That looks like a fucking laser gun.

seems uncommonly bulky to house a laser. And I suppose the magazine holds batteries, or perhaps rounds of encapsulated red light? Jesus is that scope really necessary? Better hope it's bang on from the factory, because you won't be sighting it in any time soon.

I think I'd rather climb a building and drop that thing on my target

>>15798
That's no laser gun, it's one of those airburst grenade rifle/55.6 rifle combination deals, part of the whole "future soldier" idea thing-notice the huge ejection port in the stock. It was in a tom clancy ghost recon game or something.

I don't understand the whole future soldier mentality. Why are we making weapons that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in research and production per individual weapon when our enemies are using AK's and other cheap guns that cost a few hundred to make and kill just as efficiently? I mean, I understand when a company invest in developing new body armor or a more accurate sight system or something along those lines. But why make a gun that cost so much and is so sophisticated that if it breaks you have to ship it off to the factory to get a spring replaced?

Practicality seems to be taking a back seat in weapons development.

I just remembered, I think that's a XM29.
The intention behind these is, based on guessing, is to make a small arms weapon that is effective against enemies in light cover or in buildings, in such a case that a traditional round would be ineffective. Because of this the need for mobility for troops would decrease, allowing for increased body armor (level 3 plate should if i remember correctly stop most all "assault rifle" caliber rounds at least on the first hit) and reducing the need to clear buildings. It's worth noting the XM29 in that configuration was scrapped (as was the XM8 which was partially a follow up) at least partially due to size, though the XM25 lives on and is being field tested currently. The idea is that if your fighting a enemy who uses fairly mobile, quick but lightly equipped infantry firing from cover, an air burst round popped into their and every one nearby's backs could do a great deal of damage, due to the lack of armor.
Apparently it can also fire breeching, Thermobaric, Flechette, Non lethal and AP rounds, which, if easily interchangeable, sounds like it could come in quite handy.

>>15805
So people can make money off our tax dollars.

Started this thread as a failed dump attempt. Come back. /w/ finally has some activity.

>>15797 here. I take back my statement.
>>15816 THAT looks like a laser gun (but it was probably meant to).

SAGE has been used.

>>15812
Man I forgot that even said dump your gunz.
If anyone's interested in seeing yet another 10/22 or mosin, I can ablidge, though I don't see why anyone would want to. Some high res XD-M perhaps?

Here is my non-mosin rifle. =D

Her name is Bunny.

>>15806
>reducing the need to clear buildings

sounds like an invitation for nervous troops to shoot up a building full of civilians. Though, I don't know what the current protocol is on engaging hidden targets in civilian structures and whether or not you're permitted to level it with explosives if you suspect it contains a sniper.

>>15833
That's exactly what they do. SOP for infantry for years now has been to pin down the enemy and then call in heavy firepower. Either mortars, or heavy artillery, or tank rounds, or perhaps an AT4, or even an airstrike. It has led to much lower casualties on our side because we don't have to pin down and engage the enemy.

It's also what makes urban warfare such a bitch. It's much more difficult to pin down and use heavy weapons on an enemy inside a city.

>>15833
Once an enemy uses a structure it is designated as an enemy structure. That is the official ruling by the international laws of war. It isn't always followed though, during the US invasion of Afghanistan US troops were not allowed to blow up mosques even if enemy troops were using them, all part of some PR bullshit.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but thought I'd share some insight re: civilians on the battlefield.

ROE changes sometimes daily in theater and is heavily dependent on where you're at within the country/province/city/district/etc. In general, civilians that are co-mingled with the enemy (i.e. not hostages, but appear free to move with/through the enemy) are legitimate targets. Now if they're running around trying to get the hell out of the way, that's one thing, but if they're just chilling next to a dude firing an RPG at Coalition Forces for example, not doing anything to stop them, even if they don't have a weapon in their hand, they're probably going to get lit the fuck up. That's what happened to that Reuters photographer that got killed in Iraq a while ago, and why the Apache pilot+gunner didn't get UCMJ'd. ROE clearly stated the bit about civilians co-mingling with enemy combatants.