http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sat, 26 May 2012 01:21:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94127 MajorD Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:50:44 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94127 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 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

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94126 Hyman Roth Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:51:16 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94126 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. 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.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94124 ohwilleke Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:02:10 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94124 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. 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.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94123 Wes Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:09:29 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94123 Don't feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94122 freefallingbomb Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:00:17 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94122 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 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

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94121 Dennis Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:40:52 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94121 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 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

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94119 demophilus Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:28:12 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94119 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%. 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%.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94118 freefallingbomb Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:16:58 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94118 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. 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.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94117 freefallingbomb Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:01:22 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94117 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 “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!

]]> http://defensetech.org/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94116 justbill Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:48:38 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/10/02/cut-the-brass-save-your-a/#comment-94116 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 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.

]]>