Heckler & Koch G11 Caseless Rifle

N

Nightcrawler

New member
I've been reading up on this rifle. VERY interesting, although, I have to wonder.

How effective would the 4.73x33mm caseless cartridge be? Sure, it has a muzzle velocity around four thousand feet per second or higher, but is that really going to do a lot of damage to a person at range? Seems to me that a steel or tungsten projectile at that velocity would shred right through most body armors, vehicles, and so on, but what kind of wounding effects are we looking at? I mean, after all, I've heard that the 5.7x28mm round used in the FN P90, and most likely, the similar small-bore round (I think it's 4.6x30mm) used in the new HK PDW aren't really that effective at stopping people, and generally seem to be spray-and-pray weapons.

An interesting side note, HK also designed a light machine gun variant, as well as a pistol sized PDW. All have been cancelled, however, as Germany is no longer interested in it, and has opted instead for the more conventional G36 rifle.

http://www.hkpro.com
 
Well - your right. The wounding power of a single G11 round wouldnt do all that much tissue damage... But 3 would. The G11 was ment to be fired in Burst mode.
3 hits all dang near the same time and all within 1 inch of eachother would indeed have hella stopping power.
 
just to expand on what george just wrote, that's three rounds per trigger pull and per recoil impluse. the action fires the 2nd and 3rd rounds while the barrel is recoiling inside the gun's housing.
 
Hrm...

I dunno. I don't know if I'd want to carry a rifle that couldn't reliably put down the screamin' fanatic with the AK-47 with the first shot. "Burst" fire is spray-and-pray: you shoot three bullets towards the badguy, and hope one or two connect with him. Not my style.
 
Actually, to again add to what's gone before, that rifle fires at a phenominally high rate in 3 round burst mode. I can't recall the specifics, but the rate was so high that the rifle had no time to recoil between the 3 shots. We're talking a triad round, basically,with one recoil pulse.

When firing full auto, the cyclic rate was much slower.
 
Well, at range the bullet would probably perform about the same as the British 4.85 mm round did when it was tested...

Not well.
 
Well, yeah...

'Cause you can have all the fancy ballistics and high-tech gizmos in the world, but the fact remains:

Putting a bigger hole in the badguy will kill him faster. I think ANYTHING smaller than 5.56 or 5.45mm is REALLY going too small-bore.
 
I'd rather have a big round than a small one. That being said, I'm guessing that this round is designed to tumble after impact. If that's the case, it could be effective.
 
tumbling bullets...

...is more of a function of bullet design than cartridge. Hell, if it were up to me, we'd start issuing JHP ammo to the troops. The US never signed the Hague Treaty, after all, and .223 JHP would increase the effectiveness of the round. The 7.62x51mm used in GPMGs should retain its use of ball ammo, for use against vehicles and helicopters.
 
A hole is a hole

Plain and simple. Now a bigger hole does make more damage but if a .308 diameter hole meand instant death as some here claim, why do archers use broadheads when hunting? My arrows are all over .308 caliber in diameter and from the sectional density, I am positive they would completely penetrate a deer.

On the other hand, if I launched a BB at 20,000 fps, its tiny weight coupled with its incredible velocity would probably do more damage than any .308 caliber bullet. I've seen pictures where this was done to a massive block of aluminum and the fist-sized crater was unbelievable.

Oh, and "designed to tumble" isn't an intention. The tumbling effect of a bullet as it enters a substantially higher density target is due to the difference in the drag and the length of the bullet. Make a bullet short and stabilize it for travel in the air and it will tumble.

Like someone pointed out, the G11 fires three rounds before the rifle can recoil meaning all three bullets hit their target. Major damage.
 
2000 RPM and, yes, it was one recoil impulse. The action recoiled in the stock and then halted after the third round. Problem was, when the action jumped forward, it bounced the stock off of the shooter's shoulder. I've seen videos of this. The shooter had to reposition the stock on his shoulder after each stock. It was pathetic. Say what you want about the rounds, the gun design was flawed. I like the idea of caseless rounds, but in practice they haven't worked out just yet. I don't believe in throwing money at the problem either. In fact, I don't see a problem at all. Making a gun idiot proof means simple guns that stand up well to fouling and harsh conditions. Hard to do that with fragile caseless ammo and guns that jump off your shoulder when you shoot them.
 
Faultless prototypes?

Come on now. Even the very simple 1903 Springfield had "teething" problems. Ever hear of the low serial number caution? Yes, they can be fragile.

As far as caseless ammo being fragile, they tested it by soaking it in water for several hours with no measurable effects. That's a far cry from the old muzzle loader days. I'm sure the fans of the 1873 Springfield had plenty of bad words for the Krag's magazine feed system, small bore and precarious turnbolt contraption. Imagine what the Navy thought of the 6mm Lee, a rifle caliber only slightly less powerful than the .243 Winchester.

I will say the small caliber pistol craze is a misguided attempt at sidearm design. When the enemy is within range, one must be able to drop the opponent and not just ventilate them with a small, higher velocity (than what, a 7.62 x 39?) round. Why did the Seals chose the USP in .45 and feed it .45 Super? I bet its for the one-shot stopping at arms reach.
 
Kieth, do you know anything about the G-11 program. A small piece of the history is given here:

http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm

It is no more a prototype than the M-14 was a prototype. This weapon has been developed more than Bill Clinton's image. It's had more money pumped into it than any other small arms program I am aware of. Yet it still doesn't work. The AR-15 was developed in a fraction of the time and was a better design to begin with.

Note in the following video that the soldier is firing the gun in the prone position from sandbags... the most stable position available. Understand that if this gun were fired from the offhand position, a follow-up burst would be next-to forever in coming.

http://www.hkpro.com/G11-3-128.mpg

To sum up: Prototype my behind! 1903 the G11 is NOT! Fragile the ammo IS! I'm not talking waterproof, I'm talking steel-linkable, drop it on the cement durable. Finally, the Seals chose the USP for a certain mission, not because it's superior to the .223 in any way. They still use the Minimi, M-4, M-16, etc when the mission calls for it. You will NOT use the SOCom pistol for sniping or firefights, you use it for specific mission parameters that cannot be met efficiently with other weapons.
 
Sorry, I can't stop at that:

g11bolt.jpg


With this many moveable parts, all that crap about a reciprocating action and having to twist the rounds 90 degrees, a magazine that has to be pulled out the front etc., my question is who the heck wanted a gun this complex? If the caseless rounds are so superior, we could adapt them to a conventional rifle, BUT:

The quandry still exists that you have to clear the rifle; in clearing the rifle you will have to have an ejection port; if you have an ejection port, why not just have metalic cases that eject!?!? I don't see the advantage of caseless small arms.
 
additionally useless when you consider the extra ammo capacity is 3x (3 caseless rounds can be carried to one converntional weight/space wise) but at the same time, it takes a 3 round burst to equal the stopping power of a conventional round. The advantage becomes disadvantage from this perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top