100% non-metallic round: Does it exist, could it exist?

[TXAZ]

For cartridge based weapons, has anyone ever built and fired / sold a cartridge that had no metal components at all, including the primer?
We've seen non-metallic bullets, paper shells for shotguns (haven't seen any rifle / handgun paper shells), what else?

It doesn't seem practical but just curious.

[dakota.potts]

A friend of mine proposed a plastic cartridge firing a powdered ceramic round ball. I suppose you could even skip the case altogether in favor of an electrically primed self-consuming nitrocellulose case like the G11. Using a ceramic or maybe acrylic/glass bullet might work but I'd assume it couldn't be rifled because the materials are not malleable like metal. In that case, a smoothbore barrel and a finned discarding sabot might be the next logical step.

I don't think any such thing exists yet though.

[burrhead]

The Dardick tround used a plastic case with a conventional bullet and a metal primer holder/assembly. I suppose one could do something similar with a ceramic bullet and plastic primer holder but I'm don't know if a non-metallic primer could be developed. Maybe use a soft plastic cup and hard plastic anvil. Donno, maybe so.The real question is why.

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...er-and-tround/

[Ben Dover]

Can it be done??? Sure!

Has it been done?? What level is your security clearance?

[stephen426]

I think it would be very easy... Think back in the day of muskets with black powder. The biggest challenge would be the projectile since you want a dense object for better penetration and resistance to deformation. The projectile must also be durable enough to withstand being launch out of the weapon. This includes the explosion (if using a combustible propellant such as black powder) and the trip out the barrel (including rifling to stabilize the projectile). The projectile would also have to be consistent enough that it would not wobble with rifling (or even blow apart in the even the projectile is way off balance).

I think you will see energy weapons before you see totally non-metallic projectiles.

[Scorch]

The Swedish army in the 1930s used practice ammo with wood bullets. Hollywood stuntmen in the 1950s and 1960s used wax bullets containing red paint. In the early 2000s, companies were experimenting with non-lead 22LR ammunition containing a malleable plastic bullet. In the 1980s, there were plastic cases firing traditional bullets. So, since all of these are existing technology, seems to me if you were to combine all the concepts into one, you could come up with a totally metal-free round of ammo. Primers might be difficult, but not impossible. Just depends on how much money you have available to throw at the problem. You do have money, right?

And then the government will want to outlaw what they would see as undetectable ammo, same as with the mythical "plastic gun".

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

... What level is your security clearance?

If I told you...
(But then you’re not cleared for that)

[4V50 Gary]

What about the careless ammo for the HK G-11?

[44 AMP]

In the 1970s there was West German training ammo for the 7,62mm NATO that used a plastic case and bullet. It did have a brass case head and regular primer, but that was done only so it would function through existing rifles.

THe plastic bullet was molded as part of the case, and tore off when fired. About the same size as the regular .30 bullet, but only weighing about 17gr, and moving at several thousand FPS (4K+ maybe 5K+ I no longer recall exactly).

The bullet was lethally dangerous for about 15 feet or so. Due to its extremely light density it shed velocity very fast, and at greater ranges (50m or so) would not wound, just sting. And it didn't go much past 100m, or so I was told.

I imagine the 40+ years of plastic tech development since then would allow an all plastic round other than the powder and priming compound, but I can see no reason why one would do it.

[Don P]

I remember seeing on NRA TV that there was caseless ammo. I believe it was in 22 caliber.

[kozak6]

There's been a couple caseless .22 rounds over the years.

The Daisy V/L was a real interesting one. Their gun was basically a spring piston airgun, except the projectiles had a small cylinder of propellant on the back. Apparently, the spring piston mechanism generated enough hot air to ignite the propellant.

Reportedly, Voere's caseless round used an electrically ignited ceramic primer.

[Mike Irwin]

Caseless ammo is a concept that's been around for a LONG time.

In some ways the Dreyse and Chassepot needle rifles were the first to use fully contained "caseless" ammo. While the powder, primer, and bullet were contained in a paper case it was burned up or otherwise expelled during firing, leaving the chamber clear for another round.

Prior to that Sharps rifles used a bullet and powder wrapped in either nitrated paper or linen that was externally primed with a percussion cap. Again, these "cases" burned up on firing.

At the same time Colt marketed revolver ammunition with the powder adhered to the bullet with a colloid coating, which fractured and exposed the powder on firing.

Obviously, none of those were 100% non-metallic.

As others have mentioned, a ceramic or polymer projectile would be possible with electric ignition. It would all be in the design of the firearm to ensure that there was a positive seal during ignition to prevent powder leakage.

There are, however, quite a few problems with the concept of a caseless round...

First is that the case is actually a very efficient heat sink that goes a long way toward keeping the firearm from overheating. This is one of the major reasons why the cyclical rate on the G11 prototype was kept to about 450 rounds per minute. Anything faster than that and it would overheat far too quickly.

Second is (and this is what really sank the German G11 project) is that each batch of propellant has different ballistic characteristics. If your propellant is your case, and the current batch either needs more or less propellant in the charge, it changes the dimensions of the package, and you've now got a round that is either too large or too small for the chamber.

[zxcvbob]

In the 1970s there was West German training ammo for the 7,62mm NATO that used a plastic case and bullet. It did have a brass case head and regular primer, but that was done only so it would function through existing rifles.

THe plastic bullet was molded as part of the case, and tore off when fired. About the same size as the regular .30 bullet, but only weighing about 17gr, and moving at several thousand FPS (4K+ maybe 5K+ I no longer recall exactly).

The bullet was lethally dangerous for about 15 feet or so. Due to its extremely light density it shed velocity very fast, and at greater ranges (50m or so) would not wound, just sting. And it didn't go much past 100m, or so I was told.

I imagine the 40+ years of plastic tech development since then would allow an all plastic round other than the powder and priming compound, but I can see no reason why one would do it.

I have a few boxes of 9mm training ammo just like that. Sako brand? Or something similar.

[briandg]

A primer pellet could be molded into a self destructing plastic case head that was part of a propellent charge in the self destructing case.

Where are the problems?

building a firearm that can sustain all of the fire and gasses without a brass case to contain them.

making a bullet out of plastic that is dense enough to fire and cause serious injuries to a human being. (not possible in ordinary hand carried weapons. You have to load big, heavy, dense projectiles weighing an ounce or so. This bullet will shed energy like a spitball unless it is huge, heavy, and dense.)

Putting together a round that is only propellant will leave it vulnerable to heat or ignition sources, a round could conceivably cook off and blow an entire armory because there wasn't a metallic or solid, heat and flame resisting casing. a plastic casing can be safe, but that's really a big question.

You could take any of the all plastic shotgun rounds, devise a contained plastic primer, load it with solid, heavy rubber, and try to make it work, but you would be releasing hell into an unsealed or poorly sealed action. I suppose, however ,that you want it to be self destructing.

My firm belief is that unless absolutely magical improvements are made in a dozen or so fields, this will never happen on a practical basis for a practical, repeating, high powered, hunting or combat weapon.

Again, to sum it up.
containment of high pressure from round.
Insignificant injury potential without huge rounds.
safety and sturdiness of the finished rounds.
a weapon design that can handle all of the things that we do to our ordinary weapons, and still be able to fire reliably.
some others that are just too detailed.

We are not going to have $1,000 rifles that can shoot caseless or even plastic cased ammo. Metallic cases are here to stay. Metallic bullets are here to stay. Caseless ammo is a dead end. It is feasible for artillery, but even a cursory examination of the details will show why you can't duplicate that success in a hand weapon.

[44 AMP]

You could take any of the all plastic shotgun rounds, devise a contained plastic primer, load it with solid, heavy rubber, and try to make it work, but you would be releasing hell into an unsealed or poorly sealed action. I suppose, however ,that you want it to be self destructing.

My firm belief is that unless absolutely magical improvements are made in a dozen or so fields, this will never happen on a practical basis for a practical, repeating, high powered, hunting or combat weapon.

You're probably right, but we're mixing together several separate and different questions here. Let's break them down a bit...

1) Is an all plastic cartridge possible? (no metal)
yes.

2) can it be made to work in currently existing firearms?
yes.

3) can it duplicate the performance of regular ammunition in all aspects?
no.

4)can it have a combustible case? ("caseless")
yes.

There is not now, and not likely to be in the near future, anything that can do ALL those things. There exists now items that can do one, or two of those things, but not all of them.

You can make a totally non metal shotgun round. Winchester did the all plastic shotgun hull quite a few years ago. A non-metallic primer is possible (ceramic could be used for the anvil). It would work through existing shotguns just fine. So it does #1 and #2 just fine. The problem comes with #3.

Nothing else is as dense as metal. Without the density of metal, your projectile cannot retain velocity (and therefore energy) that metal does over distance. without that ability, it cannot match standard ammunition's effectiveness over distance, and cannot be a suitable replacement for a high powered hunting or combat weapon.

As to #4, we have experimented with caseless ammo already, and while it has been able to work well enough under certain conditions, (and using metal bullets) it has not yet been made well enough to work successfully under all the conditions that standard ammunition does.

We can make an all plastic (non metal) round relatively easily, say in 12gauge. We almost do it already. Police riot control rounds, with rubber bullets. Lethal at point blank, less so the further out you go.

Can we make a non-metal round that matches say, the .30-06??
No. Not at present, and not in the foreseeable future. A non-metal case, perhaps, but without a metal bullet you can't match what standard bullets do.

[briandg]

The metallic ammo works well, right? I don't really know how we can improve it and get significantly better performance on a personal ownership level we have reached a plateau, a point of diminishing returns. this is definitely the situation for rifles, I believe, and because of limitations of all sorts, I don't see a possibility that handguns can be significantly improved at all. The top power 9mm cannot be given better performance in that case, maybe 100 fps? With handguns, we also have the limitations built in of how good the gun is and how practical it is.

These questions always have to also consider feasibility and potential usefulness. We spent decades creating systems for engines, and we have still got decades of improvement possible in gas operated engines, but we aren't going to make a .380 sized handgun that is lightweight, fires a .357, durable, and useable.

[stephen426]

I really don't think the brass case does much to contain the pressure at all. That is why some people make such a big deal about fully supported chambers.

I also think the caseless ammo could have a big problem with fouling the chamber. It is hard to expect complete combustion, and even then, there will be residue. If enough residue builds up, the next round won't fit.

[briandg]

I really don't think the brass case does much to contain the pressure at all. That is why some people make such a big deal about fully supported chambers.

If it doesn't support the pressure, then how can we possibly have been using the chambers that haven't been fully supported?

When a round is fired, the brass case expands and it retains all of the expanding gasses inside the brass case that is supported by a wall of steel all around. Unless you far exceed the suggested pressure levels.

If a brass rifle round fails and releases pressure it will quite often be because the primer pocket failed, because the pressure was so high that it could even expand the heavy brass case head, and as the case head expanded, the gas leaked through the opening.

I've had a lot of pistol brass split and the gun was not harmed. Where was that gas going to go?

That heavy steel barrel, even on tiny, cardboard thin cylinder walls, there is still more than enough to support the pressure of a normal round.


The steel couldn't care less about what the brass does, the only reason the brass is there is to hold the gases in place. The pressure required to blow the half inch thick chamber made of modern steel is far beyond what we expect brass to hold. We only care about the brass because it completely seals breech to barrel, and it is a whole lot simpler than stuffing loose powder and bullet into a firearm. It is convenient to use and it serves the purpose of a proper seal.

So, as was pointed out, why would we care if the brass was used, rather than a solid propellant with no metal? The only reason we would want to do away with brass would be for the weight, the expense, or the cost of the cases. The costs of production would be far lower than with brass if you could just squirt a plastic rod out and put a bullet into it, but that hasn't proven even remotely feasible.

Let's talk about the military. They have no reason to go with caseless, especially if there is even a slight chance that reliability would be compromised. Until you are dealing with hands on transport, such as a soldier in the field, weight is irrelevant. Until that is developed fully into a system that will function as well as or better than the current system, the army won't touch it. then, consider what it takes for the military to change this system. Years of gobble gobble, years of testing, enormous costs.

Civilian use? forget about that. Only the most dedicated of people will buy a completely new rifle just so he can use completely new ammo UNLESS there is an ENORMOUS benefit to it. Police use would be even harder than military procurement.

If the current production and purchasing system thought that it would work, there would be huge efforts in place to create this new system.

[stephen426]

If it doesn't support the pressure, then how can we possibly have been using the chambers that haven't been fully supported?

Brian,

I am not saying that it doesn't support any pressure, but without the chamber to reinforce it, they can blow apart. That is why cooked off rounds typically don't cause that much damage. With every action having an equal and opposite reaction, the case flies back more than the round since the round is heavier. I've messed with detonating rimfire rounds outside of firearms (when i was younger and crazier LOL).

[Sharkbite]

Let's talk about the military. They have no reason to go with caseless, especially if there is even a slight chance that reliability would be compromised

The reason the Military is interested in caseless is INCREASED reliability. No extraction..no ejection failures with caseless. The HK G11 was an attempt at it. The tech has not caught up to the desire, YET.

[briandg]

The reason the Military is interested in caseless is INCREASED reliability. No extraction..no ejection failures with caseless. The HK G11 was an attempt at it. The tech has not caught up to the desire, YET.

This assumes increased reliability, and with absolutely no solid concept yet for a magazine fed caseless round or rifle, they have absolutely no reason to bother yet. They are obviously involved in the development and hoping dearly that they can create something to replace that ungainly and archaic casing, but you can bet that there aren't any significant discoveries yet. Once they actually have a shootable design, then, they have the ungodly period of refinement to the point that they would field it.

this sort of bounces back to the rem etronx again. There are only a few electrically fired weapons in the entire arsenal. For one, the vulcan cannon, and that is electronically fired because it is running at a speed that can't deal with firing pins. With them being shipboard, there's little risk of the things going out of service for long periods.

The military would love to have electronically fired ammo, I think, but like caseless, having electronic fire control is too strange and different.

[Mike Irwin]

"This assumes increased reliability, and with absolutely no solid concept yet for a magazine fed caseless round or rifle, they have absolutely no reason to bother yet. They are obviously involved in the development and hoping dearly that they can create something to replace that ungainly and archaic casing, but you can bet that there aren't any significant discoveries yet. Once they actually have a shootable design, then, they have the ungodly period of refinement to the point that they would field it."

So, what you're saying is that this is like just about any other weapon development cycle. But what you also appear to be saying is... don't bother trying, because it's far too hard, and doing something that's hard is, well, hard?

The G11 actually worked, and worked well, as a conceptual design. It was very reliable mechanically, but again, the biggest problem was the varying nature of the propellant.


"The military would love to have electronically fired ammo, I think, but like caseless, having electronic fire control is too strange and different."

Electrically fired weapons have been around and in service in various nations since at least the 1920s.

The German MG131 used electrically (early electronic control system, actually) in World War II.

[briandg]

So, what you're saying is that this is like just about any other weapon development cycle. But what you also appear to be saying is... don't bother trying, because it's far too hard, and doing something that's hard is, well, hard?

No, it's not what I said.

until someone comes up with a viable idea, a concept even, for a rifle designed to carry in afghanistan, vietnam, venezuala, greenland, etc, there is absolutely no point in trying to design ammo for it, is there?

Until we can figure out a method of sealing that breech without a brass envelope and have it work at least as well as brass, no commercial unit will waste a penny on it. The government may throw money at it, but you have a certain number of immovable obstacles.

An important question remains. can we make a rifle to use caseless? will our caseless ammo and rifle match the capabilities of the AR platform? Until we have designed and tested it and proven it's worth, it's a pipe dream, just like energy based weapons. I truly believe that the systems we have in place all the way from the .22 lr to the battleship missouri which have been in existence for over a century are as good as we will get until god knows when. Have we ever gotten the shipboard rail gun on line and completely functional?

Electrically fired weapons have been around and in service in various nations since at least the 1920s.

The German MG131 used electrically (early electronic control system, actually) in World War II.

Both the vulcan and the 131 used the systems to both increase rate of fire and reliablilty. Again, over a half century after the first useful electronic design was put in the field we find ourselves with nothing in particular remaining. No civilian, no military except for extremely limited purposes.

I am simply being realistic. It's easy to get government or private funding to research third and fourth hand smoke. expectations will be low. not so with weapons systems.

[Mike Irwin]

"No, it's not what I said."

OK, you didn't say it directly. The inference, however, was strong and clear.

"until someone comes up with a viable idea, a concept even, for a rifle designed to carry in afghanistan, vietnam, venezuala, greenland, etc, there is absolutely no point in trying to design ammo for it, is there?"

So, what you're saying is that someone should invent something that will work perfectly with some other thing that hasn't even been invented yet.

Yeah. R&D... It doesn't work like that.

"Until we can figure out a method of sealing that breech without a brass envelope and have it work at least as well as brass"

You do realize that Voere figured that out?

You do realize that Chassepot and Dreyse figured that out over 100 years ago?

Was it absolutely stone cold perfect, reliable until the end of time? Nothing is. Not even brass.

Now, while you're griping about any attempts at progress, there are some people on your lawn. Better tell them to get offait!

[44 AMP]

The MG131 wasn't a particularly fast firing gun. The 88mm shell fired by the Tiger tank was electrically primed. The 88mm shell fired by the FLAK gun wasn't.

Other examples exist.

However, we are getting a bit afield as caseless rounds, firing conventional bullets are not the 100# non-metallic round the OP is asking about.

As previously mentioned, what does one use for a bullet that isn't metallic, but can come at least somewhat close to metallic bullet performance?? And, at what range?

The most useful material that I can think of right now that isn't metallic would be stone. the first cannons shot stone balls. But for small arms, possibly useful but no where near the utility of lead, copper, or steel.

Solid stone (in a sabot) would survive firing, but won't perform like metal when it impacts. Likely shattering on anything hard, and certainly not up to expanding while staying together. Perhaps stone powder in a polymer matrix?? Anything else out there that approaches the density and malleability of metal for bullets??

Wood could work, but again only at very close range, and to stop the vampires, you have to hit them in the heart...

High density plastic could work, but again, despite uber high velocity possible, the very light projectile sheds it very, very rapidly. NO military, police, or even sporting interest in bullets that have a lethal range of only a double handful of feet, let along yards.

There is, however, a tactical niche I can see them fitting in. Self defense. Inside the house/very short range / belly to belly distance. This might even be a "better mousetrap" in certain situations. Barrier penetration would be about zilch, so all that worrying about shooting through walls and hitting others is very low. Penetration of unarmored human? Some testing needs to be done. Perhaps one might find something that reliably goes half way through (reaches vital organs) but does not normally exit??

Big plus if you can make it to work in existing guns, too. No idea if a plastic bullet (even at 2-3000fps from a pistol) would have the recoil impulse needed to operate the standard tilt barrel recoil operated design. Again, testing is needed.

Caseless ammo, using "regular" bullets has been tried, and has had limited success but not enough, so far for serious military consideration.

The basic problems are
forming the powder into a solid that will survive the rigors of handling, shipment, and the feeding cycle of the gun, AND ignite reliably, AND burn cleanly enough that residue doesn't build up in the chamber preventing chambering further rounds.

The biggest stumbling block not mentioned is HEAT. Extracting and ejecting the brass (or steel) case removes a lot of heat from the chamber. Also the heat resistance of the case though slight, does delay cook off of chambered rounds a bit. This is another side of the coin with caseless ammo, and modern combat firepower requirements.

And, bear in mind, that any firearm design for caseless rounds still needs some kind of system for extracting an unfired round from the chamber, and ejecting it from the gun, so the gun can be unloaded. AND something better (if possible) than a rod down the barrel for clearing stoppages, which ARE going to happen.

Lots of things to consider, and to date, we haven't come up with anything that can do all of what we want done, better, or even as well as the brass cartridge case we currently use.