OICW: FUTURE RIFLE OR EXPENSIVE MISTAKE ABOUT TO HAPPEN?
U.S. Army "wonder
rifle" Hollywood Sci-Fi or sound weaponry?
PUNTA PAITILLA AIRPORT,
PANAMA, 1989
Two platoons from U.S. Navy
SEAL team 4 are pinned down by enemy fire attempting to get in close to set
explosive charges against Panamanian strongman, Manuel Noriega's Learjet to
prevent his escape from Panama. As bullets skip across the runway into SEALs
who were trying to block the runway with a light airplane, casualties mount
from automatic weapons fire. Someone has to silence the enemy guards firing
behind the cover of dirt filled barrels. A SEAL with a 40mm M203 grenade
launcher attached to his M16 Assault rifle rushes forward to get into firing
position. He is cut down and later dies.
4 SEALs dead, 8 seriously
wounded before fire superiority is gained and the enemy killed.
A high price to pay for an
attack that could have been done at a safe stand-off using the maximum
effective ranges of the weapons in their hands.
THE PROBLEM WITH BULLETS
The basic flaw in fighting
on the automatic weapons swept battlefield, is you fight the enemy at best even
when you do not have explosives effects. A 5.56mm bullet doesn't explode, so
you must maneuver to get a straight shot at an enemy protected behind urban
cover. The SEAL team firefight was ended when a M136 AT4 rocket was fired at
Noriega's Learjet, disabling it. To change this, the U.S. Army's small arms
team is seeking a combination 5.56mm and 20mm grenade launcher with air burst
capability called the Objective Individual Combat Weapon or "OICW" to
replace the current M16/M4 carbine family of weapons. While its a good idea to
give every Soldier a grenade launcher, it is added weight for him to carry and
cost. Is it worth it? Are there better ways to spend our money and get BETTER
results?
EVERY RIFLEMAN A
GRENADIER, GOOD IDEA---IS OICW IT?
"The OICW system might
be called a rifle. Well, not exactly. The weapon does fire a 'standard' 5.56
millimeter rifle bullet. But that's only half the punch. With its attached
laser rangefinder, video camera, and electronic fire control, the OICW can also
launch a 20 millimeter high explosive projectile that can be programmed to
detonate in the air over or alongside of a target. This capability potentially
would defeat traditional barriers against direct infantry weapon fire such as
rocks, corners, and man-made frontal fortifications that do not have overhead
protection.
Earlier this year two
companies participated in a shoot-off of this new system -described by an Army
Materiel Command spokesperson as "the only weapon of its kind in the
world." On April 1 the Pentagon awarded an $8.5 million contract to
Alliant Techsystems to develop the OICW as the 21st century replacement for the
infantry's current M16 rifle. For this amount of money the company will provide
the Pentagon seven OICWs and sufficient ammunition to conduct test and evaluation
trials under an accelerated Advanced Technology Demonstration program. If this
is successful, the full-scale engineering, manufacturing, and development (EMD)
phase will begin in about two years. Costs for this phase are set at $43
million. Eventually, if all goes well, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps
reportedly will buy 20,000 OICWs. At a cost of $10,000 each, this number of
weapons will run $200 million."
BEHIND THE HYPE: ITS A
5.56mm RIFLE WITH A GRENADE LAUNCHER!
OICW is an expensive
purchase because we already have excellent, combat proven 5.56mm firing M16A2
Assault Rifles and M4 Carbines that can be fitted with all the electronic
"bells and whistles" anyone could ever want. All we are getting is a
"smart" 20mm grenade launcher with air burst capability and even this
doesn't look too good. The problem is a lack of explosive effects to get
through to enemies hiding behind building cover--a tiny palm-sized grenade will
not do. If we must have a "smart" 20mm GL, then attach it to the proven
M16/M4 5.56mm family, why buy another 5.56mm weapon that does the same thing?
Turn in M16/M4 weapons to be "made over" into OICWs.
I trialed the two OICW
candidates at last year's Fort Benning Infantry Conference. If its better
ergonomics (human interface), or the compact form a specially made 5.56mm
rifle/20mm GL weapon can have for ease of Soldier handling, the U.S. Army
picked the a good candidate. Instead of the the smallest and best thought-out
arrangement they chose the larger OICW! Perhaps it was the FLIR "thermal"
sight the Alliant
OICW has..... I picked the AAI bullpup over/under OICW candidate which is
compact and easy to aim/carry, shown at the top of this page because the
Alliant prototype at the show was a side-by-side arranged monster! Fortunately
the Alliant team reconfigured their OICW. Here is what it looks like:
Regardless of whether the
Alliant or AAI combination is used, I must say we'd might be better off making
OICWs using the M16/M4 5.56mm family if just to save money. I may have missed
it, but the OICWs I saw need lugs to fit the M9
Wire-Cutter Bayonet since time and time again we end up in close combat where
rifle/bayonet fighting is needed. The M9 bayonet should be attached
sideways like the British SA-80 Engager 5.56mm rifle for better
penetration into ribcages. Do these weapons have iron sights in case their
electrical sights fail under field abuse, I mean use?
MONEY BETTER SPENT ON LIGHT
TANKS FOR INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT
$10K for a rifle. That adds
up to $200 million that could buy 40 x M8 Ridgway Armored Gun Systems (Light tanks) that can actually insure we win a close
city, fight with 105mm main gun SHOCK ACTION instead of trying to expose men to
enemy fire to launch palm sized projectiles at concrete buildings. The money
saved by just buying the OICW 20mm "smart" GL and the kits to make
"OICWs" using existing M16/M4 weapons
upgraded with a gas piston for greater reliability---could also pay for
enough M8 Buford AGSs or M113A3 Gavins with upgun
weapons systems to outfit a quick-reaction company of the 2d Armored
Cavalry Regiment to be a "Strike force" part of the XVIII Airborne
Contingency Corps at Fort Polk, LA. Grenade launchers or light tanks?..which do
you think is going to do more to win on the battlefield?
BETTER GRENADE LAUNCHER:
YOUR RIFLE!
The world is urbanizing,
just bullets will not do. Regardless, there is a limit to the amount of
explosives a 20mm GL shell can hold. We need something bigger and we need EVERY
SOLDIER to have it, so if someone is in position to hit the enemy they can,
preventing designated Grenadiers from having to get up and expose themselves
into a firing position. That something is the bullet-thru rifle grenade.
THE SOLUTION: Rifle/Hand grenades
Money saved by just buying
the OICW 20mm GL and OICW conversion kits for existing M16/M4 weapons should go
towards buying a rifle grenade that is placed over the end of the M16/M4
service rifle/carbine or OICW and launched by trapping the 5.56mm bullet as it
passes through. This can propel very large charges of explosives up to 250+
meters. Every Soldier can have BT rifle
grenades.
The problem is the weight
and size of the BT Rifle grenades. What we suggest is that the BT Rifle grenade
body telescope to a compact size like FN's do. When ready to use, you extend
the fins, put on the end of your rifle, then fire. But taking this the next
step, we suggest that the BT Rifle grenade be given the option of being a HAND GRENADE like the German "potato masher"
By pulling a pin, the grenade can be thrown with fins extended or compact like
a can.
Thus, instead of carrying
BT Rifle grenades AND hand grenades, Soldiers and
Paratroopers carry just the BT Rifle/hand grenades, increasing their firepower
and flexibility.
IS OICW THE
"SMARTEST" GRENADES OUT THERE?
Maybe not.
Weapons genius Carlton
Meyer writes:
"Rifle grenades
got off to a bad start in the minds of the U.S. military. During World War II,
they required the grunt to use a blank round to propel it. However, during the
heat of combat it was common for someone to fire it with a regular bullet under
stress, which caused the grenade to explode. This problem was so bad many units
stopped using them. They later solved the problem with 'bullet traps'.
The OICW does not use
a proximity fuse, it uses a timed fuse which is programmed to blow up in the
proximity of the target. The gunner aims the weapon directly at the target and
pulls the trigger. A laser ranger finder instantly determines range, instantly
programs the timed fuse, and fires the 20mm very low velocity round directly at
the target. If all works well, it explodes at the exact microsecond over the
target. Obviously, this is so complex they are having problems, and the 20mm
rounds are expensive.
I dreamed up a better
idea last year, but then discovered it was already done. News item: FN Herstal
has unveiled a revolutionary aiming device for its F2000 40mm automatic grenade
attachment. To engage a target, the shooter simply aims the integrated laser
sight at the target, and the range to the target is automatically locked into
the weapon's fire-control system. The shooter then elevates the weapon in the
direction of the target and, when the weapon is at the correct firing angle, a
pair of green lights appear on the exterior of the sight. With the weapon now a
the proper super elevation to engage the target, the weapon is ready for
firing. During tests, Belgian soldiers were able to consistently place rounds
within two meters of targets 300 meters away.
Here is more info
http://www.ets-news.com/herstal.htm
This is a fairly
simple yet revolutionary advance, of course no one has bought it, no money for
the grunts".
The "Striker"
40mm automatic grenade launcher shoots a "smart" 40mm grenade out
using high pressures, perhaps a low-pressure "smart" 40mm grenades
could be developed to shoot from the M203 GL?
Striker completes trials
Christopher F Foss
Published in Jane's Online
General Dynamics Armament
and Technical Products has confirmed that the US Army Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) has just successfully completed an operational assessment of
the Striker MK47 MOD O advanced lightweight grenade machine gun. The trial was
carried out by elements of the 573 5th Special Forces Group and the 3rd
Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, with some 19,000 rounds of 40mm ammunition
being fired. During one trial, five targets were successfully engaged with less
than 32 rounds of ammunition in 52 seconds - the requirement was two minutes.
The MK47 integrates the
latest sensing, targeting and computer technology to enable the 40mm weapon to
be rapidly laid onto the target under day and night conditions. It can be
mounted on a tripod or installed on a vehicle. It is understood that SOCOM has
a requirement for around 300 units.
While General Dynamics
Armament and Technical Products is the prime contractor, General Dynamics
Canada is responsible for the lightweight video sight and the Nordic Ammunition
Company (NAMMO) for the high-performance programme fuze incorporated into the
air burst munition. The latter is being tested and is expected to be type
classified in 2003 with deliveries to commence the following year. SOCOM will
be the first in the world to deploy an ABM.
Editor comments: they are
developing a 40MM programmable airburst round for the Striker. Might work for a
low-cost M203-based "OICW". If memory serves me, Insite Technologies
was working on the range finder/programmer for the M203. Not sure who was
funding the work. At any rate we should back this weapon!
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
With the loss of M551
Sheridan light tanks, retirement of M728 Combat Engineer
Vehicles, Iowa Class battleships, our
infantry is set for a repeat of October 3, 1993 Somalia all over again. We MUST
do something TODAY to give our troops shock action to prevail on the
increasingly urban battlefield. BT Rifle/hand grenades, the OICW
"smart" 20mm or 40mm GL made out of proven M16/M4 5.56mm weapons but upgraded with gas
pistons for better reliability while still able to have full length barrels for
800m range and folding stocks and buying some M8 AGS Buford or M113A3 Gavin
Light tanks for the 2nd ACR are something we can do TODAY to solve this. Lets
do it before its too late.
FEEDBACK!
A noted field-grade Army
officer writes:
"Whether we ever
go back to the rifle grenade (as opposed to the 40mm M203) is a good question.
The 20mm of the OICW is an indicator that the Infantry School is going the
wrong way in its never ending pursuit of gee-whiz technical toys. Hopefully,
common sense will prevail."
A Combat Engineer writes
about a better bullpup format M16A2:
"I think the
Army should get rid of the [long-format] M16. We need a short, light and
reliable rifle that can do it all. I think the French got it right with the
FAMAS. Its a bullpup rifle that serves in all roles: infantry rifle, light SAW,
support personnel weapon. It can be fired inside an IFV and can be slung on the
body in a more comfortable fashion. The M16 is too long and awkward to carry,
especially if the personnel who are using it must do laborious tasks, like an
artillery man or dog handler or tank and APC drivers who need a short weapon.
The Army thinks the M9 9mm pistol is a good drivers weapon. Being a M113 driver, I would rather have a rifle. Since the
Army wants the new 20mm/5.56mm combo so bad, I say, give it to the frontline
Soldiers, but don't forget the drivers and support guys. M16 [M4] carbines go
part of the way, I think. But, the carbine has a shorter barrel, which loses
the longer range effectiveness of the M16A2. THe FAMAS keeps the longer barrel
in ! a shorter package. I think theres a smart engineer out there that can use
the existing M16 parts already in place and create a bullpup rifle out of them.
Let us try."
A trooper writes in:
"Plain and
simple we don't need it. If you must have one I think the best and most cost
effective arrangement would be an M4 with a 20mm grenade launcher having a
tubular magazine, being pump action and fitted like the M203.
With the A3 flattop
arrangement any sight could be utilized. very simple and will do any thing the
OICW can do.
A bulpup
configuration is over rated the M4 has better ergonomics particularly were
reloading is concerned. The length and accuracy are comparable to most any
bulpup, not to mention that most Soldiers can't get the most from their weapon
any way.
Go with the realistic
equivalent."
A Combat Engineer writes
in:
I'm an E-4 in the
XXXXXXXXXXX, a 12B combat engineer. We still have M16A1's, by the way. At any
rate, I think it's time we phased out the entire AR-15 (M16) family altogether.
It's an acceptable design, but it has some flaws. For instance, the lack of a
gas piston that results in debris from the barrel being spit back into the
chamber, which is why the M16 needs to be cleaned more than most of its
contemporaries. There are plenty of good rifles out there to choose from. For
us engineers, a compact, lightweight weapon would be ideal. Hauling a spool of
det cord or lugging cratering charges is difficult enough without having to
manage a full rifle with it. There are plenty of modern bullpup rifle designs
out there; the Israeli Tavor even uses the same magazines as the M16, although
nearly any 5.56x45mm rifle could be converted to use standard AR-15 magazines
with only a little modification. The OICW is, in my opinion, a fat waste of
taxpayer dollars. The price of one of those would buy new M4 carbines for my
entire squad. And it's safe-semi-2 round burst is laughable. Full auto fire
from a rifle is limited in its uses; but when you need it, you need full auto,
you don't need three round burst. Three round burst is designed to maximize hit
probability, so they say. Well, instead of putting it on burst and putting
three rounds in the bad guy's direction, why not leave it on semi and put one
in center of mass? I can think of no tactical situation in which a 'double-tap'
option would be useful in a military rifle."
SPC XXXXXX
Co. A, XXX En Bn
My reply:
Good input.
However you contradict
yourself---the M4 Carbine still uses the direct-gas system of the AR15/M16, in
fact the larger M16 is more reliable. The real solution is to retrofit a gas
piston system to the M16/M4 family. Problem solved!
I prefer the larger M16
because;
1. Longer range 800m
2. Rifle/bayonet close
combat fighting
3. Walking stick
4. Better to launch rifle
grenades:
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/riflehandgrenades.htm
Just my preference.
However, the compact M4 is
very good for Paratrooping, and a good T-21 parachute could carry it in a pack
tray side pouch.
www.geocities.com/pentagon/5265/T-21.htm
However, if while switching
M16/M4s over to gas pistons you move the recoil spring(s) to the front, the
stock can FOLD and be compact like you desire without sacrificing barrel length
for 800m striking range lethality.
I'd rather have rifle
grenades NOW than OICWs too heavy, too expensive too late.
Airborne!
Mike
A retired
General writes in to the Spring 2002 issue of U.S. Army Infantry magazine
and asks why not keep the OICW 20mm grenade launcher separate from the 5.56mm
KE weapon and call it a day?
IN PRAISE OF THE M79
Most Infantry readers probably
don’t remember the M79 grenade launcher— the predecessor to the M203. One man
in each fire team carried this handy, lightweight weapon, which was designed to
take out machinegun positions and enemy soldiers in bunkers and rooms. It
resembled a small shotgun, was easy to use, and could be carried in one hand,
yet could be brought up to a firing position without changing grip. Since the
M79 was a single shot, a grenadier carried a .45 caliber pistol as well.
When I reported to the 82nd
Airborne Division at Fort Bragg in 1970, each infantry platoon had six M79s.
Arriving in Vietnam in 1971, I found that the M79 had been replaced by the
M203. This gave me a chance to compare the merits of the two.
The key advantage of the
M203/M16 combination was that you could fire the grenade and then function as a
rifleman without having to take time to reload. (None of the Soldiers wanted to
engage the enemy with their .45s.) The platoon got six more rifles without
having any more men.
There were several
important disad-vantages to the M203 as well. First, the combination was heavy.
Carrying two weapons in one with both calibers of ammunition was tough. Second,
unless specially trained and experienced with the weapon, the M203 gunner
tended to fire his loaded grenade, then function solely as a rifleman. The
weapon without quadrant sights was less accurate than the M79 and, when the
quadrant sights were used on the weapon, they tended to catch on things and
break.
Finally, in the confusion
of the moment, gunners sometimes pulled the wrong trigger. (Once, an M203
gunner to my left rear aimed with his rifle sights at a target beyond me and
pulled the grenade trigger, causing a grenade to impact nearby. Fortunately, it
had traveled less than the arming distance and did not detonate.)
As an infantry platoon
leader I initially carried a rifle, just as the book suggested. Part way
through my tour, I was struck by the idea of carrying an M79 and a pistol
instead. I could carry it in one hand, with the other hand free to operate the
radio—an important duty while in contact. A shot round in the chamber could
provide a quick burst of self-protection if needed, and I wouldn’t even have to
change my grip or take careful aim. Another advantage was that I could use
smoke rounds to mark enemy positions for armed
helicopters instead of smoke grenades to mark my own position. I could also
use smoke or high-explosive rounds to mark targets for my machineguns. I
quickly scrounged an M79 (there were plenty still around) and carried it for
the rest of my tour. Luckily, I did not have to put my ideas to a real acid
test, because things had calmed down after the Easter Offensive in 1972.
Well, all that’s very nice,
I can hear you thinking, but it isn’t relevant to infantry now or in the
future. Perhaps—but consider the objective individual combat weapon (OICW).
This weapon of the future is a 20mm grenade launcher and a 5.56mm rifle in an
over and under configuration; if it is not a son of the M203/M16, it is a close
relative.
It offers a lot of
benefits: long range, integral rangefinding, air burst, etc. It also is heavy,
unwieldy, and complex. Would the infantryman be better served by a different
combination?
Consider the benefits
offered by fielding three personal weapons in the squad: an improved M4 with
integral sights and rangefinder from the OICW; a 20mm grenade launcher with the
rangefinder, sights, and ballistic com- puter; and an M9 pistol. Each weapon
would be much lighter and less complex and easier to handle under almost
any conditions, particularly in confined spaces such as urban areas. Each would
be easier and cheaper to build and maintain. The savings could be used to
expand the ammunition selection for the 20mm. A shot round and a slug round would
allow the 20mm to take the place of the combat shotgun (XM1014).
Smoke
and illumination rounds could be used the same way I used them in Vietnam.
Less-than-lethal rounds could be developed as well. Imagine the flexibility
offered by arming each two-man buddy team in the squad with one M4 and a 20mm.
New tactics and techniques would arise to take advantage of this effective
combination. And for once, we’d really be lightening the infantryman’s load, at
least in comparison to the M203/M16 combination or the OICW.
So, let’s explore this
alternative (it’s the same technology, after all) and test the con-cepts,
head-to-head, before a final decision is made.
BG JOHN R. SCALES
Clemmons, North Carolina
Our response:
GOOD IDEA!
Keep the M4 as the 5.56mm
shooter and just field a 20mm OICW airburst grenade launcher so it will be
lighter and practical to aim/fire with the money saved not reinventing the
5.56mm assault rifle used to field a greater family of 20mm rounds.
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=804
Army and Marines Speed
Up Improvements for Small Arms
by Harold Kennedy
Faced with the possibility
of continuing ground combat in coming years, the U.S. Army and Marines are
stepping up their efforts to improve the small arms used by their infantry.
In recent months, many of
the combat operations in Afghanistan have been conducted by elements of the
U.S. 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain Divisions, using small arms, such as M-4
carbines, 7.62mm sniper rifles and squad automatic weapons. During Operation
Anaconda, I actually witnessed some of my guys taking out al Qaeda targets out
to ranges of 500 meters, Sgt. Maj. Frank Grippe, from the 10th, told a
telephone press conference.
Driving the remaining al
Qaeda out of their caves and fortified positions is a light infantry fight,
Grippe said.
With this in mind, the Army
and Marines are speeding up their work to give the infantry better weapons. We
want to reduce the size and weight and increase the lethality and survivability
of all weapons, said Lt. Col. Gilbert Z. Brown, small arms program manager at
the Armys Armament Research and Development Center (ARDEC), at Picatinny
Arsenal, N.J.
Many light infantry units
in the two services are exchanging M-16A2 rifles for M-4 carbines, said Lt.
Col. A.J. Diehl, program manager for infantry weapons at the Marine Corps
Systems Command, in Quantico, Va.
The M-4s, made by Colts
Manufacturing Company Inc., of Hartford, Conn., fire the same 5.56 mm rounds as
the M-16s, built by FN Manufacturing, of Columbia, S.C. But the M-4s are 5 1/2
inches shorter than the M-16s, Diehl said. The carbines have a collapsible
buttstock, and, at 5.65 pounds, the M-4s are almost two pounds lighter than the
M-16s.
Those attributes are
particularly attractive for light infantry troops, such as Rangers and Marine
reconnaissance units, who are always jumping out of C-130s and helicopters and
climbing through building windows during urban combat, Diehl said.
Rail System
Both the M-4 and the M-16
which remains the rifle of choice for many standard military units can be
outfitted with a system of rails, Diehl explained. This modular system allows
the two weapons to accept a wide array of auxiliary devices, such as a day or
night sight, laser target designator, flashlight and even an M-203 40 mm
grenade launcher.
Right now, Im buying
thermal sights, said Diehl. For the first time, were giving our infantry the
ability to see through dust, smoke, all the fog of war. This is a great
capability that we need to be pushing through, and we will.
The Army, meanwhile, is
trying to pick up the pace of development for its futuristic, but
problem-plagued objective individual combat weapon, which eventually is
scheduled to replace many of the rifles, carbines and grenade launchers carried
by Soldiers and marines.
The OICW is being developed
by a team headed by ATK Integrated Defense Company, of Plymouth, Minn., which
has a $105 million contract from ARDEC. The team includes Brashear Ltd., of
Pittsburgh; Heckler & Koch GmbH, of Oberndorf, Germany; Octec, of
Bracknell, in the United Kingdom, and Dynamit Nobel AG, of Cologne, Germany.
Like the M-16 and the M-4
with an attached M-203, the OICW can both fire 5.56 mm rifle bullets and launch
grenades. A major difference between the two systems is the nature of their
grenades. The M-203 shoots a traditional 40 mm grenade, which explodes on
impact. The OICW launches a newer, 20 mm version, which can be timed to explode
in the air above a target, spraying lethal fragments into an enemy hidden
behind a wall.
Originally, the OICW had
been scheduled to begin production in 2005. That date was pushed back to 2009
after tests at the Armys Aberdeen Proving Grounds, in Maryland, turned up
design problems. During one of the tests, a 20 mm round detonated in an OICW
chamber, injuring two testers.
Since then, the ATK team
has made changes in the weapons design to prevent a reoccurrence, officials
said. In January, ATK completed a new series of test firings of the 20 mm
rounds. More than 60 were fired successfully, said Randy Strobush, ATKs OICW
program director. There were no misfires.
Furthermore, the weapons
accuracy far exceeded customer expectations, he said. We tested at ranges out
to 500 meters, and the OICW consistently delivered airbursts within a very
tight pattern. The successful test results demonstrate the OICWs readiness to
proceed to the next step of development, Strobush said.
The Army apparently agreed.
In March, the services small arms program officials decided to accelerate the
OICWs schedule by two years and begin production of block I of the weapon in
2007, rather than 2009, according to Barbara Muldowney, acting OICW product
manager at Picatinny.
Meanwhile, efforts to
reduce the weapons weight would continue, she said. The original prototype of
the OICW weighed 18 pounds, which the Army said was too heavy for an
infantrymans personal weapon, she noted.
Weight Reduction
Currently, plans call for
the weapon to weigh no more than 17.5 pounds when production of block I begins
in 2007, she said. In block II, scheduled for 2010, the OICWs weight is
scheduled to drop to 15.5 pounds.
Contractors plan to achieve
this reduction by taking advantage of technical advances in electronic and
power-source miniaturization, lighter composite materials and plastic, rather
than glass optics, Muldowney said.
Contractors defended the
OICWs weight, claiming that it already is comparable to that of the M-4 or
M-16, equipped with the grenade launcher and a full package of optics. They
noted that the OICWs 20 mm round weighs only one quarter of a pound, compared
to half a pound for the M-203s 40 mm round.
The current M-4/M-16 system
is modular, allowing soldiers to attach only those accessories that they need
at the moment, Muldowney said. The OICW, by comparison, operates as a single
piece in its present design. Eventually, the Army plans to redesign the OICW to
allow the rifle and grenade launcher portions to be detached and operated
separately, Muldowney explained. But that wont happen until block III, sometime
after 2010, she said.
The OICWs estimated
costperhaps as high as $18,000 apieceis disturbing to many who cite a unit
price of $586 for the M-16. But contractors assert that when the grenade
launcher and all the other add-ons are included, the M-16/M-4 systems cost more
than $35,000 each. OICW critics challenge that claim.
Still, Muldowney points out,
the Army doesn't plan to issue an OICW to every soldier. Only four members of
every nine-member infantry squad will get one. The others will retain their
M-4s or M-16s, she said.
At present, the marine
corps has no plans to adopt the OICW, said Diehl. Were pretty much taking a
wait and see attitude, he told National Defense.
My personal opinion is that
the Army needs to focus more on the ergonomics of the weapon, he said. You need
to be able to handle that thing with one hand, and you can't now. Im convinced
until they address that issue, they're not going to get the interest of the
marine corps.
The corps is slowly
replacing its M-40A1 sniper rifles with the newer M-40A3 version, Diehl said.
The A1 was put into service during the 1970s as the marines primary long-range
sniper weapon, Diehl explained. As the old rifles come in for reconditioning,
they are being retired in favor of the A3s.
Each of the weapons is
hand-built by craftsmen at the marine corps Marksmanship Training Unit at
Quantico, Diehl said. The A3 stock has been modified to accommodate a wider
variety of body sizes and proportions, Diehl said. A bipod and accessory rail
now is fitted, as well.
The M-40 series is
essentially a Remington 700 with a fiberglass stock and day and night scopes
specially built for the Marines. It fires a 7.62 mm NATO round, which has more
staying power than the 5.56 mm, Diehl said. It is a bolt-action rifle, rather
than automatic, which locks the round in place better and provides more
consistent accuracy.
In some situationssuch as
hostage situationsaccuracy is more important than numbers of rounds, Diehl
said.