Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
That's true. But it wasn't an open hole - you had to manually eject IIRC.
Advanced Combat Pistol
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
I thought that was your reasoning. Personally I'd just treat caseless ammo as flavour text as far as reliability goes, and either increase the mag capacities or reduce their mass. IIRC the G-11 has a 50-round mag top-mounted over the barrel, with an area for a spare each side of that. 150 rounds on the weapon is pretty impressive, although I don't know how awkward the mags are to change.
Back to the ACP, for the auto version I'd use the Machine Pistol range mods and Snub SMG armour mods from TA1. TA1 also has a laser 'sight' for pistols.
P
Pickles
Guest
Had a sort of ACP in a CT/Striker campaign years ago. It was to an auto pistol exactly what a 9mm ACR was to an assault rifle. It used HE or normal rounds, had the built-in electronic sights and 3-round burst mode. There didn't seem any point in a semi-auto model, as the HE ammo would be illegal at a lower Law Level than the burst selector. That just left it as a 9mm auto pistol with electronic sight.
TJP
SOC-12
AFAIK, the real reason why the G11 "failed" was not technical or had anything to do with the magazines. It was (IIRC) because West and East Germany united about the same time when G11 was going to be adopted into general use by the West German Army, which now suddenly had no money for new fancy stuff as the unification ate up quite a lot of Deutch Marks. In other words, a case of bad timing.
Likewise, caseless ammo is not exactly cutting edge tech - the G11 had reliable and mass production ready caseless ammo in the late 80s.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
In researching the G11 (back when I was a cadet at a military institution of higher learning, and before the wall came down), it seemed that nobody in the US thought it was a good idea because of the lack of ability to simply haul cases of ammo to the field and reload the mags. The supply train to take the empties to the rear, then send to the manufacturer for reload, was considered too long. This wasn't official, but the reasoning of everyone I read or spoke with who disliked the G11.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I recall it being discussed in publications at the time. One advantage I think I'd heard promoted was less contamination since the magazines would be effectively sealed till used. As for the logistics side I still can't see the problem.
Who decided the magazines should be collected for reloading? That'd be like policing for brass to send back the casings for reloading. The magazines in this case are expendable. I did hear some BS about the pollution problem of battlefields littered with all the empty plastic magazines but c'mon if it's a war there's lots worse lying about than some plastic square tubes. And if it's a training or base practice scenario it's dead easy to collect the magazines for shipping to reload.
I think it was a lot of spurious arguments to protect some pork.
Who decided the magazines should be collected for reloading? That'd be like policing for brass to send back the casings for reloading. The magazines in this case are expendable. I did hear some BS about the pollution problem of battlefields littered with all the empty plastic magazines but c'mon if it's a war there's lots worse lying about than some plastic square tubes. And if it's a training or base practice scenario it's dead easy to collect the magazines for shipping to reload.
I think it was a lot of spurious arguments to protect some pork.
The funny part is the US has been big proponents of disposable plastic mags for the M16/C7 family. <shrug>
Nothing wrong with disposable mags as long as they are light and you get the logistics to support the need for ammo. Saves some time reloading them. If you can do away with cases, you might actually have a mag + rounds + propellant that is lighter than a mag + rounds + propellant + casings to the point where a typical soldiers loadout is actually lighter.
The G11 had a number of problems, related to the round itself originally. It was a bit of a bear to manufacture too I understand. And the round isn't all that large, so I'm not sure it did enough damage at the far end.
If Corejob was around, he could undoubtedly speak well to this subject - he always seems well informed on these sorts of matters.
Nothing wrong with disposable mags as long as they are light and you get the logistics to support the need for ammo. Saves some time reloading them. If you can do away with cases, you might actually have a mag + rounds + propellant that is lighter than a mag + rounds + propellant + casings to the point where a typical soldiers loadout is actually lighter.
The G11 had a number of problems, related to the round itself originally. It was a bit of a bear to manufacture too I understand. And the round isn't all that large, so I'm not sure it did enough damage at the far end.
If Corejob was around, he could undoubtedly speak well to this subject - he always seems well informed on these sorts of matters.
I think this is the most likely reason for the US not adopting it. I also think it was a pride thing - having already adopted the Berretta and the Minimi, it might be a bit embarassing to have the main issue rifle ALSO a foreign design
Out of curiosity I dug out my 1995-96 copy of Janes Infantry Weapons to see what it had to say about the G-11. It says that the 45-round magazine was reloaded using pre-packaged 15-round reloaders, each one taking about 5 seconds to use. I think these are the items that need to be sent back to the factory. Yes they are re-usable (and I'm sure in peacetime they would be), but in wartime they'd just get dumped.
I don't know what current practice is as far as re-supply goes. Do crates of pre-loaded magazines get sent forward, or boxes of loose ammo? If it's boxes of ammo I can see the G-11 idea being a big improvement on having to hand load a 30-round mag!
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Currently, you get boxes (those green metal things with hinged lids) of boxes (little cardboard ones) of ammo sent up, and everybody is responsible for loading their own mags.
Takei, I hadn't heard of the strip loaders, but I researched this several years before the article you mention. It sure does easily address the gripe I mentioned, since the current M16 ammo is often loaded in strip clips for "fast" loading into the mags.
And, Dan, (again, when I was researching this initially) yes, that is precisely the kind of thing some bureaucrats spend their time worrying about. I am surprised nobody has yelled about the use of composites in various vehicle components, since they give off toxic fumes when torched by plasma from a sabot penetrator round poking through the hull.
Takei, I hadn't heard of the strip loaders, but I researched this several years before the article you mention. It sure does easily address the gripe I mentioned, since the current M16 ammo is often loaded in strip clips for "fast" loading into the mags.
And, Dan, (again, when I was researching this initially) yes, that is precisely the kind of thing some bureaucrats spend their time worrying about. I am surprised nobody has yelled about the use of composites in various vehicle components, since they give off toxic fumes when torched by plasma from a sabot penetrator round poking through the hull.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I have actually seen this brought up in the media but don't recall by who. Like I'd be worried about a little toxic smoke from my seat if it just got holed by a jet of plasma. I'd probably be more worried about the smoking hole in me.
US Containers
First you get a crate/ wire wrapped; then you get the two green Ammo cans that contain Green bandoleers with 10 cardboard boxes of strip clips in 10 round incraments 5.56 ball round (for the M16). IIRC...FWIW...YMMV.
In the CF, our C7 mags are loaded with the aid of a little item we called a 'mag charger'. It made the hand loading of magazines *much* quicker and easier (ie bearable... *grin*).
There is a lot of debate in the firearms community (about everything, but particularly) about whether a small round like the G11 or the PDWs use as an effective manstopper. Corejob and I had long arguments about it in some of the tech threads a while ago. The evidence indicates the new 5.56 rounds are probably *better* capable of doing meaningful damage than even a 7.62mm from the time period where I carried an FN.
Even the Bundeswehr only had limited release of the G11, IIRC.
There is a lot of debate in the firearms community (about everything, but particularly) about whether a small round like the G11 or the PDWs use as an effective manstopper. Corejob and I had long arguments about it in some of the tech threads a while ago. The evidence indicates the new 5.56 rounds are probably *better* capable of doing meaningful damage than even a 7.62mm from the time period where I carried an FN.
Even the Bundeswehr only had limited release of the G11, IIRC.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
That sounds about right, Sir Chuck.
kaladorn, of course, that doesn't account for the fact that you are getting hit by three of them near simultaneously.
kaladorn, of course, that doesn't account for the fact that you are getting hit by three of them near simultaneously.
The "super-fast bust" was also used in the Nikonov AN-94 "Abakan" assault rifle. This was an attempt make the 5.45x39mm round more effective. Apparently it works, but there is no money to replace the Kalashnikovs.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm
The G11 was tested in the late 1980s along with flechette rifles by Steyr and TRW and by a Colt M16 firing a duplex round. The program had ambitious goals, which none of the contestants could match. Perhaps no bullet-firing rifle could.
BTW, HK was developing a caseless pistol to go with the G11. http://www.hkpro.com/g11pdw.htm
This was using a reuced power 4.73x25mm cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm
The G11 was tested in the late 1980s along with flechette rifles by Steyr and TRW and by a Colt M16 firing a duplex round. The program had ambitious goals, which none of the contestants could match. Perhaps no bullet-firing rifle could.
BTW, HK was developing a caseless pistol to go with the G11. http://www.hkpro.com/g11pdw.htm
This was using a reuced power 4.73x25mm cartridge.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
One reason for the High TL of the ACR is the special ammo. The ACR can fire ball, which is cheaper and easier to manufacture, especially at lower TLs, but fires HE or APDS. (LBB4) SO if the ACP uses a similar ammunition that would account for a higher TL.
Further the Mk-23 (Mil Spec version) is equipped with both a IR/Visible light laser dot pointer and a IR/Visible light flashlight. There is no reason that the ACP couldn't have both. (The IR setting allows use with night vision equipment without giving away your position to troops without night vision.)
Further the Mk-23 (Mil Spec version) is equipped with both a IR/Visible light laser dot pointer and a IR/Visible light flashlight. There is no reason that the ACP couldn't have both. (The IR setting allows use with night vision equipment without giving away your position to troops without night vision.)
I realize I'm late in chiming in, but someone mentioned me back in April and my ears are only now burning.
Case vs. caseless:
The are a lot of compelling reasons for adopting caseless ammunition. Mostly, the military is interested in it because its lighter and potentially cheaper. Odnance grade brass is a large part of the cost of small arms ammunition. Caseless ammunition also theoretically supports higher rates of fire, becasue you are elimination the whole extraction/ejection part of the firing cycle.
The US military has been pursuing caseless ammunition since at least the 1950s.
One of the things that has kept cased ammunition successful is that the case actually performs many functions. The most obvious is containing and protecting the propellant. This sounds simple enough, but it's very difficult to prodice a caseless round that will tolerate rough handling and varied environmental conditions and still fire reliably.
The second feature of cased ammunition is obturation. obturation is where the case expands in the chamber to form a gas tight seal and prevent propellant gases from flowing back into the action (and the shooter's face). Obturation has been a major stumbling block in developing caseless weapons.
Third, the brass case functions as a heat sink. A lot of the heat from firing is removed from the chamber by the brass case, keeping the chamber cooler than it would be for a casless gun. The brass also protects the propellant from the hot chmber, helping to prevent 'cook-offs' where a round is fired by the heat of the chamber without being actuated by the shooter.
HK had some novel solutions to all these vexing problems. They developed a high temperature polymerized propellant that was less vulnerable to cook-off. Their rotary chamber allowed for fairly good chamber sealing. Their solution for environmental protection was to put ammunition in sealed 'battle packs' that could be loaded into magazines, but were otherwise prtected from the elements.
As for why the G11, died, there were a number of factors. The lethality of the small projectile was a great concern. The gun happened to reach maturity right about the time that the SCHV (small caliber, high velocity) concept was starting to fall out of favor. As was also mentioned, the Bundeswehr palnned on adopting it (for their special forces, regular troops were going to get the G41) right about the time of reunification. Budgetary constrains ended the plan.
In the US, the big killer was probably the ACR trials of the 1980s. While not an actual competition for a new service rifle, the trials were meant to be a technology demonstartor for new small arms which would lead to the next generation of rifles to replace the M-16.
While most of the rifles fared well, none demonstrated any significant advantage over the current rifle. There seemed little point in adopting an new and relatively untested desig that offered little improvement over the rifle already in inventory. since then, PIP (produt Improvement Program) modifications of the M16 continue to iprove it's performance.
Ultimately, the G11 failed because it didn't offer a big enough improvement over existing small arms to justify th expense of adoption. Further, it should be noted that as a weapon system, any rifle is realtively unimportant in the modern battle (except to the infantryman). There is generally little incemntive to spend tax dollars on a system with little over all importance, and tha offers only marginal improvements over existing weapon.
As a personal aside, I had a chance to handle several of the ACR candidates in the 1980s. Myn recollection of the G11 was that its ergonomics were terrible. A minor nit I know, but something that feels like shouldering a length of 2x4 won't win a lot of friends amongst the shooting crowd unless it's other feartures are very, very impressive.
Case vs. caseless:
The are a lot of compelling reasons for adopting caseless ammunition. Mostly, the military is interested in it because its lighter and potentially cheaper. Odnance grade brass is a large part of the cost of small arms ammunition. Caseless ammunition also theoretically supports higher rates of fire, becasue you are elimination the whole extraction/ejection part of the firing cycle.
The US military has been pursuing caseless ammunition since at least the 1950s.
One of the things that has kept cased ammunition successful is that the case actually performs many functions. The most obvious is containing and protecting the propellant. This sounds simple enough, but it's very difficult to prodice a caseless round that will tolerate rough handling and varied environmental conditions and still fire reliably.
The second feature of cased ammunition is obturation. obturation is where the case expands in the chamber to form a gas tight seal and prevent propellant gases from flowing back into the action (and the shooter's face). Obturation has been a major stumbling block in developing caseless weapons.
Third, the brass case functions as a heat sink. A lot of the heat from firing is removed from the chamber by the brass case, keeping the chamber cooler than it would be for a casless gun. The brass also protects the propellant from the hot chmber, helping to prevent 'cook-offs' where a round is fired by the heat of the chamber without being actuated by the shooter.
HK had some novel solutions to all these vexing problems. They developed a high temperature polymerized propellant that was less vulnerable to cook-off. Their rotary chamber allowed for fairly good chamber sealing. Their solution for environmental protection was to put ammunition in sealed 'battle packs' that could be loaded into magazines, but were otherwise prtected from the elements.
As for why the G11, died, there were a number of factors. The lethality of the small projectile was a great concern. The gun happened to reach maturity right about the time that the SCHV (small caliber, high velocity) concept was starting to fall out of favor. As was also mentioned, the Bundeswehr palnned on adopting it (for their special forces, regular troops were going to get the G41) right about the time of reunification. Budgetary constrains ended the plan.
In the US, the big killer was probably the ACR trials of the 1980s. While not an actual competition for a new service rifle, the trials were meant to be a technology demonstartor for new small arms which would lead to the next generation of rifles to replace the M-16.
While most of the rifles fared well, none demonstrated any significant advantage over the current rifle. There seemed little point in adopting an new and relatively untested desig that offered little improvement over the rifle already in inventory. since then, PIP (produt Improvement Program) modifications of the M16 continue to iprove it's performance.
Ultimately, the G11 failed because it didn't offer a big enough improvement over existing small arms to justify th expense of adoption. Further, it should be noted that as a weapon system, any rifle is realtively unimportant in the modern battle (except to the infantryman). There is generally little incemntive to spend tax dollars on a system with little over all importance, and tha offers only marginal improvements over existing weapon.
As a personal aside, I had a chance to handle several of the ACR candidates in the 1980s. Myn recollection of the G11 was that its ergonomics were terrible. A minor nit I know, but something that feels like shouldering a length of 2x4 won't win a lot of friends amongst the shooting crowd unless it's other feartures are very, very impressive.
An alternative vision of the ACP using an electronic ignition system.
A handgrip with an intergral battery and traditional trigger type mechanism. The battery will last a long time, depending on the load used against it. Just used for firing the battery should last the lifetime of the weapon, using the intergral laser sight, video system, and cigarette lighter[1] will kill it faster.
4 barrels (though it could be any number really, 4 is arbitrary) mounted in a bulpupped quad arrangement mounted on top of the grip. In the centre of the 4 barrels is a laser sight/video sight as well as the attachment mechanism for the barrels.
Spare ammo is carried in additional barrels, each barrel holding N bullets (say 8). The barrels have to be very light using some kind of modern material such as compressed polymers, ceramics, or advanced metal compounds. Reloading barrels in the feild would be problematic whereas changing a barrel is only marginally more complex then changing a clip.
Suddenly you have a pistol like weapon with 1 moving part (the trigger) and the ability to fire bursts of 32, after which you need to change over all the barrels.
Then again I think there is a fair chance of changing to electronic actions over the next 50 years or so. It fits well with caseless as well, as there is no open breach and the barrels need to be changed regularily.
[1] Not a standard feild attachment
A handgrip with an intergral battery and traditional trigger type mechanism. The battery will last a long time, depending on the load used against it. Just used for firing the battery should last the lifetime of the weapon, using the intergral laser sight, video system, and cigarette lighter[1] will kill it faster.
4 barrels (though it could be any number really, 4 is arbitrary) mounted in a bulpupped quad arrangement mounted on top of the grip. In the centre of the 4 barrels is a laser sight/video sight as well as the attachment mechanism for the barrels.
Spare ammo is carried in additional barrels, each barrel holding N bullets (say 8). The barrels have to be very light using some kind of modern material such as compressed polymers, ceramics, or advanced metal compounds. Reloading barrels in the feild would be problematic whereas changing a barrel is only marginally more complex then changing a clip.
Suddenly you have a pistol like weapon with 1 moving part (the trigger) and the ability to fire bursts of 32, after which you need to change over all the barrels.
Then again I think there is a fair chance of changing to electronic actions over the next 50 years or so. It fits well with caseless as well, as there is no open breach and the barrels need to be changed regularily.
[1] Not a standard feild attachment
