6.8 NGSW/NGSAR

Unless we can remove heat from the equation. Brass (or soft steel) is just too good a heat sink.

The moving-chamber system that LSAT uses partially offsets the heat issue, as the chamber and ammunition supply are now disconnected from the heat of the barrel.

...

Caseless is a dead end because while it makes sense on auto-loaders calibers especially full sized ones due to the really limited space of a gun turret and weight limitations to chassis ratios, etc… And you get to design the whole thing around the gun and ammo you use.

But do soldiers lack bullets?
Nah, not really.
Does making the cartridges caseless means they will have more bullets in the guns?
Not with a classic "mag under the gun" set up they won't, just look at AR chambered in pistol calibers.
The rounds are certainly smaller… does that mean the mags suddenly became 60 rounders? No they didn't because box/coffin/drums mags aren't really reliable.
Will soldiers get twice the numbers of 30rd mags? They're gonna have to invent helmet pouches…
Do soldiers that use pistol chambered AR/AK or SMGs carry more ammo than riflemen?
No they don't, because around 300 rounds for a firefight seems a reasonable amount to everyone.
I guess machine gunners could always use more ammo but the point of caseless ammo for them is to reduce their already very heavy load (and/or giving them a bit more power to replace the SAW). And again if you're already carrying say two boxed belts of 150rds where the fuck are you gonna put two more even if you can carry them?
Ok… that's great.
If you're an engineer, because you still have to feed so you still have moving parts, the only difference is you don't have to design the extraction. But properly designed extraction isn't a technical challenge in 21st century…
So all it does is it simplifies the engineer job, not the soldiers.
If anything atmospheric/climate/storage conditions will make the ammo less reliable than normal cartridge (since they need pure combustion), it will make any overheating issue way worse and it will make proper cleaning imperative (which is never a good in field conditions). So all it does is it complexify the soldier job, not the engineer.

So yeah you bet soldiers will be against it.

Attached: Caseless ammo machinegunner.jpg (480x640, 159.14K)

you mean it heats up chamber teh most? :^)

NGSW is 3300-3500 fps with 125gr low drag bullet. This shit is hotter than 300 Win Mag, not some punny SPC.

So much this, shit's not going anywhere unless it's either compatible with the STANAG mags and therefore (likely) inferior to options that go together with it or the mags are going to get dumped which isn't going to happen unless military has an option to jew everything out of it up to the point of getting more than all its other jewery combined.

From the comment section of the article, armor defeat seems to be a top priority and so the velocity target is quite a bit higher than 6.5x47 out of presumably a much shorter barrel.

Just make a belt-fed bullpup. It would work with either M13 or M27 links if the base diameter is the same as in 5.56 or 7.62. Like how the soviet 6mm Unified had the same base diameter as the 7.62x39mm, so in theory you could load it into RPD belts. And while the RPD was long gone from their inventory by the time that 6mm cartridge was developed, those belts are currently still in inventory.

Attached: RPD_Belt7.62x39_ml.JPG (967x685, 89.9K)

Something I wonder about: in ww1 the French used brass bullets that were lathe turned (the balle D). I know that brass bullets perform very well in long range. But are they good penetrators? And how do they act inside the human body?

Attached: 8mm_Lebel_charger.jpg (2160x1620, 484.2K)

Pistol calibers have wider diameter cases than rifle calibers though.

Got any more info on that? Sounds interdasting.

modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/russia-machineguns/unificirovannyj-6mm-eng/

thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/21/modern-intermediate-full-power-calibers-019-russian-6x49mm-unified/

Attached: 6x49mmRussianUnified.jpg (865x702, 259.04K)

Brass bullets can be sent at super sanic velocities that would fuck standard jacketed bullets up. Nowadays they're used for big game hunting in Africa due to the fact they penetrate thick shit very well.

Don't normal bullets turn to plasma at around 5000 fps?

That sounds excellent! As far as I understand they are expensive because brass itself is expensive. On the other hand a single CNC lathe could spit them out at a decent rate, therefore you could manufacture them easily and cheaply if you have the brass. So in a total war scenario it's a bad idea only because the overall supply of brass might be limited.

Attached: Hotchkiss_machine_gun_ammunition_feeder_strips_-_National_World_War_I_Museum_-_Kansas_City,_MO_-_DSC07555.JPG (3558x2719, 3.71M)

We are Space marines now?

Calling it now. It gonna be a Piston AR-15 that fires careless ammo.

I would think Textron's products have the inside track if they are feasible.

Couldn't say, didn't pic related turn to dust sometime after it left the barrel?

I actually don't know whether they lathed Balle D bullets or cast them given brass/bronze is easily cast as lead is.

Attached: 1366316474339.jpg (640x391, 33.78K)

quarryhs.co.uk/600mv2015num.pdf
I was wrong, it's actually cold-pressed (see page 8).

Caseless means less weight and not dropping brass means you were a ghost.

Eating a bullet means you're a ghost, which is what's going to happen if you use "caseless" and encounter any of a thousand problems with it in the middle of a firefight.

The EM-2 and .280 British deserved better than what they got.

Hollywood called, they want their bullshit back.

Nope

Bet this faggot would have the said the same to rifling and smokeless powder.

Fuck off.

Not really. It was quite a bit weaker then 7.62 nato without offering a serious reduction in weight (%16 reduction I believe) or magazine size increase. The later .280/30 was a 7mm 30-30 but at that point they should've just gone with the T62 cartridge necked down to 7mm which the British suggested. It wouldn't be much heavier, have the same capacity, yet it would be a good deal more potent.

But what we really should've done is just force the .270 winchester onto nato.

I want 7mm rem mag or battle rifles that use progressive rifling for barrel life.

That.s the bastardized .280/30. The original was a lot lighter.
The issue is, most people compare .280/30 against 7.62x51, mostly because there is more data on it, but they should be comparing it to the original .280 round, not the massive appeasement meme round.

Also, .280 being a lot weaker than .308 is a good thing
Sage for doublepost

As far as I know the earlier wasn't all that smaller or lighter, .458 rim diameter vs .473, so I doubt it's lighter then 7.62x39. The Soviets were willing to switch from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39 for weight savings and reduced recoil so I have to wonder if the U.K. wouldn't do away with it anyway. Plus we would still need a full power cartridge. As much as people tout its superior 700+ meter (more likely closer to 900 meters for the .458 version) energy over the 7.62 it could never replace a full power cartridge. My problem comes as this was seen as a do all round meant to replace the .303 when it couldn't. If they went the Soviet approach and used it to replace 9mm subguns while still keeping/wanting a full power cartridge I think it would've had more success.

As for recoil, the only defense I have is that they should've built better guns. The fg-42 had buffered recoil, I see no reason why they couldn't implement it. I find it amusing how a 7mm-08 was purposed as it duplicates the 7x57 mauser. A ballistic copy of a round that gave both the U.S. and U.K. much trouble . Even to this day when we fawn over the 6.5 cartridges we still overlook it when it has proven itself so well.

So using a cartridge that is 16% lighter is not justifiable, yet some people go ballistic when they read about potential cartridges that would weight 25% more than 5.56 NATO yet would be good enough to replace 7.62 NATO.
That's exactly what 7mm Liviano is. Venezuela wanted to buy FALs in 7mm Mauser, but FN didn't want to redesign the rifle again, so they threw together this cartridge by necking down 7.62 NATO brass to 7mm.

That's because 6.5mm Mauser (a.k.a. 6.5mm Swedish) is even better.

Remove the caseless bit and we have a winner. Maybe telescoped rounds if we're lucky, but if they haven't figured out caseless in 40 years we aren't figuring it out in the next 2.

When are they going to make a gun that makes exploding bullets?

M79?

They already do in .50BMG and above.

We and slavshits did already.

In normal caliber no less!
Credit: karl the cuck and ian the cuck anglo.

How far have caseless rounds come in the last bit? Any big changes? Any vast improvements?

Any issues with increased fouling with the extra burn of the case, any issues with obturation because there is no case fire forming to the chamber? Longevity of cases and ammunition as loaded? Are we talking about the potential of caseless rounds, or are we talking about current advancements that are going to dominate?

It wasn't justifiable because the performance to weight ratio of the cartridge wasn't all that great for the .280/30 case. The earlier version, the more 7.62x39 level cartridge, would've been perfectly adequate but like I said before; they may have gone to a lighter cartridge anyway like the Soviets did with 7.62 to 5.45.
Then those people can go fuck their hat. The performance is equal with superior weight and we have plenty of recoil mitigation techniques available to us. As long as the cartridge volume is decent there should be no reason not adopt it as a replacement for both. Back to the topic of telescopic ammo, carrying less ammo may not even be an issue. Textron claims that their CTA system provides more first round hits and increased accuracy. So a reduction in ammo capacity wouldn't even be a problem. You could carry the same weight in this ammo as you would with 5.56 and still have the same outcome due to superior marksmanship afforded by the telescopic weapon. This is probably the biggest advantage to telescopic weapons. I've read a long time ago that CTA weapons were also easier to zero so I suspect it's true.

I didn't realize it was a real cartridge, I just thought it was prototype cartridge. Thanks for sharing Hungary. As for 6.5mm swede vs 7mm mauser, I wouldn't say that 6.5 swede is better then 7mm mauser. New high B.C. 162/168 grain 7mm bullets render it an even battle between the two. Both are great cartridges that stand on their own and can be indistinguishable ballistic wise if loaded with low drag bullets.

Guaranteed its shittier than 6.5grendel.

YeH, you guys got fucked over by the same douchenuggets that crapped on .276 Pedersen

Yes. Yes it could. You ignorant windowlicking dipshit.

reported

Oh yeah I'm actually an idiot I forgot something.
What happens if you have a malfunction? A basic dud?
You remove the mag and use a pincer or a shim or cleaning road to clear the case, instead of just cycling the action? Or do you need to design a specific emergency extraction system for it?
Such a great innovation…

Have a you spergook.

Attached: you.jpg (800x450, 73.29K)

They're still pretty garbage, the problem isn't one which can be solved easily. You need a propellant which is as tough as brass, yet still deflagrates instead of detonating. It's almost impossible.

Does the shape of the case influence internal ballistics in a significant way? To be more concrete: if you stuffed a 7.62 rifle bullet into an 5.56 case, and lenghtened it to have the same internal volume as 7.62 NATO, would it replicate the performance of that cartridge 1:1?

Attached: 7.62mm NATO, 5.56mm NATO and 9mm NATO ammunition.jpg (896x960, 54.91K)

For ballistic only the velocity and the bullet matter. Everything else is just a catapult.

No because the powder burn rate would be affected by the shape of the case, you would need to use either a "faster" powder or a longer barrel to reach the same velocity.

Faster burning propellant it is. Would cordite work for this application, or is that not actually a fast propellant?

Attached: cordite.jpg (1200x938, 257.23K)

Yes, cases that are shorter and fatter have better burn characteristics than long and skinny ones. Sharper neck angles also help with that. Take 243 winchester vs .243 WSSM for example. Using IMR-4530 the wssm can throw a 100 grain bullet at 2929 fps with 36.5 grains of powder. While the .243 winchester needs 39.5 grains to push the same bullet to 2858 fps. With IMR-4831 it's 37.3 grains @ 2914 for the wssm vs. 42.5 grains @ 2935 for the winchester.

Cordite is largely obsolete, we have much better powder.
Not necessarily "better" overall but better in "quality" as in modern stuff burn much more consistently while with cordite you used could pretty high speed variation from a bullet to the next.

So the difference is less than 0.4g in your examples, which is still quite something when someone has to carry that difference all day.

I don't want to be a cheeky cunt, but could you make a modern propellant that is extruded the same way? It seems to me that you could pack a long and slim case full of long rods of propellant very efficiently, like how the early belted magnum cartridges did it. And thin rods seem to be great at burning up quickly in a regressive way.

We probably could, we've got these short cylindrical grains which are cut that way during extrusion. I guess cords are not as convenient to use in case they break or can only be a certain length so that you cannot use them in different length cartridge or even a load with a longer bullet.

Attached: powder.jpg (610x536, 89.23K)

Now that I think about it, I've heard that either 12.7x104mm or 14.5x114mm uses long rods, but I of course can't find a single source that would describe it.

I've got a question: can you increase velocity of a bullet by increasing the case capacity of a cartridge from the same barrel without increasing the maximum pressure?

Of course, that's the oldest way of doing it. Simply increase case size for both moar powder, also more actual area of pressure to build up into. Its why a 30-06 held to lower pressures by SAAMI in the US has same or even slightly better ballistics than a 308 at higher pressure. See the 45-70 Gubmit's bigger brothers from the blackpowder era, such as the 45-90 and 45-120, even at the same pressure there is greatly increased performance at the same pressure due to more area inside the case because of that larger case size.

The little secret of increasing power in a cartridge is this (don't tell anyone) the advantages of case design efficiency aren't the great or impressive. They do change dynamics, but the idea you can change the cartridge enough to perform miracles, much less major changes, is laughable. In the end its much more simple changes that end up making up performance like sheer case size capacity more than anything else.

Short and fatter cases may have some small advantage in slow burning powder, but keep in mind that old fashioned straighter cartridges were superior with fast burning powder and lighter loads, therefore the assertion that "short and fat is better" is not quite true, it simply has a small advantage with certain powders and certain bullets. Old Mauser family cartridges like the 30-06, 8mm, 6.5 Swede, and long magnums like the 375 H&H, as well as straighter blackpowder like 45-70 Gumit, are all well known for their various qualities in full power rounds, but are also exceptionally well performing at lower loads. Reduce the pressure, choose faster burning powders, suddenly the edge goes back from these new super shorts back to classical long. 300 Whisper isn't a super short stubby, now is it, considering they want it for suppression and subsonic? 30-06 is legendary in cast rifle circles, 375 H&H is well known for reduced jack bullet loads for deer. 300 Win Mag, much less more radical short stubbies, are not good at either cast or reduced loads because its design is so optimized for full case, slow powder burn that it cuts itself off from other possibilities. Not an issue if all you use it for is full power, full powder charge loads, but a consideration to be taken in. They aren't the hype you think they are, in the overall, short stubbies aren't magic or some scientific breakthrough like the advertisers try to make you think, and most of all they are different, not universally superior.

Finally, once we come back to magazine capacity the old straight cases win yet again. Short stubs brag endlessly about how they can shorten the action length by a fraction of an inch and cut one tenth of an ounce from the gun's weight like they have done some sort of miracle. But, especially for combat considerations, those fatter bases yield less rounds per loaded magazine for the same size magazine than an old straighter bottleneck. My 375 H&H is big, but in a CZ rifle does it have better capacity than a 300 Win Mag? Can you fit more 243 in the same magazine space then the WSSM? 9mm Luger, 5.7 in the handgun world, and all smaller caliber rifle cases for service consideration brag about weight savings and higher capacity in a smaller magazine. A general service cartridge with a short stubby will see this slip past them, they will require larger magazines for the same capacity. People got so fucking hung up on shortening a case they forgot they ended up making it larger, too. Huh.

Also shoulders must be considered for feeding issues, at some point a bottleneck is better than a straight case for feeding in general. But, keep fucking around with that design and the shoulders will go past peak efficiency and go backwards, making the cases harder to feed and less reliable. The "miracle" of the super stubs comes crashing to a halt here, they are toy cartridges to sell to people with too much money, they offer little to nothing to the military, security, or even auto loading rifle community in general.

Also consider that efficiency actually results from size issues yet again. To achieve the same performance with the same bullet, a smaller cartridge that obtain that same performance will have the edge in efficiency. Larger case capacities lead to greater potential, but also more waste. Noslers new super medium bores are highly inefficient. 308 is more efficient than 30-06 because it is smaller, more efficient to load up a 308 to higher pressure than to load down the larger 30-06. A Japanese doctor I watch on the Youtube went on about this familiar issue, with reloading components 2-3x that of the burgerlander, he would have long term cost savings going to 308 as he correctly calculated. If we really break down some of the loads using 243 and 243 WSSM, is the efficiency in the shoulder, or is the efficiency in the fact that the shorter case actually might end up with total less case capacity when the long bullets are pushed into the shorter case into the powder area? Another note of fat vs slims, 300 H&H is less powerful all the way up to 220 grain bullets against the 300 Win Mag, because 300 Win Mag's shortness comes at a cost with super heavy bullets as they interfere with the case space as they are deeply seated in the powder area. Is the efficincy of the stub more to do with the big bullet making less space in the case and increasing efficinecy, or just because of the shoulder?

I should have added those were the minimum loading's for .243 wssm while the .243 winchester loads were at their maximum. Source is Lyman's reloading manual 49th edition.

Well WSSM cartridges are meant to be high pressure, high performance cartridges and perform best when loaded hot; ~61k psi. They're not meant to be loaded with reduced power loads. Unfortunately the shorter actions restrict bullet length which is a bit of a shame as they fall into this odd 2.35-2.5" OAL category, too long for AR-15's (although there are some uppers chambered for the three of them) and not long enough to fall into the 2.8" range. As for capacity you won't be getting much but this cartridge wasn't designed to be used in a semi-auto. It was made as a bolt action cartridge meant for hunting or in long range shooting. I agree though, they are not practical outside of that setting. I couldn't tell you why they are more efficient at comparable bullet weights but they definitely are limited in what they can do compared to larger cartridges that have greater flexibility. I only brought the WSSM up to show how case dimensions can affect velocity.

To get back on topic, telescopic cases seem to combine the best of both worlds. 70-100k psi pressures in a straightwall-esque cartridge. If you want more power just make the case 0.5" longer. I'm not sure how well they would do with reduced loads however. I would suspect obturation would be an issue with plastic cases as the plastic would simply undergo elastic deformation under lower pressures.

Thank you, kind sir for your detailed explaination. Now i can clearly see that you truly are a man of culture.

Addressed to >>618183
but your information is plentiful as well.

I've worked with telescopic cases and they have a whole series of downsides. One of their biggest flaw is that they aren't reloadable, so all the government has to do to ban guns is stop 1 large factory from producing them, and in a few years no one will be able to shoot anyway.

Well, it should be available commercially for civie too, that point it would be too popular to be banned.