Why don't cartridges have the shape of a pyramid instead

Because it would make the magazines huge and awkward as fuck.

Or make revolver cylinders huge and awkward as fuck.

File: explainthisone.png (21KB, 1080x960px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1080x960px

>>33841994
no

File: 1493779265266.jpg (52KB, 1099x490px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1099x490px

>>33841930
It's way easier and more precise to drill holes, rather than squares.

>>33841930
Same reason soda comes in cans and not cubes

>>33841930
>Cone
You need a straight neck to hold the bullet
Also, enjoy having such a curved magazine that it turns into a curly fry after 10 rounds.
>Cylinder
Straight wall cartridges are heavily limited to the amount of powder they can have before they become super fucking long and stupid to use.

>4 round banana mags when?

>>33842408
Which is?

>>33842560
Squares split at their natural weak points under pressure.

>>33842560
circles would be the strongest geometric shape in terms of practicality. Squares have too many stress points. Sure they won't slide off the previous bullet easily, but a magazine for square bullets would require a higher level of engineering that one for circular bullets. Not to mention loading the magazine for square bullets is easier to screw up.

File: Dardick.jpg (113KB, 688x550px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 688x550px

D A R D I C K
A
R
D
I
C
K

>>33841930

severely reduced capacity

>>33842733
Years ago I read they were looking into this design for machine guns and aircraft cannons since the sideways feed and ejection were much faster than the traditional back-and-forth action.
I could see a few problems with the design, since the chamber is two pieces, like case ruptures, but otherwise I wonder what happened with it?

>>33841994
Honestly who the fuck cares about revolvers anymore?

>>33842453
>instead of
Almost all cartridges are either cylinders or cones, reading comprehension please.