Article

2005-11-02 Science & Technology

OICW-1 Canceled, Door Closes on XM-8 For Now

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-11-02 09:39|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thanks Steve. The OICW, related hardware and ammo would have required an army packmule or two per squad. Finally someone in acquisition came to their senses. Here's a Tavor link.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-02 10:21|| 2005-11-02 10:21|| Front Page Top

#2 One weapon the infantry has long needed is something akin to a telescoping, recoilless fire tube. Start with a bazooka, in concept, but firing what amounts to a small, direct-fire artillery round. Not intended for use against armored vehicles, but against concrete and brick walls, elevated targets behind cover, and recessed doorways.

Rounds are varied for effect: HE, LE, WP, pellet, etc. Don't design the tube to fire thousands of rounds--make it expendable after a few dozen, with "emergency use" up to 100. That will save a ton of weight.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-11-02 10:48|| 2005-11-02 10:48|| Front Page Top

#3 This is another 5.56mm weapon I thought we were going for something with more stopping power like the 6.8mm. Doesn't make sense.

We spend so much GD money on Crusader F-22 and then can't give the grunts on the ground the best weapon avaialble. Somebody field grade in procurement should be shot each month they continue to screw around with this.

Posted by Closing Gravilet3286 2005-11-02 11:18|| 2005-11-02 11:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Start with a bazooka, in concept, but firing what amounts to a small, direct-fire artillery round

Kinda, sorta like an RPG?

Posted by SteveS 2005-11-02 11:31|| 2005-11-02 11:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Murdoc speculates that the cancellation came because OICW was specified as a 5.56mm rifle and the procurement types are considering 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. That would be great, for obvious reasons. If I recall correctly, the OICW RFP was originally suspended so that there could be a grand inter-service meetup on the subject in January 2006. Let's hope sanity prevails.

(I don't see the Tavor happening -- nobody seems to be as enthusiastic about bullpups as they once were.)

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2005-11-02 11:32|| 2005-11-02 11:32|| Front Page Top

#6 i dont see what tavor has that xm-8 or styer hasnt

Posted by Unetch Flinetch3868 2005-11-02 12:26|| 2005-11-02 12:26|| Front Page Top

#7 I think I can grasp the decision process (at least wrt the XM-8) here. TO make a long story short, we've invented better ballistic protection, but it probably won't be long before it becomes really widespread (Russia's already selling knockoff versions of the ceramic, as well as their titanium/carbon composite insert plates).

Why bother spending all that money on XM-8's chambered in 5.56mm when the round itself may be obsolete in another couple years anyway?

(I know I should probably post this on the other thread as well).

Posted by Phil 2005-11-02 12:29|| 2005-11-02 12:29|| Front Page Top

#8 Wasn't the 5.56 proven to be obsolete in the Vietnam War?

Posted by Closing Gravilet3286 2005-11-02 12:55|| 2005-11-02 12:55|| Front Page Top

#9 5.56 has less stoping power than 7.62 but the 5.56 assault rifles are much more precise. When the 5.56 Styer the British one(albeit innitiay unreliable) and other were put to test with rookies soldiers they surpassed veterans results with 7.62 and the whole scale of marksmanship performance had to be changed. Then you have weight. 7.62 rifles weight around 5kg without any gadget like sights and amno weights much more.

Posted by Unetch Flinetch3868 2005-11-02 13:26|| 2005-11-02 13:26|| Front Page Top

#10 No, Closing. Logistics-wise, though, the 6.8x43mm "advantage" is that it will fit in 5.56mm magazines. And re: 7.62x39/51 vs. 5.56x45mm, there's a reason US soldiers have had such high kill ratios, and it's NOT rifle caliber, it's training and gadgets. Lots and LOTS of gadgets. I'd theorize that The Powers That Be (whether the brass or the operators) decided that bigger bullets are only acceptable if they meet the high accuracy standard that Unetch speaks of.

Anonymoose, the Army's bought some hundreds of M72 LAAWs and over 16,000 rounds. Guess what that means. ;)

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-02 13:45|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-02 13:45|| Front Page Top

#11 Thanks to those in the know, but it still seems like stopping power is worth a lot and that was why we were looking to move up to 6.8.

Weren't there the same complaints of hitting guys with the 5.56 2 or 3 times and not knocking them down during the major combat operations in Iraq?

Posted by Closing Gravilet3286 2005-11-02 13:51|| 2005-11-02 13:51|| Front Page Top

#12 SteveS: Well, I would compare it with a LAW, except that a rocket has characteristics that just aren't as good in an urban environment. Soldiers really like the LAW as an anti-sniper weapon in urban combat, but its accuracy is a big problem.

What I'm suggesting is something like a short range recoilless rifle. Not too elaborate, just something you can use to fire about a 35-40mm artillery round. Something with a straight trajectory, with concrete penetrating ability, lightweight tube and ammo. For when a .50 Cal just doesn't have enough goombah.

The biggest drawback I think of is it would be deafeningly loud, and you would almost have to have a face and hand shield.

Its primary use would be to punch through just about anything the enemy would typically hide behind as anti-bullet cover.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-11-02 19:10|| 2005-11-02 19:10|| Front Page Top

#13 IIRC, the original M-16 had a muzzle velocity north of 3200 fps, as opposed to the 7.62, which clocks in at a little over two grand. Force equals mass times velocity, and the higher velocity made up for the smaller mass. Also, while a 7.62 will often pass clean through an adult human, the 5.56 tends to tumble when passing through a target, thus delivering more of its "wallop" to the target. This latter characteristic drove the "human rights community" 'round the bend in the 1960s-70s. (I believe Sweden, in a burst of political correctness, even went so far as to design a 5.56 round and barrel with the specific objective of reducing the tumble effect just so they wouldn't be criticized for adopting 5.56.)

What I think may have happened is that we've cut the barrel of the M-16 down to make the lighter and handier M-4, but in doing so gave up a whole lot of muzzle velocity (i.e., less "wallop") and perhaps also reduced the propensity of the bullet to tumble, thus making it less lethal.

How am I doing here, guys?

Posted by Mike 2005-11-02 19:35|| 2005-11-02 19:35|| Front Page Top

#14 Closing, I know that SOCOM operators may be looking at 6.8 -- or, if the possibilites are true, 7.62x51. FN already has the SOF Combat Assault Rifle, Heavy (SCAR-H) in 7.62x51 and probably 7.62x39 for any AK magazines found, but I've seen a photo and "confirmation" of an H&K "M4-47" called the HK417.

Not that this'll become a frontliners' weapon, of course... M4A1 ergonomics, AK/G36 "tab" mag release, MP5 sights, G3 magazines...

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-02 19:45|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-02 19:45|| Front Page Top

#15 That's a possibility, Mike, but let's not forget that this complaint popped up in Afghanistan; I believe that's what Closing referred to, though Closer said Iraq.

Apparently the reduced wallop was the price paid to get the weapon 5.5 inches shorter + 3 with a collapsed stock, so that it would be handy, i.e. for Humvee riders or those of smaller stature; the latter is my case.

I can personally tell you that the position of the sights and whether you literally shoulder a M4 or "collarbone/chin" it kinda decides the stock position; when handling one I ended up having to extend the stock just to see through a rear-mounted Aimpoint, and the only M4 that felt handy to me was one with a 10.5-inch barrel.

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-02 19:52|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-02 19:52|| Front Page Top

23:53 Ernest Brown
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:09 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:47 Alaska Paul
22:43 Frank G
22:33 Frank G
22:12 trailing wife
22:10 DMFD
22:10 JAB
22:10 Remoteman
22:03 DMFD
22:02 Brett
21:58 trailing wife
21:55 Captain America
21:45 Frank G
21:42 RWV
21:41 OnlySaneAnonymouseLeft
21:35 Foadcnn
21:35 trailing wife