Talk:XM312

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Cyclic rate

The anonymous editor from IP address 24.22.95.227 keeps changing the cyclic rate of fire spec. on this weapon from 230 to 260 rpm. The latest data sheet from the manufacturer specifies 230 rpm, so unless this is pure vandalism, please could that person explain why they have better data than the manufacturer? Riddley 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

230? It's really that low? Wow. I can get a cyclic rate at least that high firing a Barrett semi-auto (230 per minute is less than 4 per second, and I can pull a trigger at least that fast). A weapon that fires that slowly is really supposed to replace the M2HB? — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Redxiv, I highly doubt it will. This is supposed to be a modern machine gun, one that surpasses the impressive record of the M2. The military wouldn't settle for anything that doesn't beat the M2 in all ways (just like the M8 not beating the pants off of the M16). Thats why I'm suggesting we remove the text claiming it will until we find a recent (within the past six months at least) source that states the XM312 will replace the M2. Paladin Hammer (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obivous problems with the adoption date.

According to the text under the picture, the XM312 is expected to be deployed in 2008, and is (according to the text in a picture in the gallery) expected to replace the M2. However, the article clearly states in the top that it is unlikely to be adopted due to its incredibly low rate of fire (230-260 rounds a minute, which by the way needs to stop changing). This is incredibly misleading and confusing. I suggest we remove the text that states it will replace the M2 in 2008 in both pictures until we find a reliable source that states it will, one that can override the current source that states its unlikely.

Anyone agree?

Paladin Hammer (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing it.

Liger14 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.149.28 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent article at DefenseNews.com talking about Picatinny's latest Lightweight 50 (LW50) machinegun solicitation. While not mentioned specificly by name, it is clear that the discussion of GDATP's potential entry is describing the XM312. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3398495&c=AME&s=LAN

D.E. Watters (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)