Marines and Soldiers carry enough stuff already and welcome any chance to go lighter.
That even includes lighter ammo — so long as the round remains as effective as what they’re shooting now — and to get there AAI Corp. is testing rounds without brass casings. One, which promises to be 35 percent lighter than the standard 5.56-mm bullet, has a polymer casing. The other, for all intents and purposes, does not have a casing — the round is embedded in a high-temperature ignition propellant that, when fired, is vaporized.
It was last December the company picked up a three-year, $5.8 million contract from the Army’s Joint Service Small Arms Program Office to continue work on its light-weight weapon and ammo. Total funding under the contract could reach $28 million, according to the company.
The contact calls for AAI to continue work on its 5.56-mm machine gun and two types of light-weight ammo — the cased and caseless rounds the company had on display this week at Modern Day Marine at Quantico.
The goal of the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program is to reduce the weight and size of the small arms and ammo used by Marines and Soldiers.
“We’ve got a polymer-cased ammunition,” said David A. Phillips, vice president for Business Development and Advanced Systems at AAI. “It has a telescoped configuration and uses the same ball propellant as the standard 5.56-mm round.”
The company is working specifically on 5.56-caliber, he said, but has been asked by the Marine Corps and the Army to work everything scalable to be 5.56– and the 7.62-caliber used by NATO.
The 5.56 round on display constituted about a 35 percent weight reduction from the standard brass-cased round, he said. The caseless round is about 50 percent lighter than the standard round, he said.
According to another of the AAI officials taking part at Modern Day Marine, Marines who stop by and learn they might eventually be toting ammo that’s up to 50 percent lighter than what they use now have a typical response.
“Hey, now I can carry more ammo.”
- Bryant Jordan
...
–H&K had a 4.7x33 demonstrator at an ADPA Small Arms meeting held at Ft Bragg, NC, in the 1980s, maybe 1984.
–The presentation and the demonstration were well done; questions from the small arms community came fast and furious. The H&K team did a good job of responding.
–I was impressed by the studies H&K had done and the tests they conducted to prove the viability of caseless ammo.
–What really intrigued me was the 50 rd magazine and how ammo packaging was factored into magazine reloading.
–The demo didn’t make me a believer but I think it is well worth looking at what has evolved in the 25 years since then.
Standardizing on 5.56mm is moot since the new caseless rounds won’t fit in current M-4s and SAWs anyway.
So if you’re going caseless you might as well forget the good old 5.56mm and go 6.5 or 6.8mm SPC. They’re proven superior rounds and the caseless weight bonus evens it out.
Caseless ammo: another one of those technologies that is ever-promising and always 10 years over the horizon.
The problems they ran into with the first caseless rounds still plague them: fragile ceramic chambers, overheating, jamming, cook-offs from overheated chambers, disintegrating round bodies when in a moist environment, etc, etc.
For me, it’s another “I’ll believe it when I see it.”
They’ve been talking caseless ammo for at least a decade if not more. They’d have to build a whole new rifle to handle it if they ever fielded the ammo.
I thought the biggest issue with caseless was whether or not everything could be combusted successfully and reproducibly in field conditions.
I don’t know if there is a benefit to attempting to put caseless rounds into a standard weapon. Polymer seems to be the way to go then.
Another question is if there are drawbacks to polymer casings. Does ignition of propellant melt or distort the polymer casings in any way?
In addition to polymer case & caseless ammo, there’s aluminum case & combustible case ammo. The GAU-8 on the A-10 & the Dutch Goalkeeper uses aluminum case ammo.
Sounds like NV Smith attended a demo of the G11 assault rifle.
I’m not sure how well aluminum cases would hold up in the rigors of the field.
IF viable, make this for the Civil marketplace alone
I do not see the Army or Navy switching over to this. To many logistical problems and too attached to what they have. Lets face it it took them 40 years to even consider a new rifle.…
However, the weight factor makes me think the Air Force should be looking at this technology.
I just remember a video of one of the C-130(Puff the Magic Dragon) gunships firing their weapons and having the entire space filling with hot casings.
I worked on F-14’s and I am sure the AO’s (Aviation Ordinancemen)and pilots would have been happy to have 30% less heavy ammo going into the aircraft.
I guess that also works for Helicopters also.… They are always worried about range.….
I have thought for a long time we needed to start using caseless ammo. No ejection port means much less chance to foul the weapon. The lighter cased ammo is great, but I think we really need to be looking at caseless. H&K did it with the G11 family of weapons years ago with some issues, but it’s hard to believe we can’t do a little better than that now.
Theres no chance the military will adopt this, they don’t even have a rifle that would reliably work with caseless or polymer!
They should subsidize the technology and introduce it into the civilian market.
Once the civilian market has adopted it, they can then begin testing various weapon platform.
If caseless ammo is so reliable and good why aren’t people buying it? Is it price?
Seems to me that firing a cartridge is a pretty dirty process. Most of that dirt, debris, and unburned powder wind up in the barrel, and the empty brass cartridge. If there is no brass cartridge, then that crud is going to wind up inside your breach and your action assembly.
I don’t see them developing a propellant and primer that is clean-burning enough not to foul its own action anytime soon. A dirtier cartridge wouldn’t have much effect on a civilian gunner, but it would really screw your day in a Mogadishu style engagement where you have no time to clean your weapon.
But the polymer cartridge seems pretty promising.
As far as Aluminum cased ammo goes, the DOD needs to move to a polymer framed 9mm that can shoot AL cased ammo. That would result in a nice weight savings.
Typo: Instead of “replaced by” it should have been the opposite, “composed of”.
To the poster “justbill”:
Uh… please go through the article again, but next time with attention: It says NOWHERE in the whole text that AAI Corporation wishes to develop such new rounds for ANY existing U.S. American (or other) firearms!
1) “The contact calls for AAI to continue work on its 5,56-mm machine gun…” : On “ITS” (= on AAI’s) machine-gun?! And what machine-gun is that?! Pictures!!!
2) “The company is working specifically on 5,56-caliber, he said, but has been asked by the Marine Corps and the Army to work everything scalable to be 5,56– and the 7,62-caliber used by NATO”. “Calibre” refers to projectiles, NOT to the whole round, case included. It seems that the U.S. Armed Forces wish to change only the CASINGS of present rounds (= to do away with them), but to stick to the present PROJECTILES themselves, and to their calibres too (it’s possible to eliminate the case, but it’s not so easy to eliminate the projectile of a round).
I know, this begs the question about which weapon on Earth should fire AAI’s new ammunition? Maybe they want someone else to design completely new sets of weapons around their new ammo, so that they can sell their stuff? Dream on, AAI…
However, keep in mind that if you design a caseless round version for any existing firearm (civilian or military, automatic or semi-automatic), this new version itself of an old weapon will also be somewhat lighter than the current brass ammo version = even more weight savings!
But we wouldn’t even have this whole pointless conversation if the author, Bryant Jordan, had gone through the “trouble” of CLEARLY associating this new ammunition with a weapon, but lately the information of technical “Defensetech” articles is even more fragmentary than shrapnel grenades!
Why limit this design to the old 5.56 and 7.62 projectiles?
The “ideal” bullet diameter lies somewhere between 6mm and 7mm.
What we have here is a microcosm of the rampant thievery that is the American mil-industrial complex. The caseless round was perfected by HK ages ago; a weapon for same was also perfected, resulting in — IIRC — a 50% jump in average accuracy amongst untrained recruits compared to the G3.
So. The gun’s available, off the shelf; the ammo’s available, off the shelf; both are supplied by one of the most reliable arms manufacturers in the world. The US Army’s response? Spend six mil reinventing the wheel.
Wanna know why veterans can’t get decent medical care and why sick Americans go without the health coverage that every other child in the West takes for granted? Because your government pisses away money on stuff like this. Why you aren’t investing in guillotines and tumbrils is a source of constant amazement to me.
1) The poster “justbill” claims: “…wouldn’t be compatible with CURRENT barrels and (probably) magazines”.
2) While the poster “Wes” claims: “These rounds are designed to work in a NEW , open-face breech.“
This is what you get from dilettantish articles…
I’m gonna buy myself a Popular Mechanics magazine now.
To the smartass poster “freefallingbomb”:
Please take your feeble attempts at “gotcha!” blog responses elsewhere. If you think the U.S. military is seriously considering adoption of entirely new rifles, SAW’s and GPMG’s to incorporate non-brass case technology, you’re as sadly knowledgeable about the subject of U.S. small arms procurement as you are about interior ballistics. If this technology goes anywhere it will need to be in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
To the poster “seeker6079”:
You wrote: “Why you aren’t investing in guillotines and tumbrils is a source of constant amazement to me.“
1) Finally I meet an intelligent poster here (haven’t seen Sven Ortmann in a while…).
2) To answer your last phrase: Because 21st Century-U.S. Americans (basically all Anglos…) are more brainwashed and above all more docile (sheepish) than the French rabble ever was, even back in the 18th Century.
Why they haven’t re-examined for example 11 / 9 , although every single non-U.S. American slopehead already knows that it was only THE JEWS , is a source of constant amazement to me!!!
3) The present U.S.A. remind me of Rome in its final stage: The Yankees, like the Romans, are lazy and rely too heavily on foreign experts and workers for absolutely everything, even on foreigners from the very same countries which they just destroyed (who, do you think, built America’s nukes? Who builds its cars today? Who works in its fields? Who lends them money? Etc. etc.), until one day even a slight push will make the U.S. American giant on feet of clay fall.
And it’s even totally pointless to warn them of that danger: They’ll still be dreaming of “glory” while the soulless barbarians are already swamping their country!
To the poster “justbill”:
You wrote: “If you think the U.S. military is seriously considering adoption of entirely new rifles, SAW’s and GPMG’s to incorporate non-brass case technology, you’re as sadly knowledgeable about the subject of U.S. small arms procurement as you are about interior ballistics.“
Is that your personal opinion or did you read that in any official press release? Because if this is only your personal assumption, then there are at least six other posters here
1) the poster “Marcase”: “Standardizing on 5.56mm is moot since the new caseless rounds won’t fit in current M-4s and SAWs anyway.“
2) the poster “TB”: “They’d have to build a whole new rifle to handle it if they ever fielded the ammo.“
3) the poster “Charles”: “I don’t know if there is a benefit to attempting to put caseless rounds into a standard weapon.“
4) the poster “The Cenobyte”: “No ejection port means much less chance to foul the weapon.“
5) the poster “Subby”: “Theres no chance the military will adopt this, they don’t even have a rifle that would reliably work with caseless or polymer!“
6) the poster “Wes”: “These rounds are designed to work in a new, open-face breech.“
who think otherwise.
Apart from the LSAT plastic case-telescoped and caseless designs, there are also a few other ideas at lightening the ammo load.
One is polymer cartridge cases. IIRC, they’re doing OK in the lab, but they’re not ready for the field.
Another is a stainless steel case. I saw a presentation on them for 7.62 NATO, part of an effort to lighten the GPMG load. IIRC, they were forecasting a weight savings of over 20%.
Greetings FreeFallingBomb,
You think of yourself as smart and educated, but you are an idiot. Lets take a look at why I think so. Your second comment:
2) To answer your last phrase: Because 21st Century-U.S. Americans (basically all Anglos…) are more brainwashed and above all more docile (sheepish) than the French rabble ever was, even back in the 18th Century.
Why they haven’t re-examined for example 11 / 9 , although every single non-U.S. American slopehead already knows that it was only THE JEWS , is a source of constant amazement to me!!!
Right, Jews made Saudi Arabians commit suicide by flying aircraft into building (On 11/9?). Hit the bong again brother!
And of course, the “Americans are weak and lazy and like Rome” argument.
3) The present U.S.A. remind me of Rome in its final stage: The Yankees, like the Romans, are lazy and rely too heavily on foreign experts and workers for absolutely everything, even on foreigners from the very same countries which they just destroyed (who, do you think, built America’s nukes? Who builds its cars today? Who works in its fields? Who lends them money? Etc. etc.), until one day even a slight push will make the U.S. American giant on feet of clay fall.
This one is so pathetic. So old and worn out. Do you have any arguments of your own or are you just recycling old ones?
Who built our Nukes? Roads? Cars? Lends us Money? Easy, anyone who wants in a the good thing we have going on here.
Resistance is futile
To the poster “Dennis”:
You wrote: “Who built our Nukes? Roads? Cars? Lends us Money? Easy, anyone who wants in a the good thing we have going on here. Resistance is futile“
SYSTEM FAILURE
Don’t feed the troll.
It would be nice to see the comparison in terms of kilos of weight left and kilos of weight saved, in addition to percentages.
Maybe this technology is a good idea, but the pitch sounds a bit like insurance companies and cable companies all comparing their discounted prices to the other guy’s “regular rate” that almost nobody actually pays.
I’m also suspicious that the weapon or magazine might have to take on some additional weight to adapt to the lighter rounds. Maybe it doesn’t, but caveat emptor.
The brass casing of small arms ammunition serves multiple purposes. Enclosing & protecting the propellant, ensuring consistent ammunition shape to facilitate feeding & chambering, containing propellant residue after firing, a bearing surface for case extraction, etc.
I doubt that our current level of technology can duplicate all of the performance characteristics of a brass casing while delivering “caseless” functionality and still maintaining reliable performance.
Without rigorous reliability testing, it would be foolish to deploy a caseless ammunition. We would be risking soldier’s lives.
I’ve been waiting for an update on this project forever, so I’m very pleased to read it is still going on. If it can avoid the attention of Congress I think it really has a chance at making a true next generation weapon without being stupidly heavy, complex, or expensive rather than an incremental improvement that most practical modern weapons offer.
Sadly, the article has a distinct lack of linking to useful information on the project for those who haven’t been following it for a while. Here you go guys, I hope this clears up some stuff.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/LSAT.htm
http://www.defensereview.com/aai-lightweight-small-arms-technologies-lsat-prototype-on-display-at-ausa/
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/tuesday/christou.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technologies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_rifle