How do you feel about the "XM-8"?

How do the feel about the experimental rifle the army is currently testing? The military designation is "XM-8."

Here's a video of the "XM-8" in action:
www.armytimes.com...

That looks like an awesome gun. The guy was holding it with one hand and there was still a very small amount of recoil.

They better finish testing it fast, our troops need it fast!

Apparently it's effectivly a modified G-36, which is apparently one of the best assualt rifles in the world. From what I've heard, reliablity, range, accuarcy, and versatility are at the pinnacle with the XM-8. So if what I'm hearing is right, we should definatly pay a lot of attention to the XM-8. I'd like to see it go into service once it's done testing.

it still gots problems so they shouldnt be sent into combat so fast thats why there are testings goin on, in ani case its base on the German gun hk g36 so it may be a good gun with less jamming and more reliability. and light of course.

It has no performance gains over the M16 series.

The XM-8 program has been put on hold in order for the Pentagon to solicite bids from other arms makers. There is no word on when the program will be resumed.

Personally/professionally speaking...we don't need it. The M16 series can just as easily be configured into all the XM8 varieties; Rifle, carbine, squad auto, long range etc. by simply replacing the upper assembly with the needed barrel set-up. The XM8 has no more range, no more accuracy, no more ammunition capacity, no more versatility...than the M16 series.

Before you say it...the M16 has come a loooong way since Winchester screwed up the powder requirements in 1965, which started the legend of the malfunctioning rifle. However, today's M16 is one of the most reliable weapon systems in the world...you take care of it, it will take care of you. Everyone here can agree that the IDF are a very savvy fighting force, and they love the M16A2 family....that is quite an endorsement of the rifle.

Yes, I have done my time in Iraq's dust, dirt, mud, and rain, and will tell you that I NEVER had a malfunction, and neither did anyone in my company.

I do have an improvement though, which I have suggested to Ordnance many times. Reduce the twist rate back to the original 1-12", go back the 55gr bullet, and replace the gas tube with an inexpensive piston/op-rod assembly. Rather than spend gawdaful amounts of defense dollars aqquiring a totally new weapon system ...guesstimated at over $700 a copy... my changes might cost around $225 per rifle.


Sweeeeeeeet 16 baby

The gas tube in the M-16 has caused many of the problems that people hear about the gun.

Originally posted by jetsetter
The gas tube in the M-16 has caused many of the problems that people hear about the gun.

To some extent, yes.

The gas tube is 1955 engineering, and for the era, it was quite revolutionary (the idea was gleened from the Swedish Ljungman) in a full auto weapon. My suggestion brings the M16 into this century, with a much cleaner running engine.

By keeping the carbon off of, and away from, the bolt/carrier/lower receiver by using a piston and rod assembly instead of hot gas inpingment, the M16 will run cooler and longer before failures.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Army]

i doubt the army would actually hold a big competition for the new gun of the army if the M16 could be that easily fixed, no, the XM-8 offers simply more advantages then just reliablity, its lighter, presumably more accurate, and still more reliable then the M16, i doubt you coulddrop a M16 in the sand, kick sand all over it and fire it again could you?

Originally posted by M6D
i doubt the army would actually hold a big competition for the new gun of the army if the M16 could be that easily fixed, no, the XM-8 offers simply more advantages then just reliablity, its lighter, presumably more accurate, and still more reliable then the M16, i doubt you coulddrop a M16 in the sand, kick sand all over it and fire it again could you?

It's known as "politics"...which is why we have the crappy M9, instead of the battle proven and long lived 1911.

As the testing has been inconclusive of the XM8, reliability has not been proven. Neither has accuracy or weight (they compare it to the full size M16, instead of the comparable M4).

Have dropped my weapon in the sand/dust/mud...along with the rest of me...while I was in Iraq (LSA Anaconda). A quick wipe and it was up and running again. Lubed correctly, PMCS regularly, and keep your ammo as clean and fresh as conditions allow. It's not hard to do and takes but a few minutes, a few times a day.

My company (108 on the ground), never had a malfunction due to negligent weapons care for the entire 15 months we were there.

well the m16a2 sucked 5.56 is too lite, the XM-8 needs to be 6.8mm not the 5.56 its an alround better round.

Yea the xm-6 needs bigger ammo. I think with the AK ammo it would be so awesome. Plus it looks better than an m-16

yes, they wont compare it to a M4, but then again, comparing it to a M4 isnt fair, the M4 is a carbine, the XM-8 can be, but the base varient isnt, so dont compare two weapons of two diffrent classes's :p
theyre perfectly within their right to compare it to the M16, not the M16's less reliable and accurate relative, the M4

I have seen this rifle completely sub-merged in oil, and it fired without problem. I personally like the weapon, but I would be more comfortable if it used the 6.8mm they've be testing also.