Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Q&A 52: Sam Colt was a Jerk, the NGSW will not be Adopted, and German WW1 Wunderwaffe" video.

Infact. Reloading is a thing with brass ammos only because brass cases are expensive. An already fired, dirty and still with the spent primer brass .223 case is around 0.12$, one cleaned and unprimed 0.2$ and one pristine around 0.4$. If a new, unprimed plastic case will be around 0.1$, what will be the point in reloading?
3
It's what SIG wants people to believe. To make them accept that they already won, hoping that the hype becomes reality without questions made. In reality, to me, it's the less likely to be accepted. It's enough to see the clips of it fired to see that it kicks like a mule, (the Textron is better, the GD MUCH better) making impossilbe to fire it in full auto from the shoulder with some pretense to hit the intended target. Moreover, the bi-metal cartridges have no advantages over the existing ones, they are as heavy, and even more expensive to make.
3
@chris101ward The "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS only meant "in respect to caseless ammos". Caseless ammos are ineherently hotter than brass ammos, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber. Here's the opposite. Plastic, that's an insulator shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass, that's one of the best heat conductors existing. Heat remains in gasses (that expand more, that's why they need less powder for the same muzzle speed) and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer. Plastic cased ammos actually heat up the weapons MUCH LESS than brass ammos.
3
.25 Remington and .30 Remington were even better, since they were rimless. What lacked was a thechnology to make an AR reliable in thrench warfare. The same reason semiautos failed in WWI.
2
@Tirak117 The "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS only meant "in respect to caseless ammos". Caseless ammos are ineherently hotter than brass ammos, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber (that's physically part of the barrel obviously). Here's the opposite. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass. Heat remains in gasses (that expand more, that's why they need less powder for the same muzzle speed) and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer. Plastic cased ammos actually heat up the weapons MUCH LESS than brass ammos.
2
Reality is that the M60 had never been compared with weapons other than the M1919 prior to adoption. It was so full of obvious defects to make doubt that it had been properly tested, or designed by people that had any previous experience in designing firearms. (self unscrewing gas taps, a issue any other firearm solved since 19th century; bipod attached to the barrel, making it impossible to change barrel while keeping the weapon in line, a issue any other LMG and GPMG solved since the '30s; self discarding trigger assembly; self unscrewing sight elevation screw; self damaging feed system if racked without a belt in it; parts that can be assembled backwards; not adjustable front sights; flimsy receiver that stretched beyond usability at 10.000 rounds count...). It seems more a test weapon for trainees at the "firearms design academy". "Now disassemble this, and then tell me all the mistakes that had been done in designing it."
2
@_malprivate2543 The Brits tried to do something similar with the Enfield X11, that was a belt-fed BREN. It fared well in comparative tests against the M60, AA-52, MG51, Madsen-Saetter, MG-3, and the FN MAG, loosing only to the latter.
2
Actually the FN MAG, or other designs that were better than the M60, had never been considered. All that was considered in the adoption of the M60 was "it's better than the M1919?". In the design there were so many obvious mistakes (self unscrewing gas taps, parts that can be reassembled backwards, receiver damaged by just pulling the charging handle without a belt present) to make it doubt it had really been properly tested.
2
TV cartridge needs a 20" barrel to reach the desired preformances, so a bullpup.
1
@fraleo2192 Have you seen how much time it takes, even for trained professionals in the best conditions possible at the range, to replace belts on the other two bids, for puny 50 rounds? To use mags is not a defect, is an advantage.
1
@Barabel22 Thanks to those few inches of barrel, the ammo reaches the desired performances with normal operating pressures, and so can be used on any existing 7.62 NATO firearm with just a barrel change.
1
@fraleo2192 Mind that those weapons are meant for infantry support on the field, so there are weight constraints. They don't want the MG gunner to have a significative mobility disadvantage this time. The other two bids had always been shown with very small belt pouches. But even with a 100 round belt the total time lost in reloading is practically even. Obviously, on a vehicular weapon, you can attach a 250 round belt, but, in the GD bid, the vehicular role is covered by the existing MGs with just a barrel change.
1
@My-Name-Isnt-Important Mind that Beretta already entred in the GD bid, to improve ergonomics of the "second generation" prototypes, and already assured high-volume production capabilities, through the Tennesse factory, should the bid win the contract.
1
The "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS only meant "in respect to caseless ammos". Caseless ammos are ineherently hotter than brass ammos, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber. Here's the opposite. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass. Heat remains in gasses (that expand more, that's why they need less powder for the same muzzle speed) and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer. Plastic cased ammos actually heat up the weapons MUCH LESS than brass ammos.
1