Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	OICW (was: RE: Questions of great importance (Steve, Jon,
Date:	Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:50:23 -0400

Message no. 1 At 14.02 09-09-99 +0200, you wrote:
> The OICW is going to be shipped only to SOCOM troops up to now.

I know. My brother and his team mates want to find out if it is
Pararescuer-proof. <g> However, I suspect we will find out how tough it
really is, although most of the work that SOCOM has done in the last decade
are not the kind of thing you would want, or if you did, could, take it on.
I'm guessing the Rangers are going to be giving it a work up. I'd saw
give it to Marine Recon, but those boys could break a big rock. <g>

> I have an article from a german gun magazine somewhere,
>so when I get back to university, I might sum it up if you want.

Cool. I'm always interested in what folks on the other side of the pond
have to say.

Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."

From:	Alex van der Kleut sommers@*****.edu
Subject:	OICW (was: RE: Questions of great importance (Steve, Jon,
Date:	Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:08:14 -0400

Message no. 2 At 10:50 AM 9/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 14.02 09-09-99 +0200, you wrote:
> > The OICW is going to be shipped only to SOCOM troops up to now.
>
> I know. My brother and his team mates want to find out if it is
>Pararescuer-proof. <g> However, I suspect we will find out how tough it
>really is, although most of the work that SOCOM has done in the last decade
>are not the kind of thing you would want, or if you did, could, take it on.
> I'm guessing the Rangers are going to be giving it a work
> up. I'd saw
>give it to Marine Recon, but those boys could break a big rock. <g>

I'm only going off of a few articles I've read from Pop Sci, Pop Mechanics
et al but that sounded like the plan all along. Start introducing it to the
best light infantry you have in 2003 and then work its way out from there.
Its not supposed to replace the M-16, but the 203 in squads. And while it
is expensive, its was pointed out that once you take an M-16, add on the
M203 launcher, laser sight and thermal scope, it comes out to be about half
of the cost.

I also like the simulation results for the wargames. 75 casualties for the
M-16 side, 1 for the OICW side. If that plays out IRL, gotta give it points
for effectiveness.

>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."

Alex van der Kleut
Sommers@*****.edu
647-6048

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	OICW (was: RE: Questions of great importance (Steve, Jon,
Date:	Thu, 09 Sep 1999 14:49:34 -0400

Message no. 3 At 12.08 09-09-99 -0400, you wrote:
>Its not supposed to replace the M-16, but the 203 in squads. And while it

Mmmm....
Listen to some of the monkeys with stars on thier collars. M-203
definanty, M-16 probably, SAW possibly.

>is expensive, its was pointed out that once you take an M-16, add on the
>M203 launcher, laser sight and thermal scope, it comes out to be about half
>of the cost.

Yes, half the cost, none of the versatility. 90% of the time, you don't
need that crap on everyone's weapons. And I won't mention using a 6X scope
at urban ranges. (At least I don't think it is adjustable.)

A basic M-16 or M-4 can be stripped down to bare-bones, or accessorized
into many roles, including greandier, door/point man (with the addition of
an underbarrel shotgun), sentry eliminator (with an under mounted, sound
supressed weapon in .45 ACP, 9mm or .22LR), low-end sharpshooter's rifle
with a free-float tube and moved sling, and if you use the upper reciever's
modular nature to the fullest, everything from a sub-carbine to a drum-fed
SAW to an SMG in any one of a dozen calibers, including low-cost
sub-calibers for training. Sighting can be made largely modular with
irons, lasers, red-dots, thermal, starlite and optical glass (it would
require moving the front sight onto a runner from the rear sight, and
extends over the forearm for this to be 100 percent effective, though),
with the option of using any kind of optics in conjuntion with the main
iron sights. You can fit it to the shooter if use the 6-stop stock from
the Colt ACR and the M-4, or replacable stocks. You can up-scale it to a
full-sized rifle (either the AR-10 or SR-25) or MMG if it is used with a
saddle drum, or a shotgun. It doesn't need batteries, and can be fixed
without using a soldering iron or multimeter or logic probe.
You can't do that with the OICW. You could make an underbarrel weapon
that uses the 20mm shells, which, becuase of thier electronic fusing, are
dependent on centripital force to arm like the 40mm's. Most of the
elctronics would fit onto a sight assmbly that ride fore of the carry
handle/rear sight assembly, and has full-size iron sight on the end of it,
allowing you to mount a wide variety of optics if you needed.

System components:
-Basic action/lower reciever, taht contains a 4-mode, ambidexterous
trigger group (armourers can replace this with a remotely controlled
cellanoid module), the magazine well (that can be internally blocked to
accept magazines for the SMG and .22LR training magazines).
-Option of a fixed stock (which can accept a rear grip, ala HK-21 or L86)
or a 6-position, collapsable unit.
-Quick release, "tubular" forearm that can mate with the modular sighting
system and mounts the underbarrel systems. Option of fitting it with a
heavy bipod with one leg on each side, or a special forarm for that.
-Upper reciever that houses the UR and barrel mounting points, the bolt
and a sight mounting point.
-Quick release barrels (a sub-carbine (10-14"), standard (18-20"),
precision (20-22") and LMG/HBAR (22-24") models) in the stnadard
caliber(s), a trainer barrel (.22LR, same length and weight as the
standard), and an SMG (8-10") models. Possibly add an addtional caliber
that would be a Simuntion-type system for training.
-Modular sighting systems, that are based on a rib (as used in the Colt
ACR) with iron sights that can be fitted with various optical systems, a
low profile optic mounting system, and ribs with integral optics in front
of the carry handle (largley range finders and cameras, althought he
controls for the 20mm laucnehr could be added to that). All ribs would
have side mounts for illuminators , aiming-point projectors, and
sound-amplification (with decible triggered cut-out filters) units
(basically shotgun mics).
-Modular underbarrel systems, including a single-shot 40mm launcher, a
20mm launcher feed from a detachable box (that may or may not be slaved to
a rangefinder), a semi-automatic shortbarreled shotgun based off the 20mm
system, a manually opperated, pistol caliber (preferablly .45ACP) weapon
fitted with a baffel type sound suppressor. A vertical forgrip would be
mountable on all of these, or the plain forearm, as are mounts for heavy
tripods and pintle mounts.
-Muzzle accessories, usually a flash hider, but sound suppressors
(baffle-type), rifle grenade adaptors, blank adaptors and recoil
compensators would be available.

Additional units would be a full-caliber rifle (7.62 NATO, .243Win,
7.62x54), a 12-gauge shotgun, a sharpshooter's rifle (in something like
.330 Win Mag or .338 Laupa), and a dedicated MMG. The rifle would have
standard (20"), long (24"), match (24-26") and heavy/LMG (24-26", fed
from
a saddle drum) barrels. The shotgun would have short (14-16") and standard
(20") barrels with externally adjustable chokes. These would both be able
to use all above sights, stocks and underbarrel accessories, with the rifle
having flash supressors and muzzle breaks available. The MMG would use the
same sight modules, either the heavy rifle/LMG barrel or a very heavy
barrel of the same length, the fixed stock, the same forearm and
underbarrel mounts, and is modified to feed from a belt. The
sharpshooter's rifle would be the only one with hard mounted stock and
barrel, and would be built to duty-match standards, but it would be of the
same family and design.

Would what I'm suggesting be more expensive- partially. On a piece by
piece basis, yes. However, that modularity would be totally unparralleled
by any standard issue rifle or carbine in mass production, and would be the
fullfillment of Eugene Stoner's dreams and the dreams of the Germans with
the G-36 system, and an evolution of the "weapons family" concept used by
H&K. Some of these gizmos might require some R&D, but they would be ready
to go within 6 years.
What it would do is allow your forces to use a variety of weapons, most
based off the same action, and all of the same design in various scales,
and tailor it to thier projected needs. It would ring the death nell of
the "one gun fits every rifleman's situation" mentality that has existed
for so long and has led to the M-16 and the OICW.

>I also like the simulation results for the wargames. 75 casualties for the
>M-16 side, 1 for the OICW side. If that plays out IRL, gotta give it points

Who against whom? I've heard Airborne vs Rangers. Better training and
understanding of tactics at the grunt level.

Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer