View Poll Results: Should the US Army adopt the XM8 ?

Voters
179. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    86 48.04%
  • No

    93 51.96%
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 219

Thread: should the US army adopt the XM8 ?

  1. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Army
    Posts
    674

    Default

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

  2. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bay State
    Posts
    2,317

    Default

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

  3. #108
    I've got your hardwood.... right here Durandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Digging in and waiting it out...
    Posts
    8,667

    Default

    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...

  4. #109
    Lead Belly Michael RVR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    on the gun line ..
    Posts
    1,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Durandal
    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....

  5. #110
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dothan, AL, USA
    Posts
    6

    Default

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

  6. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon_Sniper
    I think the Army should adopt the new Springfield M1ASOCOM but thats just me
    As the standard Issue rifle for every single infantry man? I think not

  7. #112
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dothan, AL, USA
    Posts
    6

    Default

    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 [/img]

  8. #113
    I've got your hardwood.... right here Durandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Digging in and waiting it out...
    Posts
    8,667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael RVR
    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...

  9. #114
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    503

    Default

    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

  10. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    765

    Default

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

  11. #116
    I've got your hardwood.... right here Durandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Digging in and waiting it out...
    Posts
    8,667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5jumpchump
    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...

  12. #117
    idiot savant with a ban stick
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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.

  13. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bay State
    Posts
    2,317

    Default

    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.

  14. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    making love, not war :D
    Posts
    884

    Default

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

  15. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    127

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •