You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > Glock Forum >

Glock .460 Rowland


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2017, 12:53 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
303tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 5,135
Liked 2346 Times on 1496 Posts
Likes Given: 2454

Default

Kilibreaux, some people are just too set in their ways, kinda like me and my Fords, you could spout numbers all day to me, I'm still gonna buy a Ford !................
__________________
When all else fails.

Last edited by 303tom; 09-21-2017 at 12:55 PM.
303tom is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 07:17 PM   #32
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,690
Liked 2054 Times on 1128 Posts
Likes Given: 872

Default

There is such a thing as graphene infused plastics that are many times stronger than known steel alloys will ever be, but these are also still laboratory materials and no cost-effective methods for mass manufacture are known as of yet.

If anyone is interested in how such a thing is possible, here's some light reading from NASA, circa 1970:

Infinite Periodic Minimal Surfaces Without Self-Intersections

It's also true that there are some types of high grade and very costly plastics that are stronger than certain grades of steel. This does not mean that their mechanical properties make the them suitable replacements for metal alloys in all cases. Some of those high grade plastics can now be found in the jet engines of airliners and they cost significantly more than the lightweight metal alloys they replaced. Anything built to fly will fly better when it's lighter. The less it weighs, the less fuel it consumes, and so the cost is justifiable in that specific use case.

Herr Glock still uses steel alloys in his barrels because flow-formed Cobalt alloy gun barrels are exceptionally expensive and wouldn't improve barrel life at all. Those Cobalt-based alloys are great at operating at elevated temperatures without loss of structural integrity, but barrel erosion at the throat and muzzle is similar to high grade ordnance steels.

Picatinny cobalt alloys show promise for sustained firepower

A Cobalt alloy machine gun barrel might cost $2K to $3K (estimated of course, given mass manufacture of the expected quantity). The old M240B with the steel alloy receiver costs $6.6K. The new M240L with the Titanium alloy receiver costs $9.2K. For all that added cost, the weight of the M240L is 5.3 pounds less than the M240B. For another $2K to $3K, you eliminate the weight of the spare barrel from the machine gunner's kit. The M240's steel barrel only weighs 6.6 pounds, and the Cobalt alloys are marginally lighter than 4150, but that spare barrel bag weighs 12.9 pounds with the spare barrel. A 13 pound weigh savings is significant, whereas the minor difference in actual barrel weight is not.

The TA648MGO / SU-260 (TA648MGO + RMR) adds another 2.6 pounds to the weight of the weapon and costs another $4K. Some foreward thinking individual thought that a $13K machine gun could really use a SureFire suppressor and PEQ-15 for target designation. The can and laser target designator add another 2.3 pounds to the weapon and cost another $4K between them.

The Space Shuttle door gunner edition of the M240L with the super expensive Cobalt alloy barrel and all the latest and greatest gadgets weighs almost exactly the same as the stock M240B and the new "ready to run" weapon will cost about $20K. You can see how every attempt to create a new "super weapon" has serious cost issues associated with it.

It also occurs to me that using modern Lithium-ion battery technology, a 7.62mm chain gun could weigh 20 pounds ready to run. Fixed barrel with simple part geometry, no recoil or gas operating system to fiddle with or the associated weight, straight in and out of the chamber feeding, the bolt can be very light, adjustable cyclic rate, and electric motors run for years on end with no real issues. It'd probably be half the cost of a M240 and chain guns are already more reliable than the M240 will ever be. I'd enlist the expertise of electric chain saw manufacturers. Conceivably, a hybrid super capacitor / battery weapon could enable MG42 cyclic rate burst fire with slower continuous fire. The battery could serve as a power source for optics like Trijicon's CCAS or NV and thermal products using electrified plastic Picatinny rails. I can see the right optics, a built-in stabilization gyro, and appropriate ammunition enabling shoot-downs of small drones and light utility aircraft within 1km or so, although that'd be another example of the ever-increasing cost of modern military weapons that I rail against. A weapon with that sort of technology could easily take over the DMR role, too, so one less specialty weapon in an infantry squad. This might actually be a fun project to tinker with.

If 3D printed Graphene infused plastics were available in mass quantities, then there's an argument to be made for using plastic barrels to reduce machining time and complexity, thus cost.

The most cost-effective thing the US military could possibly do to reduce the burden on individual soldiers would be making ammunition and body armor lighter. Making a 7.62mm caliber machine gun lighter than 20 pounds is a good way to make the weapon uncontrollable, given the typical high cyclic rates. To that end, the US Army is now testing graphene infused plastics for body armor.

Aluminum and steel cased ammo was in the inventory at least as far back as the Viet Nam War. The Al-alloy based casings don't transfer heat away from the gun as effectively as brass, so that was a bit of a problem for steel barreled machine guns. If Cobalt alloy machine gun barrels were in common use, that wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is with steel alloys.

In the end, far too much time and money has been expended trying to create weapons with divergent requirements. The result has been constantly-increasing cost of firearms and ammunition. Still, .44 Magnum from a 1911 or a Glock 21 is pretty cool and I hope everything works according to plan for the OP.
kbd512 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2017, 04:41 AM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
303tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 5,135
Liked 2346 Times on 1496 Posts
Likes Given: 2454

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
There is such a thing as graphene infused plastics that are many times stronger than known steel alloys will ever be, but these are also still laboratory materials and no cost-effective methods for mass manufacture are known as of yet.

If anyone is interested in how such a thing is possible, here's some light reading from NASA, circa 1970:

Infinite Periodic Minimal Surfaces Without Self-Intersections

It's also true that there are some types of high grade and very costly plastics that are stronger than certain grades of steel. This does not mean that their mechanical properties make the them suitable replacements for metal alloys in all cases. Some of those high grade plastics can now be found in the jet engines of airliners and they cost significantly more than the lightweight metal alloys they replaced. Anything built to fly will fly better when it's lighter. The less it weighs, the less fuel it consumes, and so the cost is justifiable in that specific use case.

Herr Glock still uses steel alloys in his barrels because flow-formed Cobalt alloy gun barrels are exceptionally expensive and wouldn't improve barrel life at all. Those Cobalt-based alloys are great at operating at elevated temperatures without loss of structural integrity, but barrel erosion at the throat and muzzle is similar to high grade ordnance steels.

Picatinny cobalt alloys show promise for sustained firepower

A Cobalt alloy machine gun barrel might cost $2K to $3K (estimated of course, given mass manufacture of the expected quantity). The old M240B with the steel alloy receiver costs $6.6K. The new M240L with the Titanium alloy receiver costs $9.2K. For all that added cost, the weight of the M240L is 5.3 pounds less than the M240B. For another $2K to $3K, you eliminate the weight of the spare barrel from the machine gunner's kit. The M240's steel barrel only weighs 6.6 pounds, and the Cobalt alloys are marginally lighter than 4150, but that spare barrel bag weighs 12.9 pounds with the spare barrel. A 13 pound weigh savings is significant, whereas the minor difference in actual barrel weight is not.

The TA648MGO / SU-260 (TA648MGO + RMR) adds another 2.6 pounds to the weight of the weapon and costs another $4K. Some foreward thinking individual thought that a $13K machine gun could really use a SureFire suppressor and PEQ-15 for target designation. The can and laser target designator add another 2.3 pounds to the weapon and cost another $4K between them.

The Space Shuttle door gunner edition of the M240L with the super expensive Cobalt alloy barrel and all the latest and greatest gadgets weighs almost exactly the same as the stock M240B and the new "ready to run" weapon will cost about $20K. You can see how every attempt to create a new "super weapon" has serious cost issues associated with it.

It also occurs to me that using modern Lithium-ion battery technology, a 7.62mm chain gun could weigh 20 pounds ready to run. Fixed barrel with simple part geometry, no recoil or gas operating system to fiddle with or the associated weight, straight in and out of the chamber feeding, the bolt can be very light, adjustable cyclic rate, and electric motors run for years on end with no real issues. It'd probably be half the cost of a M240 and chain guns are already more reliable than the M240 will ever be. I'd enlist the expertise of electric chain saw manufacturers. Conceivably, a hybrid super capacitor / battery weapon could enable MG42 cyclic rate burst fire with slower continuous fire. The battery could serve as a power source for optics like Trijicon's CCAS or NV and thermal products using electrified plastic Picatinny rails. I can see the right optics, a built-in stabilization gyro, and appropriate ammunition enabling shoot-downs of small drones and light utility aircraft within 1km or so, although that'd be another example of the ever-increasing cost of modern military weapons that I rail against. A weapon with that sort of technology could easily take over the DMR role, too, so one less specialty weapon in an infantry squad. This might actually be a fun project to tinker with.

If 3D printed Graphene infused plastics were available in mass quantities, then there's an argument to be made for using plastic barrels to reduce machining time and complexity, thus cost.

The most cost-effective thing the US military could possibly do to reduce the burden on individual soldiers would be making ammunition and body armor lighter. Making a 7.62mm caliber machine gun lighter than 20 pounds is a good way to make the weapon uncontrollable, given the typical high cyclic rates. To that end, the US Army is now testing graphene infused plastics for body armor.

Aluminum and steel cased ammo was in the inventory at least as far back as the Viet Nam War. The Al-alloy based casings don't transfer heat away from the gun as effectively as brass, so that was a bit of a problem for steel barreled machine guns. If Cobalt alloy machine gun barrels were in common use, that wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is with steel alloys.

In the end, far too much time and money has been expended trying to create weapons with divergent requirements. The result has been constantly-increasing cost of firearms and ammunition. Still, .44 Magnum from a 1911 or a Glock 21 is pretty cool and I hope everything works according to plan for the OP.
That or Carbon Nanotubes !.................
__________________
When all else fails.
303tom is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Big Thunder II Vs. Fenrir: The 1911 .460 Rowland Build Off Dillinger DIY Projects 236 11-04-2014 10:44 PM
Glock 30 460 Rowland Conversion Review JeanClaudeSegal Glock Forum 8 09-06-2012 10:09 PM
460 Rowland SHAMUSPI 1911 Forum 4 08-15-2010 06:05 AM
460 Rowland SHAMUSPI Ammunition & Reloading 0 03-08-2010 10:11 PM
.460 Rowland - Double Stack Possible? ccginc DIY Projects 27 08-10-2009 10:29 PM