|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 11/4/2007 1:54 PM
Posts: 660,
Visits: 266
|
|
Rickdog, your "little idea" is a potent one indeed. I know that I'm getting abit off thread, but using the HK G11 http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/g11.htm as an example, the advantages of caseless ammo could be taken to other weapons, such as turret mounted types.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
Actually, I say that in the 15 years that have passed since the development of the G-11, there have been enough advances in propellants to solve that pesky cookoff problem. With that ironed out, a service rifle with changeable barrel and chamber should be developed to replace the M-16, M-4 and M-249 at least. These could fire 5.56 or 6.8 caseless equivalents. Due to weight, it would make a poor MMG.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
I am looking at a bullpup configuration and eliminating magazines in favor of 'bricks' that are bonded by the weather sealant in the production process. The bricks would be about 40 * rounds and I am thinking it should be possible to have two bricks loaded in the weapon's magazine.
* edited to reflect space considerations
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
I was also toying with the idea of using the ultra-high cyclic rate of fire to give an anti-armor burst select. This would fire multiple rounds close enough together so they would impact at nearly the same spot. This should defeat personal body armor. I don't see our enemies wearing personal body armor soon, but its good to be ahead of the curve.
It should also have a laser rangefinder that can show offsets on the scope. The laser and scope would be separate components that could go on or off and don't affect the ability to use the weapon. The laser would have a simple ballistic computer with different calibers stored. This would allow the same range finder to be used on different weapons. It just has to be 'told' what its mounted on and that can be done through the interface.
The function of the laser would be simple. Set the certral crosshairs on the target and press the button once. The proper offset (without windage) will show as a dot (a la aimpoint) and a readout on the bottom or top. Adjust aim and fire. The dot will stay for a certain amount of time (say, 5 minutes).
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
I ahve been thinking that the chamber could be made of multiple parts. There could be a hard metal (maybe titanium or some steel) that actually contacts the cartrige and has four vanes going out at the corners. There are aluminum blocks that are attached to the vanes and provide structural support to the chamber as well as a heat sink. The whole unit could be removed to allow changing calibers.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
Should I bother with this, or is it a waste of good paper?
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 2/14/2008 2:14 PM
Posts: 369,
Visits: 48
|
|
Amazing that we are "coming back" to 6.8mm. The M1 Garand was originally chambered in .276 (6.78mm).
Mr. J.D. Pedersen was a designer and production engineer for Winchester. He was hired by the Ordnance department during the interwar period to produce a "reduced caliber semiautomatic shoulder rifle," since it was felt that the service cartrridge was more powerful than necessary. It fired a 125 grain bullet at about 2,600 fps.
Once Garand abandoned his effort to produce a primer-actuated rifle, he built the rifle to accomodate a 10 round en bloc clip of .276. The specs for this round were later changed to a 140 grain flat base bullet. These rifles were tested beginning in the late 20's.
The .276 round was tested at Aberdeen in 1928 along with a .256 (6.5mm) at ranges of up to 1200 yards. It was noted that at 300 yards the .256 gave the most sever wounds in animal tests, and "seemed to be in a class by itself."
The "Pig Board" later recommended testing of semiautomatic rifles in .276, firing a 125 gr. bullet at 2700 fps. (Their results were later confirmed by the "Goat Board) The Garand was officially selected in this caliber.
The Infantry and Cavalry boards both recommended the selection of the .276 Garand in their report. But before the report was submitted to the War Department, Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur personally disapproved the change in caliber. Along with the fact that the M1903, BAR, and machine guns still used the 30.06, there was the matter of a significant war stock of ammunition in inventory. Garand had continued development of the .30 cal Garand, so by the time was officially adopted by the Army in 1937, the design was pretty robust.
"Hatcher's Book of the Garand" details these trials in greatly expanded detail.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
| Yes, that is correct Dana. The US Army missed two prime opportunities to adopt a 6.8mm intermediate power cartridge. The first was 1932 with the Garand rifle and the second was around 1952 during the NATO cartridge trials. Let's hope that the 6.8mm intermediate cartridge finally gets adopted THIS time. Afterall it's only 70+ years too late.
|
|
| |