XM-8: New U.S. Service Rifle?

Modern Firearms and Ammunition website ^ | unknown | Unknown

[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.

[archy]

Wow, and people call the AR ugly...

That XM-8 does remind me of something. If I could just place where I saw it....

[Long Cut]

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.

[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."

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!

[Woahhs]

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.

[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.

[Long Cut]

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.

[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."

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.

[El Gato]

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.

[The Scorpion King]

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.

[danneskjold]

oh no...

[Long Cut]

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.

[Long Cut]

Then those of us on the RIGHT side of the debate need to keep up the pressure, and NEVER shut up about it.

[PoorMuttly]

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.

[Long Cut]

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...

[SAMWolf]

Ping

[supercat]

" 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.

[Long Cut]

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.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Do me a favor, and ping the Canteen threads, willya? I'm kinda busy..."

PING!

Thanks Long Cut for posting this!

[El Gato]

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.