Will there ever be a reason to stop using the AR as a standard

>>32767332
>Is there any possible technological advance that could happen,
any ammo change would fuck it like caseless or something like plastic casings

LSAT is probably it.

>>32767370
would that ever be worth it or cost effective? I could easily see 5.56 being a standard caliber 100 or 1000 or 100000 years from now

>>32767332
Energy weapons.
Not saying I'd want conventional weapons to become obsolete, but imagine having an plasma rifle that can carry rounds in a rechargeable battery pack.
It;d be a no brainer

>>32767332
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but the AR is pretty much the peak of chemical based propellant rifles.
Hella accurate, quite reliable if you don't believe the memes, and recoil so soft you can brace it against your nose without being hurt.

Until we finally manage to make a different kind of ammunition (lasers, Gauss, etc.) and it is significantly better than chemical based propellants, we're not really going to be seeing all them much improvement in firearms technology.

I feel like bullpups are the future, and once they work out some of its quirks might be a competitor for the ar platform

>>32767395
>Worth it
Yes. Now you can carry even more ammo because it takes up even less space on your person. Would be the equivalent of the shift from battle rifle to 5.56 that got us the AR in the first place.

Assuming, of course, doctrine remains in the realm of "carrying more ammo and being accurate ENOUGH"

>Cost effective
Not yet, no. But give it time.

>>32767332
as soon as you realize a folding stock is pretty handy inside a vehicle.

>>32770425
They make folding stocks for ARs.

>>32768101
>>32767332
As this anon said and as I stated in another thread, small arms technology is due for an upgrade. I'm leaning towards a reliable form of a caseless ammunition rifle or ammunition propelled not by combustion and pressure but by some other means.

>>32770444
they make folding stocks for guns that are %90 compatible with armalite 15 rifles... nobody comes along and says look at this absolutely brand new device that borrows nothing from anything else ever. guns evolve and at random milestones they're called something else

You mean that a gun that is using a design that is already fifty hears old can't compleat with the latest from HK, enfield, Remington and just about every other manufacture, including colt who have rifles that are more durable, reliable, ergonomic and accurate?

And 5.56 is a shit round for killling people. It's so fast and tiny that it just zips on through someone and you have to wait for them to bleed out.
Notice I specifically said 5.56, the Milatary round that complies with international agreements not the even worse .223 that can use an expanding round.
Mmmmm
Hay mr president, while you are ripping up international agreements, can I suggest a few?

>>32770695
(you)

We already changed pistol this year, might as well do the rifles.

I suggest HK416A5 or AK15.

>>32770467
This. Caseless ammo has been done before, but not very well. A good design is a ways off.
Bullpups also have several advantages over carbines (balance, maneuverability). Desert Tech's MDR is a good concept, but who know's how it'll do in the field.
And regardless of what the m16 purists will tell you - modern short-stroke piston designs like sig's MCX are an improvement over DI guns.

>>32770695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM
The army's new 5.56 is pretty badass.

Roller delayed blowback.
Those former Nazis at HK and CETME were on to something.

At some point we're gonna have laser robot swarms and then war will become like football.

>>32771109
It looks awesome!
Is there a civilian version of it?

GAUSS RIFLES WHEN

>>32769861
1994 called. . .

Nah the future will be decked out ARs unless somebody makes a big leap is design like a remade TKb-022PM or unless there is a new cartridge. As is the AR is good enough, upgradable, and is relatively light weight which is a nice bonus. Expect CF handguards in the future, which the AR is perfectly suited to use since it takes tubular handguards.

When we get a new synthetic material that makes a piston system lighter and still reliable, or when a new ballistics system like electrochemical propellant is developed. The USM just has no interest in fielding a new system that fires 5.56 slightly better right now.

>>32767395
Think of it this way

100 years ago we had bolt action rifles

1000 years ago we had the english longbow

100000 years ago we had spears.

But clearly we've reached the absolute peak of what your mind can imagine and technology will never advance beyond this point.

I figure we'll have handheld rail guns within 200 years

In 100,000? Antimatter capsules, assuming we survive that long

>>32771907
I just don't think there will ever be a weapon that will be cost effective enough to replace the AR at any point in the future. Technology has advanced so far that you have to wonder whether we've found out everything there is to know

>ARs
>better than AKs in any way