Comments on: Defense Review on XM25

By: Coolhand77

Coolhand77 — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:50:00 +0000

I’d rather have something with a little more stopping power for close quarters support. 5.7, while a nice hole puncher, just doesn’t have appreciable terminal ballistics if the bullet doesn’t tumble right. Gimme my good old fashioned .45…say something like the HK MP7 scaled up to .45 ACP

By: KaM

KaM — Wed, 18 May 2005 19:22:00 +0000

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-07/arm.PDF You mean something like this? (bottom-right) It's not with 25mm rounds but the principle is the same. http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=218 The squad support weapon.

By: Slighter

Slighter — Sun, 15 May 2005 14:43:00 +0000

They should really try to combine the XM25 on to an FN-P90 with a 3 round 25mm and 50 round 5.7x28mm SS190 ammo and a serious weapons sight system- Laser GPS, Thermal, Infra-red, 5th Generation Night-Vision. All that in a compact size with programmable 25mm munnition, the weapon sight system could aquire the target and select the proper round for the target, or the soldier could do it manually. If you look at the design of the FN- P90 it has an ideal second trigger spot on the foregrip and the 3 rounds of 25mm could fit in the butt-stock via a clip or loaded individually. The weapons sight could even function as the main communication hub with a wireless headset for the soldier and small LCD, this would enable the soldier to keep his view constantly looking down his sights, where it should be. This weapon would give a serious edge for our SF and Central Command againt the terrorists and is complete feasible to build…

By: amrbuilder50

amrbuilder50 — Tue, 10 May 2005 16:49:00 +0000

another detriment to the DREAD system is the same problem our fore fathers had during the American Revolution. ROUND BALLS SUCK! aerodynamically speaking, the round ball is about the worst projectile to send against downrange because it is very hard to stabilize for accuracy. That is why the mini ball was used during the civil war. If any of you have gone paintballing, you’ll know what i’m talking about.

By: Bram

Bram — Mon, 09 May 2005 13:40:00 +0000

Glad to see the Flechette round is still on the ammo list. With those babies, the M-25 gunner will not need a rifleman to protect him. He will need a mop to clean up any bad guys he hits.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 09 May 2005 10:02:00 +0000

Sorry, DW is correct, I should’ve clarified that. They designed the new grenade warhead off of the current design for the 25 mm cannon. Needless to say, you couldn’t shoot the cannon round from the shoulder and keep your clavicle intact. They used the 25 mm cannon shell as the basis for the new design. That’s what I meant.

By: Daniel E. Watters

Daniel E. Watters — Sun, 08 May 2005 23:48:00 +0000

FWIW: The projectiles used in the XM25′s ammo are not those of the 25x137mm cartridges used in the M2 Bradley’s Bushmaster cannon. However, the XM25 ammo is supposed to share warheads with the higher velocity ammunition used in the XM307 ACSW and XM109 Payload Rifle. The only thing being shared with the cannon rounds is certain fuse components.

By: Chad

Chad — Sun, 08 May 2005 08:34:00 +0000

Both of those reasons are why it changed from a 20mm to a 25mm. Lethality has gone way up (they used the 25mm warhead from the apache/bradley, and are happy with it) and the reliability of the timing mechanism has gone way up due to the larger space they had to work with.

By: wetterauw

wetterauw — Sat, 07 May 2005 20:13:00 +0000

i would endorse the xm-25 IF,and thats a big ‘IF’,they can get the fusing/timing of the projectile down to within an acceptable degree of error(i,e,effective blast radius to ‘shower’the target area with enogth shrapnell).but therein to also lies the rub.seems they were having a dues of a time getting that particular part right back when it was the xm-29 sabr/oicw,rumour had it that there had been some ‘difficulty’ in finding the projectiles sweet spot.much good the thing will do if you can’t get the projectile there in the first place.also seems as though there is a question as to its lethality.they had increased the projectiles(xm-29 to xm-25)size from 20mm up to 25mm after the dual weapon configuration had been dropped from the oicw requirement.i suppose this will add more meat to the warhead,but that still means that,when it goes off,presumably right on top of johnny jihads unsuspecting head,that he’ll get a lethal enogth dose of pre-fragmented metal forcably thrust deeply enogth into his fevered,insurgant grey matter or other major bodily organ of your choice to send him on his way to collect his vestial reward.heres hoping the science translates into brutal reality.

By: Chad

Chad — Sat, 07 May 2005 15:52:00 +0000

Bob, The point about the noise levels is valid, but (don’t tell me you didn’t see that coming) the centrifuge is inside the housing with the rivets, and I am going to guess it has a mechanism or design that cancels out a lot of the problems you are suggesting. The sonic boom of the projectiles will still occur, but that is a much more diffuse sound than the firing of an M-2hb .50bmg. As to the lighter (smaller) grenades used in the XM-25, well, there’s several reasons for that. 1.) flatter trajectory 2.) greater range 3.) better accuracy (due to #1) 4.) capability to carry more rounds 5.) grenades based on existing rounds (25mm cannon-cuts development time/costs) 6.) lowered recoil 7.) semi-auto, shoulder fired weapon (look at the monstrosity we got trying to make an auto-grenade-gun(see mk. 19 hardly what I’d call man-portable))