/k/ - Weapons

>>576280

Nor any of the ammunition for sale*

What I implied in the other thread seems the starting point, for me.

"They" are talking 100,000 PSI, great. But if the concept is sound, we should be able to build a plinking round from a 3" shotshell, reload it with a .224 bullet, some nitrocellulose paper, the propellant … and … something else?

I have no doubt the military has working examples, but if only a contractor can produce working ammo and only under threat of losing contract, it's not very likely to make it to the mass market.

How long did it take to transition from paper blackpowder satchets to brass cased blackpowder pistol rounds? Brass to hold bullet against propellent seems perfectly natural; housing the bullet floating somewhere in the middle of the brass makes a lot less sense. I think, until the average handloader can wrap his head around how to make the rounds in their garage, this won't go anywhere.

>>576280

i think their design is based on the speculative assumption that high end medical grade plastic is going to suddenly drop in price. i also think that they will not only fail to weight save in the long run, but actually tire troops more since the US is unwilling to adopt a CT capable service rifle under 9lbs due to fear of bullpups and beltfeed only.

>>576285

I see what you are saying, and it's definitely still in it's earlier stages of life. Lots of bugs to be worked out, but the principle seems sound. More (and more volatile) propellant, in a system that can """safely""" create huge pressures, that weighs far less than brass style cartridges, yet remaining shorter and slightly thicker is too good to pass up on. I hope they put lots of r+d into this style. Almost all new ideas start out rediculously finicky and hard, and become more simple and straightforward with time. Remember brass cartridge style rounds and repeater rifles were around for a long time before they became the standard. They started out as fringe outliers for the edgy and the elite. Primer technology and manufacturing specs had to catch up to the design before it could be mass implemented. My hope is that they make cased telescoped cartridges more straightforward and simple, so we can mass produce and understand the principle with ease. Also, most people find it very hard to make brass casings from scratch, so people in their garages could buy the telescoped casings, primers, propellant and projectile just like they do now with metal cased amunition. You can't just take a hollowed out dowel and make a cartridge from it, lots of specific tooling and machinery are required. That tooling and machinery I hope will start to be produced massively, making the CT just as easy to make and understand as a metal cased round.

>>576298

>The rifle—and 20 rounds of ammunition—weighs a total of 9.7 pounds

Rifle with loaded mag weighs .7 more than your goal. That's a pretty lightweight weapons system. Also I think ballistic plastic will drop in price as more companies will be buying mass quantities of it. We aren't running out of oil anytime soon, so large, massive investments into ballistic plastic manufacturing will drive costs to the floor.

>>576306

>That's a pretty lightweight weapons system

The M4 weights 6.5 pounds empty and about 7.5 fully loaded.

>>576298

As the IMO 2020 regulations for low sulphur fuel oils are looming, I think there will be a lowering of prices across the board for polymer feedstocks, as the demand for heavy fuel oils will take a huge hit, and relatively soon.

>>576316

>no one uses 130 grain

MK319 MOD 0

apparently does good in short barrels. 13 inch SCARs.

>inb4 that autist comes on and starts calling it caseless ammo and shitting on it

>>576316

>again, 130 grains is nowhere near the normal for 30 cal

>No one fucking uses 130 grain 30 cal, you stupid piece of shit.

M43 is 123gr

>>576308

The M4 is a carbine.

You're comparing it to a LMG.

>>576280

How much do they cost per round? Would it be easy/practical to reload? Can those plastic cases be reloaded?

Genuine curiosity here

>>576366

The cost per round hasn't really been figured out yet. It's still in development, but as with any new cartridge, especially since it's a new STYLE of cartridge, the cost will start very high, and eventually come down. It should be very comparable to brass cased ammo.

>>576308

2lbs can be saved with the ammo easily. Also the gun is still in early development and is expected to get lighter over time. The m16 did not start as a nice lightweight weapon. My AK is a little over ten pounds fully loaded, so I'd be willing to take the trade off for more power and less weight

>>576316

First off you're a faggot. Second off I cropped these out of a PDF I downloaded, don't know if theyre on Google images or not. Third off, you are a fucking retarded manlet if you think 130 grain 7.62 projectiles aren't common. Have you ever heard of 7.62x39???? Or do you think all 30 cal bullets are for 7.62x51? And yes there are common 7.62 NATO that weigh less. Fifth off I am saying that this will help get the best of both worlds. The 6mm range projectiles actually do very well and those are the ones I'm talking about.

>>576316

>>576388

>infomeme

Get out.

>>576280

They should just try to duplicate the 6mm unified the Russians came up with. Cut down from ~125 grains to ~75, reduce caliber to either .243 or .257 and you're set. .257 would actually be a decent choice, lighter 75-80 grain bullets could be made with decent bc's yet heavier 115-120 grain bullets could be utilized for longer ranges The biggest problem would be barrel wear, at these pressures and velocities I would expect barrel life to be around 5000 rounds with a standard bullet.

>>576388

>HURR DUHHRRR THE ONLY 30 CAL ROUND EVER POSSIBLE IS GENERAL USE .308… I MEAN 7.62 NATO… ERRRR UHHHH IT HURTS TO LIVE… DURRR A SPECIFIC CALIBER OF PROJECTILE CAN OONLY FIT OONNEE CARYRIDGE REEEEEE

Jesus man. Nobody would judge you if you ended your suffering. We can all see you're in pain. It's okay

Also again, for the second time for your retarded ass, I'm talking about 6.5 or 6.7mm ammo. The mid ground of your "DMR" and standard carbine. (What is now considered a DMR was considered a carbine not too long ago). I know it's hard, but please control your autism.

>>576362

Yes and no. The CTSAS program has both a carbine and an LMG in production, and the carbine version last I heard weighs ~9 lbs. Granted, they've explicitly stated that's the "unoptimized" version and they foresee it getting much lower in the future, but until we have hard data indicating what "much lower" actually entails, 9 lbs is the metric we have to use. I'm sure you could bring it down to M4 levels of weight, but I'm not going to assume that's the case until it actually happens.

>>576406

Holy shit you're actually retarded. Let me break what everyone else is capable of seeing down for you.

The CT round is not a 7.63x51, obvious because it's a cased telescoped cartridge, not a brass cased cartridge, therefore it can use any weight of projectile it fucking wants you stupid fuck as long as the diameter is 7.62 (NEWSLFLASH: you can do this with 7.62x51 cartridges too. It's crazy). The only time 7.62x51 is compared is for weight (34% less) and volume (18% less) NOWHERE does it compare power or anything else you fucking brainlet.

>>576316

>Cased telescopic

>Caseless

Neck yourself, faggot.

>>576407

>9 lbs is the metric

No, that would be 4.08233kg.

>>576420

Lol you don't even know what we are talking about

>Caseless

You are a hopeless dumbshit. The only comparison made, again is weight and volume. They compare the 6.5mm vs 7.62x51 for weight and volume because it's goal is to replace it you mongoloid. Barrel technology will have to be improved and quick change carbines used sure maybe but for a country that spends enough money to buy a couple countries on a meme general purpose fighter it doesn't seem like a big deal. Suppression never silences a round you fuckwit, I'm not even going to try to explain that suppressors aren't used to be 007 status, recoil is actually better than 7.62x51. Seriously fucking think for a minute.

Regular shaped polymer cased ammo would be much easier to phase in while retaining current weapons systems and performance. Both are going to require some variety of polymer super-science which seems to be what's holding these back anyways.

>>576512

Well, one of the differences is chamber design. CTSAS memeguns have a chamber that's built around the shortcomings of polymer cases and mitigates a lot of the problems that conventional polycase ammo would have, like heat dissipation.

>>576423

>barrel technology will be improved because I say so

>Suppression isn't silencing so there

>recoil is actually better because I say so

stupid piece of shit

>hue hue hue AGAIN IS WEIGHT AND VOLUME

weight translates to ballistic coefficiency, you stupid piece of shit, that's why the 130 grain is a poor performer at long ranges, and is why your bogus dipshit infomeme selected it.

6mm is a faggot round

>>576530

>Barrel technology and overall gun materials have stayed the same since 1700's muskets

>130g is such a poor performer that's why they're showing results against it

>5 grains less is god tier against it, ballistic coefficient means nothing unless the bullet has a lot more weight

>Wait. 5 grains less weight performed better. Due to a balance of aerodynamics and weight. Nevermind you're Stoopid only more weight makes booolet better, pay no mind to the lack of fps due to smaller propellant to mass ratio

>Literally quoting "silencing that won't be impossible" poking fun of your "opponents" never used argument >making fun of the fact that it can't be "silenced"

>Guns can be silenced especially supersonic 7.62x51

>Makes fun of other Anon for saying you can't silence weopon

>Ignores the fact he didn't even know what kind of cartridge he's been arguing about for the last 5 shit posts

>Ignores the fact that he didn't even know what kind of cartridge he's been shitposting about

>"Caseless"

>A balance of speed, aerodynamics and weight to create the most amount of downrange energy possible in a lightweight cartridge is for the gays

I must admit. I bought your b8 hook line and sinker. Good trolling. Nobody can be as retarded as you and still function. Should have caught it earlier.

>>576512

It tends to explode when used in a conventional configuration.

>>576881

Uhhh honey?? Don't you know soy has been debunked to not have estrogens? Because your toxic brain s just too dumb to not realize that soy contains phytoestrogens not fucking estrogens.

I mean grow up you guys, you know you're wrong when its been debunked, stop using that insult, fucking white supremacists.

>>576890

>Getting this assmad over a fucking plant

I'm surprised they have internet connection in your shithole.

>>576941

>dont feed your babies castor beans? what are you a fag it's just a plant

>>576950

>Implying there's anything wrong with soy beans so long as you ferment them

Educate yourself, moron.

>>576371

The problem with the carbine (not the LMG) is that you may be saving weight on the body, but your adding weight to the arms. Unless the real aim of the project is to reduce fuel costs for ammo shipping, then your net increasing the energy a soldier must burn to carry his combat loadout. the more muscles a load must travel through to connect to the ground, the more energy expensive supporting that weight will be. i would argue you'd need to save more than double the weight held on your body for it to be worth adding weight to the shoulder/arm support region. in short, i think more weight could be saved at a lower cost by simply applying the CT programs propellant research to a shorter metallic cartridge that can use traditional feeding systems.

>>576952

>have to treat the plant to make it not shrivel your testicles

>most products on the market are untreated

>have to trust producers whether or not its safe

Why would you even risk it?

What massive fucking benefit does soy provide that you can't just switch to an alternative plant that isn't full of female hormones?

>>577068

>>576941

>no proofs

>hurr durrr soyboys

Educate yourself you stupid cumskins, i just posted the definite proof of why soy does not reduce testosterone right there.

Goddamn, why does right-wingers always ignore the facts and just straight-out bullshit ?