Reasons for why what we use is what we use?

[jabilli]

I have my head in the clouds very often, pondering the inanities of pretty well anything- usually odd questions: Why does the earth spin the direction it does, Who was the first person to streak a sporting event, what gives us the psychological drive to dance when listening to music, etc. etc. etc.

**** A few Questions concerning ammunition*******

Why are the properties of cartridges the way they are? Why are the limitations of cartridges limiting? Why are the walls of brass casings as thick as they are? Why do we use powder X? Why do we use low-explosive powder rather than high explosive? Why is the pressure limit the pressure limit? Why are most handgun calibers straight cased rather than bottle-necked? Do bottlenecks serve any purpose other than allowing smaller bullets to be fired from a larger parent case? Why are the common handgun calibers the caliber they are rather than making them extremely large? Why aren't the bullets used in handguns Spitzer-shaped (Overlooking the HK Five-Seven/.17 HMR pistols)

How about the guns themselves? They have limitations- Why? If a guns frame is only able to take X force, why not design it to take more?

Upon mulling it over I've come up with a few reasons:

1. Price- We don't shoot depleted Uranium bullets because it would cost a ton. Expensive materials aren't practical.

2. Tradition- People are creatures of habit- We have a proclivity to do what has always been done for the reason that it has always been done.

3. Size/weight- The average human body weighs X pounds, there are limits to what the body can handle/do. Also, ammo weighs a metric ***-ton, it's more practical to carry smaller cartridges.(Interesting read- Read up on project SALVO- Smaller rounds meant soldiers were able to carry more ammo.)

4. Physical limitations of (practical) materials used- Steel has X tinsel strength, other metals have Y hardness or Z torsional flex.

Am I missing anything? Can it be as simple as "Why not?"

I guess my question in short is, if caliber X's power is limited by the amount of pressure the walls of its brass casings can handle, why not make a thicker case? If caliber Y is limited by lack of "knockdown" power, why not make a Short- Fat cartridge? (Like .75)

[darkroommike]

1. Price, lead alloy bullets cast very well and were an early technology spin off from the printing industry. Note though that the Greeks used lead pellets in their slings. The copper jacketed bullet is a fairly recent thing, necessitated by higher rifle velocities with the advent of the small fast military rounds. Depleted uranium is not only very expensive it is very toxic.
2. It's less tradition and more an attitude of if it ain't broke don't fix it. And there is a much larger market for ammo and components that enhance the shooting experience and much less planned obsolescence that in most industries. And the military likes to limit it's inventory to as few sizes as possible, changing the Springfield to use the .30-06 from the .30-03 required setting back the barrels and running a chamber reamer into every Springfield the military already had, and MacArthur in the '30's (probably recalling this issue) nixed transitioning the Army to a new .270 round for the Garand since the Army already had a thousand machine guns, a million rifles and tens of millions of rounds of .30 caliber ammunition.
3. The size/weight rationale is more applicable to the military than the civilian sector but the military need has always driven the civilian want. Springfield's, AK's, AR's, 1911, Peacemakers are all popular military designs that jumped the fence into the civilian market.
4. Yes, no, what? No question here that I can see (and it's tensile strength).

Are you missing anything, oh gosh yes, entire books have been and continue to be written on this subject (Google is your friend). The gun is constantly reinvented, new materials are introduced all the time. Metallic cartridges have been made of other materials than brass (copper, steel, aluminum, wood--yes wood!). Pistol frames: steel, brass, aluminum, scandium alloy, titanium, polymer, pot metal, etc. Barrels are most commonly steel but early Armalite prototypes used aluminum barrels with steel liners (something they MADE Gene Stoner try), and fiberglass has been used for shotgun barrels.

Making the walls of a cartridge case thicker, been done, reduces the volume of powder one can use, can increase the pressure of the cartridge immensely, which necessitates making the cartridge walls even thicker.

Spitzer bullets have lower ballistic coefficients than lead round nose or wadcutters but are aerodynamic at supersonic speeds, the shape increases range a lot the bullet stays supersonic much longer but actually decreases accuracy a bit.

Caliber .75 rifles and pistols were a norm for the military when 3 musket rounds per man per minute was an excellent performance. Today's limit seems to be around .50 inch and gov't regulation and practicality both restrict the ability to make or use anything larger in anything but a firearm defined as "antique".

[Wayne Smith]

Big issue is historical development. Big, fat round balls were the original boolits. Americans taught the world that smaller, wrapped round balls were more accurate long range but everybody knew they were slower to load. Historical development of metallurgy is equally important, e.g. Winchester had the 30WCF, powder and bullets but not the steel for the barrel so the Win 94 was originally issued in BP cartridges until the steel was ready for the smokeless and hard bullets. Government standards are also a major factor. The US Navy caliber for handguns in the Civil War era was .36, the USArmy was .44, these became the .38 and the .45 pistol cartridges. The 45ACP was the result of a specific governmental directive to replicate the .45 Army revolver round (at that time the 45 S&W cartridge).

Yes, for wildcat development "Why Not?" and "I want one!" along with "I have the money" are all that is necessary. Companies like Ruger, Hornaday, and Remington have research and marketing departments that have a large say in the decision making.

[1hole]

Strength of the brass case isn't the limiting factor for cartridge pressure, the practical limits of the weight of the firearm is. Cases are made to withstand all the pressure the action can take but if a defective action comes from together at low pressure you can believe the case won't hold anything else together.

You need to get out and shoot more.

[3006guns]

Need to insert a correction here......firearms do NOT use explosive powders. They use progressive burning propellants. The only exception is black powder and frankly it makes a rather weak explosive.

If gunpowders were classified as explosives we'd be paying a lot more to ship them than we are now.

[darkroommike]

What 3006guns said, with one exception, black powder is an explosive, weak or not, it was used to blow up stumps and rocks long before "high" explosives came along, it was not exactly the same as the stuff used in firearms, much coarser granules but the same composition.

[btroj]

Why not? Ecause changing things in a major way can get downright expensive. The military has some interesting ammo for big guns. Stuff that we can't afford, I don't have the defense depts budget behind me.

I ask this- why? Why do we need to make fundamental changes in the way guns and components are designed? What we have now works. Many new inventions have been tried in the past and failed to ale it. Look at the Gyrojet guns/ammo. Neat concept, total failure.

Look back thru firearm history and you will see that many of the questions you ask have been answered. Steel cases are in current use. People have used brass cases with a hardened still head too. Handguns have been made that are quite large, look at Smith and Wesson or the Linebaufh cartridges. Maybe get a big bore Comtender from SSK. Other metals in a bullet? Tungsten is used in some bullets today to increase weight beyond what a lead core can give. In the not so distant past the idea of an expanding, all copper bullet was non existent, then we got the Barnes X bullet.

Innovation has, and will continue, to happen. Always has, always will. The guiding light will always be the market place. Will the changes, and the expense of developing them, increase sales enough to be profitable? The gun industry is a business, they are there to make money. Much easier to simple modify what we have than to reinvent the wheel.

To back and read up extensible one firearm history. You will see that along the way there were some true visionaries. People who had ideas that seemed far fetched at the time. Many of these ideas never panned out but the work is still there. Many ideas never made it into the public light as they didn't work out. We may never know some of them.

[jmorris]

As above the brass case has a primary function of holding powder between the primer and bullet. In a lot of designs it also has to contain pressure, example all of the "glock bulge" etc threads. To make it thicker reduces the internal volume and raises cost. Cost and or profits are what drive business to make decisions.

Why not a .75? People have elected politicians that have made laws against it. If you go over .5" (unless it's a shotgun) it is a NFA firearm and subject to further restrictions.

They are out there, just have to know what to look for. This one is just over .75 http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm when you look at the cost, about $10,000 for a bolt action rifle, remember to add another $200 for the tax stamp.

[John Boy]

jabilli ... you are definitely a candidate to purchase reference books where the answers are available to be read in detail

[canyon-ghost]

Why are the properties of cartridges the way they are? Why are the limitations of cartridges limiting? Why are the walls of brass casings as thick as they are? Why do we use powder X? Why do we use low-explosive powder rather than high explosive? Why is the pressure limit the pressure limit? Why are most handgun calibers straight cased rather than bottle-necked? Do bottlenecks serve any purpose other than allowing smaller bullets to be fired from a larger parent case? Why are the common handgun calibers the caliber they are rather than making them extremely large? Why aren't the bullets used in handguns Spitzer-shaped (Overlooking the HK Five-Seven/.17 HMR pistols)



You must be very young, well, at least not my generation. Most of your questions can be answered by the historical version of how firearms evolved. It's only been around since the 1700s or so, that's not as old as most weapons (rock, stick, club, etc). Almost every gun and cartridge became what it did through experimentation and what the experimenter wanted to create.

The limitations? Let's break some rules you think are there (they aren't): http://www.tcarms.com/

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2Contender.php

[MBTcustom]

Why don't you shut up and shoot?:kidding:
Just kidding there buddy! We aught to have a cast boolits trivia sticky that addresses all of the above questions.

[jabilli]

Wow!

All very good answers! I asked the same question in a less technical gun forum and it wasn't received nearly as well...One or two even thought me stupid for asking such seemingly simple questions. A number of you have mentioned that I should read into the history of gun development- I think that's my next Amazon order. :-) I guess I do tend to have an interest in history- How things got to be the way they are now.

Again thanks guys! (And yes, I probably should get out and shoot more. haha)

[Wayne Smith]

A bibliography might include: Charles Askins on shotguns; The Gun and It's Development by W. W. Greener; Hatcher's Notebook by Julian S. Hatcher; The Bullet's Flight by F. W. Mann, MD; A Historu of Fireqrms by Major H. B. C. Pollard; The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle by Ned H. Roberts; From Flintlock to M1 by Joseph W. Shields Jr.; The Rifle in America by hillip B. Sharpe;and English Guns and Rifles by J. H. George. Various editions of Small Arms of the World would also be included.

These are a few references from my bookshelves. You are not close enough to borrow!

[runfiverun]

behind every fire arm there is a story especially the old military ones.
technological leaps come along and many parts of the puzzle fall into place all at once.
or take time to evolve.
things like bottleneck cases were tried with black powder and then discarded because of pressure issues, a couple of years later metalurgy catches up and surpasses those problems.
powder development steps ahead in another country.
then copper jaxkets come along right after that raising the bar again. [think 30-30]
metalurgy makes another step,bolt actions come along,bullet shapes change,powder is developed.
then things hit the private sector,and goes into citizens hands.
it's a reverse pyramid.

[wv109323]

Manufacturing processes often limit or permit a specific design. Many times something is designed /prototyped and then a manufacturing process must be figured out/ modified to make the design profitable to bring to market.
With the AR-15 or M-16 the military arrived at the expected life ( Round Count of a specific cartridge)of the weapon and that parameter was what drove the criterea of the longevity of the materials. Along with a design that could be easily manufactured and properly assembled with a minimum of tools and talent.