The xm8, good or bad?

[rangerhopefull_1162]

well? what are your thoughts on a new gun replaceing a gun thats been in our history for 40 years in the service of our army

[Speedy]

1) junk, according to the trials.
2)no reason to change something that works, and works well, such as the M16 family.
3)Dislike the op system. My .02 is that this is more of a corporate takeover where a foreign corporation is soliciting the powers that be to make $$$.
4)I really believe that we should be equiping ourselves with weapons and sidearms that are designed and made right here in the USA. It would be really weird to see the Air Force equipped with Migs or Mirages, so why equip us with equipment designed, made, and managed by a foreign country???

[rangerhopefull_1162]

yes but then we need to make some other weapons to better the other countrys weapons such as the hk family and the sigs and fabrique nationale. but i never thought that we should have switched to the baretta from the 1911.

i say if its not broke dont fix it

[Speedy]

yes but then we need to make some other weapons to better the other countrys weapons such as the hk family and the sigs and fabrique nationale. but i never thought that we should have switched to the baretta from the 1911.

i say if its not broke dont fix it

I have fired HK's and dont believe they are a better mouse trap. I dont like the delayed roller-blow back. I also dont like the weight. And I really dont like how flimsy the recievers are. One knock on the side creating a dent, and the bolt wont function. Also, there is a trade off for reliabilty in its design for accuracy.

FN, I like, but way to heavy and bulky of a weapon. It also is a bit more complicated to field strip, at least to me.

Sig...hmmm never fired the rifles, so I cant comment.

A properly set up and maintained M-16 is a great weapon. LMT has redesigned the bolt and gas ports to be about a reliable a weapon as one can get. I use Armadillo lubricant and havn't had a problem with jamming. Ammo is coming along way, and improvements are making there way to the battlefront. No real need to replace it.

At least the ol 1911 is making its comeback. Seems in Socom, the Mk23 didnt hit its mark. lol and the 1911 is back on duty again..

[ozzi-solja]

I always understood the M16 rifle series to be an unreliable piece of equipment, being prone to constant jammings in the Vietnam War. Despite the many improvements made to it.

Although the Australian Army has never actually used the M16 in any conlfict, we've always preferred to follow the rest of the Commonwealth in their equipment selection.

I am largely ignorant to the new hardware coming into play to the US army, but i do know that the current issue Austeyer Rifle is one of the most reliable rifles in the world.

One point that should be raised in retrospect to this issue... Ak-47s have been in use by many militaries all over the world since they were introduced in the 60's by the Soviets. Arabs are still using these weapons today, and it doesnt matter what gun the bullet comes from, or how cool or powerful the gun is, it still kill a person when used correctly.

[Speedy]

AS far as the M16 goes, it got a bad wrap from the get go. They originally jammed all the time and couldnt be trusted. As always, that is only one-half the story. What you never heard is the Department of the Army didn't want a plastic rifle. So when they were originally issued to grunts in the field, they never issued a cleaning kit or even lubricant. On top of that the soldiers were actually told it was a self cleaning weapon.. Even an AK will jam at some point under these conditions.

The Ak47 design is hearty. It was originally concieved along the lines of a machine gun, not a rifle. M16, designed to be a rifle first, machine gun second. In any weapon, pistols included, there is a trade off that the designers have to decide on. Accuracy vs. reliability. Generally, the more accurate a weapon is the less reliable it is. And vice versa. As such, 3rd world AKM's aren't all that accurate, but they will function. Im often surprised the barrells dont peel back on a lot of them when fired as well.

I'll be happy to keep my trusty M16. I can hit a man size target with little problem out to 400m iron sighted. I have never had a problem jamming. I even know of someone who can place rounds from an M16 into a six inch circle at 1000yds. Granted he was a sniper that went to the Army's marksmanship unit, but he proved it can be done..

I also im not a fan of the magazines being behind the trigger group. VERY dificult to speed reload during immediate action drills. If I were brought up around rifles in this configuration from the time I was a boy, I might feel different. But hey, as long as the weapon functions everytime, and you can hit a vital area, its a good to go in my book.

[rangerhopefull_1162]

correction, the m16 was made defective when it was first shipped to vietnam. then they fixed the porblems and made the a2, which was promptly shipped out. the ak47 is a cheap weapon to use, and well made. that is why the middle eastern people use it, because its cheap and more relaible than the average "grease" gun. but the m16 is a well made weapon, that sood still be in our military.
i have shot a ar15, and a saiga ak74 (heck i own the ak74) and there was a HUGE difference between the two, even though the m16 uses a "*****" round, i dont think that should be the only way to do it.
what ever happened to the guys that could actually kill? like the 30'06 bar? or the .45 thompson? we need more guns like those.

dont fix something if it aint broke

[Speedy]

OK, the M16 original version fielded I believe the sp1. After fielding it and having problems with jamming due to fouling and some problems with the chemical preservative on the rounds, they added a way to aid in feeding the round in the event the case didnt seat all the way in the chamber. Known as the forward assist. They also changed the flashider. When these changes were fielded it became the -A1 designation. This version is still in use today in the US military. close to 20 years later, in the mid eighties, the -A2 was fielded, heavier barrel, sight adjustments in the rear, and ultimately a small brass deflector built in, but incorporating a 3 round burst mode instead of a full auto fire control group. I have carried both and I can tell you there is no difference in reliability. I prefer to carry the A1 versions, because they are lighter, more pointable, full-auto, and I like the sights better. But that is just me. The next evolution the m-4 is great. I like dot sights since they are so simple and easy to shoot with both eyes open. And I have been shooting dot sights on pistols for about 15 years now, so it was really natural and a great improvement. The down side is that you loose range because of the shorter barrel and twist rate.

Really, the ammo has been improved tremendously. Heavier bullets (70+ grains) are being fielded now that get the job done. I like being able to carry more rounds over something .308. Please consider the typical load out of a grunt. Without a weapon my equipment could weigh over 140 pounds, which can be unbearable. Then add in a weapon and 300 rounds of ammo, and you will find yourself breaking the camels back. Grunts dont like to carry any more than what they have to..

[rangerhopefull_1162]

i claim ignorance on this one...
are u still allowed 2 carry the a1?

[Lord Barker]

Ok, we can sit here and argue about which is the better weapon for years... the issue is though.... does it matter? Look at the most recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Look at the casualty count for combat.... i don't think it even reached triple figures, in those incidents where poeople did, unfortunately meet their end in combat, was it because of the weapon? Would having a slightly lighter german made carbine make any difference whatsoever? And even if it did, thats what the M4 is for.
I think the current generation of assault rifles is about as good as you are going to get. If your going to buy a new weapons system it needs to do something that assault rifles cannot.
Just a waste of money, even if it is lighter, smaller, more aestheticaly pleasing, sexy or makes a cute noise when you **** it. The one the US army has now is good enough for the job. Not to mention the fact that it's american.. what happened to countries being strict about buying from internal industries... even the UK is giving up on that front....

[rangerhopefull_1162]

very good point

lets see js mac come up with a good one like that. lol

barker i have respect for you because you seem to know what u r talking about, js dosent. i hope most english arent like him......but is there much anti americanism over there?

[Lord Barker]

Thankyou Rangerhopefull,


Britain is pretty much like any other country in that there are good people and bad people. There is the loser like JS, who thinks usings words like dork and saying HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA every few paragraphs is cool, but alot of good people around....
Yes there is alot of anti-americanism in Britain, mostly stating americans are fat, lazy, stupid and love war...

[ozzi-solja]

begging your pardon Barker, but 'fat, lazy, stupid and loves war' sounds like a spitting stereotypical image of a British General pre-1970's. You know, the sort that sent the ANZAC's to the slaughter at Gallipoli, the sort of drunk ****s that look EXACTLY like Winston Churchill when he was head of the Admiralty.

This is a calm question, but how can anyone say that Americans love war when their wars actually HAVE a point, unlike most that the British have fought??

[Lord Barker]

Well yes, british high command used to be remarkably stupid, but that is really in heidsight, Gallipoli was a failiure, yes, but what happened not long after? D-day. They were both huge gambles, there is a fine line between stupidity and daringness. War is all about gambles and trying new things, amphibious landings before galipoli were unheard of on that scale.
And for all you out there saying "hauge was a fool that sent thousands of men to their deaths on the front", could you have done better? He accepted the use of a tank, even though it did'nt look too promising, he was always trying new plans to have a break through...

Just so you know, I don't agree with the statment that americans are fat, lazy, stupid and love war, i was merely answering a question.

[ozzi-solja]

hmm, i agree with you on all that Barker, though personally i dont give the British any credit during WW2. I give it all to the yanks and russini's. Afterall, they were the two largest nations on earth afterward hey. But agreed, war is about gambling, hell, life is a gamble, and during war lives ARE gambled for. Thats the way **** gets flushed i spose. As for amphibious landings, the ADF is based on them, hell, we are a ****IN BIG ISLAND.

Back to the subject at hand (before every thread on this site gets turned political) the Xm8 must be a damned fine weapon for it to replace the prestige and experience of the M16A2. Does anyone have a picture of the weapon that they could post here, i'd like to see it.

[Lord Barker]

Here is the XM8 and varients:

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/XM8_Rifle_2.jpg

Waaay too trying-to-be-futuristic looking for my liking...

[rangerhopefull_1162]

no way dude, it looks like a squirt gun

[ozzi-solja]

wow, thats one space age lookin rifle, does it shoot laser beams?? ha,

[Lord Barker]

Nope, it shoots standard 5.56mm NATO round, it has been described as the kinetic energy componet of the OIWC, and is the alternative to smacking a huge 20mm grenade launcher on top..
it is aproximately 1kg lighter than the M16A2, which is think in nothing phenominal...
Atleast no phenominal enough to replace the M16A2 with..
Seriously they think this will make any change to combat effectivness?
I wonder how many cases of the difference of 1kg winning a battle will make?

[CommanderColt]

I apoligize for ressurecting an old thread, but I need to add my 2 cents to what was previously mentioned. The reason the US army is adopting the xm-8 is to cut down on costs and training time. Not only does the xm-8 cost less to produce per gun, but also becuase of its modularity to switch from cqb to standard assault rifle to designated marksman to lsw, so you cut down on having to buy multiple rifles. Also, since they are all modular, you cut down drastically on training time. They also switched b/c the m-16 is nearly a half century old. The army didn't switch b/c of one kg, they switched b/c of those reasons.

[Whiskey]

hmm, though personally i dont give the British any credit during WW2. I give it all to the yanks and russini's. Afterall, they were the two largest nations on earth afterward hey

Mate i really have to jump in here, your statement is so far from the truth i am almost speechless, if Britain had not fought as hard as it did for as long as it did The Third Reich would have controlled all of Europe and the USSR. This is not personal opinion this is just fact, it was Britain that urged the US to join the fight against germany, it was british sailors on the Artic Convoys taking supplies to the Russians, please research what you say before you make really very very offensive statements like this.

Cheers

K

[Lord Barker]

Mate i really have to jump in here, your statement is so far from the truth i am almost speechless, if Britain had not fought as hard as it did for as long as it did The Third Reich would have controlled all of Europe and the USSR. This is not personal opinion this is just fact, it was Britain that urged the US to join the fight against germany, it was british sailors on the Artic Convoys taking supplies to the Russians, please research what you say before you make really very very offensive statements like this.

Cheers

K

Furthermore, there would have been no staging post for the D-Day invasion, and there would have been little resistance in Norther Africa, giving the Germans much needed oil supplies. Germany would also have been able to put much less manpower into manning the atlanticwall, because any invasion from American would be sighted long before it reached the shores and the Germans would have been able to react as appropriate.
Oh, and one more thing, the huge allied bombing campain by Britain and the US would never have been able to come into force with no bases in Britain.
All these factors would have allowed the eastern front to be put under much less strain, with better equipment due to intact facilities because they were not bombed and a mobile force because the tanks would have oil from Africa that was not defended by British troops.

Some people can be really offended by the ignorant youth of taday saying how **** Britain did in the war, what about those who lost limbs,friends, mothers, fathers, brother, sisters, sons and daughters through britains steadfast endurance.

[Whiskey]

Right on the money mate, Ask anyone who was around during the war and the sacrifices they made, not just losed loved ones but everyday things like food, would be beyond most people today.

K

[British and proud]

Ozzi solja im sorry but your comment about not giving the British any credit is beyond bloody belief. If we had not stopped the German invasion from conquering the UK, all of Europe would have crippled and no-one could have saved it. We had to fight alone for 3 years before America showed. We had to endure night after night of bombing raids. Does the Battle of Britain sound framilia? A little island like ourselves took on the mighty Nazi empire in the skies and won! This was alone (with Canadian pilots)! Have you forgotten the machines we built for the allies aswell? (Spitfire, Hurricane, P-51 Mustang which is an American plane but used the Rollce royce spitfire engine, lancaster bomber. Any of them sound framilia?) Please dont insult us like that, we lost not only soldiers beyond belief but thousands of civillians aswell, yet we deserve no credit?

Dude you've really hit a nerve with me on that one!

[rangerzrock]

4 1 thing the yanks didn't need any urging to join the war, they joined as soon as pearl harbor, they joined in 1941 i know that. and the brits lost tobruk but with the help of american intelligence were able to take it again. the only reason the brits won they're part of the war is bcus of american/british/french intelligence, yes french. they made a superb diagram of the normandy beaches wich gaeve a clear idea of it to the allies. but i g2g congradulate all allied forces, they all did ther part :cool:

[British and proud]

So your saying the only reason the British won their part of the war was because of America and France? Are you saying that America won their part because of Britain and France then because thats what I think? You probably think they won their part on their own? You seem to think that we didnt do anyhting without America's help yet the battle of Britain (the biggest air engagement) we won, even though we were out numbered 4-1! That was our finest hour....simple as! Yes there was a massive joint force between all nations, but independantly we had to fight the most before America showed up. Plus we were getting blitzed, America didnt have to endure that!

[royal marine]

woah zzie uve hit a nerve on me 2 so shut the **** up about that u stupid non_military expert....u are such a ****er....we beat romel and his forces esay and stopped em from getting oil als battle of britain....we had 362 planes they had 2867 but hey we're soo crap that we beat them.....uhu i get that now......and also who planned the DDAY assault and who fought most with amazing gallantry at arnhem bridge u fucin piece of ozzie ****y wanker knob end.......go and speak some more bollocks that u need to read up b4 u say it

P.S....we were the 1s who always supply you and also invaded u so shut up u piece of ****

[Lord Barker]

Would be really nice to have a retort from the 'ozzi solja' rite now....

[ozzi-solja]

sorry, **** didnt realise i had stirred up a hornets nest.

first of all, it wasnt a statement Whiskey, it was a personal opinion. damn right it isnt factual, its an opinion. an opinion NOT justified by the amount of fighting undertaken during the war, but the fact that the Soviets took the east, and the US did a ****in fine job of supplying the entire pacific war effort.

in fact, it was entirely a stupid thing to say. but the amount of personal offence that everyone took to it, **** you guys, hold onto your chairs or you might fly away.

but to royal marine, sit down and shut the **** up.

Britain didnt supply us, the United States did. stiff **** mr 'military expert'

secondly, congratualtions of beating Rommel in North Africa, i sooo hadnt heard that before. need i remind you that it was an Australian division that was there, composing most of the North Africa allied forces. heard of the 'rats of Tobruk'??

and as far as i know, the Brits did plan DDay, whoopdie do, but they still only made up half the force. the fact that the orginal idea was British means jack ****.

again, what i said was stupid, lay off and get back to assault rifles

[ozzi-solja]

and another thing 'marine', stop the bull**** about invading australia, it was COLONISED... DUH. we've never been invaded you dick, get your terminology and your facts right

[British and proud]

Oh my flipping god ozzie! How many children are in here? You say whoopdiedo that Britain planned D-day as though that was nothing? One of the biggest invasions of the entire war and it was nothing special? You say we "only" made up half the force? "only"? It might just be me but half is an awful fukin lot! Take a look at a map and see how small we are yet we were half of all the allies in D-day! Your right you dont say facts, quite the opposite, and as for your opinions.......just and insult!

[ozzi-solja]

fair point roger, fair point. give yoursulf all the credit you deserve, i mean that in a nice way

but allow me to explain.

the Australian war effort was centred on Japan, and boy did we ever scare the **** out of them. i admit, without the yanks we'd be ****ed, but the Kokoda battle and all battles in what is now Indonesia were purely Australian vs Japanese, meaning the british take little or no credit in THAT war. i believe that is where my previous statement was centred.

therefore, the Australian history says very little about the war in Europe. the furthest we got was North Africa, to which Rommel said 'they're not a colonial division, they're an Australian division. Give me two Australian divisions and i'd conquer the world'.

no, i'm not bathing in that compliment, i take in board as meaning that we did some good in Nth Africa. historical fact: in 1942, the Australian force left Nth Africa and went to Indonesia, because the Japanese were coming down like a tonne of bricks.

but enough of this, can we please get back to the XM8?

again, i apoligise to the british for my statement

[Lord Barker]

Well most peole don't really know what a discussion is here, its more like, if you have an opinion other than my own YOUR A ****ING DICKHEAD PEDIOPHILE ****!!1!!111!!!!
:rolleyes:

[ozzi-solja]

sorry sarge, wont happen again;)

[ozzi-solja]

and where in ****s name did paedophilia come into the equation?

[British and proud]

Thats exactly what I was thinking and yes your right. The British didn't really have anything to do in the war of the Pacific. I wasnt offended just couldent see any reasoning to your comment.

[royal marine]

yeah i have heard of the rats of tobruk......THE BLOODY BRITISH 1ST ARMOURED DIVISION THE 1 THAT BEAT ROMMEL AND YES AUSSIES DID HELP BUT THERE WERENT MANY THERE...........................anyway d-day would not of worked without those spanish secret agents......and brit we took burm from LOADS of japs in the pacific theatre ofoperations

[HalabI]

4 they're part of the war is bcus of american/british/french intelligence, yes french. they made a superb diagraadulate all allied forces, they all did ther part :cool:


diagraadulate????

[Pathfinder UK]

My Grandfather fought in Burma and various other Pacific battlegrounds. He fought hard and lost many friends. After the war he would never talk about his time in Burma and destroyed all his old photos from the war.
I'm not sure if Burma qualifies as part of the Pacific campaign but it's an insult to say the British had no involvment in the area. Tell that to my Grandfather.

[Phisy]

Can someone lock this thread before it becomes even more off topic?

[SniperAlpha1]

to get things back on target:
the XM 8 weapon system was designed to equip SF and SWAT. the system is medocher in all asspects except as a carbine. the gun is superior when you compare the XM 8 carbine to the M4 carbine or M16 rifle. there is an increase of muzzle velocity and the new standard red dot system will improve accuracy greatly. the carbine is two pounds lighter than the M16 and is made of plastic where it can be used. this eliminates the durability of the weapon. and most importantly, H&K is leendary or producing superior weapons. the MP5 is considered the greatest compact Machine Gun in history. the XM 8 will definately improve our battle record.

[ebloodaxe]

I know I am out of line and off topic entirely, and I am not a user of this forum I was just doing a search about Australian war involvement, and happened to come accross this thread.

Regardless of what was said earlier about the British war effort (which was incredible and should never be underestimated, I am a British citizen), I have to correct an earlier poster

royal marine said:

yeah i have heard of the rats of tobruk......THE BLOODY BRITISH 1ST ARMOURED DIVISION THE 1 THAT BEAT ROMMEL AND YES AUSSIES DID HELP BUT THERE WERENT MANY THERE..........................

I am also an Australian citizen and am currently living here and know full well the history of the Rats of Tobruk, a force made up of over 50% Australians

'Australian soldiers from the Australian 9th Division and the 18th Brigade of the Australian 7th Division under Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead made up more than half of the Allied presence in Tobruk with a total strength of over 14,000 men. Other forces present included (in alphabetic order) British, Indian, Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade.'

taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rats_of_tobruk

and I apologise once more for ressurrecting a very old topic and making a completely off topic remark I just felt the injustice needed to be corrected. I encourage everyone to show more respect to the other nations they share the world with, and will not be coming back ever to check or reply.

Good day to you all sers!

[Lenin]

to get things back on target:
the XM 8 weapon system was designed to equip SF and SWAT. the system is medocher in all asspects except as a carbine. the gun is superior when you compare the XM 8 carbine to the M4 carbine or M16 rifle. there is an increase of muzzle velocity and the new standard red dot system will improve accuracy greatly. the carbine is two pounds lighter than the M16 and is made of plastic where it can be used. this eliminates the durability of the weapon. and most importantly, H&K is leendary or producing superior weapons. the MP5 is considered the greatest compact Machine Gun in history. the XM 8 will definately improve our battle record.
I would like to see it being used by the SF and Swat, wouldnt do them any harm if regulars use it either.

[Carib FMJ]

If I could get a try on the XM8, I'd sure love to give it a twirl. I mean we all know that composite Polymers are the new wave of the future, but when I come into the service, I wounder if I can get a try of it on the range.

[Phisy]

Most peoples complaints about it seem to revolve around it not being american - if that isn't a bloody stupid reason not to have it I don't know what is. Learn from the fact that it's taken us Brits nearly 20 years to fix a rifle that was choosen simply because it was British.

I'm a soldier - I want the best equipment I can economically have. Thats it - I don't give a **** where it comes from!

[SniperAlpha1]

Regulars will use it. The US Army is pushing for infintry to equip completely by mid to late 06. US SF have their own new weapon : The SCAR weapon system.

[Tacky]

SF wouldn't touch the XM-8, it's a POS.

[Paco]

yes but then we need to make some other weapons to better the other countrys weapons such as the hk family and the sigs and fabrique nationale. but i never thought that we should have switched to the baretta from the 1911.

i say if its not broke dont fix it

i also don't understand why change from using .45 acp to 9mm, --capacity???--***** recoil??--

I know of cases of individuals being shot, up to three times with the 9mm and were still standing when the shots were poorly placed(not hitting arms or legs I am saying like i bit below upper chest and a bit to the sides), but i mean c'mon, i don't think that'd happen with the m1911a1

[Paco]

[QUOTE=Speedy]AS far as the M16 goes, it got a bad wrap from the get go. They originally jammed all the time and couldnt be trusted. As always, that is only one-half the story. What you never heard is the Department of the Army didn't want a plastic rifle. So when they were originally issued to grunts in the field, they never issued a cleaning kit or even lubricant. On top of that the soldiers were actually told it was a self cleaning weapon.. Even an AK will jam at some point under these conditions.

The Ak47 design is hearty. It was originally concieved along the lines of a machine gun, not a rifle. M16, designed to be a rifle first, machine gun second. In any weapon, pistols included, there is a trade off that the designers have to decide on. Accuracy vs. reliability. Generally, the more accurate a weapon is the less reliable it is. And vice versa. As such, 3rd world AKM's aren't all that accurate, but they will function. Im often surprised the barrells dont peel back on a lot of them when fired as well.

I'll be happy to keep my trusty M16. I can hit a man size target with little problem out to 400m iron sighted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------wow to hit a human size target at 400m ur markmanship skills must be excellent, i am not in the army, but i am a gun freak and, i trouble a lot to hit a human size target at 250 with an ar-15 series bushmaster 16" barrel, i mostly use black hills fmj 77-grain bullets

[Paco]

wow, thats one space age lookin rifle, does it shoot laser beams?? ha, not laser beams, but is laser guided air-busting 20mm greandes enough for you?

[SniperAlpha1]

i also don't understand why change from using .45 acp to 9mm, --capacity???--***** recoil??--

I know of cases of individuals being shot, up to three times with the 9mm and were still standing when the shots were poorly placed(not hitting arms or legs I am saying like i bit below upper chest and a bit to the sides), but i mean c'mon, i don't think that'd happen with the m1911a1

The 9mm is NATO standard. We switched over even though it's crap. Talk to Any Marine who has the option of using a Colt .45 and they will say that it runs circles around the beretta

[SniperAlpha1]

[QUOTE=Speedy]AS far as the M16 goes, it got a bad wrap from the get go. They originally jammed all the time and couldnt be trusted. As always, that is only one-half the story. What you never heard is the Department of the Army didn't want a plastic rifle. So when they were originally issued to grunts in the field, they never issued a cleaning kit or even lubricant. On top of that the soldiers were actually told it was a self cleaning weapon.. Even an AK will jam at some point under these conditions.

The Ak47 design is hearty. It was originally concieved along the lines of a machine gun, not a rifle. M16, designed to be a rifle first, machine gun second. In any weapon, pistols included, there is a trade off that the designers have to decide on. Accuracy vs. reliability. Generally, the more accurate a weapon is the less reliable it is. And vice versa. As such, 3rd world AKM's aren't all that accurate, but they will function. Im often surprised the barrells dont peel back on a lot of them when fired as well.

I'll be happy to keep my trusty M16. I can hit a man size target with little problem out to 400m iron sighted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------wow to hit a human size target at 400m ur markmanship skills must be excellent, i am not in the army, but i am a gun freak and, i trouble a lot to hit a human size target at 250 with an ar-15 series bushmaster 16" barrel, i mostly use black hills fmj 77-grain bullets

The M16 when put into service was designed for Air Force Base Security it was a ****ty decision to put it into the harsh jungles of Nam. And now the M16 is undergoing its 4th revamp.. just goes to show how old it is. 40 years. But i would take that gun over an Ak, while reliable i would like to see someone hit a lone target 250m away with the heavy 7.62. Especially since the iron sights are bad. You would have a better chance with the 74 or 101.

[Paco]

[QUOTE=Paco]

The M16 when put into service was designed for Air Force Base Security it was a ****ty decision to put it into the harsh jungles of Nam. And now the M16 is undergoing its 4th revamp.. just goes to show how old it is. 40 years. But i would take that gun over an Ak, while reliable i would like to see someone hit a lone target 250m away with the heavy 7.62. Especially since the iron sights are bad. You would have a better chance with the 74 or 101.

there are now ak's chambering the .223/5.56mm, and for the sight u can take ur ak to a gunsmither and have m16 iron sights type, or heck, even have a Picatinny rail installed with a red dot, if one's desires to, but again that'd be fro someone who takes their hobbies to the edge (and have a *****load of money too)

*plz forgive my poor english, <still learning it>:cool:

[Paco]

sniperalpha
aren't u.s. soldiers allowed to carry a gun of choice as a sidearm at their own criteria?
for example like a shotgun 870 rem or a kimber .45???

i read that in a magazine ( handgunner i believe) but i don't think it's true

what do you think?

[royalmarinehopefull]

Thats a bit stupid do think a soldier who becides carrying all that kit would want to lug an 870 round with them. its just too heavy that maye vigalantes your refearing too. you know bounty hunters and the like

[Tacky]

[QUOTE=Paco]But i would take that gun over an Ak, while reliable i would like to see someone hit a lone target 250m away with the heavy 7.62. Especially since the iron sights are bad. You would have a better chance with the 74 or 101.

A five year old could make that shot, even with an AK. WTF are you talking about?

aren't u.s. soldiers allowed to carry a gun of choice as a sidearm at their own criteria?

No. Only SOF get some choice. I carry a Sig .40.

[SniperAlpha1]

sniperalpha
aren't u.s. soldiers allowed to carry a gun of choice as a sidearm at their own criteria?
for example like a shotgun 870 rem or a kimber .45???

i read that in a magazine ( handgunner i believe) but i don't think it's true

what do you think?

Nope. If they are qualified, it doesn't neccasarily mean they get to carry one. Only some units carry some side arms. If they do it's the Beretta 92 series. Standard issue is all they get. Marine Force Recon can choose to carry the M9 or a tactical colt .45. Most choose the Colt.

[SniperAlpha1]

[QUOTE=SniperAlpha1]

there are now ak's chambering the .223/5.56mm, and for the sight u can take ur ak to a gunsmither and have m16 iron sights type, or heck, even have a Picatinny rail installed with a red dot, if one's desires to, but again that'd be fro someone who takes their hobbies to the edge (and have a *****load of money too)

*plz forgive my poor english, <still learning it>:cool:

the 74 and 101/103 are chambered in the 5.56

[Phisy]

The 9mm is NATO standard. We switched over even though it's crap. Talk to Any Marine who has the option of using a Colt .45 and they will say that it runs circles around the beretta


If we had any sense we'd be using 5.7mm for sidearms and PDW's - but you know thats not going to happen any time soon.

(yes, stopping power - I know - but your not going to be stopping anyone if you can't penetrate their body armour)

[Tacky]

Nope. If they are qualified, it doesn't neccasarily mean they get to carry one. Only some units carry some side arms. If they do it's the Beretta 92 series. Standard issue is all they get. Marine Force Recon can choose to carry the M9 or a tactical colt .45. Most choose the Colt.

You know this how?

[SniperAlpha1]

Uncle was a MArine. Part of the 2nd Battalion

[Tacky]

Uncle was a MArine. Part of the 2nd Battalion

Part of what 2nd Bn? There are a lot of 2nd Bn's out there. And rarely will you see a FR Marine with a .45 these days, in fact, almost never.

[Paco]

[QUOTE=SniperAlpha1]

A five year old could make that shot, even with an AK. WTF are you talking about?



No. Only SOF get some choice. I carry a Sig .40.

what's a SOF?

i was talkking about hitting a target at 250 m with the old ammo the ak47 originally chambered.you're saying a 5 fve year old could make that shot, well i am not in the army and my markmanship skills aren't that good, so yes i stuggled to achived groups of at least 5" at 100, i think my trigger control is the worst. Got any tips to improve it?

[Tacky]

what's a SOF?

Special Operations Forces.

i was talkking about hitting a target at 250 m with the old ammo the ak47 originally chambered.you're saying a 5 fve year old could make that shot, well i am not in the army and my markmanship skills aren't that good, so yes i stuggled to achived groups of at least 5" at 100, i think my trigger control is the worst. Got any tips to improve it?

If you're talking from a civilian perspective, okay.. I'll grant you that.

[SniperAlpha1]

Tacky are you a Green Beret?

[Tacky]

Tacky are you a Green Beret?

I'm not a hat, no. ;)

[SniperAlpha1]

nice, are you a SF operator?

[Zeus185]

[QUOTE=SniperAlpha1]

A five year old could make that shot, even with an AK. WTF are you talking about?



No. Only SOF get some choice. I carry a Sig .40.



hi tacky you use the sig i read the SAS use the sig as well(though some still use the browning hi power)tell me tacky what assault rifle the SOF considering of getting next(you said in another post that the SOF would never consider getting the XM8)so i was just wondering what you guys plan on getting next

[Lenin]

They would stick with the M4's :p

[SniperAlpha1]

Look for my thread in hardware about the SCAR weapon system. That's what SF will be shooting next. Heckler and Koch makes it: a great weapon.

[Zeus185]

Look for my thread in hardware about the SCAR weapon system. That's what SF will be shooting next. Heckler and Koch makes it: a great weapon.




yeah maybe but thats got a few years left in R&D i would have thought the SOF would have switched to somthing other than what they have in the mean time


i was wanting to hear what tacky thinks about the "scar system" i think its good you think its good but its good to hear what somone who`ll use it thinks........you know what i mean

[sbader]

don't get something new if you have a good thing alrandy like the m16 famliy GET-R-DONE:cool:

[SniperAlpha1]

M16 Family is getting old. It's already in its 4 revamp. Besides they need a speacialized combat weapon for the job. M4 is okay for maybe another 5 years max. Infintry is going with the XM8 in the next couple of months. look for it late this year early next.

[metal_jacket]

I don't think so mate. According to this article the xm8 project has been discontinued, which would, in effect, mean that nobodies gonna see the xm8 in action anytime soon. Of course there could be recent developments that this artcile neglects to mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8

[Tacky]

i was wanting to hear what tacky thinks about the "scar system" i think its good you think its good but its good to hear what somone who`ll use it thinks........you know what i mean

It was chosen because it looks "sexy."

SCAR is not ready yet, about 80% finished, and it sucks ergonomically. The picatinney rails are add ons becasue they wanted to go to a propreitary bouble prong system that would have made all of the mounts presently used useless. Of course, guess who would do upgrades on the present mounts? More money in their pocket.

Give it another year, maybe two and it may be a good system. Right now, it's just not ready.

We have some HK416s in our arms room, while they aren't a huge improvement over the M4...far better than chosen SCAR at this time.

M16 Family is getting old. It's already in its 4 revamp. Besides they need a speacialized combat weapon for the job. M4 is okay for maybe another 5 years max. Infintry is going with the XM8 in the next couple of months. look for it late this year early next.

Incorrect. The XM-8 did not meet the requirements forcing the Army to open up the contract to other bidders. At this time the XM-8 is on the shelf waiting on improvements.

The M16 and the M4 aren't going anywhere soon.

[SniperAlpha1]

dammit history channel lied to me!