"Son of "Of interest to weapons grognards?"" Topic

OK, so only two pounds more than an M16/M203 combination. That's good.

But the rangefinder/fire control apparatus adds another 2.5 pounds. Not so good.

Allen

I dunno, allen, give them another couple years to get the weight down, prototypes are always overweight. Plus, don't forget to add the reflex sight, night-vision adapter, and the magnifier to the weight of the M16/M203. Should be pretty close to an extra 2.5 lbs of optics on the SOPMOD M16.

The real problem is the 4-round magazine, plus the fact that the guy carrying the M25 isn't carrying a regular rifle (or is carrying an M16 IN ADDITION).

What is the estimated price tag for that thing?

and the fact that theyve already have to move from 20mm to 25mm to try to obtain the needed leathality for the airburst round.

I guess I wasn't thinking that an M203 needed all that stuff to put a round on target. But then again, I'm really thinking that a six-pound M79 and a satchel of grenades was an awfully efficient way of putting fire on a target in cover.

Yes, I know: 400 meters max. Need longer-ranged fires? Bring a tank. I'm not really into this new world where you need a computer chip in a round to make it work.

You kids have fun storming the castle!

Allen

Why not just hit the er WITH the round, rather than airburst? Crazy.

It weighs almost as much as the OICW did – which included a personal weapon! The grenade must be considerably more effective than the OICW's to decide to make it strictly a dedicated grenade launcher

It's your tax dollars, kb. First came the Advanced Combat Rifle. That bombed. Then came the OICR; it was shelved five years ago. Then this doohickey. Lots and lots of money to H&K and Honeywell, and what's in the hands of the troops?

If I go any further, I might as well just DH myself…

Allen

So I assume if there is one in every squad this will replace the 203?

My other question is the ammo. At 4 rounds per mag, that seems like a lot of mags to outfit 1 trooper with on a standard patrol.

"…put his first HEAB round through a building's window and take out an enemy mannequin at 200 meters."

Goodness knows, I'm glad that our troops will have a solid defense against enemy mannequins!

"When the HEAB round explodes, the target is peppered with fragmentation," Murray said. "Our studies indicate that the XM-25 with HEAB is 300 percent more effective at incapacitating the enemy than current weapons at the squad level."

Note: you actually have to know exactly where the target is. Otherwise at 4 rounds per mag, this weapon is pretty much useless. Also, this is the sort of thing flak jackets and helmets protect against. Sure, great for Iraq. But service in 2012? We won't be fighting insurgents any more…

What is the estimated price tag for that thing?

Ages ago New Scientist quoted somewhere around US$200-300 per round IIRC.

"But service in 2012? We won't be fighting insurgents any more…"

I'm willing to bet we will still be fighting insurgents in 2112!

Ages ago New Scientist quoted somewhere around US$200-300 per round IIRC.

Compared to $30 USD for a box of .308 match rounds… but cheaper than sending someone to sniper school.

I'm always suspicious about these new-fangled superweapons.

They often work beautifully well in development scenarios (like the Afghan village attack in the article) and not so well once they are in the field.

I do have one really sarcastic thought: If they've figured out the airbursting timing (finally, only been working on that since about 1965), why aren't we putting those fuses in 40mm grenades?

Can you imagine a Mk19 with that computer-aided sight pumping about 10 airburst rounds downrange?

10 misses?

The Taliban might suddenly discover the value of helmets.

Or overhead cover.

Frankly, I can't see what this thing does which a standard grenade launcher doesn't do (apart from the neat airburst trick). Would firing a WP produce much the same effect?

Now, developing a man portable weapon which could fire through mud walls….

Hmm. I suppose there is Javelin for that.

The proximity fuze was invented in WW2. Why not just make 40mm grenades with proximity fuses.

Why not just make 40mm grenades with proximity fuses.

Not enough profit?

>>I'm always suspicious about these new-fangled superweapons.

From what I remember about the predecessor to that project, 40mm grenades are too low-velocity, ie, they have a trajectory more like a mortar round. The 25mm grenades shoot flatter, so are easier to put on target.

Also, there are some not-obvious difficulties with changing weapon caliber on the fuse: The 45mm case-telescoped ammunition had a 33% failure rate with the AHEAD fuses from the 30mm (or 35mm?) cannons, when the failure rate on the designed bore was less than 0.1%. Had something to do with different rifling spin and launch forces, I think.

IIRC after the OICW there was the XM-8, then this. I agree that the four round magazine is problematic… it is a prototype as noted above. They will get the weight down and then expand the magazine. Also the lack of a semi-auto smaller caliber secondary is a concern. But I like the range and indirect aspect of it. It will give Ahmed firing from the mosque something to ponder and from 700 yards away, so in that respect, I really like it, a lot! Go get 'em guys and gals.

Respectfully,
Norman of Torn
USN/FMF (Ret)