Another way to do it would be to design a recoiless rifle. The rifle could simply consist of a barrel open at both ends. The recoiless ammo can be caseless, made of a fast burning propellant grain pressed onto the base of a bullet. The ammo is inserted into the barrel until the propellant grain is against an electric igniter. The gun is fired over the shoulder like all recoiless rifles, the jet of gas goes out the back, the bullet goes forward.
This is really cool, because I thought of this idea as a weird revolver shotgun mechanism. Normally, a revolver is heavy and bulky because the cylinder chambers must deal with the peak pressure of the main charge. But if the cylinder is at the _front_ of the barrel, it only needs to deal with minimal pressure. This would be particularly true with a long barrel, and in this case it's possible for the barrel to be almost the full length of the gun.
If you haven't seen it take a look at the "Chambers Flintlock Machine Gun from the 1700s " on forgotten weapons. That firearm sort of reminds me of this. Well to be honest it's pretty different but it does incorporate the stacked bullets with charges in between each projectile. I'd love to see someone recreate one of those.
Hi, thanks for suggesting. Unfortunately stacked charges are plagued by many hard to solve problems. Probably the hardest one is ignition, but also varying barrel length, risk of flame through, which in that design can easily lead to catastrophic failure, and many others. I'm probably making a video on that.
@@Backyard.Ballistics There was a gun system sold to the US military that used stacked bullets. The ignition problem was addresed by an electric ignition method. The gun had the highest firing rate ever, IIRC it was over one million rounds per minute - I think it was called Metal Storm.
@@Backyard.Ballistics they used bullets with a hollow tube in them stacked with gun powder in the tube to act as a fuse. so the first round goes off then the fuse starts and soon the 2nd goes off. that's how they did it back then. unreliable if one bullet doesn't go off and you have powder and ball stuck in the bore. they kept it in the rigging of ships to clear the decks of opposing warships. they would have 7 barrels with 30 shots each per barrel. when it worked it was probably a very effective system
@@mustafankamil1973 You can always add a small amount of much more sensitive explosives to the mixture, I don't really see why it wouldn't work, like a less efficient spread-out primer.
@@LOUDcarBOMB you able to post some more info about that? I'm curious, I grew up shooting airguns and swapped to powder burners as soon as I could so that intrigued me a bit.
what an awesome and interesting video man, my little reptile brain doesn't fully comprehend how this works but it's cool none the less. this channel has lots of potential! I'll definitely be checking out your other videos. cheers!
I haven't watched the video yet fully but just want to add in case you didn't mention, those slugs are actually spin-stabilised, but they spin quite slowly compared to normal rounds of course, so they are still quite different.
Since the premise of the challenge was the simplest way to make practical firearm and he said to make a reasonably practical firearm he needed only a barrel, hammer and two bullets my mind went towards a simpler solution. A simple barrel drilled all the way thru making basically a pipe. Then a hole drilled for a percussion cap in the middle with the hammer mounted. Place powder in the middle with projectiles either side. When firing the bullet traveling backwards maintains the pressure for the bullet heading forward removing even the need for a breach of any kind. Sure it might be slightly impractical having a second bullet traveling backwards and needing to clear the backblast and make sure no one gets shot, but he said "reasonably practical" and that I feel gives some leeway.
What you described was actually tried multiple times in the past, 19th century and before, not in the attempt of making a simple gun, but a recoilless one. The projectile shooting backwards would be composed of compacted powdered material, to minimize the risk for those staying behind, but it was still quite far from being practical. A deeper understanding of gas dynamics and nozzle theory then allowed the backward moving ballast to be substituted with exhaust gases, and recoilless guns as we know them were born. Thanks for suggesting by the way
@@Backyard.Ballistics I am aware of this. I just made this suggestion as I felt your idea did not simplify the rifle much(as was the challenge posed), but added a lot of complexity to the ammo and potential problems with a firing mechanism that either has to set off charges in two different positions or necessitate two firing mechanisms. Doubling the amount of firing mechanisms would not be much of a simplification and a mechanism capable of setting of charges in two places inside the barrel opens a pandora's box of complications that leads to the metalstorm system.
The solution the young gunsmith is a gun with one barrel with two muzzles. The hammer is located in the center of the barrel, each bullet is muzzle loaded with powder between the bullets. When fired a bullet leaves each end of the barrel in opposite directions.
Taofledermaus shot high-speed footage that showed that the grooves on a Foster slug *do* impart enough spin to enhance the stability of the slug when shot through a smoothbore: ua-cam.com/video/jRPo19DWlZY/v-deo.html
Recoilless rifles are relatively small high-calibre guns that use an open-backed chamber, so the gasses venting out the back minimize the recoil from the projectile going foreward. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
I thought you would go with a typical recoiless rifle model. You could use one large charge and two projectiles. One projectile facing each end of the open ended barrel. You place one percussion cap nipple at the midspan of the barrel. The when you set off the cap one bullet goes out each end. No recoil. Dangerous to stand behind. You would be able to technically fire any size projectile, much much larger than a conventional firearm.
This is what I was thinking as well, and probably more in line with what the gunsmith in the story actually had in mind. The gunsmith said he could build a "reasonably practical" gun with only a barrel and a hammer. That means no stock, so that means you need something recoilless. The method proposed in the video would definitely need a stock as it would have normal recoil for the 2nd bullet. Yes you could technically fire it without a stock, but with no way to control the recoil, you couldn't call it reasonably practical. Recoilless is the only way you could build something so barebones but still practical.
@@AP-zw6ql exactly. With a recoiless rifle concept could technically be as fancy as tube with a grip or as simple as a pipe with a hole drilled in it for a fuse... or like the story... sounds like a percussion cap nipple and a lockset to smack it.
Nothing bad happened luckily, I just had lots of stuff to do for the channel: I had to build and organize the lab/studio, get the logo remade, the shirts and hoodies (which will be also available for purchase soon) and also the video wasn't easy to make, most importantly it wasn't easy making it compatible with YT's guidelines
I would think the simplest gun would be a recoiless design. A simple steel tube with a primer hole in the middle. The cartridge would be a paper cartridge and have a shotgun slug at each end, with the powder charge in between. Load with a ram rod till the cartridge is in the middle of the tube and the powder under the primer hole. Insert primer, and strike with a hammer. Dangerous both front and back, but so is a recoiled rifle.
Hm, this is very strange. So the purpose of the two charges is to avoid having to use a ramrod? But what mechanism ignites the charge at the muzzle end of the barrel that would allow another bullet to be shot through it?
heh making the simplest firearm, but the most complicated bullet :) Complexity does not go away, it just can be hidden. Anyway a very cool experiment!!
@@therake8897 I like your use of 'hopefully' I wonder what you did if the first charge didn't fire? Stop in mid-fight to draw the charge? Fire the second charge and blow the gun up?
much simpler , a tube with no plug powder in the middle and a bullet facing both forward and backward , keep the barrel over you shoulder and make sure your back blast area is clear
Two bullets and a barrel? To me, that sounds like a way to make a recoilless weapon if you put the two bullets back-to-back with powder in between them in the middle of the barrel. This is the principle that was used by the German Armbrust, the Israeli Matador, and the first recoilless weapon ever made: the Davis gun.
Perhaps you could use a full brass .410 case and when the chamber is cut out of the muzzle have a series of grooves cut into the chamber that when the loading charge is fired the case expands into from the pressure between the balast and the projectile thus providing resistance, similar to some early blowback delaying self-loading pistols, this may offer an additional grab when the pressure is high from the loading process but he quite readily blown out when the main charge is fired, worth a try at any rate
I dont understand the need for the second charge in front of the projectile. You ignite the main charge in the hollow ballast which pushes the projectile down the barrel while the hollow charge moves the other way and acts as a counterweight ( Force applied equally since we have no closed breach ). The projectile is now moving down the barrel while pushing/compressing the second charge in front of it. In my mind that motion quickly applies friction, enough so to ignite the second charge which would thereon create a negligible 2nd explosion . That gas pressure would slightly slow down the projectile while the rest of the gas pressure just leaves the barrel (recoilless rifle style). I just dont get it. I would just create one solid hollowed counter ballast out of a very dense material basically acting like the bold of an open submachine gun, so the mass alone creates a breach which would then let the gas pressure push out the projectile out the barrel while the hollowed counter ballast gets just pushed slightly down the other side ( since the same force is applied to more mass)
A steel pipe barrel with both ends open and a hole in the middle, similar to a flintlock opening, it will use two projectiles on opposite sides of the hole in the middle of the pipe, with the powder being between the two projectiles, powder is touched off by a match and both bullets are fired in opposite directions, this design is the simplest in terms of least amount of effort, requiring only a single hole to be drilled in a pipe or barrel Obviously you can cap one end of the pipe and make it fire in one direction but that is not as simple as drilling a single hole in the middle of a steel pipe
3:03. Igniting the powder charge wouldn't require a percussion cap. the rapid compression of the air between the projectile and breach would cause a significant kinetic-thermal energy transfer. more than enough to ignite any combustion process.
I'm pretty sure having a percussion cap behind the "main" charge is unnecessary. The adiabatic heating from compressing air more than 10:1 that fast should be more than enough to ignite the powder. There was a "powder-assisted pellet rifle" which used exactly that in lieu of a primer or firing pin. It used a piston system like is found in spring airsoft guns, but it would compress the air enough to ignite the propellant charge at the base of the pellet. I can't recall the name/manufacturer of it though.
someone may have said this already. but a primer on the main charge should not be needed. the rapid compression of the air in the barrel should generate enough heat to ignite the main charge, much like a fire piston can be used to light char cloth
Huh. My personal headcannon for the problem was a sort of caseless high-low system where the bullet is firmly attached to the propellant and the high pressure chamber, while the barrel is the low pressure chamber. Basically load and fire as any mortar.
I can see this being implemented into a recoiless rifle or a bullpup design as the trigger mechanism/assembly could be towards the front. The only problem is if you want it to have a detachable magazine. Hell maybe a tube.
Question: since air heats up as it compresses, could you use that as the ignition source for the main charge rather than having a separate primer? Sort of a diesel gun rather than the standard petrol gun?
that is a very good question. The short answer is "not really" unfortunately, and the reason is that igniting the solid grains of powder with hot air would require an exposure time much longer than what is available. I actually tried doing that with a springer airgun modified to reach very high compression ratios, and was never able to ignite any commercial propellant (smokeless or black powder of different grades). An atomized/finely divided fuel is required, like cotton wool, but I haven't tried that. Also a strong ignition source is generally beneficial for ballistic performance, so a primer/cap really is necessary. As an additional fact consider that the main requirement for diesel fuels is the cetane number, which basically represents how quickly and easily one specific fuel can spontaneously ignite in a diesel engine.
My guess after he said the gunsmith asked for two rounds was just a powder charge in between two bullets in the middle of the barrel. One would go forward, the other backward. Lighting it would be the tricky part. Maybe a small hole in the middle with a percussion cap.
wouldn’t the heat and pressure made from the compression of the air behind the main charge be enough to make the powder auto ignite removing the need of a percussion cap and a firing pin in the bottom? although it probably won’t be a reliable way of ignition at all without a lot of testing
I don’t understand how you would ignite the charge with open ends of the barrel on both sides. Is there a hole in the barrel between the two bullet ends? A visual reference would be helpful. You said it is the easiest part of the problem but it doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I am having a hard time understanding your accent, I’m not sure.
he is a funniest boy a little madness, like another boy that i remember, some time ago he want seal the powder in a muzzleload rifle putting on the powder melt lead ... 😅😂🤣😁 ah, ah, ah for both of them same idiot
I think the powder will self ignite when air is compressed. You have a very large compression ratio in the design with bullet acting as a piston. I will watch the second video now.
omg i was looking at your page like one hour ago thinking omg when is he gonna upload another video and i just opend youtube and u just made one thats pretty cool btw im 1st jeeej
@@Backyard.Ballistics I have a question. What licenses do you need to make a new cartridge? And a barrel for it too? I would love to see you make new cartridges!!
@@Arazchromatic anybody who has a gun licence can make ammunition for their own use. Making barrels would instead require a gun building licence, which I am now in the process of acquiring, by the way 😉
interesting!! just that it would make the aim difficult. the first blast will shake the gun, i know the reaction would be little still to a hunter or anyone they wont go for it! but very very interesting
I'm not sold on a gun design, but it might make a pretty fast primitive cannon . I get the fuse, but not a hammer striking it and getting out of the way as far as an accurate shot. I'm assuming the plan it the first bullet knocks it out of the way and in the second doesn't have to hit it. It seems like a design with way too much to go wrong for a slightly increased rate of fire vs just loading a muzzle loader, though if this was 200 years ago I might think otherwise. The role of a cannon is better suited to the increase in my opinion
unfortunately igniting the solid grains of powder with hot air would require an exposure time much longer than what is available. I actually tried doing that with a springer airgun modified to reach very high compression ratios, and was never able to ignite any commercial propellant (smokeless or black powder of different grades). An atomized/finely divided fuel is required, like cotton wool, but I haven't tried that.
@@Backyard.Ballistics did you try with black powder/gunpowder, modern powders probably require a percussion cap. I only mentioned it as there are camping fire starters based on compressing air in a tube.
Is there a way to check how many rounds left are in the mag without extracting every round from it and without having a modified mag, where you can see the amount of them from the side?
Hello! I know a good idea for the next video! Try ceramic tiles and other tiles if they are bullet proof! And how mucht of them need to stop a .50 BMG , 7.92 Mauser, and a normal 7.62 bullet! And also try to make a sorta kompozit Armor by layering I made one like this! Sheet of metal (thin) ceramic tile and a booklet! This is one layer I think tha 2 layer may stopp a 5.56 bullet!
they all shot both ways automatics fire the shell back at you ,why not make it another bullet 2 barels together with a U SHAPE TO FIRE OUT 2 WITH NO RECOIL
Since i'm not at least interested to finance the living of any unlnown channel and his work/job avoiding owner, i stopped the vid at "the third part is exclusively for my sugar daddys (patreons)" ! Than i clicked on "never recommend any content from this channel again" - wrote the comment and emediatly started to forget the episode... 😊 Thats by the way my standard treatment of these patreon-horny victims which have been stupid enough to follow youtubes patreon scam ! From providing free vids to a mediocre interested publicum to "Paying automaticly each day, week or month like a bloody rent.... THAT'S at least 14 steps to far for my insignificant taste ! Ultimately, that is my motivation to expose those channel owners who are so enthusiastic about supporting UA-cam's scam. *Especially since the motive for this complicity is nothing other than a panicky fear of REAL work....*
Stupid - Can you say 'barrel obstruction'? Compressing the air and powder charge in the back charge will heat up and ignite the main charge. Rifling in the barrel and additionally rifling on the main bullet (rifled shotgun slug) will allow blow-by, and that will also ignite the main charge. It will NEVER seat the 'bullet' on the main charge. Also, if the main charge is allowed to ignite in the bore with all of the extra air, it will not burn, it will DETONATE due to serious overpressure, making the barrel into a pipe bomb!
I can't help but think of this as a really weird, small and overcomplicated mortar
Another way to do it would be to design a recoiless rifle. The rifle could simply consist of a barrel open at both ends. The recoiless ammo can be caseless, made of a fast burning propellant grain pressed onto the base of a bullet. The ammo is inserted into the barrel until the propellant grain is against an electric igniter. The gun is fired over the shoulder like all recoiless rifles, the jet of gas goes out the back, the bullet goes forward.
That’s how some grenade launchers work
@@kartofun7672
Not most, unless youre thinking of the rpg7. Most use high low system and dont expell any gass out the back
@@manufacturingyourmatriarch9242 that’s why I said *some*
Carl Gustav?
"gyrojet railgun ammo"?
I agree.
I gotta say I really like the blown up Patents you have very cool look
I just bought them off Etsy ;)
@@Cowmookaze just "gun patents" or similar
Very cool
This is really cool, because I thought of this idea as a weird revolver shotgun mechanism. Normally, a revolver is heavy and bulky because the cylinder chambers must deal with the peak pressure of the main charge. But if the cylinder is at the _front_ of the barrel, it only needs to deal with minimal pressure. This would be particularly true with a long barrel, and in this case it's possible for the barrel to be almost the full length of the gun.
If you haven't seen it take a look at the "Chambers Flintlock Machine Gun from the 1700s
" on forgotten weapons. That firearm sort of reminds me of this. Well to be honest it's pretty different but it does incorporate the stacked bullets with charges in between each projectile. I'd love to see someone recreate one of those.
Hi, thanks for suggesting. Unfortunately stacked charges are plagued by many hard to solve problems. Probably the hardest one is ignition, but also varying barrel length, risk of flame through, which in that design can easily lead to catastrophic failure, and many others. I'm probably making a video on that.
@@Backyard.Ballistics There was a gun system sold to the US military that used stacked bullets. The ignition problem was addresed by an electric ignition method. The gun had the highest firing rate ever, IIRC it was over one million rounds per minute - I think it was called Metal Storm.
@@Backyard.Ballistics they used bullets with a hollow tube in them stacked with gun powder in the tube to act as a fuse. so the first round goes off then the fuse starts and soon the 2nd goes off. that's how they did it back then. unreliable if one bullet doesn't go off and you have powder and ball stuck in the bore. they kept it in the rigging of ships to clear the decks of opposing warships. they would have 7 barrels with 30 shots each per barrel. when it worked it was probably a very effective system
The puckle gun?
@@iamAwesomo1994 they also had a musket version
Theory:
if the air is compressed enough it could self ignite the powder like in a diesel engine, making the percussion cap unnesessary
Daisy (of BB guns) did that with caseless .22 guns. Pretty cool gun from the 1960s I believe.
no as compressed air reaches over 260c and gunpowder requires almost twice that temperature to ignite
@@mustafankamil1973 You can always add a small amount of much more sensitive explosives to the mixture, I don't really see why it wouldn't work, like a less efficient spread-out primer.
@@thermionicemission6355 at that point a percussion cap is just a ready-made, more easily affordable alternative
@@LOUDcarBOMB you able to post some more info about that? I'm curious, I grew up shooting airguns and swapped to powder burners as soon as I could so that intrigued me a bit.
what an awesome and interesting video man, my little reptile brain doesn't fully comprehend how this works but it's cool none the less. this channel has lots of potential! I'll definitely be checking out your other videos. cheers!
I haven't watched the video yet fully but just want to add in case you didn't mention, those slugs are actually spin-stabilised, but they spin quite slowly compared to normal rounds of course, so they are still quite different.
Since the premise of the challenge was the simplest way to make practical firearm and he said to make a reasonably practical firearm he needed only a barrel, hammer and two bullets my mind went towards a simpler solution. A simple barrel drilled all the way thru making basically a pipe. Then a hole drilled for a percussion cap in the middle with the hammer mounted. Place powder in the middle with projectiles either side. When firing the bullet traveling backwards maintains the pressure for the bullet heading forward removing even the need for a breach of any kind. Sure it might be slightly impractical having a second bullet traveling backwards and needing to clear the backblast and make sure no one gets shot, but he said "reasonably practical" and that I feel gives some leeway.
That’s where I thought this was going as well
What you described was actually tried multiple times in the past, 19th century and before, not in the attempt of making a simple gun, but a recoilless one. The projectile shooting backwards would be composed of compacted powdered material, to minimize the risk for those staying behind, but it was still quite far from being practical.
A deeper understanding of gas dynamics and nozzle theory then allowed the backward moving ballast to be substituted with exhaust gases, and recoilless guns as we know them were born.
Thanks for suggesting by the way
@@Backyard.Ballistics I am aware of this. I just made this suggestion as I felt your idea did not simplify the rifle much(as was the challenge posed), but added a lot of complexity to the ammo and potential problems with a firing mechanism that either has to set off charges in two different positions or necessitate two firing mechanisms. Doubling the amount of firing mechanisms would not be much of a simplification and a mechanism capable of setting of charges in two places inside the barrel opens a pandora's box of complications that leads to the metalstorm system.
The solution the young gunsmith is a gun with one barrel with two muzzles. The hammer is located in the center of the barrel, each bullet is muzzle loaded with powder between the bullets. When fired a bullet leaves each end of the barrel in opposite directions.
The grooves on a "rifled" slug (foster slug) are actually designed to swage through a choked shotgun safely while raintaining accuracy.
This guy has no clue what he's talking about and really overcomplicated this video
Taofledermaus shot high-speed footage that showed that the grooves on a Foster slug *do* impart enough spin to enhance the stability of the slug when shot through a smoothbore:
ua-cam.com/video/jRPo19DWlZY/v-deo.html
@@xxxxxxxx183 ... His job is to know about guns
Ruh roh, raggy! Raintain raccuracy!
You might not need a percussion cap. Compressed air heats up as it’s compressed, so the compression itself could be enough to ignite the powder.
Honestly, it could work best as a tank/cannon ammunition concept.
Like a HESH-Canister multipurpose round.
Recoilless rifles are relatively small high-calibre guns that use an open-backed chamber, so the gasses venting out the back minimize the recoil from the projectile going foreward.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
Oh neato. Much appreciated. Thanks
This is the equivalent of watching too many movies, but before movies were invented.
I thought you would go with a typical recoiless rifle model. You could use one large charge and two projectiles. One projectile facing each end of the open ended barrel. You place one percussion cap nipple at the midspan of the barrel. The when you set off the cap one bullet goes out each end. No recoil. Dangerous to stand behind. You would be able to technically fire any size projectile, much much larger than a conventional firearm.
This is what I was thinking as well, and probably more in line with what the gunsmith in the story actually had in mind. The gunsmith said he could build a "reasonably practical" gun with only a barrel and a hammer. That means no stock, so that means you need something recoilless. The method proposed in the video would definitely need a stock as it would have normal recoil for the 2nd bullet. Yes you could technically fire it without a stock, but with no way to control the recoil, you couldn't call it reasonably practical. Recoilless is the only way you could build something so barebones but still practical.
@@AP-zw6ql exactly. With a recoiless rifle concept could technically be as fancy as tube with a grip or as simple as a pipe with a hole drilled in it for a fuse... or like the story... sounds like a percussion cap nipple and a lockset to smack it.
great to have you back..... i was beginning to wonder what had happened
Nothing bad happened luckily, I just had lots of stuff to do for the channel: I had to build and organize the lab/studio, get the logo remade, the shirts and hoodies (which will be also available for purchase soon) and also the video wasn't easy to make, most importantly it wasn't easy making it compatible with YT's guidelines
I would think the simplest gun would be a recoiless design. A simple steel tube with a primer hole in the middle. The cartridge would be a paper cartridge and have a shotgun slug at each end, with the powder charge in between. Load with a ram rod till the cartridge is in the middle of the tube and the powder under the primer hole. Insert primer, and strike with a hammer. Dangerous both front and back, but so is a recoiled rifle.
Hm, this is very strange. So the purpose of the two charges is to avoid having to use a ramrod? But what mechanism ignites the charge at the muzzle end of the barrel that would allow another bullet to be shot through it?
heh
making the simplest firearm, but the most complicated bullet :)
Complexity does not go away, it just can be hidden. Anyway a very cool experiment!!
Or the young gunsmith went with a recoilless design.
Love your channel, very well spoken and informative. Keep up the good work 👍
I love the way you say bullet haha
Looks like a fast track to a face full of shrapnel.
Look up the Walch revolver. 6 chambers, 12 loads, 12 percussion caps.
@@therake8897 I like your use of 'hopefully'
I wonder what you did if the first charge didn't fire? Stop in mid-fight to draw the charge? Fire the second charge and blow the gun up?
much simpler , a tube with no plug powder in the middle and a bullet facing both forward and backward , keep the barrel over you shoulder and make sure your back blast area is clear
FYI rifled slugs don't stabilize, they look like that so they can squeeze through chokes.
Seems like a Kentucky Ballistics incident waiting to happen
this is actually quite interesting
Two bullets and a barrel? To me, that sounds like a way to make a recoilless weapon if you put the two bullets back-to-back with powder in between them in the middle of the barrel. This is the principle that was used by the German Armbrust, the Israeli Matador, and the first recoilless weapon ever made: the Davis gun.
I like the moral and scientific approach to this subject matter. Well done.
If you put smokeless powder in a black powder firearm you get a gun that fires all ways at once
So it would basically kill you in the process of loading it? N i c e .
Perhaps you could use a full brass .410 case and when the chamber is cut out of the muzzle have a series of grooves cut into the chamber that when the loading charge is fired the case expands into from the pressure between the balast and the projectile thus providing resistance, similar to some early blowback delaying self-loading pistols, this may offer an additional grab when the pressure is high from the loading process but he quite readily blown out when the main charge is fired, worth a try at any rate
I dont understand the need for the second charge in front of the projectile. You ignite the main charge in the hollow ballast which pushes the projectile down the barrel while the hollow charge moves the other way and acts as a counterweight ( Force applied equally since we have no closed breach ). The projectile is now moving down the barrel while pushing/compressing the second charge in front of it. In my mind that motion quickly applies friction, enough so to ignite the second charge which would thereon create a negligible 2nd explosion . That gas pressure would slightly slow down the projectile while the rest of the gas pressure just leaves the barrel (recoilless rifle style). I just dont get it.
I would just create one solid hollowed counter ballast out of a very dense material basically acting like the bold of an open submachine gun, so the mass alone creates a breach which would then let the gas pressure push out the projectile out the barrel while the hollowed counter ballast gets just pushed slightly down the other side ( since the same force is applied to more mass)
The compression of the air could be hot enough to light the second charge.
Love the videos
A steel pipe barrel with both ends open and a hole in the middle, similar to a flintlock opening, it will use two projectiles on opposite sides of the hole in the middle of the pipe, with the powder being between the two projectiles, powder is touched off by a match and both bullets are fired in opposite directions, this design is the simplest in terms of least amount of effort, requiring only a single hole to be drilled in a pipe or barrel
Obviously you can cap one end of the pipe and make it fire in one direction but that is not as simple as drilling a single hole in the middle of a steel pipe
3:03. Igniting the powder charge wouldn't require a percussion cap. the rapid compression of the air between the projectile and breach would cause a significant kinetic-thermal energy transfer. more than enough to ignite any combustion process.
I'm pretty sure having a percussion cap behind the "main" charge is unnecessary. The adiabatic heating from compressing air more than 10:1 that fast should be more than enough to ignite the powder. There was a "powder-assisted pellet rifle" which used exactly that in lieu of a primer or firing pin. It used a piston system like is found in spring airsoft guns, but it would compress the air enough to ignite the propellant charge at the base of the pellet. I can't recall the name/manufacturer of it though.
Maybe Daisy (of the BB gun)? They also made that gun use caseless .22 ammo.
@@LOUDcarBOMB Yea, that was it, the Daisy V/L. They originally sold it as a "22 pellet gun", but had to stop when the ATF ruled that it was a firearm.
someone may have said this already. but a primer on the main charge should not be needed. the rapid compression of the air in the barrel should generate enough heat to ignite the main charge, much like a fire piston can be used to light char cloth
I really don't get why anyone would've wanted to build a gun like this...
This can be quite good for a gun that can shoot backwards.
Huh. My personal headcannon for the problem was a sort of caseless high-low system where the bullet is firmly attached to the propellant and the high pressure chamber, while the barrel is the low pressure chamber. Basically load and fire as any mortar.
Why use one to load the other when you can just make it a recoilless rifle by having it fire out of both ends? That would be my solution
I heard "dodgy slam fire design" as "Dodge Islamic-Fire design" and was... so confused.
I can see this being implemented into a recoiless rifle or a bullpup design as the trigger mechanism/assembly could be towards the front. The only problem is if you want it to have a detachable magazine. Hell maybe a tube.
Thank you 😊
Question: since air heats up as it compresses, could you use that as the ignition source for the main charge rather than having a separate primer? Sort of a diesel gun rather than the standard petrol gun?
that is a very good question. The short answer is "not really" unfortunately, and the reason is that igniting the solid grains of powder with hot air would require an exposure time much longer than what is available. I actually tried doing that with a springer airgun modified to reach very high compression ratios, and was never able to ignite any commercial propellant (smokeless or black powder of different grades). An atomized/finely divided fuel is required, like cotton wool, but I haven't tried that. Also a strong ignition source is generally beneficial for ballistic performance, so a primer/cap really is necessary. As an additional fact consider that the main requirement for diesel fuels is the cetane number, which basically represents how quickly and easily one specific fuel can spontaneously ignite in a diesel engine.
i love your videos
If the apprentice tapped the center of the barrel with a primer nipple he could use a BPB configuration sending a projectile out each end.
My guess after he said the gunsmith asked for two rounds was just a powder charge in between two bullets in the middle of the barrel. One would go forward, the other backward. Lighting it would be the tricky part. Maybe a small hole in the middle with a percussion cap.
Okay but my guy could play gomer pile if they did a broadway version of full metal jacket. Not hating I would honestly pay to see it.
Couldnt the compression (of the 2nd charge) spare the need for a primer (sort of a Diesel gun)?🤔
metalstorm pistols used stacked bullets, but not in this way lol
I'm really about you uploading again! I was worried for your health with all thats going on..
wouldn’t the heat and pressure made from the compression of the air behind the main charge be enough to make the powder auto ignite removing the need of a percussion cap and a firing pin in the bottom?
although it probably won’t be a reliable way of ignition at all without a lot of testing
I don’t understand how you would ignite the charge with open ends of the barrel on both sides. Is there a hole in the barrel between the two bullet ends? A visual reference would be helpful. You said it is the easiest part of the problem but it doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I am having a hard time understanding your accent, I’m not sure.
Same here, I'm kinda lost
he is a funniest boy a little madness, like another boy that i remember, some time ago he want seal the powder in a muzzleload rifle putting on the powder melt lead ... 😅😂🤣😁 ah, ah, ah for both of them same idiot
this but one side has a firing pin so it hits what it hits and then stops/goes back
I think the powder will self ignite when air is compressed. You have a very large compression ratio in the design with bullet acting as a piston. I will watch the second video now.
Kind of how the first atomic bombs worked if you jacked up the chamber pressure from the 2nd explosion to the Kiloton range
omg i was looking at your page like one hour ago thinking omg when is he gonna upload another video and i just opend youtube and u just made one thats pretty cool btw im 1st jeeej
You're second actually
LMAO
@@Backyard.Ballistics I have a question. What licenses do you need to make a new cartridge? And a barrel for it too? I would love to see you make new cartridges!!
@@Arazchromatic anybody who has a gun licence can make ammunition for their own use. Making barrels would instead require a gun building licence, which I am now in the process of acquiring, by the way 😉
Out here solving problems no one has
interesting!! just that it would make the aim difficult. the first blast will shake the gun, i know the reaction would be little still to a hunter or anyone they wont go for it! but very very interesting
Didn't Fiocchi make something like this in 9mm. A 9mm cartridge with a very thick base that was meant for a blowback pistol with fixed barrel.
It seems that the powder would ignite on its own from the compression of the air,like a fire piston used to start fires.
Recoilless rifle is also a possibility...
0:03 nobody who isn't the dirtbags at UA-cam cares about or wants these disclaimers
How to destroy the backside of your gun and rip apart your shoulder
I love this guy
Keep up the amazing videos brother. Excellent quality, and very informative and educational. I look foward to the next upload
I'm not sold on a gun design, but it might make a pretty fast primitive cannon . I get the fuse, but not a hammer striking it and getting out of the way as far as an accurate shot. I'm assuming the plan it the first bullet knocks it out of the way and in the second doesn't have to hit it. It seems like a design with way too much to go wrong for a slightly increased rate of fire vs just loading a muzzle loader, though if this was 200 years ago I might think otherwise. The role of a cannon is better suited to the increase in my opinion
Could you make a bullet that fires so fast it rips itself apart and disintegrates from the friction of the air
So if you had to fire one on an airplane and it only needs to go a few feet and no further or it cud damage the plane or innocent bystander
and also that the regular shooting will damage the barrel!!
Don't need the percussion cap you can ignite the powder with the compressed gas
unfortunately igniting the solid grains of powder with hot air would require an exposure time much longer than what is available. I actually tried doing that with a springer airgun modified to reach very high compression ratios, and was never able to ignite any commercial propellant (smokeless or black powder of different grades). An atomized/finely divided fuel is required, like cotton wool, but I haven't tried that.
@@Backyard.Ballistics did you try with black powder/gunpowder, modern powders probably require a percussion cap. I only mentioned it as there are camping fire starters based on compressing air in a tube.
Pretty sure backyard ballistics is my distant cousin this is wierd
Is there a way to check how many rounds left are in the mag without extracting every round from it and without having a modified mag, where you can see the amount of them from the side?
Could the compression of the air get enough heat to ignite the powder charge?
The vague story seems legit.
Maybe they should make a powder-bullet-powder-bullet for increased velocity 🧐
1:52 what’s the bullet by the slug?
Backwards ballistics.
backyard ballistics? more like backwards ballistics... I'll see myself out
so using a bullet to load a bullet from the mid barrel.... I fail to see the utility
Hello! I know a good idea for the next video! Try ceramic tiles and other tiles if they are bullet proof! And how mucht of them need to stop a .50 BMG , 7.92 Mauser, and a normal 7.62 bullet! And also try to make a sorta kompozit Armor by layering I made one like this! Sheet of metal (thin) ceramic tile and a booklet! This is one layer I think tha 2 layer may stopp a 5.56 bullet!
just crazy
Are there wide ammo shortages in italy
no, not at all, no ammo nor primer shortages for now
@@Backyard.Ballistics lucky
they all shot both ways automatics fire the shell back at you ,why not make it another bullet 2 barels together with a U SHAPE TO FIRE OUT 2 WITH NO RECOIL
You are speculating completely out of the blue, aren't you?
bruh he didnt even shoot it
Sounds like a waste of powder and ammo
Question that has nothing to do with the video: Do you have a tremor? It seems that whenever you hold an item in a video your hands are trembling.
Yes, unfortunately I do, I've got essential tremor
@@Backyard.Ballistics Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. You seem to deal with it well enough, better than other people I know with a tremor.
Universeal bullet or backwards bullets i know the stories an how they became an odd as the may look strange but they work
Since i'm not at least interested to finance the living of any unlnown channel and his work/job avoiding owner, i stopped the vid at "the third part is exclusively for my sugar daddys (patreons)" !
Than i clicked on "never recommend any content from this channel again" - wrote the comment and emediatly started to forget the episode... 😊
Thats by the way my standard treatment of these patreon-horny victims which have been stupid enough to follow youtubes patreon scam !
From providing free vids to a mediocre interested publicum to "Paying automaticly each day, week or month like a bloody rent....
THAT'S at least 14 steps to far for my insignificant taste !
Ultimately, that is my motivation to expose those channel owners who are so enthusiastic about supporting UA-cam's scam.
*Especially since the motive for this complicity is nothing other than a panicky fear of REAL work....*
WHO made your logo? Plus I don't see your backyard lol.
Stupid - Can you say 'barrel obstruction'? Compressing the air and powder charge in the back charge will heat up and ignite the main charge. Rifling in the barrel and additionally rifling on the main bullet (rifled shotgun slug) will allow blow-by, and that will also ignite the main charge. It will NEVER seat the 'bullet' on the main charge. Also, if the main charge is allowed to ignite in the bore with all of the extra air, it will not burn, it will DETONATE due to serious overpressure, making the barrel into a pipe bomb!
Apparently youtube decided to not let me know this video came up...
You get used to UA-cam doing that kinda thing
But why?
whats the powder wading your using?
Boollets
Very interesting
Glad you think so!