Well, they're not quite indestructable. But they swim poorly. Unless you mean the little one....
Posted on 08/07/2003 10:52:17 AM PDT by Long Cut
Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: no data
Barrel length: no data
Weight: 2.67 kg empty
Rate of fire: no data
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds (STANAG)
The development of the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle was initiated by US Army in the 2002, when contract was issued to the Alliant Techsystems Co of USA to study possibilities of development of kinetic energy part of the XM29 OICW weapon into separate lightweight assault rifle, which could, in the case of success, replace the aging M16A2 rifles and M4A1 carbines in US military service. According to the present plans, the XM8 should enter full production circa 2005, if not earlier, several years before the XM-29 OICW. The XM8 (M8 after its official adoption) should become a standard next generation US forces assault rifle. It will fire all standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition, and, to further decrease the load on the future infantrymen, a new type of 5.56mm ammunition is now being developed. This new ammunition will have composite cases, with brass bases and polymer walls, which will reduce weight of the complete ammunition, while maintaining compatibility with all 5.56mm NATO weapons. Along with 20% weight reduction in the XM8 (compared to the current issue M4A1 carbine), this will be a welcome move for any infantryman, already overloaded by protective, communications and other battle equipment.
The XM8 will be quite similar to the "KE" (kinetic energy) part of the XM-29 OICW system, being different mostly in having a telescoped plastic buttstock of adjustable length, and a detachable carrying handle with the Picatinny rail.
Technical description. The XM8 is a derivative of the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle, and thus it is almost similar to that rifle in design and functioning. The key differences are the NATO-standard magazine housing that will accept M16-type magazines, the set of Picatinny rails on the forend, telescoped buttstock of adjustable length and a different scope, mounted on the Picatinny rail, built into the detachable carrying handle.
Well, they're not quite indestructable. But they swim poorly. Unless you mean the little one....
I can do just fine with a semi, though. I never feel underarmed with a semiautomatic pistol.
Or even a good single shot.
I think you'll need to cite chapter and verse, my friend. JC Devine is offering a variety of Thompson submachine guns for auction, and has this note on their page:
CLASS III / NFA WEAPONS: In all transactions, all NFA rules and regulations will apply. Class III firearms may be purchased by private individuals in many, but not all states.
California is one state that prohibits possession of machine guns by non-LEOs. New Hampshire does not. You pay the $200 transfer tax, and get a federal background check, and then you can take delivery if your state allows it.
Obviously, the prices went to the heavens. And it means that no NEW full-autos will be sold. That, regrettably, includes the XM-8.
AKA the *280/30* of the British Number 9, Mark One service rifle, almost adopted by the Brits at the early midpoint of the Twentieth Century, but paassed over in favour of the 7,62mm NATO cartridge and L1A1 SLR instead. More info *here*.
It was designed to end the practice of converting a semi to a full in a LEGAL manner, and to end the sale of machine guns to civilians. Since so few gun owners were part of the full-auto community, no one cared.
Unintended consequences: it stifled profitable innovation and chained inventors who would have been (ala John Browning and John Garand) designing new weapons for the armed forces. One MORE reason why we still have the M-16 series after 40 years, and why the XM-8 is based on a GERMAN design.
There are a LOT of lessons for gun owners, there.
Not quite, it's based on the FN-Minimi, less the ability to accept M16 magazines, of course, not real practical with a 7,62 NATO caliber beltfed weapon. The Navy also dropped the M16 magazine backup feed requirement for their Mk 46 guns, simplifying the guns at least, with some potential improvement in reliability possible as well. It's one less hole for mud or sand to enter the weapon's receiver, at least.
About the only faults I found with the limited experience I have with the SS77 is that it's a bit heavy for a 5,56mm weapon, not surprisingly since it's based on a 7,62 gun as a basis; the Mk48 took the opposite approach. And it would be nice if the belt feed was interchangable from left to right, as with the M37 Browning and M73 tanker's co-axial guns, helpful for vehicular and twin-gun mountings.
It's my hope that future, second-generation bullpups will have either downward ejection or forward-thru-the-foreend expulsion of fired brass; ambidextrous in either event. And I've played with a top-mounted magazine for an AK that worked pretty well, after the fashion of the British Bren gun or Australian Diggers' beloved Owen guns. This allows large capacity magazines that don't drag in the dirt when prone, and make for fast magazine changes.
With today's penchant for electro-optical sights, a rail for sight units can be placed on both sides of the weapon and the sight unit mounted on either, per operator preference, with a backup iron sight unit going on the other side. Alternately, an auxilliary sight unit for a underbarrel grenade launcher can be fitted instead of either.
I'm working on it; have patience!<p. -archy-/-
The story as I remember it is they were to replace the SMLE with the pattern 14 Enfield and also the cartridge was to be a .280. This was around 1912. I think it was going to be a long and powerful one, more so than the 1950's era designs.
When WWI started they decided to remain with the old .303 and SMLE rather than try to switch in the middle of a war.
Why? Just because it "looks good?"
Well, I've carried the L85 on three occasions, once for a week-long exercise where I got pretty familiar with it, and once in a situation where it was quite possible that the targets would be shooting back. I found it quite reliable [the earliest Sterling-produced versions were said to be the worst] and genuinely liked the L86A1 LSW version.
Note that the complaints made by many British troops, particularly the Paras and Royal Marines, were not offered by the Gurkhas, who use their weaponry hard and to the limits of their design, but with meticulous maintenance and care, developed through empirical methods. I suspect the paras and Marines have been using lubricants not particularly compatable with the Marines salt-water environs and possibly the Paras exposure to cold at aircraft operational altitudes; less careful attention during night operations could make a difference too.
But the IW and LSW have always worked well for me, and the new H&K developed L85A2 version seems to have done even better in this most recent exercise for them in Iraq. I'll be hearing firsthand accounts shortly, but in any event, it seems they're no longer the troopies biggest gripe- that's now the new issue of boots they got, which performed pretty poorly, I hear.
-archy-/-
And if the weapon was manufactured and on the civilian market prior to May of 1986. (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that milsurp MG's not already on or intended for the open market at that date cannot be sold into civilian use regardless of date of manufacture. I can't afford one at todays prices anyway.)
the topic: PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN- What exactly does it mean?
Guest for the evening is Bill Murray of the Family Research Council
PLUS – A call from McClintock Campaign Headquarters!
When WWI started they decided to remain with the old .303 and SMLE rather than try to switch in the middle of a war.
Just so; and just as John Garand's first semiauto rifle design was a 10-shot version utilizing the .276 Pedersen cartridge. When Chief of Staff McArthur insisted that the exuisting stocks of .30 ammunition required that cartridge be used, Garand reworked the 10-shot magazine feed to an 8-shot .30-06. The rest is, as they say, history.
-archy-/-
I've got an M1A.. I have Springfields latest scope mount and one of their scopes but I have a real problem with it holding a zero. They say you can take it off and put it back on and it's supposed to hold but....
Any insight? Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.