The Xm8 assult rifle

I`ve used the G36 in a law enforcement and private security field. I`ve used all three models of G36 and really don`t like them. As for the German Bundswehr being so in love with them the same can go for our military and the M16/M4. Most of the operators that I`ve known never really bad mouthed the Stoner system. The only rifle I`ve ever like that has a lot of polymer is the Steyr StG 77/AUG. I always liked the SIG 550 series and the FN FNC rifles better. As for proof, I don`t really have any photos of my rifle when it broke. Just gave it to the range master and got a new one.

Originally posted by killswitch1982
The HK XM8 was a turd of a rifle. You could literally flex most of the rifle with your bare hands. It is based off of the G36, and that is also a crap rifle. They are inaccurate. They flex WAY too much, and the handguards crack. The optics absolutely suck on the G36.
The next standard rifle for the military will be a M16 with a gas piston. I don`t see Big Green going away from the 5.56mm. I feel that they should go to the 6.8mm and I feel the 7.62 NATO should make more of a come back. It is a far superior round.

The military are going to stay with the 5,56mm. A 5,56mm fired from a modern AR has more stopping power than a 7,62 fired from an AK-47. It's simple, more velocity=more damage.

At this point I always like to bring up the EM2 and the British-designed 7x43mm round.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Both these were designed to optimise squad fire-power after being thoroughly out-gunnned by the Germans in WW2.

All was well until the American govt pushed for 7.62x51mm (or .308 winchester) to be the NATO standard round as they had many factories & huge stocks plus they said 7x43 wasn't powerful enough (*irony alert!)

The EM2 couldn't be adapted to fire 7.62 NATO so was confined to the 'what if?' bin, and the UK had to, quickly, go out and buy the FN FAL (SLR to us). Having an MOD that hates to spend money on luxuries like bullets the auto option was removed (at least officially) from the Bitish weapons.

All was well until the Vietnam war when the yanks worked out 7.62 was a wee bit hefty in the jungle / M14's too heavy for the S Vietnamese and so pushed for a new NATO standard round - 5.56* (even though their round lost out to a Belgian design).

Ironic isn't it that 50 years later we're discussing 6.8 being, perhaps, the ideal military calibre when we had (and threw away) the ideal round right under our noses

There's a lesson here about keeping politics & self-interest out of military procurement.

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by killswitch1982
The HK XM8 was a turd of a rifle. You could literally flex most of the rifle with your bare hands. It is based off of the G36, and that is also a crap rifle. They are inaccurate. They flex WAY too much, and the handguards crack. The optics absolutely suck on the G36.
The next standard rifle for the military will be a M16 with a gas piston. I don`t see Big Green going away from the 5.56mm. I feel that they should go to the 6.8mm and I feel the 7.62 NATO should make more of a come back. It is a far superior round.

The military are going to stay with the 5,56mm. A 5,56mm fired from a modern AR has more stopping power than a 7,62 fired from an AK-47. It's simple, more velocity=more damage.

I wasn`t referring to the AK, I was referring to the M14, FAL, and G3. That would be 7.62mm NATO, not 7.62mm Russian. An the 7.62mm Russian has ALOT more knock down power than the 5.56mm but the rifles that fire it are usually alot less accurate thn the AR platform, except for the current Valmet. The 5.56mm is nothing mote than a highspeed ice pick. If you throw hollow points into the mix then yes it is a decent round, but military aren`t allowed to use HP ammo in combat.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by killswitch1982]

i found this funny: the first comment on the youtube page said this:

Doesn't do anything any M16 can't do. Not worth wasting money on it.

i had to laugh, because to anyone that's actually used an M-16, you can tell it's different from the first 3 seconds, where that guy is shooting off rounds with one hand, in automatic.

Now, I don't doubt someone out there can (and has) shot an M16 with one hand like that - but it's not realistic at all.

Originally posted by scientist
i found this funny: the first comment on the youtube page said this:

Doesn't do anything any M16 can't do. Not worth wasting money on it.

i had to laugh, because to anyone that's actually used an M-16, you can tell it's different from the first 3 seconds, where that guy is shooting off rounds with one hand, in automatic.

Now, I don't doubt someone out there can (and has) shot an M16 with one hand like that - but it's not realistic at all.

When my dad was in Vietnam and they were changing over to the M16 form the M14 his instructor was raving on how little the M16 recoils and how you could cout the butt agains your forhead and shoot it in full-auto and not even feel it. One of the guys on my dad`s boat crew told him to prove it, so he went to the firing line, put a full mag in it, put it on auto, and fired it against his forhead....he woke up in the medical tent two days later with a bad headache.

great story. I've seen a few dumb things performed with an m16, especially while in training.

6.5 grendel is obivously the best choice, it has waaay better balistics than 6.8 and somehow, it shoots flatter than a .308, the 6.8 is developed to be a 200m fighting rarely takes place, its still necessary, the 6.8 only has a slight cqb advantage, the 6.5 grendel is way better than 6.8, the 6.5 has less recoil also

id love to see an armalite or even xm8 in 6.5 in the hands of a soldier

www.murdoconline.net...

www.gunblast.com...
www.6mmbr.com...

[edit on 17-5-2007 by jts991]

The grendel ammunition looks very promising. Such a lot of powder for that small cartridge. Probably renders most kinds of body armor obsolete.

I think an HK 416 chambered in 6.5 with an ACOG and AG36 mounted down below is the way to go

Originally posted by killswitch1982
The HK XM8 was a turd of a rifle. You could literally flex most of the rifle with your bare hands. It is based off of the G36, and that is also a crap rifle. [...] They flex WAY too much, and the handguards crack.

I agree that the G36 (and possibly the XM8, haven´t handled it) don´t really appear as rock-solid. But actually, it doesnt really matter that they "flex". That is only the outer shell. The inner workings are untouched by it.

They are inaccurate.

Contrary to your claim, the G36 in all variants, as well as the civilian SL8, are known for their good out-of-the-box accuracy. Specifically, HK is renowned for their exceptional barrels.

The optics absolutely suck on the G36.

Compared to a 500$ Elcan or Aimpoint, they do. But the G36 was the first service rifle that generally did away with the "iron sights", and added "value" combat sights for a, back then, conscript-based infantry. That they "suck" now in comparison is simply a result of the go-fast optics and attachment that have suddenly become general issue, after having been reserved for the high speed-low drag types for the decades before. The scores during shooting drills skyrocketed so much in Germany that the prerequisites for passing the range tests had to be tightened; the optics were a definitive plus compared to what was available on the general-issue market BEFORE this rifle, not afterwards.


AND the two optics were a requirement of the german Army, so one cant really blame the rifle itself for having a sub-par setup that the customer wanted. Apart from that, one can order the G36 with the optics or rails, so that kind of does away with that argument.

Originally posted by DaSeitz
The grendel ammunition looks very promising. Such a lot of powder for that small cartridge. Probably renders most kinds of body armor obsolete.

yes, its quite the enginnering marvel, this puzzles me that it can shoot as flat or flatter than a .308 with more powder behind it, but, i guess those are just some ballistic properties i can naver hope to understand

Both the Grendel and the Beowulf are great, would be nice to see performance of them vs ballistic protection. Beowulf has amazing power but the projectile is blunt, someone should start manufacturing grendel style penetrators for it.

XM8 is too much like the G36. Which I HATE. The forearm is loose, the flash hider on the K is too long, the C is too short, and the reg G36 is too tall..and long. They are easy to clean, but the new 416 an 417 fit what SOCOM wants. Plus they have the AR design down to a art form now. Rails, lights, barrels, sites, lasers, stocks, triggers, finish, caliber..lol....Anything new is going to fail against the new piston ARs. I think the FN SCAR had a good chance, but HK really did them hard after they helped nix the XM8 project with the lighter P2000..lol....long story..later

XM8 is not worth spending the money to replace the M16/M4. And having so many variants why not just have weapons specificaly designed for one purpose.

The XM8 is dead.

The 5.56 has problems with stopping power. In that respect, the 7.62x39 Soviet is a much better round. It's that the people can carry more 5.56mm rounds than 7.62 out in the field.

While the higher velocity 5.56 will go through body armor, the way it tears up on the inside may take upwards of 30 seconds to drop someone to their knees. A 7.62 will knock a man flat on his ass. Difference between hitting some one with a tennis ball and a medicine ball.

The M468 looks like a good balance. Plus it's a modified upper kit meaning replacement/upgrades should be cheaper to field than an entire new rifle. More stopping power and can carry more ammo than a 7.62, but the kicker is logistics. 6.8-Spec is not a NATO approved round. Basically everyone in NATO would have to replace their existing ammo stores. That takes time and money.

I'm not sold on the G36 either. It's a good well tested gun in police duties, but I've not read a lot about it from experience in the field as part of ISAF.

Two designs I'm interested in is the FN F2000 and the Israeli TAR-21. Both are bullpulp designed rifles that southpaws can fire without breaking a jaw. (problem with previous designs). I've fired the FS-2000 and as a southpaw I loved it. (civilian semi-auto). It was comfortable and well thought out.

I think the military overall is looking at the results and wondering what to do next. I really think they are waiting to see how well the TAR-21 works in the field. After all, it is in a similar environment as where we seem to fighting a lot these days.

Sure it's true of the 7.62mm round having greater stopping power compared to the 5.56mm. However, in many cases such as Mogadishu, Iraq and Afghanistan, people have been pumped so high on drugs it took half a dozen or more rounds to drop them. That's 7.62.

As to me personally, I wouldn't want to be shot by either. Both rounds have proven to have killed a lot of people over the years.

Just curious... Has anyone ever heard of blended metal technology? Nasty by any standards!

video.google.com...

What about a 7.62 NATO bullpup?