The XM8

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

Yes, the Kalishnikov is an extremely reliable rifle. Doesn't change the fact that the M-16 works fine as long as it is maintained properly. AK or M16, training and discipline should dicatate that the weapon needs to be cleaned, I don't care if it will fire after 10 years buried in the sand (AK).
 
I don't know if yall looked at the pdf that went along with the rifle but the XM8 only has 7 major parts. I don't know what the outside is made of, but it can't be so horribly weak that it won't survive any extreme condition. The nice thing about having less metal on the gun means that it weighs less and if it weighs less then its easier to control during auto matic fire because it doesn't have as much momentum for every round shot. I like the input continue to comment please.
 
diplomatic_means said:
if it weighs less then its easier to control during auto matic fire because it doesn't have as much momentum for every round shot.
Click to expand...

Wrong answer. Less weight (after a point, of course) actually increases the recoil (more weight=more mass that has to be put in motion by the energy released by the discharge of the round=less recoil as energy is dispersed more before reaching your shoulder, etc.).

Personally I don't like light firearms anyway, they feel like toys to me, and I'm always worried they're going to fall apart if I don't baby them. Although this is an irrational position (meaning it doesn't stand up to logic, like a fear of clowns :lol: ), I know that I am not the only one, by far, who feels this way, and trusting the equipment given to it is a hugely important part of making an effective fighting force. Therefore I think that, all technical objections aside (which I have quite a few of anyway, as you can see in my previous posts), for purely psycological reasons, I believe that making a weapon as light as the XM8 is an unwise decision.


How's that for use of parenthesis? :lol:
 
ok

:eek:fftopic: , but yes, clowns are scarry bastards....Well, I think that a gun should not feel like a toy....Plus in hand-to-hand, you need a durable and heavy weapon(im not saying 5kg, but M16 weight is good...).

RnderSafe wrote:
AK or M16, training and discipline should dicatate that the weapon needs to be cleaned, I don't care if it will fire after 10 years buried in the sand (AK).
Click to expand...

I agree completely!
 
Re: ok

sherman105 said:
Well, I think that a gun should not feel like a toy....Plus in hand-to-hand, you need a durable and heavy weapon(im not saying 5kg, but M16 weight is good...).
Click to expand...

That's a very good point..
Your weapon is one of the best things you can use in a close combat situation.
I don't think our technology has brought us far enough yet to rule out hand to hand combat....
 
Re: ok

Redleg said:
Your weapon is one of the best things you can use in a close combat situation.
Click to expand...

Nawwww.....
:lol: Just kidding, Sir, but I wouldn't want to have to resort to my hands in that situation. :lol:

Not that I am backtracking in my position at all, but I just thought of something: could the drive for an even lighter rifle be to compensate for all the gear we currently strap onto the M4 (ACOG scopes, M203s, AN/PEQ-2s, etc.) that cause that weapon to weigh a ton?
Even if that is the case, I still don't like the XM8, but at least I would regain a bit of confidence in the sanity/reason of the powers that be.
 
TheSunsetSniper said:
Personally, i don't mind the weapons the Military is using now, but i would prefer something with a little more firepower. Like an M14 or another 7.62mm weapon. That XM8 looks like some whacked out lazer cannon fomr a video game or something. I don't doubt that it is accurate, but like Sir Sherman said... where's the metal?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I missed this at first. There are several reasons behind the switch from the high caliber rifles to the NATO 5.56. One biggie is that each soldier can carry almost twice the ammo with the .223 as they could with the .308 M14 without increasing the weight of the soldier's/Marine's load. Linked to this is the hard lesson we learned in Korea that the infantryman needed much greater firepower at the personal level than he had, neccesitating automatic rifles (hence the M14), and the resulting increase in ammunition consumption led to the need for each infantryman to carry more rounds than was possible with large caliber weapons. Another is that we learned in WWII that the average infantrymen were not engaging targets at the same distances they had in WWI (which turned most servicemen into impromptu sharpshooters taking potshots at the enemy across No-Man's-Land) and previous engagements, therefore the greater range of the .30-06 and .308 rifles was an unjustifiable luxury.
 
Key words being "support weapons," the ammunition loadout for which is split up amongst the squad. Like I said, these considerations were for the "average infantryman" and I did not mean that we no longer used the 7.62mm or other rounds besides the 5.56mm, because that would just be incorrect, and we all know how infallible I am. :lol:
 
Right, the 7.62mm NATO round survives in support weapons (M60/M240B/GPMG etc. and various sniper rifles) BECAUSE it has superior range and pentrating power (the same thing applies to .50 cal/12.7mm). Although Redneck states the case for a smaller service round for rifles and squad support weapons very consisely :D, even upgrading to the higher power of the 5.56mm SS109 round for the M249 and M16A2 series rifles does not change that (more like admitting that the original 5.56mm round was underpowered ;) ).

Changing to 7mm might fix most of this disconnect (.50cal/12.7mm will always be around although maybe not in the M2HB), but then again, it might not. So could somebody try so we can find out?
 
The main reason behind having the same caliber round for all the weapons in a squad (support and main rifles) is that you can interchange ammunition, so if you are in a situation where you need to ration it, and your support gunners have a load of extra ammo and the riflemen are short (or vice-versa) you can divvy up the ammunition so you don't have half your firepower disappearing just when you most need it, as long as anyone in the squad has ammo, everyone in the squad has ammo.
 
Still, we all know how well a M249 feeds from an M16 mag.
Bang! Bang! Clunk! (cha-chink) Bang! Bang! Clunk!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top