The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:Ideally I'd like to keep the 20x28mm since IMO the larger 25mm plus the 5.56 mm rifle would be far too bulky, the 20mm plus 5.56mm is already bulky and heavy enough as is. I think with CMC/MMC barrels I could shave maybe a pound while an all-carbon fiber receiver, polymer magazines, and replacing the batteries with a methanol fuel cell could shave off another ~3 pounds to go from 18 ibs loaded down to the design requirement of 14 ibs loaded. The 20x28mm grenades not being lethal enough is something I think I can fix using a more energetic filler and making the warhead DIME based, essentially making it RDX or HMX mixed with micro-sized tungsten powder all contained in the grenade's carbon fiber casing (which does not generate shrapnel). The other big complaint with the XM29 was that the 250mm 5.56 barrel was too short and limited the effective range to less than 300 yards but I don't see this as a problem since the infantryman is probably going to use 20x28mm for pretty much all longer ranged engagements with the 5.56 only used perhaps for CQB where the 10" barrel ins't a problem. The last problem is cost, the XM25 cost around 35K a piece and it's only the grenade launcher part without the 5.56 rifle. The grenades themselves are also over $100 a piece which is clearly not affordable if the weapon is to be mass issued. I would argue that the XM29/25 and its ammunition cost was for the LRIP version(s) and that mass producing the weapon and its ammunition would drive its cost down, ideally it would be 10k or less for the entire system which sounds expensive but is actually pretty reasonable when you consider it's a combined rifle, grenade launcher, thermal optic, and FCS.
The concept of affordability is only a concern for private entities. For the government, that cost of $100 per grenade for widespread issue ain't even worth a damn drop in a drained Olympic pool.
