What happened to caseless ammunition?
- Thread starter Bwana John
- Start date
- Status
Riomouse911
Member
In the civilian sportsman’s world, I see caseless ammo really is a solution looking for a problem. Weight of ammo is rarely an issue when hunting. I can’t think of a reason to hump hundreds of rounds in mags over hill and dale searching for a deer, elk or other game animal like a soldier does on a patrol.
Even in a CCW or law enforcement setting the cost for development and possible reliability issues with caseless or electronic ammo doesn’t balance out with the weight or logistics-cost savings... and this from a guy who has carried anywhere from 18 to 60 rounds on his belt almost every week for the past 28 +\- years.
While the Remington Etronix ammo -gun idea was better executed then the Gyroget, it (and other novel ideas like the Tround and true caseless ammo) is pretty much relegated to historical obscurity for gun buffs like us to learn from.
Stay safe!
Even in a CCW or law enforcement setting the cost for development and possible reliability issues with caseless or electronic ammo doesn’t balance out with the weight or logistics-cost savings... and this from a guy who has carried anywhere from 18 to 60 rounds on his belt almost every week for the past 28 +\- years.
While the Remington Etronix ammo -gun idea was better executed then the Gyroget, it (and other novel ideas like the Tround and true caseless ammo) is pretty much relegated to historical obscurity for gun buffs like us to learn from.
Stay safe!
CapnMac
Member
The number one elephant in the room is obturation.
No one has solved the riddle for self-immolating cases, either. Not in a way that actually achieves obturation, too.
The rest of the things that are sub-ideal are actually pretty solvable. Where the Germans were with their G11 was a plasticized version of solid rocket fuel. Temperature and handling resistant, and ignitable with a standard primer.
Oops, where to mount the primer, and what to do with it when spent. Dangit. See obturation above.
Been a ton of experiments with liquid fuel for artillery. None yet is enough of an improvement to change. As noted above, we've had more than a century to nibble off all the rough edges in getting a chemical propellant behind a projectile in an efficient and repeatable manner.
No one has solved the riddle for self-immolating cases, either. Not in a way that actually achieves obturation, too.
The rest of the things that are sub-ideal are actually pretty solvable. Where the Germans were with their G11 was a plasticized version of solid rocket fuel. Temperature and handling resistant, and ignitable with a standard primer.
Oops, where to mount the primer, and what to do with it when spent. Dangit. See obturation above.
Been a ton of experiments with liquid fuel for artillery. None yet is enough of an improvement to change. As noted above, we've had more than a century to nibble off all the rough edges in getting a chemical propellant behind a projectile in an efficient and repeatable manner.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
mcb: I think you are grasping at straws. I have several nephews in various branches of service as well as retired already. The eldest one who ended his career as a Delta Operator carried both an M4 and an AK47 with ammo so I don't think the weight thing is as much of a problem as you portray. Completing the mission successfully was more important to him than how hard it was to take on the mission. I also have one in the Air Force who was a loadmaster on C-5's all during the Afghanistan/Iraq war. They carried so much stuff into the war zones that I don't think the weight of the casings would create a large cost that doesn't already exist due to military logic.....
I would suspect if you looked at the disability claims after service (similar issue for police), the weight does matter over time. Overloaded soldiers are more prone to injury, heat fatigue, etc. Eventually it takes its toll on joints, spine, etc.
mcb
Member
And yet all the branches of DOD keeps funding R&D (since WWII if not earlier) to reduce weight of ammunition, weapons systems, armor, electronics and just about anything else we ask our solider to deploy with. Ever solder I have talked to talks about how both the solders and their vehicles are overloaded with gear in the field (a quick Google search will support that). They also talked about the stuff they left behind to carry more ammo. I did not serve but I have worked in DOD related R&D since I was in grad school. Weight reduction is a huge issue for the military and its solders and only getting worst.
The saying I typed earlier," Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain." was not made up by me. The first time I heard it I was in grad school, and I am sure he did not make it up, but a grizzled old Master Gunnery Sergeant (the unit's jump master) I meet at Fort Campbell told me that while showing me how they break down MRE's and other supplies to reduce weight before going on long term interdiction missions. That Special Force Group showed us a lot of things they were doing thing to reduce the weight on both themselves and their vehicles.
Ask any soldier that has actually seen combat, especial combat where resupply was likely to be compromised, if you could double their ammo load-out without increasing the weight they or their vehicles are carrying if they would want that and they would universally say yes!
You can never have too much ammo unless your are drowning or on fire!
jamesjames
Member
Not an expert, but we have reduced weight where design and new materials development have allowed. Kevlar helmets, body armor, polymer pistol frames, butt stocks and fore ends. Nylon boots, synthetic blend BDUs, polymer and synthetic packs, pouches and load bearing equipment. Titanium bolt carriers and sporks. The difference between the weight of basic kit in Vietnam and now is mind boggling. Yet we crap it up with Starlight scopes, and battery-operated electronic GPS everything. Strength and durabiilty is up, but overall weight savings is is never realized as more stuff is added to the kit.
Caseless ammo or directed energy weapons in small arms form will only come after the tech is developed proof of concept in large platforms aboard ships or artillery.
Caseless ammo or directed energy weapons in small arms form will only come after the tech is developed proof of concept in large platforms aboard ships or artillery.
JohnBiltz
Member
Speaking as a retired 11B, light Infantryman. They weighed us before before Desert Storm, every man in my unit was carrying over 100 pounds. Crew served weapon personnel were carrying more. Things add up. Your personal ammo and we inspected and took ammo away from troops. but your carrying 2 mortar rounds for your company mortars. Your still carrying 100 rounds of 7.62 only linked for your machine guns. Chances are your carrying a couple of LAWs or an AT-4 for armor. Maybe a Claymore mine. Your personal NBC suit, mask and some people are carrying detectors. Some kind of night vision device, which is not a luxury, its why we own the night. About the only personal gear I had was rain gear and poncho and poncho liner to sleep with and spare socks.
From an industrial standpoint, the military's quest for a caseless round, or a cased round using an alternative material, has to do with reducing the considerable demand brass cases create for copper and zinc; both materials that are needed elsewhere for war production.
RON in PA
Member
You all need to buy yourselves a Smith and Wesson Volcanic, caselesss ammo from 160 years ago.
And to keep the enemy from recovering and reusing the brass.
Which brings us around to plastic cases. The main failing I think is how fragile it is outside the chamber.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
That’s not entirely an apples-to-apples comparison, since 4.73x33mm (4.92mm measured groove to groove, U.S.-style) was only a .194-caliber 50-grain bullet at 3100 ft/sec.
If you scaled down .223 to .194, with a smaller case just big enough to push the smaller bullet at 3100 ft/sec, and went with an aluminum case, the mass difference per round would be much smaller. And from looking at the designs, the chamber/breech area of a rifle made for caseless ammo is going to be heavier than one made for cased ammo at the same operating pressure, I think. Caseless still has a mass advantage in large quantities, but I doubt it’s 2:1.
theotherwaldo
Member
So do we revive the large-bore repeater air rifle of the 1780s? It's the ultimate caseless ammo rifle.
I'm sure that they can come up with a full-auto version.
Not much of a heat or obturation problem.
Easily silenced, too.
I'm sure that they can come up with a full-auto version.
Not much of a heat or obturation problem.
Easily silenced, too.
RedlegRick
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2017
- Messages
- 728
I personally think cased ammo has reached its pinnacle of development, as has firearm design. Look at the history of edged and melee weapons, where aside from materials and shapes, they remained pretty much the same for millennia. Moving forward in time, the venerable Brown Bess musket was in service for close to three centuries. Other than for special applications, I feel caseless ammo is a dead end myself.
high powered air rifles are not that easily silenced...
CapnMac
Member
More the mix of compromises you need.
If you make it strong enough to be handled, will it also handle military temperature requirements, and without changin case volume.
Thermoplastic is pretty resilient stuff. Getting that and being able to go -40º to 140º is complicated.
All that being said, probably the Next Big Thing will be "telescoped" rounds. Which have some huge advantages in automatic weapons, and would be generally useful in semi-automatic weapons. But, that remains to be seen.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Perhaps designers have been making too much of the chamber seal/obturation advantages of having a cartridge case. Does the seal need to be perfect? If the leakage is minimal and channeled away from the shooter, a little bit of leakage might be an acceptable tradeoff to get all the advantages of caseless ammunition.
On the principle of waste not, want not, I want to think up something useful to do with the puff of gas that escapes, thinking in a weird way along the lines of Garand's original idea of a primer actuated rifle, which used primer setback to initiate unlocking.
So the chamber on our caseless rifle leaks a little, and so we use that little puff of gas to unlock the breech. People who couldn't stand the M16's direct gas impingement idea are going to loooove this.
On the principle of waste not, want not, I want to think up something useful to do with the puff of gas that escapes, thinking in a weird way along the lines of Garand's original idea of a primer actuated rifle, which used primer setback to initiate unlocking.
So the chamber on our caseless rifle leaks a little, and so we use that little puff of gas to unlock the breech. People who couldn't stand the M16's direct gas impingement idea are going to loooove this.
Last edited:
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
That is an excellent point, and I am sure it is top of the stack in the problems to be worked out. Gas pressure, though, is highly mutable. When a gas meets a broader space it expands and cools, reducing its pressure. I am not asking for a lossless system here: It is okay if the system that catches the leak itself leaks a little.
If all that proves complicated we could just go to conventional gas operation from a gas port located well down the barrel, and vent the leaking chamber gas safely.
Last edited:
Deus Machina
Member
At least in the short term, designing a direct-impingement design around that could work. Give the 'little puff' plenty of space to expand, and it might still need to wait for a port down the barrel to provide the volume it would need.
The problem is where the leak itself is. High-temperature, high-pressure gas causes erosion. It would take some serious engineering to handle everything from the little puff it is now on up to the big worn hole it will become.
The problem is where the leak itself is. High-temperature, high-pressure gas causes erosion. It would take some serious engineering to handle everything from the little puff it is now on up to the big worn hole it will become.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Indeed. Powder gas is an unusual problem, very hot, very high pressure, and gritty. Ask the magnum revolver boys. Free chamber gas is a monster. It is what called nix on the .357 Maximum.
If I am recalling this right, one of H&K's caseless rifle experiments involved disposable, replaceable obturation seals, that would have been sent up as consumable supplies. Maybe that is a clue to the answer here, a disposable, grunt-replaceable segment in the system. Of course it would have to be quick and easy to replace, with a clear guideline when to do so, something obvious that you can figure out by looking at the part, not requiring an inside micrometer.
Along the line of fragile. I remember reading about guidance systems for artillery rounds. They had to design electronics that would stand up to several hundred Gs... longitudinally. R&D got them working well in the lab, but every time the military took a case our for a field test they would fail. Seems like the least stress on the other two axis caused internal components/connections to break.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
On thinking about this further, I see that we already have long-term data for the worst destructive effects of powder gas, and that is at the rifle's chamber throat and the early part of the rifling. Any high velocity rifle gets damaged there. It is only a matter of degree: how long it takes to shoot out the barrel. It is the limiting factor on how hot a cartridge can be and still be satisfactory in continuous military use.
What I mean is, some civilian magnum cartridges give outstanding performance firing a few rounds at a time, but would soon wreck machine gun barrels or rifles used for sustained firing. In that sense, the barrel already supplies a limit to performance. The leaky breech I am proposing only needs to keep pace with that.
- Status
Similar threads
