I was just looking at XM-8 videos and it's an amazing weapon. I don't really know a lot about the SCAR though (cool acronym). The XM-8 appears to be an amazing weapon. The M-16/M-4 are excellent but if anything is needed it's reliablity and less weight. The XM-8 seems to fullfill both roles in an excellent manner. I'm not really sure about a bullpup design. Everybody especially the guys currently incharge that the M-16 is an excellent weapon but not very reliable. Judging by the SA-80 bullpups don't seem to be very reliable. I'm suprised to see H&K lose the competition because they make some of the worlds best weapons including the MP5. FN isn't too bad either though, they did make the SAW I believe.

SCAR just looks like an M4 that can fire several different caliber rounds. The XM-8 reports are not backed up anywhere and I have searched. The SCAR would be better for the special forces anyways. It allows them to use rounds from AK-47s and such.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I was just looking at XM-8 videos and it's an amazing weapon. I don't really know a lot about the SCAR though (cool acronym). The XM-8 appears to be an amazing weapon. The M-16/M-4 are excellent but if anything is needed it's reliablity and less weight. The XM-8 seems to fullfill both roles in an excellent manner. I'm not really sure about a bullpup design. Everybody especially the guys currently incharge that the M-16 is an excellent weapon but not very reliable. Judging by the SA-80 bullpups don't seem to be very reliable. I'm suprised to see H&K lose the competition because they make some of the worlds best weapons including the MP5. FN isn't too bad either though, they did make the SAW I believe.

But the fact is there is a new competition set for future army assault rifle now. Yes XM-8 is good, but another weapons could be better. Originally XM-8 was chosen without oficial competition. (because it was a part from OICW) Now it looks like the things have changed and other companies will have a chance too.

About bullups - SA-80 is not very reliable, indeed, but there are many more bullups - Steyr Aug, FAMAS, and F-2000 - that are very reliable and great weapons.

the SA80 is reliable if you clean it.
and if your in europe.

Since the XM-8 is part of the XM-29 it would require a redesign of the XM-29 to fit with bull-pup rifle. Im not sure if something as big as a FN-2000 would even fit with the 20mm grenade launcher

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Since the XM-8 is part of the XM-29 it would require a redesign of the XM-29 to fit with bull-pup rifle. Im not sure if something as big as a FN-2000 would even fit with the 20mm grenade launcher

The 20 mm could be fit to the bottom of the F-2000 like the current 40mm. Also the 40mm granade launcher has some OICW capabilities - the scope has laser that can "count" the distance and balistic trajectory of 40mm grenade so you will be able to hit distant targets with high accuracy, like small mortar.
Besides, I heard nothing about OICW for a long time, so I think it is dead, or soon will be. The main problem is the lack of effectivnes of 20mm grandes. They made them so that they produce very hard fragments, but they have been tested only on figurines. It is not certain if such small fragment could cause enough damage to disable oponent. That's the main reason why the new sniper version/granade launcher uses 25 mm. But the OICW cannot use them, because it will become too heavy.
The problem with the OICW is that it's build around 20mm GL. But IMO the future systems should be build around the gun, not granade launcher.

I have heard of a XM-25 which fires the more lethal 25mm smart grenade round. There is already even a 25mm armor piercing round (using a shaped charge capable of penetrating over 50mm of armor). This would make a rifle with a 25mm grenade launcher capable of knocking out light armored vehicles.

Wasnt there talk of having the XM-8 rechambered for the new 6.8mm ammo the Army is considering. Instead of the NATO 5.56mm for a increase of stopping power?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I have heard of a XM-25 which fires the more lethal 25mm smart grenade round. There is already even a 25mm armor piercing round (using a shaped charge capable of penetrating over 50mm of armor). This would make a rifle with a 25mm grenade launcher capable of knocking out light armored vehicles.

That's exactly what I was talking about - the new sniper rifle/GL above your post. But I doubt OICW will have 25mm GL, because 6 25mm grenades
+GL part+5.56 rifle part would weight too much. Already now they have problem with weight of 5.56/20mm version.

Wasnt there talk of having the XM-8 rechambered for the new 6.8mm ammo the Army is considering. Instead of the NATO 5.56mm for a increase of stopping power?

Yes, and there is still a possibility. Maybe it's the main reason for new competition. XM-8 is reliable, light accurate, but some people still think it's not enough. Why spend billions of $ for such relatively little improvements (just more reliable 5.56rifle) ? If such money for new assault rifle than it should be much more inovative.


[edit on 18-11-2004 by longbow]

Do you think the weight of using 25mm rounds compared to 20mm could be offset by using 5 or 4 rounds instead of 6 in the OICW?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Do you think the weight of using 25mm rounds compared to 20mm could be offset by using 5 or 4 rounds instead of 6 in the OICW?

Yes, I was thinking about that, but the bigger 25 mm barrel and other GL components would still have the same weight. But the largest problem is as I said that's it's build around sofisticated GL. What will happen for example if enemy has good flak vests or ,in future, good body armor? Than you can throw the small granade launcher away. The future infantry wepons should be build around simple kinetic energy rifle IMO.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by longbow]

[edit on 18-11-2004 by longbow]

I think they will be more KE based too. However, this trend towards smaller faster bullets is probably a bad idea. Why can't they use some 6mm or .243 Winchester? IIRC .243 Winchester is a necked-down .308, they could use it in any .308 rifle with some changes, it has greater energy at longer range than .223 or .308, and recoil is moderate. It's probably a good idea.
Also, what these researchers are forgetting is that the soldiers win the war, not the weapons. A perfect rifle with an unskilled operator is essentially worthless.

Originally posted by longbow
SCAR are actually 2 rifles - light (5.56) and heavy (7.62) most intersting thing is that the rifles are able to quickly change caliber - that means the SCAR can fire also AK-47 7.62x39 ammo. The weapon should be also even more reliable than XM-8.

By 7.62 they probably mean 7.62 Nato or 7.62X51 which is .308 and not 7.62X39 russian. I could be wrong but this seems more likely.

Originally posted by imas

Originally posted by longbow
SCAR are actually 2 rifles - light (5.56) and heavy (7.62) most intersting thing is that the rifles are able to quickly change caliber - that means the SCAR can fire also AK-47 7.62x39 ammo. The weapon should be also even more reliable than XM-8.

By 7.62 they probably mean 7.62 Nato or 7.62X51 which is .308 and not 7.62X39 russian. I could be wrong but this seems more likely.

No, they mean both.

Originally posted by devilwasp
the SA80 is reliable if you clean it.
and if your in europe.

To quote "The British Army: A pocket guide 2002-2003":

[of the SA80]" The weapon has had mixed press,and much has been made of the 32 modifications that have been made to the SA80 since 1983. Further modifications have recently had tto be made to enable the weapon to be more reliable when firing 5.56 ammunition supplied by other NATO countries. Although there are many xritics outsideof the srvices, in the main the serving soldiers that we have spoken to have praisedthe weapon, and those that have had experience on both the SLR and SA80 are unstinting in their praise for the newer system.
Our own enquiries suggest that the original version of the SA80 was highly accurate, easily handled and comfortable to use. The weapon was finely engineered but erhaps lacked the robust operational durability of some of its predecessors. It is intolerant of dust and dirt and is inclined to stoppages in dry dusty conditions.However, it compared favourably with any other weapon of this type availible on the world market."


SA80 Mean Battle Time Before Failure (rounds fired) during trials:

UK (temperate): 31,500
Brunei (hot/wet):31,500
Kuwait(hot/dry):7,875
Alaska(cold/dry):31,500



The "fact" that the SA80 is very unreliable is greatly exaggerated, I have read somewhere that this is partly due to the fact the Royal Marines (the most elite fighting unit in the world) wanted the M16.

By 7.62 they probably mean 7.62 Nato or 7.62X51 which is .308 and not 7.62X39 russian. I could be wrong but this seems more likely.


No, they mean both.

As said here on one of the links in the original post:

For one thing, SCAR must be able to quickly change barrels and receivers so that it can fire 5.56mm, 7.62mm (large cartridge, like the M-14 and American medium machine-guns) or the short (AK-47) 7.62mm rounds. Moreover, SCAR has to be even more rugged and reliable (and expensive to build) than the XM-8. As a result, the XM-8 lost out to a custom series of weapons from the Belgium firm, FN Herstal.