The XM8
 

Anybody still think the XM8 is cool?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0enyMTjWmI

Nope. Didn't think it was cool to being with. Nor the G-36.

How some ever, I do love me some -416/-417 goodness

At least you can get a civilian 416/417...for an HK price...which I don't want to pay it. I'll stick to my AR

I liked the XM8's concept and thought it had a lot of potential. It did rather well in the various tests it was subjected to, but the various competitions held to replace the M4A1 never picked a winner. Apparently General Petraeus asked to keep one for himself when he was watching an XM8 demonstration. Did he get to keep it given what happened to him later?

Anyway, while it's in service with a few small forces, parts of it have survived elsewhere, such as the related HK416 series of rifles. I wonder if the USMC-adopted M27 IAR's role could have been filled by the XM8 LMG variant.

I remember hearing that the PCAP accessory attachment system the XM8 used could retain a sight's zero even if it was removed and replaced. Was that ever tested to see if XM8 users could swap in a sight with magnification and one without magnification to see if the zero was not affected? We have magnifiers that can be moved into or out of the user's field when placed behind an optical sight now, but I'd like to know if this kind of sight-swapping might allow for a lighter load, as well as allowing one to carry a backup optical sight in case of battery failure or damage to the optical sight.

I have deep reservations about any weapon system that might melt while I'm using it.

I'm not a raging M-4 fanboi, however, I don't believe that the SCAR-L, XM-8, ACR, or the like have enough qualitative advantages to justify the cost of completely swapping over to them.

The SCAR and the ACR have survived extreme temp tests, but I believe the SCAR was picked because it was cheaper and lighter than the ACR, which was made heavier from the Masada.

Both the SCAR and the newer ACR have a metal upper receiver where the action is so it isn't like they are going to "melt" The XM8 is more of a spin off of the G36, so it's almost entirely "plastic".

I've seen MG36s run hundreds of rounds without melting.

In the end, it's mostly costs and lack of great improvements that is why the military isn't switching to newer rifles. My gripe with the SCAR is the reciprocating charging handle.


I think the Marines adopting the M27 IAR is to go back to a lighter weapon system similar to the BAR, though I think the unofficial reason is for costs. The M27 costs less than the SAWs they are replacing, though for an "automatic rifle" role I would think they would play with the idea of larger capacity mags than standard 30 rounds.

I was puzzled by the IAR requirements. Lighter, magazine fed, more accurate, weren't these considered drawbacks in the L86 LSW? Drawbacks which pushed the British Army to adopt the SAW?

I think the difference is that the M27 is actually lighter than the L86 and more practical compared to the L86.

I just don't like the idea now that you got a weapon that's filling the role of a SAW without the higher firepower of magazine capacity or the ability to quick change barrels

Except using a BAR to support other BARs doesn't make sense, and that's what using the M27 and M4 together is.

That isn't really fair, the M27 is far more suitable to automatic fire than an M4 due to the piston gas system and longer barrel with heavier profile. An M4 would overheat much more quickly than an M27.

As for comparing the M27 to L86, one of the differences here is that the M27 is intended to replace some SAWs which IMHO it is totally unsuitable for. With the L86 on the other hand, it was not actually replacing a machine gun, in fact it was replacing some rifles to augment the GPMGs which were still there. The problem is though that what you generally want a squad machine gun for is suppression, and both of the weapons in question are too accurate with too small a magazine to do this very well.

I think the L86A2 is actually a pretty good weapon, it just needs to be used correctly, in that it is really more of a DMR or for doing more targeted suppression of a firing point or something like that. In recent testing the army is actually tending to veer back towards using a DMR optimised version of the L86A2 rather than the L129A1 which hasn't performed as well as was initially hoped.

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.

Kinda looks like what the Beretta ARX-160 could have been.The handguard needs to go with an uninterrupted rail on all sides to make this a bit more streamline and the rail underneath needs to extend all the way to the end...

I also wonder if this thing has a bolt hold and bolt release switch to truly make it modern

The XM8 had a bolt release inside the trigger guard. And just having a bolt release in the first place, I would assume it also had a hold-open device, because otherwise what's the point?

The original G36 doesn't...I think. Actually when I think about it, the whole bolt release device seemed kinda of an American thing for a while unless you include the FAL.

Quite a few European guns have them, off of the top of my head for example, the SA80, SIG SG 550, Beretta AR-70, and I'm sure there are probably others. I believe that the G36 has a last round hold open and a manual bolt hold open, but as standard doesn't have a bolt release. The manual hold open is a nub inside the trigger guard which is pushed upwards to lock the bolt, however there is a H&K made replacement for this part which has an L shaped shelf attached which allows you to bull the catch downwards to release the bolt without running the charging handle.

This is basically the same as how the XM8 bolt hold open/release works. A lot of people have a problem with the bolt controls being inside the trigger guard, but it isn't as unsafe as some people say as the proper way to use the bolt release is with the thumb of your support hand after inserting the magazine.

As for the slightly odd rails on the XM8R stopping ahead of the receiver, my guess is that the reason for this is that there is a big trunion kind of thing coming out of the front of the receiver around the barrel which the handguard sheaths over, which wouldn't really work with an aluminium rail handguard (and if it did you would need to make the handguard larger to accommodate this). Doing it this way also means that you have a comfortable handguard without having to add extra accessories.

I guess I was thinking of the H&K rifles,the L85 (unless it does, never seen one up close), FAMAS, VZ-58, and FNC that has not bolt release button.

As for the XM8's rails...still doesn't quite make sense. There are rail covers and vertical foregrips that some would like to be further back and some people hold their rifles further up the handguard. I think this was more of a design choice than for sorta practical choice because a lot of guys hold their rifles closer towards the magwell

I think the main reason is more the shape of the receiver extension beneath the handguard. Bear in mind that the XM8 was built as a modular weapon where the handguards could be switched out for different length ones in moments without tools so there is a pretty big thing under there with a lot of surface area to give it a secure fit, which could potentially have been an issue for mounting a more traditional aluminium extrusion type railed handguard. You can still make the argument that maybe they could have made the handguard less modular but longer/lower profile, but I think when they came up with this they were just throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick (this version actually sorta did, the sharpshooter version of this configuration is one of the guns that the Malaysians purchased).

FYI, the L85 along with all of the other SA80 weapons locks open on an empty mag and has both a bolt release and a manual bolt hold open. Rather uniquely they are not the same lever though, instead the bolt hold open is a tear-drop shaped lever behind the ejection port (you push it down with your left thumb while reaching over the top to pull the bolt back), whereas the bolt release is a square catch on the left side behind the magazine well just above the selector. They are in different places as you need one by the ejection port to lock the bolt open due to the cocking handle being mounted on the bolt, whilst this would be very inconvenient for releasing the bolt during a reload so they put the other by the magazine well.

Thanks for that info about the L85.

But The concept of a weapon you can change at a moment's notice out in the field didn't seem to catch on really. The military mindset is usually 1 weapon for everyone with specific weapons for special purposes. No one would be carrying extra barrels or handguards to the field.


I just started playing Homefront the Revolution and while it's cool that I can turn my M4 instantly into something like the Shrike LMG system...who carries extra receivers and barrels into combat?

I mean, if troops are deployed to somewhere, an armory of sort would be set up to keep inventory of weapons, repairs, ammo, etc. So any changes or switch to weapons would happen there or troops would be issued their weapons and they take it with them as they deploy into transports.