Lost potential

I’m still confused why didn’t this ever see distribution as a nato standered,
Could the ammunition problems have been fixed ?

Attached: E5A59A0F-A9F5-4A05-860B-ED1BBBC76CB7.jpg (1024x833, 50K)

You seen Ian's disassembly video on the gun? That shit has a hella complex mechanism

The mags are long and would be annoying to carry and the ammo is prone to cook offs apparently

>expensive autistic design
>caseless ammo is vulnerable to poor conditions
>not even convinced it did its job of improving hit probability

gee I have no idea

Way too complicated to maintain from a long term perspective

the truth is that the cost/benefit ratio just wasn't worth it after the cold war ended.
If the berlin wall wouldn't have fallen, Germany would have adopted it.

>complex
>expensive
>ammo had serious problems
>areas it improved in were of very questionable tactical value
Small arms actually aren't all that impactful in modern warfare, You could issue modern troops with Martini Henries and they'd lose very little of their combat effectiveness. Kraut space magic that can put 3 bullets in a guy's eye socket just aren't necessary because 95% of combatants die to artillery and air power anyway.

>tons of obvious problems
>but it looks cool so why wasnt it adopted?

Is this weapone even ergonomic though? Looks like uncomfortable trash desu

Ayy, I just saw Ian's video the other day too. The problems with the ammo are pretty rough though.

Maybe a bunch of them could be solved with more careful ways of transporting and using the ammo but the whole 'getting hot enough to explode without pulling the trigger' seems like a pretty major deal. Also that whole spinning drum thing seemed so odd. Okay, so you don't need to eject the case but do you have to throw so much out of the window because of that? Why not use the recoil to power a mechanism that will load the next round not unlike guns already do? Heat is still an issue though. Would machining some heat sinks on the side of the chamber be enough to pull heat away to keep rounds from exploding?

They solved the cook-off issues by altering the propellant+binder composition to raise ignition temperature.

That's not the main issue with the gun. The issue is it's expensive as shit, the ammo is probably expensiver as shitter, and also likely to be a pain in the ass logistically. Like, you gotta keep the ammo in those plastic "clips" you load the magazine with or they'll get smashed, squished or covered in dust. Then what happens when you wish to unload a magazine? Can you reliably and cheaply gather the rounds in bulk to allow loading new mags, without ruining them or getting them covered in dirt?

>The issue is it's expensive as shit

I'm kind of hyperfocusing here but that's kind of what I was leaning at with the whole rolling drum thing. It's complex and precise. Maintaining it would be a nightmare even if you could make it for cheap. With caseless ammo do you really have to recreate the wheel? You probably don't want to go the blowback route but humor me here. If it were a blowback system, couldn't you just rip out the extractor and ejector? Give the feed ramp and magazine a slight re-design and get your springs just right to scoop up the next round more gently so you aren't chipping or scraping the round?

I know we aren't going to sit here and make the gun viable for the market but just how could you make it work without needing to start from scratch?

Without the 3 round hyperburst shit which was a huge meme back in the day it could have been made a lot more mechanically simple. I don't think the rotating breech is necessarily a bad idea in a gun with square caseless rounds though.

Still, ammo costs would likely have made it prohibitively expensive no matter the gun they were used in.

Alright, let's chat about that. What about them is making them so pricey? Not having to draw a bunch of metal sounds like the cheaper option already. Where's the money in them go? Just development and infrastructure? I know it's a little more complex than putting the powder in a press and shoving a bullet in it. Where's the cost in caseless rounds? I can't point at one thing other than development and building the machines to make them en masse.

>You could issue modern troops with Martini Henries and they'd lose very little of their combat effectiveness.
Let's not go crazy.

>"looks like "x" to me desu"

how often do you post this phrase user

The ammo was going to be carried in quivers, like arrows.

In a live test at aberdeen, the ammo was submerged for 4 hours in water, that still worked afterward

The water issue is just one of many. The ammunition could break if dropped and I'm unsure about the shelf life

Because hauling East Germany out of the mud and shit of Communism took 10% of Germany's entire GDP and the US set unrealistic requirements for the ACR project. Not saying that the US should have adopted any of the ACR rifles, just that the requirements were never going to happen.
Cook off was solved.
How so? It's got nothing sticking out so it's comfy to sling, the only other parts you touch are the grip, butplate and cheekrest, which are all normal, and the hand guard, which is a little square but still fine.
Got a source on the ammo being expensive? Any new ammo is expensive to set up, but its marginal cost should be lower than brass cased. Plus logistical savings.
As for its fragility, I think you're overestimating how fragile it is. You can stand on it and it won't break. The biggest problem was being exposed to chemicals. Bleach and cleaning chemicals, oils and lubricants etc.

>Small arms actually aren't all that impactful in modern warfare, You could issue modern troops with Martini Henries and they'd lose very little of their combat effectiveness. Kraut space magic that can put 3 bullets in a guy's eye socket just aren't necessary because 95% of combatants die to artillery and air power anyway.
Maybe hyperbolic, but the core nugget is completely true. The real purpose of infantry is not to shoot at the enemy, it's to take control of territory.
This is also why countries that try to rely too heavily on a small number of high-quality troops may win a lot of battles but they generally lose wars - because they don't have the numbers to control territory, and thus their tactical victories are irrelevant and accomplish nothing. You need numbers in order to occupy space.