testtest

The Army has another new rifle, the XM8 carbine

Army units receiving the XM-8. But there's issues with the XM157 fire Control System.

But who would of thought there'd be issues with an large, heavy and overly-priced 1-8x direct view optic with and integrated display overlay, laser range finder, aiming lasers, ballistic solver, and Intra-Soldier Wireless (ISW) system which allows for external wireless communications to Soldier mounted subsystems? :unsure:

 
Last edited:
More...


1781490598582.png
 
In case anyone wasn't sure



I don't know much about this round. I'll have to research. If this is what our military is using, do you thing we can expect it to become common for civilian use?
Or, are there too many 223/5.56 already ?
It will eventually become “normal” as has every other single round that the military has adopted (sole exception being 30-03 which didn’t last long). .223 will stick around, as has .308, 30-06 and 45/70.
 
Army units receiving the XM-8. But there's issues with the XM157 fire Control System.

But who would of thought there'd be issues with an large, heavy and overly-priced 1-8x direct view optic with and integrated display overlay, laser range finder, aiming lasers, ballistic solver, and Intra-Soldier Wireless (ISW) system which allows for external wireless communications to Soldier mounted subsystems? :unsure:

Yeah, simple system, what could possibly go wrong🙄
 
Here we go again with a two caliber supply system.

Eventually BIG Army will go straight 6.8 (with exceptions, as always), while all other services will keep using NATO standard 5.56/7.62.

Funny (ironic in a historical sense) how it's come full circle. 276 Pedersen, and 280 Enfield were soundly defeated by Era logistics, and American "not invented here" syndrome.

And don't forget the .338 SOCOM carbines/rifles/machine guns.......

SMH.......
 
Here we go again with a two caliber supply system.

Eventually BIG Army will go straight 6.8 (with exceptions, as always), while all other services will keep using NATO standard 5.56/7.62.

Funny (ironic in a historical sense) how it's come full circle. 276 Pedersen, and 280 Enfield were soundly defeated by Era logistics, and American "not invented here" syndrome.

And don't forget the .338 SOCOM carbines/rifles/machine guns.......

SMH.......


6mm Lee
 
Actually it's the same projectile diameter as the .270 Winchester.

The 6.8x51 outranges the 7.62x51.

View attachment 112667

Yea, the US should have stuck with the 45/70.
The only problem I have is the new .277 Fury has such a high pressure limit that it will batter the rifle into an early rebuild. I understood the Army had abandoned the "long range" rifleman long ago.
 
A rifleman first. A Marine after.

A story I have told here before.
Dad was active duty Marine ‘58-62. Shot expert in basic and was an avid hunter growing up with his dad. He was a natural with a rifle.
Fast forward to years ago when my dad was 70+ yrs old and had not touched a military rifle since ‘62. Deer rifles, every year.
He wanted to shoot my Colt M4.
Showed him the workings of it and handed him a mag.
He put all rounds touching on bull.
Basically he handed it back and did a “dad” version of drop mic smiling ear to ear. Looked at me and said: “always a Marine” or such to effect 😁🇺🇸🇺🇸
Semper Fidelis, brother. Daddy was a Navy Rifle Team/Underwater Demolition Team member (Today, they are S.E.A.L. team members). Some things never change.

I am still a part of the "Old Navy". We are "blood until we are dead".
 
Last edited:
All the platforms that use the 6.8x51 designed to handle the higher pressures with their piston operating systems.

The main component that will have a lower lifespan will be the barrel.
 
All the platforms that use the 6.8x51 designed to handle the higher pressures with their piston operating systems.

The main component that will have a lower lifespan will be the barrel.
Precisely. The military will replace those with consummate regularity. We'll be right back to the Pederson vs. Garand quandary.

History repeats itself... repeats itself... repeats itself...
 
I wish the Army would stop wasting money on this stuff.
Uniforms 2 billion dollars. Seemingly every other year.

And now the "replacement" for the M4 has been going on since GWOT.
the new tanks they said they didn't need now they suddenly need

There are so many options out there already which fit the bill of increased range, and better ballistics with minimal loss in round count and minimal increase of weight.
 
I wish the Army would stop wasting money on this stuff.
Uniforms 2 billion dollars. Seemingly every other year.

And now the "replacement" for the M4 has been going on since GWOT.
the new tanks they said they didn't need now they suddenly need

There are so many options out there already which fit the bill of increased range, and better ballistics with minimal loss in round count and minimal increase of weight.
And the worst part is knowing that you hold in your hands, a tool for the various needs of a variety of purposes, all put together, by the lowest bidder.
 
They put short barrels on the darned thing. This robs it of the much-needed velocity for long-range work.

Daddy was UDT/Navy Rifle Team. I learned at the knee of a man who knew the meaning of long-range marksmanship.
 
Back
Top