XM25 Prototypes 500% lethality increase

May 27, 2005 The XM25 Advanced Airburst Weapon System is an entirely new class of weapon that takes the concept of a grenade launcher and adds some smarts, thereby increasing the probability of hit-to-kill performance by up to 500 percent over existing weapons. The advanced design allows the soldier to program the air bursting 25mm round so that it flies to the target and detonates at a precise point in the air. It does not require impact to detonate and is hence capable of defeating an enemy behind a wall, inside a building or in a foxhole.

www.gizmag.com...

This seems like the next generation of weapons. With this weapon you will no longer need to actually hit the person directly or even see the person.

Goody, an XM-8 Look alike.

Interesting. I find it cool that this weapon is devoted to being a grenade launcher instead of just having one attached to the bottom.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 1-12-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

Yup, it's going to be more of a granade launcher and I don't think this weapon will be made standard, since it will most likely be very expensive. It will most likely be issued to special forces.

Here's more info on the kind of rounds it uses:

XM1019 High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB)
www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

think of it as the modern updated M79 grenage launcher

I think they will have one in each platoon or squad it wont cost that much compared to the fire power that it will bring on the battle field.

Hmm, Yes, it looks very much like the XM-8... If I'am not totally wrong it belongs to the same series... But this weapon would be more of an "MP-5" style...

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Hmm, Yes, it looks very much like the XM-8... If I'am not totally wrong it belongs to the same series... But this weapon would be more of an "MP-5" style...

Now for those of us who are uneducated in the field, what is "MP-5" style?

Shattered OUT...

The XM-25 reminds me more of the OICW then anything else, ofcourse without the kintetic energy part.

I hope they will attach another weapon to it, I wouldn't want to get caught with one of those in close quarters.

I dread close quaters with that thing too!, Would be better if it had a SMG/PDW mixed with it, preferably the HK UMP .45

10mm/.45 Cal deffo, dont care how old the .45s are, they put the 9milleys to shame.

I heard roumours the XM-25 may take place of the HK OICW.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I hope they will attach another weapon to it, I wouldn't want to get caught with one of those in close quarters.

My understanding of the xm-25 is that it is a squad support weapon and maybe 1 or 2 people in 10 would have it. I think that the xm-25 shouldnt have any other weapon attached to it but that whoever carriers it should have another weapon, like the UMP for close range situations.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The XM-25 reminds me more of the OICW then anything else, ofcourse without the kintetic energy part.

I hope they will attach another weapon to it, I wouldn't want to get caught with one of those in close quarters.

It IS evolved from OICW. They discarded the kinetic energy part, because it was too heavy and increased caliber to 25 mm.

I've heard of this weapon before. Don't think of it as a grenade launcher, think of it as a regular gun that shoots 25mm explosive rounds.

Truth Be Told...

This thing reminds me more of the HK G-11 and especially the CAWS-

www.kitsune.addr.com...

Firing an XM-307 OCSW round (20 years after the worthless M203, /finally/, a common caliber Mk.19/M79 replacement pairing, I mean, whoda thunk it?!?).

Indeed, the typical 12 gauge is about .729 inches or 18mm and so I fully expect either a post-muzzle flechette or ball load to be standardized, probaby on a 'light load' just sufficient to ensure proper functioning of the bolt group (low MV = low recoil, and controlled overpen). Such being a vastly better alternative to trying to 'coaxialize' a selfdefense weapon (SMGs often weigh as much as ARs people) which fires with completely different felt recoil impulse and muzzle:target alignments.

The sad part here being that, as with all the 'modernized' (che-bulk as a fashion statement) weapons; you are looking at a huge weapon enclosure that _does not exploit it's volume_ to house more rounds on-mount.

Indeed, the XM25 mag only holds 6 rounds which means that you not only can't readily switch round types but your total engagement numbers are going to be _very_ low. Which is a shame because a good semi shotgun is an incredible intimidation weapon and can be used as a SAW equivalent in urban ops -if- it has the ability to sustain fires.

Being a bullpup, I expected better and 'with todays technology' would prefer a dual feed receiver with a full-stock magazine and a rotary action to let as many as 40 rounds come up the length of the gun in two mag wells: 20+20. To save weight, put the damn laser ranger and powered optics on the helmet or as an 'attachment' if you must.

Gimme more rounds and the ability to switch out empty mags by halves and I will accept the penalty of having to take the muzzle offline to stuff more clips up the bu**stock (Damn Censors).

Even as I will _thank you_ for finally having the sense to drop my total carry loads by removing the 1.5-2lbs inherent to the magazine and webgear. Given the notion that my first few engagements count more than anything else in suppressive (other-guy-ambush or room clearance) firing and so instant-on _sustained_ beats the mag in the pouch.

As for more lethality at range, my question here is what happens when these weapons start to get picked up on the battlefield. SOP in Iraq when U.S. mech patrols get hit is 'don't panic, assess the EID/Secondary Ambush condition, secure the situation 1 or 2, give a contact report, get the wounded under care and wait for the scramble team'.

If these kinds of weapons start to proliferate, either because the technology is now copyable by other nations federal arsenals or outright stolen off the dead, our own forces are going to find themselves facing fires which can take /them/ out, from behind their vehicles. And that simplifies the enemy's ability to take shots from a limited axis and then disengage before air gets there.

Comparitively, a good rifle with A CALIBER THAT COUNTS (reliable ballistics in crosswinds and good terminal effects= more than 6.8mm, IMO) still requires a rifleman to employ it correctly, no matter how fancy-schmancy the sights or 'built in carrying case'.

Since the whole world knows the snakeeaters get whatever weapons they want and have chosen to go back to the good ol' standby M14 for long walks in AfG. And since the /black/ SWO daddy's get whatever -rounds- they want. And so can kill with the M4 and 'poison bullets'.

The question then becomes whether or not the XM25 is simply an acknowledgement that not only has the 5.56 has had it's day in the conventional infantry. But also an implied accusation that low quality conditioning and poor marksman ship requires explosive compensation in a low round count weapon. 'So long as you have a Hummer or a Gator to carry more...'

The latter is a VERY bad omen.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
Firing an XM-307 OCSW round (20 years after the worthless M203, /finally/, a common caliber Mk.19/M79 replacement pairing, I mean, whoda thunk it?!?).
...

Sorry to disappoint you ch1466, but the XM-25 and XM-307 are actually very similar to the M203/Mk.19 pair. Both use the same warheads, but the cartridge for the XM-25 is shorter than that for the OCSW, very imilar to what was seen with the 40x43mm/40x56mm grenades for the older systems.

Left XM-25 cartridges, right XM-307 cartridge (casing looks at least 15mm longer)





[edit on 19/1/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by ch1466
Since the whole world knows the snakeeaters get whatever weapons they want and have chosen to go back to the good ol' standby M14 for long walks in AfG. And since the /black/ SWO daddy's get whatever -rounds- they want. And so can kill with the M4 and 'poison bullets'.

The question then becomes whether or not the XM25 is simply an acknowledgement that not only has the 5.56 has had it's day in the conventional infantry. But also an implied accusation that low quality conditioning and poor marksman ship requires explosive compensation in a low round count weapon. 'So long as you have a Hummer or a Gator to carry more...'

The latter is a VERY bad omen.


KPl.

I have to agree whole heartedly, but these last two arguments are telling of the overall challenge.

An M-14 is the perfect weapon for fighting in Afganistan. It is NOT a good weapon for most of your fighting in some other traditional battlezones, such as urban combat. (In a house to house fight, gimme rate of fire over range any day!) The real challenge is trying to build a weapon that can do everything as well or better than anything in the field now. Generally speaking, that's been assault rifles for the last 60 years. With a challenge of trying to one up the assault rifle, it's no suprise that some ideas may not work as well as the theory.

From my laymans perspective (chuckle), the 25mm round doesn't seem to pack much of a whallop compared to the 40mm. What I mean is, the 40mm contains a larger amount of plactic than the 25mm. The 40mm has a limited blast radius and lethal range, therefore the 25mm lethal range should theoretically be smaller still, or am I missing something? Serious question.

Also, from what I have seen there are surprisingly few situations that warrant the need for an explosive round like the 40mm or 25mm, never mind 6 of them! I would find it hard to justify sacrificing one of my rifleman to carry one of these weapons. Arming them with a PDW type SMG would only serve for self defence at close range, making the soldier redundant in the majority of real firefights.

I fully support the last couple of posts. The proliferation of technologically advanced area weapons to replace decent riflemen is a demonstration of the dilution in the quality of the combat infantry skills amongst the modern soldier. Like my old CSM used to say, "All the gear, no idea".

Lonestar,

>>
Sorry to disappoint you ch1466, but the XM-25 and XM-307 are actually very similar to the M203/Mk.19 pair. Both use the same warheads, but the cartridge for the XM-25 is shorter than that for the OCSW, very imilar to what was seen with the 40x43mm/40x56mm grenades for the older systems.
>>

I suppose I should have seen that one coming given the effective range differences. However, I will stand behind what I said about the blooper vs. M203. One gives you aimed fire at relatively rapid rates with a flipup sight if you need it. The other is little more than a slow-rate, hard-wearing toy that can never exploit the downrange reach you theoretically have but need be saturating multiple rounds on-target with.

What I would like to see, now that they have got the caliber down to infantry useable variable for close range fights, is a weapon which can act as -either- a CAWS or a Grenade System. At the flick of a button on a dual feed. If you're going to pay for complexity just to make someone else play Jones' with you, put it IN the gun and ammo. Not ON the rail.

Because if they can't service the mount or buy the bullets, I will not see it coming back at me as often.

Indeed, at that point, I have to wonder if the 'need' to replace the M2(other than for weight) with something that still has only about half the MV is perhaps coloring the perception of it's little brother's reason for being as well.

Travellar,

>>
An M-14 is the perfect weapon for fighting in Afganistan. It is NOT a good weapon for most of your fighting in some other traditional battlezones, such as urban combat. (In a house to house fight, gimme rate of fire over range any day!)
>>

IMO, in assault, infantry exist to pin the threat so that you can bring in the heavy platform fires sufficient to level the terrain or structure around their ears. The Hussein brothers come to mind as an example of what a relatively few men, in a well prepped position, can do to simply make themselves 'unapproachable' if not taken by surprise.

Having said that, even handheld explosives rule the CQB fight because they specifically exist to _deny the volume_ of spatial occupancy your enemy can sit in and stick his tongue out at you from behind a wall. Even as they also expand the number of 'instant doors and elevators' (axes of attack) that he has to worry about in covering his hind parts.

I don't want to get into a cyclic-fight if I can avoid it because that means I've blown it, tactically, a lot earlier on and am in some kind of 'smiling' (all teeth) fight rather than shooting people in the back like a smart warrior should.

What CAWS does is make it easier to stick the gun around a corner and 'loud factor' your way to a clear stair case or hallway, without having to aim. Just like shotguns from WWI onwards.

What the XM25 /could/ additionally do is let you shoot through walls where you suspect the enemy is and GET HIM, first shot, with a d/a fuzed microburst that doesn't give him time to swing that rifle around and 'make it a discussion' as you come through the door.

Whether or not it is necessarily wise to channelize yourself in taking those stairs. Or being opposite a room where your enemy has already GOT his barrel leveled at the wall as you come down the hallway.

Is a matter of tactical difference of opinion I guess.

IMO: Glitz styled SWAT forced entry is dead. Long live the packbot.

In fluid battle situations (leave the damn buildings alone) infantry exist to rapidly swing flanks and create instant defilades as other fires force the bad guys into vacating fixed positions.

>>
The real challenge is trying to build a weapon that can do everything as well or better than anything in the field now. Generally speaking, that's been assault rifles for the last 60 years. With a challenge of trying to one up the assault rifle, it's no suprise that some ideas may not work as well as the theory.
>>

First Order Determinator to projectile weapons: Have to see it (target) to kill with it (gun).

In the last 30 years, 'civilized' man has lost more visual acuity than he ever knew he had.

200 years ago, the only thing which kept snipers from dominating the field with 1,000m kills was the lack of scopes and high energy powder in rifled bore weapons.

100 years ago, you still had a nation 60% of whose farm boys could nail anything that moved from over 400 yards away. Which was a good thing because we were about to enter a trench war where aimed fires across no man's land (admittedly sometimes as short at 50m) was about the only thing infantry could do.

60 years ago, the demographics were noticeably changing as an industrialized society no longer needed to employ a high percentage of its constituent population in subsistence agro. Even as mechanized warfare meant that it was better to come to the edge of town, under armor, and debus rather than try to cross a 3 klick corn field using bounding tactics.

Even so, you could still find 30-40% of your recruits who had the calloused hands and cold eye to kill at range.

Now, a generation of Nintendo freaks have callouses only on their giant thumbs and are both too twitchy and too locked-focus limited in their visual depth of field to see anything beyond 20ft as more than an 'infinity blur' against the background.

Which is okay, because we can retrain them, at least a bit (100-150yds). And we have autofire and explosive weapons which compensate for their general lack of youth physical training.

Even as electromechanical (pedestaled auto-servo) weapon mounts are and always have been superior marksmen to what the best of the best could do, 200 years ago. Given a reliable round ballistic that will reach.

THAT is the point at which you have to start designing a new battle rifle.

And in some ways it will be a good thing. Because waddling around like a 'shining duck' in 40+lbs of IBA and 140` temperatures /inside/ the vehicle, is hardly the act of an energetic close combat infantry. You come out of the wagon too tired and too blind to fight.

Even as sitting there pretending to be a tank and taking it, from range, because you are afraid of more booby traps/IED as you try and secure the initial disaster, is only letting the enemy win a freebie caliber trade /anyway/.

Because their aimed fires and bigger bores let them 'chink you' through the gaps between shoulder/side plates, if not the face or groin.

In short range, small unit, combats, especially in built up conditions. I want my team to be able to cover the popup threats I can't beat, on sheer reflex. That means a short barrel/light weight weapon that we can all get pointed coming through a door.

And a lot of rounds **onboard** so that we can keep up the pace and hold contact _together_, once it's made. Without having to stop for a reload cycle as we run them down.

Furthermore, I want my own accuracy/round count combination to KILL THE TARGET. First engagement. Preferrably first round. Which means a heavy bullet coming out of a soft recoil mount. At intermediate velocities.

That's the difference between a MG (linear), RT (box/volume) and rifle systems (point) fires. In that, if everybody shoots _well_ the point fire system, even semiauto, will kill as many targets as the linear/volume fires do. Because they are far less random in their aimed kill effects and far more quick to find new targets and reengage.

If they can see them.

Which only leaves auto-sniping and suppression systems to cover your approach to the distance at which your point fires become effective for the combination of caliber and eyesight. And I see no reason not to yield-the-field to incapacitants, smoke and remote/pedestal weapons to saturate the target approaches and let me get in tight to the distance at which I can start to do good work.

Because 'if they are there' (heavyweight/platform based fires) that means I am not humping them up hill and down staircase _here_.

And so can concentrate more on just being a good shooter when it comes time for a finger on the trigger.

High MV/High Rate means a tiny ass caliber or a LOT of misses as your infantry can't hack the recoil of a hunting caliber round smashing their shoulders or destroying their sight picture (large muzzle effects).

It also means IBA works, for them not you.

Intermediate/Low MV lets you put the receiver group itself on a slide while keeping the knockdown and keyhole-equivalent effects of a bigger bullet (i.e. a round which opens a big body cavity hole which internal muscles cannot reclose and so exsanguinates your target without having to rely on tumble vs. distance as a function of 'stretch' effects on rifling/high MV mass change inherent to a peashooter round).

And IBA goes out the window.

While a better (lighter, tighter,) case enclosure means more rounds per stack. And a mechanical stripper means less unreliability through a magazine spring so that the stack feeds well in a deeper format _without_ scraping the ground in prone fires.

It's all there, we have had 20+ years worth of SPIW/G-11 type testbeds which prove the individual concepts, good or bad.

We just never had the 'total picture' (robots and SPR equivalent big bores) that let us make the trades we need to for _mission_.

And the mission of infantry is not long range fighting. Not anymore.

PaddyInf,

>>
From my laymans perspective (chuckle), the 25mm round doesn't seem to pack much of a whallop compared to the 40mm. What I mean is, the 40mm contains a larger amount of plactic than the 25mm. The 40mm has a limited blast radius and lethal range, therefore the 25mm lethal range should theoretically be smaller still, or am I missing something? Serious question.
>>

Outdoors: How fast can you pull the trigger to fire X number of rounds to get Y number of fragments showering down over a defiladed threat?

Indoors: If it beats me having to walk down a corridor and chuck a pineapple through the door, _I will carry more magazines_ for you to shoot through walls with.

>>
Also, from what I have seen there are surprisingly few situations that warrant the need for an explosive round like the 40mm or 25mm, never mind 6 of them! I would find it hard to justify sacrificing one of my rifleman to carry one of these weapons.
>>

And I would like to see the size/weight of grenades reduced by half so that we can carry 12 of them instead of 2-4. Explosive fires indoors are indeed dangerous. Outdoors, 'it depends'. The big question for me being whether or not even a 400m effective (M203, on a very good day) downrange distance is going to beat someone with a 60-80mm range knee mortar. Or a Carl Gustav. Or something with enough mass to fly straight. And enough volume coverage to be worth another lost rifleman carrying half his clipload in extra rockets.

>>
Arming them with a PDW type SMG would only serve for self defence at close range, making the soldier redundant in the majority of real firefights.
>>

Duuuh.

OTOH, the question is actually whether or not you think the Uzi vs. AK fight of a 1967 conventional, High Intensity, battle between trained forces is the same thing as the 'IED pops the turtles out from under their shells to secure the corpses, snipe a few desultory shots at them and then disappear while the response team/medevac arrives...' fights of today?

IMO, the difference is that if you are fighting a war of maneuver in which you MUST take an objective (a gentle undulance in the terrain becomes an ATGW ambush with Sagger) to pass through the armor and secure the advance. Then you NEED a fair bit of ballistic reach and spray-n-pray 'suppression' with an SMG is not going to get you even a bounding advance without unacceptable casualties against trained shooters.

OTOH, an insurgent fights within a 10 (Iraq) to 20 (AfG) minute rule of responding air support and so he KNOWS he is in a COE (contempt of engagement) condition from the moment HE initiates the fight. This means he won't be advancing to overrun you. He will in fact be /running away/. And so he needs only set his initial fighting/ambush position so that he can safely egress the battlefield with broken LOS and/or a point to get into his own vehicle.

Now. Let's up the difference to that of an M16 vs. a Dragunov or RPK which you could theoretically expect to encounter under these (Iraqi) conditions.

IMO, 90% of the time and 1:1, he is STILL going to beat you. Bigger bullet, better optics, better position and/or potentially a more stable autofire option.

The only question is whether he can shoot. And has the time to do so, in getting the rest of your team.

If it's Africa he will miss. Because 90% of their courage comes from liquor or drugs and they would rather hack you to death with a big knife at close distances.

If it's the ME, you're dead. Because even their irregular forces have usually had at least had Basic level marksmanship training and they are used to fighting over a great wide nuthin' of battlespace on fleeting-far targets.

Now let's throw in a modifier. If there is a Bradley, his IED may or may not stop or incapacitate a 25mm+TOW weapons system which can readily blow him to Allah. But a spread of RPGs will even the odds.

OTOH, if there is a Predator or A-45 directly overhead the (M1114 up armored Hummer) patrol, he may not want to take the chance that he will be eating an airburst GBU-39 or a Viper Strike with 'absolutely nothing he can do about it'. Even if his spotter is lugging an expensive SA-7.

What do you do to tip the odds? You throw out a 50,000 dollar Packbot with a 12.7-25mm SPR and sniper finder optics on it's back.

Because now you don't have to have a 4 million dollar IFV to level the odds, ballistically, in the fight at hand. And so can afford to WAIT for that airborne, endurance, 1,200 dollar per flight hour, drone to lock in the target coordinates (fed to it by a laser ranger on the packbot and bentpiped through your Rover laptop). And drop that mini-PGM atop the idiot whose _first shot_ meant he stayed too long.

THAT is warfare today. A war whereby an IED works beyond any infantry capability to avoid a disabled vehicle but cannot reliably kill the meat inside the shell. And so it requires secondary engagement and a -time- commitment to winning to score more than metal attrition. A commitment which insurgents cannot afford to make.

Accept this and IMO, you have instantly reduced the infantryman to either a 'diplomat' (SOF) or a force protection (MP) security guard/traffic cop. And so can afford to fire half of them because there is no need to 'take dirt', by assault, what you can simply render uninhabitable for others.

Platform Fires RULE.

The question is whether you want to pay for a huge infantry establishment as nothing but a media bodybag photop IF you cannot afford the remote-fires platforms to exploit the enemies view of 'flush rats, see rats run, kill Crusader rats' in protecting what is essentially nothing but a mobile popup target.

The only alternative (in keeping infantry in the game) is the Russian/French method of 'making examples' out of entire populations for every uniformed combattant killed. It worked, in Germany, because we were seen as the Good Cop alternative.

Yet with our current world standing being what it is, we cannot afford those kinds of draconian tactics as a 'liberating' force.

>>
I fully support the last couple of posts. The proliferation of technologically advanced area weapons to replace decent riflemen is a demonstration of the dilution in the quality of the combat infantry skills amongst the modern soldier. Like my old CSM used to say, "All the gear, no idea".
>>
The problem is, it's /still nice/ to have 'the better gear'. And what I see is not coming even close to being more than an inventory replacement for tired guns. Indeed, if we are at that point whereby the current family of infantry weapons needs replacing for ordnance age alone, there is still no reason not to do so with a followon that brings new capabilities to the field as a function of redefining how we fight.
An 'Advanced Battle Rifle' (ABR) followon to the Assault Rifle with short length (in-the-door clearance), aft-mass balance (for weak arms) and basic reddot optical sights (2inches long, tops) plus 60rds onboard and a softrecoil, heavy-bullet combination. DESIGNED to make 'even a truck driver' capable of point kills (singleshot) at 200m. Yet also a weapon which which is **technology protected** from becoming a new-generation AK. By virtue of an expensive receiver group (recoil damper is sprung with a high quality, 10,000rd sealed-unit, variable impulse, 'shock absorber' hydrocylinder). And CT/Caseless rounds (which nobody else can make small enough to match magazine counts, even if they can easily /overmatch/ the caliber performance, ballistically). That is a good long gun.
Even as a 'Multipurpose Suppression Weapon' (MSW) which packs 20rds onboard and can fire either shotgun or explosive rounds. So that if you are jumped going down an alley with 20 windows on the 2-story buildings on either side, you can fill each one without overly worrying about WHERE exactly in each window the shooter is standing. And/or while involuntarily scaring the bodily fluids out of him as his world literally explodes LOUDLY behind him. That is a good weapon to have as SAW/GL standin.
Such a combination could easily replace the need for on-mount grenade launchers, in-vehicle SMG or handguns (more shots per engagement before reload, lower webgear weight), 'Carbine' shorties for the SOF and CT/HRT use. And SAWs (continuous high rate but 36lbs heavy means poor marching fire and rapid depletion of beltmag efficiencies in other troops) as a _not your daddy's M60_ instant-on response to old school ambush tactics.
Past which point, you get Ronnie The Pack Robot to pop smoke and get the heck out (or inside) while he shoots anyone dumb enough to spray into the obscurrant field with a combination of acoustic and IR sniperfinding finesse.
COE right back atcha.

Infantry guns as I see them are weapons which keep you alive until someone with better sights, payload:weight ratio, 'bravery', and superior ballistics can blast the snot out of the enemy for thinking he was 'safe' by employing desultory fires (longrange/mine based) random attack. That doesn't mean that they don't have to be effective killers. What it does mean is that you have to acknowledge the limitations of biology-under-stress, past which NO HAND WEAPON (105mm rail gun, firing .2KT atomic bullets at 20,000fps) will make you more survivable. Where the real change in doctrine will come is in the $$ savings from a smaller force of smart shooters that can now be backed up with crewserved or automount weapons that make up for biology's shortcomings and/or at least ensure the bad guy doesn't get away for free.

Never bleed for dirt, taking or holding. Never die for nothin', fighting the way your enemy expects his side to win.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
Because if they can't service the mount or buy the bullets, I will not see it coming back at me as often.

Originally posted by ch1466Having said that, even handheld explosives rule the CQB fight because they specifically exist to _deny the volume_ of spatial occupancy your enemy can sit in and stick his tongue out at you from behind a wall. Even as they also expand the number of 'instant doors and elevators' (axes of attack) that he has to worry about in covering his hind parts.

I don't want to get into a cyclic-fight if I can avoid it because that means I've blown it, tactically, a lot earlier on and am in some kind of 'smiling' (all teeth) fight rather than shooting people in the back like a smart warrior should.

I couldn't agree more. One thing to remember though, is sooner or later, someone's going to screw everything up, and you want your soldiers to have the next best option readily available. An M-14 for range and grenades for Close Quarters Battle works greagt, untill you run out of grenades, or have multiple targets needing deaded right there in front of you.

The thing i like about it is the Thermobaric/FAE rounds.
www.defensereview.com...
Think about being in a small room and having a blast increase the room pressure 10+ fold and at the same time remove all the oxygen. plus the heat of a self heating oven.

Nasty