New Hitech Army "Rifle"-Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hard Ball

New member
The latest information indicates that the OICW will have a 10 inch barrelwhich will give a muzzle velocity of @ 2,550 feet per secons firing "all standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition"
I was wondering what members who have experience with the NATO loading think the effect of this lower velocity wil have on the performance of the standard 5.56mm NATO roind.
IT's a TEN inch barrel. I hit the wrong key again. Sorry about that!

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited February 26, 2000).]
 
I think somebody pooched the numbers. A 19inch barrel should not be that much different from the 20inch tube currently on the M16A2, and you can expect about 2950-3050fps with the current M855 ball ammo. At 2550 fps you are going to lose a lot of the armour penetration capability of the M855. The round has a nice steel penetrator, but it won't have the velocity to do the work. Also I imagine that the bullet will not exhibit the break-up tumble characteristics that make it so effective except perhaps at extreme close range with the 2550fps vel. this was noted in Somalia with the M855 at long range in the DM role. Out past 300+ yds the 223 starts running out of steam due to it's low mass, poor BC compared to 308. We could try to improve this performance with a Match grade 69-75gn HPBT for DM's(Designated Marksman) much like the current M118LR used in 308 for snipers, but this would not be practical for general issue for 223(5.56). For the average rifleman, you are going to want high velocity 5.56, we're going to need some more barrel length 16.1(M4) is as short as I would like to see it go. Semper Fi...
 
I started on this thread topic rather late, but have a few salient points to add.

I did some consulting for the USMC re: their involvement with the OICW project.

Originally, it was the "Offensive" Individual Combat Weapon. The name was changed to "Objective" for PC reasons.
I have since dubbed it the
"Offensive Idiotic Chumpassed Wasteofmoney".

The USMC wanted to know why, after dumping ~4 million of their own dollars, and 72 million Army dollars into it, all that they had to show was two wooden models of what the weapon would "probably" look like.
The "intelligent" programable 20mm round had never been demonstrated to work when off of the demonstration wires, and they were getting REALLY POed.

I explained to them very succinctly that they had been sold a bill of goods by AAI, the prime contractor on the project at that time.
I demonstrated on their blackboard that for a 20mm round weighing 2-3 ounces to be "accurate" at 1000 yards, it would need a muzzle velocity of at least 2800 fps in order to achieve a drop of less than 20 feet at that range, similar to a .308 bullet.
This would produce muzzle recoil in the weapon roughly equal to that of a 20mm antitank rifle (average weight 50 pounds), in a weapon with a 15 pound weight. OW!
The recoil would knock the shooter over.
It would also be nearly impossible to accelerate and stabilize the round in that short a barrel without hitting something on the order of 75,000 CUP. They were gonna need a thicker barrel, for sure...

They added that the progamable round would not function at muzzle velocities over 300 fps, and wanted to know why.
I told them that because of the huge G forces of acceleration during firing, the chips were fragmenting their connections and circuit paths. Naturally, with a 300fps muzzle velocity cap, the round would have a trajectory about like an arrow from a 60 pound draw hunting bow.
AAI also claimed 1000 yard accuracy in the .223 weapon half, which was totally bogus, even at first glance to the brass in attendance at the meeting.

I also pointed out that there was no provision in the weapon for the change in weapon inclination between the moment the *line of sight* laser range finder was used and the moment the 20mm weapon was fired, which would obviously require a change in muzzle elevation to accomodate the drop of the projectile at extended range.

There were other ridiculous problems, but those were the worst. Pretty pathetic.
I can only imagine what I could have done with 75+ million dolars...
 
All,

I've read several articals and visited a few websites concerning this "advanced" rifle and obviously this thing is a P.O.S.!!

They need to trash the entire thing and start from scratch. As some of our members have cited in other posts regarding this "rifle," the electronics will fail at the worst possible time. This thing has no ergonomics at all. Its akward and bulky, about like trying to point a 2' square cardboard box.

Who the hell do these developers think their fooling anyway? I'd much rather have that "black rifle" even though I'm no particular fan of it either. As far as I'm concerned the M16 is light years ahead of this thing. Remember the KISS principle? I'd want the most durable and simplest design possible while maintaining appropriate weight and size requirements.

This thing, if adopted, will get our men killed. Frankly, I believe our government and the contractors need to develop two new rifles. One should be .308 and the other 5.56x45. Both of these weapons need to be as nearly identical as possible only to be distinguished upon closer examination (for familiarity purposes).

I believe this set up would be ideal. One rifle for when long distance work is necessary and the other used in close range environments. For example desert environments vs. gungle environments. Why can't we take the best from each of the Garand, M14, and M16? Heck, they ought to study all of the best designs to date FN-FAL, Stoner, AK, etc, etc.. and see what works, what doesn't and choose the best features of each.

This is workable if we actually do our homework. Jeez, I could design a better rifle than these idiots!!! I'm not saying we can create a jack of all trades weapon. What I'm saying is we could create the best Battle Rifle/Assault Rifle ever.

Anybody have any suggestions?

DR
 
Mad Dog:

The numbers on the recoil and such on the OICW make too much sense. I wonder why I didn't think of that earlier myself. Ouch, I can just picture the 20mm anti-tank rifle kick in a shoulder-fired weapon. AGGGHH :eek:

I imagine it's possible to make the smart projectile's electronics hardened like on the Copperhead missile (for those who don't know, this is an anti-tank missile fired from 155mm arty that's laser guided to a pinpoint target, usually an enemy tank, designated by the forward observer's laser. I think the Israelis bought some and used them to great effect in '82), but that would make each 20mm round mighty durned expensive!! :eek:

DesertRat: The problems with new weapons are legion:

-The staff pukes at the 5-sided building who have to think up this stuff usually aren't shooters. They made a career of at the most telling other people what to do in a battle. So many times they hire consultants who are Beltway Bandits.
-The BBandits won't make a lot of money saying boring stuff like "existing weapons work fine" or "spend more on training" or "make something simple and effective". Nope, they make a lot of bucks suggesting something that resembles Star Wars.
-Likewise, the contractor won't make a lot of money with something boring and mundane. If it will take years of R&D, then they'll make that much more money the whole time promising "progress".

If I was Emperor, (and that's a long way from happening since we never ruled by decree) I'd have every grunt get lots of familiarization training on M-16A2, M-14, M-203, M-79, Mark-19, M-60, M-249, M-240G, etc and then every grunt decides for himself what he's going to carry, with the platoon sgt's discretion to overrule (someone's got to carry the GPMG!), then make sure everyone trains to death on his personal weapon.

Back to the OICW, I'm still wondering what it can do that we can't already do with an M-203 or M-19. It might take a few ranging shots but it should be easily done with our existing 40mm grenades. And with the M-19 it's belt-fed!!. PONK PONK PONK PONK!

Edmund
 
I don't want to create a monster, but OICW = Overweight Ineffective Clunker Weapon. ;)

DR, you don't need both marksman rifle and assault rifle to have identical manual-at-arms. in wars previous to Vietnam, it was not uncommon for experienced guys in rifle squads to swap between the Garand, BAR, and Thompson. in fact, the various memoirs I've read recently indicate that the guys at the forward edge of battle often choose their weapon regardless of doctrine, and get better results because they see 1st hand what's needed.

the key is good training and plenty of range time. we keep trying to turn everything military into a computer skills competition, then try to turn rifle squad operations into something do-able by untrained chimps. it is time for new rifles, but instead of making them AK-like (i.e. spray-and-pray weapons) we should make them Garand-like, i.e. a rugged, quality tool for professionals.

as I've said in other threads, DoD keeps trying to develop The Revolutionary Item, despite 1000 years of historical proof that an evolutionary development cycle wins wars (even firearms were evolutionary; they did not see general issue for decades after their development in Europe).

as to specific technology, I'd like to see an assault rifle with the following characteristics;
- medium-power cartridge of 6-6.5mm caliber
- Kalashnikov-style gas system
- enclosed receiver a la FAL with flippable bolt to enable LH ejection
- ambi controls (yes I'm a southpaw!)
- semi-auto and 3-shot modes
- standard 20" and 16" folder versions
- flattop upper w/ flipup A2 sight and QD dotscope
- post front w/ flipup tritium nightsight

marksman rifle;
- 7.62x51 cartridge
- semi-auto
- use M14 or FAL mags
- QD scope
- M1A or FAL designs are probably good enough already, just needs a good optics setup...


[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited February 27, 2000).]
 
a few more notes on my FARCE (Future Assault Rifle Cartridge, Experimental). I'd like to lower chamber pressures from where the 5.56x45 is now. my thought is to increase case volume by increasing case length and keeping case diameter to the 5.56x45 size. a possible downside is feeding problems, with such a long, skinny cartridge. could go with a tapered case a la the 7.62x39 family but that makes magazine design painful and increases bolt thrust. maybe some sort of coned breech like the Winchester model 70.

also, as I've posted elsewhere, maybe two different loads for the FARCE; an 80gr high-velocity FMJ load, and a 120gr penetrator load with a low-drag boattail shape.
 
Mad Dog, don't mean to blow your blood pressure, but at $500 a copy for a full production run, $75M would buy 100,000 M1As, with enough left over for several dozen new mags each. or 75,000 M1As, plus mags, plus a scope and mount. more than enough to equip every rifle squad or fire team with one.

but, that approach doesn't keep the bandits in business, nor do procurement colonels make general that way. I'm a research engineer, and I'll happily do as much research as you've got budget for, but the reason guys like me are never in charge of programs is that my motivation is to get demonstratable results, good or bad. this is not the way to higher management. here is the proven method;
- promise the world
- take credit for others' work
- leave the program midway before full-scale testing
- use lots of color viewgraphs
I know what to do, but I just can't stomach the process.
 
Edmund:
It is a pain in the ass to shoot Copperhead. There is like a 112 step process that occurs in the FDC. You have to get the observer in a cone that is with in 800 mils of the Gun Target Line. The observers laser has to be on the right pulse repetion frequency and with 3.5 KM for a moving and 5 KM for a stationary targets. Hopefully atmospheric conditions allow designation (fog, sand, dust and rain can deflect the laser signal and in some cases cause the round to go after the designator or the "bad reflection") Even with that there is only a 80% hit rate. The Army has abandoned the system (will be selling/giving them to the Marines)and buying SADARM, which also has its own probelms. The acceleration problem is also occuring in similar high tech fuzes that are being developed for artillery. Oh, a Fuze mates to a explosive projectile. A fuse is something that is is used to protect electronics, just a pet peeve of mine.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Well, hate to kick anybodies favorite project here, but going back to the M14 is moving in reverse. Rather than field two different weapons for the rifleman(and in the process spend losts of money) just buy ACOG's (or some other simlar optical gunsite) for the M16A2. Stop purchasing regular carrying handle receivers and start purchasing flat tops. Then as the old receivers break, wear out etc, replace them with the flat tops. Not a big deal. Optical sights with slight (1.0-3.0 power) magnification are the easiest way to increase effectiveness, aside from the much too unsexy, sweaty and boring way, TRAINING!!! I have had no problems with the on target effectiveness of the M855. Would 7.62 be better? Sure, it's also harder to shoot well, and since we don't get near enough training now, I can't honestly recommend a more training intensive system. As for DM(Designated marksman) rifles, I think the hot-setup is the SR-25. Feed it M118LR and with a good shooter you can seriously threaten targets out to 900-1000yd, which is where actual snipers(with bolt guns) are supposed to work. But no sniper I know will mind the help. As we saw in Chechneya. DM's are very important in dealing with urban fighting, not so much from a range standpoint as a precision thing. Small targets need optics.(wow, that flows really well, maybe the puzzle palace nerds can understand it)Semper Fi.....
 
Speaking of going back to the M14, I have heard some interesting rumors that the Army and Marines are considering deploying 1 or 2 M14 rifles with low power wide field of view scope sights in their rifle squads. The men issued M14s would be called " designated marksmen" or "Sharpshooters."
 
EchoFiveMike, can't throw many rocks at your logic, though I'd suggest adding a medium weight barrel to the M16s issued to marksmen. things settle down a lot for me with add'l rifle weight (up to a point, obviously). I'm all for optics, even if its an off-the-shelf Leupold 2X EER scope on a "scout mount".

p.s. have you read "Dead Center" by Ed Kugler? its a memoir of a Marine sniper in Vietnam. not a lot of technical detail, but I found his observations on field operations pretty interesting.

STLRN, in reality, $50 integrated circuits are designed to blow in order to protect 25 cent fuses. ;)
 
No, I have not read it, but sooner or later I will. I suggested the SR25 for the DM role. It is made by Knight Industries and it is basically a match grade AR10 in 308, with 24inch barrel and optical sights(flat top receiver) SOCOM is using them and the USMC has been talking about buying them. Unfortunately that's all they have been doing. Tallking. Marine Security Forces Bn has been using tricked out match preped M14's but the maintainence required is killer, and MSF isn't really a field force so the guns don't get beat up as much. That's the biggest problem with the M14, the glass bedding required is tough to maintain. I had to rebed the stock on my M14 about every other year shoting NRA hipower and I am a maintainence fanatic. Field use would have a servicable life measured in weeks. Semper Fi....
 
STLRN:

The Army is giving up on Copperhead?? I didn't know that.

Did the USMC ever buy any of those FOG-M missiles?

More musings on Emperor Edmund's military:

-More National Training Centers on the scale of Fort Polk ITC and Fort Irwin
-More Aggressor squadrons for adversary fighter training
-More ammo for live fire training
-More Ranger battalions
-More Fleet Marine Force units (as I understand it, they're deployed about constantly nowadays)
-More AC-130 gunships
-More F-15Es
-Don't eliminate current heavy army divisions in favor of lighter, wheeled formations. Emperor Edmund's military would have a mix of light, wheeled, and heavy tracked divisions (as well as the Marines)
-More self-propelled Arty. Make a Russian bombardment look like a firecracker show in comparison
-MORE MORE MORE on the Sharp End.

End of Rant

Edmund
 
...and before I forget, bring back the Iowa class Battleships!!!

Nothing like a 16" salvo to win the 3rd World to our way of thinking.

Edmund
 
Your Adequacy ;),

don't be shy! go ahead and develop a *modern* battleship. nuke propulsion, 2x4 bbl 16" turrets, two multipurpose missile rails, SLCM farm, helipad. design for lower maintenance demands. maybe add a MLRS system to support amphib ops. along with this design, I'd like to see the surface warfare role given to cruisers (rather than destroyers) and we definitely need to develop some green-water ships, corvettes and the like.

how about a large NTC up in Alaska or northern Canada? I believe WWIII may start over Antarctica.

I'd feel more comfortable if we had 4 complete active duty corps. each corps would have;
- one air assault division
- one Marine division
- two more divisions, as follows;
>> arctic corps -> 1 armor, 1 mech inf
>> mountain corps -> 1 airborne, 1 light inf
>> desert/plains corps -> 1 armor, 1 mech inf
>> jungle/forest corps -> 1 mech inf, 1 light inf
- one combat support div
- one combat services support div (reserves)
- one light inf div (NG)
- one logistics div (NG)
I suppose I'd keep SOCOM as is. note that the Marine division would be permanently under corps command. I'd like to pull USMC out of Dept of Navy.
 
A retired Major I work for wrote a great piece when he was at AWS, entitled “Full Dress Purple.” The premises behind the satire was that in the future world of jointness the services combined into one “US Armed Forces” the Marine Corps was turn into the 41st Amphibious Corps. The reason behind the designation was the former Army, that held sway with the political powers that be, viewed the Marines as exactly half as good as the 82nd Airborne, hence the designation. But back to the topic, the Navy will never give up the Marines; it gives them the ability to lobby for money in the name of fighting the Littoral Conflicts and power projection ashore. Although, most of the money they will get in the name of the Corps goes right into the “blue water” support structure that has very little effect on the green water littoral warfare capability. And more importantly the Marine Corps is extremely cheap in the eyes of congress. This is what the current Commandant, General Jones, presented in his statement to the Congress just in the last month. “Marine units constitute about 20 percent of the military’s active ground maneuver battalions, 20 percent of the active fighter/attack squadrons, 17 percent of the attack helicopter, and nearly one third of the ground combat service support in the active forces….
For about six percent of the defense budget. “ As such a cheap force, in a time when many civilians either think the military is paid to much or is the only place to get money for social welfare programs, is it conceivable that want to give them to the Army. The very service that at least three times this century wanted to dissolve the Corps and assume its missions. Under the Dept of the Navy, although we get so little money, there is no talk of elimination of the Marines, because the average sailor or admiral doesn’t want the mission. And with general cut back in the DOD’s budget and recruiting short falls as it is I don’t think they will ever bring back the BBs. The Navy was already 1 carrier short of sailors last year. They are planning what is known as the DD21, which will be a destroyer that will specialize in shore and interdiction bombardment.
As it stands right now MLRS is not the ideal weapon to conduct preparation fires of objectives. Depending on angle of fall of the submunitions the unclassified dud rate for the M77 is 3-7 percent, with 644 per M26 rocket. About 1/3 will arm and potential act as landmines. It really adds up quick to a hazard to friendly troops moving through the area. There is a new submunition the M80, which has a back up self-destruct mechanism, however since was originally developed for 105mm DPICM and is much smaller, hence less armor penetration and frag, so it is less effective. And there is no current plan to retrofit any older munitions with the new submunition or place self-destruct mechanisms in old submunition.
The FOG-M technology has yet to matured to a point that anyone can adopted it. The next generation ATGM, LOSAT will possibly be supplemented with a FOG-M type indirect fire ATGM.


------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
well, I can dream, can't I? it makes sense to me to keep the Army and Marines separate in the DoD sense, but together in the theater commander sense. the Navy's primary function is to flag admirals. we lack high-speed cargo transport, minesweeping, and a credible coastline battle system. fer crissakes, we have to drag the Coasties along to handle shallow-water patrols. that DD21 concept is configured with an autoloader 5" isn't it? that seems a bit lightweight for amphib gunnery support.

too bad about the dud rate problem with MLRS. seemed like an OTS solution to the gunfire support problem.

I thought I read somewhere that FOG-M was coming along pretty good. we sure need something.

EchoFiveMike, was that problematic M1A walnut stocked or synthetic? I am considering an M1A myself but don't want to screw with that sort of thing. maybe there's a market for an aluminum bedding "frame" to inset into stocks...
 
There are two possible weapons for gun fire support the current plan is a 5" x 62 gun that has the ability to fire the ERGM (extended range guided mechanism). The unclassied max range for this system is 82,000 (ERGM)
40,000 (Mk 172 ICM)
23,100 (Conv)

The second potential gunfire system is the vertical 6" (155mm) gun. The currently planning ranges are about 75 nautical miles. This also gives the benefit, however unrealistic, of firing the same shells as 155mm ground based howitzers.

The navy will also be adopting the LASM (Land Attack Standard missile) in the near future, it can be fired out of the VLS systems on current ships and has an unclassified range of 300,000 m of course that is that out of the book, what it really works out to in the real world is a we know it.
The test with ATACMS and MLRS out of a naval platform were promissing, but they found a significant corrosion problem, on the firing platform, many times worst than occurs with salt water.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
The M21 has a walnut stock that was glass bedded. My personal M14 has a Bishop laminate stock bedded with devcon. There is an M25 system that is unofficial IIRC with fiberglass stocks. Problems with M14 go beyond the bedding but that was the primary one.
Naval gunfire currently sucks. The 5/62 has a 70lb shell that is barely adequate, only one or two guns per ship so at best you get two rounds on target and then everyone(targets) has headed for cover. MLRS and Sea ATACMS have problems of their own. Foremost IMHO is the lack of a unitary HE warhead. Bomblets are great against vehicles and uncovered positions, but against troops dug in with over head cover(classic beach defenses eg: Albania)they have no penetration. The fact that the 155mm vertical system can use existing rounds is a selling point for logistics nerds, nothing more. We seem to have this fetish with using existing ammo, to the point of degrading performance severely. EG#1 M118 ammo for sniper rifles used the 173gn FMJ bullets initialy issued in 30-06 M2 ammo in the 1920's! They continued to produce this bullet on worn out tooling and so was not accurate enough to do the job. EG#2 Army M119 105mm cannon, the British developed this as the light gun M118 with range of 17200m. When the US got it they put a different barrel on it to fire old stocks of ammo and range dropped to 11500m. Sounds like progress?
For that reason, on your fictional BB I would suggest 18inch guns so that the logistics nerds would have to buy NEW ammo, instead of trying to use stocks of 16inch from the 1940's! With new projectile designs(FB-BB) range should be 100km plus and as an added bonus 18inch shells go 3600lbs as opposed to 16inch at 2700lbs(AP)
All of this is academic, of course, because the US no longer has the industrial capability to forge cannon barrels larger than 8inch!! I remember reading this in Proceedings (official Naval publication) some time ago. Semper Fi....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top