Will the OICW Rifle see combat in Iraq?

strategypage.com ^ | November 28, 2002 | James F. Dunnigan

[Nebr FAL owner]

Uh ain't that the general idea?

[yureikumaTN]

Nope, just a couple of scrounged Kalashnikovs for reliablilty and ease of rearming after you burn through your reduced ammo load.

BTW, add me to the ping list if you please!

[Buffalo Head]

"Geneva Convention exploding ammo problems"

It is The Hague Convention that governs the rules of civilized warfare, poison gas, expanding bullets, etc. The Geneva convention deals with the handling of POW's, amoung other things.

[fso301]

Thanks for the correction.

[ibbryn]

Don't you guys watch Mail Call? The gunny already answered the clip/magazine question. A clip can go in a magazine but a mag can't go in a clip.

Stripper clip feeds a bolt action's non-detachable box magazine. Stripper clip feeds a M16's detachable magazine.

Illustrated using a paper clip and a paper magazine. The clip can go in the mag, but the mag can't go in the clip.

Mail Call bump.

[harstam]

This answer may sound like its coming from an old "stuck in his ways" veteran. but keep in mind. i'm 22, grew up behind a rifle, and fully unbiased. Main Battle Rifles have taken a landslide toward complicated and annoying... When the US Army ditched the M14 to go to the M16.. it was the beginning of a terrible step in the wrong direction. I've been inside both rifles, put several thousand rounds through both rifles. and above all else put meat on the table with both rifles. *yes.. with a 10 round mag an M16.. no not AR-15, M16.. is a decent hunting rifle however in the comparison of both rifles on game animals i've taken 4 deer with M14, each shot under different conditions all 4 animals dropped where they stood, with the use of Nosler Ballistic Tip Bullets. Vital Damage was amazing to say the least both lungs turned to jelly in an instant. The M16 and its lighter .223 bullet took 2 deer, using some Factory Federal soft point ammo One shot was a drop, the other was not. The second animal made it 50 yards before dieing. The damage to the internals was far less amazing, and transfer of energy of the bullet to the animal less than satisfactory. The M16 still makes clean humane 1 shot kills, it just isn't as potent as the rocking firepower of the .308 in the M14* Now lets get to some history. Firstly the M16. This rifle was of course made by the lowest bidder as all others.. originally didn't function so well as the bolt wouldnt always fully engage the locking lugs. Charging handle was in the carry handle of the old 16s. Well it wasn't getting the job done. so they changed the location of the charging lever and added a foreward assist, adding 1 step to loading, and fixing jams, 1 more part to get sandy, muddy, or frozen and fail, and more importantly proved the design hadn't been properly researched. The Stoner rifle. aka AR-10 was a much more robust rifle and with its larger .308 round of course was blessed with tougher internals to handle that wee bit of extra backpressure. At any rate.. the M16 was a large, cobbled up piece of engineering that was ill recieved by veterans and honestly doesnt feel like a gun at all. Now we have the M14. The M14 in its semi automatic incarnation was a well weighted, nicely designed, PROVEN weapon that many men depended on. Based on the function of the M1 Garand which is probably the only rifle as "surefire" as the SKS and immensely more accurate, having removed the thumb mashing danger of the "not really stripper clips not really magazine" clips, and dropping the caliber from the comparatively heavier .30-06, to the better designed, .308 cartridge *which in my eyes has the "perfect" case capacity*, the armorers had essentially built the perfect rifle *btw beretta made garands, did they make any 14s? if so please get back to me at hstambaugh@toughguy.net *. anyway. The M14 was a VERY formidable rifle, in the hands of a fine marksman it stood untouchable in comparison to the M16. The reasons for the change still really doesn't make sense.. they wanted troops to be able to carry more ammo, and also concluded that since most engagements occur at under 400 meters, having "more gun" was just un-necessary. I've personally taken a national match M14 with an "improved" 3 screw mount, Leupold Vari-X III, and kept groupings down to 12" at 800 Meters using Lake City Brass and my own secret combo of CCI, Vihta Vuori, and Sierra Components, under far less than Ideal conditions. the same would be truly impossible with even a Match Barreled M16 simply because the smaller bullet doesn't store as much energy downrange. I'm sure that the long range capabilities of the M14 have saved the lives of many soldiers. During the early conflicts we always simply had "More Gun". If i'm not mistakened one of the "unofficial" reasons for the change from the M14 to M16 was the .308 was too much gun for some people. If that was the case.. they didn't need to be in the military for they were true pansys. My wife has fired and fell in love with my M14, god knows if a 5'2" 115 LB woman can handle it.. any man can. Think about it, WWII and Korea .30-06 and some .308 v/s 7.92x57 Mauser, 6.5 Jap, 7.7 Jap, the list goes on. Our .30-06 and .50BMG gave us an advantage.. which made kill ratios very high. then we go to vietnam. .223 and some .308 v/s 7.62x39 and 7.62x54. They had far more gun than us.. about 200 meters more effective range really.. and between a junk gun and bad politics we ended up losing. The only reason we did so well with iraq is we were better trained, and far better equipped. against a more even ground though how would we fare?.. at any rate time has proven and logic proves the bigger, flatter shooting, and more accurate your gun is than the enemy's. The better you will come out in the end. If I were stuck with an M16A2 and forced to go into battle. I'd make it a point to shoot the first AK packing straggler I find and take his gun. I know many others who have similiar views. Back to the comparison. Side by side I've compared these two rifles.. and in no way does the M16 prove at all more valuable than the M14 did.. quite the opposite really. Now we get into bringing in the OICW which in my eyes is a wonderful tech advancement, but not what i'd see useful in a warzone. Guns get dirty.. REAL dirty. it just happens. How well will a weapon with so many moving parts and electrical circuits handle sand, or salt spray, or mud, or the concussion of HE near it. how easy will it be to clear the inevitable jams. I'm sorry but nobody is going to want a weapon that has a 20 step immediate action. Of the many worries I think of is the Rumor to do away with the M2 .50 cal and go to a beltfed equivelant of the 20mm nade launcher. The US has tried 3 times to replace the M2 and failed.. simply put you can't improve on a perfect design. Guess the part that worries me is they couldn't improve the M14 so they just threw it away. Ahh well enough rambling I guess.. Point is as far as weapons go the US needs to get back to its roots. There is nothing wrong with wood and steel.. heck I like some of the new plastics.. maybe McMillan should turn out a few "modernized" M14 rifles to the US Govt. it'll satisfy their need for plastic and my need for fine steel and all will be good again.

[xsrdx]

Of the many worries I think of is the Rumor to do away with the M2 .50 cal and go to a beltfed equivelant of the 20mm nade launcher.

The caliber is 25mm, belt fed and with hydraulic recoil absorption. The gun can also be fitted to fire standard 50BMG ammo, and it weighs 1/3 of what an M2 does.

The OCSW will be fielded shortly, and it will preface a revolution in crew served small arms.

Objective Crew Served Weapon

[talk2farley]

Of course, the OICW's shooting-bullets method of taking down enemies is nothing to sneeze at. It has "basically the same architecture" as the M16 assault rifle, making it "five times as effective at twice the range," Hopkins said.

In simulations, an infantry squad equipped with OICWs was sent into an offensive battle against another squad with standard weapons. Then an infantry squad with standard weapons was sent against a similarly accoutered force. The differences between how the OICW-equipped squad and the regular infantry did were stark, Hopkins said.

In the battle with traditional weapons, both the friendly and the enemy forces had about the same number of dead and wounded. In the OICW scenario, the OICW won the battle with "virtually no casualties," he said.

"You can go after all your targets," Muldowney said. "They can't hide."

And even though it's loaded with the bursting weapon and sophisticated computer-targeting equipment, the OICW actually weighs in at 14 lbs., just under the weight of a standard-issue M4 rifle with optical equipment and a thermal-weapons sight.

[talk2farley]

About the M14.....

After the Korean War, an analysis by the Army found that soldiers were engaging point targets at ranges of under 1000 meters (the average is in fact quite a bit lower, though the numbers evade me.... this represents the highest point on the curve).

The M14, with its 7.62 round, was designed to engage point targets at greater ranges, and knock them down. It did this quite effectively (and the weapon remains popular with special forces and snipers for just this reason). However, it was a study in excess as a standard issue MBG.

Hence the move to NATO standard 5.56. The ammo is lighter and cheaper than its 7.62 counterpart. Modern 5.56 bullets are nearly as lethal as their 7.62 counterparts of old. Moreover, a 5.56 cartridge produces far less recoil than a 7.62, resulting in GREATER ACCURACY AT CLOSE RANGES UNDER 1000 METERS.

If the issue is combat survivability, and your 99% likely to be engaging a target at under 1000m, you want the most accurate weapon possible for that window.

About the OICW....

The link above is an excerpt from an article I read on foxnews.com. It seems pretty convincing to me. A couple of you were bitching about the weight; the answer is right there in the article. It weighs less than an M16 equipped with ONLY the optical/thermal sight. The XM29 adds a grenade launcher and targeting computer. Still others suggested a solider could cook off a grenade round just by stepping on a land mind. This is absurd. Chemical explosives dont react well to intense heat, but there is absolutely NO TECHNICAL REASON a piece of shrapnel would set it off. Still others are concerned about battery life. Should these fail, and leave the soldier without a replacement pack, he would be left with a fully functional 5.56 rifle with overslung 20mm grenade launcher and optical sight. MORE THAN HE GETS NOW. And lastly, the complaint goes toward reliability. With Heckler and Kock providing the rifle, and given their impeccable track record, these seem entirely unfounded. Either way, a rigorous testing regimen is designed to find and correct just such an issue. Finally, you complain the 20mm packs only a 6 round clip. Thats a five fold improvement over the current 5.56.

Personally, Im unimpressed with your attacks on the weapon. If I had to choose between an M14, M16, and XM29, I would go with the weapon that gave me the greatest firepower AT RANGE.

Thatd be the XM29, hands down.

[Bonesaw]

The xm29 will not be the main battle rifle simply because the 5.56mm side of it is actually shortened and has no sighting system, its merely a self defence weapon for protecting the grenadier from close range attacks.
The main battle rifle for the US army is going to be the xm8, while the US marines have opted for brand spanking new m16a4's.