Skip to comments.
Will the OICW Rifle see combat in Iraq?
| November 28, 2002
| James F. Dunnigan
Posted on 11/30/2002 12:19:57 AM PST by VaBthang4
Will it Work?
New weapons, particularly very different new weapons, have a hard time gaining acceptance among the troops until the new gadget has performed well in combat. As a result, every time the U.S. gets involved in some new war, large or small, there is a lot of pressure from the weapons development crew to get some of their new stuff tried out against a real live enemy. One candidate for this treatment in the coming war with Iraq is SABR (or "Selectable Assault Battle Rifle, otherwise known as OICW or the XM29). This is an over and under weapon with a 20mm computer controlled grenade launcher on top, and a 5.56mm assault rifle underneath. In development since 1994. The weapon has proved it can work, and development is now concentrating on getting the weight down to 14 pounds, and reliability improved to the point where it will keep working under battlefield conditions.
The major question to be answered on the battlefield is whether the heavier, awkward weapon is worth the weight and cost (up to $20,000 each) in combat. The key new feature of the SABR is the ability to fire 3.25 ounce 20mm shells up to 1,000 meters and hit targets in trenches, inside buildings or around corners. Each 20mm round costs $25. This particular magic is accomplished with a computer controlled fuze in each 20mm shell. The infantryman firing SABR can select four different firing modes via a selector switch on the weapon. The four modes are;
"Bursting" (airburst). For this to work, the soldier first finds the target via the SABRs sighting system. This includes a laser range finder and the ability to select and adjust the range shown in the sight picture. For an air burst the soldier aims at an enemy position and fires a round. The 20mm shell is optimized to spray incapacitating (wounding or killing) fragments in a roughly six meter radius from the exploding round. Thus if enemy troops are seen moving near trees or buildings at a long distance (over 500 meters), the SABR has a good chance of getting them with one shot. M-16s are not very accurate at that range, and the enemy troops will dive for cover as soon as M-16 bullets hit around them. With SABR, you get one accurate shot and the element of surprise.
The second mode is "PD" (point detonation), where the round explodes on contact.
Then there is PDD (point detonation delay), where the round detonates immediately after it has gone through a door, window or thin wall.
The fourth mode is "Window", which is used for firing at enemy troops in a trench, behind a stone wall or inside a room. The round detonates just beyond the aiming point. For buildings, this would be a window or door frame, cave entrance or the corner of a building (to get enemy troops thought to be around the corner.)
The 3X site on SABR also has a thermal imaging mode useful at night. In fact, the SABR has a five pound fire control module with a computer as powerful as those found in some laptop computers. The current version of SABR has a lot of adjustments and features the soldiers can play with, too many according to some combat veterans. Again, only combat testing will decide which adjustment features are needed and which are not.
In theory, and so far successfully in tests, SABR would be a very useful weapon for fighting in urban areas, or even forests. What is difficult to replicate in tests is the wear and tear a weapon will receive in combat, and exactly how many situations will be encountered where the troops will end up saying, "it's a good thing we had SABR along." Indeed, the impact on enemy troops encountering SABR for the first time will be demoralizing. Once word gets around that the Americans have a weapon that can get you when you are taking cover in a trench, or around a corner, panic will set in with some troops and entire units may surrender or flee after getting shot up by SABR armed troops. Eventually, however, more experienced troops will learn to deal with SABR.
There have not been any reports of SABR being used in Afghanistan, and it's unknown if any of the weapon will be brought along for an invasion of Iraq. It's likely that the engineers, or combat officers supervising the project, will veto use of the SABR in action this year because it just isn't ready for field use yet. But the temptation is there. For until SABR gets tagged as "proven in combat," it's future will be in doubt.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Front Page News; Technical
KEYWORDS: iraq; oicw; rifles; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-70 next last
posted on 11/30/2002 12:19:57 AM PST
To: MP5SD; Gunrunner2; MudPuppy; tomcat; Gritty; opbuzz; spetznaz; PsyOp; Marine Inspector; XBob; ...
-Brian's Military Ping List-
posted on 11/30/2002 12:21:48 AM PST
IMHO, we'd do far better to tak off-the-shelf Armalite AR-10/15 variants already chambered for 7.62 x 51 and develop a .25-08 round. Take the remainder of savings and invest deeply in upgrading M203 ammunition and optics, to possibly include thermal imaging...
Kinda thought provoking when they sell ya the best tire on the market and swear it'll never go flat then ya open the trunk to find a jack......in this case a bayonet.
During my 26 years I was lucky enough (EOD) to be able to carry a scoped M1A/M14 and a 1911A1 or Browning High Power when I could get away with it. When it comes to something as important as a primary weapon in a hostile fire zone I say no to new and improved until it's old and proven.
Give it to troops in each potential environment (desert, artic, mountain, jungle), from each respective service and tell em it's their job to find out what it "won't" do . Unlimited range time and cases of ammo...........carry it with em 24/7 . Drop it, kick it , let their dog chew and crap on it if need be. Make sure it's empty and let their three year old use it as a swing seat from the tree in the back yard.
That's the test I would like to see versus one from the company selling it and promising the liason officer future employment etc etc ....
Stay Safe !
posted on 11/30/2002 12:39:07 AM PST
I suppose I'm picking at nits again, but when did they start calling a magazine a clip? Is this the accepted nomenclature nowadays?
I also agree with squantos that the idea of a bayonet on a weapon this heavy and bulky is ridiculous. I, like him, also found myself in an operational niche where I could carry a weapon of choice. This was in an AO NE of Bien Hoa where the country was a little more open and flat. My choise? An accurized M14/XM21-clone. Damned thing was bullet-proof (figuratively). But this is also living in the past.
This system is an evolution in blooper concept inasmuch as when the original grenade launcher was issued in the late '50's, the grenadier was also armed with an M1911A1 for personal defense. The 'machine pistol' with a 10" barrel that is attached to the 25mm system is conceptually the same and I would hesitate to refer to this as a main battle rifle. If this system is adopted we may be seeing the end game when it comes to a rifleman being a marksman. This probably in realization of the fact that modern firepower being as lethal as it is, the major armies of the world have gone to great lengths to develop doctrine that protect troops from this lethality. Smart sub-munitions are the answer and we will probably see the end of the rifle used in combat as we've come to know it.
posted on 11/30/2002 2:01:53 AM PST
This 20mm exploding smart round should be deployed on a separate weapon for a while, first, before throwing it out there on the OICW as the main weapon for a team of infantry. IOW, we need an "M-79", deployed on a limited basis, to prove the concept, long before we need to be issuing "M203's" in great numbers.
I can't imagine this thing working in the field. It's too heavy and complex. It seems to me to be a weapon designed by Colonels and arms contractors with no input from grunts in the mud.
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
This contraption demonstrated the ability to do in a couple of guys testing it at Aberdene a year or 18 months ago. The 20mm HE round detonated inbore with expected results. The infantry is always cussing armor but trying to get a tank that can move on two legs. Gotta have that high tech. Can't be satisfied with a good rifle for one troop and a good grenade launcher for his grenadier, we have to try to make the both of them something they are not.
To: Lion Den Dan
Since the OICW or XM29 has not completed operational testing it cannot be deployed with troops. The same with the Stryker. The current Army Chief of Staff would love to see the Stryker tooling around in Iraq or Afghanistan, but by law he is forbidden to do so. I almost feel there is a move underway to accelerate the testing or delay action against Iraq in order to deploy the Stryker. Luckily the tracked lobby is watching to make certain the higher ups in DA follow the letter of the law. What I am now seeing is a redefining of what is really meant by completion of operational testing. Seems that the officers left over from Clinton are having a hard time understanding what some words really mean.
posted on 11/30/2002 3:41:36 AM PST
To: VaBthang4; Gunrunner2; PsyOp; wardaddy
The following is my personal opinion of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) rifle supposed to replace the M-4 and M-16 as the workhorse rifle for the US army. Personally i think it is a great weapon ....however not exactly apt for becoming a workhorse
, especially for replacing the M-4 (especially M-4s with additions). It kind of elicits the same reaction that i got when i first saw the Steyr Aug ....in essence a 'wow reaction' (eg i was impressed, at first, with the Aug's flechette capability) ...however that oomph factor was rapidly replaced with the knowledge that in real combat situations the rifle was lacking.
Let me explain! And let me start by saying there is no comparison between the Steyr Aug and the OICW! The OICW is a truly spectacular and awesome weapon! I especially love the fact that it packs 20mm HE rounds thata re programmable, plus extra features like automatic target trackers, direct view optics, and heat-seeking thermal capabilities! Succinctly put the OICW is an awesome weapon.
However a look at the cost-performance comparison shows that the gun may be great, but is it sufficiently great to justify spending 20,000 per gun to replace an M-4 + attached grenade launcher configuration? That i fear may be no. Especially when you consider that with all the pertinent improvements on the OICW the increase in effectiveness is just 40%.
Personally i think a more prudent allocation of resources would be the Land Warrior System where the US soldier is given top-notch tech that allows him to become a veritable cyborg! For example soldiers packing normal M-4s ...however these soldiers have computer linkages with each other (eg their M-4s have optical sights that allow all the soldiers in the group to see what each member is seeing, plus the normal M-4s can have the great thermal sights and what-not that the OICW is supposed to have ....however at a much lesser cost). Using the Land Warrior system will allow all US soldiers to know the positions of each member, to integrate themselves extremely well, to have M-4s/M-16s with thermal/video sights, to have light weight computer operated gear, helmet-mounted video display, radio with in-built GPS receiver (for when you need to call in JDAMs from above), next generation laser night-vision goggles etc etc etc! In essence this is by far better than the OICW whose merit is just being able to lob a 20mm shell 40% better than what can be done currently!
I believe the Land Warrior system, using current guns (because the OICW was also supposed to be added to Land Warrior before they started doing tests using current guns) is a much better option than OICW guns. Land Warrior improves the whole soldier (and turns him into a cyborg ....yeah) while all the OICW does is give the soldier a nice gun.
As for the OICW let me finish this post with some positive stuff on it (it is after all a nice gun). If i had the final say in the defense planning program of the US (which i do not for various reasons, LOL) i would scrap the OICW and chose the Land Warrior ...however what i would keep in the OICW family is the Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW)! This is supposed to eb the replacement for the .50 cal machinegun, and it is the big brother of the OICW. The reason i like the OCSW is that it can be placed on a vehicle (eg a Hummer) , it has a laser rangefinder, the ammo can be programmed to detonate abovea target, and it is extremely effective when compared to the .50 cal. On top of that it is like the OICW ...and does better since it can be able to fire 2 types of 25mm ammo distances of 2000m at speeds of 250 rounds per minute (when you consider one type of 25mm ammo is programmable HE, while the other is armor piercing for use against vehicles, you will see that the OCSW is a mighty weapon).
Hence if i had a say i would scrap the OICW, utilize the Land Warrior, and utilize the OCSW.
And then i would give Saddam (or whoever the big bad wolf is when the systems are operative) and say a BIG 'hi'........
posted on 11/30/2002 4:07:05 AM PST
What is a stryker?
posted on 11/30/2002 4:27:06 AM PST
I read somewhere that after all the testing on the m14, they were issued to marines and after a while in the hands of the leathernecks it was discovered that the barrel was not strong enough. It seems they were using them to boost eachother over fences and such, bending the barrels. The barrel was redesigned and strengthened and was a great rifle. I once had a USMC captain tell me if you put a naked marine in a padded room with two steel balls, he would break one and lose the other (poor guy was signing for another busted walkie-talkie I was in charge of).
In short,send these things to Pendleton and Lejune for a couple years. There is plenty of nasty things that can be done there to them, without putting our troops in danger.
posted on 11/30/2002 7:19:50 AM PST
Neato .. .thanks for the picture and the ping, and thanks, from an air bus driver, to all those with field experience for their comments on this thread.
posted on 11/30/2002 7:22:46 AM PST
I understand that the XM-29 is not supposed to replace the M-16 rifle for rifle, so the M-16 is going to be around for awhile. I like the grenade launche, but we need to develop a rifle based on the FAL chanbered for 6mm or 6.5mm.
posted on 11/30/2002 7:25:08 AM PST
To: Clemenza; PARodrig; rmlew; RaceBannon; Yehuda
Bows and arrows ping
posted on 11/30/2002 7:34:23 AM PST
I just can't get past the "combo-gun" thing. Combining a grenade firing weapon with a 5.56mm "rifle" is a solution that looks to me like unbridled greed on the part of the supplier. Equiping each member of a squad with one of these monsters will certainly sell a lot of 20K units. Equiping one or two grenadiers per squad with a modern single-purpose grenade blaster seems like a sensible and doable proposition but it also means a lot less government pork for the piggies at the trough.
The OICW has a 10" barrel for its 5.56mm. Does anybody know what muzzle blast is like when this cartridge if fired from a long pistol barrel? It is nasty in inverse relation to the reduced velocity and effectiveness of the rifle projectile coming out of this pistol barrel. The only reason it is on this weapon is to maintain the fiction that every troop should be armed with one of these.
Develop a new 20mm blaster along with its ammo and sighting systems. Don't make it into the G*damned swiss army knife of death. Get the weight down on the 5.56mm rifles so the grenadiers can grab one of those too if they feel the need.
posted on 11/30/2002 7:47:25 AM PST
The only reason it is on this weapon is to maintain the fiction that every troop should be armed with one of these
Without the 5.56mm capability, would a 20mm-only OICW run into Geneva Convention exploding ammo problems?
posted on 11/30/2002 8:03:16 AM PST
Hay, add me to it, ok?
posted on 11/30/2002 8:20:13 AM PST
I hate the Styker program. Here is a good review on why stryker is a very bad program at this site.
Stryker is junk
posted on 11/30/2002 10:13:52 AM PST
It does seem too expensive and complex for a mass issue weapon. The same goal could be achieved with a blend of M-16A2's, .30 caliber rifles, and M-79 grenade launchers. The .223 aka 5.56 x 45 can be quite effective to about 600 yards, provided the proper bullet is used. The .30 caliber rifles are easily effective to about 1200 yards (Marine Sniper experience).
The choice of a .30 caliber rifle would probably be between a really good bolt-action rifle, such as the one used by the Marine Snipers, or a really good self-loading rifle such as the Knight SR-25, which is equal in accuracy to any bolt-action rifle. Personally, I would lean to the SR-25, because the self-loading feature would soak up some of the recoil sharpness, making shooting easier.
posted on 11/30/2002 11:43:58 AM PST
"...but when did they start calling a magazine a clip?
The two terms are interchangeable when the weapon in question lacks an internal magazine. The OED defines "magazine" as "a chamber in a repeating rifle, machine gun, etc. containing a supply of cartridges which are fed automatically into the breach."
For example, in a Mauser bolt-action, a soldier puts a five round stripper clip into the internal magazine. In the M-16 rifle, in contrast, there is no internal magazine, so the inserted clip serves as the magazine.
Ergo, where the weapon has an internal magazine, the terms "clip" and "magazine" are mutually exclusive. Where the weapon has no internal magazine, the terms are interchangeable.
posted on 11/30/2002 12:21:29 PM PST
I see a site like the one you posted and wonder why one cannot ever find any detailed research.
Thanks for the link.
Stay safe; stay armed.
posted on 11/30/2002 12:21:57 PM PST
Muttly knows what he wants for Christmas.
This kind of reminds me of these multi-function printers that will copy, fax and scan. They wind up not doing any of these functions very well. The smart 20mm rounds sound like a great idea. Why not have one or two guys carry this weapon and maybe give them an M-4 also. The weight would still be under the weight for this gun.
When the army designs a jeep you get a Hummer. When it develops an assault rife you an OICW.
posted on 11/30/2002 12:37:37 PM PST
I didnt know that, thank you.
I dont know if they are .30 cal rifles but the Marine Corps is toying with assigning one [or two] rifleman per squad with sniper rifles and using them for movement cover as well as target identification.
I am not sure how I feel about the Stryker yet but I wanted to comment on some of the observations made...
"The Army expects the IBCT to provide
a rapidly deployable early-entry combat force that is lethal, survivable, and capable of operating in all types of military operations, from small-scale contingencies like the Balkans missions to a major theater war."
The Stryker indeed provides that. Whether or not it is the best choice is debateable but it fills the requirement.
"To equip its early-entry force, the Army has selected the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV). However, many individuals have questioned the wisdom of this decision..."
"Many" individuals question the wisdom of everything under the sun...when someone adds a sentence like this into their observations, to me it undermines their own credibility.
"and expressed the opinion that the M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) is a more capable and cost-effective vehicle for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs)."
Yeah...we could buy bullets cheaper if we bought them from China...I dont think the soldiers themselves want to have the "absolute cheapest" cost versus better quality ratio factored into the equation.
"The Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle has sufficient internal space to carry a standard 9-man infantry squad, but no additional personnel. Soldiers in Millennium Challenge 2002 reported there is insufficient room to put on protective clothing and equipment, or to wear the fighting load. Also, the cramped space made it difficult to access ammunition and load their individual weapons."
I dont place alot of weight into the complaints of today's individual pampered Army soldiers. I learned that you'll be surprised at what Soldiers accomplish when their lives are on the line.
"The Stryker Mortar Carrier is armed with a 120mm M121 mortar, with stowage for 60 mortar rounds. The mortar can only be fired from the ground -- not from the vehicle -- thereby increasing the risk from counter-mortar fires."
If I am not mistaken the Stryker has a setup that deploys the mortar from the rear of the vehicle with mechanical arm and can be retracted quickly. The picture of two guys firing a normal mortar is a bit misleading. And the competitors must open a hatch to the vehicle i order to fire the mortar, exposing the vehicles interior to counterbattery mortar fire.
"Since the primary reason for the Brigade Combat Team concept is to deploy maximum combat power in the minimum time frame, the Stryker is a poor choice. The C-17 can transport twice as many MTVLs, and more than twice as many M113A3s, for a much more efficient and effective use of this limited-availability airlift resource. In addition, unit integrity of the infantry platoons is superior with the MTVL and M113A3, since all four of a platoons vehicles together with assigned personnel can be transported on one aircraft."
I would agree with this...apparently it comes down to give and take for Army planners. I'll defer to their judgement.
"Delivery of Stryker vehicles by C-130 is also an inefficient use of airlift. Depending on the flight distance involved, 13 or more C-130 sorties will be required to transport only a dozen Stryker ICVs and personnel."
If the Army and Air Force dont have a problem with this...then neither do I.
"The M8, M113A3, M1064A3, and MTVL can be airdropped onto the battlefield, thereby providing enhanced strategic mobility. This option does not exist with the Stryker, which is too big for parachute delivery from C-130 aircraft."
But it can be parachuted from the C-17 cant it?
"With a tow cable attached to its front end, an eight-wheeled USMC LAV-25 is pulled from the Croatian mud where it had been hopelessly mired. Note the nose up angle, indicating that each pair of tires has dug deeper into the mud than the preceding pair. The LAV-25 is an earlier generation in the vehicle family that evolved into the Stryker, and shares the same basic flaws regarding cross-country mobility."
That would concern me.
"A Stryker Mobile Gun System drives through soft sand. Note that like the USMC LAV stuck in mud each pair of tires is digging deeper into the sand than the preceding pair. In soft ground, these eight-wheel drive vehicles are always trying to crawl out of the ruts that they are in the process of digging."
Doesnt really say what it wants to say.
"Tracks distribute a vehicles weight evenly over the surface. This enables deep, soft sand to be traversed with ease..."
That is intentionally misleading.
The rest of the piece seems to focus solely on Stryker shortcomings [which all systems have]. It does not go into the drawbacks of other systems proposed. This also undermines the overall position and gives me pause before taking the breakdown to heart.
What happens when you drag your alphabet soup in to the blue? It falls in the mud, so you rinse it off in a creek, neglect it some more, each day for a long time. Will it work?
When the batteries run down, what do you have beyond that lovely bayonet?
The display and CPU will suck lots of juice.
What is the warm up time from off to operational, powersave to operational?
What is the battery life? Want to bet your life on low bidder batteries?
How many types of ammunition, batteries and spares are needed to maintain a line unit?
Here is my answer! Well it is something to see.
Thanks. I like the new "piece."
posted on 11/30/2002 3:43:28 PM PST
Officers left over from Cliton is the operative word here. Only contempt for regulation and law. The regulation means what we said it means. Example: Ft. Knox Regulation rewritten in 2000 to prevent one person from displaying large political signs. Regulation rewritten to clearly state no large signs, bumper stickers ok. That was good until folks put 40, 50 , 60 stickers on a vehicle. Regulation was not changed, but at 0600, the interpretation became 8 stickers equaled plural stickers. No more.
For bumber stiggers they don't get paid. For tweeking the meaning of complete testing, they get well paid. Adjust the meaning of is; no problem.
For bumber stiggers they don't get paid. For contracting jobs to "save 1.2 million a year but the contractor shows an 8 million cost over run in the first quarter of 03 and will be paid for it; they get paid. Adjust the meaning of is; no problem.
I no likey.
Our military wants to be quick and mobile but they are loading the poor grunt down making him slower.
I vote for having light, reliable, accurate weapons.
This 20mm grenade launcher only has a 6 round mag? And what's going to be the effective range of that 10" barrel on the 5.56?
I say make it just a high tech grenade launcher and dump the rest. Looks rediculous with a bayonet too.
The biggest problem with the Stryker (among many, many problems) is the fact that it doesn't even meet it's program requirements for delivery by C-130, while the M113A3 and M8 AGS (which is a fantastic vehicle) do, while being more flexible and already ready for production for less money. In other words, the Stryker is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist, which is more expensive. Go ask any former 19D or 11H or 11M what they thought of the M113. I guarantee they'll give glowing reports. The M-8 was designed as the replacement for the M-551 Sheridan which was the 82nd Airbornes air droppable armor support. Since Clinton (may he eternally burn in hell) axed the M-8 right before mass production was going to begin, the 82nd has been without any armor support whatsoever. Just think what might have been had there been a company of M-8's in Somalia.
posted on 11/30/2002 4:24:35 PM PST
2 round burst selector! That's an outrage to every grunt. There goes the saying: "when in doubt empty the magazine."
Where's the love?
Who won that contract?
"When the batteries run down, what do you have beyond that lovely bayonet?
A 5.56 mm rifle. The same thing they have now.
"What is the warm up time...What is the battery life... Want to bet your life on low bidder batteries...How many types of..."
Probably the same questions asked when the military introduced NVGs or Thermal sights on their man portable anti-armour weapons.
I'm not sold on the system yet but I am not a naysayer either. I know this...
If while serving in the Marines, I was given the choice between a functioning rifle that fires 10/20mm grenades and a rifle that fires 30/5.56 mm rounds...
I'dve taken the former.
I humped around with an M-60 Echo 3 for a year and change...so if the complaint from the "Army" soldiers is that the OICW is too heavy....my succinct response is "work out".
Was wondering why the stats on my web page went soaring today - the OICW image link is the reason. Please add me to your military ping list. Thanks.
This is Alpha Pup Patrol- need air support soonest, we are low on batteries...
posted on 11/30/2002 6:26:53 PM PST
What you say makes sense...sort of.
In my day it was referred to as a detachable (box) magazine, but a magazine nevertheless. I remember the 'clip' inserted into the 'magazine well' of the M1 and the 'stripper clips' used to 'charge' magazines in M14's and M16's along with an adaptor of some designation.
Seems the 'clip' contains rounds by vitue of attaching by their rim.
Can you point me to your source? I'm now real curious.
posted on 11/30/2002 7:35:45 PM PST
Maybe the bayonet should be longer. Maybe LOTS longer !
A 30-round Contender machine gun seems a bit odd, too. At least 20mm anything is always impressive, no matter what the barrel length. Hate for anyone to test this stuff in a hostile environment, though. OINK !
Hahaha....no way that happened. That is funny.
To: Doctor Raoul
Don't know about the weapon itself but there is a good chance the ammo will come from a company called ALLIANT TECHNOLOGY (ticker symbol ATK on the NYSE).
I generally distinguish a magazine from a clip by noting that a magazine contains a spring-loaded follower to push the ammo into position. A "clip" is a passive device that holds cartridges in a convenenient geometry for filling a magazine. A magazine may be an integral part of the firearm e.g. SKS, M-1 Garand or removable e.g. M-16 or M-14. A "stripper clip" holds cartridges to convenient press into the magazine whether fixed e.g. SKS or removable e.g. Ruger Mini-14. The M1-Garand clip is pushed down into the magazine and ejected from the rifle on the final round. The Mini-14 and SKS both have a "stripper clip" guide on the top of the bolt face.
posted on 12/01/2002 5:25:50 PM PST
To: Lion Den Dan
piss poor shame the DoD wont look at the concept of "shoot-thru" rifle grenades .The Isreali's sre still using them to great effect for taking doors off hinges(and removing the door frame ) quickly knocking spider holes in walls etc.
Personally, I think this gun is a POS and will be proven so on the battlefied.
The 5.56 barrel is only 10 inches long.
The gun is too heavy.
And supply is hard enough without having to worry about a gun with batteries.
There are two different magazines that must be carried as well. What happens when your airdrop of supplies is 1/2 20mm rounds when it is 5.56 that you are out of?
Things I don't like,
The 10" barrel for the 5.56 round is ridiculous. Too much muzzle velocity loss. Will be -way- too loud. No need to cripple the already marginal 5.56.
14 pound weight (-if- they can get down that low) is nuts. Completely ruins the justification for using the 5.56 round in the first place. I.E. larger ammo load could be carried by each soldier. I believe the 30-06 BAR weighed in at about the same weight. Unless you are a 20 year old fullback, imagine a female or slightly built male trying to hoist this contraption around all day.
"Clip" is used incorrectly. -Magazines- are pictured. A magazine has a spring to feed the cartriges. A clip merely holds the ammo together in an organized manner so it can be inserted INTO A MAGAZINE.
The single trigger is a bad idea. You just know that people will select the wrong load in the heat of battle.
A good idea is the "smart" 20MM round.
20MM is about .787 or about a 10 gauge. A dedicated 20MM weapon sans the the chopped 5.56 might be an interesting replacement for a shotgun. Much greater range and utility. Put it in a 10 pound package (lots of titanium) and add one to a squad. A high tech grenadier weapon.
To: Joe 6-pack
and develop a .25-08 round
Joe; Warren Page(Longtime Shooting Editor for Field and Stream)developed a .25 cal cartridge on the .308 case in the 50's I believe. He called it the .25 Souper.
It was a good enough cartridge, the problem was, there was no room for it.
The .257 Roberts filled that niche quite well, and still does. The .250/3000 was right below it, and the .25-06 right above it. It's hard to find a wildcat that is accually new these days.
posted on 12/01/2002 9:36:03 PM PST
I'm not necessarily calling for a, "new," round...the .250 Savage, loaded to the right pressure levels would do nicely, 'though the shoulder angle would probably need some reconfiguration to enhance operation in an AR. Note that all of the rounds you mention are generally considered, "Sporting," rounds that have never received any tactical consideration outside of a small number of the LE sniper community who consider the .25-06/.257 Wby Mag optimum rounds in terms of trajectory, payload, downrange energy, sectional density, etc. It seems odd to me, that for decades, NATO wrapped itself up in debates over the plusses and minuses of the 5.56 vs. 7.62 w/out looking for resolution in the middle ground. The Brits did, in the '50s, play around with something that was the ballistic equivalent of the 7mm-08, and IMHO would probably be worth looking into again. If, however, one of the primary redeeming factors of the 5.56 is in the weight of bulk ammo, a .25 w/ a 110-125gr. projectile would be far better than a 7mm w/ a 140-150 grainer, or a .308 w/ a 180gr slug. In as much as Armalite currently markets an AR-10/15 variant already chambered in .243 WIN, a simple barrel swap would pretty much do the trick. Likewise, with some faster burning powders, a short barreled variant would maintain a bullet mass that would make up for the velocity loss as per the experience with the 5.56 M4 in Somolia.
In the words of Rod Serling...submitted for your approval...
"...and promising the liason officer future employment etc etc ...."
posted on 12/02/2002 6:05:21 AM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-70 next last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson