The XM8 - Page 3




 
--
 
March 9th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Well,compared with the Kalashnikov and the Galil, it dosent enjoy sand...
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).
March 10th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
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.
March 10th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplomatic_means
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.
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 ), 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?
--
March 10th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
like a fear of clowns
Clowns are creepy as hell. It's very logical to be afraid of them. Don't you remember IT?

Just Say No to the M8!
March 10th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Give it to the clowns!
March 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: ok


, 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:
Quote:
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 agree completely!
March 10th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 

Topic: Re: ok


Quote:
Originally Posted by sherman105
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...).
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....
March 10th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 

Topic: Re: ok


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Your weapon is one of the best things you can use in a close combat situation.
Nawwww.....
Just kidding, Sir, but I wouldn't want to have to resort to my hands in that situation.

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.
March 10th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSunsetSniper
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?

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.
March 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: Support


You have support weapons with 7.62..