WHY can't it work?
Because it’s a round of ammo, not a fucking square of ammo…. We already tried Trounds and it didn’t work either…
>>65477452it can, it just won't work well unless its exoticotherwise, its more conducive to dents, jams, fouling, etc
>>65477459Fpbp
>>65477452>tfw no triple stack mag with triangle cartridges
>>65477470Wouldn't round cases be better to withstand pressure as well?
>>65477452It could be made to work, the question is why.
>>65477491yup, more even across it's areatheres also the issue of manufacturing too, its much easier to make a round neck than a square one (how the hell would that even be done, anyway?)
>>65477470whatthefuck.mp3
>>65477527haha, yeah (:
>>65477452Stress points.
>>65477493more internal case volume
>>65477507>>65477491The only theoretical advantage i can think of is more economic use of space in a single stack magazine, however the mechanical issues with extraction would outweigh that. The two types of action where it wouldn't really matter (lever and pump) are easier to implement with tube magazines anyway. Tactically there would be an advantage with a rolling block since you could carry more ammo in a pouch for the size but the rounds would be an order of magnitude more expensive to make. I am also 99% sure that for consistent propellant burn rate rounder is bestest for a cased round although i may be wrong for caseless, i think G11s were just fine for accuracy but that isn't cased.
>>65477507>(how the hell would that even be done, anyway?)Hydroforming, probably.
>>65477507>>65477581>HydroformingAdopted on mass scale that would actually be a very economical way to do it, you just need to introduce a hydraulic element to the current press process.>PondersWouldn't that make the press self cooling and self lubricating if you did recirculation of the fluid? Honestly that would work with current or even WW2 tech**Or pre WW1, i just know there is Czarist era 7.62/.30 Winchester equipment still working somewhere Russia.
>>65477470>>65477532Srsly, tho, what are those things? Did they really try to make firearms cartridges like that?
What if, bear with me here this is a little crazySPHERICAL bullets?
>>65477622Spherical bullets would just bounce off of things, tho
>>65477625No if you make them out of something really hard like lead.
>>65477618it was for shorter rifles / mags, along with better pressure / velocity (the insides of the cartridge can be made to whatever shape you want)
>>65477550Is that improvement worth the various other negatives?
>>65477641in no way whatsoever lmao
>>65477641How else will we make 5.56 +p++p?
>>65477452Stress accumulates in corners significantly more than in a circle. It would explode.
>>65477687corners are rounded
Somebody patented it but didn't do anything with it
>>65477581Put a round case in a die that presses it square…..
>>65477710
>>65477452Can't use double stacks magazines
>>65477452It probably could, but I don't see why it would be worth the effort.>>65477459Fippybippy.
>>65477981You won't need double stack because you can cram more in>>6547800025% more bullet per bullet
>>65477452It's hip(fire) to be square!
hexagons would retain a lot of the advantages of circles but have superior logistical utility of more bullet per box
>>65477459>troundyou will never be a bullet
>>65478355
>>65477459what are those ellipsis supposed to mean?
>>65477452Corners suck at handling pressure. Circle is the stronger shape
>>65477470is this an inhaler that shoots you?
>>65478398whats and ellipse?
>>65477459CARLOS
>>654780765.56 case diameter is 9.6, bullet diameter is 5.7. if you make thin ammo at best it would be 6.7mm ammo with 5.7mm bullet.Half of the 9.6 is 4.8mm. so double stacked 9.6mm ammo has packaging density 40% more than single stack 6.7mm thin round.
>>65477710tampon boolet
>>65479056>Half of the 9.6 is 4.8mmwhy the hell are you dividing the bullet in half? 30 bullets in a line is 288mm. in the same space theoretical square bullets would give you 42.98, let's just say 43. Now it's true that 43 is less than 60 so it's not as good as a double stack mag but doubles are much fatter which is probably why they are not used much in rifles. A square bullet could instantly upgrade the standard mag to 40 rounds without taking up any more space.
>>65477452because you are a nigger who smoked crack instead of attending school
>>65479202>30 bullets in a line is 288mm.30 5.56 rounds in a single stack line is 288mm indeed. But 30 in a double stack is 144mm (well actually plus one round height so 153.6mm)30 6.7mm thin cases in a single stack is 201mm.
>>65479202>doubles are much fatter which is probably why they are not used much in rifleswhat
>>65479403do 30 round doubles even exist? Never seen a chode mag>>65479404everytime I see an army mane or larperator they're using standard mags in a plate carrier
>>65479428>do 30 round doubles even exist? Never seen a chode mag>everytime I see an army mane or larperator they're using standard mags in a plate carrierWhat? A standard, 30 round AR15 STANAG mag is a double stack. Are you perhaps confusing a double stack with a quad stack?
>>65477452
>>65477710Sqround™
>>65479465ah yes my mistake. Maybe a p90 or g11 approach would work better for that
>>65477981Why not?
>>65478729I think it’s like an oval…
>>65478398it's a hallmark of either an old boomer, or a stuttering youngfag; both being insufferable cunts
>>65483540...
>>65477452have fun milling the chamber
>>65477452What problem are you trying to solve? Cylinders have a better surface area to volume ratio than your rectangular prism casing would have, so your design would use more material and be weaker. I suppose you imagine the additional volume in the casing would allow you to put more gun powder? Well it would be weaker, so no.You're stupid and I hate you.
>>65478076>because you can cram more inWrong, idiot.Offset cylinders can contain more bullets than single stacked rectangular prisms. You dumb shit faggot.
>>65484617yes correct. More powder per bullet, with better materials I think it could work. >You're stupid and I hate you.that's uncalled for
>>65477470butte and vagoo plug?
>>65477452The gain in case volume is marginal for the costs of more difficult to manufacture ammunition and chambers as well as the magazine, feed system, bolt face, and chamber all needing to worry about the round's precise rotation as well as the design and assembly of the weapon.All for a volume improvement of at most 4/pi.
>>65484723Just make the casing bigger???
>>65479056>ammo has packaging density 40% more than single stack 6.7mm thin roundWeird shapes that tesselate or fit tightly in magazines might make more sense with a caseless round that is a thin weatherproof coating over dimensionally stable and strong propellent.But even in these cases the close-packed sphere stacking of round cartriges is still likely to be preferred if only because corners like to catch and break and not having to deal with proper rotation of the round during feeding.
>>65486397>make the case biggerThe US military prefers to keep the ammunition size the same and increase peak chamber pressure. The 6.8, despite being larger than 5.56 is maximized for chamber pressure and uses a bimetalic case to survive the high pressure. HICAR is a higher pressure M4 for higher pressure ammunition, while still keeping compatibility for standard pressure 5.56.US tank and artillery development follow the same principles of preferring to get the most out of a dimensionally small round and resisting the communist urge to simply make the barrel wider.
>>65484723>with better materialsWhich materials did you have in mind?How will you overcome the greater surface area in contact with both magazine and chamber?
>>65477452The sharper the corner, the higher the stress. A barrel shaped like this would have a much shorter lifespan than a cylindrical barrel, which geometrically minimizes the strain>>65477691But all are sharper than the minimally-rounded corner, which takes the form of a cylinder.
>>65480257Go into MSpaint and draw a diagram of a doublestack magazine with square rounds.Your choice of double or single feed.
>>65486455I'll help you out
>>65484628Why not, you stupid bastard!?
Because the way pressure works if it's not distributed evenly one part will suffer a massive spike.So cases would be very hard to extract and prone to case head separation.And what's the point here, trying to fit more in a mag? Krauts did it but they suffered way to many feed issues and I think the mags were only single stack in the end which totally defeated the purpose.
>>65477452Looks like a stuck case nightmare
>>65478080kek
>>65486455Just rotate the square rounds 45° so they sit diagonally and put them in a single feed magazine
>>65477470>Haha fucked up bullshit cardridge.>imagine the chamber
>>65483540sounds to me like middle aged people are simply not creative in their writing...
Goodnight sweet prince
>>654774523 wordsde havilland comet
>>65486536>Krauts did it but they suffered way to many feed issues and I think the mags were only single stack in the end which totally defeated the purpose.If you're talking about the G11, it had a 45 round magazine and it was designed to hold two spare loaded magazines on the rifle so I'd say it did a decent job of increasing capacity. Its main problem was that once you fire those three magazines, you need to reload them from 15 round "stripper clips" which are themselves essentially vacuum sealed disposable magazines. And since three-round hyperburst was a key component of the design, you essentially only got 50% more trigger pulls out of it than a normal semi-auto 30 round mag before the "tear open the magazine and insert it into the other magazine and repeat three times" humiliation ritual begins.
>>65492660Is that a 50 AP loaded into a 12 gauge as a sabot? I wonder what you could do to impart spin?
>>65493266308 telescoped ammo. Basically the size of a 5.56mm round.
>>65492660>>65493266The future is dead, old man.
>>65477452cuz u r gey
>>65493877Seriously retarded. This is a reloading thread you fucking idiot. If you'd ever done that, you'd know how ridiculous that attempt to reinvent the wheel is. Ridiculously expensive, and zero logical gain. Good luck with your sales pitches though. Better bring a lot of coke.
>>65493956>Less weight and size is le bad for logistics!wut
>>65496683>reloading let's a guy make his own ammo, more accurate and cheaper, shoot more often for the price, improving knowledge and skills>post a bunch of proprietary untested garbage that will cost 10X what the original round would for a marginal weight benefit.Please, tell us how you don't have a conflict of interest.
>>65478398Or Indians…
>>65496697The army, and especially troops in the field, don't reload cases lmao.
>>65496943Yeah, let us know how you're sales pitch works out with the army. Try selling it as the new gyro jet. Please, post the email response. Fuuuuuucking kek
>>65477452anything is a dildo if you're brave enough.
>>65478355Top kek
>>65496967I think this anon is lost. This isn't a realoading thread, this is the retarded OP thinks square casings are cool/space saving ammo thread. I'd imagine weight reduction in ammo and firearms is still more important than volume reduction for most militaries though.
>>65477452>square case>round bulletUh…
