Objective Individual Combat Weapons System ("No place to hide" weapon)

Heckler & Koch ^

[mhking]

Goaled to revolutionize the infantry battlefield, the OICW consolidates the needs of the U.S. Armed Forces into one rifle that will selectively replace the M16/M4 carbine and the M203 grenade launcher and accessories.

The OICW integrates these capabilities and adds other functions currently available only as modular units. Capable of firing either the high explosive (HE) 20mm air bursting ammunition or NATO standard kinetic energy (KE) 5.56 mm ammunition, this rifle will substantially increase lethality and survivability on the battlefield. The modular Fire Control System (FCS) will range to the target (with day or night optics) and automatically communicates the range to the ammunition fuzing system. Using advanced turns count fuze arming technology, the ammunition proceeds to the target and bursts precisely overhead. The system goals are to precisely deliver airburst rounds in MOUT and rural terrains that are five times more lethal at greater than twice the range of the M203. The 20mm HE fuze function features include point detonation (P.D.) delay, self-destruct, and a "window mode. "Heckler and Koch (HK) is responsible for the development of the combined 5.56mm and 20mm weapon. Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Hopkins, MN, is the prime contractor, responsible for system integration, testing, 20mm High Explosive ammunition development, training, and support definition. Brashear LP of Pittsburgh, PA, is responsible for the development of the fire control system.

[Shooter 2.5]

"But where's the belt or drum-fed 20mm version for vehicles, if it's such a useful design?"

The main question to that would be, Why? When you have the opportunity to carry a truckload of 40MM grenades to spray and pray, there isn't a need for it. If there is, changing the receiver length and staying with the caliber for more punch would simply be a matter of putting another variation on existing armament. This type of bells and whistles have been on armour vehicles for years. It's finally filtering down to the lowly foot soldier and the critics are crying, foul.

[Redleg Duke]

This is the Infantryman's dream, because he has to have a vehicle to haul it around!

This is another "Bridge Too Far".

[dcwusmc]

Nope. I would love to have a 20 or 30 round mag for my Garand. I know the shortcomings of it... but the ideal battle rifle to me would be the Garand with a detachable magazine. The 30-06 is an excellent military round for most purposes. It can reach out as far as you would normally require, it is not deflected by twigs and stuff and it has enough power when it hits to take down your enemy... Yes, it's heavy, yes, the ammo is heavier than .223, but it is far more dependable, IMHO, than anything since. The M-14 was kinda, sorta OK, the M-16 was an unmitigated disaster when the Army got done with it... took a lot of lives and numerous years before they got it fixed...

BUT it's not the number of rounds you carry in the weapon, only how well you put them downrange into the bad guys. Massive firepower is great but they typical Vietnam grunt carried a 100 pound pack already and when you added in mortar baseplates, rounds, M-60 belts, etcetera, you realize the limits of what you can take with you in terms of ammo... so accuracy counts for much!!!

[xsrdx]

"But where's the belt or drum-fed 20mm version for vehicles, if it's such a useful design"

Archy - There are a couple of integrated fire control grenade launchers in development. The USN is working on a closed bolt, 40mm Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher that pairs advanced rangefinding with a ballistic computer and programmable fuzing. The ALGL is actually working, and should be fielded in limited numbers soon.

The second system is OCSW, for Objective Crew Served Weapon. OCSW is a 25mm system with design principles similar to OICW, but employing a belt fed 25mm grenade launcher. Same idea - programmable fuze and integrated ballistic solution - but longer range and enhanced lethality. OCSW is planned as a replacement for both Mk19 AGL and the M2 HMG.

[Shooter 2.5]

Well you just spewed a bunch of urban legends.
I guess you didn't know that even a .50 BMG round is deflected by one inch twigs.
Once the powder was changed, the chamber chromed, the M-16 became as reliable as ever and it didn't take years and years to do it.
A Garand with a box magazine is called Italy's Beretta BM59, created over 40 years ago and no longer used.
30-06 is not more dependable than anything else. One day an engineer noticed the powder didn't fill a 30-06 case and in wishing to speed the cyclic rate, they introduced the .308.

[xsrdx]

OCSW Fact Sheet

http://www.gdatp.com/Products/fact_sheets2/ocsw/OCSW.html

[Shooter 2.5]

Thanks for the information. Put the system on a ship, tank or make it crew served and no one notices. Put it in the hands of an individual soldier and everyone starts reminicing about their Trapdoor Springfield.
This weapon reminds me of the future vehicle at the car show. You never get to buy the car but what went into it is at the dealerships the next year.
Do you remember the huge lasers that were on the Hollywood movie guns 15 years ago? How big they were and how much they cost? I bought a laser pen for eighty dollars to put on a BB gun so I could teach blind kids how to shoot. I could watch for the red dot and see how they were doing. The last laser I bought cost less than six dollars.
Same thing with digital watches and night scopes. I made the circuitry that was the same for the watches. When I started, we had a 90% failure rate for just one of the processes. A year later, I don't think we had a 10% failure rate for the entire process a year later.

[Shooter 2.5]

Take two of the grenades out of the mag for a total of four and it weighs less than a M16/203.

[xsrdx]

We've beat this horse to death over the course of the past few years on this forum - bottom line is until it reaches initial production it's hardly fair to comment on its potential shortcomings.

Comparing OICW to an iron sighted Garand is misleading. Yes, it will probably be less durable, at least initially. The POTENTIAL is you'll be able to kill targets that are invulnerable to typical small arms fire- against which, your Garand, M14/M1A and FAL are as useful as rocks. IF IT WORKS, OICW will prove a dramatic step forward in small arms lethality. Keep in mind, it's not intended to replace every rifle on the battlefield - they will be issued only to combat troops, and only to every few soldiers, due to the cost and logistics burden of supporting these systems in the field.

Those soldiers armed with OICW will have the ability to kill targets anywhere within range - up to 1000yd - that aren't behind 360deg and overhead cover. Imagine for a minute how much harder that makes life for an advancing - or defending - enemy.

Durability, reliability, weight and cost remain issues, but you can rest assured this technology will eventually supplant large numbers of direct fire small arms in armies worldwide.

[xsrdx]

Put it in the hands of an individual soldier and everyone starts reminicing about their Trapdoor Springfield.

EXACTLY LOL! Start talking about fiddling with a man's rifle and you'll get EVERYBODY's opinion.

I think that's great though - the US Military never would have tolerated the SA80 flap, largely because we have so many strong opinions on The Rifleman's Rifle.

The M16 series has been in production for 40+ years and now completely dominates western military small arms inventories, mostly because we made the effort to get it right.

[xsrdx]

The AKM remains the best compromise

The only armies that still use the AKM are those that can't afford something better. The Russians have a vested interest, so they don't count. AK's are fine and dandy, but they are resoundingly inaccurate at range and don't offer good mounting options for optics and other gadgets.

Give the average decent rifleman an AK and an AR, have him shoot a series of targets from 50-500m as quickly as possible, and 99% of the time the AR will get better hits, faster.

You can argue about terminal ballistics of the 556mm, but nobody's really listening anymore, certainly not the dead bad guys that were on the wrong end of 556mm rifles.

Otherwise, what you've described sounds a lot like the HK G36, a fine rifle. Still not even close to the OICW, and arguably no better than the M16 series. Much easier to clean though - no small improvement.

[archy]

The only armies that still use the AKM are those that can't afford something better. The Russians have a vested interest, so they don't count.

The Russians are now using the AK74M rifles, many with GP25 or GP30 underbarrell grenade launchers, available also as a silent-launch grenade useful at night, and in a caseless version, I believe. Much more development is going on along these lines, and it'll be interesting to see what results.

The 6G15 underbarrel grenade launcher is designed to fit the AK74 series weapons locking onto the bayonet lug. The barrel is 12cm long and rifled the whole length. The weapon is fired by inserting the grenade down the barrel where it is held in place by a latch mechanism. To the left side of the mounting bracket are the sights which are adjustable in steps out to 400 meters. The launcher has a safety mechanism which will not allow firing unless it is attached to a weapon. The launcher was designed for use in Afghanistan and was used extensively by the Soviet forces. The 6G15 has now been replaced by two improved models the GP25 and GP30. Both are manufactured at the Tula arsenal. The GP25 is designed only for the AK74 series but the GP30 is slightly lighter, shorter and able to mount on a variety of weapons, obviously intended for the export potential.

[JavaTheHutt]

This, according to Heckler & Koch, is the infantry weapon of the future - nicknamed "No Place to Hide."

What a horribly cumbersome looking weapon. What's the barrel length here, 8 inches? I'd be surpised if the effective range is much greater than one of the "room brooms" made by Ingram or Uzi.

Granted H&K have a well desreved reputation for making excellent weapons, but they seem to be a bit perplexed why the British troops in Afghanitrashcan are complaining about constant malfunctions, jams, misfeeds, and other problems with their weapons.

Thanks but no thanks, I would just as soon keep my trusty M4. This thing looks like something I would hate to lug around. And what's up with that cord that appears to be connected to the pistol grip/trigger area? Did Smith and Wesson put in their 2 cents on this, some kind of smart safety?

The battlefield of the future is going to see U.S. troops so encumbered by the high tech gizmos they've been issued that they can hardly move around. Try running around the battlefield with a big bulky weapon plugged into a computer on your vest, a gas mask on one hip, a plugger (big bulky army issue GPS) on the other, NVGs strapped to your helmet, a computer with email capabilities strapped to your wrist (drop down view screen and digital camera attached to helmet).

To make matters worse, since all of these little toys are so expensive, the army is careful to make sure you pay for any damage that occurs to them when you use them. Issue a troop several thousand dollars worth of high tech gizmos and tell him he has to pay for them if they get damaged, and you're gonna see a bunch of people hunkering down in a foxhole instead of getting up and fighting the bad guys.

[Shooter 2.5]

I started to give myself a history lesson on early problems.

French Charleville Musket. The enemy fired three shots and charged or you defended with three shots and then the bayonets on both sides.
U.S. Flintlock Musket. Same as before. If you didn't get any shots off, no one noticed.
U.S. Percussion Musket. Forty rounds in the box and even if someone gave you more, the barrel was so fouled you owned a club.
Trapdoor Springfield. The copper cartridges became stuck in the fouled barrel after a couple of dozen shots. I owned one that had knife scraps near the chamber where someone was trying to pry the cartridges out.
Krag-Jorgenson. If it was a great weapon it only lasted five years anyway.
U.S. Springfield '03, Great weapon because it was an improved upon Mauser.
Garand. Seventh round stoppages and the clip would fly out after one or two rounds. That last problem was fixed immediately also but it would reoccur if the bullet guide was bent. A single screw to hold elevation. If it loosened up, hits passed two hundred were impossible.
M-14. The improved Garand. It didn't have a short life like so many people claim. The Navy still uses them.
M-16. The gunpowder problem was fixed immediately but not fast enough for people with long memories.

[Travis McGee]

You can buy an AR-10 in .243, but I have never seen one. I'll bet it's sweet!

[Travis McGee]

The Army did make a Garand with a detachable box mag: they called it the M-14.

I still don't get your devotion to the nice (for 1945) 8 shot Garand.

[Shooter 2.5]

My son has a AR-10 in .308. The problem is with our muscle memory. Every time I grab and shoot I forget that it isn't .223. It still isn't painful but it's a wakeup call.
He has an ACOG sight for it and even standing we can hit out to 300 on half of a welding tank.
I'll add the ACOG to what our troops should have. At least that sight doesn't need batteries.

[Travis McGee]

Do you think we will ever see a change to a .243/6mm 100gr type military cartidge? Would you like to see it?

[Shooter 2.5]

I don't think it will happen although I would love to see it. If it happens, it will happen in the wrong direction because it will replace the .308.

[Travis McGee]

It would not be a bad all purpose infantry round. One rifle, one machine gun, one caliber.

And the 20mm stand alone!