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.
U.S. Army will receive 100K NGSW weapons systems for replacing M4 and M249
Kevin Ward
James Ortiz
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.
Grayson Nelson
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.
Jaxon Campbell
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.
Zachary Rodriguez
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.
Isaiah Walker
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.
Mason Rodriguez
Are you retarded?
Logan Davis
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.
Caleb James
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.
Liam Edwards
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.