Is the Marine Corps going to adopt the XM8 - Page 3




 
--
 
May 23rd, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
Yeah, but that's cutting it seriously close to the limit, and you can't drill with something as short as an M4 anyway. :P
May 23rd, 2005  
hicks
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/Commander
and you can't drill with something as short as an M4 anyway. :P
Ehhh.... 99% of the Army doesn't practice drill anyway.

They can save a few rifles for that.
May 24th, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
But we're talking about the Marines. Drill is extremely important to them I believe.
--
May 24th, 2005  
FutureDevilDog
 
 
Could you still drill with the XM8? I dont think you could because of its weird shape.
May 26th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
I can't speak from expirience but I would think the M-4 is a good balance of size, weight and firepower for todays urban battlefields. Like mentioned everyone is entitled for their opinion, well in my opinion Xm-8 is a waste of money, there have been no major flaws in M-4 not that I've heard of right? so why fix it if it isn't broken?
Its not a case of fixing something that isn't broken, but improving on something tremendously.

What you have with the Xm-8 is a weapon with the reliability of an AK while still retaining the accuracy of NATO weapons.

The main problems with M-16 variants was their prone to jamming (I'm speaking from experience here).

The manifacturers claims the Xm-8 can fire up to 15,000 rounds without the need for cleaning. Whether this translate to actual field use remains to be seen. But even if say you fired 2,000 rounds before the need for cleaning, that's still great.

Other improvements of the Xm-8 is:

1) Adaptability, diferent variants while having the familiarity of the same weapon, including SAW, sniper, and carbine.

2) Aiming system is factory sighted to the barrel. So you don't have to zero your weapon anymore, or keep on zeroing while on the field.

3) Cost less than a fully equiped M-4 with scope.
May 26th, 2005  
hicks
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
The main problems with M-16 variants was their prone to jamming (I'm speaking from experience here).
From my experience with my personal M-4 and my military used M-4, I have only had a stoppage when using blanks.

Never with live rounds.
May 26th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius


The main problems with M-16 variants was their prone to jamming (I'm speaking from experience here).

The manifacturers claims the Xm-8 can fire up to 15,000 rounds without the need for cleaning. Whether this translate to actual field use remains to be seen. But even if say you fired 2,000 rounds before the need for cleaning, that's still great.

My experience with the M-16A1 and A2 and the LE version of the M4 (SemiAuto) is the same as hicks. I've had stoppages with the blanks but very few with the live rounds. Those I've had with live rounds can attributed to bad magazines, or need of cleaning.

Manufactures cleaning claims aren't worth a thing. Similar Claims were made by Colt/Armalite with the M-16. Alot of Grunts in SEA found out the hard way that the manufacturer was wrong.
May 27th, 2005  
gladius
 
The M-16A1 assinged to me jammed constantly with live and blanks. Other former serviceman that I talked to also felt that the A1 was a piece of crap, again because of jamming.

The M16A2 was different, much more improved very few jammings, I actualy liked it. But still you needed to make sure its clean. I doubt if you could drag it through sand and expect it not to jam, like an AK. I think this is what they are trying to get at with the Xm8.

Also with the Xm8 you have a totally different design, where the gas and carbon discharge no longer goes into the reciever like it did with the M-16. This way you will most likely never have a jam due to a lack of cleaning.

If it does all they say it can do, I really think this is a better weapon than the M-16A2, provided it can do it. I'm sure the Army put it through alot of testing if it doesn't pass they shouldn't get it, but if it does I think they should.
As for the Marines I don't know what their phylosophy is as far as requirements for weapon, whether the Xm8 is good for them or not them or not.
May 28th, 2005  
Stosstruppen
 
even if the XM-8 isn't adopted, it probably won't be just because it didn't pass some test or meet a requirement. Just read about the hurdles and Army bureaucracy the M-16 had to go through before it was adopted, whether a weapon is ultimately adopted or not can often be highly political.
May 28th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Thing is, whatever the next assault rifle, I think we can agree that the design will have to consider that the majority of infantry battles in present and future is probably going to happen in urban terrain, which means a lot of shooting at close quarters and also shooting out of vehicles.