XM8 Assualt Rifle.

[Vanguard]

For those gun nuts out there (As well as those better at creating things in hero then I am).

How would you built the new XM8 assualt rifle? Would you do it as a multi-power for the different modes or just a single RKA?

I built it as a multi-power but something feels "off" about it. Like I missed something.

This is what I've got so far:

XM8 Assualt Rifle: Multipower, 82-point reserve, all slots Extra Time (1 Turn (To change slots), Weapon reconfiguration; -1 1/4), STR Minimum 15 (STR Min. Cannot Add/Subtract Damage; -1 1/4), OAF (-1), Real Weapon (-1/4)
u 1) Standard Mode: RKA 2d6 (vs. PD), 30 Charges (+1/4), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2); Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [30]
u 2) SMG Mode: RKA 2d6 (vs. PD), 30 Charges (+1/4), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2); Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [30]
u 3) Parasniper Mode: RKA 2d6 (vs. PD), Increased Maximum Range (925"; +1/4), 30 Charges (+1/4); Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [30]
u 4) LMG/SAW Mode: RKA 2d6 (vs. PD), 100 Charges (+3/4), Autofire (10 shots; +1); OAF Bulky (-1 1/2), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [100]
Increased Barrel Length: Penalty Skill Levels: +3 vs. Range Modifier with All Attacks, Only w/Parasniper Mode (+0); OAF (-1), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4)
XM8 Construction: +1 w/XM8 Assualt Rifle; OAF (-1), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) plus Penalty Skill Levels: +1 vs. Range Modifier with XM8 Assualt Rifle; OAF (-1), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4)

Let me know of any improvements things I missed or what ever.

Thanks!

[Wildcat]

Vanguard -
Sorry I didn't catch this B4, but I think the STR min should be lower... 15 is prety high, from what I read the XM8 should have less of a kisk to it than the M16A2, and IIRC it's STR min is 12 (??) in any event it's very unlikely that the standard US military personel will have a 15 STR... I know I don't have one, and I think that if I could handel a M16 than the XM8 should be relatively similar.

On the Multi-power aspect of it... Hmmm I think I agree with you that it seems a bit clunky... Maybe if it were reduced to a standard RKA, and then the dif advan that each configuation gave were just treated as Advantages with their own Limitations... Don't have any books or HD with me at this time, so it's just an idea right now.

In any even I think that so pic of this Bad Boy is in need so that other can fully enjoy this weapon that your trying to show them. & a Link as well:
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...=XM8_Rifle.htm

WC

[proditor]

The only thing I came up with was to make it a base 2d6 RKA and then apply variable advantages to it along with the standard disads. Throw a delay on changing the advantage, and you can accomlish much the same thing. Only issues are that it's less defined than 4 clearly labelled slots and you run into the issue of charges on the LMG mode. As clunky as the MP seems to you right now, it might just be the "cleanest" option.

[Vanguard]

Thanks both WC and Proditor.

I wasn't really thinking that the MP was "clunky" persay <pauses> Ok, maybe I was. I just can't help shaking the feeling that I'm missing something. Like there should be something there that isn't.

In anycase, I'll change the STR Min (15 is pretty high and I can't remember, off hand, where I plucked it from) and then just leave it as is.

Thanks guys!

[mudpyr8]

It's acutally a bit closer ballistically to the 7.62 round, since the main reason for the new cartridge is terminal ballistics.

I would make it 2d6+1K.

As for autofire, I haven't read anything about a SAW mode, but unless it changes the receiver, the Autofire wouldn't change.

I would make it as follows:

Autofire 5, 25 Charges

SMG +1 OCV, +1 rMod
Assault +2 OCV, +2 rMod
Sniper +2 OCV, +4 rMod

IR Illuminator +1 OCV, only with NightVision, battery powered
RedDot sight +2 OCV, only with Set Maneuver, battery powered, 50m or less
Reticle +4 rMod, only with Set Maneuver
Bipod +2 rMod, requires 1 phase to deploy

You can of course add a 40mm grenade launcher (single shot).

My understanding is that this thing is not a transformer. you can reconfigure in the field, but it would probably take a minute or so. 12 seconds seems too fast.

That still is a very solid weapon that when set for sniping would be +3 OCV AND +10 rMod.

Max range of 925" is a bit much... way too much. 300-400m is the effective range, and out to 700-800m for extreme range. Even then, beyond 300-400m it should be -1 to -2 DC (it slows way down).

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html

[Vanguard]

So you're saying a flat 2d6+1 with AF5 and then the seperate bonuses instead of the multipower?

And yeah, the 925" is WAY too much. Will adjust it downward.

[mudpyr8]

Yeah. Make the other barrels attachments requiring Extra Time (1 minute), PS: Soldier or Weaponsmith roll at +0, Lock out (can't use the other configs while in a particular config). The big advantage to the SMG would be using the DC Close Quarters rules and that the SMG is more or less pistol sized... perfect for tight places but still packing a punch.

The scope is rail mounted, so that probably takes 1 turn. That includes all the sighting bonuses (i.e. not in SMG config).

[Vanguard]

How's this look?

M8 Assault Rifle
20 1) M8 Assualt Rifle: RKA 2d6+1 (vs. PD), 30 Charges (+1/4), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2); OAF (-1), STR Minimum 12 (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [30]
3 2) SMG Barrel: +1 w/M8 plus Penalty Skill Levels: +1 vs. Range Modifier with M8 0
5 3) Assualt Barrel: +2 w/M8 plus Penalty Skill Levels: +2 vs. Range Modifier with M8 0
8 4) Sniper Barrel: +2 w/M8 plus Penalty Skill Levels: +4 vs. Range Modifier with M8 0
3 5) Bipod: Penalty Skill Levels: +2 vs. Hit Location modifiers with M8
Advanced Combat Scope, all slots OAF (-1), OBS (-1), Real Weapon (-1/4)
2 1) Type III Nightsight: (Total: 8 Active Cost, 2 Real Cost) Nightvision (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 1) plus Detect Infrared Light 11- (Sight Group) (3 Active Points) (Real Cost: 1) 0
3 2) x3 Telescopic: (Total: 9 Active Cost, 3 Real Cost) +4 versus Range Modifier for Sight Group (Real Cost: 2) plus Penalty Skill Levels: +1 vs. vs Darkness mods with All Attacks (Real Cost: 1) 0
1 3) Thermal Sighting: IR Perception (Sight Group)

The Barrels and bipod don't have any lims on it because I have to go to the really expensive ones to do that.

[mudpyr8]

Minor point... the magazines are supposed to only hold 25 rounds.

Why does the bipod help vs. Hit Location? Are you just going for cool sniping effect? I think actually that it might be worth +1 OCV, since you will already be able to use it to brace.

Unless I misread I don't believe the scope is a nightvision scope. It is a 2x or 4x optical scope with reticle. In addition, it provides an IR laser out to range, and a visible RedDot laser at less than 50m. The optical would give +4 vs. range, only with Set Maneuver, the IR laser would be +1 OCV +1 rMOD (detectable only with Nightvision), and the RedDot would be +1 OCV, only under 50m. Both the IR and RedDot require batteries. That's what I meant. I'm sure the scope itself may change prior to production.

Looks good. Oh, don't forget +1 STUNx (STUN die of 1d6) for a +1/4. That makes it in many ways one of the most versitile weapons, as well as extremely effective.

The Real Weapon limitation might be reconsidered as well. Not that it isn't, just that one of the main features is its reliability and environmental resistance. The main thing is how the gas is expelled in that it doesn't return it to the receiver, supposedly allowing you to fire 15000 rounds without maintenance. That might be worth Real Weapon (-0), because that is a lot less maintenance than an M16.

[Teflon Billy]

Unless I misread I don't believe the scope is a nightvision scope. It is a 2x or 4x optical scope with reticle. In addition, it provides an IR laser out to range, and a visible RedDot laser at less than 50m..

I've read in the Army Times that the advanced optics that they plan on fielding with this weapon will include nightvision/infrared sighting capabilities. Although, that could be meant for the XM-37 (the fully integrated model that includes a 25mm "munitions" launcher that the XM-8 is the rifle component part of it), or might be only for the sniper model, but I'm pretty sure that it was for the general model.

TB

[mudpyr8]

That sounds a little more like the OICW, which I think this is an offshoot of. Either way, it's an experimental weapon so anything goes.

Nice work.

[HewhoisMatt]

Guys I'm not sure the grunts in the field will have all the barrels and other gear with him all the time, thats alot of extra weight. I think the weapon will be set up before the mission starts and only altered at base.

[gewing]

Just another point....

The 6.8mm cartridge is NOT a certainty. I would probably rate the 6.8 or the 6.5 grendel as 2d6+1, no stun multile, or you could call it 2d6 with a +1 stun multiple. It is NOT as powerful as the 7.62, but more powerful than the 5.56.

Personally, I hope the XM8 is NOT a certainty.

[Teflon Billy]

Personally, I hope the XM8 is NOT a certainty.

You better start getting used to it, because everything I've seen written shows that the Army is going full bore with this weapon. They need to field the XM8 for they're ever going to be able to field the XM37 which is the real weapon the Army wants.

What is your problem with this weapon? The only thing you've consistently harped about is that it's "different" from the M16 requiring retraining. I don't see this as a problem, this is our job, if we can't adapt to a new weapon then we shouldn't be soldiers. We adapted to the SAW over the M60.

I have not seen a single major fault in the weapon mentioned.

[gewing]

The XM8 is an adequate gun. NOT imo enough of an improvement to make it worth spending MILLIONS to buy and replace the M-16 with it. I believe the only thing it can do that the M-16 could not easily be made to do is have the side swinging buttstock. The interchangeable barrels would even be an easy conversion(free float foreends, etc).

Petty, but... The shrouded receiver design looks like it was designed by an industrial design firm to look like it belonged in a Science Fiction movie. The whole gun looks bulkier than it needs to be.

The gun is somewhat lighter. GIven the shorter barrel, that isn't a big surprise to me.


I have serious doubts about the reports of reliability for the xm8. there are claims of HUGE numbers of rounds between failures. OK, that is great, but...
I don't think I have seen any reports that were not based on numbers provided by HK Advertising department.

How does it stand up to sustained use? This is a completely different issue.

The XM8 is an HK product. They make many wonderful weapons. I would love to shoot an HK21.

Afaik, NONE of their products fall into the category of "affordable."

It sin't just a matter of the soldier needing retraining. To a large extent, a gun is a gun.

Imo it is more a matter of retooling all of our armoreries, retraining the armorers, making new order and record forms for all the different parts, changing the supply system to buy all those spare parts, and get the software right to get the new parts out instead of the old ones.


Even the army isn't apparently looking at switching over to the 6.8mm. Maybe for the SOF, but not for the army as a whole. So that really isn't that much of an issue. And it can be put in an M-16 pretty easily too.

I just don't see ANYTHING it does that is really enough of an improvement to make it worth while. Greater mrbtf is good. Easier to clean is good. Is that worth spending ??? How many millions???

Maybe you see something that I don't in it. I would rather see them go to the F2000, at least if they got their heads out and put a longer barrel on it as an option, at least. and note, I was not hugely impressed by teh F2000 at the Shot show. I don't hate "plastic guns". I definately don't hate HK guns (I would LOVE a P7). I just don't see that this is anywhere near as big an upgrade as the advertising hacks who seem to write much of the content for Popular Mechanics, etc keep saying.

Why can't somebody just modernize the Steyr AUG? Make the durability/reliability a little better, and mount rails on it for all the "go fast" accessories, and it might imo be the best gun around.

OTOH, I think the Russians have some SERIOUSLY good ideas in their line of 9x39mm submachine guns and rifles.

You better start getting used to it, because everything I've seen written shows that the Army is going full bore with this weapon. They need to field the XM8 for they're ever going to be able to field the XM37 which is the real weapon the Army wants.

What is your problem with this weapon? The only thing you've consistently harped about is that it's "different" from the M16 requiring retraining. I don't see this as a problem, this is our job, if we can't adapt to a new weapon then we shouldn't be soldiers. We adapted to the SAW over the M60.

I have not seen a single major fault in the weapon mentioned.