XM-8 Why not? - Page 4

Expendable Grunt · 12-28-2007, 02:56 AM

It's a pitty we can't have expanding bullets on the battle field.

Politics ruins war. You're there to kill the enemy, so why not kill them well?

Bradley · 12-28-2007, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mammikoura

first of all, that's more of a problem with the FMJ rounds used. But expanding bullets aren't allowed on the battlefield, so you have to use FMJ.
And yeah, sometimes you will survive multiple shots. Sometimes you are gone from one.

And that exactly same problem would have been there with the XM-8 too. It uses the same bullets. That being said I still think that they should have stayed with the 7.62x51mm or started using 7.62x39mm.

Why can't we use expanding rounds. Better not be some geneva convention or UN thing...

Bradley · 12-28-2007, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

Not sure if you are in the USMC or not, but if you are and have fired the M16, you will know that it is real easy to shoot and most any Marine or Soldier could get a headshot or at least a mid bodyshot with it. I am not the best shooter with it and I can still get good groupings and shots from it.

I'm not a Marine, but on the few occasions I go shooting it's always with my friend, (Who IS a Marine) and it's never without an M16.

So I know how easy it is on the shooting range, but what if there's a bunch of guys shooting at you and machinguns going off any everything...that's different, no?

(dang it sorry for the double post)

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley · 12-28-2007, 07:48 AM

Firstly it was not cost. Reequiping the entire US army with the XM8 would have cost around the same as 2 F-22s. And despite what the air force may think, the rifles would be a damn sight more useful.

Right, now thats out of the way...

Effectiveness - the "base line carbine", the weapon that was to be the standard issue version of the XM8 featured an 12.5" barrel compared to the 14.5" barrel. When firing the SS109 round barrel length is important. The M4 loses most of its lethality at around 100-150m, compared to longer barreled rifles such as the M16 or FNC which retain it out to around 300m.

Politics - the XM8 was the last hurrah of the OICW programme. However, as some of you may have noticed there was an awful lot of difference between the XM29 and XM8. Now, H&K's competitors, like Colt (who make the army's M4s), FN (who make the Marines' M16 and the M249) and a few others were somewhat unhappy about this and filed a complaint regaurding the fairness of the adoption process the XM8 was undergoing, as the contract had changed from the KE component of the XM29 to a full fledged individual rifle, including PDW, SAW and DMR variants. As such they threatened to sue if no new competition was held. And so the OICW programme was suspended pending futher investigation. It has since been canned.

On expanding ammunition - Its banned under the Hauge Convention of 1899. However, it is only banned in the case of war between two signatory nations. As such the coalition could, theoretically, use it on insurgents all they like without any repercussions as far as international law goes. Infact, the US already breaches it with the Mk.262 round, which open tipped (under the convention all rounds must have a jacket that fully encloses the core. Which is why the M74 5.45mm hollowpoint round is technically legal, as its only hollow under the jacket).

The reason for this is that while such rounds may be more lethal, if they do not kill they leave much, much worse wounds for the person who survived them and so are considered to cause undue suffering.

Oh, and when the convention was drawn up the Germans had just invented their fancy new spitzer type FMJ rounds and didn't want the infamous British dum-dum rounds going about, eating up their business.

Fatal1ty · 12-28-2007, 08:06 AM

why didnt the yanks decide on making a 7.62 weapon???

agreed it would mean that the ragheads would be able to maybe use em if found, but then it would save us a shit load of ammo by robbing theres.

$kelet0r · 12-28-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatal1ty

why didnt the yanks decide on making a 7.62 weapon???

agreed it would mean that the ragheads would be able to maybe use em if found, but then it would save us a shit load of ammo by robbing theres.

yeah ... that doesn't make any sense
NATO 7.62*51mm =/= Russian 7.62*54mm R or 7.62*39mm

Fatal1ty · 12-28-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $kelet0r

yeah ... that doesn't make any sense
NATO 7.62*51mm =/= Russian 7.62*54mm R or 7.62*39mm

i stand corrected.

don't see why the PKM and RRK use diff. rounds, i didn't think there was much difference between the short and long rounds

$kelet0r · 12-28-2007, 08:30 AM

The RPK fills a SAW (squad automatic weapon) role
The PKM is a gimpy (general purpose machine gun)

~~M1126 Stryker~~ · 12-28-2007, 11:40 AM

Going back to the 7.62x51mm would be a bad choice anyway.

Bob I believe the Mk.262 has a hollow tip under the jacket like some Russian 5.45x39mm.

WNxKenwayy · 12-28-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1126 Stryker

Too much 5.56mm bashing around here. It is not that bad of a cartridge. In my opinion claims of hits being ineffective are over exaggerated.

I suppose a new design in the 6mm range could be better but it seems like the Army would rather wait until they can get this great leap they are looking for. I wish they would hurry up with it already.

How many people have you shot with 5.56mm ammunition?

12-28-2007, 02:56 AM	#31
Expendable Grunt Join Date: Mar 2007 Mongolia Location: Hollywood, MD Posts: 3,655	It's a pitty we can't have expanding bullets on the battle field. Politics ruins war. You're there to kill the enemy, so why not kill them well?
	[DM]Cheomesh -- Clan Leader. I should have 200 posts more than it shows... Slayer of 2 spam bots! Aw dude 4 str 4 stam leather belt? AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

12-28-2007, 07:48 AM	#34
[R-MOD]Bob_Marley Forum Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Yugoslavia Location: Essex, UK Posts: 4,775	Firstly it was not cost. Reequiping the entire US army with the XM8 would have cost around the same as 2 F-22s. And despite what the air force may think, the rifles would be a damn sight more useful. Right, now thats out of the way... Effectiveness - the "base line carbine", the weapon that was to be the standard issue version of the XM8 featured an 12.5" barrel compared to the 14.5" barrel. When firing the SS109 round barrel length is important. The M4 loses most of its lethality at around 100-150m, compared to longer barreled rifles such as the M16 or FNC which retain it out to around 300m. Politics - the XM8 was the last hurrah of the OICW programme. However, as some of you may have noticed there was an awful lot of difference between the XM29 and XM8. Now, H&K's competitors, like Colt (who make the army's M4s), FN (who make the Marines' M16 and the M249) and a few others were somewhat unhappy about this and filed a complaint regaurding the fairness of the adoption process the XM8 was undergoing, as the contract had changed from the KE component of the XM29 to a full fledged individual rifle, including PDW, SAW and DMR variants. As such they threatened to sue if no new competition was held. And so the OICW programme was suspended pending futher investigation. It has since been canned. On expanding ammunition - Its banned under the Hauge Convention of 1899. However, it is only banned in the case of war between two signatory nations. As such the coalition could, theoretically, use it on insurgents all they like without any repercussions as far as international law goes. Infact, the US already breaches it with the Mk.262 round, which open tipped (under the convention all rounds must have a jacket that fully encloses the core. Which is why the M74 5.45mm hollowpoint round is technically legal, as its only hollow under the jacket). The reason for this is that while such rounds may be more lethal, if they do not kill they leave much, much worse wounds for the person who survived them and so are considered to cause undue suffering. Oh, and when the convention was drawn up the Germans had just invented their fancy new spitzer type FMJ rounds and didn't want the infamous British dum-dum rounds going about, eating up their business.
	The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough. El_Vikingo: Bob_Marley, the level 70 pimp, will satisfy your needs. Many thanks to the Forum's no.1 hottie for the sig pretties.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-28-2007, 08:06 AM	#35
Fatal1ty Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Birmingham, England Posts: 132	why didnt the yanks decide on making a 7.62 weapon??? agreed it would mean that the ragheads would be able to maybe use em if found, but then it would save us a shit load of ammo by robbing theres.

12-28-2007, 08:30 AM	#38
$kelet0r Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 1,304	The RPK fills a SAW (squad automatic weapon) role The PKM is a gimpy (general purpose machine gun)

12-28-2007, 11:40 AM	#39
~~M1126 Stryker~~ Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA! Posts: 222	Going back to the 7.62x51mm would be a bad choice anyway. Bob I believe the Mk.262 has a hollow tip under the jacket like some Russian 5.45x39mm.

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links