XM-8 What it could have been

[jhungary]

Just found this video talking about the experimental rifle XM-8

Just make you wonder, what it could have been

@DESERT FIGHTER @waz @Slav Defence @Nilgiri @Hamartia Antidote

 

[Sine Nomine]

Just found this video talking about the experimental rifle XM-8

Just make you wonder, what it could have been

@DESERT FIGHTER @waz @Slav Defence @Nilgiri @Hamartia Antidote

If i am not wrong XM-8 brought nothing new to be table as compared to AR-15 series.
Frankly speaking in terms of small arms,we are still struck at the end of WW2, only difference is now we have guns constructed with different material,having optics and are ambidextrous.

 

[Nilgiri]

Just found this video talking about the experimental rifle XM-8

Just make you wonder, what it could have been

@DESERT FIGHTER @waz @Slav Defence @Nilgiri @Hamartia Antidote

Hah...did I get you into forgotten weapons from the G-11 vid...or you knew em before? Yep this video I watched right away when he released it....I have had some long debates with fellow gun nuts about XM-8.

If i am not wrong XM-8 brought nothing new to be table as compared to AR-15 series.
Frankly speaking in terms of small arms,we are still struck at the end of WW2, only difference is now we have guns constructed with different material,having optics and are ambidextrous.

Honestly they have iterated and improved the AR-15 series to be the best it can be now (M-4 etc)...and not really missing out on anything much compared to other peer competitors...and exceeds them in quite few ways as well @LeGenD

 

[Sine Nomine]

Honestly they have iterated and improved the AR-15 series to be the best it can be now (M-4 etc)...and not really missing out on anything much compared to other peer competitors...and exceeds them in quite few ways as well

AR-15 is a great platform to begin with.M-4 just takes everything to another level.

 

[jhungary]

If i am not wrong XM-8 brought nothing new to be table as compared to AR-15 series.
Frankly speaking in terms of small arms,we are still struck at the end of WW2, only difference is now we have guns constructed with different material,having optics and are ambidextrous.

XM-8 represent true modularity. Which is what gun supposed to be.

If you look at the video, you see that you can basically transform 1 guns in to 4 (CQB/Shorty, Automatic Rifle, Carbine and Grenade attachment in a push of 1 or 2 pin with a slap and go cover. You can't do that with M4 or M16, or M16 series inspired weapon (like the 416 or Sig552) The logistic itself would have been quite simplified. Because at this moment, if we are going to war, a platoon would have 32 M4, 8 SAW, 2 M240, 4 M110/SR-25/SWS-40. If XM-8 is a thing, we would have 42 XM-8 receiver and assorted barrel, handguard and buttstock. Also. you can direct transfer optic between weapon is quite handy.

But that is if they did fix the reliability and tactical issue.

 

[Nilgiri]

XM-8 represent true modularity. Which is what gun supposed to be.

If you look at the video, you see that you can basically transform 1 guns in to 4 (CQB/Shorty, Automatic Rifle, Carbine and Grenade attachment in a push of 1 or 2 pin with a slap and go cover. You can't do that with M4 or M16, or M16 series inspired weapon (like the 416 or Sig552) The logistic itself would have been quite simplified. Because at this moment, if we are going to war, a platoon would have 32 M4, 8 SAW, 2 M240, 4 M110/SR-25/SWS-40. If XM-8 is a thing, we would have 42 XM-8 receiver and assorted barrel, handguard and buttstock. Also. you can direct transfer optic between weapon is quite handy.

But that is if they did fix the reliability and tactical issue.

BTW vickers tactical (the guy Ian is chatting with) is also well worth subbing to.

 

[jhungary]

Hah...did I get you into forgotten weapons from the G-11 vid...or you knew em before? Yep this video I watched right away when he released it....I have had some long debates with fellow gun nuts about XM-8.



Honestly they have iterated and improved the AR-15 series to be the best it can be now (M-4 etc)...and not really missing out on anything much compared to other peer competitors...and exceeds them in quite few ways as well @LeGenD

I wasn't a gun nuts, i see gun as a tool, i don't like them or dislike them.

M4 is the best we can get out of a M16 platform, regardless of what other company could come up with as their M-inspired series weapon (And that's a lot), and as a user of M16 and M4 before, I can honestly say they are quite complicated to use, because they aren't really build for comfort (or ergonomic), when you bring your M4 to war, you constantly go around and try to change your layout, switch around a lot when you want a M203 one day and a assault rifle the next. Well, you can solve that by simply swapping with your buddy, but still, that's too complicated for what it worth.

BTW vickers tactical (the guy Ian is chatting with) is also well worth subbing to.

nah, I am cool......not really into gun vids, I know how to use it and use it effectively, that's enough for me, I only have 3 guns in my closest here, my Beretta M9, My trusty Python 357 and a Glock 17A, that's enough for me for any occasion, I don't need more.

 

[Sine Nomine]

XM-8 represent true modularity. Which is what gun supposed to be.

If you look at the video, you see that you can basically transform 1 guns in to 4 (CQB/Shorty, Automatic Rifle, Carbine and Grenade attachment in a push of 1 or 2 pin with a slap and go cover. You can't do that with M4 or M16, or M16 series inspired weapon (like the 416 or Sig552) The logistic itself would have been quite simplified. Because at this moment, if we are going to war, a platoon would have 32 M4, 8 SAW, 2 M240, 4 M110/SR-25/SWS-40. If XM-8 is a thing, we would have 42 XM-8 receiver and assorted barrel, handguard and buttstock. Also. you can direct transfer optic between weapon is quite handy.

But that is if they did fix the reliability and tactical issue.

No doubt about modularity,but still in my opinion it won't have able to compensate for so many systems.

M4 is the best we can get out of a M16 platform, regardless of what other company could come up with as their M-inspired series weapon (And that's a lot), and as a user of M16 and M4 before, I can honestly say they are quite complicated to use, because they aren't really build for comfort (or ergonomic), when you bring your M4 to war, you constantly go around and try to change your layout, switch around a lot when you want a M203 one day and a assault rifle the next. Well, you can solve that by simply swapping with your buddy, but still, that's too complicated for what it worth.

What are those complications?
List few of them.

 

[Maarkhoor]

 

[Maarkhoor]

Just found this video talking about the experimental rifle XM-8

Just make you wonder, what it could have been

@DESERT FIGHTER @waz @Slav Defence @Nilgiri @Hamartia Antidote

 

[Sine Nomine]

he Army once had a plan for a futuristic replacement for the M-16 rifle — here's how it fell apart

• Ian D'Costa, We Are The Mighty
• Feb 19, 2018, 2:27 PM ET

The US military has long explored the idea of replacing its M-16 assault rifle with something newer and deadlier. From the 1990s onward, German arms giant Heckler & Koch was heavily involved in helping the US Army attempt to reach that objective, creating newfangled firearms that bear considerable resemblances to the guns you'd find in futuristic, sci-fi movies and TV shows.

The XM8 was one of these rifles developed by H&K in the early 2000s as one of a number of alternatives to the M-16 and its derivative M4 carbine. Born as a scaled-down replacement for another H&K prototype - the XM29 - the XM8 entered a limited production run in 2003, concluding just two years later.

Like the M-16 and M4 platforms, the XM8 also utilized the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round. Built as a modular weapon and based on the G-36 rifle, then in use with the German military, soldiers could adapt their XM8s while in the field to serve in a variety of roles.

A barrel swap and changing the stock could quickly take the XM8 from its carbine variant to a smaller personal defense weapon, similar in size to an MP5 submachine gun. An XM320 (now the M320, the Army's standard-issue grenade launcher) could be mounted to the weapon with considerable ease for added firepower.

If a platoon out in the field needed a ranged weapon, the XM8 could be retooled accordingly by simply exchanging the barrel for a longer one, adding a more powerful scope, and a collapsible bipod. Should the situation and scenario call for something with more sustained rates of fire, the XM8 could even be turned into a light machine gun with a rate of fire between 600 to 750 rounds per minute.


To top it off, the XM8 wasn't just light and extremely versatile. It was also cheaper to produce than the M4 carbine - the rifle it was designed to supplant. Proven to be fairly reliable during "dust tests," even when compared against the M4, the XM8 was, on the surface, the ideal replacement rifle.

US Army/Wikimedia Commons
Army Program Executive Officer XM8 prototype testing. One tester is kneeling with a XM8 Carbine and XM320. The other has the XM8 sharpshooter.


In fact, in the latter stages of the XM8 program, even the Marine Corps demonstrated an interest in testing and potentially buying the new rifle. Should the Department of Defense have picked it up, the gun would have been produced entirely in Georgia, in cooperation with other brand-name defense contractors.

In 2005, however, the program was shelved and quickly canceled. According to retired Army General Jack Keane, a huge proponent for replacing the M4, the XM8 program fell victim to the layers of bureaucracy that typically develop in military procurement schemes. Outside of the bureaucratic issues plaguing the new rifle, there were also technical shortcomings H&K addressed very poorly.

The weapon's integral optical sight was partially electronic and, thus, required battery power. As it turns out, the original batteries for the weapon lost their charge too quickly and needed to be replaced. Unfortunately, the new batteries added weight to the rifle - the exact opposite of what the Army wanted.

Battery woes were the least of the Army's concerns. Soldiers would have to worry about burning their fingers on the XM8's handguards, which were very susceptible to overheating and even melting. The solution there was to also replace the handguard, adding even more weight. At the same time, unit production costs began to balloon as a result of the fixes created to refine the weapon.

While the US military was decidedly against the XM8, Heckler & Koch found a new customer overseas just two years after the XM8 program was canned. Though it didn't meet the DoD's standards for a new service rifle, the German arms manufacturer argued that it would still be an effective weapon with its kinks worked out.

As it turns out, the Malaysian Armed Forces were very interested in buying a small number of the futuristic rifles for their special operations units, namely Pasukan Khas Laut, their naval special warfare force, also known as PASKAL. By 2010, PASKAL troopers began using the XM8 to reduce reliance on their M4A1 SOPMOD carbines, alongside other H&K products like the HK416 and the G-36.

 

[jhungary]

No doubt about modularity,but still in my opinion it won't have able to compensate for so many systems.

Well, guess we will never know, because it was not adopted, may be the Malay knows, because they are using it in their special force.

But in my view, the easy adaptation is a plus, considering how many time I was in Iraq doing ranged shooting in 1 minute and then urban warfare in the next, and M4 aren't really good in close combat, most of the time I work on my sidearm rather than M4.

What are those complications?
List few of them.

Most don't know this, but P-rail if you shoot enough, they started to come off because of the vibration on each shoot, sometime it comes off 1 millimetre, sometime it comes off 5, sometime it comes completely off, if it happen on base, you can get it fix by going to the armoury, if it comes off during operation. oh well... And it's a hassle every time you try to secure a detachment on it, you need to make sure the groove and the screw line up, otherwise the attachment would get wobbly because you think you tied the screw tight, but since the groove is not lined up, your attachment still have not be able to secure it on .

Other problem such as the gas block blocking your view if you use optics (which guns like 416 or SCAR offer a flip down front site compensated) you need to re-zero your rifle every time you add/remove sight and so on..

There are more, but can't remember them all now.

Most people believe the XM-8 is too German, and don't have the ability (Originally) to use P-rail accessories/STANAG Mag would make the Army to be overly depends on HK for support are the reason why they were rejected.

I am not too sure about that, but that said, having NOT be able to fire it I don't know how it feel against the M4 (the rifle I did fire), so I cannot say for sure, but I tend to believe those were true

 

[Sine Nomine]

Well, guess we will never know, because it was not adopted, may be the Malay knows, because they are using it in their special force.

But in my view, the easy adaptation is a plus, considering how many time I was in Iraq doing ranged shooting in 1 minute and then urban warfare in the next, and M4 aren't really good in close combat, most of the time I work on my sidearm rather than M4.



Most don't know this, but P-rail if you shoot enough, they started to come off because of the vibration on each shoot, sometime it comes off 1 millimetre, sometime it comes off 5, sometime it comes completely off, if it happen on base, you can get it fix by going to the armoury, if it comes off during operation. oh well... And it's a hassle every time you try to secure a detachment on it, you need to make sure the groove and the screw line up, otherwise the attachment would get wobbly because you think you tied the screw tight, but since the groove is not lined up, your attachment still have not be able to secure it on .

Other problem such as the gas block blocking your view if you use optics (which guns like 416 or SCAR offer a flip down front site compensated) you need to re-zero your rifle every time you add/remove sight and so on..

There are more, but can't remember them all now.



Most people believe the XM-8 is too German, and don't have the ability (Originally) to use P-rail accessories/STANAG Mag would make the Army to be overly depends on HK for support are the reason why they were rejected.

I am not too sure about that, but that said, having NOT be able to fire it I don't know how it feel against the M4 (the rifle I did fire), so I cannot say for sure, but I tend to believe those were true

Thanks man.