http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htweap.htm

quote:WEAPONS OF THE WORLD: Two New Rifles for US Troops



July 29, 2003: The U.S. Army's new M-29 rifle (actually, XM-29, to denote a weapon in development) is getting a divorce. The 18 pound weapon, that combines a 20mm grenade launcher (that fires computer controlled shells) and 5.56mm assault rifle, was supposed to be engineered to get its weight down to 14 pounds before going to the troops. But it looks like that isn't going to happen. There's just no way for the weapon to lose that much weight and still be rugged enough for troop use.



"Plan B" is moving ahead, with a two new weapons, the M-8 (orXM-8) 5.56mm Assault Rifle and the M-25 (or XM-25) 25mm grenade launcher, being developed. The M-8 is a modular weapon, taking three different barrels for different functions. Most M-8s would look similar to the current M-4, with a shorter barrel than the M-16. There would be a longer barrel for sharpshooters and snipers (longer than the M-16 barrel) and a heavy barrel, of about the same length as the M-16, for the M-8 when used as a light machine-gun. There would also be a "commando" version with an even shorter barrel and no butt stock, for use in tight spaces, and for armored vehicle crews. For all but the commando version, the barrels can be changed by the unit armorer (with some special tools.) Instead of the different optical systems currently available for the M-4/M-16, the M-8 would have one system combining a red dot reticule, a backup sight that requires no power, an infrared pointer, an infrared illuminator and a visible pointer. The multipurpose optical system will be popular with the troops, since they will only have to zero one optical system, but be able to use all of them. There would also be parts available to quickly convert M-8s to fire AK-47 ammo (some M-16s are already available with that modification.) Special Forces troops often use this type of weapon, when operating in areas with lots of AK-47 ammo. The M-8 will not have the three round burst fire mode M-16s have had since the 1980s. The mechanism that allowed the three round burst has caused reliability problems, and most officers now agree that well trained troops can handle using full auto fire (and any problems with running out of ammo.)



The M-8 would also have a 40mm grenade launcher add-on, although this is expected to be replaced by the M-25 25mm grenade launcher. The M-25 would use the 20mm computer controlled shell technology that has worked so well with the M-29. But the M-25 would use a larger, and more powerful, 25mm shell and the entire weapon would weigh about 12 pounds (with a five round magazine.) But there are plans to provide a ten round magazine as well, one that would allow quickly switching between the long range explosive round and a short range shotgun type round. The M-25 is expected to be ready for field tests by 2005, and the M-8 in late 2003.

While the M-29 has not officially been killed, it looks like the weight, and awkward shape of the over and under weapon, will do it in. The M-29s "smart shell" technology has been quite successful in field tests, but feedback from the troops indicates that one of two of these weapons per squad would be enough. Unless, of course, the first use of the "smart shell" in combat proves more successful than anticipated. The "smart shell" approach is one of the few really new infantry weapons to appear in nearly half a century and no one knows how well it will do until some troops get to use it in combat. This is crucial for weapon like this, that uses a lot of new technology and a new "interface" (the special electronic sight and finger operated controls for the gunner to let the computer controlled shell know what it's supposed to do.)

There's also some doubt about how lethal the current 20mm round will be. Tests indicate that the 3.25 ounce 20mm shell peppers the target dummies with a lot of fragments, but until you use it on real, live, and especially hostile, enemy troops, you won't really be sure if the 20mm shell exploding over the enemy fighters will knock them out of action, or just piss them off. The 25mm shell could deliver about 50 percent more fragments. Currently, the 20mm smart shell and 1960s era 40mm shell are expected inflict injuries up to about 16 feet from the bursting shell. But the larger the shell, the more fragments are in play, and the more damage you are doing to anyone within range. But the most compelling reason for going with the 25mm shell is that the M-307 (or XM-307) heavy machine-gun, using the same "smart shell" technology as the M-29 is also in development. No point in having two sizes of smart shells if you no longer have a major weight problem (as with the M-29.)



For some information about the OICW, the weapons system being adandoned, check out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm

They said that M29 cost $16,000.

You remember the Vietnam stories of m16 malfunctions, I could only image what might malfunction on that out in the real world.

quote:Originally posted by dangerousdude:

You remember the Vietnam stories of m16 malfunctions, I could only image what might malfunction on that out in the real world.

Just about everything and anything.

So what? Are they going to sell their remaining stock on ebay or something?....

:D

quote:Originally posted by Bullwinkle8357:

So what? Are they going to sell their remaining stock on ebay or something?....



I heard they are going to equip the new Iraqi military with them.

I don't like the OICW either. It looks like it would be unweildy and it's pretty heavy. Also looks way way too complex. The barrell for the 5.56 gun on it was only something like 10 inches. I like the idea of the stand alone 25 mm unit. I don't see how this XM-8 is any better than the M-16.

Yeah, like the man said, one or two per squad would do just fine, and wouldn't be nearly so expensive. And 18 pounds is kind of a lot to lug around day after day, especially with your other gear.

EDIT: 1775 posts. Suck it, Britain!

[This message has been edited by Armed&Angry (edited 07-31-2003).]

The OICW is fairly reliable, and the technology seemed to be very promising. But, in my opinion, it has shitty ergonomics, and for a lot of the military its just to new and complex, most of them dont want to get red of their m-4s...

I read that it also needs batteries to operate. Being a former grunt, improved gear, not more fucking weight is what we want.

Here's some Grunt math. Let's see who can answer this. Fully loaded grunt minus 10-15 pounds equals what?

A fast grunt?

quote:Originally posted by Joe Boo:

[B]I read that it also needs batteries to operate.

B]

Yup, with electronic control places in various positions on the gun.