17 Soldier driven changes to XM-8 outlined in "Army Times"
- Thread starter Bobarino
- Start date
- Status
Andrew Wyatt
Member
Modularity is the presence of user changeable modules in significant numbers.
As it stands right now, the XM8 only has user replaceable handguards and a sight rail on it which may or may not be compatible with anything but the xm8 sight (and pcaps, which doesn't fit anything right now)
the m16 has user replaceable uppers(which can be replaced without tools), user replaceable PG, user replaceable buttstocks, and user replaceable handguards.
I'm not even counting the flat top versions of the m-16, or the ones with the various sorts of RIS/RAS.
and since those parts are replaceable, they can be fixed if they break or wear out.
As it stands right now, the XM8 only has user replaceable handguards and a sight rail on it which may or may not be compatible with anything but the xm8 sight (and pcaps, which doesn't fit anything right now)
the m16 has user replaceable uppers(which can be replaced without tools), user replaceable PG, user replaceable buttstocks, and user replaceable handguards.
I'm not even counting the flat top versions of the m-16, or the ones with the various sorts of RIS/RAS.
and since those parts are replaceable, they can be fixed if they break or wear out.
sumpnz:
Grendel Testing I assumed the use of TF, being a link in my profile would be sufficient, guess not. In summary of the remainder of the "lingo" the 6.5 Grendel terminal performance testing did not go so well.
A long neck in a fragmenting military style bullet increases the odds that the bullet will fully penetrate before it begins to do significant damage, resulting in damage that is similar to that of a .22LR. Very clean in and out small diameter hole.
The "neck" here is more than 10cm and less than 15cm.
The "neck" here is at least 15cm, and less than 20cm.
************************
Glad to hear that the XM8 isn't getting too much heavier, I would like confirmation however, that it will not be a 5.56mm rifle.
PAC762:
The XM8 should be cheaper than the M16/M4, lighter in weight, and more reliable.
If it uses the 6.8SPC cartridge, the weapon will not suffer from the poor terminal performance of the 5.56mm cartridge in the short barreled M4 since the 6.8SPC was designed around shorter barrels, and performs very well in them.
While the lighter weight, and greater reliability would be a plus, they would not IMHO justify the: hassle, expense, etc. without the upgrade in cartridge as well.
-Morgan
Grendel Testing I assumed the use of TF, being a link in my profile would be sufficient, guess not. In summary of the remainder of the "lingo" the 6.5 Grendel terminal performance testing did not go so well.
A long neck in a fragmenting military style bullet increases the odds that the bullet will fully penetrate before it begins to do significant damage, resulting in damage that is similar to that of a .22LR. Very clean in and out small diameter hole.
The "neck" here is more than 10cm and less than 15cm.
The "neck" here is at least 15cm, and less than 20cm.
************************
Glad to hear that the XM8 isn't getting too much heavier, I would like confirmation however, that it will not be a 5.56mm rifle.
PAC762:
The XM8 should be cheaper than the M16/M4, lighter in weight, and more reliable.
If it uses the 6.8SPC cartridge, the weapon will not suffer from the poor terminal performance of the 5.56mm cartridge in the short barreled M4 since the 6.8SPC was designed around shorter barrels, and performs very well in them.
While the lighter weight, and greater reliability would be a plus, they would not IMHO justify the: hassle, expense, etc. without the upgrade in cartridge as well.
-Morgan
sumpnz
Member
Didn't look at your sig line. Thought that was what you meant by neck but wasn't to sure. However, wouldn't it be possible to design a bullet for more rapid yaw and fragmentation than the current Lapua FMJBT? Bullet construction, it seems to me, would be pretty vital to the performance, and a little bit of engineering should be able to solve that issue (something that I think should be done anyway so as to optimize performance for any military bullet). Besides, the 5-7" neck sure seems comperable to the 7.62 NATO in your illustration below (15cm=~6"). Get a bullet that will yaw faster and fragment reliably and it would seem to me to be a pretty good solution.
This is a response to my post about the XM-8 on TacticalForums.com from Jeff White, a moderator. He makes a good point about the lawsuits.
"Congress recently diverted funding for the XM8 into other funds topay for the war in Iraq.
Will it be our next service rifle? Who knows? I predict that Colts, FN and any other manufacturer who's rifle wasn't considered will sue the Army and delay adoption or maybe even kill the program.
Army Times is a civilan publication and nothing you read in it can be considered official information unless directly quoted from an official source. The quality of the writing has gone downhill and the editorial tone has taken a sharp turn left ever since Gannet Publications bought the Times newspapers."-Jeff White
"Congress recently diverted funding for the XM8 into other funds topay for the war in Iraq.
Will it be our next service rifle? Who knows? I predict that Colts, FN and any other manufacturer who's rifle wasn't considered will sue the Army and delay adoption or maybe even kill the program.
Army Times is a civilan publication and nothing you read in it can be considered official information unless directly quoted from an official source. The quality of the writing has gone downhill and the editorial tone has taken a sharp turn left ever since Gannet Publications bought the Times newspapers."-Jeff White
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
