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

Modern Firearms and Ammunition website ^ | unknown | Unknown

[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.

[Long Cut]

Well, we did fine in WWII with a full-sized rifle, a carbine, and several submachine guns. I don't know where the whole "jack of all trades, master of none" concept came from, but it seems here to stay.

Perfect world, IMHO, we use a .243 combat rifle, with a short-barreled carbine version available, paired with a .45 ACP submachine gun. Keep a stock of .223 rifles for such times when they are useful.

[Long Cut]

" thank God they didn't pick a bullpup..."

Agreed! I despise the things.

[Gorjus]

We definitely need something bigger than .223

Why? Everyone likes to be an expert - and is sure they know better than those who are real experts in modern combat. But what's your basis for claiming your opinion is superior to those experts?

If weight were no object, then give everyone a 20mm and a couple of thousand rounds for it. But weight is an issue, a very, very important issue.

It's not a valid option just to choose a bigger round. Would you give up 2/3 of your rounds? (Weight trade vs. .308 and similar-case rounds). Would you give up the night vision equipment? Or the batteries for them? Or water? Or the flak vest? Or the helmet?

Just what would you give up in return for whatever benefit you gain with a bigger round? Remember, in a military situation, rendering an enemy combat ineffective is all that you need. In fact, it's better to wound than to kill, if the enemy is willing to take care of his wounded. A wounded soldier (that is cared for, and not just left to die) takes three men out of combat.

But most of all, hitting a bad guy with a .223 round you do have is lots better than waiting for him to get close enough to whack with your heavy - and empty - .308 (.243 / 7mm-08 / .30-06 / 20mm) rifle.

[harpseal]

I think we need to find out how it operates in all ckinds of envirornments. Since it will fire 5.56 X 45 mm Nato thereis no change in cartridge. Other than that it seems very similar to the M16 in overall appearance and finction from jsut reading the specs.

I ahve not yet fired one so I can have no opinion on it as reggards accuracy and reliability.

[Long Cut]

"That's why I wouldn't buy an American car on a dare!"

I don't know...I bought this one, and it's been a gem!

They can still do wonders, so long as the CONCENTRATE on what they do best, and Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!

[Ford Fairlane]

Why? Everyone likes to be an expert

Umm... I am an expert

I've probably built more firearms of all kinds than most of the people here have shot, and many of them were done for the military, and I was involved in weapons testing for the military on small arms & crew served weapons, so I think that probably makes me an expert

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it

[Long Cut]

Fingers crossed for the Sunset...

Watch prices drop, mag capacity get normal, and innovation explode!

[Woahhs]

Has it gone 89,000 miles with zero mechanical failures like my (bottom of the line) Echo? (WEG)

I have logged over half a million miles on 4 Toyotas, and the sum total of mechanical failures has been one thermostat.

[yarddog]

The word "expert" has come to be used in something of a pejorative way. For what it is worth I have seen enough postings by several people on FR that I would rate them as experts whatever that means.

The interesting thing to me is that two true experts will often disagree. I remember when I lived in Western Kansas, there was a great mehchanic who loved Chevy's and hated Fords. Yet in my hometown the best Mechanic around was a Ford man totally.

[Long Cut]

No, it's only a 2001 model. However, it's gone 40,000 miles, most of them at speeds exceeding the posted limits, with not even a leak in the T-tops. The motor still looks brand-new, and gets 350 horses at the flywheel.

It also handles like it was glued to the road.

[Sparta]

ping

[Sparta]

My own opinion is that it needs only some good iron sights and possibly an option to change the cartridge to .243 Winchester or .260.

I agree.

[Woahhs]

Be still my beating heart!

There is nothing I would like better than being able to send my bucks to Detroit rather than Osaka. I've never been able to come to grips with the concept of guys who can build cars on the other side of the globe kicking the pants out of our own...and I'm union!

I'm not convinced, but my antenna will be up now.

[PoorMuttly]

Muttly like...in theory, but sure looks like barrel is too short to take the .223 out of the groundhog-hunting category and into the war-winning one. That little bullet needs velocity to do its best, but unless we improve the interior ballistics...this barrel length is an advance to the rear.

I'd like our troops to be armed with the most ferocious weapons our money and technology can buy. A short-barreled .22 just cannot be it...so far. Let the Adventure continue...and may our warriors get the best equipment on Earth.

[Drammach]

Left handed?

Check out the Beretta CX4 "Storm".

(American Rifleman July 2003)

"The CX4 is a model of modularity not only in its ability to reverse parts, but in its manufacture as well. Fieldstripping for cleaning or changing over to left handed operation can be accomplished in seconds."

[Ford Fairlane]

thats sort of like arguing over who's .300 magnum is better - they all get the job done, but everyone has their preference

[Woahhs]

A short-barreled .22 just cannot be it...

Huh?! They don't call the 5.45 Russian the "poison bullet" for nothing. Even the Muj are affraid of that round.

We got zero from the arabs. Why can't we get bullets from the Russians?

[bc2]

[PoorMuttly]

They call it that because it has an air pocket at the tip, causing it to be wildly unstable after it hits virtually anything. OUR bullet needs a LOT of velocity do perform the same trick, but is a better all-around performer in every other circumstance. Our bullet is still incorrectly known (suprisingly, by vets and LEOs) for "tumbling through the air, so it goes in one place, and comes out the other." Well, if it tumbled in flight, you couldn't aim it anywhere it would eventually hit. It keyholes upon impact...and this can sometimes be seen even on paper targets, if the velocity is high enough. It's too short, with not enough weight and mass up front. Larger bullets of these dimensions are never used for deep, straight penetration on big game, for the same reason. They are nasty little numbers, that when launched at very high speed, do a lot of nasty...not particularly directional damage.

CAR's have been reported to cause the dreaded "Failure to Stop" nightmare, which no American soldier should be put into a position to ever experience, because of questionable equipment. Barrel length for the load, that's all.