Superior HK XM8 Kicks M4's Ass [Archive]

Evan Williams

July 5th 04, 02:52 PM

Gee let's see. The M-16/M4 has at least been tested in real combat
conditions as opposed to what the manufacturer (HK) says the HK XM8 does in
the lab. This HK XM8 looks like some European artsy fartsy BJ. That's just
what we need, more cheap plastic firearms. I am proficient with the M-16
and have confidence that I can hit what I am aiming at, but I would have
much preferred to carry an M-14 or even an M-1 Garand (I decided a while ago
to avoid the argument as to which one is the greatest battle rifle in the
entire universe by purchasing one of each). I forget who said this, I think
it was an US Army Colonel but I'm probably wrong. But anyway he said that
"We should give the men a semi-automatic rifle and teach them how to use it"
or something along those lines. Before the days of the 5.56 bullet, you
never heard anyone say "Put two in the chest and one in the head". With a
150 grain .30 cal. bullet it was put one in the torso and the only way he
gets back up is with someone else's help. Does this wonderful new weapon
have provision for a bayonet? It obviously doesn't have a convenient hand
hold for when you have to club someone. Marines like me tend to think about
those things for when we make our "last stand". :) I used to do the
occasional post here several years ago, but lately I've just been lurking.
From an "outsiders" point of view, you're just a looser wantabe. Maybe when
junior high starts back up in the fall, your ilk will be back in school and
not tying up bandwidth.

Evan Williams
SSgt USMC (ret)

PS What does this have to do with aviation? Other than this piece of crap
can probably fit into a helmet bag.

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>
> Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>
> Rob

July 5th 04, 04:18 PM

"Evan Williams" > wrote in message
ink.net...

Apologies for off-topicality

<snip>

> I would have much preferred to carry an M-14 or even an M-1 Garand (I
decided a while ago
> to avoid the argument as to which one is the greatest battle rifle in the
> entire universe by purchasing one of each).

I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand
and the M14? Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?

/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
still! ;-)

<snip>

Scott Ferrin

July 5th 04, 06:12 PM

On 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>
>Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>
>Rob

Wow. The latest HK assault rifle is superior to a forty-year-old
American design. Something to brag about indeed. Loser.

Paul J. Adam

July 5th 04, 06:33 PM

In message >, tw >
writes
>I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand
>and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)

>Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
>and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?
>
>/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
>Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
>still! ;-)

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry :)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

B2431

July 5th 04, 10:37 PM

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/5/2004 4:16 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>
>Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>
>Rob

Congratulations, teuton, it only took 40 years for you Germans to catch up with
us.

Having said that, you really do need to get over your inferiority complex and
try to stay on topic.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Regnirps

July 5th 04, 10:56 PM

Wow! I always wnated to go into combat carying a feminine hygein product. I can
see the hair curler, but where is the shaving cream dispense?

-- Charlie Springer

Adriano Quintal

July 5th 04, 11:57 PM

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> Wow! I always wnated to go into combat carying a feminine hygein product.
I can
> see the hair curler, but where is the shaving cream dispense?

XM8 was actually designed by HK's US subsidiary as part of the OICW project
and will be manufactured in the US.
>

Jim Knoyle

July 6th 04, 03:43 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, tw >
> writes
> >I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
Garand
> >and the M14?
>
> M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
> eight-shot charger.
>
> M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
> twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
> capability (little used and often deleted)
>

Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.
Per TM9-1276:
M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)

robert arndt

July 6th 04, 06:37 AM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 7/5/2004 4:16 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
> >
> >Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
> >
> >Rob
>
> Congratulations, teuton, it only took 40 years for you Germans to catch up with
> us.

How so moron since we Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2 as the
STG-44 and the last was Mauser's STG-45... which the Mauser team went
to Spain and developed as the Cetme... before returning to Germany as
HK improving the design into the G-3... which has led to both the
incredible G-11 and new G-36.
IIRC, you got your crummy M-16A-1 which fouled like a MF in Vietnam...
20 years AFTER the Mauser STG-45.
>
> Having said that, you really do need to get over your inferiority complex and
> try to stay on topic.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What would an AF jerk like you know about rifles anyway? Ever fired
once since boot? I'll bet I own and have fired more assault weapons in
my 20s than you ever fired during your entire military career/life. My
dad was a weapons inspector and I still have a fairly large pre-ban
arsenal at home.

Rob

robert arndt

July 6th 04, 06:37 AM

robert arndt

July 6th 04, 06:37 AM

B2431

July 6th 04, 07:01 AM

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 7/5/2004 4:16 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>> >
>> >Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Congratulations, teuton, it only took 40 years for you Germans to catch up
>with
>> us.
>
>How so moron since we Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2 as the
>STG-44 and the last was Mauser's STG-45... which the Mauser team went
>to Spain and developed as the Cetme... before returning to Germany as
>HK improving the design into the G-3... which has led to both the
>incredible G-11 and new G-36.
>IIRC, you got your crummy M-16A-1 which fouled like a MF in Vietnam...
>20 years AFTER the Mauser STG-45.
>>
>> Having said that, you really do need to get over your inferiority complex
>and
>> try to stay on topic.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>What would an AF jerk like you know about rifles anyway? Ever fired
>once since boot? I'll bet I own and have fired more assault weapons in
>my 20s than you ever fired during your entire military career/life. My
>dad was a weapons inspector and I still have a fairly large pre-ban
>arsenal at home.
>
>Rob

Ooh, I'm impressed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

July 6th 04, 07:03 AM

July 6th 04, 10:06 AM

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, tw >
> > writes
> > >I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
> Garand
> > >and the M14?
> >
> > M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
> > eight-shot charger.

Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right?

> > M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
> > twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
> > capability (little used and often deleted)
> >
>
> Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
(M1 carbine and Garand)

> Per TM9-1276:
> M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
> M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
> M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
> M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)

Thanks for that

> > Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry :)

I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for
..22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie
wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt...

*Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the
better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em.

Bill

July 6th 04, 10:52 AM

In article >, "tw" > wrote:

>This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
>never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
>the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
>old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
>these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
>(M1 carbine and Garand)

Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there-
http://www.fulton-armory.com/

July 6th 04, 01:13 PM

"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "tw" >
wrote:
>
> >This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
> >never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
> >the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
> >old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.
Were
> >these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock
length/magazine?
> >(M1 carbine and Garand)
>
> Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there-
> http://www.fulton-armory.com/

Thanks Bill!

Tamas Feher

July 6th 04, 03:27 PM

A well-armed milita being necessary for the safety of a free state, the
right of the people to bear and carry AK-47 shall not be infringed.

B2431

July 6th 04, 07:43 PM

>From: "tw"
>Date: 7/6/2004 4:06 AM Central Daylight Time

>This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
>never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
>the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
>old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.

OK, it looks like a definition is needed here. The garand DOES have a magazine.
it is internal. Think of magazines as the part that holds the ammunition. Bolt
action rifles like the Remington 700 have internal magazines and lever actions
like use tubular magazines.

A clip, like the 8 round clip for the garand and stripper clips for M-14, M-1
carbine, M-16, SMLEs etc are used to LOAD magazines.

As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Paul J. Adam

July 6th 04, 09:20 PM

In message >, tw >
writes
>"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>> > M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
>> > eight-shot charger.
>
>Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right?

That's the one: long, hefty brute. Good kit, though.

>> Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.
>
>This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
>never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
>the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
>old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
>these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
>(M1 carbine and Garand)

No. The M1 Carbine was designed as a smaller, lighter weapon for troops
that didn't need a full-on rifle but if they *did* have to fight, they
needed something more effective than a pistol. (Truck drivers, mortar
teams, bakers, et cetera). So it was designed around a lower-powered
round that could reach out further than a pistol or SMG, but could still
be fired from a light and handy weapon.

To expand on Jim's listing of the M1 Carbine family, a folding-stocked
version was provided for airborne troops (the M1A1 Carbine), and later
the weapon was modified to fire full-auto (the M2 Carbine) which also
produced a 30-round magazine - the original M1 had a shorter 15-round
mag, though of course either would fit any mark. There was also a M3
designed for use with an early IR sight.

The concept's returned in the form of the "Personal Defence Weapon" such
as the H&K MP-7 or the FN P90, interestingly.

>> Per TM9-1276:
>> M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
>> M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
>> M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
>> M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)
>
>Thanks for that

Don't forget the M1 SMG, which was a much-simplified Thompson :) The US
military has a respectable selection of M1s...

>I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for
>.22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie
>wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt...

<Zulu>
"If it's a miracle, Sergeant-Major, it's a .45 short-chamber Boxer-Henry
miracle."
"And a bayonet, sir. With some guts behind it."
</Zulu>

>*Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the
>better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em.

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 6th 04, 09:24 PM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> Congratulations, teuton, it only took 40 years for you Germans to
>>catch up with
>> us.
>
>How so moron since we Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2 as the
>STG-44

No, the Russians first invented the assault rifle in 1916 with the
Federov Avtomat.

>and the last was Mauser's STG-45... which the Mauser team went
>to Spain and developed as the Cetme... before returning to Germany as
>HK improving the design into the G-3... which has led to both the
>incredible G-11 and new G-36.

The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
service user?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

July 7th 04, 12:13 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: "tw"
> >Date: 7/6/2004 4:06 AM Central Daylight Time
>
> >This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
> >never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
> >the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
> >old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.
>
> OK, it looks like a definition is needed here. The garand DOES have a
magazine.
> it is internal. Think of magazines as the part that holds the ammunition. Bolt
> action rifles like the Remington 700 have internal magazines and lever actions
> like use tubular magazines.
>
> A clip, like the 8 round clip for the garand and stripper clips for M-14, M-1
> carbine, M-16, SMLEs etc are used to LOAD magazines.
>
> As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
> collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.

Mine's a 1943 Springfield build, and I'm thinking of doing the conversion
to .308 like the Navy did for their National Match guns.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

B2431

July 7th 04, 02:23 AM

>From: (Harry Andreas)
>Date: 7/6/2004 6:13 PM Central Daylight

>> As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
>> collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.
>
>Mine's a 1943 Springfield build, and I'm thinking of doing the conversion
>to .308 like the Navy did for their National Match guns.
>
>--
>Harry Andreas
>Engineering raconteur

Pic your parts carefully, measure carefully, get a pull through NM chamber
reamer and above all else take your time. If you lived close enough I'd loan
you my action wrench. That's the easy part. Just remember bedding the action is
an art.

One thing to check on your op rod is for the cut out where the handle meets the
rod. It's there because the old style which didn't have it would break if the
op rod came far enough back to strike the front of the receiver.

Good luck with your project.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Richard Stewart

July 7th 04, 07:39 AM

robert arndt wrote:

> http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>
> Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>
> Rob

Where's the bayonet go?

Cheers,
Richard

robert arndt

July 7th 04, 10:46 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, robert
> arndt > writes
> (B2431) wrote in message
> >...
> >> Congratulations, teuton, it only took 40 years for you Germans to
> >>catch up with
> >> us.
> >
> >How so moron since we Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2 as the
> >STG-44
>
> No, the Russians first invented the assault rifle in 1916 with the
> Federov Avtomat.

Sorry, Mauser issued the first automatic rifles Flieger Selbslader
Karbiner in 1915 as aircraft observers guns. These were followed by
the experimental infantry Model 16 in 1916. The very first Mauser
experimental rifles were tested in 1908... well before the Avtomat.
(From the Encyclopedia of Firearms by Ian V. Hogg)
>
> >and the last was Mauser's STG-45... which the Mauser team went
> >to Spain and developed as the Cetme... before returning to Germany as
> >HK improving the design into the G-3... which has led to both the
> >incredible G-11 and new G-36.
>
> The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
> service user?

Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
research!!!

Rob

p.s. Nice try :)

robert arndt

July 7th 04, 01:22 PM

Richard Stewart > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
> >
> > Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
> >
> > Rob
>
> Where's the bayonet go?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard

Take a look here:
http://sys.heatgame.net/Public/News/hk-g36-strip.jpg

Interestingly enough, the HK G-36 (which the XM-8 is derived from)
actually uses the old AK-74 bayonets left over from the NVA stock! Had
the HK G-11 rifle been adopted the evolutionary bayonet for it was
going to be a ballistic tube-launched device. This was in the design
stage when the hand-guard version, single rail model was testing.

Rob

Denyav

July 7th 04, 05:36 PM

>Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
>use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
>that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
>research!!!
>

Well stolen or captured German technology was 100 years ahead of US technology
in 1945,so the term UFO nededed to be invented here.
Germans do not need to play by the pragmatical rules of Anglos,they only need
to remember time proven "Preussian tugenden".

If they do it,75 years old scientific and cultural ice age would end and world
could expreience another reneissance in Sciences,Culture and Arts.
Such an outcome is beneficial to all human race,including Anglos.

B2431

July 7th 04, 07:35 PM

>From: (robert arndt)
>

<snip>
>
>Interestingly enough, the HK G-36 (which the XM-8 is derived from)
>actually uses the old AK-74 bayonets left over from the NVA stock!

Oh? And just when did the North Vietnamese Army get the AK-74? And why would an
industrial giant like Germany need to use someone else's bayonet? Are you
saying Hk made bayonets for the NVA when the could be made much cheaper behind
the Iron Curtain?

Does the X in XM8 mean "experimental?" How many have actually been used in
combat?

Do you have any other sources that the company brochures?

When will you establish a link between an infantry weapon and military
aviation?

How much of this will you choose not to answer?

Actually I don't really care, I just find you amusing and feel sorry for your
inferiority complex.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tank Fixer

July 7th 04, 09:51 PM

In article >,
on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

> http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>
> Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>

from the manufacuers web site ???

hahahahahahaahhaa

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

July 7th 04, 09:52 PM

In article >,
on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....

> In message >, tw >
> writes
> >I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand
> >and the M14?
>
> M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
> eight-shot charger.
>
> M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
> twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
> capability (little used and often deleted)
>
> >Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
> >and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?
> >
> >/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
> >Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
> >still! ;-)
>
> Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry :)

Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Thomas Schoene

July 7th 04, 10:24 PM

B2431 wrote:
>> From: (robert arndt)
>>
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, the HK G-36 (which the XM-8 is derived from)
>> actually uses the old AK-74 bayonets left over from the NVA stock!
>
> Oh? And just when did the North Vietnamese Army get the AK-74?

NVA = Nationalen Volksarmee (National People's Army), the East German armed
forces.

> Does the X in XM8 mean "experimental?" How many have actually been
> used in combat?

None as yet (at least publicly; it's possible some SOF units have used
them). The G36 saw combat with German special forces in Afghanistan. It
seems to have done very well there.

ONwe thing not yet mentioned is that there is a serious move afoot to
reequip with a larger caliber weapon (probably 6.8mm) and the XM8 may be the
opportunity to do it.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

tim gueguen

July 7th 04, 10:39 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
> >use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
> >that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
> >research!!!
> >
>
> Well stolen or captured German technology was 100 years ahead of US
technology
> in 1945,

And which supposed technology would this be?

tim gueguen 101867

Peter Kemp

July 7th 04, 11:00 PM

On 7 Jul 2004 02:46:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

>> The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
>> service user?
>
>Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
>use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
>that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
>research!!!

Can you provide a cite for the current usage? All the photos I've seen
of German KSK troops show them with G-36 variants or MP-5s.

Peter Kemp

B2431

July 8th 04, 12:39 AM

>From: Tank Fixer
>Date: 7/7/2004 3:52 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
> Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....
>
>> In message >, tw >
>> writes
>> >I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
>Garand
>> >and the M14?
>>
>> M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
>> eight-shot charger.
>>
>> M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
>> twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
>> capability (little used and often deleted)
>>
>> >Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
>> >and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?
>> >
>> >/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
>> >Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
>> >still! ;-)
>>
>> Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry :)
>
>Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !
>
>

The 45 indicate caliber and the second nimber indicates grains of black powder
as originally loaded. I found 45-70 to be more than enough at close range and
noticed no real improvement at 45-80. The smokeless equivalent has just as
powerful but didn't have as much character as black powder. I never tried
Pyrodex.

Have you ever fired 45-100 or equivalent? If so what was the performance?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

July 8th 04, 12:44 AM

>From: Peter Kemp
>Date: 7/7/2004 5:00 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 7 Jul 2004 02:46:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>
>>> The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
>>> service user?
>>
>>Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
>>use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
>>that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
>>research!!!
>
>Can you provide a cite for the current usage? All the photos I've seen
>of German KSK troops show them with G-36 variants or MP-5s.
>
>Peter Kemp

Nepolit was an explosive used in experimental shelless grenades. I don't know
if it was ever fielded. While I have no proof one way or the other I seriously
doubt it was tried in caseless small arms ammunition. In any event the
technology flopped.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

July 8th 04, 04:57 AM

>From: "Thomas Schoene"
>Date: 7/7/2004 4:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>> From: (robert arndt)
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough, the HK G-36 (which the XM-8 is derived from)
>>> actually uses the old AK-74 bayonets left over from the NVA stock!
>>
>> Oh? And just when did the North Vietnamese Army get the AK-74?
>
>NVA = Nationalen Volksarmee (National People's Army), the East German armed
>forces.

I know, I was tweaking teuton.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

robert arndt

July 8th 04, 10:13 AM

Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
> robert arndt attempted to say .....
>
> > http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
> >
> > Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
> >
>
> from the manufacuers web site ???
>
>
> hahahahahahaahhaa

No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and
Military standards, Jackass.

Rob

robert arndt

July 8th 04, 10:28 AM

> Nepolit was an explosive used in experimental shelless grenades. I don't know
> if it was ever fielded. While I have no proof one way or the other I seriously
> doubt it was tried in caseless small arms ammunition. In any event the
> technology flopped.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Stick to a/c Dan. Nipolit was invented by WASAG and experimented with
in a wide range of applications such as: shaped explosives, caseless
grenades, disc grenades (85mm diameter, 13mm thick with egg type
detonator inserted in core), anti-tank charges, and caseless
ammunition in the end. Original Nipolit grandes were used in combat
and examples are still found in museums today.
Dynamit-Nobel picked up where WASAG left off...

If you want military book references there are plenty around.

Rob

robert arndt

July 8th 04, 10:55 AM

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2004 02:46:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>
> >> The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
> >> service user?
> >
> >Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
> >use by German SOFs. Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
> >that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
> >research!!!
>
> Can you provide a cite for the current usage? All the photos I've seen
> of German KSK troops show them with G-36 variants or MP-5s.
>
> Peter Kemp

GSG-9 had them on hand when they were in Iraq immediately after
Baghdad was captured. GSG-9 was there to protect German business
interests and citizens.
Austria's Cobra Unit also retains the G-11 for special missions and
KSK retains them as well... even though the incredible success of the
cheaper, less-expensive G-36 means that the G-11 would only be used in
crisis situations.
I believe also that Zoll and special German SEKs have tested the G-11
out. The Heer still has a stock of them and some of them were either
sold or loaned out to foreign SOFs and HRUs. The rifle is highly
praised by all accounts.

Rob

Paul J. Adam

July 8th 04, 01:32 PM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> >How so moron since we Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2 as the
>> >STG-44
>>
>> No, the Russians first invented the assault rifle in 1916 with the
>> Federov Avtomat.
>
>Sorry, Mauser issued the first automatic rifles Flieger Selbslader
>Karbiner in 1915 as aircraft observers guns.

So you're now going from "selective-fire rifle with lower-power
ammunition", the normal definition of an assault rifle (and one filled
admirably by the Federov) to simply "semi-automatic rifle"? In that
case, then you're batting level with Mexico, who had designed the
Mondragon (which was possibly the first automatic rifle to be formally
adopted as a service arm - by the Mexican Army in 1908).

Interestingly, the Mondragon was bought in numbers by Germany in 1914,
for use by aviators. Not needing oiled cartridges probably helped.

>These were followed by
>the experimental infantry Model 16 in 1916. The very first Mauser
>experimental rifles were tested in 1908... well before the Avtomat.
>(From the Encyclopedia of Firearms by Ian V. Hogg)

But the Avtomat was a selective-fire weapon, and controllable in
full-auto: the Mauser and Mondragon weapons were not. Or was the M1
Garand an "assault rifle"?

>> The G11 being so incredible that it's dead as a dodo without a single
>> service user?
>
>Dropped for general Heer usage due to reunification costs, still in
>use by German SOFs.

No, they've got the G36.

>Also superior to anything in US Inventory... and
>that gun also originated in WW2 with Niploit caseless ammunition
>research!!!

No, it didn't (Nipolit was a moderately interesting idea, but has
virtually nothing to do with the G11's design: the key breakthrough was
raising the cook-off temperature sufficiently)
>
>Rob
>
>p.s. Nice try :)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Jeff Crowell

July 8th 04, 02:02 PM

B2431 wrote:
> Have you ever fired 45-100 or equivalent? If so what was the performance?

Shot a .45-120, it was very accurate. Not especially earth-shaking to
shoot, recoil-wise. This was a Pedersoli repro Sharps, just after Quigley
came out.

A lot of fun!

Jeff

Grantland

July 8th 04, 03:47 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>
>No, it didn't (Nipolit was a moderately interesting idea, but has
>virtually nothing to do with the G11's design: the key breakthrough was
>raising the cook-off temperature sufficiently)
>>
We had great success with celluloid here in SA. Must've been doctored for cook-offs. All
under the bridge now of course. Ten more years.

G

Typhoon502

July 8th 04, 05:21 PM

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
> >
> >Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
> >
> >Rob
>
>
> Wow. The latest HK assault rifle is superior to a forty-year-old
> American design. Something to brag about indeed. Loser.

HK also released a new upper for the M4 that uses the same gas-piston
system that eliminates the one true operating deficiency of the
standard M4 design...doesn't blow gases directly into the receiver.
But other than that, it's basically a very high-quality M4 upper that
the DOD *should* be buying in massive quantities instead of hoping the
new Plastic Fantastic can survive widespread troop abuse.

Joel Ehrlich

July 8th 04, 07:04 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>>From: Tank Fixer
>>Date: 7/7/2004 3:52 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In article >,
>> on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
>> Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....
>>
>>> In message >, tw >
>>> writes
>>> >I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
>>Garand
>>> >and the M14?
>>>
>>> M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
>>> eight-shot charger.
>>>
>>> M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
>>> twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
>>> capability (little used and often deleted)
>>>
>>> >Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
>>> >and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?
>>> >
>>> >/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
>>> >Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was
better
>>> >still! ;-)
>>>
>>> Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry :)
>>
>>Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !
>>
>>
>
>The 45 indicate caliber and the second nimber indicates grains of black
powder
>as originally loaded. I found 45-70 to be more than enough at close range and
>noticed no real improvement at 45-80. The smokeless equivalent has just as
>powerful but didn't have as much character as black powder. I never tried
>Pyrodex.
>
>Have you ever fired 45-100 or equivalent? If so what was the performance?
>
45-90 and 45-110. At ranges less than 200 meters there's really no
appreciable difference other than greater percieved recoil (I was firing BP).
At ranges greater than 500 meters you can begin to take advantage of the
slightly higher velocity and at 1000 meters and more you get less wind effect
on the bullet. In all cases there's less bullet drop (of course) and greater
effect on the targets as a function of the greater velocity. But it's not all
that much more velocity and not all that much of an improvement. I suppose
that's one reason those larger (longer) cartridges didn't catch on.

Joel

B2431

July 8th 04, 07:22 PM

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
>> robert arndt attempted to say .....
>>
>> > http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>> >
>> > Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>> >
>>
>> from the manufacuers web site ???
>>
>>
>> hahahahahahaahhaa
>
>
>No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and
>Military standards, Jackass.
>
>Rob

You STILL haven't provided an independant cite. Do you have one?

If you have that much faith in company brochures how much money have you
invested in the Moler Skycar?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

July 8th 04, 07:33 PM

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
>Stick to a/c Dan.

Take your own advice. This is a military aviation NG not infantry weapons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Regnirps

July 9th 04, 05:21 AM

(robert arndt) wrote:

>No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and
>Military standards, Jackass.

For the moment. The US isn't interested in anymore .22s We will be moving on to
something like .270 Berger or similar round. It looks like they are zeroing in
on the .270 for a number of ballistic and knock down power reasons.

-- Charlie Springer

Eunometic

July 9th 04, 06:59 AM

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> > Nepolit was an explosive used in experimental shelless grenades. I don't know
> > if it was ever fielded. While I have no proof one way or the other I seriously
> > doubt it was tried in caseless small arms ammunition. In any event the
> > technology flopped.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Stick to a/c Dan. Nipolit was invented by WASAG and experimented with
> in a wide range of applications such as: shaped explosives, caseless
> grenades, disc grenades (85mm diameter, 13mm thick with egg type
> detonator inserted in core), anti-tank charges, and caseless
> ammunition in the end. Original Nipolit grandes were used in combat
> and examples are still found in museums today.
> Dynamit-Nobel picked up where WASAG left off...
>
> If you want military book references there are plenty around.
>
> Rob

nipolit was also to be used in the next generation Panzerfaust
warheads of world war 2 (Panzerfaust 250 was essentialy an RPG7). It
was merely necessary to automatically machine the entire warhead
without any metal. Apart from maufacturing simplicity it would
overcome Germany's metals shortage. Although tested the factories
were never built. Interestingly the most powerfull unguided
shoulderlauched anti-tank weapon today is the current German
Panzerfaust-3 whose 'tube' is made of fiberglass, thus the possibility
of an weapon with zero metals content is raised. (With a future self
forging warhead the Panzerfaust-3 might even get past frontal modern
composit MBT armour )

There was a great deal of work in the use of composit
plastics/aluminium cartridges to overcome metal shortages as well by
the Germans during the WWII and presumably neopolit would have been
considered for cartridgeless ammunition as well. Its advantages in
aerial canon where space, weight and rate of fire are critical should
be apparent.

The G11 rifles ammunition is amazing. Not only is amunition
cartridgeless (the round is embeded in the plastics propellant without
a casing in effect the propellant IS the casing) but the propellant is
actually square thus allowing very compact amuntion storage.

The G11 equiped soldier can carry 2.5 times as much amunition for the
same weight as an M4. A 16lb including rifle gives nearly 600 rounds
with a super high velocity.

Denyav

July 9th 04, 06:09 PM

>Stick to a/c Dan. Nipolit was invented by WASAG and experimented with
>in a wide range of applications such as: shaped explosives, caseless
>grenades, disc grenades (85mm diameter, 13mm thick with egg type
>detonator inserted in core), anti-tank charges, and caseless

Our friends from US standardized minds production lines wont easily understand
how much Germans were advanced and are advanced.
Lets help them,60s "American" anti-tank marvel TOW is a direct copy of
Rotkaepchen of 1944 and Hellfire of Peipenkopf of 1945.
But they are only peanuts when compared to what US got from Kammler and U-234.

The name of Arizonian David Hudson is only a cover to hide the origins of zero
point energy.(Similar to the invention of term UFO to hide their earthly
origins).
In 1945 German technology 100 years ahead of US technology and thanks to stolen
German technology Anglo controlled US were able to stay as major power.
But 100 year period slowly but surely coming to the end.
All what we now experience is a prelude to the "clash of civilizations'.but
this clash wont be between religions or like that as the Anglo warrior
Huntington wants to make it happen,but between the civilization that were able
to produce a technology a century ahead of their time and the civilization that
stole it.

Eric Pinnell

July 10th 04, 07:48 PM

On 8 Jul 2004 09:21:53 -0700, (Typhoon502) wrote:

>HK also released a new upper for the M4 that uses the same gas-piston
>system that eliminates the one true operating deficiency of the
>standard M4 design...doesn't blow gases directly into the receiver.
>But other than that, it's basically a very high-quality M4 upper that
>the DOD *should* be buying in massive quantities instead of hoping the
>new Plastic Fantastic can survive widespread troop abuse.

And, for those of you who already have an upper but want a gas
piston, Kurt's Kustom Firearms has made a gas piston retrofit kit
called the M9 Evo (or something like that). Very cool.

Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Steel Rain", "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com/books/previews.shtml

robert arndt

July 10th 04, 11:23 PM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,
> >> on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
> >> robert arndt attempted to say .....
> >>
> >> > http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
> >> >
> >> > Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
> >> >
> >>
> >> from the manufacuers web site ???
> >>
> >>
> >> hahahahahahaahhaa
> >
> >
> >No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and
> >Military standards, Jackass.
> >
> >Rob
>
> You STILL haven't provided an independant cite. Do you have one?

Why don't you just call the US Army's ARDEC, NJ facility and ask
them... or perhaps the Secret Service's Armory, or any Police/HRUs in
the nation that equip with HK, Walther, Mauser, and Erma.

Rob

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

July 10th 04, 11:36 PM

>
>Date: 7/10/2004 5:23 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
>> >> robert arndt attempted to say .....
>> >>
>> >> > http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> from the manufacuers web site ???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> hahahahahahaahhaa
>> >
>> >
>> >No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and
>> >Military standards, Jackass.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> You STILL haven't provided an independant cite. Do you have one?
>
>Why don't you just call the US Army's ARDEC, NJ facility and ask
>them... or perhaps the Secret Service's Armory, or any Police/HRUs in
>the nation that equip with HK, Walther, Mauser, and Erma.
>
>Rob
>

YOU made a claim about the XM-8 it's up to you to prove your point using data
other than that provided by the manufaturer. Instead you mention Mauser,
Walther and Erma.

You still haven't proven your point despite several of us asking you to provide
independant and verifiable cites. Don't was us to to your research for you. You
made the claim so YOU have to prove it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Evan Williams

July 19th 04, 05:59 PM

One question that I have is why did they go with red dot sight?

"The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot
sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even
after
the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes
the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and
laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that
of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory
zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered."

This seems like a liability to me. I guess that the designers at HK don't
realize the amount of abuse a rifle goes through during its service life.
Things like battery powered, IR laser aimer, laser illuminator, factory
zeroed, are enough to give me the willies. There is a lot to go wrong with
one of the most important parts of the weapon. Batteries die and their
connections get corroded, lasers if visible work both ways if invisible
require another sensitive piece of gear to use, lenses shatter or crack and
get covered with dust, dirt, film from smoke, water drops, and fog over.
All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your
peripheral vision. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it
seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are
probably others out there as well. In my opinion this is a perfect example
of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed
adjustments are the way to go. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In
an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in
this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior
pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus
Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a
M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. This is a perfect
example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is
really needed in the field.

Evan Williams

Paul J. Adam

July 19th 04, 09:38 PM

In message t>, Evan
Williams > writes
>All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your
>peripheral vision.

I'd recommend trying a red-dot sight. My own experience of them is
limited to pistol ranges (static cardboard targets) and airsoft gaming
(mobile targets shooting back, but only with 6mm Tokyo Marui) but I've
found that a good RDS is much better for snap shots and moving targets
than iron sights.

>Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it
>seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are
>probably others out there as well.

So you want to be alert to the rest of the world, rather than focussing
on your front sight.

I'm not absolutely convinced of the *execution* of the dual sight on the
H&K G36 (red-dot sight and 3.5x scope, both built into the carry handle)
but the concept's excellent: red-dot for closer quarters and the scope
for longer-range work. (The H&K uses a daylight-fed red dot, too)

>In my opinion this is a perfect example
>of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed
>adjustments are the way to go.

How well do they work with NVDs? It's easier to have a switch on the
side of a red-dot scope - or an IR-only laser that only NVGs can see -
than to put Betalights on the iron sights.

>The sights are the brain of the weapon. In
>an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in
>this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior
>pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus
>Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a
>M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top.

I'll take a L85A2 with a SUSAT I zeroed over either. I'll take a
worn-out L1A1 with iron sights, and the key ingredient of 'lots and lots
of ammunition with range time to use it and someone who knows shooting
to coach me', over just about anything.

>This is a perfect
>example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is
>really needed in the field.

It seems to me to be more pulled from the field, than pushed from the
lab. (If it was an academic push, the troops in the field would be
firing 'salvo squeezebore bullets' or flechettes or some of the other
interesting concepts that fell by the wayside... the way to improve your
troops' marksmanship is less to buy them a new rifle, or even give them
a new sight, than to give them lots of practice)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Evan Williams

July 20th 04, 04:02 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message t>, Evan
> Williams > writes
> >All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your
> >peripheral vision.
>
> I'd recommend trying a red-dot sight. My own experience of them is
> limited to pistol ranges (static cardboard targets) and airsoft gaming
> (mobile targets shooting back, but only with 6mm Tokyo Marui) but I've
> found that a good RDS is much better for snap shots and moving targets
> than iron sights.

I have a couple of red dot sights that I use for hunting. One on my T/C
Encore 45/70 barrel (the ultimate brush gun) and on on my T/C Encore
muzzleloading barrel I use when the weather is bad (if the weather is nice I
use my Pennsylvania flint lock). They hold very decent groups out to a
hundred yards.
>
> >Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it
> >seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are
> >probably others out there as well.
>
> So you want to be alert to the rest of the world, rather than focussing
> on your front sight.

No, but when I am focusing on the front sight post I can still see movement
going on to either side.
>
> I'm not absolutely convinced of the *execution* of the dual sight on the
> H&K G36 (red-dot sight and 3.5x scope, both built into the carry handle)
> but the concept's excellent: red-dot for closer quarters and the scope
> for longer-range work. (The H&K uses a daylight-fed red dot, too)
>
> >In my opinion this is a perfect example
> >of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed
> >adjustments are the way to go.
>
> How well do they work with NVDs? It's easier to have a switch on the
> side of a red-dot scope - or an IR-only laser that only NVGs can see -
> than to put Betalights on the iron sights.

It is true that iron sights don't work well with NVG's. That is why they
have IR aiming devices that attach to the to the barrrel in front of the
forstock on the M-16. The last armory inventory I had to do, I had to
verify the S/Ns on over 300 of them. They are light weight, small, simple,
easily removed when not needed, and they are not an integral part of the
weapon so the weapons performance is not effected by whether or not they
work.
>
>
> >The sights are the brain of the weapon. In
> >an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said
in
> >this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior
> >pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a
surplus
> >Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a
> >M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top.
>
> I'll take a L85A2 with a SUSAT I zeroed over either. I'll take a
> worn-out L1A1 with iron sights, and the key ingredient of 'lots and lots
> of ammunition with range time to use it and someone who knows shooting
> to coach me', over just about anything.

My point I was trying to make was importance of the sighting mechanism. I
guess I erred in using scopes to illustrate my belief in iron sights. It's
obvious that there are uses for scopes such as snipers and designated
marksmen et al. I just think that for that standard infantryman simple and
reliable iron sights are the way to go. The fact is that nowadays, the
military is not getting lots and lots of ammunition for practice. At least
in my experience. Keep in mind I was on the aviation side of the house, but
it is not uncommon to go years without firing a single round. During the
Reagan and Bush senior, years we fired all the time. Then for about eight
years of a different administration, we just weren't getting the training
assets that we needed. A couple of years ago we had 37 range quotas for a
squadron of 194. When young Marines need to get qualed in order to get
promoted it becomes a "leadership challenge". Basically, it boiled down to
the only people who got to go to the range were the ones that were close to
promotion. I had the opportunity to shoot a buddies FN FAL or copy, I can't
remember the exact manufacturer. I enjoyed it very much. It is a solid,
ergonomically comfortable, reliable rifle. It is robust enough to instill a
sense of confidence in it. Hey, can over 90 countries using "Freedoms Right
Arm" be wrong? Especially when the Warsaw Pact was dumping AK's on the rest
of the world. I have seen several different styles of sight on these
weapons. The one that I fired had a flipper type arrangement that gave me
four different sight options rotating in a horizontal axis. I did fine out
to the fifty yard line, but once I got to the hundred..., well let's just
say he would have been dead but it wasn't pretty. In my defense, I only
fired a total of fifty rounds. All in all, I was pleased with it.

>
> >This is a perfect
> >example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what
is
> >really needed in the field.
>
>
<snip>
(If it was an academic push, the troops in the field would be
> firing 'salvo squeezebore bullets' or flechettes or some of the other
> interesting concepts that fell by the wayside... the way to improve your
> troops' marksmanship is less to buy them a new rifle, or even give them
> a new sight, than to give them lots of practice)

In that, we are in total agreement.

Evan Williams
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

July 21st 04, 01:56 AM

In article t>, "Evan
Williams" > wrote:

> One question that I have is why did they go with red dot sight?
>
> "The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot
> sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even
> after
> the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes
> the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and
> laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that
> of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory
> zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered."
>
> This seems like a liability to me. I guess that the designers at HK don't
> realize the amount of abuse a rifle goes through during its service life.
> Things like battery powered, IR laser aimer, laser illuminator, factory
> zeroed, are enough to give me the willies. There is a lot to go wrong with
> one of the most important parts of the weapon. Batteries die and their
> connections get corroded, lasers if visible work both ways if invisible
> require another sensitive piece of gear to use, lenses shatter or crack and
> get covered with dust, dirt, film from smoke, water drops, and fog over.
> All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your
> peripheral vision. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it
> seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are
> probably others out there as well. In my opinion this is a perfect example
> of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed
> adjustments are the way to go. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In
> an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in
> this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior
> pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus
> Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a
> M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. This is a perfect
> example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is
> really needed in the field.

Please give the engineers the benefit of the doubt. They did not develop this
sight in isolation, they did it with the full cooperation and knowledge
of the US Army. USA has been using red dot sights for over a decade in
very trying conditions, and I think they know what they want and what the
reliability is under the proposed service conditions.

If it wasn't for forward thinking government and private engineers, the
Army would still be using Trapdoor Springfields and .45-70 ammunition.

Arguably, the push for better weapons has never come from the tip
of the spear, it's always come from the labs and their desire to support
those men.

Fire away...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Evan Williams

July 21st 04, 02:18 PM

<snip>

> Please give the engineers the benefit of the doubt. They did not develop
this
> sight in isolation, they did it with the full cooperation and knowledge
> of the US Army. USA has been using red dot sights for over a decade in
> very trying conditions, and I think they know what they want and what the
> reliability is under the proposed service conditions.
>
> If it wasn't for forward thinking government and private engineers, the
> Army would still be using Trapdoor Springfields and .45-70 ammunition.
>
> Arguably, the push for better weapons has never come from the tip
> of the spear, it's always come from the labs and their desire to support
> those men.
>
> Fire away...
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

The problem with being "Tip of the Spear" is that every time you turn
around, all you see is the shaft!

I have the utmost respect for the abilities of engineers. I just wish
that the maintainers had more to say about the design as it is being
designed. I started out on F-4S's which when designed, MacAir's policy was
"If you could put your hand in a compartment, something is missing". As a
result on a good day it would take about four hours to change out a fuse on
our electrical fusing power supply. On the other hand, I could sit in the
cockpit and depending on what worked with the switches in different
positions I could tell you exactly what was broken. Basically you could
have forked hay all of your life but if you had common sense you could fix
the aircraft. For the sidewinder missile system, we had an AN/AWM-20B test
set. It had two knobs one on top of the other and a meter. Each step of
the test you would move a knob to a different position and read the meter.
If a step failed you instantly knew what was wrong. It was dead nuts
simple. Then we transitioned to the F/A-18. OH MY GOD! It's all about
computers talking to computers. And if some totally unrelated to your
system isn't working right it can still cause your system to fail making it
very difficult to figure out what the problem is. The engineers learned from
the F-4 and made "single layer", but we became box changers. The Tech Pubs
say "If it doesn't work, change this box. If that doesn't fix it change
this box", and so on and so forth. The result is that maintainers are
pulling out perfectly good computers and sending them to MALS (AIMD, Back
Shop) for testing and troubleshooting. We had an Air Force Maj. Come by our
hanger one day to see how we did maintenance. He said that he was from an
F-16 community and they averaged about 60%-65% good computers being sent to
their back shop because that was the way their maintenance was done. I don't
know our percentages, but it was probably about the same as theirs. There
is a memory inspect system in the Hornet that is supposed to tell you what
is wrong. I got it to work twice in almost ten years. Needless to say we
only used it as a last resort. You often hear about former military pilots
being part of R+D programs but I personally have never heard of a maintainer
being there to say "Are you nuts!"

I went though boot camp with an M-16A1 (on the magazine well were it
normally has the Colt seal, mine said "manufactured by the hydrodynamic div
of the GM Corp"). It worked but I didn't care for it. While I don't have
a lot of faith in what the 5.56 mm will do when it hits the target, I do
have faith in the M16A2 to work and hit what I am aiming at. I have never
had a jam with either my service weapon or my personal AR-15. I have been
led to believe that the modifications making the A1 into the A2 came from
one or two USMC GySgt's (shameless plug for my service).

I cannot count how many times I have heard from either engineers or
tech reps "It worked fine in the lab". I just wish that it would work fine
in the freezing cold, hot and humid, dusty, and ship borne environments as
well. I am afraid that until it is standard policy that the high school
graduates (with experience in the field) who will maintain and operate these
systems have a role in the design phase we are going to end up the standard
"The babies ugly, see you later".

Your Shot

Evan Williams

VF-101, VMFA-232, VMFA-122, VMFA-251, HMH-461

Dweezil Dwarftosser

July 22nd 04, 06:57 AM

Evan Williams wrote:
>

> The problem with being "Tip of the Spear" is that every time you turn
> around, all you see is the shaft!
>
> I have the utmost respect for the abilities of engineers. I just wish
> that the maintainers had more to say about the design as it is being
> designed.

Actually, the A-10 is an example of just such a plane.
(Though nowhere near as packed with black boxes as an F-4.)
A number of experienced NCO maintainers had near-veto power
over some of the component-positioning decisions on the A-10.

> I started out on F-4S's which when designed, MacAir's policy was
> "If you could put your hand in a compartment, something is missing". As a
> result on a good day it would take about four hours to change out a fuse on
> our electrical fusing power supply. On the other hand, I could sit in the
> cockpit and depending on what worked with the switches in different
> positions I could tell you exactly what was broken. Basically you could
> have forked hay all of your life but if you had common sense you could fix
> the aircraft. For the sidewinder missile system, we had an AN/AWM-20B test
> set.

Memory check: Nope. The -20 checkers were for AIM-7 stations;
Lots of solenoid "eyeballs" for checking the different functions.

> It had two knobs one on top of the other and a meter. Each step of
> the test you would move a knob to a different position and read the meter.
> If a step failed you instantly knew what was wrong. It was dead nuts
> simple.

Sounds like a GWM-4 tester. Used on the AIM-9 launchers -
as long as you remembered to remove ALL of the missiles from
the other wing before starting the checks!

> Then we transitioned to the F/A-18. OH MY GOD! It's all about
> computers talking to computers.

That was the same set of problems as the F-16 hunk-o'-junk.
("Current software is capable of accurately diagnosing 80%
of detectable faults...". Yeah, right. Who gets to fix the
remaining 20%? What about the guy stuck with a persistent
"non-detectable" fault?)

That's where the system of "smart machine, dumb technician"
failed miserably.