User blog comment:AugFC/An in-depth look at AW's weapon design/@comment-1916935-20141226221037/@comment-3967954-20141226222633

It's very easy to claim that just because something is being developed in prototype form, it'll therefore see service in the future - but unfortunately, this is usually anything but the truth. In 1845, an incredibly technologically advanced electrical gun was demonstrated to the British Army, but was never adopted. Almost 200 years later, we still aren't using electricity-powered rifles; we're still relying on gunpowder like they did in the 1800s. And we probably will do for the next hundred years, too, although obviously in 2100 our rifles will likely all be caseless and extremely advanced.

The fact of the matter is that developing major innovations and advancements in small arms costs massive amounts of money and usually, the cost outweighs what few advantages these innovations actually offer. Lasers, as I mentioned before, don't actually offer that much of an advantage over bullets. And, because of that, they're very unlikely to see service in the near future, if ever. The US Navy have experimented with stationary lasers, and railguns too, but this doesn't at all mean that the Army will therefore adopt laser rifles. Just because something is possible, doesn't always mean it's useful.