Cheeky's sniper pack

[FuseBox 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ 06 May 2003,06:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FuseBox @ 06 May 2003,04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it still is ugly. When i join the army i really really really hope they dont use this or atleast the infantry men dont let the crews of tanks use it  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

An infantryman doesn't care how ugly the weapon looks.  What matters is whether it will save his ass in combat and kick his enemies ass.  The OICW looks like it most definitely will do that.  There's lots of ugly weapons that no infantryman would want to be without.  The MK-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher for example is super ugly, but it is probably the most powerful portable weapon system for an American infantryman.   But if your conserned about how pretty your gun is you won't have to worry about getting one of these as the OICW will be going to mainly special operations forces and recon units and then possibly later replacing the M203 in regular infantry units.  Tankers only need a personal defense weapon that is compact so I imagine they'll stay with the M4 for quite some time.  

Have fun in Basic Training.   Remember not to take too much crap along with you cuz you'll have to run with it and all your basic issue stuff which will be in a big duffel bag.    

Also remember if you can't see the tank driver, he can't see you.  It pays to not stand too close to armored vehicles when the engine is on.  LOTS of VERY VERY nasty accidents happen during training around armored vehicles.  If you've ever seen a human body squashed by tank treads you never forget the sight.  

Anyhoo have fun and pray you don't get radiation poisoning from all that depleted uranium armor and ammunition you'll be around!  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

its not just about how ugly it is i really do not want to have carry that. I mean u already have alot of gear as it is im sure that gun will be alot more heavy then the m16 and m4!

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FuseBox @ 06 May 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ 06 May 2003,06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FuseBox @ 06 May 2003,04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it still is ugly. When i join the army i really really really hope they dont use this or atleast the infantry men dont let the crews of tanks use it  <!--emo&<!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

An infantryman doesn't care how ugly the weapon looks.  What matters is whether it will save his ass in combat and kick his enemies ass.  The OICW looks like it most definitely will do that.  There's lots of ugly weapons that no infantryman would want to be without.  The MK-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher for example is super ugly, but it is probably the most powerful portable weapon system for an American infantryman.   But if your conserned about how pretty your gun is you won't have to worry about getting one of these as the OICW will be going to mainly special operations forces and recon units and then possibly later replacing the M203 in regular infantry units.  Tankers only need a personal defense weapon that is compact so I imagine they'll stay with the M4 for quite some time.  

Have fun in Basic Training.   Remember not to take too much crap along with you cuz you'll have to run with it and all your basic issue stuff which will be in a big duffel bag.    

Also remember if you can't see the tank driver, he can't see you.  It pays to not stand too close to armored vehicles when the engine is on.  LOTS of VERY VERY nasty accidents happen during training around armored vehicles.  If you've ever seen a human body squashed by tank treads you never forget the sight.  

Anyhoo have fun and pray you don't get radiation poisoning from all that depleted uranium armor and ammunition you'll be around!  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

its not just about how ugly it is i really do not want to have carry that. I mean u already have alot of gear as it is im sure that gun will be alot more heavy then the m16 and m4!

<span id='postcolor'>

Dude, Xm29 is lighter than m16/m4......the comparing info is in the link which Teg provided................did you read the infomation?  

comparing page

Also,In my opinion, I would agree if the weapon give the soldier higher chance and accurary ( increase the survivability too) to kill enemies even it is heavier. Finally, the guys who are making this weapon of course they are smart enough to think about the problems if we can think about them. it sure will be a better infantry weapon for modern troops.

[delaware 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dude, Xm29 is lighter than m16/m4......the comparing info is in the link which Teg provided................did you read the infomation?<span id='postcolor'>

Don't take vague information like that as fact, especially when it's off a product page from the company that created it.

What's wrong with it:

1. They don't specify whether they used an M16 or an M4.  I would assume the M4 because I don't think the M16 has the Modular Weapon System capability, but the fact that they don't make any distinction between them in a comparison of weights is ridiculous.

Edit: My bad. The M16 is capable of supporting the Modular Weapon System.

2. It doesn't list what items were attached from the Modular Weapon System, e.g. optics, laser devices, foregrips, bipods, flashlights, etc.  We have no way of knowing how much weight those items contributed.

3. No details on what thermal sight was used for the M16/M4.  Again, we have no way of knowing how much it weighed or what generation sight it is.

I have nothing against ATK or the XM29, but it's pretty difficult to take that page seriously when the weapon, to my knowledge, isn't even finished yet.  That's nothing more than an advertisement, complete with logo and slogan.

Regards,

Chris

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (delaware @ 06 May 2003,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dude, Xm29 is lighter than m16/m4......the comparing info is in the link which Teg provided................did you read the infomation?<span id='postcolor'>

Don't take vague information like that as fact, especially when it's off a product page from the company that created it.

What's wrong with it:

1. They don't specify whether they used an M16 or an M4.  I would assume the M4 because I don't think the M16 has the Modular Weapon System capability, but the fact that they don't make any distinction between them in a comparison of weights is ridiculous.

Edit: My bad.  The M16 is capable of supporting the Modular Weapon System.

2. It doesn't list what items were attached from the Modular Weapon System, e.g. optics, laser devices, foregrips, bipods, flashlights, etc.  We have no way of knowing how much weight those items contributed.

3. No details on what thermal sight was used for the M16/M4.  Again, we have no way of knowing how much it weighed or what generation sight it is.

I have nothing against ATK or the XM29, but it's pretty difficult to take that page seriously when the weapon, to my knowledge, isn't even finished yet.  That's nothing more than an advertisement, complete with logo and slogan.

Regards,

Chris<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OICWs weight fielding goal of 14 pounds is 10 to 30% less weight than the current M16/M4/M203 systems. When comparable features such as Thermal Weapon Sight, Optic Sight, Rails, Aiming Light, Leaf Sight and Laser are added, the standard infantry soldier carries 15 to 19 pounds. This weight includes only 1 (30 round) magazine of the 5.56mm and 1 round of 40mm HE ammo. The OICW’s 20mm HE round weighs only 1/4 pound compared to the M203’s 40mm round weight of 1/2 pound – a 50% comparison weight savings with substantially more effectiveness. The 18 rounds of 40mm ammunition in a soldier’s vest weigh 9 pounds. If a soldier was carrying 18 rounds of 20mm the weight is 4 1/2 pounds. <span id='postcolor'>

from globalsecurity.org

Yes, it hasn't fiinished yet, but hopefully it will achive its goal when it is complete.

[delaware 0]

The issue wasn't what weighs less with all the goodies on, but rather what weighs less in the form FuseBox, as a potential infantryman, would employ it in. A standard M4 without any attachments weighs 5.6 pounds, less than half the proposed finishing weight of the XM29. That's a pretty significant difference.

Anyway, I hope it does achieve its goal(s) and gives our guys another advantage out in the field.

Have a good one,

Chris

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (delaware @ 06 May 2003,20:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The issue wasn't what weighs less with all the goodies on, but rather what weighs less in the form FuseBox, as a potential infantryman, would employ it in.  A standard M4 without any attachments weighs 5.6 pounds, less than half the proposed finishing weight of the XM29.  That's a pretty significant difference.

Anyway, I hope it does achieve its goal(s) and gives our guys another advantage out in the field.

Have a good one,

Chris<span id='postcolor'>

Well, u can seprate the OICW apart with no "goodies" on it.

However,the problem is using a standard M4 to campare with OICW, it is camparing totally different guns for me becuz it lost the meaning of developing OICW.

now it is a little bit off topic, i can make a new topic for discussing it.  

I made a new topic in off topic area

[ruff 102]

ur new version of the m82a1 sniper rifle is missing the scope texture

but this sniper rifle is dam good

so accurate far away

just the scope textures of the barret thats all

...........

[Sxep 0]

That gun alone could lead to a revival of Rambo movie sequels!

What am I saying!    

HEhehe

LoL well i don´t think the kickback qould be a big problem, see the Enemy splatter all over the place when the 20mm round hits is more than the kickback ;)

[Sxep 0]

it still is ugly. When i join the army i really really really hope they dont use this or atleast the infantry men dont let the crews of tanks use it  <!--emo&

An infantryman doesn't care how ugly the weapon looks.  What matters is whether it will save his ass in combat and kick his enemies ass.  The OICW looks like it most definitely will do that.  There's lots of ugly weapons that no infantryman would want to be without.  The MK-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher for example is super ugly, but it is probably the most powerful portable weapon system for an American infantryman.   But if your conserned about how pretty your gun is you won't have to worry about getting one of these as the OICW will be going to mainly special operations forces and recon units and then possibly later replacing the M203 in regular infantry units.  Tankers only need a personal defense weapon that is compact so I imagine they'll stay with the M4 for quite some time.  

Have fun in Basic Training.   Remember not to take too much crap along with you cuz you'll have to run with it and all your basic issue stuff which will be in a big duffel bag.    

Also remember if you can't see the tank driver, he can't see you.  It pays to not stand too close to armored vehicles when the engine is on.  LOTS of VERY VERY nasty accidents happen during training around armored vehicles.  If you've ever seen a human body squashed by tank treads you never forget the sight.  

Anyhoo have fun and pray you don't get radiation poisoning from all that depleted uranium armor and ammunition you'll be around!  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

LOL i think you frightned him..well i don´t want to join the US Army, after that small informing report of yours ;)

Oh well, luckily the Austrian army doesn´t use Uranium Ammunition

[ag_smith 0]

I can't grab new version from ofp.info. Are there any mirrors?

MORE IMPORTANT:

Did you finally use OFPEC class naming for your weapons?

[PFC_Mike 2]

Based on the US iraq experience, you'll need a life jacket more than a gun...at least three tanks drove into canals.

[ag_smith 0]

Based on the US iraq experience, you'll need a life jacket more than a gun...at least three tanks drove into canals.

I've got an idea!!!!

     

Add big instant-pumpable pontoon (?) to each Abrams, so that it could float on the water.

     

Life jacket won't help you much when you're so unlucky to be inside the tank.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

I can't grab new version from ofp.info. Are there any mirrors?

MORE IMPORTANT:

Did you finally use OFPEC class naming for your weapons?

If you mean like

cmo_M82A1

cmo_M82A1mag etc. then yes.

There is a new version now with fixed scope textures, also Ive added some more magazine types which should help at longer ranges and against vehicles.

Download Here!!

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

Based on the US iraq experience, you'll need a life jacket more than a gun...at least three tanks drove into canals.

I've got an idea!!!!

     

Add big instant-pumpable pontoon (?) to each Abrams, so that it could float on the water.

     

Life jacket won't help you much when you're so unlucky to be inside the tank.

Hmm yes, the Americans never really understood the idea behind the steering wheel, or Handel Bars if your driving an Abrams. Too many straight roads in America.

[ruff 102]

thanks cm

[ag_smith 0]

Based on the US iraq experience, you'll need a life jacket more than a gun...at least three tanks drove into canals.

I've got an idea!!!!

     

Add big instant-pumpable pontoon (?) to each Abrams, so that it could float on the water.

     

Life jacket won't help you much when you're so unlucky to be inside the tank.

Hmm yes, the Americans never really understood the idea behind the steering wheel, or Handel Bars if your driving an Abrams. Too many straight roads in America.

Hehe, that's good point.

Updated class names = very needed improvment.

Thanks for d/l link.