Why isn't caseless ammo a thing?

The ammunition might have had a chance at further development if it hadn't been tied to the clusterfuck of a rifle known as a G11.

By pulling the trigger. CLEARING BARREL SUPERPOWER 2050!

Idk that's a good question. I never really looked into that. I assume there would be a way in the design.

The G11 had a way of doing it, but I can't remember exactly how it worked.

That too might have been an issue.

Even the there might be uncertainties with how long ammo can be stored. Ammo in general has been stored in sealed packages for a long time. Usually vacuum sealed tins that are in turn stored

There is a hole for that, pointed with red arrow, cover for the hole works as handle to crank chamber. Chamber points down, gravity does the rest.

Attached: dsc_01311.jpg (1891x968, 687K)

Because its shit:

soldiersystems.net/2017/03/19/jim-schatz/

>the ceaseless ammo decays over time
typo poetry

Pretty mild case of torture by military powerpoint presentation.

Attached: teddy.png (939x2837, 2.5M)

Heat starts to become an issue. Casings remove about 60% of the heat from a round being fired.

This can be mitigated by an open bolt action, but it doesnt fully fix the issue. you also then loose some accuracy inherently.

>Powder getting wet, thus unusable
>Powder block breaking apart
>Too expensive
>Possible heat issues causing unintentional discharge

I'm all for cased-telescoped, but caseless is still too far away to become anything anytime soon.

Dumb "dumb "dumb frogposter" poster" poster

Can degredation/damage to the powder be remedied with some kind of thin coating that burns up with the powder upon ignition?

>Why isn't caseless ammo a thing?
Because it has too many drawbacks and not enough advantages over cased ammunition.

They did have problems with heat building up, and getting cook-offs, but that's one of the problems they eventually did solve.

Fragility of the ammunition, however, and the suspected sensitivity to moisture and age, probably needed a lot more work to overcome.
Ultimately, it doesn't actually do anything that a 5.56mm rifle can't already do.

What if you get a dud cartridge and need to extract it and load another? If the rifle can't extract, how do you get it out?

Bueh, maybe, but then it comes to, "Why not use the 5.56mm that NATO is using?"

>gravity does the rest
What if it sticks in the chamber?

The advantages caseless has are the disadvantages that regular ammunition has and vice versa Exp. Caseless is
>lighter
>more compact
>higher velocity
>can produce extremely high fire rates
A regular cartridge has better durability, reliability, ease of use, etc.
New technologies allow for comparable performance to caseless, things like polymer cases, better propellant, compact size, and a whole host of high ROF options.
It's also interesting to note four other designs for new ammunition, the sheathed cartridge, the folded or lockless cartridge, the tround, and the fdm chamber cartridge.
The sheathed cartridge is quite interesting as it uses a sheath (like a modern chassepot rifle) which contains the projectile and propellant, when it is fired the sheath goes out the front of the barrel with the projectile and falls off just like the old chassepot rifle, of course this has the same overheating problem as caseless but it's still interesting not to mention the fact that the sheath cleans the barrel as it exits.
municion.org/9altres/9Kaltmann.htm

Dumb "Dumb "dumb "dumb frogposter" poster" poster" poster.

Fucking hell, does nobody do even basic research? The problem wasn't heat building up, the single digit percentage point of heat removed by the case (60% is just completely fucking retarded) is not enough to actually bother any part of the rifle.
Cookoff is not the same as heat buildup even though its usually caused by it. Without the insulation and normalization the case provided, hotspots on the chamber wall can cause localized ignition causing cookoff. These same hotspots happen in cased rifles, the case just equalizes the temperature and prevents the any one part of the propellant getting hot enough to ignite.
And as one of you correctly said, the G11 solved this issue already. HMX based propellants gave the G11 a better cookoff resistance than contemporary brass cased 5.56.
Never mentions MRBF or any quantitative analysis of the failures.
Its like saying "brass cases are shit they always fall apart" and showing rims torn off, stuck cases and hard primers as if they mean anything without the frequency. G11 was more reliable than the G3 it was meant to replace.
Not to mention some of its just wrong, or irrelevant. But that makes sense when the whole thing was to sell PCTA
>moisture
Only a problem if you're using nitrocellulose propellants. Switching to HMX propellants like the HITP also solved this problem.

Attached: G11 how to carry.jpg (1217x812, 173K)

>The brass jew
Sounds like a pretty cool superhero desu

Attached: H&K G11.webm (640x480, 1.95M)

Stopping this shit here

Attached: 152415646285.png (438x611, 394K)

what is lipstick doing in Jow Forums?

Does this person not know how to shoot or does the G11 recoil that much?

Pretty sure thats the 2100rpm, 3 round burst thats being demonstrated there.
The reason the G11 was so complicated was because the entire assembly recoiled into the stock during a burst so that recoil would only effect the shooter after all 3 rounds had left the barrel. This does mean that once it does affect the shooter, he has a lot more momentum to stop.

Attached: g11recoil.jpg (420x406, 26K)

The gun shoots three bullets in very quick secession. This is part of it's appeal.

How much simpler would it be if it didn't have that 3 round burst mode?

Attached: Heckler & Koch G11.jpg (4113x2742, 555K)

Is that an e-tool carrier on his kit?

I don't think you who the head honcho, the big cheese, the big nig of this town is buckaroony. I'm not a guy to mess around with kid.

Attached: 5f02819ba05933e29df6ea037fc2b9b2d339ab91_00.jpg (396x454, 24K)

Brass helps to remove heat from a gun.

We had caseless ammo in the first breech loaders back in the early 19th century. The reason they didn't really catch on is because they had continual problems with gas leakage. Only the invention of the brass cartridge made breech loading viable.

That's a complicated question because much of the design is built around that assumption. The magazine assembly, the rotary chamber, charging assembly would all be completely different just off the top of my head. They're only the way they are so as to accommodate the recoil mechanism. And once the rotary chamber is out, you've essentially got a completely different weapon. Is an AR-15 still an AR-15 if its now roller delayed blowback?
The primary difference between caseless rifles and traditional is the separate chamber, and options for that like LSAT's swinging chamber and the Steyr ACR's lifting chamber are much simpler options. Just as a starting point.
Not enough to make a difference, user. As someone else in the thread pointed out, the amount of heat voided is minuscule compared to the effect of other considerations.
Would you argue that the Sten Mk5 had overheating issues compared to the Sten Mk2? Of course not. The cook off problem wasn't because of the heat the case removed, it was because of the hot chamber wall that was present in both types of rifle. And its a solved problem either way.

Attached: G11 Exploded View.jpg (1312x6808, 1.62M)

German space magic hat

Attached: magic-hat-wand-clipping-path-4769283.jpg (800x608, 43K)