The OICW - Wonder Weapon or Piece of Junk?

[Oblivion437]

Okay, well, this is the weapon system to replace the US M16A2 rifle with attached M-203 grenade launcher with special mounted sites. It relies on electronics to increase effectiveness, as well as pricey 20MM grenades, that are VERY expensive. In the future, they even want to replace the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) as well as some regular rifles. Before I state my opinion, I would like to let everyone know the following things.

1. This is a gun discussion. This means terminology and thoughts will come up some don't understand.

2. This is not a discussion on the right of a citizen to own a gun. It is a discussion on the soundness of the Army's decision to accept this new system.

3. My purpose of posting this, is to see what most people think. I don't see many of these threads here, so I figured this is a good place to find out.

4. Your opinion matters, I want to hear it, to discuss and share. Bringing other weapons systems into the debate is most welcome.

5. It will help some to have some links. Being that World Guns.ru is the best site for this, I'll post other relevant bits from that site.

Links:

World Guns.ru
OICW
M-16 series
M-249 SAW

Now, here's my opinion, and it does concur with the creator of World Guns.ru, Max Popenker. This weapon system has too many flaws to be a successful replacement for what we already have. For example, this weapon system is considerably bulkier than the M-16/M-203, and the M-4/M203, and much more expensive, so it isn't going to be the standard any time soon. Next, it has a rifle that is ineffective, due to the short barrel, which doesn't build the proper velocity for 5.56 to be effective. Next, the launcher, to outperform, or even equal the M203, requires a fire-control device which is expensive, and without which the device is practically useless. Next, the optics, which, while nice, are purely for the grenade launcher, as the rifle, we've established, is too small to give the rounds the range they need to take advantage of that scope. Furthermore, the launcher won't function without the rifle, and the rifle has no stock, not even a fold-out. The optics are expensive, the whole unit has an estimated $5000+ US cost, and the batteries have a 12-hour lifespan, and this means that it takes 2 batteries per field-day of combat. The result is that you're only effective as long as you have batteries. Not a field weapon, at all. Now, in addition to replacing the rifle, they want to replace our light machine gun, which, in my opinion, is an excellent, incredible design. The M-249 has a spectacular operating record, one which must be taken into consideration before replacing it. The OICW can't replace the role of it, as the only thing that can, would be another light machine gun. It doesn't fill any particular role very well, simply by the limits of technology. As far as I'm concerned, this thing should be scrapped, and the Steyr ACR or G-11 should be considered instead. If it's going to be used, it's more of a UN thing, low intensity, liberal amounts of supplies, and plenty of time to get your target.

[ 01-20-2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Sir Krustin]

My opinions echo yours to a large extent, the it doesn't make a good replacement for ANY of the systems it tries to emulate.

The M249, as you suggest, is an excellent weapon system and the OICW just doesn't have it's firepower (penetration, rof, range).

The M203 has a 40mm round; the OICW has a 20mm grenade - this inadequate, even with the impossible-to-use targetting system that supposedly provides very accurate grenade shooting. On the plus side, 20mm would be useful in close quarters to minimize collateral damage.

As you mention, the barrel length of the OICW is insufficient to effectively fire the 5.56mm round - making the M16 the better choice for any outdoor engagement.

I've heard some grumbling about the reliability and durability of the system, as well.

[antryg]

I'm a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The whole purpose of a weapon system is that it works. An infantryman needs a rifle to fight, not a swiss army knife of a weapons system that does nothing well. (Look Ma, you can use the bayonet as a toothpick!) It's turning out to be the Sgt. York all over. If we get a big enough committee and use weapons system as a buzzword we can load it down with enough options that it can't do anything. I don't want to see this happen to our soldiers.

From what I have seen the OICW is a great weapons system, I think it has a place in the inventory, but to replace all of the M16 varients and the 40mm grenade launcer completely would be a mistake. As for it being impossible to target the 20mm grenades...The live demo I saw didn't seem like it was too impossible to me. I have not had a chance to fire one myself though (maybemy next trip to Pendleton [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So I give it a limited thumbs up, if used in the right place by the right people (people well qualified in its advanced features). (The 20mm grenade is NOT insufficient if it is as accurate as it has been demo'd).

Oh one other note that I wanted to add. In the force on force trials, they guys who had the OICW's beat the pants off those who didn't....of course those were computerized demos sooooooo who really knows.

Edit: Oh and I vote to keep the SAW...nothing beats sheer brute force of high fire rate [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-20-2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Oblivion437]

It's supposed to give soldiers effective explosive ordinance at 1000 meters. That kind of range is
1. Impractical and unnecessary
2. Impossible with a 20MM with even worse weight:propellant ratios.
In a combat zone, I want something reliable. A G36 or AK-101 would do wonders.

[The Cavalier]

It sounds like it's more of an urban combat/hostage situation weapon. the smaller caliber bullet would stop most terrorists (read: the probaly underfunded and under trained and under equipped bad guys holding up hostages in a building or grounded airplane) because they do not have body armor, and most insertions don't last that long, so you wouldn't have to worry about the battery, and the 20mm grenade is smaller also. But how often are terrosits gonna do the 'ol take some hostages routine? by these standards, the OICW is probaly out dated (ironic, eh?). Besides, I'm a fan of the M16 (I own a civilian version).

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by MagiK: As for it being impossible to target the 20mm grenades...The live demo I saw didn't seem like it was too impossible to me. I have not had a chance to fire one myself though (maybemy next trip to Pendleton [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So I give it a limited thumbs up, if used in the right place by the right people (people well qualified in its advanced features). (The 20mm grenade is NOT insufficient if it is as accurate as it has been demo'd).

Exactly - accuracy is required.

The targetting system is a farce, extremely difficult to use and complicated as hell. Also very prone to mechnical failure. (How many times have you seen a rifle dropped in combat? Happens all the time.)

Computerised simulations don't tell the whole story.

Right place by the right people...you haven't met any jarheads have you?

[Lifetime]

Originally posted by The Cavalier: It sounds like it's more of an urban combat/hostage situation weapon. the smaller caliber bullet would stop most terrorists (read: the probaly underfunded and under trained and under equipped bad guys holding up hostages in a building or grounded airplane) because they do not have body armor, and most insertions don't last that long, so you wouldn't have to worry about the battery, and the 20mm grenade is smaller also. But how often are terrosits gonna do the 'ol take some hostages routine? by these standards, the OICW is probaly out dated (ironic, eh?). Besides, I'm a fan of the M16 (I own a civilian version).

I dont even think its worth that. Its too bulky to be used in confined environments (when smaller, more reliable guns would probably be brought up to bear faster and long-distance targetting is not an issue), and you really wouldnt use grenades anywhere near hostages or potential bombs. The targetting system really is redundant in such an environment because the ability to acquire a target and fire accurately over long distances is less crucial. I wouldnt want soldiers to have to fumble with controls and sights and grenades when a terrorist is putting a gun to my head.

[khazadman]

The more complicated they make something, the greater the chance that it SCREW UP AT THE WRONG TIME! Antryg got it right, KISS, keep it simple stupid.

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: As for it being impossible to target the 20mm grenades...The live demo I saw didn't seem like it was too impossible to me. I have not had a chance to fire one myself though (maybemy next trip to Pendleton [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So I give it a limited thumbs up, if used in the right place by the right people (people well qualified in its advanced features). (The 20mm grenade is NOT insufficient if it is as accurate as it has been demo'd).

Exactly - accuracy is required.

The targetting system is a farce, extremely difficult to use and complicated as hell. Also very prone to mechnical failure. (How many times have you seen a rifle dropped in combat? Happens all the time.)

Computerised simulations don't tell the whole story.

Right place by the right people...you haven't met any jarheads have you? [/QUOTE]Actually I owe my life to a few Jarheads [img]smile.gif[/img] They saved our asses in Puerto Rico in 1979. The "simulations" I was speaking of where the kind where lasers were used to tag hits and misses, not simply virtual simulations. I saw people targeting the 20mm rounds with great accuracy, so I don't know where you get the idea it is a farce. Have you had the chance to use one? I really want to but as a civilian will probably not be allowed .

[ 01-21-2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]