If land-and-groove rifling is so shitty, why do tanks and

Y is shit?

>>31090667
>why do tanks and artillery use it?

...Pretty sure every modern tank with the exception of the Challenger uses a smootbore main gun.

>>31090679
Fouling, mostly. Harder to keep clean.

>>31090667
>land-and-groove rifling is so shitty,
It's not tho

On another topic, why isn't polygonal rifling more popular ?

>>31090837
Because it's really expensive to tool up to do, and the results can be difficult to keep consistent.

>>31090850
Wasn't polygonal rifling done to have cheaper barrels made instead ? Are there any other/ what are the benefits to polygonal rifling?

>>31090857
once you tool up it is cheaper

>>31090837
Pretty common in pistols, not so much in rifles.

Nobody uses it in precision rifle shooting, although that's more a market thing with a but of shooter preference mixed in.

>>31090857
Verifiable advantages:

>Easier to clean because no corners
>Less wear
>Cheaper to manufacture per unit once mass produced

It isn't "more accurate." No more than any conventionally rifled barrel with a slightly undersized bore.

Whitworth came up with the idea back in the 1850s as a way to get his new rifle to push a fat military caliber minie ball fast enough down the barrel to actually have a somewhat flat trajectory, without leading the barrel so bad it became a smoothbore within three shots.

>>31090837
It is (in handguns)
Glock uses it apparently (though this could be /k/ bullshittery)
CZ has used it in some of their guns, and the Jericho uses it.
That may not be a tone but three's still a fair number of models in the firearms market.

>>31091016
H&K uses it too

>>31091733
yeah but when the german military wanted to use their handguns (P8) they demanded that HK use land and grove instead of poly-rifling