Are you being serious here? I am not the engineer. I do not have schematics for the thing. How does ANY gun keep a bullet in the chamber? This gun exists. I am not here to debate the feasability of a gun, just the impact it could have if it went that coarse.Trotskygrad wrote:
but wouldn't it just fall out if you pointed it down?nlsme1 wrote:
Link for? And why would relaoding be hard. They all go in the barrel. All you need is a tube to dump more ammo in the barrel.Trotskygrad wrote:
link plz? and about reloading?
Yes I know -.-Trotskygrad wrote:
For the last time, we're talking about revolutionary small arms...FloppY_ wrote:
Mass produced =/= a requirementTrotskygrad wrote:
I fail to see how that might affect the course of history.
In order to do that, a weapon must be:
1. Mass produced
2. Significantly more effective than the last generation
3. Cheap ammo and cheap production
2 nukes made the entire empire of japan stand down in WWII and I'd say that was "a tech revolution" at the time...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Protip: Guns of today don't send their entire shell casing down the barrelnlsme1 wrote:
Are you being serious here? I am not the engineer. I do not have schematics for the thing. How does ANY gun keep a bullet in the chamber? This gun exists. I am not here to debate the feasability of a gun, just the impact it could have if it went that coarse.Trotskygrad wrote:
but wouldn't it just fall out if you pointed it down?nlsme1 wrote:
Link for? And why would relaoding be hard. They all go in the barrel. All you need is a tube to dump more ammo in the barrel.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Okay, fair point. The bullets for this gun will be slightly sticky on both ends. The will "stick" in place. IDK! Doest detract from the fact that this gun is being researched, and COULD have a profound impact on society. Same as the ak. Wich is what the OP asked us to discuss, not the engineering aspects of modern day arms.FloppY_ wrote:
Protip: Guns of today don't send their entire shell casing down the barrelnlsme1 wrote:
Are you being serious here? I am not the engineer. I do not have schematics for the thing. How does ANY gun keep a bullet in the chamber? This gun exists. I am not here to debate the feasability of a gun, just the impact it could have if it went that coarse.Trotskygrad wrote:
but wouldn't it just fall out if you pointed it down?
Weapons capable of changing the course of history hit a high point with the nuke really, considering the basic assault rifle and machine gun were already developed.Trotskygrad wrote:
I fail to see how that might affect the course of history.M.O.A.B wrote:
Modular weapons tbh.
In order to do that, a weapon must be:
1. Mass produced
2. Significantly more effective than the last generation
3. Cheap ammo and cheap production
Ammo is already cheap to manufacture, and I could imagine a weapon making significant use of high impact plastics being cheaper, not too mention far lighter, than many current weapons. The M4 is essentially a modular weapon, what with the 203 and Masterkey and so on, but I'm thinkng more along the lines of what the XM8 was. You issue a standard rifle, and then depending on the needs of a mission, parts are swapped out. For say three variants you'd produce only a third of the full weapons, and just parts to cover the other two. Making it a bullpup would also conserve length.
the army came out with a study in the mid 1980's that said that modern assualt rifles have reached the peak of small arms evolution until LASERS or caseless ammo comes into play.
modern combat hasnt evolved much since ww2, honestly.
modern combat hasnt evolved much since ww2, honestly.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-01 10:10:17)
Tu Stultus Es
Pretty much.eleven bravo wrote:
the army came out with a study in the mid 1980's that said that modern assualt rifles have reached the peak of small arms evolution until LASERS or caseless ammo comes into play.
modern combat hasnt evolved much since ww2, honestly.
In 1977 Digital Equip. Corp. founder Ken Olsen said "there is no reason for any induvidual to have a computer in his home".eleven bravo wrote:
the army came out with a study in the mid 1980's that said that modern assualt rifles have reached the peak of small arms evolution until LASERS or caseless ammo comes into play.
modern combat hasnt evolved much since ww2, honestly.
You know how many "studies" are prepared for our government? They have still been spending money on research.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-01 10:21:15)
and laserdisc was the next big thing too
Tu Stultus Es
Then it is an outdated study for the army? Kind of like my outdated quote?eleven bravo wrote:
and laserdisc was the next big thing too
ill give you that. but not much has changed since the 80's really.nlsme1 wrote:
Then it is an outdated study for the army? Kind of like my outdated quote?eleven bravo wrote:
and laserdisc was the next big thing too
Tu Stultus Es
Our guns are MORE then 30 yrs old. Plenty has changed. Look at the amount of real time intel we have now. That alone is an advantage, we could multiply it by designing weapons that integrate that intel. We have been. We now LOVE to operate in the dark.
dude, i was in the infantry for 5 years. im telling you, beyond a few here and theres we have not gone that far past ww2
Tu Stultus Es
In what? weapons design? I am not saying we have. The way we fight? Big change. The way we COULD fight? Still, a bigger change possible.
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
Tu Stultus Es
Weight and lots of it is what you are suggesting. It's why the Land Warrior program was canceled (as well as the battery issue). While it's cool to see every single gadget possible loaded onto a weapon in a video game, irl it drags you down something fierce. I carried about 80 lbs worth of stuff on a daily basis while deployed and that was just armor, ammo and weapon. Carry that crap in 135 degree heat and you're looking at massive heat casualties.nlsme1 wrote:
Our guns are MORE then 30 yrs old. Plenty has changed. Look at the amount of real time intel we have now. That alone is an advantage, we could multiply it by designing weapons that integrate that intel. We have been. We now LOVE to operate in the dark.
What we'll likely see is a continuing emphasis on dual weapons. Digital scope with a built in range finder, better 40mm rounds for the M203, stuff like that. We're not going to see anything revolutionary during our lifetimes unless, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, batteries become smaller, cheaper, and more powerful than they are today.
Lastly, any weapon designed has to be soldier proof i.e. Murphy-proof. Electronics fielded by the military make the Toughbook look like a Macbook Air because the equipment will get dropped, it will get kicked, it will fall out of the back of a moving HMMWV and it will still have to function. Delicate stuff can and will break.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Advance to contact, set up firing position, flank, or call in artillery. Exactly the same as in WWII.eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
Well, we have sattelites telling us where stuff is and UAV's and all those nice things that supreme command has... that they show everyone but the infantry that would benefit from receving the intelligence data.JohnG@lt wrote:
Advance to contact, set up firing position, flank, or call in artillery. Exactly the same as in WWII.eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
Exactly the way it was in the civil war too.JohnG@lt wrote:
Advance to contact, set up firing position, flank, or call in artillery. Exactly the same as in WWII.eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
Without sarcasm this time, we have intelligence which greatly helps. So the infantry combat isn't exactly the same.nlsme1 wrote:
That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
Much smaller scale conflicts, better body armor, better medicine and better CASEVAC.nlsme1 wrote:
That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Had already said it in a way that did not involve sarcasm. Some times sarcasm can help make a point.pace51 wrote:
Without sarcasm this time, we have intelligence which greatly helps. So the infantry combat isn't exactly the same.nlsme1 wrote:
That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
No way. The guy on the ground does not need more information than he's currently getting. Wtf would an image from a UAV do for him? He needs to be scanning his immediate front and listening to orders from above, not staring at a computer screen.pace51 wrote:
Well, we have sattelites telling us where stuff is and UAV's and all those nice things that supreme command has... that they show everyone but the infantry that would benefit from receving the intelligence data.JohnG@lt wrote:
Advance to contact, set up firing position, flank, or call in artillery. Exactly the same as in WWII.eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
if the forces we were facing were the same size and had the same logistical capablities as enemies we have faced before, then absolutely we would see the same amount of casualties. there is only so much technology would allow to accomplish before one has to resort to basic combat tactics. yes, we would see a lot more dead if we were facing armies in the hundreds of thousands with the same elements of support we use. absolutely.nlsme1 wrote:
That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?eleven bravo wrote:
the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.
in order for you to maybe better understand this concept, you have to realize the vast majority of casualties that we see today are from the use of very low tech weaponry. IED's are not that sophisticated, they can be, but the majority deployed by the enemy arent.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-01 11:02:42)
Tu Stultus Es