OICW/XM-8 rifle canceled

Everyone has to now remake their video games.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/oicw1-canceled-door-closes-on-xm8-for-now/index.php

http://darthno.ytmnd.com/

http://www.doesanyoneelsehatethreadslikethis?.com

Threads that break HScroll with URL’s? Yeah.

It’s interesting that the Israelis are moving to a bullpup design as well. Bullpups have a lot of great characteristics, but they notable suck in the whole ‘aiming’ department. Aside from that, they rock.

See, if you people would play Star Wars Battlefront instead of realistic shooters you wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Bullpups have a lot of great characteristics, but they notable suck in the whole ‘aiming’ department.

They suck at long range accuracy (400m+) but I can’t say I ever had a problem aiming the thing.

I would like an Aug… but I live in the land of the drop bear. Specifically “State of the insane guy that killed a lot of people and caused our gun laws to be really strict”. We don’t even have paintball here.

As for the two guns that got cancelled? ppph.

It’s the weight distribution. If you’re prone or using a bipod, not so bad, but lack of weight up front – the very thing that makes it cumbersome in the field – provides stability when aiming. That super short snub nose version looks like it would be holy hell on your wrist with all the weight in the rear.

There’s a reason shooters like balanced weapons.

The bullpup config is great in almost every other way – shorter overall length without losing barrel length, easier to carry, etc.

That article seems to have gotten it wrong… if they did indeed cancel the XM-8 (which would appear so), then it has very little to do with the OICW, which is actually the XM-29. Last I heard, the OICW (XM-29) is still very much undergoing testing :).

It’s the weight distribution. If you’re prone or using a bipod, not so bad, but lack of weight up front – the very thing that makes it cumbersome in the field – provides stability when aiming. That super short snub nose version looks like it would be holy hell on your wrist with all the weight in the rear.

I’ll bow to your superior knowledge, I just don’t ever recall it being a problem to aim from standing or kneeling at anything up to 100-150meters or so. If they are further away than that then why wouldn’t you be prone or propped?

The biggest problem I had with the SA80 was the length when it comes to sticking a bayonet on the end. If you’ve ever seen a giraffe trying to drink, then you’ve got some idea what I look like trying to stick a bayonet into a sandbag on the ground.

I though it was generally well established that upgrading existing frames always beats trying to invent the perfect weapon over and over again from scratch.

Whatever it is the British use for assault rifles springs to mind. It wasn’t very good. Then they upgraded it. And then it was very good.

Nope. The XM-29 will never see operational service. Too heavy. That’s why they split the thing into the XM-8 rifle and XM-25 grenade launcher.

Whatever it is the British use for assault rifles springs to mind. It wasn’t very good. Then they upgraded it. And then it was very good.

To be honest, I’ve no idea why we just didn’t adopt the M16/M4 (which was far from perfect for a good few years after it was initially brought into service by all accounts, 20-30 years of improvements have made it as reliable as it is now).

The SA80/LA851 is getting there. For general use it was fine when I used it 5 or so years ago, the only time it ever jammed on me was using blanks. Apparently it still doesn’t like very cold weather or sand which is a bit of bugger for the kids in Iraq I guess. Biggest problem it had from conversations with a few people is that it replaced the SLR that everyone loved, and it comparison it does feel like a cheap toy.

[quote=“Nellie”]

it replaced the SLR that everyone loved, and it comparison it does feel like a cheap toy.

Just like digital cameras!

It would never happen but they could get a simple solution. its called the AK-47(and its variations). Seriously, just commission or buy the modern version of the AK. Its been around for 50+ years for a good reason. There’s there’s one thing out of the cold war the Russians just got right over the US and its the AK.

The AK is a great weapon, but it has its own quirks and issues. First, it’s a shitty long range weapon – the 7.62 cart it fires is comparable to a 30-30, which is fine for engagements out to 150 yards but isn’t so hot if you’re engaging past that. In the jungles of Vietnam, it was great.

Second, it’s not accurate. At all. Precision fire with it just isn’t going to happen.

Third, it’s kinda small. I guess it was designed for Asians or something, because it feels like a toy gun to me and I’m only 5’10".

On the plus side it’s effective in close quarters, easy to manufacture, reliable as all hell, and cheap.

There’s been countless revisions to the AK, that have addressed issues you have said. There’s no reason you couldn’t take the basic AK concpet(its terrific ruggedness and reliablity something the US M16/M4 series series has never been able to fully get rid of), and make a quality modern weapon out of it. I guess what I’m saying to all of the new “21st century” designs that look cool but have many problems is stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

There have been countless revisions to the M16, FN-FAL, G3, FAMAS, AUG, etc. that address a lot of issues. The AK just isn’t that intrinsically better than other weapons – to address the precision fire issue you’d have to change the trigger group, upgrade the cartridge, and switch to a closed-bolt firing system (I’m pretty sure it’s an open-bolt firing system). Those are non-trivial changes.

The other battle rifles available through the world are superior in a lot of ways, but of course have their own flaws as well.

Actually, there is. Weapons design is very complicated, and I know enough to know how little I know about it. But, the very qualities that make the AK-47 cheap to produce and easy to maintain also make it an inaccurate weapon. Loose tolerances = inconsistent muzzle velocities = wide bullet dispersal patterns.

The Soviet/Russian military hasn’t used AK-47’s in service for years. They use AK-74’s and AK-100’s, both based on a completely different weapon design.