What's new
What's new

Theoretical options to increase small arm velocity that could be practical by hobbest.

StormWutzke

Plastic
Joined
May 21, 2023
I am a metal worker and have been making handmade knives for several years now. If anyone has paid attention to the custom knife world they have probably come across the work that Larrin Thomas has done that have really challenged what we thought we knew and led to far higher performance blades than in the past. As someone from a rural area I have an interest in firearms as well and like to tinker with things. What has really popped out at me is how locked in time most of the firearms community is and how long it has been since we have really had any major changes. The 65kpsi pressure limit has basically stuck for over 100 years and the modest gains of the new 6.8X51 have been made to sound crazy. Our materials and manufacturing technology have come a huge way during that time. I was hoping maybe this is a place where a few people are interested in options that could actually be realistic.


My first thought is that rifles seem like a dead end but maybe I'm wrong. With 3D printers offering very tight tolerances are we at a point where we can start making use of custom sabots for fin rounds? It would seem that if a copper or other monolithic bullet was used as a head it could be attached by (friction) welding to a finned shaft or could be drilled and pressed.

Since it's now possible to get relatively economical pressure testers I think testing could actually be done safely. I believe that they max at around 80kpsi but that would still be a substantial increase in pressure compared to production cartridges. I think there could be some substantial real world gains to be had from ultralight mountain guns with very short barrels to heavy barrel ultra long long range guns. I don't know if software is good enough after that point to continue going up in pressure and don't know where the pressure limit is that detonation becomes a problem with modern powders. My thought was to actually start tinkering more at the low side of pressure and begin with something like a single shot shotgun for economy. The large piston size of both 12 and 20 gauge shotgun bores seems ideal for what I am wanting to try anyway and by adding inserts like long choke tubes experimenting with ways to alter the internal volume would be relatively easy.


After working to get the best out of knives it really has stuck out to me how low the expectations for material performance is for firearms and probably my biggest interest is in what sort of gains could be gained if we just started making hand built firearms to the highest possible standards.


Because someone always tends to go straight there performance increases can be completely anything and are subjective. We don't get to do the same on our bodies so any sort of gains have to work for them as well. So yeah we can probably make something that will shoot a .50 500 grain slug super sonic out of a handgun but unless we do a powered recoil compensation device on it it's probably useless and faster might not be the goal. Increasing efficiency and utility at least for a specific application really seem like an interesting subject to me. Low hanging fruit seem like using gain twist rifling so sabots could be used to shoot different calibers out of the same gun with enough twist to stabilize longer bullets but still get gains from the much larger piston area of a large bore, higher pressure minimizing pressure, sabots and fin stabilized rounds. I have read other threads were people have done some interesting research and maybe someone can finally explain to me why traveling charges have never gone anywhere.


The research I have done over the past few years it certainly seems that a ground up take on a new firearm built for top performance would make use of a high strength complex cartridge and might even have multiple chambers where a rearward chamber might simply go through a nozzle designed to provide supersonic gas flow although I don't know if it would be possible to make that flow through a starter charge as well. Ideally it seems like a traveling charge would be what really changes our current velocity levels radically and it would seem as if it should be pretty easily within our current technology level. If it isn't what makes it so hard? By switching to a smooth bore we get rid of a major problem with very high speed and the damage done to rifling. I don't know if ceramic barrel liners can take that sort of shock or not but if the entire barrel is turned into a burn chamber metals might begin to struggle under the much longer heating times even if we can get away from a metal on metal friction path. It also seems important to try to limit the loss of heat. In fact our current firearms that have the burn at the start with the internal volume rapidly growing are basically completely backwards from ideal if we want to accelerate an object.


Kinda getting into something a bit further out there but really where I see a bottle neck. I have read that guns in the 150kpsi range are possible and if it was possible to hold that for long at all with a traveling charge energy levels far to high to handle start becoming very easy to hit. Yes it's probably well outside of something I'm building in the shop but if you can get all the weights down how do you deal with the recoil? It should totally be possible to power against that. Granted you gotta contain that energy but it's interesting to think about and maybe it's fun for SciFi anyway.


Hopefully someone else just thinks it's fun crap to think about. I'm dealing with an injury and got to much time on my hands. Please keep it fun and avoid buzz killing terms like cheap cost of ammo. I'm not doing any of it to be practical. Just fun in the shop.
 

memphisjed

Stainless
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Location
Memphis
I would expect no industry comes close to rd money available than the gun industry. pharmaceutical a far second. Knifes, not so much.
You are describing a rail gun. Think electrons instead of powder and it is easier.
 

CalG

Diamond
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Location
Vt USA
High Speed Gas guns are an option you may wish to explore.

Just about everything you are thinking of has been thought of many years ago.
For practical reasons, what remains common continues to answer for most needs.

A simple start is to evacuate the bore prior to firing, with a rupture membrane at the muzzle (or beyond ;-)
 

GGaskill

Titanium
Joined
Feb 14, 2001
Location
Central AZ
All of these performance enhancements are going to increase the cost of the firearm and ammo out of proportion to the gain in performance. And the increased performance will be difficult to harness for the average user.
 

StormWutzke

Plastic
Joined
May 21, 2023
Weapons get massive money. Small arms not so much. Increasing pressure is probably something that will begin to happen. This makes the cartridge more energy dense and allows for shorter barrels and overall lighter weight. I think it likely can decrease overall recoil somewhat if barrel length doesn't decrease. It will make muzzle brakes work better for one thing but also since if you have the same or even less overall volume of gas production there will be more time for gas to cool and slow although it might take some extra design requirements. Silencers might be an option.

Other than that small arms don't do much more if they gain performance without some big links into other systems. A data link to drones with an auto fire function in a smart weapon that would allow for indirect fire would be a major change in what small arms can do but even then it likely would have to be a very heavy powerful rifle to make sure there is enough energy to be effective. Really it would be best as a turreted type weapon anyway. The idea is scary especially if used with software that can recognize human shapes and a drone operator could select an area and something like a .50 or hot . 338 with large heavy bullets would cut loose at anything moving in a 100 meter circle from 3 miles away. Yeah tech is there and it could easily happen. Scopes that can do that sort of thing have been made a few years ago. A small crawling drone linked to a flying targeting drone could probably link and make it possible for a single operator several miles back from the line to have both direct and indirect fire on an area. If a small cannon is used then explosive and armor piercing rounds could both be used. Armor piercing rounds are already sub caliber and should have an extremely long range.


This is kinda the point because there is not a huge military need for a more advanced round. The cost will definitely go up. Actually pistols have the biggest gains to be made. A 100kpsi pistol could allow cartridges to shrink and allow very high velocity small diameter rounds and perhaps allow 30-40 round magazines. However I feel that higher pressure, gain twist barrels and sabots would make a major change. A 120-150kpsi cartridge would allow a 5.56 straight wall cartridge to hit with double or triple the energy or at least use very small diameter but very long projectiles to pierce armor and barriers at much longer ranges. The new military rifle is good for over 100kpsi. It's my feeling that that the reason it was because it started up ammo production that allows for large amounts of development and in time higher pressure will come and just like a new version of the 7.62X51 was developed in time the same will happen with the 5.56. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a straight wall or at least larger bore sabot version. The only thing is that for combat is that sabots are not ideal since it makes for a random projectile that can be dangerous at close range to your own troops. So maybe that will not happen. The other option is a gun that is in development that uses a squeeze bore. The down side to that is cost. That gun has a Stellite liner. The machine cost on Stellite is really high and so is the material so it's unlikely it will hit high production levels if it ever actually comes out. The Marines are dropping snipers and small arms really seem like less of an offensive tool and are primarily a defensive tool at least in large scale conflict. The Marines are getting more scouts to more or less fill that role the only difference is rather than using a rifle they can bring in artillery and missile strikes and take out whole units and heavy equipment with the same hit or perhaps use a drone or smart rocket to reach out several miles or take out a group or equipment.

My project is just for personal enjoyment because it sounds interesting. That's it. I'm not trying to market it. It's just for fun. I like a challenge and to make things that are better at least for an application than anything you can buy. I also want to make special steel blends and try making my own ultra clean powder steels for knives as well as learning to do my own casting in aluminum, copper alloy and iron based alloys. While they weren't great I have already started making fancy copper nickel chromium tin iron alloys in my heat treating oven. I think they look really nice as guards and bolsters.
 

StormWutzke

Plastic
Joined
May 21, 2023
All of these performance enhancements are going to increase the cost of the firearm and ammo out of proportion to the gain in performance. And the increased performance will be difficult to harness for the average user.
Not sure if that was a joke or not. Sorry I'm tired. Lol. I am well aware. But that's not the point. That said there are more and more people doing custom rifles for the odd interest. High end ammo for non mainstream cartridges can cost well over $50 per box. For the guy wanting to shoot over 3000 yards or the back country hunter wanting ultralight gear will cost be that big of deal? My reason is just because it sounds like a fun hobby. I already own or have the equipment on my shopping list for other projects. A simple reloading set, a pressure tester and any actual parts are the only direct expenses. If I can cast copper I can easily play around with a small fin stabilized round and then I just have to 3D print a sabot for it.. sure there are a lot of steps in between but there are a lot of fun things to try. Another fun thing to try might be a custom barrel for my little.44 Mag lever action. Those Rossi's can handle the.454. Those are over a 60kpsi round. If I can make a projectile that would work in a squeeze bore it could make it a really interesting little gun. For that it might be interesting to do something like 10" of straight smooth bore that is threaded so I can add carbide inserts to choke it down to 7mm with 4" of rifling at the end. I can imagine it would need a couple of thin cone shaped sealing rings with something like a poris or ring designed to crush out of polimer in the center.


I can also see a 9mm or .40 being an interesting project. Built with a low bore Axis and a gas system that is designed to work with far higher pressure. A 4-6" barrel that is half straight wall taper bore with 2" of rifling at the end choked down to.30 or 7mm using very lightweight bullets. Perhaps even more like .25 or .22. projectile weight would have to come way down to keep recoil within reason.
 

neanderthal mach

Hot Rolled
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Location
princeton b.c.
Just as a starting detail, your neglecting barrel life span. Those vastly higher pressures involve more/different propellant burn rates that inevitably result in increased barrel erosion. It's a physics / current materials issue with quickly diminishing returns. The 220 Swift cartridge was well known as a barrel burner over something like the 22-250 which isn't all that far behind in velocity. I don't know much about the exact details, but on some military weapons, the bores are nitride coated just to obtain somewhat longer barrel life. Even with that, barrel life can be poor with sustained firing rates. If it were even possible to increase velocity's by that much, the military would already being doing so. Were limited in our current propellant and materials technology to where there are clear and very defined limits in what can actually be done. And I can think of multiple other issues that start getting real expensive and complex even if you could solve that bore life problem.

Maybe 30 or so years ago I read an article about the U.S. military experimenting with different propellant technology for there 120 mm tanks. What they were doing was using simple electrolysis to separate and break down plain water into hydrogen and oxygen, pump both of those at high pressure in behind a loaded round and then ignite it as a way to reduce the bore erosion issue and gain increased velocities. Since I've never heard anything more about the idea, I have to assume the whole thing was a complete failure. And if the U.S. military can't do it with the research labs and funding they have available, then there's damn good reasons why they can't.
 

MilGunsmith

Stainless
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Location
Sandyston, NJ
In one of Elmer Keith's books he talks about the .333OKH round, this was a pre-war .338 Magnum. It used a flash tube to ignite the powder in the front of the case. The purpose was to increase velocities and keep the powder burning in the case instead of the barrel to extend barrel life. It was tried with the .50BMG round during WW2 and it worked, but better powders were developed that saved on the cost of making the special cases.
This is something that probably could be looked at again and with modern powders might work.
But experimenting with high pressures without proper test equipment is hazardous. You cant just look at primer flatness, velocities, or measure case heads and interpret pressures. You need good calibrated pressure gages and not a strain gage. You also need a qualified reference ammo to verify the equipment that you are using. Look at the SAAMI web sight for procedures.https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/
 
Last edited:

kopcicle

Aluminum
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Location
Western Washington
Liquid fuels
The test tube came from these guys.
https://www.alleima.com/en/products...s/precision-tubes/thick-wall-precision-tubes/
Sandvick ring a bell? Yeah, those guys seem to dabble in extreme pressure handling as well as cutting tools and, well, a diversified portfolio.

The current tube is 12.7mm ID and 100mm OD
Well, it all started with a conversation attempting to classify HAN as HE, Energetic, Low, Propellant, or fuel. Seems it's all in who you talk to, what you read, where it's used and what it's doped with.

I'll get into combustion chamber design (and failure) another time.

Back to safety
Remotely fired within a test cell (or at least as good as paranoia dictates)
Instrumentation being added continuously
Admittedly the initial instrumentation was nothing more than a GoPro and a budget chronograph.
Boys being boys being bored blowing shit up. Then it didn't blow up. Then it was occasionally consistent.

Then I got the call to design a breech. Design a 100,000 PSI repeatable seal. Yeah right. As close as I've come to hanging on to those kinds of pressures is a Nitromethane burning top fuel dragster.

At that point it's no longer "small arms" The type and amount of metal needed to surround such pressures easily lead to thirty pound rifles.

For now, each test shot is a screw together affair. Anyone that Groks "universal receiver" can appreciate this. I haven't even worked up the balls to try interrupted thread designs.
I saw the remains of two ill-conceived prior attempts and I'm still chicken (read here " putting pieces of an exploded pipe bomb back together like a jigsaw puzzle)

Only the evidence of ablation of the copper alloy projectile's surface prior to obturation in the catch media (more like total metallurgical decomposition) led any of us to believe the chronograph. No one here would believe it anyway so I'll state with guarded conviction that the velocity was well north of 4,500 F/Sec, again, well north.

In short, copper was melting on the way to the target.

Just to put the testing into perspective . This is little different than hold my beer, watch this. The exception being advanced computer simulations, metallurgy beyond the scope of all but the most advanced aerospace applications, equal portions of scientific method and instrumentation, and a test cell capable of containing a sub kiloton nuclear insertable device. (kidding).

Ignition is by way of a bug zapper/taser clocked voltage multiplier. possibilities for a piezoelectric version show some hope but I kind of doubt it.

Liquid fuels are some neat but scary shiznit that I'm happily involved with from behind a steel reinforced concrete wall (or two).
I have no plans of touching off aqueous HAN, or the doped crystalline derivative anywhere near my person anytime soon.

So in the spirit of the OP here's a bit of brain vomit on the subject. The rest is up to you.
And, no I'm not holding your beer. I'll be in another county.
 

Attachments

  • a188575.pdf
    3.6 MB · Views: 13
  • a153051.pdf
    2.2 MB · Views: 4
  • 79652004.pdf
    761.3 KB · Views: 6

neanderthal mach

Hot Rolled
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Location
princeton b.c.
Many thanks for that additional info kopcicle. I've only scrolled through them enough to figure out most of it is well above my level of intelligence and understanding. Yeah without a real good back round in chemistry etc you'd be getting into areas that could easily self detonate or act with uncontrolled burn rates under those extreme pressures. Lots of fools have blown there damn heads off simply because they just didn't know enough to understand that just because you can try something, it doesn't mean you should.

The SR 71 had a titanium skin due to extreme heating from the air friction alone. And that's at very high altitude and low air pressures. It's exact maximum speed has afaik never been published. Theoretically we could assume getting upwards of Mach 5. Or 5,625 ft. per sec. Yeah I can see any copper jacket literally starting to melt on the way to the target at speeds not all that far above what we can get right now. High heat tolerant metals aren't that tough to find, but again how do those affect bore and rifling life. Solve one problem while possibly creating dozens more.

Much more advanced battery technology for use with directed energy weapons is probably somewhere in the future and propellant fired projectiles have likely reached very close to there effective limits. Rail guns maybe if they can get the bugs worked out. But for something hand held, I don't see it happening for a long time yet.
 

MilGunsmith

Stainless
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Location
Sandyston, NJ
The SR 71 had a titanium skin due to extreme heating from the air friction alone. And that's at very high altitude and low air pressures. It's exact maximum speed has afaik never been published. Theoretically we could assume getting upwards of Mach 5. Or 5,625 ft. per sec. Yeah I can see any copper jacket literally starting to melt on the way to the target at speeds not all that far above what we can get right now. High heat tolerant metals aren't that tough to find, but again how do those affect bore and rifling life. Solve one problem while possibly creating dozens more.

That is one of the problems we have had in our high velocity experiments. The bullets start to come apart. The .220 Swift was a failure when it was introduced due to the light 48gr bullets that were designed for the lower velocities of rounds like the .22 Hornet, We were found that the rotational speed of the bullet also made them come apart. When we tried to see how fat we could get the .224 77gr SMK bullet to go, using a .22-250AI, the bullets came apart when we used a 1-7" TW barrel. Changing to a 1-9" we were able to get 4000fps without them coming apart. Currently experimenting with the .224 70gr Barnes Triple Shock. The solid copper wont come apart, but we have to watch the copper fouling.
 

Georgineer

Stainless
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Location
Portsmouth, England
...we can probably make something that will shoot a .50 500 grain slug super sonic out of a handgun but unless we do a powered recoil compensation device on it it's probably useless and faster might not be the goal. ... if you can get all the weights down how do you deal with the recoil? It should totally be possible to power against that. Granted you gotta contain that energy but it's interesting to think about and maybe it's fun for SciFi anyway.
I'm sure that things have moved on a bit since I was involved in recoil research twenty-odd years ago, but what is meant by 'powered recoil'? If it is contol of recoil forces by active means - electronics, electrically controlled valves and the like - I would be surprised if things have moved on greatly since we did a research project that concluded that it wasn't possible, or likely to be possible, because of the incredibly short reaction times needed. It would also be exceedingly complicated, expensive, and unreliable because of the high stresses involved.

I had a big advantage because I came into it knowing nothing, so I didn't know that it wasn't possible to improve the existing recoil technology of springs and hydraulic thingies with variable orifices. So I got on with a proof-of-concept design, got theoretical results which amazed the people who knew it wasn't possible, and which were borne out by the technology demonstrator we built.

The big advance will come if they can sort out the downsides of 'soft recoil' which in theory reduces the recoil forces by three quarters. If I remember correctly from my reading, it was invented in the USA in the 1960s, though the French inconveniently had a functional gun with soft recoil in the First World War (no, I can't give references after this long, and I had to leave my notebooks when I left the company). The big problem with soft recoil is that the barrel is moving forward at the instant of firing, so precision of aim takes a rather severe hit.

I've never worked with anything smaller than 30 mm and I have zero knowledge of hand guns, so I don't know how much of this, if any, could be applied to them.

George
 

WizardOfBoz

Diamond
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Location
SE PA, Philly
Increasing pressure requires stronger chamber and barrel materials, or a thicker versions of same. But the question is, why? You’d have a flatter trajectory, but bullet drop can be compensated for With current pressure. Likewise, you’d have greater armor penetration, but how is this not undesirable for 99.99995% of home defense and hunting shooters? ”Yup, I got the burglar. Too bad about my neighbor 3 houses down….” Or “I had a great shot to take that deer! Kind of a bummer that the round turned all the meat to hamburger, and I was left with a furry bloody deerskin. Wish I could have tasted those chops…”. Aren’t most shooters looking for safer (less penetration of walls) and less damaging rounds? Or standing pat with .223 or .308? I mean, I have a Garand and I’d not want to hunt anything smaller than an elk with that thing. More muzzle energy? Yikes. This seems like a very expensive research project to solve a non-existent problem in a way that almost no one would want to pay for. IMHO, anyway.
 

WizardOfBoz

Diamond
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Location
SE PA, Philly
I forgot to add that a higher pressure weapon is heavier. I mean the Garand was pretty light (9.5 pounds) for its caliber (30.06) but even so one has to have admiration for soldiers that lugged that thing around all over Europe or Africa or the South Pacific. And they were lethal: one soldier commented that "if you hit an enemy anywhere above the waist, he was almost certainly dead or dying". There's also a paradox. The M1 carbine (firing a much small .30 carbine round) was said to be more lethal than the Garand. The French Foreign Legion loved the carbine. I wonder if the smaller round got stopped more easily and hence transfered all its power into the target. The point it, we have plenty lethal, plenty accurate rifles with current pressure limitations. So to increase that pressure you'd need a more expensive and heavier weapon with no benefit in accuracy or lethality. Why?
 

WizardOfBoz

Diamond
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Location
SE PA, Philly
I would expect no industry comes close to rd money available than the gun industry. pharmaceutical a far second. Knifes, not so much.
You are describing a rail gun. Think electrons instead of powder and it is easier.
This is backwards, and its not even close. Gun sales are somewhere in the 10-20 billion range (estimated from 16 million firearms sold times aboute $700). This may be off +/- 50% or so,but it does track with the approximately $10 billion per year payroll in gun manufacturing.
Pharma sales are $1.48 trillion. See here. And as it takes about 12-14 years post patent to get an approval, you have 6-8 years before the 20 year patent life expires to make money. That means you have to continually develop new drugs to replace the old ones. There are older drugs that are produced generically that still make money, but their pricing is nowhere near new drug prices. So the pharma industry uses a large amount of its revenue to fund drug research. There is no drug equivalent of an M1911 design that is still has a hefty price point.
 








 
Top