Long ago I read that one of the caseless designs, HK G11, maybe, used "a denatured high explosive propellant" instead of conventional NC+NG powder. One source I Googled today calls it "High Ignition Temperature Propellant."
Long ago I read that one of the caseless designs, HK G11, maybe, used "a denatured high explosive propellant" instead of conventional NC+NG powder. One source I Googled today calls it "High Ignition Temperature Propellant."
Code Name: JET STREAM
You don't think this issue could be engineer for? This would not be some handloaded round someone would be mixing up in their basement. Everything that's part of the round (bullets, case, primers, propellant, etc.) would be engineered to deal with the stresses involved. If it ever happened, it would likely be developed by one of the major ammunition manufacturers. You don't think a company like Vista or Hornady could pull this off?
Everyone here is thinking very conventionally.
Last edited by BBMW; 02-07-2024 at 02:56 PM.
Reading through this thread, if I wanted a 12+ shot revolver, I’d get a DAO B92. On that point, revolvers are already (arguably) more complicated than most contemporary autoloaders, so I guess I don’t see the bang/buck ratio with this proposal.
There's the classic Rule of Uncommon Guns- Uncommon Guns are Uncommon for a Reason.
As much as I actually do like unconventional firearms like the Dardik, Lago Alien, Korth Autos, Steyr GB, H&K P9 & 7, et al, there's a good reason those aren't in common usage. Unconventional ammo, odd failure modes, need for expensive machining, and the fact they don't offer that much more than a conventional design.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
I'm thinking Dirty Harry could really use some of this ammo. Did I fire 5 or did I fire 12?
Last edited by Borderland; 02-07-2024 at 05:24 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Not to mention that your fellow P-F members are also engaged in some very practical and pragmatic thinking, too.
It should be clear by now that the complexity and expense of a design that offers no benefit over current technology or solves an actual problem/deficiency is not going to see any interest from manufacturers or investors. Their business model(s) is the creation of wealth through the sale of commodities that the public will find to be useful and desirable to obtain.
If you believe that you have a viable idea, the burden of proof lies upon you now in the form of ''proof of concept''.
If you cannot do so, beyond your mere verbal insistence that "This is a great idea! Quick! Somebody think of a way to make it work!'', this thing dies on the vine as it should.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
You're telling me you see no practical benefit to being able to fire twice as many individual shots without reloading from a gun someone already owns, without making any modifications to the gun? Given that one of the overwhelming directions of the gun business over the last few decades has been coming out with guns with more magazine capacity (of course in autoloaders), especially while reducing the size of the gun. Revolvers have been stuck with their capacity limitation because of the limits of how large a cylinder is practical. This, would change that, and instantly double the shot capacity (can't say mag capacity for a revolver) of ever .357 magnum revolver. And you see no benefit to that?
Of course, it would have to be made to work. This would take a good bit of engineering (mechanical, electrical, and probably chemical.) But given the complexity and the amount of engineering that a large amount of the stuff we use in our normal lives has taken to develop, I don't think that this would even be particularly difficult in comparison. I posted how I think this could work. Do I have the technical skill to do the detailed engineering work to bring it to fruition, no. Are there people who do, I'm sure there are.
Let me ask those who are deriding this idea a question. If this could be made to work reliably, and had a per round cost that was twice the cost of a premium defensive .357 magnum round, would you consider buying this ammo to use for defensive purposes. I'd concede it would not have .357 magnum ballistics (think standard pressure .38 levels of performance.) I'm explicitly trying to separate the "can it work" discussion, from the "if it does work is it worth buying" discussion. Maybe I'm the only one, but I think the concept of taking a gun like the Smith 360PD, and getting ten shots out of it would be pretty revolutionary, and very popular.
Yes. As explained before, the 'juice' simply isn't worth the 'squeeze'.
Lacking technical understanding in the discipline, you've proposed a hypothetical cartridge that lacks a specified design let alone a functional prototype, that will likely be considerably more expensive than conventional ammunition due to its reliance on additional components that will necessarily result in diminished performance due to internal volume constraints that have yet to be determined, and appeals to an admittedly limited market where it can easily be supplanted by any number of proven semi-automatic pistols on a lower cost per unit basis.
You're right. What could possibly prevent its success?
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
What we need is a good source of unicorn farts as propellent to make this work... maybe some mithril as the casing material and Unobtanium for the bullet.
Next, figure out the proper magic runes to ignite the unicorn farts, and we may be on to something! Should give you at least +4 Damage.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI