The XM8 is a developmental United States military project name and designation for a lightweight and reliable assault rifle system that was under full scale development by the U.S. Army from the late 1990s through the early 2000s.
The United States Army worked extensively with the small arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K) to produce and develop the system to its requirements following the developments of the OICW contract, throughout which H&K had been a subcontractor to ATK. The XM8 project was entered into with high hopes as the assault rifle was to become the U.S. Army's new standard issue infantry rifle. The project however was put on hold in mid 2005 and eventually formally canceled on October 31, 2005.
The company, General Dynamics came into the project during the latter stages and H&K announced plans to manufacture and produce the XM8 at a plant in Georgia. At the beginning of the project, H&K was British owned however was later purchased back by a group of German investors. Engineering work on the XM8 assault rifle was performed at facilities in the Germany and the United States.
60 Comments
Reitz68
thats a nice gun good do have
dystubenrauch
no that is a pice of junk it fires the 5.56
5.56=JUNK
7.62=GOOD
sytasyn_syn
You are truly a neanderthal. I would write my normal, long winded explaination of why we need both types of weapons(5.56, 7.62)...but I figure after reading your posts, your intellegence level of the conversation of which you are able to hold would be that of an angry 7yr old. Please stop posting unhelpful and useles posts that mock other members
kiran8654
Sytasyn,
So yeah there is a reason for there to be 5.56, as there is a reason for any other calibers that exist, that there is a market for. God bless capitalism.
5.56 is a great round for varmint hunting, and a great round for pogues, and people that don't have the strength to carry or shoot the .308
But personally I would much rather carry a .308 into war though.
I suppose the lack of stopping power of the 5.56 is mitigated if you have a good hollow point round. I would still rather a .308. But unless we can retire all the retarded generals that are making issues with troops carrying hollowpoints then we better move back to the better round.
That is just my .02, I might just be another Neanderthal though.
Anonymous
I am a soldier in the army as well as a sniper and i rather carry a 5.56 any day of the week over a the famous Ak rounds. The 7.62 round moves around way to much when fird only because of the weapons being used and who ever told you that we carry hollow points lied thier f***ing ass off to we all carry ball point ammo not hollow because we have to shoot through soft targets such as wood and adobe now on another i do agree about the .308 but the amount of ammo we carry is heavy change that to .308 rounds and its even heavier and this is coming from a soldier who carry .50 cal ammo with 5.56 cal ammo
mytwoody
7x43mm/ British .280 WAS THE BEST EXPERIMENTAL ASSAULT WEAPON ROUND back before they went with the NATO pushed 7.62X51 and 5.56X45... Read this whole article.... http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm
I am hopeful about the 6.8 SPC and even more hopeful that someday NATO adopts a better INTERMEDIATE round in 7mm like the .280.... Even FN was building the first version of the FN FAL on the .280 round.....
But even better but ABANDONED by the US ARMY was the Steyr ACR... I love the description of 'Ray gun like performance', but it is only wishful thinking that fleschette ammo would ever be adopted, but they (Steyr) had some great results with both of the following experimental weapons based on fleschette ammo:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as56-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm
To me, I think that is where the next evolution of ammunition is.....
Larj 1Aus
5.56=JUNK <------should be replaced by 6.5
7.62=GOOD <------can't beat the best
sytasyn_syn
dont you mean 6.8?
thyrex
7.62=GOOD <------can't beat the best
you cant be serious when you say that the 7.62 is better then the 6.8
but then barret patented the 6.8 so HK cant use it
shooter307
Learn how to spell before bashing defenseless ammunition calibers
Zach_calderone12
what do you mean the 5.56 is junk the 5.56 is a very effective round. it has a high velocity very accurate and its light allowing OUR TROOPS to carry more ammunition
mytwoody
Look Ballistically speaking, 7.62X51 is not the best caliber, but YEAH better than 5.56X45.... The Brits had is right back in the 60's with the .280/7x43mm!!! XM8 will do best with 6.8 SPC... Take a look at this link, and look at the flaws with BOTH 5.56X45 and 7.62X51:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm (bottom of page on EM-2 assault rifle)
Comparison table: British .280/7x43mm caliber intermediate cartridge vs. most common modern military cartridges
ballistic data is estimated using Norma ballistic calculator and Sierra Bullets data on ballistic coefficients.
5.56x45mm NATO 7x43mm EM-2 7.6x39mm M43 7.62x51mm NATO
bullet weight 4.01 g (62 gr) 9.08 g (140 gr) 7.9 g (122 gr) 9.72 g (150 gr)
bullet velocity, at muzzle 921 m/s 745 m/s 710 m/s 860 m/s
bullet velocity, at 300 yards (273 meters) 585 m/s 570 m/s 470 m/s 674 m/s
bullet velocity, at 550 yards (500 meters) 385 m/s 450 m/s 341 m/s 516 m/s
bullet energy, at muzzle 1700 J 2519 J 1991 J 3594 J
bullet energy, at 300 yards (273 meters) 686 J 1475 J 872 J 2207 J
bullet energy, at 550 yards (500 meters) 297 J 919 J 460 J 1294 J
--
meattruck86
i would really like to have one of these
Amnitrix
That Guns so awesome ill give it 9.3
Larj 1Aus
I cannot see for the life of me why America hasn't adopted this yet (as they had planned to do in 2005). As much as i love the M16 and M4 family their stopping power is under question, and besides too much of a good thing is a bad thing. HK are awesome i love all their guns ESPECIALLY this one.
Anonymous
The same reason e don't have Draon aurmor some dumb as general has a hard on for the old shit we carry and doesnt want to change it i own a set of dragon aurmor and it saved my life 5 times and i would love to own a XM8 after test firing it 2 years ago
sarge225
at a time of conflict it would cost to much to change to a different weapon. the next change will most likely be M16/M4 converted to fire the 6.8mm
Timberwolf
My dad's on SWAT and they were just issued M6's in place of their original G36's. It seems to be very reliable and very easy to maintain, while remaining very accurate out to 200 yards. (Six inch tin plate, all 30 rounds hit.) I may be mistaken, but I think the M6 is supposed to be something like an upgrade of the M4. There are also variants that are designed for the 6.8 round. You could check into it if you want.
sytasyn_syn
Im looking forward to the REC7 (M468) from Barrett
Zach_calderone12
yeah i dont think they will adopt it though otherwise they would have to adopt the round as a nato round as well. but they should cause it is a very good weapon
Anonymous
7.62 is the best but .50 caliber ammo should be standard issue with all service men
riflemen6.3
7.62 isnt accurate but 6.3 is strong and accurate
USMCFiscella
[quote=riflemen6.3]7.62 isnt accurate but 6.3 is strong and accurate[/quot
7.62x51 is plenty strong and accurate and there is no good reason we should have ever given it up for 5.56x45mm. You must be thinking of 7.62X39 which is what the ak fires, good at close range lacks over 300m.
USMCFiscella
I'll never buy one, and if issued one I'll refuse to take it.
kiran8654
Which USMC allows you to refuse essential gear you are issued?
Mine doesn't.
usmciraq2004
what the hells your problem
kiran8654
So how the comment that I made is directly below the comment I was responding to. That is a little confusing.
Also, So about the 6.3 and the 6.5, and the 6.8, are any of them really the rifle equivalent of what the .40 is to pistols, ie a round that has stopping power AND speed?
Or are they just variants of essentially what the AK round is? Good stopping power for short distances, but does nothing compared to the 5.56 or even the .308 at distance?
Is the 5.56 still the flattest and fastest? Because if that is so, lets just go back to the .308, that one is good enough.
superdaddy88
Superdaddy88
The caliber is great,but what was the real reason they stopped research.
abacus
This gun should not have been canceled. This is why I hate Colt, just because it would have lost it's hold on the American Military's assault rifle, they forced the stupid politicians/generals to beat down the XM8, which is infinitely better than the M16. It's way more reliable and has a built-in scope. Fully ambidextrous and still has similar range/accuracy. Fully modular, so you can have your carbine version on one mission then switch it over to a sniper/machine gun variant in minutes. It seems to have a slightly slower rate of fire, but that's not really a bad thing, makes it easier to control.
Another great thing about the Xm8 is how small you can get it- the machine-pistol variant is about the size of the Mp5k PDW or the MP7 so you can issue it to tank or helicopter troops, giving them the power of an assault rifle in the size of a SMG.
5.56 doesn't really matter. Most of the world's assault rifles are 5.56, 7.62 is more of a sniper round in my opinion. If you want to carry a 7.62 into battle, go buy a FAL or G3. Just cause you don't get it for free from the military doesn't mean you can't have it.
sytasyn_syn
"Just cause you don't get it for free from the military doesn't mean you can't have it." Have you lost your mind? When have any units/individuals been able to carry anything not issued to them?
clintlebo
Abacus,
Could you elaborate on the Colt controversy? It seems that FN has introduced the SCAR as a pseudo-replacement for the m-16 family. But I think it all comes down to what Sarge225 wrote.
clint
Dr wrink
looks good but is it? probably it is.
marky32
di ko alam yung mga boga na sinasabi nyo dyan
skeeter51
no es peca day en glee eshe!?
stevencloyce
5.56 is a good light round and the 7.62 is a good little bit heaver round. both are a dead on round when you are train with the weapon that is fired with it. i think if we do change weapons or rounds we should go to the 7.62 we should have a weaopen that would be able to fire both the normal 7.62x51 or the 7.62x39
Anonymous
If ya run out of one type use the next type. Good idea Steve.
sytasyn_syn
Steven, What do you think about 6.8?
Reaper308
i dig the 6.8 spc, but i think i like the 6.5 grendel even better
sytasyn_syn
What is the big difference between the 6.8 and the 6.5
I was never real clear of that
Reaper308
you can google ballistics comparisons between the two rounds.
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2006/...
sytasyn_syn
I can't get on allot of sites out here. We are restricted heavily on the internet out here.
Reaper308
they are pretty similar ballistically under 500 yds, but there is a pretty big difference the farther out you get
sytasyn_syn
I was able to get that site, thanks. I think I am with the 6.5 crew now. But I would still take the 6.8 over the 5.56 if it came in the the same weapons system.
chiem_alex
I've tried the gun...and I hella would rather choose my M4 over it!!
DarkWisper44
This is a great rifle but I don't see why billions of tax payers dollars should be spend to replace existing weapons for ones that are only marginally better that what we have on hand right now. Think about it. Are KA 47's the best rifles out there? Hell no. But why it have not been replace by the countries That use them (including US Special Forces? Because It is cheap rugged and does the job! Is ti better than our M16/M4 not really but no one has been able to produce something better for the price. So again why spend billions on replacing our existing stock for something that is not going to give us a clear advantage over the enemy? Just my 2 pennies.
batstud317
The rifle looks good they could do a little better by adding on some more coumponets like more scopes and mediem barrles
Ravishing Ric
I agree with all, I would choose my M4 or my AK-47. Now what I would really like to buy is H&K PSG-1 SWEET not to mention the price, WOW!
pablo
I have read and laughed at some of the answers.
What is the differences between the differing types of ammo.
Specifically, 7.62x51nato 6.5, 6.8 and the 5.56nato
What is it that makes some think that one is better than the others?
Well here is some facts.
5.56 was chosen because of its low recoil and high velocity. It is not the fastest bullet out there nor is it the most accurate. At 600 zero which is the current standard for all US military weapons here is how it stacks up
5.56 vel 1558 recoil 5.41lbs 39.71 inch drift killing Power is 415
7.62 Vel is 1666 recoil 13.45lbs 20.62 drift and KP is 1079
6.5 vel is 1855 recoil 8.5lbs 21.57 drift and KP is 825
6.8 vel is 1461 recoil 8.71lbs 44.77 drift and KP is 545
So what does the fact of the round give? The 7.62x51 is the best round has better accuracy and the best stopping power when it hits the enemy combatant. Drawback is recoil which can wear on the soldier and weight of ammunition is not that much different than the other rounds other than the 5.56 which is clearly much lighter.
The worst round to have is the 6.8 who has almost a 4 foot drift meaning at distance you have a high chance of missing what you aim at.
I did not compare drop of the round at distance because its a factor of velocity with energy of Killing power.
what I learn is that if your in close quarters as in less than 100m then that is the only way the 5.56 is comparible to any of the other rounds. What is sad is that a common colt 45 pistol has better ballistics at less than 100m than the 5.56. Thus honestly, the 5.56 is a truly worthless round and should not be issued to the troops.
The most accurate round is the 7.62x 51 which also has the stopping power to deal death at both distance and at short ranges. The only draw back is recoil. Thus personally, the military should look into addressing recoil of this round like it has for other rounds.
The 6.8 is not a round that is worth switching to. However the 6.5 is comparable its significanly less than the 7.62x51 when it comes to use in combat.
Thus the best round would be weapons which use this round which makes since. This is why all units in combat have issued that at minimum 2 members have the M14 to provide both sniper and sharpshooter support to their units. Thus the military is issuing the old M14 to provide the kind of firepower to compensate for the lack found in the 5.56 M16.
It would be best for the military to simply research out and go back to the 7.62 as both the 51 and 39 would be better choices than the 5.56 or even the 6.5. As the 7.62x39 has nearly the same ballistics as the 6.5
Let the facts speak for themselves. I should know, I was issued the M14 which I noticed an immediate improvement in accuracy at distance.
hillbilly77
what I learn is that if your in close quarters as in less than 100m then that is the only way the 5.56 is comparible to any of the other rounds. What is sad is that a common colt 45 pistol has better ballistics at less than 100m than the 5.56. Thus honestly, the 5.56 is a truly worthless round and should not be issued to the troops.
I hate to argue with you but the numbers do not lie.
.45 Colt
255 gr (16.5 g) Lead SWC 961 ft/s (293 m/s) 523 ft·lbf (709 J)
200 gr (13 g) XTP 1,032 ft/s (315 m/s) 473 ft·lbf (641 J)
230 gr (15 g) XTP 969 ft/s (295 m/s) 480 ft·lbf (650 J)
250 gr (16 g) XTP 929 ft/s (283 m/s) 479 ft·lbf (649 J)
5.56 Nato
4 g (62 gr) SS109 FMJBT 940 m/s (3,100 ft/s) 1,767 J (1,303 ft·lbf)
4.1 g (63 gr) DM11 FMJBT 936 m/s (3,070 ft/s) 1,796 J (1,325 ft·lbf)
pablo
I suggest that you look at a ballistics table of KP verses accuracy. If you want to play the game of looking at velocity only then yea there is no comparison.
But when you are looking a less than 100m as in less than 100ft. Then you will find the hot load 45 to be very much simular. The KP of a 45 at 100ft is 486. Kp of 5.56 is 521.
The point I was making is that when you are looking at close ranges then the advantage of the 5.56 drops significantly and the pistol then rises.
If you are talking about distance, then refer to the table I provided.
By the way the 45 drift is 4.22 inches. 5.56 is 13.2 at 100 ft. Which is why I said what I said. There is no significant advantage of having the 5.56 other than weight reduction.
But I understand your point if you are only looking at over all velocity and mussel velocity. The truth is there if you look at it objectively.
Semaru13
The 5.56 kills just fine,unless your running up aginst opium fags,then its just headshots,but they move! 7.62 on the other hand put 1 in the chest they go down.what it comes down to is your skill & what you like to shoot.
in the states i like 5.56 and its a bit cheaper.In war I like 7.62.
The XM8 has a 7.62 sniper version.Would like to get 1.
Green Star
Right after WWI a general by the name of Hatch asked Congress for the unidentified American bodies for experimentation. He then shot every known round into these American soldiers etc and then did autopsies on them. After the autopsies they were buried with full military honors. However his findings were for a weapon to have a one shot disabeling/kill capability if it hits the chest cavity the rifles must be 30 caliber or above. For pistol it must be 40 caliber or above. Yes 5.56 can kill a man as can .22 long rifle or a slingshot. The key thing here is to make someone who has been shot in the chest cavity incapacitated or dead with one shot immediately all the time. The worst thing in the world of battle is to be shot by someone whom has already been shot. In Viet Nam there are many true stories of men running away after being shot 20 times in the chest by 5.56 . The point being that these people were not incapacitated. The argument of carring more ammo is rediculus (sorry spelling) when you realize that it takes more than 2 rounds of 5.56 to incapacitate someone especially when 20 or more rounds doesn't IMMEDIATELY stop someone in their tracks. 5.56 is ok for noncombat personel but our front line troops deserve the best we can give them which at this time is 7.62.
WADE0101001
This gun is modern, has multiple functions. and is pretty freakn cool.Unfortionatly congress is to woried about their money. Even though it cost more to upgrade the current m4 and m16s to replace them. What is it now m15a4 wow it is getting old. If you don't get it right the first 2 or 3 times stop. What about m416 they had a baby. Like that one guy said colt did say some things to so people in high places. The only problem with the xm8 is batterie life and the occational melting grip( h&k buy some metal not plastic like mixtures of wierd things)
Timberwolf
Okay, I'm not trying to be an expert or anything, just throwing in my opinion, too.
Firstly, I want you guys to know that I prefer the 7.62 round over 5.56, simply because of its sheer penetration and stopping power capabilities. I'd probably pick up an AK and use it instead of a standard M4, mainly because the AK was designed specifically for rugged terrain, horrible weather, untrained users, etc. and is all around a very reliable and efficient rifle. (Some say that its terribly inaccurate, but that's only if you fire it fully automatic. Use it semi-automatically or double tap it, and it's actually only slightly less accurate than other rifles.) But that's just me.
Now, in defense of the 5.56 round, while it doesn't seem to me to have the power of the 7.62, there have been experiments where the 5.56 hits the skin of the target and upon impact "tumbles" through out the body in a random direction, tearing through organs, muscles, and everything else. Say a man gets shot in the chest (let's say right in the diaphragm). The round would hit the target, tumble through his body, shred through his heart, lung, stomach, and the exit wound could be in the small of his back. There may not even be an exit wound, and the round just may stay in the victim's body, whereas a 7.62 would punch straight through the target.
While I find the "tumbling" effect very effective, I still have doubts about the penetration of the round through body armor. And at the same time, the tumbling effect doesn't happen EVERY time. In which case, I'd rather having a round that has the punch I need that lets me go home.
I have heard some good things about the new 6.8 round, and I plan on looking into that. If any of you guys know anything about the 6.8 round, please let me know.
Carterscountry
Woah that a hell of a gun my friends!
stevehh
the numbers do not lie:
.45 Colt
255 gr (16.5 g) Lead SWC 961 ft/s (293 m/s) 523 ft·lbf (709 J)
200 gr (13 g) XTP 1,032 ft/s (315 m/s) 473 ft·lbf (641 J)
230 gr (15 g) XTP 969 ft/s (295 m/s) 480 ft·lbf (650 J)
250 gr (16 g) XTP 929 ft/s (283 m/s) 479 ft·lbf (649 J)
5.56 Nato
4 g (62 gr) SS109 FMJBT 940 m/s (3,100 ft/s) 1,767 J (1,303 ft·lbf)
4.1 g (63 gr) DM11 FMJBT 936 m/s (3,070 ft/s) 1,796 J (1,325 ft·lbf)
ustacould
I own both 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm each are very good. There is unfortunately no one size fits all firearm cartridge. The best you can possibly do is weigh the real world options. Now, if feces really ever does get in the fan, will you be able to feed a wonderful 7.5x55 Swiss (ballisticly wonderful) or an " adequate " AR? What do you expect to be able to carry. Get really real.
ustacould
If only,if only,... STOP IT! You will use what you can find. You will make do with what is on hand. It's 5.56x45 DEAL. WITH. IT.
Weapons Master
The XM8 is a very lightweight weapon. If it uses a caliber such as the 7.62mm, the recoil will throw the weapon back too much. Such as in the case of the M82. It doesn't kick as much as is thought because the weight of the rifle. If a 7.62mm round were used, the XM8 would be thrown too much and would become uncontrollable. Especially in the Automatic Rifle variant. As for which round is better, each suits different purposes better than the other. And it is not a matter of being too weak as kiran8654 has mentioned. The only thing that matters is weapon/gear weight, the lighter it is, the easier it is to transport and aim for extended firefights, the 5.56mm is the lighter of the two. The XM8 is one half of another project, the XM29. even with the 5.56x45mm rounds, the weapon was far too heavy too be practical on the battlefield. This was also with 20 of the KE rounds (5.56) instead of 30 and the six HE (20mm high-explosive) loaded. The XM8 and XM25 structures will be perfected in order to create the parent XM29 once HK gets the weapon design correct. This is a three part project and the 5.56x45mm round is REQUIRED to make this weapon possible to carry in combat.
Alucard
Ok for a start the XM8 is designed to kill people... It does not matter what rounds a gun uses because they will still kill somebody unless you really can't aim. XM8 is one of the best rifle's i have seen in a long time. If i had a choice between the XM8 or an XM16E1 i would take the XM8. People complain it looks ugly or plastic... Most gun's these days are all being made synthetic to reduce carrying weight but in doing that the muzzle jump from recoil can throw your aim off. If i was in the armed forces i would gladly take an XM8 into the field but If no XM8 is available i will have the AK-47 please... As for penetration factor, if you can aim you wont even hit armor as an efficient soldier if given orders will mostly shoot to kill unless ordered to take pow. When was the last time you saw any military force taking PoW's?