Collimatrix Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Electrical priming is common in autocannons, although not those used by naval forces. It's basically a spark plug that starts the powder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 It's hard to design electronics that survive the recoil of the gun. Tell that to every sensor-fused shell ever. Electrical priming is common in autocannons, although not those used by naval forces. It's basically a spark plug that starts the powder. I am not entirely ignorant of this. There was an electronically fired hunting rifle with caseless ammo, but it didn't catch on Due to the ammo, or due to problems with the gun? Again, I'm sort of amazed that nobody seems to have put this one together. For one thing, having an electronically unlocked action would instantly solve a bunch of issues with using blowback actions on larger calibres (you could set the unlock delay to release the bolt whenever the pressure has dropped to safe levels). For another, the use of a common power supply would tremendously simplify the addition of sights, lasers, torches, cameras, ballistic computers and what-not. You don't even have to rely on a battery: just make part of the breech out of something magnetic and run the action over a coil for self-recharge. Finally, going for a common electrical system gets you closer to implementing ECT propellants, which are one of the few viable means of increasing velocity that don't involve eroded rails and wrestling with magnetic saturation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Tell that to every sensor-fused shell ever. I am not entirely ignorant of this. Due to the ammo, or due to problems with the gun? Again, I'm sort of amazed that nobody seems to have put this one together. For one thing, having an electronically unlocked action would instantly solve a bunch of issues with using blowback actions on larger calibres (you could set the unlock delay to release the bolt whenever the pressure has dropped to safe levels). For another, the use of a common power supply would tremendously simplify the addition of sights, lasers, torches, cameras, ballistic computers and what-not. You don't even have to rely on a battery: just make part of the breech out of something magnetic and run the action over a coil for self-recharge. Finally, going for a common electrical system gets you closer to implementing ECT propellants, which are one of the few viable means of increasing velocity that don't involve eroded rails and wrestling with magnetic saturation. It's three parts apathy and conservatism, seven parts technological hurdles, Toxn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 I personally suspect that it's closer to 5:5, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's just sort of fascinating to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Tell that to every sensor-fused shell ever. I am not entirely ignorant of this. Due to the ammo, or due to problems with the gun? Again, I'm sort of amazed that nobody seems to have put this one together. For one thing, having an electronically unlocked action would instantly solve a bunch of issues with using blowback actions on larger calibres (you could set the unlock delay to release the bolt whenever the pressure has dropped to safe levels). For another, the use of a common power supply would tremendously simplify the addition of sights, lasers, torches, cameras, ballistic computers and what-not. You don't even have to rely on a battery: just make part of the breech out of something magnetic and run the action over a coil for self-recharge. Finally, going for a common electrical system gets you closer to implementing ECT propellants, which are one of the few viable means of increasing velocity that don't involve eroded rails and wrestling with magnetic saturation. What blows my mind about proximity-fused warheads is that they had the fuckers in the 1940s, and they worked. IIRC, they were first used in artillery shells in the Ardennes. The shell would come down, get radar returns a split second before hitting the ground, and airburst nicely a few meters above dirt. There are supposed to be German records from the period saying "WTF when did Allied artillery get so much more effective?" But the shells themselves had things like vacuum tubes that were sitting in oil baths to equalize the launch accelerations. Not exactly plug and play with existing electronics. There aren't too many tinkerers or small companies these days that can fab their own electronics, so if something existing can't be hacked to do the trick, it might as well be impossible. For something similar to your electronic-unlocked blowback gun, check out the RAVEN. For small-caliber electrically primed stuff, I believe the Voere VEC-91 is still in production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Apparently the VT fuzes were incredible works of engineering - the sort of thing that only comes from really good minds being applied to a difficult task using cutting-edge tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted February 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 If you want to be technical, the VT Fuze was used years prior to it appearing on the western front in AA guns in the Pacific theater, where they had them for calibers as small as 20mm and as large as 5". The reason it took so long for high command to allow their use in land based artillery was due to risk of a dud shell being captured and reverse engineered, this is obviously not a problem if a dud shell falls into thousands of feet of ocean water. They increased the effectiveness of AA fire by around 600% or something retardedly high like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 But the shells themselves had things like vacuum tubes that were sitting in oil baths to equalize the launch accelerations. That is glorious, I love it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.E. Watters Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 If you want to be technical, the VT Fuze was used years prior to it appearing on the western front in AA guns in the Pacific theater, where they had them for calibers as small as 20mm and as large as 5". Actually, it was a struggle to shoehorn a 1940s-vintage VT fuze into a 3" shell, so anything smaller was right out. This is part of the reason why the US Navy wanted to replace 40mm/L60 Bofors with the 3"/L50 as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Apparently the VT fuzes were incredible works of engineering - the sort of thing that only comes from really good minds being applied to a difficult task using cutting-edge tech. Yes. People who masturbate speculate about alternate history scenarios where the Germans develop this or that superweapon forget that the Allies had several superweapons, and actually fielded several of them. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 If you want to be technical, the VT Fuze was used years prior to it appearing on the western front in AA guns in the Pacific theater, where they had them for calibers as small as 20mm and as large as 5". The reason it took so long for high command to allow their use in land based artillery was due to risk of a dud shell being captured and reverse engineered, this is obviously not a problem if a dud shell falls into thousands of feet of ocean water. They increased the effectiveness of AA fire by around 600% or something retardedly high like that. As noted, the lower limit in the WWII period was 3" shells, which they designed the 3"/50 Mark 22 around as a drop-in replacement for the Bofors (and stuck with them when they turned out overweight) and the postwar attempts at an autoloaded 3" with blistering rates of fire that had to be turned down. 40mm and later 20mm are very firmly Cold War developments. For the 5"/38 Mark 12, VT fuzing reduced the number of rounds fired per aircraft downed by roughly half according to navweaps. I've seen numbers saying that's a 5x increase in overall effectiveness, which given limited engagement windows and so on I can kind of believe but I'd want to do math first. Yes. People who masturbate speculate about alternate history scenarios where the Germans develop this or that superweapon forget that the Allies had several superweapons, and actually fielded several of them. Friendly reminder that the US developed AWACS during WWII, complete with a radar that was in active combat use by the British when the Cold War ended and had an operational plan for it. Cold War carrier defense doctrine is so very linked to what they were doing off Okinawa it's funny. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted February 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Hmm, ok yes, after looking at the production dates, it would appear 20mm and 40mm fuzings were more well into post war, so small correction on that. The numbers I have seen for increase in effectiveness comes from analyzing how the amount of shots on average required to shoot down an aircraft went from 2400 early on in the war, to 600-400 when VT fuzes were in widespread adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Oh. I think I see what's up. According to the numbers here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm The numbers for use against Kamikazes are rather significantly different (second data set apparently uses better numbers. 5"/38 firing AA common expended 1000 rounds per shootdown, while 5"/38 firing VT used 200 rounds per shootdown. In non-kamikaze enounters those numbers are 1000 and 550 respectively. I can see the number I was talking about being a discussion earlier in the war when kamikazes weren't much of a thing yet. Wait, what the hell, they were still using the 1.1"? I'm gonna have to do a quick reading to try to figure out what was using that thing. Addendum: No idea which ship was still using the 1.1", I thought it might've been one of the auxiliary ship types up on picket duty getting a quad mount because it's a reasonably light gun, but it was all about the director aimed 40mms up there, with some 20mm to support. Edited February 6, 2015 by xthetenth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted February 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 Since I was fanboying Buffalo bore earlier in the thread, may aswell post this video, I used to own a S&W 327 loaded with these, got around 1,800 fps under ideal conditions, he claims 1,724 which is still more then what buffalo bore themselves claim they'll get out of a 6.5" barrel when the tester is using a 4". And.... That's why I trust Buffalo bore alot, really honest, really hot loaded, and use well known, reputable bullet designs. (Speer Gold Dots for lead loads and Barnes Solid Copper for their lead free lines usually in pistol calibers.) .....It also likely helps show why the .357 got a very good reputation as a defensive and police round from I imagine. Donward 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Since I was fanboying Buffalo bore earlier in the thread, may aswell post this video, I used to own a S&W 327 loaded with these, got around 1,800 fps under ideal conditions, he claims 1,724 which is still more then what buffalo bore themselves claim they'll get out of a 6.5" barrel when the tester is using a 4". And.... That's why I trust Buffalo bore alot, really honest, really hot loaded, and use well known, reputable bullet designs. (Speer Gold Dots for lead loads and Barnes Solid Copper for their lead free lines usually in pistol calibers.) .....It also likely helps show why the .357 got a very good reputation as a defensive and police round from I imagine. Yep. That's why the .357 stayed the standard round of choice for police departments up until the 1980s. Yeah. I get why police departments now use Glocks since they are cheap and hold moar boolitz (in that order of priority). But for the Mark 1 civilian, having a round that can reliably drop anything in the Lower 48 up to a charging black bear, I'm not sure why you really need anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yep. That's why the .357 stayed the standard round of choice for police departments up until the 1980s. Yeah. I get why police departments now use Glocks since they are cheap and hold moar boolitz (in that order of priority). But for the Mark 1 civilian, having a round that can reliably drop anything in the Lower 48 up to a charging black bear, I'm not sure why you really need anything else. The logic is sound; my objection is that in appropriately small pistols, .357 from a revolver is not really more powerful than 9mm +P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Indeed. But there are raisins for .357 in small frame revolvers including the ability to use .38 Special and the fact that they're non-tactical rounds that get overlooked in ammo scares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 In most people's lives, the cost of putting rounds through something is a lot more relevant than the terminal ballistics, so that's a pretty good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 FWIW, in Maryland during the Great 2013 Ammo Scare, .357 was nowhere to be found.That could just have been a local phenomenon, though; perhaps more 1892 clones because MD is sort of a ban state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Interesting. In Washington, the ONLY pistol rounds that could reliably be found were .38 Special and .357 (and some oddball .32 ACP, and whatnot). In Alaska when I looked there was no .357 to be had but plenty of .38 in the ammo scare time span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 The logic is sound; my objection is that in appropriately small pistols, .357 from a revolver is not really more powerful than 9mm +P. Yeah, .357 is kind of a waste in a small frame though if you ask me. From what I understand, 6-7 inches is generally the optimal barrel length for most .357 loads depending on projectile and and powder type. as that test tends to show. (A sealed gap revolver design would be really useful.) I think the point I was trying to make was, there's alot of rounds like the .357 that don't get loaded to their full potential by the vast majority of ammo manufacturers (among others, such as the .357 SIG and 10mm Auto), and aside from really, only Buffalo Bore and Double Tap (maybe Cor-Bon, but Cor-Bon's marketing department usually makes their claims reek of bullshit to me), no one really makes hot loads for rounds that are somewhat out of favor yet still very viable for their intended function (or, not obsolete.) So yeah, it may cost a bit to do so, but a 125 gr .357 hollow point hitting you at 1,700-1,800 fps is seriously going to fuck up your day, while still being within a reasonable recoil and gun size/length for most shooters. (I consider .357 to be about the edge for a weapon viable for a defensive weapon being just below simply something intended for more thick skinned mammals.) And no, this isn't some "9mm euro set to stun pellet XAXAXA" post, 9x19mm is perfectly viable as a defensive round, just that other rounds work too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I always assumed ammo makers under-loaded cartridges because of the lowest common denominator in weapons craftsmanship combined with a litigious society. I always considered the 41 Magnum to be the upper limit in realistic self-defense handgun ammo. Or .44 Magnum, assuming you're using a light special load... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Dragunov's MA compact automatic carabine. AN-94 - what happens inside when you insert a mag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 For only 300 rubles, you can buy an interactive animation of how the AN-94 works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 "Comrade, i am too lazy to reload my PKM. No problem, comrade! Here is 250 round box for you!" Rebels with moded GP-25. http://youtu.be/-3SAh1_VPS4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.