Weapon Replacing M-16/ M4

[ArmyRanger]

This is the XM8 , looks sweet to me. decide for yourself watch these couple of Videos.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8.php


^ Videos ;)

[Howitz]

very old news dude, search first.

[ArmyRanger]

yea sorry , Well whats everyones opinion on the XM8.

[rob]

most likely a good weapon, but it does the same thing the m4 does there fore a waste of money.

[Sayeret]

Well whats everyones opinion on the XM8.

It looks like a good weapon. It reminds me a little of the Galil because it fires 5.56mm bullets but is more realiable than the M-16. I'm glad that this weapon is being planned rather than the OICW, which didn't look too effective.

[ArmyRanger]

same thing? its got diffrent internals , less parts, Look at the Dust and Sand Video. Performs well under harsh enviroments. After being burried in the sand it fires no problem. try doing that with an dust cover open.

[ArmyRanger]

looks like it performs the task to me

[Seoulstriker]

Yeah, I'm really happy that they are not implementing the OICW for the individual infantry soldier but rather for the grenadier. The XM-8 looks like it will do well, but I don't think we should have switched to a nearly identical weapon manufactured in Germany of all places (right? or is it a locally produced deal?). I would have preferred a switch to the 6.8mm or 7.62mm.

[ArmyRanger]

that OICW is trouble , think what happens when a us soldier drops and the enemy gets there hands on that technology. its supposed to be 5x deadlier than the M-16. thats just what we need in the hands of some Insurgents

[rob]

same thing? its got diffrent internals , less parts, Look at the Dust and Sand Video. Performs well under harsh enviroments. After being burried in the sand it fires no problem. try doing that with an dust cover open.

it shares a lot with the g36, but in the end it fires the 5.56 reliabally, just as our m4 does today, as much as you guys like the fact that it can fire 25,000 rounds between cleaning, that is irrelivant because that is only indoors and a soldier will never go that far without cleaning.

and why would i burry an m4 in sand with the dust cover open, wait, why would i burry the m4 in sand in the first place?

so in the end, its a waste of money.

am not saying i dont like the weapon, the more i see it the more i like it. i may even prefer it over the m4, but i think the money could be better spent else where on systems that actually improove the soldiers capability.

[ArmyRanger]

yea i get what ur sayin

[rob]

Yeah, I'm really happy that they are not implementing the OICW for the individual infantry soldier but rather for the grenadier. The XM-8 looks like it will do well, but I don't think we should have switched to a nearly identical weapon manufactured in Germany of all places (right? or is it a locally produced deal?). I would have preferred a switch to the 6.8mm or 7.62mm.

it will be produced in an hk plant within the us. the army would not adopt it if it wans't. same is true for the m9, italian origin, amde in the us.

[Sayeret]

that OICW is trouble , think what happens when a us soldier drops and the enemy gets there hands on that technology. its supposed to be 5x deadlier than the M-16. thats just what we need in the hands of some Insurgents

I wouldn't worry too much about insrugents or terrorists getting the OICW but US troops because it is such a bulky weapon. Its always good to carry light weapons into combat so you can move around quickly and more easily but the OICW doesn't seem like it would allow soliders to do that. It probably would be more effective than the M203 in a lot of situations but it would get heavy and hard to carry. A lot of the things you could do with an OICW you could do with an M203 or M-72 LAW. The only major difference is that the OICW can fire grenades that explode at a certain point.

[Midav]

most likely a good weapon, but it does the same thing the m4 does there fore a waste of money.

That's kind of true, but so was the transit from the M16A2 to the M4.

[rob]

most likely a good weapon, but it does the same thing the m4 does there fore a waste of money.

That's kind of true, but so was the transit from the M16A2 to the M4.

well the m4 was a more compact weapon, it was better suited for some roles.

but the m16a2 to m16a4 truely do the same thing, but they where itroduced as the other wore out and because they are of the same family most of the costs associated with switching systems are done away with.

[ArmyRanger]

Its not like you can do anything about it , the transition is going to happen. 2005 the XM8 is fielding to the us miltiary.

and with the OICW , id rather be carrying one and switch to my grenade launcher witha flick of a switch than put my M4 on the ground leaving no weapon in my hand and reaching into my ruck to pull an At-4 or Law out. and M203 siting takes a few seconds . the OICW grenade sites use a range finder and all that fancy sh$# meaning less time.

Just a flick from 5.56 rounds to 20mm rounds. easy

[szr]

they need to dump the intergraded optics, remove that carry handle and add some rails.

[ArmyRanger]

XM8 can be compact too, comes in a few versions and the stock is telescopic.

and i think the military version has a rail option

[Midav]

they need to dump the intergraded optics, remove that carry handle and add some rails.

It has several rail attachement points.

[ArmyRanger]

Yea people watch all the videos so u know what the hell is going on, it talks about the rail system

[rangerone]

I highly doubt the XM8 is being adopted in 2005. Whenever the Army introduces new equipment, they do it at the beginning of their fiscal year, which starts in October. However, the new Army uniforms will begin to be issued in October. First being issued to troops at Basic training and then sent to every unit in the army :)

[ArmyRanger]

what i heard i may be wrong. those issue times are always iffy

[Midav]

Yeah, they're going to have to get the weight down on the XM29. A 12-14lbs weight just may be reasonable. Also, should the XM 29 enter service sometime down the road, it will not completely replace the standard rifle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but each platoon would be issued ~12 XM29's, with the rest being M8's, M240's etc.

Question: Anyone have info whether the XM25 will be entering service or not?

[StukaJr]

"The development of the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle was initiated by US Army in the 2002, when contract was issued to the Alliant Techsystems Co of USA to study possibilities of development of kinetic energy part of the XM29 OICW weapon into separate lightweight assault rifle, which could, in the case of success, replace the aging M16A2 rifles and M4A1 carbines in US military service. XM8 is being developed by the Heckler-Koch USA, a subsidiary of famous German Heckler-Koch company. According to the present plans, the XM8 should enter full production circa 2005, if not earlier, several years before the XM29 OICW. "

That quote has nothing to do with US ARMY purchasing any XM8 rifles - only with mass production possibly starting in 2005. Even then, words like could and should denote that no contracts are yet to be signed for either production or distribution...

[ArmyRanger]

XM8 is the counterpart to the XM29 i hear

Check this
"The development of the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle was initiated by US Army in the 2002, when contract was issued to the Alliant Techsystems Co of USA to study possibilities of development of kinetic energy part of the XM29 OICW weapon into separate lightweight assault rifle, which could, in the case of success, replace the aging M16A2 rifles and M4A1 carbines in US military service. XM8 is being developed by the Heckler-Koch USA, a subsidiary of famous German Heckler-Koch company. According to the present plans, the XM8 should enter full production circa 2005, if not earlier, several years before the XM29 OICW. 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. This new ammunition will have composite cases, with brass bases and polymer walls, which will reduce weight of the complete ammunition, while maintaining compatibility with all 5.56mm NATO weapons. Along with 20% weight reduction in the XM8 (compared to the current issue M4A1 carbine), this will be a welcome move for any infantryman, already overloaded by protective, communications and other battle equipment."

[ArmyRanger]

well i dont think they would put to much into it if they wernt gonna use it. But who knows we will see what happens

[rob]

Yea people watch all the videos so u know what the hell is going on, it talks about the rail system

i saw all the videos, but they only said that rails will be avaliable, just like they said that it will wieght 5.7 pounds, which it doesn't and wont.

the current attachment system does not use the standard rails making all of our aceories useless, not hks fault it the army call.

will the army adopt the xm8, that remains to be seen, i get the feeling they will, but i think they knew they will for day one, because we never bought so many rifles to test. looks like some general was promised a nice high paying possition at hk after retirement.

as for the xm29, it wont be standard issue r anything, infact it wont even completely replace the m203.

[ArmyRanger]

they got that new grenade launcher system for the Xm8 , looks nice.

[Midav]

The XM29 will not replace the standard battle rifle. It will accommodate it. For the time being, the XM29, primarily because of weight, was split into two systems:

XM8 (http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html)
XM25 (http://www.atk.com/ProductSheets/Category/SoldierSystems/2012709.htm)

Now, does anyone have info whether the XM25 will be adopted or not?

[ArmyRanger]

WTF that XM25 looks like a souped up staple gun

[rob]

they got that new grenade launcher system for the Xm8 , looks nice.

that is the one part of the system i like, it allows for a great number of loads to but used, but since there is already a model of that same launcher sold by hk which fits the m4 and m16 it again makes the xm8 pointless if that launcher it what they really want.

[Midav]

WTF that XM25 looks like a souped up staple gun

That staple gun is the equivelent of putting 50 caps in your ass, simultaneously ;)

[thatguy96]

Man, this topic is like beating a dead horse with a spiked bat. You can do a search through the equipment portion of the forums and find many, many discussions on this.

[StukaJr]

It includes five different types of ammunition:

Thermobaric
Flechette
Training
High Explosive Air Bursting
Non-Lethal

Staple gun or not - that catches my limited attention span... But then I get distracted by my avatar again p-)

[Operation Ivy]

keep the M16

[ArmyRanger]

...................awsom, they sell those at home depot? i gotta get me one!!


:lol:

[StukaJr]

Man, this topic is like beating a dead horse with a spiked bat. You can do a search through the equipment portion of the forums and find many, many discussions on this.

Nah - we are just making another twitchy fingered forum n00b feel at home - have to wait at least a day until you give him the real hard truth about the real world ;)

[thatguy96]

It includes five different types of ammunition:

Thermobaric
Flechette
Training
High Explosive Air Bursting
Non-Lethal

Staple gun or not - that catches my limited attention span... But then I get distracted by my avatar again p-)
The XM1060 40x46mm Thermobaric round has been in development for a while now. Basically its in the same vein as pervious capability expanding ordnance for weapons chambered for 40mm LV grenades; things like the HEDP rounds. One of the two major complaints about the 40x46mm series of grenades has been effectiveness (the other being range).

Army's PEO-Soldier website (https://peosoldier.army.mil/default.asp?section=programs)

Oh, and no more niceties, someone should explain it in depth now.

Edit- here are a bunch of threads from another forum. As to the relevant items on this forum, the search feature works mighty well.

Thread 1 (http://forums.firearmsmod.com/showthread.php?t=66061)
Thread 2 (http://forums.firearmsmod.com/showthread.php?t=65210)
and
Thread 3 (http://forums.firearmsmod.com/showthread.php?t=64848&page=1&pp=20) - note, this one really doesn't have much to do with the XM8 debate per-say, but deals with the historical issues of adoption or certain systems, and the HK M4.

[Dennis G]

are they still thinking about going with the 6.8spc? If not I think they are make a big mistake.

[thatguy96]

If they don't go with 6.8mm SPC then there's even less reason than there is now in my mind to replace what we have now with the XM8.

Oh, and these 2 documents should be read before anyone rushes to tell me how much the AR-15/M16 sucks, and how poorly its performed in Iraq.

PROJECT MANAGER SOLDIER WEAPONS SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03 (http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm)

MCSC Liason Team Field Report (http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article05122003a.pdf)

[szr]

they need to dump the intergraded optics, remove that carry handle and add some rails.

It has several rail attachement points.

Where? You mean those picanty attachment points? It would take some work to put an ACOG there..

[Midav]

they need to dump the intergraded optics, remove that carry handle and add some rails.

It has several rail attachement points.

Where? You mean those picanty attachment points? It would take some work to put an ACOG there..

Soldiers will have to learn to make due with what they have. It wasn't even until recently that the military issued these sights for wide spread use.

Besides, the Germans and Spanish aren't complaining...

[thatguy96]

Besides, the Germans and Spanish aren't complaining...
From what I hear the Spanish weren't complaining overly about the CETME L either, besides its wieght, but most were content enough to deal with it. As for the Germans not complaining, its odd that you say that and I see so many pictures of German rifles with the top sight removed and replaced with an EOTech HOLO sight. It would seem that you're right. They're not complaining, they're simply acting.

Furthermore, if those hard working soldiers should learn to make do with what they have, then why is there any of this XM8 nonsense at all? :roll:

[Midav]

Besides, the Germans and Spanish aren't complaining...
From what I hear the Spanish weren't complaining overly about the CETME L either, besides its wieght, but most were content enough to deal with it. As for the Germans not complaining, its odd that you say that and I see so many pictures of German rifles with the top sight removed and replaced with an EOTech HOLO sight. It would seem that you're right. They're not complaining, they're simply acting.

First time I have heard or seen that, considering some of my family is in the Bundeswehr.

But, if true, then the same can be said for the XM8 ;)

[szr]

they need to dump the intergraded optics, remove that carry handle and add some rails.

It has several rail attachement points.

Where? You mean those picanty attachment points? It would take some work to put an ACOG there..

Soldiers will have to learn to make due with what they have. It wasn't even until recently that the military issued these sights for wide spread use.

Besides, the Germans and Spanish aren't complaining...

The HK sights probably raise the price quite a bit, and the Army has already bought tons of Aimpoints. It would be a shame if they went to waste.

What's that carry handle for, other than for carrying and stowing the locking pins? Would it really hurt to do away with that, and put a rail there?

[thatguy96]

First time I saw it was in this (http://www.hkpro.com/action7afghanksk36k.jpg) picture, but I've seen far more recent ones (this one's from Afghanistan, a few years ago now) seem to suggest that KSK is doing this a lot. Of course the rest of the German Army who just have to 'deal' probably don't have the option, but its not to say they wouldn't if they had it. Also, I've seen a few pictures of G36s being used by US police forces with the carry handle removed altogether, replaced with the rail type (similar to the G36C standard setup) mounting Aimpoint Comp M/Ls.

Oh, and szr, the XM8 is planned with an integrated reflex sight and optic, so all those Trijicon ACOGs and Aimpoint M68 CCOs (Comp M/Ls) are not even being figured into this at all.

[ZoneOne]

i like the videos and all i can say about the weapon -- is i need to put some rounds through it -- but it looks good so far

[Midav]

szr-- That's a probability, as was said. The Army has bought many different types of sights. many of those are able to fit on the mountings provided on the XM8.

thatguy96-- That's right. The KSK, the special forces are adapting their weapons to their own use, because frankly, they can.

However, up until now, most sights were iron sights. The sights provided with the XM8 are better than what there was before. Agreed?

Just as an example, and please bear with me. Let's look at helmet mounted sights for fighter aircraft. Before we had such sights, we had the HUD, where you had to align your whole aircraft to get a missile off.

Nowadays, you have the NSTs-27, DASH and JHMCS helmet mounted sights (just to name the most predominant). I have my own opinion as to what sight is probably best, however for this argument, all three are better than the standard HUD and all three give a large advantage over aircraft that only use HUD's. Just an example and I am talking close range here, not BVR.

Here's a quote about the sights on the XM8
The XM-8 doesn't skimp on optics, either. Its optics/sight package is an "all-in-one" combination: an infrared laser target designator, IR target illuminator and 1x close combat red-dot sight. In addition to incorporating the three sights into one system, the sight is zeroed at the factory and can be removed and reinstalled by the operator without specialized tools, or the loss of zero. Contrast this with the M-16/M-4 series: While advances have been made in their combat optics to improve rifle accuracy, these advances have brought additional issues (increased weight, cost, the need to continuously re-zero the devices when removed).

Military.com (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM8,,00.html)

That sounds awesome to me.

Yes, this topic has come over and over and over. Also, I am just speaking of opinion and glad that these discussions are staying civilized, unlike some other chat boards I have been to.

But, my opinion is that the XM8 is a better weapon than the M-16/M4 series. Nope, not once have I said that the M-16/M4 suck. Good weapons that have done a decent job. Hell, they have killed a lot of people. However, I believe it's time to get something in that's....... even better :D

[Fintin]

if US soldiers get xm8s or xm29s...im moving to canada...its not that they are bad weapons...just not needed...why spend the time retraining the WHOLE military on new weapons when we could improve the current platform and its acceserys

[Midav]

if US soldiers get xm8s or xm29s...im moving to canada...its not that they are bad weapons...just not needed...why spend the time retraining the WHOLE military on new weapons when we could improve the current platform and its acceserys

Please write ;)

[thatguy96]

However, up until now, most sights were iron sights. The sights provided with the XM8 are better than what there was before. Agreed?
Um, no. And most people would agree with my insistance on BUIS (Back-Up Iron Sights). You'll notice in the most recent schematics of the proposed XM8 they finally caved and added them. Also, by incorporating all the features into a single piece of equipment, you can't selectively remove functionality like you can now without losing all functionality. The all in one optic becomes a very dangerous idea, because if it breaks you lose everything. As it stands now, if a portion becomes damage or inoperable, it does not nessecarily mean you've lost 100% of your functionality.

Furthermore, the XM8 doesn't have a STANAG magwell, so all the magazines currently in service will be worthless...everything about the XM8 seems to be wasteful and unnessecary.

[Midav]

However, up until now, most sights were iron sights. The sights provided with the XM8 are better than what there was before. Agreed?
Um, no. And most people would agree with my insistance on BUIS (Back-Up Iron Sights). You'll notice in the most recent schematics of the proposed XM8 they finally caved and added them.

Furthermore, the XM8 doesn't have a STANAG magwell, so all the magazines currently in service will be worthless...everything about the XM8 is wasteful and unnessecary.

Um, well thanks for the opinion. Of course iron sights are added. You have backup sites for the M4 as well. Yet, up until the M4 with picatinny railings came out, you had the basic M-16A2 with only iron sights.

[thatguy96]

Um, well thanks for the opinion. Of course iron sights are added. You have backup sites for the M4 as well. Yet, up until the M4 with picatinny railings came out, you had the basic M-16A2 with only iron sights.
What do you mean of course? There was no intention to do so at all before a general outcry from those testing the weapon. None of the protos incorporated BUIS of any kind.

And before the M1913 rails came out you still had the M68 CCO (which could be mounted to the carry handle), which has been in inventory for quite a while now. In fact you can find pictures of soldiers with M68s mounted on detachable carry handles because they didn't have rail compatible mounts.

[Midav]

One more thing I'd like to add. It's not just the sights or the weapon that makes a good soldier.

It's the soldier himself, and I'm sure people will realize that. The XM8 offers lighter weight, even at 6.3 lbs. That's more ammo a soldier can carry, for all I'm concerned. And, less cleaning.

I realize this is just leading to XM8 vs M4 round 999 and it does get old. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine by me.

Otherwise, this will lead nowhere, fast ;)

Edit: Of course there was an outcry. What if your sights go out on you? That counts for every and any weapon.

[Fintin]

if US soldiers get xm8s or xm29s...im moving to canada...its not that they are bad weapons...just not needed...why spend the time retraining the WHOLE military on new weapons when we could improve the current platform and its acceserys

Please write ;)

damnit...why do you have such a hardon for the xm8

[Midav]

damnit...why do you have such a hardon for the xm8

If it grew some **** and put on a whig, I may even screw it Fintin ;)

On a more serious note, I already stated several times why I think it is a better weapon. It is my opinion. Some share my opinion, others don't.

That's why, the best egress in how I see it is to agree to disagree.

[Fintin]

damnit...why do you have such a hardon for the xm8

If it grew some **** and put on a whig, I may even screw it Fintin ;)

On a more serious note, I already stated several times why I think it is a better weapon. It is my opinion. Some share my opinion, others don't.

That's why, the best egress in how I see it is to agree to disagree.


cost cost cost...thats how i see it...why the hell dont we just finish up in afganistan and iraq and go back to 1920s thinking...if it aint ours leave it be...then we wouldnt need new guns

[Midav]

cost cost cost.... Why not just keep the F-4 and modify it from hell and back?

Why get the superhornet if the JSF is being developed?

Keep the Forrestal carriers and modify them. Drop the Nimitz class or the following class.

Virginia class subs? You got the LA class.

Stick with the M-14.

M60 Patton tanks can be modified, too.

New Navy ship? Hell, the Arleigh Burke is a newer class and can fulfill roles.

Cobras were good, drop the Apache.

Forget looking at a future bomber, plenty of FB-111's in mothballs and many more cases.

[Fintin]

cost cost cost.... Why not just keep the F-4 and modify it from hell and back?

Why get the superhornet if the JSF is being developed?

Keep the Forrestal carriers and modify them. Drop the Nimitz class or the following class.

Virginia class subs? You got the LA class.

Stick with the M-14.

M60 Patton tanks can be modified, too.

New Navy ship? Hell, the Arleigh Burke is a newer class and can fulfill roles.

Cobras were good, drop the Apache.

Forget looking at a future bomber, plenty of FB-111's in mothballs and many more cases.


with those there were large steps up in technology...

but you bring up a good point with we should bring back the m14...

[Midav]

What I am getting at, I don't but the cost argument. The M16A2 was good. Why not modify it than having to retrain soldiers to use the M4 with the newer mountings?

[Midav]

with those there were large steps up in technology...

but you bring up a good point with we should bring back the m14...

All of them? F-4 with new PW-119 engines, AN/APG-77 radar, JHMCS, Aim-9X and AMRAAM and general updated systems would be the the equal of most any jet out there.

Arleigh Burke class ships and the new destroyer (DDX) and not that much of a huge modification if you mod the Arleigh Burke at lower cost.

Same goes with many other things.

And yeah, I agree. The M-14 should be brought back. Seems to be a popular sniper rifle in Afghanistan/Iraq.

[Fintin]

What I am getting at, I don't but the cost argument. The M16A2 was good. Why not modify it than having to retrain soldiers to use the M4 with the newer mountings?

its the same weapon system still...the parts that are important are in the same spot...how many times do you have to do something before it becomes a natural movement....a few thousand...you get the xm8...every soldier would have to retrain that muscle memory...that takes time and...you guessed it MONEY...the military needs to look at the auto industry....the less re tooling you have to do in a factory to make the new model the better...

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

[thatguy96]

It's the soldier himself, and I'm sure people will realize that. The XM8 offers lighter weight, even at 6.3 lbs. That's more ammo a soldier can carry, for all I'm concerned. And, less cleaning.
Seeing as the XM8 has no visible rail provisions on any of the variants I've seen, we can easily put a rough weight comparisson of the M4 up against that 6.3 lbs number. A standard M4 carbine is 5.9 lbs, add an M68 CCO, that's 6.4 lbs, and add the AN/PEQ-2, that's about 6.9 lbs. That's .6 lbs of extra ammo. That's less than another 30 rounds, one additional magazine. Furthermore, you'll note from the reports from the field, weight of the personal weapon is not a primary concern of soldiers. As far as they're concerned its light enough. You know, you average soldier humps between 150-200 lbs of **** around. What's lightening his gun by another pound going to do for him? How about making it so there isn't 40 lbs right in his boots.

As for less cleaning, if soldiers during the October 3rd incident in Mogadishu had enough time to keep their weapons functioning fine (I don't remember reading about a huge number of malfunctions in BHD, and Somalia is far from a good enviorment for small arms), then I don't know what we're concerned about. The Army training reg, which according to most reports is holding up just fine, says 14 minutes is all you need. If you don't have time to take 20 minutes to keep your weapon functioning, then I'm sorry, you're not cut out to be a professional soldier. I know civilians who spend more time on it than that, after seeing less action.


Edit: Of course there was an outcry. What if your sights go out on you? That counts for every and any weapon.
What is this "of course," first you tell me that of course there would've been BUIS when that's simply not the case, not until quite recently, and now we're being told that of course there'd be an outcry? If there were all these "of courses" then why in the world didn't HK simply put in BUIS from the start?

[Midav]

*sigh*

Let me just post something that ibstolidude posted in the AK-47 vs M-16 thread


just post your personal opinions and observations - everyones will be different - I am a fan of the M4 over the AK series. & it isn't because the AK series is crap. I am also a fan of steak over fish, although a nice piece of salmon is kust plain supurb. Get it?

Now everyone keep your hands to your self and stay on your side of the seat.

If you don't want to agree, oh well, that's just too bad. We are going to disagree, no matter what. :)

[Fintin]

*sigh*

Let me just post something that ibstolidude posted in the AK-47 vs M-16 thread


just post your personal opinions and observations - everyones will be different - I am a fan of the M4 over the AK series. & it isn't because the AK series is crap. I am also a fan of steak over fish, although a nice piece of salmon is kust plain supurb. Get it?

Now everyone keep your hands to your self and stay on your side of the seat.

If you don't want to agree, oh well, that's just too bad. We are going to disagree, no matter what. :)

ill find your weak spot...you will see the light

[memphiz]

Wait....whats the XM8 again?!?!?!?!













p-)

[Midav]

What I am getting at, I don't but the cost argument. The M16A2 was good. Why not modify it than having to retrain soldiers to use the M4 with the newer mountings?

its the same weapon system still...the parts that are important are in the same spot...how many times do you have to do something before it becomes a natural movement....a few thousand...you get the xm8...every soldier would have to retrain that muscle memory...that takes time and...you guessed it MONEY...the military needs to look at the auto industry....the less re tooling you have to do in a factory to make the new model the better...

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

It's not the same weapon if you modify it (make it shorter, different balistics), and add new sights that you had not used until that time.

That's not right at the KISS level, Fintin ;)

Nice sayings, but make 'em relevant.

Anyway, my other post counts to you as well ;)

[thatguy96]

cost cost cost.... Why not just keep the F-4 and modify it from hell and back?
Been done, they pretty much reached the limits of what the airframe could do. Still, F-4Gs saw combat in 1991 in the gulf because of a lack of anything else suited to the Wild Weasal role.


Why get the superhornet if the JSF is being developed?
Good question, why the hell are we bothering with the JSF? Oh, I know, because everyone thinks that stealth is somehow now a nessecity when there haven't been any major air battles since the Yom Kippur War.


Virginia class subs? You got the LA class.
Because the LA class is an attack submarine, while the Virginia has already been futher modified for special missions. Poor comparison.


Stick with the M-14.
Done.


M60 Patton tanks can be modified, too.
And the Israelis can show you quite quickly how deadly their M60s are, and they have far more experience in armor combat than we do.


New Navy ship? Hell, the Arleigh Burke is a newer class and can fulfill roles.
Against who's Navy? There haven't been any notable naval engagments since the end of the Second World War.


Cobras were good, drop the Apache.
Why don't you talk to the Marines. They're gonna run out of letters they've done so much to the AH-1.

What I want to know is why modify and upgrade are suddenly dirty words. Its like the second you suggest it people are insisting you're living in the past, and are all about denying our troops the latest technology. They go on to tell me how much of a **** storm we're gonna be in when some dinky third world power starts throwing all 13 of its Chinese Su-30 knockoffs at us in some conflict...right infront of their fleets of Mig-19s. We've been being killed by people weilding AKs held together by electrical tape for about as long as the damned thing's been in existance, and I don't think any amount of technology is going to stop that. You'll notice most conflicts favor us in the casualties by a factor of 10 easily. Its not like we're doing a poor job ****ing people up. All we're doing is creating further logistical nightmares for a logistics system that is already a nightmare. Why even bother.

The XM8 is almost the perfect piece of technology to show off the current mode of thinking. Superior technology will allow one soldier to do the job of 10, and then we can operate smaller forces. You know what. Its still gonna take 10 guys to do his job. Has nothing at all to do with capability, it has to do with sheer numbers. 1 super soldier is still going to get the **** kicked out of him eventually if he's put up against a horde of 5,000 poorly armed militants...hell, even if a 1/5 of them are unarmed. Technology is never going to increase to the point where you don't need some form of troops on the ground (whether or not we go to the robot future or not), and you're still gonna need a lot of them. This is not living in the past, this is living in reality. The only part of warfare that hasn't dramatically changed since man invented projectile weapons (of any sort) is that there have always been individual people shooting at each other (or throwing rocks). I'm convinced you'll see an end to war before you see no need for infantry.

No matter what you want, you can't get rid of this unglamourous, non-technical piece of warfare...and it basically will always come down to who has the bigger gun during the 15 seconds of the firefight. You can be wearing 4,000 layers of uber-kevlar and it doesn't mean **** if someone drops a molotov cocktail out a window at your feet. You can't stop that. You can't stop troops from dying, but wasting money on things they don't need is not a good way to at least curb it. Like I said, a soldier carries 200 lbs of crap, and you're stuck bitching about less than 10? Hell, less than 2. It just doesn't jibe in my mind. USMC troops showed up to Iraq initially in numerous cases wearing Vietnam era flak jackets, and here we are discussing whether or not his gun needs replacing. The Army had similar problems too...they didn't even have enough desert fatigues to go around.

We can't get our pants sorted out, and we're sitting here discussing the merits of a weapon, that while a fine piece of kit, offers a neglidgable performance increase over what we have now (and promises logistical screw-ups, general waste, and the need to retrain hundreds of thousands of service men and women all over the world). Doesn't any of this seem wrong to you? A guy is wearing jungle boots with a steel plate in the sole to prevent sharp objects (originally the fear of punji sticks) from incapacitating him. These things weight 20 lbs each, and there's little wonder why your average grunt isn't rushing to run after a long days patrol after a fleet-footed shoeless militant.

Trust me, replacing the M16 is the least of the Army's problems, and from most accounts, isn't even a problem. You can think the XM8 is the best thing since sliced bread if you want, but when it gets down to it, I still feel people are being sold a bill of goods on "what our soldiers need."

[Midav]

I will say this as respectful as possible. Did you even bother to pay attention and understand what I said?

“Been done, they pretty much reached the limits of what the airframe could do. Still, F-4Gs saw combat in 1991 in the gulf because of a lack of anything else suited to the Wild Weasal role.”

And can be done even more. No F-119 engines were added. No An/APG77 was added. No Aim-9X and JHMCS were added…

“Good question, why the hell are we bothering with the JSF? Oh, I know, because everyone thinks that stealth is somehow now a nessecity when there haven't been any major air battles since the Yom Kippur War.”

If you can guarantee me that there will be no other major air to air battles in the future, I will agree 100% with what you said.

But before then, my argument stands.

“Because the LA class is an attack submarine, while the Virginia has already been futher modified for special missions. Poor comparison.”

The LA subs already exist. They are built and can be modified.
Great example is from today’s pics (20 july 2004)

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_040719-N-0780F-070.jpg


That’s an LA class sub, USS Dallas. Figure out for yourself what the hump on its back is for ;)


“And the Israelis can show you quite quickly how deadly their M60s are, and they have far more experience in armor combat than we do.”

Thank you for agreeing.


“Against who's Navy? There haven't been any notable naval engagments since the end of the Second World War.”

That’s what I am wondering. Why build the DDX? However, the same argument reflects as to what I said about air to air combat…

“Why don't you talk to the Marines. They're gonna run out of letters they've done so much to the AH-1.”

Yup, and their most powerful has yet to enter service.. the AH-1Z ;)

[thatguy96]

I didn't notice the context, and at a quick glance it appears you are being sarcastic. I apologize. However, my subsequent rant stands.

[Midav]

I didn't notice the context, and at a quick glance it appears you are being sarcastic. I apologize. However, my subsequent rant stands.

Np, man! Apology accepted. Let's just agree to disagree.

Now, if you drink come join us in the drunk thread under off topic and humor. Right now I dun care about guns anymore.... but rather, about beer!

And I ain't gonna argue as to which beer is better, either ;)

[pooch]

Some XM8s are being re-chambered for 6.8mm, to compete with Barrett's XM468, which is also in the running. the Barrett has the advantage of mearly replacing the M4/16 upper, thus cutting out the need to completely retool the military.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html

The 6.8mm round has been tested in combat to favorable reviews (SF). please god let's scrap the 5.56 and stop throwing .22 caliber ammo at the enemy.

[rob]

Some XM8s are being re-chambered for 6.8mm, to compete with Barrett's XM468, which is also in the running. the Barrett has the advantage of mearly replacing the M4/16 upper, thus cutting out the need to completely retool the military.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html

The 6.8mm round has been tested in combat to favorable reviews (SF). please god let's scrap the 5.56 and stop throwing .22 caliber ammo at the enemy.

hk has not rechambered the xm8 to 6.8, they have said so them selves. although the possibility stands, but that is true for every 5.56 weapon system in existance. why do you ask, because the army has not asked. i doubt that the army has any interest in replacing the 5.56. expecially while keeping the ar15, it just doesnt make the soldier look anymore futuristic.

i hope im wrong. but it just doesnt look like the 6.8 has a future in the army, but 3 months ago i would have said that same about the xm8, now i am not sure.

[Operation Ivy]

Wait....whats the XM8 again?!?!?!?!













p-)

a waste of money (singnals crash :D )

[Merik]

I highly doubt the XM8 is being adopted in 2005. Whenever the Army introduces new equipment, they do it at the beginning of their fiscal year, which starts in October. However, the new Army uniforms will begin to be issued in October. First being issued to troops at Basic training and then sent to every unit in the army :)


**** that means I'll be wearing those new f-ing uniforms.

[pooch]

Some XM8s are being re-chambered for 6.8mm, to compete with Barrett's XM468, which is also in the running. the Barrett has the advantage of mearly replacing the M4/16 upper, thus cutting out the need to completely retool the military.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html

The 6.8mm round has been tested in combat to favorable reviews (SF). please god let's scrap the 5.56 and stop throwing .22 caliber ammo at the enemy.

hk has not rechambered the xm8 to 6.8, they have said so them selves..

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/688cartridge.asp

Even HK themselves have admitted that the XM8 in its newest form allows for caliber conversion.

In any event, the 5.56 vs. 6.8 argument might be moot if we adopt RBCD ammo... http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php

[Zenchan]

:roll:
hk has not rechambered the xm8 to 6.8, they have said so them selves. although the possibility stands, but that is true for every 5.56 weapon system in existance. why do you ask, because the army has not asked. i doubt that the army has any interest in replacing the 5.56. expecially while keeping the ar15, it just doesnt make the soldier look anymore futuristic.

i hope im wrong. but it just doesnt look like the 6.8 has a future in the army, but 3 months ago i would have said that same about the xm8, now i am not sure.


How do you know that HK does not do anything with the 6.8 ???
You think, they would advertise each and every business move?
Wouldn't that be considered lousy management tactics in wa world full of competitors?

Let me just assure you - because I know :petting: - that HK is currently testing the 6.8 in the XM 8 frame.

[rob]

well first hk has no competitors, as the xm8 is not a competition, its just6 an hk cake walk. and in the only competition hk was involved in, the scar trials, they where eliminated right from the start because their rifle did not meat spec.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=2356046934&p=1

in that thread a eperson working closely with the xm8 until recently(you can see his picture of him with an xm8 on hk's site.) said that he personally loaded a xm8 mag with 6.8, and 28 rounds fit, but he does not know if it would feed. while that doesnt really proove anything, there was a lot of bs posted by other people so i must have mixed some of it up in my head. but it does say that they haven't tryied to fire 6.8 from thexm8, at least as the the time he wrote that, because he would know how it feeds then. my case is a bit more thin then i thought because i mised up what a few people said, so i apologize for that. but unless you have some info to show other wise, i still believe that the army has no interest in the 6.8