Where is caseless ammo?
- Thread starter Machineguntony
- Start date
You don't believe that ammo weight is a problem for the military?
I would guess that you've never been in a situation where the only thing keeping you alive is the ammo that you and your squadmates packed in on your back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_caseless_ammunition
I'll try to make it simple for you. If you can make your caseless ammo weigh half as much and take up half the space of cased ammo, then you can carry twice as much caseless ammo.
Theohazard
New member
So far it appears you're right about the second part; the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But you're wrong about the first part: As 45 Auto pointed out, weight and bulk of current ammo is a HUGE issue for the military. I can tell you from personal experience that 7.62 belted ammo is HEAVY; a 100 round belt weighs about 7 pounds. Try sprinting up a hill with a pack full of 1000 rounds or more, plus your weapon and the rest of your gear. Not fun.
I had no idea that caseless ammo would reduce weight and bulk by so much! It's too late for me to benefit from caseless ammo, but if we can lighten the load of our troops in the future, it would definitely be worth it.
Machineguntony
New member
I agree with 45 Auto. Caseless ammo has so many advantages.
It can let you carry more ammo and at less weight. And that's only the start. Imagine if ammo was pliable so that you could squish it down in your pack. A soldier could carry a lot more ammo.
I understand all the problems with the current state of caseless ammo. I agree there are problems, lots of problems currently associated with caseless ammo. I just don't understand why the problems aren't solved.
It's like airplane/jet engineers saying, "oh its way to hard to break the sound barrier, we tried that many times and we had too many problems: the plane would break apart, it would run out of fuel too quickly, the pilot got dizzy, too many Gs for the human body to withstand, the materials don't exist for safe supersonic flight. Propeller technology is the way to go! look at these new titanium propellers!"
It's like the state of ammunition hasn't progressed at all. It's still a dam case with a propellant, powder, primer, and bullet.
While we're on this topic...why are bullets so big? even a 55 grain 5.56 bullet is heavy, when you carry 300 of them, or a belt of 7.62, like Theo says. Imagine if you could shoot a 1 grain bullet. It would save a soldier so much weight. And since Force=Mass x Velocity2, a smaller bullet would be geometrically more deadly. I know they're trying to mount a rail gun on a military ship, and a rail gun uses atomic particles that are much heavier than a single grain. So if our gun manufacturers were to do some real R&D, we might one day have caseless ammo that shoots a deadly 1 grain bullet. Imagine that for the soldier of the future.
It can let you carry more ammo and at less weight. And that's only the start. Imagine if ammo was pliable so that you could squish it down in your pack. A soldier could carry a lot more ammo.
I understand all the problems with the current state of caseless ammo. I agree there are problems, lots of problems currently associated with caseless ammo. I just don't understand why the problems aren't solved.
It's like airplane/jet engineers saying, "oh its way to hard to break the sound barrier, we tried that many times and we had too many problems: the plane would break apart, it would run out of fuel too quickly, the pilot got dizzy, too many Gs for the human body to withstand, the materials don't exist for safe supersonic flight. Propeller technology is the way to go! look at these new titanium propellers!"
It's like the state of ammunition hasn't progressed at all. It's still a dam case with a propellant, powder, primer, and bullet.
While we're on this topic...why are bullets so big? even a 55 grain 5.56 bullet is heavy, when you carry 300 of them, or a belt of 7.62, like Theo says. Imagine if you could shoot a 1 grain bullet. It would save a soldier so much weight. And since Force=Mass x Velocity2, a smaller bullet would be geometrically more deadly. I know they're trying to mount a rail gun on a military ship, and a rail gun uses atomic particles that are much heavier than a single grain. So if our gun manufacturers were to do some real R&D, we might one day have caseless ammo that shoots a deadly 1 grain bullet. Imagine that for the soldier of the future.
Ahhh, the 90s....
I brought up the topic in another TFL post.
I didn't say caseless rounds by name but I did bring up the T&Es of "flechette" type ammunition.
The 1990s seemed to spur the most R&D but it seemed to taper off in the post 9/11/2001 era. I think combat & the GWOT kinda put the whiz-bang neato stuff on the back-burner.
CF
I brought up the topic in another TFL post.
I didn't say caseless rounds by name but I did bring up the T&Es of "flechette" type ammunition.
The 1990s seemed to spur the most R&D but it seemed to taper off in the post 9/11/2001 era. I think combat & the GWOT kinda put the whiz-bang neato stuff on the back-burner.
CF
warrior poet
New member
One function of brass, however, is as a heat sink. The hot brass carries heat out of the chamber. Less heat in the chamber SHOULD lead to reliability and increased service life.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"While we're on this topic...why are bullets so big? even a 55 grain 5.56 bullet is heavy, when you carry 300 of them, or a belt of 7.62, like Theo says. Imagine if you could shoot a 1 grain bullet."
The problem with that concept is one of simple physics -- air resistance causes lighter objects to lose velocity at a FAR greater rate than heavier objects, with a correspondingly decaying trajectory.
And, oddly enough, the faster a projectile is fired, the more rapid that velocity loss.
In the late 1960/1970ss the British developed the 4.85x49 cartridge for their SA80 program.
The final bullet weight chosen for production cartridges was 55 grains, up from earlier bullet weights as low as 40 grains.
Even with the heavier bullet, ballistics past 350 yards were pretty terrible, and the project was dropped in favor of the 5.56 NATO round.
"One function of brass, however, is as a heat sink. The hot brass carries heat out of the chamber. Less heat in the chamber SHOULD lead to reliability and increased service life."
Exactly correct. IIRC the G11 had some pretty elaborate arrangements to ensure that the gun didn't overheat.
"flechette" type ammunition."
The US experimented with flechette shotshell rounds in Vietnam. The idea was that the flechettes would penetrate jungle foliage better, leading to better killing potential.
After being in use only a few weeks, troops were clamoring to get back the old buckshot shells, because they actually caused fatal wounds, something that the flechettes apparently couldn't reliably do.
The problem with that concept is one of simple physics -- air resistance causes lighter objects to lose velocity at a FAR greater rate than heavier objects, with a correspondingly decaying trajectory.
And, oddly enough, the faster a projectile is fired, the more rapid that velocity loss.
In the late 1960/1970ss the British developed the 4.85x49 cartridge for their SA80 program.
The final bullet weight chosen for production cartridges was 55 grains, up from earlier bullet weights as low as 40 grains.
Even with the heavier bullet, ballistics past 350 yards were pretty terrible, and the project was dropped in favor of the 5.56 NATO round.
"One function of brass, however, is as a heat sink. The hot brass carries heat out of the chamber. Less heat in the chamber SHOULD lead to reliability and increased service life."
Exactly correct. IIRC the G11 had some pretty elaborate arrangements to ensure that the gun didn't overheat.
"flechette" type ammunition."
The US experimented with flechette shotshell rounds in Vietnam. The idea was that the flechettes would penetrate jungle foliage better, leading to better killing potential.
After being in use only a few weeks, troops were clamoring to get back the old buckshot shells, because they actually caused fatal wounds, something that the flechettes apparently couldn't reliably do.
Last edited:
Based on everything I heard, caseless ammunition was the end of history. Unfortunately the information was all one sided, because it was advertizing from the lobbyists selling caseless ammunition. The same sort of propaganda was used by the same types who sold the M16 and its varmint round as the “perfect service rifle” and were unfortunately able to displace the M14 and the 7.62 round.
This presentation is worth reviewing for it discusses issues about caseless ammunition that were not in the public domain during the advertizing blitz:
Caseless ammunition, the good, the bad, the ugly
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13614JimSchatz.pdf
This presentation is worth reviewing for it discusses issues about caseless ammunition that were not in the public domain during the advertizing blitz:
Caseless ammunition, the good, the bad, the ugly
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13614JimSchatz.pdf
Mike Irwin
Staff
The "author" really "loves" putting lots of "words" in "quotes."
Post 28; 12ga buckshot....
Post #28 makes a good point.
Ammunition that is fast or lightweight(easy to carry a lot of rounds) is pretty much useless if it's not lethal(or at least able to end a fight/combat).
As some veterans or service members on TFL know, the US Army TRADOC(training & doctrine command) policy was to "wound" the enemy so "his battle buddies" would carry him off, which in theory would tie up 3 enemy soldiers or "enemy combatants"
And yes, in 2013 as it was in 1989, is as dumb as it sounds.
The flechette R&D also reminds me of a remark a MP Sgt(E-5) told me in my first duty station. He read a military article claiming that the E-KIA or enemy killed in action rate would have been 75% higher in SE Asia if more troops used 12ga shotguns & buckshot,
.
How they came up with those figures is a mystery but Id think it would be higher than standard 5.56mm or 7.62x51mm rounds.
Clyde F
Post #28 makes a good point.
Ammunition that is fast or lightweight(easy to carry a lot of rounds) is pretty much useless if it's not lethal(or at least able to end a fight/combat).
As some veterans or service members on TFL know, the US Army TRADOC(training & doctrine command) policy was to "wound" the enemy so "his battle buddies" would carry him off, which in theory would tie up 3 enemy soldiers or "enemy combatants"
And yes, in 2013 as it was in 1989, is as dumb as it sounds.
The flechette R&D also reminds me of a remark a MP Sgt(E-5) told me in my first duty station. He read a military article claiming that the E-KIA or enemy killed in action rate would have been 75% higher in SE Asia if more troops used 12ga shotguns & buckshot,
.How they came up with those figures is a mystery but Id think it would be higher than standard 5.56mm or 7.62x51mm rounds.
Clyde F
Mike Irwin
Staff
The primary reason for adoption of the 5.56 round was (finally) the realization that, despite over 100 years of thinking so, not every soldier is a deadly shot at 1,000+ yards, and not every battle is a long range duel between crack shots.
Years of studies all the way back to the Civil War showed that most combat happened at ranges of under 400 yards (I think that's the number), and that in the evolving nature of warfare, it was better to have low recoil, high velocity, and a LARGE number of rounds over something that could be used to pick the eye off a fly in the next time zone.
Adoption of just about any military firearm and cartridge is a series of competing and often contradicting factors that have to be balanced.
The only given in that process is that no matter what end choice you make, someone is going to bitch about it.
Years of studies all the way back to the Civil War showed that most combat happened at ranges of under 400 yards (I think that's the number), and that in the evolving nature of warfare, it was better to have low recoil, high velocity, and a LARGE number of rounds over something that could be used to pick the eye off a fly in the next time zone.
Adoption of just about any military firearm and cartridge is a series of competing and often contradicting factors that have to be balanced.
The only given in that process is that no matter what end choice you make, someone is going to bitch about it.
I have Col Louis La Garde’s 1911 book , “Gunshot Injuries: How they are Inflicted, their Complications and Treatment”. In it, Col La Garde makes the statement that the cartridges of that era, that is, the 303 Brit, 30-06, etc, were less lethal than the Minie Balls of the civil war!.
The trend has been towards less recoil, less range, and less lethal rounds. This mirrors the experience of a Battalion Scout Sniper I know. He operated in Iraqi . His maximum shots in the cities were about 200 yards, (buildings!) but he made the statement that beyond 100 yards he preferred the 308 as the 223 “did not keep them down”.
That is an important consideration when dealing with belt or car bomber types.
Cartridge power is also important in the vast distances of locations like Afghanistan. From what I read, the locals have adapted. They are able to engage from 700 + yards with their obsolete M1891’s and Russian machine guns, well beyond the range of a M4 Carbine.
The trend has been towards less recoil, less range, and less lethal rounds. This mirrors the experience of a Battalion Scout Sniper I know. He operated in Iraqi . His maximum shots in the cities were about 200 yards, (buildings!) but he made the statement that beyond 100 yards he preferred the 308 as the 223 “did not keep them down”.
That is an important consideration when dealing with belt or car bomber types.
Cartridge power is also important in the vast distances of locations like Afghanistan. From what I read, the locals have adapted. They are able to engage from 700 + yards with their obsolete M1891’s and Russian machine guns, well beyond the range of a M4 Carbine.
Nickel Plated
New member
I really gotta call BS on that. Sure "in theory" wounding a guy would take his friends out of the fight to care for him. But that all assumes that we're fighting an enemy who take care of their wounded. We don't. The last time we fought against a nation who gave a damn about their wounded was in like WW2.
Nowadays they just leave them on the field and we're stuck taking care of them because we're "the good guys" and that's what good guys do.
So if that ever was a doctrine I don't think it's much good for us now.
I didn't consider case less ammo for military use. Too frail and unreliable for that. I still say it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. It would be good if it was good enough for military use but it isn't and it won't be. You would think in this day and time we could fight a war without putting GIs on the ground with rifles. I like drones, bombs and rockets. Even in Nam we had bosses who would go in and get them, didn't need an ari strike or artty, TIL after we were stopped and had to come back down the hill to "regroup". Then an air strike.
Jim Watson
New member
As I recall, development on the G11 stopped about the time the Berlin Wall came down. The West Germans realized they didn't need a new infantry rifle.
I was watching the Cased and Caseless Telescoped Round project. Even the (plastic) cased variant saves 40% in weight and throws no expensive brass in the weeds, and is simpler to get shooting.
I was watching the Cased and Caseless Telescoped Round project. Even the (plastic) cased variant saves 40% in weight and throws no expensive brass in the weeds, and is simpler to get shooting.
SVTCobra306
New member
If "shoot to wound" was the entire SOP, we would have gotten issued nothing but tracers...nothing makes a dude scream longer than a tracer.
"Doctrine" as long as I was in and before was centered around putting a target down, hence the use of the "Ivan" pop-up targets for a 300 meter qual range. You are training the muscle memory to hit a target, see it go down, and move to another target. What really happens is somewhat different, but that's not the point. Modern training as of when I got out in 09 was a lot of reflexive fire for MOUT situations.
As for the 700 meter engagements.. 700 is within the usable range of an M240B, if a platoon has one (or two), especially mounted on a vehicle, taking out another machine gun at less than 1000 meters is doable.
Back on topic, I believe most of the "caseless round" development we've done as a country has been with Artillery rounds. I wasn't an Arty guy (read: I can still hear) so I don't know much about it, but I think the 155 rounds might all still be caseless.
"Doctrine" as long as I was in and before was centered around putting a target down, hence the use of the "Ivan" pop-up targets for a 300 meter qual range. You are training the muscle memory to hit a target, see it go down, and move to another target. What really happens is somewhat different, but that's not the point. Modern training as of when I got out in 09 was a lot of reflexive fire for MOUT situations.
As for the 700 meter engagements.. 700 is within the usable range of an M240B, if a platoon has one (or two), especially mounted on a vehicle, taking out another machine gun at less than 1000 meters is doable.
Back on topic, I believe most of the "caseless round" development we've done as a country has been with Artillery rounds. I wasn't an Arty guy (read: I can still hear) so I don't know much about it, but I think the 155 rounds might all still be caseless.
Last edited:
Theohazard
New member
I don't understand how you can repeat your assertion that it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, even after we pointed out how much weight ammo adds to a military combat load. And how do you know it will never be perfected for military use?
Currently caseless ammo may not be perfected enough to be a good solution yet, but as a former Marine infantry machine gunner, I can PROMISE you that the weight of ammo is a problem. If I wasn't carrying the M240, I was leading a team that deployed it. And when I was a team leader, I often didn't have an ammo man. So that meant my gunner carried the machine gun, an M9, a ton of ammo, and all his other gear. And I carried the spare barrel bag with the T&E mount, the tripod, an M16, a ton of ammo, and all my other gear.
Ammo is VERY heavy. Especially when you're deploying a machine gun capable of firing 650 - 950 rounds of 7.62x51mm rounds a minute. You need to carry a lot of ammo. And like I said before, a single 100 round pouch of linked 7.62 ammo weighs 7 pounds. If good caseless ammo could be made that worked well and weighed half what regular ammo weighs, that would be a solution to a problem that DEFINITELY does exist.
If anything, the last decade has shown that soldiers and Marines on the ground will always be needed and that you can never fully replace them with air power.
The Assault Rifle (select fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge) debuted in 1944.
AFAIK, all artillery ammo above 105mm has been caseless (aka "separate loading") since before WWII ..... even 105mm arty is "semi-fixed" ( some assembly required) ...... all the 8" and 155mm stuff I shot was separate loading ..... and we shot a lot of it in the late 80's and early 90's ..... some of the 8" propellant we shot was made in the late 1940's ....... They were working on liquid propellant for the new Palladin SP gun when I got out in the mid 90's ...... dunno if that ever worked ...... I have seen video of guys in the various sand boxes conducting fire missions exactly as we did when Ronaldus Maximus was CinC, with the same green or white bags of separately loaded propellant in M109 series Howitzers that look almost exactly like the ones we were tooling around West Germany in all those years ago......
The 120mm ammo for the Abrams tanks was semi-caseless- the case head and primer assembly was all that was left after firing ......