Have all of you heard about the XM-8, its supposed to be the replacement to the M-16 and M-4. I don’t Know to much about it but its supposed to be pretty good, I just wish it was not German made, nothing against Germany, I’m a quarter German, but because I am 100% American I would rather see our troops carrying American made weapons. So if any of you has info on the XM-8 I would like to see it. Thanks.

All I know is that its the 'XM-8' right now because its still in its experimental stages. Final designation will be the 'M-8'

If its the same firearm that I'm thinking of, it doesnt matter where it was made, its a beast of a gun. I could be wrong, but I think its capable of firing 20mm shells as well as a regular rifle round. Don't quote me on that, I remember seeing something on 'Mail Call' about that.

Reb Cpl wrote: All I know is that its the 'XM-8' right now because its still in its experimental stages. Final designation will be the 'M-8' If its the same firearm that I'm thinking of, it doesnt matter where it was made, its a beast of a gun. I could be wrong, but I think its capable of firing 20mm shells as well as a regular rifle round. Don't quote me on that, I remember seeing something on 'Mail Call' about that.

Ya I saw that too, that’s not the same gun, the XM-8 is smaller and lighter and is just a regular assault riffle. Other than that and what it looks like I don’t know anything else, and I do agree with you that it does not matter where a gun is from, only how it performs, its just I would prefer to see  the standard issue riffle our troops carry stamped with that good old “Made in U.S.A.” stamp, the last foreign made standard issue riffle our troops carried was the krag-Jorgenson riffle during the Spanish American war.

Well I’ll admit that it seams to be superior to the M-16, I just wish it was American.

rancidpnk13 wrote: yeah, everyone likes to have it american made...which makes sense. but i dont hear SWAT teams complaining about using the Mp5...

Most SWAT units have traded in their MP5's for M4's, mainly because MP5's do not have the distance (from a 9mm or 10mm round) then the M4's .223 round. However, for close combat, the M1 Shotgun and MP5 combo are awesome.

H&K XM-8's are very easy to work, mainly because H&K are simple manufacturers. Also, the average M16 is ridiculous in cost and I highly doubt the M8 would be much more expensive.

[Ignore this post]

We intimidate

They obliterate

Soon we will use DU to counter them and end up polluting everything

oldsoldier wrote: The M16 is a derivative of the original AR-10 in 7.62, they designed it smaller, and just for grins and giggles, just like you paintballers seem to need to hose down the woodline to hit anything, unfortuanately so do our troops because of marksmanship training changes and combat doctrine changes, and the 5.56 round is light enough to triple ammo loads for the same weigh as a single combat load of 7.62.

Also the .223 ( A.K.A. 5.56) is far more accurate than the 7.62 round because it is smaller and so it has a higher velocity.

^ I was about to say that, but I was afraid I might have been wrong. You're pretty educated about firearms and projectile physics.

Dune wrote: It's manufactured by H&K and you can find pics of it by going to their website. H&K is one of the best manufacturing companies around, better than anything American made, at least I won't discriminate against it.

You can’t base the assumption that all German weapons are better than American weapons on the fact that this XM-8 is better than the M-16 or because the fact that the MP-5 is so popular. You must keep in mind the fact that the M-16 is an old design, over 40 years old, and XM-8 is a brand new design that was developed by designers who were able to draw from over half a century of assault riffle designs. 40 years ago Eugene stoner did not have that luxury, at that time there were only two assault rifles in existence, The German STG-42 ( which was no longer in use), and the Russian AK-47. Also, at that time A.R. technology was still a relatively new concept to warfare.

Also you must realize that no American company is even attempting to develop a replacement to the M-16 or very many military firearms at all, and so you can’t determine that all German tactical technology is better than American technology because all the German weapons you are comparing the M-16 to are New, and the M-16 as well as other weapons from America, are old technology. Also, I think the fact that the M-16 has served for so long shows that it is a good weapon.

             And so, in conclusion, I believe that the M-16 is an old design and needs to be replaced by a newer more up to date assault riffle, however, I believe that replacement should be American designed and American Built because its going to be Issued to America’s military.

P.S., rancidpnk13- He said that S.W.A.T. teams don't comlain About the MP-5. 

Most American S.W.A.T. teams, including the F.B.I. teams, now prefer to use the M-4 over the MP-5 because of its superior firepower.

the M-8 formerly designated X-86 Sabre is a 5.56mm semi/full rifle made to replace the m-16 and m-4. It's a lot more user friendly has a ton of crazy features I can't even remember.

it uses some sort of special thing like "energy kinetic" ammunition or something. I read this long ago so it's all kind of vague.. google time.

here's a really good article from last year

The U.S. Army is happy with the initial field testing of it's new M-8 (or XM-8) Assault Rifle. One of the major design features of the M-8 that makes it superior to the M-16 is the way it handles propellant gasses. The M-16 has these gasses going into the receiver, depositing layers of crud from propellant that did not completely burn. The M-8 keeps the propellant gasses out of the receiver and this reduces the cleaning time by about 70 percent. The troops appreciate this. More importantly, the reduced amount of crud in the receiver greatly increases reliability (far fewer rounds getting stuck.) In fact, the M-8 is designed to fire 15,000 rounds without cleaning or lubrication, even in a dirty (like a desert) environment. Troops are not allowed to let their weapons go like that, but this degree of reliability makes it less likely that rifles won't jam in a sandstorm or after getting dropped in the mud. The M-8 barrel and receiver is also of more sturdy construction, making it less likely that the user will get injured if there's something in the barrel when a round is fired. This is not unusual in combat. All you have to do is accidentally jam the barrel into the dirt while hitting the ground or otherwise avoiding enemy fire, and then have to return fire. On an M-16, this can often cause the rifle to, well, blow up in your face. This unfortunate event is much less likely with the M-8.

The M-8 comes with a battery powered sight that includes a red-dot, close-combat capability, plus infrared laser aimer and laser illuminator with a backup etched reticule. The sights on the M-8, similar to those which have been showing up on M-16s over the past decade, make it much easier to hit something. The M-8 is better designed for "ease of use" and support troops who don't handle their weapons frequently will find that they can more easily hit something with an M-8. Tests, using people who have not handled a rifle frequently, have demonstrated this.

Because the attachment points for rail mounted devices are built into the M-8, the sight can be factory zeroed. The M-16, because it has rail mounting hardware mounted on it, requires frequent re-zeroing in the field. This is a feature very much appreciated by the troops. The attachment points allow additional sighting devices to be quickly added to the weapon. A new 40mm, single shot grenade launcher (the M320) will be available for the M-8 and can be quickly installed by troops, without special tools. The M-8 is designed for easy left or right handed operation.

Testing will increase, as more M-8s are available, and the plan is that by early 2007, the first of over a million M-8s will begin distribution to all troops in active and reserve army units. One thing that may slow this down is the army research on the use of a new caliber (6.8mm). The new bullet has shown to have better accuracy and stopping power. While troops would be carrying less ammo with the larger round (25 rounds in the current 30 round magazine), they would require fewer shots to take down enemy troops. American troops today are much better trained in the use of their rifles than they were four decades ago. Automatic fire is not often used, with accurate, individual shots being the norm. The M-8 rifle, and possibly a new caliber, are a reflection of that.

Mad Psience wrote: the M-8 formerly designated X-86 Sabre...

I never heard that before, are you sure about it? You do realize that there was a U.S. fighter jet in the Korean war called the F-86 Sabre, right. Are you sure that you havent gotten them confused becuase I have never heard of modern weapons being given names like that, the last wepon that I heard of that had a name was the M-1 Garand, and Garand was not its official Name, troops just called it that becuase the desighner's name was Garand, and that was way back in WW2 anyway.

Tolgak wrote: MT. Vigilante, you're letting patriotism get to your head. HK makes excellent firearms and you have to accept the fact that the U.S. military might accept a foreign company's gun. Besides, the XM-8 is not a purely HK gun. It will be produced in factories in the U.S. and it also uses an M-16 core but modified to work better I believe. About this whole reliability thing. I've seen demonstration videos and this gun can work wonders in dirt and water. In one of the videos the guy buried the gun in sand, pulled it out and shot it without jamming. He also had the entire gun dunked in water. The first shot he fired blew all of the water out and the rest continued shortly.

I never said that the XM-8 was a bad weapon, nor did I say that it was not reliable, in fact I think it could be better than the M-16, and I think that H&K builds excelent weapons, however, I still prefer American weapons simply because they are American. And what is wrong with a lot of patriotism, I love my country, and I think every person in the world should be just as patriotic to thier Homeland, wherever that might be, and I also think that most Americans are seriosly lacking patriotism and should love thier country a little more.

Hmm, seems the Special Forces didnt like the XM-8, because SOCOM (Special Operation COMmand) has just issued a contract for roughly 158,000 Fabrique Nationale SCAR or SOCOM Combat Assualt Rifle.  It will come in 2 varations, a Heavy 7.62 and a Light 5.56 version.  For the rest of the Story, go here http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=329809 - http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=3298 09

Now, In my opinion, if the Navy SEALs, the Green Berets and the Army Delta Force won't adopt the XM-8, i dont think its good enough for our regular service men.

Plastic is not appealing to me.

I mean, I know some plastics and resins can be EXTREMELY strong... but just the idea of our fighting men carrying plastic into battle... (especially considering the fact that soldiers are trained to use their rifles as clubs in hand-to-hand combat situations)

It just isn't too appealing to me.

Aw, hell, What do I know? I'm just a civilian.

nickman98 wrote: ...ok we lets say we got two weapons...the german made xm-8 and something american made...the german gun out perfoms the american gun in everyway...but with your thinking we should go with the american one because our troops need american made products....alright...so...we'd better supply more american made body bags than. this is why nazis were good..they got ppl to blindly follow them...hmm..chew on that.

I never said that we should take a Weapon Based only on the fact that it is American, I'm saying that American company's need to try to develop a better weapon than the XM-8, there is nothing stoping them from doing that. And also, I love German weapons, I think H&K does make good weapons and the XM-8 is probably a good riffle, but I whould just prefer to see American weapons in the Hands of our militatry, I mean the last foriegn made standard issue riffle to our troops was the Krag-Jorgenson, which was used by our military over 100 years ago.

P.S.- this is directed towards usafpiolet07

I never said I think that all Germans are Nazis, after all I am 1/4 German, and I am not bias against German weapons, its just that I am a 100% patriotic American so naturally I prefer American weapons.

Oh and last of all, whoever said that it is bad to make the stocks of weapons out of synthetic (plastic) materials, synthetic stocks are actually better and stronger than wooden ones, I have a Ruger 30-06 w/ a synthetic stock and I have droped it more times on jagged rocks than I can count and I have yet to even cause one crack, plus, in warfare, when you hit your enemy over the head w/ a synthetic stock I don't care if the wooden ones hit harder or not he is still goin down w/ the synthetic one and he is not getting up becuase it is still very hard stuff.

usafpilot07 wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: nickman98 wrote: ...ok we lets say we got two weapons...the german made xm-8 and something american made...the german gun out perfoms the american gun in everyway...but with your thinking we should go with the american one because our troops need american made products....alright...so...we'd better supply more american made body bags than. this is why nazis were good..they got ppl to blindly follow them...hmm..chew on that. I never said that we should take a Weapon Based only on the fact that it is American, I'm saying that American company's need to try to develop a better weapon than the XM-8, there is nothing stoping them from doing that. And also, I love German weapons, I think H&K does make good weapons and the XM-8 is probably a good riffle, but I whould just prefer to see American weapons in the Hands of our militatry, I mean the last foriegn made standard issue riffle to our troops was the Krag-Jorgenson, which was used by our military over 100 years ago. P.S.- this is directed towards usafpiolet07 I never said I think that all Germans are Nazis, after all I am 1/4 German, and I am not bias against German weapons, its just that I am a 100% patriotic American so naturally I prefer American weapons. Oh and last of all, whoever said that it is bad to make the stocks of weapons out of synthetic (plastic) materials, synthetic stocks are actually better and stronger than wooden ones, I have a Ruger 30-06 w/ a synthetic stock and I have droped it more times on jagged rocks than I can count and I have yet to even cause one crack, plus, in warfare, when you hit your enemy over the head w/ a synthetic stock I don't care if the wooden ones hit harder or not he is still goin down w/ the synthetic one and he is not getting up becuase it is still very hard stuff. sorry if there was any confusion, i didnt mean to say you were prejudice. I was just noting that while it is good for our designers to try to create a better weapon, the real patriotic thing to do is send our troops into combat using the best readily available weapon and the grenades, from what i know, are fired similar to bullets, not lobbed like the M203, but that is sort of a (for like of a better word) "secondary-fire" srry for the confusion

No problem, and I do agree w/ you that we should send our troops in w/ the best weapon available, I just wan't that weapon to be American, I know that some American out there can come up w/ one.

Kayback wrote: The Americans don't always think of the best things. Like I said, they couldn't get this thing to work well enough so they cut it's funding, while the Russians have a slightly less complicated system that works, in the field. KBK

Americans aren't the samrtest [sic.] breed.

That says a lot coming from an american.

That says even more coming from Belt.

Kayback wrote: The Americans don't always think of the best things. Like I said, they couldn't get this thing to work well enough so they cut it's funding, while the Russians have a slightly less complicated system that works, in the field. KBK

The thing you were talking about was not made by Americans, it was German designed.

well in any case I hope they come out with a replacement soon cause I really really dislike the M-16.  It jams up way to easy when it gets just a little dirty.  If my unit ever deploys I'm bring the civilian version of the M-4.  Little easier to use, little smaller, and you can add more stuff to the outside.

If you ever play Ghost Recon two you will see both the XM8 and the M-8.  Game wise there awesome weapons.  Hopefully the real version is just as good.

Kayback wrote: So you are saying that the Americans don't even think up any ideas, let alone have any working ones?

I am not angry or attempting to insult you, so please don’t mistake this for that, but have you even been listening to what I’ve been saying? I think that American products are the best and that American weapons manufacturers come up with some great Ideas, what I said however, is that no American company is even attempting to design any new Military Assault riffles and is just sitting back letting foreign companies surpass us.

dtfastj wrote: well in any case I hope they come out with a replacement soon cause I really really dislike the M-16.  It jams up way to easy when it gets just a little dirty.  If my unit ever deploys I'm bring the civilian version of the M-4.  Little easier to use, little smaller, and you can add more stuff to the outside. If you ever play Ghost Recon two you will see both the XM8 and the M-8.  Game wise there awesome weapons.  Hopefully the real version is just as good.

Agreed. My father is over their right now, he was issued an M-4, however, its only advantage over the M-16 is that it is more compact, it jams just as easily as the M-16 because it is the same basic design, However, the M-16A-2 and M-4 don’t jam nearly as easily or as often as the M-16A-1 did.