Telecoped Ammunition

>Reduced weight and size

Is cased telescoped ammunition a meme, or the future of firearms?

Attached: 144471548364.jpg (651x560, 93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/11/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-1-program-history-ammunition-technical-discussion/
thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/18/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-2-ammunition-technical-discussion-contd/
thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/25/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-3-development-6-5mm-ct/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun#Testing
ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Spiegel.pdf
marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-army/2018/05/08/armys-next-squad-weapon-will-fire-a-never-before-seen-ammo-combination/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Aren't shotguns technically telescopic ammo?

Attached: thinking.gif (2048x2048, 1.46M)

Wow moving parts for ammo? What would a. 30 cal rifle cost? $60 for a box of 20?

Fuck off. I want someone to make 22wmr cheaper, and 22lr even more cheap.

How are the ballistics compared to normal cartridges? Seems like they would be weak sauce because of the displacement of charge.

Attached: 1525583142591.jpg (960x958, 121K)

It’s plastic though, much simpler to injection mold then to shape out brass into cartridges.

>moving parts for ammo
wtf do you think telescoped ammunition is?

Interview with LSAT program officer. Part one: thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/11/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-1-program-history-ammunition-technical-discussion/ Part 2: thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/18/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-2-ammunition-technical-discussion-contd/ Part 3: thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/25/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-3-development-6-5mm-ct/

If we took the P90, extended its receiver and chambered it in telescoping 5.56, it would be the ultimate memepup rifle. As you can see, 5.7 is around the same length as the proposed telescoped 5.56 cartridge. Using a slightly thicker magazine can be compensated by extending the receiver, which also wouldn't be terrible as it allows for more accessory space and barrel length.
>fully ambidextrous
>casings ejects down and not all over the vehicle interior or onto nearby squadmates
>lightweight
>high capacity
>aesthetics and dynamics of a P90 which is already a fairly common weapon in many countries
>simplicity of P90 design for takedown and maintenance

Attached: DSCN1378.jpg (1024x768, 212K)

Cased telescopic is retarded. Caseless telescopic is the future. We're doubling up on memes to be safe.

>non cased telescopic ammunition

Who knew that going back to muskets is the future

Not necessarily. Progressive stamping is dirt cheap.

>caseless telescoping
I just want 5.56 that I can fit in a 1911. Is that too much to ask?

Hope you got plenty of sandwich baggies, god forbid your compressed dirt rounds get wet.

Solved problem by the time the G11 was cancelled, user.
Mechanical durability is the problem.

Not him, but the brass itself is expensive. Unless you're using some fancy bullet material like tungsten it's far and away the most expensive part of the cartridge.

>Sandwich baggies
A-user... You're triggering my "Post" traumatic stress disorder

I'll just go...

The solution is simple. Use steel cases.

It's a meme if only because sabots allow for cartridges at least as light and small as those, have been around for way longer, and don't need fancy new guns to work in. Blame the MIC for blowing their cash on some expensive piece of shit they'll never adopt instead.

>some expensive piece of shit
>LSAT: ≤$3600 per says wiki
>M249: $4,087 per says wiki
>they'll never adopt
It hurts because on the inside I know it's true.

>what is cost of memeunition
>what is NATO ammo standardization
>comparing it to a gun it can never replace unless you want to make a replacement for the M16 too
>inb4 you say it can replace the M240 instead, as if weight matters for it
Admit right now that it is an overpriced piece of dog shit that exists only to burn your tax dollars and make a handful of elites richer.

Yeah really grinds those gears. Literally.

Oh look at this fucking non reloading faggot

Sounds good, you might get into other problems though because the P90 is a blowback and you would need a gas system or a delayed blowback system

>what is the cost of the electronics
>what is typewriter standardization
>conparing it to a machine it can neber replace unless you want to replace the pencil too
>inb4 it can replace the printing press

People like you are the reason technology is held back. Actually nevermind no you aren’t, cause you have no say or power over these projects whatsoever. How exactly is it dogshit btw? It performs the same if not better for the much less weight.

Yeah, dude, how dare I compare a gun to a gun being deigned to replace it? Who the fuck do I think I am comparing two guns that were also compared in real life by the army? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun#Testing
Next thing you know I'll do something really wacky like comparing the thompson to the grease gun!

The real question is why the rounds for an Abrams are self disintegrating minus the cap . You'd think ammunition for small arms would follow the same premise

It's probably to do with the fact that the 120mm isn't self loading.

>look I compared your argument to something completely irrelevant so I could make you sound dumb
>oh btw I only did that because I didn't know how to counter it
So you actually believe the military would consider replacing the M249 with a gun that doesn't share ammo with anything else they use, and doesn't conform to NATO standards? I really hope you're right, that logistical shitstorm would be legendary.

No we are going to use the same thing forever

Attached: ea955365e2e1dc4a7aee2e803fbf25c0.jpg (736x732, 210K)

>you actually believe
Bud, can you not read what I wrote here? If they did decide to use it in the end they could always find a way to adapt the M4 for the same shit. It's not like nobody ever adapted an armalite to a new caliber before.

Yes you fucking retard why the fuck would you put a 22 in there? What you really want is a 1911 that shoots a 45-70 bullet in a telescoped round

Obviously I just meant an intermediate cartridge power equivalent in a pistol cartridge size.

Caseless ammunition had two faults.

-propellant ahead of the projectile both counteracted performance and greatly increased wear
-a lack of surface area to control the speed of the propellant burn

Because the chamber pressure can be so high a traditional case will adhere itself to the walls.

Wow you're totally talking out of your ass, huh?

You could do more research than watching a Future Weapons episode.

m80, you didn't even realize that caseless != telescoped.
There are problems with caseless but they aren't either of the two you said.

Definitely the future of machine guns tbqh. I'm not sure about service rifles because of the feeding geometry necessitating new receivers or new magazines.

>Is cased telescoped ammunition a meme, or the future of firearms?

its a meme and rather than the future of firearms it would be the death of civilian reloading and facilitate state restrictions on ammunition distribution that would effectively end civilian firearms. It offers no advantage other than this.

Both examples are problems actual caseless guns have had, not armchair expert speculation.

>a Future Weapons episode.

The same kind of shit that told us metal storm was of utility or that electronic mechanisms in firearms would restrict them to a particular user?

You can actually safely get chamber pressures of about 70k psi to 100k psi, creating much much more velocity in a lighter, smaller cartridge. I wholeheartedly believe cased telecoped is the future, it will just take time to phase in

>Manufacturers can't manufacture things
>No benefits at all, even though it's way lighter, way smaller, and has higher velocities for the same bullet and barrel
>The goberment can't take away my funs if their brass cased, right??

This x1000
These new ammo types would make all ammo types increasingly uncommon, resulting in gun control moving faster than ever.

If caseless becomes mainstream, do you have a full blown chemistry lab to make your own ammo?
You can't reload what doesn't exist.
Brass ammo would be reloaded over and over until it all wears out and becomes increasingly rare. Over a few decades, 300 million plus guns become paperweights.

Maybe (cite sources), but they're not problems that are intrinsic to the concept. The first is entirely about cartridge design. Its like saying that Brass Cases have the flaw of tearing off rims when ejecting. That's on the case or weapon design, not brass cases as a concept. And I'm not just talking about about non-telescoped caseless either, ignition progression is important to telescoped design but once its solved this issue is nonexistent.

The second is a constraint, but its not a fault. You don't have unrestricted choice for propellants in cased either. And this is a fucking easy fix. Blocks of compressed nitrocellulose, literally the simplest solution, provide sufficient burn rate for velocity centric ammunition approaches already. And retarding the burn rate is easy.

Caseless has problems, and even IF those were significant, they're problems since solved. We've yet to solve actual problems with caseless like finding a propellant that is effective, stable and sturdy against mechanical damage.

Except for custom loads, reloading is about saving money by not having to buy new brass. Everything else is gone when you shoot it. Getting rid of the brass means something less to buy in the first place not you're buying more powder and bullets.
Why does caseless have to do something that cased can't rn anyway? Can you produce gunpowder right now? Real gun powder not black powder? And in quantity? What about making your own brass? Because without those any modern rifle is a paperweight. If we get mainstream caseless it has the potential to be way cheaper than cased. Its lighter and so cheaper to transport, its smaller and so cheaper to transport, and the metal case is the expensive part of cartridges atm.
>inb4 I could buy extra powder and bullets and keep reusing cases for ages
And why isn't that true for caseless as well? Buy more bullets and binary mix or whatever you use to do it at home, or just buy more ammo because you're not having to pay for brass and therefor having to reuse brass to get the most value for money.

Attached: 1441038455490.jpg (600x338, 59K)

>circumcised vs uncircumcised

If your foreskin is making you 4/5ths your potential full length, you need to go see a doctor.

The point of cased telescoped ammo is to have a weight reduction similar to fully caseless ammo but better protection fron the elements. CT ammo is literally just caseless, but in a polymer shell which is ejected. People forget the whole point of caseless ammo for military use was to reduce weight, not because it doesn't eject anything, so CT ammo is a logical step in development. The LSAT program started with an LMG because the weight reduction would have a much greater impact than other weapon systems, and the current prototype they have is a massive weight reduction compared to the M249 (I think the LMG itself was 9 pounds unloaded, and with 600 rds of ammo its still a ~30-40% reduction in total weight). That said, its probably not going to be the future of firearms, at least not any time soon. The LSAT program has been successful enough that they've started work on an MMG that would have the power of a M240 with the weight of an M249, and an AR is in the works as well, but it will probably take a lot of convincing for any of it to get adopted. The US military is stubborn as shit to adopt new anything, especially if it meant a new cartridge.

Its not just the military, as highlighted in this thread you would also piss off the "muh reloads" community and it would be a commercial failure. There were a few caseless hunting rifles on the market at one time but they didn't do too well because the ammo wasn't made widely available, partly because fudd shops didn't stock them, and I believe it was also expensive

Dumbfag here, how is this different from a straight-walled polymer case in which you seat the bullet way lower?

>cite sources

The G11.

You are wrong on both counts. You should research how an explosion actually works.

That’s pretty much what it is, its not even actually telescoped as the propellant is not ahead of the projectile. The other major change is no rim.

Because it's so easy to make your own brass and smokeless powder

Both of those posts are by me, if you are going to tell someone to do research you should read up on the topic of caseless ammunition yourself.

Combustible case =/= caseless.

Cite actual sources. All the G11 reports are online, and its not like theres no reporting about it either if you want to use secondary sources.
>There were a few caseless hunting rifles on the market at one time but they didn't do too well because the ammo wasn't made widely available, partly because fudd shops didn't stock them, and I believe it was also expensive
You're thinking of the VEC-91. It was apparently a pretty great rifle by all accounts but its wasn't really the fudd shops fault - Voere was a tiny Austrian company with basically no reach here. It also targeted the wrong audience. It looked like a hunting rifle but it should have been targeted at precision shooters. The fact that Voere was small didn't really help in driving costs down. Its a shame really, be a more interesting world if it'd been picked up by precision and benchshooters

>thinks telescoping ammo means it has moving parts
>doesn't reload his own .22

noguns europoor detected

THIS. I hate all these fags who think that there won't be a way to make your own CT cartridges. Literally it's all the same except you'll have to buy rediculously cheap plastic cases instead of expensive brass. I'm so sorry for the inconvenience faggots. I love how non reloaders on this board that are also probably nogunz always act like they can produce smokeless powder with consistent grain size, and reliable, safe primers. Casting your own lead bullets is easy. But get the fuck out of here if you think you can make a modern brass cased cartridge from scratch and actually learn to reload and shoot

Caseless, smokeless, propellantless, and projectileless just to be memed*memed sure we have the future in our sights.
>IMAFIRINGMAHLASARR

>Cite actual source

Attached: B7357B74-0345-40C8-BEB2-286528A3B015.jpg (950x405, 366K)

Are you retarded? How does that picture prove the the G11 had problems with:
>propellant ahead of the projectile [[counteracting]] performance and greatly [[increasing]] wear
>a lack of surface area [[resulting in lack of]] control [[of]] the speed of the propellant burn
Cite actual fucking sources to back up your claims, you moron. The G11 had reports written for every problem. Want to know about the issues they had with cookoff? Calspan has three different 250 page volumes of reports for you to check out. Or did you just look at the picture and decide that those problems had to exist?

Cased Telespopic ammo uses compressed propellant that does not use an adhesive to bind it together.
Caseless ammo uses an adhesive and does not burn as efficiently.
Read what user linked

>I just want 5.56 that I can fit in a 1911.
You can have that now, you can easily fit two rounds in the barrel.
Oh, wait, you didn't fall for the .38 Super meme, did you? ...still, I suppose you can cram several in the magazine.

You still didn't address how its performance is dogshit.

Attached: LSAT ammo.png (845x634, 319K)

You could just make brass telescopic ammo ya know.

Ah right forgot about that. I was thinking more about how the polymer case protects the propellant from degradation, which the G11 program had difficulties with when ammo would crumble or not fully burn, but the difference in the propellant compaction vs adhesive is also important to note.

I think what is getting at is that 4.73×33mm (which fires a 51gr projectile at a 3000ft/s, not quite 5.56 equivalent but respectable), is dimensionally smaller than .38 Super and thus you could load a suitably modified .38 super 1911 to its standard 9+1 with Intermediate Rifle Rounds without changing its form factor.

You could get a pill press

The performance of LSAT CT ammo? Your pic doesn't show velocity.

Caseless ammo will never work. Too hard to store, complications with feeding in autoloading firearms, probably other shit. Telescopic cased, or combustible case may be viable

>combustible isn't caseless

The fuck?

If it doesn't eject a case, it's caseless. The reason that caseless rounds are "caseless" is because the case combusts.

Yes obviously the 120mm tank rounds eject a small baseplate, but there is *no* reason to do this for small arms, so why bring it up?

If I had to pick a technology to bet on as the next step in small arms, it would be CTA.

There is still one major issue that remains to be solved though, and that's the inherent problem with a floating chamber where you get revolver cylinder gap-style gas venting between the chamber and the barrel. Once a solution for that is found, and the US adopts a CTA weapon, I think we'll see an actual resurgence in creativity in small arms design again, since CTA systems are a whole new ball game.

Caseless is a developmental dead end. It's too vulnerable to the environment, it doesn't burn as efficiently, it's too delicate, and it has serious gas sealing issues. Don't fall for the memes, G11 didn't just get canned because the Cold War ended, it still had serious problems that probably would have killed it off regardless.

CTA provides very, very close to the same level of weight savings in a much more robust package.

Caseless means the propellant contains itself.

Combustible cases contain propellant but are not propellant themselves, and are a solution to extreme chamber pressure.

ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Spiegel.pdf

Presumed 6.5mm is going at 920 m/s or 3018 fps

That's velocity for the 5.56 equivalent, no? I don't see how matching the velocity makes its performance dogshit, but other aspects of the design are bad.

Any given CT cartridge has very limited growth potential because there's so little extra volume for future uploading

for example CT40 is fine for it's uses but it will never exceed 40L/70

>Over a few decades, 300 million plus guns become paperweights.
I can go to my local outfitter and buy a box of .490 round balls and a pound of FFG. They are not going to stop making brass cases simply because of a small technological leap with only a few benefits.

Other than getting rid of an older proven round, how is it a bad design?

I wish people wouldnt use that slide, given that the 6.5 cartridge looks like its just as large and heavy as the 7.62 when it's just that they hadn't made a dedicated 6.5 case yet.

No

They basically made a .260 Remington but for some reason people think its supposed to be comparable to a 6.5 Grendel or something.

Well, that's kind of what it should strive to be.
6.5 Grendel is great.

...

Really? I thought that was the idea, as noted by "significantly better performance than 7.62mm CT cartridge". I took it to be a 6.5 Mememoor equivalent.
If it's actually reduced capacity compared to the 7.62 CT, what bullet weight and velocity are they looking at? 6.5 Grendel equivalent, or something in between?

>They basically made a .260 Remington but for some reason people think its supposed to be comparable to a 6.5 Grendel or something.
You're not wrong, its 125gr at 3000 ft/s which outpaces .260 let alone Grendel. But they've also stated that they don't need to use the 7.62 sized polymer case for their 6.5 round and that a dedicated 6.5 round would be smaller and lighter than the 7.62PCTA.
They just used the 7.62 cases because they were on hand for the experiments.
See above.

Caseless ammunition failed majorly because atmospheric conditions degraded it too fast.