« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic:  (Read 2694 times)

Offline Firehead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« on: September 25, 2004, 10:07:04 PM »
I don't see how the XM8 AEG would be a kit, hell all it needs is a motor, gearbox, and barrel! I would definitely get one if it were fairly cheap.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Firehead »
Logged

Offline Pheonix 797

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2004, 10:23:53 PM »
I shed a tear for our dear M4's.

Frankly I think the XM8 looks like something from Starship Troopers [xx(]. Unless it performs incredibly, no way!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Pheonix 797 »
Logged

Offline Firehead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2004, 10:27:09 PM »
real XM8s perform great...you should go check out the HK USA site, you can see performance videos.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Firehead »
Logged

Offline RickEJ6

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2004, 10:49:44 PM »
What I keep hearing from the guys above me (not the ROTC guys, but the Lt. Col and Majors in charge of our batallion) that the XM8 does perform better than the M16/M4, but not by enough to fully justify replacing the entire Army's weaponry.  Unless we get some major funds on top of the $ being dumped into the war on terror, the XM8 is not likely to happen.  The same goes for the new ACU digital uniform. Not fact here, just the majority of what I have been hearing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by RickEJ6 »
Logged
\"Do not hit if it can be avoided, but never hit softly.\"

T. Roosevelt

Offline HavHav

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2004, 12:16:58 AM »
Either way its [real version] still a 5.56. Got 6.8? That thing will out preform the XM8, which is basically a feminized G36.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by HavHav »
Logged

Offline KenCasper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2004, 05:28:36 AM »
Don't see this being too big here in the US till it is a regular issue rifle, or it isn't a kit.

As for the real XM-8 most of my brethern also wonder why we are going to change to a "space gun" in the same caliber. All reports from here say that there will be XM-8's in the field (Iraq/ Afganistan) , and in service by the begining of the year, and issued army wide by 2008 or so. Yes all reports about the weapon say that it is a dream in ease of maintenance, reliability, and ease of use, but the same thing was once claimed about the M-16 when it was the new kid on the block.
  Sadly it appears that other than SOCOM no one who should be interested in the 6.8SPC even wants to acknowledge it is there. Sad when you consider that here is a round that would solve lots of the 5.56 NATO defficancies, and only requires new barrels and magazines!

IMO we would be much better served just keeping the ol M4's and M16's till they adopt a round that will nock the bad guys down. Till then why spend millions to build a weapon that truely isn't needed?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by KenCasper »
Logged
Sgt Kevin Widner
AKA \"Casper\"

\"The Harder you train the harder your enemy must train...all comes down to who gives up first!   Mike \"Colonel\" Potter

Offline Firehead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2004, 11:21:36 AM »
I would much rather see the HK M4 put into service, but if the XM8 is as great as it is supposed to be, i'm all for the XM8. I have been told they are field testing it in Iraq right now. I dunno if that is true or not.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Firehead »
Logged

Offline Long Trang

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2004, 11:55:38 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Firehead</i>
<br />I would much rather see the HK M4 put into service, but if the XM8 is as great as it is supposed to be, i'm all for the XM8. I have been told they are field testing it in Iraq right now. I dunno if that is true or not.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

last i heard the hk m4 didnt even make it past the first set of qualifications.  Unless im wrong, but it would be cool to see one in airsoft form.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Long Trang »
Logged

Offline RickEJ6

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2004, 12:57:43 PM »
Well, if I remember this correctly something happened w/ colt and the M4 designation that caused problems.  Cant remember where I read that though (could have been somewhere on Lightfighter...)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by RickEJ6 »
Logged
\"Do not hit if it can be avoided, but never hit softly.\"

T. Roosevelt

Offline PyroManiac

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2004, 05:41:31 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Firehead</i>
<br />I would much rather see the HK M4 put into service, but if the XM8 is as great as it is supposed to be, i'm all for the XM8.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ya i saw this site on the specifications on both the M4 and XM8 and the XM8 took the cake in ALL areas. no exceptions...but seeing as congress has cut funding to a bunch of military weapons projects i have little faith that this will come into service any time soon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by PyroManiac »
Logged
\"War isn\'t about who\'s right, it\'s about who\'s left\" -Unknown

Offline HavHav

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2004, 05:46:07 PM »
What is it with 5.56 that you guys love. Why cant we just use the G36? All we did was add some modern curves to it, and now we want to make it our rifle? 6.8 god damn people....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by HavHav »
Logged

Offline Firehead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2004, 05:50:59 PM »
the XM8 is a hardcore upraded G36. In case you dont know, it disassembles quickly, you can take off certain parts, add another to change its roll completely. Add a longer barrel, and a different optic, bam sniper rifle. Add a longer barrel with a built in bi-pod, throw in a cmag, bam LMG. Add an even shorter barrel than normal, bam, cqb rifle. add a different barrel with a built in grenade launcher dealie, bam good battlerifle. Its very versitile in comparison with the G36. Also, if you havent seen the videos, the weapon can be fired from one hand. I know it wont be as accurate, but wounded soldier can still fight even if he has lost an entire arm. Plus the recoil has been incredible reduced in comparison with any G36, or M4 type. the XM8 isnt my favorite weapon or anything, but its pretty great.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Firehead »
Logged

Offline RickEJ6

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2004, 06:50:01 PM »
The weapon is very versatile in the fact that the optics and stock type can be changed quickly.  The barrel length not so much.  It is much easier to change out upper recievers on a M16 type weapon to acheive different barrel lenghts.  The XM8 requires a number of tools in order to do so, that one would not have with them in the field.  The reduced recoil is a advantage, but recoil of any 5.56 weapon is relatively small in the 1st place.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by RickEJ6 »
Logged
\"Do not hit if it can be avoided, but never hit softly.\"

T. Roosevelt

Offline delta_echo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2004, 07:56:17 PM »
What they really need is a round that wasn't originally intended for killing varmints. Don't know about the 6.8 (haven't done my homework on it yet) but the 5.56 is just a .22 with lots of powder behind it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by delta_echo »
Logged

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2004, 11:22:31 PM »
I just saw the newest episode of Mail Call on the history channel. They talked for a while about the XM8. The guy that was showing it off broke it down and showed all the parts. I hadn't realized that it has flip up iron sights. After seeing it there I kinda like it (Gunny seemed to like it too). I think I would probably buy a civilian version if it ever exists (and in 6.8 it would really kick ass). Although, I agree that there isn't much of a point to the army switching to it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
Logged
-Greg of Christian\'s Team

Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »