A replacement for the M4/M16 system? I think NOT!

[M4A3]

Have you seen the OICW?...

The Objective Individual Combat Weapon Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) provides an enhanced capability for the 21st century infantryman, with the potential to selectively replace the M16 rifle, M203 grenade launcher, and M4 carbine. The fire control system (FCS), using a laser range finder, pinpoints the precise target range at which the HE round will burst and relays this information to the 20mm ammunition fuzing system. Fragments from the bursting munition will defeat PASGT armor. The sighting system provides full 24-hour capability by employing uncooled IR sensor technology for night vision.

Why are so many people/orginazations trying to replace the M-16
M4? What cant these rifles do that we want them to?

The biggest feture on the OICW it the "SMART" 20mm grenade launcher. And on the bottom is a gun, (I wouldnt call it a rifle) that shoots 5.56mm bullets. (I think it's an 11" barrel)

First off what optics are on the OICW that we already cant attach and remove from the M4? Also why not just intergrate the 20mm grenade launcher on the bottom of an M16 M4 if the mission warented one?

From my understanding the 20 MM grenades are programable to explode at a given range. This is a good thing but why change an entire weapon for this advantage? Also the OICW weighs in at a whooping 12 lbs!!!

The OICW defenetly has some awsome technology and tactical fetures on it. But in my opinion it is a greande launcher with a "so called rifle" on it. NOT a "rifle"with a grenade launcher. I think the technoligy from the OICW should be intergrated into the "Land Warrior" system useing M4 carbines. That way, a soldier can remove and attach gun sights according to the mission. An infantry soldier needs to be mobile and have options on the battle feild. "Shoot, Move and Communicate".

So what do you think? DO you have any more information on the OICW?

 

[Duke of Lawnchair]

...

OICW is in MY opinion a great test bed. As far as a weapon, I'm not all that sure because I won't be the one responsible for lugging it around. However, I think it would be a shame if the program were dumped all together as I'm sure that a lot can be learned from the OICW.

Personally, I don't care if the M16 is replaced or not. However, I feel that should not be the reason to dismiss a little T&E. Build it, run it and then learn from it. If need be, develop it even further.

Jim

 

[ronin308]

There is no magic sword. The M4 will not help people shoot better, and the OICW damn sure will not help people shoot better. Frankly, I'd rather see the military spend taxpayers dollars on TRAINING instead of gadgetry.

BTW- Not to flame but Shure is a brand of microphone, the correct spelling you're looking for is "sure"

 

[C.R.Sam]

Shure = microphones etc.
shure = past tense of shear.

Sam

 

[Correia]

Do a search for OICW, and put in MAD DOG as the poster. He had the best and most well reasoned post about the OICW I have ever read. And that was from somebody with an engineering background who works in the gun industry.

I think it is a ridiculous piece of crap, designed by admin pouges.

The M16 will eventually be replaced, just like we replaced the M14, Garand, Springfield, etc.

 

[twoblink]

I'm one of the "anti-M16's" people...

I look at it from a design point of view, and I hate the gun. Bad design..

If they would do something as simple as put a positive bite on the bolt charging handle, the stupid battery lock button aka charge button wouldn't have to be there... 9 parts saved. the fact that I have to move my face when I rack it, is annoying, it cr@ps where it eats, and the spring is in the buttstock, and with tube buttstocks, that means the gun is very vulnerable to FtF because of torquing on the buttstock.. All that tells me, redesign, a LONG time ago...

I will sit back, and await the flames...

 

[Coronach]

Is the OICW being touted as a replacement for the M16/M4 system, or as a weapon used by a few to supplement the capabilities of a squad (kinda like a SAW)?

Most of the objections I've heard from TFL centered upon the insanity of trying to spend that much money to give every soldier a heavy, fragile pig to lug around. Most of the literature I've read seemed to indicate that they have no plans to issue it as a general replacement for the M16.

I admit I have no idea what they plan to do, but I agree with the idea that using the OICW as the standard rifle is pretty brainless.

Mike

 

[BigD]

I think it is a ridiculous piece of crap, designed by admin pouges.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Designed by people who have never spent a day, much less carried a weapon, in combat.

 

[MLC]

FWIW
The military is allegedly looking onto the Hk 69
as a replacement for the M203,
The OICW was meant to replace the M16/M203
not the M16 altogether.
In my opinion giving this behemoth to a soldier to tote around is a bit ludicrous. Adding insult to injury is the 10" barreled carbine he is left with to fight if the system fails.
This laucher is mountable on the M16.

These are US troops in Afghanistan from Time magazine in March.

Those are HK 69's.

 

[ronin308]

HKLVR- Not to nitpick but I don't think that's a US soldier

 

[M4A3]

I think you all know whare I stand on the subject. From a combat stand point, what more could you ask for? The M16\M4 carbine is light weight, accurate, simple to maintain, easy for an avrage soldier to shoot and extremly deadly with in the 5.56 fragmintation range. Also with the new RAS and other front grips a soldier can atach many differnt optics to the rifle depending on the mission.

Lets also look the the 5.56mm cartrage that the M16\M4 shoots.
I have heard so many people say that we should go to a larger cal. rifle like the 7.62X51 or .308 WIN. And I have even heard some people say, and talk about in other forums that we should give our soldiers the AK-47\7.62X39.

WHY I ask... If you look at wound balistics that can be found all over the web, you will see that the 5.56X54mm causes more tramatic wounds to flesh with in it's fragmintation range or 2500 fps+ than the 7.62X51, 7.62X39 and even 5.45X39. The area it lacks in is long range shots. But studies show and maby some of you VETS can agree, soldiers generaly cant see or wont shoot at any thing further than 300M or so. (maby somone will enlighten me on the subject). Also the 5.56 has alot less recoil than the 7.62, both X51 and X39.

The high vol. 5.56 also likes to chew up personell armor and light armor on vehicles. For example, that same day that the picture of me at the range was taken, I was shooting at a 1/2" thick steel plate @70 yards with M1A2 South African ammo...The S**T just about went through, I couldnt beleve it!! It made me even a bigger beliver in the 5.56. If I was shooting M855 that day it probibly would have went through with ease. Agen... WHY I ask... why change to a differt cartrage? Sombody tell me ONE problem with the 5.56...

 

[JIH]

Kinda odd, considering that there's been rumors of people (Marines) wanting to go back to simpler weapons to replace the M16/M203 combo, like the M79 Blooper...

 

[swampgator]

as posted by SR_15_M4:
The high vol. 5.56 also likes to chew up personell armor and light armor on vehicles. For example, that same day that the picture of me at the range was taken, I was shooting at a 1/2" thick steel plate @70 yards with M1A2 South African ammo...The S**T just about went through, I couldnt beleve it!! It made me even a bigger beliver in the 5.56. If I was shooting M855 that day it probibly would have went through with ease. Agen... WHY I ask... why change to a differt cartrage? Sombody tell me ONE problem with the 5.56...

Steel plate is not armor plate. Most rifles rounds will defeat personal armor. 5.56mm serves a purpose but everything you posted above can be duplicated with a .30-30 Winchester round.

As for replacing the M-16/M-4, use all the money spent every year for weapons R&D for items such as the OICW and buy ammo. Lots and lots of ammo. Then BRM the mess (for you, Art !) out of all the troops.

 

[M4A3]

Steel plate is not armor plate. Most rifles rounds will defeat personal armor. 5.56mm serves a purpose but everything you posted above can be duplicated with a .30-30 Winchester round.

Heh it just so happens that I have a 30-30. I'll bet that the .30-30 doesn't penitrate as far as the M4 did. The next time I go to the range I'll bring the 30-30 and the same steel plate. Take a photo and post it in this forum.

An M4 also has 1/2 the recoil that the 30/30 would.

swampgator 5.56X45mm has alot more power than you think.

Here is a photo of the 1/2" steel plate!!

 

[Ceol Mhor]

A .357 Magnum may sound powerful, but it's truly nowhere near rifle cartridges in kinetic energy. Saying that a .223 makes a deeper hole in steel than a .357 is nothing out of the ordinary.

But studies show and maby some of you VETS can agree, soldiers generaly cant see or wont shoot at any thing further than 300M or so.

Lol! Can't see targets at >300 yards? 40% of NRA high-power matches (which are shot with ARs, M1s, or M1As) are at 600 yards! And what troops can see, they can shoot at - assuming their weapon is effective at that range. I just finished reading about a battle in the 1880/1 First Boer War which was won by the Boers due in part to the one really effecive British officer being shot in the spine from 900 yards out (with an early Mauser, BTW).

 

[STLRN]

Lol! Can't see targets at >300 yards? 40% of NRA high-power matches (which are shot with ARs, M1s, or M1As) are at 600 yards! And what troops can see, they can shoot at - assuming their weapon is effective at that range. I just finished reading about a battle in the 1880/1 First Boer War which was won by the Boers due in part to the one really effecive British officer being shot in the spine from 900 yards out (with an early Mauser, BTW).

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?

The tactics used by the Brits in the Boer war and about everyone in the early parts of WWI are not the same tactical mind set we use today. The first thing the Brits wore bright colors (only the French and the many lesser nations still had this practice in the beginning of WWI, everyone went to Subdued uniforms after the first months). The second thing the Brits had working against them was they practiced what military theorist call closed order battle formations, that were really obsolete with the advent of rifled weapons, in which they would pack themselves together in close formations to maximize their fire power. But since in most cases they could not see the Boars, who were wearing subdued clothing they could not shoot back with their Lee Rifles or machine guns. Less than a generation later many of these same weapons were effectively engaging the enemy (this time Germans) at upwards of 2000ms at Mons because Germans attacked in close order formations. The Germans discontinued this practice when they went to open order tactics with the introduction of "Storm Trooper" in 1915-16. By the end of WWI almost everyone used the same philosophy and the average engagement distance for a solider was down under 300 m's.

 

[M4A3]

Thank you STLRN. Thank you for sheding som light on exactly what I was trying to say.

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?

This here is the MONEY shot comment says it all.

O, by the way. Did you see the steel plate?

 

[Redlg155]

SR_15_M4,

You are making some strong statements supporting the M16 series rifle, specifically the M4 and the 5.56 cartridge. I'm just curious, do you have any experience...meaning Military whether peacetime or combat that would support your theories or do you make your assumptions purely based upon "civilian" experience? Mine? I have my DD214. Was I special Ops? No. Just Artillery 9 Years. Did I go to the Desert? Yes. Saudi/ Iraq from Aug to March. So I do know a little about the M16 series, but not much about the M4 because they weren't widely available when I got out in 96. Back then our maintanence guys still carried "grease guns" for SMGs.

Please do not take this as a personal attack, because it isn't, but If you did carry an M16, particularily in the desert, you would know just how much dust and sand could wreck havoc on the weapon. During qualifications it is rare when you don't have a soldier firing a "alibi" round due to a weapon failure during that stage.

Also..as to mounting optics on the RAS. The RAS just isn't stable enough to mount optics on. You can mount grips, slings, and other toys on it, but as for mounting something like a Aimpoint Comp M, you would be better served by mounting it directly to the flatop or on a sleeve such as the ARMS #38.

The M16\M4 carbine is light weight, accurate, simple to maintain, easy for an avrage soldier to shoot and extremly deadly with in the 5.56 fragmintation range.

Actually the average soldier is better served with the standard M16 rather than the M4. The longer weapon is easier to fire accurately than the shorter versions. The 20 in barrels also produce more velocity than the 14.5 in barrel of the M4.

But back to the question...Will there be a replacement? Change is a certainty. As to what system we can never tell. Whatever General or Politician (Who can tell the difference sometimes?) who has the most clout will decide what the soldiers get next.

Good SHooting
RED

 

[M4A3]

You are making some strong statements supporting the M16 series rifle, specifically the M4 and the 5.56 cartridge. I'm just curious, do you have any experience...meaning Military whether peacetime or combat that would support your theories or do you make your assumptions purely based upon "civilian" experience?

B:"civilian" experience. I take what other people said, read books, mags. now and then. And use my own experience to come up with what I am saying.

So... are you saying I'm wrong? And the M16\M4 isn't as good as I think?

The RAS just isn't stable enough to mount optics on.

What do you mean by this? I have the RAS on my rifle. It seams very stable to me. It's not loose or any thing like that.

Let me bring up the Land Warrior. Now I know this is still in the development stages but thay have on the latest generation a small box mounted to the side of the RAS front grip. This small box has many differnt kinds of optics on it like thurmal* imaging and a camra to see around things basicly to keep the soldier some what out of harms way. Now if the RAS was unstable how could somone put somthing like this on the RAS and stilll be funcitional?

But like I said I have not used the M16 in combat or the desert so maby I have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[JIH]

Comparing black targets on a white background of the KD type course to what you see on a battlefield is ridiculous, are you joking?

Really...

The 600 yard targets are:

1. Not the same size as the targets you shoot at 100 yards.
2. Are relaitvely high-visibility.
3. Shot at under controllef conditions which are nothing like combat (i.e. no dirt or rain in your face [or in your action...], no one shooting back, no one screaming)

Also, making a 600 yard shot in the deserts of Iraq or fields of France is different than making a 600 yard shot in the streets of Somalia or the jungles of Viet Nam.

I'm not saying it's not nice to be able to make those long shots... just it's not a NRA match, and there have to be a lot of things that come together before you can rely on those shots.

I'm not taking anything away from the High-Power guys -- some of them are out-of-this-world fantasitic... but just being able to shoot long distances doesn't quality you for combat.