Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimeFan188
|
Not a certitude yet, as the LSAT is still under evaluation. The big source of interest in that caseless/telescopic round concept is the alluring potential of shearing a significant lot of pounds off the gunner's loadout (which in turn reduces gunner fatigue -> improves sharp-mindedness -> increases accuracy), but if the improved round exhibits ballistic properties inferior to that of a conventional, brass-cartridge round (if there is less propellant inside the caseless/telescopic round, resulting in lower muzzle energy -> shorter range and smaller stopping power), the project could be suspended and ultimately give birth to nothing but a nice, ephemeral dream. So far the LSAT shows good reliability and handling (slow rate of fire means greater control and thus accuracy, and possibly low jamming probability), but lethality is another affair - and I'm still waiting for reports on that aspect of the testing.
Additionally, there would be a LOT of procurement issues to address - making the transition from one bullet standard to another, procuring millions of those rounds (which right now are manufactured by a single company, which might create a monopoly controversy, unless the other manufacturers are granted production licenses to maintain market competition) to the regular troops, etc, etc.
By the time the cased telescopic/caseless tech gets all the kinks figured out (one of the major worries with caseless rounds was of the propellant misfiring in the chamber because of the accrued heat from the barrel), we'll probably have a new version of the AR15/AR18 platform (G36 and SCAR weapons directly draw inspiration from the AR18, which was Eugene Stoner's attempt to perfect the AR15) issued to the troops, who are still have very high confidence in the M4/M16 family. And the said confidence shows: most members of the new competition (referenced in this topic's previous page) are AR15/AR18 clones/derivatives. People are still clinging to things they're highly familiar with.
Now, back in the 1980s, the US Army kickstarted the ACR competition, through which they sought to replace the M16 with a significantly deadlier infantry rifle. Most competitors submitted really ingenious stuff like the Heckler & Koch G11 (actually the technological father of the LSAT LMG, since AAI
bought the caseless technology from H&K), the Steyr-Mannlicher ACR (which fired flechettes) and the Colt ACR (essentially a tricked-out M16A3, except that each round fired two, telescopic bullets to create some sort of "double-whammy" effect)...and even then those prototypes still failed to convince the R&D guys that a significant leap in both reliability, practicality and lethality had been achieved.
The bigwigs at the Pentagon are probably waiting for some sort of wonderweapon that'll remind them of the difference they felt when they switched from the M14 to the M16 (and yes, I know about how the M16's technical immaturity in Vietnam [i.e. the gunpowder soot problem that caused the weapon to jam in the middle of a firefight] actually downplays the aforementioned difference). Until then, they'll stick with what they already have.
As for the XM25...that's a squad weapon for ranged engagements and barricade clearing/counter-sniping. Its usefulness decreases in close combat or within a city that has few, wide open areas to shoot across.