StarDestroyer.Net BBS

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:I mean after they built enough cleaning kits (Like say one for every person fighting rather then one for ten), got decent burning powder, bullets designed to actually be fired down the barrel of the gun, and replaced the Barrels, the M-16 kicked ass. Just it SUCKED to be a soldier in Vietnam, because of few things like this.

The problem is that the technology isn't really there to turn the OICW into a viable weapon. The reliability issue is the big deal and they don't have the tech to fix it.

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:I mean after they built enough cleaning kits (Like say one for every person fighting rather then one for ten), got decent burning powder, bullets designed to actually be fired down the barrel of the gun, and replaced the Barrels, the M-16 kicked ass. Just it SUCKED to be a soldier in Vietnam, because of few things like this.

Indeed. And with lessons learned from the CAR-15 and the Colt Commando, a carbine version, the M4 was developed. The M4 is the ultimate incarnation of the original M16 AR15 series rifle. It has an extendable stock, is a lighter weight weapon, has excelent accuracy at both range, and is a highly capable close combat weapon. It can be equiped with a large variety of modifications (as shown in the Canadian C8 version), but is still a rugged and simple weapon. It would be a pitty to replace the well designed M4 with the unreliable OICW.

Whenever I see a picture of the OICW I imagine me sitting in a defensive position under attack and the gun reporting a driver incompatibility and demanding the windows-cd to be inserted.

That said, I think it´s a piece of shit.

What ever happened to the caseless-ammo gun they were looking at many years ago?

Alyeska wrote: Indeed. And with lessons learned from the CAR-15 and the Colt Commando, a carbine version, the M4 was developed. The M4 is the ultimate incarnation of the original M16 AR15 series rifle. It has an extendable stock, is a lighter weight weapon, has excelent accuracy at both range, and is a highly capable close combat weapon. It can be equiped with a large variety of modifications (as shown in the Canadian C8 version), but is still a rugged and simple weapon. It would be a pitty to replace the well designed M4 with the unreliable OICW.

The M-4 is shit at long range......14 inch barrels and the 5.56mm just don't
mix....20 inches is the minimum for any kind of decent performance from
the 5.56. If you really need those extra few inches, just turn the bleeding
thing into a bullpup....

Darth Wong wrote:What ever happened to the caseless-ammo gun they were looking at many years ago?

The HK G-11?

Had teething problems with it...and of course the cold war ended so no need
to waste money on it....






Prototype Caseless rounds


Final version of caseless round

MKSheppard wrote:

Alyeska wrote: Indeed. And with lessons learned from the CAR-15 and the Colt Commando, a carbine version, the M4 was developed. The M4 is the ultimate incarnation of the original M16 AR15 series rifle. It has an extendable stock, is a lighter weight weapon, has excelent accuracy at both range, and is a highly capable close combat weapon. It can be equiped with a large variety of modifications (as shown in the Canadian C8 version), but is still a rugged and simple weapon. It would be a pitty to replace the well designed M4 with the unreliable OICW.

The M-4 is shit at long range......14 inch barrels and the 5.56mm just don't
mix....20 inches is the minimum for any kind of decent performance from
the 5.56. If you really need those extra few inches, just turn the bleeding
thing into a bullpup....

That is incorrect. The maximum effective range that a soldier can fire their weapon with a standard scope is 600 meters. While dedicated snipers and highly skilled marskman can fire at longer ranges with an M16, this is not standard. Additionally combat ranges drop significantly. A target that a single soldier can hit at 600 meters will take SIX soldiers to hit in combat. Combat ranges drop significantly, and some of the range issues with rifles drop significantly. The possible ranges issues with the M4 (which are almost non existant) are negligable compared to the additional bonuses the M4 gets for its other capabilities.

Alyeska wrote:The possible ranges issues with the M4 (which are almost non existant) are negligable compared to the additional bonuses the M4 gets for its other capabilities.

At that range, with a 14 inch barrel, you have almost no freaking VELOCITY
at all...you need the 20 inch barrel to give it POWER at that range....

A while back at SB I did a thread talking about the best possible replacements for the SA-80.

The final list of contenders was this.

Traditional
M16/M4 family
G-36
Sig-550-552 series

Bullpup
Styer Aug
FAMAS
FN F2000

All of the rifles listed were selected as the best rifles in the world today because they are effective rifles with good accuracy, relatively simple systems, and can be modified for other needs such as grenade launchers (which every single listed weapon can be equiped with).

With such well designed rifles, the OICW really has no place as a pure rifle replacement. Its only possible use would be a support weapon in order to utilize its large grenade clip.

Darth Wong wrote:What ever happened to the caseless-ammo gun they were looking at many years ago?

The one H&K develpoed? Looked pretty good to me; 200 round magazine in a compact semi-bullpup configuration. Shep probably has more info...

MKSheppard wrote:The HK G-11?

Had teething problems with it...and of course the cold war ended so no need
to waste money on it....

Well, it certainly looks like it would have been ultra-cool. Lightweight, with a huge ammo capacity. What's not to like?

Alyeska wrote:
With such well designed rifles, the OICW really has no place as a pure rifle replacement. Its only possible use would be a support weapon in order to utilize its large grenade clip.

If you're gonna use a grenade option, just redesign the M203 or make new ammo for the thing. It shouldn't be *that* hard with all the new wiz-bang tech they're trying to apply to the OICW.

EmperorMing wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:What ever happened to the caseless-ammo gun they were looking at many years ago?

The one H&K develpoed? Looked pretty good to me; 200 round magazine in a compact semi-bullpup configuration. Shep probably has more info...

Actually....300 round magazine (!) for the Light Support Weapon variant
of the G-11....

MKSheppard wrote:

EmperorMing wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:What ever happened to the caseless-ammo gun they were looking at many years ago?

The one H&K develpoed? Looked pretty good to me; 200 round magazine in a compact semi-bullpup configuration. Shep probably has more info...

Actually....300 round magazine (!) for the Light Support Weapon variant
of the G-11....

Dam! You'd have your basic load in one clip...! Nice.

Had the G-11 been fully developed it would have made a very good rifle. Its lack of recoil compared to the other rifles made the 2nd and 3rd shots against a target much more accurate. It made fully auto fire surprinsly accurate. The entire system actually allowed soldiers to fire at long ranges with a higher degree of accuracy. What would take 6 soldiers with M16s to kill a target at 600m would only take 3 soldiers with the G-11.

Sadly with the end of the threat from the USSR, the rifle design was killed. Sure, we got the G-36 instead from H&K, and thats a damn nice design, but the G-11 could have done so much to the assault rifle designs. Hopefully someone with a brain will take the idea for the G-11 and design an assault rifle from that in the next 20 years.

Everyone can fear the power of METAL STORM!


http://www.metalstorm.com/


Yay!

When can the British army expect a replacement for the SA80?
I have on pretty good authority that its one of the worst assault rifles ever.

Dirty Harry wrote:When can the British army expect a replacement for the SA80?
I have on pretty good authority that its one of the worst assault rifles ever.

There was some talk earlier this year of replacing the rifle with the C7 or G36 by 2008, with the Royal Marines and other readily-deployable troops being given priority for the new weapon. But this was said by some to have been a combination of wishful thinking and a misreading of an MoD statement; 2008 will apparently be the date by which all SA80s will be modified to A2 standard (alledged to still be useless by the troops).
So the answer would appear to be: probably never. Ain't it great?
.

RadiO wrote:

Dirty Harry wrote:When can the British army expect a replacement for the SA80?
I have on pretty good authority that its one of the worst assault rifles ever.

There was some talk earlier this year of replacing the rifle with the C7 or G36 by 2008, with the Royal Marines and other readily-deployable troops being given priority for the new weapon. But this was said by some to have been a combination of wishful thinking and a misreading of an MoD statement; 2008 will apparently be the date by which all SA80s will be modified to A2 standard (alledged to still be useless by the troops).
So the answer would appear to be: probably never. Ain't it great?
.

Yeah I know what you mean. I've also been told that the standard issue weapon of the Royal marines might as well be the M16 A2, as no-one takes the SA80 if they have the chance. Well, if they don't fancy coming back they take it but other than that.......

Darth Wong wrote:Hmmm ... what about those experimental EMP mortar shells?

Imagine an entire army with non-functioning rifles.

I suppose that the 5.56mm rifle mounted on it should still work even without batteries.

Dirty Harry wrote:When can the British army expect a replacement for the SA80?
I have on pretty good authority that its one of the worst assault rifles ever.

A while back I did a thread at SB about the best replacement for the SA80.

The final list of contenders was this.

Styr Aug
G-36
M16/M4 or C7/C8
FAMAS (if modified for M203 as the original design allowed)
Sig550(includes 551 and 552)
FN F2000 (only after extensive field testing though)

All the listed weapons display equal or greater capabilities over the SA80 and have added capabilities such as modificaitons and underslung grenade launchers.

The Styr Aug and M16/C7 weapons have the most combat experience. The Sig-550 series is a well made Switzerland weapon with similar capabilites to the M16 series. The FAMAS is a relatively succesful French weapon, but the newest versions gave STANAG compatibility while removing M203 combatability. The G-36 is the newest H&K assault rifle and its just damned well made. The FN-F2000 is the newest Bullpup on the block and has some of the advanced weapon features from the OICW but in a smaller and easier to maintain package.

Dirty Harry wrote: Yeah I know what you mean. I've also been told that the standard issue weapon of the Royal marines might as well be the M16 A2, as no-one takes the SA80 if they have the chance. Well, if they don't fancy coming back they take it but other than that.......

That's interesting. I vaguely remember a MoD statement that the Marines seen with M-4s and M-16s in Afganistan were using American equipment for interoperatabilty with US forces , or something like that. Are M-16s officially issued then, on the quiet?

Alyeska wrote: That is incorrect. The maximum effective range that a soldier can fire their weapon with a standard scope is 600 meters.

Maximum effective range for an M-16A2 against a point target (human sized) is 550m. Please note that this assumes the target is statinary and the shooter is in the prone position for best support. maximum effective range against an area target (a house or vehicle) is 800m.

Now the BIG however is that the US Army does not train its soldiers at ranges beyond 300yds and the USMC trains out to 500yds and even then rate of hit is not that great...on a Known Distance range. In other words accurately placing rounds on target even with the full elngth -16A2 is difficult out past about 300yds for the average marksman. Even more important than that is the M998 round is rather weak at those ranges.

With the -14 you compond all the problems already present with he -16A2 not the least ofwhich is a different balance that alters trajectory. Furthermore the shorer barrel makes it unsuited past 300m, same as the
-16, but to an even greater degree. Most grunts I've talked to prefer the
-16 for everything except MOUT.

While dedicated snipers and highly skilled marskman can fire at longer ranges with an M16, this is not standard. Additionally combat ranges drop significantly. A target that a single soldier can hit at 600 meters will take SIX soldiers to hit in combat. Combat ranges drop significantly, and some of the range issues with rifles drop significantly. The possible ranges issues with the M4 (which are almost non existant) are negligable compared to the additional bonuses the M4 gets for its other capabilities.

The above is simply unture. The M4 has many other tradeoffs associated with it than, what you call negligible, range issues. For staters the M4 has a balance problem when compared with the -16 that is only exascerbated when you add either a spoting laser or an M203 40mm Grenade Launcher. Furthermore what you call negligible range problems are actually impact problems. WHile the -4 fires the same round out to the same distance it has less velocity which translates into less hitting power. Already with the -16 its tough enough to get a real hit at 300m (the 5.56 round is shit for penetration power) and the -4 is worse. Again almost every grunt I've ever tlaked to on the issue uniformly prefers the -16 unless its a MOUT situation.

weemadando wrote:Everyone can fear the power of METAL STORM!


http://www.metalstorm.com/


Yay!

I'd rather not have an infantry weapon in which reloading takes a barrel change. For that matter there's almost nothing I'd want that it except a small caliber grenade launcher. For that I have a use for a two barreled storm weapon.

Nothing else Metal storm is worthwhile.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Hmmm ... what about those experimental EMP mortar shells?

Imagine an entire army with non-functioning rifles.

I suppose that the 5.56mm rifle mounted on it should still work even without batteries.

The rifle works just fine without power and can be detached and used as a SMG. Though it seems to lack a shoulder stock, so its not something you'd want to have to use for any length of time.

Random note: The G11's round has been recycled into the MP-7, in a shortened form though.