Don't be so quick to kick the M-16 in the ***. It is a great weapon when cared for, the XM-8 will need the same, and why does it remind me of a weapon off of HALO???? Last, when you hit someone in the face with it, and it breaks, then what?
-Hacker pro

I'll have to disagree that the barrel needs to be shorter on the M16.

Your fragmentation range is already at 125M with a 20" and below 80m with a 14.5" barrel. With a 12" barrel, the distance at which M855 5.56 fragments goes down to about 15m. (!!)

When 5.56 doesn't fragment, it makes a wound that looks more like an ice pick wound in profile than a rifle gunshot wound. i.e. you better drill your target in the kill zone in his head or put one right through his heart/aorta/spine. (And who do you know who can call shot locations on a moving target?)

If a shorter barrel is really needed, then a change of caliber, to something that will fragment at the lower velocities you get with shorter barrels, is needed.

Remington's new 6.8SPC might do the trick, since it has a much wider fragmentation envelope, but it also has recoil more like that of 7.62x39 and is slightly heavier than 5.56.

The guys I know who have shot 6.8 say that it's much more difficult to use on auto or in burst mode though, because of its greater recoil.

About the XM8:

The XM8 is internally almost identical to Germany's G36.

Recently, problems have been found with the G36: its barrel becomes loose after full-auto fire. (When I say loose, I mean wobbling up, down, and left and right.) This is because the G36's upper receiver (the structure that holds all of the rifle's essential operating parts together and in alignment- the bolt carrier, bolt, and barrel extension) is made out of plastic. Apparently, the plastic used cannot hold up to the heat generated by anything more than very limited full auto firing.

H&K will either have to find a way to make the plastic more resistant to heat, or will have to use a different material as an upper receiver.

Incidentally, this melting problem would also be present with the XM8.

With the combination of the XM8's melting upper receiver and the fact that the barrel it is planned to ship out with in its standard-issue form is too short to be effective past 15M (unless different ammo is used), I think I'd want to stick with the M16. (And I'm not a particularly big fan of the AR-15 design.)

Stay safe everyone,

Andrew B

[This message was edited by Aries14482 on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:00.]

OK, here is your info download on the XM8:

I recently returned from the Natonial Defense Industries Association (NDIA) convention which spotlighted new weapons on the horizon, one of which was the XM8.

Here are a few things that might answer some questions:

First, the XM8 is a very strong candidate, but it is not written in stone as the replacement rifle, despite what some people are saying. There are other developments underway.

Other issues:

There will be iron sight backups on the final version of the rifle.

The sight system is a combined unit that acts in place of the paq4; peq2; and acog, so the rifle will actually remain lightweight - !

Knights armament says they will probably be making adapters for old accessories to be used on the new rifles, but realistically, there will be little need for them.

The accessory attachment system is very easy to use and may not even require tie downs - but you know you will have to tie everything down anyway, so forget this part...

The rifle has FAR fewer moving parts and is much easier to dissassemble and clean. Bye-bye, dental tools!

The final version of the rifle will likely have larger hand guards to deal with problems of heat around the barrel area.

Lethality Issues:
The 6.8 caliber is unlikely for big army, especially considering the cost of a switchover and the desired NATO compatibility requirement. However, some units may get another version down the road. The lethality issue is being addressed, and the 6.8 is an excellent improvement over the 5.56. It's much like a high speed and more accurate AK round.

Conversely, a Colonel from the British Army reported that they do not have nearly as many problems with lethality in the 5.56. They are using an improved version of their bullpup, the L85A2, which is leaps and bounds better in terms of reliability over the L85A1, thanks to many changes including stronger magazines made of steel. Magazines are one of the major reliability issues of the M4/M16 system.

He emphasized, correctly, that not enough attention is being given to barrel length. The L85A2 is a bullpup design which lets it carry an almost full size barrel in the space of an M4 package. The M4 and M16 are often compared as being the same animal, but the shorter barrel on the M4 cuts down on lethality since muzzle velocity is tremendously reduced by taking away the extra length.

An Ammo engineer reaffirmed this, and stressed the reduction in barrel length is a major reason the 5.56 is not as strong a man killer as it is out of a longer one. They are working on hotter powders and different bullets, but the Geneva convention severely limits the alternatives, since we can't use hollowpoints, soft points, exposed lead, etc.

Another alternative is the use of different ammo for different barrel legnths, but considering that we can't even keep up with current demand for ONE round type coming out of our ONLY ammo plant left, this is not a realistic possibility for the near term.

[We had 16 ammo plants during WW2, down to five by the Vietnam war, and now only one left at Lake City. Funny what happens to the small stuff when you spend all your time and money worrying about big toys like Comanche helicopters and Crusader artillery pieces, but I digress...]

WHY NO BULLPUP:

A Colonel from Picatinny arsenal told me that there are a few voices at higher echelons who are dead set against the idea of a bullpup design, citing difficulty low crawling with a bullpup, etc.

The main issue they have, from what others have surmized, is not that the bullpup design is a bad idea, but that it is too much too soon right now. In short, with all that's going on in terms of deployment, the timing is bad and they don't want to risk Joe having to re-learn an entirely new weapons system in the middle of a war. The XM8 is not quite such a big leap.

Personally, I think this is a lame excuse, as it's usually a younger Joe in the TOC who manages to figure out complex networking solutions to all the laptops haphazardly linked together while the experienced Sergeant Major can do little more than stand around and maybe look for a trash can to tell somebody to empty.

I'm sure Joe can handle a few switches in different places quicker than we give him credit for, but what do I know.

The XM8 has a lot of things going for it, but the magazines are not one of them. Yes, they are a big reliability and durability improvement, but they are also much bulkier and will require an entirely new set of pockets and or vests for the LCE's to accommodate them. Also, the little tabs on the side of the plastic magazine that are great to link them together make drawing one magazine difficult without inadvertently pulling out two. Solution: shave off the plastic tabs that link the two magazines together. Chances are your 1SG won't want you to look "too Rambo" clip two magazines together for combat without brigade direction anyway.

And no, the current magazines will not fit in the new rifle, but I am told an adapter is possible. No telling if one is in the works or not.

Meanwhile, if you soldiers out there are concerned with reliability of your magazines, HK has the best magazine for the M4/M16 available, at a price of about $32-34 each. I recommend buying a set if you've had problems with your issued units, but they are a little pricey. Also, because of the assault weapons ban on the sale of new-manufacture high-capacity magazines to civilians, you'll need a letter from your commander saying that they are for military use only, etc. Email HK for details. (sorry, I have no address for them - try the web site)

They are simply the best made M4 mags I've ever seen, which is what I've come to expect from HK by now. With mags like this, why not use them in the new XM8, to keep things compatible? [Again, what do I know.]

CONCLUSION:

The XM8 is a great rifle from what I've learned, although I have yet to fire it. However, it brings nothing new to the table in terms of lethality, as it has the same size barrel, approximately, as the M4. Sure, it can be changed to a longer one, but now what about the reduced space improvements?

In the absence of the 6.8 cartridge in the same type of M4/M16/XM8 layout, it's time to give the bullpup design another look if we insist on using the 5.56 for the foreseeable future.


- Weapons Guy

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:36.]

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:39.]

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:46.]

Hey mssrman, I'm gonna argue with you (well actually, with your source) on a couple of points.

quote:

---

There will be iron sight backups on the final version of the rifle.

---

This is good to hear. I'm glad that decision was made.

quote:

---

The final version of the rifle will likely have larger hand guards to deal with problems of heat around the barrel area.

---

That's cool, but what about the fact that the trunnion (the block of steel that the barrel is threaded into) is mounted in an upper receiver made of nylon-based polymer that has been proven to deform, in some instances, during exposure to heat generated by (even limited) full-auto firing?

I should think that the barrel becoming mis-aligned/detached should be of slightly more concern than the hand guards getting uncomfortably hot during full-auto fire.

quote:

---

The rifle has FAR fewer moving parts and is much easier to dissassemble and clean. Bye-bye, dental tools!

---

The G36/XM8 has as many or more moving parts than the AR-15 design. The whole reason Stoner went with the gas system that he did, was because it eliminated the need for a seperate piston.

The reliability problems with the AR-15 design aren't related to the gas system anyway; They're related to the bolt carrier's light weight and (relatively) tight fit in the upper receiver.

The whole dental tool thing is the invention of some administrative idiot/sadist, and has since been continued out of nothing more than tradition.

At least one manufacturer of AR-15/M16s has stated that this kind of O/C cleaning is not only unnecessary, but actually causes more wear to the weapon than operating it does!

I will say that rifles with piston-based gas systems are definitely quicker and easier to clean.

quote:

---

The lethality issue is being addressed, and the 6.8 is an excellent improvement over the 5.56. It's much like a high speed and more accurate AK round.

---

(emphasis added)

How is it being addressed with the XM8? Are they going to go with a longer barrel for the standard issue version? Or are they maybe going to start using the 77gr 5.56 bullets as standard issue? With the 77gr 5.56, I think you might get about 50m of fragmentation range out of a 12" bbl.

Also, the old 7.62x39 AK round is actually less effective than our current 5.56, unless you're talking about shooting through glass or barriers/cover (5.56 tends to shatter when shot into walls and auto glass). The AK bullet typically produces very simple wounds, much like those caused by small-caliber pistol bullets.

The OTM 6.8SPC is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else in the world that can be fit into an M16 magazine. It creates larger wounds than 5.56 and also is capable of creating those wounds out to 400+m (The 77gr 5.56 fired from a 20" bbl still only fragments out to about 200+m). The only thing I can think of (in a smallarm caliber) that is more impressive would be 7.62x51 loaded with Hornady's 155gr AMAX bullet (which is a polymer-tipped bullet).

Hey mssrman, I'm gonna argue with you (well actually, with your source) on a couple of points.

quote:

---

There will be iron sight backups on the final version of the rifle.

---

This is good to hear. I'm glad that decision was made.

quote:

---

The final version of the rifle will likely have larger hand guards to deal with problems of heat around the barrel area.

---

That's cool, but what about the fact that the trunnion (the block of steel that the barrel is threaded into) is mounted in an upper receiver made of nylon-based polymer that has been proven to deform, in some instances, during exposure to heat generated by (even limited) full-auto firing?

I should think that the barrel becoming misaligned/detached should be of slightly more concern than the hand guards getting uncomfortably hot during full-auto fire.

quote:

---

The rifle has FAR fewer moving parts and is much easier to disassemble and clean. Bye-bye, dental tools!

---

The G36/XM8 has as many or more moving parts than the AR-15 design. The whole reason Stoner went with the gas system that he did, was because it eliminated the need for a separate piston.

The reliability problems with the AR-15 design aren't related to the gas system anyway; They're related to the bolt carrier's light weight and (relatively) tight fit in the upper receiver.

The whole dental tool thing is the invention of some administrative idiot/sadist, and has since been continued out of nothing more than tradition.

At least one manufacturer of AR-15/M16s has stated that this kind of O/C cleaning is not only unnecessary, but actually causes more wear to the weapon than operating it does!

I will say that rifles with piston-based gas systems are definitely quicker and easier to clean.

quote:

---

The lethality issue is being addressed, and the 6.8 is an excellent improvement over the 5.56. It's much like a high speed and more accurate AK round.

---

(emphasis added)

How is it being addressed with the XM8? Are they going to go with a longer barrel for the standard issue version? Or are they maybe going to start using the 77gr 5.56 bullets as standard issue? With the 77gr 5.56, I think you might get about 50m of fragmentation range out of a 12" bbl.

Also, the old 7.62x39 AK round is actually less effective than our current 5.56, unless you're talking about shooting through glass or barriers/cover (5.56 tends to shatter when shot into walls and auto glass). The AK bullet typically produces very simple wounds, much like those caused by small-caliber pistol bullets.

The OTM 6.8SPC is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else in the world that can be fit into an M16 magazine. It creates larger wounds than 5.56 and also is capable of creating those wounds out to 400+m (The 77gr 5.56 fired from a 20" bbl still only fragments out to about 200+m). The only thing I can think of (in a small arm caliber) that is more impressive would be 7.62x51 loaded with Hornady's 155gr AMAX bullet (which is a polymer-tipped bullet).

quote:

---

They are using an improved version of their bullpup, the L85A2, which is leaps and bounds better in terms of reliability over the L85A1, thanks to many changes including stronger magazines made of steel. Magazines are one of the major reliability issues of the M4/M16 system.

---

Word has it that they are still having problems with the L85.

I find it rather funny that they 'stole' a good, reliable, rifle design (the American-made AR-18) and somehow managed to remake it into a bullpup, render it unreliable, and also add three pounds of weight to it.

Also, the previous magazines that they were using were steel- the L85 is apparently just very sensitive to variations in magazine dimensions.

I'll also have to disagree with you about the M16 magazine being a major contributor to the unreliability of the M16/M4. There is nothing wrong with them except that they are somewhat more prone to being damaged than comparable steel mags.

The HK mags are very well made by all accounts, but they are also expensive and heavy.

quote:

---

...the Geneva convention severely limits the alternatives, since we can't use hollowpoints, soft points, exposed lead, etc.

---

This really isn't a problem, since the fragmentation of FMJ and OTM 5.56 bullets produce much larger, more serious, wounds than any kind of hollowpoint, exposed lead, or polymer-tipped 5.56 bullets do.

Fragmentation is currently being considered as the most effective, most efficient, Geneva legal, terminal effect produced by modern rifle ammunition.

quote:

---

WHY NO BULLPUP:

---

Personally, I don't like the bullpups because they typically have heavy, mushy, trigger pulls (sucks for any kind of distance shooting), they tend to be, on average, two pounds heavier than comparable standard rifles, and you can't transition from one shoulder to the other during an operation (unless your bullpup ejects casings straight down like that new Belgian bullpup).

quote:

---

The XM8 has a lot of things going for it, but the magazines are not one of them. Yes, they are a big reliability and durability improvement, but they are also much bulkier and will require an entirely new set of pockets and or vests for the LCE's to accommodate them.

---

(emphasis added)

Polymer magazines are typically more resistant to crushing and permanent deformation than aluminum mags, but they have proven to be problematic for the same reason that they don't break easily; they flex. Because of this flexing, these magazines actually wear out more quickly than aluminum mags do. Their feedlips eventually spread apart to the point that they will no longer reliably retain ammunition; they'll spill if handled or dropped.

Polymer mags have also proven to have difficulty in high sand/dust environments. When sand or other comparable abrasive dust enters the magazine, it abrades the follower and the inside of the magazine which makes the surfaces rough and causes the follower to start binding up and cease to reliably feed ammo.

Both the Israelis and the Canadians dropped their homemade polymer mags in favor of US made aluminum mags for these reasons.

quote:

---

The XM8 is a great rifle from what I've learned, although I have yet to fire it. However, it brings nothing new to the table in terms of lethality, as it has the same size barrel, approximately, as the M4. Sure, it can be changed to a longer one, but now what about the reduced space improvements?

In the absence of the 6.8 cartridge in the same type of M4/M16/XM8 layout, it's time to give the bullpup design another look if we insist on using the 5.56 for the foreseeable future.

---

If we're going to stick with M855 5.56 with the XM8, then I personally think it would be a much better idea to simply train everybody to function with a 14.5"-16" barrel and save the ultra-short 12" barrels for people who will only be engaging targets at 10m or under all of the time (Anybody know who that might be, by the way?).

If it really is so essential to have a rifle that's as small as a compact submachine gun, as well as still retain the M855 5.56 round, then I agree: A bullpup would be the only realistic compromise without rendering the weapon almost totally ineffective ballistically.

In my opinion though, I'm afraid we may be confusing the convenience of compactness with compactness as a necessity. Making the enemy dead without having to shoot him ten times is the bigger necessity last I checked.

Blasted double posts...

Could a mod please delete the first post?

Hello
I wonder if the US Govt is actively considering the XM-8. The article makes no mention of this. Also I wonder why the leathernecks won't transition to the XM-8 or other OICWS?

David Hackworth, take from this what you will, says the weapon is a winner. I am impressed by what I have seen of the new IW.

How will it do with limited maintenance and dust even with its "fill the barrel with water" capability? Does it have less parts in its base config than the M-16? I saw a parts list for the '16 and I can just see someone losing the firing pin holder in an AO while cleaning.

FYI Stoner originally designed the AR-xx series to use 22 cal cartridges. The govt said no to this as it wanted to penetrate soldier helments. This and the black powder (and lack of training) made the '16 an Edsel though kinks were eliminated.

In short I wish godspeed for the XM-8 if it is as maintainable as the M-1 and will allow usage in buttstroke mode.
Ken

Excellent posts. Thank you. I just read fairly recently that some of the M16's reliability problem is inherent in the gas system Stoner used in place of a more conventional piston. Besides introducing powder gas and residue into the receiverand the bolt/bolt carrier, the design has less power than a piston. All I know is what I read, but it sounds plausible.

Just curious: anyone have any experience with the AR18/AR180, parts of which contributed to the L85 and the HK36? Long, long ago the guy in the next room in the BOQ had one, but I never got a chance to shoot it.

I own an AR-180B. I like it because it has a heavy carrier that has absolutely no contact with the inside of the upper receiver when in motion. The piston-based gas system also makes it a breeze to clean; just wipe the carrier and bolt, wipe the gas piston, and run your cleaning rod down the bore a couple times. Every 500 rounds or so I disassemble the carrier and bolt, wipe things off, and apply a little lube.

I’m almost certainly cleaning it too often, but I’m anal when it comes to keeping my own stuff clean.

The Germans screwed up with some of the changes that they made when modifying the AR-18 system for their G36. Primarily, going with a polymer upper receiver to save weight was a bad idea. I hope they'll end up fixing that by introducing more steel reinforcement.

As far as the Stoner gas system goes: It's become a whipping boy as of late. The problem I see with all of these articles blaming the gas system for the M16's problems is that none of the writers actually know that that is the case. They are all writing based on either their own personal (fact less) opinions or the (equally fact less) opinions of someone else. They never bother to consult with manufacturers or engineers or actually perform or view any tests to confirm what they're writing about.

The advantage of the Stoner gas system is that it has fewer moving parts and less reciprocating mass than a piston-based gas system. This translates into better accuracy and reduced felt recoil.

The disadvantage is that fouling builds up around the moving parts much more quickly. This wouldn't be a problem if the AR-15/M16's bolt carrier were heavier and had less surface area contact with the upper receiver.

As it is now, the M16's carrier must continually scrape and push fouling out of the way once heavy fouling is present. This robs the carrier of energy and can leave it with too little forward momentum to strip a cartridge and push it all the way into the chamber or to fully lock into battery. Though, even this is not normally a problem unless something is introduced that causes the carbon fouling to get gummed up (like too much lubricant or lots of moisture).

Having studied the design for myself, I am convinced that its main weakness is the low mass of its bolt carrier and the (relatively) high amount of surface area contact between the carrier and the upper receiver.

Finally, the Stoner gas system can have just as much 'power' as any piston system.

The AR-15 design would benefit far more from changes to the carrier not the gas system. Making the system cleaner (by using a piston-based gas system) will only delay the onset of failure-to-lock/failure-to-feed problems, not eliminate them.

The XM8 could be a great platform if they get the upper receiver reinforced and either change its caliber to 6.8 or really study out the abilities of 5.56 in short barrels.

If they end up using that 12" barrel with M855 ammo, you'll soon be hearing about lots of problems with the rifle not 'dropping' the enemy. This will be because soldiers will inevitably have to take shots at targets farther than 10m away in combat, and M855 (standard green-tip 5.56) will not fragment past about 10m when fired from a 12" barrel. When 5.56 doesn’t fragment inside a target (5.56 has been found to have a minimum velocity below which it ceases to fragment upon entering a target) it's wound effects are less severe than FMJ 9mm (which is like running little 9mm diameter spikes through a target).

For those who may not know, the reason that 5.56 has any effectiveness at all is because it breaks apart dramatically after penetrating tissue. This dramatic fragmentation can cause wounds up to 3” in diameter (!) inside a target. However, it has been found that 5.56 will not do this if it is not flying fast enough when it hits its target. The shorter the barrel, the slower the bullet starts out and the sooner, or the shorter the distance until, it is flying too slow to fragment.

Having read the article and after some lengthy consideration I must admit the XM-8 is quite a system. All the various combinations create a sustainable package for in theatre use. However, I have two more important points that make the idea of outsourcing our individual combat effectiveness to a foreign manufacturer. Aquiring the system in a time of real disaster and geographical isolation would make Americans and America vulnerable. Look at the way we have to scramble every time crude prices fluctuate! Imagine what would happen if our source in a foreign supplier dried up? Also it is imperative that Americans retain utmost confidense in our own abilitiy to develope and provide systems sustainable world wide without dependence on foreign political largess! Germany is an sometimes allie at best in a war that happens to be all American according to them. Will H & K sell the system in it's entirety relinquishing all rights to its use and manufacture to America? If so then Hoo-Yah! Lets get it!!!!

Re. XM8, the ambidexterous charging handle is on top of the weapon and recpricates w/ the bolt. this means that the sighting system/scope has to be mounted high like the m16. placing the charging handle on the left side w/ a vertical extension for lefties is so much better. personally i think the next weapon should be a bullpup! you can have a full 20" barrel on a short package, like the brit sa80 or frog famas. to the guy thats worried about the weapon being made overseas, dont worry quite o few of our weapons already are, w/out any problems

Reiterating a former E-mail:
it looks technologically efficient,
but can it weather the storms of
"infantry life", hand to hand combat,
weather/terrain/water variations, ease in
handling and long humps, etc.
It looks like a nice space weapon for my
little nephew; needs better design
modifications.

The question of being vulnerable because of buying a weapon from a foreign supplier is probably a non-issue, since the DoD is (probably) smart enough to require the foreign company to set up a factory in the US, like they did with Beretta and the M9. I don't know if they've done the same with the M240 and the M249. I hope so. As long as the manufacturing plant is here, there's not a heckuva lot the foreign owner could do if it was seized during a war.

More troublesome is the thought that American companies can't seem to come up with better weapons than foreignors. I mean, Colt, Smith&Wesson and Ruger couldn't beat Beretta fercryinoutloud!

I must agree with many of the posts. If our military adopts a new rifle, it should be American made. Also a 5.56 may not have normal stopping power but the Soviet AK-74 uses a type of hollow point the same size as the M-16 standard rounds. By placing an air bubble in the nose of the bullet, is tumbles when it impacts. This causes hydro-static shock and can be as deadly as some bigger calibers

To the gentleman who proposed using a bullet similar to the one the Russians use for their AK-74, I suggest having a look at this.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

5.56 is actually more effective when it fragments, and just about as effective as 5.45 when it doesn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgt_Truth:
The m16A2 / m16a4 is a weapon system that is out dated

positives
good sight picture for large rear peep sight (faster target acquisition)
good add on attachments
pvs 14 night vision mount
m68 red dot sight can be used with night vision mount for night scope
(iron sights never need batteries)
fore grip weaver rail system for sure fire touch sensitive light
suppressor w/ sub sonic ammunition
night vision infrared sight
m203 compact (forget the laser rangefinder sight, too complicated gadget) old leaf sight for fast acquisition and on target adjustment

high velocity / light weight round / flat trajectory
side by side mag holders for fast mag changes
low recoil of weapon

negatives
barrel way too long for vehicle / urban / covert operations (gets in the way)
m4 barrel too long by 2-3 inches
needs to be .... mp5 like compactness in a m4 configuration with short barrel of 10-12 inches
the m16 weapon system is not a precision type shooting weapon to begin with. 550 meter point target shots are ridiculous and is a damn lie. Long range shots give your position away and are inaccurate fire that waste ammunition. 0-200 meter conflicts are the norm where a smaller barreled quicker action weapon excels in an urban or vehicular firing position. Any longer range past 300 meter and break out the SAW, m21, m25, m24 weapon systems and you are talking about fire superiority or long range precision shooting.
High maintenance on weapons cleaning to prevent weapon jams
Too many nooks and crannies on outside of weapon to hold dirt / mud

Proposed changes for overall problem solving

M4 weapon with short 10-12 inch barrel with collapsing stock

Weaver rail systems on modified fore grips

Outside of weapon is flat with no crevices and easy to wipe down / clean mud / dust.

Configuration would still hold bullet trajectory for 200 meters no problems
Majority of incidents in Iraq are 100 meters and less skirmishes where fast target acquisition and weapon compactness are factor / not long range shooting. (the M16 / M4 are not long range precision weapon systems anyway)

Comfortable and stable shooting position for cheek to stock spot weld and compactness and light weight for CQB and vehicular shooting platforms.

Why do I advocate this? Because I use them inside of vehicles / I patrol with them and have used M4’s and although nice, they still need modified for CQB and firing from moving vehicles.

---

For a hell of alot less money we could adopt the A K type rifle. The M16 is very capable of a 500 yard shot with the new barrel twist , heavey barrel, and 70 gr. projectile. As for the cleaning part, a simple modification to the gas system on the m16 will keep the carbon build up out of the upper bolt carrier group. But I would rather back up and use my m14 or Rem 700 Pss. Valmet made one of the finest milled reciever kalishnikov designs.

Sempre Fi

Hudak

quote:

---

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?

---

The right direction is down range, as an ex 0311 I wonder how a Gunny wouldn't know? I still hit dimes with my Rem. PSS at 200 yards when I can't shoot at long range, But snippers are a speacial type, I gather shooting is just a small part of that job, I wish I had the skills to have tried that when I was in the Corps. My hat is of to any Marine, Snippers are really dedicated.
Sempre Fi Gunny!

Hudak

quote:

---

Originally posted by SASfixer:
What do you aim with when your batteries go dead? In Viet Nam we never could get enough batteries. The soldiers and Marines in Iraq beg for batteries in their care packages. Poke out the glass with your cleaning rod and look through the tube? Maybe our troops are going to go through another episode of "requires little or no maintenance" like the M-16. They won't even get a cleaning rod, I'm sure this will be taken care of at the "unit level" too. Don't believe the B.S. about not having to re-zero ("it's zeroed at the factory business is a joke") My M-16 never failed in VN, never jammed, I cleaned it every night. Who has time to look and count the number of cartriges in a magazine during a firefight?

---

I hear ya, Sempre Fi.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aries14482:
I'll have to disagree that the barrel needs to be shorter on the M16.

Your fragmentation range is already at 125M with a 20" and below 80m with a 14.5" barrel. With a 12" barrel, the distance at which M855 5.56 fragments goes down to about 15m. (!!)

When 5.56 doesn't fragment, it makes a wound that looks more like an ice pick wound in profile than a rifle gunshot wound. i.e. you better drill your target in the kill zone in his head or put one right through his heart/aorta/spine. (And who do you know who can call shot locations on a moving target?)

If a shorter barrel is really needed, then a change of caliber, to something that will fragment at the lower velocities you get with shorter barrels, is needed.

Remington's new 6.8SPC might do the trick, since it has a much wider fragmentation envelope, but it also has recoil more like that of 7.62x39 and is slightly heavier than 5.56.

The guys I know who have shot 6.8 say that it's much more difficult to use on auto or in burst mode though, because of its greater recoil.

About the XM8:

The XM8 is internally almost identical to Germany's G36.

Recently, problems have been found with the G36: its barrel becomes loose after full-auto fire. (When I say loose, I mean wobbling up, down, and left and right.) This is because the G36's upper receiver (the structure that holds all of the rifle's essential operating parts together and in alignment- the bolt carrier, bolt, and barrel extension) is made out of plastic. Apparently, the plastic used cannot hold up to the heat generated by anything more than very limited full auto firing.

H&K will either have to find a way to make the plastic more resistant to heat, or will have to use a different material as an upper receiver.

Incidentally, this melting problem would also be present with the XM8.

With the combination of the XM8's melting upper receiver and the fact that the barrel it is planned to ship out with in its standard-issue form is too short to be effective past 15M (unless different ammo is used), I think I'd want to stick with the M16. (And I'm not a particularly big fan of the AR-15 design.)

Stay safe everyone,

Andrew B

[This message was edited by Aries14482 on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:00.]

---

The Geneva convention calls for a full metal jacket, which does not fragment, the velocity of the 5.56 can cause it to ricochet throught the body, and follow bones from what I was tought in the Marines?
Hudak

quote:

---

Originally posted by HudakMarine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aries14482:
I'll have to disagree that the barrel needs to be shorter on the M16.

Your fragmentation range is already at 125M with a 20" and below 80m with a 14.5" barrel. With a 12" barrel, the distance at which M855 5.56 fragments goes down to about 15m. (!!)

When 5.56 doesn't fragment, it makes a wound that looks more like an ice pick wound in profile than a rifle gunshot wound. i.e. you better drill your target in the kill zone in his head or put one right through his heart/aorta/spine. (And who do you know who can call shot locations on a moving target?)

If a shorter barrel is really needed, then a change of caliber, to something that will fragment at the lower velocities you get with shorter barrels, is needed.

Remington's new 6.8SPC might do the trick, since it has a much wider fragmentation envelope, but it also has recoil more like that of 7.62x39 and is slightly heavier than 5.56.

The guys I know who have shot 6.8 say that it's much more difficult to use on auto or in burst mode though, because of its greater recoil.

About the XM8:

The XM8 is internally almost identical to Germany's G36.

Recently, problems have been found with the G36: its barrel becomes loose after full-auto fire. (When I say loose, I mean wobbling up, down, and left and right.) This is because the G36's upper receiver (the structure that holds all of the rifle's essential operating parts together and in alignment- the bolt carrier, bolt, and barrel extension) is made out of plastic. Apparently, the plastic used cannot hold up to the heat generated by anything more than very limited full auto firing.

H&K will either have to find a way to make the plastic more resistant to heat, or will have to use a different material as an upper receiver.

Incidentally, this melting problem would also be present with the XM8.

With the combination of the XM8's melting upper receiver and the fact that the barrel it is planned to ship out with in its standard-issue form is too short to be effective past 15M (unless different ammo is used), I think I'd want to stick with the M16. (And I'm not a particularly big fan of the AR-15 design.)

Stay safe everyone,

Andrew B

[This message was edited by Aries14482 on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:00.]

---

The Geneva convention calls for a full metal jacket, which does not fragment, the velocity of the 5.56 can cause it to ricochet throught the body, and follow bones from what I was tought in the Marines?
Hudak

---

Sorry they didn't teach us spelling

Hudak