Any reason why powder didn't get replaced by something more

pressure differences, stability of ignition source, burn times, if TNT worked better we'd use it, but we don't

>>31620829

My god, how retarded can you be?

>>31620829
>Ammunition now uses tnt instead of smokeless powder.
>need to make explosives for nefarious reasons but don't have the means of knowledge to make tnt
>buy 1000 shotshell rounds.

The propellant has to burn over a period of time to reduce the max pressure. Steel can only hold so much pressure. Explosives generally detonate as fast as possible.

>>31620829
It's been played with a couple times, but basically high-explosives are really hard to reliably contain, because they, you know explode.

Low-explosives are a bit more controllable, so smokeless is generally nitrocellulose with some containing nitroglycerin.

Yeh OP, more boom = more dakka!

Why bullets not blak n wif red speed strips? blak gud for more dakka n red gud for more speed.

>>31620829
Smokeless powder by itself is not an explosive. It burns rapidly and builds pressure that then propels the bullet.

An explosive (especially a high explosive) will cause extreme pressure spikes and turn your gun into a pipe bomb.

>>31620829
Google dynamite gun.

File: liquid-propellant-charges-for-gun-and-mortar-ammunition-1-638.jpg (264KB, 638x868px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 638x868px

>>31620829
>Any reason why powder didn't get replaced by something more powerful in bullets?

I remember there was talk back in the 1990s about using liquid propellent for tank and SP artillery, in conjunction with high speed auto-loaders for the projectiles.

What ever happened to that?

>>31622051
It was named that because of what it fired. It used blackpowder to generate compressed air to launch the shell at low pressure and velocity.

>>31622103
Air bubbles happened.

>>31620829
>So bullets could be a lot smaller
But you would have to build the gun 3 times as strong to contain the pressure, making it heavier and harder to handle.

>>31620829
Uhm there has been some advances in gun powder propellants. It isn't the same stuff your granny used.

>>31620829
High explosives just straight up rip metal apart.

>>31620829

Gun powder burns.

TNT detonates.

Fuck brah, lern you some pyrotechnics

I personally use nuclear fission to power my bullets. stuns everyone at the range.

I have terminal cancer now but it was well worth it

>>31624339
Kek

>>31624339

>not using nuclear fusion

Steer clear, plebian.

>>31624364
>still using nuclear fusion

I've gotten way above that once I figured how to use vacuum energy in conjunction with concentrated gamma ray bursts

>>31624384

>vacuum energy

t. poorfag

>he can't afford zero point energy

>>31620829
Normal powder doesnt really explode, but burns at a fast rate.

>>31620829

technically some rocket propellants use high explosives like rdx. mostly high end missiles.

but that's niche as fuck and doesn't really scale downwards.