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

["Roger Stenning \(G1LIW\)" <g1liw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All -

What we're missing here, is that the next logical progression in firearms is the propellant. Caseless was deemed too
expensive, IIRC; the tech involved was straightforward enough, once they worked out how to do it. Next up, liquid or
gaseous proppellants (the so-called binary system); so far, it works patchily, and only on field gun sized weapons, last
I read (couple of years back, admittedly).

However, if you're wondering why we haven't got to man-portable laser or CPAWs, the problem is in (a) power source, (b)
blooming, and (c) getting the delivered energy at the target to instantly lethal levels. And that last one is the
problem, when thinking about infantry-sized personal weapons.

Oh, and being a former British Army Range Officer and Shooting Coach - I was qualified to SA(b)90 standards, btw - we DO
have a better level of requirements than most other armed forces, and definately the best out of all western powers when
it comes to basic soldier shooting levels. Teeth arms, btw, get the SUSAT; everyone else gets Iron sights.

Check the archives of this list - I posted the qualification requirements sometime in the last year or so.

Best regards,

Roger Stenning
Organiser, The Impossible Scenarios Group
www.the-isg.co.uk
ICQ: 74721632
UK Amateur Radio call sign: G1LIW
(PGP public key available on request)
________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this message
may not be those of the ISG. The information in this email and
in any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, copy or
use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of
its content to any other person - you should also destroy this
message, delete any copies held on your systems and notify
the sender immediately.