It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tvdog
I've heard this "wait for 100% improvement before we replace the M-16" theory many times.
I think the reason why the US army did not replace the M-16 earlier was because they wasted time and money pursuing the ACR concept.
When that folded neatly in their faces, they went on another dubious project with the OICW. And then while researching the OICW they try to justify this dubious project by saying that they will develop the 5.56 part of the OICW into a proper weapon on its own as a replacement for the M-16.
This project, the XM-8, turns out to be nothing more than a HK G36. The American taxpayers are once again fooled, and the troops will be getting a expensively reinvented G36. This technology is about 20 years old.
What 100% improvement do you see here?
The XM-8 is anything but revolutionary - don't let the curvy shape fool you.
The XM-8 is pretty old-tech when you put it alongside the AUG, Tavor, FN F2000, SAR-21, to name a few.
So, the XM-8 is nothing more than a by-the-way project, a by-product to justify continued spending on the OICW, and is nothing more than a repackaged G36.
This is what the US army is getting 30 years later. I'm not saying the XM-8 is not going to be a fine weapon, it's just not something that needed 30 years. This should've happened LONG before they gone and look at ACR and OICW concepts.
Originally posted by elmariachi
Alright, so the hk g36 is old tech compared the the Aug? The AUG went into service in the mid 70's and the g36 wasn't even developed until the 90's. Hell, the AUG wasn't even all that revolutionary...
Yes, the XM-8 is a heavily repackaged g36, but that's still nearly 100% improvement over any m-16 variant. Its also built on proven reliability.
Originally posted by ak boy74
I think the better gun is ak. the ak-74 in particular. it has the same reliability as the 47 with a more lethal bullet. the russian 5.45x39 is betterthan the American 5.56. when the 5.45 hit soft tissue it tumbles which obviosly does ALOT of damage. the m-16 might be better for target shooting but in war i would stick with the good ole ak. and by the way the gun rattles because mikail kalashnikov gave the parts room to breath not because they are cheaply made(even though they are)
Originally posted by ak boy74
I think the better gun is ak. the ak-74 in particular. it has the same reliability as the 47 with a more lethal bullet. the russian 5.45x39 is betterthan the American 5.56. when the 5.45 hit soft tissue it tumbles which obviosly does ALOT of damage. the m-16 might be better for target shooting but in war i would stick with the good ole ak. and by the way the gun rattles because mikail kalashnikov gave the parts room to breath not because they are cheaply made(even though they are)
Originally posted by KozzyThe 5.56mm bullet fragments much better then the 5.45x39, which also has a shorter range.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're exactly wrong about dismissing the reliablity probelms of the M16A2. Again, like I said, I carried that weapon in the field and if you aren't down-right PARANOID about your handling and care of the weapon, it will jam when you need it to fire most. I don't care if you stand still and let me put the barrel in your mouth... if it don't go boom because it's a fussy weapon, I'm in trouble.
I don't presume to know much about ballistics, but I have heard quite a bit (without even persuing such comments to heavily) that several various russian munitions are poorly designed and not all that they could be ballistically.