From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  (robert arndt) Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Tank Fixer < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message <news: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it _link_.net... In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,  robert arndt This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Message-id: < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (B2431) wrote in message <news: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  (robert arndt) Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Tank Fixer < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message <news: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it _link_.net... In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700,  robert arndt This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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

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

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)

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 - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

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...