Interesting spiel about the M27 and L86. I'm with FCM about the IAR and it's requirements, indeed seems a bit kooky. Excalibur and c552 make an even better point as well - Wanting even a psuedo-base of fire weapon that has no high-capacity (belt-feed, etc) or QCB does indeed seem silly and counter-intuitive. Might add more to this later but all-told, it still just seems like some 'gee-whiz' shit - Trying to create some uber gun that does it all when the simple fact of the matter is there's just no one weapon system that can do everything. Bah.

Back to topic - I thought the XM8 had a kinda neat look to it, but otherwise I didn't really care for it one way or the other.

I think that the idea of having a series of modular weapons that share components is a pretty good one. Not in terms ofthe idea that people would be switching out barrels, handguards and stocks depending on what they wanted to do on that day, but rather from a maintenance/training commonality point of view and also having making it more practical to have a wider variety of weapons more suitable for different roles.

I think one of the problems with this kind of system though is that people think that the LMG variant can replace a SAW or M240 in a squad, which it can't. Rather a better idea is to replace one of your rifleman's weapons with an LMG variant. Similarly a sharpshooter variant is not a replacement for a true sniper rifle.

I think the idea of an LMG variant of a rifle is actually a better one today, as you have greater acceptance of the idea of a casket magazine like the Surefire 60 rounder (the 100 rounder is pretty much useless for military use IMHO). Back when you had the XM8 LMG (and similarly the MG36) the only real option for a higher capacity magazine was a Beta-C or a drum, which have pretty big practical and logistical problems for general military use. Firstly, they are incredibly volume inefficient when compares to normal magazine or belts as they are an awkward shape with large hollows, so they need special pouches and you can practically carry only a couple of them. Also they are more fragile than a standard magazine or belt and introduce the extra failure element of them having their own winding mechanism which has to be maintained. Lastly, they tend to be a PITA to load.

I've been reading some poor reviews for the Surefire mags.

As a kid, I loved how cool the XM8 look, but as I grew into the gun world during college, I liked it less and less, especially how it has no provisions for pic rails that even the G36 has adapted into.

I find it weird and funny that a gun being no longer tacticool anymore had a sorta come back in COD Black Ops 3

I've heard iffy things about the 100 rounder, but I know somebody who has used the 60 rounders quite a bit and he had no problems. He may have just gotten lucky though.

The XM8 actually did have a provision for rails, they could be attached to the PCAP holes like rails to a Keymod or M-Lok. One of the last versions replaced the carry handle with a pic rail, and a few different versions used a quad-rail handguard rather than the PCAP idea. I think their biggest failing with the PCAP system was the idea that they could come up with a new unique system and industry would just adopt it and come up with additional accessories, no problem. Today they could just put M-Lok slots in the handguard (this works on polymer unlike Keymod) and you would be able to attach rails for legacy accessories or there are already a whole host of M-Lok accessories and mounts.

They probably would have cheaped out on the polymer just like on the G36 and ended up with the same wandering zero anyway.

It's weird about the recent so called problems with the G36 not being able to hold zero in extreme conditions considering the long service live of the weapon. It's the same controversy with the EOtech but only found in really extreme conditions. Conditions that don't apply to a lot of people, but enough for the US government to sue.

The G36 issue is a bit of a weird one, as it was not an issue when the weapon was originally made, but over time (supposedly) H&K have changed the formulation of the polymer in some batches which means that some are susceptible to the problem and some aren't. If I remember correctly it is something like the receivers are meant to be made from polyamide but they have started cutting it with cheaper and more available polyethylene. When the weapon gets hot the plastic receiver warps slightly changing the POI, which actually occurs to some degree on a lot of weapons but what is different about the G36 as opposed to more traditional metal receivered (or at least trunioned) weapons is that it deforms plastically rather than elastically. This means that when it cools back down to normal temperatures after a period of sustained fire the zero has shifted randomly.

This has been shown in some testing, but then there is other testing which seems to debunk this. Either way, I am personally sceptical of a rifle where the sights are joined to the barrel only by plastic. On a potentially related note, I know that a lot of British police forces are moving away from the G36C as their 5.56 carbine in favour of ARs like LMT Defenders or SIG SG 516s (and to a lesser extent SIG MCXs in a specialist role). Supposedly it is for better modularity and accessories, but coincidentally pressure to change over massively intensified after these wandering zero claims.

Having said all of that, I have personally used a G36C quite a lot and have never experienced any zero problems with the weapon itself. This was however mostly on semi only SFs so they don't get hot enough to cause the issue if it exists. Still, having doubt about how much a weapon can be fired before it starts to melt is never a good thing for military or LE use.

As a civilian in America and not rich, it'll be hard press for me to own even a clone of a G36 unless I go to Vegas for a weekend. H&K really has problems with customer services when it comes to civilians and rather not deal with American importation laws to get their awesome products on US soil. Is it so hard for them to say build a plant in America and have guns locally produced. If clones of MP5s are being imported, why not authentic HK stuff? All we get are pistols and expensive rifles. The 416 and 417 in civilian doesn't really add much to the existing AR market compared to say if they introduced an unchanged civilian G36 to US market. Sure it's a bit dated without fancy rails, but gun people will throw their salaries at it. Hell, even I will.

I think any smart company would have thrown the XM8 to the civilian part and see if it sells. Maybe even a limited run

Ditto on pretty much all of this.

Also thought it was real strange to hear G36s having problems until I heard those same rumblings that they started fuggering with the polymer compounds in production as you mentioned. As you said, worrying about how much you can use your gun before melting is not a concern that should come up. Not that it really matters in my case; My old-fashioned ass really still doesn't believe in having a lot of plastic on guns. There are a few exceptions, the biggest of course being Glocks, but pretty much almost none of them have ever felt good in my hands so there it is. But they are the deal now, guess I was just born too late. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I agree the modular basic-platform concept is a good one especially from a logistical POV, but as you said, they are jack-of-all, master-of-none and thus aren't real replacements for dedicated-role weapons and I feel the problem is that many think they should be, a mistake. As said you can't just stick a drum or big mag on a long-barrel rifle and call it a real squad machine gun much less expect it to actually perform like one.

Though I think you make a good point that in a pinch or certain missions that actually can be preferable perhaps. And more viable as time goes on and they get better with those larger magazines. I still think a real base of fire weapon requires QCBs and belts.. go big or go home, I guess.

On the other hand, I think the sharpshooter/marksman rifles are (and have been) a better path to go on as many times you don't need 'true sniper rifles' - A more accurate version of the base platform works good enough in most instances, operationally. At least so it seems to me.

the battlefield is evolving constantly with near ideas mixed with age old tactics.

I think the XM8 and a lot of other weapons made around that time were a sort of turning point type of gun where they tried to make something new but over taken by today's "tacticool" age.I recently have a handguard with M-Lok added to my AR. I got QD points for a sling, etc. All the cool stuff but they also serve a real purpose than just "being cool". Early 2000s was all about quad rails. Now it's about Keymods and M-Lok. The consumer doesn't just want 1 type of gun. They want it to be modular.

The military at large has always been slow to adapt new things mostly on the basis of money, well LARGELY because of money and training. That's why adopting a new pistol isn't going anywhere because the top brass doesn't seem to have faith that your average grunt can handle a pistol without a manual safety.

One thing about the M27 vs SAW debate is that you can't clear a room with a SAW, leaving its user at a clear disadvantage in urban combat. They're still retaining SAWs for when their capabilities are required, though. The M27 isn't a replacement for all SAWs, as is commonly believed.

On the topic of the XM8, I could have gotten behind the last version made.

http://i.imgur.com/o9zRFGR.jpg

But it just came too late in the program. I would say all it needs would be to extend the side and underbarrel rails further back, an AR-compatible magazine well, AR pistol grip adapter, and side-folding buttstock.