Massif Rocks!

Trey Knight Asks You to Change His Mind

11 Responses to “Trey Knight Asks You to Change His Mind”

  1. MM says:

    What’s that say? CASE – TELESCOPIC?

      • MM says:

        Thanks. I can’t argue against that case :-)

        • MM says:

          Wow – i completely misunderstood the message. On another forum, we’ve been talking about red dots vs. LPVOs, and while still in that frame of mind, I misread Trey’s sign to mean something like “Case for discussion: telescopic sights are the future – discuss’.

          Boy, did I miss the mark, lol.

  2. Paul Joly says:

    It can be the future in some applications, but in most, no.

    You can theoretically make CT ammo a bit shorter than conventional cases but you still have about the same ammo volume/bulk.
    The bullet is protected.
    One study shows a slight increase in precision.

    Because of their shape, the feeding should be more precise, that leads to feeding issue.

    So, with CT, you end up with a shorter less reliable action.

    In my mind, sabot bullet, compacted powder/propellant and aluminum case is the future.

    You can shorten the case because :

    -you need less powder for the same muzzle speed
    -you have a neckless design
    -you use compacted powder

    You have less weight because :

    -you need less powder/shorter case
    -you’re using aluminum case

    But, you decrease accuracy.

    • Paul Joly says:

      For CT, the longer the bullet is, the more you gain to shorten the cartridge over conventional ones.

  3. AnthonyJ says:

    caseless is the future change my mind

  4. Seamus says:

    How do you correct a malfunction on a CT rifle?

    • SSD says:

      Depends on the malfunction. When the pusher goes through the base of the cartridge, which seams to happen, you tear the gun apart.

    • Paul Joly says:

      Since we’re not talking about the LSAT but CT in general, you can have the same type of extraction than non telescopic ones.

  5. Scott says:

    NATO.