Why are railguns more advanced than coilguns?

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

because from my understanding the inverse is true, with coilguns having the greater potential but being more technically demanding. Also “Gauss [weapon]” sounds really cool.

 

[Sinister2202]

Because coilguns are not ideal for large weaponry. Artillery type large mounted weapons, railguns win the efficiency battle. Which is why modern navies are developing rail based guns, rather than coilguns. Coilguns are best as small arms or medium support weapons, like anti-armor. This is primarily because coilguns lose efficiency through magnetic saturation, which can slow down the projectiles.

 

[Coyote027]

Because coilguns are not ideal for large weaponry. Artillery type large mounted weapons, railguns win the efficiency battle. Which is why modern navies are developing rail based guns, rather than coilguns. Coilguns are best as small arms or medium support weapons, like anti-armor. This is primarily because coilguns lose efficiency through magnetic saturation, which can slow down the projectiles.

This is half of it, but barring some Black Swan development in batteries/capacitors, coilguns are never going to supercede chemical propellants in the roles that require smaller sizes and low weights, eg. anything tank-sized and smaller. Electrical propulsion only makes sense on ships where you have a huge power generator on hand and plenty of room for capacitors, or possibly in permanent fortified land emplacements (if anyone intends to even bother with those anymore). A similar argument holds for laser weaponry too, though it can be miniaturized a little more to fit on very large aircraft or in point-defense systems on ships rather than main batteries.
We'll see what the future holds of course, but I wouldn't be counting out the good old chemical-propellant ballistics any time soon. Even caseless ammo is unlikely to catch on over metal-cased cartridges for small arms. As far as likely tech improvements for those, optics might be a good bet, but I kinda have a feeling that variants of the good old M-16 and AK-74 will still be very viable in a century from now at least. As for railguns as ship armament, though... they're promising, yes, but I have very heavy doubts that we'll see any important naval engagements in our lifetimes, so who knows if they're actually a good idea in practice or whether AShMs or naval aircraft render them moot.

 

[Sinister2202]

This is half of it, but barring some Black Swan development in batteries/capacitors, coilguns are never going to supercede chemical propellants in the roles that require smaller sizes and low weights, eg. anything tank-sized and smaller. Electrical propulsion only makes sense on ships where you have a huge power generator on hand and plenty of room for capacitors, or possibly in permanent fortified land emplacements (if anyone intends to even bother with those anymore). A similar argument holds for laser weaponry too, though it can be miniaturized a little more to fit on very large aircraft or in point-defense systems on ships rather than main batteries.
We'll see what the future holds of course, but I wouldn't be counting out the good old chemical-propellant ballistics any time soon. Even caseless ammo is unlikely to catch on over metal-cased cartridges for small arms.

This is true. I think we'd be stuck with the good old bullets for a while. The navies are only developing railguns for longer range and accuracy anyways, which, in their case is more tactical and opens up a lot of roles like anti-missile engagements, precision strike via long range etc. The downside with operating railguns is the maintenance and replacement of parts, which could prove costly in larger scale.

 

[Coyote027]

The navies are only developing railguns for longer range and accuracy anyways

And to keep their MIC contractors afloat with trained workers, operating factories, and economically viable communities so they'll be around years down the road if and when we actually need them (in case World War III: Ultimate Ungabunga ever breaks out and mass production capacity is necessary to win like it was in the first two, it'll be a very good thing to have it already in place to some extent). There is a long-term strategic benefit to porkbarrel projects, it's just not immediately obvious to the outsider.