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.
----------------------
As I said, I test firearms and ammunition. A carbine slub can petrate 10 inches of pine with no problem. I also test penetration on the steel of pick-up truck wheels. 41 and 44 magnums will push their way through 1/8 inch steel leaving a dent around the hole. A carbine melts its way through before the steel has a chance to dent.
It's difficult for me to believe a carbine shot wouldn't penetrate clothing.
Many people don't understand what it takes to kill. When I was in the army the old sergeants used to remark when you hit someone with a lethal shot, they don't go down immediately. The carbine or even the 30-06 or .308 leaves a clean wound in military ammunition dure to the Geneva Convention. Hitting a man in the foreward midline with a carbine would probably blow out his spine and bring him down immediately. A side gut shot or lung shot would be lethal, but not before he attacked another 50 or 100 yards and fell. The average solder who sees his buddy die during that interval assumes the enemy isn't being hit.
As sighted, the carbine has an effective distance of 125 yards. There are quick sight adjustments on the weapont for greater distances. Not one soldier in 10 was trained to use those adjustments.
The 30-06 and 308 are a different matter. At 300 yards the slug is just getting started. On Fort Leonard Wood trainfire, before most people here were born, I hit 46 out of 48 lethal shots at 300 yards with a Garand. That was the limit of my eyesight with partially corrected glasses. Anything 300 yards away takes a bullet. Basically, If I cans see it, it's in big trouble. Whether the targe runs another 50 or 100 yards after being hit is inconsequential at that range. Right now we don't have a widely distributed service rifle that can do that. If a Garand or M14 were scoped, nothing survives at 500 yards. Yes, I know they are not designed to be scoped.
I would have been in favor of taking the carbine design, lengthening the cartrige by 1/8 inch, using 1/16 inch more lead and a more powerful charge.
Once I had an Argentine 1909 Mauser,(it was unfired when I got it) and my Nephew and I went to a large clay pit to do some plinking with it. We found a 10 gallon can partly full fo tar. My Nephew put it against the bank and stepped the distance as slightly over 400 paces.
I was fairly sure I could hit it as the sights were just about right on at that distance. The thing which really did surprise me is my Nephew who is not a serious shooter also hit it most of the time.
Stay Safe Ya'll !!
It seems to me that about five years ago, the gunshows in Dallas were selling Enfields that looked like the Jungle Carbine in .308. I was interested at the time but the short barrel bothered me since it was a .308. I know about muzzle blasts from shorties.
Yep, though the original funnel-type flashhider of the #5 Enfield *Jungle Carbine* had no compensator slots cut in it and included an attachment for a bayonet. The short barrel is less of a problem than you might think in the original .303 chambering, which is not surprisingly the better way to go with an Enfield, and problems with muzzle blast can be cured by reloading for the .303 with the 125-grain .311-.312 bullets meant for the AK47; those little hollowpoints that don't expand at the velocities reachable from an AKs 16-inch barrel are a lot more impressive when pushed a bit faster from an Enfield...or Mosin Nagant. Happily, the *real* original #5 carbines were based on the superb #4 Enfield action and barrel, and the adjustable iron sights meant for a #4 Enfield, or a scope mount for one [which can be home-built for under $10.00] can be easily used on the #5 carbine as well.
In the early 1950s when it looked like the EM-2 rifle would be adopted and issued as the Service Rifle Number Nine, it was proposed that second-line troops be equipped with the leftover WWII Number Four rifles, rebuilt to the *Jungle Carbine* configuration. Happily that did not come about, and Nuimber Fours are still available in fine condition for around $100 each, a swell bargain. And those after a shorty carbine can go for one of the Number Five carbines, my old companion in bear country when I wasn't packing a shotgun with slugs.
-archy-/-
Well, thanks gents, a valiant effort. At least I know what to look for... and what don't work.
I have not personally tried the fulton Armory version myself. Hope ya can locate a brookfield. I almost had ya one but had to go to work and got out bid by a few duckets. Sorry Crunch, I'll keep my eye out for one for ya.
Stay Safe !
I will add a few thoughts about the infantry rifle.
1. It should be "chimp proof". That is you should be able to give it to a chimpanzee and come back 6 months later and it should still work.
This is not a popular position on most weapons threads, but I will take a weapon that fires every time I pull the trigger, no matter what, over any other.
2. It must have 'knockdown' power. If it does not stop the enemy with one shot, I'd rather have a sword.
3. Accuracy. It may seem from points 1 and 2 that I don't care about accuracy. I assure you that I do care. If you can't hit what you are shooting at it is time to surrender.
Add your own requirements.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with these specific products, Cap'n, although I have dealt with Fulton's M1-guru Walt Kuleck a few times in the past. From my experience with Fulton on other matters and their rep in general, it would be safe to say that anything from them would be top-notch, and work exactly as claimed. And check the warranty/garuantee, of course!
That may be, but your ability to engage targets at range and during periods of limited visibility is inferior to a rifleman with proper optics.
A good shooter with optics will engage targets faster, further out and with greater accuracy than a good shooter without optics. Nothing wrong with irons, but durable, reliable optics provide a significant advantage, especially when combined with thermal or IR imaging capability for night/all weather target acquisition.
5.56mm is the caliber of choice for the time being - bullet weights may change, the 77gr SMK being the current de riguer fad, but for the majority of rifleman the 62gr M855 is perfectly adequate for its intended use.
It's easy to nitpick 5.56mm in isolation, but EVERY western army has adopted that caliber, NATO and Non-NATO alike - it's superiority over 30cal battle rifles is proven, specifically, the average rifleman gets better hits, faster, with 5.56mm than 7.62mm.
Only hits count. Training helps, but there are limits to how much time soldiers can spend on the range - we can't train every infantryman to handle battle rifles effectively.
And for those of you out there thinking you can run your 308 FAL, HK or M1A with an AR, good luck.
In combat, speed counts as much as accuracy, and shooters of equal ability will get better hits, faster, with a 556 than with 762. Always, always, always.
Infantry combat is NOT about patient long range rifle fire - it's about getting there first, with the most, and lightweight 5.56mm rifles like the M16 series are superior tools for that task.
Do what? Unclear on your point.
The 20" M16A2 can certainly engage targets with iron sights to 500m effectively.
The 14.5" M4 SOPMOD/MWS with ACOG optic, or irons, is effective to at least 400m.
Since the overwhelming majority of infantry RIFLE engagements are under 200m, whether a rifleman can hit a large, exposed stationary target at 600m is mostly irrelevant.
Certainly, beyond 500m, 556mm has lost it's effectiveness, but inside 500m it performs quite well regardless of bullet weight, especially when fired from a 20" barrel.
In humid weather, the caseless cartridges would bulge from the moisture and either get smushed or fail to chamber. The magazines full of caseless ammo could not be submerged in water for any length of time.
The biggest problem was out of battery detonations. Designers of caseless cartridges seem to fail to take into account how much transient chamber heat is removed from the chamber by the ejected brass case. With caseless rifles, the heat stays put.
The G-11's weren't exploding after extended rapid fire, though... the cartridges just went up in a big bright fizz like a 'safe and sane' firework when the shellac'ed cartridge met the red hot chamber walls. They had a lot of 'runaway guns', I heard.
I believe that Hk has completely given up on exploring caseless ammunition firearms. So has everyone else, it seems.
It's not a total loss. The Hk designers' research did lead to the invention of the boneless chicken patty.
I actually got to play with the prototype of this thing a year or so ago. It is very awkward to handle, and weighs way too much for anything I'd care to carry. Although they have an objective weight of 5.5 kg or so, I don't think it's even close to making that weight. Same objections as most of the other folks on the thread concerning sights and electronics. Even in the lab, some of the electronics, software, and other stuff that this and the helmet sighting system require is really iffy. There are also what I would consider to be major usability issues in terms of soldiers attention being distracted by electronics and alerts at critical times
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.