XM8 Assault Rifle

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.

xm8c.jpg

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.

xm8b.jpg 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 5.56x45mm 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.

Comments

  1. 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 🙂

  2. 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 .

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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?

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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 7.62x39mm 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. the round what i was talking about is i was refering to the 5.7 round, the round that is used by the P90.

  24. 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!

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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)

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. 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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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 🙂