Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Prototype Plastic Ammo True Velocity General Dynamics" video.

  1. Plastic is cheaper than brass, and injectig plastic is a FAR cheaper process than forming brass. The price to the public however is a question of market forces. Plastic is recyclable. The ammo has a steel washer at the base. It can be recovered with a magnet. The case is not reloadable. Plastic can be made of any color. There's practically no air into the case, so I don't think so.
    9
  2. The ammo has a steel washer at the base. It can be recovered with a magnet.
    7
  3. It had been shown firing long bursts while staying on target. Good luck doing that with the FAL.
    4
  4. You can't eliminate recoil, but you can make it "feel" less harsh. That's done by spreading the same energy for a longer time. That way the recoil feels more a push than a punch.
    4
  5.  @SurmaSampo  -40 140 Celsius Is well within the possibilities of simple PET.
    3
  6.  @SurmaSampo  The plastic case survives simply because the heat is applied for a so short time that it isn't transfered beyond the very first fraction of mm of the internal surface of the case. Infact the case itself, when extracted, is cold. That's why shotgun ammos had been made of soft low-density polyethylene for decades. The difference in heat and pressure resistance between PET and termosetting polymers, in respect to the temperature of the burning powder and its pressure generated, is not enough to make any difference.
    2
  7.  @SurmaSampo  Yes, it does. How can you even say that "The plastic hull of a shotgun case doesn't act as a pressure vessel during firing"? In a shotgun shell the powder is completely contained in plastic. The metal you see is only a thin sheet to aid extraction. As said, that plastic is cheao, soft, low density polyetilene. There are studies on the making of rifle ammos in plastic. To their own surprises, the researchers found the material that worked better so much that the cartridges could be even reloaded, was lexan (polycarbonate). Surprise, surprise, is a recyclable thermoplastic. why dont' you try to disprove them by making ammos in thermoset plastic that work better than theirs and post the results?
    2
  8. The VHS is in 5.56. They are not comparable.
    2
  9. Shotgun shells had been made of plastic for decades. It takes years of sun exposition for the plastic (IE the ABS bumpers) of a car to "look terrible". No ammo is exposed to the sun for so long. sealed containers are made of plastic, not metal. If they are made of metal, they need a not-metal liner to ensure sealing.
    1
  10.  @brianmoore1164  Metal cans have an internal polymer film to ensure sealing (and, in case of food cans, that food doesn't corrode metal) or are not really sealed. I've seen MUCH more metal ammos died of oxydation. There's nothing fancy in military environment. Many civilian environments are way harsher on materials.
    1
  11.  @brianmoore1164  It's always funny when people try to boast about their superior combat experience on a youtube comment section. Reality is that "combat" is an harsh environment for people, because the other side there are other people trying to kill them, but not necessarily for materials. Most of the materials the soldiers carry and use is nothing exceptional, and oftentimes is subpar in respect to what's used in other fields. "mil spec" means made by the lowest bidder.
    1
  12.  @brianmoore1164  It's easy to tell your utter lack of arguments, but dont worry. Boasting about what great warrior you are is making you seem credible.
    1
  13.  @brianmoore1164  "You rather obviously have never been in combat." Trying to cover the lack of rguments with ad hominem attacks is an often tried tactic by people that, like you, are not very good at communication (other than knowledge about materials). When it takes the form of boasting about their experience of superior warrior on a youtube comment section, the result is particularly hilarious.
    1
  14.  @brianmoore1164  Your attempts at seeming intelligent are becoming more and more funny. You don't need to mention yourself, poor fella. For an ad hominem attack, an often tried tactic by people that, like you, are not very good at communication (other than knowledge about materials), you only need, like you did, to mention your interlocutor, attacking the charateristics or authority of the writer without adressing the substance of the argument. That's what you did. Now, since you are clutching at straw You can say you intended "You rather obviously have never been in combat, and I have neither." You would be even more hilarious than you have already been.
    1
  15. Any firearm in 7.62 NATO can fire the 6.8 TV with just a barrel change.
    1
  16. You can swap ejection. https://youtu.be/brehxUuLn58?t=87
    1
  17. caseless ammo: the powder burns in direct contact with the chamber. = maximum heat transfer to the chamber. brass ammo: the powder burns into a brass case. Brass is an exceptional thermal conductor anyway. = medium heat transfer to the chamber. plastic ammo: the powder burns into a plastic case. Plastic is a poor thermal conductor. = minimum heat transfer to the chamber. With plastic ammo, the heat remains in gasses and, being gasses also poor thermal conductors, it's mostly expelled from the barrel with them.
    1
  18. 30% lighter.
    1
  19. MG42/MG3 has a moving barrel. Browning M2 too. Almost any breechlock pistol also.
    1
  20. The AK102 is just an AK carbine in 5.56 NATO. You probably mean the AK107. It's completely different. It uses a mass that travels in the opposite direction of the bolt to stabilise recoil, and the barrel is fixed. That system is completely unsuited to fire a powerful cartridge in a "lightweight" rifle. Already the AK107 is stable also because of its 3.8kg mass, while an AK74, firing the same cartridge, weights 2.7 kg.
    1
  21. He didn't even try to shoot bursts from the shoulder with the MCX Spear. The thing kicks way harder than the 7.62 NATO.
    1
  22. Because: a) it's made for 5.56 NATO, so it will fall to pieces. b) to have the desired performances you need a 19" barrel, so, even before falling to pieces, the M4 would be too long.
    1
  23. Because: a) M4 is made for 5.56 NATO, so it will fall to pieces shooting a round hotter than 7.62 NATO. b) to have the desired performances you need a 19" barrel, so, even before falling to pieces, the M4 would be too long.
    1
  24. Plastic is better exactly in this regard. caseless ammo: the powder burns in direct contact with the chamber. = maximum heat transfer to the chamber. brass ammo: the powder burns into a brass case. Brass is an exceptional thermal conductor anyway. = medium heat transfer to the chamber. plastic ammo: the powder burns into a plastic case. Plastic is a poor thermal conductor. = minimum heat transfer to the chamber. With plastic ammo, the heat remains in gasses and, being gasses also poor thermal conductors, it's mostly expelled from the barrel with them.
    1
  25. Because Russian soldiers had been forced to hand over their cellphones before the invasion. Because in Russia there's not freedom to speech and report facts. They can't even call home, figures shooting footages. And now Russian shills like you complain about not having Russian reports.
    1
  26. "felt" recoil. The energy is there, you can't erase that. But felt recoil is about peak energy. if you spread the same energy for a longer time, the felt recoil is lower. A push can easily deliver more energy than a punch, but it doesn't feel so.
    1
  27. The goal was to have a lightweight rifle, controllable in full auto, that fires a more powerful cartridge than 7.62 NATO. That's not possible with a 80k PSI ammo. Thats why they developed a rifle that's able to do that working at conventional pressure.
    1
  28. Have you seen the switching ejection of a Beretta ARX 100?
    1
  29.  @USALibertarian  No. It's only required for the melting point to be higher than the auto-ignition temperature of the powder. Smokeless powders have an auto-ignition temperature of 160-200 Celsius. It doesn't make sense for the case to resist to an higher temperature that that where the ammo already cooks off.
    1
  30.  @SurmaSampo  US8850985B2 I've yet to see your experiments also. Can you show me the results you obtained with thermoset plastic cases? I'm curious. Infact among the many things unknown to you, like how pressure and heat work, shotgun shells where the brass is only a washer ring at the base, like in the TV ammos, had been made, both by Winchester and Wanda. Their only problem was extraction. I'm waiting for your results.
    1
  31. It's near to the front sight.
    1
  32. You can swap ejection. https://youtu.be/brehxUuLn58?t=87
    1
  33. The AK107 uses a mass that travels in the opposite direction of the bolt to stabilise recoil, and the barrel is fixed. That system is completely unsuited to fire a powerful cartridge in a "lightweight" rifle. Already the AK107 is stable also because of its 3.8kg mass, while an AK74, firing the same cartridge without the stabilizer, weights 2.7 kg.
    1