Talk:Telescoped ammunition

Advantages or disadvantages ?
There is a lack of information on the reasons why this type of ammo was developed, what problem(s) does it address and what problem(s) does it raise ? 95.92.41.29 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New resource (report)
This report covers what an editor needs to know to improve this page, including terminology, development history, etc.: http://armamentresearch.com/ares-releases-research-report-7-cased-telescoped-ammunition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D126:CBE0:900A:4E53:1D9F:45F7 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

telescopic round
I thought I heard of telescopic ammo in 45 of some sort. It was called low signature ammo. Iirc. 2600:1700:BB63:C000:351D:C5DC:D45A:EE35 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Pros and cons
This is an article stub. It is easy to find various problems with caseless ammo: low (sub-sonic) velocity, residue build-up, which may lead to short range, low accuracy, and high maintenance. I suggest the editor take the info from some of the existing caseless products and incorporate it here. One egregious omission is the lead failing to note that there are very few examples of successful products, despite over a century of development. Conflicting with what this article claims, costs are not low. As a matter of fact most of the "pros" are hypothetical and have not been demonstrated while the "cons" have been. It should be pointed out, imho, that while this may one day succeed, it hasn't yet. A reasonable person would be skeptical that it will find a significant niche in either military arsenals or with sports people. (The Russians are the only significant user and they use it for a (low accuracy, short range) grenade launcher.)71.30.94.234 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)