Jump to content


Photo

Future Of Warfare

Liberals beware

13 replies to this topic

#1 Shotty Master

Shotty Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts
  • Location:louisville, Kentucky

Posted 07 August 2005 - 02:24 PM

Future warrior



XM8 Assault rifle
XM8, the next generation rifle that will replace the M4/M16 family hopefully by 2006. Will be the main portion of the OICW battle rifle when the research on the OICW is complete.

Heres some images to go with them:

Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 0

#2 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 03:46 PM

While the picture is nice, it doesn't seem like there's anything new about this gun. The Heckler and Koch G3 rifle (the company that's also developing this) also has carbine, machine gun, and sharpshooter variants. The only big difference the article details is the use of a gas-action piston instead of a direct gas blowback setup used in the M16. I'm pretty sure that's been used in other guns before.

I'm just interested as to what makes it so much better than the M16, other than looking futuristic. Oh yeah, and your topic subtitle is stupid.
  • 0

#3 flamebo388

flamebo388

    Member

  • Members
  • 277 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:07 PM

Lighter and more reliable, it says so in the picture. Also, I read that the oicw was split up into the xm8 and the xm25 grenade launcher because they couldn't meet weight requirments, I read that here.
  • 0
And as everyone knows, money makes the world go round. It's also the root of all evil, therefore the world going round is evil, and we should stop the rotation of the planet.

#4 pinhead52

pinhead52

    Member

  • Members
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Near water.
  • State:Georgia
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:25 PM

The M16 is famous for jamming if it isn't cleaned religiously, so they might try to solve that problem with this. It also looks like the pieces lock together with toy-like simplicity, allowing for easier field stripping.
  • 0

#5 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:47 PM

There are new vests to replace the Kevlar, if you get PS or PM, you've read about it. It's like liquid filled, so while it's still somewhat heavy, it's lighter, and more flexible. But when something fast impacts it, it instantly becomes impenetrable at that spot.

I like the carbine idea; I bet soldiers will love a lighter gun.
  • 0
Indiana '11

#6 Shotty Master

Shotty Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts
  • Location:louisville, Kentucky

Posted 07 August 2005 - 05:21 PM

Merlinsky, if you had ever held an M-16 and fired one, youd know 2 things:

A. The recoil on this gun is lower, and reduced more by shock absorbers in the butt.

B. this gun is about 3 pounds lighter, which sounds small, but when youre holding it for 14 straight hours, getting shot at, and firing back, your arms will get tired. They wont so much with this gun.

The other new feature is the fact that it can be completely refitted from one setup to another in 10 minutes flat. thats no exaggeration either. The gun is desighned to be able to be put together by a soldier fresh out of bootcamp in about 15. Plus, instead of macking x ammount of machine gun models, x ammount of loser rifles, and x ammount of carbines, you can make Y ammount of the XM8 and have all of them.
Another thing that makes this MUCH better than the M16 is the overall desighn of the firing mech. the M8 is very reliable and does not jam nearly as much as the M16 does.

Hope i cleared that up Merlinsky.

PS: the reason for the subtitle is so that we dont get a bunch of anti military, anti gun people in here destroying the topic.
  • 0

#7 The Infinite Shindig

The Infinite Shindig

    Arma-what-now?

  • Contributors
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:16 PM

Any idea on how much that shit is going to cost to outfit the entire US armed forces? I scanned the articles, and I couldn't find it.
  • 0
Shindig of the Lawn Chair Mafia

<a href="http://www.albinobla.../flash/posting" target="_blank">Posting and You</a>

#8 NinjZ

NinjZ

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:jersey

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:21 PM

I'm almost posative, that the price will also be cheaper since most fo the body is plastics.

Wasnt thing thing supposed ot be equiped with a special grenade launcher that could be told to explode at certain ranges?
  • 0

#9 Shotty Master

Shotty Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts
  • Location:louisville, Kentucky

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:35 PM

that was part of the OICW. the XM8 is the lower half of the OICW. the upper half is still being developed. The OICW project as a whole was scrapped because of cost, however the parts will be researched individually. The 20mm grenade launcher should be ready in about 5-10 years. there IS however a new grenade launcher, the M320, to replace the M203 that is currently in use. The Xm8 can also use the LSS 12ga. Underbarrel Shotgun. Hope that cleard that up Ninjz

Edited by Shotty_Master, 07 August 2005 - 06:39 PM.

  • 0

#10 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 07:05 PM

Merlinsky, if you had ever held an M-16 and fired one, youd know 2 things:

A. The recoil on this gun is lower, and reduced more by shock absorbers in the butt.

B. this gun is about 3 pounds lighter, which sounds small, but when youre holding it for 14 straight hours, getting shot at, and firing back, your arms will get tired. They wont so much with this gun.

Because you've held and fired an M-16 and one of these and you're here to tell us about it, right? How do they compare? Which cost more? Did you find that it was easier to hit liberals with one or the other? Thanks for the info!
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#11 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 08:02 PM

Merlinsky, if you had ever held an M-16 and fired one, youd know 2 things:

A. The recoil on this gun is lower, and reduced more by shock absorbers in the butt.

B. this gun is about 3 pounds lighter, which sounds small, but when youre holding it for 14 straight hours, getting shot at, and firing back, your arms will get tired. They wont so much with this gun.

The other new feature is the fact that it can be completely refitted from one setup to another in 10 minutes flat. thats no exaggeration either. The gun is desighned to be able to be put together by a soldier fresh out of bootcamp in about 15. Plus, instead of macking x ammount of machine gun models, x ammount of loser rifles, and x ammount of carbines, you can make Y ammount of the XM8 and have all of them.
Another thing that makes this MUCH better than the M16 is the overall desighn of the firing mech. the M8 is very reliable and does not jam nearly as much as the M16 does.

Hope i cleared that up Merlinsky.

PS: the reason for the subtitle is so that we dont get a bunch of anti military, anti gun people in here destroying the topic.

How would firing an M-16 tell me that this gun has less recoil? If anything it'd probably have more, considering that the gas can't exhaust back into the chamber.

Boltsniper replied to your topic on NHQ and seemed to confirm my thoughts, I'd like to see what he thinks of this, considering that he probably has the most experience out of any of us with the M-16/AR-15 design.
  • 0

#12 Kuhlschrank

Kuhlschrank

    Member

  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 11:40 PM

Any idea on how much that shit is going to cost to outfit the entire US armed forces?  I scanned the articles, and I couldn't find it.

The unit cost of the XM8 will be less than that of the current M4 Carbine


Paul, they won't need to immediately replace all the M16's/M4's with M8's, they will just replace them as each rifle reaches the end of its lifespan, rather than giving them a new M16/M4.

Edited by Kuhlschrank, 07 August 2005 - 11:41 PM.

  • 0
+Kuhlschrank+ of the ~Lawnchair Mafia~

#13 Warlock

Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 08 August 2005 - 03:05 AM

Although that XM-8 gives me a boner, I'm sure as hell going to miss the M-4. :blush:
  • 0
~§~ Warlock ~§~ Of the Lawn Chair Mafia ~§~

"It's so hard to be a fighter when your hands are always tied"
~"Seņor Limpio" by Corrosion Of Conformity

Metal Gear?!

#14 boltsniper

boltsniper

    Member

  • Contributors
  • 591 posts

Posted 08 August 2005 - 11:19 AM

It really sucks that the AR15 still has this stereotype of being plagued with jams. That whole bad rap comes from the the first ammo issued and not the first rifles. Armalite specififed which powder should be used to minimize fouling but the ammo manufacturers did not listen and used standard powder for the early 5.56 rounds. The first M16 toting soldiere did have jamming problems using this ammo, but the ammo was quickly switched for the correct powder and each rifle was issued with a cleaning kit. The media ate the whole thing up though and its been a M16 sterotype ever since.

True the action does get nasty but it does not impair the performance of the rifle. It would take thousands of rounds to jam an AR15 due to following. I have personally run over a thousand rounds though one of my rifles just to see how bad it got. It never did jam or fail to lock into battery.

As I said before the XM8 is nothing more than a G36 in a new case. That action is exactly the same. I love the G36 and if I could afford one I would own one. The G36 makes a great specops weapon but I and many beleive that it is just too fragile for a GI weapon. It seems that they have beefed up the case for the XM8 to maybe try and account for that.

The G36/XM8 use a short stroke gas piston keeping the gases out of the action which is where they aremaking their claim of increased reliability. The AR15 was and still is a revolutionary design because it uses no gas piston. That gas is directed back into the action and acts on the bolt carrier directly. There is not need for a piston which reduces moving parts and reduce mass in motion out of line with the barrel. The action spring is located in the buttstock and is also in line with the barrel. It is this straight line design that makes the AR15 so inherently accurate.

I own AR15's and have fired a G36c. Comparing the M4 to the G36c, the HK is a little lighter, but because of that the recoil is a little more pronounced. The recoil of 5.56 is negligible anyway but to answer the question from above about recoil.

The HK design allows for quick dtachable barrels. The AR15 design does not have a quick detachable barrel but you can very quickly swap out one upper for another. IT is hard to beat the modularity and customization ability of the AR15 design.

Addressing the weight issue, I plain M16A2 with a small optic mounted weighs about 8 pounds. My M4 loaded with crap weighs about 12 pounds. There are currently carbon reinforced polymer AR15 recievers on the market that will make a very light rifle and jsut as strong.

Anyway, the XM8 is on the back burner, right next to the 6.8SPC, right now. Many orginizations of the military have already signed contracts to continue to use the AR15.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users