Consumable cartridges?

T

TXAZ

New member
I believe some large artillery pieces consume the cloth / paper cartridges. So the question is why not for small arms? With the price of metals today it seems like manufacturers would look into it. Maybe they have.

Is it legal, manufacturing, reliability or something else?
 
It has been tried. It works, however there are some problems. They are not as durable as normal cartridges. In full-auto, or even semi-auto designs, there can be problems when the guns are shot rapidly. The metal cartridge case helps to carry away some of the heat generated by firing, and that mechanism is eliminated with caseless ammunition.
 
My god hope this never happens with our rifles, it will allow manufacturing/gov to control our ammo even more, imagine not being able to reload...
sunaj
 
Sure you can....

8306d1260013876-paper-cartridge-sharps-sharps-paper.jpg


'been doin' it since `83 and the N-SSA :D :D :D
http://www.n-ssa.org/
 
Daisy made a 22 rifle a long time ago that had used a "combustible" round. it is now for collectors only
 
One must understand the different functions of the brass case. It provides a convenient container for the powder, bullet and primer. It aligns the bullet with the bore (why some of us neck size only). It provides a convenient object by which to load, extract, and protect the powder from the elements. It seals the bore (consumables do not do that well), when fired. In short, the brass case provides many requisite features that case-less/consumable cartridges cannot.
 
I'd like to see a firearm that does away with cases, primers and powder altogether. Like a paintball marker or pellet gun, but higher velocity. Could be powered by combustable fluid or gas perhaps.
 
Or caseless.
The HK G11 by the end of its development fulfilled all the requirements to compete with a normal bullet design, but I believe was not taken on it was too ahead of its time.
 
As a grunt my knowledge of US artillery and naval guns is limited, I believe the larger naval guns do not use brass shells as their weight and bulk would be difficult to manage, plus different weight charges are used depending on the range desired. My personal experience is limited to firing a 105MM howitzer in ROTC Advanced Camp, the brass shell was used to hold the selected powder charges. There have been various attempts at high powered air rifles-Conan Doyle had Professor Moriarity's henchman Colonel Sebastian Moran attempt to murder Holmes with a high powered air rifle and Lewis and Clark carried one on their expedition. IMHO if they worked that well
they would have suceeded in the marketplace.
 
I saw a recent episode of a show on the the Military Channel (maybe Triggers) where the military was looking at some prototypes of a Squad Automatic Weapon using brassless cases. They were belt fed, though the belt appeared to be contained in a box-like attachment underneath the receiver. One of the advantages was weight reduction. I'm not sure if this was a recent episode or a re-run from another season.
 
Lewis and Clark had something like 35 sailors available to take turns pumping the rifle up.
Resupplying the air really does seem to be the problem for this market.
 
One of the problems with case less ammo Is hot residue remaining in the barrel. The large artillery and ammo which uses the true case less ammo clears the firing chamber, breech and bore with a blast of compressed air after each firing.

Small arms cannot clear the chamber. In sustained firing the chamber heats up and premature ignition can result.

The 120 mm tank ammo is actually a semi case less ammo. It has what is called a stub case. In early development we had problems with burning residue in the chamber.
 
A big problem with caseless ammo is shipping. One ignites and the whole shipment goes.
But, I agree it is long past the time when wasteful brass casings are the norm.
 
The Army has a continuing experiment called the LSAT, which reached the milestone of having enough protoype guns built to equip a battalion for field testing, and having SOCOM sign on as a participant.

The idea is that the bullet is surrounded by the propellant, which makes the round about half as long, feeds from a straight stick magazine, and weighs 40% less. That means the average soldier can carry 40% more ammo.

The action has to do all the sealing, the guns are built with a side tilting lock block to seal the chamber. There is video online of belt fed machine guns on a range at Ft. Benning firing full belts with no hangups.

There are significant advantages, and the progress being successfully made has led to speculation why the Army isn't doing much about replacing the M16/M4. Sure, they just handed FN the new contract, but it's still the same gun. What the mid term program involves another 8 years down the road is a completely different gun that offers a significant step forward. 40% more ammo and no brass to pay for, sweep up, and recycle offer a lot of advantages.

On the other hand, the M16 works just fine, the fuel budget fluctuates more than the acquisition costs of a few million new rifles. The program really doesn't rate high in terms of dollars when one fighter plane would about pay for it.
 
The Army has a continuing experiment called the LSAT, which reached the milestone of having enough protoype guns built to equip a battalion for field testing, and having SOCOM sign on as a participant.
Click to expand...
That's the one I was referring to above. I just couldn't remember the name.
 
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_9_07/Spiegel_820am.pdf

Rotating chamber, slide 7.

Its the concept of retro technology - readopting an abandoned concept. Revolvers are considered pretty archaic in the firearms community, but when you put aside bias and look for a working answer to a problem, you dig up what has been very successful in the past. In this case, :rolleyes:, they are using a rotary chamber to solve all the problems.

We're going back to gas operated revolvers. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top