Firearms design: technical applications for graphene

[Tirod]

Graphene is a 2 demensional structure of carbon atoms in a hex grid. It has highly interesting electrical properties, the mechanical property of being 100 times stronger than steel of the same thickness is one that will likely be highly exploited. Saying "100 times stronger" sounds pretty good but as you dive down that rabbit hole there are always pros and cons which create issues. Like, how thick could we actually make it? Depends on the size of the space station which may be required, that sort of thing. It's made here on earth and sometimes found in graphite used in pencils, getting it to 48" wide and continuous rolls is something else.

So, if makers can come up with a carbon fiber wrapped barrel ($$$$) then a graphene wrapped wouldn't be out of the question. And one with no liner would be even better. Again, that 100 X stronger thing is highly desireable. It implies it could be 100 X thinner, too, and being stronger would resist erosion at the case mouth to a much higher degree. Along with being thinner, it would be a lot lighter, offset with the lack of mass to absorb recoil. And we thought the LCP was snappy.

Grip modules would be much lighter and thinner, practically shells, possibly just adding shredded graphene strings instead of fiberglass would be a good first step. When injection molded, FRN is easy enough to work with, GRN wouldn't be difficult. Except maybe for those sprues. Its 100X stronger than steel, what do you cut them with? A laser? I can see notching a safety in the grip being a serious exercise in high powered tooling. Laser etching may take something much more powerful, and the DOD may not want to let that out.

I'm not saying any of this is even accurate, but then again all the 3D printing fans like to gush all about making a receiver right there on the desk brr brr brr brr brr. We've talked that game for 10 years and the only thing I have bought 3D printed is a jig to file the safety slot for a grip unit. Not even a part for a gun yet.

How long did Trek communicators take to get to reality? 1968 thru 2001 for me. As progress accelerates we get stuff faster but I'm not holding my breath for graphene teeth yet. Why swap natural black teeth for shiny perfect black teeth? Yeah, cosmetics would still be needed.

Graphene particles in MIM components is another application, consider an alloy striker with graphene which could not be broken, even if you beat on it with a hammer. It would potentially never wear during the first 100k and in a auto pistol may never. It could also be used to make slides - ummm MIM slides? You sure about that? Start with a sheet graphene core for strength, then add some bulk for depth to have serrations or mount sights, a channel for the striker, etc. Goes to graphene hammer and sear engagement - it could withstand 100's of tons of impact pressure, more likely bend the pins before chipping or smushing. I know a gun dealer out west who drop tests things, give him half a dozen prototypes and a concrete floor, make that go off, dude.

If you thought carbon fiber and kydex holsters look cool, graphene won't be any better, and there won't be much in it. Pure graphene may be a bit to thin to handle without getting cut up - goes to composite knife blades may result. Imagine a guaranteed sharp knife for life, replacement or your money back. Can't dent, chip, score, wear, abrade, will cut thru anvils, railroad iron, barrels, your old truck right down the middle and back again, by hand. Maybe thats how they really did that Nu Finish commercial.

Then we start blending it with polymer and injecting it in bullet tips, or wrapping them. I see the ATF getting all cringey at that point, oh NOOOOOOeees you can't have armor piercing nope nope nope. But a graphene cased depleted uranium round with reduced splatter and controlled expansion, hmmm. Even a telescoped 6.8 round with graphene core would shred serious armor when done right. Is this the first stage of the infantry winning against armored vehicles with their own weapon? "Hey Corky light that bitch UP!" "Done Sarge, oooooh, lookit the secondary explosions WhOOOOA watch the tread fragments it's getting explodey!"

If a .50 BMG will go thru 4" of aluminum plate, how much more a graphene core thru steel? We may still have to use a lot of powder behind it yet, but thru and thru from a foot soldier is kinda one of those gamechanger things. My old slide rule is quivering in it's case.

Then there is medical use as a repair fabric for injuries. It already seems to be found in medical supplies from Chyna wonder why. Armored up super soldiers with Batman abs may be more than just a disturbing dream. We know if someone says, 100X stronger than steel! then vest and plate makers would self test the product in a heartbeat to retail it. "Hey guys, Rob here we have the latest greatest, a vest with high pits, plates .50BMG proof, let me show you." "BOOOOOM" "Ok help me dig out of this berm, see, no broken ribs in front, ignore that femur, this stuff is really the snitz. Imagine wearing this at the next paintball tourney, you are golden and bruise free!"

Of course the Navy would be all over it and it would be the turning point where naval vessels actually fight each other instead of lurking in coastal waters trying to sneak off a drone or missile.

Well, not likely in my lifetime. I'd be lucky to see just one voting audit confirmed much less some new super strong material being used in everything. Sounds like that hype we all talked about back in the 60's, titanium this, alloy that. Well, yeah, titanium is around now, got to say I get around ok with a stick of it in my leg. Hopefully my grand kids don't need a graphene rod in one of theirs. But then again, riding T rexs in a rodeo may become a thing.

What would you like to be graphene in a gun? Right, got it, recoil spring guide rod. Beat ya to it.

 

[edwardware]

"100x stronger" is 3 Orders too simplistic to tell the story.

Add Strain Mechanics, and the fundamental issues begin to appear, especially once you leave imposed stress and enter the imposed energy or strain domains. Add fracture propagation mechanics and additional problems come into focus. Then add thermal effects. . .

Graphene is very interesting, but I think we fail to appreciate how important dynamics are in parts like barrels.

If you look deeper, it turns out that strength is among the least important material properties, and fracture propagation in the imposed strain domain is much more important. That we don't usually have to explicitly consider them is a consequence of a fortuitous balance of metallic alloy properties.

 

[RougeLeader1]

Adding to this, the '100X Stronger' is a bit misleading as edwardware says. Not only is he correct in adding real-world deformation mechanics into the equations but also in that strength, hardness, stiffness, and toughness are not the same things. An elastic strap can be extremely strong but is not stiff in any way. Carbon fiber composite is extremely strong and extremely stiff, but it is neither hard nor tough. Lead is tough, but that is about it.

The other issue is that the extreme mechanical properties exhibited by graphene are generally only apparent in monolayer or low layer-count sheets and tubes. These are small, very very very very small in every dimension.

Part of the reason why these samples are so strong is that they form a single crystal matrix with no boundaries or discontinuities. This is similar to a more common material, diamond. The issue here is that as you start forming real-world components with this material you end up with grain boundaries. The more grain boundaries you have, the weaker the material. See these papers on the subject:

https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...HIG8xnsguOVC9x4fYz1sYNasEUO36WZgpaejDxketDIlw
https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...HIG8xnsguOVC9x4fYz1sYNasEUO36WZgpaejDxketDIlw

You see the same behavior in just about every material including diamond. Turbine blades, for example, are fabricated as single metallic crystal structures so as to avoid these issues. Even with modern metal processing this is extremely difficult, extremely time consuming, and extremely low yield. The follow-on problem becomes diagnostics for establishing QA which is annoying at best with this material.

The current research is generally focused on the thermal and electrical conductive properties of graphene. Electrical conductance is a bit boring to me, but the thermal conductance is highly interesting. I would recommend looking at Michael Pettes' work on the subject. He used to be one of my professors in undergrad but is now out of Los Alamos National Labs. He has quite the list of work on the thermal conductance of graphene, and other nanomaterials, under various strain conditions. Really it all boils down to differences in phonon transport, but the findings are quite interesting.

Regarding doping graphene particles in metals/plastics, this is an active area of investigation. The current problems seem to be the even distribution of the particles over time (they have a habit of 'migrating' throughout the material and not necessarily in an even way) and ensuring that the doping process does not decrease other desired mechanical properties. This is important for ferrous materials for instance, because doping inherently introduces grain boundaries. The existence of these boundaries can weaken the structure compared to single-crystal units of similar expense. They can also negate the doping effect.

Oh, and cost. The cost of these nanomaterials even in sample form is absurd, and that is if you can even find a grower that is reliable enough to get what you need. Honestly, the logistics of the generation of these samples accounts for more delays in the research world than any form of experiment design or diagnostics. On one friend's thesis project, he had to wait for over a year for samples to grown. The samples were found to be flawed and he was forced to wait another six months after the growing partner bumped him to the top of their list. That is just the nature of the growing time for some of these samples.

Long term I believe that nano-doped ferrous alloys will continue to improve and reduce in cost. They are difficult to machine using conventional methods, but with recent advances in SLS and DMLS technologies this can be negated provided that the migration issues can be solved and post-processing efforts can enhance the grain structures. It is even possible that particle migration can be harnessed using these AM methods to focus the doping distribution in ways that would enhance the desired transport properties.

Regardless, there is a lot of work to be done before that even becomes a possibility.

 

[RougeLeader1]

I do however like your idea of a graphene guide rod. You need a dual product line though. You need to offer a full-length guide rod for a 1911 and a the GGNS (the Graphene Glock Night Sight). Between those two you'd make a fortune. The graphene doesn't need to be there, but that doesn't matter. You'll sell a million of them for $500 a piece to those respective crowds!

 

[CapnMac]

It's a two-way street.
Suppose you had a graphene lay-up barrel blank. What tooling would you need to ream a chamber or cut the rifling?
Also, there's a bit of flex in a barrel when you propel a projectile down its length; barrels have harmonics. What happens to the projectile if the barrel rigidity goes up 10x, 20x, etc.? Would that then require super-soft jackets on the bullets? Or, if twist rates have to be reduced (to prevent jacket shredding), what does that do to terminal ballistics?

Some weight in a weapon is good. It absorbs recoil for one. The right amount of weight makes a weapon "handy" too.

Graphene might be the cat's meow for additive machining. It could be a leap forward for "self-powered" firearms--where you poke a battery in where it's convenient on the weapon, and powered accessories just draw power from there.

There's a related carbon compound, Fullerene, which is a hollow, 3D version of graphene. It's easier to make from how the four bonds Carbon has "want" to distribute. The hollow nature of fullerene have long suggested "doping" the center to various material ends. Phosphors for lighting, silicones for lubricity, and so on.

 

[brickeyee]

Turbine blades, for example, are fabricated as single metallic crystal structures so as to avoid these issues. Even with modern metal processing this is extremely difficult, extremely time consuming, and extremely low yield. The follow-on problem becomes diagnostics for establishing QA which is annoying at best with this material.

I worked on a coupe of monocrystalline blade systems.
It involved making a melt zone move the length of the blade with a single crystal as a seed from me end.
It was a nightmare at the time since high voltage high power semiconductors did not exist.
We used older tube type amplifiers.

About 8 years latter one of the vendors hired us to update the electronics.
With microprocessors for control and solid state transistor it was a lot easier to make it even more precise.
Even the use of solid state thermocouple readers helped a lot.
It still took multiple passes to get a uniform blade, but the time per pass was reduced to only a few hours.
The strength advantage was astounding.

 

[RougeLeader1]

What happens to the projectile if the barrel rigidity goes up 10x, 20x, etc.? Would that then require super-soft jackets on the bullets? Or, if twist rates have to be reduced (to prevent jacket shredding), what does that do to terminal ballistics?

None of this is really a worry. You can have an arbitrarily hard/stiff barrel and not worry about the projectile, provided that the projectile is made with such in mind. The issue is one of frictional stress far more than the axial 'wave' stress of barrel deformation. In fact it is desirable to have as hard/stiff a barrel as possible provided the material does not suffer from fatigue. In fact, having a harder/stiffer barrel would actually reduce friction on the jacket for the same surface finish value.

Regarding tooling, see my previous post. You cannot look at nanomaterials the same way as conventional materials. You do not simply 'cut' a chamber into a piece of stock. Again, this is more similar to turbine blades than usual firearm components.

Regarding Fullerene, that is a related molecule but really all of these are simply carbon nanotubes. The names are unimportant and are really just used as buzzwords to establish funding. I really wish we scientists didn't need to resort to such tactics, but we do these days. The ability to form Fullerene compared to Graphene has nothing to do with carbon's properties, as they are both formed from carbon alone. The thing to remember here is that these are single-wall or thin-wall nanotubes. Filling them with silicon/phosphorous is both nontrivial (remember, this is a carbon nanotube so what are you bonding to???) and not necessarily advantageous in any way.

Graphene is also not advantageous for additive manufacturing, or other forms of advanced manufacturing. That is simply where I figure things would go. We are not there yet. As to a self-powered firearm, not sure where Graphene would figure in here. It sounds like you want a railgun, which we already have. They are heavy, they are noisy, they are not durable, but I personally have made one. They exist. Unless you mean a battery powered light source? Those exist too.

Bottom line, there is a lot of disinformation out there regarding nanomaterials. They are not as trivial, or as mature, as the media might infer. Stick to the journals for your sources on this subject. All else is conjecture. Trust me, if anyone had formed a firearm component of carbon nanotubes they would be the headliner of that session's issue of Nature.

 

[RougeLeader1]

I worked on a coupe of monocrystalline blade systems.
It involved making a melt zone move the length of the blade with a single crystal as a seed from me end.
It was a nightmare at the time since high voltage high power semiconductors did not exist.
We used older tube type amplifiers.

About 8 years latter one of the vendors hired us to update the electronics.
With microprocessors for control and solid state transistor it was a lot easier to make it even more precise.
Even the use of solid state thermocouple readers helped a lot.
It still took multiple passes to get a uniform blade, but the time per pass was reduced to only a few hours.
The strength advantage was astounding.

Absolutely. Sounds like you were working in the late 90s? Just a guess. Lets be honest, the aero industry doesn't move too fast!
But yes, it is easier than it used to be due to the maturity of the technology, but it is still one of the most costly forms of manufacture in existance.
As you say though, it works!!

 

[12Bravo20]

As said, you have take into account multiple things such as hardness, tensile strength, shear strength, etc. And with any type of steal, the higher the hardness, the more brittle it becomes and will fracture/break easier. I don't have much experience with exotic materials but do have plenty of experience dealing with different types of steal that is used for metal stamping and forming dies and general industrial uses.

 

[RougeLeader1]

Oh, one other thing.
If you are interested in this subject I'd recommend Chen's Nanoscale Energy Transport and Conversion. This is the textbook we used in undergrad, and it is wonderfully written. I do not currently have a good text on the mechanical side of nanomaterials in my library, but that is likely due to the lack of maturity in the field.

 

[TRX]

Most current gun designs could be a lot lighter, even with conventional materials. The reason they're not is that with modern ideas of desirable ballistics, recoil would be unacceptable for some percentage of shooters.