Realistically, how much will firearms change in the next 100 years?

Not much unless there's a quantum leap in energy storage density. Chemical propellants just work really well and the technology is mature.

Attached: Gauss_Rifle.jpg (1024x754, 393K)

TrackingPoint and polymer cased ammo exist already, you mong.
All the signs point to PCTA being the next big thing. Better than brass cased in basically every way, less risky than caseless while retaining a lot of the advantages.
After that who knows? 100 years has been the difference between muzzle loading blackpowder rifles and assault rifles as standard arms, but it's also been the difference between flintlocks and more flintlocks.

Mostly in optics and maybe the introduction of electronics but until we discover something better than metallic cases with integrated primers we are in a technological plateau.

implying we wont have caseless clips by then

goofed on the palm trees and a lack of sun. Palms shoulda been shades of purple against the pink. Sun in set is missing.

its a big tossup on caseless ammo. On one had caseless is light and cheap. On the other hand, the thicker the case the more firing pressure you can have, as well as a disposable heat sink.

big goof doing that to an actual gun and not airshit

There are more guns than people in the US. No one cares except you user. Thats not true, but the number of people who ares is less than the number of trannies which is less than .001% of the population.

paint jobs guns not looking like actual guns is retarded snowflake shit

>Polymer casings
>Affordable caseless ammo
>Gauss rifles/coilguns/railguns
>Every country in the world will use 9mm Luger and either 5.56x45 NATO or 6.5 Grendel
>Collapsible rifles
>Cannon/Howitzer-sized energy weapons (maybe?)

Again nobody carses broseph
>i like it

Further development of caseless ammo and high strength polymers. Does this mean caseless ammo will become a reality? No. There are still numerous teething problems that have to be accounted for. I could also see the military experimenting with more portable/efficient rail guns to mount on something other than a ship.

Where the real technological revolution will be is in night vision and optics.

>true caseless ammo
How about not only caseless, but bulletless too? Because violence is never the answer.

#talk it out, don’t fight it out

Attached: F20175B3-4A24-4933-802E-4EA18757630D.jpg (1000x1436, 546K)

1) heat sink thing is a meme. Brass cases don't evacuate enough heat to matter. The difference between the slowest and fastest ROF on the M4 has far more effect on heat accumulation and you don't see the faster ones being decried as too hot. It's just a caused by a misunderstanding of what caused cook off in the G11.
2) Pressure rating is determined by how you seal the chamber. Brass cased can't go significantly higher than it is now, but relying on it to obturate means you can make your weapon mechanically simpler. A caseless weapon can go as higher than brass, it just requires a suitably strong and well sealed chamber.
>bulletless to reduce violence
You're right if we use lasers it'll cauterize the wound and be so bloodless we could have war footage with a rating so low you could show it in schools. Great idea, user.

>breakthrough in rail installations/ships defeats ICBMs, satellites, sea-skimmers, and reduces effectiveness of hypersonic aircraft, ending MAD in on fell swoop and allowing us to finally face our enemies directly once again

I want to habeeb

>I'm a libcuck
That's really sad. When your retarded brains get smashed out by a nigger think about me.

bullpup pistols will become the norm, an incredibly cheap high temperature high pressure plastic will kill off metal guns, rounds, bullets, and the lightweight plastic bullets will enable larger calibre (say 15-20 mm) weaponry carrying larger (yet lighter) magazines that will do more physical trauma on unarmored targets than lead or jacketed dum-dum.

Lack of armor penetration will make military issue be combined weapons, using small grenade launchers with underslung anti-personnel machine guns.

South Dakota will elect it's first AR-15 as Governor. North Dakota will elect an M1 as governor in retaliation and everyone will mock south dakotans for electing a worse gun.

>shadman

Attached: 1528367572811.png (355x358, 278K)

Eat shit and die slav monkey. You fucks had to copy Ze Germans in order to make a decent gun.

Attached: 1437419036536.jpg (1024x768, 302K)

I never knew I needed a vaporwave 1911 until now.

>Bullpup pistols
What?

The M2 will still be in service

>muh caseless
Fuck that meme. Yes, its lighter than CT, but not much lighter and certainly not enough to be worth the baggage of a more complex action and beefed up chamber. An individual 4.7mm caseless round (used in lieu of any data on the LSAT caseless round) weighs 5.2 grams, while a standard 5.56 weighs ~12 grams. The 5.56 CT weighs a stated 40% less than cased 5.56, so it can be extrapolated that 5.56 CT weighs approximately 7 grams per round. Thats all good and well but the stated weights of the LSAT LMGs themselves are 44% (CT) and 43% (caseless) less then an M249, meaning you get a (admittedly marginally) heavier weapon if you opt for caseless. That might not sound important, but given the complete and conspicuous omission of any weight data of the caseless rounds from any public LSAT literature and the subsequent cancelling of the entire caseless branch of the Army project (Marines are apparently still interested in caseless), its seems apparent that not only were the weapons themselves heavier when chambered in a caseless round, but they were unable to keep the weight of the individual rounds competitively lighter than the CT alternative (considering a 5.56 caseless will by sheer mass be unavoidably heavier than the 5.2g of a 4.7mm, that's a very narrow margin to stay lighter than the extrapolated 7 grams of the CT round; and an even narrower margin to be meaningfully light enough to be worth the trouble), if even lighter at all.

Face it kids, CT is the future.

Why would make all those assumptions instead of just using the values from LSAT's caseless spiral?

600 rounds of linked PCTA: 12.2lbs (40% reduction in weight)
600 rounds of linked caseless: 9.8lbs (51% reduction in weight)
Caseless is ~3/4 the weight of PCTA.

Reduction in volume PCTA: 30%
Reduction in volume caseless: 40%
Caseless is ~ 85% the volume of PCTA

Weight difference between PCTA LSAT-MG and Caseless LSAT-MG: 0.1lbs
Amount of ammo required to recoup extra weight of Caseless MG with weight savings from caseless ammunition: 25 rounds.

>given the complete and conspicuous omission of any weight data of the caseless rounds from any public LSAT literature
I guess that explains the assumptions but also Uhh...what? That data is easily available (see pic related if it uploads). Its just that the latest reporting doesn't mention the caseless because it was cancelled. And it was cancelled because it wasn't as mature as polymer technology - the dynamit nobel process was a mess and it was less risky to go with the mature technology than try and develop a new version that wasn't. Given how hard it is to get small arms adopted, going for the safe option is better than nothing getting improved.
PCTA is the future - its a safe path and far better than brass cased in almost every criteria, but caseless still has a competitive edge. There is still potential there.

Attached: weight and dimensions.png (794x589, 314K)

I just want older designs to be reproduced more

Attached: ManOfShad.webm (718x720, 973K)

Caseless is 80% the weight of PCTA*
Or alternatively PCTA is 25% heavier if you want to do it that way.
Did both and must have combined the two when I was typing it out

Attached: lsat_normal nato castless cased telescoped.jpg (500x230, 32K)

>Because violence is never the answer.
I mean, that's objectively wrong. Even a cursory glance over history will reveal that violence has solved problems time and time again. Looking at broader nature, violence is always AN answer.

I don't understand the appeal of caseless ammo. Is it just for cutting out the cost of brass?

>everyone has to like what I like and nobody is allowed to have a sense of humor

Attached: 1540670305007.png (380x349, 68K)

Its mostly about weight. Both for the soldier and more importantly for logistics - old G11 style HITP caseless is 1/2 the weight of brass cased. That's a very large decrease.
Its also very compact which also helps logistics and the soldier. LSATs caseless 5.56 equivalent was smaller than .357 Magnum and without a neck and bullet means you can pack a lot more densely. You could make a 5.56 rifle with a pistol grip magazine.
It has the potential to be significantly cheaper and remove a material from the list of strategic materials.
It can also let you do things like make square cartridges for ultimate packing efficiency.

Boberg.

Unironically kill yourself

ever see the starwars/star trek movies?
You know how protoss is on starcraft?

like that but a shittier version

PLASMA RIFLES DUUDE

they where able to make decent guns, but where unable to see the value in intermediate cartridges until they saw what they could do
just like every other nation before the germans did it

Boston dynamics will kill us all in less than 100 years. Why improve the gun when you can improve how it's used?

Attached: Terminator 2 - 5.jpg (1024x768, 180K)

>CT polymer cases
>dilute-HE propellant
>smart sights

We could have Ghost in teh Shell buzzguns today if we put all the parts together.

It's a meme. CT polymer reduces weight without making ammo vulnerable to wear and weather. The real benefit of caseless was developing quasi-HE propellants.

>tfw if that happens all the faggy states will ban firearms using caseless ammo and get away with it because they aren't in "common use"

Attached: 1541077666895.png (285x194, 43K)

Probably not much but i wish some fuckers would take the p90 magazine design and fit it for a rifle round

>not just the shadman but the shadwomen and the shadchildren