100% non-metallic round: Does it exist, could it exist?

T

TXAZ

New member
For cartridge based weapons, has anyone ever built and fired / sold a cartridge that had no metal components at all, including the primer?
We've seen non-metallic bullets, paper shells for shotguns (haven't seen any rifle / handgun paper shells), what else?

It doesn't seem practical but just curious.
 
A friend of mine proposed a plastic cartridge firing a powdered ceramic round ball. I suppose you could even skip the case altogether in favor of an electrically primed self-consuming nitrocellulose case like the G11. Using a ceramic or maybe acrylic/glass bullet might work but I'd assume it couldn't be rifled because the materials are not malleable like metal. In that case, a smoothbore barrel and a finned discarding sabot might be the next logical step.

I don't think any such thing exists yet though.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be very easy... Think back in the day of muskets with black powder. The biggest challenge would be the projectile since you want a dense object for better penetration and resistance to deformation. The projectile must also be durable enough to withstand being launch out of the weapon. This includes the explosion (if using a combustible propellant such as black powder) and the trip out the barrel (including rifling to stabilize the projectile). The projectile would also have to be consistent enough that it would not wobble with rifling (or even blow apart in the even the projectile is way off balance).

I think you will see energy weapons before you see totally non-metallic projectiles.
 
The Swedish army in the 1930s used practice ammo with wood bullets. Hollywood stuntmen in the 1950s and 1960s used wax bullets containing red paint. In the early 2000s, companies were experimenting with non-lead 22LR ammunition containing a malleable plastic bullet. In the 1980s, there were plastic cases firing traditional bullets. So, since all of these are existing technology, seems to me if you were to combine all the concepts into one, you could come up with a totally metal-free round of ammo. Primers might be difficult, but not impossible. Just depends on how much money you have available to throw at the problem. You do have money, right?

And then the government will want to outlaw what they would see as undetectable ammo, same as with the mythical "plastic gun".:D
 
In the 1970s there was West German training ammo for the 7,62mm NATO that used a plastic case and bullet. It did have a brass case head and regular primer, but that was done only so it would function through existing rifles.

THe plastic bullet was molded as part of the case, and tore off when fired. About the same size as the regular .30 bullet, but only weighing about 17gr, and moving at several thousand FPS (4K+ maybe 5K+ I no longer recall exactly).

The bullet was lethally dangerous for about 15 feet or so. Due to its extremely light density it shed velocity very fast, and at greater ranges (50m or so) would not wound, just sting. And it didn't go much past 100m, or so I was told.

I imagine the 40+ years of plastic tech development since then would allow an all plastic round other than the powder and priming compound, but I can see no reason why one would do it.
 
There's been a couple caseless .22 rounds over the years.

The Daisy V/L was a real interesting one. Their gun was basically a spring piston airgun, except the projectiles had a small cylinder of propellant on the back. Apparently, the spring piston mechanism generated enough hot air to ignite the propellant.

Reportedly, Voere's caseless round used an electrically ignited ceramic primer.
 
Caseless ammo is a concept that's been around for a LONG time.

In some ways the Dreyse and Chassepot needle rifles were the first to use fully contained "caseless" ammo. While the powder, primer, and bullet were contained in a paper case it was burned up or otherwise expelled during firing, leaving the chamber clear for another round.

Prior to that Sharps rifles used a bullet and powder wrapped in either nitrated paper or linen that was externally primed with a percussion cap. Again, these "cases" burned up on firing.

At the same time Colt marketed revolver ammunition with the powder adhered to the bullet with a colloid coating, which fractured and exposed the powder on firing.

Obviously, none of those were 100% non-metallic.

As others have mentioned, a ceramic or polymer projectile would be possible with electric ignition. It would all be in the design of the firearm to ensure that there was a positive seal during ignition to prevent powder leakage.

There are, however, quite a few problems with the concept of a caseless round...

First is that the case is actually a very efficient heat sink that goes a long way toward keeping the firearm from overheating. This is one of the major reasons why the cyclical rate on the G11 prototype was kept to about 450 rounds per minute. Anything faster than that and it would overheat far too quickly.

Second is (and this is what really sank the German G11 project) is that each batch of propellant has different ballistic characteristics. If your propellant is your case, and the current batch either needs more or less propellant in the charge, it changes the dimensions of the package, and you've now got a round that is either too large or too small for the chamber.
 
In the 1970s there was West German training ammo for the 7,62mm NATO that used a plastic case and bullet. It did have a brass case head and regular primer, but that was done only so it would function through existing rifles.

THe plastic bullet was molded as part of the case, and tore off when fired. About the same size as the regular .30 bullet, but only weighing about 17gr, and moving at several thousand FPS (4K+ maybe 5K+ I no longer recall exactly).

The bullet was lethally dangerous for about 15 feet or so. Due to its extremely light density it shed velocity very fast, and at greater ranges (50m or so) would not wound, just sting. And it didn't go much past 100m, or so I was told.

I imagine the 40+ years of plastic tech development since then would allow an all plastic round other than the powder and priming compound, but I can see no reason why one would do it.
Click to expand...

I have a few boxes of 9mm training ammo just like that. Sako brand? Or something similar.
 
A primer pellet could be molded into a self destructing plastic case head that was part of a propellent charge in the self destructing case.

Where are the problems?

building a firearm that can sustain all of the fire and gasses without a brass case to contain them.

making a bullet out of plastic that is dense enough to fire and cause serious injuries to a human being. (not possible in ordinary hand carried weapons. You have to load big, heavy, dense projectiles weighing an ounce or so. This bullet will shed energy like a spitball unless it is huge, heavy, and dense.)

Putting together a round that is only propellant will leave it vulnerable to heat or ignition sources, a round could conceivably cook off and blow an entire armory because there wasn't a metallic or solid, heat and flame resisting casing. a plastic casing can be safe, but that's really a big question.

You could take any of the all plastic shotgun rounds, devise a contained plastic primer, load it with solid, heavy rubber, and try to make it work, but you would be releasing hell into an unsealed or poorly sealed action. I suppose, however ,that you want it to be self destructing.

My firm belief is that unless absolutely magical improvements are made in a dozen or so fields, this will never happen on a practical basis for a practical, repeating, high powered, hunting or combat weapon.

Again, to sum it up.
containment of high pressure from round.
Insignificant injury potential without huge rounds.
safety and sturdiness of the finished rounds.
a weapon design that can handle all of the things that we do to our ordinary weapons, and still be able to fire reliably.
some others that are just too detailed.

We are not going to have $1,000 rifles that can shoot caseless or even plastic cased ammo. Metallic cases are here to stay. Metallic bullets are here to stay. Caseless ammo is a dead end. It is feasible for artillery, but even a cursory examination of the details will show why you can't duplicate that success in a hand weapon.
 
You could take any of the all plastic shotgun rounds, devise a contained plastic primer, load it with solid, heavy rubber, and try to make it work, but you would be releasing hell into an unsealed or poorly sealed action. I suppose, however ,that you want it to be self destructing.

My firm belief is that unless absolutely magical improvements are made in a dozen or so fields, this will never happen on a practical basis for a practical, repeating, high powered, hunting or combat weapon.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but we're mixing together several separate and different questions here. Let's break them down a bit...

1) Is an all plastic cartridge possible? (no metal)
yes.

2) can it be made to work in currently existing firearms?
yes.

3) can it duplicate the performance of regular ammunition in all aspects?
no.

4)can it have a combustible case? ("caseless")
yes.

There is not now, and not likely to be in the near future, anything that can do ALL those things. There exists now items that can do one, or two of those things, but not all of them.

You can make a totally non metal shotgun round. Winchester did the all plastic shotgun hull quite a few years ago. A non-metallic primer is possible (ceramic could be used for the anvil). It would work through existing shotguns just fine. So it does #1 and #2 just fine. The problem comes with #3.

Nothing else is as dense as metal. Without the density of metal, your projectile cannot retain velocity (and therefore energy) that metal does over distance. without that ability, it cannot match standard ammunition's effectiveness over distance, and cannot be a suitable replacement for a high powered hunting or combat weapon.

As to #4, we have experimented with caseless ammo already, and while it has been able to work well enough under certain conditions, (and using metal bullets) it has not yet been made well enough to work successfully under all the conditions that standard ammunition does.

We can make an all plastic (non metal) round relatively easily, say in 12gauge. We almost do it already. Police riot control rounds, with rubber bullets. Lethal at point blank, less so the further out you go.

Can we make a non-metal round that matches say, the .30-06??
No. Not at present, and not in the foreseeable future. A non-metal case, perhaps, but without a metal bullet you can't match what standard bullets do.
 
The metallic ammo works well, right? I don't really know how we can improve it and get significantly better performance on a personal ownership level we have reached a plateau, a point of diminishing returns. this is definitely the situation for rifles, I believe, and because of limitations of all sorts, I don't see a possibility that handguns can be significantly improved at all. The top power 9mm cannot be given better performance in that case, maybe 100 fps? With handguns, we also have the limitations built in of how good the gun is and how practical it is.

These questions always have to also consider feasibility and potential usefulness. We spent decades creating systems for engines, and we have still got decades of improvement possible in gas operated engines, but we aren't going to make a .380 sized handgun that is lightweight, fires a .357, durable, and useable.
 
I really don't think the brass case does much to contain the pressure at all. That is why some people make such a big deal about fully supported chambers.

I also think the caseless ammo could have a big problem with fouling the chamber. It is hard to expect complete combustion, and even then, there will be residue. If enough residue builds up, the next round won't fit.
 
I really don't think the brass case does much to contain the pressure at all. That is why some people make such a big deal about fully supported chambers.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't support the pressure, then how can we possibly have been using the chambers that haven't been fully supported?

When a round is fired, the brass case expands and it retains all of the expanding gasses inside the brass case that is supported by a wall of steel all around. Unless you far exceed the suggested pressure levels.

If a brass rifle round fails and releases pressure it will quite often be because the primer pocket failed, because the pressure was so high that it could even expand the heavy brass case head, and as the case head expanded, the gas leaked through the opening.

I've had a lot of pistol brass split and the gun was not harmed. Where was that gas going to go?

That heavy steel barrel, even on tiny, cardboard thin cylinder walls, there is still more than enough to support the pressure of a normal round.


The steel couldn't care less about what the brass does, the only reason the brass is there is to hold the gases in place. The pressure required to blow the half inch thick chamber made of modern steel is far beyond what we expect brass to hold. We only care about the brass because it completely seals breech to barrel, and it is a whole lot simpler than stuffing loose powder and bullet into a firearm. It is convenient to use and it serves the purpose of a proper seal.

So, as was pointed out, why would we care if the brass was used, rather than a solid propellant with no metal? The only reason we would want to do away with brass would be for the weight, the expense, or the cost of the cases. The costs of production would be far lower than with brass if you could just squirt a plastic rod out and put a bullet into it, but that hasn't proven even remotely feasible.

Let's talk about the military. They have no reason to go with caseless, especially if there is even a slight chance that reliability would be compromised. Until you are dealing with hands on transport, such as a soldier in the field, weight is irrelevant. Until that is developed fully into a system that will function as well as or better than the current system, the army won't touch it. then, consider what it takes for the military to change this system. Years of gobble gobble, years of testing, enormous costs.

Civilian use? forget about that. Only the most dedicated of people will buy a completely new rifle just so he can use completely new ammo UNLESS there is an ENORMOUS benefit to it. Police use would be even harder than military procurement.

If the current production and purchasing system thought that it would work, there would be huge efforts in place to create this new system.
 
If it doesn't support the pressure, then how can we possibly have been using the chambers that haven't been fully supported?
Click to expand...

Brian,

I am not saying that it doesn't support any pressure, but without the chamber to reinforce it, they can blow apart. That is why cooked off rounds typically don't cause that much damage. With every action having an equal and opposite reaction, the case flies back more than the round since the round is heavier. I've messed with detonating rimfire rounds outside of firearms (when i was younger and crazier LOL).
 
Let's talk about the military. They have no reason to go with caseless, especially if there is even a slight chance that reliability would be compromised
Click to expand...

The reason the Military is interested in caseless is INCREASED reliability. No extraction..no ejection failures with caseless. The HK G11 was an attempt at it. The tech has not caught up to the desire, YET.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top