An integrated bipod would be far more useful...like the current SA80.

also if they had a very fast round (4000+) it would remove the need for fancy optics.

Not necessarily.  A very fast round just allows you to miss at a higher velocity if your aim is not perfect when you pull the trigger.

I'd be lying if I said it was very helpful, but thank you for trying to teach an old dinosaur new tricks.  

Being honest, it's not super important anyway.

Magic box is close enough. 

I'd love to play with one to see how well they work and what their limits are though.

You'd actually want the fancy sighting system more with an extremely high velocity round if for no other reason than to make hits out even further.

I think one thing some people tend to miss here is that a lot of the stuff integrated Into the ngsw optic are things the military feels it's going to need In order to handle their most likely projected threats.

To a large degree we've given up the ability to be numerically superior against many potential foes making qualitative superiority a necessity.

That and I think that the army etc are justifiably concerned about how to make infantry at least semi survivable in the next fights.

Since we can't really add any more armor or etc because of weight and other restrictions we more of less have to make them faster and "smarter".

I agree completely.  It doesn't really matter if I don't comprehend how it works.

I'd like to try it, too.  As badly as my hands shake, I would be the ultimate tester.  

nincomp said...

Not necessarily.  A very fast round just allows you to miss at a higher velocity if your aim is not perfect when you pull the trigger.

It does reduce the impact of errors in ranging, windage and target movement.

Looking at the final version of textrons round, im sure it could take a SLAP, but this would be a telescoped SLAP....still using a booster charge to push the sabot in the bore. Never been done before

If textrons layout was applied to the .50 do you think it would reduce size, enough to allow more ammo...or does the increased width ruin things

40y later it seems we are not much further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBJp9Ea8jg

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

40y later it seems we are not much further.

I would say quite the contrary... we are very far from "we need a rifle for engaging targets at close range... let's say 100-150 m... there are sights on the gun but they will not be used".