Weapon improvement idea?

[Reagans Rascals]

Was thinking today and couldn't help but wonder....

The high sustained rates of fire from belt fed weapons produce tremendous heat build up and require an open bolt firing mechanism to aid in chamber cooling, as well as the utilization of quick change barrels to prevent barrel damage and to retain combat accuracy after the barrel becomes white hot.

The open bolt firing mechanism affects the accuracy of the weapon, reduces the weapon to strictly f/a fire, and it presents a higher chance of accidental discharge and or fouling of the weapon by debris. The quick change barrel setup adds weight, requires the operator to carry additional barrels not to mention its also pretty technical in terms of engineering.

All of those features to aid in cooling and prevent heat induced malfunctions/damage to the weapon.

What if they simply made the barrel, chamber, bolt carrier group, and any other parts of the fire control group adversely affected by heat build up, out of materials such as Inconel, HASTELLOY X, or some other type of superalloy, while also machining extra tolerances for high heat expansion in other components.

I mean shit... HASTELLOY X is used in turbine engines for combustion chamber and blade construction.

I understand that these materials require extra attention as far as machining is concerned, but they are not impossible to work with, otherwise companies like AAC would be out of business. The alloys are corrosion resistant and therefore would more than likely not require a chrome or melonite lining. Also, doing so would result in significant weight savings over the traditional quick change steel barrel design.

A Shrike style upper receiver, in which the barrel, chamber, and bcg are made of a material such as HASTELLOY X, would be select fire, require no quick change barrel, fire from a close bolt, and be capable of substantially higher sustained rates of fire (ammo permitting). Theoretically that type of weapon system could potentially outperform the M60, M240 and the M249 in rate of fire, select fire capability, accuracy, malfunctions due to heat build up, maintenance and in overall weight/size.

Besides the overall cost of the materials, machining, and possibly having to retool, I don't really see any pitfalls with doing this. I would think doing so would actually reduce the cost of weapon implementation because it would require none of the development, testing, and proofing of a quick change barrel design. Just a simple one piece barrel with a gas port, made of a stronger material. Also, you could get away with running much thinner barrels further reducing weight, allowing for more ammo to be carried.

This could also be utilized on standard magazine fed weapons as well to increase barrel and component life.

Just a simple "is this feasible and/or possibly beneficial" type of idea

Any thoughts?

hypotheticals like "well what if this were to happen" or "I'm sure they've already done their homework on it and it hasn't been done for a reason" really do no good so can we try to keep the comments constructive, knowledgeable and educating.

eta-- sorry for the long post

[Jaysop]

I feel like there's infinate ways to improve current issue equipment but what holds the gov back is cost. The whole (lowest bidder concept)
In some cases I don't understand why people want exactly what were issued bc a lot of it is crap...
I'm not familiar with the materials your talking about manufacturing wepons with but I'm sure the reason is ( if it's truly that effective) is cost.
I would love to find out more about stuff like this tho, interesting post.

[Reagans Rascals]

....The whole (lowest bidder concept)
In some cases I don't understand why people want exactly what were issued bc a lot of it is crap...

that's how I always feel when I hear people chirp on and on about only using "MIL-SPEC" parts..... doesn't MIL-SPEC mean the absolute lowest possible quality the military will accept?


...I would love to find out more about stuff like this tho, interesting post...

this is just some general reading on the 2 alloys I had listed:

Inconel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel
HASTELLOY X- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastelloy

there are numerous different superalloys besides the ones I just listed that would fit the bill for this type of use...

[QuietShootr]

Was thinking today and couldn't help but wonder....

The high sustained rates of fire from belt fed weapons produce tremendous heat build up and require an open bolt firing mechanism to aid in chamber cooling, as well as the utilization of quick change barrels to prevent barrel damage and to retain combat accuracy after the barrel becomes white hot.

The open bolt firing mechanism affects the accuracy of the weapon, reduces the weapon to strictly f/a fire, and it presents a higher chance of accidental discharge and or fouling of the weapon by debris. The quick change barrel setup adds weight, requires the operator to carry additional barrels not to mention its also pretty technical in terms of engineering.

All of those features to aid in cooling and prevent heat induced malfunctions/damage to the weapon.

What if they simply made the barrel, chamber, bolt carrier group, and any other parts of the fire control group adversely affected by heat build up, out of materials such as Inconel, HASTELLOY X, or some other type of superalloy, while also machining extra tolerances for high heat expansion in other components.

I mean shit... HASTELLOY X is used in turbine engines for combustion chamber and blade construction.

I understand that these materials require extra attention as far as machining is concerned, but they are not impossible to work with, otherwise companies like AAC would be out of business. The alloys are corrosion resistant and therefore would more than likely not require a chrome or melonite lining. Also, doing so would result in significant weight savings over the traditional quick change steel barrel design.

A Shrike style upper receiver, in which the barrel, chamber, and bcg are made of a material such as HASTELLOY X, would be select fire, require no quick change barrel, fire from a close bolt, and be capable of substantially higher sustained rates of fire (ammo permitting). Theoretically that type of weapon system could potentially outperform the M60, M240 and the M249 in rate of fire, select fire capability, accuracy, malfunctions due to heat build up, maintenance and in overall weight/size.

Besides the overall cost of the materials, machining, and possibly having to retool, I don't really see any pitfalls with doing this. I would think doing so would actually reduce the cost of weapon implementation because it would require none of the development, testing, and proofing of a quick change barrel design. Just a simple one piece barrel with a gas port, made of a stronger material. Also, you could get away with running much thinner barrels further reducing weight, allowing for more ammo to be carried.

This could also be utilized on standard magazine fed weapons as well to increase barrel and component life.

Just a simple "is this feasible and/or possibly beneficial" type of idea

Any thoughts?

hypotheticals like "well what if this were to happen" or "I'm sure they've already done their homework on it and it hasn't been done for a reason" really do no good so can we try to keep the comments constructive, knowledgeable and educating.

eta-- sorry for the long post

It'd still have to be open bolt or you would get cookoffs. I'm not a metallurgist, but I would bet the reason those alloys aren't used in weapons is cost. Would you pay $4000 for an AR barrel?

[Jaysop]

doesn't MIL-SPEC mean the absolute lowest possible quality the military will accept?
That's how I feel about it, even tho I don't think to many people see it that way.
Not to throw off the thread in an off topic... But personally I haven't had the best experience with issued colt M4s they've always been hit or miss, that's why I will probably never own one.
I obviously understand why it's like that, when you buying hundreds of thousands of something you can't buy all the best, it's probably just cheaper to fix the known problems periodically.

[Reagans Rascals]

It'd still have to be open bolt or you would get cookoffs.

that makes sense, after long periods of time you'd either have to rack the bolt back and leave it open which kinda negates the purpose, run an empty chamber until you have to fire and then load a round, or just run an open bolt.


I'm not a metallurgist, but I would bet the reason those alloys aren't used in weapons is cost. Would you pay $4000 for an AR barrel?

$4000 might be a lot for an AR barrel... but barring of course any unforeseen circumstances like severe damage, theft or even just sheer want....would I ever need to buy one again....

[Jaysop]

It'd still have to be open bolt or you would get cookoffs. I'm not a metallurgist, but I would bet the reason those alloys aren't used in weapons is cost. Would you pay $4000 for an AR barrel?
I wouldn't mind being handed one buy the gov :)
Somebody showed me some kind of ceramic that doesn't hold heat at all. If something like that could be used cook offs wouldn't be a problem. I'm it's not that simple and it would take years for that concept to get up and running but it would be nice.

[Reagans Rascals]

That's how I feel about it, even tho I don't think to many people see it that way.
Not to throw off the thread in an off topic... But personally I haven't had the best experience with issued colt M4s they've always been hit or miss, that's why I will probably never own one.
I obviously understand why it's like that, when you buying hundreds of thousands of something you can't buy all the best, it's probably just cheaper to fix the known problems periodically.

the space shuttle for instance.... 270,000 moving parts.. all built by the lowest bidder

[Reagans Rascals]

Somebody showed me some kind of ceramic that doesn't hold heat at all. If something like that could be used cook offs wouldn't be a problem. I'm it's not that simple and it would take years for that concept to get up and running but it would be nice.

That is actually a superb idea.... make the barrel, chamber and bcg from a high heat superalloy and then line the chamber/ barrel extension with a type of super heat dissipating ceramic.... the ceramic might be brittle but if they were able to launch a vehicle covered in it into space and return it through 3,000 degree temps (133 out of 135 times), I'm sure it'll withstand the ramming of the bolt head and possibly being dropped. Not to mention I'm fairly certain Carbon Ceramic Brake systems have exploded into use in the racing community. If a Carbon Ceramic brake rotor is able to withstand the kinds of pressures and heat from a day at the track... I think it'll work just as well here...

see these are the kind of ideas that go places....

[Jaysop]

the space shuttle for instance.... 270,000 moving parts.. all built by the lowest bidder

That's such an uncomfortable thought isnt it? Lol
There are a few things that the gov bought regardless of cost, the acog for example was a step in the right direction for the Marine Corps.

[Sry0fcr]

that's how I always feel when I hear people chirp on and on about only using "MIL-SPEC" parts..... doesn't MIL-SPEC mean the absolute lowest possible quality the military will accept?

No, it means the lowest bidder that can meet the requirements. Please don't make the mistake of confusing quality with cost.

On topic though, mechanical failure isn't usually the weak link in high volume weapons. Cooking off live rounds is and that's why these weapons have quick change barrels and fire from the open bolt. What we really need are materials that don't absorb/transfer heat, but we're a while away from mass produced ceramic or carbon fiber barrels for this application.

[Reagans Rascals]

No, it means the lowest bidder that can meet the requirements. Please don't make the mistake of confusing quality with cost.

I think we're talking about the same thing, just 2 different ways.

MIL-SPEC means the absolute lowest possible quality that the military is willing to accept. As in, the minimum standard. Nothing will be accepted that isn't at or above that standard... but that doesn't mean that standard is as high as some commercially available parts/weapons not stamped as MIL-SPEC.

[jmart]

How much higher a sustained rate of fire do you require? Are you really chasing a real requirement or are you just theorizing that better, more suitable materials exist, so you're postulating how much better a weapon would be if made from those materials?

[Reagans Rascals]

How much higher a sustained rate of fire do you require? Are you really chasing a real requirement or are you just theorizing that better, more suitable materials exist, so you're postulating how much better a weapon would be if made from those materials?

not just a higher sustained rate of fire, but a simpler, lighter, more reliable weapon system composed of better materials seems like a good idea to me... am I wrong?

that's why we retired the F-14..... 10 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time.... it was just time to move on to something better

would you still choose to carry the 249 if you could carry a weapon that was 1/3 its size, 10 pounds lighter, more accurate, more reliable, required little to no maintenance, and still put out just as much fire?

I think the Minute Man armed with a flintlock would have been mighty pleased to have been issued the Garand.... it's just evolution....

I'm not postulating anything, its a fact that those materials exist and therefore if used, they would yield results on par with the current inventory if not better.

I'm simply asking if the idea has ever been entertained, and if not, lets explore it, if even just figuratively. I'm sure the rail gun and maglev ideas were first looked at as wishful postulating.... but they are here now...

[decodeddiesel]

not just a higher sustained rate of fire, but a simpler, lighter, more reliable weapon system composed of better materials seems like a good idea to me... am I wrong?

that's why we retired the F-14..... 10 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time.... it was just time to move on to something better

would you still choose to carry the 249 if you could carry a weapon that was 1/3 its size, 10 pounds lighter, more accurate, more reliable, required little to no maintenance, and still put out just as much fire?

I think the Minute Man armed with a flintlock would have been mighty pleased to have been issued the Garand.... it's just evolution....

I'm not postulating anything, its a fact that those materials exist and therefore if used, they would yield results on par with the current inventory if not better.

I'm simply asking if the idea has ever been entertained, and if not, lets explore it, if even just figuratively. I'm sure the rail gun and maglev ideas were first looked at as wishful postulating.... but they are here now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_science#Metal_alloys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_materials#Definitions

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?MatGUID=4361b68268934746ad70542944cdd8cf

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=f1ab27b2b649452ca522dbd0df967b8e

Note the discrepancies.

There are reasons 4150 steel is used for barrels. There are very smart people who go to school for years to figure out things like this, and there is very repeatable and reputable mathematical calculations used to determine what works best in what application within mechanical design. It's called Mechanical Engineering.

In lay terms, Hasteloy, Inconel, Monel, etc. are VERY difficult to machine and typically require EDM or ECM cutting techniques to machine...even so they do not meet the specific properties of cold worked, tempered, chrome lined chromium-molybdenum steels.

I understand you were trying to extend the argument to other components, and perhaps in some applications some sort of "super alloy" would be better for the part. However a cursory inspection of the provided data sheets would reveal that among other things the modulus of elasticity of Hasteloy is a good deal lower than simple tempered 4150 steel. This material would NOT do well with the stresses a barrel must endure.

[decodeddiesel]

If a Carbon Ceramic brake rotor is able to withstand the kinds of pressures and heat from a day at the track... I think it'll work just as well here...


Sir, with all due respect you do not have the qualifications or knowledge to "think" this.

Look, this is an interesting idea but it is WAY outside of your lane. Furthermore I think it is rather arrogant to believe that you alone could stumble on this and that engineers before you somehow missed it.


"I'm sure they've already done their homework on it and it hasn't been done for a reason"

Yes.

[Reagans Rascals]

Sir, with all due respect you do not have the qualifications or knowledge to "think" this.

Its good to know you attended all of my graduations daddy


Look, this is an interesting idea but it is WAY outside of your lane. Furthermore I think it is rather arrogant to believe that you alone could stumble on this and that engineers before you somehow missed it..

and you speak of arrogance after that comment?

I don't recall ever stating that any engineer has ever missed anything, in fact, what I do recall is stating specifically "I'm simply asking if the idea has ever been entertained, and if not, lets explore it, if even just figuratively"

also I like how you specifically pulled an alloy from your rectum that I had not even mentioned and then tried to use the specs of said alloy in a demeaning tone to further your own ego.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Lets compare the uses of the alloy I had originally stated, HASTELLOY X (N06002), with the alloy you so graciously included in the discussion, HASTELLOY C-276 (N10276).

First, no they are not the same alloy. Second, HASTELLOY X is designed for high-temperature/ high pressure environments such as turbine combustors, afterburners and hot-section impeller blades. HASTELLOY C-276 is designed for corrosion resistance and used in chemical processing. Those are 2 completely different purposes.


In lay terms, Hasteloy, Inconel, Monel, etc. are VERY difficult to machine and typically require EDM or ECM cutting techniques to machine
I'll just respond with this:
http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/HastelloyX.asp#General


This material would NOT do well with the stresses a barrel must endure.
http://www.hpalloy.com/alloys/descriptions/HASTELLOY_X.html

"HASTELLOY alloy X is recommended especially for use in furnace applications because it has unusual resistance to oxidizing, reducing, and neutral atmospheres. Furnace rolls made of this alloy were still in good condition after operating for 8700 hours at 2150 Deg. F. Furnace trays, used to support heavy loads, have been exposed to temperatures up to 2300 Deg. F. in an oxidizing atmosphere without bending or warping. Alloy X is equally suitable for use in jet engine tailpipes, afterburner components, turbine blades, nozzle vanes, cabin heaters, and other aircraft parts, gas turbine combustion cans and ducting, heat-treating equipment."

So I guess the pressures and heat within a turbine combustor or an afterburner are not even on the same level as those contained within a 5.56 barrel right?..... yeah ok...

also... you're just a very rude person... so I think you can go now

[fuse]

Cool thread.

[decodeddiesel]

Its good to know you attended all of my graduations daddy



and you speak of arrogance after that comment?

I don't recall ever stating that any engineer has ever missed anything, in fact, what I do recall is stating specifically "I'm simply asking if the idea has ever been entertained, and if not, lets explore it, if even just figuratively"

also I like how you specifically pulled an alloy from your rectum that I had not even mentioned and then tried to use the specs of said alloy in a demeaning tone to further your own ego.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Lets compare the uses of the alloy I had originally stated, HASTELLOY X (N06002), with the alloy you so graciously included in the discussion, HASTELLOY C-276 (N10276).

First, no they are not the same alloy. Second, HASTELLOY X is designed for high-temperature/ high pressure environments such as turbine combustors, afterburners and hot-section impeller blades. HASTELLOY C-276 is designed for corrosion resistance and used in chemical processing. Those are 2 completely different purposes.


I'll just respond with this:
http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/HastelloyX.asp#General


http://www.hpalloy.com/alloys/descriptions/HASTELLOY_X.html

"HASTELLOY alloy X is recommended especially for use in furnace applications because it has unusual resistance to oxidizing, reducing, and neutral atmospheres. Furnace rolls made of this alloy were still in good condition after operating for 8700 hours at 2150 Deg. F. Furnace trays, used to support heavy loads, have been exposed to temperatures up to 2300 Deg. F. in an oxidizing atmosphere without bending or warping. Alloy X is equally suitable for use in jet engine tailpipes, afterburner components, turbine blades, nozzle vanes, cabin heaters, and other aircraft parts, gas turbine combustion cans and ducting, heat-treating equipment."

So I guess the pressures and heat within a turbine combustor or an afterburner are not even on the same level as those contained within a 5.56 barrel right?..... yeah ok...

also... you're just a very rude person... so I think you can go now

My post had no rancor or malice to it, yet this is the response. You made complete outlandish claims about things you clearly know little or nothing about, and then throw a tantrum when someone comes along and shows you politely how unrealistic your claims are.

This is like you saying that an industrial laser is perfect for open heart surgery, then getting upset when someone who can credibly refute this claim shows up and informs you it is not really so great after all.

Silly me, I forgot that every American male is born with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering.

ETA: I was going to start to try to actually show you exactly where you made your mistakes, and have assumed things incorrectly. I decided I don't have the time nor the inclination to spend hours showing you why you are completely wrong and scientifically unsound. It is something you learn over the course of many subjects, and many semesters of study. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and try to sound as cool as you want talking about things you know nothing about. I won't make another peep, but this whole website is brought down a notch by this.

[mkmckinley]

This thread is pointless. OP unless you have some kind of materials science degree then it sounds like you're just reading the wikipedia pages for these different metals and conjecturing that they would make amazing barrels for belt feds. Lets just say you could use some miracle substance, in existence or not, to improve a weapon. Would it be worth the cost to design and manufacture it? Probably not. I remember reading something about Noveske making an experimental barrel out of some amazing alloy and he said he'd never do it again. The benefits weren't worth the huge cost.

If you're just asking a theoretical "wouldn't it be great if a 240 only weighed 8lbs" then the answer is yes, it would. Design and build one out of inconel or whatever and I'll bet you get a blue ribbon at the science fair.

[Magic_Salad0892]

ETA: I was going to start to try to actually show you exactly where you made your mistakes, and have assumed things incorrectly. I decided I don't have the time nor the inclination to spend hours showing you why you are completely wrong and scientifically unsound. It is something you learn over the course of many subjects, and many semesters of study. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and try to sound as cool as you want talking about things you know nothing about. I won't make another peep, but this whole website is brought down a notch by this.

Well...

what if I wanted to know what he wasn't mechanically sound?

I'd read.

[Reagans Rascals]

Silly me, I forgot that every American male is born with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering.

PhD no, Bachelors yes. Please don't be disillusioned with the fallacy of thinking simply because I ask questions regarding innovative ideas, that I am uneducated.

Both of your posts were rude. Plain and simple. There was no criticism of a constructive nature, no attempts to educate those with opposing views. You simply felt the need to evangelize the world with your plight, regardless of credible merit.

The response I posted refuted every single claim you made, and you would know this had you taken the time to examine it, as I had the respect to do for yours.

Had you composed your comments with a little more cordiality, they would have been more readily received and valued.

The constant varying pressures and temperatures observed at N2 as turbulent hot exhaust gas converges on the high pressure turbine immediately after the combustor, is substantially higher than what would be observed in a 5.56 barrel during a high sustained rate of fire.
Therefore, if HASTELLOY X and other such super alloys are capable of withstanding the forces imposed within a turbine core, it is more than logical to surmise they would also be more than capable for use in barrel construction. Otherwise, why isn't plain old reliable 4150 used in turbine combustor construction?

Suppressors themselves are now being made of Inconel. So once again, if it can withstand those pressures and temperatures, it is completely within the scope of engineering to produce a barrel from this material.

The skin of the X-15 was constructed of Inconel, and that aircraft flew at 6.72 mach to an altitude of 67miles developing leading edge temperatures of over 1200 degrees... in 1967.

The thrust chamber of the F-1 Rocket Motor used on the Saturn V booster was made of Inconel. This in itself proves the material is capable considering it produced 1,522,000 pounds of thrust reliably, without failure...

Substantial cost is one thing. But that has nothing to do with capability or lack of useful purpose.

[decodeddiesel]

I said I was not going to waste my time on this, yet you seem to damn set on drawing me into some sort of argument. Nothing I say or do would be worth the effort of typing it into my keyboard because you will use some other sort of false logic and irrational conclusion to refute me.

Given the fact that you have equated the environment of the inside of a jet engine, the brakes on a race car, the leading edges of a rocket plane, and whatever else to a barrel firing a high pressure rifle round to somehow validate your argument shows me everything I need to know about the Bachelors of Mechanical Engineering you claim to have.

Like I said, I am done.

[Reagans Rascals]

I am not going to waste my time on this, yet you seem to damn set on drawing me into some sort of argument. Nothing I say or do would be worth the effort of typing it into my keyboard because you will use some other sort of false logic and irrational conclusion to refute me.

Given the fact that you have equated the environment of the inside of a jet engine, the brakes on a race car, the leading edges of a rocket plane, and whatever else to a barrel firing a high pressure rifle round to somehow validate your argument shows me everything I need to know about the Bachelors of Mechanical Engineering you claim to have.

Like I said, I am done.

sounds good, I'll shoot AAC an email in a few hours and let 'em know they may have a problem with their products.