It will be interesting to see how this one works out. 

Now we want to see Emeric's neckless polymer cases emerging to join in the tussle - they have certain advantages over the others (i.e. designed for use in unmodified existing weapons, but able to use low-drag bullets).

"Now we want to see Emeric's neckless polymer cases emerging to join in the tussle - they have certain advantages over the others (i.e. designed for use in unmodified existing weapons, but able to use low-drag bullets)"

Could you share some more info about the Neckless Cartridges? I recall reading about them here - but completely forgot everything but the name "neckless." 

Meanwhile, google image search turns up:

gatnerd said...

Between Shell Shock cases, these new Polymer hybrid cases, and LSAT, it does seem like lightweight ammo is almost a reality.

I dunno.  They've been working on polymer hybrid cases for over half a century.

Below:  Left, 7.62 NATO from 1959.  Right, .221 IMP from 1973.  Look familiar?   ;^)

.

"I dunno.  They've been working on polymer hybrid cases for over half a century.

Below:  Left, 7.62 NATO from 1959.  Right, .221 IMP from 1973.  Look familiar?   ;^)"

 Yeah, it's still uncertain to be sure. Though the construction of these Velocity cases does look a bit different, with the metal being internal and the polymer overmolding part of the base - possibly reducing the risk of case head separation?

Still, my $0.25 bet (most I'm willing to bet on anything other the Roulette) is on the Shell Shock hybrid AL/Steel cases being the most successful near-term solution. 

https://www.google.com/patents/US9587919

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20160091288.PGNR.

However, there are no images as far as my google-fu is about

BTW, what a nice collection of patents, Emeric. I'm impressed

gatnerd said...

Could you share some more info about the Neckless Cartridges?

See page 114+ of this article.

Tell me if I have understood it correctly: in order to maintain compatibility, part of the body of the bullet would act as a neck in the chamber?

If it is the case, then there would be a small gap in the chamber, corresponding to the thickness and volume of cartridge neck, right?

Best for Emeric to answer questions on this!

poliorcetes said...

Tell me if I have understood it correctly: in order to maintain compatibility, part of the body of the bullet would act as a neck in the chamber?

If it is the case, then there would be a small gap in the chamber, corresponding to the thickness and volume of cartridge neck, right?

Right.

The bullet is potentially unsupported during a much longer "freebore", so there is a need to mitigate unwanted consequences, but it's not significantly different from a CT round.

gatnerd said...

Could you share some more info about the Neckless Cartridges? I recall reading about them here - but completely forgot everything but the name "neckless." 

The basically the neck of the case is eliminated and the projectile is welded directly into the case body. The result is that the shoulder of the case becomes thicker to support the projectile and the power capacity is somewhat reduced - it is further reduced by the projection of more of the projectile into the case. Now the entire distance from the shoulder to the OAL is available for ogive, with the downside that the lead to the rifling become very long. The 7.62x51 goes from being a battle rifle round to a lighter intermediate round that can handle the longest ogive projectiles. The same is possible in 5.56x45 but the result will be rather low powered.