Talk:XM8 rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force Weaponry task force

Use in fiction = "children of men" alongside the g36

Contents 1 Development 2 AR-18 3 XM-8 cancelled 4 Use in Fiction 5 Removed "Children's Section" 5.1 Use in film and other media 6 XM8 for special forces 7 Cancelled? 8 XM8 and G36 9 Will it be used? 10 Small Caliber? 11 The SCAR would make a better rifle any day

[edit] Development

I pared down discussion of developmental issues because many of the issues, handguards melting and ergonomic issues, had been solved by that point. Weight was still an issue, though. Chuck 20:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AR-18

Yes, the gas system of the XM8 was based on that of the AR-18, but the G36 rifle cannot be said to be a newer version of the AR-18 any more than the Glock is a newer version of the 1911 because it shares a tilting barrel, enclosed slide, and trigger! The G36/XM8 utilize the Armalite patents (however not the same ones as the AR-18!) for the single guide-rod above the bolt carrier as well as the operating rod system. The G36 utilizes a unique bolt carrier, gas piston, and 'hanging' guide system for the bolt carrier. These are all novel and, as it turns out, newly patented features. This is all technical garb, so I'll not try to insert it into the main article.--Asams10 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] XM-8 cancelled

Voir cette info, excuse me, my english is very poor :

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20051103.aspx

So, what does the future hold for the XM8? Does H&K plan to market the gun to other organizations, or are they prohibited from doing so by their US Army contract? I'd like to know whether the project is dead, or just "on hold". Tronno ( t | c ) 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

From the information you can gather from german sources, as well as H&K itself the project of the XM8 as is is dead. US Army has now openend new project for a rifle, and its not sure if H&K will participate again, since they were not happy with the way they were treated in this as well as in other projects (e.g. OICW). If it will, it will probably not with the current XM8 but with a modified version. The problem here is, that the specs are not yet available. According to H&K the XM8 fullfilled all the project goal requirements, and even more. Though then the army changed the goals, and after that the XM8 did not fullfill it anymore and this lead to the project stop and reopen. What the real causes are is not clear, though rumours say its a political reason, together with that the army prefers us manufactured weapons. Some people say that the army wont accept a weapon that was manufactured "by a country that did not participate in the iraq war, just because their constitution forbids it".

[edit] Use in Fiction

If I remember correctly, I've seen this gun used alongside other standard armaments like the FN P90 on Stargate SG-1, usually when you see a large group of soldiers fighting. Can someone verify this for me? --KoopaTroopa211 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You saw the similar looking G36. The G36 is almost exactly like the XM8

⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Children's Section"

For the sake of continuity, I removed the section on video games and movies. I've placed it here. If you were able to borrow your dad's car to see "State of the Union" and thought that the rifles they used there were 'tight', please IM your friends or add it to the discussion here. Believe it or not, this is an article about an actual, real-life gun! --Asams10 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use in film and other media

• Variants of the XM8 are available in the game Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 and all versions but the compact are fielded to the Ghosts in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.
• The XM8 makes an appearance in the film Stealth.
• The XM8 compact appears in Rainbow Six: Lockdown
• The XM8 appears in the videogame Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.
• The XM8 appears in the videogame SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs.
• The XM8 appears in the movie XXX: State of the Union.
• The XM8 appears in the PSP Game SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo.
• The XM8 appears in the PSP Game Metal Gear Acid and Metal Gear Acid 2 as an unlockable weapon card.
• The XM8 appears in the videogame Conflict: Global Storm.
• The XM8 with XM320 attached appears to be blended with the G36 to form the Superdragon in the videogame Perfect Dark Zero
• The XM8 appears in the television show Stargate SG-1
• The XM8 appears in the PC game UFO: Aftershock as a researchable assault rifle
• The XM8 definately does appear in the film Children Of Men, you can see it on several occasions being carried by British Security Forces, whether or not they're with the Military, Police or Border Guards or some other organisation isn't explained in the film, but I'm sure it was the XM8 they were carrying. The Army regulars in the film aren't seen using them, they appear to carry a mix of G36 and SA80 weapons.

For reference, the XM8 did not appear in Stealth, it was a G36 being used by Ben Gannon. 65.92.74.223 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XM8 for special forces

I have heard that the SAS might decide to use the SCAR and Xm8. --Airforceguy^Scramble! 01:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. The XM8 maybe, but until the SCAR even gets into US SOCOM hands nobody will be using it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Saw one source lately (HKPRO I think) that said SOCOM may go with the HK416 rather than SCAR-L. Riddley 08:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a super reliable site, ESPECIALLY on speculation. Besides, its not exclusive: It's almost certain that SOCOM will take both the 416 AND the SCAR-L/H. They will take a whole bunch of weapons for differing uses and mission requirements. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancelled?

Why did the XM8 have to be cancelled? From what I heard about this weapon it was lighter and better than the M-16 rifle and M4A1 Carbine. --Airforceguy^Scramble! 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

24.60.104.71 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)because of numerous problems, including overheating and ammo feeding.

No, it was due to error in the contracting process. They didn't give other contracters a fair bid at it. The XM8 actually isn't "cancelled". The project is pretty much nearly complete. It's the XM-8 Military procurement that was cancelled. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: It was cancelled because it's a waste of military budget. Why would we switch to a fire-arm with no more performance than an M16, chambered for the same .223 round. The M-16 is a legendary battle proven rifle, it would be the dumbest possible move for the military to do this. There is absolutely no benefit to the XM8 other than it's lighter because it's made of crap. The M16 is stil a better long range weapon and it's more accurate according to hundreds of military testing on the XM8.

Another reason why it was canceled was cost. Instead of using the standard picatinny rail, it uses a newer system. Admittedly, this system *may* be better, but it is new and untested. Worst of all, it is not backwards compatible with the picatinny rail, so all of our Grenade Launchers (203's will not fit on the XM8 without modification, due to the placement of the charging handle, right where the cage mount normally sits), optics, lasers, flashlights, and bi-pods, would be useless, and we'd be stuck buying new (expensive) accessories from HK, because they're the only ones in the world using this mounting system. ---Idiot with a gun 03:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Waste of money? Entire program costs less than one F-22. Overheats? It's plastic, duh? They put heat shields in it... problem solved EARLY ON. Picatinny rails are mostly dead weight The attachment points were used to attach Picatinny rails and were much simpler, adding no weight to the weapon. Picatinny rails are standardized, not the holy grail. The M203 is obsolescent. I think the new weapon is already being made... the M320. Nobody needed to mount all that crap on the XM8, it had an integrated optical/dot/laser sight on the rear bridge. Think outside the box. If you're calling carbon-fiber impregnated plastic crap, then you'd probably have been against the M16 when it was adopted. It's made of aluminum and plastic. You'd have been against the Garand (as the Marines were) because it encouraged spary fire and wasted ammo. You'd have been against rifled muskets because they were slower to load. It's called progress.--Asams10 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That is immaterial. Plenty of weapons these days have been designed with plastic furniture, and some even utilize plastic frames, recievers, etc. The point is, when you're using any material, you must compensate for the weaknesses of that material. Pieces that withstand pressure that are made of aluminum must be made thicker than steel, etc. Plastic is fine, but the developers of the XM8 did not allow enough vent room to prevent the plastic furniture from getting too hot. This isn't poor material choice, this is poor engineering. If you have to add something on to prevent a fatal design, the weapon is most likely flawed. Also, I don't know much about the X320, but I bet it's similar to the M203, merely with a new mounting system. Picatinny rails may not be the holy grail, but infastructure is, and this goes completely against it. And don't compare this to the F-22 project, apples to oranges. The budget for replacing assault rifles is always less than the budgets for aircraft, because vehilces will always be more expensive. ---Idiot with a gun 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They fixed the problem. The second generation prototypes had heat sheilds and reported no problems. The weapon wasn't flawed, it was a prototype. The M320 was designed with the G36 and XM8 in mind. Look at the chart... it shows a 320 right there. The picatinny rails ARE a part of the design, but they are held on these 'attachment points'. Rather than having tons of rail on the rifle that isn't used, the rails can be added and removed at will. While you might think the cost of replacing the entire inventory of M16's is high, they have done it twice since the first M16's hit the field. Once with the M16A2 and now, again, with the M4 variants and M16A4 types hitting the market. We already have to replace worn out guns, why not replace them with a more reliable system? And it is a fair comparrison to point out how much an F-22 costs compared to the XM8 or any future small arms program. If they want it, they will buy it. Remember that the ACOG sights are designed for the M16A2 and have to have an adapter for the M16A4 and M4 flat-top carbine. Now, guess how much they're selling this piece of machinery for?--Asams10 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ACOGs were designed with the M4A1 SOPMOD kit, thus are picatinny mounted. And we haven't replaced all M16A2s with M16A4s. Also, keep in mind that there is legislation on the books that gives the US army an incentive to purchase from US based companies as often as possible. Either way, they decided that the XM8 was NOT the 100% improvement that they demanded, and have opened up the competition for newer, and better designs. The XM8 may be better, but it is most definately not the best choice. ---Idiot with a gun 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." Translation: "The best is the enemy of the good." How it applies here is really ironic. The Army, in their infinite wisdom, chose several "Best" solutions along the way... all ended in failure and wastes of money. The reasons are many, but boil down to the Voltaire quote above. We tried to get the best and didn't bother trying to get the good enough. Remember, the M16 was a 'good enough for now' solution at the time, and "the best" was probably waiting right around the corner in undeveloped weapons like the AR-18 and Stoner 63. Had we spent 1/10th of the money spent on SPIW to improve the Stoner or AR-18, we'd have had a better solution then, if not the "Best." If you continue to strive for laser weapons, particle beams, rail guns, and fusion power supplies to the exclusion of practical solutions, you'll end up with neither.

That 100% improvement quote is arbitrary and stems from the requirement that ACR rifles meet that standard for hit improvement. It was never specified for the XM8. The XM8 was intended to meet reqirements of weight, compactness, and modularity for future integration with another pie-in-the-sky "Best" dream, the OICW.

You can't argue with something I didn't say. I didn't say the M16A4 HAD replaced the M16A2, but that process is, indeed, ongoing. You seem to concede that the XM8 was better... how many times over is the M16 going to be replaced with newer versions of itself before we concede that 'better' is, uh, better, than 'best.' We have to first concede that the M16 isn't good. I've made that conclusion and therein lies the impass in any reasonable debate. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the M16/M4, we will never get anywhere debating replacement.--Asams10 23:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your line of logic. Are you saying best, or good enough is the right thing? You seem to say that when we wait for the best, we make a mistake, and if we go with "good enough," it'll be a mistake. If going with the M16 was just "good enough for now" then I say the same applies to the XM8. It's "good enough," but hardly the best rifle we can get. And I hardly care if it's fair to HK that we didn't apply the "100% improvement" doctrine to their XM8 project. The project is for the US military, not a company. If their weapon doesn't meet our standards, they're SOL. Personally, I believe that the M16 series is squeezing as much performance as you can expect out of 5.56x45mm. If they want a wee bit more reliability, they can go with a new upper, or a drop in gas rod. Hell, if they're not willing to change to a superior caliber, that is the best option, new gasrods and bolts for the current rifles, maybe some new trigger groupings. That'll easily bring up the rifles to the exact same, if not better, reliability of the XM8. Optics are easy. But then again, I think they should change calibers, and that changing rifles but not calibers is just throwing money at the subject. But they never asked me. ---Idiot with a gun 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The best is the enemy of the good. It means that if you strive for the best, you will never get the good. HK themselves have learned this lesson over the years. They strove constantly for the best. Look at excellent concepts like roller-locked pistols, gas retarded blowback, caseless rounds, the G11, and many other 'optimum' concepts that rarely made it into full-scale production. They spent loads of money on a concept that laymen and soldiers alike were laughing at. In the end, they did the 'right' thing and adopted several conventional designs like the G36 and USP. You said, "...they decided that the XM8 was NOT the 100% improvement that they demanded," so that's fair game. Nobody demanded the 100% improvement on any level for the XM8. If you "hardly cared" then why did you bring it up to support your argument?

At any rate, the argument is that we should replace the M16. It seems that you concede the point. I personally think the FN SCAR is a better -- if heavier -- weapon. And, BTW, there is NO weapon that will ever meet the 100% improvement level without a quantum leap in technology. If you wait for that leap and keep replacing the M16 with, uh, the M16 then you make no progress. We replace our assault rifles about every 20 years now, right? Why not replace the M16 with something incrementally better. Say, with a fully curved mag, integral rail system, and lightweight composites in the receiver. Say, a G36 clone?--Asams10 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that the SCAR isn't designed to be a standard issue weapon: it's a limited procurement weapon designed specifically for SOCOM. The XM8 was designed specifically to replace the M4/m16/249 series. Are there better choices? Possibly. I for one can think of Mk 48 Mod 0 as a better choice than the XM8 AR variant. I think the M25 is a better choice for the marksman variant, or possible the SAM-R or it's variants. However, the M8 has the ability to bring ease of modularity for those. The weapon can be switched out between variants without an armorer, it can be done at the individual soldier level, and it does it more easily and with better parts compatability than the M4/m16 series which we all agree needs to be replaced. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"It was cancelled because it's a waste of military budget. Why would we switch to a fire-arm with no more performance than an M16, chambered for the same .223 round. The M-16 is a legendary battle proven rifle, it would be the dumbest possible move for the military to do this. There is absolutely no benefit to the XM8 other than it's lighter because it's made of crap. The M16 is stil a better long range weapon and it's more accurate according to hundreds of military testing on the XM8." obviously you're one of those AR supremists , who believe so blindly in it. the M16 is battle proven... proven to be unrealiable in many enivronments , even the US army will fully admit to it , as most soldiers did in reports from iraq and afghanistan. And this so called "crap" that you seem to think the XM8 is made out of , is somewhat stronger then the weak alloy recievers of the M16. want proof? fine check out the Australian Army reports of the steyr aug frame (polymer as well dumbass!) being rolled over by a APC : no damage at all . now try that with an M16 and see what happens. furthermore the M16's accuracy isn't that much better then a XM8 marksman variant.

[edit] XM8 and G36

The H&K XM8 is a futuristic version of their G36 assualt rifle. The US government spent who knowns how much on a gun that is already in use but with a Buck Rodger look to it.

Except for the fact that...it's not. They ended up with a design similar to the G36 but with superior performance. May want to leave your biases at the door. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will it be used?

Will the United States Army use the M8, or will they wait for a Future Force Warrior weapon substitute? (A caseless rifle of some sort?). I know the Special Forces are using the SCAR.

[edit] Small Caliber?

Does anyone else think that replacing the M-16/M-4 is a waste of time without uppping the size of the round?

I do. The m16 is not worth replacing until the Army can find a truly next-gen weapon. The M8 is better, but not enough better to be worth replacing the m16. Still, jams are a constant pain in the butt.

Well, let out a sigh of relief. It is all but confirmed that the M8 will not go into US Military service. The Army/Marines will be stuck with their m16's for another five years until the Future Force Warrior has them using caseless rifles and heat seeking pistols and whatnot.

[edit] The SCAR would make a better rifle any day

I think if u were going to change a rifle change it to the scar-h because if u want to replace the m16 change it with a un thats shooting a bigger bullet even though the scar-h is not made for a primary weapon and only hold 20 round clip with the money the goverment was going to spend on the xm8 they could change it to a 30 round clip and change it a to a starnd issue rifle or at least go with the mrc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.71.3 (talk • contribs).

--firstly , go back to playing counter-strike with your fellow acne-covered 12 year old friends , secondly , leave firearms discussion to people who actually know what they're talking about And finally go back to school and pay attention , so you can learn how to spell. I mean is it just me or can anyone else see that this is a kid who has abosolutely no fucking idea what he's on about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.77.120 (talk • contribs).

I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before making further comments. --Chris (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)