Fantastic Firearms Part 2 - General

So why is it that you find most new weapons crappy? Also, tell me why XM8 sucks.

[QUOTE=ray243;17150892]So why is it that you find most new weapons crappy? Also, tell me why XM8 sucks.[/QUOTE] The XM8 doesn't [B]suck[/B] specifically, what sucks about it, is, besides the planned optic, it is just a reframed G36. So yes, it is a solid rifle. It shoots well, it performs well. But it's nothing out of this world like many CS kiddies thought it was.

[QUOTE=professional;17151085]The XM8 doesn't [B]suck[/B] specifically, what sucks about it, is, besides the planned optic, it is just a reframed G36.[/QUOTE] Maybe I like the weapon only because of the design.

[QUOTE=ray243;17151116]Maybe I like the weapon only because of the design.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=ray243;17151116]Maybe I like the weapon only because of the design.[/QUOTE] Then you're aware that it's a glorified AR 180 right?

I think he might like the "design" of it because it looks like a gun from halo, or maybe his friend has an airsoft variant of it.

Also, if I'm not mistaken it didn't perform all to well compared to our current M4.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17150764]Good? Probably, it was made by FN, did well in testing and it has a lot of nifty features. But the only way to know if it is good or not is to wait to hear what the troops in the field think of it. Front line service is the final and most important test that any given military weapon must face. Widespread? Not yet. It simply hadn't been around long enough to see much use yet. Can it be in this thread? No, because it is not widespread yet.[/QUOTE] Well it probably won't see widespread use, seeing as how it was a SOCOM contract and not a straight DoD contract. 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Rgt. has used them for the past 8 months or so and I haven't heard anything bad from them.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;17151539]Also, if I'm not mistaken it didn't perform all to well compared to our current M4.[/QUOTE] It actually performed extremely well. In a recent dust test performed by the US Army, the M4 scored a whopping 882 stoppages, whereas the XM8 only had 128 stoppages. Other designs in the test were the FN SCAR (now called CAR) and the HK416. Results are as follows: • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. 19 of the M4's stoppages where "serious"/class two that require an armorer to fix. The rest were considered "minor"/class one stoppages that take 10 seconds or less to clear. 60,000 rounds were fired out of all test models.

None of that testing is worth as much as actual implementation in the field. Is the XM8, SCAR or 416 platform shitty? Of course not. But I don't know if it is good, what its strengths are, quirks, weaknesses. It just hadn't been around long enough. There are also numerous weapon platforms that are excellent, such as the Stoner 63 system that never really caught on. Because they hadn't caught on, they are not on this list.

I thought that the Remington 700 was the M24, not the M40.

Just a quick question. I got a Nagant M44 Carbine recently, and the trigger is really heavy and it pretty much pulls you off target. I am going to buy a 91/30 soon and sporterising it. i was wondering if there's a way to make the trigger lighter, or getting a two stage trigger in it.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIoby-NO5HA[/media] You can put a washer into the area between the trigger spring screw and the receiver, removing some of the spring tension and lightening the trigger pull. Only problem with this approach is that if the washer you use is too thick the gun will go off by itself. It will take lots of shimming as well as trial and error. Then again modifying any gun carries a risk, especially if it fires a colossal round like the 7.62x54mmR. Luckily my 91/30 has a super light trigger pull and I don't even think there is a washer in there.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17152764][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIoby-NO5HA[/media] You can put a washer into the area between the trigger spring screw and the receiver, removing some of the spring tension and lightening the trigger pull. Only problem with this approach is that if the washer you use is too thick the gun will go off by itself. It will take lots of shimming as well as trial and error. Then again modifying any gun carries a risk, especially if it fires a colossal round like the 7.62x54mmR. Luckily my 91/30 has a super light trigger pull and I don't even think there is a washer in there.[/QUOTE] Thanks Bean-O. Also can you buy drop in stocks for 91/30's? I know you can buy curved bolt handles and side-mountedscopes, but i dont know about stocks...

If its so good, why did the US stop testing the xm8? Why did they not let it go into production? And my friend said the L1A1 and LR300 is pretty good. And the design of the Lr300 reminds me of the gun in Killzone.

[QUOTE=ray243;17152917]If its so good, why did the US stop testing the xm8? Why did they not let it go into production? And my friend said the L1A1 and LR300 is pretty good. And the design of the Lr300 reminds me of the gun in Killzone.[/QUOTE] Because it's expensive, not modular at all, and the M4 is overall much more ergonomic, much more modular, and better in every way minus the obvious. And yes, the L1A1 is good, I personally think it feels flimsy, but it's overall a good rifle.

Slighty unrelated but for the lulz [img]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9832/asdasdum.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=ray243;17152917]If its so good, why did the US stop testing the xm8? Why did they not let it go into production? And my friend said the L1A1 and LR300 is pretty good. And the design of the Lr300 reminds me of the gun in Killzone.[/QUOTE] My Dad carried a L1A1 SLR in the Falklands. He said he much preferred it to the FAL that the Argies were using, (and the weapon the L1A1 SLR is a variant off) He also mentioned the L1A2, an Australian LSW version. I believe the rifles in first Killzone are based off of the L85 (ISA) and the FAMAS (Helghast) Think I read that somewhere, they look similar I guess. And the MG42 looks like the LMG. Anyway, Killzone, good game.

[QUOTE=ray243;17152917]If its so good, why did the US stop testing the xm8? Why did they not let it go into production? [/QUOTE] Multiple reasons: 1. At the time of testing, the XM8 had the same problem the G36 had at that time: handguards overheating and melting. This was later fixed as it was in the G36. 2. Colt kicked up a legal hissy fit. This is one of the biggest reasons for the eventual closure of the XM8 trials. 3. The XM8, while, in some cases, an improvement, the OICW/XM8 program aimed for an 100% improvement over the M16 weapon system to justify funding and retraining on a new weapon system. The XM8 is not a 100% improvement. If anything, it's as little as 10% or 20% improvement. Also don't misconstrue my message. It's not "so good", it's a reframed G36. Once again I'll say it: Solid, well functioning rifle, but not a fucking gift from the god's. More reliable it may be than the M4/M16 family in a combat environment, but the M4/M16 has, and still will get the job done. At the end of the day, there are several more suitable options that would cost less, and require less re-training (this is the biggest problem), such any number of the piston ARs on the market.

[QUOTE=professional;17154186]Multiple reasons: 1. At the time of testing, the XM8 had the same problem the G36 had at that time: handguards overheating and melting. This was later fixed as it was in the G36. 2. Colt kicked up a legal hissy fit. This is one of the biggest reasons for the eventual closure of the XM8 trials. 3. The XM8, while, in some cases, an improvement, the OICW/XM8 program aimed for an 100% improvement over the M16 weapon system to justify funding and retraining on a new weapon system. The XM8 is not a 100% improvement. If anything, it's as little as 10% or 20% improvement. Also don't misconstrue my message. It's not "so good", it's a reframed G36. Once again I'll say it: Solid, well functioning rifle, but not a fucking gift from the god's. More reliable it may be than the M4/M16 family in a combat environment, but the M4/M16 has, and still will get the job done. At the end of the day, there are several more suitable options that would cost less, and require less re-training (this is the biggest problem), such any number of the piston ARs on the market.[/QUOTE] Aw goddammit. Did bean-o made one for LR300?

[QUOTE=ray243;17154499]Aw goddammit. Did bean-o made one for LR300?[/QUOTE] Why would he? It's nothing special.

[QUOTE=professional;17154754]Why would he? It's nothing special.[/QUOTE] But it loooks sooo coool

I did it in Weeaboo Weapons a long time ago because it is extremely overpriced and it failed to find any government/law enforcement sales. The small handful that were sold to anyone were sold to civilians. Even then most know enough not to waste their money on it. Not because it sucks, but because you can get a rifle just as good for almost half the cost. Also Killzone used the receiver of the ZM in one of their bullpup rifles, they even kept the trademark (I'm surprised they hadn't been sued).

Was the UMP in the weaboo thread?

[QUOTE=Kman1;17160403]Was the UMP in the weaboo thread?[/QUOTE] I don't think it was.

[QUOTE=Kman1;17160403]Was the UMP in the weaboo thread?[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be, it isn't that bad. [editline]02:32PM[/editline] At all, H&K makes quality.

They do make quality weapons, but dear god their weapons are overpriced. That said, I still like H&K... but I doubt one of their firearms will ever hold a place in my collection.

[QUOTE=massn7;17161728]They do make quality weapons, but dear god their weapons are overpriced. That said, I still like H&K... but I doubt one of their firearms will ever hold a place in my collection.[/QUOTE] $900-$1200 is not bad at all for an automatic gun that is pretty much an upgrade from the mp5.

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17162062]$900-$1200 is not bad at all for an automatic gun that is pretty much an upgrade from the mp5.[/QUOTE] Yeah except for the fact that most armies only pay a fraction of that price for each assault rifle they buy. The M16a2 for instance costs 582$ per gun. Of course they are buying in bulk but unless the significantly simpler blowback SMG they want their troops to use costs even less than that it isn't economically feasible for them to adopt a 1,000$ subgun unless they do so in limited numbers.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17162130]Yeah except for the fact that most armies only pay a fraction of that price for each assault rifle they buy. The M16a2 for instance costs 582$ per gun. Of course they are buying in bulk but unless the significantly simpler blowback SMG they want their troops to use costs even less than that it isn't economically feasible for them to adopt a 1,000$ subgun unless they do so in limited numbers.[/QUOTE] Not everyone is going to be clearing rooms, it should only be used in small amounts against underarmored targets.