you. In this case our Company Orion Chem (P) Ltd will act on your behalf and get the order immediately for which intend to have a commission of 10 % which may be included in the pricing. Please reply ASAP. As this is for exhibition we request you to initially give us your offer for following rifle 1 No. Each of all different model specified below. MODEL OF DIFFERENT COUNTRY /WEAPON 5.56 ASSAULT USA M 46 AZ ISRARAEL GALIL BELGIUM FN USSR AK 101 GERMANY H2K SA STAYRAUG AUSTRALIA SIG FRANCE FAMAS STRPER -7.62 DRAGMOV 7.62 FN 4.7 USSR /USA 14.5 -S.A 12.7 -S.A 12 BORE – PLISTEA SUN RF1 9 – RF1 .32 – PARKE -GSF COM NEON SAF .38 X .22 RIFE -RF1 REVOLVER -RF1 We await your early response. Thank you (Mr. Rajrattan Mohatta) Director ORION CHEM PVT. LTD. MILLENNIUM BUSINESS PARK, SECTOR – III, BUILDING – III GALA NO. 2, MAHAPE NAVI – MUMBAI – 400 710. INDIA TEL NOS. 91 22 24980458, 91 22 24900759, TEL NOS. 91 22 27782942, 91 22 27782943 FAX NO. 91 22 24932748 CELL : + 0 98202 36 878
April 15th, 2004 at 7:41 am
the XM8 is a great looking gun, mind you i think they should upgrade the bullet size to at least 6.8mm or 7.62mm then you could have a hell of a lot more range over the weak 5.56mm and then when you hit the target its most likely that they wouldn’t get up again. the XM8 is a much needed replacement for the ageing M16/M4 series. me being australian i think it would be a great replacement for australia’s F88 styers which are ugly as hell. great gun if upgraded with 6.8mm or 7.62mm bullets.
April 15th, 2004 at 3:12 pm
That gun is cool
April 15th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
People seem to be forgetting that when bullet size/weight increase, recoil increases as well. When a bullet is fired, the same amount of force pushing the bullet toward it’s intended destination pushes back on the gun. The xm-8 is already a light gun, so therefore if you increase bullet weight you can make recoil nearly unmanagable in full-auto.
April 29th, 2004 at 9:44 pm
is there an airsoft version of this yet?
May 3rd, 2004 at 6:09 am
not yet but i hope tokyo marui make one soon and they probably will
May 3rd, 2004 at 6:23 pm
Okay, the 5.56 NATO is a little small to kill. But what you have to remember is that if Hasem bin Seen takes a bullet to the arm, the guy is going to runaway and probably bleed out any way. The only gun that should have a larger bullet is the marksmanship rifle so it can take down tangos at extreme ranges.
May 5th, 2004 at 9:34 am
i dont understand how the xm8 works on full auto if it does not use the gas from the round going into a piston like the m4/16. can anyone explain?
May 10th, 2004 at 6:06 am
You guys certainly know your stuff. One point the British and Germans after WW2 study the Sturmgewehr (I think thats right) concept with captured STG44 (ancestor to the AK47) and trialled different calibres,rim diameters and case lenths. They found the .280/30 caliber around about 49 mm long had the optimal killing power (I think 2550 fps at 150 yards or something like that as opposed to the SLR of something like 3200 FPS and later 1800 FPS. Dont quote me I running off a failing memory) and combination of recoil as everyone wanted selective fire rifles. The US eventually steam rolled NATO into 7.62 x51 (a good meaty round) and then backtracked with the 5.56mm. If this 6.8mm is approaching this then why the hell the pissing around with 5.56mm. Its seems to be a 40 year U-turn. I think someone was watching a profit margin when they should have been looking at the Yank Aussie and New Zealand casualties at the time of this rounds introduction in the 60’s. (Aus and NZ’s generally had SLR in Vietnam but the odd Sig. would have been trusting his life to it.) The 5.56 round does the job but barely. That never did reassure me. Cheers. Any Aussies keep your hands off Phar Lap,Crowded house,and that Webb Ellis Trophy.
May 15th, 2004 at 12:02 am
A lot of people on this site are talking about full auto. Not to say you people aren’t thinking, but the first round fired is the only round that has any chance of hitting a target outside of 40m. So I say go back to the 7.62 NATO and increase the weight of the gun to reduce the recoil. I have a cousin in Iraq right now, and the only thing he’s complaining about is the weight on his back, not his weapon or ammo’s weight. We need to make our military more leathal and the pea shooter that we are making won’t help us win any battles. The M8 kind of reminds me of the SA80A1. That weapon could take down targets when its gas system wasn’t leaking, which it always was. The Brits had to send all of the rifles to Germany for repairs on the gun. Only with the M8, we’ll need to buy a entire new set of barrels because the round will be highly ineffective in combat. The M8 has one good thing going for it though, it is cheaper than a M4 with similar equipment.
May 26th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
This is designed to be a special forces weapons anyways, all the comparisons are between the xm-8 and the m-4a1, the xm-8 is designed to replace the m-4a1, and more than likely it was designed in mind for the navy seal type operations where they would have their rifled submerged and need fully automatic suppressing fire.
May 26th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Although I’m sure that special forces will use the weapon a lot and appreciate it’s modularity, this is intended to be the main weapon in the US Army, replacing the M4 and M16 as the standard assault rifle and carbine. This is not a special forces only project.
June 5th, 2004 at 2:05 am
Lots of interesting comments on this post. 5.56 vs. others-Yes m855 with a barrel under 18′ is not the best for shooting people. It would be nice to have a weapon that doesn’t require ‘double taps’. 6.8MM sounds like a great caliber, I was thinking this about 6.5 mm at least 10 years ago. Will the Army adopt a new caliber?-doubtful. barrel length-The only possible reason for a 12.5′ barrel on the ’standard’ XM8 is to meet some arbitrary length requirment set by the Army. Some articles claim a higher velocity from the standard XM8 than the m4. Do people really believe that a 12.5′barrel will give more velocity than a 14.5′ barrel? How is this possible without a change in ammo? ‘Quick user interchangeable to 7.62 AK ammo’ Not possible without changing the barrels and bolts at a minumum. Does anyone believe the guns will be issued with more than one barrel and bolt and that soldiers will carry these extras with them?The people that believe this garbage are the same people that set a requirement for a new MILES laser for m16’s that curves mimicing the curved path of a bullet.(impossible according to the laws of physics) Gas piston’s-are not new or unique. They are the norm for most automatic rifles. I’m glad to see the XM8 has a indirect gas system. Backup sights-I’ve heard the XM8 sight will have some sort of crosshair etched onto the glass so you still have a aiming point when the battery dies. I have worried about the reliability of ’scopes’ of any type, but it hasn’t been much of a problem in the past few years. Zeroed at the factory is good, but it should still be adjustable so it can be zeroed by the user. Heavy barrel support weapon-any support weapon must be belt fed and have quick change barrels. Once again people that think you can put a bipod and a heavy barrel on a rifle and have it replace a belt fed LMG are the same people who ask for laser beams that curve. SR47-Most SF bn’s have AK47’s and AK74’s in their armsrooms. They are cerainly easy enough to obtain in iraq and Afghanistan. If team guys want a 7.62×39 rifle so they can use indigenous ammo for resupply why not adopt a rail system to a AK47 and carry it instead of a M4? Wouldn’t it be easier for some company to make a rail system for AK’s than design and adopt a whole new rifle? If I could mount my PeQ2, tac-lights and optics on a AK I would gladly carry it in place of my M4. AK rail systems could be IMPAC purchased by individual units just like a camelback or tool set without dealing with the legal/regulation conflicts of buying weapons.
June 10th, 2004 at 4:36 am
To address the M16: Originally it was designed to use flake poweder but was changed, by the ammunition plant, to ball powder since they had alot on hand that they wanted to get rid of and since it offered range advantage. Ball powder burns faster but burns dirtier. Giving you a weapon that fired a faster, longer distance weapon but it made the action move much faster than originally intended. That coupled with the extra fouling stressed and wore out the rifles much faster. Other problems were un-chromed bores that lead to faster fouling of the barrel. New powder, chroming of both barrel and bore, as well as the addition of a forward assist, cleaning kits, and modified training to include cleaning helped alleviate the problems. Modern additions to reliablity was double feed ramp cuts into the upper receiver and barrel extension as well as increased power extractors in the M4. As for accuracy, the M16A2 and A4 are the worlds most accurate infantry rifle. There is a theory that the direct gas impingement system aids in accuracy, though I can neither remember how or where I had read the information. I digress, the M16 and M4 are supremely accurate. Out to 500 yards, it’s quite possible to land 10 out of 10 rounds on a man sized target. And that’s just 50 rounds short of the rifle’s maximum range on a point target. Maximum range on a area target is 800 yards. Because the M855 rounds do most of their due to fragmentation, the optimal ‘kill’ range of the 20′ bbl M16 is approximately 140 to 150 meters. After which, velocity drops below 2700 fps where the M855 round reliable fragments. With the M4’s 14.5′ bbl, the range is further reduced to 45-50 meters. Fragmentation from an 11.5′ barrel is limited to 12-15 meters. This is using a standard button cut rifle barrel. For the exact reason I stated above, SOF have either used a heavier caliber rifle or heavier projectiles. Such as the 6.8mm SPC and the 5.56mm 77gr Black Hills cartridge. There are advantages and disadvantages to each cartridge: The 6.8mm SPC has smaller capacity in same length magazines than the 5.56mm, usually about 26 or 28 rounds versus 30 –which needs to fit in the standard M16 magazine pouch — as well as needing a whole new barrel and bolt. The 77gr 5.56mm Black Hills cartridge has proven to have much better terminal balistics than the 62gr steel penetrator M855 but it lacks the range/velocity of the M855 and is not as flat shooting. Velocity can not be increased in the 77gr cartridge safely due to pressure concerns. Earlier, someone mentioned higher velocity in the 12.5′ XM8 versus the 14.5′ M4. The stated velocity increase from the XM8 may result of the different barrel Heckler & Koch uses. H&K uses the newest barrel construction technique called hammer-forging which produces a polygonal bore, usually an hexagon, instead of familiar lands and valleys you see in most button cut barrels. The polygonal bore makes a tighter seal, causing less gas blow by, and utilizes propellant far more efficiently. This makes for faster velocity for the same barrel length. As a side effect, the hammer forging method makes an incredibly tough barrel that would take the abuse that would make a standard barrel burst. Also, H&K looks like they use a Vortex style flash supressor, at least on the shorter barrels, for the XM8 which is known to not only eliminate flash from even short barrels but to increase accuracy and velocity by preventing turbulent air in front of the projectile as it leaves the muzzle. Barrel and flash suppressor together might make enough of a difference to increase velocity even in the shorter 12.5′ barrel. To conclude: The XM8 would only be ideal to me, as a Marine, if it were increased to either 6.8mm SPC or Alexander Arms 6.5mm Grendel. And that cartridge selection is a debate for another day.
June 16th, 2004 at 9:58 am
good reply. I am familiar with polygonal rifling, but I never considered that it would result in better sealing or higher velocity. I can definately believe that Polygonal rifling offers increased barrel life and less fouling simply because you don’t have lands and grooves cutting into the bullet. Barrel length…..well I believe weapon length is more important than barrel length. A telescoping stock is necessary these days in order to adjust the length for body armor. A rifle with a long stock like the m16a2 is akward with body armor. A m16a1 or AK will work Ok with or without. I think a M4 with a 18′ barrel would be plenty short for CQB and still offer long range. There is no appreciable loss between 20′ and 18′. Bullpups are the easiest way to get a really short rifle, but they don’t balance or handle as well as a conventional rifle. My thoughts on the best infantry rifle…1 shot stops 0-300M. Shoots groups 2MOA or less. Has a crisp trigger less than 5 lb. has sturdy iron sights with the front sight at the end of the barrel. Handguard all the way to the end of the barrel. Modular rail system. Telescoping and side folding buttstock. compensater as good as AK74 that also is machined for attaching suppressor. Reciprocating charging handle, so there is no need for a forward assist, and when the weapon won’t cycle correctly you can still rapidly cycle the weapon by hand. Tritium front sight. The ‘Safety’ is operated with the trigger finger, encouraging new soldiers to patrol with their trigger finger on the safety instead of the trigger semi/auto selector is a thumb operated lever that returns to semi when released. Gas piston with 3 position adjustable regulater High, low, off. Fires a bullet between 90-110grains at 2800+fps. Ammo comes packed in a combat mix. 1 framenting bullet, 1 AP, 1 fragmenting tracer. Rifle has a durable green/brown camo finish… maybe a epoxy coating? All parts are made as ergonomicly as possible to aid the rifleman in hitting the target rapidly. Has standard mags of 25+ rounds for patrolling and standard use has a large cap mag of 50+ rds for inserting when beginning a attack or when large cap is needed……. This rifle must be totally unstylish it must not be appealing to queers, women, socialists, or people from europe. It must inspire confidence in the soldier when he holds it. You must be able to beat someone to death with it if you run out of ammo without breaking it. that’s my thoughts..
June 19th, 2004 at 11:58 pm
There are a lot of intelligent comments here. We obviously have some engineers in the house. I can certainly understand the popularity of the m-16 family of weapons and the excitement revolving around the xm-8. I almost hate to say it because I like them myself, but I think that these designs have become outdated. If you look back at the history of rifles and the mishaps that occurred over the years within their chambers I can understand that some people may have developed an aversion to putting the chamber farther back into the buttstock such as in a bullpup. It made sense to put the chamber farther forward on the rifle to protect the shooter from firing mishaps. A bullpup is a much more efficient use of space. No matter what the cartridge, why waste its potential by shortening the barrel so much? A bullpup has the ability to incorporate longer barrels into a shorter rifle. This means that the ammunition’s potential is utilized. It means quieter shooting from the barrel and more muzzle velocity. The bullpup design does not sacrifice accuracy, weight or reliabity. Drawbacks of the bullpup design include mechanical changes that need to be made to accommodate left-handers, noise for the shooter can be intense with the ejection port near an ear and the triggers aren’t as crisp as with the m-16 family. Take a look at the Tavor. The Israelis got it right. B, you said that bullpups don’t handle well??? You seem like a bright guy but get real. With the weight to the back of the rifle you can acquire targets much faster. Take a baseball bat by the skinny handle with one hand and try to quickly move it around and point it at things. Turn the baseball bat around, hold the fat end with one hand and try the same thing. If that doesn’t get the point across, try it with a doughnut on the bat. With the bullpup, you get more feet per second from the same ammunition; you get faster target acquisition and less user fatigue. You also don’t have to muck around with changing your buttstock length. Why do you think the Austrians, Australians, English, French, Israelis etc. are going to the bullpup? It is a better design. Don’t knock it until you try one.
June 20th, 2004 at 12:05 am
The Tavor: A stuby little powerhouse. Check this puppy out. http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/targal.htm
June 26th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
Concerning the ejection of bullpup, it should be noted that FN Herstal has developped a bullpup, the F2000, that ejects spent cases in front of the weapon, thus allowing change of should and instant left-handed usage (IIRC, most CQB use of bullpup is prohibited by the need to rapidly change shoulders – the SAS use M4/C8, the GIGN use SIG 551, in place of their bullpup national rifle).
July 9th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
A question I have is this: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are equipped with M4 and M16s which have proved unreliable and and to have lack of range in the desert and high elevations of these two theaters. Why not reissue the M14 to soldiers in the areas. For a bit more money, the rifles could even be improved a bit; possibly shortening the barrel to 15 or 16 inches and giving the rifle a collaspable stock. Second question: Why do we need an entirely new rifle? Granted, the M4-M16 series has had its problems, but it has overall proven itself as a good combat weapon for about forty years now. Sure, it is a bit underpowered espessally in desert areas, but do we need to discard it completely? Instead of a new rifle, it seems both economically and tactically smarter to upgrade the current rifles. We could change the gas system on the rifle to a more reliable one, like what the XM8 or even the AK rifles use, and upgrade the caliber to the 6.8×43mm SPC or the conceptual 6.86×40mm ARC (preferably the 6.8 as it is much more powerful). It would (probably) cost less and would be better for the troops who already are familar with the M4-M16 rifles Final question. Evidently, if adoption of the XM8 is inevitable, it does not solve the problems with the 5.56mm cartridge. It was mentioned that the XM8 carbine would be able to be converted to fire the ubiquitus 7.62×39mm. One of the arguements against upgrading the XM8 to fire (as standard ammunition) the 6.8mm is that there is so much 5.56mm ammo around that if a soldier equipped with a 6.8mm gun ran out, he would be defenseless, and all the 5.56 rounds availible to him (or her) would be useless. Well, if the XM8 can be converted to fire AK-47 ammunition, couldn’t it have the 6.8mm ammo as standard with the ability to convert the barrel and bolt to fire 5.56 if needed? If no one wants to post a response, if you could email me possible answers, that’d be great!
July 9th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
PaulCG: Regarding your idea of using M14s instead of the M16/M4, it’s already happening, at least with squad sharpshooters. I’ve given the subject a fair amount of coverage here, beginning with http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000909.html . Here’s a list of every post that mentions the M14: http://www.murdoconline.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=m14 . Most of them are centered on the exact points you bring up. I think you’ve also got a good point about the 5.56 ammunition issue. Check out this post and especially the comments for more thoughts: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001138.html . Airborne Combat Engineer, who comments on the post, is a fan of the 6.8 SPC. Check out the post he links to in the comments. He’s got a lot of good other stuff on his site, so check it out. As for the possibility of adapting weapons to different ammunition in the field, I think that will end up being a pipe dream, no matter what rounds they go with. That’s just too much stuff to be lugging around. Maybe it could be done on a large scale before a major operation or something, but it would also throw off all the training. Special Forces types would probably like the capability, but as for the rank and file troopers there’s probably no way to easily make it practical. I don’t know what’s all involved, so maybe I’m wrong about that.
July 9th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
Yeah, good point with the ammunition. I thought it was a good idea too, but it does seem a little too, for lack of a better term, utopian. Another question I had was about the 6.5 PPC/Grendel. I was reading an issue of Special Weapons for Military and Law Enforcement where possible 5.56 replacements were being tested. The 6.5mm PPC was clearly superior to the 6.8mm SPC in both range and energy. I understand the military has tested the 6.5mm as well but they are still favoring the 6.8mm. Any explainations?
July 18th, 2004 at 11:11 pm
One more thing: Is the switch to the XM8 a for sure thing with the U.S. military, or is it still just a proposal?
July 19th, 2004 at 8:13 am
While it’s not a done deal, it looks all but certain. I don’t have any ‘inside’ info, only what can be found from public sources, so who really knows? Two brigades are going to equip with the XM8 for extensive field testing, hopefully one of them will be in Iraq for a ‘real-world’ test. It appears that it’s going to be adopted, and that it’s going to be 5.56.
July 19th, 2004 at 11:44 am
I don’t mind saying, the fact that it’s going to be 5.56 really sucks. I support the military wholeheartedly but I think they’re making a big mistake sticking to the already problematic 62 grain 5.56 NATO. I’ve heard a lot of reports from soldiers who started loading up with Black Hills 77 grain 5.56 ammo, but even those reports are mixed. While these rounds hit slightly harder, they are less accurate and the degree of improvement in stopping power is so slight it doesn’t even seem worth it. These reports worry me since I am going into the Navy in about 3 years and, hopefully, will make it through BUD/S and into the SEALs. I don’t want to be armed with a weapon that is weaker than the current ones already issued! One nice thing is that US SOF personnel seem to use what works more than what’s issued. I recently saw a picture of an MP5N that had been rechambered by its user to fire .40 caliber rounds (it WAS an MP5N, not a UMP40, just clearing that up before someone corrects me). So, I’ll tell you one thing, if I get on the Teams, if all I get is that M8, I’m changing the receiver for the 6.8mm SPC. Hopefully I won’t have to do that; I’m hoping that XM8 firing the 5.56 will get enough complaints before it heads into production to upgrade the caliber. If H&K doesn’t do that, we might as well scrap both the M16 and M8 programs and go back to the M14. It’s hands down the best rifle for the desert anyway; It’s reliable in the sand, it has long range, and it’s hard hitting.
July 31st, 2004 at 7:40 pm
Don’t go blaming 5.56mm on the rest of NATO. We blame it on the Americans. If you want a good modern assault weapon then they are out there already. Take the FN F2000: this is in its early days but what a tool. Or the Steyr AUG: more proven than the F2000 and if the Saudis are using it then its possible it might work in the desert???. Try not to make the same mistake as the British and reinvent the wheel just to prove you can. Having said that, the L85 (SA80) is a fantastic tool for hitting what you are shooting at. It has problems for left-handers and for firing to the right flank but those problems are normal for many current weapons. The .303 farce that dogged the british for 2 generations has buried us in a culture of irrational weapon cleaning and this has affected the L85’s career by causing us to concentrate on cleaning the wrong things. Thats not the whole story though and basically a small round will breed small mechanisms and they are shit to clean. On the subject of small rounds it all about momentum and energy. Momentum is mass times velocity and is the ‘knock ‘em on their backsides’ sort of effect. Energy is half mass times the square of velocity and the ‘carve the guts out of them’ effect. Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have high energy due to muzzle velocities of Mach 2.5 to 3. Additionally 7.62mm has higher momentum due to higher mass and this serves to ‘knock ‘em on their backsides’. All combat weapons of whatever calibre will continue to weigh about 4 to 5 kilos if you want to hit the target. Decades ago the Russians proved that an infantryman should carry no more than 40 pounds into battle yet we are routinely carrying nearer 40kg and the bastards think up more for us to carry every year. The answer to the weight issue is not in the personal weapon or in its ammunition.
August 2nd, 2004 at 2:01 pm
I don’t think that the U.S. is going to be interested in a bullpup weapon anytime soon, jimf. The military has repeatedly turned down bullpup designs including the Steyr AUG, the SAR21 (that rifle made in Singapore), and the Tavor to name a few. As good as the F2000 sounds, I’m pretty sure it’s not on the list of possible M16 replacements. Frankly, I think most of the hype over the F2000 is from gamers ’seeing what it can do’ in Splinter Cell. About the F2000’s forward ejection, I heard the cases travel down some kind of tube to the ejection port. That sounds a jamming problem in the making. Also, the bullpup design doesn’t change the fact that the 5.56mm round still doesn’t hit very hard even from a 20 inch barrel. I say, if we’re going to upgrade to a new rifle, whatever we do, go with the 6.8mm round.
August 6th, 2004 at 4:32 am
h
August 6th, 2004 at 4:34 am
I’m german, I love Heckler Koch
August 10th, 2004 at 7:25 pm
I wonder if the reluctance to move away from the 5.56mm round is mainly political. Being the flagbearing ’standard’ NATO rifle round, stockpiles of ammunition across America, Europe and elsewhere exist to equip 5.56 mm armed troops. I’m sure, logistically, introducing a novel 6.8 mm round would involve a lot more supply difficulties – especially in multi-national campaigns. I’m sure Europeans wouldn’t like it, as I bet America pushed for the 5.56 mm standard, and now if we just abandon that standard our allies might be wonderng why we can’t make up our minds.
August 10th, 2004 at 7:59 pm
That is certainly a great point, Brian. And I believe that you’re right that the US led the push for the 5.56 NATO standard. One problem with the stockpiled ammo argument, though, is that the US military is currently in danger of burning through it’s inventory of 5.56 ammunition. There have been a number of stories in the press about our inability to cover our usage in Afghanistan and Iraq with current production capacity. We could always switch to 6.8, and agree to buy off some NATO stockpiles of 5.56 to cover us in the meantime. That might soften the blow a bit. Of course, we’d just turn around and try to sell them XM8s.
August 11th, 2004 at 10:09 am
when do I get my xm8 cause i need one really bad for somethin that I have been planning for a long time if u give me one ill tell u what it is so plz think about getting me my xm8 ill pay you 50 dollars for it
August 12th, 2004 at 10:40 pm
The XM8, basically a G36C (because of the 12.5inch barrel) with intergrated optics, converted magazine receiver, and retractable stock. Since we will be getting new polymer magazines any way, so tell me why America needs to be the lone wolf with its weapons when it would be cheaper to just buy the G36 series of rifles. The Army already canceled the RAH-66 Comanche reconissance helicopter after they spent 7 billion on it. Our military doesn’t get as much money a people would like to think, so could we just save on not doing R&D and testing on a rifle that is the same as a rifle that other countries use?
August 17th, 2004 at 6:51 pm
I have an SL8 and an AR. They are both brilliant in their designs. I have 2350 rounds through the SL8 and the bolt still shines. Never dirty, never a malfunction, eats all kinds of ammo, MOA accurate always. The indirect impingement is sweet. ( I still love my M4…) Since the M8 is based on the SL8/G36 design, I don’t think you can go wrong. If HK scales it up for the 7.62 so you have two series like Armalite did with the AR platform, then you have the best of both worlds and still can use the 100’s of millions of rounds stockpiled eveywhere. And range is a non-issue when an A-10 is just over the hill…
August 20th, 2004 at 11:51 am
its great y love it so mutch
August 20th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
AR-10T Baby. 7.62×51mm is the way to go. Ammo makes a big difference. Grunt’s will always get the lowest bidder. Special Forces will get their own stuff that is the best; Interesting how they go with the .45 Handgun and .308 Rifle round? They know what’s up! It’s a cost issue it turn’s out that is resulting in a weaker force.
August 20th, 2004 at 7:22 pm
It looks like the 10th Mountain Division gets to test it now… http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2194829 And I coulda SWORN 6.8mm was still in the running, though maybe after all the 5.56 stocks are used up :/
August 20th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
I was just wondering is there a reason why the army isn’t going to a bullpup design like the TAV-21 that way they could fit a 18 or 20 inch barrel and still keep the gun short?
August 24th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
Hey edwin, when did they last change your diaper, you illiterate slob? If you’re not capable of quality conversation, then go dribble on your bib somewhere else.
August 25th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
I’d rather them go with the M468. It actually ends up being more cost effective to simply replace upper recievers and ammunition than to replace entire weapon systems along with their accessories. However since they are intent on sticking with the 5.56 they could at least use a 5.56 APLP round which is pretty much a one-shot-drop as the round explodes inside the human body and can penetrate armor.
August 25th, 2004 at 2:15 pm
First off I want to say that I love reading everyones post. I have learned a lot from them. I leave for ROTC training this Friday and will graduate in 2008 to go active duty for 4 years. It seems to me I will be using this weapon in the field and who knows by that time we might be inside North Korea. I own 10 fireamrs. one M4 and one Ar-15. The Ar-15 has a 5.56 Lower and a 7.62 upper receiver, and of course a 7.62 barrel. I always compare this with my 5.56 M4 which is a lot eaiser to control recoil wise. The 7.62 Has a nice nock down round, and it seems to put a lot bigger holes in things. The 5.56 round just goes through stuff and keeps going. I like the idea of a 6.8 MM round but this new gun might be a good idea. It looks like a gun from Starship toopers but Heckler and Koch do not make cheap wepaons. I own one of there MP-5 civilian versions, with the 9MM round. It is very thorough and does not Jam. I think the switch to the new weapons would be a good change, but like most people on here have been saying we need a better nock down round. Thanks again for all the great information!
August 25th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
Glad to see our beloved 10th trying it out. As someone who owns a HK SL8-1, and M4 and AR 15 sporter target, the HK is far easier to clean and slicker to shoot. Shooting the HK is reminds me of a swiss watch compared to the clunking going on in the Colts. Put a couple of hundred rounds through the Colt or the HK at the range and the Colt is MUCH more difficult to clean, especially if you clean as thorough as the US Mil now recommends you clean them. Then there is the barrel, no comparision comrades, the HK is hand down better with it’s polygonal rifling. I;m just hoping the ban sunsets and HK sells a civilian semi-auto version. I’ll have at least one Colt for sale.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:34 am
Joe, I concur completely on the assessment of the HK SL8-1; I have one and it really is the Mercedes of semi-autos. It would be the ideal model on which to base a new weapon ( i.e. XM8). If HK can adopt the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel into the XM8 package, the world would be a better place. And hopefully the ‘94 ban will die and we can get a civilian (semi-auto only) version of the XM8.
August 29th, 2004 at 5:04 am
I’ve recently come over an article in the army times showing some new updates they’ve done to the XM8. The 101st airborne and the 3rd infantry have tested the rifle and loved it. There’s now an increased rate of fire, which I think is about 850 rpm. The bolt release catch is bigger. Plus a very new feature which shocked me, was the new rail sights they’ve added to the XM8. I guess the XM8 won’t be using the optic sights alone anymore. They’ve changed the barrel and optic sights as well. Such as a heavier barrel for the Automatic version and now have turned to the bird cage flash suppressor design as well. Even the handgaurd has been upgraded. I’ve also read that they bury the rifle and fire it to test jams. I guess that’s an effective way to find out.
September 2nd, 2004 at 3:17 am
I have a military background but not as a frontline soldier, apart from the size of the ammunition which appears to need more stopping power, isn’t the weapon missing a bayonet. In close quarters battle, when anythings goes, and the gun jams/runs out of ammo, and physic violence is what is going to keep you alive, surely your chances increase with a bayonet fixed, rather than using the butt?
September 3rd, 2004 at 11:25 am
What really puzzles me is that if this gun is so close to the G36 how come that the stock aint folding like the G36 is nor does it eject used cartridges downwards, and what good is it to have controls that work for left or right handed if the ejection port is fixed on the right side? :/
September 9th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
Rakim, It’s close to the G36, not a duplicate which means it incorporates functional features into a new generation weapons platform. If you read the buttstock is adjustable in 5 settings as well as the option of a butt cap thereby reducing the whole cumbersome option of a folding stock. The reason for the controls being on both sides is ease of operation, both right and left handed soldiers can use it without having to switch up and cost seconds. As to Pauls post about no Bayonet, again if you bother to read it comes with a fixed bayonet lug just as the current M14/M4A1 variants.
September 14th, 2004 at 10:35 pm
I don’t know why we just dont switch to the FN P90 rifle and Five-seveN pistols. Those little 5.7mm rounds are truly wicked and will penetrate body armor. I have fire the pistol and have found it to be pretty cool.
September 14th, 2004 at 11:33 pm
There is a reason taht the 5.7 rounds are in pistols and sub-machine guns. They can’t engage targets past 200 metres. Although under that range they are king. They are good as side arms or for close range fire fights. 5.56 does have problems but does have upsides as well. It can punch through body armour but since it is so small it punches right people and doesn’t have any stopping power, which knocks the enemy back. One of the main reasons for having a small calibre is that it is light and you can take many.
September 19th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
i like the xm8. it sounds like a good idea, but completly re-arming the military with it seems a little much. remember, the m-14 was never truly brought out of service because the SEALs use them and the marines use a modified version. i think the xm8 would be great for special forces who need a light and reliable weapon than won’t give out in an intense firefight. and for those long-range engagements, the marines use the 7.62×51 m-14dmr and special forces have the sr-25/mk-11 rifles of the same caliber. honestly, i think we should just use the ak-47. it is the most widely used gun in history. the ak has a reputation for reliability like no other. the vietkong beat us in vietnam with them and every other force we’ve gone up against armed with ak’s seems to have given us a hard time. we just dont use them because it would make america look weak. wouldn’t it have been big for soviet propaganda if the mighty americans addmited that they can’t make a gun as sound as the ak?
September 20th, 2004 at 12:44 am
I don’t know alot about this gun, but I like how it looks like the G36. It might not be like the AK, but I like most 5.56 caliber weapons. Thats just me though, plus it lightweight. Do you think that the XM8 can replace the G36?
September 20th, 2004 at 11:42 am
The XM8, as you probably know, is a varient of the G36. It won’t replace it, however, because the G36 is, correct me if I’m wrong, the standard issue of the German Army and probably a few other militaries I don’t know about. I acually heard awhile back that the Brits were considering adopting the G36 or a varient of it to replace problematic SA80 (which I’m told British soldiers hate and SAS troops won’t even touch). I think the reason the U.S. military is adopting the XM8 is because #1 It’s actually made here in H&K’s American plant unlike the G36 and #2 with the Germans opposition to Iraq, we wouldn’t want to give in and look like we have to look to the Germans for supplying our soldiers. This is probably the same reason we won’t adopt the AKM or AK-101.
September 20th, 2004 at 11:49 am
I’m STILL an advocate of the M14. I heard that the 82nd Airbourne is seriously considering making it standard issue in Afghanistan (I’m not in the service yet, so anyone from the 82nd or who knows about this, feel free to correct me). The Navy’s serface ships’ small arms lockers are usually filled with M14s rather than M16s or M4s due to the fact that a .308 can punch holes in small crafts. I think the best thing we can do is to take the current M14, shorten the barrel to about 16-16.5 inches, give it a new, folding stock with some sort of RIS for mounting accessories, and put a recoil buffer in that would make it more manageable in automatic fire.
September 20th, 2004 at 6:33 pm
Switch to the AK-47? I don’t know about the newer AK-100 series but the AK-47 and AK-74 are nothing but durable, reliable garbage. Sure, they’re deadly up close but you start having a target at around 100 yards and you’ve got yourself a gun that is about as accurate as a diasy air rifle. The reason why you see a lot of them is because they are dirt cheap to manufacture and you can find them unaccounted for in abundance. The whole fall of the USSR and all. No real soldier would want to run around with an AK, especially when there are tons of better weapons you could choose from. As for the AK-100 series, I believe they fire the 5.45 round which is even smaller than the 5.56 and isn’t a favorable round. As for the M14, yeah it’s a real badass gun. Have you seen the SOPMOD M14 made by Troy industries?
September 21st, 2004 at 3:57 pm
Most countries use the weapons they make, of course, like U.S. Military use M4s and M16s etc., but personally I’ll pick a weapon thats suitable for me. I still like the AK, I’ll USE an AK, but I still choose a 5.56 cal over a 7.62 cal(thats just me saying).
September 21st, 2004 at 11:04 pm
Ok…well, we all probably agree that its time for the US of A to upgrade its primary assult rifle weapons system. Now…to do that obviously there are many factors to take into consideration. The xm8 seems to handle MOST of them very well. The few it MAY do not so well (like bashing an enemy over the head when you run out of ammo) are par for the course in any man-made device. I’m a operating engineer and believe me-no man made device is perfect. It seems that the designers goal is to offer a system that is light, lethal, reliable, flexible and accurate. The caliber debate goes on…5.56 will still kill ya dead and knock the wind outta you under 300 yards – anything over and you’d probably be maneuvering to outflank and/or calling in support anyhow. Even if that weren’t the case…you have your soldiers with the sharpshooter varaient who can be called out to snipe. And if it does come with the ability to upgrade to a 7.62 round with a bolt and barrel change than so much the better. Remember that a platoon operates as a team…(and they equip BASED ON THEIR MISSION) so you have soldiers with the standard version, soldiers with the sniper version, soldiers humping the grenade launcher and shotgun attachments and LM gunners – all fitted out before going out on mission. They all rely on one another as a unit. There is no rambo…and no one weapon that would be perfect for him. The mechanics of it are certainly FAR better than the m-16 (although I’m a HUGE fan of the m-14) with the ‘positive’ mechanics of a piston driven bolt action and forward gas release – this will make a giant difference no matter how clean your powder is. So as far as the ammo…its light, has good range and piercing ability and its cheap and abundant (which is a consideration…everything costs something) and will it get the job done? Seems like its doing it fine so far…I can’t believe a slightly larger round with knockdown power will make up for say, a poorly trained soldier being unable to work as a unit within his platoon. But then…opions are like…well, you know ;) J
September 23rd, 2004 at 1:35 am
True, the 5.56×45 round is lethal but there have been many cases where soldiers have shot their enemy six or seven times in the chest with it and still haven’t put their target down. In some states it’s illegal to kill a deer with 5.56×45 as they feel it is inadequate. Now, the 7.62×51 is powerful but it’s a bit too heavy for troops to be running around with. The 6.8 SPC is a good inbetween round. More knock-down power along with similar 5.56×45 NATO trajectory. Of course if we really wanted to ensure that it was a one-shot-drop we could always employ APLP rounds. From what I’ve seen and heard, any shot to the torso and head will result in death. Limb shots will result in the loss of the limb and these were tested with 5.56 and 9mm APLP rounds. If they made a 6.8 APLP round it’d be like eating a hand grenade (slight exaggeration). If you don’t know what APLP (Armor Piercing Limited Penetration)rounds are they’re basically rounds that were developed to pierce armored targets but not over-penetrate them (friendlies on the other side and whatnot). The way it prevents itself from over-penetrating is by exploding/fragmenting inside something warm. Something warm like a human body. They conducted field tests in Iraq with them. In the report one soldier shot a terrorist in the buttocks and killed him instantly. They described the wound as ‘untreateable’. Seeing as there is a bunch of tiny fragments ripping through his internal organs it’d be near impossible to stop the bleeding. Multiple organ failure.
September 23rd, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Just for the record…i’d like to see em upgrade the rifle to 6.8mm standard. BUT it sure seems like the Brass has very little interest in doing so (mostly for monetary and political reasons to be sure) J
September 24th, 2004 at 3:11 am
*sigh* i read thru this whole posting hoping to find some more info about the xm8 and all i get is arguments about the caliber size. A) im not gonna throw my 2 cents in on that issue. B) everyone seems to have missed the point of the entire xm8 project. its not intended to be the next primary weapon for the american military or any other. its an interim weapon while the xm29 is finished. Then it will be issued only to airborn and non-frontline units that need a lighter weapon than the xm29 will certainly be. C) the works of the xm8 are the same as the BACK-UP close range weapon on the xm29, its not supposed to be the main kill factor. and no one can gripe bout the 20mm of HE goodness in the main gun on an xm29. well, mebe ya can… the world is full of idiots.
September 24th, 2004 at 9:25 pm
umm….. wolfman, hate to brake your heart, but i belive the xm29 project was completly canceled. the weapons two parts were divided into two seprate induvidual programs, the xm8 and some fancy grenade launcher thingy. and one other point i just realized, the xm8 has a 12.5mm barrel, thats the same as the g36k right? the g36k is issued to german special forces and non front line troops, like our m4. the standard german army uses a g36 with a 20mm barrel like the m16. the xm8 only uses a 20mm barrel for sniping and SAW purposes. what im saying is will there be a full sized battle rifle version of the xm8 with a longer barrel????
September 29th, 2004 at 8:24 am
while In Iraq I had no problems with my M-16 but I know that the M1 Garand and the M-14 were also good rifles…there comes a time when you need to upgrade. what will sell me on the new rifle of course will be the light weight of the system…my M16 only weighed about 10 pounds will all the crap on it but after five hours on patrol it started to get a little heavy. The round is a good accurate round and nice because you can carry a lot of them without it getting too heavy…with that being said I think we can use a little bit more balls behind our round. another thing that the XM8 needs is tactical accesability to the mag release and the saftey…the M16 does a very good job of this and I already see the clip/lock release on the XM8 which is not quick enough as opposed to the index finger button release the m16 has. And also the XM8’s buttstock is ugly…I saw a collapsable version on ‘Mail Call’ which looked cool But when you see an M4 all decked out it just looks so bad ass and tactical that whoever sees it in your hands knows you know what your doing.
September 29th, 2004 at 11:45 am
I just checked out the SOPMOD M14 from Troy Industries. That is EXACTLY what I’m talking about! I think our military should go and take THAT gun instead of the XM8. But if not, upgrade the XM8 to accept 6.8mm SPC rounds. I read some reviews on those, and their performance is near that of the 7.62 NATO.
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:30 am
Anyone remember that the origional precurser to the m-16 was chambered in 7.62? I believe bushmaster or one of the ar-15 manufacturers produces a 7.62 version of the ar-15. While the 7.62 round might not be ideal, it would be a ‘quick fix’ for those applications requiring a heavier bullet. It would mean that soldiers would not need to be trained on a whole new weapons system, and a NATO round is already chambered for it. Also, just as every soldier is not equipped with a grenade launcher or machine gun, maybe it might be a good idea to mix in a number of longer range weapons untill the debacle is resolved by totally REMOVING 5.56 from use as an infantry round. It has its benifits, but more in the realm of close quarters combat, urban, or situations where large capacity and more hits in rapid fire are needed. An M-4 has a point target range of 500 meters. That only means the average soldier can hit most of his shots on target at that range, NOT that those rounds will incapacitate. The M-14 was a great rifle, still is. The problem is that it requires additional training. The 7.62 version of the m-16/m-4/etc would be ideal because you could just drop it into the hands of a m-16 variant trained soldiers hands and send him off on the mission. While the m-16 rifle has its problems, at least we know what they are. Mid-battle is not a good time to be running off and changing things unless they are totally useless, or a less-impacting solution is not avaliable. the xm8 might be a good weapon, but now is not the time to be thinking about mass distribution of a weapon with even less max range than the one already in service.
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:34 am
Corey, I hate to burst your bubble, but the M-4 has become standard issue, the only 2 reasons that troops in Iraq still carry m-16’s is because of longer range, or m-4’s being in short supply. Just seperated from the USAF as a cop, and the M-4 became our standard duty weapon. (I liked it because it was light, and looked nifty, but agree that it has its shortcomings).
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:47 am
just another bit of conventional wisdom. the bayonet lug is a useless bit of carried over junk from WWI. While they were usefull at that time, when weapons were LONG, bolt action weapons that required time and effort to lond each round. A bayonet was essential for close quarters combat so that soldiers could quickly run up and disable the opposing soldier. In the days of full auto assult rifles, one who tries that method will most likely be shot multiple times before they are able to stab someone with a weapon designed to SHOOT them. Piss and moan all you want about the bayonet lug. Ask anyone who has been in combat, and find out how often they actually stabbed someone with their gun.
October 3rd, 2004 at 8:32 am
i am looking for an m4 conversion kit for my m16. i am currently deployed, so as you can guess it is a little difficult finding the right parts. so any suggestions would be nice, thanks rob
October 9th, 2004 at 8:43 pm
thanks adam after i had posted that comment i did seem to notice a lot more m4’s in the hands of regular troops. i have also heard that the m4 has even worse problems than the m16. i’ve read in various places that the shortened barrel of the m4 results in a shortened gas system, which works under greater pressures, than the m16, which increases the rate of fire and produces more stress on the unstrengthend moving parts, decreasing the reliability of the weapon. any word on that?
October 14th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
it’s possible hit a head at 200 yards with a m-16? thanks
October 17th, 2004 at 3:54 pm
Quite a few good posts here. The evidence against the 5.56×45 cartridge being as effective as our troops would like, and deserve is quite convincing (at least to me). There are a number of different reasons for that; which have been well thrashed here and elsewhere, so…….I’ll leave that dead horse alone. There’s no arguing the newer 6.8×43 cartridge is more effective….it’s a more powerful cartridge! The major drawback with the 6.8 as I understand it, is current weapons must be able to fire it with a 6.8 upper receiver ‘and’ standard M16/M4 mags, though in a single stack rather than a double. That’s the problem; the 30 round 5.56 mag now becomes a 17 or 18 round 6.8 mag. Which brings me to my point. There’s another way around the lack of 5.56 performance that won’t give up standard mag capacity, wouldn’t have cost ANYTHING for development (though those costs were admirably low in the 6.8 SPR program),and is readily available. What the heck is it? RBCD ammunition chambered in 5.56×45. For the last three years running, at the Armed Forces Journals annual invitational small arms shoot out; RBCD has wowed the crowd (most all current and/or former spec ops personnel). As I recall, RBCD bills their product as a ‘bimetal technology’. Whatever it is, and however it works…..it’s just amazing in the still and video pictures. Tremendous anti armor (hard and soft)penetration with explosive performance on soft tissue (we’re talking tennis ball size craters from 5.56, even after the round has penetrated a kevlar vest). The annectodotal evidence on this ammunition is also very convincing. Additionally, as it’s a total metal round (no hollow point, soft point, or ballistic tip) it appears to comply with the Geneva Convention on expanding ammunition and feeds as reliably as you’d expect ball ammo to. For the life of me, I don’t know why the military establishment didn’t give this amazing product some significant field trials (you know–buy a bunch of rounds at let our troops field test it on some cooperative subjects that deserve it!). Well, that’s my two cents! God bless all you troops and keep your heads down!
October 18th, 2004 at 1:33 am
Blended Metal Technology, basically the bullet, upon a rapid change in temperature and hydrostatic pressure, makes the bullet fragment like a little mofo. Distributed by Lemas (I think). And I agree, though I still think they should keep manufactuing the standard ammo stuff for training and range practice. Armed Forces Journal pointed this out, that one accidently discharge rifle in the wrong direction means a body bag and a furneral back home (apparently even outside center mass shots are still quite lethal). At least with the standard stuff you stand a chance.
October 18th, 2004 at 5:37 am
Thanks, D. Liu! It was blended metal not ‘bi metal’. Unfortunately, my memory is increasingly fuzzy and I no longer have access to my back issues of AFJ. Your accurate RBCD terminology and description of the blended metal fragmentation process filled in some unfortunate blank spaces in my post. You make an excellent point in retaining conventional ammo for training purposes as well….something I hadn’t thought about.
October 19th, 2004 at 3:09 am
Pull out the Garands
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:45 pm
ME and my friend are only in 8th grade, although we have been researching this weapon, and its really usefull for our marines today, and in the future. -vincent, Luis
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:45 pm
ME and my friend are only in 8th grade, although we have been researching this weapon, and its really usefull for our marines today, and in the future. -vincent, Luis
October 27th, 2004 at 12:20 am
Interesting posts, but it’s clear that the rifle and the caliber issues are somewhat distinct. 5.56×45 is problematic; you get either good incapacitation < 300m OR penetration up to 500m. Enough said. I’ll bite on an argument between G36 and XM8, but there’s no argument that either is a major improvement on the M-16 action. The M-16’s ridiculous gas system and bizarre charging handle/forward assist are anomolies in small arms design; Gene Stoner abandoned both in subsequent designs (AR-18 & 63 family) within 10 years. The operating system is fundamentally flawed because it blows crap into the reciprocating parts of the action, and only a top down bureacratic institution that regards its labor as free would take 40 years to figure it out. It’s also inflexible in requiring a stock buffer. If you think the angle of ejection is unfriendly a for left-handed shooter, think what it’s like when gas blows out the ejection port near your non-shooting eye. As a rhetorical question, have you seen either feature incorporated in rifles designed in the intervening 40 years? No. DUH. Replace the M16/M4 immediately, even if it’s in 5.56×45. One cleaning/day versus two and the relative time savings is about half an hour. In precious field training time, use it to teach you soldiers how to be more effective at killing the other guy. In a combat environment, when you’re mentally stressed out and physically exhausted, a weapon that works and 30 extra minutes/day of sleep or paying attention to the lethal world around will keep you and your soldiers alive.
October 29th, 2004 at 8:14 am
For anyone interested: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/analysis1.html This is the Armed Forces Journal that mentions the Blended Metal Techonology. There’s also articles of various other evaluated military technologies. It’s pretty interesting. I personally recomend taking a look also at the video section, Todd Jarret’s pistol shooting tips. They’re quite excellent, easy to learn, and actually does helps accuracy quite a bit (speaking from personal experience. I still keep making the mistake of focusing more on my target and less on my sights however and my pistol likes to yaw a little to the left when I do). There’s also a bunch of info on the XM8 you all might wanna check out. http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm Also, everything you ever wanted to know about the 5.56 x 43mm / .223 cartridge but was too lazy to go look up for yourself. An excellent information resource compiled by the folks over at ar15.com. My own opinion of the XM-8… Mostly I think it’s just politicians trying to save a whole bunch of money they spent away on the XM-29 project (which was a bad idea in the first place, at least with today’s current level of technology). However I do approve of a few things. Mounting of the grenade launcher is now a breeze (I still think however a rifle grenade does have it’s place in modern combat), no more disassembling the entire front end of the rifle to mount your 203. Cleaning is also a little easier, and doesn’t take as long. Being able to directly access the gas piston for cleaning is a definate plus since it’s the part most prone to fouling now. Plus you can stash those damn little body pins right on the bridge. Those pins do worry me a little, since them being able to come out so easily… It worries me if one solid whack was enough to knock off a pin or loosen it. The polymer construction doesn’t worry me all too much. However I do question it’s long term reliability with sustained fire. Polymer, still has a nasty tendoncy to deform at higher temperatures. If they’ve already solved this, more power to HK. The magazines worry me a tad. G36 magazines are bigger then your STANG magazines, meaning current mag pouches won’t hold them. That’ll probably annoy a lot of people who still have pouches for STANG mags. Especially if logistics screws up (which seems to happen quite often. Not entirely sure if they’re entirely at fault but screws up do happen with them, as with anything else that’s human). Probably some moron will come along and try to force the XM8 mag into an M16 mag carrier and it’ll probably get stuck in there until he either cuts up the pouch or gets shot while trying to reload. :P I don’t particularly like the fact that there is no forward assist of any kind, but that’s just a personal preference. Mag release style is closer to that of the AK line of weapons. Whether this is good or bad, I don’t know. For me it’s not as natural as the colt mag release style but again, preference. Oh, and for all you AR15 lovers out there that are left handed, Diemaco is now producing an ambidex magazine release. I don’t know if it’s availible for civilians but it does exist. It’ll be standard issue on Canadian C7A2 rifles (which are slightly modified M16A2s) once all the C7A1’s are recyled into A2s. If anything however, from the videos it would look like the rifle is VERY controllable from full auto fire. Safe to assume that they’ve done some working on controlling the recoil even further. HK reduced thier little estimate of 15,000 rounds without cleaning to 5,000 rounds without cleaning. Probably still a little exhagerrated… The intergrated optics are nice, but the back up iron sights shouldn’t be just primitive iron sights. If and when the optic decides to quit, a good set of iron sights are a must. Is it worth replacing the M16? Who knows, I still think it’s just politicians trying to save face from the whole XM29 waste. I’m more on the fence with this one. But since the M16 looks like it’s going to be phased out either way, it’ll be interesting to watch what bugs will be found along the way.
October 29th, 2004 at 8:25 am
Gah, that was me above. Forgot to type my name in.
October 29th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
D Liu IIRC, the xm8 should be able to use common rifle-grenades (not sure, only read somewhere) The heat problems reported after they supposedly fixed it were still after firing several hundred rounds in within a couple minutes, not great, but usable. I never heard if they fixed the grit fouling in the magazines (not usre if that was even a real problem) I wouldn’t worry about the iron sights too much (though they ought to work properly). The battery power will last 6 hours with all options left on full (there are 1/2 power settings), enough for one standard watch. The red-dot itself lasts 400 hours; a conscientous user could extend battery life for 12 hours easily. Batteries are easy to change and of common types (aaa batteries). Nuclear isotope based self recharging devices and batteries will revolutionize such things anyway. http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20021104S0040 Supposedly some report or other was just released, and we should be hearing of some decsision by the end of November. I would like to hear more of the higly related SCAR-H & SCAR-L programs.
October 30th, 2004 at 9:18 pm
wooo man ugly gun. hope it works like they say.
November 2nd, 2004 at 6:36 pm
The XM8 is a kick ass rifle. I think it’s most impressive feature is it’s modular capabilities. You can create four different rifles on the field in record time.
November 4th, 2004 at 9:45 am
The XM8 has a supirior advantage over said M16 and M4 Carbines. If I could create a SAW out of a rifle, I would gladly do so, and I also enjoy the capabilities of a grenade launcher on a SAW. Sometimes, that comes in handy. The carbine version looks like a submachine gun, if you ask me. I can see everyone using this in due time.
November 9th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
Reading all of this material has been very informative and enlightening. I haven’t any practical military experince, ie. participated in battle, but I have some comments I would like to add based upon my shooting experiences and testimonials I have heard from various service men and women. The issue of 5.56 ammo compared to 7.62 and others is interesting. I have also heard stories of combat veterans needing several shots to take down their targets, particularly at short range, and likely due to the fact that the bullets went right through them. Though I appreciate the notion of bigger weightier bullets from a pure physics/ballistics stand point, I am not totally convinced that ‘bigger’ is neccessarily the way to go. The current inclusion of the M-14 and its 7.62 x 51 cartridge appears neccessary, specifically for long range shooting, if not for pure knock down capapbility. I would think that this need would/should be somewhat accounted for infintry at the squad and platoon levels – ie. don’t build a new rifle or cartridge to suit the purpose, use what is already at hand. The need for a light weight, dependable rifle still exists for its niche; for closer combat situations within 300 yards, and likely much closer. Although the 5.56 cartridge may not be perfect I don’t think it should be dropped all together for something slightly larger and heavier. The development of these blended metals that basically fragment all over the place when they meet the meat seems a logical answer to many of the current problems regarding the cartridge, all except perhaps range. It makes sense to me that development should progress in the area of these technological break throughs in better performing metals/bullets than trying to go through the hassel of accomadating what a huge logistical and industrial effort it would likely take to change to a new cartridge. With all that said I like what I read and see regarding the XM8 rifle. It looks cool, which I realize is the least important feature for the grunts on the ground who would be using it. I love its apparent modularity. Being able to easily change components quickly, easily, and without tools seems to be the greatest legacy of the M-16, especially in terms of adding zeroed optics. I imagine this would have great benefits in a changing battlefield environment. It certainly makes sense from a cost savings stand point of having a simple platform that can be easily modified for the job at hand. I believe ultimately that it would also translate for ease of proper weapon procurement for the troops too. There are a couple things I’m not too hot on for the rifle however. I can’t say I like the magazine release lever. Too much like an AK-47, kinda clumsy. There has got to be a better configuration. I like it the way it is on an M-16, or perhaps a way that wouldn’t distract the trigger finger unduly. The pistol grip also seems to be a problem – too narrow, too NOT ergonomic. I believe this is also a small problem for the M-16. A slightly thicker grip with some finger grooves or a better palm swell would likely help keep the hand from moving from its intended position during fire. Other than that I would admit that I am a fan of the XM8. I would like to add however, that apart from the bad ass blended metal bullets, smart grenade launchers like that proposed for the OICW XM-29 should be seriously tested and developed. I think that kind of technology would be a huge advance towards the goals of greater lethality, knock down power, range and pure intimidation. Hell, the Iraqis unfortunately seem to be having too much success with the old yet venerable RPG, and those rockets, like the Iraqis, are pretty ‘dumb!’ Lastly, I own both an M-16 and an AK-47, I have shot thousands of rounds through each type of rifle under various conditions (I compete with both for military gas-op matches), and although I like them both the accuracy of the M-16 is far superior. Unless someone has hand built an accuratized AK they would be hard pressed to ever convince me that an AK is going to match an M-16 in accuracy. Reliable? Perhaps, but anything 100 yards and more and an AK-47 will not do the job too effectively/accurately. The M-16 has a greater ease of function and generally isn’t clunky or clumsy in its operation. I only wish the M-16 was easier to clean. I’m no sniper, but with an M-16 I can’t miss, with an AK-47 I almost can’t hit! I’m not a huge fan of the 7.62 x 39 ballistically either. Would love to hear opinions from our troops fighting around the world. I admire and and respect what you do everyday. I thank you personally, and often!
November 10th, 2004 at 7:38 am
great work i never seen….im prayin for the god hope for this weapon can go far n i can touch her..
November 10th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
Since this seems to be the most active thread, I will post my greatest concerns in hopes that persons who are both influential and aren’t armchair generals (unlike moi), might influence development. 1. I noticed that the standard buttstock is different from that on the known2bRugged g36. Will really stand up to being used as a club when needed? 2. While I am glad that the CAM1A1 bayonet will be a part of the kit, I am concerned that it might not be mountable horizontally, so as to not interfere with the underslung XM320/LSS. (and to better penetrate rib cages without being stuck). 3. It seems that rifle grenades can be launched fromt he XM-8. But has this even been tested thoroughly? If it breaks in the process soldiers would be mad…and possibly dead. Also would the bayonet and other accessories interfere with rifle grenades? (/me crosses fingers) On this last subject, might the XM-8 be able to make use of the features of the Israeli Refaim ’smart’-rifle grenades?
November 14th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
I think this new XM8 will rival it counterparts and start of a new age in rifle tech..
November 16th, 2004 at 9:45 pm
I think this new weapon will be great and easy to maintain since all the components remain basically the same for all versions of this rifle. I am in the army and look forward to using this in the future.
November 17th, 2004 at 6:16 pm
Skimming through this has motivated me to join in. I have been an assigned full- or part-time sniper, sniper trainer/coordinator, and small-arms instructor with the Army, NG, and a law enforcement agency since 1972. I’ve worked with the M1C/D, XM21/M21/M25, M24, and M700/PSS. I’ve shot competitively with all the above systems as well as the M16/AR15/A1/A2, M4, M1, and M14. I’ve done T&E with the AR18/180, AR10T, SR25, and several .50s. My most important and intensively trained students have been my four sons, two of whom are right now boots-in-the-sand in Iraq. I know a bit about ballistics and battle/assault rifles, so here goes. The comment about reducing the rifle’s weight having a point of diminishing returns is dead on. So is the observation that the trend to short barrels is causing reduced effectiveness. The laws of physics remain impervious to the application of money; ya gotta figure out ways to advance technology that enhance effectiveness, not fritter it away. Perhaps the 6.8s will be the answer to effectiveness combined with lightweight compactness – that remains to be seen. The reference to the tubeless op rod for the M16 family is also worth noting. I believe the company or the part had ‘Buffalo’ in its name; seemed like a good way to keep the blooky out of the action – I don’t know why they went Tango Uniform but it would probably be worth resurrecting. To sum up, you can only shorten a barrel so much in a given caliber before you start hurting the ballistics enough to make the effort counterproductive. You can only lighten a given weapon so much before a normal person can’t shoot the damned thing effectively. I won’t even comment on the state of marksmanship training beyond the fact that marksmanship is a highly perishable skill that undergoes an unbelievable degree of degradation under extreme stress (that’s a subject for a whole thread of its own). Practical application? *sigh* It depends on the situation and terrain…I work out of a Ford SUV now and carry my issue pistol as a PDW (no comment on brand/caliber), my personal M4 for mid-range tasks, and the Department’s M700 in good ole .308 for precision requirements. I realize the infantryman doesn’t have the luxury of carrying the equivalent of a bag of golf clubs, this is just my present situation.
November 18th, 2004 at 10:22 am
OOPS – left out the H&K PSG-1, the Steyr bolt rifle and a few others…This forum needs an ‘edit’ button.
November 22nd, 2004 at 6:03 pm
i think we should go to the 6.8mm or 7.62mm round i will go into the army and the m-16 has been around way before i was born and it is time for a change in weapons i only wish they would sell them to the public right now cuz i would buy a few
November 23rd, 2004 at 7:12 am
Actually, I think the XM8 looks pretty tight. Yeah, maybe it does resemble something out of a Star Trek armory.. and looks like it should shoot lasers rather than bullets.. but is that entirely a bad thing? Guns, just like cars and everything else, get continually cosmetically upgraded. Either way I think it looks pretty high-tech.
November 25th, 2004 at 2:45 am
I’ve read and seen a lot of reviews on ‘the weapon of the future’ you know the ‘XM8′ and I really feel that if the repuetation holds up to the hype it is the weapon to go with. When the M 16 was brought out in the Vietnam War it was question a lot. It cost us a lot of lives because of its jamming. If we can avoid this, this time around this will defientley be the weapon of choice for our protectors of the U.S.A.
November 25th, 2004 at 3:06 am
I forgot to say how SEXY it is. The only diverse weapon to be able to serve in 4 diffrent purposes. Trained in one trained in all.
November 25th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
I wanted to make a interesting comment about the XM8, would you as a soldier want to take a new primary weapon into combat that has no actual field testing using a cartrige that has very little expirience in its self? We have changed a weapon that works so why go and change the ammunition that we know works (for now). Ammunition and chamber specifications for the 5.56 have been honed down to a near perfection. If we change to a new cartridge this would bring the possibilities of minor stoppages. Have any of you hade a slam fire, stove pipe, cookoff, or have a cartridge stuck in the chamber? Scarey huh? I think they are taking a very wise and small step into the future, and maybe we will see later models in a 6.8 or maybe .300 Win Magnum for those who are still not satisfied.
November 27th, 2004 at 11:30 pm
Do you have referances reguarding the AK-47 ammo being fired in the xm8?
November 29th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
Adapting to the 7.62×39mm cartridge is actually quite simple for most assault rifles, all that is needed is a new receiver, barrel, etc. As long as the body of the gun is big enough, any cartridge can be used. However, there really is no reason to chamber for the 7.62×39mm round. It is a relatively cheap and now very effective. It is more likely that the gun will be chambered for the 6.8mm SPC ammo or the 6.5mm Grendel round which have superior ballistics/penetration. Yes, the Kalashnikov round is abundant in Iraq, and most of the world, but so is the 5.56 and 7.92 NATO rounds that most US guns are chambered for. Changing to 7.62×39mm round would just add to the logistics equation that is already complicated enough.
November 29th, 2004 at 5:57 pm
Why was my post not put on?
November 29th, 2004 at 5:57 pm
why was my post not put on?
November 30th, 2004 at 1:43 am
So-called blended metal bullets are a fraud. There is no such thing. These bullets have been sectioned and examined by electron microscopes and they don’t work as advertized. They are fake. The manufacturer is making these outlandish claims to try and get a piece of the millions that the US armed forces spends on 5.56 ammo every year.
December 5th, 2004 at 5:05 pm
I was looking for a referance because I belive the information is incorrect. I am more than aware that guns are easily modified for other calibers, however no NATO country stocks 7.62×39 to my knowledge (except the old russian satellites). I was really looking at getting an accurate source for the information that I could reasonably confirm.
December 8th, 2004 at 7:32 pm
first off, wanna apologize for flamin yall. second. i agree with mike. sure the 5.56 round is possibly under powered. but it works. the m16 needs replacing. its old. the xm8’s modular design means that it will be more upgradeable in the future. i can say ive got first hand experiance with these different rounds now. and our whole party as relatively inexperianced shooters, were able to hit clay pigeons thrown at 100 ft with a chinese AK rechambered to 5.56. this might not be impressive to some of you real profesional types, but the point is: the 5.56 round was THAT easy to get used to. its kick is light enough that young, admittedly wussy amatures such as ourselves were able to quickly get familiarized and proficient. As we moved to larger rounds. the kick ineviably got harder. for inexperianced and non-tough guys like us its direct result was lowered accuracy. if i was in combat i’d want to use a gun that is as easy and intuitive to operate as possible. increasing the caliber and charge arent gonna help that. penetration i’m not so sure bout. but i’d rather be able to hit and mebe have to shot him again rather than having trouble hitting my target the first time. the obvious counter to my argument is that a soldier is supposed to be well trained and proficient in handling his gun. but i woudl say. wouldn’t it be better if we can spend less time training, and have more flexibiliy and ease of use in the heat of battle where conditions are chaotic and unfavorable? there, i’m in the caliber debate… why does the floor suddenly feel icy cold?
December 8th, 2004 at 8:38 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So-called blended metal bullets are a fraud. There is no such thing. These bullets have been sectioned and examined by electron microscopes and they don’t work as advertized. They are fake. The manufacturer i
December 9th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
does the stock telescope on this sucker?
December 11th, 2004 at 3:33 am
i want one how much
December 24th, 2004 at 7:51 pm
Only thing i know about an Airsoft Xm8 is a Converstion Kit for the g36. All i know is i want to get my hands on my all though i do love my Sig552
December 26th, 2004 at 5:41 am
Well I’ve been following this thread for a while, and it seems some of the more common complaints are; 1. It looks like a startrek/girlie/plastic pos gun. 2. Caliber, Barrel Length/Accuracy/Velocity (cartridge specific details) 3. Reliability While I can say for the 1st point, i really dont care if it looks like a prop from a kids show, if it works better than the other guys weapon, i’m all for it. really, how the weapon looks is a completely stupid argument. ergonomics is one thing, movie cred is another A lot of people have pointed out how there are several type of 5.56 ammo for rifles and not all are equal. considering h&k have made an easily interchangable caliber system, this should surely mean that they can interchange internal parts based upon the type of cartridge used, whether it be one 30 years old or 3 years old…barrel length is a concern with all rifles with any change of caliber, so perhaps the powers that be should make another standard of ammo qualification…ie certain ammo is rated for rifles of a certain era/type. I dont know how practical this would be, im more thinking on the top of my head at this point, but surely there would have to be options… I love the SLR/L1A1 and one of the best things is the adjustible gas vent, so depending on climate and round you can twist it either way to increase or decrease the kickback….. if the XM8 has this facility, i dont think theyll have much of a problem…esp with this new pushrod design, i think this’ll be a huge improvement on anything anyone has to offer….just have to make sure the parts are durable i suppose i remember when the steyr came out here in aus…..optical sights getting flooded in relative humidity over 60% !!! and the barrels getting bent in bayonet training cause BHP used low grade steel And thats not mentioning the rediculous amount of small bits in that rifle. I got confused when told how to strip the steyr. Stripping the FAL was easy, I can do it drunk! anyhow, there are lots of ifs and whens,….if this rifle has anything *comparable* of the specifications it boasts when it actually gets put to use, it will be a much venerated member of any armed force. I’ll always prefer a 7.62 rifle personally, but from all points (barrel length concerns aside) it looks really promising. I’d recommend the caliber upgrade but nato is slow to move… Bring It On! If its more reliable than the m16/m4 series, and has anything comparable to the stopping power of the SLR, I’m for it. And those dual drum 100 round magazines are a wet dream waiting to happen….. -Dohmar
December 31st, 2004 at 12:18 am
I assume Mr. Liu is refering to the RCBD company’s bullets. I’m not sure of the tests results, however I can point to the Modern Marvels show about bullets (I belive the exact title was ‘Projectiles’) on The History channel. Also note bonded bullets (Winchester, Remington, and Sierra – not the RCBD) have been around for a while and I have yet to see anything saying that they do not work as advertised. Please do not ask others to not only do your research for you, but disprove your belief (if you have referrances, use them!).
January 7th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
I Believe we need a new more powerful round with more stopping power. The bottom line is we will no always be fighting terrorists with no body armor. I am not a big fan of the 7.62 round. but the 6.8 might be the answer. If you are at war you are not trying to ‘wound’ your target. You need to put him down faster than he will put you down.
January 12th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
XM8…It’s been over 40 years. A change is needed. Not going into ballistics or engineering, we need a modular, multi-caliber, light weight, highly reliable, 400ydMaxEeffectiveRange INFANTRY weapon that will work from the antartic to any other place in the world at any time. The M16 was the first step if you put aside all the dirty politics and other factors. The M16 was a good design or it wouldn’t be here today. I’ve read about the dead Marines in Nam with rods shoved down the barrels trying to clear the weapon(a chilling and disturbing, if not angering thought). I’ve also read that then the first M16’s hit Nam and they worked, they worked WELL. Even the NVA and Cong tried to obtain as many as they could because they were light, quick, and devistating in a full blown fire fight. I think the XM8 with a 16/20′+barrels would be GOOD if it performs as advertised. We should learn from the past so those Soldiers and Marines who were found with rods shoved down the barrels of their weapons have NOT died in vain (just my opinion).
January 24th, 2005 at 7:11 am
U Gun toting Yankees are giving ur country a bad name. Most of u dont really know what shooting someone really means. What killing someone really means. U big up those crazy marines that are laying whole cities in the Middle East to waste. I bet u something. If some maniac came and shot you, you’d probably take an interest in gun control you paranoid maniacs. Futhermore, I got news for u if u dont know already. The Iraqi ‘insurgents’ are going to keep multiplying. When 1 dies, 20 spring up in his place for veangence. Those tough yankee boys in the desert are going to keep getting shot at and when America finally gets out of their country, theyre still going to be there. Big up the Iraqi restistance. Boycott the dollar. Viva Fidel. Viva Che Guevara. F*** BUSH f*** OSAMA and f*** the NRA. Big kiss boys.
January 24th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Think of the thousands of families that weep every year in America because of guns. Just try think about it for a few minutes. You think its worth it. Especially in a country full of so many edgy people.
January 24th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Who needs an assault rifle to go deer hunting? what good will an assault rifle do. Why would want an assault rifle to defend your house.In Rio de Janeiro, AR-15s and are the weapons of choice amongst the military police. Stray bullets travel far. Stray bullets account for a very large percentage of the deaths. The minute assault rifles are made easily available to the public, theres going to be alot more of them in the street amongst all the gangsters and maniacs and next time they rob your house, its not gonna be with a nine, its going to be with an AR. Hope ive given you some food for thought though i’m guessing most of u have already made up ur minds. A dangerous world will become even more dangerous. And why, just so the same people that sell u the ‘mixed metal’ bullets so they can make a bit of extra money by lying to u can make a few extra bucks at the cost of a few innocent lives. Dont trust those gun dealers. Theyre just trying to screw u over. Face it. Most of u are not fighting a war. Ur just taking a few potshots at paper targets or standing in front of the mirror with your guns thinking your jonny badass. Do u think that this self indulgence is worth the cost of thousands of guncrime victims? Thousands of devastated families?
January 24th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Wow, THIS thread took a weird turn… :P I mean, I’m a liberal, but I think it’s plain rude to come in here flaming like that. You wouldn’t see me going into a Scientology website saying, ‘You’re all nuts! We are not the offspring of aliens!!’ ANYWAY, for those who were inquiring about the history of the M14/M16 series, I recommend this excellent site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm Also, I just did a web search for XM8, and found this surprising announcement: XM8 Cancelled?! (Sorry for the long link) http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=636 Johnny Socko
January 26th, 2005 at 3:49 am
Even tho I do prefer a 7.62×51 the 5.56 is not a bad round specially in open areas. In jungle environment is another story, I’ve seen twigs deflect it. You must also remember that these cartridges are military ammo and is not designed to mushroom like your hunting ammo. When I went through basic training at Ft. Jackson N.C. I had the unpleasant experience of seen one of my drill seargents shot by accident. It was a cold and rainy night. Besides his fatigues he had the old green rain gear plus the old gray raincoat. Well, he got shot in his buttocks with the 5.56 and when we turned him over his stomach and the rest of his insides were hanging out, he died on his way to the hospital, so we should not knock the power of this little round.
January 26th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
As a security forces marine heading for Iraq in October for my second tour, I can tell you that I wouldn’t feel confident going back with an XM8 or an M16A2. I have seen AK rounds go through frickin cynder blocks and walls while my round would take out a chunk the size of a quarter and wouldn’t penetrate half an inch. My dad complained about the same problem in Vietnam. The Vietnamese could take an AK and shoot the tree a Marine was taking cover behind and kill him, those rounds were that powerful. I love my M16A2, I am damn accurate with it at distances of up to 500 yds, but it’s older than me, it’s gotta go. The truth is, in modern battlefields, the furthest you need to accurately kill a target is 110 yds, and that’s pushing it. Most of the time we’re clearing buildings, any of you ever try that with the rather long and clumsy M16A2? The XM8 is definitely on the right track, but damnit we NEED MORE FIREPOWER! I don’t care if there’s more recoil, I never knew one of my fellow devil dogs that put their rifle in full auto mode. I about cried when I found out that the Marines won’t be getting much of an update in our standard issues, instead we get the M16A4’s. The other branches aren’t much better off getting the XM8′S. Bottom line, the M16 family is a high-maintenance precision tool while the AK47 is a blunt stick. Support the troops, Semper Fidelis.
January 27th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
This is the input from a soldier and Vet of OIF. My M16A2/M203 worked flawsley in OIF and caused the deaths of 3 Iraqi militants. One at extreem cloce ramge under 12 feet. One at range at excess of 150 meters. The third was killed when I fired throo the car door he was using for cover. All three of the kills were made under combat conditions with Iron sights and single shots. My M203 added a couple Lbs to my rifle witch I think added to its accuracy. The draw back to the M16A2/M203 was it’s bulk. I was assined as a driver for a M1025 (Hummer light skin). It was misarable to use in tight spaces and cramped buildings. I cleaned my rifle twice daily. It never jamed. Now If I was offered the XM8 to take back to Iraq I wouldent hesitate. If that wepon is half what most clame it to be it would be much better than the 40+ year old eliphant gun I luged around. The XM8 is full auto and 100 round drums are available. Built in optics with Iron back ups 1 1/2 lbs lighter than an M4 and 6lbs lighter than my M16A2/M203. Hexogonal rifling!!! (I am verry familiar with hexogonal rifling as it has a 15% better gas seal and 20% less friction than conventional rifling and its more acurate. Do the math, a 10 inch barrel would still match a M4 for velocity.) More controlable under auto fire. Not to mention acording to you guys there is a way to convert it to 7.62 x 39mm. To me it sounds like it would give millitants and terrorsts a tough time. Spc Thiel (4ID Vet of OIF)
February 1st, 2005 at 11:36 pm
This would be a comment directed to the proponent of gun control from an unknown country of origin in earlier posts. ‘We the people’ of the United States have NOT had a ‘Hitler, Stalin, or other tyrant controlling us for the simple reason that ‘THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’. We have NOT been invaded/occupied by an opposing ARMY for this very reason. I hunt when I can, I shoot nearly every day (I’ve never killed anyone either), I am for the most part ‘armed’ or have accesability to a firearm 24 hours a day, year round. Why? because it’s my GOD GIVEN RIGHT by the second amendment. YOU dont have it…I do. I have the right to defend my family, my state, and my country if needed…you dont. I am a citizen, I do not know what you are (slave?). How can you condem a freedom that YOU never had? Key word here is ‘FREEDOM’. I have it, the NRA fights for me to keep it, you have neither. A russian general stated during an interview that ‘ground operations or invasion on United States soil would not be an option because of the civilian and their arms, the losses would be unaceptable’. IN YOUR FACE!!!
February 6th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
what would you guys pick the an-94 russaian assult rifle or xm8.
February 7th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Vic, I have to agree with you totally. And Chico, if the insergants keep multiplying, we’ll just keep killing them. Simple as that, whether its with an XM8, M4, M16, M14 or AK-47. This a free country, where we are free to defend ourselves. How can you call gun enthusiasts enemies of freedom when you support Fidel Castro and Che Guevara? Please, if you don’t have anything intellegent to say, go to the democratic underground or somthing.
February 7th, 2005 at 10:59 am
P.S. Many of the people posting here HAVE been shot at, so forget that argument!
February 11th, 2005 at 11:37 am
AN-94 over the XM-8?!? No way I’d take a standard AK-47 over the AN-94. The AN-94 is more complicated and its internals disgustingly complex is less reliable and dificult to maintain. (Nessesity of an AK with 3 modes of fire) It fires the 4.45 x 39 round witch is russias versian of the 5.56 except an even smaller slug (It’s key advantage is its shifting steel core witch tumbles on impact). The Primary advantage of an AK-47/74 is it always works. If you bother to do any matinence on it at all is becomes an outstanding mid/short range wepon.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
all i have to say is were can i get one
February 14th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
I think that the M16A2 does need to be replaced after almost 40 years of service, but the M4A1, and the M4 with grenade launcher can wait a couple of years
February 18th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Ironically, DSAinc, and AMERICAN company, makes a weapon that would fit nearly all the requirements of our troops right now. Powerful, compact, modular, and more reliable than anything we Americans have fielded since the M14. http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58OSWNFA&storeid=1&image=sa58osw.gif The ONLY reason that the rest of the free world got rid of their FALs in the first place was because we pushed for the 5.56 ammo standardization. Even then, many countries just scaled down the already excellent design for the newer, inferior round. With DSA making FALs in this size, and other models in .243 and .260 Remington, we really ought to correct the mistake made when the M14 was adopted. No offense to a fantastci rifle, but if we had adopted the FAL, then all of this standardization bull**** with the 5.56 would NEVER have been necessary, we would have been standardized with the FN design.
February 19th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
i take the an-94 any day over the xm8 if you know how to use the weopon. it is far more relible then ak-74. had granade capability and sight like the xm8.
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:10 pm
The AN-94 is supposed to be a pretty good rifle: accurate, reliable, reletively good stopping power, and a great operating system (gas operated-short recoil I believe). However, I’ve heard some things about it I don’t like. 1) The system is very complicated and not user friendly at all. Although it doesn’t need to be cleaned very often, when it does, it is very time consuming and it is supposed to be nearly impossible to field-strip. 2) Its pretty expensive to produce. It should also speak volumes that not even the Russian Speznaz or Alfa teams carry this gun in large numbers.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
I’d like to throw in my two cents to the little gun-control freak up there. As a swordsman and martial artist recently turned gun enthusiast and criminal justice major, I believe that ALL human beings have the basic RIGHT to defend themselves and those they care about using ANY means at their disposal to accomplish the task. I will say I feel small because I’ve never been shot at, but I personally feel that’s a good thing. The source for the following statements is the 8th Edition of ‘Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies’ by Larry J. Siegel… 1: Each year, would-be victims use guns for DEFENSIVE purposes an estimated 2.5 million times a year. (p.99) 2: ‘Gary Kleck has estimated that armed victims kill between 1500 and 2800 potential felons [in Virginia that primarily means VIOLENT criminals]and wound between 8700 and 16000. Kleck’s research shows, ironically, that by fighting back victims kill far more criminals than the estimated 250 to 1000 killed anually by police. Kleck has found that the risk of collateral injury [injury of innocent bystanders] is relatively rare and that potential victims should be ENCOURAGED to fight back. According to Kleck, empirical research studies unanimously show that defensive gun use is associated with both LOWER RATES OF CRIME COMPLETION and LOWER RATES OF INJURY TO THE VICTIM.’ (p.99) 3: ‘Their [again referring to the research of sociologists Marc Gertz and Gary Kleck] research indicates that as many as 400,000 people per year use guns in situations in which they later claim that the guns almost ‘certainly’ saved lives.’ (p.63) I can go on with other notes in the book including statements of percentages of incarcerated criminals who admitted to being subdued at gunpoint by a would-be victim. Consider the implications of this. That’s saying that by defending ourselves, with guns, we actually REDUCE crime. It is proof positive that guns don’t create crime, they actually reduce it. It’s true. Guns DON’T KILL PEOPLE. That’s like saying ‘Swords kill people,’ or ‘cars kill people.’ No, you lay a fully locked and loaded M-16A2 on a table and it’ll just sit there. You lay a sword on the table it sits there. You leave a car in your driveway and the only thing it’s likely to do is rust. The things don’t kill, the thing that kills is the guy pulling the trigger, the swordsman, or drunk driver behind the wheel. Simply said. PEOPLE kill, not THINGS. I’m sick and tired of you ‘gun control’ types getting on your soap box and calling people like me ‘crazies,’ or ‘murderers.’ Frankly, we’re not. I’m just a man, trying to be a good man, and trying to become a good cop. On to the 2nd Amendment thing. Vic does a pretty good job in his quoting it. ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ Our forefathers made masterful use of the comma here. This means that both the right to participation in a well regulated militia AND our right to keep and bear arms (this references MILITARY WEAPONS OF ALL KINDS, NOT JUST ‘DEFENSIVE HANDGUNS’) shall not be infringed (made less in any way.)Militia here does NOT refer to the National Guard. The National Guard is an invention of the mid-late 19th Century, our forefathers never even conceived of a ‘National Guard,’ or the need for it. A Militia is an army of the common man. It is the average joe picking up a weapon and fighting for his rights, his freedom, and his country. It is what can and will make a country invasion-proof. Keep and Bear arms does not refer to PDW’s only. In fact, Jefferson later stated his intent. His intent was that the common man should have access to MILITARY WEAPONS! His other intent was that the state/government should be weak, and that it should be overthrown by the people should it become oppressive! (Jefferson and others of our forefathers explicitly state as much in their further writings, which aren’t even taught to exist in most colleges anymore, unfortunately.)Consider the fact. The lanned-and-grooved ‘Kentucky Rifle’ (the weapon commonly used in the American army/militias during the Revolution) was actually a more advanced weapon than was the standard military Musket at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written! Slammin’ on the brakes yet? That would be like saying that civilians should be able to get the XM-29 OICW before the military does. Which is exactly what is being implied there. The common man MUST have access to military weapons for the state to be FREE. Not me…Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Hancock, the list goes on. Lastly, consider this quote. ‘For the first time in history, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more effective, and other nations will follow our lead into the future.’ ~ Adolf Hitler, 1935. Does this sound, in any way, eerily familiar to anybody else? Thank You, C. Shirk
February 24th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
I noticed a lot of talk on switching rounds fired by the M-16 when going to the XM-8 from 5.56mm to 6.8mm. I’d kind of like to throw in a commentary on switching bullet types. Keep in mind, the US likes complying with the Geneva Convention for some odd reason. This means that the only ammunition type the US can lawfully use for Antipersonnel purposes is the fully jacketed rounds. I’m not a veteran and I’ve never fired .223/5.56mm (I’ve only done pistol cartridges so far) but from what I’ve heard, the 5.56 round has been a problem. As an example, when our troops were in Somalia, the round would go through a target, but FMJ round would not inflict a lethal injury…especially when the target was on drugs. Since then, I’ve heard contention about implementing a heavier round or better bullets (i.e. hollow points.) Since the US can’t perform the latter, due to Geneva, that leaves only a heavier round. Hence, the 6.8mm or 7.62mm would be used. Personally, it seems to me that a soldier would be able to carry more of the 6.8mm, and that the 6.8mm would have a higher magazine capacity. But I’m still new, so I’m open to any corrections from you guys. So, I’d think the 6.8mm would be better. Only problem would be supplying the ammunition. Just a thought, there.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
An apology is in order for the opening line of my gun-control response post. While I do consider people who want gun control to be oppressive, saying gun-control freak goes too far. Gun-control advocate would’ve been better wording. Sorry.
February 24th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
hey guys i am intrested in what other type of amo or bullets there are besides the (fmj) full metal jaket amo. And what are good rounds that you guys think is a good choice for doing the most damage. if you guys would give me some info tanx.
February 24th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Well to start, witch would you give your grandma to defend herself with 1 a single shot rifle 2 a pump action shotgun or 3 a gun witch has little kick and the ability to shoot time after time. My grandma is not a marksman so she will not hit the target everytime, she is so small a 20ga puts her back, so there is only one choise left. I do like the the idea of having the ability in combat to use diffrent types of ammo so if you run out you can pick some off of the bad guy without pulling from you buddy. There are many types of ammo to choose from it all depends on the type of shooting; military usually the fmj is used and other rounds that do not expand like medal core fmj. For Home defence depending on where you live (city or country) city you would want a round that would start expanding at contact, like hydro shock and saftyball rounds the saftyball rounds a expencive and usually come in packs of 6 or 10 they are small balls put together with min lead so the balls are let go on inpact the hydro shock has a little more danger to them becouse if you miss and it goes through the window they keep going becouse of the steel core so in the city I would use the safty ball ammo. In the country I would use a soft point round. They are like a hollow point with lead put into the hollow point to slow the expanding effect for deeper pin. Dose anyone know the grain used for the 6.8mm round
February 26th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
take the AG-3 it is a 7,62×51. It kick ass!
February 28th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
I would say that the future addition of the XM8 would be a good new option to new Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, or Guardsmen (yes, I’m covering all the bases here). However, and I’m sure others would agree with me, getting rid of the M16/M4 systems would be a grave mistake in itself. But, it wouldn’t hurt if they made an XM8 in the 7.62 either, could work out perfectly for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Put some of those confiscated 7.62 rounds to good use, against the bad guys. >:)
March 4th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
hey guy do you guys know if assult rifles are leaqual in the usa and if they have the same round or a diffrent version and do you kneed to regester one
March 7th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Spatniez: Fully automatic weapons, rifles with a folding stock, rifles with a barrel less than sixteen inches, and any round with armor piercing capabilities are not legal to own in the U.S. if you are not military or law enforcement. However, you can own a semi-auto only version of most military rifles such as AR-15 or the M1A. You will need to take a firearms certification course to get a gun license and have a clean police record. Any gun you buy must be registered.
March 7th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
I recently heard that the XM8 program may be cancelled. H&K is denying this, but I was wondering if anyone else knew about it.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Have any of the posters in this particular discussion, whether for or against the XM or the ArmaLite rifles, been in either OEF or OIF? I admit that I did not scan all these postings for evidence of such. No offense to anyone, but I have to expect that *first hand* testimony would be better than ‘my cousin’s girlfriend’s brother’s barber is over there’ discussions. Is that at least something that people might agree on?
March 19th, 2005 at 6:53 am
Flanker, sorry this is months late, but the info from AFJI on the Blackwater shootouts regarding the RBCD ammo is still out there. We have ammo at the shoot every year and people are impressed. Disregard the ‘heat’ explaination, it is all BS, it is all about density. 2001: http://www.afji.com/AFJI/Mags/2001/August/MeteorRound.htm 2002: http://www.afji.com/AFJI/Mags/2002/August/shootout.html 2003: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/2003/ 2004: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/cmark1.html 2004: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/analysis1.html The stuff has been successful and deadly. The operators that I spoke with even told me that any extremity hit causes instant amputation and death. They said if they hit a guy in the arm and even if he isn’t dead yet, he lays there next to his arm and he is no longer interested in shooting back. That was good enough. This is the only article allowed to be released of an actual shooting in Iraq. The U.S. Govt came down hard on all disclosures after this. It is still there, not in the hands of U.S. Military personnel, only contract operators. http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php
March 24th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Interesting reading the comments…. First off, the M-16 vs AK-47 debate. The AK is not as almighty as the legends make it out to be and the M-16 is not as despicable either. Both are decent weapons when employed as they were intended. The AK is reliable, but will still have problems if you don’t clean it. It is also notoriously inaccurate. Not a problem in Soviet doctrine as they used overwhelming number added to the spray and pray mentatility. Remember the average Soviet soldier was more than likely a teenage farmboy with very little in education. The M-16 is a wonderfully accurate, and ergonomic weapon and reliable as long as you maintained it (incedently, I never had a problem with mine while in Iraq. Of course, mine was a recently manufactured A2 with probably not a whole lot of trigger time. I also kept mine clean….). It also reflects the Western mindset of taking aimed shots. It is accurate out ot 500m, most engagements are done at far less range than that (yes even in the desert). Personally, I can’t SEE that far so the probability of me even engaging a target at that range is about nil. Overall the M-16 is a decent weapons system (hell, it’s been in the inventory going on 40+ years now). The biggest gripes about the M-16 seem to revolve around 2 things: the operating system and the ammo. The operating system of the M-16 is a double edged sword. On one hand it makes for a very accurate rifle, on the other it makes for a very dirty rifle. There are easy ways to fix it. HK has designed an M-16/4 variant that replaces the direct gas system with a short stroke piston. It only requires minimal parts and labor to convert the weapon. Or you can just fall back on your training and CLEAN YOUR WEAPON…. The second (and IMHO) bigger issue is the round it fires. First of all, the M855 is lethal and does pretty good damage to human targets. How do I know? Well aside from having an interest in ballistics, I also am an Army Trauma Nurse who happened to take care of a lot of Hajis shot by our boys. Center of mass shots will usually result in death. Extremity wounds were pretty nasty, especially if the round hit bone. To really talk about effectiveness we need to understand the round. First off it was designed first and foremost to penetrate body armor. It does that well. Better than the M198 it replaced. Makes sense, as at the time the USSR was our primary adversary. Secondly, it was designed to give longer ranges (thanks to our buddies the Marines who are obsessed with range). To also help increase accuracy at long ranges, the rifling was increased to 1:7 twist from the 1:12 in the M-16A1. Fired out of a 20′ barrel (on an A2 or SAW, which BTW this round was designed for), it produces wounds similar to that of the older round due to the higher velocities the longer barrel created. We started seeing problems when we went to the 14.5′ barrels of the M-4’s. Apparently if the round doesn’t hit at a certain velocity, it will not destabilize and fragment, which is the primary killing mechanism of this round. Also the 1:7 twist tended to overstabalize the round in flight. This resulted in making the round accurate, but would not destabalize and yaw when it hit tissue. Thus you get the ‘icepick’ effect. So what to do? Well one answer is to change the caliber. The 5.56mm is effective, but only through the weapon parameters it was designed for. 7.62×54 is considered overkill, and the added range and stopping power doesn’t justify it being regular issue to everyone. 6.5mm – 6.8mm may be the answer. Both give improved terminal effects in about the same size package (like a .40SW compared to a 9mm). But it would require a total overhaul of all existing weapons and a dangerous logistic gap while we transition. I would hate to have a 6.8mm weapon and find out we only have 5.56mm on hand. Plus it would be expensive to convert all the weapons over (but not as much as changing rifles completely). Or we can adopt more effective 5.56mm ammo. The Blended Metal round would be a wonderful choice, although it might have issues being Hague Convention legal. Or we can drop the carbine craze and go back to a rifle with a 20′ barrel. The M4 is popular right now because it’s a new toy. Yes, it’s handy and light, but it was never designed for EVERY infantryman to carry. It was designed for folks whose primary job was anything but shooting the bad guys (ie tankers, medics, PL’s and PSG’s). You gotta love mission creep. Finally, we could drop the one shot kill mentality. Let’s come back to reality folks. No soldier outside of a sniper is going to shoot his target just once. If I learned anything in the Army, it’s that more is better. If one round in a chest cavity is good, three is much better.
March 24th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Fully automatic weapons, rifles with a folding stock, rifles with a barrel less than sixteen inches, and any round with armor piercing capabilities are not legal to own in the U.S. if you are not military or law enforcement. However, you can own a semi-auto only version of most military rifles such as AR-15 or the M1A. You will need to take a firearms certification course to get a gun license and have a clean police record. Any gun you buy must be registered.’ Not quite the whole truth. If you can convince your local law enforcement to grant you a Class III license, you can own any automatic weapon. Of course, you gotta convince them first….
March 25th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
I’m not in the military but i found this document to be interesting. http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm Supposed to be feedback from OIF troops.
March 31st, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Fully automatic weapons, rifles with a folding stock, rifles with a barrel less than sixteen inches, and any round with armor piercing capabilities are not legal to own in the U.S. if you are not military or law enforcement. However, you can own a semi-auto only version of most military rifles such as AR-15 or the M1A. You will need to take a firearms certification course to get a gun license and have a clean police record. Any gun you buy must be registered.’ Not quite the whole truth. If you can convince your local law enforcement to grant you a Class III license, you can own any automatic weapon. Of course, you gotta convince them first…. Too add to / clarify on this: with the exception of the armor piercing rounds, all of the above are legal to own. but its not your local law enforcement that grants the class 3 license, thats done by the ATF after you give them $200 PER weapon/accessory (silencers and such) and they do a full background check on you. but you do need permission from your local law enforcemnt agency to posses a class 3 weapon/accessory as for the gun certification course to get a license, check your states local laws concerning that. not all states require a gun license. OK doesnt. and as for the the gun must be registered. if its class 3 i believe so, but for all other firearms, there is no gun registry. and hopefully there never will be.
April 2nd, 2005 at 10:47 pm
I’ve looked through the posts on this site, and there is a lot of talk about the XM8 having the facility to interchange barrels/receivers etc. to make it a multi-calibre capable. I think that someone at some point has got the capabilities of this weapon mixed up with another – the new FN SCAR: Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle. This weapon will be SOF dedicated and was designed with the ability to change calibres from the outset, though it is limited to a ‘light’ version for 5.56 only and a ‘heavy’ version for 7.62*51 and other calibres. The heavy version has been designed to be able to change from the good old 7.62 NATO round to 7.62 Russian, the new 6.8 mm and probably the 6.5 mm ammo. As far as I know the XM8 is a dedicated single calibre weapon, which will not be able to be changed to any other calibre. This is the general duty weapon, while the SCAR is the modular SOF special. The SCAR will be able to be fitted for 7.62 Russian, using AK mags – can anyone say ‘battlefield pickup’ – and looks like a good system where by SOF operators can specify their own mission-specific weapons: the SCAR will have CQC, Standard and Sniper barrel versions. These things are naturally covered in mounting rails so the SOF guys can mount lights, lasers, etc. It seems to me that people out there might be hearing info about both rifles, but thinking that there is only one new system – but the SCAR is a reality and I believe that it’ll go into production soon. Hope that clears up some of these interesting questions about interchangability. With regards to the ‘what calibre should the XM* be fielded in’ discussion, I’m going to leave it but will say that I doubt that anything is going to change soon. Bear in mind that this info could be out of date, and I would be interested to see if anybody else has got more up to date info. I was surprised to see that with all this talk of new military rifles no one mentioned the SCAR.
April 5th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I think I read an article on the 6.8mm being looked at for the M16/M4 and possibly the XM8…if it gets produced. I feel that the 6.8mm round is a good compromise between 7.62 and 5.56. It has good stopping power and range, but won’t cause some of the recoil of the 7.62 round. The SCAR (as ugly as it is) should also be considered for regular forces, if not front-line infantry simply because of the 7.62 round fitting ability.
April 12th, 2005 at 7:47 am
we are looking for 5.56 rifle for on submition to our military dept
April 18th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Hello My name is Dave Polevsky. Im am a procurer and and weapon admirer. The XM8 is truly a marvel in modern tactical assault weapons. Though very apealling and functional I believe that converting the magazine design to a bullpup model would raise accuracy and offer more compactness to the user.
April 18th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Is the SCAR going to be primarily 7.62×39? or would the shooter just have the option of a caliber conversion if he ran out of 5.56 or 6.8?
April 21st, 2005 at 11:05 am
ya making it a bullpup configuration like the L-85 would up accuracy i dont like a more compact gun its the new rifle not a sub machine gun
April 21st, 2005 at 11:33 am
bullpup rifles are also a little annoying to load you cant hit the release with your trigger finger like the m4.You have to stick the gun out and get the magazine i like the traditional set up better, especialy for the new rifle the xm8
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:27 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So-called blended metal bullets are a fraud. There is no such thing. These bullets have been sectioned and examined by electron microscopes and they don’t work as advertized. They are fake. The manufacturer i
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 pm
I read the most recent copy of Special Weapons for Military and Law Enforcement. Apparently, the blended metal bullets are worth looking at. The ballistic geletin test was not very promising, but tests run on pieces of raw meat showed that they just might pack the punch the military is looking for in an assault rifle cartridge. This was according to the magazine, I don’t know much else about them though
April 23rd, 2005 at 12:30 am
what do you mean by blended i havent heard of those bullets
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 am
Remember the best part of bullpup designed weapons is that you keep the barrel length of a rifle in a shorter package. Even steyr carbines have 16′ barrels – longer than the m4’s let alone the xm8’s. I suppose as with all designs there is a trade off – what qualities do you want the weapon to have? Maybe they figure that with Land Warrior equipment coming on line in a few years the soldiers won’t need outstanding personal firepower, because they will have other weapons systems and also better knowledge through net-centric warfare/better vision. Do you guys know anything about this 25mm M2 replacement?
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:30 am
Hey guys. I just stumbled across this post, and there are a lot of good points made. If I may, here are some of mine. Small caiber is good, a high velocity round may not have the stopping or knock-down power but when it penetrates a target, it can create pressure within the target causing massive damage, or it bounces off bone again causing massive damage. More ammo can be carried. This is good in it reduces weight, ground troops need to be mobile, loading them down with heavy weapons and large ammo packs just slows them down, a slow soldier is a dead soldier. On stopping power, when Russia slugged it out with Afganistan, they were using all sorts of rounds(5.45, 7.62, 12.7, and oh yes 14.5.). They had problems, some guys were literally blown in half and still ready to go! Still not convinced, the Beltway Sniper used an M-16, and he reaped terror in this nation! Well, thats about it, my opinion smaller caliber rounds due the job just fine. Oh yea, the topic. XM-8 looks good, although I would like to see more metal on it, looks like all plastic. As for the Xm-29(oicw), never liked it, way too bulky.
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:12 pm
the look of the gun doesnt show its perfomance for the most part and the oicw i think is a bit to bulky but so is the m60 and the oicw is alot better than the m60.
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:25 pm
the land warrior program is a good idea, but i think we need to have a back up plan when the shit hits the fan. As we become more and more dependent on technolgy we have a large blind spot, for instance when supplies are cut we wouldnt last a few days without all the batteries and fuel to run the generators charging the batteries.these gurilla armies can last weeks because they dont need as much. With all the computer programs it will have lag because everybody can see everybody’s position so a few satalites will have to track 1000’s of moving objects like people with the land warrior system tanks choppers planes its just asking for a crash If we ever get in a war with a civilized country they will get viruses in the program and if one is taken the enemy knows where all your assests are and if they can see how your moving every second they dont need to send things in like spy drones because they will have a picture of how your moving and can hear what the orders are and set traps before hand move anti air missles Its a great idea to know where everyone is and put your gun around a corner an not you but i think that there will be to many logistical problems
April 25th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
It’s an interesting point about reliance on technology… Apparently the Marines had real problems in OIF because they almost ran out of batteries – they were chewing through literally thousands of them a day. The factory that produced them in the US was literally running 24:7 just to keep stocks going for the troops. And its going to be a much bigger problem when military forces are truly networked in a few years – they’d better design some really stable computer systems. On the OICW, it really is a bulky weapon though the obvious increase in personal firepower is definitely desirable. Let’s face it, we are unlikely to see much combat in really open terrain any more, so handy and lethal individual weapons will still be vital.
April 26th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
the last few wars we have gone in are open terrain, iraq is a big sand box there arent many natural obsticals.
April 28th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
This is true but the push to Baghdad took what, 2 – 3 days?? Overwhelming airpower destroyed most things on the ground… Most of the serious infantry fighting has been in Fallugia, Baghdad, Tikrit, etc post invasion. As we are (hopefully) rarely going to see conflict between two well equipped armed forces any time soon combat will increasingly move in to urban areas. Groups that we will be fighting, mainly insurgents, terrorist organisations, etc. are defenceless in open terrain when confronted by air dominance and increasingly accurate and timely ordnance delivery – what the US now calls ‘persistant strike’ – anything that is on the move or even hidden is visible to modern detection systems that the US posesses. Therefore opponent groups have to move into ‘complex terrain’ ie. urban areas filled with non-combatants or they face destruction. I’m not saying that no ground combat will occur in open terrain, or that friendly ground forces will have to take and hold it. The enemy will just try to even up the odds by operating in an urban environment where they can stay masked right up until they put a round in you or detonate a car bomb next to you.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:22 am
true but this city fighting is where weve lost like 90%of our men
April 29th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
The debate between the XM8 and the M16 series rifle(A2, A4, M4, etc.) seems to have 2 main points; the operating system and the ammunition. First off, the move to 5.56 was made for several reasons, most of which aren’t stopping power or lethality. 1. Weight – a smaller round weighs less and a soldier can carry more into battle. 2. Recoil- A. Trainability – many people are entering the military with little or no weapons experience. The smaller round produces less recoil (my drill sergeant actually fired an M16A4 with the buttstock planted in his crotch to demonstrate the light recoil.) This is definately a factor for training when considering that the whole military isn’t made of Infantrymen, but in fact a great deal non-combat arms (inc. smaller framed women) who still need to be able to engage the enemy when it hits the fan. B. Control – less recoil allows the user to more quickly recover and aim his/her following shot, translating into better accuracy beyond the first shot. 3. Cost – a factor in everything. I don’t know what the DOD pays per round 5.56 vs. 7.62X51 but there is a significant differance between the two when i go to the store for my recreational shooting needs. Now what they tell us grunts is that this round is more lethal, because it is made to tumble once it penetrates. While the round will tumble sometimes, it doesn’t necessarily make it more combat effective. The ultimate goal when shooting a human is not to kill, but neutralize the threat. A tumbling round will do more internal damage as it zig-zags inside of the body, which might be more effective at causing death, but nothing neutralizes a threat like knocking it off its’ feet with a high powered, larger bored round. This is the main complaint of the 5.56. It is in most states illegal to hunt deer with such a small round. The round was designed for varmints and that is all should be used for. They also tell us that the 5.56 has a flatter trajectory out to 300m. It does, and there is very little need for engaging targets at greater distances for an average foot soldier. When the needs arises we have other methods for engaging long rang targets. With all of the above in mind, the 6.8 sounds extremely promising as factors like weight, recoil, and cost are only slightly increased from those of the 5.56, while the round has a greatly increased knock down ability, with about the same accuracy. This is coming from published reports and a little bit of hearsay as I have not personally shot a 6.8. Secondly, on to debate of operating systems. The M16 series doesn’t need to be updated or replaced because it’s old or lacks modularity. It needs replacement because it is flawed by design. The blow through gas system shoots the hot diarhea (spent gases) from the round right back into the chamber of the weapon gunking up all the integral moving parts.As for reliability, not shooting diarhea back into the chamber makes for a more reliable weapon. Less gunk on moving parts is less jamming, less heat and grime is less wear and tear, is less equipment failure. My most common stoppage is my extractor failing, likely because of the heat causing premature wear on the extractor spring. 40 years ago, not including a piston/push rod system offered a weight savings but with current polymer/synthetics this weight savings is nominal. Especially when the XM8 weighs less than my fully equiped M4. The piston/pushrod design is the only way to go as has been proved by all other successful assault rifles of the last 50+ years.
April 30th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Intresting point but if you have 5.6mm round it will not go through body armor. As today we have better body armor that can easly stop 5.6mm round.
April 30th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
not the countries were fighting
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:54 am
Why just use a laser gun, like star wars you know. Just bomb those suckers to die.(”,)
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:58 am
I have doubts about the M-16. I thinks it has a less first kill capabilities. I think its weak and unrealiable. I also thinks that the M-16 is not a killing firearms, its just a waste..,,
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:00 am
[comment deleted]
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:00 am
[comment deleted]
May 3rd, 2005 at 6:20 pm
the m16 is a combat proven killing weapon but it is high mantience but it is still a very good gun
May 4th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I have fired the XM8 in Iraq. I has some great features and seems to be more reliable. We had the soldier who was showing it to our teams bring it in so they could get some trigger time on it and give feedback. It is a nice weapon but I felt that it is too bulky. As far as the one person who said they could only max engage targets at 250M with an M16 you must be kidding. I know the Marines engage at 500M with out optics so 250M is cake with an EOTECH or Aimpoint.
May 4th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
The XM8 looks like a step in the right direction. It would definitely simplify logisitics IF a harder hittin calibre is used. The 7.62×39 is a big no no, since it doesn’t really improve on the 5.56. The 7.62 NATO is overkill and does not allow a troop to carry a substantial amount of ammo for suppressive fire ops. The 6.8 and 6.5 calibres would require reworking of receivers, magazines, links for belt fed weapons, ammo pouches, packaging materials and optics – it would also require an extensive change in tooling at the plants manufacturing the ammo. How about a 6mm Bullet in a 5.56mm case. Make it a 100grain ball round in the 45mm case. The increased sectional density and ballistic coeffecient would really increase range quite a bit and still offer better ballistics than the 5.56. It won’t be a 7.62 NATO, but it would be close. The fact that all that would have to be changed on current M4/M16’s would be the uppers, would really save a load of money. The standard STANAG mags, bolts, receivers, links (for belted ammo) and and ammo pouches would still function. The tooling required to produce the new round would not be that much different from existing equipment. The increased range and ballistics of a 6×45mm round would enable our guys to take longer shots, with better penetration and ‘knock down’ power.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:22 am
The Australian Styer F-88 is definetly not an ugly looking weapon. In fact they are a great looking gun and should not be replaced with the H&K XM8 Aussualt Rifle Unless they come custom with 40mm G/L’s. The F-88 is a light infantry weapon weighing ay 3.5 Kg it has a 30 clip mag and is good for jungle combat wich all AUSTRALIANS are good at. Coming to my conclusion is ‘ FUCK THE XM8 AND STICK WITH OUR F-88′S’ Tommo
May 5th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Nice to see an Aussie voice supporting the F-88!! I have heard both good and bad things about the Steyr, though I have a feeling a lot of it has to do with maintenance… It definitely is a nice looking weapon, especially with NINOX, ELCAN scope and torch attached. Tommo have you seen pictures of the ADI’s design for the F-88A4??
May 6th, 2005 at 3:41 am
No if u cloud send me those designs that would be great. I love the Steyr’s design as i have held 1 at the Lithgow Small arms mueseum where they are produce. They look the best with a M203 G/L and a laser pointer.
May 6th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
the steyr aug is a great weapon byt with all weapons including the XM8 have pros and cons. the xm8 already has a GL attachment
May 6th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Yes i know that the Xm8 has a GL attachment. And im not talking about the Styer Aug im talking about the Styer F-88 which even though as you said have their pro’s and cons i belive that The F-88 may actually be able to out perform The XM8. Now just tell me this, which countries will be adopting the Xm8.
May 8th, 2005 at 11:25 am
see SAR 21,singapore assualt rifle.you wii be surprised the power and accuracy.
May 8th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
The XM 8 reminds me of the German Armys G 36.The G36 is a nice & easy rifle to handle.It has a 5.56 round low kick heavy trigger pull for safety reasons and accurate.I fired it on at 2 different ranges no one had jams both times, the scopes were great to.I hope the XM 8 is about the same or better.
May 8th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/g36.html .Here are pics of the German Weapon
May 8th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm XM 8plus other weapons.
May 9th, 2005 at 4:34 am
Which Country is the best at jungle warfare and why?
May 9th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Great conversation. But am I the only blind fucker who ever served in the army? 400m??? I was lucky if I hit 1/2 the 200m targets on a very good day. anything beyond that may as well have been painted red with sparklers b/c I wasn’t hitting it. Now add stress and fight or flight reaction on top of a fire team rush or 2 hours inside a vehicle… range beyond 75-100m seems pretty meaningless to me. But wow I’d love to try that rifle. The G36 action is a beauty. Glad they dropped all that star wars wall seeking grenade bs. This is just a nice clean rifle.
May 9th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
XM 8 & HK416 are good.Pl compare them w SAR 21–Singapore Assualt Rifle 21. As a Singaporean,you will be laughing if I ask the mighty US to consider the SAR 21–Singapore Assualt Rifle 21–to replace M16.But,pl read: http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/idr/idr000531_1_n.shtml by Charles Q Cutshaw . 2.SAR 21 has: Intergrated laser hidden and protected inside the handguard.No x’mas tree like attachment. 1.5 times sights inside the handle,factory zeroed. very light recoil. Produced in 1999 and field tested,and passed. 3.I tried it out few years ago and the recoil was very low.It was reported that even ladies could hit with high rate when they fired first rifle in their life. 4.pl see http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=133. 5.Never mind it come from a red dot country(u can’t find in map),but it can save GI’s life. 6.Vision techlogies in US is selling Spore weapons etc. I think some of your civilian shooters have tried SAR 21.Ask them. 7.The laser sight 1.5 time is part of the handle for GI to carry the rifle when they walk or run for their life.The handle is very convenient.Also,the sling can be changed for combat mode in no time. 8.Wishing GI will get a real rifle to protect their life. MIKE LI ps:Salute to you for create a so meaningful site.Keep it up.
May 9th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
The attached sight and laser etc on XM8 and HK 416 will create problems,especially inside jungle ,brush etc.Why the builder could not intergrated them inside the rifle body,like Singapore Assualt Rifle 21?The 1.5 optics is inside the handle and laser inside the hand gurad.You may say what if soldier want to change them due to other requirement or the equipment damaged?You are right.But there is no perfect answer.Shall we cater for GI for a smooth actions inside jungle or we cater for the change which may not be so often? 2.http://www.mindef.sg/army/infantry_weapons_sar21.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as31-e.htm Does the SAR 21 look better,outline so smooth,less hinky pinky to catch vegetation inside jungle.It will absorb better shock during actions for the round body.Other two have so many sharp angles,esp the sights which will easily be dameged due to the position.Ask http://www.vt-systems.com/land_weapons.asp to know more. 3.Military rifles is for fighting in tough situation,not used by softly spoken gentlemen or ladies to shoot in high class country club or for shooting movie.They must be designed to such situation.How can a big sight attachment to such rifle.The GI will find the rifle not balance and has to balancre it,affecting the aiming. 4.With billions spent on military,why the second life or wife of GI is overlooked for such a long time? mike
May 10th, 2005 at 5:30 am
I belive that the XM8 has to many varients. Who belives that a regular army recruit can become a sharpshooter by trying his/her hardest
May 10th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
a regular army recruit couldnt be a sniper its a trade that very few have PATIENCE and just cause you can hit the target doesnt make you a sniper
May 10th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
and the reason for so many varientsisnt so every soldier can be a sniper its so it cheaper for the defense department to buy a crap load of one gun and buy diffrent barrels and sight than 3 totally differnt weapons all together its money thats what pays for the soldiers boots gun and food and if theres more money then theres more the army can do
May 11th, 2005 at 7:04 am
A very good point. Steyr scopes are unique but why?
May 11th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
if we are going to go with a modular one gun does it all weapon such as the xm8 why not take it a step further as are the chinese as we speak with the 5.8mm basically a 6mm cartridge.if we went with the 6.5×39 grendel using the 123 grain lapua bullet for the compact and carbine models we could use the 144 grain lapua bullet in the disignated marksmam/automatic rifle version and even replace the mag machine gun with say the ultimax machine gun in the 6.5 grendel firing the 144 grain lapua scenar bullet it should be real close to bieng as effevtive as the 7.62 nato with a flatter trajectory and about half the recoil probably less in the recoil reducing ultimax.you’d probably keep the MAG IN 7.62 around for some vehicle mounted weapons and the sniper teams although in my opinion the snipers should go with the 338 lapua magnum.just some food for thought.it would sure simplify logistics and save money in the long run with just one basic cartridge.
May 15th, 2005 at 2:26 am
what does it take to become a machine gunner in the aussie army
May 15th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Hey Tommo, you need to be 17, and have passed grade 9 english and maths and have to be an Australian citizen or have permanent residency. You also need to pass the interviews, the aptitude tests and the fitness tests – all of which aren’t too demanding. You have to apply as a rifleman and hope you get selected as a machinegunner!! Good luck mate
May 16th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
I believe that the XM8 is a cornerstone for weapons to come, maybe a small one, but is one indeed. The ammo on the other hand which has people talking, I think does and needs to be upgraded to 6.8mm or all we’ll be doing is getting more reliability, which is nice, but we also need the more demanding lethiality to match with the improving kevlar and Future Force Warrior systems to come in 2010 and 2020, or as intended to be.
May 16th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Rifleman not Gunner
May 16th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Also if they intend to keep the 12.5′ barrel then they’ll have to upgrade to 6.8mm otherwise the muzzle velocity will be to low for maximum results, or maybe 7.62mm which would be to much of an upgrade right now.
May 17th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
I suggest the 6mm .243 Winchester http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm
May 18th, 2005 at 3:36 am
i dont want to be a gunner im joining the army in 4 years because im only 14 but im in the Army Cadets i gonna join as an Infantry Officer but thanx anyway.
May 28th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Hi I have served with HK Veapons g3 mp5. and they newer jam on me… And for the retaining pins, do not worry they never fel out from my guns. just put them in the rigth way away from you. The G36 Internaly the same as the xm8 i have just handeled it not fired or operating on it. Seemd ok, I know the stock has some fault but that do not count for the xm8, they have a new stock. Btw. sorry for the bad english
May 31st, 2005 at 9:10 pm
im a airsofter and the g36 and mp5 are well balanced weapons i love the mp5 so i believe that heckler and koch will do a good job PS r u german
June 1st, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Sind Sie Deutsch
May 26th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
now getting off the steyr and australia how does everybody feel about the scope on the m8 i think it looks a bit out of placy it should be recesed into the gun like behind the handles o it doesnt stick out so much
June 12th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Good article ! Sure, there are many people who are interested in this hot issue. I am a diehard fan of Hk G36 rifle, at least I used to be. Recently, after reading the G36 report from Charlie Cutshaw of Jane’s weapons illustration (http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g36/g36.htm), I became bit dissapointed. He reported that while G36 (basically G36 and XM8 is same rifle)may be reliable and very easy to shoot, it lacks to produce good accuracy. Current M16 has reliability problems, but one thing I find good about it is that it has match-grade accuracy, especially with fullsize model. It looks like the Hk tried to improve its own by reducing the travel distance of the trigger of XM8, but I suspect if it will really help. I thinnk the real problem with accuracy is coming from its plastic reciever and operating machenism. I guess many troops will miss the M-16’s superb accuracy after the XM8 is adopted. But this is just my opinion… the real answer will be out after the XM8 passes the reallife combat trial… we’ll see later. If you have any comments, questions, etc, please email me.
June 12th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Does anyone know if they are intending or if the XM8 is coming into service anytime soon. I really haven’t heard anything at all. Since they were planning on having it in service by FY05 of spring.
June 13th, 2005 at 10:26 am
imgay
June 10th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
I think that US should stick with the M-16 and M-4 they are great guns and r not out date they have proven time and time again that they r great guns and we dont need a new standard rifle the M-4’s and m-16’s are doin GREAT
June 14th, 2005 at 2:33 am
What the hell happend, I havn’t heard any thing new on the XM-8 in almost six months!!!
June 16th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
This posting is for Matt, who recently asked about the adoption of M8 in the military. I have read some articles from Soldier of Fortune (don’t remember the exact date of month of issue) and visited a couple of other XM8 forums. What I got in general is, very small amount of XM8s are being tested NOT IN COMBAT, but in shooting ranges in Iraq. The proof shooters are regular GIs. There are rumors or unconfirmed reports that by this summer, XM8 will be issued to the frontline to a limited numbers of soldies. Hope this helps.
June 16th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
this program seems to be getting closer and closer to cancellation, and rightfully so. with money running short, there are bigger issues to fix then the m16, and even then, this is not a fix for anything. it preforms the same role as the m16 with little to no benefit with both firing the same 5.56 round. infact, because of the m16s slightly longer berral it is more lethal then the new xm8. the only real advantage is the piston operation and even then that is not always seen that way and there are conversions avaliable for the m16 which accomplish the same thing. even the wieght of the rifle, which was originally at around 6 pounds and was intended to reach 5.7 has climbed to ~7.5 meaning that there is no wieght savings over the m16. SOCom has shown no interest, and the usmc havent even looked at it. the money used for this program could be better spent on something much more valuable and useful then a new rifle will ever be for the troops, training, something which the general army has been lacking of late, although they seem to be making steps in the right direction.
June 25th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Thanks for the info on the XM8. I have talked to a Marine Corps recruiter recently, and he told me that the Army is being issued M8s shortly. I don’t know how reliable this source is, but it seems to me that the Army is being issued them, but the Marine Corp is not, because of money.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:45 am
The M16 isn’t good enough usually the soldiers have to double tap the trigger to kill the enemy soldiers. We need a better round, a smaller barreled weapon doesn’t improve things. Maybe a bullpup with a 20 inch barrel using a .243 Winchester round. They could call it the 6mm NATO. This round is all over superior.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Responds to Eric: I partially agree with your opinion about using a bullpup for service rifle. It looks like there has been quite a bit complain of the bulkness of the full size M16. As many people mentioned before, the shorter barrel M4 has less accuracy and lethal range. Why doesnt the U.S. Army consider adopting Steyr AUG or even FN F2000, etc?
July 3rd, 2005 at 3:07 pm
howdy all… we are rosene and nadene ..we live in baghdad-iraq …we just wanna tell ya that we love ya ..we always pary for ya to go home safe …take care and be carefull…. bless ya rosene and nadene salmo
July 3rd, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Ok, some updates: First, the XM8 is probably a no go. It has reliablity problems according to many sources and it really has nothing superior to the AR-15 series of weapons that would justify it replacing the M16/M4. Second, according to an ex-SF guy I talked to, the 5.56 is not a bad round at all. It’s killing power when it tumbles and fragments is actually superior to the 7.62×39mm, and very rarely does it not do that. All the stories most of us have read about the 5.56’s failure to work properly in Special Weapons and Soldier of Fortune are apparently blown way, way up. The guy I talked to said that yes, it happens sometimes, and a couple men have been killed on account of it. But that’s happened with every round; there is no ‘magic’ bullet. Even the 7.62 NATO fails to work properly sometimes, it’s not the bullet or the gun’s fault, it’s just the laws of physics. The 5.56, like all bullets, is more effective from a longer barrel, but even from the M4, it still retains its lethality out to about two hundred or so yards (remember, most engagements are at much less distance than that. more than that, you’d probably leave it to the SDM to take the guy out). No one except the 5th SF group is even considering the 6.8mm and I don’t think anyone is looking at the Grendel. Third, the U.S. military is not going to go bullpup, and many nations are now reverting back to the standard set up. A guy I’ve been talking to in Singapore says that the SAR-21’s reliablity is about that of the SA-80. It’s a bit more robust, but the inner workings are very similar (that is, messed up and prone to jamming). Plus, unlike the SA-80, Steyr AUG, and FAMAS, you cannot convert it to a left hand configuration; If your a left handed shooter, tough, learn to fire weak handed. Finally, the only thing that will be replacing the M4 is the new FN SCAR-L (The SCAR-H won’t be replacing anything, it will just be added to the armory alongside the M14 EBR and the Mark 11). And I think only SOCOM units are going to be using it; I don’t know about the rest of the military, I think they’re sticking with the M16. All my info I got from other people; all soldiers or people working for firearms companies. If anyone who has first hand info (meaning you didn’t just read it in Soldier of Fortune) contradictory to mine, feel free to correct me.
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:00 pm
I got you Paul. Yes, I heard it from people above the posting saying that the Army would rather spend money that is more important in winning at the battle field, say helicopters or armored vehicles. Infantry weapon in modern warfare is now not that important as the old days. Why spending millions of dollars for the ‘just little bit better’ rifle then the existing one? However, about the reliability issue, I still want to point out that XM8 is better then the M16s. It is simply because of difference in operating system, and while the M16’s direct gas flow to the bolt requires a constant maintanace (cleaning), the XM8’s is not. In fact, the XM8’s operatinng system is based on the good old proven by the time and battlefields (AK serieses, FNC, SIG 550, etc.) I have read some articles that the HK G26, base model of XM8, has been gaining good reputation about its reliability from the Bundeswehr (modern German army) , Spanish armed forces and law enforcement agencies in the U.S. About the 5.56mm ammunition, I also have read an article from a gun magazine I do not remember the exact name ( Weapons’ Digest ?). the author asserted that the 5.56mm round which the U.S. army adopted was designed to have suprior penetration of the helmet up to 500m. He said that the ammunition made by the Black Hills Co., which introduces the mixture of the materials for penetration and stopping power of the bullet, was proven its stopping power by the private contractors in Iraq. In the end, he suggested that the Army should seriously consider testing it and adopting it. Personally, if his assertion turns out to be true, I would use that over replacing to 6.8mm. Low recoil and compact size make the 5.56mm my choice of caliber.
July 3rd, 2005 at 9:09 pm
By the way, for those who want see the pros and cons of the XM8: Pros a. reliable. its short stroke gas piston operating system is proven to be very reliable, while little maintanance required. b. very low/ managable recoil. c. light weight, thanks to its plastic body (about 2.7 kg or 5.9 lb). d. easy to aim. e. quick dissasamble, quick cleaning f. highly modular – with different parts, the gun can be easily changed to different configurations. g. built – in zeroed sight, and laser sight and night aiming aid device as standard. h. numorous egronomic features, such as bolt holder/release inside trigger guard, free drop magazine change, and clipping spare magazine without tools, ambidextrous switch and cocking handle, etc. i. little bit cheaper then the M4 (when considering other special equipments other then gun, which are usually required) cons: a. poor accuracy then M16s; no match-grading accuracy in far ranges such as 200m or so. b. currently no picatiny rails availiable compared to M16 serieses. c. heavy trigger pull(?)- this I was not able to confirm. d. the ‘bridge’ between the sight and the body of the gun; purpose is to increase the easiness of aimming, but some people do not seem to like it, because it wastes the space for the other stuffs like room for inserting hand to cock the handle and most importantly, not being able to have the picatini rail. e. ‘flip-flop’ cocking hanld; may be fragil under harsh battlefield condition.
July 4th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
If the accuracy of the XM8 isn’t as good as the M16, because of barrel length. They could just use all 20′ barrels to increase accuracy. About the caliber size 5.56mm, they should stay with that. The other thing having to do with the gas-piston operating system. All HK would have to do is produce M16 with the XM8 system. I understand that they may have to change a few specs on the weapons itself but wouldn’t be too costly. Overall I think they should replace the M16. All the costs that would require them to replace the M16 would be worth it. The basic soldier is the backbone of the Armed Forces. We can’t comprimize that with staying with a older, less advanced piece of weaponry.
July 4th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
response to Matt the HK has released HK M4 serises, as you suggested. It is identical to the currently used M4, but instead of using direct gas flow to the bolt, it uses the short stroke gas piston system very similar to the XM8- therefore, much reliable then the current one. According to Garry Paul Johnston, a respected gun writter and retired law enforcement officer, this weapon also a good choice. If the army wants to preserve using th M16 serieses, then I guess the HK M4 won’t be bad. Keep in mind that other then the gas operating system, the HK M4 is almost identical to the current ones.
July 5th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
To Dave: Thanks for that usefull info. I didn’t know they incorporated the gas-piston into the M4. If you know what the XM302 is than you would most likely agree that it is much more efficient than the current one, the M203 I think or something like that.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
The 5.56 was meant to tumble upon impact thus making up for it being such a small round. But they have made the M16’s more accurate so they don’t tumble anymore thus they are not as effective anymore. The .243 Winchester is much better in every catagory than the 5.56 and only has a little more recoil. I don’t see why we don’t use that we could still use the 5.56 for Small Assualt Rifles like the G36C and maybe SMG’s.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I don’t think they will change the rifle calibre any time soon, due to cost and the fact that there isn’t much wrong with the round in the first place: as PaulCG said, the stories about lack of lethality are blown out of proportion. Plus the fact that you then lose round commonality with the m249, unless you want to replace all of them too. If the armed forces really wanted to upgrade the rifles they could get away with just changing out the original upper recievers with ones fitted with a gas piston. easy. That said, this would be a significant cost for – let’s face it – an at best marginal improvement. Just instruct the soldiers to take proper care of their equipment. I think the marines have got it right.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
quote I don’t know why we just dont switch to the FN P90 rifle and Five-seveN pistols. Those little 5.7mm rounds are truly wicked and will penetrate body armor. I have fire the pistol and have found it to be pretty cool. qoute the p90 is a pdw (personal defense weapon). good for tank crews not infantry. short to med. range of the 5.7mm means defensive purposes only m14. FN FAL. AR10. all 308. the way to go. period. as for the above post, you dont have to replace the m249. it is NOT bad juju to use 2 calibers for 2 diferant purposes. plus the m240g is in 308
July 9th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Any ideas when a civilan version will be for sale?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Actually the round doesn’t tumble because they have made the gun more accurate. We could keep the 5.56 but we could also start using a better round like the one I was talking about.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
What makes the 5.56 effective is that when it hits soft tissue, after traveling from 10-20 inches (depending on the consistancy of flesh) it begins to turn sideways and brake apart at it’s weakened center. The two bullet fragments break up even more, causing massive tissue and muscle destruction. Eric, it seems that what you think is that the 5.56 tumbles while in flight. If it did that, it would probably behave like a knuckleball. No, it flys in a normal rifle twist until it hits flesh. The Vietnam era 5.56, the M193 has slightly better terminal ballistics than the current M855, but it has a much shorter range and less ability to pierce body armor. The M855 can provide adequate TB, and it can pierce body armor, so in my opinion, it is a better all around round. However, there is no reason, other than money, that the military can’t find an even more effective 5.56 load, such as the DU238 core bonded jacket boat-tail or a 70 grain tungsten. The HK416 and the XM8 have a system that looks pretty sound on paper. But according to units who have tested it, the gas system, by its design, is not sealed properly. This has caused jamming problems in the dusty environment of Iraq. Also, the SA-80 has a very similar gas piston system, and they have the same problem (among many other problems). Also, apparently the XM8 was tested in similar enviroments, and it had many of the same problems. The AR-18 gas system seems to work alright in CQB and woodland environments, but we’re doing a lot more desert fighting, so that does us no good, especially since the AR-15, M14, and of course, AK-47 systems works well in both. Yes, the AR-18 is cleaner than the AR-15, but evidently, I don’t think with it’s current problems we can call it more reliable.
July 12th, 2005 at 9:31 am
Oh, update on one of my last posts, the SAR-21’s problem is not the gas system, I misunderstood one of the things the guy told me. Apparently, that works just fine. The problems with that are the optics and the right-hand only configuration. Also, like the XM8 and G36, it has a top charging handle as supposed to a side one. That’s been a complaint with the SAR-21, the G36, and the XM8.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:28 am
The only 5.56 round I think we should use is those exploding rounds. Look at it this way the 5.56 round has 875 ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards considering the minimum amount of energy to kill an inoffensive deer is 900 ft. lbs. At 300 yards it’s 710 ft. lbs. I think a 200 pound solider in Kevlar body armor would be harder to kill. If we adopted a 95 grain .243 round it would have better sectional density than both the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds. The higher the sectional density the better penetration. This round also is more ballistic coefficient. What this means is that it can over come air drag better. With a 10 mph cross wind if you shot a 5.56 round from 300 yards the lateral drift would be 14.2 inches completly blowing a perfectly aimed shot off. With the 6mm the drift is only 6.3 inches. From a rifle zeroed at 200 yards hits 20.8 inches below at 400 yards with the .243 it drops 18.9 inches. While the 5.56 doesn’t even have reliable one shot kill power at 200 yards. The .243 still has over 900 ft. lbs. of energy shooting from 400 yards it only it has higher energy even from 500 yards with 890 ft. lbs. The only thing the .243 has worse than the 5.56 is a tiny bit more recoil (10 ft lbs.) which is only half of what a experienced shooter can handle. Even inexperienced shooters shoudln’t find it bothersome. Overall 6mm>5.56mm
July 12th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Agreed, the .243 Win does have better range and TB than the .223. It’s only natural: it’s fired from a 51mm case and it is a heavier, longer bullet. However, switching to that round would require a change of bolt, barrel, reciever, and magazine. The .243 Winchester is basically a necked down .308, so soldiers would not be able to carry as many rounds of that as they would of the same weight in 5.56. Conterary to popular belief, a .223 can kill a deer pretty effectively. More effectively, in fact, than the 7.62×39mm. The reason, of course, that one would hunt a deer with a .243, .270, .308, or 30.06 is because yes, those rounds’ terminal performance is much better than the .223 and the amount of ammo you can carry is not much of an issue. In combat, it is an issue. The 5.56 is still very accurate out to 600m and is ‘one shot’ deadly out to at least 200 yards. It is a reliable round that, yes, could use improvement, but according to our troops, has served us well. It’s actually more effective now than in the early days of its use because the rifling twist in the M16A2 and M4 has been increased from 1:7 to 1:9, giving the M855 round more velocity and thus, better performance. As a huge fan of the M14, I like the .308 the best, but I still think it would not be a good idea to introduce it or any rounds its size on a service wide basis. Eric, what exploding rounds are you talking about?
July 12th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I forgot what they are called but I think it’s like they put a tiny amount of explosives in a bullet and it’s set off when it enters the targets body I think they will be outlawed though. But doesn’t the rifling twist to 1:9 make it less accurate but it makes it tumble more? Although I understand that changing all this will cost a lot of money but surely it is worth it to have a round that has much higher performance than the current round. Second thing is the .243 is lighter than the 7.62×39 yet the AK can still use 30 round mags with out being a big issue. So maybe Infantryman won’t be able to carry as many rounds. We won’t need as many rounds if we can kill better.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Eric: To be honest, I’ve never heard of exploding 5.56 rounds. Could you give me a reference to where you heard about them? The original M16A1 had a 1:12 rifling twist. This made the 55 grain M193 fly at a very high velocity making it very lethal and still quite accurate. However, the M193 is a very short round, and because of that, it cannot stay stable for a very long range (300>). When the military switched to M855, they found that the 1:12 twist was not enough to stablize the longer round. The rifling was reduced to 1:7 so that it could accomodate the M855 as well as the new tracer rounds (I forget its numaric designations). This decreased the 5.56’s velocity pretty dramatically, and thus, the terminal performance suffered. Later, it was found that if the rifling was increased from 1:7 to 1:9, the accuracy would not suffer at all, and the terminal performance would increase. The cost of changing to a new caliber will cost a lot. It will cost a lot more than what it is actually worth. The 5.56 round is accurate and has great stopping power. The 7.62×39mm is heavier than the .243, but the .243’s case is still the same width and length of the 7.62 NATO. Most of our troops would only be able to carry 20 round mags. And when only one or two 5.56 rounds is needed to kill at normal engagement ranges, the fact that you can carry more of them gives it another advantage over the .243. Trust me, I would probably agree with you whole heartedly about two months ago, but I’ve been talking to a lot of soldiers and I’ve been doing some research on this. The 5.56 is a good round and it’s here to stay.
July 13th, 2005 at 7:00 am
I don’t know about the exploding rounds but I can see why we are keeping the 5.56 as our standard rifle ammunition. But I think we could use the .243 maybe for a marksman or SAW weapon. Or maybe for the new FN SCAR for SOCOM.
July 13th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
For our SAW weapons, we’ll probably want to keep the standard ammunition. It makes it easier on a rifleman who runs out of ammo. The SAW gunner can break off a piece of his belt and give a little donation. In combat, commonality of ammo is important. For a standard marksman round, the .308 is better suited to the job than the .243 and it will probably not replaced anytime soon. Usually, if a sniper is not going to use a .308, he’ll use a magnum round such a .338 Lapua or .300 Winchester or of course, the good ‘ol .50 BMG. The FN SCAR is going to come in two versions: Light and Heavy. The SCAR-L will primarily fire the 5.56, but it will be able to convert to 7.62×39, 5.45×39, and even 6.8 (FN put that option in there just in case the military did switch). The SCAR-H will be chambered for the 7.62×51. However, since the .243 is just a necked-down .308, all that would be needed to convert the SCAR-H to fire a .243 is a barrel swap.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:44 am
Does anyone have the latest update of the fate of XM8? Is the program going to be cancelled, or else?
July 15th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Last I heard, it was sent back to the ‘competition phase’ and there are quite a few other rifles taking the lead over it. Right now, the HK 416, the FN SCAR, and some upgraded versions of the current M4/M16 are way ahead of the XM8. It is highly unlikely that we will see it combat in the near future, if at all.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Dave: I haven’t heard anything on what they intend to do with the XM8, but i’m wondering just as much as you are. I’d really like to know, because i’m joining the Marine Corps soon, and would like to know wheather or not i’m going to get to try it out.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Good luck, Matt :)
July 20th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
to Matt: if you are curious about the XM8, please visit this link: http://hkpro.websolv.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=178167
July 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am
Matt: The Corps actually decided that they would not accept the XM8 even if the rest of the service (this was even before things started looking bad for the XM8, and the fact that the Marines didn’t want it was one of the biggest blows actually.) So, no matter what you do, if you’re going into the Marines, you probably will not be using the XM8.
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:10 am
America is a disgrace. Im english and i know what my ancestors did was wrong, weve finally learn’t from those mistakes the british people hate the iraq war it was solely tony blair who took us in. The muslims have a point. Youv’e taken land from them and given it to the jews. It wasn’t yours to give. How would you fel if some1 invaded your country took your land and said its not your anymore it belongs to the pakistanis or whatever. Youd be really angry. They didnt do anything to you, you started this whole thing off by killing muslims all over the world they never wanted to harm you until you killed their people and took their land. The insurgence are to be admired, they are giving their lives to try to help their muslim brothers and sisters agaings the worlds biggest super power. Youve decided to invade again, when will you learn it isnt your land to step foot on, it isnt your people to protect, ita non of our god damn buisness and yet in you come again taking whatever you want putting a government friendly to the usa in. You talk about saddam using chemical weapons and killing his own people. You gave him the weapons, you are as much responsible for the gassings as saddam himself, maybe even more so. Your country created the middle eastern problem not iraq, iran afganistan or any other country america did it. I know countless muslim people and have found them to be the kindest people you could ver meet. but when you kill here popel and invade their land what do you expect. They have to retaliate. You should be ashamed. Your also cowards. You didnt enter the first world war you only came in at the last minute of the second world war when the war was won and then only because pearl harbour was attacked. America never helps anyone but its self. You then drop an atomic weapon on japan. Your always looking for more powerful bigger weapons to use because your cowards. Thats why your ground troops are poor. Vietnam they got hammered and you can make all the excuses you want you lost to vietnam. Sometimes in war youve got to risk your life and just get in there. Thats how the brits work and thats why the sas are fa more formidable than any strike team the americans have ever or will ever have.Drop bigger bombs uses bigger weapons its because your cowards. Your a disgrace to mankind and 1 day you will fall and i hope my children are around to see that day. Muslims fight to protect each other. You fight to kill people theres a big difference. You have no purpose in battle but the muslims do thats why you can never win. + China could kick your arses anyway so your not even no1 hahahahahaha.
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 am
UK and USA KICK ASS NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Usa has taken over from the uk as the leading superpower. Uk in the 19th century were the world leaders in all areas, now that honour goes to the states. As a englishman i can think of no better country to take over the position from the uk than the United states. As long as our boys stay allied i know the world will be a safer place for our children to grow up in. My only regret is we didnt come in to Vietnam with your boys as America didnt come in the first world war. Whats important is where we stand now. Shoulder to Shoulder in all things free. http://www.thankyoutony.com/index.html. Feel free to send your messages of thanks to Tony Blair he stood strong and has done the right thing for Britain the United States and for the world. THE WEST WILL NEVER DIE.
July 23rd, 2005 at 11:05 pm
The insurgents are to be admired’ Yeah, just ask Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl. Hey, Mike, if you hate America so much, why don’t you go join the insurgents? Or if you think the Chinese are the best, why not become a Chinese citizen and join the People’s Liberation Army? Or are you all talk? Tell you what, go over to Iraq, and I don’t mean go on some ‘End the occupation’ blog, I mean go to Iraq and tell me how the people actually feel. Visit Afghanistan and find out how much people miss the Taliban. Tony, thanks man. The U.S. has never needed to ask the UK to join us because we know you’re already there. And we’ll proudly do the same for you. US and UK, a tradition since 1917. Let’s keep it going! Together we defeated the Nazis Together we defeated the Communists and together we’ll defeat terrorism!
July 24th, 2005 at 1:49 am
As promising as the XM-8 seems to be, I find myself wondering just how realistic the claims are. Sure, this thing might be lighter, and more reliable, but we have no hard proof of that yet. Until we do, I’ll stand behind what is tried and true. As great as the advances in modern weapon technology are, I say the government should start looking at bringing back the M-14. Now there is a piece of hardware that you could trust. With S.A. making the M1A in all sorts of variants, I’m sure the government could convince them to build them a few new model M-14s on synthetic stocks, and we’d have one of the finest rifles available for our troops. Maybe I’m just spouting personal opinion, but the 14 was a great service rifle. Other than being a ‘bit’ heavy, it was accurate, reliable, sturdy, and most importantly, powerful.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
H&K (and I include the G36 in this) has gone way downhill since they abandoned their delayed blowback system. According to a Green Beret I talked to, the AR-18 short-stroke system is a good system, but H&K keeps messing it up. The problem with the XM8 was not its system, it was the fact that H&K denies problems now rather than correcting them. At any rate, we won’t be seeing the XM8 in the U.S. military in the foreseeable future. The next rifle our troops will see (well, for now, just the SOF guys) is the SCAR-L. Based on a mix of the FNC and the AK, it should be a fine rifle. I think the rest of the military is sticking with the AR-15 series. This is not a bad thing though, the M16/M4 are among the finest rifles in the world dispite all the hearsay one reads in Soldier of Fortune. In truth, there is very little that needs to be replaced on the current system. The M14 is without a doubt my favorite battle rifle ever. But it is just that, a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. it is too big and heavy, as is its ammunition, to be standard issue in this day and age. The light-weight, medium powered rifles we have now are just what need. However, Harrison, the M14 and the M21 (M14 sniper) has never been out of service with USSOCOM forces and it has made a strong comeback with regular forces as a marksman rifle in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently, it has been enhanced with the Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) upgrade which will carry it well into the 21st century. It has the same gas and feed system, but now it has rails for mounting optics, and it has a collapsable stock that can be adjusted for length of pull.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
HMMMM I still like the m16 it prove to be (to me)the most accurate rifle ive fired without a scope .If you know the basics breathing ,trigger squeeze, and etc you will hit the target.Now out in the box ??? Id rather have the old M-60.I say it was worth its weight.Well if the weather and time is right and you need real backup call in A-10s or apaches LOL.Every soldier should be issued a minigun.-
July 31st, 2005 at 10:55 am
I am tired of hearing people speak poorly aginst the M16 and M4. I have used both, and both are superb and reliable weapons. It seems the only ones who dislike these weapons are ones who have never had to REALLY use them.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:23 am
THIS WEAPON IS AN ULTIMATE THING.IT IS A ONE OF A KIND AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.IF YOU COULD PLEASE SEND ME SOME INFO I WOULD MUCH APRECIATE IT.I HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU SOON.THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!
August 7th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Hey i was wondering if they planned to make this a air soft gun. if any one knows please email me
August 10th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Joe: Dispite the real XM8’s status, I think the answer to your question is yes.
August 18th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
I think this is a great weapon, but I cant also stop thinking that we should confront our enemies with the very much more efficent system of pushing them slightly while murmuring something like ‘Do you want a piece of me punk?…huh? huh?’ this has proven time and time again to be very effective… and way cheaper!
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:14 am
they have a body kit 4 the g36 to make it a XM8 it looks cheasy though but they have it
August 25th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
I think that the Marine Corp still needs a new piece of weaponry to take over for the aging M16-M4 models. Opinions on what should replace it?
August 30th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
m16 and m4 r great weapon systems and as of this time i dont think the regular infantry need a new weapon
August 30th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
if u wanted 2 c the xm8 in action then here it is u might have already seen this http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php
August 30th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
I’m only 18, but I plan to be a Ranger when I am finished with high school, and all of then men I know who have served in combat in Iraq and Afganistan say that the M4/M16 is a complete piece of crap. I have never fired one, let alone seen combat-but I believe them. If the XM8 is any better than the current weapon, I would rather be using it when I enter the servie. I enjoyed your report and recommended a few gun buddies to read it. Thanks
August 31st, 2005 at 9:48 am
Thanks for those comments on what should replace it, or wheather or not it should stay the same. I don’t really have to much of a problem with the M16-M4, but I would just lke to see something else for basic infantry. Preferably with a little punch.
September 2nd, 2005 at 11:34 pm
im only 15 yes im a kid but i plan to get in the green berets (as long as my parents dont kill me) i have a friend (age 24) who went to Iraq he has a M4 and said its nice but then again hes a 50 gunner so i dont think he used the m4 to much the m16 and m4 are kinda weak if u think about it its only a .22 or so people dont get technical .223 and the AK is a beast compared to that but alot of people here in this blog say we should go to a 6 something cartriage 6.8 watever just remember to big of a round will give alot of kick which screws accuracy thats y the m16 is a small round because firearms 101 a small bullet moving fast is accurate but yes a big round moving fast is more accurate like a magnum sniper the faster the round is moving the less time there is 4 wind to push it aside (if im wrong please correct)
September 2nd, 2005 at 11:43 pm
to david i wanted to be a ranger till a year ago i read i cant cause of asthma i doubt the green berets are any diffrent but im trying to fight it so its under control and my doc will take it off my med form so i can join
September 6th, 2005 at 11:35 am
some of the problems the m16 encounted during vietnam war was that the M16 internal components had to be very clean for efficent use in the field. There was rumours that soldiers had to wrap a condom on top of the barrel to stop sand,water coming in. So to sum it all up the only problem the early M16’s had is that the weapon had to be kept clean all the time. But on the other hand The M16 was the most acurate infantry weapon in the vietnam war.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Im just gonna give out a sugestion on a new weapon the US army infantry should use. I recomend the G36 from germany. The weapons shoots great, is very acurate, light and has different modes of use like the XM8. 1 Good advantage of the G36 is that it also has a 3 shot burst selector. This makes the gun good in long range auto fire cause after each 3 shot burst you have time to re-adjust your self and keep the gun under control not like the XM8 where if you want to shoot in auto fire you have to stop for a sec and point the gun back at the the target. Dont get me wrong the XM8 is a good weapon but i wreckon the G36 just has a few extra features. Please post something bout the G36 that would prove me wrong that the G36 is better.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
the XM8 is made by Hekler and Koch (who make the G36)and its based off of the G36c but has some diffrences like the awesome sightmodule and the 203 GL that is custom 4 it
September 7th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
H&K is not going to be seeing many U.S. contracts anytime soon. The Mk23 pistol is going to be phased out in about a year or so by an improved Colt 1911A1 model most likely. A reliable gun, but it’s just HUGE! Ever held one? Trust me! The XM8 has failed almost every Army field test and will NOT be seeing combat. Its all but off the books now. H&K is making some short-stroke pistons for the M16 series, but that’s about it. The one downside to the M16 is it’s direct impingement system, and so that will be improved. Most likely, we’ll see the M16 in combat for at least a few more years. The M4, however, is slated to be replaced in Army special ops starting this fall. By this time next year, the M4 will have been replaced with the SCAR-L. There is no word on whether or not the Navy, Air Force, or Marines are going to join in on this. They might just stick with the M4. Oh, and the .223 is a great round in combat and a hell of a lot of fun to shoot in freetime! We’ll be seeing it for the next 15 years probably.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Ive just seen a couple of pictures but no specs on the SCAR-L but to me due to the pictures ive seen the SCAR-L looks a bit chunky and clumsy looking.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
The SCAR is just coming out of its conceptual stages. It was most certainly have a different look in operational form. The SCAR pictures you have probably seen are mostly drawings anyway. Check out the military.com forums for real pictures.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
where did u here the XM8 failed all those test some how i dont think H&K would make that crapy of a gun
September 9th, 2005 at 12:44 am
YEs i agree with travis.How could the XM8 fail, it can do so many things and is really reliable. I watched all the test clips about the Xm8 on how its easy to assemble, attatch a grenaid launcher and so on. Cmon the army would be fools if they didnt adopt the XM8. On one of the clips it shows the the Whole gun coverd in dirt and it still fired also when the gun was submerged in water it still fired when the gun was all wet.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Not sure on all of the tests, but it did fail one that would of mattered the most. The body of the gun started to melt when it was being continually fired. Which anybody know wouldn’t be to good in combat. When I first heard about the gun I did a research paper on it. But now that I hear all this bashing about it. From other people that have known things for a lot longer that I. I start to think that this gun just might not be all that it’s cracked up to be. I know that H&K is a very successful company in the businness of coming up with and producing weaponry for military use. But they may have made a few errors in the design of this weapon. WE NEED A NEW WEAPON FOR BASIC INFANTRY!!!
September 9th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Matt: As far as that ‘melting’ failure you mentioned, that happened in early April 2004 and was addressed in the next-revision. Not sure what the current status is, though.
September 9th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
do u mean the plastic body started to melt
September 10th, 2005 at 9:19 am
i think H&K fixed the problem with a new plastic composite which has a higher heat resistance.
September 10th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Yes, I did mean the plastic body. I’m not sure either if they fixed the body problem. Murdoc, What would you say they should replace the current weapon M16-M4 series with? I heard someone say it should be the SCAR-L, on this forum. Do you think that would be a good weapon for the infantry?
September 11th, 2005 at 12:56 am
I posted something about the SCAR-L before and said that the SCAR-L looks clumsy and to chunky for a infantry weapon or special forces
September 11th, 2005 at 1:50 am
Scar does look chunky the M4 is fine until a new assault rifle is ready i like the Xm8 as long as when im in the army it doesnt melt in my hands like a choclate bar in afghanistan did anyone c that newer XXX (not porn) they had the XM8 in it and put on a grenade launcher for a M4 on it little mistake on the producers part
September 11th, 2005 at 8:31 am
i think the person who said about the changing to a bullpulp desighn for the xm8 would be an excellent idea.
September 11th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
i had a intesting discussion about that a while ago well right now the XM8 has all those features on the trigger gaurd to drop the mag and release hammer they would have to some how move those to the back and i think its harder to reload a bullpup design weapon like the L85 the british use i have a airsoft gun of that and u have to move the gun around in weird positions to reload it but ya it gets a longer barrel for the size but i dont think its worth it cause all the fighting we are mostly doing now is urban so a gun that accurate isnt really needed when there that close
September 11th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
oh right cool thanks mate hay this site rocks and hay talkin bout the L85 family for the british army i think that it is a terribal weapon which is very unreaible. the britsh goverment is silly not to change the the german H+K G36.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:58 am
thats wat i was saying its annoying to reload and the H&K series of guns are really good except 4 them trying to capitolize on COLTS M4 that was stupid and annoying it went to a law suit and crap
September 12th, 2005 at 4:01 am
I reckon the best guns to this day sre most likely the M4 carbine and the H&K G36. Oh yeah i would like to know whats the difference between a NATO round and a basic round. Plz post something about it. thanks
September 12th, 2005 at 4:08 am
oh yeah i think some one already posted this but it is said that the xm8 can fire 7.62 mm ammunition like the AK-47 kalishnikov. Correct me if im wrong.
September 12th, 2005 at 10:50 am
To my knowledge I don’t think it has ever been able to shoot 7.62mm, but there is a possibility of me being wrong. I don’t think there is any difference between NATO and regular if that’s what you want to call it. I was looking on H&K and saw what looks to be a new series of the G36. It’s the G36-C. This weapon is very compact, and I think with a little longer barrel and some fine tuning. This could be a future competitor for replacing the M-16, M-4. Comments?
September 13th, 2005 at 6:13 am
The G36-C has been around for a while and has been in service for several years. Germany’s special forces and German Tactical police use the G36-C. C meaning cut-down or smaller version of the original G36.
September 13th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
does anyone know weather american special forces use the xm8 or are going to be ? because i keep on seeing it featured on special forces computer games.
September 13th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
does anyone know weather american special forces use the xm8 or are going to be ? because i keep on seeing it featured on special forces computer games.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:00 am
there planing on using it if the weapon checks out like they think that it is a combat effective weapon 4 example the M-16 was very good on the range but when it was sent to vietnam it was very bad due to jamming and also the NATO round is 5.56 and also 7.62 which is the NATO machine gun round all other rounds are the wierd ones no one cares about like some of the chinese odd ball sizes like 6.something i forget and also like a P90 uses a 5.7 and a NATO round is just so if we go to war that all of NATo is uses the same round so that we can help eachother out like if germany goes to war and needs aid when american assistane comes in we would have the ammunition they need its just for versatility and fuctionality these rounds have been proven ime and time again in diffrent weapons so there here to stay
September 15th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
The two things I think thexm8 does are it address the gas system which is a factor of firing failures in the field, and the upper conversion for the m16 which in the begining will save the govt. a lot of money. The shell used as long as its close if not a 30 cal. should be decided by military ballistic experts and not lay people .
September 15th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
The two things I think thexm8 does are it address the gas system which is a factor of firing failures in the field, and the upper conversion for the m16 which in the begining will save the govt. a lot of money. The shell used as long as its close if not a 30 cal. should be decided by military ballistic experts and not lay people .
September 21st, 2005 at 10:09 am
this is a blog where us lay people can talk about these things we arent making the descision 4 the weapon were just talking and r u some ballistics expert who gets to speak about the gun?
September 22nd, 2005 at 7:03 am
So how come no one isnt adding posts about the weapon anymore its been a couple of days already and no one had added anything new yet. Except travis who has a good point.
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
It’s not like were going to have any effect on anthing having to do with the weapons these companies produce or w/e. But I guess it’s somewhat pleasant talking about them.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:22 pm
I have to disagree it looks and sounds not much different from the H&K G-36 series which my police force uses. We have seen the G-36k reach out to 400m. Also the XM8 if you read up on it has a sharpshooter config for long range firing specifically. Of all the versions they range from 12.5′ to 20′ and theres no knowing what length the standard rifle will be for the military. These are simply the variant designs they have made for this single rifle so it can be field striped and parts changed to make it into any one of these designs in minutes. So debate all we want if it performs like or better than the G-36 then I’ll take one in a heartbeat. Every ex or retired military person I meat that joins the police force falls in love with the G-36 over the M-16 or AR-15. Its way more accurate especially with the red dot system. So the XM8 I have to say I will love it if its comparable to the G-36.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Actually just to let Edward know the last I heard was 10k where with the marines being field tested. But H&K decided it was anything radically different than anything they already make so the rumor is they are being recalled and that production of the 416 I believe is being doulbe for the US. I hope this isnt true but who knows.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:50 pm
what do u mean Nuebak?
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:02 pm
and something im just throwing around is y the XM8 does not have a special special forces for close quarters i have a M4(airsoft)but still real size and i love a 2nd handle on most guns with 2nd handles (G36C)I think are more comfortable and alot better in close quarters which is becoming the mass of our battles these days with the war on terror we are within 20-50 feet of the enemy so sorry to say who cares if u can hit him at 500m if hes that damn close i mean in a war yes that range is wonderful against some guy who cant aim a kalashnikov but when ur that close monuverability is key and i think they need to make a special forces model and just like the 203 grenade launcher system it should just slide on when u take off the fore arm and does anyone think that they will make a bayonet 4 the XM8? many people thought having 1 4 the m4/m16 was stupid because there not supposed to get that close yes i know it is just a knife with a loop on it.
September 24th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
For all you who think that H&K ‘can’t make a bad weapon,’ they can and have. First off, the Mk23 pistol is going to be replaced in the near future w/ our SOF teams because it is too big and heavy and unsuitable for its role. The XM8 failed many tests, the worst of the bunch being the melting of the plastic and a failure in the gas system. Rather than correct the problem, H&K (according to a soldier I talked to) denied it. Because of the problems we had in Vietnam with the early M16s, we were not about to put a defective rifle into combat. Improvements were finally made, but the rifle has reportedly no advantage over the M16 now that new gas systems are being put on many M16s. The XM8 may, just MAY, be in the running to replace the M16 in the future, but it is highly unlikely. At any rate, it will take a superb rifle to replace the great weapon that has served our nation for over 40 years! For those of you who haven’t shot an M16 series rifle before, it is solid weapon. I’d trust my life to it in combat!
September 25th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
I guess the xm8 is a pretty shitty weapon. If that’s the kinda words you people think of when you refer to the weapon. I used to like it before all of the failed tests. Not sure anymore. I still think we should be coming up with a new and improved weapon. I mean we can’t just stop here because we think it’s the best. There’s always room for improvement. I mean look at our technology in this day and age. It’s amazing, well kinda. But I think we can come up with something better to knock the pants off of our rival nations. And once and for all show them that were always going to be No.1
September 25th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
i think that we shouldnt scrap the XM8 it looked like a great weapon and we have scraped alot of promising projects 4 a few failures for instance the comanche was going to be the most frikin awesome helicopter ever and they scraped it and for u that dont no what the comanche is it was a stealth helicopter yes u read correctly stealth small radar cross section and low heat signature the m16 was so shity when it was first made so i think they should push through these problems get a better material for the shell so no melting fix minor internal probs because i like the XM8(if it were more reliable) the M4 is cool 4 now
September 27th, 2005 at 2:03 am
I think H&K should invest more money in there new weapon projects and make sure they dont skip any important parts for example the XM8’s plastic shell. You cant place a price for a soldiers protection.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
are u talking about the melting problems or like its not able to take hits like falling?
September 28th, 2005 at 3:03 am
I just read those comments from Mike. What a disgrace, he is obviously some misguided Muslim, pretending to be a westerner, although there are those western lefties who speak that crap. On every argument he is totally wrong. About the Israelis and who gave the they’re land back to them, on the US in Vietnam- everyone knows the US won the battles, on everything. At the end of the day, anyone who can defend a cause or group/s that includes killing innocent civilians as part of they’re agenda deserves no part in human society. As far as Im concerned they are just as bad as those that commit such crimes.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:13 am
Hey Aussie what are you talking about. And travis, yeah i am talking about the plastic melting. I dont even know that the XM8 had problems when it falls on the ground and doesnt work.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Hey Aus what are you talking about. And travis, yeah i am talking about the plastic melting. I dont even know that the XM8 had problems when it falls on the ground and doesnt work.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Travis i was refering to the melting plastic and does the XM8 have a problem when the gun is droped or something.
October 1st, 2005 at 8:18 pm
no i was asking cause u said there plastic shell i didnt know if it was weak or if it was the melting but i havent heard that it breaks being fallen
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:58 am
yeah i dont know if the gun brakes if it hits the ground but like i said b4 all i know is that the XM8’s plastic melts when it is fired in full auto.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:58 am
well travis mentioned earlyer about the comanchi and how good it was well i do think that it did look good but it just wasnt practical and it also couldnt hold half as many weapons as the current apachi can so it was doomed from the start really.
October 4th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Hey travis i think the military scrapped the F-22 raptor because of costs. I heard that the F-22 was in the sum of cloose to a Billion dollars per fighter. I think my onfo is right if some one knows the exact price well then correct me.
October 4th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Micahel: The F/A-22 has not been scrapped. The 50th plane was just delivered to the USAF.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Yea, Murdoc is right. I don’t know where you got your info Michael. But he’s right, I knew also that they didn’t scrap the F/A-22. I don’t think they ever will. Now I agree that the cost is astronomical, but you also have to think. The more this world increases in technology. The more we have to stay ahead of everyone. Even if that means spending greatly. this jet alone i’ve seen take on five F-15 fighters with no problem whatsoever. The F-15 pilots said afterward that they never even seen the F-22 Raptor. Only heard it speed past them,lol.
October 5th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
The F22 has the potential to be a great fighter, but I think it will be awhile before it sees any air to air combat, which is what it was designed for. There’s no enemy nation with an air force that can compete with ours. I’m glad they scrapped the Comanche though. What a waste of taxpayer money that was! They wanted to replace the Apache, which was still brand new and still the greatest attack chopper in the world. I believe in the old saying ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’ although the government seems to have the philosophy of ‘If it ain’t broke, fix it till it is.’
October 5th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
They wanted the comanche, because it was stealthy. And thats what’s happening right now. Were getting stealth everywhere to cut down on human lives. Like with the F/A-22. It’s stealth. GET IT!
October 5th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
ok im not sure y but i posted a scenario idea for the comanche but its not here so here it is again ok thers a spec ops team sent in to take out a SAM that is french made and has powerful enough radar to detect a B-2 so the special orces move in on the radar station when they recieve heavy fire the ask for support but we cant send anything cause the SAM is still there well a comanche can fly right over the ground and come in and help suppress the enemies yes a Apache can fly low to but is vulnerable to shoulder fired stinger launchers which are very portable wher as the comanche can fly under the strong radar and not have to worry about stingers the F-22 and F-35 are great aircraft the F-22 actually i saw on the discovery channel take on 8 F-15’s and still won and the guy that was killed first said nothing was on radar and then he was dead and the F-22 flew right over him we have ordered 300 F-22 and with results like that, that means a squad of like 2 F-22 could take out 10-15 migs(not a actuall number just guess) because migs arent as god as F-15’s the only aircraft that poses a minor threat to a F-22 is the Euro fighter that also has super cruise and very advanced air to air combat features with a AWACS a F-22 could be brought down to a better playing field but still not equal the F-35 is also a great multi roll aircraft having 3 models 1 for the marines the VTOL model to replace harrier another fo the navy to replace the F-18 which doesnt need to be replaced but ok, which is a multi roll aircraft a fighter bomber and also a more bomber model for the airforce has anyone seen the planes for the FB-22 looks awesome haha talking about aircraft in a assualt rifle blog hehe
October 7th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Yes, let’s get back to assault rifles…anyway, what the military needs to do is look to improving and enhancing what we have rather than buying something entirely new. What we have is the top of the line in the world, but there is always the need for improvements; we’d be foolish if we thought otherwise. The most reliable and favored weapons in the military are the older ones anyway, i.e. the M14, the M16, the M2, 1911A1, the C130 Hercules, the Pave Low, etc. you get the point. The M2 is approaching 80 years and the 1911A1 is nearing 100! And yet, they are still not obsolete. The league of paper pushers, videogamers, and armchair generals seem to think the military should be armed like this: The XM8 in 6.8mm with the Land Warrior system for the roles of submachine gun, assault rifle, sharpshooter, and SAW until the OICW can be perfected. The XM312 as the heavy machine gun The Comanche as the primary attack chopper. The soldiers consensis is something like this: The M16A4 for the primary assault rifle. The M4 for CQB The M25 or SOPMOD M14 as the DMR The M249 or the Mk48 as the SAW. The Apache as the top assault helicopter. As we are fielding all these weapons already, it seems that for now, we don’t need to spend a billion dollars for a change.
October 8th, 2005 at 8:48 am
well thanks for correcting i always assumed they scrapped it because of the price and i thought that the F-35b took over the skies.
October 8th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
america is supposed to be the top of the line military if we start falling back on old weapons it will make us look cheap i do like alot of the older guns like the M14 and 1911 pistol but we stoped using those because of weight a combat ready soldiers pack can way around 80 pounds now does he need to go up 10 pounds for those older weapons cause some paper pushers dont want to spend the money we need new weapons to keep the massive edge we hae over other militaries if u havent noticed europe is right next to or just behind us on alot of military things there aircraft and tanks are behind us but the G36 is much better than the M16/M4 we need to get the infantry edge back the German leopard 2 is literally almost as good as the abrahms and the british tank(forgot name sorry) is right next to the leopard the french tank is behind all of them and the euro fighter is already in service and already has super cruise where as our F-22 which could kick its ass is just being deployed so we cant fall back on old weapons is what im getting at the XM8 is going to be a great weapon once they fix its problems hay look at the First M16 of vietnam it was a piece of crap the only thing that it had going for it was that it was light and accurate but in vietnam u werent having long range battles u need a weapon to do the job or the war of the future not past yes the M14 is still used by special forces and law enforcement but we need a new assualt weapon that is lighter and better than the m16
October 12th, 2005 at 6:00 am
Oh yeah travis do u know how u said that europe has has the super cruise jet fighter, The U.S has nothing to worry about because that plane was designed as a joined operation which involved the U.S government and some of the ueropean Gorvernments.
October 12th, 2005 at 10:31 am
ya i know im just saying that they already have a fighter capable of super cruise and we are just getting ours out of the factories but once again getting off subject of the XM8 :)
October 12th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
ello again i see uve been speekin about planes and tanks again tut tut. anyway as anyone herd of the new body armer that they are developing. it uses that nano tec stuff. you know like the ipod nano. yeh its like its liquid stuff and it freezes solid when a prejectile hits it at a high velosity (cant spell for my life)amazing stuff and as light and flexable as a teshirt and i think its built in to that future combat soldier (us) idea thingy with the xm8 and new helmet and stuff. hay also is eveyone american on hear or summit, ha, think im the only english person hear .
October 12th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
from england ehh cool havent seen the nano tek armor right now the best ive seen is the ceramic stuff that can take just about anything but liquid sounds unreliable i dont think it could freeze fast enough to block a bullet
October 13th, 2005 at 3:17 am
hey edward i think i know what your talking about but the version ive heard about is really simular its maybe the same thing. Any way the vest which is designed to harden when a bullet hits. it is kinda simple chemistry. In the vest there are tiny, microsopic pieces of a substances which hardens up and joines together when there is a HIGH IMPACT force applied or heat applied to the impact of origin. Im not sure if they actually started devolpeing this yet but i know for sure the U.S government are researching into it.
October 13th, 2005 at 3:20 am
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — Liquid armor for Kevlar vests is one of the newest technologies being developed at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to save Soldiers’ lives. This type of body armor is light and flexible, which allows soldiers to be more mobile and won’t hinder an individual from running or aiming his or her weapon. The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties. ‘During normal handling, the STF is very deformable and flows like a liquid. However, once a bullet or frag hits the vest, it transitions to a rigid material, which prevents the projectile from penetrating the Soldier’s body,’ said Dr. Eric Wetzel, a mechanical engineer from the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate who heads the project team. To make liquid armor, STF is soaked into all layers of the Kevlar vest. The Kevlar fabric holds the STF in place, and also helps to stop the bullet. The saturated fabric can be soaked, draped, and sewn just like any other fabric. Wetzel and his team have been working on this technology with Dr. Norman J. Wagner and his students from the University of Delaware for three years. ‘The goal of the technology is to create a new material that is low cost and lightweight which offers equivalent or superior ballistic properties as compared to current Kevlar fabric, but has more flexibility and less thickness,’ said Wetzel. ‘This technology has a lot of potential.’ Liquid armor is still undergoing laboratory tests, but Wetzel is enthusiastic about other applications that the technology might be applied to. ‘The sky’s the limit,’ said Wetzel. ‘We would first like to put this material in a soldier’s sleeves and pants, areas that aren’t protected by ballistic vests but need to remain flexible. We could also use this material for bomb blankets, to cover suspicious packages or unexploded ordnance. Liquid armor could even be applied to jump boots, so that they would stiffen during impact to support Soldiers’ ankles.’ In addition to saving Soldiers’ lives, Wetzel said liquid armor in Kevlar vests could help those who work in law enforcement. ‘Prison guards and police officers could also benefit from this technology,’ said Wetzel. ‘Liquid armor is much more stab resistant than conventional body armor. This capability is especially important for prison guards, who are most often attacked with handmade sharp weapons.’ For their work on liquid armor, Wetzel and his team were awarded the 2002 Paul A. Siple Award, the Army’s highest award for scientific achievement, at the Army Science Conference.
October 13th, 2005 at 3:21 am
The information i posted up is the real deal.
October 13th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Travis, using older weapons will not make us look cheep, it will be a testiment to just how ahead of their time the weapons are. The G36 is NOT better than the M4 or M16. It has a cleaner gas system, but the forearm overheats and there are reported accuracy issues. Besides, the G36 gas system is not anything new. it is the AR-18, which is about 30 years old now. The SCAR rifle, which the Army SOFs will be using in place of the M4 (probably), is based on the 50 year old FAL system. Besides, if the G36 is so great, why do the foreign elite units such as the SAS, JTF-2, and SASR still use the M4 or C8 (Canadian M4)? No doubt, the G36 is a good weapon, but much better than the M16/M4? I don’t think so. The M14s we are currently using are in the form of the Mk14 EBR and the M25 rifle. If you think the main problem is that the M14 ‘looks too old’ look at these versions. You are correct about one thing, the M14, in its lightest 22′ barrel form, is about 8.5 lbs and 42′ long, too big for a standard weapon. A better weapon would be the 6 lb, 33′ long M4 SOPMOD which we use now. The M14 fills its role as a marksman rifle just fine now. The Colt 1911 pistol is a lot lighter and smaller than the Mk23 pistol and a bit smaller than the M9. So weight is not an issue for this. As for planes, the German Leopard 2 is a great tank, as is the British Conqueror, but the M1A2 Abrams is not called the ‘Supertank’ for nothing. The ‘Eurofighter’ is destined to fail, along with the EU. That’s all I’ll say. Europe cannot come to a consensis on anything other than that the are jealous of the United States and they hate us. The main problem actually is that the Pentagon is spending too MUCH money on new weapon systems to replace ones that already work and work better than any others in the world. If they spent more money on body armor, armored vehicles, and upgrading and improving the weapons we already have, we’d be in a lot better shape. Here are some new weapons programs: XM29 OICW XM8 Comanche XM312 Land Warrior F22 new weapon systems. All failed. The exception is the F22 Here are some programs, which imploy old techniques or improve old weapons: M14 EBR SCAR M4 SOPMOD Lightening the M2 Customized 1911s (SFOD-Delta, ??Force Recon??) M25 (upgraded M21) M24 (bolt action rifle) All were either adopted or are about to be adopted. You see, upgraded old fashion is the way to go! Ask the soldiers, that’s what I do!
October 13th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
i didnt here about the G36’s problems talked to a swat officer who said he loved the G36C and a friend of mine went to iraq 3 tours and he loved his M4 as i love my airsoft M4 :) the M4 I like better than the SCAR now ive heard there tweaking with gas systems to make them better so theres less jamming and yes using older improved weapons is fine what i thought u meant B4 is that u open up the armory and blow the dust off old guns. and the SOC m14 model is alot lighter and smaller than the full sized they could use that and the land warrior system i also didnt here any failures in that where u getting all your info on failures comanche they ended program about a year and a half ago saying it wasnt worth the money the XM8 did have failures i havent been following up on OICW looks to bulky i dont care all the elctronic crap it has in it if its that big and the body armor sounds cool if they can make it work and does that mean the hole vest will become hard on impact or just the area where the bullet hit and the XM312 think of how much more damage a squad could do with a 50 cal machine gun in there squad rather than a SAW yes its eavier than a SAW but it could rip apart juast about anything short of armored transports all the new technologies are much better than the old yes the are expensive but i still think we shouldnt fall back on older weapons cant let europe catch up cause america is being cheap for instance the land warrior system will change urban warfare well 4 us atleast and the F22 almost a billion per aircraft can take on anything in the air and multiple bogies and not even be seen on Radar the armor looks good if they can make it if u can have 360 degree protection minus ur face im planing on joing the special forces once im 18 yes im a kid i got abot 2 years and i dont want to have old handmi down weapons if u have looked on the tv lately we are becoming the police of the world and police should not have out of date weapons like 30’s when cops were fighting the mob with revolvers against tommy guns until they evened out the playing feild well war isnt supposed to be fare weapons need to be able to kill as many enemies as possible as quickly as possible and the newer weapons are the way to go we are testing a machine gun that can fire 1 million rounds a minute yes that is a horific waste of ammo but its going to be more a phycological weapon like the 10,000 pound bomb is u cant really use that with friendlies near new weapons way to go M4 and M16 are still great weapons but if we are so cutting edge y is half our crap made in or designed in the 60’s yes they have been modified but some things need to be replaced maybe like we did with the F22 rather than phase out all old weapons replace some to better units or SPECIAL FORCES and let the regular infantry still use the older stuff that works for there task
October 13th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
yeh u go travis woooooooo, oh yea and wots dat abooot da britsh main battle tank being the ‘Conqueror’ i fort it was the challenger 2. and besides main battle tanks are sooooooo out of fashion now cos they take too long to get to the battle feild. they have to go by ship which is really slow cos they’re to heavy so trends are goin towards a more smaller lighter tank that can be flown in and faseing out the battle tank. and yeh i think we should update all our wepons.
October 13th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Europe is so busy trying to push for the stupid bullpup design (I could go on for hours about how horrible the bullpup design is) they are not surpassing America. The G36 is an exception. By the way, I didn’t say it was not a good rifle, I said that ‘much better’ than the M4 was a bad description. One author (Fred Pushies) says the comparison is more like ‘the M4 is Ford and the G36 is Chevy.’ They are different and they have their strong and weak points. But the G36 is not ‘better’ than the M4 and there is not reason that it should replace the M4. The Mk14 EBR is about the same size and weight as the regular M14, just with a synthetic stock, rail system, and an adjustable butt. The Land Warrior and the XM312, according to a former marine and a former special forces soldier I spoke with, cause much more destraction than is necessary. They work marvalously in simulations, but require a lot of thinking when bullets are flying by you and are WAY more expensive than what even we can afford. For the XM312, a microchip in every round??? That would have costed a fortune, and probably would not have improved our warfare all that much. The only thing we need are guns that when you pull the trigger, they go bang, they kill the bad guy, and they save the life of our boys. Remember, the more things you bring into combat, the more things will fail in combat.
October 13th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
crap i didnt here about that micro chip being in that ya thats a waste there putting technology into too many things and u mean the L85 british royal infantry weapon right when u said they were pushing 4 a bullpup o did u here about the DARPA race a couple of unmanned and un assisted vechiles(cars) made it through the rigorous terrain and stanford university won so there now going to make vechiles that all u have to do is plug in the GPS coordinates and it can traverse the terrain with no outside help
October 14th, 2005 at 9:48 am
unmanned vehicles I do think are a good idea. They are nothing new, of course, bomb squads have been using them for years. The arial ones are newer though, and they have saved many lives (Read about Operation: Anaconda). When I say bullpup, I mean the L85, the FAMAS, the Steyr AUG, the SAR21, the TAR21, the F2000, etc. The L85 is a poor rifle in general, I understand, and it doesn’t help that it’s bullpup. The Steyr and the FAMAS are both supposed to be pretty reliable at least, but that still does not save them from the fact that they are not very versitile in CQB. The F2000 is supposed to have some kind of forward ejection with the spent casings being pushed down an ejection tube to the front, but that sounds like a jamming problem in the making to me. The concept of a bullpup is like the concept of communism: It sounds like a good idea, but we do not posess the means to make it work.
October 15th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Talking about the AUG and L85, arent those weapons really acurate. For example when the british put the L85 in service they had to change there marksmanship course due to the gun. Also here’s something i know is that the Bullpop designed weapons are really stupid to reload. You have to place the weapon in a unnaturaul position to reload unlike the M4 which is easy to and feels naturaul, maybe the soldiers keep practicing until the unnaturaul movement becomes naturaul. Its all in the head. Ithink we should stay with the weapons we have, all we have to do is just update them into the times. Theres no point of completely designing a new weapon And one more thing does anyone know what kind of ppl actually design the weapons cause i think the weapons should be designed by soldiers not pencil pushes. But hey i could be wrong maybe some of the new guns are made by soldiers.
October 15th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
ya they L85 and all bull pup weapons are really accurate because of the longer barrel i have a spring L85 airsoft its a pain to load u have to put the gun up in the air or in weird angles to load it that could get u killed in a fast fire situation like room clearing I can load my M4 so fast click mag release magazine falls to ground grab next mag load just a second or so and i can fire again bull pups arent worth the accuracy the only bull pup design gun that is any good is the P90 sub machine gun it fires a 5.7 bigger than a standard m16 round but less powder and it loads on the top kinda wierd but its powerful and accurate for a sub machine gun they need to make another .45 cal sub machine gu like the thompson
October 15th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
They should make a MP5 in .45cal just like the UMP.
October 16th, 2005 at 2:16 am
yaa forgot about UMP but havent u guys heard of cops having problems using a 9mm round and having people where light body armor or them being just like high and not going down
October 16th, 2005 at 4:28 am
does anyone know wot type of leval of pretection the infantry soldier is wearing, cos i didnt think it could stop a AK round (7.62).and that round it much bigger and better than the M16 round (5.56) and most western countrys use this 5.56 round when all the poor countrys use the 7.62 . dont u think we should change or upgrade?
October 16th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
well unless im wrong it seems u no nothing about guns and c bigger as better the AK cant really hit shit after 50 yards(saw on history channel) so dont tell me about some sniper model anyway and our guys Wear ceramic body armor and Sheets of Steel and that does stop a AK round and also u said alot of the western countrie use them well germany uses the G36 5.56 the british use m16 abd the L85 which are both 5.56 and just about every country in europe uses 5.56 its called the NATO standard for a reason and the reason we use this smaller round is a smaller bullet moving faster is more accurate if we can ingage u at 500 yards and they can only engage at 50 yards hmmm guess who is going to win and if u go online they have comercials for body armor on some sites where the guy puts the muzzle of a AK 47 to his vest and fires and comes out with a bruise a regular police officer vest cant stop a AK but the SWAT’s can and since the north hollywood shootout cops have a m16 in the car and a shotgun so i think that the 5.56 round wins and also it gives less recoil allowing for more rapid fire kept on target i saw a AK fire in full auto on tv in slow motion the gun shakes violently becuase of its heavy construction there is a massive steel bolt flying back that actually made then gun bend or buckle while he was firing the 7.62 is made for a machine gun y the m14 rifle being a great rifel could not go full auto with out massive recoil y they have been converted into snipers the M21=semi M14 with scope
October 16th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
i herd that the xm8 has paused in development now and they are rethinking it all now. but still the best assalt rifal has to be the FN SCAR anyway.
October 16th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
ya they paused development because of the melting issue, i dont like the SCAR
October 17th, 2005 at 8:34 am
yeah i heard the the XM8 might be compatible with the 7.62 rounds and the world for known 5.56 nato round. Im not sure but ive been seen several docos about it. Oh yeah isnt the FN SCAR a 7.62 rifle.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:37 am
The SCAR-H will be chambered for the 7.62mm. The SCAR-L will be chambered for the 5.56, but will be able to be converted to 7.62×39mm or 5.45mm if needed for a special mission. Also, it will be able to be converted to 6.8mm should the military lean that way, but that is looking more and more unlikely. Travis, your right, it doesn’t matter how big the bullet is if you can’t hit the target. One should not be firing on full auto anyway. They should take single shots or double taps if absolutly neccessary. the 7.62×39 round is bigger, but it does have as devestating an effect on flesh as the 5.56, and it is very inaccurate (it has a rainbow-like trajectory). The 5.56 has a flat trajectory. Thus, generally speaking, the 5.56 is much more effective, which is why most of the devloped world uses that and why the 7.62 is so cheap.
October 17th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
ok so the 7.62 is crap but i read that the 6.8 newly devloped round is very good its like got better power with out the added weight so i think the US gov should adopt it.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:04 am
hey isnt the 5.6 round quiet good too. im not saying it should be adopted to assult rifles but im just sayin the 5.6 round quiet good.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
we already use the 5.56 i dont think 4 100ths is going to make a new bullet great so i doubt there switching to that and the heavyier the round the more powder it takes to move that round fast enough to be effective it would be like the 7.62 inless more powder was added and giving a greater kick back so guys stop throwing round sizes out there and saying there good :) the chinese has a gun that is a 6. something dont member but its chinese any one seen the aicw the australians are making that thing looks awesome its like the oicw made on a AUG
October 19th, 2005 at 2:57 am
the round what i was talking about is i was refering to the 5.7 round, the round that is used by the P90.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:02 am
Ive seen the AICW, it looks kinda too big especially the butt stock is massive.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:03 am
It is pretty much a AUG with a big ass butt stock and a grenade launcher on top.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:44 am
The 5.7 round is not very effective I hear. It is good for piercing body armor, but not much else. The P90 is nothing more than a PDW. The 6.8 adding power without adding weight? The main problem the military has with the 6.8 is that it adds weight and size without a significant increase in terminal ballistics!
October 19th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
and another point to support the 5.56 the reason the army picked it in the 60’s was so that it is contolable under full automatic have u seen the M14 ok i heard a joke about it, first shot dead on on 2nd shot a couple inches up and much after that its a Anti aircraft gun :) the AK i watched fire in slow mo its body buckles during every shot becuase of the sheer force of the round and all of the heavy parts it takes to control that recoil the 5.56 is probably the best round out its in all of the leading military powers weapons and is very accurate an still can take some one down yes if u think about it its just a .22 like that little rifle u shot as a kid the m16 is a .223 not really a change but its a .22 on steroids its so fast and accurate that it rips threw u so u dont need the heavy slug and less weight per round means u can take more ammo with u to battle more ammo=good if u have followed up on vietnam the soldiers had to ditch food into combat and could be ther for days just to get more ammo so i like the 5.56 and i think its here to stay
October 20th, 2005 at 2:04 am
5.56 is hear to stay for a long time.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
I’ve shot both. Yes, the full auto thing was part of the reason early on, but have you even ever fired a .223? It has light kick, but you can’t fire with any degree of accuracy if you’re spraying on full auto. Besides, one bullet is enough in most cases. Our riflemen are usually taught to fire single shots or double taps and rely on the SAWs and M240s for full auto support. The .308, I admit, does have some kick to it, and in full auto from a rifle as light as the M14 (which isn’t exactly light by today’s standards) it is pretty uncontrolable. However, it is no problem in single shot; In my first time shooting, it took me an averege of only a second to recover and fire another accurate shot at 75 yards, and only about three seconds to recover at 175 yards. It is a great DMR round, although I would not issue it enmass to troops who have to deal with CQB. The .223 is best for that. For long range sniping though, even the .308 may be a bit lacking. The SEALs use Remington 700s chambered for the .300 Winchester magnum (have not fired it yet), and many precision shooters really like that round. However, because of it’s power, it wears out barrels very quickly and is hard to practice with because of its tremendous recoil, so we will see the .308 for years to come as well.
October 21st, 2005 at 7:11 am
Hey im just wondering what is the best sniper out on the market or what do you recommend ?
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:54 am
um for civilians a M24 is good and if its legal where u are i like the look of the M21 that m14 sniper and is this for recreation or hunting
October 22nd, 2005 at 5:53 am
most likely both hunting and recreation
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:20 pm
id say get a m24 i think its a 7.62 so u could take some pretty good game I dont hunt not that im against just My Dad wont get a sniper rifle and dont buy those ghille suits that look like leafy jackets they look stupid and are expensive go on ebay and they have a full ghille suit that looks really good for 120-150 depending on what u want
October 23rd, 2005 at 12:26 am
Don’t think of in terms of the ‘best’ sniper rifle. it depends on the shooter preference. If you are going to buy a rifle for hunting, do yourself a BIG favor, and don’t shell out the exorbanite amount of money for an M24; Get a Remington 700, which is the rifle on which the M24 is based. While an M24 goes for up to $4000, the 700 goes for (depending on the model) $500-1500. It is one of the most popular bolt-action rifles in the world and for a good reason. Plus, you can get it chambered in .243, .308, 30.06, and even .300 Win mag. And don’t buy a semiauto (or self-loader as many call it) for hunting. A lot of states don’t allow them for hunting. You could, I suppose, but why take the chance? Oh, and if you want a list of good sniper rifles, here’s some: Bolt-action: M24 M40A1 L96A1 Remington 700 magnum Springfield 1903 (good luck finding one of those!) Semi-auto: SR-25 (Mk11 Mod1) AR-10(T) M21 M25 FAL (match grade)
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:18 pm
ya like i said i dont hunt and had no idea how expensive a m24 is and the M21 i said is cool i havent fired a m21 samn assualt rifle ban
October 24th, 2005 at 2:41 am
Ok cool thanks
October 24th, 2005 at 4:35 am
whats you people think of the the L96 snipeing rifle? (or the L115A1 virsion av a look for it)
October 24th, 2005 at 7:00 am
the L96 looks really cool. I think ive seen that gun in the movie ‘Sniper 3′
October 24th, 2005 at 11:18 am
The L96 is the standard sniper rifle for the British. It’s a fine rifle. There were a few complaints about it, but not too many. Like the M24, it was built with a possible conversion to magnum cartridges in mind. Travis, actually now that the assault ban is dead and gone (and hopefully will be now that we have some good justices on the supreme court), you can buy the M21 for about $3000. For about $1000 less, you can get the M1A National Match, which is pretty much a civilian version of the M21.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:48 am
is there a way to make your on ghillie suit.
October 25th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
ya u buy like a kit and pack it urself so u go where u normally would be pick up brush and stuff and make it and u can also unpack it if u go to another location
October 30th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Has anyone noticed that H&K removed the XM8 from their page a LONG time ago? Does this mean that it is officially dead, or that they are gearing up for a name change (meaning that it was adopted)? A brief not on where I stand of the XM8 issue, this was the first page that I’ve seen that has had bad reviews of the XM8, so I’m still in favor of it. One of the greatest problems with the M16 in Vietnam was that the grime of the battle field destroyed the insides of it. The XM8 on the other hand has been through tests that have repeatedly buried in dirt and sand and soaked in water and still functioned normally. With that much of an advantage over the M16, I don’t see what consequence (other than money) could lead to the conclusion that we should stick with the M16.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:51 am
well if you read threw all the comments on this page u would see the major problem apparently the gun started to MELT under heavy fire condititons so when a trooper is in a firefight putting clip after clip down range the gun will melt and the reall reason the m16 jammed all the time in vietnam is because the US ARMY trying to save money switched the type of powder the m16 was designed for and the powder they used was real dirty so it was exactly the environment that was a factor but the powder change was the main problem
October 31st, 2005 at 12:07 am
Its about time we got back onto the XM8 topic. lols
October 31st, 2005 at 1:36 am
I have to admit that I did not read all of them, but I did read most. I did see the argument that they would melt, but somewhere, I thought I remembered seeing that someone gave evidence showing that they did not. I may be mistaken. I also vagely remember something about the powder in Vietnam, but I recently saw on the History channel that the main reason that the M16 did not do well was because of the environment over there, that the tests for the gun were done in pristine conditions but that the dirt (and other forms of it) would jam and ‘dirty’ the gun to make the barrel and magazine extremely dangerous, but this time not to the target. The powder probably did have a key factor (I’m assuming that they have changed that by now?) but I just wanted to state my source. One more thing about the heat of the XM8, I remember that the demonstrations for it specifically noted the holes on the sides (which, for some reason, I don’t see in the above pictures) were placed to allow for the escape for heat and that the ‘plastic’ (as I can’t remember the actual material) was treated and made to resist heat. I will have to do some further research to state my sources for this information.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:55 am
just a recap on a comment b4, i quote ’soldiers are taught to shoot in single fire or double taps’. But in cloose combat situations, a full auto m4/m16 would be great but i think most ppl already know that, that its best to use a full auto in cloose combat situations and single or double tap for medium to long range combat. I could be wrong. im no expert yet.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:59 pm
well over course its better to be auto in close quaters u open the door and hammer the guy on the other side and if lets say u turn a corner and its a long hall way or a window and ur being shot from far away u can still tap the trigger and only fire 1 to a few rounds Delta force trains always on auto and they tap it for long distance sots i read that in the book written by cournal beckwith who started delta omg now were gona have to site all our work on here :)
October 31st, 2005 at 9:19 pm
isnt delta force the best special forces in the world.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:14 am
Hey guys: A) Stop focusing on the melted handguard. They fixed that a long time ago. B) The OICW-1 solicitation was just cancelled: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002960.html
November 1st, 2005 at 9:32 pm
yes they are navy seals are normally said to be the best in the world but seals can be recruited into delta sooo wat does that mean i think that delta can recruit from all services
November 1st, 2005 at 10:18 pm
sounds like the XM8 was slowed or stopped because colt has some prior agreement with the army saying that they will try to use colt for all the small arms needs MO i read alot of ur other Xm8 posts :) and if u think about it airsoft and video games familarizes kids with the guns of tommorow and alot of games are puting the Xm8 in there games i personally like the look and from wat i hear its gona be a great gun and im already use to the M4 with my airsoft gun so if anything the goverment needs to get there new assualt rifles into the airsoft and video game franchises :) i mean i think that i saw that 30% of seals now joined because of the video game SOCOM us navy seals and AA must be getting some into the army so video games must be doing something right i dont like the gun they want to use instead i think its called the sraw looks like a 552
November 1st, 2005 at 11:43 pm
There are quiet alot of games which feature alot of realistic battles (First person games). Peopl normally that are really intrested in that kind of stuff like the Tom Clancys Rainbow six franchise. That involves alot of tactics and is really close to the real thing. SO ppl that enjoy that kind of rush or what ever will join the real thing. But one concern most ppl have is that the person who played these kind of games may think that war in general is like a game and may have stupid thoughts or ideas on how war is thought out.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:27 am
yes they are navy seals are normally said to be the best in the world but seals can be recruited into delta sooo wat does that mean i think that delta can recruit from all services’ I’m sorry, but that is completely untrue. For a SEAL to go Delta, he would would have to put in a service transfer request, get it approved, and go through the SF pipeline just like anyone else. It wouldn’t matter if you were a former SEAL or a former Navy cook, if you want to try something else in another service, and you can pass all the quals and tests, you can do it. By the same token, if a former soldier wanted to be a SEAL, he could transfer services and go through BUD/S etc, but the SEALs would not recruit him directly. Everyone in Delta is a soldier, and everyone in the SEALs is a sailor. Specialoperations.com says differently (’Not all SEALs are Navy, just like not all Delta operators are Army’) but that’s false. ‘well over course its better to be auto in close quarters’ Some troops prefer it, but actually, it’s discouraged. As former ST-3 Commander said, ‘If you place the first round properly, you don’t need a second round. If you need one, fire again.’ ‘People normally that are really intrested in that kind of stuff like the Tom Clancys Rainbow six franchise. That involves alot of tactics and is really close to the real thing.’ Involves realistic tactics, yes. Close to the real thing, no. ‘airsoft and video games familarizes kids with the guns of tommorow and alot of games are puting the Xm8 in there games i personally like the look and from wat i hear its gona be a great gun’ Airsoft, I must say, does give a realistic layout of a gun, but it in no way familiarizes anyone with shooting the real thing. There is little in the way of recoil, and not nearly, if any, of the cleaning and maintenance that goes into keeping the real thing in working order. Nothing against it, I like airsoft myself. ‘alot of games are puting the Xm8 in there games i personally like the look and from wat i hear its gona be a great gun’ A lot of games are still putting in the OICW as well, and that is completely dead. In videogames, guns do not jam, and even if they do, remember, it’s because the programmer put that option in the game as challenge. In real life, a jam is an unplanned problem with multiple solutions. In SOCOM 3, the XM8 is a great weapon that does not jam and does not melt. But that’s because it’s a videogame. ’sounds like the XM8 was slowed or stopped because colt has some prior agreement with the army’ Actually, FN USA makes almost all the M16A2-A4s. Most of the M4s, however, are made by Colt. Colt, HK, and FN are actually all competeing right now. By the way, the reason for the problem with the early M16s was not the environment, it was because Defense Secretary McNamara ordered them issued before they were totally complete, and then refused to spend any more money to improve the defective rifles or the bad ammo. For him, it was all about contracts and he really did not care about what our troops were carrying. But you’re right about that, Travis, the Army was not going to make that mistake again with the XM8.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:54 pm
and they fixed the melting problem and ya Colt signed a agreement with the army in 1997 stating they had to go threw colt if at all possible to get there small arms and i like for close quaters the G36c 2 bullet burst and ya the only game i know of that guns jam is AA(americas army) and there is no cleaning that is true but would anyone buy a game if they had to spend a simulated 30 minutes to clean there weapon B4 socom 2 came out on the internet they had a mini game where u hade to put to gether a M4 it was like 20 or so parts the Xm8 i saw taken apart army times and it has so few parts
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:11 am
Michael, it was a few posts back, but when you say full auto, I’m assuming that you actually mean a 6-10 round burst. A soldier is not going to empty his/her entire magazine on the first go. They are going to use a controlled rate of fire. The only place that you are going to throw lead for a longer period of time is if you are in an APC, riding through an alley that has more insurgents than rats (or visa versa, depending on your definitions) and are the one manning the M249 with a box mag. But even that will be 20-30 round bursts. And actually, I can’t think of a place where you would use only single or double taps. If the enemy is beyond CQB range, you have three options: 1. step aside and let the sniper take the shot 2. move closer 3. use 3/6/10 round bursts to try to make a hit. In a previous post, it was discussed that the M16 was not built for range, but for a more rapid firepower. Guns that would be aided by a double tap would be pistols (as you need to conserve ammo, no matter what tv shows you of someone burning through their entire clip and pulling out yet another) and 9mm CQB weapons such as the MP5 series (as the soldiers who use that style of weapon are going to need to rely on quick, efficient and quite kills that will not drain their ammo supply, resulting in few reloads). Having never actually been in these situations (other than airsoft, but as someone said, that doesn’t really count) I can’t speak for everyone in every event. But this seems the most logical to me. Oh, and I’m very sad about losing the XM8. To me, it looked very promising. Hopefully I can get an XM8 aeg some time MUCH later in life, and just hang in on my wall.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:39 am
oh yeah next time i should be more specific on how much rounds are actually shot in auto. thanks for that.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:48 am
the M16 was built for range that y we train at hitting targets at 500m and it was not really meant as a automatic machine gun but it works so well because of how light it is so there isnt much kick back atleast that is for the vietnam m16
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Even at 75 meters, it’s hard to hit your target if you try and burst. I shot an M16A2 (real, not airsoft) rapid fire (that is, single shot but with rapid target aquisition) at that range and was 23 for 32. I then shot precision (took careful aim and fired) at that range and was 30 for 32. Then, amazingly, I was 32 for 32 at 175m (of course, this was because by then I was warmed up). Another guy tried shooting the M16 on burst, and he was only something like 13 for 32. He then tried firing precision and was 26 for 32. Compared to many combat rifle rounds, the 5.56 has light recoil. But, really all that means is it doesn’t hurt your shoulder as much or as fast as, say, the 30.06, and your recovery time is quicker. But, remember, it still is a powerful round, and it kicks. I didn’t dare try it on burst, it would have been pointless. Consider this: In WWII, the number of rounds fired per enemy killed was about 10,000. In Vietnam, with our new select fire M16s, the number of rounds per enemy killed was about 200,000!
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:42 pm
i remeber seeing something on the internet saying that those numbers include ALL machine guns fired by personel which means helcopter mini guns m60’s and all the rifles fired in combat and if u watch some vietnam footage they werent even aiming they were sticking the gun over the trench and sprayin and those mini guns in helicopters were just spraying in the jungle where infantry were claiming to be fired at from those numbers have signifacently dropped since vietnam but not if they actually use that machine gun that fires 1 million rounds a minute :)
November 4th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Well, it looks like there are at least 2 people here who watch Mail Call (PaulCG and travis) as they both made comments that came from the show a few nights ago… And, call me crazy, but I consider 75m to still be in CQB range. And in most battles *today*, when will the target be 175m away and it not be advantagous/safe to get closer? It is possible, but from what I’ve seen and read, most battles are much closer. Michael, I’m not going to assume that your comment was an attmept to be sacrastic, but it is hard to tell. Written corespondence is the most difficult way to communicate as most of our language is conveyed through facial expressions, tone and ‘body language’. If your remark was not intended to be sarcastic, try to write it next time in an overly monotone voice (hopefully you can hear that in my writing) so that all of the context is found in the diction, not the syntax. How does this relate to military arms? Well, I prefer to over simplify my methods so that fewer things will go wrong. This means that I prefer smaller and controllable weapons such as pistols and sub-machine guns such as the MP5 series and other related styles. Why over-do the system and make it more complicated than it has to be? Preferably, all of incounters should be in a 35-50mm window at a great distance. One shot (and with a frangible round) one kill. Very simple and neat. (Yes, the firing process at that great of a distance is somewhat complicated, but you can take the decision of whether or not to fire one shot at a time, as opposed to many holes, many bodies, many questions, few answers. And how does this relate to the XM8, the topic of this ‘forum’? No clue.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Well, yes, I did watch that episode, but I already knew that bit of information prior from talking to some vets and reading. It was just fresh in my mind from Mail Call. Other than the fact that the XM8 might not get much further than it is now, there’s nothing new to talk about. But still, it’s related since we are discussing elements such as proper fire control, CQB, etc. Things that weapon developers themselves discuss.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
ok wjen ur in the middle of a desert engagement ranges can get pretty far, out there but seeing as the AK has no real range capability yes all battles are close in but i my convoy got attacked and that man was holding a AK47 im not gonna want a mp5 9mm rounds can be stopped quite easily with some primative body armor id much rather have a m4 with a retractable stock it is pretty small compact and still has the range if needed
November 5th, 2005 at 3:49 am
Hey B i didnt mean to sound sarcastic sorry.
November 5th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
I figured it was just a misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up Mike. Travis, I agree that when body armor comes into play, the stronger the firepower the better, at any range. But I was just saying that I personally prefer a smaller more controllabe round and get in close enough to make the shots count.
November 6th, 2005 at 1:22 am
ya that is true also diffrent perspectives we are both looking at but from what ive seen a m4 isnt very hard to control as long as ur not spraying ya i dont know why i remebered this but the american tank officers were mad that the saudi officers were issued a Mp5 and the american officers in the tanks only got a pistol so if there tank was hit they were pretty much screwed like i said i dont know y i membered that
November 6th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
yeah, I was mostly referring back to the comment made earlier (Oct. 31) by Mike when he said that M4s were best in full auto in a CQB situation. I was just trying to say that full auto is rarely a great idea (on the History channel yesturday, they called this ’spray and pray’) as it is seldomly under control. Then we got off onto the topic that the M16 has a ‘good’ range. I then said that in most cases, it is better to get closer and make better shots than to stay far away and dump a lot of lead. The only reason that I could see that you would again switch topics to what you just said is that your comment constains the MP5 (though you did not give the end designation. I prefer the SD6.)
November 6th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Anyway… It’s too bad that the XM8 was canceled. I could see it as being a mediator between the M4 and the MP5. (or at least between the machine and sub-machine gun styles)
November 6th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
so is the xm8 project truely canceled forever now then ?
November 6th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
no not nessicarily what happened was is that colt flashed a contract saying the army has to use them for small arms purchases so what there doing is having colt make a gun comprable to the XM8 and having them face off like the f22 and f23 there going to have tests to see which is better but i hope the XM8 wins it has been in development for a cuple years and what a waste of money it would be to just scrap it like the commanche and the OICW they have a working product and becuase they feel it is not practical they just scrap it rather than try to find a use for it
November 6th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
No actually what happened was after the whole melting plastic thing, the XM8 was ordered back to the drawing board. There’s no word on what exactly it or any other competitor’s status is, but I have a tendancy to doubt that it will be adopted at least within the next three years. ‘M4s were best in full auto in a CQB situation. I was just trying to say that full auto is rarely a great idea’ True, it’s hard enough to double tap let alone spray effectively. With training it becomes easier, but still, there’s no need. You have your SAWs for spraying. Riflemen need to be taking out point targets.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:39 am
thanks, have u seen that new H&K416 rifal. its looks pretty good on the spec and the stock looks alot like the m4’s. i think its said to be a possable replacement for the m16/m4 because it has improved all the faults of the prevouse colt weapons and its shorter than the m4 its self (personaly i prefer the look of the xm8 and the xm8 had the complete set with it e.g granade laurncher, saw and co. anyway check this rifal out where i saw it at that world.guns web site.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Right now, the HK416 is competing with the FN SCAR for the affections of SOCOM with the SCAR having a slight edge because it was introduced first. I’m not sure if the 416 will be distributed on a service-wide basis, but it certainly is possible. Personally, I believe we need to stop relying on foreign-based companies and give companies such as Colt, Robinson, Armalite, and Springfield more of a chance. It’s strange because most of H&K’s modern designs are American based (The G36, HK416, and XM8’s AR-18 system is American). Oh, and I would say give Colt back the rights to the M16.
November 7th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
ok 1 they fixed the melting problem a long time ago and it was up and running and then colt shut them down (the melting did not close the project) 2 H&K made there m16 version rifle becuase they stole the plans of the m4 and said it was pretty much the same and got sewed 4 it 3 u cant just take the rights of the m16 away from colt they had to of sold the rights
November 8th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Colt has the rights to the M4, FN has rights to the M16A2, and many of the rifles being issued are made by FN and the others made by Colt.
November 8th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
ok so FN made the M16a2 after colt made the M16 for vietnam?
November 9th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
The Colt M16A2s are actually converted A1s. The FN ones were made directly into the A2 configuration. All M16A2s made after 1988 are FN.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
ok thanks i knew what a A2 was but didnt know that FN owned the rights who is making the A4 model i here that it might have automatic
November 9th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
The M16A4 is basically the same thing as the A2 except that it has a rail system, detachable carry handle, and full auto instead of 3 round burst. It’s also, to my knowledge, being manufactured by FN USA, but that could change. It’s really new, I think only about two or three years old. When the rest of the military was putting serious consideration into the XM8, the Marines quickly said ‘No way’ and chose the M16A4 instead. From what I understand, most of the regular units are following suit.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:45 am
reason being is that the XM8 is a specialized expensive carbine and for regular forces who want the range of weight are gonna stear clear of the XM8 but special forces units will probably go for it or the damn scar rifle
November 11th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
SOCOM was the second organization after the Marines to reject the XM8, saying they would either stick with the M4 or look for a new rifle rather than go with the XM8. The XM8 was originally intended to be the standard issue weapon, replacing the M16 series servicewide. It was SOCOM and the USMC’s rejections that began the unraveling of the all but certain XM8 adoption. The main problem was not as much the plastic melting as much as it was the fact that the XM8 was not enough of an improvement to justify it replacing the M16 series of rifles. If it was, the melting plastic could have easily been corrected. Right now, I think (though I’m not sure) the SCAR is only being considered by USASOC; there’s no word on NSW or AFST’s stance on the weapon.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
ya the Xm8 isnt much better than the M4 and they would have to replace all the m16s so ya that is true but its kinda waste of money cause of all the funds we put into it and then just dropped it i dont like the scar
November 12th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
its kinda waste of money cause of all the funds we put into it and then just dropped it’ That’s better than spending another few billion to reequip our entire military. At least it was stopped now. What our Defense Department needs to do is learn how to be good stewards with the tax payers’ money. I mean, they spent over a billion trying to develop the OICW, but that would have just been a drop in the bucket. Do you know the estimated price of one XM29 OICW rifle? $35,000 a rifle! Compare that to the…I believe $800 for the M16. So that billion was an acceptable loss, because it could have, and would have been a lot worse. I’m not nuts about the SCAR myself. For one thing, it’s ugly. That’ll probably change as it gets closer and closer to adoption…and there’s the second thing. As time went by with the XM8, I heard more and more about it. I heard a bit about the SCAR and that’s it. So I’m wondering if that program is still going. A Green Beret I talked to said that the SCAR, if as it is being said is based on the FAL, it should be a good weapon. But how much better than the M16 series it will be, if better at all, waits to be seen. There has been talk about complete replacement of the M4 in Army SOF units already, but considering the fact that the weapon is not much out of its conceptual stages makes me wonder if that’s manufacturer propaganda. I could be very wrong about this, but I don’t think the SCAR is going to make it.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Hey i think some body already posted this but anyway here it is again but the FN-SCARl and the H model have won a competition which determined what weapon would be used for special forces in 2006 or maybe at the end of this year.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:47 am
I think it was SOCOM who choose the FN_SCAR
November 15th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
They won the competition, but recently, H&K has been pushing for their 416, and Colt is still pushing the M4 with upgrades (such as a short stroke piston). All things considered, we won’t know until our SOF guys are actually taking it into combat. And I’m not sure if it was SOCOM as a whole, I think it was Army SOC only. But a weapon that is officially out of service often pops up in SOF. Look at the M14: It’s now officially issued once again in new configurations, but it never left service with SOCOM units. And believe it or not, a few SF A-Teams used H&K G3 rifles, which were never issued officially. I have a tendency to think that the M4 is going to be the same way. It may be unofficial, but if it performs the same role as the SCAR and is compatible with it (that is, can change ammo and magazines with the SCAR) we might not see it die as quickly as the Pentagon claims.
November 24th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Hey how come no one has posted anything lately.
November 25th, 2005 at 2:40 am
life got in the way and i hate the SRAW it looks so gay but when they make a gun its not all for looks but like all the best guns looks so cool XM8 M4 M14(wood) i mean the sraw looks so chunky
November 27th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
As many of you have remarked, the main problem with the 5.56 in the M4 is barrel length, or rather, lack of it. The 5.56 cartridge is relatively over-bore; it needs a relatively long barrel to reach the design velocity of the little bullet. A long barrel in a conventionally designed rifle however results in a long long weapon, i.e. the M16. The solution is to go to a bull-pup design with an 18-20 inch barrel. They’re ugly but more and more armies are switching to them and excellent ones are available, for instance the Steyr AUG. The new FN 2000 may possibly be the best of the current crop of bull-pups.
November 28th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I will sum this up in the words of a ex-SF major as well as my own: Bullpups suck. First off, they are not ambidexterous. (You can only shoot right handed. If you want to shoot left, you need to convert the ejection port…something you can’t do in combat) Changing the magazines take a lot longer time…time is not something one usually has in battle. They are back heavy and very uncomfortable. They look great on paper and theory, but they have never proven to work in combat. Wessels, actually, more and more armys are moving AWAY from the bullpup. The Brits are looking at a G36 varient or maybe an FNC. France’s special ops (haha, I know) usually operate with the SIG 550 or 551, and if I’m not mistaken, the Austrians are using more Germany weapons now. No, you will probably not see too much in the way of bullpup weapons here in the US.
November 29th, 2005 at 2:32 am
but you gotta give the Bullpup design some credit, it does have good acuracy because of the barrel length. If u know what i meaan.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:53 am
i checked out that FN 2000 and i must admit it does look pretty good on paper, and dam good looks wize. but then again i do agree with paul about bullpulps are the not the easyest weapon to reloadin a hurry , but this one does look very compact i meen its the roughly the size of like an G36k carbine.
November 30th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
True, the F2000 is extremely compact. However, it is so compact that it has a shortened, carbine length barrel as well. So you wouldn’t have the ‘rifle in a carbine package’ deal with that weapon. Yes, bullpups are accurate, that is an upside. However, in combat you need a combination of accuracy and versitility. Also, a few of them have non-shooting related problems as well. The L85 has a rap sheet a mile long, the SAR-21 has issues with it’s optics, as does the TAR-21. Many armies have expriemented with the design, and most of them have found it unsuited to the needs of today’s soldier. The bullpup design is nearly sixty years old, and it still has the same problems that it had when the concept began in the 1940s.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
French spec ops haha but anyway ya i have a L85 airsoft gun the thing is a pain to reload especaially when ur being shot at
December 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Think about that when things flying your way aren’t little green plastic BBs and are 123gr 7.62mm M1943 rounds. They do a little more than just sting! So pump up your airsoft stress to about one hundred. And also realize that your L85 airsoft has probably not taken as much abuse as a real one in the hands of a British soldier, and is probably a bit lighter too! The bullpup is a failed design because it was designed specifically for versitility and that is it’s main drawback…lack of!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:57 pm
I agree with most of the comments on bull-pups. The balance is awkward, magazine changes are slow, they tend to bang in your ears and you must have reliable optics; the sight base is too short for open sights. They are also not ambidexterous or have to be changed in the field to switch them from left hand to right hand use. (The FN 2000 is fully ambidexterous by the way; it ejects the cartridge case through a tube next to the barrel). These are however the sacrifices you have to make if you want a compact weapon and you want to use a small, high velocity bullet that needs a relatively long barrel to get up steam, such as the 5.56. Cartridges in which the calibre is larger and the case capacity to calibre ratio is smaller than that of the 5.56 round tend to work better in short-barrelled weapons. A case in point is the 6.8 SPC. I do not for one moment believe that the US will switch to the 6.8 round however. It will be hideously expensive and NATO will bitch like hell! If you stay with the 5.56 round, the only way to get decent performance out of a compact weapon is a bull-pup, whether we like it or not.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
The 5.56 from a 14.5 inch barrel is still satisfactory, especially in the 70 grain load. The effective range (that is, where the bullet will reliably fragment) is still somewhere between 150-250 meters. The 20 inch barrel extends that range to about 300-350 meters. Considering that most engagements take place between 50 and 150 meters, the effective range on our M4s is still decent. Anything beyond that would (or should) be handled by a marksman, armed with an M14 series rifle, or a even an M16A4. Despite what you may read in some magazines, according to soldiers, the performance does not drop dramatically. Noticeably, but not dramatically. Cons of a bullpup far outweight the pros. Just like the bullpup, the 6.8’s performance is also an issue, not just the money. It’s TB, although good on paper, is still not much better than the 5.56 in combat, and the accuracy is deminished as well. Plus, it would be much heavier and bulky to carry. Once again, the pros outweight the cons. And I frankly don’t trust the forward ejection system of the F2000, it sounds like a jamming problem in the making.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Just like the bullpup, the 6.8’s performance is also an issue, not just the money. It’s TB, although good on paper, is still not much better than the 5.56 in combat, and the accuracy is deminished as well. Plus, it would be much heavier and bulky to carry. Once again, the pros outweight the cons.’ Sorry, I meant that the other way around, cons outweight the pros ;D
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:47 pm
There are now repeated after-action reports coming out of both Afghanistan and Iraq of the failure of 5.56mm ammunition to stop enemy individuals at both long ranges AND ranges under 50 meters, up to pointblank encounters. Too many – far too many to dismiss or sweep under the rug. Men being shot 4-5 times in the torso w/5.56mm and continuing to fight are common, problems are exacerbated by use of the 62-gr. bullet and short barrelled carbines, but not entirely caused by same. The weight advantages of 5.56mm ammunition evaporate when multiple hits are required to down the enemy in enough instances that the round cannot be relied upon to stop an opponent. Many reports of poor penetration of 5.56mm ammuntion compared to 7.62mm x39mm rifles are also being reported. Even use of the special lots of 77-gr. bulleted 5.56mm ammunition are not correcting the problem. The early reports of 5.56mm ammo effectiveness in 1963 Vietnam with the original 1-14′ barreled M-16 by Army Rangers and special forces have now been established to be fraudulent, while poor penetration (failure to penetrate belt buckles, small trunked trees, cigarette lighters in pockets) and inadequate stopping power (multiple hits without visible effect) of the m193 ball cartridge are legendary. History repeats itself. Italy in 1935 found its 162-grain 6.5mm rifle bullet very ineffective against charging Muslims and attempted to change to a 7.35mm unstable (tumbling) bullet design after experimenting with illegal fragmentation designs. Britain tried small calibers at the turn of the last century and instead went to a 7.7mm 174-grain bullet with an unstable (tumbling) design with an aluminum filled-tip to increase stopping power. A farsighted military procurement program will equip its soldiers with rifles suited to the individual enviroment. Intermediate, lighter cartridges of sufficient caliber (7mm and above) may be well suited to jungle and urban fighting, less than adequate for mountain and desert warfare. Shooting distance engagements in Afghanistan have been at up to 400 meters. The terrorists use different infantry small arms optimized for use in different locales and types of operations (day, night, ambush) so should we – no matter the extra cost. A highly trained infantryman is worth more – much more.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
1 airsoft guns are made the same weight and 2 i know i cant compare the sting off a bb to a bullet but im not about to go into a gang war to prove my self k anyway the 5.56 is a accurate bullet and the 7.62(in an AK) is not if we have to hit that man 5 times to kill him and he is spraying and not hitting shit who cares and yes i know the 5.56 is a weak round a .223 those little rifles u played with as kids were .22 and were basecly 3 thousands bigger so the only thing going for it is speed which it has its not like a brute slug like 7.62 but when u have larger ammuntion then u have to carry less so it better be an accurate gun if there switching to heavier ammo the m14 a great gun but we cant really make guns like that any more the army and everyone else want a gun as small and light as possible and also those bigger rounds need stronger guns to take the recoil if ever u watch a AK fire full auto in slow motion on tv the gun buckles now if we put a 7.62 round in a m16(i know u cant) it would probably rip the gun apart and switching to a new round the 6.8 has been a long going debate in this blog it would be so expensive to switch the size of a round like that esspecially wen there pumping out 5.56 rounds for NATO and like all of europe uses 5.56 and 7.62 so america going to the 6.8 round would be like america being the only country not using the metric system o wait we are cause americans are erragant :) im american so nobody reply to that anyway i think we do need to get a more effective bullet in the standard infantry rifle but once again the pros and cons pop up the new rifle is probably gonna be a bullpup design and i think its gonna be that F2000 and also i dont know about those reports from nam lighters blocking bullets sounds like crap to me like the iraq’s when a apache crashed and they say they shot it down with an AK in vietnam the m16 had no real advantages cause we were being ambushed and there was all those trees an m16 cant penetrate a medium sized tree which is really bad this is where we are having problems is jungle warfare in the desert we out range them so we need to hit him 2 3 times and a guy being hit 5 times and still fighting sounds like crap cause 1 they dont really have medics and 5 hits in the stomch ur gonna bleed out pretty fast so check up on ur sources it was probably a cocky soldier who thinks he hit the guy 5 times i mean its not like a movie where rambo takes 3 rounds to the leg and has a slight limp m16 is still better than the AK in my eyes and the carbines should not be taken to a long range firefight only to urban or if u know close quaters is gonna happen
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Where you been Travis? Sounds like you need to read some more after-action reports from the real world. Or learn to use periods. Here’s one of a multitude: ‘On Sept. 12, 2003, after being hit by seven 77-grain 5.56mm bullets, an Iraqi insurgent killed both Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett with his 7.62mm Kalashnikov. Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet.’
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:23 pm
..also i dont know about those reports from nam lighters blocking bullets sounds like crap to me..’ Better go back to paintball guns, Travis. M193 ball was easily stopped by small metal objects, small trees etc. at all velocities and distances. On page 106 of Major Kearney’s book Jungle Snafus there is a photograph of an NVA officer’s cigareete lighter that stopped an M193 M16 bullet cold at close range (-50 meters) when it hit his upper shirt pocket. Penetrated one side and just stopped, with nothing more than a small ding on the far side of the case. Soviet 7.62×39 ball is not nearly so wimply. In Iraq troops are complaining their green-tip SAP 5.56 isn’t penetrating light walls like cinder block while 7.62mm AK rounds are blasting right thru…
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:32 pm
been busy with wrestling practice. and wow they should make bullet proof vest out of zippos then haha wow thats pretty bad. i didnt here about those reports ill try.to.use.more.periods. haha ya ill try to follow up with u guys k.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Wilco, There are reports of insurgents continuing to fight after being hit with 7.62 NATO, 5.45, .45, and even .50 BMG! There are NUMEROUS, and I mean numerous reports and personal testamonies of U.S. soldiers being hit with multiple M1943 rounds and continuing to fight, and living to tell about it. There is a report of a wad of paper in a man’s pocket stopping the M1943! These reports don’t in any way mean that there is a problem with any of the rounds I’ve mentioned. These are anomolies. A lighter stopping a bullet doesn’t mean that the M193 round was too weak, it simply means that NVA officer was one lucky bastard! The same thing with the wad of paper, I wouldn’t expect that to happen twice. Sometimes the shooter just has the wrong angle, a gust of wind comes up unexpectedly, etc. ‘The early reports of 5.56mm ammo effectiveness in 1963 Vietnam with the original 1-14′ barreled M-16 by Army Rangers and special forces have now been established to be fraudulent, while poor penetration (failure to penetrate belt buckles, small trunked trees, cigarette lighters in pockets) and inadequate stopping power (multiple hits without visible effect) of the m193 ball cartridge are legendary.’ I know what reports you are referring to. Yes, they were exagerated greatly, but the round was nonetheless effective, just not as effective as originally claimed. I have personal testimony to back that up, as well as testimony from veterens of both Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The modern reports are, unlike the magazines claim, not at all numerous. They are, at best, isolated. Also, remember the after action report from the Marine Corps after the fall of Baghdad. When the 5.56 came into question, the Marines reported that ‘as long as shots were to the chest or head, the insurgent went down.’ Well, naturally! I can’t think a round, and I include the .50 BMG, that will instantly kill you with a shot in the arm! The 7.62×39 is inaccurate and does not penetrate rifle plates as well as the 5.56 M855. Plus, its terminal ballistics are not much better than that of the .30 M1 Carbine round. The 7.62×39 and the 5.56 M855 are actually very close in their penetration. The 6.8’s TB are not much better than that of the 5.56, both on paper and in the field. Despite what you may read, the troops still love the 5.56. And no matter what round is used, there will be multiple reports of it failing to stop an enemy. That’s just war.
December 5th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Good postings PaulCG, both on the bullpup (although I don’t entirely agree) and on the 5.56. I agree with you there. There were also ‘numerous reports’ from both the first and second world wars of soldiers receiving multiple hits from battle rifle rounds and continuing to fight. These actually were isolated incidents which, because they were so rare, were told and retold and became embelished along the way because most of us do not let the truth spoil a good story. These tales then turn into urban legends and soon we have ‘numerous reports’. ‘There are no free rides’, as the saying goes and switching from the 5.56 to a more powerful cartridge will bring certain trade-offs with it; increased ammunition weight and increased recoil being the most important, and there will without any doubt still be reports of people surviving multiple hits. The Operational Research Office of the US Army published a report in 1952 after examination of WW2 combat records and of data emerging from the Korean war. They reported that the average distance of hits from aimed rifle and machine gun fire was at ranges of between 75-100 yards! 80% of hits were achieved at less than 200 yards and 90% at less than 300 yards. At these ranges the 5.56, whether 55gr, 62gr or 75gr against individuals not wearing body armour, is adequate.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
that is true about people exagerating things alot, like soldiers boasting of things they didnt do. The great story of a soldier takeing a bunch of rounds and still going. But I support the 5.56 round since we started this argument it might not be the strongest bullet out there mut its accuracy and how light they are is very intising and we have something most of the countries we go to war with dont have BODY ARMOR. this adds alot to the effectiveness of our soldiers when we can take bullets and they cant ive seen reports where our guys take rounds to the helmet and u c that huge indent in the center does anyone have a idea as to what bullet would be best
December 6th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Despite what you may read, the troops still love the 5.56. That’s not what I ‘read’, that’s what my comrades in-arms are telling me. The M855 5.56 is crap, they can’t penetrate cheap single cinder block walls with it, while 7.62mmx39 semi-armor return fire rounds are blasting right through. And it’s not the single accounts of stopping failures, it’s a boatload of them. It’s just not dropping enough of the enemy fast enough to prevent needless casualties.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Another vote for a decently sized caliber. The 5.56 is killing our men thru failure to adequately stop. Major Milavic tells it like it is: The Last ‘Big Lie’ of Vietnam Kills U. S. Soldiers in Iraq August 24th, 2004 At a Vietnam Special Forces base during 1964, I watched a U. S. soldier fire 15 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition into a tethered goat from an AR-15 rifle; moments after the last round hit, the goat fell over. Looking at the dead goat, I saw many little bullet entry-holes on one side; and when we turned him over, I saw many little bullet exit-holes on the other side. Over time, those observations were confirmed and reconfirmed, revealing that the stories we were told on the lethality of the .223 caliber cartridge were fabrications. Those false reports drove the adoption of the .223 caliber cartridge as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and, ever since, Americans have been sent to war with a cartridge deficient in combat lethality; a deficiency that has recently caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. What is efficient combat lethality? The book Black Hawk Down quotes SFC Paul Howe’s description of SFC Randy Shughart, a soldier who elected to carry the 7.62mm M-14 into the urban battlefield of Somalia in 1993 rather than the 5.56mm CAR-15 (M-16-variant): ‘His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down; you don’t want to be guessing for the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he’s still waiting for you in the weeds.’ [1] With the wisdom of a combat veteran, Howe describes the lethality necessary for a cartridge in combat–one-round knockdown power. How did we get from military cartridges with proven one-round knockdown power such as the 30-06 and 7.62mm to the 5.56mm? The journey starts with the term ‘tumbling.’ This term has been associated with the .223 cal./5.56mm cartridge, since early in its marketing as a potential military cartridge to this day. The very word, tumbling, prompts images of a bullet traveling end over end through the human body in 360-degree loops: in reality, it does not move this way at all. Dr. Martin L. Fackler, COL., USA (Ret.) served as a surgeon in Vietnam during 1968 and, subsequently, pursued the research of terminal ballistics by observing the effects of bullets fired into blocks of ballistic gelatin. In ‘Wounding patterns for military rifle bullets,’ he reports the observation that ‘all’ non-deforming pointed bullets–this included the 30-06 and 7.62mm military full-metal jacket bullets–’yawed’ 180 degrees while passing through the gelatin to exit base-forward; i.e., heaviest end forward. The 5.56mm projectile acted in the same manner with a very precise exception: These rounds ‘yawed’ to 90-degrees, and then fragmented at their weakened serrated band (cannelure) into two or more pieces when fired into ballistic gelatin. However, the 5.56mm projectile does NOT always yaw or fragment. Under field conditions, the probability of these effects is reduced by the following factors: –The round strikes the target at less than 2700 feet per second. That velocity is reduced by: the farther the range to the target, the greater reduction in velocity; shortened weapon barrel length as is the case with the shorter M-4 carbine; and/or, manufacturing variances in the cartridge. –Variances in human body thickness and flesh density and consistency. In those cases, the bullet neither yaws nor fragments and causes only a pencil size hole through the body; i.e., small hole in, small hole out. Neither Dr. Fackler nor anyone else has provided any empirical data or estimate on the incidence of the 5.56mm yaw/fragmentation effect on enemy soldiers. Conversely, since first used by Americans in combat, there has been a consistent observation from the field–enemy soldiers continue to fire their weapons after being hit by multiple 5.56mm bullets; evidently, no yaw/fragmentation effect. As is usually the case, a judgment based on lies was to adversely affect those at the ‘pointy end of the spear.’ American warriors reported enemy soldiers continuing to close and fire their weapons after sustaining multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. This happened as early as 9 December 1965 in the official ‘After Action Report of the Ia Drang Valley Operation . . ..’ popularized by the movie and book We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. The commanding officer of the battalion engaged there, Col. Harold G. Moore, USA, writes of assaulting enemy soldiers being hit by 5.56mm rounds: ‘Even after being hit several times in the chest, many continued firing and moving for several more steps before dropping dead.’ [9.] Later in that war, a similar experience is voiced by Col. John Hayworth, USA (Ret.): ‘In one fire-fight, I saw my RTO place three rounds [of 5.56 mm] in the chest of a charging NVA regular at 50 yards. He kept firing his AK and never slowed down. At 30 yards, I hit him with a blast of double ought buck. It picked him up off his feet and he didn’t get up again.’ [10.] In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the DoD increased the weight of the 5.56mm 55-grain bullet (M193) to 62-grains, replaced some of its lead core with a tungsten steel core, painted the bullet tip green and designated the new cartridge M855. In 1991, the Pentagon sent its warriors to the Gulf War with this new green-tip cartridge. Maj. Howard Feldmeier, USMC (Ret.) was there: ‘ . . . several Marines commented that they had to shoot Iraqi soldiers 2-3 or more times with the 62-grain 5.56mm green tip ammo before they stopped firing back at them . . ..’ That report is exemplified by one of an Iraqi officer who was thrown from his vehicle and set afire by an explosion: ‘Somehow he managed to hold on to his AK-47. He also got up, still on fire, faced the firing line of Marines and charged forward firing his weapon from the hip. He didn’t hit anyone but two Marines each nailed him with a three round burst from their M-16A2s. One burst hit him immediately above his heart, the other in his belly button. [He] . . . kept right on charging and firing until his magazine was empty. When he got up to the Marines two of them tackled him and rolled him in the sand to put out the fire. . . . He was quickly carried back to the battalion aid station . . .. The surgeons told me he certainly died of burns, but not necessarily from the six 5.56mm wounds . . ..’ [11.] In spite of the above ‘lesson learned,’ the DoD dispatched its warriors to combat in Somalia in 1993 with the same flawed ‘green tip’ cartridge as testified in Mark Bowden’s book Black Hawk Down: ‘His weapon was the most sophisticated infantry rifle in the world, a customized CAR-15, and he was shooting the army’s new 5.56mm green tip round. . . . The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless it happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn’t enough to stop a man in his tracks. Howe felt he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention.’ The Pentagon remained unmoved by that experience of its warriors and continued to send them to war underpowered. On 4 April 2002, I received an e-mail from a trooper in Afghanistan who appeals, in part: ‘The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as [a] man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination.’ [12.] Additional observations of the impotence of the 5.56mm round soon appeared in official and professional publications. In their official briefing ‘Lessons Learned in Afghanistan’ dated April 2002, LTC C. Dean, USA and SFC S. Newland, USA of the U. S. Army Natick Soldier Center reported: ‘Soldiers asked for a weapon with a larger round. ‘So it will drop a man with one shot.” In the October 2002 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette magazine, Capt Philip Treglia, USMC reflected on his Afghanistan experience in December 2001 by reporting that, ‘the 5.56 mm round will not put a man to the ground with two shots to the chest.’ Capt Treglia’s men were trained to fire two bullets into an enemy’s chest and if that did not knock him down, they were to shift fire to the head. This is the corrective action implemented for these Marines and many others in the Armed Forces for the impotent 5.56mm cartridge rather than equipping them with a rifle that fired a bullet with one-round knockdown power. And, as Capt Treglia reported, multiple hits with the 5.56mm bullet didn’t work any better in Afghanistan than it did anytime in the past. In a 3 March 2003 written briefing, LCdr. Gary K. Roberts, USNR recommended to RAdm. Albert M. Calland, Commander, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command that he upgrades his command’s 5.56mm weapons to the 6.8mm cartridge. That briefing, entitled, ‘Enhancement of NSW Carbine & Rifle Capability,’ opens by observing: Recent combat operations have highlighted terminal performance problems, generally manifested as failures to rapidly incapacitate opponents, during combat operations when M855 62gr. ‘Green Tip’ FMJ is fired from 5.56mm rifles and carbines. Failure to rapidly incapacitate armed opponents increases the risk of U.S. forces being injured or killed and jeopardizes mission success. [13.] That statement was prophetic. On 12 September 2003, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group engaged enemy forces in a firefight. An insurgent was struck in the torso by several rounds of 5.56mm ammunition from their M-4 carbines (this is the current shortened version of the M-16 Service Rifle). He continued to fire his AK-47 and mortally wounded MSgt Kevin N. Morehead, age 33, from Little Rock, Arkansas. The engagement continued with the same insurgent surprising SFC William M. Bennett, age 35, from Seymour, Tennessee from a hiding place and killing him instantly with a three-round burst to the head and neck. SSgt Robert E Springer, threw away his M-4 carbine, drew an obsolete WWI/WWII vintage .45 caliber pistol and killed the insurgent with one shot. A close inspection of the enemy’s corpse revealed that he had been hit by seven 5.56 mm rounds in his torso. Also, in this engagement, these soldiers were provided with a commercially produced 5.56mm round of 77-grain weight vice the 62-grain bullets in use by general-purpose forces. Obviously, the larger 5.56mm round was of little consequence. [14.] These reports are consistent with my own experience during three tours of duty in Vietnam from the goat incident in 1964 described above to service with the 3rd Marine Division in 1968-69; experience that repeatedly reminded me that this 5.56mm cartridge was nothing more than the full-metal jacket military version of the commercial .223 caliber Remington cartridge. The .223 caliber Remington was and is today commercially advertised and sold as a ‘varmint cartridge’ for hunting groundhogs, prairie dogs and woodchucks. The cartridge is offered with soft point, hollow point, fragmentation, or projectiles incorporating two or more of these attributes to enhance its lethality and assure a ‘clean kill’: one-round knockdown power on varmints. States such as the Commonwealth of Virginia do not permit it to be used for hunting deer or bear because its lethality–with or without those enhancements–does not assure a ‘clean kill’ on big game. [15] Yet, its full metal jacket military counterpart continues to be issued to American warriors in spite of almost 40 years of Lessons Learned that enemy soldiers continue to fire their weapons and have even killed our soldiers after sustaining multiple hits from 5.56mm bullets. The lethality of the 5.56mm cartridge, sold on lies, cannot be fixed in truth. It is time the Department of Defense recognizes this ‘Big Lie’ from the Vietnam War and in the names of MSgt Kevin N. Morehead and SFC William M. Bennett replaces this varmint cartridge with one that gives our warriors that critical capability described by SFC Paul Howe above–one-round knockdown power! The author’s 25-year Marine career included service as an infantryman and intelligence officer with highlights of three tours of duty in Vietnam and, ultimately, representing the Defense Intelligence Agency as a briefer to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and other Washington area decision makers. He currently manages MILINET an Internet forum on international political/military affairs. 1. Bowden, M, Black Hawk Down, Penguin Books, 2000, p. 208. 2. Fackler, ML,’Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets,’ International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 59-64. 3. Ezell, EC & Stevens, RB, The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective, Collector Grade Publications, Inc., 1994, p. 98. 4. Ibid. pp.99-100. 5. Ibid. pp.101-106. 6. Ibid. pp. 106-107. 7. Ibid. p. 116. 8. Hitler, A, Mein Kampf. James Murphy, translator. London, New York, Melbourne: Hurst and Blackett Ltd; April 1942; page 134. 9. Moore, Col. HG, ‘After Action Report, Ian Drang Valley Operation 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry 14-16 November 1965,’ dated, 9 December 1965, p. 8. 10. Hayworth, Col. J, E-Mail to author, 23 April 2002. 11. Feldmeier, Maj. H, E-Mail to author, 21 May 2002. 12. Anonymous, E-Mail to MILINET, 26 March 2002. 13. Roberts, USNR, LCdr. Gary K., Brief to RAdm Albert M. Calland, CMDR NAVSPECWARCOM, ‘Enhancement of NSW Carbine & Rifle Capability’ brief, 3 March 2003. 14. Jones, Bruce L., ‘MILINET: Case Studies in Combat Failures of 5.56mm Ammunition,’ 3 November 2003 15.