Something I just realized about the M8...

F

Focus Fate

Active member
Mostly all of us here know that a big part of training in the Army and Marines and such is drilling and combat with a rifle. The M8 thats being developed is a carbine, but all versions I see of it are reletively small. How are they going adapt basic training for this, and drilling alike. Have I just missed some information and they are planning to making a 'full' size version?
 
That one with the butt is the one I'm talking about, its retractable and it doesn't look too sturdy. Although drilling probally wont be as much of a problem, I believe the training of using the weapon as a physical weapon in certian situations will have to be re-thought with this weapons introduction into the military. I know it's supposed to be a lot more reliable but there will always be a time when a soldier runs out of ammo or has a jam. Now he has to switch to a pistol if that is not out of ammo, or a knife, when before he could use the rifle itself as a physical weapon.

I bring up the question of drilling because of the weapons size. In some pictures it looks about the size of the current M16A2: http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/mediaimages/shot04schatzxm8cmag.jpg

and at other times it looks much smaller : http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/mediaimages/schatzxm8talk1.jpg which might make drilling awkward.
 
all weapons winning Gov. contracts have been tested by Top military brass and recommended, si i would assume that it is ok
 
The reason it looks different is because the M8 uses modular technology. You can refit the same basic weapon so that it works like a carbine, "sharpshooter" rifel, compact, or automatic rifel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xm8-poster.jpg

Your first pic is indeed bigger because it has a 25" barrel on it compared to the 12.5" barrel in your 2nd pic.

Remember that making the gun shorter is A VERY GOOD THING. One of the chief problems for our infantry in Iraq is how cumbersome the M-16 is to handle while in a HUMVEE. The last thing you want is a big barrel getting stuck the vehicle when you get hit with an ambush. If you haven't figured out yet, I'm a big fan of the M8 but admitedly have never shot it.

Although I will agree with you that I think the army should pay a little more attention to what happens when you get into hand to hand combat. Let's not forget that Scottland's 'Black Watch' performed a bayonette charge in Iraq in just 2004.
 
I also more then a little worried about the concept of not having bayonnet mounts on the weapons. You can never be sure of when you'll need to fix bayonettes in a war zone. Also, during peace support operations, fixing bayonettes can help with riot/crowd control as rioters are less prone to grabbing at weapons with a 6 inch blade sticking out the end of it. (Canadian troops did this during the Oka incident)
 
Good point about crowd control, here's my question. If you have a mount for a (whatever the new M203 thing is called) or a mini-shotgun underneath the barrel, why can't you stick a modified bayonett on there as well?
 
Exactly, Death! Also I knew about how it can be switched to sharpshooter or to have a drum and act as a SAW. Thats GREAT. The only downfall I see is what I've stated, Hand to Hand combat, and possibly drilling. The features are good, but I'm worried about that telescoping butt. It doesn't really look like you could smash it into someones face and still be there after :p
 
Whispering Death said:
The reason it looks different is because the M8 uses modular technology. You can refit the same basic weapon so that it works like a carbine, "sharpshooter" rifel, compact, or automatic rifel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xm8-poster.jpg

Your first pic is indeed bigger because it has a 25" barrel on it compared to the 12.5" barrel in your 2nd pic.

Remember that making the gun shorter is A VERY GOOD THING. One of the chief problems for our infantry in Iraq is how cumbersome the M-16 is to handle while in a HUMVEE. The last thing you want is a big barrel getting stuck the vehicle when you get hit with an ambush. If you haven't figured out yet, I'm a big fan of the M8 but admitedly have never shot it.

Although I will agree with you that I think the army should pay a little more attention to what happens when you get into hand to hand combat. Let's not forget that Scottland's 'Black Watch' performed a bayonette charge in Iraq in just 2004.
Click to expand...

Thats why all Mech. and Motorized infantry are now issued M4's. I use to live on Ft. Belvoir next to a guy who helped devlop the M8 and the LW System, its pretty nice and the Compact Carbine is about the size of the M4.
 
The issue is, however, the loss of the bayonet lug...whichis mounted in a completely different fashion then a 40mm GL or anything else, just do to the nature of the tool. I don't like the M8 personally, it looks liek a flimsy plastic piece of startreck crap.
 
r031Button said:
The issue is, however, the loss of the bayonet lug...whichis mounted in a completely different fashion then a 40mm GL or anything else, just do to the nature of the tool. I don't like the M8 personally, it looks liek a flimsy plastic piece of startreck crap.
Click to expand...

You do realize that is what all the infantrymen 60 years ago said about the M16 don't you?
 
Whispering Death said:
r031Button said:
The issue is, however, the loss of the bayonet lug...whichis mounted in a completely different fashion then a 40mm GL or anything else, just do to the nature of the tool. I don't like the M8 personally, it looks liek a flimsy plastic piece of startreck crap.
Click to expand...

You do realize that is what all the infantrymen 60 years ago said about the M16 don't you?
Click to expand...

I hope it wasn't 60 years ago. The M14 was the main infantry weapon when I was in the Army. Even though there was an AR15 in 1950, the US didn't adopt the M16 until 1967. I remember hearing news from some of the guys in VietNam about a "plastic" rifle. I don't think it was well received.
 
I dont see why it would be so hard for them to put room in there for a bayonette.

it looks liek a flimsy plastic piece of startreck crap.
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny LOL

Personally from what I've heard and seen about it, it seems really good and like it would do a lot of good. Its size and lack of a bayonette are what worry me.
 
We'll be expecting to see more and more urban warfare in the near future. In such scenarios, a shorter rifle would be better as it would truly be the compromise between rifle and submachine gun.
Also it's good for short people like myself. hehe
 
The original M8 was a pack Howitzer. Looking at this thread had me thinking damn, the guy who could do shoulder arms with THAT! :lol:
 
I hope it wasn't 60 years ago. The M14 was the main infantry weapon when I was in the Army. Even though there was an AR15 in 1950, the US didn't adopt the M16 until 1967. I remember hearing news from some of the guys in VietNam about a "plastic" rifle. I don't think it was well received.
Click to expand...

You mean 64' the Air Force had them in 64' the Army in 67'.
 
In CQB shorters guns are nicer, in terrain where you actually have 300+ yards in front of you to see your enemy the longer rifle would be more ideal. And that is why they are making both versions. Otherwise its just wasted barrel length. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top