Skip to comments.
XM-8: New U.S. Service Rifle?
Modern Firearms and Ammunition website ^
| unknown
| Unknown
Posted on 08/07/2003 10:52:17 AM PDT by Long Cut
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 821-839 next last
To: The Scorpion King
No, because it uses a more robust and reliable (not to mention cleaner) operating system, reduces the weight, and adds the modular designs so preferred nowadays. Also, it uses HK's design, which is one of the best in the world.
If only it used a better cartridge, it'd be perfect. But I'm dreaming, there.
To: wysiwyg
Wow, and people call the AR ugly... That XM-8 does remind me of something. If I could just place where I saw it....
![](http://64.95.118.51/images/opti/00/59/1080606-movie-resized200.jpg)
![](http://assall.de/movie-prop/scifi/sf_45.jpg)
162
posted on
08/07/2003 6:50:53 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: archy
The Modern Firearms website has this to say about the L85A2:
While official reports about the upgraded weapons were glowing, the actual field reports from the British troops, engaged in the Afghanistan campaign of 2002, were again unsatisfactory. The future of the L85 rifle remains unclear but there's some rumor that it could be retired from British service around the year 2006, and replaced by another design (most probably, the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle).
Seems they're on the same, or similar, track we are.
To: Long Cut
"No, because it uses a more robust and reliable (not to mention cleaner) operating system, reduces the weight, and adds the modular designs so preferred nowadays. Also, it uses HK's design, which is one of the best in the world. If only it used a better cartridge, it'd be perfect. But I'm dreaming, there."
Yeah, you are dreaming there. The fact that the rifle is light weight is not necessarily a good thing. An Infantry weapon shouldn't fall apart in your hands if you have to apply the old "buttstroke to the head" maneuver!
To: Long Cut
However many hearts it would warm, we're not going back to full-powered battle rifles any time soon (or later!). We have to deal with what is, and that's the smaller calibers. Big bump there!
If you need a full size battle rifle, you should have called arty 15 minutes ago. Our soldiers don't take territory; the consolidate our hold on it. If you're not doing it that way...you're doing it wrong.
165
posted on
08/07/2003 6:58:37 PM PDT
by
Woahhs
To: The Scorpion King
To be fair, the M-16 wasn't the best tool for "bayonet and buttstock" fighting, either. Fact is, such fighting is simply not regarded as frequent enough to warrant consideration.
The last rifle that was actually useful for such fighting was the M-14, which will, like its contemporaries, remain in the past as far as infantry use goes.
To: Woahhs; The Scorpion King
Good point, Woahhs. most combat nowadays is done by artillery, missiles, and tanks. What's left is pounded by heavy machine guns and mortars, as well as air. That's exactly why the infantryman's personal weapon has recieved so little work over the years...the concentration has been on him not having to use it.
To: Long Cut
"To be fair, the M-16 wasn't the best tool for "bayonet and buttstock" fighting, either. Fact is, such fighting is simply not regarded as frequent enough to warrant consideration. The last rifle that was actually useful for such fighting was the M-14, which will, like its contemporaries, remain in the past as far as infantry use goes."
My Service Rifle was a true M-16 with a solid stock that had a steel plate on the end of it. I always figured that it would get the job done! However, I do see your point about the bayonet.
To: Long Cut
It'll sunset unless it becomes an issue in the election, which it will if we have some crazed shooting massacre just before it. Which based on historical precedence, you can pretty well count on. There *will* be some incident that the gun grabbers in the media can hype and pontificate over, although if it will really deserve the term "massacure" is really beside the point.
169
posted on
08/07/2003 7:15:49 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: Long Cut
Wait until we get into another Vietnam type jungle war. Our boys will pay the price for all of the emphasis on "high tech" rifles. The enemy will no doubt be using older rifles that were designed to take care of the business at hand.
To: Harold Hill
oh no...
To: The Scorpion King
Hell, in a jungle fight, give me a .45 ACP submachine gun, UMP-45 style, and a LOT of napalm.
In any case, the XM-8 appears very conventional in design, if one simply removes all the electronic geegaws. it's still a gas-operated automatic magazine-fed rifle, just more robust and reliable than its predecessor. Don't forget, polymer won't decay in a wet, humid environment like the M16's aluminum would.
To: El Gato
Then those of us on the RIGHT side of the debate need to keep up the pressure, and NEVER shut up about it.
To: Woahhs
Yes, I am sure that greater case capacity is certainly important...but I was only addressing the bullet design. I think more case capacity would vastly improve effectiveness, but so would better chemistry, and/or switching to a larger diameter bullet. I just don't forsee our military changing our ammo that much, unfortunately, and so it would seem that improving interior ballistics is the way to go. Making the barrel shorter will only decrease performance, if not compensated for elsewhere.
174
posted on
08/07/2003 7:44:33 PM PDT
by
PoorMuttly
("Will bite people for guns")
To: SAMWolf; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; dansangel; .45MAN
Bump. Thought y'all'd be interested, on a "support the troops" level.
Do me afavor, and ping the Canteen threads, willya? I'm kinda busy...
To: snippy_about_it; AntiJen; Darksheare; The Real Deal; SpookBrat; Victoria Delsoul; souris; ...
Ping
176
posted on
08/07/2003 8:28:17 PM PDT
by
SAMWolf
(Drop the vase and it will become a Ming of the past.)
To: Long Cut; jjm2111
" thank God they didn't pick a bullpup..." Agreed! I despise the things.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with a bull-pup if it's well-designed? It would seem that it provides a longer barrel than a conventionally-designed firearm with an identical trigger-to-muzzle length. To be sure, a lot of bull-pup designs I've seen seem somewhat awkward, but I'd think it should be possible to design one that wasn't too bad.
177
posted on
08/07/2003 8:29:51 PM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: supercat
Personal opinion only, on my part. I find them the UGLIEST firearms ever designed.
That, and the ejection pattern problems have never been satisfactorily adressed, and the balance of them feels...odd to me.
To: Long Cut; Kathy in Alaska; MoJo2001; LindaSOG; LaDivaLoca; bentfeather; Bethbg79; Iowa Granny; ...
"Do me a favor, and ping the Canteen threads, willya? I'm kinda busy..."
PING!
Thanks Long Cut for posting this!
To: mvpel
I believe that, with the passage of the Volkmer-McLure act of '86, that no further full autos can be offered to civilians for sale. Pity, that. No full autos manufactured after passage, existing guns can be still be transferred to citizens, with Uncle Sugars permission of course and with payment of the transfer tax.
The chapter and verse is pretty short US Code Title 18 section 922 (o)
(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2)
This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A)
a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B)
any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
The law took effect May 19, 1986. Now while it would seem any gun transferred via the Tax Stamp process would be "under the authority of the United States", but that is not what the author of those line intended when he inserted them at the last minute (almost literally) into the bill that became the law, and that is also not how the BATFE and the courts are interpreting them.
180
posted on
08/07/2003 8:40:51 PM PDT
by
El Gato
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 821-839 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson