Replacing the M-14, M-16, M-4, XM-8 et al

If you are refering to the XM-29 when you speak of the "OICW" then no you are wrong. The XM-29 as it has been envisioned would be handed out to squads much like SAW is currently issued. Two people per squad would be issued an XM-29, another two would be issued an OICW LAW weapon, and the rest would be issued XM-8 type rifels.

The OICW program is a term for the comprehensive program to upgrade the entire infantry weapon systems to a new generation, not any specific weapon in the program.
 
So the US Army is not going to equip everyone in the Army with a xm-29? Is the weapon for sale to other countries like the M-16?
 
X means experimental. It is neither in use or for sale, its in the design and testing stage. Once they remove the X we'll see what they do with it.
 
ok! thanks! And I thought they want to use it for every solider! So till the new rifle comes up, the US Army will still be using M-16s and others\?
 
no zander, they are working on trying to replace the M-16. We all thought it was going to be the XM-8 (which would be the M-8 if it enters service) but right now the program is on hold.

The XM-29 program is to create a supplemental weapon for the infantry squad. Like you have a SAW machine gun in the squad and everyone else has M-16s. So in the future you'd see in a 9 man squad; 2 guys with machine guns, 2 guys with OICWs, and the other 5 guys with rifles.

The OICW program is all about replacing the current generation of M-16s and SAWs with a new generation of infantry weapons.
 
Yes, that is the current plan for the XM-29.
oicw-soldier.jpg


Everyone else would be trading in their M-16s for the XM-8:
m8_carbine2004-06-16.jpg


And this is what this thread is about. The XM-8 pictured above might not be the weapon to replace the M-16, but the eventual weapon will likely be very similar to the XM-8. So this thread is for discussion on what will be the M-16 replacement.
 
Well, to get back to your origional thesis bulldogg, I disagree with you.

The army itself (not congress) has actually tried a number of times to get rid of the M-16 and the army (not congress again) has decided to stick with the M-16. In the 1970s there was the Special Purpose Individual Weapon program which was terminated. And again in the late 1980s you had the Advanced Combat Rifle contest. The ACR program tested a Colt highly modified M-16, a falachet rifel, the H&K G11, and the Steyr Aug: the result was that none of the rifles met the 100% improvement over the M-16 demanded by the army.

The end of the ACR program began OICW program which continues today, still with not a millitary-industry-congress spending spree in 50 years.



So you see bulldogg, replacing the M-16 family is nothing new. If it was motivated out of some kind of corporate greed conspiracy we would have gone through 2 or maybe even 3 rifles already! You seem to forget when calling this "constant replacement" that the M-16 is older than you are, bulldogg! When the M-16 was invented that box you're using to type to me would take up a whole building and the TV came in two colors, black and white. ;)
 
Last edited:
Whispering Death said:
Well, to get back to your origional thesis bulldogg, I disagree with you.

The army itself (not congress) has actually tried a number of times to get rid of the M-16 and the army (not congress again) has decided to stick with the M-16. In the 1970s there was the Special Purpose Individual Weapon program which was terminated. And again in the late 1980s you had the Advanced Combat Rifle contest. The ACR program tested a Colt highly modified M-16, a falachet rifel, the H&K G11, and the Steyr Aug: the result was that none of the rifles met the 100% improvement over the M-16 demanded by the army.

The end of the ACR program began OICW program which continues today, still with not a millitary-industry-congress spending spree in 50 years.



So you see bulldogg, replacing the M-16 family is nothing new. If it was motivated out of some kind of corporate greed conspiracy we would have gone through 2 or maybe even 3 rifles already! You seem to forget when calling this "constant replacement" that the M-16 is older than you are, bulldogg! When the M-16 was invented that box you're using to type to me would take up a whole building and the TV came in two colors, black and white. ;)
Click to expand...

True. In 83 when the A2 came out the Marines adpoted it first while the Army held out till 86' for something newer, but nothing satisfied them, so they when with the A2.
 
zander_0633 said:
So either way, the troops will get the rifle?
Click to expand...

Usualy. The reason why we don't have the XM8 yet, is cost and some mechanical problems.

The U.S. Military is spend tons of money on programs like the RAH-66 Comanche, which they should have gone through with, but instead threw 14 billion down the toilet.
 
I heard the Commanche is a success! I had also read some where about the US developing some type of flying Saucer! in the end they abondone the project as the spinning motion casued the pilots to faint after a few hunderd rounds of spinning!
 
zander_0633 said:
I heard the Commanche is a success! I had also read some where about the US developing some type of flying Saucer! in the end they abondone the project as the spinning motion casued the pilots to faint after a few hunderd rounds of spinning!
Click to expand...

Nope he RAH-66 program was scraped.
 
Does anyone know how well a m16/m4 handles in cold temperatures?

If not someone should freeze it at and fire it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top