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

Nice, thorough post.

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.

"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

As incredible as it seems, Mr. Rummel is spot on. As usual.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000912.html

Sheesh.

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks. No luck at my library or on eBay, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

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.

Great informative post. Many thanks.

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.

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.

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

2500 for an m4 equipped like an xm8?

http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/pcwa2x14m4my.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

---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. 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.
---quote----

I assume you meant 250 yards.

If 250 yards was the max range you could hit with an m16 I KNOW you were not a Marine.

I urge everybody reading to disregard anything that guy says about firearms.

That's the new and improved Army-of-One for you I guess.

I urge everybody reading to disregard anything that guy says about firearms.

S/F

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.

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

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 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.

More (and more pics) on the XM8 here:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001052.html

that's awsome

that's awsome

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

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.

the MX8 soon will become into one of the greates machines gun. but only time will decide that

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.

Here's a pic of a field stripped XM8:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001107.html

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?

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.

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.

Your right the, the statement about cleaning and reliability was stupid. I apologize.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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."

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

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.

That gun is cool

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.

is there an airsoft version of this yet?

not yet but i hope tokyo marui make one soon
and they probably will

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 7.62x39 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.

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.

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..

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.

The Tavor: A stuby little powerhouse. Check this puppy out.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/targal.htm

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).

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 6.8x43mm SPC or the conceptual 6.86x40mm 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 7.62x39mm. 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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

h

I'm german, I love Heckler Koch

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.

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.

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

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?

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...

its great y love it so mutch

AR-10T Baby. 7.62x51mm 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.

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 :/

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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? :/

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.

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.

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.

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 7.62x51 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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

True, the 5.56x45 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 5.56x45 as they feel it is inadequate.

Now, the 7.62x51 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 5.56x45 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.

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

*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.

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????

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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?