True Velocity

[NFrameFred]

Interesting article in the latest American Rifleman on the new True Velocity ammo being produced with synthetic/polymer casings.

Unka Sammy being the target market, the article makes the case for a leap forward in ballistic tech that has not been seen except in tiny increments here-to-fore.

Mostly because of the ability over extrusion technology to customize the interior shape and dimensions of the cartridges it opens the door for some interesting possibilities and already demonstrates increased accuracy, lower weight, more efficiency, more velocity, less muzzle flash from wasted powder burning after the bullet leaves the barrel . . . . you get the idea. Standard deviations in one digit ranges . . . heady stuff.

Hundreds of new patents being granted it truly sounds like (finally) something new under the sun.

The downside ? Designed with the military in mind it does away with the idea of re-loadable casings ( for the time being?)

I find the engineering fascinating and the use of new materials interesting for the applications that has been locked into brass for over 100 years for cartridge technology. While there have been experimental projects that seemed like they may have held some promise (remember caseless ammo?) this actually sounds like something that will take off.


Commercial versions coming on line now, it's not gonna be cheap according to the article.


Makes me wonder what new materials we can look for to solve the electric vehicle problems and yet unseen improvements in battery technology that will make these endeavors more realistic.

 

[Rodan]

Makes me wonder what new materials we can look for to solve the electric vehicle problems and yet unseen improvements in battery technology that will make these endeavors more realistic.

Transportation technology is too encumbered by politics and giant corporations at this point to make true innovation and invention likely.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I have been around for this game before, and I have a few boxes of ammo on the shelf to prove it. The pressures involved in regular rifle rounds have been the downfall in the past. With the new military round above 65,000psi. it is unlikely this will survive long enough to get a field test in the military.

The 223 cases I have on the shelf were plastic the front 2/3's of the case and metal for the base & web. About 20% failed in under velocity, under pressure factory loads. The rim area alone wouldn't eject from semi-auto rifles, it just interfered with the next round feeding.

I believe the weight of the case is necessary for proper function also. although that would be a simple engineering fix.

Caseless ammo was once the "Wave of the Future" also. That was about 30 years ago and we see where that has gotten us.

Ivan

 

[mikld]

I would think the major downfall of cartridge case "improvement" is that brass/brass alloys are perfect for cartridge cases. Very difficult to improve on perfection...

 

[DWalt]

Unca Sammy went thumbs down on it not long ago for the NGSW. That wasn't mentioned in the article. Prices on it are obscene, and very few shooters have any need for it. I predict an early grave unless there are a lot more fools than I think.

 

[Gunhohulk]

Saw a box of 20 at Cabelas for 69.99. Hard pass.

 

[Nemo288]

Unca Sammy went thumbs down on it not long ago for the NGSW.

Interestingly, the ammo they did select is a:
"hybrid three-piece cartridge case that has a steel case head and brass body connected
by an aluminum locking washer to support the high chamber pressure of 80,000 psi".
Standard pressure ammo in normal brass is also available.

.277 Fury - Wikipedia

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Interestingly, the ammo they did select is a:
"hybrid three-piece cartridge case that has a steel case head and brass body connected
by an aluminum locking washer to support the high chamber pressure of 80,000 psi".
Standard pressure ammo in normal brass is also available.

.277 Fury - Wikipedia

Seems it would be MORE expensive to mfg. a 3 piece case than just extrude a brass one........So what have they accomplished.......Nothing.....Any steel case will rust in time if exposed to the elements..........Making three pieces to take place of 1 piece.....DUH!

 

[Nemo288]

The 270 is an obvious compromise between the .22 and .308 that hunters have appreciated for decades but:
80kpsi is bleeding tech for small arms and the military has always been interested
in pushing arms tech along an advantageous trail.
Cost is at times a minor concern if the tech looks promising.
As we know, a large percentage of the time this does not work out but that knowledge is also useful.
Question is: will the guns hold up under the increased pressure?
Only time will tell if the whole NGSW program is a success or a boondoggle.

Look at some of the things they have spend big bux on that never went anywhere or eventually failed:
Atomic Annie and other atomic shells including the 16" for battleships.
Nuclear powered planes and rockets.
The Future Combat Systems
The Zumwalts including:
The AGS and particularly the ammo meant for it.
The Littoral Combat Ships.

Those are just the ones that come to my feeble mind at the moment.

For a review of work on polymer and caseless ammo see:
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies - Wikipedia

Military procurement has never made a lot of sense when compared to real capitalist business practice.

In parting I will also say that SIG-Sauer certainly has discovered which buttons to push
when it comes to US small arms procurement.
Makes one wonder what we don't see.

 

[6string]

It'll take years before we know whether this takes hold or goes the way of so, so many others.

A couple off the top of my head...
Voere Caseless Ammo
6 X 27 VOERE CASELESS | Cartridgecollector.net

Remington Etronix "electronic ignition" ammo and primers
(and you thought regular primers were expensive! How about $349/1000!)
Remington Etronx| Etronx Primers| Etronx| Remington 700| BUY NOW | BEST PRIMERS

Plus, remember Molybdenum Disulphide coated bullets???
20-25 years ago, it was the big fad that "revolutionized" lead and jacketed bullet technology. "Low cost and lower pressure of cast bullets combined with a lead-free barrel like when using jacketed bullets" was the message. Or, in the case of jacketed bullets: "lower pressure, maintained zero over a hundred or more rounds". Practically everyone was on board!
Then, the "pie in the face".... That coating quickly formed a very thin layer in your barrel that trapped moisture and reacted with the sulfur. Result: rusted and pitted barrel!
And, that coating was a bear to remove!

In this case, time will tell.
But....
There's no free lunch!

 

[mauser9]

Read the article yesterday myself. Did quote a price of $69 per 20 for a 308 No thanks! Bad enough paying what we are now for most factory.

 

[NFrameFred]

Originally I was commenting on the article/concept as a whole . . . and I personally (like others) don't really expect to see that sort of seismic shift in military applications unless and until the technology would have at least some commercial success. But the R&D on such things usually comes in big part from government interest and thus, funding.

The main thing I was intrigued by was the new (new to me? haven't heard of anything like it on this scale before) wrinkle of maintaining a traditional profile and basic operation of brass/steel cased ammo but customizing the interior dimensions and shape of the new cases on a large scale to accomplish new practical ballistic benchmarks. The undeniable pluses of increased accuracy, lower weight, more efficiency, more velocity, less muzzle flash from wasted powder burning after the bullet leaves the barrel, and standard deviations in one digit ranges are (supposedly) fait accompli if one believes the company's claims on the new product. That the military has already passed on it thus far for whatever reasons was not in the article and was news to me.

I'm not a fan boi of the latest fads and whatever is new and shiny or unusual just for the sake of change. But with an engineering background I am interested in something when I hear about a radical new design that, at least on the surface, doesn't sound like more trouble than it's worth from the get-go.

GPS technology only affordable to government spending fairly quickly (realistically) became affordable and available to personal pocket telecommunication instruments on a cheap large scale. Graphing things these things on a bell curve time line as opposed to what has become standard in traditional use fascinates me in the speed that such changes have come on us in my lifetime. Technology was fairly static (slow growth on the bell curve) for literally centuries until the late 19 century. Then things exploded in a relatively short time as far as history is concerned. Unless we are starting on the downside of the bell curve (only the perspective of decades or centuries can really tell) one cannot help but wonder what else I might see in my lifetime that only the science fiction visionaries of my youth wrote about that I now see in daily use.

For better or worse the world's technological jumps come/came on the back of large scale conflict, death and destruction. That's one curve I would hope to see moderate/flatten while technology continues to climb on that scale.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

"Makes one wonder what we don't see.". IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

re: the "bell-shaped curve" timelines... My Father was born in Dayton ,Ohio, in 1903, right around the time the Wright Brothers (also from Dayton) 1st flew at Kittyhawk: in 1969 we watched Neil Armstrong step foot ("...for all Mankind") on the Lunar surface. Dad was amazed at all that had happened (vis-a-vis) technologically in that short span of his lifetime: only 2/3rds of a century!. Two World Wars, Atomic power, commercial media (KDKA in 1920), then television, etc. An unprecedented increase in the average lifespan and quality of life.

Unfortunately, the latest so-called "technological advances" have sadly resulted in a duped, polarized, self-absored (often narcissistic?) & dependent society! Behind the Common Sense Curve.

P.S. Nope: $69 for 20 won't cut the mustard for me!

 

[NFrameFred]

Read the article yesterday myself. Did quote a price of $69 per 20 for a 308 No thanks! Bad enough paying what we are now for most factory.

Yep - don't care how good the marketing is, improvements noted are not on a scale where I'm ready to give up my pet brass cased hand loads to dish out that kind of moolah.


Now if they were heat seekers for that price and would hit around corners and dodge trees. . . .

 

[DWalt]

For 99+% of shooters, the TV's cost far outweighs its benefits. About the only exceptions might be a few bench rest shooters and snipers. And those who must pay homage to the latest expensive fad.

 

[mauser9]

Yeah seems we usually pay for all their development too! Sounds like a hugh rip off when our old brass cartridges will work fine. Blowing $70 to sight your gun in with them? Keep em. Tired of getting hosed.

 

[Nemo288]

I'm not a fan boi of the latest fads and whatever is new and shiny or unusual just for the sake of change. But with an engineering background I am interested in something when I hear about a radical new design

Retired engineer myself and share your general attitude.
I did fall for one loopy revolver ammo idea:
The PMC 44 special 110 gr. "cookie cutter" hollow bullet.
These were a totally hollow, very light bullet with a sharp nose and plastic gas check at the base.
They ended up being totally worthless.
For starters the POA was off by many feet and being the lightest 44 bullet out there didn't promise much penetration.
I shot about 10 of them and gave up.

 

[DWalt]

The whole idea behind the NGSW was to increase effective range. About the only way to do this using conventional design military bullets is to increase the working chamber pressure significantly to get a higher MV from a shorter barrel and also to have a more compact weapon. They may have also incorporated a more aerodynamically efficient bullet design, i.e., having a greater ballistic coefficient. Making the bullet heavier for caliber will do that but I do not know about the bullet design. I guess the Army has determined that it will all work out before spending all of our tax money. My personal experience working with the Army small arms people at Picatinny suggests otherwise.