Talk:Heckler & Koch XM8/Archive 1

NOT A FORUM
Wikipedia is NOT a forum. To those who would, do not talk about other rifles (like the bit about the SCAR I deleted and the bit about the AUG A3 in Cancelled I deleted), if you want to use other rifles, DO NOT put something like this rifle is better than this one. If you want to do this however GO TO A DIFFERENT SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Development
I pared down discussion of developmental issues because many of the issues, handguards melting and ergonomic issues, had been solved by that point. Weight was still an issue, though. Chuck 20:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

AR-18
Yes, the gas system of the XM8 was based on that of the AR-18, but the G36 rifle cannot be said to be a newer version of the AR-18 any more than the Glock is a newer version of the 1911 because it shares a tilting barrel, enclosed slide, and trigger! The G36/XM8 utilize the Armalite patents (however not the same ones as the AR-18!) for the single guide-rod above the bolt carrier as well as the operating rod system. The G36 utilizes a unique bolt carrier, gas piston, and 'hanging' guide system for the bolt carrier. These are all novel and, as it turns out, newly patented features. This is all technical garb, so I'll not try to insert it into the main article.--Asams10 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

XM-8 cancelled
Voir cette info, excuse me, my english is very poor :

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20051103.aspx


 * So, what does the future hold for the XM8? Does H&K plan to market the gun to other organizations, or are they prohibited from doing so by their US Army contract? I'd like to know whether the project is dead, or just "on hold". Tronno ( t | c ) 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From the information you can gather from german sources, as well as H&K itself the project of the XM8 as is is dead. US Army has now openend new project for a rifle, and its not sure if H&K will participate again, since they were not happy with the way they were treated in this as well as in other projects (e.g. OICW). If it will, it will probably not with the current XM8 but with a modified version. The problem here is, that the specs are not yet available. According to H&K the XM8 fullfilled all the project goal requirements, and even more. Though then the army changed the goals, and after that the XM8 did not fullfill it anymore and this lead to the project stop and reopen. What the real causes are is not clear, though rumours say its a political reason, together with that the army prefers us manufactured weapons. Some people say that the army wont accept a weapon that was manufactured "by a country that did not participate in the iraq war, just because their constitution forbids it".

Technically the XM8 hasn't been cancelled, HK is still keeping it for chance that another army/organisation might want to adopt it. Even HK Systems in Australia is promoting it and has a few demo models. 211.28.149.131 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad they cancelled it. It outperformed other rifles in a lot of different tests. It would be interesting to see if they can put it out for a civilian market. 66.32.140.216 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Use in Fiction
If I remember correctly, I've seen this gun used alongside other standard armaments like the FN P90 on Stargate SG-1, usually when you see a large group of soldiers fighting. Can someone verify this for me? --KoopaTroopa211 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You saw the similar looking G36. The G36 is almost exactly like the XM8 &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I to think that there should be a mention on this weapons use in fiction; alot of video games feature it, most recently Metal Gear Solid 4 and BattleField: Bad Company, in both games the weapon is used as if a standard-issue rifle. Gekidami —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekidami (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not unless it's important to the weapon.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

XM8 for special forces
I have heard that the SAS might decide to use the SCAR and Xm8. --AirforceguyScramble! 01:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Doubtful. The XM8 maybe, but until the SCAR even gets into US SOCOM hands nobody will be using it. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Saw one source lately (HKPRO I think) that said SOCOM may go with the HK416 rather than SCAR-L. Riddley 08:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a super reliable site, ESPECIALLY on speculation. Besides, its not exclusive: It's almost certain that SOCOM will take both the 416 AND the SCAR-L/H. They will take a whole bunch of weapons for differing uses and mission requirements.  &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled?
Why did the XM8 have to be cancelled? From what I heard about this weapon it was lighter and better than the M-16 rifle and M4A1 Carbine. --AirforceguyScramble! 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

24.60.104.71 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)because of numerous problems, including overheating and ammo feeding.

No, it was due to error in the contracting process. They didn't give other contracters a fair bid at it. The XM8 actually isn't "cancelled". The project is pretty much nearly complete. It's the XM-8 Military procurement that was cancelled. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: It was cancelled because it's a waste of military budget. Why would we switch to a fire-arm with no more performance than an M16, chambered for the same .223 round. The M-16 is a legendary battle proven rifle, it would be the dumbest possible move for the military to do this. There is absolutely no benefit to the XM8 other than it's lighter because it's made of crap. The M16 is stil a better long range weapon and it's more accurate according to hundreds of military testing on the XM8.

Another reason why it was canceled was cost. Instead of using the standard picatinny rail, it uses a newer system. Admittedly, this system *may* be better, but it is new and untested. Worst of all, it is not backwards compatible with the picatinny rail, so all of our Grenade Launchers (203's will not fit on the XM8 without modification, due to the placement of the charging handle, right where the cage mount normally sits), optics, lasers, flashlights, and bi-pods, would be useless, and we'd be stuck buying new (expensive) accessories from HK, because they're the only ones in the world using this mounting system. ---Idiot with a gun 03:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Waste of money? Entire program costs less than one F-22.  Overheats? It's plastic, duh? They put heat shields in it... problem solved EARLY ON.  Picatinny rails are mostly dead weight The attachment points were used to attach Picatinny rails and were much simpler, adding no weight to the weapon.  Picatinny rails are standardized, not the holy grail. The M203 is obsolescent.  I think the new weapon is already being made... the M320.  Nobody needed to mount all that crap on the XM8, it had an integrated optical/dot/laser sight on the rear bridge.  Think outside the box. If you're calling carbon-fiber impregnated plastic crap, then you'd probably have been against the M16 when it was adopted.  It's made of aluminum and plastic.  You'd have been against the Garand (as the Marines were) because it encouraged spary fire and wasted ammo.  You'd have been against rifled muskets because they were slower to load.  It's called progress.--Asams10 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That is immaterial. Plenty of weapons these days have been designed with plastic furniture, and some even utilize plastic frames, recievers, etc. The point is, when you're using any material, you must compensate for the weaknesses of that material. Pieces that withstand pressure that are made of aluminum must be made thicker than steel, etc. Plastic is fine, but the developers of the XM8 did not allow enough vent room to prevent the plastic furniture from getting too hot. This isn't poor material choice, this is poor engineering. If you have to add something on to prevent a fatal design, the weapon is most likely flawed. Also, I don't know much about the X320, but I bet it's similar to the M203, merely with a new mounting system. Picatinny rails may not be the holy grail, but infastructure is, and this goes completely against it. And don't compare this to the F-22 project, apples to oranges. The budget for replacing assault rifles is always less than the budgets for aircraft, because vehilces will always be more expensive. ---Idiot with a gun 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They fixed the problem. The second generation prototypes had heat sheilds and reported no problems.  The weapon wasn't flawed, it was a prototype. The M320 was designed with the G36 and XM8 in mind.  Look at the chart... it shows a 320 right there.  The picatinny rails ARE a part of the design, but they are held on these 'attachment points'.  Rather than having tons of rail on the rifle that isn't used, the rails can be added and removed at will.  While you might think the cost of replacing the entire inventory of M16's is high, they have done it twice since the first M16's hit the field.  Once with the M16A2 and now, again, with the M4 variants and M16A4 types hitting the market.  We already have to replace worn out guns, why not replace them with a more reliable system?  And it is a fair comparrison to point out how much an F-22 costs compared to the XM8 or any future small arms program. If they want it, they will buy it. Remember that the ACOG sights are designed for the M16A2 and have to have an adapter for the M16A4 and M4 flat-top carbine.  Now, guess how much they're selling this piece of machinery for?--Asams10 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ACOGs were designed with the M4A1 SOPMOD kit, thus are picatinny mounted. And we haven't replaced all M16A2s with M16A4s. Also, keep in mind that there is legislation on the books that gives the US army an incentive to purchase from US based companies as often as possible. Either way, they decided that the XM8 was NOT the 100% improvement that they demanded, and have opened up the competition for newer, and better designs. The XM8 may be better, but it is most definately not the best choice. ---Idiot with a gun 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." Translation: "The best is the enemy of the good." How it applies here is really ironic. The Army, in their infinite wisdom, chose several "Best" solutions along the way... all ended in failure and wastes of money.  The reasons are many, but boil down to the Voltaire quote above.  We tried to get the best and didn't bother trying to get the good enough. Remember, the M16 was a 'good enough for now' solution at the time, and "the best" was probably waiting right around the corner in undeveloped weapons like the AR-18 and Stoner 63.  Had we spent 1/10th of the money spent on SPIW to improve the Stoner or AR-18, we'd have had a better solution then, if not the "Best." If you continue to strive for laser weapons, particle beams, rail guns, and fusion power supplies to the exclusion of practical solutions, you'll end up with neither.


 * That 100% improvement quote is arbitrary and stems from the requirement that ACR rifles meet that standard for hit improvement. It was never specified for the XM8.  The XM8 was intended to meet reqirements of weight, compactness, and modularity for future integration with another pie-in-the-sky "Best" dream, the OICW.


 * You can't argue with something I didn't say. I didn't say the M16A4 HAD replaced the M16A2, but that process is, indeed, ongoing. You seem to concede that the XM8 was better... how many times over is the M16 going to be replaced with newer versions of itself before we concede that 'better' is, uh, better, than 'best.'  We have to first concede that the M16 isn't good.  I've made that conclusion and therein lies the impass in any reasonable debate.  If you don't think there's anything wrong with the M16/M4, we will never get anywhere debating replacement.--Asams10 23:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your line of logic. Are you saying best, or good enough is the right thing? You seem to say that when we wait for the best, we make a mistake, and if we go with "good enough," it'll be a mistake. If going with the M16 was just "good enough for now" then I say the same applies to the XM8. It's "good enough," but hardly the best rifle we can get. And I hardly care if it's fair to HK that we didn't apply the "100% improvement" doctrine to their XM8 project. The project is for the US military, not a company. If their weapon doesn't meet our standards, they're SOL. Personally, I believe that the M16 series is squeezing as much performance as you can expect out of 5.56x45mm. If they want a wee bit more reliability, they can go with a new upper, or a drop in gas rod. Hell, if they're not willing to change to a superior caliber, that is the best option, new gasrods and bolts for the current rifles, maybe some new trigger groupings. That'll easily bring up the rifles to the exact same, if not better, reliability of the XM8. Optics are easy. But then again, I think they should change calibers, and that changing rifles but not calibers is just throwing money at the subject. But they never asked me. ---Idiot with a gun 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The best is the enemy of the good. It means that if you strive for the best, you will never get the good. HK themselves have learned this lesson over the years. They strove constantly for the best.  Look at excellent concepts like roller-locked pistols, gas retarded blowback, caseless rounds, the G11, and many other 'optimum' concepts that rarely made it into full-scale production.  They spent loads of money on a concept that laymen and soldiers alike were laughing at.  In the end, they did the 'right' thing and adopted several conventional designs like the G36 and USP. You said, "...they decided that the XM8 was NOT the 100% improvement that they demanded," so that's fair game.  Nobody demanded the 100% improvement on any level for the XM8. If you "hardly cared" then why did you bring it up to support your argument?


 * At any rate, the argument is that we should replace the M16. It seems that you concede the point. I personally think the FN SCAR is a better -- if heavier -- weapon. And, BTW, there is NO weapon that will ever meet the 100% improvement level without a quantum leap in technology.  If you wait for that leap and keep replacing the M16 with, uh, the M16 then you make no progress.  We replace our assault rifles about every 20 years now, right?  Why not replace the M16 with something incrementally better.  Say, with a fully curved mag, integral rail system, and lightweight composites in the receiver.  Say, a G36 clone?--Asams10 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that the SCAR isn't designed to be a standard issue weapon: it's a limited procurement weapon designed specifically for SOCOM. The XM8 was designed specifically to replace the M4/m16/249 series. Are there better choices? Possibly. I for one can think of Mk 48 Mod 0 as a better choice than the XM8 AR variant. I think the M25 is a better choice for the marksman variant, or possible the SAM-R or it's variants. However, the M8 has the ability to bring ease of modularity for those. The weapon can be switched out between variants without an armorer, it can be done at the individual soldier level, and it does it more easily and with better parts compatability than the M4/m16 series which we all agree needs to be replaced. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"It was cancelled because it's a waste of military budget. Why would we switch to a fire-arm with no more performance than an M16, chambered for the same .223 round. The M-16 is a legendary battle proven rifle, it would be the dumbest possible move for the military to do this. There is absolutely no benefit to the XM8 other than it's lighter because it's made of crap. The M16 is stil a better long range weapon and it's more accurate according to hundreds of military testing on the XM8." obviously you're one of those AR supremists, who believe so blindly in it. the M16 is battle proven... proven to be unrealiable in many enivronments, even the US army will fully admit to it , as most soldiers did in reports from iraq and afghanistan. And this so called "crap" that you seem to think the XM8 is made out of, is somewhat stronger then the weak alloy recievers of the M16. want proof? fine check out the Australian Army reports of the steyr aug frame (polymer as well dumbass!) being rolled over by a APC : no damage at all. now try that with an M16 and see what happens. furthermore the M16's accuracy isn't that much better then a XM8 marksman variant.


 * First of all, Sorry to be late to the party, I would start a new discussion, but this one is already good (albeit a little stale). Does anyone here have PROOF of the reason for cancellation? Documents, a press-release? Since the original question was "why is this canceled" and not "why is this a candidate for M16 replacement."


 * Second, it is incorrect to call the 5.56x45mm NATO a .223. Although, yes, it is (and designed off) that caliber, it is DANGEROUS to shooter a 5.56x45 out of a civilian rifle chambered in .223 Remington.


 * Third. The 5.56x45 is getting a little stale, but the round works. It has excellent penetration, and longer range than the "enemy" 7.62x39mm the AK-47 uses. The 5.56x45 also has it's limitations, like its lack of tumble and fragmentation when it impacts at velocities lower than 1700fps. As such, the military is looking into other calibers, and the 6.86.8x43mm Remmmington SPC is on the table right now. It offers some interesting balistics, but has a shorter range than the 5.56x45. The 5.56 has an effective range of 300 yards, while the 6.8x43mm has a shorter range. However, when engagements are happening at less that 150 yards, the point is moot, as a DMR can cover up to an effective range of 600 yards.


 * ALSO! Many rifles today are being chambered in all three calibers; 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, and 6.8 SPC, so even if the M8 is accepted, it can be easily configured to fire the 5.56, 6.8, or 7.62 should the military require it. I also agree with Asmas10's point about "being good enough." We replaced the M14's with the M16 in Vietnam because we needed something different to fight in those conidtions. If an weapons designer would develop a rifle based around what is needed today, there would be a better chance of acceptance. What do we need today? No idea, not a strategist, but I get the feeling the military knows what it is.Konraden88 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Be careful when you type somthing. I don't know were you got your information but the range part up here is wrong. Range has to do with both rifle and round. A 5.56x45, when fired from an M4 has an effective rang of 500 metres, thats more than 300 yards. However a 6.8x43,when fired from an M468, which is just an M4 chambered for a larger round, has an effective range of 600 metres.


 * Why was it cancelled? --Asams10 05:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know! That is what I want to know! I just found it amusing that you guys got into such a huge debate about it. 71.238.205.137 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point 1) reread my post. I'm TELLING you why it was cancelled.  Point 2) It's not amusing when your M4 short-strokes after leaving a round in the chamber with the rim ripped off of it. You may live in a different world than I do, brother, but over here we need the guns to go BANG! Amuse yourself all you want, these are real lives being put in Jeopardy.--Asams10 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

XM8 and G36
The H&K XM8 is a futuristic version of their G36 assualt rifle. The US government spent who knowns how much on a gun that is already in use but with a Buck Rodger look to it.


 * Except for the fact that...it's not. They ended up with a design similar to the G36 but with superior performance. May want to leave your biases at the door. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The M8 and G36 are developed by the same company, it would make sense to use a system that already works. The weapon however, is not the exact same, just similar.Konraden88 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the XM8 is similar to the G36. The XM8 is based off the G36 platform. But the XM8 is lighter, more reliable. more accurate, more modular and has less recoil. In short it's not the same.

Will it be used?
Will the United States Army use the M8, or will they wait for a Future Force Warrior weapon substitute? (A caseless rifle of some sort?). I know the Special Forces are using the SCAR.

They should, but they most likly won't unless someone high up raises alot of hell. The XM8 is more reliable than an M4 and lighter too. As for caseless, I doubt that that would happen any time soon. Caseless tech is still in its early stages and is alot like Dragon Skin body armor.It will work well if it doesn't come into contact with water. If that happens the ammo comes apart.

In all likelihood,I doubt it. To quote from a book I have,"We now see the H&K XM8,which is better in every way than the M16 (just ask,H&K will tell you) but in every way just a little better. New weapon systems aren't funded and fielded because they are 'a little better'." Personally,my money's on the H&K M416 becoming the next new US carbine. Delta and the Special Forces (Green Berets) have already claimed preference for the AR platform over the XM8.SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

Small Caliber?
Does anyone else think that replacing the M-16/M-4 is a waste of time without uppping the size of the round?

Yes. It takes a 5.56x45 mm round 3-5 hits to kill a target. A 6.8x43 mm round takes 2-3 hits to kill a target. The difference is how many bad guys are still shooting at you when you have to replace your empty mag.

I do. The m16 is not worth replacing until the Army can find a truly next-gen weapon. The M8 is better, but not enough better to be worth replacing the m16. Still, jams are a constant pain in the butt.

Well, let out a sigh of relief. It is all but confirmed that the M8 will not go into US Military service. The Army/Marines will be stuck with their m16's for another five years until the Future Force Warrior has them using caseless rifles and heat seeking pistols and whatnot.


 * Don't forget to sign your posts, people!

The smaller caliber is irrelevant. The 5.56x45mm NATO has a longer effective range and greater penetration over the heavier and slower 7.62x39 seen in the AK-47. However, the 7.62x51mm NATO is used, and since most Assault Rifles these days are being chambered in 5.56, 7.62, and 6.8mm, you shouldn't need to worry.Konraden88 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Longer effective range (meaningless in most real-world engagements, which usually take place at distances of under 200 meters) and greater penetration (minor issue in most cases; it's not like many terrorists are wearing body armor with ceramic plates), but the issue is lethality. The point of any military round is the kill the enemy, and whether 5.56x45 is the best choice for that role is very much open to debate. 71.203.209.0 09:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Caliber is very relevant. It's harder to kill someone using a 5.56x45 rifle and considering that our enemies inject themselvs with adrenalin and meth before they engage us makes it harder.

Well let's see, if I shoot somebody with a 5.56mm bullet, I think that maybe, just maybe, they might die. I mean, its a bullet. Come on guys! Are we seriously gonna debate about the size of a bullet while they're whizzing by our heads? Not really. I agree, most terrorists don't where ceramic plating, but not all wars are against terrorists. Who knows? the USSR might suddenly spring up again or something. (No offense to Russia. Okay. To recap, I shoot somebody with a bullet. He dies. End of story. Okay, one bullet's 2mm bigger. Take out a ruler. Measure 2 mm. There's my argument. What would really be effective is a soft deforming round. If it has more penetration, that means it does less internal damage. It might pass clean through a body, but it might not tear up anything vital. If its a soft round, against unarmored targets it will deform upon hitting a body, spreading out for maximum surface area and therefore maximum internal damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.24.251.122 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first see WP:NOT. 2nd, if you don't know what you talking about please don't post your oppinion, cause you have NO idea what your talking about.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, well thank you for posting your opinion. I suggest though that you follow your own advice. Have you ever been in the armed forces? Have you had any contact with firearms besides in videogames? Probably not. So I think that unfortunately it is you who doesn't know what they're talking about. Again, to go back to my previous argument, measure two millimeters on a ruler. Its that small. Now think that a 5.56mm bullet is entering your body at a very rapid velocity. Now think of one only 2 mm more entering your body at a slower velocity. Either way, its gonna hurt like crap and probably kill you. Either way you're dead. I don't get what the argument here is about. The argument should be about hollow points (Anti-personnel rounds) or solid points coated with teflon (armor piercing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.24.251.122 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you don't really know what you’re talking about. You got about one point right and that's ammunition that goes through you won't do as much internal damage. Hollow points are illegal the last time I checked international law, and a standard ball of 5.56x45 will fragment when it hits a human at less than 100 meters provided it has the velocity to do so. You don't see that often with the military because 1) last time I checked the US military used AP ammo (less lethality on unarmored targets but is supposed to slow down enough to stay in the target when he’s wearing body armor) and 2) the M4's 14.5 inch barrel is NOT long enough for the 5.56x45 to reach that velocity. Since that’s the case, the XM8’s 12.5 inch barrel is going to reduce velocity and therefore effectiveness even further. You need at least a 16.5 inch barrel to achieve this level of velocity. Hurt like heck: enemies soldiers face drug themselves before engaging them and thus don’t notice the pain of being shot so much. Pain won’t bring them down but energy will. 2mm will make a difference but your argument is full of holes. You said use a ruler but you neglected to mention the full size and weight of the round, the effectiveness of the powder it uses (like how quickly it burns), the size of the barrel, the rifles twist rate, and the operation of the weapon, all of which come into play in determining lethality. Finale, to both you and me, Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss this. See WP:NOT. Go to military.com if you want to continue this discussion. BTW, yes I do have experince with firearms and I've been living with military personnel for most of my life.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Funding and Spending
What I'm trying to figure out here and I've been to many sites is how much the military actually blew on this as well as the XM29 before some pencil pusher decided to make this huge expense a real waste!
 * Not a real waste or anything of the sort. It was a drop in the bucket.  Try the Seawolf submarine or the A-12 Avenger II flying dorrito.  How about the Advanced Combat Rifle, SPIW programs.  The Sergeant York uber-tank.  Youre prespective is skewed because you believe that tons of money were spent in vain.  As one who's actually had my hands on some of this hardware, troops are SCREAMING for a more effective infantry weapon.  The OICW allowed the user to fire a grenade NEAR where the enemy was and the warhead would detonate after traveling a certain distance.  Therefore, aim at an exterior wall, pickle, add 2 meters, fire through adjacent window, and the grenade would explode in the center of the room, not at the opposite side or on contact with the window.  Enemy ducks behind a hardened wall or into a trench.  Same thing.  Pop, boom, dead.  Wonderful concept and technology will catch up with it. How far have cell phones come in the last few years?  The technology for a GPS guided grenade is here.  Soon, troops might be able to pickle a target a mile or two away and fire bursts of GPS guided grenades to rain down upon the enemy from a high ballistic trajectory.


 * The XM8 is lighter, more reliable, and superior in various ways to the M16. As one whose M16 has jammed... more than a few times... I can say that I'd like a more reliable gun.  As one who has carried 90 pounds on a ruck, web gear, ammo, and M16, I can definitely use a lighter gun.  As one who's handled both, I can say I prefer the XM8.  Now, I'd probably prefer the SCAR but I ain't touched one yet.  Darn the luck. (sign your comments next time). --Asams10 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The advantages don't help the troops much when the Pentagon chairborne division decides "nah, we'll keep buying M4s instead". 71.203.209.0 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of the word chairborne.(ForeverDEAD 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC))



Well, I've found it. So many people, even some on the right side are mad how much of our tax dollar goes into the military. Drop in the bucket? That could've built at least two schools! 69.107.87.190 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)The Youth Counselor

BS. Nobody is mad at how much is put into the military, people are mad about how the money is being misused in the military by politics (like buying expensive yet ineffective armored HUMVEE's and poor excuses for body armor and rifles). People, mostly those with family in the military, often go off and buy things for their family members that the military won't issue even though these items are better than standered issue equipment (think Dragon Skin Body Armor). Army's pissed, bans items, wastes money trying to enforce ban. What's worse is the military buying the same thing over and over and calling it new (M16A2 and M16A4 are basicly the same rifle with minor enhancements, M4 is also the same but shorter, but what happens when you shine crap, you get shiney crap). If they are going to buy something it needs to BE new and significantly better, because this is not a waste. Take the M16, it needs to be replaced. Why don't we replace it with something significantly better, like the XM8? Oh and BTW, as far as military programes are concerned, this is a drop in the bucket. Guess how much we spend replacing all the parts from the M16s that need to be replaced because the M16 is not meant for the harsh deserts. Guess that and you will find that replacing parts from this rifle alone fills more than half the bucket.65.54.154.46 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)13tawaazun14

M8 in us service?
If the m8 project was cancelled why is the us listed as a user? and germany and malaysian police are listed as users too did the m8 project get started again?


 * I suspect someone copied and pasted the infobox from another weapon to here. There are a lot of incorrect statements made within. D.E. Watters 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliability
Looking at H&K's other current assault rifles the claimed reliability doesn't seem especially unlikely. If you have any references to the contrary, feel free to restore the sentence I removed. 82.135.15.248 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued development
It should be mentioned that a the XM8 is basically still beind developed by HK, as the "GVM8", just with some minor changes (mainly the sight, which has a US Govt. license). It was recently presented to a Malaysian gun paper See here -> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/camneus/xm8malaysia_01.jpg 84.152.105.195 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Weight of the XM8 Grenade Launcher
It says here that the XM8's launcher is heavier yet in the XM320 Launchers page it says that it lightrer  which  obviously contradicts what it says here can someone find the right answer and change it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.79.130 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the rifle on their website
Anyone know why the XM8 isn't listed on H&K's website? Malamockq (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They had it at the SHOT show and submitted it several times through the years to the US government for various tests. They have never offered it for sale as a regular product, though.  They already have the G36 family that serves exactly the same function. --Asams10 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the rifles on their website aren't for sale as a regular product though. They have the HK416 on their website, but it's not offered for sale. I don't see why they don't have the XM8 as well. Do you have any websites on any news regarding the XM8? Malamockq (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The other models are tooled and in production. The XM8 was never in production and the factory never tooled fully for production. HK offers all of the weapons on their web site for sale to agencies on various levels. The XM8 development contracts were all cancelled. HK submitted a modified XM8 for consideration for the SCAR program.  They also provided XM8's for recent comparrison testing in heavy dust for the US Army.  Again, if you're looking to buy the XM8, you'd have to look at quantities in the 4 or 5 digit range before HK would tool up for production. --Asams10 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will they sell to foreign countries like India or China? Are they still working on the XM8? Malamockq (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum, stop putting this question back up when it gets deleted.72.81.226.247 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)13tawaazun14


 * You're unlikely to get an answer because, well, Wikipedia is not a forum. You seem all for adding what doesn't belong and reverting other's who try to remind you of the rules.  Read WP:Forum. --Asams10 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the question. It's related to the subject of the article, has generated a response, and, potentially, applies to material that could be in the article.  The edit warring over talk comments is a bit sad though.Wikidemo (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be true but it is irrelevent to the topic at hand. If he wants his question answered he should 1) Start a new section for this question 2) Reword his question so that he's more asking for sources rather than opinion. If he does this I would be more than happy to answer it.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up, this user is a sockpuppet of 72.81.226.247, which in turn is a suspected sockpuppet of Asams10. Malamockq (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would somebody please look at Malamockq's edit history. Right now, he's warring with anons and others and throwing out wild accusations.  Frankly, I'm taking this as a personal attack.  I'm trying to cover his vicioius tracks, but I may have been mistaken.  If you think I'm engaged in sock puppetry, fire away!  Report me.  This slander is uncalled for, though. --Asams10 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suspected? Only by you Malamockq. As far as being a sock poppet of 72.81.226.247, that IS my old IP address, of which I no longer use. I even made it clear on that IPs talk page right at the bottom of it.


 * BTW, what I asked was in no way, shape or form unreasonable. Start a new section and reword your question. Yet still you seem intent on spitting out insults that are only your opinion and are based on nothing. Before you start shouting personal attack that is what you have done. Read your own sources, your accusing me of being a sock poppet based on the fact that I agreed with asams are you kidding me? By this line of logic wikidemo is your sock poppet. Heck I could go around wikipedia and find users who have agreed with each other and by your line of logic they must all be one user useing many sock poppets. Sorry I don't buy that for a second.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)