>10mm caseless explosive tipped rounds >Pure fantasy ammo, and likely overly complicated.
Agree, but according to the figures in Colonial Marines Tech manual, it has muzzle energy on par with .300 Winny Mag.
military procurement would basically never ask for something like that, and it'd be illegal as balls on the civilian market.
That doesn't really make a huge amount of sense, explosive bullets are going to be less dense than a solid lead projectile, so they'd have to be going insanely fast to get up to that sort of muzzle energy.
Idk, 8mm Mauser explosive rounds were pretty good at guaranteeing sniper kills. Pair it with sci-fi explosive compounds and you'd have something pretty hard hitting on direct hits.
Idk if they shoot anything but xenos in the movie, but considering they have unnaturally high blood pressure and an exoskeleton, they may just explode naturally when the exoskeleton is breached, with the 10mm HE just causing a ton of superficial damage.
>8mm Mauser explosive rounds were pretty good at guaranteeing sniper kills.
I'm guessing you've seen that episode of InRange where Karl and Ian tested it out. It seemed like it was pretty consistently exploding either right as it was exiting a human sized target or after it had already exited, and even then it caused some pretty massive exit holes.
https://i.imgur.com/UVonS79.jpg
It wouldn't need to be much. The biggest sci-fi element would be a detonation mechanism that doesn't take a ton of space in the bullet. I bet even C4 would be devastating as a filler, but they'd have to at least make something slightly more energy dense when they'reperforming interstellar travel. 7.62x54r "PZ" incendiary is the closest thing to the concept in the real world, and it makes massive cavities in gel despite using a non-HE filler that only takes up 1/3 the bullet core at most.
>The biggest sci-fi element would be a detonation mechanism that doesn't take a ton of space in the bullet
I suspect lower velocity ammo could have a smaller detonation mechanism. Also this is 10mm instead of 8mm, so it's got a fair bit more internal volume to work with, assuming similar dimensions.
>It seemed like it was pretty consistently exploding either right as it was exiting a human sized target or after it had already exited
What were they shooting though, bullet jelly? The round might behave very differently on a non homogeneous target containing bones than whatever human sized stand in they used
I linked the video, you can just watch it. But if you understandably can't tolerate watching Karl for more than a few minutes, they tried shooting through a block of ballistic jelly with a big bone inside of it, and that was actually when they had the most pronounced issues with it exploding late.
I linked the video, you can just watch it. But if you understandably can't tolerate watching Karl for more than a few minutes, they tried shooting through a block of ballistic jelly with a big bone inside of it, and that was actually when they had the most pronounced issues with it exploding late.
CORRECTON: I hadn't watched the video in a few years and had misremembered, they were using ballistic soap instead of ballistic jelly, and they actually got the most pronounced results about 13 minutes in when they put 3 of the blocks of ballistic soap they had put bones into together and fired through them all, the exit wound was nearly the size of Ian's head.
I think a lower velocity round might explode with more of the target still to travel through, I bet a .45 would be ideal for explosive rounds, since it's got even more volume to work with and the rounds are going about a quarter of the speed.
You could do better with an electronic ignition system. The WW2 explosive rounds were made for hitting armor, which would have stopped the bullet cold and made the firing pin hit easier. You'd need something a little more pressure sensitive on something tailor-made for organic targets.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You could do better with an electronic ignition system
I would think that an electronic ignition system that is small enough to fit inside of a bullet with enough room left for explosive payload, and can work reliably while also being tough enough to survive the stresses of being fired out of a gun, would be rather expensive. >The WW2 explosive rounds were made for hitting armor, which would have stopped the bullet cold and made the firing pin hit easier.
true, and those rounds were also in storage for like 70 years. So who knows what might have degraded, it might have reliably gone off on impact with flesh back when they were made, but they just didn't hold up in storage very well. I think that these days we could probably make a detonation mechanism that is both more reliable and more compact than what the Germans and Soviets could make during ww2.
combustible case isnt the same as caseless, you're still losing chamber volume to the case, And the cases are still there to protect the charge during transport handling and loading, further the sturdy but flammable and non-containing case means that ammo rack hits dont explode because the burning charges are not contained momentarily inside de-facto pipe bombs when they cook off, the case burns BEFORE the charge burns allowing it to burn uncontained and thus burn off, rather than explode, reducing the destructive power of the burn. Tank is still mission killed but its far more likely to be recoverable and the crew has a much better chance of living. So much so that in western tanks using ammo bustles and combustible ammo the protocol is to wait out the burn inside the tank because its safer than bailing, vs eastern tanks where if you get penned you gtfo asap cus if anything cooks of you die horribly.
Like everything else about western tanks the system is designed primarily to safeguard the crew, since the training time of each individual crewman is considered the most expensive and difficult to replace part of the vehicle.
it saves space in the tank after the rounds fired obviously, and removes/vastly simplifies a supply chain task(collecting spent shells and transporting them back for reloading) come to think of it I don't know if the pucks are reusable, I'd assume so but its just an assumption.
One could make 10mm explosive ammo but the problem is that you can't fit much explosive in one so the resulting ammo would be nowhere near as effective as the movies imply. You need to get to about 20mm before you can fit a meaningful amount of explosive in a shell.
Idk, 8mm Mauser explosive rounds were pretty good at guaranteeing sniper kills. Pair it with sci-fi explosive compounds and you'd have something pretty hard hitting on direct hits.
Idk if they shoot anything but xenos in the movie, but considering they have unnaturally high blood pressure and an exoskeleton, they may just explode naturally when the exoskeleton is breached, with the 10mm HE just causing a ton of superficial damage.
It wouldn't need to be much. The biggest sci-fi element would be a detonation mechanism that doesn't take a ton of space in the bullet. I bet even C4 would be devastating as a filler, but they'd have to at least make something slightly more energy dense when they'reperforming interstellar travel. 7.62x54r "PZ" incendiary is the closest thing to the concept in the real world, and it makes massive cavities in gel despite using a non-HE filler that only takes up 1/3 the bullet core at most.
Because it’s another thing that can fail, and now you have another battery to deal with. Same with caseless, it solves a problem that doesn’t exist and adds a whole load of new problems. Brass cartridges with primers work extremely well and are extremely reliable and durable. I got a thousand rounds of Winchester 9mm from my grandpa that have been in his garage for 30 years and only had one misfire, and all I have to do is rack the slide to solve the problem. If your electronic ignition fricks up, what do you do? If your caseless ammo cracks/crumbles/falls a part as you chamber it, what do you do?
NTA but ceramic electrically fired primers are extremely reliable, more so than chemical primers. We never had an issue with them in our Vulcans fwiw. Obviously the electrical system and battery power are a potential concern, but at some point this becomes a pick your poison type of thing. If you have a battery that can fire, say, 10000 rounds, would you really be worried about it? Keep in mind that you are trading out potential mechanical issues like light primer strikes.
Caseless will be a meme until we get a compound that burns as well as smokeless powder while being as hard as a durable polymer, because as you indicated you have to be able to extract it if there's a malfunction. It would be neat to have ammo weigh half as much though.
Imo the "caseless" solution will be a combustible polymer coating rather than the propellant itself. Making teh propellent durable and also high energy will always be a pain in the dick cus that very durability will slow its burn rate. the answer is a propellant block coated evenly with an extremely thin layer of a combustible but durable, hard and tough polymer.
>Keep in mind that you are trading out potential mechanical issues like light primer strikes.
Nah, it's just different problems. A mechanically fired primer could malfunction with a light strike. And an electrically fired primer can malfunction if there is a bad electrical contact between the electrode and the primer. Instead of worrying about a firing pin you're worrying about an electrical contact instead. Neither are infallible.
>Same with caseless, it solves a problem that doesn’t exist and adds a whole load of new problems
I don't know, doesn't caseless help with weight? All that brass has to be heavy and with the weight of the new 6.8 rifles I could see caseless helping with ammo weight at the very least.
Technically caseless does have benefits, and there are a ton of alternative firearm models which can be better, but yeah, it's a combination of strengths and weaknesses.
What many people also don't understand is that a regular joe, especially in the military, is dumb and shit needs to be at least partially soldier-proof. Also shit's used in fricked up conditions which doesn't help. Those two points basically are a death sentence for anything which is too over-complicated and sensitive. Do you want a rifle with 10x the possible issues and failure points for a benefit or carrying three more mags worth of ammo? What about 5 more mags of ammo? Maybe 10? Or maybe the stopping power would be 2x? Or maybe accuracy? At some point it might be "worth it", but not when the benefits are too small to bother dealing with the issues.
The 30mm grenade launcher would be less effective than existing 40mm grenades. And you probably wouldn't rapid-fire out of the grenade launcher enough to make it worth having. For it to be more effective than modern grenade launchers, it would need to develop a much more powerful explosive to provide effects comparable to a 40mm round.
Because it isn't the 22nd-23rd century and space travel, not only is viable to just the super rich but isn't on an interplanetary scale beyond rovers being deployed for surveillance on Mars
You can cobble that together yourself with an MG42 and one of those camera harnesses. Then again, you can also make the thing in the OP with a Thompson, a SPAS and a 3D printer, if I recall correctly.
I’ve heard like ten people online and in person mock round counters for the light giving you away and have to wonder if any of them are aware of digital watches solving this problem roughly 60 years ago. Just have a lightless display (with the bonus of an easy ten year+ battery life) with a button that activates a three second orange backlight.
but it has, you've posted a photo of it
Hammer looking for a nail
Like what specifically? You could make a fully functional 1:1 copy chambered in existing rounds.
>ammo counter
Invented. Not really that useful, and any light might give yourself away.
>Assault rifle with shotgun attachment
Exists
>10mm caseless explosive tipped rounds
Pure fantasy ammo, and likely overly complicated.
>10mm caseless explosive tipped rounds
>Pure fantasy ammo, and likely overly complicated.
Agree, but according to the figures in Colonial Marines Tech manual, it has muzzle energy on par with .300 Winny Mag.
>it has muzzle energy on par with .300 Winny Mag
Then its recoil would be on par as well.
military procurement would basically never ask for something like that, and it'd be illegal as balls on the civilian market.
That doesn't really make a huge amount of sense, explosive bullets are going to be less dense than a solid lead projectile, so they'd have to be going insanely fast to get up to that sort of muzzle energy.
>8mm Mauser explosive rounds were pretty good at guaranteeing sniper kills.
I'm guessing you've seen that episode of InRange where Karl and Ian tested it out. It seemed like it was pretty consistently exploding either right as it was exiting a human sized target or after it had already exited, and even then it caused some pretty massive exit holes.
>The biggest sci-fi element would be a detonation mechanism that doesn't take a ton of space in the bullet
I suspect lower velocity ammo could have a smaller detonation mechanism. Also this is 10mm instead of 8mm, so it's got a fair bit more internal volume to work with, assuming similar dimensions.
>It seemed like it was pretty consistently exploding either right as it was exiting a human sized target or after it had already exited
What were they shooting though, bullet jelly? The round might behave very differently on a non homogeneous target containing bones than whatever human sized stand in they used
I linked the video, you can just watch it. But if you understandably can't tolerate watching Karl for more than a few minutes, they tried shooting through a block of ballistic jelly with a big bone inside of it, and that was actually when they had the most pronounced issues with it exploding late.
CORRECTON: I hadn't watched the video in a few years and had misremembered, they were using ballistic soap instead of ballistic jelly, and they actually got the most pronounced results about 13 minutes in when they put 3 of the blocks of ballistic soap they had put bones into together and fired through them all, the exit wound was nearly the size of Ian's head.
I think a lower velocity round might explode with more of the target still to travel through, I bet a .45 would be ideal for explosive rounds, since it's got even more volume to work with and the rounds are going about a quarter of the speed.
You could do better with an electronic ignition system. The WW2 explosive rounds were made for hitting armor, which would have stopped the bullet cold and made the firing pin hit easier. You'd need something a little more pressure sensitive on something tailor-made for organic targets.
>You could do better with an electronic ignition system
I would think that an electronic ignition system that is small enough to fit inside of a bullet with enough room left for explosive payload, and can work reliably while also being tough enough to survive the stresses of being fired out of a gun, would be rather expensive.
>The WW2 explosive rounds were made for hitting armor, which would have stopped the bullet cold and made the firing pin hit easier.
true, and those rounds were also in storage for like 70 years. So who knows what might have degraded, it might have reliably gone off on impact with flesh back when they were made, but they just didn't hold up in storage very well. I think that these days we could probably make a detonation mechanism that is both more reliable and more compact than what the Germans and Soviets could make during ww2.
>Pure fantasy ammo
Actually we did have explosive shotgun slugs a long time ago so all the elements do exist to make explosive 10mm caseless ammo
Aren't Abrams tank rounds 'caseless', except for that primer puck.
combustible case isnt the same as caseless, you're still losing chamber volume to the case, And the cases are still there to protect the charge during transport handling and loading, further the sturdy but flammable and non-containing case means that ammo rack hits dont explode because the burning charges are not contained momentarily inside de-facto pipe bombs when they cook off, the case burns BEFORE the charge burns allowing it to burn uncontained and thus burn off, rather than explode, reducing the destructive power of the burn. Tank is still mission killed but its far more likely to be recoverable and the crew has a much better chance of living. So much so that in western tanks using ammo bustles and combustible ammo the protocol is to wait out the burn inside the tank because its safer than bailing, vs eastern tanks where if you get penned you gtfo asap cus if anything cooks of you die horribly.
Like everything else about western tanks the system is designed primarily to safeguard the crew, since the training time of each individual crewman is considered the most expensive and difficult to replace part of the vehicle.
it saves space in the tank after the rounds fired obviously, and removes/vastly simplifies a supply chain task(collecting spent shells and transporting them back for reloading) come to think of it I don't know if the pucks are reusable, I'd assume so but its just an assumption.
>Pure fantasy ammo
Caseless exists. Explosive rounds exist. 10mm isn't that big. I'm failing to see how it isn't possible.
One could make 10mm explosive ammo but the problem is that you can't fit much explosive in one so the resulting ammo would be nowhere near as effective as the movies imply. You need to get to about 20mm before you can fit a meaningful amount of explosive in a shell.
Idk, 8mm Mauser explosive rounds were pretty good at guaranteeing sniper kills. Pair it with sci-fi explosive compounds and you'd have something pretty hard hitting on direct hits.
Idk if they shoot anything but xenos in the movie, but considering they have unnaturally high blood pressure and an exoskeleton, they may just explode naturally when the exoskeleton is breached, with the 10mm HE just causing a ton of superficial damage.
>Pair it with sci-fi explosive compounds
That's how we get into the "fantasy" department.
It wouldn't need to be much. The biggest sci-fi element would be a detonation mechanism that doesn't take a ton of space in the bullet. I bet even C4 would be devastating as a filler, but they'd have to at least make something slightly more energy dense when they'reperforming interstellar travel. 7.62x54r "PZ" incendiary is the closest thing to the concept in the real world, and it makes massive cavities in gel despite using a non-HE filler that only takes up 1/3 the bullet core at most.
I got one in my bedroom
>electronic ignition
for some reason electronic guns haven't advanced much IRL.
Because it’s another thing that can fail, and now you have another battery to deal with. Same with caseless, it solves a problem that doesn’t exist and adds a whole load of new problems. Brass cartridges with primers work extremely well and are extremely reliable and durable. I got a thousand rounds of Winchester 9mm from my grandpa that have been in his garage for 30 years and only had one misfire, and all I have to do is rack the slide to solve the problem. If your electronic ignition fricks up, what do you do? If your caseless ammo cracks/crumbles/falls a part as you chamber it, what do you do?
NTA but ceramic electrically fired primers are extremely reliable, more so than chemical primers. We never had an issue with them in our Vulcans fwiw. Obviously the electrical system and battery power are a potential concern, but at some point this becomes a pick your poison type of thing. If you have a battery that can fire, say, 10000 rounds, would you really be worried about it? Keep in mind that you are trading out potential mechanical issues like light primer strikes.
Caseless will be a meme until we get a compound that burns as well as smokeless powder while being as hard as a durable polymer, because as you indicated you have to be able to extract it if there's a malfunction. It would be neat to have ammo weigh half as much though.
Imo the "caseless" solution will be a combustible polymer coating rather than the propellant itself. Making teh propellent durable and also high energy will always be a pain in the dick cus that very durability will slow its burn rate. the answer is a propellant block coated evenly with an extremely thin layer of a combustible but durable, hard and tough polymer.
>Keep in mind that you are trading out potential mechanical issues like light primer strikes.
Nah, it's just different problems. A mechanically fired primer could malfunction with a light strike. And an electrically fired primer can malfunction if there is a bad electrical contact between the electrode and the primer. Instead of worrying about a firing pin you're worrying about an electrical contact instead. Neither are infallible.
>Same with caseless, it solves a problem that doesn’t exist and adds a whole load of new problems
I don't know, doesn't caseless help with weight? All that brass has to be heavy and with the weight of the new 6.8 rifles I could see caseless helping with ammo weight at the very least.
Technically caseless does have benefits, and there are a ton of alternative firearm models which can be better, but yeah, it's a combination of strengths and weaknesses.
What many people also don't understand is that a regular joe, especially in the military, is dumb and shit needs to be at least partially soldier-proof. Also shit's used in fricked up conditions which doesn't help. Those two points basically are a death sentence for anything which is too over-complicated and sensitive. Do you want a rifle with 10x the possible issues and failure points for a benefit or carrying three more mags worth of ammo? What about 5 more mags of ammo? Maybe 10? Or maybe the stopping power would be 2x? Or maybe accuracy? At some point it might be "worth it", but not when the benefits are too small to bother dealing with the issues.
the only useful part is the shotgun, which has existed for over a hundred years.
Idk, 10mm caseless SAPHEI in a magic magazine that holds nearly 100 rounds sounds pretty fricking sweet to me.
Filthy aliens that need killing are the nail.
It's a grenade launcher, not a shotgun
It's just a M1A1 Thompson with a polymer shell, a 1970s LCD display, and a sawed off shotgun welded underneath. You can make it yourself.
See https://youtu.be/CoiOgtW86_Q?si=9w90rDGs7B9qQAAL&t=144
Been done.
>LE CHUNKY GUN
Someone needs to whack that big, chunky dick out of your mouth, OP.
Stop thinking about dicks, turbohomosexual.
The 30mm grenade launcher would be less effective than existing 40mm grenades. And you probably wouldn't rapid-fire out of the grenade launcher enough to make it worth having. For it to be more effective than modern grenade launchers, it would need to develop a much more powerful explosive to provide effects comparable to a 40mm round.
Because it isn't the 22nd-23rd century and space travel, not only is viable to just the super rich but isn't on an interplanetary scale beyond rovers being deployed for surveillance on Mars
Pulse Rifles ars cool. But I know what Aliens gun I want to be real.
You can cobble that together yourself with an MG42 and one of those camera harnesses. Then again, you can also make the thing in the OP with a Thompson, a SPAS and a 3D printer, if I recall correctly.
I’ve heard like ten people online and in person mock round counters for the light giving you away and have to wonder if any of them are aware of digital watches solving this problem roughly 60 years ago. Just have a lightless display (with the bonus of an easy ten year+ battery life) with a button that activates a three second orange backlight.
Or it just automatically turns on after firing. Automatic lighting adjustment would probably solve any illumination issues you might have.