What's new
What's new

What are your opinions on my gun build plan in terms of its feasibility?

MC_MuHyeon

Plastic
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Hi, I am a huge fan of firearms and I have a plan to build a smoothbore bolt action rifle firing fin-stabilized sabot rounds. The following is what I would do to make the rifle and I would like to hear your opinions on its feasibility.

1. The rifle action and bolt would either be made out of nickel maraging steel or grade 5 (or grade 19) titanium.
2. The rifle action would be designed to accept .308 winchester rounds necked up to .451 caliber (cartridge case thus will have a straight wall).
3. The barrel would have smooth bore with .451 inch of caliber.
4. The barrel would be made of grade 5 (or grade 19) titanium alloy.
5. Since titanium oxide layer would quickly wear out if rounds are fired and this could result in titanium burning in air, every titanium part will be coated with Silicon Carbide via CVD method.
6. The projectile diameter would be approximately a third of the bore diamater with aluminum/plastic sabots filling the gap.
7. A suppressor for the rifle would be made out of inconel. The inside diameter of the suppressor would be same as that of the barrel (.451 inch) along its path with a forcing cone at the point where a projectile capped in sabots enters the suppressor. The reason for setting the suppressor diameter to that of the barrel is to keep sabots integrated to guarantee accuracy, and for this the forcing cone is a must to allow saboted projectiles to safely enter the suppressor.

Assuming that price is not a problem, what do you think of my idea?
 
It appears that you are not subject to any substance abuse tests.

I disagree.

He's on them as an IV drip, and his captors ARE testing to make absolutely certain he hasn't the ghost of a chance at a sane thought.

More than one way to nurture a pre-teen sex field through puberty and into a premature senility without any (other) animals being harmed in the making of the episode, one supposes.

Mind, we are having to guess at location. Ukraine's occupied Donbas, mayhap, where farmers, miners, and tractor mechanics can allegedly withdraw Rooshin tanks with APDS main-guns from ATM machines and re-purposed second-hand clothing pushcarts, no money down.
 
Mind, we are having to guess at location. Ukraine's occupied Donbas, mayhap, where farmers, miners, and tractor mechanics can allegedly withdraw Rooshin tanks with APDS main-guns from ATM machines and re-purposed second-hand clothing pushcarts, no money down.

you forgot they were wearing NATO issued boots.

with enough cash, an ATM can spit out a man pad, anywhere. give me a phone call sometime.
 
I'm sorry what does that mean? I am not good at english fyi...

By definition a "smooth bore" is not a "rifle". Never mind fin-stabilized projectiles. It just isn't.

Discarding sabot rounds that actually WORK have existed for shotguns - and cannon - for centuries. Tank main guns have found them right useful. Cheap and effective, too. Relatively.

Pulling-in every buzz phrase alloy that impresses you isn't going to impress the physics of any of that.

Just go and buy a better grade of comic books.

Might want to turn your attention to faster-than-light propulsion or an invisibility cloak and stay out of trouble. Fewer pesky regulations to deal with, if nothing else.

If it doesn't work, no one will bug you. If you get it working, who's going to catch you or even FIND you?

Don't forget to take Oxygen, water, sweet potato and tofu, dried squid.. or peanut-butter and jelly samiches with you. Might start with those NOW?

"Win-Win" situation, yah?

:D
 
Well, I thought up this build because of many advantages saboted rounds have; it allows us to fire a small-diameter projectile (less air drag) from a large bore (increase in bore diameter leads to more kinetic energy). Also no rifling means longer barrel life and no energy needed for projectile rotation. I thought of this for more efficient small arms design, not because of any legal restrictions or something like that.
 
Sir I am not asking this question to impress myself. If you think I am trying to impress myself or being a gun snob, then you are wrong. I am just a college student majoring in math who is interested in firearms and materials science. But since I am not a professional engineer or a smith who can actually build firearms I had to search for websites where I could ask the question for the sake of curiosity, and this is the site I've found out. I am asking this question for pure curiosity, not for impressing myself or for showing off that I seem like a gun expert. Why are you being so cynical?
 
Well, I thought up this build because of many advantages saboted rounds have; it allows us to fire a small-diameter projectile (less air drag) from a large bore (increase in bore diameter leads to more kinetic energy). Also no rifling means longer barrel life and no energy needed for projectile rotation. I thought of this for more efficient small arms design, not because of any legal restrictions or something like that.

So-called "primitive man" first applied the concept to human-lung powered blowguns. Tank main guns still rely on it to motate a "long rod" penetrator. Sub-caliber discarding-sabot ammunition exists for several common calibres, and has for Donkey's Years. "Dominate" it has never.

There are trade-offs, y'see.

One of those is that the energy imparted to a sabot does not travel to the target. Most of those trade-offs simply inspire a more appropriate full-caliber round for any given application. That round DOES "go all the way".

The selections are based on more than a thousand years of real-world experience as well as extensive testing. Not from any lack of awareness of the pro's and con's of sabots, "discarding" or otherwise.

What is it that you know that a million or so who have come before - sinew, weights, springs, blackpowder, compressed air, steam, smokeless powder, inbuilt rocket boost, electro-magnetic propulsion, have somehow missed?

Not as if this has not been a national-security-critical and EXTENSIVELY funded "industry", lo the tenth century or so onward.
 
Very high BC projectile at very high speed to minimize wind drift is appealing.

Have you tried designing projectiles and sabots yet? A larger bore will minimize the negative effects of projectile/sabot manufacturing tolerances on accuracy. I'm not aware that this has been done with less than a 15.2 mm bore.

You know materials, so that is your focus. It shouldn't be. Without accuracy, this is an expensive waste of time. I'd fear many high precision projectile/sabot prototypes required to achieve good accuracy.
 
We are still experimenting with this idea in .338, with no success. Too many tolerances to work with.

Are you experimenting with .338 cases fully necked up or as-is? A .338 lapua case can be necked up to accept .50 cal projectiles. I'm not telling you to experiment with necking up a case if you haven't, just asking btw.
 
Have you tried designing projectiles and sabots yet? A larger bore will minimize the negative effects of projectile/sabot manufacturing tolerances on accuracy. I'm not aware that this has been done with less than a 15.2 mm bore.

You know materials, so that is your focus. It shouldn't be. Without accuracy, this is an expensive waste of time. I'd fear many high precision projectile/sabot prototypes required to achieve good accuracy.

No I've never tried designing projectiles and sabots...as I've mentioned above, I am just a college student who enjoys shooting, but I am not a machinist. I've been just having gradually increasing interest in gunsmithing and this has led me to think of many exotic small arms designs. Of course, theories are easy to think of, but hard to be done in reality.

Steyr once designed a prototype of IWS-2000 with 14.5mm bore but they increased bore diameter to 15.2mm because of not enough muzzle energy for its anti-material purpose. There is also a .50 cal version (link: https://www.sandia.gov/research/robotics/_assets/documents/Guided_Bullet_Handout_Final.pdf) with a laser guiding system implemented. This is done even with the complicated system in it, so I think it's technically possible to design an effective finned & saboted cartridge of small caliber. Finally there is an AR-15 'gun' (neither a rifle nor a smoothbore) which fires .30 cal finned bullets without sabots (link: SHOT Show 218 - Franklin Armory Reformation - Soldier Systems Daily).
 
Just for the sake of curiosity, how many guns use titanium barrels? Ever wonder why not?
How about sticking with reality and not fiction.
And starting with something more suited for first project like 22LR?
 
No I've never tried designing projectiles and sabots...as I've mentioned above, I am just a college student who enjoys shooting, but I am not a machinist. I've been just having gradually increasing interest in gunsmithing and this has led me to think of many exotic small arms designs. Of course, theories are easy to think of, but hard to be done in reality.

Steyr once designed a prototype of IWS-2000 with 14.5mm bore but they increased bore diameter to 15.2mm because of not enough muzzle energy for its anti-material purpose. There is also a .50 cal version (link: https://www.sandia.gov/research/robotics/_assets/documents/Guided_Bullet_Handout_Final.pdf) with a laser guiding system implemented. This is done even with the complicated system in it, so I think it's technically possible to design an effective finned & saboted cartridge of small caliber. Finally there is an AR-15 'gun' (neither a rifle nor a smoothbore) which fires .30 cal finned bullets without sabots (link: SHOT Show 218 - Franklin Armory Reformation - Soldier Systems Daily).

If you are serious about any of this, you start with a PROVEN barrel and action. "Store bought". And in steel, of course.

Because.... all the challenge is in the sabot and projectile. As has been demonstrated, and is still being demonstrated.

Make progress on THAT, you'll have help. Even funding.

Mind, if you approached "TILO", (Technical Industrial Liaison Office) at the Pentagon fifty years ago this very year - as ITT's Former Chief Scientist and I DID do, though not about guns, directly (we had already been doing computerized data logging of classified range tests on various "exotic" projects) - you'd have been treated to the obligatory saga of a former War Two Wehrmacht Feldwebel immigrant who had offered "a gun what shoots better than any other gun!"

He never delivered.

He was finally taken away in strait jacket, and under sedation when he showed-up in Third Reich uniform and made a scene in COL Kennedy's office to try and claim a large sum of money and the Congressional Medal of Honour he swore the President of the United States had personally promised him for his idea!

IOW.. folks are a tad.. "jaded".. and long-since, about vast ideas that deliver HALF-vast performance.

:)


BTW . you'll need a good test range. Oh.. and MONEY! The component costs build-up as you test.

I'd give the Third Reich uniform a miss, though. He wasn't wearing the fancy black duds a young anal receptive, one Hugo Boss, designed for the Waffen SS to get HIS start in life.

Baggy old Fallschirmjäger battle dress, rather!

:)
 








 
Back
Top