Gun companies balk at US Army's new requirement

Interesting the the US Army wants this feature.

I haven't yet found any information that the US Army wants caseless ammunition. From what I've found so far is that they want it chambered in 5.56x45mm and/or 7.62x51mm. Both were listed in the purchase description matrix in the RFP. From previous information it seemed that the Army wanted their "improved carbine" utilize their new M855A1 cartridge.

Could explain why the firearm makers think this feature is silly or improbable. I believe that HK stated that caseless ammunition was necessary for the G11 to achieve such necessary accuracy in a burst.

I don't know much about the AN94 but a quick search finds it to be a very complicated weapon system. Supposedly has bad ergonomics while being very expensive to produce and maintain along with difficult disassembly and assembly.
 
SeamusMac said:
Metal Storm is capable of delivering over 27,500 rpm or 2 rounds in like what..? A few milliseconds? I don't know jack about ballistics or physics in general but couldn't the second projectile travel relatively calmly in the wake of the first projectile, therefore increasing the likelihood of "2 shots in one hole" within limited distances? Like riding up on the ass of an 18-wheeler on your motorcycle...
Click to expand...

Metal storm is a system that does everything accurate shooting needs to avoid. Distorted bullets and a constantly changing barrel length. Then after you finish the "mag" you throw the barrel away. Brilliant.

Why am I even talking about this.....................
 
Kevin M. said:
So I am curious why some systems with similar cartridges have different firing rates? Etc Browning 1919 and MG-42.
Click to expand...

The M1919 was designed to have the lower fire rate. It is a sustained fire machinegun, in an infantry doctrine built on the rifle, whereas the german infantry doctrine was written around the machinegun. There were variants Of the Browning made with fire rates up to 1200rpm for the aircraft role.

a0jc said:
You COMPLETELY missed my point on the gatling gun. I was using the gatling gun as an EXAMPLE of a firing system that DOES NOT use a gas return system to EJECT casings like many current assault rifles and machine guns.
Click to expand...
And I used it as an example as a gun that partially reduces the actual ejection cycle time (and loading time), as the barrel in 'lock' is always loaded and ready to fire. Which is part of the reason why it has such a high rate of fire, because it breaks a given ejection and load cycle out of a firing cycle.
 
2 rounds in one hole on body armor is, I think, just about impossible to achieve. Not because of any inherent advantage or disadvantage in the cartridge, but in the firearm itself and the user.

The G11 reputedly could do this, and the AN-94 (what a complicated beast that is) allegedly can do this.

Can the average Joe soldier control the firearm well enough to actually have this happen? Unless training is stepped up, I doubt the average Joe soldier would be able to control the rifle well enough so that 2 bullets follow the exact same ballistic path to the target. This also assumes said target isn't moving.

To add another point, will firearms makers in the States invest millions of dollars trying to develop something that may or may not result in military sales?

There's a reason the AR15/M16 platform has been around and in service for over 40 years. No manufacturer has come up with an improved system that justifies its cost over the M16 platform.

Possible? Sure.

Likely? Ah, now there's the question.
 
A lot of banter on this topic that is missing the point.

Greentips tipped off everyone on this as he is in the "know".

It's all about defeating ceramic body armor. Two bullets do not need to go into the same hole. What the AN94 is trying to accomplish is to allow a shooter to place two rounds in very rapid succession into an armor plate. If the rounds are within about 6 inches or so the armor will very likely defeated. They are hoping that the shooter will be able to do this with the AN94 at a combat distance of a 100 meters or so. Maybe a bit more maybe a bit less.

PS: the WW2 weapons in 30 odd 6 don't defeat level 4 ceramic armor either, even with M2 AP rounds.

Rich
 
shredder said:
2 rounds in one hole on body armor is, I think, just about impossible to achieve. Not because of any inherent advantage or disadvantage in the cartridge, but in the firearm itself and the user.

The G11 reputedly could do this, and the AN-94 (what a complicated beast that is) allegedly can do this.

Can the average Joe soldier control the firearm well enough to actually have this happen? Unless training is stepped up, I doubt the average Joe soldier would be able to control the rifle well enough so that 2 bullets follow the exact same ballistic path to the target. This also assumes said target isn't moving.

To add another point, will firearms makers in the States invest millions of dollars trying to develop something that may or may not result in military sales?

There's a reason the AR15/M16 platform has been around and in service for over 40 years. No manufacturer has come up with an improved system that justifies its cost over the M16 platform.

Possible? Sure.

Likely? Ah, now there's the question.
Click to expand...

Or maybe its just because everybody has the same stale attitude of "why fix it if it isn't broke". Finally there is now an excuse for manufacturers to actually think outside the box to come up with something that is radically different and groundbreaking. And I am not just talking about two rounds in the same hole here. There can be lots of innovative offshoots from this that could possibly effect the commercial firearms industry in a positive way.

Being a senior engineering student I hate it when people say "it can't be done", or "why bother". Bad attitudes IMO.
 
tootall said:
Sometimes, to go forward, you have to look 60 years in the past.

Salvo Squeeze Bore
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo07sep.htm

The US Navy played with SSB on river boats in Viet Nam
The SSB round needs a special barrel to swage down the bullets, but a simpler duplex round would allow a standard barrel to be used.
Click to expand...

That's extremely interesting, thanks for the post!
 
CarbineOne said:
And I used it as an example as a gun that partially reduces the actual ejection cycle time (and loading time), as the barrel in 'lock' is always loaded and ready to fire. Which is part of the reason why it has such a high rate of fire, because it breaks a given ejection and load cycle out of a firing cycle.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how is that suppose to counter my point? Again, you're only agreeing with me.

Also, I ####ed up. When I said bullet, I meant the whole cartridge. Bullet, case, primer, all what ever is in caseless.

Rich,
That assumes that everyone is going to be wearing single plate armour. What about armour like Dragon Skin? Seems like a very short term solution.
 
The G11 was way ahead of its time. I think that a caseless type ammo will be where guns must go to make the next leap ahead. Caseless ammo is smaller, lighter and has a shorter cycling process. And I would take a 3 round burst with all rounds on target before the recoil impulse is even felt at a cyclic rate of 2000 rpm over any 5.56 mm assault rifle on the market today.These things cost enormous amounts of money when what is fielded now will still working quite fine. The G11 was a victim of resources and the fall of the Soviet empire(East Germany).
 
The G11 and Dragon Skin are both victims of never working properly.

The G11 had ammunition and reliability issues right up until it was canceled. It never worked as advertised, that is why it is still not floating around in the background and showing up at arms shows looking for a buyer.

As for body armour that falls apart due to normal in the desert heat you have Dragon Skin.
 
Gunnerlove said:
As for body armour that falls apart due to normal in the desert heat you have Dragon Skin.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about concept of multiplated ceramic armour. Dragon skin is the only one I can think of that everyone is familiar with. Even if it's held by glue. Or is it thread? I can't remember.
 
kthomas said:
Being a senior engineering student I hate it when people say "it can't be done", or "why bother". Bad attitudes IMO.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately engineers sometimes have the tendency to create products that they want, not necessarily what the clients want. Hence we have a bunch of technological answers for questions that no one has ever asked!
 
greentips said:
Unfortunately engineers sometimes have the tendency to create products that they want, not necessarily what the clients want. Hence we have a bunch of technological answers for questions that no one has ever asked!
Click to expand...

Fair enough :D. I'm training to dig holes in the ground, so you don't have to worry about me doing that.
 
GreenTips, did you have in mind the DA self-loading pistol? Or, since the question had never been asked, but folks had trouble with the answer, the DAO self-loader!!! Which, when you get right down to it, gave us the Glock, so maybe it is OK if engineers devise gadgets we don't want.

Although I could take a pass on the whole cell-phone thing. Darn it was nice when folks didn't think they had to be in touch every minute of every day, and could actually go off and have a life. (And let you have yours.)
 
a0jc said:
Ok, so how is that suppose to counter my point? Again, you're only agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that one of the larger limitations on practical rates of fire are the physical chambering and ejection of the case. Caseless ammo helps reduce that time/complexity.
 
Didn't the weight and balance of the STG44, even with its low rate of fire, give it a tendency to have accurate follow up shots on full auto?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom