I was just doing a bit of reading up about some of the OICWs (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) in development, and their abilities and specifications, and it seems that all of them are developing for 5.56NATO (Also .223REM and 5.56x45), which is a horrible idea in my opinion. One of the major complaints from the military is the fact that most of the infanttry issued weapons (M16 and its variants) are 5.56NATO. For those of you who don't know why, we can go back to NATO *does the flashback dreamy thing with the noise letting you know it's a flashback*: They apparently decided that it was a better idea for a round to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill him. Some idiot thought it would be more "humane" to just incapacitate the enemy then to kill him. Well, ask our Rangers and SpecFor who were in Mogidishu, or any one in the current war in Iraq, and they will tell you that the whole "incapacitate the enemy" is a pile of donkey *expletive for a stinky pile of stuff expelled from the rear end of most living animals and most politicians mouths*. Basically, it was taking them several shots to kill these insurgents and terrorists, since the 5.56NATO round goes in, bounce around the ribcage once and stops, didn't kill these Somalians all hopped up on a drug that effectively made them a meat shield that could fire back without any major effect on them.

 

The reason I made this post was to make everyone aware of the crap that our government is developing and issuing to our troops. No war has ever been one by "incapacitating" an enemy. Somewhere along the line our government decided to care more about enemy troops then our own, and has even alsmost straight up denied any contracts with weapon manufacturers making more reliable and effective weapons and ammunition, such as Barret and it's M468, which fires the newly developed 6.8mm round, which has the kick of a 5.56x45 (M16 Round), but the kill power of a 7.62x39 (AK47 round), and the M468 improves on design flaws of the M16 Family. The US is even turning away improvements to the M16 family (HK416/417) for these new OICWs (One of which is being developed by HK with the HK416/417 improvements, to be fair), but is none the less 5.56NATO.

 

It pains me to see all our service men and women get issued poor equipment because a desk jockey is listening to the picketers outside his window rather than the soldiers using the equipment. I have many friends in the armed forces, and I would hate to see them killed because of a poor beaurocratic decision.

 

Sorry, I just needed to vent that info, please delete the post if it is too heavy on the politics.

I don't believe it is to heavy into the politics. That is a bunch of BS though. I say we give the people that make the decisions on what type of round the soldiers use and put them in the line of enemy fire. Then see how they feel about the whole situation. Wether or not they feel like the still want to incapacitate the enemy or straight kill the enemy.

ive always felt that if u have a gun and u point it at somebody ur intent is to kill never incapacitate. if someone is charging you with an intent to kill u...are u gonna tink to urself "hmmm id better just shoot him in the leg". kinda crazy at wut people, who dont know wut the situation is, are trying to implement.

Ya I agree it's total BS. Too bad the government doesn't really care and won't do anything at all about it. Going to take a real hard reality check if anything is going to change about it. Hopefuly nothing too bad though.

Not what I heard:

 

The army is FOR SURE moving to .45 for its pistols (matched to boot!)

 

Further, despite the denials I am pretty sure they are looking at newer calibers.

 

As for the barrett: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM109,,00.html

 

'nuff said ; )

 

*sigh* I have been up all night so I have a feeling my arguments arent as cogent as they could be, I am really too tired to do any real research and written composition at the moment.

Defcon, good point about the .45's, but I was leaning more towards the assault rifles. The M468 is an M4 variation that uses the 6.8mm round I mentioned earlier.

 

Link: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html

Oh right, I gotcha. I think that article may be a bit old, last I read the XM 8 was chosen. You know about the SCAR though?

Yeah, I know about the SCAR, but all that low bidder crap annoys me. Also, last I saw there was an overall suspension on the OICW projects, to re-evaluate them. I just hope the brass makes the right decision.

I for one hope they scrap the current OICW project. I understand what they are trying to accomplish with the project but I feel the 20mm smart grenade launcher is a pretty big crutch. It takes like 5 minutes to find a target, laze the target, get your aiming point, select what you want the round to do, and fire, all that to take out two guys in a window. Doesn't make sense to me, when a 40mm dumb grenade launcher will do the job better, in less time and if the window is on the ground floor, you know have a new entry point to the building that the enemy is not expecting. On another note, the rifle, if you can call it that, the only real thing its boasts is that its the lightest assault rifle ever, whoopty freakin doo, lets get some accuracy, because if I remember correcly the barrel is shorter than the current M-4. In addition I don't think the sights on the OICW are very "first timer" friendly. With that I mean that the sights have a pretty steep learning curve, where as the XM-8 or the G-36, or even the M-14/M-4, are very intuitive, when you pick one of those weapons up you can figure out in a very short amount of time how to look through them.

Well, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I would seek some more reliable sources.

 

#1, the reason we are conforming to the same ammo is that in time of war, we can use their ammo, and vice versa. Its only logical...

 

#2 The M16 shoots a smaller round, yes, but is is extremely deadly. It begins to tumble, and chews up tissue, bones, and vital organs at a very high velocity. It can hit your back and come out of your knee, chewing everythig up in its path. Very deadly! Don't kid yourself.

Here is a good article...

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/oicw.htm

Wasn't the OICW canned anyway?

Same with the xm8

Damn, they did cancel it. Im wondering what they are going to do instead. Ill have to read up.

I'm not sure about all the weapons and stuff; that's more Deli's thing. But as far as I'm concerned, the word "incapacitate" sounds better to the powers that be than the words "it kills 'em real good." Won't it pretty much just do that anyway? Besides, I was always taught it's not the weapon, it's the guy holding it. Shoot them in the face. Problem solved.

Cyclone, that is the general idea and is generally true. The only problem is that in most firefights you dont have time to line up a good shot and hut the guy in the head, and more often will hit the body (bigger target). The 5.56NATO round which is the standard round for: M16A2/A4, M4A2, M249, and variations of, a nd other standard issue weapons in the US Arsenal. The problem with the round is it tends to not kill on a body shot, as any one who was involved in the Somalia incident in the early 90's will tell you. Don't get me wrong, it is a lethal load, but its level of lethality is relatively low for a rifle caliber round.

 

Let's look at what the two most commonly used rounds do:

5.56NATO: Round is effective up to the range of about 750-1000m. When it enters the targets body it will bounce and lodge itself, unless it bounce through the stomach, in which case it will exit or go down into the pelvis, and lodge there. The 5.56NATO round loses a lot of velocity when it bounces around in the body, which means if you dont hit a vital organ on the first shot, you gotta put 1 or more into your target before he is killed.

7.62x39/NATO: Effective up to 800-1200m. Round enters the body and then exits, leaving an exit wound anywhere between 100%-300% larger than the entrance wound, can be higher or lower depending on many factors, but that is a general medium range shot. Not only does this COMPLETELY mutilate the body parts it went through, it does so much shock damage to the surounding area that it usually damages surounding organs.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, the 5.56NATO will kill a person quite easily, but I have heard and heard of way too many complaints of the 5.56NATO just not doing the job, and have seen the penetration differences between the two. If the forces we fight against were half as good as our men and women in uniform, the superiority of the AK47 to the M16 would rear it's ugly head in a very bad way. I mean, there is a reason our troops have been using the AK-47's they capture from enemies as opposed to the M16 (reliability, power, simplicity).

Cyclone, that is the general idea and is generally true. The only problem is that in most firefights you dont have time to line up a good shot and hut the guy in the head, and more often will hit the body (bigger target). The 5.56NATO round which is the standard round for: M16A2/A4, M4A2, M249, and variations of, a nd other standard issue weapons in the US Arsenal. The problem with the round is it tends to not kill on a body shot, as any one who was involved in the Somalia incident in the early 90's will tell you. Don't get me wrong, it is a lethal load, but its level of lethality is relatively low for a rifle caliber round.

 

Let's look at what the two most commonly used rounds do:

5.56NATO: Round is effective up to the range of about 750-1000m. When it enters the targets body it will bounce and lodge itself, unless it bounce through the stomach, in which case it will exit or go down into the pelvis, and lodge there. The 5.56NATO round loses a lot of velocity when it bounces around in the body, which means if you dont hit a vital organ on the first shot, you gotta put 1 or more into your target before he is killed.

7.62x39/NATO: Effective up to 800-1200m. Round enters the body and then exits, leaving an exit wound anywhere between 100%-300% larger than the entrance wound, can be higher or lower depending on many factors, but that is a general medium range shot. Not only does this COMPLETELY mutilate the body parts it went through, it does so much shock damage to the surounding area that it usually damages surounding organs.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, the 5.56NATO will kill a person quite easily, but I have heard and heard of way too many complaints of the 5.56NATO just not doing the job, and have seen the penetration differences between the two. If the forces we fight against were half as good as our men and women in uniform, the superiority of the AK47 to the M16 would rear it's ugly head in a very bad way. I mean, there is a reason our troops have been using the AK-47's they capture from enemies as opposed to the M16 (reliability, power, simplicity).

gimme a pellet gun and im content

gimme a pellet gun and im content