The XM8 fared far better than the other assault rifles fielded by the US Army as potential M4 replacements, with just 127 stoppages (out of 60,000 rounds fired) as opposed to the HK 416 (the AR currently used by 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU) with 233 stoppages and the FN SCAR with 226. The current service rifle, the M4 scored a pathetic 882 stoppages. It seems to me like the M4/M16 even with SOPMOD attachments are antiquated weapons and have no business in 21st Century warfare when other weapons are clearly superior and feasible, so it makes no sense to me that with all the money the US government spends on defense, that they could at least ensure our troops have the most advanced weaponry available. Of course this could just be like the US Army's decision not to adopt the Dragon Skin body armor, even though it was clearly superior to the Army's Interceptor armor; hell if it's good enough for Generals on the field and the CIA, it should at least be as good for the Special Forces or 75th Ranger Battalion am I right? As someone who plans to get commissioned into the US Navy after college I would at least like to serve in a military that ensures that it's infantry forces have the best equipment available regardless of the cost.
Why won't the US Military adopt the H&K XM8 Assault Rifle?
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date