I have to reply to some of the earlier post in this thread. Several people stated that relying on a foreign company to manufacture our new weapon was not a very good argument. They stated that the military now uses all types of foreign produced weapons. They called off names such as H&K and Benelli. Most of these weapons are in limited use by Special Operations and tachtical units. Comparing those with changing the standard issue assault rifle to a foreign manufacturer is ridiculous. Changing the standard assigned assault rifle that every member carries is of greater significance. Relying on a foreign country, a socialist one that doesn't always support us, is just bad business. If you can't see that then you are in trouble. The Special Units that use the Benelli and the H&K are small in numbers and having a U.S. manufacturer design and produce a weapon on such a small scale would not be reasonable. On the other hand, changing our basic issue firearm is a different story. You cannot tell me that Colt, or some other US manufacturer can't design the type of weapon the United States Military needs. Having Germany the manufacturer of our basic assault rifle is bad business for two reasons: First-The worst case scenerio is that H&K is based in a country where their gov't has more control over companies. If they don't agree with the war we are waging they can use that to undermine our war effort. It may sound far fetched but have they not undermined our effort in recent years, therefore it is a possiblity. Second-Even if we could depend on them (from a manufacturers standpoint)why in the world would you want to pump that much money into a country that has undermined your war on terror. Someone in this thread earlier said that the XM8 would cost apprimately $600 to $800. Do you realize that is 100s of billions of dollars that would be pumped into this country. We should not reward but punish a country such as Germany for what they've done in the recent past.
I haven't carried an M-16 for over 10 years so they MAYbe out of date. I would never expect our military to wage war with out dated weapons. I do however think we should keep the manufacturer of our next weapon with a US manufacturer.
With that said Terran Empire, you argument holds no water.
I read virtually every post on this, and gentlemen, I have to tell you it was a pleasure to read coherent, intelligent posts and replies by people who obviously know their subject matter. What a breath of fresh air compared to some of the other threads, where's their more sniping at each other then in a combat zone. Even the 16 year old valley kid was funny.
I agree totally petersjc, some people get all bent out of shape when you disagree with them. If everybody agreed the forum would have been dead as soon as it started.
Originally posted by orca105: -Now, onto the XM-8 After the reunification of germany in the mid-1980's, H&K was sent into near bankrupcy by the collapse of the G-11 project. They were quickly acquired by British Aerospace (?), who were then granted a contract to fix Britain's L-85 fiasco. The result was the L-85a2. It is interesting to note that, even though the L-85 is fixed, the prefered weapons of the Special Air Service (SAS) are still the M-16 variants and their SLR (an FN FAL derivative). When Germany again found itself in need of a new service rifle, they called on H&K to design. H&K, in turn, regurgetated the L-85a2 in non-bullpup form (the G-36). When we started looking for a new service rifle, guess what happened... we got the G-36 all nicely repackaged as the XM-8. Not to say that that's a bad thing. Now, I also have two questions: 1. Will the XM-8 actually be able to use M-16 magazines? from the pictures i've seen it doesn't look like it has the right mag release for them.
2. Will the XM-8 have picatinny rails? Without them, soldiers would only be able to use proprietary accesories (made by H&K, of course), unless the plan on using a whole lot of duct tape to attach that forward pistol grip/ flashlight/ any other conceiveable object. besides, it might prove problematic to restrict the sharpshooter to a scope with no magnification.
If all this is true, then we are technically rebuying the M16. Except now it's made in Germany and looks like a gun from Halo2. WHAT!?!?! Have we gone stupid suddenly? What has Germany ever done? All they're famous for is sausages and bullying Europe whenever they have a chance (World War 2.)
And if we adopt a new assault-rifle, it should AT LEAST offer better ballistic performance than our current weapon. Oh and yeah, it should accept the accesories we built for the old rifle.
Maybe HK should change the caliber to 6.8 and offer the 20' inch barrel as a standard. Also they should equip the XM8 with the same rails as the M4, that way we dont have to buy new accesories from them. If they did that, then we would actually be advancing not getting the M16's pretty boy son. But HK is a business and they can make more money by shafting us.
Here shafting means selling us our own gun, with the same bullets and a whole new set of add-ons made by them.
I like the M4. I'm a big guy, so I feel somewhat awkward using anything with a shorter barrel and don't think the M4 is too big for urban conflict at all, though I guess dropping 2 inches off the barrel wouldn't be too bad. The M4 has always been accurate as far as I have, but I've heard a lot of stories from people who went to Afghanistan and couldn't reach out and touch someone. It seems like the M4 is a decent compromise. Also, this is where the M8 comes in. The M8 offers the shortened variant for dedicated CQC and a long-rifle variant for sharpshooters in the mountains. That appeals to me. Also, I like the idea of it being recoil-operated (as opposed to gas). The idea of siphoning off some of the exhaust from the end of your barrel and filling your chamber with carbon just doesn't appeal to me very much. There seem to be a lot of common-sense, soldier-inspired suggestions built into the M8 series. As for the bigger round debate, there's nothing wrong with 5.56 (under 550 m or so) except the stopping power issue. The problem there is that we don't use expanding rounds. If you use a 5.56 full metal jacket round, you punch a 5.56 mm hole through your target; if you shoot 7.62, you punch a 7.62 mm hole through the target. On the other hand, if you use a modern blended 5.56 mm round you punch a hole you could stick your head through. There are stories about people being blown in half by defense contractors who use blended 5.56 rounds in Iraq. I've seen demo videos that make me believe that's entirely possible. We don't use them because we're treaty-bound not to, but when has that sort of thing stopped us before? (i.e. the ABM treaty, etc)
I absolutely agree but actually Sir we need to take astep back and not forware....There are two rifles specifically designed for war and both could be redesigned to be lighter and stronger and more effective by proper engineering and seeing exactly what IS working now for soldiers and I know how! Use the old MI and M-14 priciple but use alloys and polymers and good scopes not open sites to build a very tough and accurate rifle for troops of today and tommorrow.
The xm8 is one of the best weopon systems i've seen HK is a really good co. and after reading the news letter on the xm8 im really excited about it. The variants that the rifle can go thru are practical for the field and they way everything is put to gether the short version of the carbine is more like a side arm and could be holstered and the attashments put in a pack. The side arm might be done away with and the soldier wouldn't have two different sets of ammo and magazines to carry around. The soldier would have a one fits all system and wouldn't have to carry the carbine all the time. With all the possibilities i think the military should greatly consider the xm8 as the replacment system.
If you want an M-4 that is CQB capable you could go with thew "shorty" variant in which the only part of the barrel that goes past the front iron sight is the flash surpressor.
Wonderful innovation, however; does the versatility of the weapon and its flexibility with interchangeable accessories compromise its overall capability and effectiveness? I understand the efficiency of the decision to streamline the manufacturing process, although is this practical for the personnel on the battlefield? Certain conditions require specific weapons, the M4, MP5 and the M16 each have a unique application; I cannot imagine having to stop in order to transform my weapon in the midst of a firefight. This will most likely result in more injuries.
If you suddenly decide you need a different weapon in the middle of a firefight, then you brought the wrong weapon
If the US is till allergic to bullpups then there is the HK416, a Heckler & Koch redesign of the M16/M4 family. According to the Blackwater shootout, it's exremely reliable:
Alternatively, the FN F2000 has everything you could want:
If all this is true, then we are technically rebuying the M16. Except now it's made in Germany and looks like a gun from Halo2. WHAT!?!?! Have we gone stupid suddenly? What has Germany ever done? All they're famous for is sausages and bullying Europe whenever they have a chance (World War 2.)
Or for the Werner Braun, who made the american moon project possible. General von Streuben, a German general who was responsible for the us military training in the independence war against gb.
Why have you problems with rifles or weapons from Europe?
Originally posted by Fallen9631: [If all this is true, then we are technically rebuying the M16. Except now it's made in Germany and looks like a gun from Halo2. WHAT!?!?! Have we gone stupid suddenly? What has Germany ever done? All they're famous for is sausages and bullying Europe whenever they have a chance (World War 2.)
They're also famous for high engineering standards, e.g. Heckler & Koch weapons are among the most highly admired in the world.
Originally posted by RICK_SKANKLIN: Hello I'm Gunnery SGT> Shanklin and I was tinkling about trying to become a snipper in the U.S.M.C. can any one help point me in the right direction?
If you are a Ssgt in the US Marines, you should already know how to become a Marine Sniper. If you don't, somebody screwed the pooch when you got promoted from Private E-1.
