it`s long over due for a new weapon but we have to see it in action in the hands of our own before we praise it

I know RUGER makes the Mini 30 in 7.62x39. I also believe the AK-47 was a design stolen from the German Army. We hear all the flaws of our baby, the M16, I would like to hear the drawbacks to the 7.62x39mm round. I have handled AK's and the SKS and think they are total garbage! Also I believe the Russian Special Forces have adopted the 5.56mm round. The AK may not be the answer but the 5.56 is too small.(I am repeating my anti 5.56mm from my earlier post)

I've seen a number of posts recommending the Isreali Tavor rifle. I just wanted to offer up my own opinions on the subject.
First, the Isreali SF website offers very good reasons why they don't use bullpups at http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/tar.htm

Second, while the tavor may be a very attractive rifle, no one has adopted it by choice. Only the IDF has agreed too it, and then only because the were pressured into it. The Tavor has repeatedly FAILED to prove itself any better than the current Isreali service rifle, the M-16(!).
However, I must concede that the Isrealis only because of FMS (Foreign Military Support)- basically, we give them money, and they can use it to buy any military equipment which is at least 50% made in America.

-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.

Agreed. The Tavor has no iron sights(also with XM-8) and it takes longer to load then the currect M-16 variants they use. Israeli special forces are some of the most experienced in the world. If they don't want the Tavor, I wouldn't want it either.

In regards to this larger caliber. The 5.56mm has been known as the standard NATO(Ha!) round for years. If we switch the caliber, a logistics problem would occur. Also,I think the military is looking at its reserve stocks of ammunition. "Why waste money buying new ammunition, when we have all this surplus ammo?" It's like this America's Army game. They use millions designing it, yet some troops don't even have ceramic plates for their bullet-resistant vests.

When the Brits looked to replace the Martini-Henry with the Enfield some accountant said "If we use a rimmed cartridge we can rebarrel the Martini-Henrys and save some money." The decision to use a rim on what became the .303 caused grief from then until they replaced it with the 7.62 Nato 70 years later. Keeping the 5.56mm for a short term saving of money is a foolish way to go.

When the M-16 was first introduce back in the 60's the weapon had a 1/14" twist rate. In short when the round left the barrel, it was barely stabilized. This caused the main mass of the round to whip around or "tumble around" the bullet tip when the round hit a enemy soldier.

Result, the round dumped maximum kenetic energy into the target d*mn-near blowing it apart. That little act of the round turning sideways resulted in massive energy being tranffered into the target "LIKE PLACING AN M-80 INSIDE SOMEONE BODY CAVITY!"

Anyone besides myself remember stories from Vietnam of guys hit in an extremity with an M-16 round whose leg or arm was tramatically amputated by the impact. Anyone hear the story of VC troops told to "Beware the Black rifle?" Those stories were real.

Why did we change??? We heard that the (at that time) Soviets were going to issue body armor to their troops in Europe SOOOOOOooooo, we began to increase the twist rate in our rifles to better stabilize the rounds to defeat this armor (which by the way was never issued)from 1/14" down to 1/12, 1/9, down to 1/7" special match rifles.

Pros: Greater range, increased penetration sounds great. A change in powder helped to decrease fouling problems forward assist assmbly so all's well with the world right? WRONG!

Cons: Penetration was never a real issue with the M-16. No one is going to be running around a battlefield in inch thick plate armor. It is NOT a realistic scenario!

Imagine tring to hump 1-click wearing that much armor plus ammo, plus gear and a weapon might come in handy in combat.

The result is now the round is so overstabilized, that the gyroscopic spin on the round is greater than the forces trying to make the round tumble SOOOOOOOOooo it drills a nice neat little 5.56mm hole through the target and keeps right on truckin down range.

We are then back to the same issue we have faced with EVERY MAIN BATTLE RIFLE WE HAEV EVER FIELDED.

Energy left in the round AFTER it passes through it's intended target IS WASTED! The only true reason that my beloved M-1, and My Beloved M-14 were VIEWED as more succesful than the M-16 is their reliability. All three weapons are lethal in the hands of any Marine or most Soldiers (Sorry couldn't resist Lol)

Don't be fooled if you were to be shot with any main battle rifle the last one you would want to get hit with is one of the older 1/14" twist
M-16's Even a M-1 Garand would be more forgiving if the round did not hit a vital organ drilling a 7.62mm hole through you and taking out three or seven guys behind you.

But getting hit with that barely stabilized round your chances of surviving would be slim to none.

Reccomendations:

1. Slight modification of the of the currrent M-16 design. Modify the gas tube with an operating rod and piston system similar to the one found in the AR-180. "Cleanest operating rifle of that type and caliber I have ever owned."

2. Reduce the twist rate back to the original 1/14" twist.

3. LET THE TALIBAN BODIES HIT THE FLOOR!

hmmm..but i think more "power" is needed to fire that cal.

I agree with everyone who thinks this new rifle should come from an American manufacturer. And with respect to the caliber, it would be unfortunate to waste this opportunity to switch to something much more effective.

After reading an article by Chuck Hawks on the .243, it really seems like the perfect caliber in most respects.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"Civilian deer, sheep, goat, and antelope hunters know that the .243 Win. is a much better killer on animals in the 100-350 pound class than the .223 Rem. A 95 grain .243 boat tail spitzer bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps. retains 1,455 ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards, 1,225 ft. lbs. at 300 yards, 1,024 ft. lbs. at 400 yards, and 890 ft. lbs. at 500 yards (Winchester figures). The .243 is more lethal at 500 yards than the 5.56mm NATO or 7.62x39 are at 200 yards!"

http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm

I don't know if any decision maker's read this board, but I hope so. There are some very relevant concerns being expressed in this thread.

If yall are worried about batteries maybe they should put solar pannels on it ha ha. O isnt the XM8 capable of firing up to 5 different calibers like the 5.6mm, 6.8mm, 7.6mm and the AK47 rounds.

We have a great weapon system in the M-16 chambering a .243cal round could be a marked improvement but any appreciable gain will be negated by the design of the weapon.

Mark my words just watch what ever weapon we field will be done so with a 1/9" or faster barrel twist.

Why so you ask? Army ordanance commanders are obssessed with long range accuracy 600/700 meters or more at the expense of short range energy transfer.

Result a .243cal hole drilled through an insurgent versus a .223 cal hole drilled through him OR HER (Must remember to be politically correct)

Listen folks everyone adopted the .223cal to cooperate and work with the great Arsenal of Democracy (that's us) and to achive uniformity and ammunition compatibility amongst the allies.

Changing to .243cal would make US the U.S. the odd man out for what(in my opinion)would be only marginal gain.

PONDERING, PONDERING

HOWEVER, IF "ah say" IF, that weapon were built with a 1/14" twist it would literally tear you a new a$$h*le if it hit you.

I've heard more than one person suggest shortening the barrel of the M4 to solve the MOUT problems with it. What about the Colt Commando? It weighs less than 5 1/2 pounds, is accurate up to 200m, which would be fine for the average soldier, and has an 11.5 inch barrel. As long as you've got some designated marksmans in the squad with either an M14, M21, M24, M40, M16A4, etc.(basically any rifle with a full length barrel, bipod, and magnified optic) and a belt fed, soldier should be fine. I do believe that the gas system should indeed be replaced aith the Ar-18 style piston, but other than that, I feel the Commando is the way to go.

Though I am young and haven't the chance to closely study these weapons like some of you I think we should think about the XM-8. I mean like some of you have said the M16 is very reliable but other countries are advancing their weaponry and soon we will need to do change too. It might be a good idea to combine some of the *better* parts of the XM-8 with the M16 to get a new rifle hopefully working out some fo the bugs. Yes the M16 is great but it would be nice to have a little more. The idea of having multiple types of one gun all with a similar frame is interesting though. We should consider the XM-8 no matter how SCIFI it sounds for what it has to offer and use some of the ideas combined with what we know works from the M16A2. And just curious who ever mentioned the M16 aka AR-15 please tell me how many rounds you had per mag. I'm just curious.

I don't kno about all of you but i don't like this new gun the X8. it looks like a future ray gun like something you would find on star wars. i think that the M4 is a good gun considering the small caliber.

Hey we need to stay ahead of other countries man. I mean with aircraft and seacraft we seem to be pretty far and ahead of many countries but firearms I'm a little worried about. Right now we are in the war against terror and seeing as how these are terrorist groups we're talking about eventually they will move up from AK47s, RPKs, AK74s, etc. I hear you about the Star Wars thing but hey, if it will work. I'm rethinking what I said before, a cross between the XM-8 idea and the M4 may be better. Speed is key in combat, but you can replace speed with heavy power. Heavy power will be done by the even mix of speed and power, we need a light weapon that will stop the enemy in their tracks. And guys, it's called the XM-8 not the X-8 like I've seen people calling it...

If 20 inch barreled M16s are so great, why don’t special operation guys use them when they can use most any weapon of choice. It is because-

We are no longer fighting in the desert (wide open) war, we have taken that ground. The MOUT (military operations in urban terrain = 200 meters and less) is the combat zone.

Speed, agility, violent force of action. I already hump 45+ pounds plus of gear and am slowed down. The longer barrel gets in the way of moving, and every other aspect of my infantry job.

The standards in this environment are house raids, walking patrols through one-car wide alleys, close quarters battle in downtown cities with rooftops and quick target acquisitions are the norms in this environment and not slow motion precision shooting.

Try raiding a house with a 20 inch barrel sometime. It is not slow taking your time accuracy shooting; it is speed and violence of force in action with multiple shots to each target.

A 20 inch barrel is worthless in the setting I use it in (check points, house raids, 150 meter or less firefights, shooting out of moving HMMWV’s) Try this sometime where your life depends on it and you may think differently to.

It sounds fine on the ballistic table, but speed of target acquisition and multiple shots to center mass is the lifesaver. We don’t give them one shot, we give them multiples because that is the nature of close quarters and the way things really are, to leave no doubt that he is dead or incapacitated.

Clearing a house with a 20 inch barrel that flags your position around corners, is cumbersome to worthless in awkwardness, using it in a small alley is worthless, shooting from a vehicle and having it get caught on everything because it is too long is worthless when speed to target acquisition can mean the difference between life or death in being ambushed.

Now you would not use a M24 sniper rifle to clear a house, or M14’s. Usually when we chase them back to their village or house we have crew served weapons on vehicles on the 7.62 class and higher to handle the fire superiority on an building or large area. However, we have to go into these villages to route them out, and a shorter barrel in this environment excels over an awkward cumbersome long one. If we were really concerned about ballistics, we would not follow the Geneva convention, and use blended metal, or hollow point bullets. SOCOM does and sniper bullets are allowed for better stabilization of flight down range but not the regular conventional forces. Do any of our enemies ever follow the Geneva convention or play by the rules? Last time I checked, they take us hostage and cut off our heads.

Urban combat 0-200 meters is 9.5 out of 10 of our missions
M16 Desert open combat 5-300 open sights with ACOG, past that = waste of ammo
Do rebel forces really meet up with us in the open desert to duke it out with us?
Don’t we use the Abrahams, Bradley, or vehicle crew served weapons systems for this anyway?

The HK uppers with piston would do the trick to mod the existing M4’s and be cost effective

Thank you for your replies very informative on balistics and your opinions

As I said, why don't they go ahead and switch to the Colt Commando. It weighs less than the objective weight of the XM8 and is accurate to 150-200m. I saw an HK upper with a 10 inch barrel and it looked pretty nice. Do you know if the piston in the HK uppers add weight? Why haven't we gone to synthetic lower that the Ar-18 used? An Ar-180B with an alsomt 20 inch barrel weighs in at 6 pounds even. A piston driven M4 upper with a synthetic lower should weight in at around 5 pounds. I think this would be the answer instead of a costly new weapon system.

Where does the bayonet go? You can also tell it is a foreign design because it does not have a jaw smashing butt stock

All that has to be done is to change the M16 series rifle barrels back to a much slower twist in the barrels lands and grooves. In 'nam when the M16 had a 1/14 twist the round tumbled so much thatit caused terrible damage when hitting the enemy. Amputating limbs and doing massive internal damage and yes killing the enemy. This is documented fact. All that is needed is to change back to the original twist in the barrel. OR. revisit the laws set down by the archaic geneva convention that says that military bullets must be fully jacketed and cannot flatten or expand on impact with human flesh. If the current rifles were allowed to fire a semi-jacketed pointed soft point or even a hollow point the performance of current rifles would drastically improve. this would save millions of dollars in research and development that could be better put to use by more and better body armor for our troops (something that WILL NEVER happen if JOHN KERRY is elected President in November.)

On Tue, 13 July 2004, "Basic Training" said:
XM8:
Where does the bayonet go ?
It does not have a jaw - smashing butt stock.

...Wow !
...Silly us.
..."Basic" must be a U.S. Marine.
...Not to overlook the obvious defects -> very good idea !

Though recently congress withdrew a bill for an Xm-8 plant in Ohio-But this program is far from dead. However testing contiues and it still is on track to be a majior weapons system in the US Army.

But one thing is certain, the M4/M-16 will be eventually be replaced-despite the orders by the USMC to acquire M-16A4 & M-4 carbines.

Will the XM-8 be the future weapon or just interim.