should the US army adopt the XM8 ?

[tiger-unit]

to make it easier.

[MVSpartan117]

NO!

We need 6.8 SPC!

[tiger-unit]

and that means...

[Ratamacue]

and that means...

He means that we need a rifle that fires the 6.8x43mm SPC round rather than 5.56 NATO.

[tiger-unit]

tru... VERY tru !

[Operation Ivy]

only if it;s gonna fire 6.8

[Dennis G]

NO!

We need 6.8 SPC!

Yeah thats what I'm thinking

[rob]

i think the barret m468 sould be adopted as standard issue.

[crazyman]

included in the XM8 program is some testing of the weapon in 6.8mm. we're just going to have to wait and see.

[HELEX]

Is that some kind of obsession with the 6.8mm in this Forum?

Every FMJ Projectile has no good stopping or killing power. According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ. The new caliber will not be significant better. Even the 7.62x51 has no real good stopping power.
The Problems can not be solved by simply adding 1mm to the diameter. :cantbeli:

If you want lethal rounds use Hollowpoints. And that is against Geneva convention.

[REMOV]

Every FMJ Projectile has no good stopping or killing power.Pardon?!
According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ. Rubbish, try to find this Convention and read it once again, ok?
The new caliber will not be significant better. It is significant better.
Even the 7.62x51 has no real good stopping power.Who told you that?

[Gringo]

A POINTY STICK!!!!

[HELEX]

@REMOV

Read it yourself big mouth!

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

:cantbeli:

[ibstolidude]

@REMOV

Read it yourself big mouth!

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

:cantbeli:
so go on and post the part that says rounds must be made to "wound" not kill?

please don't tell me that you are one of the knuckle heads that believes the 5.56 was designed to wound.

[Haiw]

@REMOV

Read it yourself big mouth!

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

:cantbeli:
so go on and post the part that says rounds must be made to "wound" not kill?

please don't tell me that you are one of the knuckle heads that believes the 5.56 was designed to wound.
Duh, of course it wasn't designed to wound. It was designed to make people feel itchy.

[REMOV]

Read it yourself big mouth!
http://www.genevaconventions.org/Could you point out a specific fragment?

[HELEX]

Here is it you ****er!

Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Art. 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

REMOV, have you read that?

[REMOV]

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.You wrote: "According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ." Can you understand words "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" correctly? Thers is nothing about wounding not killing. Again, could you find a specific part of Geneva Conventions or we just agree that you're wrong and wrote rubbish?

And yes, I read it and understood long years ago. Try to find this article in your national language, maybe it helps you.

[HELEX]

It is recognized by every Nation what it means. Did you serve in your countrys Army? They should have told you that.... :cantbeli:

[REMOV]

It is recognized by every Nation what it means.So try to ask someone, because you have a problem with interpretation. You completly don't understand that fragment of Convention. It is really not my fault ;)

[HELEX]

Any Officer here who can educate REMOV a bit about interpretion of this? :roll:

[ibstolidude]

Any Officer here who can educate REMOV a bit about interpretion of this? :roll:

There is no inturpretatio. Thge Geneva convention DOES not prohibit ammunition the kills. Death is NOT considered unecassary suffering. Mortar rounds are projectiles - I guess they have been designed to wounds?
Missiles are projectiles.

You were/are wrong you just are not man enough to admit that you had been mistaken.

[HELEX]

Mortar rounds are projectiles - I guess they have been designed to wounds?

Yes, sure are they designed for that. If you fill them with Anthrax or deadly chemical agents it is an unconventional Weapon....

Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

[ibstolidude]

Mortar rounds are projectiles - I guess they have been designed to wounds?

Yes, sure are they designed for that. If you fill them with Anthrax or deadly chemical agents it is an unconventional Weapon....

Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Who mentioned WMD bio or chem arafre ?

You stated by Geneva convention bullets can not be designed to kill
You then quoted a piece of the convention that stated nothing of the sort.
Quote:
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. - I asked where do Mortars fall in your "interpretation"?

[HELEX]

Mortars wound people with shrapnel, In fact more people are wounded than killed by mortar fire.

And did you read the words "wilful killing" in that text?

Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

[REMOV]

And did you read the words "wilful killing" in that text?Annoying kid, isn't it, ibstolidude? ;)

Helex, find in dictionary the word "context" and read note it carefully. This article has nothing in common with projectiles and killing as well.

[chopsticks]

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
excuse me for asking, but how do they define (the people who made this convention) define "unnecessary suffering"?

[atnadastra]

Is that some kind of obsession with the 6.8mm in this Forum?

Every FMJ Projectile has no good stopping or killing power. According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ. The new caliber will not be significant better. Even the 7.62x51 has no real good stopping power.
The Problems can not be solved by simply adding 1mm to the diameter. :cantbeli:

If you want lethal rounds use Hollowpoints. And that is against Geneva convention.

Helex,

While I do believe that the Geneva Convention is somewhat vague in much of its wording, I have to agree with REMOV and ibsolitude on this one: a contextual reading of the very passage of the document that you quoted indicates that in the spirit of the Convention, it is more egregious to wound than to kill. In other words, I believe the passage you quoted says the exact opposite of what you're saying in the your quote above.

What is deemed "prohibited" is NOT killing, but unnecessary maiming or inducing suffering. To use your example above of the hollow-point rounds, the reason hollow-points are prohibited IS NOT because they kill, but because THEY MIGHT NOT KILL, and anyone who survives being hit by a hollow-point would likely be vey seriously maimed and would suffer for the rest of their lives.

I believe there is no prohibition in the GC of lawful killing in war.

Further, the passage you quoted here...
Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
...must be taken in context. Let me draw your attention to this portion of your quote:
Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

I believe this is speaking about specifically-named persons or properties that are protected by the GC: for example, medical workers (and their facilities) who are operating within the definitions of the GC. I do not believe that the prohibition of "wilful killing" applies to enemy combatants. In addition, there are acts which a normally-protected party may engage in which would negate the protection afforded them by the GC--for example, a doctor taking up arms against the enemy for anything other than the defense of his/her patients.

What I am trying to say is: the "wilful killing" passage applies to only protected persons/properties, and enemy combatants may not necessarily (and most times aren't) be considered protected parties IN THIS CONTEXT.

[Beowulf]

If you're going to quote something then you need to provide a link/s to it. Just a general reminder.

[ibstolidude]

wrong thread - oops!

[atnadastra]

Does everyone here know of the term MVP in US sports lexicon - posting things that contradict your own arguement is like being an MVP for the other team.

ibsolitude, to whom are you referring?


...Never mind...

[crazyman]

what they mean by superfluous, is something like using a 25mm cannon on a BFV to shoot a single soldier. and as far as willfull killing? thats equivilant to running up to a guy and putting a bullet in the back of his head, because you dont feel like dealing with prisoners. Dont think any of my instructors ever told me anything about "wounding" a guy....do believe the emphasis was on center mass, shoot to kill.

did the U.S. even sign off on this? i remember hearing some stink about us not doing so because it banned the use of claymore mines that are not command detonated. just curious, probably thinking of some other convention

[bobdakilla]

HELEX IS GAY HELEX GAY HE IS A HO-MO-SEX-U-AL as in he looks at gay porn for a sorce of stimulation.

oh and he cant admit when hes wrong.

[NcDeuce]

The XM8

Supporters believe: It is light
Um, the XM8 will have to have standard 1913 adapters to receive lights, lasers, and other attachments. *Cough* Adds weight *Cough* Where are the backup sights for the XM8? Where are the iron sights? What happens if the batteries die or if the sight breaks? How do you put a night sight on the XM8? Can it even use one?

Supporters believe: It comes with a super sighting system
So does the M4! The wireless switch to control the sight is something else that can break or fall off in the field!

Supporters believe: It's easy to zero
So is the M4!

Supporters believe: It has no rails.
^ Read the first response. ^

Result: Will not be adopted anytime soon.

[HELEX]

Supporters believe: It is light
Um, the XM8 will have to have standard 1913 adapters to receive lights, lasers, and other attachments. *Cough* Adds weight *Cough* Where are the backup sights for the XM8? Where are the iron sights? What happens if the batteries die or if the sight breaks? How do you put a night sight on the XM8? Can it even use one?

Laser + Illuminator is integrated in the sighting unit for use with NVG and the Unit can be changed to other specialized versions.

"Integrated operator removable 1/1
reflex sight with integrated
IR laser and illuminator. Contains electronic red dot and backup
etched ranging reticle with auxiliary emergency iron sight.
All devices are mounted on the same optical plain so all three
devices are zeroed on the rifle from the factory or in the field
by the operator in one operation. Sight uses a
single DL123
battery and single wired or wireless remote switch. Mounts to
weapon via flush PCAP mounting points and quick release
mount that provides 100% zero retention."

Supporters believe: It comes with a super sighting system
So does the M4! The wireless switch to control the sight is something else that can break or fall off in the field!

Nothing super on the M4, just standard cheap red dot that looses zeroing when handled rough.

Supporters believe: It's easy to zero
So is the M4!


No, the M4 is just as easy to zero than any other conventional rifle. But it looses Zeroing by removing Sights. The XM8 remains zeroed.

Supporters believe: It has no rails.
^ Read the first response. ^

Read my first response, it can have rail if it should be neccesary... :lol:

Result: Will not be adopted anytime soon.

Result: Will be adopted very soon, M4 showed all weaknesses again in Iraq.

[NcDeuce]

From December through late May, soldiers will get a chance to fire the prototypes in desert, tropical and arctic environments.

A limited-user test then will be conducted, possibly at Fort Campbell, Ky., where soldiers will test the prototypes for about three weeks while training in offensive -and defensive scenarios.


Operational tests do not begin until the fall of 2004. This will take months, possibly years. After all of this, the leadership will finally decide to give it a green light and as of now, it will not be adopted soon.

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8_rightmed.jpg

:roll:

[Airborneranger4israel]

why is the 6.8 SPC better than the nato round?
what is the difference between them?

Someone please explain this to me

[Airborneranger4israel]

HELEX IS GAY HELEX GAY HE IS A HO-MO-SEX-U-AL as in he looks at gay porn for a sorce of stimulation.

oh and he cant admit when hes wrong.

even though i'm not helix's biggest fan i do think it is wrong to use racial slurs. please lay off the homophobic names. i mean its only a freakin thread.

[ibstolidude]

Nothing super on the M4, just standard cheap red dot that looses zeroing when handled rough.


No, the M4 is just as easy to zero than any other conventional rifle. But it looses Zeroing by removing Sights.
- again you post lies and bull****. You are just simply full of ****. You should save us all time and just post things like Hi I am HELEX. I know little more than nothing but don't worry I will tell you all about the M4 dispite my own admission of only limited exposure to it. Thanks I'm a troll.

[rob]

Supporters believe: It is light
Um, the XM8 will have to have standard 1913 adapters to receive lights, lasers, and other attachments. *Cough* Adds weight *Cough* Where are the backup sights for the XM8? Where are the iron sights? What happens if the batteries die or if the sight breaks? How do you put a night sight on the XM8? Can it even use one?

Laser + Illuminator is integrated in the sighting unit for use with NVG and the Unit can be changed to other specialized versions.

um the sight can be modified to fit the m4 with very little work so it is of very little concern.


"Integrated operator removable 1/1
reflex sight with integrated
IR laser and illuminator. Contains electronic red dot and backup
etched ranging reticle with auxiliary emergency iron sight.
All devices are mounted on the same optical plain so all three
devices are zeroed on the rifle from the factory or in the field
by the operator in one operation. Sight uses a
single DL123
battery and single wired or wireless remote switch. Mounts to
weapon via flush PCAP mounting points and quick release
mount that provides 100% zero retention."

Supporters believe: It comes with a super sighting system
So does the M4! The wireless switch to control the sight is something else that can break or fall off in the field!

Nothing super on the M4, just standard cheap red dot that looses zeroing when handled rough. and the xm8 wont loose zero how?

Supporters believe: It's easy to zero
So is the M4!


No, the M4 is just as easy to zero than any other conventional rifle. But it looses Zeroing by removing Sights. The XM8 remains zeroed.
actually the m4 will retain zero if the sight is removed and taken off so long as you use a quality mount. the same is true fot eh xm8

Supporters believe: It has no rails.
^ Read the first response. ^

Read my first response, it can have rail if it should be neccesary... :lol:

Result: Will not be adopted anytime soon.

Result: Will be adopted very soon, M4 showed all weaknesses again in Iraq.


haha hahah ahahah a haha holly **** helex you are funny.

actually the published report from the army and marine core said the only complaint on the m4 was that it lacked range, and the xm8 with a berral two inches shorter fixes this how?

seriously i think it is time to remove your head from your ass, as it is hard to see the truth with your head so far in there.

[Tony Williams]

why is the 6.8 SPC better than the nato round?
what is the difference between them?

Someone please explain this to me

The key difference is that it only generates half the recoil of the 7.62x51, so it is (just about) controllable in automatic fire from a rifle - which the 7.62x51 most definitely is not.

Compared with the 5.56x45 round it uses a heavier bullet delivering considerably greater energy to the target at all ranges, so it minimises the risk of the bad guys shooting back once you've shot them.

The 6.8x43 is just about the best all-round compromise for a military rifle - except for those who prefer the 6.5mm Grendel, of course :)

FWIW, while the XM8 appears to be marginally better than the M16/M4 family in various respects (especially reliability in adverse conditions) I think it is hardly worth bothering to change unless the calibre is changed as well.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[oldsoak]

I think the US should adopt the EM2 and the .280" round :lol:

- exits the scene at warp speed before the opposition DF's him..

[Rnagerrick]

Why must we argue over what size of a hole we put in someone, the enemy is meant to die, thats the point.

[HELEX]

I will bring this thread up when the XM8 is in service.... :lol:

[NcDeuce]

I will bring this thread up when the XM8 is in service.... :lol:

It won't be for a long time, peon. Hopefully, we will all move to better things but then again...you do seem to have no life.

[Gringo]

I think the XM8 won't be in servie for a while, and H&K know this.
They wouldn't had really bothered with a HKM4 if the XM8 was coming into service soon.

But yeah, I'd like the XM8 to replace the M4A1 at some point.

[Fintin]

I will bring this thread up when the XM8 is in service.... :lol:

maybe its first use will be in germany again....you might be the first one to go at the hands of an xm8....

[HELEX]

I think the XM8 won't be in servie for a while, and H&K know this.
They wouldn't had really bothered with a HKM4 if the XM8 was coming into service soon.

But yeah, I'd like the XM8 to replace the M4A1 at some point.

The HKM4 was a private initiative of two HK employees, no official Project. Did you know that?

[WARPIG]

HELEX... great avatar.. poor info.

Your source is even misdirected. The Geneva Convention ariticles cover threatment of POW's. The Hague IV is the international rulebook for War and Combat. Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

(b) to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
The highlited portion of the article is similar to the quote HELEX pulled from Geneva... superfluous means extravagant, unecessary. Caliber of the projectile is not regulated by international law. NATO has a standard.. STANAG.. but it is not "Law." The misnomer that personnel are not allowed to be engaged by high caliber rounds was for logistical reasons.. not legal. I have yet to see that ball or FMG, hollow point, or other type of round is mandated by international law. The only round that is being looked at or that some "stink" is being raised about is UD rounds. This is why it is perfectly legal for a sniper to put a .50 cal round into the 5 box on personnel, equipment, weapons, or vehicles.

XM8 like the G36 will be adaptable to several calibers of ammo, should the US military deem it necessary.

[TacoDelRio]

Helex,

You're losing points:

LACK OF FIREARMS KNOWLEDGE: -400,000 :bash:
LACK OF COMMON SENSE: -650
IMMATURITY: -700
UGLYASS AVATAR: -800 :fork:

You won't have to carry it, so don't mess with it.

Our troops keep talking about how inneffective the M855 62 grain ball round is against enemy targets. This is magnified by the M4's 14.5in barrel, making the velocity lower than out of a normal 20in barrel of an M16. I can't see why getting a NEW 5.56mm rifle would solve this problem. I'd like to try out an M4 with a 6.8x42 SPC upper. Looks to be VERY promising.

Helex, what kind of M4 Carbines do you personally own? Since you are such a goddamned expert on this, you MUST have so much more experience than any of us who have actually had to use them as part of our jobs.

Just shut the hell up and go back to your porn, boy. Come back to discuss firearms when you've learned how to load a magazine into a rifle.

DB

[HELEX]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/avatars/147255917440901a07d1129.jpg

THAT is the most uglyass Avatar I've ever seen! :lol:

Im 100% sure they wont adopt a AR-15 Style gas system again and the Ammo is not the Rifle, If they want a XM8 in 6.8x42 SPC they can have it. Whats the deal?
They will either adopt a HKM4 or a XM8, with the Ammo they want.

[n.ignomo]

I will make everybody agree....keep 5.56 ! Goes faster....can somebody gives me infos about penetration of a 6.8 bullet ? Penetration is the reason why we chose 5.56 !

[Gringo]

I think the XM8 won't be in servie for a while, and H&K know this.
They wouldn't had really bothered with a HKM4 if the XM8 was coming into service soon.

But yeah, I'd like the XM8 to replace the M4A1 at some point.

The HKM4 was a private initiative of two HK employees, no official Project. Did you know that?

No because it wasn't

SOURCE: Jane's Defence Weekly Vol. 41 Issue No .16

According to Schatz, HK was approached by "a few select organisations in the US Department of Defense [DoD] who came to us and said 'We know what you did for the SA80 and we'd like you to do the thing for our M4s'. We've done that through a very close team relationship with the US military. So the [HK] M4 was developed as a product improvement of the existing, in-service, fielded weapon to provide additional capabilities."

[TacoDelRio]

I give up.

I wave my giant penis at you and your ugly avatar, Helex.

I vote for the XM9 Pointy-Stick Weapon System (PSWS) as mentioned on the first page.

[WARPIG]

What is wrong with HELEX's avatar??

Don't get all geeked out on penetration, caliber, or velocity. If you pay attention to the trend right now... universal is sort of a thing of the past. Lightweight is good for some applications, but not others. Range and velocity is good for some.. penetration is good for some. Maybe FMJ rounds aren't going to be standard for much longer. The key thing in small arms for the days ahead is compatibility to the mission. Systems like the G36 are why the XM8 is being pursued.

Speaking of HELEX.. no concession on the whole "Geneva convention" rant yet. Hmmm.. I am shocked and amazed.

[Gringo]

I give up.

I wave my giant penis at you and your ugly avatar, Helex.

I vote for the XM9 Pointy-Stick Weapon System (PSWS) as mentioned on the first page.

Cool someone does like my new weapon system.

[HELEX]

What is wrong with HELEX's avatar??

Don't get all geeked out on penetration, caliber, or velocity. If you pay attention to the trend right now... universal is sort of a thing of the past. Lightweight is good for some applications, but not others. Range and velocity is good for some.. penetration is good for some. Maybe FMJ rounds aren't going to be standard for much longer. The key thing in small arms for the days ahead is compatibility to the mission. Systems like the G36 are why the XM8 is being pursued.

Speaking of HELEX.. no concession on the whole "Geneva convention" rant yet. Hmmm.. I am shocked and amazed.

Did I ever said something about caliber? I said something about the Projectile should be no Dum-Dum ammo or Hollow-point according to the Convention, never said something about size. So dont bring me Apples when I ask for pears. :D

I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.

[n.ignomo]

Dum Dum bullets or what are only illegal against antagonsits who didn't ratify the convention or any text. It already happened in Africa when Germany, France and GB fought against tribes or little countries which didn't want colonisation. Since they had not signed these texts, we could uses such bullets anytime we wanted ! And human rights were far further than than time!

[WARPIG]

What is wrong with HELEX's avatar??

Don't get all geeked out on penetration, caliber, or velocity. If you pay attention to the trend right now... universal is sort of a thing of the past. Lightweight is good for some applications, but not others. Range and velocity is good for some.. penetration is good for some. Maybe FMJ rounds aren't going to be standard for much longer. The key thing in small arms for the days ahead is compatibility to the mission. Systems like the G36 are why the XM8 is being pursued.

Speaking of HELEX.. no concession on the whole "Geneva convention" rant yet. Hmmm.. I am shocked and amazed.

Did I ever said something about caliber? I said something about the Projectile should be no Dum-Dum ammo or Hollow-point according to the Convention, never said something about size. So dont bring me Apples when I ask for pears. :D

I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.

Again.. the Geneva convention is what you quoted..which deals with treatment of prisoners.. doesn't mention dum-dum rounds or hollow-point. For that matter.. the Hague convention doesn't either. Apparently.. HELEX was a victim of a dum-dum round.

I think your mis information refers to the use of fragmenting rounds or any round that deliberately causes excessive damage to the human body. None of which has anything to do with why you brought up the Geneva convention or the kind of fruit you are. You brought the subject to this thread and was misinformed. Plain and simple. Do a pig proud and just admit your mistake.

[HELEX]

What is wrong with HELEX's avatar??

Don't get all geeked out on penetration, caliber, or velocity. If you pay attention to the trend right now... universal is sort of a thing of the past. Lightweight is good for some applications, but not others. Range and velocity is good for some.. penetration is good for some. Maybe FMJ rounds aren't going to be standard for much longer. The key thing in small arms for the days ahead is compatibility to the mission. Systems like the G36 are why the XM8 is being pursued.

Speaking of HELEX.. no concession on the whole "Geneva convention" rant yet. Hmmm.. I am shocked and amazed.

Did I ever said something about caliber? I said something about the Projectile should be no Dum-Dum ammo or Hollow-point according to the Convention, never said something about size. So dont bring me Apples when I ask for pears. :D

I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.

Again.. the Geneva convention is what you quoted..which deals with treatment of prisoners.. doesn't mention dum-dum rounds or hollow-point. For that matter.. the Hague convention doesn't either. Apparently.. HELEX was a victim of a dum-dum round.

I think your mis information refers to the use of fragmenting rounds or any round that deliberately causes excessive damage to the human body. None of which has anything to do with why you brought up the Geneva convention or the kind of fruit you are. You brought the subject to this thread and was misinformed. Plain and simple. Do a pig proud and just admit your mistake.

So tell me which rule bans Hollowpoints from military use? They are much more effective, so why not in Use? These projectiles are against the Convention, just because not every weapon in detail is mentioned this doesnt mean it is allowed.

[Gringo]

HELEX's existence is against the Covention.

Well from what Jane's say; H&K was approached by the DoD to do the HKM4.
Jane is never wrong, except Jane Fonda.

[Damian]

[quote="Gringo"]HELEX's existence is against the Covention.

Terminate Him :roll:

[ibstolidude]

What is wrong with HELEX's avatar??

Don't get all geeked out on penetration, caliber, or velocity. If you pay attention to the trend right now... universal is sort of a thing of the past. Lightweight is good for some applications, but not others. Range and velocity is good for some.. penetration is good for some. Maybe FMJ rounds aren't going to be standard for much longer. The key thing in small arms for the days ahead is compatibility to the mission. Systems like the G36 are why the XM8 is being pursued.

Speaking of HELEX.. no concession on the whole "Geneva convention" rant yet. Hmmm.. I am shocked and amazed.

Did I ever said something about caliber? I said something about the Projectile should be no Dum-Dum ammo or Hollow-point according to the Convention, never said something about size. So dont bring me Apples when I ask for pears. :D

I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.

You also stated ammo to kill is illegal HAHAHAHAHAHA
And you belived the 5.56 was designed to wound and not kill!

I beleive what you refer to is the Hague Peace Conference held in July 1899 & the Hague Convention 1907 (article 23 E: arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering), the later of the 2 the US signed. However this only applies when used against the armed forces of another State.

[NcDeuce]

HELEX's lack of intelligence and inability to shut up and learn truly amazes me.

Just shut the hell up and go back to your porn, boy. Come back to discuss firearms when you've learned how to load a magazine into a rifle.

^ What he said

You have two ears, one mouth. Get your head out of your ass.

[ibstolidude]

Here is it you f***!

Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Art. 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

REMOV, have you read that?
That is not even part of the Geneva conventions that is posted from an post convention protocol's based on other treaties.
And you critique REMOV on his knowledge!

More lies and mis-truths.

[rob]

HELEX's existence is against the Covention.

Well from what Jane's say; H&K was approached by the DoD to do the HKM4.
Jane is never wrong, except Jane Fonda.

i dont think so, hk went ahead with the hk m4 probly because socom took a look that the xm8 and said "next!"

but that is just a guess, i dont think they where directly asked by the dod to make a diston driven m4 just something other then teh xm8.

[NeedsABetterName]

HELIX,not to be offensive,but I belive the willful killing thing pertains to POWs.

[Gringo]

HELEX's lack of intelligence and inability to shut up and learn truly amazes me.

Just shut the hell up and go back to your porn, boy. Come back to discuss firearms when you've learned how to load a magazine into a rifle.

^ What he said

You have two ears, one mouth. Get your head out of your ass.

He also has little between the ears

I think we should adopt the M14. Great Weapon. ;)

[Tony Williams]

I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.

Well, so's the .50 BMG ball round...

Other things being equal, and leaving aside CNS shots, the effectiveness of a military rifle bullet depends on the size of the wounds inflicted. The size of the wounds depends on three factors:

1. Bullet size and weight.

2. Bullet striking velocity.

3. Bullet design: how fast does it tumble, and does it fragment?

The 6.8mm has a bullet which weighs 50% more than the 77 grain Mk 262, and has 50% more frontal area. It also has 75% of the weight of a 7.62mm, and 80% of the frontal area.

The striking velocity of all three bullets would be fairly similar.

The Mk 262 and the 6.8mm normally tumble quickly and fragment out to all normal rifle distances. The 7.62mm tumbles slowly and doesn't fragment at all (unless you get the German ammo).

So to sum up, the damage inflicted by the 6.8mm is likely to be very close to that of the 7.62mm, and around 50% more than the best 5.56mm loading. Sounds to me to be an advantage worth having, without incurring the weight and recoil of the big 7.62mm.

Tony Williams

[rob]

I think we should adopt the M14. Great Weapon. ;)

if only it was that simple. but yes great weapon by all means

[Tony Williams]

So tell me which rule bans Hollowpoints from military use? They are much more effective, so why not in Use? These projectiles are against the Convention, just because not every weapon in detail is mentioned this doesnt mean it is allowed.

It is a matter of historical fact that the British Army withdrew the hollow-point 'Dum Dum' .303 bullets in the early years of the 20th Century because they were concerned that they might be illegal. In the interwar period they also replaced lead revolver bullets with jacketed ones for the same reason.

Tony Williams

[Tony Williams]

I think we should adopt the M14. Great Weapon. ;)

if only it was that simple. but yes great weapon by all means

Well, no, not really. It was no more than a shortened Garand with a detachable box magazine, and apart from the mag was no advance on the 1930s Garand. It was intended to be the 'Lightweight Rifle', the do-it-all, selective fire replacement for the M1 Garand, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and even the M3 SMG. The trouble was that it was uncontrollable in auto fire (which it didn't take a genius to predict) so this was usually blanked off. The M14 took 13 years from conception in 1944 to being officially adopted for service, and only two years after that, US Army trials concluded that the AR-15 was superior. There were serious production quality problems, and manufacture was stopped in 1963.

No other country ever bought the M14 - they had to be given away - whereas the competing FN FAL and HK G3 swept the international market. E C Ezell, the US firearms historian, described the M14 as "…the proverbial racehorse created by a committee. Instead of getting a thoroughbred, the result was a cross between a donkey and a camel."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[rob]

well considering that the m1 was a great weapon. ;)

the m14 will do anything a g3 or fn fal will, plus it is lighter then the fal, and probly the most reliable of the 3 although all are very reliable so it is of little concern.

the m14 was no more uncontrolable then the fal or g3 it is not a problem with the weapon design but ammunition. plus the italin beretta bm59 a design very similar to the m14 which was a scaled down garand with a box mag is comonly said to be the most controlable 7.62nato weapon out there. which by the way can be considered a m14 type and was adopted by italy.

and the quote are you sure that is not about the m16, as the m16 was created by a commity with the wiz kids, but to my understanding the army was the only one involved in the development of the m14, which by the way won to the fal in trails prooving jsut as accurate more reliable and lighter by a full pound.

bad weapon, i dont think you can say that, it may not float your boat but it was a great weapon in the 7.62 nato. and that bad weapon is still being issued today, and the seals never leave home without it.

[TacoDelRio]

HELEX at our Militaryphotos.net barbeque (note small wang):
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~gauthier/gradschool/pig.jpg

Here I am preparing dinner:
http://img59.photobucket.com/albums/v181/MrSkorotsnoy/94af88cf.jpg

HELEX argued that 12 ga 00 buckshot has quote, "no stopping power" before his pig ate the proverbial dust.

Thank you, thank you.

DB

[Tony Williams]

the m14 will do anything a g3 or fn fal will, plus it is lighter then the fal, and probly the most reliable of the 3 although all are very reliable so it is of little concern.

and the quote are you sure that is not about the m16, as the m16 was created by a commity with the wiz kids, but to my understanding the army was the only one involved in the development of the m14, which by the way won to the fal in trails prooving jsut as accurate more reliable and lighter by a full pound.

bad weapon, i dont think you can say that, it may not float your boat but it was a great weapon in the 7.62 nato. and that bad weapon is still being issued today, and the seals never leave home without it.

If it was so great, how come the FN FAL and HK G3 wiped the floor with it in international sales? Both were bought by literally scores of countries. The poor quality control of M14 production is a matter of record, as is the fact that production was stopped after only a few years. The M14 does hold one record, though; it served as the principal US army rifle for by far the shortest time of any in the 20th Century.

The relatively few M14s which survive in USMC service today are kept as specialist weapons for when more range and punch are required. They have been substantially rebuilt from original production, to get over the quality problems.

Ezell's quote did indeed apply to the M14.

Tony Williams

[WARPIG]

Without getting too into details..

Geneva convention = treatment of Prisoners of War....it mentions use of weapons also, but in reference to use against prisoners.

Hague IV = rules of war.... it does not restrict weapons by specific caliber or type of round. It instead says that projectiles "calculated" to inflict excessive damage is illegal.
This is why many countries opt for the cheaper FMJ instead of JHP or other rounds. Use of large caliber machine guns against personnel was considered illegal when Armies specifically calculated the use of such large projectiles against belligerants. It is a matter of either NATO policy or the specific Army's policy.. not the Hague..and definately not the Geneva convention.

Enough of that. Jane's is a source that most of us soldiers reference when we aren't in the loop. Janes is usually right on target. XM8 may serve it's purpose by showcasing new concepts and materials in weaponry. Making it the mainstay of US forces may turn out to be too big of a step. Regardless, most of us aren't in that big of a hurry for a new rifle. A better caliber round is a good combat option.. but costly in training. Think maybe the higher caliber round would be a good option for specific positions in the firesquad, or maybe a specific kind of fire team?

[MEGR]

I like the 556. I've fired 5.56, and find it sufficient to kill a man. As for switching the m16 series with the xm8, well that all depends.. If they are fielding a few (prob with SpecOps units), and they perform exeedingly well, like uber awesome, than we should go to it... However, replacing m16s with xm8 will obviously cost a ton of money. Overall, unless this gun is out-of-this-world good, we should just stick to the m16 that has been doing pretty good so far... Replacing all m16s with xm8 is not easy, and very costly...They (whoever makes these decisions) should take this seriously, and not rush to fielding a crappy rifle like in the M16 earlier stages.

[oldsoak]

Be interesting to know what the ammo stocks of the US are - bet theres million upon million of 5.56 , so I cant see the change calibre in happening quickly. As for changing the rifle, this is probably an easier option. How easy is it to cost effectively convert the m16 series from 5.56 to 6.8 anyone ?

[HELEX]

Be interesting to know what the ammo stocks of the US are - bet theres million upon million of 5.56 , so I cant see the change calibre in happening quickly. As for changing the rifle, this is probably an easier option. How easy is it to cost effectively convert the m16 series from 5.56 to 6.8 anyone ?

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary, but the XM8 can be converted very easy by the soldier himself.

[ibstolidude]

Be interesting to know what the ammo stocks of the US are - bet theres million upon million of 5.56 , so I cant see the change calibre in happening quickly. As for changing the rifle, this is probably an easier option. How easy is it to cost effectively convert the m16 series from 5.56 to 6.8 anyone ?

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary, but the XM8 can be converted very easy by the soldier himself.
again you post **** you nothing about - you can take an M16 and with the changing of the upper reciever shoot as high as .50 cal - it takes about 45 seconds.

[HELEX]

Be interesting to know what the ammo stocks of the US are - bet theres million upon million of 5.56 , so I cant see the change calibre in happening quickly. As for changing the rifle, this is probably an easier option. How easy is it to cost effectively convert the m16 series from 5.56 to 6.8 anyone ?

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary, but the XM8 can be converted very easy by the soldier himself.
again you post **** you nothing about - you can take an M16 and with the changing of the upper reciever shoot as high as .50 cal - it takes about 45 seconds.

Sure, but thats nearly the whole rifle.... rofl

At the XM8 you just change the Barrel.... :D

[oldsoak]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

[wyrm_142]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

Are you talking our current M16/M4 set-ups?

The 6.8 SPC was designed to fit into the mag dimensions on the M16. All that is required is a new upper (or new barrel & bolt to be more precise) and mags that work with the 6.8SPC.

There is NO change to the lower.

Similar type changes would be required for the G36/XM8, SA80, any 5.56 firearm, etc.

[ibstolidude]

Be interesting to know what the ammo stocks of the US are - bet theres million upon million of 5.56 , so I cant see the change calibre in happening quickly. As for changing the rifle, this is probably an easier option. How easy is it to cost effectively convert the m16 series from 5.56 to 6.8 anyone ?

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary, but the XM8 can be converted very easy by the soldier himself.
again you post **** you nothing about - you can take an M16 and with the changing of the upper reciever shoot as high as .50 cal - it takes about 45 seconds.

Sure, but thats nearly the whole rifle.... rofl

At the XM8 you just change the Barrel.... :D
so if you knew that again you showed that you are willing to lie, misrepresent and use dishonesty to make the point.

and it isn't nearly the whole rifle it is a design differnce
- and the same can be done with the use of a free floating barrel and barrel lock
:lol: :lol: :lol: - you smug ignorant liar.

Again save us the time simply post things like "hi I am HELEX and I am a flame warrior and will post **** I know nothing about."

Could you explain to me again why I need to change the barrel on my M4 to meet different calibers in the field and since when did this become a requirement for the weapon system....

Also DO you really want to make the statement that inorder to change the XM8 to fire a 6.5/6.8 round all that needs to changed is the barrel?

[oldsoak]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

Are you talking our current M16/M4 set-ups?

The 6.8 SPC was designed to fit into the mag dimensions on the M16. All that is required is a new upper (or new barrel & bolt to be more precise) and mags that work with the 6.8SPC.

There is NO change to the lower.

Similar type changes would be required for the G36/XM8, SA80, any 5.56 firearm, etc.

sounds pretty cool. whats the likelyhood of this , anyone know ?

[ibstolidude]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

Are you talking our current M16/M4 set-ups?

The 6.8 SPC was designed to fit into the mag dimensions on the M16. All that is required is a new upper (or new barrel & bolt to be more precise) and mags that work with the 6.8SPC.

There is NO change to the lower.

Similar type changes would be required for the G36/XM8, SA80, any 5.56 firearm, etc.
that is correct except that the 6.8 extractor lip can be the same size as the current m16 bolt's - just as you see in the .50 cal Beowulf.

And lets not forget that the FACTORY zeroed sights of the XM8 are going to be zeroed to a specific ammunition (weight/grain). Changing this will require the factory zeroed sights to be re-zeroed, despite HELEX's fantasy of a soldier changing caliber in the field.

I'm not an expert but unlike some people neither do I "pretend" to be.

[HELEX]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

Are you talking our current M16/M4 set-ups?

The 6.8 SPC was designed to fit into the mag dimensions on the M16. All that is required is a new upper (or new barrel & bolt to be more precise) and mags that work with the 6.8SPC.

There is NO change to the lower.

Similar type changes would be required for the G36/XM8, SA80, any 5.56 firearm, etc.
that is correct except that the 6.8 extractor lip can be the same size as the current m16 bolt's - just as you see in the .50 cal Beowulf.

And lets not forget that the FACTORY zeroed sights of the XM8 are going to be zeroed to a specific ammunition (weight/grain). Changing this will require the factory zeroed sights to be re-zeroed, despite HELEX's fantasy of a soldier changing caliber in the field.

I'm not an expert but unlike some people neither do I "pretend" to be.

Again you show lacking knowledge, the Laser and Sight are zeroed to each other. But you usually dont know what you talking about. :lol:

Read first and than come back:

http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf

[ibstolidude]

so would a change to 6.8mm upper be an option ? Would the magazine well be affected and the magazine catch too ? - I presume thats in the M16 lower section.

Are you talking our current M16/M4 set-ups?

The 6.8 SPC was designed to fit into the mag dimensions on the M16. All that is required is a new upper (or new barrel & bolt to be more precise) and mags that work with the 6.8SPC.

There is NO change to the lower.

Similar type changes would be required for the G36/XM8, SA80, any 5.56 firearm, etc.
that is correct except that the 6.8 extractor lip can be the same size as the current m16 bolt's - just as you see in the .50 cal Beowulf.

And lets not forget that the FACTORY zeroed sights of the XM8 are going to be zeroed to a specific ammunition (weight/grain). Changing this will require the factory zeroed sights to be re-zeroed, despite HELEX's fantasy of a soldier changing caliber in the field.

I'm not an expert but unlike some people neither do I "pretend" to be.

Again you show lacking knowledge, the Laser and Sight are zeroed to each other. But you usually dont know what you talking about. :lol:

Read first and than come back:

http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf
I challenge you to find the posts in which: I usually dont know what you talking about especially given in the last 2 months or so I can easily find 25+ posts in which you been blatantly wrong, lied, used half truths and dishonest.

are you trying to tell me that if I zero an XM8 to shoot a 5.56 Ball M855 and then change calibers that my weapon will still be on target?

How is that possible when the differences in the grain/weight/caliber will create a different impact point for each round as their ballistics differ. The "path" of the M855 differs even from M197 both 5.56 - so how do you expect the zero to "hold"? and what the hell does that have to do with the "laser"? It doesn't shoot a laser now does it? It shoots a round and the sight and round must be zeroed to that barrel.

[ibstolidude]

[

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary - By your own source it takes less then 10 minutes to change the M4 barrel. - do you really want to compare who posts erroneous information?

[HELEX]

[

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary - By your own source it takes less then 10 minutes to change the M4 barrel. - do you really want to compare who posts erroneous information?

Well, but it cant be done without machinig. So changing a M16 barrel is a Factory thing and impossible for the Soldier, XM8 Barrelchange is a Soldier in the field thing......

Time != Machining

Or did I say something about time? Who posts erroneous Info, dude? rofl

[crazyman]

actually the army is getting close to to bare minimum on 5.56 ball ammo. so low that cadet command (rotc) isnt allowed to use any for training. none. beyond LDAC (rotcs' equivilant of OCS) the whole command is without a single round of ball ammo.

given that, yea the army has literally millions of rounds of ammo...but if we decided to switch over, that would be depleted pretty quickly. between units who arent equipped with the new rifle, training here in ol' CONUS...i figure it would probably go pretty smoothly. worst part would be trying to figure out the scale for it...reducing the amount of 5.56 bought over time, while scaling up purchases of 6.8...remember, if we switched to a 6.8 rifle right this moment, it would take the better part of a decade to get EVERYONE switched over, active duty, reserve, and guard

[ibstolidude]

[

Dont know about the M16 but what I know is that a lot of machining is neccesary - By your own source it takes less then 10 minutes to change the M4 barrel. - do you really want to compare who posts erroneous information?

Well, but it cant be done without machinig. So changing a M16 barrel is a Factory thing and impossible for the Soldier, XM8 Barrelchange is a Soldier in the field thing......

Time != Machining

Or did I say something about time? Who posts erroneous Info, dude? rofl
I changed my barrel at my house. The reason the 10 minuts is posted is you seem to believe that it requires machining and yet it can be accomplished in less then 10 minutes?
PS who said you mentioned time I stated the website mentioned time

P.S.
http://www.bushmaster.com/faqnew/content_by_cat.asp?contentid=179&catid=100 -
The Armorer's Action Block Kit wraps around the upper receiver and protects it from being crushed in the vise while you work on, or remove the barrel. The barrel vise jaw blocks are used to hold the barrel in the vise while working on the upper receiver. Only one would be used at any given time. Other necessities for this barrel removal job would be our Universal Armorers Wrench - for loosening and tightening the barrel nut and the U. S. Marine Corp. Tech. Manual. - it requires a vise to hold it and an Armorers wrench to remove it.

So unless by machining you mean the use of a wrench.


from the men themselves
USMC Technical Manual (TM 9-1005-319-23&P)
http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/primer.asp
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/barrel-assemblies/
http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/tm9-1005-319-23.pdf
chapter 3 section 3. way more detail than even.

barrel and especially barrel assembly is not the task you pretend it to be - certainly difficult, especialy for a first time go, but if I and buds figured it out certainly an armorer who is way more skilled than I, can be trained.


are you just gonna skip over the zero thing kind like you did the Geneva Convention?

[NcDeuce]

actually the army is getting close to to bare minimum on 5.56 ball ammo. so low that cadet command (rotc) isnt allowed to use any for training. none. beyond LDAC (rotcs' equivilant of OCS) the whole command is without a single round of ball ammo.

That's interesting...didn't know that!

[WARPIG]

I think I have lost count of how many times HELEX has been shown proof that he misquoted, misposted, or just plain not known what he is talking about in this thread alone.

What the hell is up? Why would anyone show up to speak on something they know nothing about? I mean.. I am no armorer..but I don't assume to educate anyone on ballistics.

[Helly]

The thing about HELEX is that he's quick to criticize, and he expects a reply to every criticism or counterpoint he makes. Not replying means he's right and you're wrong. Yet he always takes the easy way out when he's shown to be wrong or inaccurate, either by ignoring the comments completely or posting new BS to muddy up the waters some more.

[Gringo]

He still hasn't that a question about who came up with the HKM4.

[Helly]

See? HELEX bugged out again.

[HELEX]

Which Question?

[Helly]

Which Question?


Maybe you can start by explaining this whole exchange:


And lets not forget that the FACTORY zeroed sights of the XM8 are going to be zeroed to a specific ammunition (weight/grain). Changing this will require the factory zeroed sights to be re-zeroed, despite HELEX's fantasy of a soldier changing caliber in the field.

I'm not an expert but unlike some people neither do I "pretend" to be.

Again you show lacking knowledge, the Laser and Sight are zeroed to each other. But you usually dont know what you talking about. :lol:

Read first and than come back:

http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf
I challenge you to find the posts in which: I usually dont know what you talking about especially given in the last 2 months or so I can easily find 25+ posts in which you been blatantly wrong, lied, used half truths and dishonest.

are you trying to tell me that if I zero an XM8 to shoot a 5.56 Ball M855 and then change calibers that my weapon will still be on target?

How is that possible when the differences in the grain/weight/caliber will create a different impact point for each round as their ballistics differ. The "path" of the M855 differs even from M197 both 5.56 - so how do you expect the zero to "hold"? and what the hell does that have to do with the "laser"? It doesn't shoot a laser now does it? It shoots a round and the sight and round must be zeroed to that barrel.


Then show us a link confirming this statement of yours:


The HKM4 was a private initiative of two HK employees, no official Project. Did you know that?


And this:


I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.


Then you can finish off with that whole Geneva Convention and how according to it, bullets has to wound, not kill. And how the 7.62mm ammo has "no real good stopping power". Maybe you can also post something that says the Geneva Convention is about the laws of war instead of pertaining to just the treatment of POWs.

Is that some kind of obsession with the 6.8mm in this Forum?

Every FMJ Projectile has no good stopping or killing power. According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ. The new caliber will not be significant better. Even the 7.62x51 has no real good stopping power.
The Problems can not be solved by simply adding 1mm to the diameter. :cantbeli:

If you want lethal rounds use Hollowpoints. And that is against Geneva convention.

[HELEX]

Which Question?


Maybe you can start by explaining this whole exchange:


And lets not forget that the FACTORY zeroed sights of the XM8 are going to be zeroed to a specific ammunition (weight/grain). Changing this will require the factory zeroed sights to be re-zeroed, despite HELEX's fantasy of a soldier changing caliber in the field.

I'm not an expert but unlike some people neither do I "pretend" to be.

Again you show lacking knowledge, the Laser and Sight are zeroed to each other. But you usually dont know what you talking about. :lol:

Read first and than come back:

http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf
I challenge you to find the posts in which: I usually dont know what you talking about especially given in the last 2 months or so I can easily find 25+ posts in which you been blatantly wrong, lied, used half truths and dishonest.

are you trying to tell me that if I zero an XM8 to shoot a 5.56 Ball M855 and then change calibers that my weapon will still be on target?

How is that possible when the differences in the grain/weight/caliber will create a different impact point for each round as their ballistics differ. The "path" of the M855 differs even from M197 both 5.56 - so how do you expect the zero to "hold"? and what the hell does that have to do with the "laser"? It doesn't shoot a laser now does it? It shoots a round and the sight and round must be zeroed to that barrel.


Then show us a link confirming this statement of yours:


The HKM4 was a private initiative of two HK employees, no official Project. Did you know that?


And this:


I stated that the 6.8 will be no significant advantage to the 5.56 because both are FMJ.


Then you can finish off with that whole Geneva Convention and how according to it, bullets has to wound, not kill. And how the 7.62mm ammo has "no real good stopping power". Maybe you can also post something that says the Geneva Convention is about the laws of war instead of pertaining to just the treatment of POWs.

Is that some kind of obsession with the 6.8mm in this Forum?

Every FMJ Projectile has no good stopping or killing power. According to the geneva convention the Ammo has to 'wound' not to kill, so it has to be FMJ. The new caliber will not be significant better. Even the 7.62x51 has no real good stopping power.
The Problems can not be solved by simply adding 1mm to the diameter. :cantbeli:

If you want lethal rounds use Hollowpoints. And that is against Geneva convention.

Of course you have to rezero the Weapon after changing caliber, thats a 5 minutes Job on the range or you even get the Info how to adjust without going to the range.
At the AR System you have to unmount everthing from the upper receiver remount it on the new and rezero Laser and Scope seperately. Sounds very clumsy.... rofl

About why the HKM4 was developed, there were some Rumors at HKPRO. When Jane's writes that the DoD asked to improve the M4, it should be right.

And I stay on my point, the 6.8 would be no significant advantage.

On the Geneva Convention thing: I already answered that. They cant mention every weapon, but no Army worldwide uses Softpoint or Hollowpoint. Why.... ? :lol:

[ibstolidude]

On the Geneva Convention thing: I already answered that. They cant mention every weapon, but no Army worldwide uses Softpoint or Hollowpoint. Why.... ?
Not because of the Geneva conventions on :
1) For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
2) For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
3) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva. Lists the rights of prisoners of war
4) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva
Protocol 1 or 2 - relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and relating to the Proection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.


It is the Hague Peace Conference that refers to the weapons employed against armed forces member of a signatory state, held in July 1899 & the Hague Convention 1907 (article 23 E: arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering), the later of the 2 the US signed. However this only applies when used against the armed forces of another signatory State. Legally, it does not apply in counter-terror operations.
as you stated: Did you serve in your countrys Army? They should have told you that
rofl rofl :D :D :D

[HELEX]

On the Geneva Convention thing: I already answered that. They cant mention every weapon, but no Army worldwide uses Softpoint or Hollowpoint. Why.... ?
Not because of the Geneva conventions on :
1) For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
2) For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
3) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva. Lists the rights of prisoners of war
4) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva
Protocol 1 or 2 - relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and relating to the Proection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.


It is the Hague Peace Conference that refers to the weapons employed against armed forces member of a signatory state, held in July 1899 & the Hague Convention 1907 (article 23 E: arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering), the later of the 2 the US signed. However this only applies when used against the armed forces of another signatory State. Legally, it does not apply in counter-terror operations.
as you stated: Did you serve in your countrys Army? They should have told you that
rofl rofl :D :D :D

So when it is not exactely in the Geneva convention, it is still prohibited. That was the core of my point. Besides of nitpicking where to find the regulations it changes nothing on the fact that a FMJ 6.8 is not significant better than a FMJ 5.56. Sure, every little helps a little but what effects that would have to NATO standard? One reason for canceling the G11 was the standardisation of ammo, for example.

[Helly]

Of course you have to rezero the Weapon after changing caliber, thats a 5 minutes Job on the range or you even get the Info how to adjust without going to the range.
At the AR System you have to unmount everthing from the upper receiver remount it on the new and rezero Laser and Scope seperately. Sounds very clumsy....

That's exactly what ibstolidude (the need to rezero a weapon after a caliber change), and your reply was that he "lacked knowledge". So ibstolidude does know what he's talking about, contrary to what you posted earlier.

And about that changing caliber fantasy of yours, nowhere in HK's site will you see that you can change the XM8's caliber on the field. You can change the barrel, but not the caliber. So all your drivel about things being clumsy when changing caliber on ARs are moot.


About why the HKM4 was developed, there were some Rumors at HKPRO. When Jane's writes that the DoD asked to improve the M4, it should be right.

So it's okay for you to react negatively to someone's post (Gringo's in this case) when your statement is backed up by nothing other than rumors? Maybe you oughta learn to shut up when you don't know jack sh*t about something.


And I stay on my point, the 6.8 would be no significant advantage.

And this coming from you, someone who maintains that the "7.62x51 has no real good stopping power" and that the only lethal rounds are hollowpoints? Since when did you become an expert on ammo? Show us a link confirming your statement and we might call your bluff.

[Helly]

So when it is not exactely in the Geneva convention, it is still prohibited. That was the core of my point.

Goes both ways man. I can also say that the core of my point is you kept referring to the Geneva Convention when you don't even know what's exactly in it, and then make it seem like everybody else is wrong because they don't see things that only you can. And you dare call Remov a "big mouth" over this BS of yours?

No wonder most people here have such a low opinion of you.

[n.ignomo]

Which convention prohibited fragmentation grenades ? Anybody uses some, it's illegal though but as usually, who cares when it saves your life ?

[MaDuce]

When you are wounded you bleed get infected and puss slowy until you die. That is unessacary suffering. Being almost instanly killed isn't

[Durandal]

This has to be the most painful...thread...rehashing a topic that has been whipped like a dead horse.

Nothing better than seeing HELEX tell Remov he doesn't know whats up...

HELEX you need to learn to keep your mouth shut. Remov can load you up with heap words of wisdom. You need to recognize the value of your peers and your own lack of understanding.

With that said...

XM8 = Government Pork

Replacing an existing 5.56 system with a new one is joke. The taxpayers of the The US are going to get screwed and a couple generals and a colonel or two are going to get fat paychecks after they retire and set up with a certain defense contractor.

Its all BS...

[Michael RVR]

Replacing an existing 5.56 system with a new one is joke. The taxpayers of the The US are going to get screwed and a couple generals and a colonel or two are going to get fat paychecks after they retire and set up with a certain defense contractor.

Its all BS...

And this surprises you because....
:|

[Demon_Sniper]

I think the Army should adopt the new Springfield M1ASOCOM but thats just me :roll:

[MVSpartan117]

I think the Army should adopt the new Springfield M1ASOCOM but thats just me :roll:

As the standard Issue rifle for every single infantry man? I think not

[Demon_Sniper]

Whats wrong with an opinion, Spartan?Whats wrong with the SOCOM neways?I assume you have seen this one, just announced a couple weeks ago... i believe its shorter than an M16 ( I THINK ) and is just a tad stronger :roll:[/img]

[Durandal]

And this surprises you because....
:|

Oh, it does not suprise me at all. It pisses me off. What pisses me off even more is the people that bit it...hook line and sinker...

*suckers*

This whole argument is rediculous.

Replacing the upper receiver and barrel assembly with a 6.8mm round is probably the most effective change, BUT I am not too sure if the overall improvement would warrant the cost. I HAVE been contemplating getting one for my AR15 Carbine...then again I have been considering the 9mm upper as well rather than purchasing a seperate carbine (like hte Storm or USC)...but that is neither here or there...

People bitch about the M4 as if its some sort of general issue rifle that ALL the troops get...wrong. Its a CQB weapon. Some E5 bitching about it in Iraq because he cannot shoot a guy 400 yards away is a piss pot excuse to can a weapon system.

If the generals get their shinny new toy it is going to be at the cost of American tax payers with the ONLY positive outcome being that in THEORY the soldier has to spend less time cleaning his rifle. Meanwhile, H&K is probably setting them up with a 2 or 300K a year "consulting" job.

F*cking typical...

Wooopty Doooooo...

[Airborneranger4israel]

is the M16 really that bad?
and why is a 6.whatever mm round better than a 5.56 round?

For those of you that are soldiers and do not want the xm8 to be a 5.56 round rifle you can start a petition and send it to your congressman or another goverment official. They will listen cuase your the guys that will be using it. just get a sh** load a signatures.

go to http://www.house.gov/israel/

Congressman Israel is on the armed services commitee and i know him personally he will help you out

[5jumpchump]

I think we should go back to the M14 , M1a scout . Best battle rifles ever . EVER !

[Durandal]

I think we should go back to the M14 , M1a scout . Best battle rifles ever . EVER !

And add another 5 to 12 pounds PLUS have to retrain EVERYONE to use it.

A great rifle for sure...

Not a general issue rifle in this day and age though...

[WARPIG]

I think we are getting a bit "general" when we look at this program. The XM8 is a sexy HK G36 basically. Whether it is a big improvement over our current toys is obviously debateable. Just try and understand that there are other reasons for equipment change. We all assume the XM8 is suposed to be an upgrade. Maybe. It may have upgraded features but the overall weapon may just be all hype. That doesn't mean that the weapon system is a turd.
I worked in the logistics community for a DOD contractor. One company that has been providing a M1 hexnut may become undesireable to deal with because of quality issues, service, or price. The company may have had some poor business practices, or security issues. In the changing and faster moving logistic world of the military.. that is more than enough to make the Military seek another company to provide either a nother M1 hexnut, or a new M2 hexnut with some slightly upgraded features but hyped up visibility.
HK is making a pretty good impression on the military and law enforcement community. The XM8 may not be the big reason for the interest in the company. The HK as a company may be the reason.

Go ahead and petition against the program based on your preference or because of the opinion of this forum of "experts." I personally won't go that far unless I have had my hands on the weapon.

[MaDuce]

XM8 is the "better then nothing gun" from HK. We didn't want this we wanted an OCIW but nooooooo... Despite spending many millions of dollars on development to come up with an amazing next generation rifle you get an Amercianized G36. Despite of waht people who read "The Unltimate Guide to Special Forces" and play to much video games the M-16 isn't a bad rifle. It ain't perfect but if you are trying to get the the "Final Rifle" you are just retarded becuase it doesn't and will never exist.

[Lt_Crooks]

the m16 is a great rifle to begin it is more advanced than most other countrys weapons. + the XM8 is just stupid looking.

[agcsy]

I dont know why we would switch to a brand new weapon when there are several ways we can increase the lethality of what already exists. I imagine it can be done alot cheaper also.

[Ratamacue]

Make this 6.8mm and you have, in my opinion, the ideal standard-issue service rifle.

http://upload.sh0t.com/stuff/M16.jpg

[2RHPZ]

This is almost one year old article but still has something to say:


Issue Date: July 21, 2003

Your next rifle

?05 is target date for debut of replacement to the M16
By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer

The Army has a new rifle in its sights, one that could start replacing the venerable M16 in just two years.The staff at Project Manager Soldier Weapons is overseeing the final designs of the XM8 ? a highly versatile 5.56mm assault rifle intended to give soldiers a lighter, more reliable alternative to the battle-tested M16A2 and M16A4 rifles and M4 carbine.
Army weapons developers plan to have a prototype by the end of the summer and to begin testing in the fall.
The XM8 is a new approach in the Army?s ongoing effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the XM29, that fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition.
The Army successfully tested a working prototype of XM29 in 1999 ? known then as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon. But four years later, the $50 million program has yet to produce anything new.
The Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., wanted the weapon to weigh 14 pounds and be ready for soldiers by 2008. But the 18-pound weapon still is too heavy and bulky to meet those requirements.
But instead of scrapping the XM29, the Army decided on a new strategy ? perfect each of XM29?s components separately so soldiers can take advantage of new technology sooner. The parts then could be brought back together when lighter materials become available.
The components include a carbine that can fire 5.56mm rounds; a launcher that fires air-burst ammunition; the air-burst ammunition itself; and the fire-control system.
?The way we were doing it was, we were building a full system and we were going to field that and then do a second system and make it better and lighter and field that and then make a third version and field that, and I didn?t see that as a path to success,? said Lt. Col. Matthew Clarke, product manager for Product Manager Individual Weapons, who took over the XM29 program in November.
?When I get each little system working the way I want, I am going to start putting them back together as a complete system.?
The new acquisition strategy includes developing a stand-alone air-burst weapon, known as the XM25, for possible fielding in four years.
But the XM8 has first priority. In October, the Army modified the existing contract with Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch Inc. to design the new lightweight assault rifle.
And Congress directed the Secretary of the Army?s office in its fiscal 2003 appropriations report last October to complete a cost-and-benefits analysis of the XM8 as possibly ?worthy of fielding on an expedited basis.? That report was completed in early June and is on its way back to both the House and Senate appropriations committees.
Officials from the Infantry Center are intrigued by the new approach to XM29.
?It does appear very logical. The XM29 was always designed to be a [modular] weapon,? said Jim Stone, deputy for the Infantry Center?s Directorate for Combat Developments.
While the M16 family, which includes the M4, ?has been a very good weapon,? Stone pointed out that it?s already 40 years old.
?While we are maintaining and improving the M4, we have to look ahead,? he said. ?For us to do nothing and say ?Gee, the M4 is doing great,? that would be irresponsible.?
True family of weapons
The XM8, weapons experts maintain, is a true family of weapons with different barrel lengths designed to address all the needs of an infantry squad.
While exact measurements are not available, the baseline model is expected to be lighter than the M4 carbine and no larger in size.
There?s also a sharpshooter model equipped with a longer barrel for increased range.
The need for sharpshooter weapons at the squad level became evident in Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division requested M1As, a version of the old 7.62mm M14, for its long-range capability.
The squad auto-rifle version of the XM8 features a heavier barrel and high-capacity magazines.
All of the versions have a telescoping butt stock except for the commando variant, which is planned to have a shorter barrel for tight compartments such as inside armored vehicles and helicopter cockpits.
The XM8?s barrels ? of varrying length ? can be changed at the arms room to meet mission needs, Clarke said.
?We are trying to do the family of XM8, so I don?t have to buy four or five different weapons for the squad. I buy one weapon,? said Col. Michael J. Smith, project manager for PM Soldier Weapons.
The XM8 also is supposed to have a multipurpose optic that includes a red dot reticle, a backup sight that requires no power, an infrared pointer, an infrared illuminator and a visible pointer.
The existing M4 requires lots of add-ons to perform these tasks. Combining them reduces the weight of the weapon and the complexity to the soldier.
The multipurpose optic also will make training easier since there is only one optic to zero to the weapon instead of multiple devices. ?You take the gun out of the box, you zero the optic and you?re done,? Clarke said.
For special-operations forces, the weapon can be converted to fire 7.62-by-39mm, the same round as the AK47.
No bursts, for now
Soldiers testing the first 200 XM8s this fall will not be able to fire a three-round burst like they can on M16s and M4s. The rifles will have only a safe and a full-automatic setting.
The Army switched from full-auto to three-round burst in the 1980s when the service decided most soldiers did not fire effectively in the full-auto mode.
But weapons experts now say a soldier using three-round bursts is no more effective than one well-trained in the use of full-automatic fire, Clarke said.
Without that option, Clarke said, designers could leave out the special governor to create the three-round burst, making a simpler design that also would be more reliable.
The XM8 accessories will include a 40mm grenade launcher to replace the aging M203.
The new launcher still is a single-shot, breech-loader, but it will swing out to the side to allow for specialized rounds that require longer shell casings.
But the 40mm option may not last too long. Under separate development in the plan for the XM29 is the XM25 ? a stand-alone weapon that features 25mm air-burst technology.
The XM25, weapons experts maintain, would weigh less than 12 pounds with the fire-control system and would be chambered for a more powerful 25mm round.
The switch from 20mm to 25mm rounds means the new weapon will fire ammunition common to the XM307, a crew-served weapon that fires a long-range 25mm air-burst round.
If all goes well, it would be ready for testing in 2005.
While supportive of the idea, the Infantry Center does not want a return to a weapon similar to the Vietnam-era M79 grenade launcher, a single-shot weapon that left the grenadier with a limited capability to fight at close range, Stone said.
Like the XM29 prototype, the XM25 would feature a magazine that holds at least five rounds. In addition, there could be canister-style 25mm ammo, giving the weapon a sawed-off shotgun effect.
?We want to introduce a heck of a lot more capability than the M79,? Smith said. ?I?ll give [them] a five-round magazine, a three-round magazine, a 10-round magazine ? and give them the capability of different kinds of rounds and let them get into the close fight, not just the long-distance fight.?
Lethal air bursts
The Army began working with air-burst technology in 1994. It first was tested in the 1999 prototype for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon.
It relies on a laser range finder and a ballistic computer that calculates the range to a target with a push of a button and transfers the data to the electronic fuse built into the 20mm round.
When fired, the air-burst round has a range of 500 meters and is designed to explode directly above a target, raining shrapnel down on an enemy crouched behind cover.
Such a weapon, experts say, will give combat soldiers the ability to defeat enemy targets behind cover with greater precision than ever before.
?We do know that bursting ammo, especially when you can control the burst, is going to be an incredible increase to the lethality of a squad,? Stone said.
As it stands, the Army is a long way from taking advantage of that technology, because the XM29 program does not meet the Infantry Center?s 14-pound requirement.
?The technology is just not there,? said Clarke, explaining that the materials needed to lighten the weapon without losing effectiveness simply are not available. ?We searched for lighter-weight materials. They don?t give you the same capability as homegrown steel does, and that is the bottom line.?
Since the internal parts of the XM8 and XM25 already exist, the challenge has been creating the exterior shell to appeal to American tastes.
?[Heckler & Koch], the Europeans, they love blocky style weapons. Americans are all about curves,? Clarke said, describing how they brought in engineers from Porsche and Audi to come up with more streamlined designs.
If the Army does adopt the XM8, as many as 900,000 could be fielded through 2021, Clark said. The XM25 would be fielded in far fewer numbers beginning in 2007, depending on the needs of the Infantry Center, the proponent for the Army?s small-arms requirements.
The Army still plans to field about 22,000 XM29s ? enough for four per nine-man infantry squad ? beginning in 2012.
?When it is all said and done, my contact with the Infantry Center is still to provide them with an XM29,? Clarke said.
?What I am doing is offering up mature technology capabilities. The proof will be in the pudding when we pop some systems out there and let people use them ? that is the plan.?

[Teh Little Space Monkeh]

This confuses me....Why the hell does the caliber matter? The XM-8 is more reliable than the M4 or the M16. Yes, this is proven, they actually dipped it in a barrel of water and emptied a whole magazine then, after reloading, rolled it in dust and fired another magazine. Also the Xm-8 prolly will be made in 6.8 cal to kill two birds with one stone. Remember the M1 Garand was originally designed in a .2--- caliber instead of the .30-06 that they made it in service with.

[Durandal]

Again...a waste of tax payers monies...

[Burncycle]

Should the US Army adopt the XM8 ?

Yes but on two conditions:

1) Co-adopting 6.8 SPC in addition

or, if we HAVE to stick with 5.56

2) make the "standard" barrel longer than 12".
IMO a 16" barrel is minimum desired for 5.56mm

If neither route is taken, I'd rather just buy 6.8 upper kits for current M-16's/M-4's.

[oldsoak]

Assuming you go 6.8mm - whats the capacity to manufacture the uppers/rifles and the new round ?

[Durandal]

Assuming you go 6.8mm - whats the capacity to manufacture the uppers/rifles and the new round ?

In the article it said they planned on having 900, 000 XM8s in 2021...

So probably about the same number in two thirds the amount of time...

Just a guess, but probably a pretty accurate one.

Then again, if some reason we needed ALL of them iin a year you would just get a number of armouries and manufacturers tooled up and pump them out.

I would support a 6.8mm upper program, but the 5.56mm (or even 6.8mm) XM-8 is not worth the change in my eyes...the cost simply does justify the cost of fixing somethign that simply is NOT broken.

[oldsoak]

Ta for that. I remember reading some time ago that there was a concern that the US would loose its ability to make small arms in quantity quickly on account that various manufacturers were cutting back on their capacity or selling up due to lack of orders/foreign competition. The change to a different calibre may be beneficial in keepin gthose lines open.

[Burncycle]

Well we don't call it 5.56 and 7.62 "NATO" for nothing. If we make a major change in ammunition type (say, going to 6.5 or 6.8), what are the chances that germany, france, britain, canada, and so on will follow suit?

For political reasons, would that be one factor that may keep us from changing caliber? Or will that not even be a consideration?

[crazyman]

two years ago i would have agreed with you..but we're so busy right now that i dont really think anyone is worrying about NATO. 'far as im concerned, if the new rifle, new ammo, and any combination thereof are better then our current weapons, and therefore save lives? its well worth the cost. my ass will be on the line in about 10 months, and personally, i like my ass as it is.

[Burncycle]

two years ago i would have agreed with you..but we're so busy right now that i dont really think anyone is worrying about NATO. 'far as im concerned, if the new rifle, new ammo, and any combination thereof are better then our current weapons, and therefore save lives? its well worth the cost. my ass will be on the line in about 10 months, and personally, i like my ass as it is.

Giving the soldiers the best equipment is not always priority ;) although I agree that if it's superior, we should adopt it, screw conforming with the rest of NATO. If they want to follow suit, they can, if they want to stick with 5.56, more power to em. Regardless, the politicians may not share the same view ;)

[Durandal]

Ta for that. I remember reading some time ago that there was a concern that the US would loose its ability to make small arms in quantity quickly on account that various manufacturers were cutting back on their capacity or selling up due to lack of orders/foreign competition. The change to a different calibre may be beneficial in keepin gthose lines open.

As Ralph Peters has said in the past. With Billions in profit ANY American company has the resources to retool for manufacturing. The XM8 project is simply money spending to spend money. Add to that the company profiting from it, ultimately, is a German one...

...and thus, I have major issues with this.

I wouldn't personally approve of it if it were an American company, but a foreign arms producer simply is icing to a disgusting cake.

[2RHPZ]

XM-8 Variations

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM8,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

[Durandal]

Here is the funny thing. The base model is going to be a 12.5" barrel model!? Come on now.

So what we are doing is equiping troops with nothing but M4s? They need RIFLES, not carbines.

[crazyman]

after all the complaints about M4's and their effectivness at range lately...i dont think the 12.5 in. barrel will last, at least not in 5.56. 'sides, the army has been obsessed with range for over a century now, think thats going to change? remember, the current setup is only in the military equivilant of beta testing right now, so there are still changes to come, whether they be barrel, caliber, etc

[TR]

Too true Durandal, the problem is we have been doing this since the 50's with weapons programs which are supposed to be the next greatest thing since sliced bread.

We've had the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon), the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle), the SBR (Serial Bullet Rifle), the FSR (Future Service Rifle), the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) programs and so forth with predictible results... a lot of money is spent and nothing comes of it save a lot of money was spent on a weapon never seen again... it just becomes a footnote in a firearms book somewhere.


Until Later

TR

[Navy]

Durandal: Do you honestly belive that us servicemen in iraq need rifles instead of carbines? plz explain.. And the policy of only buying us products is just damn silly. p-)

[crazyman]

ah, we hardly buy only us products...beretta is italian, FN is belgian, and HK is german. these guys supply the majority of our small arms....even if they have factories here the money is still going to them...in particular berette builds the M9, FN builds the M249, M240, M2HB's, and some of our M16's. HK builds MP5's that we use in small numbers, and the XM8


as for carbines vs rifles...we need both. line guys need the range of a rifle, and people like vehicle crewers and other such jobs need the compactness of a carbine

[Navy]

Hmm interseting, but i dont agree with you on the rifle vs carbine issue..

[crazyman]

and hows that navy? not trying to be an ass or anything...just love a decent debate every now and again

[Hydro]

Hmm interseting, but i dont agree with you on the rifle vs carbine issue..

Line infantry need rifles, not carbines. Better to have too much range than too little. All this CQB consideration isn't that big a deal, you can get used to using a long rifle in the average spaces of a house. If the US army was so bothered about the length versus range of a rifle, wouldn't have bullpups have been considered?

Anyway, it's sods law that as soon as you re-equip a unit with carbines for CQB work that they seem to be doing so much of that the next battle you fight will be a conventional battle from trenches over distances of 500m..;)

[crazyman]

or another war in a mountainous area like afghanistan, right. supposedly the 6.8 mm round is less barrel length sensitive then the 5.56 is, so that could be a solution...but if ive gotta make a choice, i'd rather see rifles in the hands of our guys. fortunatly im just gonna be an FSO, so its the M4 for me

[Durandal]

Durandal: Do you honestly belive that us servicemen in iraq need rifles instead of carbines? plz explain.. And the policy of only buying us products is just damn silly. p-)

Its like this...

A carbine is a CQB weapon. It is not designed for 300 yard engagements. Admitedly, you COULD possibly engage a target with a short barrel at 300 yards, but not with the current level of traiining our guys have. Hell, run an average soldier around a block in light gear and then have him drop a steel plate at a 100 yards is next to impossible. Supposedly, people have been bitching about the M4 because of range issues. Depending on the mod, you are talking between a 11" and 14" barrel usually.

Now we have a STANDARD issue XM8 that has a 12.5 inch barrel? Come on now.

Now, agrreably, we no longer teach our basic line solders to be marksmen nor does our society trun out Johnny sharpshooter who has been plinking awy for years in large numbers, BUT you want a rifle for line troops. Period. Troops that come under fire from a building across the river want a weapon that can perform at those ranges and a 12.5" barrel is a hinderance. Sure, its great for compact spaces, especially vehicles, but just get a folding stock and a longer barrel. The M16A4 is a fantastic weapon and fills this role quite nicely. Plus, if you want to go to a 6.8mm round all you have to do is swap a bolt carrier, barrel, and upper receiver, not the entire gun. Which cuts costs greatly, using what is for all iintents and purposes, off the shelf technology.

What do we gain from the XM8...assuming it is 5.56mm? A soldier does not have to clean it as much? Oh no...cry me a goddamn river. In return taxpayers shell out a couple hundred million dollars?

Tell ya what DoD...spend that money on making our soldiers marksmen rather than just qualifying...it'll cost the smae but with a MUCH better return.

As far as using an American manufacturer goes...it does matter. This nation, quite literally, has been built on an arms industry, from the post-Revolutionary War period to this very day. We have EXCELLENT manufacturers in this nation that have produced and continue to produce high quality arms. Yes, H&K is an excellent firearms manufacturer with a history of quality. I and and my friends own several H&K products. However, as a taxpayer, if the government wants to spend my tax dollars on this retarded project, then Americans BETEER damn we be getting the money, rather than Deiter and Hans.

And to be completely honest, as soldier I woudl MUCH rather have an American company with a fine history of producing military weapons such as Browning, Springfield, or Colt.

If you cannot understand that well...sorry, we will then agree to disagree.

[Michael RVR]

You've made some good points, but theres some things i cant agree with:

Hell, run an average soldier around a block in light gear and then have him drop a steel plate at a 100 yards is next to impossible.
If he cant, then you've got bigger problems than selecting a new weapon system. :|

What do we gain from the XM8...assuming it is 5.56mm?
You're forgetting the ease of logistics, with everyone bar the M240 gunners using the same weapon systems, same parts, mags, etc etc. It wont make up the cost, maybe over time it will. Something to be considered at least.

As for the manufacturing thing : They're american jobs, so some of the money will be staying in the US. Personally i think HK would have higher quality standards than other companies out there though. Theres a good reason why M16's are now made by FN. ;)

[Durandal]

If he cant, then you've got bigger problems than selecting a new weapon system. :|

The U.S. Army has done plenty fo studies on this. The heart rate is simply to high to take an aimed shot. That is one of the reasons why you saw the Army try the Advanced Combat Rifle designs back in the 80's.

You're forgetting the ease of logistics, with everyone bar the M240 gunners using the same weapon systems, same parts, mags, etc etc. It wont make up the cost, maybe over time it will. Something to be considered at least.

Again so what. We already HAVE a 5.56mm system in place. Again, NOTHING gained AT ALL. You are changing from one 5.56 system to another. All you are doing is spending money. Knowing what we all know right now, what do we gain out the XM8 project? Nothing to justify the cost. This weapon system is not going to "save lives". That is hype.

As for the manufacturing thing : They're american jobs, so some of the money will be staying in the US. Personally i think HK would have higher quality standards than other companies out there though. Theres a good reason why M16's are now made by FN. ;)

I could care less if the jobs are in America. The people employed by H&K IN America make a mere percentage of the value of the contract. I want an American company making money off of this, not a German one. H&K's standards are no more than Springfield's, Foulton's, Kimber's, or Browning's. To suggest otherwise is silly.

[crazyman]

what he means by logistics, is that replacing the M4, M16, M249, and M203, and the various stopgap DMR rifles we've been using with this M8 system will drastically reduce the entire maintenance process. it will be much easier for amorers and the like to keep weapons in the field, and at far less a cost to the taxpayers. over the long run, the new system will most likely cost less to field then what we're doing now. obviously the initial costs will be there, but as time progresses, you'll see the difference

[rob]

but by the time progresses something worthwhile to adopt most likely will present itself, and we will have a switch yet again, making the m8 a expensive pointless mistake.

how long would it take to gain back the costs for adopting the m8, 10 years? 15? and add the burden of the initial cost now, at time of war, when money is short?

it doesnt make sense, while the xm8 looks like a great weapon(little dispute there) the whole this seems pointless.

if it was bullpup i wouldnt agree with it but atleast i could see the point.

they should put the xm8 on hold, and put out actual requirement for other companies to meet, and hold a competition, inviting other american firms. it would make more sense then what they are currently doing.

[Durandal]

what he means by logistics, is that replacing the M4, M16, M249, and M203, and the various stopgap DMR rifles we've been using with this M8 system will drastically reduce the entire maintenance process. it will be much easier for amorers and the like to keep weapons in the field, and at far less a cost to the taxpayers. over the long run, the new system will most likely cost less to field then what we're doing now. obviously the initial costs will be there, but as time progresses, you'll see the difference

So what you are telling me is that our DMRs should be 5.56 or 6.8!