U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanistan

[YosemiteSam]

Makes sense...like the 203 you mentioned of the guy having to lug the 60 around.

Also wonder if they will start employing this with sniper teams.

Interesting weapon no matter how it is used.

I need one of these in Battlefield Bad Company 2. :laugh2:

 

[63echo]

Makes sense...like the 203 you mentioned of the guy having to lug the 60 around.

Also wonder if they will start employing this with sniper teams.

Interesting weapon no matter how it is used.

Yeah it is. I'd fight to be the guy that got to carry this around (if I were still in the Army, anyway).

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yeah it is. I'd fight to be the guy that got to carry this around (if I were still in the Army, anyway).

I imagine it is probably pretty light but still kind of bulky.

Also wonder how reliable it is.

 

[63echo]

I imagine it is probably pretty light but still kind of bulky.

Also wonder how reliable it is.

I wonder.

I've got some H&K experience and the ones I've used are pretty solid, but this goes waaay beyond "everyday" weaponry.

For what it's worth though, the military fields some pretty "bulletproof" electronics. I don't know if that's changed since I was in (I got out in the late 90s), but back then, you had to really abuse your general issue stuff to get it to stop working.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I wonder.

I've got some H&K experience and the ones I've used are pretty solid, but this goes waaay beyond "everyday" weaponry.

For what it's worth though, the military fields some pretty "bulletproof" electronics. I don't know if that's changed since I was in (I got out in the late 90s), but back then, you had to really abuse your general issue stuff to get it to stop working.

When I was in basic we had some viet nam era m-16s that would constantly jam. Never really had that problem once I moved on to the newer ones. But that was back in the late 80s early 90's.

I just remember talking to some older vets who hated it when they switched to the M-16s originally. Have not heard much about any problems with the current weapons.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Way too many electronics for a battle field environment in a hand held weapon. Slightest bit of condensation and/or dust and I bet it becomes less than reliable. JMO, of course.



I wonder what the maintenance is on that thing? Could you imagine cleaning it? I saw alot of fasteners on the brain cover alone.

IIRC, weapons testing protocols include environmental proofing before they enter the soldier proofing stage. Barrett firearms put together a 20mm rifle system a few years ago to do the exact thing this system does. Problem is that it was a rifle system with range enough to outshoot Fedex's two day delivery. The weapon had a very slow cyclic rate, only had four round chamber, and after you shot the first time you didn't want to again. If your form wasn't right, it would cause massive trauma in your firing shoulder.

I bet though this is what they wanted to have. It's basically a short range M-209 system that isn't crew served, albiet with the 25 mike mike rather than the 209's 40. You get the portability of the 203, but with a helluva lot longer range. I don't see this replacing the 203 at all, but rather becoming a complimentary system to the M-249 squad automatic weapon.

As for someone who mentioned the replacement for the M-16/M-4, that's already going on to an extent. The HK-416 is being retrofitted to the old lower receivers of the M-16/4 and uses a piston driven gas operated system rather than a direct gas operated system to keep the fouled gas out of the firing chamber. The thing is, you'd never know it was the HK version or the old Colt, they look the same. The HK is almost identical so that the muscle memory and posture memory a soldier acquired with the M-16/4 isn't compromised. The frequency of catastrophic failure with the HK is something like 5 times less likely.

 

[burmafrd]

Got a friend who was in Nam, and is still a training commander with SF. I once asked him about the M4. "An improved piece of crap is still a piece of crap". He hated the M16.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I wonder if they are considering making that a standard issue weapon to replace the M-16. Seems kind of bulky.

I doubt it very much. The Ammo is too expensive.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I doubt it very much. The Ammo is too expensive.

The weapon itself is too expensive too at $35k a piece. :laugh2:

 

[WarC]

Seems like body armor and a good helmet would be decent defense against this thing. Also it might force defenders to put some kind of roof over their heads. It could be very useful out in a field but I wonder what kind of use this gun has in an urban environment that wouldn't be better suited for a traditional grenade launcher or shoulder-mounted rocket.

I wonder what the rate of fire on that gun is.

 

[arglebargle]

Glad to see they are getting at least part of this system out. There was supposed to be a unified weapon with all sorts of fancies on it, with grenade and rifle all part of one package. Of course, there were problems, as it was a very ambitious attempt.

Still, having on-the-fly munitions control for your 25mm grenades is pretty cool. Really useful for the Afgani terrain too.

 

[ologan]

Hope they get a couple of these at FB Restrepo,in the Korengal valley of Afghanistan.
If you have a chance to catch "Restrepo" on the National Geographic Channel,please do so. It's a great documentary.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Seems like body armor and a good helmet would be decent defense against this thing. Also it might force defenders to put some kind of roof over their heads. It could be very useful out in a field but I wonder what kind of use this gun has in an urban environment that wouldn't be better suited for a traditional grenade launcher or shoulder-mounted rocket.

I wonder what the rate of fire on that gun is.

Urban environment? The thing shoots through windows and light wooden doors. Even if it didn't make it through the door the first time, you put the second round through the hole. That would go for most buildings. Anti-personnel isn't the only round developed for this system, IIRC.

The Barrett M-82 has a few different rounds developed for it. More specifically the .50 cal system has different rounds developed for it. One is called a Raufoss. It has an armor piercing tip with an explosive anti-material section behind it. Shoot through the wall, it explodes, makes several helpings of Hamburger Helper. You can do the same with the 25 mm round as well, provided it has the kinetic power to punch through the wall.

Secondarily, it technically can shoot around corners. If the target is defilade behind the corner of the building, you set the round for 1 meter past it. Basically you're taking the overhead kill shot behind an obstruction and turning it 90 degrees on the side. Exact same concept.

Body armor and the helmet only cover the body's core and cranial areas. They are heavy units, I think the US military's most common issued elements weigh in at around 35 pounds. And they are not cheap. That still leaves the arms, legs, neck and sides of the torso exposed, and considering the round is fragmentary, there are parts and pieces of steel flying all over the place looking to make a bit of trauma.

Unless you're hiding in the refrigerator from the last Indiana Jones movie, this round can find you and make a bad day go to a downright ***** one.

 

[nflandbooze]

And I'm guessing it will only take about 20 years before it's standard issue. Sweet!

 

[63echo]

And I'm guessing it will only take about 20 years before it's standard issue. Sweet!

Knowing the Army, that's probably not too far from the truth.

I was lucky enough to take part in several "Future Army" field testing operations (including one that made the M1A1 tanks look like they were wearing the Predator camouflage...no kiddin'), and not a one, nor any one I ever heard of, ended up being fielded even though whatever it was we were testing was vastly superior to what it might have replaced. It seemed like we ("we," in this case meaning the non Special Ops guys)were always 4 or 5 steps behind on the technological curve.

There are good reasons for this, I'm sure, but progress was REALLY stagnant while I was in. Hell, the biggest "upgrade" I can think of during that period was the switch from the M16 to the M4 and, according to some Reservist office weenies I work with, not much but the uniform has been upgraded since then.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Knowing the Army, that's probably not too far from the truth.

I was lucky enough to take part in several "Future Army" field testing operations (including one that made the M1A1 tanks look like they were wearing the Predator camouflage...no kiddin'), and not a one, nor any one I ever heard of, ended up being fielded even though whatever it was we were testing was vastly superior to what it might have replaced. It seemed like we ("we," in this case meaning the non Special Ops guys)were always 4 or 5 steps behind on the technological curve.

There are good reasons for this, I'm sure, but progress was REALLY stagnant while I was in. Hell, the biggest "upgrade" I can think of during that period was the switch from the M16 to the M4 and, according to some Reservist office weenies I work with, not much but the uniform has been upgraded since then.

Ran across a few reports of the British doing the same thing with the camo to tanks. Problem is that the M1A1 doesn't sneak up on anybody, and our major adversaries have thermal and passive IR imaging systems. 67 tons of armor under any camouflage system is still 67 tons of armor.

I would say one of the biggest upgrades that we've seen is in the technology sector and removing the fog of war from decision making. The BluFors system, while not standard everywhere, can give a battlefield commander unprecedented real time data of an evolving battlefield.

Second to that was the armoring of the HMMWV's, and the slat armor we now see on many vehicles. Of course this is all retro active stuff.

I would also say the optics are a big leap forward from say Desert Storm. Same with the modifications of adding the Picattinay rail systems to combat rifles. Then there are things like Sure Fires, PEQ-16's, PAS-13's, Sapi plates, and well someone's going to have to help me on this one, but the MANPAD they're replacing the AT-4 with. The one that uses a 9mm tracer round as a sighting sytem on the right side of the unit? I can't remember what the hell it's called. Last, the more widespread use of the Mk19 in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the love the thing has for anything small and sandy that'll get in the receiver.

 

[nflandbooze]

Knowing the Army, that's probably not too far from the truth.

I was lucky enough to take part in several "Future Army" field testing operations (including one that made the M1A1 tanks look like they were wearing the Predator camouflage...no kiddin'), and not a one, nor any one I ever heard of, ended up being fielded even though whatever it was we were testing was vastly superior to what it might have replaced. It seemed like we ("we," in this case meaning the non Special Ops guys)were always 4 or 5 steps behind on the technological curve.

There are good reasons for this, I'm sure, but progress was REALLY stagnant while I was in. Hell, the biggest "upgrade" I can think of during that period was the switch from the M16 to the M4 and, according to some Reservist office weenies I work with, not much but the uniform has been upgraded since then.

Hell, the M4 isn't even standard issues across all the services yet.

 

[StevenOtero]

Nah. It's a grenade launcher. No way it will replace a traditional rifle as standard issue. That's not to say that the M4 won't be replaced anytime soon, just not with this. It might be a one per platoon kind of thing, sorta like the M203 launcher is now.

Exactly.

 

[StevenOtero]

Got a friend who was in Nam, and is still a training commander with SF. I once asked him about the M4. "An improved piece of crap is still a piece of crap". He hated the M16.

Give me an M-14 any day.

 

[tupperware]

Now for rounds capable of piercing the internet.