XM8 VS. M16/M4 and 5.56 VS. 6.8SPC what's next...?

M

M4A3

New member
This thing is going to replace the M16 and M4? :confused: You gotta be kidden me... :rolleyes:

Full page: HERE

xm8-ar.jpg

XM8 rifle in "automatic rifle" (light machine gun) configuration. Note longer barrel and folded bipods under the forearm
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

How could this thing, even on it's best day play the role of a "light machine gun" up agesnt a SAW, or an M60E4 for example.

Is this just another one of those "lets waist the tax payers money" guns? Then toss it on the shelf, and go back to the M16 like in the past.

It said:

The XM8 (M8 after its official adoption) should become a standard next generation US forces assault rifle. It will fire all standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition, and, to further decrease the load on the future infantrymen, a new type of 5.56mm ammunition is now being developed.
Click to expand...

What the heck happend to the 6.8 now? I thought that was the next "best" thing since the 556 was such a poor cartrage. (wich it pure BS)

Could any one enlighten me with some true facts? Why fix what works?

I think getting rid of the M855 is a good idea. That cartrage sems to stay together too well at longer ranges. Other than that, keep the m16/m4.
 
From what little I've read the XM8 is NOT capable of meeting the Army's criteria of replacing the venerable M-249 SAW. Therefore H&K will either have to develope a light machine gun variant or be knocked out of the competition to replace the current weapon system family.

Semper Fi,
Mike F.
 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The M-14 Was soposed to replace the M-1 Garand, the BAR, and the M3 grease gun. All it did was replace the Garand. We are trying to do the same thing with the XM-8 The only difference is that our *rifle* will basicly be a submachinegun with one h:)ll of a muzzle flash. :(

As for different rounds.

5.56<7.62x39<6.8 SPC
 
I have never seen or handled an XM8 but, IMHO, the XM8 is a bureaucratic brain fart. The DOD spent millions on the OICW and it did not work out. So, to "salvage the program", let's take the personal defense thingy hanging on the front end, add a buttstock and bingo the "perfect" general issue rifle. There are issues with the M885 ammo in the 14.5" barrel of the M4 so let's go one better and use a 12.5" barrel etc. If the XM8 was all that great, the Army would not be starting new trials.

The idea that one weapon system can cover everything from a PWD through a carbine and rifle and on to a SAW sounds great but, in reality, it has never worked. The Stoner sounded like a good idea and the LMG was put to good use by the SEALS in Vietnam but the rifle and carbine were too heavy. The M14 has been already mentioned in this thread. It was a great rifle but a very poor SAW. The Israelis were all excited about the Gall and the fact that it could be used as a LMG but the rifle was too heavy. The AKM and AK74 are great rifles and the Krinkov is a great PDW but the RPK and RPK74 have serious limitations as a SAW or LMG since they are not belt fed and do not have quick change barrels.

If somebody can figure it out, more power to them but the differing requirements seem to preclude one weapon that can do it all.

Drue
 
Drue, I think your assessment of the situation is spot on. They could have saved themselves 28 million dollars if they'd have let the Marines field test the XM8 first. It would have been returned in pieces, some of which would be unrecognizable slag. It also seems like they Army is having a tough time re-inventing the wheel. Nothing truly revolutionary is being offered (so far at least).

Semper Fi,
Mike F.
 
there ar two things you can count on.

1. The M-16 family, M-4 etc will not be replaced in the next 20 years.

2. The 5.56X45 MM round will not be replaced in the next 30 years.
 
actually i disagree that the m16 family won't be replaced in the next 20 years. it definatly will be. The xm8 is a decent concept, although why they made it strictly out of polymers i have no idea.

I've read account after account of US soldier's in the middle east using captured ak47s while on patrol, and some of the special forces guys using them strictly all together.

Personally i think that they (and some law enforcement personell are) should look at a .308 variant. like armalite's ar10 series. Hell even the .300 featured in this month's special weapons for military and law enforcement would be a good canadate.

5.56 just doesn't have the ballistics that they are looking for out of a 14-16 inch barrel.
 
In all fairness, it's really the current military ball ammo in .223 that has the major deficiency, not the weapon family itself. The SAW is the current exception and needs a good re-working.

Semper Fi,
Mike F.
 
Mike F. What is wrong about the SAW? You are talking about the M249, right. I agree that the M16 series of weapon would be much better if we simply got a better rount into it. Though I have heard that many of the 249's are simply worn out. I would like to hear more of you're experience with them.
 
Umm, I think this weapon will be MUCH better for basicly any type of combat than the M4, due to the reliability issue, although I do agree it should have been chambered in 6.8. Weather we want to admit it or not, the stoner design is flawed. It craps where it eats, uses a dinky gas tube, and has tolerances to tight for a combat rifle. I own the M4 and like it for plinking and such, but lets face it, the Ak will always trump it on reliability. Now what I think would be the better solution to getting all new rifles would be to make a new upper for the M4 chambered in 6.8, that uses a gas piston instead of tube, and open up the tolerances a little. I think that would save a bundle of cash, but I may be wrong. To say that the xm-8 is a pos though is just wrong. I've read a lot of the reviews and seen many videos of the xm-8 and it trumps the m4 in every aspect.It's stronger, more user friendly, more efficiant. Sorry to tell all the M4 die-hards, but it will more than likely be the next combat rifle.
 
Might want to read what the guys who would be trading their M-16s and M-4s in think about it before making those claims, Rooftop voter. :)
 
I've read a lot of about it from the people who are using it.Most seems to be positive, I'd say it's doing much better in the testing and evaluation phase than the m-16 familiy of weapons ever did. They are correcting any problems that it's running into. That's why it's the Xm-8 and not the M-8. :)
 
haven't heard much about the scar, but the one article i did read on it, it seems like it was pretty decent.

also... if the xm8 is the shiznit, why aren't the marines using it?

:edit:
just realized the pictures that were posted. the scar apparently is going to come in the same caliber as the xm8.....

hope they decide on the 7.62 over the 5.56
 
why would you want an M4 to do any of that? the m4 is for all intents and purposes an entry weapon. Don't get me wrong, I would take it into combat... but only if it was the only weapon available to me. The 5.56 was originally designed to be fired out of a 20"-24" barrel. You just get better ballistics out of it. honestly, that's a characteristic of pretty much any ammo out there. The shorter the barrel, the shorter the effective distance/punch power.

take a 18" shotgun for example... would you take it turkey hunting? no? why not? because you wouldn't be able to hit your target.

I have considered an m4 for the longest time, but after reading ballistics reports, and field reports on it, a 20" weapon is definatly what i'm going after. and the military should stick with the longer barreled stuff as well. I mean hell, the design worked well enough (not perfectly) in vietnam....

and i'm not trying to compare vietnam era m16's to the same era ak47 that the enemy was using either...
 
The marines may not have as big a budget as the Army. Didn't the marines back in 'nam still have thier m-14s when the Army switched to the m-16? I'm not sure though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top