Project Reality Forums

If it kills someone effectively, dose it really matter what it looks like?

JellyBelly wrote:If it kills someone effectively, dose it really matter what it looks like?

this is true, but in the case of the XM-8 apparenlty it doesnt kill effectively enough..

I like how the M8 looks, tis sexy.

But, I think it should use a 6.66 round, that would be cool.

If they are looking for a bigger round, i believe Bushmaster makes a 6.8mm version of M4, i could be mistaken though.

The XM8 was dropped because Colt had a paddy about the requirements of OICW having changed enough to warrant a new series of adoption trials, the army didnt think it had, so Colt threatened to sue and the army capitulated. They announced new trials, then cancelled them, the the whole OICW project changed to produce a cross service weapon and discussions as to what that should be like are still on going, last I heard.

No doubt they'll end up with an M16 of some kind though.

WRT M16, I do believes the Devs are eventually hoping to add an M16A4 and an M16 w/ Optics.

JellyBelly wrote:If it kills someone effectively, dose it really matter what it looks like?

Exactly. Nor does it matter how much it costs, or who developed it.

I think Colt or some such company is making a 6.8 mm M4 type weapon. If I can find my issue of Leatherneck Magazine I'll tell you guys about it. One thing for sure, It isnt a bull-pup, that much I know.

'[5NFSO wrote:Thunder'] a total M16 remodel down the line

Woohoo, I've always hated the M16 model in BF2

There is already a 6.8 M4 upper reciever mod, SF guys are fighting tooth and nail to get them last time i talked with some.

I care less what the xm-8 looked like. It weighed less and was 10x more reliable if only for the gas piston system. Makes it well worth it to me on those 2 factors alone.

XM8 is groooooossssss, you dont even have to pull the trigger, the other guys see it and just die from its plastic hidiousness

Yeah, that Upper Receiver mod is actually made by Barret, go figure. But I would love that for the SF, beastly. Even though it aint gonna happen, looks the same, it would just up the damage so it's kinda dumb. That n it isn't very common.

Here are some links to the upper you guys were talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M468

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=496

6.8mm would better suit the range at which troops are being engaged in Iraq. 5.56mm is simply too weak and lack the distance capabilities of the 7.62mm round. 6.8mm may seem like a happy medium, but I personally believe the 7.62 was a far more superior round.

What about the 7.62mm SCAR, are those things even used? Or is the M14-EBR the only 7.62mm weapon that isn't a marksman or a support gunners weapon.

Sorry about all the questions ^_^.

A 6.8mm bulput is probaly the future, but the US army appears to like neither - cost sht loads to change to 6.8, what to do with all the 5.56 and the whole bullput thing, i think that is for us Europeans and Asians only!

The US should just go back to a 7.62mm rifle, that way we can get a higher caliber and still retain NATO interoperability. There was a recent article in American Legion magazine that stated the entire US Army and Marine Corps could be outfitted with the M8 for the cost of three F-22s.

Top _Cat the great wrote:A 6.8mm bulput is probaly the future, but the US army appears to like neither - cost sht loads to change to 6.8, what to do with all the 5.56 and the whole bullput thing, i think that is for us Europeans and Asians only!

You mean bullpup, dude.

The 6.8mm bullpup carbine you're talking about fires a completely different round, a caseless one. They haven't even started on a prototype, though... here's a wikipedia link

The Steyr ACR was a flechette rifle, not a shotgun, that was entered into the U.S. ACR competition to find a rifle that would replace the M16, however none of the rifles outperformed the m16 significantly enough to warrant it's replacement.

EDIT: added a reply to an earlier post because I didn't want to double post

TII wrote:The US should just go back to a 7.62mm rifle, that way we can get a higher caliber and still retain NATO interoperability. There was a recent article in American Legion magazine that stated the entire US Army and Marine Corps could be outfitted with the M8 for the cost of three F-22s.

Agreed with the 7.62mm part.
About the cost of m8, well one F-22 was something like $350 million (if I remember correctly) so it wouldn't be as cheap as it sounds.

TII wrote:The US should just go back to a 7.62mm rifle, that way we can get a higher caliber and still retain NATO interoperability.

Like that has ever bothered the Americans.

1954: You must all have 7.62x51mm rifles! All of you!

1964: Well, you see, we want .223 now. Nuts to the STANAG.

The one, single possible example I can think of where the Americans didnt either ignore or change existing STANAGs or insist on the creation of new ones to suit thier agenda is the M9.