Ahí va un XM8 un poco modificado...
El modelo es el de SRC algo modificado. Entre otras cosas se ha sustituido el visor por una rail donde se puede acoplar un Red Dot como en el caso de la foto. Aparte están los típicos railes laterales e inferior. Decir que la réplica tira muy bien, sin nada que envidiar a los G36 de Tokio Marui y Classic Army (de los que tengo uno de cada), y lo único que se le ha hecho ha sido meterle un muelle 100 (durante un tiempo tuvo un 120 y sin problemas), goma guarder y cañón de precisión. He jugado con Li-Po y los piñones ni se han inmutado.
Si el US Army lo hubiera seleccionado, seguramente lo veríamos bastante extendido y nadie lo vería tan raro, pero claro, esto es una opinión personal.
Lo que no es personal es el comentario este de wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8_rifleIn July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon had 6,000 rounds fired in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. [1] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds [2], while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR placed second with 226 stoppages, and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was statistically equivalent when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine.
The competition was based on two tests that were conducted in 2006 and in the Summer of 2007 before the latest test in the Fall of 2007. In the Summer 2007 test, additional lubrication was credited with "drastically improving" the M4's performance over the initial 2006 test which involved both M16 rifles and M4 carbines, scoring a total of 307 stoppages. The Fall 2007 test was also conducted with the additional lubrication used in the Summer 2007 test but resulted in 882 stoppages. This discrepancy of 575 stoppages is so large that it has thrown the validity of all three dust chamber tests into question. Army officials are looking into possible causes for the change such as different officials, seasons, and inadequate sample pool size, but have stated that the conditions of the test were ostensibly the same. This points to the test itself as being irreproducible and invalid as a legitimate basis for evaluation of the rifles.
Un saludo.
