Comments on: Read Ahead: Duck! It Won’t Do You Any Good…

By: angel

angel — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:20:20 +0000

By: Rhyno327/lrsd

Rhyno327/lrsd — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:24:26 +0000

The XM-307 would have been a good addition for troops on foot. Its not all that heavy, and having that kind of firepower with you is worth a real hard look. Its rate of fire isn’t that of the M2, but you will bust ur back humping that thing around. Just not practical. Hk continues to field weapons that are well made, reliable, but cannot get a major contract. Wat surprised me about the “shoot test”, was the M-8 had the least amount of stoppages. The problem is the polymer stock, which tends to heat up especially on full auto.

By: 4evrgr8ful

4evrgr8ful — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:49:46 +0000

Hi.Forgive my imposition.I stumbled here from reading an article re Iraq Vets detained @ Bragg. I guess u could say curiosity brought me here.I am a civilian and extremely curious about how enlisted folks feel about the war, and about the upcoming elections.Regardless of anyone’s opinion I’d like to say “Thank You” to u all for your dedication and sacrifice.Our country is endebted to u and your families.Where-ever u find yourselves u can know someone(actually lots of people) pray for u and yours. God bless and keep u
safe always.

By: bier451

bier451 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:10:05 +0000

I want one! 25mm rocks!

By: txzen

txzen — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:25:43 +0000

I you hit someone with a 25mm x an inch or whatever it is designed to go 600meters accurately, if it will fire it will hurt whoever gets hit, even it doesn’t go off. And I seriously remember OICW having a flechette round that was going on with it. 50meters with like 16 darts or something, that would be a room cleaner.

By: snuffy

snuffy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:31:03 +0000

I don’t see bayonet lug on that piece. With a minimum effective range of 16m I’d think you might want that.

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:12:18 +0000

Well, I guess this comment is for some of the nay-sayers and such. The reason the 25mm was chosen rather than 40mm was due to recoil forces and velocities (at least that’s what I heard). The m-203 and the blooper used a low velocity 40mm grenade, not the High velocity type used in the mk. 19. You must be an absolute monster to fire the HV version from a shoulder stocked weapon. The LV version gave good shrapnel effects but was extremely limited for trajectory and velocity. Don’t get me wrong, I love my 203, but it doesn’t have the range they were looking for. By going with the 25mm they could use a projectile that was compatible with current cannon ammunition, rather than starting the design process all over. The 25mm was also found to create much larger pieces of shrapnel than the 20mm originally prototyped for the oicw program. Bigger shrapnel=better wounding. The 25 mm also gives a fairly high velocity/flat trajectory without breaking your collarbone. In other words, you don’t have to lob it so much, and you won’t get hurt everytime you shoot it(which means you don’t flinch and achieve greater accuracy).

By: Zeus Hanover

Zeus Hanover — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:42:30 +0000

I used to be in the 82nd Airborne (3-505 PIR) and did a tour in Asscrackistan. To the people who say that this is too complicated to be used effectively in combat I think you should refamiliarize yourself with modern weapons, the TOW Missle with an ITAZ (nomenclature is probably wrong... as is my spelling of the word "nomenclature") sighting system is an extremely complicated piece of equipment that we have sucessfully implimented in stressfull combat enviroments dozens of times. Fixing a weapon jam on a M2 50 cal mid fire fight is also a pretty "techincal" and not exactly easy task. The infantry is used to performing complicated tasks in strssful situations, I dont' think that "this weapon is too complicated to use" is a valid argument. I havn't used this piece of equipment but I am willing to bet that it operates in almost exactly the same way as a standard M4, you sight the target, paint it with your lazer, probably press a button once you have the target aquired, squeeze the trigger, target dies. Your really only adding 1, maybe 2 steps to the process. The sighting system probably runs off of a few AA batteries which can be carried in your pocket; and I am willing to be that one set of batteries lasts atleast a week. I am also willing to bet that if the sights go down that you can still fire this weapon manually without using all the fancy features built into the sights. Trust me, this weapon will go into production, I've been out of the Army since 2003 and I remember that way back then they were working on this and had been for several years.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:11:25 +0000

Anon,
It has a laser rangefinder. The target is hiding behind a low wall. You point the laser at the wall and it determines how far away it is (say, 100 meters). You press a button on the weapon and it sets the detonation for 101 meters. You aim and shoot the grenade directly over the wall. The grenade will explode just as it passes the wall, thus denying the effects of cover.

By: Mike P

Mike P — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:08:31 +0000

Interesting gun… though with all of these future/smart weapons, I really think that these are all like concept cars that won’t ever get mass produced the way we see them.
I agree with Vstress when he says that the rifle will most likely remain strong for years.
Simple is key. Simplicity in design and use, then stopping power. Well, in the heat of things, I assume stopping power would be the first priority… But simplicity leads to greater accuracy, I would imagine.