US infantry weapons?

The laser is an infrared laser which is better then normal lasers. It is very reliable and the targeting, calculating, and firing will take no longer then the M230 40mm grenade launcher we use today. The 20mm ammo has three different ways of detonating; point detonation, window burst, and air burst. Obviously the point detonation detonates on contact, the window burst detonates a meter after puncturing a surface, and air burst can be programmed to detonate at any range beyond what will indanger the shooter. The assault rifle part is almost identical to the H&K G36 which is a very good assault rifle. The scope doubles as a video camera and rangefinder. And contrary to what many other people have said the XM29 still functions after being hit with an EMP.

So stgeorge do you get it now?

It strikes me that you are willfully ignorant stgeorge. That is; you intentionally go out of your way to stay unenlightened. Do not let your irrational hatred dictate your posts because you will just come off as a dunce.

I believe that the idea of the XM-29 as a single system is one that has been put on hold indefinitely. In testing they decided that it was too heavy and that the 20mm airburst round did not do enough damage to reliably kill the target. The system is currently being pursued as two separate systems; the XM-8 and the XM-25.

The XM-8 is the assault rifle portion and does not have the airburst capability. It is more or less a standard assault rifle which is more reliable and easier to use than the M-16 family. This means that your feigned concern about being able to acquire targets in an instant is baseless. To my knowledge, there is no laser range finder on the XM-8. (There may be one incorporated in the scope, I do not know about that)

The XM-25 is a system akin to the M-79. It uses a 25mm shell instead of the proposed 20mm for the XM-29. The idea is that it is a long range grenade launcher with a flatter trajectory. While the airburst mode�using the laser range finder for range�seems to be the most interesting, the weapon can also be fired in point detonation mode or point detonation delayed mode. Those modes do not require any laser range finding and targets can be engaged promptly. If the system runs out of batteries�which are needed to power the laser and program the shells�then I believe the shells will default to point detonation mode. That means that in the worst case scenario, it is a weapon system comparable to a grenade launcher with more range and a flatter trajectory.

No, the laser range finder does not work in all conditions. KISS is a principle that has been successfully violated in all wars since the end of the 19th century (think automatic weapons, airplanes, and ships). The XM-25 is still weighing in at 18 pounds so it is perhaps still too heavy to be issued to troops. Soldiers will employ the principle of least resistance (be lazy at times) but perhaps they will be willing to carry a heavier load if it means that they will be able to shoot around corners. It seems to me that this is a feasible trade off.

While weight of systems is still at a premium, they are still considering changing the XM-8 to a 6.8mm round. That should tell you that the ability to reliably kill your enemy is ranked above personal comfort in importance.

I would recommend trying to judge these weapon systems objectively. Do not allow your hate to dictate how you view the world. When you do, you become a fool.

First of all the Xm-29 is not canceled or put on hold current timetable is that it will be standard issue in 2008 give links that prove me otherwise. Next so far in testing they have found no problems with the lasers, and if the laser wont work an all conditions the only thing you will loose is the ability to estimate distance but the grenade will still explode in contact. Like pattome said if the batt runs out or if its hit with EMP(very unlikely) the rifle will still function normally the only thing you will lose is the airburst, but the grenade will still explode on contact. The XM-29 due to composite materials weighs I think around the same as the M-16.

OICWs weight fielding goal of 14 pounds is 10 to 30% less weight than the current M16/M4/M203 systems. When comparable features such as Thermal Weapon Sight, Optic Sight, Rails, Aiming Light, Leaf Sight and Laser are added, the standard infantry soldier carries 15 to 19 pounds. This weight includes only 1 (30 round) magazine of the 5.56mm and 1 round of 40mm HE ammo. The OICW�s 20mm HE round weighs only 1/4 pound compared to the M203�s 40mm round weight of 1/2 pound � a 50% comparison weight savings with substantially more effectiveness. The 18 rounds of 40mm ammunition in a soldier�s vest weigh 9 pounds. If a soldier was carrying 18 rounds of 20mm the weight is 4 1/2 pounds.

XM29 OICW

I laugh at anyone who says a 7.62x X kicks. I can fire my SKS Sniper rifle standing up all day with no problems. 7.62x39 Bimetal core 154gr. I also use .223 62gr FMJ in my AR.

Of course I agree the 7.62 has more stopping power, its all about kinetic energy. But I think the .223 is a good general purpose round. Very good MOA in the right rifle regardless of what people say. My AR with only Iron Sights is dead on out to about 200m regardless of wind speed, air density anything its just point and shoot. The 7.62 on the other hand trades off the point and shoot capability for the need to adjust for windage, elevation etc. Since the much more heavier round is more suseptible to wind creep. So needless to say it is much harder to get the first shot on the target when you are dealing with ranges over 100m with the 7.62.

That is why the .223 is a good all around calibur for the military.

You will notice most sniper issued weapons in the US military for the squad sharpshooter are M21/M24 variants with the .308/7.62x54 chamber.

This round has excellant ballistics and can be highly accuarte to 500m or more on the battlefield.

As for your question of bullet fraging, let me tell you that at 100m and less when you fire either a .223 or a 7.62x X into sheet steel of less then a 1/4 inch you will get perfect holes in it, And if you shoot at the same distance with those two rounds at a 1" thick sheet of Aluminum 6061-T6 you will notice the .223 make a nice hole in it and begins to fragment on the way out, but the 7.62x39 (maybe not the 54mm) will not puncture it, instead leaving a large deformed crater and a noticeable bump but no penetration. So while the 7.62 has considerable stopping power as evident with the large "bump" on the other side of the aluminum sheet, the .223 penetrates all the way through and exits the Aluminum with enough velocity to cause secondary damage to anything beyond the aluminum. Thereby exhibiting the sheer power of the round to breach mild cover and to attack a "covered" OPFOR.

Which is exactly what you want when your enemy ducks into a wood shed, or a mdium reinforced bunker or hides behind a log. You want penetration ability to attack the enemy from behind cover. The heavier rounds like the 7.62x39 transfer the kinetic energy immediately at the surface thereby reducing velocity and transfering the energy to blunt force ie stopping power. But when the first contact for the round is a tree trunk the round exerts most of the force on the tree trunk and has very little velocity left over to continue to penetrate through it.

Regardless of the calibur if you get a head shot, they are going down immediatley. The .223 gives you a little more margin of accuracy to pull this off in battle.


[edit on 13-8-2004 by robertfenix]

[edit on 13-8-2004 by robertfenix]

Go ahead then and adopt all the sci fi weapons you want.The AK and RPG still does a job after ...how many years?
I mean,it is not like your government ever saddled your soldiers with faulty weapons systems is it?heaven forbid! That's our boys out there!
Let's see...gripes about machine guns in WW1.
Gripes about still using bolt action rifles in WW2,and some anti-tank weapons,and that there jet do-hickey just blew some fortresses out of the sky!
Korea,you had trouble stopping a T-34/85 tank.That was in a letter to the President.
Viet Nam,the M16's.The M60 GPMG.
So...what else you got in mind?

stgeorge, you are a quaint little man and I find you logically inconsistent. That is to say; your mental faculties are hindered by your prejudice and it leaves you spouting nonsense at every possible opportunity. You attempt to make this into a personal argument (i.e. I am better than you) but it is not. This has nothing to do with you or me or any of the other posters in this thread or any of the nations they are citizens of, this is a discussion about a weapon system.

The AK-47 is an excellent weapon and will likely be around for many more years. The RPG-7 which is so ubiquitous is also quite good but can no longer compete with the heavier armor on modern main battle tanks or even some of the newer APCs. It will likely still stay around to be employed against lighter armored targets such as helicopters and the Stryker (which is crap). So in this introduction it would appear that you favor tried and true weaponry. I will leave aside the fact that even the RPG-7 was cutting edge when it was first introduced and continue on.

Assuming you are talking about machine guns fielded by the U.S. during WWI, the only machine gun worth having gripes about was the French Chauchat Gun. The problem here was not that the U.S. military had hastily fielded some sci-fi weapon. The problem was that the U.S. (and the British to a lesser degree) was too slow to field the new technology. In fact, the Browning M1917 was created in 1910! This means that if the U.S. had simply adopted the new technology earlier, they would have been better off.

Your statement about bolt action rifles is an odd one. If you intended to say that the U.S. should have adopted a new weapon system earlier in WWII then you are correct. Unfortunately that goes against your other statement in which you seem to prefer tried and true weapon systems which the M1903 was. If you were attempting to say that the bolt action rifles fielded by the U.S. in WWII were faulty equipment then you are quite uninformed. The M1903 was fielded in various forms as late as the Vietnam War. It was primarily used as a sharpshooter�s weapon.

Your mention of German jet planes has no bearing on the conversation. It supports neither the idea of U.S. equipment being faulty nor does it demonstrate any danger in fielding sci-fi weaponry. Remember that a jet engine was a revolutionary concept at the time and can easily have been thought of as science fiction. Your argument here is nonexistent. In fact, you make points against yourself.

The T-34 was the best tank of its time. It used some revolutionary new ideas for armor design. Mentioning it hardly supports your claim that fielding new technology can be dangerous.

The M-16 and M-60 are just about the only valid points you make. There were some mistakes in their acquisition that the DoD seems to have learned a bit from. The M-16 was fielded without a chrome plated barrel or a cleaning kit. This was primarily due to a lack of sufficient testing before adopting them on a wide scale. This seems to be why the XM-8 and XM-25 are scheduled for rigorous testing before their adoption.

Unfortunately this post is quite off topic and so was yours stgeorge. I suggest that we keep further posts on the subject of the merits or drawbacks of this weapon system and not simply try to smear the militaries of various nations. It comes off as extremely juvenile.

For WestPoint23: I recall reading that the program was going to be pursued as the individual components but I do not recall where. I found a reference to an article in Army Times that had the information about the program split but I do not have a subscription and so I can not provide a link. The article was titled �XM8 prototypes surpass M16, Army experts say � (www.armytimes.com...)

I understand that so far the testing has shown the laser to be reliable. I was simply trying to be technically correct when stating that the laser range finding will not work in all conditions. The emphasis here is on the word �all.� Laser range finding is a fairly mature technology and I would not expect them to have any problems with its implementation. The other aspects you mentioned (regarding power loss) were things that I covered in my post. I doubt that the OICW/XM-29 could be brought down to a weight less than the M-16 which weighs in at approximately 8.8 pounds loaded. Even their target weight was 14 pounds for the XM-29. When they calculated that to be a weight reduction they were assuming that the M-16 was fully decked out with attachments. I think that they were playing with the numbers just a bit to make it look more viable.


Edit: Had an unfinished thought in there.


[edit on 14-8-2004 by Lerkur]

The M16/M4 is not being replaced by the XM8 but by the Barret M468. it is far more powerful. The M468 has alot of the same components but uses a different caliber.

wasn't the XM-8 cancelled? or did they fix the whole melting magazine and handle problem? The arsenal does need to be updated though. Personally I like the G36. It can have a CQC version, a SAW version, a Sniper version, a basic rifle version, a grenade launcher version, or a CQC SAW Sniper Grenade Launcher Version. But it also has something else amazing and never before seen *sarcasm* a built in scope. Or it can have iron sights. But its a pretty neat looking weapon too. The XM-8 acomplishes the same thing as the G36, but it looks smoother and has a melting handle you can throw at terrorists to give them a nasty burn. THe G36 is already proven, so why not use it?

Speaking of the AK, I wonder how much mr. alexander made off of that rifle? Sorry for going off topic....

reply to post by Tassadar


yea but hte sights of M-14 need to be updated. Usualy only the first shot is true