Mephisto2

I hate guns. I abhor them and consider them a necessary evil for use only by government agents (soldiers, police etc).

Having said that, I am interested in them, probably due to my love of military history etc.

In anycase, notwithstanding the fact that I think citizens should not be allowed weapons, I thought some of this board's regulars might be interested in this link.

It's a page dedicated to the OICW, or Objective Individual Combat Weapon. From what little I know, the M-16a is meant to be a POS. Maybe this will replace it.

http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm


Mr Mephisto

cchris

Thats fucking awesome.
A tad expensive for the average Joe but I would love the experience of pulling the trigger.

__________________
There's a fine line between participation and mockery

Moonduck

The OICW has been in the works for quite some time. The biggest problem they keep having is weight. It's about 4-8lbs too heavy right now, and with the target weight set at an unwieldy 14lbs already, you can imagine how heavy the current model is.

The current action in Iraq is proving to be a boon to the OICW program in one way. Due to the serious problems the Army continues to have with the M-16A2/M4, they are kicking the timeline for the OICW into higher gear. They're going to phase in the weapon in its' subsystems first. In other words, the US military will get it's OICW capable G-36 variant, then the grenade launcher will happen when the weight is low enough, then the optics will hits when the weight and usability problems are solved. No matter what, the Army is set to have G-36 variants in the field in the next two years.

Personally, I can see the usefulness of the OICW for combat units, but I think that it won't be a widespread issue piece simply because of the dual concerns of weight and logistics. The US soldier already carries a serious amount of weight in non-weapon gear. Adding precipitously with a far heavier weapon and MUCH heavier ammo weight (those grenades will get heavy in bulk, especially as they are talking multiple purpose loads, necessitating redundant ammo loadout, weight-wise).

Neat pics on that page, though I do think we do with a tad less vitriol on firearms. There's no real reason to post unrelated opinion on the evilness of an inanimate object if you are simply here to post a website of information on said inanimate objects. It just invites flames, and we try hard to be as flame-free as possible here.

Mephisto2

I wasn't being vitriolic in any way. I think you may misunderstand the term.

I simply prefaced a post with an opinion. I'm not allowed to have one? See some of the other flame-bait posts on this board before criticising me. I didn't criticise anyone here for having opinions that differ from mine.

I simply posted a link that I thought others would like.

Sheesh...

Mr Mephisto

MSD

I remember an article on this from a while ago. The info I have is a few years old, so it may have changed.

The 5.56 rifle is detachable and a stock can be attached if necessary. The 20mm grenade launcher can be set for the rounds to detonate anywhere from a safe distance of about 20-50 feet ot to around 1000 feet. This precision, combinedd with the precision rangefinding of the scope, which offers IR and Night Vision, allows a soldier to hit a target around a corner with shrapnel in a multitude of environments. The grenade rounds can be rapid-fired at up to 5 rounds per second, and teh 5.56 rifle has standard select-fire capabilitiy.

kel

It looks really complicated...
I wouldn't feel confident bringing that with me into battle. So many buttons and levers and internal parts waiting to breaking down in extreme conditions.
10inch barrel on the rifle?

__________________
"It better be funny"

Moonduck

Actually, I understand it quite well. It's roots are in alchemical practice in the Mdieval era in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. If you'd like, I can tell you what it means as it is an acronym, or I can just tell you the common usage of the term. Your statement, "I hate guns. I abhor them" etc was fairly vitriolic.

I have seen other posts here. I am probably one of the most frequent posters on this board and read darned near everything posted here. I've also seen such language get a post moved to the Politics board more often than not. Check the "Rules of the Game" and "additional Guidance" sticky posts in the forum for further info on this.

Whether you criticised anyone or not, it is "hate speech" =)

(Yes, I'm joking.)

No reason to be defensive, Mr. Mephisto. I was in no way flaming you or telling you that you weren't entitled to an opinion. Simply stating that there was no reason to add the preface that you did in the context of the point of your post. I did not accuse you of trolling (I don't think that you were), I did not accuse you of being flamebait, or anything of the sort. I thought I was being very mild in my tone and trying to be as friendly as I can towards someone casually tossing around the word "hate" in a forum that tends to be remarkably free of such vitriol.

Damn, used that word again. =)

EDIT: Gotta learn to close my tags properly.

Moonduck

Oh yeah, further comment on the gun.

The G-36k on the bottom of it has about as much barrel as our current M4. It performs as well, and is a result of long-term statistical parsing that showed that the vast majority of modern engagements occur ove rmuch shorter distances than previous norms. As such, shorter barrels are just fine. There will be alternative barrel assemblies available for longer range shooting as needed, and heavier barrels for the SAW version.

I also consider it worky and complex. Still, in a 5-man fire-team, one or two of these babies would greatly add to the teams effective firepower and definitely expand their capability.

Still, the bulk is so freakin' obscene that I can't figure any way to comfortable carry it on patrol. It's an ugly, ungainly brute.

Mephisto2

So how was I being bitterly abusive?



No it wasn't. If I said "I hate all you gun-toting nuts", or some such abusive term, I would be being vitriolic. I can't really abuse a gun, can I? Did I hurt its feelings?

LOL

I'm not going to comment on the "hate speech" jibe, as I'm sure it was good natured.

I wasn't being defensive. The "sheesh" comment was meant to denote "eye rolling"...

You, as a regular poster here, seem to like guns. I can make a leap of presumption and state that you probably support citizen ownership. Fine. I don't advise you (in a mild way or not) that you should keep your "political" opinions to yourself.

I am interested in guns in an entirely clinical way. I've never handled one in my entire life (despite regular invitations from both serving and retired US Army, Special Forces and Royal Marine friends). I intend to keep it that way.

My opinions and your opinions on the merits of private gun ownership have nothing to do with the post in question.

Anyway, I think we're both in danger of degenerating into a political debate; and I'm sure by posting even this reply I'm inviting some flames.

"Nice" weapon though...

Mr Mephisto

debaser

I'll keep my M-4, thank you very much...

__________________

Moonduck

Visita
Interiora
Terra
Rectificando
Invenies
Occultum
Lapidem

Roughly it refers to seeking within the Earth for greater secrets (rather innaccurate as I am no Latin scholar, nor do I remember the full translation offhand), and this is allegory for "Know thyself". As to common usage, is is generally taken to mean "acidic", as Vitriol was used to describe certain reagents that were very good as reducing various forms down to baser structures. Vitriol came to be synonymous with "acid" as a result, and eventually was distilled to its' current meaning through natural evolution of language.

My opinions on weaponry are probably a safe assumption on your part, though I try not to make it obnoxiously clear here as it is assumed in general. This is the Weaponry forum after all.

There were a number of good natured jibes in my second post. I was trying to get the point across that I really wasn't flaming you and that you shouldn't take it seriously.

I can honestly understand an aversion to weaponry. They are scary things for some people because of the connotations that person notes when dealing with weaponry. I personally don't grok the idea, but then again I am unbothered by most inorganic inanimate objects. (I personally have an aversion to raw, bloody meat, thus the reason that I've never taken up on any of the many offers to go hunting)

zfleebin

Though I clearly disagree with Mephisto about guns. I think it is important to note that he started this thread (didnt jack it) and in doing so he deserves the right to add any additional information he deems necessary, even if it is vitriolic. I also think you guys should notice he referred to the weapons as being a necessary evil not the people that use them. Again, I openly disagree with his point of view but the language he used doesnt seem to me to be offensive towards anyone (It seems aimed at guns only).

Mephisto2

Duly noted.

I apologize if my use of the word hate and abhor offended you. :-)

Actually, to be perfectly honest, both are probably too strong. I hate what guns do to people and I'm therefore a believer in strict gun-control. The country where I was born (Ireland) has very strict laws in this area; mostly due to the violence of our Civil War in the 1920's and the destabling effects of an armed subversive group.

I guess some of that has rubbed off on me.

So, whilst I maintain I was being far from vitriolic, I may have been provocative... ;-)

With regards to the weapon itself, I imagine it looks even more sensitive to dust, dirt & water than the M-16. Maybe that's just because it looks so "high tech" if you will.

Mr Mephisto

Moonduck

Hey, Mr Mephisto... devil avatar... You're evil! I get it now! =)

Yeah, you were being provocative, and I decided to poke you a bit with the vitriol line of discourse. You've taken it good-naturedly and I can definitely appreciate that. As you've refined your language a tad more, I can even see where you're coming from, from a personal history standpoint.

I showed the OICW page to my Pop today, and discussed it with him a bit. He's an Army vet of 24 years, a good portion of which was in the 82nd Airborne (Paratroopers, if you're not familiar with the unit). He was boggled by it, and said, and I quote, "I'm damned glad I'll never have to carry one of those things, and even more glad that I'll never have to lead a squad armed with 'em."

Looks like interesting times for the US Army ahead.

LuFega

lol ....it always ends in an argument

Lebell

I was reading an article in my American Rifleman that the Iraq war has shown that the M16 is too long for use in troop carriers and tanks and that the M4 is mechanically not up to the rigors of combat, so the skinny is that the M16's days are numbered.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Moonduck

I'd found an Army Times article that confirms what you're saying, Lebell, but I can't locate the bloody thing now, sorry. It basically says that by 2005, the Army is hoping to start replacing the M-16a2 with a specially built variant of the G-36K. The idea is to bring in the G-36, get the troops used to it, and then add in the other elements of the weapon system as they come down in weight and meet functionality benchmarks.

Can't find the damned URL.

Oblivion437

You hate firearms, yet you can't get enough of them? You must understand, the worst and grandest scale of evil ever committed using a firearm were comitted by government agents, yes, cops and soldiers. Citizens having complete access here in the US had the opposite effect the VPC and Brady Campaign would have you believe, and that's the crime rates being LOW, especially for firearms. At the pinnacle of organized crime, machineguns were still a small minority choice. Crime in California has skyrocketed after numerous bans, which aren't working. In fact, they're making the situation worse by assuring the two-bit thug better access. Granted Coke Warriors and true mafiosi won't be deterred by the average citizen, but that's what the police are for, if they can keep their pockets closed and their minds clear long enough.

The fact is, citizens are not 'allowed' weapons. It is a natural right of every living thing to defend itself as it sees fit. You break into my house, and threaten me in any way, prepare to be suitable for straining spaghetti.

As for the OICW, the project has basically blossomed into something even bigger now. It may have been initially its own thing, but they found that the results could never be sufficient. They broke it up into the two component elements, and H&K is now pawning them off to the US Military...

At another message board, from experienced shooters, the sentiment regarding the rifle component (XM-8) is rather negative. It can't be proven to do the job any better than the AR-15 series, and there are systems that could replace the XM-8's results at a much lower cost, with possibly greater proficiency.

debaser

People have been bitching about the M-16 for years. The simple fact is that is a very accurate, lethal, and reliable weapon.

The Army times runs two articles a year about how it is on the way out (usually about a week after the new uniform article). They back up their stories with a few anecdotes from unnamed soldiers. But when you look at the big picture, what do you see? You see the stunning success of our infantry in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see the 3rd and 20th SFG (who can use any weapons in the world), using M-16s. You see Israeli Spec-Ops using M-16s. You see British Paras and Russian Spetsnaz using M-16s.

The OICW is a cool toy, and the eventual next step, but the M-16 series will be here for quite some time.


*Please note that M-16 is used to denote the entire series of rifles in this post.

__________________

Mephisto2

Right....

Nonesense.

The law precludes access to many types of weapons, even in the US. You can't mount a .50cal in your yard now, can you? It's a matter of degrees. I think citizens should not be allowed weapons. You do. I don't try to convince you otherwise. You do.

Let's just leave it as a difference of opinion, shall we?

Mr Mephisto

hrdwareguy

Gentlemen, and anyone else posting in this thread, please redirect the focus of conversation to the topic of the thread, that being the OICW.

If you wish to debate gun ownership and if it is right or wrong, may I suggest you haed on over to the politics board and join one of the gun control threads or start a new one based on ownership.

As far as the gun goes, I can only say this: I want one!!

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

Moonduck

You want one, HWG? Bloody thing looks about a comfortable to shoot as an unshaped 4x6 flooring joist. The tech is cool, but I really doubt that it would be useful in long patrol. The ergonomics of the entire piece are horrible.

hrdwareguy

Maybe so, but when you need those programmable 20mm rounds, you'd have them available

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

Moonduck

True that. I'm just enough of a bastid to hope that it's the other guy in my fire team that's carrying the American version of the 2x4 of Doom, not me =)