To quote the Princess Bride: “Oh my god, what is that thing?!?” That thing looks NASTY! I would not want to get caught on the short end of one of those.
Do our troops actually have this thing? Is it supposed to replace the M-xx? What types of missions would they use it for? What’s the point of that high explosive part? Who would you use this against?
I read that it weighs 12 lbs. That sounds like a lot of weight. How does that compare to the AK-xx or the M-xx?
Troops will have it, sometime between 2005 and 09 from what I’ve read. I believe the intent is to one day replace the M16 and M204 launcher. The 16/204 combo weighs in at about 12 pounds.
The OICW has all kinds of bells and whistles. Range finding, IR night vision, video capability (so the soldier can shoot around corners, by viewing video in his eyepiece fed from the gun), you name it. The armories of the future will be staffed by IT guys.
The neatest feature, IMO, is the 20mm HE round with “distance programmable detonation”. Basically, the round has internal circuitry that enables the shooter to determine how far down range the round should explode. Meaning, hiding behind an object is not as safe as it used to be. The shooter determines range to target, and programs the distance right there on the spot. Crazy computer technology in that gun.
Reliablilty might be an issue on this one.
It reminds me of the Starship Troopers weapons.
In Gulf War, Episode I, we had about 120 guys in my battery. At the end of the fourth day of ground combat, we probably had 100 AK’s. Once the vehicles and/or wind got to stirring up the dust, my guys wanted the more robust weapon.
Out of curiosity, how did the guys keep themselves in ammunition for the AKs?
Actually, this does.
THis is supposed to be the common infantry weapon once the M-16 is retired.
Frankly, I don’t really see the point. It doesn’t look like it’s changing much but I’m sure they’re speading a lot of money on R&D for it.
The original Canadian C7A1 did not have mounted scopes. That’s a more recent innovation, around 1994-1996 IIRC. Unlike the U.S. model, the C7 is not limited to three round bursts, or at least the A1 variant was not. We seemed to have success just telling people “fire in short bursts.”
I fired both the C7 and AK, and I admit I am surprised at the positive reviews for the AK. I never once had a C7 jam or malfunction on me in six years of using it; it was a near-perfect weapon. Since the M16A2 is essentially the same thing I must conclude that today’s M-16 is much, much different than the M-16 of the Vietnam era.
The AK is a decent and useful weapon but I’d rather have a C7/M16 any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Weight is a HUGE matter if you’re humping around in the bush; a few pounds make a big difference. Stopping power, on the other hand, isn’t, and is even silly to discuss; a man who takes a direct hit with either weapon is going to lie down and not get up. (I read “Black Hawk Down” too and I know soldiers have reported shooting a man 5, 6 or more times before they go down; that’s been something soldiers have been reporting on every weapon for a hundred years. Truth of the matter is, they’re often just not hitting the target. Like fighter pilots reporting more kills than there were enemy airplanes, soldiers often overestimate their marksmanship.) The M-16 is ergonomically easier to use. It’s more accurate.
The only possible advantage the AK would have would be realiability. I would like to see actual, controlled studies showing that the AK is more reliable than today’s M-16 variants before I give it that point. I know it’s conventional wisdom that it’s the case, but it was ALSO conventional wisdom in the Army that shotguns and .50 cals are outlawed in the Geneva Convention (a ludicrous claim) and that Russian tanks didn’t have radios (true in some cases in 1941, but false by about 45 years when I joined.) Conventional Army wisdom is very often total bullshit.
Pick up ammo from those they killed?
How does the british rifle (SA-80 ?) compare to the above ?
People you don’t like, presumably. The 20mm high-explosive round is meant to replace (or at least gradually elbow aside) clunky indirect-firing mortars and whatnot. If you can’t get a target with an HE round, you can always just look at it through the scope and transmit targetting information (and possibly infra-red painting) and let the flyboys take it out.
Personally, the OICW reminds me more of the pulse rifles from Aliens.
This really does answer my question. Did they get ammo from the dead/surrendered, as HPL points out? Or does the U.S. military have it’s own ammo supply?
And if the military knows this (which presumably they must), why not go to the AK-xx, especially in dusty, sandy Iraq? I sometimes think we’re almost too clever for our own good.
Great comments. But to be honest, I wouldn’t choose either rifle. Gimmie an M-14 or FAL! 
There is a big difference from conventional wisdom backed up by experience and misguided urban legends that one can debunk with a quick check of snopes.com.
Today’s M-16 variants are not all that different from the original model as far as reliability goes. The biggest difference is the forward assist when a round won’t chamber fully. Aside from that I’m not aware of any significant changes in the gas system, bolt or carrier that improve reliability.
I don’t think y ou’ll find anyone who has much experience with both weapons, even civilians who use their weapons much more lightly than the military, who thinks the M-15/AR-15 is more reliable when dirty than an AK. I like my M4 but it can be sensitive to different ammunition and magazines where my Chinese MAK-90 has never been finicky.
I don’t know what Eugine Stoner was thinking with the direct impigement system but the consequences are hard carbon deposits between the bolt and bolt carrier. The design of the bolt with the tight fitting gas rings, very similar to piston rings in an engine, keep the bolt from moving freely in the carrier which can cause malfuntions. The bolt is a very snug fit in the reciever so there is little room for dirt.
At least is isn’t bad now as when the M-16 was first issued. The powder formulation used a higher than normal percentage of calcium carbonate in the deterrent coating to keep the powder from acidifying under hot storage conditions. This caused essentially limestone deposits in the gas system, even harder to clean than carbon. It’s popular to blame the change to ball powder but there is nothing wrong with ball powder per se, just the formulation they used. W748. Olin ball powder, is the current spec powder now and it’s all I use in .223 handloads because it burns more cleanly than other powders.
By contrast the AK bolt carrier doesn’t have to contend with chamber gas and carbon deposits. The bolt carrier slides loosly on the frame rails which aren’t prone to being jammed by dirt. The bolt fits loosly in the carrier, again so dirt is less likely to cause a malfuntion. The only critical dimension is headspace and the parts are so robust that a round is likely to chamber even when dirty.
The ammunintion makes a difference too. 7.62x39mm has much more body taper than is typical in US ammunition. It can more easily chamber when dirty or with deposits on the chamber walls or breechface.
Hmm, I’m getting ready to build a FAL with a DSA reciever and a StG-58 kit. Wantg to start an IMHO thread for which of those is better?
I have a metric semi-auto FAL with Imbel receiver. As for which is “better,” it’s a close call. The M-14/M1A definitely has better sights and a better trigger; it’s thus more accurate than the FAL. But the FAL is more rugged, has a pistol grip, and is easier to clean & service. From an economics point-of-view, the FAL wins hands down, as the FAL is cheaper, replacement parts are easier to come by, and the magazines are much cheaper.
Overall, and in my opinion, the FAL is better than the M1A. To those who say, “But the M1A is more accurate!” I respond, “True. But the FAL is a battle rifle. If you want to optimize accuracy, get a Remington 700 bolt action!”
My unit did not kill anyone, but there were amble pockets of abandoned gear and positions from those Iraqi soldiers who either surrendered or abandonded their posts, or were killed by airstrikes or other means beforehand. Were there were AK’s, there was generally a good bit of AK ammo, which was scooped up at the same time. The sections (“squad” in infantry) would generally come together at night, and they would distibute the ammo they found. (My unit was a Stinger Air Defense Battery in Direct Support of the 2nd Marine Division.)
I’m not a gunsmith but I have read many times that this is just wrong - a bullet that “tumbled” in flight would be worthless from an accuracy standpoint.
Furthermore, all bullets tumble the exact same way once they hit tissue - they begin a 180 degree (end for end) rotation. I’ve seen photos and video of random rifle rounds firing into soft targets (pumpkins, ballistic gel, etc) and high speed photos and the pre- and post-impact holes (in sheets of paper on either side of the targets) show that the rounds enter squarely and exit at some point into that 180 degree tumble - that’s the keyhole shape and it’s nothing unique to any one bullet.
Again, no special knowledge on my part, just what I’ve picked up. Any experts out there to enlighten us?
Weren’t you guys warned about booby trapped weapons?
Picking up abandoned equipment, or worse, actually trying to use it, was one of the big no-no’s in our unit.
A mechanized infantry company commander in 1/8 Cav was relieved after the war for setting up an impromptu shooting range with AK-47’s and RPG’s (using abandoned BMPs as targets), with the stated purpose of familiarizing his troops first-hand about these weapon’s capabilities.
I personally thought it was a pretty good idea, provided all of the weapons were checked out to be fully operational, and not a danger to the users.
I really like the old M-1 rifle. It requires more careful treatment, but the 30-06 is a SLUG. If you hit something with it, it generally falls where it stands. You might have to hit something two or three times to get it down with a .223 round and still have to finish it off by hand.
I never had any trouble with my M-16 in Vietnam and fired over a 1,000 rounds in a day several times. You did have to clean it though, but wading rivers, moonsons, and other such wetnesses didn’t seem to hurt it, in my experience.
I carried 600 rounds for it. That would have been a significantly heavier load for the NVA.
All the M-16 wounds I saw looked pretty ugly. My guess is that the real deciding factor on wound damage is whether the bullet hits a bone or not. I knew several men who where shot in the chest by AKs and lived.
Another important thing that I don’t think has been touched on is the effect of firepower, just the number of bullets you can get out in a hurry. In a situation where you are within 100 feet of the enemy (as was common in Vietnam), everyone is on the ground. You can’t see much, generally. But it is human nature to assume that the whole world can see you. With enough rounds passing close by, and let me assure you that you can hear them and the closer they are the louder they get, it’s hard to convince yourself that they aren’t aimed right at you. The inclination is to stay down and not draw attention to yourself. With the ammo we carred we could do this and it worked to discourage return fire. It also worked to pin them where they were until gunships or artillery worked them over.
