Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/23/2003 9:07:14 PM EDT
What do y'all think of this one? it is claimed to be 500% more likely to incapacitate enemy than M16/M4. To replace those weapons in future and will be ready by 2008. I don't see how a shorter bbl. 5.56mm is gonna be more lethal than M4/M16. Perhaps only do to the HE mini grenade rounds it can launch. I don't see this bulky lookin , ultra expensive thing totally replacing current issued smallarms but............?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 9:13:38 PM EDT
IT's also known as the OICW and has been discussed to death. YOu would cry if you knew how much they spen on the current issue M4's. I could buy a whole gun collection.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:01:43 PM EDT
Oh I believe the amounts spent for the M4 are out there but this thing will/has beat that hands down I am sure. Hell it probably already has!
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:13:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 10:15:10 PM EDT by captainpooby]
The M16 platform has been the US service rifle for longer than ANY OTHER rifle. Its a great rifle but if sentimentality played a part, the troops would still be issued muskets. There will always be a place for small light arms like M16s and also long arms like M1s and M14s. Its time to move on to the future. The American military is the most powerful in the world BECAUSE of our superior firepower/technology. Lots of units wont like them or use them but they WILL have a place and serve a purpose to keep us on top. edited to say: the 5.56 part of the weapon is not the primary projectile. Its the 20mm programmable round that makes it work.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:20:13 PM EDT
One of the major complaints from units during the late unpleasantness in Iraq was that they were outranged by RPGs. The RPGs could shoot from a few hundred yards away, while the 40mm grenades didn't have nearly that range. Several people suggested going back to rifle grenades to close that gap. But the OICW might be able to cover that range. (Note that I make no claims about its reliability or anything else. Just that it has the range to cover the space.)
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:28:16 PM EDT
The M203 grenade launcher has a maximum effective range for an area target of 350 meters. That sounds like a few hundred meters to me. The maximum effective range for a point target is only 150 meters but I dont think they were firing RPGs at single troops.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:29:02 PM EDT
I would like to predict that the military fields this weapon way before it is ready. Any bets?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:48:44 PM EDT
considering the deployments/situations these days it would not surprise me. The HE aspect of the weapon does sound fruitful but I cant see how that will take over rifle fire. As a small unit CQB weapon I doubt it has much use. I see it within platoons ans such but not necesarily replacing the rifle/carbine. At least not for a long time!
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 11:08:36 PM EDT
The higher ups will mandate its use and soldiers will die bcause its not ready or its niche/purpose is ill defined. I'll bet you a nickel. It will be a very effective weapon when its perfected and when they figure the right way to deploy it. Perhaps like a SAW. Now there's an idea. Lose the 556 part of it and deploy it as a squad "special weapon".
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 11:14:37 PM EDT
[url]http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/oif/03oifaar.htm[/url] "Rifle Propelled Grenade ~ Many Marines are requesting Rifle Propelled grenades to augment or replace the M203. The M203 doesn’t have an adequate range capability. (note: this desire stems from the fact that the most effective weapon employed against coalition forces was the RPG)."
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 11:21:26 PM EDT
BTW, there was an article in Marine Corps Gazette a month or two ago on M203 vs. rifle grenade.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 1:52:01 AM EDT
There is a great deal of confusion between RPG and rifle grenade, most of it caused by the media. An actual rifle grenade, that fits on the end of a rifle, only has about half the range and the same explosive force of the M203. This was the reason for the invention of the 40mm in the first place, to get longer range over the rifle grenades that were then in use. Over the same range the 40mm will have greater accuracy. Even today rifle grenades are used by many nations, but most of them have an effective range of only about 100M or so. There have been R&D programs that show promise, but The USMC already IS using a version of the RPG. The SMAW is based on an Israeli weapon that's based on the RPG-7, so the Marines already have a weapon that is basically the same as the RPG, only better. While those Marines are expressing a valid concern, the rifle grenade isn't the solution for this problem. Ross
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:31:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 9:57:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By captainpooby: The higher ups will mandate its use and soldiers will die bcause its not ready or its niche/purpose is ill defined. I'll bet you a nickel. It will be a very effective weapon when its perfected and when they figure the right way to deploy it. Perhaps like a SAW. Now there's an idea. Lose the 556 part of it and deploy it as a squad "special weapon".
View Quote
Yeah, I agree with this, and I think dropping the carbine portion of it would be wise as well. Or hell leave it on for the soldier using it whatever. I just think every combat soldier carrying one of these would defeat it's paticular uniqueness. Using rifle and machine gun fire to "herd" enemy forces so the "mini grenade" xm29 can tear em up. Used like a saw in that only certain soldiers hump em. Let the SAW work it's magic and the XM it's magic. Two different uses on goal!
Top Top