Why are there no rounds that produce over 65,000 psi? What

>>33123091
You can't make cases that strong. Even new stronger alloy cases top out at 65000, and there's no reason to go higher. Unless vibranium becomes a household item it'll stay that way. Who needs pressures that high anyways?

>>33123129
Steel cases aren't strong enough? Why not make thicker brass cases?

>Who needs pressures that high anyways?

Generally an increase in pressure is associated with an increase in muzzle velocity/energy, which most rounds could benefit from.

>>33123129
What if you go caseless?
>>33123167
Rudimentary physics tells me that the muzzle energy increases linearly with pressure, P*s=W

>>33123091
Bore erosion, you'll get shit for barrel life.

>>33123167
Case strength isn't the biggest hurdle, also steel casings kind of suck because they don't obturate as well, on top of wearing your extractor more. They'd be especially shit for a special snowflake miniatutre canon shell, because steel cases wear like shit on your tools.

What the fuck are you looking at using a gun like that for anyway? I think it would be easier to find some kind of artillery piece or something.

>>33123183
Might as well just make an old-timey cannon out of modern steel, like .75 caliber, put a percussion lock on there, load the thing with some nice smokeless powder (a lot), and make some kind of .60 caliber bullet with a sabot or some shit.

I mean it may or may not do what you want it to, but it'll be a nicer gun, even if you have to fire it from a little carriage.

>>33123183

>What if you go caseless?

Caseless forces all that pressure into the firearm chamber. It might work for a couple of shots but there's no guarantee that it won't explode after a dozen or so rounds.

>>33123129
>You can't make cases that strong.
Say it with me, COMPOSITES and THICC.

>>33124904
>It might work for a couple of shots but there's no guarantee that it won't explode after a dozen or so rounds.
Or you could go with an engineered design instead of trail and error gun smithing.

>>33126956
Say it with me, HEAVY and EXPENSIVE and POINTLESS

>>33126964

I was referring to a professionally designed weapon. Even when using properly tested metals there's always a chance for failure, especially when dealing with stresses like this. In order to have a near 100% chance of it not failing the weapon would not be handheld.

>>33123129
>need
BILL OF RIGHTS NOT BILL OF NEEDS FUCKO

File: 6mmSAW_6x49.jpg (47KB, 881x863px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 881x863px

I'm pretty sure the 6x49mm Russian Unified was over 65,000psi. It's the one on the right in the pic related. It came along towards the end of the Soviet Union after their experiences in Afghanistan. It was a barrel burner, didn't find much interest on the export market, and ultimately wasn't adopted by anyone. Supposedly it saw some limited action in Chechnya, but who knows.