I agree that change can be good but a comparison of possible cartridges needs to be done.

I would like to see the XM-8 chambered for 6.5 Grendel.

The 6.5 Grendel ballistics improve upon both the 5.56mm NATO and the 7.62mm NATO and is comparable to 6.8 SPC at short range while delivering double the energy of 6.8 SPC at long range.

Weight of 6.5 Grendel ammo = 11.5 lbs per 300 rounds compared to 9.0 lbs for 5.56.

Recoil of 6.5 Grendel = slightly more than 5.56 at 7 ftlbs but half of 7.62 recoil.

Accuracy of 6.5 Grendel = 0.5 MOA at 600 meters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wind Drift and Drop of 6.5 Grendel is significantly less than 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, and 6.8 SPC.

New info links:

Defense Review article on 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC

6.5 Grendel available currently in AR15 form

[This message was edited by autobahndriver on Mon, 27 September 2004 at 7:27.]

There is noting wrong with M-16A2/A3/A4 rifles. It seems to me we have a lot of young soldiers and maybe even some older non infantry types I need not say Pogs whinning about needing a new rifle. I aught to no I served as both a gunners mate in the Navy and Sgt as a infantry man in the Army. I've also served as a Small arms instructor for a spec war unit. I've had the oppertunity to play with all the new and old rifles out there, and dont get me wrong. I think the H&K 36 or their M-8 rifles are outstanding, but in that alone don't rate switching out the whole american arsnel for no reason. I have always been against the switching form the M-16's to the M-4s for fear of shorter engaing distance and the underpower the M-4 leads to. After serving in throughout the Middles east and Afgan. My fears have come true where units scramble to find rifles where they can. Including the old and anceint M-14 perhaps my favorite rifle. Now keep in mind in the Army does switch to the M-8 or the H&K 36 we will be getting the carbine models of both for standard issue. I look at this whole situation as young soldiers just want something high-tech because they think they need it or officers who really don't have a clue making decisions that should be left up to the grunts, and if you think I'm wrong just look at history and some of the choices our leaders have made without asking the grunts what they thought. Also keep in mind how much it would cost to scrap the the millions of M-16s in the arsenal to switch to a new rifle, and then think were all those weapons will wind up. because if you think we're just going to scrap them when money can be made you got another thing coming. Also don't get caught up in the new 6.5mm fad I here all kind of people talking about how the ammo weight isn't that much more for Ex. 300rds weights around 9lbs while 300rds weights only about 11lbs anyone how has ever had to hump in the back country knows every pound matters and if you can justify picking up 2lbs here they can justify picking up 2lbs there and the weight just goes up. the accuracy isn't that much greater, and more importantly if you have such little faith and your own shooting ability or that abilities of you weapon in that your target won't go down after the first shot. than shoot it again. Don't fix it if it ain't broke

[This message was edited by pickettjr on Mon, 27 September 2004 at 10:16.]

Regarding the Humvee mounted AWS there is a saying that you should not put all your eggs in one basket. There is too much exposure of operators weapons and the vehicle itself. A couple of decent snipers at a couple of thousand yards could put out the whole system. The range of most of the weapons is in quite close proximity to the opposition. Well within the scope of a decent shop. I personally think this is over the top artillary use. Ok you could put out the snipers but compared with the damage they could do . Well what do you think??
A problem seeker

I think it is not a good idea that this PEGASUS X47 will be used in the carrier specialy it is loaded with any types of weapons. We are giving all the lives of the crews aboard the carrier to the hands of the operator. Most likely it is very dangerous when it is in bound loaded with weapons.

My question to anyone interested is, why not resurrect the Caddilac/Gage V-100 Commando, with updated weapons & electronics packages? If you place a combo of say, the Mark 19 (40mm auto grenade laucher) and a Ma-Duece .50 cal side by side, then you still have enough room for a compliment of at least 8 ground troops inside. It's armored, it's mobile (4 wheels versus tracks), and it's seen service before (Vietnam).

Five or six months ago I ran across an article about an armored car like the V100 intended for MPs that was being deployed to Iraq. Darned if I can find the website now. It might actually have been an updated V100. 4 wheels, 4 man crew, rear mounted engine.

Getting back to the M16: Ran across a discussion the other night where someone proposed an interesting way to improve the hitting power of the M16 at relatively small expense. His idea is to rebarrel the M16 with a 9mm barrel. It would be chambered for a new 9mm cartridge based on the 5.56x45mm case. There would be two loadings. One would have a fairly heavy 9mm bullet to be used for close quarters combat. The other would have a 7mm bullet with a discarding sabot, for longer ranges. The big advantage would be that existing weapons, including the M249 could be converted easily. I don't know enough about the physics involved to do other than present this an an interesing bit of "out of the box" thinking.

Personal Defense Weapon (pdw) is another crap shoot. "It is good for apc crew drivers and cooks" they say. Well, if your a cook or apc driver that is shooting at someone, you have much bigger problems. Escape and evading is just that, escape and evade, not escape, evade and use my pdw to lay down a huge overwhelming force. Carry an M-4, that's what they did when I was in. The Infanrty is the last to get anything, especially, the things designed specificly for it! Every Tom, Dick and Harry had an M-4. I was in the Infantry for 8 and am now a paramedic as a civilian. Everyday they come out with a new "easier way to intibate" or tube some one, just like this "new" pdw, spend less time creating crap and more time training on how to do it right!! In the Afgan we where "trying" to call for fire when the controlers gps went down, great equipment, when it works, this guy could not read a map for you know what. Teach the basics and retrain the basics!!! When was the last time someone did a boynet course? I agree that we need to move foward in tech, but like they always say, "keep it simple", it's combat, it's not a controlled enviroment, a cook doesn't need Delta's weapon, he needs Delta's training. Try reloading this thing when your in a "S%@t storm, as a cook, what's the new S.P.O.R.T.S. for this? Closing is this, personal defence weapons are anything from a knife to a cannon, so who ever came up with that one should be looked at. Don't beleive the hype!!!

Here's a thought on the PDW (and I can't take credit for it, I saw it on another board somewhere). Bring back the M3 "Greasegun". Look, it's dead simple to operate. It's compact and easy to carry. Easy to strip and clean. It's cheap to manufacture. OK, maybe we should spend a little bit more than the originals cost, use better materials, better springs in the mags (I'm told that was a weak point), maybe look at using .40 S&W instead of .45.

The proposition I read on the other board was that Jessica Lynch's maintenance company would have been better off if they were issued M3's, each one sealed in big baggie to keep the dust out until needed. It's a thought.

ultimatley, what i think should be done, is have AMERICAN gun companies compete for a rifle that meets these specs.

an ambidexterous bullpup design
a new, and or larger caliber with better stopping power
iron sights
easily exchangeable barrel

well, these things amongst others

Unfortunately, I doubt that we will ever learn. We always think the europeans do it better, quicker and smarter. We never seem to remember that the germans and other european nations who are selling us this and other weapon systems are the same ones we faced in combat twice. We also quickly forget that while they like taking our money, they are the same ones who have no compunction at all in turning their backs on us if they don't agree. While the 5.56mm may not be the perfect military cartridge and the M16/M4 may not be the ideal weapon, they have seen us through over four decades of combat all over the world. Just like when we abandoned the .45 in favor of the 9mm Baretta M9 pistol. We just plain screwed up and gave up a superior weapon for an inferior one in the name of conforming to NATO. While NATO and the europeans may say they are neutral, they aren't and they sure as hell aren't die hard supporters of the United States. We need to insure that NO foreign country supplies anything that the United States needs to defend itself. To do otherwise is just plain stupid.

I'd love to get my hands on an FN P-90. Talk about a roombroom. Has everything you'd want for close combat - compact size, versatility, high cyclic rate of fire, and a 50 round ttop loading mag. But I think that everyone would agree that the 5.56mm round should be replaced (again) with the 7.62 x 51mm round (at least). It has more knock-down power than a 5.56mm and is more accurate at longer distances. We've come so far technologically using composite materials to develop reliable weapon systems (Glock pistols, HK sub-guns, and Colt or Olympic Arms AR-15). Why don't those researchers develop an assault rifle that goes back to the 7.62 with an improved buffer system to increase the weapons rate of fire while making it much lighter?

All this talk of reliability, accuracy, and ease of aiming is irrelevant if what you are shooting at doesn't die when you hit it. The .223 round sucks, expecially since military is restricted by the sorry Geneva convention rules to Hardball ammo(which is why 9mm sucks also) If the military is serious about changing, they need to look at the 6.8mm SPC or consider going back to .308 ( my personal battle cartridge favorite)

OK-someone help me understand this-I thought Russia was very poor and could barely feed their troops. Are they massing up their military again? And if this Havoc is so great-why aren't we building them for our troops? Thx! TinaMarie

It's a good thing Kerry the traitor wasn't elected, or you would not even see a research program to R&D new weapon systems like the Tango Bravo Sub. Only he can shoot an unarmed VC in the back and get away with it, but one of our finest shoots a rat probably just waiting to kill one of us he gets hung out to dry. Now we'll see what Bush is really made out of.

For those who claim the M16 isn't good for urban combat...that's what the M4 is for. And what happens when you need longer reach? I'm not saying the M16 is a sniper weapon, but the barrel length gives range which could be needed. As for the M8...apart from the fact it looks like some funky squirt gun my cousins play with, I'd want to see 'em run the thing through some heavy-duty testing before we started phasing it in. And a backup sight that doesn't need batteries, 'cause Murphy likes gear with batteries. H&K is known for outstanding products, however, and I'm sure they have the right idea with the M8. I'm just for waiting for things to calm down before we go trying to give ourselves a new rifle. Logistics nightmare

It's kind of funny how the "not made here" argument is used so extensively to argue against the XM-8. Last time I checked, we are currently fielding 3 foreign designed/made smallarms: the Beretta M-92, the M-249 SAW, and the M-240. In addition to those, the 120mm gun used on the M1A1's and 2's tanks are a German design, if not manufacture and the 105mm's before them were British in design. Then there's the AT-4 which is of Swedish design and manufacture, the Marine's SMAW is based on an Israeli design with a British designed spotting rifle. I don't seem to recall hearing any concern about any of those above items being foreign designed and/or built.

Now, the other argument based on how many rifles and mags we still have in inventory being a reason not to field adopt the XM-8 has got to be one of the biggest flawed arguments of them all. Using that logic we might as well not have replaced anything in our inventory with a newer design, no matter how old since we already have so many and have spent so much money on them. Thinking like that we would still be wearing WW II issue field uniforms since we had so much of in inventory and all. For that matter, we shouldn't have replaced the M1 Garand for the M-14 since we already had so many Garands in the inventory arleady. Need I go on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonythree:
It's a good thing Kerry the traitor wasn't elected, or you would not even see a research program to R&D new weapon systems like the Tango Bravo Sub. Only he can shoot an unarmed VC in the back and get away with it, but one of our finest shoots a rat probably just waiting to kill one of us he gets hung out to dry. Now we'll see what Bush is really made out of.

---

This is really off the topic, but every now and then I get really, really pissed at the juvenile crap that get posted here. So, Tony, how the F#&#&$^ many VC did George and Dick shoot? Back, front, from any side? Give it a rest for crying ut loud!

The XM8 is awesome. it's part plastic(not to crazy about that but is shoots fast. testing's goin on right now

Didn't know I'm supposed to walk on egg shells, my opinion on the Tango Bravo Sub Project is just that.I don't know where you've been for the last year or so but John Kerry voted against just about every military spending bill he saw when he decided to show up at all, and he would vote down the sub project too.I'm sorry you wet your pants over it.The comment about Kerry and the V.C. was appropriate at the time considering the probable out come of one of our innocent marines protecting himself. Get over it for cryin out loud.Peace brother.