Gyrojet

Did it have any potential to be a real life bolter? It was scrapped due to being Cold War era junk with poor design but could modern technology fix it?

Attached: 97FC5189-ED59-409A-9454-D3FB73C1C342.jpg (300x165, 15K)

If you used a cartridge case to boost the muzzle velocity and produced them to a literally religiously high standard you would indeed have a bolter.

Shifting expense from the reusable part of a system to the consumable is generally not a good strategy.
Even assuming you could fix the accuracy problems, they also don't scale up to SCHV rounds well, are logistically expensive, and can't be easily adapted to all required ammunition types.
The decreased recoil doesn't justify it.
You'd need to significantly strengthen the "case", which means more propellant which means larger case which means larger more propellant etc.

MBA made gyrojets up to 40mm. I think this idea still has potential. You could make very cheap 25-40mm auto grenade systems.

Fire the shell from a coilgun.

Attached: IMG_0417-525x352.jpg (525x352, 45K)

Maybe if it was hybridized with an electric coil gun. Those rockets take forever to get up to speed, there's a reason they didn't replace conventional firearms.

>Shifting expense from the reusable part of a system to the consumable is generally not a good strategy.
Came to say this, almost exactly. Are you me?

The only place the gyrojet concept could have value would be as specialty rounds for shotguns, and even that would be an extreme niche.

Either it wouldn't have time to spin up and thus would be unstable or it still has the same lock time issue.

So rifle the barrel then? There's no law of physics that says a bullet has to get all of it's spin from one source.

This was really the folly of the original Gyrojet. They spent so much time and money on developing the bullets, that they tried to make up the difference by cutting every possible corner on the guns.
The rounds need to be down to as few machining steps as possible. Lead, propellant, jacket, nozzle cap, primer.
People talk about the nozzles needing impossible accuracy, but consider MBA had NO automation. They were making their rounds on (at the time) 50-year old hand-operated drill presses.
Literally any technological advancement can be used to make that better.
Also, adding a case and some starting propellant would *not* hurt stabilization, these were left off because if they were included, the gun would have needed a chamber with a chambering cycle, actual strength in the metallurgy of the gun, a rifled barrel, and a robust firing mechanism rather than a literal toy cap gun hammer.

Ideally, match the caliber to a popular revolver cartridge and make a reusable case for holding the bullet in the cylinder and maybe keep some spring tension on it to build initial pressure.

Read up the reply chain, user.
>cutting every possible corner on the guns.
Except there is no reason to add anything else unless you do go to a traditionally propelled gun, it won't give you anything except needless weight and expense. Unless you do go to a traditionally propelled gun, in which case you should just not bother at all with the gyrojet aspect. You're going to have ignition problems, structural problems, stability problems and its going to be expensive as fuck with none of the benefits gyrojets were meant to provide.
There's some value in the technology (e.g. the canopy piercing flares which apparently worked well) but Gyrojet small arms died for a reason. No clever change is going to save them.

this now a Heavy Bolter thread

>Unless you do go to a traditionally propelled gun, in which case you should just not bother at all with the gyrojet aspect.
Giving extra velocity to a traditional bullet with only the recoil from its initial load seems to be worth considering.
The original Gyrojet was about getting comparable performance out of "zero" recoil and "silent" firing. The core concept can still be applied to increasing performance of existing lower-recoil rounds. Even if it's just to compensate for drag in the first ~100 yards of travel.

Assuming it actually works as intended it just would very low recoil Desert Eagle.

It was a really shit idea for a small arm.

only way its viable as something other than a curiosity is if the rocket carries a HE payload

Except once you thicken the gyrojet-case to survive rifling and survive firing, and then cram it into a traditional case and load it hot enough to be lethal at the barrel the practical difference in recoil is negligible.
You're only saving 1/12 of the muzzle velocity you need to get from the traditional gun side. 11/12th, 92% still comes from the regular bullet. Actually more than that, because that math doesnt acount for the changes required to the gyrojet.

Not with the shitass inherent precision this thing exhibits if someone farts in the same area code.

I think you're overestimating how much strength is needed to "survive rifling" also lethality at the muzzle can be achieved with very little conventional powder.
Take the 300 BLK. Third from the left. That is not a lot of powder, and that round is definitely "lethal at the muzzle"

Attached: the usual suspects.jpg (480x360, 11K)

At this point guided weapons could be produced cheaply, might as well just make suicide drones equipped with micro-EFPs.

If the walls deform it will affect the nozzles and thus trajectory. The inside isn't filled with lead either - it's a single huge grain of propellant with a hollow core, that if fractured will disrupt trajectory. The case is also pressure bearing and has to survive being firing without damage.
Also my math assumed a velocity similar to blackout with a similarly weighted projectile. At that point, just use blackout.