Full Version: do you THINK guns in 2060 use current ammuntions?
this is from a thread where i argue that they do not, that they have developed new ones probably. Everyone seemed to disagree with me there, so i want to know if that is true, taht people think the ak 97 went back to the 7.62 for some unknown reason.
ALAIK - as little as I know 
- on the subject, is there that much more that can really be done with bullets? Yeah new metals and propellants could affect things, plus new designs like the .40 S&W did occassionally come along, but there's only so much space for improvement. On the Kalashnikov issue, the latest AK-102, 104 and 105's are chambered for 7.62 IIRC.
And on a personal request, could you please use capitalization when posting? Much gratitude.
- on the subject, is there that much more that can really be done with bullets? Yeah new metals and propellants could affect things, plus new designs like the .40 S&W did occassionally come along, but there's only so much space for improvement. On the Kalashnikov issue, the latest AK-102, 104 and 105's are chambered for 7.62 IIRC.And on a personal request, could you please use capitalization when posting? Much gratitude.
Well since bullets can have all ranges of different advantages and disadvantages from their styling (length, diamete, type of powder, type of material, yatta, yatta, yatta!)
I believe they will use all sorts of different things. Including those currently stressed, those stressed years ago, and who knows radically different designs as well.
::Starts to wonder what a radically different design would be, its just a bullet for all's sake::
I believe they will use all sorts of different things. Including those currently stressed, those stressed years ago, and who knows radically different designs as well.
::Starts to wonder what a radically different design would be, its just a bullet for all's sake::
I think the only weapons that are likely to use special ammunition are probably unique weapon types, like the slivergun or the panther cannon (and even that's probably just a shortened cannon shell). I'm sure Raygun can come along and illuminate us all on exactly why they aren't going to be using new calibers, but I can try to sum it up -
1) No compelling reason to not improve existing calibers. There's pretty much a caliber for every niche, and when you consider you can use improved propellants and bullet materials in them, there's no real reason to upgrade. I'm sure 5.56mm ammo in 2060 is lighter, more powerful, and/or more accurate, so why bother making a new cartridge that's just going to do the same thing as the 5.56?
2) Logisitcs. The US Army is buying a whole messload of OICWs and M8s, all firing 5.56 ammo, so they're going to have stockpiles around for a while. When they buy new guns to replace those, which will probably happen 20-30 years down the road if that soon, they'll probably want to stick with something that fires the same ammo.
3) The slow pace of introducing new calibers. The .45 is about a century old, and it's showing no sign of going away. Sure, it might be losing a little favor as rounds like the .40 S&W become more popular, but it's going to be a long time down the road before someone comes up with anything new. Until and if caseless/electrothermal weapons become mainstream, there isn't any real R&D going into developing new general-purpose cartridges. You occasionally get something like the .300 Whisper or the 9x90mm, but those are special-purpose rounds and not exceedingly common (or existing at all, like the 9x90)
Edit - okay, Raygun already said about all this in the previous thread. That's what I get for reading backwards.
1) No compelling reason to not improve existing calibers. There's pretty much a caliber for every niche, and when you consider you can use improved propellants and bullet materials in them, there's no real reason to upgrade. I'm sure 5.56mm ammo in 2060 is lighter, more powerful, and/or more accurate, so why bother making a new cartridge that's just going to do the same thing as the 5.56?
2) Logisitcs. The US Army is buying a whole messload of OICWs and M8s, all firing 5.56 ammo, so they're going to have stockpiles around for a while. When they buy new guns to replace those, which will probably happen 20-30 years down the road if that soon, they'll probably want to stick with something that fires the same ammo.
3) The slow pace of introducing new calibers. The .45 is about a century old, and it's showing no sign of going away. Sure, it might be losing a little favor as rounds like the .40 S&W become more popular, but it's going to be a long time down the road before someone comes up with anything new. Until and if caseless/electrothermal weapons become mainstream, there isn't any real R&D going into developing new general-purpose cartridges. You occasionally get something like the .300 Whisper or the 9x90mm, but those are special-purpose rounds and not exceedingly common (or existing at all, like the 9x90)
Edit - okay, Raygun already said about all this in the previous thread. That's what I get for reading backwards.
| QUOTE (Zach21035) |
| I'm sure 5.56mm ammo in 2060 is lighter, more powerful, and/or more accurate, so why bother making a new cartridge that's just going to do the same thing as the 5.56? |
Ack. Exactly what I meant but actually understandable.
Sure the bullets may become lighter and more powerful, but probably no changes to the already massive selection of calibres to hand.
Slammo-O, I didn't say that every single firearm on earth 60 years from now will be using the same exact loads of ammunition that are available today. Payloads (read: bullets) will be enhanced by new technologies. However, there's not a whole lot of reason to make an entirely new cartridge for several reasons that other people are doing a decent job of explaining.
Yes, there will be new armor. Yes, there will be new cartridges and payloads. Yes, there will be new firearms. No, they will not wholly replace every other type of rifle and cartridge that came before them.
Yes, there will be new armor. Yes, there will be new cartridges and payloads. Yes, there will be new firearms. No, they will not wholly replace every other type of rifle and cartridge that came before them.
The only real advance would be that caseless ammo will become probably more common. The 4.7mm round of the H&K G11 being a good example.
Eh. Caseless ammunition, at least in the G11 concept, is more of a step sideways than forward.
I agree that ammunition is going to evolve a bit over the next 60 years, but I don't see the calibers themselves changing all that much. Seriously...when it comes to pistols, what you can't kill with a .40 S&W, shoot with a .45 ACP. What you can't kill with a .45 ACP, shoot with a .50 AE. If you can't kill it with a .50 AE, you should be using a rifle. 
The only really significant change I think we will see is with battlefield weapons, like the OICW. I can see the majority of technically advanced armies fielding weapons like this. I'll say this much, I'm REALLY glad that I won't be an Infantryman when then bad guys start toting THOSE things around. It's scary enough having conventional rounds shot at you. But when you are talking about accurate, 20mm, airburst grenades being shot at you by a whole SQUAD of baddies? Time to take up a new profession.
But when it comes to other more conventional weapons, I doubt we will see much change. Possibly better propellants, lighter projectiles, etc. I think the bigger advances will be in the design and feature of the firearms themselves. You know, bells and whistles and such.
And for the record, there are PLENTY of rounds out there capable of penetrating armor. So what if the badguys all start sporting armor? Just move up a caliber. Sounds like a no brainer to me. No real need for anything new. If my 5.56 won't kill you, then I'll start carrying something chambered in 7.62.
The only really significant change I think we will see is with battlefield weapons, like the OICW. I can see the majority of technically advanced armies fielding weapons like this. I'll say this much, I'm REALLY glad that I won't be an Infantryman when then bad guys start toting THOSE things around. It's scary enough having conventional rounds shot at you. But when you are talking about accurate, 20mm, airburst grenades being shot at you by a whole SQUAD of baddies? Time to take up a new profession.
But when it comes to other more conventional weapons, I doubt we will see much change. Possibly better propellants, lighter projectiles, etc. I think the bigger advances will be in the design and feature of the firearms themselves. You know, bells and whistles and such.
And for the record, there are PLENTY of rounds out there capable of penetrating armor. So what if the badguys all start sporting armor? Just move up a caliber. Sounds like a no brainer to me. No real need for anything new. If my 5.56 won't kill you, then I'll start carrying something chambered in 7.62.
The only ammo designs of the last years that I would call new are the "downsized rifle bullet"-style calibers introduced by Fabrique National and Heckler & Koch:
5.7 x 28 (FN P90) and 4.6 x 30 (HK MP7).
5.7 x 28 (FN P90) and 4.6 x 30 (HK MP7).
I was talking about the OICW with a friend yesterday, and he mentioned Rainbow Six. For anyone who hasn't played the game - as long as guys are stationary, they are rediculous shots. I laugh my ass off every time the Japanese college students in Rogue Spear nail my running operative in the head at night from 75 meters away with a Skorpion.
His theory was basically that infantry battles will be bloodbaths - because you can almost always hit when you fire, it'll basically be an issue of who can shoot faster and who has more guys.
Not really relevant, and I'm not sure if I agree with him, but it's something to think about.
His theory was basically that infantry battles will be bloodbaths - because you can almost always hit when you fire, it'll basically be an issue of who can shoot faster and who has more guys.
Not really relevant, and I'm not sure if I agree with him, but it's something to think about.
I think infantry battles will slowly become more and more obsolete anyway...
As far as ammo goes...I think they will all kinds of new and improved hi-tech bullets, possibly designed using nano-electronics and other nano-technology - but the cartridges probably won't change much.
As far as ammo goes...I think they will all kinds of new and improved hi-tech bullets, possibly designed using nano-electronics and other nano-technology - but the cartridges probably won't change much.
Afaik, the last major shift in firearm calibers occurred during and after WW2, this implies than if there is a 'WW3' in SR, them there might be a major change in the calibers used. Were the euro-wars long enough and big enough to have the belligerents changing calibers? I don't remember any other major wars in the timeline.
| QUOTE (Raygun) |
| Eh. Caseless ammunition, at least in the G11 concept, is more of a step sideways than forward. |
True, but the advantages that caseless ammo present are hard to overlook. Namely that since it doesn't have to eject spent brass, the weapon needs less moving parts and has less entry points for contaminants. With less moving parts, the weapon should theoretically be easier to service and more reliable, possibly increasing the weapon's rate of fire in the process. Not to mention the fact that brass takes up space meaning that caseless weapons should be able to have higher ammo capacity for a given size of mag. Lastly, since the weapon doesn't have to expend energy to eject brass, it should have more energy to put behind the bullet ie.: higher projectile velocity.
On the other hand, cases can help seal the chamber, meaning a lighter weapon, act as a heat dump (fewer caseless MGs), and a few other nifty things that I can't think up right now. An interesting development would be cases made out of something other than the classic brass, that was lighter, better, or cheaper.
the us military is looking into polymer/brass composite cased ammuntion for their new XM8 Carbine.
the russian military regularly uses steel because their weapons can handle the inceased risk of cracked cases it and it's cheaper, lighter.
aluminum is good too. CCI makes some good practice ammo with aluminum cases. i'm not sure what the downside of it is.
the russian military regularly uses steel because their weapons can handle the inceased risk of cracked cases it and it's cheaper, lighter.
aluminum is good too. CCI makes some good practice ammo with aluminum cases. i'm not sure what the downside of it is.
| QUOTE (lodestar) |
| True, but the advantages that caseless ammo present are hard to overlook. Namely that since it doesn't have to eject spent brass, the weapon needs less moving parts and has less entry points for contaminants. With less moving parts, the weapon should theoretically be easier to service and more reliable, possibly increasing the weapon's rate of fire in the process. |
The G11 rifle has roughly three times the number of parts than conventional automatic rifles. Have a look at the action. Here's a closer look. And here's another view. According to some sources, one of the reasons why the G11 was never adopted is because in order to take full advantage of the caseless ammunition concept, the rifle had to be built like a Swiss watch. If it failed in the field, it would likely take an armorer's skill to repair. Simplicity of design is not one of its attributes.
But by design, the action is not as exposed to the environment as conventional rifles, so that is a plus.
The number of moving parts a firearm has has nothing to do with how fast it can fire. You can make incredibly simple firearms that have a very low rate of fire, or you can make incredibly complicated weapons that fire extremely fast. Like the G11.
The whole idea behind the development of the G11 and caseless ammunition was to increase the rate of fire (in short bursts, while delaying recoil), so increasing hit probability (here). Because the cartridge is caseless, the extraction process of the reloading cycle is unnecessary, thus, the rate of fire could be increased. The weapon still must move the cartridge from the magazine and into the chamber. It must also retain the ability to eject the cartridge in case of misfire or the need to unload the rifle.
| QUOTE |
| Not to mention the fact that brass takes up space meaning that caseless weapons should be able to have higher ammo capacity for a given size of mag. |
Brass actually doesn't take up that much space. If you look at a cross section of the 4.73x33mm DM11, you'll see that its diameter is at best marginally smaller than that of the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. As long as you're storing cartridges parallel to one another, the advantage in storage space is insignificant. However, if you store the cartridges linearly, which is relevant in tubular or helical feed magazines (both of which are rarely used in automatic weapons), you end up with a significant savings in space compared to the 5.56x45mm, on the order of about 20mm (.787") per cartridge.
The major thing that most cased cartridges have over the caseless cartridge is versatility. Its modular nature allows easy loading to suit specific needs. It can also be reloaded. These advantages aren't very relevant to military needs, but they mean quite a lot to the civilian and competition markets, which, being substantially larger than military markets, allow firearm development to be far more cost-effective. That is another reason why the G11 concept never went anywhere. HK put 20 years and millions of dollars into developing a military rifle. No significant purchases were made, the Berlin Wall fell, the German economy tanked, and HK subsequently went bankrupt.
| QUOTE |
| Lastly, since the weapon doesn't have to expend energy to eject brass, it should have more energy to put behind the bullet ie.: higher projectile velocity. |
If the rifle is gas operated, that is true. The G11 is. Even so, we're talking about a difference on the order of 5-20 feet per second, which is insignificant.
Other caseless ammunition concept weapons, namely Metalstorm, come much closer to making the ideas you've expressed a reality. The G11, however, is not one of them.
| QUOTE (otomik) |
| aluminum is good too. CCI makes some good practice ammo with aluminum cases. i'm not sure what the downside of it is. |
It can't be reloaded. Much higher elasticity than brass or steel.
You're right of course Raygun. I was talking more in a theoretical sense though, and the G11 was the only example I could think of. Most of the problems with the caseless design probably could be overcome with sixty years of evolution though. (especially if the Russians designed one with simplicity and reliability in mind.)
I was talking more in a theoretical sense though, and the G11 was the only example I could think of. Most of the problems with the caseless design probably could be overcome with sixty years of evolution though. (especially if the Russians designed one with simplicity and reliability in mind.)| QUOTE |
The weapon still must move the cartridge from the magazine and into the chamber. It must also retain the ability to eject the cartridge in case of misfire or the need to unload the rifle. |
But by eliminating the chance of a case splitting, you reduce the chance of a jam, not to mention having a mis-ejection of a casing ( In my experience this seems to be the highest probability of jamming with most semi-autos.) If one could achieve a smaller round of ammo, the distance that which the bolt has to slide would decrease and the rate of fire could be increased, If that was the feature one was trying to optimize.
| QUOTE |
The number of moving parts a firearm has has nothing to do with how fast it can fire. You can make incredibly simple firearms that have a very low rate of fire, or you can make incredibly complicated weapons that fire extremely fast. Like the G11. |
Yes, but ideally the less parts you have the more reliable a weapon is when it does have a higher rate of fire. Once again losing the ejection mechanism is one thing less to go wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Other caseless ammunition concept weapons, namely Metalstorm, come much closer to making the ideas you've expressed a reality. The G11, however, is not one of them. |
You're right, the G11 was just the only example I could think of at the time.
BTW. Have you seen that "electric gun" concept someone came up with where the bullets are all stacked behind each other down a barrel? The thing has a ROF about a hundred times faster than a conventional machine gun or even chain gun or vulcan. Of course the thing empties out too fast to be practical for hand held operations. Unlike a typical MG where each sucessive bullet is about a hundred feet apart, the bullets fired from this thing are apart by mere inches. Good thing for most runners that something like this hasn't showed up in SR.
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| Seriously...when it comes to pistols, what you can't kill with a .40 S&W, shoot with a .45 ACP. What you can't kill with a .45 ACP, shoot with a .50 AE. |
Nitpick: Larger caliber does not equal greater power.
| QUOTE (lodestar) | ||
BTW. Have you seen that "electric gun" concept someone came up with where the bullets are all stacked behind each other down a barrel? |
That "electric gun" = Metalstorm.
| QUOTE |
| You're right of course Raygun. I was talking more in a theoretical sense though, and the G11 was the only example I could think of. Most of the problems with the caseless design probably could be overcome with sixty years of evolution though. (especially if the Russians designed one with simplicity and reliability in mind.) |
In theory, the caseless ammunition concept is a fine idea. But in terms of practicality, it's really not all that useful (I can hear people shitting themselves already). Its best feature is that it saves a lot of weight, meaning that soldiers can hump a lot more ammunition, and logistical support can deliver a lot more of it in a shorter amount of time. But its main purpose for being developed, facilitating a faster rate of fire, is really not all that useful at the small arms scale. There are other, more practical ways of increasing hit probability. In the end, caseless ammunition is just one mechanical solution to a problem that could be solved by other means, specifically better/more frequent training.
You're right. Sixty years could make a lot of difference. But my bet is that it won't make any major difference, as far as caseless ammunition systems for small arms go. It's just not all that useful, especially for anything other than military use.
| QUOTE |
| But by eliminating the chance of a case splitting, you reduce the chance of a jam, not to mention having a mis-ejection of a casing ( In my experience this seems to be the highest probability of jamming with most semi-autos.) If one could achieve a smaller round of ammo, the distance that which the bolt has to slide would decrease and the rate of fire could be increased, If that was the feature one was trying to optimize. |
True. But by eliminating the issue of various case problems, you intruduce a slew of others. All you're really doing is moving the reliability issues from the ammunition to the firearm, as it has to be a more complicated piece of machinery to take full advantage of the caseless cartridge (meaning the type that has to be moved from a magazine and into a chamber before it is fired). Functions that the case used to perform, such as breech sealing and heat dissipation, as Crusher Bob mentioned, have to be performed by the weapon itself. Cased or caseless, at some point, the weapon's chamber is going to get hot enough to ignite the round without a pull of the trigger. In caseless ammunition systems, this tends to happen much faster than it would in a cased firearm. Sealing the breech isn't that big of a deal, but the act doesn't get much simpler than when it's done with a cartridge case.
Metalstorm (the "electric gun" you mentioned, what Aus confirmed and what I mentioned in my first post) does eliminate a lot of those issues, and is, in my opinion, the most viable form of caseless firearm devised thus far. However, it doesn't use individual cartridges, but, as you've said, several cartridges stacked together directly in the weapon's barrel. Again, the fast rate of fire is not terribly useful at the small arms scale, as you've suggested. But Metalstorm is a completely solid-state electronic, mechanically simple firearm concept. There are bonuses to that (albeit relatively small ones) beyond the extremely fast rate of fire.
| QUOTE |
| Yes, but ideally the less parts you have the more reliable a weapon is when it does have a higher rate of fire. Once again losing the ejection mechanism is one thing less to go wrong. |
Simplicity of design is definitely a plus. It's what made "AK-47" a household word. But the ejection mechanism of a conventional cased ammunition firearm is one of the single simplest parts of the whole gun. It's pretty hard to screw that up (given, it has been done). For the benefit of others, the ejection mechanism consists of a spring-loaded clip to grab the case rim (extractor) and a fixed piece of metal or a spring-loaded plunger (ejector) that pushes the case out of the ejection port as the bolt recoils to load another round from the magazine. In other words, it's a very simple step within a process that must already occur in order to fire the next round.
Metalstorm avoids those potential problems by doing away with the entire processes of loading and extraction. But even then, things can go wrong. For instance, say your first round isn't ignited when you pull the trigger. With a cased firearm, you rack the action and you try again. But in Metalstorm, you have two choices. 1) Fire the next round, in which case you'll likely miss your target and possibly destroy the barrel as well, or 2) crack the action open, discard an entire stack of ammuntion, replace it with another and try again.
Shit can happen, no matter how simple the concept.
| QUOTE (Game2BHappy) | ||
Nitpick: Larger caliber does not equal greater power. |
True. In terms of kinetic energy, the .40 S&W is often more powerful than the .45 ACP. But the .50 AE is almost twice as powerful as both the .40 S&W and .45 ACP combined. Kinetic energy isn't everything. Personally, I'd switch the rifle before I got to the .50 AE anyway.
i think he has the right idea that at least in pistols larger caliber does mean more stopping power as long as you get the minumum 12 inches of penetration. but "larger caliber" can be acheived by other means like various types of expanding bullets. on the flip side of the equation some people use nothing but non-expanding (FMJ) bullets for backup/holdout pistols in .22lr, .25acp, .32acp, .380acp because otherwise they might not acheive that minumum 12 inches of penetration which is ideal for human foes. hydrostatic shock and tissue disruption doesn't really matter until you start talking about 1,000+ foot-pounds of energy because the human body is very elastic (think: Jim Carrey's face, not that you necessarily want to shoot him in the face, well okay maybe after you've seen Me Myself and Irene).
I thought the metalstorm concept emptied the entire magazine with a pull of the trigger? The weapon was basically idiot proof because as the electric charge went down the barrel it set off each round in turn until the mag was empty. A little overkill in man to man fighting, but the potentials for use in AAA or Anti missle systems are good. I could be wrong though...
| QUOTE (lodestar) |
| I thought the metalstorm concept emptied the entire magazine with a pull of the trigger? |
It can do that. It doesn't necessarily have to. Being electronic, Metalstorm is almost infinitely adjustable in terms of modes and rates of fire. You can fire one round with a single pull of the trigger, or two, or three and so on, or an entire stack, or multiple stacks (from multiple barrels) all at once, at pre-programmed rates of fire. The only limits are those of electricity and the physical components; the gun (barrels can take only so much pressure and heat) and the shooter (who can only make use of so much firepower).
Pre-set selections can be programmed so that the firearm performs more like a conventional automatic firearm by having safe, "semi-auto", burst (of any number of rounds), and "full-auto" modes of fire.
| QUOTE |
| The weapon was basically idiot proof because as the electric charge went down the barrel it set off each round in turn until the mag was empty. |
That's pretty much how it works. Solid state electronics and simple mechanical mechanisms. It is pretty brainless from the user's standpoint. Not much different than an over/under or side-by-side shotgun.
| QUOTE |
| A little overkill in man to man fighting, but the potentials for use in AAA or Anti missle systems are good. I could be wrong though... |
You're absolutely correct about that. Where Metalstorm shines is ship-based missile defense and area denial. Pretty much any situation in which an extremely high volume of fire in a very short span of time is useful.
As I voted some weapons will probably still use the same round and others will use newer types. In the last few years there's been the BOZ .225 (or whatever variation of the 5.56mm they used), the Hornday .17, 40 S&W, 357 SIG, etc.
Some things like the 12ga/10ga shotgun probably isn't going to change much. Same goes for the 9mm, 308WIN/7.62 NATO etc.
Aluminum has one draw back that one brought up. It's flammable, but for the most part it's safe. I use it for the cheap 9mm ammo as well as the 12ga target shot (low brass or in this case aluminum).
Some things like the 12ga/10ga shotgun probably isn't going to change much. Same goes for the 9mm, 308WIN/7.62 NATO etc.
Aluminum has one draw back that one brought up. It's flammable, but for the most part it's safe. I use it for the cheap 9mm ammo as well as the 12ga target shot (low brass or in this case aluminum).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.