What do you think about the XM8?

Answer 1

I can see the "Ghost Recon" idiots crawl all over this question already.

There's nothing to think about. It's not being issued as originally scheduled. Irregularities in the government contract have ensured that we won't see THAT thing downrange for a while. It's one of those things that may actually just push me to leave the service if it gets adopted with the problems still in place.

That close quarter optic mated to an IR laser (both zeroed together simultaneously) is a nice touch. However, for the money that's being put in this thing, we could have had HK416s in the line units by now. We need more barrels, extractors, gas rings as it is already. We have other issues that need redressing in procurement. It's lighter by 20% over the M4 but doesn't offer any improvements in lethality. Why invest so much in something we're looking at having to support for the next 40 years when it doesn't offer any substantial improvements over what we have now?

If you're asking this solely from a "looking in the window at a nice shiny toy" kinda viewpoint, I suggest you goto someplace like http://defensereview.com and read up on it. Specifically this article:

http://defensereview.com/article636.html

By the way, anyone and I mean ANYONE that can state that 9x19mm has better lethality that 5.56x45mm greentips is OUT OF THEIR MIND. How ANYONE could repeat that bullshit myth about the purpose of 5.56x45mm ammunition in either the 55-grain or 62-grain variety to be "wounding" is beyond me. That story just refuses to die.

An MP5 as the replacement for the M16/M4. That's rich. When I see pop-ups on a KD range going down at 300m left and right from the uber-lethal 9x19mm round, I'm sold.

Answer 2

At this point in time the XM8 has been cancelled because of some government irregularity in the bidding process (the word is that contractors other than the one that made the XM8 were not allowed into the bidding for the design contracts). It may be reentered into a new competition for a future rifle... but right now its future does not look too bright.

Personally while it is a nifty looking rifle on the outside... there is really little improvement in performance from the similar looking Heckler und Kock G36 5.56mm rifle. They both fire the same cartridge and have practically the same range and accuracy. Whatever sighting system is used by XM8 can be in theory applied also to the G36. The only variable is weight, as the XM8 is lighter.

Answer 3

So what's different from an M-16? Sure you can mix and match, but the real problem is the bullet. The M-16's sole purpose of having a 5.56 bullet is to wound a soldier so his buddies take him off the battlefield. That's might happen in Europe and the U.S., but it doesn't happen to Muslims. Sure they might drag some bodies and wounded off after the fighting, but not during the fighting. The Chinese might do the same thing, at least they did in the Korean War. Wounded guys can still shoot back (and suicide bombers can blow people up).

To move past the M-16, would require something like the 9mm MP5 where bullets are more likely to kill somebody.

Answer 4

It really doesnt matter what anyone thinks, the contract is nil.....

But, as impressive as it seems from the outside looking in. Really it is not all that. A lot of little stuff to break, or jam. Not quite as user friendly as the M4.

Answer 5

I prefer the F2000 from FN

Answer 6

very cool idea. kind of like a swiss army knife of guns. it won't ever be THEE gun that replaces all weapons but for the majority of infantry and paratroopers, will serve as an excellent multipurpose assault rifle. as an assault rifle it is excellent. fairly compact but with decent range. even as a secondary weapon to replace sidearms, it's rather effective. but as a heavy assault weapon like the SAW or as a sniper rifle, it's characteristics are quite limited.

Answer 7

i think the name is sweet ROCK ON