<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: List of possible M4 replacements</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/</link>
	<description>Firearms not Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:18:29 +1300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: john danimath</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/#comment-3677</link>
		<dc:creator>john danimath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3399#comment-3677</guid>
		<description>I did not know that the Knight&#039;s SR15 is piston.  I thought it was direct impingement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did not know that the Knight&#8217;s SR15 is piston.  I thought it was direct impingement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel E. Watters</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/#comment-3664</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel E. Watters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3399#comment-3664</guid>
		<description>Mind you, this was just a &quot;show and tell&quot; session, not a formal submission for testing.  The US Army hasn&#039;t even written the formal requirements yet for any M4 carbine replacement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mind you, this was just a &#8220;show and tell&#8221; session, not a formal submission for testing.  The US Army hasn&#8217;t even written the formal requirements yet for any M4 carbine replacement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jdun</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/#comment-3660</link>
		<dc:creator>jdun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3399#comment-3660</guid>
		<description>The XM-8 melt under full auto. There were other problems like HK proprietary hardware. Its either the HK way or the highway and the US military didn&#039;t like that.

The Scar program came out of it so US Special Force won&#039;t be force to use the POS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The XM-8 melt under full auto. There were other problems like HK proprietary hardware. Its either the HK way or the highway and the US military didn&#8217;t like that.</p>
<p>The Scar program came out of it so US Special Force won&#8217;t be force to use the POS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 22lr</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/#comment-3652</link>
		<dc:creator>22lr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3399#comment-3652</guid>
		<description>Sig would be nice, but id bet money against it, they are to expensive for the brass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sig would be nice, but id bet money against it, they are to expensive for the brass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AndyB</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/#comment-3647</link>
		<dc:creator>AndyB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3399#comment-3647</guid>
		<description>So the XM-8 is entirely out of the running? My understanding is that development is essentially complete and the weapon system was cancelled due to programmatic reasons, nothing technical. It also outperformed the competition in the sand/dust test earlier this year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So the XM-8 is entirely out of the running? My understanding is that development is essentially complete and the weapon system was cancelled due to programmatic reasons, nothing technical. It also outperformed the competition in the sand/dust test earlier this year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
