What's the point of this moronic overcomplicated shit?
Why not just make the whole case out of steel if you want a steel base?
What's the point of this retarded overcomplicated shit?
What's the point of this moronic overcomplicated shit?
Why not just make the whole case out of steel if you want a steel base?
is it possible the DOD and/or SIG just don't care enough to tell a random virgin on reddit.com/k/ why they're doing something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
have a nice day moronic sigger
I don't like Sig at all, I was just saying that OP isn't going to get the inside scoop on their R&D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_wikipedia
have a nice day moronic wikigger
Not him but what's wrong with Wikipedia
not him but wikipedia has gotten much worse over the years. They dont allow primary sources as reference material. So a journalist citing a primary source is fine, but the actual source is disallowed.
The site is mostly fine for basic info about sharks or the properties of hydrogen, but any historical event or info about people is suspect.
There are literal feminist and zionist wikipedia editing teams who hold events to shape it to their narrative.
Its also funny the guy who cites wikipedias argument from authority was, ironically, appealing to (perceived) authority
Linking an explanation to the concept of argument from authority is not an argument from authority.
So much win, +9001 interwebz to you my good sir!
The "inside scoop" could NEVER just be moronation and corruption!
the guy who owns the machines and/or factory that can produce needlessly complex and more expensive ammo cases knows a guy who knows a guy
drink your kombucha you fricking troon
trust the science
Why don't you believe in innovation?
Innovation is when it's not clearly a moronic idea anon.
CHS abound, there is no fricking WAY these things don't get torn off inside the action when you pull on them too hard.
>clearly a moronic idea
According to whom? You, a random clueless amateur spouting shit on a mongolian basket weaving forum?
Does it take an engineering degree to say that square wheels are dumb?
Tell me what part of doing this isn't obviously overcomplicating something that needs to work 100% of the time. Imagine if the M5 used .243 win instead, and how much people would be in arms about it. Everyone and their grandma would laugh at the US army for adopting something that is just necked down .308, but because they have this fancy fricking design to allow them to bump up the pressure beyond bubba's spiciest fricking treats, it's a godamn revolutionary, groundbreaking innovation.
EVERYONE can see the flaw with the design. EVERYONE should know that it's gonna do the exact thing you think it's gonna do. EVERYONE should know it's going to be a massive fricking problem in the near future.
It does in fact take one to understand detailed, complex engineering issues. Oversimplifying the same out of ignorance the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work, however, is quite clearly something even the dumbest mateur can do with ease. Case in point, (You).
It's not really a complex issue, it's pulling bits of hot metal out of a tube. My point here is that this is the dumbest way to go about solving the issue here.
Case in point, *reinventing the wheel*. Maybe you missed that little analogy there, so I'll dwell on it a little longer. Happy?
The problem can be fixed with a much more simple, proven solution. There are caveats to this, but unavoidable ones due to the circumstances.
Option #1 is doing the thing that has been done before, would fulfill all requirements and wouldn't have obvious points of failure.
Option #2 is to make something much more complicated before, while touting how it fixes the problem... In the most complicated way that you wouldn't quite get laughed out the meeting room for proposing.
Why the frick did they follow through with option #2, with handwavium benefits and real challenges when there's a much simpler solution.
I mean, in my opinion the whole programme is a dumb idea and the M5 is ridiculously spec'd to begin with, given that there wasn't really a fundamental problem to solve, but don't look at me when people complain the thing's too heavy and shit in full auto.
>My point here is that this is the dumbest way to go about solving the issue here.
You should propose your solution to the DoD.
DOD doesn't look for the best, it looks for who employs the procurement officer after they retire.
>It's not really a complex issue, it's pulling bits of hot metal out of a tube.
>nuclear power isn't a complex issue, it's boiling water with radiation
Not when they're mass produced on the scales we're talking about.
Besides, the overall idea is still dumb.
Well go the frick on then, you tell me everything that is involved in extracting fired cases from a chamber. Coefficients of friction aren't exactly arcane knowledge.
It's not overcomplicated.
Making one piece cartridges is actually overcomplicated.
The NAS 3 case actually looks weaker intuitively, but that's just a gut feeling.
It's not inordinately expensive. NAS 3 cases are competitively priced with brass. You need a full blown factory to turn flat brass sheets into cases. Going from a blank and cup through multiple stages of swaging and ironing, with heat treatment and washing steps in between, requires millions in investment.
With those Shellshock cases, you turn the base on a CNC lathe and draw the case walls in a fraction of the steps.
The NAS 3 case is very simple and likely fairly economical to produce. Much better than the Sig case. Patent laws stifling progress yet again...
Making singe construction cases is like making drink cans. It's lots of very simple operations, that stack up to make some pretty simple operations. It's complicated from a layman's point of view, but really the process is pretty easy once you set everything up right.
>With those Shellshock cases, you turn the base on a CNC lathe and draw the case walls in a fraction of the steps.
If you build a factory with a few million, you can make thousands of cases an hour. And if you think CNC machining is a practical choice for mass-producing millions of tiny little items for less than a dollar each, you have another thing coming. Aluminium is not the hardest metal on the planet, but it will still wear down expensive cutting bits quickly if you're not careful.
>And if you think CNC machining is a practical choice for mass-producing millions of tiny little items for less than a dollar each
They have machines for doing exactly that. We've been doing it for almost 100 years now.
Compared to putting a few square inches of brass through some dies?
Dude, you're out of your mind if you think cutting operations are going to be practical compared to forming. The waste alone would be unreal.
Even regular brass cases have cutting operations and a ton of wastage.
Turning of small parts in bulk for cheap was something solved a very long time ago.
isn't this 'waste' just saved and recycled for it's monetary value? it's metal shavings not plastic or wood.
Considering the simple shape CNCing it isn't very good. The center hole can be drilled in one plunge with a specially made drill and the extractor groove can be made with rolling. That and a saw to cut the round stock is all that's really needed.
Might very well be competitive with brass case production especially with the cheaper material.
As opposed to a single operation press?
Maybe you'd break even. With aluminium.
But 6.8x51 specifically needs steel case heads to work, which throws the whole argument out the window.
I'm a little tired from arguing my point for the last two hours, so if the thread's still up tomorrow I might come back.
Also frick this guy again, appeals to authority to shut down conversation are gay as swedish brothels.
So how would you go about stamping the internal features of the base?
I just said I was tired from arguing, but because I'm a nice guy I'll link you this.
TL:DR, a die and a big press.
Which is not going to help with the locking ring portion of this.
When looking at the cases you can even see the machining marks left from turning them. Seems they may know a thing or two about maching small bits in bulk.
That's the point you fricking moron, it's such a complicated and difficult to machine part that it has to be turned on a CNC lathe. That shit is fricking expensive.
No it isn't. The part is neither complicated nor difficult to machine.
CNC lathes and their earlier ancestors have been used for decades to churn out cheap,small parts.
Nothing personal kid but
>Swiss turning centers you
Parts per second b***h.
Yeah and those things cost an incredible amount of money
Not really. They're priced like any other peice of machinery. The price of precision is offset by their size and maximum capability.
>Turdie countries even have them
are the case walls on most catridges this thick towards the base? I never noticed this before. I always assumed it could pretty much be as thin as possible-- since its the chamber that supports the pressure.
No that's pretty normal, if it was much thinner you'd run into case head seperation issues. As it is sloppy headspaces can really stretch that bit.
Maybe it is a bit thicker, but only because it's two pieces bonded together and considering that it's pretty tolerable.
Most are thicker. Brass is weaker and more prone to flow so the case web and lower walls are thicker.
>6.8x51 specifically needs steel case heads to work, which throws the whole argument out the window.
Shellshock runs an aluminum base because the orimer pocket itself is stainless steel. You can see that in the cutaway. The aluminum base cap is just for engagement by the extractor and weight savings.
In SIGs case they couldn't use stainless steel as a primer pocket option since it's patented. They have a traditional primer pocket made from brass where the reinforcement via a stainless ring is integral to preventing blown out cases.
Tldr; shut the duck up midwit you don't know what you're talking about despite literal cutaway graphics showing how things are the way they are.
The whole fricking reason they didn't just make the whole thing brass is because they bumped the thing to autistically high pressures, so high that it apparantly risked rupturing the fricking case head, can you not read you actual mongoloid.
>they bumped the thing to autistically high pressures
that is called technological innovation anon.
By this logic Bubba is a genius.
Except that the gun doesnt blow up.
>And if you think CNC machining is a practical choice for mass-producing millions of tiny little items
Brother how do you think the extraction groove is cut in a conventional case?
that's not an effective way to rip off the tax payers anon
you have to come up with some new innovative pants on head moronic scheme to defraud the tax payers not proven time tested solutions
I am demoralized
>war tourist using his favorite new buzzword
its all so tiring
no, you're brown
It's funny because these stupid fricking posts in every fricking thread have made me absolutely hate the Ukrainian online shill brigade. This shillposting is so annoying and antagonizing that I would unironically recommend Russians trying it -- it really makes people hate your stupid fricking cause. Frick Ukraine and frick your annoying shilling
Serialized ammunition for the hoes.
Funny that’s why a lot of people hate russia as well.
Yeah except there aren't a million Russian shills on this board. If there are, they're significantly more competent because they manage to do their job without being outrageously gay in every fricking thread.
>Yeah except there aren't a million Russian shills on this board. If there are, they're significantly more competent
First time here newfriend?
outrageously based, keep fighting the good fight anon, never stop reminding these people how shit they made /k/
this
Yes it's so much better in russia...
Fcuk I'm so demoralized, at least in Russia they're honest about fricking in the ass......
finally anon gets it. Any military question that is essentially "Why are they doing moronic/inefficient/ass-backwards/etc" is because they are corrupt and funneling the money.
In theory you can combine the steel base for pressure while retaining brass for best extraction.
In reality this is an imaginary benefit and all steel is better.
In sales, you tell boomers your theory and it appears to them you're making a sane conservative advance instead of adding pointless complexity for no gain.
You can bet which reason is Sig's true motive.
>Why not just make the whole case out of steel if you want a steel base?
Because the breech contains the pressure, not the case walls.
The only pressure-bearing part of the case is the part which completes the breech, i.e. the material between the powder chamber and the bolt. So you make that out of steel.
And this justifies making each cartridge contain twice the seperate parts because?
The russkies manage to make laquered steel work fine-ish, it would be even better if the machines loading in the powder always worked.
>And this justifies making each cartridge contain twice the seperate parts because?
Never said it did, the entire program which spawned it is misguided. Just explaining why the entire case isn't made of steel.
Also unlike lacquered steel this will probably be reloadable, probably more so than pure brass cases since the primer pockets won't deform. In fact it might be possible to re-use the base and washer and put new brass on it
The military isn't going to be reloading shit, they never have.
And besides, extraction is fine enough with steel, and just because you don't have to make the whole thing from one material structurally, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to try and avoid doing that when in doing so you have to do... this.
>The military isn't going to be reloading shit, they never have.
I didn't say that either, just looking for silver linings. If people start hybridizing other cases and selling reloading equipment for it the costs might be less than brass because you're not paying for a case head every time you shoot out the brass.
I mean, it's a nonissue for the military, and it's a military exclusive (And looks to remain so for a while at least).
That's a bit like saying all traffic lamps should still be incandescent bulbs since they won't get snowed over due to the heating effect, the gain is minimal considering the effort needed to realise it.
Maybe? But I don't think it's that big a selling point. I doubt reloading types are going to use it all that much over the other options though.
Because to contain pressure base of the cartridge should have maximum tensile strength. But to draw thin walled case metal should be ductile. Strength and ductility are opposite properties. Maxing case from two pieces allows to avoid this contradiction. Base can be made from maximum strength steel and case wall was can be drawn from ductile brass or ductile steel (but Sig cant use steel-steel two piece case because it was patented by Shellshock)
This post is a reminder to everyone that the Army only didn't pick either entry with polymer cased ammo because the army is run by gigantic neofudds who wanted a piston-AR clone with a 12in barrel instead of a rifle with any kind of innovation at all.
Wall thickness, and thus ductility, stops mattering anywhere near as much when you use light polymers, and you get huge advantages in chamber temperatures from the insulation.
Yes hybrid metal polymer case like TV one can run higher pressures too. They have steel case base and you can make it from high tensile strength steel.
But in case of teh GD they shoot themselves in the foot bringing RPK clone with 20 rds magazine versus belt feld. Yeah it is big mess. The should've choose GD/TV ammo and rerun competition with condition of chambering these guns in 6.8mm TV.
Wonder if theres a way to differentially harden a metal.
We could call it annealing or something?
>And this justifies making each cartridge contain twice the seperate parts because?
the walls and the base are formed by different processes. making them from one part isn't necessarily more cost efficient.
I mean if they just drew steel and didn't bother pissing about with making the walls brass, it wouldn't be nearly so moronic.
>But it would get le stu-
Teflon.
They made the chamber thicker to stick bubba loads in it. Hardly need a master's to figure that one out. It's still basically .243 winchester but le faster.
No, they didn't make the chamber thicker.
The weakpoint that prohibited highter pressure ammo was that the brass casehead "liquified", and gas jets escaping the casing went through the firing pin channel and blew the action up.
All hybrid ammo, True velocity, shell shock techs pistol and rifle ammo as well as sigs hybrid ammo are backwards compatible with existing weapons.
What you mean is the unsupported section of the case right around the rim. The bolt itself completes the breech.
Cased telescoped cartridges do not have a rim, so they don’t have this unsupported case head problem, so they can be made uniformly of polymer
If the case walls suddenly disappeared immediately after ignition, the pressure would be contained by the breech walls and would be sent down the barrel.
If the case head suddenly disappeared immediately after ignition, and no pressure-relief vents were cut in the bolt or receiver, you would get a jet of burning powder all over your face because the breech would be open and pressure would vent through the firing pin hole and around the bolt itself.
The case head is pressure-bearing, it completes the chamber. That's why the part of the 80kpsi ammo which Sig changed to steel is the case head.
>decreased bullet drop and increased energy
why not just say it is faster
Maybe because it's easier to draw brass than steel?
Machine components/dies/etc will last longer.
I'm not a machinist/tool and die maker/etc; so this is pure speculation on my part but
It looks like the metal base is something that can be made quickly and easily in one step with a stamping press.
Then the more traditional brass case gets stamped/crimped/whatever onto the steel base in a single operation that involves the locking washer; which is another piece that can be easily stamped out.
So while the whole process is more complex than just making an all steel case, it may pay off in the long run in the machines and manufacturing. Maybe.
More speculation : brass makes a better seal and maybe sig's new rifle is finiky enough that the extra fouling from steel cases that don't seal so well is enough to bugger up it's operation. So instead of using an all steel case they come up with this bastard child instead of redesigning the rifle and call it "progress".
Without internal Sig documents we're really not going to know the reason for the decision.
Didn't sound as good to the marketing boys' focus groups.
Easy to crank out the bases. Easier to make consistent brass tubing than a closed cylinder. Cheaper too.
Like the NAS cases you end up with a cheaper product that is also easier to make, more consistent, and can handle higher pressure.
lolno
Stainless is notoriously horrible to machine, and stamps only really work for a couple mil of very simple geometry. The equipment to make the case head is going to be nearly as comlpex and expensive as the equipment needed to make full cases out of one material.
Steel also makes a perfectly acceptable seal, especially with a bottleneck. It's problem is that it doesn't shrink back down to it's original size when the pressure drops, hence why it's always laquered to ease the excraction.
Mild steel could be much more easily worked, even maybe cold, and again the russkies seemed to manage fine with it. There's really no need for stainless, it's just inordinately more expensive and a complete PIA to work with.
Would the dies last longer with brass than steel?
Technically, but tool steel is much harder than you think, and you're not making cutting operations on a part like this. If you are, then it's already too expensive to justify.
>Stainless is notoriously horrible to machine
Depends what stainless steel and what processes.
Shellshock makes case walls from nickel stainless steel and they are much thinner than brass.
>hence why it's always lacquered to ease the extraction.
Its lacquered for corrosion resistance m8.
>Image
Fair enough, that might actually have a hope in hell of not coming apart in the chamber.
Still inordinately expensive to make rather than just using a single metal though.
>Its lacquered for corrosion resistance m8.
5.7x28 is laquered for extraction. Steel tends to stick in the chamber, and 5.7 has zero taper, so it gets stuck easily.
Corrosion res is a "two birds with one stone" thing, since it comes sealed in cans anyway. Maybe it's even important enough to warrant doing even if it didn't help with extraction, but it most certainly helps with extraction.
(me)
>5.7x28 is laquered for extraction
*And is brass, so corrosion res isn't a factor. Forgot that bit.
If you actually read the testing documents for steel case development the coatings were entirely for corrosion resistance.
>5.7x28 is laquered for extraction.
They covered in theflon based coating, yes it to reduce friction, but here is the thing: P90 is straight blow back, you can get situation of the case been locked in the chamber by case walls friction expanding from pressure and then you get case rupture as straight blow back by design starts case extraction under full chamber pressure. This is especially probable if you run long cylindrical case in teh open bolt gun (pro tip: in straight blowback guns were usually used short stubby pistol rounds cases).
Locked bolt guns don't extract cases under full chamber pressure, and Russian ammunition lacquer is not teflon based.
>but here is the thing: P90 is straight blow back
It has nothing to do with the P90 being blowback. 5.7x28 has zero case taper from the base to the shoulder. Not minimal case taper as you find in any "straight-wall" or Ackley Improved case, zero.
If it had any case taper the P90 mags would need to either be curved or have extra travel on one side. Not sure if that was the ultimate rationale but the point is that it'll stick more often in any action than any other cartridge if you're just comparing bare brass to bare brass.
That's why not many people reload it, the coating wears off during resizing and is applied after annealing. So resizing dies need to be cleaned more often and you can't reanneal without compromising the coating. There's more information on reloading 22tcm despite that being a complete flop.
Yup, basically everyone i've seen that has attempted 5.7 reloading has stopped after a short stint. It's just not worth it.
>It has nothing to do with the P90 being blowback
It is.
This is how straight blowback works. Case starts moving right after charge ignition when there is full pressure that presses case walls against chamber.
Non coated brass works in P90/PS90 with charges on the weaker side.
>It is.
It isn't. 5.7 is coated because it has no taper, not because the P90 is blowback. There are dozens of other calibers which are routinely used in straight blowback firearms, and none of them need a coating to help with extraction other than 5.7, because they all taper, and 5.7 doesn't.
>This is how straight blowback works
How extraction in straight-blowback works when you have case taper is that the very instant the bolt moves a micrometer, the surface area contacting between the brass and chamber is essentially zero. The extractor and ejector will cause the shoulder to drag, but it's basically no contact at all.
With 5.7 the fired case body contacts the chamber walls until it is extracted all the way to the shoulder, which is why the coating is required for lubricity.
>Non coated brass works in P90/PS90 with charges on the weaker side.
I'm not saying it will never work, it just has way more working against it than if it had literally any taper at all.
>here are dozens of other calibers which are routinely used in straight blowback firearms,
None of them use case such elongated case.
>the surface area contacting between the brass and chamber is essentially zero.
Not under 30K PSI pressure. Case continues to expand to the size of the chamber.
>Not under 30K PSI pressure.
And yet it continues to extract because the force vectors of pressure against the walls of a conical chamber produces bolt thrust.
>Case continues to expand to the size of the chamber.
Barely.
>None of them use case such elongated case.
The ATM automag III is chambered in 30 carbine and will extract the shittiest surplus you can find. It might not always eject it but that's a powder issue.
Pressure force against case bottom produces bolt trust. Shoudler angle is too low to trasfer motion in something liek 9x19
>The ATM automag III
Its locked breech.
>What's the point of this moronic overcomplicated shit?
Regulatory Capture and Rent-Seeking
I always wondered if you made the chamber and barrel the same diameter, and made the case expand to seal in the barrel-- engaging the rifling, would the catridge fly out of the gun like a little rocket-- assuming you literally had the bullet/ ballistic component part of the actual case. make the primers from paper or plastic.
Anon invents the rocket ball 150 years after people got rid of it.
those were only dainty parlor guns. I want .50BMG rockets flying around.
>lacquered for extraction
It's for corrosion, the 7.62x39 has a exaggerated taper to assist with extraction combined with the AK's moron strength ejection cycle.
>It looks like the metal base is something that can be made quickly and easily in one step with a stamping press
>I'm not a machinist
well you got one thing right
because increased BC and flatter trajectory isn't the same as muzzle velocity you fricking midwits
Stainless will handle the pressure they're running the cartridge at and brass is best for obturation. It wouldn't work if it was made out of only brass or only stainless.
Because brass is cheap and steal is less cheap.
As such, reinforcing the casing with steel at it's most likely failure point is more resource efficient than simply producing an entire steel case.
Also means reduced wear on the chamber, as brass scraping against steel produces less wear than steel scraping on steel.
Sure it's an extra step in production, but a relatively minor one that produces, in effect, the same benefit of steel case with a reduced material cost.
>Because brass is cheap and steal is less cheap.
Not only are you no-guns but ESL as well, rough.
Dude frick off, that's correct grammar to highlight the cost difference.
Are you compensating for something?
Nta but you're wrong anyway, look up the price of brass compared to the price of steel, even an expensive alloy of steel is not going to be close.
This anon's right based on my little bit of manufacturing/machining experience, the case head is the shitty part, making that out of steel and not the rest is going to make the whole thing way more expensive(from the added steps and not because brass is more expensive though)
It has to be purely for performance reasons, there's no way that's the economical way to do things.
look it up you idiot
brass ejects better than steel due to the expansion/contraction of the brass compared to steel.
Also steel corrodes eventually unless packed in grease or you use stainless steel which would probably have even worse ejection problems.
why should i make rock sharp, rock good enough already
Why throw rock underhand, when overhand work good already
no tommy grug surgery yet
steel cases are bad for accuracy
new thing bad old thing good
Steel case has its own problems. Its worse at obturating, requires more force for extraction and also more prone to brittleness and cracking.
>What's the point of this moronic overcomplicated shit?
OP, This should help.
>65% more bullet per bullet
Serialized ammunition for the hoes.
Does it really matter what it’s supposed to do on paper if it’s made by sig?
But brass is a metal
Money!
That’s the entire reason this POS isn’t in .308, 6.5, or something similar.
US army Black folks off-duty haven't changed I see.
It's yet another proprietary ammo scam.
I doubt the rifle will even be rolled out, the whole concept of using regular pressure ammo then issuing high pressure for combat... the high pressure will never get issued and soldiers won't use it.
The spear is ridiculous, dimensionally, in terms of weight, ammo capacity, the use case just doesn't make sense.
>the whole concept of using regular pressure ammo then issuing high pressure for combat... the high pressure will never get issued and soldiers won't use it.
AFVs during training shoot mostly training ammo since 60s.
Didn't hear you complaining about that. Start complaining or you post would be dismissed.
That's a dishonesty comparison combined, misrepresentation of what I just said and begging the question.
Are you israeli?
Posts dismissed.
Thanks for confirming it.
Selling a product that never breaks or fails doesn't make money.
The money is in long term servicing, repairing, and replacing parts.
Look at the M9 and P320
The M9 had a service life of like 25,000-30,000 rounds.
The P320 has to have parts replaced every 5,000 rounds or less.
So the military will constantly have to buy and keep spare parts on hand for them.
Now look at the new .277 Fury round
Theres a training and combat round, so two types of ammo have to be stocked.
The combat round quickly kills barrels.
Don't be surprised if it also breaks extractors and firing pins.
Also the hybrid case will probably lead to more case heads stripping.
Now the military has to not only order extra ammo but also all the extra parts for the rifle.
>Theres a training and combat round, so two types of ammo have to be stocked.
Pro tip: US mil already kinda does that with 5.56. they buy training packaged 5.56 (bulk pack cardboard boxes for cheaper price) and "combat issue" package (bandoliers packed into cans).
Didn't hear you complaining about combat issue package of 5.56.
So start complaining or your post would be dismissed.
There he goes again, are we witnessing an actual paid shill?
Facts that cannot be disputed:
1. The low pressure ammo for the spear is more expensive than standard 5.56, the high pressure spear ammo is extraordinarily expensive.
2. The use-case for the spear is effectively armour penetration at 300-500 yards. If your enemy isn't wearing armour you're actually worse off (notwithstanding cost) and at close range though the spear is very good at penetrating armour troops would be better off with a different set-up. The spear is a niche rifle.
3. Because of both the calibre and ammo pressure, most troops will struggle to use the high pressure ammo. Most troops are auxiliaries, most troops do not see close combat. If America goes to war with a near peer, civilians will get conscripted, the conscripts will have no hope using the spear.
So I conclude that the spear is just a corrupt attempt to grub money out of the US taxpayer, will never be fully rolled out, may effectively be recalled, leaving the taxpayer with a trillion rounds of expensive useless ammo to be pawned off in order to make the spear viable in surplus markets.
The US will never end up using the high pressure rounds because they will find troops are unfamiliar with the high pressure rounds, the rounds are excessive for the vast majority of engagements, the weight of infantry equipment is already physically crippling, and after 6 months of using the low pressure rounds in the field they'll demand their old, cheap, lightweight rifles back
>1. The low pressure ammo for the spear is more expensive than standard 5.56, the high pressure spear ammo is extraordinarily expensive.
Fun fact: first bathces of the M855A1 costed $1. How does it make you feel?
The "cheap" Sig ammo is still about $2-3 each.
the moment someone uses pentagon wars for their argument it's an instant mental filter
it's just midwit bait and you fell for it
Something NEW and GROUND BREAKING
Few good answers to far but also:
Heat
Weight
That's a lot of powder in that case
more than likely that the steel used for the case head is hardened, which is what allows it to bear the increased pressures. Unharded mild steel like what is used in conventional steel cased ammo is not all that much stronger than quality brass/bronze, in fact I have seen people do hardness testing on steel and brass cases and the steel cases tend to be softer than the brass.
Hardenable steel, i.e. steel with higher carbon content, is much more difficult to work than unhardenable mild steel, particularly for drawing operations like making a cartridge case, and it would be impractical to harden a drawn steel case regardless even if it was possible because the process of quenching such a thin walled part would almost certainly induce unacceptable warping.
Therefore, if you are trying to make a cartridge case capable of enduring higher pressures making the case head out of a much stronger hardened steel then attaching a drawn brass body would make sense if it can be done economically, and apparently it can if they can sell this ammo for anything even close to a regular ammo price, and by that I mean not like 5x more than regular ammo. They even use hardenable martensitic stainless for the case heads iirc which is a nice bonus, more corrosion resistance.