Ah, upgrades in technology don't necessarily upgrade in all directions, eg CD's, dansettes were playing 7 records in the 50/60's, it wasn't until the 90's that you got CD autochangers and CD was invented in '82 qnd rolled out in '83, and they were unreliable, unlike dansettes..
@@Yandarval I do wonder if a good team of archers could have easily wiped out a team of musketeers in the early days of muskets... I've read accounts of the sky being almost black with arrows (obvs an exaggeration, but probably felt like that if you were there) and English bowman being able to kill fairly regularly at 300 metres on a good day with at least consistent wind.. Whereas, early muskets were absolute pants, apart from the odd 'golden' one. I will tell you that as a kid I could hit a 18"X 24" tall box at about 70 yards using a 25lb pull unsighted bow, 2 out of 3 times.. And no one trained me, But, I practised every evening I could. Errol Flynn has a lot to answer for in my childhood, I used to saff-fight with my friends, too. It's a devastating weapon, and with practice, I'd fancy my chances at any swordsmsn other than if they had a katana, actually, my choice of sword, all the rest are a bit pansy in comparison, and either too weak, or too slow..
At 7:00 the M16 wasn't bad per say. The far bigger problem was the ammo manufacturer not using the same propellant powder than was used during trials, but filling the ammo with old, inferior quality gunpowder they had for different ammo types. With proper ammo and some cleaning, the M16 worked just fine. But telling the soldiers that the gun never has to be cleaned and giving them trash ammo is a sure way for desaster.
Wasn't it designed for slower burning powder and the manufacturer ignored that and went with faster burning powder? I think Stoner himself said something about it during the investigation..
Agreed. I carried the M16a1 using the SS109 ammo. The chromed chamber helped, but one still had to use the "toothbrush" and shaving brush with a little CLP every time one stopped. In two deployments, 83 and 89, I never had stoppage or malfunction. But my unit stressed PMCS. Cheers from a former Ranger
It wasn’t bad. But it’s not great. It’s why the HK416 is a better rifle than than any AR-15 with a stoner gas system. The stoner gas system is literally the rifle version of why you shouldn’t sh*t where you eat. It’s also more open to the elements than most rifles and it’s reliability in the jungle was initially atrocious. It did however improve with each iteration. But it was outperformed by Chinese made kalashnikovs, a rifle which is biggest strength is durability and reliability and cheapness
Caseless ammo is a really weird paradox, ud think on the surface carrying just the needed 'bang' and not the 'useless' cartridges around it is an easy net weight and cost gain and you can simplify extraction (or delete it entirely) on the weapon side. But as it turns out, this cartridge thing we have to deal with is actually part of the solution in many parts of the weapon system. - It keeps the powder sealed during storage and logistics phase - It keeps it safe from being banged up during handling and combat and when compressed against other cartridges in magazines. - It helps (A LOT) sealing the chamber during firing and provides a clearly defined point to strike the primer - On extraction it brings a bunch of the generated heat outside of the weapon along with it - Depending on the feed type can be a part of the cycling action itself, helping 'regulating it' as another part of the weapon making it more reliable than just hoping all powder charges are equal and burn at the same rate. (which we know doesn't work with old ammo) In higher calibers like 155mm we already pretty much are caseless, the bag charges burn on firing and dont need to be extracted. 2 piece tank ammo also exists. - Seen in comments some people also mentioned caseless leads to easier cookoffs problem either by enemy fire or overheating on the weapon itself. In fact it's part of why russian tanks like to make their turrets fly, both T-72 and T-80 carousels have the propellant charges as the most exposed part, they have a metallic base but the rest of the cylinder walls are more fragile...if even one gets damaged and start going off its enough heat to make every other one and all the HE shells go off soon after.
I don't see why the rounds being inside the magazine is that rough an environment for a cartridge. Loose rounds outside a magazine, not having a case would seem like an issue, but that seems fairly easy to solve by storing the rounds in clips/stripper clips prior to insertion into a magazine. The G-11 basically had plastic stripper clips that contained rounds that were used to feed rounds into magazines. There shouldn't be too many situations where you need loose rounds lying around.
I've wondered if integrating water into these weapons could somehow solve the heat and fouling problems without creating other issues like rust, or surrendering of your location through some steam related visual clue. Water has enormous specific heat capacity and is something soldiers must have on themselves to be functional as it is. You eliminate a bunch of weight, increase the firing rate/accuracy, while only marginally increasing the use of a consumable (water) they're already being supplied with -- and one that's often available in the surroundings; certainly more so than cased ammo might be.
@@snizami Water's heavy. Any amount that would sufficiently cool the barrels would weigh more than just carrying the brass. The only solution I can think of is Inconel barrels, but then the cost of each small arm is going to 10x in price...
Caseless ammo didn't become successful until Weland-Wutani was able to perfect it in the mid-2150s. Even then, it proved to be less than ideal when dealing with Xenomorph infestation in their atmospheric processors.
@@heatherporterfield7343 yeah but as usual the genius commanding officer decided they should only use flame units and they could have nuked the entire site from orbit if it wasn't for the company wanting to sidestep ICC protocols..... that didn't work out so well for Apone, Frost, Spunkmeyer, Crowe, Wierzbowski, Dietrich, Ferro, Drake, Gorman and Vasquez who were all killed by Xenomorphs. RIP Marines.
Anyone truly interested in this subject needs to look for a powerpoint presentation available across the web titled "Caseless Ammunition Small Arms. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Presented by. Jim Schatz (he personally worked on the G11).
More like weapon design wasnt able to get "caseless ammo" of the time to work for more advanced weapons that werent revolvers so the case solved many of their problems. Its like how planes at the start had to use a lot of wings to create lift because the engines at the time just werent powerful enough. Once the engines did get enough horsepower and speed, then a single wing did came to be as the most efficient configuration.
@@eom1682 Cases serve more than one purpose none of which which can be simply replaced by redesigning firearms. Modern designers cannot make caseless ammo work any better than did the original designers.
@@blshouse Yeah, im just saying that we still dont have any crazy good enough materials to solve the issues having a case provide. If we could for example, get gunpowder that generate a lot more gasses, we could just partially ignore chamber sealing and just vent the extra gas somewhere safely without a loss of bullet velocity, like how revolvers do anyway.
You missed a couple. The Gyrojet and the modified S&W M76 SMG that fired the electrical detonated cartridge. Yes, the G11 was a story in its self. Very educational.
Also the Metal Storm (that used to be on classic Future Weapons) has bullets and propellant stacked in a barrel/chamber that would be set off in sequence electronically.
Well in that case. Let’s talk about arrows shall we? And rocks used in slingshots? The self contained cartridge was probably the most significant and influential innovation in firearm design history. It was a huge leap and it’s why we still use essentially the same design and why actual practical and useful ceaseless ammunition is still a pipe dream. But by all means. Let’s talk about how the first caveman who carved a point into the end of stick for throwing was “technically” the first “caseless ammunition” according to sone random guy 🤦🏼♂️
@@themisterhplus wouldn’t that mean that the self contained cartridge IS superior to careless ammunition since it was the evolution and successor to the breach loaded “caseless ammunition”? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Case closed. We could’ve saved people billions of dollars in investments into pointless experimentation these past few decades 😂
Great video! I worked as a handgun instructor to make extra cash in college, got really into gunsmithing and ammo pressing during the same period, and I've always been a gun nut. You did a fantastic job on this video! Very comprehensive. I would love a video going over the G-11, and another video covering plastic casing. Before I lost my vision, plastic casing had just gotten a little bit of buzz in the firearms world. This was five or six years ago, so I would love to hear about how it has developed since then. Thanks, Simon! (And team.)
That may be true, and I appreciate the suggestion, but do they have the mellifluous tones of a Simon on their channel? That makes all the difference for me, lol
My 12 gauge with rifled barrel fires 50 cal sabot thru it, and it's in a plastic case shotgun shell. Kicks and bruises like a mule and costs about 4-5 us$ per round so I don't put that barrel on much. But turns the shotgun into a long range weapon with sights.
I designed a caseless ammo to a theoretic weapon decades ago. I've always wanted to build a prototype for testing, but have yet to have the means. Without giving too much away, the ignition system is the true secret to my concept. I moved the propellant back inside of the bullet following the Japanese and Gyrojet concepts. The bolt closes behind the bullet to provide a sealed chamber to push off from. The propellant is as clean burning as possible and the bullet itself is a bi-metal zinc alloy that cleans the chamber and barrel with each firing. This makes it a bit lighter and harder than traditional copper jacketed lead, providing a number of advantages, including a proper muzzle velocity. Finally, the propellant isn't heat triggered, so cooking off won't be a problem.
So an ignition between two chemicals that violently combust on contact? Separated perhaps by a thin non-permeable material that is resistant to both chemicals on their own but still brittle enough to be shattered by a firing pin(?) to allow the reaction to occur and get used up with no residue left over or at least so little that it either gets ejected along with the gas and bullet or leaves very minimal residue on the bolt. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, but I think I'm close to your idea, without any idea of the possible chemicals you could use.
The heat needs to go somewhere. The case is ejected with a good amount of the heat. With caseless ammunition the heat is contained in the gun. Heat and friction kill barrels. No free lunch in physics.
@@ashoka9306 In relation to the total heat caused by the burning propellant - it's really not much. There are plenty of solutions to overheating - already used on all sorts of quick-firing firearms in the past. Yes - it makes more effort - yes - it costs more - but it's very far from unsolvable.
@redbandet not a rounding error. We're not talking about what is ejected from the muzzle. Only what is contained and ejected from the action. That's where the most rapid heating occurs.
I'm surprised you didn't at least mention the Gyrojet. Not technically caseless in the way this video uses the term, but the whole cartridge flies downrange, thus no case to eject
There is one correction that really needs to be addressed. Fully automatic fire is not based on how many rounds you can fire in a second as you seem to imply at 4:16. Automatic fire is achieved by being able to fire multiple rounds from a single trigger function (pull). In simple terms, if you pull the trigger once and it fires one round, even if you keep the trigger pulled back, not allowing the trigger to reset, it is semi-automatic fire, but it can still fire more than one round a second, you just need to let the trigger reset. Now, if you pull the trigger once, and (baring a mechanical issue) multiple rounds are fired before you release and reset the trigger, it's automatic fire.
Goodluck finding sufficiently dense (chemically fueled) battery power to run such an infantry carried coil gun,. That's not to mention the bulky, heat generating and power hungry mechanisms or the heat these batteries themselves would create in discharging as quickly as they'd need to for a decent firing rate.
Why no hybrid ? You can speed up the projectile in it´s first stage by chemical powder as usual and then icrease it´s velocity further. Thus using less energy less temp etc. you get the idea. As a power source a AL+O2 battery could be used which is power dense, more so than a Li-On battery ut can´t be recharged (so what? ). You guys lack the imagination...
@@sierraecho884your forgetting one Major thing. Cost of manufacturing and maintenance, while the military (especially the US) loves to spend alot on fancy toys. They like to spend as little as possible on it. Otherwise you end up with the F-35 situation of being extremely expensive to maintain, however good or not it may be. Plus rail guns have been a reality since 10 years ago sadly too expensive to reliably use both via power source and the materials to maintain it. Also you gotta remember what your asking sounds complicated to maintain. Military weapons need to be extremely simple im design and have as few parts as possible to fix on the field if needed. We don't wanna end up with another G11.
Most of these problems are removed with the use of polymer casing. The polymer casing allows for a protective covering, seals well, and insulates the chamber from heat (actually better than brass) while still being much lighter. One of the NGWS competing for the replacement of the M4 did use polymer casing and it was VERY effective.
The problem with polymer casings is they have low heat retention which means a lot less heat is extracted from the system upon ejecting the spent cartridge. This results in overheating issues.
@@momoz74 Odd since True Velocity/General Dynamics was showing off their 6.8mm NJSW entry and they said that not only was the ammo something like 30% lighter, but that it insulated from heat transfer into the chamber. They stated it transferred half the heat into the chamber than brass ammo and reduce the chance of things like a cook-off. They are still developing the True Velocity RM-277 despite it not winning the contract. I personally think it is better than the M-7. It has a longer barrel that handles the higher velocities better. The gun is lighter and batter balanced. The ammo is lighter too. The M-7 is a strong gun, but I would put the RM-277 ahead of it. My biggest concerns is without the US contracts they will not have the volume to be able to produce the ammo at cheap enough rates. Then again I think the Vortex targeting system is good too, but heavy and will not really shine until the 2nd or 3rd generation comes out that is lighter, uses a much smaller battery, and has even more features built in. I was disappointed it did not have some sort of NVG or thermal optics built in that could be turned on if needed. But even with the current systems the M-7/M-250 is a beast.
They were effective until they began to deform due to chamber/barrel heat, rendering them unreliable. Polymer casings are neat, but they have a whole host of their own problems. Main ones being deforming under high heat (like mentioned before), producing lower chamber pressure than metal casings (meaning lower velocity/muzzle energy), and being inherently more fragile (they are plastic after all). These and various other factors are what caused the US to adopt the steel/brass hybrid casing developed by SIG instead.
@@ferai147 Do you have a link to an article coving this? The True Velocity RM277 that they originally enrolled in the NGSW contest seemed to do just fine and everybody was saying it reduced chamber heat and prevented cookoffs and such. They are still working on the RM277 and showing it off at Shot Show (as of the 2024 one earlier this year) and letting a few gun channels test it. I have not heard anything about overheating issues. I personally think the RM277 is a better option because the bullpup design let them use a 19" barrel so they did not need the crazy chamber pressure that the XM-5 has... and issues like heavier parts and short life for the barrels. Also having ammo that is 30% lighter too is nice. It also had better recoil mitigation and the can could be fatter and shorter do to the barrel being lower. It just had so many advantages over the other 2.
@@JeffBilkins once the first round goes off out of battery a bunch of very hot gas rushes into the magazine, cooking off the rest of the caseless ammo in it. for normal ammo that doesn't happen cause the metal casings require a lot of energy to get hot enough to set off the primer or main charge
@@anonym3017 a oob detonation is going to blow the magazine apart, along with a lot of the lower receiver. Either weapon is out of commission regardless of the type of ammo.
TL;DR Plastic cased ammo works great for rimmed, straight walled, cases. Like shotgun ammunition. Rimless cartridges that headspace on the shoulder or case mouth? You're gonna have problems with headspacing. Then you get problems with them deforming in magazines and issues with the bullets getting pushed into or pulled out of the case.
Maybe Simon really should take a closer look at 'exotic' ammunition and its use. Cased telescoping ammunition comes to mind. A closer look at the G11 would probably also be enlightening to the audience (and cool). Heck, have Ian McCollum and/or Ian Ferguson join or colaborate on the episode. As for why the G11 didn't get adopted, the german reunification had something to do with that.
One quote being (roughly) "We had a choice between developing the G11 and rebuilding the East German economy. We decided to go with rebuilding the East German economy because it was the cheaper of the two."
The main problems I've always seen were the fact that most propellants are granulated and caseless by their nature must be solid. It's a matter of surface area during the burn. It would seem that careless would only be useful in magnums where slower burn rates are desirable. And then the fragility of the rounds is typically very high.
@johno1544 the heat is a problem but not an unovercomeable issue. The weapon cycles and that can be used to cool the weapon. But the propellants inability to turn to gas fast enough is a major issue and there again, the grunt proofing the things. Can you imagine a mag full of broken propellant? Or a crushed bullet jamming up a rifle at the wrong time?
Yeah, Varget is expensive enough as it is. I can't imagine how much a pound of a totally solid propellant, that can still attain the same ballistics, would cost. Be paying DuPont $700/lb instead of $70 to Hodgdon... no thanks, lol
@@mfallen2023 Not really. Propellants are in a gel-like state prior to being extruded or formed into balls/flakes. It is not difficult to extrude them into another shape.
Case-less as pointed out has some issues that can hard to solve but something like the combustible case round that are used in the M1A1 120mm main canon where you only have a partial metal case should work much better. The 'after-cap' holds the primer and forms the seal for the chamber and is ejected after firing. Best way to look at it is the brass part of a shotgun round is the 'after-cap' and the plastic case part burns up when fired. In small arms rounds would save a lot of weight but still stand up to less then idea handling by the users.
The cheapest part of a soldier's load-out is small arms ammunition. Caseless ammo is a solution looking for a problem. Of course, so is .277 Fury and the $5,000 rifle to shoot it from. (Look, by raising the pressure to a ridiculous level, and at much higher cost, they've managed to duplicate .270 Winchester ballistics.)
@@douglaswickstrom6736 It's not the cost, it's the weight. An M80A1 7.62x51mm EPR round has an 8.5 gram projectile, about 3.4 grams of powder + primer, and a case that weighs about 12 grams, for a total weight (rounded) of about 24 grams per round. You'll note about half of that is the brass, so assuming your caseless propellant is roughly the same mass as powder equivalent, you're looking at carrying being able to carry twice the amount of ammo per a given weight Since the propellant is a solid rather than a loose powder, that also means it takes up less space, which means the rounds can be significantly shorter, which means, again, you can carry more because your magazines can be smaller (and thus lighter). An additional advantage, as used in the G11, is that there's no particular reason the propellant has to be round. The G11's caseless rounds were square in cross section, with the round bullet embedded in the square propellant. Square rounds means they can be stacked much more efficiently in a magazine, not wasting space, which again means either a smaller magazine for the same amount of rounds, or more rounds in a magazine of about the same size. That's why militaries keep trying to develop them. If you can send a soldier into battle with twice the amount of ammunition in a smaller form factor for the same amount of weight, or conversely the same amount of ammunition for half the weight, that's a big deal.
My reaction to being asked whether or not to do those future videos... 😋 Me: "DO IT!" Vid Author: "Which one?" Me: "ALL OF IT!" LOL! So yeah, this one video already has a couple of additional spin-offs that I am interested in seeing.
Something that would greatly help me when listening, as I am usually focusing on something else while I listen, would be to add percentile or multiple based comparisons, so for example if you are comparing guns you could say this one was "300% faster" or something. It's a small detail but helps me understand the comparative difference when I'm not fully focusing on the video
If hypothetical science fiction weapons is what interests you, I might suggest considering: 1. High velocity rifle system using a rifle barrel, combined with a backpack + vest for feeding fuel/oxidizer/ammo projectiles/burst discs via tubes to the gun barrel. In the backpack + vest might contain liquid water as an "oxidizer", liquid NaK "fuel" (potassium + sodium metal amalgam, that is a liquid at room temperature), a water pump, a NaK pump, tube feedable projectiles, and some tube feedable rupture discs. When mixing water and NaK, a spontaneous chemical reaction occurs, which produces large amounts of hydrogen gas and heat. The hot hydrogen is an excellent gun propellant gas, since it has very low molecular mass, and thus enables higher velocity projectiles, compared to conventional nitrocellulose gunpower combustion (which has much higher molecular mass, and thus much lower maximum projectile velocities possible). Upon using some electronical equipment to mix the water and NaK (delivered to a reaction chamber in the rifle body via pumps and hoses hooking up to the vest/backpack, high pressure hot hydrogen is evolved, which may initially be constrained by a rupture disc. Eventually, when enough hydrogen accumulates for enough pressure, the rupture disc allows the projectile to fire from the barrel at unusually high velocities (with no ejecting brass, but with ejecting spent rupture discs, and unwanted sodium/potassium hydroxide [which are byproducts of water + NaK reaction]). 2. A 1+ million unit cohesive drone swarm, each equipped with a small mirror and a highly precise mirror aiming mechanism. The drone swarm focuses natural sunlight onto a single target point, at up to 1 million times the intensity of natural direct sunlight, allowing for the practical implementation of a functional "Archimedes death ray". To put things in perspective, some types of small drones can be obtained for under $200 each, and it is therefore theoretically possible to to build a 1 million unit drone swarm, for $200 million USD. This is "practically chump change" compared to modern national military budgets, whereby a single US B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber costs around $2 billion each (so 10x the price of the 1 million unit drone swarm useful for a practical Archimedes death ray). 3. Indefinite endurance nuclear powered fixed wing airplane that soars around high in the sky cooling and condensing atmospheric water vapor into liquid water and then into ice blocks. Once enough ice is accumulated to create 100+ pound blocks, it then flies over the adversary targets and drops the ice blocks as unguided gravity projectiles. 4. Ultra high velocity "squirt guns" used for home self defense. Commonly available pressure washers (when equipped with 0 degree nozzle option) can often produce enough pressure to break human skin, when hit by the water jet at point blank range. Hypothetically, it is possible to design a squirt gun that is considerably more powerful than a pressure washer (potentially by circulating the water around in a loop at very high speed, say 500 MPH, then abruptly trying to obstruct the flow, so as to convert the stored circulating kinetic energy into a fast moving jet of water). Such a device would have rapidly decreasing energy with range, making it only dangerous at interior home ranges. Such a device could hypothetically be designed to have multiple pressure settings (ex: "stun", "injure", "legit sauce dangerous"). 5. "Money cannon". An artillery device that launches prefect quality counterfeit currency at the target adversary forces, encouraging the adversary soldiers to break cover to collect the currency. Upon spending it in their local economy, inflation results, due to the flood of counterfeit currency being put into circulation. The inflation thus erodes the adversary government's ability to continue spending on the war effort. 6. "Recreational pharmaceuticals cannon". An artillery device that launches recreational drugs at the adversary forces, thus encouraging some of the adversary soldiers to use the products and decrease their combat effectiveness/unit discipline/decision making wisdom.
If you have semi-auto shotguns in your story, you might make them cased-telescoped like the Steyr ACR rifle. This is a good idea; see ua-cam.com/video/3iLSCNtogc8/v-deo.html
I think the problem is miniaturization. Caseless ammunition has been a thing for large artillery pieces for a very long time. Most use cloth bags. You can punch those things out of shape and they will still fit in the gun. The problem is making the ammunition charges smaller. A tiny cloth bag is delicate, and will break open at the slightest touch. Make it durable enough to nor break, it won't burn away and get stuck in the rifle. A rifle is small, so that means tighter tolerances, leading to more specific charge requirements. Automatic feeding means the bag cannot be squishy and needs to be durable. Imagine fitting a Saturn 5 Rocket into the size of a pencil. Hypothetically doable. Reasonably impossible. Practically unusable. There are just some things that should not be done when you are talking that small.
That being said, the VEC 91 is how I would have designed caseless ammunition. Essentially, make the case flammable and inherently disposable is almost perfect... but the video goes over why it is difficult to justify.
@@GuntherSeifert-nh5hh And those were abandoned for a number of reasons. The automatic feed system for machine guns will not allow for those soft fabric cartridges, unfortunately.
I think when the next leap in power storage (soon) happens, small railguns will seem more practical and thus, caseless ammo. They were mediocre as large round weapons but for personal arms the application can work much better with further miniaturization of components.
Love the Iraqvetran8888 clips of the Mac-10. Especially because they feature Barry, who passed away soon after filming that (I believe it was in a drunk driving accident).
ALL PCPs (PreCharged Pneumatics) are caseless. Just the round and air. And i3 don't just mean bbs. One i have is capable of taking down elk and grizzly...
On the other hand all the weight and money cost you save on cases will come back with a vengeance in the form of the high-pressure storage tank for the air :)
I'm pretty convinced combustible propellent won't be the future of caseless. That title will probably go to coil guns, but those still have a _loooooooong_ ways to go. Similar technology (ie rail guns) may be more practical for larger guns like mobile artillery or even more practically, ships, but even that kind of tech is still in experimental phases.
My automatic concern was with any build up of residue from the propellant on the chamber wall. It could at some point, as in black powder, necessitate the need to stop and clean your gun. I had not thought about the sealing the cases do.
Would love more on this and similar ammo-oddities! Plastic-cased ammo is a thing, tho still very niche here, and I'd love to see you and your team of writes dip toes into that!
I definitely want to see the other videos you were talking about with the other ammunition types but I'm also curious about the Metal Storm magnetic pistol and rifle because they are also caseless
I remember the HK G11 and was quite interested in the concept. At the time I played a game from TSR called Top Secret and my character had this weapon. It worked just fine in that imaginary setting but I'm not surprised that it was far less effective irl...it's operational architecture was dauntingly complex
I read the brass actually conducts heat into the firing chamber, and caseless ammo actually lets the firing chamber run cooler. It was in one of the papers for Textron's research into cased telescoped and caseless telescoped ammunition. Though it might be specific to the former, which uses a plastic case, and not the caseless.
Quick note on the Rheinmetall RH 120: It is a cannon design specifically, not a tank, that does indeed fire a (mostly) caseless round that leaves only a short stub cap after firing. It also happens to be the design that is produced by the U.S. under license from Rheinmetall and mounted on the current variants of the Abrams tank, so it is a highly successful and somewhat widely used design.
If you do another episode on this topic, do include what GE Armament and LM Aero did back in the '90's on the F-22 Program (GAU). As you covered, the logistics and weight reduction aspects are of great importance on aviation platforms .... where every gram counts.
Back in the 1950's there was a pistol called the Model 1500 Dardick pistol. The Dardick pistol used a unique type of caseless ammunition known as “trounds” (triangular rounds). These trounds were designed to be more efficient and easier to handle compared to traditional round cartridges. Obviously, it also did not become a 'thing', although advertised as 'caseless' it actually used a non-reloadable, discardable polymer 'case'. There was also, of course, the Gyrojet pistol which used a rocket propelled projectile and was a truly a caseless weapon.
I'd like to know about plastic casings, please. Also, you've revived a memory from my army days. As part of my job I had access to Jane's handguns (I think that was it), and I remember the rocket propelled round. Slow to start off, the advice was to close in on the weapon, and put up a hand to stop the round before it was fast enough to do damage. I think this suggestion was partly tongue in cheek.
Caseless actually predates casings in the form of mussel loaders and field canons and used even on battleship main guns. Funny how things can go full circle.
I have done some thinking on this particular issue and I think I have a workable solution. First being the bullet should act something like a traditional bullet while in the barrel with an explosion propelling the projectile forward and focing out the back to create a good seal and interface with rifling like in a civil war miniball. The seccond being that after the bullet has left the barrel or more precisley after the initial charge burns through you get that compound stage rocket burning as hot and fast as can be arranged. The idea being that the still whole projectile should be accelerated as fast as it can tolerate then ideally explode in contact with water or blood, but only after it fires.
All the problems you mentioned can be solved. Hard to eject on the mold of.the bullet add a knotch to eject it with an extractor. To get around contamination you work with a chemist to make a solid propellant that is water resistant or add lacker to the primer. To reduce the fouling you design the bolt so the round is partially inside it and use a cleaner burning formula ie working with the chemistry.
I'd love to know more. I 'm a retired US Army Ordnance Soldier who, while not a gun aficionado, has a love of the tech and would love to see the problems I observed over 25 years of service solved. We owe it to our Soldiers to give them the best. While yes, our enemies will also develop their own best, the goal is to win quickly so the least number suffer. War sucks, win fast and end it.
At 14:55 you mention plastic cases. Please see True Velocity ammo that uses polymer cases and is commercially available It was developed along with a new rifle for the US military, though it lost to the Sig Sauer rifle now called the XM7. Civilian version is called the MCX Spear.
Missed opportunity to discuss the 40CTC cannon. I would like to see videos on those as well though. A lot of time we talk about the weapons systems while completely forgetting the development that goes into the projectiles.
The reason the M-16 failed in Vietnam is because the Army Ordinance Corp insisted on using the wrong type of propellent which effected cyclic rate and carbon build up leading to increased jams and misfires. The M-16A1 just lowered the cyclic rate and added the forward assist to force the bullet into the chamber if it failed to seat properly (not the best idea) and never addressed the issues with ball powder being filthy, which is why you spend almost as much time cleaning them as you do actually shooting them in BCT. None of these were issues in the initial batch deployed with the Air Force which used the proper propellant that it was designed to use. The rifle wasn't the issue, the Army's bureaucracy was.
I think an idea worth looking into is the method modern tank shells use. Instead of the case being fully external propelant. Put a smaller brass housing for a primer. Design it like a casing so it can be grabbed. Honestly i think that would be as close to caseless as you can get.
You could separate the bullets from the ignition and propellant, but why would you want to do that? The whole point of putting everything in a single cartridge is that it's a lot faster and easier. I guess you could have something like a gauss rifle where the battery is required to stay in the rifle. That's a very different technology though.
As a former soldier. The biggest problem in the heat of battle is misfires. The brass get stuck when ejecting and stops your ability to fire.... Caseless rounds are very good at solving this issue as demostrated by the very expensive but very good g11
The first use of caseless bullets were muskets. Cooking off of black powder did happen, but it was rare. Guns did not get as hot. One idea is the consolidated magazine approach. Everything is built into the magazine, no loose rounds. Coil type electric ignition, with the batteries incorporated within the magazine. Heat dissipation to prevent cook offs, is a concern.
“Plus, we fire the whole bullet. That's 65% more bullet per bullet” - Cave Johnson
Caseless ammo: I'm different;]
i have money to invest where do i send it
The cake may be a lie, but these bulletless bullets sure ain't!
Here at Aperture Science™️ we fire the whole bullet
100 % of the time it hits its target 65% of the time.
"We need to find a way to make caseless ammo!"
The musket in the corner of the room, sitting in disappointment:
Well, in that case. The musket IS the casing for the powder and projectile. It just happens to be a very long and heavy FMJ in the truest sense.
Ah, upgrades in technology don't necessarily upgrade in all directions, eg CD's, dansettes were playing 7 records in the 50/60's, it wasn't until the 90's that you got CD autochangers and CD was invented in '82 qnd rolled out in '83, and they were unreliable, unlike dansettes..
@@Yandarval I do wonder if a good team of archers could have easily wiped out a team of musketeers in the early days of muskets... I've read accounts of the sky being almost black with arrows (obvs an exaggeration, but probably felt like that if you were there) and English bowman being able to kill fairly regularly at 300 metres on a good day with at least consistent wind.. Whereas, early muskets were absolute pants, apart from the odd 'golden' one. I will tell you that as a kid I could hit a 18"X 24" tall box at about 70 yards using a 25lb pull unsighted bow, 2 out of 3 times.. And no one trained me, But, I practised every evening I could. Errol Flynn has a lot to answer for in my childhood, I used to saff-fight with my friends, too. It's a devastating weapon, and with practice, I'd fancy my chances at any swordsmsn other than if they had a katana, actually, my choice of sword, all the rest are a bit pansy in comparison, and either too weak, or too slow..
Calling musket loads "caseless" is like calling the wright brothers kittyhawk a spaceplane.
@@peterjones596 The OG Handgunnes. Without a doubt, the archers would win.
"Lieutenant, what do those pulse rifles fire?"
-- "10 millimeter explosive-tip caseless. Standard light armor piercing round. Why?"
"Well, look where your team is. They're right under the primary heat exchangers." #dontblowusup
Which movie/game is that one?
It's been so long for me since I saw anything from the Aliens franchise.
I understood that reference!
@@MadisonAtteberry 'Aliens', when the Marines make their first penetration into the nest under the atmospheric processor.
"SOB... Stole my line" :)
huge missed opportunity to name this video "The Case for Caseless Ammunition"
*MAKING THE CASE (OR NOT) - Cased vs. caseless ammo*
Case on point
At 7:00 the M16 wasn't bad per say. The far bigger problem was the ammo manufacturer not using the same propellant powder than was used during trials, but filling the ammo with old, inferior quality gunpowder they had for different ammo types. With proper ammo and some cleaning, the M16 worked just fine. But telling the soldiers that the gun never has to be cleaned and giving them trash ammo is a sure way for desaster.
Wasn't it designed for slower burning powder and the manufacturer ignored that and went with faster burning powder? I think Stoner himself said something about it during the investigation..
Agreed. I carried the M16a1 using the SS109 ammo. The chromed chamber helped, but one still had to use the "toothbrush" and shaving brush with a little CLP every time one stopped. In two deployments, 83 and 89, I never had stoppage or malfunction. But my unit stressed PMCS. Cheers from a former Ranger
No, it was bad. 1:12 Twist with 55 grain .223 ammo is BAD.
1:7 Twist with 65 grain 5.56mm, as per the M16A2, is at least modestly lethal.
The first set of M16s were also redesigned AFTER the trials, including skipping the chrome plated chamber among other things.
It wasn’t bad. But it’s not great. It’s why the HK416 is a better rifle than than any AR-15 with a stoner gas system. The stoner gas system is literally the rifle version of why you shouldn’t sh*t where you eat. It’s also more open to the elements than most rifles and it’s reliability in the jungle was initially atrocious. It did however improve with each iteration. But it was outperformed by Chinese made kalashnikovs, a rifle which is biggest strength is durability and reliability and cheapness
G11: Haha, you guys use cases?
Coilgun: Haha, you guys use propellant?
Laser-Rifle: Haha, you guys use projectiles?
Ork Shokk attack gun: Haha you guys use reality?
Nuclear: Haha, you guys need to be used?
Peace: oh, you guys use weapons?
the void: ............
me: the fuck? the guns are speaking?? guess i'd stop eating thoses blessed brownies of the hood's church
Caseless ammo is a really weird paradox, ud think on the surface carrying just the needed 'bang' and not the 'useless' cartridges around it is an easy net weight and cost gain and you can simplify extraction (or delete it entirely) on the weapon side.
But as it turns out, this cartridge thing we have to deal with is actually part of the solution in many parts of the weapon system.
- It keeps the powder sealed during storage and logistics phase
- It keeps it safe from being banged up during handling and combat and when compressed against other cartridges in magazines.
- It helps (A LOT) sealing the chamber during firing and provides a clearly defined point to strike the primer
- On extraction it brings a bunch of the generated heat outside of the weapon along with it
- Depending on the feed type can be a part of the cycling action itself, helping 'regulating it' as another part of the weapon making it more reliable than just hoping all powder charges are equal and burn at the same rate. (which we know doesn't work with old ammo)
In higher calibers like 155mm we already pretty much are caseless, the bag charges burn on firing and dont need to be extracted. 2 piece tank ammo also exists.
- Seen in comments some people also mentioned caseless leads to easier cookoffs problem either by enemy fire or overheating on the weapon itself. In fact it's part of why russian tanks like to make their turrets fly, both T-72 and T-80 carousels have the propellant charges as the most exposed part, they have a metallic base but the rest of the cylinder walls are more fragile...if even one gets damaged and start going off its enough heat to make every other one and all the HE shells go off soon after.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan#Armament
I don't see why the rounds being inside the magazine is that rough an environment for a cartridge. Loose rounds outside a magazine, not having a case would seem like an issue, but that seems fairly easy to solve by storing the rounds in clips/stripper clips prior to insertion into a magazine. The G-11 basically had plastic stripper clips that contained rounds that were used to feed rounds into magazines. There shouldn't be too many situations where you need loose rounds lying around.
I've wondered if integrating water into these weapons could somehow solve the heat and fouling problems without creating other issues like rust, or surrendering of your location through some steam related visual clue. Water has enormous specific heat capacity and is something soldiers must have on themselves to be functional as it is. You eliminate a bunch of weight, increase the firing rate/accuracy, while only marginally increasing the use of a consumable (water) they're already being supplied with -- and one that's often available in the surroundings; certainly more so than cased ammo might be.
@@snizami Water's heavy. Any amount that would sufficiently cool the barrels would weigh more than just carrying the brass. The only solution I can think of is Inconel barrels, but then the cost of each small arm is going to 10x in price...
Caseless ammo is pretty much a solution in search of a problem. It may have a use some day but right now brass shells get the job done.
Caseless ammo didn't become successful until Weland-Wutani was able to perfect it in the mid-2150s. Even then, it proved to be less than ideal when dealing with Xenomorph infestation in their atmospheric processors.
And the Colonial Marines used it in their M41-A pulse rifles.
They would have to take off and nuke the installation from space. It was the only way to be sure.
@@heatherporterfield7343 yeah but as usual the genius commanding officer decided they should only use flame units and they could have nuked the entire site from orbit if it wasn't for the company wanting to sidestep ICC protocols..... that didn't work out so well for Apone, Frost, Spunkmeyer, Crowe, Wierzbowski, Dietrich, Ferro, Drake, Gorman and Vasquez who were all killed by Xenomorphs. RIP Marines.
They stole the idea from Elon, he's been working on a caseless death weapon for years called FSD.
Thanks for the info, now can you tell me what the lotto numbers were last week of december 2024 please
G11 - "Kraut Space Magic"
it also had bayonets!
This was the best instance I've ever seen
Lol gun Jesus.
Yes and it didn´t work...
Then I see no reason the marines didn't adopt it @@berndbernd3464
"10 millimeter explosive-tip case-less. Standard light armor piercing round."
Alien
Best for a bug hunt
@@timholder6825 Aliens
"10 millimeter explosive-tip case-less. Standard light armor piercing round." - Every gun proceeds to expend cases.
Anyone truly interested in this subject needs to look for a powerpoint presentation available across the web titled "Caseless Ammunition Small Arms. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Presented by. Jim Schatz (he personally worked on the G11).
😂😂 still waiting someone does ....
@@JamilaJibril-e8hwaiting for what?
@Mygg_Jeager someone read people don't read
Thanks for sharing this :)
God the G11 is a nightmare with internals. Still cool idea though.
Cased ammo was the technological improvement over caseless ammo.
More like weapon design wasnt able to get "caseless ammo" of the time to work for more advanced weapons that werent revolvers so the case solved many of their problems. Its like how planes at the start had to use a lot of wings to create lift because the engines at the time just werent powerful enough. Once the engines did get enough horsepower and speed, then a single wing did came to be as the most efficient configuration.
@@eom1682 Cases serve more than one purpose none of which which can be simply replaced by redesigning firearms. Modern designers cannot make caseless ammo work any better than did the original designers.
@@blshouse Yeah, im just saying that we still dont have any crazy good enough materials to solve the issues having a case provide. If we could for example, get gunpowder that generate a lot more gasses, we could just partially ignore chamber sealing and just vent the extra gas somewhere safely without a loss of bullet velocity, like how revolvers do anyway.
You missed a couple. The Gyrojet and the modified S&W M76 SMG that fired the electrical detonated cartridge. Yes, the G11 was a story in its self. Very educational.
Also the Metal Storm (that used to be on classic Future Weapons) has bullets and propellant stacked in a barrel/chamber that would be set off in sequence electronically.
How about the Volcanic Pistol and Rocket Ball in 1855 or the Daisy V/L .22 caseless rifle in 1968.
@@morrismonet3554 how about the atlatl? It is history's first caseless ammunition. How about that? How...About....That....? Howboudat
@@k_469 idiotic comment. try to stay on topic, troll.
The Dardick revolver used caseless ammunition.
Pvt. Joker: Are those... live rounds?
Pvt. Pyle: [staring as a maniac] 8.5 millimeter. No... Metal... Jacket.
Is that you, John Wayne?
@@user-yl1xy5eg7b Who said that?!!
It was als9 in Full Metal Jacket. Good film that.👍
@@user-yl1xy5eg7b is that me ?
Musket. Pretty sure the weapon and ammo you're looking for is a musket and lead balls. No brass cases on them lead balls right?
Well in that case. Let’s talk about arrows shall we? And rocks used in slingshots?
The self contained cartridge was probably the most significant and influential innovation in firearm design history. It was a huge leap and it’s why we still use essentially the same design and why actual practical and useful ceaseless ammunition is still a pipe dream.
But by all means. Let’s talk about how the first caveman who carved a point into the end of stick for throwing was “technically” the first “caseless ammunition” according to sone random guy 🤦🏼♂️
But the components of the munition are loose. Caseless ammo is all in one...
Don't get your knickers in a twist.
@@themisterhI’m just messing with ya man 😆
@@themisterhplus wouldn’t that mean that the self contained cartridge IS superior to careless ammunition since it was the evolution and successor to the breach loaded “caseless ammunition”?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Case closed. We could’ve saved people billions of dollars in investments into pointless experimentation these past few decades 😂
something similar to caseless ammo is the MetalStorm project. Would love a video on that!
That's exactly what this made me think of as well
MetalStorm was caseless ammunition with extra steps.
Talk about a theoretically cool weapon system that never went anywhere...
@@Stop_Gooning It was designed mainly to work as a CWIS, the problem is CWIS systems are incredibly expensive market to get into.
Great video! I worked as a handgun instructor to make extra cash in college, got really into gunsmithing and ammo pressing during the same period, and I've always been a gun nut. You did a fantastic job on this video! Very comprehensive.
I would love a video going over the G-11, and another video covering plastic casing. Before I lost my vision, plastic casing had just gotten a little bit of buzz in the firearms world. This was five or six years ago, so I would love to hear about how it has developed since then. Thanks, Simon! (And team.)
Forgotten Weapons has a video on the G-11, FYI.
That may be true, and I appreciate the suggestion, but do they have the mellifluous tones of a Simon on their channel? That makes all the difference for me, lol
My 12 gauge with rifled barrel fires 50 cal sabot thru it, and it's in a plastic case shotgun shell. Kicks and bruises like a mule and costs about 4-5 us$ per round so I don't put that barrel on much.
But turns the shotgun into a long range weapon with sights.
I like the presenters voice on Forgotten Weapons. It’s a good channel, for sure.
@ jokes aside, I'll check them out. Thanks for the recommendation!
Both? Both. Both is good. 15:05
Definitely do a G11 episode
check out forgotten weapons ian does a very in depth on the g11 and the other mentions here in separate videos
1911 Syndicate and Forgotten Weapons already got great vids on it.
I designed a caseless ammo to a theoretic weapon decades ago. I've always wanted to build a prototype for testing, but have yet to have the means.
Without giving too much away, the ignition system is the true secret to my concept. I moved the propellant back inside of the bullet following the Japanese and Gyrojet concepts. The bolt closes behind the bullet to provide a sealed chamber to push off from. The propellant is as clean burning as possible and the bullet itself is a bi-metal zinc alloy that cleans the chamber and barrel with each firing. This makes it a bit lighter and harder than traditional copper jacketed lead, providing a number of advantages, including a proper muzzle velocity. Finally, the propellant isn't heat triggered, so cooking off won't be a problem.
So an ignition between two chemicals that violently combust on contact? Separated perhaps by a thin non-permeable material that is resistant to both chemicals on their own but still brittle enough to be shattered by a firing pin(?) to allow the reaction to occur and get used up with no residue left over or at least so little that it either gets ejected along with the gas and bullet or leaves very minimal residue on the bolt. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, but I think I'm close to your idea, without any idea of the possible chemicals you could use.
So kinda like the liquid Hypergolic rocket fuel as a propellant? Sounds neat...
The heat needs to go somewhere. The case is ejected with a good amount of the heat. With caseless ammunition the heat is contained in the gun. Heat and friction kill barrels. No free lunch in physics.
Most of the heat goes into the ejected hot gas and the barrel, the heat in the case is a rounding error
@@redbandet it rounding errors that add up are actually relevant
@@ashoka9306 In relation to the total heat caused by the burning propellant - it's really not much.
There are plenty of solutions to overheating - already used on all sorts of quick-firing firearms in the past.
Yes - it makes more effort - yes - it costs more - but it's very far from unsolvable.
@@redbandet The bit of heat in the case could absolutely be solved through various measures already in use in machine guns and autocannons.
@redbandet not a rounding error. We're not talking about what is ejected from the muzzle. Only what is contained and ejected from the action. That's where the most rapid heating occurs.
3:24 the classic forgotten weapons intro!
I'm surprised you didn't at least mention the Gyrojet. Not technically caseless in the way this video uses the term, but the whole cartridge flies downrange, thus no case to eject
EXACTLY WHAT IM THINKING BUT ON AN AUTO GUN THE BARRELL COUD NOT BE HEKD
The gyrojet, while functional, and some were made, they were only a prototype and not considered a viable firearm
the whole cartridge flies downrange when it works.
Here at Aperture Science we fire the whole bullet. That's 60% more bullet per bullet.
@@gregstubbington1703 The big issue with gyrojets is that you end up with a cheap gun but expensive bullets.
There is one correction that really needs to be addressed. Fully automatic fire is not based on how many rounds you can fire in a second as you seem to imply at 4:16. Automatic fire is achieved by being able to fire multiple rounds from a single trigger function (pull). In simple terms, if you pull the trigger once and it fires one round, even if you keep the trigger pulled back, not allowing the trigger to reset, it is semi-automatic fire, but it can still fire more than one round a second, you just need to let the trigger reset. Now, if you pull the trigger once, and (baring a mechanical issue) multiple rounds are fired before you release and reset the trigger, it's automatic fire.
The problem is relying in chemical propulsion
Reject boom, embrace coilgun !
Goodluck finding sufficiently dense (chemically fueled) battery power to run such an infantry carried coil gun,.
That's not to mention the bulky, heat generating and power hungry mechanisms or the heat these batteries themselves would create in discharging as quickly as they'd need to for a decent firing rate.
Why no hybrid ? You can speed up the projectile in it´s first stage by chemical powder as usual and then icrease it´s velocity further. Thus using less energy less temp etc. you get the idea.
As a power source a AL+O2 battery could be used which is power dense, more so than a Li-On battery ut can´t be recharged (so what? ).
You guys lack the imagination...
@@snizami see my comment, solves both problems.
heavy batteries are not a solution. embrace reality first, work on other stuff when you've got the basics.
@@sierraecho884your forgetting one Major thing. Cost of manufacturing and maintenance, while the military (especially the US) loves to spend alot on fancy toys. They like to spend as little as possible on it. Otherwise you end up with the F-35 situation of being extremely expensive to maintain, however good or not it may be.
Plus rail guns have been a reality since 10 years ago sadly too expensive to reliably use both via power source and the materials to maintain it.
Also you gotta remember what your asking sounds complicated to maintain. Military weapons need to be extremely simple im design and have as few parts as possible to fix on the field if needed. We don't wanna end up with another G11.
Most of these problems are removed with the use of polymer casing. The polymer casing allows for a protective covering, seals well, and insulates the chamber from heat (actually better than brass) while still being much lighter. One of the NGWS competing for the replacement of the M4 did use polymer casing and it was VERY effective.
The problem with polymer casings is they have low heat retention which means a lot less heat is extracted from the system upon ejecting the spent cartridge.
This results in overheating issues.
@@momoz74 Odd since True Velocity/General Dynamics was showing off their 6.8mm NJSW entry and they said that not only was the ammo something like 30% lighter, but that it insulated from heat transfer into the chamber. They stated it transferred half the heat into the chamber than brass ammo and reduce the chance of things like a cook-off. They are still developing the True Velocity RM-277 despite it not winning the contract.
I personally think it is better than the M-7. It has a longer barrel that handles the higher velocities better. The gun is lighter and batter balanced. The ammo is lighter too. The M-7 is a strong gun, but I would put the RM-277 ahead of it. My biggest concerns is without the US contracts they will not have the volume to be able to produce the ammo at cheap enough rates.
Then again I think the Vortex targeting system is good too, but heavy and will not really shine until the 2nd or 3rd generation comes out that is lighter, uses a much smaller battery, and has even more features built in. I was disappointed it did not have some sort of NVG or thermal optics built in that could be turned on if needed.
But even with the current systems the M-7/M-250 is a beast.
@@momoz74 No. You have it backwards. Polymer ammo reduces the heat soak, not increase.
They were effective until they began to deform due to chamber/barrel heat, rendering them unreliable. Polymer casings are neat, but they have a whole host of their own problems. Main ones being deforming under high heat (like mentioned before), producing lower chamber pressure than metal casings (meaning lower velocity/muzzle energy), and being inherently more fragile (they are plastic after all). These and various other factors are what caused the US to adopt the steel/brass hybrid casing developed by SIG instead.
@@ferai147 Do you have a link to an article coving this? The True Velocity RM277 that they originally enrolled in the NGSW contest seemed to do just fine and everybody was saying it reduced chamber heat and prevented cookoffs and such. They are still working on the RM277 and showing it off at Shot Show (as of the 2024 one earlier this year) and letting a few gun channels test it. I have not heard anything about overheating issues.
I personally think the RM277 is a better option because the bullpup design let them use a 19" barrel so they did not need the crazy chamber pressure that the XM-5 has... and issues like heavier parts and short life for the barrels. Also having ammo that is 30% lighter too is nice. It also had better recoil mitigation and the can could be fatter and shorter do to the barrel being lower. It just had so many advantages over the other 2.
One of the fun things about caseless ammo is how it cooks off all at once if the gun gets too hot.
Hows that? Wouldn't that be an issue with any kind of ammunition?
@JeffBilkins there are fire barriers between all cased ammunition.
@@JeffBilkins once the first round goes off out of battery a bunch of very hot gas rushes into the magazine, cooking off the rest of the caseless ammo in it.
for normal ammo that doesn't happen cause the metal casings require a lot of energy to get hot enough to set off the primer or main charge
@@anonym3017 a oob detonation is going to blow the magazine apart, along with a lot of the lower receiver. Either weapon is out of commission regardless of the type of ammo.
Sadly, yes
That obturation thing (11:23) is why cases are brass (and even a _specific_ alloy - 70/30 copper/zinc) in the first place.
Simon’s getting to know his way around firearms, at least theoretically, with all his gun related episodes on various platforms.
He likes guns and has shot quite a few at gunranges.
Maybe colab with Gun Jezus?
Thanks!
Plastic ammo review please
Shotgun
Plastic is a decent insulator
TL;DR Plastic cased ammo works great for rimmed, straight walled, cases. Like shotgun ammunition. Rimless cartridges that headspace on the shoulder or case mouth? You're gonna have problems with headspacing. Then you get problems with them deforming in magazines and issues with the bullets getting pushed into or pulled out of the case.
God no, we already have too much plastic everywhere we look 😂
@@sween187😂
Nice!
10:52 - RIP Barry!
Yes please Simon, I would like to see a video on ammunition with plastic shell casings.
This Rifle Fires Plastic Ammo; The US Army Almost Adopted it.
1.5M views 8 months ago
Garand Thumb
In America, we call it a shotgun shell.
Good one.
Another great vid as usual. Yes, we would love to have another episode on the steps foreward on caseless and hybrid-type ammunition. Thanks,Simon!
Maybe Simon really should take a closer look at 'exotic' ammunition and its use. Cased telescoping ammunition comes to mind. A closer look at the G11 would probably also be enlightening to the audience (and cool). Heck, have Ian McCollum and/or Ian Ferguson join or colaborate on the episode.
As for why the G11 didn't get adopted, the german reunification had something to do with that.
One quote being (roughly) "We had a choice between developing the G11 and rebuilding the East German economy. We decided to go with rebuilding the East German economy because it was the cheaper of the two."
He's just a talking head, he's not researching or writing scripts.
Yes I heard the same thing about the cost of reunification getting in the way⚛❤
the G11 was failed on conception - the cope in the comments around that project is stunning. It's a joke used to reference bad ideas in most circles.
Ian already covered these check him out
Thanks Simon and crew! A fascinating video! Yes, please do a follow up on new types of ammo, especially the caseless and plastic styles.
The main problems I've always seen were the fact that most propellants are granulated and caseless by their nature must be solid. It's a matter of surface area during the burn. It would seem that careless would only be useful in magnums where slower burn rates are desirable. And then the fragility of the rounds is typically very high.
Heat is a big issue too. That hot brass takes alot of heat from the weapon as it goes
@johno1544 the heat is a problem but not an unovercomeable issue. The weapon cycles and that can be used to cool the weapon. But the propellants inability to turn to gas fast enough is a major issue and there again, the grunt proofing the things. Can you imagine a mag full of broken propellant? Or a crushed bullet jamming up a rifle at the wrong time?
Yeah, Varget is expensive enough as it is. I can't imagine how much a pound of a totally solid propellant, that can still attain the same ballistics, would cost. Be paying DuPont $700/lb instead of $70 to Hodgdon... no thanks, lol
@@mfallen2023 Not really. Propellants are in a gel-like state prior to being extruded or formed into balls/flakes. It is not difficult to extrude them into another shape.
Case-less as pointed out has some issues that can hard to solve but something like the combustible case round that are used in the M1A1 120mm main canon where you only have a partial metal case should work much better. The 'after-cap' holds the primer and forms the seal for the chamber and is ejected after firing. Best way to look at it is the brass part of a shotgun round is the 'after-cap' and the plastic case part burns up when fired. In small arms rounds would save a lot of weight but still stand up to less then idea handling by the users.
Yet how many fully automatic shotguns are out there?
@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh more and more every year from what I've seen.
You're not claiming that shotshell hulls burn up in use, are you?
I reloaded a lot of paper ones back in the day.
The cheapest part of a soldier's load-out is small arms ammunition. Caseless ammo is a solution looking for a problem.
Of course, so is .277 Fury and the $5,000 rifle to shoot it from. (Look, by raising the pressure to a ridiculous level, and at much higher cost, they've managed to duplicate .270 Winchester ballistics.)
@@douglaswickstrom6736 It's not the cost, it's the weight. An M80A1 7.62x51mm EPR round has an 8.5 gram projectile, about 3.4 grams of powder + primer, and a case that weighs about 12 grams, for a total weight (rounded) of about 24 grams per round. You'll note about half of that is the brass, so assuming your caseless propellant is roughly the same mass as powder equivalent, you're looking at carrying being able to carry twice the amount of ammo per a given weight
Since the propellant is a solid rather than a loose powder, that also means it takes up less space, which means the rounds can be significantly shorter, which means, again, you can carry more because your magazines can be smaller (and thus lighter). An additional advantage, as used in the G11, is that there's no particular reason the propellant has to be round. The G11's caseless rounds were square in cross section, with the round bullet embedded in the square propellant. Square rounds means they can be stacked much more efficiently in a magazine, not wasting space, which again means either a smaller magazine for the same amount of rounds, or more rounds in a magazine of about the same size.
That's why militaries keep trying to develop them. If you can send a soldier into battle with twice the amount of ammunition in a smaller form factor for the same amount of weight, or conversely the same amount of ammunition for half the weight, that's a big deal.
Damn Bolter rounds on that HO-301 Cannon
"What do those rifles fire?"
"Standard, 10 millimeter, light armor piercing explosive tipped caseless ammunition. Why?"
My reaction to being asked whether or not to do those future videos... 😋
Me: "DO IT!"
Vid Author: "Which one?"
Me: "ALL OF IT!"
LOL! So yeah, this one video already has a couple of additional spin-offs that I am interested in seeing.
The M41A pulse rifle. The industry standard 😁
When I heard 'caseless ammo' I immediately thought of the old fashioned loose powder, and a lead ball.
Pretty much the same thing, but the gunpowder is glued onto the lead ball
Not wrong
The concept of caseless ammunition assumes that we are discussing self contained igniter, propellant and projectile systems to begin with.
Yes that counts
I think of mortar
Yes to all potential future videos. I'm a huge enthusiast, and I must say Simon, you cover firearms quite well.
8:45 2.6-9ms is practically instant. Unless you trying to hit a fly I dunno how this would even matter
Something that would greatly help me when listening, as I am usually focusing on something else while I listen, would be to add percentile or multiple based comparisons, so for example if you are comparing guns you could say this one was "300% faster" or something. It's a small detail but helps me understand the comparative difference when I'm not fully focusing on the video
I do want to see more alternative ammo for sci-fi writing reasons
Liquid (bi)propellant seems like a stupidly dangerous idea that could work and be fun in sci-fi.
If hypothetical science fiction weapons is what interests you, I might suggest considering:
1. High velocity rifle system using a rifle barrel, combined with a backpack + vest for feeding fuel/oxidizer/ammo projectiles/burst discs via tubes to the gun barrel. In the backpack + vest might contain liquid water as an "oxidizer", liquid NaK "fuel" (potassium + sodium metal amalgam, that is a liquid at room temperature), a water pump, a NaK pump, tube feedable projectiles, and some tube feedable rupture discs. When mixing water and NaK, a spontaneous chemical reaction occurs, which produces large amounts of hydrogen gas and heat. The hot hydrogen is an excellent gun propellant gas, since it has very low molecular mass, and thus enables higher velocity projectiles, compared to conventional nitrocellulose gunpower combustion (which has much higher molecular mass, and thus much lower maximum projectile velocities possible). Upon using some electronical equipment to mix the water and NaK (delivered to a reaction chamber in the rifle body via pumps and hoses hooking up to the vest/backpack, high pressure hot hydrogen is evolved, which may initially be constrained by a rupture disc. Eventually, when enough hydrogen accumulates for enough pressure, the rupture disc allows the projectile to fire from the barrel at unusually high velocities (with no ejecting brass, but with ejecting spent rupture discs, and unwanted sodium/potassium hydroxide [which are byproducts of water + NaK reaction]).
2. A 1+ million unit cohesive drone swarm, each equipped with a small mirror and a highly precise mirror aiming mechanism. The drone swarm focuses natural sunlight onto a single target point, at up to 1 million times the intensity of natural direct sunlight, allowing for the practical implementation of a functional "Archimedes death ray". To put things in perspective, some types of small drones can be obtained for under $200 each, and it is therefore theoretically possible to to build a 1 million unit drone swarm, for $200 million USD. This is "practically chump change" compared to modern national military budgets, whereby a single US B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber costs around $2 billion each (so 10x the price of the 1 million unit drone swarm useful for a practical Archimedes death ray).
3. Indefinite endurance nuclear powered fixed wing airplane that soars around high in the sky cooling and condensing atmospheric water vapor into liquid water and then into ice blocks. Once enough ice is accumulated to create 100+ pound blocks, it then flies over the adversary targets and drops the ice blocks as unguided gravity projectiles.
4. Ultra high velocity "squirt guns" used for home self defense. Commonly available pressure washers (when equipped with 0 degree nozzle option) can often produce enough pressure to break human skin, when hit by the water jet at point blank range. Hypothetically, it is possible to design a squirt gun that is considerably more powerful than a pressure washer (potentially by circulating the water around in a loop at very high speed, say 500 MPH, then abruptly trying to obstruct the flow, so as to convert the stored circulating kinetic energy into a fast moving jet of water). Such a device would have rapidly decreasing energy with range, making it only dangerous at interior home ranges. Such a device could hypothetically be designed to have multiple pressure settings (ex: "stun", "injure", "legit sauce dangerous").
5. "Money cannon". An artillery device that launches prefect quality counterfeit currency at the target adversary forces, encouraging the adversary soldiers to break cover to collect the currency. Upon spending it in their local economy, inflation results, due to the flood of counterfeit currency being put into circulation. The inflation thus erodes the adversary government's ability to continue spending on the war effort.
6. "Recreational pharmaceuticals cannon". An artillery device that launches recreational drugs at the adversary forces, thus encouraging some of the adversary soldiers to use the products and decrease their combat effectiveness/unit discipline/decision making wisdom.
@@JeffBilkins Don't know if you know, but that's been a holy grail of artillery guns. It's a difficult problem. The problem is the sloshing.
If you have semi-auto shotguns in your story, you might make them cased-telescoped like the Steyr ACR rifle. This is a good idea; see ua-cam.com/video/3iLSCNtogc8/v-deo.html
14:57 - Simon, we want evrything... EVERYTHING!
(Oso: Nice colour-matching ;) )
(the watch and the jumper)
Third new Simon video in a row. Not a bad day.
Greetings. The HK G-11 was, along with the CAWS, one of the most interesting. The G-11 had: assault rifle, PDW and LMG (with about 200 cartridges).
A lot of artillery does not use a case, just a gunpowder bag.
Loved the video as always and yes to all of the possible videos you mentioned.
I think the problem is miniaturization. Caseless ammunition has been a thing for large artillery pieces for a very long time. Most use cloth bags. You can punch those things out of shape and they will still fit in the gun.
The problem is making the ammunition charges smaller. A tiny cloth bag is delicate, and will break open at the slightest touch. Make it durable enough to nor break, it won't burn away and get stuck in the rifle. A rifle is small, so that means tighter tolerances, leading to more specific charge requirements. Automatic feeding means the bag cannot be squishy and needs to be durable.
Imagine fitting a Saturn 5 Rocket into the size of a pencil. Hypothetically doable. Reasonably impossible. Practically unusable.
There are just some things that should not be done when you are talking that small.
That being said, the VEC 91 is how I would have designed caseless ammunition. Essentially, make the case flammable and inherently disposable is almost perfect... but the video goes over why it is difficult to justify.
Already done so in 1848 with the Dreyse Needle Gun of the Prussian Army. Same did the French Chassepot Rifle with the silk contained cartridges.
@@GuntherSeifert-nh5hh And those were abandoned for a number of reasons. The automatic feed system for machine guns will not allow for those soft fabric cartridges, unfortunately.
Great video! I'd love to hear about the specialty gun and other stuff mentioned. Thanks for cranking out so much fantastic content. ❤️
RIP Barry Elliott, an og gun enthusiasts.@10:50
I think when the next leap in power storage (soon) happens, small railguns will seem more practical and thus, caseless ammo. They were mediocre as large round weapons but for personal arms the application can work much better with further miniaturization of components.
The title of this video should have been "The case for caseless ammo"
Simon and the guy who narrates Weird History are the two best voices in the youtube game.
Love the Iraqvetran8888 clips of the Mac-10. Especially because they feature Barry, who passed away soon after filming that (I believe it was in a drunk driving accident).
Damn barry, i hope he wasnt the one drinking - thats degen behavior.
It was in the '90s with the XM29 OICW and was left behind when the XM29 OICW failed.
ALL PCPs (PreCharged Pneumatics) are caseless. Just the round and air. And i3 don't just mean bbs. One i have is capable of taking down elk and grizzly...
Waaay back in the day poachers made air guns for taking down big game on the king's land.
@jodycarter7308
Yup. Lewis and Clark had one as well. I think they took a few bison with it, if I remember correctly.
On the other hand all the weight and money cost you save on cases will come back with a vengeance in the form of the high-pressure storage tank for the air :)
@@andrzej2501
Sort of. Used scuba tanks can be affordable. The high PSI compressor, like the one I have, however, will put you back a bit...
ok, what does it do to a level IV plate?
I swear, this guy just needs a video game channel and he'd have a channel for every category out there.
6:35, Was that a hang fire going off in that guy's face?
Sure was
Yeah but he's a marine so he's used to it.
I never tire of videos and documentation of the G11. Make that video!
I'm pretty convinced combustible propellent won't be the future of caseless. That title will probably go to coil guns, but those still have a _loooooooong_ ways to go. Similar technology (ie rail guns) may be more practical for larger guns like mobile artillery or even more practically, ships, but even that kind of tech is still in experimental phases.
My automatic concern was with any build up of residue from the propellant on the chamber wall. It could at some point, as in black powder, necessitate the need to stop and clean your gun. I had not thought about the sealing the cases do.
4:57 The Notorious VAG
I hate that it made me laugh out loud 😂
Would love more on this and similar ammo-oddities! Plastic-cased ammo is a thing, tho still very niche here, and I'd love to see you and your team of writes dip toes into that!
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Metal Storm caseless design.
Maybe because it's crap?
No mention of the Gyrojet? That thing was legendary and the concept cool AF. Essentially it fired rocket bullets, case and all.
That’s one big ass sweater
I want it
@ your own, or the one off of Simon’s back?
@SwaggerIsAVirtue I mean.... both?
DAMN!😡 IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
😂🎉❤ I HAVEN'T SEEN SIMON FOR WEEKS!😂 I FEEL LIKE I'M GOING THROUGH WITHDRAWALS!😂😂😂
Fascinating, I've always secretly wondered about this.
You didn't mention the tooth brush we all carried in the helmet band.
It was used to clean the bolt of the M
I definitely want to see the other videos you were talking about with the other ammunition types but I'm also curious about the Metal Storm magnetic pistol and rifle because they are also caseless
I remember the HK G11 and was quite interested in the concept. At the time I played a game from TSR called Top Secret and my character had this weapon. It worked just fine in that imaginary setting but I'm not surprised that it was far less effective irl...it's operational architecture was dauntingly complex
I read the brass actually conducts heat into the firing chamber, and caseless ammo actually lets the firing chamber run cooler. It was in one of the papers for Textron's research into cased telescoped and caseless telescoped ammunition. Though it might be specific to the former, which uses a plastic case, and not the caseless.
Quick note on the Rheinmetall RH 120: It is a cannon design specifically, not a tank, that does indeed fire a (mostly) caseless round that leaves only a short stub cap after firing. It also happens to be the design that is produced by the U.S. under license from Rheinmetall and mounted on the current variants of the Abrams tank, so it is a highly successful and somewhat widely used design.
3:50 - Chapter 1 - Things that go bang
7:35 - Chapter 2 - What killed the voere vec 91 ?
13:10 - Chapter 3 - Is caseless ammunition a lost cause ?
If you do another episode on this topic, do include what GE Armament and LM Aero did back in the '90's on the F-22 Program (GAU). As you covered, the logistics and weight reduction aspects are of great importance on aviation platforms .... where every gram counts.
Back in the 1950's there was a pistol called the Model 1500 Dardick pistol. The Dardick pistol used a unique type of caseless ammunition known as “trounds” (triangular rounds). These trounds were designed to be more efficient and easier to handle compared to traditional round cartridges. Obviously, it also did not become a 'thing', although advertised as 'caseless' it actually used a non-reloadable, discardable polymer 'case'. There was also, of course, the Gyrojet pistol which used a rocket propelled projectile and was a truly a caseless weapon.
I'd like to know about plastic casings, please. Also, you've revived a memory from my army days. As part of my job I had access to Jane's handguns (I think that was it), and I remember the rocket propelled round. Slow to start off, the advice was to close in on the weapon, and put up a hand to stop the round before it was fast enough to do damage. I think this suggestion was partly tongue in cheek.
The idea of plastic cartridges is intriguing. Would definitely like to see that follow up video.
You didn't mention the M41A Pulse Rifle by the Weyland Yutani Corperation.
What would you have liked he mention about it? Anything particular?
@@k_469 Needs to mention how poorly it fared against stupid unarmed aliens.
Caseless actually predates casings in the form of mussel loaders and field canons and used even on battleship main guns. Funny how things can go full circle.
With respect , I like all your videos , what ever the subject .
I have done some thinking on this particular issue and I think I have a workable solution. First being the bullet should act something like a traditional bullet while in the barrel with an explosion propelling the projectile forward and focing out the back to create a good seal and interface with rifling like in a civil war miniball. The seccond being that after the bullet has left the barrel or more precisley after the initial charge burns through you get that compound stage rocket burning as hot and fast as can be arranged. The idea being that the still whole projectile should be accelerated as fast as it can tolerate then ideally explode in contact with water or blood, but only after it fires.
All the problems you mentioned can be solved. Hard to eject on the mold of.the bullet add a knotch to eject it with an extractor. To get around contamination you work with a chemist to make a solid propellant that is water resistant or add lacker to the primer. To reduce the fouling you design the bolt so the round is partially inside it and use a cleaner burning formula ie working with the chemistry.
I'd love to know more. I 'm a retired US Army Ordnance Soldier who, while not a gun aficionado, has a love of the tech and would love to see the problems I observed over 25 years of service solved. We owe it to our Soldiers to give them the best. While yes, our enemies will also develop their own best, the goal is to win quickly so the least number suffer. War sucks, win fast and end it.
Yes, on the HK G11 video. Would love to know the entire story. And another yes, on the plastic cased rounds.
At 14:55 you mention plastic cases. Please see True Velocity ammo that uses polymer cases and is commercially available It was developed along with a new rifle for the US military, though it lost to the Sig Sauer rifle now called the XM7. Civilian version is called the MCX Spear.
Yes! We would love more videos on the gun!
Missed opportunity to discuss the 40CTC cannon. I would like to see videos on those as well though. A lot of time we talk about the weapons systems while completely forgetting the development that goes into the projectiles.
The reason the M-16 failed in Vietnam is because the Army Ordinance Corp insisted on using the wrong type of propellent which effected cyclic rate and carbon build up leading to increased jams and misfires. The M-16A1 just lowered the cyclic rate and added the forward assist to force the bullet into the chamber if it failed to seat properly (not the best idea) and never addressed the issues with ball powder being filthy, which is why you spend almost as much time cleaning them as you do actually shooting them in BCT. None of these were issues in the initial batch deployed with the Air Force which used the proper propellant that it was designed to use. The rifle wasn't the issue, the Army's bureaucracy was.
You forgot about not chroming the chamber not supplying cleaning kits nor a jam clearing mechanism... McNamara bullshit
I think an idea worth looking into is the method modern tank shells use. Instead of the case being fully external propelant. Put a smaller brass housing for a primer. Design it like a casing so it can be grabbed. Honestly i think that would be as close to caseless as you can get.
A video on the G11 would be pretty cool
You could separate the bullets from the ignition and propellant, but why would you want to do that? The whole point of putting everything in a single cartridge is that it's a lot faster and easier. I guess you could have something like a gauss rifle where the battery is required to stay in the rifle. That's a very different technology though.
As a former soldier. The biggest problem in the heat of battle is misfires. The brass get stuck when ejecting and stops your ability to fire....
Caseless rounds are very good at solving this issue as demostrated by the very expensive but very good g11
Was for sure thinking you were going to bring up the metal storm.
The first use of caseless bullets were muskets. Cooking off of black powder did happen, but it was rare. Guns did not get as hot. One idea is the consolidated magazine approach. Everything is built into the magazine, no loose rounds. Coil type electric ignition, with the batteries incorporated within the magazine. Heat dissipation to prevent cook offs, is a concern.