AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Wonder if MetalStorm is why we Cancelled the XM-8 Program?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Navigate around the website,they have demos of firing granades at rapid rates and other stuff.




http//metalstorm.com/index.php?src=photo&srctype=lister&album=Advanced%20Individual%20Combat%20Weapon%20%28AICW%29&submenu=Graphics&albumpos=0,1000000,3&category=Photos
I don't know for sure, but to me they all look to "cutesy" for me. If something is going to be "wicked", then it really ought to look like it as well. The Germans know how to do it up right.

Does this look familiar? Can you name it? I'll give you a hint. it is 61 years old, and still looks as lethal as it really is.

[Image: MP-43.jpg]
StG44?

Why would we use that? Seriously?
I did not mean to use that particular weapon. I just think that if it is going to have a mean disposition, then why not advertise it?

All that latest stuff looks like something out of a combination of Battlestar Gallactica and GQ. Ugh.
All stuff is nice and dandy, but how is it going to work in a sand-storm, road dust, and mud? I am not sure that videocam will survive a single drop on the floor,.
ag Wrote:All stuff is nice and dandy, but how is it going to work in a sand-storm, road dust, and mud? I am not sure that videocam will survive a single drop on the floor,.

I suspect that this is still why we are working with the M-16. After the trial of Vietnam, almost all the problems have been worked out of it, and now that it has that chrome bolt, it doesn't jam like it did before.

Hwever, I suspect that the size of the round is what the Pentagon is somewhat dissatisfied with. the 5.56mm round can do some horrendous damage to a person. I have seen people with the most horrible exit wounds, and there is no doubt that what the round does inside the body is going to ruin things.

Yet, it simply lacks the ability to transfer kinetic energy on to the target like a larger and heavier round can do. Both the Russian and NATO 7.62mm(.308) round has far more stopping power, ans I suspect that the military is thinking seriously about going back to something like that.

Remember, the M-16A3 no longer has a fully automatic selector switch. Now, one can only fire semi-automatic, or three round bursts. So, the need for all the ammunition that the soldier used to require is not as great. At least I hope the services are starting to go back to quality shots over quantity.

I'm not sure that there is anything out there, that can take the US into the next generation, and use a larger round. I could be wrong, as I have not kept up with the arms industry.
Metalstorm technology is only about the projectile,the delivery tube can be whatever turns one on so long as it matches up to whatever metalstorm designs as a "load device".

No powder,no shell,unlimited rapidity of fire(within human reason)no moving parts,almost no cleaning the tube is needed,single or auto mode.

Imagine a 155 arty tube that could be loaded top to bottom and all shells fired within.3 of 1 second??

I think it's a definitely interesting idea and they are fixing to demonstrate it to the Navy and Army.

Electronic actuaton of each projectile,watch the high speed video. 48 granades are shot within .2 of a second from a mortar type tube,you almost cannot see them.
John L Wrote:I suspect that this is still why we are working with the M-16. After the trial of Vietnam, almost all the problems have been worked out of it, and now that it has that chrome bolt, it doesn't jam like it did before.
the M-16's main problem is its direct gas action and it was never fixed that's why the army was looking at the XM-8 (itself a revamped G-36) and why they're now looking at the HK416 (essentially a gas piston M-16).

Quote:Hwever, I suspect that the size of the round is what the Pentagon is somewhat dissatisfied with. the 5.56mm round can do some horrendous damage to a person.
there's at least two kinds of 5.56 bullets, the old light bullet that was used in M-16A1's and the new heavier ball firts made by the Beligians for their FNC rifles and later adopted by the US on account that today troops are more likely to wear protective geer and thus penetration is more important than large exit wounds and having lots of wounded soldiers can potentially create more problems for the enemy than having lots of dead bodies. (the wounded have ot be taken care of) Thus the new 5.56 round has good penetration but poor lethality and stopping power and it has poor everything when fired from short barrelled weaponds like the M4 thus the troops in Afghanistan reported that often times it takes half a clip to drop a determined drugged up talib.

Quote:I have seen people with the most horrible exit wounds, and there is no doubt that what the round does inside the body is going to ruin things.
appicable the original M16A1 ball but not to the ones used in A2 and A3.



Quote:Remember, the M-16A3 no longer has a fully automatic selector switch. Now, one can only fire semi-automatic, or three round bursts. So, the need for all the ammunition that the soldier used to require is not as great. At least I hope the services are starting to go back to quality shots over quantity.
3 round bursts don't really solve the ammo problem, you can empty a clip in 3 round bursts almost as fast as in full auto. Actually on the HK416 they went back to semi/full auto.

Quote:I'm not sure that there is anything out there, that can take the US into the next generation, and use a larger round. I could be wrong, as I have not kept up with the arms industry.
actually any of the current assault rifles could be redeisgned to use a larger round, that includes the M-16, yet switching to a different round would still require lots of cash.
Henry, I'm one of those "quality" over "quantity" guys myself. I always did like the M14, with the exception of the barrel being too light, resulting in too much jump when the rould was fired. And while I still enjoyed my M16 days humping it around Laos, I have been a true believer in taking the long shot. That is why I loved to go out with the snipers in my team when I could.

Perhaps the military will decide on something with more stopping power, and do away with that 9mm, and go back to the .45 cal and the .308, although the .306 is far better.
John L Wrote:Henry, I'm one of those "quality" over "quantity" guys myself. I always did like the M14, with the exception of the barrel being too light, resulting in too much jump when the rould was fired. And while I still enjoyed my M16 days humping it around Laos, I have been a true believer in taking the long shot. That is why I loved to go out with the snipers in my team when I could.

Perhaps the military will decide on something with more stopping power, and do away with that 9mm, and go back to the .45 cal and the .308, although the .306 is far better.
looks like with large conscripted armies the high comman puts more trust in spray and pray, i.e. let them carry lots of rounds and let them fire them all in full auto, after all increasing the number of rounds you fire at a target also increases the probability of eventually scoring a hit with at least one of the multitude and when you need to reach out and touch at beyond 300 meters you just call in a fire mission. no more poetry to war, just mundane prose.