Author Topic: Replacement for M16 army gun (Read 431 times)

Questor · « **on:** August 10, 2004, 02:30:03 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128512,00.html

jgalar · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2004, 04:23:47 AM »

Hopefully they will replace the cartridge also.

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2004, 05:10:56 AM »

M16 Army gun?

Okay, pull your pants down around your ankles, stick your thumb in your mouth, run outside with your rifle. To each person you run into repeat: "This is my rifle, [and grabbing crotch ] this is my gun, this is for fighting, [grab crotch again] this is for fun".

Do it now maggot!

Questor · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2004, 06:11:45 AM »

http://www.geekswithguns.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=98

Here's what geeks with guns has to say. Note change in ammo construction.

Questor · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2004, 07:24:23 AM »

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

Pictures and details.

New Hampshire · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2004, 11:59:05 AM »

I remember reading about this some time last year. H&Ks website had some video of test firings that was pretty neat. The great thing about this gun is it is supposed to still be modular like the M16/AR15/M4 so quick adaptation stays. Dont expect the 5.56 to go away for quite a while. Too much of it stocked, Military folks are familiar with it (the military is notorious for staying with what it knows and revolting against change.) If anything Remington is still trying to push the new 6.8 round into military acceptance (only for specialized use, not to replace the 5.56 completely.) I think it will happen eventualy. What it comes down to is that it looks like the military folks are finaly starting to listen more to the folks on the ground doing the fighting, rather than living or dying with what "they used to know when they were on the battlefield."
Brian M.

Questor · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2004, 12:22:53 PM »

Good post. The thing that caught my eye was the scope and apparent lack of iron sights. Electronics and optics are both reliable enough for tough field conditions now. It also reminds me of a toy one of my friends had when I was growing up. I think it was called a "Johnny 7" because it fired plastic bullets, grenades, and several other things. (Do they even make toy guns anymore?)

djl4570 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2004, 01:18:03 PM »

Quote

This improved reliability can be credited to differences in the XM8s operating system from the one in the M16. For instance, a thin gas tube runs almost the entire length of the barrel in all of the M16 variants. When the weapon is fired, the gases travel back down the tube into the chamber and push the bolt back to eject the shell casing and chamber a new round. The XM8s gas system instead is connected to a mechanical operating rod, which pushes back the bolt to eject the casing and chamber the new round each time the weapon is fired. So theres no carbon residue constantly being blown back into the chamber, reducing the need to clean the weapon as often.

Odd how such a gas system was very mature in the M14 and is being regarded as as an innovation in the XM8 today. It only took the DOD 40 years to field a replacement for something with inherent design problem.