The Gun Hose

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Nolo, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    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.
    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:

    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.
     
  2. igpoobah

    igpoobah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    Arkansas
    bullet hose
     
  3. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    Gonna still need those dang quotation marks.
    :(
     
  4. Heavy Metal Hero

    Heavy Metal Hero Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    Florida
    MMG or PMG
     
  5. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    Which stands for..? Mini Machine Gun?
    Well, it's not exactly small, but...
    Oh, and that would get confused with "Medium Machine Gun".
    PMG..?
     
  6. Heavy Metal Hero

    Heavy Metal Hero Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    Florida
    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?
     
  7. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    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.
     
  8. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    Helena MT
    AA-12 Autoshotgun with SCMITR flechettes, just to be different.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Heavy Metal Hero

    Heavy Metal Hero Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    Florida
    That is what I was thinking....now what about costs? Seems like a logistical nightmare.
     
  10. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    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):
    WolverineShotgun.jpg
    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.
     
  11. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,198
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    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.
     
  12. praharin

    praharin Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    422
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    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
     
  13. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA
    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:


    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
     
  14. praharin

    praharin Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    422
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    very-strange-2.jpg

    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
     
  15. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    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.
     
  16. dstorm1911

    dstorm1911 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Tucson, Az most of the time
    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
     
  17. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    Helena MT
    Nolo, some of you data looks off.

    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.
     
  18. Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,486
    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
     
  19. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    Helena MT
    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?docid=-7672477363983248549&q=american-180&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

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

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    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. :D 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.
     
  21. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,198
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    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.
     
  22. m.p.driver

    m.p.driver Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    cincinnati oh
    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
     
  23. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    Evil Monkey, it is not a
    . 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.
     
  24. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    The American 180 basically inspired the "gun hose" concept, so yeah.
    It's already logged and filed up here.
     
  25. Nameless_Hobo

    Nameless_Hobo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    191
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice