[Ultra Tech] Increased Firearm Power with TL

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Chamber pressure doesn't really get you straight up more damage, what it does is reduce the barrel length required for any given performance (it doesn't reduce any of the other requirements for higher performance).

Provided you have roughly the same pressure curve, simply with the overall pressure shifted up, you should impart more energy to the projectile; with equal caliber, this should result in increased penetration, and thus increased damage. If you would be looking at a velocity that your propellant has difficulty accelerating a projectile up to (or maybe one that would call for too high of an acceleration) to get to said energy, increasing the mass of the projectile may be an option.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Provided you have roughly the same pressure curve, simply with the overall pressure shifted up.

To do that, you need more propellant.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

To do that, you need more propellant.

Or more powerful propellant - we are talking about increases in TL here.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Or more powerful propellant - we are talking about increases in TL here.

A propellant that is more powerful without being more would be generating the same amount of gas at a higher temperature, presumably. That may have some downsides, but probably only ones that can be addressed by higher TL material and manufacturing of the chamber?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A propellant that is more powerful without being more would be generating the same amount of gas at a higher temperature, presumably. That may have some downsides, but probably only ones that can be addressed by higher TL material and manufacturing of the chamber?

I honestly hadn't considered that higher REF implies higher temperature, but yeah, that could be a factor, and could be something that prevents ramping up the damage too much without worsening Malf (hot barrels and the like tend to do Bad Things - but as you note, perhaps higher TL materials and designs could mitigate this). Another possibility could be a propellant with around the same REF but higher density, such that you can fit "more" of it into a limited space.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

). Another possibility could be a propellant with around the same REF but higher density, such that you can fit "more" of it into a limited space.

If you don't change the volume of the chamber but fill it to the same level a denser propellant would mean more weight so that is more propellant.

Real world complexity is that you can easily get more pressure from the same volume/weight.....to the point that you can blow up your gun.

There was also (some time ago) a round called the .357 Maximum which was like a .357 Magnum only stretched even farther. It could easily give you 300 fps over a .357 Magnum but then people noticed its' propellant gasses were cutting through the top strap.

So, so much for that idea. That massive collar on the Ruger Super Redhawk where the barrel meets the frame is said to be an intended counter-measure to such flame-cutting.

So that Army LMG with its' 85,000 psi has to be using some kind of material reinforcement. I suppose it "could" just be a thicker barrel though a stronger material sounds like a good idea (if it's seen adequate testing). The industry body that certifies ammo (S.A.A.M.I) won't go for higher than 65,000 though some wildcat loads are said to hit 75,000.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If you don't change the volume of the chamber but fill it to the same level a denser propellant would mean more weight so that is more propellant.

Yes, but my intent was to preempt the likely response of "there's a limit to how much propellant you can fit in the cartridge," which I assumed was what Anthony was getting at with "To do that, you need more propellant." Needing more propellant is a complete non-issue unless you're dealing with volume constraints, and a denser propellant would mitigate those (technically, such cartridges would weigh more, but from what I understand the propellant is such a small contributor to the overall weight of even the new polymer-cased ammunition that increasing its weight doesn't have much impact on overall weight; this may be a different story for caseless ammunition).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, but my intent was to preempt the likely response of "there's a limit to how much propellant you can fit in the cartridge," which I assumed was what Anthony was getting at with "To do that, you need more propellant."

Nah, my point was just "higher chamber pressure doesn't get you anything you can't get from a longer barrel and more propellant".

It's worth noting that rifle muzzle velocity has not gone up meaningfully in a hundred years -- the SIG Fury has about 5% higher muzzle velocity than the M1903 Springfield, and lower than a Vietnam era M-16 (55 grain .223 is, as far as I can tell, the fastest ammunition ever used as a primary military rifle).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Nah, my point was just "higher chamber pressure doesn't get you anything you can't get from a longer barrel and more propellant".

Not a useful simplification of reality. If it was the V-3 would have worked, HARP would have been more than a sometimes interesting dead end and everyone would have built Iraqi superguns by now.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Not a useful simplification of reality.

It really is in this case. The reason the SIG Fury has such a huge chamber pressure is because the army wanted full length rifle performance from a 16" barrel.