Caseless ammuition

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2004-06-09 07:39pm

How does it work? By electromagnetic rails or something else? I'm researching it for my military sci-fi novel.

And is it even practical for combat?

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-06-09 07:46pm

It's got all the parts of a regular cartrigde primer, bullet, propellant, just without any casing, hence caseless. The propellant is held together with some sort of binding agent, and I'm not sure what they use for a primer(or even what happens to it after the round is fired).

Interestingly enough, guns that fire caseless ammo have some problems with over heating, as it seems the ejected brass from standard weapons actually removes a lot of the heat with it.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2004-06-09 07:49pm

Korvan wrote:It's got all the parts of a regular cartrigde primer, bullet, propellant, just without any casing, hence caseless. The propellant is held together with some sort of binding agent, and I'm not sure what they use for a primer(or even what happens to it after the round is fired).

Interestingly enough, guns that fire caseless ammo have some problems with over heating, as it seems the ejected brass from standard weapons actually removes a lot of the heat with it.

In other words, a caseless ammo gun would need a water-cooled barrel?

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-06-09 08:07pm

jaeger115 wrote: In other words, a caseless ammo gun would need a water-cooled barrel?

No I don't think so, air cooled like most guns. You might find this info on the Heckler and Koch G11 caseless rifle useful.

As an added question why would caseless ammo be an improvement?

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2004-06-09 08:10pm

aten_vs_ra wrote: As an added question why would caseless ammo be an improvement?

It saves a lot of weight.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2004-06-09 08:15pm

Hobot wrote:
aten_vs_ra wrote: As an added question why would caseless ammo be an improvement?
It saves a lot of weight.

And any drawbacks? Range? Accuracy? Penetrating power?

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2004-06-09 08:24pm

jaeger115 wrote:
Hobot wrote:
aten_vs_ra wrote: As an added question why would caseless ammo be an improvement?
It saves a lot of weight.
And any drawbacks? Range? Accuracy? Penetrating power?

I'm not sure, at the moment I think cost is a major issue.

Another advantage is that it can be fired at a faster rate than conventional bulllets.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-09 08:55pm

jaeger115 wrote: In other words, a caseless ammo gun would need a water-cooled barrel?

No, the barrel heats up no worse then a gun using conventional cartridges. What overheats rapidly is the firing chamber, to the point that the gun will quickly begin to cook off its ammunition and will become impossible to control until it runs out of ammunition. The German designers who worked on the G11 partly solved the problem by switching to a new propellant with a higher cook off temperature but even that will only go so far. The fact that the rifle fired a weak as shit bullet extremely quickly wouldn't help things. This issue combine with the high cost and poor storability of caseless ammunition has killed caseless ammunition for infantry weapons. There are also concerns with how well the breech seals on such guns, normally its sealed by the cartridge case expanding under the explosion of the propellant. Simply having a well made bolt and firing chamber can give a pretty good seal, but that precision fit won't last under years of hard service.

The general conscience is that caseless ammunition isn't worthwhile. The reduced reliability isn't work the weight cut, research continues into new ammunition using materials lighter then brass for the cartridge cases. The high rates of fire caseless ammunition can enable also aren't worthwhile, you can only use those 2000rpm+ rates of fire to shoot off short bursts of low caliber bullets and such bullets have horrible stopping power. The 4.7mm round fired by the G11 would have been great for killing body armor clad Soviet infantry but against say Somali militia you'd see anyone carrying one throwing it down to pickup an AK-47.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-06-10 01:54pm

Korvan wrote:It's got all the parts of a regular cartrigde primer, bullet, propellant, just without any casing, hence caseless. The propellant is held together with some sort of binding agent, and I'm not sure what they use for a primer(or even what happens to it after the round is fired).

Interestingly enough, guns that fire caseless ammo have some problems with over heating, as it seems the ejected brass from standard weapons actually removes a lot of the heat with it.

Wouldn't this also make it a bitch to reload the clips by hand? And how big a problem is the weight of ammo, really?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-10 05:01pm

aten_vs_ra wrote: Wouldn't this also make it a bitch to reload the clips by hand?

Why, exactly, should the lack of a case have any effect one way or the other on the ease of reloading?

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-06-10 05:15pm

Batman wrote:
aten_vs_ra wrote: Wouldn't this also make it a bitch to reload the clips by hand?
Why, exactly, should the lack of a case have any effect one way or the other on the ease of reloading?

Sorry, I was under a misconception about the structure of caseless ammo.

G11 caseless ammo

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2004-06-10 05:41pm

aten_vs_ra wrote: Wouldn't this also make it a bitch to reload the clips by hand? And how big a problem is the weight of ammo, really?

Ammo is fairly heavy, a 30 round clip will add a pound to the weight of an M16. Soldiers have to carry a number of clips in reserve (I think it's something like 210 rounds) so it adds up. Anything you can do to reduce the weight of ammo will help out a soldier carrying pounds of additional gear.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-10 06:19pm

Hobot wrote:
Ammo is fairly heavy, a 30 round clip will add a pound to the weight of an M16. Soldiers have to carry a number of clips in reserve (I think it's something like 210 rounds) so it adds up. Anything you can do to reduce the weight of ammo will help out a soldier carrying pounds of additional gear.

A typical ammunition load for a western solider is 210-300 rounds in 7-10 magazines, through soldiers are often carrying additional lose ammunition to reload into those magazines and in the US and many other armies each will also have a 200 round box of linked 5.56mm rounds for the fire team or squad machine gunner, the guy might also be called upon to carry 7.62mm ammo or a mortar bomb. Not to mention such things as claymores, grenades, and plastic explosives.

You'll sometimes find soldiers with much more or somewhat less then that range though, in Vietnam twenty 20 round magazines of 5.56 for a total of 400 rounds was generally considered to be the minimal load for a patrol, plus an 100 round belt of 7.62mm for the machine gunners. Even then a guy with 600 rounds of 5.56mm on him wasn't unusual. When your gun can empty its magazine in seconds, even on burst or single shot, ammunition gets expended very quickly.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-11 12:39pm

Since you don't need an ejetion port for the empty cases, shouldn't it be easier to waterproof the rifle? That could make it a great weapon for amphibian assault teams.
And wouldn't the lack of a casing reduce the risk of jamming?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-11 12:47pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Since you don't need an ejetion port for the empty cases, shouldn't it be easier to waterproof the rifle? That could make it a great weapon for amphibian assault teams.
And wouldn't the lack of a casing reduce the risk of jamming?

That is true, but for the reasons stated above, this advantage is still not enough to compensate for the downfalls.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-11 12:56pm

Is there a technical upper limit to the caliber of caseless ammo? Is the stopping power really that bad, even if you use AP ammo? Because for the reasons above, it might be a good weapon for special ops, where you can afford a somewhat higher maintenance effort.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-11 01:07pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Is there a technical upper limit to the caliber of caseless ammo?

Eventually the propellant block wouldn't be able to take the stress of holding its self together, I have no idea when that happens but it probably wouldn't be an issue with anything rifle caliber.

Is the stopping power really that bad, even if you use AP ammo?

You really need to learn the basics. Armor piercing ammunition radically reduces stopping power, as it causes the bullet to sail clear through the target without delivering its energy, you want ball ammunition to stop things, and ideally you'd use soft points or hollow points though both are illegal under current military law. Low stopping power isn't an inherent weakness of caseless ammunition, but it is an inherent weakness of the G11 rifle, which fires a bullet that is only 4.7mm.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-11 01:10pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Since you don't need an ejetion port for the empty cases, shouldn't it be easier to waterproof the rifle?

I really doubt there would be any gain in that respect.

That could make it a great weapon for amphibian assault teams.
And wouldn't the lack of a casing reduce the risk of jamming?

I would expect so, provided that your ammunition doesn't get badly smashed around, a solid block of propellant with a bullet buried in it can't be all that shock resistant. The lack of an ejection port also make me wonder what your suppose to do if a bullet is a dud and misfires?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-06-11 06:24pm

IIRC, caseless ammo also tends to be a bit more susceptible to weather damage (humidity, sand, etc), since it doesn't have the protection of the case.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-06-13 06:57pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
GySgt. Hartman wrote: That could make it a great weapon for amphibian assault teams.
And wouldn't the lack of a casing reduce the risk of jamming?

I would expect so, provided that your ammunition doesn't get badly smashed around, a solid block of propellant with a bullet buried in it can't be all that shock resistant. The lack of an ejection port also make me wonder what your suppose to do if a bullet is a dud and misfires?

The lack of an ejection port is supposed to mean a simpler, easier to field strip firing mechanism. Not that thats that much of a consolation...

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-06-14 07:09am

Wouldn't you need an ejection port on a rifle firing caseless ammo to clear dud rounds or other missfires and blockages? It would kinda suck to have to disasemble your rifle instead of just pulling the cocking handle.

IIRC the G11 does have an opening in the underside of the rifle, beneath the rotating firing chamber.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-14 08:15am

Sir Sirius wrote:Wouldn't you need an ejection port on a rifle firing caseless ammo to clear dud rounds or other missfires and blockages? It would kinda suck to have to disasemble your rifle instead of just pulling the cocking handle.

IIRC the G11 does have an opening in the underside of the rifle, beneath the rotating firing chamber.

That's another point against them which was brought up before. Best to have a gun that can fire normal ammo and caseless, that way you have the ejection port still for clearing blockages.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2004-06-14 08:37am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:Wouldn't you need an ejection port on a rifle firing caseless ammo to clear dud rounds or other missfires and blockages? It would kinda suck to have to disasemble your rifle instead of just pulling the cocking handle.

IIRC the G11 does have an opening in the underside of the rifle, beneath the rotating firing chamber.
That's another point against them which was brought up before. Best to have a gun that can fire normal ammo and caseless, that way you have the ejection port still for clearing blockages.

Would even that be possible? I can picture it being easier to manufacture only one type of ammunition as opposed to two.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-14 08:39am

May as well stick with cased ammo, solves the problem entirely.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-06-14 08:13pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:That's another point against them which was brought up before. Best to have a gun that can fire normal ammo and caseless, that way you have the ejection port still for clearing blockages.

But practiacally the only reliability benifit of caseless is that it doesn't have an ejector port for dirt/sand/dust/water/crap to get in.