I've a vehicle question:
Why don't they use half-tracks anymore?
What good were these half-tracks in the first place?
Why don't they use half-tracks anymore?
What good were these half-tracks in the first place?
Unofficial technical weapon question forum.
- Thread starter Scythe
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Because they suck. 
In my understanding they wanted to bring the advantages of a tracked vehicle - mainly good traction - to the overall lighter construction and high road mobility of a weeled vehicle. It filled the gap until weeled vehicle technology and design advanced far enough to make the whole concept obsolete. It has only a fraction of the advantages of each design but essentially all their disadvantages.
As the name indicates, it's half-assed, and half-assed never cuts it.
In my understanding they wanted to bring the advantages of a tracked vehicle - mainly good traction - to the overall lighter construction and high road mobility of a weeled vehicle. It filled the gap until weeled vehicle technology and design advanced far enough to make the whole concept obsolete. It has only a fraction of the advantages of each design but essentially all their disadvantages.
As the name indicates, it's half-assed, and half-assed never cuts it.
I've got a question: what disadvantage do extended clips (eg C-MAGs or the russian drum clips) have? ie why aren't all the armies of the would equipped with them?
And why the hell do you have the option of using AKMSU clips in INF when there's drum clips?
Halftracks may have been flawed, but I reckon they looked pretty cool, like a truck with a bit of tank in it
And why the hell do you have the option of using AKMSU clips in INF when there's drum clips?
Halftracks may have been flawed, but I reckon they looked pretty cool, like a truck with a bit of tank in it
They're called magazines and besides their weight and bulk, apparently Beta C magazines aren't very reliable from what I've heard.
C-Mag... doesnt that have lots of excess moving parts in it (some sort or rotors to get the bullets out)
Probably the russians got a less mechanical approach for that, but it stays a heavy thing...
Probably the russians got a less mechanical approach for that, but it stays a heavy thing...
In addition to weight and reliability problems with Beta C and other super high capacity magazines, you also have problems with heat build-up from a sustained rate of fire ... even a quick reload will allow the gun to cool a little bit.
I've saw a video a while back of a guy actualy melting the barrel of an AK47 by shooting an entire drum magazine as fast as he could pull the trigger.
I've saw a video a while back of a guy actualy melting the barrel of an AK47 by shooting an entire drum magazine as fast as he could pull the trigger.
Hey, how does the Soviet 5.45mm round compair to 5.56mm NATO? Obviously, the charge is shorter, so I assume there's less power and penetration in the 5.45. Is there also much less recoil? That would make sense considering that the Russians don't really have SMGs, and just opt to use super-short AK74's instead.
And how does the 5.54 compair to the 7.62 Soviet? Does it actually have more penetration and velocity because of how small/light it is in comparison to the heavy 7.62 round?
And how does the 5.54 compair to the 7.62 Soviet? Does it actually have more penetration and velocity because of how small/light it is in comparison to the heavy 7.62 round?
To bust some common misconceptions:
The "gangsta-style" practice of firing the pistol sideways was first used by Law Enforcement. Why? It is the only effective way to fire around a ballistic shield.
The FN Five Seven IS available to civilians and individual LEOs in the US, but only with a 10 round magazine. FN dealers cannot sell to these people, but down-the-line distributors can. I know, I almost paid the $1500 for the POS. The ballistics SUCK, btw. Anyhow, the ammo is also available with a lead core, so civilians can own that also. I think www.cmmginc.com has more info on their site somewhere.
Stopping power has no basis in reality. Shot placement, bullet design, bullet mass, and velocity are all that matter. The 5.45x39 performs very well agains soft tissue, and is mediocre in hard armor. Well, the 7N6 does, at least. The 7N22 is the polar opposite. Great penetration on hard targets, but the soft tissue disruption isn't all that grand. 5.56 M193 and M855 info can be found here: www.ammo-oracle.com .
AFAIK, 210 rounds is considered cookoff area. The Beta CMAG is a useless, heavy, unreliable hunk of crap. Drop one that's loaded and watch the yoke break. Even the new "improved" versions do it.
The new JORD SCAR program has a solicitation for a 60 round quad stack mag, and a new "improved" replacement for the old aluminum USGI mags.
The PBS family of suppressors are for use on the AK-47, AKM, AK-74, and AK-100 series weapons.
BATFE considers a silencer and suppressor to be the same, but they never have a practical definition of anything. The way I always understood it, a suppressor quiets a supersonic round by turning the sound into heat. A suppressor always INCREASES the muzzle velocity. A silencer decreases muzzle velocity, most of the time making the fired round subsonic. Example: KAC M4 QD= Suppressor, KAC MP5SD can= Silencer
And while I'm at it, the AKMSU doesn't exist. Well, at least the INF version is not in use, and never has been, by any military, ever. There is no such thing as a side-folding Bulgarian short AK in 7.62. All Bulgarian 7.62 rifles are AK47 pattern, as are their 5.56 rifles. What does that mean? They use underfolders andhave a milled receiver. Bulgaria never manufactured a bakelite magazine, although Russia did make millions of the things. The Russian Bakelite AKM mag was produced almost as long as the Steel AKM mag. If anyone wants proof, I can dig up the Arsenal Kazalnak webpage. The INF AKMSU came from the KVAR "Krinkov" thing. Vartan (the owner of the company) imported the parts kits originally sans trunion and stock, so they could be used on AKM's.
Now I have a question...
Why in the HELL would the US Army want to adopt the XM8 over the M4/M16 family? The M4/M16 is WAY more rugged (if XM8 follows the G36 pattern of breaking stocks, having the optics fail, and having wandering zero on the optics, as well as melting the receiver around the trunion and eating gas pistons like candy), is very reliable when maintained, and is more modular. Although there is no open solicitation for the replacement of the M16/M4 and the official reports from Aberdeen are not saying the same as what the actual tests revealed, this abomination is being ramrodded down the Army's throat without so much as a second thought. What is the purpose of the rifle, and why is it going to be adopted and fielded with "enhancements" we decided that we didn't need in 1981. Carry handle? No Backup Iron sights? NO parts commonality with the current system? WTF are these guys thinking?
Sorry for the rant, but I just got the news that this thing got "rave reviews" from Aberdeen, which is the opposite of what the troops have been reporting.
-Cap'n
The "gangsta-style" practice of firing the pistol sideways was first used by Law Enforcement. Why? It is the only effective way to fire around a ballistic shield.
The FN Five Seven IS available to civilians and individual LEOs in the US, but only with a 10 round magazine. FN dealers cannot sell to these people, but down-the-line distributors can. I know, I almost paid the $1500 for the POS. The ballistics SUCK, btw. Anyhow, the ammo is also available with a lead core, so civilians can own that also. I think www.cmmginc.com has more info on their site somewhere.
Stopping power has no basis in reality. Shot placement, bullet design, bullet mass, and velocity are all that matter. The 5.45x39 performs very well agains soft tissue, and is mediocre in hard armor. Well, the 7N6 does, at least. The 7N22 is the polar opposite. Great penetration on hard targets, but the soft tissue disruption isn't all that grand. 5.56 M193 and M855 info can be found here: www.ammo-oracle.com .
AFAIK, 210 rounds is considered cookoff area. The Beta CMAG is a useless, heavy, unreliable hunk of crap. Drop one that's loaded and watch the yoke break. Even the new "improved" versions do it.
The new JORD SCAR program has a solicitation for a 60 round quad stack mag, and a new "improved" replacement for the old aluminum USGI mags.
The PBS family of suppressors are for use on the AK-47, AKM, AK-74, and AK-100 series weapons.
BATFE considers a silencer and suppressor to be the same, but they never have a practical definition of anything. The way I always understood it, a suppressor quiets a supersonic round by turning the sound into heat. A suppressor always INCREASES the muzzle velocity. A silencer decreases muzzle velocity, most of the time making the fired round subsonic. Example: KAC M4 QD= Suppressor, KAC MP5SD can= Silencer
And while I'm at it, the AKMSU doesn't exist. Well, at least the INF version is not in use, and never has been, by any military, ever. There is no such thing as a side-folding Bulgarian short AK in 7.62. All Bulgarian 7.62 rifles are AK47 pattern, as are their 5.56 rifles. What does that mean? They use underfolders andhave a milled receiver. Bulgaria never manufactured a bakelite magazine, although Russia did make millions of the things. The Russian Bakelite AKM mag was produced almost as long as the Steel AKM mag. If anyone wants proof, I can dig up the Arsenal Kazalnak webpage. The INF AKMSU came from the KVAR "Krinkov" thing. Vartan (the owner of the company) imported the parts kits originally sans trunion and stock, so they could be used on AKM's.
Now I have a question...
Why in the HELL would the US Army want to adopt the XM8 over the M4/M16 family? The M4/M16 is WAY more rugged (if XM8 follows the G36 pattern of breaking stocks, having the optics fail, and having wandering zero on the optics, as well as melting the receiver around the trunion and eating gas pistons like candy), is very reliable when maintained, and is more modular. Although there is no open solicitation for the replacement of the M16/M4 and the official reports from Aberdeen are not saying the same as what the actual tests revealed, this abomination is being ramrodded down the Army's throat without so much as a second thought. What is the purpose of the rifle, and why is it going to be adopted and fielded with "enhancements" we decided that we didn't need in 1981. Carry handle? No Backup Iron sights? NO parts commonality with the current system? WTF are these guys thinking?
Sorry for the rant, but I just got the news that this thing got "rave reviews" from Aberdeen, which is the opposite of what the troops have been reporting.
-Cap'n
I don't think what you're talking about is "Gangsta-style". The "gangsta-style" stance is more then just turning the gun sideways ... it also requires lifting it high and pointing it down, and has the option of moving the gun in a "punching" motion while pulling the trigger
At any rate, I believe we should incurage gangbangers to use stupid an ineffective shooting styles where possible (like this http://www.recoilmag.com/news/new_gangsta_trend_0902.html ).The same reason the US Army adopted the M16 over the much more rugged M14 (or the FAL) ... the decisions are not made by people with practical military experience, but are made by bureaucrats and politicans who think our troops would look sharp with shiny, fancy, high tech new guns.
Okay, that is a different "gangsta-style" I've honestly never encountered that, and I agree with your opinion of it.
I'll disagree with comparing the M16 adoption with the XM8. Read Ezell's "The Black Rifle". The M16 was adopted because in theory it would have been a superior weapon for jungle fighting. The Armalite AR15 received rave reviews when issued, as it was issued with proper cleaning equipment and the users were instructed in the operation and maintenance of the weapon. The end users made a suggestion, the Army looked into it, and an open solicitation for a new rifle was made.
The M1 Garand was adopted in 30-06 for political reasons. The M14 was adopted (over the T48) for political reasons. The M16 was adopted because of practical suggestions from end users that wanted a lighter weight selective fire rifle that fired an intermediate cartridge that was more lethal than that of the M1/M2 Carbine.
BTW, there's a Five-Seven for sale here for $1100 with plenty of ammo
http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=213928
-Cap'n
I've honestly never encountered that, and I agree with your opinion of it. I'll disagree with comparing the M16 adoption with the XM8. Read Ezell's "The Black Rifle". The M16 was adopted because in theory it would have been a superior weapon for jungle fighting. The Armalite AR15 received rave reviews when issued, as it was issued with proper cleaning equipment and the users were instructed in the operation and maintenance of the weapon. The end users made a suggestion, the Army looked into it, and an open solicitation for a new rifle was made.
The M1 Garand was adopted in 30-06 for political reasons. The M14 was adopted (over the T48) for political reasons. The M16 was adopted because of practical suggestions from end users that wanted a lighter weight selective fire rifle that fired an intermediate cartridge that was more lethal than that of the M1/M2 Carbine.
BTW, there's a Five-Seven for sale here for $1100 with plenty of ammo
http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=213928
-Cap'n
Don't write of the XM8 just yet. The M4 is still woefully inadequate for the roles people are expecting it to fulfill in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Blended metal ammo goes a ways to solve the problem, but I doubt the Army or the Corps is too keen on using bullets so easily hyped into the next cop killers.
The XM8 only shares internals with the G36. Sure there's some aesthetic similarity, and the XM8 is ugly as sin, but the G36's internals are MUCH better than anything the AR-15 family can offer.
The XM8 only shares internals with the G36. Sure there's some aesthetic similarity, and the XM8 is ugly as sin, but the G36's internals are MUCH better than anything the AR-15 family can offer.
I still don't see what the problems with the M4's internals are... I shoot with a suppressor and yes, it does get dirty. Does that matter unless you go 1200-1500 rounds without cleaning? Not really. Heck, it'll still work even then, but your cyclic rate will be pretty darn sluggish.
Just what are the problems with the M4 that the XM8 would fix? Certainly not lethality or range, because M855 will not fragment out of the 12" barrel unless the target is 30M away.
Every complaint that I've heard about the M4 (in official and unofficial AARs) would be that it's a relatively short range (300M) weapon. Supplementing the M4 with the MK11 Mod 0 (SR25) and MK12 Mod 1 (SPR-A), the latter with MK262 Mod 0 (or the newer Mod 1, if it's in the supply line yet) will accomplish much more than destroying the logistics train by adopting a new weapon that doesn't do anything the old one does not.
Blended metal ammo is not intended for usage by the military because of the Hague convention, which prohibited ammunition designed to expand or fragment on impact. Also, the results of the ammunition vary dramatically from what you've read. Less than a year ago I was living only 10 miles from RCBS. I own their ammunition, I know the owners, and I do use certain varieties of their stuff. I will not use their 5.56 based on things that I've heard from La Mas and his crew. Read what Doc Roberts at Tactical Forums has to say about it.
BTW, the XM8 has the same optics housing as the "enhanced" G36 project that HK tried to push on the Brits during the time period before they agreed to re-mfg the Enfields. The idea is not the best in the world, because it still has wandering zero using the mounting system of the G36.
The materials used in the stock are the same. The handguards still do not feature heatshields. The trunion is still mounted to plastic, which is PROVEN to melt under sustained (240-270 rounds) fire. The charging handle is still prone to breakage. The ejection port is much too small, thus making it nearly impossible to clear malfunctions. It will only mount the AG36, which will be a problem if LMT or KAC's EGLM candidate is adopted. There are no backup iron sights, which will be needed if they field the multi-purpose optic. Have you seen the controls on the rifle? Can you say "slow mag changes and awkward safety"? By the way... It has a carry handle... It took the M16 50 years to get away from that horrid idea, now HK wants to build an even larger one onto their new rifle? What idiot came up with that idea?
There is NO way the XM8 should be fielded in its current config, especially after the initial reports made, which were promptly ignored.
I'm sure when the XM8 is officially released by HK with an actual product name (not a .mil experimental designtation) we'll get one to demo. Hell, I think we're already on HK's ****list because of the stuff their guns have done at previous demos to large LE Agencies. I can't help it if the UMP is a shadow of the MP5, and the G36 is a hunk of unergonomic, brittle crap. I REALLY can't help it that when doing a side-by side with the M4, the G36's performance is sadly lacking.
-Again, sorry for the rant, but I don't believe my tax money should be wasted testing and retesting a weapon which offers no significant improvement over the existing weapon system.
-Cap'n
Just what are the problems with the M4 that the XM8 would fix? Certainly not lethality or range, because M855 will not fragment out of the 12" barrel unless the target is 30M away.
Every complaint that I've heard about the M4 (in official and unofficial AARs) would be that it's a relatively short range (300M) weapon. Supplementing the M4 with the MK11 Mod 0 (SR25) and MK12 Mod 1 (SPR-A), the latter with MK262 Mod 0 (or the newer Mod 1, if it's in the supply line yet) will accomplish much more than destroying the logistics train by adopting a new weapon that doesn't do anything the old one does not.
Blended metal ammo is not intended for usage by the military because of the Hague convention, which prohibited ammunition designed to expand or fragment on impact. Also, the results of the ammunition vary dramatically from what you've read. Less than a year ago I was living only 10 miles from RCBS. I own their ammunition, I know the owners, and I do use certain varieties of their stuff. I will not use their 5.56 based on things that I've heard from La Mas and his crew. Read what Doc Roberts at Tactical Forums has to say about it.
BTW, the XM8 has the same optics housing as the "enhanced" G36 project that HK tried to push on the Brits during the time period before they agreed to re-mfg the Enfields. The idea is not the best in the world, because it still has wandering zero using the mounting system of the G36.
The materials used in the stock are the same. The handguards still do not feature heatshields. The trunion is still mounted to plastic, which is PROVEN to melt under sustained (240-270 rounds) fire. The charging handle is still prone to breakage. The ejection port is much too small, thus making it nearly impossible to clear malfunctions. It will only mount the AG36, which will be a problem if LMT or KAC's EGLM candidate is adopted. There are no backup iron sights, which will be needed if they field the multi-purpose optic. Have you seen the controls on the rifle? Can you say "slow mag changes and awkward safety"? By the way... It has a carry handle... It took the M16 50 years to get away from that horrid idea, now HK wants to build an even larger one onto their new rifle? What idiot came up with that idea?
There is NO way the XM8 should be fielded in its current config, especially after the initial reports made, which were promptly ignored.
I'm sure when the XM8 is officially released by HK with an actual product name (not a .mil experimental designtation) we'll get one to demo. Hell, I think we're already on HK's ****list because of the stuff their guns have done at previous demos to large LE Agencies. I can't help it if the UMP is a shadow of the MP5, and the G36 is a hunk of unergonomic, brittle crap. I REALLY can't help it that when doing a side-by side with the M4, the G36's performance is sadly lacking.
-Again, sorry for the rant, but I don't believe my tax money should be wasted testing and retesting a weapon which offers no significant improvement over the existing weapon system.
-Cap'n
Cap'n Crunch said:
The US never signed the Hauge or Geneve conventions. Take a look at the 5.56mm ball ammo they field. It's like a copper coated lead explosion on impact. Believe me, it fragments like a bitch. Yes, Blended Metal ammo is banned under Geneve and Hauge, but so is napalm and Agent Orange. Blended metal ammo poses only one problem to the US army, and that's public relations. Personally, I think it should be fielded. Soldiers are meant to kill people, not give them a light touching up. Cops on the other hand, can go get fucked.
Here's the proof re: fragmenting 5.56mm:
As for the XM8, it's still experimental, and it can sport a picatinny rail. This means the current supply of ACOGs, Reflexes and M68 CCOs are all mountable on it. I'd wager you'll see those mounted more often than the standard sights for at least the first 2 or 3 years of service life. That deals with your gripes about the lack of irons.
I don't know the extent to which the XM8 shares the internals of the AR-15, but the G36 is more or less a european M16 on the inside, to the extent that the bolt heads are almost identical. If for some reason you don't like the action of the G36, then you don't like the action of any given AR-15.
The loading times on the G36 are no different to that of the M16. The only difference is having to release the cocking leaver on the G36 instead of pressing down the bolt release on the side of the M16. If you fumble around with something as straight forward as a G36, you sure as shit don't deserve to be holding a firearm. The G36 only mounts an AG36, which is a good thing since by comparison, the M203 is a total joke.
The G36 optics are amongst the best stock optics on any rifle, second only in my opinion, to the Elcan mounted on the Diemaco C7/C8/C9 families, and the SUSAT mounted on the L85 family. If for some reason, they and the carry handle they're a part of aren't acceptable, simply remove it, stick a picatinny scout rail on the HK mount found underneath, and use the picatinny rails to mount any god damn optics that you like.
This brings us to my favourite little piece of junk that you've dropped. The HK mounting system causes wondering zero does it? Would this be why the G3/SG1, MSG-90 and the like use the exact same system to mount their optics that the G36 uses to secure the base of its handle/optics suite? Stop pandering to urban myths and do some research. You're just pissed off because your favourite little race gun is going to be retired soon.
Last edited:
Wow, one of Fackler's images. Amazing. Y'know, M193 WAS NOT designed to fragment, and will only fragment if traveling above 2400-2500 FPS. Read what Doctor Gary Roberts has to say about your magic bullet. Reading an article in Army Times doesn't make you a small arms or ballistics expert. What credentials do you have to offer to suggest that blended ammo will perform better? Have you personally performed controlled tests that will go against what Roberts says? Has LeMas or Bulmer? I know the answer to the latter is "no", because it was a "no" at the last George R. Brown gunshow, which was... November 13 or 14?
You think the G36 uses claw mounts? Have you ever seen a G36? The G36 MAIN OPTIC does suffer from wandering zero. Have you ever fired an G36? If so you would probably notice that the notorious inaccuracy of the rifle comes from the optic itself, which is why we always offer the BUIS/rail combo with them. The G36 rail isnt even a great place to mount optics. It raises them almost as high above the bore as an ACOG on an M16 carry handle. We demo them for LEO agencies in the Harris, Bolivar, Polk, Hardin, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton county (Texas) area, so I have an assload of experience with the system.
Wow, the bolt face on the gun is similar, and they both used a non captivated charging handle. If you recall, they're not the only guns that use that style charging handle. Anyhow, the difference lies in the material used in the charging handle. Of the first 6 G36Ks we received, 3 had problems with the charging handles breaking, and one of those 3, and another that was without problem to that point, had stock failures. And about the bolt face... It's not hard to name 3 other rifles that use a bolt face nearly the same as the M16s, and there's a reason for it: It is one of the better designs out there.
In case you didn't realize it, the HK is driven on a piston based system, whereas the M16 is driven off direct gas impingement (pistonless). That makes the G36 pretty damned different from the M16. The HK system may be cleaner, but what difference does it make if the M16/M4 can go thousands of rounds without cleaning? The piston on the G36 is very susceptible to heat, and will break. If sustained fire is above the "cookoff" threshold, the f***ing receiver area around the trunion melts.
Although XM8 will supposedly have interchangable optics later on, the current model (all 30 that are being tested at Aberdeen) does not have that ability.
And you actually like the Elcan? Christ man, you must lead a sheltered life. The Elcan mount is so prone to failure (AS REPORTED BY US AND CANADIAN TROOPS, and experienced by many civilians) its ridiculous. It's a heavy, bulky sight that's next to useless at CQB ranges (unlike the BAC equipped ACOG).
Have you personally used or even seen the LMT or KAC EGL modules intended for SCAR and SOPMOD II? If not, what makes you think the HK is superior? Who is to say that they will even be M203 based?
Research on these subjects is worthless without hands on experience. Shoot a real G36, not an SL8, and see if your opinion stays the same.
-Cap'n
BTW, if you can answer this... Why should the XM8 be adopted over the M4/M16, and what role would it be used in? SCAR, SOPMOD II, or full replacement in all sectors?
You think the G36 uses claw mounts? Have you ever seen a G36? The G36 MAIN OPTIC does suffer from wandering zero. Have you ever fired an G36? If so you would probably notice that the notorious inaccuracy of the rifle comes from the optic itself, which is why we always offer the BUIS/rail combo with them. The G36 rail isnt even a great place to mount optics. It raises them almost as high above the bore as an ACOG on an M16 carry handle. We demo them for LEO agencies in the Harris, Bolivar, Polk, Hardin, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton county (Texas) area, so I have an assload of experience with the system.
Wow, the bolt face on the gun is similar, and they both used a non captivated charging handle. If you recall, they're not the only guns that use that style charging handle. Anyhow, the difference lies in the material used in the charging handle. Of the first 6 G36Ks we received, 3 had problems with the charging handles breaking, and one of those 3, and another that was without problem to that point, had stock failures. And about the bolt face... It's not hard to name 3 other rifles that use a bolt face nearly the same as the M16s, and there's a reason for it: It is one of the better designs out there.
In case you didn't realize it, the HK is driven on a piston based system, whereas the M16 is driven off direct gas impingement (pistonless). That makes the G36 pretty damned different from the M16. The HK system may be cleaner, but what difference does it make if the M16/M4 can go thousands of rounds without cleaning? The piston on the G36 is very susceptible to heat, and will break. If sustained fire is above the "cookoff" threshold, the f***ing receiver area around the trunion melts.
Although XM8 will supposedly have interchangable optics later on, the current model (all 30 that are being tested at Aberdeen) does not have that ability.
And you actually like the Elcan? Christ man, you must lead a sheltered life. The Elcan mount is so prone to failure (AS REPORTED BY US AND CANADIAN TROOPS, and experienced by many civilians) its ridiculous. It's a heavy, bulky sight that's next to useless at CQB ranges (unlike the BAC equipped ACOG).
Have you personally used or even seen the LMT or KAC EGL modules intended for SCAR and SOPMOD II? If not, what makes you think the HK is superior? Who is to say that they will even be M203 based?
Research on these subjects is worthless without hands on experience. Shoot a real G36, not an SL8, and see if your opinion stays the same.
-Cap'n
BTW, if you can answer this... Why should the XM8 be adopted over the M4/M16, and what role would it be used in? SCAR, SOPMOD II, or full replacement in all sectors?
I'm not going to argue with you, because quite frankly it's pointless. You're obviously a narrow minded fanboy who doesn't even give anything a second thought if it doesn't begin with "M4" or "AR." That said, I have gone out and dug up some numbers on the XM8 and the M4, and written up this little side by side comparison. That said, read it and weep. The M4/AR-15 is now officially obsolete. Now, on with the punishment:
These are the two setups the comparison is based on:
The XM8 default layout, including carry/handle optics suite, which contains IR laser and illuminator, and a reflex red dot sight.
The M4 is set up with RAS, and equipped to provide the same functionality as the XM8's default configuration. Consequently, the following devices are mounted: M68 CCO, AN/PEQ2, AN/PAQ4, backup Iron Sights.
Now, let us take them head to head:
Weight
XM8: 6.4lbs in current config
M4: 8.8blbs
Length
XM8 (Carbine version, stock extended): 33.3"
XM8 (Compact Carbine version, stock extended): 29.8"
XM8 (Rifle version, stock extended): 40.2"
M4, stock extended: 33.0"
Cost
XM8 Carbine version w/Optics: ~$1800
M4 with above accessories: ~$2539
Modularity
M4 is customisable only to the extent of mounting accessories onto any pre-mounted RAS rails. Weapon requires extensive work to be converted to any caliber other than 5.56mm NATO
XM8 has a common receiver which can accept 4 different barrel lengths, as well as being able to make use of the picatinny rails already found on the weapon. Weapon may be configured to fire different calibers by changing out the lower receiver, barrel and bolt groups. This can be done by the soldier, and the armorer is not required.
Barrel Exchange
M4: Not possible at user or unit level, takes longer than 10 minutes, no fixed headspacing, only 14.5" available without modification.
XM8: Exchange at user, unit level possible, takes less than 2 minutes, fixed headspacing, 10", 12.5", 14.5", 20" barrels available and can be mounted with no modifcation required.
Operating System
M4: Direct gas system, introduces fouling into receiver, does not work well with short barrels (See: IDF 11.5" barrel CAR-15), not removeable by operater, cannot work if water is introduced into system. Cartridge case is not fully supported by the bolt head. Bolt is a 7 lug rotating Stoner bolt.
XM8: "Pusher Rod Gas System" (HK's name for it), no carbon introduced into the receiver, allows for greater flexibility in terms of barrel lengths and caliber changes, no buffer or buffer tube required allowing for shorter length, weapon still functions with water in the system, bolt head fully spports casing. Bolt is a 6 lug rotating Stoner bolt.
Reliability and Service
M4 stoppage can be expected somewhere around 6,000 rounds with proper cleaning and lubrication. Average cleaning time for the operator is about 15 minutes, and the barrel, bolt head and extractor should be replaced after 8,000 rounds. Cook offs at about 210 rounds.
XM8 stoppage can be expected at 20,000 rounds with no cleaning or lubrication. Cleaning time is about 5 minutes, and all parts will still be functional at 20,000 rounds. Cook offs aren't a factor until 240 rounds, at which point it's only a minimal chance.
Safety
M4: Manual safety blocks trigger movement, disconnector safety. User has no protection from wayward gasses if catastrophic failure occurs, barrel will rupture if blockage occurs.
XM8: Manual safety blocks trigger movement, disctonnector safety, inertia firing pin. Barrel vents direct gasses away from the opreator in the case of a catastrophic failure. Barrel design assures against injury in the case of a barrel obstruction (including water).
Accessories and Sights
M4: RAS system adds 11 ounces of weight to weapon before accessories are even mounted. MIL STD 1913 rails do not retain boresight alignment. Only sports iron sights by default. Rails must be added to allow the use of optics
XM8: Weapon already has picatinny mounting points on the handguards, and receiver. This means nothing needs to be added to the weapon to allow for attatchments. MIL STD 1913 rails can be mounted to allow the use of legacy equipment not compatible with the picatinny system. Flush PCAP provides 100% boresight retention for optic device mounted on the receiver rail. Standard optics suit includes 1 red dot 1x sight, one IR laser, one IR illuminator, all powered by a single DL123 battery, with emergency sights molded into the suite, and etchings on the red dot lens to make it useable in daylight if the power fails. Optics suite mounts to weapon using aforementioned Flush PCAP rail.
Fire and Control
M4: No ambidextrous controls except for the charging handle. Charging handle cannot be used if the weapon is shouldered. Fires semi auto, fully auto, or 3 round burst (with burst memory) depending on configuration of the lower receiver. Sustained rate of fire is 50rpm for 210 rounds
XM8: Safety/fire selection, magazine release, bolt catch release button, charging handle, forward assist, sight actuation switch all ambidextrously controlled. Charging handle can be operated when rifle is shouldered. Fies full auto, semi auto, or 2 or 3 round bursts with no burst memory. Sustained rate of fire is 85rpm for 210 rounds.
Buttstock
M4: 4 position collapsable. Not exchangeable by operator.
XM8: Modular. 5 position standard collapsable stock, optional fixed "sniper" stock, butt cap or folding stock. Exchangeable by the operator without any tools.
BFAs and Supression
M4: Uses standard BFA which provides no safety at all. Uses standard QD supressor. US Standard bird cage flash hider.
XM8: Uses Safe BFA which can catch up to 3 live rounds without injury or damage if they're accidentaly loaded. Live round excluder magazine also available. Shorter (9", 12.5") barrels sport 4 prong flash hider, longer barrels sport standard US bird cage flash hider. QD sound supressors fit all varients.
Grenade Launchers
M4: Mounts M203 40mm grenade launcher which cannot load longer 40mm grenades, and requires rezeroing each time it is mounted.
XM8: Mounts XM320 40mm side loading grenade launcher, which can load any length 40mm grenade, and maintains zero upon removal.
Compatibility and Compliance
M4: Compatible with MILES and Land Warrior, NOT compliant with USSOCOM SCAR-L Draft dated 9th September 2003, not compliant with USAIC FCR Draft ORD specs.
XM8: Compliant with all of the above, MIL STD 1913 Rails provide compliance with SCAR-L Draft dated 9th September 2003. Compliant with 67 of 70 specifications under USAIC FCR Draft ORD.
So, in other words, can your rampant fanboyism, and try to be just a little objective in the future.
These are the two setups the comparison is based on:
The XM8 default layout, including carry/handle optics suite, which contains IR laser and illuminator, and a reflex red dot sight.
The M4 is set up with RAS, and equipped to provide the same functionality as the XM8's default configuration. Consequently, the following devices are mounted: M68 CCO, AN/PEQ2, AN/PAQ4, backup Iron Sights.
Now, let us take them head to head:
Weight
XM8: 6.4lbs in current config
M4: 8.8blbs
Length
XM8 (Carbine version, stock extended): 33.3"
XM8 (Compact Carbine version, stock extended): 29.8"
XM8 (Rifle version, stock extended): 40.2"
M4, stock extended: 33.0"
Cost
XM8 Carbine version w/Optics: ~$1800
M4 with above accessories: ~$2539
Modularity
M4 is customisable only to the extent of mounting accessories onto any pre-mounted RAS rails. Weapon requires extensive work to be converted to any caliber other than 5.56mm NATO
XM8 has a common receiver which can accept 4 different barrel lengths, as well as being able to make use of the picatinny rails already found on the weapon. Weapon may be configured to fire different calibers by changing out the lower receiver, barrel and bolt groups. This can be done by the soldier, and the armorer is not required.
Barrel Exchange
M4: Not possible at user or unit level, takes longer than 10 minutes, no fixed headspacing, only 14.5" available without modification.
XM8: Exchange at user, unit level possible, takes less than 2 minutes, fixed headspacing, 10", 12.5", 14.5", 20" barrels available and can be mounted with no modifcation required.
Operating System
M4: Direct gas system, introduces fouling into receiver, does not work well with short barrels (See: IDF 11.5" barrel CAR-15), not removeable by operater, cannot work if water is introduced into system. Cartridge case is not fully supported by the bolt head. Bolt is a 7 lug rotating Stoner bolt.
XM8: "Pusher Rod Gas System" (HK's name for it), no carbon introduced into the receiver, allows for greater flexibility in terms of barrel lengths and caliber changes, no buffer or buffer tube required allowing for shorter length, weapon still functions with water in the system, bolt head fully spports casing. Bolt is a 6 lug rotating Stoner bolt.
Reliability and Service
M4 stoppage can be expected somewhere around 6,000 rounds with proper cleaning and lubrication. Average cleaning time for the operator is about 15 minutes, and the barrel, bolt head and extractor should be replaced after 8,000 rounds. Cook offs at about 210 rounds.
XM8 stoppage can be expected at 20,000 rounds with no cleaning or lubrication. Cleaning time is about 5 minutes, and all parts will still be functional at 20,000 rounds. Cook offs aren't a factor until 240 rounds, at which point it's only a minimal chance.
Safety
M4: Manual safety blocks trigger movement, disconnector safety. User has no protection from wayward gasses if catastrophic failure occurs, barrel will rupture if blockage occurs.
XM8: Manual safety blocks trigger movement, disctonnector safety, inertia firing pin. Barrel vents direct gasses away from the opreator in the case of a catastrophic failure. Barrel design assures against injury in the case of a barrel obstruction (including water).
Accessories and Sights
M4: RAS system adds 11 ounces of weight to weapon before accessories are even mounted. MIL STD 1913 rails do not retain boresight alignment. Only sports iron sights by default. Rails must be added to allow the use of optics
XM8: Weapon already has picatinny mounting points on the handguards, and receiver. This means nothing needs to be added to the weapon to allow for attatchments. MIL STD 1913 rails can be mounted to allow the use of legacy equipment not compatible with the picatinny system. Flush PCAP provides 100% boresight retention for optic device mounted on the receiver rail. Standard optics suit includes 1 red dot 1x sight, one IR laser, one IR illuminator, all powered by a single DL123 battery, with emergency sights molded into the suite, and etchings on the red dot lens to make it useable in daylight if the power fails. Optics suite mounts to weapon using aforementioned Flush PCAP rail.
Fire and Control
M4: No ambidextrous controls except for the charging handle. Charging handle cannot be used if the weapon is shouldered. Fires semi auto, fully auto, or 3 round burst (with burst memory) depending on configuration of the lower receiver. Sustained rate of fire is 50rpm for 210 rounds
XM8: Safety/fire selection, magazine release, bolt catch release button, charging handle, forward assist, sight actuation switch all ambidextrously controlled. Charging handle can be operated when rifle is shouldered. Fies full auto, semi auto, or 2 or 3 round bursts with no burst memory. Sustained rate of fire is 85rpm for 210 rounds.
Buttstock
M4: 4 position collapsable. Not exchangeable by operator.
XM8: Modular. 5 position standard collapsable stock, optional fixed "sniper" stock, butt cap or folding stock. Exchangeable by the operator without any tools.
BFAs and Supression
M4: Uses standard BFA which provides no safety at all. Uses standard QD supressor. US Standard bird cage flash hider.
XM8: Uses Safe BFA which can catch up to 3 live rounds without injury or damage if they're accidentaly loaded. Live round excluder magazine also available. Shorter (9", 12.5") barrels sport 4 prong flash hider, longer barrels sport standard US bird cage flash hider. QD sound supressors fit all varients.
Grenade Launchers
M4: Mounts M203 40mm grenade launcher which cannot load longer 40mm grenades, and requires rezeroing each time it is mounted.
XM8: Mounts XM320 40mm side loading grenade launcher, which can load any length 40mm grenade, and maintains zero upon removal.
Compatibility and Compliance
M4: Compatible with MILES and Land Warrior, NOT compliant with USSOCOM SCAR-L Draft dated 9th September 2003, not compliant with USAIC FCR Draft ORD specs.
XM8: Compliant with all of the above, MIL STD 1913 Rails provide compliance with SCAR-L Draft dated 9th September 2003. Compliant with 67 of 70 specifications under USAIC FCR Draft ORD.
So, in other words, can your rampant fanboyism, and try to be just a little objective in the future.
First of all, I'm not as narrowminded as you're trying to say. I'm a huge fan of the Kalashnikov series of weapons, and I'm also a fan of the new FN F2000. It impressed the Hell outta me at Blackwater.
Secondly, what you listed was written by HK, not by an outside evaluator. Of course they're going to try to make their product look better than the competition. Hell, I own a MK23 and half of the specs HK listed on it site in the "head to head" against the M1911 were a lie. The M4 itself costs $497 from Colt to the US Military, BTW, not $900. Hell, even you could replace an M4 upper with an SPR upper in less than 10 seconds without any tools at all, despite what HK says. What happens when you relace the XM8 barrel? You have to rezero your sites, so is it practical to do this at a user level?
Why won't you answer my questions about your hands on usage of weapons? Have you ever fired an M4 or HK? Why the vested interest over an unproven weapon system over a proven one?
And the kicker... FOR WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE RIFLE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, AND IN WHAT WAY IS IT SUPERIOR IN THAT ROLE? Are you qualified to make this decision?
Christ, go use the damned guns before you try to act like an expert in small arms.
-Cap'n
Secondly, what you listed was written by HK, not by an outside evaluator. Of course they're going to try to make their product look better than the competition. Hell, I own a MK23 and half of the specs HK listed on it site in the "head to head" against the M1911 were a lie. The M4 itself costs $497 from Colt to the US Military, BTW, not $900. Hell, even you could replace an M4 upper with an SPR upper in less than 10 seconds without any tools at all, despite what HK says. What happens when you relace the XM8 barrel? You have to rezero your sites, so is it practical to do this at a user level?
Why won't you answer my questions about your hands on usage of weapons? Have you ever fired an M4 or HK? Why the vested interest over an unproven weapon system over a proven one?
And the kicker... FOR WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE RIFLE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, AND IN WHAT WAY IS IT SUPERIOR IN THAT ROLE? Are you qualified to make this decision?
Christ, go use the damned guns before you try to act like an expert in small arms.
-Cap'n
They can adopt it for any god damn role they like. I think at the least, the 14.5" version should replace the M4 in service, and possibly to the extent that the 20" version replaces the M16A2 in service.
You're trying to make out that it's no improvement over the M4 whatsoever. The figures above, reglardless of how biased they are, are not a lie, and show a clear improvement over the M4 in terms of ease of use, reliability, and modularity. Will it live up to HK's promises? Who knows, but it should sure as hell be given the chance, because even on paper it looks like it's one of the best designed infantry rifles ever.
The ONE drawback I see on the entire system is that it's using G36 style magazines, and not the STANAG 4179 of the AR-15 family, and that's a resource issues that a grunt shouldn't have to worry about. Next to the FAMAS, I'm yet to see a rifle designed so thoroughly well with the soldier given so much consideration.
You're trying to make out that it's no improvement over the M4 whatsoever. The figures above, reglardless of how biased they are, are not a lie, and show a clear improvement over the M4 in terms of ease of use, reliability, and modularity. Will it live up to HK's promises? Who knows, but it should sure as hell be given the chance, because even on paper it looks like it's one of the best designed infantry rifles ever.
The ONE drawback I see on the entire system is that it's using G36 style magazines, and not the STANAG 4179 of the AR-15 family, and that's a resource issues that a grunt shouldn't have to worry about. Next to the FAMAS, I'm yet to see a rifle designed so thoroughly well with the soldier given so much consideration.
Last edited:
I think they're actually looking mainly at the 12.5" barrel version as the M4/M16 replacement.
My question is this:
In "Pegasus Bridge" by Stephen E Ambrose there's a description of someone from the Ox and Bucks firing a Bren from the hip. A bloke in another interweb forum swears blind that if you attempted this you'd fall over/shoot yourself in the foot/lose your arm as it detached due to recoil forces etc.
What do you guys reckon?
My question is this:
In "Pegasus Bridge" by Stephen E Ambrose there's a description of someone from the Ox and Bucks firing a Bren from the hip. A bloke in another interweb forum swears blind that if you attempted this you'd fall over/shoot yourself in the foot/lose your arm as it detached due to recoil forces etc.
What do you guys reckon?
I shoot a MK II BREN from the shoulder.(yes, it's heavy, and I can only hold it there for most of a magazine.) It recoils significantly less than a No4MkI* SMLE. Think about it. Why would a 14+ pound LMG kick/recoil more than a 7 pound rifle? Hipped, or the more correct assault hold (buttstock pinched in the armpit, and the sling shortened appropriately) was a very common fire method for the BREN.
My two bits anyhow..
My two bits anyhow..