PDA

View Full Version : XM8


TFM
04-06-2006, 12:55
To good to be true?... Maybe. But I would sure love to see something with the capabilities boasted herein sometime in my career. Sooner than later.:munchin


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

ZoneOne
04-06-2006, 13:08
The entire program has been suspended.

Doesn't look like it will be fielded anytime soon.

jbour13
04-06-2006, 13:12
Concept and boastfulness doesn't win wars, execution and adherance to standards do. I love HK stuff but, this is another attempt it seems to make a new looking Army. The fact remains the same, motivated soldiers win the battle. I'm with you on having the more effective capability, but what does this cost. I've not been lucky enough to testbed equipment in battle. But it seems that the Army is evaluating alot of new weapons and support systems in the active battle. This push for newer and better isn't an old concept but it still gets joe killed because he's not had time to get used to the system and it's nuances.

Not many fans of the system around the Army from the persons that I've talked to. I've got a friend at Aberdeen that has played with it and has nothing good to say. Too many options for a soldier and the supply chain gets bogged down with replacement parts.

I've had soldiers come into the gun shop and say that the army should issue something like the S&W M&P because it has the option to change backstraps making it more comfortable to shoot. Could you imagine being an armorer tracking the ones not in use. Imagine yourself as the BN Supply SGT trying to order replacement backstraps because PVT Snuffy lost it.

Military weapons need to remain uniform. The only change to the M-4 weapons system that I hope for is a gas piston operating upper. HK416/ POF/ Alexander Arms all make'em and I like what I've seen. We can hope! :D

TFM
04-06-2006, 13:28
I think the concept of a weapon being this multifunctional and versatile is exellent. The challenging part is proving its practicallity, and simplicity of operation in everday use. Only time will tell. The current weapon systems are cool, but there is certainly room for improvement.

bubba
04-06-2006, 13:48
My biggest thing with the idea of a new weapon is what is wrong with the one we use now that a new one will fix. I know some will say that the gas piston is more reliable, but really, how un-reliable is the M-4? I personally have fired over a thousand rounds before cleaning and the only issue is that when re-loading you have to hit the fwd asst every now and then. (But isn't that part of loading any way??).

With the current M-4/M-16 series weapon you have a relatively accurate, pretty reliable, and extreamly modular system that EVERY soldier, marine, and airman knows how to load fire and reduce stoppage. Why would you want to replace what works well with something that might work as well, at best. Just my humble ramblings, Have a good 'un

TFM
04-06-2006, 14:16
It is not that the current weapons are broke. These features do light my fire though.

Integrated aiming devices... Yeaaa....

"The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even after the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered and does not require constant rezeroing in the field like current rail-mounted targeting devices. The XM8 will be fully compatible with future Land Warrior technology and components."

I would love a light weight SAW....
"The XM8 is a true family of weapons with different barrel lengths designed to address all the needs of an infantry squad. The standard model is expected to be lighter than the M4 carbine and no larger in size. There's also a sharpshooter version for increased range; a compact version for cramped quarters; and an auto-rifle version for a squad-automatic weapon. The XM8 family has a 9-inch compact, 12.5-inch carbine and a 20-inch sharpshooter and automatic rifle. The 12.5-inch carbine is 6.4 pounds with an objective of 5.7 pounds and is 33 inches with its adjustable stock extended. The M-16 A2 is 39.63 inches long and 8.79 pounds with a 30-round magazine."

I used to be in the engineering field. Making stuff better, faster, multifunctional and more convenient was my passion. So I'm almost always looking for more out of my equipment.

bubba
04-06-2006, 14:31
.....when, not if, the sight breaks, do you have to be a freakin armorer to replace it, or worse yet, have the joe's been trained to use the back up sights? And as for the SAW version, if I aint mistaken, it uses the "beta jam-o-matic" for a feed system, and the idea of an iterchangeable barrel is questionable. We already have a 12 pound belt fed SAW in the cut down M-249. The 10" barrel is neet if you are clearing rooms and ONLY clearing rooms, but beyond around 25m the terminal ballistics isn't worth a spit wad. If you want a "sniper" system, then drag out the 24, sr-25, or SPR, because anything with an interchangeable barrel isn't going to shoot less them 2 MOA. But, that is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth, and oh yeah, Have a good 'un

M4Guru
04-06-2006, 14:37
I have heard that the Betas developed for the XM8 were different from the ones we all know and love for the M4 (sarcasm). Does anyone have any input to support that? I have not seen it in person. If it could be executed well, having a few 100rd drums in the GMV or ruck might be a good idea.

TFM
04-06-2006, 14:39
.....when, not if, the sight breaks, do you have to be a freakin armorer to replace it, or worse yet, have the joe's been trained to use the back up sights? And as for the SAW version, if I aint mistaken, it uses the "beta jam-o-matic" for a feed system, and the idea of an iterchangeable barrel is questionable. We already have a 12 pound belt fed SAW in the cut down M-249. The 10" barrel is neet if you are clearing rooms and ONLY clearing rooms, but beyond around 25m the terminal ballistics isn't worth a spit wad. If you want a "sniper" system, then drag out the 24, sr-25, or SPR, because anything with an interchangeable barrel isn't going to shoot less them 2 MOA. But, that is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth, and oh yeah, Have a good 'un

Roger that.

The Reaper
04-06-2006, 16:14
To good to be true?... Maybe. But I would sure love to see something with the capabilities boasted herein sometime in my career. Sooner than later.:munchin


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

TFM:

Familiarize yourself with the Search button and look this up.

It is discussed ad nauseum on at least three other threads.

TR

TFM
04-07-2006, 00:18
I will be sure to dig deeper in the future.

TFM

Gene Econ
04-07-2006, 21:11
Concept and boastfulness doesn't win wars, execution and adherance to standards do. I love HK stuff but, this is another attempt it seems to make a new looking Army. The fact remains the same, motivated soldiers win the battle. I'm with you on having the more effective capability, but what does this cost. I've not been lucky enough to testbed equipment in battle. But it seems that the Army is evaluating alot of new weapons and support systems in the active battle. This push for newer and better isn't an old concept but it still gets joe killed because he's not had time to get used to the system and it's nuances.

Not many fans of the system around the Army from the persons that I've talked to. I've got a friend at Aberdeen that has played with it and has nothing good to say. Too many options for a soldier and the supply chain gets bogged down with replacement parts.

I've had soldiers come into the gun shop and say that the army should issue something like the S&W M&P because it has the option to change backstraps making it more comfortable to shoot. Could you imagine being an armorer tracking the ones not in use. Imagine yourself as the BN Supply SGT trying to order replacement backstraps because PVT Snuffy lost it.

Military weapons need to remain uniform. The only change to the M-4 weapons system that I hope for is a gas piston operating upper. HK416/ POF/ Alexander Arms all make'em and I like what I've seen. We can hope! :D

Hmmm. Where to start.

The Japanese founded their doctrine on the belief that 'motivated' soldiers win the battle. Effective / modern weapons were ignored and they lost. Motivated, intelligent, and well equipped soldiers with solid leadership win battles.

Armorers who are trained to fix broken weapons no longer exist on TOEs for any Infantry unit I have worked with over the last five years. Supply clerks are now armorers. The Armorers Tool Kits were removed from the TOE years ago.

To the very best of my knowledge, no solider in the three Infantry Brigades I have worked with over the last five years have 'tested' any new weapons or equipment in combat. DoD tests the stuff first. This is followed by NET training at units with MTTs sent from what ever proponent school is responsible for the particular piece of gear. Certainly, new equipment has been issued to units in combat, along with a NET to train them before they use the same gear. Then the Brigade or Division Commander gets his say before a soldier totes the gear into combat. Believe it or not, they even listen to Joe's comments and will say "no" in an instant if they think the gear threatens the lives of their men.

I knew personally eight of the 32 KIA from 1/25th SBCT. None of them or any of the others were killed because they were using 'untested' equipment. I can't say how many I know who were WIA from 1/25 or 3/2 SBCTs. None of them were wounded because they were using equipment they didn't know how to use or 'untested' equipment.

I will say this much however -- uniformity does get people killed or wounded. I have seen incredibly moronic web gear / MOLY SOPs that guarantee a magazine change to be nothing short of an abortion. I have seen the 'system' refuse to allow units to put collapsable stocks on their M-16A2s so Joe could get his rifle up quickly and effectively while wearing his body armor. That type of crap does get folks killed or wounded.

I am fully in support of modular light weapons for the Infantry. Absolutely required and the sooner the better. The XM-8, as a modular weapons design, is absolutely the right concept to follow even if HK isn't chosen as a producer.

Sorry guys -- seen way too much in the last five or so years. And yes, the Infantry is perfectly capable of handling the logistics, training, and support for these systems.

Gene

TFM
04-08-2006, 01:23
I will say this much however -- uniformity does get people killed or wounded. I have seen incredibly moronic web gear / MOLY SOPs that guarantee a magazine change to be nothing short of an abortion. I have seen the 'system' refuse to allow units to put collapsable stocks on their M-16A2s so Joe could get his rifle up quickly and effectively while wearing his body armor. That type of crap does get folks killed or wounded.
No Joke. So far I have not be forced to follow an SOP thank God. They have their place, but it shouldn't be carved in stone if practical experience unearths a snag.


the Infantry is perfectly capable of handling the logistics, training, and support for these systems.
GeneI don't see why not. Some are under the impression that the infantry is full of mindless cannon fodder. Sure they exist mainly in the lower ranks, but there are certainly enough intelligent individuals in a unit or company to get it figured out.