Army to Test ‘Game Changing’ Gun in Combat

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by Jpyle, May 8, 2010.

  1. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    [​IMG]

    You can run but you cannot hide...

    ABERDEEN TEST CENTER, Md. -- The Army is set to send its high-tech "counter defilade" weapon to the war zone in the next few months, the first real-world deployment for the much-anticipated XM-25 Individual Airburst Weapon.

    Army to Test
     
  2. gorknoids

    gorknoids New Member

    2,396
    0
    0
    And people say that songs, paintings, and sculptures are beautiful!
    Great concept, but a money-pit. It's exponentially cheaper to use drones or even tactical aircraft heaving Hellfires, LGB's, Rockeye, etc... because of the area you can cover per dollar spent. One F/A-18 can bring much more death on a single Combat Air Patrol mission than this Willie Wonka Wonder Weapon ever could. Whizz-Bang technology that should never see the light of day, IMHO.
    Pretty damned kewl, though!
     

  3. lkd

    lkd New Member

    91
    0
    0
    True, but I think the issue is that this is more precisely controlled by ground teams. There's a LOT of ways that drone/CAS drops can go wrong, and it often involves civilian casualties. This weapon would likely replace a mortar team, not a rifle team, so I think it has awesome potential.
     
  4. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    4
    0
    Again it looks cool but what happens when you get pinned down and OH SH!T your batteries run out for the targeting system? I guess you could use it as a club.

    When will these whiz bang engineers learn combat + batteries= Dead soldiers

    I have never trusted any electronics with my life. I kept a 2 cases of batteries for the GPS I kept 2 cases of batteries for the NVG's. The NVG's still almost killed me when I was hauling a D7 dozer down a hill and the dam things shut off.

    KISS Keep It Simple STUPID
     
  5. lkd

    lkd New Member

    91
    0
    0
    Well, it's an interesting argument, but I reckon that the fire team would be trained on manual operations as well. All weapon systems like that should be able to operate in a degraded mode.

    And I wouldn't worry too much. I'm sure that there's a crotchety Colonel in materiel acquisitions right now that's putting up the same arguments as you are, and he's probably the final signing authority :D
     
  6. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    The optics targeting system is black for a reason. "SCIBOTS"

    SolorChargedInternalBatteryOpticsTargetingSystem. :cool:

    Jack
     
  7. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    damn if janet reno had that she coulda killed all those people in waco without a big fire :/ its scary when the government greatly outstrips the ability of the people to keep and bear arms...
     
  8. suprdave

    suprdave New Member

    3,409
    1
    0
    I don't care what it uses as a power system. If it gives our boys an advantage, I say give every soldier one. You should feel the same way, too.
     
  9. lonyaeger

    lonyaeger New Member

    10,270
    1
    0
    And they say it's for use up to 700 meters away. If it was a close-quarters weapon, I would think the batteries would be more of a concern.
     
  10. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    If it saves our brave warriors lives or gives them a needed edge, give 'em all one.
     
  11. BudW

    BudW New Member

    115
    0
    0
    You forget few patrols will have continues air cover,so a weapon you can tote at squad level like that would be effective.
     
  12. diggsbakes

    diggsbakes New Member

    1,680
    0
    0
    Seems like a good idea to myself. Keeping it simple is just fine if that's working, but if the troops are unable to penetrate a structure in order disable an adversary, then it sure would be an asset to have one of these in the mix.

    Wonder what the MSRP is gonna be on one of these??? ;)
     
  13. gorknoids

    gorknoids New Member

    2,396
    0
    0
    The story says $25K, and that's just for the gun. You can buy 40 of them for $1M, but you can't shoot them for that price. I'm guessing the ammo is going to run about $100.00 per round if it ever goes into production, but that's a SWAG.
    I DO think it's a great SPECWAR assasination tool, but not something you'd want to put in the field as a common item.
     
  14. gorknoids

    gorknoids New Member

    2,396
    0
    0
    Back in the 90's there was a bread factory in Baidoa, Somalia where Aidid's maggots had their headquarters, right next to a girl's school because maggots always use human shields. The SEAL Team Leading Chief asked me if there was anything we could put into the building from the air that wouldn't destroy everything on the whole block, and we didn't. We knew where the bad guys were, knew what the schedule was for the kids being in or out of the school, but aside from breaching the roof with satchel charges and going in through the top, (And who in their right mind...) the place was not going to be taken down. And as far as I know, it never was.
    This weapon would have been useless, also. While I do see your point that the situation could potentially arise when this expensive mofo might be the only way to kill a couple of guys, how is a squad going to be able to determine that there's an over-riding concern for the safety of non-combatants during a firefight? If they're not exposing themselves to fire at you (Aside from slits, etc.....), fix them, call for air support, and play FAC.
    Lose a couple of these and a pallet of ammo and THAT would be a game-changer.
     
  15. NPD5946TSW

    NPD5946TSW New Member

    81
    0
    0
    The best way to find out what works and what doesn't, is trying stuff out. I'm sure if these things are junk, they will junk the project. One of my close friends told me that the problem with air support is, it's never RIGHT there. If soldiers didn't say they needed something like this, I doubt someone would have thought of making it. Besides, do we have too many terrorist killing weapons????? I vote to make the things, and listen to the fireworks......
     
  16. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,992
    51
    48
    If I was still in I'd take one...in addition to an M4.
     
  17. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Anyone know how much it weights?

    Anyone know if it can "direct fire" bullets?

    Looks like a whiz bang re-birth of the M79 grenade launcher which was quickly phased out for the M203, rifle mounted grenade launcher.

    6 years of light infantry experience talking here. If it weights more than an M249 SAW and does not have direct fire capability, I don't see soldiers embracing it.

    It could find a niche in the SOCOM community were a small footprint is necessary and CAS may not be available.

    TACK
     
  18. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    4
    0
    The big questions is....where can I get one?
     
  19. Mack Bolan

    Mack Bolan New Member

    878
    0
    0
    that article says 14lbs with a 4 rnd mag, sounds kind of heavy.
     
  20. allout13

    allout13 New Member

    12
    0
    0
    To those who said give it to our boys if it gives em an advantage.. thats exactly the point. I want the soldiers to have every advantage they can. But if the batteries run out and their gun can not fire they have a disadvantage not an advantage. The intended suggestion was to create an alternate source of energy that would be more reliable.