setsneedtofeed

I posit that ratings in a franchise like Star Wars are a downstream reflection of previous material. Part of Andor's low ratings I think are a reflection on the other shows that came out and weren't good. It creates an environment where so many viewers check out. I'd say that Disney reducing the amount of Star Wars shows it puts out and giving the shows to properly talented creators to make unique high quality projects should be the takeaway.

I really hope the executive takeaway is "let individual creators have unique takes and expand Star Wars" and not "All Star Wars should now be dark and depressing and grim."

The legislation already exists.

18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B):

A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or [irrelevant section on jacketed ammunition]

It would be difficult to produce flechettes not caught by that existing definition.

Putting aside legality and assuming that is overcome, it would still be an uphill fight in the market. I would posit that the majority of people buying handguns do not highly weight armor penetration as a factor. Any company going into flechettes as an armor piercing solution would have to eat all the R&D costs to get flechettes that sufficiently penetrate armor from a pistol length barrel, produce or partner with an ammunition company to produce this new and expensive ammunition that only works for one brand on the market, produce and sell handguns for this. All hoping to recoup costs by catering to the subset of the market that is willing to pay significantly higher prices just for armor penetration.

The only viable customer for a company to pitch flechettes to is the military, and once more- all of the rifle attempts have had insurmountable problems. Investing in flechette handguns simply wouldn't be worth the time, as handguns are considered of low importance to small arms and current calibers work well enough. Even armor piercing 5.7mm never caught on widely for military adoption.

The expectation that it was an open world modern style Fallout game does seem to be a theme among people who didn't like it. That wasn't helped by pre-release marketing that emphasized it came from the studio that made New Vegas (despite the writers and game leads all being different).

I went in to the game without expectations and found the structure of the game closer to a classic BioWare RPG. Rather than a single huge open world it was a series of curated hubs to travel between. At those hubs there was space to explore but it was more limited and curated than a full open world. The more curated approach meant that the game could be designed with certain builds in mind since players would interact with certain areas coming from known directions, allowing alternate routes or quest solutions for different builds to be placed.

Accepting it as a hub based RPG that leaned into a specialized build made the game click for me.

Setting aside prices, I've seen an unexpected amount of sourness directed at the first game. While the first game wasn't a greatest of all time RPG and had flaws, I found it overall enjoyable enough and it was clearly a project with some passion that I didn't regret sinking time into it.

I expect similar of the sequel, with hopefully improvements based on feedback from the first game. I plan to have fun with the game, and it is a bit tiring to see things like the pricing prompting people to badmouth the game itself when they are separate things.

Am I going to pay $80? No. No I'm not. This is a single player RPG though. There's no FOMO of getting left behind on the multiplayer unlocks or the lore of a new season. It's a singleplayer game. Put it on the wishlist and buy it on a sale. Simple as.

This is military rather than private defense driven, and in the military arena flechettes seem to periodically reappear. There always seems to be someone interested in them, but for small arms they seem unable to get past some of the issues that were identified early. Tank sabot penetrator rounds are more or less the same thing, but scaled up and with that increased size and specific use they are quite popular.

For personal self defense handguns, while flechettes don't have the downside of deflection, many of their upsides become irrelevant. This leads to trying to sell a more expensive ammunition to go in what would be a small selection of guns and not doing the actual task any better than conventional rounds.

I wanted to provide some additional reasons not found in the article. Despite deflection issues not being listed, pointing out that the U.S. encountered them creates a reasonable point of speculation that so did the Soviets.

The U.S. looked at flechettes in the 1950s with the SPIW program. They concluded that while the idea was great on paper, and the flechettes did deliver on being a low recoil, flat trajectory projectile there were too many practical downsides associated with them. The flechettes were found to be deflected off course by even the slightest bit of foliage or even rain.

The U.S. toyed again with flechettes in the 1980s in the ACR trials, but again they were selected.

I'd presume the Soviets saw similar problems.

You don't have any problems with it cycling? I've heard really big cans on tilt barrel handguns can cause problems with the weight of the can interfering with barrel movement.

What's the can model? Do you like it?

A paintball filled with capsaicin or something similar. Technically many of the guns are sold purpose made as pepper ball launchers, but they are literally rebranded .68 cal paintball guns and compatible with commercial paintball gun parts.

I see two in the photo. Along with what I presume is a 37mm break open launcher.

Yes, they are repurposed to fire pepperballs.