OICW some pros but mainly cons

[PUFF88]

www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/oicw.htm

i was looking up this weapon in development and came across some interesting stuff. the article and replies afterwards make some very valid opinions.

more
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm
abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/smartrifle010926.html
www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/oicw_faq.html


personally i think they need something extra, whether this is it or not, i dont know. first thing i would of thought of was maybe every infantryman getting a m2o3 on their rifle, with perhaps certain soldiers in the squad the designated grenadier, carrying more grenades.

[Galland]

I can't stand the bullpup design. It's sole grace is the shortening of the weapon. Every other aspect of the bullpup makes it less user friendly. Do you really want to stick a magazine into your armpit and have the chamber right next to your cheekbone? Not me.

I suppose it's a useful configuration for submachine guns (e.g. FN P90) but I wouldn't want to carry a bullpup rifle into combat. No thankee. Of course, this is coming from a person who considers Kalashnikov rifles state of the art and the absolute last word in firearms technology!

Galland

[PUFF88]

well is pros and cons to the bullpup design for sure, i have held a bunch but never fired one. i do like the the way it feels to aim, but i can see how reloading can be a hassle. one thing it does allow for a longer barrel with a shorter gun in some designs. i thought the discussion of rifle grenades was interesting but, it is single shot, and a few grenades take up lots of space. i think the israelis still use large ones on there rifles. large payload possible i suppose, but i dont see every soldier carrying them if they were to revert to them. I think magazine fed is the way to go for fire superiority. sorry for ranting, i just got back from the dentist and am in some pain.

[Keith Heitmann]

It looks to be a rather ungainly weapon from it's appearance.