LSAT LMG, caseless ammo coming soon!
- Thread starter Uncle Bob
- Start date
Believe it when I see it. Caseless ammo has been coming soon for the last 50 years. I was right around the corner 30 years ago (can you say HK G11 - I knew you could).
Caseless has so many issues that there's never been a compelling reason for switching over. It's a huge investment with a small payoff. We are still using the M16 after 45 years. That should tell you something.
Caseless has so many issues that there's never been a compelling reason for switching over. It's a huge investment with a small payoff. We are still using the M16 after 45 years. That should tell you something.
That good old advantage vs cost thing. If a modern nation chose a caseless weapon as a standard sidearm then most of the problems would be resolved. However it would have a substandard weapon while these problems were being resolved for what is (currently considered - and probably would be) a negligible advantage.
It tells me:
* That the American military is a conservative organisation, when forced to choose a new design of anything the one that most resembles the equivalent already in use will generally be chosen.
* That rifles aren't that important in the scheme of things.
* That infantry weapons aren't as sexy (or as profitable) as aircraft or naval toys.
* That the American military still remembers the pain (and initial problems) of the implementation of the M16.
I would also argue that there are significant differences between the current M16 and the initially released one. Most modern militaries have changed their infantry weapon over the last 45 years.
The big issues with caseless, particularly in sustained fire applications:
Lack of obtuation. This makes the breach complex and particularly susceptible to wear.
Heat extraction. The brass case actually removes a significant amount of combustion heat from the chamber.
Environmental issues. To date, caseless ammo has proven troublesome in regard to its 'handlability'. You have to makes the case out of something that will combust completely and cleanly, but it also has to resist the weather, mechanical damage, etc. This has been a real problem. HK's solution was to make ammunition that required much higher ignition temperatures, and then package it in sealed ammo packs.
The advantage you get from caseless is lighter weight and cheaper ammo. Some have claimed that you can have simpler weapons, since you are elimination the whole extraction/ejection cycle. However, you still need provision for removing unfired ammunition.
Cased ammo seems so 20th century, but it is an elegantly simple solution to a number of problems.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Lack of obtuation. This makes the breach complex and particularly susceptible to wear.
Heat extraction. The brass case actually removes a significant amount of combustion heat from the chamber.
Environmental issues. To date, caseless ammo has proven troublesome in regard to its 'handlability'. You have to makes the case out of something that will combust completely and cleanly, but it also has to resist the weather, mechanical damage, etc. This has been a real problem. HK's solution was to make ammunition that required much higher ignition temperatures, and then package it in sealed ammo packs.
The advantage you get from caseless is lighter weight and cheaper ammo. Some have claimed that you can have simpler weapons, since you are elimination the whole extraction/ejection cycle. However, you still need provision for removing unfired ammunition.
Cased ammo seems so 20th century, but it is an elegantly simple solution to a number of problems.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Although calling the current version the same weapon as the original M16 is something of a stretch, your point is generally correct. We aren't even close to being 'there' yet.
They are developing caseless and plastic cased telescoped ammo in parralel, in case true caseless is not ready-for-prime-time. Also notice that this is a LMG program, they are not yet threatening the M4. the SPIW and ACR programs went nowhere because they were chasing a phantom 'effectiveness', LSAT is all about the weight.
I like the rotating chamber action. The forward ejection screams for a bullpup carbine version.
I like the rotating chamber action. The forward ejection screams for a bullpup carbine version.
I have fired a caseless ammo weapon (a friend of mine owned it, it was a .22 that came out in the early 70's) weapon was terriable in it's ability to jam due to unburned propellent. The ammo came in long brass tubes with each round being attached to the one in front. So it wasnt any lighter when figuring how much ammo was carried, and it was even more idiotic when you tried to transport all these two foot long brass tubes filled with ammo. That if they got a little bent you couldnt get the ammo out lol.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Well, the 1988s H&K G11 did work a bit better but still had it's minor problems, mostly with dust and ejection of non-firing rounds. While ammo did come in pre-loaded magazins, that's not a problem for a military weapon since that's the way ammo is carried anyway.
The G11 (and more sadly the G41(1)) died when post Cold-War the funding for the German army was slashed far beyond resonable levels. If not for H&K needing another state job the army would likely still use G3A4 today(2)
The problems with caseless are/where:
(1) A 5.56NATO firing weapon designated for vehicle crews (Replacing UZI), recruit training and staff. It used a G3 mechanic (Semi-Rigid, Roller-Locked, Blowback Operated) with all the Add-ons found in the G3 variants, the G8 and the HK53
(2) And quite a few would like it. G36 is better than an M16 or L85 but not as rugged as the G3
(3) Note that even when Germany did operate a 7.62N Battle rifle in the 5.56 world of the 1980s the used a round that was NATO standard for maschine guns. Or how they spend quite some money changing the MG42 to the slightly weaker 7.62N (in the MG1, MG2 and MG3)
The G11 (and more sadly the G41(1)) died when post Cold-War the funding for the German army was slashed far beyond resonable levels. If not for H&K needing another state job the army would likely still use G3A4 today(2)
The problems with caseless are/where:
- Introducing them takes your military out of the supply chain of your pact and therefor the "cheap mass-produced ammo" market. You pay more for your ammo until you have convinced all/most of your allies(3)
- The ammo is less rugged than cased ammo. Transporting loose rounds (or even single rounds in cardboard boxes) is next to impossible, increasing transport volume/weight between storage and end user slightly. This isn't a problem in the switch G3->G11 since the reduction in caliber reduces the weight/volume
- The ammo is non-reloadabel / spend brass can't be recycled. Specialised ammo (match grade) is very difficult to do
(1) A 5.56NATO firing weapon designated for vehicle crews (Replacing UZI), recruit training and staff. It used a G3 mechanic (Semi-Rigid, Roller-Locked, Blowback Operated) with all the Add-ons found in the G3 variants, the G8 and the HK53
(2) And quite a few would like it. G36 is better than an M16 or L85 but not as rugged as the G3
(3) Note that even when Germany did operate a 7.62N Battle rifle in the 5.56 world of the 1980s the used a round that was NATO standard for maschine guns. Or how they spend quite some money changing the MG42 to the slightly weaker 7.62N (in the MG1, MG2 and MG3)
The roller lock has been completely abandoned by HK, which should tell you something. It makes some sense in a disposable weapon, but has many, many issues.
Even the G36 has adopted the Johnson style locking system. The HK roller lock is not even a true locked breach system. It a delayed blowback system. If the rollers are out of spec, things can get mighty 'sporty'. I know this from personal experience.
The G11 has a fairly good reputation from people who have never even seen one. The reality is that the G11 was never put through extensive troop trials. During initial testing at Ft Benning (ACR trials) it showed more than a few problems. Wearing of the apexes was one issue that has still not been adequately resolved, and obturation in any caseless weapon continues to be problematic. Low ROF weapons (like artillery) have dealt with this problem in a fashion that is not applicable to semi and fully automatic weapons.
Even the G36 has adopted the Johnson style locking system. The HK roller lock is not even a true locked breach system. It a delayed blowback system. If the rollers are out of spec, things can get mighty 'sporty'. I know this from personal experience.
The G11 has a fairly good reputation from people who have never even seen one. The reality is that the G11 was never put through extensive troop trials. During initial testing at Ft Benning (ACR trials) it showed more than a few problems. Wearing of the apexes was one issue that has still not been adequately resolved, and obturation in any caseless weapon continues to be problematic. Low ROF weapons (like artillery) have dealt with this problem in a fashion that is not applicable to semi and fully automatic weapons.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Given that my service weapons (age 20+ years) worked just fine back in the 80s as did the G3ZF I fired in the early nineties could you be a bit more specific? Even more so since the MP5 submaschine gun wasn't considered "disposeabel" by most police and special forces units. The weapon has issues with cartridge re-loading (the HK stripes) and cheap (plastic case) training ammo but otherwise "Ein Schuss, Ein Russ"
Well, maintenance is a must with EVERY gun. Judging a system by a badly maintained weapon is not the right thing to do. The german army did a VERY large scale field test with roller-locked systems (G3, MG3) and liked them a LOT! After all they even had a follow-up (G41) lined up for entry together with the G11.
Actually the G11 WAS run through extensive troop tests by the KTS Munster and went through a number of variants and changes. The weapons tested during the ACR trials and the weapon that the german army had designated for acceptance are NOT identical, not even visibly (prototypes are on display in Koblenz). There are a number of changes in mechanics and ammuniton. And I actually DID use a G11 in the KTS, together with a G41.
Not to mention that the ACR trials did not end with a weapons selection/recomendation.
The roller locked system "makes sence in a disposable weapon"? You might not like roller locks, but they are way too expensive to be disposable. Piston/rotating bolt actions are a lot cheaper to make.
Caseless ammo may or may not be ready for prime time; it has been twenty years since the G11. In any case, the Army is also developing plastic-cased, telescoped ammo for LSAT as an alternative. The revolving breach action gives a very positive ejection, although how they solved the obturation issue is less clear. See the video
The ACR program was looking for a 100% increase in the probability of a hit, which I doubt is achievable. LSAT is all about saving weight.
Caseless ammo may or may not be ready for prime time; it has been twenty years since the G11. In any case, the Army is also developing plastic-cased, telescoped ammo for LSAT as an alternative. The revolving breach action gives a very positive ejection, although how they solved the obturation issue is less clear. See the video
The ACR program was looking for a 100% increase in the probability of a hit, which I doubt is achievable. LSAT is all about saving weight.
Last edited:
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
I'm not sure about that. But then, I'm no military man, and I haven't even seen a real-life automatic weapon, let alone fired one, but the Kalashnikov has always been legendary for its reliability even under poor conditions and poor maintenance.
That's gotta be worth something - you might not always have time to strip clean and baby your weapon. Then again, most modern militaries haven't seen full mobilization for over half a century, so it's hard to imagine what it might be like not to have "overwhelming firepower backed by overwhelming logistics."
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
There is "maintenance" and "maintenance". Sure the G3 can go through a day of maneuvers and 200 rounds of Manpat (Training ammo - much more fouling than standard ammo) with no problems if fed brass-cased ammo(1). And the MG42/MG3 is legendary for the amount of abuse it takes(2).
Occasionally one needs to re-zero the weapon since aimpoints wander in a rifle that dangs on brushes etc. But that is company/batallion level stuff. With the G3 we did this with a bench and a screwdriver/wrench
But parts wear out and break. To prevent worn-out parts from affecting weapon function (i.e. the full-auto mode not stopping) the weapons do need the occasional depot maintenance/overhaul. German army did that every two years, replacing weapons that might go bad by those from the depots and sending them off to a factory overhaul etc. So while "my" original G3 was from 1967 it was well maintained and functioned as smothly as the brand new one I got in 1988 as a replacement.
Main parts in a G3 to wear out are firing pin and it's spring followed by the mainspring, rollers and the sear for disengaging in full-auto (rarely used in a G3 - 7.62N is not that useful full auto without a bipod)
(1) Officially for MG use only in the BW. Every supply guy worth his Corporal will supply the rifles with it
(2) There is a variant of an old hair setting spray joke that uses WWII battlefields and conditions always ending "And the MG fires"
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
Right. So I'm getting the idea - you don't have to baby the weapon daily to keep it from failing.
But I get the feeling from some people that not every weapon has the ruggedness of the G3s, MGs or AKs of the world.
And to throw caseless ammo into the mix... yeesh. I'm a peace-loving man, but if I were put into battle, I'd want to be darn sure that when I pull the trigger the gun fires. I'll CARRY the extra weight in casings.
But I get the feeling from some people that not every weapon has the ruggedness of the G3s, MGs or AKs of the world.
And to throw caseless ammo into the mix... yeesh. I'm a peace-loving man, but if I were put into battle, I'd want to be darn sure that when I pull the trigger the gun fires. I'll CARRY the extra weight in casings.
Try replacing a barrel on an HK roller lock.
The reality is that the HK and the earlier CETME were designed as limited life span weapons, at least according to Herr Vorgrimmler. They were meant to be built cheaply and discarded after they started to wear. The advantage of the stamped and welded construction used, and the relative simple machining meant that they are (when mass produced) far cheaper to make than their rivals - which at the time were weapons like the Garand (and later M14 and FAL).
The weapons one still sees in service in places like Africa have relatively low round counts. I've dealt with enough privately owned class 3 HK guns to know that they don't hold up well to the high round counts that many owners hit. In the military, this isn't an issue as you just replace it.
The other problem with the roller lock is that when it wears, it becomes more and more like a straight blowback, at pressures that are not suitable for a straight blowback. Undersized or worn rollers make for some very exciting shooting. With locked breach rifles with too much headspace, you get case head separations. With roller delayed blow back guns, excessive headspace leads basically unlocked firing.
As noted, the fact that HK has abandoned the design is, I think, telling.
YMMV
The reality is that the HK and the earlier CETME were designed as limited life span weapons, at least according to Herr Vorgrimmler. They were meant to be built cheaply and discarded after they started to wear. The advantage of the stamped and welded construction used, and the relative simple machining meant that they are (when mass produced) far cheaper to make than their rivals - which at the time were weapons like the Garand (and later M14 and FAL).
The weapons one still sees in service in places like Africa have relatively low round counts. I've dealt with enough privately owned class 3 HK guns to know that they don't hold up well to the high round counts that many owners hit. In the military, this isn't an issue as you just replace it.
The other problem with the roller lock is that when it wears, it becomes more and more like a straight blowback, at pressures that are not suitable for a straight blowback. Undersized or worn rollers make for some very exciting shooting. With locked breach rifles with too much headspace, you get case head separations. With roller delayed blow back guns, excessive headspace leads basically unlocked firing.
As noted, the fact that HK has abandoned the design is, I think, telling.
YMMV
I'll debate that. I've been involved as a consultant for several big name firearms manufacturers. Once you've amortized the tooling costs, the price to make the G3 is pretty low compared to other military rifles. The roller lock is relatively simple to make in the sense that most of the operations are mostly milling cuts, compared to broaching operations in rotary bolt guns.
The AK has a lot of things going in its favor when it comes to reliability. The biggest is not so much the design, but the fact that everything was designed and build with generous clearances. Nothing in the rifle is tight or precise. An unfortunate side effect is that the rifle invariably lacks accuracy (or more correctly, precision). You have to decide which is more important to you. In the west, particularly in the United States, there is a tendency towards precision, and the cult of the Rifleman demands high accuracy.
Keep in mind that the Soviets generally viewed the AK as a product improved SMG, meant to be used with volume of fire at 100 meters or less. Accuracy is relatively unimportant in this situation, and the AKs sights certainly suggest sniping was not even a thought. Even the much vaunted SVD, a very modified AK, is only a 2 MOA rifle despite it's fearsome reputation, about the same as a rack grade M16.
Other factors that make for a reliable weapon are the overpowered and simple gas system of the AK, and the heavy taper of the M43 AK round. Simplicity works, and there is no denying the AK has a superb and well deserved reputation for reliability, even in the face of extreme neglect.
There are new weapon entering service or becoming available that may rival the AK. The SiG556 is basically AK internals, with a very elegantly designed improved gas system, and a better interface for adding optics, etc. The FNC was a simplified AK, even cheaper and easier to manufacture than the milled AK variants. New piston based derivatives of the AR hold some promise as well, although by going away from the M16 gas system is likely to degrade accuracy. One of the main factors for the AR platforms precision was the lack of a moving mass attacked to the barrel. On the AK, FAL, M14 and similar weapons, the gas system attached to the barrel, and oscillating back and forth every round, has a deleterious effect on accuracy.
Keep in mind that the Soviets generally viewed the AK as a product improved SMG, meant to be used with volume of fire at 100 meters or less. Accuracy is relatively unimportant in this situation, and the AKs sights certainly suggest sniping was not even a thought. Even the much vaunted SVD, a very modified AK, is only a 2 MOA rifle despite it's fearsome reputation, about the same as a rack grade M16.
Other factors that make for a reliable weapon are the overpowered and simple gas system of the AK, and the heavy taper of the M43 AK round. Simplicity works, and there is no denying the AK has a superb and well deserved reputation for reliability, even in the face of extreme neglect.
There are new weapon entering service or becoming available that may rival the AK. The SiG556 is basically AK internals, with a very elegantly designed improved gas system, and a better interface for adding optics, etc. The FNC was a simplified AK, even cheaper and easier to manufacture than the milled AK variants. New piston based derivatives of the AR hold some promise as well, although by going away from the M16 gas system is likely to degrade accuracy. One of the main factors for the AR platforms precision was the lack of a moving mass attacked to the barrel. On the AK, FAL, M14 and similar weapons, the gas system attached to the barrel, and oscillating back and forth every round, has a deleterious effect on accuracy.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Actually there are quite a few HK roller locks that DO have changeabel barrels. I.e the HK21, the PSG-1 and MSG-90. And the G3 barrel or barrel liner CAN be changed, BW G3s DID last 20+ years of service in an INFANTRY unit and they don't do that without repairs
And both the MP5 and the PSG series of weapons are still in production so HK did NOT abandon the roller lock
The rest is just proper maintenance. The rollers etc CAN be replaced after all.
Similar threads
