Superior HK XM8 Kicks M4's Ass

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

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/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 wrote in message nk.net...
In article ,
on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/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

From: (robert arndt)
Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Tank Fixer wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/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) wrote in message ...
From: (robert arndt)
Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Tank Fixer wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/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

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

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/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

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

(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