Org Mobile Site
Thread: The XM-29 SABR OICW
Is there a better gun out there than this?
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm
Originally Posted by :
Caliber: 5.56 mm NATO (KE) and 20x85mm (HE)
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt (KE), unknown (HE)
Overall length: 890 mm
Barrel length: 250 mm (KE) 460 mm (HE)
Weight: ca 5.5 kg empty; ca 6.8 kg loaded
Magazine capacity: 20 or 30 rounds box (KE) and 6 rounds box (HE)
The history of the one of the most ambitious projects in the history of small arms, known as the OICW, or the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, began late in the 1986, when the US Army Infantry School at Ft. Benning published a military paper, named "Small Arms System 2000" (SAS-2000). Despite the current trends towards the caseless and fleschette ammunition and appropriate weapons, researched and developed under the ACR program (see HK G11 and Steyr ACR entries for some details), this paper stated that the conventional small arms already reached its technological peak, and the only way to increase the hit probability in the small arms is to introduce a weapon that will fire explosive and fragmentation warheads, combined with the smart fusing and sighting / aiming technologies. While the most small arms research during the late 1980s in the USA was conducted under the ACR program, the idea first developed in the SAS-2000 was supported by another US military paper, published in 1989 by the US Army TRADOC (Training & Doctrine) center. This paper, called "The Small Arms Master Plan" (SAMP), requested for a family of infantry "Objective" weapons, namely the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), Objective Personal Defense Weapon (OPDW), and the Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW). The SAMP stated that such weapons must utilize the latest developments in computers and visual technologies, as well as in the small arms, and combine both high explosive warheads and traditional bullets fire capabilities in a single weapon, that should be fielded circa 2000. Of cause, the timelines and most of the weight and cost requirements set in this paper looked unrealistic from the start, but the development of the Objective weapons began in the early 1990s.
During the early stages of research and development in the mid-1990 one out of the two teams was selected as a winner for further development contract. This team is lead by the US based Alliant Techsystems corporation (ATK), with the Heckler-Koch (Germany), Brashear and the Omega companies (both of USA) as the other team members. The ATK is responsible for system integration, and also develops the 20mm Air Burst munitions; HK is responsible for both the 5.56mm rifle and the 20mm grenade launcher; Brashear works on the sighting equipment and Omega provides the training means. The resulting weapon was type-classified by the US Army as the XM-29 circa 2002, and is scheduled to enter the service during the year 2008 in limited numbers. It will be then consequently upgraded with the new technologies then available. Present plans for fielding the M-29 are to issue four units per one infantry squad of 9 men. Early in the 2002 the XM-29 test weapons were successfully tested with the newest 20mm HEAB (High Explosive Air Bursting) munitions, which will be a major "kill factor" for the M-29 weapon. At the same time the "kinetic energy" part of the XM-29 was type-classified as the XM-8 light rifle, and, in the near future, could possibly replace the current Colt M4 carbines as a standalone compact conventional small arms.
XM29 status update (September 2005): following the increase of caliber of OICW grenade launcher component from 20 to 25mm, in 2004 it has been decided to split the OICW system into two separate weapons, the 5.56mm XM8 modular assault rifle (OICW Increment 1), and the 25mm XM25 airburst assault weapon / grenade launcher (OICW Increment 2). Development of the complete XM29 (OICW Increment 3) system has been shelved, and will be resumed in the future only if all current problems with OICW Block 1 rifle component are solved, and weight constraints of entire system are met.
XM-29 OICW Description.
The XM-29 is a combination weapon, which has the 20mm semi-automatic, magazine fed grenade launcher as its primary part, and the 5.56mm compact assault rifle as its secondary part. Both parts are assembled into the single one-man portable unit, with the addition of the target acquisition / fire control system (TA/FCS), which is an essential part of the whole system. The XM-29 will become an integral part of the future Land Warrior system, capable of communicating with the other parts of this system, including the tactical computers and helmet-mounted displays.
The grenade launcher is capable to fire in semi-automatic mode only, and is gas operated. It has a bullpup layout with the detachable box magazine located in the butt of the weapon. The rifled barrel is used to launch the 20mm grenades up to the 1000 meters range with good accuracy. In the standard configuration most of the fire controls for the grenade launcher part are located on the rifle part, including the single trigger for both firing modules. It is quite possible, however, that the separate stock will be developed for the grenade launcher part, so it will be possible to use it without the rifle part attached. The launcher has the provisions for the TA/FCS system to be mounted on its top, and the appropriate interfaces, so the data provided from the TA/FCS can be used to program the 20mm grenade fuses. These fuses, used for the 20mm HEAB ammunition, has multiple mode of detonation, including the direct impact mode and the Air Burst mode. In the latter mode the fuse is pre-programmed to explode the warhead at the preset range, which is calculated during the flight by counting the number of the grenade rotations. This allows do defeat targets without the direct impact, using the blast and fragmentation effect of the high explosive warhead. This is a major advantage over the present small arms, which in most cases require the direct hit on the target to be effective, as it allows for greater aiming errors, and also makes possible to defeat targets in defilade, like the trenches and so. The high explosive warhead also has the advantage of not being dependent on its velocity to be effective, so unlike with the bullets, its effectiveness does not decreased with the increase of range. The disadvantages of this system is the extreme complexity of the electronic fuses, which results in the high price of a single round of ammunition. The present plans stated that the one HEAB round must cost about US $25, and it is still to be seen which will be an actual price when the M29 system will be fielded. It is interesting that the present design of the HEAB ammunition actually has two small HE warheads at the front and at the rear of the projectile, with the electronic fuse module located between them. While the HEAB is considered a primary round for the 20mm grenade launcher, it is entirely possible do develop a low cost, direct hit only anti-armour 20mm round with Shaped Charge warhead, which will be effective against lightly armored vehicles (APC, MICV and alike) and various hardened targets.
The rifle, or "kinetic energy" part of the XM-29 system, on the other hand, is a fairy conventional, short-barreled assault rifle, derived from the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle. The basic "rifle" part of the XM-29 has no buttstock and no own sights, and thus can be used separately from the whole system only as emergency, personal defense weapon. While being mounted to the whole system, it can be used for a close quarters work, both defensive or offensive (the 20mm grenade launcher has it minimum range of fire of about 50-100 meters), or as an low-cost, low intensity medium range offensive weapon. Most of the XM-29 system controls are built into the "rifle" part, around the trigger guard.
The target acquisition / fire control system (TA/FCS) is the most expensive and complicated unit of the whole system, since it must combine day and night vision capabilities, laser rangefinding unit, ballistic computer and various interfaces to the grenade launcher and external systems. It is used to find the targets in any light and weather conditions, determine the range to the target, calculate and display the aiming data, so the grenade or bullet could be fired to the desired point of impact, and then supply the data to the grenade launcher, so the range could be preset into the grenade fuse. In the case of damage to the TA/FCS the 20mm grenade launcher still can be used in the direct impact mode, as well as the rifle part of the system.
The current research and testing showed that the XM-29 can be up to 500% more effective than the present small arms, but it is still to be seen if all the requirements will be met in the resulting system, especially regarding to the reliability of electronic components, weight, and, at last but not at least, the unit price.
I saw this on Mail Call the other night. What a weapon.Caliber: 5.56 mm NATO (KE) and 20x85mm (HE)
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt (KE), unknown (HE)
Overall length: 890 mm
Barrel length: 250 mm (KE) 460 mm (HE)
Weight: ca 5.5 kg empty; ca 6.8 kg loaded
Magazine capacity: 20 or 30 rounds box (KE) and 6 rounds box (HE)
The history of the one of the most ambitious projects in the history of small arms, known as the OICW, or the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, began late in the 1986, when the US Army Infantry School at Ft. Benning published a military paper, named "Small Arms System 2000" (SAS-2000). Despite the current trends towards the caseless and fleschette ammunition and appropriate weapons, researched and developed under the ACR program (see HK G11 and Steyr ACR entries for some details), this paper stated that the conventional small arms already reached its technological peak, and the only way to increase the hit probability in the small arms is to introduce a weapon that will fire explosive and fragmentation warheads, combined with the smart fusing and sighting / aiming technologies. While the most small arms research during the late 1980s in the USA was conducted under the ACR program, the idea first developed in the SAS-2000 was supported by another US military paper, published in 1989 by the US Army TRADOC (Training & Doctrine) center. This paper, called "The Small Arms Master Plan" (SAMP), requested for a family of infantry "Objective" weapons, namely the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), Objective Personal Defense Weapon (OPDW), and the Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW). The SAMP stated that such weapons must utilize the latest developments in computers and visual technologies, as well as in the small arms, and combine both high explosive warheads and traditional bullets fire capabilities in a single weapon, that should be fielded circa 2000. Of cause, the timelines and most of the weight and cost requirements set in this paper looked unrealistic from the start, but the development of the Objective weapons began in the early 1990s.
During the early stages of research and development in the mid-1990 one out of the two teams was selected as a winner for further development contract. This team is lead by the US based Alliant Techsystems corporation (ATK), with the Heckler-Koch (Germany), Brashear and the Omega companies (both of USA) as the other team members. The ATK is responsible for system integration, and also develops the 20mm Air Burst munitions; HK is responsible for both the 5.56mm rifle and the 20mm grenade launcher; Brashear works on the sighting equipment and Omega provides the training means. The resulting weapon was type-classified by the US Army as the XM-29 circa 2002, and is scheduled to enter the service during the year 2008 in limited numbers. It will be then consequently upgraded with the new technologies then available. Present plans for fielding the M-29 are to issue four units per one infantry squad of 9 men. Early in the 2002 the XM-29 test weapons were successfully tested with the newest 20mm HEAB (High Explosive Air Bursting) munitions, which will be a major "kill factor" for the M-29 weapon. At the same time the "kinetic energy" part of the XM-29 was type-classified as the XM-8 light rifle, and, in the near future, could possibly replace the current Colt M4 carbines as a standalone compact conventional small arms.
XM29 status update (September 2005): following the increase of caliber of OICW grenade launcher component from 20 to 25mm, in 2004 it has been decided to split the OICW system into two separate weapons, the 5.56mm XM8 modular assault rifle (OICW Increment 1), and the 25mm XM25 airburst assault weapon / grenade launcher (OICW Increment 2). Development of the complete XM29 (OICW Increment 3) system has been shelved, and will be resumed in the future only if all current problems with OICW Block 1 rifle component are solved, and weight constraints of entire system are met.
XM-29 OICW Description.
The XM-29 is a combination weapon, which has the 20mm semi-automatic, magazine fed grenade launcher as its primary part, and the 5.56mm compact assault rifle as its secondary part. Both parts are assembled into the single one-man portable unit, with the addition of the target acquisition / fire control system (TA/FCS), which is an essential part of the whole system. The XM-29 will become an integral part of the future Land Warrior system, capable of communicating with the other parts of this system, including the tactical computers and helmet-mounted displays.
The grenade launcher is capable to fire in semi-automatic mode only, and is gas operated. It has a bullpup layout with the detachable box magazine located in the butt of the weapon. The rifled barrel is used to launch the 20mm grenades up to the 1000 meters range with good accuracy. In the standard configuration most of the fire controls for the grenade launcher part are located on the rifle part, including the single trigger for both firing modules. It is quite possible, however, that the separate stock will be developed for the grenade launcher part, so it will be possible to use it without the rifle part attached. The launcher has the provisions for the TA/FCS system to be mounted on its top, and the appropriate interfaces, so the data provided from the TA/FCS can be used to program the 20mm grenade fuses. These fuses, used for the 20mm HEAB ammunition, has multiple mode of detonation, including the direct impact mode and the Air Burst mode. In the latter mode the fuse is pre-programmed to explode the warhead at the preset range, which is calculated during the flight by counting the number of the grenade rotations. This allows do defeat targets without the direct impact, using the blast and fragmentation effect of the high explosive warhead. This is a major advantage over the present small arms, which in most cases require the direct hit on the target to be effective, as it allows for greater aiming errors, and also makes possible to defeat targets in defilade, like the trenches and so. The high explosive warhead also has the advantage of not being dependent on its velocity to be effective, so unlike with the bullets, its effectiveness does not decreased with the increase of range. The disadvantages of this system is the extreme complexity of the electronic fuses, which results in the high price of a single round of ammunition. The present plans stated that the one HEAB round must cost about US $25, and it is still to be seen which will be an actual price when the M29 system will be fielded. It is interesting that the present design of the HEAB ammunition actually has two small HE warheads at the front and at the rear of the projectile, with the electronic fuse module located between them. While the HEAB is considered a primary round for the 20mm grenade launcher, it is entirely possible do develop a low cost, direct hit only anti-armour 20mm round with Shaped Charge warhead, which will be effective against lightly armored vehicles (APC, MICV and alike) and various hardened targets.
The rifle, or "kinetic energy" part of the XM-29 system, on the other hand, is a fairy conventional, short-barreled assault rifle, derived from the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle. The basic "rifle" part of the XM-29 has no buttstock and no own sights, and thus can be used separately from the whole system only as emergency, personal defense weapon. While being mounted to the whole system, it can be used for a close quarters work, both defensive or offensive (the 20mm grenade launcher has it minimum range of fire of about 50-100 meters), or as an low-cost, low intensity medium range offensive weapon. Most of the XM-29 system controls are built into the "rifle" part, around the trigger guard.
The target acquisition / fire control system (TA/FCS) is the most expensive and complicated unit of the whole system, since it must combine day and night vision capabilities, laser rangefinding unit, ballistic computer and various interfaces to the grenade launcher and external systems. It is used to find the targets in any light and weather conditions, determine the range to the target, calculate and display the aiming data, so the grenade or bullet could be fired to the desired point of impact, and then supply the data to the grenade launcher, so the range could be preset into the grenade fuse. In the case of damage to the TA/FCS the 20mm grenade launcher still can be used in the direct impact mode, as well as the rifle part of the system.
The current research and testing showed that the XM-29 can be up to 500% more effective than the present small arms, but it is still to be seen if all the requirements will be met in the resulting system, especially regarding to the reliability of electronic components, weight, and, at last but not at least, the unit price.
The biggest problem with the OICW is that it's heavy and very bulky. Dragging this thing through the bush is damn near impossible.
Yes, I fear that it will be too heavy for rapid movement or pleasant use. At least it isn't too long, and it seems there are few things that can get mixed up with branches and so on (compare to the old M-16A1).
It's capabilities are of course vast, and by far the best we have ever seen, but perhaps it is too much.
Perhaps a more simple version of an assault rifle solely would be better? You know like carcompanies create concept cars, this could be the same for assault rifles.
It's capabilities are of course vast, and by far the best we have ever seen, but perhaps it is too much.
Perhaps a more simple version of an assault rifle solely would be better? You know like carcompanies create concept cars, this could be the same for assault rifles.
It is heavy, but it looks like the complete weapon is now really envisioned (more realistically) as only being deployed to some squad members, while the majority receive some related but lighter rifle only version
Personally, for me the real issue is why does the DOD continue to put the equipment on the individual soldier last while spending major bucks (billions) on weapons to fight the long dead Soviet Union (can you say f-22, or the latest destroyers and nuclear attack submarines - last time I checked al-qaeda did not have a navy or an airfare... Or how about light faster, etc but a complete failure to deploy or develop any armored fighting vehicle between the Bradly AFV and the Hummer except for the ridiculously useless Striker. Not to mention the completely ignoring the IED experience of either Israel or South Africa and completely lacking a wheeled APC that is resistant to road side bombs. The US military still seems to think and spend like it is going to fight an armored battle in the Fulda Gap instead of a low level conflict in Bosnia, or Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Philippines).
the OICW is the just the latest instance all kinds of infantry weapon upgrades that are tossed around and tested, but none ever seem to be produced, instead the grunt basically still gets a weapon that debuted 45 years ago.
Personally, for me the real issue is why does the DOD continue to put the equipment on the individual soldier last while spending major bucks (billions) on weapons to fight the long dead Soviet Union (can you say f-22, or the latest destroyers and nuclear attack submarines - last time I checked al-qaeda did not have a navy or an airfare... Or how about light faster, etc but a complete failure to deploy or develop any armored fighting vehicle between the Bradly AFV and the Hummer except for the ridiculously useless Striker. Not to mention the completely ignoring the IED experience of either Israel or South Africa and completely lacking a wheeled APC that is resistant to road side bombs. The US military still seems to think and spend like it is going to fight an armored battle in the Fulda Gap instead of a low level conflict in Bosnia, or Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Philippines).
the OICW is the just the latest instance all kinds of infantry weapon upgrades that are tossed around and tested, but none ever seem to be produced, instead the grunt basically still gets a weapon that debuted 45 years ago.
Well they are working on transferring over to the XM-8 family of assault rifles and doing away with the M-16 family all together, but right now they are bogged down in legal red-tape. Apparently H&K won the contract for the rifle part of the XM-29, and was then requested to make it as an independent rifle, American companies, specifically Colt, did not like this. They claim that the contract that H&K won was too different from the one they are currently pursuing and that the competition should be reopened. If all of this hadn't happened the XM-8 was supposed to start replacing the M-16A2's and M-4's this year.
Wiki has a good deal of information on the XM-8, which looks like an excellent gun, lighter and more reliable than the whole M-16 family, with 4 or 5 variants for different uses. Sharpshooter, LMG, rifle, carbine and perhaps one more, but I can't remember at the moment. It also has a far superior laser scope, is easy to clean and modify to one of the other variants.
EDIT: Kraxis I think the XM-29's components were made by several different companies, all of it as part of the Land Warrior program. Other than that it is basically a concept rifle, perhaps it will be used by one man in each team, but I find it hard to believe that they would do that. Oh I also think the XM-8 has an underslung grenade launcher by H&K.
Wiki has a good deal of information on the XM-8, which looks like an excellent gun, lighter and more reliable than the whole M-16 family, with 4 or 5 variants for different uses. Sharpshooter, LMG, rifle, carbine and perhaps one more, but I can't remember at the moment. It also has a far superior laser scope, is easy to clean and modify to one of the other variants.
EDIT: Kraxis I think the XM-29's components were made by several different companies, all of it as part of the Land Warrior program. Other than that it is basically a concept rifle, perhaps it will be used by one man in each team, but I find it hard to believe that they would do that. Oh I also think the XM-8 has an underslung grenade launcher by H&K.
Strange, the Bush administration has no problem with giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton, so why not just tell Colt to shove it?
And the Stryker isn't useless. It's sure better than the M113 Gavin (which is touted by people that haven't so much as picked up a BB gun since the Vietnam War)
And the Stryker isn't useless. It's sure better than the M113 Gavin (which is touted by people that haven't so much as picked up a BB gun since the Vietnam War)
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel:
And the Stryker isn't useless. It's sure better than the M113 Gavin (which is touted by people that haven't so much as picked up a BB gun since the Vietnam War)
I've always wondered why people complain about the Stryker, but I've never heard complaints about the LAV, which is basicly the same as the Stryker.And the Stryker isn't useless. It's sure better than the M113 Gavin (which is touted by people that haven't so much as picked up a BB gun since the Vietnam War)
I read somewhere that both American troops and the Russians like the Stryker, mainly because it's fast, versatile and has a remote controlled turret.
And Mercian, remember, most of the complainers are bedroom critics, so they won't criticize the Marine LAV, but will criticize the Stryker, simply because the Marines have a more "hardcore" (read:more romantic) image.
And Mercian, remember, most of the complainers are bedroom critics, so they won't criticize the Marine LAV, but will criticize the Stryker, simply because the Marines have a more "hardcore" (read:more romantic) image.
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel:
Marines have a more "hardcore" (read:more romantic) image.
LOLMarines have a more "hardcore" (read:more romantic) image.
It's to bad I bad I don't live up to that image. I'm at the School of Infantry right now, and in one week we'll be choosing which MOS we want or which MOS the Marine Corps assigns us to. Basicly we fill out a "dream sheet" where we pick three jobs we want. I've narrowed my choices down to 0352 Antitank Assault Guided Missleman, 0313 LAV Crewman, or 0311 Rifleman. I chose the first two because they get to ride in vehicles and the third because they carry the least amount of weight.
Romantic my Ass
My favorite rifle will always be the AK-47. You can pour sand and mud in it, and it keeps going. It can rust over, and as long as you knock the rust off, it works fine. The damn thing won't quit.
Second favorite is the Mauser Kar-98. Mainly because it is dead-on accurate.
Also, the old rifles had a personal feel to them- they had wood, and they were nicely designed, so they didn't feel as much like they had come strainght out of an assembly line (even though they usually did.) The new rifles are ugly as hell- they make the M16 look nicely designed. If I were to enter the armed forces, I don't see how I could grow attached to one of them. It wouldn't be "my" rifle, just another hunk of metal.
Kaiser- a lot of people watch Mail Call... hell even I watch Mail Call. I really wish they would let R. Lee Ermey do what he wanted, though... that would be entertainment!
Second favorite is the Mauser Kar-98. Mainly because it is dead-on accurate.
Also, the old rifles had a personal feel to them- they had wood, and they were nicely designed, so they didn't feel as much like they had come strainght out of an assembly line (even though they usually did.) The new rifles are ugly as hell- they make the M16 look nicely designed. If I were to enter the armed forces, I don't see how I could grow attached to one of them. It wouldn't be "my" rifle, just another hunk of metal.
Kaiser- a lot of people watch Mail Call... hell even I watch Mail Call. I really wish they would let R. Lee Ermey do what he wanted, though... that would be entertainment!
Originally Posted by mercian billman:
I've narrowed my choices down to 0352 Antitank Assault Guided Missleman,
Oh yeah! If I had ever been an infantryman I would have gone for the AT job or machinegunner. Sure the latter is about as dangerous as it can get in a warzone, but in peacetime it is better. In any case I got to play with the MG42 so I only need to play with some AT missile then I have satisfied my needs.I've narrowed my choices down to 0352 Antitank Assault Guided Missleman,
Fav rifle? Garant. It looks sturdy, yet sleek, has about the greatest sound for a rifle (it almost sounds like a downsized 40mm AA gun, the one the Brits called the 'Pom-Pom'), is well-balanced and is very easy to use. It is just a weapon that makes you believe in it.
We have all heard the stories of how the soldiers didn't trust the M16 because of the plastic intially (and were later confirmed in that belief). Well as a weapon the M16 doesn't look very trustworthy, it looks like a toy, a deadly toy perhaps but a toy still.
Originally Posted by meatwad:
The new rifles are ugly as hell- they make the M16 look nicely designed. If I were to enter the armed forces, I don't see how I could grow attached to one of them. It wouldn't be "my" rifle, just another hunk of metal.
Thats pretty much the way we viewed our rifles in bootcamp, I still remember one incident when a recruit was afraid of his rifle and the shooting coach made him punch the stock and say, "Your my ***** I own you." That being said most guys did give their rifles a final stroke on the handguard before they turned them into the armory.The new rifles are ugly as hell- they make the M16 look nicely designed. If I were to enter the armed forces, I don't see how I could grow attached to one of them. It wouldn't be "my" rifle, just another hunk of metal.
In Vietnam/WW2 movies they show Marines treating their rifles, like a delicate girlfriend, but we were taught to treat my rifle like a rough whore.
Favorite rifle? Well this goes without having fired a rifle, have fired a shotgun but not much, and I would only be able to say for sure after having fired the gun. But maybe the G-36, nice scope, very reliable, tough rifle. I like the old guns too though, I have a soft spot for the Garand and the K98. Something about a good bolt action and that ping.....
Originally Posted by :
My favorite rifle will always be the AK-47. You can pour sand and mud in it, and it keeps going. It can rust over, and as long as you knock the rust off, it works fine. The damn thing won't quit.
Pretty much the same can be said of the M-14. Thats what we were issued. Shows you how long ago I was in the Marines. I remember getting AR-15s in WESTPAC.My favorite rifle will always be the AK-47. You can pour sand and mud in it, and it keeps going. It can rust over, and as long as you knock the rust off, it works fine. The damn thing won't quit.
Originally Posted by :
the third because they carry the least amount of weight.
Unless you have to go humping into the jungle. Then you will carry as much ammo as you can handle. Have any of your liberal ways changed yet? the third because they carry the least amount of weight.
Let's put a little spit shine on the language, can we? Unfortunately, we aren't down at the local VFW swapping stories with other vets.
Well, Gregoshi, it's me, a war obsessed geek, and 2 marines.
Hmm....
Yea.
Anyway, a good rifle would be the one you can drag through the bush, the mud, the snow etc. and still kill the enemy effectively with, while remaining easy to carry and comfortable to shoot.
Honestly though, I have a preference for sniper rifles so the M24A2 wins my vote (sorry Marines, the M40 series is waaay to heavy, esp. the A3 which weighs about as much as the PSG-1)
Hmm....
Yea.
Anyway, a good rifle would be the one you can drag through the bush, the mud, the snow etc. and still kill the enemy effectively with, while remaining easy to carry and comfortable to shoot.
Honestly though, I have a preference for sniper rifles so the M24A2 wins my vote (sorry Marines, the M40 series is waaay to heavy, esp. the A3 which weighs about as much as the PSG-1)
How can you not fall in love with that?
Another very nice weapon.
Also, very nice.
A beuty, to say the least. German engineering
And the rifle that started it all, the Sturmgewehr 44.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Pretty much the same can be said of the M-14. Thats what we were issued. Shows you how long ago I was in the Marines. I remember getting AR-15s in WESTPAC.
Unless you have to go humping into the jungle. Then you will carry as much ammo as you can handle. Have any of your liberal ways changed yet?
I've never considered myself liberal, but I'm probably a tree hugging hippy by Marine Corps standardsPretty much the same can be said of the M-14. Thats what we were issued. Shows you how long ago I was in the Marines. I remember getting AR-15s in WESTPAC.
Unless you have to go humping into the jungle. Then you will carry as much ammo as you can handle. Have any of your liberal ways changed yet?
I think everyone is forgeting about the Tavor TAR-21:
Caliber: 5.56mm NATO M855 / SS109
Firearm action: Gas-actuated Rotating bolt, bullpup
Designed by: Israeli Military Industries
Barrel Length: 460 mm
Overall Length: 720 mm
Rifling twists 6 grooves, 1:7" RH twist
Magazine type and capacity: 30 round detachable box
Effective Range: 200 m (est)
Maximum Range: 3,600 m (est)
Cyclic ROF: 750-900 round/min
Muzzle velocity: 890 m/s
Mass, empty: 2.8 kg
Mass load + optic sight + sling : 3.653 kg
Check it out.
Caliber: 5.56mm NATO M855 / SS109
Firearm action: Gas-actuated Rotating bolt, bullpup
Designed by: Israeli Military Industries
Barrel Length: 460 mm
Overall Length: 720 mm
Rifling twists 6 grooves, 1:7" RH twist
Magazine type and capacity: 30 round detachable box
Effective Range: 200 m (est)
Maximum Range: 3,600 m (est)
Cyclic ROF: 750-900 round/min
Muzzle velocity: 890 m/s
Mass, empty: 2.8 kg
Mass load + optic sight + sling : 3.653 kg
Check it out.
i like the garand, its still considered an extremely powerful gun. the velocity is awsome on it.
Sethik, that is a nice weapon, but I don't think its looks are the best. The Steyr AUG is vastly more handsome when it comes to bullpups, and it is obvious that it has the roots in the Steyr.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
Sethik, that is a nice weapon, but I don't think its looks are the best. The Steyr AUG is vastly more handsome when it comes to bullpups, and it is obvious that it has the roots in the Steyr.
I hate bullpups. I have to admit I've never shot a bullpup, but it's main drawback is pretty obvious. It cannot be fired left handed unless you want to eat shell casings, what this means is any time you want to fire from a supported position, you must fire from the right side, if your going around a wall and need to turn to the right you also cannot fire your weapon. I think there are some bullpup configurations that have fixed it, but theres still other issues like awkward magazine changes, sights are mounted too high above the barrel, uncomfortable muzzle blast.Sethik, that is a nice weapon, but I don't think its looks are the best. The Steyr AUG is vastly more handsome when it comes to bullpups, and it is obvious that it has the roots in the Steyr.
Yeah there are bi-handable bullpups. Basically all you say is against them can be fixed. The only problem bullpups have is one of reliability. They jam a bit more than normal rifles. I don't know why, but I guess it is because of their rater complicated insides.
Rifles are not impervious to the problem of lefthanders. I'm one so I should know. I had to shoot a righthanded rifle in the Navy, a conventional one, the H&K G3 (with retractable stock but not of the A4 version, it was a special Navy model). It was not fun to shoot as it's casing-blocker sent the casings down and to the right, right towards my wrist. After a day of shooting I normally had burnmarks all over the wrist and down the forearm (the casings could and would roll down the inside of my sleeve), that was not fun.
I was so happy to find out that the MG42 slips the casings directly down, I feared it would send a hail of casing onto my right arm.
Rifles are not impervious to the problem of lefthanders. I'm one so I should know. I had to shoot a righthanded rifle in the Navy, a conventional one, the H&K G3 (with retractable stock but not of the A4 version, it was a special Navy model). It was not fun to shoot as it's casing-blocker sent the casings down and to the right, right towards my wrist. After a day of shooting I normally had burnmarks all over the wrist and down the forearm (the casings could and would roll down the inside of my sleeve), that was not fun.
I was so happy to find out that the MG42 slips the casings directly down, I feared it would send a hail of casing onto my right arm.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
Yeah there are bi-handable bullpups. Basically all you say is against them can be fixed. The only problem bullpups have is one of reliability. They jam a bit more than normal rifles. I don't know why, but I guess it is because of their rater complicated insides.
Rifles are not impervious to the problem of lefthanders. I'm one so I should know. I had to shoot a righthanded rifle in the Navy, a conventional one, the H&K G3 (with retractable stock but not of the A4 version, it was a special Navy model). It was not fun to shoot as it's casing-blocker sent the casings down and to the right, right towards my wrist. After a day of shooting I normally had burnmarks all over the wrist and down the forearm (the casings could and would roll down the inside of my sleeve), that was not fun.
I was so happy to find out that the MG42 slips the casings directly down, I feared it would send a hail of casing onto my right arm.
I want an MG42...and a BRDMYeah there are bi-handable bullpups. Basically all you say is against them can be fixed. The only problem bullpups have is one of reliability. They jam a bit more than normal rifles. I don't know why, but I guess it is because of their rater complicated insides.
Rifles are not impervious to the problem of lefthanders. I'm one so I should know. I had to shoot a righthanded rifle in the Navy, a conventional one, the H&K G3 (with retractable stock but not of the A4 version, it was a special Navy model). It was not fun to shoot as it's casing-blocker sent the casings down and to the right, right towards my wrist. After a day of shooting I normally had burnmarks all over the wrist and down the forearm (the casings could and would roll down the inside of my sleeve), that was not fun.
I was so happy to find out that the MG42 slips the casings directly down, I feared it would send a hail of casing onto my right arm.
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia:
I want an MG42...and a BRDM
You want an armoured military car from Russia?I want an MG42...and a BRDM
Well, I have always considered it a perfect weapon for a big bankjob.
Trust me the MG42 is a pleasure to shoot. You get sort of massaged when it fires. And the sound... Wow... And then there is the whole historical aspect.
So simple yet so great. Under 3 seconds to change a barrel if you are good, certain if you have an assistant.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
You want an armoured military car from Russia?
Well, I have always considered it a perfect weapon for a big bankjob.
Trust me the MG42 is a pleasure to shoot. You get sort of massaged when it fires. And the sound... Wow... And then there is the whole historical aspect.
So simple yet so great. Under 3 seconds to change a barrel if you are good, certain if you have an assistant.
I want an MG42 ON a BRDM.You want an armoured military car from Russia?
Well, I have always considered it a perfect weapon for a big bankjob.
Trust me the MG42 is a pleasure to shoot. You get sort of massaged when it fires. And the sound... Wow... And then there is the whole historical aspect.
So simple yet so great. Under 3 seconds to change a barrel if you are good, certain if you have an assistant.
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia:
I want an MG42 ON a BRDM.
Ok you want to replace the 7.62mm or the big nasty evil cutthroat 14.5mm MG?I want an MG42 ON a BRDM.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
Ok you want to replace the 7.62mm or the big nasty evil cutthroat 14.5mm MG?
7.62Ok you want to replace the 7.62mm or the big nasty evil cutthroat 14.5mm MG?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO