What happen to the XM8 rifle?
-
The G36 is one pretty girl...Originally posted by Chuichi Koshiramaru:Maybe it's more like cliche these days. When someone is talking or complaining about any assualt rifle, someone tell them, "Use a G36 instead!"
So the G36 must be the overall best assault rifle today.
-
Errr, what is 'splitting hairs'?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I wonder if it was locally made we would suddenly find a whole list of faults with it.
Reputation aside, what exactly does one mean by a "good" weapon? It's one that's reliable, accurate and capable of putting down your target. Some people seem to have some kind of fetish for brand names and splitting hairs over features but I'm not to sure about that. The Germans certainly do make their stuff to a high standard, no doubt, but winning a fight goes beyond just your weapons.
I mean just about every country would like to boast their weapon is the best in this and that, but at the end of the day one wonders if the fact your weapon is expensive means if you know how to fight. Certainly it would be cool if your weapon allows you to do your job more efficently, but the rest is often splitting hairs. -
Yeah, and I've neat collection of them.......in 1:6th scale.Originally posted by wonderamazement:The G36 is one pretty girl...
-
To pick an issue down to its unnecessary matters... such as wondering just what kind of magazine is better or how long a barrel should be and how many foot pounds of muzzle energy and what have you not...Originally posted by Chuichi Koshiramaru:Errr, what is 'splitting hairs'?
Hey, the grunts just want a weapon that works well when it should work well! -
Regarding barrel lengths, if longer rifle barrels are much better, why then are almost all the latest full sized 5.56 mm assault rifles with barrel lengths from around 15 to 18 inches ? Even the full sized G36 & SCAR L have barrel lengths less than 20 inches. Makes one wonder if it really is so critical to have >20 inch barrels - the trend does not bear this out.
-
This is what I mean by splitting hairs, and in this case demostrating ignorance of subject matter as well.Originally posted by glock:Regarding barrel lengths, if longer rifle barrels are much better, why then are almost all the latest full sized 5.56 mm assault rifles with barrel lengths from around 15 to 18 inches ? Even the full sized G36 & SCAR L have barrel lengths less than 20 inches. Makes one wonder if it really is so critical to have >20 inch barrels - the trend does not bear this out.
Did anybody say it was better? Just that either lengths gives you different effects and what have you not.
If you think losing the weight and some length is a price you are willing to pay for reduced ballistic performance from your round then by all means go ahead. Only people with a one-track mind would think that losing 2-inches or what have you not is a vital matter. It's not as if the rifle would explode if you had a 20 inch barrel or weight 20kg... or vice versa.
For other more sensible people, they have no buff with the extra 2 inches because hey, might as well get the most out of a small round... esp. when you already have a bullpup design and might as well make the most use of the extra length.
But in more serious terms, yes... reducing barrel length by too much will have serious compromises. At 15 inches you are basically counting on the fact that you can get a CNS hit beyond 100 meters, or your round has basically an icepick effect. Also, a 15 inchs and below does poorly at trying to shoot through barriers... which is not good in 5.56 which has marginal barrier performance at best.
The yanks overcome this to some extent by issuing special 5.56 rounds to use with the shorter lengths, allowing them to retain their fragmentation and penetrative abilities to a longer range with the shorter barrel. However, when you use standard rounds with these shorter barrels you will notice a marked reduction in performance, as the yanks with the shorter barrels running through their older stocks of standard ammo complain.
Given we use standard ammo, and don't seem to have plans to put exotic 5.56mm types into widespread pratice (though of course, the exotic ammunition would have increased performance in a longer barrel), are using a bullpup design... why get so anal over reducing length and weight unless you are of a one-track mind?
Remember, like what some say increased performance is like a flack vest. Better to have it and not need it, and need it and not have it. Some people think it's okay to loose 2 inches, no buff to them, but hey might as well get the most bang from your round.
Besides, even ST is not so one-track like you... they do bother to create different barrel lengths for their weapons so we can pick and mix. You however, are unable to leave any frame or lenght of refrence in your mind behind.
Who is the truly inflexible one here? -
So its not splitting hairs isn't it if barrel lengths do make such a big difference ( to some ) ? What's this about barrels exploding ? Who said anything about barrels exploding. Barrels do not explode with shorter barrels ; the muzzle flash & blast get much more pronounced ; anyone who has experience firing various rifles or guns f different barrel lengths knows that.
The previous post still does not answer the question why most new rifle designs nowadays tend to have barrel lengths less than 20 inches. Most are in the 15 to 18 inch range. I hope I can get a rational explanation and clear insight to this observation from informed members of this forum. -
Do you seriously intend to demostrate your lack of reading skills with every new post?
How you can misunderstand my point about exploding barrels is pretty incredible. I was saying that increased or decreased barrel length is a highly moot point unless you really thought there was a good reason to cut length on your weapon... other then that it's just a rather arbitary design choice in either direction.Originally posted by glock:So its not splitting hairs isn't it if barrel lengths do make such a big difference ( to some ) ? What's this about barrels exploding ? Who said anything about barrels exploding. Barrels do not explode with shorter barrels ; the muzzle flash & blast get much more pronounced ; anyone who has experience firing various rifles or guns f different barrel lengths knows that.
I mentioned exploding barrels because it's obviously not a big issue but you have decided somehow to turn it into one, as if it would make or break the rifle design like a barrel that somehow explodes if it exceeds a certain length.The previous post still does not answer the question why most new rifle designs nowadays tend to have barrel lengths less than 20 inches. Most are in the 15 to 18 inch range. I hope I can get a rational explanation and clear insight to this observation from informed members of this forum.
You might as well ask why are most of the most recent rifle designs bulpups... does this mean there is something wrong with the conventional design (and hence you favoured G36)? You got more then a rational explanation but it just seems to me that it did not fit the truth as to what you wished to believe and hence you simply ignored it.
The basic fact is, reducing barrel length is an arbitary decision on the part of the maker. Doing so involves trade offs in range, accuracy and round performance for a reduction in length that apparently users are aware of and accept. If some people see the additional performance lost from going to 18' from 20' fine by me and no beef to them, but the onus of justifying a 20' barrel hardly rests on the designers who choose to use this length over others. Some people think anything less then a 23' barrel on 5.56mm is insufficent for their needs... are we going to fault them?
As I said, barrels don't explode or become 15kg if you add 2' or '5'. The weight and length is there for something and it's up to the user to make full use of it. Don't knock the SAF for deciding that they wanted the maximum optimal performance from their 5.56mm for their soldiers.
As I said, I don't know why you deem it fit to make it a big issue. Might as well have an issue with the colour or aesthetic design of the weapon to which you will never recieve a proper answer because there are no proper answers to nonsensical questions.
And yes, is this not splitting hairs (which is defined as going into unnecessary details on rather unimportant matters)? I have a more justified case to make an issue of reduced bullet performance on this, which is a far more vital thing then the weight issue you can't see to get your mind off... but at least I have the common sense (like most normal people) to realize there are different cuts of cloth for different needs. -
On a 5.56rifle the barrel length is much more significant over say 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 rifle becasue the 5.56 has its magic of fragmentation when hitting the target and velocity is the key !Having a chop of barrel from 20" to say 14.5 or 11.5"! the velocity suffers! and we will compromise the effectiveness of the 5.56 with a shorter barrel! pure and simple! an M16 with 20" may have effective range of 300 to 400 meters with SS109 ammo! but an M4 with 14.5 may have its effecitveness reduce to 100 to 150 meter!
Chronographing SS109 62 grain ammo on a 20" AUG is 3050 fps! and a 16" brings it down to 2850 fps. 14.5 is 2750.
As a rule a thumb! ammo below 2400 fps will not fragment and thus makes it ieffective as the 5.56 ammo. Thus we see in Somolia Delta unit taking 4 to 5 shots to down a Somolia fighter with their 11.5" M4.
Personally if we want to shortern the barrel, either we change to a better bullet design if not totlaly change the caliber to say 6.8SPC or somthing like that.
DaveC! -
Which is the cheaper option?Originally posted by davechng:On a 5.56rifle the barrel length is much more significant over say 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 rifle becasue the 5.56 has its magic of fragmentation when hitting the target and velocity is the key !Having a chop of barrel from 20" to say 14.5 or 11.5"! the velocity suffers! and we will compromise the effectiveness of the 5.56 with a shorter barrel! pure and simple! an M16 with 20" may have effective range of 300 to 400 meters with SS109 ammo! but an M4 with 14.5 may have its effecitveness reduce to 100 to 150 meter!
Chronographing SS109 62 grain ammo on a 20" AUG is 3050 fps! and a 16" brings it down to 2850 fps. 14.5 is 2750.
As a rule a thumb! ammo below 2400 fps will not fragment and thus makes it ieffective as the 5.56 ammo. Thus we see in Somolia Delta unit taking 4 to 5 shots to down a Somolia fighter with their 11.5" M4.
Personally if we want to shortern the barrel, either we change to a better bullet design if not totlaly change the caliber to say 6.8SPC or somthing like that.
DaveC!
-
I think bullet design is the cheaper option. haha
well IMO i think the G36 is probably one of the sexiest looking rifles. Its like the pron star of guns.LOL -
Well, I think bullet design adds up... if one round costs just 20 cents more to make, a barrel life of 20,000 rounds would mean an extra $4000 per barrel for using that ammunition... and I think a single barrel costs a lot less then that.Originally posted by storm_freaky13:I think bullet design is the cheaper option. haha
But of course it depends on if you are willing to foot the bill for the shorter barrel... given we already have a bullpup design I wonder why need to be such a sticker for reducing length? 80+ cm is pretty good for an infantry rifle. -
the bullpup design although sound in compacting the design of the gun and also ease the balance of the rifle, has its problem. like a left and right hand shooter cannot really shoot well unless you do some changes to the rifle! in the case of AUG and FAMAS you have to switch the ejection ports and bolt! As for SA80 or SAR21 you are out of luck! thus in a weak side sweep in CQB , clearing blind spot, a conventional rifle has its edge ! ergonomics is also an issue on bullpup! try changing the mags quick! it is slow! and lots of bullpup have spongy trigger pull due to the link needed to activate the trigger bar! compared to the conventional ones!
Had a talk with several competition shooter in the USPSA 3 gun match! and all of them chose the conventional deign rifle for its ergonmics, change mags, ease spring, clearing of jam is all more ergonomical !! I tried doing a 3 gun match with my AUG! what a mistake! one stage requires us to do tactical reload of magazines and one change of mags on the move!
REason a lot of country still use conventional design rifle like the M16A4, M4, G36, FN SCAR etc etc....
not wanting to compare bullpup over non bullpup! ALthough I have not shot othe SINgapore SAR21 ! I was told the trigger is not as bad as my AUG or FAMAS! I will have to try it out to convince me the trigger on the SAR21 ...
if we want to be proficient in bullpup! lots of retraining has to be done to get the akward movement smooth! I like my bullpup! but for now! learning thru my lessons, I will go to a CQB or 3 gun match without my bullppup!
AS for which is cheaper on the design! I think a bullet change would be the cheapest becasue you merely change out the barrel! you can use the same mags maybe with a change in follower!
DaveC -
The issue of bullpups not being ambidextrous has been addressed by the FN P90 and F2000 (Both the FS2000 and PS90 is for sale to civilians) and the new KEL-TEC RFB Rifle which are expected to ship during the first quarter of next year.
All the above are bullpup rifles and have solve the issue of not being ambidextrous. And no you don't have to worry about empty shell casings falling back into the chamber with either the F2000 or the RFB.
Video of the KEL-TEC RFB in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Xqa2vwq60
Most if not all the problems listed about bullpup rifles are either engineering (Spongy triggers, fire selector positions, ejection port etc.) or training issues all can be overcomed without much difficulty. Or just merely people not firmiliar with the layout ie. muscle memory.
If I were to teach a child or a person who has never held a rifle in his or her life to use bullpup rifles, they would find the conventional layout of rifles akward once they are used to the layout of bullpup rifles.
I do not see the difficulty in moving either hand infront of the other. If one can reload a traditional layout rifle I don't see why one would have trouble reloading a bullpup rifle, when its just simple a matter of moving one hand behind the other.
Changing the bullet may be cheaper if you can mass produce large quantites it enough to supply the army to replace current production M193/M855 ammunition which is widely avaliable on surplus, this is not including the cost required to convert current ammunition production to produce the new bullet.
But why give up on the longer barrel a bullpup rifle offers just to have a shorter barrel and have to compensate for the low muzzle velocity by designing a better bullet. When with a bullpup rifle you can have the best of both worlds, launching the bullet (Mk262, Sierra 77gr SMK, Federal 55/62 gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw or what have you) down range at a higher muzzle velocity increasing its effective range.
At the end of the day if you are given a choice just use which ever you are most proficent and comfortable with. -
FN did a pretty shabby job on the FN2000... Had a chance to work with one and I would not jump hi and low over this rifle. 1st I like to say FN's idea is good ! the ejection is thru a tube and no spend cartridge flies out in force. BUT!.... it has a little buttcap in the back on the rifle to see if there is a jam in the rifle ! it has a little lever arm that takes the empty cartrdidge to the tube that eventually would eject the cartridge out ! well! thats one weak link in this system! if the arm did not positively bring out the cartridge ! you get a jam! .... also! if there is a jam in the chamber becasue it does not let you pull out the bolt carrier like say AUG! than you have to strip the rifle apart to clear a jam! Not very sound !
Also! you cannot have the charging handle in the rear and insert a full mag and charge ! you have to insert a mag with the charging handle in theforward position than charge the weapon becasue if not you get a jam..
Wonder why FN did such a desiign! but I guess I can see Service pack 1 comming very soon... Reason why the FN2000 did not sell well in the US! everyone is waitinf for the SIG 556!
I am merely stating the ergonomics of the conventional rifle is far more superior! it is faster and easier to get to! mag release and charging handle and all that is in the right place and no awkard movement to get to it ! You can try doing it on the move and doing all those operations and you will understand that one is easier than the other!... e.g ! reloading drill on the M16 series defeintly is much faster and easier than a AUG! 1st ! you merely depress the mag release without an akward movement like the AUG to get to the magazine! the reach of the hand is defeintly not as smooth as the M16.
Of course training can make it much better but given a choice of a system ,,,.... and comparing than one can be said to be more ergonomical to the other.
I agree that having a longer barrel is a plus for potency, accuracy of the ammo! but everything comes with a price! You gain some here but lose some on the other!
DAveC -
DaveC, I agree with you on the point of the ergonomics of the M16, in my opinion Eugene Stoner and the folks at Armalite did an excellent job in designing the rifle the layout of the controls are nicely placed and easily operated.
But comparing the AUG to the M16 is kinda unfair so to speak, the M16's magazine release is easily operated by the trigger finger, while the AUG's is a push lever kinda thing behind the magazine.
Say we compare the ergonomics of the AUG to the AK47, the ergonomics of the AUG would be superior to the AK family wouldn't you say?
The select lever of the AK can't be easily operated by your firing hand the AUG's fire selector is its trigger, the charging handle requires you to reach over or under the rifle to operate it (If you intend to keep you firing hand on the pistol grip at all times) the AUG's is located in a location where you can operate it with your none firing hand etc.
A better comparison would be if both rifles have flipper magazine catches, charging handles located at the same area and the only difference being the location of the magazine well. -
HI Raptor 937!
I guess it is a matter of preference! yes! AK ergonomics is bad! infact I think the charging handle is on the wrong side like the SIG 550 and the Galil!
okay! lets go with a SIG 550 series! G36 or even FAL! they have the rocker type mag release! charging handle in the left or right ! SIG is on the AK side ! G36 and FAL on the side of AUG! for a fair comparison!
all of these western rifle has selector on the correct side! and I still can reload faster with the SIG, FAL and G36 over my FAMAS and AUG! espeically in hastly tactical reload and on the move!
ALthough I like the idea of bullpup. and the extra vbarrel length espicially the 5.56 caliber! ergonomics also plays a big part for the ease of usuage on a weapon system. Until they solve the porblem of the ejection which the FN2000 has address and have not solve ! maybe bullpup will come ahead! but for now! I take my piston base M4... ergonomics , reliable and accurate! and go with a heavier bullet like the 77 grain !
I did like the Keltec rifle you posted !hopfully this one iswell made! I have seen some of Keltec's product and they don;t impress me yet! but maybe this 308 bullpup will be made right!
DaveC
-
Agreed, itÂ’s a matter of preferenceÂ… though for some people anything other then a conventional layout, NATO 7.62mm, and iron sights are heresy
Bullpups come with their own pros and cons- they trade off some conventional disadvantages of the conventional layout (length, balance) for some quirks on their part (magazine change ergonomics, trigger pull). ItÂ’s really for the users to work about that and make the best use of their particular strengths and weaknesses I suppose- there are probably more bad shooters then there are bad guns.
As for the SAR-21 trigger pull, being a later generation bullpup it did have the chance to improve on the trigger pull by utilizing sliding plates to it ought to be smoother and more reliable then the rod system (what were they thinking when they used rods anyway?) thought I haven’t had the chance to really examine other rod ‘pups to compare. The trigger squeeze is adequate, for me at least- thought don’t expect anything like the crispness of the M-16 kind of pull.
Though it’s mostly moot in the heat of battle I guess and the ‘pup pull hasn’t gotten in the way of the SAR-21 scoring generally higher then the M16S1 on range.
No idea why ST suited the fire selector in the rifle butt-, which is a questionable choice in ergonomics but seemingly in line with SAF-doctrine of primarily semi-fire, and also to avoid reliability issues of adding another link perhaps? We can only speculate.
Personally I am a 'pup guy... guess length and balance is more of a concern for me then reload time and trigger pull. And also because 'pups tend to look cooler.
It is possible to shoot the SAR from the left side (rounds deflect forward), though the idea of not making provisions for left ejection is for the typical Singaporean-kiasi feature of the face-saving Kevlar plate, which would only be useful the user was using the right side. I personally don’t mind the safety feature (given how dangerous ‘pups are when they blow) because I am a rightie but lefties might think different ideas (though nowadays all new lefty NSFs suck thumb and learn to shoot from the right side). Once again it’s a quirk.
But yeah, bullpups give you the best of both worlds when it comes to barrel length… might as well make full use of it and fire advanced ammo from a full-sized barrel as opposed to getting the same effect from a shorter barrel as you would with normal ammo. Unless there was a pressing need for reduced length… why not make full use of what the bullpup offers? Considering you are already accepting some quirks of the ‘pup when you chose that layout. -
Originally posted by Chuichi Koshiramaru:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8
It's that it for the XM8? I thought it's an awesome weapon and it's lighter than the M16 / M4.
2.Besides political reasons,i remember the performances
of XM 8 is not so good.
3.March 6, 2004
Marines getting new M16, snubbing XM8,Army, Marines await updates of combat rifles--http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001081.html
4.XM 8 is just split from XM 29.
5.more info here
6.This is the pattern of US small arms developemnt:I think this is going to wallow around for a while. Then they'll pick either the MP7, the P90, or a snub-barreled M4 and begin development. After a year or two, and a gazillion dollars (or two), the program will be canceled and they'll just issue everyone either a 9mm pistol or an M4. Which is what they're doing today.
--http://www.murdoconline.net/ 13.03.2007
Look familiar?
7.Dunt think whatever US produced must be very good.
It's the XM8's PDW model
Dunt think ST products is only used by SAF for no standard.
Ultimax 100 is designed by Stoner,one of M16 designers. -
my 2c:
Soldiers who have trained to use the conventional layout most of the time will favor a conventional layout....
hence the XM-8 trying to grab a market share of the USA market.
Colt is an old horse,and it as deep penetration of the US politics, everyone knows the gas tube system flaw, everyone doesnt want to offend the US then.
Bullpup systems...its an endless debate.I personally handled alot of airsoft guns and lots of people trained using conventional layout have problems getting used to it.
Take a noob airsofter and give him an AUG and a M16/G36/AK, he WILL take the AUG if he isnt biased that that the M16/ak is cooler and more "macho and RAMBO" like.too bad most people are biased.
Field stripping an AUG takes an easy 16 seconds when trained for around like... 5 minutes?
Try that with an m16/g36/AK...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxxSQd3re8 > G36 field strip, not exactly what i call fast...
just my 2c, no offence. -
In US Army, conventional is the preferred option for now.
-
I think when it comes to weapons, often it's more a case of the shooter then the firearm. As long as the thing does not jam, puts bullets where it is supposed to, and is easy to keep working, more or less it qualifies as a proper infantry firearm. The rest are just nic nacs to help make things easier.
As in conventional versus bullpups, it's a matter of the shooter being flexible or not. Each design has its own merits and flaws and one should adapt his style accordingly. -
malaysian army and police have test XM8. I heard they so exited about it.
-
THe SAR-21 is idiot proof!! Almost any idiot can pick it up with limited training and actually hit something with it.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Agreed, itÂ’s a matter of preferenceÂ… though for some people anything other then a conventional layout, NATO 7.62mm, and iron sights are heresy
Bullpups come with their own pros and cons- they trade off some conventional disadvantages of the conventional layout (length, balance) for some quirks on their part (magazine change ergonomics, trigger pull). ItÂ’s really for the users to work about that and make the best use of their particular strengths and weaknesses I suppose- there are probably more bad shooters then there are bad guns.
As for the SAR-21 trigger pull, being a later generation bullpup it did have the chance to improve on the trigger pull by utilizing sliding plates to it ought to be smoother and more reliable then the rod system (what were they thinking when they used rods anyway?) thought I haven’t had the chance to really examine other rod ‘pups to compare. The trigger squeeze is adequate, for me at least- thought don’t expect anything like the crispness of the M-16 kind of pull.
Though it’s mostly moot in the heat of battle I guess and the ‘pup pull hasn’t gotten in the way of the SAR-21 scoring generally higher then the M16S1 on range.
No idea why ST suited the fire selector in the rifle butt-, which is a questionable choice in ergonomics but seemingly in line with SAF-doctrine of primarily semi-fire, and also to avoid reliability issues of adding another link perhaps? We can only speculate.
Personally I am a 'pup guy... guess length and balance is more of a concern for me then reload time and trigger pull. And also because 'pups tend to look cooler.
It is possible to shoot the SAR from the left side (rounds deflect forward), though the idea of not making provisions for left ejection is for the typical Singaporean-kiasi feature of the face-saving Kevlar plate, which would only be useful the user was using the right side. I personally don’t mind the safety feature (given how dangerous ‘pups are when they blow) because I am a rightie but lefties might think different ideas (though nowadays all new lefty NSFs suck thumb and learn to shoot from the right side). Once again it’s a quirk.
But yeah, bullpups give you the best of both worlds when it comes to barrel length… might as well make full use of it and fire advanced ammo from a full-sized barrel as opposed to getting the same effect from a shorter barrel as you would with normal ammo. Unless there was a pressing need for reduced length… why not make full use of what the bullpup offers? Considering you are already accepting some quirks of the ‘pup when you chose that layout.
It's the scope i swear......bloody hell makes the target HUGE compared to what the M16S1 has. I prefer the SAR-21 in a night shoot becuz well aiming is idiot proof on that thing though i hate the reloading process. But over all i'm ok with both hah. -
Yes I know, I know... the rifle really makes even the most WOWO shooters spike in their firing efficency (now only the most hopeless can't use the weapon)... and the weapon is also amazingly simple to strip and clean.
It's nearly grunt proof as well, being able to take most of the bangs and shakes and dirt that the stamped-metal M-16 could not. Nearly, because make anything grunt proof and they'll make a better grunt... one OCS cadet accidently slipped his SAR into a bonfire while he was sleeping and melted the butt. 