Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/24/2003 3:47:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 3:25:30 PM EDT by Methos]
It's still a monster, but it looks slimmer... Current XM29: [img]http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/xm29_f.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58094,00.html[/url] OICW ATD Phase 4 (Jun 99): [img]http://www.hkpro.com/oicwtree.jpg[/img] OICW ATD Phase 3 (Jan 98): [img]http://www.hkpro.com/oicwright.jpg[/img] OICW ATD Phase 3 (over/under Prototype - Aug 96) [img]http://www.dean.usma.edu/cme/images/ATS-oicw2.jpg[/img] OICW First Model (Dec 95): [img]http://www.hkpro.com/oicwproto2.jpg[/img] Alliant Techsystems = [url]http://www.atk.com/homepage/features/xm29.htm[/url] Heckler-Koch, USA = [url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/m29.html[/url] Brashear LP = [url]http://www.brashearlp.com/download_pdfs/oicw.pdf[/url] Reviews from the Army Infantry School... [url]http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=106[/url]
The OICW is bulky, and currently too heavy for Infantry use. The prototype weighs in at 18lbs, yet designers plan on using exotic, ultra-light materials to get the weight down to about 14lbs. OICW designers also point out that the current M4 carbine with all its attached equipment weighs in comparably. This is a decent counter-argument against making future weapons heavier than current ones, but not an effective argument against why future weapons cannot ever be lighter than current ones. With all its technology, the OICW will become the new complaint of the Infantry soldier if it retains its high weight. In terms of practical design, the OICW is a cumbersome, awkward beast. In 1998 at Fort Bragg, the author of this article had the privilege of playing around with the non-firing prototype OICW. While chatting with the OICW engineer, I took the weapon and laid down in the prone with it at the Fort Bragg Officers Club. The 20mm magazine clunked against the ground, and my 68inch frame had a hard time gaining a comfortable sight picture with the weapon. To my dismay, the engineer exclaimed, “gee, no ones ever laid on the ground with it before. They say you all will be firing mostly from the knee or standing.”
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 3:52:28 AM EDT
AAI Corporation competed for the OICW contract but lost to the Alliant/HK team in 1998. AAI Corp's OICW Mock-up: [img]http://ajchen.myrice.com/OICW/aaioicw2.jpg[/img] AAI Corp's OICW: [img]http://ajchen.myrice.com/OICW/aaioicw1.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 3:53:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 3:56:17 AM EDT by Methos]
the French equivalent to the OICW... PolyArme, POlyProjectiles (PAPOP): [img]http://koti.mbnet.fi/wolfman/legion/papop02.jpg[/img] [img]http://koti.mbnet.fi/wolfman/legion/papop01.jpg[/img] [url]http://koti.mbnet.fi/wolfman/legion/papop.htm#oicw[/url] [img]http://www.acordacidadao.hpg.ig.com.br/Fuzil%20Papop_03.JPG[/img] [url]http://www.acordacidadao.hpg.ig.com.br/avancos%20tecnologicos.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:20:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 1:22:20 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]
Isn't the 5.56 performance going to suck pretty badly from that what, 9 or 10 inch barrel? Just looks too damn bulky, even if it isn't that heavy... Or I guess they expect you to use the 20mm at anything over 50 yards away?
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:23:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:23:51 PM EDT
LCD readout...CHECK Keyboard input device...CHECK Mouse wheel adapter...CHECK IR camera...CHECK Night vision adapter...CHECK Software upgrade...CHECK Let's go into battle men! Anyone bring ammo???
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:25:38 PM EDT
I still think it's a flaming piece of shit.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:26:39 PM EDT
you guys are going to hate me for this, well you already do so I will just say it. That french version looks mean as f----
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:36:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gus: I still think it's a flaming piece of shit.
View Quote
Ditto. I wouldn't want to take that sucker into combat. I wouldn't even want to own one. I'll take an M16/M4 anyday.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:37:25 PM EDT
The french version looks like a suitcase.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:43:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 455SD: The french version looks like a suitcase.
View Quote
Surrender flags take up so much more space than ammo!
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:43:58 PM EDT
French gun looks massively heavy. Why do they need guns, anyway? It's not like their gov't'll let 'em fight... I'd still rather have an M4 with a 870 mounted under the barrel.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:47:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gus:
Originally Posted By 455SD: The french version looks like a suitcase.
View Quote
Surrender flags take up so much more space than ammo!
View Quote
I was going to add something about the white flag, but I knew someone would take up the slack.[;)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:51:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 1:51:38 PM EDT by snipley]
I dont care you point a cannon at me even if it has a white flag up I will shiz my pants. That thing looks crazy. I wouldnt mind it on my wall.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 1:58:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By snipley: That thing looks crazy. I wouldnt mind it on my wall.
View Quote
Better make sure your rifle rack is securely bolted directly to the wall studs! Otherwise, I think it would eventually put a dent in the floor where it landed.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:04:55 PM EDT
I woudl much rather have this... [img]http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091434/www.wired.com/news/images/full/lt_colonel_rob_carpenter_f.jpg[/img] ...for those times when a new case of 7.62x51mm comes in OR when the homothugs in my 'hood start a bonfire.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:23:44 PM EDT
That French version looks rediculous,like something outta Judge Dredd or a cartoon. This whole concept seems like an answer to a question no one aked. I mean granted the current M4-203 combo thingy is pretty handy,but are you really going to be needing a grenade so often as to having to be swinging a launcher around all day like your battle rifle? What did the troopers in Vietnam that carried that break open grenade launcher carry as there personal protection? I can see the use of an airburst ,rangeable explosive,but can't you just make that a seperate weapon unto itself and outfit a few guys with it where needed? Why this push to have everthing (including the kitchen sink)in one weapon? Obviously its to bulky and awkward to work out. On top of that we've got "weapons experts" designing firearms ,that have to be told people will be firing their creations while laying on their bellies???? WTF?
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:26:32 PM EDT
It's my understanding that for the immediate future, the OICW isn't going to be standard issue for everyone. Longer term plans are anybody's guess at this stage. From what I've heard, the short term plan is to have one per squad, like they do today with a LMG (for the time being I think the plan is to have one grunt give up his M16 and have one LMG and one OICW per squad). As a squad support weapon, the 20mm grenade launcher is expected to be the primary weapon with the 5.56 as a "ready backup" on the same frame. Maybe it will work as intended, maybe it won't, but noone will know for sure until someone seriously tries it out. If it doesn't work as advertised, hopefully they'll learn why, and that knowledge will help develop another weapon which will work as advertised. Progress is based on trying new ideas, not just repeating the old ideas that we've used before. I can't say I like the looks all that much, but effectiveness is measured by results, not appearences. If it works as advertised, will the grunts using it or being supported by it care what it looks like?
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:28:51 PM EDT
The whole 20mm launcher tickles me. And practical, I see it very piratical. Remember these are prototype weapons here. Thing do get smaller after kinks are worked out.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:31:18 PM EDT
I think it would be far wiser and far cheaper to develop a fragmenting grenade that can be fired from a 12 gauge shotgun and issue one as a support weapon. Lighter, more flexble, FAR cheaper, more reliable.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:36:05 PM EDT
FAR cheaper, How is that when a 20mm frag can be produced at the cost of about $3 and have a better trajectory as well as less recoil and the most important factor weight.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:42:27 PM EDT
the weapon is cheaper, the ammo would be an unknown quantity.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 3:46:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By snipley: FAR cheaper, How is that when a 20mm frag can be produced at the cost of about $3 and have a better trajectory as well as less recoil and the most important factor weight.
View Quote
Last price I saw on M203 grenade was over $30 a unit.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:10:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Katana16j: I think it would be far wiser and far cheaper to develop a fragmenting grenade that can be fired from a 12 gauge shotgun and issue one as a support weapon. Lighter, more flexble, FAR cheaper, more reliable.
View Quote
The 20mm grenade is feable in its destructive effects. There is no way decent explosive content can fit in a 12gage size projectile. The Army was promised repeatedly that they could deliver lethality comparable to the existing 40mm. So far they have failed to deliver. Plus the Marines have already shown that you can put whats good about the new grenade into the 40mm package and its AWSOME. Ever seen a picture of the Mk47 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher the Marines are testing? [url]http://www.gdatp.com/Products/2002/arm_systems/striker/Strikerpage1.htm[/url] Has the thermal imaging, laser ranger, electronic fuze setting for airbursting projectiles AND looses more than 40 pounds in weight over the MK19 with just Iron sights. And its rounds are far more powerful than the 20mm OICW and even the 25mm OCSW. And although the 20 and 25mm rounds are faster than the short and long 40mm grenades neither are fast enough to be appreciably better at hitting moving targets or shooting in high cross winds.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:11:51 PM EDT
[img]http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/xm29_f.jpg[/img] Um...am I the only one that notices this? Look at the magazine in this rifle and see if you see anything wrong with it Anyone notice the little hole drilled in the bottom of the mag? Anyone recgonize it? Thats right, its a USA brand 30rd magazine. Anyone else think that is just wrong? [;)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:22:29 PM EDT
Seems to me they could develop electrically timed air-bursting projectiles for the M79 and be done with it.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:26:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gus: I still think it's a flaming piece of shit.
View Quote
Step into the wayback machine.... Late 60s Tv interveiwer speaking to a returning marine Marine what do you think about the new M16A1 [see above qoute] Now look at what people ask to take into combat ??????? The same gun other dissed 30 years ago. I see a pattern
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 5:57:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By gus: I still think it's a flaming piece of shit.
View Quote
Step into the wayback machine.... Late 60s Tv interveiwer speaking to a returning marine Marine what do you think about the new M16A1 [see above qoute] Now look at what people ask to take into combat ??????? The same gun other dissed 30 years ago. I see a pattern
View Quote
Granted, I haven't just returned from combat, having been equipped with a rifle that was unreliable due to reasons that had yet to be explained. But the M16 didn't rely on batteries, didn't weigh much (one of its selling points), wasn't paraded around in public even before its technology was practical, and didn't require such massive training as will be required with the OICW. And the M16 really didn't have any massively new technology anyway, just creative engineering and choice of materials. I still think it's a piece of shit (OICW) for now, and think so for what I think are sound reasons. And I don't like them showing off emerging technologies like this in public for what I consider obvious reasons.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:20:10 PM EDT
... Wouldnt it make more sense to make the 5.56 on top, and the 20mm on bottom? Not like the 20mm is made for accuracy to any degree anyways. Atleast with the 5.56 on top, you can fit a good 30+ inches of barrel into that frame for accuracy.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:31:16 PM EDT
It's still no replacement for marksmanship, and I'm afraid that it's what they're trying to do with it. I couldn't see this being a standard issue weapon, maybe one or two in a platoon.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:01:28 PM EDT
I think FN has a better take on this whole concept. [url]http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_f2000.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:28:54 PM EDT
I think the air burst capability of the 20mm projectile would be exceptional. Not sure why they wouldn't undermount it like the M203. I think the slimmer version is getting there....however it looks like the abandoned the two separable units as was an original design criteria. You could ditch the 20mm rifle and attach a stock to the 5.56mm rifle undebody.... [homer]20mm airburst.....yummy[/homer]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 10:42:47 PM EDT
Personally, I like the concept if it had a better 5.56mm barrel on it. This new version looks a lot like the Bushmaster M17, imo.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 10:45:58 PM EDT
The only thing 5.56 has going for it is high velocity, without that its a shit round. Now with a short barrel on that thing as is and the complaints of not eneugh range by marines talking about the M4 we can all guess what will happend.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 4:22:55 AM EDT
Unlike most arfcom luddites, I like to see technology. Good or bad, any technology is a contribution to progress. Those with limited vision will only advance so far. The motto of the day will always be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", until one day in combat, the realization occurs that it's not broke, but the other fellow has the decisive advantage. I'm all for the OICW program, but it seems to me they should issue them as seperate guns.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 11:45:33 AM EDT
We are talking 2m lethality/5m wounding with the 20mm against unarmored targets. This drops to 0m lethality and <2m wounding against our current helmet and the Interceptor vest-WITHOUT plates. It will have trouble gitting through old PASGT vests, getting through ECWS clothing would be a chore for it. All these things reduce the effectiveness of the 40mm grenades as well, but not that much.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 12:34:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 12:48:43 PM EDT by Methos]
The French PAPOP is being developed by GIAT/FN Herstal. [img]http://www.sistemasdearmas.hpg.ig.com.br/sofpapop10.jpg[/img] PAPOP 1 is equivalent phase 1 of the demonstrator that weighs 8kg, including of 25 shots bore carrying 5,56mm and the three explosive ammunition of 35mm, to engage hard targets until 600metros. The target was for one camera of video with separate screen LCD that allowed to see in esquinas and cantos without if displaying. [img]http://www.sistemasdearmas.hpg.ig.com.br/sofpapop9.jpg[/img] Phase 2 tested models specific, with PAPOP 2 being a demonstrator optimized for urban war, with weight reduced for 6kg. The limit is waited for 2 shots of 35mm and 25 of 5,56mm with system of control of integrated shot. 35mm not programmable. Full article with more pics... [url]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.sistemasdearmas.hpg.ig.com.br/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpapop%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26l­r%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN[/url]
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 1:24:25 PM EDT
The OICW is the future rather we like it or not. I just do not think it is going to be a vast improvement over the M16 A3/4 weapons systems other than the 20mm grenade launcher.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 1:41:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 1:44:39 PM EDT by Methos]
Originally Posted By pale_pony: It's still no replacement for marksmanship, and I'm afraid that it's what they're trying to do with it. I couldn't see this being a standard issue weapon, maybe one or two in a platoon.
View Quote
Apparently, 4 soldiers per squad will have the OICW. ------------ The program overall costs the military about $32 million a year, and at $30,000 apiece, the OICW is an expensive accessory for your average footsoldier's arm. When the weapon is ready for mass production in three years, the Army will buy up to 25,000 of them at first. Out of each standard nine-man infantry squad, four soldiers will have the OICW. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42424,00.html[/url]
Originally Posted By Wipeout: [img]www.wired.com/news/images/full/xm29_f.jpg[/img] Um...am I the only one that notices this? Look at the magazine in this rifle and see if you see anything wrong with it Anyone notice the little hole drilled in the bottom of the mag? Anyone recgonize it? Thats right, its a USA brand 30rd magazine. Anyone else think that is just wrong?
View Quote
A soldier is issued a programmable $30,000 rifle with air burst rounds, day and night electronic sights, laser range finder, etc., and it jams in combat all because the high-tech weapon was issued with USA mags... LOL.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 1:56:25 PM EDT
Sometimes I wish the gunmakers and the 'powers that be' would stop watching the SciFi Channel...
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 2:03:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 2:03:32 PM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By gus:
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By gus: I still think it's a flaming piece of shit.
View Quote
Step into the wayback machine.... Late 60s Tv interveiwer speaking to a returning marine Marine what do you think about the new M16A1 [see above qoute] Now look at what people ask to take into combat ??????? The same gun other dissed 30 years ago. I see a pattern
View Quote
Granted, I haven't just returned from combat, having been equipped with a rifle that was unreliable due to reasons that had yet to be explained. But the M16 didn't rely on batteries, didn't weigh much (one of its selling points), wasn't paraded around in public even before its technology was practical, and didn't require such massive training as will be required with the OICW. And the M16 really didn't have any massively new technology anyway, just creative engineering and choice of materials. I still think it's a piece of shit (OICW) for now, and think so for what I think are sound reasons. And I don't like them showing off emerging technologies like this in public for what I consider obvious reasons.
View Quote
I agree with you 100%. Someday with time and money the concept should work. Someday......
Top Top