[westpointranger]

Ok, I thought it was time we had a MATCHURE discussion about the XM8. Now, before everybody starts screaming, let me list some of the changes made to the system. This comes from the September edition of the Army Times.

1) Improved bolt lacking mechanism and larger bolt release
2) Increased rate of fire (800-850 rpms)
3) "Scored" buttstock (so you know if it's fully extended"
4) Stronger bird-cage replacing the open prong type (thank God!)
5) BUIS mounted on the carry handle instead of on the optic (thank God again)
6) Ridges or kurls added to the cocking lever for better grip
7) Optic adjustments can be done with an empty casing or a coin
Eight) Windage and Elevation knobs make audible clics
9) Optics are attched with a lever-style attachment instead of screws
10) Handguards made of heat-resistant material and have a heat sheild (finnally)
11) Range increased on the IR illuminator and pointer from 600m to 800m
12) Optic controls now mounted on the rear instead of the sides
13) Optic controls are larger and have +/- signs intsead of up/down arrows
14) Battery life increased from 110 hrs to 400 hrs
15) The automatic rifle and DMR are now the same weapon called the Designated Marksman Automatic Rifle
16) Redesigned bipod on the DMAR. The legs collaps shoted so as not to interfere with the shooters grip.
17) The standard buttstock is now mounted on the Compact Carbine

It looks to me like they worked well on the details while they missed the big picture :x .

 

[morpheus]

Personally, I think the XM8 is a very good gun. While it may look like a toy, that still doesn't take away from the fact that it is a good gun. With the composite plastic there is less to rust, with the G36 type action it is more ressistant to harsh conditions without cleaning, and an all around good idea in a new main weapon. The only problem I see with this rifle is that it is chambered in 5.56 NATO, I don't belive there is any good reason to have the 5.56 round as our standard round. If the XM8 was chambered in 6.8 SPC that would be a deadly combo.

This is just what I think, of course.

 

[Jeff_850]

i still dont see why they dont just put the improved gas system of the XM8 on the M-16 and keep the looks and ergo
also make the new M-16s 6.8mm SPC
that would be very deadly, good looking (unlike the toy i mean XM8), and ergonomically sound

 

[westpointranger]

I have the following gripes about the XM8:

As morpheus said, it's chambered for 5.56 NATO.

The rear BUIS is not adjustable.

Even the optic is made of plastic.

The grip is worse the the M16's.

The 12 1/2" bbl. is a TOTALY stupid idea, especially with the 5.56 NATO cartridge. It may not be as bad with the 6.8 SPC, which is the perfect cartridge for this toy . . . I mean rifle :lol: . . . IMO.

Last but not least, since the optical sight is standard, soldiers are going to be dependent on it. Just image Private Murphy. "Sarge how do you aim with this M16 thingy? These metal thingys are hard."

:|

 

[Yimmy]

re

"The automatic rifle and DMR are now the same weapon called the Designated Marksman Automatic Rifle"

Sounds like your version of the LSW.
I am surprised they took that approach, as I do not think the idea has shown much success. Given that the standard rifle is plenty accurate enough with its scope to be a DM rifle, and that we needed to purchase Minimi-para's to increase the firepower which the LSW can't dish out in the automatic rifle role.

 

[mele]

As morpheus said, it's chambered for 5.56 NATO.

also make the new M-16s 6.8mm SPC

If the XM8 was chambered in 6.8 SPC that would be a deadly combo

Folks, the USA is a part of NATO, and until the 6.8 SPC becomes the 6.8 NATO we will NOT adopt any weapon (XM8 or otherwise) in 6.8 SPC. You will probably see some elite units (SF, SEAL, etc) adopt 6.8's (like they did with .300 and .338 LAPUA) but it will not happen for the standard line units. (>99% of the rifles).

Sorry, but don't keep your hopes too high... once NATO starts talking about it, then you can get excited.

MEL

 

[Yimmy]

re

6.8x43mm SPC is far inferior to the 6.5x39mm Grendel anyway. By the numbers, 6.5mm Grendel has more energy down range than 7.62mm NATO has, while having less recoil.

 

[mele]

I'm with Yimmy, I like the grendal better... of course, the 6.8SPC has the power of marketing and hype behind it....

MEL

 

[Jeff_850]

Yimmy, Mel:
agreed
still dont know why the 6.8mm SPC was chosen over the 6.5mm Grendel
terminal performance of either with the same bullet shape should be VERY similar and the Grendel is more powerful at long range
still the 6.8mm SPC is a huge improvement from the .223

 

[mele]

still dont know why the 6.8mm SPC was chosen over the 6.5mm Grendel

Well, the reason is because the SF boys approaced remington and asked them to develop a load for/with them. They said they examined every caliber, etc and came up with the 6.8 SPC. Not sure what their criteria was, but the 6.5 grendal sure seems superior in every way.

Yeah, I will agree that the 6.8spc is far better than .223 (5.56 NATO)

MEL

 

[Spoon]

I dont understand the hype around the 6.8 spc. Maybe somebody could explain. I have looked at the ballistics tables and bullets it shoots, and neither are that impressive at all. I think they should go with a slow twist 24-25 calibre bullet at around 70 to 80 grains moving at around 3400 to 3500 ftps. It would have much better ballistics than the 6.8 spc and do every bit as much damage, maybe more with a slow twist. Also there would be less recoil and the ammo would be cheaper.

Sighted in a 200 yrds, it would only drop 16.5 inches at 400 yards. Its 1.5 high at point blank. With a round like this, just about anyone could make an easy torso hit at 400 yards.

The 6.8 spc drops 32 inches at 400 yards with a 110 vmax at 2600 fps and has 645ftlbs verses 832 with the 243 calibre round



Im sure there are hotter 6.8 rounds but I have yet to find them. I got the 6.8 data from one websites review of it.

All the loads I calculated were using averages of them. They can all be higher or lower in either way.

 

[Jeff_850]

the 6.8mm SPC fits into an AR-15 reciever where the .243 Win needs an AR-10 reciever

 

[Spoon]

Are they going to change the ar 15s to the 6.8 or put the 6.8 in a new rifle. Ive havent heard of the military considering a cartridge change for the ar 15. Although I havent really read much on that.

 

[Jeff_850]

theyve based it off the AR-15
this helps since special forces have converted thier ARs to fire 6.8mm SPC
they have a few million AR-15 lowers around but the chances of a 6.8mm NATO are out of the question right now so dont count on the infantry using it
also the 6.8mm SPC should have better barrier penetration

 

[Kiwi]

If a 6.5 x 39 Grendal is a better general combat round than 6.8 SPC then ultimately NATO should adopt it......if it's the other way around then NATO should adopt 6.8 SPC......if there is a better general combat round than either of these two.....then NATO should....eventualy.....adopt it!

I've not seen a debate anywhere, defend the 5.56 NATO as the IDEAL general combat round.......therefore progress demands a change from this calibre sooner or latter.......(the sooner the better)

The ultimate choice will demand a ballance between what will work in the field and what's expedient.....eg. the ease of conversion of all exsisting M16's, G36's, SA80's and any other arms currently in 5.56 NATO, to whatever the new NATO round will be.......is a "must" politicaly.

The other two areas commonly critisized demand an effort to find THE best operating system, (I like piston) and to have an easy "Left-handed...Right-handed" conversion system.

.............an amature's opinion

 

[Jeff_850]

i dont think you will see a 6.8*43mm NATO or a 6.5*39mm NATO any time soon though
since we made them switch to 5.56*45mm im not so sure we want to ask them to switch again

 

[westpointranger]

The main difference between the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendal is that they are for two totally diffent purposes. The 6.8 is designed for short-medium range encounters as are often seen in combat. The 6.5 Grendal is designed for longer range marksmanship. So I think it's unfair to compare the two in this way.

About the DMAR, the Army has expressly said it is NOT designed to replace the M249 SAW.

 

[Jeff_850]

The main difference between the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendal is that they are for two totally diffent purposes. The 6.8 is designed for short-medium range encounters as are often seen in combat. The 6.5 Grendal is designed for longer range marksmanship. So I think it's unfair to compare the two in this way.

what does the 6.8*43mm SPC do that the 6.5*39mm Grendel cant do at any range?
how does a higher BC and less wind drift hurt for a 600m shot?