imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Just Guns (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The XM8 (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=2453)

Excalibur 04-29-2016 02:30 PM

The XM8
 
Anybody still think the XM8 is cool?

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

SPEMack618 04-29-2016 03:55 PM

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

Excalibur 04-29-2016 09:31 PM

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

Mazryonh 04-29-2016 10:12 PM

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.

SPEMack618 05-05-2016 01:30 PM

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.

Excalibur 05-05-2016 02:42 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazryonh (Post 42507)

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 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.

funkychinaman 05-05-2016 04:11 PM

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?

Excalibur 05-05-2016 07:32 PM

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

Mandolin 05-06-2016 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42536)
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.

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

commando552 05-06-2016 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandolin (Post 42540)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.