Re: Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[<srydzews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Optical sights on a combat weapon can provide an 
> advantage at longer ranges,with proper training.  
> I think that is the basis for most of the discussion;
> burst limiting, optical sights, etc.  Training makes
> the difference.

True.  But the matter at hand was 'have there been
any large advances in small arms technology in the
last 50 years'.  I mean, sure, if you take untrained 
people and give them a weapon with an optical sight, 
it won't help them much.  But that's not the issue.  
If they *are* properly trained, are they then more
effective than properly trained 1950's soldiers?
If they are, and training itself hasn't greatly 
changed, then the ease-of-use or accuracy of the 
weapons themselves may have measurably improved.

But even if we can think of some definite improvement
over the last 50 years, consider how much things have
slowed down:

1850-1900: smokeless powder, metallic cartridges, breech 
           loading, bolt action, autoloading action, 
           detatchable magazines, self-powered MG

1900-1950: SMG, assault rifle, quick-change barrels,
           GPMG, IR sights

1950-2000: caseless ammo/rotary bolt?  bullpup config? 
           general-use optical sights? 
           receiver carrying handles? :)

I think it's safe to say that what we have here is a
mature technology.  I have to wonder, since almost 
every item in the 1850-1900 category was enabled by
metallic cartridges & smokeless powder, it would seem
that for weapon designs to change all that much a new
form of propulsion is needed.  Putting the gauss weapons
aside for a moment, caseless or liquid propellant would
seem to be the most likely contenders for real changes
anytime soon.