Talk:Heckler & Koch XM8

XM8

Hi, has the US military finally made a decision on their new Assault Rifle? Anyone have an external link that talks about what they are up to now? Thanks. Green Squares (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article. It says so clearly there. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope! Green Squares (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Do either of the last two editors have any kind of proof to support their answers? Spartan198 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to H&K G36

The XM8 has the same cocking handle, similar carry handle and optics, and similar ambidextrous controls as the G36. Is that all that is the same or are the respective actions the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortstack2012 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Both guns are the same inside, they use the same mechanics, only the wrapping is different. 85Pando (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically just a G36 in a different shell, yes. Spartan198 (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did they cancel the program? It seems quite okay to me. Why does it need to be a metal magazine anyway? Okay, well I guess it's just a qualification, but still...--Rollersox (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was canceled mostly because it couldn't handle the harsh desert conditions, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Thegreene2010 (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just speculation on your part unless you have a citation to verify that. As far as I know, there's no concrete reason for why the rifle was canceled. ScienceApe (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it didn't provide enough of an advantage over the current system to justify the cost of replacing hundreds of thousands of up-to-spec M16s and M4s. That, and replacing your standard service weapon in the middle of two wars is likely to cause all kinds of logistical problems for in-theater combat units. Spartan198 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just your rationalization. Truth is congress denied funding for reasons unknown. --87.152.118.13 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, they could have done it slowly. Start with issuing it out to special forces units, like navy seals, wait till the war was over then replace it completly. Just my opinion on the matter. 71.79.110.221 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Special Operations are subject to logistical complications just like regular forces. And the fact remains that any advantage the XM8 provided over the currently issued and battle-proven M16 and M4 is negligible at best. Not enough to waste hundreds of billions on a new "cool-looking" weapon when those same negligible advantages can be had with much cheaper M16/M4 receiver upgrades. As far as the US military goes, the XM8 is dead. Spartan198 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

"The exact reason why this happened is a matter of debate; some combination of the aforementioned technical issues, funding restrictions, and outside pressure being involved."

Without a valid source to back it up, that statement is no more than speculation. Spartan198 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, scratch that. I misread the sentence. My bad, sorry. Spartan198 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)