H&K's new XM8




View Poll Results :Should they Issue this instead of the M16/M4?
Yes 16 59.26%
No 11 40.74%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
May 12th, 2004  
Rampage
 

Topic: H&K's new XM8


I belive this is going to replace the M16/M4 by 2005
It looks like an amazing gun after looking at the stats
but it looks a little to plastic for my taste.

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/xm8.html

May 12th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
People said the same thing about the M16 when it came out.
May 12th, 2004  
782.matt
 
 
Looks plasticy, but I'm sure if I actually held one, I might think otherwise....
--
May 12th, 2004  
Pollux
 
its almost the same as the g36, just a bit "rounder"
so i think it will be a good rifle
May 12th, 2004  
rovai
 
Did anybody ever seen weapon which looks shitty on data sheets? Especially thoose placed on the maker's site. I think well have to wait and see how this gun behaves in real combat situation, because no testing can emulate real combat. Bu i think it will be good, coz H&K made nice rifles before, and has great experience in making guns. Anyway, this looks way better than OICW shit.
May 12th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
Did anybody ever seen weapon which looks shitty on data sheets?
Well said.
May 12th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovai
Anyway, this looks way better than OICW shit.
First of all, you need to tone the language down a bit.

The XM-8 is actually salvaged from the OICW project. I'm REALLY not happy about the drop in barrel length (and resultant decrease in long range accuracy), reliability is fine, but if you have to expend 30 rounds to hit a target 300m away because you're firing out of a 2" mickey mouse barrel, it's not really worth much in my book.

About the "saying the same about the M16 when it came out," the M16/M4 family proved that the trade-off between longer range and ammo carrying capabilities/rate of fire was worthwhile, but the XM-8 uses the same ammunition as the M16/M4 and has a similar rate of fire. What it will have to prove is that reliability is a worthwhile trade for accuracy, and I don't believe it will succeed in proving that.
May 12th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
I am pretty sure it has the same range as an M4.
May 12th, 2004  
rovai
 
Sorry for "shit", but i never meant something bad...just saying the facts...

They already have the proof - the AK-74(not 47!).

Anyway, the reliability vs accuracy is one single most discussed subject in the military all over the world. And finding good trade off between them is one heck of a job. Accuracy without reliability(especially in close combat/jungle/desert) worth nothing, and very reliable gun that cant hit shi..err..nothing is also bad.

Also, Russians have developed new assault rifle, AN-94 "Abakan". It has great accuracy in semi and auto mode(in semi mode abakan shoots 2 bullets very fast, second bullet is shot before barrel is retracted, so you get the same recoil while shooting one bullet). It also has some nice engineering feats. But, its less reliable than AK and more complicated. Still, its more reliable than M16/M4, and is believed to be more accurate. But as I said, many weapons look great on sheets and tests, and work bad in battles. Some of the soldiers who tested this rifle, say that theyll stick with good old AK. Well just have to wait and see the new guns in action.

More info here: http://club.guns.ru/eng/abakan.html
May 12th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaegerWolf08
I am pretty sure it has the same range as an M4.
The M-4 has a 14.5" barrel, the XM-8 has a 12.5", since the 5.56 is very velocity dependant in its wounding mechanism, it isn't going to be as lethal as the M-4, esp at longer ranges - and may be less accurate.