6.5 Cased Telescoped ammunition and weapons

File: 6.5mm_CT_Carbine.jpg (60KB, 777x436px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 777x436px

bump for autism along with fugly CT rifle

File: textron_CT_future_of_firearms.jpg (323KB, 1280x959px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1280x959px

LSAT program

>>35099932
>the stupidity in our nations weapon procurement procedures

I'm afraid you already answered the question anon.

>>35099932
>The maturity of this design and ammunition has already proven itself that it works. So why in the literal fuck are we not using this shit?
I see you haven't actually done much reading on it. The 6.5mm design hasn't even been optimized yet (it was more of just an experiment as to what could be done rechambering the 7.62mm design they're working on in 6.5mm) and it can't be dropped into existing guns since it doesn't feed like normal brass cased ammunition. There's also the problem of the military using other bullets besides ball ammunition that would also need to be redesigned as 6.5mm options, along with the current experimental 6.5mm CT ammunition from the LSAT program is completely unsuitable for use by the average soldier vs the 5.56mm CT ammunition (the average rifleman doesn't need better than 7.62 NATO long range ballistics, heavier recoil, or ammunition heavier than existing 5.56x45mm).

File: lsat.jpg (96KB, 600x361px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 600x361px

>>35099932
It's obviously the next step and, once they get it all worked out, we will hopefully move over to it in like 2024 or something, maybe later. Remember all those times the SCAR wasn't a "significant development" or whatever to justify the cost? This is it. This is the change.

Thanks for the pics, OP, wish I could post the PDF of the tests. LSAT is the one to look at.

File: phat_n_black.png (1MB, 751x829px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 751x829px

>>35100178
>The 6.5mm design hasn't even been optimized yet
I was reffereing to the development of the LSAT lmg, I just didn't clarify that so, pfffffftghghghghhthgt
>the average rifleman doesn't need better than 7.62 NATO long range ballistics, heavier recoil, or ammunition heavier than existing 5.56x45mm
That is not the purpose for upgrading from 5.56 to 6.5. Although increased range is always a plus regardless of weapon or purpose of use. The true two reasons for changing are for starters. The barrel lengths for carbines are too short for 5.56 to be fired optimally, and I'm sure we're not going back to 20 inch rifles. The second being, we are not in the mid 20th century anymore. Having a round that has devastating terminal ballistics doesn't mean shit if said round can't even penetrate or even remotely damage the enemies body armor. 5.56 in that regard just doesn't cut it. It was never designed for that, and now that that is a problem on the modern battlefield. The 5.56 just doesn't fit as a solution to that problem. Hence the reason for 6.5 CT in the future.

>Here's some chocolate for your troubles though.

>>35099932
>Is there any reason why we are not using 6.5 CT ammo?
Because its not done yet. Its at DOD TRL:7 and will be for some time.
>The maturity of this design and ammunition has already proven itself that it works.
What a meaningless statement, wouldn't be out of place in a Paul Masson commercial. 6.5 CT fits not even the loosest definition of mature.
>So why in the literal fuck are we not using this shit?
Forcing the adoption of things before they're finished is how fuckups happen.
>To me, it just shows the stupidity in our nations weapon procurement procedures.
This was the straw that broke the camels back? UCP was fine, the P320 was fine, the M27 as fine, but this is a problem?

>>35100348
>I was reffereing to the development of the LSAT lmg, I just didn't clarify that so
I know that, and the 6.5mm CT round they were working on hasn't been optimized yet you tard.

>The barrel lengths for carbines are too short for 5.56 to be fired optimally,
What year are you stuck in? The new M855A1 will still fragment at close range from a 7.5" barrel (haven't seen a test for shorter barrels or longer ranges yet). Short barrel performance is no longer much of a problem for rifle ammunition.

>muh body armor
Shoot around it. Penetrating a plate that covers only a small fraction of the target isn't worth the significantly higher ammunition cost nor the generally worse terminal ballistics that come with AP ammunition. AP ammo for the average soldier isn't going to be a serious consideration until rifle plate coverage for the lower torso becomes common.

>have a picture of some girl to further cheapen this discussion
Seriously consider suicide.

File: black_dildo.jpg (12KB, 352x500px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 352x500px

>>35100433
>muh body armor Shoot around it.
The torso and abdomen are the biggest and easiest part of the body to aim and shoot. Do you really believe "shooting around it" is a legitimate tactic? Do you really expect infantry, engaging fucko's at 300+m have the luxury or even capability of aiming for the extremities? All soldiers train to shoot for the torso. It's the most statistically likely area to get hit by rounds and shrapnel. You can't shoot the arms goes they like to wiggle, and you can't shoot the legs because there's that thing called taking cover.
>have a picture of some girl to further cheapen this discussion
>Seriously consider suicide.
With a post as abhorrent as yours, I'll post whatever I damn well please you absolute fucking pleb.

>>35100516
I support this anon .
Fact is 5.56 is reliably stopped by ceramic armor hell even ap 30.06 is we will need a therough redesign of our ammo soon . Were proabbly going to end up with high velocity tungsten sabots.
They will punch through armor and then yaw like a mother fucker when entering flesh.
Look up cbj spoon tip

>>35099932
Telescoped ammo is a meme. Its advantages in mass and size are the result of polymers and improved propellant respectively, neither of which have anything to do with the geometry of the cratridge. The polymer and propellant are the real improvements in technology, and the encapsulation itself does nothing.

File: 1504056250548.jpg (56KB, 429x633px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 429x633px

>>35100919
>Much more simplistic weapon design(see LSAT)
>increase reliability and longevity
>lighter weight and smaller
>allows for larger calibers for similar size
come now

someone explain how telescoping ammo works

>inb4 google it nigger

it's for the good of the thread

>>35100961
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/11/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-1-program-history-ammunition-technical-discussion/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/18/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-2-ammunition-technical-discussion-contd/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/25/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-3-development-6-5mm-ct/

>>35100516
>neverserved detected

Different anon here, absolutely fuck yes I expect them to. Why? Because when soldiers take cover, the head, shoulder, and arms are the only exposed parts, and none of those parts regularly use rifle proof armor! It doesn't matter if people are picking their shots (spoiler: they only do at ~200m and under) because those are where bullets land, random or not.

>>35100919
>what is the flame front and why does combustion speed matter and how does it scale

Don't mind me, just pointing out you're full of shit.

>>35100961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlM8IHij6Hs

>>35100988
So it's wider. Nothing you can't do with brass and crimping the bullet.

>>35100516
>abdomen
Currently soldiers don't wear body armor that covers the abdomen or any of the lower torso that will protect against rifle ammunition, and I even said in my post that when that level of protection does start actually being used then issuing the average soldier AP ammunition would be a concern.

>>35100785
>Fact is 5.56 is reliably stopped by ceramic armor
The 5.56x45mm M995 AP and similar tungsten carbide core AP loads aren't, and can penetrate NIJ IV/ESAPI plates out to 100 meters.

>muh yaw
Tumbling is a shit wound mechanic that is only relevant if you hit the liver. Basically anywhere else you're going to see a hole the size of the bullet, which puts it at a comparable wound size to common service pistol ammunition with hollow points.
www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

>>35100932
The LSAT design doesn't require telescoped ammo
Nothing to do with the telescoped design
Nothing to do with the telescoped design
Nothing to do with the telescoped design

File: cab11d474d06678123db3d255aead3b16ffa244662fcca5325f269f7cefe207f.gif (26KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 100x100px

>>35101116
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlM8IHij6Hs
nigger

>>35100976
Not the anon you're arguing with but...

Are you claiming that you served? If so can you state what rank and job? Provide some proof that you actually partook in service please.

Also taking cover is vague. It could be behind a wall (complete coverage), peeking out, being prone behind a murder hole, looking over a ledge, etc.

The shoulder pads and helmet do provide some protection against rifle rounds, especially at longer ranges. This is becoming especially true as materials advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVuRb_kGhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbCK2Tb_i30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRhPpVZk8k

>>35101116
>full retard

The LSAT design is based around the push-through ejection polymer CT needs.

>>35101150
A 600 helmet stops 7.62 at 100 yards.
Same weight as standard psgat
Pretty good if you ask me.

>>35101165
Just apply some hi-temp low friction polymer like PTFE to the brass, jeez.

>>35099932
Because we're still working out its flaws (sensitivity, reliability, etc). Don't get me wrong, it looks promising, but we need to test them out further and maybe even put it to field use in testing to see how it perform in a wide variety of enviroments and terrain. Also we'd face issues such as retooling and re-equipping troops, in of itself a logistical nightmare. Ultimately, it could take a decade to see how itdoes.

Personally speaking, I really like the idea of both caseless and telescopic ammo. The idea has become more capable of being a reliable reality with the evolution of improving materials.

Also, maybe one way to ease retooling would be to reshape the telescopic round into something more conventional, so it can be used in STANAGs and P-mags.

>>35101232
>Also, maybe one way to ease retooling would be to reshape the telescopic round into something more conventional, so it can be used in STANAGs and P-mags.
Why the fuck would you do that? Currently the LSAT 5.56mm CT ammunition is only 1.6" long and could fit into a grip inserted magazine. Why the fuck would you throw away an advantage in shortening the OAL of a gun like that just to save some money on replacing wear items that can get lost or damaged easily? Not to mention the logistics benefits of smaller ammunition during bulk transport.

>>35101150
11B, 2 deployments in Afghanland. Hence my disdain for armor: it adds another 15 pounds to....cover the parts rocks already cover. Wew. YMMV.

Even civilians reading Cold War tier manuals should be able to look at shitty pics of men prone behind trees.

And if you're thinking of DAPS as remotely useful, go take a long slog through a hot sewage canal.

File: a_picture_some_faggot_posted.jpg (78KB, 340x314px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 340x314px

>>35101293
> could fit into a grip inserted magazine
Imagine
>Half Life 2 Combine PDW
>Chambered in 5.56 CT
>10 inch barrel
>The ultimate PDW
>Strap on a 25-40mm GL for shits and giggles and put it in a leg holster
>mfw

>>35099932
>6.5
Yeah, nah. They're gonna adopt the 5.56 version because
>muh .22 cal

>>35099932

Bullet optimization is a big one. It'd take quite some time for industry to make tracers, AP and other ammo types for a new caliber. Not decades, but enough time to make an immediate drop in very risky. There's also all the other things other anons stated (still too immature, lack of widespread industry knowledge/support, competing options, NATO, etc).

That being said it's definitely a front-runner in its field and it could be argued that the technology developed could be used for the successor to the Interim Combat Rifle program.

File: IMG_5538.jpg (101KB, 651x560px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 651x560px

>>35101293
Because that'd be a damned expensive to replace everything. Also, If you adapt to similar dimensions as that of the 5.56, you could in theory make relativley lighter ammo while maintaining more power or a bigger round.

Though like >>35101360 said, it'd be cool to have a 5.56 MP7 PDW, as well as potentially carry more magazines.

>>35101437
>Because that'd be a damned expensive to replace everything
Magazines would be the cheapest part and there's still the logistics related savings from going with smaller ammunition.

>>35100785
>Were proabbly going to end up with high velocity tungsten sabots.
Not enough tungsten for this to be viable. Not outside limited distribution for a low level conflict, anyway.

File: IMG_5539.jpg (65KB, 650x315px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x315px

>>35101452
Logistics including replacing a good portion of inventory of previous guns with a completely new one? Wait, does LSAT share anything in common in terms of parts with any of the other guns?

Anyhow, shaping the casing to that similar of traditional rounds could increase powder count while reducing weight. Magazines are fairly light and cheap so any size reduction and weight would be minimal at best from those. Furthermore the traditional design has been tried and proven to be efficient.

Anyhow, I have no say in this so whatever the army desires they can do.

>>35101539
Ya know what, I suppose the army could also just extend the telescopic/caseless round to that of a 5.56 and it probably work ok.

>>35101539
>shaping the casing to that similar of traditional rounds could increase powder count while reducing weight
And replace the push through feeding mechanism designed to remove the possibility of stuck/broken cases jamming up the gun (which has plagued all other polymer case designs)? Have you done any research at all about this subject before opening your mouth?

>>35099932

This isnt how you do Caseless effectively. Neither is the G-11 design. If you want to do Caseless in an effective manner you generally have to go down one of these roads:

> 1) Bullet Takes the Case with it
The bullet is screwed on or firmly attached to the bullet case and has driving bands/gas checks to absorb rifling. The REAR of the case has holes in it similar to the Gyrojet rounds from the 60s except instead of this bullet being rocket propelled, it simply uses standard propellant and burns up or expends most of it while its still in the barrel (check out a company called Stiletto, ive had this design for over 10 years and that company made something like this in 9x19mm, except it still uses a case unfortunately). As the projectile goes downrange the casing on the back of the bullet aids aerodynamics similar to a front-heavy lawn dart.
> extremely reliable

> 2) Liquid/Binary Propellant
This is like the M-41 pulse rifle from aliens. The mechanism robotically chambers another bullet from the magazine, the mag only contains bullets not propellant. Like an internal combustion engine two nozzles spray a mix of binary liquid propellant into the firing chamber, and an electric spark (think spark plug here) detonates it thus sending the bullet downrange. Due to delayed blowback you can have regenerative electric charging and also still have recoil mitigation (after the bullet has already left the barrel the mechanism may decouple just like a typical slide).

This design unfortunately requires more ruggedization in terms of electrical components and has more expendable things to keep track of - the binary propellant tubes that would be most efficiently located running down the length of the weapon (which could be good for a couple hundred shots, but would add to the gun's weight since you're effectively carrying all the "powder" for the rounds on the weapon itself - and these would also have to be monitored for replacement after about 3-5 magazines).

File: planet_autism.jpg (11KB, 232x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 232x200px

>>35101672
We are not talking about caseless. We are talking about cased telescoped.

>>35101838
Cbj ms master race

http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/cbj/cbj_syst.htm

>>35101838
>>35101672
Pick up the pace gramps... we're talking innovation here.

An additional efficiency of Option #1 is that since the bullet case is expected to contain the detonation of the propellant as its going down the barrel, you can vary the size of the exhaust ports on the back of the case to increase the pressure inside the case (but not to a high degree). Thus you can use larger size grains of propellant maintaining what would effectively be Rocket Propulsion inside the barrel verses relying on a constantly dwindling amount of pressure in the barrel as the bullet leaves more and more volume behind it. This probably means you don't need as thick a barrel surrounding the firing chamber, though you cant rely on a very thin barrel at the end either (these two factors would equal out I believe).

Also if you had to make the case Thicker as a result of all of this that mass would be preserved downrange as Bullet Weight when it strikes the target. Since it has driving bands to absorb rifling/spin that means the case itself can probably be something like Steel rather an a more expensive metal like brass.
> imagine the internal Tumbling damage, and that bullet is hot as fuck too

As for Option #2 one problem with that would be Feeding and possible Extraction if you needed to extract the round, however since the primary operation of that design is all about shooting things down the barrel not removing them from it, and there's no danger of an accidental detonation since (the propellant nozzles are robotically controlled) there would pretty much be no reason to extract a bullet that had been chambered since they're inert. In such a case you'd probably have to service the weapon, but an emergency hatch could be installed in the design to make sure you could do it without having to take the gun apart (jams could happen, albiet rare, or maybe you're using hazardous SLAP/Explosive rounds like they did in Aliens and you're worried the round is defective).

>>35101879

I admittedly only know the CBJ-MS from Battlefield but it was one of my favorite weapons. Then I read that the drum actually comes with 100 rounds, not 50, and I was stunned. Not like a PDW needs 100 rounds, but...

Anyway, what I wanted to ask is whether the 6.5mm CT round can be carried in similar quantity to the 5.56mm or other ammunition you can fit in a 30-round box. Is making a weapon around a 30-round box not feasible anymore when it comes to performance, and that's why we're returning to, say, the .308?

>>35101879
This is great for a PDW system however im not a fan of their choice of caliber.

500 Joules of force is NOT sufficient for whats being aimed for. Every single PDW system out there right now (except knights'?) fails at this issue. More firepower means you can drive a heavier bullet at the desired velocity, which means more penetration. Thats the reason the 5.7mm sucks compared to the 5.56mm, the 5.56 is almost 70 grains but if you put that bullet in the 5.7 case the velocity is going to be like a pistol round.
> having the velocity extends the range but its not really going to improve the penetration, increasing the bullet mass and giving it a sharper point is the most effective solution there

You need at least .30 carbine levels of firepower... about 1000 Joules (750 ft pounds). That means something like 2200fps AND 60 grains.

10mm Auto minimum as a basis. Or use a longer case like .30 carbine and neck it down.
> inb4. the 10mm meme.
> however we're talking about necking a 10mm down to something like 5.56 or 6.5mm.
> but with a barrel change guess what you can fire 10mm with it too.

>>35101991

You want your PDW to have a massive magazine capacity because then the person having to carry it doesn't have to futz around with the additional magazines. Their weapon has 50 or 100 rounds already in it as a standalone unit, if they have to use it they can shoot until they get over the shock of the fact they got attacked in the first place (and since their buddies are all using the same weapon they'd have spare mags accessible, even if they weren't carrying them on their person).

PDWs are for people who don't shoot. But its better than nothing. Haphazardly being unprepared, the spare mags are all in some bag or in the munitions locker. But its better than nothing and in these roles if those people had to carry an M4 its likely they wouldn't be carrying it at all and they could get caught with it outside of arms' reach due to lack of discipline (in which case all they have is their M9... oh excuse me... Sig320 fragile-handle-with-care handgun...)

>>35100433
>Just shoot around body armor guise
Srsly

>>35101995
Who says i dont like 10mm auto.

Your idea is getting me aroused.

>700 foot pounds of energy behind a sub caliber sabot round

File: DANaC4GV0AE_aVq.png (254KB, 635x623px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 635x623px

>>35101838
>anon writes a well thought out reply that details several ways of dealing with casings
>some retard with a reaction image comes up
>PHHBBTTTLHPHHHHGKTGHFFHKBRRPHLLLRRR
BLUMJRPG PHLMURF to you too, anon

>>35099932
>20 round magazine capacity
wow.... so this.... is the future..... of small arms

File: 1471616547799.jpg (15KB, 585x398px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 585x398px

>>35099943
Arma 3/10

>>35102149
Also who says it needs to be a different barrel... this could be a 10mm auto case that has a sabot 5.56mm projectile in it (similar to the .22 tims, which went in a tokarev). Then you're using effectively the equivalent of AP rounds in 10mm, it could easily be accounted for with a gas system valve tweak. But you could then just load some 10mm hollowpoint if you wanted to use this thing for SWAT, etc. When I think of "PDW" I think of P-90s with that horizontal magazine but these days it doesnt even have to be like that since Quad Stack magazines are starting to take off.
> 60 rounds and it could be highly reliable too.
> Just dont contract SureFire for the mags.

>>35102203
Yeah I mean if people want to get Serious about caseless and not just poke around at the subject like the military has been doing (I dont think they "actually" want to go caseless if you ask me) then other options are going to have to be considered.

The caked or telescopic projectile is certainly viable but NOT as a full duty military option. This is like a bench shooters thing, like in some dystopian alternate reality where they wanted to give people weapons but not let them be all that great for civil defense (and the ammo has to be kept in comfy climate controlled conditions like in someone's refrigerator in a lunchbox). Or like all the ammunition comes in prepackaged sealed magazines so its practically impossible to reload your ammo and the ammo supply can be cut off without warning and it doesnt even stand up to the elements to bury it.
> reminds me of european style restrictions oddly enough

I mean if you could come up with a Propellant that was as solid and firm as Plastic and didn't detonate like a primary explosive that would probably be good enough to have a Caked style caseless round. Don't think anybody has that though. And it would probably still need a coat of lacquer to protect it from the elements.

>>35099932
Many conventional cartridge loadings now are "compressed" - means the entire case volume is full of powder (compressed no less). So, how is CT any good? You can't put the bullet in the case, its already full of powder.

Are we talking about length reduction? There was a previous effort to optimize 5.56 by making it long and thin, removing the shoulder turning it into an elongated .22LR center fire rimless case, and making up for the volume loss with better powder. Width reduction - chasing the opposite, so one or the other has got to be wrong.

>>35099932
They dont look as cool anon

Here is an interview. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/11/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-1-program-history-ammunition-technical-discussion/

>>35102931
Here's a link to part 3. For some reason the link to part 3 in that website doesn't work. https://www.google.ca/amp/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/25/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-3-development-6-5mm-ct/amp/

>>35102386
I think it's just a propellant improvement and they're trying to market their new gun designs as well so they can sell the military billions of dollars worth of guns and magazines and parts

>>35102386
Someone post that picture of the really long 22 round

>>35101595
Wait why replace the push feed mechanism?

>>35104704
Telescoped ammunition proponents like to pretend they think that all the improvements from the LSAT program are due to the telescoped ammunition, when in fact the telescoped ammunition is the least important of the changes, and almost the improvements can easily be applied to conventional ammunition.

>>35102386

Compressed isn't the same as compacted which the CTSAS (formerly LSAT) is doing.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Wednesday13627drummond.pdf

File: mK2qkKN.jpg (147KB, 581x789px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 581x789px

>>35101672

Friendly reminder that the 6.5 rounds the army is looking at are replacements for 7.62, not 5.56

>>35099932
>literally the same size as 7.62 ct
What is the point?

>>35099932
>lets make caseless great (not) again
>choose telescopic design that is needed for caseleess
>also develop plastic cased version "just in case" ceaseless would fail
>years forward, caseless is fully forgotten
>why do we even use telescopic?
>oh wait we have chamber sealing problem lets move all propellant behind bullet shoulder
>so we have """telescopic"""" case where all propellant sits behind bullet
>just like in conventional ammo
>how did we get here again?

>>35100516
Simple experiment
>wear rifle plate
>go downrange 301 meters away
>ask somebody to shoot you with 5.56 several times
>post video of /k/
>...
>profit!
Pro tip: you have nothing to fear. /k/ told me 5.56 is ineffective past 300 meters alone and plus it cant penetrate rifle plates

File: CTAsection.jpg (117KB, 1144x375px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1144x375px

>>35108860
The CTA design is still more efficient than a more conventional case. It gives the internal case capacity advantages of the non-tapered, sharp shoulder case designs (Ackley Improved series and it's like) without any feeding or extracting issues those might experience.

Additionally the simple cylindrical shape of the cartridge and the fully supported and sealed chamber design it necessitates, allows you to have a fully polymer case, whereas conventional cases typically require a brass or other type of metal base to support extraction.

File: 6EXvlLy.png (243KB, 936x572px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 936x572px

>>35099943
Interesting, one of the notional "Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle" designs appears to have the same forward push through feed design as that.

>>35105542
Haha, oh wow, everybody who ever designed or cared about gunpowder granule shapes must be spinning in the graves right now.

>>35101303
What about the parts where Afghanistan isn't covered in rocks?

Also I thought the IOTV was 33 lbs, not 15.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (196KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x720px

>>35101303
>>35109603
Shit forgot pic related.

>>35109122
in that pic, what material are they using for the case? is that steel? why not brass?

>>35109564
jesus christ we've been fighting over propellent granules for the entirety of human history

>>35109723
It's polymer.

Polymer is lighter and potentially far cheaper than Brass.