Superior HK XM8 Kicks M4's Ass

(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

In message et, 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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message et, 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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article et, "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

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

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.