how does that decision make sense?

the other option is belt feed. rim doesn't matter so much then

allowing it to civilians cuts cost, which is very important for what's a very niche product (not like every police officer is going to carry around a shotgun, it'll be one per every three vehicles or something like that depending on funding), and if you're already allowing civilians to own pistols and rifles and the like, allowing them to own a shotgun isn't a security risk. It's arguably safer to have a thousand pistols and a thousand shotguns out "in the wild" than to have two thousand pistols and no shotguns

Crow, the reason is elites wanting toys for themselves but not for the peasants. Think of it this way, when was the last major improvement on shotguns introduced? And I mean major improvement? the 1920's? In order to justify making a brand new shotgun shell and new shotguns at this point they would need to come up with something spectacular. The EU leadership would be willing to put that improvement in the hands of security but not the presents.

that makes no sense

What does an 8mm Lebel do better than a .270 Winchester round? Nothing. But since the end of WW2 French firearms collecters could have Lebels and Berthies, but couldn't shoot them since they were banned from having military caliber ammo.

Same went for 7.5 French Service.

It isn't about logic, it is about control.

>the reason is elites wanting toys for themselves but not for the peasants.
The elites wouldn't be using this. A few police grunts and very specific military units (e.g. MPs) would use it in limited numbers, as a rifle is vastly superior in all other scenarios
>when was the last major improvement on shotguns introduced?
Late 1880's, rifled slug
But when was the last major improvement in rifles or pistols? Blowback operated was late 1800's for pistols/SMGs, gas operated rifles in early 1900's, nothing since.
>they would need to come up with something spectacular.
And rimless isn't it.
>The EU leadership would be willing to put that improvement in the hands of security but not the presents.
Why?

MP as in Military Police, not Member of Parliament

US Army so yeah MPs.

Rimless would just be one measure to ensure it isn't used by someone who already has firearms and wants to try and simply rechamber. Rechambering from Rimmed to Rimless rounds it a hell of a lot harder.

WHY WOULD THEY EVER CONSIDER SUCH A MEASURE

it makes no fucking sense to do so

look

here's how it works:

Frankly this is all still a mute point since I can't see any "Magic" upgrade that would justify it.

in EU, there's one directive everyone has to follow, it prohibits missiles and launchers, automatic firearms, disguised firearms, ammunition with penetrating or explosive warheads, and expanding projectiles for pistols (except for hunting and targeting pistols)

then specific countries can add stricter directives if they want to

if Germany has retarded gun-laws on par with the US, that's on Germany

I could even see a historic justification for it, for example there could be a lot of older pre-legislation armor-penetrating ammo in military calibers floating around (or ammo that's "disappeared" after the Berlin wall fell, for example), e.g. there could be mountains of AP ammo for the 7.62x39mm East German AKs floating around in Germany, which means it makes (a bit of) sense to restrict weapons loading that specific ammunition

Well I still don't see this being a real word talk for the forseeable future. As I said, I can't foresee any major changes to push rimless shells.

yeah we can easily ignore that bit of the discussion, and focus on the notion that EU would arbitrarily restrict them to military and police

I think a major advancement in shotgun technology that would justify making new shells and making them rimless would be used by elites at the EU and EU member governments as further justification for limiting the ability of the people to have firearms like they always do. How many times do we hear politicians call for restricting firearms after any sort of notable action with firearms?

basically never, as it's almost all done on a national level

From where I sit in the US, the EU stands not only for the European Union, but also the shared intrests of it's member states. So the fact that France, Italy, Germany and others have very similar laws it becomes an EU norm.

wut

norm, in the sense that several countries happen to have similar local gun laws, and those countries by population count make up a big chunk of the EU, sure

but that's completely irrelevant for this discussion

as the laws are on a national level, not EU level, and there are many, many countries with much laxer gun laws than e.g. Germany

here you can easily own a semi-automatic shotgun with a capacity of I think 11

Well 10+1 is probably the real limit

Look at what happened when Merkel made a decision on migration, she took it to the EU and forced it on everyone. If there was a really onus to change firearms laws, the EU would set a new standard either after the change swept the national governments (NG) or one of the big player made it a mandate for all the NGs

Yeah the EU is Germany's 4th Reich.

yep, and half the countries declined that decision, fucking Germany beyond belief (and it's getting Merkel outed next election)

EU isn't like the US

the individual nations are all a lot more independent than the US states are

If this hypothetical new shell came to or out of the US, it would be everywhere (Except NY, NJ, or CA) The only reason HK's Nuclear Bullet isn't at Academy is because HK refused to sell Tittle 1 Firearms in it's caliber. Hence why I can get 5.7FN at my local FFL but not 4.6HK.

For now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cy_XJasqcQ Anything Prussian is technically firearm right?

Well this is multiple fetishes merged into one unholy "I need Eye Bleach Moment!" https://www.deviantart.com/a022412/art/Girls-frontline-LWMMG-727452874