The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 14, 2017, 04:51 AM   #1
simonrichter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
How likely Telescoped Ammunition is going to be adopted soon?

I know the Army and the Marines are working on "telescoped" and / or caseless rounds for decades now. Nevertheless, it seems that with the progress in polymer cased telescoped ammo weithin the LSAT programme might make a full-scale switch more likely... Opinions?
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski
. ISSC PAR .223
simonrichter is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 08:10 AM   #2
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
It will happen when it becomes as reliable and as cost effective as regular ammo in all environments. I don't believe they have reached that point yet.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 09:28 AM   #3
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
Case-less ammo is almost like a unicorn.

I doubt it'll be any time soon, You'll hear more talk about it long before anyone adopts a solution.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 11:23 AM   #4
ttarp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2013
Posts: 888
I'd read that the "telescoped" ammo was faring pretty well in test and possibly in field test, but I don't pretend to be in the know, so...

If the military does end up adopting a different caliber from 5.56, I could see them making the jump at the same time for cost and weight savings.
ttarp is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 06:28 PM   #5
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
ttarp wrote:
If the military does end up adopting a different caliber from 5.56, I could see them making the jump at the same time for cost and weight savings.
I agree.

When I was a graduate student (back in the early 1980's), I participated in some research one of the professors had been contracted by the Army to perform regarding a replacement for the 5.56. It was computational only, nothing built or shot, so it was very early into whatever program had spawned it. Still, to meet the specifications given us, we determined that a bullet in the 100 grain class shot at a velocity of about 2,800 fps would be required. That suggested 6mm or 6.5mm.

The problem for us was that when we optimized it, the cartridge was going to require a new cartridge head diameter that complicated things, so we knew our work was going to be consigned to a file in the bottom of someone's desk until a new rifle was going to be considered.
hdwhit is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 06:42 PM   #6
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
JoeSixPack wrote:
Case-less ammo is almost like a unicorn.
Agreed.

It has been done, but there have always been technical or logistical challenges that have kept any military from (pardon the pun) pulling the trigger on it.

Still, what the military is looking at today is not caseless ammunition, but a polymer case or a hybrid metal/polymer case design.
hdwhit is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 06:50 PM   #7
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
poly case .223 already exists.. Or at least it did at one time I think it's off the market now.
It had a brass base but a plastic top a lot like a shotgun hull

http://www.natec-us.com/products.php
I only know about them because I found a spent case on the range and was like -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-?

Here's a company that looks like they're trying to bring 223 and .380acp to market
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...olded-bullets/
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 07:13 PM   #8
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Well, if the Interim Combat Service Rifle is any guide, then telescoped ammo isn't coming in the next five years or so; but it is coming fast enough to start comsidering a longer action.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 14, 2017, 07:44 PM   #9
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
Caseless ammo is likely a long ways off... Telescoped ammo is much more developed.

Still several years out though, at least.
marine6680 is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 01:04 AM   #10
roscoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 575
I get the advantages (and disadvantages) of caseless, but what are the advantages of telescoped ammo? Doesn't the overall mass and volume have to be identical - just shorter?
roscoe is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 01:10 AM   #11
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,283
I found some information about telescoped ammunition here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ed-ammunition/

According to this article the telescoped ammunition can be up to 40% lighter than conventional brass cased ammo.
DaleA is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 01:46 AM   #12
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Military ammunition is held to high standards. It must perform far better than brass before there will even be any consideration.

I'm not entirely sure what you are discussing, but do you realize what it took to replace the 1911? It was an amazing, drawn out process, and the only reason it came up was that the stock was down to only a few, and many of them were unrepairable.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 11:12 AM   #13
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
but do you realize what it took to replace the 1911?
Yes, a lot of contrast with what it took to adopt the 1911. Five years from the announcement that the Army was going back to .45. You couldn't specify a government standard toothbrush in five years now.

I think the plastic telescoped cartridge in 6.5mm or thereabouts is a good direction to keep developing.

We have conventional metal cartridge 5.56 and 7.62 ammo and guns that will get us by until there is substantial improvement in several areas. I do not think a different conventional round and rifle would be worth the expense of retooling and reequipping.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 11:46 PM   #14
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
I see them continuing the development of the 264 and 277 USA. Both have shoulder angles of around 17 degree which will work better with polymer cases. I've read where some say the .264 USA was designed from the start as a polymer cased cartridge.
ed308 is offline  
Old August 16, 2017, 09:08 AM   #15
simonrichter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
What I'm actually pointing at is that the widespread implementation of polymer telescoped ammo (let alone caseless) would make our average semiauto or AR15 like a percussion revolver after the advent of the brass cartridge: not completely obsolete, but obviously outdated... Alas, might be that we will not be able to get our hands on the new technology, unlike the 19th century cowboy who could easily update his arsenal. It might be not as bad as maybe a potential leap in the development of rail- or laser weapons, yet still a drawback
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski
. ISSC PAR .223

Last edited by simonrichter; August 16, 2017 at 09:33 AM.
simonrichter is offline  
Old August 16, 2017, 02:11 PM   #16
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
Agree, a DoD move to plastic telescoped will leave the commercial market way behind.
Will anybody bother to tool up to make a new generation of "imitation army surplus?"
Do I care? No.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old August 17, 2017, 08:18 PM   #17
Prof Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Illinois - down state
Posts: 2,394
I wonder if this telescoped ammo will lead to more plastic pollution. Our ocean animals are showing the deadly impact of too much plastic bits and pieces out there. At least with brass there is some motivation to pick it up an recycle it.

Hmmmmm . . .

Life is good.
Prof Young
Prof Young is offline  
Old August 18, 2017, 04:57 PM   #18
BluRidgDav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 314
Quote:
Case-less ammo is almost like a unicorn.
I shoot unicorns all the time with my muzzleloaders and cap & ball revolvers!
__________________
Watch your top-knot.
BluRidgDav is offline  
Old August 18, 2017, 05:34 PM   #19
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
BluRidgDav,
Quit drinking from that still, it is affecting your vision or your mind.

There is a rancher in Oregon that raises Unicorns. They are selected bred goats whose horns grow together to form one twisted horn. Weird looking but then who knows what a Unicorn actually looked like?
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old August 18, 2017, 11:46 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
Quote:
but do you realize what it took to replace the 1911? It was an amazing, drawn out process, and the only reason it came up was that the stock was down to only a few, and many of them were unrepairable.
If you want to get really technical, the 1911 was replaced by the 1911A1 during 1923-26 or so...

The decision to replace our .45acp pistol (1911A1) wasn't a long drawn out process, nor was it made due to the guns being few and "many were unrepairable". Not even close.

The decision was POLITICAL, and it was made in the late 1950s!!

At the time, we were pushing hard for NATO to adopt our new 7.62x51mm round. The Europeans resisted, it was, after a large expense to adopt a new round, and new rifles & machine guns, and what they had worked well enough in WWII.

SO, we made a deal. The deal was, essentially, that if they adopted our new round, now, we would adopt their 9mm as our standard pistol, when we replaced our .45s. The deal was struck, and the 7.62x51mm became the 7.62mm NATO.

The Europeans expected us to replace our .45 with the 9mm within a handful of years. We didn't. We waited almost 30 years before replacing our .45.
We never promised WHEN we would replace our .45s, only that when we did, the new pistol would be 9mm

The Euros were not happy about that. Even more so than one might think, because a few short years after we got them to adopt the 7.62x51mm as the basic rifle round, we abandoned it as our rifle round.

The Kennedy defense dept. switched us over the 5.56mm. The rest of NATO was not happy about that, either.

During 75-78, I inspected hundreds of 1911A1s in Army arms rooms in the US and in Germany. Despite the fact that the last purchase of 1911A1s was in 1945, the stock was not "few" and EVERY SINGLE ONE WAS SERVICABLE.

Some were rather worn, and many did rattle, some looked brand new, and I even saw a couple of actual 1911s still in service. Every single one passed its function checks, and was serviceable.

During my time as a Small Arms Repairman, I had a grand total of 3 (three) 1911A1 pistols come into my shop. One had lost the front sight. The other two had mashed rear sights, because they got dropped on a hard surface.

During the 70s, what I saw was that the two gun designs that needed the least amount of repair (of non user caused damage) were the two surviving Browning designed guns, the 1911A1 and the M2 .50 cal machine gun, "Ma Deuce".

I saw a lot of M2HBs in the shop, nearly every single one was because of user caused damage. Bent, broken sight ears/hood, broken charging handle assy, and a couple times, broken spade grip frames.

The kind of things that you get when you drop a 100lb+ gun while trying to mount or dismount it from a track (M113 apc, mostly) especially when things are wet slick from rain, and often done in the dark.

We didn't replace our .45s because we ran out of them, we retired them. The only drawn out complicated part of the process was the procurement of the replacement, especially the deciding on which 9mm to buy.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 19, 2017, 02:42 AM   #21
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,283
Quote:
The kind of things that you get when you drop a 100lb+ gun while trying to mount or dismount it from a track (M113 apc, mostly) especially when things are wet slick from rain, and often done in the dark.
Yup. And this type of thing with the M2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Px0wErIeJI
DaleA is offline  
Old August 19, 2017, 05:33 AM   #22
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,292
The 1911A1s on my ship in the mid-late 80s rattled like castanets, but they worked perfectly. Same thing with our M2HBs. I did hear they found one M2 that had been in continuous service for over 90 years!
armoredman is offline  
Old August 20, 2017, 12:20 AM   #23
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Thanks for the update, 44, it is somewhat a match with what was put out at the time by commercial press, but I think that I should put my faith in what you say.

I still don't believe that this round I have looked at will have a chance. Where is the benefit? What are the drawbacks?

First concern I have is that we have always tried to have a universal ammo. Mat thing weapons as much as possible. This round that I read about is heavier and larger, and it can't be put into use if weight is a concern. It could be put in place as a specialist system, but that creates the logistics problems.

If this system is corrected to the point that it is perfect for the type of war we are fighting in this future period, it will be considered. One of the reasons that we adopted th ar was that the m1a was a poor match for Asia, it was retained in Korea and other areas. Where it was better suited.

I just don't believe that this type of ammo will ever be made perfect enough. It's a good idea for closely supported missions, but infantry in the open spaces away from support, as our combat style is in some places, that 6.5 is a failure.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 20, 2017, 10:23 AM   #24
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
Where is the benefit? What are the drawbacks?

Benefits: less weight (compared to say .308), greater range and able to penetrate body armor.

Drawbacks: New and untested. I'm sure other drawback will surface eventually. Nothing is perfect.
ed308 is offline  
Old August 20, 2017, 12:05 PM   #25
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
"...what it took to adopt the 1911..." Worn out, elderly(our Inglis BHP's were all made in 1944 and '45. Still going strong until our idiot government destroys 'em all), issued pistols and a whole bunch of politics. The Berretta was adopted to placate other NATO countries complaining about the balance of trade in military kit.
"...made in the late 1950s..." 1949. Ya'll could have had proper Inglis BHP's. snicker.
"...able to penetrate body armor..." Body armour isn't about being bullet proof. It's about stopping splinters. Any vest capable of stopping 7.62NATO or 7.62 x 39 is excessively heavy for the PBI.
"...pushing hard for NATO to adopt our new 7.62x51mm..." No pushing involved. U.S. government said do it or we'll leave NATO. They said the same thing 10 years later with the M-16 and 5.56. Nobody wanted either.
Europeans resisted because all of 'em were busy working on their own cartridge. Most of which being far more suitable to European battle fields. 7mm's mostly.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12391 seconds with 8 queries