G36 vs XM8

[nagant_m44]

What are the strenghts and weaknesses of each of these guns and which one is more effective and reliable?

[stuntman]

What are the strenghts and weaknesses of each of these guns and which one is more effective and reliable?
The only strenght I can think of that is better is simply flip up sights and the newer sights other then that same ****.

[Ratamacue]

The XM8 has controls that the US Military specifically asked for, like the ability to hit the magazine release with your trigger finger.

[AVZ]

no rezeroing sighting systems

the futuristic look

[budgie]

AFAIK inside they are the same gun. The XM8 is simply a G36 with some bells and whistles that the US military asked for such as the moved magazine catch, telescoping stock and lungs and moveable handguard for attachments.

As for which works better, I doubt there's much difference. Has a comparison test been done?

[DeltaWhisky58]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.

[AVZ]

How does the handguard look like??? Pic's?

[Alex_All_Alone]

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421505198/0.jpg

[REMOV]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.Hmm... I'm still not quite sure that the G36 is really "combat proven". This weapon has a good publicity, but, you know, the XM8 failed some test (overheating problem), and this is in fact a copy of the G36. Draw a conclusion.

[Freibier]

I bet those overheating isssues are nil in a real combat situation - Or would you dump mag after mag on fullauto?

[Jippo]

I bet those overheating isssues are nil in a real combat situation - Or would you dump mag after mag on fullauto?

And dump mag after mag through a Kalashnikov, and it will melt. :) Or if it is older: be in fire. :)

That is just forum talk and speculation about XM-8 and melting.


-jippo

[Herrmannek]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.
changes are made mainly to plastic part of rifle, not much can be broken there....

[thatguy96]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.
Combat proven? By who?

[Frens]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.
Combat proven? By who?

Maybe in Afghanistan

[wholagun]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - why waste money on the XM-8 when the G36 is already combat proven.
Combat proven? By who?

Maybe in Afghanistan

spainiards were in Iraq for a short while.

[thatguy96]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

[USMC-Congbuster]

thats very true brotha

[coolflame]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.

[Thor]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.
The G36 is combat proven by various special forces on various places on the globe.

[thatguy96]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.
Then I'd hesitate to call it combat proven if its only been used to any operation extent by highly trained German special forces in Afghanistan.


The G36 is combat proven by various special forces on various places on the globe.
Again, I ask by who.

[Thor]

Again, I ask by who.
Believe it has been discussed in another thread. I myself know it's being used by swedish special forces and has been in service in Congo, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Alledgly used by british special forces aswell.

It's performance isn't really a matter of discussion.

[Little J]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.
Then I'd hesitate to call it combat proven if its only been used to any operation extent by highly trained German special forces in Afghanistan.
.

Can i just ask... If German Special Forces dont count in your reliablity test, who does? (innocent question please dont take it the wrong way)

[thatguy96]

We're not talking about reliability tests, were talking about it being combat proven. I want to see grunts who are in the field for months, who might let their maintaince standards decline or altogether cease to exist, who might not treat their weapons with the same care in the field, who might not know as many nuances of their kit as more elite forces would, who generally don't give the same attention to their kit by default as elite forces, and I want to see what happens when they get ambushed day in and day out or are called upon to use their weapons every single day while out on patrol.

To say that KSK using the G36 in Afghanistan makes it "combat proven" is akin to someone in the early sixties saying that the M16 was combat proven because from most accounts it performed extremely well with elite elements in South East Asia. All you'd have to do is look at poor training doctrine and the logisitical expansion for 5.56x45mm NATO that caused the ammo issues to crop up, to notice that by 1968 various non-elite elements with the US military might well have challanged the "combat proven" nature of the M16A1.

Really, if the Thai armed forces switch over to the G36 I believe this will be the first instance where there is a chance to really prove its metal (no pun intended) in slightly more protracted fighting.

[Thor]

We're not talking about reliability tests, were talking about it being combat proven. I want to see grunts who are in the field for months, who might let their maintaince standards decline or altogether cease to exist, who might not treat their weapons with the same care in the field, who might not know as many nuances of their kit as more elite forces would, who generally don't give the same attention to their kit by default as elite forces, and I want to see what happens when they get ambushed day in and day out or are called upon to use their weapons every single day while out on patrol.
Are you american?

Man, get real.. You don’t think all this has been done? You think army guys, special forces, technicians and so on praise it for some other reason then because it’s great? To compare it with early issues of M16 isn’t fair and HK isn’t Colt.

And by the way, if you want a weapon for grunts M16 for sure isn’t the one.

[thatguy96]

Are you american?

Man, get real.. You don’t think all this has been done? You think army guys, special forces, technicians and so on praise it for some other reason then because it’s great? To compare it with early issues of M16 isn’t fair and HK isn’t Colt.

And by the way, if you want a weapon for grunts M16 for sure isn’t the one.
HK isn't Colt? Of course HK isn't Colt. However, Colt wasn't responsible for why the original iterations of the M16A1 performed so poorly either. That was the US government. In fact, it was against what Colt and Eugene Stoner specifically told them they should do.

Why should I believe the hype until its seen extended combat usage? I don't see how that's reasonable. I'll repeat my initial arguement. "Army guys, special forces, technicians, and so on" praised the M16, but that didn't make it combat proven. In fact, when it was deployed on a grand scale, when the US government bungled certain things, and certain SOPs started to slip it was far less than adequet in combat.

Why should I simply believe the HK G36 is different because its made by HK? I want to see it in serious action, is that wrong? I'm not saying it can't be eventually considered combat proven, I'm just saying that as of now really it isn't. I mean under this logic I can consider the Stoner 63A to be a combat proven weapon system.

I'll take this opportunity to post this again for all the G36 fanboys who want to say that the only reason I'm not jumping all over the bandwagon is because I'm a blinded AR-15/M16 American:

They created something "back to basics" incased in a new fangled polymer shell, that spoke to some 40 years of weight complaint, and openly borrowed from almost every design then in existance (including the AR-15/M16, AR-18, AK, and even the FAL). Thank you HK for reinventing the wheel, sticking it in plastic, and calling it the most amazing firearms development in the last 100 years.

Furthermore, to say that the M16 isn't a grunts weapon is simply ridiculous, and if you can find me supportive documentation post-1968 of massive weapon system related failures (not as the result of poor cleaning, magazines, ammunition, etc), then I might be inclined to agree with you. Its not a conscripts weapon, but if a professional solider can't take the fourteen minutes a day to clean his weapon, then there's something seriously wrong with that armed force.

[Little J]

So the regular forces that Spain / Germany sent to the Gulf and Afganistan dont count? (did Germany send regulars i cant remember?)


P.s. I can see your point, just think you may be taking it to the extreme a little.

[Jippo]

"Combat proven" is way over rated.

It is really bad argument when you talk about military weapons. Good gun is a good gun, no matter if you take it to combat or not. Being in combat doesn't miraculously change the weapon system in question.

Also G36 will not by some odd quirk of nature start to produce new types failures when it is taken into combat. It's mechanics are inherently more reliable than for example M-16's, there is no way around it. It is less sensitive to dirt (closed structure) and it is easier to maintain as it doesn't get dirty from firing. M-16 is really the worst case scenario of modern combat weapons reliability wise, so if it is considered "good" there is no doubt what system like G36 is.


-jippo

[ReconCominAtYa]

We all know the only way this will be solved is with a duel.

[thatguy96]

So the regular forces that Spain / Germany sent to the Gulf and Afganistan dont count? (did Germany send regulars i cant remember?)


P.s. I can see your point, just think you may be taking it to the extreme a little.

I'm not saying "combat proven" is a good standard to go by, and I'm not doubting the G36's reliability (even if I am defending the reliability of the AR-15/M16 pattern), I'm just saying that from what I think the G36 can not be considered combat proven. It hasn't seen enough actual combat. I mean, if simply carrying around a gun in a combat zone makes it "combat proven" then the Reising M50 was a combat proven weapon system.



Also G36 will not by some odd quirk of nature start to produce new types failures when it is taken into combat.
You seem overly sure about this. Had properly manufacturered ammunition been deployed and people trained to clean their weapons properly, then there is something to suggest that the M16A1 would not have had the growing pains it did.


It is less sensitive to dirt (closed structure) and it is easier to maintain as it doesn't get dirty from firing. M-16 is really the worst case scenario of modern combat weapons reliability wise, so if it is considered "good" there is no doubt what system like G36 is.
Closed structure? Unless its somehow caseless and doesn't have an ejection port then its not a 100% closed structure, and it no more or less sensitive to dirt then the AR-15/M16 pattern. The G36 doesn't even have an ejection port cover. Lets see a G36 lubed down with what was issued in the sandbox and see how long it takes for it to attracted every grain of sand for miles.

Also, on the subject of direct gas making the weapon dirty simply by firing it, I've heard few reports from the field of the sort of carbon buildup even civilian shooters experience as a by-product of using ****ty ammo. This is why it takes 14 minutes to clean the thing, because really all you have to do is wipe the carrier off and make sure it rides properly.

Of course none of this is to say the G36 isn't reliable or a good piece of kit, I'm just tired of people talking about all the "inherent" faults of the AR-15/M16's mechanics when there simply isn't much in the way of evidence to support your claims on an operational level.

[Jippo]

There are reported cases where M16 failed to fire in action in Iraq. Not as horrendous as in Vietnam, but still. Most famous of them was the case of Jessica Lynch. Also when tested in arctic environment M16 failed to function when Israeli, Finnish and Russian weapons still function without a hick-up.

It is a delicate piece of machinery, and really far from perfect.

You asked about the closed structure: I meant the action that is enclosed from all sides with plastic. ejection port is covered by the slab-sided bolt carrier. What comes to ****ty ammo making M-16 dirty, all I can say is that good reliable rifle puts any kind of ammo through. G36 vents all the gases out from the front grip, thus no dirt in the action no matter what ammo.

I don't think that G36 is the end-all ultimate assault weapon, but also I'm sure M-16 isn't one.


-jippo

[Wodan]

Germany used it for some years in Afghanistan and former Jugoslavia, it is also in used by elite forces in germany and by germanys military eliteforces, even in combat, as far as I know, Spain used it in Iraq, hell... if you want a combat proven weapon, and nothing else, just keep your M16, in 50 years it will be even more combat proven!!! (but I doubt that it will get better, by being more combat proven, if you dont change the things that cause problems)

[RS_Leo1A5]

So the regular forces that Spain / Germany sent to the Gulf and Afganistan dont count? (did Germany send regulars i cant remember?)

Germany has more than 2000 soldiers in Afghanistan and more than 300 at the Horn of Africa.

[Michael RVR]

HK isn't Colt? Of course HK isn't Colt. However, Colt wasn't responsible for why the original iterations of the M16A1 performed so poorly either. That was the US government. In fact, it was against what Colt and Eugene Stoner specifically told them they should do.


I dont think thats entirely true either, i've read a few accounts which mention poor build quality at colt being one of the factors which caused the M-16A1 to perform so poorly.

[thatguy96]

There are reported cases where M16 failed to fire in action in Iraq. Not as horrendous as in Vietnam, but still. Most famous of them was the case of Jessica Lynch. Also when tested in arctic environment M16 failed to function when Israeli, Finnish and Russian weapons still function without a hick-up.
The arctic tests were almost certainly rigged, and most people believe this. As for failure to functions in the sandbox, like I said I want to hear about ones that were conclusively a product of the weapon's mechanics, not poor solider discipline (when cleaning), the choice of lubricant, or as a result of ammunition or magazines.

Israeli, Finnish, and Russian weapons? All AKs or refined AKs. That says something right there.


You asked about the closed structure: I meant the action that is enclosed from all sides with plastic. ejection port is covered by the slab-sided bolt carrier. What comes to ****ty ammo making M-16 dirty, all I can say is that good reliable rifle puts any kind of ammo through. G36 vents all the gases out from the front grip, thus no dirt in the action no matter what ammo.
Like I said, unless you've gone caseless and you don't have an ejection port there's no way to completely prevent dirt and grit getting inside the action.

And when was the last time anyone tried to shoot 1000 rounds of Wolf through a G36 in a day?


I dont think thats entirely true either, i've read a few accounts which mention poor build quality at colt being one of the factors which caused the M-16A1 to perform so poorly.
The majority of the Vietnam era horror stories have to do with near catestrophic FTE (Failure To Eject) malfunctions, almost entirely a product of poor ammunition and magazines. Furthermore, issues related to quality control from a certain manufacturer should not be used to codemn a system as a failure (that should bring the Colt vs. Diemaco people out of the woodwork).

[Retard]

'Black Rifle" book has the complete history of the early years.

I believe the problems were with the early M16's called the XM16E1. The M16A1 was developed to correct problems with the early model. However, most of the early problems were due to the ammunition, not the rifle. I believe the military switched the powder to a dirty powder. Some say because they had tons of it. Some say because they wanted to increase the velocity up to 3250 fps. End result, dirty rifle & too high cyclic rate of fire. Add in bad maintenance = dead soldiers.

Off the top of my head, I believe to address the issue:
-Changed to cleaner burning powder
-Chrome-lined barrel
-Heavy buffer to slow down cyclic rate
-Added forward assist
-Reinforced training on rifle maintenance

In the mid-80's, I was actually issued an XM16E1 for a few weeks when I first arrived at my unit.

[Jippo]

The arctic tests were almost certainly rigged, ...

If you are that ignorant, there is no point discussing about the matter further.

I suggest you get experience of M-16 and also other types of assault weapons, so you'll know what I talk about.


-jippo

Ps. It doesn't matter with G-36 system if you fire Wolf or any other brand of ammunition, dirt still doesn't get into the action. Also 1000 rounds of Wolf isn't a big deal even with AR-15. Here is a quote from HKPro: "The G36 jams so rarely that HK has said that they have a G36K that has been fired more than 25,000 rounds without cleaning and no failures."

[USMC-Congbuster]

And by the way, if you want a weapon for grunts M16 for sure isn’t the one.

Youre a grunt right THor?

Cause I am, and so far the M16A4 has presented no problems, other than getting rusty when exposed to water and not being properly maintained for a few days

[coolflame]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.
Then I'd hesitate to call it combat proven if its only been used to any operation extent by highly trained German special forces in Afghanistan.


The G36 is combat proven by various special forces on various places on the globe.
Again, I ask by who.

Its not my fault germans dont go all over the globe shooting everything that moves, but its still combat proven. I.E. it has been PROVEN to work IN COMBAT, what more do i need to say?

[Frens]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.
Then I'd hesitate to call it combat proven if its only been used to any operation extent by highly trained German special forces in Afghanistan.

If it works good for highly trained German SFs then it will works great for stardard soldiers

[AVZ]

You need dead people to call it combat proven??



it's must be the american way of thinking!!! :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

[ReconCominAtYa]

Why are the faults of the m16 even being discussed in this thread?

[VaLiancY]

Is the XM8 going to be issued in one color? :oops:

[Frens]

Is the XM8 going to be issued in one color? :oops:


rofl rofl rofl issued? rofl rofl rofl

[AVZ]

Sooner or later even Italy gets HK weapons!!

The best thing will last longer!! ;)

[Frens]

HK weapons are great and German quality is famous everywhere ;) but I find the XM8 useless IMHO

[VaLiancY]

Is the XM8 going to be issued in one color? :oops:


rofl rofl rofl issued? rofl rofl rofl

Did I say something wrong? I used the wrong verbage? I'm new to these forums and I only know basic military terminology so excuse me. :roll:

[Frens]

no no, no problem mate. I apologize.
about your question, here is what I found: "Major components of the weapon are produced from Hi-Strength fiber reinforced polymer materials that can be molded in almost any color to included OD green, desert tan, artic white, urabn blue, brown and basic black."

[JTAR7242]

I don't seem to remember the Spaniards in Iraq or the Germans in Afghanistan doing a whole lot of heavy fighting. Maybe I'm wrong. Carrying a gun around in a combat zone does not mean its combat proven.

Im sure the friendly guys from your local KSK would beg to differ.
Then I'd hesitate to call it combat proven if its only been used to any operation extent by highly trained German special forces in Afghanistan.

If it works good for highly trained German SFs then it will works great for stardard soldiers:lol:

And that's why you'll never be in charge of procurement of any equipment for a major military organization.

No, really, for emphasis. rofl

[VaLiancY]

no no, no problem mate. I apologize.
about your question, here is what I found: "Major components of the weapon are produced from Hi-Strength fiber reinforced polymer materials that can be molded in almost any color to included OD green, desert tan, artic white, urabn blue, brown and basic black."

Thanks a lot for the information. p-)

[Doomsayer]

German quality is famous everywhere ;)

200% true

[Dennis G]

"XM8" :roll:




Edit :: some of my old posts on the Xm8

I happen to like HK weapons (I prefer others but...) and dread HK customer service and arrogance. Having said that the most distasteful part of the project IMHO is the tremendous amount of politics involved with HK these days and the continued use of lobbyists on theirs and everyone else's parts for military contracts and funding for development projects. When such measures are involved it means that the wealthiest companies are coming forward with products not necessarily the best products or best ideas.

The US LE market has seen this in a large manner play out with the Zylon scandals and Second Chance was amazingly connected and well represented by lobbyists before officers started being killed while wearing their products.

With Armor Holdings owning 60% of the companies that supply US LE Departments and Officers today it makes me very curious. HK has become very large, very suddenly (less than a decade) with US Govt contracts and it is reason for concern.

HK couldn't sell their G36. (Or for that matter their UMP.)So, they dress it up and market the XM8 at a zillion dollars a copy. Bad guys get killed by bullets; the rifle is just the means to deliver them. IT'S THE SAME BULLET, PEOPLE!!

Neither do I see an increase in reliability or maintainability over the M16 family. I'm not even including teething problems like melting plastic into that concern.

The standard model comes with a 12.5" barrel.

Let's see M4's had problems with their 14.5" barrel not imparting enough velocity on ammo to get the explosive effect of the bullet breaking up at any significant range and now they cut the barrel back even more.

To have an explosive effect and break apart, the 5.56mm round needs to be travelling at about 2700 feet per second at the range that it makes impact on the human:

M193 55 grain round Muzzle velocity about 3200 feet per second from a 20" barrel
20" Barrel - 190-200m
16" Barrel - 140-150m
14.5" Barrel - 95-100m
11.5" Barrel - 40-45m

M855 62 grain round Muzzle velocity of about 3000 feet per second out of a 20" barrel.
20" Barrel - 140-150m
16" Barrel - 90-95m
14.5" Barrel -45-50m
11.5" Barrel - 12-15m

(notice in both cases when you go from a 14.5" to a 16" barrel you just about double the range at which the round has an explosive effect.

The actual cause of the larger-than-expected wounds was not a result of this yawing of the bullet, but of the velocity of the bullet coupled with the bullet's construction. M193 bullets have a groove or knurl around the middle, called a cannelure. This allows the mouth of the case to be crimped on to the bullet, preventing the bullet from being pushed back into the case during handling and feeding. The cannelure also weakens the integrity of the bullet jacket.

When the bullet struck flesh at a high-enough velocity, the bullet's thin jacket, weakened by the cannelure, could not survive the pressure of moving sideways through the dense flesh. Instead, the bullet would only rotate about 90°, at which point the stresses were too much for the bullet jacket and the bullet would fragment. The results were a wound that was far out of proportion to the size of the bullet. Yet, the twist rate of the barrel and therefore the rotation speed of the bullet, is not a factor in the fragmenting equation.

M855 ammo works exactly the same way, though due to its heavier bullet, it has less muzzle velocity. Less muzzle velocity translates to a shorter range in which the bullet retains enough velocity to fragment, compared to M193.

Janes IDR October 2002, "Small arms ammunition advances bit by bit" by Charles Q. Cutshaw on Pages 36-37 reports:
There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia.

For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s.

When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has traveled downrange only 50m it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other an close-quarters battle distances.

but then again according to HK the 12.5 inch barrel on the XM-8 develops the same velocity as the 14.5 inch on the M-4. And even if it is the case, we are still back to square one with the same insufficient velocity problems of a 14.5" barrel.

But hey you gotta love polygonal barrels! Sucks though that a company like HK (poor customer service) would be coupled after the fact with Knight's (also poor service) in terms of the first out the door with interfaces for the rifle. Sounds like a nightmare just waiting to unfold.

However, I'm at least happy that Remington's got the 6.8 SPC XM8 on a test run. Maybe something good could come out of this whole convoluted contract business.

[Durandal]

German quality is famous everywhere ;)

Especially when it comes to mass production and harvesting natural resources like oil...

...and making aircraft carriers.

rofl

Your comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Pandy]

One is, G36 is German
Other is, XM-8 is American.

Simple as that, at one point of time, the M16A1 was laughed at. At another, G-36 was laughed at, and now, XM-8 is laughed at. Now, you don't see whole lots of people bitching about the G-36 and M16s. Both have seen combat lately. Germans in combat areas (I've readed up on some stuff about the German Military there, and they have seen their share.) Spain in Iraq with their G36, and from what I heard, it worked great. And the M16, time after time, it worked greatly since the upgrades in Vietnam.

NOTE: Jamming problems reported were normally because the user didn't take care of their weapon. This works hand-to-hand with the G36 and M16, or any weapon of matter of fact.

[Frens]

German quality is famous everywhere ;)

Especially when it comes to mass production and harvesting natural resources like oil...

...and making aircraft carriers.

rofl

Your comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

your too :|

[Durandal]

your too :|

That was my point.