Caseless ammo

>just clean your gun with every single mag change you animal

btw I'm pretty sure animals do not have guns

are you sure about that

Attached: 1479687959.hotchkisstank_маугли.jpg (1200x881, 476K)

Yeah

I don't get it, doesn't that brown thing have to be ejected anyways?

that's the propellant, it burns up when you fire it

>it burns up
the fuck, wont it stick to the inside of the chamber?

the brown thing is propellant that's been compressed into a solid, it burns up and flies out the barrel

what part of "it burns up" are you having trouble understanding?

this is like insisting that you have to spit out the bun from a hamburger or else it will get lodged in your throat

Hah and just as I'm reading the thread there's people talking about these guns needing a lot more frequent cleaning than guns with normal ammunition

those people are wrong, like you

it was only true of the first caseless rounds they cooked up in the 70's. they fixed that issue pretty quickly.

I see, I'm wrong then.
How about power? How big of a caliber can you make with these caseless ammo before you run into trouble?

I don't know that anyone has ever tried to make caseless ammo larger than .30, but I don't see why it would be a problem to do so.

most artillery is "caseless" in the sense that the only thing you load into the breech is a shell and some powder bags, which of course then burn up, and those are pretty fucking big.

to add, one issue I can see with making very large caseless rounds is fragility since the only thing holding it all together is the propellant block, which is basically propellant + a lot of glue. the early caseless rounds could be broken apart with your hands or simply through rough handling

Also I'm guessing they cost more to make than standard ammunition

>just clean your gun bro
>we solved the science of propellants it's fine bro
>your gun could be an eighth of an ounce lighter to hide some weed in bro
"No!"

well yeah since there's literally no machines to make any of it until you build them, whereas there are thousands of factories all over the world that already make normal ammunition

but just like every other object in the world they can be made extremely cheaply if you have the industrial base to do so

Rumor is they abandoned the whole thing when they saw the inside of a G11.

Attached: G11-autism.png (646x369, 205K)

you don't need a fancy gun like the G11 to shoot caseless ammo

51% going by LSAT's caseless 5.56 equivalent
While you're right that CL was developed side by side for a lot of the program, by Spiral 3 CL was abandoned as PCT was the safer option. The one they thought was most likely to be operational by project end.
It doesn't help that they essentially had to reinvent the HITP production process, which they thought they already had and therefore didn't allow for at the start of the project.
HITP burns much much cleaner than smokeless.
They still had to clean it. They just weren't intended to service the sealed back end if it breaks. Instead you just drop out the entire mechanism and replace it and you hand it over to be worked on.

Attached: 1381839992917.gif (800x596, 69K)

Sounds like they should have used that RDX derived propellant that that one university used to replicate a 5.56 in ~.22 mag dimensions.

What happens if caseless ammo gets wet?

HITP is already HMX based.
I'm curious as to what you're talking about though. Got links?
It sounds suspiciously similar to Knox's straight wall 5.56 (pic related), but its not quite as small as .22mag and it didn't use RDX and Knox isn't a university.
If its nitrocellulose like the really early attempts? It falls apart.
If its denatured HMX like the G11 and LSAT? Nothing.

Attached: 1475734211243.jpg (740x449, 51K)

>operation Dingo

What happens with the primer? Does it fly down the barrel?

Yes.

I really want caseless to become cheap and widespread. If only to piss of the brass goblins at the range.

With all things being equal im sure theyd still end up costing more based on the fact that it's a more complicated design

The ammunition isn't complicated at all, user. Its basically mix the chemicals together, press into shape, let the solvent evaporate, insert the primer cup.
Thats way simpler than even just drawing and shaping the brass and that doesn't include making the propellant.
Not to mention that the brass is the most expensive part of the round, both in manufacturing and in material costs.

Attached: rwsdrawchartx350.gif (350x266, 23K)

>fragile
>massive heatsink issue
>jamming from the powder breaking, or the primer falling out on a random round

>massive heatsink issue
And opinion discarded. Way to out yourself as having no clue what you're talking about.

Attached: HITP cook off round counts.png (1382x685, 650K)

Hey, someone saved my image. That's report is available on DTIC if anyone is interested.

Don't post if you don't know shit, Boomerboy.

i mean, you still gotta hold the gun

Caseless ammunition was in its infancy when the G11 was introduced. The G11 was way ahead of its time.

The biggest issue with caseless is heat dissipation. With conventional ammo, heat can escape when the bolt opens, and heat is lost through the brass that’s ejected as the bolt opens and ejects the spent brass. That’s basically two means of heat dissipation gone.

What are you planning to do user, hold a rifle by the bare barrel steel? There's a reason guns have furniture not in direct contact with the hot components of the gun.

6.8 telescoping something

The only problem caseless had (past tense) with heat was cookoff. And only because putting propellant directly against hot metal means cookoff will occur at the same temperatures that brass cased could withstand.
The actually difference in temperature creation due to heat sunk into the brass is basically nothing. A few percent. Nothing that has any significant effect on the structure or safety of the rifle.
To put it in perspective the available cyclic rate of an M4 varies by 35%, and heat generation per unit time also increases proportionally. Its like claiming it would be perfectly safe at 750rpm spontaneously combust at 800.
And even that cookoff problem was solved well before the end of the the G11 project.

Holy shit, are Germans really this autistic?

they clearly have never heard of a shotgun before

the gun industry wasn't ready for it
by that I mean the end user

Why don't you build an underslung shotgun that can guarantee to put 1 pellet on the same point of aim as the rifle, at the same ranges as the rifle, with the same penetration as the rifle?
And then after you do that, make it and its ammunition and the rifle and its ammunition lighter than the G11 and its ammunition. And then after that we'll deal with the the logistical issue.
>duuuhhhh y not just use a shotgun
Because it's a shit way to get what they wanted.

Because it doesn't actually offer anything substantial over cased ammunition to justify changing fucking everything.
Stuff like cased telescopic and polymer cased, however does have a lot of potential, and wouldn't require nearly as complex actions, in fact, a polymer cased .50BMG will work in a regular .50BMG gun, so assuming you work out a proper polymer cased 5.56mm cartridge, you can have lighter ammo for your rifles and carbines without having to modify them at all.

I feel I'm of the opinion that doing away with the case entirely is kind of short-sighted, because there's good reasons to have a case.

LSAT isn't caseless.

I still don't think it would have been soldierproof enough.
With a conventional rifle it's easy to manipulate the bolt and even opening the gun if you have to deal with a malfunction, with the G11 that stuff just can't be done.

>when you have a problem with your trigger pack and have to send it to Glashütte for repair
Was the manufacturing cost of a G11 ever released?

Attached: 1543417204933.jpg (657x527, 32K)

Mostly, a case solves a lot of issues. It helps soak the heat and byproducts while making the chamber airtight. You could go caseless but you end up with a lot more problems to solve.

Link?

>LSAT isn't caseless.
It produced an LMG and Carbine for both CT and Caseless actually. One of the posts you replied to had a slide from LSAT talking about its caseless ammunition.
>With a conventional rifle it's easy to manipulate the bolt and even opening the gun if you have to deal with a malfunction, with the G11 that stuff just can't be done.
All of that stuff can be done. You have direct access to the chamber from below, you can manipulate the bolt and you can even pull out the entire rotary chamber out of the bolt in about 4 steps.
And that's all possible on the G11 which had a lot of extra complexity tacked on to facilitate its 3 round burst.

What do you think CAWS was? Same idea, different execution. Serial rifle fire was determined to be the better of the two.

Attached: HK CAWS.jpg (1500x685, 394K)

Picture this:
>caseless ammo
>new style of dardick gun
>Better ammo capacity now
>lighter
>dardick gun comeback
We can do this, where are my fellow mechanical engineering buddies?

Sealing it would be hard, given it has no case so the topstrap won't work as it does on the dardick. But also why?
What I do want is a pistol in 4.73×33mm though. If .32 Super Auto fits in a pistol, it will.

Attached: g11 ammunition 4.73x33.png (610x339, 399K)

Brainlet here. What happens to the square shell once the round is fired? Does that not count as a case?

That brown section isn't a case. Its block of solid propellant. The little metal cap is the primer, the blue is the bullet, the plastic cap is...a plastic cap, used to protect the bullet and center it.

The brown and the yellow-y material inside the primer cup are consumed, while the bullet, primer cup and plastic cap all go out the barrel

Thank you for the very detailed response!

Because HK got into a dick measuring contest with FN, and channeled their focus into the MP7.

No the armorer was expected to keep extra trigger packs on hand. Your shit breaks and you grab a new one while they fix the old for some other asshole to use when his breaks.

problems:
#1 the "shell" is too fragile to stand to to any impact
#2 unlike brass, it get wet and it's a dud because the shell is the propellant after all
#3 cook off risk too high
#4 metal shells can take away heat and crap that gets left behind during firing, these cannot
#5 unlike brass case, you can't be as rough with it, that's why the G11 have that 5D shit just to feed the ammo into the chamber so it won't break up during feeding

What the fuck is the Dardick supposed to be good for?

Cookoffs is the one problem they solved actually.

1) Nope. Its more fragile than brass, but its not that fragile. You can stand on it without breaking
2) Wrong
3) Also wrong
4) Heat is not an issue. HITP burns very clean. Still requires cleaning, but only that comparable to other firearms.
5 No its not. It like that to function in a way that wouldn't interfere with the entire internal mechanism recoiling into the stock while also allowing for a 2100rpm burst.

It looks complicated, like you'd need highly specialized training... or is it really not that bad/expensive?

After thinking about it for a minute, I assume they'd just send it back to Hk