The XM8 - Page 2




 
--
 
March 8th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 





Dang, I love the smilie!!!
March 8th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
and switching to a weapon with even less range and inherent accuracy is not going to help this.

ON Topic!
March 8th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Redneck, exactly ... the Army has bigger needs right now, and the XM8 offers no solutions; in reality, it will bring forth even more problems. The Army needs to improve skills, not mask problems with new toys for political reasoning.

On the XM8 itself, it is not a significant improvement over the M-4. Just a money maker.
--
March 8th, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
I agree, the XM8 looks like a refugee from the OICW project and a piece of junk as well (any version of it). Upping BRM training and standards would be a great idea for all soldiers (especially if we are trying to instill the Warrior Ethos in all soldiers in the US Army) Same goes for all weapons training.

I have heard that the Brtiish Army is not very happy with the L85 at all. Ever notice how different militaries develop new weapons (even when they really don't need new ones) in different calibers, but NEVER 7mm? Study after study has show that that is about the ideal caliber, but other than one prototype that the British Army developed in the 1950s, no one have ever done anything along these lines (7mm lost out to US presusre for a larger round - 7.6mm NATO, which is a reworked .30-06 ) GO FIGURE
March 8th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
I have heard that the Brtiish Army is not very happy with the L85 at all.
From those I have worked with and spoken to, they aren't incredibly fond of it, especially the A1 .. they seem to like the A2 well enough but as I said, it drinks a lot of oil .. and can be moody in say, desert condititions. Anything is better than the SA80. They seemed to like the M16/M4, I know of a few units that use these when they can get away with it.

And I agree on the 7mm, the superior performance of the 7mm (7x57) has been known since the Spanish-American War of 1898. Gotta love bureaucracy.
March 8th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: M16


The M16 is also not exactly sand proof...
March 8th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Another problem I fear we're going to run into is one like this (from the "Worst Small-arms" topic):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
a. Switzerland - MP 41/44. A heavy (11 lbs 7 oz/5.19 kg unloaded), complicated, over-designed and expensive weapon that no one should have accepted for service issue, even the Swiss. Its designer was obsessed with the toggle action made famous by the Parabellum (Luger), pistol and applied here to no great effect. It was also a very clumsy weapon and holds the unique distinction of being so complex that only unit armorers were allowed to field strip them - ordinary soldiers were forbidden to do so.

I believe that is one of the reasons the OICW was canned, correct?
March 9th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
The M16 is also not exactly sand proof...
If the M16 is maintained properly, it actually does very well in the desert. I've never had any serious problems that weren't due to my mistakes.

Quote:
believe that is one of the reasons the OICW was canned, correct?
Pretty much, it was fondly given the nickname of OINK by those that handled it. I'm just going to sit back and wait for plasma rifles with taser option.
March 9th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
I'm with you there, Sir.
March 9th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: yeah


Well,compared with the Kalashnikov and the Galil, it dosent enjoy sand...