We were on the verge of greatness. We were this close
>>62486852let me guess, an HMX derivative?
>>62486852My experience with reality is that everything has smaller or bigger tradeoffs, what's the catch here?
>>62486875If you think 6.8 has high chamber pressures, this shit is bananas. Also case taper is important.
>>62486852>this>polymer>6mm max>quad stack mags>70+ rounds at less weight then 20 rounds of 6.8 siggerDamn shame OP.>>62486875The propellant is dramatically more challenging from a tech pov vs classic smokeless we've been doing for over 100 years. Would require major capital investments for new infra. But by modern standards it'd be perfectly doable.Classic economic conundrum tho.
>>62486852>>62486860>>62486875>BUBBA'S PISSIN' HOT OCTANITROCUBANE WITH DELAYING HEXANITROHEXAAZAISOWURTZITANE ISOSTATICALLY COMPRESSED COMPOSITE MATRIX PROPELLANT
>new ammo by france>looks inside>plagiarized german autismos of glued gunpowder but in a case
>>62487250
>>62486852I’ve was the DTIC report on 5.56 Knox. There is no way it wasn’t full of bullshit. They were claiming, with some loads, energy ~50% greater than that of 5.56 without going overpressure. They were also claiming, in other loads, ballistics identical to m855 and at the same pressure. Unless they’ve cooked up some new powder with far greater energy density, then I’m not buying it. And if they have, where is it? A energy density in any field/industry represents a guaranteed paradigm shift. You don’t just shelve it. But can you imagine how sick it would be if it were real? Significantly lighter ammo, 100 round quad stack mags, mag-fed LMGs, and on and on.I have an idea though. Cut the case down to like 25-30mm, load it with a ~7 caliber long expanding .224 (like the maker rex bullets), stick it in a 1 in <2 twist barrel, fire it at subsonic velocity. You prob can’t go faster cause of case capacity. It would punch well above its weight class in terms of subsonic rounds simply due to its length and max expansion. Because of the small caliber, it Would also suppress far better for any given can size, and even more so by virtue of its smaller powder charge. You could also use aforementioned 100rd quad stacks that probably won’t even be longer than a regular PMAG.
>>62486912>new propellantIf true, the rewards are enormous. Why shelve that fancy new propellant when it can open the door to entirely new categories of guns. The startup/mfg cost is surely nothing compared to what the militaries and industry gains.. Hundreds of Millions, if not billions are spent in trying to lighten the soldiers load by lightening the ammo, when smaller cases + energy dense powders are an excellent solution. How come sig went with a fancy case when it could have just swapped to fancy new powder? One thinks that would be cheaper.
>>62486852ok, now post the chamber pressure.
>>62486852straight wall casing is much worse for extraction
>>62486852> half the powder> same powernow use the same magic to give it ALL the powder and DOUBLE THE POWER
>>62487570>https://techlinkcenter.org/news/us-army-researchers-are-turning-it-up-to-11-to-make-hypervelocity-firearms/>5750fpsMaybe they did
>>62487580>squeeze borepukes
>>62487616Nah. If the problems plagueing small caliber squeezebore bullets can be solved, this makes every gun an SBR and enables ridiculously necked down cartridges at hyper velocities. imagine a 5.56 that only needs like 7 inches of barrel for the same velocity it gets now from a 20”
>>62487734Would bullets have enough time to stabilize considering how insanely fast they're moving and how much time (length of barrel) they have to achieve stabilization?
>>62486852>The trend has been to go for smaller calibers for lighter weight and capacity>this was being tested>Boomers in control with stocks in SIG: "nah, we want another battle rifle"
>>62487945Kek
>>62487782stabilization is more a function of having enough twist rate for the projectile since rifling forces it to spin at X rpm regardless of the time in barrel.
>>62487782Barrel length doesn’t have anything to do with stabilization. Once spin is imparted, that’s it. A 2 “ barrel with a twist rate of x will impart the same spin on the bullet as a 20” barrel of twist rate x.
>>62487945For as much better round for round 6.8 is than 5.56, I would rather just have more ammo for the same weight. the 450rd+ combat load of the G11 without an increasing in the soldiers burden was IMO the most impressive and revolutionary thing about it.
>>62487995>>62488006I was under the impression that if the bullet was flying fast enough, it won't have enough time to properly engage with the rifling
>>62488057the bullet is swaged into the rifling when fired so it either spins, gets stuck, or the jacket is shredded off the core.
>>62488057>I was under the impression that if the bullet was flying fast enough, it won't have enough time to properly engage with the rifling
>>62486912>The propellant is dramatically more challenging from a tech pov vs classic smokeless we've been doing for over 100 years.What kind of numbers are we talking about here?
>>62488057I mean, yeah that can happen but not at normal rifle velocities. Idk how high you’d have to go for the jacket to shred off or a solid bullet to shear. Spin is imparted to the bullet instantly. Like it goes from 0 angular velocity to really high angular velocity in almost no time.>>62488127What this guy said^
>>62488029And I learned the other day upon viewing of a forgotten weapons video that it also had hyperburst. 2,000 rpm burst, and ~600 or so rpm full auto,Too bad the gun is a 1,000,000 piece clock.
>>62488309They used a solid bronze bullet, too. It was very, very impressive against soft body armor at extended distances, and the bullet was a "loeffelspitz" design--translates to "spoon point"--that was designed to yaw very early and very aggressively in soft tissue. Apparently each bullet had a little concavity, a little hollow divot, in the side of the ogive just behind the point, and that was enough to destabilize it in soft tissue.I still want to see someone like maybe PSA make an MP5 clone in 5.7mm. It'd be lulzy.
>>62488309>Too bad the gun is a 1,000,000 piece clock.That part is often overstated.The gun itself was mostly very simple except for the infamous clockwork mechanism. But that was a closed system with very little chance of malfunction and a very easy and quick way to replace it should it malfunction.So just issuing every soldier a single replacement they could slap in would be more than enough to tide them over until the armorer gets to look at the used one.In a way it would've made the job of grunts even easier than it is now because there's not really anything you can fuck up and if something does happen nobody would expect them to fix it.
>>62488341What is it about the caseless ammo (or the clock) that makes the clock resistant to malfunction? I’d assume any malfunction that renders the gun unusable would have to happen far more rarely than like an m4 FTE or FTF or something.
>>62488331I’ve seen the spoon point before in pictures of a 4.6x?? Specimen. How does it affect flight? I’m guessing maybe not at all cause the spin averages things out? IIRC the Russians use a hollow cavity just behind that nose that the nose collapses into upon impact with tissue. Sounds like a very similar thing.>mp5 in 5.7Nooooooooo . MP7 in 5.7.. The space inefficiency of a Mag OUTSIDE the grip when it can fit inside makes me angry.
Can someone more versed in materials science explain to me why you could just jam petn into a case and have a stupidly short but thick barrel?
>>62487250Fuck, got meNever heard a guy in my head try to scream words i can't pronounce before
>>62489007never?
>>62486896Not how pressure works. If the bullet is of identical mass and goes identically fast the chamber pressure is identical. It would just be in a smaller package. The trade off here is that every rifle in inventory would need to be re-barreled for a new cartridge with identical performance. Yes, the size and weight were smaller, but is that really enough to justify the cost of a transition?The XM7 has the same problem. It is effectively an AR-10 in a new ammo only it uses but is nearly identical in performance, size, and weight to the 7.62 NATO cartridge, but costs over $13/round. And this is to get 7.62 NATO performance out of a rifle with a barrel 13 inches long but permanently fitted with a can so large that the overall barrel length is greater than the M110 and loaded to such a high pressure that the barrel life is less than half that of the M4. The other branches won't adopt it. NATO won't adopt it. Eventually the Army will be forced back into compliance with NATO standards and re-bore the rifles for 7.62 NATO. The 6.8 Sigger was a mistake and the war in Ukraine is proving that infantry with rifles is just not that effective in winning wars. They're personal defense weapons and only useful in an offensive role in COIN.
>>62486875barrel life drops by half
>>62489032We have subtitles and AI translations bro.I…. Understand him now. *weep*
>>62489166Unless and until augmented reality glasses slaved to the snowflake optic can indicate incoming drones or skeeted nades and give a retard point and shoot indicators for first round hits on small objects, it was never going anywhere apart from being a SAW replacement with maybe some slower barrel heating with the hybrid ammo (then again, why not accept marginal gains in the old package with hybridized 556, 308, whatever). I hope Eric Prince gets in the Orange Man's ear if he's elected and audits Sig with all this horseshit.
>>62489007Come on anon you can do it too>OCTA NITRO CUBANE>HEXA NITRO HEXA AZA ISO WURTZI ANE
>>62489752Thats a lot of oxygen bound to nitrogen. What is it? Rocket fuel?
>>62488880Oh, I didn't say it would be practical, but it'd be hilarious. Here, have an artist's conception. I estimate that in 5.7mm a straight mag the same length as the 30rd 9mm mag would hold 40 rounds of 5.7mm. Maybe use a lower receiver/grip module that can accept an AR15 FCG and put in a binary trigger. DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA, what's not to like? HK's continued saltiness about the 5.7mm round makes it even better.
>>62487372>They were claiming, with some loads, energy ~50% greater than that of 5.56 without going overpressure.There's absolutely nothing weird about that. You just need a more even pressure curve and you could easily even double KE.
>>62489864A high explosive. A really, really spicy one.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitaneDetonation velocity is 9.5 kilometers/sec. That's a spicy-a meatball! It's also too sensitive to be useful for anything, though they've been trying to figure out a way to use it in munitions for 40+ years. There are claims that CHYNA is using it in missile warheads. I call shenanigans. We'd have seen them having a few enormous "oopsies" with it that would be too big to hide and probably readily visible from orbit.
>>62488341You would have to issue the whole action. No, no spares would be issued.There's no reason it couldn't have been quite reliable however.>>62488867Push feed and push ejection.
>>62489752Why stop there? >https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
>>62488006>Barrel length doesn’t have anything to do with stabilization.You're correct, but not completely so: a shorter barrel gives the same spin rate, but obviously also gives a lower velocity and may thus give less total spin to a projectile. Practically speaking, this means that the 20'' projectile may have been stable, but the 2'' one not so much because it lacks to speed to achieve the required RPM.>>62488284>Idk how high you’d have to go for the jacket to shred off or a solid bullet to shear.Quick twist .22-250 with light bullets seems to do the job, so about 40 grains at 4000 FPS.>Spin is imparted to the bullet instantly. Like it goes from 0 angular velocity to really high angular velocity in almost no time.Spin does actually gain throughout the barrel as velocity increases, so this ''instant'' angular velocity increase is not really as instant as you describe it to be.>>62488983Most explosives detonate quickly enough to burst metal casings anyways: that's the whole operating principle behind shells and grenades. That means straight up high explosives ain't gonna work, at least not without shattering your receiver and barrel within any reasonable timeframe.
>>62488284>>62489951Jesus this is painful guys. How can you mistake "weak jacket shred" for "engage with rifling"!? How can you not know the 300k RPM rule of thumb? It has nothing to do with fucking speed, it's a matter of the RPM and in turn both velocity and twist.And it doesn't matter particularly either because you just use a monolithic or bonded bullet. If you want to fire the cheapest shit FMJ then it's a consideration but nobody doing custom high twist barrels and exotic super fast rounds is looking for the cheapest plinker.
>>62490241>It has nothing to do with fucking speed, it's a matter of the RPM and in turn both velocity and twist.So you're saying it has nothing to do with speed, yet is dependant on RPM, which is a function of... velocity and twist. Huh.And for the record, a 40 grain solid copper bullet at 300K RPM has about a 29MPa maximum stress, with a high enough twist rate and high enough velocity you can get the RPM well north of 400K which could even exceed the yield strength of monolithic copper.
>>62489951>>62490374you fucking retard holy christ
>>62489928>You would have to issue the whole action. No, no spares would be issued.You can take out the entire clockwork mechanism with relative ease and slide a new one in, even in the field.No reason not to spread some spares around, even if it's just one per squad.
>>62490549That clockwork mechanism IS the whole barreled action. What's left after you take it out is just a light plastic shell. You don't just issue a whole another barreled action to everyone.It's like having everyone carry two K98k actions and one stock, ie. retarded.
>>62490568If it works, it works.Though one for each is probably overkill, hence >>62490549>just one per squad.
>>62486852What's the propellant called?
>>62489915Okay but what's the next best option that both booms hard and doesn't constantly boom unintended?HMX?
>>62486852What cartridge is better for this propellant? A straight-walled round to fit 50, 60, or 70 shots in an AR size mag or a bottlenecked pistol style round in SMG stick size mags?
>>62491727CL-20 stabilized with HMX is the best explosive right now.
>>62491752And can production be scaled up at a reasonable price?
>>62489166>>62489293They should just bring back the M16A4 and AR-10 lmao
>>62489951>velocity affects stabilization.I knew right when I hit post that someone would reply to me with this, lol.>instanttly imparted angular velocity.True it’s not reaching full rpm in 0 seconds, but it does achieve quite high rpm in an extremely short time, colloquially referred to as “instant”. Like what’s the velocity/rpm out of a 4 inch 5.56? Not trivial.. but yes you are right.>.22-250 shears jacket at 4kDid not know that. Thanks.>>62490241What is the 300krpm rule of thumb? That a limit for normal bullets?
>>62489942>Checked and found Derek Lowe still writing articles in 2024Excellent
>>62487391Story I heard was, burn rate was stupidly fucking dangerous, and they were intentionally testing with a bolt action. Amd when it came to running the shit through a wildcat convert M4, reliability went to shit because gas expansion was all over the fucking place. Basically, because the powder charge was so small, half of standard NATO spec, to state the obvious, you're 5% off your powder charge on the new shit, you'd actually be 10% off lake city current manufactured. So you had to pay WAY more attention to each load. And mind you, that charge swings both ways, lean AND hot, between two different shots. That all was again, on top of a powder charge that was burning SCARY fucking fast and hot, which, again, had its own set of problems.It was a good idea, nobody considered how it would pan out at scale though. Maybe in a piston gun, maybe with a shit load of money spent on increasing the QC of lakecity, who the fuck knows. But the money saved per round on materials and transport wouldn't be recovered for decades.
>>62493553Sounds like a good excuse to plasticize or compress and extrude into charge sized pellets that are simple to weigh then drop into the straight wall case vs metering powder.I know its different chemistry but pre-weighed black powder pellets seem easy enough for the industry to churn out.
>>62488006Not really, because the 20" muzzle velocity will probably be much higher than the 2" muzzle velocity. Higher velocity for a given twist rate means more spin.
>>62493916I Should’ve been more specific. The twist rate will be the same I.e. they will both be turning at a rate of 1 revolution in x inches. Rpm’s obviously are affected by velocity.
800m rifle range is so fucking retarded, are you going to maneuver your rifle platoon 800m to engage in close combat? with less ammo how are you going to maneuver 800m to close with and destroy the enemyI asked these questions to a major at futures command, he told me that they had made the choice to not consider any doctrinal changes with NGSW at all. womp wompan 800m pop gun is just a DMR or incredibly shitty 240. the 240, or vic should be the one doing the shooting at 800m not your riflemen
>>62490843You DO NOT ISSUE AN EXTRA RIFLE PER SQUADThat is totally retarded and negates the weight benefits of caseless ammo.You issue one rifle per man. The rifle is reliable and works.
>>624935539mm has half the powder charge of 5.56mm. Do you ever hear about problems with 9mm? no? then shut the fuck up retard
>>62494265>he told me that they had made the choice to not consider any doctrinal changes with NGSW at all>change all your light weight carbines/assault rifles to full size battle rifles>absolutely no doctrinal changeThe ABSOLUTE state of US army. 1# in the world...
>>62496134NTA, but try to get the volume of 9mm propellant to fire the 124gr bullet at whatever velocity yields ~1200ft*lbs (3-4x the muzzle energy of 9mm, and cycle the gun, without blowing it up or splitting the case or, like, welding it to the chamber, and do this consistently enough for general use. The problems arise from the demands placed upon the diminutive mass of powder, not the absolute quantity of it.
>>62496331What does it matter if the powder is more energetic?Measuring precision is not affected and it is similarly proportionally worse for a smaller quantity of powder which means that the percentage difference of 9mm is similarly higher than 5.56 as would be with the new powder 5.56.
>>62492336>True it’s not reaching full rpm in 0 seconds, but it does achieve quite high rpm in an extremely short time, colloquially referred to as “instant”.It's internal ballistics, so while I understand your point, "instant" is somewhat different in this field.>Like what’s the velocity/rpm out of a 4 inch 5.56?I wouldn't know, honestly, so I tried to calculate. Keep in mind I have a 12 hour shift and 2 hour drive behind me so go gently on my stupidity.You could calculate average linear and rotational acceleration with the begin and end values, but it's easier to just use the maximum pressure acting on the bullet, since that gives the maximum force and thus maximum acceleration of the bullet. Maximum pressure is easy to find, because that is usually the limit for not blowing up your gun so SAAMI and CIP have an opinion on that.F=m*aF=P*AP=4300 bar (63kpsi) = 430 N/mm2A=24.26mm2 (5.56mm diameter)F=10431Nm=3.56 grams (55 grains)a=2930 km/s2Huh, damn, that's a lot. So, at that exact time, given a 1:7 twist (1 rotation per 177.8mm), you'd end up with something insane like 16.48 million revolutions per second squared.None of the above maths was made sober, this is not engineering advice.
>>62486852Hear me out: we take this super propellant and then we jack up the pressure too. 120kpsi minimum. I'm thinking hypersonic MP7s with 50 round mags are the new standard issue rifle.
>>62487391Look at what happened with CL-20. I hope they are less retarded about whatever new energetic this is. We had to go full Iranian and start flex sealing SM-6 unto super bugs bc the chinks decided to use (stolen) CL-20 for the PL-15 et al
>>62492336>>62498609If you just wanted RPM, using exit velocity is enough since at that point no more velocity or spin would be gained. Running a basic M855/SS109 recipe through a couple barrel lengths gets me this:4" 1:7 is 1513 fps at 155,623 rpm 20" 1:7 3104 fps at 319,269 rpm which is unsurprisingly just beyond the "300k rule" if we assume the M16A2 and its 20" barrel is the intended barrel length for M855 but also knowing the US military chose the 1:7 twist for M856 Tracer stabilization and not the M855.However, bullet gyroscopic stability is more than just RPM since projectile mass, length and diameter all play a part so everything is generally calculated under the Miller Twist Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_twist_ruleFrom the 20" the SS109 projectile has a stability factor of 2.39 (ie Overstabilized) if we are aim for a traditional desired stability factor of 1.5-1.7 then a 1:8.5 twist will get us there at 1.621 or 262,927 rpm. Oh my, all those 1:8 and 1:9 twist AR barrels manufacturers used to sell make a lot of sense now don't they? Too bad the "customer is always right" and the market demanding mil-spec or nothing means a lot of brands are now selling suboptimal barrels because of it.What about that 1:7 twist in the super slow 4" though? 1.88 stability factor out of the gate, not perfect but not bad. If you wanted to be in the same ballpark as the M16A2 then going to a 1:6 twist gets us 2.56 or 181,560rpm
>>62496129>You DO NOT ISSUE AN EXTRA RIFLE PER SQUADCorrect, just the clockwork mechanism.
>>62496839>Measuring precision is not affected and it is similarly proportionally worse for a smaller quantity of powder which means that the percentage difference of 9mm is similarly higher than 5.56 as would be with the new powder 5.56.NTA but powder's not filled in based on percentages but by grains.Being 1 grain of 2 off is a lot more than 1 of 100. Now obviously modern powder isn't quite the same as the old grained powder that was so much better than loose but for chemical reason involving oxygen I'm sure you're aware of grains are generally the way to go.
>>62501924Which weighs 80% as much as a rifle...
>>62502020That's exactly what I said you fucking retard.Lets say one (1) grain is the measuring accuracy.That means that the variance for 9mm is twice than that of 5.56.
>>62489293>I know, let's put a computer in our optics package!>What could possibly go wrong?>>62489166I think the takeaway from the XM7 programme is that anything the US Army thinks is a good idea is a terrible idea that will backfire in obvious ways because all the staff officers are blockheads that only got the job because all the smart people left for greener pastures.Now if we could only have accepted this when the M14 was categorically proven to be a dumb idea instead of just going along with it because they've already decided and have the biggest impact on the defence budget, we could have cut out a lot of stupid shit by just not listening to the retards in charge of the thing.
>>62492336300k rpm is a safe speed limit for cup and core bullets, when you exceed that the copper and lead can centrifuge separate in the air
>>6250285920% weight savings sounds great even if you pulled that number out of your ass
>>62502869Yes, retard, therefore it matters a lot if powder has twice the energy.
>>62504229It's not weight savings you retard.It's adding 80% of a rifle's weight to your squad for no reason.Which is why nobody would have done it.
>>62504237Why do you think so?Okay, so lets go with the hypothetical 1 grain measurement accuracy making a 3.5% variance in fuel out of the 28 grains a 5.56 has. You halve your load and now you've got a 7% variance in fuel. It doesn't make a difference if the fuel is more powerful or not, you've still got a 7% variance in fuel amount. The same variance as with any cartridge that has half the fuel of 5.56 like for example 9mm para.
>>62505827>Why do you think so?It doubles the reduction or increase in power of any mistake, you dumb nigger.Let's say normal powder takes 10 grains.You add 1 grain too much.You now have 110% of the target load.The hotter powder only requires 5 grains.But you add 1 grain too much again.Now you have 120% of the target load.The mistake of your measurement is just as big as it was before but the consequences have doubled.That means your acceptable margin of error has halved.
>>62505861What a Luddite cope. Let's say you're concerned about +/- 1 grain. Buy a modern production line that is far more accurate than 1 grain of precision instead of projecting your boomer handloading errors into the 21st century.
>>62506067Hey retard, let me go through this very simply so even you can understand and use your own example:>>62505827>Okay, so lets go with the hypothetical 1 grain measurement accuracy making a 3.5% variance in fuel out of the 28 grains a 5.56 has. You halve your load and now you've got a 7% variance in fuel. It doesn't make a difference if the fuel is more powerful or not, you've still got a 7% variance in fuel amount. The same variance as with any cartridge that has half the fuel of 5.56 like for example 9mm para.That 7% difference in 9mm para?It's a 14% difference now.Does it matter with a single grain or two? Probably not. But it matters at some point and the safe zone you have with ANY catridge is halved.>just buy a modern production line bro>just change the entire industry bro>bro just spend billions on equipment of other people bro>bro just expect companies to want to spend all that money broYou failed at the very first step when you failed to realize the consequences of the change in energy. Now you've failed in your pathetic attempt to pretend it doesn't matter because you appealed to an industry you clearly have no insight in.Kill yourself, retard.
>but anon I demand an example of machinery more precise than a drunk boomer's fingertips punching a progressive press!Automated pill making machines handle quantities a thousandfold smaller.
>>62506100see >>62506111You're living in the past. Go panic about your heart meds boomer. Take an aspirin.
>>62505861Yes and?That's exactly what I said?There are plenty of cartridges that have half of the powderload of 28 grains that the 5.56 has (like 9mm para) and all those have ZERO problems.Halving the powder load of 5.56 is not inherently a problem due to the smaller amount of powder.
>>62506100The point is that since there is no problems with 9mm para which has less than half the powder load of 5.56 why would it be a problem to halve the powder load of 5.56? Why is this so hard to get through your thick skull?
>>62506111>>62506118Anon, I don't care about you moving the goalpost or misunderstanding industry standards. The point is that any margin of error is halved.>>62506151How are you retarded enough to consistently ignore that it's not just the halved amount, but the doubled strength of the powder, you fucking retard?>>62506161Because the powder in question is twice as strong you fucking nigger. 9mm para does not use powder that is twice as strong. Your comparison doesn't fucking work.Are you retarded?Right now literally no cartridge was made with that kind of powder in mind and neither were any SAAMI specs.
>>62506100>But it matters at some point and the safe zone you have with ANY catridge is halved.We've got tens, hundreds of cartridges that have half or less than half the powder load of 5.56 and they have ZERO problems with any safety margins.The humble 22lr produced since the 19th century has a powder charge in the 1-3 grain range.SMALL POWDER CHARGES ARE NOT AN ISSUE.
>>62506173Doubling the power of the powder does not double the variance % you fucking retard.
>>62506208>We've got tens, hundreds of cartridges that have half or less than half the powder load of 5.56 and they have ZERO problems with any safety margins.>>62506173>How are you retarded enough to consistently ignore that it's not just the halved amount, but the doubled strength of the powder, you fucking retard?>SMALL POWDER CHARGES ARE NOT AN ISSUE.See above.>>62506219It does, because powder works in grains and making 1 grain twice as powerful is relevant.
>>62506272Who gives a fuck. 22lr has 1 grain powder loads. That's THIRTY times less than 5.56.A smaller powder load IS NOT A PROBLEM
>>62506317>A smaller powder load IS NOT A PROBLEMI agree, but:>>62506173>How are you retarded enough to consistently ignore that it's not just the halved amount, but the doubled strength of the powder, you fucking retard?
>>6250631922lr has thirty times, 3000% bigger variance per measurement error than 5.56.Does this cartridge with a stronger powder and less volume have that much?
>>62506336Not every cartridge is 22lr and >>62506173>Right now literally no cartridge was made with that kind of powder in mind and neither were any SAAMI specs.
>>62506161>variance within 9mm>no problemo>variance with BUBBA'S PISSIN' HOT OCTANITROCUBANE LOADS>biggo problemo>>62506208>half or less than half the powder load of 5.56 and they have ZERO problems with any safety marginsBecause the safety margin is designed around regular powders.If you're channeling the ghosts of Project Eldest Son to make high performance cartridges, you can't fuck up or else you'll end up with a bolt carrier sticking out of your forehead.
>>62506342The point being that 22lr is the most produced cartridge in the world and also the cheapest one.If it doesn't have a problem getting the powder charge right, a military cartridge would not either.
>>62506398>The point being that 22lr is the most produced cartridge in the world and also the cheapest one.Which is irrelevant to literally everything I've ever written in this thread.>If it doesn't have a problem getting the powder charge right, a military cartridge would not either.You mean military cartridges that aren't 22lr and are often loaded pretty fucking hot?Do you think problems become more likely when these military loads use a powder that is twice as powerful, anon?
>>62506398>If it doesn't have a problem getting the powder charge right, a military cartridge would not eitherEach powder has a specific energy per mass unit, measured in J/kg.Most powders fall within 3500-4000 joule per kilogram.If your variance is small you barely add joule to the cartridge's chemical potential. If you're using a much more energetic powder, suddenly the small variance can go beyond the safe limits because you're adding a lot of joule with little extra mass.
>>62506455Why would doubling the variance matter if you're using loading equipment with 1000x finer resolution? Congrats, now you're only 500x safer. Wow, it's nothing.
>>62506587NTA but why don't we just load the ammo to 1 grain below its maximum capacity since nothing can go wrong nowadays anyway?Bolties don't care.
>>62506607rarely will rifle loads be at case capacity just due to using only so many different powder formulations and pressure concerns. factory ammo generally does have a grain or more of leeway before pmax anyway to keep the lawyers at bay. the issue is when the military says they want pissing hot M855A1 at 10k more psi than standard 5.56. The margin for error gets real thin there.
>>62486912>6mm maxBased
>>62486852So why can't this propellant be adopted for use on existing cartridges? Why can't they start putting this stuff into existing .22LR cartridges for increased muzzle velocity like back when they started putting nitrocellulose into .22LR to replace black powder? Too high chamber pressure?
>>62489905I would love to see a propellant that hits max pressure at 4" in my lifetime. That's how we get rifle velocity in handguns.
>>62488983There eventually comes a point where the shock wave will shatter a bullet before pushing it.
>>62489166you are a tard. think about it for 2 seconds before writing a 20 page essay
>>62506336simple. pressure damage to a barrel is not linear and it's trivially easy to make a barrel for a .22 that can survive an accidental double-strength load, because you're going to make it that thick anyway just so it won't bend. bigger rifles do not benefit from this.
>>62489166>but costs over $13/roundNo. Stop regurgitating bullshit you saw online from dubious sources that priced prototype rounds and assume that production rounds cost the same
>>62504220Wouldn’t that be a function of angular velocity? 5mm bullet at 300krpm has half the angular velocity of a 10mm bullet at 300krpm.
>>62507330whenever its yee olde reloader wisdom just assume its 30 cal unless specified otherwise
>>62489166>If the bullet is of identical mass and goes identically fast the chamber pressure is identical"chamber pressure", which is actually more properly defined as peak chamber pressure, when taken alone has little to do with how fast a particular bullet will go. Magnum cartridges have lower pressure than some of the new ones, the bullets still go faster.What pushes the bullet out is force, not at the chamber mouth, at the back of the projectile. This occurs along the barrel's entire length, and is proportionate to the area under the pressure curve as measured at the projectile's base.To get the same area under the curve, in the same length barrel, with half of the propellent charge, you need more than double the peak chamber pressure.>>62489905>You just need a more even pressure curve and you could easily even double KE.Read your words back: "you just need a more even pressure curve"...the pressure curve is dictated by GEOMETRY. The pressure/volume relationship of a gas in an expanding tube is a natural logarithm. It will ALWAYS look like that, forever, everywhere in the universe. It's one of those permanent things which never, ever changes.There is no way to escape the pressure increase when attempting to get the same projectile energy from a reduced powder supply. None. The end.
>>62486852If I wanted some brass like that where could I get it?I have a really retarded idea regarding a .22cal gun withe xboxhueg capacity.
>>62486852If anyone has more information/any advice to get more information on this, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>62486860>>62487250No, there's not a whole lot of information on the Global propellants out there but they are basically just a specific formulation of conventional smokeless.
>>62489864whenever you see nitro groups like that it means it's a high explosiverocket fuel is just hydrocarbons and liquid oxygen mixed in the engine lol
>>62486912Cased telescoped.
>>625064555.56 is 2000J while 22lr is only 200J.A 1J variance for 22lr is a 0,5% variance while that 1J is 0,05% for 5.56.Even if the powder were twice as powerful the variance for 5.56 would only be 0,1%, FIVE (5) times less than that of 22lr, the cheapest and most produced cartridge in the world.
>>62506953That's literally what happens.Most of the high pressure is always near the chamber.
>>62507508>Read your words back: "you just need a more even pressure curve"...the pressure curve is dictated by GEOMETRY. The pressure/volume relationship of a gas in an expanding tube is a natural logarithm. It will ALWAYS look like that, forever, everywhere in the universe. It's one of those permanent things which never, ever changes.YOU FUCKING RETARD GO LOOK UP POWDER BURN RATES
>>62508588Or whatever fucked shit solid fuel is made off, but you're essentially correct.
>>62508854I think you misunderstood. The pressure needs to top out further from the chamber to get higher velocity. We're currently at about 2" with the best propellants, but a smoother pressure curve would massively improve performance.
>>62489752Anybody who knows the slightest bit about explosives chemistry knows to stay the fuck away from whatever that pic is. That's the kinda shit that detonates if you breathe too close to it.
>>62508946Oh yeah for sure. It would be excellent if someone came up with a propellant that maintains peak pressure for an extended period of time.It's pretty incredible how much theoretical kinetic energy is "wasted" because the system is working at it's peak pressure capacity only for such a short time.
>>62508954Heh, tell that to the guys at SIG's cartridge dev team.B'sP'ngHOct.Ni.Cu.W/DHNi.HAz.Wu.IsoCComp.MPro is the future, they told me so themselves!
>>62507409it's either that or 45 or 35, right
>>62508961Mix a powder from 1 part fast-burning and 1 part slow-burning.
>>62508869>solid fuelperchlorate burning ammonia and aluminum and some gluesome madmen made a nitrocellulose rocket motor, which counts
>>62508954it's actually surprisingly stable compared to how it looks, which doesn't mean much
>>62486852I can find basically no information online about this save for this forum.cartridgecollectors DOT org/t/knox-engineering-straight-walled-5-56mm-round/52919/3 and that is severely annoying me.
>>62507508>To get the same area under the curve, in the same length barrel, with half of the propellent charge, you need more than double the peak chamber pressure.No, you need a twice more energetic powder. If you have a higher chamber pressure you'll end up with a faster bullet.
>>62510332>No, you need a twice more energetic powder. If you have a higher chamber pressure you'll end up with a faster bullet.Anon I don't wish to be a pedant but what do you think the burning propellant does in the chamber
>>62508860>YOU FUCKING RETARD GO LOOK UP POWDER BURN RATESGeometry is an UNALTERABLE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. I don't know how much clearer I can make this point: EVERY SINGLE COMBUSTIBLE PROPELLANT WHICH WILL EVER EXIST PRODUCES A GRAPH WITH THAT SHAPE. Every single one. Everywhere. If aliens billions of lightyears away are shooting each other, they're looking at THAT EXACT FUCKING GRAPH.But let's humor your retarded outburst: in what barrel length? You know that time, force, and distance are all interlinked factors here, right? You have to get the energy into the projectile BEFORE it leaves the barrel. Everything needs to happen quickly, and if you have less powder producing less gas it needs to happen even faster.So the only way to scavenge the same energy, in the same barrel length, from less powder, is to increase peak pressure. Because less powder will never produce more gas, since you're working with less gas the expansion ratio is greater, and the effect on the bullet further down the barrel will be lower, so all the energy needs to be transferred earlier, so you need much, much more peak pressure.
>>62510332>more energeticWhat do more energetic things produce more of when burned in a confined space?
>>62508850This completely bypasses a lot of internal ballistics. From the different priming methods used, to the different powders, neck tension, bullet hardness, engraving depth, the freebore, twist rate and rifling throat angle.If you load .22LR with powder made of RDX you're gonna have to hand load it and measure by digital scale rather than dumping it off a hopper in a mass production machine.
>>62510853>he doesn't know about triple base pressure curve shaping or manipulating gas volume per gramMidwit syndrome. It's time to learn about tank shells, tourist!
>>62510332I think we've found the guy who sells his hand reloaded RAUFOSS rounds lmao
>>62488341>The gun itself was mostly very simple>Except for the infamous clockwork mechanism... So it's not very simple then?
>>62511149>mostlyAs in 90% was extremely simple.Except for the clockwork, which is also a lot simpler than mechanically illiterate people pretend, but that's another conversation.
>>62511046>google triple base pressure curve>chink study which auto downloads a PDF straight from the google linkOh, it's fucking nothing.>manipulating gas volume per gramMore nonsense. You're not escaping the inverse square law.>It's time to learn about tank shells, tourist!Tank barrels are about 10x the length of rifle barrels. You know when I ask things like "in what barrel length?", those are words which relate to things in real life. When you read "in what barrel length?" it should occur to you that rifles and tanks are not the same length.These things do not occur to you because you're the kind of person who believe in perpetual motion machines, or water-powered engines; you think contrarians are critics; they aren't, they're idiots.>>62486852The first engineer outside the company who this was shown to probably immediately told their boss it was a scam, and that's why we don't hear about it, and why the company who made the propellant isn't making billions selling it.The wonder-technologies of the world are not being concealed, at great expense, by vast conspiracies, for no fucking reason.
>>62511993>Oh, it's fucking nothing>the basis of 1970s onwards tank cannons is fucking nothing -t. tourist unable to do basic research and afraid of pdfsYou're a tourist camping on mt stupid.
>>62486852We're bringing it back
>>62512123
>>62512111>>the basis of 1970s onwards tank cannons is fucking nothing -t. tourist unable to do basic research and afraid of pdfs5 seconds of research reveals that tank cannons experience the same pressure/time curve as rifles, just elongated because the round is spending more time in the 220 inch barrels.So whatever point you're making about propellant chemistry, it doesn't even disagree with my argument.
>>62510853you stupidhttps://www.vihtavuori.com/tech-blog-powder-grain-shapes/
>>62512158Manipulating the burn rate with coatings and grain geometry has profound impact on the pressure curve you stupid fucking retard
>>62512274How determined are you to avoid noticing that an AR-15 and an M1A1 Abrams, do not have remotely similar barrel lengths?>>62512251Every single one of those propellant grains will produce a pressure curve with a peak followed by a square regression. Every single one. Without exception. Forever.>oh, but muh tank propellant which burns 10x slower than H1000Will perform absolutely fucking abysmally in a 16" barrel.
>>62486852>it's ballistics are just as goodinb4 they only mean it flies just as straight, and velocity and range suffer
>>62512353>How determined are you to avoid noticing that an AR-15 and an M1A1 Abrams, do not have remotely similar barrel lengths?What the fuck are you talking about you fucking imbecile>Every single one of those propellant grains will produce a pressure curve with a peak followed by a square regression. Every single one. Without exception. Forever.You are so stupid it hurts my head.
>>62512575>>How determined are you to avoid noticing that an AR-15 and an M1A1 Abrams, do not have remotely similar barrel lengths?>What the fuck are you talking about you fucking imbecileRight. So you never even knew what you were responding to. You didn't know what was being argued about, but you chose to participate anyway.
>>62512974I think I've seen that guy in a lot of threads lately. If I were into conspiracies I'd think he's a bot, but he just doesn't write like one. I think he's just bored and lonely.
>>62512353>pressure curves have a similar shape so they're all the same ooga boogaNiggerbrain. Go load pistol powder in your rifle and blow yourself up
>>62513423>>pressure curves have a similar shape so they're all the sameThey are all fundamentally the same, which is why to get the same velocity, from the same bullet, in the same barrel, from a smaller powder supply, requires higher peak pressure.>but muh slow powdersOnly help in longer barrels. In shorter barrels they don't burn in time.Look, it's really simple: if you half the powder behind a bullet, and make the powder slower, you will get a very fucking anemic load. So all the people ITT suggesting that slow powders are the key as to how the OP cartridge DOESN'T generate absurd pressures are missing something staring them in the face: small amounts of slow powder in short barrels results in REALLY REALLY LOW speeds.
>>62508588rocket fuel can be all kinds of things, but stuff with a lot O-N bonds is more commonly found as a rocket oxidzer, like N2O4. the gyrojet rockets use solid nitrocellulose fuel
>>62509221solid rocket fuel can also be all kinds of thingsthe first ones used black powder which is still sometimes used, rocket candy is extremely popular with amateurs, which is a sugar with a chlorate, perchlorate or nitrate oxidizerwhat youre referring to is ammonium perchlorate and aluminumsome military rocket fuels actually have high explosives like RDX in them
>>62513519>requires higher peak pressureOr just a more energetic powder producing the same pressure curve you fucking idiot.You do not understand how sliw powders work. Pro tip: the area under the curve is KE.
>>62506871Finally someone is asking the real question.
>>62515513>22lr can handle x amount of pressure>x amount of pressure is already reached>putting a new propellant in there that is more expensive just to reach x amount of pressure won't change shit
>>62511529>As in 90% was extremely simple.>Except for the clockworkAnon that's the entire action of the fucking gun, what other parts are even relevant from a repair & maintenance perspective
>>62515513The big benefit is less size and weight; or alternatively, higher velocity/pressure. It's why guns are in stasis right now. You have to update the cartridge and the action simultaneously, so handloaders etc who can only wildcat old cartridges are what drive improvements because government level orgs are Mcnamara-esque autists who hear 'small arms don't win wars' and mentally translate to 'updating small arms? lolnope'.
>>62516689A new propellant could hold max pressure for a longer time with a slower burning composition.
>>62517258What the fuck are you talking about retard.McNamara specifically pushed for the futurist M16, pushed hard. He was a man of modern effiient and effective solutions. The traditionalist army fudds saboutaged the project every step of the way leading to the fiasko that was the M16 before the A1.
>>62515510>Or just a more energetic powderWhich the company who has allegedly formulated it has decided not to profit from for decades. All of the excuses require an implausible assumption.>Pro tip: the area under the curve is KE.Yeah, I alluded to that here, retard: >>62507508What is more likely:EITHER a company is willingly forgoing profit AFTER spending the money to develop a new wonder propellant which is twice as energetic as all current powders, and no other entity on the planet is interested in buying the rights to it.OR several engineers decades ago ran a study which yielded poor results and it died the moment it contacted outside scrutiny, but not before it's claims were published and print/internet gun forums decided it was a modern "Greek Fire".I know which of those two scenarios I've seen play out dozens of times, and I also know which of those two scenarios are theorized to explain why cars don't run on water.
>>62517510In that same post you show that you do not understand how pressure curves work by implying that with the same barrel length double the max pressure would be required to achieve the same velocity which is of course pants on head retarded.
>>62517542No, I'm just assuming that the mythical propellant doesn't exist. Once you make that assumption (which is true) the post makes sense.Because there is half the gas in (almost) the same expansion volume, as the bullet moves down the bore there will be a faster drop in force acting upon it, therefore to get the same area under the curve you need to scavenge more at the start, which means higher pressure, which means using faster powder.Once again, please try to interpret what I'm saying as if it is said WITHOUT a belief in the wunderpowder. Try (if you can) to understand that the frames of reference for arguing this point are VASTLY DIFFERENT depending on whether it is assumed the wonder powder is real or not real.I feel as if I'm speaking to someone who skipped the "theory of mind" phase of cognitive development. You keep responding as if I'm speaking from your frame of reference. Every answer is essentially "yeah but the powder is doublegood and burns halfspeed so graph is same, why u not know graph is same?!"
>>62517746You are arguing with the guy who's argument is that More energetic = better via black magic, don't question how it happens just accept advertising
