Author Topic:  (Read 6004 times)

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« on: January 21, 2004, 07:59:58 PM »
I would still rather have an M16A4 with an ACOG. (That's in the same issue ;-)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
-Greg of Christian\'s Team


Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2004, 09:36:32 PM »
I have that issue, but haven't gotten past the cool pics of SF in the poppy fields.

I think the XM8 is a bit too "euro-stylin'".  It's FUGLY!  I know you think the same Hector, come on and back me up here buddy!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Raven1

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2004, 07:33:07 AM »
XM-8 is So Damn Ugly it's a "Modern Art Masterpiece!"

M-16 is the Gold Standard of @$$ Kicking Cool Good Looks, the more it's modded, the better it gets,,,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Raven1 »

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2004, 10:16:49 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Raven1</i>
<br />XM-8 is So Damn Ugly it's a "Modern Art Masterpiece!"

M-16 is the Gold Standard of @$$ Kicking Cool Good Looks, the more it's modded, the better it gets,,,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Pure poetry!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline yellowmonkey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ratemykitten.com
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2004, 05:08:38 PM »
I have always felt that the XM-8 had a certian European styling (which I do not particularly care for), but if the XM8 out-shines the m16 then why not go for it? H&K has been detailing the love that the military has had for the XM8 so far, so it seems to me that the space age look of the xm8 is probably the look for our modern military. Someone had posted in a forum before about how all our new weapons look like they did in the cheap sci-fi movies... but it's true, we have reached that point. As for all of your preferances and opinions, I cannot say, but if all else fails in the field, you can probably break the XM8 in half and use it as a club. [:)]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by yellowmonkey »
It\'s time to kick *** and chew bubblegum, and I\'m all outa\' bubblegum. -Duke Nukem

Let\'s just be friends. -My Ex-girlfriend

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2004, 07:31:59 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by yellowmonkey</i>
<br />...but if the XM8 out-shines the m16 then why not go for it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because the only reason to replace the M16 would be to use a different cartridge.  I frankly see this as a huge logistics mess, with little or no improvement.  Sure, the Army wants to move into the new century...but if we have the latest, high-tech laser rifle out there, and the enemy uses AK's and knock's us down, I don't see how that is better.

Cha-ching, goes the 2 pennies.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline yellowmonkey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ratemykitten.com
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2004, 07:59:10 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by azsarge</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by yellowmonkey</i>
<br />...but if the XM8 out-shines the m16 then why not go for it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because the only reason to replace the M16 would be to use a different cartridge.  I frankly see this as a huge logistics mess, with little or no improvement.  Sure, the Army wants to move into the new century...but if we have the latest, high-tech laser rifle out there, and the enemy uses AK's and knock's us down, I don't see how that is better.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But haven't most of the enemy encounters in our new war against terror been under 100 meters? The way I see it power isn't a big issue here. I know about the stories that say "we hit the guy with our m16, but he didn't go down." I think that's mostly crap... I don't care if you get hit by a .22 or a .308, you're going down if you don't have good protection. I can see in some rare cases how it might be more effectice to have a powerful weapon, like an AK using comie rounds, but you probably aren't going to need that in Bhagdad and most of the AK toting camel jockeys don't have body armor (to the best of my knowledge). I guess over all, military weapons are becoming more application suited. You use the right weapon for the right job. It just so happens that the XM8 seems to work better for the applications it has in places like Iraq. I don't think the XM8 will ever fully replace the expandable m16's, but XM8's have their strong points where the m16's lack in functionality. There is no reason the military shouldn't use the XM8's when they are able to do the best job. The reason the M16 is so beloved is because it is so versitile, and it will probably be one of the most versitile weapons of the time... still times are changing. What do you think the people said when the military adopted the AR-10? It must seem strange, but the new XM8's are part of the changing face of weapons.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by yellowmonkey »
It\'s time to kick *** and chew bubblegum, and I\'m all outa\' bubblegum. -Duke Nukem

Let\'s just be friends. -My Ex-girlfriend

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2004, 10:34:30 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by yellowmonkey</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by azsarge</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by yellowmonkey</i>
<br />...but if the XM8 out-shines the m16 then why not go for it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because the only reason to replace the M16 would be to use a different cartridge.  I frankly see this as a huge logistics mess, with little or no improvement.  Sure, the Army wants to move into the new century...but if we have the latest, high-tech laser rifle out there, and the enemy uses AK's and knock's us down, I don't see how that is better.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But haven't most of the enemy encounters in our new war against terror been under 100 meters? The way I see it power isn't a big issue here. I know about the stories that say "we hit the guy with our m16, but he didn't go down." I think that's mostly crap... I don't care if you get hit by a .22 or a .308, you're going down if you don't have good protection. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Both you and I lack actual combat experience, so the argument is pointless.  However, I feel it necessary to correct you on one small detail as mentioned above.  <i>They don't always go down quick enough.</i>  If a guy is a direct threat to you, meaning he's firing at you, or sees you, and is preparing to fire, he is amped up on adrenaline.  Shooting him with a smaller caliber round will most likely slow him down, but he might be able to get off a few more rounds in your direction.  Knocking him on his ass with a M1A or M14 will stop that business right here and now!  An AK does the trick as well.  We can get into muzzle velocities, round grains, barrel twist, engagement distances, tmperature variances, and all other kinds of crap.  Let's not!  The simple fact is that neither one of us KNOWS what we're talking about except what we read, or what people tell us.  The FACT is that I personally don't see the need to replace the M16 or M4, and I also THINK the XM8 is ugly!  Now keep in mind that my opinion (or yours) holds no weight when we talk about fact, so lets remember that.  Cheers
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline RickEJ6

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2004, 07:20:12 AM »
Oh yeah, the army is reissuing the M14 as the M21 to one man in every infantry squad.  (According to my Sgt.) He said the armys rational is that every squad needs to have a guy that plays a more dedicated "sniper" type roll that can also provide support fire at range. Rick
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by RickEJ6 »
\"Do not hit if it can be avoided, but never hit softly.\"

T. Roosevelt

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2004, 09:15:22 AM »
well, as you said, most all any of us can talk about is what we;ve read and been told about.  everything i've read says that the military is moving towards urban combat.  in which case, range is less important.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2004, 09:42:31 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by RickEJ6</i>
<br />Oh yeah, the army is reissuing the M14 as the M21 to one man in every infantry squad.  (According to my Sgt.) He said the armys rational is that every squad needs to have a guy that plays a more dedicated "sniper" type roll that can also provide support fire at range. Rick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yep, they call it "Designated Marksman".  They are even purchasing off-the-shelf Springfield M1A's to fill the role.  The M21 is not widely used (contrary to belief), and not many units use them, save for a few SOF units.  The M1A's have worked their way into the Corps, and Army Infantry units.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline yellowmonkey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ratemykitten.com
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2004, 03:27:44 PM »
Azsarge you are right about it all, plus every situation is different; personally, I hope I never have to find out if my weapon will stop somebody... but there is still that part of me that wants to blow other things up. [:D]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by yellowmonkey »
It\'s time to kick *** and chew bubblegum, and I\'m all outa\' bubblegum. -Duke Nukem

Let\'s just be friends. -My Ex-girlfriend

Offline Legs

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2004, 12:28:05 PM »
There is another reason to replace the M16 family and it's well known.  A larger caliber is needed and we should never have dropped down as small as we did,yes, but there is also the issue of reliability.  Though a good target rifle the M16 has PROVEN itself to be less reliable than the opposition.  I'm not advocating a US AK variant, but surely we can develop something better.  The XM8 is a gimmick, but if it fires more reliably it'll find a home.  Better to have the Army look to American builders for our guns, such as Robinson.  They have slated a .308 version of their rifles.  They are both more reliable than M16s and more comfortable, and they are US made.
Dumb debate, really...but you know me.  Must bash the M16 when possible...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Legs »
Molon labe
\"Zippo first.\"

Offline RickEJ6

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2004, 12:35:08 PM »
Well, again not goin from my experience, but from my recruiter S/SGT West's experience in Russia,(he is a scout sniper in the army) that the issue AKs over there, even when completly cleaned up, suffered jams much more frequently than the US guys and their dirty M-4s.  Again, I have had no hands on comparison of the 2 (however, Ive never had a M16 malfunction on me, except due to bad ammo) But I trust S/SGT West's comparison of the 2 rifles. Rick
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by RickEJ6 »
\"Do not hit if it can be avoided, but never hit softly.\"

T. Roosevelt

Raven1

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2004, 02:37:20 PM »
Oh Yeah, I Like Ford better than Chevy!  As far as Chevy's are concerned on a scale of 1 - 10, YOU SUCK! [:P]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Raven1 »