XM-8
 

I want ten of each.
Check link http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...04_XM8,00.html

I have to admit that I am pretty impressed by the versatility incorporated into 1 single weapon. I doubt it will see high use in the military except in special instances (like spec ops and the like). The military is just too cheap these days, I don't see them replacing the M-16 any time soon (heh, the Navy still uses the M-14 as its primary rifle, though it is arguably better than the M-16 in some ways anyway). I would buy one!

I have no doubt that its a great weapon but the weapon looks a little childish.

My only gripe with it would be it's actual capability as a sharpshooter rifle. Granted the barrel upgrade would help susbstantially, but I don't think that the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles should be given this title. The last thing you want is to be in a situation where you need to take a critical shot and get out relatively unnoticed, but you've got brass flying everywhere. It does seem like a nice, viable alternative to the m16 though.

Would the Army go fo it?

I'd imagine it would be a long term possibility, but I doubt we'd see it any time in the near future. There are no major issues with the current m16, and amidst international conflict, its not feasible to remove millions of m16's from service, then come up with the money and time to have HK turn out a comparable number of replacements. Then there's the retraining, recertification, etc etc. I'd sooner think it'd be gradually phased in as a specialty weapon, but not standard issue anytime soon.

Germans have always made some of the best weapons in the world. From the STG 44 to the G11 (which was killed by NATO as it fires a caseless pistol) and now the XM-8. I have always been impressed with their inginuity and ability to try new things.

While I'm sure the plastic makes the gun lighter I can't help but think this gun looks like a toy. Even XM-8 sounds like a type of Super Soaker. Whatever.

I heard that the XM-8 was similar to the G36? Is that true? Oh and is jamming "THAT" much of problem of with the M-16? On that link the problems seem over exaggerated.

The modern day m16 and its AR variants don't have nearly the jamming issues that the older ones did. A lot of it can be attributed to issues with the ammo and magazine as well.

The M16s the Army uses now arn't to bad Asuka. But the Vietnam era M16s were really horrible. First of all they did not nickle plate firing mechanism, which was fine on shooting ranges, but when these guns arrived in Vietnam the rain and humidity would cause the firing mechanism to rust and sieze up causing a jam. Also, the reciever was not strong enough to always chamber a new round. So you would either have to slap the bolt closed the rest of the way, or you would have to recock the gun to chamber a new round manually. This is not a pleasent thing to have to do in the middle of a fire fight. Also the rounds they used left tar resign in the barrels and on the firing mechanism because they were cheap.

Adding to what Kodega said, I believe that the barrels were also of a lesser quality, and a slower twist. The rounds would often tumble in mid air, which is why a lot of shots that hit could have easily taken off an entire limb.

Well I watched some of the videos of the xm-8 and one thing I saw that stands out is when you take the lower receiver off the push pins come completely out!!! I think that that needs to be changed, I can see many field loses of the pins. Other than that looks promising.

There are several advantages worth noting, particularly the lower weight (lighter than the M4) and lesser cost. Their arguments seem kinda weak though:

This is to be expected; if parts were 100% interchangable they would be the same weapon. Assuming the Army did purchase the XM-8, I doubt the weapon would not change over the 40 year lifetime that the M-16 has had.

Non-interchangeable between between what? This is the same argument as the previous one, only rehashed to focus on optics.

So because reserve and national guard units are less accurate, we should replace every weapon in the arsenal? The cost of replacement does not outweigh the marginal benefits in this situation.

It's an interesting sales pitch, but I don't see the system replacing the M16.

This most
will be the future of the XM-8.
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_m468.htm

Aren't our special forces using those? My god those look tasty!

I Believe so, would a couple myself.

Good Luck getting one, as of now HK has said that they are not planning a cilvian version of the xm-8.

it seems so:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

it looks like just some plastic parts were added :)

I got to lay hands on one at the Armor Conference this week, these were my thoughts.

1. Very light, almost rediculously so. I like the fact that they included a full auto mode on the weapon, but I am not sure it would be controlable cyclic.

2. Integral optics, while cool and spiffy, have the distinct disadvantage of not allowing the mounting of mission specific optics in the familiar position on the weapon. Also, when they break you have a major problem, even with back up irons.

3. I'm not sure what to think about the charging handle. It is very slick perched up on top and out of the way, but if needed to fullfill its secondary role as foward assist, it takes a long time to employ.

4. I really like the control configuration, which never requires the finger to leave the trigger guard.

5. I could do without the "ergonomic" rubberized padding.

6. Rather than make a proprietary mount system for the foregrip, they should have included a picatinny rail system that would allow the mounting of current accessories.

Bayonet lug? I somehow can picture myself swinging that damned thing around with a bayonet on it.

Call me old-fashioned, but I want my damned M-14 back.

The XM-8 is smaller too. Even shorter than the G-36c apparently.

Hell yea. Hathcock would agree.

Why the M-14? What are the good points of the M-14? Whenever I read about the introduction of the M-14 they texts always that it was a good gun but was obsolete and outdated from the point it was introduced.

What are the bad points? Reliable loading, damn accurate, large enough caliber to be used at long ranges. The only real downside to it is its length.

Ah, the key being that the person who wrote that intro had damned near zip for experience with one.

IMHO, the M-14 has no downside. Solid, dependable, and good for what ails you. Especially if that ailment is someone a few hundred yards away.

The M-16 is okay, but it's not something I ever depended on for serious work. It's maybe okay for small, near-range dustups. But even then, I'd rather go with a thompson or something similar. It's main advantage is that it's light enough send thousands of rounds of unaimed fire downrange while being held over one's head while skulking in a hole.

If you need to send serious lead out to where the other person is while they're still to far away to hit you, then you want an M-14.

When you care enough to send the very best, send a .308.

those look very cool

I've always heard lots of good things about the .308 Winchester round. I think they use it for the M-24.

The other downside to it is that it's too light to fire full auto or even burst fire with, because of the large calibre. That's the reason the military never really got into it. It's essentially a semi-auto only weapon, unless you're about two metres away from the guy you're shooting at.