Comments on: The Naked Cartridge http://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:05:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jakehttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-236766 Jake Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:08:30 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-236766 The one problem with this Idea is that gun heats up very fast, causing bullets to become fragile to the heat (they could go off prematurely, in fast fire rates) The one problem with this Idea is that gun heats up very fast, causing bullets to become fragile to the heat (they could go off prematurely, in fast fire rates)

]]> By: haakonhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-229535 haakon Mon, 02 May 2011 15:25:13 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-229535 harder metal? steel is harder than led, lets use that for bullets! (?) the term ur looking for is density. and those sort of rounds allready exists( google raufos .50 cal mp round) having those types of rounds in a combat rifle is kinda useless. and yea, u sound like a child straight off cod-world. harder metal? steel is harder than led, lets use that for bullets! (?) the term ur looking for is density. and those sort of rounds allready exists( google raufos .50 cal mp round) having those types of rounds in a combat rifle is kinda useless.

and yea, u sound like a child straight off cod-world.

]]> By: GMhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127328 GM Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:32:11 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127328 expect to see it descend as it gains trust; First large smoothbore guns, tank cannon etc. Then light artillery guns, 50mm, 40mm. Then large aircraft revolver cannon, 30mm, 25mm. Then vehicular autocannon, 20-25mm, then heavy machineguns, 12.5mm, and then small arms. It has to gain trust slowly. Right now we are at the light artillery stage. A long way to go yet before it is mainstream enough for large-scale adoption. expect to see it descend as it gains trust; First large smoothbore guns, tank cannon etc. Then light artillery guns, 50mm, 40mm. Then large aircraft revolver cannon, 30mm, 25mm. Then vehicular autocannon, 20-25mm, then heavy machineguns, 12.5mm, and then small arms. It has to gain trust slowly. Right now we are at the light artillery stage. A long way to go yet before it is mainstream enough for large-scale adoption.

]]> By: GMhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127327 GM Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:21:45 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127327 Say hello to one of the Colt development team! DS, you would have serious problems with a thing called Ballistic Coefficient [BC], the reason they use lead in bullets is it is heavy, putting a large hollow mass in your bullet costs weight. and lots of it. you lose effectiveness at range. You would still have just as much residue, so im not sure why you came to the conclusion... no offense of course. An alternative came with the Benelli CB M2, Fiocchi Munizioni developed a round, 9mm AUPO, which essentially used the case as a pusher/obturator/heat-sink/sabot, and has the bullet separately. Call it "semi-caseless" if you will. Emastro, that killed most early caseless weapons systems. Moose, yes, St Petersburg declaration, 1868. The USA is not party to that, but no arms designers touch it with a ten foot pole, since most countries wont risk having the theoretical enemy start ignoring treaties because of it. Byron Skinner, all ammunition was caseless originally; the case was developed as a result of poor breech-sealing qualities in early breechloading weapons. It did quite well but does have an expiry date. When? Whenever technology or neccessity forces it. We aren't there yet, but it may be soon. It has worked for years in large weapons that cost a lot anyway; they can afford to do it a little "better". With small arms it is all about mass production qualities. Note that a large cannon has a much larger burn volume/surface area ratio because of its larger bore. This reduces all problems inherent in caseless ammunition design, and also note that it is unlikely to be fired more than ten or so times in a day, and never at a rate of more than a couple a minute. James; as you said, it destroyed the BC, and the idea died. Yet again, see AUPO. Tod, right on, but dont hold your breath. Steven, i think everyone beat you to the point, but you're right. The largest problems have been as such; Breech sealing; machining caught up and this was solved years ago, but is still too expensive to be taken seriously. Fouling; solved recently Cook-off; never solved, though propellant advances and priming changes have reduced it. Cased ammo cooks off eventually, too. Binding; not solved. caseless ammunition really likes falling apart. Even recoil shaking the weapon used to destroy ammunition in the magazine, though we are past that now. Waterproofing; Still not solved well. dont get it wet. Caseless ammunition is possible, and inevitable, but right now is not viable, even if it is technologically possible. It is far less rugged and reliable than cased ammunition, and combined with the trust in cased ammunition as opposed to the repeated demonstrations of the shortcomings of caseless projects, noone will touch it with a ten foot pole. The CB-M2 was 100% viable and shouldve been adopted by every police force in the western world, but failed miserably because no military ever wants to change and then realize they spent all their budget on something that doesnt work. Once they trust something, it takes a BIG leap forward before they'll abandon it for something else. Remember; AUPO failed, CAWS failed, G11 failed, TKB-022PM5B failed, SPIW failed. Anything revolutionary is just too "out-there" to be adopted, until it is so sure as to be impossible not to adopt. Say hello to one of the Colt development team!
DS, you would have serious problems with a thing called Ballistic Coefficient [BC], the reason they use lead in bullets is it is heavy, putting a large hollow mass in your bullet costs weight. and lots of it. you lose effectiveness at range. You would still have just as much residue, so im not sure why you came to the conclusion… no offense of course. An alternative came with the Benelli CB M2, Fiocchi Munizioni developed a round, 9mm AUPO, which essentially used the case as a pusher/obturator/heat-sink/sabot, and has the bullet separately. Call it “semi-caseless” if you will.
Emastro, that killed most early caseless weapons systems.
Moose, yes, St Petersburg declaration, 1868. The USA is not party to that, but no arms designers touch it with a ten foot pole, since most countries wont risk having the theoretical enemy start ignoring treaties because of it.
Byron Skinner, all ammunition was caseless originally; the case was developed as a result of poor breech-sealing qualities in early breechloading weapons. It did quite well but does have an expiry date. When? Whenever technology or neccessity forces it. We aren’t there yet, but it may be soon. It has worked for years in large weapons that cost a lot anyway; they can afford to do it a little “better”. With small arms it is all about mass production qualities. Note that a large cannon has a much larger burn volume/surface area ratio because of its larger bore. This reduces all problems inherent in caseless ammunition design, and also note that it is unlikely to be fired more than ten or so times in a day, and never at a rate of more than a couple a minute.
James; as you said, it destroyed the BC, and the idea died. Yet again, see AUPO.
Tod, right on, but dont hold your breath.
Steven, i think everyone beat you to the point, but you’re right. The largest problems have been as such;
Breech sealing; machining caught up and this was solved years ago, but is still too expensive to be taken seriously.
Fouling; solved recently
Cook-off; never solved, though propellant advances and priming changes have reduced it. Cased ammo cooks off eventually, too.
Binding; not solved. caseless ammunition really likes falling apart. Even recoil shaking the weapon used to destroy ammunition in the magazine, though we are past that now.
Waterproofing; Still not solved well. dont get it wet.
Caseless ammunition is possible, and inevitable, but right now is not viable, even if it is technologically possible. It is far less rugged and reliable than cased ammunition, and combined with the trust in cased ammunition as opposed to the repeated demonstrations of the shortcomings of caseless projects, noone will touch it with a ten foot pole. The CB-M2 was 100% viable and shouldve been adopted by every police force in the western world, but failed miserably because no military ever wants to change and then realize they spent all their budget on something that doesnt work. Once they trust something, it takes a BIG leap forward before they’ll abandon it for something else. Remember; AUPO failed, CAWS failed, G11 failed, TKB-022PM5B failed, SPIW failed. Anything revolutionary is just too “out-there” to be adopted, until it is so sure as to be impossible not to adopt.

]]> By: aoc goldhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127325 aoc gold Sat, 17 May 2008 09:40:55 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127325 By: Jameshttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127324 James Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:18:20 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127324 Came across this site, could this be the solution to caseless ammunition? caselessammunition.com Came across this site, could this be the solution to caseless ammunition?
caselessammunition.com

]]> By: Stevenhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-45696 Steven Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:26:05 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-45696 The one other problem of caseless ammo is that the brass of ammo used now carry away heat from firing. The caseless ammo has no way of getting excess heat away from weapon. Which is way it was never used in war The one other problem of caseless ammo is that the brass of ammo used now carry away heat from firing. The caseless ammo has no way of getting excess heat away from weapon. Which is way it was never used in war

]]> By: Tod Glennhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127323 Tod Glenn Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:03:18 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127323 There's not only the issue of heat - cases do make good heat sinks and also protect the propellant from the hot chamber. There's also the problem of obturation. The case swells under pressure and seals the breech. Caseless rounds require an external obturator, and deleoping one that can handle automatic or even rapid fire, and that has a reasonable longevity and is scaled to small arms has proved somewhat problematic. The HK G11 seemed to have overcome most of the basic problems associated with self consuming cartridges but its final development coincided with Germanies reunification and the project was a victim of costcutting. Perhaps it is time to revisit caseless ammo - aside from weight savings, there should be huge cost savings as wel. There’s not only the issue of heat — cases do make good heat sinks and also protect the propellant from the hot chamber. There’s also the problem of obturation. The case swells under pressure and seals the breech. Caseless rounds require an external obturator, and deleoping one that can handle automatic or even rapid fire, and that has a reasonable longevity and is scaled to small arms has proved somewhat problematic.
The HK G11 seemed to have overcome most of the basic problems associated with self consuming cartridges but its final development coincided with Germanies reunification and the project was a victim of costcutting.
Perhaps it is time to revisit caseless ammo — aside from weight savings, there should be huge cost savings as wel.

]]> By: Jameshttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127322 James Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:28:47 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127322 Moose: the bullet wouldn't be explosive after it left the barrel. And DS' idea has been used, in fact. The Japanese had an aircraft cannon that fired a shell in 37mm with the propellant in a chamber behind the shell, exhausting gas through holes in the bottom. It wasn't really a rocket because the charge burned out before the shell left the barrel. It used the pressure buildup inside the barrel to accelerate the shell in the manner of a gun. It was, however, a low-velocity weapon, almost more of a grenade launcher than a cannon. The empty powder space was dead weight and drag after the shell left the barrel. Just another idea ahead of its time, maybe, that someone might take up again someday. Moose: the bullet wouldn’t be explosive after it left the barrel. And DS’ idea has been used, in fact. The Japanese had an aircraft cannon that fired a shell in 37mm with the propellant in a chamber behind the shell, exhausting gas through holes in the bottom. It wasn’t really a rocket because the charge burned out before the shell left the barrel. It used the pressure buildup inside the barrel to accelerate the shell in the manner of a gun.
It was, however, a low-velocity weapon, almost more of a grenade launcher than a cannon. The empty powder space was dead weight and drag after the shell left the barrel. Just another idea ahead of its time, maybe, that someone might take up again someday.

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://defensetech.org/2006/03/31/the-naked-cartridge/#comment-127321 Byron Skinner Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:45:51 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3110#comment-127321 Good Morning Folks, Least anyone forget the M-1A1 and later Abrams Tanks use a caseless 120mm round. The Abrams was not the first U.S. Tank to use caseless rounds the M-551 Sheridan of the Vietnam era uses a caseless 152mm round. The use of caseless ammo has been around for years from cannon of the 17th. Century to the 16inch guns of the last Battleships. ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Morning Folks,
Least anyone forget the M-1A1 and later Abrams Tanks use a caseless 120mm round. The Abrams was not the first U.S. Tank to use caseless rounds the M-551 Sheridan of the Vietnam era uses a caseless 152mm round.
The use of caseless ammo has been around for years from cannon of the 17th. Century to the 16inch guns of the last Battleships.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]>