Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "General Dynamics US Army Prototype M4 replacement NGSW 6.8mm" video.

  1. 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
  2.  @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
  3. 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
  4. The ejection is instantly switchable.
    2
  5. You can switch ejection.
    2
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Smoke always comes off in suppressed guns.
    2
  9. 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
  10. This ammo has more energy than a 7.62 NATO.
    2
  11. The ammo requires a long barrel, so a bullpup, to obtain the prescribed performances.
    2
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19.  @TimBWig  The wast majority of breecholcked pistols have a moving barrel.
    1
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @TimBWig  As already said, The SIG as a moving barrel as well they have the same "unnecessary and unreliable complications". The US Army can't help to repeat the same mistake. They ended up with another useless M14.
    1
  24.  @TimBWig  Had you known something about the weapons you are talking about, you would have known the Spear has a moving barrel as a way to reduce recoil. It's not exactly a secret. The difference is that due to the pressure, the moving barel of the SIG is not enough, and the rifle can't fire controllable bursts. It's a semiauto rifle only. The US Army can't help to repeat the same mistake. They ended up with another useless M14.
    1
  25.  @TimBWig  It had been an utter failure, and a scam. It's still "in service" only because there was some sample in storage. I'm happy you like it (but not surprised. All the Fudds tend to). It further demonstrates your incompetence.
    1
  26.  @TimBWig  Oh, yeah. How could have we done without the Fudd's typical argument? "Navy Seals use 'X'! MARSOC use 'Y'! G.I Joe use 'Z'! It's the best weapon ever conceived!" 1) Special forces have DOZENS of different rifles, handguns and so on in their inventories. It costs them nothing. It' doesn't mean they really use them. 2) The fact that a special force uses something, doesn't mean it's of some use for ORDINARY INFANTRY. The M14 had been selected to be STANDARD ISSUE RIFLE OF THE US ARMY, not a toy for SEAL Team 6. It had been replaced after not even 10 years not because "Oh! This weapon is too powerful for the ordinary grunt! We must seal it with amulets made by Tibetan monks and transfer it to special forces before it destroys the world!". It had been replaced because, as THE STANDARD ISSUE RIFLE OF THE US ARMY it demonstrated to be a scam and a failure.
    1
  27.  @TimBWig  Oh! A Fudd that sesort to an ad hominem argument when he doesn't know what to say. How unusual! Are you sure you didn't came out of a textbook on how to look incompetent and desperate on the net?
    1
  28. Simply 5.56 is defeated by level III body armour, and is increasingly likely US soldiers will encounter them on the field.
    1
  29.  @mikeoxmaul5062  Level IIIa don't stop it. There are 30$ level III plates that stops 5.56 at the muzzle.
    1
  30.  @reallifeengineer7214  It's not like you can keep a service round secret.
    1
  31. There's no way a M4/M16 receiver will stand a round hotter than a 7.62 NATO.
    1
  32. Have you seen his clip on the SIG? He didn't even try to shoot in in full auto for how much it kicked. This has by far the least recoil of the three.
    1
  33. Brass is reloaded because it's expensive. If plastic cases are cheap enough, it makes no sense to reload them.
    1
  34. It remains in gasses, that expand more, that's why they need less powder for the same muzzle speed. Heat then leaves the barrel with the same gasses, since gasses too are bad at heat transfer.
    1
  35. There are several ways of changing mags in a bullpup without moving the weapon it's only a question of muscle memory.
    1
  36. 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
  37. The performances of the TV ammo depend from the lenght of the barrel, that the SIG, or any other not-bullpup proposal, doesn't have.
    1
  38. Not even close (also, the H&K SA80 is just a minor modification of the British SA80, that's a badly made bullpup AR18)
    1
  39. In reality there's a steel washer in the back of the case, so at the range it's easy to recover spent cases with a magnet.
    1
  40. The Army specified the weapon must shoot 60 rounds/minute for 15 minutes without overheating.
    1
  41. The SIG has a reciprocating barrel as well.
    1
  42. It's far easier to mantain sight picture if the mag well (point A, where the force is applied) is between the hand that holds the weapon (point B, where the resistance is applied) and the shoulder (point C, where's the fulcrum) than ahead of both points. It's mechanic. In the first case A-C shorter than B-C, in the second, A-C is longer than B-C, so any force applied to the mag well in the second case, being applied to a longer lever, will move the sight picture more.
    1
  43.  @jamesblake5176  Your ability doesn't change physics.
    1
  44.  @jamesblake5176  No, You are saying that, since you can run on your hands faster than me on my feet, then running on the hands is faster. Your personal ability doesn't change physics. It applies exclusively to you, and none else.
    1
  45.  @jamesblake5176  So I should have made a drawing with crayons I guess. You are simpy saying that you have ben trained one way, and now you are more comfortable doing that way. The fact that you have been trained to drive nails with your head doesn't mean heads work better at driving nails than hammers. What you are comfortable with is not universal. It applies exclusively to you, and none else.
    1
  46.  @jamesblake5176  So first was the line of sight. Now it's something else that can potentially happen. I'll be honest, It really sounds like you are struggling to find something that vaguely fit to your narrative. Don't worry. On a youtube comment section you can boast ro be the greatest warrior on Earth. I don't care. I've yet to see someone reloading an AR while really mantaining the sight picture in any position, and that includes Marines. That's what you consider "mantaining the sight picture"? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-_zIySjrTHI or that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t7tfPQAJwM or that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_qo5_wSa8 Keeping the rifle vaguely in the direction of the target is not "mantaining the sight picture". That real soldiers mantain the sight picture while reloading the AR is only an often repeated mith. It's only a question of muscle memory. It's only that you are used to a movement and not to the other. I like the AK action and consider it to be, all in all, superior to that of the AR, but the AK is ergonomically atrocious.
    1
  47. Have you seen the tests with the SIG and Textron bids? This is BY FAR the less recoiling.
    1
  48. It only happens if you try to reload with your forward hand. If you reload with your firing (and most able) hand, the line of sight remains more stable than in a standard system.
    1
  49. The ejection is instantly switchable.
    1
  50. As TV wants to stress, it's usable on any 7.62 NATO / 308. Win. platform with just a barrel swap. That' means it would be HIGLY favoured by NATO countries as well.
    1
  51. The "heat transfer" thing 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.
    1
  52. Apart that many kind of plastic don't suffer UV, but when does it happens that the rounds (not into boxes or magazines, but the ammos) are left to the direct sunlight for long?
    1
  53.  @Dprinted  If the ammos are into mags, they are not exposed to sunlight, so UV resistant plasic is not needed. In reality there are not many occasions when ammos see the sunlight.
    1
  54. It means that the case is not transfering heat to the chamber. The heat remains in gasses and, being also gasses poor thermal conductors, it's expelled from the barrel with them.
    1
  55. Plastic is cheaper than brass.
    1
  56.  @shyneguy  You are not paying plastic, but the fact that only one brand makes them. Plastic is cheaper than brass.
    1
  57.  @shyneguy  Molding plastic is cheap. True Velocity ammos are not the first plastic ones, so there is nothing to patent (like Glock couldnt patent the plastic frame). You are only paying the novelty.
    1
  58. caseless ammo: the powder burns in direct contact with the chamber. = maximum heat transfer to the chamber. brass ammo: the powder burns into a brass case. Brass is an exceptional thermal conductor anyway. = medium heat transfer to the chamber. plastic ammo: the powder burns into a plastic case. Plastic is a poor thermal conductor. = minimum heat transfer to the chamber. With plastic ammo, the heat remains in gasses and, being gasses also poor thermal conductors, it's mostly expelled from the barrel with them.
    1
  59. Only with a significative degrading in performances, since those bids have a too short barrel.
    1
  60. Probably the Army made a AP penetrator that works well in 6.8 cartridges.
    1
  61. No. The case is made of plastic.
    1
  62. 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 plastic ammos 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
  63. If you tell me your location, I can point you to a good one.
    1
  64. It's clearly the lowest recoiling of the three bids.
    1
  65. They specified performances similar to .270 Win, and left the rest to engineers.
    1
  66. At the base there's a steel washer, so they can be recovered with a magnet.
    1
  67. you can switch ejection.
    1
  68. It's ambidextrous.
    1
  69. For dimensions, the .308 Win. For ballistic, the .270 Win.
    1
  70.  @DeltaCain13  What changes betwen a thermal insulator, like plastic, or gas, and a thermal conductor, like brass, is the speed of heat transfer. A mind experiment. Put in a owen a metal tray, into the tray, a piece of heat resistant polymer (IE silicone) and heat the owen up to 180C°. When it heated up, put your hand into the owen. Your hand, at 36 C°, is the coldest system. All the rest (the air into the owen, the polymer and the tray) is at 180C° Until you are in contact only with the hot air, it seems like it will take forever to get burn, because gasses are very bad at heat transfering. If you touch the silicon, It also will take a long time to burn you. Because it also transfers heat very slowly If you touch the metal tray, you'll hear your skin sizzle even before feeling the pain, because the heat transfer is almost instantaneous. With plastic cases, the case is removed from the chamber before having time to heat it up.
    1
  71. 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.
    1
  72. SIG has a too short barrel to get the advantages of this ammo.
    1
  73. Instantly ambidextrous.
    1
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76.  @Marmocet  muzzleloader are caseless, and black powder is worse because, being slow burning, it transfers heat for longer. 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
  77.  @Marmocet  Infact TV ammo uses less powder for the same muzzle speed, because gasses lose less energy, not transfering it to the receiver, so, in the end, even the heat transfered to the barrel is not higer.
    1
  78. Since two out of three bids have a recoiling barrel anyway, someone should have submitted a long recoil action. No problem with cartridges of any pressure, nor with the silencer overgassing the action, since the case is extracted only when the pressure completely dropped. They could have even used cheap entirely steel cases (that SIG doesn't use because the extraction at still relatively high pressure would be problematic). The fire rate in full auto would have naturally be around comfortable 500RPM.
    1
  79. Of the three tested, that's clearly the one with less recoil, and the only one that can be fired from in full auto the shoulder with some pretense of not turning it into an AA gun.
    1
  80. It's clearly the lowest recoiling of the three bids. The only one that can shoot in full auto from the shoulder (he didn't even try with the SIG).
    1
  81. Why? It's easier to be consistent with plastic cases, infact the delta of bullet speed is much reduced.
    1
  82. If it's cheap, why reloading? We reload brass because brass is expensive.
    1
  83.  @johnlshilling1446  Again. We reload brass because brass is expensive. That's the ONLY reason for reloading. If you can have new plastic cases at $0.10 per piece why reloading a spent one? You should investigate.
    1
  84. The vast majority of semiauto pistols have reciprocating barrels.
    1
  85. 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. The collar is around the primer, not the bullet. Plastic seals better than metal, and plastic cases don't need to shrink that much to be extracted, because they are not metal, so they don't get stuck to the chamber like metal. That's why extracting shotgun rounds is not a problem. SIG bid has a reciprocating barrel as well. It has a reciprocating barrel EXPRESSELY to mitigate recoil. Despite that it's quite evident that, of the three bids, the GD one is the one with the least visible recoil, the SIG has the harshest and the Textron is in the middle. He didn't even try to fire in full auto from the shoulder with the SIG, since it was clear that there was no way to do that without turning it into a AA gun. Blow forward guns are notoriusly recoil-enhancers, because you loose the recoil mitigating effect of the bullet trying to drag the barrel with it. Short recoil is a recoil reducer because it prolongs the time the recoil is applied to the receiver, so reducing the peak force.
    1
  86.  @leary4  He was talking of plastic ammos in respect to brass. You replied with an argument that's valid only talking of caseless annos in respect to brass. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass, because brass is a thermal conductor and plastic is an insulator. Heat remains in gasses, and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer. What the chamber is made for doesn't matter, it can't change physics. The chamber is physically part of the barrel (it's obtained in the same piece of metal) they are not two separated parts. A cooler chamber means a cooler barrel and a cooler receiver. Plastic seal better than metal. There's no doubt about it. Your same statement about the brass cases "breathing" means they are a poorly sealed. Since plastic seals better, it shields better powder from umidity, that's what ruins it. Shotgun's ammos are ammos. They seal the hot gasses the same way and are extracted the same way than bottleneck ammos. Yes, there is the effect of the bullet dragging the barrel with him. It's caused by the same friction of the bullet into the barrel (enhanced by the rifling). If the barrel is not attached to the receiver, when the bullet is fired, the barrel goes forward with the bullet. If it's attached to the receiver, the same force mitigates the recoil. That's why blow-forward weapons, like the Schwarzlose M1908 are notoriously recoil-enhancers. You can try to force a bullet down a barrel by hand while at the same time helding the barrel steady by hand. When you fire the gun, the combustion gasses provide the effort to force the bullet down the barrel, but the effort you needed to hold the barrel steady doesn't magically disappear. It mitigates the recoil. You can see him firing this in full ato at 4:04. He didn't fire in full auto the SIG bid, and it's enough to see how much the rifle kicked in semiauto to know why. Thank you.
    1
  87.  @leary4  Combustion results in x amount of heat. Brass is a thermal conductor, and subtract that heat from gasses (where it's useful, since more heat= more expansion) transfering it to the chamber (where it's detrimental, since the results of heating the weapon go from discomfort to overheat). Plastic is an insulator, so heat remains in gasses, that expand more. That's why, with plastic cases, they need less powder for the same amount of energy transfered to the bullet. Heat then leaves the barrel with the same gasses, since the gasses too are bad at heat transfer (that's why you dont get burn immediately putting a hand in a owen, but you do touching a piece of metal in it). So gaskets shouldn't exist. Put two pieces of the same metal togheter, and they'll seal perfectly. It doesn't work like that. Materials that seal better, seal better, and plastic seal MUCH better than brass. They are not even comparable. It's not the air in the shell that "makes combustion possible". Gun propellants are not fuels, that need air to burn. They are explosives. They already contain all the chemical components for the combustion to happen. Also thermal expansion is not a wanted effect. The fact that plastic expands less than metal with temperature is better, since it makes the dimensions of the ammo more consistent. The fact that the bullet tends to drag the barrel with it is the reason short recoil pistols have less perceived recoil than blowbacks of the same caliber. Because the bullet tending to push the barrel forward, while barrel and slide are linked toghether, slow down the rear motion of the slide and so the slide slams in the frame with less energy. On Youtube Schwarzlose M1908 had been tested, IE, by Ian of "Forgotten weapons" and he also talked about how much the pistol kicked.
    1
  88. The bullet is not plastic, the case is.
    1
  89. First to be ejected, brass transfers heat to the chamber. Being an insulator, plastic doesn't.
    1
  90. Cases, not projectiles.
    1
  91. The other two kick more. This is the only one that can be fired in full auto while standing.
    1
  92. Why reloading? It makes sense only because brass is somewhat expensive, but what's the price of an unprimed plastic case? 0.05$?
    1
  93. Why reloading? It makes sense only because brass is somewhat expensive, but what's the price of an unprimed plastic case? 0.05$? NATO countries are not bound to follow US ASAP. UK and Italy adopted 5.56 round only in 1985, Germany in 1997. But THIS round has the possibility to be adopted quite easily, since you can convert all the existing 7.62 NATO weapons with just a barrel swap, using even the same magazines and belts.
    1
  94.  @Murderface666  The price of cases is not that of brass, is that of brass shaped like a case. An already fired .223 brass case, still dirt and with the spent primer, is about 0.12$, one polished and unprimed about 0.2$, one unfired is over 0.3$. If a new unprimed plastic case costs 0.05$ (and it can easily be), or even 0.1$ what's the point in reloading? Since the walls of the case are nto subject to much stress, they doesn't need any special plastic. They can be very well made with recycled or even biodegradable plastic. What degrades the ammos is humidity degrading the powder. Plastic is a better sealant than brass. Actually the explosion is contained by the chamber and bolt. No brass cartridge is able to contain the exposion of the powder. As already said, NATO countries are not bound to follow US ASAP. UK and Italy adopted 5.56 round only in 1985, Germany in 1997, so over 30 years after US. But THIS particular round has the possibility to be adopted quite easily, since you can convert all the existing 7.62 NATO weapons with just a barrel swap, using even the same magazines and belts.
    1
  95. caseless ammo: the powder burns in direct contact with the chamber. = maximum heat transfer to the chamber. brass ammo: the powder burns into a brass case. Brass is an exceptional thermal conductor anyway. = medium heat transfer to the chamber. plastic ammo: the powder burns into a plastic case. Plastic is a poor thermal conductor. = minimum heat transfer to the chamber. With plastic ammo, the heat remains in gasses and, being gasses also poor thermal conductors, it's mostly expelled from the barrel with them.
    1
  96. To use plastic projectiles is a war crime (and this one doesn't). Any shotgun use plastic cases.
    1
  97. That's not a caseless ammo. That's the point. 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.
    1
  98. The trials are specifically for a new 6.8mm round.
    1
  99.  @Just_AnotherPlayer  Maybe it had not been said in the clip, but that's what the NGSW program is about. The Army provided the projectile (not the entire ammo) and the specification (3000 fps from a rifle of about the same dimensions of a M4 AR, capable of select fire) and left to the designers the rest.
    1
  100. Have you seen the video on the SIG? THAT kicks like a mule. This seems really tame in comparison.
    1
  101. "reloadable" makes sense only because brass is somewhat expensive. What will be the price of a new, not-primed, plastic case? 0.01$? What's the sense of "reloading" it?
    1
  102. Army doesn't reload. Civilians reloading are a thing only because brass ammos are expensive. A pristine plastic case is likely to be MUCH cheaper. Soldiers issued with bullpups reload as fast as the ones issued with standard rifles, and keeping the rifle in target. It's only a question of muscle memory.
    1
  103. It's a year they behave like they had. A marketing campaign. Maybe the Army like the ergonomic, but nothing else. Their ammo is a dead end, the rifle is not controllable in full auto, and the barrel wear out too fast.
    1
  104. Any suppressed gun smokes.
    1
  105. That "heat sink" of the brass 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.
    1
  106. There are good bullpups, there are bad bullpups, and then there's the SA80.
    1
  107. Normal operating pressure and chamber closer to the shoulder for the GD in respect to super-high pressure and chamber far to the shoulder for SIG.
    1
  108. They can make them with biodegradable plastic.
    1
  109. Not really. US adopted .223 Rem in 1964. UK and Italy adopted 5.56 NATO only in 1985, Germany only in 1997. It's not like the others have to follow the US ASAP. Mind also that the tons of weapons in 7.62 NATO stockpiled or in use in NATO countries (FAL, G3, Rehinmetal MG3...) can be adapted to the new ammo with a barrel change.
    1
  110. Mind that SIG has a reciprocating barrel as well, despite it's not that publicized due to the need to stress the "familiarity" with the M4.
    1
  111. Reloading has a sense for brass ammos because brass cases are expensive. Plastic, not so much.
    1
  112. He didn't field strip it, How do you know? He tried the SIG. It kicked like a mule. He didn't even try to shoot it in full auto.
    1
  113.  @EvilMerlin  Bullpups are no more complex than standard configuration. The SIG has a moving barrel as well, like the vast majority of semiauto pistols for that matter.
    1
  114.  @EvilMerlin  You should simply learn something about what you are talking before posting. You'll avoid to ashame yourself writing bullshit like: "bullpups are more complex especially when it comes to recoil mitigation" or that a recoiling barrel becomes more complex if it's in a rifle just because you feel the need to reply.
    1
  115.  @bobmartin9918  Time passed.
    1
  116. 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.
    1
  117. Caseless ammos overheat the weapons, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber. It's a problem that had never been solved.
    1
  118. There's no way to prevent a round to be copied. The only thing that protects this round is a patent on the primer pocket that can be quite easily circumvented. So it's better to occupy the market BEFORE it being filled with clones.
    1
  119. Caseless ammos have several problems, heat being the main one.
    1
  120. At the base there's a steel washer, so they can be recovered with a magnet.
    1