Re: [HoE] Re: Tech Level

[Pat Phalen <pphalen@yahoo.com>]

> Can you deny that caseless ammo is more cost effective than
conventional
> cased ammo? It's cheaper to produce, keeps the weapon firing it
cleaner,
> makes more efficient use of magazine space, etc... Just the fact
that you
> won't be wasting money buying brass would make it more cost effective.
> While this may not make much of a difference in peace time since you
can
> just collect all the brass and reload it. I doubt very much that
you're
> going to take the time to collect all of your brass in combat...

True, but I don't think of caseless ammo as a big tech advantage. 
Don't forget that in the HoE timeline, cruder technologies will be
more usable.  Suddenly Uncle Leroy's Glock that he kept in a glass
case can be used as a weapon.  All I need to do is find some empty
shells, powder, and lead and I can make bullets for it.  

> 
> A .65 gram(10 grain) flechette fired at 1220 meters per second(4000
feet
> per second) has the same effectiveness as the 9.8 gram(150 grain)
bullet
> fired from the M1 Rifle. But it's more accurate and has a greater
effective
> range, and is cheaper to produce.

True, but Fleschette's have poor armor penetration, and are really
only effective against human targets.  A conventional bullet is more
versatile.....
There was also a short period where the Geneva Convention consider
banning them....

 
> The US Army has always been slow to take advantage of new
technology, and
> then there's also the political aspects to look at... The two best
> contenders for the army's ACR project were made by foreign companies
(H&K's
> G11k2 and Steyr's ACR). The Colt ACR was basically the same as the
M-16,
> and AAI's ACR had some design flaws (it could be loaded with either
5.56mm
> flechettes or 5.56mm ball, but the ball rounds could cause "dangerous
> malfunctions" (i.e. explode)).

The problem was that none of the weapons met the requirements, though.
 Besides, the NDI (Non-Development Item: Procured from another
development agency)  movement in DOD is popular as Acquisition Reform
continues, making an item that someone else spent money developing an
attractive alternative.  (Like the lightweight 105mm Howitzer we
bought from England)

> I feel that if one of the US companies had designed a weapon like
H&K or
> Steyr the army would not have cancelled the ACR project. All IMHO of
> course.

See above.   This was a time when the DoD was getting a lot of heat
from the auditing community (can't remember the acronym ) for
accepting development items that didn't pass operation testing or
failed to satisfy the system requirements


> >Look at it this way:  100 years ago a gun was probably the most
> >effective wasy of killing a person.  Today it still is.  Granted a
> >Glock is slightly more technologically advanced than a PeaceMaker,
but
> >they pretty much do the same thing.
> 
> But a Glock is certainly more efficient than a Peacemaker. Then
there's
> also the advances in ammo technology to consider. Would you rather
be using
> a soft lead .45 fired by black powder or a hollow point .45 using
smokeless
> powder? Although these differences are relatively minor when looking
at it
> from a technological point of view, in real life there is a big
difference.

I agree, but if in the last 100 years gun tech hasn't changed *that*
much, how much more would it change in the next 100?

Patrick 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com