Noah Moore on October 30, 2025 1:30 am I wonder why the US Army didn’t adopt this. Was it cost, performance, or something else? Reply
William Brown on October 30, 2025 2:05 am Probably a mix of all three. Military decisions aren’t made lightly. Reply
Liam Brown on October 30, 2025 1:31 am This rifle is a fascinating piece of history. Worth a watch! Reply
Patricia Moore on October 30, 2025 1:46 am Absolutely. It’s always interesting to see what almost made it into service. Reply
William Brown on October 30, 2025 1:31 am An interesting idea, but I can’t imagine plastic ammo replacing traditional rounds anytime soon. Reply
Ava M. Miller on October 30, 2025 2:24 am Unless it’s for very specific use cases, traditional materials still dominate. Reply
Elizabeth Williams on October 30, 2025 1:33 am Plastic ammo could reduce training costs, but is the trade-off worth it? Reply
Robert White on October 30, 2025 2:32 am Cost savings are important, but training realism is crucial for soldiers. Reply
Robert Johnson on October 30, 2025 1:33 am I’m curious about the ballistics of plastic ammo. Does it even come close to traditional rounds? Reply
William Taylor on October 30, 2025 2:08 am I doubt it. Traditional materials offer better performance in most cases. Reply
Isabella Taylor on October 30, 2025 1:36 am This rifle seems like a step forward in terms of innovation, even if it didn’t get adopted. Reply
Jennifer J. Smith on October 30, 2025 2:07 am Innovation is good, but not every idea makes the cut for military use. Reply
Oliver Davis on October 30, 2025 1:36 am What would be the environmental impact of plastic ammo? Seems like a big downside. Reply
Amelia Garcia on October 30, 2025 2:32 am Valid concern. Traditional bullets might be more eco-friendly in the long run. Reply
Michael Moore on October 30, 2025 1:36 am Plastic ammo might be safer for indoor training ranges, but that’s about it. Reply
Emma Williams on October 30, 2025 2:09 am Safety is always a top priority, but combat effectiveness can’t be compromised. Reply
Elizabeth White on October 30, 2025 1:38 am The Army likely passed on this for good reasons. Plastic bullets aren’t exactly known for their stopping power. Reply
Mary F. Johnson on October 30, 2025 2:10 am Exactly. Reliability in combat situations is non-negotiable. Reply
Ava U. Thompson on October 30, 2025 1:38 am It’s amazing how far weapons technology has come. Who knows what the future holds? Reply
Robert Hernandez on October 30, 2025 2:12 am True, but some things just work better with proven materials. Reply
William Williams on October 30, 2025 1:41 am Plastic ammo sounds interesting for training but I wonder about durability and performance in real-world scenarios. Reply
Lucas Smith on October 30, 2025 2:28 am I think the US Army probably rejected it for practical reasons, but it’s still a cool concept. Reply
Amelia Johnson on October 30, 2025 2:29 am Good point. Training ammo is meant to be cheap and safe, but combat performance is a different story. Reply
John C. Williams on October 30, 2025 1:44 am This feels like a cool, niche innovation rather than a mainstream solution. Reply
Liam Lee on October 30, 2025 1:58 am Agreed. Maybe for training or low-intensity scenarios, but not for frontline combat. Reply
Olivia W. Garcia on October 30, 2025 1:44 am It’s too bad this didn’t become a standard. It could have been a game-changer. Reply
Emma Martin on October 30, 2025 2:24 am Sometimes the coolest ideas aren’t always the most practical. Reply
27 Comments
I wonder why the US Army didn’t adopt this. Was it cost, performance, or something else?
Probably a mix of all three. Military decisions aren’t made lightly.
This rifle is a fascinating piece of history. Worth a watch!
Absolutely. It’s always interesting to see what almost made it into service.
An interesting idea, but I can’t imagine plastic ammo replacing traditional rounds anytime soon.
Unless it’s for very specific use cases, traditional materials still dominate.
Plastic ammo could reduce training costs, but is the trade-off worth it?
Cost savings are important, but training realism is crucial for soldiers.
I’m curious about the ballistics of plastic ammo. Does it even come close to traditional rounds?
I doubt it. Traditional materials offer better performance in most cases.
This rifle seems like a step forward in terms of innovation, even if it didn’t get adopted.
Innovation is good, but not every idea makes the cut for military use.
What would be the environmental impact of plastic ammo? Seems like a big downside.
Valid concern. Traditional bullets might be more eco-friendly in the long run.
Plastic ammo might be safer for indoor training ranges, but that’s about it.
Safety is always a top priority, but combat effectiveness can’t be compromised.
The Army likely passed on this for good reasons. Plastic bullets aren’t exactly known for their stopping power.
Exactly. Reliability in combat situations is non-negotiable.
It’s amazing how far weapons technology has come. Who knows what the future holds?
True, but some things just work better with proven materials.
Plastic ammo sounds interesting for training but I wonder about durability and performance in real-world scenarios.
I think the US Army probably rejected it for practical reasons, but it’s still a cool concept.
Good point. Training ammo is meant to be cheap and safe, but combat performance is a different story.
This feels like a cool, niche innovation rather than a mainstream solution.
Agreed. Maybe for training or low-intensity scenarios, but not for frontline combat.
It’s too bad this didn’t become a standard. It could have been a game-changer.
Sometimes the coolest ideas aren’t always the most practical.