User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 2:53:31 PM EDT
[#1]
i missed the episode but if its the rifle with the 20mm grenade launcher on the bottom, its still .223.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Was it this?
[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:02:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Was this?
[url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/m29.html[/url] [img]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/images/oicw_soldier.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.hkpro.com/oicwstripped.jpg[/img] 10 inch barrel... how neat. Edited to add, what a piece of SHIT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:05:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Is there a need for a new rifle?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:10:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Is there a need for a new rifle? NOPE! But maybe a new grenade launching system. What they should have done was made a nice compact 20mm GLS system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:11:06 PM EDT
[#6]
is there need for a big bulky rifle like that?
if it aint broke dont fix it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:13:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Was it the f2000?
[img]www.37mm.com/lotw/images/f2000_grenade.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:15:01 PM EDT
[#8]
That's VERY similar guy's .Although i think it's been slimmed down some,plus the optic is different.He said last night it currently weigh's in at 16 to 18 # but by field time it should come in at 12-14#.Now i,m confused about a few thing's here.A infantry rifle heavier than the m.14.Plus how are they getting the 223 to be accurate atiooo yrds.With a 10 inch barrell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:20:06 PM EDT
[#9]
I think if they could somehow integrate the OICW's 20mm grenade launcher with the M-16 (of course in a smaller package and mounted under the M-16 handguard) you'd have all the battle rifle you'd need for the next 40 years. Maybe replace the M203 with the 20mm and give it a two or three round mag. Mid-air bursting grendades kick serious ass. I don't believe in the thinking that electronic components on a firearm will only be a recipe for trouble. Look at all the electronics on today's fighter jets. You're telling me a old P-51 is more reliable and effective than an F-15? Electronic components on small arms will = better killing efficiency in future battles. And as long as the rifle can still work from a traditional stand point if the electronics fail then I don't see the harm in it. Of course, we will be paying more in tax dollars to support this technology. I believe at this current point in time the OICW isn't needed but someday there will be a good use for it or something like it on the battle field. Sorry to hi-jack.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 3:41:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Was this? [url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/m29.html[/url] [url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/images/oicw_soldier.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.hkpro.com/oicwstripped.jpg[/url] 10 inch barrel... how neat. Edited to add, what a piece of SHIT. Son of a bitch. That was 3K posts [:P] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:20:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Congrats Gloftoe........[beer]
I think it is called the XM29(military desig.) I think dropping the carbine aspect and sticking with the 20mm "smart" round idea might be the way to go on this one. Hmmmmmmm, short ass carbine 5.56mm bbl. and bulky as hell. If it were used like a SAW(in a squad augmented way) then they may be on too something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:32:21 PM EDT
[#12]
If it is this:
[img]http://web.axelero.hu/szlejer2/xm/xm1.jpg[/img] Don't go getting all excitied, thats only a airsoft kit. Some kid in Japan used two airsoft kits making the damn thing. Its non-firing and is what they hope that they can make it into. IMO, just stick with the M16/M4 with M203's. All those electronic equipment will take just as much time as looking down a leaf sight to launch a 40mm HE round. Sure its suppose to be more accurate, but isn't that what the training is for? It also need a battery to run all the equipment that is housed in the buttstock. Also it weights more than just a M4 Carbine + a M203. They just say that it will weight less when you add on the leaf sights, thermal weapons sight, optics, etc. If it ain't broke don't fix it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:39:19 PM EDT
[#13]
The 20mm is out, not viable as it is bad enough with limited leathiality in the 40 mm. The 20mm only has 25% bursting/killing ability of the 40mm, as the electronics take up half of the 20mm. It was a dismal failiar at trials, one even blew up and injured the test shooters. The weapon felt like holding three base ball bats at the same time and wt. is way over 20 lbs. Since this piece of money eating crap weapon was a failure, the promoters have removed the launcher and fiddled a little and claim it is a new weapon they now call the M8. Another piece of crap that is waisting tax payer money, and that the troops keep saying no to.
Bad shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:54:01 PM EDT
[#14]
When I was in the Army, I had a DoD civ friend who got to participate in some testing of one of the first OICW prototypes out here at McGregor range in Ft. Bliss, TX. Word on the street was that the techs couldn't get the 20mm grenades to stop detonating each other during the semi-auto cycling process. I wish I had more info about that. Wouldn't that be a great battlefield tool, "25% lethality on the bad guy, 100% lethality on the operator".[bd]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:56:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Did you guys notice...they called it a 30 round CLIP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 6:39:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Wait! You mean this is for OUR troops??? I thought we were building this to give to the enemy....
[}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 8:08:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Let me start by saying that I'm not in a position to make an evaluation on that thing.
With that out of the way, let me also say that people had similar negative comments about the M16 when it was first introduced. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but it's still in development. Give it some time, let's see the finished product, and hope they work out the bugs. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but it doesn't seem like it would work well in the field. But hey, if they can get it to work well I'm all for it. Steve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 8:15:37 PM EDT
[#18]
I like the pic from Gloftoe. The guy is using the mag for a forward grip. The damn gun is big enough you could use it for cover.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 8:25:06 PM EDT
[#19]
I'm just happy that the setup includes a bayonet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 10:27:40 PM EDT
[#20]
10-inch barrel? Well, it does cut down on the acreage needed for ranges, if the weapon has an effective range of 100yds.
A "fire-control computer"? For what? It's a RIFLE. I can hear 'em, now: "Gee, since all the rest of their equipment has been made as lightweight as possible, let's design a rifle that makes up for all that saved weight, and then some. Not only that, but as stated earlier, let's make it big enough for him to hide behind, while he calls in the air strike (which he'll need, because that fucked-up "fire control computer" just went tits-up when he had to crawl through the mud to get to his position). While we're on a roll, let's go ahead and shit-can everything we ever learned about ergonomics, too." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2003 10:54:29 PM EDT
[#21]
M855's fragmentation range from a 10" barrel is 5 yards at best, and in most cases (due to bullet construction variations) won't fragment at contact distance. But no one cares, because they believe that all the fighting will be done with the (WEAK) 20mm grenades. Just how many of those do you think soldiers will be issued for training, and for the field? This system is a nightmare.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 6:55:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Don't worry...it's WAY too heavy to meet SOCCOM specs for the Land Warrior System.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 7:37:16 AM EDT
[#23]
At 12-14 lbs (and that's what they are HOPING for) it's a pig. Way too heavy for general issue. At best, I see this system as a special weapon. First, the 20mm round negates one of the best attributes of the 5.56... Lighter ammo = more ammo. If everyone has to carry both types of rounds, it greatly complicates logistics. With a 10" barrel, the 5.56 is reduced to a close range defensive weapon. They'll need a squad around them for protection. If issued as a special weapon, I can see where it might be useful... As a replacement for the general issue M16? I see nothing so far that would justify such a move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 8:58:13 AM EDT
[#24]
1. Weapon is way too heavy. Think about everyone toting an M60E3 and you get the idea.
2. Day-Glo + and - controls have to be taken care of. Where I am from we call little splotches of bright color sniper bait. 3. Weapon is ungainly as hell 4. 5.56 bbl is way too short. 5. 20mm round would be nice if you could hook it into a dedicated belt fed weapon like the M19 that was portable by a single soldier and didn't have all that happy electronic horse sh*t on it. 6. Do we really need a smart grenade? Soldiers have been killing the enemy pretty effectively with the standard old dumb blow-everything up grenade. The test they showed was pretty puny performance. A 40mm grenade launced into that same room would have been more effective. 7. Bullpup weapons suck. Dual bullpups suck worse. 8. shouldn't the heavier aparatus be UNDER the lighter one? All in all I think it is a nice idea, but one that will fall short. Make the 20mm into a portable belt fed (doesn't blow up) and cram the shell with explosives, and you have one doosy of a bad time for the enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 10:10:54 AM EDT
[#25]
I think I'll stick with the Marine Corps M-16A4. I'm sure that the OICW is a great weapon, but not near as user-friendly or versatile as the M-16/M4. With the OICW, what you see is what you get. On the other hand, the M-16A4 comes standard with the new KAC RAS system designed specifically for the A4, which means you can customize the A4 for the type of battle you will engage. Also, is the OICW left-hand shooter-friendly? If it's like most bullpup designs then it is probably not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 10:24:29 AM EDT
[#26]
John_Wayne777,
There is actually a weapon in development that uses similar grenades, only in 25mm. It is called the OCSW (Objective Crew Served Weapon) and is slated to replace (more likely supplement) the Mk19 and the M2HB around 2010. System weight should be about 10-12 kg plus a tripod and belts of ammo (I think it was something like 7 kg per 75 round belt). I think this would be a little more realistic than someone lugging around the OICW- hopefully the OICW will work out the bugs and the OCSW will get into service. Also, the OICW is slated to be a replacement for the M203- not every grunt is getting one, especially at a price tag of something like $12,000 per unit plus ammo! The idea behind 20mm vs. 40mm is that with all the fancy electronics you can get the shell within a meter of your target at which point it airbursts. Conceptually, it means less weight and more accuracy, plus the ability to pop a guy in a foxhole from overhead. If it will actaully work is anyones guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 10:48:49 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: The 20mm is out, not viable as it is bad enough with limited leathiality in the 40 mm. The 20mm only has 25% bursting/killing ability of the 40mm, as the electronics take up half of the 20mm. It was a dismal failiar at trials, one even blew up and injured the test shooters. The weapon felt like holding three base ball bats at the same time and wt. is way over 20 lbs. Since this piece of money eating crap weapon was a failure, the promoters have removed the launcher and fiddled a little and claim it is a new weapon they now call the M8. Another piece of crap that is waisting tax payer money, and that the troops keep saying no to. Bad shootin, Jack James Sullivan predicted this in an interviw a few years back when they pulled funding from the SAMP 2000 OISW, which he was working on. He stated that the density of the 20 mm round would have to exceed that of any currently known material (hyperbole?) to equal the 40 mm. ([b][i]SAR[/i][/b], Feb. '01). Q: Why waste $$$ on the XM8 when it already exists in the form of the G36, if that's all they really want? A: Pork. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 10:58:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Saw a mainstream news article recently where they commented that 20mm ammo for the Army's new abortion was $75 per round.
Even if the ammo was 1/4 of that, you're still talking about a ridiculous amount of money. What that translates into is that troops issued such a weapon will inevitably suffer from a lack of live fire practice. Because of the way the airburst 20mm round works (it's sort of a 'smart' round, unlike a 40mm), even practice ammo for it will be expensive. What they need to do is lighten the weapon up a bit by ditching the 5.56mm sub weapon and just have a man per squad as the dedicated 20mm gunner. Too bad they just don't resurrect the highly effective but never fielded 57mm RAG (ring airfoil grenade). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2003 1:02:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Hey livefire.THAT was some funny sh*t my friend.Man i cracked up,Thanx for the laugh. (wait,you mean this is for our troop's).
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
