U.S. Army will receive 100K NGSW weapons systems for replacing M4 and M249

Embarrasing myself.

Attached: SA80_A2_(L85A2)_5.56mm_Rifle_MOD_45162150.jpg (2118x1275 249.65 KB, 2.26M)

Idk doesnt seem too bad to me

Polymer case-telescoped .270 150gr bullet w/compacted powder charge.
40% less weight than 5.56, 3000fps out of a 16in and actually works (unlike caseless).

It's the power of a 30-06 except lighter than 5.56 per bullet.

Attached: telescoped 6.8.jpg (1366x1506, 355.94K)

Nope. Too bad. You're going to be treated like the expendable shit you are, trained to suck kike dick, and be sent to die in some shithole for israel.

No you go where you are told. Fuck even the National Guard gets deployed.

Polite sage for doublepost.

So telescoped ammo is actually going to not be a meme? Never thought I'd see the day.

I'm sure the Mexican Army is glad to hear that and hopes to take a few off US Army troops ASAP! :)

I wonder if Jews will stop making jokes about the French surrendering to Nazis, and start making jokes about US Army surrendering to Mexicans?

I doubt it, after all, the French did kill about 20,000 Nazis, and took over 100,000 of their own dead, and fought all the way to the beaches of Dunkirk. The US Army at the border, in contrast….. :(

Attached: MIME.jpg (1024x683, 349.44K)

Rood but fair. If I could back out I would but as far as I know I'm kind of already fucked. Just trying to look at the bright side of a shitty situation.

Easy there, we still might not.
It's just the technical description of what they're talking about since many people believe it's 6.8 SPC or caseless ammo or something.

Here you can explicitly decide whether you want to be deployed abroad or not (if you want to, you have to meet higher standards than those who don't want to of course). Now I understand why when some of you Americans mention that he enlisted/wants to enlist he is bombarded with things like "you'll die for Israel" etc.

Cheaper bullets?

An AK-107 clone but loaded in 6.5 CM

Attached: hnnnnng.jpg (567x461, 81.35K)

Attached: bolt action.jpg (6000x1960, 871.15K)

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (223x300, 111.13K)

It's neither.
It's polymer case telescoped ammo.

The army always said they would not change 5.56/7.62 until something actually better by a really big margin came along.
It has.

Attached: 6.8 Telescoped.jpg (770x443, 60.25K)

...

Sauce?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2700x1359, 2.02M)

It's still significantly lighter and more compact than conventional ammo. Caseless is a meme.

Read OP, use your brain, have prior knowledge of what is going on.

"this new round promises to have better range, improved accuracy at longer distances, and greater armor penetration capability over the existing 5.56x45mm ammunition the service uses now"

But what about recoil?

Sounds like a much higher point of failure to me.

Careful what you meme there.

Attached: M40_Armageddon_Pattern.jpg (375x178, 25.38K)

The 6.5mm CT cartridge used in the LSAT pioneer program weighed ~35% less than regular 7.62 and ~35% more than regular 5.56. There's no way they got it lighter than 5.56 while increasing the bullet's diameter.

Hypervelocity plastic pellets, to be used with autoaiming rifle mounts that always target your balls.

Attached: airsoft.webm (640x480 4.52 MB, 3.7M)

Why does the military need new small arms? Artillery is the main weapon of war.

Alright and into the filter you go

Attached: marco.mp4 (540x360, 567.51K)

Oh yeah, my bad, I was a bit over enthusiast.
Still 5.56 brass-cased is 180+ grains total for 237 grain for 6.5 CT.
Even if they went for a heavy 150gr 6.8 and a bit bigger case it should still be at the same level of weight as 7.62x39 ,and sure 7.62x39 is a bit heavier but not enough to significantly impact carrying capacity.

NO

You can significantly increase recoil over 5.56 before it becomes an issue and I imagine a rifle designed today could mitigate a lot of the felt recoil by increasing pulse duration with something like a recoiling barrle system (can't remeber the name of the action right now).

Why not use something like the G11 or AN-94?

Both were attemps to fire multipul rounds before the recoil impulse can effect aim in the hope it would increase hit probability, this has proven to not be the case so they are basically dead memes at this point.
Duplex rounds might make a comeback one day as they were the best of the bunch but I think actively stabilized barrles are more likely to the be way POH is increased eventually (50+ years).

In the big push for 5.56, much ado was made about recoil and control on full auto. When defending the 5.56 over everything else, as well as the 9mm changeover in the Us over the 45, recoil is still talked about greatly. Yet studies and war experience have told us that the advantages of the smaller calibers are limited and are often over valued and over stated. Can't control a battle rifle on full auto? Turns out the 5.56 or other assault rifles arne't much better, even if they are MORE controllable they are not USEFULLY controllable. They are still too recoily for real life considerations and useful combat scenarios, even if they are less than a battle rifle they are still too much for automatic fire anyway. Turns out full auto on infantry rifles/carbines just wastes ammunition to accomplish nothing, semi auto and/or burst is better. Keep hacksawing the barrel off your 5.56 NATO anything and with the muzzle flash and other considerations its NOT a full auto weapon.

So, in all truth, get past the propaganda and the horseshit to push this and that, there was nothing wrong with a battle rifle in single shot mode. There isn't that much of an advantage to 5.56. So one day we draw the conclusion that bumping up the recoil isn't that bad of a deal. The smaller competitor is already too much recoil for full auto, and the mid caliber is still less than an old battle rifle cartridge. Increased recoil over 5.56 isn't a big deal.

Even so, small arms are still used and in some battles and fights the artillery can't or won't help (look at them sitting on their hands in some cases in Afghanistan) in very limited combat they may not schedule artillery support and in wold war three sized massive combat infantry will be fighting in the fields yet again with limited support in many cases. We've learned that against skilled enemies overmatch is real and important, that accurate suppressive fire by skilled men coordinates with artillery to be effective, the guns don't just magically occupy nations and hilltops by themselves, that city fighting can't rely on the artillery to do all the work. Even if artillery is the main killer, it doesn't mean it wins the war by itself. Also, the 6 inch guns won't get you out of every jam you'll get into; even if they fire X amount of thousands of rounds per enemy combatant killed all those theories and numbes don't help you when YOU need to kill an enemy on the battlefield at close range or when you need to fire back and hit things when there is no heavy weapons to seize the day.

...

Corrent me if I'm wrong but don't most assault rifles have 600-900 rpm because that is the natural cyclic rate of the system and slowing it would add complexity and weight?

Rate of fire is determined by the weight of the moving parts, the strength of springs, the particular action and bearing surfaces in use, and most importantly for modern military rifles, the operating pressure of the cartridge used and the amount of gas pressure that's tapped from the barrel. This is why changing gas settings affects reliability; opening the port wider increases the rate that gas escapes, thus pushing the piston or bolt back faster and with more force. These are all decisions made by the designer.

On the other hand, look at certain military weapons and their designs or tweaks; the M1918 BAR, the ZK-383, the Uzi, the Vz. 61 Skorpion. These all have different methods of either setting the ROF low or modifying it. There are also things like the Bushmaster M242 or the GE M134, which are designed to have a wide range of adjustments without adding extra parts or replacing any. Autocannon and rotary guns are obviously way more complex than rifles and machine guns, but there have been plenty of examples of low-ROF or variable-ROF guns produced.

Ok so you have a direct impingement AR with a gas port big enough to cycle shit ammo while dirty but no so big it beats itself and the user to death.
Now what do you do to reduce ROF?
In the low ROF SMGs you mention they add a gaint block of steel to the bolt (adding weight), in things like autocannons and miniguns they are so heavy and complex already that adding a little more hardly matters.
With assualt rifles you need them to be cheap, reliable and light in that order and full auto is generally treated as a door kicking switch (as it should be) where range is so low that the practical difference in controlability between 300 rpm and 1000rpm just doesn't matter. All that matters is the guy you are mag dumping into isn't going to get a chance to shoot back which he might get with semi-auto.

It'd be nice to see the US go fuck it and switch to BARs and M2s.
However, that would require it to grow some form of balls back.

For an AR specifically you can add weight to the buffer assembly and a stronger spring.

That is what I mean, you are adding weight for little to no practical gain.
There are way to do with for barely any weight like a delay sear but then you are increasing complexity and production costs while introducing a failure point.

My whole point is that reducing assualt rifle ROF just isn't worth the effort when you are going to be making literally millions of them.

That wasn't changed because of recoil, if anything .45 has a smoother recoil than 9mm. It was changed because pretty much everyone in NATO had adopted 9mm Luger, except the US combined to the insanity of wanting to keep using .45 AND 1911 with 7 rounds when everyone else had pistol with 15 rounds.
Add the fact that everyone admitted that sub-machineguns in .45 is retarded and that 9mm is way better at least for that, meaning all the ones still widely used in NATO (MP5, Uzi, MAT-49, Beretta M-12, S&W M76), were in that.

So design them to work that way in the first place. Is there something about that that doesn't make sense? Why do you think a few ounces of weight is somehow a deal-breaker for a firearm?

I agree in that I prefer a 45's smooth slow recoil to the barking 9mm Luger, but the point I was making was that was the argument the US military was making. They came up with false reports on 9mm ball's supposed "superior performance" which was junk science that has been thrown out a long time ago, claiming it was higher capacity, lower recoiling, as well as better terminal effect, when one is certainly a demonstrable lie (45 ball is superior in every way to 9mm ball) one is questionable (45 may have more recoil on paper but may be easier to control) and one that is demonstrably true (weight and capacity). 9mm Luger proponents and fanbois still talk big on the recoil, its the same tactic that 5.7 pushers are ironically using against 9mm Luger (and 5.7's ability to be controlled has issues as well, like 9mm vs 45) and make great arguments that NOBODY can control and hit with big recoil 45 and NOBODY can miss with 9mm Luger.

So you ended up with the military choosing these rounds (9mm and 5.56) for certain reasons then lobbying the public to promote them with other reasons. You are absolutely right that US only switched to 9mm for NATO sake, for once Europe forced a cartridge on the US instead of the other way around.

I would argue that 45 isn't retarded for submachine guns. Just that 9mm with the longer barrel can work breddy well and that's what NATO has standard so why change it and have 9mm standard pistols with 45 SMG's when the advantages are far less? 45 subsonic might have some life in it yet, and 45 isn't completely dead in special operations. But the MP5 works well enough, why change near perfection?

Have you ever spend 12 hour days carrying something?

I worked in construction for years hauling all sorts of things that were far heavier and more awkward than a rifle, sometimes across ridiculous distances or up hills or multiple flights of stairs. I also hunt for food whenever I have the chance, and I might walk for miles through the woods before I see a deer - I don't use tree stands or blinds because that's dishonourable. So yeah, I do have experience carrying things. It's not that bad, which is more than can be said from an armchair. Do you know what it's like to carry a 32 foot fiberglass ladder a hundred yards, then have to climb up and down it and carry it back? Bring 60 pound bundles of shingles up onto a roof? Fuck no. Take it from someone who did that sometimes for weeks in a row, at multiple buildings every day. A rifle weighing eight pounds or eight pounds and six ounces is not a meaningful difference in carry, and the advantage to recoil management is more than worth it.

Complaining about the most important and least cumbersome part of a soldier's equipment is bullshit and rationalising military doctrine with it is bullshit.

Yeah, I was a brick layer for 2 years, rigger for 1 year, concreter for 5 years and heavy industrial electrician for 10+.
While I had to roll 500kg rolls of cable though snow, push literally dozens of tons of concrete a day in wheel barrows and throw bricks 2 stories vertically for 10 hour days it's a very different kind of exhausting to when I was carrying chains all day rigging. A small weight for 12 hours is completely different to ~40% duty cycle of heavier work.

PS riggers are niggers

Attached: 100_9952.JPG (2832x1888, 1.11M)

Well, I don't know about you, but I'd rather lug one of my nail guns or a sledgehammer for half a day than something over my shoulders. A backpack or webgear is a really convenient way to carry surprising amounts of stuff because it uses your core and your legs, but with something on your arms you can easily shift the weight or adjust how you hold it if you start to get uncomfortable. With something like 25-35(+) pounds of Level III armour strapped around your chest you not only can't manage it in any way, but it's also straining you just from the lost mobility of wearing it, and even when you're sitting down that weight isn't off. I maintain that the rifle isn't the problem.

Good to know there are still tradies on this board, by the way. NEETicide when?

I agree that the rifle is the lightest piece of gear by far but if I can carry less weight I will especially as a lot of the time it's going to be in one hand so you can do other shit too.

NEETs end when single mothers are once again socially ostracized

Why aren't large scale infantry exercises using WWI bolt action raifus a thing?

Maybe. Que the ak retarder.

And that's why you'll forever stay poor.

The whole weight issue is important, just that it gets thrown out of context. We carry heavy weight because there is a gain to it, a positive. We don't just carry around worthless shit to weigh ourselves down (unless training or testing). So we should be efficient about our weight, yet we don't want to get retarded and start cutting necessary weight that we decided to carry for a reason.

Trying to keep a rifle lightweight has its advantages, but keep in mind heavier weight rifles are easier to control. Longer barrels make guns more easy to control. We add heavy things like rails and optics, accessories, because they have a positive end, so we add the weight for the gain they offer. DMR's are supposed to be heavy, weight makes the more stable, heavy barrels are universally superior to lighter barrels. Light machine guns can't have too much weight cut from them, at some point that weight helps to stabilize the gun in the field when not on tripod. The whole "lighter is always better" flies in the face that we add things to modern rifles and many guns prefer heavier weights. Both are true at the same time.

Surprise, you can eventually reach a point where choosing a gun by weight only might not make sense. Surprise, you can eventually remove and lighten things on guns to the point it goes backwards. We carry X and its weight because it has a positive end benefit, at some point this is true for the gun, not just every other choice of equipment, armor, carry on, ect. We cut weight by being efficient and not taking garbage with us, we don't cut off necessary or beneficial things to save weight for the sake of saving weight. If there is one place where an extra pound is OK its the weapon you carry, the most important thing you have, the reason you are in the field to begin with. Arguing a 6 pound rifle is automatically completely superior to a 7, or 8, or even 9 pound gun is nonsense. If the weight can be justified its fine. In modern load outs, it seems like if you cut a pound off the rifle all they do is add another pound on the pack. You should focus on getting the dogshit out of your ruck and pouches before you start worrying about critical equipment and your primary focus, your primary weapon.

Like every other truth and aspect that can be positive, people take it and take it out of context and out of control. Supplying the army with 4 pound carbines isn't going to solve a thing.

This thread is no longer kike free.

And the case has a visible longitudinal seam. That's not going to cause problems. No sir.

While I do hope this doesn't turn into a huge waste of time and money, this program has been going off and on for over a decade, and the best weapons that they've yet put forth are objectively worse knock-offs of the Steyr ACR. Developed internally, after the patents on Steyr's design expired, so they won't have to pay a license fee. Noice.

It seems to me that any polymer case needs a much stronger chamber to do more of the work containing the explosion, the polymer will bend and deform but not do much to actually contain pressure compared to the steel chamber. It looks like the cartridge has longitutinal cutouts to allow for some expansion, maybe so it doesn't stick in the chamber.
That seem probably doesn't blow apart because they put a stronger locking mechanism and chamber in the gun.

Modern shotguns shells do, too.
Plenty of semi-auto shotgun have no problem loading and cycling.
It's just a question of using the right polymer, something like polyphenylene sulfide would be the obvious choice.

Shotshells also operate at ridiculously low pressures compared to rifle cartridges, and yet unlike brass even exposed to 65k psi or higher, shotshells can't be safely or reliably reloaded and will more often than not fail on the second use. Most people don't even try for that reason; and that is assuming that the crimp seams on the shell don't crack or break during firing in the first place, which is common. These CTA rounds were projected to work at pressures as high as 80-100k psi by the military's own engineers, so I'm very skeptical of the ability of the polymer to hold up to that kind of abuse. Most rifle chambers will explode immediately from these kinds of forces.

Your evil trips belie great ignorance, my friend. Cases play NO role in pressure, only obturation to seal in gases, the metal fire forms to the chamber to seal things up, by the strength of the brass or even steel cases is of no concern in the chamber's strength. If you get case ruptures the strength of the chamber isn't your concern, if the chamber isn't strong enough a stronger case won't do shit.

Are you seriously on drugs? People have been reloading shotshells forever, even paper hulled shotguns shells could handle around two reloads and thus three firings, plastic lasts even longer before failing. And no, they don't usually fail on the second use. Many of us who have reloaded shotshells get many uses out of them without a single failure. Just what the fuck.

Its not that chambers can't be built to handle 80-100k psi, its the problems of extreme barrel wear and early chamber failure. The higher the pressure the more fire cracking and wear you get on the barrel, throats will wash away. Even if the chamber can be built to handle the rounds, at some point there is that point where high grade steel's resilience is at its point, the higher the pressure the less repetitions are needed before metal fatigue starts and hard steels might start having micro-fissures. Then again, just chuck the barrels when they turn shit, right? There are certain reasons why they keep the usual SAAMI shit maxed out to 65K for any cartridge and don't go higher.

The last point on such super high pressures is the whole "loose tolerances" idea that as a weapon gets fouled during combat lower pressure is your friend. In a fight and as rounds continue to mount up, more fouling might mean a tighter constriction, before you know it you are blasting away at round 700 and don't be surprised if its not higher pressure than the first magazine you fired. Point being, in all the ammunition that will be shot and the different tolerances and combat conditions, having leeway is a good thing, military rounds loaded to less than maximum allows for some safety margin. When you start at 80K you are already at some extreme pressure before any possible things might bump it.

If they did the same as on the 40mm CTA (which are also polymer cased), it doesn't have to go that high.
The way this work is that it's kind of a mono-chamber revolver canon, one round is fed into the chamber, the chamber aligned itself with the barrel, the round is fired, the chamber moves, the empty case is ejected by the feeding of the next round.
The result of this is that it's not so much the casing that is under pressure but the chamber that seals completely around it.

I should probably clarify my original point. My concern is that the cartridge might break apart during firing and pieces of the case could become lodged in the chamber causing a failure to feed on the next round. I believe the system they're using in both the LMG and the rifle are push thru, though I think the specific mechanism is different with one using a translating chamber block and the other using a chamber block that rotates about its longitudinal axis. This push thru feeding/extraction may not be affected by fragmented cases, but I'd still not be crazy about injection molding the cases in halves then clam shelling them together.

But they're ALL foreign missions, user.

Point taken, I think that's the biggest threat of all. Cases will either burst and have remnants behind, or cartridges that are supposed to burn up to provide the true caseless rounds won't completely burn up and jam the gun up good. Both obturation and case remains are real issues.

Well that's kind of the point.
If the process is violent enough so that even if the cased is shredded as long as it still works and every bit is ejected… who cares? Sure you can reload them but it's not like the army does.
There is some footage in slow-mo of an older version of the LSAT and that's why I compared it to auto-shotguns. You can see that the crimped part elongated and deformed just like you would find on a shotshell.
Is it a challenge, indubitably but it's not something that should be seen as a worst mechanical hurdle than the transition to black powder to smokeless, the reliable usage of belted ammo, the reliable usage of magazines, etc…

It might mean we have to move away from Browning and Kropatschek systems for feeding ammo (after a century of use) for it to work but if it does yield an improvement such as being able to use 30.06 power with the weight of 7.62x39 ammo it's probably worth it.
Hell you could also do the opposite and keep a 5.56 CT round and have soldiers with 60rnds mags instead of 30 (or go full 4th Reich with 100rds mags of 4.5mm aluminum bullets at stupid velocities like they wanted on the original G3).

You'd probably have to switch to something like a p90 style magazine for that. Width wise, I don't think there is a huge difference between the CT and standard.

Telescoped ammunition has been a thing for well over a century. The Nagant revolver uses it. The new British Ajax IFV uses a 40mm cannon with telescoped, plastic-cased ammunition.

I've shot thousands of 2-3-4 times reloaded shotshells from the 1970s and have about a thousand more left. shotshells are probably the easiest and most cost and time efficient thing to reload, and once upon a time the most common thing reloaded. 5.56 and 9mm I assume have overtaken it, but there used to be millions of people that had no interest in typical reloading but would run a 12g progressive to load trap shells.

thank God man I thought I was losing my mind when I read that post

I somehow became disillusioned with polymer CT adter learning about the price of the polymer, and realizing that heavier cartridges aren't necessarily that much of a problem, as long as you don't want every soldier to carry more than 400 rounds.

The Nagant's ammunition isn't telescoped, it's just a normal case with a very long neck and a very deeply seated projectile. Think of it as a shotshell that's not crimped.

Attached: brass_shotgun_shell_with_some_kind_of_a_memeprojectile.jpg (627x575 104.28 KB, 98.55K)

Polymer being pricey means "pricey for a plastic"… and plastic is stupidly inexpensive. Medical grade polymer have largely replaced glass in the medical industry virtually at the same cost and mass produced glass isn't exactly pricey (it's $0.2 a tube).

The real problem is mass production as a lot of the very complex ones (for internal graft and pins and what not in surgery) are only made with a small scale production (which is what drive the price up), often with custom made orders.
But if the fucking US army ask for it, I'm sure any big pharma chemical won't have a problem teaming up with GDLS to make a mass production factory…

I hope you die by ied

Almost off topic, but I both understand the reasons why people suggest 9mm and 5.56 are the most reloaded but also the arguments of why it might not be. If you are a bargain hunter you can't hardly reload those cartridges cheaper than you can buy them. I'm currently reloading 7.62 NATO to make my own M80 on the bench, its about the same price as I'd pay for steel case. I'm paying the same money and going through a lot of work just so I can get the quality of my own handload and to run brass instead of steel, NATO projectiles instead of steel under thin vaneer jacket bullets. I looked at the numbers myself for 9mm and even 5.56 with the brass I have, I neither prefer them enough nor found the cost savings to justify either one of them. Hell, I'm thinking of pushing steel through my PTR91 again and forgoing reloading all my rounds for that, too.

I cast bullets and recycle lead from my own range on my own property so I can handload handgun for $0.04 a loaded round, so I can justify a lot of what I do. But even with cheap bullets for 9mm and 5.56 its hard to slide in under current factory ammo prices for all the time and effort put in. "But what about people trying to maximize accuracy" which is a valid reason, save for the fact most AR15's and 9mm 's are set up, and the cartridges intended purpose, is combat rapid fire. If these folks who own them aren't trying to maximize accuracy they may not see a cost savings for these calibers either. I would be interested in hard numbers on the issue, if anyone actually has them.

Back to the point at hand, the military could give a fuck less about reloadable cases. To them the whole idea is a win win, especially if mass produced plastic cases can eventually save big money. But, how will this play into the general shooting market? Can handloaders get these plastic cases, can they make them at home, is it going to be cost effective, will they be sold to the public, will they lend themselves to accuracy and variations in loadings, even if you can load the cases will it be worth it in terms of quality, price, availability? A new cartridge would have to fit into a crowded civilian market, and the civilian market often produces a lot of offhand good data and learning for the security/military side of things as well. Or is keeping civilians from these new calibers a sinister plot that may come into play?

it is about realizing reality and living a based life
he is doing something for his country
you seem to be living a life controlled by someone elses claims
therefor you seem to be the greater jewish gimp than him
even if the narrative proves to be undeniably legit in the end, he served his own people whereas you wer just bitching on something you are unable to prove

Was here anything actually *wrong* with the SALVO stacked ammunition idea? If modern armies are going to stick to the 'shoot until you get lucky' doctrine then they might as well stack the deck in their favour.

Attached: SALVO stacked duplex.jpg (447x254, 14.01K)

Ah,yes, another dubious turd that's been trundling along since time immemorial. You have to wonder why militaries keep rolling back to old ideas that have already been proven ineffective.
It's like every new mid-high ranking asshole officer ever to get into Ordinance thinks he's invented the wheel or stumbled onto some ancient wisdom he just can't figure out why anybody would've discarded.
There may be some answers in this literal mountain of research material and reports but who the fuck's going to read that nerd shit? NAAAH, let's just was 300 million dollars of tax payer cash so the field-niggers get budget cuts while we rediscover that a propensity for inbreeding is a sing of poor judgement.

Attached: sl001-4_20_28338x450_29_large.jpeg (338x450, 29.31K)

Yes, instead of one round missing a little you got two weaker rounds missing a little more.

No, it's a reality of war. Any nigger that tries to sell you "every soldier a sharpshooter" is either purposefully lying to you or has no idea what he's talking about.
Armies have been deluding themselves with this idea since the 1600s and it's always turned out the same way - a massive fuck-up.

I think the call of "that technology wasn't ready back then but it is today" is the most legitimate reason why old failed projects are reconsidered. Some ideas were close enough to plausible that if X and Y are figured out, maybe it will work this time and we'll get the benefits. In defense of old projects hist must always be considered.

Otherwise a lot of the attitudes you speak of are the problems of modern "there's always a tech revolution around the corner like its still the Victorian Era" mentality going around, to be honest it seems some days everyone still thinks is the 1870's and the next war will be won by changing their rifles out. People who believe this bullshit become the hard pushing "look at me" thinking fame and glory will come and they will change warfare with some "revolution" of some sorts. They will win WW3 because of this new/rediscovered idea and become famous in the history books like they invented the needle gun or something. Worst of all these old failed ideas often were kept alive not because they were practical or easily achieved but rather their PROMISE. People know the tech isn't plausible "but its promise of advantage is so great we CAN'T ignore it, we MUST bring it up again!". Longshot technologies that may not pan out but offer so much potential end up getting attention, which can be defended, but often means we invest in dead ends. Such is life.

But its why every single asshole in the last 170 years has been screaming "revolution" in terms of technology wither its a minor improvement or a real revolution like the self contained cartridge breach loader. Small changes and revisions to technology minor improvements. NO. The marketeers, the self important people, the propagandists, the advertisers, the people who invented them all claim REVOLUTION. Someone will put a USB plug into a toaster and claims it will change the face of toasting for eternity. Even as technological advancement slows down and the revolutions are all dead and the future is slow minor improvements, they won't let the Victorian-post modern idea that the world is constantly technologically in complete revolution of improvement. As tech slows down these people look increasingly like the arrogant/overspoken assholes they are.

The issue was in the 1600's, those boys in the tercios with the guns were supposed to be all sharp shooters. If you can't hit men as a sharpshooter then you should be the one holding the pike, not the gun. As for line infantry, even if not everyone is a marksman, with the tactics and the way of fighting in that era maximizing marksmanship and thus firepower was all they could do. The muzzle loader was so slow you gained nothing from trying to maximize fire rate, so you had no choice but to teach how to hit.

Modern military doctrine has been shifting towards the fact that its hard to hit people in combat, its not that its just hard to hit a man at 400 yards, its just so easy to miss. Especially a moving target while you've been moving. Even sharp shooters find themselves in tough situations. The marksman and the machine gunner were all more effective back in the colonial days when they fought charging waves of hand to hand assaults, both find their limitations in the modern battlefield that contradcits the way we want to see them ideally. Even then marksmanship is valuable, there are situations where soldiers can make hits. Machine guns and suppression fire are only better when more accurate.

Finally, if we've learned anything, they've been pushing up the "spray bullets at everything' and trying to kill by number of bullets fired, just to find all it does is drive the number of rounds per enemy combatant killed higher, without perhaps much in the way of killing, wounding, or even in some cases suppression. Marksmanship and disciplined fire may be old, but they still have value in the modern field. Maybe not the way they used to, in the same ways, but they are still important and only add to the quality of the fire the solider puts out.

This and all of this. I will say the following, however, and that's that the current system is pretty much the best idea anyone has ever had.
It does take marksmanship into consideration and it does take volume of fire into consideration as both are important.

My point was that a lot of, typically not very knowledgeable people, get latched on to the first part of that and so buy in completely to mememunition and bullshit-rifles because they imagine a magical world in which a highly stressed rifleman in battlefield conditions is going to make shots men have been failing to make since WW1.
We reached the epitome of the full-power, semi-auto only "every soldier a sharpshooter" rifle concept with the Battle Rifle and it ended up being worse in every way to what we have now.
"every soldier a sharpshooter" is the retarded idea that gave us the abject abortion that was the M14.

Attached: richard.jpg (500x613, 106.13K)

And this is why 40K is thoroughly retarded. Because 38,000 years into the future basic firearms technology is what we'd consider "thoroughly obsolete" today.

Are you retarded?

Attached: 2016-10-23_01-54-40.png (370x388, 300.35K)

Not sure if bait or if you're just fucking illiterate. I'll go with the latter since I prefer to believe you're a child of incest.

Attached: MV5BZjU2Y2Q1OTktYzY0Mi00NjA3LTg4NGUtNDdlN2EwY2YyOGZjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTk2MzI2Ng@@._V1_.jpg (300x410, 21.05K)

He's the same retard who comes in every single thread about new weapons projects and says the same retarded thing, conflating CTA with caseless. He has done it literally every time, it's his derailing tactic. Open your eyes, man, there aren't any fucking Macedonians on Zig Forums. Never have been.

I really dont know too much about the statistics and demographics, I'm just guessing that the MSR crowd outnumbers the trap shooting crowd nowadays and reloading demographics would match that. I'm lucky to have a fully automatic reloading android (an aging father). He loads .45 LC and ACP for himself and saves money doing it if you don't assign a value to the time spent because he does it as a hobby anyways. You're right though with 5.56, you can buy it in bulk so easily. We don't load much 5.56, mostly both 45s and some .380 here and there. Oh, and thousands of shotshells of course. He used to do his own lead too, not too much anymore.

Attached: 367c3a06d6f2bda02f9789f0a0fb354934ba8d989eb5a092724c43f44f581e6d.gif (345x260, 1.98M)

false, not all plastics are cheap relative to the types and grades of metal used for casings. you're comparing the medical plastic to other non plastic medical products, but that's a non sequitor since you should be comparing with materials that are actually currently in use. if you can name me a medical grade plastic which is less expensive than the fairly low grades of brass used in casings then i'll show interest. you also have to factor in that the non-rigid plastic casings require a higher volume of plastic per casing than brass or steel.

There could be a desire to simply use less copper.

That's the thing I don't know exact price nor what is the one they want, but what I do know is that polymer cost is extremely tied to volume as in a lot of case pretty much the same amount of investment is necessary to produce by the lb/d than it is to produce by the t/d. Yes you need bigger capacities/machines… but you need the same shit and those machine price doesn't scale by the volume by anywhere the same factor.

Since the 80's the price of copper has tripled, could be a factor.

The real world runs on more than money. Copper is a valuable material, especially during total war or large war scenarios. They used steel core bullets and steel cases why in the Soviet Union, and other countries, why? The United States had 7.62 NATO steel care bullets designed and ready for production come world war 3. Money aside, these war materials that come in short supply might literally run out, proud western countries will start using steel cases in an emergency, ect. If plastic can be used it might be a strategic advantage during a major or total war scenario.

...

Because the plastic is less dense than brass and weighs less. It's still more fucking plastic. You fell into a trap of semantical lies.

If you're buying by the pound, less poundage per unit is less cost per unit.

Attached: 4275298cce98c0347d5c4cfefb7e7bf235b42147d1437f2c751fe2538fd4c1f4.png (525x507, 1.02M)

I don't know why people are arguing price when the military has shown it is more than happy to spend way more money than it needs to to solve a certain problem.

Attached: 9-мм_пистолет_Макарова_с_патронами.png (894x720, 738.01K)