Say bye-bye to your old good M16 !

The M29 will replace the M16/A2.

Caliber : 5.56 x 45 and 20 mm

The next generation on the battlefield is here. It is called the OICW, or Objective Individual Combat Weapon, and HK is right there on the cutting edge with the development of the actual weapons platform that will perhaps take U.S and NATO soldiers into the next Century.

The next generation on the battlefield is here. It is called the OICW, or Objective Individual Combat Weapon, and HK is right there on the cutting edge with the development of the actual weapons platform that will perhaps take U.S and NATO soldiers into the next Century.






More : Link

[Edited on 25-4-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

When it can ACTUALLY pass combat trials then we will see...

That thing looks so bulky. I'd rather have an Armalite.

And at $20K a pop, we'll go bankrupt arming our military.... I'll stick to the good old Springfield Armory M1A.... has double the effective range anyway.

Looks like it would be used be covert ops units that the usaly millitary soldier. Looks like a pretty strong gun.

Originally posted by dragonrider
And at $20K a pop, we'll go bankrupt arming our military....

Let's see :
1 gun = 20K $
10 = 200K$
100 = 2 million$
1000 = 20 million$
10000 = 200 million$
100000 = 2 billion$
1 million = 20 billion$

Nooooo, it should be ok, don't worry....

Anyway, the more guns will be sold, the more cheap the gun will be.

I dare you to go ask on www.socnetcentral.com... where real regular soldiers and spec ops unit guys hang out what they think of the OICW. Its based on the G36 frame which is a POS. 'Nuff said.

Lets see, costs $20K, has yet to pass combat trails, bulky as a mortar and bipod, and only has about 200 meters effective range, and miniscule penetration at that distance....

Compared to something with 60+ years of known reliable track record, combat proven, 600+ meter range, MOA accuracy, and far better penetration at distance (not to mention wind resistance, the 5.56 gets windblown all over the place)

I think I know where I will stake my life...

www.springfield-armory.com...

And to top it off....
www.nightforceoptics.com...

The M-16 should have been replaced years ago not by the weaon being discussed here, but by the West German designed H&K G-11.




The first version of the G11 used a single 50-round magazine. The capacity and length of the magazine was reduced to 45 rounds in later models. The G11 had a non-detachable (1:1x) optical sight fitted within the carrying handle of the weapon. The sighting system was devised for realistic combat ranges up to 300 meters and used a simple "ring" reticle for fast and simple target engagement. Back-up iron sights were absent, as the designers were confident of the robust design and construction of the optics.

Throughout 1988 and 1989 the West German Army ran fifteen of these rifles through a gruelling series of tests, firing over 40,000 rounds of ammunition. Troops from infantry, armored, parachute, and reconnaissance units evaluated the G11 as a replacement for the G3 rifle while technicians at the German Ordnance Center at Aachen performed tests on both the weapon and the ammunition. Rifles were tested for accuracy, endurance, reliability, and safety. The rifles were fired after being frozen, baked, immersed in salt water, and buried in mud baths to determine their resistance to the most extreme environmental conditions imaginable. Ammunition was subjected to heat, solvents, moisture, and impact to ensure that it was robust enough for military use. In fact, the testing of the ammunition was taken to such extremes, a full box of cartridges was dropped from an aircraft in flight.

During almost two full years of both technical and troop tests a number of modifications were made both to the ammunition and the weapon. The result of this series of tests was the "G11 K2", or second configuration of the G11 Rifle. The K2 incorporates several additional features absent from the earlier"Troop Testing" G11 prototype. The G11 K2 includes improvements in the mechanical function and the exterior ergonomic design of the rifle, all based on the input from the German troop tests. Most importantly, the handguard and center part of the receiver were redesigned to allow a total of three 45-round magazines to be carried side by side on the rifle. This would mean for a total weight of less than ten pounds (about the same weight of an empty MI Garand rifle!), a soldier can carry 135 rounds already loaded in magazines right on the rifle. The center magazine presents rounds to the mechanism during firing and is easily and quickly exchanged with the two outside magazines during reloading.
G11 LINK

FOR MORE DIAGRAMS AND PICTURES CLICK HERE
Prototype caseless rounds (below) during ddevelopment






[Edited on 19-2-2003 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by dragonrider

and only has about 200 meters effective range, and miniscule penetration at that distance....

Compared to something with 60+ years of known reliable track record, combat proven, 600+ meter range, MOA accuracy, and far better penetration at distance (not to mention wind resistance, the 5.56 gets windblown all over the place)

Dragonrider, the 5.56 have been designed to wound, not to kill. The 7.62 was designed to kill.

Here, the weapon that I like. The F.N F.A.L 7.62.



Pic01

Pic02

When the FAL have been replaced, I used this one ( FNC ).



Pic01

Pic02

My semi-auto : PIC

And when I was soldier, I was looking like him.

UP, I always remeber an instructor ( Vietnam Veteren ) saying to me on the range that ' a running VC could take several hits from an M-16 and keep running, but one hit with an M-14 sent him tumbling'. There is a huge diffence in the energy carried by the heavier bullet ( 7.65 NATO ).
The 5.56mm M16 round used in Vietnam tumbled when it hit a target causing larger wounds, however this greatly dimminshed the penetrating power. The US by Somalia were using tungsten carbide cored ammunition to increase penetration ( of walls, vehicles and opposing forces wearing body armour etc ), this also greatly redused the tumble of the bullet when it hit a target. The result of this being that Somalia militia men could take ( from official reports ) as many as 10 hits and still keep fighting as the bullets created little damage due to lack of tumble.
I am not sure if the type of ammunition has changed

[Edited on 19-2-2003 by mad scientist]

No MS, the ammo type didn't change. That's why I don't like the 5.56 and why I like the 7.62. I understand the philosophy who's behind the 5.56 caliber ( A guy is wounded, and it take minimum 2 other guys to help the wounded one. But I don't agree. When you are fighting, if you are hit by a little caliber, you'll not stop to fight.Of course, if you take the bullet in your fronthead, it's different.

A heavy caliber is far much better. One hit, one casualty ! One hit, one ennemy soldier who don't fight you anymore.

I agree with you UP currently a heavier 7.62mm calibre does much more damage. I was just talking briefly about the evolution of 5.56mm ammo the US Military uses.

Originally posted by mad scientist

I was just talking briefly about the evolution of 5.56mm ammo the US Military uses.

I think it still the Belgian cartridge SS-109 type. A conventional ammo that I don't like.

When I was in the army, they showed us a " movie ". It was about war casualties ( WW2, Korea war and Vietnam war ). We were seeing many wounded soldiers, and what happened when they have been hit by a bullet, especially the NATO 5.56 and the Warsaw Pact 7.62 x 35 cal.

It was really disturbing and disgusting. I remember I saw a GI, hitted on his right eye. The dr was removing the bullet from his eye, and fortunately for the GI, he kept his eye. A real miracle !

But it was a 5.56 bullet, not a 7.62 mm.

We will see if that complex weapon full of circuits so called OICW can still work after 'mud test'

Want a *real weapon*? Look for the FN-F2000
world.guns.ru...



...or the battle proven IMI Tavor
world.guns.ru...



[Edited on 2003-2-22 by MakodFilu]

The OICW is just another fancy high-tech "Space Marine" gadget who will never make it.

I think that the US army should take the G11 rifle. And in a few years, we will see M41A Pulse Rifles very realisable .

Originally posted by necro99
The OICW is just another fancy high-tech "Space Marine" gadget who will never make it.

Agreed, but no one ever knows.

I think that the US army should take the G11 rifle. And in a few years, we will see M41A Pulse Rifles very realisable

.

German HK G11 was a demonstrator, it will never be produced.

On the other hand, Belgian FN-F2000 is based in current technology, only applied wiser.

French Giat FAMAS and Israeli IMI Tavor are battle-proven designs.

Autrian Steyr AUG and British SA80 had its problems, which hopefully would be fixed, if those are not fixed yet.

OICW is too complex. If the electronically driven fire selector fails, the entire rifle will be an useless piece of crap

It's a shame about thr G-11, if it hadn't been for the fall of the Berlin Wall, we probably would have seen the German Army using the G-11 for the last 10 years. It was far more than just a demostrator.

As for these other rifles you mentioed ( Streyr, FA MAS etc ), they is almost no new technolgy in them. Theie biggest innovation is the novel bullpup design, but that is all. They are essentially using 1960's technology.

Originally posted by mad scientist
It's a shame about thr G-11, if it hadn't been for the fall of the Berlin Wall, we probably would have seen the German Army using the G-11 for the last 10 years. It was far more than just a demostrator.

As for these other rifles you mentioed ( Streyr, FA MAS etc ), they is almost no new technolgy in them. Theie biggest innovation is the novel bullpup design, but that is all. They are essentially using 1960's technology.

Exactly! That is what 'already proven' technology means. A rifle takes more to get obsolete. Still, FN-F2000 is supposed to achieve mostly what OICW is supposed to achieve.

...or we are going for (LOL) 'pulse rifles', or better be staying with current technology. OICW is not a great leap forward.

Do we really need new technology? History has shown several times that the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop it up.... As far as Im concerned, John C Garand made an EXCELLENT design in the 1930s, and in the 50s it got the one good modification it needed, a slightly shorter round and a removable box magazine, AKA the M-14/M1A. For its intended purpose, a main battlefield rifle, it has no equals, and even though its been fielded since the 30s, it does its job to perfection.

The ONLY advantage that the current crop of rifles a lot of people have been posting is in terms of ammunition capacity, and rate of fire/controllability at high rate of fire.... That sounds suspiciously like a submachine gun.... light weight, small, easily controlled, high volume of fire for short confined ranges.... if those are your criteria, GET A SUBGUN! DONT try to make a subgun a battlerifle!

The M1A has everything I could need in a rifle.... 600+ effective range, superious energy, penetration, accuracy, and 60+ years of battle proven reliability...

As far as the argument of ammo capacity.... I would much rather hit the target than shoot at it a lot....