The XM8

[Excalibur]

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.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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]

Originally Posted by Mandolin

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.

[StanTheMan]

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.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by StanTheMan

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.

[Excalibur]

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

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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.