kato13
01-21-2010, 09:35 PM
shrike6 01-14-2004, 05:01 PM http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTWEAP.HTM
********************
TiggerCCW UK 01-14-2004, 05:48 PM I have heard a rumour that the British Army are planning on replacing the L85A2 with the G36 as well. Its meant to be a far superior weapon, although that wouldn't be hard! Bring back the SLR/L1A1.
********************
TR 01-14-2004, 08:40 PM For what it's worth I don't think the US will replace the M-16A2/M-4 series with the XM-8. We seem to be heading into another phase of Advanced Infantry Weapons Testing as we have seen with the ACR program in the 80's, the SPIW in the 60's and so forth.
They don't seem to believe that the M-16 and 5.56 round are effective... anyone who doubts this look for info out there on the 6.8mm cartridge that is being touted as the new cartrodge of the US Army.
The basic economics of this all is what gets lost in the stories of new designs... cost per unit times thousands and thousands of M-16's is immense. Not to mention all our allies who we have sold the M-16 to since the 1960's.
My two cents anyhow
TR
********************
dawg180 01-15-2004, 12:43 PM My guess is that after millions in R&D they will end up adopting a 66.8x43mm cal or 6.5mm grendel cal upper to mate to the existing M16 lowers, probably on a more limited issue to "specialized" troops like Delta force, maybe Rangers, etc. or even just end up switching over to 75 grain 5.56mm ammunition to improve the performance at range of the M4/M16.
The XM8 is a way to try and keep the (failed) OICW program alive. The problem is the rifle only has a 12" barrel, making the ballistic terminal effects of the 5.56mm round very poor (fragmentation with the SS109 round can only occur at 25-50 meters or less).
There is a reason the XM177 was replaced by the M4 carbine, and that is it- anything less than a 16" barrel with 5.56x45mm and the terminal performance begins to suffer dramatically, and the muzzle flash is BIG. IMHO, IF the XM8 switches to a caliber other that 5.56mm, you MIGHT see it replace the M16/M4 series. Otherwise, it doesn't improve any upon the fundamental probelm with the M16/M4, the 5.56mm round terminal performance at range.
If they were smart, they would have just dumped the rifle portion of the OICW and worked on getting the grenade launcher to work. an 8-10 lb semiauto weapon that can launch 6-10 rounds of 20mm ammo that detonate to take out concealed targets at upwards of 600-800 meters, hell yeah! Just issue the grenadier a sidearm and call it a day! :D
My 2 cents!
Dawg
********************
TR 01-15-2004, 06:19 PM Yeah I agree the 6.8mm will probably go to the Elite Force before it will the standard units.
I agree with the comments about the OICW, the ideas of the grenade launcher portion were original and unique. But mating it to the ultra short barrel is a bad idea as ranges are going to reduced and as you pointed out of course the ballistic capabilities will be far less.
I think the other reason the CAR-15/XM-177 was changed over to the M-4 was also to be able to find a way to mount an effective underbarrel grenade launcher to it.
Definately they should be looking towards improving the 5.56 round, the 75 grain round for example isa step in the right direction.
As far as the grenade launcher only idea from the OICW, well their working on that too.
Check out the pics:
https://peosoldier.army.mil/program_images/xm25.jpg
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2003-10-27/28/3_27-28-423-709_20031027101850.jpg
Until Later
TR
********************
Webstral 01-18-2004, 04:47 PM The more I read about the 5.56N round, the more it seems like the round gets a bad rap. I wish I had saved more of the material I've been reading lately. I don't remember who was running the tests, but it was discovered that deflection of the 5.56N round in brush was less than had been previously supposed. There were some other favorable results as well. I'm going to have to look through my material and see what I can find.
I don't think the Army really wants a more lethal round, although not everybody in the Army may appreciate that fact. In WW2, the Germans switched away from the .308 because it was TOO powerful. Recoil was hard on the rifleman, but more importantly the round was killing the enemy. The 7.62x39mm round is a superior military round because it causes wounds that are more like wounds caused by handgun rounds than by rifle rounds. In other words, the target has a tendency to be wounded rather than killed outright. A wounded enemy does far more for our side than a dead enemy. The 5.56N is a pretty lethal round already. I question whether an improvement is really needed.
I rather suspect that the potential windfall for military contractors is driving the train for a new rifle with a new round. Think of all the money that must be spent to bring a new rifle into the US military! Think about the business for the districts of a few well-placed members of Congress. The US military was forced to replace the M1911 not because there was anything wrong with the M1911 or because there was any compelling need to upgrade the sidearms of the services. (How many handgun rounds do you guys suppose were fired in anger in the two wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan? 1,000? Less?) The M1911 was replaced because the services already had all the handguns they required. A few influential members of Congress basically told the services they were going to buy a new handgun; i.e., spend some money in someone's district. (I can't remember where the M9 Baretta is manufactured under license in the States off the top of my head.)
Ultimately, therefore, the services may be forced to purchase a new rifle due to politics. Not everybody's district manufactures F-22s, but a rifle factory can be set up almost anywhere. Deals get made, and before you know it the Congressperson whose district benefitted from the purchase of an additional 100 unnecessary F-22s supports another Congressperson who is pushing for a new rifle that (surprise!) will be manufactured in his dictrict.
Go representative democracy!
Webstral
********************
TR 01-18-2004, 08:35 PM I believe your thinking of Beretta USA's plant in Accokeek, MD...
Sure there is some issues about the companies and where the manufacturing will be done... however nothing is ever quite so simple unfortunatly.
The military has always had this inferiority complex about it's weapons. We have always been testing new designs despite spending countless millions on the exsisting designs. Right after World War II the US Government held a series of tests to potentially replace the Colt M-1911A1... The weapons tested were the S&W Model 39, the Colt Commander, a modified Inglis Hi Power, a FN Hi Power and the T3 all chambered in 9mm Parabellum. So it was an idea that had been around for awhile to be compatable with our new NATO allies at the time and all be using 9mm Parabellum round.
It annoys me somewhat that they always seem to be looking at the current design as inferior and needing to be replaced. Some weapons (and rounds) have been proven in combat but yet the belief is there is something better and if we can find and design it everyone will beat a path to our door to buy it. The question that is always never asked is how much money do we waste in these tests to develop weapons which MAY or MAY NOT be developed.
I can name a litnany of weapons which were designed for these purposes, the Advanced Combat Rifle tests in the 1980's with designs from AAI, Colt, H&K and Steyr... The Future Rifle Series of weapons from the 1970's with designs such as AAI's Serial Bullet Rifle... the 6x45mm Light Machine Gun designs during the 1970's with designs from Maremont Corporation, Phico Ford, Rock Island Arsenal and the list goes on...
Until Later
TR
********************
********************
TiggerCCW UK 01-14-2004, 05:48 PM I have heard a rumour that the British Army are planning on replacing the L85A2 with the G36 as well. Its meant to be a far superior weapon, although that wouldn't be hard! Bring back the SLR/L1A1.
********************
TR 01-14-2004, 08:40 PM For what it's worth I don't think the US will replace the M-16A2/M-4 series with the XM-8. We seem to be heading into another phase of Advanced Infantry Weapons Testing as we have seen with the ACR program in the 80's, the SPIW in the 60's and so forth.
They don't seem to believe that the M-16 and 5.56 round are effective... anyone who doubts this look for info out there on the 6.8mm cartridge that is being touted as the new cartrodge of the US Army.
The basic economics of this all is what gets lost in the stories of new designs... cost per unit times thousands and thousands of M-16's is immense. Not to mention all our allies who we have sold the M-16 to since the 1960's.
My two cents anyhow
TR
********************
dawg180 01-15-2004, 12:43 PM My guess is that after millions in R&D they will end up adopting a 66.8x43mm cal or 6.5mm grendel cal upper to mate to the existing M16 lowers, probably on a more limited issue to "specialized" troops like Delta force, maybe Rangers, etc. or even just end up switching over to 75 grain 5.56mm ammunition to improve the performance at range of the M4/M16.
The XM8 is a way to try and keep the (failed) OICW program alive. The problem is the rifle only has a 12" barrel, making the ballistic terminal effects of the 5.56mm round very poor (fragmentation with the SS109 round can only occur at 25-50 meters or less).
There is a reason the XM177 was replaced by the M4 carbine, and that is it- anything less than a 16" barrel with 5.56x45mm and the terminal performance begins to suffer dramatically, and the muzzle flash is BIG. IMHO, IF the XM8 switches to a caliber other that 5.56mm, you MIGHT see it replace the M16/M4 series. Otherwise, it doesn't improve any upon the fundamental probelm with the M16/M4, the 5.56mm round terminal performance at range.
If they were smart, they would have just dumped the rifle portion of the OICW and worked on getting the grenade launcher to work. an 8-10 lb semiauto weapon that can launch 6-10 rounds of 20mm ammo that detonate to take out concealed targets at upwards of 600-800 meters, hell yeah! Just issue the grenadier a sidearm and call it a day! :D
My 2 cents!
Dawg
********************
TR 01-15-2004, 06:19 PM Yeah I agree the 6.8mm will probably go to the Elite Force before it will the standard units.
I agree with the comments about the OICW, the ideas of the grenade launcher portion were original and unique. But mating it to the ultra short barrel is a bad idea as ranges are going to reduced and as you pointed out of course the ballistic capabilities will be far less.
I think the other reason the CAR-15/XM-177 was changed over to the M-4 was also to be able to find a way to mount an effective underbarrel grenade launcher to it.
Definately they should be looking towards improving the 5.56 round, the 75 grain round for example isa step in the right direction.
As far as the grenade launcher only idea from the OICW, well their working on that too.
Check out the pics:
https://peosoldier.army.mil/program_images/xm25.jpg
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2003-10-27/28/3_27-28-423-709_20031027101850.jpg
Until Later
TR
********************
Webstral 01-18-2004, 04:47 PM The more I read about the 5.56N round, the more it seems like the round gets a bad rap. I wish I had saved more of the material I've been reading lately. I don't remember who was running the tests, but it was discovered that deflection of the 5.56N round in brush was less than had been previously supposed. There were some other favorable results as well. I'm going to have to look through my material and see what I can find.
I don't think the Army really wants a more lethal round, although not everybody in the Army may appreciate that fact. In WW2, the Germans switched away from the .308 because it was TOO powerful. Recoil was hard on the rifleman, but more importantly the round was killing the enemy. The 7.62x39mm round is a superior military round because it causes wounds that are more like wounds caused by handgun rounds than by rifle rounds. In other words, the target has a tendency to be wounded rather than killed outright. A wounded enemy does far more for our side than a dead enemy. The 5.56N is a pretty lethal round already. I question whether an improvement is really needed.
I rather suspect that the potential windfall for military contractors is driving the train for a new rifle with a new round. Think of all the money that must be spent to bring a new rifle into the US military! Think about the business for the districts of a few well-placed members of Congress. The US military was forced to replace the M1911 not because there was anything wrong with the M1911 or because there was any compelling need to upgrade the sidearms of the services. (How many handgun rounds do you guys suppose were fired in anger in the two wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan? 1,000? Less?) The M1911 was replaced because the services already had all the handguns they required. A few influential members of Congress basically told the services they were going to buy a new handgun; i.e., spend some money in someone's district. (I can't remember where the M9 Baretta is manufactured under license in the States off the top of my head.)
Ultimately, therefore, the services may be forced to purchase a new rifle due to politics. Not everybody's district manufactures F-22s, but a rifle factory can be set up almost anywhere. Deals get made, and before you know it the Congressperson whose district benefitted from the purchase of an additional 100 unnecessary F-22s supports another Congressperson who is pushing for a new rifle that (surprise!) will be manufactured in his dictrict.
Go representative democracy!
Webstral
********************
TR 01-18-2004, 08:35 PM I believe your thinking of Beretta USA's plant in Accokeek, MD...
Sure there is some issues about the companies and where the manufacturing will be done... however nothing is ever quite so simple unfortunatly.
The military has always had this inferiority complex about it's weapons. We have always been testing new designs despite spending countless millions on the exsisting designs. Right after World War II the US Government held a series of tests to potentially replace the Colt M-1911A1... The weapons tested were the S&W Model 39, the Colt Commander, a modified Inglis Hi Power, a FN Hi Power and the T3 all chambered in 9mm Parabellum. So it was an idea that had been around for awhile to be compatable with our new NATO allies at the time and all be using 9mm Parabellum round.
It annoys me somewhat that they always seem to be looking at the current design as inferior and needing to be replaced. Some weapons (and rounds) have been proven in combat but yet the belief is there is something better and if we can find and design it everyone will beat a path to our door to buy it. The question that is always never asked is how much money do we waste in these tests to develop weapons which MAY or MAY NOT be developed.
I can name a litnany of weapons which were designed for these purposes, the Advanced Combat Rifle tests in the 1980's with designs from AAI, Colt, H&K and Steyr... The Future Rifle Series of weapons from the 1970's with designs such as AAI's Serial Bullet Rifle... the 6x45mm Light Machine Gun designs during the 1970's with designs from Maremont Corporation, Phico Ford, Rock Island Arsenal and the list goes on...
Until Later
TR
********************