Why did the cold war ending kill the G11? All the cool interesting guns all died and were forgotten, no OICW either.

Why did the cold war ending kill the G11? All the cool interesting guns all died and were forgotten, no OICW either. Bullpups are also on their way out.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These would cost $40,000 and Germany would be able to produce 500 of them a month

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if these kinds of weapons would have become the main combat battle rifle and us Burgers would have gotten stuck with some clown semi-auto version

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    turns out the soviets didn't have psychic armored teleporting super soldiers

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing like overheating your rifle because you have no metal to eject taking a lot of the heat with it, causing the ammo to explode because you thought putting it in direct contact with the barrel of something that shoots full auto was smart.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. moron spouting old fuddlore
      Whew. We're going to be stuck with this dumb shit until poly ammo takes over huh?

      https://i.imgur.com/I1Khuqn.jpeg

      Why did the cold war ending kill the G11? All the cool interesting guns all died and were forgotten, no OICW either. Bullpups are also on their way out.

      >Bullpups are also on their way out.
      Yet there are more being developed and used in conflicts then ever before.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He's partially right tho. The brass acts as a thermal barrier, removes the problem of any 'hot point' and removes a few hundred joules of heat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The brass acts as a thermal barrier, removes the problem of any 'hot point' and removes a few hundred joules of heat.
          In all seriousness it barely does. Brass conducts heat very effectively and very fast, while at the same time its specific heat capacity is low. That's why polymer case is a big deal, since it's an insulator it keeps the chamber much, much cooler. Caseless ammo gets the chamber mildly hotter then brass but not to a major degree. And the problems with cookoff were successfully solved by changing around the propellant formulation long before cancellation. It simply wasn't the issue. Complaining about durability in the field and the weird reloading would be a better choice. Still, the gun was a success as far as the technology goes. It worked, at least as far as trials go. We'll never know how it would have performed in Ukraine or wherever if they'd lasted that long and germany sent some.

          But ultimately it was a very expensive design and the cold war was done. They didn't have a procurement contract, and it was even just the whole peace dividend thing at all, Germany actually had the full reunification to deal with which was very, very expensive and challenging given how much western vs eastern economies and infra had diverged. It was also highly non-standard, further increasing cost. It was neat though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Brass conducts heat very effectively and very fast, while at the same time its specific heat capacity is low.
            It's enough to remove 100-200 joules from the chamber. And polymers should be more effective because of
            > since it's an insulator it keeps
            and the cooling effect of pyrolysis.

            >The external temperature of the cartridge cases of 9 mm parabellum ammunition during the firing sequence was measured by a series of methods. Using a thermal imaging camera was the most successful method and showed that aluminium alloy cases reached higher temperatures than did brass cases. Peak temperatures for brass cases were 336 K at the case mouth after 1.2 ms and 331 K at the case base after 2 ms. Corresponding temperatures for aluminium alloy cases were 363 K at the mouth after 0.8 ms and 372 K at the base after 1.2 ms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing like overheating your rifle because you have no metal to eject taking a lot of the heat with it, causing the ammo to explode because you thought putting it in direct contact with the barrel of something that shoots full auto was smart.

            Ignorant boomers (many such cases).

            ACR trials report is now public and it has Big Surprise. M16 has better hit probability than G11. That killed G11 and other ACR rifles dead (and Germans hurried to make their own M16 with bells and whistles aka G36)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              holy shit. Im shocked, honestly.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Not a surprise.
              The 4.7mm cartridge was not well designed. They put so much effort into the propellant, that the actual cartridge and projectile itself was mediocre at best.
              Beyond that, sitting the gun in a moving chassis is killer for maintaining point target accuracy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I love how it took a multi million dollar program to prove that putting an optic on a gun will increase hit probability.

              >The brass acts as a thermal barrier, removes the problem of any 'hot point' and removes a few hundred joules of heat.
              In all seriousness it barely does. Brass conducts heat very effectively and very fast, while at the same time its specific heat capacity is low. That's why polymer case is a big deal, since it's an insulator it keeps the chamber much, much cooler. Caseless ammo gets the chamber mildly hotter then brass but not to a major degree. And the problems with cookoff were successfully solved by changing around the propellant formulation long before cancellation. It simply wasn't the issue. Complaining about durability in the field and the weird reloading would be a better choice. Still, the gun was a success as far as the technology goes. It worked, at least as far as trials go. We'll never know how it would have performed in Ukraine or wherever if they'd lasted that long and germany sent some.

              But ultimately it was a very expensive design and the cold war was done. They didn't have a procurement contract, and it was even just the whole peace dividend thing at all, Germany actually had the full reunification to deal with which was very, very expensive and challenging given how much western vs eastern economies and infra had diverged. It was also highly non-standard, further increasing cost. It was neat though.

              The fact that it actually worked is proof enough further development would be warranted. Its really hard to compete against a reliable, mature technology like brass cased ammunition even if the new alternative does have legitimate benefits (weight, size, theoretical material cost).

              G11 was made around hyper burst concept not semi auto. And G11 hyper burst had lower hit probability per trigger pull than basic M16 semi auto shot.
              If Germans made what you are saying ie M16 but with combustible case round, without moving barrel gizmos it may had merit. But they made "system of systems" but if falied and ruined idea of advanced ammo for all other for years ahead.

              Pretty much this. Hyperburst is a meme and it's failures took down the other potential benefits of the platform. 4.7 is low recoiling enough that a much more simple operating mechanism could be used.

              Not a surprise.
              The 4.7mm cartridge was not well designed. They put so much effort into the propellant, that the actual cartridge and projectile itself was mediocre at best.
              Beyond that, sitting the gun in a moving chassis is killer for maintaining point target accuracy.

              Army always wants a long range round even when combat happens under 300. Just issue a DMR or full rifle caliber Belt fed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I love how it took a multi million dollar program to prove that putting an optic on a gun will increase hit probability.
                Actually ACR result found that at <300 meters optic provided no positive effect (within trials setting, ie shooting daylight at chest sized targets within 300m range with low exposure time of the targets)

                Optics only had some improvement in the 300-600m range band.
                So much for everyone repeating "ACR trials found that best way is improve hit probability is optics". Guess what?ACR trials didn't found that! Good ol M16 sight is as good as ACOG!
                Literally everything people parroted about ACR rifle program and trials for 20 years actually was totally wrong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Optics only had some improvement in the 300-600m range band
                >M16 sight is as good as ACOG
                wut

                >at <300 meters optic provided no positive effect
                This really should have invalidated the entire test right there, as there shooter is clearly not representative of the people who would field this thing. Yes I'm sure you could shoot 8000 yrd head-shots with irons in basic all day, but we all aren't you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This really should have invalidated the entire test right there, as there shooter is clearly not representative of the people who would field this thing.
                On average shooters participating in trials about 22% of them qualified with M16A2 as experts and another 22% as sharpshooters. Dunno what is the average among US mil grunts, but i think it is about the average level.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >He has never been to the CS shop
                I can assure you conscripts will be even more moronic. Which kind of forces a decision to adopt a specialist's rifle vs. one for actual morons. That sample seems reasonable for combat arms.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This is a dumb opinion piece that has 'America first' written all over it. Fact of the matter is that the G11 outperformed the other rifles in every relevant metric, the US didn't buy it because their grunts have no hope of understanding how to load a rifle that does not look like the design they have had the past 100 years.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the US didn't buy it because their grunts have no hope of understanding how to load a rifle that does not look like the design they have had the past 100 years
                Dumb frogposter. The M16A2 was only a few years old during the ACR program, and the A1 was only like 20 years old. Maybe you would have a point if you were talking about the dumb extra charging handle on the XM7, which IS a stupid design decision made only for the sake of familiarity.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the official trials documentation is false because... it just isn't, okay???

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anon another fact that every participants generally agreed with result of trials that everyone dropped ACR rifles and didn't offered them everywhere else.
                You can imagine that they wanted they R&D and try to sell to other customers besides US but they didn't. And looking at results of the fire trials in its to understand why. You will bring them to another shooting range and they will suffer humiliating defeat against generic 5.56 rifle again. So everyone just put them into museum.

                Also when people mention "mu cold war ended this is Germans didnt adopt G11" they memoryhole that Germans right after started yet another wundervaffen rifle program. It was plastic fantastic G36 . So money wasn't an obstacle for German autism.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >So money wasn't an obstacle for German autism.
                Yes it absolutely was. The G36 was thrown together because the Bundeswehr didn't have the cash for the G41, which was their first alternative for a 5.56 G3 replacement. It cannot be downplayed how low a priority the military was after the berlin war fell. G36s in 2016 cost the Bundeswehr 1100 euros per unit, which deflates to about 600 euros in 1997 money, which makes it cheaper than the 700 usd (~650 euros) we were paying for M16A2s at the same time. The G26 might have looked futuristic, but it was designed from the ground up as a budget option. Why else do you think poorgays like Spain, Latvia and Mexico adopted them?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why not just keep the G3?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                G3s are free and you dont need to introduce and stockpile another cartridge caliber.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The brass acts as a thermal barrier, removes the problem of any 'hot point' and removes a few hundred joules of heat.
          In all seriousness it barely does. Brass conducts heat very effectively and very fast, while at the same time its specific heat capacity is low. That's why polymer case is a big deal, since it's an insulator it keeps the chamber much, much cooler. Caseless ammo gets the chamber mildly hotter then brass but not to a major degree. And the problems with cookoff were successfully solved by changing around the propellant formulation long before cancellation. It simply wasn't the issue. Complaining about durability in the field and the weird reloading would be a better choice. Still, the gun was a success as far as the technology goes. It worked, at least as far as trials go. We'll never know how it would have performed in Ukraine or wherever if they'd lasted that long and germany sent some.

          But ultimately it was a very expensive design and the cold war was done. They didn't have a procurement contract, and it was even just the whole peace dividend thing at all, Germany actually had the full reunification to deal with which was very, very expensive and challenging given how much western vs eastern economies and infra had diverged. It was also highly non-standard, further increasing cost. It was neat though.

          He has poorly regurgitated a valid point the (ex-?)resident G11 autist makes and merged it with the fuddlore.
          The fact that brass conducts heat effectively means that it spreads heat out into the case as a whole. This means you don't have one small bit of propellant against a hot spot, heating just that bit above auto-ignition temperature even when the average chamber temperature is below temp. In essence, caseless is more sensitive to any heat concentrations from defects or features in the chamber and thats the cause of the cook-off, not overheating, and why HITP solved the issue.

          https://i.imgur.com/K2MZevR.jpeg

          [...]
          Ignorant boomers (many such cases).

          ACR trials report is now public and it has Big Surprise. M16 has better hit probability than G11. That killed G11 and other ACR rifles dead (and Germans hurried to make their own M16 with bells and whistles aka G36)

          The G11 is massively overhyped but lets not also pretend that the testing parameters weren't also moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            G11 was made around hyper burst concept not semi auto. And G11 hyper burst had lower hit probability per trigger pull than basic M16 semi auto shot.
            If Germans made what you are saying ie M16 but with combustible case round, without moving barrel gizmos it may had merit. But they made "system of systems" but if falied and ruined idea of advanced ammo for all other for years ahead.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Unlike polymer cases, combustible cases don't serve as a thermal insulator

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Unlike polymer cases, combustible cases don't serve as a thermal insulator
          Actually they can. Because you can make combustible case from high ignition temperature material. It would be bad for starting ignition from primer but you have powder charge inside case for that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Having basically the entire action, barrel included reciprocate within the outer shell was never a good idea. That's not even mentioning the complexity of the design, for which there's no reason you couldn't make a design with functionally identical concept and performance much simpler. Burst fire was also never a good idea.
        Footage of the trials seems to show the G11 having a ridiculous amount of recoil compared to the M16 and other ACR prototypes, but that could just be an operator skill issue.
        Also the Belgian version was a better rifle.

        >Whew. We're going to be stuck with this dumb shit until poly ammo takes over huh?
        >until
        Worse. Even if poly case or caseless ammo becomes mainstream, you're gonna hear this fuddlore for decades, maybe even a hundred years after.

        https://i.imgur.com/p9sLF1J.jpeg

        This is a dumb opinion piece that has 'America first' written all over it. Fact of the matter is that the G11 outperformed the other rifles in every relevant metric, the US didn't buy it because their grunts have no hope of understanding how to load a rifle that does not look like the design they have had the past 100 years.

        >Fact of the matter is that the G11 outperformed the other rifles in every relevant metric
        >Army report shows that the M16A2 outperformed all of the ACRs in every relevant metric
        >the people who conducted the trials and collected the data in question are wrong because they are ok?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Have you read the Great Rifle Controversy?

          The goal of the ACR program was to increase hit-probability under combat conditions by 2x. Absolute none of the candidates did that; however all of the candidates were superior to the M16A2, the control rifle. They just weren't twice as good.

          Militaries are driven by economies of scale, there are plenty of better weapons and pieces of equipment in nearly every category that what is fielded right now by our military, the question is: are they so much better as to be worth the cost of purchasing new equipment, spending money to build a new logistics system that will support then, spending money to retrain maintainers and operators? Those factors especially with something so fricking numerous and common place as an infantry rifle give whatever is in service a massive amount of institutional inertia.

          The US has been through this song and dance numerous times, and until the M7, was not willing to accept the additional cost of adopting a new system which was *empirically* better than the M16.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The goal of the ACR program was to increase hit-probability under combat conditions by 2x. Absolute none of the candidates did that; however all of the candidates were superior to the M16A2, the control rifle. They just weren't twice as good.
            Hilarious thing is M16A2 demonstrated hit probability higher than ACR program requirements. Before program M16A2 was hardly undervalued and program goals were based on that.

            So in a some sense ACR program was great success, they found their rifle that fulfills hit probability goals set up this program. It was .... M16A2!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Your edited graph is comparing apples and oranges. The ACR test was not stressed, that being said, your conclusion regardless is accurate/correct.

              Infantry Rifles are cool, but in many respects are absolutely the least important weapon on the battlefield, even with all our modern technology we've reach the pinnacle of improving the Rifle as a weapon.

              IMO all subsequent R&D should've gone into making it and the ammunition lighter while maintaining same performance. We kinda-sorta did that with LSAT and them immediately forgot everything we learned and bought the M7. Not that the M7 is bad, it's fine maybe even good. However, I'm not sure about cutting the combat-load of soldier down but 30% is the wisest move when just being able to shoot more than the other guy in your average gunfight will probably be more important than the stopping power of any individual round.

              ACR Proved caseless/plastic case ammunition was mature enough to use in a workable design and the that knowledge was basically left to rot outside of LSAT which, was a poorly managed program in basically all respects.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The ACR test was not stressed,
                Anon. Did you read ACR report? How do you think they derived so called "M16A2 stressed" graph everybody love to re-post here and there. Make a wild guess, swing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Also the Belgian version was a better rifle.
          Based VBR enjoyer

          Have you read the Great Rifle Controversy?

          The goal of the ACR program was to increase hit-probability under combat conditions by 2x. Absolute none of the candidates did that; however all of the candidates were superior to the M16A2, the control rifle. They just weren't twice as good.

          Militaries are driven by economies of scale, there are plenty of better weapons and pieces of equipment in nearly every category that what is fielded right now by our military, the question is: are they so much better as to be worth the cost of purchasing new equipment, spending money to build a new logistics system that will support then, spending money to retrain maintainers and operators? Those factors especially with something so fricking numerous and common place as an infantry rifle give whatever is in service a massive amount of institutional inertia.

          The US has been through this song and dance numerous times, and until the M7, was not willing to accept the additional cost of adopting a new system which was *empirically* better than the M16.

          I wonder why they didn't employ the Colt ACR since it was an 'M16A2+' with mostly similar parts. Then some of the features introduced in the Colt rifle gradually filtered into M16A4 and M4 anyway.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you have no metal to eject taking a lot of the heat with it

      anon its a bad idea to spout random things you've only heard from one source.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ever fired a gun before? Did the casing after it was fired get hot? Sure would be great if you had a way to take that casing and it's heat and throw it on the ground.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ever fired a gun before? Did the casing after it was fired get hot?
          Yes, and it ejected right into my face. Cases are bad. End of story.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cons
            Balky, heavy, ceaseless ammo was prone to cracking and was basically ruined if they got exposed to even a little moister, field stripping/cleaning this thing looks like a pain in the ass.
            >Pros
            Looks kinda cool

            It's no surprise this remained a prototype.

            >Yes, and it ejected right into my face. Cases are bad. End of story.
            Carry a single action army as your EDC, if hot brass still goes down your shirt well then it's your fault and not the winds or the guns. Then get a Kel-tec RDB since the brass downwardly ejects so you won't have problems there either unless your wearing shorts and sandals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think the Sun orbits the Earth too?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Caseless ammo has more cons than pros

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you ever seen the internal workings of that thing? It isn't remotely viable for use by grunts.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Links to ACR trials report
    https://www.docdroid.net/ffL1XVy/s00440-pdf
    https://armourersbench.com/2018/03/09/colt-advanced-combat-rifle/

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No more Soviets to shoot and Germany now needed all the money to rebuild the East

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >overly complex mechanism
    >give it to a sub 80 iq grunt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Made for 100 IQ conscripts, not 80 IQ welfare queens.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the mechanism was too complex myself, but it doesn't seem that much different than a weird gas-operated revolver when you break it down.

      maybe because it's ugly as frick and anyone using one was embarrassed to be seen with it.

      >muh image

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Grunts were meant to literally just take the clockwork mechanism thing out and simply place a new one IIRC.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's how the iPhone works, and the unwashed masses don't seem to have any problem making that work.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because its hightech trash

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not dead, just sleeping. It's not her time yet.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    maybe because it's ugly as frick and anyone using one was embarrassed to be seen with it.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I always felt like the G11 must've sorta "worked" because they ended up building a thousand of 'em which isn't many but is way more than so many interesting gun designs that are like "Three of them were produced; one was lost, one blew up during field trials and one is in the Sisterfrick Museum in West Virginia"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It definitely worked.
      A complicated mechanical system can be 100% reliable when made well, look at any car engine or mechanical watch.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    g11 died because it was too complicated, OICW was cancelled because it was big and heavy and airbursting projectiles are weak and expensive. an OICW with dumb rounds would be good. if you could somehow fit nightvision, FLIR, laser range finder, augmented reality, and the targeting system for the grenade launcher into a headset i think something like the OICW could become more plausible - and we could certainly do it now, but digital nightvision still needs improvement and also we'd need white people to design it instead of indians which in todays tech industry is a stretch

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    looks bulky as hell

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nevermind the G11, where's my Austrian bullpup flechette-firing assault rifle?

  17. 1 month ago
    sage

    I watched the forgotten weapons video and I thought it seemed a poor implementation
    not because of the complexity, it's totally sealed so it could be literal clockwork inside
    but the ammo was more like a polymer harmonica clip, internally beltfed type thing than truly caseless

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why does military procurement hate magazines so much anyway? For the M16 they went "dude the mags are aluminum, you can just throw them away after use" which never worked. The G11 had it even worse with I think two issued magazines and a bunch of factory sealed nonreloadable reload sticks, kinda like clips. Pretty sure that wouldn't have worked either.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Give that gun to a grunt and see how much he fricks up the mechanism.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was shit, poorer performance compared to other rifles and complicated as frick.
    Sure it looked cool, but that's where the positives end.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why not put the RAPTAR on a gavin eater

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *