Dangerous PCP Polymer Cased Ammo (Update)

On March 25th, 2014 I posted the results of an ammunition test on The Firearm Blog that can be read here. The ammo exploded, did damage to equipment, and well could have done damage to the shooters had I not taken precautions.

Some photo highlights…

IMG_4537

See the magazine spring in the top left? Yeah, that could have winged Patrick pretty good.

 

IMG_4552

And of course the magazine got blown out with such force that my body weight could not bend it back.

IMG_4549

And this floor plate had to be removed with great force.

The people at PCP told me they would send me a return receipt to send them the ammo back so they could see what went wrong, and they never did.

It really is scary that companies that manufacture ordnance (a dangerous product by nature) would handle something like this so poorly.



Alex C.

Alex is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Director of TFBTV.


Advertisement

  • Riot

    So pat got the job because he almost got hit by a mag spring then?

    So no fluted chamber and no FAL – some testing eh

    • Patrick R.

      No, I applied and interviewed for it just like all the other writers. I just happened to be friends with Alex prior to my employment.

      • Giolli Joker

        “I just happened to be friends with Alex prior to my employment.”
        Then the friendship ended when he realized he was hired as a guinea pig. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Cornelius Carroll

    Case rupture I assume?

  • Formynder

    If I recall correctly, they sent out an e-mail to everyone who had purchased that ammo to test, and you had to fill out the online form to be able to return them. I didn’t bother since my two boxes fired without issue, so I can’t offer any further insight to the returns process with them.

  • Oh, and it still says this on their website instead of “don’t shoot it in a fluted chamber”:
    http://i61.tinypic.com/14boqhf.jpg

    • “Don’t shoot polymer cased ammo in a luted chamber that will basically slice it like an orange, because the flutes were cut to accommodate metal cases, and the case is basically unsupported where the flutes are.”

      Huh, who’d a thunk it? 😉

  • ostiariusalpha

    Next time you test something as questionable as this, you should invest in some serious PPE. An anti-dogbite sleeve could certainly do a lot to save your precious arteries.

    • marathag

      long string and hide in the bunker

      • wzrd1

        From just the still photos, I was thinking the same thing. String and hide in a bunker.
        Come out after the bang with a dust buster.

  • allannon

    Too bad, I was hoping for a reduction in case prices. I guess I’ll stick to good, old-fashioned brass and steel for the moment.

    I like shooting, but I also like to minimize the chance of removing bodyparts while doing so.

    • Dan

      You need to relax, you’re built with spares, two arms, two eyes, 10 fingers. You can lose some pieces and be just fine.

      • iksnilol

        + we are soon going to be having augs and all. So really, losing a couple of bodyparts will only help you so that you don’t have that awkward “I chopped off my healthy arm to have wicked cool robot arm”-conversation.

        • Dan

          Also, who wants to suffer from arthritis in two arms? I know I don’t. I for one better practice with my left hand/arm, I can’t so much use a fork without stabbing myself in the face.

          • iksnilol

            You got a point there. I have learnt to use my left hand mainly due to having broken it a couple of times. You feel so handicapped even if the arm you use the least is broken. I didn’t want to find out how useless you feel if you break your primary arm, so I learnt to use my left hand. In a couple of years I will probably be legit ambidextrous. At least 90%.

          • Got a little amputee fetish corner going over here…

          • Dan

            We keep it small, keeps the freaks out.

          • me

            Can I rub your nub?

          • iksnilol

            Not really, it is just that I don’t want to be useless if I break something. In practical terms I don’t have a support hand, I only have primary hand #1 and primary hand #2.

  • Government contract! I highly doubt that.

    • anonymous

      actually at least two separate contracts/mods with USSOCOM. Award ID (Mod#):
      H9222213P0044 Award ID (Mod#): H9222213P0048.
      $140k for one, $131k for another. Hope SOCOM has better luck with this stuff, I think there is a better way to make lightweight non-brass ammo.

      • Man if that’s the case what were they thinking!

        • Budogunner

          Isn’t there a project to make the SAW lighter weight? That might be a motivator. I’m not saying this is a good call, just trying to think like .gov for a frightening moment.

          • Lightweight Small Arms Technologies is what you’re thinking of, and it’s a separate project.

          • iksnilol

            Pretty stupid idea IMO, why not just replace it with the KAC Stoner LMG? It is objectively better on all counts. And SAWs aren’t that numerous that they are as hard to replace as replacing the standard rifle.

          • The Stoner sure is lightweight, but there’s not anywhere near enough info available on it to say it’s “objectively better on all counts”.

          • iksnilol

            Well, it is lighter, shorter and does the same thing. Only thing I don’t know is accuracy (which considering it is similar to the Ultimax must mean it is good) and reliability (which I have no idea about, but the M249 has had its issues and I doubt the Stoner is *that* bad).

          • Kivaari

            My kids M249 he used in Iraq, did not work all that well when they trained for deployment. In one year at Anaconda, he never fired the gun in action nor training. Poor army policy.

          • iksnilol

            I have never used an M249 (I am not even in the millitary). So I didn’t want to come of as one of those keyboard warriors going “rifle A sucks, we should be using rifle B because it is so much more reliable. Trust me, I know in spite of not having any experience with it”.

            So I was thinking, the Stoner LMG can’t be *that* bad. “*that* bad” being defined as worse than the current one.

          • Kivaari

            There are about 2 legally registered ones in private hands.

          • Kivaari

            The Stoner has a reputation of running itself, with the only way to stop it fast was to twist the belt fast. I am sure that could be fixed.

          • You mean it has good belt pull, or a tendency to run away on you?

          • Kivaari

            While on missions in the wet delta, the gun could be bumped and start firing. To stop it someone had to grab the belt and twist it, binding the feed. It rued the element of surprise.

          • iksnilol

            Which version? The 63 or the new one that KAC is making?

          • Kivaari

            1960’s guns. I am sure if anyone is making them, it works and wont go wild with a simple bump.

          • iksnilol

            Ah, I didn’t really think many had experience with the old Stoner 63. I was talking about the new one. Check it out, it seems cool and the Danish Royal Navy seems to be happy with theirs.

          • Kivaari

            Thanks, I didn’t know someone was keeping the Stoner alive. It was a great gun, with that little flaw about getting bumped in the night and going wild. I knew that would be an easy fix. O left the Navy in 1970 and join the ARNGUS later, leaving soon after a foot and knee surgery. Don’t get hit by cars, it ruins military and police careers. I was able to do another 10 years of policing and was able to get our people armed with the MP5A2 (SEF). I put tens of thousands of rounds through them. I was able to get the department to drop the Glock M21 .45 for Glock 17s. We used +P+ ammo in the guns, until we had talked to the lab techs at San Diego PD that reported the +P+ load expanded too fast in the MP5. We went to heavy loads in the MP5, I think it was Speer Gold Dot on 124 or 147 gr. loads. It’s a few years back now, and I am in my declining years. I need to be 30 years younger for when the bubble pops, so I could still fight. I have the gear and spirit, but the body deteriorated.

          • itsmefool

            Reading this reminds me of the last few Commentaries by the dearly departed Jeff Cooper when he was getting up there in age…anyway, thanks for your service, Kivaari, and congrats for making it through some dangerous careers!

          • iksnilol

            I will make a note of that. “Don’t get hit by cars, it will ruin career options (and ruin several days)”

            From the vets I know (Bosnian War), old guys can still fight. You just gotta adapt. Can’t run? Hit from a distance. Can’t fight well hand to hand? Focus on ambushes and traps. Doing that some of your knowledge will be rendered useless, but still, it can be used by people who can take advantage of it (“those who can’t, teach”). So… something, something… “always look at the bright side” and so on.

            Interesting about the lighter bullets expanding too fast. How did those heavier loads work in pistols?

          • Kivaari

            You are correct. I can do as you say. I have been telling friends that I could be left behind like the Gary Cooper character in “For Whom the Bell Tolls”. I can still “sit guard” as standing is a pain. I can also teach and repair guns.
            The heavy bullets performed well in the Glocks.

          • iksnilol

            Exactly, never give up and all. Sure, your body might be royally screwed, but your brain isn’t. And it is way more valuable. You can always get able bodied young guys. But getting somebody who knows a thing or three? That’s a bit harder. I’d dare say you’re more valuable than those athletes and roid heads that don’t use their heads or at least don’t know any LEO/Mil tactics and whatnot.

          • Kivaari

            Yep! You are correct. The “warrior-look” and taking steroids I a real issue. We had a husband and wife team of cops in our area using and selling steroids. You see it on the street, where the young cops are more into enforcement than peace keeping. I don’t mind the militarization of police when it is needed. Big BUT, SWAT seems to being used too often. Many of the take downs could be done by two regular cops walking up to the door, knocking and saying we need to speak to Joe about this warrant. I’ve been there and done that.

          • fmike15

            The stoner should have been adopted in the 60’s. I used to be a US Army unit armorer. What was the old saying?,”you can pour perfume on a pig”……..Yeah, thats the M4.

          • The M249 SAW has *nothing* in common with the M4, and isn’t derived from it.

            The Stoner sucked as a rifle and a LMG, when tested by actual troops who *didn’t* put obscene amount of care into it. SF and similar units did OK with them, but they were a disaster in the hands of linetroops. And the much-lauded “modularity” aspect is a net *negative* in the hands of line troops.

            The only configuration that did well in Vietnam was the belt fed LMG version, only in the hands of SEALs who did extensive PMCS, and it was being compared to the early M60s for weight and reliability. Which was a *very* favorable comparison for almost anything *but* an M60.

          • fmike15

            Who was comparing the M249 and the M4? Wasn’t me! I was just making an observation from experience. And I don’t know where you got your info that the Stoner “sucked”. If the Navy SEALS wanted to use something else they would have. The semi auto version built by Robinson is very sought after right now because of it’s reliability and adaptability.

          • Your very last sentence was about the M4, which definitely indicated to me that you were comparing it to the M249 that was the major subject of this subthread at that time.

            As for the evaluation of the Stoner, that is based on actual troop trials done by line troops (both USMC and Army) during Vietnam. Sure, Special Forces and SEALs could make them work, and they had them on hand (since they had already bought them to test them), and *at the time* the Stoner was just about the *only* option of a really lightweight, belt fed LMG other than the RPD (whih has its own downsides), some experimental Colt LMGs that were buggy (and would have to be purchased fresh, including support), and the HK13 (which was buggy, significantly heavier than the Stoner or Colt LMG, and again, would have to be purchased, along with support).

            And the belt fed LMG was about the only configuration the SEALs used to any great extent after initial testing, meaning the modularity didn’t matter – while modularity brings its own downsides to the table.

            The Stoner 63 was not some magic gun, forged by the Archangel Michael – it was simply the best choice available for a particular niche, at a particular time, because *no one* had a really good 5.56mm LMG ready to go, and they already owned the Stoners and could lean on the Army and Marines for spares (since the Army and Marines didn’t want themthem after testing them and had no real use for the ones they had bought for testing.

          • fmike15

            Thank you for the info!

          • iksnilol

            What were your negative experiences with the M4? I am just curious. I am merely a lowly civilian with an interest and knack for firearms (,film,design and drawing but that’s for another discussion).

          • The ammo weight savings adds up over hundreds of rounds. The LSAT also has other advantages.

            It helps that the LSAT has a feed and firin mechanism designed from the get-go for their telescoped plastic cases, and isn’t an attempt to backfire polymer cases into a gun built for 19th Century style metal cases.

          • iksnilol

            Wrong discussion, mate. The LSAT is fine and dandy but I was thinking about the M249. They are having a program to reduce its weight instead of just replacing it.

          • My point was in part based on the fact that poly cases are really only suited for a gun designed for them.

            The problem with replacing the M249 with a wholly new gun in the same chambering just isn’t worth it – the advantages of the comoetitors doesnt overcome the costs of the inin placeplace infrastructure to support the M249 in US service. Relplacing it with something that has a high degree of commonality, but has improvements, is still feasible.

            And neither improving the M249 nor replacing it with yet another 5.56x45mm metallic cased round LMG will yield a terribly significant weight savings, once you figure in the ammo weight.

          • iksnilol

            But they kinda want to replace the M249 with a lighter version. Sure, replacing it entirely would be a bit more expensive but would be way better.

            Also, if the weight savings weren’t important I doubt they would spend so much money on a program to reduce its weight.

          • Different paths, for different levels of risk (technical, schedule, and cost).

            LSAT meets and exceeds the weight goals, but has the highest technical, schedule, and cost risks.

            Replacing the M249 with another (lighter) gun that is still firing 5.56x45mm NATO has a low technical risk but has moderate schedule and cost risks for very little improvement. In relation to the advantages versus risk, it is actually a *higher* relative cost and schedule risk than the LSAT polyer round version.

            A lightened M249 as the lowest cost risk, low technical risk, and doesn’t require abandoning the built up support infrastructure already paid for. But the moderate improvement possible puts the advantages on the level with scrapping it for another LMG firing the same brass cased round.

            The fact that they are looking at ways to lighten the M249 doesn’t mean the Army thinks the M249 is so bad as to desperately need replacing – they are looking at reducing weights across the board, where possible. But they aren’t going to spend trainloads of cash for a moderate weight improvement – the cost/benefit ratio simply doesn’t make it reasonable. The M249 is in the system, works well enough compared to its OTS competitors, and the disadvantages of switching to a wholly new gun that doesn’t yield *significant* advantages just don’t overcome the cost and schedule risks.

          • iksnilol

            Makes sense. I thought it might be cheaper since there isn’t that many SAWs compared to assault rifles or pistols.

        • nova3930

          Both contracts are advanced development R&D contracts. SOCOM has a lot of leeway to do small scale R&D like that and they use it to take a lot of fliers on stuff that may or may not work….

    • Kivaari

      I know that Kellogg Plastics fulfilled a contract with the company for 7.62mm NATO and 50 BMG. They only did the plastics, and from memory only I don’t think they had anymore contact with the customer. So far in about 40 years of trying this ammo has failed. Why waste the resources?

      • True enough. In fact this entire rage to make polymer ammo and rifle lowers isn’t ready for prime time yet.

        • nova3930

          If someone were to put the appropriate amount of engineering design, analysis and qualification testing into a rifle lower it could be made to work. But appropriate design and materials are paramount. Thus far what most of these small shops have done is replicate AR lowers in all dimensions out of plastic and that just won’t work. If someone who knows engineering with polymers like say, Magpul, were to go down the road, I’d give it a high probability of being successful, but it will look quite different.

          • BryanS

            The guys at Defense Distributed have done more to modify polymer lower shape to handle the shooting process than most of these “manufacturers”.

          • Jay

            Didn’t James Madison Tactical (JMT) do this?

          • Kivaari

            It needs steel framework. No zinc like Omni. Zinc is just “pot metal”.

        • AR-PRO

          I have floated the idea with my company engineer to try making one out of carbon fiber, it would look different -of course- to reflect changes to make it last longer than a magazine or two.

        • Kivaari

          The Omni adding Zinc parts to a plastic lower just means its a pot metal gun with plastic for cosmetics. At least they could use aluminum at the stress points. Plastics just wont do it, even if it has pot metal wear points. Omni strikes me as pretty cap guns.

      • Budogunner

        Someone gave polymer a try for .50 BMG cases? What? WHAT???

        • Kivaari

          I saw samples of the 50BMG and 7.62 at Kellogg Plastics. From my chat with the operator. He had only a couple pieces left over. After his contract ended, he had not heard another world from the client. My guess is the project floundered. He was making them at the time it was in the news years ago. If you need injection molded plastic items this outfit can do them. They produce the PEET boot and shoe driers. one of the best devices for people with wet footwear. The semi-retired inventor is a genius. His son runs a great factory. I saw many samples of his stuff so he is very adaptable.

  • Lance

    That is why the plastic cased .223/5.56mm ammo died quickly ten years ago and why plastic and telescoping ammo is not trust worthy as brass cased ammo.

    • To finish your last sentance properly, “…in a gun designed for metallic cased ammo.” 😉

      Works fine in a gun designed around it.

  • USMC03Vet

    If they send you another box of ammo, just send it straight to ISIS.

  • SP mclaughlin

    Don’t do either kind of PCP, kids.

  • Barney Samson

    Kind of funny to see steel cased ammo considered “good, old-fashioned”, as in “good, old-fashioned brass and steel” ammo. Not that I have anything against steel ammo- I just bought another 500 rounds of WPA Polyformance FMJ .223. It’s the only .223 I know of that’s under 25 cents a round online, delivered. It’s just a bit strange to read, having grown up on brass cases, lead bullets and blued steel guns having wood stocks…

    • Peter BE

      Well, they had steel cased ammo in WW II…

      • Barney Samson

        I don’t think it was necessarily looked upon as being “good”, but either way I don’t believe it was used in combat- if it was, it would have been out of dire necessity rather than preference IMHO. And about as rare back when I first started shooting as wartime steel Lincoln heads are.

        • SCW

          Steel cases were used in combat in WWII.

          • Barney Samson

            By the US?

          • Kivaari

            Yes. .45 ACP with steel cases and copper plated steel jacketed bullets. We used to buy if for $0.03 to $0.05 (that’s cents per round). It worked well but was prone to corrosion.

          • Hank Seiter

            A lot of steel-cased ammo was used by the Germans, particularly in 7.92. About 20 years ago I bought a thousand round case of varnished German headstamped WWII steel-cased 7.92 that externally looked to be in excellent condition excepting a few rusted cartridges here or there. I culled those out. The steel-cased cartridges were a little more difficult to extract once fired in my KAR-98 and there were several head separations along the way, too. Apparently some of the cartridges had internal corrosion somewhere along the lower walls of the cartridge which would cause the walls to fail. I’d say about one in ten were failing in this manner. One failure to fire with one round raised my curiosity so I bullet the bullet and poured out what looked like rusty propellant. The wall of the case up and down its length was pretty compromised. It could have been a bad run of 7.92 or this could be representative samples of the steel-case technology of the day.
            I’ve yet to run across WWII steel-cased 7.62x54R, all of it being brass-cased that I’ve shot. Its my practice never to shoot steel-cased 5.56 in an AR because I’ve found the ejecting steel-cases, after several thousand rounds, would start beating up the ejection port and removing the phosphating/parkerized finish from the brass deflector which, btw, is called a brass deflector for a reason. To me, the nickel and dimes one might save buying el cheap steel-cased 5.56 just isn’t worth it … literally. Yeah, it makes good “cheap” blasting ammo but I’ve never found them to be quite as accurate as quality brass-cased ammo though they all went “bang” when the primer was struck by the firing pin. However, unless you O-ring your extractor you will have failures to extract from time to time and in some cases I’ve had a friend who had to use a brass rod to beat out a fired steel-case from his AR’s chamber. Doesn’t happen often but it does happen and if you plan on shooting a steady diet of steel-cased 5.56 you better have a couple of spare extractors because in some cases they may break or simply wear the gripping surface down to the point extraction becomes unreliable. In my book it simply isn’t worth it particularly if there is a Reset here in America.
            I did run about a thousand rounds of steel-cased 5.56 through my (steel) Galil and it happily digested them though again the steel ejection port was getting pretty dinged and peened. Also, the blueing behind the ejection port where the case necks were hitting as they empty cases were being ejected was wearing away, but the steel didn’t appear to be eroded which tells me the steel-cases were probably made of much softer, more ductile steel.
            I have no hesitations with shooting steel-cased 7.62x39mm in my AKMs since they were designed, especially the extractor, to shoot such stuff since day one.

      • Kivaari

        Steel saves critical materials (copper and brass). Steel wears out the loading dies that off-sets the material savings. It is a good trade off, saving copper for electronics.

  • Kivaari

    What is the follow up? The failure to send a pick up order? If so it just shows the company is going into non-existent. This concept is over 30 years od. It failed in .38 Special. ! two years ago I fired 50 rds. with many cases failing.

    • Many who have tested it have reported failures to fire as well as this problem we experienced.

      • Kivaari

        I did not have miss fires. The cases failed often.

  • C.

    Glad you guys are okay. You two seem pretty calm in the video despite what had happened. On another note, is the Chick-fil-AK still in commission?

  • Sulaco

    Hmm plastic ammo in general, I still have a fair supply of the “Amtech” “composite cased ammunition with patented PRB and Thermocrimp”. Essentially a brass based, white plastic walled .38 SPL ammo, made in Tacoma Washington in the 70’s and designed to be reloadable on a table top with some of the companies tools. Age has weakened the plastic to the point it shatters in the cylinder if fired. Except for an article I am working on about this stuff I wouldn’t shoot it either. Funny thing is it did a lot of that when it was new also…

    • I believe you are referencing the USAC brand from the mid-1980s. They used to claim that you could resize their cases by boiling them in water.

      The Amtech brand was from the early-1990s. I remember when they showed their ammunition to my local indoor range, and left a display with their proposed caliber range, going all the way up to .50 BMG.

      • Kivaari

        They were tried under a few labels, both with Washington state makers. I used them all, and they all filed 10-20% on the first use. It was a clever round, easy to reload, but no one bought many. Probably due to the case failures.

        • USAC had the disadvantage that they didn’t use conventional 0.358″ projectiles. The thickness of the case required the use of proprietary heel-seated projectiles.

          • Kivaari

            I know that. I actually used quite a bit of it. I enjoyed the ease of loading. It shat well enough for combat practice. It was not suitable for use in rainy weather. Case failures were common. I had to laugh at an old friend. He got a free 6-pack loaded his M10 and fired them at the rest room door thinking they were like CCI’s plastic rounds. It’s a good thing no one was on the can, as they went through the door and hit the cement wall.

      • Sulaco

        Think your correct, I have sample of both and the USAC is the white plastic with brass rims and the Amtech is black plastic with alum rims. The USAC has shown the fracturing on firing. I first became aware of it when my dad, a plastics whole saler was given sample boxes (!) in Vegas at a convention sometime in the 70’s.

    • marathag

      Folks never trusted the Activ plastic shotshell hulls, but those actually worked pretty damn well.

      But for centerfire?
      Nope.

    • Kivaari

      I only used the aluminum based loads, back then and just recently. The case failures happened in both eras.

  • Budogunner

    Many, many thanks for this review and the resulting heads up. I am a brass only guy (not even steel case) but public awareness of dangerous products is always good. Bravo.

    • SCW

      There is nothing wrong with steel cased ammo.

      • marathag

        except for reloading.

        • OldOldLawyer

          maeathag: Cant reload, really? Elmer Keith said decades ago that the brass case is the weak link and if they ever made a steel case we could dramatically increase pressures. ..then in about 2011, I think it was Shooting Times Published an article on reloading steel cases…I have been reloading 45 acp Tullama and Wolf and love em, you lose em so what? My records indicate that they last longer than new brass cases if they are not loaded beyond a SAAMI factory load…and you can just pick them up off a range with a magnet. The first results I had I reloaded 50 rounds of new brass and 50 rounds of once fired Tullamo until I got a case split. On reload cycle number 4, I had 4 brass cases split and zero of the steel ones…I have not reloaded bottle necks so I dont know about them. Also, if I see the first spec of rust, I throw them away and I dont want it in my chamber,,,,,just so you know…steel ammo is fine to reload….

          • marathag

            Most of the steel case is berdan, not boxer. That adds into the PITA factor

      • Ken

        And reselling.

    • Kivaari

      The most consistent military ammo I ever tested was actual Chinese military ammo
      It was within 7 FPS of the 2350 FPS published data. It is illegal now.

      • iksnilol

        And it uses the M43 steel core bullet which isn’t really that good for… y’know… killing people.

        Though I will admit, I like it for practice but for serious uses I use M67.

        • Kivaari

          It was very accurate and reliable. I wouldn’t hesitate to use 7.62x39mm or 7.62x54mmr in steel. I have not heard good things about steel 5.56mm. I suspect it is loaded for commercial sales, and loaded to a lower standard. China and Russia can make excellent ammunition. The only real issue for me was long term use in rainy western Washington. Your rifle needed cleaning after shooting with in hours. Rust grows like crystals reaching 1/4 inch overnight.

          • iksnilol

            I don’t mind steel cases (though I have been warned of it in 5.56), it is just the M43 steel core bullet that I don’t like… too stable.

            Yeah, Norway is similar. Very much rain. And come winter everything is freezing, cars, guns, pipes, all of it.

        • Kivaari

          The flat based Yugo load is a better killer than the M43 PS load. That Chinese version was excellent ammunition. Too bad Bush the elder outlawed its import.

  • Geez…. You guys should really be testing any exotic ammunition with a lead sled and string to get some distance.

  • Cal S.

    “PCP? Yeah, we got lots of thaaa-OH! You mean the ammo?”

    It was really sounding like that was what they were going to say at first…

  • Darren Hruska

    This stuff is better off being microwaved or given to ISIS. If the latter, tell them it’s the “ghost Marine killer assault bowlits.”

  • Kev

    The US military has started fielding polymer cased ammunition in the form of the mk 383 developed by MAC and made by EBR inc, and while the LSAT program is going well and I do believe polymer casing is the future along with other tech, these guys are really damaging it’s reputation and putting people in harms way, stop taking the bladder content! However Alex if you do test the 50bmg I’m free to write future articles……

  • Darkpr0

    In all the rush to condemn polymer as a casing material, I just wanted to play devil’s advocate and remind everyone that the cases these concepts are applied to were designed from the ground up as brass casings with those design parameters in mind. Polymers are a ridiculously powerful material, and have very desirable characteristics to organizations that keep weight in mind. Read: pretty much everyone with arms, the gun kind and the limb kind.

    If you took a machine part off of a tractor or something and tried to make it out of a completely different material, even as smartly as you could, people would laugh at you. Polymer and metals act nothing alike. There are bound to be issues with trying to make polymer fit a design in brass. If you want polymer to do its work properly, it needs to be a cartridge designed from the ground up to use polymer if you want to see proper advantages (I hear LSAT is performing okay).

    I’d say this is pretty similar to the AR polymer lower situation. If you take a metal design and make it out of your favourite engineering polymer, it has weaknesses just because it’s not optimized for the new material. If you are a fan of InRange TV (or Forgotten Weapons) then have a look at their CavArms lower reviews. It shows the difference between products converted to a new material, and products designed for a new material. It also shows that polymer is a lot stronger when used correctly than people would think. It even has advantages over metal, and can do things you wouldn’t think possible.

    Edit: Not to say this product was good or belittle the obvious problems with it. This particular product is dangerous until shown otherwise. But it’s not because polymer is some junk material, it’s because whoever designed it did not do their homework.

    • Kivaari

      We see a lot of brass and aluminum case failures along the way as well. If brass fails
      we recycle it as waste. I wont ever use aluminum again as I’ve seen it destroy a gun and damage others. It’s barely better than plastic.

    • Interestingly, it looks like the .264 USA may be the first round designed for polymer cases from the start. We’ll see, though.

      • Darkpr0

        That’s interesting… The link you provide shows it in context of brass and looking very conventional. I would expect that as development of polymer munitions develops that its methods of extraction would have to change, not unlike LSAT has done. The grab-n-pull method is not as suited to polymer which will probably be a lot more willing to shear and tear than brass will. The push-through method has its own challenges but we’re still in early days.

        One of the reasons I think polymer-cased ammo in current calibres is a bugbear is that it will be hard to make a current military rifle cycle the ammo without tearing apart the case. You can inset metal at the cost of losing some of the advantage, and running the possibility of it delaminating under the polymer’s give and play.

        I’m also pretty leery of this intermediate round. I hate to say it, but 5.56 was adopted for a reason and this would undo a lot of that.

    • BryanS

      Like the dardik tround?

      • Darkpr0

        Perhaps not in execution, but in principle. The idea of changing the cartridge geometry to facilitate completely different types of feeding may come to be a factor. The difficulty that will come is that it’s pretty easy to make a round chamber with a boring tool of some sort. It’s a lot harder to make other shapes.

        • BryanS

          very true, but they did for a while, and still do, IIRC, have an effective polymer round. Not to mention adapter for feeding those pistols

          • Darkpr0

            Agreed, it did the job. The challenge for polymer is no longer making something will work, but something that will compete with and be sufficiently better than conventional munitions to encourage adoption. Other cool stuff has been made to work (Voere VEC-91 :D) but could never quite get the following it needed due to feasibility issues. I wish some of this stuff was getting pursued more aggressively than it is.

  • Jay Bee

    They will get polymer casings right one day.

    Not for the weight but the shear ability to mass produce them at extreme low cost and extremely high production rates.

    My guess though is it will take a specialized gun though.

    Plastics have came a long way in a short time.

  • joshz

    The Army has been using plastic cased 50 for a while haven’t they?

    • Kivaari

      I’ve only seen plastic for the M203. But, then again I’ve been out of the army for 30 years.

      • T Sheehan

        That would be our A602 DODIC M858 .50 training rounds. They’re live ball rounds in a blue polymer shell casing, 4-1 tracer. They’re cheap, and short range for convoy training lanes.

        • Kivaari

          Excellent. I suspect they need specially tuned M2 HMGs. When I was is in we had the prototype blank firing devices for they M2, at the Yakima Firing Center. We also did live fire with our tanks, mortars, Dragon and TOW missiles. Along with airstrikes using A6s out of Whidbey Island. They would drop half the load at Yakima and continue on the Boardman Bombing range in Oregon. Every year while we camped in WA we were treated to teams of A6s making runs on Yakima. Its impressive to hear them seconds before they past overhead at 50 feet and once watched a pair go under a bridge in the upper Columbia River area. Sadly we had a couple crash into the coast making mock runs on targets.

          • T Sheehan

            Lol, ah, you’ve been to Yakistan and Boardman. My Bradley is in Umatilla right now. Pleased to know we’ve swallowed the same dust.
            Actually, we didn’t mod the .50’s *that I know of*..so don’t quote me.
            I would love to watch some A6 runs. The Boise A-10 guys will let you come watch them in Mountain Home if you pay ‘me a call. They fly hogs every day.

          • Kivaari

            Did you do the extra benefit of going in for a shower, then being covered in mud by the time you got back? It was better to stay behind, it was cleaner. Loved watching the tanks firing the early sabot round. At two thousand meters the penetrator hit well before the muzzle blast reached us. About as fast as a laser.
            The A6 was great. They were just a little bit sub-sonic and the noise gave you no more than a second of warning. Then they delivered heavy iron to the target. The Marine Reserve unit was the first to cross the wire in GW1. One tank hit a tank mine, they just went past it and delivered more penetrators to T72’s.

  • Tassiebush

    Such a dangerously untested product being put up for sale is just crazy and the lack of follow up is indefensible. Even the most arrogant of ars3holes would realize they owe you for damaged magazine and any repairs. But to not take the obvious safety issues posed by their products seriously is appalling!
    You guys have been extremely reasonable towards this rogue company! Sadly they haven’t shown the slightest bit of decency in return!

  • Secundius

    Let me GUESS, the Cartridges are Melting inside the Barrels when the Barrels get too HOT…

  • Kivaari

    since this is crap, why give up on using it in conventional rifles and machineguns. Make test barrels with over sized wall thickness, like 3 times as thick as brass, having reinforced shoulders. The bore could remain the same. If they did that I feel it would work. If it does wrok rifles could be altered using a neck reamer only, with a re-chroming. It is not working using plastic to replicate existing ammo.

  • Mike C

    Here’s a question for you Alex; why bring a FAL along to test the ammo in?
    I understand it is a “commonly available military rifle”, but I’ve been consistently told (by DSA and other shooters) not to shoot even steel cased ammo out of them due to the possibility of similar failures.

  • Mark J

    I feel uncomfortable watching these guys, esp the taller dude. Not sure if it’s jut me but it seems just socially awkward

  • scaatylobo

    They should be sued if they are not removing this or putting out a HUGE warning.

  • Dragonheart

    Just so I get the facts right it says “not recommended” and you did it anyway?

  • Jeff D.

    Polymer ammo? Hhmmm. Yet no one seems to have an issue with polymer guns like a Glock.

  • wzrd1

    It sounds as if the hot gasses flowed down the flutes in the chamber, resulting in those gasses largely going through the magazine.
    A decent additional test would be to fire it through a smooth chamber.
    I’d loan you my M1A, but unfortunately I sold it in order to upgrade to a nicer unit and am in the middle of relocating and won’t be getting the replacement until my relocation is complete.

  • iksnilol

    Color me skeptical. I believe MGs and assault rifles will still remain. Simply because of weight. 200 rounds for an MG will last you longer than the same weight in grenades. And it offers better range.

  • iksnilol

    Yes, but an MG can suppress at more than a kilometer and they certainly have been used at that range. I don’t doubt the XM25 will be important in the future but I doubt that they will replace MGs. Mainly because MGs have longer range and can do that whole continious fire thingy. I doubt the XM25 is that useful for suppression (heavy ammo, slow to fire), but for killing opponents behind cover and whatnot? Most definitely it is useful.

    Also, flintlock ammo is way heavier than you think. .69 caliber lead bullets are heavy.

    The whole “bolt actions had better range” is a bit weak argument. You are comparing potatoes to giraffes. Why did MGs remain in 7.62×51 while the assault rifles and carbines went down to 5.56? Didn’t think about that, now did you?

    Lastly, the Krags slow loading is bull****. It is just that the idiots loaded one round at a time and complained it is slow (an AR-15 is superslow to reload if you load one round at a time). You are meant to load a Krag roughly. Grab 5 rounds in your fist, throw them in with the bullet pointed forward and close forcefully.

    • I can see *augmenting* MGs with smart grenades – but the XM25 isn’t the path forward; the bursting charge is simply too small, and you’re talking about introducing *another* weapon and round into the rifle squad/platoon (which displaces a weapon).

      You can get better results, cheaper, without losing compatibility, with a larger bursting charge, by simply going to smart grenades in the existing 40mm chambering, as Singapore has developed. And the gizmo to program the smart grenades on firing can be added as a backfit to existing grenade launchers, and the launchers so fitted can continue to fire existing “dumb” grenades. (For that matter, IIRC, the smart grenades can be fired through “dumb” launchers – they just revert to impact detonationdetonation and act like current 40mm grenades if they don’t get programmed with an airburst range.)

      • iksnilol

        That’s the plan from what I understand. The whole augmenting part. IIRC they want one XM25 per fireteam or something.

        40mm smart grenades would probably be best. You can still use the old “dumb” grenades while keeping options open to smart ones.

        • Hyok Kim

          “That’s the plan from what I understand. The whole augmenting part. IIRC they want one XM25 per fireteam or something.”

          ……..for now, not necessarily true for the future

          “40mm smart grenades would probably be best.”

          Not necessarily, especially if the enemy gets wiser and adopts the dispersed open formation, instead of closed in small concentrated formation WW2 TV style.

          In that case, both more effective and efficient grenade could be smaller than 40mm smart grenades in either tandem or cluster forms.

          “You can still use the old “dumb” grenades while keeping options open to smart ones.”

          Yes, if it comes to house to house fighting WW2 style. Chinese made an excellent use of hand grenades, sometimes bundled together to be used against enemy bunkers, or tanks, forerunner of cluster bomb.

          • iksnilol

            You forget the army is cheap, as in they want to save money. Making 40mm smart grenades is way more economical than changing out the entire grenade launcher inventory.

            I’ll be honest, I don’t know much about WW2 China. I wouldn’t be surprised they made do with what they had. + hand grenades are very flexible, change the fuze and you have something that can be used in an entirely different way. Use some string and brains and there’s little limit to what you can do with hand grenades.

          • Hyok Kim

            “You forget the army is cheap, …….”

            Nope, I am fully aware they are cheap when it comes to rank and file, not with the perks for the senior officers and the generals.

            Btw. Navy could be worse. Did you know that some admirals wanted to build tennis court after the battle of Iwo Jima?

            “….as in they want to save money.”

            Not necessarily. A lot of generals become lobbysts when they retire, and they offer quid pro quo to their buddies in the military if they buy stuffs (that they don’t need or not the best value), they will get a cushy job after retiring.

            ” Making 40mm smart grenades is way more economical than changing out the entire grenade launcher inventory.”

            Not necessarily if it cost combat effectiveness per grenade to decline to the point of diminishing marginal return.

            The reason why I am more for 25mm or even small grenades is this.

            It would make the grenade platform more man-portable. 40mm in semi-auto form will not become man-portable, they weigh just too much for one man to carry.

            Another tactical reason being, once smart grenades become more widespread, the enemy will also get wiser. They will adopt open loose formation, which will reduce the effectiveness of 40mm smart grenades.

            Big explosion in the center followed by shrapnel is less likely to hurt the loose open formation.

            In that case, small grenades used in either tandem or cluster or maybe both would be far more effective.

            Instead of one big bang in the center, there would be a lot of small bangs all over the KZ, more evenly distributed.

            “I’ll be honest, I don’t know much about WW2 China. I wouldn’t be surprised they made do with what they had. + hand grenades are very flexible, change the fuze and you have something that can be used in an entirely different way. Use some string and brains and there’s little limit to what you can do with hand grenades.”

            Another advantage is one needs far less training in using grenades than typical infantry small arms, No more sight alignment, trigger control, ability to zero in the field, just take the pin off, and throw it where the enemies congregate, and off you go!

          • 40mm HEDP M433 isn’t a hand grenade.

          • Hyok Kim

            I know that. Did I say it was?

          • You certainly implied it. I said that standard 40mm grenades could still be used through launchers equipped with the programming gadget for the 40mm smart grenades, and you responded with a discussion on bundles of hand grenades beng used, and a discussion of how they would be useful in house to house fighting. No, they are still just as useful anywhere you don’t need an airburst – airburst (and most cluster munitions, since you brought them up) are only useful against soft targets, especially targets in the open, but shielded from direct fire.

            But sometimes, you want to make a hole *through* something – be it a wall, or lightly armored vehicles. And no matter how you tweak the payload, the cube-square law means a 25mm projo will generally have less than a third the payload of a 40mm projo (ignoring the fact that the 40mm grenades are more efficient in space, due to the interior ballistics they have to withstand).

          • Hyok Kim

            “You certainly implied it. I said that standard 40mm grenades could still be used through launchers equipped with the programming gadget for the 40mm smart grenades, and you responded with a discussion on bundles of hand grenades beng used, and a discussion of how they would be useful in house to house fighting.” – Rick Randall

            Nope, you misunderstood what I had said,

            First of all, I was responding to iksonilol’s response to your discussion, not your discussion directly.

            . Here’s the recap.

            “40mm smart grenades would probably be best You can still use the old “dumb” grenades while keeping options open to smart ones.” – iksonilol

            ….and here is what I had said in reponse to iksonilol

            “Yes, if it comes to house to house fighting WW2 style. Chinese made an excellent use of hand grenades, sometimes bundled together to be used against enemy bunkers, or tanks, forerunner of cluster bomb.” – Hyok Kim

            Obviously, I was referring to iksonilol’s ‘dumb’ grenade comment, not 40mm grenade. Since Chinese most definitely used dumb hand grenade.

            For your conjecture that I meant 40mm grenade to be hand grenade to be true, Chinese must have used 40mm grenades in the way I described and most assuredly they didn’t.

            “No, they are still just as useful anywhere you don’t need an airburst – airburst (and most cluster munitions, since you brought them up) are only useful against soft targets, especially targets in the open, but shielded from direct fire.” – Rick Randall

            Not true, Chinese successfully used bundled hand grenades against hard targets, against the bunkers,and Japanese tanks. They specialized in putting the bundled grenades either between the hull and the turret, or even at the top of the turret since the armor at the top was the thinnest in most tanks, creating spall effect inside the turret if not blowing it out. .

            “But sometimes, you want to make a hole *through* something – be it a wall, or lightly armored vehicles. And no matter how you tweak the payload, the cube-square law means a 25mm projo will generally have less than a third the payload of a 40mm projo (ignoring the fact that the 40mm grenades are more efficient in space, due to the interior ballistics they have to withstand).” – Rick Randall

            25mm or smaller smart grenades can be used in tandem or clusters distributing a lot of ‘bangs’ more evenly throughout the KZ than 40mm grenade, producing either one, or a few ‘big bangs’

            This is going to affect the wide, open, loose enemy formation far more effectively, and efficiently than one or a few big bangs.

            The bigger blast of the 40mm will be largely wasted, plus the extra shrapnel from 40mm will hit the same target more than 25mm or smaller ones percentage, again, wasting those extra shrapnels.

            With 25mm or smaller, in cluster and/or tandem, it will created a lot of small bangs, evenly distributing the bangs throughout the KZ, so both the blast and shrapnel will not be wasted.

            Not only that, with smaller, in concussion form, it could be used for CQB more safely to friendlies than 40mm.

          • No, physics simply doesn’t work that way. Anything you can do with a 25mm grenade, you can do *better* with a 40mm grenade designed with the same technological advances.

            And you don’t use 14lbs, 4 shot, grenade launchers in CQB. Aside from being clumsy and short on ammo, you have a minimum arming range, so you don’t kill your entire fireteam if you have an ND into the dirt by your feet. Nor am I going to use a GL from outside the building to “snipe” into windows before the rifle armed team goes in an interior door – fuzes malfunction and troops miss, which means I could inadvertently fire that grenade *into* my entry team while they are stacked up.

          • Hyok Kim

            “No, physics simply doesn’t work that way. Anything you can do with a 25mm grenade, you can do *better* with a 40mm grenade designed with the same technological advances.”

            Even in clusters? How about CQB? Wouldn’t it be more dangerous to friendlies?

            “And you don’t use 14lbs, 4 shot, grenade launchers in CQB. Aside from being clumsy and short on ammo, you have a minimum arming range, so you don’t kill your entire fireteam if you have an ND into the dirt by your feet.”

            But you are not thing technological advances for the future. You only think about right now.

            By that kind of reasoning, we would still be using the bows and arrows, since they were more reliable, more arrows launched per minute than early firearms.

            “Nor am I going to use a GL from outside the building to “snipe” into windows before the rifle armed team goes in an interior door”

            That’s an odd reasoning. So you’re going to use a GL from outside the building into windows after the rifle armed team goes in an interior door? Before or after?

            “- fuzes malfunction and troops miss, which means I could inadvertently fire that grenade *into* my entry team while they are stacked up.”

            Okay, so you want to use GL before, not after.

          • I’ll address these in no particular order…

            If you’re firing the grenade into the space before your or anyone else you care about) is nearby the target, you’re not in a CQB scenario. No downside to using a more effective round.

            My entry team is *not* going to use an HE grenade round in CQB on room entry. Period frogging dot. If you’re using a grenade launcher in CQB, you’re using a non explosive round, like buckshot, or a less-lethal like a baton round (which combat troops rarely have). In either case, 40mm gives greater effect. So the only real use of a GL on room entry is from an overwatch position.

            Comparing bigger (and therefore, by the laws of physics and topology) *better* rounds (bigger round means more ka-boomie goodness delivered) to the same range, for the same weight per round, out of a lighter launcher, is hardly “bows and arrows”.

            No matter how advanced the tech vets, there is a physical limit to how many fragments you can deliver, which, more than any other single factor, drives your effective radius. Beyond a certain point, slamming the fragments with a higher impulse through more powerful explosive charges doesn’t really increase your effective radius – the density of the fragment cloud controls. And any explosives improvements that can be applied to a 25mm can be applied to a 40mm.

            Submunitions don’t really make sense until you get into heavy mortar/medium artillery calibers, because of volume inefficiencies. For example, a 40mm grenade projo is about three times the volume of a 25mm warhead, but you’d be lucky to get two 25mm equivalent submunitions into a 40mm projo. Grenades are not buckshot; being munitions that use chemical energy and fragments to do their damage, there are minimum sizes. And unless they have terminal guidance, submunitions cluster around the point of aim almost randomly.

          • Also note – the M32 weighs less, holds 50% more ammo, 25mm grenades weight about the same as 40mm grenades, and there is a variant of the M32 that has an effective range *beyond* 800m.

            Hmmm… Lighter, handier, more ammunition, *higher* rate of fire (due to the same rate of firefire per round, but a 50% larger capacity), ammunition weighs about the same per round, system can be adapted to the same range increment, less chance of catastrophic malfunctions (such have resulted in troop injuries already with the XM25), and the rounds are more effective on target…

            Tell me again, what the purpose of the XM25 is, other than to salvage some return for HK and Alliant stockholders on the aborted XM29 OICW program?

          • Hyok Kim

            “Also note – the M32 weighs less, holds 50% more ammo, 25mm grenades weight about the same as 40mm grenades, and there is a variant of the M32 that has an effective range *beyond* 800m.”

            Which variant of the M32 that has the range?

            “Hmmm… Lighter, handier, more ammunition, *higher* rate of fire (due to the same rate of firefire per round, but a 50% larger capacity), ammunition weighs about the same per round, system can be adapted to the same range increment, less chance of catastrophic malfunctions (such have resulted in troop injuries already with the XM25), and the rounds are more effective on target…”

            Can it be used more safely in CQB?

            Tell me again, what the purpose of the XM25 is, other than to salvage some return for HK and Alliant stockholders on the aborted XM29 OICW program?

          • 1. Milkor (who makes the M32) has a version called the SuperSix, which can fire either LV or MV 40mm ammo. That gives you your range.

            2. Yes, it can be used more safely in CQB. And the rounds intended for CQB are *more effective* than any for a 25mm. We have decades of experience developing CQB rounds for grenade launchers in the 40mm range (albeit less-lethal, fechette, or buckshot – but those are precisely the rounds you should be using for CQB).

            3. What cluster munitions for grenade launchers are you talking about? Or are you referring to multiple rounds to cover a larger footprint? If the latter, note that rounds with a larger effective radius mean you will use *fewer* rounds to cover the same target footprint… and 40mm rounds still weigh about the same as their 25mm counterparts, which mean you’re being *more* efficient, from a logistics and tactical POV, using the larger rounds.

          • Hyok Kim

            “1. Milkor (who makes the M32) has a version called the SuperSix, which can fire either LV or MV 40mm ammo. That gives you your range.”

            Thank you.

            “2. Yes, it can be used more safely in CQB.”

            Didn’t you say 40mm has more blast radius than 25mm? So how can it be safer to the friendlies given everything else equal?

            “And the rounds intended for CQB are *more effective* than any for a 25mm. We have decades of experience developing CQB rounds for grenade launchers in the 40mm range (albeit less-lethal, fechette, or buckshot – but those are precisely the rounds you should be using for CQB).”

            This only means 40mm has been longer tested, not necessarily is going to be more effective in the future. After all, when firearms were introduced initially, bows and arrows had been test far longer, and considered more effective than early firearms.

            “3. What cluster munitions for grenade launchers are you talking about?”

            Smaller than 25mm, micro ultra smart grenades clusters to be launched from a heavy crew served full auto grenade launcher against enemy formation in large, wide, deep, loose,open orders.

            “Or are you ru referring to multiple rounds to cover a larger footprint?”

            That could be other tactical move, when a heavy crew served cluster launching form is not available on demand locally.

            ” If the latter, note that rounds with a larger effective radius mean you will use *fewer* rounds to cover the same target footprint..”

            Yes, that would be true today. However, I am eventually looking at modular use of ultra smart micro grenades. Logistically it would a lot more efficient to use one size micro smart grenades, and bundle them together in clusters when heavier firepower would be more effective or efficient than different sized grenades.

            In the end, the future is in not just smart grenades, but micro smart grenades.

            “. and 40mm rounds still weigh about the same as their 25mm counterparts, which mean you’re being *more* efficient, from a logistics and tactical POV, using the larger rounds.”

            That is true today. I am talking about the future where ultra smart micro grenades working in teams.

      • Hyok Kim

        “I can see *augmenting* MGs with smart grenades – but the XM25 isn’t the path forward; the bursting charge is simply too small, and you’re talking about introducing *another* weapon and round into the rifle squad/platoon (which displaces a weapon).” – Rick Randall

        They can design new mix for the bursting charge, besides small charge is not necessarily negative. It can be used as concussion grenades instead of shrapnel for CQB (at military distance, not LE distance) to minimize friendly casulties.

        It’s a step toward the direction.

        I’m talking about the future. There is a lot more room for improvement and refinement especially when it comes to electronics, sensors, new explosive powder mixture, materials for weight reduction without compromising safety, reliability.

        “You can get better results, cheaper, without losing compatibility, with a larger bursting charge, by simply going to smart grenades in the existing 40mm chambering, as Singapore has developed. And the gizmo to program the smart grenades on firing can be added as a backfit to existing grenade launchers, and the launchers so fitted can continue to fire existing “dumb” grenades. (For that matter, IIRC, the smart grenades can be fired through “dumb” launchers – they just revert to impact detonationdetonation and act like current 40mm grenades if they don’t get programmed with an airburst range.)” – Rick Randall

        …problem with 40mm grande version is that they are not man-portable in the way XM25 is.

        MK19 cannot be carried by one soldier, it’s like going from M60 to M1917, I don’t call that a progress.

        Backward compatibility doesn’t matter when it comes to revolutionary change. When the world’s navies changed from sailing ships to steam engine ships, they certain didn’t worry about backward compatibility.

        • Um, the M203, M320, and M32 are all easily manprotable, and *don’t* automayically force you to lose a rifleman in order to have a specialty weapon.

          Sure, the same technology could be applied to the Mk19, but why would you compare an XM25/to a Mk19, instead of the XM307?

          Shockingly, even concussion grenade technology can be applied to the 40mm grenade; its not like technological improvement is linked to bore size – only that the 40mm gives you a significantly larger payload. Now, fragment and HEAT capability is very size dependant, and that favors the bigger round, if the technology is otherwise similar.

          The 25mm XM25 exists for *one reason* – they were trying to leverage the failed OICW program’s smart grenades. The only reason the OICW was as small a caliber as it was was due to the deed o make it so for a semiautomatic GL with a very heavy electronics package and a built in rifle, that was originally intended to universally replace the rifle squad’s rifles entirely.

          There’s no reason to limit yourself to the rather puny 25mm payload if you’re not going down that path.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Um, the M203, M320, and M32 are all easily manprotable,,,,”

            …um, M203 and M320 are single shots only unlike XM25, while M32 has far less range than xm25.

            Besides, The M203 grenade launcher has an effective range for point targets of 150 meters, and a maximum range for area targets of 350 meters. The XM25 has an effective range for point targets of 600 meters, and a maximum range for area targets of 700 meters. Studies indicate that the XM25 with air burst rounds is 300 percent more effective at engaging the enemy than other squad-level grenade launchers

            Another besides, what makes XM25 smart is not just grenades, it’s the combination of the grenades and the platform that communicates with the grenade.

            M32 is a revolving drum type platform, whose firing and communication systems are not compatible with smart grenades. It does have fairly sophisticated sight, though. I remember seeing one in ‘Dogs of War’, pretty cool.

            “and *don’t* automayically force you to lose a rifleman in order to have a specialty weapon.”

            Wag the dog. We don’t fight wars to have a rationale for having a rifleman. We have a rifleman to fight the wars. Before the rifleman, we used to have musketeers, and pikesman for close support for the musketteers from the enemy heavy cavalry.

            We didn’t fight wars in order to have musketeers, and pikesman. We had them to fight wars. When people came up with the idea of bayonet, in order to combine the musketeers and pikesman for more economy of scale, efficiency, flexibility, we didn’t decry the demise of muskteers and pikesman.

            When technology advances, the military specialty also needs to change or become obsolete.

            We used to have light tanks, infantry tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks.

            Now, we only have MBTs. The others became obsolete, and so they needed to go.

            We don’t have an army to have a rifleman. We use rifleman specialty for the army, but if due to the technology change, rifleman becomes obsolete, then the rifleman also needs to change. Just like battleships gave way to aircraft carriers.

            “Sure, the same technology could be applied to the Mk19, …..”

            ….um, how do you know that? XM25 uses different firing mechanism than Mk19?

            Besides MK19 has a lot shorter range than xm25.

            “…but why would you compare an XM25/to a Mk19, instead of the XM307?”

            Because I thought the objection to XM25 was due to non-traditional use. You certainly aren’t saying XM307 is traditional?

            XM307 belt fed, weight 50 to 80lbs, xm25 weighs 14lbs

            “Shockingly, even concussion grenade technology can be applied to the 40mm grenade; its not like technological improvement is linked to bore size – only that the 40mm gives you a significantly larger payload. Now, fragment and HEAT capability is very size dependant, and that favors the bigger round, if the technology is otherwise similar.”

            ….and I had never said nor implied those were not the case.

            “The 25mm XM25 exists for *one reason* – they were trying to leverage the failed OICW program’s smart grenades. The only reason the OICW was as small a caliber as it was was due to the deed o make it so for a semiautomatic GL with a very heavy electronics package and a built in rifle, that was originally intended to universally replace the rifle squad’s rifles entirely”

            There’s no reason to limit yourself to the rather puny 25mm payload if you’re not going down that path.”

            Nope, not necessarily Please remember I was originally referring to smart grenades in general, not just XM25.

      • Kivaari

        The old M79 is wonderful. A friend has one (legally). The original recoil pad is getting hard. That and an M4 would be an awesome.
        His only ammo is practice rounds. Most of those were shot last summer by a bunch of grand kids.

        • The M79 *is* great. The M320 and M32 are better, because they have a few decades of development behind them, building on the lessons learned with the M79 and M203.

          But the M79 is still great.

    • Hyok Kim

      “Yes, but an MG can suppress at more than a kilometer and they certainly have been used at that range.”

      At that range, one is better off using mortars and infantry guns (artillery designed to be used in direct fire for infantry)

      As I recall, GIs faced MGs a lot closer than a kilometer most of the times. Not only most casualties affecting infantry did not come from small arms. They accounted only about 10 or 11%. Most of the casaulties came from artillery and the mortars, and to a lesser extent, grenades.

      There is little room for further improvement in typical non-explosive projectile infantry small arms. There is a lot of room for further improvement for the smart grenades.

      For example, smart grenades can be further developed into mini-smart grenades designed to knock out a single individual, in case, the enemies try to disperse, or even micro concussion grenades to be used for CQB purpose to minimize the friendly casaulties. Of course, one could carry a lot more mini, and even more micro grenades than regular sized smart grendades.

      Not only that they could even use cluster version of smart grenades, which could annihilate an entire enemy squad even if they widely disperse, in one go.

      ” I don’t doubt the XM25 will be important in the future but I doubt that they will replace MGs. Mainly because MGs have longer range and can do that whole continious fire thingy.”

      Like Heinz Guderian said, “Not a drizzle, but a dounpour”, MGs are neither as effective in wiping out enemy units hiding, nor as efficient as smart grenades.

      In WW1 for every combat casualty there were around 10,000 rounds fired.

      By WW2 this figure rose to about 25,000 rounds.

      In Vietnam it was about 50,000 rounds.

      Smart grenades, especially in mini or micro form, would be far more effective and efficient than MGs or battle carbines.

      “I doubt the XM25 is that useful for suppression (heavy ammo, slow to fire), but for killing opponents behind cover and whatnot? Most definitely it is useful.”

      Slow to fire? Slower to load (in present form) maybe. It would be far more useful for area suppression than MGs.

      This was proven during WW2. When US GIs faced MG 42s, and had hard time, they didn’t call for BARs or .50s. They called for either artillery or CAS. When they couldn’t get that, they used grenade launchers.

      We all know that artillery has even heavier ammo, and even slower loading than XM25.

      “Also, flintlock ammo is way heavier than you think. .69 caliber lead bullets are heavy.”

      Your point was MGs and batte carbines would last longer for the same weight than XM25.

      “Color me skeptical. I believe MGs and assault rifles will still remain. Simply because of weight. 200 rounds for an MG will last you longer than the same weight in grenades.”

      I’m merely saying flintlocks and with attendant ammo supply in the same weight would last a lot longer than MGs and battle carbines.

      “The whole “bolt actions had better range” is a bit weak argument. You are comparing potatoes to giraffes. Why did MGs remain in 7.62×51 while the assault rifles and carbines went down to 5.56? Didn’t think about that, now did you?”

      Oh, I thought about that. It was you who had said MGs and battle carbines had longer ranges than smart grenades. What you didn’t think about is the longer the range, the weaker the effectiveness of MGs and battle carbines. Both their accuracy and terminal ballistics suffer, unlike smart grenades. You didn’t think about that, did you?

      “Lastly, the Krags slow loading is bull****. It is just that the idiots loaded one round at a time and complained it is slow (an AR-15 is superslow to reload if you load one round at a time). You are meant to load a Krag roughly. Grab 5 rounds in your fist, throw them in with the bullet pointed forward and close forcefully.”

      False. Rough riders used the Krag in the manner you described, it was still slower loading than the mausers wielded by the Spaniards.

      I know how the side box loading Krags work. I thought it was a good idea initially, but in practice it wasn’t a good one. Not only it was slower loading, it also was all kind of dirt and dust magnet, reducing the reliability in the field environment.

      • iksnilol

        Better of, but it is better than having nothing. Later on in case you haven’t noticed the move has been towards improved range (.338 sniper rifles, 300 BLK instead of SMGs, etc.). So if they were outranged by PKMs and Dragunovs I doubt they will get rid of their LMGs so that they can have grenade launchers with shorter range than their assault rifles.

        Mini and micro grenades while it sounds cool, there’s a limit to how small you can go. For practical (too small and you have a glorified M80) and legal reasons (remember the hague convention limits the minimum amount of explosive in a projectile?).

        You misunderstood what I meant by “last longer”, I am not talking about a end of the world scenario where every bullet is precious. I am simply talking about being able to do more for the same amount of weight.

        Yes, I thought about the diminshing effect at range. It is better to have reduced effect than no effect at all. Sure, an MG isn’t *that* good at 800 meters, but it sure is better than a 25mm grenade which won’t even reach that far. So sure, the 25mm grenade will be equally effective at 50m as 500m, but it won’t reach out to 1000-1100 meters (MGs don’t have a problem doing that if you have T&E). Ho boy, ya didn’t think about that.

        My experience and the competition shooters in Norway beg to differ. Also, the whole “it is open to debris” crap is just that. It is just grasping at straws to justify putting the final nail in the screwed up American version of the Krag (worse chambering and a removed locking lug).

        • Hyok Kim

          “Better of, but it is better than having nothing.” – iksnilol

          Most small arms fire are within 300 yards. That’s per German experience in WW2. As I already has said, beyond 1000 meter and beyond, military rely on artillery, mortar and CAS, not MGs or battle carbines.

          That’s per seasoned veterans.

          “Later on in case you haven’t noticed the move has been towards improved range (.338 sniper rifles, 300 BLK instead of SMGs, etc.).” – iksnilol

          You were talking about MGs and battle carbine/rifles.

          “I don’t doubt the XM25 will be important in the future but I doubt that they will replace MGs. Mainly because MGs have longer range and can do that whole continious fire thingy. I doubt the XM25 is that useful for suppression (heavy ammo, slow to fire), but for killing opponents behind cover and whatnot? Most definitely it is useful.” – iksnilol

          Why mention sniper rifles? I had never said against sniper rifles. Who are you arguing with?

          “So if they were outranged by PKMs and Dragunovs I doubt they will get rid of their LMGs so that they can have grenade launchers with shorter range than their assault rifles.” – iksnilol

          I already told you for the range you’re talking about, military don’t rely on MGs, they rely on artillery and CAS (Close Air Support).

          “Mini and micro grenades while it sounds cool, there’s a limit to how small you can go. For practical (too small and you have a glorified M80) and legal reasons (remember the hague convention limits the minimum amount of explosive in a projectile?).” – iksnilol

          Very simple, they can use the amount of powder allowed, and design new mix. Or They can for an example design the grenades in cluster or in tandem, so this way they can use any amount they desire per projectile.

          “You misunderstood what I meant by “last longer”, I am not talking about a end of the world scenario where every bullet is precious.” – iksnilol

          Nope,it is you who misunderstand what I had said. I had never said nor implied of the end of the world scenario. Who are you arguing with?

          “I am simply talking about being able to do more for the same amount of weight.” – iksnilol

          ……..and this is where you hiccup. I already had said, and will say it again.

          “As I recall, GIs faced MGs a lot closer than a kilometer most of the times. Not only most casualties affecting infantry did not come from small arms. They accounted only about 10 or 11%. Most of the casaulties came from artillery and the mortars, and to a lesser extent, grenades.

          In WW1 for every combat casualty there were around 10,000 rounds fired.

          By WW2 this figure rose to about 25,000 rounds.

          In Vietnam it was about 50,000 rounds.

          ” – Hyok Kim

          How many smar grenades does it take to do the job? So far, using ancedotal evidence, only one. Smart grenades do more for less.

          “Yes, I thought about the diminshing effect at range. It is better to have reduced effect than no effect at all. Sure, an MG isn’t *that* good at 800 meters, but it sure is better than a 25mm grenade which won’t even reach that far. So sure, the 25mm grenade will be equally effective at 50m as 500m, but it won’t reach out to 1000-1100 meters (MGs don’t have a problem doing that if you have T&E). Ho boy, ya didn’t think about that.”

          Nope, it is you who don’t realize how military utilize their assets. At the range you’re talking about, they use artillery and close air support, not MGs.

          .

          “My experience and the competition shooters in Norway beg to differ” – iksnilol.

          Competition shooting is not war. It is a sport. War is not a sport. Btw. the first hand account of Krag by US soldiers during the Spanish American war begs to differ from yours.

          We’re talking about the use in war, not a game in nice weather.

          “Also, the whole “it is open to debris” crap is just that. It is just grasping at straws to justify putting the final nail in the screwed up American version of the Krag (worse chambering and a removed locking lug).” – iksnilol

          That crap is per the first hand account of U.S. soldiers fighting a war with it during the Spanish American war.

          • iksnilol

            I am arguing with you, can’t you see that? Or are you being purposefully obtuse to confuse me? That figure about 10k, 25k and 50k rounds expended counts in the amount spent on training as well as the amount spent on killing the enemy himself. That’s a small tidbit that isn’t usually reported. And it included all ammo, so strafing runs with miniguns and M60s count the same as the GI shooting full auto with an M16 to suppress.

            Not all combat is under 300 meters. A good part of it, yes, but far from all of it. Otherwise they would have ditched the GPMG a long time ago.

            I guess then that they made and carry the T&E system for shits’n’giggles? Maybe they just carry the extra equipment because they like carrying heavy stuff?Because, MGs are never (abso-friggin-lutely) ever used at distances farther than 300 meters? I realize how millitary use their assets. But you also underestimate them, you think everything past 300 meters is solved with a JDAM or drone? Sure, recent trend shows that. But believe it or not, people still use MGs and rifles at distance. Even the millitary which is so turned on by the XM25 and all doesn’t even think to consider replacing their MGs with XM25s.

            Oh yes, of course. Norway and nice weather, if I was capable of laughter, I would be laughing now. Simply put, there’s a difference between a bunch of privateer, ivy league soldiers and y’know, professionals who shoot a lot (remember, back in the day ammo was way more expensive). Of course, just dismiss an entire branch of people just because they didn’t live 150 years ago and actually know how to use their native rifle. That’s cool, I ain’t even mad bro.

          • Hyok Kim

            “I am arguing with you, can’t you see that? Or are you being purposefully obtuse to confuse me?” – iksnilol

            ……then why do you assume I said something that I had never said nor implied?

            “That figure about 10k, 25k and 50k rounds expended counts in the amount spent on training as well as the amount spent on killing the enemy himself. That’s a small tidbit that isn’t usually reported.” – iksonilol

            What doesn’t change is that the amount of ammo expenditure to cause one casualty has increased dramatically over the years. Certainly not a sigh of greater efficiency using MGs as you had said earlier.

            “Not all combat is under 300 meters. A good part of it, yes, but far from all of it. ” – iksonilol

            …..and I had never said it nor implied it. Who are you arguing it with? All I had said was the German research during WW2 showed that most small arms fight occur within 300 yards.

            “Otherwise they would have ditched the GPMG a long time ago.” – iksonilol

            GPMG accounted less than 10% of infantry casualties. Most infantry casaulties were caused by artillery, air strike and to a lesser extent, grenades.

            Besides, for engagement with main enemy infantry at distance far beyond 300 yards, military rely on artillery and air strike, not GPMG.

            “I guess then that they made and carry the T&E system for shits’n’giggles? Maybe they just carry the extra equipment because they like carrying heavy stuff?” – iksonilol

            Ah, MGs are not heavy, with all the extra ammo needed? Besides you need one smart grenades to take out the enemy.

            In WW1 for every combat casualty there were around 10,000 rounds fired.

            By WW2 this figure rose to about 25,000 rounds.

            In Vietnam it was about 50,000 rounds.

            ” – Hyok Kim

            “Because, MGs are never (abso-friggin-lutely) ever used at distances farther than 300 meters?” – iksonilol

            Where had I ever said it?

            Who are you arguing with?

            “I realize how millitary use their assets.” – iksonilol

            Nope, you don’t. You know how to utilize small infantry arms, mostly under sporting conditions. You don’t know how military use their all assets, not just small arms,

            “But you also underestimate them, you think everything past 300 meters is solved with a JDAM or drone?” – iksonilol

            …….but I had never said it nor implied it. Who are you arguing with?

            “Sure, recent trend shows that. But believe it or not, people still use MGs and rifles at distance.” – iksonilol

            …..and where and when had I ever said people don’t use MGs and rifles at distance now? I was talking about optimal combat man portable infantry weapon of the future, not now.

            Who are you arguing with?

            “Even the millitary which is so turned on by the XM25 and all doesn’t even think to consider replacing their MGs with XM25s.” – iksonilol

            I am talking about the future. Do you think US Navy ever thought they would replace the battleships with aircraft carriers before WW2? Nope, never. They used to refer the aircraft carriers as ‘Bird Farms’, bunch of civilians posing as military., and how quickly it changed in a matter of a few years.

            “Oh yes, of course. Norway and nice weather,” – iksonilol

            ……….and beautiful fjords as well, plenty of Tandberg RTRs, the best sounding RTR decks I have ever listened to, I collect their 10X for reproduction of pre-recorded materials and TD20A, SE, SES, for recording, and electrocompaniet amps, and of course, Sissel.

            “if I was capable of laughter, I would be laughing now. Simply put, there’s a difference between a bunch of privateer, ivy league soldiers and y’know, professionals who shoot a lot (remember, back in the day ammo was way more expensive).” – iksonilol

            The negative experience of Krag was not just by the Rough riders, but overall US soldiers. Besides many Rough riders were crack shots as well, not all of them were Ivy league soldiers, but backwoods men, rough necks.

            “Of course, just dismiss an entire branch of people just because they didn’t live 150 years ago and actually know how to use their native rifle. That’s cool, I ain’t even mad bro.” – iksonilol

            …but I didn’t. Who are you arguing with. I was merely reporting the deficiencies of Krag under field conditions by the soldiers who used it for combat, not sport shooting competition in nice weather. Krag is a beautiful rifle. I consider it the handsomest bolt action service rifle ever. Buttery smooth bolt action, the smoothest. I understand the attraction of Krag.

            But the facts are facts.

          • iksnilol

            The ammo expenditure increased due to more training (WW1 armies didn’t fire as many rounds in training as they do nowadays), more MGs (particularily on vehicles such as helicopters) and the move towards automatics instead of bolt actions.

            The distance comment(s) was in regards to you saying MGs are going/should be replaced by smart grenade launchers. I said that would most likely not happen due to advantages that MGs have which includes farther range. Then you dismiss that by mentioning artillery and air support. If that extra range wasn’t needed, then they wouldn’t stick to 7.62×51. Same reason they started with DMRs. Believe it or not, range in the form of small arms is actually used and needed in spite of most combat being within 300 meters. Crazy how that works?

            You can be a crack shot and be slow, or y’know not know how to load the gun quickly. Also, my comment about beautiful Norwegian weather was sarcastic. It’s either much rain, or a medium amount of rain in Norway. Occasionally sun but more rain and wind than sun.

            You are a strange one. You say one thing, I reply to that thing then you say a third thing while claiming you said a second thing.

            So I’ll ask you; who are you arguing with? Because I am honestly getting confused.

          • Hyok Kim

            “The ammo expenditure increased due to more training (WW1 armies didn’t fire as many rounds in training as they do nowadays), ….” – iksonilol

            more MGs (particularily on vehicles such as helicopters) and the move towards automatics instead of bolt actions.” – iksonilol

            …..and now, that’s an odd statement. So today’s soldiers have better shooting skills, then why do we need to carry more and fire more ammo during battle to cause the same amount of casaulties?

            After all, the snipers expend about 1.3 bullet per each kill.

            …and that ratio remained about the same through the time.

            “The distance comment(s) was in regards to you saying MGs are going/should be replaced by smart grenade launchers. I said that would most likely not happen due to advantages that MGs have which includes farther range. Then you dismiss that by mentioning artillery and air support. If that extra range wasn’t needed, then they wouldn’t stick to 7.62×51”

            …..and that’s as rational argument as the US Navy High Command would have used in the 1930s. If the range provided by the big guns of the battleships are not needed, then why are we building them instead of more aircraft carriers ala ‘Bird Farms’?

            Just because military is making irrational decision right now, is no justification of that irrational decision, especially for preparing for the war of the future, not of the past.

            You obviously are not aware of the saying, “Most generals prepare for the last war they fought, instead of the coming of war of future.”

            “Same reason they started with DMRs. Believe it or not, range in the form of small arms is actually used and needed in spite of most combat being within 300 meters. Crazy how that works?”

            Far beyond 300 meters, military rely on artillery and air strikes, not infantry small arms. Obviously, you’re a small arms enthusiast, so you want to believe small non-explosive projectile small arms matter more than actually the case. I understand your aspiration. But facts are facts, infantry small arms cause around 10% casaulties at all distance, and if you’re talking about far beyond 300 meters, practically very little, maybe far less than 1% of the total infantry casulties.

            “You can be a crack shot and be slow, or y’know not know how to load the gun quickly.” – iksonilol

            I’m merely referring to the first hand account of the US soldiers who used Krag as was designed to load as fast as possible, by throwing those loose rounds into the side box. Did you ever notice when you open that side box, not only it provides a big opening for the dirt, mud, dust, as well loose rounds, but also all kind of nooks and crannies for those debries to accumulate, a recipe for serious reliability problem under field condtion?

            “Also, my comment about beautiful Norwegian weather was sarcastic. It’s either much rain, or a medium amount of rain in Norway. Occasionally sun but more rain and wind than sun.” – iksonilol

            …oh, I knew that. I already read about the weather in Scandinavia, that people love to sunbath during Summer, because of the condition you just talked about. With that out of the way, I don’t see those shooting competition actually simulating real war combat condition, such as throwing dirt, mud, on top of the guns, without cleaning it in between.

            “You are a strange one. You say one thing, I reply to that thing then you say a third thing while claiming you said a second thing.” – iksonilol

            Can you provide an example or two?

            “So I’ll ask you; who are you arguing with? Because I am honestly getting confused.” – iksonilol

            ……..now I see you’re trying to emulate me by asking the same question I ask you, but without answering mine.

          • iksnilol

            They need more ammo due to the way we fight has changed. WW1 = trench warfare. Nowadays we have urban fighting and whatnot. Something that was virtually unheard of in the days of WW1.

            Of course I am a small arms enthusiasist (I can never type that word correctly), I wouldn’t be on TFB if I wasn’t 😛 . Though I am aware how painfully irrelevant we as shooters are. I mean, in 50 years the whole concept of infantry will be as strange as cavalry is nowadays. But still, while small arms won’t win wars, they still are the main thing to keep an individual soldier alive. And to be honest, I care about that individual soldier, because he’s the one risking his neck often for little to no gain.

            I am aware of the whole “preparing for the last war”, and I see how that’s worked out. “Iraq was close range, so was Somalia, I guess Afghanistan will be that too”, then somebody wisened up and started refurbing and issuing M14s (sure, they ain’t ideal but at those ranges they are better than an M16 or something). Too bad it had to cost people lives. That’s why I see no reason to reduce capability. Because when you do that, your opponent is gonna find out and use that against you. With a 5.56 rifle you can easily outrange someone with a 7.62×39 rifle. With a 308 or equivalent you can outrange somebody with a 5.56 (and they frequently do). So tipping the scales in the opponents favor is not something I am really supportive of.

          • Hyok Kim

            “They need more ammo due to the way we fight has changed. WW1 = trench warfare. Nowadays we have urban fighting and whatnot. Something that was virtually unheard of in the days of WW1.” iksnilol

            Actually, many aspects of trench fighting resembled urban fighting. After all, shotgun and subguns were considered very effective in trench fighting, so were the knives, war clubs, and grenades.

            We have had urban fighting before WW1, and after ever since. It’s not something new.

            “Of course I am a small arms enthusiasist (I can never type that word correctly), I wouldn’t be on TFB if I wasn’t 😛 . Though I am aware how painfully irrelevant we as shooters are. I mean, in 50 years the whole concept of infantry will be as strange as cavalry is nowadays.” – iksonilol

            So am I and so do I.

            “But still, while small arms won’t win wars, they still are the main thing to keep an individual soldier alive.” – iksonilol

            Actually, overall the biggest threat to an individual soldier is dehydration, prolonged exposure to extreme temperature without adequate clothing, lack of food, disease, lack of adequate medical care, lack of decent sanitary measures regarding #2, those killed more individual soldiers than pure enemy actions.

            After that comes, enemy artillery shells, strafing and bombing, and grenades. Small arms account for very small percentage of overall death. As I studied the military history and what soldier really do when danger faced them, many of them will do anything to save their lives. If it is a matter of giving up their personal issued small arms for food, not drowning (like those marines dumped too early before hitting the beach), then that’s what they will do. They can always pick up discarded small arms or from the dead later on. ‘Battlefield pick ups’, that’s what they call them.

            “And to be honest, I care about that individual soldier, because he’s the one risking his neck often for little to no gain.” – iksonilol

            True enough, and that’s why I want to empower an individual soldier, especially an infantryman. I do not want him to become a slave of romantic attachment to a tool. Battle carbines/rifles, MGs are just tools,nothing more. Just like archers morphed into muskteers, and muskteers into rifleman, rifleman needs to transition into something else, such as a grenademan.

            Battle carbine today is basically what bayonet charge was in WW1. Soldiers armed and fighting with battle carbines against enemy armed with smart grenades will be slaughtered just like the soldiers charging with bayonets and engaging in ‘marching fire’ were slaughtered by MGs during WW1.

            “I am aware of the whole “preparing for the last war”, and I see how that’s worked out. “Iraq was close range, so was Somalia, I guess Afghanistan will be that too”, then somebody wisened up and started refurbing and issuing M14s (sure, they ain’t ideal but at those ranges they are better than an M16 or something).” – iksonilol

            Yep, it is an optimal solution for the time being, but not ideal for the future, and I am talking about the future. Btw. infantrymen in Afghanistan found smart grenades to be very effective in dealing with enemy infantry, far more than battle carbines, and MGs.

            “Too bad it had to cost people lives. That’s why I see no reason to reduce capability. Because when you do that, your opponent is gonna find out and use that against you. With a 5.56 rifle you can easily outrange someone with a 7.62×39 rifle. With a 308 or equivalent you can outrange somebody with a 5.56 (and they frequently do). So tipping the scales in the opponents favor is not something I am really supportive of.” – iksonilol

            If you limited yourself to current mainstream traditional infantry small arms only, then I would agree.

            But we have artillery, mortars, air strike such as A10. They can engage the enemy formation afar far more effectively.

            If just a few enemy infantry, then they cannot become a significant threat, just some annoying skirmishers, who can be taken care of more efficiently by sharpshooters employing dedicated sniper rifles. That’s why I had said earlier predicting the infantry of the future consisting of grenadesmen, a few ammo carriers, and two sharpshooters providing flank security. With each soldier armed with an accurized pistols with smart optics.

          • iksnilol

            I was thinking in regards to combat. Sure, an artillery strike is better than a couple of rifles. But for the guy right then and there, the rifle is immediately available and is what you have on hand. Artillery you gotta wait for and whatnot.

          • Hyok Kim

            “But for the guy right then and there, the rifle is immediately available and is what you have on hand. Artillery you gotta wait for and whatnot.”

            True, if all one has is a pistol, and has to deal with an enemy with AK, then that’s what he’s going to have to use, but if AR is available, then why insist on using a pistol?

            The same, if the artillery bombardment is available, give them the coordinate, and let them have it.

            That’s how WW2 was fought. It’s not like TV, where scrappy GI s use fancy moves to take out that pesky MG42. They called for artillery bombardment, and air strike, and wait they did!

          • If you’re worried about targets within 300m, the 600m range of the XM25 is irrelevant.

          • Hyok Kim

            “If you’re worried about targets within 300m, “… the 600m range of the XM25 is irrelevant.”

            I had said most small arms exchange are within 300m. I didn’t say I was only worried about exchanges within 300m, besides, smart grenades do not lose effectiveness the further they go (unlike MGs and battle carbines), besides, small grenades can travel further than larger ones, and become effective and efficient in dealing with enemies in loose open formation, as they certainly will when the smart grenades becomes more widespread.

          • Actually, they will be nearly useless against an enemy in a “loose open formation”, because you’ll be using one grenade per individual at that point.

            In fact, if they are approaching you in the open, they (if competent) will *already* be spread out farther apart than the effective blast radius of the 25mm grenade, as has been doctrine since WWI. (Of course, there is a natural inclination to bunch up in fireteam to squad sized lumps, for mutual morale support. It’s a caveman instinct. Which is why, for one hundred years, NCOs have been shouting, “Spread outout! At least five meters spacing!”

          • Hyok Kim

            “Actually, they will be nearly useless against an enemy in a “loose open formation”, because you’ll be using one grenade per individual at that point.”

            It’s better to use one small bang per individual than one big bang per one or two individuals.

            “In fact, if they are approaching you in the open, they (if competent) will *already* be spread out farther apart than the effective blast radius of the 25mm grenade, as has been doctrine since WWI. (Of course, there is a natural inclination to bunch up in fireteam to squad sized lumps, for mutual morale support. It’s a caveman instinct. Which is why, for one hundred years, NCOs have been shouting, “Spread outout! At least five meters spacing!”

            All true, except, one won’t be able to escape the blast radius of one smart grenade. Two or more could (at least one of them).

          • Why is it better to use the smallest bang possible especially when that means you have a smaller effective radius and reduced penetration when using the round on other targets, where those would help?

            Your rounds still weight about the same, your weapon is heavier, and your rounds are less effective against all targets – why would you favor the XM25 over something like an M33 with modern ammo?

          • Hyok Kim

            “Why is it better to use the smallest bang possible especially when that means you have a smaller effective radius and reduced penetration when using the round on other targets, where those would help?”

            ……because smaller the ultra smart grenade the more an infantry carry within his person, and ultra smart grenade will be a lot more accurate to the target so that it would not need as much as explosive force as dumb ones.

            “Your rounds still weight about the same, your weapon is heavier, and your rounds are less effective against all targets – why would you favor the XM25 over something like an M33 with modern ammo?”

            I’m talking about ultra smart micro grenade of the future, they will be smaller, lighter, longer range, more accurate. XM25 is merely a beginning.

          • You’re missing a *critical* point.

            The limit on the minimum effective size of a submunition is *NOT* explisive efficiency, t enough space to carry *fragments”. No matter how sophisticated the onboard sensors, no matter precise the terminal manuevering capability, our primary and most effective injury causing mechanism is *fragmentation*.

            You need enough space in the munition for enough fragments to fill the target volume (and thus footprint) with a dense enough fragment pattern to ensure you produce casualties. (A = 4πr²) conpared to the effective sqare area of a human (about 1m sq, for a standing man, less if you’re going off so his entire front or back isnt directly in line of sight of the blast) means you end up with a lot of space between fragments *very* quickly, so the amount of fragments necessary to double your effective casualty radius goes up by ridiculously high factors.

            There just isn’t *room* in the munition for enough fragments, unless the munition is of a certain size. And volume of the munition is calculated at (presuming a sphere, which gives you the best distribution of fragments) is (V = (4/3)πr³). That’s without including room for sensors, fuzes, primary charge, maneuvering system (the most brilliant submunition is still being rather randomly distributed around the cargo projo bursting spot unless the submunition can independently target and manuever for max efficiency), etc.

            You just don’t have *room* for an effective fragmentation load in smaller projos. And if you say, “Well, we’ll use blast (concussion) as our primary wounding mechanism, since it can be scaled up in the same projo volume by better explosives,” you run into the problem.that the effective radius of the overpressure is determined by the *volume* (V = (4/3)πr³). By the time the warhead scales up to the size where blast is giving you a larger effective area than fragmentation, you’re into the “artillery” scale of projos.

            It isn’t *lack of technology* that defeats micro grenades – it is topology and geometry.

          • Now, if we had an explosive filler.made of unobtanium that could squeeze, say, the blast effect of a current 81mm mortar into a munition the size of a shotgun slug, we could use blast as our primary wounding mechanism. But no such explosive filler exists, or is likely to exist, in the forseeable future.

            And there are solid scientific reasons why we are unlikely to see such an explosive in your lifetime.or.mine. That’s a *huge* energy density…

          • Hyok Kim

            “You’re missing a *critical* point.” – Rick Randall

            Nope, I understand the critical point you’re talking about. From the current anti-personnel explosive point of view, you’re correct, but I am talking about the future, and I will explain further below as I comment your exposition.

            “The limit on the minimum effective size of a submunition is *NOT* explosive efficiency, it is enough space to carry *fragments*.” – Rick Randall

            ……..nope, there is more to it than that, and this is where you’re missing it. It’s the distance between the explosion and the target. The shorter the distance, the less explosive power needed to damage the target.

            ” No matter how sophisticated the onboard sensors, no matter precise the terminal manuevering capability, our primary and most effective injury causing mechanism is *fragmentation*.” – Rick Randall

            Nope, then, by your reasoning. shaped charge wouldn’t be successful. Shaped charges rely on explosive power, and the close distance between the explosion and the target. The ultra smart micro grenade would work in similar principle against the target in the similar principle as already proven anti-tank/armor/bunker missiles, except it would be used against an individual instead of hard targets.

            “You need enough space in the munition for enough fragments to fill the target volume (and thus footprint) with a dense enough fragment pattern to ensure you produce casualtiescasualties on the outside edge of the effective radius, which is a surface area deal. (A = 4πr²) compared to the effective sqare area of a human (about 1m sq, for a standing man, less if you’re going off so his entire front or back isnt directly in line of sight of the blast) means you end up with a lot of space between fragments *very* quickly, so the amount of fragments necessary to double your effective casualty radius goes up by ridiculously high factors, to ensure that it is almost impossible for your target to get missed by all the fragments. For redundancy, you also want him hit with *multiple* fragments, which means you need a tighter “grid” of fragments.

            There just isn’t *room* in the munition for enough fragments, unless the munition is of a certain size. And volume of the munition is calculated at (presuming a sphere, which gives you the best distribution of fragments) is (V = (4/3)πr³). That’s without including room for sensors, fuzes, primary charge, maneuvering system (the most brilliant submunition is still being rather randomly distributed around the cargo projo bursting spot unless the submunition can independently target and manuever for max efficiency), etc.

            You just don’t have *room* for an effective fragmentation load in smaller projos. And if you say, “Well, we’ll use blast (concussion) as our primary wounding mechanism, since it can be scaled up in the same projo volume by better explosives,” you run into the problem.that the effective radius of the overpressure is determined by the *volume* (V = (4/3)πr³). By the time the warhead scales up to the size where blast is giving you a larger effective area than fragmentation, you’re into the “artillery” scale of projos.” – Rick Randall

            Thanks for the treaties on how anti-personel fragmentation explosives work, but it doesn’t apply to shaped charge based anti-personel grenades of the future. It relys on explosive power, and the accuracy or the closeness of the explosion to the target alone, just like today’s anti-tank missiles.

            “It isn’t *lack of technology* that defeats micro grenades – it is topology and geometry.” – Rick Randall

            It is the technology that will make micro grenade more accurate, that is, the explosion to take place closer to the target, it takes very little explosives to penetrate that soft skin and brittle bones if the the same principle works on the finest metal armor out there. In fact, the ultra smart micro grenade that would work on shaped charge principle would be even more effective than grenade relying on shrapnel, since flak jacket cant defeat most shrapnels, but not shaped charges from ultra smart micro grenade.

  • Kivaari

    Much of the action is done in less than 50 meters. Much at living room distances. Some soldiers didn’t bother to turn on the red dot sights. If the enemy was inside the window, blast them.

    • Hyok Kim

      “Much of the action is done in less than 50 meters.”

      Well, if you’re talking about LE SWAT, most definitely true. If you’re talking about military, it’s within 300 meters or so.

      “Much at living room distances.”

      Most definitely true if you’re talking about SD for civilians.

      “Some soldiers didn’t bother to turn on the red dot sights. If the enemy was inside the window, blast them.”

      True enough. Btw. During the second Sino-Chinese war, the kind of war I think some folks here imagine we’re going to be fighting, the most effective weapon was not small infantry firearms.

      Actually, it was grenade thrown by hand. Chinese accounted most casaulties on the Japanese using grenades since Japanese had the advantage in artillery and air support. One didn’t need a lot of training in using grenades, just a lot of nerve. In the end, Japanese had to go through the built-up areas, where the longer effective range was pretty much a of moot point.

      • Kivaari

        Tell that to the Marines that fought in the cities in Iraq. Tell it to the Israelis, all over that nation. It is why they train in MOUT, Mobile operations in urban areas. Soldiers now train in close quarters combat. The fight changes sometimes day to day or hour by hour.
        It is common in police operations. It is why I packed an MP5A2 for so long. Once the chiefs were convinced the 5.56mm wasn’t more dangerous, passing through walls, we replaced the MP5s with M4 carbines.
        The Marines loved their M16A3/4 with the ACOG. They could engage up close and at 400 meters. The military issued hundreds of thousands Aimpoint sights, which certainly were not for long range. Warriors need to train in all the skills. From hand to hand combat to 1200 meter sniping.

        • Hyok Kim

          “Tell that to the Marines that fought in the cities in Iraq. Tell it to the Israelis, all over that nation. It is why they train in MOUT, Mobile operations in urban areas. Soldiers now train in close quarters combat. The fight changes sometimes day to day or hour by hour.It is common in police operations. It is why I packed an MP5A2 for so long. Once the chiefs were convinced the 5.56mm wasn’t more dangerous, passing through walls, we replaced the MP5s with M4 carbines.
          The Marines loved their M16A3/4 with the ACOG. They could engage up close and at 400 meters. The military issued hundreds of thousands Aimpoint sights, which certainly were not for long range. Warriors need to train in all the skills. From hand to hand combat to 1200 meter sniping.”

          I am not disagreeing with you what you had said above. Are you saying soldiers don’t need to worry about grenades in the built-up areas?

          The war in Iraq, and the kind of war Israelis have engaged is a joke compared to WW2.

          Grenades caused far bigger causalties than small arms for the infantry. That’s a fact.

          A nation can have the finest infantry in the world, if their artillery and air support get overwhelmed, they will lose the war. Just ask the Finns.

          It’s important to look at the forest, not mistake the trees for the forest.

          • Kivaari

            Grenades are superior today compared to WW2 and Korea. The little v40 grendades sometimes called crab apple grenades due to the similar size from the Vietnam era get used a great deal. Today the little grenades are superior to that 50 year old types from Vietnam. In the WW2 era the grenades posed a threat to friendly forces. They did not break apart well, often sending the fuse assembly or base 200 meters, killing blue force members. Our new grenades work well, except in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason being most buildings have very thick walls of mud, mud brick, cement and similar building materials. Unless your enemy is in the room where you throw the grenade, the blast effect doesn’t do much. On the attack or move the less lethal “concussion grenades” (about 0.50K) of TNT can be used, but there is no fragments, so advancing forces are not hit with their own grenades blast. It is why we use the Mk19, M203, M320 etc. launchers. I envy the soldiers of today, they have much better gear than I had 45 years ago. The Marines are rearming with carbines closer to the M4, since CQB is so common. Once the enemy is 400m away the grenade launchers, and support weapons come into play. The LW 60mm mortars of today are better than the 82mm of earlier times. CAS is superior. Artillery is superior. Shoulder fired missiles are better. Hell, it’s all better. I do love the M4 carbine. Fitted with a scope like the Mk4 1.5-5x24mm Illuminated, makes the little carbine good for CQB to 500m. Ass a semi-auto trigger like some of our SOF types use and it is amazingly accurate. Put higher power optics on the M16A3/4 and it is good to a much longer range. BUT, it is awkward in confined spaces, like a Hummer or MRAP. I’d prefer the carbine to have a 16 inch tube and a mid-length gas system.
            Even taking full auto features off the carbine would be OK. I used enough MP5s and M16A1s to know that full auto is rarely needed and almost any job can be done with a semi-auto and maybe a hand thrown grenade. I love ’em.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Grenades are superior today compared to WW2 and Korea. The little v40 grendades sometimes called crab apple grenades due to the similar size from the Vietnam era get used a great deal.”

            Ironically, Chinese used German Potato masher grenades with great effect. Using the hand they would tie a whole bundle close, and place it at the top of the turret of the Japanese tanks, after driving the supporting infantry with hand thrown grenades temporarily.

            Top of the turret was usually the thinnest of the tanks, plus all those extra weight, flat top of the potato masher placed with the handle at the top made the center of gravity low, making it act like combination of magnetic mines, and shaped charges, more grenades, bigger the weight, the lower the center of gravity, turning the blast down, either punching hole, or creating spall.

            Another use was tying a whole of potato mashers in loose wide circle and placing it like lasso around the turret, between the turret and the hull, or one side of the ‘lasso’ on the commander’s cupola, and the rear of the gap between the turret and the hull. Most Japanese tanks (like most tanks) didn’t have rear facing MGs, so this way Chinese could avoid the co-axial MGs and more or less safely placed the bundle of grenades.

            So when the grenades went off, one side pulled the strings or chains to one direction, and the other side pulling it in the opposite direction, basically magnifying the force of blast, disabling the tanks, either punching a hole, or creating spalls, or crushing the turret.

            “Our new grenades work well, except in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason being most buildings have very thick walls of mud, mud brick, cement and similar building materials. Unless your enemy is in the room where you throw the grenade, the blast effect doesn’t do much.”

            That was the same in WW2. That’s what artillery is for, especially infantry guns. For sustained direct fire bombardment at CQB to medium (by artillery standard) distance, one still cannot beat the infantry gun.

            “The Marines are rearming with carbines closer to the M4, since CQB is so common.”

            See, even the Marines have to change. Not so long ago, they insisted on 20″ barrel for superior terminal ballistics, more accuracy (this was when iron sights ruled, bigger sight radius), less flash and muzzle blast for night fighting, and (softer recoil for more accurate burst). when the army was going for shorter barrels. This used to be a very controversial topic, now no brainer.

            “I do love the M4 carbine. Fitted with a scope like the Mk4 1.5-5x24mm Illuminated, makes the little carbine good for CQB to 500m.”

            So long as it stays in semi instead of full auto, I would prefer M4. Besides, shorter barrels do not necessarily make guns less accurate. Ballistic rigidity, one factor in accuracy is actually increased.

            “Ass a semi-auto trigger like some of our SOF types use and it is amazingly accurate. Put higher power optics on the M16A3/4 and it is good to a much longer range. BUT, it is awkward in confined spaces, like a Hummer or MRAP. I’d prefer the carbine to have a 16 inch tube and a mid-length gas system.”

            Yep, mid-length is the best compromise for overall. Great semi-auto triggers are actually more useful than full auto. Running around 400 to 450 rpm, the researches have suggested that’s the ideal sweet spot for man portable fast firing.

            “Even taking full auto features off the carbine would be OK.”

            I’m all for it.

            “I used enough MP5s and M16A1s to know that full auto is rarely needed and almost any job can be done with a semi-auto and maybe a hand thrown grenade. I love ’em.”

            Ditto, tell that to Hollywood. Btw. Have you noticed very rarely they reload, and mag dump amid all that full auto mayhem?

          • Kivaari

            More good observations. I built several M4-mid-length carbines. I put the Geissele SSA trigger in one and a CMMG trigger in the other. The Geisele is really great. I figure it knocked a minute of angle off the groups allowing sub MOA with the Leupold Mk4. The other one has an EOTech and Daniels Defense A1.5 sight. O did another but with a Bushmaster HBAR 20 inch. It needs a quality scope on it. I’ve been hospitalized 5 times this year. Including 3 surgeries. I just can’t get out to shoot anything right now. Before I did great groups out of the HBAR with iron sights. I use the GG&G 30mm QD scope mounts on two of them. I really need to upgrade the Bushnell 1-4X24mm scope to a MK4 or better in a higher power. That said, the Bushnell scope is pretty good. Very bright and clear. I just haven’t fired a round under it. But my intent is to upgrade – if I live any more and don’t need a walker. Old age sucks.

          • Kivaari

            Great comments.

  • iksnilol

    You do know there are 40mm grenade launchers that aren’t GMGs? Heck, the Milkor MGL weighs a kilogram less than the XM25. Just slap on a smart scope on that and you have the same weight (sure, the 40mm grenades weigh more, I’ll give you that). Did I also mention the Milkor is already in use? So you only need a retrofit with a smart scope and grenades and that’s it. Also the Milkor has 6 rounds instead of the 4+1 of the XM25. And it isn’t dependent on bulky magazines.

    • Hyok Kim

      “You do know there are 40mm grenade launchers that aren’t GMGs? Heck, the Milkor MGL weighs a kilogram less than the XM25.”

      Of course I know that. I saw it for the first time in ‘Dogs of War’, pretty cool scene, but they are not smart grenades platform.

      “Just slap on a smart scope on that and you have the same weight (sure, the 40mm grenades weigh more, I’ll give you that).”

      Smart grenades need to communicate with smart scope. That communication is provided by the platform. Milkor platform uses firing mechanism system that cannot provide the communication.

      “Did I also mention the Milkor is already in use? So you only need a retrofit with a smart scope and grenades and that’s it.”

      It cannot be retrofit. I already read about their firing mechanism system. It’s not compatible with smart grenades communication system.

      • iksnilol

        You do know you can make them fire smart grenades. You only need the smart grenades themselves and the computer hardware (smart scope) + possibly some connection to the firing pin. It can be retrofitted without problem.

        • Hyok Kim

          “You do know you can make them fire smart grendades.”

          Yes, as dumb grenades only.

          “You only need the smart grenades themselves and the computer hardware (smart scope) + possibly some connection to the firing pin. It can be retrofitted without problem.”

          Nope, it’s not as simple as that. XM25 communicates data from the scope to the grenades through the firing chamber in the frame of the platform. Another word, the firing mechanism is a part of communication system.

          M32 uses revolving drum that is spring driven, which need to be rewind for reload. You cannot combine the firing mechanism and the communication system due to the nature of M32 firing system. It’s a moving mechanical system that cannot synchronize the firing cycle and the data from the scope precise enough for smart grenades.

          • iksnilol

            You are incorrect on multiple counts. If it was impossible to make a Milkor fire smart grenades as smart grenades then why did IMI refit Milkors do to exactly that?

            http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/in%20the%20spotlight%2030.10%20mprs.pdf

            They actually did that two years ago. See, if it wasn’t possible to retrofit the Milkor, then it wouldn’t have been possible to retrofit the M203 and other underbarrel launchers. Yet that has been done as well.

          • Hyok Kim

            Wow! I’m sorry. I stand corrected, however, when I heard retrofitted, I was assuming internally modifying the M32. Not slapping an external big box on top.

            However, I still disagree 40mm is the way to go. 25mm or smaller would be the wave of the future. If one really needs extra boom, one could simply use smaller one in clusters.

          • iksnilol

            Well, from what I know they are going for 40mm to be able to use the old stuff (kinda hard to declare thousands of grenade launchers surplus) and based on feedback from troops complaining that the 25mm didn’t have enough “power” or payload. From the XM25 program they are going towards a 40mm version of it as well.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Well, from what I know they are going for 40mm to be able to use the old stuff (kinda hard to declare thousands of grenade launchers surplus)…………”

            Makes sense for now, but not for the future.

            “…. and based on feedback from troops complaining that the 25mm didn’t have enough “power” or payload.”

            Actually, what I read about the troops using it in Afghanistan is they praised the performance. Their (actually the Rangers) main complaint was the weight of the platform. Makes sense for the rangers since they are constantly on the move.

            “From the XM25 program they are going towards a 40mm version of it as well.”

            From what I have read, they are not replacing 25mm with 40mm, they’re merely offering an extra option.

          • iksnilol

            They wouldn’t be making a 40mm version if they didn’t want more oomph.

          • Hyok Kim

            Even though that would be certainly true for now, bigger oomph can be supplied through clustered 25mms. Chinese used German Potato Mashers in clusters to destroy even tanks.

            Besides, sometimes military do not know what would be the best option for them for the future. After all, the use of air force for bombing campaign was originally conceived by Sci-Fi writers,not military.

          • iksnilol

            How are you gonna cluster 25mm grenades? Make them even smaller and then make a cluster? Hand grenades and small grenade launcher grenades are two different things.

            Won’t that be spreading out some pretty thin butter?

          • Hyok Kim

            That’s not necessarily a valid logic since you already told me (and I agree), there is already one good reason they want an option in 40mm.

            “Well, from what I know they are going for 40mm to be able to use the old stuff (kinda hard to declare thousands of grenade launchers surplus)…………”

      • It is not compatible with the XM25 arming mechanism. 40mm smart grenades are armed via an ultra short range (inches) RF signal, and the retrofit is a box, not much larger than a MILES transmitter, that can be clipped to the outside of the barrel of almost any existing 40mm GL – and Singapore or Israel will be happy to make an adapter for any weird GL you might have, if you’re willing to write the check.

        • Hyok Kim

          ….but I am not talking about just existing smart grenades. Ultra smart micro grenades of the future.

  • LCON

    Conventional Arms are not going anywhere, They might get updated to LSAT but the cost to effect ratio still works to LMG Ar’s Favor.
    The Price of a single Smart grenade would fill a soldiers magazines with conventional rounds.
    Also there is the Risk of Over use. A grenade round in Close Quarters against a enemy blended into civilian areas not a good idea. Don’t Get me wrong They have there place but as a Augmentation to conventional systems not a replacement.

    • Hyok Kim

      “Conventional Arms are not going anywhere,”

      Actually, the conventional arms go all the time, and they need to go. Just look at U.S. military today, and see for yourself how much it has changed. I remember the days, back in the 80s, even till 90s, ‘wise old geezers’ were saying iron sights were going nowhere, those fancy electronic sights were fragile, unreliable, not durable enough, too expensive.

      Well, just look at U.S. army today, iron sights for battle carbines are obsolete, they needed to go, and they went.

      “They might get updated to LSAT but the cost to effect ratio still works to LMG Ar’s Favor.The Price of a single Smart grenade would fill a soldiers magazines with conventional rounds.”

      It takes only one smart grenade to take out an enemy. It takes a lot of bullets to do the same.

      Tens of thousands of bullets per military study. Btw. ACOGs and Aim Point are far more expensive than iron sights, and still are far more effective than iron sight enough to offset the extra cost.

      “Also there is the Risk of Over use. A grenade round in Close Quarters against a enemy blended into civilian areas not a good idea.”

      I understand your concern, So instead are you gong to let loose a few burst from AR instead?

      or you could use micro smart concussion grenade( yet to be developed) designed to knock out one individual?

      “Don’t Get me wrong They have there place but as a Augmentation to conventional systems not a replacement.”

      I’m talking about the future, not present. At one time, militaries did not trust semi-auto, due to unreliability. We’ve come a long way, bud.

  • I wouldn’t say we are gung ho about Israelis in particular rather we are gung ho about making sure that any and all races are free from racism and bigotry on TFB.
    It just so happens that recently we have had several persons who have targeted Israelis with their hatred and bigotry which cause me to respond immediately.
    If the same actions/comments were directed at an oriental culture my actions would be the same. There was a time when that was very prevalent..

    • Hyok Kim

      Are you implying I was being biased against Israelis? I don’t think the post above reflects Israelis in any negative manner, if anything, it’s positive. Besides I was referring to Kivaari, not TFB in general.

      • Kivaari

        I was thinking of how much the IDF gets exposed to house to house. Blasting rat holes from one place to another. Many engagements were under 25m.

        • Hyok Kim

          “I was thinking of how much the IDF gets exposed to house to house.”

          Yes, there is nothing like real live fire incoming as well as outgoing to teach you what’s like. Personally, I think IDF conducted itself really well under the pressure. I mean, how many rapes, robberies were committed by IDF over the years compared to U.S. army in the occupation zone?

          Now, that doesn’t mean IDF is perfect, or even necessarily the best force in the world. (I think in terms of proven track record, that belongs to the Finns.)

      • Hyok Kim

        Oh! I am sorry, now I get it. I may have implied unintentionally that TBF treated Israelis in special pedestal above others. That wasn’t my intention.

  • You *can’t* “bundle” ammunition together. You know what you call a “bundle” of 40mm grenades, fired down range? 155mm ICM.

    a “cluster” of 25mm projos in an ICM type arrangement would be simply less effective – the 25mm only works if it is accurately placed dead on target, because the area of effect is smaller. Cluster munitions don’t have that kind of precision with their individual bomblets.

    • Hyok Kim

      “the 25mm only works if it is accurately placed dead on target, because the area of effect is smaller”

      I agree, and wasn’t I talking smart, ultra smart in the future, grenades?

      “Cluster munitions don’t have that kind of precision with their individual bomblets.”

      ………but you’re talking about dumb clusters, not ultra smart, even just plain smart grenades.

  • Kivaari

    Hyok Kim, I compromised without knowing it. I have a newer generation having a QD mounting lever and side mounted brightness buttons. I paid wholesale.