Could it have succeeded as a caseless rifle?

You could probably even make it electronically fired via induction or other methods. It may even be feasible to turn it into a fully electric autocannon with modern technology, scavenging energy from each shot and storing it in supercapacitors would likely work.

fletchettes are a stupid solution to a question nobody was ever asking.

there are plenty of saboted rounds, but usually for very large caliber weapons. smallest common ones being 12ga slugs. saboting a small caliber down to a smaller caliber is just a 'why?'

small-arms ballistics is one branch of firearms technology that really has plateaued, to some degree.

advancement of the technology overall demands increasing rate of fire and carried ammunition load. this is precisely what literally all states in the world disallow their civilians, in order to ensure the tech remains stagnant.

there is a natural motive for States, as collective entities, to be opposed to small-arms technology generally. a weapon that can be used by an individual is a weapon that can't be controlled.

that thing looks like a fucking dildo made by fisher price

Yeah it'd take some fairly clever shenanigans with piezo crystals and capacitors operating off the gas system rod somewhere in the guts, having enough 'zap' on every stroke might be kind of interesting but from a mechanical standpoint it shouldn't be impossible.
>Safety, munition design, cookofffs and everything else is extremely questionable!

The feed design of the ACR could be kind of neat with something like a rimless 12G shell I was thinking, course it enters the practical questions of redesigning the wheel, weight distribution and essentially a lot of fuckery for not a huge benefit

You smart

I wish, knowing this plateau, that weapons design would create something that isnt modular. Ie. 1x-4x , dual lum/laser, backup irons, round counter HUD and it was all designed into the gun.

This was a better option.

Attached: DWZwnxmW4AIC591.jpg (1200x310, 72K)

>yes, the infamous clockwork was unrelated to it using caseless ammunition, but caseless does demand some degree of additional complexity over cased ammunition in order to create the gas-seal that the case normally provides.
Yes and no. Push through "extraction" simplifies a lot of mechanics of a classic firearm and gas seals aren't arcane, just relatively undeveloped . I'd argue that they're similarly complicated, it's just cased has a lot more development time to find the right solutions.
Not the user you're replying to btw.
>6.5 cased telescoped
As the other user said, this is basically how LSAT works.
>a electric actuated hammer trigger system.
At that point why not just make it electric ignition? Why even bother with a hammer?
3d printing is cool, versatile and let's you make things that you can't otherwise, but it's expensive at mass production. Regular manufacturing techniques are where it's at for this
>fletchettes are a stupid solution to a question lots of people were asking for the wrong reason
FTFY. Fletchettes at intermediate scales are a joke. Deflected-by-rain-tier jokes. But lots of people were asking for fast, low mass projectiles for burst fire to increase hit probability without sacrificing armor penetration. They were asking the wrong question.
> saboting a small caliber down to a smaller caliber is just a 'why?'
Subcaliber projectiles allow for good AP potential. That's the CBJs whole shtick for example.
Thats the AAI ACR right? Why is it better? It still used brass cases and was still a fletchette rifle. Make it not a fletchette Rifle (because they're shit), and how is it better than any of the other million conventional designs?

To the user who asked about using a hammer instead of pure electric primer ignition, this is for multiple reasons.
1.Impact primers are a proven concept and have a massive infrastructure advantage over any new primers.
2.The reliability of impact primers even when covered in dirt, oil, mud, and other things.
3.bolt/ignition switch
If either of these are covered in mud, solvent, fouling, would conductivity be compromised?

In military history going full experimental on every aspect of a design rarely works out, see the MBT-70 for example.

>fletchettes are a stupid solution to a question nobody was ever asking.
I don't think they're stupid, they work well in every other application they're used in. The ACR attempt was flawed because they focused on smaller rounds and burst fire rather than improved ballistics. If you focused more on 7.62mm DMR and hunting markets I think it could be very popular, with a more sensible length dart you would get very nice and flat ballistics at long range.If you left room for long enough darts, for military applications you could probably have long tungsten darts able to damage something like a BMP-1 with a weapon the size of you would expect to fire 7.62mm.

Well first lets mention that you can already penetrate a BMP 1 with 7.62 rounds like M948. The BMPs were not well armored.

But really the problem with flechettes is that they don't scale linearly. At tank scales they are the Fist of God. At AT gun scales they're devastating. At AMR sizes they're still useful. At full-sized rifle sizes they still technically work but are a downgrade over conventional rounds and at intermediate cartridge sizes they're a joke. As they scale down, the environment and the atmosphere don't. The deflecting off raindrops thing isn't a myth. Their accuracy is terrible and their terminal ballistics are highly variable.

The limit of feasibility is about.50cal, which is where it really starts to be consistent and reliable ballistically and the sectional density really starts to let it overtake simpler alternatives like SLAP. At that sort of scale you can get 50mm RHA penetration at 500m without using significantly more tungsten than is in M903 currently. Thats real feasibility. But therein lies the rub. An AMR isn't exactly fit to serve as a standard issue rifle, and a flechette firing AMR is a one trick pony and not really worth replacing .50 and everything it can do and expensive to issue as an additional item when AT rifles were outdated by the end of WW2.

>open bolt
>good
>ever
No

It's not the usual kind of open bolt

I'd look it up but I'm mobile scum atm. What's special about it?

Just refine the polymer cartridges to be consistent in their performance, and yeah it would still probably be the best assault rifle in the world

basically it uses a rimfire flechette polymer cartridge that is fed upwards into the chamber that immediately fires. the moving big part of the action doesn't affect the rifle like in other weapons an open bolt usually does

What about exploiting that you can have longer rounds? Let's say you built a telescoped 10mm flechette with around the same mass as a traditional 7.62 round. The flechette will be far longer but much thinner, the telescoped ammunition should be able to contain more propellant than a conventional 7.62 so it can retain it's velocity advantage. The flechette should have much lower drag, higher penetration and be easier to aim due to flatter trajectory.

sabots are nerds.

Make a bullet big enough to rifle, don't make smol bullets then sabot them to rifle.

use the fucking space the gun has responsibly.

Saboted subcaliber projectiles offer armor piercing capabilities in excess of what is possible with a bullet of the full caliber.

Why on earth would we ever do it if it didn't have any advantage?

But why? The PCT ammo it used was better than memeless in every way. Just replace the flechette with a regular bullet and you're fine.

>he thinks belt fed machineguns should be closed bolt

This is like asking if a jet-ski would have succeeded as a station wagon. You're comparing apples to oranges mate. You can't just convert a flechette gun into a caseless rifle. The only similar components are the trigger.

>PCT ammo
Can you explain further?

No, but it would make a pretty good oversized rifle tho.
209 fucking mm.

Attached: acr.jpg (700x525, 233K)

not your user, but on electrics, I am electrician, so here i go.

If you had toothed prongs that "dug in" to the case, even by a thousandth of an inch, perhaps a tungsten alloy igniter, fouling is a non issue.

Imagine a fully supported chamber with two little things that look like imperfections, that's all it takes.

Its not caseless and it couldnt have succeeded with the flechettes it was shooting. They cost allot more than 5.56 and have huge issues with wounding, as rarely did they fishook, most of the time they would go in one side and out the other given that they were a few millimeters wide at most. The upsides were that they had less recoil, were a smaller, lighter round and had a massive point blank. Sadly non of these things could make up for its lackluster wounding

>But why? The PCT ammo it used was better than memeless in every way.
Caseless is still lighter and more compact than PCT so that's just factually incorrect.

You'd need to change the gas seal, change the barrel and recalibrate the gas system but that's it. It's like saying an AR15 can't be in different calibres. Yes it needs different bolts, magazines, spring strengths etc but the central mechanism is the same.

Polymer Cased Telescoped. Look into the reporting around LSAT, it'll walk you thru it is you're unfamiliar.

>What if it was caseless
>it was not caseless
I think you misunderstand what a hypothetical situation is.

>209mm
Don't you dare use the Rebuilds for that, it's most likely a 105-120mm.

I'm a electrician as well, but the case is a polymer, and the primer is in the back, unless you're talking about the OG Steyr ACR that used a ring primer.

Dat nipple doe

Problem is that at that point you're introducing the failure modes of both electric ignition and hammer fired,and introducing more on top of that because of the addition of the solenoid, significantly decreasing your reliability and getting almost none of the advantages of either system. You're not getting the decreased lock time, you're not getting the decreased cost, you're not geting the reliability of either system etc etc. All you are getting is a better trigger and it's just not that important on assault rifles.

Looking at that tiny magazine I can't help but wonder why they didn't make a variant with double columns like those SPIW magazines.

>the cookoff issue was solved by the G11

The first stage of the american LSAT program solved the cook off problem in 2006 independent of German research. Yet Jow Forums will always preach about the dangers of caseless ammunition.

It's not caseless

Didn't that thing cause some nasty lung cancer due to the sabot stripper on the muzzle puffing fiberglass everywhere on firing?
Jesus, why they thought that was a good idea is beyond me.

No that was the SPIW rifles. Both the Steyr and AAI ACRs fixed that by switching sabot material for both and case materials for the Steyr rifle specifically.

>The first stage of the american LSAT program solved the cook off problem in 2006 independent of German research.
No they also used the same HITP using the research provided by Dynamit Nobel. It was part (only part ofc) of the reason they focused on PCTA after replicating it - the recipe relies on solvent evaporation for manufacturing and it's not considered ecologically acceptable like it was back in the 80s.

Everyone in the ACR program video firing it was black, that probably had something to do with it.

>OP: "what if the Steyr ACR used caseless"
>You two: "it's not caseless"
Are you both literally autistic?

>Could it have succeeded as a caseless rifle?
sure, but noone wants a caseless rifle, because conventional ammo is still plentyfull and will always be plentyfull
the concept is great, the gun itself is good too

Attached: 1515427741170.png (1446x1029, 498K)

>sure, but noone wants a caseless rifle, because conventional ammo is still plentyfull and will always be plentyfull
Yeah brass will always be available, that's why the metals for it are considered strategic and we keep stockpiles of the them in case they're not available....wait a minute.

>They cost allot more than 5.56
This is wrong. A big part of the selling point of the Steyr was how cheap it and its ammunition was. Brass cases are the most expensive part of traditional ammunition, user.
The rest is of the stuff about flechettes is right though. They're shit.

Attached: 5.56x45 steel coper half jacket - 5.56 XM216 SPIW Flechette - 7.62 to .220 Salvo Sqeeze bore.jpg (790x535, 60K)

This type of 13 year old summerfag crap thread is what will kill forgotten weapons eventually, it's going to mainstream.
It's starting to turn into soldier of fortune or some shit like that, he puts out a video and immediately there are threads on Jow Forums concerning that same type of weapon.
Faggot summer shits need to fuck off.

is that middle one the infamous nerf ammo for the franklin memery rebolushinz?

Who gives a shit if its mainstream? The ACR program is interesting and OP is not wrong about the central concept for the mechanism being applicable to caseless. What should he have done? Waited some arbitrary amount of time after the video was posted just to please your autism?
Kek its about as accurate as the Vortex™ memeunition under any form of adverse condition.
But filename has details if you're actually asking.

Attached: Franklin-Armory-Revolution-Football.jpg (1200x800, 29K)

Huh, in the last thread about caseless people were arguing about what it'd do to reloading. I figured it was moot, because of course you couldn't make your own caseless, but if it's just solvent drying out of a HMX and binder mix, that's actually achievable for small scale home production.
Cool.

>HMX
The government letting every reloader get their hands on high explosive sounds unlikely user.

The weird thing is Jow Forums holds bunch of really grumpy asses who keep talking down new weaponry concept and act like nuffin gunna change.

Unless it's the F35, where the funding and performance are justified.

Flechette rounds are completely different from caseless rifle rounds. You have to change every single operating part of the weapon except perhaps some parts of the fire control group.

It's not comparable to switching calibers in an AR, because all of those other calibers are lead-nosed bullets in brass-cased cartridges. The only difference is the dimensions of the parts involved.

With a flechette or caseless round, this is not the case (heh), you actually need a completely different mechanism to feed, fire, and eject each type of round because of how differently they are shaped and constructed.

Attached: brn2w4f.jpg (4272x2848, 497K)

You can make new upper that can feed caseless right?

Of course, but I already said that:

>You have to change every single operating part of the weapon except perhaps some parts of the fire control group.

If so, what's the problem?

Literally make new upper and switch.

There is no problem. I stated in the second sentence of my post that this is exactly what you would have to do.

Why do you think there's a problem?

OK, mistake the complaint between flechette and caseless.

Flechette is fucking retarded.

>Flechette is fucking retarded.

I agree.

I mean, if your bullets can be stopped by foliage, you have a problem.

More like we've had this discussion thousands of times and it all the same hard packed ground populated by videogame references and naive hyperbolic expectations of shit getting adopted purely because its new. Its endless and after 60 years of SPIWs and OICWs and XM8s and G11s and AA12s and Metal storm, we're still using a 5.56 AR variant. You might call it grumpy, but its a cynicism informed by time.

what exactly is the lethality of flechette rounds though? all they're doing is poking a small hole in you.

That's the problem with the government being corrupt and fucking retarded, not the problem with the concept itself.

You know caseless would fucking work if the US start to adopt it en mass, the ruskies would follow suit, then the brits/french/germans.

They are basically fucking shuriken/dart thrown by a gun.

Shit is fucking idiotic and archaic.

>Jow Forums holds bunch of really grumpy asses who keep talking down new weaponry concept and act like nuffin gunna change.

You're misunderstanding something important here. We are not resisting a new idea - we are debunking an old myth. Flechette and caseless rounds are not new ideas, but something that many people all over the world have been seriously exploring since the 1950's.

The reason these ideas did not succeed is not because of luddites, but because they are bad ideas, and we discovered that they were bad ideas a very long time ago. Flechette rounds cannot be made to be powerful enough to reliably penetrate the sort of cover most commonly encountered on the battlefield. Some flechettes cannot even penetrate foliage. Caseless rounds are too fragile. Paper and glue does not have the same structural properties as brass and steel.

Contrary to your idiotic assertion, we would love it if these things worked well. There are many benefits to them that we would enjoy reaping. However, they don't work. They're bad ideas. Read a book.

Attached: 4.73x33_Caseless-crop.jpg (950x405, 363K)

Nah man, the rest of the world and gov agencies adopting p90 and it's 5.7 while US still prefers either 9mm or .45. You think everyone else follows your burger butt ? But you're not wrong about gobbermint favoritism.

Flechette is a bad idea, but modern caseless is made of polymer, and it fucking works.

Technology advances, you are the same old fuck who would think firearm fucking sucks when it was invented and the crossbow was more reliable.
>However, they don't work. They're bad ideas. Read a book.
What book tells me that caseless is a bad idea? Show it to me.

>but modern caseless is made of polymer, and it fucking works.

Show me what ammunition you're talking about here.

Even the US employs 5.7mm and 4.6mm so I don't see what you are arguing.

But it is not arguable on how the US cucks NATO and the world at large
>germans mass-field intermediary cartridge
>ruskies copy the round
>brits and belgian push for the idea of even smaller, more effective round for NATO
>US cockblocks it with the M14 and forces NATO to adopt 7.62 NATO
>then US introduces 5.56 as some sort of never been dun before
>everyone switch to using .22 caliber, even the ruskies
Everyone just sorta follow the US around because the US is the biggest, most well-funded army.

Most Jow Forums are just tourist from /v/ or /tv/. They barely have the understanding of basic science. The only place caseless will work is magnetic accelerated or railgun not current conventional weapons. Then we still have the portable power source issue to solved if they did make a small one portable and able to fire it. G11 fail because the complexity of the mechanism and the cost/practicality of a soldier's tool, but that doesn't mean the design cannot be scavenged for other weapon uses. Also do call me grumpy Luddite if anyone prefers.

Granted, it's not caseless yet, but case telescoped ammunition:
hooktube.com/watch?v=WlM8IHij6Hs

>modern caseless is made of polymer

show us

>What book tells me that caseless is a bad idea? Show it to me.

literally any book on this subject dumbass, there are plenty that go into the history of the various caseless ammo projects. they all reach the same conclusion which is that nobody can figure out how to make caseless ammo that's strong enough to withstand battlefield conditions.

>Granted, it's not caseless yet, but case telescoped ammunition:

So, in other words, absolutely not what we're discussing. At all.

Great talk, dude. Let's have another sometime. Lol

>Everyone just sorta follow the US around because the US is the biggest, most well-funded army.
More like "US sets the rules and game and forces the rule on every other players". That's why the based russians jumped out of UN and all the bullshit.

See Show the book, faggot.
It's still a new form of ammunition.

It's the intermediary form between brass cased ammunition and caseless.

I'm gonna call you a grumpy luddite because you lack imagination.

>yay new design
>gets cucked by manufacturing using shit polymer cases
>gets melted in hot climate gets stuck in cold climate
>ammo is temperature dependent and costs $9 per round plus $99 tip
Sorry man, musket or compound bow still a safer bet.

>lack imagination
Imagination is one thing but damn sure isn't lacking any, but you being delusional is another. Grow up abit and stop larping in those airshit getup.

Lots of things would work if we forced them with decades of being our own beta testers and investing billions in taxpayer dollars, doesn't mean we should. But why? The benefits of caseless is already being addressed by CT, with none of the cons and the added bonus of a certain degree of backwards compatibility. Besides, the US throwing its weight behind things resulted in NATO being forced into using 7.62 for years and in retrospect considering 5.56 was adopted later anyway, setting us back 40 years.

I don't even own airshit, stop fucking projecting.

And no, I'm not being delusional, cased telescoped ammunition fucking works.

The only disadvantage of caseless is the fact it's so goddamn fragile.

Everything else is an advantage, even down to bullet shape that you can carry more of them.

>Besides, the US throwing its weight behind things resulted in NATO being forced into using 7.62 for years and in retrospect considering 5.56 was adopted later anyway, setting us back 40 years.
Though I do not deny this, the US was an absolute shitshow during the M14 debacle.

>cased telescoped ammunition fucking works.
Never said it didn't work, i said it wasn't viable enough to justify deployment. Why don't you personally fund and buy a dozen of those and send it to ten soldiers and have them engaged in real world firefights. All the new rounds you see now isn't actually new faggot, the problem with them is the operation reliability. We might actually have small mounted rail guns before caseless actually works in real situations. If it works HK would have made a complete caseless weapon now instead of the engineering G11 "kraut spase magik".

G11 was stopped by the funding and that there's no more need for it, the Cold War ended.

And no, I don't have the hundred millions needed to force the US to adopt cased tele-ammunition.

>G11 was stopped by the funding and that there's no more need for it
War never stops, the funding cut doesn't stop them from further improve it since HK holds the design to their own weapons and round. Just face it and give it a rest, caseless isn't viable for infantry use. Call it "too ahead of it's time" if it calms your conscience. I just call it "impractical". Threads and topic about G11 and caseless is a fucking meme now with people who never understand how basic engineering works claiming they know anything engineering.

They literally stopped the G11's funding and went on to make the G36 tho.

Caseless doesn't have to be square, user. You can make caseless telescoped ammunition in an essentially identical form factor to Steyr's PCT flechette ammunition, and the loading, push through extraction, ignition, magazine and feeding, gas system (in operation - the tap and spring weights would have to be adapted and the mechanism scaled obviously) would all be the same. Literally the only change you would have to make that you wouldn't have to do for a caliber change, would be the gas seal. You already have a separate chamber, which is THE biggest change a caseless rifle necessitates. The required additions would be adapting the corkscrew type the G11 used, and the introduction of the split chamber for the gas seal when the bolt closes.

Maybe you're getting caught up over the fact I was talking about like it would be a caliber conversion. Yes, the Steyr ACR-C and the Steyr ACR would be ground up built different. They would parts interchange basically only in the FCG and some furniture., but they'll be 99% operationally identical. How they work would be basically identical.
If thats not where you're getting caught up, why don't you list specifically what you think needs to change for the concept to be adapted to caseless?

And guns in general are literally just a tubes we developed to throw rocks at each other really really fast. Human invention isn't all that grandiose if you break everything down to its concept.

>added bonus of a certain degree of backwards
What degree is that? You can't chamber CT in current weapons. The whole chamber and extraction thing is different.
Lets clear some things up. The G11 was adopted. It was run though field tests and outperformed the G3 almost universally - reliability, accuracy, less recoil, penetration, mud and dust, water, even bloody user experience was better. But paying to drag East Germany into the modern world was devastatingly expensive. As in it took up more than 10% of their entire GDP per year to do so. With that economic burden and the USSR dissolving the funds weren't there. You ask why didn't HK keep working on it? Because it was 180 million Deutschmarks in debt by this point because everyone knew the G11 was being adopted and they'd make their money back in production. HK didn't have the home market to underwrite initial costs to allow for export so 5.56 rifles were a safe and cheap bet for both Germany's military and for HK.
>inb4 but look what happens when you stand on it, pic related.
People meme about caseless' durability issues, but they're source is basically just Schatz's unquantified data. The MRBF favored the G11 over its contemporaries, both for the ammunition and the rifle. Even after environmental tests, drop tests, heat tests, immersion tests and all the other stuff that apparently ruins caseless ammo. When the G11 project started, and they were using nitrocellulose, it absolutely did have those problems. It was shit, it overheated and would just fail if it got wet. But the reason it took 20 years from start to end was because they were solving all those problems. By the end of the program it was ready for combat.

Attached: G11 ammo rupture.png (650x359, 362K)