The Gun Hose

[Owen]

hmm

wonder what that energy info comes out to in Watts

 

[Nolo]

Good question. I'm sure there's a converter on the 'Net, there always seems to be.

 

[Bobarino]

 

[Nolo]

Yes, that was one of the weapons that contributed to the idea, but "gun hose" would be much larger.

 

[Evil Monkey]

 

[Nolo]

Yes, that's a SAW Para, what about it?
I still believe it weighs more than 10 pounds.
And its barrel is godawful short.
And its ammo is heavy.
And, without support, it's hard to fire on sustained full auto, I'd be willing to bet.

 

[Evil Monkey]

And, without support, it's hard to fire on sustained full auto, I'd be willing to bet.

If soldiers can control a full auto 5-7 pound m4 then they can control a 13-16 pound m249.

Honestly, I've been trying real hard to put your concept into practicality and I just can't do it! I can't figure out at what moment you would need such a weapon. I can't figure out who would be using it. What units? What mission? Etc. and Etc.

And that's why I consider it a solution to a non existent problem. I'm trying to fit the concept somewhere in general warfare and it's not working out for me.

 

[Nolo]

It's not a solution Evil Monkey, it's just a concept.
You'd need different tactics, different logistics and a different military mindset.
It'd be doable, but it'd only be doable with undue effort.
Nevertheless, it is a viable concept. Well, depending on your definition of "viable".

 

[Nolo]

My point about the ammunition is just that it needs to be small and light, primarily because you don't want the solider hefting too much.
They choose the beefiest guys to haul the M249 because it's heavy.
Strangely, I think that the current weapon that comes closest to the "gun hose" concept is one that I've been discussing in my other thread, "Ultimate Combat Round": the Heckler and Koch G11.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Strangely, I think that the current weapon that comes closest to the "gun hose" concept is one that I've been discussing in my other thread, "Ultimate Combat Round": the Heckler and Koch G11.

You know something? The G11, ACR, etc, were all results of Project Salvo. It was the idea that a controlled 3 round burst of smaller rounds was more effective at producing casualties than one big 7.62mm because of much higher hit probabilities. The 5.56mm M16 was an interim solution but became permanent.

Now, if we did have a fully functional G11 for example, we still would be using the same tactics as we are today with the m16/m4 platform.

So let's go back to your gun hose that uses much smaller rounds, and has a 100-200rd magazine and weighs no more than 10lbs. You said that the military would need different tactics and mindset right? First you need to learn modern military tactics, then you need to take out whatever weapons you don't want and replace them with your gun hose, then you have to analyze the effectiveness of the change using the same tactics and whether your force will be more or less effective in battle. Finally, you have to make adjustments to the tactics if the original tactics were not successful with the gun hose concept.

You know what the problem here is???

TACTICS DICTATE WEAPONS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Here's a sight that discusses tactics on a squad level. Start readingn then come back at us.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/rifle_squad.htm

 

[Bobarino]

what i don't understand is why you want a big(ish) gun to carry lots tiny ammo which you admit will have limited energy, limited range and possibly take 7-8 shots to put a man down in a war zone. it really doesn't make any sense. a round like this suits a PDW like the MP7. it doesn't suit any need in a combat situation. even in a roll like clearing buildings in an urban envirnmoent, i'd want a round that will incapacitate someone with as few rounds as possible. i'd rather have an MP5 than the "gun hose" in that situation. why carry 200 rounds when 30 will do the same job? like someone else said, its a solution in search of a problem. there's been a couple hundred years of firearms development and the fact that something like this has never been made kinda speaks for itself.

don't get me wrong, its a fun acedemic excercise but its really kind of a pointless concept.

what it sounds like to me is you need an HK 416 adapted to fire the 4.6x30 with a Beta-C mag or maybe belt fed.

ETA: a couple other important factors you're leaving out are that your gun, if it has a sustained rate of fire of 2,000-is RPM is going to overheat the barrell and most of the moving parts in the gun after half a magazine. you'd probably have to carry a half dozen barrels with you to make it through a day. even the M60 that fires at what? 600 rpm or so turns barrels white hot with sustained fire. with that speed of movement of internal parts, the gun will probably weld itself into a boat anchor in pretty short order. not mention that it will be too hot to handle after a few hundred rounds of sustained fire.

and as Evil Monkey said, you're asking for a change in military tactics and midset to suit your weapon. that ain't never gonna happen.


Bobby

 

[Owen]

he's looking for lots and lots of hits in the same engagement time. IOW, instead of three beestings whilke the sights ar on target, land 7 fireant bites.

 

[.45Guy]

All this talk of the AA-12 has me thinking. Whatever became of the Winter Swatriplex?

 

[Nolo]

Essentially, owen, yes.
I posted this thread because I was asked to, pretty much. I'm not endeared to the "gun hose" concept, and that's why I didn't ask for anything other than a new name.
And weapons definitely do dictate tactics. Do you think that anyone would have used Napoleonic tactics if they'd had assault rifles? No, the reason they stood in line was because their technology didn't permit them to hit anything any other way.
The only time you would have seen the "gun hose" in action would be if it had been developed instead of the assault rifle. That's it. Now, it's an unborn fetus. And I don't care. Is the assault rifle better? We don't know, we've never had an army armed with "gun hoses".
And yes, there are plenty of problems that would be needed (not that I will, because I don't care about the concept) to be sorted out. There always are.
And I'm not asking for a change in military tactics, because I'm not asking anybody to develop the "gun hose" concept.

What is (was) the Winter Swatriplex?

 

[Zoogster]

This is a concept that is actualy useful for very limited circumstances, and is already solved. They use such ammunition for penetration of body armor which is standard for most modern soldiers. The smaller the diameter the less actualy foot pounds required to penetrate. So tiny bottle necked cartridges achieve this, but tend to in general have horrible terminal ballistics and stopping power.
This means they must arrive in large numbers to compensate, so even as they are hitting the target, the target can return fire. That makes it mediocre for suppression (which requires a bit more deterrent).

The quick solution rather than spending tons of money and creating new contracts for a limited use weapon? Do the same thing with a 12gauge firing flechetes. Buckshot is spherical and a poor penetrator of armor which makes it unsuitable for most general combat roles (other than killing civilians/insurgents.) If you figure around 20 flechettes per round, and an AA-12 fires 300 RPM that means you are getting 6000 rounds per minute of armor piercing firepower which can be delivered from 20 round drums. That is 400 rounds delivered at 6000 rounds per minute which already exists, requires no research and development, and can be fielded at minimal cost for the rare situations it is useful to have high rates of fire with ammunition with low terminal effects that can still penetrate soft body armor.

So something already exists that fires pathetic rounds suitable for the role at 6000 RPM with a 400 round capactiy. You just don't see it that way as the firearm is listed at 300 RPM yet can fire 20 projectiles with similar capabilites to the gun hose per round.

in regards to the AA-12, how about we take that one step further and make a belt fed 12guage. you could do it off of a M2 machine gun, shorten the distance the bolt travels, modify the links and change the barrel.

Something better already exists. It is the belt fed grenade launchers in standard use. You can simply use flechette rounds or shot and the thing acts like a giant shotgun far more powerful than a standard shotgun.
These could use the SCMITR flechettes previously designed with no change in logistics and achieve the "gun hose" objectives with no additional effort or costs required. Think 20MM-40MM shotgun. Sure beats a 12 gauge.

So bottom line is there is no use or practical purpose for the "gun hose" that cannot already be filled by gear that already exists and already is fielded.
Israel uses flechette rounds for urban use (often out of a tanks main gun), and the USA played with them in vietnam in artillery pieces etc.

Yet people often want better stopping power than the .223 is delivering and I personaly would want to have a 7.62 or better in combat. So switching to small diameter rounds with less knock down power than pistol rounds, and high velocity for added penetration of armor is a fad that is not battle proven IMHO and will pass. PS90 could stand for "piece of _____ 90", which is what you will think about it after seeing people returning fire after taking multiple hits from the thing. I would much rather have something like a G3K variant for a compact firearm that defeats low level body armor, which is what weapon platforms like the P90 and MP7 are designed for. To provide non frontline personel a way to fight against soldiers when necessary, and store and wield the firearm in cramped spaces like the inside of a tank. My point is the type of ammunition the gun hose concept would use is not very effective and more powerful compact firearms do a better job at the one role they currently fill.

 

[Nolo]

Yeah, which is a much more complicated way of saying what I, and many other people, already said.

 

[Evil Monkey]

And weapons definitely do dictate tactics. Do you think that anyone would have used Napoleonic tactics if they'd had assault rifles? No, the reason they stood in line was because their technology didn't permit them to hit anything any other way.

Holy crap that's the biggest amount of BS I've ever read on this forum.

Did you ever stop to think that Napoleon was stubborn with military tactics in his time period, just like our generals were stubborn during the Vietnam era when we changed from the m14 to the m16????

As early as the American Revolutionary war, Americans were using guerrilla style warfare against the Brits. Slowly but surely, as tactics changed so did the weapons. We went from muskets to breach loaders to bolt action etc.

If you want to do something on a battlefield that you know will destroy the enemy but don't have the technological capability, you work to make that technology possible. That's what has been going on since forever.

I wish I can go on, but I can CLEARLY see that it's not worth it. Especially not after the quoted fallacy.

 

[ConfuseUs]

And maybe I should note that a "gun hose"'s maximum weight is 10 pounds with the magazine. I don't think I said that before.

I would imagine that using 3 barrels of 10 inches or less and a lot of polymers could do a lot to fit it into that requirement if you made it 3 parallel barrels, parallel column magazine (of polymer, natch) and delayed blowback/gas operation.

If you're going to have ludicrous cyclic rates you're going to need ludicrous magazines so I don't know if a full magazine of what I consider "hose" capacity would bust the weight budget. Therein lies the problem of creating a "gun hose" anyway: Swapping out mags defeats the "hose" function when you want to get hose time on a target.

Of course, hose something down too long and your barrel(s) melt. Somehow I think you will frown on using a water jacket to deal with that hassle.

And as far as the tactical need for such a thing: I guess if someone, somewhere comes up with a workable system and fields it then we will find out if the school of piranhas really can eat a cow faster than the pride of lions.

 

[PercyShelley]

hmm

wonder what that energy info comes out to in Watts

Watts are a unit of power, not energy.

Interestingly, the proposed "gun hose" is quite powerful, in the strict, engineering sense of the word powerful.

Using a few known examples:

The MP7 puts out 4.9 kilowatts in bullet energy at the muzzle using the steel AP round with 700 420 joule projectiles per minute.

The American 180 puts out 2.7 kilowatts in .22 LR, and at least 25% more in .22 ILARCO.

The P90 puts out 7.8 kilowatts using SS190 AP rounds.

The Soviet OTs-23 in 5.45x18 with a theoretical modification for fully automatic fire (as opposed to burst fire) would produce 3.9 kilowatts at the muzzle.

By comparison:

A thompson submachinegun puts out 5.8 kilowatts using 185 grain bullets.

An H&K MP5 puts out 4.8 kilowatts using 124 grain bullets.

Of course, a FAMAS in full auto puts out 56 kilowatts of power at the muzzle; which, incidentally is almost exactly twice as much as a Japanese WWI vintage type 92 heavy machinegun.

 

[rero360]

I'm well aware of the MK19, have logged my share of rounds through the system, both through hands on and with the CROW platform. While there are buckshot rounds for the M203/M79 I don't know if a similar round would be of any use for the MK19. close range flechette rounds do sound interesting, however the ammo is so big, heavy and bulky that changing ammo types to suit the situation would be cumbersome and time consuming.

 

[.45Guy]

What is (was) the Winter Swatriplex?

Winter Swatriplex-18

"Notes: Designed in the late 1970s specifically as a combat shotgun by John W Winter, the Swatriplex-18 had a number of unusual features, some of which appeared in later shotguns. Unfortunately, the company which was supposed to manufacture the weapon (Consortium W), pulled out after only a few prototypes were built and Winter was never able to attract anyone else to manufacture, let alone buy his unusual shotgun.

The Swatriplex-18 used a semi-bullpup design using twin tubular magazines under a single barrel. Feed could be from one magazine at a time, or alternately between the right and left magazines. Operation was semiautomatic, using gas operation and something quite unusual in a shotgun, a telescoping bolt. Construction was with a combination of light alloys and steel (for the barrel and where strength was critical). The 22-inch barrel was surrounded by a shroud/handguard which was ventilated for cooling. The Swatriplex-18 has ejection ports on both sides of the weapon; each could be sealed, and this allowed use of the weapon by both left and right-handed shooters by simply reversing the ejection direction, charging handle, and cheek rest (something most designers of bullpup weapons seem to overlook). The Swatriplex-18 used rifle-type sights on raised stands; both were adjustable for elevation and windage by knobs. (The raised sights were thought of as a potential problem, and Winter reputedly was considering either removable sights or moving the sights down to the receiver itself.) The stock was of light alloy, but the butt was synthetic with a rubber recoil pad. The top of the receiver had a carrying handle which could be folded flat against the receiver if desired.

The Swatriplex-18 was most likely a design which was way ahead of its time; many companies thought it was simply too weird-looking to sell, despite its reliability and advanced features. This may have killed the Swatriplex-18 more than anything else. Unfortunately, even the prototypes seem to have disappeared, and examples of the weapon now exist only on paper."

 

[Nolo]

Tell me, Evil Monkey, have you ever fired a Civil War-era rifled musket?
I have. I tried getting groups off, but I couldn't. Sure you can use guerrilla tactics with a rifle such as that, but you won't be able to gain any ground. If all you are doing is defending (like in the American Revolution), then it works out fine, because your enemy gets tired. But you can't use modern aggressive tactics with muskets, you'd get slaughtered.
Sure, the Army never likes to give up tactics that have worked so far for an untried and unproven technology, but they eventually get the hint.
However, it is a dead issue, so I am highly tempted to close this thread.
By the way, the Swatriplex-18 sounds very interesting...