XM-8: New U.S. Service Rifle?

Modern Firearms and Ammunition website ^ | unknown | Unknown

[Long Cut]

Sad, isn't it? These imbecilic socialists from San Francisco and New York, by virtue of Senate rules which the Constitution mentions NOT AT ALL, control how the rest of the country may exercise a Right.

They need to be spanked. And the Sunset will be a good start.

[Long Cut]

"I'm not convinced, but my antenna will be up now."

The ONE car type we've NEVER been beaten at is the Musclecar. Like I said, keep it simple and American car makers have it down...rear drive, front, V-8 engine, and lots of cubes.

What more do you need?

[Woahhs]

They call it that because it has an air pocket at the tip, causing it to be wildly unstable after it hits virtually anything

You don't think it might have something to do with the roughly three fold increase in length of the Russian round?

[Woahhs]

OUR bullet needs a LOT of velocity do perform the same trick, but is a better all-around performer in every other circumstance.

Such as?

[PatrioticAmerican]

A gun thread ! WHoo-hoo!

My opinion? Take what you've got or can get and get damned good with it, then stand back and shoot the Hell out of the other guy who has the fanciest rifle in the world but doesn't have enough ammo or practice to use it.

"Fear the man with one gun...because he knows how to use it."

[wysiwyg]

Wow, and people call the AR ugly...

[Woahhs]

Ugly is a sucking chest wound or intestinal protrusion. Everything else is taste.

[Shooter 2.5]

You mean like a Sierra 70 Grain MatchKing?

[Long Cut]

Hey, to me they all got ugly when the makers quit using wood in them.

[Long Cut]

"Ugly is a sucking chest wound or intestinal protrusion. Everything else is taste"

Oh, REALLY? How about THIS:

[prophetic]

plus I think ANY weapon looks very good with a 100 round C-MAG attached to it :-)

See the C-MAGs site http://www.beta-cmag.com/faq-index.html

[Gorjus]

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it.

This is a different issue, or at least offers a wider range of solutions. Your original comment was that we definitely needed something bigger than the .223, and offered as an unsupported opinion. Even if the round did not function as it was supposed to - and that may indeed by the case - you have not explained why a bigger round is the required solution.

Bigger is heavier. Again, what would you give up in order to carry a bigger round? Or, if the size/weight is not the problem, then in what way did the .223 not function as intended?

Frankly, as long as it will penetrate body armor that can reasonably be worn, and out to ranges of a few hundred yards, my own opinion is that smaller/lighter bullets are better just because you can carry more of them, and fire them from a smaller/lighter rifle. In fact, much of the new ammunition development uses smaller projectiles with two or three in each cartridge. Pistol bullets won't penetrate a helmet or a flak vest at 200 yards, but .223s will (recognizing that no non-explosive round will penetrate typical body armor if the grazing angle gets shallow enough). The compelling argument for going to a larger round, for me, would be data that shows the .223 will not penetrate current or near-term proposed body armor at tactically significant ranges.

On the other hand, for various reasons the current bullets may not be stabilized correctly for accuracy. I don't think they 'fixed' all the problems when they changed the barrel twist. And the problems of powder fouling are well known. I'm not hard over on the .223, but I'm not convinced bigger is better when I have to carry it on my achin' back and tired feet.

[Long Cut]

Man, all I can think about there is WEIGHT and BULK.

That gadget would make your rifle feel like a chair in your hands. I'll take a nice, simple Thermold 30-rounder or Israeli Orlite model, or just a nice, compact 20-shot version.

The fire-support and SAW guys can have the 100-rounders.

[Noumenon]

My take on fancy optics is: how well do they work after you take the rifle and throw it on the ground? Optics are for specops and snipers. Iron sights are for riflemen.

[Long Cut]

I lost my tate for scopes when the Tasco 4x I had on my Ruger 10/22 lost its crosshairs after a thirty-round mag was fired through it. I pulled it off and never put another on. Unless you spend $500.00 or more, they're just too fragile and awkward, IMHO.

As for the electronic gear that seems to find its way aboard most rifles nowadays, Murphy's Law applies. Batteries go dead, stuff breaks. If it's there, make it so it can be removed, INSTANTLY, with no reduction in operating performance.

I'll just leave it home or trade it off...

[Long Cut]

Actually, the semiauto-only version of the HK-36, the SL8-1, is butt ugly itself...

Of course, this is because of that insane ban.

[Woahhs]

You mean like a Sierra 70 Grain MatchKing?

Kat...have you seen one of those Russian shells?! It looks like a knitting needle stuck in a coke can!

We need some of doze!!!!!!

[Woahhs]

What's so bad about a target of opportunity?

[Long Cut]

LOL!

[1L]

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it

Be more specific as to what its functioning problems have been. I've hunted with the cartridge and it is basically all I need. I've seen a hole the size of a volleyball out the back of a deer shot by one of these things.

We won't see this weapon for a while. Imminent change, if any, will come in the flavor of the M-4.