Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp
Probably something like 98% hydrogen peroxide solution + kerosene. Or look up any list of liquid rocket fuels/oxidizers.
Luke
|
I'm thinking that the propellant has to be a bit more stable than rocket fuel oxidizers simply on the grounds that a hit against the two bottles by a bullet could set off a secondary explosion.
Depending on the gun, the statement made was that the magazine would hold enough propellant to fire off three magazines. For the heavy pistol, that would be 60 shots (possibly 63) and a medium pistol would hold 90 shots (possibly 93). For an assault carbine - that would be 150 shots! For a Gatling Carbine? That would be 600 shots!
That's a heck of a fair amount of explosive propellant available for a secondary explosion for a freshly loaded gun. :(
Real world data exists for muzzle velocity, smokeless powder mass, and bullet mass, which permits us to determine what the energy content of the smokeless powder has to be in the neighborhood of. What we don't have is the bullet mass of the actual caseless bullets themselves, the propellant mass for the caseless bullets, nor the actual velocity of the bullets. In other threads, there have been questions on whether or not the Caseless data is essentially pulling numbers out of thin air or not. The possible exception to this may be the G-11, but the formula from Doug Cole's spreadsheet seems to fail when talking about caseless Ammo for some odd reason. :(