We’ve had a LOT of comments (102 and counting) on our story
last week about Army plans to spend $34 million in the coming year to develop
its XM25, shoulder fired, semi-automatic 25mm grenade launcher. Lots of folks
balked at the price tag, which is understandable, it’s a very expensive weapon.
But if it pans out it could really provide some needed firepower to the rifle
squad.
A number of critical voices are concerned that the XM25 will
replace the venerable M203 under rifle grenade launcher. That’s not the case.
The XM25 is designed specifically for counter-defilade,
meaning, it’s intended to blast enemy fighters hiding behind walls, cars, small
mounds, or other obstacles. It fires a 25mm high explosive round above the
target and then detonates. So it’s a weapon designed with a very specific
function in mind. Because of this hyper-specialization, the Army says it will
provide one per rifle squad. So it’s meant to augment, not replace, a squad’s
current firepower.
In other words, the XM25 is not intended to replace this (the XM320, the replacement for the M203):
Others have criticized the XM25′s limited magazine which
only holds four rounds. Yet, one commenter familiar with the weapon wrote in to
say that the 4 round magazine is a compromise between weight and mobility and
that the weapon’s accuracy will more than compensate. The squad grenadier will
put down accurate killing fire with the 25mm rounds as the rest of the squad
uses M-4s and SAWs to suppress.
A shortcoming of the M203, as a number of users have
commented, is its inaccuracy. The XM25 would appear to be a vast improvement in
that regard. One commenter who has test fired the weapon said the laser sight
and smart round is accurate enough to put into windows in a house so that the
round detonates inside a room.
Another commenter wrote in to say that the 25mm round
actually contains more explosive than the 40mm “blooper” round. I’ll have to do
some digging and see if that’s the case.
Watching this footage of firefights from southern
together by former Marine turned combat correspondent Bing West, I could see
the XM25 having some real utility reaching out and hitting an enemy that uses
walls and tree lines as a base of fire.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
In other words the XM-25 is meant to deal with enemies in dead space. Where is the M203 is meant to…deal with enemies in dead space.
It seems to me that the main difference in the two is the xm-25 is designed to be a dedicated weapon that has better range and accuracy than it’s counterpart, whereas the m203 and m302, (the weapon depicted in the photo above just for clarity’s sake) are designed to act as a compromise. Also why is it that people who are self-proclaimed lovers of single shot breach loaders such as the m203 and m79 complaining about the xm25′s ammo capacity?
Uh the XM25 (with acessories) costs alot. nope it costs uh last I heard $32,000ish so its government/military so its going to be more like $42,000. Last numbers I heard for M16 or M4 with accessories is $45,000-$55,000 depending on when it was purchased and what acessories. So from the numbers I have at worst the XM25 is $3,000 less at best its $13,000 less now the cost of ammo is quiet expensive. But along the same lines you need less rounds and it does more damage.
I hear all of the complaints with the small mag capacity. I have held a mock up of one of these weapons and there is a reason for the 4 round mag. It is very difficult to use the weapon in the prone with the use of a larger mag. As you can see in the pictures of it, the 4 round mag already extends to the length of the pistol grip. Any longer would make it unmanageable in the prone as the muzzle of the weapon would be forced down by the long mag. At the time said they had 4, 6 and 10 round mags for it, but said that during testing the users greatly prefered the shorted more ergonomic smaller mags compared to the longer variety. I would not be surprised if the larger mags would see limited use in certain applications for the weapon in situations where getting really low to the groud doesn’t matter as much.
This is the failed OICW BS still burning cash
Depicted is the M320, which is the upgrade to the M203. The XM25 is less of a suppressive weapon than the m320/203 and more of an accurate, deadly weapon.
As a CAP Marine; I can’t tell you how much I would have loved to have this weapon. My T.O. unit was 2 Fireteams,
1 Corpsman, 1 M-79 Grenadier, 1 M-60 Gunner, 1 60mm Mortarman, 1 platoon Sergeant. We were never up to T.O. Patrols were 1/2 the Platoon and we were happy when we finally got a 12gu shotgun.
Oh yeah, as far as the cost of this weapon is concerned; how much cash would you burn to establish fire superiority and not to be wounded or killed in close quarter combat?
The problem is the rifle takes the majority of the weapons function.
design a Grenade Launcher as the main weapon and add a defensive weapon to it, not a rifle with an added GL.
What ya cannot build a thump gun with a submachine gun as the secondary under barrel weapon?
What about a cylinder-like magazine? It would hold more rounds and not extend too far below the stock.
What I do not understand is why the Army has the need to spend millions to develop an entirely new weapon system and ammunition for it when a cheaper, more practical alternative is already used in combat. The Marines have been using the M-32, which carries six 40mm grenades. All six rounds can fired downrange in 3 seconds. Not to mention, it is very accurate.
“The M32 has reported successful head shots at 150 meters” http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usmcs-new-m32s-hitting-the-field-02042/
The XM25 has twice the range. The integration of a laser range finder and ballistic computer make it more accurate at all ranges. There is no comparison with first round hit capability. The XM25 has an airburst capability.
There are tons of weapons with “reports of headshots”. What they don’t tell you is it’s not common. Have you seen the “Top Shot” finale where the conpetitors hit golfballs at 50′ with a snubnose 38?
Do they make buckshot rounds for this thing if you have to defend yourself with it??? I don't think I would want to be carrying a rifle as well…
I think I would rather have an AA-12 automatic shotgun with an air-burst round. Smaller? Sure, but you can carry 20 of them and fire them in rapid order at 360 rpm – not to mention, yes, BUCKSHOT!
FRAG-12- too.
Check this weapon out and compare it for simplicity. It will fire three rounds as fast as you can pull trigger. You pop in a stack of three and you got three more. It’s cheaper and effective and will provide multiple warheads on target. Video here
http://www.metalstorm.com/component/option,com_expose/Itemid,128/
These were dummy warheads but you get the idea
Why not a Bullpupped Saiga 12(12ga. AK)? One can be built for WAY less than $5000. And you can use all the great variety of 12ga. ammo, thereby being useable not only in the open feild/urban settings, but also for inside/CQB as well. It has 2, 5, 8, 10, or 12rnd. mags availbale not to mention the 20rnd. drum. Runs off the HIGHLY reliable AK platform and can take all the various attachments you may desire. I got one and LOVE it. And mine cost me less than $1000. But then I don’t have Taxpayer money to spend either.
Because we haven’t shrunk the tech down to 12 Guage and the Saiga doesn’t have a 700m effective range.
Get it if it helps.
But someone ought to be carrying an AA-12.Load
variations cover a heck
of a lot of tactical situations.Hell of a leap
from the Mossberg and Winchester pumps.
You just can’t refute the lives that could have been saved if we had had them.
Shotguns don’t reach out and touch bad guys at 350m + behind cover.
No wonder we keep making so many mistakes in the military. No one remembers anything.
The M-203 is close to worthless in most situations soldiers experiense in urban areas. It lobs it round like a morter and because the round travels so slow it is greatly affected by the wind. It has also has a high dud rate in areas with soft earth. This new round gives you a direct fire capability and the ability to hit something behind a wall to close to engage with a 203.
BTW I was part of the initial developmental testing for this round in 1992 at APG MD.
This is my first response to any new item the military and its about time. Having done a couple of deployments now I can tell you from experience:
No infantry squad leader is going to have his privates hump this ridiculous looking thing into the mountains and hills of ANYWHERE.
Is this thing going to be my grenadiers primary weapon in combat? I don’t think so. Do the creator of this weapon realize we have to carry this thing around our shoulder?
I understand what the weapon is supposed to do. Give the war fighter a chance to take out targets behind covers and so on. A question comes to my mind then? Can the round penetrate brick wall or can it only do airburst?
I see this weapon to be used by gunners on a HUMVEE or a STRYKER, NOT in the hillsides of Afghanistan.
Why would they create this weapon which also can only take 4 rounds!
We need simple efficient upgrades to our kit and weapons say like the marines which now are getting a new 5.56 round for their M16 and M4s. Awesome. They also gave their grunts the six shot M-32. Why doesn’t the army have that weapon? We could have bought a M-32 for every squad in the army instead of buying this futuristic looking weapon . I’m upset.
Uh, its been used in afghanistan by infantry squads in the 101st and SF teams. They didn’t want to give them back.
Here’s one story. http://www.army.mil/article/66968/XM25_feedback_demonstrates_lethality/
There are others…
Can anyone explain to me why our weapons are not being made more universal instead of less? This thing can ONLY do what its built for, although maybe I’m wrong…I’m sure its really heavy, will be mounted with rails so people can make it even heavier which in turn makes it a great tool to beat someone to death with, hold down something, etc. Even off topic, but similar, why is anyone impressed with the SCAR? Or any other goofy plastic gun? Let’s rip off the Brits and build a bullpup in 6.8.
More of the same…of the same, of the same…
test
The XM25 has an integrated laser range finder, ballistic computer & 4X thermal sight.
Rails? What else could you want?
The posts I've read indicated that the typical firefight in Afg was 15-20 min. When the XM25 has fired 1-2 rounds the T's all retire from the fight, or are unable to continue living. No place to hide. Why use massive numbers of grenades if just a few shots end the fight? The grenades are expensive only because they're hand made in low numbers for test and eval use . The folks who were using XM25 were using it as the primary weapon after the first few contacts, and leaving the m4. When the XM25's were being withdrawn from field testing the troops begged for their continued availability. The XM25's were left with the troops and they continued to report each contact with T's. The only really bad flaw was the battery which did not last long enough.
The XM25 is a true game changer. No more manuvering to out flank a hostile force, just lase and aim for the center of the incoming fire and lob a few rounds above it. Its especially effective against the T's because they don't use helmets. This would really be scary effective if "willy pete" were available.
I am a(n) M320 user in my squad and i don’t have any issues with it and i find it better to use also flanking is important and unless you been to war and actually used these type of products for their actual use then you wouldn’t know anything about the purpose and reason for using and why people complain about ammo space and what have you. And it doesn’t matter how effective a weapon system is if the user cant even use it. And i am a really great shot with the M320. It is possible to put a 40mm round through a window you just gotta be good at it. And remember all military weapons are made by the lowest bidder so it doesn’t matter what the weapon is it will never be the greatest thing ever just another tool to help get the job done.