Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1. "We selected the pattern that the enemy is less likely to use!" "Yeah, but there's a reason for that."
    534
  2. It's like when the US Army wants to adopt a camo "that the enemy is not likely to use". Really? After the US Army adopted it, if it's not utterly shit, the world will be packed of garments in that camo anyway.
    54
  3.  @Thes4LT  There had been two different questions about the reliability of the M9. The first one was the supposed fragility of the slide, with several reported cases of it cracking. The second ones were jamming issues in desert environment. For the first one, after the US Army blamed the tellurium used in the steel alloy of the slide, and requested, and obtained, modifications to the alloy and the construction of the slide, Beretta tecnicians discovered the problems (that only seemed to happen in US Army pistols) was due to a defect in Winchester made M882 ball cartridges that produced pressure in eccess of proofloads. The real wonder was that the handguns tested resisted to that beating for many thousands of rounds anyway first to crack. Beretta sued the US government for the bad press, the unnecessary modifications required to the design and the delays, and the question was settled with the Government paying Beretta further $12m for the inconvenience. The second was due to aftermarket parkerised magazines purchased by the US Army instead of original Beretta ones.
    11
  4. Plastic is cheaper than brass, and injectig plastic is a FAR cheaper process than forming brass. The price to the public however is a question of market forces. Plastic is recyclable. The ammo has a steel washer at the base. It can be recovered with a magnet. The case is not reloadable. Plastic can be made of any color. There's practically no air into the case, so I don't think so.
    9
  5. The ammo has a steel washer at the base. It can be recovered with a magnet.
    7
  6.  @midgetydeath  To copy a camo pattern doesn't need any high tecnology, and hardly camos make someone stand out. At combat distance the possibility to discern "the real thing" from something roughly similar is zero.
    5
  7. It had been shown firing long bursts while staying on target. Good luck doing that with the FAL.
    4
  8. You can't eliminate recoil, but you can make it "feel" less harsh. That's done by spreading the same energy for a longer time. That way the recoil feels more a push than a punch.
    4
  9.  @squidwardo7074  it was not suited to any modern war. Too heavy, too bulky, too few ammo carried.
    3
  10.  @thelordofcringe  They disliked it as long as it had problem with ammo, because the Ordnance Corp actively tried to sabotage the rifle by not providing the ammo it was designed for. As soon as the m16A1 was issued, none in his right mind preferred the M14.
    3
  11. That's why some of the best camos nature developed in million of years (tigers, leopards, many snakes...) have black spots or stripes.
    3
  12. it's the weak point of the System actually. Only they didn't realise it yet. Because the US amy can't get over the fact that the belt fed weapon is a CREW SERVED WEAPON. In their concept the MG gunner must carry the gun, ammo and all needed for it to work. So the XM250 doesn't have a quick exchange barrel, because the 400 rounds max the gunner can carry are not enough to require it. And it has not an attachment for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod. Unfortunately, while any GPMG can provide accurate fire at over 1km distance from a tripod, no GPMG or SAW can hit anything at 800m without it, because the burst is too disperse. So the XM250 is a way to be outranged always, and outgunned in short time.
    3
  13. No. 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.
    3
  14.  @SurmaSampo  -40 140 Celsius Is well within the possibilities of simple PET.
    3
  15. The ejection is instantly switchable.
    2
  16. You can switch ejection.
    2
  17. Considering that the SIG is practically never shown firing bursts from the shoulder, it doesn't seem the recoil had been much mitigated. It's a semiauto battle rifle.
    2
  18.  @letoubib21  Zebras have a "herd" camo thaty disrupt the shape of the single animal. Tigers are invisible in their natural habitat (high grass and reeds) that produce vertical shadows. https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/f1/6b/63/f16b63a42e2a8b6e69ce673ee86c407a.jpg Spotted animals are more camouflaged with low grass and leaves. https://c8.alamy.com/comp/K59FX9/a-jaguar-from-north-pantanal-brazil-camouflages-almost-perfectly-with-K59FX9.jpg
    2
  19. "Black is not found in nature" Half of the felines and snakes, with some of the most perfect camouflages evolved in millions of years, sporting black spots and stripes: "Yeah, funny." https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/perfect-camouflage-lynx-on-fallen-leaves-picture-id585071884
    2
  20. The M45A1 had been adopted out of any competition or trial, mostly for the connections of Colt's CEO Gen. Keys. Once tested, it proved to be fragile, with no gun being able to fire more than 12.000 rounds before the slide or the frame cracking, and the pistol was rapidly phased out by most of its users
    2
  21. That of the "heat extraction thru metal cases" had always 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, and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer.
    2
  22. That was "in respect to a caseless ammo", infact. Caseless ammos ineherently transfer more heat to the chamber, and so to the receiver. This is the opposite case. The case shields the chamber, and so the receiver from the heat. Heat remains in the combustion gasses, and it's largely expelled from the barrel with them, because gasses are very bad at heat transfering too.
    2
  23. Smoke always comes off in suppressed guns.
    2
  24. In a certain sense, in this case, selecting the ammo was selecting the rifle. Textron ammo only works in Textron action. A standard action can't even extract it from the chamber. True Velocity ammo is attractive, due to it's backup compatibility with any 7.62 NATO firearm, but to provide the requested performances in the NGSW it requires a longer barrel, so a bullpup, to comply with the required dimensions, so it would have been a competition for the best bullpup. SIG ammo can be used in various configurations, but, choosing it, you decide to not explore further the advantages of polymer cased ammos.
    2
  25. That was "in respect to a caseless ammo". Caseless ammos ineherently transfer more heat to the chamber, and so to the receiver. This is the opposite case. The case shields the chamber, and so the receiver from the heat. Heat remains in the combustion gasses, and it's largely expelled from the barrel with them, because gasses are very bad at heat transfering too.
    2
  26. This ammo has more energy than a 7.62 NATO.
    2
  27. The ammo requires a long barrel, so a bullpup, to obtain the prescribed performances.
    2
  28. Not really. That of the "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS 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, and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer.
    2
  29. Are you telling me that you can 't attach a .22 LR carbine on the front of the M26 shotgun attached to the front of the M4 rifle and have TRIPLE the lethality?
    2
  30. Have you seen the clip on the SIG bid? Single rounds seemed to kick like a mule and he didn't even try to fire full auto from the shoulder.
    2
  31. TV ammo needs a long barrel to develop the desired muzzle speed, so a bullpup. That's why GD it's the only bid whose ammo uses normal operating pressure while, to obtain the same performances with a short barrel, SIG had to use super-high pressures.
    2
  32. The Army wanted the ammo having about the same ballistic than the .270 Winchester. It's not by chance that there's a single semiauto rifle on the market chambered for the .270 Win. It's a miracle the GD rifle can be fired with a resemblance of controllability in full auto.
    2
  33. Since the walls of the case are not subject to so much stress to require some sort of "special" plastic, I think is fairly possible.
    2
  34. Actually the M240 choice had been casual. The one exposed is an explanation "a posteriori" As said, the US army selected the M60, that's more of a "PKM" style machinegun (but way less durable), light and way less apt to sustained fire than the M240. The M240 had been selected as vehicular MG (where weight has no importance) only due to the utter failure of the domestically designed M73 and M279. Then the Marines equipped themselves of M240 dismounted from vehicles simply because their M60s were worn-out beyond usability. Then the Army followed the Marines without even a real competition, because to keep the M60 operative was becoming way too expensive and time-consuming. The M240 is heavy only because it has a riveted construction and a BAR style bolt. In respect to a monolitic construction (like for the PKM) a riveted one must be heavier for the same durability, and a BAR-style bolt, locking on the rear of the receiver, requires a more sturdy receiver than a rotating bolt. so yes, the M240 is very durable, but made differently it could have had the same durability weighting less. Also mind that many NATO countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey,Greece, Spain, Portugal...) use the MG3.
    2
  35.  @SurmaSampo  The plastic case survives simply because the heat is applied for a so short time that it isn't transfered beyond the very first fraction of mm of the internal surface of the case. Infact the case itself, when extracted, is cold. That's why shotgun ammos had been made of soft low-density polyethylene for decades. The difference in heat and pressure resistance between PET and termosetting polymers, in respect to the temperature of the burning powder and its pressure generated, is not enough to make any difference.
    2
  36.  @SurmaSampo  Yes, it does. How can you even say that "The plastic hull of a shotgun case doesn't act as a pressure vessel during firing"? In a shotgun shell the powder is completely contained in plastic. The metal you see is only a thin sheet to aid extraction. As said, that plastic is cheao, soft, low density polyetilene. There are studies on the making of rifle ammos in plastic. To their own surprises, the researchers found the material that worked better so much that the cartridges could be even reloaded, was lexan (polycarbonate). Surprise, surprise, is a recyclable thermoplastic. why dont' you try to disprove them by making ammos in thermoset plastic that work better than theirs and post the results?
    2
  37.  @mutilator97  The FAMAS had never been hated by the soldiers, and the French would have happily adopted an improved FAMAS had them still had a small arms manufacturer in France. The AUG had been in service for decades in Austria and Australia without any hate(significantly the Australians took a look at the L85 and adopted the AUG, so, instead of adopting a bad bullpup, they adopted a good one, for that time). Bullpups can be made instantly ambidextrous now (since when Beretta introduced an instantly switchable ejection in the ARX160. Infact many immediately said "why not use it in a bullpup?"), and the GD design is. The swappable ejection doesn't make the ARX160 any less reliable. If there is something all the users of that AR agree with is the complete reliability. Not to say, it's actually Beretta that manufactures the GD gun. I'm not really a fan of bullpups but, for those particular requirements (.270 Win performances from an AR sized gun) they have advantages.
    2
  38. The VHS is in 5.56. They are not comparable.
    2
  39. Caseless= the powder burns directly in contact with the chamber. Maximum heat transfer to the rifle Brass-cased= the powder burns into a brass case. Part of the heat is transferred to the rifle, since brass is an exceptional heat conductor, part is extracted with the case. Mid heat transfer to the rifle. Polymer cased= the powder burns into a polymer case. Minimal heat is transferred to the rifle, since polymer is an awful heat conductor. Heat remains in gasses and leaves the barrel with them, since gasses also are poor heat conductors. Minimum heat transfer to the rifle.
    1
  40. Shotgun shells had been made of plastic for decades. It takes years of sun exposition for the plastic (IE the ABS bumpers) of a car to "look terrible". No ammo is exposed to the sun for so long. sealed containers are made of plastic, not metal. If they are made of metal, they need a not-metal liner to ensure sealing.
    1
  41.  @brianmoore1164  Metal cans have an internal polymer film to ensure sealing (and, in case of food cans, that food doesn't corrode metal) or are not really sealed. I've seen MUCH more metal ammos died of oxydation. There's nothing fancy in military environment. Many civilian environments are way harsher on materials.
    1
  42.  @brianmoore1164  It's always funny when people try to boast about their superior combat experience on a youtube comment section. Reality is that "combat" is an harsh environment for people, because the other side there are other people trying to kill them, but not necessarily for materials. Most of the materials the soldiers carry and use is nothing exceptional, and oftentimes is subpar in respect to what's used in other fields. "mil spec" means made by the lowest bidder.
    1
  43.  @brianmoore1164  It's easy to tell your utter lack of arguments, but dont worry. Boasting about what great warrior you are is making you seem credible.
    1
  44.  @brianmoore1164  "You rather obviously have never been in combat." Trying to cover the lack of rguments with ad hominem attacks is an often tried tactic by people that, like you, are not very good at communication (other than knowledge about materials). When it takes the form of boasting about their experience of superior warrior on a youtube comment section, the result is particularly hilarious.
    1
  45.  @brianmoore1164  Your attempts at seeming intelligent are becoming more and more funny. You don't need to mention yourself, poor fella. For an ad hominem attack, an often tried tactic by people that, like you, are not very good at communication (other than knowledge about materials), you only need, like you did, to mention your interlocutor, attacking the charateristics or authority of the writer without adressing the substance of the argument. That's what you did. Now, since you are clutching at straw You can say you intended "You rather obviously have never been in combat, and I have neither." You would be even more hilarious than you have already been.
    1
  46. SIG's bid has a moving barrel as well. Like the Bowning M2 or the MG42/MG3 for that matter, that are not exactly known for being at risk of stoppages. The ejection is switchable. https://youtu.be/brehxUuLn58?t=90
    1
  47.  @TimBWig  The wast majority of breecholcked pistols have a moving barrel.
    1
  48.  @TimBWig  Pistols are no complex, they are simple. So moving barrels work on machineguns of any caliber, work on pistols of any caliber, work on shotguns but, for some misterious reason, they shouldn't work on ARs. BTW, the NGSW ammos are more powerful than 7.62 NATO.
    1
  49.  @TimBWig  You ignoring everything important. 1) First of all, you stated: "Moving barrel = stoppage risk". The reason of the moving barrel is not important. 2) Then, pistol barrels recoiling actually mitigates recoil. 4) Machineguns are heavier and work, pistols are lighter and work. Shotguns are the same weight and work. Why rifles shouldnt? 5) As already said, the NGSW ammos are more powerful than 7.62 NATO, so recoil mitigation IS important. Without recoil mitigation, firing a so powerful cartridge in a so light rifle is impossible to control the burst. 3) The fact that i prefer something doesn't mean that something completely different doesn't work. If you state it doesn't work, there has to be a reason it doesn't work.
    1
  50.  @TimBWig  It must be done because those rifles are lighter than a M14, fire a more powerful round than a M14 and need to be controllable in full auto, a thing that an M14 is not. It's not like designers put a recoil mitigation device on the rifle because they felt that way. Especially because they are competing also on price point. It's not a question of preference. It's a question of physics. Those rifles being adopted or not as nothing to do with the fact that they have a recoil mitigation device. Without it they would not be taken in consideration, on the basis of the fact that their bursts would be uncontrollable.
    1