Superior HK XM8 Kicks M4's Ass

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/xm8.html

Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!

Rob

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...bines/xm8.html

Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules!

Rob

"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

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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)

"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.

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.

From: Tank Fixer
Date: 7/7/2004 3:52 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: t

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

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

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

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
On 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

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