That XM-8 does remind me of something. If I could just place where I saw it....
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.
If only it used a better cartridge, it'd be perfect. But I'm dreaming, there.
That XM-8 does remind me of something. If I could just place where I saw it....
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do me afavor, and ping the Canteen threads, willya? I'm kinda busy...
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.
That, and the ejection pattern problems have never been satisfactorily adressed, and the balance of them feels...odd to me.
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.
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.