Caseless pros and cons

>>32495222
>propellant that turns into gas and makes no eroding unburnt particles at all
>propellant that can't cook off just because of heated chamber, it must only detonate under the (hot) mechanical high speed impact by the primer detonation.
Both of those requirements had already been met in the 80's with the G11 project.

>>32495300
Did the G11 actually chamber the round before squeezing the trigger?

>>32495505
yes

>>32495222
How about a rotating cylinder like a revovler with several chambers to give cool down time. Also, if you have a dud, a push rod ejector that cycles with the gun/rifle to make sure the cylinder is cleared of debris/unspent case, or possibly a short brass cup with primer.

I have an idea on what to make the caseless propellant out of, its now a matter of making it tough enough on the outside to feed reliably and quickly into chambers.

>>32495588
Gatling basically does that.

In other cases like with single barrel guns, if in real need, just choose better materials that already exist.

The superalloy family will provide you a lot of improved parameters already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superalloy

Things really needed will be deployed. But not before.

File: G11.jpg (320KB, 1598x573px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1598x573px

>>32495222

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Caseless-Ammunition-Small-Arms.pdf

>>32495222
>>nothing else ejects except bullet, naturally perfectly ambidexterous weapons designs, gas residues eject with the bullet and not in your face, even with suppressors

Actually, you still need some sort of ejection to clear a jam or misfire

>>32495810
>some sort of access port which is closed in normal use
fix'd.

F2000 toilet lid comes to mind.

You're leaving out the durability of the shaped propellant. They had all sorts of problems with the propellant drying out, crumbling, getting waterlogged. I'm not saying it's a total dead end and nobody should spend any effort on it, but the potential upside doesn't seem quite as appealing when cased-telescopic or polymer/metallic composite ammunition enters the equation.

>>32496110
Shaped propellant was a scientifically good idea but it lacks a general flowfield solution, due to which it never was (and at this point, will not be) in control. The other reason would be that it would require at least two, but most likely more of clearly different, precisely applied layers of propellants to optimize the detonation. Without any barrier boundary layers. Of course those chemically polar (and otherwise active) constituents of mating layers will seep into each other over time.

A modern rifle round is not a handcrafted Hiroshima nuclear device detonator, best before 4 months from construction, although constructed with modern modelling methods and tools.

Telescopic monolithic propellant is absolutely practical and so much more feasible because of uniformity, and due to advanced propellant chemistry.

Id like to see a modern version of rocketball ammo

>>32495810
The G11 did this, and also used it to eject the protective polymer cap on the front of the rounds.

>>32496817
It was a telescoping round. The bullet went through the polymer film due the pressure of the the burn of the rear part of the cartridge. The bullet was already well inserted in the barrel when the charge started to burn fully.

The polymer film burned with the detonation. The composition of the specialty polymer film was inherently made with combustible constituents, and not just made of plastic bag. ;)

The film layer in front of the round is obviously there to prevent sand and other crapola to get in the telescopic round tunnel, to damage the bullet and barrel.

With caseless ammo, everything is killed with fire except the bullet.

>>32497019
There was an iteration that used a thick plastic cap, not a film.

>>32495222

Caseless was considered with the LSAT program, but they never could get the chamber to seal fully. This resulted in fouling being ejected into the firearm receiver and user's face.

The mechanism used by the lsat and by extension its predecessor the ctsas use a revolving chamber design that not only cuts down on the barrel's total length but replace the bolt and bcg completely. Even though it seemingly looks more complex, when taking into a bcg and inner workings of a bolt itself it's actually very simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlM8IHij6Hs

>>32497031
No, it was not thick ever.

What more, the film was a part of propellant compound.

File: caseloss.png (104KB, 324x193px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 324x193px

>>32497019

>With caseless ammo, everything is killed with fire except the bullet.

In theory, but not in practice. Clearing one of these must have been a pita.

File: 220px-G11Cartridge.jpg (8KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x165px

>>32497171
What's your explanation for this then, or the field test reports of "spoor" ejected through the port?

>>32497198
>>32497214

I don't know. What are those?

>>32497294

It's 4.7x33, the ammunition used by the G11.
Here's some reading if you're up to it.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Caseless-Ammunition-Small-Arms.pdf
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP23-cartridge-technologies.pdf

The 2nd .pdf is very important, especially the comments it makes on page 49. In no uncertain terms, it states that the US probably won't adopt any new small arms (rifles in context) until 2025.

>>32497294
The type of G11 ammunition you're claiming doesn't exist.

>>32497359
Good find on that survey. I'm familiar with the Knox propellant, Schatz' critiques of caseless, and the 6.5 LSAT grail but it sums it all up in a single pdf.