The Gun Hose

[Nolo]

Recently, I posted a thread that's sole goal was trying to perfect the combat rifle's ammunition. If you haven't read it, please do, it's quite interesting, I'm told (by the way, it's in Rifle Country, under the name "Ultimate Combat Round"). One of the things I mentioned in that thread was the concept of the "gun hose".
A gun hose is neither a PDW, nor is it a submachine gun. It is distinct, but similar. What it truly is is an extreme form of assault rifle.

Now, let me explain the "gun hose" concept. You may be asking, why in the world doesn't he just call it a submachine gun? Well, because it's not a submachine gun. Subbies shoot pistol ammunition, a "gun hose", as I conceive it, shoots miniature (very miniature, as small as 4mm) rifle ammunition. Also, subbies tend to (not always, look at the 10-pound Thompson) weigh less than assault rifles, whereas "gun hoses" weigh the same as assault rifles, up to 10 pounds. Also, submachine guns generally use 30- or 50- round box magazines, a "gun hose" uses 75- or 100-round magazines (drum or otherwise), and, depending on the gun, sometimes as much as 200-round magazines. Thus, for a "gun hose", weight of the ammunition is key. It must be small, or else the poor soldier carrying the weapon will be overburdened. Also, "gun hoses" must not only have high rates of fire, they must have extreme rates of fire, preferrably in the 2000 rpm range. When your round only produces 300 ft-lbs of energy or less, you'd better be dishing those puppies out at high rates of fire. Also, burst settings for "gun hoses" should be as large as 7-10 rounds per burst, or else your effectiveness is moot over an assault rifle. Also, "gun hoses" need to be accurate, so that you don't lose any of that effectiveness. So that's a "gun hose", and the differences between it and a submachine gun. Oh, and if anyone can think of a better name for the "gun hose" concept, please let me know.

Some pictures of the weapons that inspired the "gun hose" concept:

The American 180 submachine gun:

Caliber: .22 ILARCO proprietary ammunition
Magazine Capacity: Up to 275 rounds
Rate of Fire: 1500 rounds per minute

The Fabrique Nationale P90 PDW:

Caliber: 5.7x28mm proprietary ammunition
Magazine Capacity: 50 rounds
Rate of Fire: 900 rounds per minute

I think that this gives us a pretty clear picture of what a "gun hose" should be. By the way, I think the perfect "gun hose" round (so far) is the 4.6x30mm HK.

Also, a very important thing to consider when choosing ammunition for a "gun hose" is the EPP of the cartridge:

I figured out a way to evaluate cartridges, especially when mated to their platforms:
Take the size of magazine the rifle will be using (20 for an M14 or FAL, 30 for an M16, 30 for my "dream rifle", 26 for a Grendel rifle) and then multiply that by the muzzle energy of each individual round to find the TME (Total Magazine Energy). Then you take that and divide it by the weight of the magazine (in pounds for me, I like Imperial units) and you get the Energy Per Pound, which you can then use to evaluate your cartridges.

The TME for some cartridges:
5.56 = 1300 x 30 = 39000 ft-lbs
7.62 NATO = 2500 x 20 = 50000 ft-lbs
6.5 Grendel = 1950 x 26 = 50700 ft-lbs
6mm Firebrand = 2000 x 30 = 60000 ft-lbs

This gives you a look at how much power each rifle is dishing out per magazine.
The you just take those figures and divide them by the weight of each magazine (for this experiment, eliminating the weight if the actual magazine and only using the weight of the rounds it contains).

The EPP for the same cartridges:
5.56 = 39000 / (30 x .025 lbs) = 52000 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
7.62 NATO = 50000 / (20 x .05 lbs) = 50000 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
6.5 Grendel = 50700 / (26 x .033 lbs) = 59090 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
6mm Firebrand = 60000 / (30 x .033 lbs) = 60606 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance

As you can see, surprisingly the 5.56 outperforms the 7.62 NATO in energy per pound of ordinance, but compared to my 6mm design and Grendel (which are very close), it fall significantly short.

Now, this is not the only thing that needs to be considered when choosing a cartridge, but it helps simplify the problem of power. It also tells you how much power a soldier can dish out before he has to change magazines, which is useful. In my opinion, in order to be effective, a 5.56mm rifle has to have a magazine capacity of about 40 rounds to be a true equal to the 7.62, because the soldier can then use the rifle's burst capability (which I would have as a 2-round bursts) with much less sweat on his brow.

Just something to think about.

So, here's the thing: the name "gun hose" sucks. It just does. I've always got to put quotation marks around it and it just sounds dorky. So what would be a better name for it? Help me out people.

 

[igpoobah]

bullet hose

 

[Nolo]

Gonna still need those dang quotation marks.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

MMG or PMG

 

[Nolo]

MMG

Which stands for..? Mini Machine Gun?
Well, it's not exactly small, but...
Oh, and that would get confused with "Medium Machine Gun".
PMG..?

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

Ok then PMG.

Personal Machine Gun. Something to that effect.

EDIT: Can I ask you why you thought of this idea when a SAW can hold just as many rounds and is in .223?

 

[Nolo]

Heavy Metal Hero, it's lighter than the SAW, and it's designed to be used by every infantryman.
Note: I'm not trying to design something for the U.S. military, I'm just trying to design something.
I kinda like "Personal Machine Gun", but let's see what other people have to say.

 

[GunTech]

AA-12 Autoshotgun with SCMITR flechettes, just to be different.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

it's designed to be used by every infantryman.

That is what I was thinking....now what about costs? Seems like a logistical nightmare.

 

[Nolo]

I love that weapon. And I love SCMITR flechettes. That's one of the many reasons why I like shotguns.
On a side note, here's how to solve the cost issue of the AA-12 (they're expensive as ****e):

Ohhh man, this is awesome. Some of you fellow gun nuts out there may know of a shotgun called the AA-12. You may know that it fires fully automatic at 300 rpm with no recoil and that it is impeccably reliable. You may also know that it is super-expensive. Meet the solution. Using the proven HK G3A3 Rifle as the basis, I have essentially copied the constant-recoil system of the AA-12 and forced it, kicking and screaming, into the G3's frame. This shotgun would be inexpensive, hugely deadly, and, I think, much cooler looking than the AA-12. By the way, I drew this with good ole' pencil and paper and scanned it into my computer then added some touch-ups in paint.

That's from my DeviantArt page, if any of you are wondering.

And why would it be a logistical nightmare? Okay, 4.6x30mm isn't the cheapest round, but neither was .22 Long Rifle when it was first created (I don't think, but I hope you still get my point). Every new round is expensive until there's a big supply of them. And, besides, this is not supposed to be better than everything else out there, just different. It has its drawbacks, and I'm well aware of most (I hope) of them.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Build one that works, then hire the folks that re-named tobacco giant Philip Morris "Altria Group" to help smooth out 'gun hose / bullet hose' PR nightmare.


It's obvious you are really thinking about this in depth. Have you thought about it as a non-powder firearm--and airgun? AFAIK, you can make full auto airguns to your hearts content--and you would eliminate almost all regulation and many sources of stopage. Just a thought.

 

[praharin]

why would i want to carry something as heavy as an assault riflebut smaller. with a ridiculous rate of fire that makes having a lot of ammo not worth while. to a soldier, carrying a small weapon that weighs 10 pounds is the same as carrying a large rifle that weighs 10 pounds. and you cant engage targets out as far. no real benefit there. the main benefit of a subgun is the weight and size. if you take away the weight advantage, you are not benefiting as much.

ive never heard anyone use the acronym mmg to refer to medium machine gun. its hmg gpmg and lmg. for heavy, general purpose and light. ive carried all three, and they are generally heavy.

2000 rounds per minute will put you out of ammo in a hurry when the chips are down. even if the gun hose (i dont use quotes because the name suits the product, imho) has a 200 round magazine, thats 6 seconds of burst. that was the reason they went to 3 round burst. easier to change the tool than train the troops better i guess. i have never fired anything near that, but in a 10 pound or less package, i doubt it would be very controllable for more than a small burst at a time. even with the little recoil you would be dealing with, there is still the energy of the bolt carrier moving about.

next, you say rounds as small a 4mm, well, 4mm is not going to go 300 meters and do much damage. id you send it fast enough maybe, but i would bet it goes back in time and hits a mastodon first. it will be too light to maintain anything resembling stopping power that far out.

is there any of your dreams i didnt crush? let me know, ill come back later

 

[JWarren]

Nola,

Thanks for starting this. For those not involved in the parent thread, here is a link to the thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292713


I'm still up in the air over the terminology. All terms should be somewhat descriptive of its unique use/characteristics. PMG or MMG doesn't sufficiently distinguish the firearm's role and differentiate it from other forms of machine guns.

I was just thinking of a name when this came to me. The firearm we are talking about has an essential role of not only suppressive fire, but rather SATURATION fire.

Perhaps Assualt Saturation Rifle (ASR). Or Urban Saturation Rifle (USR)-- if assuming an urban role.


I don't know... its something to think about.


I may have a concern for using this as:

it's designed to be used by every infantryman.

Like HMH stated, it would be a logistical nightmare. I wouldn't see this as a general infrantry weapon as much as I would see it as a limited role weapon that would be selectively used in appropriate situations.


Let me think on this more before I respond further.


-- John

 

[praharin]

this is not supposed to be better than everything else out there, just different

different is not always good... in any way


my personal idea for the name is ubiquitous ammunition waster. uaw sounds familiar though, it may be something else

 

[Nolo]

This is primarily a military firearm (though don't get the idea that I don't think that normal people should be able to own automatics, because I do), so the regulations involved don't really apply if I play my cards right. And an airgun wouldn't work due to the facts that:
A). A tank of CO2 would weigh more than 100-200 brass cases with powder (I'd be willing to bet).
B). A tank exacerbates reload times.
C). Can an air supply shoot a 50-60 grain bullet at 2500 f/s? I don't think so, at least not without a big tank (for all those rounds).
D). I'm not sure that you could get 2000 feet per second with an airgun without electrical assist, which would weigh even more.

 

[dstorm1911]

Neo, there was in fact one on a video last night it was a bb gun that fired 3,000 bbs per second, 120 yard range literally devastating, used 2 co2 tanks (they looked like basic firefighter oxygen tanks but a lil smaller) that fit in a back pack for power wasn't real heavy at all , I mean totally devastating!!!

It was the minibbgun or something like that it was on a satalite chanell "Country fired videos" I think was the name it was shown on CMT station

 

[GunTech]

Nolo, some of you data looks off.

6.5 Grendel = 1950 x 26 = 50700 ft-lbs

Typical Grendel loads from a 24 inch barrel run about 1750 ft-pounds, not 1950. I'd like to look at the firebrand and see how you at getting 2000 ft-pounds and fitting 30 in a magazine when only 26 Grendel hill fit in the space. to get 2000 foot punds at anthing close to safe pressiures, I had to load up the 243 to 3000fps and 59,000 psi! The 6.5x45 I did up as an example only manages 1912 ft-pounds with a 0.452 case head and 6mm more length than the grendel. That's driving a 108 grain bullet at 2825 fps.

BTW, TME for 6.5x45 is 49,712. I'll use 0.040 per catridge, slightly more than Grendel. That gives an EPP of 47,800. Correcting Grendel, TME should be 45,500 and EPP is 53,000.

 

[Evil Monkey]

The "gun hose" concept is futile and pointless. It is a solution in search of a problem.

In general combat you have the LMG/SAW. The M249 can hold 200rds. The current LSAT prototype LMG weighs in at 9.2lbs and 200rds of it's telescopic 5.56mm ammo weighs about half as much as 200rds of belted brass cased 5.56mm ammo. But you want every rifle man to have a bullet hose? Give them all Beta-C drum mags. Problem solved.

Here's the LSAT
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1000

 

[GunTech]

The AA-12 doesn't have to be expensive. It's actually designed for ease of manufacture and is the direct decendant of the work of Max Atchisson (SP?).

It's is not without recoil, at least the Assault 12 wasn't. It had reduced recoil because it is an open bolt gun using API. IIRC, the bolt is based on the Browning BAR (military). In API (advanced primer ignition), the round is stripped from the magazine, fed into the chamber and fires just before the bolt comes to rest. The fired round has to overcome the forward momentum of the bolt, and this contributes to reduced recoil. OPen bolt SMGs work the same way, which is why a Sten, Sterling or even MAC-10 have significanty less recoil than an MP-5.

High rates of fire are fine with burst controlled guns. The whole concept stems from the Hitchman report that I aluded to in the previous thread. The HK G11 used a 2000 rpm 3-round burst so that it fired a swarm of missiles in much the same way as a shotgun.

If you want a simple bullets hose, just update the American 180, and fill it with something like 17HMR. A 277 round pan magazine will last you a while.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8429095824926792367

 

[Nolo]

First, GunTech, that's old data, from the first post on the "Ultimate Combat Round" thread, so don't worry about it.
And it may be so that my 6.5 Grendel may be off, I got it from Wikipedia, with the most attractive (as far as foot-pounds) loading.
And thanks for the TMEs and EPPs, that was quite useful.
Second, dstorm1911, would you carry that into battle? I wouldn't. And I'd be willing to bet it had electric assist.
Third, praharin, it is not an ammunition waster, we aren't shooting .223s here. The rounds are much smaller and lighter. You can have more. It doesn't waste anything, in fact, if you're good enough, you waste less, but, of course, you have to get a head shot every single time. The idea is that this is a main weapon for army "Z" (armies "X" and "Y" were armed with battle rifles and assault rifles, respectively), so it's designed to be as heavy (or light, depending on your perspective) as an assault rifle.
Fourth, JWarren, it is not designed to be a specialist weapon, as there would be no advantage (outside of special forces) to using this weapon alongside assault rifles and Machine guns, DMRs, as it would severely hamper logistics.
Fifth, praharin again, the ammunition in total would weigh exactly the same as the ammunition you (the soldier) carry now. It should have an EPP of 52000 or better. The weapon would be significantly lighter (smaller breechblock for higher ROF) than a machine gun and about the same as an M4 carbine (10 pounds was the upper limit).
MMG does stand for "Medium Machine Gun", but we haven't had any MMGs since Korea (at the latest, Vietnam, the last MMG was the Browning 1919A4). GPMGs do their job just fine. By the way, you crushed none of my dreams, I'm a stubborn little bastard. And there are perfectly acceptable ways of reducing or annihilating recoil. As for the 300 meters thing, sure. But an M14 (for comparison) can't kill 150 guys with one magazine, either.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Replenish the pressure tank chemically on demand. My thinking is that with that high of a cyclic rate, the less powder residue, cases and moving parts at the place where the gun 'eats' the better.

But your track for conventional ammo has merit for selling to a military buyer for the same reason that cars that sell still have four wheels--people expect them to have four wheels.

 

[m.p.driver]

I remember seeing the American 180 demonstated on Thats Incredible way back when,they showed putting the red dot on a dummy and then just ripping a line in it on full auto,was being used in prisons supposedly for riot control before things got out of hand,it seems individual lost enthusiasm when the red dot hit them.Me?one shot one kill,if not call in an air burst

 

[Nolo]

Evil Monkey, it is not a

solution in search of a problem

. It is merely a concept that doesn't solve anything, and I know that. If you'd taken the trouble to read the "Ultimate Combat Round" thread, then you would know that I prefer assault rifles to anything else (save shotguns, which I wouldn't arm an entire army with) anyway. But a few people wanted me to explain the "gun hose" concept, and so I did. And I asked for a new name along the way.
And one Beta-C mag with 100 5.56mm rounds weighs far more than a 100 round "gun hose" mag (caliber as of yet undetermined). One (low-end capacity) "gun hose" mag is designed to weigh as much as a 30-round STANAG magazine.
AA-12s, as of now, are expensive.
An automatic shotgun based around the G3 would already have facilities tailored to it, and it was done on a whim, anyway (because, truthfully, I think the AA-12 is ugly but I like its concept).
Evil Monkey: I like that weapon, I like it alot.
Neo-Luddite, would you be willing to carry around the tank that your fellow soldiers would need to have access to every time they needed a mag change? I wouldn't. It'd be goshawful heavy. And you still didn't address the velocity problem.

 

[Nolo]

The American 180 basically inspired the "gun hose" concept, so yeah.
It's already logged and filed up here.

 

[Nameless_Hobo]

Why not use a shotgun with #4 buck? It'll do the same think, except work better 100% of the time.
A tiny round like that will need a bullet to hit vitals to assure anything close to really putting someone down.
A .22 will kill you, but a .223 or .308 will kill you easier.