The G11 - The Gun That Never Was




 
--
 
August 5th, 2004  
MosquitoMan
 
 

Topic: The G11 - The Gun That Never Was


http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...ml?ESRC=dod.nl

This gun, with caseless ammunition, weighed ten pounds with 100 rounds of ammunition, was never adopted by Germany as a replacement to the G3 Battle Rifle for undisclosed reasons. Then the United States tested it, gave it very high marks. So why aren't we seeing caseless ammunition now?

Benefits of Caseless Ammo
* Greater cyclic rate
* Improved cartridge feeding
* More efficient and accurate firing
August 5th, 2004  
5CAV
 

Topic: G11


There are two issues with the G11: 1) The Caseless Ammunition and 2) The Rifle.

1. The Caseless Ammunition Issue:

Notice that the brass that ejects from your rifle (M16, G3, etc.) is HOT.

If you measure the weight of the brass and the temperature change of brass (before and after firing), you can calculate (any engineers out there?) that there is a considerable amount of heat removed from the rifle from the hot, spent brass going out the ejection port.

With caseless ammunition, the heat from powder combustion stays with the rifle and is only dissipated by convective cooling from the ambient air (no water cooled assault rifles, please!). Hence, the rifle gets VERY HOT with FEWER ROUNDS and COOK-OFFS HAPPEN!

2. The Rifle Issue:

I hefted the G11. It is heavy, block-like and clumsy. I took it apart. It was built by Swiss Watchmakers -- the ones who make Patek-Philippes, not the ones who make Swatches. The prototype I saw had an INCREDIBLY COMPLEX mechanism for damping recoil, handling 3-round burst (another topic), and other functions.

The G11 was a science project -- something that engineers drool over, not something that would see combat in the next decade or two.
August 5th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
One of the big problems with caseless ammo is the trick they have of going inert on their own, sometimes from solvents used on weapons for cleaning, some chemical weapons will do the same to it. Plus the coatings are fragile allowing water/humidity to enter the propellant.
--
August 5th, 2004  
5CAV
 
Other valid reasons that caseless ammunition has yet to catch-on. Brass will be with us for a few more years.
August 28th, 2004  
Sea_Cadet
 
would have been interesting to see in combat
August 29th, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
The caseless ammo was also extremely unreliable too.
August 29th, 2004  
Aaron
 

Topic: Re: G11


Quote:
Originally Posted by 5CAV
There are two issues with the G11: 1) The Caseless Ammunition and 2) The Rifle.

1. The Caseless Ammunition Issue:

Notice that the brass that ejects from your rifle (M16, G3, etc.) is HOT.

If you measure the weight of the brass and the temperature change of brass (before and after firing), you can calculate (any engineers out there?) that there is a considerable amount of heat removed from the rifle from the hot, spent brass going out the ejection port.

With caseless ammunition, the heat from powder combustion stays with the rifle and is only dissipated by convective cooling from the ambient air (no water cooled assault rifles, please!). Hence, the rifle gets VERY HOT with FEWER ROUNDS and COOK-OFFS HAPPEN!
.
You wouldn't wont it burning your hands !ouch!
August 29th, 2004  
gladius
 
I think the biggest issue is NATO ammo compatibility.

I would cost far too much to transfer this all to caseless, and to switch over would not make that much of a difference in todays battlefield.

With this weapon you would maybe a 10% increase in total battlefield effectiveness. NATO won't do an overhaul over just 10%. They usually look for 100% increase before a major overhaul.

Awsome weapon though.
September 2nd, 2004  
Aaron
 
i would think even 50% would be worth upgrading wouldn't it
September 2nd, 2004  
gladius
 
For one single weapon non-major weapon system probably yes. You also have to take in the cost to effectiveness ratio, if it didn't cost too much they probably would do it.

But when your talking something like NATO ammo compatibility, that's a major overhaul, the cost is way too much even for 50% increase in effectiveness. NATO would probably debate over it, for 50% they may do it, if their budget permits. Budget constraints is probably why they won't do a major overhaul unless its 100% more effective.