The XM8


Active member
Anyone know anything about H&K's new XM8? I don't know tons about rifles but this thing looks pretty slick. What do you experts think?

(Redleg when is tomorrow? I waited til tomorrow so I would get credit for these new topics I'm posting but it still says I'm past my limit. :? )
the XM8 is an attempt to salvage something from the horrible OICW program. If we were equipping a force from scratch, it would be a good idea .. but since we aren't .. no reason to dump the existing M-16 series for it.
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?
We all dread when the XM8 gets fielded. No one really wants it. I think it's just a matter of all that money burning a hole in someone's pocket. The M16A2 is a good weapon for what it was designed for. Same with the M4. We really wouldn't need anything else for at least 5 years. I really like whatever rifles the British are carrying around here in Iraq. They're pretty sharp.

Yes. dident notice your location said Baghdad...Dude, we are like only 650 km from each other...Hows the weather? :eek:fftopic:
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the Army is looking at replacing the 20" barrelled M-16 AND the 14.5" M-4 with the 12.5" XM-8. Other barrel lengths are available, but are not currently being considered. The conventional 5.56x45 FMJ is very velocity dependent in its wounding mechanism. The immutable laws of physics dictate that no matter how nice or sexy the weapon, a 12.5" barrel is not going to be more lethal than the already problematic 14.5" M-4, and may be less accurate. This would necessitate a better round (not the 6.8 ), a longer barrel, or both.

IMHO, the XM-8 does not provide much value added for the cost. For the amount of money spent, it is my belief that you would find a much better solution to soldiers hitting and killing bad guys in going to the 77 gr. bullet with sufficient quantities for all soldiers to shoot monthly, a good low powered optical sight, new ranges (indoor at BDE/BN level?), and well-qualified marksmanship training at a variety of KD and unknown ranges under varying conditions.

Sadly, politics will most likely overcome necessity.

The SA80 is a POS.
I like the L85A2 as well, and it's much better than the A1. It drinks oil (copious amounts on bearing surfaces), and doesn't fire US rounds very well, though. You have to set the gas parts to extreme fouling to get the rounds to cycle the action reliably.
In my opinion, I think the Army would benifit from increasing the standard to pass the BRM (currently only 23 of 40 targets). I really don't think that a 58% hit ratio on a range (which would probably drop significantly in a combat situation due to nerves and what have you) is sufficient for soldiers to be combat effective, and switching to a weapon with even less range and inherent accuracy is not going to help this.

(I don't know what the requirements are for you Marines, I imagine with the "every Marine is a rifleman" mentality, your standards are higher, correct?)
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.
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) :D 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 :cry: ) GO FIGURE
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.
Another problem I fear we're going to run into is one like this (from the "Worst Small-arms" topic):

Gunner13 said:
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?
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.

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.